Audit of selected USAID/India irrigation projects, project nos : 386-0481, 386-0483 and 386-0490

Program results audit covers the period 4/82-3/87 and is based on document review; discussions with USAID/I, Government of India (GOI), World Bank, and project irrigation officers; and site visits. The A.I.D. irrigation program in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh was authorized as project assistance aimed at increasing irrigation coverage and at introducing water delivery planning, technology, and management improvements to be uniformly adopted on similar Indian-financed schemes. However, the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh had construction priorities which differed from those of USAID/I, and they did not adopt project practices in their schemes. As a result, after 5 years, the three USAID/I projects have made little development impact on the irrigation program in the two States. There are three specific reasons for this. (1) A.I.D. has had limited leverage to effect institutional change, since its funds were small in relation to the total irrigation investments of the States. (2) A.I.D. funding, while authorized in the form of project assistance, was in effect more of a resource transfer. (3) The Irrigation Departments of the two States did not establish an effective construction management and planning system. It is recommended that: (1) USAID/I determine whether to continue to assist the Indian irrigation sector and, if so, whether by way of project or program assistance; and (2) the Mission Director develop an action plan to help the two States improve their construction planning and management capabilities. USAID/I disagreed with the finding and with all but one portion of the recommendations. Although A.I.D. funds for the Rajasthan project have been expended, many of the A.I.D.-funded schemes remain uncompleted. USAID/I is not monitoring the completion of these schemes because: (1) the Mission lacks guidelines for monitoring projects after A.I.D. funding terminates; (2) the GOI agency responsible for monitoring the project has stopped reporting. The project design did not anticipate the long delay between the final expenditure of A.I.D. funds and the completion of the schemes. Without specific monitoring, the Mission cannot fulfill its duty of ensuring that A.I.D. funds are used effectively and that the schemes are completed according to project criteria. The Mission concurred with this finding and the allied recommendation, now considered closed, to establish guidelines for monitoring the uncompleted schemes. (Author abstract, modified)