This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-138 
entitled 'Afghanistan Development: U.S. Efforts to Support Afghan 
Water Sector Increasing, but Improvements Needed in Planning and 
Coordination' which was released on November 15, 2010. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Note: This report was revised on November 19, 2010, to correct the 
figure in Appendix V. In addition, four names were added to the list 
of contributors on page 69. 

Report to Congressional Addressees: 

United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO: 

November 2010: 

Afghanistan Development: 

U.S. Efforts to Support Afghan Water Sector Increasing, but 
Improvements Needed in Planning and Coordination: 

GAO-11-138: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-138, a report to congressional addressees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Water is critical to the stability of Afghanistan and is an essential 
part of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Since 2002, the United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of 
Defense (DOD) have awarded $250 million for water projects. 
This report examines (1) the alignment of U.S. water goals and 
projects with Afghan water-sector development goals; (2) U.S. agenciesí
 coordination of water-sector efforts among themselves, with the 
Afghan government and the donor community; (3) U.S. efforts to manage 
and monitor these water projects; and (4) U.S. efforts to build 
sustainability into water-sector projects. GAO reviewed and analyzed 
planning, funding, and performance documents from U.S. agencies and 
implementing partners, and interviewed U.S. officials in Washington, 
D.C., and U.S., Afghan, and donor officials in Afghanistan. 

What GAO Found: 

The goals outlined in the U.S. governmentís 2010 Inter-Agency Water 
Strategy generally align with Afghan government strategic goals for 
the water sector. The Strategy identifies short, medium, and long-term 
goals to be achieved between 2010 and 2014. Additionally, since 2002, 
the U.S. government has implemented a wide range of water projects 
throughout Afghanistan to improve access to safe drinking water and 
sanitation, agriculture irrigation, and water-sector management. These 
projects generally align with Afghan water-sector goals. The United 
States expects to accelerate development efforts in the water sector 
and estimates that an additional $2.1 billion will be needed to fund 
these efforts from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. 

The Government Performance and Results Act and several U.S. strategic 
documents concerning operations in Afghanistan emphasize the 
importance of interagency coordination. GAO has reported on the 
importance of interagency coordination and collaboration when multiple 
U.S. agencies are involved in U.S. counterterrorism-related efforts. GAO
ís review showed that the United States has taken steps to better 
coordinate water-sector development projects but that additional 
efforts are needed. For example, the U.S. government has developed an 
Infrastructure Working Group, an Inter-Agency Water Strategy, and has 
started to meet on a regular basis. However, an interagency 
implementation plan called for in the strategy has not been completed. 
Also, USAID and DOD have not developed a centralized database to 
enhance coordination, which GAO previously recommended. Moreover, U.S. 
agencies generally do not meet on a regular basis with all the 
relevant ministries in the Afghan government, and they lack complete 
data concerning other donor projects to maximize the U.S. investment 
in development projects. 

USAIDís Automated Directives System outlines USAIDís performance 
management and monitoring procedures. GAO found that gaps existed in 
USAIDís performance management and monitoring efforts for water sector 
projects in Afghanistan. For example, while 4 of the 6 implementers of 
projects GAO reviewed established performance indicators, some did not 
always establish targets for the indicators as required. In addition, 
although USAID collected quarterly progress reports from 5 of the 6 
water project implementers for the projects GAO reviewed, it did not 
analyze and interpret this information as required. Finally, though 
USAID has identified several alternative monitoring procedures staff 
can use to help mitigate monitoring challenges in high threat 
environments, USAID has not effectively ensured that such guidance was 
disseminated to staff in Afghanistan. 

The U.S. government has included a focus on building sustainability 
into U.S.-funded water projects in Afghanistan. Recent U.S. strategies 
have emphasized the importance of project sustainability. GAO has 
identified two key elements to ensuring water project sustainability: 
enhancing technical and managerial capacity to maintain projects 
within the institutions with water-sector responsibilities, and 
ensuring funding is available to keep projects operational after they 
have been completed. Ongoing USAID water projects included in this 
review have incorporated sustainability initiatives. DOD guidance also 
emphasizes sustainability. However, DOD officials have acknowledged 
the difficulties of sustaining water projects in Afghanistan. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO makes several recommendations to the USAID Administrator, in 
conjunction with DOD and other relevant agencies, to improve planning, 
coordination, and management of U.S.-funded water projects in 
Afghanistan. This includes developing an interagency plan and 
designating a centralized database. GAO also recommends steps the 
USAID Administrator needs to take to improve performance management. 
USAID and DOD generally concurred with our recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-138] or key 
components. For more information, contact Charles M. Johnson, Jr. 
(202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

U.S. Strategic Goals and Projects for Afghan Water Sector Generally 
Align with the Afghan Government's Strategic Goals: 

United States Has Taken Steps to Better Coordinate Afghan Water-Sector 
Projects, but Additional Efforts Are Needed: 

Gaps Exist in U.S. Agencies' Efforts to Manage and Monitor Performance 
for Afghan Water Projects: 

U.S. Government Has Included a Focus on Building Sustainability into 
U.S.-Funded Water Projects: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: USAID Water-Exclusive Projects and Funding Data: 

Appendix III: Chronology of USAID's Water-Related Activities with 
Funding Data: 

Appendix IV: Good Performers Initiative Water-Related Projects and 
Funding as of End of March 2010: 

Appendix V: Provincial Locations of USAID Water-Exclusive Projects: 

Appendix VI: Chronology of USAID Water-Related Activities: 

Appendix VII: Prioritized List of Unfunded U.S. Afghan Water Projects, 
Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: U.S. Agencies Involved in Development of Afghanistan's Water 
Sector: 

Table 2: Afghan Ministries Involved in Development of Afghanistan's 
Water Sector: 

Table 3: USAID's Water-Exclusive Projects in Afghanistan (2003 through 
2012): 

Table 4: CERP Water-Related Projects in Afghanistan (Fiscal Year 2006- 
Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2010): 

Table 5: Selected USAID Water Projects with Implementer-Identified 
Performance Indicators: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Afghanistan's Rain-Fed and Irrigated Agriculture Regions: 

Figure 2: USAID Afghan Water-Sector Project Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 
through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010: 

Figure 3: DOD CERP Afghan Water-Sector Project Funding, Fiscal Year 
2006 through Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2010: 

Figure 4: Goals of the U.S. and Afghan Water Development Strategies, 
by Category: 

Figure 5: USAID's Required Performance Management and Evaluation 
Procedures: 

Abbreviations: 

ANDS: Afghan National Development Strategy: 

CERP: Commander's Emergency Response Program: 

CIDNE: Combined Information Data Network Exchange: 

COIN: counter-insurgency: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

GPI: Good Performers Initiative: 

GPRA: Government Performance Results Act: 

ISAF: International Security Assistance Force: 

IWG: Infrastructure Working Group for Afghanistan: 

NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization: 

NGO: nongovernmental organization: 

PMP: performance management plan: 

PRT: Provincial Reconstruction Team: 

SIGAR: Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction: 

USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USFOR-A: United States Forces-Afghanistan: 

USGS: U.S. Geological Service: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 15, 2010: 

Congressional Addressees: 

The United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have 
identified water as critical for the long-term stability of 
Afghanistan. Years of war and conflict, coupled with persistent 
drought, have had a devastating impact on the water sector of 
Afghanistan. According to a National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment 
for Afghanistan, published in 2010, only about 27 percent of the 
Afghan population has access to safe drinking water and just 5 percent 
has access to improved sanitation.[Footnote 1] These are among the 
lowest rates in the world. Agriculture, the source of livelihood for 
almost 80 percent of the population, accounts for up to 93 percent of 
Afghanistan's total water usage through irrigation. Yet, only about 30 
percent of Afghanistan's agricultural land receives adequate water. 
Between 2002 and the second quarter of 2010, the U.S. government has 
awarded about $250 million for water development efforts[Footnote 2] 
in Afghanistan and, in March 2010, estimated it would need an 
additional $2.1 billion in funding to achieve U.S. development efforts 
in Afghanistan's water sector from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal 
year 2014. As U.S. government documents indicate, U.S. water-sector 
development efforts support the U.S. government's Counter-Insurgency 
(COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.[Footnote 3] 

This report examines (1) whether U.S. development goals and projects 
for the Afghan water sector align with the goals of the Afghan 
government; (2) U.S. agencies' coordination of water-sector 
development efforts among themselves, with the Afghan government and 
with the donor community; (3) the U.S. government's efforts to manage 
and monitor its water-sector projects; and (4) the U.S. government's 
efforts to build sustainability into water-sector projects. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID), Department of Defense (DOD), and other relevant 
U.S. government planning, funding, and reporting documents related to 
U.S. funding and projects for water-sector development in Afghanistan. 
We discussed the funding and projects with officials from USAID, DOD's 
Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP), the Departments of 
State and Agriculture in Afghanistan, and with USAID, DOD, and other 
relevant agencies' officials in Washington, D.C. In Afghanistan, we 
met with the Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development and the 
Deputy Minister of Water and Energy and attended a meeting of the 
Technical Secretariat of the Supreme Council for Water Affairs 
Management, where relevant ministries were represented.[Footnote 4] We 
also met with some representatives of implementing partners for U.S. 
agencies and the donor community. We analyzed program budget data 
provided by USAID and DOD. To further understand coordination issues 
related to the United States, the Afghan government, and the donor 
community, we attended meetings among them. 

To provide an overview of U.S. assistance to the Afghan water sector, 
we focused our analysis on USAID's ongoing and completed water- 
exclusive and water-related activities, including award and 
implementing partner documents, and on DOD's CERP-funded ongoing and 
completed water-related projects. To ascertain the alignment of U.S. 
funded projects to Afghan water goals, we analyzed the objectives of 
three ongoing USAID-funded water-exclusive projects and four USAID- 
funded water-exclusive projects completed since 2003. These projects 
represent about 50 percent of the total funding disbursed by USAID for 
water projects in Afghanistan from fiscal year 2002 through the 2ND 
quarter of fiscal year 2010. Additionally, we identified 19 USAID- 
funded infrastructure projects completed or ongoing since 2002 that 
contained water-related activities. We received data for 13 of these 
projects. From these, we identified 511 water-related activities. 
These activities together accounted for about 50 percent of total 
USAID disbursed funding for water projects in Afghanistan from fiscal 
year 2002 through the 2ND quarter of fiscal year 2010. To assess the 
U.S. government's performance management and evaluation efforts, we 
reviewed five of the seven USAID water-exclusive projects and one of 
USAID's water-related projects that had a large water component. Our 
findings from these six projects cannot be generalized to water 
projects we did not include in our review. We also reviewed CERP 
regulations to ascertain CERP planning and monitoring requirements for 
water projects, as well as prior GAO reports that addressed CERP-
funded development efforts in Afghanistan.[Footnote 5] We discussed 
these issues with USAID and DOD officials in Washington and 
Afghanistan, as well as staff from implementing partner organizations. 
To assess USAID's and DOD's efforts to address water project 
sustainability in Afghanistan, we identified two key elements 
necessary for project sustainability, as identified in the 2010 U.S. 
Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy and other U.S. strategic 
documents: enhancing technical and managerial capacity and ensuring 
funding is available to keep projects operational after they have been 
completed. We reviewed project documents for the six selected USAID 
water projects and reviewed DOD's CERP regulations to ascertain 
required sustainability-related procedures. We discussed these issues 
with USAID and DOD officials in Washington and Afghanistan, as well as 
staff from implementing partner organizations. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 through September 
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. More 
detailed information on our scope and methodologies, as well as data 
reliability assessments, can be found in appendix I. 

Background: 

Afghanistan, while considered a water-scarce nation, has significant 
water resources, originating from precipitation in its high mountains. 
Average annual precipitation is estimated to be approximately 180 
billion cubic meters, of which 80 percent originates from snow in the 
Hindu Kush mountain range. While some of this water is lost to 
evaporation, the balance recharges Afghanistan's surface and 
groundwater systems, which serve as the nation's primary sources of 
water. Only about 30 percent of agricultural land receives adequate 
supplies of water, and Afghanistan now uses less than a third of its 
available water resources. Furthermore, the lack of infrastructure to 
store and control river flow results in severe flooding in some years 
and drought in others. 

Almost 80 percent of Afghanistan's population derives their livelihood 
from the agriculture sector, which is highly dependent on irrigation. 
Afghanistan is mountainous and much of its land is not naturally 
arable (see figure 1). Specifically, irrigation makes up 93 percent of 
Afghanistan's total water usage. The agriculture sector, however, has 
been severely impacted by years of civil strife and war, droughts and 
damaging floods, and breakdowns in community-based and government 
institutions operating the Afghan irrigation systems. As a 
consequence, irrigation infrastructure seriously deteriorated and many 
farmers returning to their land cannot get a reliable irrigation water 
supply. 

In addition, access to safe drinking water, sanitation, social 
services, and markets among the rural population is the lowest in the 
region and among the lowest in the world.[Footnote 6] It is estimated 
that four out of five Afghans in rural areas may be drinking 
contaminated water. Countrywide, 28 percent of rural Afghans use 
surface water (rivers, lakes, and irrigation ditches) as their primary 
source of drinking water. 

Figure 1: Afghanistan's Rain-Fed and Irrigated Agriculture Regions: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Afghanistan and 2 photographs] 

The following areas are indicated on the map: 
Rain-fed agriculture; 
Irrigated agriculture; 
Rivers; 
Province borders. 

Sources: GAO analysis of USAID data; United States Geological Survey 
and Map Resources (map); USDA (photos). 

[End of figure] 

Afghanistan's water sector faces many other challenges. According to 
the 2007-2008 National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment for 
Afghanistan, published in January 2010, 27 percent of the population 
has access to safe drinking water and 5 percent has access to improved 
sanitation, which is among the lowest rates in the world. The World 
Bank has reported that current access to piped water infrastructure is 
among the lowest in the world at 18 percent, and because of poor 
operation and maintenance, the water service reaches an even lower 
share of the population. In addition, a report prepared by a USAID 
Afghanistan Program Manager for Power and Water noted that while Kabul 
has an estimated 35 percent of the city's population served by piped 
water, it has no municipal wastewater system. Consequently, microbial 
contamination of water resources by domestic wastewater has increased 
substantially. 

Activities in Afghanistan could have an impact on resource 
availability in neighboring countries. Four of Afghanistan's five 
major river basins flow into the territory or boundary waters of five 
of its six neighbors--Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, 
and Iran. The construction of large water storage or diversion 
facilities could affect these countries. The ability of the government 
of Afghanistan to achieve sustainable and multipurpose use of its 
abundant water resources will depend on its capacity to engage in 
dialogue, negotiate, and establish relationships and agreements with 
its neighbors. 

Water's importance cuts across all facets of life: its availability 
impacts food production and nutrition, city development and growth, 
income generation and livelihood, and human health and hygiene, among 
other areas. While the water issues that need to be addressed in any 
particular nation are unique, examples of water-sector issues include: 

* Drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene: Improving access to, and 
effective use of, safe water and basic sanitation, and promoting 
better hygiene. 

* Irrigation: Rehabilitating and improving existing irrigation 
systems, developing new irrigation schemes, and implementing 
strategies to reduce water losses and monitor use. 

* Water governance and regulation: Investing in policy and legal 
reforms, building local capacity, and strengthening water resources 
planning, management, and governance. 

* Environment: Promoting good environmental stewardship through 
actions such as controlling erosion, reducing industrial pollution, 
protecting watersheds, managing river basins, and implementing 
disaster risk reduction activities to reduce vulnerability to droughts 
and floods. 

Key Players in Afghanistan's Water-Sector Development: 

A number of U.S. government agencies, Afghan ministries, international 
partners, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) assist in developing 
the Afghan water sector. As table one shows, there are several U.S. 
agencies involved in the U.S. effort to improve Afghanistan's water 
sector. These agencies include: USAID, DOD, through CERP[Footnote 7] 
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Department of State 
(State), the U.S. Geological Service (USGS), and the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA). 

Table 1: U.S. Agencies Involved in Development of Afghanistan's Water 
Sector: 

Agency: USAID; 
Roles and responsibilities: USAID is the principal U.S. agency 
responsible for extending development assistance. USAID works around 
the world to further America's foreign policy interests in expanding 
democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens 
of the developing world by supporting economic growth, agriculture and 
trade; global health; and democracy, conflict prevention, and 
humanitarian assistance. USAID seeks to increase access to safe 
drinking water in rural and urban areas; increase the supply of water, 
expand sanitation services, and build a strong foundation for 
sustaining water and sanitation programs; and expand and improve 
irrigation networks. 

Agency: DOD; 
Roles and responsibilities: CERP is designed to enable local 
commanders (including PRT commanders) in Afghanistan to execute 
smaller scale projects[A] that respond to urgent humanitarian relief 
and reconstruction requirements within their areas of responsibility. 
DOD uses CERP funds to, among other things, increase agricultural 
production or cooperative agricultural programs through projects that 
focus on irrigation systems, irrigation wells and ditches, canal 
cleanup, and aquifer development. Other CERP projects focus on water 
and sanitation. 

Agency: DOD; 
Roles and responsibilities: USACE is a service provider for CERP and 
USAID-funded water projects. USACE has generally engaged in water-
sector development programs by participating in national-level working 
groups related to water-sector development. 

Agencies: State; 
Roles and responsibilities: State works to increase access to safe 
water and sanitation services; promote the sustainable management of 
water resources; remove water as a source of tension between or among 
countries, and use water as a diplomatic tool to build confidence and 
promote cooperation among countries. State also manages or coordinates 
a number of accounts that may support water-related assistance. 

Agencies: USGS; 
Roles and responsibilities: USGS seeks to assess the basic hydrology 
of Afghanistan; create a water-quality monitoring program; build 
capacity of Afghans; estimate the amount of safe water available; 
and identify water sources in areas currently lacking water supply. 

Agencies: USDA; 
Roles and responsibilities: USDA works with other agencies to assist 
with the rehabilitation of watersheds and improves irrigation 
infrastructure in order to increase access to water for farmers and to 
improve the condition of targeted watersheds. 

Source: GAO analysis of USAID, DOD, State, USGS, and USDA documents. 

[A] DOD Financial Regulation vol. 12, ch. 27, 270101 and 270102, and 
USFORA Pub 1-06, defines the purpose for which U.S. appropriation or 
other funds provided for CERP may be expended; and specifies the 
procedures for executing, managing, recording, and reporting such 
expenditures. The regulation states that CERP is intended for small- 
scale projects less than $500,000. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 2, seven Afghan government bodies have authority 
over water-related issues. 

Table 2: Afghan Ministries Involved in Development of Afghanistan's 
Water Sector: 

Ministries: Ministry of Urban Development; 
Roles and responsibilities: In charge of policy making and legislation 
of urban water supply and sanitation. Within this ministry, the 
Afghanistan Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation is in charge 
of management and operation of urban water supply in cities. 

Ministries: Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development; 
Roles and responsibilities: In charge of rural water supplies and 
sanitation as well as irrigation (village level) and rural micro 
hydropower projects. 

Ministries: Ministry of Energy and Water; 
Roles and responsibilities: Develops and manages water resources and 
water resources infrastructures and hydropower. 

Ministries: Ministry of Health; 
Roles and responsibilities: Regulates and monitors quality of drinking 
water. 

Ministries: Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock; 
Roles and responsibilities: Develops and manages irrigated agriculture 
and livestock, on-farm water management, and water application to 
crops. 

Ministries: Ministry of Mines; 
Roles and responsibilities: Handles underground water resources 
management, survey, investigation, discovery, and development, and 
their control. 

Ministries: National Environmental Protection Agency; 
Roles and responsibilities: Regulates and monitors any activity 
related to the environment, including water. 

Source: Afghan National Development Strategy's (ANDS) Water Resource 
Management Sector Strategy (2007/08-2012/13). 

[End of table] 

The international community also assists Afghanistan with the 
development of the water sector. Afghanistan's international partners 
include the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European 
Commission, the Canadian International Development Agency, the German 
Agency for Technical Cooperation, and the Japanese International 
Cooperation Agency, as well as various agencies within the United 
Nations. Many foreign and domestic NGOs are also involved in a wide 
range of activities. 

U.S. Government Funding of Afghan Water-Sector Projects: 

USAID and DOD, through CERP,[Footnote 8] have been the primary sources 
of U.S. government assistance for the development of the Afghan water 
sector. As illustrated in figure 2, USAID awarded $168 million for its 
water-sector efforts between fiscal year 2002 and the second quarter 
of fiscal year 2010 to fund a wide range of completed and ongoing 
water projects in Afghanistan.[Footnote 9] 

Figure 2: USAID Afghan Water-Sector Project Funding, Fiscal Year 2002 
through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

Awards: 
USAID water-sector projects (7 projects): $98 million[A]; 
USAID water-related projects (19 projects, funds estimated by USAID): 
$70 million[B]; 
Total: $168 million. 

Unliquidated obligations: 
USAID water-sector projects (7 projects): $12 million; 
USAID water-related projects (19 projects, funds estimated by USAID): 
$6 million; 
Total: $18 million. 

Disbursements: 
USAID water-sector projects (7 projects): $65 million; 
USAID water-related projects (19 projects, funds estimated by USAID): 
$64 million; 
Total: $129 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of budget data provided by USAID/Afghanistan. 

[A] The difference between the amount USAID has awarded ($98 million) 
for water sector projects and that amount that has been obligated ($65 
million + $12 million) for these projects (about $21 million) remains 
subject to future obligational authority. 

[B] The $70 million in award funding for the USAID water-related 
projects illustrated in figure 2 is an estimate based on budget data 
provided by USAID/Afghanistan. The award amount shown is the estimated 
total for the overall projects' water activities only, not the total 
award for all project activities. 

[End of figure] 

A more detailed discussion of USAID's funding of U.S. water projects 
in Afghanistan is discussed in appendices II and III. 

DOD, through CERP, has awarded approximately $81 million in funds for 
water-related projects carried out under its stewardship between 
fiscal year 2006 and the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. As figure 
3 shows, DOD has disbursed approximately $28 million for CERP water- 
related projects and carried an unliquidated obligations balance of 
approximately $53 million. 

Figure 3: DOD CERP Afghan Water-Sector Project Funding, Fiscal Year 
2006 through Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Awards: $81 million. 
Unliquidated obligations: $53 million. 
Disbursements: $28 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of CERP data provided by DOD. 

Note: The amount of CERP-funded awards, unliquidated obligations, and 
disbursements are based on data provided by DOD in July 2010 from its 
CERP Checkbook database. Checkbook is used to track all CERP projects, 
including project status as well as the amounts committed, obligated, 
and disbursed for each project on a monthly basis. The amounts in this 
figure reflect the CERP balances reported in DOD's Checkbook database 
as of July 2010, which DOD confirmed as current as of September 2010. 
DOD did not explain why 66 percent ($53 million of $81 million) of the 
awarded CERP funding remained undisbursed. 

[End of figure] 

Other U.S.-Funded Water-Related Projects: 

While this report focuses primarily on USAID and DOD, other U.S. 
agencies identified in table 1 have funded efforts to improve 
Afghanistan's water sector. For example, the Good Performers 
Initiative (GPI), an Afghan government initiative supported by the 
U.S. government through State and USAID has provided high-impact 
development assistance to provinces that have demonstrated counter-
narcotics achievements. This includes the funding of water-sector 
projects. As of the end of March 2010, nine GPI projects included 
water activities, with awards totaling approximately $5.5 million. 
[Footnote 10] Further information on the GPI projects is located in 
appendix IV. 

U.S. Strategic Goals and Projects for Afghan Water Sector Generally 
Align with the Afghan Government's Strategic Goals: 

Our analysis indicates that the water-sector goals articulated in the 
U.S. Government's Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan 
generally align with the goals of the ANDS[Footnote 11] and the ANDS 
water-sector strategy. Since 2002, the U.S. government--led primarily 
by USAID and DOD--has implemented a wide range of water projects 
throughout Afghanistan and, while some preceded the ANDS and the U.S. 
interagency water strategies, implemented projects generally addressed 
the needs and goals of the Afghan water sector. The U.S. government 
plans to accelerate water-sector development efforts from fiscal year 
2010 through fiscal year 2014. 

U.S. Strategic Goals Generally Align with the Afghan Government's 
Goals: 

The goals contained in the U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for 
Afghanistan are generally consistent with the goals of the water 
strategy of the government of Afghanistan. In 2008, the Afghan 
government issued its ANDS Water Resource Management Sector Strategy 
for the period 2008-2013. In March 2010, the Obama administration 
approved the U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy for 
Afghanistan to serve as the guiding strategic approach behind U.S. 
water-sector development efforts in Afghanistan for fiscal year 2009 
through fiscal year 2014. According to this document, the U.S 
government's water strategy is intended to be consistent with the 
direction set by the government of Afghanistan and as reflected in 
national law, policy, and strategic direction in ANDS. Both the U.S. 
Inter-Agency Water Strategy and the Afghan government strategy aim to 
improve the management of Afghanistan's water resources and to provide 
improved social and economic benefits that will help reduce poverty 
and improve the quality of life for the people of Afghanistan. Our 
analysis of the documents shows that the two strategies have 
articulated goals within six key areas, and these goals generally 
align between the two strategy documents, as depicted in figure 4. The 
key areas are (1) Water Supply and Sanitation; (2) Agriculture; (3) 
Hydropower; (4) Environment; (5) Governance and Management; and (6) 
Transboundary issues. Figure 4 summarizes the goals and alignment 
between the two documents. 

Figure 4: Goals of the U.S. and Afghan Water Development Strategies, 
by Category: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Water Supply and Sanitation: 
U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan: 
* Expand access to safe drinking water supply and sanitation, 
including better hygiene; 
ANDS Afghan Water Resource Management Sector Strategy: 
* Provide adequate supply of safe drinking water and improve access to 
safe sanitation services. 

Agriculture: 
U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan: 
* Improve infrastructure in order to harvest and store water in 
reservoirs and allow for the efficient distribution of irrigation 
water to cropped areas; 
ANDS Afghan Water Resource Management Sector Strategy: 
* Improve both irrigation supply systems and on-farm water management 
and distribution of water to crops. 

Hydropower: 
U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan: 
* Create additional power generation facilities that can also provide 
co-management of water for irrigation and power generation; 
ANDS Afghan Water Resource Management Sector Strategy: 
* Expand electric sector, including through creation of power 
generation facilities within irrigation schemes, in order to enhance 
energy sector and provide benefits to water sector in general. 

Environment: 
U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan: 
* Promote conservation of water and soil resources to better ensure 
long-term benefits to the community to complement water storage and 
modernization of irrigation infrastructure; 
ANDS Afghan Water Resource Management Sector Strategy: 
* Rehabilitation of ecosystems to prevent soil erosion and movement of 
sand and sediments into irrigated areas, irrigation canals, and 
lakebeds, and prevent desiccation of wetlands. 

Government and Management: 
U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan: 
* Strengthen local water user associations, build the capacity of 
water-related institutions through technical assistance, and better 
define policies, regulations, and guidelines for overall governance 
and management; 
ANDS Afghan Water Resource Management Sector Strategy: 
* Create a pool of sufficiently experienced technical and economic 
experts on relevant issues concerning policies and regulations of 
water sector and to plan, design, and implement projects, in 
particular with regard to the new approach of integrated management of 
water resources and river basin planning. 

Transboundary Issues: 
U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan: 
* To improve cooperative management of shared water resources between 
Afghanistan and its neighbors; strengthen Afghanistanís capacity to 
engage its neighbors on transboundary water resources; and strengthen 
the environment within the region for cooperative and coordinated 
management of shared water resources; 
ANDS Afghan Water Resource Management Sector Strategy: 
* To initiate regional water issues dialogues[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. and Afghanistan government water-sector 
strategy documents. 

[A] This is not listed as a specific goal, but is listed under Annex 
I: Water Sector Strategy Action Plan of the strategy document. 

[End of figure] 

USAID began implementing a number of water projects in Afghanistan as 
far back as 2002. It developed a strategic plan for water in December 
2004. The 2004 USAID strategic plan, covering fiscal year 2005 through 
2010, was focused on one strategic objective: expanding access to 
water supplies and sanitation. Specifically, it stated that USAID 
planned to assist Afghan ministries responsible for water supplies and 
sanitation to promote access to water and sanitation services, 
especially in the rural and underserved areas. Not withstanding the 
lack of an earlier water strategy for Afghanistan, and as illustrated 
in a USAID Action Memo, the need in the Afghan water sector during the 
early 2000s was great. In fact, work done by USAID and DOD during this 
period addressed development needs in the Afghan water sector that 
still exist today. Other U.S. agencies, such as State, USDA, and USGS, 
had limited involvement in implementing water-sector projects during 
this period. 

The U.S. Government's Water Projects Align with Afghan Goals: 

Since 2002, the U.S. government, led by USAID and DOD, has implemented 
a wide range of projects in Afghanistan that are either exclusively 
water projects or have water-related activities as a part of other 
larger development projects. Many projects were completed before the 
U.S. and Afghan water strategies were developed; nevertheless, they 
addressed aspects of Afghan water-sector needs and are generally in 
alignment with the Afghan water-strategy goals. 

USAID Water Projects: 

Water-Exclusive Projects: According to data provided to us by USAID 
staff in Afghanistan, since 2003, USAID has completed four water 
exclusive projects[Footnote 12] and continues work on three.[Footnote 
13] These projects, though completed or initiated prior to the Afghan 
and U.S. strategies, addressed Afghan water-sector needs and were 
consistent with the goals of the Afghan water strategy. The projects 
primarily focused on water supply and sanitation and, to some extent, 
on governance and management emphasizing capacity building, as shown 
in table 3. The water-exclusive projects represented about 50 percent, 
or $65 million, of the total funding of $129 million disbursed by 
USAID for water projects in Afghanistan from fiscal year 2002 through 
the 2ND quarter of fiscal year 2010. As noted earlier, appendix II 
provides a summary table of funding information on USAID's water-
exclusive projects in Afghanistan. 

Table 3: USAID's Water-Exclusive Projects in Afghanistan (2003 through 
2012): 

Completed: 

Project: Emergency Health and Water for Kabul; (9/28/2003 - 
10/31/2004); 
Description: The project's main focus was water-supply and sanitation 
activities in Kabul; 
Types of water activities: 
* Create chlorination system for water-supply systems in Kabul; 
* Operate water-supply systems to provide a clean, potable, and 
regular source of water to households within Kabul. 

Project: Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project; (5/5/2004 - 
9/30/2007); 
Description: The project sought to provide safe water, sanitation, and 
hygiene education in 13 provinces, and training of pump mechanics in 
14 provinces, all in the east and south of the country, with an 
emphasis on rural areas; 
Types of water activities: 
* Build wells; 
* Provide hygiene education. 

Project: Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation Program (5/30/2004 - 
12/31/2006); 
Description: Project sought to provide water supply and sanitation 
services in the eastern province of Paktia, and in Kabul. Work was 
initiated in the southern province of Kandahar, but Kandahar was 
eventually deleted from the program because of inadequate water 
resources and security concerns. Project activities included providing 
water and sanitation technical advisory services and designing and 
constructing a water system, among other things; 
Types of water activities: 
* Increase supply of safe drinking water; 
* Provide water and sanitation technical advisory services. 

Project: Kabul Environmental Sanitation and Health Project 
(8/22/2004 - 2/20/2007); 
Description: This project installed a piped water network to increase 
potable water access in Kabul. It also provided technical and on-the-
job training to Afghan water utility mechanics; 
Types of water activities: 
* Install piped water network to increase access to potable water; 
* Provide technical and on-the-job training to Afghan water utility 
mechanics. 

Ongoing: 

Project: Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer (3/3/ 
2008 - 3/2/2011); 
Description: The main objective of the project is to provide technical 
assistance to improve and strengthen Afghan capacity to manage and 
utilize the country's scarce water and natural resources. 
Additionally, the project seeks to increase the opportunity for 
Afghans to: (a) access information and knowledge on appropriate 
technology, (b) provide the tools and mechanisms for policy and 
institutional changes that would enhance the management of the supply 
and demand of water resources, and (c) develop legislative frameworks 
for tenure and rights over private and common land in the rural areas. 
Activities are being implemented in 17 provinces across Afghanistan; 
Types of water activities: 
* Develop and promote land and water-resource management policies; 
* Identify and apply technologies to increase agricultural production 
in vulnerable areas; 
* Strengthen linkages in private sector, public sector, and 
international institutions' research on water management. 

Project: Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and Sanitation 
Activity (11/12/2008 - 11/11/2011); 
Description: The project seeks to establish a viable business model 
for water-service delivery in Afghanistan and to support Afghan 
government reforms to, among other things, improve the management of 
the water and sanitation sector. The project covers communities in the 
eastern provinces of Ghazni, Paktia, and Nangahar, and the northern 
province of Balkh; 
Types of water activities: 
* Establish a viable business model for water-service delivery in 
Afghanistan; 
* Improve management of water and sanitation sector. 

Project: Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation Project (9/30/ 
2009 - 9/29/2012); 
Description: The project seeks to increase access to potable water 
supply and sanitation services in poor communities and to train 
project beneficiaries in water system maintenance and hygiene 
practices, among other things. The project would benefit communities 
in 12 Afghan provinces, 11 of them in the east; 
Types of water activities: 
* Increase access to potable water supply and sanitation services in 
poor communities; 
* Train project beneficiaries in water system maintenance and hygiene 
practices. 

Source: GAO analysis of water-project documentation provided by USAID/ 
Afghanistan. 

[End of table] 

The projects are geographically widespread, with certain projects 
providing benefits to rural communities, and others providing benefits 
to urban communities throughout Afghanistan, including such volatile 
provinces as Kandahar and Helmand, the two provinces considered to be 
the heart of the ongoing Taliban insurgency. Appendix V shows details 
of the provincial locations of the USAID water-exclusive projects. 
USAID's effort to extend development assistance in such areas is 
consistent with the administration's COIN strategy, but work in such 
areas presents challenges for monitoring the performance of such 
projects as well as for their long-term sustainability. 

Water-Related Activities: In addition to the water-exclusive projects 
discussed above, our analysis identified hundreds of water-related 
activities that USAID has implemented as part of larger infrastructure 
and economic rehabilitation projects implemented between fiscal year 
2002 and the 2ND quarter of fiscal year 2010. Specifically, according 
to data provided by USAID, there were a total of 19 such 
infrastructure projects with water-related activities. From 13 of 
these projects, we identified 511 water-related activities. According 
to our analysis, USAID's water-related activities accounted for about 
50 percent or $64 million of total USAID water-sector disbursements 
(see appendix III for detailed funding information on these 
activities). Also, while many preceded the Afghan and U.S. interagency 
strategies, these activities were broadly consistent with the Afghan 
water-sector goals. Examples of water-related activities included 
drilling wells for potable water supply, rehabilitating irrigation 
systems, and cleaning irrigation canals, and mostly addressed the 
goals of irrigation, water supply, and sanitation and, to a lesser 
extent, capacity building (see appendix VI for more details). We 
attempted to identify the provincial locations of USAID's water-
related activities, but, while USAID had data for the location of the 
parent infrastructure projects, the data provided by USAID that we 
analyzed did not always contain provincial or project location 
information. 

DOD CERP Water-Related Projects: 

DOD has implemented a large number of water-related projects in 
Afghanistan under CERP. Based on our analysis of DOD CERP data, DOD 
implemented 1,663 water-related projects under CERP from fiscal year 
2006 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2010.[Footnote 14] See 
table 4 for a summary of CERP water-related projects implemented by 
DOD in Afghanistan. 

These were mostly small-scale,[Footnote 15] low-budget projects with 
funding ranging from $30 for a well and water storage tank to 
approximately $953,000 for a pipe scheme in Konar province. Table 4 
shows that large portions of CERP water-related projects were devoted 
to water supply and sanitation (1,128 of 1,663, or 68 percent) and 
agriculture and irrigation projects (438 of 1,663, or 26 percent). 

Table 4: CERP Water-Related Projects in Afghanistan (Fiscal Year 2006- 
Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2010): 

Project Category: Water and Sanitation; 
Number of projects: 1,128; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Refurbish well; 
* Reconstruct canal; 
* Construct sewage canals; 
* Install water system; 
* Construct public latrines. 

Project Category: Agriculture and Irrigation; 
Number of projects: 438; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Construct irrigation retaining walls; 
* Build an irrigation and flood control system; 
* Provide training to local nationals to build an irrigation system; 
* Construct irrigation canal; 
* Clean and repair an existing kareze system, an underground canal 
system that taps aquifers by gravity to provide water for drinking and 
irrigation. 

Project Category: Other Urgent Humanitarian or Reconstruction Projects; 
Number of projects: 21; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Clear canal of debris presenting flood hazard; 
* Rehabilitate kareze; 
* Rehabilitate dam for improved water storage. 

Project Category: Education; 
Number of projects: 19; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Teach irrigation system operation; 
* Build bathrooms for two schools; 
* Refurbish school sanitation system. 

Project Category: Healthcare; 
Number of projects: 16; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Repair clinic well; 
* Provide local medical staff with the training and tools to provide 
clean water and hygiene training to local populations; 
* Repair clinic plumbing. 

Project Category: Protective Measures; 
Number of projects: 9; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Construct flood protection walls; 
* Purchase gabion wall material. 

Project Category: Transportation; 
Number of projects: 9; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Install irrigation pipes for culverts; 
* Construct pipe scheme. 

Project Category: Repair of Civic and Cultural Facilities; 
Number of projects: 7; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Repair kareze; 
* Repair water supply. 

Project Category: Civic Cleanup Activities; 
Number of projects: 6; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Clean canal; 
* Clean out and repair community latrine and shower/laundry building. 

Project Category: Economic, Financial, and Management Improvements; 
Number of projects: 5; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Kareze cleaning; 
* Water and sanitation survey. 

Project Category: Civic Support Vehicles; 
Number of projects: 2; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Repair water and sanitation truck; 
* Purchase water truck. 

Project Category: Rule of Law and Governance; 
Number of projects: 2; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Construct restroom facilities; 
* Construct latrine. 

Project Category: Electricity; 
Number of projects: 1; 
Types of water-related activities: 
* Construct retaining dike wall. 

Project Category: Total; 
Number of projects: 1,663. 

Source: GAO analysis of CERP data provided by DOD. 

[End of table] 

CERP water-related projects were implemented across at least 33 of the 
34 provinces in Afghanistan. However, while the data did not allow us 
to identify projects' exact district or village locations, the CERP 
data we analyzed demonstrated that CERP-funded water-related projects 
were implemented in both rural and urban areas, and in some provinces 
where USAID's water-related activities have been implemented. CERP 
projects are part of the U.S. COIN strategy of extending development 
benefits to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan populace. However, 
the volatile security situation throughout Afghanistan, particularly 
in the south (the historic heartland of the Taliban) and east, has 
presented serious problems to the implementation of CERP-funded water- 
related projects. 

U.S. Government Plans to Accelerate Water-Sector Development Efforts 
in Afghanistan from Fiscal Year 2010 through Fiscal Year 2014: 

According to documents provided to us by USAID and our discussions 
with agency officials involved in development work in Afghanistan, the 
U.S. government plans to accelerate water-sector development efforts 
in Afghanistan for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. Under 
the government's Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan approved 
in March 2010, U.S. agencies involved in water-sector efforts in 
Afghanistan have estimated that an additional $2.1 billion is needed 
between 2010 and 2014 to support water-sector development activities 
in Afghanistan. This is a significant increase over the approximately 
$250 million that U.S. agencies had awarded for water-sector 
development efforts from 2002 through March of 2010.[Footnote 16] 

Under their projected Afghan water development efforts, U.S. agencies 
envision three tiers of water projects that would be supported by this 
funding over the period. Many of these projects are the types of large-
scale, capital-intensive projects, such as large dams, for which some 
of the Afghan government officials have expressed a preference. 
Appendix VII summarizes the water projects envisioned by U.S. agencies 
in Afghanistan for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. The 
majority of these projected U.S. water efforts in Afghanistan do not 
currently identify what role each agency will play in the 
implementation of these projects. 

United States Has Taken Steps to Better Coordinate Afghan Water-Sector 
Projects, but Additional Efforts Are Needed: 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)[Footnote 17] 
and several U.S. strategic documents concerning operations in 
Afghanistan emphasize the importance of interagency coordination in 
Afghanistan. Moreover, we have previously reported on the importance 
of interagency coordination and collaboration when multiple U.S. 
agencies are involved in U.S. counterterrorism-related efforts. 
[Footnote 18] U.S. agencies involved in water sector development 
efforts in Afghanistan have recently undertaken some steps to improve 
interagency coordination of water-sector projects. For example, U.S. 
agencies have developed an Infrastructure Working Group for 
Afghanistan (IWG), a U.S. Interagency Water Strategy for Afghanistan 
that emphasizes the importance of coordination, and have started to 
meet on a regular basis to coordinate some of their projects. The 
interagency strategy called for the development of an interagency 
implementation plan by August 2010. However, as of September 2010, an 
interagency implementation plan has not been completed. Additionally, 
USAID and DOD still have not developed a centralized database, which 
we previously recommended was needed to help ensure that adequate 
information exists to manage and make decisions on development 
projects in Afghanistan. Such a database would help the U.S. 
government identify and coordinate ongoing and completed water and 
other development projects among relevant U.S. agencies.[Footnote 19] 
Moreover, despite some recent efforts, additional steps are needed to 
enhance U.S. coordination with the Afghan government, and with other 
members of the donor community. For example, U.S. agencies generally 
do not meet on a regular basis with all the relevant ministries in the 
Afghan government, and they do not have complete data concerning other 
donor projects in order to best leverage resources and maximize 
investments. These additional steps could help the United States to 
more effectively leverage resources of U.S. agencies and enhance 
coordination with Afghan government and other members of the donor 
community. 

Efforts Underway to Enhance Interagency Coordination: 

GPRA recognizes the importance of coordinating program areas where 
responsibility for achieving results is shared among agencies. 
Moreover, we have also reported on the importance of interagency 
coordination and collaboration[Footnote 20] and broadly defined it as 
any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than 
could be produced when organizations act alone.[Footnote 21] Several 
other U.S. documents concerning operations in Afghanistan also 
emphasize the importance of interagency coordination. 

The U.S. government has taken several steps to enhance coordination 
among agencies assisting the development of the Afghan water sector. 
The IWG was created in 2009 to coordinate, review, and oversee U.S. 
government-funded national, regional, and district-level activities in 
the areas of energy, transportation, and water.[Footnote 22] U.S. 
agencies began meeting thereafter to discuss water-related 
infrastructure projects, such as the rehabilitation of hydroelectric 
dams,[Footnote 23] water resources assessments, and the 
commercialization of water service delivery in Afghanistan. Prior to 
the creation of the IWG, interagency coordination for the Afghan water 
sector was limited; U.S. agencies conducting water-related activities 
in Afghanistan generally operated on their own and did not regularly 
coordinate or consult other agencies from 2002 to 2008, according to 
U.S. officials. As a result, U.S. officials we met with acknowledged 
that opportunities to leverage resources and to establish synergy 
among projects were often overlooked. According to USAID officials, 
water was not a U.S. development priority in Afghanistan until 2008, 
and this contributed to the lack of formal organization among U.S. 
agencies. These officials noted that coordination on water projects, 
when it occurred, was informal. Agencies did not meet on a regular 
basis to discuss ongoing projects. As noted earlier, in addition to 
USAID efforts, DOD funds Afghan water and other development-related 
projects through CERP and carries them out primarily through PRTs. 
However, USAID and U.S. government agencies other than DOD generally 
maintained a minimal representation on PRTs prior to 2008, which, 
according to USAID officials, affected the ability of U.S. agencies to 
coordinate projects. 

Since this time, the United States developed an Integrated Civilian- 
Military Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan in August 2009. This 
plan directed that integrated planning and operations between civilian 
and military components occur at all levels. The document directs that 
U.S. Embassy and civilian-military working groups will organize along 
functional rather than agency lines, and in the field, civilian- 
military teams will organize at the district, provincial, and regional 
level to implement the U.S. counterinsurgency mission and to reduce 
the tendency of agencies to operate on their own. 

In addition, the March 2010 U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water 
Strategy for Afghanistan, discussed earlier, also emphasizes the 
importance of coordinating U.S. government efforts in the water sector 
in order to facilitate greater synergy and developmental impact. The 
water strategy recognizes the role of the IWG in helping to coordinate 
the U.S. government water development activities in Afghanistan and 
states that the IWG will coordinate with other U.S. government working 
groups to enable development and implementation of cross-cutting and 
mutually supportive strategies. While in Afghanistan in December 2009, 
we attended a meeting of the IWG in Kabul, and a meeting on the 
Southeast Afghanistan Water Resources Assessment[Footnote 24] at 
Bagram Air Force Base, to observe interagency coordination. The IWG 
meetings continued into 2010. The U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy 
further states that the IWG is responsible for helping coordinate 
water-development activities in Afghanistan and that PRTs can play an 
important facilitating role in the coordination of water projects. 

CERP rules and guidance note that commanders should consider 
complementary programs provided by USAID and other non-governmental 
agencies operating in their areas of responsibility. In addition to 
PRT coordination, for projects greater than $1 million, CERP guidance 
requires coordination with the U.S. Forces Afghanistan's CERP Review 
Board, where USAID is a voting member. According to USAID officials, 
these processes provide useful opportunities to exchange information 
about ongoing and future projects. In March 2010 congressional 
testimony, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Partnership 
Strategy and Stability Operations stated that USAID's participation in 
the CERP Review Board prevents duplication of effort and also helps 
identify any problems with sustainment for CERP-nominated projects. 
This official also stated that the increase of U.S. government 
civilians in the field significantly improves the integration and 
coordination of reconstruction projects. A senior USAID official 
responsible for coordinating USAID's representatives who work at PRTs 
stated that, at the various levels of coordination with the U.S. 
military, USAID staff does their best to share information concerning 
activities by USAID project implementers. 

U.S Government Lacks an Interagency Implementation Plan for Its Water- 
Sector Efforts in Afghanistan: 

U.S. agency officials have identified the importance of sharing 
critical data and project information with each other. The U.S. Inter- 
Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan, which seeks to define and 
articulate a common approach to water-sector development in 
Afghanistan, including short, medium, and long-term goals, and 
outlines an interagency strategy, called for the development of an 
aggregate interagency implementation plan by August 2010. However, the 
interagency implementation plan has not been completed. As we have 
previously reported, best practices indicate that agencies can enhance 
and sustain their collaborative efforts by, among other things, 
defining and articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually 
reinforcing or joint strategies, identifying and addressing needs by 
leveraging resources, agreeing on roles and responsibilities, and 
establishing means to operate across agency boundaries.[Footnote 25] 
The development of an interagency implementation plan that identifies 
and addresses the leveraging of U.S. resources, establishes agreements 
on roles and responsibilities of the various U.S. agencies, and 
outlines means to operate across agency boundaries could further 
enhance U.S. efforts to improve interagency coordination. 

U.S. Lacks a Centralized Database for U.S.-Funded Water Projects in 
Afghanistan: 

We previously reported that DOD and USAID relied on separate data 
systems to track and manage development projects in Afghanistan, and 
recommended the agencies take steps to develop a centralized database 
to ensure that adequate information exists to manage and make 
decisions.[Footnote 26] For example, USAID used its GeoBase tracking 
system to capture and maintain information on all its reconstruction 
and development activities in Afghanistan, and DOD did not have access 
to this system. DOD, at the time of our previous reviews, used the 
Combined Information Data Network Exchange (CIDNE)--a classified 
database to track CERP projects as well as other types of information 
concerning U.S. military operations. As of September 2010, a central 
database that contains information on all U.S.-funded development 
projects in Afghanistan still does not exist, and each U.S. agency 
continues to maintain its own project tracking system that identifies 
agency-specific information on water projects in Afghanistan. 

USAID initiated a new database system in late 2009 known as Afghan 
Info to replace the GeoBase system, which it had been using previously 
for development and reconstruction project management. According to 
USAID, the purpose of Afghan Info is to provide "a comprehensive and 
transparent interagency picture of how project implementers use 
foreign assistance resources to support the United States' foreign 
assistance objectives in Afghanistan." USAID officials stated that 
they would like the Afghan Info system designated as the official 
system for data on U.S. assistance activities in Afghanistan; however, 
as of September 2010, they were still awaiting ambassador-level 
approval for this designation. The USAID official responsible for 
developing the database told us that the Afghan Info system did not 
include data from any other U.S. agency, aside from the quarterly CERP 
data,[Footnote 27] and he did not know whether the system was being 
used to coordinate water-sector development in Afghanistan. Senior DOD 
officials in Afghanistan who are involved in implementing CERP-funded 
water projects told us in August 2010 they were not familiar with the 
Afghan Info system or the data it contained. DOD continues to use the 
CIDNE database for its CERP-related data. According to DOD officials, 
CIDNE is a classified system and was not meant as a platform for 
interagency coordination. 

We have previously reported that compatible data systems or other 
mechanisms would enable U.S. agencies to share information about 
ongoing and completed projects with each other.[Footnote 28] 
Maintaining an accessible data system that promotes information 
sharing among agencies is particularly important in an environment 
such as Afghanistan where officials from different agencies are 
involved in similar development efforts that are dispersed throughout 
the country. U.S. agency officials told us that having access to 
project data from other agencies would contribute to better project 
planning, eliminate potential overlap, and allow agencies to leverage 
each other's resources more effectively. We further reported that 
without a mechanism to improve the visibility of individual 
development projects, the U.S. government may not be in a position to 
fully leverage the resources available to develop Afghanistan and 
risks duplicating efforts and wasting taxpayer dollars.[Footnote 29] 

Additional Actions Could Enhance U.S. Coordination of U.S.-Funded 
Water Sector Projects with the Afghan Government and the International 
Community: 

As previously noted, the U.S. government is one of many international 
players involved in the efforts to provide substantial development 
assistance to Afghanistan, including efforts to enhance the Afghan 
water sector. As such, it is important that the United States 
coordinates its efforts to address goals and objectives outlined in 
its interagency water sector strategy with the Afghan government and 
the various other international partners.[Footnote 30] 

With respect to the U.S. government's coordination with the Afghan 
government, U.S. agency officials told us that they meet on an as- 
needed basis with individual Afghan ministry officials to discuss 
water issues. The U.S. government provides technical advisers 
(contractors) and assistance to the Technical Secretariat of the 
Supreme Council for Water Affairs Management.[Footnote 31] The 
Technical Secretariat assists the Supreme Council by performing 
functions such as obtaining, reviewing, and analyzing documents 
relevant to the water sector; collecting and compiling technical data 
and legal documentation; and submitting relevant documentation and 
recommendations for action to the Supreme Council. U.S. advisers to 
the Supreme Council's Technical Secretariat assist the Secretariat in 
carrying out its responsibilities. U.S. advisers attend the Technical 
Secretariat meetings and share the meeting minutes with U.S. agency 
officials if U.S. officials are not in attendance at the meetings. 

One recent example of cooperation between the United States, Afghan 
government, and donor community concerns transboundary water issues. 
Representatives of the Afghan government along with officials from the 
U.S. government and other donor governments began meeting on a regular 
basis in 2009 to discuss related issues and formulate a plan for 
capacity building within the Afghan government to handle transboundary 
water issues. These monthly transboundary water meetings have proven 
to be useful as an opportunity for the Afghan government to discuss 
sensitive issues in cooperation with the international community, 
according to USAID and international donor officials, and to better 
understand the importance of incorporating transboundary water 
considerations in development projects. The consequence of not 
obtaining concurrence from the Afghan government on transboundary 
issues could affect the willingness of certain Western governments and 
international entities to provide water-sector development assistance 
in Afghanistan, as occurred already in one case involving an 
international donor. 

Afghan Ministry officials involved in water-sector development 
expressed some disappointment over the U.S. government's failure to 
involve them in the development of the U.S. Inter-Agency Water 
Strategy and viewed this as evidence that the U.S. government did not 
consider the Afghan government as an equal partner in the development 
of the Afghan water sector. USAID officials told us that they briefed 
Afghan government representatives at the start of the project and 
solicited the government's input but that the Afghan government did 
not take part in the development of the U.S. strategy. The U.S. Inter-
Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan was signed in March 2010 and 
U.S. officials stated that they briefed Afghan officials in January 
2010 on the finalized strategy. U.S. officials acknowledged, however, 
that more effective and consistent communication would improve the 
relationship on water-related issues, including the selection and 
prioritization of U.S.-funded projects. 

With regard to donor coordination, U.S. government officials and 
representatives of the donor community with whom we met acknowledged 
that until 2010, minimal coordination had occurred among them on the 
broad range of water-sector issues in Afghanistan.[Footnote 32] These 
officials stated that a key challenge to donor coordination is that 
international donors have their own portfolios that are linked to 
national objectives from their home countries. Because of this, 
international donors often want to pursue their own plans. 
International donor representatives told us that while such lack of 
coordination among donors can lead to duplication of efforts, it was 
unlikely that duplications had occurred given the extent of the 
development assistance needed in the Afghan water sector, even in the 
absence of coordination.[Footnote 33] However, these representatives 
said that donors have likely missed opportunities to maximize their 
investments and leverage the contributions of other donors by not 
systematically coordinating their water-sector development programs. 

In January 2010, at the initiative of USAID, the water-sector donor 
community in Afghanistan met to discuss a range of issues concerning 
urban water supply and sanitation and to discuss ways of coordinating 
their efforts in Afghanistan.[Footnote 34] At the meeting, donors 
agreed that the German development organizations[Footnote 35] would 
lead the monthly donor coordination meetings for the first 6 months, 
and USAID would lead meetings for the 6 months that follow.[Footnote 
36] As a first step to providing better visibility of donor 
activities, donors agreed at their first coordination meeting to take 
steps to share data concerning their completed and ongoing urban water 
and sanitation projects. The plan was to capture information in a 
spreadsheet and share with respective donors. Donors agreed that an 
improved information-sharing system would be useful in coordinating 
their projects and leveraging their resources. However, our review of 
the most recent effort to capture such information on a spreadsheet 
revealed missing donor data on the status of ongoing and completed 
urban water projects. In addition, according to USAID officials, no 
further effort has been undertaken to complete the spreadsheets. We 
were unable to assess whether such duplication had taken place because 
of the lack of effort to capture consolidated information on donor 
efforts. 

According to a USAID official involved in these discussions, donor 
participants have raised the possibility of meeting on a quarterly 
basis with the Afghan government's Technical Secretariat of the 
Supreme Council for Water Affairs Management to coordinate activities 
in the Afghan water sector. Donors noted, however, that they preferred 
to focus in the near term on donor-specific issues before expanding to 
include issues that involve officials of the Afghan government. 

USAID and other U.S. agency officials who were knowledgeable about 
both the energy and water sectors in Afghanistan stated that the Inter-
Ministerial Commission on Energy has worked well as a coordination 
mechanism and could be a model for enhancing U.S. coordination of 
water-sector efforts with the Afghan government and the donor 
community.[Footnote 37] This energy-sector Commission meets on a 
monthly basis and participants include officials from the Afghan 
ministries, the U.S. government, and other international donors. U.S. 
participants have stated that coordination through the Inter- 
Ministerial Commission has been very effective and has provided 
opportunities to discuss energy development priorities and ongoing and 
future projects.[Footnote 38] In addition to the monthly meetings, 
U.S. government advisers and advisers from other governments provide a 
wide variety of technical services on all aspects of the electrical 
power sector to the Commission secretariat. 

The United States and other international donors have stated that the 
Technical Secretariat of the Supreme Council for Water Affairs 
Management could be the appropriate forum for institutionalizing 
coordination in the water sector among the Afghan and U.S. governments 
and other international donors, similar to the role the Inter- 
Ministerial Commission on Energy has played in enhancing the 
coordination of U.S., Afghan, and international donor community energy-
sector efforts. 

Gaps Exist in U.S. Agencies' Efforts to Manage and Monitor Performance 
for Afghan Water Projects: 

USAID has established performance management and monitoring 
procedures, including for implementers of water sector projects. 
USAID's Automated Directives System documents the agency's performance 
management and monitoring procedures. Project implementers must follow 
requirements outlined in USAID award documents. We recently reported 
that USAID had some gaps in performance management of both its 
agricultural programs in Afghanistan as well as its development 
assistance efforts in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas 
[Footnote 39]. We found similar gaps existed in USAID's performance 
management efforts for its Afghanistan water-sector projects. For 
example, while USAID collected quarterly progress reports from its 
implementing partners for five of the six water projects included in 
our review, agency staff did not analyze and interpret this 
information. As we previously reported, the security situation in 
Afghanistan poses a significant challenge to U.S. project-monitoring 
efforts. USAID and others have identified several alternative 
monitoring procedures agency staff can employ to help mitigate the 
security challenges; however, agency staff we met with were unaware of 
this guidance. DOD has certain performance management requirements for 
its CERP projects. We found various weaknesses in DOD's efforts to 
monitor CERP water projects in Afghanistan, which prevent the 
department from being able to assess project progress or results. 

USAID's Performance Management Efforts Have Some Gaps and Are 
Challenged by Security Situation: 

USAID has established performance management procedures, including for 
implementers of water-sector projects, at the agency, mission, and 
project level. We reviewed six selected water-sector projects and 
found USAID's performance management efforts had some gaps, and that 
Afghanistan's security environment presents a challenge to these 
efforts. To assess USAID's performance management and monitoring of 
its Afghan water projects, we reviewed five of the seven[Footnote 40] 
exclusive water projects discussed earlier in this report, as well as 
one water-related project, the Village-Based Watershed Restoration in 
Ghor Province project, which has a large water component. These six 
projects encompass a range of project costs, are both rural and urban- 
based, and include varying implementation periods, including completed 
and ongoing projects.[Footnote 41] 

USAID Performance Management Procedures: 

USAID's Automated Directives System establishes performance management 
and evaluation procedures USAID is expected to follow with respect to 
planning, monitoring, and evaluating its programs.[Footnote 42] While 
USAID has noted that Afghanistan is an insecure environment in which 
to implement its programs, the agency has generally maintained the 
same performance management and evaluation procedures as it does in 
other countries in which it operates. In October 2008, USAID adopted 
new guidance endorsing several alternative monitoring methods in high 
threat environments. However, this guidance was not disseminated until 
December 2009, and USAID staff in Afghanistan responsible for water 
sector activities said during a July 2010 meeting that they were not 
aware of this guidance. Nonetheless, we incorporated this guidance in 
our review where applicable. Figure 5 presents a summary of the 
planning, monitoring, and evaluating requirements that make up USAID's 
performance management and evaluation procedures the agency expects 
its staff to follow. 

Figure 5: USAID's Required Performance Management and Evaluation 
Procedures: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Planning: 
* Define goals and objectives; 
* Identify performance indicators to meet goals and objectives; 
* Establish baselines and targets for performance indicators; 
* Define the frequency of data collection and reporting; 
* Describe the means to be used to verify and validate information 
collected; 
* Plan for data quality assessments; 
* Determine how data will be used for decision making on improving 
performance, on allocating resources, and on communicating USAIDís 
story; 
* Plan for evaluations and special studies. 

Monitoring: 
* Collect performance data; 
* Assess data quality, identify limitations, make efforts to mitigate 
limitations; 
* Analyze data; 
* Interpret data and make necessary program or project adjustments; 
* Use data to guide higher-level decision making and resource 
allocation; 
* Report results to advance organizational learning and demonstrate 
USAIDís contribution to overall U. S. government foreign assistance 
goals. 

Evaluating: 
* Perform at least one evaluation for high-level objectives during the 
life of the objective to understand progress, or lack thereof, and 
determine possible steps to improve performance; 
* Disseminate findings; 
* Use findings to further institutional learning, inform current 
programs, and shape future planning. 

Source: GAO analysis of USAIDís Automated Directive Systemís 
performance management and evaluation activities. 

[End of figure] 

For the purpose of our review, we focused on those elements of the 
Automated Directives System performance management and evaluation 
procedures that we determined to be generally consistent with the 
requirements stipulated by USAID in the applicable implementing 
partners' contracts, cooperative agreements, or grant award 
documents.[Footnote 43] 

Compliance with Performance Management Planning Requirements: 

Mission-Level Compliance: Planning provides a structure for project 
management and helps to clarify what needs to be done and why, and how 
well it should be done. At the mission level, USAID's Automated 
Directives System requires USAID officials to complete a Mission 
performance management plan (PMP) for each of its high-level 
objectives as a tool to manage its performance management and 
evaluation procedures. In line with this requirement, USAID's Mission 
to Afghanistan developed its first PMP in 2006, covering 2006, 2007, 
and 2008. Overall, the 2006-2008 Mission PMP incorporated key planning 
activities. For example, the PMP identified indicators, established 
baselines and targets, planned for data quality assessments, and 
described the frequency of data collection for four high-level 
objectives for all USAID programs in Afghanistan.[Footnote 44] 
However, this Mission PMP for Afghanistan did not include performance 
indicators specific to water-sector projects. 

As we previously reported, the Mission has operated without an up-to- 
date PMP for 2009 and 2010. However, according to USAID officials, the 
agency is in the process of developing a new missionwide PMP, which is 
expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2010. USAID 
attributed the delay in creating the new PMP to the process of 
developing new strategies in different sectors and gaining approval 
from the Embassy in Afghanistan and from agency headquarters in 
Washington. 

Implementing Partner Compliance: At the project level, implementing 
partners are required to develop and submit monitoring and evaluation 
plans to USAID for approval, with the specific requirements for each 
project outlined in USAID contract, cooperative agreement, and grant 
award documents. We reviewed the award documents for these six 
projects and found that they generally required implementers to carry 
out similar performance planning, monitoring, and evaluating 
activities. The lone grant award, the Rural Water Supply and 
Sanitation project, had fewer specified performance management 
requirements.[Footnote 45] 

For the six water projects we examined, we assessed whether project 
implementers established goals and objectives, a requirement outlined 
in USAID's Automated Directives System; as well as whether 
implementers identified performance indicators and expected targets, 
and defined the frequency of and methods for data collection and 
reporting, which are required by both USAID's Automated Directives 
System and in all but one of the USAID contracts and cooperative 
agreements for the projects we reviewed. We found that implementing 
partners for all six projects defined project goals and objectives in 
their project planning documents. Implementers for the four ongoing 
projects we reviewed defined the frequency of and methods for data 
collection and reporting. The Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation 
project work plan did not meet this requirement, and the Rural Water 
Supply and Sanitation project was not required to do so. As table 5 
shows, four out of six implementers established performance 
indicators, though some did not always establish targets for the 
indicators as required. These targets enable officials to measure 
progress against performance indicators. 

Table 5: Selected USAID Water Projects with Implementer-Identified 
Performance Indicators: 

Performance Indicators with Targets, 2004-2009: 

Program: Rural Water Supply and Sanitation;
Number of indicators with targets by calendar year: 
2004: N/A; 
2005: N/A; 
2006: N/A; 
2007: N/A; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: [Empty]. 

Program: Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation; 
Number of indicators with targets by calendar year: 
2004: Program operating with no established indicators; 
2005: Program operating with no established indicators; 
2006:Program operating with no established indicators; 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: [Empty]. 

Program: Village-Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province; 
Number of indicators with targets by calendar year: 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]; 
2006: [Empty]; 
2007: Program operating with no established indicators; 
2008: 16/17; 
2009: 16/17. 

Program: Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer; 
Number of indicators with targets by calendar year: 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]; 
2006: [Empty]; 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: Program operating with no established indicators; 
2009: 3/5. 

Program: Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and Sanitation 
Activity; 
Number of indicators with targets by calendar year: 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]; 
2006: [Empty]; 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: Program operating with no established indicators; 
2009: 0/11. 

Program: Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation; 
Number of indicators with targets by calendar year: 
2004: [Empty]; 
2005: [Empty]; 
2006: [Empty]; 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: 14/14. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO analysis of USAID project documents. 

N/T: Number of indicators with annual target; Total number of 
indicators: 

N/A: Not applicable: 

[End of table] 

USAID Performance Monitoring Efforts Have Been Challenged by Staffing 
and Security Conditions: 

Performance monitoring is critical to agencies' determination of 
whether or not projects are on track and meeting established goals and 
objectives. According to USAID's Automated Directives System, 
monitoring efforts, among other things, should include collecting 
performance data, assessing data quality, and analyzing and 
interpreting data to make necessary program adjustments. We have 
previously reported on challenges relating to USAID's efforts to 
monitor projects in Afghanistan and Pakistan due to the security 
situation in these countries.[Footnote 46] To assess USAID's 
performance monitoring of the six selected water projects, we examined 
the extent to which USAID collected performance data, including its 
ability to conduct site visits and its efforts to analyze and 
interpret implementing partner performance data. 

We found USAID generally collected quarterly reports that it required 
its project implementers to submit. In particular, implementers of 
five of the six projects we reviewed provided quarterly reports on a 
regular basis, as was required in their project award documents. These 
reports generally contained project information, such as on 
activities, challenges, and expenditures. With respect to the 
remaining project included in our review, the Afghanistan Urban Water 
and Sanitation project, the USAID Office of Inspector General reported 
that there were inconsistencies in implementing partner reporting 
requirements, as well as compliance with those requirements.[Footnote 
47] 

According to Automated Directives System guidance, conducting site 
visits is one recommended way to assess whether reports accurately 
reflect what occurs in the field. However, we saw limited evidence of 
documented site visit or other monitoring efforts. For example, only 
two of the projects we reviewed--the Afghanistan Urban Water and 
Sanitation project and the Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and 
Technology Transfer project--had documented site visits. In addition, 
USAID provided documentation of one third-party monitoring report--
from November to December 2009, USAID hired contractors to conduct a 
third-party monitoring effort of the Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, 
and Technology Transfer project in light of staffing limitations and 
security-related travel restrictions that prevented agency staff from 
monitoring the project on site. 

USAID officials we met with in Afghanistan acknowledged the importance 
of and expressed a desire for site visits to the locations of water 
projects; however, they pointed out that several factors, particularly 
the security situation, as well as staff shortages and heavy 
workloads, prevented them from doing so. USAID has predicated the 
success of its development programs in Afghanistan on a stable 
security environment; however, as we have reported,[Footnote 48] the 
lack of a secure environment in Afghanistan has continued to challenge 
reconstruction and development efforts. One agency official told us 
that it is sometimes difficult to get the U.S. military to provide 
security for staff site visits due to the military's many other 
responsibilities. According to this official, the inability to conduct 
more site visits limits the agency's ability to build relationships 
with local partners and, in turn, presents a challenge to project 
management in general. This official noted the agency has recently 
hired additional staff and believed they would help to alleviate some 
of these monitoring concerns.[Footnote 49] 

USAID approved new guidance endorsing several alternative monitoring 
methods in high threat environments where it is difficult for USAID 
staff to make site visits. However, this guidance, which was 
promulgated in October 2008, was not disseminated to USAID staff until 
December 2009. Further, the USAID Mission to Afghanistan water sector 
staff with whom we spoke in late July 2010 said they were unaware of 
the new guidance. Alternative methods in the new guidance include 
using new technologies, working with third parties and coordinating 
with other agencies to monitor activities, and establishing flexible 
performance targets. These methods are similar to those developed by 
the agency to mitigate the difficulty it faced directly monitoring its 
programs in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas due to 
these areas' dangerous security environment, and to those developed by 
the World Bank and used for World Bank projects in Afghanistan in 
areas where staff cannot travel. 

While USAID collected implementing partner quarterly reports, the 
agency did not consistently analyze and interpret, as required, the 
performance information in these reports for the programs in our 
review. USAID officials told us that they regularly communicated with 
and collected progress reports from project implementers, but staff 
shortages and heavy workload have prevented them from consistently 
reviewing the reporting documents. As a result, Mission staff may not 
be fully aware of key project information typically contained in 
quarterly reports, such as project progress, key accomplishments, and 
challenges. 

As noted earlier, the U.S. Mission Afghanistan continues to lack an 
approved PMP with performance indicators. Additionally, as table 5 
previously illustrated, only one of the six implementing partners for 
U.S.-funded water projects included in our review had established 
targets for each of its performance indicators. As such, we are unable 
to provide a reliable assessment of U.S.-funded water projects in 
Afghanistan. 

Limited Evaluations Conducted to Date: 

Project evaluation identifies the reasons for success or lack thereof, 
can illustrate which project activities work most effectively and 
efficiently, and can provide lessons for future initiatives. ADS 
requires USAID to undertake at least one evaluation for each of its 
high-level objectives. In September 2007, International Relief and 
Development (IRD) issued an assessment of the Rural Water Supply and 
Sanitation project.[Footnote 50] Though the IRD report noted 
beneficiaries were generally happy with project results, it also 
highlighted several problems, including some project wells did not 
provide enough water, and some project pump handles and latrines were 
of low quality or poorly constructed. The assessment made several 
recommendations, including to improve the drilling and building of 
wells, namely through improved use of geological data; to consult with 
communities prior to project development; to test water quality prior 
to handing projects over to communities; to train local communities in 
the proper and safe use of equipment; and to improve the construction 
of latrines. According to USAID officials in Afghanistan, the results 
of this evaluation, and the lessons learned it presented, were used to 
inform development of the Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and 
Sanitation project. In addition, according to USAID officials in 
Afghanistan, no overall evaluation had been done for the other 
completed project--Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation--that we 
reviewed. However, these officials provided us with two evaluations of 
more limited scope, each of which examined subprojects contained 
within the overall project. According to these officials, these two 
evaluations were used to inform the Commercialization of Afghanistan 
Water and Sanitation Activity project, which they told us was 
developed to address some of the problems the Afghanistan Urban Water 
and Sanitation project faced. Regarding the four ongoing selected 
projects that we reviewed, USAID officials told us they planned to 
schedule an evaluation for the Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and 
Sanitation and Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and Sanitation 
Activity projects, though they did not indicate if or when the 
Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer or Village-
Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province projects were due for a 
formal evaluation. 

DOD's Management and Monitoring of Afghan Water Projects Has 
Weaknesses: 

DOD CERP regulations, which govern projects in Afghanistan, require 
certain performance management activities, including the establishment 
of performance metrics and monitoring of CERP projects.[Footnote 51] 
The DOD regulations for CERP state, among other things, that 
performance indicators must be provided for proposed CERP projects of 
$50,000 or more and that all projects must be monitored to ensure that 
payments are commensurate with the work accomplished and engineering 
standards are met.[Footnote 52] 

Although DOD regulations require the development of performance 
indicators or metrics for CERP projects of $50,000 or more, it is 
still not clear how such indicators are and will be used to assess 
progress. We previously reported in July 2008[Footnote 53] that 
although CERP-funded road development projects in Afghanistan 
contained measures of desired impact, DOD had not stated how these 
indicators would be measured. Additionally, we found that while CERP 
guidance for Afghanistan required project proposals to have an 
"adequate" plan to measure success in achieving the desired impact, it 
did not contain criteria for developing such a plan for performance 
measurement and evaluation. Our review of CERP-funded water projects 
in Afghanistan revealed that this situation has not been fully 
addressed. According to USFOR-A, DOD has an effort underway to 
formulate terms to be used to address measures for effectiveness that 
will be included in CERP's standard operating procedures. However, 
USFOR-A officials acknowledged there is currently no additional 
training provided to program managers to assist with identifying 
performance metrics. 

Additionally, DOD officials we met with said that there was a lack of 
CERP project monitoring and that project results are not always being 
used to inform future project planning decisions. According to a 
senior USFOR-A official responsible for managing CERP projects in 
Afghanistan, the extent to which DOD personnel are able to conduct 
site visits depends on the geographic location, difficulty of the 
terrain, and the existing security situation. He also noted that 
understaffing hampered DOD's ability to monitor CERP water projects in 
Afghanistan. We have previously reported on actions needed to improve 
DOD's ability to monitor CERP projects in Afghanistan. For example, in 
2009[Footnote 54] we found that the program faced significant 
oversight challenges due to an insufficient number of trained 
personnel, and we recommended that DOD evaluate workforce requirements 
and ensure that adequate staff are available to administer CERP. DOD 
responded in May 2009 that the increase in forces in Afghanistan has 
also increased the number of personnel who manage CERP on a full-time 
basis. In addition, in December 2009, the Department of the Army 
published an execution order that included several new requirements 
for CERP personnel, including that certain key CERP personnel receive 
training for their assigned responsibilities. USFOR-A officials we met 
with in Afghanistan later in December 2009 commented that DOD still 
did not have enough personnel to effectively manage CERP, including 
juggling the duties of building projects and overseeing them in remote 
villages.[Footnote 55] 

U.S. Government Has Included a Focus on Building Sustainability into 
U.S.-Funded Water Projects: 

Sustainability is one of the U.S. government's key principles for 
development and reconstruction assistance in Afghanistan, and recent 
U.S. strategies have emphasized the importance of project 
sustainability. We have previously reported on challenges facing U.S. 
development efforts in Afghanistan, including developing a sustainable 
roads program[Footnote 56]--such as a lack of resources, an untrained 
Afghan population, and limited Afghan government ministerial capacity 
to maintain and sustain donor-funded projects given Afghanistan is one 
of the world's poorest countries. (See our July 2010 e-supplement 
relating to poverty in Afghanistan--GAO-10-756SP.[Footnote 57]) Based 
on our review of the U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy and 
discussions with agency staff, the U.S. government has identified two 
key elements to help ensure water project sustainability: (1) 
enhancing technical and managerial capacity to maintain projects 
within the institutions with water sector responsibilities, and (2) 
ensuring funding is available to keep projects operational after they 
have been completed. USAID project implementers have incorporated a 
number of sustainability-related initiatives into the water sector 
projects we reviewed. DOD and CERP guidance also emphasizes 
sustainability. 

U.S. Government Strategies Recognize Importance of Sustainability: 

Our review of various U.S. government planning and strategy documents 
and discussions with U.S. government officials identified several 
efforts underway by the U.S. government to focus on sustainability of 
U.S.-funded water projects in Afghanistan. We identified 
sustainability in the following U.S. plans and strategies. 

* USAID's Afghanistan Strategic Plan for 2005-2010 defines 
sustainability as a core value and indicates activities are designed 
so that Afghan institutions, communities, and individuals "own" the 
principles, processes, and benefits introduced. Projects that entail 
construction of infrastructure, reform of processes and procedures, 
and provision of services have components that help ensure Afghans 
have the capacity needed to carry them on, once USAID assistance is 
complete. 

* The USAID Afghanistan Mission PMP for 2006-2008 discusses 
development in the context of sustainability and identifies capacity 
building as a means of ensuring the sustainability of development 
projects. As we noted earlier, the mission is in the process of 
developing a new missionwide PMP. 

* The 2009 U.S. Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan 
for Support to Afghanistan lists as its first core principle "Afghan 
Leadership, Afghan Capacity, Afghan Sustainability," and notes U.S. 
efforts in Afghanistan must be designed to assist the Afghan 
government to assume a more effective leadership role. 

* The U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy for 2009-2014 notes 
that water is critical for the long-term stability and economic 
development of Afghanistan and directs U.S. agencies to ensure 
projects are designed, constructed, and maintained properly to ensure 
they remain operational over time. The strategy also outlines several 
goals that will enhance water project sustainability. Among them is a 
focus on two key elements: (1) enhancing technical and managerial 
capacity to maintain projects within the institutions with water-
sector responsibilities, and (2) ensuring funding is available to keep 
projects operational after they have been completed. 

Selected Ongoing USAID Water Projects Include Sustainability-Related 
Initiatives: 

USAID identifies sustainability as one of its Nine Principles of 
Development and Reconstruction Assistance and considers sustainability 
to be the design of programs to ensure their impact endures. We 
reviewed four ongoing USAID funded water projects to determine the 
extent of focus on sustainability as outlined in the recent U.S. 
strategies. 

The results of our review of these four projects showed that USAID 
water projects included sustainability related initiatives. For 
example: 

* Building technical and managerial capacity: Implementers of the 
Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer and Village- 
Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province projects are providing 
technical training to Afghan farmers on more sustainable farming 
practices. The Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and Sanitation 
Activity project also includes a training component, such as 
apprenticeship and on-the-job training, to enhance the capacity of 
managers and technical staff responsible for operating local water 
systems. Examples of activities to build managerial capacity include 
the Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer and 
Village-Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province projects' 
provision of training and technical exposure to Afghan ministry staff 
to help them identify and develop improved water and land use 
policies. The Afghanistan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation 
project seeks to improve the sustainability of rural water 
infrastructure by strengthening the capacity of local governing 
structures to monitor the use and maintenance of water facilities, as 
well as by developing written instructions on operating and 
maintaining them. 

* Financial sustainability: The Commercialization of Afghanistan Water 
and Sanitation Activity project's plan to ensure financial 
sustainability includes billing customers for water services, with an 
eventual goal of cost-recovery, according to USAID and implementing 
partner officials. The project also includes activities to ensure all 
project improvements are reinforced and sustained over time. In 
addition, the Afghanistan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation 
project plan includes a performance indicator of ensuring long-term 
financing for community water systems, namely through the 
establishment of community water user groups as well as a mechanism to 
charge community members for water services. In addition, the Village-
Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province project includes an 
effort to ensure sustainable water supply in one town through the 
creation of a water-user association, responsible for operation and 
maintenance of the system. Officials of USAID and one of its 
implementing partners acknowledged that the long-term financial 
viability of such projects could be affected by the inability or 
unwillingness of Afghan customers to pay for water because of the 
level of poverty among the Afghan population and because Afghan 
citizens have not historically paid for their water. 

CERP-Funded Projects Plan for Sustainability but Face Challenges: 

CERP regulations include consideration of project sustainability. 
According to DOD regulations, CERP is intended for small-scale, urgent 
humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects that, optimally, can 
be sustained by the local population or government. CERP procedures 
for evaluating proposed projects of $50,000 or more note that 
responsible staff are required to consider the sustainability of the 
project, including preparing a memorandum of agreement and obtaining 
the signature of the responsible Afghan official acknowledging 
responsibility and his or her commitment to budget for this agreement. 
These regulations also state staff should address whether recipients 
of CERP funding for projects equal to or greater than $500,000 have a 
plan for sustainability and who will be providing long-term 
maintenance and sustainability for the project. In addition, CERP 
officials we met with in Afghanistan acknowledged the importance of 
Afghan technical and managerial capacity and the availability of funds 
for post-project operations and maintenance of CERP water projects, 
but pointed out that DOD is not responsible for establishing long-term 
sustainability strategies. 

DOD officials have acknowledged the difficulty of sustaining CERP 
projects in Afghanistan. CERP and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
officials acknowledged that the physical sustainability of projects 
and maintenance is a problem. A DOD official noted that building 
capacity and ensuring projects can be sustained is more difficult than 
building the projects themselves. Another DOD official stated that 
having Afghans with the necessary skills and funding for operations 
and maintenance of projects was essential for the long-term 
sustainability of water projects. This official and others 
acknowledged a number of CERP projects, once completed and handed over 
to Afghans, were not sustained because the Afghans lacked the capacity 
to sustain them. 

Conclusions: 

The development of the Afghan water sector is critical to the 
stability of Afghanistan, given the role of water in enhancing 
agriculture productivity and improving the health and well-being of 
the Afghan populace. Thus, the U.S. government's assistance in the 
water sector is an important element of U.S. development and counter-
insurgency efforts. The approximately $250 million that the United 
States awarded from fiscal year 2002 through the second quarter of 
fiscal year 2010 has funded a significant number of water projects, 
but it pales in comparison to the over $2 billion the United States 
has projected would be needed to meet U.S. assistance obligations for 
water in the next 5 years. Because of this, planning, coordination, 
and oversight are particularly important. While the U.S. efforts and 
the goals are outlined in the 2010 U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy, 
the U.S. government lacks an interagency implementation plan called 
for in its strategy and that best practices have shown is critical to 
enhancing the coordination of multi-agency efforts. In addition, a 
centralized database that tracks all U.S. development projects in 
Afghanistan--including water-sector development, which we previously 
reported was lacking--does not currently exist. This is especially 
important in light of the U.S. Inter-Agency Water Strategy that 
indicates that multiple agencies would become involved in Afghan water-
sector activities going forward. Lack of coordination and information 
sharing creates the potential for duplication of efforts and missed 
opportunities for synergy and the leveraging of resources among U.S. 
agencies. 

USAID did not ensure that its implementing partners had established 
indicators or performance targets as required and did not consistently 
analyze and interpret implementing partner performance data, which is 
vital to making program adjustments, higher level decisions, and 
resource allocations. Without a set of agreed upon performance 
indicators and targets, it becomes more difficult for USAID to 
accurately assess the performance of USAID-funded water projects in 
Afghanistan. Also, it is important that USAID routinely analyze and 
interpret data from project reports submitted by implementers, as its 
monitoring procedures require. Further, given security challenges may 
impede site visits to some project locations, it is important that 
USAID take steps to more effectively disseminate previously-approved 
alternative monitoring methods for "high threat" environment to its 
mission staff. Without effective monitoring, the U.S. government 
cannot be certain whether U.S.-funded water projects are achieving 
their intended results. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To enhance the coordination of U.S.-funded water projects, we 
recommend that the Administrator of USAID, in conjunction with the 
Secretaries of DOD and other relevant agencies take the following 
actions: 

* Develop an interagency implementation plan, as called for in the 
2010 U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy that (1) establishes 
agreement on roles and responsibilities of the various U.S. agencies 
with respect to the short, medium, and long-term goals identified in 
the strategy; (2) identifies and address the leveraging of U.S. 
resources; and (3) outlines means to operate effectively across agency 
boundaries. 

* Consider designating Afghan Info or some other database as the 
centralized U.S. government project-development database for U.S. 
development efforts in Afghanistan. This database should, among other 
things, ensure that the information in the database (1) captures all 
agency development efforts, and (2) is accessible to all U.S. 
government agencies involved in U.S.-funded development projects in 
Afghanistan. 

* Take steps, in coordination with relevant international donors, to 
explore options for establishing a formal mechanism to enhance 
coordination on water sector development among the donor community and 
the Afghan government. 

To enhance performance management of U.S.-funded water projects, we 
recommend that the Administrator of USAID take the following actions: 

* Ensure that implementing partners establish targets for all 
indicators. 

* Consistently analyze and interpret program data, such as determining 
the extent to which annual targets are met. 

* Take steps to ensure that Mission Afghanistan staff are aware of new 
Automated Directives System guidance on monitoring in high-threat 
environment, such as reissuing the guidance or incorporating a 
discussion of the guidance as part of pre-deployment training. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

* We provided a draft of this report to USAID and DOD for their review 
and comment. USAID provided written comments, which are reprinted in 
appendix VIII. USAID concurred with all of our recommendations and 
said it was taking steps to address them. USAID concurred with our 
recommendation to develop an interagency implementation plan and 
stated that a final interagency implementation plan would be developed 
in consultation with the U.S. government Infrastructure Working Group. 
USAID concurred with our recommendation to designate Afghan Info or 
some other database as the centralized U.S. government project- 
development database for U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan. 
USAID stated it has begun to utilize Afghan Info for this purpose and 
will continue to do so further in the future. USAID concurred with our 
recommendation to take steps, in coordination with relevant 
international donors, to establish a formal mechanism to enhance 
coordination on water-sector development among the donor community and 
the Afghan government. USAID noted that it meets frequently with other 
international donors to discuss coordination on the water sector and 
annually plans a national water conference. Additionally, USAID stated 
it would take steps to establish a more formal and regularly occurring 
forum to discuss coordination efforts among all donors in the water 
sector. Finally, USAID concurred with our recommendation to enhance 
performance management by ensuring implementing partners establish 
targets for all indicators, consistently analyzing and interpreting 
program data, and taking steps to ensure Mission of Afghanistan staff 
is aware of new guidance on monitoring in high-threat environments. 

* DOD also provided written comments on a draft of this report. The 
comments are reprinted in appendix IX. DOD noted that, because 
Afghanistan is a war zone, DOD, USAID, and other relevant U.S. 
agencies have an obligation to work closely together to develop 
mutually agreed upon plans and strategies. DOD concurred with two of 
our recommendations and partially concurred with one of them. DOD 
concurred with our recommendation to develop an interagency 
implementation plan. DOD also concurred with our recommendation to 
take steps, in coordination with relevant international donors, to 
explore options for establishing a formal mechanism to enhance 
coordination of water-sector development among the donor community and 
the Afghan government. DOD noted that the infrastructure working group 
in Kabul has been established to help coordinate these activities. DOD 
generally concurred with our recommendation that Afghan Info or some 
other database be designated as the centralized U.S. government 
project-development database for U.S. development efforts in 
Afghanistan. DOD pointed out that such a database, if designed to 
allow easy data access and sharing with not only the interagency but 
coalition and Afghan partners, would make a positive contribution. 
Furthermore, DOD cautioned that interagency database requirements 
should not impact its own needs and requirements for centralized 
project management, nor create additional requirements for its field 
personnel. DOD also stated that progress has been made in improving 
monitoring of CERP water projects and some of the other areas we 
highlighted, but did not provide specific examples of this progress in 
its official comments or when we met with DOD officials in August 2010 
to discuss our findings. DOD also provided technical comments, which 
we have included throughout this report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees, USAID, and DOD. In addition, the report will be available 
at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix X. 

Signed by: 

Charles Michael Johnson Jr. 
Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 

List of Addressees: 

The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John F. Kerry:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Howard L. Berman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Foreign Affairs:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns:
Chairman:
The Honorable Darrell Issa:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kay Granger:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Russ Carnahan:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight:
Committee on Foreign Affairs:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John Tierney:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jeff Flake:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Mike Honda:
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines (1) U.S. water projects in Afghanistan since 2002 
and the extent to which U.S. goals for Afghan water-sector development 
assistance align with the goals of the Afghan government; (2) U.S. 
agencies' coordination of water-sector efforts among themselves and 
with the Afghan government and the donor community; (3) U.S. agencies' 
performance management efforts for water-sector projects; and (4) U.S. 
agencies' efforts to build sustainability into their water-sector 
projects. 

To provide an overview of U.S. government assistance to develop 
Afghanistan's water sector, we spoke with officials from the U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID), the Departments of 
Defense (DOD) and State (State), and implementing partners in 
Washington, D.C., and Kabul, Afghanistan. In Kabul, we met with USAID 
program and budget officials, such as the Controller, and with DOD 
officials responsible for managing the Commander's Emergency Response 
Program (CERP). We focused on USAID's ongoing and completed water- 
exclusive projects and water-related activities, and on DOD's CERP- 
funded ongoing and completed water-related projects. We also included 
State's ongoing and completed water projects funded through the Good 
Performers Initiative, although the total funding was relatively small 
compared with USAID and DOD funding. We reviewed USAID's three ongoing 
water-exclusive projects and USAID's four water-exclusive projects 
completed since 2003.[Footnote 58] These projects represent about 50 
percent of the total funding disbursed by USAID for water projects in 
Afghanistan from fiscal year 2002 through the 2ND quarter of fiscal 
year 2010. We also reviewed USAID's 19 larger infrastructure projects 
completed or ongoing since 2002 that contained water-related 
activities. From 13 of these projects, we identified 511 water-related 
activities. These activities together accounted for about 50 percent 
of total USAID disbursed funding for water projects in Afghanistan 
from fiscal year 2002 through the 2ND quarter of fiscal year 2010. 

We obtained and reviewed project documents, such as project 
performance management plans, quarterly and annual reports, contracts, 
and contract modifications; project work plans; and financial data to 
assess USAID water-exclusive projects. We calculated funds awarded, 
funds disbursed, and the unliquidated obligations balance for the 
water exclusive projects. In order to further assess USAID's efforts 
to develop Afghanistan's water sector, we also obtained project 
details and financial data on water-related activities of larger USAID 
infrastructure projects. We analyzed the types of water-related 
activities completed under these projects and identified the total 
number of water-related activities and the amount of funds disbursed 
for each water-related activity. To assess CERP water-related 
projects, we reviewed CERP checkbook data, which we obtained from DOD, 
to identify water-related projects where funding could be directly 
attributed to the water sector and exclude those projects that did not 
fall under the scope of this report. DOD officials concurred with the 
approach we took to identify projects, and with our final selection. 
Additionally, we calculated totals for funds awarded, funds disbursed, 
and the unliquidated obligations balance for the CERP water-related 
projects identified through this analysis. 

To determine the extent to which U.S. and Afghanistan water-sector 
development strategies aligned, we obtained and reviewed copies of the 
U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy for Afghanistan (2009- 
2014), the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, and the 
accompanying Water Resource Management Sector Strategy. We compared 
the strategies and relevant goals of the U.S. and Afghan documents, 
and based on this analysis, we identified the six key areas of water-
sector development and the goals associated with those issue areas. We 
also interviewed relevant U.S. and Afghan officials regarding the U.S. 
and Afghan water sector strategies. 

To assess how U.S. efforts have been coordinated among the various 
U.S. government agencies and with the Afghan government and the donor 
community, we reviewed pertinent U.S. documents, such as the U.S. 
Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to 
Afghanistan, the U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water Strategy for 
Afghanistan, the Government Performance and Results Act, and other GAO 
reports to identify requirements for coordination. We reviewed GAO and 
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reports 
concerning U.S. agency coordination in Afghanistan and elsewhere and 
met with officials from USAID, and the departments of Defense, State, 
and Agriculture in Kabul to obtain an understanding of how they 
coordinated their efforts to develop the Afghan water sector, the 
nature and frequency of their coordination, and the extent to which 
they had institutionalized their coordination efforts. We met with 
officials from DOD, USAID, and other agencies to discuss their 
respective project management data systems for development projects 
and the extent to which they are interoperable. We also met with 
Afghan ministry officials, as well as other members of the donor 
community, to obtain their views of coordination with U.S. agencies. 
We attended a meeting of the Infrastructure Working Group in Kabul, 
and a meeting of the Southeast Afghanistan Water Resources Assessment 
at Bagram Air Force Base, to observe interagency coordination on water-
related issues. We also attended a meeting of the Technical 
Secretariat of the Supreme Council for Water Affairs Management and 
talked with Afghan officials to obtain their views of U.S.-Afghan 
coordination on water-related issues. We attended a meeting of the 
donor community concerning transboundary issues and obtained their 
views of the nature and extent of donor coordination. We reviewed 
minutes from a donor coordination meeting in January 2010 and reviewed 
a spreadsheet that documented initial efforts at coordinating urban 
water development in Afghanistan. In addition, we discussed the 
effectiveness of U.S.-Afghan coordination in other sectors, such as 
the energy sector, to identify lessons learned and best practices that 
could be applied to the water sector. The information on foreign law 
in this report is not a product of our original analysis but is 
derived from interviews and secondary sources. 

To assess USAID's and DOD's efforts to manage and monitor water sector 
projects, we reviewed pertinent GAO evaluations of performance 
management practices to identify best practices. In addition, we 
examined USAID's Automated Directives System requirements to identify 
the agency's procedures, requirements, and guidance. We did not 
address all of the Automated Directives System performance management 
procedures outlined in figure 6 of our report, and restricted our 
analysis to information we were able to obtain over the course of our 
review. We focused on those elements of the Automated Directives 
System performance management and evaluation procedures that we 
determined to be generally consistent with the requirements stipulated 
by USAID in the applicable implementing partners' contracts, 
cooperative agreements, or grant award documents. Our review of these 
elements focused on five of the seven USAID water-exclusive projects 
where we could find sufficient program documentation of performance 
management activities, and one of USAID's large infrastructure 
projects--the Village-Based Water Restoration in Ghor Province--that 
had a large water component. For these projects, we reviewed USAID 
award documents, as well as implementing partner planning, funding, 
and reporting documents, including quarterly reports. Our review of 
these documents provided us with information regarding the programs' 
performance management structure, goals, objectives, indicators, and 
targets. We examined these and other documents to determine the extent 
to which the Mission and its implementers followed requirements, 
guidance, and best practices. We also reviewed DOD Financial 
Management Regulation, volume 12, chapter 27, which addresses CERP, as 
well as Money as a Weapon System, USFOR-A Pub 1-06, the CERP SOP. 
These two documents outlined planning and monitoring requirements for 
CERP projects. In addition, we reviewed prior GAO reports on CERP, 
which addressed performance management. We discussed these issues with 
USAID and DOD officials in Washington and Afghanistan, as well as 
staff from implementing partner organizations. 

To assess USAID's and DOD's efforts to address water project 
sustainability in Afghanistan, we reviewed recent strategic documents 
on Afghanistan, including the U.S. Government Inter-Agency Water 
Strategy for 2009-2014, USAID's Afghanistan Strategic Plan for 2005- 
2010, and the USAID Afghanistan Mission PMP from 2006-2008. Based on 
our review of these documents, as well as our discussions with agency 
officials, we identified two key elements to ensuring project 
sustainability: enhancing technical and managerial capacity to 
maintain projects within the institutions with water-sector 
responsibilities, and ensuring funding is available to keep projects 
operational after they have been completed. Moreover, USAID staff with 
water-sector responsibilities concurred with these elements at our 
exit conference with the agency. We also reviewed project documents 
for the six selected USAID water-sector projects we included in our 
review of USAID's efforts to manage and monitor water-sector projects. 
Our review of these documents provided us with information regarding 
the projects' approaches to sustainability. We also reviewed DOD 
Financial Management Regulation, volume 12, chapter 27, which 
addresses CERP, as well as Money as a Weapon System, USFOR-A Pub 1-06, 
the CERP SOP. These documents outline required sustainability-related 
procedures for CERP projects. We also discussed these issues with 
USAID and DOD officials in Washington and Afghanistan, as well as 
staff from implementing partner organizations. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: USAID Water-Exclusive Projects and Funding Data: 

Completed projects: 

Project description: Emergency Health and Water for Kabul; 
Start date: 9/28/2003; 
End date: 10/31/2004; 
Total funding awarded: $623,273;
Total funding obligated: $614,594; 
Total funding disbursed: $614,594. 

Project description: Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project; 
Start date: 5/5/2004; 
End date: 9/30/2007; 
Total funding awarded: $10,000,000; 
Total funding obligated: $10,000,000; 
Total funding disbursed: $10,000,000. 

Project description: Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation Program 
(AUWSP); 
Start date: 5/30/2004; 
End date: 12/31/2006; 
Total funding awarded: $37,789,701; 
Total funding obligated: $37,789,701; 
Total funding disbursed: $37,789,701. 

Project description: Kabul Environmental Sanitation and Health Project; 
Start date: 8/22/2004; 
End date: 2/20/2007; 
Total funding awarded: $4,207,988; 
Total funding obligated: $4,207,988; 
Total funding disbursed: $4,162,080. 

Ongoing projects: 

Project description: Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology 
Transfer (AWATT); 
Start date: 3/3/2008; 
End date: 3/2/2011; 
Total funding awarded: $19,842,135; 
Total funding obligated: $10,120,000; 
Total funding disbursed: $7,220,661. 

Project description: Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and 
Sanitation Activity (CAWSA); 
Start date: 11/12/2008; 
End date: 11/11/2011; 
Total funding awarded: $8,508,717; 
Total funding obligated: $4,423,100; 
Total funding disbursed: $3,116,913. 

Project description: Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation 
Project (SWSS); 
Start date: 9/30/2009; 
End date: 9/29/2012; 
Total funding awarded: $17,433,775; 
Total funding obligated: $9,500,000; 
Total funding disbursed: $1,653,697. 

Planned projects: 

Project description: Kabul Water Supply and Sanitation; 
Start date: TBD; 
End date: TBD; 
Total funding awarded: $20,000,000; 
Total funding obligated: [Empty]; 
Total funding disbursed: [Empty]. 

Project description: Multi-purpose Dams and Impoundments; 
Start date: TBD; 
End date: TBD; 
Total funding awarded: $15,000,000; 
Total funding obligated: [Empty]; 
Total funding disbursed: [Empty]. 

Project description: Kandahar Water Supply and Sanitation; 
Start date: TBD; 
End date: TBD; 
Total funding awarded: $5,000,000; 
Total funding obligated: [Empty]; 
Total funding disbursed: [Empty]. 

Project description: Commercialization of Utilities in 4 Cities (in 
addition to current CAWSA activities); 
Start date: TBD; 
End date: TBD; 
Total funding awarded: $4,000,000; 
Total funding obligated: [Empty]; 
Total funding disbursed: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of budget data provided by USAID/Afghanistan. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Chronology of USAID's Water-Related Activities with 
Funding Data: 

Project description: Rehabilitation of Economic Facilities and 
Services Program (REFS); 
Start date: 9/30/2002; 
End date: 6/30/2007; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $729,652,922; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $17,465,370; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $17,465,370. 

Project description: Rebuild Agriculture Markets Program; 
Start date: 7/3/2003; 
End date: 9/30/2006; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $145,403,314; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $10,000,000; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $10,000,000. 

Project description: PRT Quick Impact Projects (UNDP/UNOPS); 
Start date: 9/30/2003; 
End date: 12/31/2006; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $25,652,473; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $469,802; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $469,802. 

Project description: PRT Quick Impact Projects (IOM); 
Start date: 9/30/2003; 
End date: 9/30/2007; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $61,912,413; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $2,765,908; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $2,765,908. 

Project description: Initiative to Promote Afghan Civil Society 
(IPACS); 
Start date: 1/3/2005; 
End date: 9/30/2010; 
Project status: Ongoing[A]; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $28,230,800; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $60,750; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $60,750. 

Project description: Alternative Development Program--Eastern Region 
(ADP/E); 
Start date: 2/15/2005; 
End date: 6/30/2009; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $118,386,801; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $9,578,241; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $7,871,368. 

Project description: Alternative Livelihood Project--Southern Region 
(ALP/S); 
Start date: 2/15/2005; 
End date: 10/31/2009; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $166,143,244; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $10,034,388; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $10,034,388. 

Project description: Alternative Development Program, North (ADP/N); 
Start date: 2/17/2005; 
End date: 2/16/2009; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $59,997,433; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $2,234,478; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $2,119,571. 

Project description: Expanding Access to Private Sector Health 
Products and Services; 
Start date: 2/15/2006; 
End date: 11/30/2011; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $34,696,211; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $700,000; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: [Empty]. 

Project description: Human Resources and Logistical Support; 
Start date: 3/1/2006; 
End date: 2/28/2011; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $84,337,180; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $1,000,000; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $1,000,000. 

Project description: Support for Basic Package of Health Services and 
Essential Package of Hospital Services Delivery; 
Start date: 4/24/2006; 
End date: 5/23/2010; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $113,356,542; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $1,000,000; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: [Empty]. 

Project description: Support for Service Delivery and Quality of Basic 
Services in Afghanistan; 
Start date: 7/1/2006; 
End date: 3/31/2011; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $38,910,949; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $300,000; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: [Empty]. 

Project description: Local Governance and Community Development 
Project; 
Start date: 10/2/2006; 
End date: 4/30/2011; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $349,078,330; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $8,229,833; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $8,229,833. 

Project description: Local Governance and Community Development 
Project in Northern and Western Regions of Afghanistan; 
Start date: 10/9/2006; 
End date: 6/30/2009; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $80,529,535; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $1,059,449; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $1,059,449. 

Project description: Afghanistan Small and Medium Enterprise 
Development Program (ASMED); 
Start date: 10/26/2006; 
End date: 10/30/2011; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $89,003,159; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $187,950; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $187,950. 

Project description: Village-Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor 
Province; 
Start date: 1/8/2007; 
End date: 6/30/2011; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $5,591,985; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $3,392,056; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $1,491,589. 

Project description: Quick Response; 
Start date: 2/1/2007; 
End date: 4/30/2009; 
Project status: Complete; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $9,975,075; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $714,359; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $714,359. 

Project description: Afghanistan Municipal Strengthening Program 
(AMSP); 
Start date: 5/1/2007; 
End date: 11/7/2010; 
Project status: Ongoing[A]; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $24,954,276; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $118,163; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $118,163. 

Project description: Alternative Development and Alternative 
Livelihoods Program Expansion North and West Project; 
Start date: 3/5/2008; 
End date: 3/4/2011; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $75,133,597; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $367,477; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $367,477. 

Project description: Design review, construction management, 
construction quality assurance, and reporting services for 
infrastructure rehabilitation projects in Afghanistan; 
Start date: TBD; 
End date: TBD; 
Project status: Planned; 
Total funding awarded for entire project: $31,278,273; 
Total funding obligated for water activities: $15,000,000 (Planned); 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of budget data provided by USAID/Afghanistan. 

[A] These two projects were ongoing at the time of our review. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Good Performers Initiative Water-Related Projects and 
Funding as of End of March 2010: 

Project description: Construction of Irrigation System; 
Project location by province: Badakhshan; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Award: $770,000; 
Obligation: $658,251; 
Disbursement: $592,426. 

Project description: Construction of Irrigation Structure and Primary 
School Building; 
Project location by province: Sar-e-Pol; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Award: $500,000; 
Obligation: $404,670; 
Disbursement: $303,503. 

Project description: Construction of Irrigation Structure; 
Project location by province: Konar; 
Project status: Completed; 
Award: $251,325; 
Obligation: $227,522; 
Disbursement: $227,521. 

Project description: Canal Cleaning and Construction of Protection 
Walls; 
Project location by province: Konar; 
Project status: Completed; 
Award: $133,600; 
Obligation: $112,890; 
Disbursement: $112,890. 

Project description: Boring of Tube Wells; 
Project location by province: Samangan; 
Project status: Completed; 
Award: $891,265; 
Obligation: $591,650; 
Disbursement: [Empty]. 

Project description: Construction of University Boundary Wall and 
Water Storage; 
Project location by province: Samangan; 
Project status: Completed/final certification is pending; 
Obligation: $153,820; 
Disbursement: $92,292. 

Project description: Construction of Irrigation Structure; 
Project location by province: Bamian; 
Project status: Ongoing; 
Award: $986,112; 
Obligation: $976,119; 
Disbursement: $439,254. 

Project description: Construction of Irrigation Structures; 
Project location by province: Nurestan; 
Project status: Completed; 
Award: $998,836; 
Obligation: $825,153; 
Disbursement: $825,153. 

Project description: Construction of Irrigation System; 
Project location by province: Lowgar; 
Project status: Project contracted but pending due to problems in site 
selection; 
Award: $997,907; 
Obligation: $591,392; 
Disbursement: [Empty]. 

Project description: Total; 
Award: $5,529,045; 
Obligation: $4,541,467; 
Disbursement: $2,593,039. 

Source: GAO analysis of Good Performers budget data provided by State. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Provincial Locations of USAID Water-Exclusive Projects: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 7 maps of Afghanistan and associated 
horizontal bar graph] 

Map of areas in: 
Afghanistan Water, Agriculture, and Technology Transfer (AWATT): 
Total project award: $19,842,135; 
Active. 

Map of areas in: 
Afghanistan Urban Water and Sanitation Project (AUWSP): 
Total project award: $37,789,701; 
Complete. 

Map of areas in: 
Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation Project (SWSS): 
Total project award: $17.433,775. 

Map of areas in: 
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation: 
Total project award: $10,000,000. 

Map of areas in: 
Commercialization of Afghanistan Water and Sanitation Activity (CAWSA): 
Total project award: $8,508,717. 

Map of areas in: 
Kabul Environmental Sanitation and Health Project: 
Total project award: $4,207,98. 

Map of areas in: 
Emergency Health and Water for Kabul: 
Total project award: $623,273 

Sources: GAO analysis of USAID data; UNODC (2009 maps). 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Chronology of USAID Water-Related Activities: 

Year project started: 2002; 
Project title: Rehabilitation of Economic Facilities and Services 
Program (REFS); 
Total project award: $729,652,922; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $17,465,370; 
Description of project's water activities: The REFS program sought to 
promote economic recovery and political stability by repairing 
infrastructure in Afghanistan. Water projects under this program 
focused on repairing irrigation systems, drilling wells for potable 
water, and cleaning and repairing irrigation canals. 

Year project started: 2003; 
Project title: Rebuild Agriculture Markets Program; 
Total project award: $145,403,314; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $10,000,000; 
Description of project's water activities: The water projects carried 
out under this program focused on the construction and rehabilitation 
of irrigation structures and drainage canals. 

Year project started: 2003; 
Project title: PRT Quick Impact Projects (UNDP/UNOPS); 
Total project award: $25,652,473; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $469,802; 
Description of project's water activities: This project completed 5 
water projects. The projects included the construction of piped water 
supply systems, the digging of a well, and the construction of a water 
intake system. 

Year project started: 2003; 
Project title: PRT Quick Impact Projects (IOM); 
Total project award: $61,912,413; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $2,765,908; 
Description of project's water activities: Approximately 36 water 
projects were completed as part of the larger parent project. They 
included projects such as the construction of a water supply network; 
the provision of potable water; the construction of flood control 
protection walls; irrigation system improvements; canal rehabilitation; 
and the construction of dams and irrigation systems. 

Year project started: 2005; 
Project title: Initiative to Promote Afghan Civil Society (IPACS); 
Total project award: $28,230,800; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $60,750; 
Description of project's water activities: Under IPACS, the second 
phase of a water supply construction project was completed in Trinkot. 

Year project started: 2005; 
Project title: Alternative Development Program--Eastern Region (ADP/E); 
Total project award: $118,386,801; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $7,871,368; 
Description of project's water activities: The ADP/E program included 
approximately 98 water projects. Projects focused on the construction 
of flood protection walls; improvements to canals and canal intakes; 
pipe scheme projects; irrigation rehabilitation; and micro hydro power 
plants. 

Year project started: 2005; 
Project title: Alternative Livelihood Project--Southern Region (ALP/S); 
Total project award: $166,143,244; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $10,034,388; 
Description of project's water activities: The ALP/S project included 
approximately 111 water projects. These projects included the cleaning 
of drains, canals, and kareezes; the construction of canal flood 
protection walls; canal bank repairs; and canal rehabilitation work. 

Year project started: 2005; 
Project title: Alternative Development Program, North (ADP/N); 
Total project award: $59,997,433; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $2,119,571; 
Description of project's water activities: Approximately 19 water 
projects were completed under ADP/N. Projects included the 
rehabilitation of a main irrigation canal; the construction of canal 
intakes and protection walls; flood emergency canal cleaning; and the 
construction of one drinking water system. 

Year project started: 2006; 
Project title: Expanding Access to Private Sector Health Products and 
Services; 
Total project award: $34,696,211; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: [Empty]; 
Description of project's water activities: Data not provided. 

Year project started: 2006; 
Project title: Human Resources and Logistical Support; 
Total project award: $84,337,180; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $1,000,000; 
Description of project's water activities: The Human Resources and 
Logistical Support program was launched to provide a broad range of 
human resources and logistical support to help design, monitor, and 
support the activities of USAID-funded contractors. In addition, the 
program also sought to provide consulting services to selected 
ministries of the Afghan government. Subsequently, the program 
provided a transboundary water-rights adviser to help the Ministry of 
Energy and Water develop water policies for negotiations with 
neighbors in other countries. 

Year project started: 2006; 
Project title: Support for Basic Package of Health Services and 
Essential Package of Hospital Services Delivery; 
Total project award: $113,356,542; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: [Empty]; 
Description of project's water activities: Data not provided. 

Year project started: 2006; 
Project title: Support for Service Delivery and Quality of Basic 
Services in Afghanistan; 
Total project award: $38,910,949; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: [Empty]; 
Description of project's water activities: Data not provided. 

Year project started: 2006; 
Project title: Local Governance and Community Development Project; 
Total project award: $349,078,330; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $8,229,833; 
Description of project's water activities: The Local Governance and 
Community Development Project included approximately 174 water 
projects. Projects included the rehabilitation of irrigation canals; 
the construction of wells for drinking water; repairs of drinking 
water pipe schemes; the cleaning of kareezes; the installation of 
drinking water hand pumps; the construction of water reservoirs; and 
the construction of check dams, among others. 

Year project started: 2006; 
Project title: Local Governance and Community Development Project in 
Northern and Western Regions of Afghanistan; 
Total project award: $80,529,535; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $1,059,449; 
Description of project's water activities: This project included 
approximately 28 water projects. Specific water projects included the 
construction of a school drinking water reservoir with filter system; 
wells for drinking water; water supply pipe schemes; irrigation canal 
cleaning; the construction of irrigation culverts; irrigation canal 
rehabilitation; and the construction of an irrigation system. 

Year project started: 2006; 
Project title: Afghanistan Small and Medium Enterprise Development 
Program (ASMED); 
Total project award: $89,003,159; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $187,950; 
Description of project's water activities: The ASMED program included 
approximately 18 water projects. These projects included the 
construction of latrine facilities; market sanitation system 
improvements; wells for drinking water; and drainage system 
improvements. 

Year project started: 2007; 
Project title: Village-Based Watershed Restoration in Ghor Province; 
Total project award: $5,591,985; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $1,491,589; 
Description of project's water activities: This program focuses on the 
conservation of natural resources and increasing vegetation in 
critical watersheds. Water projects have included increasing access to 
improved drinking water; providing hygiene promotion training sessions; 
and increasing the number of hectares with sustainable improvement to 
irrigation water. 

Year project started: 2007; 
Project title: Quick Response; 
Total project award: $9,975,075; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $714,359; 
Description of project's water activities: Data Not Provided. 

Year project started: 2007; 
Project title: Afghanistan Municipal Strengthening Program (AMSP); 
Total project award: $24,954,276; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $118,163; 
Description of project's water activities: AMSP included one water 
project, a two-phase water supply construction project in Khost 
province. 

Year project started: 2008; 
Project title: Alternative Development and Alternative Livelihoods 
Program Expansion North and West Project; 
Total project award: $75,133,597; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: $367,477; 
Description of project's water activities: This project completed 
approximately 17 water projects. Thirteen of these projects involved 
the cleaning of canals and the four others focused on the 
rehabilitation of kareezes. 

Year project started: TBD; 
Project title: Design review, construction management, construction 
quality assurance, and reporting services for infrastructure 
rehabilitation projects in Afghanistan; 
Total project award: $31,278,273; 
Total funding disbursed for water activities: [Empty]; 
Description of project's water activities: While the water projects 
are still considered to be planned projects, they will focus on the 
construction of multipurpose dams and impoundments. 

Source: GAO analysis of project documentation and budget data provided 
by USAID/Afghanistan. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Prioritized List of Unfunded U.S. Afghan Water Projects, 
Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014: 

Tier One: Highest Priority: 

Project: Kajaki Dam Phase One (Unit #2); 
Life of project cost: $170 million; 
Project description: Install a third turbine (18.5 megawatt) in the 
Kajaki Hydropower Plant to increase total power production. 

Project: Signature Multipurpose Dam (Plan & Design); 
Life of project cost: $10 million; 
Project description: Planning and design for a large multipurpose dam 
for irrigation and power production. 

Project: Signature Multipurpose Dam (Construction); 
Life of project cost: $340 million; 
Project description: Construct a large multipurpose dam for irrigation 
and power production. 

Project: On-Farm and District Irrigation Management; 
Life of project cost: $70 million; 
Project description: Improve community and farm level supply and 
demand management of irrigation water resources and upstream watershed 
management. 

Tier Two: Second Highest Priority: 

Project: Kajaki Dam Phase Two (Plan & Design); 
Life of project cost: $15 million; 
Project description: Plan and design new reservoir gates and 
powerhouse that would raise the water level and provide additional 
power plus allow for significantly increased irrigation of 
agricultural lands. 

Project: Kajaki Dam Phase Two (Construction); 
Life of project cost: $510 million; 
Project description: Install new reservoir gates and powerhouse that 
would raise the water level and provide additional power plus allow 
for significantly increased irrigation of agricultural lands. 

Project: Small Multipurpose Dams (Plan & Design); 
Life of project cost: $15 million; 
Project description: Next step in the watershed assessments being 
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to design 25 small dams 
for irrigation and power production with associated watershed 
management to reduce soil erosion and siltation. 

Project: Small Multipurpose Dams (Construction); 
Life of project cost: $110 million; 
Project description: Construct 25 small dams (less than 10 meters 
high) that could enhance irrigation and power production with 
associated watershed management to reduce soil erosion and siltation. 

Project: Urban Water Supply and Sanitation (Plan & Design); 
Life of project cost: $5 million; 
Project description: Plan and design new water supply and/or 
sanitation facilities. 

Project: Urban Water Supply and Sanitation (Construction); 
Life of project cost: $395 million; 
Project description: Construct new water supply and/or sanitation 
facilities. 

Tier Three: Third Highest Priority: 

Project: Signature Multipurpose Dam (Plan & Design); 
Life of project cost: $10 million; 
Project description: Plan and design a large multipurpose dam for 
irrigation and power production. 

Project: Signature Multipurpose Dam (Construction); 
Life of project cost: $440 million; 
Project description: Construct a large multipurpose dam for irrigation 
and power production. 

Project: National Water Master Plan; 
Life of project cost: $5 million; 
Project description: Develop an overall water master plan for the 
country that builds on previous existing water atlas work and 
catalogues both surface and ground water, as well as delineate aquifer 
extent, distribution, and sustainable yield. 

Project: Total; 
Life of project cost: $2.095 billion. 

Source: U.S. Infrastructure Working Group for Afghanistan, Decision 
Memorandum, March 2010. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

USAID: 
From The American People: 

September 28, 2010: 

Charles M. Johnson, Jr. 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International 
Development's (USAID) formal response to the GAO draft report 
entitled: "Afghanistan Development (U.S. Efforts to Support Afghan 
Water Sector Increasing but Improvements Needed In Project Planning, 
Coordination, and Management)" GAO-10-1012. 

The enclosed USAID comments are provided for incorporation with this 
letter as an appendix to the final report. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and 
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this audit 
review. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Drew W. Luten: 
Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator: 
Bureau for Management: 

Enclosure: a/s: 

[End of letter] 

USAID Comments On GAO Draft Report No. GAO-10-1012: 

Recommendation 1: Develop an inter-agency implementation plan, as 
called for in the 2010 U.S. Government Inter-agency Water Strategy 
that Cl) establishes agreement on roles and responsibilities of the 
various U.S. agencies with respect to the short, medium, and long-term 
goals identified in the strategy; (2) identifies and address the 
leveraging of U.S. resources; and (3) outlines means to operate 
effectively across agency boundaries. 

Response: Concur. A drag inter-agency implementation plan had been 
previously developed but given the rapidly changing dynamics in both 
funding and short-term strategic objectives in-country, it is 
currently not up-to-date. A final inter-agency implementation plan 
will be developed in consultation with the U. S. Government (USG) 
Infrastructure Working Group comprising of USAID. U.S. Forces 
Afghanistan (USFOR-A), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) , and 
International Joint Commission (UC) that will effectively leverage all 
U.S. resources. 

Recommendation 2: Consider designating Afghan Info or some other 
database as the centralized U.S. government project-development 
database for U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan. This database 
should, among other things, ensure that the information in the 
database (1) captures all agency development efforts and (2) is 
accessible to all U.S. government agencies involved in U.S. funded 
development projects in Afghanistan. 

Response: Concur. USAID has begun to utilize Afghan Info to document 
efforts in the Water Sector and will continue to utilize it even 
further in the future. Afghan Info incorporates information on USAID 
and Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP)-funded projects; and 
USAID shares this information with other U.S. government agencies 
involved in development projects in Afghanistan. 

Recommendation 3: Take steps, in coordination with relevant 
international donors, to explore options for establishing a formal 
mechanism to enhance coordination on water sector development among 
the donor community and the Afghan government. 

Response: Concur. USAID meets frequently with other International 
Donors (World Bank, Asia Development Bank, German Agency for Technical 
Corporation (GTZ), etc) to discuss coordination on Water Sector and 
also annually plans a National Water Conference, but USAID will take 
steps to establish more of a formal and regularly-occurring forum to 
discuss coordination efforts among all donors in the water sector. The 
ability of USAID to lead all donors in this effort is somewhat limited 
because USG donates perhaps the least amount of money for the Water 
Sector among all major International Donors, but we will explore 
establishing a regularly-occurring (monthly) donor coordination 
meeting. 

Recommendation 4: To enhance performance management of U.S. funded 
water projects, we recommend that the Administrator of USAID take the 
following action: 

* Ensure that implementing partners establish targets for all 
indicators, 

* Consistently analyze and interpret program data, such as determining 
the extent to which annual targets are met, 

*Take steps to ensure that Mission Afghanistan staff are aware of new 
Automated Directive System (ADS) guidance on monitoring in high threat 
environment, such as reissuing the guidance or incorporating a 
discussion of the guidance as part of pre-deployment training. 

Response: Concur. USAID will have implementing partners establish 
targets for all performance-based indicators, analyze and interpret 
this program data to determine the extent to which annual targets are 
met, as well as ensure all Mission Staff are aware of new ADS guidance 
on monitoring in high threat environments. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of Assistant Secretary Of Defense: 
Asian & Pacific	Security Affairs: 
2700 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-2700: 
	
October 1, 2010: 

Mr. Charles M. Johnson: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

The following are Department of Defense (DoD) comments to the GAO 
draft report (GAO-10--1012), "Afghanistan Development: U.S. Efforts to 
Support Afghan Water Sector Increasing but Improvements Needed in 
Project Planning, Coordination, and Management," dated September 14, 
2010 (GAO code 320680). DoD comments refer to the three 
recommendations in the draft report. 

Recommendation 1: To enhance the coordination of U.S. funded water 
projects, the GAO recommends that the Administrator of United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID), in conjunction with the 
Secretaries of the Department of Defense and other relevant agencies 
take the following action: develop an inter-agency implementation plan,
as called for in the 2010 U.S. Government Inter-agency Water Strategy 
that (1) establishes agreement on roles and responsibilities of 
various U.S. agencies with respect to the short, medium, and long-term 
goals identified in the strategy; (2) identifies and addresses the
leveraging of U.S. resources; and (3) outlines means to operate 
effectively across agency boundaries. 

DoD Response: DoD concurs that USAID should be the USG lead agency for 
this type of economic development. The U.S. Government's water 
strategy document, which was developed in March 2010, includes 
planning and a policy framework with short, medium, and long term 
goals. DoD concurs that there is need for an interagency 
implementation plan for the water sector. 

Recommendation 2: To enhance the coordination of U.S. funded water 
projects, the GAO recommends that the Administrator of United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID), in conjunction with the 
Secretaries of the Department of Defense and other relevant agencies 
take the following action: consider designating Afghan Info or some
other database as the centralized U.S. government project-development 
database for U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan. This database 
should, among other things, ensure that the information in the 
database (1) captures all agency development efforts and (2) is 
accessible to all U.S. government agencies involved in U.S. funded 
development projects in Afghanistan. 

DoD Response: Dort partially concurs that there needs to be a 
centralized database not only for water projects but also for other 
development projects in Afghanistan. A central USAID
database needs to be flexible enough to allow for direct data inputs 
and outputs from other interagency databases rather than be a closed 
system that limits access to other agencies to a user level only. 
USAID database requirements should not impact DoD's internal needs and 
requirements for centralized project management and add additional 
requirements for DoD personnel in the field (i.e. that DoD personnel 
would have to enter the same data twice, into a DoD and then USAID 
system.). A USAID database with a system architecture that allows easy 
data access and sharing with not only the inter-agency, but with 
coalition (ISAF) and Afghan partners, would make a positive 
contribution. 

Recommendation 3: To enhance the coordination of U.S. funded water 
projects, the GAO recommends that the Administrator of United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID), in conjunction with the 
Secretaries of the Department of Defense and other relevant agencies 
take the following action: take steps, in coordination with relevant 
international donors, to explore options for establishing a formal 
mechanism to enhance coordination on water sector development among 
the donor community and the Afghan government. 

DoD Response: DoD concurs that USAID should be the USG lead agency for 
this type of engagement with the donor community on water strategy. In 
Afghanistan, these types of engagements need to be coordinated with 
and agreed upon by appropriate civilian-military working groups, 
including international donors, to ensure that they are closely 
integrated with overall COIN operations. The infrastructure working 
group in Kabul has been established to help coordinate these 
activities. 

DoD Overall Response: Because Afghanistan is a war zone, DoD, AID, DoS 
and other USG inter-agencies have an obligation to work closely 
together to develop mutually agreed upon plans and strategies. The 
civilian-military planning and implementation process established in 
2009 has greatly improved USG interagency operations. Close 
coordination and integration of projects to develop Afghanistan's 
water sector, as part of the current civilian-military effort, will 
contribute to further progress. DoD also recommends that the GAO 
provide greater specificity and updated information about alleged 
weaknesses in monitoring CERP water projects, including an alleged 
lack of criteria for measuring project impacts, alleged shortages of 
CERP project managers, alleged inadequate training, and an alleged 
inadequate use of project results to inform future project planning 
decisions. DoD believes that progress has been made in these areas 
since the GAO conducted its interviews in Afghanistan. 

My point of contact is Mr. Thomas Parker, (703) 695-8278, or 
Thomas.parker@osd.mil. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John Hill: 
Principal Director, Office of Afghanistan, Pakistan & Central Asia: 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition, the following staff contributed to the report: Godwin 
Agbara, Assistant Director; Elizabeth Guran; Kevin Remondini; Joseph 
Carney; Burns Chamberlain; Emily Gupta; Bruce Kutnick; Karen Deans; 
Cindy Gilbert; Jena Sinkfield; Etana Finkler; Elizabeth Curda; Terrell 
Dorn; Anu Mittal; and Marcus Oliver.

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The government of Afghanistan, with the assistance of the European 
Commission, conducted the National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment 
2007/8: A Profile of Afghanistan (January 2010) over a 12-month period 
that crossed both the 2007 and 2008 calendar years. 

[2] USAID uses "award" to refer to financial assistance that provides 
support or stimulation to accomplish a public purpose through a 
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, including those funds that 
the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement stipulates are for the 
future years and are disbursed subject to the availability of future 
appropriations. DOD uses "commitment" to refer to an administrative 
reservation of funds for a specific procurement of goods or services, 
which are subject to the availability of funds. For purposes of this 
report, we use "award" to refer to both of these. 

[3] The key elements of the COIN strategy are sometimes described as 
"clear, hold, build." The objective of these elements is to: (1) 
remove insurgent and anti-government elements from a given area or 
region, thereby creating space between the insurgents and the 
population; (2) maintain security, denying the insurgents access and 
freedom of movement within the given space; and (3) exploit the 
security space to deliver humanitarian relief and implement 
reconstruction and development initiatives that will connect the 
Afghan population to its government and build and sustain the 
Afghanistan envisioned in the strategic goals. 

[4] During the course of our review, a GAO team met with officials 
from the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture, as part of GAO's review of 
U.S. development assistance in the Afghan agricultural sector. We used 
information collected during this meeting. See GAO, Afghanistan 
Development: Enhancements to Performance Management and Evaluation 
Efforts Could Improve USAID's Agricultural Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368] (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 
2010). 

[5] GAO previously reported on some of the challenges of CERP-funded 
development projects in Afghanistan. See GAO, Afghanistan 
Reconstruction: Progress Made in Constructing Roads, but Assessments 
for Determining Impact and a Sustainable Maintenance Program Are 
Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-689] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2008); and Military Operations: Actions 
Needed to Improve Oversight and Interagency Coordination for the 
Commander's Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-615] (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 
2009). 

[6] GAO recently issued a report reviewing U.S. aid to developing 
countries, including Afghanistan, for water and sanitation under the 
Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. See GAO, U.S. Water 
and Sanitation Aid: Millions of Beneficiaries Reported in Developing 
Countries, but Department of State Needs to Strengthen Strategic 
Approach, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-957] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 2010). 

[7] CERP is designed to enable local commanders (including Provincial 
Reconstruction Team (PRT) commanders) in Afghanistan to respond to 
urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within 
their areas of responsibility. PRTs in Afghanistan are designed to 
help improve stability by increasing the Afghan government's capacity 
to govern, enhance economic viability, and strengthen local 
governments' ability to deliver public services, such as security and 
healthcare. They are also key instruments through which the 
international community delivers assistance at the provincial and 
district level. Since October 2006, PRTs have been part of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led International Security 
Assistance Force (ISAF) mission. See GAO, Provincial Reconstruction 
Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-86R] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 
2009). As of November 2010, there are 27 PRTs in Afghanistan, 12 of 
which are under U.S. command. 

[8] CERP is intended to be used for small-scale projects that provide 
a quick and effective method to institute an immediate positive impact 
on the Afghan people. In addition, battalion and PRT commanders can 
approve the use of funds for projects under CERP up to $50,000 per 
project, and PRTs in Afghanistan may coordinate with other U.S.-funded 
programs, including other commanders' CERP projects. 

[9] For the purposes of this report, water projects include projects 
that focus on water supply and sanitation; water use in the 
agriculture sector, such as the construction, rehabilitation, or 
cleaning of irrigation systems, canals, and flood protection banks; 
the governance and management of water resources, including capacity 
building within the sector; and multipurpose hydropower dams that aid 
in the management of water supplies and water use for irrigation. The 
report does not focus on large hydropower projects that serve 
primarily to develop the Afghan energy sector. 

[10] Two of the nine GPI projects with water activities also included 
other activities. The first was a project to construct an irrigation 
structure (the water activity) and a primary school building. The 
second project was for the construction of university boundary wall 
and water storage (the water activity). The data provided, however, 
did not allow us to identify the specific amount of funds awarded for 
the water activities of these two projects. 

[11] ANDS (2008) is Afghanistan's guiding document for achieving its 
reconstruction goals. The strategy focuses on improving the country's 
security, governance, and economic growth and reducing poverty. It 
also provides information on the resources needed to carry out the 
strategy and on the shortfall in Afghanistan's projected revenue 
needed to support these efforts. It was released in 2008 and covers 
the years 2008 through 2013. 

[12] USAID included a fifth project--Kajaki Dam Auxiliary 
Infrastructure and Supporting Services Project at a funding of about 
$47 million--in its list of completed water projects, but we excluded 
this project because, although this dam will ultimately serve the dual 
purposes of electricity generation and irrigation, its current use is 
exclusively for electricity generation. USAID officials said that 
future development work on this dam will include irrigation. 

[13] Also, USAID included a fourth project--Darunta Hydroelectric 
Power Plant Rehabilitation--in its list of ongoing water projects, 
but, as in the case of the Kajaki Dam, we excluded the Darunta Dam 
from our list because its current purpose is for electricity 
generation. 

[14] We have included all the CERP water projects that we identified 
from DOD's Afghan CERP database provided to us, but cannot guarantee 
this represents the universe of all the water projects that DOD 
implemented using CERP funds during this period. 

[15] As noted earlier, DOD financial guidance on CERP states that 
small-scale projects would generally be considered less than $500,000 
per project. 

[16] The estimated funding needs include funds for ongoing 2010 
projects and 2011-2014 plans. 

[17] Pub. L. No. 103-62. 

[18] See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Enhance 
Implementation of Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership, GAO-08-
860 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008) and Combating Terrorism: The 
United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat 
and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal 
Areas, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-622] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2008). 

[19] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-689] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-615]. 

[20] See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help 
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005) and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-615]. 

[21] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[22] The IWG includes representatives of USAID; State; U.S. Forces, 
Afghanistan (USFOR-A); USACE; the Federal Aviation Administration; 
Transportation Security Administration; Regional Command East; 
Regional Command South; PRTs; and other Working Groups (such as 
Agriculture and Economic) that have authorities, missions, or programs 
that implement or influence projects and investments in Afghanistan 
infrastructure and sustaining capacity development efforts. 

[23] As pointed out earlier, USAID has included hydroelectric dams as 
part of U.S. water development assistance in Afghanistan, but, 
although the dams in question will have irrigation applications later, 
their current application is largely in the energy sector. Hence we 
have excluded them from the scope of our water-sector review. 

[24] According to DOD, the Southeast Afghanistan Water Resources 
Assessment is an evaluation of potential water-resources improvement 
projects that the U.S. Army can practically and effectively implement 
in cooperation with the government of Afghanistan. According to DOD, 
nearly 300 potential water-resource project locations were evaluated 
in this study, along with their associated watersheds. 

[25] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[26] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-689] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-615]. 

[27] Beginning in February 2010, DOD began providing unclassified data 
on a quarterly basis to USAID concerning CERP-funded activities in 
Afghanistan, and, according to USAID officials, this data is being 
incorporated into the Afghan Info database. 

[28] We reported that interagency collaboration is often hindered by 
incompatible procedures, processes, data, and computer systems. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-615]. 

[30] In addition to the United States, Afghanistan's international 
partners include organizations such as the World Bank, the Asian 
Development Bank, the European Commission, the Canadian International 
Development Agency, the German Agency for Technical Cooperation, and 
the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, as well as various 
agencies within the United Nations. Many foreign and domestic NGOs are 
also involved in a wide range of activities. 

[31] The Supreme Council for Water Affairs Management is the key 
policy-making body in Afghanistan for water-related matters and is 
comprised of the seven Afghan ministries that have responsibility, in 
various aspects, for the water sector and is responsible for 
implementing the Afghanistan Integrated Water Resources Management 
policy and coordinating the ANDS Water Sector Strategy among the major 
Afghan ministerial stakeholders. 

[32] The donor assistance has included direct financial contributions, 
technical assistance, project feasibility assessments, and capacity 
building. Donors, including the United States, have contributed to 
large infrastructure projects such as dams and urban water systems, as 
well as to a range of smaller projects, such as irrigation canals. 
Donor contributions cover both urban and rural areas in Afghanistan. 

[33] The standard operating procedures outlined in USFOR-A Pub 1-06, 
Money as a Weapon System (December 2009), requires U.S. CERP-funded 
development projects to be coordinated through regional commanders and 
the nearest PRTs in areas where the United States is not the regional 
command. 

[34] According to a senior USAID representative, the Afghan government 
was not in attendance during this January 2010 meeting because the 
donor community sought to first coordinate their efforts prior to 
meeting with the Afghan government. 

[35] Deutsche Gesellschaft fŁr Technische Zusanmenarbeit (GTZ) and KfW 
Entwicklungsbank. 

[36] Unlike other development sectors, the water sector had not 
previously designated a "lead nation" to coordinate development work 
in Afghanistan. 

[37] The Commission was created by Afghan presidential decree in 
October 2006 to provide oversight of the energy-sector policy and 
infrastructure investments, including coordination of international 
support. 

[38] The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction 
(SIGAR) reported that its representatives attended a June 2009 
Commission meeting as observers and found that key project 
stakeholders and representatives from Afghan ministries were all 
engaged. SIGAR also reported that the meeting provided attendees with 
information from key contractors on the status of U.S. and 
international donor projects. See SIGAR, Afghanistan Energy Supply Has 
Increased but An Updated Master Plan Is Needed and Delays and 
Sustainability Concerns Remain (Jan. 15, 2010). 

[39] GAO, Afghanistan Development: Enhancements to Performance 
Management and Evaluation Efforts Could Improve USAID's Agricultural 
Programs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2010), and Combating Terrorism: Planning 
and Documentation of U.S. Development Assistance in Pakistan's 
Federally Administered Tribal Areas Need to Be Improved, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-289] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 
2010). 

[40] We did not include the Emergency Health and Water for Kabul 
project (9/28/2003 through 10/31/2004) and the Kabul Environmental 
Sanitation and Health project (8/22/2004 through 2/20/2007) because we 
were not able to obtain sufficient documentation for their performance 
management activities. 

[41] The two completed projects that we have examined are: Rural Water 
Supply and Sanitation Project, and the Afghanistan Urban Water and 
Sanitation Program. The four ongoing projects are: Afghanistan Water, 
Agriculture and Technology Transfer; Commercialization of Afghanistan 
Water and Sanitation Activity; Afghan Sustainable Water Supply and 
Sanitation Project; and the Village-Based Watershed Restoration in 
Ghor Province Project. 

[42] USAID's Automated Directives System is the agency's directives 
management program. It includes agency policy directives, required 
procedures, and optional material. Performance management and 
evaluation information is detailed in chapter 203: Assessing and 
Learning. 

[43] We did not address all of the performance management procedures 
outlined in figure 5 and restricted our analysis to information we 
were able to obtain over the course of our review. 

[44] The four Mission strategic objectives include (1) a thriving 
licit economy led by the private sector, (2) a democratic government 
with broad citizen participation, (3) a better educated and healthier 
population, and (4) program support, enhancing Mission development 
results. 

[45] The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation project grant award did not 
explicitly require the establishment of performance indicators with 
baseline and target values or the development of data collection plans. 

[46] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368]; GAO, 
Afghanistan's Security Environment, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-613R] (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 
2010); and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-289]. 

[47] See USAID, Office of Inspector General, Audit of USAID/ 
Afghanistan's Urban Water and Sanitation Program, Audit Report No. 5- 
306-07-006-P (Manila, Philippines: June 7, 2007). 

[48] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-613R], and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-289]. 

[49] GAO recently initiated a separate review of the Administration's 
increase in civilian personnel, or civilian surge, in Afghanistan. 

[50] In addition, in 2006 UNDP issued a progress report on the Rural 
Water Supply and Sanitation project. 

[51] USFOR-A pub 1-06, Money as a Weapon System, December 2009, 
outlines standard operating procedures for CERP. DOD Financial 
Regulation vol. 12, ch. 27, 270314 and 270315 define the purpose for 
which U.S. appropriation or other funds provided for CERP may be 
expended, and specify the procedures for executing, managing, 
recording, and reporting such expenditures. 

[52] DOD commanders responsible for CERP-funded projects are to ensure 
project performance information is updated against the relevant 
metrics and, upon completion, documented in all required databases. As 
we noted earlier, CIDNE is the primary database for DOD CERP-funded 
development projects in Afghanistan. 

[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-689]. 

[54] GAO, Military Operations: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight and 
Interagency Coordination for the Commander's Emergency Response 
Program in Afghanistan, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-615] (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 
2009). 

[55] As we noted earlier, GAO recently initiated a separate review of 
the U.S. effort to increase civilian personnel in Afghanistan. 

[56] GAO, Afghanistan Reconstruction: Progress Made in Constructing 
Roads, but Assessments for Determining Impact and a Sustainable 
Maintenance Program Are Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-689] (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 
2008). 

[57] GAO, Afghanistan Development: Poverty and Major Crop Production 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-756SP], an E-supplement 
to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368] (Washington, 
D.C.: July 14, 2010). 

[58] USAID included a fifth completed project--Kajaki Dam Auxiliary 
Infrastructure and Supporting Services Project at a funding of about 
$47 million--in its list of completed water projects, but we excluded 
this project because, although this dam will ultimately serve the dual 
purposes of electricity generation and irrigation, its current use is 
exclusively for electricity generation. USAID officials said that 
future development work on this dam will include irrigation. Also, 
USAID included Darunta Hydroelectric Power Plant Rehabilitation in its 
list of ongoing water projects, but, as in the case of the Kajaki Dam, 
we excluded the Darunta Dam from our list because its current purpose 
is for electricity generation. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAOís actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAOís Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: