• The literature review devoted attention to a host of issues related to agricultural water, with particular reference to Africa. There are at least three generic issues emerging from this literature: First, poor policyand institutions are still viewed as the bottleneck for the agricultural water sector in Africa, and fundamental changes in institutional arrangements and management practices are required to overcome challenges in this sub-sector. Second, irrigation investment is costly, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The high irrigation investment cost, coupled with low productivity of irrigated land, has serious implications for poverty reduction and the economic viability of agriculture schemes in Africa. And third, weaknesses in planning and implementation appear to be a key reason for the disappointing results of agricultural water development and management in Africa. In particular, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of agricultural water investment projects in SSA has generally been poor and is likely to have had a negative impact on project outcomes.

• The portfolio overview, covering the period 1990- 2007, identified 217 AWM operations with an approval value of US$ 3.447 billion. In comparison, agriculture (excluding water) had approvals of US$3.536 billion for 300 operations. The African Development Fund (ADF) provided 84 percent of the funding for the AWM operations. The portfolio review shows that some 50 percent of all AWM financing went to 8 countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Ghana, Nigeria, Mali, Malawi, Kenya, and Ethiopia). In general, the West Africa region received the highest amount of AWM lending. Overall, AWM funding generally increased in the period 1996-2001, but has since declined, although there has been an increase in AWM multi-country operations and a raise of AWM operations in the East of the continent.

• The country sub-sector reviews and project evaluations in Ghana and Mali revealed that the Bank has been one of the largest sources of assistance for AWM in both countries during 1990-2010. In Mali, the Bank had a total of 16 operations with an AWM component, consisting of 10 projects, 5 studies, and one line of credit. Seven of the 10 projects focussed primarily on AWM, whereas water component was a minor component in 3 projects. In Ghana, there were 9 AWM operations, consisting of 7 projects and 2 studies; both studies and 3 of the projects had AWM as a major focus. The investigations in both countries reached the following conclusions regarding the evaluation criteria: 

• For an Agricultural Water Management to be successful; an enabling environment for farmers to take advantage of the opportunities arising from irrigation development, changes in the farming system, access to land, or social reoganisation are often required should exist. 

• Success in introducing a complex change process is closely linked to the sequencing of project activities. AWM projects typically have several intimately linked phases; the civil works are linked to training, formation of users associations, provision of inputs and credit. Delays in the civil works, if the activities run concurrently, may mean that the entire budget for training, for example, is used before the civil works become available. In addition, the beneficiaries may not be fully committed because they lack confidence that the schemes will ever be finished. If the other activities are delayed until completion of the civil works, the project may end before the activities are started (as was the case with many projects in both countries). 

Recommendation(s) to the Bank:

• The Bank must invest more resources in highquality, timely and relevant ESW to contribute to strategic reflection at country level and to improve the quality of its AWM projects. The Bank should be more creative in developing country strategies, informing government policy, acting as a critical friend, and keeping abreast of research and innovation in the sector. Key technical and socio-economic issues to be addressed include soil mapping and hydrological surveys, the economics of rained versus irrigated farming, the choice between large versus small irrigation perimeters, responsibilities for management of irrigation land, and the role of large private firms versus small holders. At the project level, sufficient resources should be invested in feasibility studies to provide a broad assessment of risks and opportunities, and to ensure an understanding of the change process required for the project to yield optimal benefits. 

• The Bank should increase its focus on policy and institutions, and strengthen internal management capacity of AWM-related bodies. The Agriculture Sector policy recognizes that the main challenge facing the AWM is the weak institutional capacity to carry out operations in management and maintenance of installed irrigation structures. The capacity development needs for AWM should also go beyond individuals to encompass the wider issues of organizations within which the individuals work and the social and economic environment within which organizations and individuals function. 

• The Bank needs to be more realistic about expected results, the time required for implementation, and the conditions necessary for sustainability of its AWM operations. This would require factoring in the experience of previous operations when defining expected results and an implementation timetable. As for sustainability of AWM interventions, the Bank should not only focus on cost recovery issues, but also reconsider the rationale behind AWM projects, including the choice of rice as the target crop in most AWM interventions. 

• The Bank needs to improve its quality control and facilitation roles to ensure smooth and high-quality implementation of the operations. In particular, the Bank should undertake

• The Bank should pay more attention to M&E and incorporate lessons into projects design. This includes better documentation of projects and data collection. In line with the recent evaluation of project supervision, the SAP system should be redesigned to improve the reliability of supervision data, and make M&E information a resource for use by both the Bank and borrower. The Bank should consider supporting the development of in-country M&E capacity and medium to long-term master plans for irrigation development