ICRR 10121 Report Number : ICRR10121 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data : OEDID : OEDID: C2099 Project ID : P009461 Project Name : Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP) Country : Bangladesh Sector : Irrigation & Drainage L/C Number : C2099 Partners involved : EU, Government of the Netherlands, World Food Programme Prepared by : George T. K. Pitman, OEDST Reviewed by : Hernan Levy Group Manager : Roger Slade Date Posted : 06/29/1998 2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs and Components : Approved: March 1990, Effective: June 1990, Closed: December 1997 (on schedule) Project Costs (US$ million) Appraisal Actual Canceled Total 111.0 78.2 IDA credit 53.9 25.5 28.4 EU grant 14.9 13.8 Govn. Netherlands grant 12.6 12.1 World Food Programme grant 22.5 15.9 Government 7.1 10.9 Objectives: Protect and increase agricultural production and incomes of the rural poor, particularly women, through rehabilitation and improved operation and maintenance (O&M) of BWDB's flood control, irrigation and drainage works. Increase beneficiary participation and funding for O&M and improve BWDB's O&M capability . Components : Rehabilitate 80 subprojects covering 600,000 ha; introduce improved O&M into 10 problem-free subprojects (3 irrigation subprojects covering 60,000 ha, 7 small-scale flood control and drainage subprojects covering 40,000 ha) with a focus on landless and womens' contracting groups; pilot farmers participation in on -farm development works in 2 subprojects covering 17,000 ha; and provide technical assistance to BWDB to improve planning, design and execution of works and O&M . 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives : Partial : Good progress on the physical components, but only some on institutional reform . * The area for rehabilitation was downsized by 22 percent to 414,000 ha in 1994 to match BWDB's managerial capabilities and focus on improved O&M rather than construction, and in 1996 new subprojects were curtailed because of poor progress . * Involvement of farmers and beneficiaries in operations was partially achieved , BWDB made very little progress to involve them in maintenance, and training reached a quarter of SAR targets . * Funding for O&M is inadequate : despite temporary increased during implementation it subsequently declined . * Cost recovery is negligible for rehabilitated irrigation subprojects due to lack of enforcement . * New O&M procedures have not been institutionalized within BWDB and are limited to the project . 4. Significant Achievements : Farm incomes increased by between 11 and 32 percent. * Incremental foodgrain output was 72 percent of revised targets . 82 percent of the revised area targeted for rehabilitation was completed. The ERR is estimated to be about 20 percent, compared to 37 percent in the SAR. * Maintenance of earthworks is increasingly entrusted to maintenance groups consisting mainly of landless women . * A better understanding of factors hindering reform of BWDB . 5. Significant Shortcomings : * BWDB culture is still resistant to improved O&M and participation despite strong pressure from government to reform, and it is reluctant to transfer O&M responsibilities to beneficiaries . Training only reached about 60 percent of the target group. Only about 40 percent of on-farm area targeted for irrigation improvement was developed due to lack of water. * Endemic BWDB problems impeded implementation : land acquisition, high staff turnover (even at the Board level) and contractual problems. * There is no political commitment to recover costs of O&M of irrigation systems. * The multiplicity of cofinanciers created problems for coordination, too many conditionalities and led to delays . * Negative environmental externalities on fisheries and navigation remain despite redesign and rehabilitation work . * Monitoring and Evaluation did not focus on development impacts , and were not fully implemented or effective thus providing a poor data source for economic reevaluation . 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Satisfactory Marginally Satisfactory No difference. The ICR text (para 24] also rates it as marginally satisfactory Institutional Dev .: Partial Modest No difference Sustainability : Uncertain Uncertain Bank Performance : Satisfactory Satisfactory Both ICR and OED rate appraisal as unsatisfactory, but excellent supervision balanced this out. Borrower Perf .: Deficient Unsatisfactory No difference Quality of ICR : Satisfactory 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability : * A sector-wide approach considering the comparative advantages of all institutions is required to design systematic reform of a dominant public sector agency resistant to change . * Participatory design, planning and O&M is a complex sociological process and sufficient time must be allowed for the modus operandi to successfully evolve; it cannot be imposed by outsiders . * A multiplicity of cofinanciers adds synergy to the policy debate and pressure for reform but requires enhanced attention to coordination and team planning with the Borrower . * Rehabilitation projects should mitigate original design defects . 8. Audit Recommended? Yes No 9. Comments on Quality of ICR : Good. It covers many of the broader policy issues well and is very candid about the project's difficulties and failings . One of cofinancier's contributions (the Netherlands) is excellent, very constructive and forward -looking. In effect, it raises many issues normally covered at audit .