Final Report of the Evaluation
Submitted to:
USAID/El Salvador
Submitted by:
The ARD-Water IQC Consortium
PO Box 1397
159 Bank Street, Suite 300
Burlington, VT 05402 USA
October 2002
Task Order #805 under the
 Integrated Water and Coastal Management (Water) IQC
USAID Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00018-00
Access, 
Management 
and Rational 
Use of Water 
(AGUA)
El Salvador
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Acknowledgements
A successful project evaluation—both the process and the final product—are the result of a collaboration 
of organizations and people for whom the goals of the project transcend other agendas. The evaluation
team wishes to acknowledge the good will, support, and collaboration of all those involved in the AGUA 
Activity. The conclusions and recommendations found herein are the product of a collaborative analysis 
of findings with AGUA participants and reflect their sincere desire to carry out activities with the highest 
possible sustainable impact.
The Evaluation Team wishes to acknowledge the AGUA Project consortia—CARE/El Salvador, in
particular Roney Gutiérrez and Carlos Huezo—and the staffs of Salva-NATURA, FUNDAMUNI, and
SACDEL. The staffs at PCI, CRS, World Vision, and ICA-CAMAGRO also went out of their way to
facilitate the work of the Evaluation Team.
We would also like to acknowledge the collaboration of the Government of El Salvador, in particular the 
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) and the National Administration of Water and 
Sewage (ANDA).
The evaluation team wants to give a special acknowledgement to the USAID/El Salvador staff, in
particular those members of the Environmental (AGUA) Office—William Patterson, Brad Carr, Patricia 
Echeverria, Mary Rodriguez, and Elizabeth de Gonzalez—whose sincere dedication to the development 
of the country of El Salvador both inspired the Evaluation Team and created a climate of open
collaboration for all involved in the AGUA Activity Evaluation. 
Table of Contents
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................iii
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................v
1.0 Background and Project Environment...........................................................................................1
1.2 Overview of the Water Resource Sector in El Salvador and Problems with Access, Management 
and Rational Use of Water ............................................................................................................1
1.2 USAID/El Salvador Strategic Objective 4 and Intermediate Results Package ...............................2
1.2.1 IR 4.1: Improved Quality of Water Sources................................................................................. 3
1.2.2 IR 4.2: Improved Performance of Water Delivery Systems.......................................................... 3
1.2.3 IR 4.3: More Effective Citizen Actions to Address Water Issues.................................................. 4
1.2.4 IR 4.4: Greater Municipal Participation in Water Resources Management................................... 4
2.0 Evaluation Objectives, Scope of Work, and Methodology............................................................6
2.1 Evaluation Objectives....................................................................................................................6
2.2 Scope of Work and Limitations of the Evaluation...........................................................................7
2.3 Evaluation Methodology and Makeup of the Evaluation Team ......................................................7
2.4 Structural Conditions Affecting Execution of Activities under Strategic Objective 4 .......................8
3.0 Evaluation Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................9
3.1 General Findings and Conclusions................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Appropriateness and Effectiveness of the AGUA Strategy .......................................................... 9
3.1.2 Progress in Meeting Intermediate Results Performance Indicators for Strategic Objective 4...... 10
3.1.3 Beneficiary Participation and Satisfaction ................................................................................. 15
3.1.4 Implementation Arrangements and Expenditures of USAID, GOES Counterpart and NGO Cost￾Sharing Funds.......................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.5 Development Impact and Sustainability of Project Interventions................................................ 21
3.2 Decentralization and Local Management Capacity Development................................................22
3.2.1 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 23
3.2.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Watershed Management, Water Source Protection, Sustainable Agroforestry and Agricultural 
Diversification..............................................................................................................................26
3.3.1 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 27
3.3.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Potable Water Systems, Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure ....................32
3.4.1 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 32
3.4.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 37
3.5 Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources........38
3.5.1 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 38
3.5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 39
3.6 Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of Water 
Resources...................................................................................................................................43
3.6.1 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 43
3.6.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 44
3.7 General Recommendations to USAID regarding the AGUA/WE Activity .....................................49
3.7.1 Strategic Focus of Activities until FY04..................................................................................... 50
3.7.2 Reordering of Activities under Existing Components and IRs.................................................... 51
3.7.3 Establishment and Monitoring of Impact Indicators ................................................................... 52
4.0 Lessons Learned and Development Impact of Project Activities ..............................................55
4.1 Overall Project Strategy, Management and Monitoring................................................................55
4.2. Decentralization and Local Management Capability Development ..............................................55
4.3 Watershed Management, Water Source Protection and Sustainable Agroforestry ......................56
4.4 Potable Water Systems, Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure ....................56
4.5. Lesson Learned in Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Use of Natural Resources
....................................................................................................................................................57
Table of Contents
ii El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
4.6 Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of Water 
Resources...................................................................................................................................57
5.0 Strategic Guidance for Future AGUA Activity .............................................................................58
5.1 Integration of Actions for Sustained Production, Access and Management of Water Resources 
and Expansion to Additional Critical Areas using Strategic Planning Tools .................................58
5.2 Collaboration with Other Development Assistance Institutions and Alternative Financing 
Mechanisms................................................................................................................................60
5.3 Demonstrating, Proving and Packaging Alternative Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable 
Development and Management of Water Resources and Environmental Health and Protection.61
Annexes
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador Scope of Work for the Evaluation of the AGUA Activity ....................... 1-1
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan........................................................................................... 2-1
Annex 3: Key Qualifications of Evaluation Team............................................................................... 3-1
Annex 4: Project Site Visits: Schedule and Summary Field Notes..................................................... 4-1
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted During the AGUA Evaluation Period............ 5-1
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop: Agenda, Workshop Outputs and List of Participants ....................... 6-1
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed for the Evaluation ................................................................. 7-1
Annex 8: Strategic Objective 4: Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables ...................................... 8-1
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of the CARE Consortium ....................................................................... 9-1
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International ........................................................ 10-1
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision .................................................................................. 11-1
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of Catholic Relief Services................................................................. 12-1
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO............................................................................ 13-1
Acronyms and Abbreviations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACD Activity Completion Date
AGUA Access, Management, and Rational Use of Water
ANDA National Administration of Water and Sewage
BDS Border Development Services
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
CAMAGRO Salvadoran Chamber of Agriculture, Livestock, and Agroindustry
CARE-AGUA Consortium of CARE, SalvaNatura, FUNDAMUNI, and SACDEL
CDL Local Development Committee
CENTA National Agricultural Technology Center
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CTO Cognizant Technical Officer
DGRN General Directorate for Natural Resources
EGE Economic Growth and Education Office (of USAID)
EHP Environmental Health Project
ERP Earthquake Reconstruction Program
FIAES Inter-American Enterprises Fund
FISDL Social Infrastructure for Local Development Fund
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Geographic Information System
GOES Government of El Salvador
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IEE Initial Environmental Examination
IICA Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation
IR Intermediate Result
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAG Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
MARN Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
NAD New Activity Development
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PAES El Salvador Environmental Program
PCI Project Concern International
RASES Red de Agua y Saneamiento (Water and Sanitation Network of El Salvador)
SIA Small Infrastructure Activity (USAID)
SO Strategic Objective
SOAG Strategic Objective Grant Agreement
SOW Scope of Work
UAM Municipal Environmental Units
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WB World Bank
WE Water and Environment Office (of USAID Mission)
WV World Vision

Executive Summary
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) v
Executive Summary
The USAID/El Salvador Water Strategy, expressed in its Strategic Objective 4, Increased Access by Rural 
Households to Clean Water, was approved by Washington in October 1997. Subsequently, the Mission
approved its Results Package Document (IRs) in February of 1998 and the New Activity Document
(NAD) for the AGUA Activity (Access, Management, and Rational Use of Water) on September 24, 1998 
at a funding level of $15.6 million with an activity period of four years. A three-year Strategic Objective 
Grant Agreement (SOAG) for the AGUA Activity was signed with the Government of El Salvador
(GOES) in September 1998. An increase in funding the Activity to a level of $17.2 million was
authorized on May 22, 2000, and on July 18 of 2001, the Activity Completion Date (ACD) was extended 
to September 30, 2003. The purpose of AGUA is to increase access to clean water for rural Salvadorans in 
an environmentally sustainable way. 
Implementation of the AGUA Activity began in earnest in mid-1999 with the initiation of a cooperative 
agreement with the CARE-El Salvador Consortium of three local NGOs: SalvaNatura, FUNDAMUNI,
and SACDEL to carry out project activities in 18 municipalities located within El Salvador’s three major 
watersheds in the departments of Ahuachapán, Usulután and Morazán. Within the following year, five
smaller cooperative agreements with other organizations and a buy-in to a USAID global project were
signed to implement additional activities in these same regions in order to expand into complementary
technical areas of solid waste and wastewater management and increase outputs toward meeting the
USAID/El Salvador’s SO4 under the responsibility of Mission’s Water and Environment Office (WE).1
Principal Findings and Conclusions of the Evaluation
Among the of various activities promoted by its Implementers, AGUA is making important contributions 
to the rational use of water resources in outreach areas, and has all the elements necessary to establish
replicable models for local-level integrated management of water resources throughout El Salvador, and 
should be actively supported by USAID. Based on an analysis of the performance indicators related to the 
IRs included in the NAD, nearly all originally established performance indicators are being met or
exceeded by Project Implementers, or will be by the end of the no-cost extension period of October 1 to 
December 31, 2002. Indicators for two IRs—4.4.1, Water-related ordinances passed, and 4.4.2,
Resources invested in water-related projects—are lagging, as execution of activities related to these
results depend directly on actions and/or counterpart funding by municipal governments which can not be 
effectively controlled under a donor project. Potentially, these targets could have been more fully met
earlier if USAID had not restricted funding (USAID/WE notified CARE in September 2001 that they
would have to curtail spending by about 25% due to USAID’s funding shortage).
In terms of participation and “customer satisfaction,” the more than 40 groups interviewed by the
Evaluation Team appeared very enthusiastic and dedicated to the objectives for which they were
organized, with many expressing their gratitude to the Project Implementers and USAID. This also
reflects on the level of satisfaction achieved, not only for those services and goods received (potable
water, plant materials, waste management infrastructures, etc.) but also for the sense of participation in a 
truly democratic process within their communities. This “sense of belonging” to the development process 
expressed in essence by all the groups and individuals interviewed during the project site visits is one of 
the aspects that especially impressed the Evaluation Team. While no appropriate indicators to gauge
 
1
In 2001, the Mission revised its references to SO4 to the Water and Environment Office (WE). For the purposes of the 
current evaluation, references made to the AGUA Activity, the AGUA Project and AGUA/WE all refer to the combination 
of activities carried out by the CARE Consortium and six other organizations, referred to as the Implementers. 
Executive Summary
vi El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
participation are being tracked under AGUA, the Evaluation Team concludes that, since attrition does not 
seem to be a severe problem among the 200+ groups assisted under the AGUA Activity, there is currently 
a high level of satisfaction. This should be tempered, however, with the fact that many activities—
especially those related to such demonstration subprojects of agricultural diversification and marketing,
solid waste disposal, and wastewater collection and treatment—are early in their implementation stages
and it remains to be seen if the end result will prove acceptable to their respective participants. 
USAID has been quite successful in leveraging its grant funds working with GOES agencies and local
NGOs. While agreements with GOES agencies and participating NGOs were to provide approximately
$5,711,142 in cost-sharing and counterpart funds, the total projected outlays will accumulate to more than 
$7,012,000 by the end of December 2002 (the no-cost extension period of USAID’s original strategy
period for SO4)—more than $1,300,000 or 23% over and above the amounts original indicated in the
amended SOAG with GOES and NGO Implementers’ respective cooperative agreements. This is
considered exceptional and demonstrates the commitment of both GOES and participating NGOs to
AGUA objectives and full development of project activities.
Activities related to Decentralization and Development of Local Management Capacity, including
strengthening of existing groups (municipalities, and local development committees) and establishment of 
new organizations active in water resources protection (esp. watershed committees), are among the most 
advanced in Central America and are contributing greatly to the national decentralization and democracy 
initiatives. The principal development concept being promoted under the Project—local and municipality￾based integrated water resources planning by watersheds—is deemed to be the most appropriate for rural 
areas in El Salvador. However, while Implementers have made important strides in particular
geographical areas in linking the sustainability of potable water and irrigation systems to the integrated
management of their tributary watersheds, the results of the evaluation indicate that activities in many
areas are still being implemented without embracing this guiding principle. Agroforestry, soil and water 
conservation practices promoted under the Project are, in their majority, appropriate and are contributing 
greatly to water resource conservation at the direct sites of intervention and to lesser degree downstream. 
Environmental education and awareness training at all levels have brought about a discernable change in 
the attitude and priorities of those people in communities served by the Project and at the national level
among GOES ministries and legislators. Topics of environmental protection and relating potable water
systems to the conditions of upland watersheds have taken on a higher priority in local development
committees, municipal governments and water administration boards. 
AGUA is financing a series of demonstration wastewater treatment and solid waste management projects 
that, depending on their outcome, may be used as models for replication for communities with similar
characteristics in El Salvador. AGUA is also having positive impact at the local and municipal levels in
the development of ordinances that promote integrated water resources management and environmental
health. Efforts at the national level in concert with the Water and Sanitary Network of El Salvador, have 
served to educate a broad cross-section of Salvadoran society in the need for cohesive and equitable water 
resource laws and a draft executive decree to establish a national watershed management commission and 
facilitate legalization of local watershed committees to manage their resources held in common. The 
inclusion of a line item in water fees charged to customers of small communal and municipal water
systems, although incipient, is a groundbreaking and fundamental step in incorporating the environmental 
costs into projects that consume renewable natural resources and guaranteeing the sustainability of both
water systems and the watersheds that serve them. 
Still there are a number of issues that need addressing in order to perfect several strategic, technical and 
operational deficiencies identified during the evaluation, as well as complete and determine the
Executive Summary
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) vii
applicability of the demonstration projects which are applying technologies relatively new to El Salvador. 
The current grouping of the activities (and indicators of execution) under AGUA components is confusing 
and complicates their administration as well as efforts to monitor the impacts of Project activities. Project 
Implementers have not used sufficient strategic criteria for selecting priority intervention areas and
technologies, resulting in some undue dispersion in the Project’s geographic outreach and missed
opportunities for integration and synergy. AGUA has experienced some “project drift” as some activities 
are seen to be only marginally connected to the original objectives and focus of the Project. The original 
project design did not include the indicators necessary to appropriately and quantitatively determine the
social, economic and/or environmental impacts of Project interventions and progress in achieving of
Project objectives (IRs).
Unless they move with caution, Project Implementers’ success in local organizational development and
strengthening could lead to a plethora of local and micro-regional entities and/or concentrate the decision￾making power into the hands of very few people. Implementers’ strategies of organizational development 
and the use of incentives are not always clear, especially in terms of an “exit strategy” and when technical 
and financial support should be reduced and groups graduated from Project assistance.
Some interventions are being promoted without understanding their potential social, economic and/or
environmental impact (including inconsistent environmental analysis that does not meet USAID’s IEE
guidance). Also, USAID has required inconsistent standards of quality and process for activities financed 
under varying sources of financing within the mission, even where these may be implemented by the
same Implementers in the same general outreach areas. There is insufficient coordination among CTOs
and their respective projects in the application of standards, and supervision of quality control among the 
differing sources of financing. While AGUA execution has been coordinated with PROSAGUAS in
several instances (both are CARE managed), projects financed by USAID under other SOs are not being 
coordinated at the field level to interchange complementary technical services, thus requiring that every
project be self-sufficient in all technical areas. This is very inefficient and appears to be the result of a
lack of strategic vision at the Mission level to design and execute projects in coordination with other
USAID offices to attain a broader level of impacts and sustainability. Also, due to the demonstrative
nature of wastewater treatment and solid waste management subprojects, a number of engineering and
construction quality control problems have been detected which should be remedied in order to ensure
that these subprojects perform according to their intended objectives. 
Principal Recommendations of the Evaluation
As this evaluation is treated as formative, it is incumbent on the Evaluation Team to provide sufficient 
guidance to USAID and AGUA Implementers to consolidate successes achieved to date and make the
necessary corrections in those issues that are limiting the Project’s fulfillment of USAID’s Water and
Environment objectives. The evaluation should also provide USAID with elements of strategic guidance 
in its efforts to obtain financing to advance the objectives of integrated sustainable water resources
management in the next three to ten years. Consequently, the Evaluation Team has formulated the
following recommendations based on the findings and conclusions of the evaluation. 
1. The principal recommendation of the evaluation is: USAID should extend existing cooperative
agreements and provide those funds necessary beyond the actual AGUA ACD and until the end of the 
extended strategy period (until September of 2004) so that current Implementers consolidate project 
activities in selected sub- and microwatersheds in order to establish integrated models of
decentralized management and sustainable use of water resources. These models should include all
Executive Summary
viii El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
elements currently being promoted in different parts of the project area by implementing
organizations, including:
· A participatory water resources/sub- or microwatershed management plan supported by all 
relevant groups;
· Municipal ordinances regulating environmental protection and water resources conservation;
· One or more water systems (for potable and/or irrigation uses) served by the respective 
microwatersheds;
· Environmental and public health education and awareness programs, with civic groups active in
water resources advocacy;
· Water tariff structures that include the costs of environmental services provided by tributary sub￾and microwatersheds; and
· A more science-based monitoring and evaluation system centering on indicators of impact as well 
as those of performance.
2. There is an enormous environmental health need to deal with wastewater and solid waste problems in 
a cost-effective manner for smaller communities in El Salvador. More time and technical assistance is 
required to prove the operability of the wastewater and solid waste management systems still under
development with AGUA financing.
3. Topics of environmental protection and relating potable water systems to the conditions of upland
watersheds have taken on a higher priority in local development committees, municipal governments 
and water administration boards, but project activities still need to be better consolidated into a logical 
framework and better integrated with overall objectives and Project actions in watersheds.
4. The inclusion of the costs of environmental services in the tariffs charged to potable water consumers 
and irrigators needs to be applied uniformly throughout the Project outreach area by all Implementers. 
A minimum of 10% of water fees charged should be directed to conserving and improving conditions 
in the upland watersheds. This same policy should be adopted Mission-wide by all projects in
USAID’s portfolio that involve consumption or use of water resources.
5. The next step in applying and enforcing municipal ordinances needs to be articulated and promoted
under the Project by engaging Municipal Environmental Units, using precedents in other
municipalities as these may be available in El Salvador and/or neighboring countries.
6. CARE should continue its efforts with the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) 
to see through efforts to establish the Interinstitutional Watershed Commission, but increase emphasis 
on the establishment and strengthening of subwatershed and microwatershed committees. It is
suggested, however, that any other activities concerning the General Water Law be ceded to the Water 
and Sanitation Network to carry on as advocate in this area (most of AGUA’s active participation in 
this activity was concluded in early 2001).
7. Current project activities under the responsibility of each and all Implementers should be concentrated 
in a selected number of sub- and microwatersheds in order to maximize the positive impacts of the
integrated water resources management model advanced under AGUA/WE. The selection of sub- and 
microwatersheds should be based on a series of technical and operational criteria that will consolidate 
the linkage of potable water and irrigation systems to their tributary watersheds. In those area selected, 
efforts should be made to complement any missing elements of the integrated model (see No. 1
Executive Summary
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) ix
above). Implementers that have may limitations in the technical or operational capabilities necessary
to implement all of the elements of the integrated model should seek collaboration among other
organizations working in AGUA/WE for such assistance.
8. While commercial agricultural diversification and marketing activities were not considered part of the 
original thrust of the Project, they are seen as potentially relevant in ensuring that intensified
agricultural production with irrigation succeeds economically, and should be continued but under
different arrangements. While it would be advantageous to incorporate the IICA/CAMAGRO
activities in the integral model approach proposed for the Project, financing for these activities should 
be provided under a different project (and/or different SO) and accessed as required in specific areas
in the AGUA outreach area. CRS and PCI activities should be expanded to fully embrace watershed 
management objectives in the microwatersheds producing water to irrigation systems financed by the 
Project and/or be coordinated under a different SO.
9. Implementers should review progress to date for local organizational development and analyze
tendencies of proliferation and effectiveness of these organizations, as well as the potential for
overconcentrating decision making in the hands of a few, and the impacts to local community leaders 
in terms of their time and personal livelihood.
10. Each Implementer should examine their strategies for community development and reassert the
elements of their project cycle to determine the amount of time necessary to bring about desired
change and permit the gradual reduction and withdrawal of technical and financial assistance from the 
Project (exit strategy).
11. Demonstration projects in agricultural diversification and irrigation, commercialization, solid waste
management and wastewater treatment and disposal should be accompanied by higher-quality 
diagnostic analyses in order to project potential social, economic and environmental impacts and
incorporate necessary design changes and mitigation.
12. USAID should review its internal oversight for quality control and technical standards on differing
activities financed by WE in relation to AGUA. For instance, standards for what connotes an
integrated water system under SIA financing differs from the CARE Consortium’s standards (e.g.,
several SIA-financed water projects do not have as a condition that absorption pits or latrines be
constructed before commissioning the water system). Also, environmental impact management
standards, as applied understanding IEEs are not always reviewed by USAID’s Environmental
Officer, nor have necessary guidelines and training been provided to ensure compliance.
13. USAID should mandate coordination among projects regardless of which SO or office where these are 
assigned. Such coordination should be mandated during both design and execution of project
activities, including working in the same geographic areas where feasible. USAID should consider the 
advantages of geographic overlap to achieve “value-added” and greater development impact among 
projects, and the possibility of the provision of specialty services from one project’s executing
agencies to those of other projects where such capability may not exist.
14. USAID should require that a quality control committee be established made up of selected staff of
Implementers and either a qualified USAID staff person and/or consultant to review designs for water, 
wastewater and solid waste management subprojects or potentially contract such services with CARE￾DASAGUAS. Implementers are advised to provide sufficient on-site oversight to ensure quality
control during construction so design standards are met.
Executive Summary
x El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
15. In order to better facilitate administration and monitoring of AGUA activities, USAID and
Implementers should analyze and propose a reordering of activities under the existing components,
and review the utility and validity of current performance indicators to consider reducing their number 
and improving the instruments used to track the indicators of those found most useful.
16. As part of the recommended exercise to reorder activities and indicators under each Project
component, it is suggested that definitions for these indicators be refined to reflect “hard numbers”
limited to an established set of qualifiers. Where certain activities yield products that do not fit exactly 
into the aforementioned indicators, then any anomalies should be clarified with a technical footnote.
17. For the period encompassing the AGUA ACD and throughout the Mission’s extended strategy period, 
USAID should encourage the establishment of a minimum number of impact indicators with direct
relevance to the AGUA Activity IRs (some examples are provided in this report). Also, a baseline
should be established for each indicator selected and monitored throughout this period.
Background and Project Environment
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 1
1.0 Background and Project Environment
El Salvador is the smallest and most densely populated country in the Western Hemisphere with a
population of over 6.3 million in an area of approximately 21,000 square kilometers, roughly the size of 
Rhode Island. The population is evenly split between urban and rural dwellers and the country is
urbanizing. El Salvador showed positive economic growth in the post war period between 1988 and 1997. 
Growth has slowed in recent years and the GDP per capita is one of the lowest in Latin America at around 
$1,300 per year. Balancing this somewhat are remissions from Salvadorans working overseas which may 
approach one-third of the GDP or $2.5 billion per year. It is estimated that over one third of El Salvadoran 
families receive remittances adding an average of $6,000 per year to these families’ incomes. There is
great inequality in income in both urban and rural areas and in the provision of basic human services,
especially in terms of access to clean water. El Salvador is also one of the most disaster-prone areas on
earth. Earthquakes, hurricanes, drought, and volcanic eruptions wreak havoc on people forced by
population to live in high-risk areas where their land use practices contribute to landslides, flooding and 
exacerbation of drought. 
1.2 Overview of the Water Resource Sector in El Salvador and Problems with Access, 
Management and Rational Use of Water
El Salvador has distinct seasons of wet and dry. Winter (the rainy season) runs from roughly May to
October and is when the majority of rainfall is deposited (averaging about 2000 mm/yr in AGUA Project 
areas according to Project documents). Because of large-scale deforestation (only 15% remaining cover) 
most rainfall runs off rapidly, reducing water retention in upper watersheds, failing to recharge aquifers, 
increasing soil erosion into surface waters, and causing siltation in waterways and reservoirs. Flooding is 
common in low-lying areas during the wet season and water sources dry up during the dry season. 
Recent studies supported by USAID/El Salvador indicate that 90% of the country’s rivers and streams are 
contaminated by anthropogenic sources and are not potable unless treated. Only 2% of all municipal and 
industrial discharges receive any kind of treatment prior to entering into surface waters. No agricultural
runoff is treated. In rural areas contamination of both surface sources and shallow wells is common
because of inadequate household sanitation systems. Solid waste disposal is another cause of water
contamination. People commonly dispose of garbage in nearby waterways and those communities with
collection services typically dispose of garbage in open dumps exposed to rainfall and runoff. 
Estimates of access to clean water in El Salvador are wide-ranging and depend on the definition of terms, 
data sources and their reliability, and the date of the reports relative to recent natural disasters. A joint 
WHO/UNICEF report “Access to Improved Drinking Water: El Salvador” from September 2001 puts
rural access to clean water at 60% and urban access at 90%. However, AGUA/WE Activity documents
state that for 1999, only 35% of the rural population had access to clean water, while in the AGUA/WE 
outreach areas, the percentage served drops to 29%. In any case, rural areas are underserved. Women and 
children can spend several hours a day collecting water of dubious quality from streams, seeps, springs
and artisanal wells. Other rural and urban families purchase water from those having wells, municipal
tapstands, or from tanker trucks at a cost that exceeds the amount paid by those households that have
access to water service from a system. The lack of access to clean water caused by limited supplies and 
contamination of sources is directly impacting the health of the population with gastrointestinal diseases 
being the leading cause of death of children under five years of age. 
Background and Project Environment
2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
This plethora of problems related to water resource management are a product of weak regulatory efforts 
on the part of a host of national entities (20 different entities with 19 separate decrees) who manage the 
Water sector with overlapping mandates and differing political agendas. There is also a growing and
unregulated private and local-government water sector. There has been over 15 years of work in El
Salvador to reform the water resources sector that has produced dozens of different versions of a National 
Water Law – all unsuccessful. Although the current administration has been seen as sympathetic to the
cause of water resource management there has been no substantive progress on a National Water Law to 
date. Champions of water resource and watershed management are, however, hopeful that a presidential
decree supporting local watershed management will soon be made. This decree would support work
currently being done to formalize and legalize local and subregional watershed management committees
being promoted under AGUA/WE.
Water resource management is also constrained because Salvadorans do not have a strong concept of the 
economic value of water—that is, the relationship between economic development and sustainable water 
resource management. Salvadorans are only recently engaging in local planning and management of water 
resources brought about through a program of government decentralization. There are opportunities to
work with local citizens and municipal and community leaders to increase their awareness and support
their efforts to manage and sustain their water resources.
1.2 USAID/El Salvador Strategic Objective 4 and Intermediate Results Package
The USAID/El Salvador Water Strategy, expressed in its Strategic Objective 4, Increased Access by Rural 
Households to Clean Water, was approved by Washington in October 1997. Subsequently, the Mission
approved its Results Package Document (IRs) in February of 1998 and the New Activity Document
(NAD) for the AGUA Activity (Access, Management, and Rational Use of Water) on September 24, 1998 
at a funding level of $15.6 million with an activity period of four years. A three-year Strategic Objective 
Grant Agreement (SOAG) for the AGUA Activity was signed with the Government of El Salvador
(GOES) in September 1998. An increase in funding the Activity to a level of $17.2 million was
authorized on May 22, 2000, and on July 18 of 2001, the Activity Completion Date (ACD) was extended 
to September 30, 2003. USAID/Washington extended the Mission’s SO4 strategy period until September 
30, 2004. The purpose of AGUA is to increase access to clean water for rural Salvadorans in an
environmentally sustainable way. The NAD has three components: Institutional Coordination and Policy; 
Integrated Water Management in Municipalities; and Citizen Awareness, Participation and Action. The 
four Intermediate Results of this Strategic Objective are presented below, together with their respective
sets of lower-level indicators.
Activity implementation began in June 1999 with the signing of a $12.6 million Cooperative Agreement 
with CARE-El Salvador, whose technical proposal and activity objectives mirrored the NAD and targeted 
activities in 18 municipalities located within El Salvador’s three major watersheds in the departments of
Ahuachapán, Usulután and Morazán. CARE implements the AGUA Activity through a consortium of
three local NGOs: SalvaNatura, FUNDAMUNI, and SACDEL. In September 1999, USAID approved an 
unsolicited proposal submitted by World Vision to carry out AGUA-related activities and, within the
following year, four additional cooperative agreements were signed with Catholic Relief Services (CRS), 
Project Concern International (PCI), a partnership between the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural
Cooperation and the Salvadoran Chamber of Agriculture, Livestock and Agroindustry
(IICA/CAMAGRO), Border Development Services (to provide technical services to the CARE
Consortium on a community wastewater project). Also, USAID executed a buy-in with USAID’s global 
Environmental Health Project to provide AGUA-related technical services. These additional activities
complemented the various components of the AGUA program and included environmentally sound
Background and Project Environment
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 3
agricultural practices, solid and liquid waste management, and water policy initiatives. On June 20, 2002, 
the Mission Director approved a no-cost, three-month extension of the five principal cooperative
agreements (CARE, PCI, World Vision, CRS and IICA/CAMAGRO) until December 31, 2002. 
1.2.1 IR 4.1: Improved Quality of Water Sources
Activities associated with this Intermediate Result are designed to reduce contamination of surface and 
ground waters and to improve water management. Activities are focused in these areas:
· The use of improved soil and water conservation practices to reduce runoff and erosion, increase 
infiltration and productivity on treated farm parcels, and improve water quality and quantity
downstream to actual and potential water supply systems;
· Promotion of agricultural diversification with home gardens and demonstration horticultural
subprojects, some with marketing components, to link economic gains in agriculture to watershed 
management and the sustainable use of water resources;
· Improved solid waste and wastewater management, to reduce contamination to surface and
subsurface water supplies; and
· Improved industrial processes to reduce contamination of water resources.
The CARE Consortium is working towards achieving this result in all three departments. Other
Implementers working toward this Intermediate Result are: World Vision, which carries out its activities 
in 5 microwatersheds in Ahuachapán Sur; PCI in Usulután; CRS in Corinto, Morazán; and
ICCA/CAMAGRO in the upper Lempa watershed above the Cerrón Grande hydroelectric facility and in 
two communities of Ahuachapán Sur.
Also, it should be pointed out that the drilling of wells and wastewater treatment initiatives were not 
originally contemplated in the AGUA design. When it was determined that wells make up more than 90% 
of the water sources used in the project outreach areas (personal communication, CARE, August 2002), 
AGUA amended the menu of activities eligible for financing to include wells as integral elements of new 
and/or rehabilitated potable water systems. WE also financed a $150,000 add-on to USAID/Economic 
Growth and Education Office’s (EGE) rural poverty survey to include testing of sample households’ 
water sources for chlorine residual, bacteriological and physical/chemical parameters. Based on the results 
of this study (FUSADES, 2000), it was found that over 60% of those households tented consumed fecal￾contaminated water. Hence, it was concluded that actions should be taken with AGUA financing to mount 
demonstration projects for the adequate collection and treatment of wastewater and gauge their 
replicability in the country. The Project is financing construction of two medium-scale wastewater 
treatment plants in Suchitoto (with PCI) and Cara Sucia/Puente Arce (CARE Consortium), and one small￾bore community biofiltration collection and treatment subproject in San Rafael as a subcomponent of the 
Cara Sucia project (CARE Consortium with Border Development Services). 
1.2.2 IR 4.2: Improved Performance of Water Delivery Systems
This IR addresses improvement of existing drinking water supply through the rehabilitation and 
expansion of existing systems and the construction of new systems. This is done through two principle 
activity areas: improving existing physical infrastructure; and forming new and strengthening existing 
water system management organizations to competently provide operation and maintenance (O&M), 
administrative, financial and management services.
Background and Project Environment
4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
The CARE Consortium is heavily involved in infrastructure work that improves water system service and 
has leveraged support from a number of GOES entities including ANDA, FISDL, and municipal
governments. USAID/El Salvador’s Small Infrastructure Activity (SIA) grants are also being used by
CARE Consortium members to build, improve and expand infrastructure, mostly by FUNDAMUNI in
communities of the Usulután Department. World Vision has worked in water supply in small
communities in Ahuachapán Sur and PCI in Usulután, but with financing under other another USAID SO 
initiative. SIA has also financed development of three rainwater catchment and storage systems for
potable water in areas around Berlin, Usulután where groundwater levels have dropped to a depth of
below 150 meters making wells cost-prohibitive. 
1.2.3 IR 4.3: More Effective Citizen Actions to Address Water Issues
The activities associated with this Intermediate Result are focused on environmental protection and
environmental health education, and strengthening of local environmental organizations in three general
activity areas:
· Environmental and environmental health education targeting local residents to raise their
awareness on the causes of unclean water and solutions to them;
· Building and/or strengthening community and regional organizations that focus on integrated
approaches to water resources management and solutions to improper waste disposal problems;
and
· Citizen actions aimed at improving the management of water resources and the environment
around them. 
The CARE Consortium is the principle Implementer of activities toward the achievement of this IR but 
World Vision in its project in Ahuachapán Sur also has a component contributing to the IR.
1.2.4 IR 4.4: Greater Municipal Participation in Water Resources Management
Activities toward the achievement of this intermediate result are directed toward increasing and
improving municipal participation in water resource management in two activity areas:
· Working with municipalities and local development committees to address water resource
management through the development of integrated water resources management plans and
increasing investments in the sector through these plans;
· Drafting and promulgation of municipal ordinances that deal with issues of water resources
management, environmental health and watershed management issues; and 
· Working to create and advocate for the approval of national policies and legislation that support
decentralized control of water resources to the municipal level and the establishment of national
and local watershed organizations to integrally manage subwatersheds throughout the country.
The CARE Consortium executes most of the activities in coordination with national and municipal 
government agencies but has received technical assistance from the Environmental Health Project (EHP) 
in policy and legislative activities related to watershed management and has worked with the Water and 
Sanitation Network of El Salvador (RASES), which is coordinated by PCI, in aspects related to water law.
Background and Project Environment
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 5
It is important to note that local organizational development is a key crosscutting activity among 
all Implementers and especially the CARE Consortium. Local community organizations and
municipal governments have been strengthened and/or formed for decentralized management of
potable water supply systems, local and regional development and watershed planning and
management, soil and water conservation, agricultural diversification and marketing activities, and 
in the provision of solid waste management and wastewater management services. Subwatershed
and microwatershed management committees are in the process of formation that will link many of 
these organizations with municipal governments to sustain the planning and implementation of
project activities when AGUA funding is ceased. Linking the activities of these different institutions 
and organizations is fundamental in achieving the USAID’s Strategic Objective 4.
Evaluation Objectives, Scope of Work, and Methodology
6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
2.0 Evaluation Objectives, Scope of Work, and Methodology
The results presented in this report reflect those of a formative evaluation. The AGUA Activity has, in
reality, only been implementing for three years. USAID/Washington extended the Mission’s SO4 strategy 
period for two years until September 30, 2004 and USAID/El Salvador has extended the AGUA Activity 
Completion Date (ACD) for one year until September 30, 2003. Consequently, the Evaluation Team has 
made a concerted effort to provide numerous observations and recommendations to guide USAID and
AGUA Implementers in the improvement of strategic, management, technical and operational aspects of
project implementation applicable to the period remaining in the AGUA ACD and into the extended
strategy period. This report emphasizes the positive and promising aspects of the AGUA Activity to date, 
as well as identifying those areas that merit more attention and/or improvement. The report also provides 
USAID/El Salvador with several strategic avenues to pursue in the Mission’s next phase of planning for 
future activities the Water and Environment Sector over the next three to ten years. 
2.1 Evaluation Objectives
The USAID/El Salvador Mission Strategy that encompasses the AGUA Activity was originally
programmed for the period of FY 1998 to FY 2002. As indicated above, the strategy period was extended 
by USAID/Washington for two additional years until September 30, 2004. During the process to amend 
the AGUA NAD to cover this additional two year period, the Mission decided to first evaluate the current 
AGUA strategy by examining performance against the established results framework as well as individual 
implementation activities in order to plan for future interventions. The principle objectives of the AGUA 
Activity evaluation are to:
· Appraise progress in implementation across the subsector of activities as managed by
Implementers.
· Assess the likelihood of achieving the planned Activity Results.
· Identify those elements deemed most promising and those constraining the successful execution of
the Activity Results.
· Report the lessons learned to date.
The AGUA Activity evaluation examined strategies, management systems, outreach approaches,
activities, monitoring and evaluation systems, and expenditures for the following implementing entities:
1. CARE-AGUA (Consortium comprised of CARE, SalvaNatura, FUNDAMUNI and SACDEL)2
2. World Vision (WV)
3. Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
4. Project Concern International (PCI)
5. Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation/Salvadoran Chamber of Agriculture,
Livestock and Agroindustry (IICA/CAMAGRO)
6. Border Development Services (BDS)
7. Environmental Health Project (EHP)
8. USAID/Small Infrastructure Activity (SIA)
 
2 The term “CARE-AGUA” should not be confused with the overall AGUA Activity. CARE-AGUA is used to refer to those 
activities carried out by the CARE Consortium, just one of the six Implementers that have signed cooperative agreements 
with USAID/El Salvador for execution of activities under the AGUA Activity. 
Evaluation Objectives, Scope of Work, and Methodology
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7
2.2 Scope of Work and Limitations of the Evaluation
The evaluation is comprised primarily of the analysis of planned and unplanned activities and their
results, along with related indicators, targets and means of measurement, from the date of approval of
SO4 and NAD to the present. The USAID Scope of Work (SOW) for the evaluation is presented in Annex 
1. The evaluation analyzes the following aspects of project implementation: 
· Program planning, design, implementation and management performance by Implementers; 
· Implementation arrangements between USAID and Implementers and between Implementers and 
their targeted and/or beneficiary communities; 
· Participation and satisfaction of beneficiaries/participants at all levels; 
· The development impact and the sustainability of project interventions; and 
· The operational vision for the next 2 years until the end of the period of the current mission
strategy, and the strategic vision of the AGUA Activity for the following 3-10 years. 
Progress and strategic success of individual activities/cooperative agreements under the responsibility of
the USAID/Water and Environment (WE) Office are evaluated against planned outcomes, as well as the 
cumulative impact of all activities under the AGUA Activity. Compliance with Code of Federal
Regulations 22, Part 216 (environmental assessment) is also evaluated.
It is noted that this evaluation is not intended as a scientifically rigorous analysis of the AGUA Activity. 
There is neither the time nor the resources for USAID/El Salvador to mount a data gathering and analysis 
effort with sample sizes that permit conclusions to be drawn that are statistically significant. The
evaluation team has collected, reviewed and analyzed as much information as possible to be able to draw 
rational conclusions based on their professional experience and judgment, identifying important trends,
strengths and weaknesses of the Activity. It must also be stressed that this is a formative rather than a
final evaluation. With two years remaining in AGUA Activity implementation, the Team has focused on 
providing USAID/El Salvador with guidance on strategic directions that solidify and sustain strengths and 
rectify areas that lack of strategic focus or exhibit inefficiencies.
2.3 Evaluation Methodology and Makeup of the Evaluation Team
More details concerning the methodology of the evaluation are presented in the Evaluation Team’s
Revised Final Work Plan (Annex 2). The team used the following methods for collecting and assessing 
Activity-related information:
1. Interviews with USAID/El Salvador staff of the Water and Environment, Health, and Economic
Growth Offices and the Strategic Objective Teams.
2. Interviews of key personnel located in central and field offices of all Implementers (see Annex 5).
3. Interviews with key representatives in GOES agencies, including MARN, ANDA, MAG/CENTA 
and FIAES, and the Inter-American Development Bank (see Annex 5). 
4. Review of Project and subprojects documents (see Annex 7).
5. Field trips over eight days to the three regional Project outreach areas (see Annex 4), visiting sites 
attended to by all Implementers using interview and field analysis guides, and including:
· inspections/observations of project activities for all components, including community
infrastructure such as potable water systems, tanks, wells, wastewater treatment plants,
Evaluation Objectives, Scope of Work, and Methodology
8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
solid waste landfills, demonstration farms, microenterprises, environmental education
centers, schools, rural households, farms and farm production infrastructure;
· interviews with nearly 350 members of more than 60 local organizations, including
municipalities; and
· interviews with beneficiaries/participants of more than some 40 different subprojects of all 
types.
6. Staging of a one-day workshop attended by over 50 participants including members of the
implementing organizations and USAID/WE staff to review and provide feedback on the 
preliminary findings of the evaluation team and generate recommendations as guidance to the
Evaluation Team (see Annex 6).
The Evaluation Team is composed of an interdisciplinary three-person group of professional who
represent a wide range of integrated water resources management experience in Latin America and El
Salvador in particular (see Annex 3). The team has experience and expertise in watershed management,
natural resource and water resources management, environment assessment, soil conservation and
agricultural production, water and sanitation infrastructure, institutional development and strengthening,
policy and legislation, community development, and monitoring and evaluation. The Team was ably
assisted by an administrative specialist. 
2.4 Structural Conditions Affecting Execution of Activities under Strategic Objective 4
This evaluation should be read with an understanding of several important structural situations that
affected the evolution of Project implementation over the course of the last fours years. AGUA Project
activities were initiated in mid-1999, approximately eight months after Hurricane Mitch’s disastrous trip 
through Central America—essentially while El Salvador was still in reconstruction mode responding to
the damage caused by the hurricane. The year 2000 and 2001 agricultural years were beset by extended 
drought conditions which thwarted many attempts by the CARE Consortium to establish demonstration
farms and promote plantings of green barriers of vetiver, fruit trees and reforestation efforts (many
succumbed to the drought). Then on January 13, 2001 and again exactly one month later on February 13, 
two very large earthquakes hit the project areas hard, especially in Usulután, requiring the reorientation of 
Project efforts and resources to that of rescue and reconstruction. About US$1,000,000 of AGUA funds 
was reprogrammed to earthquake reconstruction.
Considering the frequency and magnitude of these disasters, it is really quite astonishing that so much has 
been accomplished under AGUA/WE Activity effort. While these events certainly presented obstacles to 
the timely implementation of project activities, they also presented some unique opportunities for
Implementers to coordinate the relief and reconstruction resources that emerged after the earthquake and, 
in some cases, were able to intensify the rhythm of execution. The earthquake also facilitated the
consolidation of the relationship between Implementers and local organizations in their respective project 
outreach areas, resulting in a higher level of trust and mutual appreciation. USAID/El Salvador’s and
Implementing organizations’ staffs certainly deserve an acknowledgment of merit in levels of success
achieved under the Project to date. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9
3.0 Evaluation Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
This section presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. The first
subsection presents the general findings and conclusions for all activities carried out under AGUA
Activity, as represented by all Implementers. These are followed by five separate subsections that present 
the findings and conclusions of the Evaluation Team’s analyses for each respective group of activities,
along with recommendations developed for each. A final subsection presents the general
recommendations reflecting the most salient aspects of the overall evaluation. Also, evaluation profiles
for each of the principal five Implementers are presented in Annex 9 (CARE Consortium), Annex 10
(PCI), Annex 11 (WV), Annex 12 (CRS) and Annex 13 (IICA/CAMAGRO).
3.1 General Findings and Conclusions
The general findings and conclusions of the evaluation are presented in Table 3.1. The principal
conclusion of the evaluation is:
The AGUA Project, among the amalgam of activities promoted by its Implementers, is making
important contributions to the rational use of water resources in outreach areas, and has all the 
elements necessary to establish replicable models for local-level integrated management of
water resources throughout El Salvador, and should be actively supported by USAID.
Project Implementers are making important contributions in the water resources sector in aspects of local 
organizational development, participatory planning, environmental health and biodiversity protection,
expanding access to and decentralized operation and management of potable water systems, integrated
watershed management, and the incorporation of the costs of environmental services in water fees—all 
necessary for the sustainability of water production systems and improving access to clean water by rural 
populations. The Project is also advancing practical knowledge in the establishment and operation of
appropriate wastewater and solid waste management, through the development of demonstration
subprojects in the rural setting. 
3.1.1 Appropriateness and Effectiveness of the AGUA Strategy
AGUA has facilitated development of a series of approaches and technologies that are contributing to the 
establishment of models of integrated water resources management. The strategy of connecting
community water systems infrastructure with the optimal management of their tributary watersheds is
socioeconomically and environmentally sound, and is perhaps the only practical approach to ensuring
access to water of the quality and quantity to meet the needs of rural populations in the medium and long 
term. As indicated in the diagnostic studies of nearly all municipalities and subwatersheds carried out by 
Project Implementers, access to clean water for use in the household continues to be the most important 
problem perceived by the rural population. However, while Implementers have made important strides in 
particular geographical areas in linking the sustainability of potable water and irrigation systems to the
integrated management of their tributary watersheds, the results of the evaluation indicate that activities in 
many areas are still being implemented without embracing this guiding principle.
Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of the Project to date is found in the progress made through 
activities of local organizational development. Project Implementers, especially those working together in 
the CARE Consortium, have catalyzed broad participation of diverse stakeholders in AGUA outreach
areas. More than 200 organizations—from particular community groups (schools, microenterprises, etc.), 
local development associations (ADESCO) and water boards at the cantonal level, local development
committees (CDL) and local governments at the municipality level, micro- and subwatershed committees 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
10 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
and water board networks at the regional level, to members of the Water and Sanitation Network (Red de 
Agua y Saneamiento/RASES) at the national level—are participating in several aspects of integrated water 
resources management facilitated by the Project. The Project is actively promoting the decentralization
and democratic reform goals and objectives of GOES, which are reaffirmed under USAID/El Salvador’s 
Mission Statement. Many of these groups have begun managing their own participatory development
planning, and are active in local initiatives to resolve many of the basic human needs and environmental 
health problems related to water resources in their communities. 
Although still early in implementation, AGUA is making impressive inroads in the technical areas of
sustainable water system management and watershed management. Many of the organizations responsible 
for the 87 potable water systems are managing the operation and maintenance, including collection of
water fees, with ever-decreasing dependence on Project Implementers. Also, improved soil and water
conservation practices, especially in aspects of no-burn/minimum tillage and agroforestry, are now in
varying stages of adoption on some 6,800 farm units comprising more than 16,400 hectares.
AGUA has financed several complementary agricultural diversification and commercialization
demonstration projects under separate cooperative agreements (CRS, PCI, IICA/CAMAGRO). The need 
for increasing on-farm income is seen as an important driver in the adoption of water resource/watershed 
management practices when these principles are incorporated with diversification. Also, various
demonstration subprojects in wastewater treatment and solid waste management are still in early stages of 
construction and operation. It is hoped that at least some of these subprojects will prove appropriate and 
cost-effective for the rural and semi-urban settings in the country, as the need for these types of
technologies is ubiquitous and increasing. 
3.1.2 Progress in Meeting Intermediate Results Performance Indicators for Strategic Objective 4
In its short three years of implementation, Implementers promoting project activities have met and/or far 
surpassed the performance indicators linked to the IRs (see Performance Data Tables in Annex 8,
representing accomplishments through December 31, 2001). While some of these indicators were vastly 
underestimated in the project design and others were found to be impractical3
, credit should be given to 
the efforts of all participating Implementers for their efforts, especially in view of the difficulties posed by 
Hurricane Mitch, the extended drought of 2000/2001 and the January 13 and February 13, 2001
earthquakes. As accomplishments in meeting performance indicators presented in the annex does not
include the results of activities from January 1-August 1 of 2002 (when the evaluation was begun), these 
numbers have increased and most of the targets have certainly been met at the time of this evaluation. 
As indicated in the preceding section, AGUA Implementers are working with more than 200 local
government and community organizations, both formal and non-formal. This represents 400% of the
original target established in the project design. Two other performance indicators are related to local
development. The preparation of integrated water resources management plans at the municipal level
has, in reality, been exceeded in that 17 of the 18 target municipalities have plans. But to this must be
added a series of micro- and subwatershed management plans, as well as those informal community-level 
project plans that include all the elements of water resource management plans (water system and
watershed management activities) promoted by the CARE Consortium partners (at least five of which
were reviewed during the evaluation period) and World Vision (5 microwatershed management plans).
 
3 Data or the indicator “rural households nationally with water that meets quality and time standards” were not taken at national 
level. Also the qualifier originally assigned for the indicator in AGUA target areas was “water availability of 24 hours/7 day a 
week” but was seen as difficult to achieve in rural El Salvador and impractical to quantify, and later changed to “available 
every day of the week” (some water systems rotate daily water supplies among consumers to deal with limited supplies). 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 11
Also, only 18 of the initially targeted municipal ordinances dealing with management of water resources 
and environmental protection have been promulgated, although several of these ordinances cover multiple 
aspects of environmental protection, solid waste management, wastewater treatment, control of
deforestation and water system management. Thus, under the different materials covered under these
ordinances, the target may be assumed to be met. However, what is important is that all 18 of the
municipalities included in the AGUA target areas should have at least one ordinance dealing with some 
aspect of water resource or environmental management. 
In terms access to of potable, AGUA Implementers have contributed to the rehabilitation (20) or
expansion of existing potable water systems and facilitated construction of new water systems (49),
representing about 96% of the end-of-project target. Targets for meeting water quality standards at the
household level are already met and should actually improve before the end of the no-cost extension
period in December of 2002. Similarly, potable water system flow standards are nearly met, although the 
qualifier for these targets should be reoriented to reflect the seasonal nature of water resources in the
country (during the 6-month dry season when the flow of many water sources, especially those dependent 
on surface water, are drastically reduced). Another indicator that is considered impractical is that of
“households that pay the full costs of clean water services.” Only 18 systems, or 22% of the established 
target of 80 systems, are meeting this criterion. It would be more instructive to be tracking the percentage 
of operations and maintenance costs being met in these systems, as this would show progress (or the lack 
thereof) in efforts to achieve financial sustainability of the systems. 
Targets for the number of farm units and hectares of land covered by soil and water conservation practices 
have been fulfilled by 400%, as these targets were vastly understated. Implementers were able to begin 
working with groups with which they had already been promoting from earlier projects; and this
facilitated rapid promotion and spread in the adoption of these practices. It should also be pointed out that 
approximately 42% (7,000 hectares) of these achievements are calculated in terms of the surface area
treated in and around three protected areas within the Project’s geographic outreach: El Imposible
National Park, the Barra de Santiago Mangrove Protected Area and Los Lagartos. This is seen in positive 
light as the AGUA Activity is also supporting protected areas management objectives in stabilizing land 
use, encouraging conservationist agroforestry practices in buffer zones, and reducing pressure on
resources within these protected areas.
Finally, targets intended as proxies for the success of environmental education efforts, as least as have
been interpreted for this indicator, have been surpassed by an additional 37%. It should be pointed out,
however, that these figures represent some double counting of achievements under other activities, as the 
qualifiers are quite broad and ambiguous. For instance, some improvements in water systems
(rehabilitation, pipe replacement, installation of a chlorinator) are treated as a “water-related change
resulting from citizen-group action” (Performance Indicator 4.3.1) but are also counted under Indicator
4.2.1.1, “Cumulative number of rehabilitated, expanded or new water delivery systems.”4
 Still, there has 
been a noticeable transformation in the attitude of community members and municipal governments in the 
AGUA outreach areas that can be attributed to the environmental education messages and trainings given 
to both the staff members of Implementers and community-level participants in AGUA’s outreach areas. 
 
4 The improvement of water delivery systems is brought about, in many instances, by citizens’ insistence that it be done once 
they have a raised awareness of the need to consume clean water. Reporting the achievement under both indicators would be 
more accurate if that of water-related changes was better articulated. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
12 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
AGUA Activity Evaluation
Table 3-1: General Findings and Conclusions and Recommendations
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
A. Accomplishments
1. Based on the IRs included in the NAD, nearly all performance indicators are 
being met or exceeded by Project Implementers.
a. Implementers have been especially successful in recruiting 
participants/beneficiaries in local development groups and in 
sustainable hillside soil conservation practices
2. Activities related to Decentralization and Development of Local 
Management Capacity, including strengthening of existing groups 
(ADESCOs, Municipalities, and CDLs) and establishment of new 
organizations active in water resources protection (esp. watershed 
committees), are among the most advanced in Central America and are 
contributing greatly to the national decentralization and democracy 
objectives.
a. Local civic and municipal government leaders are taking an ever￾increasing role in determining their own priorities and learning 
participatory planning techniques 
b. The development of watershed committees related to water boards, 
ADESCOs and CDLs is giving new impetus to natural resources and 
environmental protection 
3. The concept being promoted under the Project—local and municipal 
integrated water resources planning by subwatershed (and especially by 
microwatershed)—is the most appropriate for rural areas in El Salvador. 
Access to clean water at the community and household level continues to 
be the highest priority for the rural population. 
a. Participants in local development groups, agricultural families, and 
resource users, schools and health centers find common ground in the 
need to plan activities that protect their water resources and improve 
environmental health conditions
b. AGUA/WE Implementers should maintain rehabilitation and expansion 
of existing potable water systems and construction of new systems as a 
high priority and expand coverage. 
4. Agroforestry, soil and water conservation practices promoted under the 
Project are, in their majority, appropriate and are contributing greatly to 
water resource conservation at the direct sites of intervention and to lesser 
degree downstream.
a. No-burn, agricultural slash management, minimum tillage and vegetative 
barriers are the most popular and effective in reducing erosion and 
runoff, improving structure, increasing water infiltration, and increasing 
productivity.
5. AGUA is financing a series of demonstration wastewater treatment and solid 
waste management demonstration projects that, depending on their 
outcome may be used as models for replication for communities with similar 
characteristics in El Salvador.
a. There is an enormous need to deal with these environmental health 
problems in a cost-effective manner for smaller communities
b. More time and technical assistance is required to prove the operability of 
these systems in El Salvador 
6. Environmental education and awareness training at all levels have brought 
about a discernable change in the attitude and priorities of people in 
communities served by the Project. The Project has facilitated dissemination 
of environmental protection and water resource conservation messages 
through mass media, including financing for establishment of radio stations 
and radio programming. Community-level outreach has focused in great 
measure on solid waste management and recycling.
a. Topics of environmental protection and relating potable water systems 
to the conditions of upland watersheds have taken on a higher priority in 
local development committees, municipal governments and water 
administration boards.
b. Activities need to be consolidated into a logical framework and better 
integrated with overall objectives and Project actions in watersheds 
7. The inclusion of the costs of environmental services as a line item in water 
fees charged to customers of small communal and municipal water 
systems, although incipient, is a groundbreaking and fundamental step in 
guaranteeing the sustainability of both water systems and the watersheds 
that serve them. 
a. The inclusion of such charges needs to be promoted uniformly 
throughout the Project outreach area by all Implementers.
b. A minimum of 10% of water fees charged should be directed to 
conserving and improving conditions in the upland watersheds, and 
these charges should be formally incorporated into tariff structures vis￾à-vis statutes of each water board’s bylaws and municipal ordinances.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 13
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
8. AGUA is having positive impact at the local and municipal level in the
development of environmental health ordinances. Efforts at the national
level, especially with the National Water and Sanitary Network, have served 
to educate a broad cross-section of Salvadoran society in the need for
cohesive and equitable water resource laws and a draft executive decree to 
establish a national watershed management commission and facilitate
legalization of local watershed committees. 
a. The next step in applying and enforcing municipal ordinances needs to 
be articulated and promoted under the Project, using precedents in 
other municipalities as these may be available in El Salvador or 
neighboring countries
b. CARE should continue its efforts with MARN to see through efforts to 
establish the Interinstitutional Watershed Commission, but increase 
emphasis on the establishment and strengthening of subwatershed and 
microwatershed committees
c. It is suggested that all activities of the Project concerning the General 
Water Law be concluded and the Water and Sanitation Network 
(RASES) act as advocate 
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. The current grouping of the activities (and indicators of execution) under 
AGUA components is confusing and complicates their administration as 
well as efforts to monitor the impacts of Project activities. For example, 
soil/water conservation and agroforestry activities are budgeted under the 
same component with wastewater treatment and solid waste management. 
a. To better facilitate administration and monitoring of AGUA activities, 
USAID and Implementers should analyze and propose a reordering of 
activities under the existing components.
b. USAID and Implementers should also review the utility and validity of 
current performance indicators and consider reducing their number and 
improving the instruments used to track the indicators of those found 
most useful
2. Project Implementers have not used sufficient strategic criteria for selecting 
priority intervention areas and technologies, resulting in some undo 
dispersion in the Project’s geographic outreach and missed opportunities for 
integration and synergy.
a. As part of the effort to consolidate Project activities in a selected 
number of sub- and microwatersheds, Implementers should develop a 
series of criteria on which to base this selection of geographic areas and 
activities to be promoted leading to the linkage of potable water and 
irrigation systems to their watersheds. Efforts should be made to 
complement any missing elements of the integrated model indicated in 
this report.
b. According to the menu of activities selected, Implementers should seek 
collaboration among other organizations working in AGUA to 
complement any deficiencies in their own staffing capabilities. 
3. AGUA is experiencing some “project drift” as some activities are seen to be 
only marginally connected to the original objectives and focus of the Project. 
The agricultural diversification, marketing and commercialization activities 
carried out by IICA/CAMAGRO (SAGEM) and CRS have been concentrated 
outside of AGUA’s primary outreach area and have not been integrally 
linked to AGUA’s guiding principles of sustainable water resources use and 
conservation. 
a. While such activities were not considered part of the original thrust of 
the Project, they are seen as potentially relevant in ensuring that 
intensified agricultural production with irrigation succeeds economically, 
and should be continued but under different arrangements.
b. While it would be advantageous to incorporate SAGEM activities in the
integral model approach proposed for the Project, financing activities 
should be provided under a different project (and/or different SO) and 
accessed as required in specific areas in the AGUA outreach area.
c. CRS activities should be expanded to fully embrace watershed 
management objectives in the microwatersheds producing water to 
irrigation systems financed by the Project, probably in collaboration with 
FUNDAMUNI.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
14 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
4. Unless they move with caution, Project Implementers’ success in local 
organizational development and strengthening could lead to a plethora of 
local and micro-regional entities and/or concentrate the decision-making 
power into the hands of very few people.
a. Implementers should review progress to date and analyze tendencies of 
proliferation and effectiveness of local organizations, over-concentration 
of decision making and the impacts of time and personal income on 
community leaders of local groups.
5. Implementers’ strategies of organizational development and the use of 
incentives are not always clear, especially in terms of an “exit strategy” and 
when technical and financial support should be reduced and groups 
graduated from Project assistance.
a. Each Implementer should examine their strategies for community 
development and reassert the elements of their project cycle to 
determine the amount of time necessary to bring about desired change 
and permit the gradual reduction and withdrawal of technical and 
financial assistance from the Project.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 15
3.1.3 Beneficiary Participation and Satisfaction
Beneficiary participation can best be measured by monitoring the dynamics of membership in the 200-
plus organizations assisted under the Project. This indicator, however, has not been used at the SO or IR
level. It was noted during the evaluation that membership numbers rise and ebb, as is normal with any
organizational effort. The performance indicators for the number of organizations participating would
indicate a high level of participation, although the attrition numbers were not available. The more than 40 
groups interviewed by the Evaluation Team appeared very enthusiastic and dedicated to the objectives for 
which they were organized, with many expressing their gratitude to the Project Implementers and USAID. 
This also reflects on the level of satisfaction achieved, not only for those services and goods received
(potable water, plant materials, waste management infrastructures, etc.) but also for the sense of
participation in a truly democratic process within their communities. This “sense of belonging” to the
development process expressed in essence by all the groups and individuals interviewed during the project 
site visits is one of the aspects that especially impressed the Evaluation Team. Hence, it can be concluded 
that participation in project activities is very high and stable. 
Similar to the lack of a true participation indicator, no specific indicator was established to gauge
beneficiaries’/participants’ satisfaction with the goods and services provided under the project. While
CARE included questions concerning beneficiary satisfaction under its PROSAGUAS monitoring and
evaluation survey instrument, such questions were not included for the survey instrument used for the
AGUA outreach areas. This is unfortunate as such data would have provided the Evaluation Team with a 
base on which to quantify satisfaction. Similar to its conclusions concerning participation, the Evaluation 
Team must conclude that, since attrition does not seem to be a severe problem among the 200+ groups
assisted under the AGUA Activity, there is currently a high level of satisfaction. This should be tempered 
with the fact that many activities, especially those related to such demonstration subprojects of
agricultural diversification and marketing, solid waste disposal, and wastewater collection and treatment, 
are early in their implementation stages and it remains to be seen if the end result will prove acceptable to 
their respective participants. 
3.1.4 Implementation Arrangements and Expenditures of USAID, GOES Counterpart and NGO 
Cost-Sharing Funds
Implementation arrangements are managed in two major groups of Implementers. Administratively, the
activities being managed by all Implementers appear to be executing well, with very few problems.
Relationships with USAID are good, as all of the organizations are supported by their home offices in the 
U.S. and are advancing funds for implementation of activities through letters of credit which are then
reimbursed by USAID. USAID is sometimes slow to approve work plans, although Implementers proceed 
with a verbal approval while plans are still scrutinized. USAID has had some negative influence on the
rhythm of project execution. Upon signature of its cooperative agreement in 1999, the CARE Consortium 
was advanced funding to begin AGUA activities. As mobilization took place, CARE and its partners were 
gradually ramping up to full implementation and using less than the year-one funding level projected by
USAID; hence funds were accumulating unspent. By the second year, the Mission wanted to reduce the 
resulting increased pipeline of funds, so WE instructed CARE to immediately promote construction of
additional infrastructure (four additional water systems) to absorb funding. Due to the pressure to get
funds expended, the CARE Consortium’s normal promotion strategy was not followed and these projects 
leveraged very little counterpart and/or cost-sharing from participating municipalities and communities.
Problems with funding availability from USAID have also constrained project development. USAID had 
approved funding under SO4 at level of $17.2 million for the original 1998-2002 execution period.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
16 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
However, only $15.85 million was made available for use during this period. On top of this situation were 
requirements that USAID’s WE Office contribute $1.75 million to earthquake emergency response and 
reconstruction. In September 2001, USAID/WE notified CARE that they would have to limit their
monthly expenditures to $300,000 due to this funding shortage (the CARE Consortium was averaging
over $400,000 at that time). Consequently, both the rhythm of execution and levels of counterpart/cost￾share funding were negatively influenced by USAID funding idiosyncrasies. 
Administration and reporting has been hampered, however, by the sometimes confusing grouping of
activities under the four AGUA/WE components. Most are grouped under the first component which
responds IR4.1, Improved Quality of Water Sources, which includes such activities as soil and water
conservation, reforestation, agricultural diversification and marketing, water harvesting and reservoir
storage, irrigation infrastructure, solid waste management, wastewater treatment infrastructure, and
control of industrial pollution. Potable water infrastructure is handled under Component 2, environmental 
education and elements of solid waste management under Component 3, and municipal and national level 
policy initiatives for water resources under Component 4, including those dealing, again, with wastewater 
treatment, solid waste management, management of water systems, control of deforestation and
environmental protection. The AGUA/WE design did not include a component per se for local
organizational development; the CARE Consortium, in fact, established its own Component No. “0” to
account for such activities.
The Evaluation Team found the staff of the USAID/WE to very well engaged and knowledgeable about 
all details of project execution, and noted that they made numerous field inspection trips which are very
instructive to successful supervision.5
 Implementers are gratified by such visits by USAID staff and
encourage them. The Evaluation Team also found headquarters and field staff of all Implementers to be
fully committed to AGUA/WE activities and the success of the Project. Technical staffs of all
Implementers are very capable and committed—a fact that has contributed greatly to the success of
project activities to date. 
USAID has been quite successful in leveraging its grant funds working with GOES agencies and local
NGOs. While agreements with GOES agencies and participating NGOs were to provide approximately
$5,711,142 in counterpart and cost-sharing funds, the total projected outlays will accumulate to more than 
$7,012,000 by the end of December 2002 (the no-cost extension period of USAID’s original strategy
period for the AGUA Activity)—more than $1,300,000 or 23% over and above the original cost-sharing 
agreement amount. GOES agencies have continued to participate in several activities, even as it was
deemed that the Government had already met its counterpart obligation of US$475,000 by the end of
2001, through in-kind participation of the staff of several agencies (MARN, ANDA, MAG/CENTA,
municipal governments, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health) in project activities, and funds
expended through government-sponsored programs, especially the Inter-American Enterprises Fund
(FIAES), the Social Infrastructure for Local Development Fund (FISDL, with the Inter-American 
Development Bank), and ANDA.6
 Under FISDL, GOES has continued to co-finance potable water, solid 
waste and wastewater management systems, contributing to data a total of $658,030. Similarly, ANDA
has maintained participation in the co-financing of rural water systems and has contributed $143,662.
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) has provided irrigation infrastructure, water storage
 
5 USAID/WE staff accompanied the Evaluation Team on most of the field visits and participated in the Evaluation 
Workshop; their participation enriched the evaluation process. 
6 The AGUA SOAG was amended in mid-2000 when the original GOES counterpart of $5,200,000 was reduced to $475,000 
when it was determined that GOES should not be responsible for such a high level of counterpart financing as no GOES 
agency was responsible for project execution. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 17
structures and training services valued at $83,584 through its General Directorate for Natural Resources 
(DGRN), and $55,553 in technical assistance and extension services under its National Agricultural 
Technology Center (CENTA). Total GOES cost sharing is currently calculated at $1,094,050, or
approximately 230% of the agreed-upon counterpart of $475,000.
Finally, USAID’s cooperative agreements with six NGOs established a cost-sharing level of $5,101,392 
to leverage USAID’s total grants with these organizations in the amount of $14,703,635, or a match of
approximately 26%. However, most NGOs have already exceeded their agreed-upon amounts: PCI by
67%, World Vision by 39% and CRS by 12%. The CARE Consortium, based their members’ estimates, 
still have a total pending commitment on the part of participating municipalities, GOES agencies and
community organizations of $2,504,590 to be expended by the end of the no-cost extension period
(December 2002). At this level, the CARE Consortium will exceed its agreed-upon cost share by
approximately $185,000 or about 5%. 
3.1.4.1 The CARE Consortium
The Consortium, made up of CARE, SalvaNatura, FUNDAMUNI and SACDEL, is responsible for
approximately 80% of the overall AGUA effort (including all related SO activities among all
Implementers). After a difficult first year of interrelational development, members of the Consortium
have developed a good working relationship, from both the philosophical and technical standpoint and in 
terms of project administration. The particular strengths of each organization have served to strengthen
the weakness areas of other members: FUNDAMUNI’s shared its approaches in organizational
development and participatory planning which were adopted by other members in their assigned
geographic outreach areas; SACDEL’s previous work with decentralization and municipal development
has been used to develop such strategies with other members; SalvaNatura’s strategies for environmental
education, organic coffee, protected areas management , and alternative uses of natural resources is being 
promoted in all outreach areas; while CARE has used it’s experience in watershed management,
agroforestry, potable water infrastructure development, and the efficient administration of project
resources (accounting, procurement) to strengthen its fellow Consortium members. 
Implementation by the Consortium has been going well, as evidenced in the accomplishments for nearly
all performance indicators for potable water, soil and water conservation and especially components
dealing with local organizational development. There are serious delays with the larger wastewater
treatment plant for Cara Sucia/Puente Arce due to problems for purchase of the site for the treatment
plant. The San Rafael subcomponent of the system is also experiencing some delays, especially in aspects 
of training and promotion, as well as bringing the small biofiltration plant on line. Also, the Consortium
has been able to advance the objectives of integrated water resources management intended in the original 
AGUA design, as they have had a full complement of resources and the combined expertise of
Consortium members at its command. Hence, many of the activities among the four project components 
are being intrinsically promoted and linked at the micro- and subwatershed level—which was the
expressed intent of the consortium approach from the beginning. 
In terms of expenditures as indicated in Table 3.1-A, the Consortium has expended to date about 80% of 
the budget of USAID funds included in the CARE/USAID cooperative agreement, but only about 47% of 
its agreed-upon cost-share. It should be pointed out, however, that CARE still has a large number of
infrastructure subprojects in execution and does not register the counterpart/cost-share amounts until the 
projects are completed and commissioned. Hence, the actual amount of cost-share already encumbered is 
probably closer to parity with the amounts reflected in USAID expenditures. This implies the difficulty in 
attempting to evaluate the pari-passeu among USAID and CARE Consortium funds. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
18 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
As of July 31, 2002, the Consortium had expended a total of an estimated US$12,159,953 in USAID and 
cost-share funds, which was distributed according to the following activity groups: 31% in activities of
soil and water conservation, agroforestry, reforestation and agricultural diversification, of which 75% is
oriented to soil and water conservation and the other 25% to aspects of diversification; 39% in potable
water infrastructure (including a minor portion in wastewater infrastructure and soak-wells); and
approximately 30% for activities in local development and participation (including aspects of water
resources policy and municipal ordinances). However, once again, as many infrastructures projects still in 
construction have not yet been accounted for under cost-share funds, the actual distributions may differ by 
an important margin. According to the CARE Consortium, an additional $1,500,000 has been formally 
committed in cooperative agreements to water and wastewater management infrastructure projects to be
finalized and accounted for by the end of 2002. This would bring expenditures for water and wastewater 
infrastructure up to 46% of total project outlays under AGUA.
3.1.4.2 Other Implementers under Strategic Objective 4
For the rest of the activities funded under AGUA/WE, about 20% of total AGUA investments is being
managed by several international NGOs active in El Salvador for many years, each under separate
cooperative agreements with USAID. In general, as best as could be determined during the evaluation, all 
Implementers are well on their way to achieving the targets established in their respective corporate
agreements. 
As of April 2002, Project Concern, International (PCI) had achieved about 75% of the life-of-project 
targets in its Sustainable Agriculture and Marketing component and was making good progress in its
diversification/marketing program, including drip irrigation, and water harvesting and storage subprojects 
involving small reservoirs. The Suchitoto Wastewater Treatment Plant began operation in the second
trimester of 2002, and follow-up on operational aspects and training was still in progress at the time of the 
evaluation. Some construction and operational difficulties still need to be resolved at the plant. The solid 
waste landfill at Corinto has been operating with relative success since early 2002 and includes a
composting facility for organic wastes. The landfill at San Francisco de Menendez is behind schedule and 
has experienced some design and construction quality control problems, but should be operational in the 
next two months. PCI has been especially generous in its provision of cost-sharing funds, exceeding the 
agreed upon match by 67%. Approximately 57% of the total expenditures under PCI activities has been 
made for infrastructure, while the remaining 53% has been dedicated to its agricultural technology and
marketing program.
World Vision has essentially met all of its agreed upon targets and has developed several successful
models for microwatershed management with small communities linked to potable water supplies. The
soil and water conservation activities are augmented with good agroforestry techniques and increasingly 
popular home gardens. It is promoting a promising subprogram for fruit tree production, and the Project 
has secured a link with the Persian Lime Producers Association for the provision of technical services and 
marketing of future harvests. World Vision has also been generous in its cost-sharing match with USAID 
funds to finance the Project, exceeding its promised match by 40%. All expenditures were oriented to soil 
and water conservation and diversification activities. AGUA funds were also used to improve and expand 
coverage under existing water systems in at least two communities, including construction of public water 
tapstands to serve those lacking household connections.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 19
Table 3.1-A: AGUA/WE Life of Project USAID/WE and Cost-Sharing Budget and Expenditures to Date (US$)7
AGUA/WE Expenditures by Principal Activity Area
LOP Budget Soil/Water Conser. Infrastructure Local Dev/Particip9 Totals
(%)8
Balance
(%)2
Implementer
USAID CON USAID CON USAID CON USAID CON USAID CON USAID CON
CARE Consort. 12,600,000 4,350,000 3,039,086 811,866 3,748,207 1,014,834 3,342,995 202,966 10,130,288
(80%)
2,029,665
(47%)
2,469,712
(20%)
2,320,334
(53%)
PCI, Intl. 879,427 233,518 277,600 253,500 563,61410 136,100 841,215
(96%)
389,600
(-167%)
38,211
(4%)
-156,082
(-67%)
World Vision 398,257 135,714 335,495 170,800 37,227 18,978 372,722
(94%)
189,778
(-139%)
25,525
(6%)
-54,064
(-40%)
CRS 399,901 202,525 308,196 228,106 308,196
(77%)
228,106
(-112%)
91,705
(23%)
-25,581
(-13%)
IICA/CAMAGRO 391,050 159,635 324,870 150,303 324,870
(83%)
150,303
(94%)
66,177
(17%)
9,635
(6%)
Border Dev. Serv 35,000 20,000 35,000 20,000 35,000
(100%)
20,000
(100%)
--- ---
Small Inf. Activity 539,000 134,750 527,772 132,000 527,772
(98%)
132,000
(97%)
11,227
(2%)
2,750
(2%)
FIAES 260,000 260,000 260,000
(100%)
--- ---
MAG/CENTA 55,553 55,553 55,553
(100%)
--- ---
MARN 50,000 153,221 153,221
(-306%)
--- -103,221
(-206%)
FISDL 50,000 658,030 658,030
(-1,016%)
-608,030
(-916%)
ANDA 50,000 143,662 143,662
(-287%)
-93,662
(-187%)
DGRN 9,447 83,584 83,584
(-885%)
-74,137
(-785%)
TOTALS
(% of Category)
15,242,635 5,711,142 4,285,247 2,013,712 4,874,593 2,104,626 3,380,222 375,165 12,540,063
(82%)
4,493,502
(65%)
2,702,573
(18%)
1,043,702
(18%)
USAID & Cost-Share 
Totals for Category
(% of Total)
$20,953,777
(100%)
$6,298,959
(37%)
$6,979,219
(41%)
$3,755,387
(22%)
$17,033,565
(81%)
$3,746,275
(18%)
 
7
Figures are approximate and based on data provided by Implementers and USAID, and include overhead and other indirect costs as appropriate prorated to 
programmatic splits. LOP counterpart budget for FISDL, MARN, ANDA and DGRN are estimates only. Totals do not necessarily match due to rounding. 
8
Percentage of total budget remaining; a negative figure indicates spending in excess of budgeted amount. (Note: Some counterpart contributions far exceed amount 
originally budgeted and percentage totals will not match do to over-investment of counterpart. 
9 Note: For all other Implementers but the CARE Consortium and World Vision, expenditures in organizational development and environmental education are 
included under the other two activity budget lines. 
10 Includes approximately $177,800 for disaster mitigation structures. PCI cost-share figure excludes FISDL counterpart. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
20 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
As of June 2002, the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) demonstration agricultural diversification and
marketing program has already met most of its agreed upon performance indicators. Only a few indicators 
are lagging, including the total number of participants (at 61% of the target) and in its intended quota of
women’s membership in the PHOC cooperative (at only 32% of the intended target). The program
includes innovative drip irrigation and water diversion (mini-dams) technologies. The cooperative, with
CRS assistance, has secured an apparently limitless market for their produce with a supermarket chain in 
San Miguel. Problems with access may pose problems for getting produce to market during the wet
season. CRS has exceeded its agreed-upon cost sharing level by 13% and intends to continue supporting 
the project with its matching funds after USAID funds are fully expended. All USAID and cost-share 
funds are invested in agricultural diversification investments.
While the most recent information on performance indicators was not made available, IICA/CAMAGRO
appears to be on its way to achieving its outreach targets with its program of Entrepreneurial Management 
Services in Marketing and Technology.11 The project has contributed, along with IICA cost-share funds, 
to the establishment and strengthening of the Salvadoran Chamber of Agriculture, Livestock and
Agroindustry (CAMAGRO). The cooperative agreement was signed under the condition that resources be 
dedicated to support of the IDB-financed El Salvador Environmental Program (PAES) outreach area in
the watershed of the Cerrón Grande Hydroelectric Project, which was already being attended to by the
IICA/CATIE partnership. But IICA/CAMAGRO also provided training and information services to
producers in Ahuachapán Sur (Guymango and San Pedro Puxtla), within the AGUA outreach area, in
such aspects as the cooperative purchase of agricultural supplies, marketing of produce and seasonal data 
on agricultural commodity prices. As of June 2002, IICA/CAMAGRO was fully meeting its cost-share 
contributions, with 100% of funds expended on training and demonstrations in diversified agriculture,
entrepreneurial development and marketing activities. 
Information on Border Development Services was not available, as proposed interviews with staff did not 
take place due problems with their travel to El Salvador. BDS is providing technical services to CARE in 
the design and construction of the San Rafael small-bore wastewater treatment subproject. The design
agreed to in BDS’ cooperative agreement with USAID was expanded from the intended 10 household
connections to include all households in San Rafael as part of the overall sanitation solution in the Cara 
Sucia area of Ahuachapán Sur. The project is behind schedule and has suffered some problems with the 
collapse and/or emergence (floating) of polyethylene septic tanks being used in for household connections 
in areas of the community subject to local flooding during rain events. Training of community members 
in septic tank maintenance, collection of sewage fees and operation of the small biofiltration plant is also 
behind schedule. The status of expenditures of USAID and cost-share funds was not obtained by the
Evaluation Team.
Nearly all the financing made available under the Small Investment Activity has been expended for some 
17 small infrastructure projects of approximately $40,000/each. FUNDAMUNI has received most of the 
financing for rehabilitation and/or construction of new potable water projects, while CRS has used
funding to construct 6 removable in-stream mini-dams to divert water for irrigated vegetables and fruit
trees. 
 
11 This assessment is made based on the content of the Second Semester Report dated July 2001 and interviews with project 
staff. The Evaluation Team did not visit PAES outreach areas where much of the work under the cooperative agreement 
was carried out. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 21
3.1.5 Development Impact and Sustainability of Project Interventions
It is still too early to fully gauge the development impact and potential for sustainability for most
activities being promoted under the AGUA Activity by the CARE Consortium and other Implementers. 
As stated earlier, the Project has only been in active implementation for three years, with the year 2001
dedicated to earthquake response. Due to the deficiencies in the project design in the establishment of
sufficient and appropriate impact indicators and lack of a qualifying baseline, the development impact can 
only be assessed qualitatively. Each Implementer established some sort of socioeconomic baseline in
order to identify their potential participants and guide selection of communities and techniques to be
promoted. However, few included baseline parameters that can be considered impact indicators. CARE
uses a survey instrument oriented primarily to qualifying the quantity and quality of water consumed in a 
sample of households in communities at the municipal level to respond to the USAID’s IR 4.1. However, 
the density of sampling locations (households) is deemed insufficient to accurately discern the direct
impacts of AGUA activities on water quality and time standards at the municipal level or quantity impacts 
within the discrete group of project participants—hence the indicator could be improved. Also, other
impact indicators that have been successfully used in relation to other CARE projects (i.e.,
PROSAGUAS) concerning such aspects as sanitation, customer satisfaction, payment of fees, etc., were
not included in the survey instrument used for AGUA. World Vision has attempted using a proxy
indicator to gauge the level of adoption and acceptance of soil and water conservation technologies
promoted under its cooperative agreement, but this effort is only in a trial stage. 
The Evaluation Team has made the following subjective observations based on members’ professional
judgment that several project activities are producing tangible positive impacts toward meeting Strategic 
Objective 4 and some elements of the IR package. Local organizational development and environmental
education efforts, primarily under the CARE Consortium, are yielding very positive results in relation to 
national objectives of promoting decentralization and democratic initiatives at inter-municipal, municipal 
and community levels. Citizens representing varied social, economic and environmental protection
interests are coming together in forums that promote participatory planning and development of projects 
of mutual interests around water resources issues. Water—or rather the lack of it in a country that has a 
six-month extreme dry season—was determined to be at the top of the list of problems and priorities for 
resolution for nearly all communities and municipalities profiled during the Project’s diagnostic phase.
Hence, by its own acronym, AGUA is a lightning rod for rallying the interests and participation of rural
populations. Participation in development planning is still in its infancy in El Salvador; but USAID’s and 
GTZ’s long-running efforts in the strengthening of municipal governments are starting to yield results,
and AGUA’s Implementers have t seized these accomplishments and expanded on them through local
development of community-level organizations and the formation of micro- and subwatershed
committees. While no hard data is available to accurately calculate the level of impact on local
organizations, the Evaluation Team finds that the elements of decentralized and democratic institutional
sustainability are being established in the AGUA outreach areas. How these efforts will pay off in terms 
of the other IRs and overall development impact is still to be determined, when communities are weaned 
from project assistance and whether organizations, then on their own, will successfully manage their
water systems and continue the participatory local development planning and execution of projects of
community interest and need. What is clear is that three years is not sufficient time to instill the capability 
and experience necessary to ensure this sustainability. 
Another aspect that can be positively assessed is the results of efforts in soil and water conservation. The 
most popular technical package in terms of adoption by farmers in upland watersheds is one that
combines practices of no-burn, slash (crop residue) management and minimum tillage on hillside farms. 
These techniques are spreading on their own and are proving successful in reducing erosion, promoting 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
22 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
infiltration and increasing yields for all crop types grown on treated lands. Where these practices are
combined with green barriers of vetiver or other plant materials or agroforestry techniques they take on
even more added value and soil protection. While no direct measurements are being taken in the AGUA
outreach areas, similar technical packages applied under the USAID-financed LUPE program in
Honduras showed decreases in runoff and erosion in excess of 60% in normal rain events and increases in 
crop yields of 40-60% when compared to untreated fields under the same agroecological setting.12 Such 
impacts also translate to improved quality and quantity in downstream water sources in terms of reduced 
sediment load, increase flow of streams and springs during dry season. Again, while these impacts are not 
being systematically measured in the AGUA/WE outreach areas, the LUPE results can be assumed to be 
applicable in here as well.
Other activities promoted under AGUA/WE activities are still seen in early stages of demonstration. The 
development impacts of agricultural diversification—including horticultural crops under irrigation,
commercial marketing, water diversion structures and storage reservoirs, cooperative purchase of
agricultural inputs and marketing of crops—and solid waste landfills and wastewater treatment plants, are 
still to be determined once the full subproject cycles have run their course among the Implementers. At 
present most of these subprojects are still under near or full control of the Implementers and/or have not 
yet been employed for a full year. While most of these techniques and approaches have been proven in
other countries in the region and several appear promising in the AGUA/WE outreach areas, the
Evaluation Team is not able to say with certainty that they will be successful or have the intended
development impact. At the same time however, the Evaluation Team feels strongly that these activities 
should continue to receive assistance from USAID throughout the Mission’s extended strategy period and 
extended AGUA ACD or at which time control and operation of the subprojects have been turned over to 
community and municipal counterparts. 
3.2 Decentralization and Local Management Capacity Development
Approximately 22% of total AGUA/WE funding is dedicated to activities under this category (see Table 
3.1-A). All Implementers are working in varying aspects of developing local management capacity. PCI, 
CRS and IICA/CAMAGRO are working with community groups and several incipient farmer
cooperatives to develop their capabilities to manage agricultural diversification and marketing schemes.
World Vision is working with individual community groups in water system administration, and with
producer farmer groups in soil and water conservation, and agricultural diversification. The CARE
Consortium however, is working on multiple levels with a specific strategy of local organizational
development that goes beyond simple task groups, although these too form part of its outreach approach. 
The Consortium has even established its own fifth component under AGUA: Component “0”, Local
Development. The CARE Consortium is breaking new ground in forming micro- and subwatershed
committees dedicated to the integrated planning for water resources management. The objective is to link 
other local development groups, including ADESCOs, CDLs, water committees, municipalities and
special interest groups, into a broader regional participatory development planning and management
framework. Progress to date is impressive and continued support from AGUA should lead to several
replicable models. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluations are presented in
more detail in Table 3.2.
 
12 USAID/Honduras has copies of LUPE Project experiences, including evaluation reports and technical manuals. Also, Texas 
A&M University carried out a series of erosion studies on treated and untreated lands in southern Honduras, also available 
from USAID/Honduras. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 23
3.2.1 Findings and Conclusions
The AGUA Project has improved coordination and mutual support between the members of the CARE
Consortium as evidenced by the interchange of skills and institutional capacity between the Consortium
members. This was the first Consortium experience for the local members and it is noted that each of
them has since entered into other consortia agreements for the implementation of other projects. 
As a whole, the Project has helped local organizations to increase enthusiasm and motivation, to take on 
greater challenges, and to translate local expectations and needs into clear agendas and cohesive action
plans. The Project has facilitated action on the part of these local organizations that has led to better
identification and use of resources and improved management systems that may have not been functional 
in the past. This has, in turn, generated more confidence in these organizations on the part of local
populations as evidenced by the level of knowledge about and participation in the activities of the
organizations. A direct impact of the AGUA Project is increased leverage of resources from national and 
regional entities by groups of municipal or community organizations that have united for a common
cause. The AGUA Project has facilitated this process for communities that have united on regional water 
supply projects, leveraging large amounts of funds from national and international sources. Still, the
sustainability of local institutions is at risk because of a very limited pool of local leaders and a lack of
effective rotation of leadership. Up until now these charismatic natural leaders have facilitated the
promotion and the organization of new entities with new mandates. However, in the future, without a
corps of trained and experienced local leaders who form and manage the myriad of local and regional
organizations that the Project is supporting, the defection or loss of just a few key people could present 
serious problems to the operation of the organizations. This is particularly important given that
organizations that focus on issues like watershed management must be stable over the long term.
The stronger organizations have gained local experience in conflict resolution related to access and supply 
of water an in the capture and management of resources for local community projects. The concept of
focusing on the watershed as a form of local water resource management has been strongly promoted.
Also, local water committees have initiated an interinstitutional dialogue to help them find solutions for
their respective issues. The Regional Network of Water Committees that is being formed and
strengthened in the western region of El Salvador is the result of this type of dialogue. This Network,
supported by the AGUA Project, is itself strengthening local water committees and supporting an inter￾municipal information exchange that deals with common water system management and administrative
problems. 
The use of incentives by the CARE Consortium is focused on short term actions on the part of local
participants. Seeds, fertilizers and other materials and equipment are supporting agricultural activities that 
are not being strongly linked to future monetary returns. World Vision is providing similar incentives for 
fruit tree cultivation while at the same time helping communities find a long-term market for their fruit. 
Management activities implemented in parallel with large construction projects and complicated
organizational aspects have promoted and supported the legalization of organizations as specialized local 
service providers (water supply, vegetable producers from PHOC, and others). At the same time the
Project has strengthened those completely participatory organizations such as the CDLs and watershed
committees. The AGUA Project has also effectively supported the legitimization of the role of these
strengthened organizations and increasing the membership of beneficiaries or users, of those
organizations participating in the larger infrastructure projects. The Project has also been effective in
elaborating participatory municipal ordinances on environmental and basic sanitation that support better
resource use and conservation of the environment, but are not receiving support to actually put them into 
local practice.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
24 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
AGUA Activity Evaluation
Table 3.2: Decentralization and Local Management Capacity Development
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
A. Accomplishments
1. Through participation in the CARE-AGUA consortia, consortia 
members have succeeded in strengthening one another, passing 
their capacity in a particular area to their partners and receiving the 
same in return.
a. The Consortium relationship has evolved into a process of sharing expertise 
and know-how. The other AGUA implementers should be brought into this 
CARE-AGUA process.
2. CARE-AGUA has improved the ability of all manner of organizations 
to identify and solve problems and has initiated a process of regional 
integration of organizations – e.g., the network of water system 
management committees
a. Local leadership that understands the limits of their particular organizations has 
been formed. 
b. Networks of organizations with similar interests and objectives have been 
formed that have served to support their members’ agendas. Continued support 
to this process should be provided.
3. AGUA has succeeded in catalyzing local organizational processes 
which has included inter-municipal collaboration in addressing 
common problems. 
a. This intermunicipal collaboration is awakening municipalities to the possibilities 
of collaboration to take on regional and policy problems – particularly in the 
environmental sector. Support to these activities should be continued.
4. AGUA has increased the leverage of local resources and improved 
local management capacity.
a. Organizations are better able to access local investment and manage that 
investment. 
5. Local AGUA participants identify with the project and its staff. a. This acceptance of Project values, processes and culture is significant and 
indicates that the participants are ready to continue in future Project endeavors.
6. AGUA has been particularly successful in helping to form local 
specialized service provision organizations that operate using 
entrepreneurial management models (Water Committees, Ag. 
Production coops). AGUA has supported purely voluntary 
organizations as well as watershed committees.
a. The large water system committees (communities with over 500 households) 
are the strongest of these organizations.
b. Administrative systems created through AGUA are good workable models that 
should be packaged and continued throughout AGUA’s outreach areas.
7. AGUA has supported and strengthened cooperative business and 
marketing, especially in the PAES outreach area, but to a minor 
degree in Ahuachapán Sur
a. This process has been successful and can receive continued support. 
8. AGUA has helped to legitimize the role of Service provision 
organizations and increased the base of users and participants. 
a. The leadership role of these organizations is recognized by users and 
participants and payment for services is taking place. 
9. Decentralization of water management through local water system 
committees has allowed local populations to participate in the 
provision of water supply services.
a. These organizations must be challenged to accept responsibilities for 
management of their watersheds. 
10. Water committees have successfully dealt with local conflicts over 
water system management and water use and have been able to 
generate resources for other community development activities. 
a. Experience in conflict resolution should lead these committees to further 
address issues of equity in water supply and management.
11. AGUA has succeeded in planting the idea of watershed 
management at local, regional and national levels along with 
operational systems to allow it to be practiced. 
a. Successes in applying and institutionalizing these processes should be 
documented and replicated as they form the basis for sustainable watershed 
development. 
12. AGUA has developed successful training programs for all of its local 
organizations, both entrepreneurial and voluntary. 
a. These should be strengthened and expanded. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 25
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
13. AGUA has developed a complete model for legitimizing the roles of 
the municipal-level Local Development Committees (CDLs) and 
community level committees (ADESCOs). 
a. These organizations, through collaboration and consensus are handling short￾term planning and development issues. 
14. AGUA has directly influenced the establishment of a legal basis 
(ordinances) for environmental management at the municipal level. 
a. These ordinances focus on resource conservation and improved local 
environmental health. Efforts should be made to engage and train UAMs of 
municipalities in outreach areas to act as application agents of ordinances. 
15. AGUA has been a pioneer in the preparation of watershed 
management plans by local organizations. 
a. Although new, these are powerful approaches to decentralized, local natural 
resource management.
16. AGUA has formed nascent watershed management committees 
supported by the water and sanitation subsector. 
a. These organizations are field-testing processes that when solidified shall form 
the basis for the formation of working watershed management planning. 
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. The local organizations (outside of the service provision 
organizations) have a limited management capacity and doubtful 
long-term sustainability.
a. Establish policy of institutional and organizational strengthening at Project level 
that not only builds management systems but addresses need to generate and 
direct resources to new resource-strapped voluntary organizations. 
2. Local service provision organizations tend to focus on short-term 
opportunities with less attention on strategizing and planning for the 
medium and long term. 
a. Build capacity in strategic planning that builds on short-term successes to 
address long-term objectives.
3. The sustainability of local institutions is at risk because of a small 
pool of local leaders and policies that are not allowing effective 
rotation of leadership. 
a. Support processes that form a cadre of young leaders (participation in the 
organization, training) for the local organizations, while helping establish rules 
and norms that address reelection of leaders and incorporation of new leaders. 
4. There are no formal mechanisms or norms guiding AGUA’s work in 
motivating local organizations that use natural resources to address 
watershed protection and environmental conservation issues. 
a. Establish formal guides on the application of watershed management focus as 
operational norms of these organizations, and facilitate to the extent possible 
the legalization of these organizations. 
5. Local organizations without access to financial resources are 
markedly less effective than those with access to finances. 
a. Support municipal code reform that permits municipal resources to move to 
participatory/voluntary organizations. 
b. Support processes that allow local resource capture for these same activities. 
6. Rural Development Action plans focus on local immediate physical 
needs and lack strategic focus on watershed and environmental 
management and protection. 
a. AGUA should make environmental and watershed planning part of all planning 
processes.
b. Environmental support should be promoted as a local organizational 
prerogative and included as mandatory in ordinances, norms, and regulations.
7. Baseline studies have not been done in AGUA’s work in institutional 
development and drawing conclusions on the impacts of AGUA’s 
efforts is difficult.
a. AGUA must start gathering baseline data on organizational capacity in areas 
where it will implement institutional strengthening activities. 
8. There is not a strategic plan for the use of incentives that promotes 
the development of systems for payment for environmental services 
or environmental reserves within watersheds. 
a. Incentive use needs to be part of an overall strategic plan that moves farmers 
and other Project participants (through the creation of demand for 
environmental services) to be willing to pay for those services locally. 
9. AGUA does not have a strategy for organizational handholding, 
follow-up, and exit for all of the organizations it has helped to build 
and strengthen, that promotes continued local work in watershed and 
environmental protection. 
a. AGUA needs to define this strategy and implement it if organizations are to 
continue to function and be viable protectors of watersheds and water 
resources.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
26 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
3.2.2 Recommendations
AGUA should intensify its training of small organizations, such as ADESCOs, for their formation and/or 
linkage with microwatershed committees, as well as those organizations in recent formation (where
projects are in execution) that possess a limited management capacity and limited possibilities for
sustainability as local groups. At the same time, even the small organizations considered stronger need to 
be shifted away from their focus on short-term issues and oriented in the preparation of integrated
development/microwatershed plans and/or activities that can financially sustain them for the medium and 
long term. The Project needs to engage these local organizations in activities that transfer strategic
planning processes that contain aspects (so successfully promoted in water committee formation) of
entrepreneurial management techniques, leadership, social interaction and general management, and
establish formal guides on the application of watershed management concepts as operational norms of
these organizations. If and when the executive decree is issued that creates the figure of “watershed
organizations”, then the CARE Consortium should immediately begin facilitating their legalization. 
AGUA should begin strategically training and grooming young community leaders in aspects of
participatory planning, organization concepts, and management for eventually coordinating local
organizations. At the same time, the Consortium should facilitate the establishment of rules and norms
that address reelection of leaders and the incorporation of new leaders to further the democratic process of 
sharing decision-making responsibilities. The participatory mechanisms promoted and organizations
supported by the Project (CDLs and watershed committees) also need to foster financial mechanisms that 
permit them to function over the medium and long term. The reconstruction and development plans
developed by these groups need to be shifted away from their focus on just physical infrastructure and
reoriented to a strategic focus on watersheds and ecosystems that support them. 
Incentives are currently used in the short term to draw their participation and achieve stated soil and water 
conservation and diversification objectives. In the case of World Vision, PCI and CRS, incentives are
used as in-kind seed monies (although credit is also used) to jump-start commercial enterprises and
produce income for their project participants. However, AGUA Implementers need to develop procedures 
and forms of reinvestment and payback schemes that will facilitate the inevitable cutting off of project
assistance (if these ventures can be sustainable). Furthermore, AGUA Implementers should begin
reorienting the use of incentive to be part of an overall strategic plan to create a demand for environmental 
services that engenders farmers’, municipalities’, water consumers’ and other Project participants’
willingness to pay for those services locally.
CARE Consortium needs to assist municipalities with strategies and mechanisms to put recently-passed 
ordinances into practice. The Municipal Environmental Units (UAM) should be included in this activity
as an instrument for sustainability and focus their efforts on the municipal, microregions and sub￾watersheds. These Units should be oriented and trained in applying local environmental norms, seeking 
self-sustaining financing for developing control and follow-up support mechanisms. AGUA should work 
with councils of municipalities (mancomunidades) as a mechanism to promote the integrated work of the 
UAMs in watershed that span more than one municipality and the larger subwatersheds.
3.3 Watershed Management, Water Source Protection, Sustainable Agroforestry and 
Agricultural Diversification
About 37% of total AGUA/WE financing to date has been oriented to support activities under this
category (see Table 3.1-A). The term watershed management refers to all those soil and water
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 27
conservation activities currently being promoted by USAID/WE and implemented through AGUA/WE.
Water source protection comprises those activities related to measures to protect or improve the sites
where water is being collected (springs, spring boxes, streams, wellheads). Sustainable agroforestry
involves the incorporation of trees into the farm unit and/or reforestation of strategic parcels of land.
Agricultural diversification is being promoted by all of the Implementers, but with more intensity by PCI, 
CRS and IICA/CAMAGRO. Findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation of these
activities are presented in Table 3.3.
3.3.1 Findings and Conclusions
The promotion approach of working with demonstration farmers, both men and women, is facilitating the 
spread of appropriate techniques. The use of the farm plan by most of the members of those farmer groups
participating in project activities is working well, although a simpler plan would facilitate its wider
dissemination and sustained use. As indicated in earlier sections of the report, the Evaluation Team found 
a remarkable level of technology uptake and spread for soil and water conservation practices including
no-burn and minimum tillage, even on rented lands, and their adoption by farmers not formally
participating in AGUA/WE-sponsored training. This obviously is an indicator of the success of such
practices.
What is especially positive about this phenomenon is that the technological package is also the most cost￾effective of all practices being promoted and contributes the maximum amount of conservation impact. At 
the farm level (and there are some 6,800 farm units and nearly 10,000 hectares thus affected), the package 
has the following positive impacts as observed and corroborated by farmers: i) reduced runoff and
erosion; ii) increase in organic material from crop residue that improves soil structure, increases nutrients 
and promotes a higher level of cation exchange (nutrient availability); iii) increased infiltration of
rainwater that makes additional moisture available to crops and recharges subsoil and aquifers; iv)
reduced drought risk as the growing season is extended and short dry spells are ameliorated by additional 
field moisture; and v) increased yields primarily for traditional hillside crops of maize, sorghum and
beans, but also for fruit trees and vegetable crops planted on treated lands. These practices are augmented 
on many farms with hillside green barriers of vetiver or other plant materials or agroforestry techniques 
wherein they take on even more added value and soil protection. As application of these techniques is
expanded to surrounding farms and reach a critical mass, they will contribute to a marked reduction in
downstream flood risks. Such positive impacts of watershed management have been documented
throughout the world, including the USAID-financed LUPE project in Honduras.13 Also, techniques of
improved polycultural home gardens and the planting of fruit trees is also gaining widespread acceptance 
for their potential to improve the diet of rural families, diversify the crop mix and generate some
additional on-farm income.
Agricultural diversification and marketing activities are considered demonstration projects and are still in 
their developmental stages. The success and spread of these techniques will depend on the results of these 
demonstration subprojects, for which Implementers will need to monitor after reducing project assistance. 
The Evaluation Team worries that some of the farms being promoted for commercial-scale vegetable
production may be subject to access problems potentially affecting their economic viability. Several 
quality control problems were also detected during the evaluation, such as planting trees in the shadow of 
 
13 In the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras, field inspections revealed that lands treated with soil conservation and 
agroforestry practices suffered far less damage from torrential rains, including reduced erosion, gullying and landslides, and 
areas where these techniques were widely practiced, there was a noticeable reduction in local flash flooding. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
28 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
other trees and promotion of improper techniques under certain land-use settings (e.g., infiltration ditches 
in active pastures), but these should be corrected with time. 
Water source protection, usually involving small investments to improve access and the quality of surface 
water sources such as springs and seeps, are very effective and should be more intensely promoted. The 
AGUA Activity had envisioned working with area industries to reduce contamination of water resources, 
but these are seen as outside the scope and capability of Implementers. Hence, there has been little
promotion of such techniques and Consortium partners have collaborated at the margins primarily in
promoting the use of soak pits for disposal of coffee processing wastes. 
3.3.2 Recommendations 
The selection of techniques and priority locations for promotion of watershed management (including soil 
and water conservation, agroforestry and reforestation) could be improved with better use of strategic
planning techniques to ensure that those areas treated are contributing to water resources improvements
related to the improvement and sustainability of existing or new potable water and/or irrigation sources
(tributary microwatersheds). Implementers should strive to organize more women’s groups to promote
soil and water conservation as part of the diversification strategies for home gardens. 
Implementers should seek out collaborations with other municipal, national government and/or NGO
programs to facilitate additional watershed management activities not currently in the mix promoted by
the Project. These include: improved road drainage emulating natural contours and drainage ways; 
reforestation/protection of stream corridors (greenbelts), steep hillsides and ravines, and critical aquifer
recharge zones; and the promotion of improved pasture and cattle management in the form of silvipasture, 
live fencing and cut-and-carry fodder. Activities for the control of industrial contamination should be
removed from the WE portfolio, as these actions are included under several MARN programs financed by 
IDB and other agencies.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 29
AGUA Activity Evaluation
Table 3-3: Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations for Watershed Management, Water Source Protection and Agroforestry
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
A. Accomplishments
1. The use of demonstration farmers (both men and women) and 
model/demonstration farms and gardens is a proven promotional and 
training approach with widespread success throughout the Project 
outreach areas. The “learn by doing” extension approach is very 
effective with both men and women groups.
a. This extension process should be fully promoted and consolidated as a 
replicable model for future activities financed by USAID throughout El 
Salvador.
2. On areas treated, soil and water conservation practices promoted by the 
project are having a very positive impact en terms of reducing runoff and 
erosion, increasing organic material, improving soil structure and cation 
exchange capacity, increasing infiltration of rainwater and aquifer 
recharge—all contributing to maintenance and/or improvement of 
watershed conditions. 
3. Two of the Project Implementers are promoting several designs of small 
on-farm reservoirs, some with rainwater catchment, for storing water for 
agricultural and household water in areas of chronic water shortages 
during the dry season. 
4. Several Project Implementers are promoting polycultural home gardens
and diversification into vegetables and fruit crops using alternative 
irrigation technologies in order to increase on-farm income. 
a. Practices showing the greatest level of uptake by farmers are: i) no-burn; 
ii) slash/stubble (rastrojo) management; iii) green barriers of vetiver (with 
brizantha grass becoming more popular); live fence posts, especially of 
Gliricidia sepium; iv) home gardens; v) fruit trees on individual terraces; 
and vi) vegetable production under supplemental irrigation.
b. There is a need to continue promoting and determining the level of 
acceptance of other practices and innovations, including: i) rainwater 
catchment and reservoirs; ii) polyethylene water tanks; iii) portable mini￾dams; iv) sprinkler and drip irrigation; and v) commercial level vegetable 
production ventures. 
c. All AGUA Activity implementing organizations should meet periodically 
(annually?) to systematically compare experiences in promoting differing 
soil and water conservation and diversification approaches and 
techniques, document lessons learned and visit each other’s outreach 
areas. RASES could serve as the forum for such meetings. 
5. Several Implementers have promoted the development of community￾based nurseries as small enterprises among community groups and to 
supply plant material for extension and outreach activities. 
a. While it may be more economical to purchase plant materials from large 
commercial nurseries outside of the project area, financing the 
establishment of communal nurseries, especially with women’s or 
mixed-gender groups is seen as an activity that can help meet at least 
part of the local and regional demand for plant materials (forestry and 
fruit tree species), train people in alternative vocations and generate 
income for those participating.
6. For those examples observed, the small subprojects of water source 
improvement and protection are very positively impacting those rural 
communities served. 
a. Even small low-cost improvements such as concrete spring boxes and 
public water taps can make a huge impact on the access of small 
communities to cleaner water and should be widely promoted for 
traditional watering holes.
7. The use of small farm management plans is fairly well disseminated, 
although with differing methods of use and success among Project 
Implementers.
a. A simpler, lower-cost plan could be more widely disseminated and used 
by the undereducated (for instance on newsprint similar to newspaper).
b. Such plans should also incorporate home gardens and those activities 
managed by women in the household (not only those activities managed 
by the men).
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
30 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
8. AGUA is financing two cooperative agreements to exclusively promote 
and train farmer groups in cooperative purchase of agricultural inputs at 
reduced costs and in cooperative marketing of produce. The agricultural 
diversification, marketing and commercialization activities carried out by 
IICA/CAMAGRO (SAGEM) have been concentrated outside of AGUA’s 
primary outreach area and have not necessarily been integrally linked to 
AGUA’s guiding principles of sustainable and integrated water resources 
use and conservation. This activity primarily added value to agricultural 
enhancement and diversification activities in the middle Rio Lempa 
watershed and only incipiently in the Ahuachapán Sur area served by 
other AGUA Implementers. Some CRS-supported irrigation schemes 
are not strategically linked to protecting the microwatersheds that 
produce water for these schemes. 
a. While such activities were not considered part of the original thrust of the 
Project, they are seen as potentially relevant in ensuring that intensified 
agricultural production with irrigation succeeds economically, thus 
adding value to the water resources used to irrigate non-traditional 
crops.
b. While it would be advantageous to incorporate SAGEM activities in the 
integral model approach proposed for the Project, financing for these 
activities should be provided under a different project (and/or different 
SO) & accessed as required in specific areas in the AGUA outreach 
area.
a. CRS activities should be expanded to fully embrace watershed 
management objectives in the microwatersheds producing water to 
irrigation systems financed by the Project, probably through more 
strategic microwatershed management planning with FUNDAMUNI.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. Promotion of soil and water conservation activities and diversification 
does not consistently adhere to strategic planning related to the overall 
objectives of the Project, especially in terms of selecting priority 
intervention areas and techniques according to watershed management 
needs. 
2. Participant groups were observed that were not relating their activities to 
the need to rehabilitate and/or manage watersheds. For some 
subprojects promoting diversification and irrigated commercial 
horticultural production, Implementers were not attending to farmers 
located in the upper watersheds of the water sources being tapped for 
irrigation where deforestation and improper hillside agriculture was 
being practiced. 
a. Project Implementers should consolidate Project activities in a selected 
number of sub- and microwatersheds, and develop a series of criteria on 
which to base this selection of geographic areas and activities to be 
promoted leading to the linkage of potable water and irrigation systems 
to their watersheds. Efforts should be made to complement any missing 
elements of the integrated model indicated in this report.
b. According to the menu of activities selected, Implementers should seek 
collaboration among other organizations working in AGUA to 
complement any deficiencies in their own staffing capabilities. 
3. Most of the groups organized and promoted under the Project are men￾only, with some women’s groups organized to promote home gardening, 
improved stove making, confection of artisanry and to market 
horticultural crops. Farm management plans only rarely included 
activities for women, thus serving to further divide the family farm 
concept by gender. 
a. More emphasis should be placed of the organization and/or
consolidation of women’s groups for demonstration of polycultural home 
gardens, cash crop diversification (including marketing arrangements) 
and community commercial nursery development for production of plant 
materials normally purchased by Project Implementers.
b. Farm plans should incorporate home gardens & activities managed by 
women in the household (not only those activities managed by the men).
4. Several more appropriate conservationist land and watershed 
management practices are not being promoted in critical watershed 
areas. Without treating these aspects, on-farm improvements in runoff 
and erosion control may be offset by continuing or increasing runoff and 
sedimentation from roads, stream banks and gullies. 
a. Project activities should be expanded and/or linkages made with other 
municipal and/or national government programs and other development 
organizations to facilitate: i) improved road drainage emulating natural 
contours and drainage ways; ii) reforestation/protection of stream 
corridors (greenbelts), steep hillsides and ravines, and critical aquifer 
recharge zones; and iii) promote improved pasture management, 
silvipasture/live fencing, cut-and-carry fodder. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 31
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
5. Various instances of deficient quality control and selection and 
promotion of improperly selected practices were observed, including 
some that were promoted under pay for work schemes instituted after 
the earthquake. 
a. Implementers should monitor and exert better quality control to reduce 
problems such as: planting trees under standing trees, construction of 
absorption ditches in pastures, fruit trees as live barriers, and vegetable 
production within restricted areas along stream corridors (farmers should 
maintain a minimum 5-10 m greenbelt between their field and streams)
b. Implementers should monitor and take real data on the viability of high￾cost vegetable production subprojects in areas of restricted or poor 
access.
c. Extension packages should include the reduction in the use of highly￾toxic (Category I and II) biocides and change to Category IV products 
and organics. 
6. One activity area included in the original project design, control of 
industrial contamination, has received little or no attention in project 
outreach areas (it should also be pointed out that there are very few 
industrial activities in these areas.
a. Activities for the control of industrial contamination should be removed 
from the AGUA portfolio, as these actions are included under several 
MARN programs financed by IDB and other agencies.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
32 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
3.4 Potable Water Systems, Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure
At the date of the evaluation, financing of infrastructure represented about 41% of total AGUA/WE
expenditures (see Table 3.1-A). However, when including CARE Consortium’s cost-share funding is
projected to the end of 2002, total infrastructure expenditures should exceed $8,500,000, or 46% of all of 
AGUA/WE financing. Of this total, potable water systems represent the great majority, about 88% of
infrastructure financing, while wastewater management systems (excluding latrines and absorption pits)
represents 7% and the two solid waste management subprojects had about 5% of total infrastructure
funding. The three principle infrastructure activities are potable water supply, wastewater treatment (some 
collection), and solid waste management (sanitary landfill construction). These projects are implemented 
through the CARE Consortium, PCI, World Vision, Border Development Services, and the SIA fund. 
Infrastructure projects under AGUA/WE have components that handle technical studies, design,
construction and construction management, training of local managers, creation and strengthening of local 
management organizations and billing systems, formation of local operators, formation of legal
ordinances to govern system operation and water use, linking water systems to health improvement and 
watershed protection, and project follow-up support. The detailed findings, conclusions and
recommendations for all of these activities are found in Table 3.4. The key overarching findings,
conclusions and recommendations for the larger activities are discussed below.
3.4.1 Findings and Conclusions
The AGUA IRs and performance indicators that define the implementation of the Activity use a confusing 
and time-consuming method to track increased coverage brought about by system construction or
rehabilitation that does not help project managers track their true progress in meeting development
objectives of the activities. There are no indicators that can be measured to directly track activity impacts, 
although there are two that can, with some modification, be used to measure the establishment of potable 
water supply infrastructure operating in a sustainable fashion. There are no results or indicators that link 
local health improvements to the provision of potable water supply systems. Findings and conclusions as 
they relate to the different infrastructure activities follow.
3.4.1.1 CARE Consortium
In terms of potable water infrastructure, both the physical and institutional aspects are deemed of the
highest quality. Management and quality control for project design, construction oversight, institutional
formation and strengthening, operation, maintenance, and administration training, and organizational
follow-up support are particularly strong. CARE Consortium Water supply infrastructure has served as a 
nexus for other local development activities and the Project has been successful in getting water
committees to support watershed management activities and to link water committees with their
counterparts in regional networks.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 33
AGUA Activity Evaluation
Table 3.4 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations for Infrastructure Interventions
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
USAID/El Salvador SO Level and CARE-AGUA Results and Indicators
A. Accomplishments
1. Result 4.2, Indicator 4.2.1 is a better way of tracking progress and 
impact than indicators 4.1, 4.2
a. Indicator 4.2.1 provides a clearer picture at much less effort than do 4.1 
and 4.2 and should serve as a model.
2. Indicators 4.2.2.2, and 4.4.2.1 are close to being indicators that 
measure infrastructure impact
a. These are the indicators that should receive attention from AGUA with 
respect to drawing conclusions on the sustainability of constructed water 
systems.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. There do not appear to be actual field Activities under Result 4.1.3 
Increased Use of Improved Industrial Practices
a. There has been no real advance on the indicator to date. USAID should 
consider removing this result from the AGUA Activity.
2. As it now stands there are really no described indicators that measure 
the sustainability of the infrastructure installed or facilitated by the 
Activity 
a. Simple proxy indicators that indicate that a system is functioning in a 
sustainable fashion should be drafted and used.
3. The results framework does not link water and sanitation infrastructure 
to health practices or benefits
a. There should be a result and indicator, however modest that recognizes 
this fact on the Activity Design level.
4. Certain results that are used to fulfill indicator requirements are 
subjective and whether the results satisfy the spirit of the indicator is 
open to interpretation 
a. Criteria should be established for results and indicators that ensure that 
the intent and “spirit” of the indicator is respected.
5. Indicator for sustainable system implementation is an output indicator 
not an impact indicator. (CARE-AGUA Indicator 2.1.5)
a. Simple impact indicators for infrastructure should be adopted by the end 
of the Activity to measure impact of infrastructure activities.
6. It is permissible under the accepted results framework to end with Water 
supply systems in the middle of construction as long as financing is 
assured. (Indicator 2.1.4 b)
a. CARE-AGUA must clarify how these will be provided for these projects. 
(having a municipality sign a paper that says that they will assume 
responsibility is not sufficient)
Water Supply and Sanitation
A. Accomplishments
1. The level of service provided by the CARE-AGUA water systems is 
uniformly high – a tremendous achievement given the size and 
technical complexity of the systems, the panorama of institutional 
collaborators in implementation, and the challenges of building 
sustainable local administrative and O&M capacity
a. CARE-AGUA should capture and prepare these criteria as part of a 
best-practices package.
2. CARE-AGUA has essentially saved the investments made by other 
donors (Red Cross, FISDL) on large water supply projects by providing 
a range of services to the implementation and/or the operation of these 
projects, and has succeeded in leveraging considerable external 
support
a. CARE/El Salvador’s highly developed systems has been proffered to 
several large donors who are principally focused on building 
infrastructure. Pursuing further alliances with donors that support 
construction is a recommended short and long term strategy for AGUA 
infrastructure.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
34 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Water Supply and Sanitation
A. Accomplishments (continued)
3. The use of the CEFA (Economic Competence based on the Formation 
of Businesses) model to build administrative and management capacity 
in Juntas de Agua has succeeded in creating excellent management 
organizations. 
a. Continue the use of CEFA and work to spread its use to other 
organizations and infrastructure projects.
4. Criteria to be satisfied by a community and the future water users for 
system inauguration is proper and is uniformly applied for the most part.
a. CARE-AGUA should capture and prepare these criteria as part of a 
best-practices package.
5. The six-month CARE-AGUA follow-up activity identifies technical and 
operational difficulties, bringing them to the attention of appropriate 
CARE consortia staff. 
a. CARE-AGUA should continue providing this service and capture lessons 
learned for a best-practices package that can be shared with other 
organizations
b. CARE-AGUA should provide follow-up services to work other 
infrastructure projects outside of CARE-AGUA (e.g., SIA)
6. The SIA is working with large populations to repair or expand service. 
Bringing CARE-AGUA training and watershed activities to these large 
systems has leveraged considerable impact on the sustainable 
management of the systems.
a. This type of collaboration should be actively pursued between the two 
projects.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement (Water Supply Systems)
1. The technical descriptions of the projects in the design folders were 
found in some cases to not describe sufficiently the criteria used to 
make particular design decisions that ended up being built in the field.
a. DASAGUA, serving as CARE-AGUA’s technical quality control entity 
must ensure that technical documents are of high quality and that 
changes made to a system during construction are reflected and justified 
in the technical documentation.
2. CARE-AGUA shall end the Project with systems are in construction. The 
strategy for capacity-building and follow-up on these systems is not 
clear.
a. A plan that provides supervision, training, and follow-up must be 
developed and put into place for these projects.
3. CARE-AGUA implements projects in a weak normative environment. 
National standards for water systems are not exacting and allow work of 
middling quality to be built. CARE-AGUA is not actively promoting its 
best practices to be accepted as national norms
a. The Water and Sanitation Network of El Salvador is working toward 
improving and standardizing norms used in water supply and sanitation 
infrastructure. CARE-AGUA should support these efforts.
4. The follow-up provided to system operators is not on the same level as 
that offered to the committees. Operators receive post-inauguration 
support from CARE-AGUA only when visible problems arise.
a. CARE-AGUA must develop and put a plan into place that provides a 
structured program of follow-up support to the operators and other 
technicians working on CARE-AGUA infrastructure.
5. The SIA does not have a clear strategy for community selection which 
causes difficulties in providing training, institutional strengthening, 
watershed conservation activities to the projects through the AGUA 
umbrella. 
a. SIA projects can greatly increase their impacts on sustainable 
management of water systems and protection of watersheds if they 
coordinated more closely with CARE-AGUA. AGUA should formally 
establish this coordination.
6. There are serious deficiencies in the quality of the SIA design 
documents, and criteria that must be met by SIA communities and users 
before a system can be inaugurated are not uniform
a. AGUA must support a mechanism that brings to the SIA the same 
technical criteria used in the CARE-AGUA and other USAID-funded 
infrastructure projects 
7. There is not a formal system of institutional or technical follow-up being 
provided to the SIA local water organizations.
a. AGUA must see that these components are made available to 
communities receiving these SIA funds.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 35
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Demonstration Technologies – Waste Water Treatment and Sanitary Landfills 
A. Accomplishments
AGUA is supporting important first steps in the application of sanitary 
landfill technology in El Salvador and is generating interest in and attention 
to the management and policy implications of these technologies
a. AGUA should continue focus on building the capacity of NGOs in this 
field.
b. AGUA should devote extra time and resources to support 
“demonstration management systems” to compliment the demonstration 
technologies.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. Environmental impact statements which serve as important tools to 
ensure good site-specific engineering design and construction practices 
are not being used as tools to this end and not helping support site￾specific designs or “no-go” decisions.
a. The USAID/El Salvador Environmental office should support training that 
raises awareness and instructs technicians on EIA implementation that 
meets USAID requirements.
2. Systems are being approved first and then designed to fit whatever site 
they happen to be provided. Local input and the no-build option are not 
sufficiently considered.
a. AGUA should establish basic entry criteria for committing to these 
projects 
b. AGUA should use local participatory activities to select appropriate 
systems for locales and not select technology and management without 
involving local actors.
3. Design criteria lack clarity in some important areas a. AGUA should support independent technical review of designs, 
construction and post-commissioning operation. 
4. Ground is being broken on projects without clarity in how management 
systems will function, how tariffs will be levied to cover recurring costs 
a. AGUA must apply a set of criteria for management that must be satisfied 
before construction begins, and criteria to be satisfied before 
commissioning.
5. There is low incentive for the landfill and WWT plant operator to perform 
at a high level
a. AGUA must formulate and then implement operator training that raises 
the awareness of the operators with respect to performance.
6. A formal program of follow-up supervision to trouble-shoot problems and 
support the O&M and managerial systems is not in place.
a. AGUA should support independent review of landfill and plant operation 
and support local training of NGO staff , operators, and managers to 
address shortcomings.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
36 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
CARE Consortium collaboration with different international organizations, GOES agencies and local
NGOs has been commendable and has helped leverage funds, materials and equipment for the Project.
The Consortium has also been able to support large water supply projects implemented by other
organizations that have primarily been focused on building infrastructure, to address quality control,
institutional development, and water resources management issues that are key to sustainability. On the 
other hand, rising electricity costs might threaten the tariff structure and successful operation and
management of water supply systems with wells and submersible electric pumps (the majority of the
systems).
For the CARE Consortium, certain results that are used to fulfill indicator requirements are subjective in 
nature and whether the results satisfy the spirit of the indicator is open to interpretation. There is no
impact indicator for sustainable system implementation. It is permissible under the accepted results
framework for the project to end with water supply systems in the middle of construction as long as
financing is assured.
3.4.1.2 Small Infrastructure Activity Water Supply Infrastructure 
SIA infrastructure activities have served as nexus for other local development activities in outreach areas 
served by the CARE Consortium (especially FUNDAMUNI areas). The impact of leveraged activities
such as water committees and operation and maintenance training can have great impact, particularly in 
large water systems that are using SIA funds for repairs or expansion. In some cases the CARE
Consortium is bringing its institutional strengthening, watershed protection, and other components to
complement the SIA project; however, this is not done systematically. SIA projects are selected based on 
opportunity, not within a strategic framework that could theoretically mandate their implementation in
priority watersheds or where the CARE Consortium could provide support. There are serious
shortcomings with respect to design documentation and justification, as well as construction shortcomings 
that reflect a lack of budget, technical norms, and technical supervision.
3.4.1.3 Demonstration Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and Solid Waste Management 
Solid waste landfills and wastewater treatment plants are still in a demonstration phase in El Salvador.
The technologies are proven in other countries, but are recently being introduced here. The general
findings and conclusions for the both these types of infrastructure are more directed at the fact that they
are demonstration technologies and, therefore, are presented together here. PCI is the lead NGO in
executing these demonstration projects under AGUA/WE financing. Detailed treatment of the particular 
areas can be found in Table 3.4 and in Annex 10 (for PCI), and Annex 9 (CARE Consortium).
Environmental impact assessments, which serve as important tools to ensure good site selection, and the
selection of adequate engineering design and construction practices are not being used as tools to this end; 
rather they are being poorly applied under a paperwork exercise required to gain MARN approval prior to 
breaking ground.14 Construction is being initiated on these projects with questions about management
systems, operation and maintenance, payment for service, (and landfill closeout) still unresolved. These
are unfamiliar technologies providing services that have a much lower community perception in terms of 
importance and demand for proper operation and maintenance than that for water systems. There are
 
14 MARN’s work in environmental impact assessment is incipient and still in its developmental stages. MARN is vastly 
understaffed and does not use uniform guidelines that facilitate determining the magnitude of potential impacts based on the 
size, location and nature of impacts of wastewater and solid waste projects. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 37
currently no cohesive plans to offer formal follow-up assistance to the institutions that will manage these 
systems after commissioning the infrastructure.
Because of the novelty of the technologies being used in the sanitary landfills and wastewater treatment 
plants, there are shortcomings in design, site preparation, and construction. Strong technical oversight is 
required during all phases of implementation. However plans to offer formal follow-up technical
assistance to the systems after they are commissioned were not included in the subproject proposals or
ensuing cooperative agreements with USAID.
3.4.2 Recommendations
3.4.2.1 The CARE Consortium
CARE/El Salvador’s highly developed systems for design, construction, administration, formation of
exemplary water management committees, and forming links between water supply and watershed
conservation should continue to be proffered to large donors who are principally focused on building
infrastructure. Pursuing further alliances with donors who are essentially construction contractors
provides an invaluable service to El Salvador and an attractive short and long term strategy for AGUA
infrastructure. Coordination between the CARE Consortium and SIA has been invaluable in contributing 
to the impact and sustainability of the SIA projects both in terms of water supply and integrated water
resources (watershed) management. The CARE Consortium should continue to actively bring SIA
projects under its umbrella. The Consortium should capture best-practices in infrastructure and work to
share them in El Salvador and elsewhere.
The Water and Sanitation Network of El Salvador is working toward improving and standardizing norms 
used in water supply and sanitation infrastructure in El Salvador. PCI, as coordinator, and CARE is in a 
position to support these efforts and should do so. The Consortium should explore and then work to
implement a sustainable long-term support network for water supply systems in El Salvador. This system 
could include participation from regional Networks of Water Committees (Red de Juntas de Agua), 
GOES-sponsored "circuit riders”, and UAM. The CARE Consortium should act now to analyze and
prepare a detailed plan for how supervision and follow-up support shall be provided to those projects still 
under construction at the end of project.
The CARE Consortium, with USAID’s oversight, should analyze and modify indicators that describe
progress toward water system user coverage, water quality, and sustainability issues of operation and
maintenance, and financing (see suggestions in section 3.7.3 and Table 3.7 later in this report). The results 
indicators should provide a clear picture of progress toward meeting target coverage. Over the next year, 
Project Implementers, especially the CARE Consortium, should develop indicators that measure the
sustainability of the constructed water systems. Information to inform these indicators can be collected by 
monitoring chlorine residual at households and cantaneras taps, reviewing tariff collection receipts,
evaluating operator skills and knowledge, reviewing minutes of meetings, and related activities. There
should be a result and indicator, however modest, that recognizes the fact that hygiene education and
thoughtful provision of sanitation systems increase the impact of water supply on the health of the users. 
CARE has used these indicators in other projects (i.e., PROSAGUAS) but does not take such data in
AGUA outreach areas. It is not clear that there is a plan to provide competent construction supervision or 
follow-up to systems that are in construction at the end of the project. CARE should clarify how these will 
be provided for these subprojects. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
38 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
3.4.2.1 SIA Water Supply Infrastructure
SIA financing, if used strategically within the AGUA umbrella, has the potential to leverage important
impacts in priority watersheds and/or in large populations. SIA projects can greatly increase their impacts 
on sustainable management of water systems and protection of watersheds if they were to be coordinated 
more closely with AGUA or similar projects. AGUA should establish criteria for strategic use of SIA
funding under the AGUA umbrella, which should include AGUA technical supervision, follow-up 
support, and watershed protection activities to the SIA communities.
3.4.2.3 Demonstration Technologies (Sanitary Landfills and Wastewater Treatment)
USAID/WE should continue and expand its focus on building the capacity of local NGOs (national and 
international) in the emerging technical fields of wastewater treatment and solid waste management.
Given the state of the GOES ministries and USAID/El Salvador experience with private contractors, this 
is a valid approach and should be continued. Wastewater and solid waste management systems are
difficult to sustain for a number of reasons, including: lack of perceived local demand, few incentives to 
properly operate infrastructures, cultural attitudes about garbage, and the politics of billing for services). 
USAID and its AGUA Implementers should devote the extra time and resources needed to support what 
are essentially “demonstration management systems” to complement these demonstration technologies.
Participatory planning approaches that bring users and local decision-makers into technology and
management process
Understanding that these are demonstration technologies for El Salvador, AGUA/WE Implementers , and 
PCI and CARE/Border Development Services in particular, should support independent technical review 
of designs before construction is initiated, supervise and exert quality control of construction before the
plant is commissioned, and make periodic monitoring visits after commissioning to provide technical
advise as may be required. NGO staffs need to understand that the purpose of an environmental impact 
assessment is to ensure competent engineering decisions are made that incorporate on-site and off-site 
issues into the design and construction planning. The USAID/El Salvador Environmental office should
provide technical guidelines and support training that raises awareness and instructs technicians on EIA
implementation that meets USAID requirements. For these demonstration projects, a follow-up program 
of technical assistance in operation, maintenance and management should be designed and implemented.
3.5 Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Sustainable Use of Natural 
Resources
The environmental education component is the primary responsibility of the CARE Consortium, with
SalvaNatura coordinating efforts among all members in their respective outreach areas. Also, World
Vision dedicates approximately 5% of its efforts in its microwatershed projects in Ahuachapán Sur.
Details on the findings, conclusions and recommendations for these activities are presented in Table 3.5. 
3.5.1 Findings and Conclusions
AGUA has succeeded through environmental education activities in increasing citizen knowledge of and 
participation in the AGUA project, and in facilitating initiatives to protect and conserve water resources 
and the environment. SalvaNatura has built broad capacity within all members of the Consortium in
environmental education, developing a number of especially strong educators among members’ staffs.
Accomplishments include development of a great number and variety of guides, innovative didactic
material and educational activities both formal and non-formal learning. The Consortium has yet to
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 39
provide full training to its entire staff in the elements of environmental education and component
activities. Most notable is the exclusion of staffs working in promotion and extension of soil and water
conservation/agricultural diversification activities.
The Environmental Learning Centers established in various communities are seen as an integral part of
the communities in which they re located, but these centers have not yet realized their full potential at the 
micro- and subwatershed levels. Environmental Learning Centers have put AGUA in a position to:
support a more operational role in educating the public; serve local organizations that require
environmental information, guidance or services; and serve as advocates for the incorporation of
environmental and watershed protection in local organizational action plans. Didactic and educational 
materials produced and used by AGUA for environmental education have been used with youths, local
leaders and local agricultural producers. This has promoted consciousness-raising and local
conservationist actions on water resource management such as watershed and source protection, repair of 
water system conduits, composting and recycling activities, and in the case of ecotourism (i.e.,
Charguantique) an opportunity to leverage funding from other sources. Nevertheless, many of these
materials still require field validation based on local expectations and requirements vis a vis
environmental learning. It is not clear that the materials being used and reproduced by AGUA have been 
fully validated in field trials with prospective participants before they have been mass-produced and
distributed throughout the Project outreach areas by CARE Consortium partners. As socioeconomic and 
agroecologic conditions are somewhat different among the different outreach areas (coast vs. mountains, 
types of agriculture and protection systems, young vs. older beneficiaries, etc), the environmental
education messages need to be customized to reach these differing groups. For example, some problems 
were detected in the validity of several of the publications distributed by the Consortium, such as the
language and approaches used in the booklets on municipal ordinances, wherein the intended messages
are not adequately perceived by their intended target population. It appears that the Consortium rushed
many of the materials into publication and dissemination without systematically field testing them and
making necessary revisions. Some of these problems are being addressed in the more recently produced 
materials. Also, there is still a pending need for environmental education to play the part of a nexus of all 
AGUA components. The Learning Centers also spend a lot of time discussing macro issues when there
are community-based, local environmental issues that they could address and then relate them to macro￾issues, like global warming).
One innovation that merits special attention is that of payment of environmental services by communities 
served by potable water systems that use the El Imposible National Park as their water source. 
Communities’ perception of the protected areas has been enhanced through the Project. Portions of water 
fees collected by these communities are financing the salaries of two park rangers—an excellent case 
study example of sustainability. Also, several ecotourism initiatives, one promoted by SACDEL in 
Charguantique and already operational, and the other in formative stages in the La Montaña de Santa Rita 
Protected Area, offer income producing alternatives for local communities to the destruction of their 
forest remnants.
3.5.2 Recommendations
AGUA should make environmental education training available to all staff, with an emphasis on applying 
elements of the component’s objectives it to their particular activities. AGUA should also consider
specialized training for staff in environmental education, using mechanisms such as intra-Consortium 
exchanges and cross-visits to each member’s outreach areas to consolidate strategies and approaches.
AGUA should, in the course of its work in this component, design and implement a process for
systematically validating environmental education materials at the field level and for the varying
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
40 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
socioeconomic and agroecologic conditions present in the AGUA outreach areas. During the extended
strategy period, it is suggested that the CARE Consortium determine the applicability and utility of those 
materials already produced, including an analysis of the level of understanding on the part of targeted
groups of the messages presented in these materials, and make any necessary changes to these materials 
for subsequent use in AGUA-related activities in the future. 
The Learning Centers are engaging participants in educational activities but are not engaging these
participants in what would be considered to be an actual cycle of learning. The Centers must define their 
teaching and learning methodologies and organizations before AGUA project end and put together
strategic action plans that focus their energies on issues of local environmental importance. While
environmental education must touch on issues of global importance, addressing issues of local concern
should be the primary activity in the Centers.
The Centers are typically not engaging in local environmental monitoring activities or thinking about
charging for services of environmental monitoring as a possible income-generating activity. The Centers 
should see themselves not just as centers of learning but as providers of local environmental services—
e.g., mobilizing or educating the community, providing environmental monitoring services, helping to
develop environmental ordinances and ordinance implementation strategies—to water committees,
watershed committees, municipalities, local development committees, etc. To this end, AGUA should
help the Centers obtain their legal status to facilitate such actions, whether separately or as an related sub￾organization of the local watershed organizations (to be legalized under the decree creating the
Interinstitutional Watershed Management Commission) and focus on those income generating activities
with real promise for success, using market research to drive the decisions on what activities to pursue. 
AGUA should also increase implementation of training of trainers activities at the Learning Centers to
support sustainability of environmental education activities after AGUA’s exit.
AGUA has generated a multitude of activities around water resource use and conservation and an
incipient coordination between local organizations that it is hoped will help to sustain AGUA activities
after the Project’s exit. To strengthen this area, AGUA should put together for these organizations a
methodology guide for the planning and development of water resource and watershed protection
activities. AGUA should monitor and support these inter-organizational relationships and collaborations, 
promoting collaborative planning and socialization of priorities. 
The Environmental Education component tends to count as its performance indicators activities that are
also being counted by other AGUA components. How this is sorted out at the time of reporting is not
clear. If environmental education is indeed a nexus for all AGUA components, counting of results and
outputs toward Project IRs should be integrated on the level of the other Project components and be a
topic that is addressed on the planning for the integration of project activities recommended by the
Evaluation Team that should take place over the period of the extended strategy period (and subsequently 
extended AGUA ACD).
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 41
AGUA Activity Evaluation
Table 3.5: Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
A. Accomplishments
1. AGUA has built strong capacity in the consortia in environmental 
education, and especially strong educators among the consortia 
members. 
a. Standardizing materials and training provided to staff members has 
brought about a standard approach to environmental education in the 
field, which has been successful in educating the target population.
2. AGUA has developed a great number and variety of guides, innovative 
didactic material and educational activities both formal and non-formal. 
(radio programs, puppets, etc.) 
a. These materials are serving the needs of a diverse group of educators –
school teachers, local promoters, and AGUA staff. 
b. Environmental Education is a nexus of knowledge on all of the different 
components of the AGUA Project. 
3. The Environmental Learning Centers are successful providers of 
environmental information on the local level and have successfully 
promoted the incorporation of youth into the AGUA project. 
a. Support given to the Centers has allowed them to become operational –
implementing small projects 
b. The Centers have worked to link activities to income generation and this 
should continue.
4. AGUA has been able to reach both local organizations and the general 
public with environmental messages by engaging both in environmental 
education activities. 
a. This has been accomplished by facilitating environmental educational 
processes with local leaders and through incentives targeting youths. 
5. AGUA has developed or supported diagnostic activities in critical 
environmental initiatives around water, watershed protection system 
repair, composting projects, waste recycling, etc. 
a. These activities have served to raise local awareness and motivate local 
participation in local environmental management. 
6. AGUA has facilitated important pilot environmental projects in ecotourism 
and other areas that link resource use with natural resource conservation 
and protection. 
a. AGUA has catalyzed local participation, opened doors to work with and 
strengthen organizations, leverage development resources, and build 
local capacity through pilot project implementation. 
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. Within the AGUA project itself, AGUA has not provided full training to its 
entire Consortium staff in the environmental education component. Most 
notable is the exclusion of consortia agricultural promotion/extension 
staff.
a. AGUA should make environmental education training available to all staff, 
with an emphasis on applying it to their particular component. 
b. AGUA should consider specialized training for staff in environmental 
education, using techniques such as inter-consortia exchanges/visits.
2. It is not clear that the materials being used and reproduced by AGUA 
have been validated in field trials. 
a. AGUA should in the course of its work in this component design and 
implement a process of for validating AGUA environmental education 
materials, so that by project end any necessary changes can be made in 
the materials resulting in validated environmental education resources for 
general use 
3. The learning Centers are engaging participants in educational activities 
but are not engaging these participants in what would be considered to 
be an actual cycle of learning. The Learning Centers also spend a lot of 
time discussing macro issues when there are community and local 
environmental issues that they could address.
a. The Centers must define their teaching and learning methodologies and 
organizations before AGUA project end. 
b. Each Center should put together strategic action plans that focus their 
energies on issues of local environmental importance. While 
environmental education must touch on issues of global importance, 
addressing issues of local concern should be the primary activity in the 
Centers. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
42 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
4. The Centers are typically not engaging in local environmental monitoring 
activities or thinking about environmental monitoring as a possible 
income generating activity.
a. AGUA should build monitoring capacity as well as making the Centers 
places that can be used by local organizational leaders who require 
information on environmental rules/regulations, or who require help in 
developing environmental regulations of their own.
b. AGUA should help the Centers focus on those income generating 
activities with real promise for success, using market research to drive 
the decisions on what activities to pursue. 
c. The Centers should seen as centers of learning and providers of local 
environmental services – e.g., mobilizing or educating the community, 
providing environmental monitoring services and advice on regulations –
to water committees, watershed committees, municipalities, local 
development committees, etc.
5. AGUA uses a supply-side approach to environmental education, offering 
a general product to all of the Centers. 
a. AGUA should experiment more with demand side approaches to training, 
performing diagnostics to either fine-tune approaches used at each 
center or to validate the supply-side strategy.
b. AGUA should be focusing on training of trainers activities at the centers 
to support sustainability of environmental education activities after 
AGUA’s exit. 
6. AGUA has generated a multitude of activities around water resource use 
and conservation and an incipient coordination between local 
organizations that it is hoped will help to sustain AGUA activities after the 
Project’s exit. 
a. To strengthen this area, AGUA should put together for these 
organizations a methodology guide for the planning and development of 
water resource and watershed protection activities. 
b. AGUA should monitor and support these inter-organizational 
relationships and collaborations, promoting collaborative planning and 
socialization of priorities. 
7. The Environmental Education component tends to count towards its 
Project results activities that are also being counted by other AGUA 
components. How this is sorted out at the time of reporting is not clear. 
a. If environmental education is indeed an nexus for all AGUA components, 
it counting of production towards Project results should be integrated on 
the level of the other Project components.
8. The Environmental Education component does not have either indicators 
nor measuring tools to monitor its impact 
a. AGUA should develop indicators and measuring activities that will 
capture the changes in behavior of beneficiaries as impact of the 
Environmental Education component. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 43
3.6 Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of
Water Resources
This subsection summarizes the findings, conclusions and recommendations with respect to the strategic 
planning approaches used by Implementers, as well as several policy and regulatory initiatives undertaken 
primarily by the members of the CARE Consortium to promote sustainable use of water resources and
watershed management. The full list of findings and conclusions, together with recommendations
concerning these activities are presented in Table 3.6.
3.6.1 Findings and Conclusions
AGUA has facilitated raising the awareness of stakeholders at varying levels of Salvadoran institutions
and society of the need to sustain water resources with integrated watershed management strategies,
including agricultural producer groups, municipal governments, and technical professionals. Strategic
planning by AGUA Implementers has been somewhat weak, as diagnostic studies did not incorporate
sufficient hydrogeomorphological and agroecological parameters, leaving the selection of projects areas 
biased toward the existence of interested community groups. This in part may be attributed to the pressure 
from USAID to achieve physical targets, but also indicates some deficiencies in the strategic planning
approaches used by Implementers. Acknowledging the need to increase efforts to meet these WE targets
and expand the areas of project impact to water policy improvements, solid waste treatment and
wastewater treatment, USAID signed additional cooperative agreements with a number of other
Implementers. However, some of this financing only marginally tied to AGUA objectives, resulting in
some problems of geographic and technical project drift.
The strategy and process for promoting the issuing of municipal ordinances to encourage integrated
resources management and environmental health should lead to better local control of problems leading to 
watershed and water resources deterioration as mechanisms are put in place to apply and enforce them. 
The CARE Consortium’s efforts at the national level, working closely with consultants provided under
USAID’s Global Environmental Health Project and MARN, will hopefully lead to the establishment of
the National Watershed Management Commission and facilitate legalization of local watershed 
committees being organized by the Consortium in project outreach efforts. Furthermore, nearly all
Implementers are advancing to some degree the innovation of incorporating the costs of environmental
services in water fees charged to customers of small communal and municipal water systems—a 
fundamental step in guaranteeing the sustainability of both water systems and the watersheds that serve
them—but as yet, the policy has not been linked to irrigation water supplies. 
On the other hand, AGUA has not adequately met its obligations under its Initial Environmental
Examination (IEE) and no adequate environmental assessments were performed for higher-risk 
wastewater and solid waste management projects, presenting actual and potential problems with their
construction and operation. According to the text of the AGUA Environmental Threshold Decision (LAC￾IEE-98-29, authorized on September 7, 1998), under section II, Recommendation: “If a sub-grant is
proposed for an action for which there is no approved guidelines in the Mission documentation, a site
specific EA should be performed. Therefore, we recommend that the environmental recommendations
made in the previous Environmental Assessments be made available to the participating secondary
organizations, but that no further investigation be required.” The guidelines referred to in the Decision 
are those covered under the IEEs for the Public Services Improvement Project (519-0094) and the Small 
Infrastructure Activity (519-0094). According to Project Implementers, these guidelines were not
provided by the Mission. Furthermore, the scale potential for negative environmental impacts of solid
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
44 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
waste and wastewater management systems should have required a more stringent environmental due￾diligence. While documentation was presented to MARN under its environmental assessment regulations, 
the content and quality of these documents did not qualify as an EA under standards normally upheld by 
USAID. An amended to the IEE was issued on November 16, 2000 to cover the drilling of wells.
Guidelines established in this amendment, by reference to those already in use under PROSAGUAS and 
standards held by ANDA, have generally been followed. However, the recommendation included in the
amendment stated that: “USAID and CARE will keep track of the results and effectiveness of the
guidelines and will use this experience for improvement of [USAID] well drilling guidelines in the future. 
[USAID] will also provide suggestions to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources on the
content of a National guideline for well drilling activities.” While it cannot be stated emphatically, no
evidence was found during the evaluation that these actions have been taken by the Mission. 
The grouping of the activities and respective performance indicators under the four AGUA components is 
confusing and causes difficulties in project administration and in monitoring the impacts of Project
activities. The original project design did not include the indicators necessary to adequately assess the
social, economic and/or environmental impacts of Project interventions and progress towards the Activity 
SO and IRs. Also, there is currently insufficient coordination among CTOs both within the WE Office
and those of other USAID offices, as several procedures and standards differ among projects and are not 
being sufficiently coordinated at the field level, thereby necessitating that every project be self-sufficient 
in all technical areas. 
3.6.2 Recommendations
AGUA Implementers should integrate all activities into a selected number of sub- and microwatersheds, 
using strategic planning criteria on which to base the selection of appropriate geographic areas and
technical activities with linkage to potable water and irrigation systems to their watersheds. Implementers 
should seek collaboration among other organizations working in AGUA to complement any deficiencies 
in their own staffing capabilities both within and without the Consortium. Application of policies related 
to incorporating the costs of environmental services should be intensified and incorporated in all
subprojects, and formalized in municipal ordinances and bylaws of water boards and committees. In the 
case of those municipal ordinances already promulgated, AGUA should assist municipalities in their
adequate application and enforcement through knowledge of instruments and lessons learned in other
municipalities in El Salvador and countries in the region. 
USAID needs to review its internal oversight for quality control on the AGUA IEE process through more 
formal procedures involving its Environmental Officer and provide Implementers with adequate
guidelines, standards and training to ensure compliance with the spirit and letter of the AGUA Project
IEE. MARN’s environmental assessment efforts are in their infancy and the Ministry does not have
sufficient personnel with the professional skills necessary to ensure the environmental viability of
subprojects promoted under AGUA. USAID’s own procedures should include requirements to consider at 
least 3 alternative sites for wastewater and solid waste management projects, as selection of an adequate
site is the most important step in ensuring the environmental sustainability of the operation of these
works. Even as land is at a premium in El Salvador, this requirement will also serve to reduce the politics 
surrounding the purchase of land for such projects, including problems of land/price speculation and
corruption. 
USAID should also make an effort to unify technical procedures and standards, during both design and 
operational phases, for all projects within the mission, regardless of the geographical focus or counterpart 
organizations, and promote greater geographic and technical coordination among projects regardless of
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 45
which SO or office where assigned. For instance, WE should coordinate the provision of technical and 
operational outreach in aspects of integrated water resources/watershed management with HO and
Earthquake Reconstruction Program (ERP) where these offices promotes improved water and sanitation 
services, and with EGE where water resources are being used for diversified agriculture and agroindustry. 
Concomitantly, HO and EGE should coordinate delivery of services provided under projects financed out 
of these offices to cover needs that WE does not routinely handle under its SO. This should achieve
mutual technical and impact-related “value-added” among all projects, contribute to all projects’
sustainability objectives, and reduce problems of project drift. Also, impact indicators related to IRs for
WE can be improved based on the experience of HO and, depending on the adoption of some of the
indicators suggested in Table 3.7 below, WE can contribute to the cross-referencing of indicators that can 
enrich the assessment of impacts of activities promoted under projects financed by the other offices in the 
Mission. 
USAID, in close consultation with its Implementers, should reorder AGUA activities under the existing 
components in order to facilitate more efficient administration, monitoring and evaluation of Project
activities. USAID and Implementers should also review the utility and validity of current performance
indicators, consider reducing their number and improving the instruments used to track the indicators of
those found most useful, and include additional indicators to more accurately monitor the impact of
project interventions and progress toward meeting SO4 and IRs. 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
46 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
AGUA Activity Evaluation
Table 3-6: Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations for 
Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of Water Resources
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
A. Accomplishments
1. The innovation of promoting consortia among NGOs to carry out 
collaborative implementation of the AGUA Activity has worked out well, 
albeit after an initial year of interrelational growing pains. Individual 
NGOs have also carried out their duties without any major problems. 
a. While the CARE/SalvaNatura/FUNDAMUNI/SACDEL Consortium has 
worked out well, USAID should continue to support activities through 
individual NGOs to engender competition and innovation, but encourage 
more collaboration among these in priority geographic areas based on 
their respective specialties to address integrated program needs. 
2. The Project has facilitated raising consciousness at varying levels of El 
Salvadoran society about the importance of sustaining water resources 
with integrated watershed management strategies, including agricultural 
producer groups, municipal governments and technical professionals. 
a. This accomplishments represents one of the most important advances 
under the Project, as such actions are fundamental to guaranteeing the 
sustainability of project-sponsored activities in water resources 
management.
3. Project Implementers were able to consolidate groups that they 
previously had assisted under other projects (including 
PROMESA/GreenProject financed by USAID) which permitted 
reestablishment of demonstration sites and a quick startup of activities 
in AGUA outreach areas.
a. Earlier projects were not able to achieve local development and 
consciousness-raising goals nor reach a critical mass of the population 
due to restrictions of time and resources. AGUA has capitalized on these 
earlier projects and has been able to fulfill many of the goals of capacity 
building and technology transfer.
4. AGUA’s strategic focus on the watershed as a planning unit is gaining 
acceptance at local levels as citizens and local government officials are 
relating the quality and quantity of their water resources to the condition 
of local and regional watersheds. 
a. The Project has facilitated the creation of sub- and microwatershed 
committees that combine representatives of civic and government 
organizations of one or more municipalities and numerous cantones in 
efforts to collectively manage water resources shared by all parties—one 
of the principal objectives of the proposed regulation to establish the 
Interinstitutional Watershed Commission and local watershed 
organizations.
5. The approach of promoting the promulgation of municipal ordinances to 
encourage environmental protection and water resources conservation 
is the correct one, as long as mechanisms are put in place to apply and 
enforce them. 
a. The next step in applying and enforcing municipal ordinances needs to be 
articulated and promoted under the Project, using precedents in other 
municipalities as these may be available in El Salvador or neighboring 
countries.
6. Efforts at the national level through the National Water and Sanitary 
Network and MARN have served to educate a broad cross-section of 
Salvadoran society in the need for cohesive and equitable water 
resource laws and a draft executive decree to establish a regulation to 
the National Environmental Law to create a national watershed 
management commission and facilitate legalization of local watershed 
committees.
a. CARE should continue its efforts with MARN to see through efforts to 
establish the Interinstitutional Watershed Commission, but increase 
emphasis on the establishment and strengthening of subwatershed and 
microwatershed committees (note that the draft regulation tends to support 
establishment of larger watershed organizations in deference to 
microwatershed committees).
b. It is suggested that all activities of the Project concerning the General 
Water Law be ended and any remaining activities be dealt with directly by 
the Water and Sanitation Network acting as advocate.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 47
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
7. The Project has been innovative in its promotion of including the costs 
of environmental services as a line item in water fees charged to 
customers of small communal and municipal water systems. While 
these efforts are incipient, such actions represent a fundamental step in 
guaranteeing the sustainability of both water systems and the 
watersheds that serve them.
a. The inclusion of such charges needs to be promoted uniformly throughout 
the Project outreach area by all Implementers. 
b. A minimum of 10% of water fees charged should be directed to conserving 
and improving conditions in the upland watersheds.
c. Charges for environmental services should be formally incorporated into 
tariff structures vis-à-vis statutes of each water board’s bylaws and 
municipal ordinances.
8. The CLARA Program represents a promising strategy and mechanism 
for use in monitoring of water sources and potable water systems, and 
as an environmental health education tool.
a. The current CLARA program, administered by FUNDAMUNI, is restricted 
to a limited number of schools in Usulután but, based on the success of 
the program to date, should be expanded throughout all of AGUA’s 
outreach area.
b. CLARA work on water quality monitoring should be disseminated 
throughout AGUA’s outreach areas, with data systematically collected and 
analyzed as an impact indicator. 
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. The municipal and subwatershed diagnoses using gender as an axis, 
while very useful to profile socioeconomic and environmental conditions 
in project areas, have not included elements of strategic planning 
necessary to prioritize geographic areas and techniques to deal with 
problems in watersheds. 
a. On a positive note, diagnoses produced profiles of problems from men and 
women’s perspectives, thus guiding program development.
b. AGUA Implementers (esp. CARE Consortium) should revisit guidelines for 
diagnostic studies & include strategic elements to facilitate prioritizing 
problems and solutions with both a geographic and socioeconomic 
context. 
2. Deficiencies in strategic planning have resulted in the dispersion of 
project interventions without regard to geographical watershed 
management priorities as these relate to integrated water resources 
management. Several of the sub- and microwatershed plans place too 
much emphasis on socioeconomic & agroecologic 
descriptions/problems, followed by a long list of proposed subprojects, 
many of which have little relation to the AGUA objectives. On the other 
hand, most of these plans are being presented late in the AGUA Project 
cycle and may be of limited use for guiding activities.
a. AGUA activities should be consolidated into a selected number of sub- and 
microwatersheds integrating all salient elements that may be currently 
missing, and linking potable water and irrigation systems to their tributary 
microwatersheds. 
b. According to the menu of activities selected, Implementers should seek 
collaboration among other organizations working in AGUA to complement 
any deficiencies in their own staffing capabilities (within/without the 
Consortium).
3. Environmental assessment of AGUA subprojects, especially those of 
higher environmental risk such as wastewater treatment and solid 
waste landfills, have been deficient. While MARN has approved these 
subprojects based on limited and incomplete information, these 
documents do not meet minimum regional standards or USAID’s 
requirements under the AGUA Activity IEE. Minor to moderate 
environmental problems have been detected in relation to most of these 
projects.
a. USAID should review its internal oversight for quality control on the AGUA 
IEE process, provide necessary guidelines and facilitate training to ensure 
compliance. This should include requirements to consider at least 3 
alternative sites for wastewater and solid waste management projects. 
b. Demonstration efforts in agricultural diversification and irrigation, 
marketing, solid waste management and wastewater treatment and 
disposal should be accompanied by higher-quality diagnostic analyses in 
order to project potential social, economic and environmental impacts and 
incorporate necessary design changes and mitigation.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
48 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
4. There is insufficient coordination among CTOs and their respective 
projects in the application of standards, and supervision of quality 
control among the differing sources of financing. Also, projects financed 
by USAID under other SOs are not being coordinated at the field level 
to interchange complementary technical services, thus requiring that 
every project be self-sufficient in all technical areas (very inefficient). 
a. USAID should make an effort to unify technical standards for all projects 
within the mission, regardless of the geographical focus or counterpart 
organizations.
b. USAID should promote synergies among projects regardless of which SO 
or office where assigned. Such synergies should consider advantages of 
geographic overlap to achieve “value-added” among projects, and the 
provision of specialty services from one project’s executing agencies to 
others where such capability may not exist.
5. The counting of “water-related changes” under IR 4.3, More Effective 
Citizen Actions to Address Water Issues, is very ambiguous and 
includes a large number of activities, some double counted under other 
IRs (such as the repair of water systems). 
a. While it is understood that such “changes” are difficult to define, AGUA 
Implementers should dedicate part of the aforementioned effort to reorder 
activities and indicators within the components to more precise definitions 
of what such changes entail. These changes should be limited to the 
outputs/products that spring from environmental education per se, and not 
confused with such activities as repair of water systems, adding 
chlorinators to water systems and/or reforestation activities that would 
normally be counted under other activities. 
6. The current grouping of the activities (and indicators of execution) under 
AGUA components is confusing and complicates their administration as 
well as efforts to monitor the impacts of Project activities. For example, 
soil/water conservation and agroforestry activities are budgeted under 
the same component with wastewater treatment and solid waste 
management.
a. To better administrate and monitor AGUA activities, USAID and 
Implementers should analyze and propose a reordering of activities under 
the existing components.
b. USAID and Implementers should also review the utility and validity of 
current performance indicators and consider reducing their number and 
improving the instruments used to track the indicators of those found most 
useful.
7. Some double counting of beneficiaries is occurring across several 
components in areas where two or more organizations are working in 
collaboration (primarily assumed to affect PCI and FUNDAMUNI in 
Usulután). Also, the interpretation of what constitutes fulfillment of an 
indicator and when an activity can be counted is very subjective to 
interpretation.
a. As part of the recommended exercise to reorder activities and indicators 
under each Project component, it is suggested that definitions for these 
indicators be refined so as to reflect “hard numbers” limited to an 
established set of qualifiers.
b. Where certain activities yield products that do not fit exactly into the 
aforementioned indicators, then any anomalies should be clarified with a 
technical footnote.
8. The original project design did not include, nor is the Project now 
monitoring, the indicators necessary to appropriately and quantitatively 
determine the social, economic and/or environmental impacts of Project 
interventions and progress in achieving IRs 
a. Throughout the Mission’s extended strategy period and extended AGUA 
ACD, USAID should encourage the establishment of a minimum number of 
impact indicators with direct relevance to the AGUA IRs (see Table 3.7), 
establish an adequate baseline (where one has not yet exist) and monitor 
these throughout the period of the extended ACD (until 9/30/04).
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 49
3.7 General Recommendations to USAID regarding the AGUA/WE Activity
Recommendations which respond to the general findings and conclusions presented in section 3.1 are
presented in more detail in Table 3.1. The following subsection focuses on some of the more important
general recommendations of the evaluation. The principal recommendation of the evaluation, applicable
to the Mission’s extended strategy period until September 30, 2004, is as follows:
USAID should extend existing cooperative agreements and provide those funds necessary
beyond the actual AGUA ACD and until the end of the extended strategy period (until September 
of 2004) so that current Implementers consolidate project activities in selected sub- and
microwatersheds in order to establish integrated models of decentralized management and
sustainable use of water resources. These models should include all elements currently being
promoted in different parts of the project area by implementing organizations, including:
· A participatory water resources/watershed management plan supported by all relevant groups;
· Municipal ordinances regulating environmental health and integrated water resources management;
· One or more water systems (for potable and/or irrigation uses) served by respective watersheds;
· Environmental and public health education and awareness programs, and civic groups active in water 
resources advocacy;
· Water use tariff structures that include a minimum 10% of fees dedicated to management of
contributing watersheds; and 
· A more science-based monitoring and evaluation system based on indicators of impact as well as
performance indicators.
The Evaluation Team finds that all Implementers are doing an admirable job in meeting their targets and 
promoting most of the elements of SO4. The CARE Consortium in particular is promoting all elements of 
the sub- and microwatershed management model as a basis to achieve the integrated management of
water resources, albeit with some exceptions as noted in the preceding sections of this report.
Implementers have made important advances in developing a decentralized integrated water resources
management model linking the sustainability of potable water and irrigation systems to the integrated
management of their tributary watersheds. However, due to short period of execution (three years to date) 
and interruptions brought about by the January and February 2001 earthquakes, activities under AGUA
have not yet reached the critical point necessary to ensure their sustainability, nor have the various
technical, institutional and financial instruments being promoted by Implementers been sufficiently
consolidated into proven and replicable models in El Salvador. It would be counterproductive at this
juncture to re-compete the cooperative agreements necessary to implement activities during the extended 
strategy period for the following reasons:
i) the experience in working with local community groups and under those socioeconomic and 
agroecologic represented in the Project’s targeted outreach areas could be lost with
replacement of one or more of the implementers;
ii) a new competition would produce disruption and break in continuity of activities still in
execution, especially demonstration projects, and result in lost momentum, disillusionment of
project participants/beneficiaries and probable irretrievable loss of counterpart and cost-share 
funding;
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
50 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
iii) should current Implementers be changed, then this would compound the impacts of the
upcoming municipal and congressional elections on AGUA efforts, as the cast of new actors
on both sides—implementers and participants—will most probably produce chaos and
drastically reduce the potential for reaching AGUA/WE objectives; and
iv) other similar efforts by USAID to re-compete the management of activities already in
execution (for example, PROARCA) have ended up in the selection of the same implementing 
organizations which have had to re-mobilize project activities after a one-year break, resulting 
in serious cost inefficiencies applicable to USAID and the organizations involved, and
necessitating the rehiring and retraining of staff resources and additional logistical
expenditures related to re-mobilization. 
The decisions on how to proceed with the reassignment or suspension of cooperative agreements with
those Implementers promoting activities with only marginal applicability to AGUA objectives (i.e.,
agricultural diversification and marketing) should be taken within the context of USAID’s Mission
portfolio and overall development strategy for El Salvador (see below). 
3.7.1 Strategic Focus of Activities until FY04
As part of the effort to implement the principal recommendation of the evaluation indicated above,
USAID and Implementers should Implementers should develop a series of criteria on which to base the
selection of those sub- and microwatersheds for consolidation. The principal strategic element to consider 
is that of linking water systems (potable and/or irrigation) to their tributary watersheds.15 Efforts should 
be made to complement any missing elements of the integrated model indicated above. In response to the 
eventual selection of the sub- and microwatersheds and technical activities to be consolidated therein,
where Implementers may not have sufficient expertise or experience for particular technical approaches, 
they should seek collaboration among other organizations working in AGUA/WE activities in order to
complement any deficiencies in their own staffing and outreach capabilities (this is already happening
among the Consortium partners and to a limited extent among the other implementing organizations).
While agricultural diversification and marketing activities were not considered part of the original thrust 
of the Project, they are relevant to ensuring that intensified agricultural production with irrigation
succeeds economically, and should be continued but under different arrangements. Hence, it would be
worthwhile for USAID to continue the funding of CRS and IICA/CAMAGRO activities, but they should 
be funded and administered under a different SO (i.e., Economic Growth) with outreach services offered, 
if not strategically oriented, to specific areas in the AGUA outreach area. On the other hand, agricultural 
diversification activities promoted under the Economic Growth SOs that deal with water supply for
irrigation and/or agroindustry should embrace the principles of integrated water resources management,
including soil and water conservation and upland watershed management and can access services from
AGUA/WE Implementers. This strategic approach would facilitate cost-effective synergies and impacts
of added value to both Strategic Objectives.
Concerning the policy initiatives, CARE Consortium members should assist municipalities in articulating 
equitable mechanisms to apply and enforce municipal ordinances promulgated with assistance of the
Project, preferably considering similar precedents in other municipalities as these may be available in El
Salvador or neighboring countries (especially Costa Rica and Mexico). CARE should continue its efforts 
 
15 As an objective of the AGUA/SO4 Activity is to integrally manage watersheds, for water systems that use wells as a water 
source, activities should be linked to the micro- or subwatersheds within which the respective communities reside, even if 
the source for the well water is hydrogeologically outside of these geographic limits.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 51
with MARN in support of the initiative to establish the Interinstitutional Watershed Commission, but
increase emphasis on the establishment and strengthening of subwatershed and microwatershed
committees, as such efforts in Cara Sucia, Rio Borbollón, El Zúngaro and Rio Corinto (among others) are 
quite promising and should be cultivated as models for eventual replication. AGUA activities related to
the General Water Law should be concluded and the Water and Sanitation Network, currently coordinated 
by PCI, should act as advocate. 
3.7.2 Reordering of Activities under Existing Components and IRs
USAID should convene a working group with the CARE Consortium and PCI to analyze and propose a
reordering of activities under the existing components. Such a reordering should consider criteria that
would facilitate administration (grouping of purchases of goods and services, and accounting categories), 
annual project planning and reporting (work plans and reports), and the grouping of similar and/or
integrated activities. As a starting point, the following suggestions may be considered:
Component 1 and IR 4.1: Improved Quality of Water Sources through Strategic Watershed Management
This component would include such activities: as soil and water conservation, agricultural diversification 
and home gardens, reforestation, agroforestry, improved pasture and cattle management, stream corridor 
management, and protected areas management. All training and extension activities related to these
elements would be budgeted under this component. Performance and impact indicators would be assigned 
accordingly.
Component 2 and IR 4.2: Improved Performance of Water Delivery System, Waste Management
Infrastructure and Civil Works for Risk Management 
This component would include: repair or expansion of existing and construction of new water systems, 
water source improvement and protection (to enhance access and quality of traditional water sources of
water holes and artisanal wells), construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities (both
municipal-scale and household-level sanitary solutions), solid waste management infrastructure (including 
municipal-scale solutions such as trash separation and composting), civil works to remediate or reduce the 
risks of landslides and other natural hazards, and reservoirs for provision of potable and/or multiple use
water supplies (excluding simple systems dedicated to agricultural use, which would be in Component 1). 
All training and technical assistance activities related to these elements would be budgeted under this
component. Performance and impact indicators would be assigned accordingly.
Component 3 and IR 4.3: Improved Awareness and Policies to Address Water Resources Management 
Issues
This component would encompass those activities relating to environmental education (formal and non￾formal), community and advocacy group cleanup and recycling activities, dissemination of public
information of appropriate water resources management and environmental health practices, advocacy
activities with municipalities in areas of ordinances for improved water resources management,
environmental protection and public health, and activities related to policy initiatives at the national and 
microregional or subwatershed levels (including the Interinstitutional Watershed Commission). All 
training and technical assistance activities related to these elements would be budgeted under this
component. Performance and impact indicators would be assigned accordingly.
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
52 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Component 4 and IR 4.4: Decentralized and Participatory Organizations Planning and Administering
Programs of Integrated Water Resources Management
This component would include all those activities currently considered part of the CARE Consortium’s
Component “0”, including organizational development and strengthening, training of community and
municipal leaders, facilitation of micro- and subwatershed committees (or organizations as they are
referred to in the draft executive decree for establishing the Interinstitutional Watershed Commission),
local and regional development and watershed management planning (and plans), and facilitation of
advocacy and technical assistance networks among collaborating organizations at the inter-municipal, 
regional and/or national level. All training and technical assistance activities related to these elements
would be budgeted under this component. Performance and impact indicators would be assigned
accordingly.
3.7.3 Establishment and Monitoring of Impact Indicators
As indicated in preceding subsections, the AGUA/WE design and subsequent implementation have not
included the establishment of adequate baseline and indicators needed to appropriately quantify and
analyze the social, economic and environmental impacts of activities in execution. In order to determine 
real progress toward meeting Strategic Objective 4 and the associated IRs, USAID and Project
Implementers should modify the current list of Performance Indicators to include a minimum number of
impact indicators for each group of component activities to more efficiently and effectively monitor the 
social, economic and environmental impacts of project activities. CARE has developed a monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) system proposal which is under consideration for application to AGUA Project
activities, but the proposal still focuses almost entirely on performance indicators—that is, counting
outputs in relation to activity targets (i.e., annual goals). Table 3.7 presents an annotated list of impact 
indicators that can be considered by USAID/WE and AGUA Activity Implementers. 
Once a new (or at least additional) set of impact indicators has been selected, USAID and Implementers
should modify their own M&E instruments and reporting systems. This list is intended to offer
alternatives of impact indicators by the categories of activities and can be selected depending on the
interest, capability and budgets available to Implementers and USAID’s needs for better feedback. Most 
are relatively inexpensive to monitor, several of which cab incorporated into survey instruments already
in use by Project Implementers. Another potential mechanism for monitoring and evaluation could be
established through collaborations with Salvadoran universities. Professors and students could take on
specific impact and technology adoption/spread studies for particular activity areas, including such
aspects as water quality monitoring, acceptance indices 
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 53
AGUA Activity Evaluation
Table 3-7: Impact Indicators with Potential Applicability to AGUA Intermediate Results Package
Impact Indicator Instrument Frequency 
1. Repaired, Expanded and/or New Water Systems
a. % of households (rep. sample) in project outreach area 
meeting both quality & time standard (data taken in 
outreach/control areas):
i. Hours of water service/day/week
ii. Chlorine residual
iii. Quality control of chlorine residual & Total/E. 
coliforms 
- Household survey
- Household survey & CLARA Program
- 5-10% sample to lab analysis
Twice/year
Twice/year
Once/year
b. Number of activity sites with at least a 26% reduction in 
diarrhea among children under 5-years old 
- Household survey
- Survey of health centers (crosscheck)
Twice/year 
Twice/year
c. No. and % of households using water conservation 
mechanisms
- Number & % of households on water 
meters
Annual
2. Household Sanitation
a. No. of households with sanitary disposal vs. water hookup - Household survey & inspection Once 
(at hookup)
b. Incidence of overflow (seasonal & reasons) - Household survey & inspection Twice/year
c. % doing septic tank/compost latrine maintenance (clean￾out) 
- Household survey & inspection Twice/year
d. Water quality of streams in selected microwatersheds - Total/E. coliform sampling 4/year
3. Wastewater Treatment Systems 
a. Functionality of WWT systems - Sample BOD5 of inflow & outflow
- Accumulation & disposal of solids
- Sample WQ of receiving stream (BOD5)
Monthly/quarter
Monthly or 
more
Monthly/quarter
b. Incidence of improper disposal of solid waste in WWT 
system
- Screenings volume/type count 1-2/year
c. Odors - Household survey Daily/weekly
4. Solid Waste Management
a. % of households doing garbage separation (rep. sample) - Household inspection at time of pickup Weekly/monthly
b. Incidence of garbage in streets, streams, vacant lots, etc. - Neighborhood inspections Monthly
c. Functionality of solid waste landfills - Presence of vultures, gulls, rodents, 
flies
- Odors
- Volume and WQ of leacheate
- Seepage of leacheate (core sampling)
Daily/weekly
Daily/weekly
Monthly
Annual/Bian.
5. Soil and Water Conservation, Agroforestry
a. Area (Has.) under improved practices in active use for 2 
years:
i. No-burn & slash mgmt & no-till
ii. No-burn & rock or green barriers
iii. Reforested areas (closed canopy)
iv. Live fencing (Linear mts)
v. Improved pasture (no-burn grasses, paddock 
division)
- Farm records & inspections Dry/wet season
b. Soil organic material content (proxy: erosion 
control/infiltration)
- Laboratory analysis of field samples Dry/wet season
c. Incidence of technology uptake by practice (% adopting/2 
yrs) 
- Home/Farm survey & inspection Annual
d. Water quality in streams/rivers (proxy: watershed 
improvement)
- Suspended solids of treated vs. control 
in selected microwatersheds
4/year 
6. Environmental Education and Awareness
a. Incidence of garbage in streets, streams, vacant lots, etc. - Neighborhood inspections Monthly
b. % of municipal budget dedicated to water, watershed and 
environmental activities
- Annual budgets & expenditures Annual
Evaluation Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
54 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Impact Indicator Instrument Frequency 
c. Change in the land area dedicated to protected areas and 
biodiversity protection (including stream corridors) 
- Aerial and ground surveys to determine 
protected areas (Has.) and length of 
stream corridor protected (mts.)
Annual
d. No. of municipalities systematically applying ordinances in 
environmental protection, no-burn, open dumping of solid 
waste, deforestation, etc. (Note: logs must be kept)
- Incidence of complaints registered
- No. of complaints responded to 
(actions)
Monthly
Monthly
e. Level of participation of citizens in pro 
watershed/environment actions by type (water 
conservation; trash cleanups; chlorinating water; paying 
their water, sewer and/or solid waste fees; actively 
supporting ecotourism and protected areas projects, etc.)
- Log of people attending WS & environ. 
committees meetings & events (by 
gender)
- Household survey to determine 
incidence & type of actions taken (by 
gender/age)
Quarterly/
Annual
1-2/year
7. Decentralization, Participation and Local Development 
a. No. and % of groups/organizations with watershed 
management & environmental protection activities as part 
of operational plans 
- Review of development/operational 
plans
- No. of watershed groups organized 
Annually
Annually
b. No. (as % of those promoted) of municipalities with 
integrated water resource management plans adopted 
with budgets disbursing
- Review of plans and monitor of 
execution 
Annually
c. % of municipal budget dedicated to water, watershed and 
environmental activities
- Annual budgets & expenditures Annually
d. Level of participation of members of organization - Logs of participation in meeting and 
events
Annually
e. Level of competence/success of organizations in 
facilitating execution of development plans
- Amounts ($) and sources (No.) of 
funding sources included in budgets
- No. of projects in work plan completed 
as a % of development plans
Annually
Annually
8. Institutional/Financial Sustainability for Operation & Maintenance of Water Systems & Watershed Management 
a. No. of organizations & municipalities (as % of those 
promoted) formally including the payment of the costs of 
environmental services in water fees and transferring 
these to WSM activities
- Statutes/bylaws of the organization 
approved and in force
As per Bylaws
b. % of water consumers (households) paying their monthly 
fees 
- Administrative records/accounts 
receivable
- % of customers in arrears
Quarterly
Quarterly
c. No. (as % of those promoted) of municipalities with 
integrated water resource management plans adopted 
with budgets disbursing
- Review of plans and monitor of 
execution 
Annually
d. % of budgets of Municipalities, CDLs, ADESCOs, and 
others dedicated to water, watershed and environmental 
activities
- Annual budgets & expenditures
- % of operation/maintenance costs 
covered by water fees
Annual
Annual
e. No. of organizations actively operating and developing 
water resource management activities and/or water 
systems after end of project assistance 
- Survey of organizations’ work plans, 
budgets and projects in execution 1 & 2 
years after date withdrawal of 
assistance
1
st & 2nd years 
Lessons Learned and Development Impact of Project Activities
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 55
4.0 Lessons Learned and Development Impact of Project Activities 
Implementation to date of the AGUA Activity, and other related activities financed under USAID/El
Salvador’s Strategic Objective 4, have provided a series of lessons learned. The lessons are applicable to 
both the remainder of the execution period though FY 2004 and to future strategies to be developed by the 
Mission’s Water and Environment Office. While there are many lessons learned from the last 3 years of
AGUA implementation, those presented in the following sections are some of the most important.
4.1 Overall Project Strategy, Management and Monitoring
a. The overall AGUA project strategy—that of integrating the sustainability of water systems with
their management by local community groups and rehabilitation and maintenance of tributary
watersheds—is deemed the most appropriate way to ensure sustainability in social, economic,
political and environmental contexts in El Salvador.
b. The innovation of establishing a consortium of local and international NGOs to pool their
particular talents to implement project activities and administrate AGUA resources has been
successful. Member organizations have each learned from the other and have all been strengthened 
by the process, and have even entered into other consortia to manage other development assistance 
projects in the country.
c. The original AGUA design grouped project activities into four components in a somewhat
confusing manner. While this has not unduly affected the quality of project execution, the
reordering of activities under existing components is necessary to simplify project administration 
and facilitate more effective monitoring of performance and impact indicators. 
d. As AGUA did not include sufficient nor appropriate indicators in the project design to adequately 
assess the socioeconomic and agroecological impact of project activities, it is necessary to
establish a baseline and select a minimum number of such indicators to accurately quantify the
progress toward meeting the overall Strategic Objective and Intermediate Results.
4.2. Decentralization and Local Management Capability Development
a. The CARE Consortium’s strategy of facilitating the development of local and subregional
integrated water resource management plans based on principles of watershed management is
catalyzing the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders with multiple interests in seeking
sustainable solutions for water supply and environmental health. These actions are contributing to 
national decentralization and democratic initiatives and facilitating the local governance mandates 
of municipal governments while strengthening numerous local organizations. 
b. AGUA has pioneered efforts in El Salvador in the formation of watershed management
committees which will be among the first to be legalized under the new executive decree for
establishing a national watershed commission and related local watershed organizations. AGUA
still needs to define those conditions (size, economic activity, presence of water systems, size and 
quality of water sources, population demographics, leadership etc.) that are optimal for the
sustainability and operation of a watershed committee. 
c. The use of incentives as an entrance strategy, while important to facilitate attracting participants to 
join local organizations and the testing and adoption of conservationist and/or income-producing 
technologies, can only be considered successful when participants begin participating and
Lessons Learned and Development Impact of Project Activities
56 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
adopting without continuing such assistance. Thus, the development and application of the exit
strategy is just as important as the entrance strategy. 
d. The incorporation of costs of environmental services in tariffs charged to water system users is a 
fundamental step in ensuring the sustainability of both the integrated water resources/watershed
management and local development strategies. 
4.3 Watershed Management, Water Source Protection and Sustainable Agroforestry
a. On areas treated, soil and water conservation practices promoted by the project are having a very 
positive impact en terms of reducing runoff and erosion, increasing organic material, improving
soil structure and cation exchange capacity, increasing infiltration of rainwater and aquifer
recharge—all contributing to maintenance and/or improvement of watershed conditions. The
greatest level of acceptance on the part of the participating farm families are: i) no-burn; ii) crop 
residue (rastrojo) management; iii) green barriers of vetiver; iv) live fence posts; v) home gardens; 
and iv) fruit trees on individual terraces.
b. More time will be required to ascertain the cost effectiveness and sustainability of diversification 
and commercial horticultural production practices, as well as some of the techniques being
promoted for diversion and storage of water for these activities.
c. Water source protection techniques provide low-cost, high-impact solutions for improving rural
populations’ access to cleaner water. 
d. Promotion of soil and water conservation and crop diversification does not consistently adhere to 
strategic planning related to the overall objectives of the Project, especially in terms of selecting 
priority intervention areas and techniques according to watershed management needs.
4.4 Potable Water Systems, Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure
a. The CARE Consortium is applying a comprehensive model for water supply that can be replicated 
throughout El Salvador and other countries Latin America that is resulting in the establishment of 
high quality potable water infrastructure that is operated, maintained and managed in a sustainable 
fashion, with strong institutional support for watershed protection and local preventative health
extension.
b. NGOs can provide critical support in design and construction management, institutional
development and strengthening, O&M capacity-building for potable water systems, and integrate
these with local community action for watershed protection and local health extension to donors
interested in building infrastructure.
c. Even with the best intentions under the SIA, infrastructure projects implemented without technical 
norms, technical oversight, and strong support of water management institutions, the quality and 
sustainability of the infrastructure cannot be assured. 
d. Small amounts of money for high-demand infrastructure improvement (as in the case of water
supply under SIA) can leverage impressive positive impacts on large populations by
complementing the small investments in infrastructure with the comprehensive CARE Consortium 
training and extension package.
e. Demonstration technologies for unfamiliar and novel infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment 
systems and solid waste landfills, requires extra attention and oversight to deal with technical
issues during site assessment, design, and construction. Extra time and resources to support the
Lessons Learned and Development Impact of Project Activities
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 57
establishment of sustainable management, administrative, cost recovery, and operation and
maintenance systems is especially important for infrastructure that is not in high demand by users 
(compared to water supply infrastructure). Follow-up support after system commissioning is
especially important if the systems are to be effectively operated and maintained for the long-term.
4.5. Lesson Learned in Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Use of
Natural Resources
a. Environmental Education activities have succeeded in involving youth in community
environmental issues such as solid waste management and the need to rehabilitate and protect
microwatersheds, and offered ecotourism demonstration projects as an alternative source of
income that serves the dual purpose of protecting water resources and biodiversity. 
b. The Environmental Learning Centers are succeeding in educating interested citizens, particularly
youth on environmental issues, but AGUA is not implementing a strategic vision for these centers 
as sustainable environmental service providers. The Centers could function as local knowledge
banks, community catalysts around environmental issues, sources of technical information and
assistance on environmental issues, self sustaining educational operations, local environmental
monitoring and ultimately as providers of environmental extension services.
c. Environmental education can contribute to the overall objectives and enrich the integrity of water 
resources management when its elements are incorporated as a nexus for all Project component
activities.
4.6 Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of
Water Resources
a. The use of strategic watershed management criteria would have improved the selection of priority
intervention areas and technologies, and have minimized the incidence of dispersion in the
Project’s geographic outreach and missed opportunities for integration and synergy.
b. AGUA’s strategy to focus on developing municipal ordinances should yield more positive results 
in efforts to reduce contamination, promote environmental health and rehabilitate watersheds.
c. The inclusion of a line item in water fees charged to customers of small communal and municipal 
water systems, although incipient, is a groundbreaking and fundamental step in guaranteeing the
sustainability of both water systems and the watersheds that serve them.
d. It is important to analyze the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of waste
management and agricultural diversification infrastructure before proceeding with construction
and operation in order to reduce the risks of contamination, operational failures and/or adversely
impacting other resource users.
Strategic Guidance for Future AGUA Activity
58 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
5.0 Strategic Guidance for Future AGUA Activity
Problems of access to clean water can be expected to continue at a relatively static rate in El Salvador for 
next 5 to 10 years. The improving trend in the development of community water infrastructure was
catastrophically set back with the disasters of Hurricane Mitch and the January 13 and February 13, 2001 
earthquakes. The Government, with international assistance, is just barely getting back to the level of
service provided before these events. With more than 50% of citizens lacking such access, current efforts 
just barely manage to maintain access at that rate and on a very slow rate of increase in coverage, as many 
efforts are oriented to rehabilitation of preexisting systems which were malfunctioning or stopped
working altogether due primarily to poor maintenance and operation.
The physical conditions of watersheds, also adversely affected by the two aforementioned disasters, are
actually improving. While poverty, the crash of the coffee market and general worldwide economic
turndown have contributed to a recent spike in illegal cutting and clearing of the remnant forests and areas 
previously abandoned to farming, remittances reaching rural areas are facilitating the reduction in
pressure on land conversion and farming pressure in upland watersheds. Deforestation rates are also either 
stable or in gradual decline. Still, land is not being managed adequately in the majority of the country and 
watersheds are still not in conditions conducive to producing reliable surface and subsurface water
supplies, especially during the 6-month dry season.
On the other hand, there persists great competition among residential, agricultural and industrial users.
The absence of a modern and equitable water law has resulted in a state of chaos wherein water is deemed 
more of an open-access resource available for those with the economic means to tap the supplies and lock 
them up on a first-come-first-serve basis. This competition, especially in rural areas, will increase as
agriculturists seek to diversify their production to year-round commercial vegetable and fruit production 
which requires access to water supplies throughout the year. The AGUA Activity, through its
Implementers, has been directly dealing with all these realities in the outreach areas served, by the Project 
and associated cooperative agreements, and has made important progress in developing approaches that 
can contribute to, if not guarantee, sustainable access to and management of water resources in rural
areas. Still however, with just 2-3 years of implementation, as the evaluation indicates, there are still
improvements required to reach a critical mass of success and establish replicable models as the basis for 
expanding to additional areas in the country where such assistance is required to deal with similar water
resource issues. 
The main body of the present report is dedicated to the findings and conclusions of the formative
evaluation of project execution to date and recommendations for guiding implementation until the end of 
the Mission’s extended strategy period of September 30, 2004. It is also incumbent upon the Evaluation 
Team to provide USAID/El Salvador with strategic guidance in order to orient the Mission’s
programming for the next 3-10 years. The following sections provide a series of suggestions for future
programming to be considered by the Mission at the date of its next round of strategic planning, currently 
scheduled for early 2003. 
5.1 Integration of Actions for Sustained Production, Access and Management of Water 
Resources and Expansion to Additional Critical Areas using Strategic Planning 
Tools
The recommendations presented in this evaluation report are intended to facilitate the consolidation of all 
activities currently deemed successful into more integral package in precise and strategic geographic
Strategic Guidance for Future AGUA Activity
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 59
areas, specifically, in selected sub- and microwatersheds. This will require that Implementers take a close 
look at the distribution of activities, determine which are missing from the full menu of the integrated
package, and redouble efforts to integrate the suite of technical and local development organizational
actions necessary to establish model project areas.16 At the point that approximates the current AGUA
ACD, or at least by the end of the Mission’s extended strategy period (September 30, 2004), it is expected 
that a succinct group of models/demonstration areas will have been established.
The Evaluation Team finds that the wording of the current Strategic Objective should be changed to
reflect the suggested focus of activities, essentially those comprising the models. Hence, the following
conceptual wording is proposed for consideration by USAID for its next Strategic Objective to be
addressed primarily by the Water and Environment Office:
Integrated Management of Watersheds for Sustained Production and Management of Water
Resources for Human Consumption and Maintenance of Environmental Services.
This SO has two principal objectives requiring the application of appropriate land and resource
management, rehabilitation and/or improvement of watersheds: i) sustainable production of water for
human consumption (primarily for residential and municipal purposes, followed by agriculture and
industry if the former has been satisfied); and ii) provision of environmental services including water
production, disaster mitigation and reduction of risk (preparedness) in terms of protection from floods and 
landslides associated with tropical storms and earthquakes, and biodiversity protection. 
In order to respond to this SO, before the current AGUA Activity is completed USAID should begin
assessing progress in the consolidation of project activities into discrete models/demonstration areas in the 
differing outreach areas and packaging models for the next SO activity period. Once these models are
established within demonstration sub- and microwatershed, USAID should consider financing the
expansion into additional areas, strategically selected by means of science-based criteria rooted in the
context of watershed management, disaster mitigation and biodiversity protection, such as:
· Comparing actual land use to land-use capacity to determine areas in conflict;
· Hydrogeomorphological surveys to determine critical aquifer recharge areas and areas prone to
gullying, mass wasting/land slippage and flash-flooding;
· Sub-regional runoff, erosion and sedimentation surveys to determine critical microwatersheds for
rehabilitation;
· Habitat mapping to assess existence, composition and condition of floral and faunal communities;
· Rural road drainage assessments to pinpoint areas needing remediation; and
· Inventories of permanent and ephemeral water supplies and their user base. 
 
16 As previously indicated in the report, these models should include, as appropriate under as local socioeconomic and 
agroecological conditions dictate, all elements currently being promoted in different parts of the project area by 
implementing organizations, including:
· A participatory water resources/watershed management plan supported by all relevant groups
· Municipal ordinances regulating environmental protection and water resources conservation
· One or more water systems (for potable and/or irrigation uses) served by respective watersheds
· Environmental and health education and awareness programs, and civic groups active in water resources advocacy
· Water use tariff structures that include a minimum 10% of fees dedicated to management of contributing watersheds
· A science-based monitoring and evaluation system based on indicators of impact as well as performance indicators.
Strategic Guidance for Future AGUA Activity
60 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Information from these databases would then crossed, preferably utilizing a geographic information
system (GIS), with data on population distribution, poverty and health conditions, and the existence and 
management capacities of local government and civic groups and their respective priorities and
development plans. This approach differs somewhat from the instruments used by AGUA Activity
Implementers in that it promotes the use of more strategic planning geared to watershed functions in order 
to avoid the tendency to select areas primarily on the existence and interest of community groups. 
5.2 Collaboration with Other Development Assistance Institutions and Alternative 
Financing Mechanisms
The magnitude of resources required to respond to the needs of sustainable integrated water resources
management in El Salvador goes way beyond the levels available to USAID and Implementers’
traditional contributors. It is therefore necessary for USAID and its implementing organizations to seek 
collaborators in order to expand the spread of the integrated water resources management models to be
packaged over the next two-and-a-half years under the AGUA Activity. The following strategies are
suggested as worthy of development within the next 1-3 years:
· Special reduction of electricity tariffs. A campaign should be mounted to solicit a reduction of
electricity rates from CEL/CAESS. El Salvador’s tariff structure is regressive and sells at a lower rate 
to larger-scale consumers (maquiladora industry, agroindustry), but its residential rates are the highest 
in Central America. A special provision should be sought achieve a reduced rate for rural water
systems that must use wells and electrical pumps. The NGO community should start the campaign, 
but enlist the lobbying of ANDA, MARN, Ministry of Health, churches and others as appropriate to 
bring about a minimum 50% decrease (from $0.0827/kWh to $0.0414/kWh). This would make a huge 
difference in providing access to pumped well water and potentially free up a larger portion of the
water fees for watershed management. 
· Continue linkages with FISDL and FIAES for co-financing of subprojects. These funds have been
successfully accessed during the first three years of AGUA/WE execution and Implementers should
continue, if not expand the practice of presenting proposals for co-financing of rural water,
wastewater, solid waste management and protected areas management. 
· Seek out co-financing under other programs financed in MARN by the Inter-American Development 
Bank, World Bank and the European Union. MARN is currently managing some US$58 million in
projects financed by these development assistance institutions, including: Decontamination of Critical 
Areas (IDB/$32.8 million); Management of Zones at Risk (IDB/US$12 million); two technical
cooperations in areas of environmental services and hydrological balance (IDB/US$3 million); and
two projects for strengthening MARN’s role as the national environmental agency (WB and
EU/US$10 million each). Several of the components under these projects are related to AGUA/WE
objectives and could offer co-financing possibilities, including the establishment of a project-wide 
environmental monitoring program. 
· Promotion of larger-scale loan operations with the Inter-American Development Bank. The IDB has 
been working in the water and wastewater sector in El Salvador for more than 30 years and has been 
active in environmental protection and watershed management in the last decade. IDB’s traditional
partner in water and wastewater has been ANDA and the larger municipalities (especially San
Salvador). The Bank currently is beginning a second stage of its water loan with ANDA that includes 
rehabilitation and new decentralized management strategies for some 63 water systems, about half of 
which will be in the more rural areas encompassing smaller water systems and communities. USAID 
and current AGUA Implementers should research the possibilities with ANDA and the Bank of
Strategic Guidance for Future AGUA Activity
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 61
applying its methodologies of water system improvement and management by local community
organizations, coupled with its integrated management of tributary watersheds. A second tier of
project development should be held with ANDA and IDB concerning a new project dedicated to water 
systems servicing communities of 100-1,000 families, this under a new loan that would take some 2+ 
years to bring online.
· Salvadoran Liaison Groups in the United States. Remittances account for one-third of the gross
national product of El Salvador. There are more than 2 million Salvadorans living in the USA with 16 
communities of more than 30,000, with more than 800,000 in Los Angeles, 425,000 in New York,
another 200,000+ in San Francisco and more 150,000 in Washington D.C. All of these communities 
have numerous support groups (asociaciones de salvodoreños and grupos de enlace), many already
contributing funds for special projects with a number of individual communities in El Salvador. The 
AGUA Evaluation Team found that most communities within the AGUA outreach area have members 
with family in the USA and receive remittances from them and manage their property, including
farms. This is a huge untapped source of cost-share funding for AGUA activities. Implementers
should use their own institutional networks to develop strategies to contact and attract funding for
collaborative projects. This could be done with a “sister-community” approach or even on a larger
programmatic scale. USAID could facilitate such collaborations through State Department contacts
with Ministry of Foreign Relations and the Salvadoran Embassy, Consuls and Commercial Attaches. 
5.3 Demonstrating, Proving and Packaging Alternative Approaches and Technologies 
for Sustainable Development and Management of Water Resources and 
Environmental Health and Protection
USAID has played an important role in many countries pioneering innovative development approaches
and technologies. Under the Mission’s PROMESA/GreenCom and GreenProject programs, USAID broke 
new ground in environmental education, sustainable use of land and resources in upland watersheds, and 
contributing to the drafting of the National Environmental Law and establishment of the Ministry of
Environmental and Natural Resources and environmental protection regulations. Many of these efforts
were expanded under the AGUA Activity and are just now being packaged into replicable models. Some 
of the novel technologies and approaches being tested by AGUA Innovators include: temporary/portable 
mini-dams for seasonally diverting streamflow for irrigating horticultural crops, low-head and drip
irrigation techniques, composting of organic garbage and refuse, artisanry with recycled materials, small￾bore septic treatment systems, and rainwater catchment and storage. While several of these techniques are 
still in the development stages, they hold great promise and wide applicability if they are found to be
viable. 
As part of the Mission’s strategy for the sector in the next 3-10 years, it would be advantageous to
continue its financing of demonstration projects in a range of technologies that could respond to the
challenges of sustainable water resources management. This approach fits into the strategy of using
USAID assistance as an “incubator” of both technology and sustainable project models. A non-exclusive 
list of some of the thematic areas in which USAID could provide assistance is presented below. 
· Alternative low-tech strategies and techniques for solid waste disposal. There are several lower-cost 
alternative approaches for safe disposal of solid waste that would not require installation of costly
geotextiles and leacheate treatment facilities. These would involve smaller facilities using solid waste 
separation to remove potentially toxic substances, disposal in clay-lined pits and trenches, daily
covering with local soils and revegetation.
Strategic Guidance for Future AGUA Activity
62 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
· Alternative wastewater treatment strategies. The costs of the infrastructure required to meet stringent 
national and international BOD standards is out of reach for most rural communities in the country. It 
would be better to have collection and at least secondary treatment of wastewater than to continue the 
unsanitary practices of open ditch sewers and cesspools. Several technologies, along the line of the
small-bore septic should be field tested under differing environmental conditions in El Salvador.
These include: community septic tanks, oxidation lagoons, constructed wetlands, and smaller
secondary wastewater treatment facilities with higher Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) thresholds 
(yields of 100-200+). 
· Wind-based powered pumps. This would be a back-to-the-future strategy and involve traditional
windmills for turning pumps in wells located primarily along the Pacific Coast and piedmont, and
certain higher elevations with unencumbered fetch. The costs of electricity can make electrical pumps 
prohibitively expensive for many communities.
· Rainwater catchment and storage. This is already a topic of applied research in AGUA outreach
areas, primarily with Project Concern, International. There are other catchment and storage techniques 
that are practiced especially on islands in the Caribbean that could have widespread applicability in El 
Salvador. 
· Alluvial storage reservoirs. These approach consists primarily of storing water collected in the rainy
season in larger (1,000-5,000 cubic meters and larger) sand reservoirs and their tapping with shallow 
pumps or gravity taps during the dry season. 
In all cases, the selection and demonstration of these techniques and strategies would need to respond to 
certain criteria of success and viability before they could be packages for dissemination, including: 
· Appropriateness and applicability under socioeconomic and agroecologic conditions in El Salvador;
· Responsiveness to one or more environmental health and natural resource problem;
· Ease of access, adoption and operation by a representative sector of the population;
· Cost-effectiveness in terms of capitalization, operation and maintenance; and
· Viability in terms of social, economic and environmental impacts.
Also, as sustainability is also couched in economic terms, USAID should refine and promote adoption of 
auto-financing mechanisms to pay the costs of environmental services that are provide by watersheds and 
protected areas. MARN is already developing a series of strategies for payment of the costs of
environmental services, much of this linked in principal to the pending executive decree to create the
Interinstitutional Watershed Commission and legalize the establishment of local and regional watershed 
organizations. USAID should continue to insist on the incorporation of such costs for all types of
development assistance activities it facilitates in the country, potentially as a component of each project, 
no matter what the sector, or as condition to receiving assistance.
ANNEXES
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador Scope of Work for the Evaluation of the 
AGUA Activity
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador SOW
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 1-1
USAID El Salvador Scope of Work for The Evaluation of the AGUA Activity
1.1 Title
Access, Management and Rational Use of Water
1.2 Background
The USAID/El Salvador Water Strategy and Results Framework was approved by Washington in 
October 1997. The Water Strategy’s Intermediate Results for achieving the Strategic Objective
(SO) “Increased Access by Rural Households to Clean Water” are: Improved Quality of Water
Sources; Improved Performance of Water Delivery Systems; More Effective Citizen
Participation; and Enhance Municipal Management. 
Subsequently, the Mission approved its Results Package Document and the New Activity 
Document (NAD) for the AGUA (Access, Management, and Rational Use of Water) Activity in 
February and September 1998, respectively. The purpose of AGUA is to increase access to clean 
water for rural Salvadorans in an environmentally sustainable way. 
A three-year Strategic Objective Grant Agreement (SOAG) for the AGUA Activity was signed 
with the Government of El Salvador (SOAG) in September 1998 at a funding level of $15.6
million which was later increased to $17.2 million. Activity implementation began in June 1999 
with the signing of a $12.6 million Cooperative Agreement with CARE – El Salvador, whose
primary objective mirrored the NAD and whose target area is 18 municipalities located within El 
Salvador’s three major watersheds. Within the following year, six smaller agreements were
signed with World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, Project Concern International, ICCA –
CAMAGRO, Border Development Services, and the Environmental Health Project. These
additional activities complemented the various components of the AGUA program and included 
environmentally sound agricultural practices, solid and liquid waste management, and water
policy initiatives.
Measured results compared against benchmark indicators for AGUA are showing varying levels 
of success. It appears that most indicators will be achieved at the planned end of activity date in 
September 2002, and some have been greatly surpassed requiring adjustments to final indicator
goals. Rural Salvadoran access to clean water, the strategic objective indicator, is on track to
achieve the established end of life target. 
The Mission Strategy, originally from FY 1997 to FY 2002, has been extended for two
additional years from FY 2002 to FY 2004. During the process to amend the AGUA NAD to
cover this additional period, the Mission decided first to evaluate current strategy vis-à-vis its
results framework as well as individual activities in order to better plan future interventions.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this contract is to carry out an evaluation of the AGUA Activity in order to 
appraise progress in implementation, assess the likelihood of achieving Activity Results, identify 
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador SOW
1-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
elements constraining its successful execution, and report lessons learned to date. The evaluation 
will be used as an independent assessment of the validity of this approach. Specifically, it will
help determine if the current strategy is having a sustainable impact and if there are alternatives 
or opportunities to increase rural access to clean water.
1.4 Statement of Work
This effort will examine, (1) whether AGUA strategy is appropriate and effective and whether 
the objective and results are relevant and are being met; (2) program planning, design,
implementation and management performance by implementers; (3) implementation
arrangements and conditions; (4) ultimate beneficiary participation and satisfaction, at all levels, 
i.e., mission strategy, strategic framework (SO and Intermediate Results), other planned and
unplanned activity-level results and implementation activities, along with related indicators, 
targets and means of measurement, from the date of approval of AGUA to the present; and (5) 
the sustainability of project interventions – this can include a measure of community
participation/acceptance of, behavior changes brought about by, and local demand for sub￾projects and tasks carried out during the Activity life.
Applying the methods and procedures specified in the next section, the evaluators will carry out 
the tasks enumerated below, and such other tasks as may be necessary and appropriate to realize 
the evaluation purposes. An illustrative list of questions to answer during the course of sub￾project evaluation is included in Attachment 2.
The evaluation will examine project strategies and impacts, and make implementation 
recommendations for the two-year extension period for achievement of sustainable clean water 
access for rural Salvadorans. Progress and strategic success of individual activities/contracts
within the Water and Environment (WE) Office will be evaluated against planned outcomes, as 
well as the cumulative impact of AGUA. Compliance with Regulation 216 will also be
evaluated.
The following specific implementing instruments will be evaluated in accordance with the
described tasks:
CARE – AGUA
World Vision
Catholic Relief Services
Project Concern International
IICCA-CAMAGRO
Border Development Services
Environmental Health Project
USAID/Small Infrastructure Activity (SIA)
Task 1
Describe, compare, and analyze designed, approved, and actual undertakings and their respective 
accomplishments in the implementation of the following components:
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador SOW
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 1-3
· Improved Quality of Water Sources;
· Improved Performance of Water Delivery Systems;
· More Effective Citizen Actions to Address Water Issues; and
· Improved Municipal Management of Water Resources.
Task 2
Based on findings, comparisons, and analyses from task 1, formulate conclusions about quality
and adequacy of the planning, design, and implementation process, including significant
divergences and/or inconsistencies from one stage to another of the process, progress in
achieving expected results as well as in achieving unexpected or unanticipated results that may 
be identified during the evaluation, both in terms of indicators and targets selected, as well as of 
other important indicators/targets that may be identified during the evaluation.
Task 3
Based on the findings and conclusions from the previous two tasks specified, formulate
recommendations for mission management related to: 1) more effective utilization of resources
in implementation, 2) adjustments in implementation arrangements to improve effectiveness and 
efficiency, 3) actions to improve management effectiveness, and 4) adjustments to or changes in 
focus, structure and/or content of sub-activities (components, sub-components) and action, 
and/or funding allocations, to improve activity performance in achieving specified results.
1. 5 Methods and Procedures
Generally acceptable evaluation methodologies for USAID programs and activities will be used. 
Relevant planning, design, programming, implementation and progress reporting documents will 
be reviewed, as well as other appropriate reports and studies related to the subject matter,
whether or not generated with assistance under the AGUA program.
Initial orientation, basic document review, team building and preparation of a draft work plan
and schedule will take place at contractor’s headquarters and/or in AID/W. All necessary project 
documentation and information will be provided to the evaluation team in advance? The draft 
work plan will be forwarded to the WE core team for comments prior to travel and should
include a draft schedule of consultations with WE core members, implementers, and host
government institutions. It should be emphasized that this evaluation is intended to be an
interactive effort between evaluation team members and the WE core team. Thus, a continuing 
process of close consultation, exchange of information, views and impressions, and interaction
among and between members of all participants will take place from the preparation of the work 
plan to the presentation of the final report.
Upon arrival of the evaluation team in El Salvador, orientation meetings will be held with the
Mission Evaluation Committee (MEC) to finalize the work plan and discuss detailed guidance 
and further specification of expectations. Site visits will be scheduled by USAID at this time and 
should be sufficient to impart a sense of the accomplishments and field impacts. The MEC is
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador SOW
1-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
formed by selected WE core team members, SDO, and other selected USAID technical offices 
and/or support offices, as appropriate.
One member of the WE core team will be designated as the USAID – El Salvador liaison with 
the evaluation team. The liaison (or other WE team member, as appropriate) will accompany
evaluation team members in meetings with partners and on site visits. Weekly progress meetings 
will be held with. WE team members will be available for consultation to the extent feasible.
Interviews will be held with key program, activity, and sub-activity (component) technical
assistance personnel, with host country partner institution counterparts, with participating
grantees/subcontractors, with USAID – El Salvador Mission management and support office
staff, as appropriate, and with a sampling of intended intermediate customers and ultimate
customers (beneficiaries).
Rapid appraisal techniques may be applied to determine impact of activities/components on
intended customers. The team will review all documents and data relevant to quantifying
progress, as well as to determine quality of actions supported and results achieved. The approach 
will be to determine and document facts and objective findings, apply evaluators’ expert
interpretations and judgements to draw conclusions based on facts/findings, and to formulate 
recommendations based on findings and conclusions from the evaluation exercise.
Information gathering and interpretation by the evaluators should be an iterative process in
which feedback from component and sub-activity level information and interpretation will guide 
evaluation conclusions and recommendations.
Other related SO teams and Activity level partners, will assist the team, as appropriate, to access 
relevant documents, to arrange interviews and to plan and carry out site visits. Each major
partner will designate a liaison person to facilitate the work and activities of relevant evaluation 
team members.
Lessons learned to guide future design, planning, programming and implementation, and issues 
that require immediate USAID and/or implementing partner’s attention, along with
recommended option(s) for issue resolution, will be provided. The activity, component and/or
sub-activity evaluation process also is expected to provide sufficient information to prepare 
the WE two-year strategy extension for the AGUA Activity.
1.6 Reporting Requirements
1. A draft Work Plan and Schedule will be submitted to USAID/El Salvador for comment 3
working days prior to arrival in-country of the team leader, and a final work plan and
schedule will be presented within one working day of arrival;
2. Draft Report. A preliminary draft evaluation report in English will be presented to
USAID/El Salvador at least 5 working days prior to the departure of the evaluation team
leader at the end of in-country efforts. The contractor shall participate in a MEC review of
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador SOW
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 1-5
this draft 3 days after the date of submission of the draft. The evaluator will use comments, 
both written and oral, from this meeting to revise this draft. 
The contractor shall incorporate the suggested comments and recommendations into a final 
draft to be left with USAID prior to departure. USAID will have 4 working days to review 
this final draft before returning it to the contractor;
3. The evaluation team will participate in entrance and exit briefings for the MEC and Mission 
Management. Through the official mission debriefing, the revised final draft evaluation
report, taking into account timely USAID observations/comments, will be presented to
USAID/El Salvador prior to the departure of the evaluation team at the end of in-country 
efforts;
4. Final Report. Within 10 days of receipt of USAID comments, the contractor shall
incorporate drafting and substantive changes and send to USAID ten copies of the final
report: 5 in English and 5 in Spanish. In addition, CD’s of all required reports and all
annexes will be provided (MS Word 97/Excel 97). The evaluation report will include the
following sections:
· Executive Summary. Including purpose of the evaluation, methodology used, findings, 
conclusions and recommendations. It will also include comments on development impact 
and lessons learned. It should be complete enough so that the reader can understand the 
evaluation without having to read the entire document. The summary should be a self￾contained document.
· Scope of Work and Methodology. A copy of the initial scope of work and detailed
outline of methodology used will be included. Any deviation from the scope will be
explained.
· Evaluation Team. A complete list of evaluation team members, including host country
personnel, their field of expertise and the role they played on the team.
· Evaluation Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. In a separate section of the 
report if possible. Recommendations should be priority actions that can be taken by the
USAID and implementing entities. 
· Lessons Learned. This section should describe the causal relationship factors that proved 
critical to project success or failure, including political, policy, economic, social and
bureaucratic preconditions within the host-country and USAID. This section should also 
include a discussion of the techniques or approaches which proved most effective or had 
to be changed and why. Lessons relating to replicability and sustainability will also be
discussed.
· Paginated Table of Contents.
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador SOW
1-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
5. Required length of the evaluation report should not exceed 25 pages, without annexes and
tables, as appropriate.
Other Terms of Reference
Laptop Computers.
Each team member will have a laptop computer for personal use, and will be familiar with its use 
for purposes of the evaluation. Additionally, contractor will make arrangements for access to
printing and copying services.
Logistic Support.
Although USAID/El Salvador and partners will assist in coordinating interviews and site visits, 
contractor must provide for team member logistic support such as space for internal team
meetings, arranging and managing appointments, local and in-country travel, etc.
Changes in Terms of Reference. 
The contractor’s proposal must conform substantially to these terms of reference, but may offer 
specific changes and/or adjustments. Proposed substantive changes/adjustments in (1) the
statement of work, (2) required reports, (3) overall or individual team member levels-of-effort, 
(4) team member minimum qualifications and major responsibilities, (5) timetable for the
evaluation, and, (5) other substantive changes proposed, must be approved in writing by the WE 
Core team and by the Contracting Officer.
Suggested Reading and background information.
The contractor shall review the following documents for background information:
· The Water Strategy and Results Framework
· Results Package and New Activity Document for the AGUA Activity
· The SOAG, contracts and cooperative agreements signed with implementing institutions.
· Implementing instruments’ work plans and quarterly reports.
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador SOW
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 1-7
ATTACHMENT 2
Illustrative Questions for Evaluation Process
1) Has the choice of technologies been appropriate?
2) Have the necessary stakeholders been involved in the process?
3) Are performance indicators appropriate and are they an accurate representation?
4) Are policy/regulation initiatives appropriate and on track?
5) Is the USAID mission aware of project successes and importance? How can this be
improved?
6) Is the current mix of infrastructure, policy, management, and education/community 
participation the best mix for sustainable rural access to clean water (right proportion of
money and time)?
7) If more funds were made available, what would be your recommendation for the most
effective investment?
8) Is the geographic area of current activities appropriate?
9) How can USAID – El Salvador most effectively respond to drought and/or floods?
10)Is the emphasis on agriculture in watersheds appropriate?
11)Is the current emphasis on solid and liquid waste treatment appropriate?
12)Is there a need for more drinking water monitoring and source protection than what has been 
provided through AGUA?
13) Are the citizen participation/awareness activities effective? 
14) Does the Activity have the necessary support from the beneficiaries, e.g. in the form of active 
participation in operation/management of water services?
15) Do the institutions or individuals involved in sustaining the benefits of the Activity have the 
capacity to do so?
16) What activities and instruments should continue to ensure benefit sustainability?
17)Is there enough political support at both the local and national level for benefits to continue?
18) What macroeconomic policies can affect the chances for benefit sustainability, i.e., the water 
laws?
19) To what extent both sexes participate in project activities and how do gender roles affect
programmatic results?
20)Is the data quality of indicators appropriate? 
Moreover, the proposed changes to Statement of Work has been incorporated as part of this
statement of work.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO STATEMENT OF WORK
The Mission has made some revisions to Proposed Changes to Statement of Work as follows:
We have indicated in our proposed Time Schedule/Execution Plan for the evaluation a
methodology that we have found works for most USAID missions. This has been tested with
success in over six missions. Most of these relate to the SOW dealing with Reporting
Requirements.
Annex 1: USAID/El Salvador SOW
1-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
The team will presents it preliminary findings and conclusions, and propose an initial set of
recommendations to USAID on September 6 using a workshop setting and a PowerPoint
Presentation format. We have found that having an interactive workshop-like setting for the
vetting of findings facilitates more discussion and gets out key issues that may not be apparent 
prior to this. The team would receive comments at that time and use these comments in its
preparation of the final draft report. Implementers such as CARE would be encouraged to attend. 
Final reports shall be in printed format, with five (5) copies each in English and Spanish. One
CD of each report and its associated annexes will be provided to the Mission. The reports will be 
shipped via DHL on Friday, September 27 for delivery the following week. 
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 2-1
Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Revised Evaluation Work Plan
Presented to USAID/El Salvador by ARD, Inc.
The following work plan has been revised to reflect discussions held with USAID/El Salvador on 
August 16 and orientation meetings held with project Implementers during the week of August 
19-23, 2002.
I. Background and Objectives of the Evaluation
The USAID/El Salvador Water Strategy and Results Framework was approved by Washington in 
October 1997. The Water Strategy’s Intermediate Results for achieving the Strategic Objective
(SO), “Increased Access by Rural Households to Clean Water,” are: Improved Quality of Water 
Sources; Improved Performance of Water Delivery Systems; More Effective Citizen Actions to 
Address Water Issues; and Greater Municipal Participation in Water Resources Management.
Subsequently, the Mission approved its Results Package Document and the New Activity 
Document (NAD) for the AGUA (Access, Management, and Rational Use of Water) Activity in 
February and September 1998, respectively. The purpose of AGUA is to increase access to clean 
water for rural Salvadorans in an environmentally sustainable way. A three-year Strategic
Objective Grant Agreement (SOAG) for the AGUA Activity was signed with the Government of 
El Salvador (GOES) in September 1998 at a funding level of $15.6 million which was later
increased to $17.2 million. Activity implementation began in June 1999 with the signing of a
$12.6 million Cooperative Agreement with CARE – El Salvador, whose primary objective
mirrored the NAD and whose target area is 18 municipalities located within El Salvador’s three 
major watersheds. Within the following year, six smaller agreements were signed with World
Vision, Catholic Relief Services, Project Concern International, IICA/CAMAGRO, Border
Development Services, and the Environmental Health Project. These additional activities
complemented the various components of the AGUA program and included environmentally
sound agricultural practices, solid and liquid waste management, and water policy initiatives.
Measured results compared against benchmark indicators for AGUA are showing varying levels 
of success. It appears that most indicators will be achieved at the planned end of the activity date 
in September 2002, and some have been greatly surpassed requiring adjustments to final
indicator goals. Rural Salvadoran access to clean water, the strategic objective indicator, is on
track to achieve the established end of life target. The Mission Strategy, originally from FY 1997 
to FY 2002, has been extended for two additional years from FY 2002 to FY 2004. During the 
process to amend the AGUA NAD to cover this additional period, the Mission decided first to
evaluate current strategy vis-à-vis its results framework as well as individual activities in order to 
better plan future interventions. 
The principal objective of the Evaluation of the AGUA Activity is to determine whether the
current AGUA strategy is appropriate and effective and whether the objective and results are
relevant and are being met, as these are directly related to mission strategy, Strategic Objective 
#4 and Intermediate Results. The evaluation will be comprised primarily of the analysis of
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
2-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
planned and unplanned activities and their results, along with related indicators, targets and
means of measurement, from the date of approval of AGUA to the present. The evaluation will 
also analyze the following aspects of project implementation: i) program planning, design,
implementation and management performance by Implementers; ii) implementation
arrangements between USAID and Implementers and between Implementers and their targeted
and/or beneficiary communities; iii) participation and satisfaction of beneficiaries/participants at 
all levels; iv) the development impact and the sustainability of project interventions; and v) the 
operational vision for the next 2 years until the end of the period of the current mission strategy, 
and the strategic vision of the AGUA Activity for the following 3 years (5 years total). The firm 
Associates in Rural Development, Inc. (ARD) has been contracted to carry out an evaluation of 
the AGUA Activity in order to appraise progress in implementation, assess the likelihood of
achieving Activity Results, identify elements constraining its successful execution, and report
lessons learned to date. 
The evaluation will be used as an independent assessment of the validity of this approach and
determine if the current strategy is having a sustainable impact and if there are alternatives or
opportunities to increase rural access to clean water. The evaluation will examine project
strategies and impacts, and make recommendations regarding the implementation of project
activities for the two-year extension period for achievement of sustainable clean water access for 
rural Salvadorans. Progress and strategic success of individual activities/contracts within the
Water and Environment (WE) Office will be evaluated against planned outcomes, as well as the 
cumulative impact of AGUA. Compliance with Regulation 216 (environmental assessment) will 
also be evaluated. The ARD Evaluation Team (ET) will coordinate the evaluation effort with the 
WE Office and Mission Evaluation Committee (MEC) and will liaise primarily with a staff
member designated by the Mission. 
II. Principal Tasks for the ARD Evaluation Team, General Methodology and Plan of
Execution
The tasks described below respond directly to USAID/El Salvador’s Statement of Work (SOW) 
for the evaluation effort. The methods intended for deployment for the evaluation are directly
related to the tasks listed in the Evaluation Execution Plan presented in Attachment 2 and the
ET’s formulation of responses to the questions posed in Attachment 1. ARD and ET members
intend to fully involve USAID and Implementers’ staff in this evaluation effort, so that the
results are arrived at in an air of mutual agreement. USAID/El Salvador will designate a WE
core member as liaison for the evaluation, who will accompany ET members on many of the
interviews and site visits (other WE and/or MEC members may also accompany the ET on site 
visits). The ET will, as possible, provide USAID/El Salvador staff with weekly briefings on
progress of the evaluation effort, including the presentation of preliminary findings for
discussion. 
The general methodology proposed for each of the primary tasks is presented in the following
sections. Note that the exact nature and order of these methods are subject to change pending
further discussions with USAID during the review of the work plan and will take on more details 
after initial discussions with Implementers. The ET will gauge the evaluation in terms of
USAID/El Salvador’s Strategic Objective 4 (SO4) and related Intermediate Results as follows:
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 2-3
4.1 Improved Quality of Water Sources
4.1.1 Area covered by improved soil conservation/reforestation, organic cropping, and 
integrated pest management practices
4.1.2 Increased Use of Improved Waste Management Practices
4.1.3 Increased Use of Improved Industrial Practices
4.2 Improved Performance of Water Delivery Systems
4.2.1 Number of rehabilitated, expanded and new systems
4.2.2 Improved Local Management and Technical Human Resources Capacity
4.3 More Effective Citizen Actions to Address Water Issues
4.3.1 Water-related changes resulting from citizen-group actions
4.3.2 Increased Understanding of Solutions for Unclean Water
4.3.3 Communities More Organized Around Water Issues
4.4 Greater Municipal Participation in Water Resources Management
4.4.1 Water-related ordinances passed
4.4.2 Resources Invested in Water-Related Projects
4.4.3 Municipalities with water resource management plans
A. Meetings w/ USAID, GOES and Implementers, and Review of Relevant 
Documentation
In coordination with USAID, ET members will carry out various meetings and interviews with
relevant USAID/El Salvador offices (WE, MEC, SO members), and managerial, administrative 
and technical staff of the respective Implementers. These Implementers include:
· Consortium CARE/SalvaNATURA/SACDEL
· Project Concern International
· World Vision
· Catholic Relief Services
· IICA/CAMAGRO
Meetings will also be held to determine linkages with the following entities managing activities 
in relation to SO4 activities:
· Border Development Services
· Environmental Health Project
· USAID/Small Infrastructure Activity (SIA)
Analysis of aspects of policy and legislation initiatives will require interviews with local
government officials at local and, potentially, the national level. Also, depending on
advancement of improved industrial practices (clean technologies), it may be necessary to
interview personnel at several industries and/or industrial associations. USAID/El Salvador and 
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
2-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
CARE will provide guidance as to the final list of agencies and organizations that should be
consulted. 
The initial meeting with USAID/El Salvador staff should serve to determine the relevant
documentation that ET members should review. (Note that some of the most relevant documents 
have been received from USAID by ARD/ET and will have been reviewed before the Team
arrives in San Salvador.) Meetings with Implementers and other activity managers should
facilitate acquiring other information useful to the evaluation effort, including such documents
as: training plans and manuals; technical manuals and guidelines; information concerning
techniques used to collect performance and impact monitoring data; as well as information
concerning the numerous beneficiary groups and their organizations. Documents will be
reviewed as much as possible during the first week of work in San Salvador and as time allows, 
especially during weekends. 
B. Site Visits, Interviews with Implementers’ Field Staff, Subproject Assessments, and 
Survey of Beneficiaries
The ET proposes to conduct site visits for a representative sample of subprojects. The exact
number of site visits will depend on their geographical location, proximity to each other and
travel time. The schedule for these site visits will be discussed with Implementers, especially
CARE, during the initial meetings and interviews. At least provisionally, one day will be
scheduled with each of the Implementers (although two or more days may be required to visit 
subproject sites managed by the CARE Consortium as are the largest Implementer). A total of 9 
days have been scheduled for site visits. The following evaluation activities will be carried
during site visits, relying on three principal instruments: i) interviews with field staff should
provide necessary information concerning planning and outreach approaches and methods
(including data and georeferenced products), as well as an understanding of factors that facilitate 
or restrict successful subproject implementation; ii) the Rapid Field Assessment Instruments (see 
description below under the section on Products and Deliverables) will be used to systematically 
collect information from all interviewees, while a special instrument will be applied to a sample 
of subproject participants/beneficiaries, the number of which will be determined with
Implementers, and should yield information necessary to ascertain participants/beneficiaries’
opinions on subproject development, levels of participation, actual benefits and improvements in 
their wellbeing, as well as an assessment of pending needs; and iii) technical and operational 
field assessments by members of the ET, who will use previously-developed checklists and
interview guides and their professional judgment as to the validity, quality and applicability of
subproject interventions. ET members will take systematic field notes for assimilation at the end 
of each day’s site visits and discuss findings every evening. Team members will take
photographs while in the field for presentation during the workshop planned for presentation of
the preliminary results of the evaluation (see section below). Some of the aspects to be
considered during the site visits are indicated below in a non-inclusive list: 
· Assessment of on-site planning and setting of priorities;
· Capability of field staff;
· Promotion, extension and training approaches used in connection with each subproject
type; 
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 2-5
· Review of pertinent socioeconomic and agro-ecologic data for the areas and communities 
served;
· Organizational levels and stability of community groups, including aspects of gender and 
equitable participation and benefit; 
· Assessment of the technical quality and operability of water supply, wastewater and solid 
waste infrastructure (including reliability and maintenance);
· Capability of municipal and community water association staff;
· Levels of municipal participation and management of water resources;
· Water quality, quantity and conservation practices;
· Watershed (water source) conditions and tenure;
· Coverage and spread of agricultural and soil and water conservation techniques;
· Approaches and outreach of education and training programs, and their impacts;
· Citizen awareness and organized efforts in advocacy of water issues;
· Financial and payment models for water, wastewater and solid waste services;
· Appropriateness of non-planned activities and their relation to overall project objectives 
and Intermediate Results package; and
· Determination of the validity of advancements and quality in meeting targets as reported.
C. Analysis of Information Collected and Formulation of Preliminary Findings, 
Conclusions and Recommendations by Evaluation Team
At the end of the site visit phase, tendencies will be analyzed and follow-up interviews with
Implementers’ staff may be required. ET members will address any pending queries with USAID 
and/or Implementer staff. Upon finalizing all site visits and necessary interviews, ET members
will sequester themselves for approximately 4 days in order to analyze information collected and 
address their particular assignments for their respective specialty areas. Team members will meet 
each day to exchange and analyze findings and preliminary conclusions, and strategize on
recommendations. These analyses will attempt to answer the questions presented in Attachment 
1, but be organized around the SO/IR framework. 
As requested in USAID’s SOW for the evaluation activity, recommendations will formulated for 
Mission management so as to facilitate: i) more effective utilization of resources in
implementation; ii) adjustments in implementation arrangements to improve effectiveness and
efficiency; iii) actions to improve management effectiveness; and iv) adjustments to, or changes 
in focus, structure and/or content of sub-activities (components, sub-components) and/or funding 
allocations, to improve activity performance in achieving specified results. Team members will
also prepare their assessment of lessons learned during the first four years of AGUA Activity,
both positive and negative, will serve to orient USAID and Implementers in: i) capitalizing on
promising approaches and techniques; ii) resolution of outstanding managerial, administrative
and/or technical issues; and iii) provide strategic guidance for future design, planning, 
programming and implementation. Lessons learned and recommendations should serve to
provide sufficient information to prepare the USAID/WE’s two-year strategy extension for the
AGUA Activity. Recommendations will also be developed to provide strategic guidance to the
Mission concerning the focus and development of the AGUA Activity (and/or other
complementary strategic areas) for a 5-year planning horizon.
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
2-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
D. Workshop for Presentation and Discussion of Preliminary Findings, Conclusions 
and Recommendations
The ET will succinctly draft members’ collective findings, conclusions and recommendations in 
tabular and graphic form for inclusion in a PowerPoint presentation. The PowerPoint
presentation will be used as a basis for an interactive workshop. Participants in this workshop
shall be vetted by the Mission and shall include ET members, USAID/El Salvador (WE and
MEC members) and selected Implementer representatives. Participants shall critically evaluate
the ET’s findings and conclusions and exchange points of view on preliminary
recommendations. Workshop participants’ comments and observations will be recorded and used 
as guidance by the ET in the preparation of the draft Evaluation Report. The workshop is
scheduled for September 6 at a location to be determined by ARD’s ET in coordination with
USAID. A summary overview of the methodology to be used in the workshop is provided below.
Elements of the Methodology to be used in the Evaluation Workshop
The ET Team Leader will moderate the one-day workshop and will establish the “rules of
engagement” in terms of participants’ input. The ET will make it clear that the workshop will be 
used as a forum for feedback to and interchange with stakeholders, and as an additional
analytical tool to be used by the ET. Emphasis will be placed on collegiality among those
gathered and horizontal interchanges, wherein all opinions are valid and will be offered in a
constructive manner. It will be made clear that the workshop will not be used to defend a
particular position or any aspect of project implementation that may be found to be deficient by 
the ET. The moderator will control the timbre and direction of the discussions in a constructive 
manner. The moderator will also emphasize to participants that the most important aspect of the 
evaluation is that of: moving forward with what is working well, rectifying project management 
and/or technological deficiencies, and positioning all aspects of project implementation to
maximize outputs and the impact of activities during the last two years of the planned
implementation period of the AGUA Activity. Once the ground rules have been established, the
following steps will be used during the workshop:
1. Presentation of findings and conclusions. ET members will present their preliminary
findings and conclusions via a PowerPoint presentation, with a copy of the same to be
provided to each workshop participant. The presentation will be organized around the
principal project themes of the evaluation: project management and administration;
extension outreach and training models; technological interventions by type (water,
wastewater, solid waste, watershed management/water source protection); water policy
initiatives, including the establishment of watershed committees, municipal ordinances
and follow-up actions; impact indicators and monitoring; and sustainability of project
interventions.
2. Discussion and feedback among workshop participants. ET members will request any
corrections, clarifications and/or additions to their interpretations of data collected.
Participants will be encouraged to request clarification and discuss ET members’ findings 
and conclusions, but shall not challenge them unless they are based on erroneous or
misinterpreted data. Participants’ comments, corrections to ET members’ findings, and/or 
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 2-7
observations as to the Team’s conclusions will be recorded for consideration in the
drafting of the evaluation report.
3. Distribution of participants into workgroups and development of recommendations. 
Participants will be distributed into thematic workgroups, with an effort to distribute
representatives of those organizations present among each of the workgroups.
Workgroups will be given specific instructions to analyze the findings and conclusions of 
the ET (as may be modified during discussion and feedback) and formulate
recommendations oriented to fulfill the most important aspect of the evaluation (see
italicized sentence preceding the workshop steps). Workgroups will post their
recommendations on flipchart paper in large letters.
4. Plenary session for presenting and considering workgroup products and comparison with 
ET recommendations. Each workgroup will present their recommendations to the
assembled participants in a plenary session and receive and discuss comments. Once all 
workgroups have presented their recommendations, the ET will present their own
preliminary recommendations (these will have been formulated before the workshop but 
kept under wraps until this time) and compare these with workgroup recommendations.
Similarities and/or divergences in recommendations will be discussed and an effort made 
to come to closure on the general direction of recommendations for each of the thematic 
areas. Workgroup recommendations and all additional commentary will be recorded for
consideration by the ET in preparation of the first draft of the evaluation report. 
E. Principal Responsibilities of ARD Evaluation Team Members
All ET members will participate in a collegial manner to answer the principal evaluation
questions posed in Attachment 1 of the work plan. The interdisciplinary composition and shared 
experience of the Team will facilitate cross-fertilization of analysis and recommendations. All
members will, toward their particular professional assignments, evaluate aspects of: the
development impact of activities; institutional, financial and environmental sustainability of
project initiatives; performance and impact indicators; and strategic direction of the project to
date, and future considerations. 
Paul Dulin, Environmental and Natural Resources Management Specialist/Team Leader. Mr.
Dulin will serve as Team Leader, coordinate all facets of the evaluation effort and serve as
principal liaison with USAID/El Salvador. Mr. Dulin will take the lead on analysis of: project
planning, management, and administration activities of both USAID and Implementers; project 
coordination with GOES agencies; overall policy and legislative initiatives; CFR 22, Part 216
compliance; watershed management and soil/water conservation techniques (including training 
in these techniques); and overall strategic planning for the AGUA Activity in the future. Mr. will 
also be responsible for coordinating the evaluation workshop and report preparation.
Mr. Scott Tobias, Rural Water Supply Specialist. Mr. Tobias will have lead responsibility in the 
analysis of: municipal and rural water collection, treatment and distribution systems; wastewater 
and solid waste management subprojects and techniques; clean technologies for industrial
processes; technical aspects of policy and legislative efforts in water, wastewater, solid waste
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
2-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
and clean technologies; water quality monitoring; and technical aspects of water resources
planning and management. Mr. Tobias will also analyze technical training approaches involving 
water, wastewater and clean technology areas. 
Mr. Carlos Zavala, Community Development/Participation Specialist. Mr. Zavala will carry out 
analyses related to community, local government and local organization participation at all
stages of project development and execution, environmental education and training approaches, 
citizen actions to address water issues, and capabilities in infrastructure management and
operation. He will take the lead in preparing and administering the Rapid Field Assessment
Instrument for determining the nature and levels of participation of beneficiaries/participants for 
each subproject type. Mr. Zavala will also analyze the cohesiveness and effectiveness of
community organizations and local governments in the management of rural water and waste
management infrastructure, and aspects of the institutional and financial sustainability of these
organizations. 
Ms. Margarita Palomo, Administrative Assistant. Ms. Palomo will assist other Team Members
with logistical needs, administration of contract finances, contacting relevant institutions and
organizations to arrange meetings, procurement of materials as required, data assimilation, report 
preparation, and in the organization of the proposed workshop evaluation. 
III. Products and Deliverables
The following products and deliverables will be presented to USAID/El Salvador for analysis
and discussion. 
1. Rapid Field Assessment Instruments. The ET will seek USAID input before proceeding 
with field application of this form. The ET will formulate guided interview forms and/or 
checklists to be used to elicit feedback from Implementers, GOES representatives, and
subproject participants/beneficiaries at the field level during site visits proposed during
the 2nd and 3rd weeks of the evaluation period. The instrument to be used specifically for 
garnering input from subproject participants/beneficiaries will be presented to WE and
MEC team members before initiating field visits in order to ensure that the instrument
will consider USAID/El Salvador’s priority evaluation issues. This instrument will
include those aspects deemed necessary to answer the questions posed in Attachment 1 
including such aspects as: participants/beneficiaries’ level of participation in all phases of 
projects development; satisfaction with the quality and timeliness of services;
applicability of project activities to local agro-ecologic and socioeconomic conditions;
levels of technology adoption/adaptation; and sustainability of project-facilitated 
activities from socioeconomic and local institutional (support) perspectives. The ET
prefers that this instrument be used in small focus group sessions with a minimum of 4 
and maximum of 10 subproject participants/beneficiaries, but can also be applied on an
individual basis with qualified community informants. Implementers will assist the ET in 
arranging for meetings with these focus groups in selected communities to be visited
during the field analysis phase of the evaluation. 
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 2-9
2. Workshop for Presentation of Preliminary Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 
of the Evaluation. The ET will analyze information collected during interviews,
documentation review and field site visits and render its preliminary findings,
conclusions and recommendations in succinct format to be shared using in a PowerPoint 
presentation with USAID’s WE and MEC team members and selected Implementers’
representatives in an interactive workshop scheduled for September 6
th. Participants’
views will be catalogued and the Evaluation Team will use these in preparing the draft 
Evaluation Report. The workshop will be delivered at a location to be determined by
ARD in coordination with USAID. 
3. Draft Evaluation Report. The draft Evaluation Report, in English, will be presented to
USAID/El Salvador on September 13th. This draft will consider the comments and
suggestions made by USAID and AGUA Implementers during the September 6
th
workshop. USAID/El Salvador (WE, MEC) and Implementers will take 4 working days 
to review the draft report. USAID/El Salvador will then collate comments from all parties 
and send the consolidated comments on the draft report to ARD by COB on September 
20th
. 
4. Final Evaluation Report. Upon receipt of the consolidated comments from USAID/El
Salvador (scheduled for September 20th), ARD/ET will then consider the consolidated
comments in the preparation of the final Evaluation Report that will be submitted to
USAID/El Salvador, in its English-language version, on September 27th. The Spanish￾language version will then be prepared and sent to USAID/El Salvador on October 7. The 
evaluation report is intended to have a length of no more than 25 pages, not including
tables incorporated in the body of the report. All other relevant material will be presented 
as attachments or annexes at the end of the report. The final Evaluation Report will
include, at a minimum, the following sections:
· Executive Summary. Including purpose of the evaluation, methodology, findings,
conclusions and recommendations. It will also include comments on development
impact and lessons learned. This summary will be a self-contained document and
provide enough detail so as to convey the most important results of the evaluation.
· Objectives, Scope of Work and Methodology. The principal and intermediate
objectives of the evaluation will be stated. The original (contracted) scope of work
will be included as an attachment, and an annotated outline of methodology used will 
be presented in the body of the report. Any deviation from the original scope of work 
will be explained. All instruments and sources used during the evaluation will be
included as attachments, including but not necessarily limited to: rapid field
assessment instrument; list of persons, institutions and organizations contacted;
itinerary and final evaluation execution plan; and list of documents reviewed. 
· Evaluation Team. A complete list of evaluation team members will be included as an 
attachment. This list will include all international and host country personnel, their
fields of expertise and responsibilities during the evaluation effort.
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
2-10 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
· Evaluation Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. Principal findings and
conclusions will be presented in a separate section of the report, and used to assess
the advances made in project development, as well as any deficiencies noted by the 
ET. Responding directly to each of the principal conclusions, a separate section will
be used to present the recommendations of the ET. It is expected that
recommendations will presented for each principal project activity, for each
Implementer, and for USAID/El Salvador so that each entity will have clear direction 
in responding to the results of the evaluation as applicable to the planned final two
years of implementation of the AGUA Activity.
· Lessons Learned and the Development Impact of Project Activities. This section will 
describe the causal relationship factors that proved critical to project success or
failure, including political, policy, economic, social and bureaucratic preconditions
within the host-country and USAID. A review of technological approaches and
implementation/participation models will serve to distinguish among those that are
more successful or promising from those that are failing or are less likely to succeed 
and why. Lessons learned as to the replicability and sustainability of technological
approaches and implementation models will also be discussed. The Evaluation Team 
will also analyze social, economic and environmental project results that may have
not been contemplated by the Mission or the original design and attempt to qualify 
these. Finally, this section will assess the evolution of project activities and whether 
they are having, or will have, the desired development impact, both in terms of the
wellbeing of their beneficiaries and the agro-ecologic environment. 
· Strategic Guidance for Future AGUA Activities. This final section addresses the
principle reason for the AGUA evaluation. Clear guidance will be provided to
USAID/El Salvador for further developing the AGA Activity for the medium to long 
term (five to ten years) in increasing sustainable access to clean water in El Salvador 
and how these strategies will impact current and changing conditions in the country. 
Performance indicators shall be reviewed and recommendations made for
improvement. Through this analysis the ET intends to provide USAID/El Salvador
with its vision and strategic recommendations for furthering the objectives of the
Mission’s AGUA Activity including, as necessary, reorientation of Strategic
Objectives and/or the Results package. 
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 2-11
ATTACHMENT 1
Non-exclusive List of Questions to be Answered during the Evaluation Process 
(Based on Attachment 2 of the SOW as adapted and expanded by ARD)
Project and Activities Management and Administration
1) Are the Implementers’ project management procedures (planning, performance monitoring, 
reporting) appropriate and efficient? 
2) Are activities carried out effectively in terms of plans and targets?
3) Are the Implementers’ administration procedures efficient in time and quality (logistics, 
budgeting cycles, personnel management)?
4) Do technical staffs have the necessary level of capability to carry out assigned tasks?
5) Are staff orientation and training activities effective?
6) Is the geographic area of current activities appropriate?
7) Has the selection of targeted communities and beneficiary groups been appropriate in terms 
of reaching project objectives? 
8) Have CFR 22, Part 216 Regulations, concerning the environmental impact of 
proposed/planned activities, been implemented in a timely fashion and of acceptable 
technical standards? 
9) Has USAID/El Salvador’s project supervision and administration been effective in time and 
quality?
Technological Considerations
10) Has the choice of technologies been appropriate (for each of the principal groups of project 
interventions in relation to SO/IR Framework)?
11) Are policy/regulation initiatives appropriate and on track?
12)Is the emphasis on agriculture in watersheds appropriate?
13) Are watersheds being maintained in, or improved to, conditions consistent with objectives of 
sustainable production of water resources to water supply systems as designed? 
14)Is there the current level of water source protection (wells, springs and stream catchments) 
sufficient to guarantee the potable quality of the water delivered to beneficiaries?
15)Is the current emphasis on solid and liquid waste treatment appropriate?
16) Are project interventions effective during both wet and dry seasons in El Salvador?
17)If more funds were made available, what would be your recommendation for the most 
effective investment?
Consultation with and Participation of Beneficiaries of, and Those Affected by, Project 
Activities 
18) Have the necessary stakeholders been involved in the process?
19) To what extent both sexes participate in project activities and how do gender roles affect 
programmatic results?
20) Are community organizations cohesive and stable?
21) Do community-level beneficiaries think that the interventions are having a desired impact on 
their livelihood and/or wellbeing?
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
2-12 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
22)Is there an increasing demand by citizens to participate and/or benefit from project 
interventions (as determined by non-marketed demand)?
23) Are any groups being adversely affected by project interventions?
24) Are the citizen participation/awareness activities effective? 
25) Does the Activity have the necessary support from the beneficiaries, e.g. in the form of active 
participation in operation/management of water services? 
26) Are citizens/beneficiaries financing a part of project interventions?
27) At what point will community organizations and municipalities be capable of managing their 
projects without further USAID assistance?
Monitoring of Project/Activity Interventions: Performance vs. Impact Indicators
28) Are performance indicators appropriate and are they an accurate representation of reality as 
determined in the field?
29)Is the quality of indicators appropriate and sufficient?
30) Which of the performance indicators are good proxies for monitoring impact?
31) Are there sufficient and effective impact indicators currently being monitored?
32) Are current performance and impact monitoring activities cost-effective? 
33)Is the current level of drinking water monitoring sufficient to guarantee the potable quality of 
the water delivered to beneficiaries?
Impact and Sustainability of Project Interventions and Improvements: Strategic 
Considerations
34)Is the current mix of infrastructure, policy, management, and education/community 
participation the best mix for sustainable rural access to clean water (right proportion of 
money and time)?
35) What is the impact of solid and liquid waste treatment technologies on the surrounding and 
downstream environment?
36) How has the health and wellbeing of beneficiaries been impacted by project interventions?
37) Do the institutions or individuals involved in sustaining the benefits of project activities have 
the capacity to do so?
38) Have policy and legislation initiatives been timely implemented with the 
provisions/regulations necessary to decentralize authority to the local level? 
39)Is there enough political support at both the local and national level for benefits to continue?
40) What macroeconomic policies can affect the chances for benefit sustainability, i.e., the water 
laws?
41)If more funds were made available, what would be the Evaluation Team’s recommendations 
for the most effective investment in terms of reaching the SOs an IRs?
Questions with Relevance to USAID/El Salvador’s Results Framework and Strategic 
Objectives 
42)Is the current AGUA strategy appropriate and effective, and are the objectives and results 
relevant and being met?
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 2-13
43)Is the USAID mission aware of project successes and importance, and of any deficiencies 
that may be affecting project execution? 
44) How can communication, supervision and project communication with USAID be improved?
45) How can USAID/El Salvador, under its AGUA Activity most effectively respond to drought 
and/or floods?
46) What activities and instruments should be continued to ensure the sustainability of project 
activities and benefits?
47) Which are the most efficient indicators for gauging the impact of the interventions under the 
AGUA Activity? 
48) What should be USAID/El Salvador’s general strategy for the AGUA Activity for next 5-10 
years? 
Annex 2: Revised Evaluation Work Plan
2-14 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
ATTACHMENT 2
Evaluation of El Salvador AGUA Activity (USAID No. 519-0443): Evaluation Execution Plan
Schedule (# days) – Duration of Tasks**
Activity Deliverables Aug
7-9
Aug
12-18
Aug
19-25
Aug
26-31
Sept
2-8
Sept
9-15
Sept
16-22
Sept
23-27
Responsible
Parties*
1. Preparation of work plan prior to arrival Draft work plan (Aug. 9) to 
USAID via email 2 TL, ARD
2. Review of draft work plan (concurrent with Team travel) Comments (Aug 15) to ARD 3 USAID
3. Arrival of Evaluation Team Leader & Members Initial USAID meeting (Aug 
15) 0.5 ET, USAID
4. Discuss & revise work plan Final work plan (Aug 16) 1.5 ET/USAID
5. Meetings w/ USAID, GOES & Implementers; review of 
documentation (may include some field visits)
Interviews, review of USAID 
& Implementers’ documents 3
ET with USAID as 
assigned
6. Site visits, interviews w/ field staffs, subproject 
assessments, survey of beneficiaries
Internal field notes, 
completed focus group 
surveys
3 6
ET with USAID as 
assigned
7. Formulation of preliminary findings, conclusions & 
recommendations by Evaluation Team
Internal discussions & 
preparation of results 4 ET
8. Workshop for presentation of preliminary findings, 
conclusions; proposal of recommendations to USAID & 
Implementers; discussion of comments and 
recommendations 
PowerPoint presentation, 
discussion & reception of 
comments for draft report 
(9/6)
1
ET with input of 
USAID & 
implementers
9. Preparation/submission of draft report to USAID Draft Report (9/13) 1 5 ET
10. Departure of Evaluation Team Departure (9/14) 1 ET
11. Draft report review by USAID & Implementers
Review comments 
consolidated & sent to ARD 
(Sept 20)
5
USAID, 
Implementers
12. Revision & presentation of final evaluation report 
(English) Final Eval. Report (9/27) 5 ET/ARD
13. Translation of report to Spanish & presentation to USAID Reports presented (10/07) 5 ARD
* TL Team Leader
 ARD ARD, Inc. (Management)
 USAID USAID/El Salvador, including as appropriate: Water & Environment Office (WE), Mission Evaluation Committee (MEC), SDO, Directors
 ET Evaluation Team (including TL and all members)
 GOES Government of El Salvador (Ministry of Foreign Relations, and other ministries and directorates as required) 
** Number of working days. Note that 36 working/travel days are allocated to each team member, with 6-day workweek authorized.
Annex 3: Key Qualifications of Evaluation Team
Annex 3: Key Qualifications of Evaluation Team
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 3-1
This annex contains the Key Qualification Summaries of the three-person Evaluation Team. The 
Team members were:
· Paul Dulin – Team Leader and Technical Specialist in Integrated Water Resources
· Scott Tobias – Rural Water Supply Specialist
· Carlos Zavala - Community Development and Participation Specialist
MR. PAUL DULIN - TEAM LEADER AND TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IN 
INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Paul Dulin has more than 25 years of professional experience in project design,
implementation and evaluation; environmental impact assessment, mitigation, and monitoring;
natural resources, water resources, and watershed management; land and natural resource
assessments and sustainable development planning; analysis of climatological, ecological,
hydrological, socioeconomic, and land-use parameters; remote sensing and geographic
information systems; and community participation, extension, and training techniques. He has
specific experience in supervision and evaluation of donor-assisted development projects in
Central America, with the IDB (five projects) and USAID, including the regional project
PROARCA I and bilateral Honduran Environmental Protection Fund. His country experience in 
El Salvador includes conducting project supervision and evaluation for IDB-funded projects and 
the USAID PROARCA I evaluation, providing technical assistance to the Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources, and to the Programa Ambiental de El Salvador (PAES).
Mr. Dulin has extensive long- and short-term field experience in the United States, Mexico,
Belize, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia,
Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Haiti, St. Lucia,
Jamaica, Bahamas, Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Dominican Republic, Somalia,
Bangladesh, and regional Caribbean, Central America and South America. He is fully fluent in
written and spoken English and Spanish; and has extensive Chief of Party and Team Leader
experience on project designs, evaluations, and activities in execution.
MR. SCOTT TOBIAS - RURAL WATER SUPPLY SPECIALIST
Mr. Scott Tobias has a M.S. in Environmental Engineering, is full-time home office staff for
ARD, and will work on issues relating to water, sanitation, health, and disaster mitigation. Mr. 
Tobias has over 15 years of international experience in international development projects
focusing on water supply, sanitation, and health with most of this experience in Latin America. 
He has managed a major USAID community water supply, sanitation, and development project 
in Bolivia, and designed water supply and sanitation projects for major USAID-funded NGO
efforts in Bolivia and Nicaragua. For the Environmental Health Project (EHP) he has supervised 
the implementation of three pilot planning activities for provision of wastewater collection and 
treatment for small towns in Ecuador, Jamaica and Panama. He has worked on various USAID 
evaluation activities, having conducted a PEA for USAID/El Salvador in July 2001, and the Title 
II Integrated Food Security Project in Bangladesh in February 2001. He has experience in
disaster planning and response, having led water and sanitation assessments in Turkey and
Mozambique as a member of USAID DARTs. He has done mitigation planning for a mass
migration in Rwanda (1996) and evaluated one of the most comprehensive disaster readiness and 
Annex 3: Key Qualifications of Evaluation Team
3-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
response programs in the world, the USAID-funded CARE/Bangladesh Disaster Response
Component of the Integrated Food for Development project in 1999. 
ING. CARLOS ZAVALA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PARTICIPATION 
SPECIALIST
Ing. Carlos Antonio Zavala is an Agricultural Engineer with a Master’s Degree in Business
Administration and will cover technical areas related to agriculture and economic activity. As a 
consultant with a principal focus in El Salvador, Ing. Zavala has worked in dozens of projects in 
El Salvador related to a wide range of environmental, agricultural and income generation topics. 
He has worked on several projects with USAID funding, the most recent being the AGUAS
Project, where he is developing environmental education materials and participating on work in 
Bajo Lempa. Over the last eight years as an independent contractor and during his tenure with
DEICO, S.A, he has focused on building sustainable institutional systems for environmental,
business, and agricultural projects. These include environmental feasibility studies, monitoring
and evaluation systems, financial management systems, institutional strengthening plans, and
participatory planning procedures. He has worked extensively with municipal governments and 
with the El Salvadoran Ministry of the Environment, the Sistema Nacional de Medio Ambiente
(SINAMA), and FISDL. Ing. Zavala provides the team with a broad base of experience in
economic enhancement and agricultural activities, all grounded in years of experience in the
environmental field.
Annex 4: Project Site Visits: Schedule and Summary Field Notes
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 4-1
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
Areas Atendidas por SalvaNatura en Ahuachapán Sur
22 de Agosto
9:00 – 10:00 AM
P. Dulin
Visita Caserío El Refugio, Cantón San 
Benito, San Francisco Menéndez 
Participantes: Miembros de comité de 
agua y ADESCO
Visita al pequeño sistema de agua con 60 familias conectadas; bien construida y mantenida; se 
habló de actividades de protección de fuentes y manejo de cuencas (existen pocas actividades 
en la actualidad); las prácticas de no-quemar son las más impactantes de acuerdo a los 
agricultores.
9:00 – 10:00 AM S. 
Tobias y C. Zavala
Visita a Centro Educativo Cara Sucia
Participantes: Maestras y alumnos
El grupo ha respondido a las demandas de apoyo del proyecto, su actual organización es 
incipiente y requiere de apoyo para consolidar su gestión en la solución de problemas locales de 
drenaje de aguas servidas y lluvias, servicios sanitarios. Tienen programa radial de educación 
ambiental; paquete de sitio de aprendizaje, programa de separación de basura, taller escolar de 
reciclaje de papel.
10:30 – 11:30 AM 
P. Dulin, S. Tobias 
y C. Zavala
Visita a Proyecto construcción 
lavaderos en Río Cara Sucia y 
parcelas demostrativas de prácticas 
de conservación de suelos 
Participantes: Miembros de Comité 
transitorio subcuenca Cara Sucia, 
Junta de Agua ACEPROS (SAP Cara 
Sucia)
Trabajando sobre un plan de manejo de la subcuenca con varios proyectos en ejecución,
ordenanzas para denuncias ambientales; problemas muy importantes de residuos sólidos; el
Comité de Cuencas está en un proceso de organización incipiente, requieren de apoyo para su 
conformación. Plan de Manejo de la Cuenca esta en proceso, así como los proyectos de
lavaderos, requieren apoyo en el seguimiento de denuncias locales del excesivo uso del agua 
con fines de riego y en la descontaminación del agua (conflictos entre usuarios tradicionales vs. 
poderosos); tiene un proceso judicial en proceso. SAP bien administrado con sistema
computacional.
Productor demostrador tiene más que 5 años en GreenProject y AGUA; parcelas sin quemar 
con barreras vivas de vetiver en buen estado, árboles frutales intercalados y forestales como 
cerca viva . Solo hombres en el grupo. Cultivo combinado de pipián, ejote, okra y ayote, plátano 
y guineo de seda en regular estado; falta de obras de conservación del drenaje principal de la 
parcela en la parte cercana a fuente de agua (pozo artesiano); nótese que varias de las 
comunidades estaban atendidas bajo el GreenProject a través de SalvaNatura y CENTA, así 
continuando procesos iniciados pero no consolidados. OJO: La bomba del SAP no está 
funcionando. 
12:00 – 1:30 PM
P. Dulin,
S. Tobias y C. 
Zavala 
Almuerzo en Cara Sucia
Participantes: ADESCOs, Alcaldía, 
juntas de agua, Red de Juntas de 
Agua, CDL
Con lideres comunales de la zona, incluyendo: Comité Transitorio de Subcuenca, ADESCOs
ACEPROS, Red de Juntas de Agua, y CDL San Francisco Menéndez. Técnicos SalvaNatura,
CARE y de PCI. Sistemas de Aprovisionamiento de Agua Potable, logros palpables del
proyecto, y tendencia acelerada de conformación de Red de Juntas de Administradores de Agua 
al nivel de la Región Occidental. Buenos líderes locales con visión de manejo de cuencas bien 
desarrollada. Conciencia evidente entre los representantes de todos los grupos presentes. 
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
4-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
1:30-2:00 PM
P. Dulin,
S. Tobias y C. 
Zavala
Proyecto de relleno sanitario en San 
Fco. de Melendez
Participantes: PCI, contratista, comité 
encargado de la construcción
Falta de estudio de sitios alternativos y un estudio de impacto ambiental (Según SalvaNatura, no 
lo han terminado aún). El sitio no es ideal por el pendiente y cercanía próxima a una quebrada; 
problemas con el drenaje por no aislar el relleno, causando daños a la laguna de evaporación; 
problemas por falta de la compactación de los terraplenes y declive inverso al diseño; la laguna 
podría ser subdiseñado por la cantidad de lluvias en el área; camino de difícil acceso que 
dañaría los camiones. 
1:30 – 2:30 PM
S. Tobias y C. 
Zavala 
Visita SAP Puente Arce y Radio 
interactiva 
Participantes: Miembros Junta de 
Agua ACAGUAPA
Diseño SAP y capacidad para 800 familias de usuarios (a la fecha poseen 433 familias con 
acometidas). Entre los logros se encuentran: ADESCO fortalecida en su capacidad de gestión 
de proyecto de agua y de otros proyectos de beneficio comunitarios, experiencia relevante en 
tratamiento de conflictos sociales de agua. Requieren apoyo en mejorar eficiencia institucional y 
en la gerencia de servicios de calidad. Falta incluir disposición de aguas grises y negras en 
hogares (no-concurrente con el sistema/planta de tratamiento). 
1:30 – 2:30 PM
P. Dulin
Visita ADESCO La Ceiba, Santa Rita
Participantes: Miembros de 3 
ADESCOS
Proyecto de protección de Área Natural Salta Rita (remanente de bosques en galería de zonas 
bajas con conexión a la Barra de Santiago); problemas con residuos sólidos en las quebradas; 
ideas incipientes de manejar el área para el ecoturismo y educación ambiental; tienen un guarda 
recursos contratados con fondos comunitarios y esperan entrenar guías ecoturísticos locales; 
bien concienciados. Falta conformar un comité o asociación para administrar el área y gestionar 
ante MARN para el derecho (concesión?) de administrar el AP. 
2:30 – 3:30 PM
P. Dulin, S. Tobias 
y C. Zavala
Visita Planta de tratamiento de aguas 
en San Rafael
Participantes: Comité communal
Sistema de tanques sépticos individuales y de dos casas de polietileno conectados a una planta 
de tratamiento de recirculación en filtros de arena (biofiltración) y lagunas de sedimentación en 
proceso de prueba; problemas con el rebalsado de los tanques grandes con lluvias fuertes; la 
envergadura y costos de la obra pueden sobrepasar el alcance de la mayoría de las pequeñas 
comunidades en El Salvador. Organización de reciente reactivación con limitados acceso a 
recursos económicos invertidos en proceso de instalación de una planta de; obra iba a ser 
terminado en tres meses y lleva nueve meses. Decisiones en cuanto al reuso de agua tratada 
aún pendientes. Falta entrenar el comité y beneficiarios en el mantenimiento.
4:00 – 5:00 PM
P. Dulin, S. Tobias 
y C. Zavala
Visita a SAP Quebracho – Calderones
Participantes: Miembros de comité de 
agua del SAP
Llegó el Equipo Evaluador muy tarde y no se pudo ver el tanque; los pobladores muy ansiosos 
por haber gestionado un proyecto de agua por más de 7 años; pozo ubicado 4,5 km aguas 
abajo requiriendo el bombeo por eléctrico (muy costoso). Organización en proceso de 
conformación paralela al trámite y gestión del proyecto, que en su mayor parte es financiado por 
el FISDL. Considerando la fecha de culminación del proyecto se requiere de apoyo para lograr 
el crecimiento y desarrollo institucional. Se relacionan pocas actividades de conservación en las 
cuencas. 
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 4-3
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
23 de Agosto
9:00 – 10:15 AM
P. Dulin
Visita dos fincas demostrativas 
municipio Guaymango y un 
microproyecto de mejoramiento de 
una fuente de agua comunal y 
lavanderos
Participantes: Productores 
demostradores
Solo los productores demostradores están manejan planes de finca en un grupo (de 
conservación en milpas), mientras en otro grupo (diversificación de hortalizas con riego y un 
tanque de poli) todos tienen sus planes. En el primero tienen barreras vivas de brizantha y 
gandul, no-quemar, incorporación de rastrojos, siembra al contorno. Se estaba gestionando una 
reunión con SEGEM y la Bolsa de valores para la comercialización del maicillo y compra 
asociativa de insumos. Bonito proyecto de tecnología apropiada en el mejoramiento del 
nacimiento local. Solo hombres forman miembros de los grupos. Falta relacionar algunas 
actividades de conservación directamente con el manejo de las microcuencas estratégicas. En 
la segunda finca, se nota lo intensivo de la producción (frutales, hortalizas, riego) y la prueba de 
pesticidas orgánicas—pero al mismo tiempo los agricultores siguen usando Tamarón (etiqueta 
roja). Barreras de vetiver y brizantha, frutales, fertilizantes foliares. Varias parcelitas de 
reforestación cerca las casas, pero no tanto en los sitios de protección de cuencas y quebradas.
9:00 – 10:15 AM
S. Tobias y C. 
Zavala 
Vista Sitio de Aprendizaje Casa de la 
Cultura San Pedro Tuxtla y Juventud 
Activa 2000; y 
Participantes: Director Casa de la 
Cultura, colaboradores locales de 
sitios
Organización apoya esfuerzos del coordinador de Casa de la Cultura y de SalvaNatura; no 
cuenta con plan de trabajo grupal o de expansión institucional en actividades educativas. Tiene 
grupo de títeres (que no querrían estrenar por pena), artesanías con materiales de desechos, 
biblioteca de materiales AGUA. Jóvenes con proyecto de separación de basura (han visitado a 
Suchitoto), pero no tienen idea sobre las metas del proyecto
10:30-11:00 AM
C. Zavala
Visita a Grupo de Hortalizeros de San 
Pedro Puxtla
Participantes: SEGEM-CAMAGRO, 
ADESCO El Cortés
Organización de productores que comparten vivero techada (productor de plantines) para el
autoconsumo y venta local de los productos. Así como el trabajo a base de la Vinagrera.
11:00 – 12:00 PM
P. Dulin, S. Tobias 
y C. Zavala
Visita a Junta de Agua 
CORDURGUATEX
Participantes: Presidente Red de 
Juntas de Agua, colaboradores 
locales del sitio, otros miembros de 
Junta de Agua
SAP construido con fondos de la Unión Europea; muchos problemas. Falta mucho trabajo 
organizacional; falta mediadores. AGUA ha rescatado este proyecto con apoyo técnico y 
organizacional.. La Red de Juntas de Agua ha apoyado la junta local.
12:30 – 2:00 PM
P. Dulin, S. Tobias 
y C. Zavala
Reunión – Almuerzo con 
CODEGUAY. Casa Comunal 
Guaymango 
Participantes: Alcalde de Guaymango, 
Presidente de CDL de Guaymango, 
Jujutla y San Francisco Menéndez, 
miembros de CODEGUAY
Agrupación de varios grupos bajo la microregión Ahuachapán Sur reunidos mayormente por las 
necesidades de agua. Proyectos de SAP con FISDL para 3 cantones. La alcaldía quiere adquirir 
responsabilidad de manejar el SAP de ANDA pero la infraestructura está en mal estado. Parece 
unos grupos bien concienciados y promovidos por SalvaNatura. Ha sido promovido por RTI 
(Proyecto de Des. Mun.). El CDL tiene un plan de manejo, preparado de manera participativo, 
de 5 años de vigencia (50 proyectos con 32 ya planificados). Tienen 7 mesas sectoriales y 70 
organizaciones territoriales. Proponen manejar un relleno sanitario entre 4 municipios. 
Desarrollo Local: Capacitación y organización de CDLs, Proceso de conformación de micro 
región Ahuachapán Sur, plan de acción conjunto. 
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
4-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
Áreas Atendidas por Visión Mundial en Ahuachapán Sur
23 de Agosto
2:00 – 5:00 PM
P. Dulin
Visitas a parcelas demostrativas en la 
comunidad de Hoja de Sal
Participantes: Productores 
Demostradores, Carlos Gómes, Noé 
Hernández 
Situación ideal con la microcuenca atendida abasteciendo el SAP de la comunidad. Hay grupos 
de hombres (parcelas agrícolas) y mujeres (huertas). Hay conciencia entre la población sobre la 
necesidad de manejar la microcuenca, incluyendo reforestación al margen de quebradas. 
Parcelas demostrativas de barreras de vetiver y gliricidia, no-quemar (más aceptado), siembra al 
contorno, policultivos en huertas, hortalizas y frutales en huertas y en campos (diversificación), 
agroforestería, reforestación de boquetes, ovejas para carne. Todos manejan su propio plan de 
finca. El técnico fue capacitado bajo GreenProject y técnicos de Banco de Fomento habían 
promovido no-quemar. Promoción con empresa privada el cultivo de limón pérsico (potencial en 
la zona) y liga con la Asoc. de Productores de Limón Pérsico. Nótese que cuatro agricultores 
han plantado un millar de arboles de marañón, en posturas demasiado próximas como barrera 
viva (no es técnica apta), y sin idea que hacer con la producción eventual. 
2:00 – 5:00 PM
S. Tobias
SAP de Hoja de Sal Caja grande de unos 30m3
 que rebasa cuando está lleno; algunos problemas de tipo técnico 
con el clorador. Tiene conexiones domiciliarias y cantaneras, este último dificultando el cobro de 
tarifas. Se incluye una partida para la cuenca. 
2:00 – 5:00 PM
S. Tobias y C. 
Zavala
ADESCO El Progreso y comité de 
agua adscrito
Organización con experiencia en la obtención y traslado de fondos a los usuarios del SAP. Poca 
capitalización interna de los asociados y no tienen plan de trabajo y presupuesto en forma 
participativo.
Planta de Tratamiento de Aguas Servidas e Suchitoto (atendida por PCI)
24 de Agosto
9:00 AM–3:00 PM
P. Dulin, S. Tobias 
y C. Zavala
Participantes: Secretario Municipal, 
Vicepresidente y Tesorero de EMASA, 
CTO de USAID
Reunión en Alcaldía de Suchitoto en donde el Secretario Municipal explicó como el proyecto fue 
desarrollado, y la decisión de juntar el SAP y planta de tratamiento bajo EMASA. La planta de 
tratamiento está ubicada en un sitio apropiado, pero faltaba un tratamiento paisajístico y hay 
problemas de erosión. LA planta tiene algunos desperfectos relacionados a la construcción 
(distribución desigual de aguas en el biofiltro, problemas en el sitio del desagüe). Hay larva en el 
tanque clarificador y moscas negras abundante y otros temas a esperar en su operación con el 
tiempo. Todavía no existe un plan de reuso de las aguas tratadas y el plazo para concluir el 
sistema está por cerrar.
También se hizo una visita a la planta de compostaje de desechos sólidos, lo cual parece bien 
manejado y en buen funcionamiento (hay muchos visitantes y el Proyecto AGUA lo usa como
sitio de aprendizaje), aunque tienen un problema con las aguas lixiviadas. También se visitó el 
sitio del nuevo relleno sanitario bajo construcción cerca el centro de compostaje.
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 4-5
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
Áreas Atendidas por SalvaNatura en Usulután 
27 de Agosto
8:00- 8:45
Paul Dulin, Scott 
Tobias, Carlos 
Zavala
Visita a sitio de Aprendizaje Centro 
Escolar Dolores de Jesús Montoya. 
Santiago de Maria
Participantes: Miembros de sitios de 
Aprendizaje y maestros, Patricia 
Magaña y Ligia Zavala
Proyectito de demostración de compostaje como aprendizaje del reciclaje de materia orgánica y 
su conversión a bienes de valor. Unos dos alumnos iniciaron composteras en sus propias casas. 
Se revisó el currículum del Centro Escolar en materias de medio ambiente, las mismas 
desarrolladas durante el Proyecto GreenProject-GreenCom financiado por USAID (que bueno 
de verlas en uso!). Hace falta un jardín escolar para utilizar el abono de la compostera. 
8:45-9:45
Paul Dulin
Visita a MIBERLIN. Municipio de 
Berlín. Oficina de CODECO
Participantes: Miembros del Grupo 
Femenino de MIBERLIN, Patricia 
Magaña y Ligia Zavala
Proceso de reciclaje de papel, centro de acopio y conformación de la microempresa. Grupo 
conformado de mujeres solteras. Muy buena cohesión organizacional. Tienen una tienda para la 
venta de artesanías y han exportado artesanías a Canadá y España en forma demostrativa. 
Están gestionando un proyecto con la Alcaldía para la separación de los residuos sólidos 
(orgánico del no-orgánico) para abastecer sus trabajos. Problemas del local y están buscando 
otro.
8:45-9:45
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala
Visita a sitio de aprendizaje ADESCO 
San Juan I Municipio de Alegría. 
Tanque de captación
Participantes: Miembros de ADESCO 
y comité agua San Juan I, Patricia 
Magaña y Ligia Zavala
El ADESCO de Laguna de Alegría maneja el proyecto de abastecimiento de agua de un
reservorio por medio de tanque de agua lluvia de 115 m 3 , han recibido capacitación sobre
protección de la fuente y del proceso de cloración del agua de consumo a nivel domiciliar.
9:45-11:20
Paul Dulin 
Visita Protección de fuente de agua 
EL Jolete, Cantón San Juan Loma 
Alta. Berlín
Participantes: Lideres de ADESCO, 
COMITÉ DE AGUA, agricultores 
promotores
Patricia Magaña, Ligia Zavala y Nilton 
Navas
Grupo de Arrendatarios han aplicado prácticas de no-quemar (su más popular) con barreras 
vivas en parcelas demostrativas y irradiadas en tierras arrendadas (OJO: Un indicador de la 
gran aceptabilidad de estas prácticas y su efectividad en incrementar la productividad e 
infiltración y controlar erosión!). El proyecto de protección del fuente en El Jolete ha sido muy 
exitoso, funcional y de bajo costo. Problema en que gente de otros pueblos vienen a aprovechar 
el agua. Miembros del comité de agua entusiasmado y incluyen algunos agricultores 
demostradores. No tienen una política de cobrar por el agua. Se vio el proyectito de 
hipochloración en el tanque distribución de SAP San Juan Loma Alta. Problemas por la adición 
de muchas familias aprovechando el sistema. Pleito con el Municipio de Alegría que quiere 
quitar acceso a la fuente por razón que este está en su municipio y el sistema de agua está en 
el Municipio de Berlín. 
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
4-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
9:45 – 10:45
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala 
Visita a comités de agua El Caulote y 
Jocotillo La Puerta. Mercedes Umaña 
y Estancuelas. Tanque de distribución, 
carretera Panamericana.
Participantes: Directivos de comité de 
agua de El Caulote y Miembros del 
comité transitorio del proyecto 
Jocotillo La Puerta, Ricardo Mejía, 
Nicolás Méndez y Mario Rivas
Reunión con directivos, discusión del proceso social y la obra física. Organización en proceso 
de conformación paralelo a proceso constructivo y de reparación del Sistema de Abastecimiento 
de agua y tanques de agua con re-bombeo (115 m 3 c/u). No ha definido todavía la política de la 
tarifa a pagar los consumidores del SAP.
10:45 – 11:30
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala 
Visita Col. Las Flores. Cantón Santa 
Anita. Mercedes Umaña. Vivienda de 
presidente de ADESCO, 
Participantes: ADESCO Col. Las 
Flores, Ricardo Mejía, Nicolás Méndez 
y Mario Rivas
Recorrido proyecto piloto de pozos de absorción en Cantón Santa Anita. 
11:30 – 12:00
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala 
Comité de Subcuenca del Río San 
Simón.
Participantes: miembros del Comité, 
Mario Rivas 
Un movimiento ambiental para proteger el Río San Simón se convirtió en el Comité de la 
Subcuenca. El tema más importante es la legalización del Comité. Estaban preparando su plan 
de manejo. Petrología recolecta US$4,000/año específicamente para la cuenca que no se está 
utilizando para su protección. 
Áreas Atendidas por SACDEL en Usulután 
2:00 -3:00 PM
Paul Dulin, Scott 
Tobias, Carlos 
Zavala 
Almuerzo y reunión con Concejales de 
Alcaldía Municipal de Jiquilisco y 
Usulután, así como con miembros del 
Comité Gestor de la Subcuenca El 
Borbollón, incluyendo representantes 
de los ADESCOs y comités de agua 
de las 28 comunidades afiliadas al 
Proyecto SAP del Bajo Lempa) 
Se dividieron los consultores en tres grupos mezclados. CZ entrevistó a los concejales sobre su 
colaboración con el Proyecto AGUA y de las ordenanzas municipales. Se nota amplia 
experiencia en metodologías participativa para el establecimiento de ordenanzas municipales, 
falta apoyo en mecanismo de implementación y de control. Alcaldías son muy colaboradoras y 
agradecidas por el apoyo del Proyecto. PD y ST se entrevistó con miembros del Comité de 
Subcuenca Borbollón. Tienen un buen concepto y plan de manejo; proceso muy participativo; 
tienen lenguaje en sus estatutos para separar una partida del pago de tarifas de agua para 
manejar la cuenca (buena nota). ST discutió el SAP del Bajo Lempa, de agua bombeada de un 
pozo para beneficiar 28 comunidades, construida con fondos de la Cooperación Española pero 
sin capacitación en cómo manejar un sistema de agua (Consorcio está apoyando en este 
último).
3:00-3:30
Carlos Zavala
Visita a ADESCO El Tercio. Organización con experiencia en tratamiento de conflicto social alrededor del abastecimiento de 
agua.
3:30-4:30 PM
Scott Tobias
Visita al SAP de El Quebracho AGUA apoyó en la legalización de la junta de agua. Medidas de construcción bien ejecutadas y 
supervisadas. La bomba no está funcionando. Conexiones domiciliarias con PVC. Tienen sus 
pozos de absorción.
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 4-7
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
3:30-4:30 PM
Paul Dulin, Carlos 
Zavala
Comité Turístico de Chaguantique Reunión con el comité turístico de Chaguantique para conocer la experiencia del proyecto de 
desarrollo económico local., y gira al Centro de Interpretación y a uno de los bosques, 
acompañado por una de las guías. (OJO: Sería bueno que el grupo de Santa Rita venga a 
conocer la experiencia de Chaguantique.)
2:00 -3:00 PM
Paul Dulin, Scott 
Tobias, Carlos 
Zavala 
Comunidad de Río Rosa en Usulután, 
proyecto de manejo de desechos 
sólidos 
Proyecto de compostaje en su fase inicial. El sitio para la compostera no parece muy adecuado, 
ya que está muy cerca la colonia (potencial de olores y moscas) y está en una zona inundable. 
No contó con un estudio de impacto ambiental. Reunión de medio ambiente sobre el proyecto 
de separación y compostaje con miembros de la comunidad quienes expresaron su 
preocupación por la ubicación.
Áreas Atendidas por FUNDAMUNI y PCI en Usulután
28 de Agosto
8:00-9:30 AM
Paul Dulin
Reunión con Junta Administradora del 
Sistema de Agua del Cantón El Cerrito
Participantes: Miembros de al Junta, 
Cecilia Gómez, Equipo FUNDAMUNI
Son 7 caseríos y 352 hogares que reciben agua del SAP. Antes compraron su agua por 60 
colones por barril más el transporte. Proyecto es de pozo con bomba eléctrica. ADESCO 
supervisó la construcción y luego formaron una junta para administrar el SAP (2 juntas, una de 
administración y otra de vigilancia). Fontaneros parecen bien estrenados y ahora muy 
experimentados (tuvieron bastantes rupturas al inicio por malas conexiones). Tuvieron 
problemas con la bomba hasta que la casa comercial la reemplazaron. Sistema computerizado 
de administración contable. Hay 7 productores demostradores con grupos de 10-15 c/u 
trabajando en la cuenca de la zona (CHF promovió acequias de infiltración a 30 colones por 
jornada). Cuentan con sus pozos de absorción y letrinas. Se está discutiendo la inclusión de una 
partida de la tarifa de agua para el manejo de la microcuenca (aunque no sea la abastecedora).
10:00-11:00 AM
Paul Dulin
Reunión con el Comité Gestor de la 
Microcuenca El Zúngaro, Municipio de 
San Francisco Javier
Participantes: Miembros del Comité, 
Cecilia Gómez, Equipo FUNDAMUNI
Amplia participación de varias organizaciones en el Comité: escuelas, centro de salud, Alcaldía, 
agricultores, ADESCOs, etc. Se estaba discutiendo el borrador del plan de manejo y la 
priorización de proyectos. Algunos agricultores comentaron dos agricultores su interés en 
reservorios como se está implementando en la zona atendida por PCI (reunión está prevista con 
PCI). También se pudo apreciar el trabajo de jóvenes en CLARA (OJO: potencial para todo el 
área de Proyecto AGUA).
11:00-12:00
Paul Dulin
Recorrido de parcelas del subproyecto 
“Conservación de Suelo y Mitigación 
de Riesgos Microcuenca El Zúngaro”
Participantes: Productores 
Demostradores, Equipo de 
FUNDAMUNI 
Parcela con acequias de infiltración en parcelas propiedad de no-participantes en el Proyecto. 
Parcelas son activamente pastoreadas por bovinos. Acequias promovidas con pagos por trabajo 
de CHF. No es práctica recomendable las acequias en potreros por daños del pisoteo de vacas. 
Mejor sería la reforestación en parcela pura o agroforestería. (OJO: AGUA no incluye práctica 
con ganaderos) 
8:00-10:00
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala
Visita a El Palmital, Municipio de 
Ozatlán, Proyecto de mitigación de 
deslaves
Participantes: John McPhail, Nicolás 
Coto y Andrea Lamer de PCI
Construcción de gaviones de protección al lado del río en varios lugares apoyado por alimentos 
de trabajo post terremoto. Se notan algunos problemas de erosión de laterales. No se ejecutó 
un EIA para una obra muy importante. Las estructuras no han sido inspeccionadas por 
ingenieros de USAID ni USGS. OJO: debe el Proyecto AGUA estar financiando este tipo de 
estructuras?
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
4-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
10:00-12:30
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala
Visita a empresa Avícola en Loma 
Pacha y Proyecto de Comercialización 
en El Moro en Tecapán
Participantes: John McPhail, Nicolas 
Coto y Andrea Lamer de PCI
Grupo de 4 jóvenes deseosos de aumentar sus ingresos actuales a base de protección de la
tortuga marina. Al lado de la carretera que conduce a Usulután, Lideres discuten enfoque de
contenido de fondos a la luz de la energía para el ECOCENTRO, un lugar de agronegocio.
Actividades creativas para generar ingreso.
12:30-1:45 PM
Paul Dulin, Scott 
Tobias, Carlos 
Zavala
Almuerzo con representantes de PCI y 
FUNDAMUNI
Discusión de estrategias y planes futuros de las dos organizaciones
2:30-4:00
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala
Reunión Directiva Comunal y 
productores del Cantón Las Trancas, 
Municipio Ozatlán y visita a parcelas 
demostrativas
Participantes: Cecilia Gómez, Equipo 
FUNDAMUNI
FUNDAMUNI apoya en aspecto del SAP, mientras PCI en aspectos de producción y 
agroforestería (se está doble-contando beneficiarios). El ADESCO ha priorizado el desarrollo 
local por medio de SAP. Sin embargo, se percibe una doble dualidad ente los coordinadores y 
los subordinados. Visitas a parcelas demostrativas en compañía del Productor Demostrador. 
Observación de técnicas de no-quemar con barreras vivas, cercas, acequias de infiltración, 
cultivos combinados de maíz con frijol mucuna. Los reservorios son fuertes y aceptados por sus 
beneficiarios. SAP programada para 6 caseríos del cantón.
2:30-4:00
Paul Dulin
Visita a la finca demostradora de 
Ernesto Gracia en El Delirio
Participantes: John Mcphail, Andrea 
Lamer, Sergio Rivera de PCI 
Diversificación con hortalizas a base de riego por goteo. Reservorio de 15 mts cúbicos; 
captación de agua de lluvias del techo. Venta de pepinos europeos, papayas, y oroco. No hay 
fuentes de agua potable y hallen el agua de 5 kms de distancia para beber. Perforaron un pozo 
bajo el programa de nuevos horizontes pero no esta habilitado por falta de conexión eléctrica y 
agua de alto contenido de hierro. Agrupación de hecho (sin intención de legalizarlo). Pocas 
mujeres organizadas en grupo. Falta de una estrategia de salida en la metodología de 
extensión.
4:00-5:00
Paul Dulin
Visita a vivero de rootrainers en las 
Trancas.
Participantes: Grupo La Renovación, 
Noel Santamaría, Efrain Cortéz, 
Andrea Lamer de PCI
Grupo de mujeres laborando en un vivero de rootrainers. Problemas con la mezcla de abonos 
de gallinaza y plagas en las plantas. Producción de especies forestales y frutales (eventuales) 
para la venta a la comunidad y trabajos de extensión de PCI en la zona. Buena estrategia de 
viveros comunitarios para generar ingreso local y suministrar plantas a afíliales de PCI.
Áreas Atendidas por FUNDAMUNI, CRS y PCI en Corinto, Morazán
30 de Agosto
9:00-10:00
Reunión con miembros del Comité de 
Medio Ambiente de Corinto
Participantes: Varios líderes 
cantonales, Alcalde de Corinto, 
ADESCOs y Comité del Medio 
Ambiente de Corinto, Equipo 
FUNDAMUNI
Discusión de los intereses y conceptos en manejo de la Subcuenca del Río Corinto. Ya existe el 
Plan de Manejo de la Subcuenca del Rió Corinto/Río Torola, preparado de manera participativa 
por los asistentes. Grupo concientizado sobre la necesidad de conservar la cuenca. Falta de 
agua es problema más importante (solo 5 de los 53 caseríos tiene su SAP). El plan tiene varios 
subproyectos para que se está gestionando recursos, incluyendo SAPs. Deforestación es un 
problema crítico. FUNDAMUNI está en la zona desde 1997. Ya promulgaron ordenanzas y 
están apenas empezando pensar en como aplicarlas.
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 4-9
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
10:00-12:00
Paul Dulin
Recorrido de parcelas de Productores 
Demostradores en el Alto de 
Aguacate, Cantón El Corralito
Participantes: Demostradores, Ricardo 
Pérez de FUNDAMUNI y Carlos 
Huezo y Roney Gutiérrez de CARE 
Uso de tanque de 22,000 litros de polietileno, conectado a un nacimiento que acaba de secar 
por primera vez. Se usa tecnología de riego por goteo, pero en suelos marginales de alto 
pendiente (OJO: costo-eficiencia y económico de este tipo de sistema). La microcuenca 
abastecedora está parcialmente protegida, pero se necesita trabajar con los dueños de tierras 
en la parte alta. Mucha gente tiene familiares en los EE.UU. y hay fuerte dependencia a 
remesas. Hay tierra no cultivadas propiedades de dueños en los EE.UU. (OJO: Potencial de 
ligar remesas con el financiamiento de proyectos AGUA—FUNDAMUNI está gestionando con 
grupos de enlace en los EE.UU.). Algunas deficiencias en el enfoque estratégico en donde 
trabajar en la microcuenca.
12:00-12:30
Paul Dulin
Visita a Radio Corinto
Participantes: Miembros de la Junta y 
Comentaristas de la Radio, Equipos 
FUNDAMUNI y CARE
La emisora fue establecida con fondos de contraparte de FUNDAMUNI bajo el Proyecto AGUA, 
bajo la condición de 35% de la programación se orienta a medio ambiente. Programas radiales 
de conservación de suelo, no quemar, Casa El Agua, anti-dengue, residuos sólidos, y 
promoción de las ordenanzas. 
8:30-10:30
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala
Reunión sobre el Proyecto de 
Diversificación y Comercialización 
CRS/PHOC
Participantes: Equipo CRS, Miembros 
de la Directiva y productores de 
PHOC, CDL de Corinto
Entrevistas con miembros de la Junta Directiva, extensionistas comunitarios, jóvenes de
formación de Gerentes Campesinos, Comité de Mercadeo, y Comité de Mujeres de Centros de 
Empaque. Organización conformada por productores de la zona con apoyo de técnicos de CRS. 
Tienen avances en el proceso de comercialización y de preparación de jóvenes para tareas de 
gerencia y de administración de la empresa. Parecen todos de la organización bien informadas.
Con el Comité de Desarrollo Local de Corinto se analizó el proceso de priorización de proyectos 
del PADL, con participación de la ciudadanía.
10:30-12:30
Scott Tobias, 
Carlos Zavala
Visita a Centro de Empaque y Puesto 
de Mercadeo en Corinto y visitas a 
Cantón Honorable para ver parcelas 
demostrativas de cons. de suelos
Participantes: Equipo CRS, Miembros 
de la Directiva y productores de 
PHOC
Se observa dominio de aspectos técnicos y de manejo de los cultivos en manos de los
productores demostradores. Los técnicos de CRS apoyan el proceso de comercialización y uso 
de técnicas de riego y manejo fitosanitario de los cultivos. Cercas vivas, cero labranza,
reservorio construido con apoyo de PCI. OJO: Hay pocas actividades de protección y
conservación de la cuenca receptora. 
1:00-2:00
Paul Dulin, Scott 
Tobias, Carlos 
Zavala
Inspección del Relleno Sanitario de 
Corinto.
Participantes: Alcalde de Corinto y 
vocales, Iliana Amaya y Orlando Luna 
de PCI
Reacomodaron el botadero anterior a un relleno moderno. Se nota buen saneamiento y 
operación (no ni moscas ni zopilotes). Alcalde opera un solo camión para recoger orgánicos un 
día y no-orgánicos el otro día. Parece que está funcionando bien. Centro de separación y 
compostaje operando, con demostraciones del uso de en fincas al lado. Algunas dificultades de 
operación y tratamiento de lixiviados en el digestor de flujo ascendente (requiere de ajustes en 
el proceso previsto). No hubo EIA para el proyecto.
Annex 4: Project Site Visits
4-10 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Horario Actividad / Lugar Componentes, Actividades, Observaciones
2:30-5:00
Paul Dulin, Carlos 
Zavala
Visita a parcelas de dos demostración 
de diversificación y la mini-represa 
desarmable en la quebrada
Participantes: Productores 
demostradores y Equipo CRS
Producción de chile, tomate, pipián y pepino bajo riego de aspersión. Problemas de babosa. 
Buenas cosechas y primer pago recibido por Don Lucas era de US$1,760!! Las parcelas están 
cultivadas hasta la ribera de la quebrada (OJO: Violación de la Ley de Medio Ambiente). Mini￾represa en una quebrada muy correntosa durante el invierno (mucha roca grande!). No se hizo 
EIA para el subproyecto y se desconoce el impacto aguas debajo de desviar las aguas para seis 
parcelas de membresía PHOC. Otra parcela cultivada con uso de riego por goteo; parece 
funcional y bien manejada por los agricultores. OJO: El acceso a Quebrada Honda es difícil y 
problemático con las lluvias (costo-beneficio?). Tiene un programa de crédito incipiente pero 
funcional. CRS está manejando casi todos los aspectos de mercadeo (registros, transporte, 
negocio con la Dispensa de Don Juan) y está donando en comodato un camión refrigerado para 
el transporte. Puede volverse paternalista si no se establezca la estrategia de salida y liberación 
del grupo y el plazo. 
2:00-4:00
Scott Tobias
Inspección del SAP de Quebrada 
Honda
Participantes: Miembros de la Junta 
de Agua, Técnicos de FUNDAMUNI y 
CRS
Inversión de SIA-FUNDAMUNI. Tanque nuevo sin hipochlorador. Sistema tiene algunas 
deficiencias técnicas; no tiene subproyectos de pozos de absorción ni letrinas, ni hay 
mediadores. Hay problemas de abastecimiento durante el verano. 
4:00-5:00
Scott Tobias
Centro de Empaque PHOC de 
Quebrada Honda
Participantes: Extensionista de CRS
Extensionista está llevando todo los registros y llevando los productos empacados al mercado 
(OJO: Cómo y cuándo pasarían estas labores a los miembros del Centro de Empaque? Y la 
estrategia de salida?).
Áreas Atendidas por FUNDAMUNI en Usulután 
31 de Agosto
10:00-11:30
Scott Tobias
Visita a Subproyecto SIA Fuete de 
Agua en San Mauricio
Participantes: Miembros de la Junta, 
Cecilia Gómez
Manantial grande distribuido entre dos SAP y una cooperativa de café. Mejoramiento de la 
captación (caja de cemento) y 20 lavaderos con trampa de filtración. FUNDAMUNI está 
facilitando la organización de la junta y mejorar el servicio de los SAPs. El manejo adecuado de 
la microcuenca es muy importante para estos SAP. 
11:00-1:00 PM
Scott Tobias
Reunión con Miembros y Visita del 
SAP de Visita a Subproyecto SIA en 
Santa Fe-Los Chiles
Participantes: Miembros de la Junta, 
Cecilia Gómez y Nancy Amaya
Nuevo tanque de captación y rehabilitación del SAP. La junta está en proceso de organización. 
Hay algunas observaciones sobre el diseño y construcción. 
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted During the
AGUA Evaluation Project
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 5-1
USAID
William Patterson
Director Oficina Medio Ambiente
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
298-1666, 298-1999
wpatterson@usaid.gov
Brad Carr
Gerente Proyecto AGUA
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
298-1666, 298-1999
bcarr@usaid.gov
Ing. José A. Ramos
Gerente de AGUA y Saneamiento
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán USAID
298-1666, 298-1999
jramos@usaid.gov
Elizabeth González
Gerente de Proyecto
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
egonzalez@usaid.gov
Patricia Echeverría
Gerente de Proyecto SIA
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
pecheverria@usaid.gov
Silvia de González
Oficina de Desarrollo Estratégico
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
sgonzalez@usaid.gov
Norma de Mata
Directora en Funciones 
Oficina de Desarrollo Estratégico
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
nmata@usaid.gov
Mary Rodríguez
Gerente de Proyecto
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
234-1364, fax: 298-1899
mrodriguez@usaid.gov
Rafael Cuellar
Gerente de Proyecto
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
racuellar@usaid.gov
CARE
Ing. Roney Gutiérrez
Gerente 
Proyecto AGUA
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661, 273-0939
rgutierrez@care.org.sv
Ing. Carlos Huezo
Subgerente Proyecto AGUA
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661, 273-0939
huezo@care.org.sv
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
5-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Ing. Ana Luisa Dueñas
Coordinadora de Infraestructura
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661, 273-0939
analuisa@care.org.sv
Ing. Selma Garcia
Coordinadora Agroforestaria
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661, 273-0939
selma@care.org.sv
Lic. Raúl Artiga
Subgerente Incidencia
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661, 273-0939,
rartiga@care.org.sv
FUNDAMUNI
Ing. Guillermo Galván
Coordinador
FUNDAMUNI
223-6403, 245-5412
fundamuni.dir@telesal.net
Ing. Cecilia Gómez
Coordinadora Regional
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403, 245-5412
fundamuni.subdir@telesal.net
Isaac Enoé Bonilla
Referente de l Componente de Agroforestería Proyecto 
AGUA 
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403, 245-5412
fundamuni@telesal.net
Nancy Cristina Amaya
Referente Componente de Educación Ambiental 
Proyecto AGUA.
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403, 245-5412
amayananay@hotmail.com
Ángel Eliseo Pineda
Referente de l Componente de Infraestructura Proyecto 
AGUA.
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403, 245-5412
Ricardo Antonio Pérez
Componente de Planificación y Gestión de Cuencas de l 
Proyecto AGUA. 
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403, 245-5412
Ricp-chevive@yahoo.com.mx
Ing. Jorge Pozuelo
Coordinador Componente desarrollo Local
FUNDAMUNI
fundamuni@telesal.net
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 5-3
SALVANATURA
Msc. Marta Lilian Quezada
Gerente Proyecto AGUA
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
279-1515, 279-0220
mlquezada@saltel.net
Nancy de Navas 
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
279-1515, 279-0220
mlquezada@saltel.net
Lic. Henry Retana
Técnico Area Infraestructura
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
Carmen Salvador
Coordinadora Educación Ambiental
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
279-1515
educarparalavida@hotmail.com
Nicolás Atilio Méndez
Supervisor Oficina Regional
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
279-151
Nilton Navas
Técnico de Agroforesteria
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
663-0076, 663-1190
SACDEL
Ing. Guillermo Ruiz
Gerente 
SACDEL
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
273-5755, 248-0772, 662-0010
Carlos Herrera
SACDEL
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
Benjamín Anaya
SACDEL
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
662-0810
Moisés Cerritos 
SACDEL
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
662-0591, fax:662-0810
Orlando Batlle
SACDEL
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
5-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
Ing. Carlos Gómez
Coordinador de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente 
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte, San Salvador 261-9800, 261-9861, 
707-2648
Susana Calderón 
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800, 261-9861
Noé Hernández
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800, 261-9861
Hugo López
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800, 261-9861
Erasmo Montejo
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800, 261-9861
PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL
Sr. John McPhail
Director
Project Concern International
279-4667, 224-6536
Ing. Ronald Campos
Sugerente de diseño 
Project Concern International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias No. 2-24
Colonia San Francisco, San Salvador
Ing Nicolás Coto
Sub-Director
Project Concern International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias No. 2-24, 
Colonia San Francisco
San Salvador, 279-4669
Ing. Roberto Avelar
Gerente de Ingeniería
Project Concern International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias No. 2-24, 
Colonia San Francisco
San Salvador
224-6005
Lic. Andrea Lamer
Gerente de Agro sistemas
PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL
Project Concern International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias No. 2-24, Colonia San 
Francisco
San Salvador
279-4669
Ing-. Orlando Luna
Subgerente Área Técnica
Project Concern International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias No. 2-24 Colonia San
Francisco
San Salvador, 279-4669
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 5-5
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
Ing. José Ángel Cruz
Gerente de l Programa de Agricultura
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
298-1688, 224-1739
Ing. Manuel Alfaro
Coordinador de l Proyecto de Producción de 
Hortalizas/AID
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
San Salvador, 298-1688, 224-1739
Ing. Luis Villatoro
Técnico en Producción
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
San Salvador, 298-1688, 224-1739
Ing. Julio Avalos
Técnico en Producción y Crédito
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
Catholic Relief Services
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
San Salvador, 298-1688, 224-1739
Ing. Ivania Rivas
Asistente Técnico a la Gerencia de Agricultura
Catholic Relief Services
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
San Salvador, 298-1688, 224-1739
CAMAGRO
Ing. Ricardo Esmahan
Director
CAMAGRO
Ing. Carlos Domínguez
Coordinador de l Proyecto
CAMAGRO
Avenida Víctor Mejía Lara #24
Colonia Campestre
San Salvador, 264-4622
MINISTERIO de MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS NATURALES
Ing. Guillermo Alas
Técnico Especialista en Suelos
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
Alameda Roosevelt y 55 Avenida Norte
Edificio IPSFA
San Salvador
Tel/Fax: 260-3114
Ing. César Funes Abrego
Gerente de Sistemas Ambientales
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
Alameda Roosevelt y 55 Avenida Norte
Edificio IPSFA
San Salvador
Tel/Fax: 260-3114
Ing. Carlos Aguilar Molina
Técnico Dirección Patrimonio Natural
MARN
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
Alameda Roosevelt y 55 Avenida Norte
Edificio IPSFA
San Salvador
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
5-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
ANDA
Ing. Raúl Rodríguez Choto
Gerente de Sistemas Rurales
ANDA
281-1937
271-0775
MAG-CENTA
Lic. Margarita Ledesma Molina
Técnico Unida de s de Genero Ing
MAG-CENTA
T/F 338-4275
ARD, INC
Ing. Paul Dulin
Coordinador Equipo Evaluador
ARD, INC
Ing. Scott Tobías
Asesor Equipo Evaluador
ARD, INC
Ing. Carlos Zavala
Asesor Equipo Evaluador
ARD, INC
257-0700
Lic. Margarita Palomo
Administradora
ARD, INC
260-1663
COLONIA EL CERRITO- AUGUST 28, 2002
José Antonio Vargas
Tesorero, Asociación Comunal, Junta de Agua
Juan Anselmo Mendoza
Vice-Presidente
Junta Administradora de Agua
Oscar Armando Chavarría
Presidente, Junta Directiva
Administradora de Agua
Oscar Armando Chavarría Portillo
Tesorero "A de cor"
José Fernando de Paz
Vice-Presidente ADESCO
Pedro Vidal Cavaría
Secretario "ADESCO" Y Administrador de l Sistema
Ricardo de La O Pineda
Secretario de Actas de La Junta Administradora de Agua
Raúl Pineda Beltrán
Socio Y Beneficiario Dl Sistema de Agua
Jesús Portillo Mejia
Presidente "ADESCO"
Francisco de Jesús Funes
Vocal "ADESCO Y Vocal Junta de Agua
José Emilio Arias Machado 
Junta de Agua
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 5-7
PRODUCTORES DE HORTALIZAS ORGÁNICAS DE CORINTO (PHOC)/CRS, 30 DE 
AGOSTO, 2002
Mario Reyes
Vocal de Phoc
Julia Granados
Phoc SC de R..L.
Vocal Junta Directiva
Elizabeth Méndez
Phoc SC de R..L.
Secretaria Junta Directiva
Sara Ángel Medina
Phoc SC de R..L.
Presidente, Junta Directiva
Héctor Mauricio Vásquez
Coordinador de Merca de o
Phoc SC de R..L.
Fausto Argueta
Suplente de la Directiva Phoc
Phoc SC de R..L.
Ismael Guzmán
Productor Extensionista de Phoc
Phoc SC de R..L.
Guillermo Granados
Directiva de Centro de Empaque de Hondable de Phoc
Phoc SC de R..L.
Maria Lorena Urquilla
Directiva de Centro de Empaque de Hondable de Phoc
Phoc SC de R..L.
Maria Virgilia Villatoro
Directiva de Centro de Empaque de 
Phoc SC de R..L.
Luis de la Reina Molina
Productor Extensionista de Phoc
Phoc SC de R..L.
Cristino Núñez
Productor Extensionista de Phoc
Phoc SC de R..L.
Filadelfo Cardona
Productor Extensionista de Phoc
Phoc SC de R..L.
Sabino Gómez
Productor Extensionista de Phoc
Phoc SC de R..L.
Rene Balmore Granados
Productor Extensionista de Phoc
Phoc SC de R.L.
Morena Guadalupe Gómez
Aspirante A Gerente
Phoc SC de R..L.
José Israel C.
Aspirante A Gerente
Phoc SC de R.L.
Máxima de los Granados
Aspirante A Gerente
Phoc SC de R..L.
José Amílcar Umaña Z
Aspirante A Gerente
Phoc SC de R..L.
CENTA SEP 2, 2002
Ing Carlos Mario …
Gerente de Investigación
CENTA
Lic. Margarita Ledezma
Técnica 
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
5-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
ADESCO- LAS TRANCAS- FUNDAMUNI – AUGUST 8, 2002
Santiago López
Vocal de ADESCO
Fidelina Rodríguez
Comité de Apoyo
Alicia Maribel Rodríguez
Comité de Apoyo Las Trancas
Ulises Alexander Sura
Miembro Comité de Apoyo
Juan Carlos Argueta
Miembro de l Comité 
José Inés Bermúdez
Tesorero, Comité Adesco
Andrés Mauricio Rodríguez
Vice-Presidente Adesco, San José
Graciela Rodríguez
Comité de Apoyo
Mateo de Jesús Díaz Castro
Vocal de Adesco
José Luis Baties
Secretario (Adesco)
Héctor Manuel Rodríguez
Vocal 4
Remberto Balmore Rodríguez
ADESCO Promotor Vocal # 2 de Salud
Victoriano Isabel Ramos
Comité de Apoyo
José Emeterio Rodríguez
Síndico ADESCO
Ricardo Melara
Técnico Facilitador
FUNDAMUNI
Edgardo Ramírez
Técnico-Facilitador
FUNDAMUNI
Efraín Cortés
Presidente ADESCO
Cecilia Gómez
FUNDAMUNI 
CHAGUANTIQUE-SACDEL- AUGUST 27, 2002
Concepción de Lourdes Mustajo
Secretaria Proyecto Agua Zona
Comunidad Bajo Lempa
Baleriano González
Presidente-Proyecto de Agua Bajo Lempa-Jiquilisco
Proyecto Agua Bajo Lempa
Rosa Aminta Orellana
Comité Nuevo Amanecer
Presidente Ote de Mujeres
José Adán Saravia
Comité, Salinas Sisiguayo
Comité Gestor Cuenca Rió Borbollón
Pedro Martínez Lainez
Vocal de SCO, Nueva Esperanza
Comité Gestor Cuenca Rió Borbollón
Antonio Cortés Renderos
Presidente de ADESCO, Nueva Esperanza
Comité Gestor Cuenca Rió Borbollón
Salvador Márquez Hernández
Suplente, Secretario de La Directiva Comunal
Administrador del sistema de AGUA de la Ángela 
Montano
Amadeo Guerrero
Concejal Alcaldía Municipal de Jiquilisco, 663-8280
Ramón Abel Osegueda
Concejal Alcaldía Municipal de Jiquilisco, 663-9657
Miguel Ángel Turcios
Concejal Alcaldía Municipal de Jiquilisco, 662-0062
Julio Cesar López
Concejal Alcaldía Municipal, 663-8098
Luis Alemán
Sindico Alcaldía Usulután, 662-0062
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 5-9
Maria Angélica Parada Gómez
CDMJ
Flores Parada, Jiquilisco, 639-5225
Norma Azucena Hernández
Coordinadora de l C.D. M J
Flores Parada, Jiquilisco, 663-4294
Martín Amaya
Sacdel-Proyecto Agua Fe de La Vigilancia
Presidente de Vigilancia y Representante del comité de 
desarrollo tarifarlo de Chaguantique.
731-2464
Natalia Flores Rivas
Presidente del Comité de Desarrollo Turístico.
Oscar Edwin Alfaro
Presidente del Grupo de Jóvenes
Socio de la Cooperativa La Maroma
Manuel Cortés Salinas
Socio de la Cooperativa La Maroma
Ana Luisa Rivera
Concejal Jiquilisco
Concejal del Cantón la Noria, San pedro Ángela
José Santos Aldana
Secretaria de C.D.M.J
Secretaria de la comisión de Gestión Microregional
Maria de La Paz Hernández
Coordinadora, Presidenta de ADESCO
Cantón Cabos Negros
708-1260
Basilio de Jesús Lainez
Secretaria de C.D.M.J
SAN JUAN – ADESCO-SALVANATURA – AUGUST 27, 2002
Vicente Elías López
ADESCO
Vocal
Nicolás Atilio Méndez
Supervisor Regional
SALVANATURA
Marta de l Transito González
ADESCO San Juan 1
Flor de Maria Martínez
Vice-Presidente
ADESCO San Juan 1
Angélica Maria Hernández
ADESCO San Juan 1
José Federico Hernández
ADESCO San Juan 1
José Fermín López
ADESCO San Juan
Mario Antonio Rivas
Educador Ambiental
SALVANATURA
Ricardo Antonio Mejia
Educador Ambiental
Jefatura
SALVANATURA
SITIO DE APRENDIZAJE RIO ROSA, USULUTÁN-SACDEL AUGUST 28, 2002 5:00PM
Hilda Turcios
Presidente ADESCO
Col. Rió Rosa, Usulután
Mariano Antonio Sánchez
Pro-Rescate de l Rió
Molino de Salud
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
5-10 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Víctor M. Esperanza
V de S Molino
Ministerio de Salud
Ada Luz López Martínez
comisión de Usuario
Col. Rió Rosa, Usulután
Vilma Iris Cerna
Comisión de Usuario
Col. Miramar Usulután
Néstor Ama de Quintanilla
comisión Usuario
Colonia Rió Rosa
Mario Garcia Gómez
comisión Usuario
Sector # 1 Colonia Rió Rosa
Edwin Wilfredo Cortés
comisión Usuario
Colonia Rió Rosa
Blanca Lidia de Cristales
Comité Usuario
Colonia Rió Rosa
Oswaldo Rodríguez
Comité Jóvenes
Colonia Rió Sosa
Cecilia Lourdes Zaragoza
Comité Jóvenes
Colonia Rió Rosa
José Manuel Quintanilla 
Partos
Iglesia Evangélica
MESA DE DIALOGO-SALVANATURA- CARASUCIA AUG. 22, 2002
Marta Lilian Quezada
Coordinador. Proyecto-Agua￾Salvanatura
Francisco Estrada
Coordinador funciones
ADESCO
José Ely Guerra
Colaborador ADESCO
Iliana C. Amaya
Facilitador P.C.F
Elías Antonio Cruz
Presidente Junta de Vigilancia-ACEPROS Cara Sucia
Roney Gutiérrez
Gerente de Proyecto Agua-Cara-El Salvador
Brad Carr
Gerente de Proyecto
USAID
Mariana Márquez
Vice-Presidente ACEPROS
José Natividad Ramiro
Pro-Secretario
Comité Sub cuencas
Henry Carolina Amaya G.
Técnico de Educación Ambiental PC 
Salvanatura
Joel Alirio Moreno
Motorista
Salvanatura
Ruth Marina Cardón
Técnica de Educación Ambiental Y PC.
Salvanatura
Margarita Rosa Álvarez
Técnico En Educación Ambiental Y Participación
Ciudadana￾Agua￾Salvanatura
Alfredo Paz Lemus
Técnico, Proyecto, Agua￾Salvanatura
Ernesto Orlando Luna
Coordinador de desechos Sólidos 
P C I
Hernán Guardado
Concejal Alcaldía
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 5-11
Nicolás Rivera
Colaborador de P C I
Carlos Alfredo Aguirre
Presidente ADESCO
Francisco Borja
Promotor de Mortado-Proyecto- Agua
Scott Tobías
Equipo Evaluador
ARD, Inc
Paul Dulin
Coordinador Equipo Evaluador.
ARD, Inc
SAP- PUENTE ARCE, ACAGUAPA-SALVANATURA –AUGUST 22, 2002
Efraín Pérez
Sindico Acaguapa
Juan Antonio Miranda
Vice-Presidente Vigilancia
Armando Arnoldo Mendoza
Secretario Medio Ambiente
Moisés Quintanilla
Vice-Presidente
Rosa Miriam Ramos
Secretaria Orientación Social
Henry Oswaldo Retana
Proyecto Agua-Salvanatura, Técnico En El Area de
Organización Social
Mario E. Ruedes
Administrador de Acaguapa
Amílcar Orantes
Proyecto A. 
Salvanatura-Infraestructura
CODEGUAY- MICROCUENCA SUR DE AHUACHAPÁN- GUAYMANGO –AUGUST 23, 2002
Eliseo Valle
Presidente C.G.D.L.
San Francisco Menéndez
Valentín Méndez L.
Alcalde de Guaymango
Rosibel M. Chávez
Consejo Municipal
Enma Luz Moran Aquino
Pro-Tesorero del CODEGUAY
Mardoqueo López
Jujutla Cantón Las Mesas
Jovel Antonio Centeno
Tesorero de C.D.L
José Antonio Barrientos
Tesorero de CODEGUAY
Ruth Marina Cordón
Participación Ciudadana Técnica, Educación Ambiental
Salvanatura
ruthcordon@yahoo.es
Carlos Huezo
Sub-Gerente AGUA
CARE
huezo@care.org.sv 
Scott Tobías
Equipo Evaluador
ARD, INC
Brad Carr
Gerente de Proyecto
Usaid-El Salvador
Carlos A. Zavala
Equipo Evaluador
ARD, INC
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
5-12 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Salvador E. Aguirre
Miembro Consejo M.M.
Humberto Ruiz
Presidente 
C D L San Pedro, Puxtla
Jaime A Castaneda M
Presidente
CODEGUAY
420-0535, 420-0590
José Enrique Damian
Colaborador
San Pedro Puxtla
INTERVIEWED BY SCOTT TOBÍAS, INDEPENDENT FROM PAUL DULIN AND CARLOS 
ZAVALA
Corduratex – Junta de Agua In San Pedro Tuxtla 
(Municipality Guaymango) Ahuachapán (Visitado 23 
Agosto), José Enrique Damian
Presidente
Alexander Cuellar
Primer Vocal
Antonio Garcia
Tesorero
José Luis Jiménez
Sindico
ADESCO COLONIA LAS FLORES, CANTÓN SANTA ANITA USULUTÁN (POZOS 
ABSORCIÓN) AUGUST 27, 2002
Israel Gaitan
Presidente ADESCO
Eugenio Orellana
Agricultura Promotor
COMITÉ DE SUBCUENCA RIÓ SAN SIMÓN, USULUTÁN, AUGUST 27, 2002
Santos Pineda
Hacienda Santa Anita
Luis Rivera
Hacienda Santa Anita
Susana González
Caserío El Jícaro
Marla Argueta
Cantón Santa Anita
Jesús Iraheta
Presidente, Mercedes Umaña
COMUNIDAD QUEBRADO, (EL TERCIO) CANTÓN SAN JOSÉ JIQUILISCO, USULUTÁN 
SAP, AUGUST 27, 2002
José Rodríguez
Presidente Cooperativa El Tercio, Presidente ADESCO 
de Agua La Reforma
Juan Aviles
Administrador de l Sistema
Daniel Rivera
Responsable Medio Ambiente
Martha Rodríguez
Sindica, ADESCO La Reforma, Comité de l Salud
Freddy Gutiérrez
Encargado de Medio Ambiente, Tesoro Cooperativa El 
Tercero
José Bermúdez
Secretario de Actas de l Cooperativa El Tercero
Annex 5: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 5-13
RIÓ MOLINO COMPOSTAJE, USULUTÁN, AUGUST 27, 2002 
Julio Cáceres
SAC de l Promotor
Víctor Esperanza
Unidad de Salud Usulután
QUEBRADA HONDA, ADESCO DE AGUA POTABLE, CORINTO, MORAZÁN, AUGUST 30, 
2002
José Manuel Amaya
Secretario Adesco
Socio Phoc, Comité Comercialización Phoc
Raúl Álvarez
Presidente ADESCO de Agua
SAN MAURICIO, PASO GUALACHE USULUTÁN – COOPERATIVA CAFETERO SAN 
MAURICIO, COMITÉ DE AGUA PASO GUALACHE, COMITÉ DE AGUA SAN MAURICIO, 
COMITÉ DE GESTIÓN DE MICROCUENCA SAN MAURICIO, AUGUST 30, 2002
José Parado
Presidente - Junta de Agua Paso Gualache, 
Vice-Presidente Codelteco, Presidente Comité General
Juana del Carmen Díaz
Secretaria Junta de Agua Paso Gualache
Miembro Comité de Microcueca San Mauricio
José Antonio Navarro
Presidente Cooperativa San Mauricio, Miembro Comité 
de Gestión de Microcuenca San Mauricio, Representante 
Ambiental Comité de Agua San Mauricio
SANTA FE Y CASERÍO LOS CHILES, SAP, JUNTA DE AGUA, CANTÓN LOS HORNOS, 
MUNICIPIO SAN FRANCISCO JAVIER, USULUTÁN, AUGUST 31, 2002
Juan Luis Rodrigue
Tesorero Junta Directiva Comunal
Julio Rodrigo Moz
Coordinador Comité de desarrollo de San Francisco 
Javier
José Domingo Escobar
Vicepresidente Junta de Agua
Juan Álvaro Torres
Presidente Junta de Agua
José David López
Vocal Junta de Agua
José Pedro Ramos
Sindico, Junta de Agua
José Wilfredo Martínez
Presidente ADESCO
Glendis Guerrero
Tesorera Junta de Agua
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop: Agenda, Workshop Outputs and List 
of Participants
SEMINARIO TALLER
Evaluación de las Actividades Ejecutadas bajo el Proyecto 
AGUA
Agenda
San Salvador, 6 Septiembre del 2002
8:00 Inscripción de participantes y entrega de material.
8:30 Introducción / bienvenida (Brad Carr, Oficina de Agua y Medio Ambiente, USAID/El 
Salvador)
8:35 Objetivos, Metodología del Taller, y las Reglas de Participación (Paul Dulin, 
Coordinador del Equipo Evaluador).
8:45 Hallazgos y Conclusiones Generales de la Evaluación (Paul Dulin).
9:00 Presentación y Discusión: Hallazgos y Conclusiones sobre los aspectos de
Descentralización, Desarrollo Local, y el Fortalecimiento de Organizaciones (Carlos
Zavala)
9:30 Presentación y Discusión: Hallazgos y Conclusiones sobre las Prácticas de Manejo de
Cuencas, Protección de Fuentes, y Producción Agroforestal Sostenible (Paul Dulin)
10:00 Presentación y Discusión: Hallazgos y Conclusiones sobre la construcción,
rehabilitación y mantenimiento de Infraestructura de Agua Potable, y Colección y
Disposición de Desechos Líquidos y Sólido (Scott Tobias)
10:30 Refrigerio
11:00 Presentación y Discusión: Hallazgos y Conclusiones sobre los aspectos de Educación
Ambiental, Participación Ciudadana, y el Uso Sostenible de los Recursos Naturales y
Ecoturismo (Equipo Evaluador)
11:30 Presentación y Discusión: Hallazgos y Conclusiones sobre los elementos de
Planificación Estratégica, Priorización de Acciones, e Instrumentos Políticos para el
Aprovechamiento Sostenible de los Recursos Hídricos (Paul Dulin)
12:00 Discusión y validación de las conclusiones del Equipo Evaluador: Preguntas y
Respuestas. 
SEMINARIO TALLER
Evaluación de las Actividades Ejecutadas bajo el Proyecto 
AGUA
12:30 Almuerzo 
1:30 Explicación de la metodología, distribución de los participantes e inicio del trabajo de los 
Grupos de Tarea:
· Grupo 1. Descentralización, Desarrollo Local, Fortalecimiento de Organizaciones. 
· Grupo 2. Prácticas de Manejo de Cuencas, Protección de Fuentes, y Producción 
Agroforestal Sostenible.
· Grupo 3. Infraestructura de Agua Potable, y Colección y Disposición de Desechos 
Líquidos y Sólido.
· Grupo 4. Educación Ambiental, Participación Ciudadana, Usos Sostenibles de los 
Recursos Naturales y Ecoturismo.
· Grupo 5. Planificación Estratégica, Priorización de Acciones, e Instrumentos Políticos 
para el Aprovechamiento Sostenible de los Recursos Hídricos. 
3:00 Refrigerio 
3:15 Presentación y breve discusión en plenaria de los resultados de los Grupos de Tarea y su 
comparación con las recomendaciones preliminares del Equipo Evaluador (15 minutos 
por Grupo) 
4:30 Conclusiones y Recomendaciones del Seminario-Taller: Discusión en plenaria 
(Participantes y el Equipo Evaluador)
5:00 Cierre del Seminario-Taller y agradecimientos (Paul Dulin y Brad Carr)
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-3
Objetivos, Metodología del Taller, y las Reglas de Participación
El Equipo Evaluador ve la evaluación como formativa para los próximos dos años de ejecución, 
previa un análisis de las experiencias de los primeros tres años de ejecución del Proyecto. El
objetivo principal del Seminario-Taller es facilitar la retroalimentación de los hallazgos y
conclusiones del Equipo Evaluador del Proyecto AGUA con el afán de analizarlas en conjunto 
con representantes de los organismos ejecutores de las actividades del Proyecto y su institución 
financiera, la USAID. Como resultados del Seminario-Taller, el Equipo Evaluador espera aclarar 
cualquier duda o interpretación sobre la información recopilada durante el período de la
evaluación, validar las conclusiones presentadas, y obtener aportes de todos los participantes en 
cómo maximizar las oportunidades de éxito del Proyecto en los próximos dos años de ejecución. 
 La metodología del taller consiste en dos partes principales: i) la presentación y discusión de los 
hallazgos y conclusiones preliminares del Equipo de Evaluación (véase agenda de la mañana); 
seguido por ii) la distribución de los participantes en cinco grupos de tarea (o mesas de trabajo) 
para contestar una serie de preguntas suministradas por el Equipo Evaluador relacionadas a áreas 
específicas por materia en donde aún se requiere el Proyecto algún refuerzo y/o mejoras.
Las Reglas de Participación en el Taller
· Dejen sus agendas en la puerta: El taller es un foro de intercambio horizontal. No estamos
aquí para negociar una extensión de un convenio o hablar de asuntos contractuales.
· El criterio del Equipo Evaluador es independiente: Los miembros del Equipo Evaluador
tienen sus propias interpretaciones a lo observado y tienen derecho de representar sus
opiniones profesionales. Si el Equipo Evaluador haya mal interpretado o no hubiese contado 
con la suficiente información sobre cual basar sus análisis, los participantes interesados tiene 
el derecho de llamarle la atención. Tampoco es de esperar que el trabajo del Equipo
Evaluador sea perfecto (no somos tan creídos).
· Todos nos equivocamos y todos tenemos la razón: Cada participante debe de participar sin
tratar de usurpar la palabra o defenderse. Levántese la mano para ser reconocido. Trate de ser 
breve en sus preguntas y comentarios.
· La perfección es el enemigo del bueno: La perfección nunca se consigue, entonces por favor 
no insiste que su estrategia o metodología es la mejor. Debe respetar la opinión del otro, igual 
como usted quiere que su opinión sea respetada. 
· Toda crítica debe ser constructiva: No tiene uno el derecho de criticar si no tiene una
recomendación en cómo mejorar la situación. 
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Situaciones Estructurales en el País que han Afectado la 
Ejecución del Proyecto AGUA 
· El Proyecto nace en 1999 sobre la cola de la devastación del Huracán Mitch ocurrido el 28 de 
octubre al 2 de septiembre de 1998 y encuentra condiciones de devastación y reconstrucción 
cuando se iniciaron las actividades. 
· La región centroamericana sufrió una sequía importante entre 2000 y 2001, afectando
negativamente los esfuerzos de reforestación, siembras de barreras vivas y la economía rural. 
· El terremoto pegó fuerte a El Salvador el 13 de enero de 2001, especialmente en Usulután, 
requiriendo la reorientación de los esfuerzos del Proyecto de un programa de concientización 
y actuación en el bien de los recursos naturales de mediano plazo, a un proyecto emergente. 
Hallazgos y Conclusiones Generales de la Evaluación
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
1. Se está cumpliendo mayormente, sino superando los indicadores de implementación
incluidos en Documento de Actividad Nueva (NAD) y los convenios adscritos entre USAID 
y las Organizaciones Ejecutoras.
2. Los esfuerzos de desarrollo local promovido por los Ejecutores—incluyendo el
fortalecimiento de grupos existentes (ADESCOs, juntas de agua, municipalidades, etc.) y el 
establecimiento de nuevos grupos activos en los aspectos de gestión y uso racional del
agua—están contribuyendo grandemente a los objetivos nacionales de descentralización y
democratización
3. El concepto de planificación del desarrollo local-municipal por subcuenca, y especialmente
por microcuencas, es el más apropiado para las zonas rurales en el país. 
4. Las prácticas de conservación de suelo y agua y agroforestería promovidas por el Proyecto
son, en su mayoría, apropiadas y están contribuyendo a la conservación de los recursos
hídricos en las áreas de intervención directa y al menor grado aguas abajo.
5. Se puede notar un cambio en la actitud y el hablar de las poblaciones en las áreas atendidas 
por el Proyecto, hacia una mayor apreciación de su entorno, la protección del medio
ambiente y la relación del agua con las cuencas hidrográficas. 
6. La incorporación de partidas para financiar las actividades de manejo de cuencas (servicios
ambientales) en las tarifas de agua para varios SAP, aunque sea incipiente, es en sí un paso 
fundamental en la sostenibilidad de las actividades promovidas por el Proyecto.
7. El Proyecto AGUA, entre las actividades promovidas por sus diversas organizaciones
ejecutoras, tiene los elementos para establecer “modelos” para la gestión integral de los
recursos hídricos al nivel local.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-5
Areas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
1. La agrupación de las actividades (e indicadores de ejecución) en los componentes hace difícil 
dar un seguimiento administrativo, y el monitoreo del impacto por componente. Por ejemplo, 
las actividades de conservación de suelos y agroforestería están juntos con los subproyectos
de plantas de tratamiento de aguas residuales y los rellenos sanitarios. 
2. Existen ciertas carencias en la planificación estratégica que ha resultado en la fragmentación 
y dispersión geográfica de actividades sin su efectiva integración al nivel de las comunidades 
meta y/o objetivos mayores de conservación de las microcuencas.
3. Desviación de algunas de las actividades más allá de los objetivos mayores y las 
orientaciones técnicas del diseño original.
4. Potencial de crear una plétora de organizaciones locales y microregionales que podrían
competir con las autoridades gubernamentales locales y/o concentrar el poder de decisión en 
manos de pocas personas. 
5. Las estrategias de promoción, organización, capacitación y el uso de incentivos no siempre
son suficientemente claras para determinar en qué momento se podría liberar un grupo de
participantes/beneficiarios y reducir o cortar la asistencia del Proyecto. 
6. Promoción de ciertas tecnologías sin conocer o haberse analizado con cautela sus impactos
potenciales social, económico y ambiental (incluyendo los procedimientos EIA). 
7. El sector de agua potable está aún sumamente descuidado.
8. Doble conteo de beneficiarios en áreas en donde dos o más organizaciones están trabajando 
en forma colaborativa.
9. Falta monitorear los indicadores apropiados de impacto social y ambiental para poder
analizar el avance real hacia los objetivos fundamentales del Proyecto. 
10. Los esfuerzos de incidencia, mientras hayan tenido sus efectos deseados al nivel municipal, 
no han resultado en cambios significantes al nivel nacional. 
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Hallazgos y Conclusiones sobre las Prácticas de Manejo de Cuencas, Protección de 
Fuentes y Producción Agroforestal Sostenible
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
1. Las prácticas y algunas obras están teniendo un impacto muy positivo en términos de reducir 
la escurrentía y erosión, incrementar el contenido de materia orgánica, mejorar la estructura e 
iones intercambio iónico, y aumentar la infiltración al suelo y mantos freáticas—en sí
contribuyendo al mantenimiento y/o mejoramiento de las condiciones en las cuencas
hidrográficas.
2. En los ejemplos observados, los pequeños subproyectos de mejoramiento y protección de
fuentes de agua han tenido un impacto muy importante, aún que sea a nivel puntual local. 
3. El uso de planes de finca está relativamente bien generalizado, aún que con diversos
enfoques en algunos lugares.
4. La selección de prácticas es mayormente adecuado, especialmente en los terrenos de granos
básicos atendidos bajo el Proyecto, en donde las siguientes han tenido amplia aceptación
como son:
· No-quemar y regado de los rastrojos (y/o su incorporación al suelo)
· Labranza mínima y siembra al contorno
· Barreras vivas de Vetiver y Brizantha
· Cercas vivas
· Huertas de hortalizas y frutales (cerca la casa)
5. Las siguientes prácticas, entre otras, están aún en prueba, pero bien intencionadas por la
escasez de agua en las zonas atendidas y/o la promoción de diversificación para generar 
ingresos a las familias:
· Reservorios de suelo cementado (semi-esféricos de 15m3
)
· Tanques de polietileno de 2.500 hasta 22.000 lts.
· Sistemas de captación de aguas de lluvias (algunos ligados a los anteriores)
· Mini-represas desarmables puesto en aforos de los ríos y quebradas
· Diversificación en la producción de hortalizas y frutales para su comercialización a
mercados formales e informales
· Ecoturismo comunitario
Areas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
1. La promoción de actividades de conservación de suelos y agua no siempre obedece a una
planificación estratégica en función a los objetivos del Proyecto AGUA, en términos de la
priorización de las técnicas y sitios geográficos acorde con el manejo de cuencas. Se
observan grupos que no están relacionado sus actividades a las necesidades de
recuperar/manejar de cuencas.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-7
2. En algunas zonas de promoción de diversificación y producción hortícola bajo riego, no se
está atendiendo a productores en las tierras más altas en donde se está presenciando una
deforestación y degradación de las cuencas abastecedoras del agua para los proyectos de
riego.
3. Se observan ciertas deficiencias relacionadas con el control de calidad en la selección y
promoción de prácticas no apropiadas (algunas en respuesta a las campañas de promoción de 
remuneración por trabajo de la reconstrucción post-terremoto), como son:
· Plantación de árboles por debajo la sombra de otros árboles
· Acequias de ladera y/o de infiltración en potreros aún en uso
· Barreras vivas en tierras dedicadas a producción de granos básicos en donde se meten el 
ganado en el verano
· Arboles frutales como barreras vivas
· Plantación en grande de especies frutales cuyo potencial se desconoce en la zona ni las
posibilidades para su comercialización
· Promoción de la producción de hortalizas y/o frutales en parcelas muy distantes a
mercados reales o potenciales, muchos con restricciones de acceso
· Producción de hortalizas por dentro la faja prohibida (50m cada lado de un río o
quebrada) 
· Promoción de pesticidas orgánicos aún en donde los agricultores siguen utilizando
pesticidas y herbicidas de alta toxicidad (Categoría I/Etiqueta Roja)
4. No se detecta mayor actividad en ciertas prácticas apropiadas como es la reforestación y/o
protección de riberas de los ríos y quebradas, faldas y terrenos en zonas de recarga acuífera, 
sea en tierras fiscales o privadas. 
5. Parece que existe alguna confusión de terminología en qué comprenden las actividades de
protección de fuentes, las cuales algunos utilizan intercambiablemente con las acciones de
manejo de cuencas y conservación de suelo. 
6. No se han desarrollado actividades en el rubro del control de la contaminación industrial; no 
se ha logrado mayor impacto ni alcanzado los indicadores de ejecución para esta actividad. 
7. Las Organizaciones Ejecutoras no están reuniéndose entre sí periódicamente para compartir 
experiencias sobre la aplicación de las prácticas de conservación y diversificación. 
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Hallazgos y Conclusiones sobre los Elementos de Planificación Estratégica, 
Priorización de Actividades, e Instrumentos Políticos para el Aprovechamiento 
Sostenible de los Recursos Hídricos
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
1. La innovación de agrupar las cuatro ONGs en un consorcio ha funcionado bien, aunque
después de un año de “interrelación”. De igual manera, las ONGs individuales están teniendo 
sus propios éxitos. 
2. El Proyecto ha contribuido a levantar la conciencia sobre la importancia de proteger y
manejar las cuencas hidrográficas como parte integral de los sistemas de producción de agua 
en varias comunidades. 
3. El hecho de ya haber trabajado las Organizaciones Ejecutoras en las zonas seleccionadas para 
el Proyecto (GreenProject y otros) permitió un inicio rápido con las comunidades metas del
AGUA y la consolidación de los trabajos aún a medio camino de los proyectos anteriores.
4. El enfoque de en las cuencas, como unidad de planificación, está ganando aceptación al nivel 
local y municipal en las zonas atendidas por el Proyecto. También es valioso crear comités de 
cuencas cuando se merece para gestionar los recursos de agua de manera sostenible al nivel
comunitario y inter-cantonal y/o municipal (especialmente en el ámbito de la microcuenca). 
5. El enfoque del Proyecto de promover la preparación y promulgación de las ordenanzas
ambientales es el correcto, siempre y cuando se las apliquen a través de mecanismos de
vigilancia civil y policiales adecuados (aún no-definidos). 
6. El trabajo de la Red de Agua y Saneamiento ha contribuido a la unificación de muchos
criterios de varios actores privados, gubernamentales y empresariales en el pro del uso
sostenible de los recursos hídricos, incluyendo sus aportes a los esfuerzos de establecer el
nuevo marco legal para la concesión equitativa y manejo sostenible de los RR.HH. (Ley
General de Aguas) y la creación del Comité Interinstitucional Nacional de Planificación,
Gestión y Uso Sostenible de Cuencas Hidrográficas y sus organizaciones descentralizadas. 
7. El Proyecto ha sido innovador en la incorporación de partidas para financiar la manutención 
y/o recuperación de los servicios ambientales que ofrecen las cuencas hidrográficas como
parte de las tarifas de agua para varios SAP. Aunque sea incipiente, esta política es en sí un 
paso fundamental en la sostenibilidad de las actividades promovidas por el Proyecto.
8. El programa CLARA representa una estrategia e instrumento de gran potencial para el
monitoreo de las fuentes y sistemas de distribución de agua potable, y un buen medio para
educación ambiental. 
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-9
Areas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
1. Mientras representan una referencia muy importante para perfilar los municipios del punto de 
vista socioeconómico y los rasgos biofísicos, los diagnósticos de municipio y los
diagnósticos de subcuenca no incluyen un enfoque estratégico en términos de la priorización 
de problemas, sino se tratan todos los problemas de igual importancia. Estos diagnósticos
tampoco incluyeron elementos que se consideran estratégicamente muy importantes, como
son:
· Uso actual del suelo
· La capacidad de uso y uso potencial de suelo
· Las zonas en conflicto de uso
· Las zonas más probables de recarga acuífera
· Condición de los caminos con relación al drenaje y concentración de aguas
· Tenencia de la tierra
· La distribución y utilización de remesas en las comunidades. 
2. Existen ciertas carencias en la planificación estratégica que ha resultado en la fragmentación 
y dispersión geográfica de actividades sin su efectiva integración al nivel de las comunidades 
meta y/o objetivos mayores de conservación de las microcuencas.
3. Algunos de los planes de subcuenca y microcuenca también tienen limitaciones en cuanto al 
enfoque estratégico, incluyendo una gran descripción de los rasgos socioeconómicos y
agroecológicas, seguido por una lista larga de subproyectos de todo índole—varios a duras
penas relacionadas con los objetivos de AGUA.
4. Los planes de manejo de subcuencas y microcuencas están siendo presentados tarde en el
ciclo del Proyecto AGUA, potencialmente limitando su valor como base analítica en la
selección, financiamiento y ejecución de actividades propuestas en ellos.
5. Existen carencias sistemáticas en el análisis ambiental de los subproyectos—especialmente 
los subproyectos de colección y tratamiento de aguas servidas, rellenos sanitarios y algunos
otros—por la ausencia de pautas y guías uniformes por sector de obra. Los documentos 
presentados con el afán de cumplir con la normativa ambiental (MARN) no cumplen con los 
estándares mínimos para este tipo de estudio o análisis y mayormente no responden al
Examen Ambiental Inicial (IEE) de USAID. 
6. Al nivel de USAID, hace falta una coordinación más estrecha en la supervisión y control de 
calidad (estándares) entre los CTOs y sus respectivos programas/fuentes de financiamiento. 
7. El concepto de ligar el abastecimiento de agua para riego para fines de
diversificación/intensificación de la producción a la conservación de las cuencas mayormente 
no ha sido diseminado.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-10 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
8. El trabajo de CARE en coordinación con el MARN en la promoción de instrumentos para
mejorar el marco legal y normativo al nivel nacional ha tenido un impacto menor de lo
esperado por factores de “política” y cambios de actores claves especialmente al nivel de
MARN y ANDA, especialmente con relación al marco legal de los recursos hídricos.
9. La agrupación de las actividades (e indicadores de ejecución) en los componentes hace difícil 
dar un seguimiento administrativo, y el monitoreo del impacto por componente. Por ejemplo, 
las actividades de conservación de suelos y agroforestería están juntas con los subproyectos
de plantas de tratamiento de aguas residuales y los rellenos sanitarios.
10. No se está monitoreando los parámetros que sirven de indicadores de impacto, dificultando 
los esfuerzos de estimar el avance del Proyecto en el alcance de sus objetivos mayores, como 
son entre otros:
· Hogares rurales alcanzando los estándares de calidad y tiempo de servicio de agua
potable
· Industrias utilizando practicas para reducir o evitar contaminación
· Hogares pagando los costos de los servicios de agua potable (o de riego)
· Efectividad de las prácticas de conservación de suelos
· Cambios en la calidad de las cuencas hidrográficas con relación al ritmo y cobertura de
prácticas de conservación de suelos y agroforestería
11. El conteo de indicadores de ejecución bajo el componente 3, “cambios relacionados a
acciones de grupos de ciudadanos”, es de manera suigeneris e incluye un sinnúmero de
acciones, incluyendo el doble conteo de reparaciones de proyectos de agua y otras
actividades ya incluidas bajo otros componentes. 
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-11
Educación Ambiental y uso sostenible de RN
Logros y aspectos positivos
• Capacitación a educadores ambientales integrantes del Consorcio de AGUA.
• Desarrollo de guías, materiales y formas innovativas de educación no formal e informal.
• Desarrollo conceptual y operativo de Sitios de Aprendizaje y de su efectividad.
• Jóvenes motivados participan en sitios de aprendizaje.
Logros y aspectos positivos
• Desarrollo de actividades de sensibilización con participación ciudadana con organizaciones 
locales.
• Diagnósticos y caracterización de iniciativas criticas y apoyo a cambios a favor del agua.
• Iniciativas de ecoturismo y apoyo a propuestas innovativas que ligan la utilización,
protección y conservación de los RN.
Areas sujetas de mejora
• Cobertura limitada de la educación ambiental para todo el personal del proyecto agua.
• Falta sistematización de validación de materiales educativos, previo a su reproducción.
• Falta de organización y plan del ciclo de formación y aprendizaje a impulsar en cada sitio.
• Tendencia de Sitios de Aprendizaje en escuelas focalizadas hacia el exterior del grupo.
Areas sujetas de mejora
• Capacidades limitadas en sitios de aprendizaje para el monitoreo cualitativo y cuantitativo de 
los servicios de empresas locales de servicio o para el establecimiento y gestión ambiental de 
sus iniciativas empresariales.
• Definir proceso de formación profesional del personal del proyecto y de las organizaciones
atendidas en acciones complementarias de educación ambiental en funciones
Areas sujetas de mejora
• Incipiente coordinación interinstitucional local para el seguimiento de actividades y acciones 
de cambios a favor del agua con participación ciudadana.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-12 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
INFRAESTRUCTURA
Logros y Aspectos Positivos (Generales)
Sistemas de Agua Potable con alta nivel de servicio.
· Sistemas grandes y complicados del punto de vista técnica
· una panorama de actores y participantes grande y diversas
· Operación y mantenimiento y administración complejo
A través de AT y supervisión técnica además de fortalecimiento institucional, ha logrado rescatar 
varias SAPs construido a través de otros donantes y/o proyectos, resultando en el salvaje de
millones de dolores.
Se ha logrado que el SAP no es un fin en el desarrollo, sino pude funcionar como motor que
maneja un proceso de desarrollo mucho más amplio – organización comunitaria y empresarial, 
impactos al salud, concientización y movilización en la protección del medio ambiente para
sostener recursos hídricos.
El Red de Juntas de AP en Ahuachapán, muestra posibilidades de proveer una gama de servicios 
a las juntas afiliadas – O y M, resolución de conflictos, administración, contabilidad,
contratación de personería Jurídica. Además de enlaces y contactos a otros macro-organizaciones 
como ANDA, Comités de Cuenca, empresas privados, ONGs, gobiernos municipales, LDCs,
Donantes Nacionales y internacionales.
Áreas Que Requieren Re-fuerzo y/o Mejoras (en general)
Tamaño y complejidad del proyecto presenta desafíos grandes en cuanto a la coordinación entre 
los socios del consorcio y entre los componentes.
Uso de fondos para pequeña infraestructura dentro de un marco más estratégico. Ahora los
fondos están utilizados en responder a solicitudes de comunidades sin coordinar con esfuerzos
del proyecto agua en la conservación de recursos hídricos y protección de cuencas.
Proyectos en pequeña infraestructura puede mejorar en la utilización de normas técnicas de
USAID/El Salvador, en mejorar la justificación de diseños
Enlaces estratégicos entre los grandes proyectos de infraestructura y otras actividades del
proyecto. Deben de servir como motores que provocan participación en otros componentes del
proyecto.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-13
SISTEMAS DE AGUA POTABLE –
Proyecto AGUA
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
Sobretodo los diseños están bien hechos, apropriados y bien presentados.
Sobretodo, Construcción es de muy buena calidad
El medidor es la policía en cuanto a la calidad de materiales y construcción de instalaciones
domiciliarias.
Ha logrado en recibir aportes en material, fondos y equipo de un diverso grupo de instituciones 
gubernamentales, ONGs y donantes, asegurando que se siguen a las normas de AGUA.
Ha logrado apoyar a proyectos auspiciados por otros donantes con CHA, supervisión de
construcción, y fortalecimiento institucional, seguimiento a las normas de ANDA. Este ha sido 
un aspecto muy positivo.
Criterio es importante a nivel del usuario se satisfacen antes de que el usuario pueda recibir
servicio. (descarga de aguas residuales, letrinas o alcantarillado)
Una fortaleza del proyecto – Juntas son legales, sofisticados, complejos y efectivos. Están
manejando los sistemas, recolectando y manejando fondos en forma responsable. Tarifas cubren 
costos recurrentes, de depreciación, y en unos casos apoyo a la protección de la cuenca y
promoción de salud ambiental.
Fondos generados por tarifas están apoyando a protección de cuencas y extensión en salud en
unos casos, pero este no ha sido formalizado en todos los SAPs y no encuentra en varios
estatutos.
Sistema de crear un comité para la construcción y otro comité para la operación se resulta muy
bien.
Utilización del modelo CEFA (Competencia Económica Basada en la Formación de Empresas) 
en la formación de juntas de agua potable ha sido muy exitosa en crear organizaciones
independientes, confidentes, y capaces.
El Desempeño de los fontaneros y operadores es bueno- fontaneros y operadores están operando 
los sistemas de acuerdo a un horario. 
Sistema de CARE de ofrecer seis meses de seguimiento a la junta es excelente. El equipo está
colaborando con los socios para asegurar que problemas de cualquier naturaleza reciben atención 
del proyecto. 
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-14 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Hallazgos/Conclusiones Neutrales
Proyectos seleccionados en base de criterios de demanda, necesidad y oportunidad. En general, 
la selección no esta basada en una estrategia de cuencas prioritarias.
Normas de diseño de ANDA no son muy detalladas y permite una amplia interpretación. No son 
exigentes y permiten el diseño y construcción de obras de calidad variable. Se anota que no hay 
normas sobre rompe presión, control de caudales en la red de distribución, carcamos de bombeo, 
protección de obras, protección de cuencas, 
Generalmente, AGUA requiere un apoyo de mano de obra no calificada y no requiere apoyo en 
materiales locales, transporte, efectivo..
No ha confirmado que AGUA esta apoyando a todos los ADESCOS o Juntas de AP en las zonas 
de trabajo de los Socios. Entrevistas indican alrededor de 90% cobertura, pero no puedo
confirmarlo en los informes de AGUA.
Ordenanzas que controla la calidad de la conexión domiciliaria no se encuentran, mas bien esta
dejado al sistema de medidores.
Areas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
A dedicarse a la construcción de un proyecto, no hay una estrategia comprehensiva de utilizar el 
SAP como núcleo o eje de actividades de los demás de los componentes.
En cuanto al cumplimiento de normas de ANDA, se anota que AGUA tiene que analizar su
Selección de bombas. Parece que las normas de ANDA no están usando y posiblemente que las 
bombas y sus caudales son sobredimensionados.
Si las bombas son sobredimensionadas, se ve que las líneas de impulsión serian
sobredimensionados también.
Las Memorias Técnicas puede explicar en mejor detalle, el porque, de unas decisiones que tiene 
gran impacto sobre el costo y operación futuro del proyecto, e.g.:
· Contemplación de la incorporación futura de otros poblaciones/comunidades
· Calculo de población futura del diseño (Puente Arce/Jocotillo)
· Selección de material de tubería (El Quebracho línea de impulsión)
· Selección del tamaño de los tanques de almacenamiento
· Selección de ramales principales paralelas(Suchitoto? Puente Arce?)
· Regulación de caudales dentro de redes de distribuciones
Las materiales usados en la capacitación de los fontaneros se puede mejorar. Dibujos no son
claros. Faltan unos asuntos técnicas importantes. 
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-15
No se encuentra que cada fontanero esta estableciendo un calendario de O y M de acuerdo de un 
formato general.
Operadores no muestran que dominan los conceptos de caudal, volúmenes diarios, y dotación,
sin los cuales se hace difícil el diagnostico de problemas en el sistema
Apoyo dirigido directamente al O y M no está tan fuerte como lo ofrecido a la junta. No esta
programado revisar y retroalimentar a los operadores y fontaneros. Hay seguimiento técnico
cuando se aparecen problemas.
No hay todavía un sistema de seguimiento formal para el largo plazo.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-16 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
PROYECTOS DE INFRAESTRUCTURA PEQUEÑA (incluye proyectos de VM)
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
Están logrando proveer acceso al agua a pequeñas comunidades con necesidades.
Están utilizando los fondos en unos casos entrar en actividades de rehabilitación mientras que
palancan la participación en actividades de otros componentes del proyecto AGUA –
fortalecimiento institucional, protección de fuentes y cuencas, pago de tarifas…
La calidad de la construcción es, es su mayoría es buena.
Para actividades que impactan a poblaciones grandes ( rehabilitación o protección de fuentes), se 
están aprovechando la oportunidad provisto por la infraestructura capacitar y fortalecer los
ADESCOs y/o Juntas de AP.
Como anotado, los Socios están capacitando a los líderes de las organizaciones y fortaleciendo 
las instituciones locales, a pesar de que se lo hace después de la entrega de la infraestructura.
Hallazgos/Conclusiones Neutrales
EL criterio de selección no es claro, pero parece que están basadas mas en oportunidad que otro. 
Proyectitos no están entrando en una marca estratégica coordinada.
Proyectos son de montos mínimos, pero en cuanto a las actividades en rehabilitación están
impactando a sistemas y poblaciones muy grandes. 
Están asegurando que los lideres reciben capacitación aunque sea después de la entrega de los
sistemas o obras físicas a la comunidad.
Areas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
Falta dirección estratégica, y problemas can asistencia técnica del diseño y construcción. Difícil 
crear sistemas de gerencia, administración y O y M cuando no hay medidores y/o el servicio esta 
por cantoneras. Sistemas gerenciales y tarifarías en pequeñas sistemas no son fuertes.
En cuanto a los sistemas pequeños construidos por el programa, no se muestra que las
comunidades están listas recibir y manejar los sistemas. Falta de soluciones para la descarga de 
aguas residuales. Capacitación de Juntas y fontaneros no esta completa a la entrega.
Hipocloradores no son 
Proyectos están entregados sin satisfacer unos criterios importantes
· Falta de sistemas de manejo de aguas servidas
· Falta de hipocloradores
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-17
Debilidades en la presentación de proyectos en las memorias técnicas:
· No se encuentra justificación por escrito de decisiones técnicas, aunque las decisiones sean
justificables.
· Mala representación de la figura / situación técnica actual en las memorias técnicas.
· Falta de medidores y instalaciones de cantoneras son difíciles manejar del punto de vista de
la junta
Diseño de tratamiento de aguas servidas de lavadoras requiere análisis
Se ha observado deficiencias en la construcción
· Problemas con la instalación de válvulas de control
· Falta de protección de válvulas, hipocloradores
· Mal operación de sistemas de clorinación
Hay sistemas de O y M en los pequeños proyectos, aunque a veces no hay fontaneros, el trabajo 
es echo por miembros de la junta.
Se anota que todavía los operadores faltan capacidad, quizás faltan todavía capacitación
Problemas con clorinación de agua.
En SAPs con cantoneras se presentan problemas a las comunidades en establecer y manejar 
sistemas tarifarias.
No hay sistema formal de seguimiento a las juntas/ADESCOs o los operadores. Provisión de 
Seguimiento ocurre a través de la presencia de funcionarios de los Socios. 
No hay un plan de seguimiento de largo plazo.
ALCANTARILLADO Y PLANTAS DE TRATAMIENTO DE AGUAS SERVIDAS
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
Están tomando pasos muy importantes en crear una base de experiencia con nuevas tecnologías.
Hallazgos/Conclusiones Neutrales
Selección de las comunidades se ha hecho en base de oportunidad
Areas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
Son Proyectos pilotos para tecnologías nuevas para El Salvador, pero no son pilotos de gerencia 
o sistemas de manejo
Estudios de Impacto Ambientales no se han encontrado hechos para estos proyectos
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-18 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Los sitios seleccionados para las obras se han presentados problemas en la construcción y
operación de los proyectos
Caracterización de flujo de aguas servidas no ha sido bien realizado
Se han entrado en el diseño y construcción de los sistemas sin haber definido los sistemas de
gerencia, cobro, manejo, administración, O y M
Son pilotos técnicos y los diseños han fallado, especialmente con relación a los problemas
presentados por los sitios
Los diseños no han logrado enfrentar a los problemas presentados por los sitios 
Hay problemas en la construcción relacionado a la novedad de las tecnologías, 
Hay unos problemas de construcción relacionados a la supervisión de las obras
Ha empezado operación cuando las obras no fueron terminadas de acuerdo a los diseños
Han tenido que reaccionar a los desafíos presentados por los sitios (lluvia, inclinación, nivel
freático) durante la construcción por no los haber tratado en el diseño.
Sistemas gerencial y administrativas no reciban la atención que han recibido las tecnologías 
todavía faltan sistemas gerenciales, programas de capacitación para funcionarios para estos
sistemas
Hay inquietudes en como se va a poder operar y mantener estos sistemas en el corto y largo
plazo relacionado a:
· la falta de servicios existentes en el manejo de Sólidos, 
· la situación de tarifas destinados a las plantas, 
· corrección de problemas en la construcción de las plantas, 
· plazo de los Acuerdos Cooperativos entre USAID/El Salvador y los ejecutores (1 año para
tecnologías no bien conocidos)
No hay planes formales del seguimiento de la operación, gerencia, mantenimiento de las plantas. 
(Se supone que el seguimiento en el corto plazo sea provisto por los socios de AGUA o el
proyecto de RTI en el caso de Suchitoto)
RELLENOS SANITARIOS
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
Están tomando pasos muy importantes en crear una base de experiencia con nuevas tecnologías.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-19
Hallazgos/Conclusiones Neutrales
Realmente son tecnologías pilotas para El Salvador, lo que crea desafíos en la construcción y
operación futura de los rellenos y sus plantas de tratamiento.
No se anota criterio de selección de los sitios, han sido selecciones oportunas.
Áreas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
No se ha encontrado estudios formales de impacto ambientales. 
Los proyectos se encuentran en sitios difíciles por su inclinación, acceso, distancia de las
poblaciones servidas.
Hay varias inquietudes sobre los diseños por su novedad en El Salador y su presentación en las 
memorias técnicas:
· Un criterio muy importante (índice de infiltración) que afecta a los tamaños de obras requiere 
estudio.
· Diseños para zanjas de coronamiento faltan claridad
· Criterio para el uso de los geomembranas falta claridad
· Análisis del sitio en la memoria descriptiva cuenta con contradicciones.
· Planos de clausura de los rellenos y las plantas y sus sistemas de tratamiento.
En cuanto a la construcción:
· Problemas con los sitios están impactando a la operación de las plantas de tratamiento
· Sitios difíciles han provocado cambios en los diseños, realizados en marcha
· Relleno recibiendo basura sin haber terminado la construcción y instalación de la maquinaria 
Falta claridad en como una población pagaría por el servicio y construcción está ocurriendo antes 
de que sistemas de gerencia y tarifa sean establecidos
Operadores falta conocimiento de las plantas de tratamiento todavía
Laguna de aguas infiltrantes están rebalsando
Será realizado por la presencia continua de los socios de AGUA, pero no hay planos formales
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-20 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
ACTIVIDADES EN MITIGACIÓN
Áreas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
Trabajo en mitigación tiene que respetar a las normas y reglas manejado por la oficina de
reconstrucción de USAID/El Salvador, especialmente con relación a los estudios de impacto
ambiental.
Se ha identificado unas inquietudes técnicas en la construcción de gaviones en quebradas.
INDICADORES
Áreas que Requieren Refuerzo y/o Mejoras
Metas de producción - numero de sistemas construidos, número de comunidades, número de
usuarios, número de juntas establecidos, número de sistemas rehabilitados, numero de usuarios 
en sistemas rehabilitados, etc. no se puede encontrar fácilmente. Toda la información está
perdida dentro de la presentación en porcentajes.
Impacto falta conseguir datos en las comunidades sobre la operación de sistemas y su provisión 
de agua de calidad.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-21
Hallazgos Preliminares
Desarrollo Local y Participación
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
· Conformación y mejora de la coordinación y apoyo mutuo del Consorcio de Agua, con las
potencialidades de los asociados en esta y otras actividades...
· Inicio de proceso integrador de Red de Juntas de Agua a nivel regional.
· Efecto catalizador en procesos organizativos por medio del proyecto.
Logros y aspectos positivos
· Apoyo al proceso de gestión intermunicipal para abordaje de problemas comunes (SAP El
Caulote, CODEGUAY, Corinto y zona de costera Usulután).
· Mayor apalancamiento de recursos y desarrollo de la capacidad de gestión local y municipal 
(Fondos FISDL. FANTEL, SIA, y de otros Cooperantes).
· Mutua identificación de representantes locales con los técnicos y las actividades del
proyecto.
Logros y aspectos positivos
· Promoción y formalización de organizaciones como Empresas Locales de Servicio
especializado (AGUA, PHOC, y otras) y de carácter participativo (CDL) y de Comités de
Cuenca.
· Fortalecimiento empresarial y de mercadeo en forma ínter cooperantes. (USAID-BID).
· Motivación y promoción de la participación de la sociedad civil con conocimientos y
pensamientos a favor del MA.
Logros y aspectos positivos
· Apoyo al proceso de legitimización del rol de las organizaciones fortalecidas.
· Ampliación de la base social de beneficiarios a usuarios de empresas locales de servicios.
· Descentralización de sistemas de agua construidos y reconstruidos por el proyecto, que han
ampliado el acceso a agua.
· Ampliación de la experiencia local en solución de conflictos relacionadas con el acceso de
agua y en la canalización de recursos.
Logros y aspectos positivos
· Conformación y capacitación básica de organizaciones promovidas.
· Preparación de base gerencial para la gestión empresarial local y apoyo al proceso de
consultoria para uso del agua para riego.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-22 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
· Experiencia institucional en el traslado directo de incentivos, con enfoques variados de corto 
y largo plazo.
Logros y aspectos positivos
· Diagnósticos, determinación y actualización de Planes de Desarrollo y de Reconstrucción
con enfoque de Género.
· Apoyo al proceso de legitimización del rol de CDL y Comités de Desarrollo Comunal.
· Establecimiento de bases legales (ordenanzas y UAS) para la gestión ambiental a nivel
municipal y búsqueda de las interrelaciones.
Logros y Aspectos Positivos
· Diagnósticos y preparación de Planes de cuenca.
· Promoción y apoyo a la conformación de Comités a nivel micro, sub y de Cuenca.
· Establecimiento de bases del organismos de cuenca en El Salvador y para el fortalecimiento 
del subsector de Agua y Saneamiento.
Areas sujetas de mejora
· Capacidad limitada de gestión y sostenibilidad de largo plazo de organizaciones pequeñas y
en proceso de conformación.
· Organizaciones de Empresas Locales de Servicio (Agua, Mercadeo, Artesanias y Turismo)
focalizadas en la operatividad de corto plazo.
· Poca rotación y conformación de cuadros mínimos de liderazgo local.
· Falta de mecanismos y normas formales de aplicación del enfoque de cuenca en las
organizaciones promovidas como usuarias de los recursos locales.
Areas sujetas de mejora 
· Falta de mecanismos de financiamiento de apoyo al funcionamiento estratégico y operativo 
de los organismos sociales y de participación promovidos.
· Planes de Acción para el Desarrollo Local con enfoque localizado en consultas y demandas 
inmediatas, con ausencia de enfoque estratégico de cuencas.
· Planes de Inversión Municipal (PIM) con enfasís en lo físico y falta articulación a estrategias 
de de desarrollo económico en armonia con el medio ambiente.
Areas sujetas de mejora o refuerzo
· Falta de establecimiento de Linea de Base en procesos de planificación y gestión
participativa. 
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-23
· Ordenanzas municipales necesitan armonización y coherencia a nivel regional, así como de
mecanismos de aplicación, financiameinto, control y seguimiento en forma participativa.
Areas sujetas de mejora o refuerzo
· Definición de enfoque estratégico de utilización de incentivos para potenciar el Pago por
Servicios Ambientales (PSA) a nivel local y la creación de reservas ambientales en las
cuencas.
· Indefinición de proceso organizativo de acompañamiento y estrategia de salida para el
fortalecimiento institucional relacionado con el Desarrollo Local y el enfoque de cuencas,
con la empresas de servicio local a cargo de la infraestructura descentralizada y la
participación de otros actores.
Areas sujetas de mejora o refuerzo
· Definición de enfoque estratégico de utilización de incentivos para potenciar el Pago por
Servicios Ambientales (PSA) a nivel local y la creación de reservas ambientales en las
cuencas.
· Indefinición de proceso de acompañamiento en el fortalecimiento institucional para el
Desarrollo Local y estrategia de salida.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-24 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
MESA 1
DESCENTRALIZACIÓN, DESARROLLO LOCAL, 
FORTALECIMIENTODE ORGANIZACIONES
1. Desde su óptica, ¿Cuales han sido los logros más significativos del proyecto AGUA, 
que están directamente relacionados con el tema de interés asignado?
· Fortalecer y establecer organizaciones para la búsqueda de nuevas soluciones.
· Reconocimiento de la población. de la legitimidad de los mecanismos de
participación ciudadana para la resolución de problemas.
· Fortalecimiento de municipalidades en la prestación de servicios.
· Conformación de Redes Internacionales – Municipales / Micro regiones.
· Fortalecimiento de capacidades locales para procesos de descentralización.
· Tras al debate publico el tema de CUENCA.
2. ¿Cuales serian las estrategias para mejorar la capacidad de gestión de las
organizaciones y en los procesos de conformación, y de las empresas locales de
servicio (Agua, Mercadeo y Economía)
· Asistencia técnica empresarial, con énfasis en la capacidad “gerencial”.
· Asociatividad / Legalización.
· Especialización (volumen / calidad)
· Visión Estratégica.
· Promoción.
3. Cuales serían las formas para impulsar la rotación y conformación de cuadros
amplios de liderazgo local.
· Mayor concientización para la aplicación de reglamentos y normativas.
· Formación de lideres (jóvenes)
· Apoyo con organizaciones locales reconocidas y confiables (Iglesias)
· Crear en la población confianza en los procesos participativos y democráticos.
4. Como podríamos aplicar el enfoque de cuenca en las normativas de organizaciones y 
en los procesos de planificación estratégica participativa de planes de reconstrucción 
y desarrollo.
· Crear los espacios para la investigación comprensión de los actores clave en el
enfoque de cuencas.
· Revisión y actualización de los Planes de Acción Municipal con enfoque de cuencas.
· Integración institucional para unificación de esfuerzos en el enfoque de Cuencas
(Gestión)
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-25
5. ¿Cuales serían las recomendaciones para instalar un proceso de pago por servicios 
ambientales a partir de los incentivos?
· Establecimiento de tarifas.
· Capital semilla.
· Ordenanzas.
6. ¿Cómo sugiere evaluar el impacto de las actividades desarrolladas en
descentralización, desarrollo local y fortalecimiento de organizaciones?
· CDL funcionales (Legitimidad)
· Inversión Publica Transparente.
· Porcentaje de implementación del plan de desarrollo.
· Menor dependencia de subsidios (%)
· Fuentes alternativas de financiamiento.
· Porcentaje de Organizaciones aportando para la proteccion de cuenca.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-26 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
MESA 2
PRACTICAS DE MANEJO DE CUENCAS, PROTECCION DE FUENTES, Y 
PRODUCCIÓN AGROFORESTAL SOSTENIBLE
1. ¿En su opinión, que practicas agroforestales han tenido mayor aceptación y
adopción en el área del proyecto y porque?
· No hacer quemas: Cero costo, implemento fácil.
· Manejo de rastrojos: Implemento fácil, beneficio a corto plazo.
· Barreras vivas: Doble beneficio: Disminuye la erosión y aumenta la alimentación 
para el ganado.
· Cercas vivas: Frutos, postes, leña, hay que cercar.
· Siembras en curvas a nivel: Funcionamiento sistemático de riego, disminuye erosión, 
aumenta la infiltración de agua, aumenta el aprovechamiento de fertilizantes.
2. ¿Qué ha sido la experiencia en cuanto a los reservorios y que tecnologías son las más 
prometedoras y porque?
5 Tipos: Tanques plásticos, Represas desmontables, Familiares de 15m cúbicos, 
Cisternas de concreto, y Caja de captación de cemento en nacimientos.
Ante la escasez y necesidad de agua, la gente acepta la opción en que han visto beneficios 
y se adaptan a sus condiciones. ( Topográficas, Económicas, Sociales, Disponibilidad de 
agua, etc...)
3. ¿Cómo se puede mejorar la selección de tecnologías / practicas a promover por zona 
geográfica?
· La propuesta debe ser técnicamente fundamentada a solucionar la problemática de los 
productores, quienes deben de participar en el proceso.
· Divulgación y evaluación de opciones tecnológicas, giras de intercambio de
experiencias, capacitaciones y acompañamiento técnico son necesarias para escoger la 
mejor tecnología.
4. ¿Piensa que las actividades de control de contaminación industrial deberían formar 
parte del proyecto AGUA?(¿Por que sí? ¿Por qué no?).
No, ya que dada la complejidad y magnitud del problema merece un proyecto paralelo.
5. ¿Piensa que las actividades de diversificación e intensificación de la producción de
hortaliza y frutales debe ser una actividad promovida bajo el proyecto AGUA o bajo 
otro proyecto en las zonas atendidas? (Explique)
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-27
Sí, porque la diversificación contribuye a la sostenibilidad de las practicas de
conservación a través de mejorar la dieta e incrementar los ingresos. AGUA debería de
incluir un componente de mercadeo.
Otros Comentarios de la Mesa 2:
Las mesas de trabajo, específicamente Agroforestaria, teníamos preguntas acerca del
proyecto Agua específicamente 3, 4, y 5.
El 4 es difícil contestar como otra ONG en la misma zona trabajando en agricultura,
porque decir si puede crear competencia pero a la vez es importante en áreas no atendidos 
por ONG´s trabajando en agricultura.
6. Indique, en orden prioritario, no más de cinco indicadores de impacto que vale la
pena medir bajo proyecto AGUA para las actividades de manejo de cuencas,
proteccion de fuentes y Agroforestería. También, para cada indicador, ¿Explique
cómo y organismo debería de llevar a cabo, el monitoreo, y conque frecuencia?
i) Incremento en la calidad y cantidad del agua. Análisis de calidad y cantidad de
agua en las fuentes y sistemas. Parámetros se tendrán que definir posteriormente.
ii) Incremento en conocimiento sobre practicas de conservación y manejo de
cuencas. Pruebas de conocimiento.
iii) Número de prácticas ( y número de fincas) de conservación de suelo y agua. 
iv) Número y porcentaje de familias que ejecutan obras de conservación de suelos y
agua.
v) Porcentaje de área con cambio de uso de suelos.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-28 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
MESA 3
INFRAESTRUCTURA DE AGUA POTABLE, Y COLECCIÓN Y DISPOSICIÓN 
DE DESECHOS LIQUIDOS Y SÓLIDOS
OJO: Se dividieron en dos el grupo general, la mitad trabajen con SAP de AGUA y
proyectos de pequeña infraestructura, a la segunda con Tecnologías Pilotas – Rellenos 
Sanitarios y Agua Servida. Cada grupito tiene una hora para contestar las siguientes
preguntas. Se pretende unir los dos grupitos por media hora para revisar su trabajo
entre todo el Grupo de Tarea #3.
1. ¿Cuales son las conclusiones más importantes para Uds. en cuanto al impacto y
sostenibilidad de esta infraestructura? ( 5 conclusiones, puede añadir conclusiones)
· Responsabilidad y participación ciudadana.
· Separación de los desechos en la fuente en orgánicos e inorgánicos.
· Tarifa de cobro apropiada y método de cobro efectivo.
· Cumplimiento de los procesos de operación y mantenimiento.
· La aplicación y cumplimiento de la ordenanza.
Conclusiones:
La capacitación de miembros de la comunidad en aspectos administrativos y de operación 
y mantenimiento es un aspecto clave para la sostenibilidad.
El estado legal de las juntas administrativas y la elaboración de estatutos y reglamentos
internos.
La instalación de medidores es muy importante para regular el consumo y contribuye a la 
administración del sistema.
La cultura de pago de tarifas es ahora una realidad en nuestras intervenciones.
El fortalecimiento de juntas administradoras de sistemas existentes y la promoción de
asistencia técnica para la asociatividad entre juntas.
Aumento de cobertura a familias rurales con acceso a agua potable.
2. ¿Qué acciones inmediatas se deben tomar para rectificar problemas o concretizar / 
fortalecer éxitos?
· Plan de monitoreo y acompañamiento de por lo menos 1 año.
· Proyectos de rellenos sanitarios y plantas de tratamiento deben de tener mas de 1 año 
para implementación.
· Profundizar y simplificar los requerimientos de EIA entre el MARN y USAID.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-29
· Los EIA deben de estar presupuestados en cada proyecto.
· Plan de retroalimentación en los procesos educativos.
Acciones inmediatas:
· Para proyectos SIA, es recomendable asignar los fondos adecuados, para el diseño y
formulación.
· Obligar el uso de bitácora en cada proyecto para documentar los cambios realizados 
durante la ejecución de los proyectos.
· Agregar a los requerimientos de pequeños proyectos, que al final de la ejecución le 
sea entregada a la comunidad una carpeta con los cambios efectuados con la 
construccion, con copia a USAID.
· Sistematizar el proceso de capacitación a fontaneros.
· Verificar entrega de carpeta “así se construyo y manual de operación y 
mantenimiento que incorpore una rutina sugerida al fontanero como guía de 
inspección de instalación.
3. ¿Qué actividades ha hecho dentro de su trabajo en infraestructura (e.g. selección de 
sitio, estudios de factibilidad, diseño, construcción, fortalecimiento institucional,
capacitación de funcionarios, seguimiento, etc.) son fortalezas, en cuanto a su apoyo 
en maximizar impacto y sostenibilidad?
· Capacidad institucional en palancar fondos con otras institucionales.
· Fortalecimiento institucional en cuanto a la aplicación de metodologías replicables.
· Conocimiento / fortalecimiento en todo el proceso de implementación de un proyecto.
· Asesoría técnica especializada en: i) Capacidad de selección de sitio; y ii)
Coordinación Institucional.
Fortalezas:
· SIA permite que pequeñas comunidades tengan acceso a agua potable.
· Se cuenta con el proceso para la legalización de entidades administrativas.
· Se cuenta con capacidad técnica para diseño y ejecución de infraestructura de
sistemas de agua potable de acuerdo a normativa.
· Criterios para determinar estructura tarifaría para garantizar sostenibilidad.
· Equipo técnico fortalecido durante la marcha.
4. ¿Dentro del marco de la provisión de infraestructura sostenible, que actividades en 
el componente se deben reesforzar y continuar en los próximos dos años?
· Velar por la construcción de las etapas que no se hayan finalizado por parte de la
municipalidad.
· Que los proyectos pilotos sirvan para capacitar a las municipalidades / comunidades.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-30 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Continuar:
· Capacitación / fortalecimientos de juntas administrativas.
· Búsqueda de asociaciones, para implementación de proyectos.
· Esfuerzos de asociatividad de juntas administrativas.
· Asistencia técnica a comunidades y un porcentaje a instituciones para la construcción 
de sistemas de agua potable.
· Estructura tarifaría de pagos de servicios ambientales.
· Implementación de proyectos priorizados en planes de sub cuencas / municipios.
5. ¿Cuál es el rol estratégico de esta infraestructura dentro del marco del objetivo
general?(Desarrollo integral para el mejoramiento de la calidad de recursos
hídricos) ¿Cómo se puede aprovechar proyectos de esta infraestructura en
promover impacto sostenible en esta meta global?
· Garantizar la no-contaminación de los mantos acuíferos.
· Trabajo integral con un equipo multidisciplinarios.
Rol Estratégico:
· Las juntas administradoras legalizadas pueden proveer asistencia técnica a pequeños 
sistemas, así como representarlos y apoyarlos es su gestión.
· Los proyectos son modelos de sostenibilidad replicables en otras comunidades
contribuyendo a inducirlas en un uso racional del recurso agua con énfasis en su
calidad.
· Juntas participando en comités de sub cuenca y / o CDL.
· Pago por servicios ambientales incluidos en el sistema tarifario y reglamentos.
· SAP´s son “anclas” para atraer futuros proyectos hacia las comunidades.
· Legalidad de juntas administrativas permite mayor capacidad de gestión.
· Poder pasar a la etapa de asociatividad interjuntas, para una mayor incidencia de su 
gestión en el ámbito municipal.
6. Provea hasta 5 indicadores que se pueden usar para monitorear y evaluar impacto 
en infraestructura.
· Análisis físico – químico al nivel del manto acuífero o agua superficial cerca de la
obra.
· Reducción en la incidencia y prevalecía de las patologías gastrointestinales,
dermatológicas y neumológicas.
· Índice bacteriológico y de cloro en el agua de consumo.
· Monitoreo de la producción de lixiviado.
· Índice de cobertura de letrinización manejo de desechos Sólidos y aguas negras.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-31
Indicadores de impacto:
· Numero de familias con acceso a agua limpia que reúne requisitos de calidad y flujo 
diario.
· Numero de SAP que cubren sus costos con cobro de tarifas.
· Numero de juntas con estatutos aprobados y personalidad jurídica.
· Numero de beneficiarios capacitados en aspectos administrativos y contables por
genero.
· Números de juntas administradoras de sistemas existentes han sido diagnosticados.
· Numero de juntas funcionando eficientemente(aspectos administrativos, técnicos,
legalidad y financiamiento)
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-32 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
MESA 4
EDUCACIÓN AMBIENTAL, PARTICIPACIÓN CIUDADANA, USOS 
SOSTENIBLES DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Y ECOTURISMO”
1. Desde su óptica ¿Cuales han sido los logros más significativos del proyecto AGUA, 
que están directamente relacionados con el tema de interés asignado?
Sensibilización/apropiación del enfoque ambiental en diferentes niveles: i) Equipo
técnico; ii) Lideres; y iii) Población.
Innovar en cuanto a metodologías: i) Formas de hacer E.A. mas allá de la charla; ii)
Producción de variedad de material de apoyo para hacer educación ambiental; iii)
Difusión masiva de mensajes ambientales por medios masivos.
2. ¿Cuáles serían sus sugerencias para ampliar la organización y plan de formación de 
sitios de aprendizaje?
· Sitios como parte de una red, conectados y no aislados.
· Insertar a los Sitios de Aprendizaje y estructuras locales permanentemente (CDL´s,
comités cca)
Según criterios de:
· Ubicación geográfica priorizada.
· Capacidad / Volumen demostrada para la ejecución de actividades de proyectos
· Proyección de sostenibilidad.
3. ¿Cuáles deberían ser las estrategias para crear o mejorar las capacidades de las
comunidades para el monitoreo y gestión ambiental local?
· Divulgación de ordenanzas y de mecanismos de aplicación.
· Apoyo técnico para la gestión de proyectos ambientales.
· Especialización de instancias con proyección empresarial.
4. ¿Cómo sugiere desarrollar la formación en educación ambiental para las
organizaciones promovidas por el proyecto?
Planificar y operativizar participativamente la labor de E.A. de acuerdo a las necesidades 
básicas de la comunidad en los diferentes ámbitos ( Formal, Informal y no formal)
5. ¿Cómo se puede ligar mejor las actividades de ecoturismo y artesanías a los recursos 
hídricos y los objetivos del proyecto AGUA?
Ecoturismo y artesanías son en algunas casos las actividades derivadas de la proteccion
de RR.NN.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-33
6. ¿Cómo sugiere evaluar el impacto de las actividades desarrolladas en educación
ambiental, participación ciudadana, usos sostenibles de los recursos naturales y
ecoturismo? (indique 5 indicadores)
· Numero de ordenanzas en aplicación.
· Numero de proyectos realizados.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-34 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
MESA 5
PLANIFICACIÓN ESTRATEGICA, PRIORIZACIÓN DE ACCIONES, E 
INSTRUMENTOS POLÍTICOS PARA EL APROVECHAMIENTO SOSTENIBLE 
DE LOS RECURSOS HIDRICOS.
1. ¿Cómo se puede mejorar la planificación estratégica bajo el proyecto AGUA, y que 
son los elementos de un enfoque apropiado para el proyecto?
· Incorporar la visión nacional que responde a política y estrategias del estado / plan de 
nación.
· Establecer mecanismos de coordinación y cooperación de acciones.
· Desarrollar procesos metodológicos que permitan integrar a otros.
· Identificar factores críticos claves en el proceso de planificación.
· Que donantes permitan la participación de factores de la sociedad (civil, gobierno,
local, central y ONG) en la planificación.
· Capitalizar experiencia del proyecto y tratar de institucionalizarla en el ANDA,
MAG, MARN.
2. ¿Que debe ser la política del proyecto en términos de cobros por los servicios de
agua, aguas servidas y gestión de residuos Sólidos? ¿Que consumidores y / o
usuarios de estos servicios deben pagarlos y cuales no y porque?
· Política de cobro a usuarios de los sistemas (agua, servicios, MIDES, aguas servidas) 
mediante modalidad de pago a organizaciones de cuencas.
· Base legal en términos de la Ley de Agua, y el Reglamento O. de C.
· Usuarios deben pagar por los servicios ambientales que prestan los ecosistemas:
producción de agua, dilución de contaminación, etc.
· Iniciar a nivel piloto.
· Estrategia de sensibilización, persuasión a todo nivel mediante la educación
ambiental.
· Además del servicio garantizar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas.
3. ¿Qué debe ser el enfoque y los elementos de los esfuerzos del proyecto AGUA en la 
incidencia pro del sector de recursos hidricos durante los próximos dos años?
Enfoque sistémico: manejo integrado/agua como elemento central de cuenca/ Enfoque de 
participación y organización ciudadana.
Elementos de esfuerzo: i) Seguimiento a ejecución de planes de manejo integrado de
cuencas; ii) Fortalecimiento de organización de cuenca; y iii) Apoyo con instrumentos
legales/aplicación de ordenanza y creación de UAM
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-35
4. ¿Cómo piensa que se pretenden las alcaldías aplicar sus nuevas ordenanzas, y que
instrumentos deben utilizar?
· Creación de Unidad Municipal Ambiental (UAM) con recursos y capacidad.
· Proyectos para Equipamiento y Capacitación 
· Instrumento: Facilitación de plan de acción municipal
· Buscar la firma de convenio de entendimiento entre fuerzas políticas que garantice la 
continuidad de la UAM.
· Pieza de correspondencia Asamblea 
· Cabildeo de partidos políticos
· Concientización de consejos municipales sobre el papel de UAM.
5. ¿Cómo sugiere monitorear los impactos de las actividades del proyecto, y que deben 
ser los indicadores mínimos a incluir en este programa?
· Establecimiento de una eficiente unidad de monitoreo y evaluación que retroalimenta 
a través del proceso, considerando aspectos sociales, ambientales y económicos.
· Plan de monitoreo que incluye: a) línea de base; b) SIG; y c) evaluaciones periódicas.
Indicadores mínimos:
Deben ser cualitativos y cuantitativos, mayor flexibilidad en mecanismos de recolección, 
procesamiento y reporte.
Dirigidos a medir el progreso de objetivos fundamentales del proyecto:
· Caudal/volumen
· Calidad coliformes
· Sedimentaciones/erosión 
· Cobertura vegetal continuidad y cobertura de servicios.
· Sociales cambios de actitud.
6. ¿Cómo piensa que se podría mejorar la coordinación entre los distintos proyectos
financiados por USAID y entre las organizaciones ejecutoras del proyecto AGUA?
a) Crear un comité de coordinación y seguimiento en AID
b) Coordinaciones periódicas con AID, ejecutores de proyectos AID con Otros
proyectos
c) Talleres de planeamientos estratégico con actores claves a desiguales niveles:
proyectos AID, BID, otros, instituciones gubernamentales, ONG
d) Coordinación técnica a nivel local.
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-36 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
PARTICIPANTE INSTITUCION 
DIRECCION TEL/FAX CORREO ELECTRONICO
USAID
William Patterson
Director Oficina Medio Ambiente
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
wpatterson@usaid.gov
Ing. José A. Ramos
Gerente de AGUA y Saneamiento
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán 
jramos@usaid.gov
Brad Carr
Gerente Proyecto AGUA
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
298-1666
298-1999
bcarr@usaid.gov
Elizabeth González
Gerente de Proyecto
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
egonzalez@usaid.gov
Patricia Echeverría
Gerente de Proyecto SIA
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
pecheverria@usaid.gov
Silvia de González
Oficina de Desarrollo Estratégico
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
sgonzalez@usaid.gov
Norma de Mata
Directora en Funciones 
Oficina Desarrollo Estratégico
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
nmata@usaid.gov
Mary Rodríguez
Gerente de Proyecto
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
234-1364
fax:298-1899
marodriguez@usaid.gov
Rafael Cuellar
Gerente de Proyecto
USAID
USAID
Blvd. Santa Elena Sur
Antiguo Cuscatlán
racuellar@usaid.gov
CARE
Ing. Roney Gutierrez
Gerente 
Proyecto AGUA
CARE
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San 
Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661
273-0939
rgutierrez@care.org.sv
Ing. Carlos Huezo
Subgerente Proyecto AGUA
CARE
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San 
Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661
273-0939
huezo@care.org.sv
Ing. Ana Luisa Dueñas
Coordinadora de Infraestructura
CARE
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San 
Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661
273-0939
analuisa@care.org.sv
Ing. Selma Garcia
Coordinadora Agroforestaria
CARE
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San 
Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661
273-0939
selma@care.org.sv
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-37
PARTICIPANTE INSTITUCION 
DIRECCION TEL/FAX CORREO ELECTRONICO
Lic. Raúl Artiga
Subgerente Incidencia
CARE
CARE
Colonia Lomas de San 
Francisco
Calle 3, casa #20
San Salvador
273-9661
273-0939
rartiga@care.org.sv
FUNDAMUNI
Ing. Guillermo Galván
Coordinador
FUNDAMUNI
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403
245-5412
fundamuni.dir@telesal.net
Ing. Cecilia Gómez
Coordinadora Regional
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403
245-5412
fundamuni.subdir@telesal.net
Isaac Enoé Bonilla
Referente del Componente de 
Agroforestería Proyecto 
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403
245-5412
fundamuni@telesal.net
Nancy Cristina Amaya
Referente Componente de 
Educación Ambiental 
Proyecto AGUA.
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403
245-5412
amayananay@hotmail.com
Ángel Eliseo Pineda
Referente del Componente de 
Infraestructura Proyecto AGUA.
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403
245-5412
Ricardo Antonio Pérez
Componente de Planificación y 
Gestión de Cuencas del Proyecto 
AGUA. 
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403
245-5412
Ricp-chevive@yahoo.com.mx
Ing. Jorge Pozuelo
Coordinador Componente 
Desarrollo Local
FUNDAMUNI
71 Avenida Norte #336
San Salvador
223-6403
245-5412
fundamuni@telesal.net
SALVANATURA
Msc. Marta Lilian Quezada
Gerente Proyecto AGUA
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
279-1515
279-0220
mlquezada@saltel.net
Lic. Henry Retana
Técnico Área Infraestructura
SALVANATURA 
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
Carmen Salvador
Coordinadora Educación Ambiental
SALVANATURA
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
279-1515 educarparalavida@hotmail.co
m
Nicolás Atilio Méndez
Supervisor Oficina Regional
SALVANATURA
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
279-5 NICOGOLL@YAHOO.COM
Nilton Navas
Técnico de Agroforesteria
SALVANATURA
SALVANATURA
33 Avenida Sur #640
Colonia Flor Blanca
San Salvador
663-0076
663-1190
lievnena@elsalvador.com
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-38 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
PARTICIPANTE INSTITUCION 
DIRECCION TEL/FAX CORREO ELECTRONICO
SACDEL
Ing. Guillermo Ruíz
Gerente 
SACDEL
SACDEL
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
273-5755
248-0772
662-0010
guillermo@vip.telesal.net
Carlos Herrera
SACDEL
Sacdel
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
hbenjamin19@hotmail.com
Benjamín Anaya
SACDEL
Sacdel
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
662-0810 aleminsv@yahoo.com
Moisés Cerritos 
SACDEL
Sacdel
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
San Salvador
662-0591
fax:662-0810
cerritosmoises@hotmail.com
Orlando Batlle
SACDEL
Sacdel
Parque Residencial Altamira
Edificio F-3
662-0810 orlandobatlle@yahoo.com
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
Ing. Carlos Gómez
Coordinador de Agricultura y Medio 
Ambiente 
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL 
SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800
261-9861
707-2648
carlos_gomez@wvi.org
Susana Calderón
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL 
SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800
261-9861
suanmd@hotmail.com
Noé Hernández
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL 
SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800
261-9861
henushenrg@hotmail.com
Hugo Lopez
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL 
SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800
261-9861
Erasmo Montejo
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL SALVADOR
VISIÓN MUNDIAL EL 
SALVADOR
Avenida Bernal #222 
Colonia Miramonte
San Salvador
261-9800
261-9861
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-39
PARTICIPANTE INSTITUCION 
DIRECCION TEL/FAX CORREO ELECTRONICO
PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL
Sr. John McPhail
Director
Project Concern International
Project Concern 
International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias 
No. 2-24
Colonia San Francisco
279-4667
224-6536
jmcphail@projectconcern.org
Ing. Ronald Campos
Sub gerente de diseño 
PROJECT CONCERN 
INTERNATIONAL
Project Concern 
International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias 
No. 2-24
Colonia San Francisco
San Salvador
rhcampos@projectconcern.org
Ing Nicolás coto
Sub-Director
PROJECT CONCERN 
INTERNATIONAL
Project Concern 
International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias 
No. 2-24, Colonia San 
Francisco
San Salvador
ncoto@projectconcern.org
Ing. Roberto Avelar
Gerente de Ingeniería
PROJECT CONCERN 
INTERNATIONAL
Project Concern 
International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias 
No. 2-24, Colonia San 
Francisco
224-6005 ravelar@projectconcern.org
Lic. Andrea Lamer
Gerente de Agro sistemas
PROJECT CONCERN 
INTERNATIONAL
Project Concern 
International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias 
No. 2-24, Colonia San 
Francisco
San Salvador
279-4669 ajlamer@projectconcern.org
Ing-. Orlando Luna
Subgerente Area Técnica
Project Concern 
International
Calle Los Castaños
Avenida Las Bugambilias 
No. 2-24 Colonia San 
Francisco
San Salvador
c-oluna@projectconcern.org
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
Ing. José Ángel Cruz
Gerente del Programa de 
Agricultura
Catholic Relief Services
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
San Salvador
298-1688
224-1739
jcruz@netcomsa.com
Ing. Manuel Alfaro
Coordinador del Proyecto de 
Producción de Hortalizas/AID
Catholic Relief Services
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
San Salvador
298-1688
224-1739
malfaro.crs@navegante.com.s
v
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-40 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
PARTICIPANTE INSTITUCION 
DIRECCION TEL/FAX CORREO ELECTRONICO
Ing. Luis Villatoro
Técnico en Producción
Catholic Relief Services
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
San Salvador
298-1688
224-1739
alxvillabenz@hotmail.com
Ing. Julio Avalos
Técnico en Producción y Crédito
Catholic Relief Services
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
298-1688
224-1739
avalosguzman@hotmail.com
Ing. Ivania Rivas
Asistente Técnico a la Gerencia de 
Agricultura
Catholic Relief Services
73 Avenida Sur No. 221
Colonia Escalón
San Salvador
298-1688
224-1739
irivas@crs.netcomsa.com
CAMAGRO
Sr. Ricardo Esmahan dÁbuisson
Director Ejecutivo
CAMAGRO 
Avenida Víctor Mejía Lara 
#24
Colonia Campestre
San Salvador
resmahan@sal.gbm.net
Ing. Carlos Domínguez
Coordinador del Proyecto
CAMAGRO
Avenida Víctor Mejía Lara 
#24
Colonia Campestre
San Salvador
264-4622
 23
programa.segen@camagro.co
m
cdominguez@telesal.net
MINISTERIO DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS NATURALES
Ing. Guillermo Alas
Técnico Especialista en Suelos
MARN
Ministerio de Medio 
Ambiente y Recursos 
Naturales
Alameda Roosevelt y 55 
Avenida Norte
Edificio IPSFA
San Salvador
260-3114 g_alas@hotmail.com
Ing. César Funes Abrego
Gerente de Sistemas Ambientales
MARN
Ministerio de Medio 
Ambiente y Recursos 
Naturales
Alameda Roosevelt y 55 
Avenida Norte
Edificio IPSFA
San Salvador
Tel/Fax: 260-3114 patrimonio@marn.gob.sv
Ing. Carlos Aguilar Molina
Técnico Dirección Patrimonio 
Natural
MARN
Ministerio de Medio 
Ambiente y Recursos 
Naturales
Alameda Roosevelt y 55 
Avenida Norte
Edificio IPSFA
San Salvador
260-3114
ANDA
Ing. Raúl Rodríguez Choto
Gerente de Sistemas Rurales
ANDA
281-1937
271-0775
rech@cyt.net
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 6-41
PARTICIPANTE INSTITUCION 
DIRECCION TEL/FAX CORREO ELECTRONICO
MAG-CENTA
Ing. Carlos Mario García
Gerente de Investigaciones
T/F 338-4275 cmgarciaberrios@hotmaill.co
m
Lic. Margarita Ledesma M.
Técnico Unidades de Genero
T/F 338-4275 mameflo@123.com.sv
ARD, INC
Paul Dulin
Coordinador
Equipo Evaluador
ARD, INC
ARD, INC 260-1663
261-0519
899-5851
pdulin@aol.com
Scott Tobías
Asesor Equipo Evaluador
ARD, INC
ARD 257-0700 stobias@ardinc.com
satobias@hotmail.com
Carlos Zavala
Asesor Equipo Evaluador
ARD, INC
ARD 257-0700 Carloszavala27@hotmail.com
carloszavala@saltel.com
Margarita Palomo
Especialista Administrativa
ARD, INC
ARD 260-1663 margaritapalomo@telemovil.n
et
margaritapalomo@integra.co
m.sv
Erica Vanesa Lau
Asistente Administrativa
ARD, INC
ARD 261-0519 evl666@hotmail.com
Annex 6: Evaluation Workshop
6-42 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed for the Evaluation
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7-1
1. “Proyecto de Reglamento para la Creación y Funcionamiento del Comité Interinstitucional 
Nacional de Planificación de Gestión y Uso Sostenible de Cuencas Hidrográficas y para la 
Creación de Organizaciones de Cuenca Hidrográfica”. Proyecto para formular la s Directrices 
Nacionales que Conformen la s Organizaciones de Cuenca en la República de El Salvador, 
Recursos Naturales, Octavo Borrador, (Elaborado por Eduardo Mestre, con base al Séptimo 
Borrador, Consorcio el Ministerio de MARN, Vicepresidencia, CARE, 27 Junio del 2002.
2. Environmental Health Project, Activity Report, #103, Midterm Evaluation of the USAID/El 
Salvador Public Service Improvement Project (Project No. 519-0320), Water and Sanitation for 
Health Program, (PROSAGUAS), September 2000, Eduardo Perez, Patricia Martin, Harold 
Lockwood, Morris Israel, Prepared for The USAID Mission To El Salvador Under EHP Project 
No. 26568/ Other. Sv1.Waseval environmental Health Project Contract No. Hrn-1-00-99-0001 1 
–00 Is Sponsored By The Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support And Research, office of 
Health And Nutrition, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, Dc 20523.
3. Proyecto Gestión Integral, de los Desechos Sólidos, Comunidad San Francisco Menéndez 
Ahuachapán, Alcaldía Municipal de San Francisco Menéndez, y, Fundación Ecológica de El 
Salvador, SALVANATURA, Project CONCERN International, USAID 1 septiembre 2001 
4. Carpeta Final Proyecto Gestión Integral de los Desechos Sólidos, Comunidad Corinto, Alcaldía 
Municipal de Corinto, Morazán, Consorcio Project CONCERN International, FUNDAMUNI, 
PROCAP de El Salvador, USAID agosto 2001.
5. Diagnóstico y Programa de Adecuación, Ambiental de Botadero de Basura a Cielo Abierto del 
Municipio de Corinto, Fundación de Apoyo a Municipios de El Salvador (FUNDAMUNI), Licda. 
María de Jesús Vega, Lic. Roberto G. Alvarado, Ing. José Alfonso Estévez, Ing. Carlos Antonio 
Zavala, Lic. Marco Antonio González, Nueva San Salvador, El Salvador junio de 2001.
6. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, Proyecto Relleno Sanitario, San Francisco Menéndez, Consorcio 
CARE - SALVANATURA - SACDEL – FUNDAMUNI, octubre de 2002.
7. Manual para el Desarrollo Integral de Proyectos Comunitarios de Agua Potable y Letrinización, 
Project Concern International, PROCOSAL.
8. “Diagnóstico sobre la Situación de Agua y Saneamiento en El Salvador”, Red de Agua y 
Saneamiento, USAID septiembre del 2001.
9. Proyecto Gestión Integral de los Desechos Sólidos Comunidad, Corinto, Morazán, Alcaldía / 
PCI- PROCOSAL / FUNDAMUNI, febrero 2002
10. Calidad del Agua de Consumo Humano de la s Familias Rurales de El Salvador, Estudio 
Socioeconómico, Fundación Salvadoreña para el Desarrollo Económico y Social, agosto 2001
11. Memoria Proyección, Relleno Sanitario del Municipio San Francisco Menéndez 2002.
12. Strategic Objective Grant Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America 
and the Government of the Republic of El Salvador for the Strategic Objective Increased Access 
by Rural Households to Clean Water United States Agency for International Development, 
Activity No. 519-0443, Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (Agua,), San Salvador, 
El Salvador, C.A., September 30, 1998
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
7-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
13. Estudio sobre el Uso Actual y Potencia del Suelo en Cinco Microcuencas Productoras de Agua en 
los Municipios de Guaymango y Jujutla. , Consultor: Ing. Agr. Arnoldo Cruz. , Agencia 
Internacional para el Desarrollo, Visión Mundial de El Salvador, USAID San Salvador, mayo de 
2000.
14. Información Adicional Sobre Proyecto: Gestión Integral de los Desechos Sólidos de la s 
Principales Áreas Urbanas del Municipio de San Francisco Menéndez, Departamento de 
Ahuachapán para Obtención Permiso Ambienta alcaldía Municipal de San Francisco Menéndez, 
Proyecto Agua SALVANATURA /PCI- PROCOSAL, septiembre 2001
15. Contenidos Temáticos, Centro de Interpretación Área Natural Protegida Chaguantique, Usulután, 
Emilio Antonio León Rivas, Diseño General y Temático del Centro de Interpretación, José 
Antonio Chávez Orellana, Desarrollo de Contenidos y Montaje de Exhibiciones, abril 2002
16. Contrato de Préstamo No. 1102 / OC- ES, Suscrito entre el Estado y Gobierno de la República de 
El Salvador y el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) Decreto Legislativo No. 323, de 
fecha 23 de febrero de 2001, Publicado en el Diario oficial No. 41, Torno No.350, de 26 de 
febrero del mismo Año. Esta Asamblea Legislativa, Aprobó el Contrato de Préstamo No. 
1102/OC-ES, Suscrito entre el Estado y Gobierno de la República de El Salvador y el Banco 
Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID)
17. Normas Técnicas para Abastecimiento de Agua Potable y Alcantarillados de Aguas Negras 
Administración Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, El Salvador, América Central
18. Informe de Estudio: Comprensión de Conocimientos, Actitudes y Prácticas de la Comunidad 
Cerro San Simón, Osicala, Morazán, Unidad de Asistencia Técnica, Programa de Salud, Agua y 
Saneamiento, (PROSAGUAS. CARE - El Salvador, noviembre, 2001.
19. Plan de Manejo de Microcuenca, el Zúngano, Versión preliminar, julio 2002
20. Agua: Acceso Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua Diagnostico Rural Participativo con enfoque de 
Genero Departamento de Usulután, Municipio de. Berlín, Acuerdo Cooperativo No. 519-A-0-99-
00084-00, Consorcio CARE El Salvador, SALVANATURA, FUNDAMUNI-PROCAP, 
SACDEL
21. Plan de Acción para el Desarrollo Reconstrucción del Municipio Usulután Rural Sur, Alcaldía 
Municipal de Usulután, Alcalde Municipal de Usulután: Hipólito Baltazar Rodríguez, Proyecto 
AGUA Consorcio, CARE-SACDEL-SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI.
22. Vásquez, M., & Herrera, N., 2002. Estudio de capacitación de Carga Turística en dos senderos 
del área natural protegida Chaguantique, municipio de Jiquilisco, departamento de Usulután. 
Informe de consultoría. Proyecto Agua 49. pp. 
23. Carta Convenio, para la Cooperación Técnica Financiera entre Alcaldía Municipal de Corinto, 
Project CONCERN- International y FUNDAMUNI Proyecto Agua, para la Ejecución del 
Proyecto: Diseño Construcción y Capacitación para la Gestión y Disposición Final de los 
Desechos Sólidos en el Municipio de Corinto.
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7-3
24. Potable Water and Sanitation an Experience to Share, Diagnosis Performed in 55 Water and 
Sanitation Systems Built Between 1993 and 1997, with USAID'S Funds, through AID 
PROJECTS No. 519-0320 AND AID No. 519-0394, Performed for CARE International in El 
Salvador as Part of the Program Health Through Water and Sanitation - PROSAGUAS, Team 
responsible for the research: Coordinator- Isai Jonathan Claros field personnel Martin F. Segovia, 
Bachelor in Education for Health, Oscar A. Rodriguez, Maternal-Infant Technician Ana Gloria 
Alvarez, Bachelor in Education for Health Maria Concepcion Cardona, Hydraulic engineer Aito 
Maze, Social Promoter Belter Zelaya, Social Promoter ,Ricardo Ernesto Mejía Accountant, San 
Salvador, 1999
25. PROYECTO MAG-PAES, Por una Agricultura Sostenible en la s Regiones Tenancingo y 
Guazapa, Consorcio: IICA – CATIE CRS UCA-.
26. Plan Operativo M&E, enrique Umaña Portillo, Coordinador de Monitoreo y Evaluación para el 
Proyecto AGUA, El Salvador, 1 de abril de 2002
27. Cámara Agropecuaria y Agroindustrial de El Salvador, CAMAGRO Instituto Interamericano de 
Cooperación para la Agricultura, IICA
28. Sewage Treatment, Solid Waste Disposal, “Agricultural Technology and Marketing Services 
Program”, Project Concern International US agency for international development progress report 
519-0443 April 2002
29. Program for entrepreneurial Management Services in Marketing and Technology SEGEM, 
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura, IICA. No. 591 -A-00-00-00070-00 
30. Servicios de Gestión Empresarial en Mercadeo y Tecnología, SEGEM
31. PROYECTO-MAG-PAES, Por una Agricultura Sostenible en la s Regiones Tenancingo, 
Guaymango, Catholic Relief Services USCC, Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo 
Internacional.
32. Proyecto de Producción y Mercadeo de Hortalizas, Corinto, Morazán, Periodo abril -Junio, Julio 
de 2000
33. Quarterly Report January - March 2002,Agua: Access to Clean Water for Rural El Salvador 
34. Agency for International Development United States of America A.I.D., Mission to El Salvador, 
C/O American Embassy, San Salvador, El Salvador, C.A. Letter to Mr. John McPhail, Country 
Representative, PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL, Subject: Award No.519~A-00-01-
00089-00, grants to the Project Concern support for a program in Earthquake Response in Water, 
Sanitation, Shelter, and Risk Reduction, as described in the Schedule of this award and the 
Attachment 2, entitled "Program Description."
35. Síntesis de Lineamentos y Aportes a la Política y Legislación de los Recursos Hidricos en El 
Salvador, Raúl Artiga, Rolando Almendarez, Red de AGUA y Saneamiento del El Salvador, Red 
para el Desarrollo Local, diciembre, 2001.
36. MEMORIA PROYECCIÓN RELLENO SANITARIO DEL MUNICIPIO SAN FRANCISCO 
MENÉNDEZ
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
7-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
37. Resumen Ejecutivo: Proyecto Manejo Integral de los Desechos Sólidos del Municipio de Corinto, 
Departamento de Morazán, USAID/PCI, FUDAMUNI, Alcaldía de Corinto, 5 de marzo del 2001.
38. Regulación Normativas relevantes sobre el agua en el ordenamiento jurídico Salvadoreño, Res de 
AGUA y Saneamiento para el Desarrollo Local, CARE
39. Carta Convenio para la Cooperación Técnica Financiera entre Alcaldía -Municipal de Corinto, 
PROJECT CONCERN, INTERNATIONAL y FUNDAMUNI, Proyecto Agua para la Ejecución 
del Proyecto "Diseño, Construcción y Capacitación para la Gestión y Disposición Final de los 
Desechos Sólidos en el Municipio de Corinto"
40. Quarterly Activity Report April - May – June 2001, Project Integral Management of Watersheds, 
and Municipality of Jujutla and Guaymango Department of Ahuachapán.
41. Plan de Manejo Parte Alta de la Subcuenca del Río Corinto, Versión preliminar, Julio, 2002
42. Informe TRIMESTRAL de Actividades CLARA, El Salvador enero - marzo 2002, 
43. Carta de entendimiento de Cooperación Técnica entre Dirección General del Centro Nacional de 
Tecnología Agropecuaria y for estal (CENTA) y la Cooperativa Americana de Remesas al 
Exterior (CARE)
44. Carta Convenio, para la Cooperación Técnica Financiera entre, Alcaldía Municipal de San 
Francisco Menéndez, PROJECT CONCERN INTERNATIONAL y SALVANATURA, para la 
Ejecución del Proyecto Diseño Construcción y Capacitación para la Gestión y Disposición Final 
de los Desechos Sólidos en el Municipio de San Francisco Menéndez.
45. Letter of Understanding between Catholic Relief Services and CARE El Salvador
46. Convenio para el Establecimiento de un proyecto Auto Financiable de Sistema de Agua entre 
CARE y COMURES.
47. Convenio de Cooperación entre Visión Mundial El Salvador y Cooperativa Americana de 
Remesas al Exterior (CARE)
48. Carta de entendimiento de Cooperación Técnica entre Project CONCERN INTERNATIONAL 
(PCI) y el CONSORCIO CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –SACDEL
49. Resumen Ejecutivo, Diagnóstico Rurales Participativos con enfoque de los Departamentos de 
Ahuachapán, Morazán y Usulután.
50. Project Grant Agreement grantee") United States of America A.I.D. Mission To El 
Salvador CIO American Embassy , USAID Project No. 519-0458, Sub-Project Name: 
Improvement of Water System
52. Componente: Acciones Ciudadanas Efectivas para la Gestión Del Recurso Proyecto Agua: 
CARE-SACDEL-FUNDAMUNI-SALVANATURA.
53. Ayuda Memoria, Taller de Planificación Lecciones Aprendidas, Equipo Técnico de Componente, 
Equipo de Referentes: Nancy Amaya, FUNDAMUNI, Orlando Batle, SACDEL, Osiris Ramírez, 
SALVANATURA-Ahuachapán, Ricardo Mejia, Salvanatura-Usulután, Coordinadora del 
51.
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7-5
Componente, Carmen Salvador de Alejo, Coordinadora Proyecto Agua-SALVANATURA, Marta 
Lilian Quezada, Alegría, Usulután, 17 y 18 de enero de 2002
55. Carta de Intención, Interés del Proyecto Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua y la Unión, 
Mundial para la Naturaleza (Iniciativa de Agua y Naturaleza para Mesoamérica -Wani-) para 
Establecer un acuerdo de Cooperación y Coordinación de Actividades en la Zona de Cara 
Sucia-San Pedro en El Salvador.
56. Convenio para el Establecimiento de un proyecto Autofinanciable de Sistema de Agua Potable 
entre CARE – COMURES
57. Carta de entendimiento, Fundación de Apoyo a Municipios de El Salvador (FUNDAMUNI), 
Ministerio de Educación (Departamental de Usulután), El Salvador, Julio 2001
58. Carta de entendimiento de Cooperación Técnica entre PROJECT CONCERN International (PCI) 
y el Consorcio CARE - SALVANATURA FUNDAMUNI– SACDEL.
59. Performance Data Tables, Increase Access by Rural Households to Clean Water, SO4-AGUA 
ACTIVITY, USAID El Salvador, 2002.
60. Increase Access by Rural Households to Clean Water, New Activity Document, Activity No. 
519-0443, strategic Objective No. 4, USAID El Salvador, 2002
61. Acta de Intención de Cooperación Técnica entre el centro Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria 
y Forestal (CENTA) y la Cooperativa Americana de Remesas. al exterior (CARE)
62. Carta de Intención para un trabajo coordinado, y complementario entre CARE y el Instituto 
Salvadoreño de Desarrollo Municipal (ISDEM)
63. Memorandum of Agreement of cooperation with other government and non-government 
organization -In to coordinate efforts to augment the impact of project activities and assure their 
sustainability. Border Development Services, CARE El Salvador 
64. Convenio de Cooperación Técnica entre CARE INTERNACIONAL en El Salvador y la 
Administración Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, (ANDA) para la Ejecución de 
Proyectos de Agua y Saneamiento en El Salvador.
65. Convenio de Ejecución entre CARE El Salvador y la Fundación de Apoyo Municipios de El 
Salvador (FUNDAMUNI), para la Implementación del Proyecto Introducción de Agua Potable al 
Cantón Jobal Hornos, San Francisco Javier, Usulután.
66. Gestión para Microempresas Rurales, Catholic Relief Services.
67. Línea de Base de las Comunidades Huisiltepeque, Miraflores, el Limón, (Municipios de San 
Pedro Perulapán, y Tenancingo, Departamento de Cuscatlán), Unidad de Asistencia Técnica del 
Programa de Salud a través de Agua y Saneamiento PROSAGUAS, enero, 2002.
68. Convenio de Cooperación Técnica entre CARE Internacional en El Salvador y la Unión Europea, 
Proyecto ALA 93/30 para la Ejecución de Proyectos de Agua y Saneamiento en El Salvador.
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
7-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
69. Carta de Intención entre el Fondo de Inversión Social para el Desarrollo Local de El Salvador, 
CARE Internacional-El Salvador, SACDEL, SALVANATURA y FUNDAMUNI-PROCAP, 
febrero 1999.
70. Convenio de Co-financiamiento para la ejecución del sub-proyecto “Abastecimiento de Agua 
Caserío Los Calderones y el Quebracho, municipio de Jujutla, Departamento de Ahuachapán, 
entre el Fondo de Inversión Social para el Desarrollo Local de El Salvador, FISDL y el Consorcio 
CARE-SALVANATURA, Gobierno de El Salvador, San Salvador, 2001.
71. Informe del cumplimiento de la s acciones del proyecto “Contrapartida AID-519-0443 Acceso, 
Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua”, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Centro Nacional de 
Tecnología Agropecuaria For estal (MAG-CENTA), marzo, 2002.
72. Resumen de Estudio Ambiental, Planta de Tratamiento de Aguas Negras del Casco Urbano de 
Suchitoto, PROJECT CONCERN International, December, 2000.
73. Proceso de Desarrollo de Proyectos Pilotos de manejo Integral de Desechos Sólidos, Sistema de 
Accesoría y Capacitación para el Desarrollo (SACDEL.
74. Resumen Ejecutivo Proyecto Manejo Integral de los Desechos Sólidos del Municipio de San 
Francisco Menéndez, Departamento de Ahuachapán.
75. Plan de Trabajo con enfoque de Género de la Microcuenca Río Metal, Municipio de Guaymango, 
Departamento de Ahuachapán, (MAG-CENTA), 2000.
76. ¿Cómo Manejamos las Cosechas?,Manual para el pequeño productor, PHOC SC de R.L es 
apoyada por: OCRS, CRS.
77. Estatutos de la Asociación Comunal de Agua Puente Arce, Administradora Del Sistema Des￾abastecimiento de Agua Potable, Salud y Medioambiente de la Comunidad de Puente Arce, 
Cantón el Jocotillo, Municipio de San Francisco Menéndez, Departamento de Ahuachapán
78. Borrador, Reglamento Interno para la Administración del Sistema de Agua, Salud y Medio 
Amb1ente de la Asociación Comunal de Agua Puente el Jocotillo 1, Municipio Arce, 
(A.C.A.G.U.A.P.A) Cantón Pió de San Francisco Menéndez, Departamento de Ahuachapán, 19 
de junio del 2001.
79. Manual para el pequeño productor PHOC SC de R.L. es apoyada por: OCRS, CORINTO, 
Morazán CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES, ¿Cómo nos Organizamos para Trabajar en Familia?
80. POLITICAS de CREDITO, PROGRAMA de AGRICULTURA, El Salvador Proyecto 
“Producción y Comercialización de Hortalizas y Frutas, Corinto. CRS-AID. 
81. Reglamentos de Crédito, Programa de Agricultura, El Salvador Proyecto “Producción y 
Comercialización de Hortalizas y Frutas, Corinto. CRS-AID. 
82. Manual para el pequeño productor PHOC SC de R.L., es apoyada POR: OCRS. ,CRS, ¿Cómo 
Hacemos Mercadeo?, PHOC SC de R.L., CRS.
83. Formas Jurídicas de Asociación de personas u -organizaciones, Samuel A~ José David Grimaldi 
Consultores
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7-7
84. Informe Sabio, Proyecto: Inserción a Mercados Competitivos de Agricultores de ladera del 
municipio de Corinto, Morazán, El Salvador, Catholic Relief Services.
85. Proyecto de Inversión Vivero de Producción de Pilones de Hortalizas, MOC SC. de R.L, 
Corinto5, mayo de 2002. ,
86. Proyecto: Manejo Integral de Cinco Microcuencas productoras de agua en los municipios de 
Jujutla y Guaymango, departamento de Ahuachapán. Ref. . 519-a-00-99-00210-00 preparado por: 
ing. Rigoberto A.. Mira, Ing. Noe Hernández, San Salvador, octubre de 1999,
87. "Estrategia Nacional de Desarrollo Local"(ENDL) Grupo Consultivo Fondo de Inversión Social 
para el Desarrollo Local, 2000
88. Guía Metodológica Plan de trabajo del Comité de Desarrollo del municipio Integración del plan 
de acción para el desarrollo del municipio 
89. Plan de Integración de proyectos al eje de Agro negocios a través de PHOC SC, de R.L., 
HORTALIZAS de Oriente Corinto, Sociedad Cooperativa de Responsabilidad Limitada, Mildred 
Alvarado, Corinto, agosto 2002.
90. Taller sobre conceptos básicos de contabilidad, proyecto CRS-Corinto/AID, PHOC SC, de R.L., 
HORTALIZAS de Oriente Corinto, Sociedad Cooperativa de Responsabilidad Limitada, 
facilitador Elizabeth Méndez, Corinto, agosto 2002.
91. Plan de Acción del Municipio de Corinto, FUNDAMUNI-ROCAP, El Salvador, julio 2000.
92. Formas Jurídicas de Asociación de personas u organizaciones, Samuel Abarca, José David 
Grimaldi.
93. Plan de Manejo de la Subcuenca Río Borbollón, Proyecto AGUA, Consorcio CARE –
SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –SACDEL, julio del 2002.
94. Análisis con perspectiva de género y equidad de la problemática para la producción agropecuaria 
en el ámbito de Microcuencas hidrográficas, Marta Trigueros Barrera, Evelyn Patricia Carvallo 
de Berganza
95. Reportaje del Levantamiento de Información, subcuenca del rió el Quebrado, departamento de 
Usulután, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –SACDEL, El Salvador, marzo 
2001
96. Reportaje del Levantamiento de Información, subcuenca del rió el Roquinte departamento de 
Usulután, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –SACDEL, El Salvador, marzo 
2001
97. Reportaje del Levantamiento de Información, subcuenca del rió Borbollón departamento de 
Usulután, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –SACDEL, El Salvador, marzo 
2001
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
7-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
98. Reportaje del Levantamiento de Información, subcuenca del rió Copinula departamento de 
Ahuachapán, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –SACDEL, El Salvador, 
marzo 2001
99. Reportaje del Levantamiento de Información, de la Subcuenca Quebradas la Ermita y el 
Hondable, departamento de Morazán, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –
SACDEL, El Salvador, marzo 2001
100. Reportaje del Levantamiento de Información, de la Subcuenca Río Corinto, departamento de 
Morazán, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –SACDEL, El Salvador, marzo 
2001
101. Reportaje del Levantamiento de Información, de la Subcuenca del Rió San Francisco, 
departamento de Ahuachapán, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –SACDEL, 
El Salvador, marzo 2001
102. Reportaje del Levantamiento de Información, de la Subcuenca del Rió Sanjón la Danta, 
departamento de Ahuachapán, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI – SACDEL, 
El Salvador, marzo 2001
103. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, Subcuenca Rio el Zapote ,departamento 
de Usulután, municipio de Jujutla, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –
PROCAP- SACDEL
104. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
Usulután Sur, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
105. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, subcuenca el Molino, departamento de 
Usulután, municipio de Puerto el Triunfo, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI 
–PROCAP- SACDEL
106. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, Subcuenca del Rió San Francisco, 
departamento de Usulután, municipio de California, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA￾FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
107. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
San Francisco Javier, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP￾SACDEL
108. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
Usulután Norte, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
109. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Morazán, municipio de 
Corinto, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
110. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
Tecapán, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
111. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
San Agustín, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7-9
112. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Ahuachapán, municipio 
de Guaymango, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
113. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Ahuachapán, municipio 
de San Pedro Puxtla, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP￾SACDEL
114. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
Mercedes Umaña, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
115. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
Santiago de María, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
116. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
San Dionisio, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- SACDEL
117. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Ahuachapán, municipio 
de San Francisco Menéndez, consorcio CARE – SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP￾SACDEL
118. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
Jiquilisco, consorcio CARE - SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- Sacdel.
119. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
Alegría, consorcio CARE - SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- Sacdel.
120. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Usulután, municipio de 
Ozatlan, consorcio CARE - SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- Sacdel.
121. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Ahuachapán, municipio 
de San Francisco Menéndez, consorcio CARE - SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP￾Sacdel.
122. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo con enfoque de genero, departamento de Ahuachapán, municipio 
de Jujutla, consorcio CARE - SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI –PROCAP- Sacdel.
123. Índice de Aceptabilidad, Investigación de Tesis (sin publicar), Carlos Gómez, San Salvador, 
agosto 2002.
124. Aspectos Relacionados con el uso de Productos Botánicos en la Agricultura, Protección Vegetal, 
Jaime Ayala Morán, MAG/CENTA, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería,
125. Búsqueda de Entendimiento, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso 
Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- Sacdel, Convenio 
USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
126. El Municipio, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del 
Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 
519-A-00-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
7-10 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
127. Desarrollo Local, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del 
Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 
519-A-00-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
128. Mecanismos de Participación, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso 
Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio 
USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
129. Asociación de Municipios Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, 
Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA￾SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2002.
130. Descentralización Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión 
y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL 
Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2002.
131. Estrategia de Gestión y Perfiles de Proyecto, Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, 
Proyecto AGUA, (Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI￾SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El 
Salvador junio 2002.
132. Herramientas que Facilitan el Trabajo del Comité de Desarrollo Guía Metodológica, Serie 
Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE￾FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San 
Salvador, El Salvador junio 2002.
133. Plan de Trabajo del Comité de Desarrollo Del Municipio, Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo 
Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE￾FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San 
Salvador, El Salvador junio 2002.
134. Preparación de la Presentación del Plan de Acción a las Comunidades, Guía Metodológica, Serie 
Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE￾FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San 
Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
135. Integración del Plan de Acción para el Desarrollo del Municipio, Guía Metodológica, Serie 
Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE￾FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San 
Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
136. Elaboración o Actualización Cantonal del Plan de Acción Para El Desarrollo Del Municipio, Guía 
Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del 
Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 
519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
137. Elaboración o Actualización Municipal del Plan de Acción para El Desarrollo del Municipio, 
Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del 
Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL, Convenio USAID # 
519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7-11
138. Genero y Equidad Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión 
y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL 
Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
139. El Medio Ambiente, Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, 
Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA￾SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
140. Desarrollo Local, Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión 
y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL, 
Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
141. Una Estrategia para Apoyar Procesos de Desarrollo Local con Participación de la Población Guía
Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del 
Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 
519-A-00-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
142. Diagnostico del Municipio, Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, 
Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA￾SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
143. Devolución del Diagnostico al Municipio, Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto 
AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI￾SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, San Salvador, El 
Salvador junio 2001.
144. Búsqueda de Entendimiento, Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto 
AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI￾SALVANATURA- SACDEL Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-99-00084-00, San Salvador, El 
Salvador junio 2001.
145. El Municipio, Guía Metodológica, Serie Desarrollo Local, Proyecto AGUA(Acceso, Gestión y 
Uso Racional del Agua) Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL 
Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, San Salvador, El Salvador junio 2001.
146. Plan de Finca de Café, Consorcio CARE, Convenio Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso 
Racional del Agua, Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, 
El Salvador febrero 2001
147. Ordenanza para el ornato y Saneamiento Ambiental en el Municipio de Corinto en el 
Departamento de Morazán, Convenio Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del 
Agua, Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL, Convenio USAID # 
519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, junio del 2002.
148. Ordenanza para el uso protección de los recursos Naturales y el Medio Ambiente, Municipio de 
Guaymango, Departamento de Ahuachapán, Convenio Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso 
Racional del Agua, Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL, Convenio 
USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, junio del 2002.
149. Reglamento Especial sobre el Manejo Integral de los Desechos Sólidos, Versión didáctica, 
Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua, Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI-
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
7-12 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
SALVANATURA- SACDEL, Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, 
San Salvador, El Salvador, junio del 2001
150. Sube, Corre, Vuela Amiguita Viajera, Colección Ambiental Infantil “Retoñitos” del Proyecto de 
Educación y Comunicación Ambiental GREENCOM El Salvador Contrato No. PCE-5839-Q-00-
3069-00, San Salvador, El Salvador, enero, 1998..
151. Manual para la Elaboración y Manejo de Títeres, Técnicas Participativas para la Educación 
Ambiental, Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua, Consorcio CARE￾FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL, Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, 
Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, 2001
152. Manual para la Manipulación y actuación con Títeres, Técnicas Participativas para la Educación 
Ambiental, Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua, Consorcio CARE￾FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL, Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, 
Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, 2001
153. Formulario Ambiental para Saneamiento Básico, Acueductos, Alcantarillados, y/o Plantas de 
Tratamiento Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Dirección de Gestión 
Ambiental
154. Convenio de Cooperación entre Tetralogía SEM, S.A. de C.V., y CARE/El Salvador; 22 Marzo 
2001
155. Convenio Interinstitucional Ministerio de Salud, CENTA, ANDA entre: la Comunidad, 
Municipalidad, Consorcio CARE-FUNDAMUNI para la Introducción del Sistema de Agua 
Potable y Saneamiento Cantón el Cerrito, Jurisdicción del Municipio de Usulután, Usulután, 
marzo 2001
156. Convenio Interinstitucional entre Comunidad Jobal, Hornos, Municipalidad de San Francisco de 
Javier, Consorcio CARE-FUNDAMUNI, Ministerio de Salud y ANDA para la Introducción del 
Sistema de Agua Potable y Saneamiento del Cantón Jobal Hornos, Municipio de San Francisco 
de Javier, Usulután Cantón Jobal Hornos, 3 mayo 2001
157. High Performance Bio-Filtration and Wastewater Reuse: A Proposal for a 3-Part Seminar and 
Demonstration Project Implementation In Accordance with USAIDs Year 2000 Annual Program 
Statement Submitted 31 March, 2000 Border Development Services, Bisbee AZ, USA
158. Environmental Threshold decision, la CIEE-98-29, USAID Washington, DC.
159. Quarterly and Annual Report, July 2001-June, 2002, CARE-SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI￾SACDEL consortium.
160. Plan de Finca o Parcela, Consorcio CARE, Proyecto Agua, Acceso Gestión y Uso Racional Del 
Agua, Proyecto PAES/CARE, Gobierno de El Salvador Programa Ambiental de El Salvador.
161. Guía de Uso, Plan de Finca 0 Parcela, Consorcio CARE, Proyecto Agua, Acceso Gestión y Uso 
Racional Del Agua, Proyecto PAES/CARE, Gobierno de El Salvador Programa Ambiental de El 
Salvador.
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7-13
162. Cuaderno 1. ' la Microcuenca", Serie "Lo gran casa que nos da de beber y vivir" Proyecto Agua, 
Acceso, Gestión y Uso racional del Agua. Consorcio CARE-SALVANATURA￾FUNDAMUNI-SACDEL, Convenio USAID No, 5 1 9-A-00-99-00084-00.
163. Manejo de los desechos Sólidos y líquidos 1,Técnicas Participativas para la Educación 
Ambiental, Convenio Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua, Convenio 
USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, 2001.
164. Encuesta Prosperar, Identificación Muestral, CARE, El Salvador, 2002
165. Cuaderno 2, “El agua es útil, cuídela” Serie "Lo gran casa que nos da de beber y vivir" Proyecto 
Agua, Acceso, Gestión y Uso racional del Agua. Consorcio CARE-SALVANATURA￾FUNDAMUNI-SACDEL, Convenio USAID No, 5 1 9-A-00-99-00084-00
166. Manejo de los desechos Sólidos y líquidos 2,Tecnicas Participativas para la Educación 
Ambiental, Convenio Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua, Convenio 
USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, 2001.
167. Obras Físicas para la Conservación del Suelo Guía 2, Convenio Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión 
y Uso Racional del Agua, Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL, 
Convenio USAID # 519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, mayo 
del 2002.
168. Cuaderno 3, Basura para ayudar y no para botar, Proyecto Agua, Acceso, Gestión y Uso racional 
del Agua. Consorcio CARE-SALVANATURA-FUNDAMUNI-SACDEL, Convenio USAID No, 
5 1 9-A-00-99-00084-00.
169. Cuaderno 4”:Juntos, pero sin agua revuelta" Serie "La gran casa que nos da de beber y vivir", 
Proyecto Agua, Acceso, Gestión y Uso racional del Agua. Consorcio CARE-SALVANATURA￾FUNDAMUNI-SACDEL Convenio USAID No. 5 1 9-A-00-99-00084-00
170. La Cuenca, Guía 4, Convenio Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional del Agua, 
Convenio USAID No. # 519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, 
mayo del 2002.
171. Cuaderno 5, "Sin árboles, a la Gente, se la Lleva la Corriente", La gran casa que nos da de beber 
y vivir" Proyecto Agua, Acceso, Gestión y Uso racional del Agua. Consorcio 
CARE-SALVANATURAFUNDAMUNI-SACDEL Convenio USAID No. 5 1 
9-A-00-99-00084-00
172. La Protección de la s Fuentes de Agua, Guía 5, Proyecto AGUA Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional 
del Agua, Consorcio CARE- FUNDAMUNI- SALVANATURA- SACDEL, Convenio USAID # 
519-A-00-00084-00, Proyecto #519-0143, San Salvador, El Salvador, Junio del 2002.
173. Informe Semestral Periodo: del 01 de Julio al 31 de Diciembre del 2001, Servicios de Gestión 
Empresarial en Mercadeo y Tecnología SEGEM, Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para 
Agricultura – IICA Contract No. : 591-A-00-00-00070, July, 2001, 
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
7-14 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
174. Progress Report 519-0443 Sewage Treatment, Solid Waste Disposal, Agricultural Technology 
and Marketing Services, Project Concern International, April 2002. FUNDAMUNI-SACDEL 
Convenio USAID No. 5 1 9-A-00-99-00084-0
175. . PROSAGUAS Quarterly Report, October to December 2001, CARE, International in El 
Salvador, December 2001
176. Quarterly Report of Activities, July - September, 2001
177. Quarterly Report of Activities, July - September, 2001
178. Quarterly Report, July - September 2001, Agua: Access to Clean Water for Rural El Salvador, 
October, 2001
179. Memoria de labores 2001, IICA-Agencia e Cooperación en El Salvador
180. Carta remisión de documento San Salvador, 1 de Agosto de 2000, Señor Rony Gutiérrez, CARE, 
en nombre de la fundación para la Vivienda Cooperativa, CHF., "Carta de entendimiento para 
Donación de Árboles Producidos por el Componente AGUA, 24 de julio del presente, Brian 
Holst, Director, CHF/El Salvador.
181. Informe Trimestral Año Tres, Período Abril - Junio 2002, Acceso, Gestión y Uso Racional Del 
Agua, Proyecto Agua,:Sistema de Asesoría y Capacitación para el Desarrollo Local, 
SACDEL-Proyecto 519, (Desarrollo Local)
182. Quarterly Report of Activities, July - September, 2002
183. Second Semester Performance Report Period: from January 1st, 2001 to June 30, 2000, July, 
2001
184. Medición de Indicadores, PROSAGUAS, abril 2002. 
185. Project Grant Agreement, In: Republic of El Salvador, C.A. Dated: August 14, 2001, Between: 
The Community Development Association Santa Fé, Cantón Los Hornos, San Francisco Javier, 
Usulután The above Named Parties Hereby Mutually Agree to Carry Out The Sub-Project 
Described In This Project Grant Agreement Including All Annexes Attached Hereto (The 
"Agreement").
186. Agua: Access to Clean Water for Rural El Salvador Quarterly Report January - March 2001.
187. Quarterly and Annual Report, July 2000- June 2001 Consortium CARE-SALVANATURA￾FUNDAMUNI-SACDEL
188. Gestión para Microempresas Rurales, Catholic Relief Services.
189. Environmental Threshold decision, la C—IEE-98-29, USAID Washington, DC.
190. Convenio de Cooperación Técnica entre CARE Internacional en El Salvador y la Unión Europea, 
Proyecto ALA 93/30 para la Ejecución de Proyectos de Agua y Saneamiento en El Salvador.
Annex 7: List of Documents Reviewed
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 7-15
191. Carta de Intención entre el Fondo de Inversión Social para el Desarrollo Local de El Salvador, 
CARE Internacional-El Salvador, SACDEL, SALVANATURA y FUNDAMUNI-PROCAP, 
febrero 1999.
192. Convenio de Cofinanciamiento para la ejecución del sub-proyecto “Abastecimiento de Agua 
Caserío Los Calderones y el Quebracho, municipio de Jujutla, Departamento de Ahuachapán, 
entre el Fondo de Inversión Social para el Desarrollo Local de El Salvador, FISDL y el Consorcio 
CARE-SALVANATURA, Gobierno de El Salvador, San Salvador, 2001.
193. Plan de Trabajo con enfoque de Género de la Microcuenca Río Metal, Municipio de Guaymango, 
Departamento de Ahuachapán, (MAG-CENTA), 2000.
Annex 8: Strategic Objective 4: Performance Data/Indicator Target 
Tables
Annex 8: SO4 Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 8-1
TABLE 1. FY 1998 INDICATORS, PARTNERS AND RESULTS
INDICATORS FY2002
TARGET
CARE
AGUA
(0443)
CARE- PRO
SAGUAS
(0320)
ROCA
(0438)
CRECER
(0397)
and SO11
SIA –
Water 
Systems
(0094)
CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION 
AND MUNICIPAL 
 DEVELOPMENT
(0388)
CRS FIAES MIRA
(0448)
MAS
(0450)
WORLD 
VISION
(519-99-
210)
TOTAL FY98
TARGET
4.1: Rural households in 
target areas with water 
that meets quality 
standards.
M: 65%
F: 65%
M: 38
F: 39
M: 38
F: 38.6
M: 34
F: 31
(173,000)
4.2: Rural households 
nationally with water 
that meets quality and 
time standards.
M: 57%
F: 57%
M: 38
F: 39
M: 38
F: 39
M:42
 F:40
4.1.1: Area (Hectares) 
covered by improved 
actions.
1. 5,000
2. 1,300
3. 1,300 
4031
931
1047
392 4423
931
1047
4100
900
900
4.1.1.1: Farm units 
utilizing improved 
agricultural &/or 
conservation practices.
TBD TBD TBD
4.1.2.1: Households 
benefiting from 
improved solid-waste 
management.
7,905 0 0 0
4.1.2.2: Households 
benefiting from 
improved wastewater 
management.
 1666 0 0 0
4.1.3.1: Industries using 
pollution prevention
practices.
 8 1 1 1
4.2.1: Water delivery 
systems that meet flow 
standards.
 90 0 0 20
4.2.1.1: Cumulative 
number of rehabilitated, 
expanded and new 
systems.
1. 9
2. 20
3. 63
0
3
3
0
3
3 
0
0
3
4.2.2.1: Local 
organization members 
and technicians trained.
M: 1,200
F: 1,260
M: 427
F: 343
M: 427
F: 343
M:64
F:56
 
1 CRECER reports data from CENTA and CLUSA in addition to its own data.
Annex 8: SO4 Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables
8-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
INDICATORS FY2002
TARGET
AED
(0385)
CARE
AGUA
(0443)
CARE- PRO
SAGUAS
(0320)
ROCA
(0438)
CRECER
(0397)
and SO12
SIA –
Water 
Systems
(0094)
CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION 
AND MUNICIPAL 
 DEVELOPMENT
(0388)
PROARCA 
(CEPPI, PRO￾PROLEGIS or 
EPA and Urban 
Assesment(426)
FIAES MIRA
(0448)
MAS
(0450)
WORLD 
VISION
(519-99-
210)
TOTAL FY98
TARGET
4.2.2.2: Water system 
costs covered by 
collected fees.
82 
systems
0 0 4
4.3.1: Water-related 
changes resulting from 
citizen-group actions.
 300 127 127 60
4.3.1.1: Salvadorans 
knowing at least one 
cause or consequence of 
unclean water.
M: 85
F: 87 
M: 91
F: 92
M: 91
F: 92
M:20
F: 22
4.3.2.1: Salvadorans 
knowing at least one 
solution for clean water.
M: 80
F: 75
M: 94
F: 95
M: 94
F: 95
M: 39
F: 37
4.3.3.1: Organizations 
working on water￾related issues.
 50 53 53 30
4.4.1: Water related 
ordinances passed.
36 2 2 6
4.4.2: Percentage of 
municipal resources 
spent on water-related 
projects.
 25% 6 6 5
4.4.1.1. Municipalities 
with water resource 
management plans.
 18 0 0 6
4.4.2.1: Water resources 
control decentralized to 
municipal level.
 11 0 0 2
 
2 CRECER reports data from CENTA and CLUSA in addition to its own data.
Annex 8: SO4 Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 8-3
TABLE 2. FY 1999 INDICATORS, PARTNERS AND RESULTS
INDICATORS FY2002
TARGET
CARE
AGUA
(0443)
CARE- PRO
SAGUAS
(0320)
ROCA
(0438)
CRECER
(0397)
and SO13
SIA –
Water 
Systems
(0094)
CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATIO
N AND 
MUNICIPAL 
DEVELOPMENT
(0388)
PROARCA 
(LEPPI, PRO￾PROLEGIS or 
EPA and Urban 
Assesment(426)
FIAES MIRA
(0448)
MAS
(0450)
WORLD 
VISION
(519-99-
210)
TOTAL FY99
TARGET
4.1: Rural households in 
target areas with water 
that meets quality 
standards.
M: 65%
F: 65%
M: 29
F: 30
M:39
F:37
(180,00)
(180,225)
4.2: Rural households 
nationally with water 
that meets quality and 
time standards.
M: 57%
F: 57%
34 34 M:45
F:43
4.1.1: Area (Hectares) 
covered by improved 
actions.
 5,000
 1,300
 1,300 
119 
8
159
 177 17
 540
 4,736
 1,479 
 1,206
4,250
1000
1000
4.1.1.1: Farm units 
utilizing improved 
agricultural &/or 
conservation practices.
TBD 2,067 2,067 TBD
4.1.2.1: Households 
benefiting from 
improved solid-waste 
management.
7,905 2,494 2,994 4,100
4.1.2.2: Households 
benefiting from 
improved wastewater 
management.
 1666 516 516 845
4.1.3.1: Industries using 
pollution prevention 
practices.
 8 1 2 2
4.2.1: Water delivery 
systems that meet flow 
standards.
 90 31 31 35
4.2.1.1: Cumulative 
number of rehabilitated, 
expanded and new 
systems.
1. 9
2. 20
3. 63
0
2
16
2
0
2
4
3
18
1
4
18
4.2.2.1: Local 
organization members 
and technicians trained.
M: 1,200
F: 1,260
796
598
M:430
F:410
 
3 CRECER reports data from CENTA and CLUSA in addition to its own data.
Annex 8: SO4 Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables
8-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
INDICATORS FY2002
TARGET
AED
(0385)
CARE
AGUA
(0443)
CARE- PRO
SAGUAS
(0320)
ROCA
(0438)
CRECER
(0397)
and SO14
SIA –
Water 
Systems
(0094)
CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION 
AND MUNICIPAL 
 DEVELOPMENT
(0388)
PROARCA 
(CEPPI, PRO￾PROLEGIS or 
EPA and Urban 
Assesment(426)
FIAES MIRA
(0448)
MAS
(0450)
WORLD 
VISION
(519-99-
210)
TOTAL FY99
TARGET
4.2.2.2: Water system 
costs covered by 
collected fees.
82 systems 1 1 28
4.3.1: Water-related 
changes resulting from 
citizen-group actions.
 300 0
5
190 120
4.3.1.1: Salvadorans 
knowing at least one 
cause or consequence of 
unclean water.
M: 85
F: 87 
45
46
M: 65
F: 28
M:30
F:32
4.3.2.1: Salvadorans 
knowing at least one 
solution for clean water.
M: 80
F: 75
45
47
M: 64
F: 27
M:50
F:45
4.3.3.1: Organizations 
working on water￾related issues.
 50 99 152 35
4.4.1: Water related 
ordinances passed.
36 3 5 18
4.4.2: Percentage of 
municipal resources 
spent on water-related 
projects.
 25% 10% 10% 10
4.4.1.1. Municipalities 
with water resource 
management plans.
 18 9 9 8
4.4.2.1: Water resources 
control decentralized to 
municipal level.
 11 8 8 8
 
4 CRECER reports data from CENTA and CLUSA in addition to its own data.
5 This number may increase when the baseline survey is finished.
Annex 8: SO4 Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 8-5
TABLE 3. FY 2000 INDICATORS, PARTNERS AND RESULTS
INDICATORS FY2002
TARGET
CARE
AGUA
(0443)
CARE- PRO
SAGUAS
(0320)
ROCA
(0438)
PCI SIA –
Water 
Systems
(0094)
CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION 
AND MUNICIPAL 
 DEVELOPMENT
(0388)
CRS FIAES MIRA
(0448)
MAS
(0450)
WORLD 
VISION
(519-99-
210)
TOTAL FY00
TARGET
4.1: Rural households in 
target areas with water 
that meets quality 
standards.
M: 65%
F: 65%
(250,000)
40
48
40
48
M: 46
F: 45
(200,500)
4.2: Rural households 
nationally with water 
that meets quality and 
time standards.
M: 57%
F: 57%
TDB TBD M:48
F: 47
4.1.1: Area (Hectares) 
covered by improved 
actions.
1. 5,000
2. 1,300
3. 1,300 
5,853
1,482
1,553
205
741
375 16
2
1
2,026
408.15
245.66
200
150
150
8,286
2,781
2,341
4500
1100
1100
4.1.1.1: Farm units 
utilizing improved 
agricultural &/or 
conservation practices.
TBD 2,946 259 80 20 662 200 4,167 5165
4.1.2.1: Households 
benefiting from 
improved solid-waste 
management.
7,905 2,999 130 85 3,214 TBD
4.1.2.2: Households 
benefiting from 
improved wastewater 
management.
 1666 1,259 1,259 1070
4.1.3.1: Industries using 
pollution prevention 
practices.
 8 5 5 4
4.2.1: Water delivery 
systems that meet flow 
standards.
 90 46 3 1 50 50
4.2.1.1: Cumulative 
number of rehabilitated, 
expanded and new 
systems.
1. 9
2. 20
3. 63
5
4
30 3
1
2 1
5
5
36
3
7
34
4.2.2.1: Local 
organization members 
and technicians trained.
M: 1,200
F: 1,260
1,659
1,207
34 30
10
(Border Devel)
21
4
113
77
1,857
1,298
M:815
F:805
Annex 8: SO4 Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables
8-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
INDICATORS FY2002
TARGET
CARE
AGUA
(0443)
CARE- PRO
SAGUAS
(0320)
ROCA
(0438) PCI
SIA –
Water 
Systems
(0094)
CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION 
AND MUNICIPAL 
 DEVELOPMENT
(0388)
CRS FIAES MIRA
(0448)
MAS
(0450)
WORLD 
VISION
(519-99-
210)
TOTAL FY99
TARGET
4.2.2.2: Water system 
costs covered by 
collected fees.
82 systems 4
(10,440
)
3
(11,129)
1
(592)
8
(22,161)
54
4.3.1: Water-related 
changes resulting from 
citizen-group actions.
 300 196 2 198 180
4.3.1.1: Salvadorans 
knowing at least one 
cause or consequence of 
unclean water.
M: 85
F: 87 
89
88
89
88
M: 45
F: 47
4.3.2.1: Salvadorans 
knowing at least one 
solution for clean water.
M: 80
F: 75
90
83
90
83
M: 60
F: 55
4.3.3.1: Organizations 
working on water￾related issues.
 50 126 1 5 132 40
4.4.1: Water related 
ordinances passed.
36 9 9 24
4.4.2: Percentage of 
municipal resources 
spent on water-related 
projects.
 25% 12% 12 15
4.4.1.1. Municipalities 
with water resource 
management plans.
 18 10 10 12
4.4.2.1: Water resources 
control decentralized to 
municipal level.
 11 8 8 9
Annex 8: SO4 Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 8-7
TABLE 4. FY 2001 INDICATORS, PARTNERS AND RESULTS
INDICATORS FY2002
TARGET
CARE
AGUA
(0443)
CARE- PRO
SAGUAS
(0320)
ROCA
(0438) CRS
SIA –
Water 
Systems
(0094)
CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION 
AND MUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT
(0388)
PROARCA
(LEPPI, PRO￾PROLEGIS or
EPA and Urban 
Assesment(426)
FIAES PCI MAS
(0450)
WORLD 
VISION
(519-99-
210)
TOTAL FY01
TARGET
4.1: Rural households in 
target areas with water 
that meets quality 
standards.
M: 65%
F: 65%
(250,000)
51
55
M: 51
 F: 55
M:55
F: 55
(225,000)
4.2: Rural households 
nationally with water 
that meets quality and 
time standards.
M: 57%
F: 57%
M: 52
F: 52
4.1.1: Area (Hectares) 
covered by improved 
actions.
1. 5,000
2. 1,300
3. 1,300 
9905
1898
2554
292
114
760
25
11
10
5313 564 295
150
160
16394
2173
3484
4800
1200
1200
4.1.1.1: Farm units 
utilizing improved 
agricultural &/or 
conservation practices.
TBD 6486 88 215 6789 6535
4.1.2.1: Households 
benefiting from 
improved solid-waste 
management.
7,905 3299 160 3459 5165
4.1.2.2: Households 
benefiting from 
improved wastewater 
management.
1666 2668 100 2768 1370
4.1.3.1: Industries using 
pollution prevention 
practices.
 8 6 6 6
4.2.1: Water delivery 
systems that meet flow 
standards.
 90 83 2 85 70
4.2.1.1: Cumulative 
number of rehabilitated, 
expanded and new 
systems.
1. 9
2. 20
3. 63
20
7
49
0
4
4
0
1
2
20
12
55
6
14
49
4.2.2.1: Local 
organization members 
and technicians trained.
M: 1,200
F: 1,260
3362
1733
62 110
120
3534
1853
M:1018
F: 1022
Annex 8: SO4 Performance Data/Indicator Target Tables
8-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
INDICATORS FY2002
TARGET
CARE
AGUA
(0443)
CARE- PRO
SAGUAS
(0320)
ROCA
(0438)
CRECER
(0397)
and SO16
SIA –
Water 
Systems
(0094)
CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION 
AND MUNICIPAL 
 DEVELOPMENT
(0388)
PROARCA 
(CEPPI, PRO￾PROLEGIS or 
EPA and Urban 
Assesment(426)
FIAES MIRA
(0448)
MAS
(0450)
WORLD 
VISION
(519-99-
210)
TOTAL FY01
TARGET
4.2.2.2: Water system 
costs covered by 
collected fees.
82 systems 16
(38,000
)
2 18 68
4.3.1: Water-related 
changes resulting from 
citizen-group actions.
 300 392 15 407 240
4.3.1.1: Salvadorans 
knowing at least one 
cause or consequence of 
unclean water.
M: 85
F: 87 
99
99
99
99
M: 65
F: 67
4.3.2.1: Salvadorans 
knowing at least one 
solution for clean water.
M: 80
F: 75
97
94
97
94
M: 75
F: 70
4.3.3.1: Organizations 
working on water￾related issues.
 50 189 1 10 200 45
4.4.1: Water related 
ordinances passed.
36 17 17 30
4.4.2: Percentage of 
municipal resources 
spent on water-related 
projects.
 25% 5 20
4.4.1.1. Municipalities 
with water resource 
management plans.
 18 17 17 15
4.4.2.1: Water resources 
control decentralized to 
municipal level.
 11 8 8 10
 
6 CRECER reports data from CENTA and CLUSA in addition to its own data.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of the CARE Consortium
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-1
This annex provides an overview of the results of the evaluation of AGUA activities carried out 
by the CARE Consortium. This profile provides the Evaluation Team’s findings, conclusions and 
recommendations for each of the principal activity areas covered by the Consortium. The CARE 
Consortium is responsible for implementation of the approximately 80% of al, project activities 
and an equal amount of the overall AGUA budget. This annex has been prepared based on the
analysis of relevant documentation, interviews with Consortium staff, and the results of the field 
visits to project sites and meetings with participating local organizations and beneficiaries.7
A. General Overview of Implementation 
The Consortium, made up of CARE, SalvaNatura, FUNDAMUNI and SACDEL, is responsible 
for approximately 80% of the overall AGUA effort (including all related SO activities among all 
Implementers). After a difficult first year of interrelational development, members of the
Consortium have developed a good working relationship, from both the philosophical and
technical standpoint and in terms of project administration. The particular strengths of each
organization have served to strengthen the weakness areas of other members: FUNDAMUNI’s
shared its approaches in organizational development and participatory planning which were
adopted by other members in their assigned geographic outreach areas; SACDEL’s previous
work with decentralization and municipal development has been used to develop such strategies 
with other members; SalvaNatura’s strategies for environmental education, organic coffee,
protected areas management, and alternative uses of natural resources is being promoted in all
outreach areas; while CARE has used it’s experience in watershed management, agroforestry,
potable water infrastructure development, and the efficient administration of project resources
(accounting, procurement) to strengthen its fellow Consortium members. 
Implementation by the Consortium has been going well, as evidenced in the accomplishments for 
nearly all performance indicators for potable water, soil and water conservation and especially
components dealing with local organizational development. There are serious delays with the
larger wastewater treatment plant for Cara Sucia/Puente Arce due to problems for purchase of
the site for the treatment plant. The San Rafael subcomponent of the wastewater collection and 
treatment system is also experiencing some delays, especially in aspects of training and
promotion, as well as bringing the small biofiltration plant on line. The Consortium has been
able to advance the objectives of integrated water resources management intended in the original 
AGUA design, as Consortium members have had a full complement of resources and the
combined expertise of its members at its command. Hence, many of the activities among the four 
project components are being intrinsically promoted and linked at the micro- and subwatershed 
level—which was the expressed intent of the consortium approach from the beginning. 
In terms of expenditures, the Consortium has expended to date about 80% of the budget of
USAID funds included in the CARE/USAID cooperative agreement, but only about 47% of its
agreed-upon counterpart. It should be pointed out, however, that CARE still has a large number 
of infrastructure subprojects in execution and does not register the counterpart amounts until the 
projects are completed and commissioned. Hence, the actual amount of counterpart already
encumbered is probably closer to parity with the amounts reflected in USAID expenditures. This 
 
7 See also Annex 4, Project Site Visits: Agenda and Summary Field Notes; Annex 5, List of Persons and Organizations 
Contacted during the Evaluation; and Annex 7, List of Documents Reviewed for the Evaluation.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
implies the difficulty in attempting to evaluate the pari-passeu among USAID and CARE
Consortium funds.
As of July 31, 2002, the Consortium had expended a total of an estimated US$12,159,954 in
USAID and counterpart funds, which was distributed according to the following activity groups: 
31% in activities of soil and water conservation, agroforestry, reforestation and agricultural
diversification, of which 75% is oriented to soil and water conservation and the other 25% to
aspects of diversification; 39% in potable water infrastructure (including a minor portion in
wastewater infrastructure and soak-wells); and approximately 30% for activities in local
development and participation (including aspects of water resources policy and municipal
ordinances). However, once again, as many infrastructures projects still in construction have not 
yet been accounted for under counterpart funds, the actual distributions may differ by an
important margin (potentially, infrastructure could account for up to 50% or more of total
expenditures under the CARE AGUA activities).
B. Decentralization and Local Management Capability Development
The CARE Consortium however, is working on multiple levels with a specific strategy of local 
organizational development that goes beyond simple task groups, although these too form part of 
its outreach approach. The Consortium has even established its own fifth component under 
AGUA: Component “0”, Local Development. The CARE Consortium is breaking new ground in 
forming micro- and subwatershed committees dedicated to the integrated planning for water 
resources management. The objective is to link other local development groups, including 
ADESCOs, CDLs, water committees, municipalities and special interest groups, into a broader 
regional participatory development planning and management framework. Progress to date is 
impressive and continued support from AGUA should lead to several replicable models.
1. Findings and Conclusions 
Accomplishments
The AGUA Project has improved coordination and mutual support between constituents of the
CARE Consortium, as shown by the transfer and exchange of expertise between the constituent 
parts which based on this experience are undertaking other activities as a consortium, while at
the same time non-systematic coordination actions have been developed with other implementers 
of the AGUA Project.
The assisted organizations that have been the most strengthened at the Water Boards level have 
started a dialogue to search for solutions to common problems; one example is provided by the 
integration process of the Water Boards Network at the Western regional level. The catalyzing 
effect on organizational processes is seen by the project and support for the process of municipal 
management confronting common problems by supporting the 18 Local Development
Committees (CDLs), six of which have legal status; at the same time AGUA has carried out
Diagnostics and initial Development and Rehabilitation Plans in recent updatings in the 18
municipalities served by the project, all of them carried out with a gender approach.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-3
A common aspect that may be found in the municipalities served is the degree of motivation and 
progress in the integration of micro-regions or associations of municipalities within and outside 
the project’s priority areas. This process of organization at the basic level, and of application of 
participation and political will by local government, may be considered a direct effect of the
AGUA project, as well as the level of maturity of the local leadership who have had a broad,
existing and diversified organizational base as a setting. An example of this complex and varied 
organizational coexistence is given in Table 1, which partially highlights the diversity of existing 
grassroots organizations in the AGUA project’s zone of influence, in Ahuachapán Sur.
With regard to decentralization of the water system, the project has aided at least 19 supply
systems in the Ahuachapán Sur zone, with a total coverage of 4,492 families (each family with 
an average of 5.5. persons), representing 24,706 water system users in the area covered by the
water system in the southern zone of de Ahuachapán. One is administered by the Aqueducts and 
Sewer Lines Administration [Administración de Acueductos y Alcantarillados] (ANDA), and
another by the San Francisco Menéndez municipality; 8 by ADESCOS and 6 by the Community 
Associations for Management of Water Systems Promoted by the AGUA Project [Asociaciones
Comunales Administradoras de Sistemas de Agua, promovidas por el proyecto AGUA], out of a 
total of at least 76 ADESCOS and 30 Committees in existence. According to research, of the 19 
systems in the zone, only 9 are chlorinating the water they supply.
Table 1. Diversity of selected organizations in the Ahuachapán Sur region, some of which have been 
supported or sponsored by the Project
Ahuachapán
Sur
Municipalities
De 
Facto 
Groups ADESCOS
Water
admin
assoc.
D.C. and
Sub-water
shed
Commit￾tees and 
Boards
Coop. 
Associat. CDL
Ahuachapán
Sur
Municipal.
Associa.
Water￾shed
Comm.
/Round
table
Water
Board
Network
San Francisco
Menéndez
1
8
24 2 19 7 1 1
9
1
Jujutla Nd 24 1 4 Nd 1
Guaymango Nd 28 2 8 Nd 1 1
San Pedro P. 6 1 1 1
Totals 7 76 6 30 8 4 1 1 1
Source: INTEGRAL, 2002 based on Diagnostics and CARE Consortium reports.
One direct effect of the AGUA Project in the zones covered is that it has allowed increased
leveraging of resources and development of local management capacity, generating community
assistance agreements (SAP Los Calderones under construction), inter-municipal agreements
(SAPs Mercedes Umaña, Estanzuelas y El Caulote) and regional agreements ( 28 communities in 
Bajo Lempa), which include more than one actor or cooperating party at the local and
international level. These social and civic participation processes should be supported by
conversion of the practice being carried out into theory.
 
8
Intercomunal is comprised of 50 communities of the southern region of Ahuachapán Sur, having experience in early warning 
and risk mitigation plans.
9 While the actions of the Temporary Committee of the Sub-watershed of Cara Sucia are being supported, at the same time 
development of the Round Table is also being supported, which is seen as the best way to form the Comité de Cuenca Barra 
de Santiago El Imposible.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
In sum, the project has made it possible to renew enthusiasm, provide motivation, realize larger 
dreams and challenges, to integrate local requirements and expectations with the agendas of
cooperating parties, which logically has allowed the recovery of non-profitable investments, to 
complement and adapt water systems which otherwise would not be operational, while at the
same time it has generated greater confidence in local capacities and possibilities; this is shown 
by the mutual identification of local representatives with the project’s technicians and activities.
The project has allowed parallel execution of civil works with larger investments and relating to 
organizational formation, with which it has been possible to promote and support the formation 
of organizations such as specialized Local Service Companies (water supply), while at the same 
time organizations of a participative nature (CDL) have been strengthened; later there were 6
Sub-watershed Committees initiated, among which are the Sub-watersheds of: Corinto, El
Borbollón and San Simón; micro-watersheds of La Poza, San Mauricio and el Zungano ravines, 
as well as the Temporary Committee of the Sub-watershed of Cara Sucia, operating with support 
from the El Progreso del Nuevo Siglo Water Management Association (ACEPROS) and the
Barra de Santiago El Imposible Complex Round Table (BASIM), in which micro-region the
Water and Biodiversity [Agua y Biodiversidad] Project is being developed with participation of 
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (UICN). As is the 
case with construction of the water supply systems, establishment of the Watershed Management 
Plans has been the direct responsibility of the project executors, plus the participation and
support of local organizations which have concluded by organizing the Watershed Committees.
At the same time Project AGUA has supported the process of legitimization for the role of the
strengthened organizations and for broadening the social base of beneficiaries to include users, 
generally in those larger projects initiated during the early phases of the project.
In conclusion, the decentralization of water systems constructed and rehabilitated by the project, 
has broadened access to water for the user population. The organizations that have been most
strengthened have broadened their local experience in the resolution of conflicts related to the
access and supply of water, as well as in the channeling of resources for community projects.
The idea of focusing on the watershed as a prime way to manage water resources at the local
level has been furthered.
The project has supported the process for participative creation of 37 municipal ordinances,
principally concerning environmental and basic sanitation aspects, which at the same time are
trending toward better use and conservation of the environment. Similarly, it is recognized that 
AGUA has been a pioneer in developing diagnostics and in the preparation of basic Plans for
watershed management.
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
It is evident that small organizations, represented by ADESCOs, within which Sub-watershed, 
Water or Sanitation Committees have been set up, as well as those recently formed or in the
process of formation, (projects in progress) have limited administrative and managerial capacity 
and minimal possibilities of sustainability. At the same time, those considered to be more
advanced and formalized tend to focus on the short term since there is an absence of
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-5
organizational development plans for the mid and long term; watershed management plans in
many cases are not coordinated with the development of water systems but when they do
coincide, the watershed management plans initiate the conduct and development of activities.
2. Recommendations
In the aspect of organizational development, we recommend establishing an institutional
development and strengthening policy for the project, which will give coordination and capacity 
for local management more potential within a strategic planning process, to include the
establishment of training plans and associated technical assistance, social accounting,
administration, finance and in general management of local service companies (Water Suppliers) 
and civic participation (CDLs and Basin Committees), as well as institution criteria for their
creation or integration, according to local conditions. In this respect it is necessary to establish 
beforehand, before assisting a new entity such as the Micro-watershed Committees, if this
function may not be better executed by the existing structures, if they are given the capability to 
broaden their management of resources and if their functional model is strengthened by
integration of the watershed concept.
Nevertheless, the small turnover and formation of minimal cadres of local leadership are
obvious, which of course have facilitated initiation and organization of new entities and the
incorporation of more recent initiatives generated by the project or by the same process dynamic, 
for example: The micro-watershed, sub-watershed and watershed Committees, and the Network 
of Water Boards. This limited leadership may in the future create risks for the institutional
sustainability that is being supported and the process of decentralization that has been carried out 
up to now with surprising results.
We recommend adapting the operational norms that provide for short and long-term application 
of the watershed approach. What has been expressed previously requires attention to the
formation of new leadership cadres, and at the same time application of related institutional
norms governing the turnover of leadership.
We also recommend the establishment of Guides or models for applying the watershed approach 
in carrying out the operational norms (regulations) of user organizations and of course the
continuity and follow up of the study process and approval of the watershed organizations’ legal 
framework.
The mechanisms and participative organizations that are instituted (CDLs and Watershed
Committees) do not have financing mechanisms to allow their functioning in the mid-term and 
long-term. Local Rehabilitation and Development Plans have concentrated on consultancies and 
immediate demands, generally physical ones, in which there is lacking a base line for follow-up 
of planning and participative management. 
In this respect, we recommend instituting planning and participative management linked to the 
local governments’ budgeting and accountability processes in a way that will enable assignment 
of financial resources for the development of participative processes, while at the same time we 
recommend updating local development plans using the watershed approach, in which the
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
establishment of a base line will be incorporated for the planning and participative management 
processes. 
One interesting aspect is the use and influence of incentives which at present are being used for 
short and mid-term purposes, for example: there are organizations within the CARE Consortium 
that satisfy immediate needs (plastic sheets, fertilizer, seeds, among others) of the local
contributors, while another implementer has supported the planting and management of orchards 
which are now ready for harvest; or this reason they are identifying alternatives for marketing
and for insertion of these products in export marketing chains (Persian lemon). This situation
demonstrates how incentives may be sustainable over time, once provision has been made for
policies, procedures and forms for re-use, which up to now have not been established.
In this respect and by the use of inter-institutional coordination, it is beneficial to define the
policies, procedures and ways to reuse the incentives that well may be considered as
compensation in paying for environmental services for the watersheds served by the project.
We recommend that established ordinances of an environmental and basic sanitation nature
should be published, and at the same time that the establishment and operation of local
mechanisms, to include strengthening the Municipal Micro-regional Environmental Units should 
be installed in a particular municipality; their approach and work should be carried out at the
micro-region or watershed level, as should the work of applying and strengthening mechanisms 
for financing, control, follow-up and harmonization of the local environmental regulations.
C. Watershed Management, Water Source Protection and Sustainable Agroforestry 
CARE and SalvaNatura have been working in aspects of watershed management, soil and water 
conservation and sustainable hillside agroforestry for a number of years. CARE has implemented 
several projects financed by a number of different international development agencies, including 
the Environmental Program of El Salvador (Programa Ambiental de El Salvador—PAES) 
financed by the Inter-American development Bank in the Upper Lempa watershed of the Cerrón 
Grande Hydroelectric Project in the central part of the country. SalvaNatura implemented similar 
activities under GreenProject financed by USAID, which was the precursor to the AGUA
Activity. FUNDAMUNI’s and SACDEL’s capabilities in coordinating watershed management
and sustainable agroforestry have been vastly strengthened under their participation in the
Consortium.
1. Findings and Conclusions
The promotion/extension approach of “learn-by-doing” and working with male and female
demonstration farmers is facilitating training of the 10-20 members of each group of irradiados
and the spread of appropriate soil and water conservation and crop diversification technologies. 
During field visits it was observed that most group members had their own farm plan, but some 
of these were not fully completed, perhaps implying that some members did not completely
understand how to complete them. The farm plan being used is that developed by CARE under 
its PAES project. A simpler plan would facilitate more comprehension of the farm plan concept 
and better results in farmers’ filling them out and using them. 
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-7
Field visits indicated to the Evaluation Team that several technologies were being adopted and 
spread even outside of the groups to other farmers in the watersheds not formally participating in 
AGUA trainings. Among all practices, the Consortium has reported a total of approximately
6,500 farm units and nearly 10,000 hectares of farmland under some combination (at least three) 
of soil/water conservation, agroforestry, reforestation and/or diversification practices. The most 
popular and widespread practices are no-burn and minimum tillage, packaged usually with
contour planting of maize, bean and sorghum crops at appropriate seed densities (2 seeds planted 
every 20 cm on the contour with 75-100cm between rows) and green barriers of vetiver or
brizantha (a brachiaria grass). These techniques were even being applied on rented lands—an 
important indicator of the success of such practices. This technological package is also the most 
cost-effective of all practices being promoted and contributes the maximum amount of soil and 
water conservation impact.
Improvement of home gardens and land parcels closest to the house appears to be the second
most popular practice promoted by the Consortium.10 These practices focus on diversification to 
horticultural crops for the double benefit of improved nutrition in the home and sale of excess
production. Fruit trees are especially popular in home gardens and some farmers have planted
fruit trees at wide spacing on their grain croplands. Agroforestry techniques observed and having 
good acceptance and spread included (in order of popularity): living fences, especially of
Gliricidia sepium; planting of trees at wide spacing on hillside grain crop lands of exotic and
native species to supply fuelwood and construction wood (poles, fence posts, vigas, saw timber); 
and to a lesser degree, reforestation of small parcels for rehabilitation of degraded land and
aquifer recharge. 
Some 1,900 hectares of organic cropping was reported by the Consortium up until the end of
2001. These areas also receive treatment in integrated pest management, and some farmers are
working with organic pesticides (e.g. vinegrera). However, many of these same farmers are still 
using commercial chemical pesticides, some of toxicity Category I (etiqueta roja). The
continuation of SalvaNatura’s work in ECO-OK coffee certification with Rainforest Alliance is 
seen in a very positive light as a mechanism to promote improved conservation in the highland 
areas where these coffees are grown. The promotion of shade-grown Arabica varieties, especially 
when practices include the reduced use of pesticides and fungicides (or at least replacement of
the traditionally more toxic chemicals with more benign compounds) contributes to watershed
maintenance and improved surface and subsurface water quality. 
Several small water source protection subprojects were visited. These involve small investments 
to improve access and the quality of surface water sources such as springs, seeps and ojos de
agua with concrete spring boxes and a pipe to a cistern tank where water can (but usually is not) 
chlorinated, and the installation of a tap permits easier filling of water receptacles free of
sediment. 
Several quality control problems were observed during the field visits, such as planting trees in 
the shadow of other trees and promotion of improper techniques under certain land-use settings 
 
10 Farmers are hesitant to plant fruit trees and grow vegetables on land parcels located far from the house, as predial larceny is 
an ever-present problem in rural El Salvador.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
(e.g. infiltration ditches in active pastures where cattle will walk over them and cause damage), 
but it is assumed that such errors, probably not that widespread, should be corrected with time. 
On the other hand, several practices that would contribute to improved watershed management 
do not seem to be in the project mix. Improper road construction and maintenance is interrupting 
natural drainage patterns and rainwater runoff in critical areas, which in turn causes culvert
blowouts, local flash flooding, land- and mudslides, and increases sediment loading in surface
waters. Revegetation/reforestation is not being promoted in stream corridors, steep hillsides and 
ravines, and apparent critical aquifer recharge zones. Also, no project activity was noted during 
the field visits in improved cattle and pasture management, where such traditional production
practices of free-ranging of cattle and goats, improper fire management of jaragua grass and
natural vegetation is negatively affecting watershed conditions.
Far fewer women’s groups are being organized and attended to by the Consortium in the
promotion of soil and water conservation and sustainable agriculture. Many activities in this
sector can and should be promoted to women’s groups, especially those involving improved
home gardens and income generation through diversified agriculture, water source protection and 
household hygiene and water conservation. The CARE Consortium is purchasing nearly all of its 
plant materials (fruit trees, forest trees, green barrier grasses, etc.) from outside suppliers, in
many cases far from the work sites. While this may be more cost-effective for CARE, it
represents a missed opportunity to generate some entrepreneurial experience and generate
income for communities located in project outreach areas—and especially for women who have 
shown to be quite adept at nursery management.
The AGUA Activity design had envisioned working with area industries to reduce contamination 
of water resources, but these are seen as outside the scope and capability of CARE and its
partners. Hence, there has been little promotion of such techniques and Consortium partners have 
collaborated at the margins primarily in promoting the use of infiltration pits for disposal of
coffee processing wastes. One of the accomplishments claimed was that of convincing CEL (the 
electricity company) to begin re-injecting its waste condensate waters from a geothermal plant 
near the Alegría Municipality in Usulután, but this action was well under way before the AGUA 
Activity began. 
Finally, one aspect that merits mention is one that is more adequately covered in section E.
below. The Evaluation Team noticed a certain level of disconnection in the geographic location 
of some of the groups of farmers and farms being promoted, and the selection of techniques
being promoted, with potable water systems being promoted under a different project
component. Soil and water conservation and/or agricultural diversification is being promoted in 
areas not specifically related to microwatersheds that supply water systems of the same or nearby 
communities; whether literally in the case of surface water based systems, or figuratively in the 
case of subsurface (well) based water systems. This leads to a situation of missed opportunities 
in terms of using the leverage of sustaining water systems to sustained management of the
watersheds. 
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-9
2. Recommendations 
The Consortium should continue to promote the expansion of adoption of no-burn and minimum 
tillage packages to farmers outside of current groups in priority microwatersheds. The
Consortium should also seek out collaborations with other municipal, national government 
and/or NGO programs to facilitate additional watershed management activities not currently in
the mix promoted by the Project. These include: improved road drainage emulating natural
contours and drainage ways; reforestation/protection of stream corridors (greenbelts), steep
hillsides and ravines, and critical aquifer recharge zones; and the promotion of improved pasture 
and cattle management in the form of silvipasture, live fencing and cut-and-carry fodder. 
The farm plan model currently used by the Consortium should be simplified. One alternative to 
consider would be to separate the farm plan into separate modules that deal with each type of
farm type and crop mix, and improved strategies for each. For instance, one module should deal 
with hillside grain cropping, wherein such practices of no-burn, minimum tillage, green barriers, 
and selected agroforestry techniques would be featured. Another separate module would be used 
for home gardens and horticulture; still another for reforestation in critical parcels, such as
critical recharge zones, stream corridors, ravines, etc. This would reduce the volume of material 
in a single farm plan booklet (which tends to confuse farmers) and bring more focus and
specificity to each farmer’s (male and female) plan.
The Consortium should carry out a monitoring program and/or specific studies on the
cost/benefit of organic produce. CENTA should be involved with such and effort, and university 
students could be used to take data as part of their practicum or thesis work. Parameters to
include in the monitoring/studies should include, among others: production costs, incidence of
disease and pests and crop losses, current markets, perceived premium for organic produce, the
effectiveness of organic pesticides and ease of adoption of such practices and level acceptability 
of participating farmers (men and women). As organic production is still in its infancy in El
Salvador, subprojects should be seen as demonstration projects up until which time the
applicability, economic validity and acceptance and/or adoption by farmers can be determined. 
Water source protection is very popular with beneficiaries and cost-effective and should be more 
intensely promoted throughout the CARE Consortium’s outreach area. However, in-home 
chlorination must be heavily promoted as it can be assumes that all of these water sources are
contaminated with soil and fecal bacteria and viruses. 
The CARE Consortium should strive to organize more women’s groups to promote soil and
water conservation as part of the diversification strategies for home gardens and water source
protection. The Consortium should reconsider its current policy of purchasing plant material
from outside sources and promote the establishment of community nurseries managed by
women’s groups. 
Activities for the control of industrial contamination should be halted and removed from the
Consortium’s project portfolio, as these actions are seen as outside the jurisdiction and capability 
areas of the Consortium and are already delegated to MARN under the National Environmental 
Law and covered under programs financed by IDB, World Bank and other agencies.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-10 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
The selection of techniques and priority locations for promotion of watershed management
(including soil and water conservation, agroforestry and reforestation) could be improved with
better use of strategic planning techniques to ensure that those areas treated are contributing to 
water resources improvements related to the improvement and sustainability of existing or new 
potable water and/or irrigation sources (tributary microwatersheds). 
D. Potable Water Systems, and Wastewater Infrastructure
CARE-AGUA INFRASTRUCTURE
The discussion of CARE-AGUA infrastructure is presented in three parts:
1. Potable water infrastructure funded and supervised through the CARE-AGUA umbrella; 
2. Potable water projects funded through the USAID Small Infrastructure Activity which were 
implemented by CARE-AGUA consortia (mainly FUNDAMUNI); and 
3. the wastewater treatment facility in San Rafael implemented with Border Development
Services.
All findings and conclusions are presented in a matrix along with their corresponding
recommendations. Following each matrix are more detailed technical notes from which the
Findings, Conclusions are drawn. Sanitary Landfills are addressed in Annex 10, PCI Technical
Notes.
1. CARE-AGUA Potable Water Supply Projects
The CARE-AGUA potable water systems visited were:
1. Cara Sucia – built under PROSAGUAS, working with AGUA
2. Puente Arce 
3. El Quebracho – under construction
4. Bajo Lempa - Conversations with SACDEL staff and community leaders
5. Caulote – visited by Carlos Zavala
6. San Pedro Tuxtla (CORDURATEX) – Built by EU
7. El Quebrado 
The CARE-AGUA water supply analysis is presented in two parts:
· USAID/El Salvador SO Level Results and Indicators and CARE –AGUA Results and
Indicators; and
· The CARE-AGUA Water Supply Projects themselves
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-11
USAID/El Salvador SO Level Results and Indicators and CARE –AGUA Results 
and Indicators for Water Supply Projects
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
USAID/El Salvador SO Level Results and Indicators 
A. Accomplishments
1. Indicator Descriptions are clear and do a good job of 
defining the indicator and how it can be measured.
a. When redefining indicators, maintain the quality of 
the indicator descriptions.
2. Result 4.2, Indicator 4.2.1 is a better way of tracking
progress and impact than indicators 4.1, 4.2
a. Analyze and modify indicators that describe
progress toward water system user coverage. The
result indicator should provide a clear picture of
progress toward a target coverage. Indicator 4.2.1
provides a clearer picture at much less effort than do 
4.1 and 4.2 and should serve as a model.
3. Indicators 4.2.2.2, and 4.4.2.1 are close to being
indicators that measure infrastructure impact
a. These are the indicators that should receive
attention from AGUA to draw conclusions on the
sustainability of constructed water systems as
Project ends.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. Indicators 4.1and 4.2 for Result 4, are to be
expressed in percentage change over the target
population. Because of changing populations, other
water provision activities in the area, it is difficult to a) 
calculate the percentage, and b) be able to draw
conclusions about project performance by analyzing
the percentage figures.
See recommendation 2a above.
2. There do not appear to be actual field Activities under 
Result 4.1.3 Increased Use of Improved Industrial
Practices
a. It is to be questioned whether the Activity can 
provide the resources to actually engage in
substantial work toward this Result. There has been 
no real advance on the indicator to date. USAID
should consider removing this result from the AGUA 
Activity.
3. As it now stands there are really no described 
indicators that measure the sustainability of the
infrastructure installed or facilitated by the Activity 
a. Simple proxy indicators that indicate that a system is 
functioning sustainably should be drafted and used.
4. The results framework does not link water and
sanitation infrastructure to health practices or benefits
a. There is ample evidence that shows that hygiene
education and thoughtful provision of sanitation
systems increase the impact of water supply on the
health of the users. There should be a result and
indicator, however modest that recognizes this fact
on the Activity Design level.
CARE-AGUA Results and Indicators for Water Supply and Sanitation
A. Accomplishments
1. Results and indicators serve to strategically guide
Activities in high impact and sustainable directions
with respect to Infrastructure implementation
a. The logic of the water supply Infrastructure
indicators is sound and no radical changes are
recommended. 
2. Most results targets shall be met by Close of Project With exceptions noted below in part B.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. Certain results that are used to fulfill indicator
requirements are subjective in nature and whether
the results satisfy the spirit of the indicator is open to 
interpretation i.e. Indicator 2.1.4 Inclusion of
Tetralogia connections
a. CARE-AGUA and USAID/El Salvador must analyze
the criteria that allow certain achievements to be
counted against project result targets. Criteria
should be established for results and indicators that 
ensure that the intent and “spirit” of the indicator is
respected.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-12 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
CARE-AGUA Results and Indicators for Water Supply and Sanitation
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement (continued)
2. Indicator for sustainable system implementation (the
most important Activity impact) is an output indicator 
(number of juntas trained) not and impact indicator.
(Indicator 2.1.5) There is not an impact indicator for
sustainable system implementation
a. CARE-AGUA does not currently have indicators that 
measure the impact of the infrastructure work nor
the sustainability of the infrastructure. Several
simple indicators are mentioned in this report. These 
should be considered and by the end of the Activity 
adopted to measure impact of infrastructure
activities.
3. It is permissible under the accepted results
framework for the project to end with Water supply
systems in the middle of construction as long as
financing is assured. (Indicator 2.1.4 b)
a. This is somewhat alarming. It is not clear that there
is a plan to provide trustworthy construction
supervision or follow-up to systems that are in
construction at the end of the project. CARE-AGUA 
must clarify how these will be provided for these
projects. (having a municipality sign a paper that
says that they will assume responsibility is not
sufficient)
Detailed Notes: CARE-AGUA Project Indicators for Infrastructure
· Certain results that are used to fulfill indicator requirements are subjective in nature and
whether the results satisfy the spirit of the indicator is open to interpretation. Case in point is 
the 2,000 families/users counted from the TETRALOGIA Regional Water Project as having 
received potable water through construction of new or rehabilitation of existing potable water 
supply systems. CARE-AGUA donated 3,000 household flow meters to TETRALOGIA and 
it has been counted against the total expected result in the same way a family or user from a 
community that was part of a full water construction project has been.
· There is not an impact indicator for sustainable system implementation. The use of number 
of community members trained in management as an indicator for a functioning potable
water supply system is not adequate.
· The CARE-AGUA Project is sanctioned, under the accepted results framework, to end the
AGUA Project while water supply systems are still in the middle of construction, as long as 
financing for that construction is assured. These systems are not slated to receive the full
CARE-AGUA package of training, institutional development and follow-up interventions as 
those systems completed earlier in the AGUA project cycle. This shall reduce their potential 
sustainability.
· USAID/El Salvador does not require the AGUA project to address sanitation or health issues 
related to the provision of potable water to communities. CARE-AGUA of its own accord is 
addressing these issues, but there is no result, objective or indicator concerned with sanitation 
or hygiene.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-13
CARE-AGUA Water Supply and Sanitation - Strategy, Design, Construction, Management
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
CARE-AGUA Water Supply and Sanitation (seven systems visited)
A. Accomplishments
1. Infrastructure entrance strategy – driven by local
development plans, prioritizing large, active and
motivated populations for infrastructure, and bringing
all possible local water organizations into the AGUA
fold is sound.
a. In a project with a limited time frame, going with the 
largest and most dynamic populations and letting
them serve as a nexus for other activities is a
strategy that makes sense and insomuch as there
are funds for large infrastructure projects can be
continued as a selection mechanism.
2. The quality of design, materials, and construction, for 
the systems is uniformly high.
a. CARE-AGUA should capture and prepare these
criteria as part of a best-practices package
3. The extremely high Coverage targets for water
supply may not be met by end of project.
Nevertheless given the history of AGUA
implementation, the coverage that shall be obtained
at Project end will be exemplary 
a. CARE-AGUA should work with USAID/El Salvador
to adjust the number of users counted against
infrastructure coverage goals, examine project
progress in meeting the goals, what projects are in
the pipeline, what funds remain, and then readjust
the End of Project targets, taking care to ensure that 
“projects in construction” at Activity end (Indicator
2.1.4 b) receive the same attention as those built
before Project end.
4. The level of service provided by the CARE-AGUA 
water systems is uniformly high – a tremendous
achievement given the size and technical complexity
of the systems, the panorama of institutional
collaborators in a typical implementation, and the
challenges of building sustainable local administrative 
and O&M capacity
a. CARE-AGUA should capture and prepare these
criteria as part of a best-practices package.
5. CARE-AGUA has essentially saved the investments
made by other donors (Red Cross, FISDL) on large
water supply projects by providing a range of
services to the implementation and/or the operation
of these projects 
a. CARE/El Salvador’s highly developed systems for
design, construction, administration, formation of
exemplary water management committees, and
forming links between water supply and watershed
conservation has been proffered to several large
donors who are principally focused on building
infrastructure. Pursuing further alliances with donors 
who are essentially construction contractors
provides an invaluable service to El Salvador and an 
attractive short and long term strategy for AGUA
infrastructure.
6. CARE-AGUA has in several cases succeeded in
making the water supply system not simply an end,
but a vehicle that drives greater local development –
local management and institutional strength,
obtaining legalization for local organizations, using
funds to support water resource protection, linking to
municipal governments, linking to other local and
regional organizations
a. CARE-AGUA should capture and prepare these
criteria as part of a best-practices package.
7. CARE-AGUA has coordinated with the infrastructure
activities of the SIA fund to provide institutional
strengthening services and post-inauguration 
a. This coordination has been invaluable to the impact 
and sustainability of the SIA projects both as water 
supply projects and watershed conservation
projects. CARE-AGUA must continue to actively
bring SIA projects under its umbrella.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-14 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
CARE-AGUA Water Supply and Sanitation (seven systems visited)
A. Accomplishments (continued)
8. The use of water meters is the foundation for
sustainable water supply systems and metering is
being successfully promoted in CARE-AGUA
a. Continue to use metering in all projects. 
b. Partner with appropriate SIA projects or other
projects to not just provide meters, but to offer the
training and institutional strengthening to make the
metering a success.
9. CARE-AGUA has leveraged considerable support in
funds, materials, equipment, labor and transport from 
a diverse set of counterparts including other
international donors, FISDL, municipalities, 
communities.
a. This coordination is time consuming and difficult but 
pays dividends not only in stretching project
resources but in sharing best practices with other
entities. To the extent possible it should continue.
10. The use of CARE/El Salvador DASAGUA office for
CARE-AGUA design work has been a successful
strategy.
a. See recommendation 4a above. DASAGUA
provides technical services to other projects and
clients in and out of CARE and through AGUA can
increase this support to external entities - e.g.
Municipalities, NGOs, FISDL
11. The use of the CEFA (Economic Competence based 
on the Formation of Businesses) model to build
administrative and management capacity in Juntas
de Agua has succeeded in creating management
organizations that are independent, confident,
transparent, and capable
a. Continue the use of CEFA and work to spread its
use to other organizations.
12. The strategy of forming a community construction
committee for implementation and a new
management committee (junta) for system operation
has been successful.
a. Continue using this positive strategy. 
b. CARE-AGUA should capture and prepare these
criteria as part of a best-practices package
13. The performance of the water system operators has
been satisfactory and there is little reported attrition.
a. The training provided the operators has been
satisfactory and work with the Water Committees
has led to the operator job being one that is
reasonably well compensated. No substantial
changes are recommended (see below).
14. Criteria to be satisfied by a community and the future 
water users for system inauguration is proper and is
uniformly applied for the most part.
a. CARE-AGUA should capture and prepare these
criteria as part of a best-practices package.
15. CARE-AGUA offers six months of follow-up support
to the Water Junta in administrative, conflict
resolution, billing systems and management. The
follow-up activity also identifies technical and
operational difficulties, bringing them to the attention
of appropriate CARE consortia staff. 
a. CARE-AGUA should continue providing this service, 
especially to water systems that are recently
completed or are in construction at Project end.
b. Project follow-up practices should be captured and
be included in a best-practices package that can be 
shared with and used to strengthen this activity in
other organizations
c. CARE-AGUA should actively pursue other
opportunities for those providing follow-up services
to work with SIA and other infrastructure projects
outside of CARE-AGUA
16. Inclusion of conflict resolution training to juntas is a
positive addition to the standard package of
organizational management, finance, accounting, and 
billing systems
a. Capture this training curricula as part of a best
practices package.
17. CARE-AGUA strongly supports the institutionalization 
of municipal ordinances that govern water use, water 
system management, and sanitation – a key base
upon which sustainability is built.
a. Capture these techniques for a best practices
package
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-15
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
CARE-AGUA Water Supply and Sanitation (seven systems visited)
A. Accomplishments (continued)
18. The high quality of CARE-AGUA water supply
infrastructure is the result of years of involvement in
the sector by USAID/El Salvador who has been able 
to capture key lessons learned and best practices
from a number of projects and ensure that they are
incorporated in this Activity.
a. USAID/El Salvador, has shown itself , with the
support of the Salvadoran NGO community, to be a
learning organization as far as Water supply
infrastructure is concerned.
19. CARE-AGUA has done good job of producing
training documents that support capacity building in
the infrastructure sector.
a. CARE-AGUA should continue to look for ways to
share these documents with other organizations in
the field.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. The technical descriptions of the projects in the
design folders were found in some cases to not
describe sufficiently the criteria used to make
particular design decisions that ended up being built
in the field.
a. DASAGUA, serving as CARE-AGUA’s technical
quality control entity must ensure that technical
documents are of a uniformly high quality and that 
changes made to a system during construction
must be both reflected and justified in the technical 
documentation.
2. CARE-AGUA shall apparently end the Project while a 
number of systems are in construction. The strategy 
for capacity-building and follow-up on these systems
is not clear.
a. A strategy and plan that provides supervision,
capacity building, and follow-up that is equal to or
better than that currently provided by CARE-AGUA 
must be developed and put into place for these
projects.
3. CARE-AGUA implements projects in a relatively
weak normative environment. National standards for
urban and rural water systems are not very exacting
and allow work of middling quality to be built. CARE￾AGUA is not actively promoting its best practices to
be accepted as national norms
a. The Water and Sanitation Network of El Salvador is 
working toward improving and standardizing norms 
used in water supply and sanitation infrastructure.
CARE-AGUA is in a position to support these
efforts and should.
4. The local counterpart contribution to the project
typically consists of local non-skilled labor. CARE￾AGUA has not made a great effort to examine the
potential to leverage more support (and therefore
higher sustainability) from local users.
a. In some projects, CARE-AGUA is succeeding in
receiving greater community counterpart
contribution. This can add time to project
implementation but is ultimately beneficial and
should be continued to the extent possible
5. The strategy of providing institutional strengthening
services to the largest water committees in the
project area first does not allow CARE-AGUA to
target vulnerable and priority watersheds with high￾impact institutional development work directed at
existing Water committees.
a. CARE-AGUA should consider the strategic use of
infrastructure in priority or at-risk watersheds
(especially those with large surface sources) to
leverage watershed management and protection
practices.
6. CARE-AGUA is selecting pumps for its water supply
systems that oversized considerably given ANDA
design norms. This means that impulsion lines are
also oversized according to norms. The criteria used 
to select these pumps is not sufficiently explained in
the design documents.
a. Technical criteria for pump selection that explains
the deviation from National norms must be
developed and pump selection justified in the
design documents.
b. CARE-AGUA should work with the National
network for water and sanitation to address any
problems that might exist in the national norms
governing pump selection
7. The didactic materials for the training of system
operators is new, but is lacking with respect to clear
graphics, training on the concepts of flow, daily
consumption per user, and the formation of long-term 
O&M calendars.
a. The operator training manuals should be considered 
a work in progress. CARE-AGUA should work with
members of the National Network of Water and
Sanitation to access other materials and graphics so 
to avoid re-inventing any wheels.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-16 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
CARE-AGUA Water Supply and Sanitation (seven systems visited)
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement (continued)
8. The follow-up provided to system operators is not on 
the same level as that offered to the committees.
Operators receive post-inauguration support from
CARE-AGUA only when visible problems arise.
a. CARE-AGUA must develop and put a plan into
place that provides a structured program of follow￾up support to the operators and other technicians 
working on CARE-AGUA infrastructure.
9. Although CARE-AGUA has signed agreements from 
GOES institutions to support the community
operation of the water systems, there is not yet a
reliable structure for long-term support of the
systems.
a. CARE-AGUA should explore and then work to
implement a sustainable long-term support network 
for water supply systems in El Salvador. This
system could include participation from regional
Networks of Water Committees, GOES-sponsored 
"circuit riders”, municipal technical groups
10. There is worry in communities with electric pumps
that electric prices are rising or that consumption
levels are driving the water committees into a higher 
billing bracket.
a. CARE-AGUA should monitor the situation and if
needed help the committees find solutions for these 
problems – a policy issue?
Detailed Notes: CARE-AGUA Water Supply and Sanitation - Design, Construction, 
Management
Designs and Design Documents
Overall, AGUA water supply system designs are well done. The only observations of note
concern the written justifications for design selections. Those design decisions that deviated from 
the Salvadoran ANDA Norms were often not clearly justified in the design documentation. In all 
cases observed below, staff had technical justifications for all of the “questionable” design
decisions. The issue is not that the designs are not technically justified – it is that this
justification is not documented as it should be. Examples of technical decisions that are not
justified in the design documentation:
· El Quebracho – 4,500m impulsion line is galvanized steel pipe. The design does not discuss 
why the well was drilled so far from the storage tank site or why galvanized pipe is used
instead of PVC. Both of these decisions have enormous cost implications.
· Puente Arce – The design population, according to norms should have been approximately
800 families (There are currently 438). The design is for 1,176 families, about 50% higher 
than what norms specify. The cost of the system is, of course, proportionately higher as well)
· All pumps are over-sized from the point of view of El Salvador norms. It is not clear what 
norms are used for pump selection. 
Construction and Materials
· Materials and construction were observed to be of high quality. 
· Household connections are, from the household flow meter into the yard are the
responsibility of the home-owner. There are typically no local ordinances that control the
quality or the type of connection. There were a variety of low quality household connections 
observed, where PVC pipe or plastic tube was installed instead of galvanized steel. The use 
of household meters should deter homeowners from allowing their connections to deteriorate. 
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-17
· Most water supply systems use well water pumped by electric submersible pumps. Of the
five systems visited, two had experienced serious pump breakdowns requiring replacement in 
the first two years of operation. AGUA was observed to be following up on this issue,
diagnosing the pump failures and working to find solutions.
· Water Committees are being charged residential rates for electricity consumption and
increased use is moving unit costs into higher costs brackets. This cost is threatening the
ability of communities to sustain their systems through reasonable tariff charges.
System Operators
· System Operators are well trained (through participation in system construction and extra
training) and following a daily schedule of operation. Operators are also appropriately
compensated and have a low rate of attrition.
· The systems for replacing operators are still evolving. Water committees were having the
outgoing operator train the newcomer. In situations where an outgoing operator cannot
provide this service, there is not a clear system for training a new operator. 
· Operators do not have long-term work-calendars that lay out a year of activities, rather a list 
of activities and the frequency of those activities over the course of the year. 
· Operators are not monitoring system flows – using the macro-flow gauge and comparing it to 
the sum of the household flow meters. 
· The operators were not observed to be able to manipulate flow and volume information.
They should have this skill when they leave training. 
· There is not a formal AGUA system for follow-up support for water system operators. The
Project will respond if a community notes problems (a curative not a preventative strategy). 
There is not work being done to promote systems supporting operators after the AGUA
project ends.
Management Organization
· The water committees are extremely strong. They are operating democratically, applying
ordinances, running billing systems and savings accounts – operating large systems in a
sustainable fashion. It is clear that years of lessons learned in water management are being 
applied by the AGUA project. 
· AGUA is supporting an exciting initiative that has shown value in sharing information and 
TA between Water Committees. The regional network of water committees in Ahuachapán is 
providing a forum for committee leaders from a number of water systems of different sizes. 
Information on conflict resolution, management, and problem-solving is shared among the
participants.
· Entrepreneurial training provided these committees by the AGUA project appears to be
successfully preparing these committees to manage the systems – systems that are essentially 
small businesses.
· Several committees are designating a portion of the tariffs toward watershed protection and 
local hygiene and health services. This is an important accomplishment.
· The system used by AGUA for defining water committee ordinances has been successful.
· The follow-up support that is offered by AGUA to the water committees is excellent with
respect to administration, management..
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-18 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
2. CARE/Small Infrastructure Activity (SIA) - most were under CARE-AGUA’s 
FUNDAMUNI
The sites visited were:
1. Rainwater Collection System; San Juan Uno, Usulután
2. Household Graywater Absorption Pits; Las Flores Usulután
3. Improvement of Potable Water System; Santa Fe y Los Chiles, Usulután
4. Improvement of Potable Water System; San Mauricio
5. New Water Supply System; Ojos de Sal (World Vision)
6. New Water Supply System; Quebrada Honda, Morazán
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Small Infrastructure Activity (SIA) Water Supply and Sanitation 
A. Accomplishments
1. The SIA is bringing clean water to small, under￾served communities 
2. The SIA has been able to leverage the participation
of CARE-AGUA to support the strengthening of local 
management institutions for the small infrastructure, 
and watershed conservation activities.
a. The huge demand for convenient access to drinking 
water is a natural nexus for local development, and
it is important that CARE-AGUA do all that it can to
bring the full package of CARE-AGUA components
to bear on these communities working in SIA
projects.
3. The SIA is also working with large populations and
systems to repair or expand service. Bringing the
CARE-AGUA training and watershed activities to
these large systems has leveraged considerable
impact on the sustainable management of the
systems.
a. This type of collaboration between SIA and CARE￾AGUA has a large potential for impact. CARE-AGUA 
can reach large populations with its package of
interventions. This type of collaboration should be
actively pursued between the two projects.
4. The SIA is building O&M capacity at the local level
through CARE-AGUA support
a. See 3a above
The quality of construction is, for the most part, good. a. The skilled labor being contracted is doing an
acceptable job.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. The SIA does not have a clear strategy for
community selection which causes difficulties in
providing training, institutional strengthening,
watershed conservation activities to the projects
through the AGUA umbrella. 
a. The SIA, if used strategically within the AGUA
umbrella has the potential to leverage important
impacts in priority watersheds and/or in large
populations. SIA projects can greatly increase their 
impacts on sustainable management of water
systems, protection of watersheds if they were to
be coordinated more closely with CARE-AGUA or
similar project. 
b. It should be an AGUA priority to formally establish 
this coordination.
2. There are serious deficiencies in the quality of the 
design documents. There are cases where design
selection criteria are not explained, where the
technical descriptions do not match with what has
been built. Budgets are not allowing for detailed
design and documentation to be carried out.
a. AGUA must identify and support a mechanism that 
brings to the SIA the same technical criteria and
standards that are used in the CARE-AGUA and
other USAID-funded infrastructure projects 
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-19
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Small Infrastructure Activity (SIA) Water Supply and Sanitation 
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement (continued)
3. Some construction deficiencies were observed in the 
field – control valve installation, lack of protection for 
valves and chlorinators, absence of chlorinators, 
a. AGUA should identify and support a mechanism
that brings to the SIA the same level of technical 
supervision that are used in the CARE-AGUA and 
other USAID-funded infrastructure projects
4. Criteria that must be met by communities and users 
before a system can be inaugurated are not uniform. 
Systems are inaugurated without trained operators,
without gray-water disposal, without latrines, without
strong tariff systems set up (especially when public
tapstands are used)
a. AGUA must identify and support a mechanism that 
brings to the SIA the same technical criteria and
standards that are used in the CARE-AGUA and
other USAID-funded infrastructure projects
5. Collecting tariffs in system with public tapstands is
problematic.
a. There are innovative ways to ensure that users pay 
for public water –i.e. tapstand operators,
neighborhood user groups that pay together and
manage their own affairs, etc. These should be
explored for future projects with public tapstands.
6. There is not a formal system of institutional or
technical follow-up being provided to the local water
organizations. CARE-AGUA consortia staff provide
follow-up support non-formally.
There are not systematic technical or organizational
development oversight components for the SIA
projects. AGUA must see that these components are
made available to communities receiving these SIA
funds.
Detailed Notes: CARE/Small Infrastructure Activity (SIA) 
Site Assessment Documents
No Environmental Assessments required. The discussions of the project sites in the technical
memoranda of each project are cursory.
Designs
Designs in general were fine with respect to the physical infrastructure items themselves.
Nevertheless the design documents were severely lacking in their technical justifications for
design choices. It is not to say that designs were not correctly done and based on reasonable
criteria. The issue is that the designs contain very little documentation of the criteria used to
make design decisions. For example:
· Design flows for improvement project of San Mauricio was a wet season measurement. Dry 
season measurements of all surface sources are of critical importance.
· The selection of an 80 cubic meter storage tank for Santa Fe / Los Chiles is not justified.
There is already a 35 cubic meter tank and the future population of these communities
justifies the repair of the existing tank and not the construction of a new tank – of any size.
· The design for Santa Fe/Los Chiles does not mention that the existing 35 cubic meter tank is 
operational and its existence is only inferred in the document by one map.
· The sizing of the San Mauricio pumping tank (50 cubic meters) was not presented.
· Designs for the filters used to treat gray water coming from clothes-washing stations have
shortcomings. Effluent from these filters is best discharged into large absorption trenches, not 
directly into the water course. These filters require maintenance (solids removal). There is
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-20 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
not an operator assigned to the filter in San Mauricio, nor is there a disposal destination for 
the solids once they are removed.
· The criteria used to size the new electric pump for San Mauricio was not provided in the
design document.
· Quebrada Honda has household connections but no water meters, the tank is oversized for
the future population 
Field Inspection
Construction was observed to be generally good, with several minor shortcomings noted:
· Valves were placed directly on PVC pipe. A transition to galvanized steel for the valve
placement is recommended.
· Valves were installed without universals. To remove a faulty valve in this situation the pipe 
itself must be cut.
· PVC pipe was run through the walls of tanks
· Chlorination in Quebrada Honda was not done according to an accepted system. A small
amount of chlorine is periodically dumped in the storage tank. The system was
commissioned without the construction of gray-water absorption pits and all areas around
household connections that were observed were muddy. Half had wastewater ponding on the 
property. No latrines were promoted or built through the project.
· Impending cost increase in electricity was a big issue in Santa Fe / Los Chiles. With
increased consumption, the water committee is moving into a different billing bracket which 
will radically increase the cost per unit of electricity used.
Operator
· Santa Fe/Los Chiles had a community operator who was receiving supplementary training 
from AGUA.
· Operators, sometimes belatedly, are receiving training by the AGUA project.
· Quebrada Honda did not have a trained operator for the already-commissioned system.
· Quebrada Honda suffers from water shortages during the dry season, but no one has
diagnosed if there is a scarcity of water, or over-use, hoarding, etc. The community does not 
know how to diagnose the problem and without metering the source is vulnerable to overuse 
by individuals.
Management Organization
· Community leaders of Quebrada Honda were unable to find the copy of the system plans and 
technical design.
· Participation in the SIA projects have brought AGUA capacity-building activities into the
target communities. San Mauricio, in particular stands to benefit the most from this
intervention. The large high-quality surface source is currently used (poorly managed) by
agricultural and domestic water projects. AGUA has helped dysfunctional water committees 
get back onto their feet and work toward sustainable management of water systems and the 
watershed.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-21
3. CARE/Border Development Services: San Rafael Waste Water Treatment Plant
There is one site where CARE and Border Development Services are working together - the San 
Rafael neighborhood of the Puente Arce Community in Ahuachapán department. CARE and
Salva-Natura have worked with Puente Arce to implement a drinking water supply project.
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Waste Water Treatment Plant – San Rafael
A. Accomplishments
1. AGUA is supporting important first steps in the
application of wastewater treatment technology in El
Salvador
2. AGUA is building important local technical capacity in 
NGOs that has a strong likelihood of improving over
time
3. AGUA is raising awareness of the general population 
and of municipalities in the field of waste water
treatment
4. AGUA is generating interest in and attention to the
management and policy implications of these
technologies
a. AGUA should focus on building the capacity of local 
NGOs (national or international) in this emerging
technical field. Given the state of the GOES
ministries, USAID/El Salvador experience with
private contractors, this is a valid approach and
should be continued
b. These systems are difficult to sustain for a number
of reasons (local demand, incentives to properly
operate, cultural attitudes about trash, politics of
billing for the service, etc.) and AGUA should devote 
extra time and resources to support what are
essentially “demonstration management systems” to 
compliment these demonstration technologies.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. These are demonstration technologies in El Salvador 
and require special attention to not only the design
and construction of the technologies but to the
formation and strengthening of the local
organizations that will operate, maintain and manage 
these systems.
a. Understanding that these are demonstration
technologies for El Salvador, AGUA should support 
independent technical review of designs before
construction takes place, of construction before the
treatment plant is commissioned, as well as periodic 
monitoring visits after commissioning
2. It is not clear that these projects are community
priorities nor that community members and future
users are participating in the selection of the
technologies nor in the decisions regarding their
operation, maintenance, management and cost
recovery
a. AGUA should consider using participatory planning
activities for these technologies that brings the users 
into the process of information gathering, technology 
selection, tariff calculation. (EHP has information)
3. Environmental impact statements which serve as
important tools to ensure good site-specific 
engineering design and construction practices are not 
being used as tools to this end, rather as paperwork 
that needs to be filled out prior to breaking ground.
a. NGO staff need understand that the purpose of the
EIA is to ensure competent engineering decisions
are made that incorporate the site into the design
and construction planning. 
b. The USAID/El Salvador Environmental office should 
support training that raises awareness and instructs 
technicians on EIA implementation that meets
USAID requirements.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-22 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Waste Water Treatment Plant – San Rafael
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
4. Design and construction of these novel systems has
presented difficulties, many of which are related to
difficult (low-lying) sites and local materials - national 
norms for waste water treatment are lacking,
a. Understanding that these are demonstration
technologies for El Salvador, AGUA should support 
independent technical review of designs before
construction takes place, of construction before the
plant is commissioned, as well as periodic
monitoring visits after commissioning
5. Ground is being broken on projects without clarity in
how management systems will function, how
operation and maintenance will be handled, how
tariffs will be levied to cover recurring costs 
a. Understanding that the demand for proper operation 
of wastewater treatment plants is quite low
(compared to water supply systems), AGUA must
formulate and then apply a set of criteria for
institutional management that must be satisfied
before construction can begin, and other criteria to
be satisfied before a system can be commissioned
6. Projects and Technologies are being selected without 
local input – technologies are chosen and then “fit” to 
a community
a. This approach has a long history of management
failure and in the future, AGUA should work with
communities or municipalities that demonstrate
demand for services and then engage in a
participatory planning activity to choose
technologies, financing packages, and management 
systems. 
7. Operators of the systems are not subject to the same 
local oversight as a water system operator. There is
much less incentive for the waste water treatment
plant operator to perform at a high standard.
a. Understanding that the demand for proper operation 
of wastewater treatment plants is quite low
(compared to water supply systems), AGUA must
formulate and then implement operator training that
raises the awareness of the operators with respect
to performance.
8. A formal program of follow-up supervision to trouble￾shoot operational problems and support the O&M
and managerial systems for these novel 
demonstration technologies is not in place.
a. For these demonstration projects, a follow-up 
program of technical assistance in operation,
maintenance and management should be designed
and implemented.
Detailed Observations: CARE/Border Development Services Waste Water Treatment for 
San Rafael Neighborhood
Sites Visited
The San Rafael neighborhood of the Puente Arce Community (Waste Water Treatment Plant for 
80 households)
Note that Engineers overseeing the project are US-based and did not participate in the
evaluation. It is not evident that there is close coordination between the AGUA Project and the 
Border Development Services Team on a comprehensive project implementation (technical,
social, training, ordinances, etc)
Strategy.
Site Assessment Documents
· None were available for evaluation. An environmental assessment would have been a very
useful exercise. The critical site issue of the high water table has impacted construction and 
will impact operation as well and it is not clear that it was addressed.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-23
· Rainy season disposal of the treated wastewater is an issue that an EIA would have dealt
with.
Designs
· No designs were reviewed, only a small summary and schematic of the treatment system that 
did not reflect all that was being built at the site. The design for the treatment system has
been used in different parts of the US and in Mexico. It is not clear that the specific design 
for the household septic tanks and small bore sewer have been demonstrated before.
· It is noted that the design of the system was selected prior to site review. The project is
piloting a technological package. The site was selected for the technical package not the
other way around.
Field Inspection
· The use of plastic water storage tanks for household septic tanks has been problematic (here 
as in other pilots in Central America). The tanks collapse when buried under pressure from
the soil covering them. They also float out from their holes because of the high water tables. 
The inflow and outflow works inside the tank are very close to one another and do not appear 
to be separated by a baffle. It is not clear how effective solids removal will actually be in
these tanks. There is no infrastructure in the region for pumping solids from the household 
septic tanks and disposing of those solids.
· The small-bore sewer system did not appear to have easily accessible clean-out portals (that 
allow a long plastic-handled brush to be inserted to remove blockages)
· The construction of the tanks and physical infrastructure appeared to be of good quality.
· There is also a danger that the sunken tanks, although built of concrete could float out of their 
respective holes just like the plastic tanks have done should they continue to remain empty
while the water table remains at ground level. 
· The exact function of all of the physical infrastructure installed at the site was not clear and 
the neighborhood leaders and construction supervisor were unable to explain the future
function of all of the installations.
Operator
· Operators for the plant and for the small-bore sewer have not been trained, (but shall be? By 
whom?). Payment of the operators has not been worked out yet.
· Small bore sewers require that users receive special training on their use and O&M.
Specialized operators are typically trained to provide required maintenance, repair, and
education to users. Training has not yet taken place. 
Management Organization
· A neighborhood organization is working with the implementers to facilitate the installation of 
the infrastructure. The leadership of this organization does not understand the workings of
the plant, but are happy that they will have something that will replace latrines.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-24 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
· Payment for operation and maintenance of the plant (there will be costs for electricity, pump 
maintenance and eventual replacement, and general O&M) has yet to be worked out. Links to 
the Puente Arce Water supply billing system have yet to be formally explored.
E. Environmental Education, Civic Participation and Sustainable Use of Natural
Resources
1. Findings and Conclusions
Accomplishments
Among the significant achievements of the AGUA Project are: the training and socialization of
environmental knowledge, practices and attitudes of a large part of the CARE Consortium
technicians, development of a wide variety of educational materials, planning and development 
of education sites at different development levels, co-investment in and leveraging of local and 
institutional resources in order to carry out water-related activities, including eco-tourism and of 
course the catalyst effect of the local organizational institution and development process, among 
other aspects.
The benefits previously summarized represent singular opportunities and unique benefits
relevant to the AGUA Project; civic willingness and participation have been broadened at the
local level, along with possibilities of maintaining their impact through the sponsored radio
media, as well as by the civic participation already achieved, and adoption of the watershed
approach in local environmental management.
The educational materials produced have been used to support sensitizing efforts at the levels of 
youth, leaders and local representatives, while other materials have been used as reference
documents for local contributors and institutional exchange. Studies and water-related activities 
have been carried out, such as: Protection of water sources, minor pipeline repairs, composting 
and recycling of paper, handicrafts and eco-tourism initiatives, among others, that in some cases 
have permitted the leveraging of resources from other sources of finance at the local and
international level and the formalization of the groups served. 
The educational materials produced require a validation and systematization process centered on 
local requirements and expectations, while at the same time there has been an analysis of the
advantage focusing environmental education as a transverse axis cutting through all components 
of the project.
In summary, the educational and civic participation activities that have been developed have
allowed the civil society to participate in managing initiatives for protection and conservation of 
the environment preferably, to the point where they foment projects for utilization of protected
natural resources as pivots of local economic development, as an example: Changuantique and 
the Santa Rita Forest.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-25
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement.
It is also understood that the AGUA Project has had limited coverage in environmental education 
for all the implementers’ technicians; as they said in the CARE Consortium, where they had the 
best coverage, the opportunities for exchange have been limited, and even less were the training 
opportunities among representatives and members of project implementers. The materials
produced to date do not show a process of validation and systematization for their applicability 
and adjustment to local needs, and this compares to the lack of organization and plans of the
instruction sites visited.
Another aspect that needs improvement is the minimal local capacity of the instruction sites to 
monitor the quality and quantity of the services provided by the local companies, among them: 
the administrators of water, activities of composting and eco-tourism, among others; an aspect 
that also influences the establishment and impact of its group initiatives.
2. Recommendations
Among the principal recommendations the following are specified:
It is recommended that the project should provide training opportunities to all personnel on 
aspects of environmental education and the manner of application to each component.
At the same time we recommend consideration of specialized training in the form of in-service 
training, exchanges between the implementers or else through processes of on-the-job technical 
assistance to improve the processes of environmental education.
In order to consolidate the process of preparing and publishing the educational materials, it is
worthwhile to have a validation process prior to their publication to incorporate pertinent 
changes, so that they address the needs of the target population and later there may be
systematization of the results and impact attained. 
With the aim of widening the impact and sustainability of the activities carried out at each
instruction site, we recommend orienting the organization toward strengthening it (where it
exists), and in promoting it in case there is none, according to the project’s development and
institutional strengthening policy that was recommended previously.
It is advisable to determine the plan of each instruction site to be assisted, so that beginning with 
its strategic vision will permit determination of its plans for the actions to be carried out. In these 
sites we recommend focusing activities on critical areas within the communities that are assisted 
by those instruction sites.
We recommend supporting the improvement of capacities for resource management, and
coordination with and provision of quality local services to the Water Boards, Local
Governments, CDLs, Watershed Committees and other organizations. For that reason we
recommend supporting the exchange of experiences with homologous projects such as the
Proyecto CLARA.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-26 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
We recommend increasing local capacities for follow-up and monitoring of the quality of
services provided through training in the management of environmental projects.
We recommend increasing assistance in publication and harmonization of ordinances, as well as 
in the establishment of participative mechanisms for follow-up and control of the application of 
local regulations. 
The sensitizing activities performed with the participation of civil society representatives and
representatives of local governments are oriented according to progress reports, and to the raising 
of consciousness about general environmental aspects. In this respect, we recommend defining 
the methodological process for the recruitment and training of personnel from companies set up 
or strengthened by the AGUA Project; among other aspects to be strengthened, there are the
establishment of a methodological guide for planning and execution of water-related activities, 
within the watershed and ecosystem approach.
Some of the most noticeable aspects are the lack of clarity and the tendency to use a double
accounting for activities and results reported in environmental education, which at the same time 
form part of other project components, as well as the lack of a methodology and indicators for
the monitoring and impact of environmental education.
In this respect we recommend focusing environmental education as a transverse axis in all
components, the same as is done with the gender aspect, with which they will be an integral part 
of the other activities executed; at the same time we recommend the establishment of a
methodology for integrated planning and follow-up for all project components.
F. Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of
Water Resources
The CARE Consortium has facilitated in raising the awareness of community members through 
local organizations (water committees, CDLs, ADESCOs, agricultural groups, and municipal
governments) and interest groups at the national level (members of congress, MARN, ANDA,
Vice Presidency, technical professionals/RASES members) of the need o sustain water resources 
with integrated watershed management strategies. However, some aspects of strategic planning, 
especially in terms of watershed management could be improved.
1. Findings and Conclusions
The Consortium has facilitated the establishment of sub- and microwatershed committees that
combine representatives of civic and government organizations of one or more municipalities
and numerous cantones in efforts to collectively manage water resources shared by all parties.
This is an excellent strategy as long as it does not subvert the operations of existing organizations 
and create competition to municipal governments’ efforts to decentralize governance and
investments in the public good (including water systems and natural resources management).
The watershed management organizations represented in Cara Sucia, Río Borbollón, El Zúngaro 
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-27
and Río Corinto are excellent examples of such committees in progress and should be
consolidated and promoted as models for this type of organization.
The strategy and process for promoting promulgation of municipal ordinances to regulate
integrated water and natural resources management, environmental protection, solid waste
management and environmental health has been an arduous task, as the targets of establishing
some 36 ordinances has been seen by Consortium members as somewhat “forced” upon them.
Still, the Consortium has been successful in achieving both the goals of changing attitudes of the 
population to embrace environmental protection objectives and on municipal government leaders 
to rise to the occasion and establish regulations to guide in these efforts. These ordinances should 
lead to better local control of problems leading to watershed and water resources deterioration, if 
and when the necessary application/enforcement and incentive mechanisms are put in place. 
The CARE Consortium’s efforts at the national level, working closely with the National Water
and Sanitary Network and MARN will hopefully lead to the establishment of the National
Watershed Management Commission and facilitate legalization of local watershed committees
already being organized by Consortium members in project outreach efforts. CARE’s staff has
worked closely with the Water and Sanitation Network (RASES), coordinated by PCI, to
spearhead a series of participatory workshops and information dissemination to engage
professionals in government agencies and the private sector to analyze all aspects of water
resources legislation and how different approaches would impact differing water user groups.
CARE’s work with consultants contracted through the Environmental Heath Project (EHP) has 
brought the draft executive resolution for establishing and giving legal weight to the National
Watershed Commission and local watershed organizations to a point of its formal presentation to 
the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources for presentation to the President’s
Cabinet. 
CARE Consortium members are promoting the incorporation of the costs of environmental
services through the inclusion of a portion of water fees charged to customers of many of those 
small communal and municipal water systems supported under the Project. This is seen as a
fundamental step in guaranteeing the sustainability of financing for both the water systems and 
management of their tributary microwatersheds. However, not all water committees incorporate
this policy. Under two such arrangements, community water systems in the SalvaNatura outreach 
area are supporting management of the El Imposible National Park (the source for their water
systems) by contributing to the salaries of two park rangers. This is an excellent precedent which 
should be replicated. 
The CARE Consortium’s efforts to develop participatory diagnostic studies for each of the 18
municipalities and 5 subwatersheds prioritized under the Project are admirable. While these
studies provided good background on which to prioritize problems and select organizations with 
which to work, they lacked necessary strategic guidance on how to prioritize geographic
locations and watershed management techniques in order to resolve specific watershed
management challenges. These studies did not incorporate sufficient hydrogeomorphological and 
agroecological parameters, leaving the selection of projects areas biased toward the existence of 
interested community groups. This in part may be attributed to the pressure from USAID to
achieve physical targets, but also indicates some deficiencies in the strategic planning
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-28 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
approaches used by the Consortium. Watershed management plans for the subwatersheds (and 
several microwatersheds) for which diagnostic studies were completed are in preparation, several 
of which have been presented. However, the use of strategic planning tools in the preparation of 
these plans was also limited, which means that some of the activities selected for promotion
under the Project may be more oriented to local and regional development objectives rather then 
the direct objectives of the Project to promote increased access to clean water and sustain the
water supplies with targeted watershed management actions. 
Considering another aspect of diagnostic studies and project design, the Consortium has not
adequately addressed its obligations under USAID’s Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)
for some of its subprojects. While clearances have been obtained from MARN11, no adequate
environmental impact assessments were performed for higher-risk wastewater and solid waste
management projects (even where these are being implemented with other Implementers) and
certain design and construction deficiencies have been noted by the Evaluation Team. No
alternative sites to those where construction is taking place were assessed; this essentially
required that these projects be imposed on these sites regardless of the environmental risks. No 
uniform guidelines were followed and each subproject was designed based on varying criteria
and in limited consideration of environmental factors. The Evaluation Team noted several
location, design and construction flaws which are presenting actual and potential problems with 
their construction and operation. It is noted here, however, that USAID did not present the
Consortium with necessary guidelines, even as this was indicated in the IEE. 
What became obvious to the Evaluation Team is that the current grouping of activities and their 
respective performance indicators under the four AGUA components is confusing and is causing 
some administrative and project management difficulties for the Consortium. This was found
especially true in terms of efforts to monitor both performance indicators and indicators of the
impacts of Project activities. The original project design did not include the indicators necessary 
to adequately assess the social, economic and/or environmental impacts of Project interventions 
and progress towards the SO4 and the IR package. Much effort is placed in counting the numbers 
of outputs in order to answer the performance indicators for USAID, but many of these are not 
the most relevant of indicators nor do they reflect the normal outputs of the activities promoted 
by the Consortium.
The original project design did not include, nor is the Project now monitoring, the indicators
necessary to appropriately and quantitatively determine the social, economic and/or
environmental impacts of Project interventions and progress in achieving IRs. Diagnostic studies 
did not include baseline parameters that can be considered for monitoring impact indicators.
CARE uses a survey instrument oriented primarily to qualifying the quantity and quality of water 
consumed in communities at the municipal level, but the density of sampling locations
(households) is deemed insufficient to accurately discern the impacts of AGUA activities on
project participants. It is unfortunate that other impact indicators concerning such aspects as
household sanitation and hygiene, customer satisfaction, payment of water fees, etc. that were
used successfully in relation to other CARE projects (i.e. PROSAGUAS) were not included in 
the survey instrument used for AGUA. FUNDAMUNI’s experience to date with the CLARA
 
11 MARN’s work on environmental impact assessment is incipient and its capability to assess the impacts of wastewater and 
solid waste management projects is even more limited as these types of projects are relatively new in El Salvador.
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 9-29
water quality monitoring/environmental health education initiative has not been extended to
other Consortium outreach areas.
2. Recommendations
For the next few years of implementation until the PACD, CARE Consortium members should 
integrate all activities into a selected number of sub- and microwatersheds, using strategic
planning criteria on which to base the selection of appropriate geographic areas and technical
activities with linkage to potable water and irrigation systems to their watersheds. The efforts
related to the micro’ and subwatershed areas of Cara Sucia, Río Borbollón, El Zúngaro and Río 
Corinto, among others, would be a good place to start, as these have the potential to become
models at the national level. Consortium members should compare notes on their respective
experiences in these and other areas, as well as technical approaches and complement any
deficiencies in their own strategies and/or staffing capabilities to fill any perceived strategic or 
operational voids. 
Consortium members should assist municipalities in the application and enforcement of those
municipal ordinances already promulgated. It is suggested that the necessary mechanisms and
instruments be articulated and promoted under the Project, using precedents in other
municipalities as these may be available in El Salvador or neighboring countries. Such
instrument should include incentives on equal weight with penalties. Efforts should be made to 
engage and train the Municipal Environmental Units (UAMs) where these have been established 
and perhaps use the ordinances as a basis for forming these units where they have yet to be
established.
CARE should continue its efforts with MARN to see through efforts to establish the
Interinstitucional Watershed Commission; hopefully the executive decree will be presented to
the President’s Cabinet for consideration and issuance in the next few months. At the same time, 
however, it is suggested that the maximum effort be placed on formally establishing and
strengthening the subwatershed and microwatershed committees already in progress. It is also
suggested that all activities of the Project concerning the General Water Law be concluded and 
any follow-up work be left to the Water and Sanitation Network. However, as the country enters 
into its election period (elections for congress and mayorships are due in March of 2003), it may 
not be strategically advantageous to continue with policy reform efforts at the national level; and 
measures taken at the municipal level should be treated with caution until after the elections and 
installation of new authorities (if applicable). There may be a need to reeducate the new
municipal authorities as to the AGUA initiatives to date; this should be facilitated with the local 
organizations whose membership would not change (CDLs, ADESCOs, watershed committees, 
etc.).
The CARE Consortium should intensify its efforts to include policies related to incorporation of 
the costs of environmental services in all potable water system projects and that these be
formalized in municipal ordinances and/or bylaws of water boards and committees and paid as
part of the water fees by all consumers. A minimum of 10% of the total water fees should be
directed to conserving and improving conditions in the upland watersheds. Such costs should
Annex 9: Evaluation Profile of Care Consortium
9-30 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
also be included in fees paid for wastewater and solid waste management services using
infrastructure financed under the Project.
The Consortium needs to improve its project design and construction supervision practices to
include adequate environmental impact assessments as an integral part of its project cycle,
regardless of MARN’s requirements, which are usually much less rigorous. The establishment of 
more formal procedures using adequate guidelines provided by USAID should improve this
aspect of project design and construction supervision. Guidelines should require that a minimum 
of 3 alternative sites for wastewater and solid waste management projects be considered as part 
of the EIA exercise. 
The Consortium should review the utility and validity of current performance indicators and
consider reducing their number to a minimum of the most relevant and efficient in terms of
measuring project outputs and improving the instruments used to track the indicators of those
found most useful (e.g. PROSAGUAS survey instrument). It is also suggested that the
Consortium consider the incorporation of several new indicators to more accurately monitor the 
impact of project interventions and progress toward meeting SO4 and IRs (see Table 3.7 in the 
main evaluation report for some alternatives to consider). 
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-1
This annex provides an overview of the results of the evaluation of AGUA activities carried out 
by Project Concern International (PCI). This profile provides the Evaluation Team’s findings,
conclusions and recommendations for each of the principal activity areas covered by PCI. PCI is 
responsible for implementation of the approximately 6% of all project activities as calculated
from the total of USAID budget for SO4/AGUA. PCI began implementation of the activities
included under its cooperative agreement with USAID in early 2001. Its SO4/AGUA project,
“Sewage Treatment, Solid Waste Disposal, Agricultural Technology and Marketing Services”,
has been distributed among two principal components. The Agrosystems component,
representing about 33% of all budgeted resources, includes outreach activities in agricultural
diversification and marketing, and innovative techniques to harvest and store water for drip￾irrigated agriculture. The Infrastructure component includes the design and construction of
demonstration projects in wastewater treatment (18% of the budget), solid waste management
(35% of the budget) and disaster mitigation (which has used 14% of resources budgeted under 
the cooperative agreement). This annex has been prepared based on the analysis of relevant
documentation, interviews with PCI staff, and the results of the field visits to project sites and 
meetings with participating local organizations and beneficiaries.12
A. General Overview of Implementation 
As of April 2002, Project Concern, International (PCI) had achieved about 75% of the life-of￾project targets in its Sustainable Agriculture and Marketing component and was making good
progress in its diversification/marketing program, including drip irrigation, and rainwater
harvesting and storage subprojects involving small reservoirs. The Suchitoto Wastewater
Treatment Plant began operation in the second trimester of 2002, and follow-up on operational
aspects and training was still in progress at the time of the evaluation. Some construction and
operational difficulties still need to be resolved at the plant. The solid waste landfill at Corinto 
has been operating with relative success since early 2002 and includes a composting facility for 
organic wastes. The landfill at San Francisco de Menendez is behind schedule and has
experienced some design and construction quality control problems, but should be operational in 
the next two months. Disaster mitigation works have focused primarily on building gabion
retaining walls to stabilize land slippages in the Usulután Department. PCI has been especially
generous in its provision counterpart funds, exceeding the agreed upon match by 141%.
Approximately 62% of the total expenditures under PCI activities, including counterpart, has
been made for infrastructure, while the remaining 48% has been dedicated to its agricultural
technology and marketing program. PCI is working in areas where it has traditionally worked in 
Usulután and also promotes potable water and environmental health activities in the same areas 
with financing provided by USAID under a different SO. 
 
12 See also Annex 4, Project Site Visits: Agenda and Summary Field Notes; Annex 5, List of Persons and Organizations 
Contacted during the Evaluation; and Annex 7, List of Documents Reviewed for the Evaluation.
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
10-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
B. Decentralization and Local Management Capability Development
1. Findings and Conclusions
Accomplishments
The farmers’ groups assisted at the local level have been integrated preferentially, as have
commonly involved groups of producers, youth and housewives, at the informal level, who
generally form part of the Community Development Associations [Asociaciones de Desarrollo 
Comunal] (ADESCOS) and the Cooperative Associations of the Reformed and Traditional
Sector [Asociaciones Cooperativas del Sector Reformado y Tradicional], and whose members
are receiving technical assistance for initiation and development of their activities at the small
farm level, in kitchen gardens and orchards, on their houses’ building lots and in community
plant nurseries as well as in handicraft handling and processing, marketing lines, establishment 
and brand positioning strategies for roasted and ground coffee.
In the intermediate zone of Usulután (Ozatlán, Tecapán y Concepción Batres) PCI, through its
participative extension program, has provided silos for grains (granaries), reservoirs for rain
water, small systems for drip irrigation, promotion of organic products and reduction in the use 
of highly toxic pesticides, training in the handling, processing and packing of vegetables and
coffee roasted in comal, in small-scale grinding and labeling of “Floresta” brand coffee, as well 
as in the establishment and participative operation of the “Centro de Agro Negocios”, located in 
the El Moro community, where there is a cafeteria, sales room for vegetables and Floresta coffee, 
as well as for the roasted beans of Floresta coffee. These activities for the most part are
considered to be pilot projects, since they require longer time and monitoring in order to step up 
their capacity for sustainability and effectiveness. An important aspect is the mobilization of
local resources through non-governmental organizations, such as: COMUS, CHF,
FUNDAMUNI, SACDEL, SalvaNatura, ISTA y CENTA. The level of local organization,
however, is in the beginning phase. 
In addition, the project has provided impetus for the establishment of community nurseries, and 
for production of forests and orchards that later will be used in the project’s reforestation
program. The establishment of farms for fattening chickens also has been started with a group of 
young people, who have been trained in aspects of the chicken farm’s technical management, but 
not in the group’s organizational aspects.
The project for production of the bulletin “Chuña” is in the design stage, which includes sections 
for exchange of information at the level of aspects concerning production and the marketing of
local products, while at the same time it will present successful cases of local families at the
social, economic and marketing levels, among other aspects.
In the face of the severe impacts in the El Palmital gorge caused by the earthquakes of 2,001, it 
was calculated that there were more than 18,000 m 3
 of loose material that might be washed
down by the current, for which reason it was decided to undertake the cleanup of the gorge’s
riverbed in the lower part, while at the same time 18 gabion structures capable of retaining 4,000 
m
3
 were constructed along 3 kms. of the riverbed in the upper part of the Quebrada El Palmital. 
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-3
To date it is estimated that two-thirds of the aforesaid capacity has been filled with the loose
material that is being carried down by the current.
In Suchitoto, PCI support has been oriented toward supervising, orienting and advising the start￾up of the Sewer and Waste Water Treatment Plant [la Planta de Tratamiento de Aguas Negras y
Servidas] (the largest part of the urban area), for which reason it is coordinating activities with 
the local government and the Water Supply Municipal Enterprise Mixed Association
[Asociación Mixta Empresa Municipal de Abastecimiento de Agua] (EMASA), as well as with 
MARN, ANDA, FISDL and of course USAID.
In San Francisco Menéndez, the coordination has included participation of the Local
Government, MARN, USAID, SalvaNatura, among others, which with PCI support and
coordination, are constructing the sanitary fill for the municipality. In Corinto, with the support 
of PCI, FUNDAMUNI, the Ministry of Public Health, USAID, Local Government has succeeded 
in constructing the sanitary land fill and the reconversion of the former open-air garbage dump, 
while the Comité de Apoyo has been formed, which supports the activities of handling the
sanitary fill, but not application of the solid waste ordinance. These are considered pilot projects 
the same as those previously described, since they are in the process of adjustment and fine
tuning in their operation, and thus will need additional support in order to guarantee their
operation. 
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
It is obvious that the recently constituted support organizations for the water treatment and
sanitary land fill pilot projects, as well as the producers’ and youth groups that are being
supported or reorganized with the aim of encouraging Production and Commercialization, have 
limited administrative capacity, managerial expertise and minimal possibilities of sustainability.
2. Recommendations
Concerning institutional development, we recommend establishing the Project AGUA
institutional development and strengthening policy, which vitalizes the coordination and capacity 
of local management within a process of strategic planning, which includes the determination of 
training and associated technical assistance plans, social accounting, administration, finance and 
in supervisory management for the companies of local service (Boards, Production and
Marketing committees), that include criteria for creating or strengthening them through
integration, according to local conditions, including the aspect of organization based on the
specialization of production for the first level organizations and on marketing in the second level 
organizations, as well as the mechanisms for integrating provision of their services.
The marketing processes established for the most part are consistent with the logic of supplying 
and marketing the inputs and seasonal agricultural products13, primarily, with an incipient
tendency in the last half of the year to develop the marketing of short-cycle vegetables, most of 
them having been lost in the rainy season. In general the marketing emphasis is focused on
identifying business opportunities and points of sale at the local level. (El Moro) and at the level 
 
13 17 marketing groups have been established. 
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
10-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
of Supermarket PriceSmart on a temporary basis, without establishing a system of direct and
continuous marketing; alternatives have not been identified in local and conventional markets.
In this respect we recommend establishing a global and special strategy and marketing plan
adapted to the local conditions of each group receiving assistance, so that it would be they who, 
based on their organizational vision, would better develop and adjust their policies and
procedures for marketing their products and services. It is obvious that in the process of applying 
their strategy and marketing plan, they will require support in their respective establishment and 
operation. 
Similarly, we noted that the watershed approach was missing in the planning and management 
processes for the business initiatives being supported. What has been said previously calls for
attention to the formation of new leadership cadres, while at the same time norms should be
defined or put into effect that include the development of plans and concrete actions relating to 
the watersheds.
In order to support the formalization and therefore the institutionalization of the pilot projects
aided at the levels of production and marketing, we recommend creating Guides or models for 
application of the watershed approach in defining operative norms (regulations) for the assisted 
organizations, which to date are functioning in a de facto way. 
One interesting aspect is the present use and impact of incentives which at the moment are used 
for short-term objectives in crop planting and management or otherwise in the provision of
materials for repairing animal shelters, and in some cases initiatives for diversification of mixed 
production between orchards and short-cycle vegetables, combined with works for soil and water 
conservation. 
In this respect and through the use of inter-institutional coordination, we believe it is useful to 
define the policies, procedures and ways to reuse the incentives that may very well be focused on 
offsetting payment for environmental services benefiting the watershed.
C. Agricultural Technology and Marketing Services 
PCI has organized informal task groups uses with farmers in its outreach areas, almost
exclusively with men’s groups. According to PCI’s April 2002 Progress, improved agricultural
practices (primarily diversification to horticultural crops) were being applied on a total of 654 
hectares using 14 different technologies in diversification, soil and water conservation and
marketing. PCI reports that a total of 6,619 families have received some sort of technical
assistance under the project.14 In marketing techniques, a total of 442 men and women organized 
in 21 groups have received training in how to effectively market their grain and horticultural
crops. 
 
14 Note: this number may be a typographical error and the intended unit of measure may be number of people as opposed to 
number of families. 
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-5
1. Findings and Conclusions
PCI is promoting appropriate agronomic techniques of no-burn, crop residue management,
contour furrowing and green barriers, along with new technologies of drip irrigation and small
reservoirs linked to gutters to harvest rain from the roofs of farmers’ houses for use in
supplemental irrigation during dry periods that may occur during the rainy season and to extend 
the growing season into the dry season. These strategies concentrate water in planting areas and 
facilitate water conservation in areas where the lack of surface water sources is a serious
limitation to agriculture. Most of the areas worked by participating farmers are home gardens
and land parcels closest to the house, as predial larceny is a serious problem in Usulután. While 
these practices benefit farm families with improved nutrition in the home, diversification to
horticultural crops is intended to grow produce for sale. Fruit trees are also being promoted on
these same parcels and are having good acceptance. Some forest trees for fuelwood and timber 
(as fence rows and small reforested parcels) are being promoted under the PCI initiative. The
Project also promotes community-based nurseries management by community groups (including 
women groups) for production of plant materials of fruit tree and forestry species that will be
purchased by the Project for use as incentives in PCI’s outreach areas. If successful, these groups 
may continue the operations as a microenterprise for generating income. The Project is also
promoting integrated pest management, including the production and use of organic pesticides.
PCI’s strategy is primarily oriented to increasing the productivity of farm parcels through
diversification and improvements in marketing of farm produce. At the farm level, producer
groups are organized informally around demonstration farmers and are attended to by PCI
technician. A farm plan is prepared but plans are held by the technician as a supervision tool.
This tends to create a certain level of dependency of the farmers on the technician. Outreach is 
limited to those organized and at present, PCI has not developed a diffusion strategy to promote 
techniques outside of those actually participating. PCI has not yet established a formal exit
strategy as part of its promotion/extension approach. Technicians felt that the Project should
accompany farmers through at least two agricultural cycles including two dry seasons in order to 
support their adoption of technologies being promoted; but this is not a written policy. 
PCI has also been innovative in promoting the establishment of agronegocios, small-scale 
marketing sites where farmers can sell their produce (in or near towns and/or along the
highways). These efforts should offer participating families an outlet for their produce. Women 
are especially active in the marketing aspects of the Project. PCI has also facilitated farmers’
participation in marketing activities managed by the Salvadoran Stock Exchange (Bolsa de
Valores), both in the cooperative purchase of ammonium sulfate fertilizer (donated to El
Salvador to generate government revenue and reduce debt) and in the sale of farmers’ sorghum
for a fair price to the companies making feed concentrates. These activities are oriented at
reducing the costs of agricultural inputs and increasing farmers’ income for marketed products. 
PCI has not been as active in promoting watershed management concepts as part of its overall
strategy. These actions were not included in a cohesive way in their cooperative agreement with 
USAID. Hence, microwatershed management is not a thrust of the project strategy and project 
sponsors may be missing such opportunities in terms of using the leverage of sustaining water
systems (whether for agriculture or potable water) to sustained management of the watersheds. 
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
10-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
This is in conflict with the overall objectives of the SO4/AGUA Activity and represents a
strategic planning weakness on the part of both PCI and USAID.
2. Recommendations 
The diversification and marketing activities should be considered demonstration projects until at 
which time their adoption and successful application by participating farmers can be proven.
Hence, PCI should make an effort to further develop its promotion/extension approach to include 
an “exit strategy” in order to steer outreach efforts towards full adoption of the technological
packages by participating farm families and reduction (and eventual completion) of support from 
the Project. 
PCI should change its current approach on the use of farm plans and fully disseminate the use of 
farm plans to individual farmers. The plan should be simple and directly related to the types of
activities promoted with each farmer (e.g. diversification to horticultural crops and marketing). 
As other activities are included in the farm practice mix (grain cropping with practices of no￾burn, minimum tillage, green barriers, reforestation and selected agroforestry techniques) these 
should be presented in another module whether separate or additive to the horticultural module. 
Also, as PCI has promoted disaster mitigation structures (gabions), it would be advantageous to 
combine these with such techniques as reforestation in critical recharge zones, steeply sloping
lands, stream corridors and ravines. 
PCI should increase its efforts to organize more women’s groups to promote soil and water
conservation as part of the diversification strategies for home gardens and water
harvesting/storage. PCI’s strategy to promote the establishment of community nurseries managed 
by women’s groups, depending on the success of the current efforts, should be continued and
expanded. 
The selection of techniques and priority locations for project activities could be improved by
placing more emphasis on the concepts and principles of microwatershed management
(including soil and water conservation, agroforestry and reforestation in strategic locations). This 
would entail better use of strategic planning techniques during its diagnostic studies to ensure
that those areas treated are contributing to water resources improvements related to the
improvement and sustainability of existing or new potable water and/or irrigation sources 
(tributary microwatersheds). 
D. Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure
The discussion of PCI infrastructure is presented in three parts:
1. Wastewater treatment infrastructure; 
2. Solid Waste Landfill Construction; and 
3. Mitigation
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-7
Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations and Detailed Field Notes
For the Infrastructure Sector, findings and conclusions are presented in a matrix along with their 
corresponding Recommendations. Following each matrix are more detailed technical notes from 
which the Findings, Conclusions are drawn. On-farm rainwater storage tanks and other opn-farm 
structures are not evaluated formally. 
1. PCI Wastewater Treatment Facility 
One site was visited – Suchitoto.
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Waste Water Treatment Plant (Suchitoto, PCI)
A. Accomplishments
1. AGUA is supporting important first steps in the
application of wastewater treatment technology in El
Salvador
2. AGUA is building important local technical capacity in 
NGOs that has a strong likelihood of improving over
time
3. AGUA is raising awareness of the general population 
and of municipalities in the field of waste water
treatment
4. AGUA is generating interest in and attention to the
management and policy implications of these
technologies
a. AGUA should focus on building the capacity of local 
NGOs (national or international) in this emerging
technical field. Given the state of the GOES
ministries, USAID/El Salvador experience with
private contractors, this is a valid approach and
should be continued
b. These systems are difficult to sustain (local demand, 
incentives to properly operate, cultural attitudes
about trash, politics of billing for the service, etc.)
and AGUA should devote extra time and resources
to support what are essentially “demonstration
management systems” to compliment these
demonstration technologies.
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. These are demonstration technologies in El Salvador 
and require special attention to not only the design
and construction of the technologies but to the
formation and strengthening of the local
organizations that will operate, maintain and manage 
these systems.
a. Understanding that these are demonstration
technologies for El Salvador, AGUA should support 
independent technical review of designs before
construction takes place, of construction before the
treatment plant is commissioned, as well as periodic 
monitoring visits after commissioning
2. It is not clear that these projects are community 
priorities or that community members are
participating in the selection of the technologies nor
in the decisions regarding their operation,
maintenance, management and cost recovery
a. AGUA should consider using participatory planning
activities for these technologies that brings the users 
into the process of information gathering, technology 
selection, tariff calculation. (EHP has information)
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
10-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Waste Water Treatment Plant (Suchitoto, PCI)
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement (continued)
3. Environmental impact statements which serve as
important tools to ensure good site-specific 
engineering design and construction practices are not 
being used as tools to this end, rather as paperwork 
that needs to be filled out prior to breaking ground.
a. Staff must understand that the EIA’s purpose is to
ensure competent engineering decisions are made
that incorporate the site into the design and
construction planning. 
b. The USAID/El Salvador Environmental office should 
support training that raises awareness and instructs 
technicians on EIA implementation that meets
USAID requirements.
4. Design and construction of these novel systems has
presented difficulties, many of which are related to
difficult (steep or low-lying) sites and local materials -
national norms for waste water treatment are lacking,
a. Understanding that these are demonstration
technologies for El Salvador, AGUA should support 
independent technical review of designs before
construction takes place, of construction before the
plant is commissioned, as well as periodic
monitoring visits after commissioning
5. Ground is being broken on projects without clarity in
how management systems will function, how
operation and maintenance will be handled, how
tariffs will be levied to cover recurring costs 
a. Understanding that the demand for proper operation 
of wastewater treatment plants is quite low
(compared to water supply systems), AGUA must
formulate and then apply a set of criteria for
institutional management that must be satisfied
before construction can begin, and other criteria to
be satisfied before a system can be commissioned
6. Systems are being operated before all systems have 
been built to design
a. NGOs must exercise more technical control,
insuring that construction is completed prior to
commissioning a system.
7. Operators of the systems are not subject to the same 
local oversight as a water system operator. There is
much less incentive for the waste water treatment
plant operator to perform at a high standard.
a. Understanding that the demand for proper operation 
of wastewater treatment plants is quite low
(compared to water supply systems), AGUA must
formulate and then implement operator training that
raises the awareness of the operators with respect
to performance.
8. A formal program of follow-up supervision to trouble￾shoot operational problems and support the O&M
and managerial systems for these novel
demonstration technologies is not in place.
a. For these demonstration projects, a follow-up 
program of technical assistance in operation, 
maintenance and management should be designed
and implemented.
Detailed Notes: PCI – Wastewater Treatment Plant
Site Assessment Documents
· Environmental studies were prepared to satisfy El Salvadoran environmental norms. There
were several shortcomings observed in the completed forms. In particular, site descriptions
were not completed in the detail required to allow designers to either consider or justify
important site mitigation issues. 
· Severe slopes and rainfall runoff issues were not given adequate attention. 
· In Suchitoto, rainwater runoff on the steep slope is causing problems with construction and 
threatening the physical infrastructure. Site slope was not noted as an issue in Suchitoto.
· In Suchitoto some 30 houses (if not more) have connected surface rainwater drainage into the 
sewer system. This was done long before the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. 
The rainwater is currently causing overflows in the plant itself. Sewage flows should have
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-9
been monitored after rainfall events to diagnose this problem before plant construction and 
commissioning.
Designs
· Area and regional maps often lack scales.
· Solids drying beds in Suchitoto are not protected against rainfall. 
· Designs that address site drainage during and after construction are not prepared. (addressing 
these site drainage issues occurs during construction)
Field Inspection
· System in operation before all physical infrastructure completed – i.e. the final tank that is to 
remove any solids (floating or sinking) that escape the secondary clarifier is not completed.
· Rainfall is preventing solids from drying properly as solids drying beds are not covered.
· Solids are being removed from drying beds and stored on site, uncovered, exposed to rainfall 
and erosion.
· It was not clear, but it appears that delays in solids cycling caused by rainfall into the drying 
beds is preventing timely evacuation of digested solids from the solids’ digester and properly 
timed solids removal from the secondary clarifier. Over-accumulation of solids in the
secondary clarifier might be promoting stable anaerobic conditions in the solids bed in which 
certain nuisance worms and flies can breed.
· Rainwater entering the Suchitoto sewers is causing sewage overflows in the plant. This
overflow is flowing onto the ground and eroding soil supporting the trickling filter tank.
· Surface flow of rainwater in the plant is eroding the hillside just below the solids’ drying
beds, endangering the structures themselves.
· The trickling filter has problems with flow application to the filter bed. It is estimated that 
20% of the filter is heavily overloaded and 30% of the filter is not receiving any flow. This 
might be causing micro-environments in the filter bed that promote breeding of flies and
other nuisance organisms.
· The suspended canals that apply flow to the trickling filter use toothed weirs that are fixed in 
the concrete canals. Adjustable weirs would make flow adjustment and re-apportionment 
possible.
· The design of entrance structure for the trickling filter is not serving to split the flows equally 
among the suspended canals. 
· Investigations on opportunities for reuse of the treated wastewater are pending.
· Construction teams are reacting to problems with runoff on steep slopes as the problems
occur – i.e. landslides, erosion. 
Operator
· It is clear that incentives for operators of the wastewater treatment plant to properly operate
and maintain their respective plants are much weaker than incentives for proper operation
and maintenance of a water supply system. There are not systems in place in El Salvador that 
monitor the quality of wastewater treatment plant performance, and poor performance of this 
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
10-10El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
infrastructure is typically not recognized by the population served. Providing competent
motivated O&M for these demonstration projects is an important challenge..
· Operators do not yet understand the operation of their respective systems. At the wastewater 
treatment plant, the operator is involved more in landscaping activities than operation
activities. Flows are not being monitored, the operator was not following a calendar of
maintenance activities, and did not understand how the plant functions. 
· Operator in Suchitoto is being compensated by their community and is working.
· There are not plans to support the management organizations with follow-up visits to help the 
organizations address technical, operation and maintenance problems.
Management Organization
· Suchitoto was a good choice for demonstrating a wastewater treatment plant. Visible
wastewater impacts on a tourist resource 
· It appears that construction of the infrastructure has proceeded without having defined the
management, administrative, or cost recovery systems. These are being addressed
concurrently with construction, and it is hoped that the communities devote the time, funding 
and resources necessary to sustain the infrastructure.
· There are not formal plans to support the management organizations with follow-up visits to 
help the organizations address conflicts, administrative, or financial problems.
2. PCI Sanitary Landfills
Two sites were visited - San Francisco de Menendez in Ahuachapán and Corinto in Morazán
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Sanitary Landfills and Solid Waste Management (Two projects visited)
A. Accomplishments
AGUA is supporting important first steps in the
application of sanitary landfill technology in El Salvador
AGUA is building important local technical capacity in
NGOs that has a strong likelihood of improving over time
Designs provide a thorough treatment of solid waste
collection in the participating communities.
AGUA is raising awareness of the general population
and of municipalities in the field of solid waste
management.
AGUA is generating interest in and attention to the
management and policy implications of these
technologies
a. AGUA should focus on building the capacity of local 
NGOs (national or international) in this emerging
technical field. Given the state of the GOES
ministries, USAID/El Salvador experience with
private contractors, this is a valid approach and
should be continued
b. These systems are difficult to sustain for a number
of reasons (local demand, incentives to properly
operate, cultural attitudes about trash, politics of
billing for the service, etc.) and AGUA should devote 
extra time and resources to support what are
essentially “demonstration management systems” to 
compliment these demonstration technologies.
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-11
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Sanitary Landfills and Solid Waste Management (Two projects visited)
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. Environmental impact statements which serve as
important tools to ensure good site-specific 
engineering design and construction practices are not 
being used as tools to this end, rather as paperwork 
that needs to be filled out prior to breaking ground.
NGO staff need understand that the purpose of the EIA 
is to ensure competent engineering decisions are
made that incorporate the site into the design and
construction planning. The USAID/El Salvador
Environmental office should support training that raises 
awareness and instructs technicians on EIA
implementation that meets USAID requirements.
2. Systems are being approved first and then designed 
to fit whatever site they happen to be provided. The
no-build option is not sufficiently considered.
Implementation of these unfamiliar technologies should 
be done with care. AGUA should establish some basic 
entry criteria before committing to building these
projects – these should include site criteria, institutional 
capacity, demand and willingness to pay for services.
3. Design criteria for these novel systems are still being 
worked out and designs lack clarity in some important 
areas 
Understanding that these are demonstration
technologies for El Salvador, AGUA should support
independent technical review of designs before
construction takes place, of construction before the
landfill is commissioned, as well as periodic monitoring 
visits after commissioning
4. Construction of these novel systems has presented
difficulties, many of which are related to difficult
(steep) sites.
EIAs must be completed properly to ensure that site
conditions are taken into account during design and
construction. An independent technical review
component (3a above) would help this as well.
5. Ground is being broken on projects without clarity in
how management systems will function, how tariffs
will be levied to cover recurring costs 
Understanding that the demand for proper operation of 
landfills is quite low (compared to water supply
systems), AGUA must formulate and then apply a set
of criteria for institutional management that must be
satisfied before construction can begin, and other
criteria to be satisfied before a system can be
commissioned
6. Operators of the systems are not subject to the same 
oversight as a water system operator. There is much 
less incentive for the landfill operator to perform at a
high level
Understanding that the demand for proper operation of 
landfills is quite low (compared to water supply
systems), AGUA must formulate and then implement
operator training that raises the awareness of the
operators with respect to performance.
7. There are operational challenges that have and will
present themselves. A formal program of follow-up 
supervision to trouble-shoot problems and support
the O&M and managerial systems for the landfills is
not in place.
AGUA should support an independent review of the
operation of the landfills and then support local training 
of NGO staff , operators and managers that address
any shortcomings.
8. There are not close-out strategies for these landfills
(particularly important for those with life-spans of
under ten years)
a. AGUA must ensure that plants have guidelines for
their closeout. There are questions about the
hazards posed by the infrastructure after closeout.
9. A formal program of follow-up supervision to trouble￾shoot operational problems and support the O&M
and managerial systems for these novel
demonstration technologies is not in place.
a. For these demonstration projects, a follow-up 
program of technical assistance in operation,
maintenance and management should be designed 
and implemented. 
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
10-12El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Detailed Notes: PCI Sanitary Landfills
Site Assessment Documents
· Environmental studies were prepared to satisfy El Salvadoran environmental norms. There
were several shortcomings observed in the completed forms. In particular, site descriptions 
were not completed in the detail required to allow designers to either consider or justify
important site mitigation issues. 
· Projects have accepted the sites that they were “given” by the municipality. In San Francisco 
de Menendez, this has caused numerous problems for the implementers and will cause
problems in operating the landfill in the future. The landfill is far from the populations, road 
access is poor (steep and narrow road) the site is on a 20% slope, soils are unstable, the site is 
bordered at its lowest elevation by a water course. A “no-go” option might have been
considered in this case.
· Ground water issues were treated in a cursory fashion – in San Francisco de Menendez the
groundwater level in a local well is given and the implications that a creek is at the base of
the landfill is not discussed. 
· Severe slopes and rainfall runoff issues were not given adequate attention. 
· Long-term management of the landfills was not addressed – this is of particular importance
in San Francisco de Menendez where the design life of the landfill is seven years. 
Designs
· Leachate production rates are calculated using a factor (m/square meter/year) from California 
that was not adjusted to El Salvadoran rainfall rates. Given rainfall amounts in California, it 
appears that the factor is one fourth of what it should be for El Salvador which means that 
physical works are likely undersized.
· Area and regional maps often lack scales.
· The decision to use geo-membrane lining is not thoroughly explained or justified in the
design documentation.
· Design of surface drainage works for the landfills (to keep surface runoff from entering the 
landfill area) are not clear. Leachate collected, treated is to be applied back onto the landfill 
surface using a pumping and sprinkler system. No pump specifications or sprinkler system
designs are included.
· The upflow anaerobic filter design in the landfills lacks a clean-out valve. This is likely
because solids are not to enter the tank. Nevertheless, bacterial growth will occur in the tanks 
and solids will accumulate. It appears that tank clean-out is to happen via backflow through
the perforated pipe that serves as the inflow works.
· Designs that address site drainage during and after construction are not prepared. (addressing 
these site drainage issues occurs during construction)
Field Inspection
· Leachate collection ponds should be maintained as low as possible to increase capture
capacity during rainfall events. The pond in Corinto was observed to be almost full during a 
sunny day.
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-13
· Corinto anaerobic filter is not operating at capacity because the platform for composting that 
drains into the filter is at an altitude some 1-½ meter below the design operational water level 
of the filter. (As the filter fills with leachate from the landfill the leachate exits the filter from 
the compost platform drainpipe.
· Exposed PVC pipe for inlets and outlets. The PVC has been painted but still is exposed to
ultraviolet light.
· Construction teams are reacting to problems with runoff on steep slopes as the problems
occur – i.e., landslides, erosion. 
Operator
· It is clear that incentives for operators to properly operate and maintain their respective plants 
are much weaker than incentives for proper operation and maintenance of a water supply
system. There are not systems in place in El Salvador that monitor the quality of landfill
performance, and poor performance of this infrastructure is typically not recognized by the
population served. Providing competent motivated O&M for these demonstration projects is 
an important challenge..
· Operators do not yet understand the operation of their respective systems. The operation and 
function of the upflow anaerobic filter could not be explained by the operator and why water 
was (taking up important storage space) in the leachate storage pond on a sunny day during 
the rainy season. 
· Operators in the operational system (Corinto Landfill) are being compensated by their
communities and are at their posts working.
· There are not formal plans to support the management organizations with follow-up visits to 
help the organizations address technical, operation and maintenance problems.
Management Organization
· Corinto’s landfill is accepting garbage from the town.. Operators and garbage haulers are
being paid and are at work.
· With respect to San Francisco de Menendez, it appears that construction of the infrastructure 
has proceeded without having defined the management, administrative, or cost recovery
systems. These are being addressed concurrently with construction, and it is hoped that the
communities devote the time, funding and resources necessary to sustain the infrastructure.
· There are not formal plans to support the management organizations with follow-up visits to 
help the organizations address conflicts, administrative, or financial problems.
3. PCI Risk Mitigation Infrastructure
One Project was visited – Sediment-capturing gabions built in a canyon-like ephemeral
watercourse near the community of El Plamital, Ususlután.
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
10-14El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
Risk Mitigation Activities
Norms for USAID/El Salvador reconstruction activities
which are directed by the Reconstruction Strategic
Objective govern all activities in mitigation.
a. Reconstruction activities under AGUA should be
coordinated closely with the Strategic Objective
office of Reconstruction
There are some technical concerns about the
construction of sediment trapping gabions in perennial
watercourses.
a. Independent technical evaluations have been made
of the systems. The Environmental Office of
USAID/El Salvador should capture observations,
recommendations of these evaluations in writing and 
make them available to appropriate NGOs for
action. 
b. These are often demonstration technologies and
require the inclusion of a monitoring component to
troubleshoot problems.
Detailed Notes: PCI Risk Mitigation Infrastructure
Site Assessment Documents
· An environmental assessment for the infrastructure was not obtained. It is not clear if an
official GOES Environmental Assessment was done (or was required).
· It is not clear why proper USAID/El Salvador environmental assessment norms were not
applied to this particular project. Whether this is because the norms and assessment tools
were not in place by the time this project was under way or that this activity slipped through 
a “crack” is not clear.
Designs
· The construction of these sediment-capturing gabions in the water-course itself (where the
gabions are placed as dams perpendicular to the flow of the water and anchored to the floor 
and side-walls of the canyon) is a pilot activity. Design criteria for this type of infrastructure 
are not readily available and the design and placement of the gabions was largely put
together in the field by PCI staff.
Field Inspection
· Gabion dams constructed in gully through which runoff carries sediments from upstream
landslides and erosion are largely stable after one year of service. Virtually all dams have
basins completely full of rocks and sediments. There has been some erosion under certain
gabions causing slumping and some separation of gabions from canyon side-walls. Flat top
gabion dams allow water to choose its own course, in some cases water is flowing along
walls, causing some gabion separation from walls.
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-15
Management 
· There are not formal plans to support the management, operation and maintenance of the
gabions with follow-up visits. PCI staff continue to work in the community and shall be kept 
abreast of the situation with the gabions while this relationship is maintained.
· The gabions should be monitored over time, both to document their efficacy and to identify 
any needs for maintenance.
E. Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Sustainable Use of Natural
Resources
1. Findings and Conclusions
Accomplishments
In the central Micro-region of Usulután, it is worth noting at the extension level the on-farm 
training and demonstrations on the fields of the farmers, field days and learning excursions in
crop areas and achievement days, which have allowed familiarization with and incorporation of
improvements in the production of basic grains, diversification by using vegetables and poultry
houses, experimenting with and encouraging organic vegetable production, establishment of
community plant nurseries, processing and packing coffee, as well as supporting and establishing 
the Zone Agribusiness Center [Centro de Agro Negocios de la Zona].
The project is motivating establishment of permanent marketing channels for agricultural inputs 
(fertilizers and organic inputs) and for vegetables, for which organizational funding of the
supported community structures is required.
The training process that is implemented has been very effective in the use of local materials for 
establishing and developing on-farm improvements, since they are handled directly by the
farmers and their families, mainly with the participation of young people who also have been
involved in implementing soil and water conservation practices, and in being made alert to the
use of less contaminating pesticides. This is in addition to the involvement of the producers’
women (wives and daughters) in the marketing of vegetables and in marketing initiatives at the 
local level.
At the present time there still are operational problems and lack of connections for some of the 
users of the Suchitoto Sewage and Waste Water Treatment Plant [ la Planta de Tratamiento de
Aguas Negras y Servidas de Suchitoto], while at the same time the lack of systematized
separation and treatment of solid waste at the Corinto land fill was also to be noted.
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement.
The AGUA Project has had limited coverage in environmental education for all the
implementers’ technicians; this is also true for exchange and training opportunities between
representatives and members of the AGUA implementers. 
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
10-16El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
2. Recommnendations
It is recommended that the Project provide opportunities for training all personnel in aspects of
environmental education and the way it may be applied to each component. 
We recommend encouraging specialized training for technicians by means of in-service training, 
exchanges between the implementers or else through processes of on-the-job technical assistance 
to improve the processes being encouraged and above all, aspects of integration of new
technologies and the installation of procedures with active civic participation in their operation
and maintenance.
We recommend encouraging the broadening of capacities for management of resources,
coordination and provision of local marketing services through the establishment of short-term 
Business Plans and marketing plans with a strategic focus, in which anticipated results are set
forth, along with their respective contingency analyses, in order to allow for deviations or risk 
effects.
Also advisable is an increase in the local capacity for follow-up and monitoring the quality of
services provided through training in project management and development, as well as in the
establishment, implementation and adjustment of Business and Marketing Plans; this is cogent 
for sales of local services and products.
Defining and broadening the management capability of the marketing and local services
companies through development of Management Training Plans that are socially responsible
toward the environment are also recommended, in which the strengthening of direction and
management of agribusinesses and in the provision of services is fundamental.
We recommend broadening inter-institutional coordination at the FISDL level and other
organizations that may be developing initiatives for Mediation of Municipal Services that may
support consolidation of businesses providing essential and related services. 
It is recommended to broaden diffusion and support in the establishment of mechanisms for
application, follow-up and control of local ordinances for handling and treatment of solid waste 
and wastewater.
We recommend focusing environmental education as a transverse axis through all the project
components, the same as is the case with the gender aspect, with which they will be an integral
part of the other activities to be implemented; at the same time we recommend establishing a
methodology for planning and follow-up that is integrated into all the project components.
F. Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of
Water Resources
PCI is essentially focusing on the organization of community-level task groups to transfer
agricultural diversification and marketing technologies in order to improve income generate at 
the farm level. While these activities appear promising, they should be considered in a
Annex 10: Evaluation Profile of Project Concern International
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 10-17
demonstration mode up and until which time that farmers (both men and women) demonstrate
their adoption of both technical and administrative aspects of the models being promoted. As the 
current activity mix under the PCI cooperative agreement does not embrace watershed
management principles, PCI should seek to promote the linkage of the condition of water
resources (as part of their agricultural, potable water and disaster mitigation activity packages) to 
microwatershed management. This would entail improved strategic planning and diagnostic
analyses to prioritize geographic areas and techniques that contribute to improvement of
watershed conditions as a necessary component to integrated water resources management. PCI 
should attempt the establishment of several model microwatershed subproject areas where all of 
its activities, including potable water and environmental health initiatives under other USAID
and counterpart funding, are integrated with the principles of watershed management. 
Considering another aspect of diagnostic and project design studies, PCI has not adequately
addressed its obligations under USAID’s Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) for all of its
wastewater and solid waste management subprojects. While clearances have been obtained from 
MARN, no adequate environmental impact assessments were performed for higher-risk projects 
in Santiago de Menendez, Corinto and Suchitoto and certain design and construction deficiencies 
have been noted by the Evaluation Team. No alternative sites to those where construction is
taking place were assessed; this essentially required that these projects be imposed on these sites 
regardless of the environmental risks. No uniform guidelines were followed and each subproject 
was designed based on varying criteria and in limited consideration of environmental factors.
The Evaluation Team noted several location, design and construction flaws which are presenting 
actual and potential problems with their construction and operation. It is noted here, however,
that USAID did not present PCI with necessary guidelines, even as this was indicated in the IEE. 
In terms of AGUA, PCI’s current monitoring and evaluation system is limited to the counting of 
project outputs in terms of established performance indicators. Several of its indicators can be
used as impact indicators (improvements in per-land-unit-area for crop yields, on-farm income, 
% of post-harvest crop losses, along with their respective comparisons with non-project farm
units). However, several more indicators could be added to link project activities with the impact 
on water resources (see Table 3.7 in the main evaluation report for some alternatives to
consider). This approach should also include the adoption of a policy to incorporate the costs of 
environmental services in fees charged for potable water systems, irrigation systems (where
these may involve use of water from surface streams and/or wells), wastewater collection and
treatment, and solid waste disposal. 
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 11-1
This annex provides an overview of the results of the evaluation of AGUA activities carried out 
by World Vision (WV). This profile provides the Evaluation Team’s findings, conclusions and 
recommendations for each of the principal activity areas covered by WV. WV is responsible for 
implementation of the approximately only 2.6% of all project activities as calculated from the
total of USAID budget for SO4/AGUA. WV began implementation of the activities included
under its cooperative agreement with USAID in early 2000. Its SO4/AGUA project, “Integrated 
Management of 5 Watersheds in the Municipalities of Jujutla and Guaymango in the Department 
of Ahuachapán”, is composed of two major groups of activities which contribute to the following 
SO4 Intermediate Results (IRs): Production of Water in Sufficient Quantity and with the Quality 
Required for Human Consumption (IRs 4.1 and 4.2) and Producers Adoption of a Minimum of 7 
Appropriate Farming Technologies in their Demonstration Fields. (IRs 4.1.1).
A. General Overview of Implementation
World Vision has essentially met all of its agreed upon targets and has developed several
successful models for microwatershed management with small communities linked to potable
water supplies. The soil and water conservation activities are augmented with good agroforestry 
techniques and increasingly popular home gardens. World Vision has also been generous in its
provision of counterpart funding to the Project, exceeding its promised match by 40%. The
majority of expenditures have been oriented to soil and water conservation and diversification
activities. WV has dedicated approximately 10% of its project effort to local organization of
microwatershed committees and aspects of environmental education are included in the training 
modules. Activities also include the construction of composting latrines to reduce fecal
contamination and Finland-type improved stoves to reduce fuelwood consumption. Two water
systems have been constructed under a different World Vision program with USAID funding and 
are not considered part of AGUA financing, but have been integrated within the project strategy.
B. Decentralization and Local Management Capability Development
1. Findings and Conclusions
Accomplishments
The groups of farmers receiving assistance are integrated at the local level and receive technical 
assistance for establishment and development of their farming plans, through the support of the 
producers in liaison with them and the project’s technicians who, with incentive funds are
supporting development of the soil and water conservation works envisioned, as well as the
planting of orchards and forests. Complementarily, Visión Mundial has mobilized counterpart
funds to give coverage and service to areas bordering on the five micro-watersheds of the
project, in which it is executing actions under the Cooperation Agreement with CARE, in which 
at the same time it is sponsoring children of the families and preventive health program
coverage, as well as construction of housing, among other things.
Through focusing on management of the selected micro-watersheds, an assessment of their
extent has been made, plus determination of the principal problems affecting resources; the
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
11-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
approach to protection of the watershed has been advanced, and soil and water conservation
activities have been increased, as has agro-forestry as well.
In practice, the execution of activities envisioned in the proposal submitted for consideration of 
the AGUA Project has been effected, and improvements and installation of Water Supply
Systems have been made; and operation has already been turned over to the Water and Sanitation 
Committees (CAS), the majority of which function within the Community Development
Associations (ADESCOS).
The ADESCOS have legal personality and recognition at the institutional level, which has
allowed them to allocate community development projects, as well as projects for the
environment, health, education, social infrastructure investment (repair of farm-to-market roads
and feeder roads) benefiting the community, and those of a family nature (construction of
housing), without there being much direct impact on organizational administration or
sustainability of the local organizations. To date, although it has defined charges for the
supplying of water, these are not being collected; at the same time the local organizations’
capacity for direct management is limited.
In the marketing aspect, preliminary contacts have been initiated on behalf of Visión Mundial in 
order to identify marketing chains that are appropriate for future production of citrus fruits at the 
micro-region level, in which it is estimated that somewhat more than 100 citrus trees have been 
planted for each farming plan instituted. 
In conclusion, decentralization of water systems constructed and rehabilitated by the project has 
increased the user population’s access to water. The small organizations have been less
strengthened; nevertheless they have broadened their local experience in solving input
requirements for chlorination of water, as well as the allocation of resources for community
projects. 
At the same time Visión Mundial has initiated organization of the Watershed Committee, which 
has expressed its enthusiasm in participating, as well as for the prospect of taking part in other
projects and the possibility of supporting the marketing of orchard production, since vegetables 
at the moment are for family and community consumption, and for the local market. 
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement.
It is evident that small organizations, represented by ADESCOS, within which Health
Committees or Water and Sanitation Committees for human consumption have been instituted,
as well as those recently constituted or in the process of being set up, have limited administrative 
capacity and minimal possibilities for sustainability.
2. Recommendations
In the aspect of organizational development, we recommend establishing the institutional
development and strengthening policy of the AGUA Project, which will make coordination and 
capacity for local management more potential within a strategic planning process, to include the 
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 11-3
establishment of training plans and associated technical assistance, social accounting,
administration, finance and in general management of local service companies (ADESCOS,
Health, Water and Sanitation Committees), which include development criteria for their creation 
or integration, according to local conditions. In this respect, prior to assisting a new entity as in 
the case of the Microwatershed Committees, we need to examine whether this function might not 
be better performed by the existing structures, at the time they are trained to broaden their 
resource management and their functional model is strengthened through integrating the
watershed or eco-system approaches into sustainability of the services provided. 
Nevertheless, the small turnover and formation of minimal cadres of local leadership are to be 
noted, which of course have facilitated the institution and organization of new entities and the
incorporation of more recent initiatives generated by the project or by the same process dynamic, 
for example: the Sub-watershed Committee, CDL and local Groups of producers. This limited
leadership may in the future create risks for the institutional sustainability that is being supported 
and the process of improving productivity that has been carried out up to now with surprising
results. 
Similarly, there were observed the lack of mechanisms and formal norms to allow application of 
the watershed approach over the long term. The foregoing requires attention to the formation of 
new leadership cadres, while at the same time there is application of institutional rules regarding 
leadership turnover and norms are defined or updated that include development of plans and
concrete actions benefiting the watersheds.
At the project level, we recommend establishing Guides or models for application of the
watershed approach in updating the operational norms (regulations) of the users’ organizations
and of course in supporting the process for study and approval of the watershed organizations’
legal framework.
One interesting aspect is the use and influence of the incentives that at present are being used for 
long-term purposes in the planting and management of orchards, which at the present time are
beginning to bear fruit. For this reason they are identifying alternatives for marketing and for
insertion of these products in export marketing chains (limón pérsico). This situation
demonstrates how incentives may be sustainable over time, once provision has been made for
policies, procedures and forms of re-use, which to date have not been established.
In this respect and by the use of inter-institutional coordination, it is beneficial to define the
policies, procedures and ways to reuse the incentives that may well be considered as
compensation in paying for environmental services benefiting the watershed.
Given the approach using multiple sources of support for community development that is being 
executed by Visión Mundial, we recommend defining at the Project AGUA level, the strategic
plan and mid-range management plan for orchards in combination with vegetables conditioned 
on market requirements and focused on production systems, in which the kinds of technology
and practices that are in the process of transfer or being experimented with are specified, which 
logically will include but not be limited to the present farming plans. 
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
11-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
In general, the sounding out of present marketing chains has its emphasis focused on identifying 
business opportunities and market niches at the international level, without establishing a direct 
and continuous marketing system through the identification of conventional local marketing
alternatives.
In this respect, we recommend the establishment of a marketing strategy and plan adapted to the 
local conditions of each supported group so that those groups, based on their organizational 
vision, would better develop and adjust their policies and procedures for marketing products and 
services. 
C. Microwatershed Management, Agricultural Diversification and Sustainable
Agroforestry
1. Findings and Conclusions
WV has developed a good package of improved technologies that are being promoted to project 
participants in the 5 microwatersheds. Demonstration farms are well organized and technologies 
are actively spreading among farmers in these communities. One of WV’s technicians was
recruited previously under GreenProject, a former USAID-financed effort, and was sent to
Honduras for training at LUPE Project sites. This has permitted a rapid insertion of technology
into the area. All farmers stated that they had farm plans which they followed. While WV has
organized 5 men’s groups with their respective male demonstration farmers and participants,
women are participating in at least one group with a female demonstration farmer. Women are
also involved in improved stove construction and environmental health aspects of the Project. In 
all, WV is training some 25 demonstration farmers that are having an outreach to more than 300 
producers (based on the April 2002 Progress Report). 
According to WV’s own assessment (Acceptability Index), the package including no-burn, 
minimum tillage and live barriers with vetiver grass is the most popular, as witnessed by the
broad application among project participants. This package is followed by several practices that, 
while gaining acceptance, have not been widely applied, including planting of fruit trees, live
fences, and live barriers with pineapple. Less accepted have been live barriers with madder de
cacao (Gliricidia sepium), organic insecticides and irrigation systems. Agroforestry applications 
include Laurel trees at wide spacings in farm fields, small woodlots of Laurel and Gliricidia 
sepium, and fruit trees being planted fairly ubiquitously throughout the community, with over
150,000 trees planted to date. Home gardens and demonstration parcels located near the house
are heavily promoted and are popular, especially with women. The Project is also promoting the 
raising of hair sheep (Nubian) as an alternative source of protein, another activity in which
women and youths are participating. The Project has also financed the construction of
washstands near water sources with their respective infiltration pits.
WV is promoting a promising subprogram for fruit tree production, and the Project has secured a 
link with the Persian Lime Producers Association for the provision of technical services and
marketing of future harvests. This is an important collaboration, as it takes the pressure off WV 
to continue the activity and links farmers directly with markets for their produce with no
paternalism on WV’s part.
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 11-5
On a note of concern, a total of some 1,000 trees of cashew were being planted as a live barrier at 
1-2 meter spacings by 4 farmers. This is not an acceptable practice, as these trees offer no value 
as a live barrier. Also, the sheer number of these trees, should they come into full production,
will produce an enormous quantity of cashew fruit and nuts which would far exceed any demand 
in the community where they are being planted. When asked, farmers had no concept of what
they would do with the production (nor has WV come up with a marketing plan). 
One interesting aspect of the work in the 5 microwatersheds is that WV and the community
organizations have signed an agreement with the rural police to control ingress of cattle into
treated parcels. Area cattlemen were advised of this policy and have not been pasturing their
cattle on these treated plots. Several communities are storing excess water in a large pond for
supplemental irrigation needs and as an aquaculture project (e.g. the community of Hoja de Sal). 
2. Recommendations
World Vision is doing a good job in their efforts to integrate consumption of water resources
with the rational land use in their tributary microwatersheds. The only recommendations are
related to efforts of agricultural diversification and the need to expand and strengthen women’s 
groups. 
Several of the agricultural diversification activities, including the Persian Lime and vegetable
production and promotion of other fruit trees, should be considered demonstration projects up
until which time that these techniques can be effectively assimilated by project participants.
While the Persian Lime Association represents a promising marketing outlet for the produce
coming out of participating communities, markets for other fruit trees (e.g. cashew) and
vegetable crops have not been developed and transport will always represent an important
challenge to the success of these subprojects. WV should pay close attention to the levels of
uptake and adoption of agricultural diversification and take data on the costs of agricultural
inputs, crop production levels, transport costs, and income from the sale of produce to determine 
the cost/benefit of these technical packages before promoting them widely throughout the project 
area. 
The Project should place more emphasis on the organization of women’s groups in the
promotion of home gardens, on-farm water conservation, and in their linkage with the marketing 
aspects of diversification. As the local market among communities in the 5 microwatersheds is
limited, new markets will need to be established (Guaymango, Cara Sucia, the highway); WV
should facilitate this process. 
D. Potable Water Systems, Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure
World Vision Infrastructure is evaluated here even though the funds for this infrastructure came 
through a different USAID/El Salvador project – PROSAGUAS, which was implemented
through the Health SO (as opposed to the Environmental SO for the AGUA Project).
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
11-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations and Detailed Field Notes
For the Infrastructure Sector, findings and conclusions are presented in a matrix along with their 
corresponding Recommendations. Following each matrix are more detailed technical notes from 
which the Findings, Conclusions are drawn.
One site was visited – Ojos de Sal, Ahuachapán
Findings and Conclusions Observations and Recommendations
World Vision Small Water Supply and Sanitation (One project visited)
A. Accomplishments
1. Surface water supplies are captured and protected to 
provide public potable water service of reasonable
quality for small communities
2. Household sanitation is addressed formally and
water’s links to public health strongly reinforced
a. This is a World Vision strength that is not a part of 
the AGUA mandate.
3. Water committees are formed that have operating
bylaws and are functioning 
4. Design and construction are for the most part of good 
quality
B. Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
1. System operation is lacking. Managing water flow 
into the system is an issue. 
a. Training and supervision for operators can be
improved, especially with respect to water
management.
2. Some design and Construction shortcomings
observed – e.g., exposed valves, unprotected
chlorinator, insufficient drainage at public tapstands
a. Technical criteria and oversight should prevent
these shortcomings. The systems should receive a
technical inspection and shortcomings addressed by 
the implementers
3. Collecting tariffs in system with public tapstands is 
problematic.
a. There are innovative ways to ensure that users pay 
for public water –i.e. tapstand operators,
neighborhood user groups that pay together and
manage their own affairs, etc. These should be
explored for future projects with public tapstands.
4. Non-equitable latrine program gives latrines free to
selected homes near surface water courses and
nothing to other project participants
a. The project could have worked harder (and should
in the future) with the community to come up with an 
equitable way for all who wanted them to receive
latrines given the budget constraints. 
Detailed Notes: World Vision Water and Sanitation Project
The Water Systems were built with funding from the USAID PROSAGUAS Project but
observations of the infrastructure are provided here nonetheless. 
The community supported the construction of the water system (seven public tapstands) through 
participation and with unskilled labor. No soak-away pits were constructed at the tapstands and 
latrines were given to selected families. Household pits were dug for solid waste disposal and
certain.
Site Assessment Documents
· None were reviewed
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 11-7
Designs
· The design for the small surface captation and public tapstand distribution was not available. 
The field visit, occurring as it did during the wet season, did not serve to confirm the critical 
dry-season situation that informs much of a water system design. 
Field Inspection
Construction was satisfactory for the most part. Shortcomings were observed as follows:
· Valves and the chlorination unit were not protected in boxes; the chlorination unit being
covered by plastic; chlorination was not effective because of excess flow entering the storage 
tank; wastewater at the public tapstands is pooling and causing muddy conditions.
Operator
· There is not an operator. Training was to be provided to a designated operator during
September 2002. The operator will serve as a volunteer.
· The chlorination system was not being correctly operated. The storage tank was overflowing 
while the chlorine was being administered based on the rate of water use by the populace, not 
by the rate that water was produced by the source.
Management Organization
· There were conflicting reports on payment of tariffs. There are over 80 families participating 
in the project but only 30 or so with easy access to the public tapstands. Collection of the 5 
colon/month charge is difficult.
· The community water committee is participating in the Regional Network of water
committees
E. Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Sustainable Use of Natural
Resources
1. Findings and Conclusons
Accomplishments
In the Visión Mundial project one notices the on-farm training and demonstrations in the
farmers’ fields, field days and learning excursions to the farms, housing plots and schools of the 
area, all of which have sensitized the local farmers and partners to the importance of protecting 
and conserving the environment, as well as exploiting natural resources for productive ends and 
for the social good (sanitation and potable water), by means of the micro-watershed management 
approach. 
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
11-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
The project has motivated the discovery of new ways to attain its sustainability; among those are 
the possibility of initiating and strengthening the marketing of harvests from the recently planted 
orchards and the latent requirement for organizational strengthening of the community support
structures (ADESCOS and their Water and Sanitation Committees, among others); at the same
time, the project has achieved the preparation of training materials in production planning, and 
management of established short-term plantations. Aspects such as functional organization,
administration, finance, post-harvest management, marketing, phytosanitary control of
plantations, and management are still limited.
The training process that has been carried out has been very effective in utilizing local materials 
for establishing and implementing farming plans, through participation of the farmers and their 
families, especially young people, who also have become involved in initiating soil and water
conservation practices, and initial preparation of terraces or seed beds; at the same time it was
possible to note the sensitization to the use of less contaminating pesticides. And also noteworthy 
is the involvement of women (wives and daughters of the producers) in management of kitchen 
gardens, whose production is used directly for consumption. In the area where VISION
MUNDIAL is working, one noticed at the same time the management and maintenance of two￾purpose goats (milk and meat) and fishponds in the process of construction. 
In the homes of the families served in the micro-watershed Hoja de Sal, one could see the
separation and management of family compost heaps, an activity that the local partners said had 
been developed in the Schools they attended. One fundamental aspect that has contributed to the 
level of development of the educational and training activities, could be directly connected to the 
location, nearness and relation between the inhabitants of the micro-watershed.
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
Project AGUA has had a limited coverage in environmental education for all the implementers’ 
technicians; in the exchange and training opportunities between representatives and members of 
the implementers, the materials utilized for the most part belong to Project AGUA, those which 
to date do not show a process of validation and systematization concerning their applicability and 
adjustment to local needs. 
2. Recommendations
It is recommended that Project AGUA provide training opportunities for all personnel in aspects 
of environmental education and the way it may be applied to each component.
We recommend consideration of specialized training in the form of in-service training, 
exchanges between implementers or else through processes of on-the-job technical assistance to 
improve the environmental education process. At the same time, the watershed approach should 
be strengthened in the exploitation, conservation and protection of the watershed’s water and soil 
resources. 
To consolidate the preparation and publishing process for educational materials, the needs of the 
target population should be addressed, and it would be beneficial to consider a process of
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 11-9
validation prior to their issuance in order to incorporate pertinent adjustments so that then the
results and impact achieved should be systematized. 
It is advisable to determine the plan of each instruction site, so that starting from its strategic
vision would allow determination of the action plans to be carried out at the School level.
We recommend expanding resource management capabilities, along with the coordination and
provision of quality local services in the sites of instruction, Water and Sanitation Committees,
Watershed Committees and other organizations that may contribute to their institutionalization, 
through training and technical assistance plans and in resources that allow continuity of functions 
at the level of the region served. 
Support in the issuance of ordinances and in establishing mechanisms of application, follow-up 
and participative control of local regulations.
We recommend expanding resource management capabilities, along with coordination and
provision of local services through establishment of short-term Business and Marketing Plans
with strategic focuses, in which anticipated results would be determined a priori, with their
respective contingency analyses, in order to confront deviations or risk effects. 
It is advisable to increase local capabilities for follow-up and monitoring of the quality of
services provided through training in project management, as well as the suggested Business and 
Marketing Plan.
We recommend defining and broadening the managerial capacity of the local marketing
enterprise, and supporting the producers through means of specialization and business influence 
that is socially responsible with the environment, in which liberalization of training in direction 
and management of agribusiness is fundamental, as well as in the functional watershed approach 
and environmental education.
We recommend focusing environmental education as a transverse axis through all the project
components, the same as the gender aspect, with which they will be an integral part of the other 
activities to be implemented; at the same time we recommend establishing a methodology for
planning and follow-up that is integrated into all the project components. 
F. Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of
Water Resources
World Vision has done an admirable job of developing and integrated water resources
management project using the 5 microwatersheds. This setting is a nearly perfect example of
how AGUA objectives should be met. Microwatershed committees have been established for
each of the five areas, with one representative of each participating in a project steering
committee. Also, microwatershed management plans were prepared for each of the five project 
sites, using strategic criteria to select priority intervention sites and techniques, including land
capability classifications, current land use and the delimitation of areas in land use conflict. 
Annex 11: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
11-10El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
World Vision has the most comprehensive monitoring system of all AGUA Implementers. An
environmental health and socioeconomic baseline was prepared on which WV is monitoring
indicators appropriate to USAID’s performance indicators and others not now tracked by
USAID. Furthermore, WV is taking periodic water samples of streams that contribute to water
systems to determine levels of fecal contamination and at the household level to determine the
efficacy of chlorination. Finally, WV’s Project Coordinator has field tested an innovative survey 
instrument, an “Acceptability Index”, to determine the level of acceptance and adoption of those 
improved agricultural practices being promoted under the Project. It is suggested that WV’s
experience in monitoring be shared wit the other SO4/AGUA Implementers as a measure of
comparison of how an impact monitoring program can be implemented. 
Finally, WV should seek to formalize its policy for the inclusion of the environmental costs of
producing water for both potable water systems and supplemental irrigation into the water fee
structures for all communities. As community potable water systems have both household
connections and public tapstands, this presents a challenge as to how to charge water consumers 
who currently do not pay for accessing water at tapstands while most of those with household 
connections do. WV should analyze the use of tapstand operators, neighborhood user groups or 
other alternatives that provide a basis for tapstands users to pay their fair share for potable water 
service.
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of Catholic Relief Services
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 12-1
This annex provides an overview of the results of the evaluation of SO4/AGUA activities carried 
out by Catholic Relief Services (CRS). This profile provides the Evaluation Team’s findings,
conclusions and recommendations for each of the principal activity areas covered by CRS in the 
Corinto area of Morazán Department. CRS is responsible for implementation of the
approximately 2.6% of all project activities as calculated from the total of USAID budget for
SO4/AGUA. CRS began implementation of the activities included under its cooperative 
agreement with USAID in mid-2000. Its “Vegetable and Fruit Production and Marketing
Project” is distributed among three principal components. The Sustainable Vegetable and Fruit 
Production component includes activities related to the development of irrigation infrastructure, 
expanded area dedicated to vegetable and fruit production, improved land preparation practices
and diversified cropping strategies, integrated pest management and improved agricultural
practice. The Improved Post-Harvest Management component emphasizes the cleaning and
packaging of vegetables and fruits for market in order to achieve higher prices, with the
development of packing centers and a marketing site in the Corinto market. The Entrepreneurial 
Organization and Competitiveness component proposes the establishment of a formal farmer￾owned cooperative for production and marketing of produce, with a legal trademark and
established buyers for the cooperative’s produce. This annex has been prepared based on the
analysis of relevant documentation, interviews with CRS staff, and the results of the field visits 
to project sites and meetings with participating local organizations and beneficiaries.15
A. General Overview of Implementation 
The CRS project is implementing well farmers have expressed satisfaction with their
participation, with men handling most of the productive aspects, and women taking the lead in
post-harvest packaging and marketing of produce. The program includes innovative drip
irrigation and water diversion (mini-dams) technologies. The cooperative, with CRS assistance, 
has secured an apparently limitless market for their produce with a supermarket chain in San
Miguel. Problems with access may pose problems for getting produce to market during the wet 
season. CRS has exceeded its counterpart funding level by 13% and intends to continue
supporting the project with its matching funds after USAID funds are fully expended.
Approximately 77% of USAID funds had been expended at the time of the evaluation. All
USAID and counterpart funds are invested in agricultural diversification investments.
FUNDAMUNI collaborates in the watersheds in the general area of the CRS outreach areas with 
the targeting of soil and water conservation practices and agroforestry and some reforestation 
activities. 
B. Decentralization and Local Management Capability Development
1. Findings and Conclusions
Accomplishments
The groups of farmers assisted have been integrated by every community served and are
coordinating their plans for planting and marketing the production of vegetables in a phased way; 
 
15 See also Annex 4, Project Site Visits: Agenda and Summary Field Notes; Annex 5, List of Persons and Organizations 
Contacted during the Evaluation; and Annex 7, List of Documents Reviewed for the Evaluation.
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of Catholic Relief Services
12-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
at the same time they are receiving technical assistance in the operation of their working groups, 
post-harvest handling, as well as in construction and operation of collecting centers, and in
improved irrigation methods. 
The CRS support has been substantive in the organization and functioning of the Cooperative
Society of Corinto Organic Vegetable Growers [la Sociedad Cooperativa de Productores de
Hortalizas Orgánicas de Corinto] (PHOC) which has increased the marketed volume of its
affiliated farmers’ production by 46 %, has entered into contracts for construction of the planned 
Packing Centers and for a sales outlet for products in the Mercado Municipal de Corinto, for
which it obtained support from the Municipal Council. In the packing centers there were
contributions of local equipment and materials contributed by the farmers served, and one could 
see the level of close coordination with the Sociedad Cooperativa de Ahorro y Crédito de
Corinto, which has primarily financed vegetable producers.
The planning capability of PHOC has been increased, since it has received support in defining its 
annual business plan within a strategic perspective, while at the same time the establishment of
basic financial accounting records, and the number of stockholders of the Sociedad Cooperativa 
has been enlarged.
In the marketing aspect, it was possible to increase demand by the Despensa de Don Juan and 
updating the demand of supermarkets in the eastern zone preliminarily has been given technical 
assistance.
A noteworthy achievement is having positioned the Corinto producers’ brand and increased
demand, an aspect that demonstrates the growing acceptance and demand for those products, and 
at the same time the possible increase in the clients portfolio.
The project is supporting the growth and operation of drip irrigation users’ groups, which in
some cases possess technical advice for the design and development of fixed and portable
reservoirs, as well as for drip irrigation systems that operate basically by agreement and by the 
local rules of the farmers, in which the conservation of the watershed has not been given
systematic consideration.
In conclusion, decentralization of water systems constructed and rehabilitated by the project, has 
improved access to water for the user population. The small organizations have been the least
strengthened; however they have expanded their local experience in solving requirements for
inputs for water chlorination, as well as in allocating resources for community projects.
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
It is obvious that small organizations, represented by ADESCOS, within which Water
Committees for human consumption have been instituted, as well as those recently formed or in 
the process of formation (Drip Irrigation Users Groups) have limited administrative capability,
managerial capacity and minimal possibilities for sustainability. At the same time those
considered more advanced and formalized (PHOC) are focused on the short term, since there is 
an absence of mid-term and long-term business development and organizational operation plans, 
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 12-3
as well as mechanisms for adjusting to certain farmers’ possible losses in times of generalized 
price drops; to date, however, the majority of production has been marketed during times of good 
prices.
2. Recommendations
In the matter of organizational development, we recommend establishing the AGUA Project
institutional development and strengthening policy, which vitalizes the coordination and
capability of local management, within a strategic planning process, which includes the
definition of training and associated technical assistance plans, social accounting, administration, 
finance and in supervisory management for the local service companies (PHOC and irrigation
users’ groups), as well as assistance criteria for creating or strengthening them, according to local 
conditions. In this respect, prior to assisting a new entity as in the case of the Micro-watershed 
Committees, we need to examine whether this function might not be better performed by the
existing structures, at the time when they are trained to broaden their resource management and 
their functional model is strengthened through integrating the watershed or eco-system 
approaches.
At the same time, the small turnover and structure of minimal cadres of local leadership is
evident, which of course have facilitated the institution and organization of new entities, and the 
incorporation of more recent initiatives given impetus by the project or by the same processes
dynamic, for example: Sub-watershed Committee, CDL and Local Producers’ Groups. This
limited leadership may pose a future risk for the institutional sustainability that is being
supported, and the process for improvement of productivity that to date has been carried out with 
surprising results.
We recommend the adaptation of the operational norms that vitalize the short and long term
application of the watershed approach. The foregoing considerations demand attention to the
formation of new leadership, while at the same time there should be application of the
institutional rules relative to the turnover of leadership.
The majority of the marketing processes established are consistent with the logic of marketing
fresh vegetables in a phased manner16 especially, with an incipient tendency in the last half of the 
year to develop marketing of the provisioning of inputs and the local production of short cycle
vegetable plantings. In general, marketing emphasis is focused on satisfying the demand of one 
single wholesale purchaser and one point of sale at the municipal level on a temporary basis (two 
days each week), without there being a direct and continuous marketing system with more clients 
at the regional and national levels.
In this respect, we recommend establishing an overall and specific marketing strategy and plan
adapted to the local conditions of each organization supported in the eastern region so that based 
on their organizational vision, they may better develop and adjust their policies and procedures 
for marketing products and services. It is obvious that in the process of applying their strategy
and marketing plan they will need assistance in their respective establishment and operation.
 
16 As support, they have programming of planting and management of vegetable crops for the local market and primarily for 
one purchaser (Despensa de Don Juan). 
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of Catholic Relief Services
12-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
Given the focus of multiple participants on development of extension processes, it is
advantageous that each group of producers served should have its phased production plan based 
on the requirements of the market and focused on production systems, in which the kind of
technology and practices being transferred and experimented with would be described, which
logically would include but not be limited to each producer’s actual farming plans.
One interesting aspect concerning the relation with farmers served by FUNDAMUNI, is the use 
and influence of incentives that for the moment are utilized for short-term purposes, for example: 
they satisfy the immediate needs (plastic sheets, fertilizer, seeds, among others) of the local
partners. While other implementers have supported their use in the acquisition of agricultural
inputs for planting and managing vegetables, very few examples relate to the installation of
irrigation systems and soil and water conservation works; this demonstrates how the incentives 
may be sustainable over time, once provision has been made for policies, procedures and ways to 
re-use them, which up to now have not been established.
In this respect and through the use of inter.-institutional coordination, we recommend defining
the policies, procedures and ways to re-use the incentives that well may be considered as
compensation in paying for environmental services that benefit the watersheds served by the
project.
C. Horticulture Production Technologies and Marketing 
As of June 2002, the CRS program had already met most of its agreed upon performance
indicators. Only a few indicators are lagging, including the total number of participants (at 61% 
of the target of 242 producers) and in its intended quota of women’s membership in the PHOC 
cooperative (at only 32% of the intended target of 87 participants).
1. Findings and Conclusions
CRS’ approach has concentrated on training of producers in intensified horticulture using drip
and low-head sprinkler irrigation on hillside land parcels. Some producers are using 22,000-liter 
polyethylene water storage tanks to provide water during dry periods, these being filled from
springs, while innovative in-stream mini-dams have been constructed to facilitate transfer of
water to parcels located near the stream banks. Farmers are provided training through
demonstration farmers who use their own parcels as training grounds. CRS has intensively
trained some 15 “communal producers” (demonstration farmers) and 5 marketing promoters.
There are currently 20 hectares of land under intensive irrigated horticulture. CRS is promoting 
staggered production of 5 principal vegetables and fruits which are the most popular at San
Miguel markets (including tomato, zucchini, cucumber, scallions and bell pepper), all based on a 
farm plan used by each of the producers. CRS provides plant materials, fertilizers, biocides and 
transport for produce to markets in Corinto and San Miguel, essentially facilitating all aspects of 
inputs and outputs during these initial stages of the project. Price information is also provided by 
CRS technicians as a measure to plan plantings and harvests to target the best price. Farmers
outside of the current membership have expressed interest to participate in the technical
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 12-5
assistance project—an indicator that the strategies and practices being promoted have the
potential to spread. 
The PHOC cooperative has established its own trademark (still in the process of legal registry) 
and packages being delivered to markets bear a preliminary label representing the cooperative. 
PHOC sells shares in the cooperative and currently some 60 producers have purchased shares. A 
credit fund has been established as part of a communal savings and credit bank; farmers are
repaying with a delinquency rate of about 15%, which is on the average with this type of project 
in the Central American region. CRS is developing the management and administration skills of 
certain members so that the cooperative can be run as a modern business. Two packing centers 
have been established at homes of farmer leaders. These centers serve as a central location for 
receiving, cleaning, grading and packaging produce of participating farmers for transfer to
supermarkets in San Miguel. Produce that does not meet the quality standards for the
supermarket chain are sold at the PHOC stand in Corinto’s central market. Produce of each
farmer is logged at the packing centers so that payments received from markets can then be paid 
accordingly. 
About 70% of the produce goes to the supermarket chain, while the balance is directed to the
Corinto market. The cooperative is currently grossing about US$6,000/month. The Dispensa de 
Don Juan supermarket chain, with three stores in San Miguel, is pleased with the quality and
presentation of the products and has offered to buy all the vegetables and fruits that the
cooperative can produce to offset its importations from Guatemala. This is an important
accomplishment, as the producers’ products should have a guaranteed market. Still, dependence 
on a single market is dangerous as price manipulation is always a risk. 
FUNDAMUNI is coordinating with CRS farmers to include aspects of soil and water
conservation, reforestation and agroforestry in their farm plans. However, field visits indicated
that there was evidence of some disconnection between the agricultural diversification and
marketing project and efforts of watershed management. For instance, microwatersheds that
produce surface water being tapped for irrigation of horticultural parcels (in particular, the mini￾dam project visited in Quebrada Honda) was being farmed under traditional methods of slash and 
burn with no conservation measures and that forests were still being cleared on high-risk steeply 
sloping land for grain crops. This puts at risk the investments being made in the irrigation
infrastructure. Also, several instances of planting project trees under the shade of other trees on 
participating farmers’ land was observed—perhaps evidence of pressure to meet numeric goals 
of trees planted, but defeating the objective of reforestation in areas in need of recuperation. 
The Evaluation Team has concerns on two levels. The first is the fact that many of the parcels
being farmed for horticulture are located in areas of poor access, where roads become impassible 
with rains. This may limit the ability to get perishable produce to market at scheduled times,
result in delays and transport difficulties that may damage and reduce the value (price paid) for 
the produce and harm the relation between the cooperative and their clients. On the other hand, 
CRS is providing nearly all inputs to producers, including the provision of equipment, plant
materials, and transport and marketing of produce. CRS is to present the cooperative with a
brand new refrigerated truck within the next month (on a no-cost loan basis) to haul produce to 
market. It is not clear what the “exit strategy” is for CRS and how and when technical and
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of Catholic Relief Services
12-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
material assistance will be reduced or completed. Hence, there is a risk that the operation may be 
too dependent on CRS and could disintegrate once project assistance is completed. It is not clear 
if CRS is taking sufficient data on the value/costs of all inputs going into the Project at the level 
of all farmers. It is understandable that while such projects are in their demonstration stages,
certain additional “development costs” will be required, it is necessary to calculate the
cost/benefit of investments at the farm, as well as the cooperative level to determine if the
activities can be sustained on economic grounds. 
2. Recommendations 
CRS should be vigilant of creating a dependency on the part of project beneficiaries on CRS
technicians’ well-intentioned provision of nearly all goods and services necessary to implement 
the project to date. The diversification and marketing activities should be considered
demonstration projects until at which time their adoption and successful application by
participating farmers can be proven. Hence, CRS should make an effort to further develop its
promotion/extension approach to include an “exit strategy” in order to steer outreach efforts
towards full adoption of the technological packages and the assumption of debt for all inputs by 
participating farm families and reduction (and eventual completion) of support from the Project. 
CRS should intensify its efforts to organize more women’s groups, not only to tend to the
packaging and marketing of produce for the cooperative, but also to promote soil and water
conservation for home gardens and linkages with microwatershed management. 
CRS should ensure that it is monitoring the value/costs of all inputs to the subprojects, including 
the time of its technicians, materials and agricultural inputs, transport of agricultural inputs and 
produce to and from markets, whether these are in-kind or purchased directly. A cost/benefit
analysis should be performed for each participating farmer, and for the cooperative as a whole. It 
should be understood that some of the farms will not become cost-effective and can not (and
should not) be sustained. CRS should then analyze the location of some of the farms included in 
its project and ascertain if these participants can, in reality, sustain horticulture production
considering their location and road access. As there is a risk of promoting horticulture in areas
that, under some climatic circumstances, cannot meet market obligations in time and quality, it 
may be necessary to cut some farmers from the project, as the cost/benefit of their activity will
not be justified.
The selection of techniques and priority locations for project activities could be improved by
placing more emphasis on the concepts and principles of microwatershed management, including 
working with soil and water conservation, agroforestry and reforestation in strategic locations of
microwatersheds that produce water for irrigation. This would entail better use of strategic
planning techniques during diagnostic studies (and a reassessment of subprojects currently under 
implementation) to ensure that those areas treated are contributing to water resources
improvements related to the improvement and sustainability of irrigation sources (tributary
microwatersheds). 
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 12-7
D. Infrastructure
Infrastructure observed consisted of two concrete storage tanks for irrigation water. Other
Evaluation Team Members visited small reservoirs created by building small, dams that can be 
adjusted and dismantled to control water storage or to pass high flows. 
1. Findings and Conclusions
Storage tanks are very basic in their construction and because they serve to store water for
irrigation only, technical standards for their design and construction are basic. There are no
observations of note on these tanks.
The dams built across perennial watercourses are new and have not yet been put to the test
during high flow periods. These dams, even when dismantled often retain permanent support
structures in the stream beds. The survival of these permanent in-stream structures during high
flow episodes (which often move large boulders) is still in question.
2. Recommendations
Monitor the performance of the dams during high flow episodes and evaluate the designs and
construction of the dams, capturing lessons learned and best practices.
E. Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Sustainable Use of Natural
Resources
1. Findings and Conclusions
Accomplishments
At the CRS project level, there are a number of noteworthy accomplishments: training and 
demonstrations on the farmers’ fields, in the storage centers, field days and learning tours that 
have sensitized the farmers and local partners to the importance of protecting and conserving the 
environment, as well as to using natural resources for productive and commercial purposes, 
through formal organization and establishment of post-harvest treatment and packing 
mechanisms.
The Project has stimulated the examination of new ways to attain its sustainability, among which 
are the possible drilling of wells and the requirement for organizational strengthening of the 
Sociedad Cooperativa that is receiving assistance; also it has managed to prepare training 
materials for phased production, management of post-harvest production and marketing. The 
administrative, financial and managerial aspects still are limited.
Civic willingness and participation have been broadened at the local level, along with
possibilities of maintaining their impact through the supported radio media, as well as by the
strengthening process and the impulse toward sustainability of the organizations being
sponsored.
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of Catholic Relief Services
12-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
The processes of training and technical assistance carried out have been very effective in the use 
of local materials for the establishment and operation of drip irrigation systems that to date have 
been handled by the farmers and their families, mainly with the participation of young people
who also have been involved in implementing soil and water conservation practices, initially in 
preparation of terraces or seed beds in the process of design, while at the same time increased 
sensitivity has been shown to the use of less contaminating pesticides. This is in addition to the 
involvement of the producers’ women (wives and daughters) in the packing sheds, which also
demonstrates a beneficial adoption of post-harvest practices.
However, the materials produced require a process of validation and systematization centered on 
local requirements and expectations, while at the same time there has been an analysis of the
benefit of focusing environmental education as a transverse axis through the project components. 
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
The AGUA Project has had limited coverage in environmental education for all the
implementers’ technicians; this is also true for exchange and training opportunities between
representatives and members of the AGUA implementers.
2. Recommendations
It is recommended that the Project provide opportunities for training all personnel in aspects of
environmental education and the way it may be applied to each component.
We recommend considering specialized training in the form of in-service training, exchanges
between the implementers or else through processes of on-the-job technical assistance to
improve the processes of environmental education. It would be interesting to theorize about the
effectiveness and impact of the PHOC process, and the redemption of the best practices adopted 
at the organization, production and marketing levels. At the same time the watershed approach
should be strengthened in exploitation, conservation and protection of the watershed’s water and 
soil resources.
To consolidate the preparation and publishing process for the educational materials, the needs of 
the target population should be addressed, and it is desirable that those materials should have a 
process of validation prior to their issuance in order to incorporate pertinent adjustments, and
then the results and impact achieved should be systematized. 
We recommend encouraging the broadening of resource management capabilities, coordination
and provision of local marketing services for production beyond vegetables, to include the
provision of agricultural inputs and, in a second phase, fruit trees and the products of the local
agro-industry, for which reason it is beneficial to update and broaden the present Business and 
Marketing Plan with a strategic focus, in which the results expected are determined intuitively, 
with their respective contingency analyses in order to confront deviations or risk effects.
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of World Vision
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 12-9
It is beneficial to increase local capabilities for follow-up, monitoring and periodic evaluation of 
the quality and effectiveness of services provided through training in project management and
follow-up, as well as in the Business and Marketing Plan. 
In the same way, it is desirable to improve and broaden the capability of the venture providing 
marketing and support to the producers, by means of business influence that is socially
responsible toward the environment, in which culmination of the formation of agribusinesses in 
direction and management is fundamental, with the functional watershed and environmental
education focuses.
We recommend focusing environmental education as a transverse axis through all the project
components, the same as is the case with the gender aspect, with which they will be an integral
part of the other activities to be implemented; at the same time we recommend establishing a
methodology for planning and follow-up that is integrated into all the project components.
F. Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of
Water Resources
The CRS project focuses on the organization of rural producers in a cooperative and their
training to diversify their agricultural strategies and crop mixes in order to improve income
generation at the farm level. While these activities appear promising, they should be considered 
in a demonstration mode up and until which time that farmers (both men and women)
demonstrate their adoption of both technical and administrative aspects of the models being
promoted. 
CRS has not been as active in promoting watershed management concepts as part of its overall
strategy. While FUNDAMUNI is active in the same outreach areas in promoting soil and water 
conservation, reforestation and agroforestry, in many instances these activities are being
promoted separately and not being integrated conceptually or physically with agricultural
diversification activities. These actions were not included in a cohesive way in CRS’ cooperative 
agreement with USAID. Hence, microwatershed management is not a thrust of the project
strategy and project sponsors may be missing such opportunities in terms of using the leverage of 
sustaining water systems for irrigated agriculture to sustained management of their tributary
watersheds. This is in conflict with the overall objectives of the SO4/AGUA Activity and
represents a strategic planning weakness on the part of both CRS and USAID. CRS should
reaffirm the linkage of the provision of water resources to horticultural production to
microwatershed management. This would entail improved strategic planning and diagnostic
analyses to prioritize geographic areas and techniques that contribute to improvement of
watershed conditions as a necessary component to integrated water resources management. CRS, 
in coordination with FUNDAMUNI, should attempt the establishment of several model
microwatershed subproject areas where all of its activities, including those areas served by mini￾dams and other natural water sources for irrigated horticulture and possibly including linkages to 
the potable water and environmental health initiatives that are also underway in several of the
communities (in Quebrada Honda there is a potable water project which was supported by the
AGUA Activity), are integrated with the principles of watershed management. 
Annex 12: Evaluation Profile of Catholic Relief Services
12-10El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
On the aspect of environmental impact, it was noted that no assessment was carried out to
determine the impact of the water diversions created by the mini-dam projects (currently there
are several of theses structures in use). Apparently, no systematic analysis was performed on the 
impacts to downstream users of the water in these streams or its ecological impacts. While the
Evaluation Team did not determine if such impacts are occurring, the fact that they were not
analyzed is in conflict with the provisions of the AGUA Initial Environmental Examination
(IEE). Also, intensified horticulture is being promoted on run-of-stream parcels which encroach 
within a few feet of the stream banks. This is in current violation of provisions of the National
Environmental Law. While basic clearances may have been obtained that satisfy MARN, no
adequate environmental impact assessments were performed for determining impacts of
downstream users. No uniform guidelines were followed and each mini-dam subproject was
designed on its own merits based primarily on the availability of water resources and with
limited consideration of environmental factors. It is noted here, however, that USAID did not
present CRS with necessary guidelines, even as this was indicated in the IEE. 
In terms of AGUA, CRS’ current monitoring and evaluation system is limited to the counting of 
project outputs in terms of established performance indicators. Several of its indicators can be
used as impact indicators (improvements in per-land-unit-area for crop yields, on-farm income, 
% of post-harvest crop losses, along with their respective comparisons with non-project farm
units). As the cost/benefit of project interventions is an important determinant in the
sustainability of horticulture production and marketing, indicators should be established and
monitored for all participating farmers and the cooperative as a whole. Several alternative
indicators could be added to link project activities with the impact on water resources (see Table 
3.7 in the main evaluation report for some alternatives to consider). 
Also, there is no evidence that farmers have discussed or considered a policy of paying the
environmental costs of the water that they are redirecting from area streams and springs (e.g.
mini-dams). CRS’ project approach should include the adoption of a policy to incorporate the
costs of environmental services in fees charged for irrigation systems (where these may involve 
use of water from surface streams and/or wells), and for potable water systems as applicable.
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 13-1
The annex provides an overview of the results of the evaluation of SO4/AGUA activities carried 
out by the consortium made up of the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation and 
the Salvadoran Chamber of Agriculture, Livestock and Agroindustry (IICA/CAMAGRO). This
profile provides the Evaluation Team’s findings, conclusions and recommendations for each of
the principal activity areas covered by IICA/CAMAGRO in Ahuachapán Sur, with reference to 
its outreach areas in the upper watershed of the Rio Lempa (tributary to the Cerrón Grande
Hydroelectric Project) under the Environmental Program of El Salvador (PAES).
IICA/CAMAGRO is responsible for implementation of the approximately 2.6% of all project
activities as calculated from the total of USAID budget for SO4/AGUA. IICA/CAMAGRO
began implementation of the activities included under its cooperative agreement with USAID in 
early 2001. Its “Program for Entrepreneurial Management Services in Marketing Technology” 
(SAGEM) is composed of four activity areas: i) strengthening of CAMAGRO’s capacity as a
provider of services to Salvadoran agricultural, livestock and agroindustry organizations; ii)
provision of marketing information to producers to facilitate improved commerce activity; iii)
training to improve management capacity of first-level organizations to improve the marketing of 
agricultural products; and iv) training to first-level organizations in improved agricultural
technologies to fulfill market demand and sustainably manage natural resources. This annex has 
been prepared based on the analysis of relevant documentation, interviews with
IICA/CAMAGRO staff, and the results of the field visits to project sites and meetings with
participating local organizations and beneficiaries.17
A. General Overview of Implementation 
While the most recent information on performance indicators was not made available,
IICA/CAMAGRO appears to be on its way to achieving its outreach targets with its program of
Entrepreneurial Management Services in Marketing and Technology.18 The project has
contributed, along with IICA counterpart funds, to the establishment and strengthening of the
Salvadoran Chamber of Agriculture, Livestock and Agroindustry (CAMAGRO). Most of the
project outreach was dedicated to the PAES outreach area already served by under an
IICA/CATIE program financed by the Inter-American Development Bank in the watershed of
the Cerrón Grande Hydroproject. Producers in Ahuachapán Sur (Guymango and San Pedro
Puxtla) within the AGUA outreach area also received training in cooperative purchase of
agricultural supplies, marketing of produce and information on agricultural commodity prices.
As of June 2002, IICA/CAMAGRO was fully meeting its counterpart contributions agreed to 
under its cooperative agreement with USAID. 
 
17 See also Annex 4, Project Site Visits: Agenda and Summary Field Notes; Annex 5, List of Persons and Organizations 
Contacted during the Evaluation; and Annex 7, List of Documents Reviewed for the Evaluation.
18 This assessment is made based on the content of the Second Semester Report dated July 2001 and interviews with project 
staff. The Evaluation Team did not visit PAES outreach areas where much of the work under the cooperative agreement was 
carried out, and only one project outreach site of IICA/CAMAGRO was visited in Ahuachapán Sur.
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
13-2 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
B. Decentralization and Local Management Capability Development
1. Findings and Conclusions
Accomplishments
The groups of farmers receiving assistance are integrated at the local level into Production and 
Marketing Committees (integral groups of producers and ADESCOS) and into Community
Development Associations (ADESCOS) of the second level (Association of ADESCOS and
municipal representatives, known as the Producers’ Association [Asociación de Productores]). 
They receive technical assistance for establishing and developing farming plans, through support 
of the producers in liaison with them and the SalvaNATURA technicians, Ayuda en Acción and 
of the PAES, which through incentive funds are supporting development of agro-forestry 
activities and soil and water conservation works, as well as the planting of short-cycle vegetables 
in phased sowing plans, and orchards and forests in a manner combined with vegetables. At the 
same time, the SEGEM has assisted installation and operation of small-scale nurseries in which 
vegetable seedlings are produced. 
It is felt that through the project’s approach at least four second-level organizations19 have been 
strengthened by the project, among them: CAMAGRO, APAGUA, APAGUAZAPA and the
Texispulco Production and Marketing Committee [Comité de Producción y Comercialización de
Texispulco] (formerly CODEL-San Pedro Puxtla), and have received marketing and technology
services provided by the SEGEM. Some 26 first-level organizations (ADESCOS) are those
whose activities include agricultural production; for others, in order to execute their activities,
Committees are being organized for production, marketing, ecology, incentives and credit. 
In practice, forecasting activities have been executed in the proposal submitted to USAID for its 
consideration.
The ADESCOS have legal personality and recognition at the institutional level, which has
allowed them to allocate community development projects, as well as projects for the
environment, health, education, social infrastructure investment (repair of farm-to-market roads
and feeder roads) benefiting the community, and those of a family nature (execution of plans for 
family properties), without there being much direct impact on administrative or sustainability
capacity of the local first-level organizations and some of the second level that are in the process 
of formation; economic benefits received by the marketing process to date have been of more
benefit to the partners, than for sustainability of the mechanism being formed. To date, in the
case of Texispulco, although it has defined charges for the provisioning of inputs it does not have 
the procedures and registers to support its operation.
In the aspect of marketing at the level of second-level organizations, the knowledge of input
providers has been broadened; price records are kept of the principal inputs and products
marketed, as well as in the identification of business “opportunities” (for example: purchase of
 
19 Second-level organizations—owing to change in the operational strategy for motivating sustainable models, the integration of 
first-level organizations has been instituted (generally ADESCOS and municipal representatives) into municipal
organizations of the second level, oriented to providing services emphasizing the marketing of agricultural inputs and
products.
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 13-3
sulphate in the Agricultural Exchange), which have been usefully exploited, while the farmers
receive price information in an incidental way during coordination or training meetings.
In a generalized way, the regular staff of PAES and CENTA technicians has been trained in
aspects of agribusiness, as have members of the Councils of Administration and Production and 
Marketing Committee (CPC) in business association, internal control, agribusiness and strategic 
planning.
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
It is evident that small organizations, represented by ADESCOS and groups of farmers, within
which the Production and Marketing Committees have been instituted or reorganized, have
limited administrative capacity and minimal possibilities for sustainability.
2. Recommendations
In the aspect of organizational development, we recommend establishing the institutional
development and strengthening policy of the AGUA Project, which will make coordination and 
capacity for local management have greater potential within a strategic planning process, to
include the establishment of training plans and associated technical assistance, social accounting, 
administration, finance and in general management of local service companies (Production and 
Marketing Committees and Boards of the first-level ADESCOS, as well as organizations of the 
second level), which include development criteria for their creation or integration according to
local conditions, including the aspect of organization based on specialization of production for
the first-level organizations and on marketing for the second-level organizations.
Most of the marketing processes established are consistent with the logic of provisioning and
marketing inputs and seasonal agricultural products20 primarily, with an incipient tendency in the 
last half year to develop the marketing of short-cycle vegetables in a phased form subject for the 
most part to the rainy season. In general the marketing emphasis is focused on identifying
opportunities for doing business and points of sale at the municipal level and in a temporary way, 
without establishing a direct and continuous marketing system; marketing alternatives to the
local and conventional markets have not been identified, nor has packing been improved or any 
brand been established.
In this respect, we recommend establishing a global and particular marketing strategy and plan
adapted to the local conditions of each group receiving assistance so that it would be they who, 
based on their organizational vision, would better develop and adjust their policies and
procedures for marketing their products and services. It is obvious that in the process of applying 
their strategy and marketing plan, they will require support in their respective establishment and 
operation. 
Similarly, we noted that the watershed approach was missing in the planning and management 
processes for the business initiatives being supported. What has been said previously calls for
 
20 Of the 60 commercial links established as of December 31, 2001, 54 correspond to producers of basic grains, 2 of vegetables 
and 4 of papaya. 
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
13-4 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
attention to the formation of new leadership cadres, while at the same time norms should be
determined or put into effect that include the development of plans and concrete actions relating 
to the watersheds that are used in the productive processes being instituted.
Given the multiple participant approach in developing the extension processes it is desirable that 
each group of producers to be served should have its own phased production plan based on the 
requirements of the market and with an approach to production systems in which there is
specified the kind of technology and practices being transferred and being experimented with,
that logically would include, but not be limited to, the present farming plans, which must be
complemented with the Business Plans and Marketing Plans of the groups being served..
One interesting aspect is the present use and impact of the incentives which at the moment are
used for short-term objectives in crop planting and management or otherwise in the provision of 
materials for repairing animal shelters, and in some cases initiatives for diversification of mixed 
production between orchards and short-cycle vegetables, combined with works for soil and water 
conservation.
In this respect and through the use of inter.-institutional coordination, we believe it is useful to 
define the policies, procedures and ways to re-use the incentives that may very well be focused 
on offsetting payment for environmental services that benefit the watershed.
C. Horticulture Production Technologies and Marketing 
IICA/CAMAGRO has provided technical services to a number of producer organizations in the 
PAES and AGUA project outreach areas. 
1. Findings and Conclusions
SAGEM has facilitated strengthening of CAMAGRO through its participation in project
activities. SAGEM’s outreach has also helped disseminate the name of CAMAGRO among
producer organizations, further improving its ability to attract membership. IICA/CAMAGRO’s 
approach under SAGEM primarily to the training of producers and agroindustrialists to better
prepare them for participating in markets and reducing production costs. In the AGUA outreach 
area, IICA/CAMAGRO’s outreach has been limited to demonstration farmers and producer
groups attended to by SalvaNatura in Ahuachapán Sur. These efforts mainly comprise the
promotion of cooperative purchase among members of agricultural inputs (especially seed,
fertilizers and pesticides) to obtain lower prices and reduce production costs. Producers are also 
oriented to take advantage of the Salvadoran Stock Exchange’s program to sell ammonium
sulfate fertilizer at a guaranteed low price to farmers (subsidized by the Government of Japan) 
and to the guaranteed minimum price for sale of sorghum to the feed concentrate industries, so 
that farmers do not accept lower payments for their produce. 
IICA/CAMAGRO has supported PAES operations with marketing studies, training in improved 
horticulture techniques and training in marketing and agribusiness development. Under its
SAGEM project, producers have been provided with market information to ADESCOs and
producer associations necessary to make informed decisions by their members as to the best
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 13-5
prices for their produce. Aspects covered under SAGEM’s outreach activities include: improved 
quality control for better produce and better pricing; how to use market information crop
planning; improved horticulture and fruit production methods; post-harvest management, grading 
and packaging; agribusiness enterprise management; administration and accounting;
dissemination of price information by radio and newspapers; and monitoring of production costs 
vs. sale prices to determine impacts of project activities. 
2. Recommendations 
While the services provided under SAGEM are seen as necessary and appropriate for
participating agricultural producers/beneficiaries of SO4/AGUA, these should be provided on a
cost-sharing basis with other USAID efforts. As the objectives of SO4/AGUA are oriented
primarily to the provision of potable water of the quality and quantity required for human
consumption, SAGEM objectives are seen as only marginally relating to those of SO4/AGUA. 
Therefore, any such services that may be required by farmers in the AGUA outreach areas
should be provided by other organizations under other funding initiatives outside of AGUA,
whether these are within or without USAID. 
Any future activity in entrepreneurial and marketing that may be promoted under the AGUA 
Activity should embrace the principles of integrated water resources management, including 
watershed management and payment of the environmental costs of agricultural production. The 
selection of agroindustrial and marketing technologies could be improved by placing more 
emphasis on the concepts and principles of microwatershed management, including working 
with soil and water conservation, agroforestry and reforestation in strategic locations of 
microwatersheds that produce water for irrigation and agroindustrial processing. Also, this 
approach should promote the adoption of a policy to incorporate the costs of environmental 
services in fees charged for irrigation systems (where these may involve use of water from 
surface streams and/or wells), and for agroindustrial processing as applicable.
D. Potable Water Systems, Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Infrastructure
No Infrastructure was visited.
E. Environmental Education, Citizen Participation and Sustainable Use of Natural
Resources
1. Findings and Conclusions
Accomplishments
In SEGEM at the group extension level based on the producer-demonstrator, it is worth
highlighting the training and demonstrations on the farmers’ fields, field days and learning
excursions to nurseries and productive activities focused on the crops or practices instituted,
while at the same time work has been determined in the establishment of educational materials 
dealing with marketing measures (price information), technology (technical guides for improving 
the production of basic grains and for diversification with vegetables, establishment of norms
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
13-6 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
and encouragement of organic production of vegetables); among the activities to be noted at the 
field level were the Visit to Texispulco, the production of seedlings, some results from the
marketing of agricultural inputs and the incipient use of organic inputs, as well as the growing of 
short-cycle vegetables in combination with orchards. The project has attained significant
adoption of experimental productive technology in the area such as: hydraulic ram pumps and
the phased production of seedlings with community participation.
The project has motivated the establishment of permanent marketing channels for agricultural
inputs (fertilizers, seedlings and organic products) and for vegetables, for which organizational
funding of the supported community structures is required (ADESCOS and their Production and 
Marketing Committees, among others). 
In summary, the SEGEM does not possess a follow-up mechanism for the strategic objective of 
“greater access to clean water” (with quality standards) and they believe that only 21.43 % of the 
total cultivated area uses technologies with improved practices for Soil Conservation,
reforestation, organic crops and integrated management of pests and disease.
The training process that has been implemented has been very effective in the use of local
materials for establishing and developing on-farm improvement plans, since they are managed
directly by the farmers and their families, mainly with the participation of young people, who
also have been involved in implementing soil and water conservation practices, initial
preparation of terraces or seed beds in the process of formation over the next agricultural cycles, 
and in being sensitized to the use of less contaminating pesticides. This is in addition to the
involvement of the producers’ women (wives and daughters) in the marketing of vegetables and 
in marketing initiatives at the local level.
Aspects that Merit Greater Attention and Improvement
The AGUA Project has had limited coverage in environmental education for all the
implementers’ technicians; this is also true for exchange and training opportunities between
representatives and members of the AGUA implementers. The assisted marketing mechanisms
for the most part meet temporary needs, rather than respond to a permanent development model.
2. Recommendations
It is recommended that the Project provide training opportunities for all personnel in aspects of 
environmental education and the way it may be applied to each component. 
It is also useful to consider specialized training in the form of in-service training, exchanges
between implementers or else through processes of on-the-job technical assistance to improve
the environmental education process. At the same time the watershed approach should be
strengthened in the exploitation, conservation and protection of the watershed’s water and soil
resources. 
To consolidate the preparation and publishing process for educational materials, the needs of the 
target population should be addressed; and it is desirable that those materials should have a
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA) 13-7
process of validation prior to their issuance in order to incorporate pertinent adjustments, and
then that the results and impact achieved should be systematized.
We recommend expanding resource management capabilities, along with the coordination and
provision of local marketing services through establishment of short-term Business Plans and
plans for marketing with a strategic focus, in which anticipated results are determined, with their 
respective required contingency analyses, in order to confront deviations or risk effects.
It is advisable to increase local capabilities for follow-up, monitoring and periodic evaluation of 
the quality of services provided through training in project management, as well as the suggested 
Business and Marketing Plan.
We recommend defining and broadening the managerial capacity of the local marketing
enterprise and supporting the producers through means of specialization and business training
that is socially responsible with the environment, in which the liberalization of training in
direction and management for agribusinesses is fundamental, as well as in the functional
watershed approach through an ongoing program of environmental education.
It is also recommended to focus environmental education as a transverse axis through all the
project components, the same as is done with the gender aspect, with which they will be an
integral part of the other activities to be implemented; at the same time we recommend
establishing a methodology for planning and follow-up that is integrated into all the project
components. 
F. Project Strategic Planning and Policies for Sustainable Management and Use of
Water Resources
As IICA/CAMAGRO is providing specialized services through other implementers in the
AGUA outreach area (most notably SalvaNatura) the project is not directly involved with the 
integrated aspects of water resources. Hence, its cooperative agreement does not provide a
linkage with AGUA objectives of integrated water resources management and related activities 
of watershed management, reforestation, soil and water conservation, etc. except as may be
covered topically during some of the training events. IICA/CAMAGRO has not been as active in 
promoting watershed management concepts as part of its overall strategy. These actions were not 
included in a cohesive way in IICA/CAMAGRO’s cooperative agreement with USAID. Hence, 
microwatershed management is not a thrust of the project strategy and project sponsors may be 
missing such opportunities in terms of using the leverage of sustaining water systems for
irrigated agriculture to sustained management of their tributary watersheds. 
While SAGEM activities are seen as helpful and facilitate improvement of agricultural
producers’ production and marketing strategies, the Evaluation Team does not see them as part 
of the activities that should be financed under SO4/AGUA. Rather, these activities should have 
been financed under a different Mission SO more aligned with economic development and
growth. Such services may be needed and appropriate for farmers that form the participants in
AGUA activities, but the objectives of SAGEM are not seen as being directly related to those of 
AGUA. Therefore, the Evaluation Team suggests that any other funding that may be made by
Annex 13: Evaluation Profile of IICA/CAMAGRO
13-8 El Salvador: Access, Management and Rational Use of Water (AGUA)
USAID to IICA/CAMAGRO for the implementation of SAGEM be made available under a
different SO. Funding for SAGEM under SO4/AGUA should be terminated as soon as the
expiration date of the current cooperative agreement with IICA/CAMAGRO. Should it be
deemed appropriate to continue funding the SAGEM project effort, then funding should be
provided by USAID under a different SO and, as may be required, services provided to
participants in AGUA through synergies among the two SOs through shared coverage of project 
outreach areas.