World Bank - Independent Evaluation Group

Qualitative Impact Assessment of the Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project Phase I

Background Paper

Gustavo Gutierrez and Pamela Velez-Vega

Washington DC April, 2009

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Technical Administrator of Irrigation District (Administacin Tcnica de Distrito de Riego) Peruvian Center for Social Studies (Centro Peruano de Estudios Sociales) Development Financing Corporation (Corporacin Financiera de Desarrollo) Regional Directorate of Agriculture (Direccin Regional de Agricultura) National Household Survey (Encuesta Nacional de Hogares) National Production and Sales Survey (Encuesta Nacional de Produccin y Ventas) Free trade agreement Implementation Completion Report Independent Evaluation Group National Development Institute (Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo) Agricultural Innovation and Competitiveness Program (Innovacin y Competitividad para el Agro Peruano) IRH Water Resources Intendancy (Intendencia de Recursos Hdricos) JNUDRP National Board of Water Users Organizations of Irrigation Districts (Junta Nacional de Usuarios de los Distritos de Riego del Peru) JU Junta de Usuarios NGO Non governmental organization PCU Project Coordinating Unit PERAT Extension in Irrigation and Technical Assistance Program (Programa de Extensin en Riego y Asistencia Tcnica) PERPEC Special Program for River Channeling and Protection of Capture Structures (Programa de Encauzamiento de Ros y Proteccin de Estructuras de Captacin) PIRT Incentive Program for Irrigation Technification (Programa de Incentivos para la Tecnificacin en Riego) PRONAMACHCS National Program for Watershed Management and Soil Conservation (Programa Nacional de Manejo de Cuencas Hidrogrficas y Conservacin de Suelos) PSI Subsectoral Irrigation Project SAR Staff Appraisal Report SENASA National Agricultural Sanitary Service WUO Water User Organization ATDR CEPES COFIDE DRA ENAHO ENAPROVE FTA ICR IEG INADE INCAGRO

Acknowledgements
The report was written by Cesar Gustavo Gutierrez and Pamela Velez-Vega, consultants of the Corporate, Global and Methods unit of the Independent Evaluation Group (IEGCG). The assessment team received guidance from Ximena Del Carpio (IEGCG) and methodological advice from Irene Jillson (Georgetown University). Henry Curi provided field work support and Julia Behrman assisted with editing. The authors appreciate the collaboration of all the participating institutions and informants in the assessment. Special appreciation goes to German Lench and Oscar Morote (PSI) and to the PSI management and technical team for the support given during the implementation of the field work. The authors also recognize the support from the IEGCG management team.

Contents

1 2 3

Background ____________________________________________________________1 Project Description ______________________________________________________2 Methodology____________________________________________________________4

3.1 3.2 3.3
3.3.1 3.3.2

Study Design ______________________________________________________________ 4 Respondent Categories and Sample ___________________________________________ 5 Data Collection Methods_____________________________________________________ 7
Instruments ______________________________________________________________________7 Data Collection Process ____________________________________________________________9

3.4

Data Analysis _____________________________________________________________ 10

Findings ______________________________________________________________11
4.1
4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3

Project Design and Implementation __________________________________________ 11

Objectives and conceptual approach _________________________________________________11 Implementation strategy ___________________________________________________________12 Challenges and facilitating factors____________________________________________________15

4.2 4.3
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3

Effects on Agricultural Productivity __________________________________________ 17 Project Effects on Peruvian agriculture _______________________________________ 22

Effects on Rural Institutions_________________________________________________________22 Effects on Individual Farmers and their Households ______________________________________27 Effects on Communities, Markets and the Environment ___________________________________30

4.4 4.5

Non-project Factors that Influence Peruvian agriculture _________________________ 33 Visions for Agricultural Sector in Peru ________________________________________ 34

Conclusions ___________________________________________________________38

References ________________________________________________________________40 Annexes __________________________________________________________________41

1 Background
World Bank agricultural assistance is set to increase significantly in the coming years; however, there remains lack of evidence on what features of past agricultural programs were effective. Before new programs are designed and implemented a thorough understanding of what did and did not work in past projects is needed. In this context, IEG designed a broad study, Using Impact Evaluation to Identify What Works to Improve Agricultural Productivity, with the objective of addressing the following questions: 1) what does the evidence in agriculture from existing impact evaluations and new work undertaken for this 1 report reveal about what effectively increases farmers productivity; 2) what do stakeholders perceive as the major catalysts for increasing farmer productivity, and to what extent do these perceptions hold with the evidence? The IEG agricultural study focuses on assessing the impact of past projects on productivity because low-productivity of land and labor are at the heart of rural poverty. This broad study consists of two major sections. First, a meta-analysis of all Bank and non-Bank agricultural impact evaluations identified through an extensive literature search process. Second, three mixed-method impact evaluations (Peru, Malawi and Vietnam) encompassing both quantitative and qualitative evaluation sections. This background paper presents the findings of the qualitative assessment of the first phase of the Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project (PSI). It is an integral part of the mixed-method impact evaluation of the IEG agricultural study and is designed to inform the findings of the quantitative component. The paper provides a dynamic view for the quantitative analysis to allow for a more robust understanding of the impact of the project as well as the channels through which changes in productivity were attained.

Stakeholders are defined as people or institutions who were involved in the planning, implementing and evaluation of a program. Beneficiaries are also stakeholders and their perceptions will be included when answering this question.

2 Project Description
The first phase of the Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project (PSI) was implemented between 1997 and 2004 and aimed at increasing agricultural production and productivity in the Pacific coast of Peru by making existing public irrigation systems more sustainable and efficient. The project intended to diminish the role of the public sector in irrigation, and to develop a decentralized irrigation system by strengthening the managerial and operational capacities of water user organizations, thereby ensuring full cost recovery of 2 operation, maintenance and capital investment of irrigation systems . In Peru, water user organizations (WUOs) include Juntas de Usuarios encompassing irrigation districts and irrigation commissions (comisiones de regantes in Spanish) encompassing irrigation sectors within the Junta jurisdiction (for additional information see Annex 1). The total cost of the project was nearly US$114 million. It consisted of three main components: (a) rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure, (b) institutional development and strengthening of WUOs, and (c) incentive program for irrigation technology improvement. The third component had two subcomponents: (i) PERAT - extension program to improve irrigation and farming practices, and (ii) PIRT - economic incentive program (matching grants) for farmers adopting modern irrigation technologies, particularly drip irrigation. According to the World Banks SAR , the infrastructure rehabilitation component was intended to rehabilitate irrigation and drainage infrastructure in about 25 public irrigation schemes to benefit 50,000 rural households over an estimated area of 200,000 ha. It was originally designed to work on a 100%cost recovery system by having WUOs borrow money from private banks and repay it with water fee collection resources. The institutional strengthening component was designed to build the managerial and operational capacities of WUOs to attain full recovery of operational and maintenance costs and to promote the long-term sustainability of the project. Activities under this component included the training of WUOs leaders and technical and administrative personnel in the areas of finance, administration, and operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation systems. The extension program subcomponent (PERAT) intended to train and finance extension officers to promote new irrigation technologies and farming practices among farmers. WUOs were expected to partly finance the salaries of the extension officers. Finally, the economic incentive subcomponent (PIRT) consisted of a one-time matching grant to farmers investing in modern irrigation technology mostly drip irrigation. Beneficiaries were expected to contribute about 29 percent of the total investment. This subcomponent also envisioned an 80-percent matching grant for farmers with fewer than 15 hectares and a ceiling of 50 percent for farmers owning more than 15 hectares. The ICR reported that although the three PSI components described above were successfully implemented, some of them underwent significant obstacles and design modifications because of the interference of unanticipated external factors. Two factors affected the irrigation rehabilitation component. First, private lending to fund the implementation of the irrigation rehabilitation component did not materialize, forcing the project coordinating unit (PCU) to take over the execution of the irrigation rehabilitation and making the WUOs cover only 15-30% of the investment costs, instead of the 100%-fullrecovery cost scheme originally planned. Second, only 49 percent of the components original investment 7 funds were disbursed because project funds were diverted to address the 1998 El Nio natural disaster .
2 3 6 5 3 4

World Bank (2004). Peru Irrigation Subsector Project. Implementation Completion Report. December 20, 2004. p. 2. The original total cost estimate was US$172 million (World Bank, 1996). 4 The project design included a fourth component (dam safety emergency program) which was implemented by a different government agency (INADE) and had little interaction with the other three components (World Bank, 2004). 5 World Bank (1996). Peru Irrigation Subsector Project. Staff Appraisal Report (Report No. 13542-PE). 6 World Bank (2004). Op. cit. 7 The ICR states that 35% of the project loan funds were reallocated to cover emergency works relating to the 1998 El Nio natural disaster. In addition, a $60-million co-financing fund from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) never materialized (World Bank, 2004).

In spite of the financial shortfall, the rehabilitation component was implemented successfully. It rehabilitated, rebuilt or improved 165 main intakes, 1,257 structures, 49 wells, and 313 km of canals. It is estimated to have benefited 125,200 families (250% of the target families) and 443,000 ha (222% of original target) belonging to 40 Juntas de Usuarios. The institutional strengthening component was implemented as expected. All 64 WUOs existing in the coast were targeted for training and capacity building, although 40 received a higher degree of attention. This resulted in an increased number of financially and technically autonomous WUOs from two, before the project implementation, to 33 by 2004; this new status allowed them to become eligible to receive support from infrastructure rehabilitation component. The component implemented activities to raise awareness on users rights and duties of nearly 80,000 farmers and 187 irrigation commissions received training on O&M, tariff collection, and administration. Activities also included training 18,000 farmers on basic concepts of irrigation infrastructure management, as well as nearly 5,000 WUO members on cost recovery policies, water charge rate structures, construction and contract management. The incentive program component suffered significant delays and a shortfall of funding but in spite of these shortcomings the ICR rated it as satisfactorily implemented. The ICR authors stated that the extension program subcomponent did not perform as expected and was delayed because the WUOs were unable to co-finance extension officers as originally planned. This forced the PSI to train farmers directly on extension services. According to PSI documentation, about 50,000 farmers were trained on more efficient irrigation techniques: 7,700 of the trainees are estimated to have applied the knowledge they acquired into their farming practices. The reviewed documentation also claimed that there were modest achievements in the creation of a market for technical assistance. The economic incentive subcomponent underwent a 36-percent reduction of its financing as a result of the reallocation of funds for El Nio emergency works, according to the ICR. It was mentioned that the subcomponent also suffered delays, because beneficiaries faced difficulties in obtaining financing. The ICR reported that five competitions to allocate matching grants were undertaken, which resulted in 252 projects benefiting approximately 1,000 families in a 4,900-ha area (75 percent of the target). Beneficiary contributions gradually increased from an original plan of 28 percent to 45 percent. In spite of the aforementioned limitations, the reviewed documentation indicates that the incentive program significantly succeeded in three areas. First, it introduced innovative and more efficient irrigation technologies for gravity and drip irrigation. Second, it significantly improved crop yields for certain crops, especially mangoes and paprika. Finally, it increased market access for farmers through the creation of 8 102 production chains. These production chains had not been conceived in the original project design, but were added to respond to farmers demand. With respect to project sustainability, the degree of effectiveness achieved by WUOs was considered by 9 the project evaluation the catalyzing factor for allowing WUOs to be financially and technically autonomous. The ability to reach and sustain high water fee collection rates was considered the key in both the sustainability of the WUOs and of the objectives of the PSI. As a result of the partial accomplishment of targets due to the shortfall of funds during the first phase (see footnote 3), in 2005 the Bank approved a supplemental financing operation to maintain support to key components of the project to help close the target gap. The second phase of the project included an infrastructure rehabilitation component to provide support to infrastructure works for WUOs that did not benefit during the first phase; a new incentive program for technology improvement to expand the technification of irrigation for farmer groups through a co-finance competitive process; and institutional strengthening and capacity building component to build on and complement achievements in the subject from the previous phase. It also included a component to support the formalization of water rights and the implementation of a water resources strategy. The second phase of the project was completing its activities at the time this study was designed and carried out.
Involved organizing farmers groups across production interests, providing them with technical assistance and connecting them with buyers. 9 CEPES (2004). Evaluacin del Desempeo Institucional del Proyecto Subsectorial de Irrigaciones PSI. Informe Final.
8

3 Methodology
Qualitative methods provide an important complement to quantitative research, especially when evaluating the impact of a development project. Quantitative data yields important information about levels and changes in outcome and impact indicators, and about statistical relations between these and other important variables. Such numeric indicators are necessary but ultimately insufficient to provide an in-depth understanding of the circumstances in which the project took place and the impact the project had on individuals, households, communities and countries whose agricultural and economic needs the project was designed to address. Even though impact evaluations can be performed using exclusively quantitative methods, the use of both methods allow the researcher to get closer to the real picture by taking advantage of both worlds and reducing the fallibility that may result from the use of one method alone (Conger and Toegel, 2002; Rao and Woolcock, 2003). This study is the qualitative assessment of the Subsectoral Irrigation Project, and part a mixed-method impact evaluation. The methodology of the study is presented in the following subchapters: (a) study design; (b) respondent categories and sample; (c) data collection methods; and (d) data analysis.

3.1 Study Design

The design of the qualitative impact assessment aimed at understanding the broad factors that affected productivity in the intervention areas as well as the channels through which project interventions influenced productivity. It also looked to expose the casual links between events, processes and variables that were expected to help explain projects outcomes and impacts (Wright and Copestake, 2004). The qualitative assessment also intended to elucidate unclear quantitative findings and provide clues on other variables that needed to be measured. The specific objectives of the qualitative assessment were: (a) to obtain information that would allow the validation or nullification of a set of predetermined factors that could explain cause-effect relationships and transmission channels between project interventions, productivity improvements and/or household income; and (b) to learn about other meaningful explanations or relationships not hypothesized. Time and budget constraints determined that a parallel approach be used for the integration of qualitative 10 and quantitative methods in the broad study . The design considered that qualitative findings be ready first to inform the quantitative analysis. Thus, separate research teams were put together to carry out the qualitative and quantitative studies, trying to endure as much dialogue between findings as possible. In the case of the Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project, data collection and analysis for the qualitative assessment were carried out by the same research team, which included field and headquarters consultants. Given the absence of quantitative findings during the design stage of the qualitative study, the qualitative study design was as comprehensive as possible to anticipate potential gaps of information from the quantitative study. General hypothesis and research questions were identified before the start of the qualitative study by selecting areas of potential impacts where project interventions were likely to affect productivity according to economic theory. All areas of potential project impacts were identified and classified, and are presented in Table 1. These were the basis for the preparation of the data collection instruments (see chapter 3.3.1). In addition, the design used a counterfactual approach to assess the relevance of predetermined factors hypothesized to influence productivity as compared to other factors outside the project scope. This was done by focusing on changes experienced by beneficiary (treatment) and non-beneficiary (comparison) participants in the same project intervention areas during a specific period of time. A comparative
10

The original idea was to use a sequential and iterative approach, either utilizing the quantitative material to frame specific questions for the qualitative study or deriving hypothesis from the qualitative work and testing it with survey data.

analysis was done between both groups to provide a more balanced view of the role project interventions played in improving farmers productivity and household income. Table 1: Areas of potential project impacts Area of impact Impact on rural institutions Description How the project might have affected rural institutions including but not limited to Water User Organizations (WUO) within the project intervention area. How the project might have influenced farming practices, use of resources (fertilizers, labor), household income and productivity. How the project impacted on community relationships (e.g. conflicts, interactions), commercialization of products and market creation. Non-project related factors that took place parallel to the project intervention and are believed to have impacted productivity in the intervention areas. This includes similar projects, and changing socio-economic or environmental conditions outside of the project scope.

Impact on individual farmers and households Impact on markets and community Impacts by other factors

The study used three qualitative research methods: review of existing project documents, individual indepth interviews, and focus group discussions. The structured review of existing project documents aimed at identifying potential key issues to be covered in the in-person interviews and focus group discussions. The interviews and focus groups instruments were semi-structured and modularized according to the predetermined factors explained above (a section on project specifics was added in some cases). The instruments were used to interview a wide range of stakeholders including but not limited to project staff, beneficiary and non-beneficiary WUOs leaders and farmers. The following subsections explain the respondent categories, sample selection, data collection procedures, and data analysis.

3.2 Respondent Categories and Sample

The categories of respondents were designed to ensure a comprehensive representation of key project stakeholders and guarantee a balanced source of information about the project vision, specifics, accomplishments and failures. All possible main project stakeholders were identified based on project documents and inputs from project staff. The list of potential informants was split into different categories based on their level of knowledge, and level of responsibility or type of interaction vis--vis the project. Each respondent category across the project was asked the same set of core questions. Initially five categories were identified. These five categories were later were reduced to four, as presented in Table 2. Within these categories, the respondents were selected using both purposive sampling (e.g., the present and, if applicable, previous Task Team Leader) and convenience sampling (e.g., beneficiaries who were available to participate in a focus groups and who were willing to do so). Careful consideration was given to ensure that main stakeholders views were adequately represented and that informants were knowledgeable of key issues related to the studys research questions. The selection of the final sample of respondents was done with inputs from key Bank and project staff, and according to the time and budget constraints of the study. Every effort was placed to ensure a representative, appropriate and consistent sample of informants. The process of selecting informants was iterative and involved adding and dropping informants as the categories were populated. First, a preliminary list of informants was prepared for category 1 and 2, including senior bank staff, current and former project staff and government officers. Second, WUOs

were selected for categories 3 and 4 with the support of project staff. The selection of WUOs was based on: (a) presence of irrigation commissions and farmers having benefited from both the infrastructure rehabilitation component and the economic incentive subcomponent; (b) economic and managerial 11 characteristics of WUOs, according to a CEPES classification ; (c) availability of country quantitative data 12 for the quantitative analysis ; and (d) regional distribution of WUOs to ensure appropriate geographical representation. The final list of selected Juntas de Usuario included: Vir and Chao in the department of La Libertad; La Joya Antigua and Santa Rita de Sihuas in the department of Arequipa; and Huaura in the department of Lima. Table 2: Categories of informants Category Category 1. Senior Bank staff, government officials. Informants WB sector managers, task team leaders and operational staff. They also include officials from government and private organizations related to the project. Current and former project staff, as well as senior and technical project staff. Description Respondents had some knowledge on project implementation, its present status and its partial or overall expected and/or actual qualitative impact and sustainability. Some understand how the project fit into Banks or country agriculture portfolio, or into sector policies in the country. They know the most about the project specifics, including its strengths and weaknesses. Depending on their level of responsibility, their vision was either on the every day operation or on the long term vision and generizability. They were crucial informants because of their knowledge on daily activities, impact channels, sustainability, and local issues. Their views are critical to: (a) understand what worked (or not) in their specific case/context; (b) identify motivations, activities before, during and after intervention; and (c) triangulate what we learned from the prior groups in terms of effectiveness, and sustainability, and contagion/spillovers. Their inclusion is important to know their opinions, changes and experiences vis--vis the one experienced by the beneficiaries. Their perceptions are important to understand the counterfactual. Instrument Individual interviews

Category 2. Project staff directly related to the implementation.

Individual interviews. Focus groups in certain cases.

Category 3. Beneficiaries

Beneficiary WUOs leaders and farmers.

Individual interviews and focus groups

Category 4. Control group.

Non-beneficiary WUOs leaders and farmers.

Focus groups

The final list of informants for the Peru project qualitative impact evaluation is presented in Table 3 (see Annex 2 for a detailed list of informants).

The classification took into account management indicators such as tariff collection rate, processing of hydrometric information, and existence of training unit, among others. (CEPES. 2004. Annex 14). 12 The data came from two surveys carried out by government agencies during the period of study: ENAPROVE (National Production and Sales Survey - Ministry of Agriculture) and ENAHO (National Household Survey - National Statistics Institute).

11

Table 3: Study informants by category Category Category 1 Participating informants 5 senior and operational Bank staff 3 representatives from private organizations 6 representatives form regional government agencies 5 senior project staff 13 technical project staff 4 former project staff 9 leaders of beneficiary Juntas de Usuarios 19 farmers of component A beneficiary commissions 9 beneficiary farmers of component C 18 farmers of component A non-beneficiary commissions 7 non-beneficiary farmers of component C

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

3.3 Data Collection Methods

The data collection methods followed the general study design but were adapted to the specific characteristics of the project as well as to the country conditions and the availability of resources (budget and time).

3.3.1 Instruments
The qualitative data collection instruments were designed to gather informants perceptions on a wide range of issues related to project implementation, areas of potential project impact, and relative importance of project interventions in productivity improvements and other changes in farmers conditions, activities, and relationships. Qualitative instruments were carefully designed to obtain accurate measurements and replication of the study main assumptions. Individual interviews The individual interviews were semi-structured and modularized, and were carried out based on interview guides prepared to identify the interview topics and specific questions (within each topic) and provide direction on how to ask each question and carry out the whole interview. The development of the interview guides was the result of a process of successive reviews by the research team during the instrument design. The design of the interview guides took into consideration the core questions of the study and included the same modules or sections, and a similar structure of open questions to allow for the interviewees to provide explanations and expand openly in their answers. Two interview guides were developed according to the type of informant: (i) one for Bank staff, project staff and representatives of other organizations; and (ii) another for beneficiary leaders (see Annex 2). The sections of the interview guides are presented in Table 4. The interviews were designed to last between 45 and 60 minutes, but in practice lasted on average 90 minutes. During the interviews, mechanisms of data recording were employed: tape recording and note taking. The total number of individual interviews carried out for the Peru qualitative study was 29. It should be pointed out that 6 of the individual interviews involved the participation of more than one informant.

Table 4: Sections of individual interview guide A. B. Basic information on the respondent About the project B.1. Project specifics B.2. Rural institutions and organizations B.3. Farmer and farm household B.4. Community and markets B.5. Other projects and factors C. Opportunities and challenges D. Agriculture and productivity in general

Focus groups The focus group discussions allowed for an interactive, informal group setting where participants were free to talk with other group members. Like the individual interviews, the focus groups were semistructured and went through consecutive modifications in design throughout the preparation and pre-data collection phases. While the focus groups included most of the same sections covered in individual interviews, its content and its approach aimed at obtaining information for a before-and-after analysis as well as treatment-control comparisons. Focus group participants were asked to describe their current production levels and compare them to those before project intervention. Then, they were asked to explain the factors that accounted for any changes in their production level. This was done for both beneficiary (treatment) and non-beneficiary (control) WUOs leaders and farmers. This comparative analysis aimed at a more balanced view of role of the PSI on improvements in farmers productivity, income and other conditions. The focus groups were organized around the main project interventions that allowed an easy identification of beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups for infrastructure rehabilitation (component A) and irrigation technology improvement (component C). They were carried out using a focus group guide which identified discussion topics and specific questions (see Annex 4). The sections in the focus group guide are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Sections of focus group guide A. B. C. D. E. Basic information on the respondent Basic information on the valley Changes in production and sales Project specifics (only for beneficiary groups) Vision and general perception.

The focus groups were designed to last between an hour and a half and two hours, and the expected number of participants was between three and six per group. The means of data recording were tape recording and note taking. The total number of focal groups carried out was 12. Finally, there were also three additional focus groups that included project operational staff from zonal offices that followed a different methodology and involved the use of the problem tree technique for the identification of cause-effect relationships. For this methodology, each participant was given cards to write possible impacts of the project. These cards were later organized according to each of the three components of the project and questions were asked about possible cause-effect relationships between these identified impacts and project interventions. Additional impacts were also identified. As a result, a diagram including all possible cause-effect relationships between project intervention, project outcomes and project impacts was drawn.

3.3.2 Data Collection Process

Actual data collection took place at the World Bank headquarters in Washington DC and in various localities in Peru. The entire data collection process lasted approximately two months and involved the following activities: 1. Data collection preparation: This activity entailed the preparation of the final version of the field instruments in Spanish and the field work logistics, including the hiring of a local field assistant, the purchase of field work materials, and the arrangement of field travels. It also involved electronic communications and planning meetings with PSI officials to define the final field work sampling and coordinate the details of the pilot data collection and the field trips for the actual data collection. 2. Pilot interview and focus groups: Pilot testing of interviews and focus groups with beneficiary WUO leaders was conducted in Pisco, south of Lima. As a result of this activity, the individual interview guide was slightly adjusted while the focus group guide experienced an overhaul and reformulation. 3. Interviews at WB and project headquarters: A total of 15 semi-structured individual interviews were carried out at the World Bank headquarters in Washington DC, PSI project headquarters and other locations in Lima, Peru. The participants of these interviews included ten (10) current and former PSI project staff; five (05) Bank staff; and three (03) representatives from private organizations 13 (CEPES and JNUDRP). Annex 2 shows the list of these interviews. 4. Field trips to project intervention areas: Field trips to three project intervention areas in Peru were carried out to collect information for the qualitative study: Trujillo-Viru-Chao (north), Arequipa-La Joya Antigua-Santa Rita de Sihuas (south) and Huaura-Lima (center). These trips took place between November 17 and December 5, 2008. During these trips, a total of 14 semi-structured individual interviews and 15 focus group meetings were completed. These included interviews with nine leaders of Juntas de Usuarios; three PSI project staff; six officers of regional public institutions (DRA and ATDR); and one representative of a private technology service firm. Generally, individual interviews lasted in average between 60 and 75 minutes. Also during these trips, the following focus group meetings were conducted: three focus groups with beneficiaries of drip irrigation technologies; three focus groups with members of infrastructure rehabilitation-beneficiary commissions; one focus group with members of an institutional strengthening beneficiary commission; and five focus groups with non-beneficiary farmers or members of non-beneficiary commissions. There were also three focus groups with members PSI zonal offices. These activities were carried out at various locations in the project intervention area. The focus group meetings lasted between 90 minutes and two hours and most focal groups included in average between 3 and 8 participants. Some of the data collection activities during the field trips originally planned had to be adjusted or reprogrammed due to unforeseen events. The matrix in Annex 2 shows the distribution of respondents or participants by location, institution and instrument. 5. Elaboration of data transcripts: During and after the implementation of interviews and field trips to intervention areas, transcripts of data were prepared. A total of 42 transcripts of interviews and focus group meetings were prepared and processed for analysis.

CEPES was the firm in charge of the final evaluation of the first phase of PSI and JNUDRP is the national umbrella organization of all WUOs in Peru. Interviews with officers from other public and private organizations were also planned but had to be canceled due to time and coordination constraints.

13

3.4 Data Analysis

Based generally on Glaser and Strauss' Grounded Theory Method, the study team developed categories and themes within and across the question items within and across the categories of respondents. This was done using a manual process so that the team had an in-depth familiarity with the qualitative data that could effectively inform the use of the Atlas.ti software. The steps in the manual process included 1. 2. Transcription and translation, when appropriate, of the open-ended responses. Independent review of responses for each of the question items by three study team members to identify concepts or clusters of concepts or keywords. This was followed by meetings of the team members to discuss similarities and differences in interpretation of responses and collaboratively identify categories. Creation of a set of categories, initially within sets of questions (e.g., study design and implementation) and then across the questions. This involved the construction of 76 categories that were later organized into 12 main themes or major categories. Multiple revisions of the categories were created based on additional in-depth review of the responses and dialogue among the team members. A consensus-based set of categories was devised to be used for the final review and coding of the question items. The final list of main themes is shown in Table 6. Table 6: Main themes of categories i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. 4. Project design Project strategy Project implementation Impact on productivity Impacts on water user organizations and other rural organizations Impacts on individual farmers and their households Socioeconomic and environmental impacts Non-project factors that impacted productivity Project challenges Project facilitating factors Project effectiveness and sustainability Visions for agricultural productivity in Peru

3.

Use of the defined categories to independently code responses. Each team members was responsible for a set of questions. Following individual work, review and discussion took place among the team members. Use of Atlas.ti to sort the responses by category. The Atlas.ti program was used to code and sort individual interviews responses by category focus group responses were coded manually. Category outputs were printed and analyzed to write the report findings. Use of categories to organize and present findings in the report. The reviewers then read the categories across the question items to identify themes across the categories, conducted a narrative analysis and prepared sections of the report.

5.

6.

10

4 Findings
The findings of the qualitative assessment provide a complex picture about the accomplishments, limitations, opportunities and possible impacts of the first phase of the Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project, and tell a rich story about the role that it played in Peruvian agriculture in recent years. Informants perceptions on the project gathered through this study show both widespread similarities and striking differences. In this paper we present the findings on perceptions about project impacts on agricultural productivity and other aspects of Peruvian agriculture, as well as other determining factors in productivity change in recent years. The findings are organized around five main themes: (a) project design and implementation; (b) effects on agricultural productivity; (c) project effects on Peruvian agriculture, (d) effect of non-project factors on Peruvian agriculture, and (e) vision for agricultural sector development.

4.1 Project Design and Implementation

Informants perceptions on the quality of the projects design and impacts were influenced by their personal experience with the project and its components. The study did not intend to assess how the project was designed and implemented but rather provide insight into whether its design and implementation were appropriate to address the productivity concern and what factors played a role in its main outcomes and impacts. The perceptions discussed in this chapter include project objectives and conceptual approach, project strategy, beneficiary selection, and main challenges and facilitating factors.

4.1.1 Objectives and conceptual approach

There was no consensus among study informants on whether productivity improvement was the main goal of the project. According to most Bank and project staff, the project objectives did not explicitly focus on raising agricultural productivity, although it was admittedly considered an implicit higher purpose of the 14 project. According to some project staff members, the project objectives were: (a) the improvement of collective irrigation systems; (b) the strengthening of WUOs capacity to manage these systems; and (c) the reduction of public involvement in irrigation. Since these objectives were expected to have an impact on water availability, and since water is a key factor for agricultural productivity, the assumption was that project objectives should contribute to improve agricultural productivity. A few respondents claimed that productivity improvement was indeed an implicit higher goal or macro purpose of the project, given that practically all the activities of the various programs of the Ministry of Agriculture aim at increasing productivity. When asked if the project design was appropriate to fulfill the projects productivity improvement objective, most respondents indicated that project design was consistent with its explicit objectives not necessarily with productivity improvement. Some senior project staff members asserted that the mission of the project was to promote change in water management by teaching farmers better practices that they could share with their neighbors. According to them, the project aimed at promoting new irrigation technologies and improved water and land management practices, and setup demonstration plots to show farmers the feasibility of the new technologies and how they could adopt them on their own. Financial support for the new technologies was limited to a small number of beneficiaries because they were intended as showcases for other small farmers to learn from and imitate. Even some infrastructure work was done under the same principle, as one project staff put it: This was the conception of PSI that I had, not to do all the works for [farmers] all the time but just [as a] demonstration.

14Original project documents were not clear in defining productivity increase as the purpose or main objective of the project. The project SAR (1996) mentioned it as part of a set of non hierarchically-related objectives, while other PSI documents referred to the purpose of the project as production improvement resulting from a more efficient use of irrigation systems. As a result of the lack of clarity of project objectives, goals, and indicators, project evaluators proposed a new formulation of the project purpose and logical framework (CEPES, 2004).

11

Respondents maintained that another successful element of the project was its holistic approach. Some senior project staff members pointed out that the project was originally designed solely as an infrastructure rehabilitation project, but this was later adjusted and the institutional strengthening and the technology improvement components were incorporated to provide a more integrative approach. As a result, the project covered the entire irrigation subsector, involving not only infrastructure but all stakeholders, including WUOs and individual users. This approach made the project unique among all other irrigation projects that previously existed in the country. A member of the project technical staff provided a key definition by highlighting that the main contribution of the project was building human capacities to achieve sustainable improvements in water use and management. The rationale of this approach was explained during a project staff focus group: You [can reach any goal if] you strengthen human capacities, if people know [and] understand what they have to do and what their goal in life is... Everything starts there; capacity building makes any program work. You can get them to change crops if you [first] change their minds. I mean, changing attitudes comes first. Some contended that training was the most important project intervention for achieving significant results and suggested that it should be a permanent government activity. One project staff member pointed out: I think we have to assess where to put [the money]; we are doing little to see the intangible [results] and I think it is there where things would work much better. Flexibility was mentioned as another positive feature of project design. Some informants indicated that the project experienced a number of adjustments in its design and strategy which allowed it to adapt and improve. Adjustments highlighted by some informants include: adoption of eligibility criteria to select beneficiary WUOs and the reduction in the WUO contribution to fund the infrastructure works.

4.1.2 Implementation strategy

A number of informants highlighted the participatory nature of the project as a key element leading to success. According to some project staff members, the project fostered a new culture of farmer participation in the management of water resources and in the overall agricultural development process, something uncommon in most public agricultural programs in Peru and elsewhere. Respondents contended that this strategy differed from paternalistic approaches and was crucial to achieving results in productivity increase. As a senior project staff put it: what PSI is doing is unprecedented, not only in the country but in Latin America. The way PSI works is by promoting productivity improvement but with farmer participation; we are creating a culture of participation in the management of water resources, in increasing productivity a culture of empowerment. A number of positive characteristics of the project implementation strategy that contributed to the achievement of results and impacts were mentioned by some study informants: (a) the project strategy was non-partisan and significantly free of political influence; (b) the project team was composed of qualified professionals; (c) the project involved a World Bank-style non-bureaucratic operation, not typical of public programs; (d) farmers played a significant role in the prioritization of some of the project investments; (e) specific project strategies were able to adapt to the peculiarities of each WUO; (f) institutional learning costs were valued and recognized as necessary; and (g) there was a gradual but increasing participation of farmers in project interventions decision-making. Respondents also mentioned deficiencies in the project implementation strategy that influenced the outcomes: (a) at the beginning of the project there was little or no participation of farmer leaders in project decision-making and in the definition of project priorities or activities; (b) an appropriate monitoring and evaluation system was missing when the project started and throughout most of the implementation; (c) the project did not focus on other key factors of productivity increase; (d) the funding support to beneficiary WUOs or farmers was insufficient given the economic constraints experienced by most farmers; (e) the restricted coverage of project interventions in terms of geographical location and number of beneficiaries limited the achievement of broader impacts; and (f) the support given to some WUOs was excessive as they reached a point where they should have been able to walk on their own.

12

Beneficiary selection Beneficiary selection differed depending on the type of project intervention. For the infrastructure rehabilitation component, there was first a selection of beneficiary WUOs according to a previously 15 established list of eligibility criteria, followed by a selection of the specific infrastructure investment to be funded. According to most informants, these eligibility criteria made the selection of beneficiary WUOs appropriate, transparent, effective, and objective. These criteria aimed at fostering interest in improving WUOs performance and ensuring sustainability of the investments. Informants agreed that the potential for eligibility worked as an incentive for WUOs to strengthen their management capacities. Some informants pointed out that the criteria used often favored the stronger WUOs, but this was broadly considered necessary for achieving more sustainable results given the pervasive lack of capacities among WUOs. To prevent the benefits of the infrastructure component from reaching only a few WUOs, the project set up the number of potential beneficiary WUOs at 40 but focused the efforts of the institutional strengthening component on achieving eligibility for all WUOs. For the selection of the specific investments within each WUO, the informants general perception was that the selection process was effective and objective, but there were divergent opinions about its 16 Almost all respondents agreed that the selection of the specific transparency and fairness. infrastructure works implemented within each WUO was in the hands of the organization itself. This characteristic made the investments very participatory and demand-driven, and benefited the largest and the most representative commissions within the WUO. While most respondents referred to this internal decision-making as representative and consensus-based, others believed that it allowed the more powerful groups within the WUO to gain control of the investment selection and left smaller commissions out of the process. In general, the selection strategy bias towards larger, more organized commissions was considered conducive to better project results, but this strategy also raised concerns about potential increases in inequality between intervention areas. Regarding the selection of beneficiary farmers for the matching grant program for modern irrigation, informants concurred that it was an objective and transparent process but disagreed about its appropriateness and effectiveness, as it worked in some instances but not in others. Some of the most common informant critiques of the selection process were: (a) the selection process focused excessively on small farmers who were generally unable to fulfill the operation and maintenance requirements of drip irrigation thus jeopardizing its technical viability and sustainability; (b) the decision to make it a competitive process was inappropriate considering the intended demonstration effect goal; (c) financial counterpart requirements were way above most farmers financial capabilities; (d) the selection of individual isolated farmers dispersed the intervention and produced lower effects; and (e) the matching grant did not provide the cost of maintenance services in the contracts. As for the positive aspects of the selection process, informants mentioned: (a) flexibility to respond to both individual farmers and farmer groups requests; (b) individual farmer participation ensured a higher degree of project ownership; (c) feasibility studies in charge of the project expedited the process although it reduced ownership. Implementation of project components Several comments about the implementation of project components and the overall project were collected from study informants. These comments tackled a variety of issues from which a number of lessons can be drawn. (a) Component A (infrastructure rehabilitation). Some informants believed that in some cases the 17 WUO counterpart payment rate was too high and forced the organizations to choose very small
The eligibility criteria included: (a) reaching a minimum water fee collection rate of 75%; (b) hiring a technical manager; and (c) approving a realistic operation and maintenance budget. 16 To receive the infrastructure support, the eligible WUO had to come up with 15-30% of the total investment cost. This condition determined the type of infrastructure work to be prioritized and the specific irrigation commission within the eligible Junta de Usuarios that would be able to bare the costs and directly benefit from the work. 17 Set at 35% of the total infrastructure rehabilitation cost during the first phase of the project.
15

13

infrastructure works given their limited copayment capacity, thereby restricting the potential effects of this component. It was also mentioned that medium size rehabilitation projects (between US$ 300,000 and US$ 3 million) were the most effective ones in terms of generating impacts in water availability improvement. (b) Component B (institutional strengthening). One element of the success of this component was its hands-on training approach, which focused primarily on couching and developing management tools customized to WUOs needs. This allowed WUOs personnel to develop capacities in the daily operations of the organization and the irrigation system. Also of importance was the fact that institutional strengthening did not involve a mere transfer of knowledge and skills, but a gradual process that involved behavioral and attitudinal changes. Another positive element of the strategy was the training of trainers approach, which allowed Juntas de Usuarios leaders and personnel to get involved in the training of members and leaders of their irrigation commissions. This expanded the scope of the component, but in some cases it also limited progress for those WUOs with low training capacity. As for limitations of the component approach, some informants criticized the greater focus on interventions at the Juntas level as opposed to the commissions level, which limited the outcomes in users awareness. Also, some interventions focused exclusively on WUOs leaders and this resulted in the need of redoing the training activities when there was a change in leadership (see section 4.1.3). (c) Subcomponent C1 (extension program - PERAT). This component was more controversial both in terms of implementation and results. On one hand, some informants regarded it as very helpful to achieving projects outcomes because it addressed a key farmers need such as the development of production chains and the adoption of marketing strategies for their farm production. On the other hand, the team in charge of the final project evaluation criticized this program for lacking in sustainability or impact due to following factors: (a) it became a parallel institution with little or no synergy with other project components; (b) it abandoned its focus on irrigation and got distracted in activities non related to the project objectives; and (c) it focused exclusively on activities but not on long-term impacts. In fact, one project staff suggested that the incentive for new technologies would have had broader impacts if it came along with a strong extension program, which was not the case. Informants asserted that greater effects would have been achieved if the program placed more attention to various practices to improve water management at the plot level, besides the promotion of new modern technologies. (d) Subcomponent C2 (incentives for modern irrigation technologies - PIRT). For some informants, the grants competition was not the best mechanism to promote drip irrigation among small farmers because it caused unnecessary delays and paperwork, hampering its impacts. Respondents suggested that a first come first serve procedure was a better option. Overall project implementation Coordination with other public sector agencies that operated in the same project intervention area was considered by a few respondents as instrumental to reaching more comprehensive project outcomes because it allowed potential synergies with other agricultural projects, thereby reducing overlapping, and avoided distraction of resources on themes beyond the project mission. While there were cases of inter19 institutional coordination activities, these were not generalized and more coordination could have been useful to achieving project objectives. A few informants pointed out that close involvement to the water authority agencies (ATDR) was initially weak and was considered essential for the sustainability of improvements in irrigation system management, given the fact that they are legally responsible of overseeing the performance of WUOs.
18

Some of these agencies are: ATDR (Technical Administrator of Irrigation District), SENASA (National Agricultural Sanitary Service), DRA (Regional Directorate of Agriculture Regional Government), PRONAMACHCS (National Program for Watershed Management and Soil Conservation). 19 e.g. plant protection training courses along with SENASA.

18

14

Conversely, a number of informants considered that the project should have focused on issues beyond its mission statement such as marketing, production chains, farming practices, business management, etc. in order to accomplish better results in terms of farmer income improvement. Informants also contended the need for a more comprehensive approach on how to address the critical problems related to water management in specific water distribution systems. They called for more integrated project interventions that would address the main bottlenecks for effectively improving overall water management efficiency. Finally, some informants asserted that the project failed to take full advantage of the potential for synergies among project components by not including zonal intervention strategies in its design. The three project components converged in only 72 out of 622 irrigation commissions, although it was recognized that greater confluence occurred between components A and B.

4.1.3 Challenges and facilitating factors

Respondents perceptions on challenges to project implementation were many and varied. The challenges generally fall within five broad categories: (a) challenges related to the WUOs; (b) challenges related to beneficiary farmers participation; (c) challenges related to problems in project implementation; (d) cultural and educational challenges; and (e) characteristics of the agricultural sector. (a) Challenges related to the WUOs: The capacity and leadership of many WUOs were perceived to be a challenge due to the relatively small size of the boards, their lack of experience and capacity to carry out their role, and their lack of continuity when board membership changed and new board members needed to be trained in project objectives and activities. Also, in some cases the strengthening of WUOs and their leaders had unintended negative consequences because some WUOs leaders viewed themselves as playing a lead role not only in their organization but in other issues as well. This resulted in some social conflict in the community. Other challenges related to the WUOs identified by respondents included conflicts within the organization caused by internal power struggles. (b) Participation of farmer beneficiaries: The challenges identified by study respondents included their baseline capacity to undertake modern irrigation technologies, their management capacity to implement the changes, their financial capacity to provide their counterpart funding, and the requirements imposed on them for participation. Small farmers were usually not able to pay for the technical study as part of their application to the matching grants program and often sought the least expensive purveyors so some studies had to be redone or the government had to pay for the studies. The farmers being accustomed to government support (see cultural factors below) and bad habits related to water irrigation and traditional cultivation, scant marketing and business management experience, and an individualistic approach were also challenges faced by the project. (c) Problems related to project implementation: The execution of the infrastructure rehabilitation component faced a significant challenge related to both the lack of WUO counterpart contributions and the limitations of government funds for investment in infrastructure generally. The lack of continuous follow-up and support for farmers was also a problem in some areas. When the modern irrigation systems were installed, post-implementation training and technical assistance and support for basic equipment was important but not always forthcoming. This might have been a factor of what some respondents perceived as the impetus to move forward to meet project timelines without adequate staff and with no indicators to measure reasons for the delays and to therefore act to address them. There was also dissatisfaction with implementation procedures of some of the components. The bureaucratic processes devised for the project were seen by some as too lengthy, complicated, inconsistent and not considerate of the lack of financing capacity on the part of some WUOs and beneficiaries. The weak information and monitoring system limited the ability of the project team to make decisions and to follow-up with the farmers based on data. The focus of PSI on interacting with the WUOs rather than with the regional authorities as well was seen by some as a challenge.

15

(d) Cultural and educational challenges: Two challenges that represent a Janus-like conundrum for the project and that were mentioned by many of the respondents are farmers culture of dependency and mistrust of the government. On the one hand, a culture of dependency inhibited the proactive participation of beneficiary organizations and individual beneficiaries. They were, from the perspective of respondents, so accustomed to government largesse that the concept of their payments for, or contributions to, use of water even if it improves their productivity and the likelihood of long-term gain for their community is difficult to accept. On the other hand, there was a mistrust of the state at all levels, based on their direct and personal past experience and/or on a perception of government actions. This simultaneous dependency on and mistrust of the government was coupled with the low educational levels of the beneficiaries, WUO leadership and individual farmers. Overall, the level of education proved to be a hindrance to both beneficiaries understanding of the project and of the educational messages conveyed through the technical assistance and other capacity-building aspects of the project. Resistance to change was another challenge and one that can be viewed as related to both cultural factors (e.g., dependency and view of the state as paternalistic) and education. There was the perception that there was a lack of understanding among many beneficiaries of the tradeoffs of modern irrigation technologies. (e) Characteristics of the agricultural sector: Volatility of the agricultural market was a significant challenge, and exacerbated the fact that there was inadequate and inappropriate land use by most farmers, including crop cultivation and rotation, use of pesticides, or irrigation techniques. This was related to the financial capacity of the farmer but that is only one factor in poor farm management. A broader but related challenge was lack of coordination in the promotion of production chains through the national agricultural development strategy. The paucity of institutional arrangements and synergies within the agriculture sector inhibited equitable and appropriate implementation of production chains. So too did the fractionated nature of the agriculture sector, which limited the power of the individual farmer and those components of the sector engaged in change for the common good. Finally, the state lacks a monitoring and evaluation system of its own interventions in the agriculture sector. This role should be performed by the Ministry of Agriculture but is almost non existent, and it contributes to the lack of adequate integrality and synergies in public interventions in agriculture. Study respondents identified diverse facilitating factors that they believe contributed to the success of the project. These fall within four categories: (a) attitudes of WUOs and farmers; (b) project strategies; (c) government support; and (d) magnitude of the problem. (a) Attitudes of WUOs and farmers: An important aspect of program success was the positive attitudes toward the project demonstrated by all involved parties. The willingness of WUOs to receive and share knowledge was a crucial developmental factor. One frequently cited facilitating factor was the amicable, supportive relationship perceived between and among the WUOs and other agricultural organizations. The interrelationship between managers of different organizations, as well as relationships between the associations themselves, the PSI and the administration have proved indispensible to the attainment of program goals. The project emphasized fair and equitable treatment of management that has in turn positively influenced their decision-making with respect to project components generally and the individuals with whom and organizations with which hey worked. The farmers themselves were receptive to change to an extent previously unknown. Todays farmers are involved and educated, and more interested in introducing new farming techniques and technologies. This facilitated the projects focus on both capacity-building and attitude change. As one individual stated, [this] generation has a much broader vision of the agricultural world they have ambitions. (b) Government support: The support of the government was reported to be one of the most crucial facilitating factors in the attainment of project objectives. Without the government, one respondent stated, we would have generated no interest because we are speaking of small farmers who in many cases dont even have credit, and when the state gives them a significant contribution it naturally encourages them to want to help. Although the PSIs autonomous management of its

16

budget, finances and so forth worked to the projects advantage, without Ministerial support, this would not have been feasible. (c) Project strategy: Facilitating factors directly related to the project strategy mentioned by respondents included: strategies to depoliticize agricultural development; selecting WUOs that were strong and well-established; selecting qualified and capable professionals as project staff; the straightforward and active-learning training of WUO and individual farmers; and providing technical assistance and guidance to the Peruvian national and regional government offices associated with the project. Other facilitating factors included: patience, communication with WUO directors, technical assistance and training, and in-field solutions. The encouragement of team development also facilitated positive improvements in agricultural practices, organizational systems, and institutional and individual attitudes. The development of partnerships enabled specialization, more efficient use of time, and better coverage of tasks. The visible improvements in water use and crop selection and rotation and the consequential effect on productivity and improved crop sales-- that resulted from the project had important influence on the non-participating farmers in the area. (d) Magnitude of the problem: Ultimately, poor infrastructure created problems and enabled the projects implementation. It is perceived that, had the infrastructure been in good condition, the State would have taken no interest and would not have invested in infrastructure improvements and other project components.

4.2 Effects on Agricultural Productivity

The general perception on the part of those interviewed public officials, project staff and beneficiaries is that the Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project played a role in increasing agricultural productivity in the areas of intervention. Even though productivity increase measurements were not available, a significant number of study informants perceived either a direct or indirect impact of project interventions on agricultural productivity, mainly as a result of the increased availability and reliability of the water supply that occurred as a consequence of the construction of a more rational and efficient irrigation management system. These water management improvements were gradual and verifiable; and generated stability in the flow of water supply for agriculture, making investments on new technologies and high value crops more solid and appealing. Water is considered one of the most important inputs for agriculture; however, a number of study respondents suggested that it is insufficient to guarantee a successful agricultural production on itself. They pointed out that agricultural productivity depends also on a number of other factors, including quality of land; availability of other agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, labor); access to agricultural services (financing, technical assistance, information, etc.); and suitability of farming practices. Respondents said that attention should also be paid to such other elements as access to markets, farmer education, and farmers organizations. Overall they concluded that in order to get results, public interventions should focus not only on one element but on the combined set of factors that are critical for productivity impacts; otherwise results will be limited and curtailed. Some respondents highlighted the importance of defining how to measure the increase in productivity and suggested the use of the same criterion used during project evaluation, which is the change in land use intensity. This concept points to the number of cropping seasons, and subsequent yearly production, 20 from the same plot of land . The final project evaluation conducted by CEPES reported an increase in 21 this variable for the most important valleys in the intervention area. As mentioned above, the improvement of irrigation management and the subsequent increase in availability and reliability of water supply were considered one of the main channels through which the
20 21

Throughout the paper we use this and other commonly used concepts reported by respondents about productivity. CEPES (2004) Evaluacin del Desempeo Institucional del Proyecto Sub-Sectorial de Irrigaciones PSI. Informe Final.

17

project may have impacted agricultural productivity. The increase in water availability was believed to be the likely result of one or more of the following processes: a) Increase in system-wide water capture efficiency, as a result of the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure (component A). This allowed for an improved collection of water from its natural sources into the irrigation system through main intakes, structures and wells. These infrastructure improvements were believed to have contributed to the relative increase in the availability and reliability of water supply in the intervened systems. b) Increase in system-wide water distribution efficiency, as a result of the rehabilitation of canals (component A) and institutional strengthening of WUOs (component B), which allowed for an increase in water availability at the farm level, which in turn translated into a more intensive use of land through either the expansion of the farmland area or the increase of number of cropping seasons per year. This process is believed to have had a limited effect in the overall spectrum of agriculture production due to the relatively modest increase in water availability and the limited portions of the irrigation systems that benefited from infrastructure improvements. c) Increase in on-farm water application efficiency, as a result of the adoption of modern irrigation technologies, especially drip irrigation (subcomponent C2), as well as the dissemination of improved irrigation and farming practices (subcomponent C1). At the farm level, these technologies appear to have had dramatic impacts on production and productivity thanks to a more intensive use of land and water, as well as agricultural inputs. The magnitude of this effect, however, is limited to a relatively small number of the farmers who benefited directly from the projects new irrigation technologies. In fact, one respondent pointed out that the project did not make significant progress in improving indicators of water use efficiency at farm level. It was reported that current values of water consumption in agriculture are extremely 22 high and the project has not been able to significantly reduce inefficient plot irrigation practices widespread throughout the farm fields despite improvement achieved with respect to individual farmers. Although these were the primary ways by which the project influenced water availability, they are not the only impact channels on productivity identified by study respondents. Diagram 1 is an attempt to present a schematic and comprehensive view of the probable impacts and cause-effect relationships that occurred between the project components and the various factors related to water management, WUOs operation, and water users attitudes and practices, all of which had a likely final effect on agricultural productivity. Heavier lines in the diagram indicate a stronger determining factor or a stronger cause-effect relationship between variables. The diagram integrates the perceptions of interview respondents and focus group participants and organizes the most common beliefs about how the project could have influenced agricultural productivity. The specifics of this diagram are discussed throughout this and the following chapters. Finally, according to some respondents, there were other indirect ways through which the project had an effect on overall agricultural productivity including: (a) the effect on the market of modern irrigation technologies, especially drip irrigation; (b) the growing interest among small farmers towards exportoriented crops, production chains and farmer market associations; and (c) the strengthening of WUOs as a place for promoting agricultural innovations and farming improvement.

22

25,000-30,000 cubic meters/hectare/year.

18

Diagram 1. Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project possible impacts and its effect on productivity
PSI Phase I
Infrastructure rehabilitation (Comp. A) Institutional strengthening (Comp. B) Extension program (Comp. C1) Incentives for new technologies (Comp. C2)

Strengthening of WUOs Improved infrastructure

Change of users attitudes & knowledge

More areas with new technologies Improved irrigation system O&M Improved plot irrigation

Improved water capture & distribution Other possible impacts: Increased human capacities Improved farmers relationships Political empowerment Development of new markets Social economic changes

Improved water application

Change of crop selection Improved farming & irrigation practices

Increased water availability

Other factors: Export boom Technical assistance New agribusiness New market opportunities Generational change Technology development

Increased land use intensity

Increased farmer productivity

19

The role of project components: The study unveiled a significant diversity of opinions among project staff, beneficiary leaders and other key informants about the specific role of each project component in achieving the project objectives and/or the overall purpose of improving productivity and farmers income. This is understandable due to the complex nature of the project, and underscores the multiple effects that the project had on Peruvian agriculture. The respondents perceptions of the role of each project component are summarized below. a) Component A: Rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure The majority of respondents agreed about the direct link between this component and the increase in productivity, although they diverged in their perception of the relevance and magnitude of this impact. They believed that this component contributed to the improvement of a significant number of irrigation infrastructures throughout the intervention area, all of which were prioritized by the respective WUO due to their differing relative importance for their specific irrigation systems. These works allowed for significant improvements in water collection and distribution in the various irrigation systems, which in turn produced an increase in water availability for the entire system. This increased water availability had greater effect in those WUOs and areas with greater water supply deficiencies especially located at the end of the system or with major irrigation infrastructure bottlenecks. This improved availability of 23 water was believed to have contributed to an increase in land use intensity, and subsequent land productivity, by incorporating new land for farming or additional crop cycles. However, it is worth noting that other respondents considered these water availability improvements and subsequent productivity increases as marginal, arguing that the component did not fund new irrigation schemes and addressed only a small part of the infrastructure rehabilitation needs of the WUOs. When asked about the most important project component, a quarter of respondents mentioned this component for the following reasons: (a) the infrastructure rehabilitation needs in the country are massive and therefore a priority; (b) infrastructure rehabilitation works are physically present and therefore more likely to be sustainable since their need for maintenance is visible; (c) this component showed a high degree of implementation in terms of goals and budget; and (d) infrastructure works benefited a larger number of farmers or users, when compared to other project components. b) Component B: Institutional strengthening of WUOs A number of study informants suggested a connection, though indirect, between the institutional strengthening of WUOs and the increase in productivity. According to them, the strengthening of the WUOs involved administrative and operational improvements in the management of the irrigation systems under their administration, and made water management and distribution more efficient, equitable and organized. This entailed better irrigation turns, reduced water loss and an overall improved water availability. It also raised awareness within and throughout WUOs about the importance of the users economic contribution (water fees) to cover the investment and maintenance costs of infrastructure rehabilitation and system management (see Diagram 1). Some respondents contended that changing users attitudes and beliefs was fundamental to achieving sustainable results in organizational capacity and service delivery. When asked about their relative importance, around 40% of respondents pointed out that the institutional strengthening was the most important and effective component in achieving project objectives. The reasons given for this selection are multiple: (a) this component was instrumental to the success of the other components and the entire project; (b) the final project
23

Can be referred as the cropping area or the number of crops raised on the land in a specific period of time.

20

assessment concluded that this component was successful and achieved better results; (c) it helped WUOs leaders to become valid spokespersons to discuss and address water management issues; (d) this component had the broadest coverage of all components since it reached almost all WUOs; and (e) the results of this component were sustainable. For one of the respondents, this component was fundamental and the infrastructure component was an incentive (a candy) for institutional strengthening to be implemented. c) Component C: Irrigation technology improvement Respondents opinions were specific to each of the two sections or subcomponents: the extension program (PERAT), and the economic incentives for technology improvement program (PIRT). With regard to the extension program, a number of respondents indicated that training on water management, crop management, business management, and information campaigns implemented by this sub-component played a role in raising farmers awareness about the importance of good water management practices on their own farms and in reducing the high levels of irrigation water loss at the plot level. On the other hand, a significant number of study informants considered that the economic incentives subcomponent was the primary mechanism for the project to influence an increase in agricultural productivity by promoting and implementing modern irrigation technologies especially drip irrigation at the farm level. One respondent mentioned that the installation of drip irrigation systems has caused a 25-50% increase in productivity on nearly 2,500 hectares, while others mentioned increases above 200%. However, as mentioned earlier, this outcome was restricted to the limited number of farmers who were able to implement these technologies either through direct support from the project or through demonstration effect. When asked which was the most important among the three project components, only three respondents indicated that the irrigation technology improvement was the most important. They mentioned the following reasons: (a) the introduction of modern irrigation technologies does not take too long to show its effects in terms of productivity, their effect is relatively immediate; (b) the impacts of these new technologies in production, productivity and farmers income are dramatic; (c) the component contributed to the dissemination of information on new irrigation technologies among small farmers; (d) it played a role in the development of the market of modern irrigation technologies. We must point out that nearly a third of interview respondents did not want to choose one component over another in terms of their importance to achieving project objectives. Rather, they suggested that it was the combination of components what played a fundamental role in the outcomes of the project. They mentioned the following reasons: (a) components worked together in bringing about outcomes and impacts; (b) components were complementary, i.e. needed each other to achieve results; (c) each component focused on different areas or target groups; (d) team work is what allowed the project to achieve results; and (e) the approach was integral and each component was needed to achieve results. As noted previously, it was pointed out that Component A (infrastructure rehabilitation) was necessary to implement Component B (institutional strengthening), since it convinced the WUO to go through the process of training and strengthening in order to become eligible for the support. Differential effects The nature and magnitude of project effects on productivity differed by component geographic location and beneficiary group. As some informants highlighted, project effects were not widespread throughout the Coast but were limited to the individual farmers and irrigation commissions who benefited from specific components of the project. Focus group discussions helped to identify differences between beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers in their farming activity in recent years, which have allowed us to have a clearer picture of the differential effect of the project. In general, it was easier to identify differential effects on direct individual beneficiaries (e.g. incentives to new modern technologies) rather than on collective beneficiaries (e.g. infrastructure rehabilitation). 21

In infrastructure rehabilitation (component A), members of beneficiary commissions showed various degrees of dissimilarities with members of non-beneficiary commissions. These differences were mostly related to their ability to take full advantage of the improvements in water supply from their irrigation systems and the adoption of better irrigation practices. In some cases, these differences were substantial while in others almost not significant, depending on the relative importance, relevance and characteristics of the specific infrastructure rehabilitation work performed in their 24 commissions or Junta. Another factor that played a role in this differential level of effect was the degree of synergies between the infrastructure rehabilitation and the institutional strengthening components. In most cases, other factors played a more essential role in influencing changes in local farmers behavior and productivity, such as the introduction of new farming technologies and the opening of new markets. With regard to institutional strengthening (component B), it was usually more difficult to identify production differences between members of beneficiary and non-beneficiary commissions since the main activities of the component were reportedly implemented at the Junta level and only a few activities were directed to specific commissions within the Juntas. However, there were areas in which members of some commissions reported specific benefits from the improvement of their water distribution system as a result of the intervention of this component, although these benefits appeared more distant to the individual farmer. Some respondents did not even regard the institutional strengthening of the WUOs as conducive to improvements in agricultural productivity because they did not see direct effects on individual farmers water availability and management. Across different intervention areas, PIRT beneficiaries (subcomponent C2) showed huge differences in terms of crop selection, use of inputs, farming practices, use of resources, etc. when compared to non-beneficiaries from the same locality. These beneficiaries reported an overhaul in their farming activity, which had direct and striking consequences in their, production, productivity and household income. Even when non-beneficiary farmers showed some technology or production improvements, these never reached the levels shown by beneficiaries.

4.3 Project Effects on Peruvian agriculture

The possible specific effects of the Peru PSI Project were organized according to the three areas of influence on which project interventions could potentially have an effect on agricultural activities in the intervened areas: (a) effects on rural institutions; (b) effects on individual farmers and households; and (c) effects on communities, market and the environment.

4.3.1 Effects on Rural Institutions

Respondents from all levels of project implementation reported that effects on rural institutions were among the most important effects of the project. The main project effects in this regard include: (a) changes in WUO leaders beliefs and attitudes; (b) organizational and managerial changes in WUOs; (c) improvements in water distribution; (d) increased water fee collection rates; (e) changes in WUOs relationships; (f) changes in relationships between water users and WUOs; (g) political empowerment of WUOs; and (h) changes in other sector organizations. (a) Changes in WUO leaders attitudes Every single one of the project implementers asserted that the project had a clear, direct and strong effect on WUO leaders attitudes and beliefs. These changes were considered to be
Some infrastructure works were located on main canals providing benefits to all commissions in the area, while other works were located on secondary canals benefiting only the commissions depending on those canals.
24

22

the direct result of training activities of the institutional strengthening component. By contrast, only two out of 20 WUO leaders reported significant changes in their own attitudes and way of thinking. The general belief among project staff was that training reinforced each others change of attitude and that the acquired knowledge prepared WUO leaders to take more responsibilities. The most common attitude changes among WUO leaders reported by project staff were: Culture of service and accountability: WUO leaders developed a new culture of administration and self-management. This involved WUO leaders being more committed to their organization and to providing better services to users. Empowerment: WUO leaders were more confident to undertake water system operations and maintenance and less reliant on government assistance. Having the government (papa gobierno) do everything for them was no longer an option. Need for training water users: WUO realized that training is business, meaning that the more users were taught about the importance of paying water fees, the more resources the organization will have and the better it will serve its users.

Some regional public sector informants also found WUO leadership more accountable and committed to their organizations, and more knowledgeable of the WUOs legal framework. A few WUO leaders corroborated this view, by asserting that project training served to unify their interests and created a more business-oriented mentality. This included giving priority to good organizational techniques, training water users and using water fee collection as a mechanism to provide better infrastructure and services. This defines a drastic change from some former WUO leaders, who strongly opposed water fees altogether. (b) Organizational changes in WUOs The general perception among study respondents was that the institutional strengthening component fostered organizational changes in WUOs by enhancing their legal, administrative and technical capacities. This component helped WUOs to formalize their legal structure, and provided WUO leaders with management tools for better organization, planning and systematization of activities, as well as finance and personnel management. A number of informants reported that the institutional strengthening component improved the administrative and legal structure of many Juntas de Usuarios as well as the operation of their general assemblies. Proofs of this were the organizational tools created to manage their activities, namely organizational manuals, personnel handbooks, and reference books for operation and maintenance. This component was also responsible for stronger general assemblies, which became active bodies, where project plans were presented by irrigation commissions, discussed and approved. Beneficiary farmers emphasized that some Juntas de Usuarios were transformed into arenas for dialogue and conflict resolution among water users. Another reported benefit was the formalization of a number of irrigation commissions, which were operating without being properly registered. With respect to day-to-day operation, study respondents reported major changes in the systematization of WUO information and activities such as the creation and maintenance of inventories of irrigation infrastructure projects, directories of water users and users annual irrigation plans. Informants also claimed that the project was instrumental to increasing the use of information technologies in WUOs such as personal computers and software programs to process irrigation-related data. As for changes in financial management, the most widely reported improvement was better capacity for collecting and managing water fees collection. Other changes included planning, creating and maintaining budgets closely connected to work programs. Beneficiary leaders emphasized that the WUOs newly acquired administrative capacities ultimately helped them become eligible to benefit from the infrastructure rehabilitation component. 23

Regarding personnel management, informants asserted that WUOs raised work efficiency and efficacy as well as employee accountability by hiring more qualified personnel, specifying and delimiting work functions and creating new units, for example, a training unit. Finally, WUOs strengthened capacities also allowed them to increasingly take on more roles such as wholesale purchasing of fertilizers to guarantee lower prices to members, and setting up occupational schools and soil labs. (c) Changes in water distribution A general perception among respondents was that water distribution was visibly more efficient and equitable. Improved water distribution was seen as resulting from better infrastructure and irrigation system management. Although savings resulting from improved distribution have not been quantified, some project staff estimated that infrastructure rehabilitation reduced water loss from 40% to 10-20% in some WUOs. The extra amount of water was believed to have both marginally increased farmers irrigation area and to have allowed farmers living at the outskirts of the systems to increase their water supply. As for changes in water management, project and ATDR staff reported that creating a system to assign farmers irrigation turns by using irrigation orders was crucial to improving equity in water distribution as well as to enforcing discipline among water users. WUO leaders also reported changes in water distribution leading to a better rule of law. Project training was seen as having created a culture of respect and compliance with irrigation turns. As one WUO leader put it land is now irrigated starting with the first user and ending with the last user and each person knows when his turn is and takes full advantage of it and the plant grows better. This confirms a classic outcome of improved on-farm water management as described by Uphoff (1992). A small number of informants claimed that the project also improved the technical aspects of WUOs water management, thanks to the infrastructure rehabilitation and institutional strengthening components. Respondents identified three main changes. First, the use of irrigation frequency parameters has become more widespread, which has improved water efficiency use. Second, farmers have renewed the use of the once obsolete annual irrigation plans, which has contributed to better forecasting water needs. Third, the use of floodgates to manage water distribution among water users has significantly increased. They concurred that these changes have resulted in more robust mechanisms for planning, measuring and controlling water volume, as well as improving the distribution and efficiency of water use. Focus group discussions with WUO leaders and farmers confirmed that the infrastructure component played a key role in water distribution. When comparing control and beneficiary groups of infrastructure rehabilitation, we found that all beneficiary groups reported significant improvements in water availability and water distribution compared to no improvements reported by control groups. (d) Increased water fee collection rates Project and government agencies staff reported that the project helped to significantly increase water fee collection rates for all WUOs via the institutional strengthening component. The change in water fee collection rates was seen as a catalyst for subsequent changes in WUOs and as the main mechanism to make them more sustainable. Changes in water fee collection rates, however, depended on the size and original capacity of the WUO. In general, larger and more organized WUOs were better able to maximize the benefits of training and thus achieved higher increases in water fee collection rates. Some informants also reported that some WUOs fee collection systems shifted to requiring payment in advance, while others are increasing water fees every year, trying to bring water prices closer to cover operation and maintenance costs. All this has resulted in more financial resources available to WUOs. 24

Increased financial resources allowed WUOs to build their own offices, buy vehicles, heavy machinery, office equipment and pay for basic services, including access to the Internet, which has improved communications. Project staff in Lima admitted that some WUOs have better vehicles than government agencies and own state-of-the-art technology. This has significantly improved the quality of services of WUOs as well as their relationships with water users. The resources currently available to irrigation commissions contrast with their situation in the mid 90s. As one WUO leader put it: in 95 or 94 irrigation commissions existed only in paper they used to meet in the cemetery, under a tree now besides getting transfers from water fees collected by the Junta de Usuarios, they have set their own premiums and with this they have created their own budgets and built their own offices and now every one of them has their own office. From several informants accounts the process can be characterized as a virtuous cycle. First, project training activities educated water users and WUO leaders on the importance of sound management practices and water fees. This resulted in farmers being more amenable to paying water fees, which increased water fee collection rates. The resources from water fees translated into WUOs providing better services such as timely and more reliable water distribution. Better services reinforced, in turn, the culture of payment among water users. However, some WUO leaders also mentioned limitations in the process: (a) water fees do not reflect actual operation and maintenance costs yet; (b) there is no accountability mechanism to 25 control irrigation commissions use of funds transferred from Juntas de Usuarios ; and (c) in many irrigation commissions, water fees are still based on flat rates rather than on volume use, which discourages water savings and limits WUO ability to increase revenues. A number of WUO leaders reported that many water users, however, remain strongly opposed to water fees based on volume use, because of tradition. Focus group discussions revealed a negative association between drip irrigation adoption and water fee collection rates. According to two focus groups, water fee collection decreased in WUOs with members who had installed drip irrigation technology because they used their own wells as their main source of water. (e) Changes in WUOs relationships Some project staff members pointed to improved relations between Juntas de Usuarios and 26 their respective irrigation commissions. Some WUO leaders claimed to have better relations because they are more aware of each others roles and competencies thanks to training. As a WUO leader said: before, the irrigation commissions used to think that Juntas de Usuarios illegally got involved into their work, but now they understand that [they] have to work together. On the other hand, WUO leaders reported worsened relations because now both Juntas and irrigation commissions have the resources and the capacity to entertain infrastructure projects. Frictions often occur between Juntas de Usuarios and irrigation commissions that share jurisdictional boundaries but have different irrigation infrastructure priorities. Relationships between WUOs and public and private organizations also improved and became more dynamic. This was in part the result of WUOs having to interact with local or regional authorities and local non-governmental organizations to obtain their co-financing for the infrastructure rehabilitation component. WUOs and government authorities have strengthened communication channels to ensure co-financing and to coordinate infrastructure priorities.
25

There are different mechanisms for WUOs to collect water fees. In some areas, Juntas de Usuarios are the ones responsible for collecting water fees, which are then transferred to irrigation commissions to cover infrastructure rehabilitation and other services. In other areas, where irrigation commissions are better organized, they collect water fees directly from water users without having Juntas as the intermediaries. 26 For details on the difference between Juntas de Usuarios and irrigation commissions see Annex 1.

25

Some NGOs have not only helped WUOs to find sources for investment, but have also supported other areas of agricultural activity, such as the creation of new markets for agricultural products. (f) Political empowerment Another effect attributed to the project is the economic and political empowerment of WUOs. According to respondents, WUOs have become stronger and more credible institutions, due to better management and more resources from water fee collection. Project staff contended that the economic clout of WUOs is sustainable for two reasons. First, it is the result of selffinancing through the collection of water fees. Second, WUOs are autonomous institutions that work independently from government pressures. Economic empowerment has brought about political empowerment. Respondents claimed that WUOs have become representative interlocutors when dealing with local, regional and national authorities on agriculture and other economic development-related issues that concern their jurisdiction. This represents a drastic change from the past. This political empowerment was seen as the result of two factors: (a) WUOs are considered legitimate organizations by their base since their leaders are democratically elected; and (b) some of the WUO leaders are politically savvy. WUO leaders are now seen as able and willing to speak up in favor of farmers interest and able to convene large numbers of farmers into political demonstrations. Project staff informants pointed to the project having an indirect effect on this, since institutional training prepared beneficiary leaders to become better managers. These demonstrations of political power have unified farmers around similar goals and have created a sense of pride among WUO leaders and water users. As one WUO leader said [our] Junta de Usuarios is considered one of the best in Trujillo this is a social merit and a social change a change in our leaders and personnels expectations It is a change in status. (g) Changes in other organizations Half of informants reported that the project indirectly strengthened other organizations capacities or increased demand for their services. The project provided training to ATDR and IRH personnel, professional associations, and producer organizations. The organizations that benefited from increased demand of their services are private consulting firms responsible for conducting feasibility studies, construction companies, and modern irrigation inputs suppliers. In additional, the project indirectly benefited the Junta Nacional, the national WUO umbrella organization. Although the Junta Nacional was not a beneficiary of the PSI, it has indirectly benefited from having stronger WUO members. As the head of the Junta Nacional pointed out: yes, the Junta Nacional has benefited indirectly [from PSI], because stronger WUOs make the umbrella organization stronger WUOs were trained to be better managers and leaders. If we have good leaders at the local level, we will have good leaders at the national level. The political power that the Junta Nacional has reached is seen by some respondents as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, WUOs have acquired a national political standing in Peru through the Junta Nacional. On the other hand, some government agencies, such as the Ministry of the Environment, are concerned about their influence in limiting stronger water conservation policies. Finally, a couple of project staffs in Lima suggested that those that are closely associated with the farmers have indirectly benefited from the project such as agricultural exporters, intermediaries and banks. Their reasoning set the project work in a larger perspective by saying higher water collection rates inject resources into the market in general and not into a specific organization, but rather to the whole local production system.

26

4.3.2 Effects on Individual Farmers and their Households

The majority of respondents claimed that the project had a clear effect on individual farmers attitudes and activities, although this effect was believed to be mostly indirect. A number of informants were reluctant to accept that project activities had any significant direct effect on individual farmers, given the fact that most resources were directed towards collective goods (irrigation infrastructure) and WUOs. Still, many study informants acknowledged a differential effect of project components on individual farmers. Most references indicate that the greatest impact of the project on individual farmers was through the implementation of the economic incentive for modern irrigation technology (PIRT), which in most cases produced dramatic changes in farmers resource use, farming practices, production and household income. As one beneficiary farmer put it: with technified irrigation, [production] is higher. Before, you got 1500 kilos [of asparagus] per hectare, now white asparagus [yields] 7000 kilos and green [asparagus yields] 5000 kilos. The references about the effects of the project on individual farmers can be grouped in the following categories: changes in farmers attitudes, changes in resource use, changes in farming practices, changes in farmer households, and changes in farmers income. (a) Changes in farmers attitudes Respondents identified the following positive effects of project activities on farmers knowledge and attitudes: a. A strengthening of the culture of payment, as project activities, especially from the institutional strengthening component, helped farmers to realize the importance of their economic contribution as water users to finance and improve their water service. The increase in water fee collection was the main evidence of this change. This represented a significant change from the traditional farmers dependence on State interventions to a new self-reliance on their own capacities. However, we must point out that although weakened, dependent attitudes are still present among Peruvian farmers. As one farmer put it: that [self-reliant] mentality is not there because the State has been paternalistic, the farmer hopes that the government will take him out of trouble, or we are waiting for our debt to be written off. b. A new acquired knowledge about laws and regulations on irrigation and WUOs, which allowed farmers to know their rights and duties with regard to water use, understand how their WUO works, and become more responsible and committed towards their organization. There was also a change in the perception of irrigation water delivery as a service, and only not as a granted right. c. A new realization and understanding of the importance of good irrigation system management and good irrigation practices to stop the waste of water resources and money. This realization on the part of most farmers involved a new appreciation and acceptance of WUO discipline, which involved respecting their irrigation turns, and which in turn had direct effects on water availability and the level of conflicts among water users.

d. A change of mentality that reduced the reluctance to plant new crops and fostered greater interest towards the adoption of new technologies and economic growth. More farmers showed interest new crops, new irrigation technologies, and improved farming practices. But there was disagreement on the extent of this change of mentality. For most respondents the main problem was the capacity of farmers to change their production system due to lack of economic resources.

27

e. A renewed interest in farmer associations as a way to do joint purchases and sales in order to obtain greater economic benefits. This represented a significant change from traditional farmer attitudes characterized by individualism. The main means by which the project stimulated these changes were through the institutional strengthening (component B) and the PERAT extension program (subcomponent C1), and included field trips, training meetings, demonstrative plots, technical assistance, and awareness campaigns, among others. These activities provided opportunities for exchange with other farmers to learn new experiences and knowledge. Some respondents mentioned the economic incentives for technology improvement (subcomponent C2) as another way by which the project stimulated a change in farmers attitudes. Another incentive mentioned by some respondents was improvements in water distribution services provided by WUOs, which demonstrated the effectiveness of farmers contributions and participation. (b) Changes in resource use A general perception among respondents was that the project contributed to improved water management at the farm level. Many respondents pointed to improved farmer awareness about the importance of good irrigation management techniques and more efficient use of water. Although no indicator on water use efficiency at the farm level was mentioned, the perception was that project training and awareness activities produced results among most farmers and that farmers use of irrigation water became more efficient, and water loss less extensive. As some farmers put it: (i) Now water is more controlled, now we use water paid on delivery and our hours are limited; (ii) before out of ignorance we misused water because it was cheap, it came a lot from the river. now since we pay on delivery it has improved because they forced us to limit ourselves; (iii) there was a PSI training course and there you learned, and we dont do that unnecessary 6-7 hour irrigation anymore. Some respondents have pointed out that the increase in water availability due to infrastructure rehabilitation and institutional strengthening activities has increased land use intensity in the beneficiary areas. This means that more land has been cropped and more crops were planted in the same plot as a result of improved water availability. As one beneficiary farmer explained: Before you didnt see green fields all year round, but now almost everybody plant all year round now we do more cropping seasons per year (c) Changes in farming practices and crop selection Respondents opinions about changes in farming practices and crop selection influenced by the project varied according to the type of project intervention. Generally, respondents indicated that beneficiaries of infrastructure improvement (component A) and institutional strengthening (component B) did not show significant changes in crop selection, farming practices (other than irrigation) and use of agricultural inputs. The increase in water availability experienced by these beneficiaries was not believed to be significant enough in itself to produce considerable changes in farming practices at the farm level. However, a number of respondents believed that these beneficiaries experienced savings in the use of extra labor devoted to the maintenance and operation of their irrigation systems, including collective maintenance of canals, building rustic water intakes and the labor used for protecting water assignments from loss or robbery. As one farmer pointed out: before we used to go to the river almost daily to put up fences, branches, rocks but the water overflow came and took it all away, and we had to go back again. Now we dont do it and that saves us time. In the case of the matching grants for new irrigation technologies (PIRT), most respondents agreed that beneficiary farmers experienced a dramatic change in their farming activity and costs, explained by the need to obtain the type of returns to justify their investment in the new technology. The changes mentioned by respondents include: (a) change from traditional to high value crops; (b) change in the use of agricultural inputs and services; (c) adherence to 28

good farming practices (in the case of export crops); (d) introduction of new farming practices such as fertirrigation; (e) use of more qualified labor; and (f) use of new irrigation inputs. However, an apparent contradiction among respondents must be pointed out: a few respondents mentioned that beneficiary farmers used higher levels of pesticides, fertilizers, certified seeds, and labor due to higher demand from the new crops; while others indicated the opposite due to better management of inputs with the new technology. Another project intervention that, according to a few respondents, brought about changes in farmers practices was the extension program (PERAT), which provided information, training and technical assistance, and contributed to the introduction of new technologies and practices by some of the beneficiary farmers. For some respondents, the changes that the program helped generate included changes in crop selection, improved crop management and more efficient irrigation techniques. (d) Changes in farmers income According to many respondents (most of them project staff), the project had a positive impact on farmers income and profits. Some of them referred to an assessment study carried out by 27 CEPES that had shown that beneficiary farmers income had increased due to improved productivity as a result of the project. Income increases were around 50-60% for drip irrigation beneficiary farmers and up to 15% for infrastructure rehabilitation beneficiary farmers. Some respondents corroborated this information and indicated that some beneficiary farmers have dramatically increased their profits and income as a result of investments in high value crops, and were able to improve their household assets. The following comments were typical of beneficiary farmers explanations of their income improvements: (a) They have new homes; I have a condo in Trujillo before I didnt have; (b)I improved my home; (c)Me too; (d)I purchased [a new home]. For some project staff, improved levels of collection of water fee payments in most WUOs indicate an improvement in their household income. For others, savings due to lower use of irrigation water thanks to higher water use efficiency and lower canal maintenance expenses have resulted in increased farmers overall profits. (e) Changes in farmer households The general perception among respondents is that the project had little or no direct effect on changes within farmers households. Less than half of the respondents said that it was difficult to attribute any type of impacts on farmers households to the project since the project did not focus on effects at this level. The other half said that the project did have or probably had impacts at this level as a consequence of its effect on the increase of productivity and income, especially for beneficiaries of drip irrigation. These respondents said that the project effects on agricultural productivity led to higher farmer incomes, and this in turn led to better household living standards and improved quality of life, evident through better housing, childrens education, household appliances, access to services, etc. It was also mentioned by some respondents that improved living standards probably had an effect on better relationships within the family and between farmers. A few respondents pointed out that the dramatic effect that modern irrigation technologies had on farmers incomes has changed the outlook of agriculture and has encouraged many farm children to decide to stay home or come back to work at their family farm. A respondent mentioned that the strengthening of WUO has prompted a proposal towards granting voting rights to farmers wives equal to their husbands, which is significant in the machismo-centered rural Peru. It was also mentioned that the improvement of the irrigation system favored more respect to the rules governing relationships among farmers and within farmer households.
27

CEPES (2004). Op. cit.

29

A recurrent theme in study responses was the multiplier effect of some project interventions, especially the incentive program for technology improvement (PERAT and PIRT). Several respondents mentioned that demonstration plots and extension activities played a key role in encouraging more farmers to replicate the new technologies and practices promoted by the project. Thanks to these demonstration plots farmers could verify by themselves the benefits of new technologies and practices and take a decision about incorporating them in their farming activity. A couple of project staff mentioned that the replicability value of the new technologies was around 28 11%, according to the CEPES study . Also, a number of respondents pointed out that the matching grants program (PIRT) had a significant multiplier effect on the dissemination of new irrigation technologies along the Peruvian coast during the last few years. It was mentioned that even if the number of beneficiary farmers was small, they played a role as a showcase to neighbors and other farmers, influencing further technology innovations in many areas. Some claimed that even if this effect was never measured it was significant, and drew the attention of other farmers to some cases where a significant increase in the area under drip irrigation occurred (e.g. in Piura from 2,000 to 22,000 hectares). One project staff pointed out that the dissemination of this technology among small and medium farmers could confidently be attributed to the project. A project staff focal group concluded that the project played a role as a catalyst to the modernization of Peruvian agriculture. However, another project staff member thought that changes at the individual farmer level were limited and isolated and that the multiplier effect of the project component was not as significant as expected.

4.3.3 Effects on Communities, Markets and the Environment

Respondents contended that the project influenced socioeconomic and environmental changes among project stakeholders and other actors. We were particularly interested in delving into changes in relations among water users, other socioeconomic changes and effects on the environment. Informants reported significant changes in relations among project stakeholders and less significant changes in relations among actors not directly involved in the project. (a) Changes in relations among water users There is a general perception among project staff and beneficiaries that the project intervention improved relations among water users. Besides pointing out to anecdotal evidence, project staff stated that a reduction in legal water-related complaints occurred. This reduction in conflicts among water users is seen as the result of four factors: (a) improved water distribution, (b) more respect given to the rule of law among water users, (c) higher levels of interactions among users, and (d) a credible conflict-resolution mechanism in the WUO. Project staff explained these four factors as follows. First, as more water was available and water distribution was more organized and equitable, water users had fewer reasons to fight over water rights. Second, water users became more disciplined and respectful of water turns after receiving training on the importance of respecting water turns, paying water fees and the role of WUOs. Third, the project intervention increased interactions among water users through the use of training, extension services and field trips. This created a bond among water users. Fourth, the improved technical and managerial capacities of WUOs made the WUO general assembly a credible arena to discuss water-related conflicts. As a result, WUO leaders reported that water users have a space for dialogue and conflict resolution and have given their general assembly the power to decide over water-related conflicts. All this has led to a significant reduction in the number and the scale of the conflicts. As a project staff stated: before they used to fight, hit and kill each other over water and the use of the phrase I get my water turn with my machete was pervasive,
28

CEPES (2004), Op. cit.

30

but now you dont find this kind of problem. Focus groups discussions corroborated that the project contributed to a reduction in conflicts among water users. Project staff pointed out that the PIRT program caused both positive and negative effects on water users relations. On the one hand, it increased water users interaction through field trips to visit farms using modern drip irrigation. On the other hand, it created envy among some 29 farmers who lacked resources to cover the collateral investment needed. Focus group discussions revealed that prevalence of renting of plots could become an additional reason for the deterioration of relations among water users. They contended that renters do not comply with obligations as water users, which has created conflicts among neighbors. (b) Changes in relationships between users and WUOs The majority of project staff reported a significant improvement in social relations between water users and WUO leadership. This was the result of water users placing greater trust in their leaders, which in turn was a consequence of the following factors: (a) WUOs providing better water delivery services; (b) water users becoming more aware of WUO roles; and (c) higher interaction between water users and WUO leadership. Focus group discussions with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries confirmed that infrastructure rehabilitation contributed to better relations between water users and WUOs. As water availability and distribution improved, water users felt more confident in their leaders. The institutional strengthening component was also seen as having improved communication between water users and WUOs. WUO leaders mentioned fear of authority and sanctions imposed by WUO rules as an additional factor that improved relationships between them and water users. This fear instilled discipline among water users and deterred some from stealing water, although some WUOs admitted that a small percentage of water users occasionally still steal water. Finally, focus group discussions revealed that where the number of farmers with drip irrigation technologies was significant, relations between them and their WUO leaders had deteriorated. Some beneficiaries reported that farmers who adopted drip irrigation stopped considering 30 themselves water users . They stated that this has become a source of strain. (c) Changes in commercial relations When asked whether the project had influenced changes in commercial relations, one third of informants said no. Those who recognized it had influenced changes in commercial relations acknowledged that these were exclusively among farmers who adopted modern irrigation technologies. The anecdotal evidence was substantial and ranged from higher bargaining power to negotiate prices with agro export companies and interest rates with financial institutions. According to project staff, this was mainly the result of: (a) project training that enabled farmers to be more informed about prices and export possibilities; and (b), project 31 agro business technical assistance. Both project staff and regional public sector officials agreed that this was a very successful approach because it built trust among farmers, agro exporting companies and financial companies which provided credit for expanding drip irrigation technology use. (d) Other social and economic changes

29 30

There was an extreme case reported, where a farmer destroyed a neighbors water pipe feeding his irrigation system. As they no longer relied on the WUO water distribution system but on their own well for their water supply. 31 Included appointing an agro business operator who organized farmers and linked them with export companies and provided drip irrigation technical assistance.

31

A number of informants believed that the following social and economic changes were linked to the project, although it was not the leading factor. These changes were: (a) changes in the labor market; (b) development of the market for modern irrigation technologies; (c) a slight increased role of women in WUOs leadership bodies; and (d) reduction in emigration. Three changes in the labor market were associated with the project. First, an increase in demand for technical labor related to drip irrigation technology has resulted in an increase in salaries for specialized labor. Second, the supply of skilled labor increased because hundreds of consultants were trained by the project. Third, workers from neighboring areas have immigrated to the area attracted by a general demand for labor. Project staff warned that the project was only one of many factors that influenced changes in labor markets, the arrival of agro export companies being the most significant one. Regarding the development of the market for modern irrigation supplies and services, project staff reported that the project was instrumental in this development in three ways. First, the project financed a relatively small number of farmers to adopt drip irrigation technology to create a demonstration effect on other farmers. Second, farmers became more interested in new irrigation technologies thanks to field trips and extensive training. Third, the project provided agro business technical assistance, which consisted of a promoter in charge of organizing farmers to adopt modern irrigation technology and linking them with export companies and potential funding sources. These activities created strong interest in modern irrigation, which partially contributed to the arrival of new irrigation technology suppliers and technical assistance providers. Agro export and financial companies also had an important role in developing the drip irrigation market. Nevertheless, project staff and beneficiaries concurred that the project pioneered this effort. A project staff said: obviously there were other factors, but I believe that the first seed was planted by the PSI and the PSIs [efforts] made it sustainable. Project staff and regional public sector officials reported that more women were being elected into WUOs leadership positions, although womens participation rate in leadership positions still remains extremely low. For instance, the president of the Junta de Usuarios Lurin is a woman. Project staff suggested that this was partly and indirectly the result of project training, although the channel through which this happened was not clearly identified. Project staff contended that water rights provided by the project have indirectly reduced rural emigration, although they did not possess quantitative evidence to substantiate this claim. Similarly, an increase in returnees former emigrants was reported. Focus group discussions revealed that immigration has significantly increased in areas where agro exporting companies and land renters have settled. Focus group informants in Viru reported that large flows of immigrants have increased insecurity and crime in the area. (e) Environmental effects Most informants reported that the project caused no significant negative environmental impact because it rehabilitated existing irrigation infrastructure and did not fund any new irrigation scheme. However, some project staff and farmers pointed to some potential or limited negative environmental effects as a result of project interventions. First, the use of pesticides and fertilizers might have increased because of a change to high value crops as a result of the 32 promotion of irrigation technology improvement . Second, minor negative environmental negative impacts might have occurred because of infrastructure contractors harmful environmental practices when disposing of debris.

However, a previous study did not establish a relationship between modern irrigation technologies and higher use of pesticides (GRADE, 2006).

32

32

Some WUO leaders pointed out to significant negative effects for a small proportion of irrigation commissions whose water supply depends entirely on water canal filtrations. These commissions faced major reductions in water availability as the result of canal rehabilitation works and expansion of drip irrigation in neighboring areas.

4.4 Non-project Factors that Influence Peruvian agriculture

The project took place in a complex socioeconomic and political context that influenced its results. When study informants were asked about factors not related to the project that influenced productivity in the project intervention area, the overriding majority pointed to policies that have led to a boom in agricultural exports. Other factors that were mentioned to a lesser extent are: the arrival of new capital investments; price fluctuations; changes in the agricultural legal framework; availability of credit; technology development; presence of other agricultural projects; improvements in rural services; environmental factors; and farmers new mentality. (a) Exporting boom: The vast majority of the project staff claimed that export-oriented policies carried out by the Peruvian government in the last 18 years, ultimately and overwhelmingly led to a boom in agricultural exports in Peru in the last decade. These policies consisted of the reduction or abolition of trade barriers, the promotion of Peruvian products in foreign markets, and the active negotiation of trade agreements with other nations. These policies are viewed as the major catalysts for the increase in agricultural productivity experienced in the past years. The project strategy of providing farmers with knowledge, financial resources and technological tools to produce high-value crops was seen as having complemented and strengthened the government export-promotion policies. (b) Arrival of capital investments: Export-oriented policies made the business environment amenable for further investments in agriculture. According to project staff and beneficiaries, there were three types of capital investments. First, agro-export companies have set up their own farms using drip-irrigation technology. Second, intermediary buyers have pushed up prices for export crops, as they compete for farmers harvests. Third, increasing numbers of individual investors are renting farmers plots to install modern technologies and plant high value crops. The share of land rented is estimated to reach 80% in highly productive soils such those of the low land of Huaura. This has greatly increased the income of the farmers renting their plots, but has tended to weaken WUO management. Beneficiary farmers in several focus groups confirmed that a high share of land being rented was detrimental to the PSI objectives, because renters did not comply with water users obligations. (c) Price fluctuations: Project staff and farmers asserted that increases in input prices such as fertilizer and seeds have affected farmers profitability negatively. Farmers who transitioned into high value crops were able to better cope with increases in input prices. Currency fluctuations have also impacted farmers productivity. The appreciation of the dollar against the Peruvian sol was viewed as another factor affecting PSI beneficiaries negatively. (d) Legal frameworks: Regional public sector officers as well as beneficiary WUO leaders suggested that changes in legal frameworks have positively affected agriculture in the past years. New laws have modernized the institutions in charge of water management such as the law for drip irrigation technology. In a nutshell, informants reported that the project worked symbiotically with the new legal order. The new laws prepared the ground for the success of the project, while the project activities strengthened the existing legal framework. (e) Availability of credit: Another factor that significantly affected farmer productivity was the availability of credit. The creation of a new State-run agricultural bank (AGROBANCO), the development of small rural financing firms (cajas rurales) and the presence of a second-tier financing corporation (COFIDE) were seen as major factors affecting positively farmers 33

access to credit. Nevertheless, both project staff and farmers asserted that credit availability was still well below farmers needs, especially for those interested in the adoption of modern irrigation technology. One major obstacle affecting access to credit is the large number of farmers with bad credit history due to old unpaid agricultural debts as well as farmers lacking land titles to use as collateral. (f) Technology development: Project staff, regional public sector officers, and WUO leaders reported that better farming technologies and better information technologies in the past decade have greatly increased farmer productivity. Respondents pointed to better soil control and irrigation technologies as well as the use of telephone and the Internet to connect with markets and access prices. (g) Other agricultural interventions: Project staff mentioned the following large-scale public projects as having possibly affected farmers productivity in the PSI intervention areas: 33 Chavimochic, INCAGRO, INADE, PERPEC, and SENASA . In addition, respondents reported that some NGOs and the local or regional governments also launched several smallscale projects focused on agricultural productivity and export promotion. (h) Rural services: WUO leaders contended that improvements of rural services have positively influenced farmer productivity. This included more access to electricity and better transportation, which has enhanced communication and access to markets. (i) Environmental factors: Informants claimed that several environmental factors have negatively affected their productivity as well as project results. Project staff reported that the first PSI disbursement was diverted to cope with emergencies related to El Nio, which had largely deteriorated WUOs water systems and increased the incidence of plagues. The prevalence of plagues was also reported to be the result of bad farming practices. (j) Farmers New Mentality: Project staff also pointed out that a change in farmers mentality has influenced improvements in agricultural productivity. This change in mentality was not necessarily associated with the project, but rather started before the project was implemented. The change was seen as the result of a generational change among farmers as well as the influence of export-oriented policies and new capital investment in rural Peru. A WUO leader put it as: several years ago, access to other markets seemed possible, so a farmer started thinking about producing export products that will allow him to have a better life, to educate his children this happened before the PSI. The PSI strengthened this belief.

4.5 Visions for Agricultural Sector in Peru

When the study participants described their perceptions of the Sub-sectoral Irrigation Project including its achievements, challenges and impacts they were asked to consider a vision of the future of agriculture in Peru. Their responses yield a wealth of ideas for sector development, both broadly and specifically with regard to the types of activities carried out through the project that was evaluated through this study. Generally, they fall within five categories; these are: (a) opportunities and challenges of agriculture in Peru; (b) agricultural production and services; (c) water management; (d) organization; and (e) public policies and strategies. (a) Opportunities and challenges of agriculture in Peru: The opportunities for the agricultural sector in Peru to grow abound. Many respondents mentioned the climate as an advantage for

Acronyms in Spanish: Agricultural Innovation and Competitiveness Program (INCAGRO), National Development Institute (INADE), Special Program for River Channeling and Protection of Capture Structures (PERPEC), National Sanitary Service (SENASA)

33

34

the production of diverse crops throughout the year. This is, however, an advantage that needs to be utilized more fully. Some of the challenges to the sector mentioned by respondents are those presented in section 4.1.3. Additional challenges generally include the lack of coordination within and among public and private sector agricultural entities. This limits the ability of the farmer to benefit, for example, from research findings and from knowledge available at the upper echelons of the agricultural sector. Another challenge relates to the changing global market, including the impact of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the U.S. There is potential for farmers to benefit from the treaty but there is insufficient guidance for the local organizations and individual farmers in this regard. The ability of the local organizations and individual farmers to benefit from technical expertise is also a challenge: they cannot afford to retain such expertise of their own accord and the systems (including professional standards) and financial means for provision of such assistance to them is not clear. This could be addressed by having sources of credit for medium- and long-term sustainability of the technological change at all levels. (b) Agricultural production and services: A recurring theme throughout the interviews was the need for ongoing institutional and individual farmer capacity-building, through technical assistance, extension services and other means. This is necessary not only to ensure a base level of capacity as broadly as possible through the agriculture sector but also to take into account the dynamic nature of the sector. This requires investment in research (see policies below), improved data and information dissemination, and availability of financial resources to use appropriate biotechnologies. Extension services could improve the means used to strengthen organizational and individual farmer capacity. This is critical; as one respondent noted, training and technical assistanceis sometimes more important than infrastructure [improvement] because the change in attitude has an effect faster than [does] infrastructure. There also needs to be second level training of JU leaders and members to generate new training of trainers capacity in organizational, business and technical areas (production chain organization, use of fertilizers and pesticides, etc.) for other WUOs and for individual farmers. Another need is the provision of agricultural inputs that the WUOs and individual farmers need and purchase on their own. A system to oversee and guarantee the quality of agricultural inputs is considered a priority by most farmers. Respondents also reiterated the need for a significantly improved agricultural information systemone that yields accurate, up-to-date and decision-relevant information that is provided to all levels of the agricultural system. (c) Water management: While respondents exhibited varying degrees of satisfaction with water management systems, the nearly unanimous consensus remains that water is grossly misallocated, poorly assessed and very often wasted. The water provided by irrigation systems must be utilized prudently to maximize benefit. At the same time, implementation of a comprehensive plan for irrigation technification at the national level, with irrigation systems appropriate for the area and for the crops most appropriate for the areas is necessary. This is critical to improve competitiveness at the individual farmer and country levels. Respondents consistently reiterated the issue of wasting water and the significance of this mismanagement. Many noted lack of modern infrastructure as the root cause of problems. Except in rare cases, reservoirs to efficiently store water in times of surplus do not exist. In flood seasons, as much as 75% of water goes unused and unsaved. The current infrastructure is ill equipped to take advantage of seasonal changes in precipitation, specifically the antiquated gravity irrigation system. By one estimate, even a 10% increase in efficiency could result in significantly improved land use and allocation of water towards the cities.

35

Finances were another source of contention. Installation of new technologies requires a significant financial contribution by the individual farmer; therefore modernization can be costprohibitive. Farmers are further hindered by their status as high-risk lending patrons, and the elevated credit fees. Financial assistance from the government is often cited as a crucial component of development. In order to encourage investment in agricultural technology, one respondent suggested that the government support farms that have gone through the process of modernizing their property. Another recommended that the state directly subsidize supplies for user organizations. Increasing cooperation between the various agencies was also noted water use lacks a central, cohesive authority, and the various organizations involved do not coordinate their resources to maximize efficiency. Lack of coordination could be avoided with an increase in communication between agencies working towards the same ultimate goal. (d) Organization: Again and again, respondents emphasized the need for farmers to work together to form larger, cohesive groups with the aim of commercializing their products to compete in the market. Several benefits of forming these associations were enumerated, including improved organization, unified production, increased scale of land, and increased likelihood of financial support from lenders. Additionally, standardization of production will help farmers participate in global trade markets. If products are standardized, they will be able to meet the minimum security requirements necessary for exportation. Although nearly all respondents stressed the critical importance of banding together, several barriers to this cohesion were also noted. Banks, for example, continue to allocate credit on an individual basis. Although a bank will claim to give money out to groups, it maintains the practice of giving credit to individuals, who then use this credit to purchase supplies for their individual needs. This practice makes group-forming an ineffectual endeavor and thus discourages the process. A second problem is the divided relationship among farmers, many of whom distrust each other. Since the agrarian reform, farmers have separated on the basis of risk level for crops. Respondents suggested policy development to address this issue. Counseling on the importance of group-formation was frequently cited as a much-needed development. As one explained, I insist we need training in the fundamental things. We have one million, nine thousand hectares in the hands of farmers whose own properties do not exceed five each. They will never be competitive in the market this way. They must take the partnership that the Junta de Usuarios provides, so that users are connected by an umbilical cord indissoluble as water. (e) Public policies and strategies: Developing and promulgating a sustainable and equitable public policy regarding land and water access, distribution and use is essential but insufficient: these policies must be implemented and evaluated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are effective and still appropriate given changing circumstances. This must also include assistance for more efficient use of water (see water management, above). This needs to be coupled with strategic plans and policies regarding production chains, with clear delineations of roles and responsibilities by type of public and private sector entity, and adequate support for suitable institutional arrangements. Attention needs to be focused on rationalizing the agricultural sector in Peru, which is seen by many respondents as being disparate and uncoordinated. This applies to the public and private sectors and this lack of integrated policies and programs inhibits growth and sustainability of the sector. Associated with integration and rationalization is the need for strategic planning that has clearly defined goals and objectives for the sector, with timelines and resource implications for these. The distinction between regions and the local culture differences that affect successful program adoption must be also taken into account. One respondent was particularly adamant about the divide between irrigation reforms on the coast versus in the Sierra. In referring to this 36

project, for example, he fully supported the method of implementation in the coastal region, but advised consideration of regional variations when extending the project elsewhere. One issue particularly scrutinized is the economic participation of users; the respondents consistently noted the difficulty of charging a water fee to Sierra constituents, describing the experience as like pulling hair. Their tradition does not support a culture of payment, at least with soles. It therefore is difficult to mandate and enforce monetary tariffs. It was suggested that if Sierra constituents were required to pay, they would come to realize the tangible benefits of giving only 2-5 soles and a payment culture could be generated. The realities of their culture and the difficulty of the situation cannot be ignored if the project is to effectively extend its reach on a more national level.

37

5 Conclusions
The study recognizes the role that the project played both at complementing and capitalizing on the favorable economic environment that Peru and particularly the agricultural sector in the coastal region experienced during and after project implementation. This economic surge was largely due to various macro-economic conditions that favored export trade, farm employment and whose primary catalysts were: (a) the opening of new markets for Perus agricultural commodities; (b) the arrival of new capital investments; (c) favorable price fluctuations and changes in the agricultural legal framework; (d) increased availability of credit and new technology; and (f) decentralized public investments in programs and rural services. Due to this positive economic trend and to the nature of qualitative analysis, further quantitative analysis is necessary to measure the projects impact. As a result, the findings presented below describe the major channels through which the project is believed to have influenced social, economic and environmental conditions. The most important conclusion of the study is that the Subsectoral Irrigation Project had positive effects in the productive, economic, social and institutional make up of the agricultural sector in the coast of Peru. The magnitude of the effects, however, ranged widely depending on the type of informant being interviewed, project component and type of effect. The major effects are developed below as follows: 1. Effects on productivity. Overall the project contributed to increasing agricultural productivity in the coastal areas of Peru through various channels and in various degrees of magnitude. The nature and scale of these effects differed by project component and geographical location. Thus, instead of being widespread throughout the Coast, project productivity impacts reached two main beneficiaries. First, the irrigation commissions along the Coast that directly benefited from the infrastructure rehabilitation works (component A) and/or the institutional strengthening of water user organizations (component B) and which generally experienced small productivity improvements. Second, the individual farmers who took advantage of matching grants to adopt modern irrigation technology (subcomponent C2) and who experienced substantial productivity improvements. The first major productivity change, which was small in magnitude but widespread among beneficiary irrigation commissions, resulted from increases in water availability for agriculture. Increased water availability was in turn the result of improvements in water capture and distribution at the Junta and/or commission level (e.g. intakes, primary and secondary canals), and was a byproduct of two parallel processes: (a) improved irrigation infrastructure, resulting from the infrastructure rehabilitation component; and (b) increased resource management capacity of WUOs, resulting from the institutional strengthening component. This increase in water availability, although marginal in most cases, fostered increases in land use intensity, which in turn led to higher land productivity. This effect covered large areas and extensive number of farmers (i.e. beneficiaries of components A and B); but was apparently of little or limited significance at the individual household-plot level. The second major productivity change, which was large in magnitude but restricted to a small number of farmers, was the result of modern technology transfer. These farmers switched to or invested more in high value crops, which translated into dramatic increases in productivity and farming income. These effects appear to have been large at the individual farmer level but were limited to the small proportion of farmers that were direct beneficiaries of the incentives program for new irrigation technology (subcomponent C2 - PIRT). 2. Effects on rural institutions. In a more general sense, the common perception was that the project had a clear, strong and positive effect on rural institutions, particularly water user organizations (WUO). This was coherent with the fact that one of the project components 38

aimed explicitly at the institutional and organizational strengthening of these organizations. In consequence, the main effects of the project on rural institutions were: (a) changes in WUO leader beliefs and attitudes, which primarily included developing a culture of service and accountability, and becoming more empowered; (b) organizational changes in WUOs, including substantial improvements in legal and administrative capacities of the Juntas and irrigation commissions; (c) improvements in water distribution systems, making water distribution more equitable and efficient; (d) increase in water fee collection rates, which was strongly associated with the size and original capacity of WUOs: WUOs that started at the high end of the water fee collection rates significantly increased rates compared to weaker counterparts; (e) economic empowerment of WUOs turned into political empowerment, as they became legitimate interlocutors of farmers interests; and (f) changes in other organizations, including increased demand of services for consulting firms, and strengthening the national WUO umbrella organization. 3. Effects on individual farmers households. Although not as widespread as in the case of rural institutions, the project influenced changes in attitudes and practices of a significant number of individual farmers. These farmers were likely to be beneficiaries of training and/or awareness activities of the institutional strengthening (component B) or the extension program (PERAT). The changes encouraged on these farmers included a more efficient use of irrigation water at the household-plot level through improved irrigation techniques; and changes in farmers attitudes. The most common changes on individual farmers attitudes involved: (a) strengthening the culture of payment and weakening of the dependency mindset; (b) new knowledge about irrigation regulations and rights; (c) realization of the importance of good irrigation systems; (d) greater interest towards new technologies and high value crops; and (e) renewed interest in farmers organizing. In general, individual beneficiary farmers did not experience significant changes in crop selection, farming practices (other than plot irrigation), or use of agricultural inputs as a direct result of the project. The small number of beneficiaries of the matching grants for modern irrigation technologies (PIRT), however, experienced significant changes in terms of adherence to good farming practices, use of more qualified labor and higher use of farming inputs as a result of their switch to high value crops. The switch to high value crops generally produced a significant effect on household income. 4. Effects on community and markets. The project appears to have influenced relations among key project actors as well as to have affected some socioeconomic and environmental conditions. The most important effects were: (a) improved relationships among water users (e.g. reduction in water-related conflicts) mainly due to better water distribution, a credible conflict-resolution mechanism in the WUO and more respect to the rule of law among water users; (b) improved relations between water users and WUO leadership due to water users increased satisfaction with better water delivery services; (c) no market effects were reported, except for higher bargaining power to negotiate crop prices among the small number of farmers that benefited from modern irrigation technology adoption; (d) some socioeconomic changes were reported, although the project was seen as just one of the many factors that contributed to them. The most important ones were the development of a market for modern irrigation technologies, and increases in demand for skilled labor; and (e) an environmental mixed-effect externality was produced by infrastructure rehabilitation works. Canal rehabilitation reduced water leakages, which increased water availability for many irrigation commissions, but reduced water availability for a small share of irrigation commissions whose water supply depended on water filtrations.

39

References
Conger, J. and G. Toegel (2002). A Story of Missed Opportunities: Qualitative Methods for Leadership Research and Practice. In: Parry, Ken and Meindl, James, (eds.) Grounding leadership theory and research: issues, perspectives and methods. Information Age Publishing , Greenwich, pp. 175-198. CEPES. 2004. Evaluacin de Desempeo Institucional del Proyecto Subsectorial de Irrigaciones PSI. Informe final. Lima, 26 de febrero de 2004. GRADE. 2006. Estudio de Linea de Base de la Segunda Fase del Proyecto Subsectorial de Irrigacin PSI. Informe Final. Lima, 13 de junio de 2006. Huamanchumo J. et al. 2008. Developing Capacity in Water Users Organizations: The Case of Peru. Irrigation and Drainage. v57. pp. 300-310. Rao, V. and M. Woolcock (2003). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in Program Evaluation. in: F. Bourgignon and L. Pereira da Silva, Evaluating the Poverty and Distributional Impact of Economic Policies (Techniques and Tools), Washington D.C., The World Bank, Chapter 8. Saldaa, Johnny. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications. London. World Bank. 1996. Peru Irrigation Subsector Project. Staff Appraisal Report. (Report No. 13542-PE). Washington, DC. World Bank. 2004. Peru Irrigation Subsector Project. Implementation Completion Report. (Report No. 29838). Washington, DC.

40

Annexes
Annex 1
Water User Organizations in Peru Water User Organizations (WUOs) in Peru are non-profit legal entities that manage irrigation and drainage systems and whose legal status was established by the 1969 Peruvian General Water Law (Decree Law 17752). WUO is the generic name for Juntas de Usuarios (Users Boards) and Comisiones de Regantes (irrigation commissions), which share territorial jurisdictions. Juntas de Usuarios are responsible for the management of water resources in an irrigation district (distrito de riego), while irrigation commissions manage sub-sections of the irrigation district. Although Juntas and irrigation commissions are established independently, they are interconnected as the Juntas partially supervise the irrigation commissions work and finances. The Juntas main functions include: a) to represent member irrigation commissions before the Local Water Authority or the Government; b) to levy and collect water charges; c) to ensure irrigation organizations compliance with their obligations and to audit their financial accounts; d) to prepare, implement and monitor irrigation plans that have been adopted by the General Assembly, and d) to acquire, operate and maintain equipment. The irrigation commissions main functions are: a) to formulate and implement irrigation plans in coordination with the Juntas, b) to contribute to irrigation, drainage and flood control works, c) to support the Juntas water fee collection, and (d) to seek external funding. Both Juntas and irrigation commissions are formed and financed by water users, who commit to paying water fees, and participate in the governance of the WUOs. This includes voting in general assembly meetings, electing officials and running for office. Juntas and irrigation commissions main source of financing are earmarks of water fees, loans, donations, legacies or interest from capital they own, as well as revenue from fines imposed on users for not participating in elections or in the General Assembly sessions. There are 112 Juntas de Usuarios in Peru, which encompass a total of about 1500 irrigation commissions and represent half a million water users.

41

Annex 2
List of interview and focus group informants Name 1. 2. 3. De Nys, Erwin Koenig, Peter Lajaunie, Marie Laure Position Lead water specialist Former task team leader Task team leader Water resource specialist Irrigation specialist Former task team leader Irrigation Management Office Director Former Planning and Monitoring Chief Irrigation Technification Office Chief Consultant Former Executive Director Irrigation Infrastructure Office Director Training and Technical Assistant Chief Former irrigation specialist Former Irrigation Infrastructure Director Executive Director Trujillo zonal office technical team Trujillo zonal office technical team Trujillo zonal office chief Trujillo zonal office technical team Arequipa zonal office technical team Arequipa zonal office technical team Arequipa Zonal Office Chief Arequipa zonal office technical team Lima Zonal Office Chief Lima zonal office technical team Lima zonal office technical team Lima zonal office technical team President Technical Manager Members of irrigation infrastructure improvement beneficiary commissions Organization World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI PSI JU Vir JU Vir JU Vir Date 10/30/08 11/06/08 10/30/08 10/30/08 11/12/08 12/16/08 11/13/08 11/12/08 11/13/08 11/10/08 11/13/08 11/13/08 12/01/08 11/14/08 11/10/08 11/12/08 11/20/08 11/20/08 11/17/08 11/20/08 11/24/08 11/24/08 11/24/08 11/24/08 12/01/08 12/01/08 12/01/08 12/01/08 11/17/08 11/17/08 11/18/08

4. Olson, Douglas 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Pizarro, Fernando Werbrouck, Pierre Aritomi, Jaime Carbajal, Francisco Gutierrez, Ral

10. Hatta, Mximo 11. Ledesma, lvaro 12. Mendoza, Jorge 13. Morote, Oscar 14. Ortega F., Luis 15. Velarde, Hernn 16. Ziga Morn, Jorge 17. Hernndez, Carlos (F) 18. Pin, Leila (F) 19. Ros Garro, Alberto 20. Ugaz, Fernando (F) 21. Llerena, Jaime (F) 22. Mlaga, Oscar(F) 23. Valdivia, Huber 24. Valencia, Ronald (F) 25. Cupe, Javier 26. Huamanchumo, Jaime (F) 27. Torres, Carlos (F) 28. Velasquez, Justino (F) 29. Rivera, Santos 30. Sanchez, Luis 31. Various farmer leaders (F)

42

Name 32. Various farmer leaders (F) 33. Various farmer leaders (F) 34. Various farmer leaders (F) 35. Alcantara, Edgar 36. Calderon, Felipe 37. Montenegro, Manuel 38. Prraga, Edilberto 39. Fanning R., Tomas 40. Valdivia T., Pedro 41. Various farmer leaders (F) 42. Various farmer leaders (F) 43. Various farmer leaders (F) 44. Various farmer leaders (F) 45. Cueva, Hermes 46. Reyes, Clara 47. Various farmer leaders (F) 48. Various farmer leaders (F) 49. Various farmer leaders (F) 50. Daz, Ernesto 51. Gonzales, David 52. Sueiro, Ernesto 53. Mlaga, Enrique 54. Jurez M., Carlos 55. Paredes S., Jos 56. Rafael C., Csar 57. Muoz, Dasio 58. Garcia, Orlando 59. Lluen, Jorge (F) Focus group participants

Position Members of infrastructure improvement non-beneficiary commissions Beneficiaries of drip irrigation Non-beneficiaries of drip irrigation Technical Manager President Treasurer Former Technical Manager Technical Manager Vice president Members of infrastructure improvement non-beneficiary commissions Members of infrastructure improvement beneficiary commissions Beneficiaries of drip irrigation Non-beneficiaries of drip irrigation Technical Manager Beneficiary of drip irrigation Members of irrigation infrastructure improvement beneficiary commissions Members of infrastructure improvement non-beneficiary commissions Members of institutional strengthening beneficiary commissions Manager of drip irrigation services company Project evaluation and monitoring team Project evaluation and monitoring team President Technical Administrator Technical Administrator Technical Administrator Agricultural Promotion Director Agriculture Planning Director Huacho Agricultural Agency Director

Organization JU Vir JU Vir JU Vir JU Chao JU Chao JU Chao JU Chao JU La Joya Antigua JU La Joya Antigua JU La Joya Antigua JU La Joya Antigua JU La Joya Antigua JU La Joya Antigua JU Huaura JU Huaura JU Huaura JU Huaura JU Huaura Javerim CEPES CEPES JNUDRP ATDR Moche-Viru ATDR Chili ATDR Huaura DRA La Libertad DRA Lima DRA Lima

Date 11/18/08 11/19/08 11/19/08 11/18/08 11/18/08 11/18/08 11/17/08 11/25/08 11/25/08 11/25/08 11/25/08 11/26/08 11/26/08 12/02/08 12/03/08 12/03/08 12/04/08 12/04/08 11/27/08 11/10/08 11/10/08 12/05/08 11/19/08 11/27/08 12/02/08 11/20/08 12/02/08 12/02/08

43

Annex 3
List of Main Themes and Categories 1. PROJECT DESIGN 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 2. Productivity as Project objective Explicit Project objectives Design adjustments Design Deficiencies Demonstration effect objective Conceptual framework Changes in phase I and phase II of PSI Recommendations

PROJECT STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.9. 2.10. 2.11. 2.12. 2.13. Participatory Strategy Participatory Mechanisms Characteristics of the strategy Scope Components emphasis Others (production chains, role of women, etc.) Selection of Juntas Selection of investments (irrigation commissions) Selection of beneficiaries drip irrigation Implementation Component activities Most effective component Recommendations

3.

PROJECTS IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVITY 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. General affirmation/denial Productivity impact specific mechanism or component Limitations General comments on how productivity is achieved

4.

IMPACTS ON WATER USER ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER RURAL ORGANIZATONS 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. Changes in WUOs leaders attitudes WUOs Organizational Changes WUOs Technical Changes Increase in WUOs resources, equipment, etc. Increase in WUOs water fee collection rates Changes in water distribution WUOs empowerment Changes in other organizations

5.

IMPACTS ON INDIVIDUAL FARMERS AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. General issues Changes in farmers attitudes Changes in water and land management Changes in farming practices Magnitude of change Income changes 44

5.7. Changes in the household 6. SOCIOECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 6.8. 7. Changes in relations among water users Changes in relations among water users WUOs leadership Changes in relations with other organizations Changes in commercial relations Economic changes Other social changes Drip irrigation market development Environmental impacts

NON-PROJECT FACTORS THAT IMPACTED PRODUCTIVITY 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7. Exporting boom Project synergies Rural services Finance availability Economic factors Environmental factors Other projects

8.

PROJECT CHALLENGES 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6. WUO limitations Limitations of drip irrigation beneficiary participation Implementation problems Farmers cultural and educational aspects Characteristics of the agriculture sector Magnitude of the problem

9.

PROJECT FACILITATING FACTORS 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. WUOs characteristics Exporting boom Project strategy Government decentralization Magnitude of the problem

10. PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY 10.1. General impact of project 10.2. Sustainable changes 11. VISIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN PERU 11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. 11.5. 11.6. 11.7. 11.8. Opportunities and challenges of Peruvian agriculture sector Agricultural services Water management Organization Production systems Public policies Action strategies Others

45

Annex 4a
Individual Interview Guide: Category 1-2 The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) is conducting an impact evaluation to understand better the Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project and its potential for improving the lives of farmers and their productive capacities. Given what we can learn from this experience, IEG has hired us to implement the qualitative work. We appreciate your agreeing to being interviewed; your opinions, based on your experience with this project are invaluable to our understanding of its impact. The interview should last approximately one hour. We want to assure you that the information you provide will be aggregated with other informants contributions and will be used solely for our analysis. If you have any follow up comments or would like to share additional information please send this information to [NAME]. A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. BASIC INFORMATION ON THE RESPONDENT (ask all respondents) Location, date and time of interview Address Organization Name Current title Title during the projects years Role in the project (check all that apply.) __ Planning __Design __Organization __Implementation __ Supervision __Approval __Evaluation __ Other, specify 8. Telephone number 9. Email address 10. Years of experience in planning, supervising, and/or evaluating agriculture projects

B.

About the Sub-sectoral Irrigation Project, Peru

Now let us talk about the project we are evaluating. More specifically, please tell us what you know directly or indirectly about the project. We have organized these questions along four main dimensions: Organization or institutional strengthening, farmer and farm-household, community and markets, and other projects and factors. We understand that these dimensions may or may not have been stated objectives but we believe that they are themes through agricultural projects and may impact on or be affected by such projects. We begin with some general questions about the project. B.1 1. Project specifics The projects main objective was to improve farmer productivity 1.1 1.2 1.3 Was the design suitable for the objective? Was the implementation consistent with the design? Overall, do you believe that the project has contributed to farmer productivity in the areas in which it was implemented?

2.

In relative terms, how effective were the project componentsinstitutional strengthening, agricultural infrastructure strengthening, and irrigation technificationwith respect to fulfilling the projects objectives? 2.1 2.2 2.3 Institutional strengthening Agricultural infrastructure strengthening Irrigation technification

3.

Now we are going to talk about beneficiary selection. 46

3.1 3.2 3.3

Do you believe that the process of selecting the beneficiary organizations was appropriate, transparent, objective and effective? Do you believe that this process the beneficiary organizations used to select their infrastructure investments was appropriate, transparent, objective and effective? Do you believe that the process to select beneficiary farmers for irrigation technification was appropriate, transparent, objective and effective?

B.2 4.

Rural institutions and organizations What changes do you think were an effect of this project on the agriculture organizations in Peru? 4.1 4.2 Please describe the significant changes that have occurred in these institutions as a result of the project. Is this impact sustainable? In addition to the JUs, are there any other organizations that were strengthened by the project? If so, what were these, what were the changes, and what was the impact of the project on these changes?

5. 6.

What was the effect of these project-related changes in rural organizations on agricultural productivity? Did any of the institutional changes that occurred as a result of the project have any unintended negative consequences? If so, what were these and how did they occur? Farmer and farm-households Has the project influenced any significant change on land use or farming practices? 7.1 7.2 Have there been changes in crop selection or labor allocation as a result of the project? If so, what were these? How did the project bring about these changes?

B.3 7.

8. 9.

How did these changes in farming practices affect agricultural productivity? As a result of the project have there been changes in household relationships, such as the role of women or child labor in agriculture? Have there been other changes to farm-households that were not specifically planned? 10.1 If yes, please describe them and discuss their significance for farmer productivity and poverty reduction.

10.

11.

Did any of the infrastructure improvements at the farmer level have any unintended negative consequences, such as environmental impact? 11.1 If yes, please describe them and discuss their significance for farmer productivity and poverty reduction.

B.4 12.

Community and markets Has the project influenced how farmers engaged with others in their community or the broader market in relation to selling products? 12.1 If yes, please describe.

13.

Did the project result in changes in the relationships between the JUs and individual farmers and or among the individual farmers?

47

13.1 14. 15.

If yes, please describe.

Please discuss the significance for productivity and poverty reduction among farmers. Can you identify other social or economic changes that may have taken place due to the project? 15.1 If yes, please describe them and discuss their significance for productivity and poverty reduction

B.5 16.

Other projects and factors What other activities present in the region could have influenced (positively or negatively) the outcomes of the project? 16.1 Can you tell us about factors independent of the project that could have diminished impact

17.

Can you tell us about other related projects taking place parallel to this project that may or may not have influenced the outcome? Opportunities and challenges What have been the most significant challenges to achievement of the overall project objective and how have these challenges been overcome? 18.1 Where there specific challenges faced at planning or implementing that you can mention and describe?

C. 18.

19.

What have been the most important facilitating factors, or catalysts, to enhance achievement of the overall objective? How have they been used by those in charge of the project? Sustainability and vision for the future Of all the changes mentioned above that relate to the project, which do you believe are most likely to be sustainable? Why? Given the knowledge that you have and the lessons learned from this project, what should the World Bank do to ensure the impact of this project is not lost and/or gains are sustained? If you were to design or approve a project in a similar context with similar objectives what would be the main activities or components of this project that you would include? Is there anything else you would do differently in designing a similar project? Agriculture and productivity in general

D. 20.

21.

22.

E.

We would like to learn from you about the status of agriculture in the Peru and the activities that have been taking place in the last ten years. We are particularly interested in projects aimed at increasing farmer yields and income. 23. Lets talk about opportunities and challenges for farmers in Peru with respect to productivity. 23.1 23.2 24. What are the major opportunities for farmers in Peru? What are the major challenges?

What do you believe are the five most important actions that can be taken to improve farmer productivity, for example by the national government, regional governments, communities, NGOs and individual farmers?

48

Annex 4b
Individual Interview Guide: Category 3 (beneficiary leaders) Hello, my name is [NAME]. I am helping the World Bank to evaluate the Sub-sectoral Irrigation Project in Peru. We want to know about the ways in which it might improve the lives of farmers and their productive capacities. We appreciate your agreeing to being interviewed; your opinions, based on your experience with this project are invaluable to our understanding its impact. The interview should last approximately one hour. We want to assure you that the information you provide will be included with those of others we will interview and will be used solely for our analysis. If you have any follow up comments or would like to share additional information please contact me at [LOCAL CONTACT INFORMATION.] A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Basic Information on the Respondent (All Respondents) Date and time of interview Location of interview Name Organization Current position Position during project implementation Telephone numbers Email addresses Years of experience in agriculture

B. About the Sub-sectoral Irrigation Project, Peru Now let us talk about the project we are evaluating. More specifically, please tell us what you know directly or indirectly about the project. We have organized these questions along four main areas that relate to the project: Organization or institutional capacity, farmer and farm-household, community and markets, and other projects and factors. We understand that these dimensions may or may not have been stated objectives but we believe that they are themes through agricultural projects and may impact on or be affected by such projects. We begin with some general questions about the project. B.1. Project specifics 1. What types of supports the project provided for your organization? 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2. When did you first receive any support through the project? What kind of support was this? What were all the areas of support through the project?

Now we would like to talk about beneficiary selection. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Do you believe that the process of selecting the infrastructure projects was appropriate? Was it fair? Do you think the process worked for your Junta? Do you believe that the process of selecting the farmers for irrigation technification was appropriate? Was it fair? Do you think the process worked for individual farmers and for your Junta? Is there anything else you would like to tell me about the process for selecting beneficiaries?

B.2. Rural organizations and institutions 3. What significant changes occurred in the operation and organization of the Junta de Usuario (JU) since 2000? Do you think that the project had anything to do with these changes? Were these changes sustainable? 49

3.1. 3.2. 4.

What were the areas in which you saw an improvement in the JU? What were the areas in which there was no improvement? How did the project help to foster these changes?

In addition to the JUs, are there any other organizations that were strengthened by the project? If so, what were these, what were the changes and what the project impact on these changes? Did the project result in changes in the relationships between the JU and individual farmers, between the JUs and irrigation commissions, and between the JU and other farmers organizations? Please explain.

5.

B.3. Farmer and farm-households 6. Have there been significant changes in farming practices, use of resources (land, water, labor, credit) or use of agricultural services in the last 8 years? 6.1. 6.2. 7. 8. 9. Describe these changes. Were they significant? Explain how the project helped to foster these changes.

How did these changes affect agricultural productivity? Have there been other changes in rural households that were not specifically planned? Has any of the infrastructure improvements promoted by the project had any unintended effect or environmental impact? 9.1. If so, please discuss their significance for farmer productivity and poverty reduction.

10.

Did irrigation technification require significant financial investment on the part of the beneficiary farmers?

B.4 Community and markets 11. Has the project influenced the way farmers market their products? 11.1. If yes, please explain. 11.2. Has it changed their market destination? Other aspects? 11.3. How have these changes had impact on farming income? 12. Can you describe any other social or economic changes that may have taken place in your community in the past that might have resulted from the project? 12.1. If yes, please describe them and discuss their significance for farmer productivity and poverty reduction B.5 Other projects and factors 13. What other activities present on the Coast may have influenced (positively or negatively) project results? 13.1. Can you mention factors independent from the project that might have reduced the impact? 13.2. Can you point out other programs carried out parallel to the project that might have influenced results? C. Opportunities and challenges 14. 15. What have been the most important challenges to farmers productivity in the past 8 years? What have been the most important facilitating factors that have helped farmers productivity in the past 8 years? How were they utilized by project implementers?

50

D. Sustainability and vision for the future 16. If you were to design or approve a project in a similar context with similar objectives, what are the main activities or components that you would include? Is there anything else you would do differently from the way the project was carried out? Agriculture and productivity in general

E.

We would like to learn from you about the status of agriculture in the Peru and the activities that have been taking place in the last ten years. We are particularly interested in projects aimed at increasing farmer yields and income. 17. Lets talk about opportunities and challenges for farmers in Peru generally. 17.1. What are the major opportunities for farmers in Peru? 17.2. What are the major challenges? 18. What do you believe are the five most important actions that can be taken to improve farmer productivity, for example by the national government, regional governments, communities, NGOs and individual farmers?

51

Annex 4c
Focus Group Guide: Category 3 (beneficiaries) and category 4 (control group) Hello, my name is _____________________ am helping the World Bank to evaluate the Subsectoral Irrigation Project in Peru. We want to know about the ways in which it might improve the lives of farmers and their productive capacities. We appreciate your agreeing to being interviewed; your opinions, based on your experience with this project are invaluable to our understanding its impact. The focus group should last approximately 2 hours. We want to assure you that the information you provide will be included with those of others we will interview and will be used solely for our analysis.

A.
1. 2. 3. 4.

Basic information on Group being interviewed (for all being interviewed) Date and time of interview:_________________________________________________ Location of interview: _____________________________________________________ Province/district: _________________________________________________________ Informants information. Number of informants: _______________________________
Age Name and title Years of Years of Beneficiary Land Area Completed farming of [specify (Ha) Schooling experience component]

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

B. Basic information on the valley 1. 2. 3. What are your [villages]s main crops presently (2008)? What were the main crops of the [villages] in year 2000 (end of Fujimoris regime)? Has production or sales improved for anyone in [this village] in the past 8 years? a. If yes, how was production and sales improved?

C. Changes in production and sales 4. Let us talk about your agricultural production in the year 2000 (end of Fujimoris regime). a. What did you plant? 1. 2. b. Was production average, good or bad?

52

3. 4. 5. 6. 5. Let us talk about your agricultural production in the last production cycle (2007-2008). a. Did you plant the same as in 2000? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 6. 7. Explain the reasons for changes in production and sales. Now let us talk about production expenses and farming practices. Are there any differences between what you do now and what you did in 2000 (end of Fujimoris government)? Explain why. a. Certified seeds: do you use more, less, or the same? b. Fertilizers: do you use more, less, or the same? c. Irrigation system: is it better, worse or the same? d. Use of machinery: do you spend more, less or the same? e. Technical assistance: do you spend more, less or the same? 8. 9. Explain the reasons for changes in production expenses and farming practices. Now let us talk about use of resources such as water, land, labor and credit. Are there any differences between what you do now and what you did in 2000 (end of Fujimoris government)? Explain why. a. Water: do you use more, less, or the same? b. Land: do you use more, less, or the same? c. Labor per ha: do you use more, less, or the same? d. Credit: do you use more, less, or the same? 10. Explain the reasons for changes in use of resources. 53 b. Was production the same, better or worse?

11. Now let us talk about the commercialization and sales of your agricultural products. Are there any differences between what you do now and what you did in 2000 (end of Fujimoris government)? Explain why. a. Your sales volume is higher, lower or the same? b. Do you have the same or a different buyer? c. Is your commercialization system the same or different? 12. Explain the reasons for changes in commercialization and sales. 13. Now let us talk about your relations (how well you get along) with other people or groups within your community. Are there any differences in your relations now compared to 2000 (end of Fujimoris government)? Explain why. a. Your Junta or commission: do you get along better, worse or the same? b. Your neighbors: do you get along better, worse or the same? c. Your family: do you get along better, worse or the same? d. Your authorities: do you get along better, worse or the same? 14. Explain the reasons for changes in your relations. 15. Do you think the PSI influenced the changes in production and sales that you experienced? Why? 16. Do you think the PSI influenced other social or economic changes in your community? Why?

D. About the project: Peru Sub-sectorial Irrigation Project (PSI)? 17. How many of you know the objectives of the Peru Subsectoral Irrigation Project (PSI)? a. Do you think the PSI achieved its objectives? Explain.

18. Have you been benefited or harmed by the PSI? a. b. How were you benefited? How were you harmed?

19. Only for the non-beneficiaries: a. b. Why you were not a beneficiary of the PSI? Do you think the PSI benefited or harmed you indirectly? Explain.

20. Only for the beneficiaries: a. Do you have plans to make irrigation infrastructure improvements or to adopt newer irrigation technologies on your own in the future? 54

E. Vision and general perception 21. What do you think are the three most important actions needed to improve your agricultural productivity? We are truly thankful for the time and valuable information. We will make sure and share our results with you as soon as we have them.

55