Watershed Management Group (WMG)

Performance Management Plan Objective: To improve Water Resources Management in the Piura Watersheds of Northern Peru*

Updated May 2011

*Based on a DGP Round 1 project being implemented by the Mountain Conservation Society in Peru

I. Development Hypothesis Climate change has affected the watershed areas of Piura, Peru. This is in part due to the recession and melting of glaciers in the Andes Mountains and additional water flowing in rivers from the highlands due to prolonged heavy rainfall. This means more water available for the short-term, but scarcity in the long-term. Without conservation measures and improved water resources management, long-term water supply shortages could have severe consequences for the agriculture, power and tourism sectors. Decisions about land use and water management are made at the local government (Municipal) level. The populations affected by the decisions about water management live throughout the watershed areas. The populations are essentially divided into two groups: the highland people and the lowland people. The highland people are primarily mountain dwellers and are nearly always associated with rural poverty. The lowland people are primarily farmers and depend on fresh, clean water from the mountains. The rivers in the Piura watershed also power three hydroelectric stations which provide 5% of the national hydroelectric output for Peru. At present, there are conflicts between the two groups – highland and lowland people - as investments in water management infrastructure (dams, reservoirs, canals for irrigation, etc.) are controlled by the local government. Their decisions are guided by the interests of the local community; however, decisions do not necessarily include the interests of both groups and depend somewhat on the governmental official’s home area. Another problem is that the information upon which the decision makers base their judgments does not include very much scientific data. With the overall goal of improving water resources management, the project intends to address conflict over water management infrastructure between the lowland and highland people by creating opportunities for new joint decision-making processes that include lowland and highland stakeholders. In addition, the project intends to increase the dissemination and inclusion of scientific research in the decision making process. Our Result: Water resources management in the watersheds of Piura improved. WMG will assessment improvement in the management of water resources by the number of cases of investment in water management that reflect both relevant scientific data and political consensus among representatives of the two groups. Achievement of the overall result will be monitored by one indicator: 1. Number of water resource management investments (dams, reservoirs, canals for irrigation, etc.) that have scientific and political validation Given the critical assumption that there will be national policy support for watershed basin regional planning, there are two intermediate results (IRs) necessary and sufficient to achieve the Objective, and they are: IR1: Water management decision making restructured IR2: Investment in improved water resources management increased

Page 2 of 13

IR1— Water management decision making processes restructured: WMG will encourage changes in how decisions are made, the use of common planning tools, and analysis supported by scientific input. Specifically, WMG will encourage joint decision making processes between lowland government or private sector entity and a highland government. WMG will also encourage the use of common planning tools like maps, modeling, GIS, etc. which provide an open, transparent forum for decision making. Finally, WMG will encourage the use of scientific inputs in the analysis of options considered for decisions, such as infrastructure support. Achievement of the intermediary result will be monitored by three indicators: 1. The number of cases of joint decision making between either a lowland government or private sector entity who engages in a water management decision making process with a highland government (or the reverse). 2. The percentage of decisions that are made supported by common planning tools (maps, modeling, GIS, etc.). 3. The percentage of decisions made that include scientific input as support to the analysis of project options. IR2— Investment in improved water resources management increased. This intermediary result is focused on the dollar value of investment in water management infrastructure projects by local governments and local business, beyond those projects supported by WMG. The investments are funds to support water management infrastructure projects. Achievement of the result will be monitored by one indicator: 1. Value in US dollars of qualified projects. There are 2 additional sub-intermediary results necessary and sufficient to cause the above two intermediary results to occur and they are: Sub IR1.1: Stakeholder Conference generates consensus to restructure decision making Sub IR1.2: Stakeholder knowledge increased Sub IR1.1— Stakeholder Conference generates consensus to restructure decision making: The Stakeholder Conference is a precursor to IR1, as it generates the commitment, with knowledge of the scientific support available, to form a highland/lowland decision making process. Success of the Stakeholder Conference is measured by the number of working groups formed and the percentage of completion of their action plans. Achievement of the result will be monitored by two indicators: 1. Number of working groups formed 2. % completion of working group action plans Sub IR1.2 – Stakeholder knowledge increased: This sub-intermediary result contributes to investment in improved water resources management, as well as the success of the Stakeholder Conference. Stakeholder knowledge is measured by a pre-/post-test and public awareness by random public opportunity surveys. Achievement of the result will be monitored by one indicator: 1. Percentage change in stakeholder knowledge scores between pre- and post-tests

Page 3 of 13

All of the above results are generated by a series of activities that include: planning and execution of Stakeholder Conferences, development of working groups, identifying and selecting scientific research resources, dissemination of scientific research and monitoring and information sharing about results. II. Results Framework Overall Goal: Improving water resources management

Context Indicator 1. # of water resources management related conflicts

Result: Water resources management in the watersheds of Piura improved 1. Number of water resource management investments (dams, reservoirs, canals for irrigation, etc.) that have scientific and political validation

IR1: Water management decision-making processes restructured 1. The number of cases of joint decision making 2. The percentage of decisions that are made supported by common planning tools 3. The percentage of use of scientific input to support the analysis of project options

Sub IR 1.1: Stakeholder Conference generates consensus to restructure decision-making 1. Number of working groups formed 2. % completion of working group action plans

Illustrative Activities: - Plan and execute stakeholder conferences - Develop working groups - Train stakeholders on consensus building techniques - Provide ongoing facilitation support to working groups

Critical Assumptions 1. National Policy supports watershed basin regional planning

IR2: Investment in improved water resources management increased 1. Value in US dollars of qualified projects

Sub IR 1.2: Stakeholder knowledge increased 1. Percentage change in stakeholder knowledge

Illustrative Activities: - Identify and select resources of scientific research on Piura watersheds - Disseminate scientific research to stakeholders

Page 4 of 13

III. Performance Indicator Reference Sheets Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 1 Result: Water resources management in the watersheds of Piura improved. Indicator 1: Number of water resource management investments (dams, reservoirs, canals for irrigation, etc.) that have scientific and political validation Description Precise Definition: An investment is an expenditure of funds, either public or private to achieve an objective related to water resource management. Water resource management includes its conservation, transportation, consumption, and discharge as waste. Validated scientifically means that the Science Officer of WMG lists the studies used to support the investment decision and signs an affidavit that the decision is consistent with them. Validated politically means that a municipality where the investment is made approves an investment agreement that includes signatures from the private or public sectors of stakeholders. That means an investment in the highlands must include lowland stakeholders and vice versa. Stakeholders are people from Piura or Santa Clara or who are involved in decision making in those communities that 1) sponsor projects related to water resource management, 2) have an interest or gain upon a successful completion of the project and/or 3) may have a positive or negative influence in the project completion. Unit of Measure: Cumulative Number Disaggregated by: Watersheds (Santa & Piura Chira) Justification/Management Utility: The number of water resource management investments (dams, reservoirs, canals for irrigation, etc.) that have scientific and political validation is a direct measure of the Project Objective. Plan for data acquisition Data collection method: WMG will acquire copies of all investment documents. Copies acquired as they are signed or as discovered. Data Source(s): Municipality documents Frequency/Timing of data acquisition: As they are signed or discovered Estimated cost of data acquisition: Part of the normal process of facilitation Responsible individuals: Each facilitator: Liliana, Jose, Cecilia Data Quality Items Known data limitations and significance: Some investments may escape the notice of Municipalities. Action taken or planned to address data limitations: We will survey Municipalities at least annually to check on data. Plan for data analysis, review, and reporting Data analysis: Comparison of data to targets quarterly Reporting of data: Internally quarterly and annually to USAID Notes: Baselines and Targets. Other: Targets may have to be adjusted mid-term of the project. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS Baseline Year Santa 2009 Piura Chira 2009 Total

Targets Actual 0 0 0

2009 2010 0 1 0 1 0 2 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/09/09

2011 3 3 6

2012 10 10 20

Page 5 of 13

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 2 Result: IR 1: Water management decision making restructured Indicator: 1.1 The number of cases of joint decision making between either a lowland government or private sector entity who engages in a water management decision making process with a highland government (or the reverse). Description Precise Definition: Joint decision making is a set of communications among at least 1 municipality lowland government or private sector entity who engages in a water management decision making process with a highland government (or the reverse) for the objective of reaching agreement on an investment in, or policy for, water resources management. The communication may be in person or electronic. Unit of Measure: Number Disaggregated by: Watersheds (Santa & Piura Chira) Justification/Management Utility: At a certain level, individual joint decision making may trigger a bigger, basin-wide approach to decision making about watersheds. If the number drops, WMG will increase the number of working groups. Plan for data acquisition Data collection method: WMG will ask key informants (1 highland and 1 lowland) for each working group facilitated whether communications have occurred prior to or during a decision making process. Specific cases will be counted and details of the case compiled. Interviews are by phone. Data Source(s): Key informants (lowland and highland) of working groups started in the Stakeholder Conference (included public, private and NGO sectors) Frequency/Timing of data acquisition: Quarterly at the beginning of each quarter Estimated cost of data acquisition: One day of phone time per quarter Responsible individuals: Facilitators of working groups: Liliana, Jose, Cecilia Data Quality Items Known data limitations and significance: None Action taken or planned to address data limitations: None Plan for data analysis, review, and reporting Data analysis: Quarterly review in house. Analysis of the reasons communications stop should inform overall project strategy. Reporting of data: Internal Quarterly Reports Notes: Baselines and Targets. Other: We set the target slightly below the total number of working groups generated by the Stakeholder conference each year. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS Baseline Year Santa 2009 Piura Chira 2009 Total

Actual 0 0 0

Targets 2009 2010 0 4 0 4 0 8 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/09/09

2011 6 6 12

2012 8 8 16

Page 6 of 13

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 3 Result: IR 1: Water management decision making restructured Indicator: 1.2 The percentage of decisions that are made supported by common planning tools Description Precise Definition: Common planning tools are maps, (electronic, GIS-supported or physical) computer generated environmental models, engineering models for infrastructure, and computer generated projections of water resources against infrastructure investment decisions. The WMG Science Officer will define the list of appropriate planning tools for each working group. Common means that the highland and lowland Stakeholders whose communications are monitored for the same working group, reference the same tools in their descriptions of the decision making process. Support decision making means that the interviewee responds with a “yes” to the question: Is this tool supporting your decision making process? The ratio is that number of decisions with congruent, positive answers to the total number of decisions. Unit of Measure: Ratio of Yes/Total (with back up of which tools are/are not shared and are/are not supportive as rated by both high and lowland key informants) Disaggregated by: Watersheds (Santa & Piura Chira) and Internally by working group Justification/Management Utility: Used to identify useful from non-useful tools and to explore whether they are credible to both highland and lowland participants. At some point this indicator may direct the timing to introduce tools that encompass the entire watershed. Plan for data acquisition Data collection method: As a continuation of the interview data collection method for indicator 1.1 above, the interviewee asks what tools support decision making and whether they are truly supportive. Interviewees from both highland and lowland must agree on their responses for the indicator to be counted. Data Source(s): Key informants (low and highland) of working groups started in the Stakeholder Conference Frequency/Timing of data acquisition: Quarterly at the beginning of each quarter Estimated cost of data acquisition: One day of phone time per quarter Responsible individuals: Facilitators of working groups: Liliana, Jose, Cecilia Data Quality Items Known data limitations and significance: The quality of the facilitator or relationship of facilitators to the working groups may be factors. Action taken or planned to address data limitations: Consider switching facilitators to get the best match. Plan for data analysis, review, and reporting Data analysis: Reviewed quarterly by WMG for action planning with working groups and improving the tool kit. Reporting of data: Internal Quarterly Report Notes: Baselines and Targets. Other: Fairly difficult, so we set target at constant ratio over time PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS Baseline Year Santa 2009 Piura Chira 2009 Total

Actual 0 0 0

Targets 2009 2010 0 2/4 0 2/4 0 4/8 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/09/09

2011 3/6 3/6 6/12

2012 4/8 4/8 8/16

Page 7 of 13

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 4 Result: IR 1: Water management decision making restructured Indicator: 1.3 The percentage of decisions made that include scientific input as support to the analysis of project options Description Precise Definition: Scientific input is that collection of research studies and tools (as defined in Indicator 2.2) that the WMG Science Officer defines as necessary to support the analysis of project options. Project options are the decision options or alternative plans for projects. Analysis is weighing the advantages and disadvantages for each option. The percentage is that number of decisions that include scientific input as justification for selection out of all decisions. Unit of Measure: Percentage of Yes/Total Disaggregated by: Watersheds (Santa & Piura Chira) and Internally by working group Justification/Management Utility: Internal check on role of objective science in the decision making process of the working groups before a final decision is reached. Plan for data acquisition Data collection method: Working group facilitators are responsible for getting the groups to generate the information about decision making processes and scientific input. The facilitators as a group create the ratio. Data Source(s): Working group facilitators. Frequency/Timing of data acquisition: As decisions are made. Estimated cost of data acquisition: None – normal facilitation Responsible individuals: 3 working group facilitators: Liliana, Jose, Cecilia Data Quality Items Known data limitations and significance: WMG Science Officer may have biases Action taken or planned to address data limitations: Pick the best for the job. Plan for data analysis, review, and reporting Data analysis: Watching the individual working group performance will direct the facilitators to provide more or less scientific input according to need. Reporting of data: Internal Quarterly Report and review Notes: Baselines and Targets. Other: This seen as easier to achieve than shared tools, so targets set at a higher level.

Baseline Year Actual Santa 2009 0 Piura 0 Chira 2009 Total 0

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS Targets 2009 2010 2011 0 3/4 (75%) 5/6 (83%) 0

3/4 (75%)

5/6 (83%)

0 6/8 (75%) 10/12 (83%) THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/09/09

2012 7/8 (88%) 7/8 (88%) 14/16 (88%)

Page 8 of 13

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 5 Result: IR 2: Investment in improved water resources management increased Indicator: 2.1 Value in US dollars of qualified projects Description Precise Definition: The investments are funds to support water management infrastructure projects by local governments and local business. The qualified projects are those modeled in the Objective of the project or in restoration models as measured in IR1. The dollar value is the number of funds stated in the project or agreement document. Unit of Measure: U.S. Dollars Method of Calculation: Addition of amount stated in official project or agreement documents judged as qualified by WMG staff, once investors provide tangible evidence of 10% expenditure. Disaggregated by: Watersheds (Santa & Piura Chira) and Types of qualified projects Justification/Management Utility: Shows the extent to which improved water resource management is being institutionalized through increased investment in conservation, water resource infrastructure, and/or in decision making infrastructure. Plan for data acquisition Data collection method: All projects facilitated by WMG will be tracked by the facilitators who will be responsible for collecting evidence of the 10% expended on approved projects. Facilitators will also track those investments not facilitated by WMG but of which the organization becomes aware. Facilitators will pursue and count those that meet the requirements. Data Source(s): Copies of Project Agreement Documents Frequency/Timing of data acquisition: As cases occur Estimated cost of data acquisition: Part of the facilitators’ job descriptions Responsible individuals: Facilitators: Liliana, Jose, Cecilia Data Quality Items Known data limitations and significance: WMG may not be aware of all the investments that occur. Action taken or planned to address data limitations: WMG will survey Municipalities at least annually to check on data. Plan for data analysis, review, and reporting Data analysis: Comparison of investments among Watersheds (Santa & Piura Chira) and Types of qualified projects tracks relative sustainability of the entire effort. Analyzed quarterly in WMG staff review. Reporting of data: Internal Quarterly Report Notes: Baselines and Targets. Other: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS Baseline Year Santa 2009 Piura Chira 2009 Total

Actual 0 0 0

Targets 2009 2010 0 50 0 50 0 100 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/09/09

2011 150 150 300

2012 500 500 1000

Page 9 of 13

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 6 Result: Sub IR 1.1: Stakeholder Conference generates consensus to restructure decision making Indicator: 1.1.1 Number of working groups formed Description Precise Definition: A working group is the product of a Stakeholder Conference and consists of 4 or more people who have the following characteristics as a group: 1) At least 1 common objective related to water resource management; 2) At least 1 public representative and at least 1 other representative (public or private) from each of the geographic areas (highland/lowland.); 3) A common commitment to use WMG provided scientific information and tools; 4) A written and agreed upon decision making process; and 5) A work plan. Formed means they met all 5 characteristics. Unit of Measure: Number Disaggregated by: Watersheds (Santa & Piura Chira) Justification/Management Utility: Shows the extent to which the lowland and highland groups are collaborating. Plan for data acquisition Data collection method: Groups will formally present themselves, their objective(s), and their decision making process at the end of the Stakeholder Conference. WMG will officially count the number that meet the requirements and counsel those that do not as to how they can meet them. Data Source(s): Working group presentations facilitated by WMG Frequency/Timing of data acquisition: Once at the end of each Stakeholder Conference and then as additional groups meet the requirements over time. Estimated cost of data acquisition: None – part of Stakeholder Conference costs Responsible individuals: Elizabeth Data Quality Items Known data limitations and significance: None Action taken or planned to address data limitations: None Plan for data analysis, review, and reporting Data analysis: Provides information on how many working groups actually have representation from different groups. Anecdotal data on the reasons they succeed or fall apart over time will provide intelligence for WMG planning. Working group progress reviewed quarterly. Reporting of data: Internal Project Quarterly Report Notes: Baselines and Targets. Other: Starts with 4 in each basin and doubles to 8 by the 3rd year PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS Baseline Year Santa 2009 Piura Chira 2009 Total

Targets Actual 0 0 0

2009 2010 0 4 0 4 0 8 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/09/09

2011 6 6 12

2012 8 8 16

Page 10 of 13

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 7 Result: Sub IR 1.1: Stakeholder Conference generates consensus to restructure decision making Indicator: 1.1.2 Percent (%) completion of working group action plans Description Precise Definition: An action plan is a series of actions to be taken over time by a working group (that is active), which are directed toward achievement of their stated objective. Action plans will have benchmarks that determine completion. Each benchmark will have at least 1 indicator to observe as evidence that the benchmark has been achieved. The % completion score is that of the number of plans that have been completed (with indictors that show achievement) divided by the total number of presented plans. Unit of Measure: Ave. % achievement. (completed plans/total number of plans presented) Disaggregated by: Watersheds (Santa & Piura Chira) and Internally by working group. Justification/Management Utility: Monitor progress and identify which working groups need additional help. Plan for data acquisition Data collection method: Facilitators will monitor the benchmarks and take the indicator measures. Each will report on the working groups to which they are responsible. Data Source(s): Facilitators, based on benchmark indicator data Frequency/Timing of data acquisition: Quarterly when checking whether working groups are “active.” Estimated cost of data acquisition: The task will be part of the facilitators’ job description Responsible individuals: Facilitators: Liliana, Jose, Cecilia Data Quality Items Known data limitations and significance: There may be competition among the facilitators to show progress and they may be less than rigorous on measuring benchmarks. Action taken or planned to address data limitations: Facilitators will measure each other’s benchmarks, not those of their own working groups. Plan for data analysis, review, and reporting Data analysis: Compare progress across working groups and by Objective in quarterly reviews. May identify common obstacles to address with revised strategy. Also to identify those who need extra help. Reporting of data: Internal Quarterly Report and Review Notes: Baselines and Targets. Other: To Be Done (TBD) Targets should be based on actual action plan time lines. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS Baseline Year Santa 2009 Piura Chira 2009 Total

Targets Actual 0 0 0

2009 2010 0 TBD 0 TBD 0 TBD THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/09/09

2011 TBD TBD TBD

2012 TBD TBD TBD

Page 11 of 13

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 8 Result: Sub IR 1.2: Stakeholder knowledge increased Indicator: 1.2.1 Percentage change in stakeholder knowledge scores between pre- and post-tests Description Precise Definition: Knowledge of the impact of climate change on water resources and of the conflicts that current changes are generating will be measured by a pre-defined set of questions and the expression of the responses as a score. Pre-test means that the questionnaire is administered to a set of respondents prior to the attempt to increase their test scores with additional knowledge. Post-test means the same set of questions is administered to the same set of respondents after the attempt to influence the scores with additional knowledge. Scores are an expression of the % of correct answers out of the total number of questions. The scores of all the interviewees are added together and that total divided by the number of scores to get the average for both the pre- and post-tests. The pre-test is subtracted from the post-test to get the difference and that number divided by the average pre-test score to get the % change in average score. Upon completion of the testing methodology, the questionnaire and the protocol for the test will be attached to this sheet. Unit of Measure: Percent change in average score Disaggregated by: Stakeholder group Justification/Management Utility: This score tells us whether our training programs are working and how well comparatively among Stakeholder groups. Helps show whom to target with more or better training and which training programs to improve. Plan for data acquisition Data collection method: Pre- and post- tests distributed at the beginning and end of all training events. Data Source(s): Participants in formal training programs Frequency/Timing of data acquisition: As training events occur Estimated cost of data acquisition: Part of the cost of training events Responsible individuals: Trainers (could be any or all staff) Elizabeth is overall in charge. Data Quality Items Known data limitations and significance: None Action taken or planned to address data limitations: None Plan for data analysis, review, and reporting Data analysis: Review of scores among Stakeholder groups helps target the training for specific groups. Scores compared across training programs help identify needed improvement in training design. Reviewed quarterly in quarterly review meetings. Reporting of data: Internal Annual Report Notes: Baselines and Targets. Other: Set at a 25% improvement target PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS Baseline Year Gp1 2009 Gp 2 2009 Gp3 2009 Gp4 2009

Actual 0 0 0 0

Targets 2009 2010 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/09/09

2011 25 25 25 25

2012 25 25 25 25

Page 12 of 13

IV. Logical Framework Narrative Summary

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Means of Verification

Result: Water resources management in the watersheds of Piura improved

Number of water resource management investments (dams, reservoirs, canals for irrigation, etc.) that have scientific and political validation

Copies of investment documents from municipality

IR 1: Water management decisionmaking process restructured

1. # of cases of joint dec. making 2. % of dec. supported by joint planning tools 3. % of use of scientific input to analyze options

IR 2: Investment in improved water resources management increased

Value in US Dollars of qualified projects

1. Key informant interviews by phone 2. Key informant interviews by phone 3. Working groups will selfreport. Copies of investment documents from municipality

Sub IR 1.1: Stakeholder Conference creates consensus to restructure decision-making

1. # of working groups formed 2. % completion of working group action plans

Sub IR 1.2: Stakeholder knowledge increased

% change in stakeholder knowledge

Critical Assumptions

Goal: Improving water resources management

1. Working group presentations from stakeholder conference. 2. Working group facilitator reports on benchmarks and achievements. Pre and post-test results from all training events.

Infrastructure is well constructed and maintained.

Natural disasters, macroeconomic conditions, or government action do not reduce likelihood of investment. Key decision makers and leaders from uplands and lowlands attend conference and participate in working groups.

Page 13 of 13