Att._J.21_PIA_Final_Report_Feb_26_2015.pdf

This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID). It was prepared under contract with Checchi and Company

Consulting, Inc. for USAID’s Afghanistan ―Services under Program and Project Offices for

Results Tracking Phase II‖ (SUPPORT II) project.

PRELIMINARY INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT FOR

IRRIGATION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN THE

NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST REGIONS OF AFGHANISTAN

THE OFFICE OF AGRICULTURE &

THE OFFICE OF PROGRAM AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

February 2015 i

Activity Signature Page

This report was contracted under USAID Contract Number: AID-306- C-12-00012.

Afghanistan Services Under Program and Project Office for Results Tracking Phase II

(SUPPORT II).

This Activity was initiated by the Office of Program and Project Development (OPPD) through Mr. Daryl Martyris, COR/SUPPORT II.

Assignment Title: Preliminary Inventory and Assessment of Irrigation and Watershed

Management in Afghanistan of North, South and West Regions

Team Leader: Dr. Charles Balina

Team Members: James Sisson

Jan Stofkoper (for initial part of the study)

Aziz Gulistani

Ahmad Khalid Amini

Field Teams – 18 national consultants

Activity Start Date: October14, 2014

Completion Date: February 2, 2015

Michael Lechner, Chief of Party

Waheed Ahmadi, Deputy Chief of Party

Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc.

Kabul, Afghanistan

Disclaimer:

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, or any other organization or person associated with this project.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary

1. METHODOLOGY

2. FINDINGS

3. CONCLUSIONS

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

II. Introduction

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

2. PIA PURPOSE

3. PIA QUESTIONS

4. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS

III. Findings

1. CANAL WALK THROUGH SURVEY

2. WATERSHED SURVEY - LAND OWNERSHIP STATUS, LAND USE & PHYSICAL

DESCRIPTION

3. SOCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY SURVEY

4. FLOW DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

IV. Conclusions

V. Recommendations

Annex 1: Scope of Work

Annex II: Workplan

Annex III: Bibliography of Documents Reviewed

Annex IV: Schedule of Meetings

Annex V: Methodology Description

Annex VI: Data Collection Survey Instruments

Annex VII: Detailed Meeting Notes

Annex VIII: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest

Annex IX: Statement of Differences

Annex X: Log of Canals showing Command Areas and Irrigated Areas

Annex XI: Security Status & Incidents in PIA Assessment Areas

Annex XII: Calculation of Internal rates of Return, IRR

Annex XIII: Hydroghraphs Showing stream flow and Irrigation water use

Annex XIV: Water demand & Water sources

Annex XV: Canal Social Information

Annex XVI: Register of Surveyed Watersheds

Annex XVII: List of separate digital attachments iii

Annex XVIII: Past Rehabilitation Works on Irrigation Schemes

Annex XIX: Feedback – Lessons Learned Debriefing Session with Field Staff

Annex XX: PIA Overall Schedule iv

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 2 Districts surveyed under PIA................................................................................... viii Figure 3: Irrigation systems also support ruminants, another focus of the RADPs

Figure 4: Security challenge – Gunmen interfered with field surveys on more than one occasion Figure 5: Canal discharge measurement, Mazar-e-Sharif Figure 6: Wall protection required, Kunduz district Figure 7: Overall canal maintenance

Figure 8: Canal maintenance per RADP

Figure 9: Google Earth image for watershed in Kishem district, Badakshan

Figure 10: Land ownership in surveyed watersheds Figure 11: Prevalence of Land Use on the Watersheds Figure 12: Physical Description of Land Figure 13: Vegetation Cover in watersheds Figure 14: Land degradation processes in the RADP-North watersheds

Figure 15: Land degradation processes in the RADP-West watersheds Figure 16: Land degradation processes in the RADP-South watersheds

Figure 17: Possible Watershed Restoration Activities Figure 18: Farm size and ownershipMost common crops cultivated

Figure 19: Summary of farming technologies used in RADP-North Figure 20: Summary of farming technologies used in RADP-West

Figure 21: Summary of farming technologies used in RADP-South Figure 22: PIA field team gathers data from WMD officials, Mirab and the local community

(Pusht Rod, Farah) Figure 23: Preferred community contributions in rehabilitation Figure 24: Irrigation Systems with Active Social Groups

Figure 25: Sample Plot of Water Requirement vs. Water Availability Figure 26: Getting a good location for an intake is a challenge in Farah (Picture: Balabuluk district) Figure 27: GE watershed image, Aybak district, Samangan

TABLES

Table 1: Rehabilitation Internal Rates of Return & Sensitivity Analysis Table 2 Condition ranking assigned to irrigation infrastructure Table 3 - Unit costs of irrigation canal infrastructure

Table 4 - Repair or replacement costs of canal infrastructure, expressed as percentage of new item Table 5 - Canal categorization and unit rate adjustment Table 6: Sample costing sheet Table 7: PIA Irrigation systems with rehabilitation work under EIRP/IRDP

Table 8: Status of land ownership for each district Table 9: Potential Project Beneficiaries Table 10: Most Common Crops Grown in RADP- N

Table 11: Most Common Crops Grown in RADP- W Table 12: Most Common Crops Grown in RADP- S Table 13: Agricultural production costs for Tash Temor canal file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894065 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894066 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894067 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894067 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894068 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894069 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894070 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894072 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894085 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894085 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894089 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894089 file:///C:/Users/Omar(Translation)/Desktop/Hoppy/PIA/PIA%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2026%202015%20updated.docx%23_Toc412894090 v

Table 14 Agricultural production costs and net income for the four crop groups Table 15: Effectiveness of Water Management Systems Table 16: Frequency and Participation in Canal Maintenance Table 17: Number of irrigations per year in the three canal reaches Table 18: Irrigation system water sources

Table 19: Before and after project changes in irrigated area Table 20: Changes in farm-level incomes of project beneficiaries Table21: Summary of rehabilitation costs by region Table 22: Irrigation systems excluded from rehabilitation Table 23: Internal rates of return and sensitivity analysis for canal rehabilitation

Table 24: Cost & benefit details for individual irrigation systems vi

ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank

Afs Afghanis (unit of currency)

AID Agency for International Development

ANDS Afghanistan National Development Strategy

ARTF Afghanistan Reconstruction trust Fund

AWATT Afghanistan Water, Agriculture and Technology Transfer

CDC Community Development Council

C/B Cost Benefit Ratio

DAIL Department of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock

EIRP Emergency Irrigation Rehabilitation Project

ENRM Environment and Natural Resource Management

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GDI General Directorate for Irrigation

GDNR General Directorate for Natural Resources

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIRoA Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Geographic Positioning System

ICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas

IDEA-NEW Incentives Driving Economic Alternatives—North, East and West

IEE Initial Environmental Examinations

IRDP Irrigation Restoration & Development Program

IRR Internal Rate of Return

IWE Irrigation and Watershed Engineer

IWMP Integrated Water Management Program

Jb Jerib (unit of land area – 1 jerib = 2000m

KRBP Kunduz River Basin Project

MAIL Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock

M & E Monitoring and Evaluation

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MEW Ministry of Energy and Water

MRRP Ministry of Rehabilitation and Rural Development

NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

NPP National Priority Program

OAG Office of Agriculture

OAPA Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs

OFWMP On Farm Water Management Program

OPPD Office of Project and Program Development

PARBP Panj-Amu River Basin Project

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PIA Project Inventory Assessment

PIO Public International Organization

PMP Program Monitoring Plan

PRSP Afghanistan's Poverty Reduction Paper

RADP Regional Agricultural Development Program (North/South/West)

R & U Rehabilitation and Upgrading

RAMP Regional Afghan Municipalities Project vii

RBA River Basin Agency

RSBA River Sub Basin Agency

RCE Requests for Categorical Exclusion

RFP Request for Proposal

SWIM Strengthening Watershed and Irrigation Management

TL Team Leader

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

UNICEF United Nations Children Fund

USAID US Agency for International Development

USD US Dollar

USGS United States Geological Services

WB World Bank

WMD Water Management Department

WRS Water Resource Specialist viii

Figure 1 Districts surveyed under PIA

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

USAID/Afghanistan’s Office of Agriculture (OAG) is currently reviewing various options for funding irrigation and watershed projects in Afghanistan. As part of OAG’s alignment with USAID’s current 10 year Transition Strategy and goal to increase and maximize agriculture productivity through irrigation and watershed development, the office is seeking to implement its future irrigation and watershed management in the geographic areas included in the existing Regional Agriculture Development programs

(RADP) in the North, South and West regions of Afghanistan. As a result, OAG requested this preliminary inventory and assessment (PIA) of three irrigation systems per district in thirty RADP-North, RADP-South and RADP-West districts. The two

Governments of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) counterparts for the PIA are the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL) and the Ministry of

Energy and Water (MEW), including their related local agencies. The inventory of irrigation systems identified by the PIA may be included in OAG’s planned Strengthening

Watershed and Irrigation Management (SWIM) project.

1. METHODOLOGY

The scope of work (SOW) for the PIA focused primarily on primary and secondary irrigation canal systems and two watersheds per District. The study sought responses to

15 primary and 12 secondary questions covering five areas of each canal system. The full list of questions appears in the next chapter of this report. The areas covered by each question included:

a. Canal Walk through Survey

The team was required to walk along and conduct a physical condition assessment of three irrigation schemes in each of the thirty target districts (in thirteen provinces) and report on their rehabilitation needs. In the process the team also collected GIS data to help create an inventory of existing canals in each district.

b. Watershed survey

The PIA field teams conducted an assessment of a sub-watershed side-by-side with the canal surveys and provided a physical description of the watershed, identified its present land ownership and use, vegetation cover and land degradation processes. The team then came up with recommendations on how to best conduct any watershed interventions.

c. Social and agricultural data gathering through community consultation

The PIA teams interviewed farmers and district or provincial agricultural officials and obtained social and agricultural data within the irrigation schemes

d. Flow data collection and analysis

The team measured discharges in the canals and compared these with on-farm water demands, farming practices and water availability in the river sources. A comparison was made to determine water adequacy under any proposed scheme - rehabilitation or upgrade.

e. Economic analysis

The team determined the costs of rehabilitating the irrigation systems based on local market prices and the canal condition information collected from the walk-through surveys. An economic analysis was made to determine the viability of any rehabilitation or upgrade schemes, while a sensitivity analysis was used to predict the impact of changes on the estimates.

2. FINDINGS

a. Canal Walk through Survey

A total of 54 irrigation systems in RADP-North, 15 in RADP-South and 21 in RADP-

West were surveyed. At the time of the survey, the RADP-North and South programs were both in start-up mode and did not at the time the PIA was conducted know which irrigation systems surveyed by the PIA team they intended to focus on. They however expressed their intention to work on any irrigation systems identified by the PIA team within their target regions. The PIA team coordinated fully with the more established

RADP-South program to confirm the locations of individual irrigation systems in the districts where they are focusing their efforts. As a result of this coordination, all the irrigation systems identified in this region correspond with RADP-South’s intended target areas.

Thirteen categories of structures on the canals were found to be in need of rehabilitation work, with the specific nature and amount of work varying from canal to canal. These structures, together with the unit rates for fixing each of them, are listed in Table 3.

All communities surveyed were willing to contribute in-kind to the costs of rehabilitation, mostly in the form of labor, local materials, safe-keeping of contractors’ tools and equipment, or by providing accommodation to the workers.

Despite the generally poor condition of the irrigation systems, the PIA teams discovered that almost 90% of the 90 canals have undergone varying degrees of rehabilitation in the last twelve years. These 79 canals included twelve irrigation systems rehabilitated under the WB/FAO’s EIRP and IRDP programs. (WB/FAO has plans to rehabilitate an additional five of the canals surveyed under PIA). A lot of the work done on the 79 canals was minor and the PIA condition assessment teams observed many fundamental repairs that remain necessary.

Overall, maintenance of the 90 canals surveyed was generally poor, with more than half the canals categorized as either not maintained or poorly maintained.

b. Watershed survey

A total of forty-seven watersheds were identified, and data on land use and degradation processes in them was collected. Detailed descriptions of each surveyed watershed, including land tenure and use are included in the Annex.

Over 90% of the surveyed watersheds in RADP-S are on common land, while the RADP-

N and RADP-W are almost evenly spread between common land, state land and private land.

For land use, all watersheds reported prevalence of collection of fuel (shrubs, twigs and trees) for fire and heat, and over 75% of all watersheds have open land that is not settled or farmed.

Watersheds in the north have almost equal amounts of flat, moderate and steep land but the west consists mostly of moderate and flat land. Watersheds in the south are predominantly on moderate land.

The most prevalent land degradation processes in the RADP-N watersheds were vegetation loss followed by wind erosion and gully erosion. In the west it is mostly wind erosion followed by sheet erosion and decreased soil fertility, while in the south it is decreased soil fertility followed by wind erosion.

Wheat is the main crop grown in all three regions, representing just over one half of irrigated area in RADP-W, just one half in RADP-N and one third in RADP-S.

The wheat is grown mostly as a food crop, not a cash crop, with the bulk of the crop retained for home consumption.

High Value Crops (HVC), consisting of vegetables, fruits and nuts take up one fifth of irrigated land in RADP-N and RP-

W and half of the land in RADP-S.

Across all three regions, the HVCs bring in the bulk of family income.

If all 90 irrigation systems were rehabilitated, this would benefit a total of roughly 167,000 households (96,000 in

RADP-N, 54,000 in RADP-W and 17,000 in RADP-S).

There are not as many regional differences in the farming technologies used. For example mechanical cultivation and the use of fertilizers employed locally across the three RADP areas are fairly uniform, with traditional land leveling in use throughout all surveyed

RADP areas, and most prevalent in RADP-West.

All irrigation systems had a social water management set-up led by Mirabs working hand-in-hand with Water User Associations. In a number of cases these were centuries’ old set-ups that have withstood civil, military and political challenges over a long time.

There is a disparity between water requirements for irrigation versus available water.

Large water losses and inefficient on arm water management techniques exacerbate this shortage.

The PIA team has used the observed state of the surveyed irrigation systems to guide its preparation of estimates for their rehabilitation and upgrading. In addition to repairing or replacing critical structures in the canal networks, a ten per cent contingency mark-up has been added to the cost of rehabilitation.

Figure 2: Irrigation systems also support ruminants, another focus of the RADPs

It is estimated that rehabilitation of the irrigation systems surveyed will require about

$45.5 million, with an additional 10% of this amount dedicated to the systems’ maintenance. The breakdown by program is:

In accordance with the study’s terms of reference, five irrigation systems are excluded from the above figure because they would each require more than $1.5 million for rehabilitation.

The PIA’s SOW did not require the team to prepare estimates for the watershed restoration.

An economic analysis was prepared for the project to determine its feasibility, followed by a sensitivity analysis during which the Internal Rates of Return (IRR) were determined for three other scenarios as follows:

Rehabilitation costs go up by 15% while project benefits stay unchanged

(Scenario 1)

Project benefits go up by 15% while project costs remain unchanged (Scenario 2)

Project costs go up 15% while project benefits fall 15% (worst case scenario, Scenario 3).

This analysis provided the following IRR, with a discounted rate of 12%.

Table 1: Rehabilitation Internal Rates of Return & Sensitivity Analysis

Base Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

All Regions (RADP-N, S &

W) 17% 14% 21% 10%

RADP-North 23% 19% 29% 15%

RADP-South 15% 12% 19% 9%

RADP-West 3% 1% 6% -1%

The specific results for the RADP-W program are discussed under the limitations section.

3. CONCLUSIONS

a. Canal Walk through Survey

Seventy nine of all the canals surveyed have undergone some level of work over the past few years. It is difficult determining what portions of this work was actually rehabilitation work and what would be considered periodic maintenance. Based on the observations, the

PIA teams came to the conclusion that many of these systems still need rehabilitation or upgrading, a point that was regularly brought up in discussions with the local GIRoA offices. There is a variation in the depth and cost of work required, just as each irrigation

Program

RADP-N 21,804,709

RADP-S 9,014,400

RADP-W 14,634,263

Total 45,453,372

Total Rehab Cost

(USD)

system was unique based on a multitude of factors, including its command area, maintenance regimes, community participation and available water.

PIA reviewed the 12 canals rehabilitated through IRDP and the five that the program plans to rehabilitate. The team came to the conclusion that USAID needs to review what the impact of not working on them may have on the RADP’s work plans (Two are in

RADP-S and two in RADP-N. One system in RADP-W exceeds the $1.5 million cut-off threshold). Work on the twelve systems already rehabilitated does not need to be dropped on ten out of the twelve, and should be reviewed for the remaining two.

The team also confirmed that lack of maintenance continues to play a role in the depreciation of the infrastructure. The team has called for more attention to developing a sustainable maintenance regime.

In order to work within the confines of the ever-present security challenges, the PIA also came to the conclusion that involvement of the local community will be the cornerstone of any successful interventions. In fact in some areas this may be a sine qua non.

Land use patterns throughout the three RADP areas are fairly homogenous with all three areas employing irrigation systems, rain-fed cropping, fuel collection, and grazing as the predominant land use patterns. Ground vegetative cover in the three RADP areas varies considerably with the potential for increasing irrigated farming areas.

Although the most common watershed restoration activities may be possible in all regions, the success of any specific watershed interventions will be dependent on how the approach integrates the differing patterns of land ownership, land use and land degradation with the specifics of each program. It is unlikely that a one-size-fits-all approach will succeed. And unlike with the canal rehabilitation interventions, involvement of the local communities could be a bigger challenge because in most of the watersheds surveyed, the direct benefits of intervention by one community may not be as clear to that community. Often it is the community further downstream that will reap the benefits of their interventions.

The majority of households in the RADP target areas are either landless or small scale farmers owning less than one hectare of land. This will drive the type and approach of any proposed interventions for all three programs.

Similarly, the approaches in south (up to one third landless, under a half small-scale) may need to be different from their counterparts in the west and north (over 60% small farmers, and much fewer landless farmers). The north and west also dedicate more irrigated land to wheat that the south, which has more land under HVCs.

High production costs in the west cannot be ignored, just as much as the fact that of the three regions, the south also has the lowest net income per hectare.

For farming technologies, practically all farmers responded that they routinely employ traditional land leveling to improve the efficiency of on-farm water management, but not laser leveling. Given the benefits this would bring to making gains in OFWM, laser leveling would be an appropriate intervention for all RADPs. The same can be said for dissemination of soil moisture monitoring, another technology that is hardly used.

The recorded discharge in the systems was consistently less than half the maximum discharge. The majority of canals are also unlined, resulting in large water losses. The cumulative effect of these two conditions results in availability of water for irrigation being a significant challenge.

While the PIA was not able to get hydrographs for all rivers in the survey area, for those that were looked at, periods of water shortage in the canals in many cases coincide with periods of maximum discharge from the rivers. This leads to the need to look at on-farm water management to more efficiently use water and control on-farm losses.

The internal rates of return (IRR) values indicate that overall irrigation rehabilitation program is viable economically, even if there may be pockets that require additional focus in the RADP-West project. There are indicative benefits of an 18% increase in irrigated area and a matching increase in farm-level household income accruing to 88% of the households. The program would benefit if the disparity in figures in RADP-W is addressed at which point even a worst-case scenario – the probability of which should be low – would see the program just about break even.

These analyses are for all irrigation systems surveyed, save those that did not meet the cutoff threshold.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our findings, analysis and conclusions, the following recommendations are provided to USAID for consideration.

a. Canal Walk through survey

i. USAID should proceed with the rehabilitation of the eighty five canals selected under this survey (five are excluded because they exceed the cost threshold) except as follows:

Discuss with RADP-S and N what if any the impact may be of dropping the four systems that IRDP is planning to rehabilitate. The fifth irrigation system falls among those that did not meet PIA cost threshold;

PIA’s field data from two of IRDP’s completed canals needs to be reviewed prior to determining whether or not work on them should proceed. The canal in Kunduz was surveyed by a locally recruited field team because the district was inaccessible to PIA (security), while the one in Injil (Herat) was surveyed by the PIA’s RADP-W team. If it turns out that these intakes were not fixed, then rehabilitation work should proceed on these irrigation systems.

PIA has reviewed the work requirements on the IRDP other canals and considers it work that may not have been comprehensively covered in other rehabilitations (mainly culverts, protection walls and off-takes). We recommend this work proceeds as recommended.

ii. To more effectively manage impact of security challenges on progress of rehabilitation work, the project’s designs should put in place plans devolve as much of the work as possible to the local communities, with the RADP (or other appropriate programs) retaining the quality and cost control functions.

iii. Any rehabilitation program should go hand-in-hand with the development of a simple yet effective maintenance protocol on all canals affected. The protocol may consist of development of infrastructure maintenance guidelines translated into the local languages, training of mirabs, WUAs and community leaders in a way that enables them take the lead in the routine maintenance of the rehabilitated systems, and discussions on the establishment of sustainable maintenance regimes.

i. While the stakeholders (farmers) at the local level may be the same, planning for watershed restoration is structurally different from irrigation system rehabilitation, and they should be de-linked and implemented separately. The mirabs and existing social group infrastructure should still be incorporated and play an active role in the watershed restoration.

ii. The lack of involvement of women groups in the social setup of the irrigation systems was evident during the PIA teams’ surveys. Given the success that women have had in the environment restoration movement at all levels, USAID should make dedicated efforts to explore how to tap this resource in ways that are traditionally and culturally acceptable and beneficial.

iii. Regarding the land degradation processes observed, the Team recommends that erosion and vegetation loss be priority areas for interventions in all regional programs.

iv. Any interventions in watershed assessment are bound to be influenced by land ownership. The majority of the watersheds surveyed in RADP-South are on communal land, with roughly 10% under both state and private ownership.

Interventions in this region may therefore be more effective if done through established community organizations. In RADP-North and RADP-West, land ownership is fairly evenly distributed among the community, state and private ownership so any interventions in these two regions could be similar.

c. Social and agricultural survey

Based on findings and conclusions from the social and agricultural surveys, the PIA team makes the following recommendations:

i. Given the frequency of inadequate water as an influencing factor in type of crop grown, RADP programs should be involved in disseminating improved on farm water management practices as a priority in all target areas. This may be part of each program’s planned pilot programs.

ii. All land leveling interventions involve laser leveling, which may also be through pilot farms.

iii. The Team recommends interventions to specifically promote the following farming technologies: soil moisture monitoring, improved seed, and crop processing.

iv. RADP-W can address the disparities in agricultural production costs between farmers in its target districts and their counterparts in RADP-N and RADP-S.

d. Flow data and water availability

i. To better address water availability on irrigation systems, PIA recommends rehabilitation of intake structures should always take first priority at all times.

ii. While minor rehabilitation works may be performed by the community, the importance of intakes in the overall water distribution system mandates that their construction be limited to professionally competent contractors, who may if so required still work with the community.

Based on the costing and economic analysis, and given a favorable IRR for the combined regional programs, we recommend the rehabilitation of irrigation systems be implemented in all three regions, the less favorable number for RADP-W notwithstanding.

Study Limitations

A principal limitation on the accuracy of data collected was the level of security in some districts. The security situation in Zabul province was so bad that the teams could not operate in the two selected districts there (Qalat and Shah Joy) so two replacement districts were surveyed instead. In some other areas, notably in Kunduz and Farah provinces the PIA teams had to resort to recruiting local teams to conduct the surveys.

Data for the three districts in Farah may have especially been influenced by this factor as the local teams used were not adequately trained in data collection techniques, and this may partly account for the lower IRR values for the rehabilitation in RADP-W.

Another limitation was that while this study intended to explore the feasibility of supporting MAIL in rehabilitating its irrigation infrastructure, the ministry does not have jurisdiction over primary (or main) canals, as these fall under the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW). PIA coordinated with both offices in the provinces, In Kabul this coordination was not evident, in one incident resulting in one

MEW office withholding data because it was to benefit MAIL instead.

A number of issues arose with the data from the RADP-W field team. In the course of data quality checks, it became clear some of their data were not consistent, and the team confirmed that because of insecurity in Farah province, they had used local teams to gather the data. This approach was not unique to this team, but because this specific team made this decision unilaterally, PIA was not able to put in place the guarantees it applied

Figure 3: Security challenge – Gunmen interfered with field surveys on more than one occasion elsewhere to ensure data integrity (e.g. first training the locally recruited team, getting a

MAIL or WMD engineer to go to the field with local team, etc.). PIA mitigated the data inconsistency by performing additional random spot checks with the data sources, including obtaining parallel data from the provincial WMD offices.

Data for the watershed surveys was obtained from the same sources interviewed for the other sections of the surveys. While, as expected, the PIA team has used these responses in its analysis, it is recommended the relevant authoritative GIRoA offices be consulted to ascertain data on land ownership status prior to designing a project based on the recommendations in this report.

II. INTRODUCTION

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

Irrigated agriculture is the main livelihood for the rural population of Afghanistan and has been so for many centuries. Apart from a concentrated effort at developing collectives during the Soviet occupation in the 1970’s, water transmission infrastructure and water application processes have not changed significantly in the last 100 years.

Most transmission canals in use today were constructed several hundreds of years ago but have deteriorated rapidly in the last 40 years due to lack of maintenance, one of the results o social and political instability. In the last 20 years the Afghanistan people in partnership with a wide variety of donors has been upgrading the infrastructure and the water management systems.

As precipitation is very low, snow melt is by far the most important source of water.

Ground water exploitation is restricted to shallow aquifers which have been exploited for centuries using Kariz which is an ancient technology. To date there has been very little construction of water storages and so water must be captured and used during the irrigation season which generally commences in January and finishes around October although there are significant variations depending on altitude and water availability.

Transmission and water application systems are primarily gravity systems with pumping only used in cases where a gravity system has suffered a temporary failure. A typical irrigation system comprises a constructed intake drawing water from a river which is subject to flooding in the spring months, and periods of low flow from late August through to October, a transmission canal which may be as short as 5km or greater than

50km long, secondary canals which are used to distribute water throughout the irrigated area, and usually a large number of tertiary canals which deliver water to the field.

The most common method of getting water to the root zone is flood irrigation where the irrigation bay size varies depending on factors such as local topography and land ownership pattern. Furrow irrigation is mainly used for irrigating trees (fruit, nut and timber) and for other horticultural crops mainly vegetables. Attempts are being made to introduce the technology of raised beds but to date the adoption rate has been slow. More sophisticated irrigation systems such as trickle, drip, hose and overhead sprays are not used to any great extent.

Traditionally wheat has been the favored crop, but in the past 40 years there has been a movement away from subsistence farming with a steady uptake of cash crops. This change has been made possible because of improved transport infrastructure within the country and by the development of export markets for crops such as potatoes, onions and fruit.

At farm level water is still managed by the communities who have almost universally retained the Mirab system. This system has delegated responsibility to an elected representative who is acknowledged to be experienced in all operational aspects of water management. The DAIL has responsibility for managing the industry at farm level and includes extension and research of on farm water management practices.

Management of the water sector is currently the responsibility of MEW, but since the enactment of the Water Law in 2009, the management sector is being restructured with devolution of power to a River Basin Council/River Sub Basin Council/Water User

Association framework. This reform is being implemented gradually and at time of writing, much of the country’s water resources are still managed by the MEW/WMD. The

Water Law contains a number of provisions which when implemented, will cause major changes in the industry. Included in these provisions are the power to issue water user licenses and the ability to levy fees on the water user.

Watersheds in most parts of the country are highly degraded with years of deforestation and overgrazing having an adverse impact on the runoff process. This is true of virtually all watersheds whether they be in the mountainous north eastern and central alpine areas, or in the arid southern, western and northern provinces. Sustainable land management practices are non-existent. Monitoring of the snowcap area by the KRBP/PARBP is indicating that the area of snowcap is decreasing. If this continues and land degradation is not addressed, it can be expected that the hydrographical characteristics of rivers will also change with hydrographs becoming steeper, streams being subject to more intense flash flooding, and possibly lower water yields.

Watersheds for the canals studied fell into a number of categories. Typical topographic watersheds supplying runoff to a fixed point low in the landscape were a feature of the north-eastern provinces. In this area watersheds close to the irrigation canals were typically 500-5000 ha in area, had little perennial vegetation, and were only settled in the riparian zones. As these watersheds are at a higher altitude, average slopes were steeper and runoff events had a shorter time of concentration resulting in very steep hydrographs.

Watersheds in the northern areas such as Balkh and Jowzjan Provinces were usually more distant from the canals, were less reliant on snow melt, and had lower annual rainfall.

Wind erosion and over grazing were the dominant land degradation practices. As result, streams carry high bed loads which have a significant impact on the useful life of irrigation infrastructure. Grazing pressures are high and proximity to townships determines the pressure on vegetation with gathering fuel for heating causing organic matter at very low levels in the soils.

Irrigation infrastructure is more developed in the north and northeast with substantial amounts of development being carried out in the last 30 years initially by the Soviets around Kunduz and more recently by a number of donors such as the European Union and the World Bank in Baghlan, Badakshan, Takhar, and Kunduz. In these areas many canals have been rehabilitated and social water management programs implemented.

In the western areas of the PIA operations, watersheds are larger but with a higher proportion of moderate slopes. There are no extensive natural forested areas and vegetation is again sparse particularly during summer. The main degradation process is wind erosion which removes organic matter from the soils and causes breakdown of soil structure.

The western provinces have not received the same level of investment in irrigation infrastructure as has been made in other parts of the country. Intakes and transmission canals are less efficient and seepage losses occurring over large distances are higher than other parts of the country. Greater distances from markets have caused interest in irrigated cash costs to be lower.

In the south, there has also been major investment in irrigation head-works with construction of large dams and main canals being the focus. A typical irrigation system would have as its water source an engineered intake, a lined main canal up to 50km in length, and an emphasis on cash crops at the expense of subsistence crops such as wheat.

The PIA has been formed to gather information which will enable OAG to inform the design of a comprehensive irrigation and watershed management program (SWIM) within selected RADP districts.

2. PIA PURPOSE

The overarching purpose of the PIA is to:

1. Identify and build an inventory of existing irrigation schemes and watersheds to be potentially included in the System-wide Initiative on Water Management

(SWIM) within selected RADPs’ geographical areas. The walk through survey should describe their needs and potential for rehabilitation. The inventory will include the development of a GIS database.

2. Conduct irrigation schemes walk through survey, agricultural, economic, and social data gathering through community consultation for the identified schemes.

3. Analyze the seasonal water flow availability and economic effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions to increase water use efficiency and increase agriculture productivity in target areas

OAG will use the findings of the PIA to inform the design of a comprehensive irrigation and watershed management and rehabilitation program within selected RADP districts.

3. PIA QUESTIONS

PIA Major Questions

The major questions to be answered by the PIA are as follows:

Canal Walk through Survey:

1 Are there any irrigation schemes for rehabilitation in the selected Districts? If yes, how many irrigation schemes within each identified RADP district for R&U? What is the estimated existing minimum (5%) and maximum (95%) flow in cubic meters/second (m3/s) in each primary canal? What is the seasonal variation in the flow? What is the estimated command area and what proportion of it is irrigated. In the event that adequate water is available, could the command area be increased by extending the infrastructure under irrigation in hectares (based on the cropping season)? How many hectares are irrigated and how many hectares of arable land are not irrigated?

2 What are the major sources of irrigated water for each scheme? What is the estimated inflow sub-basin? How does this vary seasonally?

3 What are the type and number of irrigation structures for R&U (including number of secondary and tertiary canals)? What percentage of irrigable area will be added after

R&U?

4 i). who is responsible for the routine and periodic maintenance of the canals and irrigationstructures?

ii) Do you see evidence that the canals and irrigation structures are being maintained?

5 What are the major rehabilitation needs of the scheme?

6 What are the other (if any) relevant infrastructural features of the system such as mHECs, mills, animal feed lots and small water using industries such as carpet washing, aquaculture etc.

Watershed Survey:

7 At the district level, identify at least two sub-watersheds contributing flow to the irrigation schemes surveyed that require rehabilitation. What is the current watershed status (eroded? vegetation coverage? is any community residing inside the watershed? What is/are the present land use/s)

Social and Agricultural Productivity Data Gathering through Community Consultation:

8 What is the estimated number of beneficiary farmers, households, and villages within each irrigation scheme? What is the smallest and largest land holding in hectares, by each household at the district level?

9 What are the major crops cultivated under the surveyed irrigation schemes (described by the percentage of land under cultivation)?

10 Are beneficiaries willing to support the rehabilitation of their respective irrigation schemes, and would they be willing to contribute in-kind labor to R&U of the irrigation schemes and watershed restoration sub-projects?

11 Are there obvious ways in which the community could participate in new construction?

12 What water management system is currently in place, is it effective and what processes do they have in place to carryout maintenance?

13 Is the current water distribution system equitable and are there suggestions on how it could be improved?

Flow Data Collection and Analysis:

14 Collect secondary river flow and precipitation data from MEW or its relevant local agencies for river flow analysis and:

a. Provide a comparison analysis of river flow with the demand for agriculture.

b. Graphical representation of precipitation and/or snow melt variation over the identified provinces and districts (USAID acknowledges the special scale covered in here is dependent to the data availability)

Economic Analysis:

15 What are the total estimated cost,1 net-benefit, and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of

R&U for the surveyed irrigation schemes, considering the region as the unit of analysis? The IRR calculation should be for 15 years.2Develop three scenarios based on changes in cost and benefit of the project and analyze the change in IRR in project level:

1Cost estimation is based on the current market price of goods and services.

2 Secondary data supported by field data should also be used for this analysis.

a. First scenario: cost of project increases by 15% of original estimation, benefit is the same as the original estimation.

b. Second scenario: cost of project is the same as original estimation but benefit increases by 15%.

c. Third scenario ―worst case‖: Cost of project increases by 15% and benefit is decreasing by 15% of the original estimation

4. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS

This assessment utilized a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. The PIA team developed and employed the Getting to Answers Worksheet in its work plan as the basis for its methodology. Data sources for this assessment included the following:

Desk review of documents & electronic files (of these, the key documents used are listed in the bibliography)

Meetings held with key stakeholders

Questionnaires and survey forms

Stakeholder interviews conducted in the field

Field data collected from 90 irrigation systems surveyed and 47 watersheds assessed.

Field data were collected by teams of nationally recruited staff competent and trained in the relevant disciplines over a period of 60 working days. Data collection was carried out by inspecting 90 canals selected based on USAID’s guidelines and took the form of a walkthrough of each canal during which the physical features and infrastructural components were mapped and recorded. A series of informal interviews also conducted with community representatives. Although these interviews were conducted in informal settings, they were made according to a set format designed to extract the relevant data. In the case of watershed assessment most of the data were collected remotely without a close on-ground inspection. Once the sample watershed had been selected, it was observed from a distance and notes made on the physical, land use, land degradation and other characteristics. These observations were confirmed by discussions with government officials and inspection of the available maps and GIS material.

The survey teams were supervised by three international consultants who were responsible for ensuring that adequate standards and levels of consistency were achieved.

Data was entered onto a standard set of sheets by each survey team and forwarded to the international consultants who reviewed it for data quality and completeness and when necessary, returned the sheets to the team for necessary amendment.

The process to collect field data is described in detail in Annex III. Data obtained were analyzed in several ways. The specific method(s) used in each case is provided in the data analysis section of the report.

Description of Canal & Watershed Surveys

Training

Prior to commencing the data collection, field staff went through a four day training course whose objectives included:

- Introducing the new staff to the objectives and implementation of the PIA,

- Testing and finalizing the data forms and questionnaires,

- Explaining the method of data collection and familiarizing teams with data collection and recording tools,

- Providing the teams with real-time field practice in collecting and entering information onto the data sheets, The training was carried out by the PIA international staff. Additional training in GIS data entry was carried out during the operational period after it became evident that this was required by the teams.

At the conclusion of the training, six three-person teams were created and assigned five districts (15 canals) each to survey. Efforts were made to ensure that each team had an agricultural specialist, an irrigation engineer, and a social organizer. The six teams were overseen by two WRSs, one based in Mazar-e-Sharif and the other in Herat.

Steps in the survey process:

a. In consultation with provincial level DAIL and/or WMD, the team would identify those canals which would be assessed within each district.

b. Visit the District Governor’s office and obtain consent and relevant local information on aspects such as security conditions and canal access. At times the

Governor would second appropriate local staff to assist the PIA for the duration of the survey.

c. Visit the CDC and request to arrange for the appropriate Mirab to accompany the team on the inspection.

d. Carry out a walk-through survey of the entire canal. During this walkthrough, observations of the canal infrastructure would be recorded using a camera and

GPS at each relevant point. The canal condition was noted and each structure on the irrigation canal was assigned a grade based on observation of its physical condition (seeTable 2).

Table 2 Condition ranking assigned to irrigation infrastructure.

Ranking Description of condition of structure

A Performing well. Only routine maintenance work is required

B Performing over 75%. Some immediate maintenance work is required.

C Partial performance (25% ~ 75%). Sizeable maintenance work is required

D Minimal performance (<25%). Major maintenance or improvement required

F Non-performing (Failure). Complete repair or replacement is required

e. Concurrent with the canal walk, interview farmers to collect social and agricultural information. Interview Mirabs to obtain information on water management,

f. Measure available canal discharge.

g. Identify an appropriate watershed record the co-ordinates of a reference point and make observations of the physical characteristics, land uses, and land degradation processes, in the selected watershed.

h. Team digitally completes data entry upon return to the temporary base. To complete the watershed information, teams would plot the reference co-ordinates onto Google Earth, draw the boundary of the area, calculate the approximate area, and confirm the observations recorded in the field.

i. Email data sheets to WRS for review and send all photographs and waypoints to the GIS Specialist at Checchi…