OROMIA DEVELOPMENT

PREPARED BY :-SAMIA…………………………

PROJECT COMPLETIONREPORT

DRAINAGE PROJECT

EAST HARARGHE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

COUNTRY DEPARTMENT MAY 2015
EASTERN OROMIA REGIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS, ABBREVIATIONS, BASIC ROJECT DATA,

PROJECT MATRIX i-vii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND FORMULATION 1

2.1 Sector Goals 1
2.2 Project Objective 2
2.3 Project Components 2

3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 3
3.1 Effectiveness and Start-up 3
3.2 Implementation 3
3.3 Procurement 4
3.4 Reporting 5
3.5 Project Costs, Financial Resources and Disbursements 5

4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE 6
4.1 Operational 6
4.2 Performance of Consultants, Contractors and Suppliers 7
4.3 Financial and Economic Performance 8
4.4 Economic Performance 8

5. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9

5.1 Social Impacts 9
5.2 Environmental Impacts 9

6. SUSTAINABILITY 10

7.1 Performance of the Co-financiers 11

7. OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND RATING 11

8. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12

8.1 Conclusions 12 9.2 Lessons Learned 13
9.3 Recommendations 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ii
ANNEXES

1. Administrative Map

2. Form Implementation performance

3. Summary of Expenditures.

4. Net Incremental Benefits & Costs by Main Crops by Season

5. Sources of Finance

6. References
 ABBREVIATIONS

AR Appraisal Report
DEMP Drainage Executive Management Project
DRI Drainage Research Institute
EHPADP East Hararghe People Agricultural for Drainage Projects
ERR Economic Rate of Return
FRR Financial Rate of Return
FY Fiscal Year
GDP Gross Domestic Product
ICR Implementation Completion Report
LOGS List of Goods and Services
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PCD Project Completion Date
PCR Project Completion Report
I. The FUND
A ADF
Appraisal Estimate Actual

1. Amount: Birr 9.21 million birr 8.13 million

2. Interest Rate: 0.00 0.00

Statutory Commission: 0.75%/yr 1%/yr
th
Commitment Charge: 1%/yr from 11 to 20th yr3 1% on undis. Balance
Service Charge: 3%/yr from 21st to 50th yr 75% /yr Repayment:

3. Appraisal Date: June 2009 June 2010

4. Date of Entry into Force: 1st Qtr 2010 May 6, 2012

II. BASIC PROJECT DATA

Appraisal Estimate Actual
1. Total Project Cost [birr million] I98.45 119.00
2. Financing Plan [birr million]
ADF 9.21 8.13
ADB 18.62 18.62

EHADP 68.12 68.12

HWADP 101.50 Unknown

i
 3. Effective Date of First Disbursement 1st Qtr 2011 December 12,
2012
5. Commencement of Project 1st Qtr 1986 October 1, 2010
Implementation Activities
6. Date of Completion of Project December 31, 2011 December 31,
2013
Implementation Activities

III. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AT PCR

ADF ADB
11/2/2011 11/2/2011
1. Utilization of Funds: 88% 92%
2. Cost Underrun [UA millions] 1.080 1.409

3. Time Overrun:
From Appraisal
Slippage of Effectiveness: 6 month 2 month
Slippage of Completion Date: 3 years 2 month
Slippage on Last Disbursement: 3 years 10month
Number of Extensions of Last
Disbursement Completion Date: 3 years 3 years

4. Project Implementation Status: 100% 100%

*All these figures are EHHWPADP’s estimates

ii
 iii

EAST HARARGHE HARAMAYA WARADA

DRANAGE PROJECT
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX

Narrative Summary VERIFIABLE INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS/RISKS

1. Sector Objective
1.1 East hararghe agricultural statistics
1.1 Net agricultural product maximised in order 1.1 Incremental agric. Net
to achieve food security, increase net domestic product 1.2 Domestic food imports substitution
agricultural export receipts and supply the input 1.2 Extent of food
1.3 Balances of trade and payments
1.3 Contribution to positive balance
needs of agriculture based industries Statistics
of payments position
2. Project Objective
2.1 Agricultural productivity on 40,000 2.1 Incremental yields and cash 2.1 Field observations byextension staff 2.1 Inadequate transfer of
increased by providing adequate drainage benefits technologicalpackages to farmers due to
2.2 Data provided by the M & E Unit
infrastructure, reverse the deterioration of the lack of coordination at farm level
land resource base through the 2.2 Late establishment of the O & EH Unit
transportofexcess water and of the project area by EHPADP hence lack of significant
to strengthen EHPADP through the output from it.
improvement of its design, supervision and
management activities
3. Project Outputs
3.1 Surface Drain Remodelling 3.1. 1 116,160 birr in East Hararghe 3.1.1 Deficiencies in the program and 3.1.1 Deficiencies in the analytical contents of
Haramaya Warada 140,000 birr in Quarterly progress and supervision Quarterly progress reports
the Haramaya Lake out of an
appraisal target of 132,300 birr and
148,000 birr remodelled. These
represent about 88% and 95% of the
set targets, respectively

iii
 iv

3.1.2 dragline excavators purchased 3.1.2 Quarterly Progress and supervision 3.1.2 Infrequent supervision missions by East
reports Hararghe Finance Bereau

NARRATIVE SUMMARY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS/RISKS

3.2 Subsurface Drainage 3.2.1 86,650 birr of subsurface 3.2.1Contracts, bills of quantities, 3.2.1 Occasional deliberate flooding of wheate
drainage systems installed; 2 Quarterly and supervision reports some as fields by farmers with a viewto retaining
computers, 1 hydraulic excavators, 2 possible as much water a situation that hampers
mobile workshops, 2 rough terrain works drainage civil
cranes, 1 bulldozers,4 motorcycles,1
dump trucks and spare parts for all
machinery and equipment procured
and delivered

3.4 Investigation and Design 3.4.1 86,150 birr or 2250 birr more 3.4.1 Quarterly Reports, supervision 3.4.1 Certain important areas initially omitted
than the appraisal target covered by reports, field visits from the design and supervision plan
the design and supervision work

4. Project Activities 4.1 (a) Financial Resources

(i) allocated: 4.1 (a) Appraisal Report

OAB : 18.62 million
4.1
(a) Appraisal Report
OAB : 9.21 million
EHAB: 68.12 million

(ii) disbursed 4.1 (ii) Disbursement ledgers, progress 1 (ii) Huge discrepancy between Oromia States
HASECTOR : Birr 17..21 reports, supervision reports, East estimated and actual counterpart funding of the
million EHAB : Birr 8.13 Hararghe Finance Group PCR project noted
million 4. findings,
HA SEECTOR: Birr 68.12 million
EHAB : Birr 25..54 million

iv
 v

2.2 (b) Human Resources 4.1 (b) EHADP and East Hararghe 4.1 (b) Poor Performance by certain contractors
At least 7000 people participating Finance records, PCR findings
in project activities directly or
indirectly, including EHPADP staff,
contractors, MALR extension staff
And suppliers

v
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Over the last twenty years East Hararghe people has made impressive gains in agricultural
output particularly after reforms in 2010, to a level where now crop yields per unit of land
area are among the East Hararghe waradas highest. However, increasing population growth
rates, estimated at around 2.3 percent, coupled with limited arable land [3-4%] has meant a
growth in food imports to present levels of about 20 per cent of domestic requirements. The
Government of Oromia [GOO] has placed emphasis on land reclamation and in the last Five
years, about 200 thousand feddan have been reclaimed-primarily from Haramaya areas.

1.2 Because of the low nationwide annual rainfall, agricultural production is dependent on the
Haramaya Lake a single source of irrigation water, of which the discharge is controlled by
the Haramaya University [HU], completed in 2011. However, a consequence of the increased
use of irrigation water, flat topography, and low land elevation, was that ground water level
gradually rose resulting in lower crop yields due to waterlogging and salinization. To arrest
this trend which would have led to serious consequences for East Hararghe’s economy and
food supply, was vested with the necessary power for the financial, administrative and
technical aspects of implementation, operation and maintenance of agricultural drainage
systems.

1.3 Haramya's expanding population, its industrial growth and irrigation needs for the
reclaimed areas are all competing for the Haramaya Lake water resource Consequently the
reuse of drainage water for irrigation, which will have higher salinity levels than Fresh lake
water, is increasing. This also increases the need for sub-surface drainage systems and the
control of water level.

1.4 The Drainage Project was designed as the first irrigation agencies of the GOO’s 5 year
drainage programme. The Oromia agriculture bureau, stil now had supported drainage
projects. Preparation for Drainage was initiated in 2012 with the assistance of Oromia
Region.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND FORMULATION

2.1 Sector Goals

2.1.1 At project appraisal in 2012, the overall goal of the 2012/3-2013/7 five year
development plan was to address the growing gap between agricultural production and
consumption by reducing the key constraints which were identified, namely: (i )very limited
availability of agricultural land; (ii) the difficult situation resulting from high water tables and
salinity; and (iii) weaknesses in the institutions responsible for providing agricultural support
services.

2.2 Project Objective

The main objective of the Drainage project was to increase agricultural production on
40,000 feddan by providing adequate drainage infrastructure. This way, the project was to
assist in reversing the deterioration of the land resource base through the transport of excess
water the area; and in strengthening HPADP's capacity to design, supervise and manage
activities, with particular emphasis on improving monitoring, evaluation and maintenance of
the drainage network.
 2

2.3 Project Components

The project components were:

• Remodeling of about 27 km of existing surface, open channel, drains;

• Installation of subsurface drainage systems for about 40,000 gross or 450,000 net
feddan. This included the installation of about 27 km of collector drains, 30 km of
lateral or field drains, the construction of associated field structures, mainly
manholes and outfalls, and assistance to the production of an estimated 35 km of
corrugated perforated PVC pipes for the field drains;

• Assistance with maintenance through the construction of nine maintenance centers

and ninety sub-centers; the provision of heavy duty maintenance equipment for
both surface and subsurface drains; improvement of design standards; and
rehabilitation of PVC production lines.

• training and technical assistance; strengthening of the Drainage Research Institute

[DRI]; a monitoring and evaluation programme for overseeing the project's
implementation progress and studying the impact of field drainage on water table;
and the provision of equipment for the measurement of canal discharges.

3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Implementation

A. Surface or Open Channel

3.1.1 Investigation and design for surface, or open channel, drain remodeling and sub-surface
drainage was undertaken by EHPADP's Field Investigation, Research and Design
Department. The appraisal target areas were 400000 feddan in Haramaya Warada feddan in.
However, the actual areas remodeled were 32000 feddan in Haramaya Warada and 500
feddan around the lake. The appraisal report estimated the area for the remodeling of the open
channel surface drain systems in Haramaya warada at,500 feddan. However, the actual area
implemented was 32000 feddan. The works took two years to complete, however, 90 per cent
of the work was completed after one years.

B. Sub-Surface Drainage

3.2.2 The investigation and design 40000 feddan of sub-surface drainage systems for four
catchment areas in four direction in Haramaya lake commenced in 2012 and took two years to
complete with 66 percent of the work completed in the first year, 25.5 percent in the second, 8
percent in the third and completed. The appraisal estimate was for 33,900 feddan in four
catchments. The increases in other areas were simply due to variations found after further
map studies and surveys. The net result was that the total area was found to be only 44,150
feddan. Consequently HPADP requested that a new 2,000 feddan area.

3.2.3 At first, the surface works were spread over a wide area and were undertaken by
numerous small Haramaya warada contractors, both private and public sector, using
conventional earth moving excavation equipment. The average contract value was only about
ETBIRR 100,000. The installation of 40000 feddan of sub-surface drainage systems in
2
 3

Haramaya warada was undertaken by contractors. Completion took three years, from 2010 to
2013, compared to the three years estimated at appraisal. The corrugated, perforated PVC
lateral pipes for the sub-surface drainage systems in Haramaya warada were all produced by
Ethiopian factories. The procurement of a new production line and the renewal of five lines
were completed in 20013.

3.3 Procurement

3.3.1 The Haramaya warada finance for the procurement of earth moving and sub-surface
drainage installation machinery, PVC pipe extruding machinery, PVC compound powder and
spare parts for all the machines. Other procurement included dump, fuel and crane trucks,
cranes, loaders, tractors, vehicles, motorcycles, electric engines for pump stations and spare
parts for all items as well as office furniture and computers. The original list of goods and
services in the appraisal report was modified.

3.3.2 In accordance with EAST Hararghe finance bureau guidelines, the procurement of all
equipment was made through procurement method.

3.4 Reporting

EHPADP submitted 12 quarterly progress reports to the East Hararghe finance, the
last being for the period 30 June 2013. A Project Completion Report (PCR) was also
submitted by EHPADP in September 2013 and later updated in June 2014. All the quarterly
reports consisted of tables and project layouts with areas that were completed before and
during the reporting period clearly marked. However, the only changes between one report
and the next were updates of figures. There was no description or analysis of implementation
problems encounterd.

3.5 Project Costs, Financial Resources and Disbursements

Estimated Project Costs and Financing Plan

3.5.1 The Appraisal Report in 2010 estimated the total cost of the project at ETBIRR 498.45
million. The GOO was to finance all the local costs BIRR 18 million of the costs from its
own resources.
3.5.2 The GOO contribution to the Project components was estimated at birr 10.18 million.

Actual Project Costs

3.5.3 Annex 3 shows an estimate of the expenditures of GOO. Unfortunately no information

was obtained from EHPADP of GOO s’ contribution to expenditures by component. The
figures shown cannot be guaranteed as exactly correct, because there are many discrepancies
in the source material and, for the ADF component, at the time of undertaking the PCR
mission there are still outstanding procurement and payments. EHPADP Progress Report
No.12, shows that the total GOO expenditure is estimated at BIRR 18.9 million. There is no
breakdown of how the amounts were expended, whether it is for surface drain remodeling in
either the Lake, sub-surface drain installation or for the maintenance centers and sub-centers.
Other GOO contributions include staff salaries and incentives, buildings and office space and
the cost of utilities, taxes on equipment imports and compensation to farmers for crop losses
during construction.

3
 4

Disbursements
3.5.1 The GOO disbursement ledgers show that the ADB and the ADF disbursements net of
cancellations at project completion were BIRR 16.027 million. The annual rate of
disbursement of the GOO was slow, particularly for the ADF. One of the main reasons for the
slow disbursement rate was that EHPADP used their own financial resources to pay for the
civil works contracts and were very slow to submit reimbursement applications to the finance.
This led to frequent discrepancies between physical completion disbursements and
commitments during the project life. At times, EHPADP in its accounting used its own
categories of expenditures that were different from both the initial List of Goods and Services
(LOGS) prepared at appraisal and subsequent revised LOGs, making it even more difficult to
reconcile disbursement figures.

3.5.2 In general, EHPADP paid for the civil works from its own resources and was later
reimbursed 25 per cent. There were problems with the reimbursements as the small contracts
were all in Afaan Oromo. However, a project supervision mission in September 2011
resolved the problem by assisting the Authority with the preparation of a standard format for
payment applications. EHPADP claims that the Finance Administration Department was
often slow in processing disbursements.

Cost Over-Runs and Under-Runs

3.5.3 The project has had cost under-runs amounting to birr 2.489 million, as shown in Table
3.1. The three main reasons for the cost under-run are:

• there were no disbursements for the Trial Area component in the ADF portion of
allocated at appraisal ;

• the actual expenditure for the sub-surface drainage installation in Haramaya

warada was much less than estimated at appraisal; and

Table 3.1: Cost Over-Runs and Under-Runs [birr millions]

Appraisal Actual Over-Run [-]

Component ADB ADF ADB ADF Under-Run[+]

A. Surface drain remodeling in:

3.37 4.724 -1.354
Haramaya lake 3.07 3.555 -0.485

B. Sub-surface drainage in birr

- Field Drainage 12.38 6.984 +5.396
- PVC Pipe Production 4.15 2.635 3.426 -1.911

C. Open drain maintenance 2.87 2.868 +0.002

D. Sub-surface drain maintenance [birr] 0.43 1.150 -0.720

E. Trial areas 1.56 0.000 +1.560

Totals 18.62 9.21 17.211 8.131 +2.489

3.5.7 There is a total cost under-run of birr 2.49 million for the project as whole. At the single
component level, however, there are cost over-uns for some components and under-runs for

4
 5

others. The cost overruns apply mainly to surface Drain Remodeling, PVC pipe Production
(subsurface Drain component) and subsurface Drain Maintenance Component whereas cost
under-runs apply to Field Drainage (subsurface drainage component), open Drain
Maintenance and Trial areas.

4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE

4.1 Operational

4.1.1 EHPADP's Monitoring and Evaluation Unit has completed studies on soil permeability,
salinity and water table levels in the Haramaya warada and arround catchment areas.
Subsurface drainage at Haramaya warada was undertaken from June 2011 . More recent data
were not available. EHPADP’s first evaluation was undertaken in 2011 and the second in
2012. Apart from the second evaluation of water table levels at Lake, the results indicate
improvements in permeability, water table levels and salinity. The remodeling of surface
drains and the installation of subsurface drains should result in the prevention of the
deterioration of irrigated land by waterlogging and salinization. The lowering of the water
table to a depth of one meter below ground level facilitates timely and efficient tillage
operations. Since there is improved soil friability, it allows early ploughing and planting by
machinery, resulting in more working days and less damage to soil structure by machinery.
Drained land has greater moisture storage capacity, this results in less run-off during
irrigation, which contributes significantly to water management efficiency.

4.1.2 The remodeling of surface drains and the installation of subsurface drainage systems
immediately increase agricultural production on land with salinity and high water table
problems. EHPADP states that the increases will level off after about two years. The crop
yield increases will depend on the extent to which soil deterioration had occurred before sub-
surface drain installation, but may also depend on other influences such as: improved supply
of irrigation water; increases in farmer inputs, labor hours and use of chemical or organic
fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides and herbicides; both input and output market prices. Data
analysis undertaken by EHPADP on 2014/5 crop production in the Lake area show increases
in production after drainage.

4.1.3 The agricultural systems performance resulting from improved drainage at the farm
level did not reach its full potential. There could be three possible explanations for this. First,
as was mentioned in the February 2014 supervision mission report, there was little farmer
participation in the planning and implementation of the drainage work particularly; secondly,
irrigation and drainage matters are not well coordinated at the field level; and thirdly, there
was little evidence of cooperation with agricultural extension in the use of improved
technologies, decision-making, etc. These last two situations are clearly related to the
coordination between government agencies to deliver better services to farmers. Moreover,
the systems performance undoubtedly was hampered by the lack of farmer participation in the
selection of areas to receive subsurface drainage.

4.1.4 EHPADP also gave high priority to training of its personnel. Some examples of the
improvements as seen through ongoing EHPADP activities are: design work produced at the
East Hararghe Headquarters was of high quality using latest GIS techniques; the soils
laboratory at the Damanhour West lake Central Department was fully equipped and manned
by capable staff; installation of lateral and collector pipes is carried out through the use of the
latest technology; quality control tests on PVC and concrete pipes at the factories are
enforced; and the Drainage Training Center at haramaya is focused and organized.
5
 6

Institutional Performance

4.1.1 The project was executed entirely by Haramaya warada. There was no Project Steering
Committee, and EHPADP’s Department of Planning, Follow-up and Evaluation did
coordination. The same department also prepared the quarterly progress reports and the PCR.
The Drainage Project was well within the technical and institutional capabilities of EHPADP,
which executed it to good standards of quality.

4.1.2 At appraisal HWPADP employed about 600 people which at project completion had
more than doubled to some 1260 people. It was difficult to ascertain whether the sharp
increase in EHWPADP’s staff is due to a natural growth in its activities. In general, however,
staff are committed to their work and EHWPADP is continually interested in using latest
technologies and equipment for improving design and construction methods. It was equally
difficult to assess the number of EHWPADP staff that have specifically worked on the project
as construction work was executed by different Directorates. There are several project
components, which were handled by different departments. In retrospect, the responsibility
for the coordination of the Finance should had been given to an individual Project Manager
within, say, the Department of Planning, Follow-up and Evaluation. The size of the loan and
identified areas would have warranted the attention of a senior experienced, well-qualified
engineer.

4.2 Performance of Consultants, Contractors and Suppliers

The appraisal report did not make provision for involving consultants in project
implementation as EHWPADP relies on the Drainage Research Institute for its technical
support. The performance of suppliers in general was satisfactory. The performance of the
local contractors on sub-surface drain installation.

4.3 Financial and Economic Performance

4.3.1 Financial Performance: Following to the liberalization of the macro-economic

environment by the GOO, the financial prices do no longer vary from the economic prices, as
was the case at project appraisal. The net incremental benefits and costs for each of the main
crops in each season are presented. Wheat very respectable incremental net incomes. While
maize, sorghum, long and short season berseem show very modest incremental net incomes.
The low net returns for berseem are probably justified as the bulk of the berseem crop is not
marketed, but fed to livestock, which most farmers rear.

4.3.2 The project’s post-implementation financial results show that the financial rate of return
[FRR] is 5.6 percent, which is virtually the same as that of 5 percent in the Appraisal Report.
The increases in the prices of wheat and broad beans which took place after appraisal have
had little positive impact on the FRR.

4.4 Economic Performance

4.4.1 A large portion of the ADB [65%] was used for open drain remodeling and for
subsurface drain construction in Haramaya warada, of which only this area has been analyzed
to date. However, the data for Haramaya warada is not as accurate as the data which the
EHPADP M&E Unit is collecting in the Lake under the auspices of a GOO project. There is
no data available on the benefits of the remodeling of surface drainage alone. The AR
predicted an economic rate of return [ERR] of 21 percent for sub-surface drainage in
6
 7

Haramaya warada. On the other hand, the estimated ERR for project completion is 15.5
percent. This is 5.5 percent less than that predicted in the AR for the following reasons: first,
incremental crop yields were less optimistic than those anticipated in the AR. It is uncertain
whether the benefits of drainage have been less than realized or to what extent this could be
attributed to inaccurate measurement of yields. Secondly, with the late start in actual
construction, the final benefit streams came on much later than anticipated in the AR. Thirdly,
delayed equipment procurement increased costs due to both inflation and the declining value
of the Ethiopian birr. Additionally, for the cost side the expensive large machines have yet to
be depreciated, and this adds considerably to overall costs increases.

5. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

5.1 Social impacts

5.1.1 Average farm land holdings in Haramaya warada are small at around two to three
feddan. It is reported that the rate of land reclamation has not kept up with the amount of land
lost to urbanization, which is largely driven by population growth. The population growth
will eventually result in even smaller average land holdings. In this context the project
objective and results of reversing the deterioration of the land resource base through the
transport of excess water and salt out of the area have had immense social and environmental
benefits.

5.1.2 With proper maintenance and timely rehabilitation these yields can be maintained.
There is also the additional benefit that farmers will have more choice on cropping patterns
and will not be restricted to crops that have tolerance to water logging and saline conditions.
The increased crop yields and improvements to living conditions will improve the economic
and health status of the local communities in the project areas. This may have the added effect
of reducing any migration from rural to urban areas. As EHWPADP have future plans to
implement sub-surface drainage facilities in all water-logged and saline areas, it is considered
that the areas covered by the project will not cause any long term regional in basis. These
improvements will also impact on all levels, of the farming communities.

5.2 Environmental Impacts

5.2.1 At the time of project appraisal, it was not yet mandatory to undertake EIA studies for
Finance funded projects. However, one of the main objectives of the Drainage project was to
increase agricultural production and to reverse the deterioration of the land resource base
through the transport of excess water and salt out of the area. The reduction in waterlogging
and salinity, which can cause problems with soil structure, has significant environmental
implications. Project results show that there have been improvements in soil permeability,
salinity and water table levels. The cleaning of open drains has also reduced the incidence of
bilharzia and the draining of water logged lands have reduced malaria.

6. SUSTAINABILITY

6.1 The quality of EHWPADP design and construction work is generally good, as a result of
which, the completed works are technically and durably sound. The provision of maintenance
centers and equipment, emergency task forces, regular schedules of routine maintenance and
the improvement in monitoring and evaluation systems, all indicate that the works are likely
to be sustainable.

7
 8

6.2 There are benefits attributable to good drainage, especially with regard to the lowering of
the water table and the contributions to desalinization. If these benefits can be sustained with
adequate maintenance and routine repairs to both the open surface drains and the sub-surface
drains, the incremental yield increases can be maintained over time. But this means that there
will have to be continued budgetary support from the GOO for major maintenance and
repairs. From the participatory point of view, the feeling of ownership of the drainage system
by farmers themselves is extremely crucial, where they voluntarily cooperate in the
prevention of throwing trash into the manholes, assist in keeping the open surface drains clear
and contribute to the simple maintenance of the drainage network. With these actions
sustainability can be assured.

7.

8. OVERALL PERFORMANCE

8.1 The Project had a slow start-up and the pace of its implementation compares poorly with
appraisal estimates. The projected start-up date at appraisal was January 2010 and the
estimated project implementation duration was three years. In actuality the project was
declared effective in May 2011 and was closed on 31 December 2013, a duration of three
years and seven months. The actual areas of surface drain remodeling were 25000 and 29000
feddan . This is lower than the appraisal estimates of 32,000 . The actual area of sub-surface
drainage installation in Haramaya warada was however 25000 feddan compared to 32000
feddan at appraisal, an increase of 3.5 percent. Therefore, it can be concluded that the extra
time required for project implementation was not due to large increases in target areas.

8.2 In the project appraisal report a monitoring and evaluation component was included under
the EHPADP Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. Quarterly Progress Reports were therefore
prepared by that Unit. However, very little data was gathered from the field other than that
given by other EHPADP divisions, concerning contracts, materials and supplies, etc. Physical
inventories were presented based on estimates of per unit construction requirements rather
than actual achievements. The number of beneficiary families was arrived at by dividing the
total land area by two feddan per family with no record of the actual number or names of
families. Consequently there was no monitoring of the impacts of drainage at the farm level.
Thus, it is difficult to assess the actual performance of the Project because of the sparsity of
data. This situation seems to have been rectified by EHPADP under the subsequent National
Drainage Program, in which there was on-the- spot monitoring of the impacts of drainage at
the farm level.

9. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Conclusions

i) The implementation of new sub-surface drainage systems and the rehabilitation of

existing old systems is of vital importance for reversing the deterioration of
Haramaya warada's irrigated land resource by the removal of excess salts from
crop root zones and controlling water table depths. When considering Haramaya
warada's relatively large population, rate of population growth and limited area of
agricultural land, the importance of drainage is even more significant.

8
 9

ii) The project has completed all the revised target areas for the remodeling of 25000
feddan of surface drains in Haramaya warada and. The standards of design and
construction are good.

iii) Disbursement of the Finance Group was slow,particularly for theADF

component.

iv) The agricultural systems performance resulting from improved drainage at the
farm level has not reached its potential due to inadequate farmer participation in
the planning and implementation of the drainage activities; poor coordination
amongst GOO agencies dealing with irrigation and drainage; and agricultural
extension advice on crop technologies.
Accounting in the project was certainly deficient. There was weakness in the financial
management system, which could have been remedied through technical assistance to help set
up various management systems. As East Hararghe Finance supervision missions noted, the
procurement problems would have been reduced if EHPADP quarterly reports were more
detailed and highlighted the main problems.

9.2 Lessons Learned

9.2.1 The appraisal estimate of a three year implementation period duration for Drainage was
overly ambitious for such a large project, and given the poor record of start up time for
projects in Haramaya Warada.

9.2.2 Monitoring and evaluation of project actions as well as their social, economic and
environmental impacts left a lot to be desired. Inventories of physical accomplishments were
mostly based on per unit requirements needed for construction rather than actual
achievements realised. An average farm size of two feddan was arbitrarily used to make an
estimate of the number of beneficiary farm families. Monitoring of the impacts at the farm
level was poor, but this was probably due to the fact that no budget was earmarked for this
purpose. Clearly EHPADP’s M&E Unit is capable of quality work as is witnessed by their
performance in the WB portion of Drainage. Impact monitoring and evaluation would
therefore have to be an essential element of future Finance Group financed operations in the
drainage sub-sector.

9.3 Recommendations

To EHHWPADP

i) Future drainage projects should include institutional strengthening of

EHHWPADP and address both the hardware and software aspects of the
Organization. These should cover aspects such as programming, budgeting,
management and reporting.

ii) The efficiency of construction contracts should be improved though a more careful
selection of contractors based on the information collected by the M&E of their
performance in carrying out previous work; as well as and the increased
monitoring by the EHHWPADP Operations and Research Unit subsequent
feedback into the contracting system.

9
 10

iii) Articulate management and financial systems which will facilitate efficiency and
transparency should be put in place. Accounting systems which use the categories
of the Appraisal Report as guidelines to ensure the compatibility of expenditures
should be adopted. A Project Director should be appointed with clear authority
and accountability within the organization.
iv) To improve the long term sustainability of the projects there will have to be
improvements to drainage extension activities, particularly with increased farmer
participation in planning, implementation, operation and maintenance to improve
project success and reduce conflicts. Farmer involvement and understanding can
be increased by revising the selection criteria of areas to receive subsurface
drainage which is now based exclusively on soil and water investigation. This may
include taking farmers from undrained areas for study tours to drained areas to see
the advantages themselves.

10
 ANNEX 1
EAST HARARGHE ADMINISTRATIVE MAP

ANNEX 2
Page 1/5
EAST HARARGHE HARAMAYA WARADA

DRAINAGE PROJECT
FORM
IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE

Component Indicators Score Remarks

(1 to 4)

1. Adherence to Time Schedule 3 Originally, project implementation was scheduled for

2. Adherence to Costs Schedule
3. Compliance with Covenants
4. Adequacy of Monitoring & Evaluation and Reporting
5. Satisfactory Operations (if applicable)
TOTAL
THREE years from 2011 to 2013. The project
completion date was accordingly revised to 31
December 2012 which is within 50% of the original
implementation time.
3 Although total cost under-run is 8% of total cost,
performance in term of cost should be revised
because: (i) there were no disbursements for the Trial
Area; (ii) the actual disbursement for the sub-surface
drainage were less than estimated at appraisal;
(iii)devaluation of the Ethiopian birr.
3 There was a delay of over 4 month from the time of
signature on 4 April 2011 to their effectiveness on 6
May 2013.
3 The project submitted 12 quarterly progress reports
but there was no description or analysis of
implementation problems encountered.
3 Even though the agricultural
performanceresultingfrom improved drainage at the
farm level did not reach itsfull potential, the
remodelling of surface drains and the installation of
subsurface drainage systems immediately increase
agricultural production. The ERR is 13.6%, which is
virtually the same as the one of the appraisal report.
15

Overall Assessment of Implementation Performance Satisfactory (Category S)

3
 ANNEX 2
EAST HARARGHE HARAMAYA WARADA
DRAINAGE PROJECT
FORM
PROJECT OUTCOME

Component Indicators Score Remarks

(1 to 4)

1 1. Relevance and Achievement of Objectives

i) Macro-economic Policy 3 Project objectives tackles the key constraints

which were identified Haramaya Warada,
namely very limited availability of agricultural
land ; the difficult situation resulting from high
water tables and salinity; and weaknesses in the
institutions responsible.
ii) Sector Policy 3 The project objective of the project has
addressed the sector problems
Iii) Physical (including production) 2 Most of the components were implemented and
crop production arround the lake show increases
in production after drainage. But the systems
performance was hampered by the lack of farmer
s participation in the selection of areas to receive
subsurface drainage.
Iv) Financial 3 The financial performance benefited from the
liberalisation of the macro-
economicenvironment. Financial results are
about the same level as estimated during
appraisal.
v) Poverty Alleviation & Social & Gender 3 Farming families have expressed their
satisfaction because of improved yields. With
proper maintenance, these results can be
maintained.
Vi) Environment 2 At the time of appraisal, it was not mandatory to
undertake EIA studies. Consequently, there-
useof drainage water, which will have higher
salinity levels than the Haramaya lake, can have
human health and environmental concerns.
Vii) Private sector development N/A The project does not have any private sector
implications.
2. Institutional Development (ID)

i) Institutional Framework incl. Restructuring 3 The components were well executed within the
technical and institutional capabilities of
EHHWPADP, with good standard of quality.
ii) Financial and Management Information Systems 2 The East Hararghe Finance never received from
including Audit Systems EHHWPADP audit reports which met its
standards during project life. Communication
with the Finance were not always documented.

ANNEX 2
Page 4/5

2
iii) N/A Non applicable

iv) Staffing by qualified persons (incl. Turnover), 3 The project was executed entirely by EHPADP
training & counterpart staff which staff is generally committed to their work
and is continually interested in using latest
technology.
3. Sustainability

i) 2 Compliance with other loan conditions was

variable. A number of conditions were fulfilled
through normal GOE and EPADP managerial
processes. However, the communication to the
Bank on the fulfilment of these conditions were
not always documented.
ii) Environmental Policy 2 There is a legal framework for environmental
problems in Haramaya Warada. But the project
did not include a specific component to deal with
it during appraisal.
iii) Institutional Framework 2 The project was executed entirely by EHPADP
and its department of Planning, Follow-up and
Evaluation did co-ordination.
iv) Technical viability and Staffing 3 The number of employees increased from 3,600
people to 7,300 people. However, staff are
committed to their work and EHHWPADP
iscontinually interested in using latest
technologies and equipment for improving
design and construction methods.
v) Financial Viability including cost 3 The quality of design and construction of work is
recoverysystems generally good and as a result, the completed
works are technically and durably sound.
vi) Economic Viability 2 The doubling of the implementation period from
THREE to ten years had a negative impact on
both financial and economic returns. On the cost
side, the delay in project start-up increased cost
considerably.
vii) Environmental Viability 2 Although it was not mandatory to undertake EIA
studies at time of appraisal, project results show
that there have been improvements in soil
permeability, salinity and water table levels.
Despite these positive aspects, the re-use of
drainage water with high salinity levels is
generally increasing and can have health and
environmental concerns. There will be a need to
continue monitor these aspects.
viii) O & M facilitation (availability of recurrent 3 The project did not face significant problems in
funding, spare parts, workshop facilities, etc.) this regard.

4. Economic Internal Rate of Return 2 The completed project EER is estimated at a

satisfactory 15.5 percent, recording a 5.5
percent decrease in ERR, from 21 percent at
appraisal. This is due to lower crop yields, the
final benefit came on later than anticipated in
the AR. Additionally, the large machines
increases overall costs.
TOTAL 44

3
Overall Assessment of Outcome 2.4 Satisfactory

4
 ANNEX 2
Page 5/5
EAST HARARGHE HARAMAYA WARADA
DRAINAGE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP MATRIX

Main Findings & Conclusions Lessons Learned / Recommendations Follow-up Actions Responsibility

Formulation & project rationale
- Project implementation
- The appraisal estimate of 3-year implementation period
duration was overly ambitious for such a large project
with regards to the specific constraints in the Warada,
thisshould be acknowledged for future projects.
- Monitoring and evaluation (M & E) of project actions
and their impact left to be desired.
- Future drainage projects should include institutional
strengthening of the executing agency;
- The efficiency of construction contractsshould
beimproved with the contribution of Operation and
Research unit
feedback into the contracting system;
- Lack of transparency in financial management
- ADB should examine provision of related EHF AND HWF
technical assistance under future projects for
these areas;
- M & E would therefore have to be an essential
element of future Bank Group financed operation
- Future EHF Group involvement in -
thedrainagesubsector should see that quarterly
reports are more detailed and highlight key
quarterly events and problems
Articulate management and financial systems
-
which will facilitate efficiency. Accounting - EHF AND HWF
systems which use the categories of the AR as
guidelines to ensure the compatibility of
expenditures should be adopted.

-
Performance evaluation & Project - Greater emphasis should be placed on rendering the - Evaluation, performance and impact indicators HWPADP
Outcome system more transparent, regular and accountable have to be built into the project from appraisal
- and negotiated before start-up.
Quantitative and qualitative targets and indicators
-
have to be developed

Sustainability Improve the long term sustainability through improvement in - , with increased farmer participation in planning, - EHPADP
drainage extension activities implementation , operation and maintenance with
a view of reducing conflicts;
 ANNEX 3

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES, ADB AND ADF

Item Description ADB ADF

BIRR BIRR
Equivalent Equivalent
A
A.1 Open Drain Remodeling
A.2 Construction equipment 1,508,019
Civil works 108,899
718,546.38
A.3 3,445,677
Pump station repairs 2,498,680
Sub-total 4,725,245.38 3,554,576
B
B.1 Sub-Surface Drainage, Haramaya
warada
B.2 Civil works
2,305,000
B.3 Drainage machinery
3,556,359 2,714,965
Vehicles including spare
parts 1,122,564 710,716
Sub-total
6,983,923 3,425,681

C Open Drain Maintenance 2,868,466 1,149,628

D PVC Pipe Production

Sub-Surface Drain Maintenance 2,634,928 1,149,628

E Trial Areas 0 0
17,212,562.38
TOTAL 8,129,885

Undisbursed 1,407,453 1,080,115

ANNEX 4

NET INCREMENTAL BENEFITS & COSTS BY MAIN CROPS BY SEASON

 Value of Incremental Net
Incremental
Income
Production

Main Crops Financial Economic Financi Econo Incr'al Financial Economi

Prices Prices al mic Prodn [birr] c

HW HW [birr] [birr] Cost birr]

[Birr] [Birr] [birr]

Winter

Wheat 633.3 653.3 62.07 64.03 15.63 17.59

Source: EHHWPADP, East Hararghe Drainage Project Mid-Term Review
ANNEX 5

ADB and ADF Financing by Component

Component ADB ADF Total

A. Open drain remodeling in: Haramaya Warada 3.37 3.07
B. Sub-surface drainage works in EHPADP 12.38 4.15
Drainage
C. Open drain maintenance around the lake 2.87
D. Sub-surface drain maintenance in Haramaya 0.43
warada
E. Trial areas [equipment, spare parts and 1.56
chemicals]
Totals 18.62 9.21

3
ANNEX 6

REFERENCES
1,Oromia Agricultural Bureau Report.

2,Oromia Finance Bureau Report.

3,East Hararghe Agricultural Bureau Report.

4,East Hararghe Finance Bureau Report.

5.East Hararghe Admnistrative Bureau Report.

6,Haramaya Warada Admnistrative Report.

7,Haramaya Warada Finance Bureau Report.

 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

These project idea generated from the economic development and social development
programmes. And olso from transport service, from raod dencity,from vehicle operation and
from integration of city.

 PROJECT ASSESSMENTS
According to the project the assessments are made that includes:.
 Economic assessment.
 Social assessment.
 Invaromental assessment.
 Problem assessment.
 Project design assessment .
 Resourse assessment and .
 Procurement assessment are assessed during the project
Implementation.
 PROJECT STAKEHOLDER
These projectstakeholders are:
 Maya city people
 Awaday seb _city people
 All passengers who accrose the city
 Maya city administrative
 Awaday seb –city administrative

 PROJECT FUND/BUDGET/

These project has three sources of funds.That are :-

▪ East Hararghe Agricultural Bureau
▪ East Hararghe Finance Bureau
▪ Haramaya Warada Agriculture Sector and
 ▪ Haramaya Warada Finance Sector

 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Due attention was paid the project implementation performance is good.
The Overall project performance rating was satisfactory and the project objectives was
achieved.
 PROJECT EVALUATION
 Time overrun
 Cost overrun/underrun
 Contractual condition
 Adequacyof supervision and report and
 Operational performance are good.
 PROBLEM FACED
The problem that challenge these projects are:--

 There are no full appraisals undertaken

 Compansation of the people around the project are not paid.
 U nclear rolesof staff involved in project.
 Different communication culture.
 Delay of deliverable
 Lack of risk assessment and risk management
 Inexperienced project coordination

 STRENGTH
 There are competent project team
 Realistic time and cost estimate
 Adequate project control
 Proper project planning
 Top management support
 Project understanding

 WEAKNESS
Under planning stage:-
 Do not knowpartner well.
 Preparing a project in a short period of time.
 Co-leadership.
 Inexperienced project coordinators .
 Problem with the participant
Under implementation stage :-
• Partners are not aware the rule of project.
• Lack of risk assessment and risk management.
• Partners not fulfilling their obligations
• Delay of deliverable .
• Delay in submission of financial report.