Evaluation of water management for development
policy
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Terms of Reference – short version 25-01-2016

1

CONTENTS
1. Background and purpose ....................................................................... 3
2. Expenditures ........................................................................................ 4
3. Evaluation scope, criteria and questions .................................................. 5
4. Methodology ........................................................................................ 8
5. Stakeholders ........................................................................................ 9
6. Organisation and planning .................................................................... 10
Annex 1 Evaluation matrix ........................................................................ 12
Annex 2 Activities selected for indepth study ............................................... 16
Annex 3 Abbreviations .............................................................................. 22
Annex 4 References.................................................................................. 23

2

1.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

These terms of reference (ToR) pertain to the evaluation of the water management for
development policy of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA, policy article 2.2). The Policy and
Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) of the MFA has programmed this policy evaluation to be
completed in 2017. The evaluation will focus on water management, which is part of the broader
MFA Water for Development policy, next to drinking water supply and sanitation. The water
management policy evaluation will cover a 10 year period from 2006 to 2015. As from 2006
improved water management became a prominent part of the policy. The total budget for water
related activities for this period is estimated to be around € 1,6 billion, of which on average 44%
was spent on water management activities. The policy evaluation adheres to the government wide
regulation for periodic policy evaluation (RPE 2014).
The Netherlands has supported water programs and projects in the framework of development
cooperation since the 1960s. The main thrust of water for development policy shifted from a
predominantly technical and construction-oriented perspective (drinking water supply, irrigation
and drainage) towards a more integrated one, focusing on environmental, social, economic,
governance and institutional aspects. The shift is in line with views of the international community
and reflects an expanding perception of problems, from water as a basic need and requirement for
development to water as being at the core of sustainable development and under increasing
demand as well as threat from unsustainable use, pollution, climate change and other forces (Rio
+5, +10, +20, World Water fora, UN Agenda for Sustainable Development).
From 2006 onwards the focus of the Dutch water management development policy has been on
creating national and sub-national water resource management plans and stimulating improved
trans-boundary water management in several countries and basins in Africa and Asia. The 2013
development policy note ‘A world to gain: a new agenda for aid, trade and foreign investments’
confirms the priority for water, in line with the ‘Water for Development’ policy letter to the Dutch
parliament of January 2012. The latter stipulates the focus to be on improved water management
in agriculture, management of (trans-boundary) watersheds and safe delta’s. The policy assigns a
strong role to the Dutch water sector in pursuing and achieving policy objectives. The level of
ambition in terms of allocated budget should be at least that of improved access to clean drinking
water supply and sanitation.
The MFA Department for Inclusive Green Growth (IGG) is the responsible policy department. The
main policy instruments are programs delegated to Dutch Embassies and centrally funded
programs and projects of multilateral organizations, universities/knowledge centers, NGO’s and
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). IGG works with thematic experts, including water experts
attached to Dutch Embassies. IGG works closely with the Ministry of Infrastructure and
Environment (MI&E) in engaging Netherlands water sector partners in implementing the policy;
and with the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) responsible for management of instruments
that involve Dutch water sector partners in policy implementation.
The Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the MFA (IOB) has taken up the policy
evaluation in view of its relevance. Improved water management is not only in itself a priority for
Dutch development cooperation, but is also expected to contribute to the MFA’s development
policy spearhead food security (policy article 2.1) and climate change (policy article 2.3). In
addition, the policy is expected to contribute to Dutch trade and investment promotion (policy
article 1.2). The policy evaluation complements other IOB studies, in particular the IOB policy
evaluation of Dutch development support to drinking water supply and sanitation (IOB, 2012) and
the on-going IOB policy evaluation of development support to food security.
Against this background the purpose of the policy evaluation is to contribute to the accounting for
the Water for Development policy as well as to learning, by description and analysis of policy
implementation and results and assessment of its effectiveness and efficiency and by deriving
possible issues, lessons and recommendations for future policy.

3

2.

EXPENDITURES

Total ODA expenditures in the period 2006-2015 amounted to € 1,5951 million of which € 7002
million, or 44% was for water management and the remaining €895 million, or 56%, was for
drinking water supply and sanitation activities. Figure 1 shows ODA expenditures for the two parts
of the water budget per year for the relevant period. With the exception of 2011 and 2012 most
years show expenditures which are roughly evenly distributed between water management and
drinking water supply and sanitation.
Figure 1 ODA expenditures on water management and drinking water and sanitation for the period
2006-2015

Figure 2 shows total delegated expenditures for the period for partner countries with a water
program and for countries that are supported in the framework of Water Mondiaal. In these
countries 52% (€ 823 million) of total water related expenditures were made. The figure seems to
indicate that countries with larger budgets tend to spend it equally on both water management
and drinking water and sanitation while other countries tend to focus on one of them.
Figure 2 ODA expenditures on water management and drinking water and sanitation for the period
2006-2015

1 This amount was retrieved from the MFA’s activity management information system based on SBE’s (sub policy lines) and CRS

purpose codes (OESO-DAC) reported to be related to water, these are listed in annex 3.
2 The distinction between water management and drinking water and sanitation is made based on SBE’s and CRS purpose codes.

4

65% (€1,041 million) of the total expenditures were delegated to the embassies; the remaining
35% (€ 554 million) was spent centrally.
In addition to the support through funds delegated to Embassies water management activities in
16 countries were supported through centrally funded instruments, in particular ORIO, PPP ‘Fund
Sustainable Water’ facility, DRIVE and other instruments mentioned and an unknown number of
countries via supported multilateral, other PPPs and NGO water management related activities.
155 water management activities were identified for which financial information has been
retrieved. Total expenditures on the 155 activities amount to € 697 million. The 155 activities are
divided into the three policy objectives and a category ‘other’, which comprises activities that could
not directly be related to one of the policy objectives.
Figure 3 shows that € 194 million of total expenditures of € 697 million are related to water
productivity; € 114 million of expenditures involve the drafting or supporting of water
management resource plans on a national or sub-national level, for a specific river basin, delta or
aquifer. A further € 70 million of the expenditures is spent on activities involving trans-boundary
water management. In total, activities on these policy objectives cover 54% of the expenditures.
The category other includes activities on which €318 million, nearly 46%, of the budget is spent.
Figure 3 ODA water management expenditures of 155 activities specified per policy objective

Activities in this category more generally aim at capacity building or knowledge creation in the
water sector or in the domain of climate change adaptation. Also, it contains activities whose exact
destination is yet unknown; for example the PPP ‘fund sustainable water’, where activities are
selected based on a call for proposals procedure and not all funds have as yet been allocated.
Therefore, the final amount spent on the major policy objectives is likely to be higher than 54% of
total expenditures.

3.

EVALUATION SCOPE, CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

Scope
The evaluation covers the section on improved water management of the MFA Foreign Aid and
Trade policy article 2. The section pertains to ODA funded country programs and centrally funded
activities of multilateral organizations, universities/knowledge centers, NGO’s and public private
partnerships (PPPs). In addition a small number of activities with a significant water management
focus or component funded outside this policy article will be studied. As explained in chapter 3 155
ODA funded activities, 125 within and 30 outside the policy article, with a budget over euro 1
million, amounting to a total of € 697 million, and ongoing or completed after 2007 were
identified. The list of 155 activities with expenditures of more than €1 million was used to select
activities for more in-depth study, including field study. The year 2006 is taken as the beginning

5

of the period covered (2006-2015) as from 2006 improved water management became a
prominent part of MFA Water for Development policy. MI&E funded programs that aim to be
instrumental to the MFA policy, in particular the program Partners for Water (PvW) and Water
Mondiaal, will be studied as well but the focus of the policy assessment will be on the performance
of the MFA.
The evaluation criterion effectiveness is defined as the achievement of the expected Water
Management for Development policy outcomes. Over time the overall policy intervention logic
largely remained the same, except for the role assigned to the Dutch water sector as from 2009
and the addition of the water productivity objective as from 2012. This policy change will be taken
into account. Specific attention will be paid to the question if improvements in water management
have come about while also issues of climate change, environment and other priority policy
themes (e.g. food security) were captured; and if such improvements have come about while
participation and benefits for lower income groups and women beneficiaries were maintained or
improved. Sustainability is taken up as dimension of effectiveness, referring to the likelihood that
actual and anticipated benefits will be resilient to risks beyond the assistance provided.

Efficiency refers to how optimally resources are converted into benefits, meaning minimizing costs
of resources and/or maximizing outputs and outcomes for a given input while ensuring quality of
results. For this evaluation the criterion refers to the role of the MFA and embassies in promoting
collaboration between concerned actors within government, within the Dutch water sector and in
partner countries and complementarity and synergy between activities in order for the combined
effect to be greater than the sum of the individual effects. For the policy objective on water
productivity the criterion further refers to cost of interventions compared to the number of
beneficiaries and their benefits of increased water productivity; for water management to costs
and duration of achieving key results compared to what was planned, such as with reference to
water management information, agreed water management plans and institutional arrangements,
taking into account quality of results.
For the learning purpose of the policy evaluation the study will endeavor to capture experience
based policy lessons or understandings and issues that arose over the period covered. Specific
topics of interests include the forms of MFA support/funding proven to be most relevant; the
working of interventions and approaches; integration with land use planning; in country and cross
border social, institutional and other factors affecting results; PPPs; the (potential) role of the
Dutch water sector; innovations of delta areas as focus of Dutch expertise; issues in (financial)
monitoring and if these differed between implementing agents.
Evaluation questions
The main evaluation question is:
What has been the contribution of the Dutch MFA to water management in developing
countries in the period 2006 – 2015?
The main question will be answered through sets of sub questions. The first set of questions
contains descriptive questions that pertain to the policy cycle (what happened?). This is followed
by sets of questions clustered around the two evaluation criteria. The findings from the different
sets of questions will inform the evaluative conclusions.
The key questions are:
Policy cycle
1. Why is water management in developing countries considered to be in need of international
assistance and why did the MFA decide to take up the responsibility of improving it?
2. What have been the MFA expenditures by year and in total by policy objective, partner
country, targeted geographic area, channel, within and outside the policy article. What
proportion was spent on Dutch water sector contracts by year and in total?

6

3. In what way was the policy implemented (government institutional setting, nature and
interconnection of instruments, changes in orientation and instruments and why)?
4. Did the policy to engage the Dutch water sector manifest itself in new policy mechanisms;
what was been done to ensure demand driven engagement?
5. What has been the approach to monitoring and evaluation of development results? What
evaluations are available and which experience based policy lessons and issues have been
reported?
Effectiveness
Water productivity
6. Did MFA support contribute to sufficient quality and quantity of water at the right time
available to farmers and to an improved relation between the quantity of water used and
agricultural production?
7. Did the MFA support contribute to an enabling environment for and capacity of Water User
Associations (WUAs) for operation and maintenance (O&M) of water infrastructure in a
participatory way, also to augment abilities of individual farmers to use representation,
knowledge and skills to improve their access to water and on-farm (water) management?.
8. Did farmers pay for WUA services provided and do WUAs transparently account for funds
received and expenditures?
Water management plans
9. Did MFA support contribute to approved water management plans?
10. Do the supported water management plans include principles of integrated development
and management of water, stakeholder participation and transparency of processes,
equitable development without compromising vital ecosystems?
11. Did MFA support contribute to strengthening of the enabling (political, institutional,
information, water infrastructure and O&M) environment for actual implementation of the
plans?
12. Have budgets for implementation of water management plans been allocated and are plans
implemented?
Trans-boundary water management
13. Did MFA support contribute to strengthened institutional arrangements and formal
agreements over trans-boundary water sharing, allocation and management between
countries; do these take into account global norms for management of international water
streams?
14. Did MFA support contribute to a strengthened enabling (political, institutional, water
infrastructure development and O&M) environment for actual implementation of
arrangements and agreements?
15. Have governments of riparian countries allocated budgets and/ or taken other measures to
follow up and sustain arrangements and implementation of agreements, including joint
monitoring?
Cross cutting
16. Have improvements in water management come about while also issues of environment,
climate change and/or other priority policy themes were addressed?
17. Have improvements come about while maintaining or improving water management
benefits for lower income groups and women beneficiaries? In how many layers of decision
making are these groups represented?
18. Have there been reported positive and/ or negative side effects?
Efficiency
19. Was the MFA able to fulfill its role as expert, broker and diplomat in enhancing collaboration
between concerned actors within the Dutch government, the Netherlands and within
partner countries, and enhance complementarity and synergy of activities?

7

20. Has the involvement of the Dutch water sector led to information, knowledge and
technologies that are relevant and practical for intended beneficiaries to use?. Has it
leveraged efforts of concerned donors, policy and/or implementing agencies?
21. For the water productivity objective: what have been the costs of supported activities
compared to the number of beneficiaries and their water productivity and agricultural
production benefits?
22. For water management: what have been costs and duration of achieving key results
compared to what the original planning, with reference to information (systems), water
management plans, arrangements and agreements, taking into account quality of results.
Policy options3
23. What options are available to increase efficiency and effectiveness?
24. What options are available to decrease the budget with 20%?
The research questions are formulated in such a way that they are in line with the questions
formulated in the RPE 2014. The way in which the RPE questions are covered by the research
questions is listed below.
RPE questions Part 1, questions 1a and b about which (part of the) article is evaluated and
when the other parts will be evaluated is answered in these ToR in the introduction and
chapter 5.
Part 2, questions 2 a. and b. on motivation for the policy and responsibility of the MFA is
addressed through question 1 and 3 in the ToR.
Part 3, questions 3.a, b and c on description of the policy fields and expenditure are addressed
in questions 2, 3 and 4.
Part 4 on available evaluations is taken up in question 5.
Part 5 on policy effectiveness and efficiency is taken up questions 6-22 in the ToR.
Part 6 on measures to enhance policy effectiveness and efficiency is taken up as question 23.
Part 7 on options for significant decrease of budget is taken up as question 24.

4.

METHODOLOGY

The policy Theory of Change will be a key reference for the evaluation and the evaluation
questions will steer systematic data collection from different sources.
The following figure pictures the MFA’s policy Theory of Change for support to water management
for development in partner countries. The policy broadly covers the policy including the link to
Dutch trade and climate change agenda as from 2009 and the addition of the water productivity
objective in agriculture as from 2012.

3

An attempt to answering these questions will be made based on the findings of the policy evaluation by the
responsible policy department(s) in collaboration with IOB.

8

Figure 3 Theory of Change, source: DGIS 2015
Annex 1 (evaluation matrix) shows for each question the information sources and for questions
related to the evaluation criteria indicators that provide a further reference for data collection and
analysis. At program and project level the respective results frameworks will serve as point of
reference for further identification of indicators.
The approach to information gathering and analysis will be both top down (from policy objectives
to budgets, to instruments and reported results) as well as bottom up from targeted water shed
areas and partner country contexts to the specific MFA engagement and interventions and results.
The information gathering will to a great extent be through review of available documentation,
supplemented by interviews of informants from the range of stakeholders in the Netherlands and
in developing partner countries as well as from multilateral and other partners. For the MFA
supported water management programs in the three countries that received most funding,
Bangladesh, Indonesia and Mozambique and for a selection of major activities further
supplementary interviews of stakeholders and quantitative and qualitative field research is
envisaged. A brief justification and description by selected activity for in-depth study is provided in
annex 2. Triangulation will be applied, meaning using different information sources and collection
methods to arrive at a wide breadth of information, analyze evidence carefully and base findings
on information that is validated from multiple sources.

5. STAKEHOLDERS
The identified primary stakeholders for this policy evaluation are:
-

Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Inclusive Green Growth policy division;

-

Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment;

-

Netherlands embassies in partner countries selected for water management support;

-

Netherlands Enterprise Agency, Netherlands Water Partnership;

9

-

Concerned authorities, other donors, executing and implementing agencies in countries
selected for policy relevance, effectiveness and efficiency analysis.

-

Targeted final beneficiaries.

The MFA’s policy department and water experts of embassies for partner countries will be asked to
comment on the draft ToRs and reports for the policy evaluation. For the qualitative study of
country programs and selected activities the concerned Embassies and country authorities will be
asked to comment on the ToR. A reference group composed of stakeholders’ representatives and
external experts will be established to comment and advise IOB on the evaluation design and draft
reports.

6. ORGANISATION AND PLANNING
Responsible IOB manager and researcher: Rita Tesselaar
Researcher: Joep Schenk
IOB co readers: Ferko Bodnar and Antonie de Kemp
Chair Reference group: Geert Geut, Deputy Director IOB
Members Reference Group:
1. Ms. Ebru Akdag, Representative Ministry of Finance, Inspectie der Rijksfinanciën
2. Prof. Eelco van Beek, professor Modeling Integrated Water Resources Management,
University of Twente
3. Mr. Aart van der Horst, MFA policy department Inclusive Green Growth (IGG)
4. Mr. Maarten Gischler, MFA policy department Inclusive Green Growth (IGG)
5. Ms. K. Molenaar, MI&E International Water Cluster
6. Mr. Dennis van Peppen, RVO, coordinator Partners for Water
7. Mr. Bert Vermaat, MFA Department of Finace and Economic Affairs
8. Prof. Linden Vincent, emeritus professor of Irrigation and Water Engeneering, Wageningen
University
9. Prof. Pieter van der Zaag, professor of Water Resources Management, UNESCO-IHE, Delft
Planning of the policy evaluation:

When

Table 2 Planning of the policy evaluation
What

Nov/Dec 2015

•
•
•
•
•

Jan./Feb 2016

•
•
•

By whom

Constitution of reference group
Consultation of peer reviewers, reference group, MFA water
experts, MinFin on draft ToR
Finalization of ToR
Collection of evaluation reports
Start of information gathering by country, targeted geographic
area based on available information sources

IOB

Preparing and tendering ToR qualitative field study of country
programs and activities Bangladesh, Indonesia and Mozambique
Consultation of embassies and authorities
Ongoing information gathering and analysis

IOB

10

Feb/March 2016

•

Selection and contracting consultants for three qualitative field
studies
•
Determining quality proposals consultants
•
Contracting consultants for studies

IOB

April 2016

•

Inception phase for consultants and finalization of ToR for each of
the three country programs and case studies
•
Determining contents qualitative studies based on:
o ToC and evaluation questions/ToR
o Embassies’ MASPs, interventions, reports
o Consultation of stakeholders

Consultants,
IOB

April - Dec. 2016

•

Conducting of three field studies Bangladesh, Indonesia and
Mozambique:
•
Document review, interviews/FGD’s range of stakeholders
•
Report writing reports
Study of further 5 selected activities for more in-depth study
based on available documentation and interviews

Consultants/IOB

Further document and data review including documents on
category ‘other activities’, financial data, evaluation reports
Supplementary interviews of range of stakeholders within Dutch
Government, the Netherlands and abroad
Writing of chapter on descriptive questions related to policy cycle

IOB

Writing final report
Soliciting and addressing comments of peer reviewers, reference
group, MFA water experts, other key stakeholders

IOB

•
Jun 2016-Dec 2017

•
•
•

January-March 2017

•
•

IOB

Deliverables:
IOB is responsible for delivering the following reports:
Two reports, one per project, on quantitative impact studies: Blue Gold, Bangladesh; and
Participative Sector Irrigation Project, Indonesia (ongoing studies partly contracted to
consultants);
Three reports, one per country, on qualitative evaluation of selected partner country programs
and activities: Bangladesh, Indonesia and Mozambique;
Synthesis report on evaluation of MFA Water Management for Development Policy.
The three qualitative field studies of country programs will be contracted to an independent
consultant with a mix of thematic and evaluation expertise. IOB will join the consultant’s mission
to at least one of the selected countries to help ensure consistency between the sub studies and
focus as per the ToR for the policy evaluation. The specific ToR by country for the qualitative field
study of country programs will be detailed by the consultant in line with the ToR for the policy
evaluation, in close consultation with and subject to approval of IOB.

11

ANNEX 1 EVALUATION MATRIX
Evaluation questions

Specific topics/ indicators

Information sources

Policy cycle
1.Why is water management in developing
countries considered to be in need of international
assistance and why did the MFA decide to take up
the responsibility of improving it?

literature, MFA policy documents, explanatory
memorandum (EM) to MFA budgets

2. What have been the MFA expenditures by year
and in total by policy objective, partner country,
targeted geographic area, channel, within and
outside the policy article. What proportion was
spent on Dutch water sector contracts by year and
in total?
3. In what way was the policy implemented
(institutional setting, nature and interconnection of
instruments, changes in orientation)?

Piramide, EM to MFA budgets, RVO data

4. Did the policy to engage the Dutch water sector
manifest itself in new policy mechanisms; what
was done to ensure demand driven engagement?

Interviews including: IGG, MI&E, other ministries, RVO,
Dutch water sector informants, embassies

5. What has been the approach to monitoring and
evaluation? What evaluations are available and
what policy lessons and issues have been
reported?

Policy documents, appraisal documents, interviews with
involved stakeholders including: IGG, MI&E, RVO,
embassies, implementing agents in the Netherlands and
partner countries

Specific topics of interest for lessons learning include the
forms of MFA support/funding proven to be most relevant;
the working of interventions and approaches; in country and
cross border social, institutional and other factors affecting
results; integration with land use planning; PPPs; the
(potential) role of the Dutch water sector; innovations of
delta areas as focus of Dutch expertise; issues in (financial)
monitoring and if these differed between implementing
agents.

Evaluation reports, policy level results reporting, MASPs,
annual reports, interviews including: IGG, RVO, embassies,
water experts interviews of range of stakeholders within
the government, Dutch water sector, partner countries

12

Water productivity
6. Did the MFA support contribute to quality and
quantity and right time of water availability to
farmers; and increase in agricultural productivity
per m3 of water?

Number of beneficiary farmers (m/f); increase in quality and
quantity and right timing of water availability; increase in
agricultural yield per m3 of water

7. Did the MFA support contribute to Water User
Associations (WUAs) capacity to provide sustained
operation and maintenance (O&M) for water
infrastructure in a participatory way, also to
augment ability of individual farmers to use new
representation, knowledge and skills to improve
access to water and their on-farm (water)
management
8. Did farmers pay for services and do WUAs
transparently account for funds receipts and
expenditures?
Water management plans

Changes in WUA management (technical, social/political,
Appraisal documents, evaluation reports, impact studies,
financial); in service delivery for works and O&M, including
WUAs records, interviews including WUAs and farmers
capacity to commission work and ensure effective execution; (m/f)
handing over of responsibility to WUAs; use of knowledge and
skills by individual farmers; availability and use of WUA funds

9. Did MFA support contribute to approved water
management plans?

Approved wm-plans; wm-plan reviews taken place at
different levels; quality of plans (independent expert
assessment)
10. Do the supported water management plans
Range of stakeholders involved at different levels;
include global principles of integrated development involvement of other Ministries outside water; information
and management of water, stakeholder
sharing
participation and transparency of processes,
equitable development, without compromising
vital ecosystems?
11. Did MFA support contribute to the
Defined and accepted institutional arrangements; delegation
strengthening of the enabling (political,
of decision making and funding for multi-level actions;
institutional, information, water infrastructure)
strategic working between international funders, PPPs, NGO’s,
environment for actual implementation of the
embedded planning capability; information provision; water
plans?
infrastructure developed including O&M
12. Have budgets for implementation of water
Inclusion of plans in government's budgets, policy
management plans been allocated and are plans
documents, implementation plans; progress in achievement
implemented?
of wm-plan results

Appraisal documents, evaluation reports, impact studies,
interviews including implementing agents, farmers (m/f)

WUAs records, interviews including WUAs and farmers
(m/f), impact studies

wm-plans, evaluations, interviews with involved
stakeholders including embassies, executing actors,
authorities and other stakeholders in concerned country.
wm-plans, evaluations, interviews with relevant
stakeholders including: embassies, executing actor,
authorities and other (m/f) stakeholders in concerned
country.

Documentation on arrangements and procedures,
evaluations, interviews with involved stakeholders
including: embassies, executing and implementing actors,
authorities and other stakeholders in concerned country.
Policy and budget documents, evaluations, interviews
including: embassies, authorities, executing actors and
other stakeholders in receiving country.

Transboundary water management

13

13. Did MFA support contribute to strengthened
arrangements and formal agreements over transboundary water sharing, allocation, conservation
and management between countries; do these
take into account global norms for international
water streams?

Defined and accepted trans-boundary policy and regulation;
allocation and conservation rules and water rights;
enforcement water rules and conflict arbitration

Appraisal documents, evaluations, interviews of concerned
water experts, responsible water authorities and (m/f) user
groupings within the watershed including farmers,
industry, fishermen, informants on ecosystem; and
involved politicians from riparian countries.

14. Did MFA support contribute to the
strengthening of the enabling (political,
institutional, information, water infrastructure)
environment for actual realization of arrangements
and agreements?

Defined and accepted institutional arrangement; strategic
working between international funders, NGO’s, PPPs;
information provision; infrastructure development including
O&M

Appraisal documents, evaluations, interviews with relevant
stakeholders including: embassies, executing actor, water
authorities, other key stakeholders in riparian countries

15. Have concerned governments allocated
budgets and/or taken other measures to follow up
and sustain arrangements and implementation of
agreements, including joint monitoring?

Inclusion in riparian countries’ policies and budgets;
implementation plans; joint monitoring of follow up

Appraisal documents, evaluations, interviews with relevant
stakeholders including: embassies, executing actor, water
authorities and other key stakeholders in riparian countries

16. Have improvements in water management
come about while also issues of climate change,
environment or other priority policy objectives
were captured?

Environmental assessments; reported “win win” results

Appraisal documents, result fiches, evaluation reports,
impact studies, interviews including IGG, embassies, donor
partners, Dutch water sector and other implementing
agencies, recipient stakeholders

17. Have improvements come about while
maintaining or improving water management
benefits for lower income groups and women
beneficiaries? In how many layers of decision
making are these groups represented?

Social and gender specific results reporting; participation in
project structures and WUAs

activity documentation, result fiches, evaluation reports,
interviews including IGG, embassies, donor partners, Dutch
water sector and other implementing agencies

18. Have there been reported positive and/ or
negative side effects?

Reported side effects

Appraisal documents, evaluation reports, impact studies,
interviews including IGG, embassies, donor partners, Dutch
water sector actors and other implementing agencies

Cross-cutting

Efficiency

14

19. Was MFA able to fulfill its role as expert,
broker and diplomat in enhancing collaboration
between concerned actors within the Dutch
Government, the Netherlands water sector and
partner countries and complementarity and
synergy between activities?

Reported forms of collaboration, complementarities,
synergies and MFA contribution

interviews MFA water experts and informants from the
range of stakeholders, including MI&E, RVO, concerned
water sector actors, stakeholders in partner countries

20. Has involvement of the Dutch water sector led
to information, knowledge and technologies
practical to the use of beneficiaries and has it
leveraged efforts of other donors, governments
and implementing agencies?
21. For the water productivity objective: what
have been the costs of supported activities
compared to the number of beneficiaries and their
water productivity and agricultural production
benefits?
22. For water management plans: have the cost
and duration of key results achievement been as
planned, taking into account the quality of these
results?
Policy options

Use and stakeholders’ appreciation of specific Dutch water
sector inputs; follow up policies and/or investments by
concerned stakeholders

Evaluation reports, interviews including RVO, Dutch water
sector informants, embassies, partner country
stakeholders, donor partners

Costs of interventions compared to number of beneficiary
farmers and their benefits

Progress reports, evaluation reports, impact studies

cost of interventions compared to planned duration of key
results achievement compared to planning

appraisal memoranda, evaluation reports, interviews of
MFA water experts, field studies in three selected countries
including interviews implementing agents

23. What options are available to increase
efficiency and effectiveness?

Study findings, interviews including IGG, MI&E, embassies

24. What options are available to decrease budget
with 20%?

Study findings, interviews including IGG, MI&E, embassies

15

ANNEX 2 ACTIVITIES SELECTED FOR IN-DEPTH STUDY
Water productivity
Bangladesh – Blue Gold (2012-2020, € 50 million, tendered and contribution arrangement with
GoB)
Justification:
Blue Gold adheres to the water productivity policy objective. However, the project is broader in the
sense that decentralized management of polders and its infrastructure adheres to the second
policy objective as well. Also, investments in both water management infrastructure and capacity
building at WUA level are foreseen, making it possible to identify impacts at household level.
Objectives:
-

50000 households less in poverty
850 cooperatives are functioning
80000 households have improved their food security

Strategy:
Farmer cooperatives are created and mobilized. For each cooperative a plan is made with respect
to water management and agricultural extension services. Infrastructure is rehabilitated by the
BWDB in consultation with the cooperatives. Also, cooperatives will execute activities that help
their members improve their access to value chains such as credit services. Because of this, the
members will see the necessity and benefits of the cooperative and therefore more willing to
support it, increasing the effectiveness and sustainability.
Indonesia – Participative sector irrigation project (2004-2011(2014), $ 15 million, ADB trust fund)
Justification:
The participative sector irrigation project adheres to the water productivity policy objective,
although this objective was introduced only in 2012. However, due to its nature this project should
provide interesting insights that relate to water productivity. Also, due to the projects nature; it
includes capacity development at water user and all government levels and it tries to link irrigation
planning to district, province and basin planning, it adheres to the second policy objective as well.
Lastly, investments in both water management infrastructure and capacity building at WUA level
were part of the project, making it possible to identify impacts at household level.
Objectives:
-

Sustainable, decentralized management of irrigation infrastructure
Increased yields from irrigated agriculture

Strategy:
Creation/strengthening of 6250 water user groups and federations and the training of 36250
farmers on irrigation management skills. Then, irrigation infrastructure is rehabilitated and
ownership transferred to water user groups. Also, at district level the formulating of directives and
policies with respect to water management and the drafting of irrigation management plans is
supported.
Egypt – Better irrigation service IIIMP (2005-2015, € 20 million, tendered and contribution
arrangement with WB and MWRI)
Justification:

16

IIIMP adheres to the water productivity policy objective although it started before this policy
objective was introduced. However, the project is still expected to provide useful insights related
to this policy objective. Also, the broad nature of this project including decentralization and
empowerment of local water users make it interesting for the second policy objective as well.
Objectives:
-

Introduction and development of sustainable, decentralized, participative water user
groups.
Mainstreaming the role of women
Improvement of environment
Efficient irrigation techniques disseminated to farmers
Strengthening the capacity of local partners

Strategy:
Capacity building before rehabilitation of infrastructure to ensure the sustainability of investments.
3000 water user groups will be created at Mesqa-level and 144 at canal-level. At district level 48
planning boards are created. Also the national water institution will be reorganized and a M&E
system will be introduced.
Regional Africa Sahel and Horn of Africa: ICRAF food and water security (2013-2018, € 40 million,
WB CGIAR fund)
Justification:
ICRAF adheres to the water productivity policy objective. Also, impact at household is to be
expected. The program started only recently and due to the innovative character of the project,
impact at this stage is not likely to be identified. Therefore, project documents will be used to
assess the progress of the project.
Objectives:
-

Improvement in water and food security
Commercialization of rural economy
Creation of an enabling political and institutional environment

Strategy:
Up scaling of proven techniques that lead to more water efficiency in agriculture. Improved water
management at the farm level through construction of small water retention infrastructure and
improved water management skills of farmers. At watershed level through drafting and
implementation of water management plans. Commercialization of rural economy through
improved access to value chains and credit. An enabling institutional and political environment
through adaptations to existing legislature and organizing farmer groups to influence policy
making.
Water management plans
Bangladesh: Formulation of Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100 (2013-2017, € 7.7 million, MFA of finance
GoB)
Justification:
The Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100 adheres to the second policy objective. By choosing a plan which
is still in its development stage it is possible to evaluate the process of drafting, which is
considered very important if the plan is to be inclusive and broadly accepted which will increase
the likelihood of implementation.
Objectives:
-

To support an enabling social-political climate for the BDP 2100 drafting and
implementation process

17

-

To create a common and inclusive and documented knowledge base on water, land and
related natural resources and spatial planning in Bangladesh delta.
To develop a Delta Framework encompassing all necessary and agreed upon reforms of the
current institutional framework.
To create together with main stakeholders a delta vision
To facilitate entrepreneurship of the private sector
To promote regional and sectorial developments in the short term for future improvements
of governance of water, land and related resources and spatial planning in Bangladesh
delta

Strategy:
Objectives should be achieved through stakeholder participation, thematic studies, scenario
development and scenario calculations and direct interaction with the 5-years-planning system.
Jakarta: Coastal Development Program: master planning phase
Justification:
The Jakarta Coastal Develop Program (JCDP) adheres to the third policy objective. It provides an
interesting case in an important partner country. It is also implemented by RVO, as such it can
serve as an interesting example of the involvement of the Dutch water sector.
Objectives:
- The PMU will be firmly established and capable of directing the planning and implementation of a
Jakarta Coastal Defence System;
- The PMU will through the implementation phase evolve into an asset management organisation
which has the capacity to manage and maintain the Jakarta Coastal Defence System as realised
under the JCDS programme.
Strategy:
The Netherlands support to the Programme Management Unit of JCDS, which is a main component
of this project phase, will focus on the role of the PMU as an asset management organisation.
The Netherlands support to the second component of the project, the actual master planning will
on the one hand maintain the integrated character of the JCD Strategy but at the same time focus
on the establishment of an appropriate coastal defence system. The master planning phase will not
elaborate detailed programmes and plans for all the different sectoral issues and programmes like
harbour development and transport but formulate adequate linkages (spatial aspects, design
criteria, necessary outputs and outcome etc) with such sectoral programmes.
Egypt – NWRP coordination (2007-2011, € 5.4 million, MFA of water resources & irrigation)
Justification:
NWRP coordination adheres to the second policy objective in that it tries to improve water
management at national level through improved planning and management. It is part of a sectorwide approach through individual projects. As such it supplements the other activities in Egypt
adhering to the other policy objectives.
Objectives:
-

To create a receptive and supportive environment for the implementation of the NWRP
with all stakeholders at the different levels.
To enhance co-ordination and decision making capacity of the National Water Council,
technical committee and in the governorates
To enhance capacity of NWRP and GWRP units for:
o Planning and ex-ante impact assessment
o Communicate and transfer information
o Cooperation and coordination
o Process management

18

-

To enhance NWRP planning procedures in partner ministries, governorates and between
levels
To monitor and evaluate impact ex-post

Strategy: To support through several activities the planning and decision-making capacities of
several water management authorities at different levels.
Regional Africa – GWP nation IWRM plans (2004-2007, € 6.4 million, GWP)
Justification:
GWP nation IWRM plans adheres to the second policy objective. This activity is a good example of
the focus on IWRM plans which was stressed in the first years of the evaluation period.
Objectives:
-

Drafting of IWRM-plans for six sub-Saharan countries (including Mozambique)
Institutional development of existing and new partnerships
Integrating water in activities aimed at poverty reduction
Designing innovative and practical financing instruments for integrated water management

Strategy:
Developing and including multi-stakeholders groups at all levels and making sure these groups
included in policy making. Delivering technical input to the planning process; creation and
strengthening regional and national partnerships through training and multi-stakeholder platforms.
Transboundary water management
Mozambique – IncoMaputo 2-Prima (2007-2010, €7.35 million, National Water Directorate)
Justification:
IncoMaputo 2-Prima adheres to the third policy objective, together with earlier MFA activities that
supported the management of the Incomati and Maputo rivers by its riparians countries.
Objectives:
-

To promote cooperation among the parties to ensure protection and sustainable utilization
of the water resources of the Incomati and Maputo watercourse.

Strategy:
To ensure sustainable cooperation between the parties the Tripartite Permanent Technical
Committee is supported in executing activities based on the Activity and Action Plan which was
agreed upon in the Interim IncoMaputo Agreement. Eventually, in 10 years this should lead to the
signing of a comprehensive agreement between the parties.
Mozambique – Cooperation program (2013-2017, € 3.5 million, National Water Directorate)
Objectives:
-

To achieve water security and water safety for poverty alleviation, economic development,
sustainable investments and inclusive growth.

Strategy:
Support to establish a river basin organization for the Incomati and Maputo rivers. The Interim
IncoMaputo Agreement is to be amended to regulate the (financial) commitments of the riparian
countries to the basin organization.
Vietnam – The Flood Management and Mitigation Project (2004-2010, €11.5 million, Mekong River
Commission)

19

Justification:
Support to the Mekong River Commission (MRC) adheres to the third policy objective. Also, MFA
has been supporting to the MRC for a long time which will provide insights of this support, given
that trans-boundary water management is often a long-term process. The MRC is a relatively
advanced river basin commission. As such it is expected to be interesting to assess the added
value of MFA support.
Objectives:
Overall objective: people’s suffering and economic losses due to floods are prevented, minimized
or mitigated, while preserving the environmental benefits of floods.
Immediate objectives:
1) A regional Flood Management and Mitigation Centre, maintaining the availability of important
flood-related tools, data, and knowledge; producing accurate regional forecasts with a sustainable
lead time and a timely and effective dissemination; and providing accurate, well documented and
consistent tools for basin-wide flood risk assessment and trans-boundary impact analysis.
2) A reduced vulnerability of society to floods, and a reduced risk of flood disasters caused by
failure or inappropriateness of structural interventions. A reduced vulnerability to flooding and
reduced flood damages at family, community and sub-regional levels. This will be achieved by
reducing the disruption of normal activities during and after flood, and by providing people with
the security and motivation necessary to make and sustain improvements in their economic and
social welfare in environment that is frequently affected by floods.
3) Enhanced mediation and coordination capacity of the MRC in issues of non-compliance in flood
management.
4) Competence in flood preparedness and flood mitigation strengthened, consolidated and readily
available with communities, emergency managers and civil authorities, as required at each
management level.
5) Institutional, human resources and technical support being available to sustainable land
management and improved land use planning integrated into floodplain management and
mitigation in the Lower Mekong Basin.
Strategy:
A Regional Flood Management and Mitigation Centre will be financed that will serve as focal point
for research, data collection and dissemination of information of flooding and flooding
preparedness in the Mekong basin.
Senegal – OMVS trustfund 2 (2009-2012, € 9.5 million, WB trust fund)
Justification:
OMVS trust fund adheres to the third policy objective, together with earlier activities that
supported the OMVS listed below. This offers insights in the results of long-term MFA assistance to
the OMVS.
Objectives:
-

An increase in the use of the Senegal river by the population as a source for drinking
water, irrigation, fisheries and livestock farming.

Strategy:
Partially removing water hyacinth from the banks of the river. Also, the local population is trained
to keep the banks clear after initial removal.
Senegal – OMVS-Water/Environment (2004-2007, € 7.5 million, WB trust fund)
No specific objectives or strategy. First part of long-term support to the OMVS, which aims to
introduce IWRM in the river basin, remove water hyacinth and create/strengthen water user
groups.

20

Senegal – OMVS Water/Environment (2008-2011, € 0.9 million, WB trust fund)
Extension of previous activity including a study of the prevalence of water hyacinth in preparation
for OMVS trust fund 2.
Egypt – Nile Basis Initiative
Justification
In the Nile basin support has been provided to the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), which started in
1999, led by the World Bank. The NBI trust fund, to which the GoN contributed $ 38 million, was
initiated in 2001 to coordinate donor efforts in the Nile basin.
Objective:
-

The NBI tries to improve trans-boundary water management between the riparian
countries of the Nile (Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda,
the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Eritrea as an observer) through a dialogue
that was to lead to a shared vision between the countries.

Strategy
The shared vision is to be a Basin-wide program that focuses on building institutions, sharing data
and information, providing training and creating avenues for dialogue and region-wide networks
for joint problem-solving, collaborative development, and developing multi-sector and multicountry programs of investment to develop water resources in a sustainable way.

21

ANNEX 3 ABBREVIATIONS
ADB

Asian Development Bank

EM

Explanatory Memorandum to the budget

GWP

Global Water Partnership

IOB

Policy and Operations Evaluation Department

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management
MASP Multi-annual Strategic Plan
MEA

Ministry of Economic Affairs

MFA

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MI&E Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
MoF

Ministry of Finance

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

NL

Netherlands

NWP

Netherlands Water Partnership

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

PPP

Public Private Partnership

RPE

Regulation Periodic Evaluation

RVO

Netherlands Enterprise Agency

ToC

Theory of Change

ToR

Terms of Reference

IGG

Inclusive Green Growth

WB

World Bank

UN

United Nations

wm

water management

WUA

Water Users Association

22

ANNEX 4 REFERENCES
1. Abrams, L., Peck, L., Sandström, K. (2000) Swedish initiative for support of sustainable
management of water resources in Southern Africa. Stockholm: Sida
2. Allison, G. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little
Brown.
3. Dutch Government (2009) National Water plan 2009-2015. Deventer: Author
4. Hellegers, P.J.G.J. (2011) Water: the most valuable asset. Wageningen
5. IEG World Bank (2010) An Evaluation of World Bank Support 1997-2007 Water and
Development. Washington D.C.: Author
6. IEG World Bank (2011) Water and Development: taking lessons from evaluations.
Summary of discussions at the Berlin Conference. Washington D.C.: Author
7. IEG (2010) Global Program Evaluation The Gobal Water Partnership. Washington D.C.:
Author
8. IOB (2011) More than water. Impact evaluation of drinking water supply and sanitation
interventions in rural Mozambique (IOB publication no. 360) Den Haag: Author
9. IOB (2011) The risk of vanishing effects: Impact evaluation of drinking water supply and
sanitation programmes in rural Benin (IOB publication no. 357) Den Haag: Author
10. IOB. (2010) Institutional Development, Netherlands support to the water sector 19881998. (IOB publication no. 284) Den Haag: Author
11. Jägerskog, A., Zeitoun, M. (2009) Getting transboundary water right: theory and practice
for effective cooperation (SIWI Report no. 25) Stockholm: SIWI
12. Jeffrey, P., Gearey, M. (2006) Integrated water resources management: lost on the road
from ambition to realization? Water Science and Technology, 53(1), 1-8
13. Kemp de, A., Faust, J., Leiderer, S. (2011) Between high expectations and reality: An
evaluation of budget support in Zambia (2005-2010) Stockholm: Sida
14. Leeuw, F., Vaessen, J. (2009) Impact evaluations and development. Washinton D.C.:
NONIE
15. Mayne, J. (2001) Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance
measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1–24.
16. Medema, W., McIntosh, B.S., Jeffrey, P.J. (2008) From premise to practical, a critical
assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management
approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 1-17
17. MFA of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (2011) Letter to the Dutch Parliament
‘Naar de top; het bedrijvenbeleid in actie(s)’ (A/TOP/11134377)
18. MFA of Foreign Affairs (2014) Reaction to Motie Voordewind (33750, nr.38)
19. MFA of Foreign Affairs (1998) Policy priorities for Netherlands development assistance,
Water for the Future, integrated water resources management Den Haag: Author
20. MFA of Foreign Affairs (2001) Achieving water security Den Haag: Author

23

21. MFA of Foreign Affairs (2002) Sector wide approach for water and sanitation development
Den Haag: Author
22. MFA of Foreign Affairs (2006-2013) Explanatory memoranda to the budgets. Retrieved
from: http://www.rijksbegroting.nl/
23. MFA of Foreign Affairs (2012) Letter to the Parliament: “Water voor Ontwikkeling”
(DME/MW–004/2012)
24. MFA of Foreign Affairs (2013) “Wat de wereld verdient, een nieuwe agenda voor hulp,
handel en investeringen” (BIS-049-2013)
25. Mostert, E., Barraqué, B. (2006) Transboundary river basin management in Europe.
Thematic paper for Human development Report 2006, 21. Europe: UNDP
26. Mostert, E. (2005) How can international donors promote transboundary water
management? Bonn: German Development Institute
27. Netherlands Water Partnership (2011) Wereldleiders in water, Toekomst visie voor de
water sector 2020 Den Haag: Author
28. Parliamentary Committee (2012) General consultation on Water for Development policy
(32605 no. 74)
29. Perry, C.J. (2003) Non-State actors and Water Resources Development: An Economic
Perspective. Non-State Actors and International Law, 3, 99-110
30. Scheumann, W., Neubert, S. (2006) Recommendations on development cooperation in
transboundary water management. Bonn: German Development Institute
31. Second World Water Forum and Ministerial Conference (2000) Vision 21: Water for People
Geneva: Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council
32. Timmerman, J.G., Koeppel, S., Bernardini, F., Buntsma, J.J. (2011) Adaptation to climate
change: challenges for transboundary water management. The economic, social and
political elements of climate change, climate change management, 4, 523-541
33. Wirkus, L., Böge, V. (2006) Transboundary water management on Africa’s international
rivers and lakes: current state and experiences. Bonn: German Institute for Development
34. Wolff, H.P., Wolf, L., Subah, A., Guttman, A., Tamimi, A., Jarrar, A., Salman, A., Karablieh,
E. (2012) Methodological challenges in evaluation performance, impact and ranking of
IWRM strategies in the Jordan valley. Water Science and Technology, 66.7, 1407-1415
35. Van der Zaag, P., 2007. Asymmetry and equity in water resources management; critical
governance issues for Southern Africa. Water Resources Management 21 (12): 1993-2004
36. Van der Zaag, P., I.M. Seyam and H.H.G. Savenije, 2002. Towards measurable criteria for
the equitable sharing of international water resources. Water Policy 4(1): 19-32
[doi:10.1016/S1366-7017(02)00003-X]
37. Zeitoun, M., Warner, J. (2006) Hydro-hegemony – a framework for analysis of
transboundary water conflicts. Water Policy, 8, 435-460

24