MCC-16-RFQ-0015_0002.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 3

0002 11/30/2015

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 875 15th St, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005-2227

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 875 15th St., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20002-2227 Ray Staniewski, Contract Specialist, (KTR) (202) 521-3656

To all Offerors/Bidders MCC-16-RFQ-0015

11-10-2015 X

X X

In accordance with BLOCK 11 above, the purpose of this Amendment to this Solicitation is to:

a) Provide the answer to a question that was submitted.

b) Provide answers to the question regarding data collection.

c) Provide updated deliverable schedule.

d) Provide the full attachment to Annex I & II.

e) Be sure to read & follow the directions provided above in BLOCK 11.

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 0002 Page 2 of 3

CONTINUATION PAGE

The estimated deliverable dates for the final data collection are in error, and are corrected in this, Amendment 0002 to the Solicitation. In addition, there was an error in the uploading of Annexes I and II (the prior Design Report and the Baseline Report). Those are added in this Amendment as well. The prior Design Report had discussed two potential options for final data collection. One was for a shorter retrospective survey, and the other option was for a repeat of the three rounds of data collection that were implemented in the baseline survey. Under the new contract, a final decision will be made about implementation of the end-line data collection via the revised Design Report that the Contractor will produce. However, for the purposes of this solicitation, offerors should assume a repeat of the full three rounds of data collection for the end-line survey (which would take approximately one year).

Task Deliverable Estimated Due Date

Potential Peer

Review?

Publicly Available?

Associated Payment

Phase 1 1 Assess

Evaluation Plan Evaluability Assessment Feb 2016 No Possibly Work Plan Feb 2016 No No

2 Develop Evaluation Design Report

Draft Evaluation Design Report, in French and English April 2016 Yes No Local Stakeholder feedback with response;

Confirmation of commitment to evaluation design

May 2016 No No

MCC feedback with response May 2016 No No Final Evaluation Design Report, in French and English June 2016 Yes Yes

3 Monitor program implementation

Written risk assessments included in quarterly reports Feb 2016 No No

Written status of implementation in treatment and control groups

Feb 2016 No No

Task Deliverable Estimated Due Date

Potential Peer

Review?

Publicly Available?

Associated Payment

Phase 2 4 Revise Interim

Evaluation Materials

Draft data collection firm TORs July 2016 No No Draft, revised French and English data collection tools and training manuals

July 2016 Yes No

Summary of pilot test, Written review of back-translation

Aug 2016 No No

Final French and English data collection tools and training manuals

Sept 2016 Yes Yes

Documentation of local stakeholder and MCC feedback and response

Sept 2016 No No

IRB package approval Sept 2016 No No 5 Supervise

Interim Data collection

Data Collection Report Jan 2017 No No

6 Develop Interim Report

Draft Evaluation Report March

Yes No

Local Stakeholder feedback with response April 2017 No Yes MCC feedback with response April 2017 No No Final raw and analysis files, anonymized following MCC guidelines; STATA do files (As per Annex V -

May 2017 No Yes

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 0002 Page 3 of 3

Task Deliverable Estimated Due Date

Potential Peer

Review?

Publicly Available?

Associated Payment

MCC Data Documentation and Anonymization Requirements.)

Final Interim Evaluation Report, Approved by the Evaluation Management Committee

June 2017 No No

Final Evaluation Report, Approved by MCC Management for Posting on MCC Website with Public Statement of Difference/Support

July 2017 Yes Yes

7 Disseminate Interim Results

PPTs (delivered after MCC and local presentations are completed)

July 2017 No Yes

Phase 3 8 Revise Final

Evaluation Materials

Draft data collection firm TORs March

No No

Updated Evaluation Design Report May 2017 Yes Yes Draft, revised English/French data collection tools and training manuals

June 2017 Yes No

Summary of pilot test, Written review of back-translation

Aug 2017 No No

Final English/French data collection tools and training manuals

Sept 2017 Yes Yes

Documentation of local stakeholder and MCC feedback and response

Oct 2017 No No

IRB package approval Sept 2017 No No 9 Supervise Final

Data collection Quarterly Interim Data Collection Reports Quarterly during data collection

No No

Final Data Collection Report Sept 2018 No No

Task Deliverable Estimated Due Date

Potential Peer Review?

Publicly Available?

Associated Payment

10 Develop Final Report

Draft Evaluation Report Dec 2018 Yes No Local Stakeholder feedback with response Jan 2019 No Yes MCC feedback with response Feb 2019 No No Final raw and analysis files, anonymized following MCC guidelines; STATA do files (As per Annex V - MCC Data Documentation and Anonymization Requirements.)

March

No Yes

Final Evaluation Report, Approved by Evaluation Management Committee

March

No No

Final Evaluation Report, Approved by MCC management for posting to the MCC website, with Public Statement of Difference/Support

July 2019 Yes Yes

11 Disseminate Final Results

PPTs March

No Yes

Ongoing Reporting Requirements As Described in Section F.1.

SOW, Trip Report of each country visit Ongoing No No Progress Reports Ongoing No No

Evaluation Design Report

Impact of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project -

Senegal

Contract Number:

August 10, 2014 Authors:

Jacob M. Benus Harounan Kazianga

Alisú Schoua Glusberg Yiriyibin Bambio

Geena Kim Sara Borelli

Laurence Dessein

IMPAQ International, LLC 10420 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 300

Columbia, MD 21044 www.impaqint.com

ANNEX I

http://www.impaqint.com/ http://www.mcc.gov/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of the Compact

1.2 The Irrigation and Water Resources Management (IWRM)

1.2.1 Delta Activity

1.2.2 Podor Activity

1.2.3 Land Tenure Security Activity

1.2.4 Social Safe Guard Measure Activity

1.3 Program Logic

1.4 Economic Rate of Return (ERR) and Beneficiary Analysis

1.4.1 Economic Rate of Return (ERR) and Cost-Benefit Analysis

1.4.2 Beneficiary Analysis

2. Literature Review

3. Evaluation Design

3.1 Evaluation Questions

3.1.1 Research Questions Related to Use and Availability of Water:

3.1.2 Research Questions Related to Agricultural Production

3.1.3 Research Questions Related to Household Income

3.1.4 Research Questions Related to Perception of Land Security

3.1.5 Research Questions Related to Land Conflicts

3.1.6 Research Questions Related to Social Safeguard Measures

3.1.7 Research Questions Related to Unintended Consequences

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 Delta

3.2.2 Podor

3.2.3 Risks of Contamination

3.2.4 Qualitative Methodology

3.3 Sample Requirements

3.3.1 Household Sample Selection-Delta

3.3.2 Household Sample Selection-Podor

IMPAQ International, LLC Page i Senegal Evaluation Design Report

3.4 Timeframe

4. Data Sources

4.1 Household Survey

4.2 Baseline Data Collection Status

4.3 Monitoring and Evaluating Data Quality

5. Analysis Plan

5.1 Difference-in-Differences

5.2 Subgroup Analysis

5.3 Baseline Analysis

5.4 Final Analysis

5.5 Qualitative Analysis

6. Project Requirements and Staffing

6.1 Summary of Institutional Review Board Requirements and Clearances

6.2 Data Access, Privacy, and Documentation Plan

6.3 Dissemination Plan

6.4 Evaluation Team

7. References

APPENDIX A: Delta Sampling

IMPAQ International, LLC Page ii Senegal Evaluation Design Report

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1. Distribution of Compact Funds, USD Millions

Exhibit 2. Senegal Compact Activity Areas

Exhibit 3. Senegal River Valley and St. Louis Region Departments

Exhibit 4. Program Logic for the Integrated Water and Irrigation (IWRM) Project in Senegal

Exhibit 5. Program Logic for the IWRM Project in Senegal

Exhibit 6. ERR Model

Exhibit 7. Methodology for Estimating Beneficiaries

Exhibit 8. Estimated Beneficiaries in Year 20, by Project Activity

Exhibit 9. Project Gantt Chart

Exhibit 10. Main Variables for IWRM Questionnaires

Exhibit 11. IWRM Data Collection Status

Exhibit 12. Example of Baseline Report Outline*

Exhibit 13. Example of Table of Sample Characteristics, Baseline

Exhibit 14. Example of Follow-up Report Outline*

Exhibit 15. Example of Table for Impact Estimates

Exhibit 16 Household Characteristics in the Treatment and Comparison Samples

IMPAQ International, LLC Page iii Senegal Evaluation Design Report

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANSD Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie CNRS National Ethics Committee for Health Research CVD Comité Villageois de Développement DQR Data Quality Review ERR Economic Rate of Return GDP Gross Domestic Product GoS Government of Senegal HVA Higher Value Agriculture IHSN International Household Survey Network IRB International Review Board IRIS Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector IWRM Irrigation and Water Resources Management Project LTSA Land Tenure Security Activity MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MCA-S Millennium Challenge Account-Senegal M&E Monitoring and Evaluation RCT Randomized Control Trial CR Rural Communities SAED Société National D’Aménagement et d’Exploitation des Terres du Delta du fleuve

Sénégal et des Valles du fleuve Sénégal et de Falémé SRV Senegal River Valley WUA Water User Association

IMPAQ International, LLC Page iv Senegal Evaluation Design Report

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the Evaluation Design for the Irrigation and Water Resources Management (IWRM) Project in Senegal. The IWRM project is funded as part of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact with the Government of Senegal (GoS). In 2011, IMPAQ International was selected by MCC to replace the Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector center (IRIS) at the University of Maryland in implementing a rigorous impact evaluation of the IWRM Project. The evaluation design has undergone significant revisions since its initial design by the IRIS Center.

The rest of this Evaluation Design Report (EDR) is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the Senegal compact and a detailed description of the program components under evaluation, including an in-depth description of the program logic. Section 3 presents a high level review of existing studies on the links between irrigation interventions and agricultural productivity/poverty, and outlines the main contributions of this evaluation to existing research.

Section 4 details the core of the evaluation design including the research questions and research design. Section 5 describes data sources planned for this evaluation, and Section 6 describes the econometric method planned according to the research design, with examples of how we plan to present the results. The report closes with a description of planned compliance to various administrative requirements.

1.1 Overview of the Compact

On September 16, 2009, the Millennium Challenge Corporation entered into a $540 million Compact Agreement with the Republic of Senegal. The Republic of Senegal and the Millennium Challenge Account in Senegal (MCA-S) established an autonomous body to effectively manage the work of this compact. The compact in Senegal entered into force in September 2010, initiating the 5-year timeline for project implementation. Compact funds have been strategically invested in two projects:

Roads Rehabilitation Project IWRM Project

As indicated in Exhibit 1, $324.7 million, or approximately 60 percent of the total Compact Budget is devoted to the Roads Project, followed by the $170.0 million for the IWRM (31 percent), $41.5 million for Program Administration and Audit (8 percent), and $3.7 million for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (1 percent).

Exhibit 2 depicts the geographic location of the two major Compact activities. The Road Rehabilitation Project funds the rehabilitation of significant segments of two national roads. In the north, the RN2 will be rehabilitated from Richard Toll to Ndioum; in the south, the RN6 will be rehabilitated from Ziguinchor to Kounkané. A separate evaluation design report1 describes the impact evaluation of the Road Rehabilitation project.

1 IMPAQ International: Evaluation Design Report Impact of the Roads Senegal Project Senegal, submitted to MCC in March 2012.

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 1 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

Exhibit 1. Distribution of Compact Funds, USD Millions

Source: MCC quarterly status report, December 2012

The IWRM Project is located in the northern part of the country in the vicinity of the RN2 as depicted in Exhibit 2. The following Section presents additional detail about the location of this intervention.

1.2 The Irrigation and Water Resources Management (IWRM)

MCC is investing $170 million to help improve agricultural sector productivity in the Senegal River Valley (SRV) in the northern part of Senegal, in particular in the Delta of the Senegal River and in the Podor District (see Exhibit 2 for location of these areas). This region has the potential to benefit from intensive irrigation interventions because of:

Long experience with irrigation schemes in the Valley;

Strong support from the Government and the Société National D’Aménagement et d’Exploitation des Terres du Delta du fleuve Senegal et des Valles du fleuve Senegal et de Falémé (SAED) ;

Capability of farmers’ association to manage large irrigation schemes.

The agricultural potential of the SRV has been constrained by the poor quality and limited capacity of existing irrigation and a lack of appropriate drainage systems which raise soil salinity that in turn contributes to low agricultural yields. To overcome these constraints, the IRWM project is investing to improve the:

Quality and capacity of the irrigation system and reduce the risk of abandonment of land;

Land tenure regulations to secure the land rights of farmers and mitigate conflicts that might arise from ambiguities about property rights.

$324.7 (60%)

$170.0 (31%)

$3.7 (1%) $41.5 (8%)

Roads

Irrigation

M&E

Administration

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 2 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

The IWRM Project will also enhance the capacity of local institutions responsible for allocating and managing land rights. Specifically, the IWRM Project consists of the following activities:

Delta Activity Podor Activity Land Tenure Security Activity Social Safeguard Measures

The following sub-sections describe each of these activities.

1.2.1 Delta Activity

The Delta area spans the Saint Louis and part of Dagana departments in northwestern Senegal.

Its hydraulic levels are regulated by the Diama Dam, situated at the mouth of the Senegal River (see Exhibit 3). Only approximately 30 percent of the 31,000 hectares (ha) of potentially irrigable land in the Delta are cultivated at any time during the year, due to insufficient water delivery and poor drainage.2 MCC is investing approximately $154 million in the Delta to improve the conveyance capacity of primary irrigation channels (mainly along the hydraulic axes of Gorom-Lampsar and Kassack North) and to ensure appropriate drainage capacity to the area’s middle and southern perimeters. The Delta Activity interventions consist of weed removal, dredging, profiling of berms, increasing levee heights, and rehabilitating or replacing structures and pumping stations along eight irrigation sections. The drainage activity consists of constructing a new drainage channel, pump station, bridge, siphon, elevation of the levees, and constructing compensatory channels.

The goal of this activity is to restore or improve the quality, volume, and reliability of water for agriculture, delivered in existing irrigated perimeters, thus reducing the risk of abandonment of approximately 26,000 ha of land. In addition, this activity has the potential to encourage the creation of new irrigated perimeters (via other donor projects) thanks to the infrastructure improvements that will increase the availability of water.

1.2.2 Podor Activity

In Podor, in north central Senegal, the project will develop primary and secondary irrigation and drainage channels and associated structures at the N’Gallenka site (tertiary system financed by GoS). This activity will create about 440 ha of new irrigated land for a total MCC investment of approximately $6.5 million, including construction supervision. The N’Gallenka site was chosen because of its high potential for rice production, sufficiency of water resources, cost of dikes per hectare, and existing irrigation facilities. In addition, MCC is also funding improvements in project management to support the Delta and Podor activities (approximately $3 million) through a project management unit at SAED.

2 MCC will send indicator table so we can confirm the latest statistics with MCC/SAED.

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 3 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

Exhibit 2. Senegal Compact Activity Areas

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 4 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

Exhibit 3. Senegal River Valley and St. Louis Region Departments

1.2.3 Land Tenure Security Activity

MCC is investing approximately $3.8 million in the Land Tenure Security Activity (LTSA) to improve the investment climate in the IWRM project area and mitigate the potential for land conflict due to increased demand for irrigated land as a result of the project. The LTSA supports development and implementation of transparent, fair, and efficient processes for land allocation and formalization of property rights to ensure equitable and secure access to land in the irrigated perimeters. The LTSA will also equip local authorities with tools, such as manuals of procedures and land registries, to improve land management, and reinforce capacity through communication and training on the newly provided tools as well as existing land management tools.

The first phase of the LTSA entails an exhaustive inventory of existing occupation patterns and property rights in the irrigation project and surrounding areas. The LTSA has completed the documentation of property rights and use patterns for more than 58,000 ha and 15,000 parcels.3 In the second phase of the LTSA, land in the new irrigated perimeter at N’Gallenka that is being built with compact funds will be allocated based on criteria developed during the first phase with participation of all local stakeholders. Allocation criteria are specific to each community,4 and MCA-S has been working to ensure that these criteria are transparent and supported by local

3 The LTSA intervention zone is larger than the IWRM intervention zone. The LTSA targets capacity building of the local government council, and thus extends throughout the government districts (see Elbow et al, 2012).

4 Detailed list of community specific criteria can be found here: Activité de securisation foncier dans le cadre du projet irrigation et de gestion des resources an eux de MCA Senegal (August 2011).

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 5 Senegal Evaluation Design Report communities. Based on discussion with the MCA-S land team, the first allocations were expected to take place in November 2013 at N’Gallenka and involved the 440 ha perimeter developed in Podor by the IWRM Project.

1.2.4 Social Safe Guard Measure Activity

MCC is funding and implementing up to eight day care centers within the irrigation project treatment areas. The day care centers are intended to complement the economic development resulting from the rest of the IWRM investments by allowing women to dedicate less time to child care and more time to economic activities (both agricultural and non-agricultural). It is also anticipated that enrolling young children in qualified day care centers will augment early childhood development, and it is hoped that such participation will lead to a higher rate of on-time enrollment of children in primary school (though the official age of entry into primary school in Senegal is 7 years of age, many children either don’t attend at all or start attending school at later ages).

With the support of compact funding and technical support, each of the constructed day care centers will be locally managed by a management committee made up of local community members. This committee will be responsible for the ongoing operations and management of the day care centers and for assuring ongoing sustainability of the centers. Once the day care centers are operational, their ongoing operations and maintenance will be funded by a combination of user fees, community contributions, and support funds from the Government of Senegal.

The day care centers are anticipated to open in early 2015 and are expected to have a capacity of 90 children per center. Each center will be staffed by trained personnel using an established curriculum for early childhood development.

1.3 Program Logic

The IWRM project interventions have the potential to unlock agricultural (and non-agricultural) economic capacities and resources, thereby contributing to reducing poverty in Senegal. The impact evaluation of the interventions will estimate the effectiveness of the interventions in achieving project goals. In this Section, we describe the mechanisms through which the project interventions are expected to contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction. A description of these mechanisms is important to assess whether, how, and to what extent planned interventions achieve the target goals. Exhibit 4 presents this conceptual model summarized in a program logic diagram. Exhibit 5 lists the specific assumptions (A1-A16) underlying the program logic. The assumptions are also depicted in Exhibit 4 adjacent to their respective inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts.

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 6 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

Exhibit 4. Program Logic for the Integrated Water and Irrigation (IWRM) Project in Senegal

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 7 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

Exhibit 5. Program Logic for the IWRM Project in Senegal5

IWRM Project Logic Assumptions (Delta/Podor)

INPUTS

A1: Budget. Construction works budget is sufficient.

OUTPUTS

A2. Budget. Government of Senegal covers any cost overruns.

A3. Maintenance Action Plan. Irrigation Maintenance Action Plan is approved by

GoS and institutional framework activities complete.

IMMEDIATE

OUTCOMES

A4. Tertiary Canals. Farmers are willing and able to pay for rehabilitation, expansion and upkeep of tertiary canals and water. In the Delta - collection fee issues are being addressed and a program to reform the maintenance system is in progress (maintenance action plan is being implemented). In N’gallenka, the government is financing the tertiary canals.

A5. Binding Constraint. Adequate primary Irrigation infrastructure was the biggest constraint. There are no other significant constraints/barriers to increased production (subject of the Ag Sustainability Plan). Particularly, barriers that local rice faces on the domestic market have been addressed, and there is a market for all crops grown.

People know or have access to information on how to use irrigation and grow HVA.

A7. IWRM meets LTSA. Land of N’gallenka perimeter is fully allocated and farmed by trained producer groups holding formal land rights; Delta producers possess formal and up-to-date titling documents; land dispute resolution system is functioning.

INTERMEDIATE

OUTCOMES

A8. Sustainability. Farmers continue to pay for water and fees are used for efficient and effective maintenance.

People have access to agricultural inputs.

Post-harvest infrastructure and access to markets are not a constraint - rural road system is adequate to carry inputs and outputs.

A11. Interaction with other Donors. Other programs/donors/ investors are filling gaps in farmer training (what about technical assistance?), credit, etc.

IMPACT

Binding Constraint. Irrigation was the constraint to growth.

Increases in farm income will lead to increases in household income.

Maintenance, land management, allocation and dispute resolution, and fee collection are all continuing to operate.

A15. Baselines/Targets. Pre-compact assumptions about baseline were correct.

There are no other major constraints to ag sector growth (particularly volatility in

GoS policy for the agricultural sector, including the interface of imports and domestic production, and ethnic barriers to trust and investment between Dakar and SRB).

5 The IWRM project logic assumptions table presented in Exhibit 5 is to be finalized; MCC is currently updating and finalizing the assumptions.

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 8 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

IWRM Project Logic Assumptions (Land and Tenure Security Activity) Securing of formal land tenure rights increases one’s feelings of security in their ownership of land.

Increase confidence in one’s land tenure security will cause them to invest more in their land.

Land tenure security tools, documents, and plans are actually implemented, used, and/or practiced.

Water User Associations continue to function effectively after the end of the project

(by function, this would mean continue to collect water user fees, continue to provide and plan for ongoing maintenance, and are able to collectively manage their irrigated plots).

Formalized land rights lead to fewer conflicts and that improved capacity of land management institutions would increase the percentage of conflicts that are successfully mediated.

The left side of Exhibit 4 identifies the problem and the investment rationale of the various project activities.

Problem column identifies the long-term goal of the compact to reduce poverty and enhance economic growth through improvement in agricultural productivity and land security. The program logic presents the components of the IWRM project and the causal pathways through which the project activities can lead to economic growth and poverty reduction.

Activities column presents the actions in the project, i.e. construction and rehabilitation, project management, land allocation, and social safeguard measures described above.

Outputs column presents the direct results of these activities. These outputs consist of rehabilitated primary canals and improved primary drainage infrastructure in the Delta zone. In Podor/N'Gallenka perimeter, outputs consist in the construction of - main and secondary irrigation systems, as well as land leveling for smallholders (tertiary system financed by GoS in Podor). For the LTSA activity, outputs consist of land mapped and formalized, as well capacity building in terms of people trained on land security tools.

Most of these outputs are tracked by the Indicator Tracking Table (ITT) that enables following the progress of the expected outputs over the compact years.

The right side of the exhibit indicates the results (outcomes) likely achieved by the beneficiaries.

Some of the outcomes may be realized shortly after project completion (short run outcomes) while others may take longer to materialize (medium term). Finally, the exhibit presents the impacts that are expected to be realized following project completion. Below, we describe the mechanism for achieving the project’s short- and medium-term goals.

Land productivity is significantly higher for irrigated land when compared to rain-fed land (World Bank, 2008a).6 Thus, water management and irrigation activity should provide more reliable irrigation sources to farmers and a potential to improve agricultural productivity and agricultural incomes. Under the assumption that farmers are willing and able to pay for rehabilitation of tertiary channels (Assumption 4 or A4) and land in N’Gallenka is fully allocated

6 FAO (1996) reviews the irrigation literature for Asia and report elasticities of crop yields with respect to irrigation in the range of 1 to 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e01.htm#a.

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 9 Senegal Evaluation Design Report http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e01.htm%23a and land rights in Delta are formalized (A7), we should observe an expansion in irrigable land and more land area placed under production (A5) in the short term.

At the same time, we expect the land tenure activity to formalize land tenure rights and improve the efficiency of local land institutions. Because the lack of formal land tenure rights is a major component of land insecurity, formalizing land tenure rights should increase farmers’ feelings of security, which in turn should lead to greater investments in land. Formal land tenure rights, coupled with better and more efficient institutions and land management tools, should help reduce the incidence of land conflicts (medium- and short-term outcomes).

As immediate outcomes of irrigation and LTSA activities materialize, farmers will have incentives to invest in land and agricultural production activities. In particular, as farmers feel more secure on their land, adapt their agricultural practices to greater availability of water, and gain flexibility to respond to market conditions because of more reliable access to water (off-season), we should expect a change in the amount of agricultural production, increases in productivity, and/or shift to higher value agriculture (HVA) (medium term outcomes). We expect these outcomes to materialize in the medium term provided farmers know or have access to information on how to use irrigation and how to grow HVA (A6) and provided they continue to pay for water and maintenance (A8). We assume that no other structural constraints to agricultural expansion exist, i.e., access to markets and availability of other agricultural inputs are adequate. We also assume that other donors/investors fill gaps in farmers’ training (A9, A10, and A11). In addition, it is assumed that formalization of land rights and the building of land institutions’ capacity to manage land tenure issues should enable farmers to have easier and greater access to land.

For people who earn their living through agricultural production, growth in agricultural productivity should mean higher incomes (A13), which, when paired with the regularity provided by improved irrigation, should lead to a greater ability to sustain household basic needs. However, these outcomes are based on the assumptions that fees are collected continuously, that maintenance is managed through water fees, and that land management and conflict resolution improvements are sustained over time, (A14).

Partly as a result of poor agricultural infrastructure, longstanding underinvestment in agriculture, and an inhibiting policy environment, Senegal has experienced low economic growth rates in recent years. MCC’s investments in improving Senegal’s agricultural productivity is designed to help promote Senegal’s overall economic growth. The connection between agricultural growth and overall economic growth is well established with evidence suggesting that growth of agricultural output and wages can be an effective means of reducing poverty in the poorest countries (Bezemer and Headey, 2006).

Thus, assuming that irrigation was (one of the) major constraints to the expansion of agricultural production and productivity (A12 and A16), and that uncertainty about land rights was a major constraint in access to land and land investments, we expect all the project short-term and medium-term outcomes to unlock economic opportunities of households and individuals living in areas affected by the projects (impacts).

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 10 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

1.4 Economic Rate of Return (ERR) and Beneficiary Analysis

1.4.1 Economic Rate of Return (ERR) and Cost-Benefit Analysis The IMPAQ team will use the results from the impact evaluation to recalculate the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) for comparison to the ERRs that were used to inform the Compact investment decisions. The ERR is the discount rate at which the discounted benefits equal the discounted costs. MCC calculated the ex-ante ERR at the start of the project using the model presented in Exhibit 6. We will use the benefits estimated from the impact evaluation together with cost data to calculate the ex-post ERR using the same model that was used by MCC.

Using the same data sources, we will also estimate the costs and benefits of the project and produce a cost-benefit analysis. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the effects per dollar invested with comparable measures of other typical irrigation and land tenure investments.

Exhibit 6. ERR Model

ERR Model7

(REVENUE – COSTS)WITH PROJ * (HA CultivatedWITH PROJ) minus

(REVENUE – COSTS)WITHOUT PROJ * (HA CultivatedWITHOUT PROJ)

1.4.2 Beneficiary Analysis

The Senegal Compact consists of investments in the areas of road rehabilitation, irrigation, and water management. Together these interventions are expected to raise the incomes of approximately 1.7 million Senegalese over the project’s 20-year lifespan. Exhibit 7 presents the methodology used to estimate the number of beneficiaries, with the resulting estimates presented in Exhibit 8.

Beneficiary calculations are based on the number of discrete individuals whose individual incomes are expected to rise from an investment project, as well as the members of their households, who are assumed to share in those benefits.

7 The ERR formula comes from MCC’s Power Point Presentation Overview of Economic model for Delta Irrigation Project (August 2013), by Benjamin Bryant.

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 11 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

Exhibit 7. Methodology for Estimating Beneficiaries

Methodology for Estimating Beneficiaries Project Activity Estimation Methodology

Roads Rehabilitation RN2 and RN6 All people living within 5 km of the rehabilitated road

IWRM Project The Delta and N'Gallenka

Households, owners or shareholders of farming enterprises, and households that have individuals employed in the operation of enterprise farms in the Delta and N’Gallenka regions.

Most activities are assumed to generate benefits for beneficiaries across a 20-year project lifespan. During this time, the underlying population will grow, and therefore beneficiary counts were adjusted by the national population growth rate over the project lifespan.8 This growth-adjusted figure provides the estimate of cumulative activity beneficiaries.

Some individuals will benefit from more than one Compact activity. The RN2 Activity and the IWRM Project are both located in the SRV, and we expect some overlap between the beneficiaries. Total beneficiaries will therefore be less than the sum of beneficiaries by project.

Exhibit 8. Estimated Beneficiaries in Year 20, by Project Activity

Estimated Beneficiaries in Year 20, by Project Activity Project Activity Estimated Beneficiaries*

Roads Rehabilitation

RN2 251,000 1,350,362

1,536,491

RN6 1,098,000

IWRM The Delta 265,291 268,029 N'Gallenka 3,366

* Individuals

The IMPAQ team will also conduct the ex-post Beneficiary Analysis by examining the distribution of benefits by subgroup (e.g., gender and income group). The Beneficiary Analysis is intended to answer the following questions:

How many people are expected to benefit from increased household incomes as a result of the project?

What proportion of the beneficiaries is poor?

How much on average will each individual beneficiary gain from the project?

For each dollar invested by MCC, how much will be gained by the poor?

8 Assumptions from MCC Beneficiary Analysis.

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 12 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The existing literature on irrigation and its impacts on poverty is mixed. Some projects have shown positive impacts while others have shown little impact. While many studies have attempted to measure the effect of irrigation on poverty, irrigation is often only a sub-component of a much larger program (Saleth et al., 2003). The following review is not meant to be exhaustive; rather, it presents some of key features of previous research that has attempted to measure the impact of irrigation investments.

Prior studies have attempted to measure the impact of agricultural infrastructure improvements on agricultural growth and poverty reduction. The results of these studies, however, have provided mixed results and, as a result, there is no consensus in the literature on the impact of irrigation investments. Below, are a few of the studies that examined these issues and their major findings.

Fan et al. (2000) analyzed the differential impact of six different types of public investments on growth and poverty reduction in rural China. The results of this study showed that government investment in the rehabilitation and expansion of irrigation systems had only a modest impact on agricultural production growth and even less impact on reduction in rural poverty and inequality.

In contrast, spending on rural education and agricultural research and development (R&D) had larger impacts on agricultural growth and poverty reduction. The study also found large regional variations in the returns to different types of government investments.

Pender et al. (2002) investigated changes in agriculture and land management practices between 1991 and 1998 in the highlands of Tigray in Ethiopia. The authors found that irrigation was an important factor underlying different livelihood strategies, favoring production of perishable cash crops. Furthermore, the authors found that irrigation contributed to intensified land use and changes in crop choice. Nonetheless, they found that irrigation investments resulted in less improvement in yields than expected. To improve the returns to irrigation investment in Tigray, the authors recommend increasing the priority of extension activities in irrigated areas and increasing the emphasis on promotion of high-value crops in such areas. Complementary investments in roads or other infrastructure may also be important in some areas.

Dillon (2010) investigated if differences in the scale of irrigation projects are related to different impacts on poverty and production in Mali. In this study, Dillon used propensity score matching to identify a counterfactual comparison group. However, while this approach can improve the measurement of program impacts, the author acknowledges that the results may be biased by household or individual unobservable characteristics. Nonetheless, the results of the study showed that small-scale irrigation schemes had larger effects on agricultural production and agricultural income than large-scale irrigation schemes.

In another recent study, Seyoum (2013) used a multivariate analysis to evaluate the effects of the construction of large scale irrigation schemes on poverty and income distribution in five villages in Ethiopia. The study found that irrigation was a significant determinant of total income of rural households, and contributed to reducing income inequality among rural households. However, the study’s lack of a rigorous counterfactual and small sample size limits the inferences from the findings.

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 13 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

Studies conducted in the Sub Saharan Africa region found positive effects of irrigation on poverty alleviation. Minten & Barrett (2006), for example, used a unique, spatially-explicit dataset to study the link between agricultural performance and rural poverty in Madagascar.

Results showed that communes with higher rates of adoption of improved agricultural technologies and broader access to improved irrigation infrastructure enjoyed lower real food prices, higher real wages for unskilled workers, greater profitability for farmers, and better welfare indicators. The authors noted that while access to improved irrigation infrastructure leads to higher uptake of improved technologies, the coefficient estimates were small, indicating that irrigation alone would not stimulate rapid uptake of improved technologies.

While these studies have contributed to our understanding of investments in irrigation, they do not provide definitive conclusions about the impacts of investments in irrigation in developing countries. To overcome the deficiencies in some of the previous studies, we will develop a rigorous counterfactual that can isolate the effect of investments in irrigation on agricultural and economic outcomes. Thus, the results of this study will add to our knowledge and understanding the impacts of investments in irrigation.

There have been few studies on the effect of land reform policies on outcomes such as land conflict, women’s rights, and land tenure. One study conducted in the Brazillian Amazon assessed the implications of land reform on conflict (Alston, Libecap and Mueller, 1999). The study found that a policy to redistribute land actually increased violent competition and wasteful resource use. Another study in Rwanda examined the effect of protecting and enforcing land holders’ rights without discrimination against women (Uwayezu and Mugiraneza, 2011). The study concluded “that the implementation of a new land policy and associate regulations are having a positive impact in safeguard, protection and enforcement of land rights for widow and female orphans....However, there is a need to continuously and widely empower widow and female descendants for defending themselves against practices of land grabbing and/or land deprivation through sensitization and reinforcement of land related laws and regulations in place.”

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 14 Senegal Evaluation Design Report

3. EVALUATION DESIGN

The goal of the current evaluation is to estimate the impacts of the IWRM activities and use the results to answer specific research questions. The questions are derived from the program logic outlining pathways through which impacts results are expected to be achieved. As described in the following sections, a rigorous impact evaluation needs to link the observed changes in outcomes to the actual intervention. A rigorous evaluation must identify a counterfactual to compare the outcomes of those who receive the program benefits with similar individuals who do not receive the program benefits. Such an evaluation implies using experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation methods that compare those affected by the program and those not affected. Additionally, we will collect and analyze qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with key beneficiaries and stakeholders to better understand the causal pathways of the program impacts.

3.1 Evaluation Questions

A key role of the program logic is to provide guidance for identifying key research questions that the evaluation should aim to address. Based on the IWRM program logic, we will address questions that fall under the following categories:

1. Use and availability of water

2. Agricultural production

3. Household income and its component parts

4. Perception of land security

5. Land conflicts and effectiveness of land administration

6. Social safeguard measures

In addition to addressing the impact of the IWRM program on these outcomes, we will examine unintended consequences of the program. We will also analyze the extent to which program impacts vary by gender, age, and income group. The research questions are described in more detail below, together with the discussion of the evaluation methodologies and data that we will use to answer these questions.

Note that our ability to address these research questions clearly depends not only on the evaluation methods used, but also on when we expect the various outcomes to materialize (per the program logic), which in turn depends on the progress of the project implementation. These factors help determine timing for various data collection efforts (described in more detail in Section 4).

3.1.1 Research Questions Related to Use and Availability of Water:

Has there been a change in the main source of water/type of irrigation used?

Has there been an increase in the amount of land that is irrigated and the intensity to which it is irrigated?

Has there been a change in the total costs to provide adequate irrigation to the land?

To address these questions, we will use household survey data on the amount of land (irrigated or not) available to households, the main source of water for irrigation, the irrigation techniques

IMPAQ International, LLC Page 15 Senegal Evaluation Design Report used, farmers’ estimated irrigation costs, and farmers’ overall satisfaction regarding the availability and reliability of water for irrigation. These outcomes are the expected short term results of improved irrigation.

The logic model assumes (via the A4 and A8 assumptions) that farmers are willing and able to pay for rehabilitation, expansion, and upkeep of tertiary canals and water. If this assumption doesn’t hold, the project is unlikely to achieve its expected results. To test this assumption, we will ask beneficiaries about their willingness to pay for the maintenance and expansion of tertiary canals and water.

3.1.2 Research Questions Related to Agricultural Production

Has there been a change in farmer behavior?

Have there been changes in investments?

Has there been an increase in the land area under production and in the level of intensity of the land area under production?

Has there been an increase in the volume of agricultural production and yields?

Has there been an increase in the volume of high value crops (for example vegetables) or crops that are very intensive in water use (rice)?

To address these questions, we will use data collected from household surveys on total available land area, how much of that land is used, which crops, and in what seasons the land is under production. Because the survey also collects information on the types of crops that are planted and levels of production, we can analyze whether households shift production practices (for example, shift toward crops that require more reliable and effective source of water). We expect these outcomes will be affected after farmers adapt their production choices and techniques to the new irrigation system. To disentangle the fluctuations in the types of crops that are planted (and/or the yields) that are due to regular fluctuations versus changes that are due to the project, we will compare crop fluctuations for the treatment and comparison groups.

The logic model assumes (in assumptions A5, A6, A9, and A10) that a lack of adequate primary irrigation infrastructure is the main constraint to land cultivation. However, other significant constraints or barriers to increased production may exist. For instance, if the market demand for certain crops is low or nonexistent, if farmers lack the technical skills to properly manage or grow HVA crops, or lack adequate agricultural output, they may not be able to increase their production. To test these assumptions and deepen our understanding of the causal pathways of the program effects on agricultural production, we will collect data from in-depth interviews with a sample of beneficiary farmers that will help to answer the following questions:

Do farmers face other constraints or barriers to land…