May 2011 
MID‐TERM EVALUATION REPORT:
INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT II
Implementation Assessment, Findings and Recommendations
USAID/EGYPT
Office of Sustainable Resource Management
MID‐TERM EVALUATION REPORT: INTEGRATED
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT II
IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Prepared by:
Scott Christiansen – USAID/ME/TS 
Thomas Kaluzny – USAID/Nairobi/EA/REGI 
Jonathan Lautze – USAID/EGAT/NRM 
Victoria Mitchell – USAID/Cairo/PROG 
John R. Pasch – USAID/Cairo/PSD 
Soad Saada – USAID/Cairo/PROG 
Amani Selim – USAID/Cairo/PROG 
May 2011 
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II iii | Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................i
1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................1
2. Background................................................................................................................................................................1
3. IWRM II Project Objectives........................................................................................................................................2
4. Evaluation Methodology ...........................................................................................................................................4
5. Project Component – Water Users............................................................................................................................5
Task 1.1 Formation and Development of Branch Canal Water users Associations...................................................5
Task 1.2 Sustainable Local Financing for Canal and Drain Maintenance...................................................................7
Task 1.3 Improvements in Water Productivity and Efficiency...................................................................................9
Task 1.4 Wastewater Reuse.....................................................................................................................................11
6. Project Component – Water Suppliers....................................................................................................................13
Task 2.1 Regional Water Management Organizations ............................................................................................13
Task 2.2 Formation and Development of Integrated Water Management Districts...............................................14
Task 2.3 Establishment of Information Management Systems for Sustainable Water Resources Management...16
Task 2.4 Capacity Building of MWRI Personnel .......................................................................................................18
7. Project Component ‐ Cross‐Cutting Issues ..............................................................................................................20
Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................................................................................20
Public Awareness, Education and Communication Support....................................................................................22
Gender.....................................................................................................................................................................24
8. Other Evaluation Components ................................................................................................................................26
Definition of IWRM..................................................................................................................................................26
Project Comparison with FWUOP and IIIMP ...........................................................................................................26
Project Management...............................................................................................................................................28
9. Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................................29
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II iv | Page
Annex A. IWRM‐II Evaluation Scope of Work ..............................................................................................................32
Annex B. Daily Schedule of Evaluation ........................................................................................................................35
Annex C. List of Documents Reviewed by the Evaluation Team..................................................................................38
Annex D. List of Evaluation Questions.........................................................................................................................39
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II v | Page
ACRONYMS
AUC   American University of Cairo  
BCWUA   Branch Canal Water User Association  
DCOP   Deputy Chief of Party
DQA   Data Quality Assessment
FWUOP   Fayoum Water User’s Organization Project
GIS   Geographic Information System
GOE   Government of Egypt
GTZ   Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Cooperation)
GW   Groundwater
IAS   Irrigation Advisory Service
IIIMP   Integrated Irrigation Improvement and Management Project
IQC   Indefinite Quantity Contract
IRG   International Resources Group
IWMD   Integrated Water Management District
IWRM   Integrated Water Resources Management
IWRM I   Integrated Water Resources Management Project I
IWRM II  Integrated Water Resources Management Project II
LIFE   Livelihood and Income for the Environment
LOE   Level‐of‐effort
M&E   Monitoring and Evaluation
MALR   Ministry of Agriculture and Land Resources
MIC   Ministry of International Cooperation
MISD   Matching Irrigation Supply and Demand
MOH   Ministry of Health
MSEA   Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs
MWRI   Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation
NGO   Non‐Governmental Organization
PMP   Performance Management Plan
PSD   Productive Sector Development
RWMO   Regional Water Management Organization
SOW   Scope of Work
USAID   United States Agency for International Development
WUA/O   Water Users Association/Organization
WW   Wastewater
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II i | Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2010, USAID/Egypt conducted a mid‐term evaluation of the Integrated Water Resources
Management II (IWRM II) project implemented by the International Resources Group (IRG). The
primary objectives of the project are to increase water efficiency and productivity, improve water
quality and provide a more equitable allocation of water resources. The evaluation assessed the
performance of IWRM II over the past two years to validate results and provide recommendations
for the remaining two years of the project. The approach taken by the evaluation team was
primarily a review of project and MWRI documentation as well as field visits with interviews of
various stakeholders responsible for different aspects of implementation including IRG, the Ministry
of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI), and representatives from branch canal water user
associations (BCWUAs).
IRG implemented the IWRM II project under two primary project components: water users and
water suppliers. Each project component has four tasks with associated objectives outlined in Table
1.  Additionally, the project has three cross‐cutting tasks which support all major activities.  
Table 1 IWRM II project components with associated tasks and objectives
Project
Component Task Main Objective
Water Users
1.1 Formation and development
of BCWUAs
Form and activate functional and sustainable BCWUAs
1.2 Sustainable local financing for
canal and drain maintenance
Improve equitable allocation of water resources through
decentralized water management and increased
participation by building capacity and through supporting
awareness of cost‐sharing
1.3 Improvements in water
productivity and efficiency
Reduce water use for crop production by shifting to or
expanding production of high‐value crops with lower
water use requirements and to make better use of water
saving practices and technologies
1.4 Wastewater reuse Provide increased efficiency to water resources through
improved economic returns to treated wastewater
Water
Suppliers
2.1 Regional water management
organizations
Assist MWRI and other donors to create organizations
with the responsibility and required authority to enhance
decentralized water management decision‐making at the
regional level
2.2 Formation and development
of IWMDs
Establish IWMDs for decentralized water management
decision‐making and improved services to increase water
productivity, efficiency, equitable allocation, and
improved water quality
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II ii | Page
Project
Component Task Main Objective
2.3 Establishment of information
management systems for
sustainable water resources
management
Establish information management systems at district
and directorate levels to improve water allocation
systems and procedures as well as increase knowledge of
water resources use and availability
2.4 Capacity‐building of MWRI
personnel
Assist MWRI in providing graduate‐level training
opportunities for its employees to improve management
of water resources
Cross‐
Cutting
Monitoring and evaluation Provide project stakeholders with the information
needed to track and manage project progress and assess
its impacts
Communication Support all major activities – improve capacity‐building,
increase understanding and support for institutional
reform and the integrated water management concept
Gender Increase awareness of the importance of gender
equitable approaches in all aspects of water resources
management
In general, the evaluation team found that the integrated water management approach has been
successful in improving communication between water users and irrigation districts as well as
improving the quality and flow of information pertaining to water allocations. All levels of MWRI
and water users demonstrate a sincere commitment to a participative and decentralized approach
for water management. However, lack of coordination and follow‐up with key project counterparts
including the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Resources, the Holding Company for Water and
Wastewater and on key issues related to legal status of BCWUAs, RWMO establishment and
student recruitment has resulted in the project not meeting expectations in five out of eight tasks
and in all three of the cross‐cutting components. An abbreviated summary of the evaluation results
together with recommendations going forward is given in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of evaluation results and recommendations
Task
Meeting
Expectations Performance Main Recommendations
1.1 Formation and
development of
BCWUAs
Yes BCWUAs have been formed to
cover branch canals but
greater effort needs to be
placed on capacity‐building
- Prioritize training to include
organizational and technical training
- Monitor governance and institutional
capacity
1.2 Sustainable
local financing for
canal and drain
maintenance
No Amendment to Law 12 1984
was drafted but not yet passed
and no other significant
progress has been made on
required deliverables
- Immediately wrap‐up ongoing
financing work, cease further activity
and remove remaining activities from
contractor scope of work.
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II iii | Page
Task
Meeting
Expectations Performance Main Recommendations
1.3 Improvements
in water
productivity and
efficiency
No Task not adequately staffed
after dismissal of DCOP. MWRI
decree has reduced rice
cultivation but project has not
provided sufficient training on
alternative crops and irrigation
methods  
- Increase farmer training on high‐
value crops and modern irrigation
methods
- Create agricultural extension
materials for new crops
- Increase coordination between MWRI
and MALR
1.4 Wastewater
reuse
No Feasibility study was
completed but other
deliverables remain
unsatisfied
- Cease all further activity and remove
task from scope of work
2.1 Regional water
management
organizations
No Despite efforts to move this
forward, no significant
progress has been made
- Cease all further activity and remove
task from scope of work
2.2 Formation and
development of
IWMDs
Yes IWMDs have been formed
resulting in management
efficiency and improving
communication between
MWRI and water users
- Develop institutional performance
criteria and assess capacity
- Reassess training capacity and
develop IWRM training materials
2.3 Establishment
of information
management
systems
Yes Task is proceeding well
although some project
objectives data are not being
captured or analyzed
- Collect additional data with direct
relevance to project objectives
- Analyze data being collected to
understand and improve water
management
2.4 Capacity‐
building of MWRI
personnel
No Only 20 candidates out of a
total of 50 are enrolled in a
Master’s program and none
have finished; communication
of this opportunity was poor
and many districts were
unaware of its existence
- Facilitate current students to finish
studies in a timely manner
- Do not add any more candidates into
the program as there is not enough
time
Monitoring and
evaluation
No Project measuring process
indicators but not outcome
and institutional or
governance indicators
- Develop an ongoing system of M&E
updated annually
- Quantify water productivity and
efficiency
- Develop and apply process, outcome
and institutional indicators
Communication No Communication outputs do
not match stakeholder needs
- Revise communication plan seeking
stakeholder input
Gender No Project is not fully committed
to achieving the expected
outcomes from the Year 1
Work Plan
- Provide training opportunities which
do not exclude female members of
BCWUAs due to time and/or location
- Provide specialized training to female
members of BCWUAs who have been
designated domestic representatives
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II iv | Page
Sustainability of project outcomes is a major risk faced by the new IWMDs and related BCWUAs.
Without positive and tangible results (water delivery improvement, irrigation system improvements,
etc.) from the new model of management and continued cooperation between users and MWRI,
association members are likely to lose interest in participation. Additionally, more effort to build
capacity of district office staff and fledgling associations is needed in order to maintain the spirit of
cooperation and mobilize resources for system maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement.
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II 1 | Page
1. INTRODUCTION
In January 2009, USAID/Egypt contracted with the International Resources Group (IRG) to
implement the Integrated Water Resources Management II (IWRM II) project as a 4‐year, task order
award under the Water II IQC with an approximately $10 million ceiling. USAID/Egypt conducted a
mid‐term evaluation of the IWRM‐II project in January 2010 to assess performance, validate results,
capture lessons learned and provide recommendations for program adjustments. This report
summarizes results from the evaluation.
2. BACKGROUND		
Over the last two decades, USAID has assisted the Government of Egypt (GOE) in placing more
control of decision‐making concerning irrigation water management in the hands of farmers. Design
of the IWRM Program (Phases I and II), was based on the results of several earlier USAID programs,
most notably the Agricultural Policy Reform Program – Water Policy Activity (1997‐2002), which
focused on a number of benchmarks or specific reform actions. Following positive results from
these programs, USAID designated funding from the Red Sea Sustainable Development and
Improved Water Resources Management Project for the so‐called “bridging project” – Improved
Water Management Component (2002‐04) – which field‐tested the concepts of integrated water
management districts (IWMDs) and branch canal water user associations (BCWUAs) that formed
the basis for the design of the IWRM program.  
The IWRM I program (2004‐2008) has assisted the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation
(MWRI) in implementing integrated management of water resources at the district level in the
directorates of New Zifta (Gharbiya), West Sharkeya, East and West Qena, and Aswan. IWRM
directly supports GOE’s National Water Resources Plan 2017. IWRM I was successful in increasing
farmer participation in water management and decentralizing decision‐making authority in Upper
Egypt and portions of the Nile Delta. Based on the results of IWRM I and MWRI’s support of these
management reforms, USAID/Egypt initiated IWRM II, a second phase of the program to expand the
project to a larger number of districts in East Nile Delta and broaden the impact of integrated water
resources management.  
The purpose of the IWRM II (2009‐2012) is to replicate the positive IWRM I experience in different
areas of Egypt while adding more explicit focus on improved water management outcomes. IWRM
II is working in a number of districts in the East Nile Delta to establish IWMDs and BCWUAs in order
to decentralize water management authority and improve efficiency and productivity of water use.
IRG is to work with MWRI and other government entities, including the Ministry of Agriculture and
Land Reclamation (MALR), the Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs (MSEA), and the Ministry
of Housing (MOH) as well as water users including farmers and their associations throughout the
East Delta region.
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II 2 | Page
3. IWRM II PROJECT OBJECTIVES
IRG’s Annual Work Plan Year 1 (January – December 2009) has listed the following overall goals for
IWRM II:
 Increased productivity of water resources (as measured by value added per quantity of water
consumed);
 Increased efficiency of water resources (as measured by quantity of water consumed per feddan
or 0.42 hectares of cultivated land, or other similar measure);
 More equitable allocation of water resources; and
 Improved water quality.
IRG is working to meet these goals by addressing implementation activities under two primary project
components: water users and water suppliers. Each project component has four tasks with associated
objectives and there are three overall cross‐cutting tasks which support all major activities. Table 3
provides a project breakdown of components, tasks, and objectives.
Table 3 IWRM II project components with associated tasks and objectives
Project
Component Task Main Task Objective
Water Users
1.1 Formation and development
of BCWUAs
Form and activate functional and sustainable BCWUAs
1.2 Sustainable local financing for
canal and drain maintenance
Improve equitable allocation of water resources through
decentralized water management and increased
participation by building capacity and through supporting
awareness of cost‐sharing
1.3 Improvements in water
productivity and efficiency
Reduce water use for crop production by shifting to or
expanding production of high‐value crops with lower
water use requirements and to make better use of water
saving practices and technologies
1.4 Wastewater reuse Provide increased efficiency to water resources through
improved economic returns to treated wastewater
Water
Suppliers
2.1 Regional water management
organizations
Assist MWRI and other donors to create organizations
with the responsibility and required authority to enhance
decentralized water management decision‐making at the
regional level
2.2 Formation and development
of IWMDs
Establish IWMDs for decentralized water management
decision‐making and improved services to increase water
productivity, efficiency, equitable allocation, and
improved water quality
2.3 Establishment of information
management systems for
sustainable water resources
management
Establish information management systems at district
and directorate levels to improve water allocation
systems and procedures as well as increase knowledge of
water resources use and availability
Mid‐term Evaluation Report: Integrated Water Resources Management II 3 | Page
Project
Component Task Main Task Objective
2.4 Capacity‐building of MWRI
personnel
Assist MWRI in providing graduate‐level training
opportunities for its employees to improve management
of water resources
Cross‐
Cutting
Monitoring and evaluation Provide project stakeholders with the information
needed to track and manage project progress and assess
its impacts
Communication Support all major activities – improve capacity‐building,
increase understanding and support for institutional
reform and the integrated water management concept
Gender Increase awareness of the importance of gender
equitable approaches in all aspects of water resources
management
4
4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The program evaluation assessed the past performance of IWRM II task activities from inception of
the program in January 2009 through to the present and sought to provide recommendations on
possible strategies for improving its effectiveness over the remaining two years of the contract base
period. The scope of work (SOW) for the evaluation is provided in Appendix A.
Evaluation Team (in alphabetical order)
 Scott Christiansen – Agriculture expert (USAID/Washington)
 Thomas Kaluzny – Water engineer (USAID/East Africa)
 Jonathan Lautze – Water resources expert (USAID/Washington)
 Victoria Mitchell – Program officer (USAID/Egypt)
 John Pasch – Team leader/coordinator (USAID/Egypt)
 Soad Saada – Environment and gender expert (USAID/Egypt)
 Amani Selim – Monitoring and evaluation expert (USAID/Egypt)
Objectives
The evaluation had the following objectives:  
 Evaluate project effectiveness and impact in achieving its stated objectives;
 Identify opportunities for improved activity implementation within the project scope and
timeframe;
 Reevaluate and clarify expected outcomes; and
 Identify critical obstacles impeding implementation and provide recommendations on a way
forward.
The evaluation addressed five key areas of performance:
1) Validity of Hypothesis (Strategy) – Evaluated the validity of the development strategy
guiding IWRM II activities and either confirmed or recommended revision;
2) Confirmation of Results – Reviewed the IWRM II Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and
additional documentation to determine what valid results were achieved and the
expectations for achievement of indicator targets;
3) Responsive to Stakeholder Needs – Reviewed project activities for responsiveness to the
needs of partners and BCWUAs;
4) Sustainability of Actions – Evaluated sustainability of program activities and the likelihood of
replication of practices and management approaches implemented under the program; and
5) Lessons Learned – Identified lessons learned from the first two‐years of implementation.
5
Approach and Limitations
The approach taken by the evaluation team was primarily a review of project and MWRI
documentation as well as field visits with interviews of various stakeholders including IRG, MWRI (4
of 8 directorates and 11 of 45 districts), and representatives from approximately 143 BCWUAs.
Evaluation team members also interviewed the Holding Company for Water and Wastewater
officials and the American University of Cairo (AUC) as part of the review process for Tasks 1.4 and
2.4 respectively. A breakdown of sites visited is given in Appendix B.  
The team reviewed project documentation including work plans, progress reports, data collection
tools and methodology, etc. Reviewed documents are listed in Appendix C. While on site visits, the
team also reviewed IWMD database management systems and documentation regarding the
establishment of BCWUAs.
Two other donor funded integrated water management programs exist in Egypt focused on
improving water management through a strategy of decentralization and formation of water users
associations: The Dutch Fayoum Water User Organization Project (FWUOP) and the World Bank
Integrated Irrigation Improvement and Management Project (IIIMP). The evaluation team visited
and interviewed individuals involved in these other programs to understand their approach and
methodologies.  
The evaluation was limited in its scope due to time constraints. Only IWMDs within project areas of
IWRM I and II were assessed – no comparisons between integrated versus non‐integrated districts
were made which would have resulted in a stronger evaluation.
5. PROJECT COMPONENT – WATER USERS
TASK 1.1 FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF BRANCH CANAL WATER USER
ASSOCIATIONS
Task Objective  
Form and activate functional and sustainable BCWUAs to increase productivity, efficiency, equitable
allocation, and improved quality of water resources.
Expected Results and Outputs  
The Task Order SOW describes the following expected results:
 Increased participation of rural residents in water management decision‐making;
 Improved operation and maintenance (O&M) of water conveyance infrastructure;
 Improved quality of local water resources through better management of locally generated
liquid and solid wastes; and
6
 Established and operating BCWUAs in all branch canals in the governorates of Sharkiya,
Damietta, Dakahliya, Ismailiya and Qualubiya.
The SOW further describes required deliverables under this task as:
 Within the East Nile Delta Region support the creation of district advisory teams that will
take the lead in working with farmers to form new BCWUAs; and
 Assist district advisory teams and newly formed BCWUAs to install management systems,
develop services for members, and train staff.
Findings  
BCWUAs have been formed and are in various stages of development with some associations more
active than others. District water advisory teams were established and are taking the lead in helping
farmers to form BCWUAs; however, some districts have limited technical staff available for this task
which restricts interactions between water advisory team members and BCWUAs.  
BCWUAs have been formed to cover the entire project area of the Eastern Delta. Some associations
had only recently been established, however, even though the project is into its third year of
implementation. According to association members with whom the evaluation team met, many of
these new associations have not received substantial training related to organizational activation
and management. Associations have been provided some initial organizational training supporting
elections and drafting of internal regulations.   More training for association members was
requested at almost every field site visited – with some requests for training that targets farmers
coming from the district office staff.   Further training planned under the project will focus on
organizational activation.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that some BCWUAs are active while others
are considered “weak”. IRG does not measure governance capacity nor the level of activation
among the established BCWUAs.  
Water Advisory Teams have been formed in each of the irrigation districts to support establishment
of BCWUAs. Based on the success of BCWUA formation (i.e. 624 established in approximately 2
years), the Water Advisory Teams appear to have been effective.
The project has issued a guidance document (2008) which outlined the criteria for the
establishment of BCWUAs; however, these criteria were not followed uniformly in the formation of
BCWUAs and the approach for arriving at a total of 624 associations was not clear. Many BCWUAs
have geographic areas that are significantly larger than recommended by the guidelines. The
evaluation team was informed that this was due to the preponderance of larger farms in newly
reclaimed areas using modern irrigation methods; however, a clarification to the guidance is
expected to address this point. The guidance document was scheduled to be revised although an
updated version has not yet been produced.
BCWUAs are represented by three types of beneficiaries: agricultural, domestic residential areas
and industrial users. The evaluation team found that representation of these beneficiaries among
the associations is not systematic. For example, industrial users may be represented by one
7
individual for multiple industries within the area of coverage or each industrial user will have its
own representative. Domestic users were represented by one or two female board members of a
BCWUA.  
Task Performance
The performance of Task 1.1 against project and task objectives is meeting expectations in that
BCWUAs have been formed to cover branch canals. However, formation of the associations is only
part of the task with greater effort yet to be placed on capacity‐building to ensure that they are
effective and sustainable. Training has focused more on district needs such as water level/flow
measurements but less on farmer needs such as the marketing of high‐value crops which the
project is promoting for water conservation and to increase water efficiency.
Recommendations
 Training for BCWUAs needs to be prioritized to include organizational, administrative and
management training soon after the establishment of the associations as well as technical
trainings on canal maintenance, water level monitoring, modern irrigation methods, etc. in
order to improve the likelihood of BCWUA sustainability.
 The project needs to monitor the level of activity and functionality for a representative
sampling of BCWUAs in order to measure their governance capacity over time which can
help identify issues related to the sustainability of the associations.
 The project also needs to establish criteria to use to measure institutional capability,
performance, and sustainability of BCWUAs.
TASK 1.2 SUSTAINABLE LOCAL FINANCING FOR CANAL AND DRAIN
MAINTENANCE
Task Objectives
Improve equitable allocation of water resources through decentralized water management and
increased participation among all rural inhabitants in such management by building MWRI and
water users’ capacity, and through supporting awareness about cost‐sharing and management
transfer at all levels.
Expected Results and Outputs
The Task Order SOW describes the following expected results:
 Increased farmer contributions to the costs of irrigation system O&M and rehabilitation;
and
 An equitable, locally controlled fee system to sustainably finance branch canal and drain
maintenance.
The SOW further describes required deliverables under this task as:
 Draft a ministerial decree to allow BCWUAs to collect and program resources for branch
canal O&M;
8
 Develop a system within BCWUAs for farmers to share in the cost of branch canal O&M and
rehabilitation; and
 Develop a plan for complete transfer of branch canal maintenance responsibility to the
BCWUAs.
These required deliverables were adopted in IRG’s work planning with the draft decree to be
completed at the end of Year 1, guidelines for BCWUA cost‐sharing to be completed at the end of
Year 2 and transfer of maintenance responsibility and financing to the BCWUAs to occur in Year 3.
Findings
The BCWUAs have no legal standing; therefore, associations cannot formally collect funds from
members for the purposes of irrigation system maintenance and rehabilitation. The IWRM II Task
Order called for the drafting and passage of a ministerial decree that would allow BCWUAs to
collect funds; however, the contractor selected to draft an amendment to Law 12 of 1984 that
would provide full legal standing to the associations. The proposed amendment was approved by
the Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation and sent to the cabinet for approval. Presently, no
legislative action has been taken to approve this amendment to Law 12.  
While the passage of this amendment to Law 12 is an important project goal and is supportive of
BCWUA sustainability, lack of legislative action has become a cause for inaction on this task.
Progress has appeared to stop on the development of a system for cost‐sharing. The project work
plans (Years 1 and 2) called for significant progress on the development of cost‐sharing guidelines
and procedures by Year 2 of the project; however, little evidence of progress on this task was made
available to the project team. The failure to pass the Law 12 amendment was offered as the reason
for this inactivity but a cost‐sharing system could have been developed in parallel to the legislative
process specifically drawing on past experience with the farmers’ own cost‐sharing initiatives in
Egypt and even other international experience. No alternatives for achieving sustainable local
financing for canal and drain maintenance have been presented by the contractor, MWRI or other
stakeholders.
Discussions with members of the BCWUAs revealed that very few were aware of the project’s role
in facilitating and formalizing cost‐sharing options. In addition, BCWUA members made it quite
clear that they have high expectations for MWRI financial contributions to irrigation system
operation, maintenance and rehabilitation. In general, BCWUA members seemed prepared to
provide in‐kind and financial support (the level of support depends on the wealth of the BCWUA
members) for basic maintenance and repair but were depending on MWRI and/or USAID for
financing major capital works.  
The evaluation team was provided with many examples of how the BCWUAs are working together
(and even informally pooling funding in some cases) in order to maintain canals and drains, repair
mechanical equipment and construct minor civil works. While this type of cost‐sharing among
farmers existed prior to the project, BCWUA members explain that the formation and function of
9
the association supports more cost‐sharing activities than what previously occurred. Without a
baseline of cost‐sharing experience or documentation of present cost‐sharing activities it is not
possible to confirm this assertion.
Task Performance
The performance of Task 1.2 against project and task objectives is not meeting expectations. A draft
amendment of Law 12 of 1984 was submitted to the cabinet in Year 1 of the project; however, no
other significant progress has been made on required deliverables while draft legislation has been
pending.  
The BCWUA’s ability to share costs with one another and with the MWRI is critical to the
sustainability of the BCWUAs. If they are unable to manage resources for the betterment of their
water distribution and drainage systems, members are likely to lose interest in the associations. The
joint development of annual maintenance plans between the BCWUAs and the integrated water
management districts is a positive step toward collaboration; however, more resource leveraging
around the implementation of these plans is necessary.
Recommendations
 With the recent dissolution of the parliament and the schedule for elections at least 6
months away, it is unlikely that an amendment to Law 12 will be completed in a timely
manner with respect to IWRM II implementation.  It is therefore recommended that the
project immediately wrap‐up this activity with general recommendations for informal cost‐
sharing and leveraging.  Remaining activities under this task should be removed from the
project scope of work and planned resource allocations should be reprogrammed.  It is
anticipated that canal and drain maintenance will remain the responsibility of MWRI at least
for the remaining project implementation period.
TASK 1.3 IMPROVEMENTS IN WATER PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY
Task Objectives
Encourage farmers to reduce water use for crop production by shifting to or expanding production
of high‐value crops with lower water use requirements and to make better use of water saving
practices and technologies thereby increasing productivity and efficiency of water use.  
Expected Results and Outputs
The Task Order SOW describes the following expected result:
 Project‐assisted farmers shift to high‐value, lower water‐consuming crops and make better
use of water saving practices and technologies.
The SOW further describes required deliverables under this task as:
 Develop and disseminate information on alternative high‐value crops including water
consumption, potential economic returns and risks, cultivation practices, and marketing;
10
 Encourage increased collaboration among MWRI, MALR district level staff, and farmers
concerning issues of crop selection and farm‐based water conservation;
 Introduce new technologies to save water; and
 Conduct training and outreach to farmers in the BCWUAs on alternative crops and water
saving irrigation technologies.
The approach for implementing Task 1.3 was revised from the work plan in Year 1 to Year 2. The
Year 2 Work Plan represents the task activities as described in the three phases below with the first
two considered in the mid‐term evaluation:
1) Preparation Phase: Included data collection and baseline survey for eight directorates in the
East Delta Region. The project established a database on crops currently growing in the
project area and determined their water use requirements, crop production profiles, and
productivity rates in Year 1.
2) Pilot Area and Demo Sites: In Year 1, the pilot BCWUA was selected, a pilot action plan was
prepared, and interested farmers were identified. During Year 2, IWRM II implemented the
remainder of the activities initially focusing on summer season 2010 followed‐up with
winter season 2010/11 (Year 3).  
3) From Pilot to Regional Dissemination: Expansion of the activity within East Delta Region
during Years 3 and 4. Note: funds proposed for carrying out demonstration site activities for
Task 1.3 have not been approved by USAID and this phase is not a part of this evaluation.  
Findings
IWRM‐II is helping MWRI concentrate on efficiency of water delivery. From the available evidence,
the project allocated more level of effort to improving water productivity by reducing water
consumption rather than increasing crop production. However, for the longer‐term, a major
challenge will be to shift from the narrow focus on water efficiency to the broader objective of
water productivity (i.e. producing the maximum crop yield with as little water as necessary).
The evaluation team was given a working draft of a report that shed some light on what the project
has accomplished in terms of plant water productivity and the results are positive and negative –
reporting on things that worked and those that did not. These mixed results can be justified due to
the nature of a pilot effort in a limited project zone. Nevertheless, the report results are interesting
and demonstrate the need to summarize the findings and use the lessons to concentrate on future
efforts.
Cooperation between MWRI and MALR has been historically weak although the two ministries have
been cooperating though the Matching Irrigation Supply and Demand (MISD) program which
targets water releases from the High Aswan Dam to match crop pattern data resulting in more
accurate delivery of needed water to districts.  
The evaluation team noted that many farmers requested specific training on marketing for
alternative high‐value crops (e.g. value chain infrastructure, contracting for buyers, etc.). One
association chairperson mentioned that their attempt at the high‐value crop of sesame failed
primarily because they did not receive needed support from the project.
11
Task Performance
The dismissal of the Task 1.3 Team Leader (and Deputy Chief of Party) early in Year 1 appears to
have resulted in a slow start to this activity that has not been completely overcome.  While the Task
1.3 leader was replaced, the task order key personnel position originally envisioned to lead this
activity has not been filled having an apparent negative impact on implementation across the entire
project.
The MWRI issued a decree to reduce areas grown to rice which requires much greater quantities of
water than other crops. The reduction of rice cropping area does indeed reduce water use in the
system, enabling water to be saved or reallocated to expand irrigation into uncultivated lands. The
project did not adequately educate farmers to alternatives to full irrigation of crops – such as deficit
irrigation, supplementary irrigation, or other modern irritation techniques.  
The MISD program encourages cooperation albeit rudimentary, whereby a summary of crop data is
delivered to MWRI every 15 days without any checks on the accuracy of the data. IRG is not taking
advantage of the IWRM II project objectives which are common to both ministries to expand
meaningful cooperation in a multitude of ways.
Recommendations  
 Under the IWRM II project, increase coordination between MWRI and MALR district level
staff with the BCWUAs.  The aim of coordination should be that MWRI helps to achieve
desired timing, equitable and efficient delivery of water while the MALR helps farmers to
create associations for contract growing of specialized high‐value crops.
 Increase farmer training on marketing of high‐value crops such as forecasting crop purchase
prices in markets, obtaining quality sources of seed from reputable sellers, and sourcing up‐
to‐date lists of commercial purchasers who buy high value herbs, spices and vegetables.
 Create extension materials (in cooperation with MALR) for good agricultural practices
related to the new crops including development of a diversified suite of appropriate species
that are recommended for specific areas of the Nile Delta. These materials will help farmers
to balance their mix of crops to avoid risk of market downturns or sudden infestations by
insects or disease on a particular crop.
TASK 1.4 WASTEWATER REUSE
Task Objectives
Provide increased efficiency to water resources through improved economic returns to treated
wastewater.
Expected Results and Outputs
The Task Order SOW describes the following expected result:
12
 Increased economic returns to treated wastewater, either as reflows into drainage canals
and the Nile River or as inputs into the cultivation of crops and/or plants, in accordance with
existing or revised wastewater reuse standards.
The SOW further describes required deliverables under this task as:
 Prepare a feasibility study that elaborates alternative uses for treated wastewater (including
the irrigation of crops or trees grown in desert lands adjacent to existing wastewater
treatment plants or transport back to main river channels through drainage canals),
determines costs and benefits of alternatives, and recommends a strategy for maximizing
economic returns to treated wastewater;
 If the feasibility study determines that treated wastewater should be used for crop
production) then work with relevant GOE organizations and interested private investors to
negotiate project terms and conditions, obtain required permits, and monitor
implementation; and
 Assist in the formation of new public private partnership agreements.
Findings
The project has produced a feasibility study as one of the required deliverables; however, the
Egyptian Holding Company responsible for wastewater management stated that the study was not
of direct use to them. The evaluation team did not determine that the study has been applied in
practice and the formation of new public private partnerships does not appear to have succeeded
for a variety of reasons.  
Progress in this task can be characterized as stalled primarily due to a lack of strong coordination
and collaboration between the IWRM II project and the Holding Company. Upon investigation, the
Holding Company does seek support on other issues which do not align with the goals of the
project. Additionally, there is a logistical issue that strains the viability of implementing wastewater
reuse as part of this project – the options for expanding wastewater reuse are located in Upper
Egypt while the project focus area is the Eastern Delta.  
Task Performance
Work under this task has delivered on the production of a feasibility study. Nonetheless, task
performance does not meet expectations. The feasibility study has not had much of an impact and
the task’s other deliverables remain unsatisfied. Furthermore, the focus on wastewater reuse is
somewhat disconnected from the other project components due to the geographic discontinuity
between this task and the project’s primary focus area of the East Delta.  
Recommendations
Consider closing this task and re‐allocating support to a project that focuses explicitly on
wastewater reuse. Wastewater reuse activities could be subsumed into other USAID water and
wastewater projects.
13
6. PROJECT COMPONENT – WATER SUPPLIERS
TASK 2.1 REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Task Objectives
Assist the MWRI and other donors to create organizations with the responsibility and required
authority to enhance decentralized water management decision‐making at the regional level in the
East Delta region.
Expected Results and Outputs
The Task Order SOW describes the following expected results:
 Devolution of responsibilities for system development, rehabilitation, and O&M to new
regional authorities; and
 At least one regional authority created with the responsibility and required authority to
improve water resource management within the region.
The task order further describes required deliverables under this task as:
 Develop a business plan for an autonomous, self‐financing, regional organization covering
the East Nile Delta Region that would be responsible for management of all resources within
the region; and
 Work with the MWRI and other donors to implement the approved plan including the
drafting of decrees, organization documents, systems development, and training.
These required deliverables were adopted in the contractor work plans with business planning to
occur at the end of Year 1 through Year 2 of the project and Regional Water Management
Organization (RWMO) establishment and business implementation to be conducted in Years 3 and
4.
Findings
The concept of RWMOs was introduced as part of the MWRI policy development work supported by
GTZ. The previous phase of USAID’s IWRM work did not consider RWMO in the integrated
management design. In IWRM I, the irrigation directorate served as the regional management
entity between the MWRI at the national level and the integrated districts. Nevertheless, the Task
Order SOW embraced the concept of RWMOs as a new integrated regional management unit.
Through Year 1, the project team worked actively to bring clarity to the approach for establishing an
RWMO. Meetings and discussions were held at various levels of the MWRI to identify options for
moving forward with the activity. Early on, when clear direction on RWMOs was not available, the
project decided to proceed with project implementation by coordinating with irrigation directorates
and governorates as the regional counterparts (i.e. the same approach as IWRM I).  
14
To date, clear policy guidance and authorization for the establishment of RWMOs is not available
from the Ministry. Therefore, this task has not made any significant progress against stated
objectives although this lack of progress does not appear to have had any adverse effects on other
IWRM II tasks (other than being a management distraction).
Task Performance
No significant progress has been made toward establishing an East Nile Delta Regional Water
Management Organization. The project team appeared to have made their best efforts to move this
task forward; however, implementation has been delayed due to a lack of guidance from the MWRI
on how to approach formation and establishment of RWMOs.
Recommendations
Cease all further project activity related to this task and reallocate resources as appropriate. The
time remaining in the project is not adequate to complete this activity; however, should MWRI
move forward with the implementation of RWMO’s the IWRM II project shall remain flexible to
support if time and resources permit.
TASK 2.2 FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
Task Objectives
Establish Integrated Water Management Districts (IWMDs) for decentralized water management
decision‐making and improved water services to increase productivity, efficiency, equitable
allocation, and improved water quality of water resources.  
Expected Results and Outputs
The Task Order SOW describes the following expected results:
 Formation of integrated management units, including IWMDs and/or Integrated Water
Management Directorates, throughout the East Nile Delta Region;
 Streamlined internal communications and reduced redundancies within districts; and
 Improved services to BCWUAs.
The SOW further describes required deliverables under this task as:
 Prepare business plans for the new districts based on the experience in the five directorates
assisted under IWRM I;
 Assist the MWRI in installing systems and procedures developed under IWRM I within the
new districts;
 Provide computer equipment and software (as per the procurement plan);
 Assist MWRI in training new IWMD staff; and
 Provide limited follow‐up support for the 27 IWMDs and five irrigation directorates created
under the previous LIFE/IWRM program.
15
Findings
Under the IWRM project, formation of IWMDs was initiated with a series of administrative steps
and actions to combine previously separate irrigation and drainage inspectorates, which were
under the management of a regional directorate, into an integrated district with four distinct
departments (administration; water management and distribution; maintenance; and planning,
follow‐up and water advisory). The IWRM project has been extremely successful in facilitating this
process achieving the project goal of establishing 45 integrated districts in the East Nile Delta.  
According to project documentation, formation of IWMDs aimed to improve management
efficiency within the MWRI and to support greater water user participation in decision‐making by
creating a more accessible and streamlined platform for irrigation system management and
maintenance. While all of the IWRM II districts are newly formed, the project is already seeing
positive impacts on its implementation effort. In visits to the field, BCWUAs and districts
consistently reported that communications between water users and MWRI had dramatically
improved since formation of the integrated districts and associations. Additionally, the
management reorganization, equipment and software provision, and training has significantly
improved data collection and sharing across different departments of the Ministry. The quality and
format of data also appears to be improved with IWRM project inputs providing an important
foundation for informed decision‐making regarding water allocations.  
Task activity over the remaining implementation period will focus on training and capacity‐building
of district staff. The need for training and experience among district staff was confirmed by the
evaluation team visits to districts. Some tools are in place to support the work of district staff
including computers and monitoring equipment. However, the evaluation team observed that the
planning, follow‐up and water advisory sections in each district were generally well‐equipped while
other sections of the office often lacked even a single computer to support their work.  
The project also helped to put in place systems for O&M and planning. O&M and business plans
were generally in place at the IWMDs visited although depth and quality of plans varied.  District
staff did not appear to have completely embraced these plans as implementing tools to guide their
daily work. Some O&M plans were developed collaboratively with BCWUAs while others were
developed by district staff with minimal user input although this was usually due to the nascent
formation of BCWUAs in those districts.  
Irrigation district and directorate offices clearly provide a significant job opportunity for women in
management, technical and administrative positions. Most integrated districts have at least one
woman serving as a section head and the evaluation team was informed that the overall percentage
of female employees in IWMDs is approximately 40 percent. While the relatively high
representation of women in the district office work force may not be attributable to the efforts of
the IWRM project, the project should recognize the significant role women play in district
16
operations and plan training and capacity‐building that provides greater opportunity to utilize this
human resource.  
Task Performance
Overall the task has achieved its objective to form IWMDs and is meeting performance
expectations. Task order expected results are largely being met on schedule with districts and water
users already remarking on the resulting efficiency in management and improved communication
between MWRI and water users. Business plans are in place but have not been operationalized.
Similarly, equipment and information management systems have been established, but additional
training and capacity‐building will be required to support sustainability of these tools and systems.
Training and capacity building activities supporting equipment and system sustainability have been
presented to MWRI by the contractor and planned for implementation in the remaining months of
the project.
The project is following up on a limited basis with integrated districts established under IWRM I.
However, the degree to which this follow‐up is either supporting those districts or informing
implementation in IWRM II is unknown as follow‐up details are not provided in formal project
documentation.
Recommendations
 Develop institutional performance criteria for assessment of capacity, functionality and
performance of IWMDs and collect baseline data. Integrate criteria with MWRI M&E system
and continue measurement of these criteria through life of project and beyond.
 Reassess training and capacity‐building needs for IWMD staff to identify or confirm priority
training that supports sustainability and full functionality of the integrated districts.
Consider balancing priorities across different district departments. Link training to
improvement of institutional performance criteria (see first recommendation above). Funds
permitting, implement revised training program.
 Prepare IWRM training materials (e.g. curriculum, manuals, software, etc.) for transfer to
MWRI’s own training program with the goal to institutionalize IWRM within the Ministry’s
core training program.
 Provide documentation of IWRM I district follow‐up in future project reporting – summarize
performance of IWRM I irrigation districts and identify sustainability issues and challenges
based on established criteria. Apply institutional performance criteria (see first
recommendation above) to baseline district performance.  
TASK 2.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR
SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Task Objective
The goals of the information management system task are improved water allocation systems and
procedures at district and directorate levels as well as increased knowledge of water resources use
and availability.  
17
The Task Order SOW describes the following expected results:
 Improved water allocation systems and procedures at both district and directorate levels;
and
 Increased knowledge of water resource use and availability for both surface and
groundwater resources – quantitatively and qualitatively.
The SOW states that the contractor shall implement the Matching Irrigation Supply and Demand
(MISD) Program in all districts and directorates in the East Nile Delta Region. The SOW further
describes required deliverables under this task as:
 Assist MWRI in the selection of water monitoring and distribution staff within each IWMD;
 Train staff in water allocation systems and software;  
 Procure and install computer equipment;  
 Establish water resources databases;
 Establish digital mapping capacity; and
 Investigate the potential to monitor water flows at the branch canal level by selecting pilot
canals to test flow measurement tools and assessing results and developing guidelines for
branch canal flow monitoring.
Findings
The project has made important progress under this task and database development can indeed be
considered one of the project’s highlights. Inspection of data compilation as part of field surveys to
various district offices revealed that data are in fact being routinely collected and filed electronically
in a systematic way. Discussions at the governorate and at MWRI in Cairo confirmed that the data
collected in districts are passed up to higher levels providing a potentially important platform for
improved decision‐making.  
The current relationship between the MISD and IWRM II projects appears mutually beneficial.
IWRM II has opened new areas for implementation of MISD while MISD has helped to collect key
data on cropping patterns and convert it to information on water demand.  
While the data that are currently being collected by IWMDs provide important insights, they do not
give a direct indication of the key project objectives of water efficiency and productivity. The data
that are currently compiled each month (i.e. water delivered, targeted water delivered, number of
complaints, violations, farmer satisfaction) provide an important picture of water management in
each district. Additionally, important progress has been made in calibrating water levels to flow
rates at the branch canal level which will provide a key platform for improving water management
in those canals. Nonetheless, data collected could be expanded and analyzed to include the project
objectives of efficiency and productivity.  
For example, water efficiency is the quantity of water delivered relative to crop water requirements
which is not being calculated. Agricultural water productivity is the agricultural production/output
relative to water consumed which is not being determined. Agricultural productivity data are not
collected even though crop data are used as the basis for calculating the water demands and
targets that are shown in the set of data that are collected each month.
18
Task Performance
Performance under this task is meeting expectations. The project could make better progress in
meeting the broader data needs as mentioned above concerning the degree to which the
deliverables directly enable measurement of progress toward the overall project objectives.
Nonetheless, this task can be considered to be proceeding well.
Recommendations
 Collection of additional data with more direct relevance to project goals and of broader
relevance. In particular, collecting data on cropping patterns and crop yield and determining
a district’s collective crop water requirement for a particular time frame, so that it can be
compared against the water consumed.
 Analysis of the collected data. A system is clearly in place for collection of valuable data;
however, analytical scrutiny of a voluminous and growing set of data to identify and
understand temporal trends and spatial variation in conditions is absent. The capacity‐
building component of the project could include training in data analysis to help understand
and improve water management in Egypt.   
TASK 2.4 CAPACITY‐BUILDING OF MWRI PERSONNEL
Task Objectives
Assist MWRI in providing graduate‐level training opportunities for its employees to increase
productivity, efficiency, equitable allocation, and improved water quality of water resources.  
Expected Results and Outputs
The Task Order SOW describes the following expected result:
 Improved practices for recruitment, training, and retention of qualified staff.  
The SOW further describes required deliverables under this task as:
 Assess the needs for Master’s degree training for up to 50 qualified staff of MWRI, focusing
on staff who will be assigned to management positions in the East Nile Delta Region;
 Identify appropriate local institutions and programs for graduate level training for the
selected individuals with at least 50% of approved training conducted at AUC; and
 Administer approved training programs including payment of fees.
Findings
The project has not identified a sufficient number of suitable candidates to enroll in Master’s
degree programs at both AUC and other Egyptian universities. Only 20 candidates are enrolled in
the program, 45% female and 55% male, despite the program’s target of 50 students. The IWRM II
first year work plan calls for 12 students to be trained at AUC but this number was later reduced to
8.
Multiple reasons were given for the shortfall in student enrollment. Some issues were unavoidable
such as staff shortages in the district offices may have precluded staff from taking leave to return to
19
school and some women may have difficulty leaving their family if one of the participating
universities was not located in close proximity to their residence. Additionally, many students
enrolled in AUC had difficulty meeting the English language requirements and were required to
attend intensive English language courses in order to meet a certain standard before beginning
coursework. Those issues aside, challenges to finding students will occur if many potential
candidates are unaware of the program’s existence. Discussions at local MWRI districts indeed
revealed that many staff were unaware that Master’s study was available to them under IWRM II,
causing the evaluation team to deduce that communication of this opportunity to MWRI’s field
offices was poor.  
Dr. Edward Smith, a professor in environmental engineering and an advisor at AUC, is directly
involved with the Master’s students from MWRI. He informed the evaluation team that many
students were not as successful as they might otherwise be due to the fact that they are not
devoting themselves to their studies on a full‐time basis. He informed us that the candidates are
sometimes worried about the possibility of losing their job if they take a leave of absence. In
addition, some students did not take a full‐time leave of absence due to the nature of their job
responsibilities and the likelihood that there is no other staff member to replace him/her for two or
more years. This dual demand on the candidate’s time leads to a negative effect on their
performance in the program.  
Linkages between student job responsibilities and his/her research as a Master’s student appear to
be lacking. Also, some students enrolled in AUC who originally had decided upon completing a
thesis changed to the non‐thesis Master’s option. These two matters could be further explored
through a survey of students’ job responsibilities and their graduate studies, the results of which
could then feed into the program courses of study.  
Finally, it was not clear to the project evaluation team whether the training needs assessment
(which was to be performed in the first 6 months of the project) was indeed successful in
identifying Masters level training needs for staff that will be assigned to management positions in
the East Nile Delta region as originally planned.
Task Performance
Performance of Task 2.4 against project and task objectives does not meet expectations. Only 36
candidates for Master’s study have been identified by MWRI personnel out of a total expected of
50. Out of these 36 candidates, only 20 have actually been enrolled in graduate study programs.
Two of these 20 enrolled students have completed their course of study.
IRG set a target for Year 2 of 50 accepted candidates with an actual number of 20 thereby achieving
only 40% of the initial project established target. (The project has since adjusted their target
downward.)  Concerning the number of Master’s candidates graduated with degrees by the end of
Year 2, the target was 0 and the actual was 0. Further, any identified students who have not yet
enrolled are unlikely to complete their degree program prior to project completion.  
20
Recommendations
 Do not pursue additional Master’s degree candidates.  Remaining resources under this Task
should be reallocated.   Consideration should be given to MWRI recommended short‐  or
medium‐term training opportunities relevant to the IWRM II goals and objectives.  
Candidates should be selected from district offices.
 The MWRI should permit staff accepted into a Master’s program to take a leave of absence
from their position to pursue the Master’s degree full‐time or alternatively, facilitate a part‐
time program which allows the student to designate a large percentage of his/her time to
research or coursework applicable to his/her position in the Ministry and the rest of the
time to his/her regular job responsibilities (e.g. 50% coursework/research, 50% job duties).
 IRG should survey currently enrolled Master’s students on needs and expectations for their
Master’s studies as well as current and expected future job functions. These survey results
could then be used to shape a course of study that is more applicable to their positions in
the MWRI along with a research component that is directly related to their job functions
and could have an immediate, positive impact for their office.
7. PROJECT COMPONENT – CROSS‐CUTTING ISSUES
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Implied Objective (Annual Work Plan Year 1)
The purpose of the cross‐cutting Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) component of the project is to
provide IWRM II Project stakeholders with the information needed to track and manage project
progress and assess its outcomes and impacts.  
Expected Results and Outputs
According to IRG’s approved Annual Work Plan Year 1 (January – December 2009):
 Review the applicable USAID Strategic Objectives and Program Components and IWRM II
project tasks and objectives;
 Review indicators used during IWRM I and illustrative indicators proposed for IWRM II,
together with project tasks and objectives, and develop a set of indicators to track and
assess IWRM II activities;
 Develop a comprehensive Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) that identifies indicators and
benchmarks for determining progress and outlines approaches and methods to be used in
the M&E process;
 Conduct a baseline survey of farmers in the East Delta to establish pre‐project conditions,
and periodic client satisfaction surveys across the 45 IWMDs to assess quality of irrigation
service;
 Work with Task 2.3, which aims to establish information management systems at the district
level, to harmonize outcome indicator information needs with data being generated and
stored in IWMD information systems;
 Establish implementation performance targets for Years 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the contract and
clearly identify responsibilities for data collection and reporting;  
 Compute values of outcome indicators at appropriate intervals and discuss results with
project stakeholders; and
21
 Identify an appropriate institutional home for an ongoing system of performance
monitoring within the Ministry.
Findings
Efforts to monitor IWRM II activities are reflected in the development of the databases discussed
under Task 2.3.  Some outcome indicators related with improved water efficiency and productivity
have been developed in the project PMP, but most are not yet measured at this stage of the
project. Monitoring of IWRM I activities appears to be more anecdotal and not quantitative.
Additionally, evaluation of Phase II activities seems minimal at this point.  
An evaluation was conducted of BCWUAs that were formed under Phase I shortly after completion
of the program. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the level of participatory water
management by assessing: the level of participation by each BCWUA in the operation and
maintenance of branch canals and drainage system within its service area; and the level of
cooperation (i.e. exchange of information and consultation) between the MWRI and the BCWUA.
While the outcomes reflect positively on the project, there are several limitations to the report.
Many questionnaires were formulated to measure events that occurred in the previous 12 months
during a timeframe which would have overlapped substantially with the project implementation
period. Therefore, those results provide minimal information about project sustainability. More
importantly, comparative data were missing such as from a baseline of the area or from other non‐
project areas within the region. A more robust and ongoing system of M&E is clearly needed.
For IWRM II, a baseline survey covering 45 IWMDs was conducted which is an extensive geographic
coverage. Additionally, farmers also completed a perception‐based questionnaire about the
quantity and quality of irrigation services, which is more directly aligned with project goals. The
survey does generate values for yield derived from production of different crops but this
information is found only in the annex. Aggregated yield could be divided by the water delivered or
consumed to serve as a baseline and this figure should be updated each year which would provide
an indication of impacts that directly responds to the project’s objectives. Other indicators (e.g.
head versus tail analysis, aggregate area of land cultivated) may also be helpful.
Task Performance
Performance in this task does not meet expectations. This task has delivered on many of the
process indicators; however, it has failed to deliver on many of its outcome indicators and does not
appear to be making progress toward them. The project is not currently prepared to apply outcome
indicators to measure progress toward at least three of its four intended outcomes.  The project has
been inhibited in measuring outcome indicators due to delays in completing calibration of hydraulic
structures at 138 sites and delays in making data reporting systems fully functional.
Recommendations
 Develop an ongoing system for M&E that is updated annually. Such a process could be
applied to Phase I given the insights it should generate for Phase II. An ongoing M&E system
should also be applied to Phase II.
 Complement and/or cross‐check project M&E efforts with other data collection and ranking
efforts underway. For example, Ragab Abdul Aziz is said to be overseeing an exercise
whereby districts are ranked according to several criteria.  
22
 Remember that the goal is to assess project impact but also to understand variation;
therefore, the project should monitor temporal and spatial variations.
 Combine agricultural data with water data to measure productivity and efficiency:
- Productivity: Combine i) data on the agriculture yields per directorate contained in the
annex of the field survey of 45 IWMDs, and ii) data on water delivered and consumed
per directorate. Monitor change over time and explore smaller scales as well such as
districts.
- Efficiency: Combine water delivered and consumed at various scales with the
aggregated crop water requirements at those same scales. Also, consider the degree to
which drainage water is used.
 Create a short and simple a set of additional indicators to address two identified gaps in the
current indicator set: 1) quality and timeliness of data collected under the IWRM II program;
and 2) institutional capacity of IWMDs and BCWUAs.  
PUBLIC AWARENESS, EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT
Goal and Objectives (Communication Plan, May 2009)
According to the project Communication Plan, the overall goal of the communications activities is:
Increased awareness, motivation, and action by all stakeholders and
beneficiaries in organizing integrated water management systems at the
district level and irrigation directorate and ultimately transfer of innovative
technologies to water users that result in increased water saving and
incomes.
Specific objectives stated in the Communications Plan include:
 Through greater awareness of the IWRM II and expressed benefits of forming WUAs, more
BCWUAs are formed and become operational;
 Through information provided by the IWRM II about fee collection and money
management, BCWUAs prepare to sustain their own financing for O&M;
 Through effective technology transfer, water users are improving water use efficiency by
selecting and growing high cash and low water consuming cops;
 Through effective communications and raising awareness, investors and private sector
encouraged investment in reusing treated wastewater for agriculture;
 Through awareness raising, IWRM II assists in development of at least one RWMO;
 Through awareness raising and materials support, IWMDs are formed and operational; and
 Through awareness raising and materials support, information management systems are
established in the IWRM II region and are helping track proper water management.
Expected Results and Outputs
The Year 1 Annual Work Plan for IWRM II and the Communications Plan provide a detailed list of
“public awareness products” proposed to be delivered under the project as well as planning level
detail of specific activities. The products described include: print materials (fact sheets, brochures,
newsletters, etc.), videos, multi‐media tool‐kits and various workshops and press events.   
23
Findings
The evaluation of communications activities was based on observations of progress toward
communications objectives stated above. The evaluation team did not perform an in‐depth review
of individual communications activities, outputs and deliverables; however, interviews and field
visits provided insight regarding the impact of communications and public awareness activities..
In general, the evaluation team found that, at this stage of the project, the communication tools
produced have had more impact in raising awareness of IWRM with   MWRI staff than with
association members and farmers. The project has invested considerable time and expense in
developing additional materials targeting water users; however, based on feedback from the
BCWUA members met in the field, these materials have not yet achieved the desired impact on
awareness of IWRM concepts and approaches at this point in the project.  During field visits, most
of the BCWUA members the evaluation team met with had either never seen any of the project
communication tools or were seeing them for the first time that day. This may be a function of the
timing of communication tool roll‐out; however, it was a clear indication that more communication
work with BCWUA members and farmers is required. With respect to the BCWUA members who did
review the communications materials provided (flyers and booklets), many indicated to the
evaluation team that the concepts and messages regarding IWRM approaches and the utility of
BCWUAs were abstract from their current concerns and issues regarding water management.  This
indicated to the project team that more activation of the communication tools may be required.
The format of the Communication Plan submitted in May 2009 is useful to understand what
messages were developed for which beneficiaries and what tools would be used to convey those
messages; however, the plan itself seems to have been developed without full participation of
targeted groups and it has not been updated annually as the Year 1 Annual Work Plan stated would
occur. It’s understood that the IWRM II communications plan was based on communications
activities developed and implemented in IWRM I, but lessons learned from IWRM I and local
variations in water user concerns are not captured in the IWRM II communications plan.  Indeed,
the outdated plan made it difficult for the evaluation team to follow progress on the
communications activities and to understand how implementation feedback was being
incorporated in ongoing and planned activities.
The evaluation team observed that the project had invested significant human resources in
communications activities above what was planned at the beginning of the project. An expatriate
communications manager was engaged for a period of more than a year to help push forward the
communications activities. There is little doubt that this additional LOE allocated to the
communications activities helped to accelerate production of deliverables.  
Performance
The importance of communication and awareness for the success of the IWRM II project is
appreciated by the evaluation team.   Based on the experience from IWRM I, the task has been
successful in continuing to raise awareness among MWRI officials and managers.  Planned activities
to roll‐out and activate additional communications tools are expected to have similar success with
BCWUA members.  Unfortunately, the evaluation team had great difficulty in understanding the
approach to communications as presented in the project documentation.  The communications plan
was not updated as originally planned and staffing resources have been dramatically increased from
24
the original project approach.  This raised a concern with the evaluation team that the project may
have been under‐resourced from the beginning or that the communications and awareness scope
has somehow expanded.  While this activity is a cross‐cutting task of IWRM II, it is clearly a costly
component and, as such, deserves a commensurate level of project management attention
including documentation of task planning and resources applied.
Recommendations
 Revise communication plan to reflect current task status, challenges and stakeholder needs.
Use focus groups where possible to understand non‐MWRI (BCWUA) stakeholder concerns
and issues.   Include life‐of‐project budget which shows includes costs of materials and
associated project labor required to develop and disseminate.
 Integrate development of agricultural technology communication and awareness tools with
Ministry of Agriculture communications formats and approaches. Prepare all agricultural
extension materials in close cooperation with appropriate Ministry of Agriculture officials.  
Coordinate with Ministry of Agriculture to disseminate materials to farmers.  
GENDER
Implied Objective (Annual Work Plan Year 1)
Increase awareness of the importance of gender equitable approaches in all aspects of water
resources management and irrigation and among all users through the development of training
materials and by other means.
Expected Results and Outputs
According to IRG’s approved Annual Work Plan Year 1 (January – December 2009):
 Use gender disaggregated baseline data for use in tracking the success of project
interventions to increase gender equity across all tasks;
 Include training materials to develop awareness of gender equitable policies and practices
across all tasks, including suggestions for best practices and case studies where possible;
 Hold training‐of‐trainer workshops to broadly disseminate approaches to increasing gender
awareness and equity among all stakeholders;
 Compile informal quarterly reports on progress of incorporating cross‐cutting agenda into
tasks;
 Liaise with local NGOs and Community Development Associations to develop awareness
regarding water quality management, including solid and liquid waste disposal and reuse,
particularly among female stakeholders;
 Hold focus group discussions with female engineers to identify ways to increase their
numbers within the Ministry; and
 Hold focus group discussions with male engineers to determine their perspectives regarding
obstacles to increased female participation.
However, the Annual Work Plan Year 2 (January – December 2010) has removed the above
expected results and outputs and has instead stated that, “Gender equity is not pursued as a
separate project component.”
25
Findings
Most female members of BCWUAs typically represent domestic users, which generally makes sense
since women are most often responsible for household water use. Additionally, women association
members are able to visit these female head of households to provide messages on activities that
align with project objectives such as water conservation and domestic solid waste management.
However, women comprise other sectors of society including farming and they should also be
present as agricultural representatives. Additionally, the evaluation team most often met with
chairmen of the BCWUAs who were primarily men; therefore, women were rarely present when the
evaluation team met with BCWUAs.
Female engineers and data managers were present at all directorate and district offices that were
visited and appeared to have relevant and active roles on the technical teams. While senior district
engineers and directors were mostly male and took the lead in presenting their project work, the
junior female engineers were encouraged to contribute content. The evaluation team did not learn
of any focus group discussions with female or male engineers regarding gender awareness and
issues.  
In terms of training, the evaluation team was told by one group of BCWUA chairmen that women
did not attend because they were not invited. Others expressed a problem for women to attend
trainings at certain times of the day or locations which are considered inappropriate for women.  
Performance
The performance of this project component against stated Year 1 expected results and outputs has
not met expectations. IRG has not fully committed to achieving the expected results and outcomes
from the Year 1 work plan and have, in fact, removed such initiatives from the Year 2 work plan.  
Female engineers were present and active in district and directorate offices but the project has not
liaised with them as had been planned. The BCWUAs have female members and even a few
chairwomen but the project needs to fully engage them as a key resource for their communities.  
Recommendations
 Women in BCWUAs have been excluded from some training sessions due to not being
invited or not being able to attend due to time and/or location; therefore, the project
should make every effort to have trainings in a location and at a time that is also suitable to
female members and the project needs to ensure that female members are not
underutilized.  
 Female members of BCWUAs have been tasked with representing and working with
domestic beneficiaries. Therefore, the project could empower this role while advancing its
objectives by providing trainings that target only female members. This training‐of‐trainers
would then focus on water conservation and water quality management including solid and
liquid waste disposal.
 Assess the training needs of directorate and district level female engineers in order to
provide required training in suitable accessible locations.  
 Undertake expected results and outputs as outlined in Annual Work Plan Year 1 (January –
December 2009).
26
8. OTHER EVALUATION COMPONENTS
DEFINITION OF IWRM
Definition of IWRM: USAID defines IWRM as “a participatory planning and implementation process,
based on sound science that brings stakeholders together to determine how to meet society’s long‐
term needs for water and coastal resources while maintaining essential ecological services and
economic benefits.” A key tenet of IWRM is conventionally considered to be its focus on integration
of different water uses (domestic, agriculture, industry, environmental, etc.). Further, it is generally
considered a quite broad and encompassing term. While this project hits on an important aspect of
IWRM (greater participation through decentralization), its focus is overwhelmingly on one sector:
agriculture. Although other sectors and aspects of IWRM are touched on, they are peripheral.  
IWRM Definition and IWRM II project: The broad nature of IWRM and specific nature of this
project might call for a title and set of objectives that more closely reflect the project’s focus and
deliverables. Title suggestions, or more broadly branding opportunities for a program of projects
focused on issues in IWRM II, could include decentralization, participation, and sustainable
institution‐building. If such a re‐orientation is undertaken, it may be prudent to focus the objectives
on ensuring sustainability of newly formed WUAs, which would provide a longer‐term basis for the
greater productivity and efficiency sought in the current project.  
Pinpointing the focus of IWRM II: As it stands now, the project’s aim and scope may be somewhat
diverse and ambitious. The project’s working hypothesis is that institution‐creation and greater
participation will improve water productivity and efficiency. Creating institutions that sustain
themselves is, in and of itself, no small task. Creating institutions that foster outcome
improvements (e.g., enhanced efficiency or productivity) in the absence of incentives or
complementary hardware to improve may in fact be over‐ambitious. In the framework of IWRM II,
the registration of BCWUAs to enable mobilization of financing was a significant incentive for
participation according to BCWUA members. Unfortunately, this task (Task 1.2) has been derailed
by a protracted and uncertain legislative process and lack of follow‐up on financing alternatives.  
Given the slow progress in certain components of the project (wastewater reuse, Regional Water
Management Organizations), pragmatic revisions may focus on closing certain under‐performing
components and re‐directing project funds to strengthen better‐functioning components while
improving measurement of impacts and sustainability of progress made under the project.  
PROJECT COMPARISON WITH FWUOP AND IIIMP
Common Threads: IWRM II, FWUOP and IIMP: The IWRM I and II projects have not been
undertaken in isolation. Two other donor funded projects have been active in Egypt: i) The Dutch
funded Fayoum Water User Organization (FWUO) Project, and ii) The World Bank funded Integrated
Irrigation Improvement Project (IIIMP). There are clearly certain elements common to all three
27
approaches. All place key focus on decentralization through development of Branch Canal Water
User Associations (BCWUAs) and ensuring upward integration to the scale of district and beyond.
Similarly, all broadly highlight overarching goals of raising water productivity and efficiency while
ensuring equity and sustainability. Further, the steps taken in the process of BCWUA creation are
broadly similar across the different projects.
Variations in Geographic Coverage and Depth: There are nonetheless important differences across
the three approaches. Perhaps the most obvious distinction relates to the geographic area of
coverage. IWRM I and to a greater degree IWRM II appear to spread relatively small resources over
a relatively large area compared with the approaches of the other donors. The FWUO project, for
example, spent about 12 years (1994‐2006) focused on 2 districts in Fayoum governorate, then in
three years (2007‐2009) expanded to cover the remaining 7 districts in the governorate. The IIIMP,
with a budget of some $305million, currently focuses on just 11 irrigation districts (totaling 450,000
feddan) as part of a project that will endure for almost a decade (2006‐2014). By contrast, with only
4 years and a budget of $10 million, IWRM II is aiming to establish BCWUAs in some 45 districts (2.2
million feddan) in just 4 years, which are distinct from the 27 districts covered in IWRM I. While
efforts to stretch resources for the greatest benefit are certainly meritorious, one simultaneously
wonders whether there is a tradeoff between quantity of area covered and quality of coverage. It
may be, for example, worthwhile to consider striking a balance between geographic area covered
and ensuring that project impacts are properly measured and sustained in areas that are covered.
Table 4 Comparison of integrated water management projects
# Districts Years
IWRM I 27 4
IWRM II 45 4
FWUOP 9 12
IIIMP 11 9
Involvement of Irrigation Advisory Service: Related to the previous point, it appears that the pace
at which IWRM II established BCWUAs exceeded the capacities of the Ministry of Water Resources
and Irrigation’s (MWRI) Irrigation Advisory Service (IAS). As a result, IWRM II undertook to establish
its BCWUAs without the IAS. It appears that both the FWUO project and IIIMP have undertaken
institutional developments that are coordinated and supported by the IAS, which could help to
promote BCWUA sustainability and more cross‐disciplinary perspective on the BCWUA
development process. Nonetheless, the precise effect of the IAS is not entirely clear, and there may
simultaneously be merit to avoiding IAS involvement in the process of creating BCWUAs. Whichever
the case, it may be prudent to give more comprehensive thought to use of the IAS: What is the
value of IAS? Should a standard approach be utilized throughout Egypt, whereby the IAS either is or
is not a part of decentralization? Or alternatively, is it viable for some parts of Egypt to make use of
the IAS in decentralization while other parts of the country do not?
28
Hardware and infrastructure to complement institutions: A final difference relates to hardware
aspects of the three projects. In IWRM II, there is no resources allocation for hardware (e.g., field
level irrigation improvements, tractors for clearing canals). In the FWUO project, by contrast, seed
funding was provided in various ways to BCWUAs for small works activities. In IIIMP, some 85 % of
project budget is allocated to provision of new infrastructure for more efficient and sustainable
water management. Further, communities are able to collect and manage their own funds by
operating at the mezqa level. People affiliated with other projects highlighted the potential to
promote stakeholder buy‐in through provision of complementary hardware improvements to the
software of improved institutions.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The evaluation did not specifically examine the consultant’s project management but rather
focused on project performance. Nevertheless, in this regard, the evaluation team had some
observations of project management issues which have had significant negative impact on project
performance.
Staffing: The original IWRM II staffing plan identifies several positions which were either never filled
or were filled only partially. Of particular note is the Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) position. While
initially filled, the position has remained empty for more than 18 months. This is particularly
concerning since the DCOP had both management responsibilities and a technical leadership role
for half of the project tasks. Without this key position filled other project staff members have taken
on more responsibilities than originally planned limiting their ability to follow‐up on critical issues
and generally leaving project staff stretched too thin.  
Presumably a short‐staffed project should have excess budget; however, a quick review of the
quarterly financial reports does not indicate significant savings. The hiring of a full‐time, expatriate
communications manager for a period of one year was not in the original budget and may explain
why the project does not show significant salary savings. Nevertheless, this increased emphasis on
communications support did not overcome technical staffing shortfalls that may have negatively
impacted task performance.
Work Planning and Reporting: In general, the evaluation team found the work plans presented by
the project to be vague and difficult to follow as a working document to guide implementation.
Expected results and outputs were generally presented on a task by task basis for the life‐of‐the
project. Annual expected results and outputs are not clearly discussed in annual work plans. Much
of the text in the second and third year draft plans is copied identically from the Year 1 plan. The
management of the project as well as the communication between the contractor, USAID and the
various stakeholders would benefit from a more rigorous and detailed work planning process that
identified specific activities to be undertaken in the coming year, the timing of those activities and
the specific deliverables and outputs that will be expected on an annual basis.  
29
8. CONCLUSIONS
In general, the evaluation team found that the integrated water management approach conceived
by the Ministry and promulgated with the assistance of the IWRM project has been successful in
improving communication between water users and irrigation districts and improving the quality
and flow of information pertaining to water allocations. The project is achieving success in several
important tasks including the formation and development of BCWUAs and IWMDs (Task 1.1 and
Task 2.2) and the establishment of information systems (Task 2.3). Undoubtedly, these
improvements, if sustained, will have a positive impact on the efficiency of water use in these
districts.  
However, lack of coordination and follow‐up with key project counterparts including the Ministry of
Agriculture and Land Resources, the Holding Company for Water and Wastewater and on key issues
related to legal status of BCWUAs, RWMO establishment and student recruitment has resulted in
the project not meeting expectations in five out of eight tasks and in all three of the cross‐cutting
components. An abbreviated summary of the evaluation results together with recommendations
going forward is given in Table 2. Findings upon which these results were based along with greater
detail concerning project performance and recommendations were given in the body of this report.
An abbreviated summary of those evaluation results together with recommendations going forward
is given in Table 4.   
Table 5: Summary of evaluation results and recommendations
Task
Meeting
Expectations Performance Main Recommendations
1.1 Formation and
development of
BCWUAs
Yes BCWUAs have been formed to
cover branch canals but
greater effort needs to be
placed on capacity‐building
- Prioritize training to include
organizational and technical training
- Monitor governance and institutional
capacity
1.2 Sustainable
local financing for
canal and drain
maintenance
No Amendment to Law 12 1984
was drafted but not yet passed
and no other significant
progress has been made on
required deliverables
- Immediately wrap‐up ongoing
financing work, cease further activity
and remove remaining activities from
contractor scope of work.
1.3 Improvements
in water
productivity and
efficiency
No Task not adequately staffed
after dismissal of DCOP. MWRI
decree has reduced rice
cultivation but project has not
provided sufficient training on
alternative crops and irrigation
methods  
- Increase farmer training on high‐
value crops and modern irrigation
methods
- Create agricultural extension
materials for new crops
- Increase coordination between MWRI
and MALR
1.4 Wastewater
reuse
No Feasibility study was
completed but other
deliverables remain
unsatisfied
- Cease all further activity and remove
task from scope of work
30
Task
Meeting
Expectations Performance Main Recommendations
2.1 Regional water
management
organizations
No Despite efforts to move this
forward, no significant
progress has been made
- Cease all further activity and remove
task from scope of work
2.2 Formation and
development of
IWMDs
Yes IWMDs have been formed
resulting in management
efficiency and improving
communication between
MWRI and water users
- Develop institutional performance
criteria and assess capacity
- Reassess training capacity and
develop IWRM training materials
2.3 Establishment
of information
management
systems
Yes Task is proceeding well
although some project
objectives data are not being
captured or analyzed
- Collect additional data with direct
relevance to project objectives
- Analyze data being collected to
understand and improve water
management
2.4 Capacity‐
building of MWRI
personnel
No Only 20 candidates out of a
total of 50 are enrolled in a
Master’s program and none
have finished; communication
of this opportunity was poor
and many districts were
unaware of its existence
- Facilitate current students to finish
studies in a timely manner
- Do not add any more candidates into
the program as there is not enough
time
Monitoring and
evaluation
No Project measuring process
indicators but not outcome
and institutional or
governance indicators
- Develop an ongoing system of M&E
updated annually
- Quantify water productivity and
efficiency
- Develop and apply process, outcome
and institutional indicators
Communication No Communication outputs do
not match with stakeholder
needs
- Revise communication plan seeking
stakeholder input
Gender No Project is not fully committed
to achieving the expected
outcomes from the Year 1
Work Plan
- Provide training opportunities which
do not exclude female members of
BCWUAs due to time and/or location
- Provide specialized training to female
members of BCWUAs who have been
designated domestic representatives
Additionally, the evaluation team assessed the following key areas of performance and had the
following findings:
 Validity of Strategy: Decentralization and increased participation improved communication
and water management but impact on efficiency/productivity is unclear.
 Confirmation of Results: Project M&E system makes it difficult to identify changed
outcomes and measure the strength of institutions established.
 Responsive to Stakeholder Needs: Appears to respond to stakeholders although more
attention needs to be given to BCWUAs.
31
 Sustainability of Actions: Phase I sustainability not formally determined; local financing and
decentralization of budget authority appear critical to sustainability.
All levels of MWRI and water users demonstrate a sincere commitment to a participative and
decentralized approach for water management. However, the project has struggled with
implementation on some tasks such as reuse of treated WW, capacity‐building, and productivity.
Additionally and more importantly, sustainability of actions is the major risk faced by the new
IWMDs and BCWUAs. Without positive and tangible outcomes resulting from the new model of
management and cooperation between users and MWRI, association members are likely to lose
interest in participation. More effort to build capacity of district office staff and fledgling
associations is needed in order to maintain the spirit of cooperation and mobilize resources for
system maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement.  
Overall, the IWRM II project has made important progress in several key areas but there is still
significant need for the project to adjust and redirect their efforts in terms of implementation.
Activities need to be strengthened in well‐performing project areas while IRG can cease or stop
future activities in other areas that are not performing or are peripheral. Furthermore, IRG needs to
make a stronger effort to document the impact from the project which requires a robust M&E
system to provide clear and systematic guidance on project progress and outcomes.
  
32
ANNEX A. IWRM‐II EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK
Scope of Work
Program Performance Evaluation
LIFE ‐ Integrated Water Resources Management II
January 2011
Introduction
In January 2009, USAID/Egypt contracted with the International Resources Group (IRG) to implement the
Integrated Water Resources Management II (IWRM II) project as a 4‐year, Task Order award under the Water II IQC
with an approximately $10 million Task Order ceiling.  In order to evaluate performance, validate results, capture
lessons learned and inform necessary program adjustments, USAID/Egypt is planning to conduct a mid‐term
evaluation of the IWRM‐II project.
IWRM II is funded under the Livelihoods and Income for the Environment (LIFE) Assistance Agreement (2630290)
with the Government of Egypt.
Background
Over the last two decades, USAID has assisted the Government of Egypt (GOE) in placing more control for irrigation
water management decision making in the hands of farmers.   Design of the Integrated Water Resource
Management (IWRM) Program   (Phases I and II), was based on the results of several earlier USAID programs,
notably the Agricultural Policy Reform Program – Water Policy Activity (1997‐2002), which set a number of
“benchmarks” or specific reform actions.   Following positive results in the achievement of these benchmarks,
USAID designated funding from the Red Sea Sustainable Development and Improved Water Resources
Management Project for the so‐called “bridging project” – Improved Water Management Component (2002‐04),
which field tested the IWMD and BCWUA concepts and formed the basis for the design of IWRM program.   In
addition, several components were added to address water quality issues, through pilot projects of promising
technologies.
Since its inception in October 2004, the IWRM I Program has assisted the Ministry of Water Resources and
Irrigation (MWRI) in piloting integrated management of water resources at the district level in New Zifta
Directorate (Gharbiya), West Sharkeya Directorate, East and West Qena Directorates and Aswan Directorate.  
IWRM directly supports the government’s National Water Resource Plan.  Development of grassroots participation
in water resource decisions is a significant contribution of the program to improving civil society and local
democratization. IWRM I was successful in increasing farmer participation in water management and
decentralizing decision‐making authority in upper Egypt and portions of the Delta.   Based on this success and
MWRI’s support of the management reforms, USAID/Egypt initiated a second phase of activities to broaden the
impact of integrated water resources management specifically in the Nile Delta.   
The purpose of the IWRM II (2009 – 2012) is to build on the successful IWRM I experience in improving water
management at the field level IWRM II is working in a new location in Egypt in order to achieve similar results.  The
IWRM II program will establish integrated water management districts and branch canal water users associations
in order to decentralize water management authority and generally improve efficiency and productivity of water
33
use. The contractor is to work with: the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI); other government
entities, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR), the Ministry of State for
Environmental Affairs (MSEA), and the Ministry of Housing (MOH); and water users, including farmers, their
associations throughout the Eats Delta region, and private investors.   
To help the evaluation team prepare for the evaluation, several key project documents are included as
attachments to this SOW:
 Attachment A contains the contract scope of work.
 Attachment B contains IWRM II project work plans for year 1 (January 2009 –December 2009)
and Year 2 (January 2010 to December 2010) of the project.
 Attachment C contains the final performance monitoring plan (PMP) for the IWRM II project.
Evaluation Objectives
 To evaluate the effectiveness and impact of IWRM II activities in achieving the contract stated objectives
to:
o Increase productivity of water (as measured by value added per quantity of water consumed)
o Increase efficiency of water resources use (as measured by quantity of water consumed per
feddan of cultivated land)
o Achieve more equitable allocation of water resources
o Improve water quality
 To identify opportunities for improved activity implementation within the limits of the Task Order scope
of work and the remaining project implementation period.
 To reevaluate and clarify expected project outcomes in order to provide all IWRM II stakeholders
(Ministry, USAID and farmers) with clear vision of sector reforms and changed conditions at the end of the
project.  This analysis will be used to manage stakeholder expectations and help conceptualize plans for
additional complementary activities.   
 To identify critical obstacles impeding the implementation of the program as originally designed and
recommend approaches for overcoming or circumventing these obstacles.
Scope of Evaluation
The evaluation team is tasked to examine the past performance of IWRM II activities from inception of the
program in January 2009 through the present.   While the evaluation should evaluate past performance,
USAID/Egypt is also interested in forward‐looking recommendations on possible strategies for improving the
effectiveness of the IWRM II program over the remaining two years of the contract base period.   
The performance evaluation will address five key areas of performance:
 Validity of Hypothesis (Strategy) – The team will evaluate the validity of the development hypothesis
guiding IWRM II activities and either confirm the hypothesis or recommend revision.  The development
hypothesis is not explicitly stated in the task order scope of work; therefore, the evaluation team will
need to define
 Confirmation of Results – The team will review the PMP (Attachment C) for the IWRM II project and
additional documentation of results achieved (interim performance reports, DQAs, studies, reports  etc.),
and comment on the validity of results and the expectations for achievement of indicator targets.
 Responsive to Stakeholder Needs – The team will review the breadth and depth of IWRM II activities and
comment on how these activities are responsive to the needs of partners and users association
stakeholders.  This analysis necessarily looks beyond the IWRM II contract scope of work at the broader
priorities for water resources management in Egypt and especially those priority issues lacking adequate
attention from other donors and multi‐lateral lending institutions.
 Sustainability of Actions – The team will evaluate and comment on the sustainability of IWRM II activities.  
Recommendations to improve sustainability are expected in the evaluation summary.  Also, as IWRM II is
34
intended to be catalytic in the replication of best practices, the evaluation team is requested to provide
comment and recommendation on opportunities to improve likelihood of replication of practices and
management approaches implemented under the IWRM II program.
 Lessons Learned – The evaluation team will identify lessons learned from the first two‐years of
implementation and distill these lessons into clear guidance for the remaining period of implementation.  
Lessons learned may include both technical and implementation/management guidance.
In addition to the performance assessment, the evaluation team is asked to examine several key questions
pertaining to the IWRM II program in detail:  
 What capacity building accomplishments have been achieved within the MWRI and the BCWUAs?  Is
capacity development on track with sustainability requirements of the IWRM framework?
 Does the IWRM II program continue to support the long‐term water management vision of the Ministry of
Water Resources and Irrigation?  Are there any gaps in support for the Ministry’s vision?
 Did the training provided by the IWRM II program address the needs of the MWRI staff and BCWUA
members?  Is the IWRM II training program integrated with other training efforts of the MWRI? What was
the quality and impact of the training provided?
 Have gender issues been addressed adequately in this project?  Was gender addressed in the training plan
and other aspects of program implementation?  What impact has the program achieved on empowering
women to better perform their work and advance their careers?  
Evaluation Team Members (Roles and Responsibilities)
Jonathan Lautze – Water resources expert.   Technical team member to provide expert analysis of program
approach and implementation.
Scott Christiansen – Agriculture expert.  Technical team member to provide expert analysis of program approach
and implementation.
Amani Selim – Monitoring and evaluation expert.   Program team member to provide guidance on evaluation
approach, enquiry and program implementation and impact.
Soad Saada – Environment and Gender Expert.   Program team member to provide guidance on evaluation
approach, enquiry and program implementation and impact.  
Thomas Kaluzny – Water Engineer. Technical team member supporting analysis and documentation.   
John Pasch – Team leader/coordinator. Responsible for management of evaluation process, logistics and
evaluation report delivery.   
Expected Evaluation Results
The team is expected to provide a summary of results to the USAID/Egypt in the form of an out‐briefing and an
evaluation report responsive to the scope of work stated above.  The out‐briefing will be scheduled in Cairo on or
about January 20, 2011.   A draft report will be prepared by the evaluation team and submitted to the
USAID/Egypt/PSD prior to team departure from Cairo.  The final report should be completed and submitted to PSD
by January 28, 2011.  
  
35
ANNEX B. DAILY EVALUATION SCHEDULE
USAID Mid‐Term Evaluation
Agenda (January 4‐20, 2011)
Date Location
USAID
Group
Time Attendees Address Contact Person
Tuesday, 4
January
USAID office A&B 10:00am USAID – IRG
Wednesday,
5 January
MWRI, 9th floor   A&B 12:00pm
1:00pm
2:00pm‐ 
3:00pm
USAID‐IRG‐S.C.
members
Irrigation Sector‐
WD‐Telemetry‐
Channel
Maintenance.W
CU ‐ MIC‐GW
Thursday, 6
January
Abo Kebeer
IWMD
A 9:00am Dr. Wadie,
District Staff &
BCWUAs
Abo Kebeer
District,
Elmoaahda St.
Dr. Wadie
Fahim
0123548853
Belbeis IWMD B 9:00am Eng. Maher,
District. Staff &
BCWUAs
Belbeis District,
Portsaid St.)
Eng. Maher
Khodary
0121057593
Sunday, 9
January
Fayoum project A&B 10:00am
11:am
1:00pm
Fayoum CD&GIS
unit
S. Fayoum
District
Tattoum &
Mohamed Sons
BCWUAs
Eng. Nagwa El
Khashab
0106165102
Monday, 10
January
Birket El Sabaa
IWMD
A&B 10:00am Ibraheem Abd
Elfatah (DD),
District Staff,
BCWUAs
Birket El Sabaa
City beside Birket
El Sabaa Local
Council Office
Ayman
Shedeed
0127417305
Tuesday, 11
January
Ismailia Irrigation US
& DG
A&B 10:00am
11:00am
Abd Elfatah
Ateia (US), Saied
Abd Elaziem
(DG)
Irrigation &
Drainage Complex
El Sheikh Zaied
Compound
Ayman
Shedeed
0127417305
Ismailia IWMD A 11:20am Ahlam Aly (DD),
District Staff,
Ismailia City
beside Elsuez
Ayman
Shedeed
36
Date Location
USAID
Group
Time Attendees Address Contact Person
BCWUAs Canal Intake,
Nefesha
compound)
0127417305
E. Elbohairat IWMD B 11:20am Elsaied Fathy
(DD)
Ismailia City
beside Elsuez
Canal Intake,
Nefesha
compound)  
Ayman
Shedeed
0127417305
Wednesday
12 January
Damietta Irrigation
US & DG.
A 9:00am
10:00am
Zenab Elraies
(US),  
Mohamed Abo
Elfotooh (DG)
Irrigation
Complex Building
beside the
Damietta
Governorate
Building
Albyoumi Aly
0128530319
Faraskour IWMD A 11:00am Abd Elrahman
Faried (DD)
Faraskour City
beside the Central
Hospital
Albyoumi Aly
0128530319
San Elhagar IWMD B 9:00am Saad Elsaied
(DG)
Hesham Tawfik
(DD)
Feriad Village Saad Elsaied
0128472827
Thursday, 13
January
Dakahlia    
Dakahlia Irrigation US
& DG
A 9:00am
9:30am
(RO)
9:30am
10:30am
(US)
Wahdan
Mohamed (US)
Nabeeh Sogare
(DG)
Dakahlia complex
Building, Zaghlool
St.
Albyoumi Aly
0128530319
Deyarb Negm IWMD A 11:30am Abd Elfatah
Elbaz
Deyarb Negm
District beside the
Post Office
Akmal Badie
0105260644
Cairo  
MWRI   B 11:00am Dr. Tarek Kotb
(DG) & Eng.
Ibraheem
Mohamed
MWRI Building
11th floor
Eng. Ibraheem
Mohamed
0106038943
Monday, 17
January
Sharkia  
Sharkia Irrigation US
& DG
A 9:30am‐
10:00am
(RO)
10:00am1
1:00am
(US)
Ahmed
Ibraheem (US)
Elsaied Rizk (DG‐
Salhia) & Elsaied
Ahmed (DG‐
Elsalhia)
Irrigation &
Drainage Complex
Building beside
Elmabara Hospital
Ayman
Shedeed
0127417305
37
Date Location
USAID
Group
Time Attendees Address Contact Person
Abo Hammad IWMD A 11:30am Elsaied Mansour
(DD)
Abo Hammad
District in front of
Elsamak Bridge
Ayman
Shedeed
0127417305
Menya Elkamh
IWMD
A 1:30pm Anwar Nageeb
Hussein
Minia Elkamh
City, Elraie District
St.
Soha Mostafa
0101734702
Monday, 17
January
Qualubia
Kafr Shoukr IWMD B 10:00am
11:30pm
Ahmed
Mohamed
Ahmed (DD)
Meet Eldrage
beside Kafr
Shoukr Police
Station.
Ayman Shedeed
0127417305
Toukh IWMD B 12:00pm
2:00pm
Fawzy Khater
(DD)
Ahmed Abd
Elaziz St. beside
Toukh District
Police Station
Ayman Shedeed
0127417305
Tuesday, 18
January
HCWW A&B 10:00am
AUC A&B 12:30pm
Thursday, 20
January
Debriefing MWRI,
USAID
A&B
& IRG
TBD
Notes:
USAID Team A:
Amani Selim  
Victoria Mitchell
Jonathan Lautze
Scott Christiansen
USAID Team B:
Soaad Saada  
John Pasch
Thomas Kaluzny
  
38
ANNEX C. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY THE EVALUATION
TEAM
1. USAID Contract No: EPP‐I‐00‐04‐00024‐00: Integrated Water Resources Management II
(IWRM II)
2. IWRM II Annual Work Plan Year 1 (March 2009) including Year 1 Training Plan and Life of
Project Procurement Plan
3. IWRM II Annual Work Plan Year 2 (December 2009) including Year 1 Training Plan and Life of
Project Procurement Plan Update
4. IWRM II Performance Monitoring Plan Report No. 6 (July 2009)
5. IWRM II Quarterly Report Year 1: 1st Quarter (April 2009)
6. IWRM II Quarterly Report Year 1: 2nd Quarter (July 2009)
7. IWRM II Quarterly Report Year 1: 3rd Quarter (October 2009)
8. IWRM II Annual Report Year 1: January 2010
9. IWRM II Quarterly Report Year 2: 1st Quarter (April 2010)
10. IWRM II Quarterly Report Year 2: 2nd Quarter (July 2010)
11. IWRM II Quarterly Report Year 2: 3rd Quarter (October 2010)
12. Economic Feasibility of Alternative Crops with Potential for the Reuse of Treated
Wastewater (May 2009)
13. IWRM II Communication Plan (May 2009)
14. IWRM I BCWUA Assessment (July 2009)
15. Farmer Baseline Survey (July 2009)
16. MWRI Training Needs Assessment (July 2009)
17. Feasibility of Wastewater Reuse (June 2010)
18. Livelihood and Income from the Environment (LIFE) Evaluation Report (June 2008)
19. Report of the integrated management of water in Fayoum governorate: A performance
review and future perspective, November 2010
20. Introducing High Value/Low Water Consumption Crops to East Delta Farmers: Findings and
Lessons Learned from Pilots Summer Season 2010 (Preliminary Draft)
  
39
ANNEX D. LIST OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Central Ministry Staff Questionnaire 
Thank you for participating in this evaluation. The main purpose of the evaluation is to find out how
useful has this project been to the farmers. USAID is the agency funding this project and would like to
continue providing assistance to farmers and expand to other governorates in Egypt.  The information
collected is highly confidential and will not be identified individually.
1. Name:
2. Association Name:
3. Address:
4. Telephone number:
_________________________________________________________
5. How do you see the IWRM project and decentralization in terms of the broader ministry vision?
6. Do you have targets for improved water productivity? (Is improved water productivity a goal of
MWRI?) Do you have water allocation targets for the future?
7. How highly prioritized are IWRM and related projects on the ministry’s agenda?
8. What are results of IWRM I? Is this improving WRM outcomes in Egypt? How?
9. What is successful WRM in Egypt (how do you define success, what are criteria)? What is successful
district? What is successful branch canal?
10. Based on phase I process, what do you see as challenges to IWRM II sustainability?
11. What are you doing that supports or complements IWRM I and/or IWRM II projects (or more
broadly all 3 decentralization/WUA projects)?
12. What are the concerns raised by the minister’s requested evaluation on WUA/O projects?
13. What are the differences, strengths, challenges among the 3 different programs?
14. How much responsibility does ministry have to monitor IWRM I and IWRM II?
15. Has training been absorbed institutionally? Has it been relevant? What is its value? Is there a better
way to build capacity?
16. Given the constraints on funding due to delays on legalization of BCWUAs, what measures can be
taken to enhance effectiveness without legalization?  
40
17. Have gender issues been addressed adequately in this project?
Was gender addressed in the training plan and other aspects of program
implementation?   
18. What impact has the program achieved on empowering
women to better perform their work and advance their careers?
Irrigation Directorate/Engineering Unit Staff Questionnaire
Thank you for participating in this evaluation. The main purpose of the evaluation is to find out how
useful has this project been to the farmers. USAID is the agency funding this project and would like to
continue providing assistance to farmers and expand to other governorates in Egypt.  The information
collected is highly confidential and will not be identified individually.
1. Name:
2. Association Name:
3. Address:
4. Telephone number:
_________________________________________________________
5. In the absence of calculations, if you have to assess now, what is your expert assessment about the
change in water productivity or efficiency as a result of IWRM implementation?  
6. Do you have targets for improved water productivity etc? Do you have water allocation targets for
the future?
7. What is successful WRM in a Governorate (name some important criteria)? What is successful
district? What is successful branch canal WUA?
8. Given the constraints on funding due to delays on legalization of BCWUAs, what measures can be
taken to enhance effectiveness without legalization?  
9. What data or information is needed as input to a system for monitoring project impact or
BCWUA/District WRM effectiveness?  
10. How much money/capital is managed by BCWUAs in your directorate? Has the amount of money
being managed been increasing or decreasing? How open and participative are decisions related to
how this money is utilized?
11. In what aspects are BCWUAs effective in your directorate? In what aspects are BCWUAs less
effective? What are some of the principal criteria you would utilize to measure effectiveness?
41
12. Have gender issues been addressed adequately in this project?
Was gender addressed in the training plan and other aspects of program
implementation?   
13. What impact has the program achieved on empowering
women to better perform their work and advance their careers?
Questionnaire for farmers in two pilots
Thank you for participating in this evaluation. The main purpose of the evaluation is to find out how
useful has this project been to the farmers. USAID is the agency funding this project and would like to
continue providing assistance to farmers and expand to other governorates in Egypt.  The information
collected is highly confidential and will not be identified individually.
1. Name:
2. Association Name:
3. Address:
4. Telephone number:
_________________________________________________________
5. What changes have you made as part of the project?
6. Has your production changed? Has this lead to changed income? By approximately how much on an
annual basis?
7. If you have made changes, can you describe your incentives or motivations for making changes?
(How much was dictated from above v. being personally driven?)
8. Can you estimate your change in water use, if any? (How much less water are you using?)
9. What have been some of the challenges associated with managing the transitions that have been
made?
10. Has sufficient seeds and fertilizer been provided? By whom?
11. Has enough Technical Assistance been provided?
42
Water users Questionnaire
Thank you for participating in this evaluation. The main purpose of the evaluation is to find out how
useful has this project been to the farmers. USAID is the agency funding this project and would like to
continue providing assistance to farmers and expand to other governorates in Egypt.  The information
collected is highly confidential and will not be identified individually.
1. Name:
2. Association Name:
3. Address:
4. Telephone number:
_________________________________________________________
إستبيان لمستخدمى المياه
نشكرك للمشارآة فى هذا التقييم والذى يهدف إلى تحديد مدى استفادة المزارعين من هذا المشروع الذى قامت الوآالة الأمريكية للتنمية
الدولية بتمويله والتى ترغب فى إستمرار مساعدتها لهم والتوسع فيه فى محافظات أخرى، مع ملاحظة أن هذه المعلومات سرية للغاية
ولن يتم الإفصاح عن شخصيتك0   
-1 الأسم :_______________
-2 إسم الجمعية:___________
-3 العنوان:______________
-4 رقم التليفون:___________
_____________________________________________________
5‐ Are you a landowner?  How long have you owned this land? How long have you rented this land?
هل أنت مالك الأرض؟ منذ متى؟ ومنذ متى قمت بتأجيرها؟
6‐ What are the crops that you plant?  In summer?  In winter?
ما هى المحاصيل التى تقوم بزراعتها ؟ صيفا أم شتاء؟   
7‐ How did you learn about the BCWUA? How long have you been a member?
متى سمعت عن رابطة مستخدمى المياه؟ ومنذ متى أصبحت عضوا فيها؟
8‐ Are you a member in any other association?
هل أنت عضو فى أى رابطة أخرى؟
9‐ What encouraged you to participate in the BCWUA?
-5 ما الذى شجعك على الإنضمام لرابطة مستخدمى المياه؟
10‐How were you elected in the BCWUA board?
43
   هل تم إنتخابك فىمجلس إدارة الرابطة؟   
11‐ How many members are there in your BCWUA?
   ما هو عدد أعضاء الرابطة التى تنتسب لها؟
12‐ What are your current roles as a board member?
  ما هى مهامك بصفتك عضو مجلس إدارة؟
13‐ What training have you received from the project? What did you benefit from the training?
   ماهو التدريب الذى حصلت عليه من المشروع؟ وما الذى أستفدته منه؟
14‐ Are there any differences/ benefits that water users experienced after establishment of
BCWUA?
  هل هناك مزايا أو إختلاف أحس به مستخدمى المياه بعد إنشاء الرابطة؟
15‐ What major activities has the association engaged in to serve water users?
   ماهى الأنشطة التى تقوم الرابطة بها لخدمة مستخدمى المياه؟
16‐ What major activities does the association plan to engage in to serve water users?
  ماهى الأنشطة التى تخطط الرابطة للقيام بها لخدمة مستخدمى المياه؟
17‐ As a member in the BCWUA, do you have more information about your canal, how is this
information transferred to other water users on the canal?
  بصفتك عضوا فى الرابطة هل لديك معلومات أآثر عن قناة المياه؟ وآيف يمكنك نقلها إلى    المستخدمين الآخرين؟  
18‐ Does the association have an office or a place for regular board meetings? Who bears the
expense?
هل لدى الرابطة مكتب أو مقر دائم لإجتماع مجلس الإدارة؟ من الذى يتحمل التكاليف؟   
19‐ Does your association plan to engage in other non‐water related activities?
هل تخطط رابطتك للمشارآة فى أنشطة أخرى لا تتعلق بالمياه؟
20‐ How different is your relationship with the irrigation district compared to previous years?
آيف إختلفت علاقتك بمديرية الرى عن السنوات السابقة؟
21‐ How many meetings has the BCWUA board held since establishment?
آم عدد الاجتماعات الداخلية اللى قام بها مجلس إدارة الرابطة من أول إنشاء الرابطة ؟
44
22‐ How many meetings have been held between the board and IWMD since the association
establishment?
آم عدد الاجتماعات التى تمت بين مجلس إدارة الرابطة وبين ممثلى هندسة الري من أول إنشاء الرابطة ؟
23‐ How many meetings (formal/informal) has the board held with their Water Users
Representatives?
آم عدد الاجتماعات الرسمية أوالغير رسمية التى تمت بين مجلس الإدارة و أعضاء اللجنة التمثيلية للرابطة ؟
24‐ What do you gain from the meetings?
ما الذى إستفدته من هذه الإجتماعات؟   
25‐What major activities does the association engage in to serve water users?
ماهى أهم الأنشطة اللى قامت بها الرابطة لخدمة المستفيدين؟
26‐ Do you expect the BCWUAs to participate in improving the efficiency of water distribution, use
and equity? How?
هل تتوقع من الرابطة أن تشارك فى تحسين آفاءة توزيع وإستخدام المياه والعدالة فى ذلك؟ وآيف؟
27‐ Do you expect they can participate in increasing crop yields and farmers income?
هل تتوقع منهم المشارآة فى زيادة المحاصيل ودخول المزارعين؟   
28‐ What kind of support do you need as a BCWUA to achieve sustainable outcomes?
ما هو الدعم الذى تتوقعه من الرابطة لتحقيق نتائج مستديمة؟   
29‐ In what aspects is the BCWUA effective? In what aspects is the BCWUA less effective? What are
some of the principal criteria you would utilize to measure effectiveness?
ما هى جوانب الكفاءة فى الرابطة؟ وماهى جوانب القصور؟ وماهى العوامل الرئيسية لقياس    هذه الكفاءة؟
30‐ How much money/capital is managed by the BCWUA? Has the amount of money being managed
been increasing or decreasing? How open and participative are decisions related to how this money
is utilized?
ما هو حجم رأس المال الذى تتعامل به الرابطة؟ وهل تتم زيادة هذا المبلغ أم يتناقص؟ وما مدى إنفتاح الحوار ومستوى مشارآتكم فيه
لجهة مناقشة سبل إستخدامه؟
31‐ What do you see as the future of your BCWUA? What are the challenges to sustainability? What
can be done to enhance the likelihoods of BCWUA sustainability and effective sustainability?
آيف ترى مستقبل الرابطة؟ وماهى التحديات التى تواجه إستمرارها؟ وماالذى يمكن عمله لزيادة إحتمال الإستمرار والحفاظ على
آفاءتها؟
45
32‐ Given the limited arrival of funds that were envisioned associated with legalization of BCWUAs,
what measures can be taken in place of this legalization? In the current legal situation, with no
mechanism to manage funding, what do you do?
بعد ملاحظة محدود التمويل الذى سيتاح للرابطة بعد تقنينها ما هى الإجراءات التى يمكن إتخاذها بعد هذا التقنين؟ وما الذى يمكنك القيام
به فى ضوء الوضع القانونى الحالى حيث لا توجد آلية لإدارة التمويل؟
Questions concerning women participation in BCWUAs
الأسئلة المتعلقة بمشارآة المرأة فى رابطة مستخدمى المياه
Do you have women board members in your BCWUA, and how many? .1
هل يضم مجلس إدارة الرابطة سيدات؟ وآم عددهن؟   
In what activities do women board members participate? .2
ماهى الأنشطة التى تشارك فيها عضوات مجلس إدارة الرابطة؟
Do women, as board members, interact with their water users’ representatives in terms of .3
information exchange, complaints, raising awareness activities?
هل تتعامل السيدات بصفتهن عضوات فى مجلس الإدارة مع مستخدمى المياه فيما يتعلق بتبادل المعلومات والشكاوى والأنشطة التى تهدف
إلى رفع الوعى؟   
Are BCWUA members convinced that women should participate as board members, and that .4
their participation is beneficial?
هل أعضاء الرابطة مقتنعون بضرورة مشارآة السيدات آعضوات فى مجلس الإدارة وبأن مشارآتهن نافعة؟   
Questions to Women BCWUA members
أسئلة للسيدات العضوات فى رابطة مستخدمى المياه
What problems or constraints, if any, do women face concerning their adequate participation in .5
BCWUAs, and what is needed to activate their role within these associations?
ماهى المشاآل أو العوائق التى تواجهها السيدات (إن وجدت) لناحية آفاءتهن للمشارآة فى الروابط ؟ وماالذى يلزم لتفعيل دورهن
داخلها؟   
Did the project address these constraints? How .6
هل يعالج المشروع تلك العوائق؟ آيف؟   
Are you aware of any project activity that specifically addresses women’s participation, women’s .7
roles and so forth
هل أنت على دارية بأى نشاط محدد يتناول مشارآة السيدات  ودورهن وما إلى ذلك؟