integrated rural development project – phase ii

SCCD: N.G.

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

RPROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT –PHASE II

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA

COUNTRY DEPARTMENT OCDNNORTH REGION OCTOBER 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PagePROJECT MATRIX, LIST OF ANNEXES, ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS,EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BASIC DATA SHEET i-ix

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND FORMULATION 1

2.1. Sector Goal 12.2. Project Objectives 12.3. Project Description 22.4. Project Formulation 3

3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 33.1. Effectiveness 33.2. Modifications 33.3. Implementation Schedule 33.4. Reporting 33.5. Procurement of Goods and Services 43.6. Financing Sources and Disbursements 4

4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE 54.1. Operating Results 54.2. Institutional Performance 74.3. Financial Performance 84.4. Economic Performance 8

5. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 95.1. Social Impact 95.2. Environmental Impact of Project 9

6. SUSTAINABILITY OF ACHIEVEMENTS 10

7. PERFORMANCE OF THE ADB, THE BORROWER ANDAND CO-FINANCERS 117.1. Performance of the ADB 117.2. Performance of the Borrower 127.3. Performance of Co-financiers 12

8. OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 12

9. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12

9.1. Conclusions 129.2. Lessons Learned 139.3. Recommendations 13

This report was written by Mr. Ould Tolba Mohamed, Agro-Economist, OCDN.2 and a financial analyst/consultant after a mission to Tunisia from 10 – 21 September, 2001.

i

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADB African Development BankAE Agricultural EngineeringAFD Agence francaise de développement (French Development Agency)AFESD Arab Fund for Economic and Social DevelopmentBNA Banque Nationale Agricole (National Agricultural Bank)CGDR Commissariat général au développement régional (Regional Development

Commission)CGF Contrôle général des finances (Government Finance Inspectorate)CIA Collective Interest AssociationCPR Cellule de planification régionale (Regional Planning Unit)CRDA Commissariat régional au développement agricole (Regional Commission

for Agricultural Development)CTV Cellule territoriale de vulgarisation (Territorial Extension Unit)DGF Direction Générale des forêts (General Directorate for Forestry)EIG Economic Interest GroupFODERI Fonds de développement rural intégré (Integrated Rural Development Fund)IDB Islamic Development BankKFAED Kuwaiti Fund For Arab Economic DevelopmentMA Ministry of AgricultureME Ministry of InfrastructureOE Office de l’emploi(Tunisian Agency of Employment)OEP Office de l'élevage et des pâturages (Livestock and Rangeland Management

Agency)OPEC Organisation of Petroleum Exporting CountriesPDRI Projet de dévéloppement rural integré (Integrated Rural Development

Project)PIA Public Irrigated AreaSFD Saudi Fund for DevelopmentSME(s) Small and Medium-Scale Enterprise(s)SONEDE Societé national d’exploitation et de distribution d’eau (National Water

Distribution Utility)STEG Société Tunisienne d'électricité (Tunisian Electricity and Gas Utility)TND Tunisian DinarUA Unit of AccountWSC Water and Soil Conservation

ii

LIST OF ANNEXES

Number of Pages

ANNEX 1 ADB Disbursement Schedule 1

ANNEX 2 Implementation Performance 1

ANNEX 3 Bank Performance 1

ANNEX 4 Impact On Development 1

ANNEX 5 Economic Rate of Return 1

ANNEX 6 Project Achievements 1

ANNEX 7 Recommendations Matrix 1

ANNEX 8 Effectiveness Conditions 2

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction: This completion report deals with the second phase of the Integrated RuralDevelopment Project (PDRI) implemented in the most depressed areas of Tunisia, a project whichthe African Development Bank supported with a UA 63.50 million loan. The project was co-financed by the Tunisian Government, the AFESD, the IDB and the AFD.

2. Objective and Components: The objectives of the project were, on the one hand, toimprove living conditions and reduce pockets of poverty in the most depressed rural areas of thecountry, and, on the other hand, to help enhance food security. The project consisted of thefollowing components: i) agricultural development; ii) livestock development; iii) fisheriesdevelopment; iv) small trades; v) natural resource conservation; v) social and economicinfrastructure; vii) studies; viii) training; and ix) consolidation of the first phase of the PDRI.

3. Implementation: The project was approved on 23 February 1994 and the loan agreementsigned on 24 February 1994. The loan became effective on 11 January 1995. The ADB loandisbursement rate is 100 percent at completion (after cancellation of a total amount of UA 21.9million). The overall disbursement rate for the other donors is 98 percent. The project wasimplemented over seven years instead of six as estimated. This delay is attributable to theimplementation of 17 new sub-projects and to the construction of 48 km of road that were added tothe original project.

4. Project Performance: On the operational front, project performance is deemed satisfactory.Project objectives related to regional development and to the improvement of the living conditionsof the most disadvantaged people in the country were met. The CGDR and the other structuresinvolved in project implementation accomplished their tasks. Project contractors executed theircontracts.

5. Social impact of the Project: The number of households with access to potable water andelectricity increased by 9 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Some 1,500 km of rural roads werebuilt. The project created about 31,214 direct jobs. Women manage 1,192 farms supported by PDRIII. The project has encouraged young people to settle in rural areas.

6. Environmental Impact of the Project: PDRI II made investments in natural resourceconservation. These investments have a beneficial effect on the environment. The agricultural roadsbuilt under the project could be harmful to the vegetation cover and to the soil; however, thenegative impact is negligible. Various actions taken in the context of the project should mitigate therisk of groundwater overexploitation, which may result from the use of the water points createdunder PDRI II.

7. Sustainability: Individual actions are financially profitable; the revenue these actionsgenerate allows farmers to allocate resources for their upkeep and maintenance in addition to theprofit they make. Thus the sustainability of the outcomes is guaranteed. The Ministry ofInfrastructure must assume responsibility for roads to ensure their sustainability. Communalbuildings are henceforth an integral part of public buildings, with fiscal resources earmarked everyyear in the Government budget for upkeep and maintenance.

8. Performance of the Bank and of the Borrower: The performance of the Bank is deemedunsatisfactory, with a rating of 1.9 on 4. The performance of Co-financiers is also deemedunsatisfactory.

iv

9. Conclusions, Lessons Learned and Recommendations

9.1 Conclusion: PDRI II was successfully implemented despite the complexity of the project,the multiplicity of stakeholders, the extensive distribution of activities all over the national territoryand the number of donors. However, the recovery rate of FODERI credits is still low (20 percent)compared to the rates for the agricultural sector (50 percent).

9.2 Lessons: WSC, DGF and OEP natural resource management practices are not participatory.

9.3 Recommendations: The following recommendations were made:

- Institutions involved in natural resource management in Tunisia should adopt aparticipatory approach.

- The CGDR should be allowed to award small contracts without prior review by theBank.

- Technical support should be continued beyond project completion to give farmerstime to master the new technologies.

- The Ministry of Infrastructure should assume responsibility for the maintenance ofrural roads.

- The outreach efforts being made at the regional level should be continued.

- The agricultural credit policy should be more selective.

v

BASIC PROJECT DATA

1. Loan Number : B/TUN/AGR-2/94/502. Borrower : Tunisian Government3. Guarantor : Not applicable4. Beneficiary : Ministry of Economic Development5. Executing Agency : CGDR (Regional Development Commission)

A LOANAppraisal Estimate (93) Actual (01) Difference

1. Amount (in UA million) 63.50 41.60 21.92. Interest Rate 8.75% 8.75%3. Reimbursement Period 20 yeas4. Grace Period 7 years5. Loan Negotiation Date 01/946. Loan Approval Date 23/02/947. Loan Signature Date 24/02/948. Loan Effectiveness Date 11/01/959. Amount Cancelled 21.09 MUA

B PROJECT DATA

APPRAISAL ESTIMATE ACTUAL1. Total Cost (in UA Million) 220.00 152.79

2. Financing Plan (in UA million)ADB 63.49 43.10AFESD 35.70 39.70IDB 8.71 5.76AFD 0 3.90Government 86.22 60.33

3. Date of first disbursement 01/954. Date of last disbursement 31/12/015. Date of launching6. Date of completion of implementation activities 30/09/01

C PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Overrun/underrun as a % 0

2. Time Overrun/Underrun:-Slippage on date of effectiveness 1 year- Slippage on date of completion 1 year- Slippage on last disbursement 1 year- Extensions of last disbursement date 1 year

3. Project Implementation Status: Completed

vi

4. List of verifiable indicators and levels of completion(expressed as a percentage of estimated levels):- rate of disbursement 100 %- total rate of co-financier disbursement 69%- average rate of reimbursement by beneficiary 20%

5. Institutional performance: Satisfactory6. Performance of contractor: Satisfactory7. Performance of consultant: Satisfactory8. Internal rate of return: 14%

D. MISSIONS

Identification FAOPreparation Ministry of Economic DevelopmentAppraisal (December 1993) ADBMonitoring / Supervision 7 supervision missionsPCR (September 2001) 1 agro-economist, 1 financial analyst

E. DISBURSEMENT

Initial loan amount 63.50 MUAAmount cancelled 21.90 MUAAmount disbursed 41.60 MUA

YEARLY DISBURSEMENTS (UA MILLION)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Estimated 5.80 10.92 12.96 15.98 12.00 5.83 0.00 0.00Actual 0 3.51 3.72 9.29 9.55 10.13 2.71 2.6

vii

LIST OF CONTRACTS(in TND)

Contract Successful Bidder Amount of Contract,Taxes included

Amount Paid

Agricultural roads S.T.E.S 362,391.96 362,391.96Agricultural roads C.G.T 158,598.03 158,598.03Agricultural roads Entreprise HAMILA des

TP292,017.00 292,017.00

Agricultural roads SOCOMA 177,606.87 168,177.90Agricultural roads Entreprise HEDI MEJBRI 112,243.59 92,920.34Agricultural roads C.G.T 137,612.25 137,612.25Agricultural roads CARRIERES OUDREF 315.139.44 315.137.46Agricultural roads S.T.E.S 399.942.21 399.232.37Agricultural roads BELGACEM MAZHO 345.905.48 345.845.48Agricultural roads MADSIA MONGI 465.979.62 465.974.58Land preparation SOGETRHAS 135.730.00 100.828.00Land preparation JELAL GENDOUZ 21.000.00 16.222.00Agricultural roads BOUAJILA ALI 381.163.33 381.163.33Agricultural roads BELGACEM MAZHO 453.157.08 429.303.07Agricultural roads BELGACEM MAZHO 498.795.96 476.273.75Land preparation JELAL GENDOUZ 31.500.00 31.500.00Land preparation JELAL GENDOUZ 9.800.00 9.800.00Land preparation JELAL GENDOUZ 7.000.00 6.926.50Agricultural roads C.R.C 175.766.67 174.967.40Agricultural roads SURTRAP 2424.988.72 241.785.48Agricultural roads MAGOURI ENTREPRISE 611.982.52 577.476.73Agricultural roads S.T.E.S 417.541.35 400.394.93Agricultural roads BOUAJILA ALI 486.410.00 461.971.22Agricultural roads S.T.E.S 633.796.72 538.794.09Agricultural roads BOUAJILA ALI 129.352.86 108.426.21Agricultural roads BEN AMEUR 329.469.00 329.459.00Agricultural roads MAGOURI ENTREPRISE 559.140.05 474.010.49Agricultural roads BOUAJILA ALI 621.201.67 557.571.16Agricultural roads MAGOURI ENTREPRISE 144.934.80 143.919.10Mid-term review C.N.E.A 80.970.00 73.601.73Agricultural roads MISSAOUI & FRERES 815.914.00 691.529.27Agricultural roads MISSAOUI & FRERES 232.800.00 232.752.45Agricultural roads MISSAOUI & FRERES 418.937.00 418.362.12Agricultural roads MISSAOUI & FRERES 159.255.00 67.202.51Agricultural roads BOUAJILA ALI 482.260.00 481.979.47Agricultural roads LOTFI ALI 572.618.00 571.487.77Agricultural roads SOGETRHAS 190.170.34 170.780.30Agricultural roads AMOR BEN AMEUR 34.406.78 19.183.50Sand Silting Control JELAL GANDOUZ 78.008.47 26.542.37Agricultural roads SOTUBUSE 485.941.00 115.517.33Agricultural roads S.O.I.T 332.280.00 203.104.81Agricultural roads HEDI MEJEBRI 758.665.72 0.00Agricultural roads HEDI MEJEBRI 469.987.00 0.00Agricultural roads FREDJ CHERIF 312.056.00 0.00Agricultural roads SOMATRAV 312.700.00 0.00Agricultural roads SURTRAP 659.889.83 0.00Agricultural roads SURTRAP 140.338.98 0.00

viii

PROJECT MATRIX

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions and Risk Factors1. Sector GoalsUrban/rural and coastal/non-coastal disparitieshave been reduced

Investments in the amount of 230 million TND were madein disadvantaged rural areas during the life of the project

2. Project ObjectivesLiving conditions have improved and povertyreduced in the most disadvantaged areas of thecountry

The country’s food security has beenstrengthened

At project completion, the number of households withaccess to electricity and potable water had increased by 2percent and 9 percent, and 1,015 km of road were built inrural areas.

Increased Production in tons per year:- Meat, 3,015- Milk, 17,606- Manure, 31,967- Wool, 123- Honey, 97- Cereals, -3,458- Legumes, 16,671- Market gardening, 52,085- Arboriculture, 7,402- Fishery, 971

Surveys and Project reports

Surveys and Project reports

3. OutcomesA. Agricultural Development Units Estimated Actual Project report

Persistent drought in recent years has had a negativeeffect on rainfed production.

Sustainability issues related to the management ofirrigated perimeters, the conception andimplementation of investments in natural resourcesand the maintenance of roads could compromisemedium- and long-term project outcomes.

Construction of bore-holes Unit 57 57Equipment of bore-holes Unit 97 97Electrification of bore-holes Unit 77 77Public irrigated areas Ha 4590 4590Private irrigated areas Ha 4590 4590Creation of surface wells (SW) Unit 636 636Rehabilitation of SW Unit 558 558Equipment of SW Unit 1189 1189Wadi Intake Unit 191 191Irrigated farms ha 2443 2443Greenhouses Unit 555 555Nantais tunnels ha 52 52Dry land farming ha 20580 20580Animal drawn tanks ha 4940 4940Draught animal Unit 3384 3384B. Livestock Development Units Estimated Actual Project reportCattle Head 6067 6067

ix

Sheep / goats Unit 67577 67577Movable-frame beehive Unit 12730 12730Camels Unit 969 969Milk collection centers Unit 12 12Stables Unit 2679 2679

C. Fishery Development Units Estimated Actual Project reports

Purchase of boats Unit 25 25Equipment of boats Unit 617 617D. Development of Small Trades Project reportsCreation of small trades Number 913 1022

The weak recovery rate of FODERI loans cancompromise future agricultural production sincefarmers who do not repay their loans do not haveaccess to credit

E. Conservation of Natural Resources Units Estimated Actual Project reportsManual water and soil conservation ha 17591 17591 +Mechanical water and soil conservation ha 21120 21120Consolidation of mechanical berms ha 4580 4580Rehabilitation of communal rangelands ha 9942 9942Rehabilitation of private rangelands ha 7212 7212Sand silting control and wind breaks ha 3010 3010Equipment of hill reservoirs Unit 7 7Jujube tree clearing haF. Social and Economic Infrastructure Project reportsRural roads Km 1015 1015Rural electrification Beneficiaries 12641 12641Water supply Beneficiaries 63808 63808Communal Facilities Unit 59 59G. Studies Units Estimated Actual Project reportsNumber of studies Number 750 750H. Training Units Estimated Actual Project reportsBeneficiary training days Days 4390 4390Staff training days Number 30 30I. Consolidation of Phase I Units Estimated Actual Project reportsRural roads Km 443 443Wind breaks Ha 3685 3685Tabias for wind erosion control Km 201 201Tabia elevation Km 324 324Sand silting control Ha 800 800Farmland conservation Ha 2055 20554. Activities Project reports

- Irrigated agriculture- Dry-land agriculture- Animal husbandry- Fishery- Crafts- Infrastructures- Study- Project management

Resources- ADB : 41.90 MUC- AFESD : 75.38 MTND- IDB : 11.75 MTND- AFD : 7.80 MTND- Gov’t. : 109.44 MTND

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Tunisian Government has been implementing an integrated regional developmentstrategy since the 1980s. This strategy, which was incorporated into the Eighth DevelopmentPlan (1992 – 1996) and the Ninth Development Plan (1997 – 2001), aimed to reduce thesignificant disparities between urban and rural areas, on the one hand, and between coastaland non-coastal areas of the country, on the other hand. The Integrated Rural DevelopmentProject - Phase II (PDRI II) falls within the framework of this strategy.

1.2 The African Development Bank (ADB) has a long history of cooperation withTunisia. At project appraisal, the Bank had contributed to the financing of 50 operations inTunisia, including 18 credit lines, 1 structural adjustment programme, 2 sector adjustmentprogrammes, 27 projects and 1 study. The ADB has a rich experience - with very positiveresults - in regional development projects. In fact, the Bank contributed to the financing ofphase one of the PDRI and the two phases of the Integrated Rural Development Project in theMahdia non-coastal districts. These three projects had the same strategic objective – reducerural/urban disparities and coastal/non-coastal disparities.

1.3 PDRI II was implemented during the period 1995 – 2001. The Bank appraised theproject in December 1993. It was approved on 23 February 1994, signed on 24 February1994 and became effective on 11 January 1995 after effectiveness conditions were met. Theproject consists of numerous activities implemented in all governorates. The followingdonors contributed to the financing of PDRI II: AFESD, IADB, the French developmentagency (AFD) and the Tunisian Government.

1.4 This completion report assesses the status of achievement of objectives and thesustainability of these achievements, and makes recommendations for future Bankinterventions in similar projects. It was prepared after a Bank mission to Tunisia from 10-21September 2001.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND FORMULATION

2.1 Sector Goal

The sector goal for the Tunisian Government was to reduce the significant disparitiesbetween urban and rural areas and between coastal and non-coastal areas by focusing on thedevelopment of the most depressed areas.

2.2 Project Objectives

The objective of the Integrated Rural Development Programme was twofold: improveliving conditions and reduce the pockets of poverty in the most depressed rural areas of thecountry; and contribute to strengthening food security in the country. To this end, the projectaimed to increase agricultural productivity and develop small trades.

2

2.3 Project Description

2.3.1 The Integrated Rural Development Project for the most depressed areas - Phase IIconsists of 109 sub-projects implemented all over the national territory. The sub-projectswere designed as small-scale integrated rural development projects aimed at improving theliving conditions of the target populations. For each sub-project, a technical study as well asfinancial and economic analyses was conducted. PDRI-II comprised the followingcomponents:

i. Agricultural development: This component included three aspects: irrigatedagriculture, dry-land agriculture and agricultural equipment.

ii. Livestock development: This concerned the development of cattle, sheep, goatand camel breeding, beekeeping, fodder production and the construction ofmilk collection centers.

iii. Fishery development: This component aimed to facilitate the acquisition offishing boats as well as cold storage facilities.

iv. Small trades: This component aimed to give beneficiaries access to loans withwhich they could acquire tools needed to practice small handicraft trades witha view to setting up small enterprises.

v. Natural resource conservation: The natural resource conservation componentincluded water and soil conservation (WSC) activities, the improvement ofrangelands and equipment of hill reservoirs.

vi. Socio-economic infrastructure: The project envisaged building rural roads,providing electricity and potable water to rural households and buildingschools, dispensaries and treatment centers in the most remote areas of thecountry.

vii. Studies: This component comprised implementation studies as well as mid-term reviews.

viii. Training: A training programme was planned for beneficiaries as well as forProject managers.

ix. Consolidation of first phase of PDRI: This component comprised actions toconsolidate phase one activities related to sand silting control, paving ofagricultural roads and upkeep and maintenance of communal investments.

2.3.2 Individual production-related activities, equipment under the agricultural, livestockand fishery components, as well as equipment under the small trades component werefinanced at a subsidized interest rate by an integrated rural development fund (Fonds deDéveloppement Rural Intégré (FODERI); the fund was provisioned by Project resources andmanaged by the Banque Nationale Agricole (the National Agricultural Bank).

3

2.4 Project Formulation

The project was prepared in 1993 by the Ministry of Economic Development, CGDRand the different regional technical services. In response to a request from the Government,the Bank sent a first appraisal mission to Tunisia in September 1993. This mission found thatthe available data, especially data on the project economic rate of return, was insufficient forproject appraisal. A second mission went to Tunisia in October of the same year to participatein a meeting of PDRI-I donors and complete project appraisal activities.

3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Effectiveness

The project was approved on 23 February 1994 and the loan agreement signed on 24February 1994. The loan became effective on 11 January1995 (see conditions in Annex),about 10 months after loan signature. This relatively long delay was due to the followingfactors: the conditions for entry into force were numerous (a total of six), they requireddecision-making at ministerial level, and they concerned several ministries (Ministries ofEconomic Development, Agriculture, Infrastructure and Finance). Therefore, more time wasneeded to meet the conditions. In addition, the effectiveness of the ADB loan was contingenton the signing of financing agreements with the other project donors.

3.2 Modifications

3.2.1 There were no significant changes to the project in terms of its objectives orcomponents. Two donors (SFD and OPEC) listed as financing sources in the appraisal report,eventually did not participate in financing PDRI II. However, AFD, which was not includedin the initial financing plan, contributed to the financing of rural electrification projects.

3.2.2 The drought experienced during the last few years had a negative impact on theimplementation of PDRI II. This drought partly explains the decrease in cereal production inthe Project area compared to previous years and the low recovery rate of FODERI loans (20percent).

3.3 Implementation Schedule

The project was implemented over seven years (1995-2001) instead of the six years estimatedat appraisal. In fact, the activities scheduled initially during appraisal were, for the most part,completed at the end of the sixth year. The seventh year was used to implementcomplementary activities related to 17 new sub-projects and 48 Km of road, which wereadded to the programme in 1999 and 2000.

3.4 Reporting

In the loan agreement, the Borrower agreed to provide the ADB with a biannualimplementation report. The Project sent the Bank 10 progress reports during itsimplementation period. Annual audit reports were also regularly transmitted to the Bank.However, the audit department found that these reports, which are prepared for all projects inTunisia by the Contrôle Général des Finances (CGF), did not comply with auditrequirements. This issue was raised during a PDRI II oversight mission and it was agreed that

4

the Bank’s audit and training departments would plan a workshop to teach CGF managersabout the Bank’s project auditing requirements. This training will be offered at the beginningof next year. Finally, the project provided the Bank with a detailed completion report thatwas used in preparing this document.

3.5 Procurement of Goods and Services

With respect to the procurement of goods and services with Bank financing, 39contracts were signed for agricultural roads, 1 contract for a mid-term evaluation study and 6contracts for land clearing activities. The procurement of works and services was done incompliance with the Bank’s rules of procurement. The only point of disagreement betweenthe Bank and the Borrower concerned the publication period for national invitations for bids.The publication period is 21 days according to Tunisian regulations and 45 days according toADB procurement procedures. The Borrower requested a 21-day period, but when the Bankrefused, the Borrower accepted the 45 days stipulated in ADB procedures. It is worthmentioning that there was a period when nobody at the Bank was responsible for the project.As a result, there were relatively significant delays in responding to the borrower’ssubmissions during this period; five procurement files were affected by this situation. It tookthe Bank 45 to 100 days (with an average response time of 75 days) to respond to thesubmissions.

3.6 Financing Sources and Disbursement

3.6.1 Financing Sources

The estimated financing plan at appraisal and the actual financing plan are provided in thetable below:

Financing Plan (in million UA and TND)

Appraisal ActualUA TND UA TND

ADB 63.49 89.45 43.10 68.20

AFESD 35.70 50.30 39.70 74.42

IDB 8.71 12.27 5.76 10.79

SFD 21.07 29.69 0 0

OPEC 4.81 6.77 0 0

AFD 0 0 3.90 7.29

Gov’t 86.22 117.88 60.33 113.08

TOTAL 220.00 309.95 152.79 273.78

5

OPEC and SFD, identified as donors at appraisal, eventually did not participate infinancing the project. However, AFD joined PDRI II donors after appraisal. The ADB loanexperienced several cancellations totaling UA 21.9 Million. These cancellations were theconsequence of foreign exchange gains resulting from the depreciation of the TND vis-à-visthe UA, competitive bidding for contracts, which also generated savings, and anovervaluation of project costs during appraisal.

3.6.2 Disbursement

The disbursement of the ADB loan is shown in the following table (amounts are inmillion UA):

AmountEstimated atAppraisal

Amount ofCancellations

Amount afterCancellations

% Disbursement

ADB Loan 63.5 21.9 41.6 100

The average time for processing non-problematic payment requests at the ADB is 30to 45 days. However, there were significant delays of up to 15 months in processing 7requests. These delays occurred during a period when nobody at the Bank was responsible forthe project and FLAD could not honor disbursement requests until the operations departmenthad entered the data in the contracts information database (PALMS).

Disbursements by financing source for the other donors are provided in the followingtable (the amounts are given in TND millions):

Amount of Loan Amount Disbursed PercentageAFESD 70.00 75.38 107%IDB 11.70 11.75 100%AFD 9.00 7.80 87%Government 117.88 109.44 93%

The disbursement period for IADB and AFD is identical to that of the ADB i.e. 45days. The period for AFESD is slightly longer (2 months); however, since its requests usuallyinvolve several payments and large amounts, its disbursement procedures are consideredmore flexible than those of the other donors.

4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE

4.1 Operating Results

The table in Annex 6 presents the detailed achievements of the project in terms of theinitial appraisal as well as the programme as revised during Project execution. All activitiesin the revised programme were completed 100 percent. This performance is not attributableto a reduction of the number of activities planned at appraisal. Column 4 in the table showsthat the objectives of 16 activities increased when programming was revised duringimplementation and 14 new activities were added, whereas the objectives of only 11 actionswere reduced. In fact, 17 new sub-projects and 48 km of road were added to the originalPDRI-II programme. The following is a brief description of the implementation of projectcomponents:

6

i. Agricultural development: The project has developed 9,119 hectares of publicirrigated areas (PIA), 2,443 hectares of irrigated plantations, 555 greenhouses,52 hectares of nantais tunnels, 20,580 hectares of dry-system plantations andhas enabled beneficiaries to purchase, on credit, 4,940 animal-drawn tanks and3,384 draught animals.

ii. Livestock development: Under this component, PDRI II has enabledbeneficiaries to acquire 6,067 heads of cattle, 67,577 heads of goat and sheep,12,730 hives, 969 camels, and to build 10 milk collection centers and 2,679stables.

iii. Development of fisheries: 25 boats were purchased and 617 equipped underthis component.

iv. Small trades: This component enabled 913 young people join the workforceby helping them set up small individual enterprises.

v. Natural resource conservation: The following activities were accomplished inunder this component: manual CES (17,591 hectares), mechanical WSC(21,120 hectares), consolidation of mechanical berms (4,580 hectares),rehabilitation of communal ranges (7,212 hectares), control of sand silting andwind breaks(3,010 hectares), equipment for hill reservoirs (7).

vi. Socio-economic infrastructure: The project enabled the development of 1,015km of rural roads, the provision of electricity to 12,575 people in rural areasand potable water to 63,808 people, and the building of 60 communalfacilities. No populations were displaced during the construction of the roads.

vii. Studies: A total of 82 studies were conducted by the project. These were sub-project implementation studies and the mid-term review.

viii. Training: The 21 coordinators and 92 sub-project managers received computerand project management training. The CGDR team organized trips to shareexperiences with similar projects in Morocco and Egypt.

ix. Consolidation of first phase of PDRI: the following actions aimed atconsolidating the first phase of the PDRI were accomplished: rural roads (443km), wind breaks (3,685 ha), anti–erosion tabias (201 km), tabia elevation(324 ha), sand silting control (800 ha) and farmland conservation (2055 ha).

With respect to agricultural production, increases in production for the differentcategories are provided in the following table:

7

Increase in Production Engendered bythe Project, in Quantity and Value

Increased Productionin tons per year

Value in TND Thousandsper year

Animal Production

Meat 3,015.7 13,434.5

Milk 17,606 6,301.0

Manure 31,967 486.7

Wool 123.8 158.8

Honey 97.7 1,493.3

Crop Production

Cereals -3,4581 -570.0

Legumes 16,671 1,239.0

Market Gardening 52,085 11,191.0

Arboriculture 7,402 3,594.3

Fishery 971 4,052.0

Total 41,380.6

4.2 Institutional Performance

4.2.1 The overall performance of institutions involved in project implementation wasdeemed satisfactory. Experience gained during the first phase of the Project enabled theseinstitutions to cope better with the demands of managing a programme as complex as PDRIII.

4.2.2 At the central level, CGDR was responsible for managing PDRI II with a focus onaligning the Project with the country’s regional development strategy, coordinating theactions of the different PDRI II stakeholders, monitoring project activities, ensuring financialmanagement, monitoring-evaluation and maintaining relations with donors. In spite of thecomplexity of the project, the multiplicity of stakeholders, the extensive distribution ofProject activities over the entire national territory and the number of donors, CGDRsatisfactorily accomplished the tasks related to implementing PDRI II.

4.2.3 At the regional level, project activities were entrusted to the regional sectoral services:the Regional Commission for Agricultural Development (CRDA) was given responsibilityfor activities related to agriculture and environmental protection; the Banque NationaleAgricole (BNA) for the management of the Integrated Rural Development Fund(FODERI), which provides credit for individual activities; the regional services of theMinistry of Equipment (ME)) for supervision of work on rural roads and buildings; the STEGfor electrification studies and work; the Employment Office (OE) for the promotion of smalltrades. Overall, all these institutions successfully accomplished their tasks. The onlyweakness noted relates to the low recovery rate of BNA loans under this project. Thisproblem is not unique to FODERI, it is common to all agricultural loans. It is worthmentioning that the appointment of a PDRI coordinator in each Governorate – which was oneof the conditions for disbursing the loan- played a critical role in the success of such aninstitutional set up.

1 In recent years, Tunisia has experienced persistent drought which has had a significant adverse effect on cerealproduction, most of which is not irrigated.

8

4.2.4 At the local level, the sub-project managers, who report to the regional coordinators,are responsible for monitoring activities carried out with beneficiaries. They also interfacewith the other Project participants. These field agents played an important role in the day today implementation of PDRI II activities and in the ongoing dialogue between the project andits beneficiaries.

4.2.5 Staff Training and Development

The staff involved in the implementation of the project has been trained in differentareas. The 21 coordinators and 92 sub-project managers were trained in computer use and inproject management and monitoring. The CGDR central team participated in two trips totrain and share experiences with similar projects in Morocco and Egypt.

4.2.6 Performance of Project Contractors, Suppliers and Consultants

A total of 749 contracts (works: 665, supply: 2, study: 82) were financed under theProject. Only 26 contracts were involved in litigation which resulted in cancellation. It cantherefore be said that in general, suppliers, service providers, and contractors honored theircommitments. While maintaining good relations with contractors, the Borrower fully playedits role through efficient control, which resulted, in certain cases, in the cancellations of thecontracts mentioned above. The momentum to create and develop small and medium-scaleenterprises (SME) was initiated during the first phase of the PDRI. The Project consolidatedon this momentum at the regional and local levels. These SMEs play an important role in thedevelopment of the local economy. The performance of Project contractors, suppliers andconsultants is deemed satisfactory.

4.3 Financial Performance

The recovery rate of FODERI loans is still weak (20 percent compared to 50 percentfor the agriculture sector in general). This weakness stems essentially from the persistentdrought in recent years, which has had a significant impact on all rain-fed agriculturalactivities, especially on cereal production and on pastures, and from the vulnerability ofbeneficiaries who are among the poorest people in the country. The lack of experience ofsome of the farmers who are obtaining loans for the first time and who are not always awareof the difference between such loans and the subsidies that they receive from the government,as well as the lack of selectivity in the attribution of agricultural credit (all projectbeneficiaries are eligible) may also have contributed to this low recovery rate. PDRI IImanagement and staff, the CRDA and the BNA are making sensitization efforts to encouragebeneficiaries to repay their loans.

4.4 Economic Performance

The productive base has undergone a profound transformation because of investmentsin agricultural activities (livestock acquisition, rehabilitation of surface wells, purchase ofequipment and animals for hauling, etc.). These investments amounted to TND 85.5 million(equivalent of UA 47.5 million). This was accompanied by greater use of agricultural input,an increase in agricultural intensity (10 percent, 19 percent and 25 percent respectively fordry, mixed farming and irrigated farming systems) as well as greater integration of crop andlivestock farming. Agricultural activity has thus become less random than it was before theproject, further securing the income of beneficiaries. As a result, gross farming income rose

9

from the TND132–3.372 range per year before the project to the TND 557–5.847 range peryear after the project, an increase from 73 to 322 percent. The project’s economic rate ofreturn is 14 percent. This estimate was based on the following assumptions: factoring ininvestments, renewal, operating costs and expenditures, revenue from animal and cropproduction at the end of the project (valued at economic prices) and a 30-year lifespan. Thesame assumptions were used at appraisal, except that the productions used at appraisal werebased entirely on forecasts. The economic rate of return at appraisal was 13.6 percent, almostequal to the rate at completion.

5. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

5.1 Social Impact

5.1.1 About 10 percent of the farming population benefited from PDRI II either directlythrough the loans granted or indirectly through the spin-off from the infrastructures built.Thanks to the Project, the number of households with access to potable water and electricityhas increased by 9 percent and 2 percent respectively. Close to 1,458 km of paved rural roadswere built under PDRI II, thus contributing to make rural areas accessible and to improve thecompetitiveness of agricultural products.

5.1.2 Available data does not allow for a precise assessment of the impact of the project onemployment. It is estimated, however, that agricultural investments, WSC and rangerehabilitation activities, the rehabilitation of irrigated areas and the construction ofagricultural roads have generated about 31,214 direct jobs.

5.1.3 Women have benefited from project activities. As heads of households, they manage1,192 farms that are beneficiaries of PDRI II (9 percent of the total number of farmers whoare beneficiaries) and have thus been supported by the project. Furthermore, it is estimatedthat 44percent of the jobs generated by the Project are for women.

5.1.4 The general improvement in living standards and the new conditions for agriculturalactivity created by PDRI II have encouraged young people to settle in the rural areas of thecountry. A reverse exodus (from urban centers towards the interior of the country) has beennoted, however, its scope is difficult to assess.

5.2 Environmental Impact of Project

5.2.1 PDRI II has made investments in natural resource conservation (see Annex 6). Theseinclude water and soil conservation activities, afforestation around irrigated areas, actions tocombat sand silting, and rehabilitation of ranges. These investments have a beneficial effecton the environment. They make it possible to reconstitute ground water, to regenerate andstabilize eroded lands, to improve vegetation in grazing and farming areas, and to protectinfrastructure (roads, irrigated areas, etc.).

5.2.2 The agricultural roads built by the project can have a harmful effect on vegetation andsoil, but this effect is negligible given the length of the roads (4 to 8 Km each).Accompanying measures to control erosion and restore the tree cover were implemented withthe construction of each road to mitigate the negative impact on the environment.

10

5.2.3 The Project has built 57 boreholes. It has equipped 97 and electrified 77. As well, ithas created 754 surface wells, rehabilitated 536 and equipped 1,312. All these water pointsare fully or partially intended for irrigation. Using them for farming could result inoverexploitation of ground water. Before developing all these water points, priorauthorization was obtained from the relevant services in the Ministry of Agriculture, incompliance with applicable Tunisian regulations. The Ministry maintains a database onground water capacity for the entire national territory, as well as a network of piezometers formonitoring ground water. Water resource management and monitoring are implemented in avery rigorous manner. The Ministry only authorizes borehole or well development when theoperational debits of these boreholes and wells do not entail ground water overexploitation inthe targeted zone. Moreover, the government has adopted an active policy to introduce trickledown irrigation through incentive measures that consist in a partial subsidy of equipment andin an active extension of this technique among interested farmers. All these measures aredesigned to minimize the risks of ground water overexploitation, which could result from theuse of water points established under PDRI II.

5.2.4 The project has financed equipment acquisition for fishermen. The fishing gear,especially fishing nets, is designed according to standards that prevent the capture of youngfish. Resource regeneration is thus guaranteed.

6. Sustainability of Achievements

6.1 Individual actions are financially profitable; the revenues generated enable farmers toallocate resources, in addition to the profits they gain, for upkeep and maintenance whennecessary. They receive agricultural extension technical assistance from Project managersand CRDA extension workers to maximize return on their investments. The sustainability ofthese achievements is not an issue.

6.2 The irrigated areas are managed by CIAs which receive CRDA support in watermanagement, billing, equipment upkeep and maintenance. Only water billing does not takeinto account the cost of the investment. For example, analysis of a study conducted on anirrigated area (Elgara) has shown that the portion of production costs billed to usersrepresents only 50 percent of actual cost. The situation in the different irrigated areas variesdepending on the water source (borehole or lake) and on the local conditions in each area.The above example shows the big difference that can exist between the actual price and thebilled price of water. This could compromise the sustainability of irrigated areas becausefarmers would have to call on the Government to reinvest, and one may wonder to whatextent and for how long the Government can continue to allocate resources to subsidizeproductive investments.

6.3 Private range improvement activities, the rehabilitation of state and communal ranges,and WSC activities are executed respectively by OEP (livestock and rangeland managementoffice), the DGF (forestry directorate) and the WSC directorate, in collaboration with thebeneficiaries. The mid-term review revealed that the approach used by these institutions isnot sufficiently participative; this does not help beneficiaries assume ownership of theseinvestments and may compromise sustainability.

6.4 The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Infrastructure signed amemorandum of understanding stipulating that the Ministry of Infrastructure would assumeresponsibility for roads which will be build under PDRI II with a view to including them in

11

its jurisdiction and making provision for them in its maintenance program. Thisadministrative transfer has not yet taken place. In the short term, the roads do not really needmaintenance; however, their sustainability will be compromised if the Ministry ofInfrastructure does not assume responsibility for them in the near future. The completionmission was assured that the roads will be administratively transferred to the Ministry ofInfrastructure and that their sustainability will therefore not be compromised.

6.5 Power lines are managed by STEG (Tunisian Electricity Company), the stateorganization responsible for managing electricity. It bills beneficiaries in compliance with thebilling policies it uses for the whole country. Some of the water supply facilities (50 out of160) are managed in the same way by SONEDE (National Water Supply Company), theorganization responsible for managing water resources all over the national territory. Theseinvestments do not therefore have a sustainability problem. The remainder of the watersupply facilities (110 out of 160) are managed by the collective interest associations with thesame problems as with the irrigated areas.

6.6 Communal facilities, built in compliance with current standards in the country, havebeen transferred to the relevant ministries (Ministries of Education and of Health) which haveincluded them in their jurisdiction. They are therefore an integral part of public buildings, andeach year the Government budget earmarks fiscal resources for their upkeep and maintenancein addition to financial contributions from local associations such as parent associations.

7. PERFORMANCE OF THE ADB, THE BORROWER AND CO-FINANCIERS

7.1 Performance of the ADB

7.1.1 The performance of the Bank is deemed unsatisfactory with a rating of 1.875. Theentry into force conditions the Bank set at project appraisal included the nomination ofregional coordinators for the project and the creation of a monitoring and evaluation unit.These conditions turned out to be very relevant considering the role that regional coordinatorshave played in the implementation and coordination of PDRI II activities and in the variousstudies and surveys conducted or led by the monitoring and evaluation unit, including themid-term review. However, it is clear that Project costs were overstated at appraisal, so muchso that a total amount of UA 21.9 million, or 34 percent of the total loan amount, wascancelled.

7.1.2 The Bank organized 7 supervision missions and 1 completion mission, eachconsisting of two experts - this represents an average of one supervision mission per yearduring the period 1995 – 2001. More missions, especially at Project start-up, would havehelped Project progress and ensured better training for CGDR managers on Bank contractingand disbursement procedures.

7.1.3 There were significant delays in the Bank’s processing of some Project submissions.In five cases, the Bank took weeks, or even months to respond to submissions. The sameproblem occurred with 7 disbursement requests. In addition, the Bank did not seek tocoordinate its activities or organize joint missions with the other donors.

12

7.2 Performance of Borrower

The Borrower’s performance is deemed highly satisfactory. Planned activities wereimplemented without any noticeable delay; the Project was implemented over seven yearsinstead of six as estimated at appraisal, a difference of only one year. Despite the complexityof PDRI II and the multiplicity of stakeholders, CGDR succeeded in fully involving eachstakeholder in the implementation of the part of the Project of concern to them, and inefficiently coordinating all activities.

7.3 Performance of Co-financers

The performance of co- financiers is deemed unsatisfactory. Like the Bank, they made noeffort to cooperate with the ADB by organizing coordination meetings or joint oversightmissions. The number of their oversight missions was limited to less than half a mission peryear. However, the Co–financiers were able to disburse loan amounts normally without muchdifficulty. AFESD, in particular, has relatively flexible disbursement procedures compared toIADB and the ADB.

8. OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

All Project activities were implemented and objectives achieved. The orientations of thePDRI II also form an integral part of the Government’s policy. Another phase of the Projectis envisaged with Bank participation. The overall performance of the Project is deemedhighly satisfactory with a rating of 3 on 4. Overall impact on development is deemed highlysatisfactory with a rating of 3 on 4.

9. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Conclusions

9.1.1 Overall, PDRI II was well implemented and attained its objectives. Despite thecomplexity of the project, the multiplicity of stakeholders, the extensive distribution of itsactivities all over the national territory and the number of donors, CGDR was able tocoordinate Project activities and bring the different institutions to execute the tasks related tothe implementation of PDRI II. The institutional set up, which could be considered complexinitially, worked well.

9.1.2 Monitoring and evaluation was much improved compared to the first phase; itprovided survey findings that were very useful in assessing the impact of the project and itled the mid-tem review. Its participation was crucial for the implementation of the project andthe assessment of its impact on development. The Bank was right in insisting on the creationof a monitoring-evaluation directorate within CGDR.

9.1.3 The recovery rate of FODERI loans is still weak (20 percent compared to 50 percentfor the agriculture sector in general). If this rate does not improve, beneficiaries will nolonger be eligible for agricultural credit and this will hamper the development of their farms.

13

9.2 Lessons Learned

9.2.1 Private range improvements, the rehabilitation of national and communal ranges andCES works are implemented respectively by the OEP, the DGF and the CES Directorate, incollaboration with beneficiaries. The mid-term review concluded that the approach used bythese institutions is not participative enough and does not help beneficiaries assumeownership of these investments; It may thus compromise the sustainability of theinvestments.

9.2.2 The Bank’s insistence on controlling all the stages of the procurement processwhatever the amount of the contract may slow project implementation. For executingagencies such as CGDR, which are quite proficient in the Bank’s procurement procedures,and in a country like Tunisia where strict control over contracts already imposes significantdelays on project implementation, control of the entire procurement process by the ADBshould not be standard practice, whatever the amount of the contract and its mode of award.The flexibility offered by the Bank’s rules of procedure should be used in this case.

9.2.3 Designing projects that address multiple sectors (agriculture, roads, electricity,potable water, education, health…) such as the PDRI II, is a good way of addressing povertyissues, which, in reality, affect all sectors. Given the complex nature of such projects and thedifficulty in coordinating them, their implementation calls for a structured and competentgovernment like the Tunisian Government.

9.3 Recommendations

9.3.1 To ensure the sustainability of the investments made in the context of PDRI II orsimilar projects, it is recommended that institutions that implement such projects, inparticular those involved in the management of natural resources in Tunisia (OEP for themanagement of rangelands, DGF for the management of forests and the WSC directorate forwater and soil conservation) adopt a more participatory approach. To this end, theseinstitutions should train their staff in such an approach.

9.3.2 Project beneficiaries have made investments in the context of the Project that some ofthem have just started to benefit from. More than ever, they need technical assistance in theform of extension activities and training to enable them obtain the most benefit from theseinvestments. The technical support that is being provided should be continued well beyondthe end of PDRI II, to give farmers time to master the new technologies which werepreviously unknown to them (irrigation and water conservation, management of dairy cattle,market gardening, etc.).

9.3.3 The Ministry of Infrastructure should assume responsibility for the maintenance ofrural roads in keeping with its functions and in compliance with the agreement it signed withthe Ministry of Economic Development prior to Project effectiveness. To date, this has notbeen done. It is recommended that the Ministry include the maintenance of the rural roadsbuilt in its annual maintenance program in compliance with the agreement it signed with theMinistry of Economic Affairs.

14

9.3.4 Outreach efforts related to the repayment of FODERI loans, which are beingimplemented at the regional level by PDRI II, CRDA and BNA staff, should be continued,especially efforts targeting farmers who practice irrigation and whose operating income showthat they are capable of repaying their FODERI loan. In addition, BNA should implement amore selective loan policy for managing its agricultural credits.

9.3.5 It is recommended that for future projects, the Bank allow CGDR to award smallcontracts without prior review by the Bank, in compliance with paragraph 2.10.1 of theBank’s Rules of Procedure for Procurement of Goods and Works. In addition, the ADBshould strengthen monitoring and evaluation of projects as complex as PDRI and also seek toorganize joint missions with other donors in cases involving co-financing.

9.3.6 In the future, Bank preparatory and appraisal missions should be more rigorous incalculating project costs in order to spare the borrower unnecessary commitment fees.

ANNEX 1

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA

INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FORTHE MOST DEPRIVED AREAS – PHASE II

ADB DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE(in UA Millions )

Year Appraisal Actual

1994 5.8 0

1995 10.92 3.51

1996 12.96 3.72

1997 15.98 9.29

1998 12 9.55

1999 5.83 10.13

2000 0 2.71

2001 0 2.66

TOTAL 63.49 41.5

ANNEX 2

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA

INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FORTHE MOST DISADVANTAGED AREAS – PHASE II

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE

Evaluation Criteria Rating Remarks1.Adherence to implementation schedule 3 The Project was implemented over

seven years instead of six, a differenceof only one year

2. Adherence to costs 3 Given that the amount of workaccomplished surpassed the estimatedamount, the Project achieved savings inthe amount of UA xx million.

3. Adherence to terms 3 All terms were respected4. Adequacy of supervision and reports 3 Monitoring and evaluation was well

done5. Satisfactory operations (if applicable)Total 12Overall Rating of ImplementationPerformance

3

ANNEX 3

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA


BANK PERFORMANCE DURING PROJECT CYCLE

Evaluation Criteria Rating Remarks1. Identification 22. Preparation 23. Appraisal 24. Supervision 1.55. Overall rating of Bank performance 1.875

ANNEX 4

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA


IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT

Evaluation Criteria Rating Remarks1. Relevance and Achievement ofObjectives

i. Macro-economic policyii. Physical Outputsiii. Financial policyiv. Poverty Reductionv. Environmentvi. Private sector developmentvii. Other

44

433

The Project is well aligned with thecountry’s regional development policyPDRI II contributed effectively tocombating poverty and helped indeveloping SMEs.

2. Institutional Development

i. Institutional frameworkii. Financial information systemiii. Technology transferiv. Human resources

3

22

The financial information system isadequate.

3. Sustainability

Borrower commitmentEnvironmental PolicyInstitutional frameworkTechnical viabilityFinancial viabilityEconomic viabilityEnvironmental ImpactUpkeep and maintenance

443

2232

Another PDRI phase is envisaged.The environmental policy is rigorousand well implemented.Cost of water is not fully recovered.

Internal rate of returnAggregate Performance 3

ANNEX 5

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA



ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN(UA Million)

Year Cost Upkeep and Operating Total

invest and Maintenance Costs Costs Total Balancerenewal income

1 22.21 2.45 0 24.66 0 -24.662 27 2.19 0 29.19 6.28 -22.913 50.91 5.08 0.25 56.24 6.36 -49.884 57.78 5.92 3.17 66.87 6.51 -60.365 47.08 5.66 19.09 71.83 28.38 -43.456 25.34 4.64 44.22 74.2 54.38 -19.827 2.95 44.56 47.51 54.03 6.528 2.95 44.56 47.51 75.75 28.249 295 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.95

10 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9511 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9512 2.86 2.95 44.56 50.37 101.46 51.0913 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9514 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9515 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9516 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9517 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9518 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9519 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9520 2.86 2.95 44.56 50.37 101.46 51.0921 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9522 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9523 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9524 2.86 2.95 44.56 50.37 101.46 51.0925 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9526 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9527 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9528 2.86 2.95 44.56 50.37 101.46 51.0929 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.9530 2.95 44.56 47.51 101.46 53.95

ERR 14 percent

ANNEX 6REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA


IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENTProject Achievements compared to Estimates

Act

ion

s

Un

its

Est

ima

ted

at

ap

pra

isa

l

Rev

ised

pro

gra

mm

e

Ach

iev

emen

ts

Ach

iev

emen

tin

per

cen

tco

mp

ared

toa

pp

rais

al

Ach

iev

-em

ent

(in

per

cen

t)co

mp

ared

top

rog

ram

me

1. Agricultural DevelopmentConstruction of bore-holes Unit 40 57 57 142 100Equipment of bore-holes Unit 40 97 97 242 100Electrification of bore-holes Unit 20 77 77 385 100Public irrigated areas ha - 4590 4590 - 100Private irrigated areas ha - 4590 4590 - 100Creation of surface wells (SW) Unit 754 636 636 84 100Rehabilitation of SW Unit 536 558 558 104 100Equipment of SW Unit 1312 1189 1189 90 100Wadi intake Unit - 191 191 - 100Irrigated farms ha 4223 2443 2443 57 100Greenhouses Unit 670 555 555 82 100Nantais tunnels ha - 52 52 - 100Dry-land farming ha 29055 20580 20580 70 100Tanks ha 5975 4940 4940 82 100Draught animal Head 2261 3384 3384 149 1002. Livestock developmentCattle Head 3862 6067 6067 157 100Sheep / goats Head 27091 67577 67577 249 100Movable-frame beehive Unit 16156 12730 12730 78 100Camels Unit 660 969 969 146 100Milk collection centers Unit 9 10 10 111 100Stables Unit 1675 2679 2679 159 100

3. Fishery development

Purchase of boats Unit 46 25 25 54 100Equipment of boats Unit - 617 617 - 100Cold Storage Unit 1 0 0 -4. Development of small trades Unit 1 0 0 -Creation of small trades Number 793 913 1022 115 1125. Conservation of natural resourcesManual soil and water conservation ha 11528 17591 17591 152 100Mechanical soil and waterconservation

ha 20030 21120 21120 105 100

Consolidation of mechanical berms ha - 4580 4580 - 100Rehabilitation of communalrangelands

ha 17867 9942 9942 55 100

Rehabilitation of private rangelands ha - 7212 7212 - 100Sand silting control and wind breaks ha - 3010 3010 - 100Equipment of hill reservoirs Unit 4 7 7 175 1006. Socio-economic infrastructureRural roads km 610 1015 1015 166 100Rural electrification Benef. 13473 12575 12575 93 100Water supply Benef. 61017 63808 63808 104 100Communal Facilities Unit 70 60 60 84 1007. StudiesNumber of studies Number 82 82 82 100 1008.. TrainingBeneficiary training days Days 4390 4390 4390 100 100Staff training days Number 30 30 30 100 1009. Consolidation of phase IRural roads km - 443 443 - 100Wind breaks ha - 3685 3685 - 100Wind erosion control tabias km - 201 201 - 100Tabia elevation km - 324 324 - 100Sand silting control ha - 800 800 - 100Farmland conservation ha a - 2055 2055 - 100

ANNEX 7

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA



RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX

Recommendations ResponsibilityInstitutions responsible for managing naturalresources should adopt a participativeapproach

Office de l’élevage et des pâturages,Direction générale des forêts, Direction de laCES

Continue providing technical assistance tobeneficiaries

CGDR

Transfer responsibility for rural roads to theMinistry of Equipment

Ministry of Equipment

Continue awareness-raising efforts toimprove the recovery rate of FODERI loans

CGDR, CRDA, BNA

Allow CGDR the latitude to award smallcontracts without prior review by the bank.

The Bank

Strengthen monitoring and evaluation ofcomplex projects like the PDRI

The Bank

Plan joint missions with the other donors The Bank

ANNEX 8Page 1 of 2

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA



CONDITIONS FOR ENTRY INTO FORCE

The conditions for entry into force were:

- Provide proof of the creation of the internal monitoring and evaluation unit andthe audit unit that would both report to CGDR.

- Provide proof of the nomination of PDRI regional coordinators who coordinate,control and monitor project activities in the Governorates. Their resumes shouldbe submitted to the ADB beforehand for approval.

- Provide proof that financing arrangements with the other donors have been signedor that these donors have agreed in writing to participate in financing the project.

- Commit to assuming responsibility for expenses related to the upkeep of public,and communal infrastructures built in the context of the project.

- Commit to strengthening the capacity of regional planning units (CPR) staff bysending a sociologist and a second professional whose profile will depend on thevocation of the governorate (zootechnician or agricultural engineer) to enable theunit accomplish its internal monitoring and evaluation mission.

- Provide the memoranda of understanding signed with: the Ministry of Agriculturefor support to farmers, the preparation of technical documents related to the loan,training of farmers, the implementation of CES activities, the development ofbore-holes, the rehabilitation of irrigation and water supply networks; the Ministryof Equipment for control and surveillance works related to building agriculturalroads, CTV and CRA offices, the rehabilitation of surface wells and communalfacilities; the Banque nationale agricole for the management of the credit (filepreparation, set up, monitoring and credit recovery); the Société Tunisienned'électricité et du gaz for study and execution of rural electrification works; TheOffice of Employment for the promotion of small trades. These memoranda ofunderstanding must first be submitted to ADB for approval.

ANNEX 8Page 2 of 2

In addition to the entry into force conditions, the Government must agree that it will:

- Conduct a mid-term review of the project and submit the report for ADBapproval, at the end of the 4th year of the project at the latest;

- Implement the conclusions and recommendations reached in the mid-term reviewas approved by the ADB;

- Provide the ADB with a new CGDR manual of administrative, financial andaccounting procedures, no later than six months after loan effectiveness;

- Strengthen the regional planning units by adding a sociologist and a secondprofessional, whose profile will depend on the vocation of the governorate (zootechnician or agricultural engineer), to enable this unit accomplish its internalmonitoring-evaluation mission; this should be done no later than six months afterloan effectiveness;

- Submit for ADB approval, six months after loan effectiveness, a training programfor farmers, group managers, trainers and technical personnel of the project aswell as the list of selected candidates.

integrated rural development project – phase ii

Documents