Auto-Evaluation Report

Programme Entities

Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation (A1) Land and Soil Productivity (A2)

Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management (A3)

Draft: 26 January 2006

Land and Water Development DivisionFood and Agriculture Organization

Executive Summary

The Land and Water Development Division (AGL) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has evaluated three interrelated programme entities: a) Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation (A1), b) Land and Soil Productivity (A2) and c) Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management (A3). The three programme entities operate under the AGL vision to enhance the productivity of land and water systems, advance their sustainable use, and promote equitable access to resources in a changing environment through technical and policy support and enhancement of the knowledge base and resources mobilization at the global, national and local levels.

The auto-evaluation was carried out by a team consisting of technical officers, the service chief and programme entity managers, who are working on the programme entities A1, A2 and A3 along with three consultant facilitators. The work was carried out during the later half of 2005, during which FAO initiated the design and planning of the Reform to be implemented in 2006. Although this created a distraction for staff, they have remained committed to the auto-evaluation and anticipate that the suggestions and recommendations of this process canbe useful for the foreseen reform. The team has strived for a participatory process and the methodologies included brainstorming sessions, focus groups, workshops, survey questionnaires, interviews, a desk study with in-depth analysis of specific activities, and incorporation of previously held evaluative or strategic planning exercises.

Overall the assessment of the three programme entities is positive with respect to outcome, effectiveness and staff reputation. In general, planned activities have also been achieved and/or are on track for completion by 2007. However, it has been recognized within the division and by collaborators and users that there has been a decline in the capacity to provide services during recent years and that AGL is loosing its importance. Reasons identified for this reduced capacity include: the lack of focus around a common vision, changes of staff, lack of leadership and teamwork and reductions in budgets. Reliability, usefulness and relevance are the characteristics of AGL’s work for which the users and partners are most satisfied, while demand driven, effective, innovative, timely, influential and accessibility are rated slightly lower. Publications are identified as the most satisfying service of the division, although there is room for improvement.

Specific recommendations for the programme entities and some of more general concern to put forward are: revision of the AGL vision; redefinition of the role of the PEM to allow for an effective management; concentration of work efforts on a few priority areas, a more strategic approach to objectives; more integrated team work, stronger relationship between headquarter and sub-regional and regional officers; more leadership; integration of programme entities; the need for more proactive approaches to cooperate with NGOs and civil society; evaluation of the use of training and capacity building products in the field; adequate participation at international events; improved visibility; and a mechanism for planning and publishing documents. The recommendations from the AGL gathering in April 2004 were reviewed and accepted as still valid.

The auto-evaluation has considered to be a very positive process to look at how the programme entities work as a team and the importance of getting together to share emerging issues. However, to enhance motivation, it is important that changes result from this investment of time in participatory evaluation processes.

Table of Content

Executive Summary iiiTable of Content ivAcknowledgements vList of Acronyms vi

I. Introduction 1II. Relevance to Priorities and Needs of Member Nations 2III.Objectives 3IV. Methods 3V. Planning and Decision Making of the Programme Entities 6

A. Planning Process 6B. Staff Resources 6C. Budget and Spending 7

VI. Implementation: Actions, Results and Effectiveness 8A. Overall Assessment 8B. Outputs versus Planned Activities 9C. Audiences and Users 9D. Reputation of Services 10E. Collaboration 13F. Working Relationship between Sub-Regional and Regional Offices and

Headquarters 14G. Field Programmes and Normative work 14H. Contribution to International Debates 14I. Visibility 15

VII. Assessment and Recommendation on the individual Programme Entities 16A. Statistics of Document Sales and Web Visits 16B. Results of In-depth Review 18C. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation (A1) 21D. Land and Soils Productivity (A2) 22E. Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and

Management (A3) 22VIII.Summary Findings and Suggested Recommendations 24IX. Lessons Learned 28

X. Annexes 1. Terms of references 2. Persons participating internally 3. Persons interviewed 4. Internal questionnaire 5. External questionnaire 6. Summary of recommendations from the AGL gathering 7. Web statistics from the document repository 8. Documents consulted 9. Fields of interest from questionnaire 10. Planned versus achieved outputs

Acknowledgements

The auto-evaluation team would like to thank the staff for their commitment and time to respond to questionnaires and to meet with us for interviews. In addition, our thanks go to Mr Olivier Cossee (PBEE) for assisting in the design of the two surveys and in making the external questionnaire web-based. Thanks also to Mr Kohei Aoki and Mr Wolfgang Prante, both AGLL, for assistance with the Land and Water Newsletters addresses and linking the external questionnaire to AGL’s webpage; Ms Irina Mian (AGLD) who assisted with figures of the AGL budget; Ms Bouchra El Zein (AGL) and Mr Alain Savary (GIII) for assistance on publication sales statistics; Ms Cecilia Murguia (GILW) for statistics from the web document repository; Mr Marco Natuniewicz, (AFHS) for help with statistics on staff resources and Ms Lena Steriti (AGLW) for help with staff statistics and assistance.

List of Acronyms

APO Associated Professional OfficerAGD Office of Assistant Director GeneralAGL Land and Water Development DivisionAGLD Land and Water Development Division, Directors office AGLL Land and Plant Nutrition Management ServicesAGLW Water Resources, Development and Management ServiceAGS Agricultural Support Systems DivisionCGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchEC European CommunityFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFOR Forest Resources DivisionGI General Affairs and Information DepartmentGEF Global Environment FacilityHQ HeadquartersIWMI International Water Management InstituteLADA Land Degradation Assessment in DrylandsMDG Millennium Development GoalsMO Major ObjectiveMTP Medium Term PlanNEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNGO Non-Government OrganizationsPAIA Priority Areas for Interdisciplinary ActionPBE Office of Programme, Budget and EvaluationPE Programme Entity / EntitiesPEM Programme Entity Manager(s)PES Payment of Environmental ServicesPIRES Planning, Implementation, Reporting and Evaluation Support SystemPWB Programme of Work and BudgetRP Regular ProgrammeSDWW Gender and Development ServiceSIMIS Scheme irrigation management information systemSPFS Special Programme for Food Security SFI Soil Fertility InitiativeS(RO) Sub-Regional and Regional Offices/OfficerSRR Sub-Regional RepresentativeTCI Investment Centre Division TCP Technical Cooperation ProgrammeTOR Terms of ReferenceUNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological DiversityUNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeWUA Water User Associations

I. Introduction

Three interrelated technical programmes in the Land and Water Development Division (AGL) related to efficient use, conservation, and management of agricultural water, land, and plant nutrients, were the focus of the auto-evaluation. The auto-evaluation process afforded an opportunity for related staff and management to reflect on the historical efforts and suggest recommendations to the Division itself, the Agricultural Department and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In particular the evaluation provides recommendations on future work programmes for AGL programmes for the Medium Term Plan (MTP) of 2008-2013, as the three Programme Entities (PE) will terminate at the end of the biennium in 2007.

The AGL division aims to enhance the productivity of land and water systems, advance their sustainable use, and promote equitable access to resources in a changing environment through technical and policy support and enhancement of the knowledge base and resources mobilization at the global, national and local levels. This is the overall AGL vision within which the following three programme entities operate:

A1-Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation A2-Land and Soil Productivity A3-Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management

The Water Resources, Development and Management Service (AGLW) is responsible for Programme Entity A1, while the Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service (AGLL) manages Programme Entity A2. The third, A3, is a joint programme of the two services of AGL. The three programmes currently have an annual budget of 2.3 million corresponding approximately to 37 percent of the total of 6.3 M USD for the Division’s Regular Programme budget. The auto-evaluation has assessed activities and outputs generated by A1, A2 and A3 from 2002 to 2005.

The objectives of the three programme entities under evaluation are:

PE 211A1 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation addresses the scarcity of water in the agricultural sector by promoting water efficient technologies, including technologies for rainfed agriculture, and participatory, equitable and effective water management techniques. This will be achieved by involvement and action at all levels, from farmers through irrigation agencies to basin and national water resources institutions.

PE 211A2 Land and Soil Productivity deals with the increasing pressure on land resources by testing and disseminating techniques and policies for improved and integrated management of land, soil and nutrient resources, and by supporting assessment and rehabilitation of degraded lands and problem soils in different agro-ecological zones. Through participatory development and local adoption this will lead to sustainable land resources management, halt land degradation, improved soil productivity, and result in higher and more stable yields.

PE 211A3 Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management focuses on the main issues of integrated land and water management and combines aspects that require an interdisciplinary approach of water, soil and nutrient specialists. By promoting integrated, multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approaches, the A3 programme aims to improve the management of wetlands, watersheds and soil moisture management, including drought mitigation activities, as well as to study interactions among water, nutrient and soil resources at the farm level.

1

This auto-evaluation was carried out between June and December 2005. During this process FAO initiated the design and planning for a major reform of the organization to be implemented in 2006. While the preparations for the reform have imposed an unexpected burden, the staff have remained committed to the auto-evaluation and anticipate that the suggestions and recommendations of this auto-evaluation can inform whatever structure ensues within the reform.

II. Relevance to Priorities and Needs of Member Nations

The multi-disciplinary expertise needed to address questions of integrated approach to land, water and plant nutrient management is one of FAO's main comparative advantages. The technical efforts of the three programme entities address the corporate strategies as outlined in the FAO Strategic Framework including Section C entitled Creating sustainable increases in the supply and availability of food and other products from the crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry sectors and Section D entitled Supporting the conservation, improvement and sustainable use of natural resources for food and agriculture. Specific elements include:

C.1 Policy options and institutional measures to improve efficiency and adaptability in production, processing and marketing systems, and meet the changing needs of producers and consumers

C.2 Adoption of appropriate technology to sustainable intensify production systems and to ensure sufficient supplies of food and agricultural, fisheries and forestry goods and services

D.1 Integrated management of land, water, fisheries, forestry and genetic resources D.2 Conservation, rehabilitation and development of environments at greatest risk

An indication of the most relevant subjects for the Organization’s member countries (identified through responses to the external questionnaire by 21 representatives of governments) are in decreasing order: watershed management, water policies, water productivity, irrigation technologies, water harvesting sustainable land management and soil productivity improvement, soil conservation and conservation agriculture, irrigation modernization, irrigation institutions, land degradation and management, irrigation system management, soil fertility and plant nutrition, groundwater development and management, land use, wetland development and management, drought mitigation and soil moisture management, soil carbon sequestration, organic recycling and agro-industrial waste management, efficient fertilizer use and fertilizer sector policies, and soil health and biodiversity.

The programme entities contribute to the high-priority Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS), the Soil Fertility Initiative (SFI), and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), initiated with development partners and stakeholders to address the serious land productivity decline in sub-Saharan Africa and water management, which has been identified as a priority at the previous FAO Conference.

The efforts of the programme entities also address the targets of the UN Millennium Development Goal 1 to "eradicate extreme poverty and hunger” and Goal 7 to “ensure environmental sustainability” and inform international debates and strategies which specifically address water, land and plant nutrition.

2

III. Objectives

The evaluation issues can be divided into three parts: implementation, output and outcome and emerging issues. Under implementation the present evaluation has focused on the products and activities produced by the three programme entities, and the dissemination of these, as well as the working relationship between Sub-regional and regional offices and headquarters. See Annex 1 for the complete Terms of References for this auto-evaluation.

Within the context of outputs and outcomes, there are four areas of inquiry: whether the normative work by the A1, A2 and A3 have contributed to a better understanding

on the international debate regarding management of water, land and nutrient resources; whether the field projects are used as a channel for disseminating and testing the normative

work and if lessons learned from the field feed back into the normative work; AGL support and response to governments, how well the policy advice regarding sustainable

use of land, water and plant nutrient resources are implemented; and to what extent the activities and outputs are supporting local stakeholders such as NGOs,

extension workers, and farmer groups.

In view of the pending FAO reform process and the Division’s diminishing resources, the emerging issue is how a coherent strategy can strengthen AGL’s programmes and structure to address the forthcoming Mid Term Plan for 2008 – 2013 and the MDGs.

IV. Methods

The auto-evaluation of 211A1, A2 and A3, was undertaken by the following team; Mr Martin Ager, Mr. Jacques Antoine, Mr Mohammed Bazza, Ms Ines Beernaerts, Mr Jose Benites, Mr Oliver Berney, Ms Sally Bunning, Mr Walter Burgos León, Mr Jacob Burke, Mr Zhijun Chen, Mr Thierry Facon, Ms L.M. Fletcher-Paul, Ms Karen Frenken, Mr Hubert George, Mr Giovanni Munoz, Mr Gassan Hamdallah, Mr. Leon Hermans, Mr Hiroshi Hiraoka, Mr. Jippe Hoogeveen, Ms Clemencia Licona Manzur, Mr Freddy Nachtergaele, Mr Reza Nagib, Mr Yuji Niino, Mr Jan Poulisse, Mr Moise Sonou, Mr Pasquale Steduto (Chief AGLW), Mr Lamourdia Thiombiano, Ms Tanja van den Bergen, Mr Jan Venema, Ms. Robina Wahaj, Mr Gerardo van Halsema, Mr J. van Wambeke and Programme Entity Managers: Mr Daniel Renault (A1), Mr Rabindra Nath Roy (A2), and Mr Jean-Marc Faurès (A3), and three consultant facilitators: Ms Åse Eliasson, Ms Constance Neely and Ms Lisa Svensson. In Annex 2, all of the people who contributed internally by filling in the internal questionnaire and / or participating in the workshop and /or being interviewed are shown.

Auto-evaluation methodologies included brainstorming sessions, focus groups, workshops, survey questionnaires, interviews, a desk study with in-depth analysis of specific activities, and incorporation of previously held evaluative or strategic planning exercises. Throughout the auto-evaluation process, the team strived to implement a participatory and inclusive process and documents for comments and email updates have been provided to all AGL staff, both at headquarters and in the regional and sub-regional offices.

Survey QuestionnairesTwo surveys were composed, an internal one for all AGL staff (Annex 4), and one external questionnaire addressed to AGL product users and collaborators (Annex 5). Interviews were also conducted with individuals external to AGL (Annex 3).

3

The internal questionnaire was sent by email to 50 AGL staff in headquarters (HQ), Sub-Regional and Regional Offices, (S)RO including eight former AGL employees. There were 28 responses of which 11 (out of a possible 17) were from (S)RO and 17 (of a possible 33) were from HQ.

The external questionnaire was sent in English, Spanish, and French by email, to approximately 1660 individuals external to AGL through the Land and Water Newsletter with a specific mailing to an additional 200 addresses. The respondents entered their responses on the web form (141) or filling in the form and returning by email (31) or by fax (3). A number of respondents did take advantage of the language options (26 Spanish and 12 French), hence about 16 percent responded by the non-English questionnaire version. In total 175 respondents filled in the questionnaire, which consisted of 14 questions.

The majority of the respondents are associated with University / Educational Institution, Research Institute and CGIAR Centres (45 %) as Figure 1 illustrates. Free lance consultant and other, is the second largest group, with 19 percent of the responses, followed by Civil Society, which is represented by Non-Government Organizations (NGO) and the Industry / Private sector, with 15 percent of the responses. Governments (comprising of Ministry, Regional delegation, Extension worker, etc.) represents 12 percent, while Intergovernmental Organizations including FAO equal nine percent of the total responses. It is noted that by far the greatest number of respondents came from the academia and research community and there were no responses from farmers’ organizations or the media sector. Additionally, the respondents were asked to identify their fields of interest and among these the top five areas were: watershed management; sustainable land management and soil productivity improvement, land use, land degradation and management, and water productivity (see Annex 9).

Figure 1. Percentage of respondents by organization / institution that answered to the external questionnaire.

Most of those who responded from the external questionnaire associate themselves as users (51 percent) of AGL services and products, while 26 percent are both users and collaborators (Figure 2). Thirteen (13) percent stated that they are not engaged in AGL’s activities and 10 percent recognized themselves as other, for example former employees.

4

12%15%

45%

9%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Government NGO / Industry / Privatesector

University, ResearchInstitute, CGIAR Center

FAO, Inter-GovernmentalOrganization

Free lance consultant,Other

(some problem with Both 21% and collaborators 5%)Figure 2. Percentage of respondents by type of work relationship with AGL from the external questionnaire.

InterviewsSelected activities within A1, A2 and A3, identified by the programme entity teams, were followed up by individual interviews with key persons. Interviews at FAO headquarters included 21 face-to-face and one telephone interview while 12 people were interviewed via email (Annex 3).

Workshops and Focus GroupsThroughout the auto-evaluation process a number of participatory workshops, meetings, and focus groups were organized in headquarters, both with the auto-evaluation team, and some solely with the three Programme Entity Managers facilitated by the auto-evaluation consultants. At the end of November 2005, a results analysis workshop was organized over two half-days. To facilitate participation by Sub-Regional and Regional Offices, results from the surveys and interviews were sent by email prior to the workshop, and, similarly, workshop notes were distributed directly after the workshop. During the workshop the following topics were considered: AGL’s services and reputation, visibility, collaboration, planning and decision-making and suggestions for the future.

Desk StudyA desk study was carried out comparing the planned activities versus what was actually achieved. This was achieved by comparing planned activities in PIRES, planned publications, workshops, mission reports, the AGL website and by looking at budgets and plans prepared by the Programme Entity Managers. A few activities /outputs were selected by the Programme Entity Managers for an in-depth review to get feedback on what is working well, less well and what can be improved. Sales statistics and distribution statistics for selected publications were collected from GI. Web visits statistics on the FAO Document repository were also acquired.

Reviews of Previous ExercisesThe auto-evaluation did take advantage of the recent collective thinking of the Division and built upon the findings of the AGL Gathering (Spring 2004) and the Workshop on A1 (Summer 2005).

5

User51%

Collaborator5%

Both21%

Other10%Not engaged

13%

V. Planning and Decision Making of the Programme Entities

A. Planning Process

Programme entity efforts are planned within the context of the Medium Term Plan (MTP, six year time frame) and the Programme of Work and Budget (PWB, two year time frame), which are updated in alternate years. This structure provides a means of continuity for divisional programming.However it can limit flexibility and responsiveness.

Programme priorities based on government demand are identified through various avenues including, interalia, the Committee on Agriculture, FAO Council, and the FAO regional meetings. Needs and priorities are also developed through expert meetings and consultations on specific topics (e.g. Irrigation Modernization). The programme also reflects the structure of the AGL Division and the experience and expertise of the implementing staff. While this allows for some freedom within the programme entities themselves, it may not be conducive to a coherent strategy. Once designed, the related project activities of the MTP are then housed within programme entities.

While not unique to these programme entities, the Programme Entity Managers are appointed to manage the programme entities. They do not actually serve as managers with any authority over implementing staff as these individuals also work across the different programme entities and subsequently have multiple priorities.

The planning is done jointly between officers in headquarters and in (S)ROs within the programme entities. For example in A3, 50 percent of the associated staff are based in the (S)RO and a mailing list is used for planning. No distinction is made between HQ and (S)RO officers in planning efforts. However, the (S)ROs are guided by and responsive to Regional Council priorities and subsequently are less involved in regular programme activities and tend to focus on backstopping field projects.

B. Staff Resources

AGL has lost an important part of its human resources during the last decade and during the time frame of this auto-evaluation. Although, the number of staff financed by the regular programme has only changed from 28 staff in 2000 compared with 26 in 2005 (Figure 3). Factors that have affected the staff resources in the programme entities are the numerous retirements; the number of staff that has become FAO Representatives; the reduction of APOs (junior staff financed by their countries); and the change of status of staff, i.e. one technical post has been changed to communication officer (still vacant), and several posts have been eliminated and or down graded. Moreover, AGLL’s Service Chief and the AGL’s Director left in March and June 2005, respectively. Both of these positions are still vacant.

The programmes do not reflect the changes of staff. Unfortunately, the governing bodies are not alerted about changes in staff and how they impact the capacity to implement the MTP, thus, the programme entities’ capacity is reduced. The selection of technical officers to fill vacant posts is critical in directing or redirecting efforts. However, the evolution of desired expertise is not discussed, yet this is an opportunity to augment the terms of reference for the previous post description. Due to retirements and budget cuts, the programme entities identify that there are important gaps in expertise including irrigation technology, institutional strengthening and capacity building, civil engineering, soil management and soil fertility and plant nutrition. Beyond the limited human resources, the current officers have numerous time-demanding requests put upon them such as project formulation (GEF), backstopping emergency projects, meetings,

6

and responding to needs of the higher management. These requests limit the time for focused work on planned regular programme.

Figure 3. Change in number of staff in AGL financed from the regular programme from 2000 to 2005. The change of staff resources are shown by staff at headquarters (HQ) and Sub-Regional and Regional Offices S(RO).

(can we show the vacant posts?)

C. Budget and Spending

Budget planning begins with an allocation by programme entity and it is based on what the staff want to accomplish. The boundaries however are not clear between the programme entities for both financial resource use as well as staff time allocated. Often there are planned activities for which there is no money available and resources are drawn from another programme entity. Additionally, the programme entity managers do not have authority over the budgets of the specific programme entity activities.

The three programmes have an annual budget of 2.3 million corresponding to 36 percent of the total of 6.3 M USD for the regular programme budget in the Division in 2005. In Table 1 the budget and actual spending are shown by total (staff and non-staff resources) and staff-resources from 2002 to 2005 for all the regular programmes in AGL. The non-staff resources, including staff on consultants’ contracts, represent the difference between total and staff resources.

The budget and actual expenditure for the three programme entities from 2002 to 2005 are shown in Table 2. It is to be noted that the figures of expenditures for 2005 are not final. Looking at the overall use of budget from 2002 to 2004 it can be seen that what was actually spent on staff is less than what was budgeted due to retirements of staff. However, this money has been used for non-staff resources and in general the budget has always been used.

7

Table 1. Budget and Actually spent by Totals and Staff resources for AGL Regular Programmes, from 2002 to 2005 (numbers are expressed in USD)

Year Budget Total

Budget Staff

Actually Spent Total

Actually spentStaff

AGL Regular Programmes2002 5 503 607 4 196 228 5 419 664 3 917 1132003 5 550 193 4 108 693 5 437 224 4 198 4942004 6 288 222 4 528 788 6 249 553 5 223 737

2005 * 6 331 899 4 655 150 5 139 569 3 899 230*Figures of actual expenditure in 2005 are before the closure of the budget. Figures represent what was spent by October and committed in 2005. (we could mention the NSR in amount and in ratio)Table 2. Budgeted and Actual expenditures including total and staff resources for Programme

Entities 211A1, A2 and A3 (numbers are in USD)Year Budget

TotalBudget Staff

Actually Spent Total

Actually spentStaff

A1: Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation2002 632 829 421 700 657 507 382 4592003 697 400 473 400 716 082 451 3522004 790 094 464 632 825 499 584 9252005 879 070 505 512 525 454 312 202

A2: Land and Soil Productivity2002 704 193 589 800 706 669 527 1482003 726 600 541 600 707 518 509 0432004 812 704 514 775 837 988 658 2442005 1 008 741 627 983 586 641 437 539

A3: Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management2002 580 364 396 200 580 350 358 6632003 609 700 418 800 583 765 395 3082004 368 973 209 861 368 973 285 7092005 414 523 233 534 280 587 158 536

*Figures of actual spent in 2005 are before the closure of the budget. It includes what was spent by October and committed in 2005.(The table can not be understood well mainly because of terminology problem)

VI. Implementation: Actions, Results and Effectiveness

A. Overall Assessment

Overall the assessment of this auto-evaluation of the three programme entities is positive with respect to outcomes, effectiveness and staff reputation. When asked to rate the reputation of work of the Land and Water Development Division, the responses from external actors were as follows: excellent (35%), good (49%), fair (14%) and poor (2%) for a number of characteristics (e.g. demand driven, effective, relevant, innovative, usefulness, timely, reliable, influential, and easy accessible).

Through the auto-evaluation process, some limitations were also identified. There is general agreement from within and outside that these limitations stem from a lack of focus around a common vision, changes of staff and reductions in budgets. These factors have resulted in a perceived reduction in the capacity to provide services. The auto-evaluation reviewed aspects common among the programme entities as well as specific aspects of the individual programme entities. The programme entities were reviewed in-terms of planned versus actual accomplishments; intended audiences and users; reputation of services and products; collaboration

8

efforts, visibility, and publication statistics along with an in-depth assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of specific individual activities.

B. Outputs versus Planned Activities

The Major Outputs for the time frame of the auto-evaluation of A1, A2 and A3 are listed in the Terms of Reference in Annex 1. Generally the activities that have been planned for within the programme entities and the major outputs have been achieved. Additionally, the majority of activities are on track for successful completion by 2007. The main reasons for some of the activities not being finalized or not being achievable by 2007 are due to losses in staff and unexpected and urgent requests associated with global emergencies (e.g. Tsunami) and reduction in budget. Vacant posts have not been filled either at the technical or senior management level. Often it is the final stage of the activity, preparing the report or CD, which has been delayed. Planned versus actual achievements and outputs by the programme entities are presented in Annex 10. Additionally, greater detail and recommendations for the specific programme entity activities can be found in Section VII.

C. Audiences and Users

The intended beneficiaries of the programme entities A1, A2 and A3 and their expected benefits are: Farmers and pastoralists that could benefit from enhanced soil fertility and increased

investment and improved technologies in irrigated and rainfed areas. Moreover, they will benefit from integrated and sustainable management of the land, plant nutrients and water resources, especially in areas vulnerable to resource degradation, drought, floods and other natural hazards.

Public/private irrigation managers that could benefit from modernization of management techniques. More participatory decision making through establishment of associations within irrigation schemes will be achieved. The cost of irrigation in national budget will decrease.

The environment and public that could benefit from improved management of land resources, including mitigation of land degradation, increased food production and/or more water being available for non-agricultural use.

The secondary users of the programme entities are stakeholders in integrated water management, farmers in supported Water User Associations (WUA), technicians, extension workers, trainers and farmers in Farmer Fields Schools and SPFS, project managers and technicians, national and regional decision and policy makers, private industry, media and donors.

ResponsivenessIt was generally recognized that AGL responds sufficiently to FAO field programmes and other International agencies (Table 3). The opinions were varied concerning academia and research, where the majority stated that responsiveness is sufficient, whereas the number of people saying that response was insufficient or that the response is overemphasized were also numerous. It was stressed that AGL has very few direct links with Governments and Civil Society so it was therefore difficult to assess if we are responding to their demands. The reasons for very few direct links with the governments are the very limited number of field projects.

9

Table 3: Responses from AGL staff: How is AGL responding to:

Not sufficiently Sufficiently Over

emphasis Don’t know

Governments 1010 1313 33 22FAO field programme 88 1515 22 33Other international agencies 99 1111 22 66Civil Society 1414 44 22 88Academia / researchers 66 99 88 55

D. Reputation of Services

The three programme entities generate eight services including: technical guidance and support, policy advice, capacity building and training, filed projects, publications, workshops / expert consultations, e-conferences, conferences and meetings. The respondents, both in the external and internal surveys, were asked to indicate their views of AGL’s services and products.

Figure 4 shows the results form the internal questionnaire and in Figure 5 the external survey results are presented. As Figure 4 and 5 show, AGL’s users and collaborators have a higher degree of satisfaction than those expressed by the staff themselves. Between 86 percent and 100 percent of the respondents in the internal survey expressed an opinion of the different services, while the number of responses, expressing an opinion, in the external questionnaire varied between 74 and 163 respondents, or a response rate between 42 percent and 93 percent.

In Figure 6, the responses by Government (e.g. Ministries, regional delegations, and extension workers) are illustrated. In total 21 respondents in the external questionnaire fall into this category, and between 10 and 20 individuals (i.e. 48 percent and 95 percent) indicated their views on the services of AGL. The result from this group is somewhat less positive than the total external sample, but the group still rates the services higher than the AGL staff.

Figure 4: Percentage of rating of AGL services, rated by themselves, from internal questionnaire.

10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Technicalguidance and

support

Policy adviceCapacity buildingand training

Field projects Publications Workshops/expertconsultations

E-conferencesConferences andmeetings

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Figure 5. Percentage of rating of AGL services by respondents from the external survey.

Figure 6. Percentage of rating of AGL services by governments from the external survey.

Approximately 30 respondents in the external survey identified AGL’s publications to be the most satisfying service of the Division. The Division does however need to update several technical publications. With limited financial and human resources, it was suggested that AGL should become more focused by concentrating on a few selected topics, which requires good management, improved internal planning mechanisms and priority setting for the programmes and publications. Furthermore, it was suggested that the publications should be continuously monitored and evaluated, for example regularly checking of sales and distribution statistics to know if reprints are needed before copies are finished. This practice would also give an indication of what types of publications are in demand and from which audience. It was further suggested that the Land and Water Newsletter address list should be updated through a subscription drive and that AGL’s “window”, the website, should be restructured and made more user-friendly.

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Technicalguidance and

support

Policy advice Capacity buildingand training

Field projects Publications Workshops/expertconsultations

E-conferencesConferences andmeetings

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Technicalguidance and

support

Policy adviceCapacity buildingand training

Field projects Publications Workshops/expertconsultations

E-conferencesConferences andmeetings

ExcellentGoodFairPoor

Some people responding to the internal questionnaire and in interviews thought the publication preparation time from draft to printing is sometimes too long. However, during the workshop it was reiterated that urgent, unplanned responsibilities (such as the Tsunami) impacted the planned work schedule.

Policy advice, both at International and National levels, and global overview and network are other important aspects of the Division’s work. Capacity building in developing countries and field projects are services that need to be strengthened. Moreover, it was recommended that all maps and old reports be scanned and placed in the Documentation Centre to increase access by potential users.

The respondents of the external survey were asked to rate, from poor to excellent, AGL’s overall performance using the following characteristics: demand driven, effective, relevant, innovative, usefulness, timely, reliable, influential and easily accessible (Figure 7). Between 111 and 157 individuals (63 percent to 90 percent) responded. Relevance, usefulness and reliability are the characteristics for which the respondents are most satisfied, while demand driven, effective, innovative, timely, influential and accessibility are rated slightly lower.

Figure 7. Percentage of rating of AGLs work from external survey.

In Figure 8, the rating by the Government-group is shown and it follows approximately the same pattern as the total sample of the external questionnaire and between 14 and 18 individuals, 67 percent and 86 percent, stated an opinion about AGL’s work/performance.

From the interviews that were conducted and the results from the external survey, it is clear that AGL’s technical capacity is highly appreciated. Quite a few respondents praised the Division’s staff for being motivated, service minded and professional. Nonetheless, several respondents thought that more emphasis could be placed on some technical areas or that they should take a real lead on a number of areas (e.g. plant nutrition, nutrient balance estimates, fertilizer use in Africa, carbon stocks in soils / land use changes, investment strategies for irrigation in Africa, SIMIS, Irrigation modernization and drainage).

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Demanddriven

Effective Relevant Innovative Useful Timely Reliable Influential Easilyaccessible

ExcellentGood Fair Poor

Figure 8. Percentage of rating of AGLs work by Governments from the external survey.

E. Collaboration

The AGL staff has been described as strong in terms of technical knowledgeable and giving good services. Many people externally refer to solid collaboration and teamwork with AGL. Others report on the difficulties in their collaboration with AGL in general or on specific outputs. Some interviewees noted that they specifically invite AGL for a closer collaboration. Internally between the programme entities and within the programme entities there are some activities with very good collaboration and team spirit whereas others are more driven by individual officers.

When the AGL staff was asked if they would like to see a closer relationship between a) AGL and other divisions, b) AGLW and AGLL and c) between headquarters and outposted officers, the majority responded that they agreed or strongly agreed in all three cases (Table 4).

Table 4: Responses from AGL staff: I would like to see a closer relationship between:

Strongly Agree Agree DisagreeHQ and outposted staff 11 15 2AGLW and AGLL 9 15 2AGL and Other Divisions 6 18 0

The relation between the programme entities and their contribution to the PAIAs varies from case to case. It has been stressed that PAIAs work well when they have a strong leader and a budget and when staff from different units see an opportunity for added value of joint work. Reasons for PAIAs working less well are that they have very few resources and that they have been imposed from the top. PAIAs to which the programme entities contribute are; Combating Desertification, Organic Agriculture, Conservation Agriculture, Climate Change, Integrated Production Systems, Biodiversity and Sustainable Management of Mountains.

13

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Demanddriven

Effective Relevant Innovative Useful Timely Reliable Influential Easilyaccessible

ExcellentGood Fair Poor

F. Working relationship between Sub-Regional and Regional Offices and Headquarters

From the AGL gathering in April 2004 a number of concrete recommendations for the Division were made (Annex 6). These are considered still highly relevant to the programme entities under review in this auto-evaluation. Of the six recommendations made for improving the working relationship between sub-regional and regional offices and headquarters only one has been implemented, namely the establishing and use of the AGL-professional email list. The other five have received little attention. These include a) training in the use of PIRES where needed; b) effective involvement of (S)ROs in the planning process; c) increased targeted priority areas for non-staff resources in the (sub)regions; d) improved process of resource allocation (non-staff as well as income earned) in the (sub) regions; and e) enhanced the process of decentralization in terms of human resources.

G. Field Programmes and Normative work

This auto-evaluation intended to learn if AGL is using the field projects as a channel for disseminating and testing the normative products produced by A1, A2 and A3. There are many examples where normative work has been applied in field projects, whereas in several other cases this does not happen and is viewed as hampering the effectiveness of the overall work in the Division. Interestingly, it was also noted that field projects can be used to collect technical information and material that lead to the development of normative products. Examples of field projects (TCP, TF, SPFS, GEF) where normative products have been used include the Nile basin project, training workshops on farm water management, irrigation modernization training programmes, establishment of soil testing laboratories, formulation of precise fertilizer and integrated nutrient management and a number of Farmer Field Schools on soil productivity improvement. A specific example is the Land and Water Digital Media Series 14, Participatory Training and Extension in Farmers Water Management, which has been used in collaboration with SDWW in three workshops and now will be used by 16 Mediterranean countries as part of the EC water activities. A second example is the Land and Water Discussion Paper, issue 2, On-farm Composting Methods, which contains a number of case studies from FAO projects on rapid composting in small scale. From several projects, the need for a manual on establishment of laboratories with varying capacity for analysis, and analytical methods for soil, water, plant and fertilizers was recognized. Accordingly, such a manual has been prepared and soon be published.

The linkage with the field projects is viewed as an area for improvement. Recommendations are to a) evaluate the use of the training and capacity building products; b) to identify other projects in FAO for application; and c) implement rotation amongst staff between HQ and (S)RO to improve the linkages.

H. Contribution to International Debates

When AGL staff were asked whether the programme entities A1, A2 and A3 respond to international commitment and programmes, the responses were as follows: Over-emphasised (15 %), Sufficient (42.5 %) and Not Sufficient (42.5%). It was noted that while the normative products contribute to the MDGs, they are too broad to drive the work per se. Other points made were that sometimes FAO officers use a lot of their resources to cope with the emergency related projects, taking away time from programmed activities which need attention.

14

Recommendations are that there should be greater participation at international conferences. For example at the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto 2003, AGL was visible. There is the possibility for FAO and AGL to participate in conventions such as RAMSAR, UNCCD, and the EC water convention. Currently there is no process allowing for this and cost effectiveness has to be taken in to consideration. It was also widely recognized that the work of the programme entities can be better highlighted to raise visibility and enhance credibility in international arena.

I. Visibility

AGL’s Land and Water Newsletter was highlighted by 118 respondents from the external survey (Figure 9) as an important information source from which they learn about new activities and products. This response could be construed as biased as almost 90 percent of the questionnaire addressees are subscribers of the Land and Water Newsletter. The website was indicated by 108 respondents as an important source for spreading news. Fewer find out about AGL news from communication with FAO staff (51 respondents) or individuals outside FAO (27 respondents).

Figure 9. Number of respondents’ on how they learn about new activities and products from the Division.

During the auto-evaluation workshop, officers noted a need to enhance the outreach of their products and services. The participants had several suggestions for increasing AGL’s visibility. As was indicated in the previous auto-evaluation and AGL-gathering, a reconstruction of the website needs to take place to make it user-friendly. The Land and Water Newsletter’s address list needs to be updated and augmented with a broader audience. Therefore, a subscription drive of the Newsletter should take place and one way would be for all staff to insert a link for subscription at the bottom of their email signature. Furthermore, each staff could encourage colleagues and clients with whom they have contacts, to subscribe, and a special drive to try to enlist more agricultural people and a wider base of FAO clients.

As the publications are major strengths of AGL’s services it is important to advertise these as much as possible. It was suggested to “market” publications with a two-three pages glossy pamphlet as a “teaser” for the publication. It is also important for AGL to try to reach beyond the academic community to other users of the AGL products. However, it was felt that the academic

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Through the Land andWater Newsletter

Visits to the Website Direct communicationwith FAO staff

Communication withindividuals and

organizations outsideFAO

Other

community in their countries would be in a better position to transfer such knowledge with appropriate adaptation in their own countries.

Several of the actions that have been suggested require time and could best be managed by a communication / information specialist, however this represents a human resource trade off with a technical officer.

The workshop participants identified ten categories of key audiences of AGL that need to be better targeted in an effort to raise visibility: governmental agencies, civil society, local NGOs, donors, other UN agencies, media, FAO internal, local FAO offices, governing bodies (permanent rep.) and research / academic. A number of possible mechanisms were identified to reach these key audiences (See Table 5).

Table 5. Priority actions to reach key clients. Activities to reach the individual clients are marked with an x.

Activity

Gov

ernm

enta

lA

genc

ies

Civ

il so

ciet

y/

NG

O’s

Loc

al N

GO

’s

Don

ors

Oth

er U

N

agen

cies

Med

ia

FAO

inte

rnal

Gov

erni

ng b

odie

s (p

erm

anen

t rep

.)

Loc

al F

AO

off

ices

Res

earc

hes/

ac

adem

ic

Prio

rity

1. Website (better target audience and L and W newsletter)

x x x x x x x x x x 1

2. Organize conferences and events in FAO regional conferences

x x

3. Participate in e-conferences x x 44. Capacity building assessment of training)

x x x 2

5. Increase language coverage (website, publications etc)

x x x x x x x 2

6. Technical contribution to treaties (to specific)

x x x x x x 4

7. Publicity brochures/Video x x x x x x x x x 28. Lobbying x 49. Press release x x x x x x10. Briefing x x x x x 411. Presentations x x x x12. Publish in Peer review journals (nature and science)

x x x x x x x x x 2

VII. Assessment and Recommendation on the individual Programme Entities

A. Statistics of Document Sales and Web Visits

Technical documents are distributed through GI or mailed out to specific individuals by the technical officers. As a general rule, average requirements for “full” quota distribution means that 630 copies (English), 180 copies (French), 140 copies (Spanish), 80 copies (Arabic), and 50 copies (Chinese) are distributed. Members are entitled to one free copy and these are also sent to FAO Regional and Sub-regional offices, FAO Representatives, UNDP Permanent Representatives in countries where there is no FAO Representative, FAO Depository Libraries, UNIC libraries,

16

and some other UN Agency libraries with limited headquarters distribution. The costs associated with these quota copies are charged to the originating Division. Additionally, a number of technical documents and all of the digital media series are for sale. An important number of publications are distributed freely on specific requests received by the AGL Documentation Centre. In Table 6, the distribution and sales statistics shows specific materials published through A1, A2 and A3.

17

Table 6: Distribution, sales statistics and web views for selected publications in A1, A2 and A3.

Publication Number produced

Number distributed or sold

Number sold

Ranked views on the web, 1 highest *

Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation PE 211 A1Crops and Drops, 2002 (Miscellaneous – water) 5 000 n.a. n.a. 12Crops and Drops, in French 2 000 n.a. n.a. 51Crops and Drops, in Spanish 2 000 n.a. n.a. 5Crops and Drops, in Arabic 2 000 n.a. n.a. 68Crops and Drops, in Italian 3 500 n.a. n.a. 71Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements, 1998 (Irrigation and drainage paper#56)

3370 1688 1484 1

Transfer of irrigation management services: guidelines. 1999 (Irrigation and drainage papers #58)

4100 2179 213 n.a.

Transfer of irrigation management services: guidelines, 2001, in French, 600 513 9 114

Transfer of irrigation management services: guidelines, 2002 in Spanish 500 452 42 58

Rethinking the approach to groundwater and food security, 2003 (E) (Water Report 24) 1060 880 78 106

Participatory Training and Extension in Farmers' Water Management, 2001 (E) (CD#14) 2250 1994 65 n.a.

Land and Soil Productivity 211 A2Use of phosphate rocks for sustainable agriculture, 2004. (Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin #13) 1600 1143 68 62

Use of phosphate rocks for sustainable agriculture. Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin #13, in French, Utilisation des phosphates naturels pour une agriculture durable, 2004

1000 n.a. 3 52

On-farm composting methods, 2003 (Land and Water Discussion Paper#2)

1000 281 n.a. 79

On-farm composting methods, 2005, in French. 500 n.a. n.a. n.a. Soil fertility management in support of food security in sub-Saharan Africa, 2001 (Miscellaneous)

1200 1031 79 n.a.

Soil fertility management in support of food security in sub-Saharan Africa, 2003, in French. 550 360 2 n.a.

Carbon sequestration in dryland soils. World Soil Resources Report#102. 1100 n.a. 66 110

Conservation of natural resources for sustainable agriculture: training modules, 2004 (Land and Water Digital Media Series#27)

1050 396 20 n.a.

Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management 211 A3Payment schemes for environmental services in watersheds, Sistemas de Pago por Servicios Ambientales en Cuencas Hidrográficas 2004, bilingual, (Land and water discussion paper – 3)

500 n.a. n.a 78

Optimizing soil moisture for plant production, 2003 (Soils bulletin 79) 1600 967 89 111

Optimizing soil moisture for plant production, 2003, 2003 in Spanish. 1030 n.a. 1 n.a.

* The ranked views on the web shows the relative ranking of all the AGL documents of a total of 142, which was viewed in the FAO document repository in the month of June. The publication ranked as nr 1 has the highest nr of views.

n.a. – Data not available.

18

There are a few key AGL documents that rank highest among all FAO documents viewed on the web. These are:

Crop Evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing crop water requirements, 1998. (fifth most visited/viewed url document on the FAO document repository).

Lucha contra la contaminación agrícola de los recursos hídricos. (Estudio FAO: Riego y drenaje - 55), 1997. (fifth most visited/viewed url document on the FAO document repository in Spanish).

Crops and Drops in Arabic, 2002. (sixth most visited/viewed url document on the FAO document repository in Arabic).

Introduction à la gestion conservatoire de l'eau, de la biomasse et de la fertilité des sols (GCES), 1994. (seventh most visited/viewed url document on the FAO document repository in French).

The AG department represents 25 % of the publications having more than 100 visits on the FAO Document Repository of which AGL and AGS are the divisions with most visited publications. For further details about statistics from the document repository see Annex 7.

B. Results of In-depth Review

A number of activities were selected for an in-depth review, which are described briefly in Table 7.

The following are the main recommendations extended for improving associated outputs: For the publication on Crop Evapotranspiration and related software CROPWAT, it was

stated how important it is to keep up with the latest developments and to reach consensus with the scientific community was stressed.

For the training material Participatory Training and Extension in Farmers' Water Management, it has been recommended to a) include 20 ready to use case studies from SDWW, b) to make the material available in French as a priority but also Spanish and c) to make some parts less technical.

For the Farmer Field Schools, it was requested to give more power to the country/project office.

As follow-up on the e-conference Organic Recycling: On-farm Composting Methods: based on the information exchange, a publication has been made. The techniques need to be applied in countries and verified about local acceptibility and adoption.

For the e-conference Assessment of Soil Nutrient Depletion and Requirements – Approach and Methodology it was recommended that the Service should follow up on the subject every 3-5 years. Without increasing fertilizer use where balance is negative, it will not be possible to reverse the nutrient exports and halt soil nutrient depletion, particularly in Africa and therefore FAO should take a role in linking the industry and governments.

It was recommended that the LADA project could benefit from more interaction with the Combat Desertification PAIA rather than hiring external short-term consultants.

It was recommended that the Soil Carbon Sequestration activities should be followed up by guidelines on how countries can implement projects and synergies in terms of Payment for Environmental Services / Biodiversity and the clean mechanism should be offered in those guidelines / manuals.

The recommendation for the activities and workshop on Payment Schemes for Environmental Services (PES) was the need to follow up this activity and to introduce PES activities in field projects and normative work programmes.

19

Recommendations on the activities following the publication (in progress) on Economics of water harvesting were to build on this for more field studies due to the huge variation in the economic returns obtained.

Table 7: Publications and outputs selected for in depth analysis

Aim Audience Partners OutputA1. Publication, Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements, 1998 (Irrigation and drainage paper#56)

An updated procedure for calculating reference and crop evapotranspiration from meteorological data and crop coefficients.

Agro-meteorologists, agronomists irrigation engineersGlobal coverage for local application.

various experts and researchersits built on extensive networks and FAO consultation

Publication –success story World recognized Referenced calculation for crop evapotranspiration Adopted methodology for CROPWAT

A1. Software development CROPWAT/CLIMWAT

Provides a practical tool to carry out standard calculations for evapotranspiration and crop water use studies, and to design and management of irrigation schemes. Standard crop data are included in the program and climatic data can be obtained for 144 countries through the CLIMWAT-database.

Agro-meteorologists, agronomists irrigation engineers.Scale: Global coverage for local application.

International Irrigation & Development Institute (IIDS) of the University of Southampton, UK. Agricultural College of Velp, Netherlands.Various key engineers and researches in agro-meteorology and irrigation.

Worldwide use and for discussion. Spin-off, many developed modified versions for specific crops and regions developed by individual research institutions and agronomist. All software and data accessible of the CROPWAT and CLIMWAT web page. Different platforms for different users.

A1. Training, Participatory Training and Extension in Farmers' Water Management, 2001 (CD#14)

To provide guidelines, procedures and relevant material for the development of a participatory training and extension material to particularly assist water users

Technical staff, extension workers and other stakeholders in water management.Scale: National, field and scheme level

Used in training together and by SDWW

Used in 3 workshops, in South Africa, Cambodia and Italy. Widely disseminated by FAO officers. Spin off: Will be used by 16 Mediterranean countries as part of the EC water activities.

A2. Soil Productivity Improvement through Farmer Field Schools (2001 – 2005)

Motivate and empower farmers in soil productivity improvement through discovery-based learning, on-farm participatory technology development and information exchange between farmers and farmers and facilitators.

Farmers in Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya, and extension workers. Scale: local.

A partnership entitled INSPIRE with five partners. Several financial sources for the project: Norway, Rockefeller, CTI (the Netherlands) andFNPP.

1. Poster for the FFS – 20032. Flyer SPI FFS – 2003 3. Two writing workshops in 2004 in Italy and Kenya. 4. A manual for farmers and extension workers based on the workshops and the project (forthcoming).

A2. E-conference: Assessment of Soil Nutrient Depletion and Requirements – Approach and Methodology (September 2002 – July 2003)

To share information and exchange ideas, views and experiences on approach and methodology for assessment of soil nutrient

National and international bodies; governmental and NGOs, research institutes / universities and development org.

“Assessment of Soil Nutrient Balance – Approaches and Methodologies” (FAO Fertilizer and Nutrient Bulletin, #14) was printed 2003 in English and in

20

depletion and requirements. French, 2005.

21

Continuation of table 7Aim Audience Partners OutputA2. E-conference: Organic Recycling: On-farm Composting Methods (May 2002 - March 2003)

Promotion of efficient rapid composting technologies for small farmers in developing countries.

National and international bodies; governmental and NGOs, research institutes / universities and develop. org.

“On-farm Composting Methods” (Land and Water Discussion Paper, #2), printed in English, 2003, in French, 2005.

A2. Soil Carbon Sequestration (1999-2005)

Information on soil carbon sequestration potential, in particular in arid and semi-arid areas and contributing to the emerging debates on sustainable land use and climate change mitigation.

Funding agencies, development and investment programmes in the agricultural/rural land use sector aimed at improving land management. Scale: Global, regional and local.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and Global Mechanism of the UNCCD.

Several FAO publications: World Soils Resources Reports, #96 and #102, AGL Miscellaneous Papers, #37, and Miscellaneous Papers - Soils, in 2004

A2. PAIA: Combating Desertification, contribution through the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) Project (2002 – 2008)

The LADA project aims to assess causes, status and impact of land degradation. Via the work within the LADA-project, AGLL contributes to the Combating Desertification PAIA.

All stakeholders concerned by land degradation, and in particular the ones involved in the implementation of the action programmes of the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).Scale: Global, regional and local.

Global Mechanism of the UNCCDUNEP - Division of Early Warning and AssessmentSecretariat of the UNCCD.

Several FAO publications and conferences have been produced by the LADA: World Soils Resources Reports, # 97, Miscellaneous Papers, #39, Brochure - Miscellaneous Papers - Soils.

A3. Workshop, Payment schemes for environmental services in watersheds, in Arequipa, Peru, 9-13 June, 2003. Organized during the Third Latin American Congress on Watershed ManagementTo exchange experiences in systems of payment for environmental services (PES) in watersheds in Latin America, particularly for water resources.

The event included 80 experts. It included 23 communications, of which five sponsored by RLC/AGL and 18 voluntary contributions by congress participants. Scale: Latin America

FAO HQ-RO Latin America and the Caribbean, Third Latin American Congress on Watershed Management

Proceedings, including Lessons learnt, barriers and recommendations for design and implementation of PES schemes in watersheds. Improved collaboration HQ-RO- FORC. Followed up by FAO in Latin America, inc, e-conference.

A3. Email conference, Drought Resistant Soil: Optimization of soil moisture for sustainable plant production”, 12 November - 17 December 2004To discuss available practices for drought-proofing of soil in rainfed agriculture, specifically through soil moisture management.

Researchers, development agents, non-governmental organizations. Around 70 participants. Scale: Global

Statement “ no tillage farming system are beneficial for water management”Network builtProceedings still pending

A3. Economics of water harvesting: the report is soon to be printedTo provide background information for increasing investments in water management.

Policy makers, governanceScale: Global

Joint work by AGL and AGS. Difficult to asses as the publication is not yet printed.

22

C. Review and Recommendations on A1 Activities

The 211A1 program is central in the core historical program of the Water Service of FAO and somehow is one of the flagships of the service and as such it bears some positive and negative features.

On the positive side: it is a well known and recognized program (confirmed by the results of this auto-evaluation), and it is fair to say that several products emanating from it have reached high success. On the negative side there seems to be some heavy momentum in moving the agenda, a lack of flexibility in changing the sub thematics and perhaps a low capacity for innovation.

The title, Agriculture Water Use Efficiency and Conservation, is somehow reflecting that duality: it is old-style and it seems that it was difficult to change it. This leads to some gap between the title and the content. To give an example, the programme entity A3 is the one who has “policies and management” in the title whereas the content of A1 have several activities related to these topics without mentioning it in the title. Therefore there is some room for improving the consistency and avoiding misleading about the program structure of AGL and the content of each entity.

It seems that in the past, evolution and changes at service level were thought for through other programme entities such as the recently created A5 on land and water quality improvement which, de facto, is focusing on Water Quality and Drainage or with A3 where new ideas are mostly based on integration.

ManagementAs far as 211A1 entity management is concerned, the situation has changed a lot between 2004 and 2005 (the current PEM took over the entity in May 2004). In 2003 there was no real management/discussion about A1 for the preparation of the 2004-05 biennium, choice was made more or less on the basis of momentum. The discussion started at the AGL gathering at Viterbo in April 2004 where all AGL staff met, but without focusing specifically on any entity and without seriously addressing the programming procedure, despite that several PEM already had mentioned the lack of clear responsibility and procedures for the PEM. Ultimately program management boiled down thereafter to budget constraints at division level for the remaining part of the year 2004 and early 2005.

In July 2005 , for the first time, a set of internal seminars were held which led to useful outputs such as basic sharing of information and how to restructure activities, plans and quality check of products (report of July 211A1 seminar is available).

Afterwards discussions accelerated with the launching of the auto-evaluation and the concomitant unexpected FAO reform preparation. These two processes have driven A1 staff into looking deeply in the program and activities and confronting them with others (moving to SD-Clustering-Functional statement).

Finally, the current preparation of the PWB 06-07 under the constraint of a very significant budget reduction, forces to revise the structure of the programming and set more clearly priorities into activities.

To summarize from a dormant 2004 to a very active 2005 as far as entity management is concerned.

23

Specific recommendations are: Reduce the number of MO from 6 to 4. Integrate A5 and A1 into one single programme entity (as drainage and water quality are

not separated from irrigation and rainfed agriculture) Discuss the need to have a separate A3 from A1 and A2.

D. Review and Recommendations on A2 Activities

The 211A2 (Land and Soil Productivity) is the core historical programme of Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service (AGLL). The programme covers Land, Soil and Plant Nutrition aspects. The programme during 2002-2003 followed the group structure of the Service. The Service chief being the PEM with three group leaders being the component managers with budget management responsibility (component 001: Integrated Soil and Plant Nutrient Management; component 002: Management, conservation and rehabilitation of degraded and problem soils; component 003: Policies and planning of land resources). During 2004-05, all these components became MOs with one budget holder for 211A2. Therefore, during the review period management under went changes, alias for the better.

It has been quite normal that activities which should have been under this PE have also been covered by other PEs, like A3, P7 and P8. Reasons are: difficulty in disassotiating linkages, inadequate programming coherence among the PEs, convenience of getting funds from different PEs; etc.

The programme suffered from inadequate divisional budget management. Due to well structured activity planning and budget management, the activities were well spread with in a year. However, due to early overspending of some PEs, A2 was deprived of its allocated funds towards the 3rd and 4th quarters. This has immensely affected outputs.

Many activities, like FNPP, Norway fund for RP work, GEF projects, etc although falls under A2, especially programming of staff resources and also catalytic funding, the management of activities including output credits often was not possible and remained individual staff involvement/outputs. This is definitely a management problem as PEM has hardly any authority to handle such situations.

In general A2 was successful in getting individual inputs under a common platform (MOs) and accommodated budget provision to the staff requirements. This is true for both HQ and regional/sub-regional officers. Consequently, a great deal outputs could be achieved. However, a number of posts remained vacant during this period which has reflected in the delays or cancellation of some outputs.

Some recommendations are put forward:

Basic work, including technology development and policy options, related to soil resources, soil management and plan nutrition should remain in A2 and any applied work where an integrated approach is implied among soil, water and plant nutrition should be covered by A3. A relook to the vision of A3 commensurating AGL mandate would be warranted.

Reduce and rename the existing 3 MOs to 2: soil fertility, plant nutrition and fertilizer use; and soil management (including degraded and problem soils).

Need for a database/information is issue based. Therefore, framework and collection of such database should be entrusted to respective PEs. While their integration and maintenance should be done by P7 (even by a central unit of FAO).

Knowledgement should be an integral part of subject related PE and thus, to avoid confusion P8 should be abolished.

Full time staff involvement under any PE to avoid confusion and lack of accountability.

Budget, once agreed by the Division, and the staff management should be fully delegated to the PEM who should be accountable for the outputs.

Any project formulation (other than RP) and their management should be delegated to the PEM who should build the team and be responsible for successful implementation.

Finally, a critical mass of expertise should be ensured.

24

E. Review and Recommendations on A3 Activities

Overall assessment The programme of A3 has suffered from several changes during the last biennia. More than any other programme it seems to suffer from a lack of identity (it is not related to a Service and has never developed a vision). It is still too much seen as the PE where all that is neither water nor land is placed. Several officers use this situation as an opportunity by moving elements of their programme in and out of A3 following budget opportunities rather than a programmatic logic. During the last six years, this has been the case for activities related to wetland development, water harvesting, conservation agriculture, land use assessment and to a certain extent soil moisture management and drought mitigation (practically the entire programme).

Another conclusion of this lack of identity is the lack of team work, and in some cases strong disagreements between officers contributing to the programme and refusing to work in a common framework, leading to a poor overall image of the programme to the outside users. The most striking example is related to activities on soil moisture management and drought mitigation. However, this is not the case for all A3 and some good examples of collaboration, both within AGL and with other units, exist and are appreciated. Example: Farmer field schools in land and water management, water harvesting, and payment for environmental services. PE managers should be given the task to effectively build team work around their PEs both for planning and implementation. The development of a web page for A3, initiated in 2005, should also be an opportunity to develop a better identity for the PE and, hopefully, foster team work.

Staff reduction has affected A3 more than any other PE. With the retirement of Gallagher and van Leeuwen, the loss of an AGLW SAFR officer dealing with drought mitigation and wetlands (Bangoura, to Equatorial Guinea), the recent loss of Benites to Argentina, and the end of the contract of Benjamin Kiersch, staff issues for A3 go beyond structural reduction in resources and have a serious impact on the PE’s ambitions and outputs, both past and future.

A3 has developed a close working relation between HQ and regional staff through joint planning of several activities. It has been the case with Latin America (for watershed-related activities), Africa (for wetlands) and to a lesser extent with Asia (for watershed-related activities). This integration of work among HQ and Regional staff is appreciated and should be continued and reinforced. In the future, there is probably scope for joint work with RNE in drought mitigation activities. It should be recognised, however, that regional staff who are under pressure for backstopping field projects, do not always have time to adequately follow-up RP activities and, therefore, a more careful assessment of priorities and available time should be made so as to better match programmes with capacities (this is valid also for RP staff in many cases).

In terms of programming, A3 should work out a list of priority issues it wants to address, develop a concept paper on how it plans to address them and from there identify short and medium term activities leading to the achievement of the programme: more strategy, less single activities, more linkage with the field.

Assessment and recommendations related to specific major outputsFor the sake of simplification, the evaluation of A3 should be made on the basis of the following major outputs:

1 Wetland development and management2 Watershed-based land and water management, including payments for environmental services

25

in watersheds3 Soil moisture management, including drought mitigation, conservation agriculture, and water

harvesting4 Integrated land, water and plant nutrient management, including integrated land assessment,

framework for land use planning and water and fertiliser interaction

Wetland development and managementThis MO was initially located in A1 for pure opportunistic reasons and moved to A3 when Nico van Leeuwen retired. It has suffered from lack of staff (no HQ staff available to lead the process, limited time available at RO and SRO level). After some good activities and collaboration with IWMI and RAMSAR, initiated in the period 2001-2003, there has been a slow down in activities and practically no activity in 2005. Hopefully, 2006 should see a renewed interest for the subject from RAF and HQ, with the drafting of guidelines for sustainable wetland management, and renewed collaboration with RAMSAR for the promotion of wise use of wetland. Link with follow up of WFE is also possible if funds permitting.

Vision: AGL’s vision on wetland activities is built upon a long experience of wetland development for irrigated agriculture. While this should remain the focus of the MO in the future, the linkage with RAMSAR and IWMI should allow for a more comprehensive view of wetland that include environmental considerations. FAO’s role in this collaboration should remain where its strength is, in agricultural development.

Watershed-based land and water managementThis MO includes the study of land and water integration in small watersheds and payments for environmental services in watersheds, and is related to part of the GEF-funded transboundary watershed management programme in Eastern Africa. The subjects is considered important, and a good example of joint HQ-region and inter-departmental activities. The work on PES calls for closer linkage with other units within FAO dealing with PES. The questionnaire has also shown the importance of watershed management issues for AGL clients (one of the top ranking fields of interest in the external questionnaire), and the need to solve the decades long issue of watershed management within FAO (in particular the relation with FOR). The evaluation also calls for the development of a field programme in particular in PES to complement and feed back RP findings. The GEF-funded project in Eastern Africa is a good opportunity to better link RP and field activities and current efforts in that sense should be encouraged. Some work is also needed to ensure that A3 staff working on this argument share the basic principles of watershed management and have a common vision of the MO’s rationale and objectives.

Soil moisture managementUnder the broad title of soil moisture management, AGL has developed activities related to conservation agriculture, soil water management, drought mitigation, and water harvesting. The programme has evolved with the years. While it appears clearly from the evaluation and the AGL gathering that water management in rainfed agriculture and drought mitigation should be a priority of AGL, the programme has so far been mostly a succession of activities (some very good ones and some less good) not always connected between them and not carried out in a joint framework. A3 is also the programme that suffered most from divergences of views between staff on what the programme should be. This is the MO that most needs brainstorming and the development of a shared rationale and vision.

26

The question of conservation agriculture, the relation with soil moisture management and the need and reason for dealing with conservation agriculture in A3 remains highly controversial in FAO, with impacts on the programme.

Economics of water harvesting has been delayed due to the departure of staff in AGS (Dixon) and maternity leave of AGL staff (Beernaerts) but the subject is considered important and a good example of cooperation between FAO units. As the report is being finalized, the results of the inquiry suggest that a last quality control may be needed. In the future, the programme should focus on policy guidance to decision makers, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa.

Integrated land, water and plant nutrient management This MO has included work on integrated land assessment, framework for land use planning and studies on water and fertilizer interaction. In this framework, A3 has also funded part of the work of the SOLAW report. The role of this MO is less clear than in other cases and it has been used to complement activities funded mostly under P7 and A2. In the future, the role of this MO and its relation with the other MOs of AGL programme should be re-visited. To the extent possible, each AGL PE should have its own rational and objectives and excessive inter-linkages between the PEs should be avoided. The question whether “land” activities should be part of A3 or A2 may become relevant in particular if the reform is implemented quickly. In that case, A2 may become the “farm gate” component of soil and fertility management, and land issues would end up in A3. In conclusion A3 is considered as an important piece of AGL programme, bridging the gap between traditional “land” (or soil) and “water” activities of AGL. It is still at an early stage of development, and further work is needed to streamline both the objectives and the vision that justify the PE. The PE would benefit from a more strategic approach to its objectives, a more integrated team sharing a common vision of the question, and more leadership. The question of critical mass in terms of staff and resources is becoming serious.

VIII. Summary Findings and Suggested RecommendationsThe following suggested broad recommendations emerged through the programme entity review. Some of the recommendations are of a general nature because they impact the way in which the programme entities are planned and implemented. Some of the recommendations are specific to the programme entities A1, A2, and A3 (See sections VII,C,D, and E). Additionally, some of the recommendations from the AGL Gathering are also listed here as they are still highly relevant to increasing effectiveness of the AGL efforts.

A. Planning and Decision MakingWhile not specific to these programme entities and in some cases not specific to the division, there was agreement that improvements in aspects of planning and decision making including the role of the programme entity managers and a shared vision for prioritization would greatly improve the effectiveness of the programme entities.

Role of the Programme Entity Managers

Finding. While the programme entity managers are doing the best work possible given the circumstance, as it is currently structured the programme entity managers do not have the means to manage effectively for a coherent implementation strategy toward shared outcomes.

27

Suggested Recommendations. There needs to be a management process in which the programme entity managers are positioned to effectively manage with responsibility and authority for the programme entities. It is recommended that this position should have redefined Terms of Reference (TOR) with the following characteristics and tasks taken into account: contributing technically, facilitating and building team work around the programme entity for participatory planning and implementation, facilitating communication (including holding regular meetings) among the associated technical officers (both in headquarters and in (S)Ros), and providing guidance and implement SMART objectives toward intended outcomes. The programme entity managers must be allocated the time to do a thorough job and have control over the budget. It was suggested that the Programme Entity Manager position could be rotated among the team members and possibly elected by the staff members. This reiterates the recommendation of the AGL Gathering to redefine responsibilities and TORs of the PEMs and the operational modalities of the PEs with action required by AGLD and AGD.

Working with a Shared Vision/Framework, Prioritization and Planning Time

Finding. While AGL has a vision statement that was developed during the Gathering in 2004, it is not translated into vision and strategies at the programme entity level and subsequently there is little coherence in planning the programme entity efforts. Planning is often overly ambitious in addition to frequent ad hoc requests that limit capacity to fulfill regular programme work. Planning is often done rapidly to respond to PBE requests.

Reviewing the priorities, the topics of interest from the questionnaire respondents (Annex 9 and section II) and the documents consulted on the document repository (Annex 7) the identified thematic entities that was suggested at the AGL gathering for forward AGL planning are still valid. These are:

1. Land and water degradation (quality) and productivitya) in rainfed areas and farming systemsb) in irrigated systems

2. Land and water policy advice3. Environmental services of land and water (in terms of ecosystems’ sustainability and in the

international context: UNCBD UNCCD, UNFCCC, water and forest services)4. Land use and soil productivity5. Agricultural water use and wastewater use6. Natural disaster mitigation (droughts, floods, storms)7. Land and water information and knowledge gathering and dissemination

Suggested Recommendations. The AGL vision should be revisited (and revised as needed) and planning within the programme entities should take into account the priorities that have been identified through previous participatory processes (such as the AGL gathering and the A1 workshop), and for countries, stakeholders and international commitments. Defined work should be concentrated on a few priority areas with sufficient budget allocation and technical support should be oriented to the demand for problem solving. Recruitments should be based on the priority setting. In addition, if the Programme Entity Manager’s role can be enhanced with authority, responsibility and accountability, the programme entities can enhance programme coherence. The programme entities should be able to anticipate the requests of PBE. Again, these recommendations reiterate the original recommendations of the AGL Gathering to a) anticipate requests by PBE to ensure adequate internal consultation and decision process by establishing a specific joint HQ/(S)RO PE task force designated to facilitate the formulation of the plans with

28

Action by the AGLD; b) to take into account priorities expressed in the workshop in the implementation of the PE with action by PEMs and (S)ROs; and c) increase the transparency in the allocation of Non Staff funds as a function of agreed priorities between PEs and between (S)ROs and HQ with Action by the AGLD with AGD and PBE.

B. Collaboration, Working Relationships and Ways of WorkingIn this section, collaboration and working relationships are considered within and external to FAO headquarters including the relationship between officers from (S)ROs and FAO headquarters.

Within and External to FAO

Finding. There were a number of cases in which specific technical officers of the programme entities were recognized for their collaborative efforts. These efforts are most effective when there is a synergy by working together on those activities through which a wider application results(e.g. a major event, an interdisciplinary publication, the PAIAs). However, most AGL staff felt a closer relationship could be achieved among their work programmes and that collaboration tends to be less positive when officers follow their own interests or there are constraints of time and budget or an environment that is not conducive to team work. In addition, it was felt that the programme entities could respond better to other outside agencies and organizations and governments. Lastly, it was identified that a barrier to services in the field are the high secondment rates.

Suggested Recommendations. It is suggested that programmes are developed with AGLL, AGLW and other services (example: clusters within the reform) and that more inter-sectoral approaches be put in place to solve problems. There can be greater collaboration in putting together conferences, training, publications, workshops and other technical support. A concerted and more proactive effort could be made to better cooperate with international institutions, NGOs and Civil Society, Training Centres, Universities, and Small and Medium Enterprises. For example in the case of civil society, these are key actors on the ground for whom the programmes could provide training and information that will be put to use at the local level.

Among Sub-Regional and Regional Offices and Headquarters

Finding. While the caliber of work among HQ and (S)ROs is very good, there are still cases in which team work and clearly defined roles and operations are lacking.

Suggested Recommendations. Stronger relationships must be forged between (S)ROs and headquarters. The recommendations related to Programme Entity Managers is relevant to this section and it is important to reiterate the recommendations from the AGL Gathering including: Training in the use of PIRES where needed, Effective involvement of (S)ROs in the planning process, AGLD to increase targeted priority areas for Non-Staff resources in the (sub) regions, Improve the process of resource allocation (non-staff as well as income earned) in the (sub) regions. Enhance the process of decentralization in terms of human resources. Although not entirely under the purview of AGL, the following are also suggested: a) Clarify the roles of all staff (HQ, RO and SRO) and revise their TORs accordingly with action by AGLD, AGD, (S)RRs and Administration and Finance Department; b) Clarify the chain of command for (S)ROs, in particular with regard to the roles of the (S)RR and the AGL Director, the authority on the use of AGL’s Regular Programme funds, the use of income earned by AGL officers in the regions with action initiated by AGLD in consultation with AGD and (S)RRs; c) Enhance the process of decentralization in terms of human resources with action by the AGLD in consultation with staff,

29

AGD and the (S)RRs); and d) Project approval procedures to be decentralized to enhance speedy implementations.

Field Programmes and Normative Work

Finding. An emerging issue was whether the field projects are serving as a channel for disseminating and testing the normative products of the programme entities. Field products are also used to collect technical data that are used in developing the normative products. There are a number of examples where normative products are being applied in the field, however there are also cases where they are not. It was felt that in those cases for which these mutually beneficial applications are not being utilized hampers the effectiveness of the overall work in the division.

Recommended Suggestion. There should be an evaluation of the use of the training and capacity building products in the field (within AGL and outside) and products from the regular programme could be tested and applied. Additionally, it was suggested the rotation among staff between HQ and (S)ROs could enhance the ability for field and normative work to build upon one another.

C. Contribution to International Commitments

Finding. There were mixed responses as to whether AGL is emphasizing sufficiently or insufficiently the efforts related to international commitments and programmes.

Suggested Recommendations. A general recommendation is that there should be better participation at international conferences in which AGL can contribute, raise credibility and enhance visibility (e.g. earlier association with the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto).

D. Visibility

Outreach through Newsletters and Website

Finding. The main avenues for sharing information and technical updates are through the Land and Water Newsletter and the web Site. While the Newsletter is considered very popular, there is the possibility to enhance the numbers and types of people who receive it. Regarding the website, there is a strong perception that it requires dramatic improvement. There is a need to enhance the visibility of the efforts of the programme entities and the division.

Suggested Recommendation. In an ideal scenario, a communications person would be able to join the staff. In the short term, it was suggested that there be a newsletter subscription drive. This can be done by putting a link to the subscription directions on the email signatures of the officers and to send a message out to the individuals’ lists of contacts. It is recommended that the web site be overhauled (this reiterates the suggestions of an earlier auto-evaluation and the Gathering). In terms of awareness raising, it was suggested that new publications have a brochure to “advertise” that the publication is available. It was also suggested that when officers go on mission that they take information with them, have an agreed PowerPoint presentation to share if the occasion arises, and work with the FAOR to have a talk with local media.

Publications

Finding. The technical publications continue to be one of AGL’s most important and high quality products. There is still room for improvement in terms of prioritizing, updating and enhancing the time from initiation to publication.

30

Suggested Recommendation. There needs to be a mechanism for planning and publishing documents. A monitoring mechanism to assess sales and distribution of documents can clarify what documents are in demand and what needs further printing. Additionally, it would be useful to have an assessment of which documents need to be updated. Finally, there was a suggestion to have the maps scanned and placed in the Document Centre so that they can be used.

IX. Lessons Learned

There are a number of experiences and lessons learned from carrying out this auto-evaluation. A few recommendations from the previous auto-evaluation have also been emphasized.

Importance of auto-evaluation: As there is no clear mechanism to discuss and craft internally FAO entity programs and (re)-orientate them according to the recommendations of FAO governing bodies, the auto-evaluation provides an excellent opportunity to compensate and carry out such an exercise. The fact that external consultants are engaged in the process is also a positive aspect that softens personal issues/conflicts that may arise among the working team when the discussion is confined and/or organized on a hierarchical basis. The auto-evaluation has been shown to be a very positive process which benefits the team and which could be practiced more regularly. It forces us to step back from the rush and, as a team, look at what was attempted, how it was carried out and to what extent we have been successful. It is a worthwhile exercise.

Reform: As the reform process started concurrent to the auto-evaluation, the importance of this auto-evaluation was questioned by some of the staff. The many urgent inputs to the reform process and uncertainties among staff greatly influenced the time that could be allocated to this auto-evaluation. However, at the auto-evaluation workshop it was recognized that this effort provided a good opportunity to get organized for the reform.

Survey: One lesson learned from the previous auto-evaluation was that the survey could have been improved by being shorter and being web based unless individuals required that it be delivered in a word or email format because of access issues, yielded results. This year the external survey, being web based and short (thanks to PBEE), got a response from 175 people. The survey was a great source of information. However, it was recognized that the majority of people responding were from the academic community and thus means for getting feedback from governments needs to be improved in future auto-evaluations.

Getting at a wider audience. In light of the actors who were able to respond to the surveys and interviews, a mechanism needs to be put in place to better access other stakeholders such as farmers’ organizations or others identified as users, collaborators, beneficiaries and audiences.

Personal interviews: Interviews were found to be the greatest source of information. The interviews, face-to-face, by telephone and by email (in some cases) proved to be the most valuable source for identifying the strengths of AGL’s work and what could be improved with focus on specific programme entity activities.

Workshop: The AGL workshop and the programme entity focused group meeting in the service were very useful for sharing what is working well, working less well, what can be improved and most importantly how to go about it. Recommendations for the future are to get together more often to discuss emerging issues outside of this auto-evaluation process.

31

Moreover, it was felt that many recommendations coming out from the internal questionnaire could have been more efficiently dealt with at the workshop.

Engagement of regional and sub-regional actors. Previous auto-evaluation pointed out the importance of involving and getting the participation from (S)ROs at an early stage. Consequently, the information flow was improved and there was a high participation and good contribution through the internal questionnaire, to which 11 out of 17 responded, and feedback during the process was given. Although it is still recognized that a full participation is only possible by getting together.

Importance of commitments: Following up the recommendations and actions from the AGL-gathering, revealed that hardly any of the actions have been taken. Several of the recommendations that were made during the previous auto-evaluation of Programme Entities P7/P8 have been put forward in the current auto-evaluation. Some staff have therefore expressed their concern of the value of the present auto-evaluation. Clearly it is important to follow up on the outcomes of these kinds of exercises to maintain credibility, value and meaning. However, it should be recognized that the Division has suffered from lack of leadership as they have lost one Service Chief and the Director during the last ten months and this has impacted follow through.

Issues of FAO general concern: It was shown that many of the emerging issues identified and recommendations given are of FAO general concern and or not specifically linked to the individual programme entities (e.g. FAO planning process, FAO collaboration). However, it is important for FAO to take these recommendations on board particularly if they arise in other auto-evaluation reports. It is also important to put those issues for which there is little control at the Division level aside while focusing discussions on the individual programme entities.

32

XI. Annex 1. Terms of Reference

Land and Water Development Division, Agricultural Department (AGL)

Terms of Reference for an Auto Evaluation of Programme Entities:

211 A1 – Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

211 A2 – Land and Soil Productivity

211 A3 - Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management

1. 1. Background

Three Programme Entities (PEs), A1, A2, and A3, at Land and Water Development Division (AGL), are selected for an Auto Evaluation (AE) in 2005. Water Resources, Development and Management Service (AGLW) is responsible for A1 and Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service (AGLL) manage A2, while the third, A3, is a joint programme of the two services of AGL. Since these three PEs are closely interrelated, the auto-evaluation will be carried out during the same time and in the same process. The auto-evaluation will assess activities and outputs generated by A1, A2 and A3 from 2002 to date.

AGL aims to enhance the agricultural productivity and advance the sustainable use of land and water resources, and to promote equitable access to these natural resources in complex agricultural transitions. The three PEs are intended to contribute to this overall mission through the objectives outlined below.

PE 211A1 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation addresses the scarcity of water in the agricultural sector by promoting water efficient technologies, including technologies for rainfed agriculture, and participatory, equitable and effective water management techniques. This will be achieved by involvement and action at all levels, from farmers through irrigation agencies to basin and national water resources institutions. Six Major Outputs (MOs), which are listed in appendix 1, are planned to achieve the objectives of A1.

PE 211A2 Land and Soil Productivity deals with the increasing pressure on land resources by testing and disseminating techniques and policies for improved and integrated management of land, soil and nutrient resources, and by supporting assessment and rehabilitation of degraded lands and problem soils in different agro-ecological zones. Through participatory development and local adoption this will lead to sustainable land resources management, halt land degradation, improved soil productivity, and result in higher and more stable yields. There are four MOs planned in A2 to achieve the objectives, and these are listed in annex 1.

PE 211A3 Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management focuses on the main issues of integrated land and water management and combines aspects that require an interdisciplinary approach of water, soil and nutrient specialists. By promoting integrated, multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approaches, the

33

A3 programme aims to improve the management of wetlands, watersheds and soil moisture management, including drought mitigation activities, as well as study interactions among water, nutrient and soil resources at the farm level. There are five main MOs planned in A3 within the timeframe of this auto-evaluation, as depicted in annex 1.

AGL provides support to Member Countries through technical and policy guidelines in the areas of water, plant nutrition and land management, as described in the following general categories of activities and outputs:

1. Publications

2. Database

3. Software development

4. Training

5. Networking and collaboration with key players

6. Studies conducted upon request

7. Communication

8. International Forum

9. E-conferences

10. Conferences and meetings

2. 2. Purpose of the auto-evaluation

The three Programme Entities will terminate at the end of next biennium 2007 and the purpose of this auto-evaluation is to provide recommendations to the Department on how and in which directions the division should organise itself into new programmes for the Mid Term Plan (MTP) of 2008-2013. The auto-evaluation should give a qualitative and quantitative appraisal of objectives, outputs and outcomes. An analysis of the processes, including constraints and opportunities, leading to these results should also be provided.

3. 3. Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation issues can be divided into two parts: implementation issues and output and outcome issues, where the former is a prerequisite for the latter. An assessment of the implementation issues will provide information on planed versus actual accomplished activities and outputs, and will identify users and beneficiaries. Furthermore, this assessment will enable AGL to evaluate how the work was collaboratively conducted by the Headquarter and Regional and Sub-regional Offices.

34

The second part of the evaluation process aims to provide AGL with an understanding of the contribution that AGL’s activities and outputs have at international, national, and farmers’ level. Support to governments and local stakeholders will also be assessed.

3.1. Emerging issues identified

How is the normative work being applied in field projects and is there sufficient feedback?

In view of AGL’s diminishing resources, how should a coherent strategy underpin AGL’s programmes and structure to address MTP for 2008-2013?

3.2. Implementation issues

a) Products and activities conducted under the programme entities

An inventory of the activities and products that have been accomplished, or that are in progress, and a quick review of the Programme Entities will enable AGL to compare planned outcomes with achieved ones and to consider if the MOs are doable within the timeframe of the three programme entities i.e. 2007. This inventory will also result in a list of existing activities and outputs that can be assessed during this auto evaluation.

b) Dissemination of products

Who are AGL’s intended audiences and users? What actions have been taken to reach those groups? Assessing these questions will facilitate identification of key users to query and also to analyze if benefits reach intended beneficiaries.

c) Effective working relationship between Regional and Sub-Regional Offices and Headquarters

In April 2004 all professional staff members of AGL HQ and regional and sub-regional offices, gathered for one week to discuss AGL’s work that would arrive in a set of concrete recommendations for the Division’s future work. The AE will assess the implementations of the recommendations made during the meeting.

3.3. Output and outcome issues

a) Contribution to international debates

Has the normative work produced under A1, A2 and A3, contributed to a better understanding of the continuously shifting international agenda or scientific consensus regarding the management of water, land plant nutrient management resources?

b) Contribution to field programme

Are we using field projects, which we support technically through field programmes or in investment projects, as a channel for disseminating and testing the normative products produced under A1, A2 and A3? Which are the lessons learned? Can we give a few examples of this?

35

c) Support to governments

AGL should provide FAO member countries with technical services and offer policy, technical and strategy advices so as to ensure sustainable, participatory and equitable use of water, land and plant nutrients resources. For instance, to what degree have programmes for nutrient management and soil fertility improvements in pilot countries been implemented, and in how many countries has assistance been provided regarding devolution of irrigation management responsibilities? Furthermore, what is the implementation of Polices and Strategies for land use options, land management and fertilizer use in different member countries?

d) Support to local stakeholders

Several activities and outputs aiming for improved water and land and nutrient management practices within A1, A2, and A3, are intended for local stakeholders, for example NGOs, extension workers, and farmers groups. Therefore, it is important to assess the support provided through guidelines, participatory training and workshops.

Based on the above analysis the evaluators will draw specific conclusions and make recommendations for any necessary further action by AGL to ensure a successful implementation of the programme entity, including opportunities that may be grasped and issues that should be resolved.

4. 4. Roles in the Auto-Evaluation

The following staff are assigned to the programme entities:

Programme Entity A1: Mr Daniel Renault, programme entity manager (PEM), Mr Martin Ager, Mr Mohammed Bazza, Ms Ines Beernaerts, Oliver Berney, Mr Jacob Burke, Mr Thierry Facon, Ms Karen Frenken, Mr Giovanni Munoz, Mr Moise Sonou, Mr Pasquale Steduto and Mr Z. Chen.

Programme Entity: A2; Mr Rabindra Nath Roy (PEM), Mr. Jacques Antoine, Mr Jose Benites, Mr Walter Burgos León, Ms Sally Bunning, Ms L.M. Fletcher-Paul, Mr Hubert George, Mr Hiroshi Hiraoka, Mr Gassan Hamdallah, Ms Clemencia Licona Manzur, Mr Freddy Nachtergaele, Mr Reza Nagib, Mr Yuji Niino, Mr Jan Poulisse, Mr Lamourdia Thiombiano, Ms Tanja van den Bergen and Mr Jan Venema.

Programme Entity A3: Mr Jean-Marc Faurès (PEM), Mr Jose Benites, Ms Sally Bunning, M. Moise Sonou, M. Hubert George, M. Freddy Nachtergaele, Ms. Ines Beernaerts, Ms Tanja van den Bergen, Ms L.M. Fletcher-Paul Mr J. Poulisse, Mr Lamourdia Thiombian, Mr Thierry Facon, Mr J. van Wambekeand and visiting Scientist: M. Florent Maraux.

Two consultants will assist in writing the AE Terms of Reference; conducting interviews; composing, distributing and collecting questionnaires for a mail survey; assisting in auto- meetings and report writing. A third consultant will facilitate the conduct of interviews and the compilation of the auto-evaluation report, as well as supervise the team work.

36

5. 5. Methodology

The auto-evaluation will be both internal, within AGL, and external, including other units of FAO, and several methods will be utilized. A desk study of documents regarding activities and products produced under the programme entities up till now will first be conducted. This exercise will provide information on achievements i.e. activities that have taken place, and compare those achievements against MO targets. Furthermore, major and relevant outcomes from the AGL-week gathering in April 2004 will be emphasized and utilized in the evaluation process.

User survey questionnaire for individuals and institutions outside FAO will be conducted and sent by mail and on the web. In addition, a separate questionnaire survey will be sent to all professional staff members of AGL and (Sub)-Regional offices.

Semi-structured interviews will be carried out, both in focus groups and face to face sessions, and through teleconferences, with AGL staff at HQ and decentralized offices as well as with key collaborators.

Finally, a draft report will be circulated to all AGL staff for comments. This will be followed by a workshop at HQ for further discussions of the auto-evaluation’s results and recommendations.

6. 6. Evaluation Outputs and Proposed Work Plan

As a result of the auto-evaluation, a report will be produced illustrating the process, constraints experienced, analysis of the results and recommendations. The length of the report will range between 30 and 50 pages in line with the outline provided in annex 2.

The proposed work plan for auto-evaluation 2005 is depicted in table 1.

Table 1Month Activity ResourcesJuly Finalization of TOR and submission to PBEE

Desk study of relevant documents including results from AGL Gathering 2004

Preparation of questionnaires for internal surveys and semi-structured interviews

User survey questionnaire for mail and web August Interviews September Synthesis of the results from questionnaires

More interviewsOctober Workshop with AGL staff on the results

First draft report November Finalizing the report and submission to PBEE

37

7. 7. Budget

Indicative budget for AGL auto-evaluation 2005

AGL staff members at HQ and S/RO, 22 staff, four days work each $40 000

Team leader consultant, 20 days $6 200

Two consultants, total of 110 days $15 000

Organisation of AGL workshop $1 000

Final report $2 000____________________________________________________________

Total $64 200

38

(sub-annex to annex I)

Major outputs in PE 211A1, responsible service: AGLW

MO Start year End year(001) On-farm water control and management methods in irrigated and rainfed farming 

2002 2007

(002) Crop water management and supplementary irrigation techniques 

2002 2007

(003) Irrigation technology and water resources development, including water harvesting and shallow ground water 

2002 2007

(004) Irrigation system improvement and modernisation methods 

2002 2007

(005) Institutional restructuring of irrigation  2002 2007(006) Promotion of appropriate irrigation policy and river basin management 

2002 2007

Major outputs in PE 211A2, responsible service: AGLL

MO Start year End year(001) Integrated soil and plant nutrient management practices 

2002 2007

(002) Management, conservation and rehabilitation of degraded and problem soils 

2002 2007

(003) Land resources analyses and planning tools  2002 2007

Major outputs in PE 211A3, responsible service: AGLL and AGLW

MO Start year End year(001) Moisture conservation in rainfed areas 2002 2003(002) Technologies and methodologies for wetland development and conservation 

2002 2007

(003) Guidelines for land and water management in rural watersheds, including disaster preparedness and mitigation for drought and flood 

2002 2007

(004) Waterlogging and salinity control (moved to PE A5/002, 2004)

2002 2003

(005) Water quality management and environmental effects (moved to PE A5/001 in 2004)

2002 2003

(006) Land and water planning and management to mitigate natural disasters (moved to PE A5/003 in 2004)

2002 2003

(007) Review of land, water and fertilizer use policies incorporating environmental elements 

2004 2007

(008) Revised FAO Land Evaluation Framework  2004 2005(009) Participation in international forum and global events 

2004 2005

39

Sample Outline of an Auto-Evaluation Report

I. Executive Summary (Main Findings and Recommendations)

II. Introduction

III. Background and Context

IV. Relevance to Priorities and Needs of Member Nations

V. Assessment of Programme Entity Design

A. Clarity, consistency and realism of the programme entity design (including inputs, outputs, outcomes and objectives, users and beneficiaries, and prospects for sustainability)

B. Realism and clarity of external institutional relationships, and in the institutional framework for implementation

VI. Assessment of PE Implementation, Processes, Efficiency and Management

A. Financial and human resource management

B. Activities undertaken and outputs produced

C. Partnerships and collaborative processes

VII. Assessment of Results and Effectiveness

A. Audience of the PE and documented outcomes

B. Progress towards the realization of the objective

C. Achievements in terms of gender and social equity

D. Cost-effectiveness

E. Major factors affecting the project results

F. Sustainability of results

VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations

IV Lessons Learned

Annexes

1. Terms of reference2. Key persons met or interviewed3. Documents consulted

40

XII. Annex 2. Persons participating internally

Below is a list of the people, who are currently working or have been working within PE A1, A2 and A3 and who have participated in the AGL auto-evaluation process by completing the internal questionnaire (28), and/or participating in the auto-evaluation workshop (15) and/or being interviewed (7).

  Name Service Office Town1. Jacques Antoine (1) AGLL HQ Rome2. Martin Ager AGLW SAFR Harare3. Mohamed Bazza AGLW RNE Cairo4. Sourakata Bangoura AGLW SAFR Malabo5. Inés Beernaerts AGLW HQ Rome6. Sally Bunning AGLL HQ Rome7. Walter Burgos-Leon AGLL HQ Rome8. Jacob Burke AGLW HQ Rome9. Zhijun Chen AGLW RAP Bangkok10. Thierry Facon AGLW RAP Bangkok11. Jean-Marc Faures AGLW HQ Rome12. Lystra Fletcher-Paul AGLL SLAC Bridgetown13. Karen Frenken AGLW HQ Rome14. Carlos Garcés AGLW HQ Rome15. Hubert George AGLL HQ Rome16. Leon Hermans AGLW HQ Rome17. Jippe Hoogeveen AGLW HQ Rome18. Benjamin Kiersch (2) AGLW RLC Santiago19. Clemencia Licona-Manzur AGLL HQ Rome20. Giovanni Munoz AGLW HQ Rome21. Freddy Nachtergaele AGLL HQ Rome22. Yuji Niino AGLL RAP Bangkok23. Radisav Pavlovic (2) AGLW SNE Tunis24. Jan Poulisse AGLL HQ Rome25. Daniel Renault AGLW HQ Rome26. Rabindra Nath Roy AGLL HQ Rome27. Moïse Sonou AGLW RAF Accra28. Pasquale Steduto AGLW HQ Rome29. Tanja Van den Bergen AGLL HQ Rome30. Jan Venema AGLL SAFR Harare31. Gerardo van Halsema AGLW HQ Rome32. Nico van Leeuwen (1) AGLW HQ Rome33. Jan van Wambeke AGLL RLC Santiago34. Robina Wahaj AGLW HQ Rome35. Lamourdia Thiombiano AGLL RAF Accra

(1) Retired(2) Former AGL staff

41

XIII. Annex 3. Persons interviewed

The list shows the people that have been interviewed, face-to-face, by telephone or through e-mails outside of AGL.

1. Azad, Azad , TCIP, FAO2. Moujahed Achouri, RNE, FAO, Regional office, Cairo3. Michele Bernardi, SDRN, FAO4. Robert Brinkman, retire AGLL and consultant AGL, FAO5. John Dixon, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico6. Achim Dobermann, University of Nebraska, 7. Rudi Dudal, retire AGLL consultant AGLL, FAO 8. Florence Egal, ESNP, FAO9. Guy Evers, TCID, FAO10. Theodor Freidrich, AGS, FAO11. Kevin Gallagher, TCOS, FAO12. René Gommes, SDRN, FAO13. Claudio Gregorio, TCIS, FAO14. Yeb Hiemstra, TCOS, FAO15. Thomas Hofer , FORC, FAO16. David Kahan, AGS, FAO17. Daud Khan, TCIP, FAO18. Parviz Koohafkan, SDA, FAO19. Eric Kueneman, AGPC, FAO20. Dominque Lantieri, SDRN, FAO21. Florent Maraux, IFAD, Rome22. Ram Misra, consultant in AGLL, FAO23. Drake Mubiru, FFS Uganda24. Roldan Muradian, Development Research Institute (IVO), Tilburg, thee Netherlands25. Nguu Nguyen, AGPP, FAO26. James Okoth, FAO RO Office, Uganda27. Paul Nyende, National Agricultural Research Institute, Uganda28. Raul Ponce, Trent University, Canada29. Carlos Perez, Program for Sustainable Agriculture in the Hillsides of Central America,

Nicaragua30. Bruno Rapidel, CIRAD (Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique

pour le développement), Mali31. Jacques Rey, Akkadia Consulting, Stockholm 32. Fintan Scanlan, TCOS, FAO33. Ilaria Sisto, SDWW, FAO34. Martin Upton, The University of Reading, UK

42

1. Annex 4. Internal questionnaire

FAO Land and Water Division (AGL)Auto-evaluation of PE 211 A1, A2 and A3

Internal Survey

The purpose of this survey is for the AGL professionals working on 211 A1, A2 and A3 to evaluate the programme entities from their perspective. This survey asks you to specifically analyse three (or more) of your own efforts and then to look broadly at the overall A1, A2 and A3 efforts. Below are some of the components of the A1, A2 and A3 listed. However, you do not have to be limited to these in your reflection.

Water productivity Irrigation modernization Irrigation institutions Irrigation system management Irrigation technologies Water harvesting and runoff

farming Water policies Groundwater management Land use Land degradation and sustainable

land management Soil fertility and integrated nutrient

management

Soil health and biodiversity Soil carbon sequestration Organic recycling and agro-

industrial waste management Efficient fertilizer use and fertilizer

sector policies Soil productivity improvement Watershed management Wetland development and

management Drought mitigation and soil

moisture management

Your contribution will remain anonymous. Please complete the survey and return your response to Lisa.Svensson@fao.org.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

43

1. Please evaluate up to four specific activities

The following table gives you the opportunity to self-evaluate up to four activities or outputs within the A1, A2 and A3 efforts. Please identify three activities within A1, A2 or A3 with which you have been closely involved, as well as one activity with which you have not been involved, and indicate what in your opinion are: (a) the amount of your time spent on each of these activities; (b) their most salient positive features, achievements and successes; (c) the difficulties they have faced or what is working less well within them; and (d) how you would suggest changing these activities in the future. Feel free to expand the table if you would like to comment on more activities.

(a) (b) (c) (d)Activity or output title /description

% of you time

spent on it

What is working well with this activity

What is working less or not well with this activity

How could this activity

be improved?Enter one you have been involved in

Enter one you have been involved in

Enter one you have been involved in

Enter one you have not been involved in

2. How much have you been / are you usually involved in the planning process for AGL’s programme entities, major outputs and work plans?

□□ Too much involved □□ Sufficiently □□ Not sufficiently □□ Not at all

Related comments:

3. Please approximately indicate the percentage of your actual working time devoted to A1, A2 and A3, respectively:

0% 1 – 10% 10 - 20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80%A1 □ □ □ □ □ □A2 □ □ □ □ □ □A3 □ □ □ □ □ □

4. How well does your actual working time correspond with your work plan?

Does not correspond Corresponds somewhat

Corresponds completely

Don’t know

□□ □□ □□ □□5. If it does not correspond, please explain why:

6. Please tell us how much you agree with the following statements about collaboration and cohesion of the programme:

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don’t

know

I am aware of my colleagues’ activities and outputs in A1, A2 and A3 □ □ □ □ □

A3 has managed to integrate the activities and outputs of AGLL and AGLW □ □ □ □ □

A1, A2 and A3 complement each other to form a cohesive programme □ □ □ □ □

I would like to see a closer relationship between AGL at HQ and outposted staff □ □ □ □ □

I would like to see a closer relationship between AGLW and AGLL □ □ □ □ □

I would like to see a closer relationship between AGL and other divisions/services of FAO

□ □ □ □ □

7. How would you assess the performance of the programme entity managers and the overall program management?

Excellent Good Fair Poor□□ □□ □□ □□

Related comments:

8. Do you think A1, A2 and A3, respectively, has accomplished to date what it was planned to do?

Yes Approximately No Don’t know A1 □□ □□ □□ □□A2 □□ □□ □□ □□A3 □□ □□ □□ □□

Related comments:

9. If you responded No to any, what do you believe has been the main barrier in achieving what was planned?

10. From your perspective, please rate the quality of the following categories of AGL’s services?

Poor Fair Good Excellent Don’t knowTechnical guidance and support □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Policy advice □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Capacity building and training □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Field projects □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Publications □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Workshops/expert consultations □□ □□ □□ □□ □□E-conferences □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Conferences and meetings □□ □□ □□ □□ □□

11. From your experience, how do you think the work from A1, A2 and/or A3 contribute to the PAIA’s? Please specify them:

12. What do you think is working well with the PAIA’s? What do you think is working less well?

13. From your perspective, are we using field projects as a channel for disseminating and testing the normative products produced by A1, A2 and A3? If possible, give examples:

14. To what extent are we responding to international commitments and programmes? (e.g. Millennium Development Goals and Conventions)

Not sufficiently Sufficiently Over emphasis Don’t know□□ □□ □□ □□

Related comments:

15. Do you think AGL’s activities or outputs are sufficiently visible in international fora?

Not sufficiently Sufficiently Over emphasis Don’t know□□ □□ □□ □□

Related comments:

16. Do you think AGL is responding enough, or too much, to demand from the following?Not sufficiently Sufficiently Over

emphasisDon’t know

Governments □□ □□ □□ □□FAO field programme □□ □□ □□ □□Other international agencies □□ □□ □□ □□Civil Society □□ □□ □□ □□Academia / researchers □□ □□ □□ □□Other (please specify below) □□ □□ □□ □□

Related comments:

17. Which activities within A1, A2 and A3 should be de-emphasized, reduced or cancelled?

18. What should the programme entities address that they are currently not enough working on?

19. Based on your experience and your assessment of A1, A2 and A3, how could the AGL programme, operations and management be improved?

20. Given your knowledge of the FAO Programme Work Budget Reform Proposal (knowing that these are not yet finalized) do you have any suggestions for enhancing the work of AGL within this plan?

21. Please add any additional comments or suggestions you might have.

Thank you for sharing your experiences and your ideas!

2. Annex 5. External questionnaire

Help us to improve our work:

Evaluate FAO’s Land and Water Management Programme

FAO Land and Water Development Division (AGL)

Dear Colleague,

In order to improve FAO activities in the area of land and water management, we are undertaking an evaluation of this programme area. Our records indicate that you have accessed FAO products or services related to land and water management in the past, or have been associated with some of its activities. We would appreciate your participation in this evaluation. Your feedback is very important to us and we thank you for taking the time to offer your insights and recommendations.

The survey consists of 14 questions and should take about 10 minutes to complete. The responses will be analyzed anonymously by three independent consultants, so your answers will remain confidential. Please fill in the on-line questionnaire as this is the most convenient way. Alternatively, if you do not have web access, please fill in the questionnaire below and send it to Lisa.Svensson@fao.org or fax it to +3957056275.

For more information about our programmes, please visit our website. If you have any question about this survey, please contact Lisa Svensson at the following email address lisa.svensson@fao.org, or by phone +390657053442. We would appreciate to receive your answers by 11 November 2005.

Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation. We look forward to your response.

a) Your Affiliation1. Institution/Organization Type

Government (Ministry, Regional delegation, Extension worker, etc.) Non-Governmental OrganizationResearch Institute CGIAR Center University / Educational InstitutionIndustry / Private Sector Media / PublishingFAO (Project / Head Quarters / Decentralized Office)Inter-Governmental Organization other than FAO (UNDP, UNEP, GEF

etc.)Free lance consultant / Self-employed Farmers’ Associations / OrganizationsOther (please specify) ____________________________________

2. In what capacity are you engaged with the FAO Land and Water Development Division (AGL)?

User of AGL’s products and services Collaborator Both of the above I am not engaged with it Other (please specify) ____________________________________

3. Name and Contact Information (Optional - yet appreciated).Name: Position / title: Organization: Country of residence:Phone: E-Mail: Web Site (if available): Would you agree to be contacted for follow-up discussions? (yes/no)

4. Fields of interest (tick all that apply)

Water productivity Irrigation modernization Irrigation institutions Irrigation system management Irrigation technologies Water harvesting

Water policies Groundwater development and

management Watershed management Land use

Land degradation and management

Sustainable land management and soil productivity improvement

Soil conservation and conservation agriculture

Soil fertility and plant nutrition Soil health and biodiversity Soil carbon sequestration

Organic recycling and agro-industrial waste management

Efficient fertilizer use and fertilizer sector policies

Drought mitigation and soil moisture management

Wetland development and management

Other (please specify)

5. Which types of AGL products and services have you used or been involved in? (tick all that apply)

Training Publications Guidelines Conferences and meetings Expert consultations / workshops Electronic conferences Technical assistance None Others (please specify) __________________________

6. Please cite a few AGL publications, events or technical assistance that you have found particularly interesting or valuable in the course of your work. (Please visit our publication list at: www.fao.org/ag/agl/public.stm)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Please explain how AGL’s publications and services influenced or helped you in your work:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. How do you generally find out about new AGL activities or products? Through the Land and Water Newsletter Visits to the Website Direct communication with FAO staff Communication with individuals and organizations outside of FAO Other (please specify) ____________________________

9. From your perspective, how would you rate AGL’s services?

Poor Fair Good Excellent I Don’t knowTechnical guidance and support □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □Policy advice □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □

Capacity building and training □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □Field projects □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □Publications □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □□Workshops/expert consultations □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □□E-conferences □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □Conferences and meetings □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □□

10. From your perspective, please tell us how well the following terms describe AGL’s work:

Poor Fair Good Excellent I Don’t knowDemand driven □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Effective □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Relevant □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Innovative □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Useful □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Timely □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Reliable □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Influential □□ □□ □□ □□ □□Easily accessible □□ □□ □□ □□ □□

11. What is it about AGL, its programme, its products and / or your collaboration with AGL that you find (please specify):Most satisfying?______________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________Least satisfying?______________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

12. In your opinion, how could the AGL land and water management programme and services be improved?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

13. Are there any areas of land and water management where you would like FAO-AGL to put greater focus and/or produce more services (e.g. publications, training, conferences)?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. Please provide any other comment or recommendation you may want to make.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU!

Annex 6. Summary of Recommendations from the AGL Gathering

Below is a summary of the recommendations made at the AGL gathering, that was taking place in Rome and San Martino al Cimino, the 19 - 23 April 2004. The workshop gathered 50 AGL professional staff of which 6 HQ project staff, 6 APOs, 13 (S)RO staff (one staff member being on sick leave), 21 HQ Regular Programme staff, 1 IPTRID Manager, 2 Service Chiefs and the Director of AGL. Many of these joined AGL relatively recently: 22 persons have joined the Division less than 4 years ago, 8 had between 4 and 6 years service with AGL while 20 persons had served more than 6 years with the Division.

1) The planning process (MTP, PWB )

In order to enhance the planning process the following needs to be achieved:

Immediately:

Revive the practice of regular service and divisional meetings in order to discuss important emerging issues, share progress and review (monitor) the implementation of the programmes. As appropriate associate (S)ROs to these meetings through joint elaboration of agendas and video or telephone links (Action: AGLD and Chiefs)

Make better use of internal seminars to share progress on programme areas and report back from relevant international and regional meetings, keep (S)ROs informed

For the current biennium:

Take into account priorities expressed in the workshop in the implementation of the PE (Action: PEMs to consult with (S)ROs)

Redefine responsibilities and TORs of the PEMs and the operational modalities of the PEs (Action: AGLD in consultation with AGD)

For the preparation of the next MTP (2006-11) and PWB (2006-07):

Anticipate requests by PBE to ensure adequate internal consultation and decision process by establishing a specific joint HQ/(S)RO PE task force designated to facilitate the formulation of the plans (Action: AGLD)

More transparency is required in the allocation of NS funds as a function of agreed priorities between PEs and between (S)ROs and HQ (Action: AGLD in consultation with AGD and PBE)

2) Strengthening linkages between Officers of Regional Offices, Sub-Regional Offices and Headquarters

A large number of suggestions were made after a lively debate. Note that there is a certain overlap with recommendations made in the planning session and in the budget session.

Training in the use of PIRES where needed, particularly in the (sub)regions. (Action: AGLD in consultation with (S)RRs: use of regional training budgets?)

Effective involvement of (S)ROs in the planning process Communications between AGL HQ and the (S)ROs should be improved. For instance, a

common (e)mailing list should be established, copies of all HQ publications should be sent to the (S)ROs as a standard practice, regular joint meetings through videoconferencing should be organized (Action: AGLD, all officers to copy relevant mail to (S)ROs)

AGLD to increase targeted priority areas for Non-Staff resources in the (sub)regions (Action: AGLD, but see also Mr Chipeta’s remarks in section V.1)

Improve the process of resource allocation (non-staff as well as income earned) in the (sub) regions (Action: AGLD in consultation with AGD and the Representatives in the (S)ROs)

Enhance the process of decentralization in terms of human resources (Action: AGLD in consultation with staff, AGD and the Representatives in the (S)ROs)

A number of issues related to enhanced linkages between the (sub) Regions and Headquarters are largely beyond the control of AGLD (and sometimes AGD). These concern:

Clarify the roles of all staff (HQ, RO and SRO) and revise their TORs accordingly (Action: AGLD, through AGD and (S)RRs, and AF)

Clarify the chain of command for (S)ROs, in particular with regard to:The roles of the (S)RR and the AGL Director The authority on the use of AGL’s RP fundsThe use of income earned by AGL officers in the regions

(Action: initiated by AGLD in consultation with AGD and (S)RRs) Enhance the process of decentralization in terms of human resources (Action: AGLD in

consultation with staff, AGD and the (S)RRs). More generally this is also recommended as FAO Policy.

Project approval procedures could be decentralized to enhance speedy implementations (FAO Policy action)

3) Ensuring and enhancing the quality of AGL’s products

Quality implies that accurate, reliable goods and services are produced (publications, databases, websites, field assistance in all its aspects) which use state-of-the-art technology. This can only be achieved if one focuses on the core expertise of AGL that can bring added value through its products and services.

Quality is to be measured against user-satisfaction which can in turn only be guaranteed if the user’s wishes are taken into account from the outset.

Quality should be monitored and a procedure put in place that assures quality control (an example, not fully worked out yet, concerns the proposals made by AGL to assure quality control for publications). (S)ROs should be involved in the review process

If staff is to produce quality work they should have full access to staff training and career development, resulting in a higher efficiency of their work.

A number of factors have been identified which affect the quality of the end products:

The quality of planning the work The resources made available The clarity of goals within programmes and the distribution of tasks The capacity to control the work load and the impact that unplanned ad hoc activities have on

them The capacity to prioritize and stick to priorities The exposure to field realities The weight of administrative procedures

It is therefore required that:

A procedure of quality control is established working on the basis of what was done for the publications quality control (Action immediate: AGLD)

Accountability must come with authority. If staff is to be held accountable for the quality of the output, the corresponding control over the inputs should be fully delegated to them (Action immediate: AGLD)

4) Enhancing the impacts and efficiency of AGL

Higher impact and efficiency is obtained through:

Problem-oriented planning The use of task forces and teams that address key problems Outcome (rather than product-) oriented programmes The activities respond clearly to the demands of focused programmes and to well-identified

target group and clients (governments, district authorities, farmers, academic institutions, other UN organizations)

Impact and efficiency can be measured by periodic auto-evaluation in consultation with clients and by a number of key factors, such as:

Requests for specific AGL assistance by member countries FAO being invited as executing agency for field and other projects Extra-budgetary resources mobilized for specific AGL programmes The use of AGL produced information and tools (sales, distribution, web hits) AGL Strategies mainstreamed AGL’s mandate considered a high priority by FAO’s Member Countries and reflected in

AGL’s budget allocation within FAO AGL recognized and supported in International Processes (UN-Conventions) FAO’s Director General satisfied with water and land data produced by AGL More strategic and effective investments in land and water in countries

Impact assessment is not a one-off exercise but requires monitoring and therefore a periodic review of the above is required. A task force to make recommendations to implement periodic impact assessments could be established (Action immediate: AGLD)

b) Annex 7. Web statistics from the document repository

Please note that the statistics correspond to the publications viewed from the FAO document repository http://www.fao.org/documents/ in the month of June 2005. There are no aggregated statistics available from the document repository covering several months. The statistics includes all the documents from AGL, i.e. not only A1 and A2 and A3.

Table. Ranking of the most visited and viewed AGL publications on the FAO document repository in url (HTML format) for June 2005. Only documents with more than 100 views are included. Views refers to the nr of times the document was consulted, while the nr of visits refers to the unique nr of people consulting that document.

(a)Ranking

(2) Publication title Nr of views

Nr of visits

Year of pub.

1 Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing crop water requirements

2938 2480 1998

2 World reference base for soil resources 1518 832 19983 Lucha contra la contaminación agrícola de los recursos hídricos.

(Estudio FAO: Riego y drenaje - 55)1300 1137 1997

4 Environmental impact assessment of irrigation and drainage projects 1198 713 19955 Agua y Cultivos 896 501 20026 Lecture notes on the major soils of the world 835 436 20017 Control of water pollution from agriculture 727 661 19968 Effective rainfall in irrigated agriculture 677 315 19789 Guidelines for designing and evaluatin surface irrigation systems 638 374 198910 Zonificación agro-ecológica: Guía general 620 404 199711 Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture 564 468 199212 Crops and Drops 544 316 200213 A framework for land evaluation 499 277 197614 Introduction à la gestion conservatoire de l'eau, de la biomasse et de

la fertilité des sols (GCES)487 352 1994

15 Field measurement of soil erosion and runoff 472 299 199316 Irrigation potential in Africa: A basin approach 458 291 199717 Manual on water harvesting 437 374 199118 Irrigation scheduling: From theory to practice. Proceedings 430 377 199619 Indicadores de la calidad de la tierra y su uso para la agricultura

sostenible y el desarrollo rural422 236 2001

20 Planning for sustainable use of land resources: towards a new approach

419 274 1995

21 The use of saline waters for crop production 418 366 199222 Medición sobre el terreno de la erosión del suelo y de la escorrentía. 388 351 199723 Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation methods 388 324 198824 Irrigation Water Management: Introduction to irrigation 367 321 198525 Self-help wells 363 245 198526 Guidelines for quality management in soil and plant laboratories. 360 327 199827 Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation water needs 358 297 198628 Deficit irrigation practices 339 223 200229 Small-scale irrigation for arid zones: Principles and options 331 199 199730 Guidelines for land-use planning 317 226 199331 Remote sensing and water resources 312 210 199732 Land husbandry - Components and strategy 311 231 199633 Guidelines: land evaluation for irrigated agriculture 301 247 1985

34 Land quality indicators and their use in sustainable agriculture and rural development

297 269 1997

35 Crues et apports 295 215 199536 Land evaluation for development 294 18637 Review of World Water Resources by Country 292 191 200338 Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation scheduling 278 240 198939 Soil tillage in Africa: needs and challenges 277 164 199340 Descubrir el potencial del agua para la agricultura 276 174 200341 Irrigation in Africa in figures 275 200 199542 Agricultural Drainage Water Management in Arid and Semi-Arid

Areas275 179 2002

43 Soil and water conservation in semi-arid areas 272 170 198744 El Futuro de Nuestra Tierra: Enfrentando el Desafío 263 160 200045 Irrigation in the near east region in figures 258 173 199746 Groundwater Management 256 150 200347 Irrigation technology transfer in support of food security. 254 235 199748 Agro-ecological zoning: Guidelines 253 169 199649 Conservation agriculture, Case studies in Latin America and Africa 248 153 200150 Land and water integration and river basin management 240 159 199551 Eau et agriculture 237 158 200252 Utilisation des phosphates naturels pour une agriculture durable 237 142 200453 Irrigation Water Management: Elements of topographic surveying 235 200 198554 Fertilizer use by crop in Malaysia 230 148 200455 Le travail du sol pour une agriculture durable 221 189 199756 FESLM: An international framework for evaluating sustainable land

management216 154 1993

57 La petite irrigation dans les zones arides: Principes et options 215 145 199758 Transferencia de la gestión del riego 202 123 200159 Irrigation Water Management: Scheme irrigation water needs and

supply197 177 1992

60 The Economics of Conservation Agriculture 186 116 200161 Irrigation in the countries of the former soviet unions in figures 183 137 199762 Use of Phosphate Rocks for Sustainable Agriculture 183 116 200463 Captura de carbonio en los suelos para un mejor manejo de la tierra 181 131 200264 Economic valuation of water resources in agriculture 181 120 200465 Management of agricultural drainage water quality. 179 166 199766 Changements du climat et production agricole. Effets directs et

indirects du changement des processus hydrologiques, pédologiques et physiologiques des végétaux.

179 150 1997

67 Quality control of wastewater for irrigated crop production. 174 160 199768 Crops and Drops, in Arabic 169 135 200269 Agro-ecological land resources assessment for agricultural

development planning. A case study of Kenya. Making land use choices for district planning

169 124 1994

70 Water for animals 166 132 198671 Acqua per le Colture 166 132 200272 Water sector policy review and strategy formulation. A general

framework163 125 1995

73 Treadle pumps for irrigation in Africa 162 86 200074 Desertification and drought - extent and consequences proposal for a

participatory approach to combat desertification161 119 1995

75 Agriculture, food and water 160 112 200376 Uso de fertilizantes por cultivo en Argentina 158 103 2004

77 Organization, operation and manintenance of irrigation schemes 157 139 198678 Payment schemes for environmental services in watersheds, Sistemas

de Pago por Servicios Ambientales en Cuencas Hidrográficas bilingual

154 117 2004

79 On-Farm Composting Methods 152 104 200380 Reforming water resources policy - A guide to methods, processes

and practices150 122 1995

81 Fertilizer Use by Crop in Brazil 149 105 200482 A perspective on water control in southern Africa 147 120 200383 Fertilizer use by crop in Poland 144 112 200384 Assessment of soil nutrient balance 143 102 200385 Land resources information systems in the caribbeanland resources

information systems in the caribbean140 105 2001

86 Sustainable dryland cropping in relation to soil productivity 134 115 199587 A study of the reasons for success or failure of soil conservation

projects129 112 1991

88 Los aspectos económicos de la agricultura de conservación 129 104 200389 Zonage agro-ecologique. Directives 123 105 199790 La séquestration du carbone dans le sol pour une milleure gestion des

terres123 69 2002

91 Land resources information systems in the Near East 123 69 200292 Long-term scenarios of livestock-crop-land use interactions in

developing countries121 111 1997

93 L'économie de la productivité des sols en Afrique subsaharienne 120 92 200194 Relaciones tierra-aqua en cuencas hidrográficas rurales 120 86 200295 Keeping the land alive. Soil erosion: its causes and cures 119 116 198396 Land-water linkages in rural watersheds 119 88 200297 The Future of Our Land: Facing the Challenge 117 89 199998 How good the Earth? Quantifying land resources in developing

countries - FAO’s agro-ecological zones studies116 92

99 The conservation of lands in Asia and the Pacific 114 92 1995100 Radioactive fallout in soils, crops and food 109 103 1989101 Capacity Development in Irrigation and Drainage Issues, Challenges

and the Way Ahead106 76 2004

102 Fertilizer use by crop in Cuba 105 87 2003103 A new framework for: Conservation-effective land management and

desertification control in Latin America and the Caribbean104 84 1998

104 Cadre pour l'Evaluation des Terres - Bulletin Pédologique de la FAO - 32

103 75 1997

105 Biological management of soil ecosystems for sustainable agriculture 101 77 2003106 Rethinking the Approach to Groundwater and Food Security 101 70 2003

XIV. Annex 8. Documents consulted

The below documents have been consulted by the facilitation team.

AGL Land and Water Digital Series 14 (2001) Participatory Training and Extension in Farmers' Water Management, 2001 (E).

AGL (2002). Evaluation of the E-Mail Conference on Irrigation Management Transfer, November 2001. Irrigation Management Transfer website.

AGL Land and Water Digital Series 6 (1999) SIMIS – Scheme Irrigation Management Information Systems.

AGL (2004), AGL gathering report, Rome and San Martino al Cimo, 19-23 April 2004

AGL (2004) Payment schemes for environmental services in watersheds, Sistemas de Pago por Servicios Ambientales en Cuencas Hidrográficas bilingual, Land and water discussion paper nr. 3 2004 (bilingual in E, S)

AGL (2005) AGL Auto-Evaluation Report, Land and Water information systems, Programme Entities P7 and P8, 18 Jan 2005.

AGL (2005) Report of the AGLW 211A1 July 2005 Seminar AGL (2005) Publishing plans plus language coverage. AGL (2005) AGL web statistics from the AGL intranet site Beernaerts, I (2003) Training programme & participants evaluation in FNPP

Agrobiodiversity – Ecosystem Approach cluster, FFS Training of Trainers on Runoff Farming from 20 to 24 October 2003 in Mwingi District. Included in Back to Office Report.

CROPWAT/CLIMWAT Eckman, K (2005). Lessons learned by the WIN project on livelihoods diversification

and enterprise development, Livelihood Support Programme, Working Paper 19. February 2005.

FAO, PIRES, Summary Programme Entity Assessment /PIR 20002-03, MTP 2006-11 Programme Entity Narrative and Programme entity Indicators

FAO (2005) FAO document repository statistics from 2004-2005 Faures (2005) Planning of activities and budget A3 for 2003, 2004 and 2005. FAO (2004) Gender analysis in farmers Water management, Terminal report-

prepared for the Government of Italy by the FAO, FAO/Government of Italy cooperative programme. GCP/INT/872/ITA.

FAO Financial Statements for regular programmes, AGL, PE A1, A2 and A3, 2002-2005.

FAO Strategic Framework 2015 MTP (2006-11) Programme entity Report Neely, C., Sutherland, K and Johnson, J. (2004) Do sustainable Livelihoods

Approaches Have a positive Impact on the Rural Poor? A look at twelve case studies?, Livelihood Support Programme, Working Paper 16. October 2005.

PBEE (2003) Auto-evaluation guidelines, November 2003. Renault (2004) Water Management and Irrigation Systems Programme of Activity and

budget for 2004

Annex 9. Fields of interest

Fields of interest identified in the external questionnaire:As depicted in the figure, the respondents’ interests are well spread over the 20 categories. All addressees filled in this question and everyone ticked several topics. Watershed Management was filled in by 114 respondents, 93 ticked Sustainable Land Management and Soil Productivity Improvement, while Land Use, Land Degradation and Management, and Water Productivity were respectively marked by 90 respondents

Annex 10. Achieved outputs versus planned

Definitions: BO – Product or service, or group of similar products and services, produced by FAO during a biennium. Most often constitutes an

element in a larger deliverable, for instance a publication in a series, a module in a database, or a particular training course in a larger capacity effort.

MO – Significant product or service, or more often a group of related products and services, produced by FAO over one or several biennia and delivered to specific users. Normally composed of several, interrelated biennial outputs.

Outcome - The way major outputs or biennial outputs are used, and the immediate result of this use. A short step towards long term impact. Not something FAO itself produces, but rather the way FAO outputs are taken on by its most immediate audience and clients.

Table: Achievements and outputs by the Programme Entities. Planned Biennium outputs for 2002-2003 correspond to the BO series 001 and 2004-2005 corresponds to the BO series 401.

XV. PE 211A1 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Conservation (Version 27-09-2005)

On-farm water control and management methods in irrigated and rainfed farming (001)MO BO Achieved outputs (people trained, studies produced) Comment001 001 Guidelines and Field Level Training in On-

Farm Water ControlIrrigation manuals: Planning, development, monitoring & evaluation of irrigated agriculture with farmer participation, 2002 (5 volumes, in E). SAFR

Mainly produced under previous MO.

002 Network on Participative Training and Extension in On-Farm Water Control

Network, 5 seminars. Completed. Where and when, what was the output?Introduction and use of training materials and guidelines in at least 3 SPFS programmes (Nigeria, Tanzania, Turkmenistan). Refrence?

401 Updated guidelines, training materials, regional seminars and support to networks for on-farm Water Control Techniques and Integrated Water Resources Management

Irrigation Advisory Services, Proceedings of a workshop on the subject including discussion papers, case studies and recommendations. State? Reference?

Will be published in X?

Summary

The overall MO has been achieved. 2 of the 3 the BO are completed and one will be completed before the end of the year?

Crop water management and supplementary irrigation techniques (002)

002 001 Publication on Crop Water Management and Irrigation Scheduling

I and D paper 56: Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements, 1998 (E), is being translated to Spanish.

Planned paper on water scheduling on hold. Why?

002 Computer programme on Crop Water Management (CROPWAT)

CROPWAT 8 realised and available on www.fao.org.agl.Developed conceptual framework for a new model, Aquariel

003 Studies on Drought Management and Supplemental Irrigation

Draft report on supplementary irrigation, including excel based model. State?

Will be published in X?

004 Studies in Effective Rice Water Management

Ongoing. State?

005 Study on Biotechnology in Agricultural Water Use

Expert meeting on Crop Water Productivity 2003. no further activities followed What was the output?

401 Guidelines on Crop Water Productivity, including supplementary irrigation and biotechnology applications, plus advisory services for greater private sector participation in irrigation management

Publication, Irrigation advisory Services, Proceedings of a workshop on the subject including discussion papers, case studies and recommendations. Completed? Reference?

Will be published in X?

Summary

The overall MO has been achieved. 1 of the 6 BO have been completed, 2 will be completed before 2007 and 2 will …?

Irrigation technology and water resources development, including water harvesting and shallow ground water (003)003 001 Field guide on development of shallow

ground waterPostponed because of workload

003 Case study on small-scale low-cost irrigation technologies

Report being finalized in 2004 (NL). Reference? Will be completed in X?

004 Database and network on water harvesting established

Postponed because of workload

005 Field guide on participatory planning and implementation of water harvesting

Completed. Reference?

006 Training courses on waterharvesting in Africa

CD # 26 - Training Course on Water Harvesting, 2004 (in E, S, F, A, C).

It capitalises works carried out since 1992.

007 Preliminary guidelines on supplementary irrigation

Completed (OB). Reference? Reported Under MO2?

401 Development of water resources and irrigation technologies, including water harvesting and groundwater management

Publication. Economics of Water Harvesting with particular reference to Runoff Farming Systems in Africa. Final draft?Water harvesting and sustainable agriculture, Proceedings of the ICID-FAO International Workshop on Water Harvesting and Sustainable Agriculture (Moscow, 9 September 2004).Are these carried out under A1 or A3?

A1 or A3?Something else?

Sum The overall MO has been achieved. 1 of the 7 BO have been

mary completed, 4 will be completed before 2007 and 2 have been postponed?

Irrigation system improvement and modernisation methods (004)004 001 Tools and Guidelines on Scheme Irrigation

ManagementFinal version of SIMIS, manual and training material completed 2004, but not published.Developed training materials, http://www.watercontrol.org/training/ (RAP)

Work unpublished.

002 Tools and Studies in Irrigation Performance

Introduction and use of training materials and guidelines through workshops in Vietnam 2002, Philippines 2003, Malaysia 2004, Indonesia 2003, Nepal 2003. RAPhttp://www.watercontrol.org/training/training.htm#ITRC

003 Training on Irrigation Modernization Pilot project for Pakistan (the Sindh province) Water sector improvements, 2005. HQ-RAP, TCICD: Improving the operation of Canal Irrigation Systems, 2004, RAP.

401 Guidelines and manual produced for irrigation system modernization, management and scheduling(in PWB 2002-3, not in PWB 2004-5)

Initiated updating of I and D paper 40. Organization, operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes, 1982 (C E F S).

Planned to be published 2007.

Summary

The overall MO has been achieved. 3 of the 4 BO have been completed, 1 will be completed before 2007?

(005) Institutional restructuring of irrigation 005 001 Irrigation management transfer and private

irrigation services – synthesis of case studies

Draft finished of Irrigation sector reform (IMT Survey). Internal website http://faoint0b/ag/agl/aglw/test1/country.stm

Delayed because of key collaborator changed work. (IWMI to WB)

003 Studies on institutional aspects of water users associations and rural water institutes

E-conference in 2002 on IMT (nr of participants).Draft Proceedings: Synthesis of Irrigation Management Transfer: Wordwide Efforts and Results, Lessons learnt from a large number of case studies on IMT, recommendations and future trends of irrigation sector reforms. (Iptrid AGLW) .http://www.fao.org/landandwater/aglw/waterinstitutions/toconf.stm .

Early publishing on web.Proceedings to be published in 2005.Long time lap between conference and proceedings because of workload.

401 Irrigation sector and system evaluations, as a basis for restructuring and capacity building

Water report 26: Capacity development in irrigation and drainage – issues, challenges and the way ahead, 2004 (E)

Summary

The overall MO has been achieved. 2 of the 3 BO have been completed, 1 is soon to be published?

Promotion of appropriate irrigation policy and river basin management (006)001 Guidelines on Groundwater Management

for Food SecurityWater Report 24: Rethinking the approach to groundwater and food security, 2003 (E)

002 Outlook for Groundwater User Associations

Water Report 25: Groundwater management: the search for practical approaches, 2003 (E)

003 Guidelines for Water Demand Management in Agriculture

Water Report 27:Economic valuation of water resources in agriculture, 2004 (E)Land and Water Discussion Paper 1: A perspective on water control in southern Africa, 2004 (E). HQ-SAFR.

401 Promotion of appropriate irrigation policies, including demand management and market analysis in irrigated agriculture

Water Report 28: Water charging in irrigated agriculture – An analysis of international experience, 2004 (E)Draft publication: Groundwater and Agricultural Transition: Responding to Risk Variability and the Limits of Management.

Will be published in 2006

402 Assistance for transboundary river basin management and conflict avoidance

Support to:Field Programme Development on irrigation policy/strategy work for Botswana, Ghana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia. (TCP) GEF projects (International Waters OP). OP? Which projects. Okavango?

Summary

The overall MO has been achieved. 3 of the 5 BO have been completed, 1 is soon to be published and 1 is till ongoing?

PE 211A2 Land and Soil Productivity

MO 001 – Integrated soil and plant nutrient management

BO Achieved outputs / activities Comments2002-2003

001

Workshop on integrated management system for sustainable nutrient management for rice production

Changed to Regional Workshop on Improving Plant Nutrient Management for Better Farmer-Livelihood, Food Security and Environment

Postponed to 2005

002 Comparative analysis of nutrient supply options to attain food

Source Book on Proven Soil Fertility Management Technologies in SSA in Support of SFI and SPFS

To be published in early 2006 in (E) (F) afterwards

security goals003 Local plant nutrient resources for

sustainable intensification of crop production promoted

Use of phosphate rocks for sustainable agriculture, FPNBulletin#13

Published in 2004 (E&F) (S) version in early 2006 Planned publication of an advocacy document on the

same subject in 2006 (major technical and policy aspects extracted from #13)

004 Integrated soil and nutrient management technologies promoted

Assessment of soil nutrient balance: Approaches and methodologies, FPNBulletins#14

E-conference: September 2002 – July 2003 English version: 2003 French version: 2005

Soil Fertility Management in Support of Food Security in Sub-saharan Africa, Miscellaneous - Soils

Published 2003 in (F), (published 2001 in (E))

005 Integrated plant nutrients management in the Near East Region

Land resources information systems in the Near East, World Soil Resources Reports#99.

Fertilizer guide for the Near East

Published 2002 in (E) Regional workshop 2001 To be published in 2006

006 Soil fertility and plant nutrition management in the caribbean

Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop 2003) Workshop jointly organized (SLAC and HQ) in Nov. 2001

007 Integration of soil biodiversity management into existing activities and programmes on soil and nutrient management

Biological management of soil ecosystems for sustainable agriculture, World Soils Resources Reports#101

Published 2003 in (E) International technical workshop, Brazil 2002, (FAO &

EMBRAPA-Soybean) On farm composting methods, L&W Discussion

Paper#2. E-conference: Organic recycling: on farm composting

methods, May 2002 – March 2003 English version 2003 French version 2005

2004-2005

401

Support to national soil fertility / productivity improvement programmes, including methodologies, case studies, conferences and training in integrated plant nutrient management

Scaling Soil Nutrient Balances, FPNBullentin#15 Published in 2004 (E), September 2005 (F) Within the project Scaling soil nutrient balances, 2002-

03 (three case studies), Workshop Kenya 2003.

Conservation of natural resources for sustainable agriculture, CDROM# 27:

Published 2004 (E)

Glossary on Integrated nutrient management Published 2004 (E) Web based (E, F & S) in 2005

Expansion of IPNIS database on plant nutrient use with 10 countries (Ghana, Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, Myanmar, Iran, Philippines,Sri Lanka, Vietnam and China) and database uploaded in web

The database went to web with data on 16 countries. 7 more countries are at varius stages of inclusion and be completed in 2006

The importance of soil organic matter – key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food production (Soils Bulletin # 80)

Published in 2005

Drought-resistant soils-optimization of soil moisture for sustainable plant production (Land and Water Bulletin 11)

Published in 2005

One case study in Asia on the Use of Urban and Agro-Industrial Wastes Recycling in Agriculture

Postponed 06-07

Advocacy publication on Role of BNF in Sustainable Agriculture, Food Security and Environmental Benefits

To be published in (E+F+S) postponed 06-07

Guidelines and reference material on integrated soil and nutrient management and conservation for farmer field schools

Published 2004 in (F), (published 2000 in (E))

Integrated nutrient management-A guide to soil, plant, water and fertilizer analysis laboratory establishment and analytical, methods

To be published in 2006

Plant nutrition for food security- A guide for integrated nutrient management

To be published as FPNB 16 in early 2006 in (E) Revised and enlarged version of an earlier Bulletin,

published 20 yrs ago.

Regional Workshop on Improving Plant Nutrient Management for Better Farmer-Livelihood, Food Security and Environment

Organized in Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 12 – 16 December 2005

Jointly organized by HQ and RAP. 15 countries participated and very successful. Proceedings being prepared

Completion of the Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition

Portal for AGL web Postponed to 2006

Soil Productivity Improvement through FFS Organization of two regional “write-workshops”, for the FFS training modules – Rome, May 2004 and Kenya, December 2004

Finalize SPI-FFS toolbox / handbook with IIRR –December 2005

Poster for the FFS initiative – 2003 (E) Flyer for the FFS initiative – 2003? (E) Manual prepared by SAFR in 2005

Soil health guide and case studies of soil biological management (FAO-CBD collaboration)

Manual on soil macro fauna for technicians Manual on macro fauna for farmers and extension

workersEconomics of soil biodiversity(All three have been finalized, but not yet published)

Mainstreaming of soil productivity improvement into national processes and national FFS workshops

Three countries (UGA/TAN/KEN); several financial sources; working with a partnership entitled Inspire; SPI and CA through FFS: now up scaling in Uganda; TCP project terminates by the end of 2005

National FFS workshops (Uganda Tanzania, Kenya) - December 2005

405 Global fertilizer demand model Draft in December 2005, publication postponed to 2006-07

406 Fertilizer policy-case study Nigeria and SADC countries

Fertilizer user adoption survey, analysis and publication (national consultants) – December 2006

SADC: LOA with ACFD Regional workshop 2004 Publication of report, March 2006

MO 002 - Management, conservation and rehabilitation of degraded and problem soils

2002-2003

001

Application of appropriate soil management, conservation and rehabilitation techniques promoted

Conservation Agriculture, CDROM#18 Published 2002 in (E)

Training Modules on Conservation Agriculture, CDROM#22

Published 2002 in (E)

Conservation of natural resources for sustainable agriculture leaflets: soil moisture, organic matter, soil compaction and implementing CA.

Published jointly with University of Teramo, Italy, 2003 in (E)

Translation in (S)

2004-2005

401

Methodologies for land degradation assessment, its mitigation, conservation and rehabilitation for degraded and problem soils, linked to LADA, SPFS and SFI

Methods and materials in soil conservation, CDROM#30

Published 2005, (E)

Photo library on soil erosion processes (Land and Water Digital Media Series # 28)

E, F and S in 2005

Sistema de Información de Recursos de Tierras , ( Land and Water Digital Media Series # 29 )

S in 2005

Properties and Management of Drylands ( Land and Water Digital Media Series # 31)

E in 2005

Guiding principals for the quantitative assessment of soil degradation: with a focus on salinization, nutrient decline and soil pollution, Miscellaneous Papers#36

Published 2004 in (E)

Hot spots analysis towards developing methodology for land degradation assessment (LADA)

CDROM – October 2005

Management of salt affected soils Publication as Soils Bulletin in (E) – mid-2006 Translation to (A) postponed 2006-07

Management of polluted soils Publication in Soils Bulletin (E), postponed 2006 Saline soils – information sheet In collaboration with IPTRID Four languages, published

2005() Acid soils management/rehabilitation, including case

studies from selected countries Publication planned December 2006

Using LADA tools (assessment of biodiversity and land degradation at local and community level) to identifying remedial measures for improving land resources in Kagera basin

Case study in 2006

LADA Degradation in the Caribbean, Miscellaneous papers#39

Published 2005 in (E) Sub-regional workshop, Trinidad 2004

MO 003 - Land resources analyses and planning tools

2002-2003

001

Workshop on Efficient Crop Zoning in Land Use Allocation

Agro-ecological zoning and GIS applications in Asia, Miscellaneous papers#38

Published, 2005 in (E) Regional workshop, Thailand 2003

002 Effects of soil carbon sequestration on land productivity in drylands analyzed

Soil carbon sequestration for improved land management, World Soil Resources Reports#96

Published 2001 (E), (F +S in 2002)

A review of carbon sequestration projects, Miscellaneous papers#37

Published 2004 in (E)

Assessing carbon stocks and modelling win-win scenarios of carbon sequestration through land-use changes, Miscellaneous papers – Soils

Published 2004, (E)

Carbon sequestration in dryland soils, World Soil Resources Reports#102

2004-2005

401

Specific tools and models prepared for land resources use and planning (including carbon sequestration)

A spatial analytical framework for the national-level characterization of land use/ farming systems

Testing, December 2005 Publication planned December 2006 (CDROM)

Carbon sequestration in dryland soils, World Soil resources Report 102

Published 2004, (E) S in 2005

Advocacy publication on SC -sequestration, December, 2005

XVI. 211 A3 Integrated Land, Water and Plant Nutrition Policies, Planning and Management (Version 14122005)

Please note that the planned versus achieved outputs by MO below differ from the structure in the MTP for A3, due to the many changes of structure. The structure below is based on the actual planning. (Please note length of programme in brackets),

Soil moisture management and drought mitigation (2002-2005)MO BO Achieved outputs (people trained, studies produced) Comment1 001 Roving Seminars in Drought

Management and Mitigation completed (DR). activity by MS.

002 Promotion of techniques for soil moisture conservation in rainfed areas

Soil Bulletin #79: Optimizing soil moisture for plant production, 2003 (E S) Contributed to II World Congress on conservation agriculture, Iguasu Falls,

Brazil, 2003. Joint activity FAO/FEBRAPDP. Proceedins published in 2003 by FEBRAPDP

Training: Conservation agriculture focusing on soil moisture and water management for North Africa and Near East, 2002, Italy. Proceedings published in 2005

International Workshop on Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Wheat

Production in Rotation with Cotton in Limited Water Resource, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 13 - 18 October, 2002.

E-conference: Drought resistant soil – Optimization of soil moisture for sustainable plant production, 2004. Proceedings published in 2005 (L&W bulletin 11).

International Seminar: Role and importance of integrated soil and water management for orchards development (vineyards and olive trees), 2004 (Mosciano, Italy) Publication in the Land and Water Bulletins Series # 10, 2005

Contribution to Symposium on conservation agriculture and environment: Carbon sequestration and water quality, Brazil, May 2005. Proceedings published by FEBRAPDP in 2005.

Contribution of West Africa to III World Congress on Conservation Agriculture: "Linking Production, Livelihoods and Conservation"; 3-7 October 2005, Nairobi, Kenya. Including four case studies on CA in Western Africa and sending 6 West African experts and farmers to the Congress. Report prepared and finalised. In press.

Promoting concept, testing and validation through LOAs and TCPs of Farmer Field Schools in soil management and water harvesting. 3 modules prepared. Being finalised for printing.

LEISA vol. 18(3): Special issue on conservation agriculture, 2002 (4 articles)

LEISA vol. 9 (2): Improving soil moisture with conservation agriculture, 2003

RELACO Environmental services and conservation agriculture: an option for sustainable development, Nov 2004, Costa Rica.

RELACO: Conservation –effective agriculture and livestock in the tropics, Cuba 2003

Summary

90 % of the planned activities have been achieved. An additional 50 % of non planned activities have been initiated and achieved.

Technologies and methodologies for wetland development and conservation (002) (2002-2007)2 001 Assessment of wetland

development in SADC countries National workshops in Zambia, Tanzania. Case studies in Malawi and Mozambique. Participation Ramsar and WG3 Represent FAO at wetland international meetings Outputs: two short publications on wetland management and conservation

002 Draft Regional Strategy for Umbrella programme document prepared in collaboration with IWMI and

Wetland Development in SADC IUCN. Contribution to RAMSAR COP, November 2005.004 Field guide outline on participatory

planning and development of wetlands

Preparation draft guidelines on SADC wetland management Document needs further elaboration. Will be finalised in 2006.

Delay

401 Guidance on integrated wetland development and management, manuals and training.

Not started: Guidelines for sustainable wetland development and management in the context of integrated watershed management (will be initiated in 2006)

Postponed: Inventory Guidelines for integrated wetland development and management for food production

Postponed: Participatory design for sustainable inland valley development Postponed: Case studies of GAP in wetland development and management Participation in the activities of the Inland Valley Consortium (IVC): annual

workshop, strategic planning for phase III: achieved.

Progress on wetland activities is slow. Officer at HQ retired. All on the shoulders of RAF and SAFR AGL staff.

Summary

The planned activities have partly been achieved (40%). Programme has suffered from retirement of HQ officer.

Guidelines for land and water management in rural watersheds, including disaster preparedness and mitigation for drought and flood (003) (2002-2007)3 001 Integration of land and water

management concepts into field programmes (incl. GEF projects)

Developed GEF PDF B Kagera river basin Transboundary agro-ecosystem management programme; lead role in its implementation and full project development for submission to GEF Council early 2005 (6mn GEF and busy identifying 6mn co-funding) . Developing normative tools and methods for assessing land degradation/agro-ecosystem services etc. Gaining experience in GEF formulation

Contribution to normative work in AGL on watershed management through Kagera. On-going. Needs stronger linkage with RP.

002 Study on land and water interactions and policy implications

E-conference: Land – Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds, 2000 Land and Water Bulletin #9: Land – water linkages in rural watersheds,

2002, (E,F,S) Conference: Regional Forum on Payment Schemes for Environmental

Services in Watersheds, Peru, 2003 Land and Water Discussion Paper #3: Payment schemes for environmental

services in watersheds, 2004 (E/S) Guidelines for establishment of PES mechanisms (institutions): postponed to

2006. 003 FAO contribution to GPA Comprehensive nutrient site map (structured data base) published for UNEP

GPA Clearing House hosted by FAO (http://www.fao.org/gpa/nutrients/sitemap.htm)

4 Global sediment load database World River Sediment Yield database on the Web. Published and accessible on-line. Not updated.

Slowing down of activities due to retirement of HQ officer leading this initiative

401 Support to integrated land and water use policies and analyses for aspects of watershed management, including measures for drought and flood mitigation

Study on payment scheme for hydrological services with IIED. On hold because of legal problems between IIED and FAO.

Prepare guide and case studies on payment for env. Services at local and river basin levels, example of Kagera. On-going.

State? Support to the development of regional methodology for benchmarking of rural watersheds/river basins

Cancelled, Support to the development of regional methodology for benchmarking of rural watersheds/river basins and replaced by regional e-network on strategic planning and management in the water sector. Status: website has been established and membership recruitment drive under way www.spm-water-ap.net

Prepare project template, guidance and training material for integrated soil, water and biological resources management in drylands: Four participatory training modules prepared, to be published in 2006 in the Handbook 'Discovery based learning on improved land and water management'. The four modules are 'Making better use of rainwater', 'Farmers' options for soil moisture management', 'Farmers' options for rainwater harvesting' and 'Integrated management of salinity and sodicity problems'.

AGL needs to respond to the pressing demand for knowledge on watershed management.

Summary

80 % of the planned activities have been achieved, another 20% of unplanned activities have been achieved also.

Integrated planning and management of water, land and soil nutrient (7,8,9) (2002-2007)4 001 Strategies for disaster mitigation of

drought, desertification and floods Land and Water Discussion Paper #1: A perspective on water control in

southern Africa, 2003, (E) (SADC comprehensive natural resources study on sub-regional agricultural

development from the perspective of drought mitigation completed and transmitted to SAFR for dissemination. The study responds to an FAO commitment made by the Director General at the 2002 OAU meeting in Lusaka.)

Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin – A situation analysis, 2004 (E)

Concept paper on program development for drought mitigation (Limpopo basin): on hold.

No follow up activities planned. Need to review, streamline and reinforce AGL’s drought mitigation programme as requested by AGL clients.

Summar

90% achieved.

yRevised FAO Land Evaluation Framework (008) (2004-2005)5 401 Guidelines on land resource

planning, use and policy Draft report. Publication Framework for land evaluation Training material for integrated land use assessment Initiated publication A framework for the characterisation of agricultural

land use at sub-national scale using pre-existing data. Initiated: contribution to SOLAW

Publication Framework for land evaluation is being finalized.

Summary

90% achieved, other activities initiated under this heading.

Other (not included)A3 corporate vision Development of A3 web site (on-going)