Afghanistan Development: U.S. Efforts to Support Afghan Water Sector Increasing, but Improvements Needed in Planning and Coordination
Published: 2010-11-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Water is critical to the stability of Afghanistan and is an essential part of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Since 2002, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have awarded $250 million for water projects. This report examines (1) the alignment of U.S. water goals and projects with Afghan water-sector development goals; (2) U.S. agencies' coordination of water-sector efforts among themselves, with the Afghan government and the donor community; (3) U.S. efforts to manage and monitor these water projects; and (4) U.S. efforts to build sustainability into water-sector projects. GAO reviewed and analyzed planning, funding, and performance documents from U.S. agencies and implementing partners, and interviewed U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and U.S., Afghan, and donor officials in Afghanistan.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The goals outlined in the U.S. government's 2010 Inter-Agency Water Strategy generally align with Afghan government strategic goals for the water sector. The Strategy identifies short, medium, and long-term goals to be achieved between 2010 and 2014. Additionally, since 2002, the U.S. government has implemented a wide range of water projects throughout Afghanistan to improve access to safe drinking water and sanitation, agriculture irrigation, and water-sector management. These projects generally align with Afghan water-sector goals. The United States expects to accelerate development efforts in the water sector and estimates that an additional $2.1 billion will be needed to fund these efforts from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. The Government Performance and Results Act and several U.S. strategic documents concerning operations in Afghanistan emphasize the importance of interagency coordination. GAO has reported on the importance of interagency coordination and collaboration when multiple U.S. agencies are involved in U.S. counterterrorism-related efforts. GAO's review showed that the United States has taken steps to better coordinate water-sector development projects but that additional efforts are needed. For example, the U.S. government has developed an Infrastructure Working Group, an Inter-Agency Water Strategy, and has started to meet on a regular basis. However, an interagency implementation plan called for in the strategy has not been completed. Also, USAID and DOD have not developed a centralized database to enhance coordination, which GAO previously recommended. Moreover, U.S. agencies generally do not meet on a regular basis with all the relevant ministries in the Afghan government, and they lack complete data concerning other donor projects to maximize the U.S. investment in development projects. USAID's Automated Directives System outlines USAID's performance management and monitoring procedures. GAO found that gaps existed in USAID's performance management and monitoring efforts for water sector projects in Afghanistan. For example, while 4 of the 6 implementers of projects GAO reviewed established performance indicators, some did not always establish targets for the indicators as required. In addition, although USAID collected quarterly progress reports from 5 of the 6 water project implementers for the projects GAO reviewed, it did not analyze and interpret this information as required. Finally, though USAID has identified several alternative monitoring procedures staff can use to help mitigate monitoring challenges in high threat environments, USAID has not effectively ensured that such guidance was disseminated to staff in Afghanistan. The U.S. government has included a focus on building sustainability into U.S.-funded water projects in Afghanistan. Recent U.S. strategies have emphasized the importance of project sustainability. GAO has identified two key elements to ensuring water project sustainability: enhancing technical and managerial capacity to maintain projects within the institutions with water-sector responsibilities, and ensuring funding is available to keep projects operational after they have been completed. Ongoing USAID water projects included in this review have incorporated sustainability initiatives. DOD guidance also emphasizes sustainability. However, DOD officials have acknowledged the difficulties of sustaining water projects in Afghanistan.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO makes several recommendations to the USAID Administrator, in conjunction with DOD and other relevant agencies, to improve planning, coordination, and management of U.S.-funded water projects in Afghanistan. This includes developing an interagency plan and designating a centralized database. GAO also recommends steps the USAID Administrator needs to take to improve performance management. USAID and DOD generally concurred with our recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have identified  water as critical for the long-term stability of Afghanistan. Years of war  and conflict, coupled with persistent drought, have had a devastating  impact on the water sector of Afghanistan. According to a National Risk  and Vulnerability Assessment for Afghanistan, published in 2010, only  about 27 percent of the Afghan population has access to safe drinking  water and just 5 percent has access to improved sanitation. These are  among the lowest rates in the world. Agriculture, the source of livelihood  for almost 80 percent of the population, accounts for up to 93 percent of  Afghanistan’s total water usage through irrigation. Yet, only about 30  percent of Afghanistan’s agricultural land receives adequate water.  Between 2002 and the second quarter of 2010, the U.S. government has  awarded about $250 million for water development efforts in Afghanistan  and, in March 2010, estimated it would need an additional $2.1 billion in  funding to achieve U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan’s water sector  from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. As U.S. government  documents indicate, U.S. water-sector development efforts support the  U.S. government’s Counter-Insurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.
This report examines (1) whether U.S. development goals and projects for  the Afghan water sector align with the goals of the Afghan government; (2)  U.S. agencies’ coordination of water-sector development efforts among  themselves, with the Afghan government and with the donor community;  (3) the U.S. government’s efforts to manage and monitor its water-sector  projects; and (4) the U.S. government’s efforts to build sustainability into  water-sector projects.
To address these objectives, we reviewed U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID), Department of Defense (DOD), and other relevant  U.S. government planning, funding, and reporting documents related to  U.S. funding and projects for water-sector development in Afghanistan. We  discussed the funding and projects with officials from USAID, DOD’s  Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), the Departments of  State and Agriculture in Afghanistan, and with USAID, DOD, and other  relevant agencies’ officials in Washington, D.C. In Afghanistan, we met  with the Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development and the Deputy  Minister of Water and Energy and attended a meeting of the Technical  Secretariat of the Supreme Council for Water Affairs Management, where  relevant ministries were represented. We also met with some  representatives of implementing partners for U.S. agencies and the donor  community. We analyzed program budget data provided by USAID and  DOD. To further understand coordination issues related to the United  States, the Afghan government, and the donor community, we attended  meetings among them.
To provide an overview of U.S. assistance to the Afghan water sector, we  focused our analysis on USAID’s ongoing and completed water-exclusive  and water-related activities, including award and implementing partner  documents, and on DOD’s CERP-funded ongoing and completed water- related projects. To ascertain the alignment of U.S. funded projects to  Afghan water goals, we analyzed the objectives of three ongoing USAID- funded water-exclusive projects and four USAID-funded water-exclusive  projects completed since 2003. These projects represent about 50 percent  of the total funding disbursed by USAID for water projects in Afghanistan  from fiscal year 2002 through the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2010.  Additionally, we identified 19 USAID-funded infrastructure projects  completed or ongoing since 2002 that contained water-related activities.  We received data for 13 of these projects. From these, we identified 511  water-related activities. These activities together accounted for about 50  percent of total USAID disbursed funding for water projects in  Afghanistan from fiscal year 2002 through the 2nd quarter of fiscal year  2010. To assess the U.S. government’s performance management and  evaluation efforts, we reviewed five of the seven USAID water-exclusive  projects and one of USAID’s water-related projects that had a large water  component. Our findings from these six projects cannot be generalized to  water projects we did not include in our review. We also reviewed CERP  regulations to ascertain CERP planning and monitoring requirements for  water projects, as well as prior GAO reports that addressed CERP-funded  development efforts in Afghanistan. We discussed these issues with  USAID and DOD officials in Washington and Afghanistan, as well as staff  from implementing partner organizations. To assess USAID’s and DOD’s  efforts to address water project sustainability in Afghanistan, we identified  two key elements necessary for project sustainability, as identified in the  2010 U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy and other U.S.  strategic documents: enhancing technical and managerial capacity and  ensuring funding is available to keep projects operational after they have  been completed. We reviewed project documents for the six selected  USAID water projects and reviewed DOD’s CERP regulations to ascertain  required sustainability-related procedures. We discussed these issues with  USAID and DOD officials in Washington and Afghanistan, as well as staff  from implementing partner organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 through September  2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. More detailed information  on our scope and methodologies, as well as data reliability assessments,  can be found in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Afghanistan, while considered a water-scarce nation, has significant water  resources, originating from precipitation in its high mountains. Average  annual precipitation is estimated to be approximately 180 billion cubic  meters, of which 80 percent originates from snow in the Hindu Kush  mountain range. While some of this water is lost to evaporation, the  balance recharges Afghanistan’s surface and groundwater systems, which  serve as the nation’s primary sources of water. Only about 30 percent of  agricultural land receives adequate supplies of water, and Afghanistan  now uses less than a third of its available water resources. Furthermore,  the lack of infrastructure to store and control river flow results in severe  flooding in some years and drought in others.
Almost 80 percent of Afghanistan’s population derives their livelihood  from the agriculture sector, which is highly dependent on irrigation.  Afghanistan is mountainous and much of its land is not naturally arable  (see fig. 1). Specifically, irrigation makes up 93 percent of Afghanistan’s  total water usage. The agriculture sector, however, has been severely  impacted by years of civil strife and war, droughts and damaging floods,  and breakdowns in community-based and government institutions  operating the Afghan irrigation systems. As a consequence, irrigation  infrastructure seriously deteriorated and many farmers returning to their  land cannot get a reliable irrigation water supply.
In addition, access to safe drinking water, sanitation, social services, and  markets among the rural population is the lowest in the region and among  the lowest in the world. It is estimated that four out of five Afghans in  rural areas may be drinking contaminated water. Countrywide, 28 percent  of rural Afghans use surface water (rivers, lakes, and irrigation ditches) as  their primary source of drinking water.
Afghanistan’s water sector faces many other challenges. According to the  2007- 2008 National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment for Afghanistan,  published in January 2010, 27 percent of the population has access to safe  drinking water and 5 percent has access to improved sanitation, which is  among the lowest rates in the world. The World Bank has reported that  current access to piped water infrastructure is among the lowest in the  world at 18 percent, and because of poor operation and maintenance, the  water service reaches an even lower share of the population. In addition, a  report prepared by a USAID Afghanistan Program Manager for Power and  Water noted that while Kabul has an estimated 35 percent of the city’s  population served by piped water, it has no municipal wastewater system.  Consequently, microbial contamination of water resources by domestic  wastewater has increased substantially.
Activities in Afghanistan could have an impact on resource availability in  neighboring countries. Four of Afghanistan’s five major river basins flow  into the territory or boundary waters of five of its six neighbors—Pakistan,  Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran. The construction of large  water storage or diversion facilities could affect these countries. The  ability of the government of Afghanistan to achieve sustainable and  multipurpose use of its abundant water resources will depend on its  capacity to engage in dialogue, negotiate, and establish relationships and  agreements with its neighbors.
Water’s importance cuts across all facets of life: its availability impacts  food production and nutrition, city development and growth, income  generation and livelihood, and human health and hygiene, among other  areas. While the water issues that need to be addressed in any particular  nation are unique, examples of water-sector issues include:    Drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene: Improving access to, and effective  use of, safe water and basic sanitation, and promoting better hygiene.
Irrigation: Rehabilitating and improving existing irrigation systems,  developing new irrigation schemes, and implementing strategies to reduce  water losses and monitor use.
Water governance and regulation: Investing in policy and legal reforms,  building local capacity, and strengthening water resources planning,  management, and governance.
Environment: Promoting good environmental stewardship through actions  such as controlling erosion, reducing industrial pollution, protecting  watersheds, managing river basins, and implementing disaster risk  reduction activities to reduce vulnerability to droughts and floods.
subsections: section_title: Key Players in Afghanistan’s Water-Sector Development
paragraphs: A number of U.S. government agencies, Afghan ministries, international  partners, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) assist in developing  the Afghan water sector. As table one shows, there are several U.S.  agencies involved in the U.S. effort to improve Afghanistan’s water sector.  These agencies include: USAID, DOD, through CERP and the U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Department of State (State), the U.S.  Geological Service (USGS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA).
As shown in table 2, seven Afghan government bodies have authority over  water-related issues.
The international community also assists Afghanistan with the  development of the water sector. Afghanistan’s international partners  include the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European  Commission, the Canadian International Development Agency, the  German Agency for Technical Cooperation, and the Japanese International  Cooperation Agency, as well as various agencies within the United  Nations. Many foreign and domestic NGOs are also involved in a wide  range of activities.
section_title: U.S. Government Funding of Afghan Water-Sector Projects
paragraphs: USAID and DOD, through CERP, have been the primary sources of U.S.  government assistance for the development of the Afghan water sector. As  illustrated in figure 2, USAID awarded $168 million for its water-sector  efforts between fiscal year 2002 and the second quarter of fiscal year 2010  to fund a wide range of completed and ongoing water projects in  Afghanistan.
A more detailed discussion of USAID’s funding of U.S. water projects in  Afghanistan is discussed in appendices II and III.
DOD, through CERP, has awarded approximately $81 million in funds for  water-related projects carried out under its stewardship between fiscal  year 2006 and the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. As figure 3 shows,  DOD has disbursed approximately $28 million for CERP water-related  projects and carried an unliquidated obligations balance of approximately  $53 million.
While this report focuses primarily on USAID and DOD, other U.S.  agencies identified in table 1 have funded efforts to improve Afghanistan’s  water sector. For example, the Good Performers Initiative (GPI), an  Afghan government initiative supported by the U.S. government through  State and USAID has provided high-impact development assistance to  provinces that have demonstrated counter-narcotics achievements. This  includes the funding of water-sector projects. As of the end of March 2010,  nine GPI projects included water activities, with awards totaling  approximately $5.5 million. Further information on the GPI projects is  located in appendix IV.
section_title: U.S. Strategic Goals and Projects for Afghan Water Sector Generally Align with the Afghan Government’s Strategic Goals
paragraphs: Our analysis indicates that the water-sector goals articulated in the U.S.  Government’s Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan generally align  with the goals of the ANDS and the ANDS water-sector strategy. Since  2002, the U.S. government—led primarily by USAID and DOD—has  implemented a wide range of water projects throughout Afghanistan and,  while some preceded the ANDS and the U.S. interagency water strategies,  implemented projects generally addressed the needs and goals of the  Afghan water sector. The U.S. government plans to accelerate water-sector  development efforts from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Strategic Goals Generally Align with the Afghan Government’s Goals
paragraphs: The goals contained in the U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for  Afghanistan are generally consistent with the goals of the water strategy of  the government of Afghanistan. In 2008, the Afghan government issued its  ANDS Water Resource Management Sector Strategy for the period 2008- 2013. In March 2010, the Obama administration approved the U.S.  Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan to serve as the  guiding strategic approach behind U.S. water-sector development efforts  in Afghanistan for fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2014. According to  this document, the U.S government’s water strategy is intended to be  consistent with the direction set by the government of Afghanistan and as  reflected in national law, policy, and strategic direction in ANDS. Both the  U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy and the Afghan government strategy aim  to improve the management of Afghanistan’s water resources and to  provide improved social and economic benefits that will help reduce  poverty and improve the quality of life for the people of Afghanistan. Our  analysis of the documents shows that the two strategies have articulated  goals within six key areas, and these goals generally align between the two  strategy documents, as depicted in figure 4. The key areas are (1) Water  Supply and Sanitation; (2) Agriculture; (3) Hydropower; (4) Environment;  (5) Governance and Management; and (6) Transboundary issues. Figure 4  summarizes the goals and alignment between the two documents.
USAID began implementing a number of water projects in Afghanistan as  far back as 2002. It developed a strategic plan for water in December 2004.  The 2004 USAID strategic plan, covering fiscal year 2005 through 2010, was  focused on one strategic objective: expanding access to water supplies and  sanitation. Specifically, it stated that USAID planned to assist Afghan  ministries responsible for water supplies and sanitation to promote access  to water and sanitation services, especially in the rural and underserved  areas. Not withstanding the lack of an earlier water strategy for Afghanistan,  and as illustrated in a USAID Action Memo, the need in the Afghan water  sector during the early 2000s was great. In fact, work done by USAID and  DOD during this period addressed development needs in the Afghan water  sector that still exist today. Other U.S. agencies, such as State, USDA, and  USGS, had limited involvement in implementing water-sector projects  during this period.
section_title: The U.S. Government’s Water Projects Align with Afghan Goals
paragraphs: Since 2002, the U.S. government, led by USAID and DOD, has implemented  a wide range of projects in Afghanistan that are either exclusively water  projects or have water-related activities as a part of other larger  development projects. Many projects were completed before the U.S. and  Afghan water strategies were developed; nevertheless, they addressed  aspects of Afghan water-sector needs and are generally in alignment with  the Afghan water-strategy goals.
subsections: section_title: USAID Water Projects
paragraphs: Water-Exclusive Projects: According to data provided to us by USAID  staff in Afghanistan, since 2003, USAID has completed four water  exclusive projects and continues work on three. These projects, though  completed or initiated prior to the Afghan and U.S. strategies, addressed  Afghan water-sector needs and were consistent with the goals of the  Afghan water strategy. The projects primarily focused on water supply and  sanitation and, to some extent, on governance and management  emphasizing capacity building, as shown in table 3. The water-exclusive  projects represented about 50 percent, or $65 million, of the total funding  of $129 million disbursed by USAID for water projects in Afghanistan from  fiscal year 2002 through the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2010. As noted earlier,  appendix II provides a summary table of funding information on USAID’s  water-exclusive projects in Afghanistan.
The projects are geographically widespread, with certain projects  providing benefits to rural communities, and others providing benefits to  urban communities throughout Afghanistan, including such volatile  provinces as Kandahar and Helmand, the two provinces considered to be  the heart of the ongoing Taliban insurgency. Appendix V shows details of  the provincial locations of the USAID water-exclusive projects. USAID’s  effort to extend development assistance in such areas is consistent with  the administration’s COIN strategy, but work in such areas presents  challenges for monitoring the performance of such projects as well as for  their long-term sustainability.
Water-Related Activities: In addition to the water-exclusive projects  discussed above, our analysis identified hundreds of water-related  activities that USAID has implemented as part of larger infrastructure and  economic rehabilitation projects implemented between fiscal year 2002  and the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2010. Specifically, according to data  provided by USAID, there were a total of 19 such infrastructure projects  with water-related activities. From 13 of these projects, we identified 511  water-related activities. According to our analysis, USAID’s water-related  activities accounted for about 50 percent or $64 million of total USAID  water-sector disbursements (see app. III for detailed funding information  on these activities). Also, while many preceded the Afghan and U.S.  interagency strategies, these activities were broadly consistent with the  Afghan water-sector goals. Examples of water-related activities included  drilling wells for potable water supply, rehabilitating irrigation systems,  and cleaning irrigation canals, and mostly addressed the goals of  irrigation, water supply, and sanitation and, to a lesser extent, capacity  building (see app. VI for more details). We attempted to identify the  provincial locations of USAID’s water-related activities, but, while USAID  had data for the location of the parent infrastructure projects, the data  provided by USAID that we analyzed did not always contain provincial or  project location information.
section_title: DOD CERP Water-Related Projects
paragraphs: DOD has implemented a large number of water-related projects in  Afghanistan under CERP. Based on our analysis of DOD CERP data, DOD  implemented 1,663 water-related projects under CERP from fiscal year  2006 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. See table 4 for a  summary of CERP water-related projects implemented by DOD in  Afghanistan.
These were mostly small-scale, low-budget projects with funding ranging  from $30 for a well and water storage tank to approximately $953,000 for a  pipe scheme in Konar province. Table 4 shows that large portions of CERP  water-related projects were devoted to water supply and sanitation (1,128  of 1,663, or 68 percent) and agriculture and irrigation projects (438 of  1,663, or 26 percent).
CERP water-related projects were implemented across at least 33 of the 34  provinces in Afghanistan. However, while the data did not allow us to  identify projects’ exact district or village locations, the CERP data we  analyzed demonstrated that CERP-funded water-related projects were  implemented in both rural and urban areas, and in some provinces where  USAID’s water-related activities have been implemented. CERP projects  are part of the U.S. COIN strategy of extending development benefits to  win the hearts and minds of the Afghan populace. However, the volatile  security situation throughout Afghanistan, particularly in the south (the  historic heartland of the Taliban) and east, has presented serious problems  to the implementation of CERP-funded water-related projects.
section_title: U.S. Government Plans to Accelerate Water-Sector Development Efforts in Afghanistan from Fiscal Year 2010 through Fiscal Year 2014
paragraphs: According to documents provided to us by USAID and our discussions  with agency officials involved in development work in Afghanistan, the  U.S. government plans to accelerate water-sector development efforts in  Afghanistan for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. Under the  government’s Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan approved in  March 2010, U.S. agencies involved in water-sector efforts in Afghanistan  have estimated that an additional $2.1 billion is needed between 2010 and  2014 to support water-sector development activities in Afghanistan. This is  a significant increase over the approximately $250 million that U.S.  agencies had awarded for water-sector development efforts from 2002  through March of 2010.
Under their projected Afghan water development efforts, U.S. agencies  envision three tiers of water projects that would be supported by this  funding over the period. Many of these projects are the types of large- scale, capital-intensive projects, such as large dams, for which some of the  Afghan government officials have expressed a preference. Appendix VII  summarizes the water projects envisioned by U.S. agencies in Afghanistan  for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. The majority of these  projected U.S. water efforts in Afghanistan do not currently identify what  role each agency will play in the implementation of these projects.
section_title: United States Has Taken Steps to Better Coordinate Afghan Water-Sector Projects, but Additional Efforts Are Needed
paragraphs: The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and  several U.S. strategic documents concerning operations in Afghanistan  emphasize the importance of interagency coordination in Afghanistan.  Moreover, we have previously reported on the importance of interagency  coordination and collaboration when multiple U.S. agencies are involved  in U.S. counterterrorism-related efforts. U.S. agencies involved in water  sector development efforts in Afghanistan have recently undertaken some  steps to improve interagency coordination of water-sector projects. For  example, U.S. agencies have developed an Infrastructure Working Group  for Afghanistan (IWG), a U.S. Interagency Water Strategy for Afghanistan  that emphasizes the importance of coordination, and have started to meet  on a regular basis to coordinate some of their projects. The interagency  strategy called for the development of an interagency implementation plan  by August 2010. However, as of September 2010, an interagency  implementation plan has not been completed. Additionally, USAID and  DOD still have not developed a centralized database, which we previously  recommended was needed to help ensure that adequate information exists  to manage and make decisions on development projects in Afghanistan.  Such a database would help the U.S. government identify and coordinate  ongoing and completed water and other development projects among  relevant U.S. agencies. Moreover, despite some recent efforts, additional  steps are needed to enhance U.S. coordination with the Afghan  government, and with other members of the donor community. For  example, U.S. agencies generally do not meet on a regular basis with all  the relevant ministries in the Afghan government, and they do not have  complete data concerning other donor projects in order to best leverage  resources and maximize investments. These additional steps could help  the United States to more effectively leverage resources of U.S. agencies  and enhance coordination with Afghan government and other members of  the donor community.
subsections: section_title: Efforts Underway to Enhance Interagency Coordination
paragraphs: GPRA recognizes the importance of coordinating program areas where  responsibility for achieving results is shared among agencies. Moreover,  we have also reported on the importance of interagency coordination and  collaboration and broadly defined it as any joint activity that is intended  to produce more public value than could be produced when organizations  act alone. Several other U.S. documents concerning operations in  Afghanistan also emphasize the importance of interagency coordination.
The U.S. government has taken several steps to enhance coordination  among agencies assisting the development of the Afghan water sector. The  IWG was created in 2009 to coordinate, review, and oversee U.S.  government-funded national, regional, and district-level activities in the  areas of energy, transportation, and water. U.S. agencies began meeting  thereafter to discuss water-related infrastructure projects, such as the  rehabilitation of hydroelectric dams, water resources assessments, and  the commercialization of water service delivery in Afghanistan. Prior to  the creation of the IWG, interagency coordination for the Afghan water  sector was limited; U.S. agencies conducting water-related activities in  Afghanistan generally operated on their own and did not regularly  coordinate or consult other agencies from 2002 to 2008, according to U.S.  officials. As a result, U.S. officials we met with acknowledged that  opportunities to leverage resources and to establish synergy among  projects were often overlooked. According to USAID officials, water was  not a U.S. development priority in Afghanistan until 2008, and this  contributed to the lack of formal organization among U.S. agencies. These  officials noted that coordination on water projects, when it occurred, was  informal. Agencies did not meet on a regular basis to discuss ongoing  projects. As noted earlier, in addition to USAID efforts, DOD funds Afghan  water and other development-related projects through CERP and carries  them out primarily through PRTs. However, USAID and U.S. government  agencies other than DOD generally maintained a minimal representation  on PRTs prior to 2008, which, according to USAID officials, affected the  ability of U.S. agencies to coordinate projects.
Since this time, the United States developed an Integrated Civilian-Military  Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan in August 2009. This plan  directed that integrated planning and operations between civilian and  military components occur at all levels. The document directs that U.S.  Embassy and civilian-military working groups will organize along  functional rather than agency lines, and in the field, civilian-military teams  will organize at the district, provincial, and regional level to implement the  U.S. counterinsurgency mission and to reduce the tendency of agencies to  operate on their own.
In addition, the March 2010 U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy  for Afghanistan, discussed earlier, also emphasizes the importance of  coordinating U.S. government efforts in the water sector in order to  facilitate greater synergy and developmental impact. The water strategy  recognizes the role of the IWG in helping to coordinate the U.S.  government water development activities in Afghanistan and states that  the IWG will coordinate with other U.S. government working groups to  enable development and implementation of cross-cutting and mutually  supportive strategies. While in Afghanistan in December 2009, we attended  a meeting of the IWG in Kabul, and a meeting on the Southeast  Afghanistan Water Resources Assessment at Bagram Air Force Base, to  observe interagency coordination. The IWG meetings continued into 2010.  The U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy further states that the IWG is  responsible for helping coordinate water-development activities in  Afghanistan and that PRTs can play an important facilitating role in the  coordination of water projects.
CERP rules and guidance note that commanders should consider  complementary programs provided by USAID and other non-governmental  agencies operating in their areas of responsibility. In addition to PRT  coordination, for projects greater than $1 million, CERP guidance requires  coordination with the U.S. Forces Afghanistan’s CERP Review Board,  where USAID is a voting member. According to USAID officials, these  processes provide useful opportunities to exchange information about  ongoing and future projects. In March 2010 congressional testimony, the  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Partnership Strategy and  Stability Operations stated that USAID’s participation in the CERP Review  Board prevents duplication of effort and also helps identify any problems  with sustainment for CERP-nominated projects. This official also stated  that the increase of U.S. government civilians in the field significantly  improves the integration and coordination of reconstruction projects. A  senior USAID official responsible for coordinating USAID’s  representatives who work at PRTs stated that, at the various levels of  coordination with the U.S. military, USAID staff does their best to share  information concerning activities by USAID project implementers.
section_title: U.S Government Lacks an Interagency Implementation Plan for Its Water-Sector Efforts in Afghanistan
paragraphs: U.S. agency officials have identified the importance of sharing critical data  and project information with each other. The U.S. Inter-Agency Water  Strategy for Afghanistan, which seeks to define and articulate a common  approach to water-sector development in Afghanistan, including short,  medium, and long-term goals, and outlines an interagency strategy, called  for the development of an aggregate interagency implementation plan by  August 2010. However, the interagency implementation plan has not been  completed. As we have previously reported, best practices indicate that  agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by, among  other things, defining and articulating a common outcome, establishing  mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, identifying and addressing needs  by leveraging resources, agreeing on roles and responsibilities, and  establishing means to operate across agency boundaries. The  development of an interagency implementation plan that identifies and  addresses the leveraging of U.S. resources, establishes agreements on  roles and responsibilities of the various U.S. agencies, and outlines means  to operate across agency boundaries could further enhance U.S. efforts to  improve interagency coordination.
section_title: U.S. Lacks a Centralized Database for U.S.-Funded Water Projects in Afghanistan
paragraphs: We previously reported that DOD and USAID relied on separate data  systems to track and manage development projects in Afghanistan, and  recommended the agencies take steps to develop a centralized database to  ensure that adequate information exists to manage and make decisions.  For example, USAID used its GeoBase tracking system to capture and  maintain information on all its reconstruction and development activities  in Afghanistan, and DOD did not have access to this system. DOD, at the  time of our previous reviews, used the Combined Information Data  Network Exchange (CIDNE)—a classified database to track CERP  projects as well as other types of information concerning U.S. military  operations. As of September 2010, a central database that contains  information on all U.S.-funded development projects in Afghanistan still  does not exist, and each U.S. agency continues to maintain its own project  tracking system that identifies agency-specific information on water  projects in Afghanistan.
USAID initiated a new database system in late 2009 known as Afghan Info  to replace the GeoBase system, which it had been using previously for  development and reconstruction project management. According to  USAID, the purpose of Afghan Info is to provide “a comprehensive and  transparent interagency picture of how project implementers use foreign  assistance resources to support the United States’ foreign assistance  objectives in Afghanistan.” USAID officials stated that they would like the  Afghan Info system designated as the official system for data on U.S.  assistance activities in Afghanistan; however, as of September 2010, they  were still awaiting ambassador-level approval for this designation. The  USAID official responsible for developing the database told us that the  Afghan Info system did not include data from any other U.S. agency, aside  from the quarterly CERP data, and he did not know whether the system  was being used to coordinate water-sector development in Afghanistan.  Senior DOD officials in Afghanistan who are involved in implementing  CERP-funded water projects told us in August 2010 they were not familiar  with the Afghan Info system or the data it contained. DOD continues to  use the CIDNE database for its CERP-related data. According to DOD  officials, CIDNE is a classified system and was not meant as a platform for  interagency coordination.
We have previously reported that compatible data systems or other  mechanisms would enable U.S. agencies to share information about  ongoing and completed projects with each other. Maintaining an  accessible data system that promotes information sharing among agencies  is particularly important in an environment such as Afghanistan where  officials from different agencies are involved in similar development  efforts that are dispersed throughout the country. U.S. agency officials told  us that having access to project data from other agencies would contribute  to better project planning, eliminate potential overlap, and allow agencies  to leverage each other’s resources more effectively. We further reported  that without a mechanism to improve the visibility of individual  development projects, the U.S. government may not be in a position to  fully leverage the resources available to develop Afghanistan and risks  duplicating efforts and wasting taxpayer dollars.
section_title: Additional Actions Could Enhance U.S. Coordination of U.S.-Funded Water Sector Projects with the Afghan Government and the International Community
paragraphs: As previously noted, the U.S. government is one of many international  players involved in the efforts to provide substantial development  assistance to Afghanistan, including efforts to enhance the Afghan water  sector. As such, it is important that the United States coordinates its  efforts to address goals and objectives outlined in its interagency water  sector strategy with the Afghan government and the various other  international partners.
With respect to the U.S. government’s coordination with the Afghan  government, U.S. agency officials told us that they meet on an as-needed  basis with individual Afghan ministry officials to discuss water issues. The  U.S. government provides technical advisers (contractors) and assistance  to the Technical Secretariat of the Supreme Council for Water Affairs  Management. The Technical Secretariat assists the Supreme Council by  performing functions such as obtaining, reviewing, and analyzing  documents relevant to the water sector; collecting and compiling technical  data and legal documentation; and submitting relevant documentation and  recommendations for action to the Supreme Council. U.S. advisers to the  Supreme Council’s Technical Secretariat assist the Secretariat in carrying  out its responsibilities. U.S. advisers attend the Technical Secretariat  meetings and share the meeting minutes with U.S. agency officials if U.S.  officials are not in attendance at the meetings.
One recent example of cooperation between the United States, Afghan  government, and donor community concerns transboundary water issues.  Representatives of the Afghan government along with officials from the  U.S. government and other donor governments began meeting on a regular  basis in 2009 to discuss related issues and formulate a plan for capacity  building within the Afghan government to handle transboundary water  issues. These monthly transboundary water meetings have proven to be  useful as an opportunity for the Afghan government to discuss sensitive  issues in cooperation with the international community, according to  USAID and international donor officials, and to better understand the  importance of incorporating transboundary water considerations in  development projects. The consequence of not obtaining concurrence  from the Afghan government on transboundary issues could affect the  willingness of certain Western governments and international entities to  provide water-sector development assistance in Afghanistan, as occurred  already in one case involving an international donor.
Afghan Ministry officials involved in water-sector development expressed  some disappointment over the U.S. government’s failure to involve them in  the development of the U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy and viewed this  as evidence that the U.S. government did not consider the Afghan  government as an equal partner in the development of the Afghan water  sector. USAID officials told us that they briefed Afghan government  representatives at the start of the project and solicited the government’s  input but that the Afghan government did not take part in the development  of the U.S. strategy. The U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan  was signed in March 2010 and U.S. officials stated that they briefed Afghan  officials in January 2010 on the finalized strategy. U.S. officials  acknowledged, however, that more effective and consistent  communication would improve the relationship on water-related issues,  including the selection and prioritization of U.S.-funded projects.
With regard to donor coordination, U.S. government officials and  representatives of the donor community with whom we met  acknowledged that until 2010, minimal coordination had occurred among  them on the broad range of water-sector issues in Afghanistan. These  officials stated that a key challenge to donor coordination is that  international donors have their own portfolios that are linked to national  objectives from their home countries. Because of this, international  donors often want to pursue their own plans. International donor  representatives told us that while such lack of coordination among donors  can lead to duplication of efforts, it was unlikely that duplications had  occurred given the extent of the development assistance needed in the  Afghan water sector, even in the absence of coordination. However,  these representatives said that donors have likely missed opportunities to  maximize their investments and leverage the contributions of other donors  by not systematically coordinating their water-sector development  programs.
In January 2010, at the initiative of USAID, the water-sector donor  community in Afghanistan met to discuss a range of issues concerning  urban water supply and sanitation and to discuss ways of coordinating  their efforts in Afghanistan. At the meeting, donors agreed that the  German development organizations would lead the monthly donor  coordination meetings for the first 6 months, and USAID would lead  meetings for the 6 months that follow. As a first step to providing better  visibility of donor activities, donors agreed at their first coordination  meeting to take steps to share data concerning their completed and  ongoing urban water and sanitation projects. The plan was to capture  information in a spreadsheet and share with respective donors. Donors  agreed that an improved information-sharing system would be useful in  coordinating their projects and leveraging their resources. However, our  review of the most recent effort to capture such information on a  spreadsheet revealed missing donor data on the status of ongoing and  completed urban water projects. In addition, according to USAID officials,  no further effort has been undertaken to complete the spreadsheets. We  were unable to assess whether such duplication had taken place because  of the lack of effort to capture consolidated information on donor efforts.
According to a USAID official involved in these discussions, donor  participants have raised the possibility of meeting on a quarterly basis with  the Afghan government’s Technical Secretariat of the Supreme Council for  Water Affairs Management to coordinate activities in the Afghan water  sector. Donors noted, however, that they preferred to focus in the near  term on donor-specific issues before expanding to include issues that  involve officials of the Afghan government.
USAID and other U.S. agency officials who were knowledgeable about  both the energy and water sectors in Afghanistan stated that the Inter- Ministerial Commission on Energy has worked well as a coordination  mechanism and could be a model for enhancing U.S. coordination of  water-sector efforts with the Afghan government and the donor  community. This energy-sector Commission meets on a monthly basis  and participants include officials from the Afghan ministries, the U.S.  government, and other international donors. U.S. participants have stated  that coordination through the Inter-Ministerial Commission has been very  effective and has provided opportunities to discuss energy development  priorities and ongoing and future projects. In addition to the monthly  meetings, U.S. government advisers and advisers from other governments  provide a wide variety of technical services on all aspects of the electrical  power sector to the Commission secretariat.
The United States and other international donors have stated that the  Technical Secretariat of the Supreme Council for Water Affairs  Management could be the appropriate forum for institutionalizing  coordination in the water sector among the Afghan and U.S. governments  and other international donors, similar to the role the Inter-Ministerial  Commission on Energy has played in enhancing the coordination of U.S.,  Afghan, and international donor community energy-sector efforts.
section_title: Gaps Exist in U.S. Agencies’ Efforts to Manage and Monitor Performance for Afghan Water Projects
paragraphs: USAID has established performance management and monitoring  procedures, including for implementers of water sector projects. USAID’s  Automated Directives System documents the agency’s performance  management and monitoring procedures. Project implementers must  follow requirements outlined in USAID award documents. We recently  reported that USAID had some gaps in performance management of both  its agricultural programs in Afghanistan as well as its development  assistance efforts in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. We  found similar gaps existed in USAID’s performance management efforts  for its Afghanistan water-sector projects. For example, while USAID  collected quarterly progress reports from its implementing partners for  five of the six water projects included in our review, agency staff did not  analyze and interpret this information. As we previously reported, the  security situation in Afghanistan poses a significant challenge to U.S.  project-monitoring efforts. USAID and others have identified several  alternative monitoring procedures agency staff can employ to help  mitigate the security challenges; however, agency staff we met with were  unaware of this guidance. DOD has certain performance management  requirements for its CERP projects. We found various weaknesses in  DOD’s efforts to monitor CERP water projects in Afghanistan, which  prevent the department from being able to assess project progress or  results.
subsections: section_title: USAID’s Performance Management Efforts Have Some Gaps and Are Challenged by Security Situation
paragraphs: USAID has established performance management procedures, including  for implementers of water-sector projects, at the agency, mission, and  project level. We reviewed six selected water-sector projects and found  USAID’s performance management efforts had some gaps, and that  Afghanistan’s security environment presents a challenge to these efforts.  To assess USAID’s performance management and monitoring of its Afghan  water projects, we reviewed five of the seven exclusive water projects  discussed earlier in this report, as well as one water-related project, the  Village-Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province project, which has  a large water component. These six projects encompass a range of project  costs, are both rural and urban-based, and include varying implementation  periods, including completed and ongoing projects.
subsections: section_title: USAID Performance Management Procedures
paragraphs: USAID’s Automated Directives System establishes performance  management and evaluation procedures USAID is expected to follow with  respect to planning, monitoring, and evaluating its programs. While  USAID has noted that Afghanistan is an insecure environment in which to  implement its programs, the agency has generally maintained the same  performance management and evaluation procedures as it does in other  countries in which it operates. In October 2008, USAID adopted new  guidance endorsing several alternative monitoring methods in high threat  environments. However, this guidance was not disseminated until  December 2009, and USAID staff in Afghanistan responsible for water  sector activities said during a July 2010 meeting that they were not aware  of this guidance. Nonetheless, we incorporated this guidance in our review  where applicable. Figure 5 presents a summary of the planning,  monitoring, and evaluating requirements that make up USAID’s  performance management and evaluation procedures the agency expects  its staff to follow.
For the purpose of our review, we focused on those elements of the  Automated Directives System performance management and evaluation  procedures that we determined to be generally consistent with the  requirements stipulated by USAID in the applicable implementing  partners’ contracts, cooperative agreements, or grant award documents.
section_title: Compliance with Performance Management Planning Requirements
paragraphs: Mission-Level Compliance: Planning provides a structure for project  management and helps to clarify what needs to be done and why, and how  well it should be done. At the mission level, USAID’s Automated Directives  System requires USAID officials to complete a Mission performance  management plan (PMP) for each of its high-level objectives as a tool to  manage its performance management and evaluation procedures. In line  with this requirement, USAID’s Mission to Afghanistan developed its first  PMP in 2006, covering 2006, 2007, and 2008. Overall, the 2006-2008 Mission  PMP incorporated key planning activities. For example, the PMP identified  indicators, established baselines and targets, planned for data quality  assessments, and described the frequency of data collection for four high- level objectives for all USAID programs in Afghanistan. However, this  Mission PMP for Afghanistan did not include performance indicators  specific to water-sector projects.
As we previously reported, the Mission has operated without an up-to-date  PMP for 2009 and 2010. However, according to USAID officials, the agency  is in the process of developing a new missionwide PMP, which is expected  to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2010. USAID attributed the delay  in creating the new PMP to the process of developing new strategies in  different sectors and gaining approval from the Embassy in Afghanistan  and from agency headquarters in Washington.
Implementing Partner Compliance: At the project level, implementing  partners are required to develop and submit monitoring and evaluation  plans to USAID for approval, with the specific requirements for each  project outlined in USAID contract, cooperative agreement, and grant  award documents. We reviewed the award documents for these six  projects and found that they generally required implementers to carry out  similar performance planning, monitoring, and evaluating activities. The  lone grant award, the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation project, had  fewer specified performance management requirements.
For the six water projects we examined, we assessed whether project  implementers established goals and objectives, a requirement outlined in  USAID’s Automated Directives System; as well as whether implementers  identified performance indicators and expected targets, and defined the  frequency of and methods for data collection and reporting, which are  required by both USAID’s Automated Directives System and in all but one  of the USAID contracts and cooperative agreements for the projects we  reviewed. We found that implementing partners for all six projects defined  project goals and objectives in their project planning documents.  Implementers for the four ongoing projects we reviewed defined the  frequency of and methods for data collection and reporting. The  Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation project work plan did not meet  this requirement, and the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation project was  not required to do so. As table 5 shows, four out of six implementers  established performance indicators, though some did not always establish  targets for the indicators as required. These targets enable officials to  measure progress against performance indicators.
Performance monitoring is critical to agencies’ determination of whether  or not projects are on track and meeting established goals and objectives.  According to USAID’s Automated Directives System, monitoring efforts,  among other things, should include collecting performance data, assessing  data quality, and analyzing and interpreting data to make necessary  program adjustments. We have previously reported on challenges relating  to USAID’s efforts to monitor projects in Afghanistan and Pakistan due to  the security situation in these countries. To assess USAID’s performance  monitoring of the six selected water projects, we examined the extent to  which USAID collected performance data, including its ability to conduct  site visits and its efforts to analyze and interpret implementing partner  performance data.
We found USAID generally collected quarterly reports that it required its  project implementers to submit. In particular, implementers of five of the  six projects we reviewed provided quarterly reports on a regular basis, as  was required in their project award documents. These reports generally  contained project information, such as on activities, challenges, and  expenditures. With respect to the remaining project included in our  review, the Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation project, the USAID  Office of Inspector General reported that there were inconsistencies in  implementing partner reporting requirements, as well as compliance with  those requirements.
According to Automated Directives System guidance, conducting site  visits is one recommended way to assess whether reports accurately  reflect what occurs in the field. However, we saw limited evidence of  documented site visit or other monitoring efforts. For example, only two  of the projects we reviewed— the Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation  project and the Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer  project—had documented site visits. In addition, USAID provided  documentation of one third-party monitoring report—from November to  December 2009, USAID hired contractors to conduct a third-party  monitoring effort of the Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology  Transfer project in light of staffing limitations and security-related travel  restrictions that prevented agency staff from monitoring the project on  site.
USAID officials we met with in Afghanistan acknowledged the importance  of and expressed a desire for site visits to the locations of water projects;  however, they pointed out that several factors, particularly the security  situation, as well as staff shortages and heavy workloads, prevented them  from doing so. USAID has predicated the success of its development  programs in Afghanistan on a stable security environment; however, as we  have reported, the lack of a secure environment in Afghanistan has  continued to challenge reconstruction and development efforts. One  agency official told us that it is sometimes difficult to get the U.S. military  to provide security for staff site visits due to the military’s many other  responsibilities. According to this official, the inability to conduct more  site visits limits the agency’s ability to build relationships with local  partners and, in turn, presents a challenge to project management in  general. This official noted the agency has recently hired additional staff  and believed they would help to alleviate some of these monitoring  concerns.
USAID approved new guidance endorsing several alternative monitoring  methods in high threat environments where it is difficult for USAID staff to  make site visits. However, this guidance, which was promulgated in  October 2008, was not disseminated to USAID staff until December 2009.  Further, the USAID Mission to Afghanistan water sector staff with whom  we spoke in late July 2010 said they were unaware of the new guidance.  Alternative methods in the new guidance include using new technologies,  working with third parties and coordinating with other agencies to  monitor activities, and establishing flexible performance targets. These  methods are similar to those developed by the agency to mitigate the  difficulty it faced directly monitoring its programs in Pakistan’s Federally  Administered Tribal Areas due to these areas’ dangerous security  environment, and to those developed by the World Bank and used for  World Bank projects in Afghanistan in areas where staff cannot travel.
While USAID collected implementing partner quarterly reports, the agency  did not consistently analyze and interpret, as required, the performance  information in these reports for the programs in our review. USAID  officials told us that they regularly communicated with and collected  progress reports from project implementers, but staff shortages and heavy  workload have prevented them from consistently reviewing the reporting  documents. As a result, Mission staff may not be fully aware of key project  information typically contained in quarterly reports, such as project  progress, key accomplishments, and challenges.
As noted earlier, the U.S. Mission Afghanistan continues to lack an  approved PMP with performance indicators. Additionally, as table 5  previously illustrated, only one of the six implementing partners for U.S.- funded water projects included in our review had established targets for  each of its performance indicators. As such, we are unable to provide a  reliable assessment of U.S.-funded water projects in Afghanistan.
section_title: Limited Evaluations Conducted to Date
paragraphs: Project evaluation identifies the reasons for success or lack thereof, can  illustrate which project activities work most effectively and efficiently, and  can provide lessons for future initiatives. ADS requires USAID to  undertake at least one evaluation for each of its high-level objectives. In  September 2007, International Relief and Development (IRD) issued an  assessment of the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation project. Though the  IRD report noted beneficiaries were generally happy with project results,  it also highlighted several problems, including some project wells did not  provide enough water, and some project pump handles and latrines were  of low quality or poorly constructed. The assessment made several  recommendations, including to improve the drilling and building of wells,  namely through improved use of geological data; to consult with  communities prior to project development; to test water quality prior to  handing projects over to communities; to train local communities in the  proper and safe use of equipment; and to improve the construction of  latrines. According to USAID officials in Afghanistan, the results of this  evaluation, and the lessons learned it presented, were used to inform  development of the Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation  project. In addition, according to USAID officials in Afghanistan, no  overall evaluation had been done for the other completed project— Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation—that we reviewed. However,  these officials provided us with two evaluations of more limited scope,  each of which examined subprojects contained within the overall project.
According to these officials, these two evaluations were used to inform the  Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and Sanitation Activity project,  which they told us was developed to address some of the problems the  Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation project faced. Regarding the four  ongoing selected projects that we reviewed, USAID officials told us they  planned to schedule an evaluation for the Afghan Sustainable Water  Supply and Sanitation and Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and  Sanitation Activity projects, though they did not indicate if or when the  Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer or Village-Based  Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province projects were due for a formal  evaluation.
section_title: DOD’s Management and Monitoring of Afghan Water Projects Has Weaknesses
paragraphs: DOD CERP regulations, which govern projects in Afghanistan, require  certain performance management activities, including the establishment of  performance metrics and monitoring of CERP projects. The DOD  regulations for CERP state, among other things, that performance indicators  must be provided for proposed CERP projects of $50,000 or more and that  all projects must be monitored to ensure that payments are commensurate  with the work accomplished and engineering standards are met.
Although DOD regulations require the development of performance  indicators or metrics for CERP projects of $50,000 or more, it is still not  clear how such indicators are and will be used to assess progress. We  previously reported in July 2008 that although CERP-funded road  development projects in Afghanistan contained measures of desired  impact, DOD had not stated how these indicators would be measured.  Additionally, we found that while CERP guidance for Afghanistan required  project proposals to have an “adequate” plan to measure success in  achieving the desired impact, it did not contain criteria for developing  such a plan for performance measurement and evaluation. Our review of  CERP-funded water projects in Afghanistan revealed that this situation has  not been fully addressed. According to USFOR-A, DOD has an effort  underway to formulate terms to be used to address measures for  effectiveness that will be included in CERP’s standard operating  procedures. However, USFOR-A officials acknowledged there is currently  no additional training provided to program managers to assist with  identifying performance metrics.
Additionally, DOD officials we met with said that there was a lack of CERP  project monitoring and that project results are not always being used to  inform future project planning decisions. According to a senior USFOR-A  official responsible for managing CERP projects in Afghanistan, the extent  to which DOD personnel are able to conduct site visits depends on the  geographic location, difficulty of the terrain, and the existing security  situation. He also noted that understaffing hampered DOD’s ability to  monitor CERP water projects in Afghanistan. We have previously reported  on actions needed to improve DOD’s ability to monitor CERP projects in  Afghanistan. For example, in 2009 we found that the program faced  significant oversight challenges due to an insufficient number of trained  personnel, and we recommended that DOD evaluate workforce  requirements and ensure that adequate staff are available to administer  CERP. DOD responded in May 2009 that the increase in forces in  Afghanistan has also increased the number of personnel who manage  CERP on a full-time basis. In addition, in December 2009, the Department  of the Army published an execution order that included several new  requirements for CERP personnel, including that certain key CERP  personnel receive training for their assigned responsibilities. USFOR-A  officials we met with in Afghanistan later in December 2009 commented  that DOD still did not have enough personnel to effectively manage CERP,  including juggling the duties of building projects and overseeing them in  remote villages.
section_title: U.S. Government Has Included a Focus on Building Sustainability into U.S.-Funded Water Projects
paragraphs: Sustainability is one of the U.S. government’s key principles for  development and reconstruction assistance in Afghanistan, and recent U.S.  strategies have emphasized the importance of project sustainability. We  have previously reported on challenges facing U.S. development efforts in  Afghanistan, including developing a sustainable roads program—such as  a lack of resources, an untrained Afghan population, and limited Afghan  government ministerial capacity to maintain and sustain donor-funded  projects given Afghanistan is one of the world’s poorest countries. (See  our July 2010 e-supplement relating to poverty in Afghanistan— GAO-10-756SP.) Based on our review of the U.S. Government Inter- Agency Water Strategy and discussions with agency staff, the U.S.  government has identified two key elements to help ensure water project  sustainability: (1) enhancing technical and managerial capacity to maintain  projects within the institutions with water sector responsibilities, and (2)  ensuring funding is available to keep projects operational after they have  been completed. USAID project implementers have incorporated a number  of sustainability-related initiatives into the water sector projects we  reviewed. DOD and CERP guidance also emphasizes sustainability.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Government Strategies Recognize Importance of Sustainability
paragraphs: Our review of various U.S. government planning and strategy documents  and discussions with U.S. government officials identified several efforts  underway by the U.S. government to focus on sustainability of U.S.-funded  water projects in Afghanistan. We identified sustainability in the following  U.S. plans and strategies.
USAID’s Afghanistan Strategic Plan for 2005-2010 defines sustainability as  a core value and indicates activities are designed so that Afghan  institutions, communities, and individuals “own” the principles, processes,  and benefits introduced. Projects that entail construction of infrastructure,  reform of processes and procedures, and provision of services have  components that help ensure Afghans have the capacity needed to carry  them on, once USAID assistance is complete.
The USAID Afghanistan Mission PMP for 2006-2008 discusses development  in the context of sustainability and identifies capacity building as a means of  ensuring the sustainability of development projects. As we noted earlier, the  mission is in the process of developing a new missionwide PMP.
The 2009 U.S. Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for  Support to Afghanistan lists as its first core principle “Afghan Leadership,  Afghan Capacity, Afghan Sustainability,” and notes U.S. efforts in  Afghanistan must be designed to assist the Afghan government to assume  a more effective leadership role.
The U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy for 2009-2014 notes that  water is critical for the long-term stability and economic development of  Afghanistan and directs U.S. agencies to ensure projects are designed,  constructed, and maintained properly to ensure they remain operational  over time. The strategy also outlines several goals that will enhance water  project sustainability. Among them is a focus on two key elements: (1)  enhancing technical and managerial capacity to maintain projects within  the institutions with water-sector responsibilities, and (2) ensuring funding  is available to keep projects operational after they have been completed.
section_title: Selected Ongoing USAID Water Projects Include Sustainability-Related Initiatives
paragraphs: USAID identifies sustainability as one of its Nine Principles of  Development and Reconstruction Assistance and considers sustainability  to be the design of programs to ensure their impact endures. We reviewed  four ongoing USAID funded water projects to determine the extent of  focus on sustainability as outlined in the recent U.S. strategies.
The results of our review of these four projects showed that USAID water  projects included sustainability related initiatives. For example:    Building technical and managerial capacity: Implementers of the  Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer and Village- Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province projects are providing  technical training to Afghan farmers on more sustainable farming  practices. The Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and Sanitation  Activity project also includes a training component, such as  apprenticeship and on-the-job training, to enhance the capacity of  managers and technical staff responsible for operating local water  systems. Examples of activities to build managerial capacity include the  Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer and Village- Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province projects’ provision of  training and technical exposure to Afghan ministry staff to help them  identify and develop improved water and land use policies. The  Afghanistan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation project seeks to  improve the sustainability of rural water infrastructure by strengthening  the capacity of local governing structures to monitor the use and  maintenance of water facilities, as well as by developing written  instructions on operating and maintaining them.
Financial sustainability: The Commercialization of Afghanistan Water  and Sanitation Activity project’s plan to ensure financial sustainability  includes billing customers for water services, with an eventual goal of  cost-recovery, according to USAID and implementing partner officials. The  project also includes activities to ensure all project improvements are  reinforced and sustained over time. In addition, the Afghanistan  Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation project plan includes a  performance indicator of ensuring long-term financing for community  water systems, namely through the establishment of community water  user groups as well as a mechanism to charge community members for  water services. In addition, the Village-Based Watershed Restoration in  Ghor Provice project includes an effort to ensure sustainable water supply  in one town through the creation of a water-user association, responsible  for operation and maintenance of the system. Officials of USAID and one  of its implementing partners acknowledged that the long-term financial  viability of such projects could be affected by the inability or  unwillingness of Afghan customers to pay for water because of the level of  poverty among the Afghan population and because Afghan citizens have  not historically paid for their water.
section_title: CERP-Funded Projects Plan for Sustainability but Face Challenges
paragraphs: CERP regulations include consideration of project sustainability.  According to DOD regulations, CERP is intended for small-scale, urgent  humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects that, optimally, can be  sustained by the local population or government. CERP procedures for  evaluating proposed projects of $50,000 or more note that responsible staff  are required to consider the sustainability of the project, including  preparing a memorandum of agreement and obtaining the signature of the  responsible Afghan official acknowledging responsibility and his or her  commitment to budget for this agreement. These regulations also state  staff should address whether recipients of CERP funding for projects  equal to or greater than $500,000 have a plan for sustainability and who  will be providing long-term maintenance and sustainability for the project.  In addition, CERP officials we met with in Afghanistan acknowledged the  importance of Afghan technical and managerial capacity and the  availability of funds for post-project operations and maintenance of CERP  water projects, but pointed out that DOD is not responsible for  establishing long-term sustainability strategies.
DOD officials have acknowledged the difficulty of sustaining CERP  projects in Afghanistan. CERP and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials  acknowledged that the physical sustainability of projects and maintenance  is a problem. A DOD official noted that building capacity and ensuring  projects can be sustained is more difficult than building the projects  themselves. Another DOD official stated that having Afghans with the  necessary skills and funding for operations and maintenance of projects  was essential for the long-term sustainability of water projects. This  official and others acknowledged a number of CERP projects, once  completed and handed over to Afghans, were not sustained because the  Afghans lacked the capacity to sustain them.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The development of the Afghan water sector is critical to the stability of  Afghanistan, given the role of water in enhancing agriculture productivity  and improving the health and well-being of the Afghan populace. Thus, the  U.S. government’s assistance in the water sector is an important element  of U.S. development and counter-insurgency efforts. The approximately  $250 million that the United States awarded from fiscal year 2002 through  the second quarter of fiscal year 2010 has funded a significant number of  water projects, but it pales in comparison to the over $2 billion the United  States has projected would be needed to meet U.S. assistance obligations  for water in the next 5 years. Because of this, planning, coordination, and  oversight are particularly important. While the U.S. efforts and the goals  are outlined in the 2010 U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy, the U.S.  government lacks an interagency implementation plan called for in its  strategy and that best practices have shown is critical to enhancing the  coordination of multi-agency efforts. In addition, a centralized database  that tracks all U.S. development projects in Afghanistan—including water- sector development, which we previously reported was lacking— does not  currently exist. This is especially important in light of the U.S. Inter- Agency Water Strategy that indicates that multiple agencies would become  involved in Afghan water-sector activities going forward. Lack of  coordination and information sharing creates the potential for duplication  of efforts and missed opportunities for synergy and the leveraging of  resources among U.S. agencies.
USAID did not ensure that its implementing partners had established  indicators or performance targets as required and did not consistently  analyze and interpret implementing partner performance data, which is  vital to making program adjustments, higher level decisions, and resource  allocations. Without a set of agreed upon performance indicators and  targets, it becomes more difficult for USAID to accurately assess the  performance of USAID-funded water projects in Afghanistan. Also, it is  important that USAID routinely analyze and interpret data from project  reports submitted by implementers, as its monitoring procedures require.  Further, given security challenges may impede site visits to some project  locations, it is important that USAID take steps to more effectively  disseminate previously-approved alternative monitoring methods for “high  threat” environment to its mission staff. Without effective monitoring, the  U.S. government cannot be certain whether U.S.-funded water projects are  achieving their intended results.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the coordination of U.S.-funded water projects, we  recommend that the Administrator of USAID, in conjunction with the  Secretaries of DOD and other relevant agencies take the following actions:    Develop an interagency implementation plan, as called for in the 2010 U.S.
Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy that (1) establishes agreement  on roles and responsibilities of the various U.S. agencies with respect to  the short, medium, and long-term goals identified in the strategy; (2)  identifies and address the leveraging of U.S. resources; and (3) outlines  means to operate effectively across agency boundaries.
Consider designating Afghan Info or some other database as the  centralized U.S. government project-development database for U.S.  development efforts in Afghanistan. This database should, among other  things, ensure that the information in the database (1) captures all agency  development efforts, and (2) is accessible to all U.S. government agencies  involved in U.S.-funded development projects in Afghanistan.
Take steps, in coordination with relevant international donors, to explore  options for establishing a formal mechanism to enhance coordination on  water sector development among the donor community and the Afghan  government.
To enhance performance management of U.S.-funded water projects, we  recommend that the Administrator of USAID take the following actions:    Ensure that implementing partners establish targets for all indicators.
Consistently analyze and interpret program data, such as determining the  extent to which annual targets are met.
Take steps to ensure that Mission Afghanistan staff are aware of new  Automated Directives System guidance on monitoring in high-threat  environment, such as reissuing the guidance or incorporating a discussion  of the guidance as part of pre-deployment training.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to USAID and DOD for their review and  comment. USAID provided written comments, which are reprinted in  appendix VIII. USAID concurred with all of our recommendations and said  it was taking steps to address them. USAID concurred with our  recommendation to develop an interagency implementation plan and  stated that a final interagency implementation plan would be developed in  consultation with the U.S. government Infrastructure Working Group.  USAID concurred with our recommendation to designate Afghan Info or  some other database as the centralized U.S. government project- development database for U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan. USAID  stated it has begun to utilize Afghan Info for this purpose and will  continue to do so further in the future. USAID concurred with our  recommendation to take steps, in coordination with relevant international  donors, to establish a formal mechanism to enhance coordination on  water-sector development among the donor community and the Afghan  government. USAID noted that it meets frequently with other international  donors to discuss coordination on the water sector and annually plans a  national water conference. Additionally, USAID stated it would take steps  to establish a more formal and regularly occurring forum to discuss  coordination efforts among all donors in the water sector. Finally, USAID  concurred with our recommendation to enhance performance  management by ensuring implementing partners establish targets for all  indicators, consistently analyzing and interpreting program data, and  taking steps to ensure Mission of Afghanistan staff is aware of new  guidance on monitoring in high-threat environments.
DOD also provided written comments on a draft of this report. The  comments are reprinted in appendix IX. DOD noted that, because  Afghanistan is a war zone, DOD, USAID, and other relevant U.S. agencies  have an obligation to work closely together to develop mutually agreed  upon plans and strategies. DOD concurred with two of our  recommendations and partially concurred with one of them. DOD  concurred with our recommendation to develop an interagency  implementation plan. DOD also concurred with our recommendation to  take steps, in coordination with relevant international donors, to explore  options for establishing a formal mechanism to enhance coordination of  water-sector development among the donor community and the Afghan  government. DOD noted that the infrastructure working group in Kabul  has been established to help coordinate these activities.  DOD generally  concurred with our recommendation that Afghan Info or some other  database be designated as the centralized U.S. government project- development database for U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan. DOD  pointed out that such a database, if designed to allow easy data access and  sharing with not only the interagency but coalition and Afghan partners,  would make a positive contribution. Furthermore, DOD cautioned that  interagency database requirements should not impact its own needs and  requirements for centralized project management, nor create additional  requirements for its field personnel. DOD also stated that progress has  been made in improving monitoring of CERP water projects and some of  the other areas we highlighted, but did not provide specific examples of  this progress in its official comments or when we met with DOD officials  in August 2010 to discuss our findings.  DOD also provided technical  comments, which we have included throughout this report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, USAID, and DOD. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix X.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) U.S. water projects in Afghanistan since 2002 and  the extent to which U.S. goals for Afghan water-sector development  assistance align with the goals of the Afghan government; (2) U.S.  agencies’ coordination of water-sector efforts among themselves and with  the Afghan government and the donor community; (3) U.S. agencies’  performance management efforts for water-sector projects; and (4) U.S.  agencies’ efforts to build sustainability into their water-sector projects.
To provide Afghanistan’s water sector, w for International D (DOD) and State (State), and implementing pa and Kabul, Afghanistan. In officials, such as the Controller managing the Commander’ fo water-related activities, and on  completed  completed water projects funded through the Good Performers Initiative,  elatively small compared with USAID and  although the total funding was r ID’s three ongoing water-exclusive  DOD funding. We reviewed USA projects and USAID’s four  T by USAID for water projects i the 2nd quar infrastructure projects com water-related activ related activities. These activities together accounted for of total USAID disbursed funding for water project fiscal year 2002 through th  an overview of U.S. government assistance to develop  e spoke with officials from the U.S. Agency  evelopment (USAID), the Departments of Defense  rtners in Washington, D.C.,   Kabul, we met with USAID program and budget  , and with DOD officials responsible for  s Emergency Response Program (CERP). We  cused on USAID’s ongoing and completed water-exclusive projects and  DOD’s CERP-funded ongoing and  water-related projects. We also included State’s ongoing and  water-exclusive projects completed since 2003.  hese projects represent about 50 percent of the total funding disbursed  n Afghanistan from fiscal year 2002 through  ter of fiscal year 2010. We also reviewed USAID’s 19 larger  pleted or ongoing since 2002 that contained  ities. From 13 of these projects, we identified 511 water-  about 50 percent  e 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2010.
We obtained and reviewed pr performance management  oject documents, such as project  plans, quarterly and annual reports, contracts,  and contract modifications; project work plans; and financial data to  assess USAID water-exclusive projects. We calculated funds awarded,  funds disbursed, and the unliquidated obligations balance for the w exclusive projects. In order to further assess USAID’s efforts to develop  Afghanistan’s water sector, we also obtained project details and finan cial  data on water-related activities of larger USAID infrastructure projects. W analyzed the types of water-related activities completed under these  projects and identified the total number of water-related activities and the  amount of funds disbursed for each water-related activity. To asses water-related projects, we reviewed CERP checkbook data, which we  obtained from DOD, to identify water-related projects where funding  could be directly attributed to the water sector and exclude those projects that did not fall under the scope of this report. DOD officials concurred  with the approach we took to identify projects, and with our final  selection. Additionally, we calculated totals for funds awarded, funds  disbursed, and the unliquidated obligations balance for the CERP water- related projects identified through this analysis.
To determine the extent to which U.S. and Afghanistan water-sector  development strategies aligned, we obtained and reviewed copies of the  U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan (2009 the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, and the accompanying  Water Resource Management Sector Strategy. We compared the strategie and relevant goals of the U.S. and Afghan documents, and based on this  analysis, we identified the six key areas of water-sector development a the goals associated with those issue areas. We also interviewed relevan U.S. and Afghan officials regarding the U.S. and Afghan water sector  strategies.
To assess how U.S. efforts have been coordinated among th government agencies and with the Afghan government and the donor  community, we reviewed pertinent U.S. documents, such as the U.S.  Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to  Afghanistan, the U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy for  Afghanistan, the Government Performance and Results Act, and other  GAO reports to identify requirements for coordination. We reviewed GAO  and Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reports  concerning U.S. agency coordination in Afghanistan and elsewhere and  met with officials from USAID, and the departments of Defense, State, and  Agriculture in Kabul to obtain an understanding of how they coordinated  their efforts to develop the Afghan water sector, the nature and frequency  of their coordination, and the extent to which they had institutionalized  their coordination efforts. We met with officials from DOD, USAID, and  e various U.S.  other agencies to discuss their respective project management data  systems for development projects and the extent to which they are  interoperable. We also met with Afghan ministry officials, as well as othe members of the donor community, to obtain their views of coordination  with U.S. agencies. We attended a meeting of the Infrastructure Working  Group in Kabul, and a meeting of the Southeast Afghanistan Water  Resources Assessment at Bagram Air Force Base, to observe interage coordination on water-related issues. We also attended a meeting of the  Technical Secretariat of the Supreme Council for Water Affairs  Management and talked with Afghan officials to obtain their views of U Afghan coordination on water-related issues. We attended a meeting o donor community concerning transboundary issues and obtained their  views of the nature and extent of donor coordination. We reviewed  minutes from a donor coordination meeting in January 2010 and re a spreadsheet that documented initial efforts at coordinating urban wa development in Afghanistan. In addition, we discussed the effectiveness  U.S.-Afghan coordination in other sectors, such as the energy sector, to  identify lessons learned and best practices that could be applied to the  water sector. The information on foreign law in this report is not a pr of our original analysis but is derived from interviews and secondary  sources.
To assess USAID’s and DOD’s efforts to manage and monitor water sector  projects, we reviewed pertinent GAO evaluations of performance  management practices to identify best practices. In addition, we examined USAID’s Automated Directives System requirements to identify the  agency’s procedures, requirements, and guidance. We did not address all  of the Automated Directives System performance management procedures  outlined in figure 6 of our report, and restricted our analysis to  information we were able to obtain over the course of our review. We  focused on those elements of the Automated Directives System  performance management and evaluation procedures that we determined  to be generally consistent with the requirements stipulated by USAID in  the applicable implementing partners’ contracts, cooperative agreements,  or grant award documents. Our review of these elements focused on five  of the seven USAID water-exclusive projects where we could find  sufficient program documentation of performance management activities,  and one of USAID’s large infrastructure projects—the Village-Based Water  Restoration in Ghor Province—that had a large water component. For  these projects, we reviewed USAID award documents, as well as  implementing partner planning, funding, and reporting documents,  including quarterly reports. Our review of these documents provided us  with information regarding the programs’ performance management  structure, goals, objectives, indicators, and targets. We examined the and other documents to determine the extent to which the Mission a implementers followed requirements, guidance, and best practices. We  also reviewed DOD Financial Management Regulation, volume 12, chapte 27, which addresses CERP, as well as Money as a Weapon System,  USFOR-A Pub 1-06, the CERP SOP. These two documents outlined  planning and monitoring requirements for CERP projects. In addition, we  reviewed prior GAO reports on CERP, which addressed performance  management. We discussed these issues with USAID and DOD officials in  Washington and Afghanistan, as well as staff from implementing partner  organizations.
To assess USAID’s and DOD’s efforts to address water project  sustainability in Afghanistan, we reviewed recent strategic documents on  Afghanistan, including the U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy  for 2009-2014, USAID’s Afghanistan Strategic Plan for 2005-2010, and the  USAID Afghanistan Mission PMP from 2006-2008. Based on our review o these documents, as well as our discussions with agency officials, we f  identified two key elements to ensuring project sustainability: enhancing  technical and managerial capacity to maintain projects within the  institution s with water-sector responsibilities, and ensuring funding is  available to keep projects operational after they have been completed.  Moreover, USAID staff with water-sector responsibilities concurred with  iewed  these elements at our exit conference with the agency. We also rev project documents for the six selected USAID water-sector projects we  ter- included in our review of USAID’s efforts to manage and monitor wa sector projects. Our review of these documents provided us with  information regarding the projects’ approaches to sustainability. We also  apter 27,  reviewed DOD Financial Management Regulation, volume 12, ch -A  which addresses CERP, as well as Money as a Weapon System, USFOR ainability- Pub 1-06, the CERP SOP. These documents outline required sust related procedures for CERP projects. We also discussed these issues with USAID and DOD officials in Washington and Afghanistan, as well as staff from implementing partner organizations.
section_title: Appendix II: USAID Water-Exclusive Projects and Funding Data
section_title: Appendix III: Chronology of USAID’s Water- Related Activities with Funding Data
paragraphs: Total funding  disbursed for  ater activities 15,000,000  (Planned) /Afghanistan.
section_title: Appendix IV: Good Performers Initiative Water-Related Projects and Funding as of End of March 2010
subsections: section_title: Project location by province
section_title: Appendix V: Provincial Locations of USAID Water-Exclusive Projects
subsections: section_title: Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation Project (AUWSP)
paragraphs: Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and  Technology Transfer (AWATT)
section_title: Complete
paragraphs: Afhanitan Urban Water and Sanitation Project (AUWSP) $7.
subsections: section_title: Afhanitan Water, Ariculture, and Technoloy Tranfer (AWATT)
paragraphs: $19.
section_title: Afhan Stainable Water Supply and Sanitation Project (SWSS)
paragraphs: Rural Water Supply  and Sanitation Commercialization of Afhanitan Water and Sanitation Activity (CAWSA)
Kabul Environmental Sanitation and Health Project Emerency Health and Water for Kabul 0 5 10 15 20 25 5 40 Total project award (doll in million)
section_title: Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation Project (SWSS)
section_title: Ongoing
paragraphs: Afhanitan Urban Water and Sanitation Project (AUWSP) $7.
subsections: section_title: Afhanitan Water, Ariculture, and Technoloy Tranfer (AWATT)
paragraphs: $19.
section_title: Afhan Stainable Water Supply and Sanitation Project (SWSS)
paragraphs: Rural Water Supply  and Sanitation Commercialization of Afhanitan Water and Sanitation Activity (CAWSA)
Kabul Environmental Sanitation and Health Project Emerency Health and Water for Kabul 0 5 10 15 20 25 5 40 Total project award (doll in million)
section_title: Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and Sanitation Activity (CAWSA)
section_title: Ongoing
paragraphs: Afhanitan Urban Water and Sanitation Project (AUWSP) $7.
Afhanitan Water, Ariculture, and Technoloy Tranfer (AWATT) $19.
subsections: section_title: Bahlan
paragraphs: The Afhan Stainable Water Supply and Sanitation Project (SWSS)
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Commercialization of Afhanitan Water and Sanitation Activity (CAWSA)
section_title: Complete
paragraphs: 0 5 10 15 20 25 5 40 Total project award (doll in million)
section_title: Appendix VI: Chronology of USAID Water- Related Activities
paragraphs: Appendix VI: Chronology of USAID Water- Related Activities water activities  Description of project’s water activities  $17,465,370  The REFS program sought to promote  economic recovery and political stability by  repairing infrastructure in Afghanistan. Water  projects under this program focused on  repairing irrigation systems, drilling wells for  potable water, and cleaning and repairing  irrigation canals.  10,000,000  The water projects carried out under this  program focused on the construction and  rehabilitation of irrigation structures and  drainage canals.  469,802  This project completed 5 water projects. The  projects included the construction of piped  water supply systems, the digging of a well,  and the construction of a water intake system.   2,765,908  Approximately 36 water projects were  completed as part of the larger parent project.  They included projects such as the  construction of a water supply network; the  provision of potable water; the construction of  flood control protection walls; irrigation system  improvements; canal rehabilitation; and the  construction of dams and irrigation systems.
Initiative to Promote Afghan  Civil Society (IPACS)
Expanding Access to Private  Sector Health Products and  Services  1,000,000  The Human Resources and Logistical Support  program was launched to provide a broad  range of human resources and logistical  support to help design, monitor, and support  the activities of USAID-funded contractors. In  addition, the program also sought to provide  consulting services to selected ministries of the  Afghan government. Subsequently, the  program provided a transboundary water-rights  adviser to help the Ministry of Energy and  Water develop water policies for negotiations  with neighbors in other countries.
Support for Basic Package of  Health Services and Essential  Package of Hospital Services  Delivery  Support for Service Delivery  and Quality of Basic Services  in Afghanistan  8,229,833  The Local Governance and Community  Development Project included approximately  174 water projects. Projects included the  rehabilitation of irrigation canals; the  construction of wells for drinking water; repairs  of drinking water pipe schemes; the cleaning of  kareezes; the installation of drinking water  hand pumps; the construction of water  reservoirs; and the construction of check  dams, among others.  1,059,449  This project included approximately 28 water  projects. Specific water projects included the  construction of a school drinking water  reservoir with filter system; wells for drinking  water; water supply pipe schemes; irrigation  canal cleaning; the construction of irrigation  culverts; irrigation canal rehabilitation; and the  construction of an irrigation system.  187,950  The ASMED program included approximately  18 water projects. These projects included the  construction of latrine facilities; market  sanitation system improvements; wells for  drinking water; and drainage system  improvements.
Description of project’s water activities  1,491,589  This program focuses on the conservation o n natural resources and increasing vegetatio critical watersheds. Water projects have  included increasing access to improved  drinking water; providing hygiene promotion  training sessions; and increasing the number of hectares with sustainable improvement to  irrigation water.  118,163  AMSP included one water project, a two-ph water supply construction project in Khost province.
Alternative Development and  Alternative Livelihoods  Program Expansion North  and West Project  367,477  This project completed approximately 17 wate projects. Thirteen of these projects involved  the cleaning of canals and the four others  focused on the rehabilitation of kareezes.
While the water projects are still consid be planned projects, they will focus on the  construction of multipurpose dams and  impoundments. a provided by USAID/Afghanistan.
section_title: Appendix VII: Prioritized List of Unfunded U.S. Afghan Water Projects, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014
paragraphs: Improve comm management o watershed ma unity and farm level supply and demand  f irrigation water resources and upstream  n new reservoir gates and powerhouse that  would raise th allow for signifi e water level and provide additional  power plus  igation of agricultural lands  Install new reservoir gates and powerhouse that would raise  the water level and provide additional power plus allow for  significantly increased irrigation of agricultural lands  urpose Dams (Plan & Design)
15   Next step in th the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to design 25 small dams  for irrigation and power production with associated watershed  managemen o reduce soil erosion and siltation t t )
Urban Water Supply and Sanitation (Plan  & Design) cision Memorandum, March 2010.
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
section_title: Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition, the following staff contributed to the report: Godwin Agbara,  Assistant Director; Elizabeth Guran; Kevin Remondini; Joseph Carney;  Burns Chamberlain; Emily Gupta; Bruce Kutnick; Karen Deans; Cindy  Gilbert; Jena Sinkfield; Etana Finkler; Elizabeth Curda; Terrell Dorn;   Anu Mittal; and Marcus Oliver.