Doc_=t of

The World Bank

FOR OmaAL USE ONLY

Rept No. 12890

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

PAKISTAN

SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) MARDAN(CREDIT 877-PAK)

MARCH 29, 1994

Agriculture Operations DivisionCountry Department IIISouth Asia Regional Office

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performace oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bankl authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Name of currency (abbreviation) = Pakistani Rupee (PRs)

Appraisal Year (1978): US$1.00 = PRs 9.90Intervening Years (1979-91): US$1.00 = PRs 15.60Completion Year (1992): US$1.00 = PRs 25.08

FISCAL YEAR

July 1 to June 30

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

i foot (ft) 30.5 centimeters (cm)I mile (mi) 1.609 kilometers (km)i acre (ac) 0.405 hectare (ha)I cubic yard (cu.yd) = 0.765 cubic meters (n3 )I acre foot (ac.ft) = 1,233 m3

1 cu.ft/sec 0.028 m3/secI maund 37.3 kg

ABBREVIATIONS

CCA Cultivable command areaCIDA Canaaian International Development AgencyECNEC Executive Committee of the National Economic CouncilGCA Gross command areaGOP Government of PakistanLSC Lower Swat CanalNWFP North West Frontier ProvinceO&M Operation and MaintenanceUSC Upper Swat CanalWAPDA Water and Power Development Authority

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTHE WORLD BANK

Washington, D.C. 20433U.S.A.

Office of Director-General March 29, 1994Operations Evaluation

MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on PakistanSalinity Control and Reclamation Proiect (SCARP) Mardan (Credit 877-PAK)

Attached is the Project Completion Report on Pakistan - SCARP Mardan (Credit 877-PAK).Parts I and Ill were prepared by FAO/CP for the South Asia Regional Office and Part 11 by the Borrower.

Due to poor drainage, farming on the Swat Canal irrigation system was suffering from salt andrising water tables. The project aimed to solve this problem through tile drainage and to improveservices to farmers through better water delivery, on-farm water use, T&V extension, and roads fora farming area of 85,000 ha.

Implementation was delayed three years when the National Economic Council ordered theproject redesigned. The project area was cut to 50,000 ha. and roads were eliminated. Problems withlocal and international contractors and paucity of local funds caused further major delays. Requireddensity of drains, which had not yet been designed at appraisal, was much higher than appraisalestimates. Costs increased 12.5% for 59% of the appraised area--a unit cost increase of 91 %.

There have been major agricultural benefits from drainage, improved canal water supply, andland reclamation. Based on estimates (agricultural monitoring stopped after the baseline survey), yieldshave exceeded appraisal estimates and cropping intensities matched them. Thus, despite theimplementation problems, the PCR reports a still satisfactory 13% ERR. There were tangibleenvironmental benefits. Sustainability is likely. The project's principal institution-building goal--applying T&V principles to the extension system--seems to have had negligible results.

The PCR provides a balanced assessment of project achievements and shortcomings. Usefulcomments from the cofinancier, CIDA, were received and integrated into the report. Part i discussesproblems with contractors and insufficient release of Government funds; it recommends rigidenforcement of Bank pre-qualification guidelines to avoid contractor problems.

No audit is planned at this time.

Attachment C: 3

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of theirofficial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

PAKISTAN

SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) MARDAN

(Cr. 877-PAK)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ............. .............

EVALUATION SUMMARY .... ......... .............. i

PARTI .............. 1.............

1. Project Identity ......................... 1

2. Background ........................ 1

3. Project Objectives and Description ........................ 1

4. Project Design and Organization ........................ 3

5. Project Implementation ........................ 3

6. Project Results ........................ 6

7. Project Sustainability .......................... 8

8. Donor Performance .......................... 9

9. Borrower Performance .... 10

10. Project Relationship ........................... 11

11. Consulting and Contractor Services ......... .................. 11

12. Project Documentation and Data ........................... 11

PART II ........................... 12

General ........................... 12

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of theirIofficial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

Major Changes .............................. 12

Rates of Return .............................. 12

Project Monitoring .............................. 12

Overall Impact .............................. 13

Bank's Performance ................................. 13

PART I ..... ............................. 15

1. Related Bank Loans and/or Credits ................................. 15

2. Project Timetable ................................. 16

3. Credit Disbursements ................................. 17

4. Project Implementation ................................ 18A. Physical Targets and Achievements ............................... 18

5. Project Cost and Financing ................ ................ 19A. Project Cost ................................ 19B. Project Financing .......... ...................... 21

6. Project Results ................................ 22A. Direct Benefits ................................ 22B. Economic Impact .......... ...................... 23C. Financial Impact ................................ 24D. Studies ................................ 24

7. Status of Covenants ................................ 25

8. Use of Bank Resources ................................ 27A. Staff Inputs (staff weeks) . ................................ 27B. Missions ................................ 28

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Economic EvaluationAnnex 2: Equipment List

Appendix 1: Comments by CIDA

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

PAKISTAN

SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) MARDAN

(Cr. 877-PAK)

PREFACE

1. This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Salinity Control and ReclamationProject (SCARP) Mardan for which Credit 877-PAK in the amount of US$60 million was approved onJanuary 23, 1979. Co-financing was provided by the Canadian International Development Agency(CIDA) in the amount of Can$30 million (US$25 million equivalent). The project was revised andapproved by the Government of Pakistan (GOP) in 1982 and the original credit closing date was movedtwo years to June 30, 1988. After four one-year extensions, the final closing date was June 30, 1992,and the credit account was kept open until October 31, 1992, to facilitate completion of disbursements.Credit 877-PAK was fully disbursed, with the last disbursement made on September 3, 1992. Exceptfor a sum of Can$0.82 million, set aside for the final socio-economic survey to be undertaken in 1995,the CIDA grant was also fully disbursed.

2. Parts I and III of the PCR were prepared by an FAOlWorld Bank Cooperative Programmission,"' which visited Pakistan in February 1993, and reviewed by the Agriculture OperationsDivision, Country Department III, South Asia Region. Preparation was based on the Staff AppraisalReport and legal documents; IDA supervision reports and project files; field visits; and discussions withGovernment officials, beneficiaries, and IDA staff associated with the project. Part II was prepared bythe Borrower.

Messrs. S. Rajagopal (irrigation engineer/mission leader), K. Selvavinayagam (financial analyst), and T.Bachmann (agronomist).

iii

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

PAKISTAN

SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) MARDAN

(Cr. 877-PAK)

EVALUATION SUMMARY

Objectives

1. SCARP Mardan, the first irrigated agricultural development project financed by the BankGroup in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), was aimed to increase crop production through (a)lowering and controlling groundwater levels; (b) provision of increased irrigation deliveries to leach salts,meet optimum crop water requirements and increase cropping intensities; (c) reclamation of marginallyproductive and/or abandoned land; and (d) increasing on-farm water use efficiency. These objectiveswere to be attained through investments in subsurface drainage using perforated PVC pipes and effluentdisposal system comprising open drains, canal remodelling works to handle increased deliveries,watercourse modifications to improve on-farm water use, gypsum application, rural roads", andimproved agricultural extension services. Technical assistance for project implementation was alsoprovided. Originally, the total area to benefit from the project was 210,000 ac comprising 134,500 acof Lower Swat Canal (LSC) and 75,500 ac of Upper Swat Canal (USC) command. The revised projectarea (see para 2) was 123,600 ac.

Implementation Experience

2. The project was to be implemented over a six-year period (FY80 to FY85). However,during the first three years, only preparatory work was undertaken due to queries raised by GOP and non-approval of the project by the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC).Following detailed discussions among IDA, CIDA and GOP, the project scope was reduced to matchavailable local funds, and ECNEC approval was obtained in February 1982. The downsizing wasachieved essentially by excluding USC and deleting the rural roads component from the project. Thecredit closing date was moved to June 30, 1988, reflecting the delayed project start. The actualimplementation period ran from 1982 to 1992 (final credit closing date June 30, 1992). The main reasonsfor the time overrun were: late project approval, paucity of local funds, poor performance of contractors,and increase in the amount of civil works as a result of detailed designs carried out only duringimplementation.

3. At the time of project preparation and appraisal, final detailed designs for the subsurfacedrains were not available. Detailed designs were carried out during implementation. The total lengthof drains increased from earlier estimates. Subsurface drains were installed using two contractors. UnitI subsurface drains covering about 24,000 ac were installed over a period of two years on schedule by

11 Original text changed in response to CIDA's comments; see Appendix 1, second paragraph.

Iv

a Canadian contractor utilizing CIDA grant funds. Unit II subsurface drains covering about 49,000 acwere installed over a period of four years by another international contractor with actual completionalways lagging behind target because of cash flow and equipment problems. Surface drains wereremodelled with considerable delay due to poor performance of the original contractor who had to beexpelled. The remaining works were split into three smaller packages, retendered, and executed withabout six months delay. Even though contracts were delayed, the quality of construction appears to begood in general. The drains are functioning properly and watertable depths are already being controlledto desirable levels.

4. Canal remodelling included increasing the capacity of the Lower Swat Canal and itsheadworks, and modifications to the distribution system including conversion of some watercourses intominors. LSC remodelling was carried out through relatively trouble-free contracts (with about one yeardelay). The distributaries contractor was expelled after about 18 months due to poor performance. Theremaining works were split into two packages, retendered and awarded in 1989, and completed in 1992.The quality of construction appears to be good in general. Construction quality of the Munda headworksis good. However there were some technical problems in the construction of the Jindai aqueduct whichis a key structure in the LSC irrigation system such as improper placement of clay blankets and poorlyconstructed waterstops.

5. On-farm works were carried out successfully. Water Users' Associations were formed asrequired during the implementation period, but these associations have so far not been performing asexpected in maintaining the renovated watercourses. The impact of the T&V extension system onagricultural production seems fairly limited to date, as evidenced by CIDA's evaluation of the system in1985 and spot-check farmer interviews carried out by the PCR mission. Land reclamation using gypsumapplications and precision land levelling have been carried out as originally planned.

6. At the credit closing date, total project cost was PRs 3.18 billion (US$169 million)compared to the appraisal estimate of PRs 1.48 billion (US$150 million) and the 1981 revised estimateof PRs 1.3 billion (US$131 million). The cost overrun was due to price escalation and increase inquantities. The major part of the cost was attributable to civil works whose share in the total increasedto 58% from 38% estimated at project revision.

Project Results

7. Physical targets of the project's major components have been largely achieved, though withconsiderable delay. The project will, by and large, be successful in achieving increased agriculturalproduction. At full development, it is expected to generate higher production of a number of crops thanprojected at the 1981 revision. Farm budget analysis indicates that incremental agricultural income,expressed in 1992 prices, would be about PRs 19,000 (2.00 ac farm), PRs 72,000 (7.5 ac farm), and PRs206,000 (21.5 ac farm), representing a real increase of 137%, 157% and 182%, respectively, over theappraisal estimates.

8. The economic rate of return calculated now is about 13%, significantly lower than therevised (1981) estimate of 22%. The lower ERR is mainly due to the prolonged implementation periodresulting in delayed accrual of benefits, higher investment costs and a lower ratio of output to input pricesthan anticipated at appraisal or project revision, which are not fully offset by higher crop yields nowprojected at full development. The project would directly benefit some 23,000 farm families as targetedin 1981 and would generate additional employment of about 2.7 million work-days (48% more thanexpected in 1981).

v

Project Sustainability

9. The project worked within the existing organization of WAPDA, the entity chieflyresponsible for implementation, and programs of the participating agencies. After completion,responsibility for maintenance and operation of project infrastructure (irrigation and drainage works) istransferred to the NWFP Irrigation Department. Sustainability of project benefits from improvedagricultural production will depend to a large extent on the availability of irrigation water and drainage,which in turn will depend on the proper functioning of project works. For the future, and given thelimitations on Government's ability to fully meet operating and maintenance costs, it is critical thatfarmers contribute more (through water charges and cost sharing) towards meeting these costs.

Findings and Lessons Learned

10. As regards the Bank, the main lessons to be learned are that: (a) efficient agriculturalsupport services should be provided to make investment in irrigation and drainage effective; (b)meaningful agro-economic evaluation is possible only if the baseline survey carried out prior to projectstart is supplemented by regular follow-up surveys; (c) technical capability of the Borrower and resultanttechnical assistance requirements should be examined carefully during project preparation; (d) specificagreement should be obtained from the Borrower regarding budgetary provisions for regular maintenanceof project facilities. As regards the Borrower, the main lessons to be learned are that: (a) managementskills and procedures of the implementing agency should be reviewed and improved, if necessary, andmore decentralized decision-making may prove beneficial; (b) right-of-way acquisition should be carriedout in time to meet design requirements; (c) selection procedures for award of contracts may requireimprovement, or existing procedures more careful application than under the project; (d) ability of localcontractors (both financial and technical) should be analyzed prior to determining contract packages; and(e) timely release of funds is necessary for smooth project implementation.

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

PAKISTAN

SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) MARDAN

(Cr. 877-PAK)

PART I

1. Project Identity

Project Name Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (SCARP) MardanCredit No. 877-PAKRVP Unit South Asia RegionCountry PakistanSector AgricultureSubsectors : Irrigation and Drainage

2. Background

2.1 Irrigation is the dominant subsector in Pakistan's agriculture accounting for about 90% ofagricultural production. Decades of irrigation, with high seepage losses from the vast canal network, andinadequate drainage have resulted in raised watertable levels in most of the irrigated areas, and manyareas have become waterlogged. In these areas, salinity and alkalinity problems have developed becauseof the poor drainage. GOP's SCARP program was established to address these problems. The BankGroup supported GOP's initiatives through projects aimed at providing drainage, reclaiming land,increasing irrigation efficiencies, and improving on-farm water management practices. Its first assistancefor the SCARP program came in 1962 with a US$21.15 million credit for the Khairpur Groundwater andSalinity Control Project located in the northern part of Sindh Province. Other similar projects followed.SCARP Mardan was one such project, and the first irrigated agricultural development project assisted bythe Bank Group in NWFP.

3. Project Objectives and Description

3.1 Project objectives were to improve agricultural production through: (i) drainage ofwaterlogged lands; (ii) provision of additional irrigation water to meet crop water requirementsadequately; (iii) reclamation of marginally productive and/or abandoned land; (iv) increasing on-farmwater management efficiency; and (v) improved agricultural extension services. The project was to coverhalf of the irrigated land in the Mardan area, including the entire LSC command (134,500 ac) and partof the USC command (75,500 ac). As agreed at negotiations, its objectives were to be achieved throughimplementation of the following activities.

installation of subsurface (tile) drains in areas with a watertable depth of less than 5 ft,altogether about 110,000 ac;

2

remodelling existing surface drains in about 183,000 ac to carry storm water and providea gravity outlet for the tile drainage effluent;

modification of the 2.1 mile long Benton Tunnel near the head of the USC to increase thedischarge capacity from 1,800 cusecs to 2,060 cusecs thus providing additional irrigationwater for the part of the USC command covered;

remodelling of the Munda Headworks and the LSC system to provide increased capacityand improve canal operating efficiencies. Additional water from the Swat river to bedirected through the enlarged and improved system to provide full irrigation andreclamation requirements of the LSC command area;

reclamation of about 25,000 ac of abandoned and/or marginally productive saline-alkalineland;

- improvement in on-farm water management efficiency through watercourse improvementson 143,000 ac and precision land levelling on 35,000 ac;

- improvements to the rural market road network to handle increased inputs and outputsexpected with project development;

- improvements in agricultural extension services and institution of the training and visit(T&V) system over the entire administrative district of Mardan and the Charadda Tehsilof the Peshawar district, covering a gross command area (GCA) of 670,000 ac;

- provision of 461 staff-months of consultancy services to assist WAPDA in the preparationof final designs for the project, and feasibility studies for suitable follow-up projects; toadvise and assist in setting up the T&V system; and to advise and develop local expertisein sugar beet agronomy; and

- provision of: (i) equipment for construction of irrigation system and surface drains,subsurface drainage network, and rural roads; (ii) land levelling and land reclamationequipment, monitoring equipment for water measurement, drainage and water tableobservations; (iii) project support and management equipment and vehicles; (iv) plants forPVC pipe manufacturing, gravel crushing and processing of envelope material; (v)operation and maintenance (O&M) equipment such as high pressure drain pipe cleaners,backhoes, loaders and trucks; and (vi) maize seed processing equipment.

3.2 Total project costs were estimated at appraisal to be US$150 million (PRs 1,485 million),including US$7 million (PRs 69 million) taxes and duties. The foreign exchange component was aboutUS$67 million. An IDA credit of US$60 million and CIDA grant of US$25 million equivalent were tofinance all foreign exchange cost and 24% of local cost, or 59% of total project costs net of taxes andduties. The remainder was to be financed by GOP. The project was to be implemented over a six-yearperiod with WAPDA responsible for most aspects of implementation. The NWFP Irrigation Departmentwas to have responsibility for watercourse remodelling, and the Agriculture Department for extension andresearch activities, and provision of necessary inputs to farmers. For the first two years after completion,the constructed works were to be operated and maintained by WAPDA. Following formal acceptance,the Irrigation Department was to take over O&M responsibilities. The main project benefits were tocome from increased annual crop production.

3

4. Project Design and Organization

4.1 Project design and concept were clear and provided a good conceptual foundation for theproject. They were clearly understood by many of the relevant parties."' At the time of projectformulation, subsurface drainage using perforated plastic pipes was relatively new in Pakistan. Thetopography of the project area allows the subsurface drains to discharge into open surface drains bygravity. The surface drains lead the effluent into the Kabul river. The concept of such a drainagenetwork was well-founded and the design of the project components reflected this. The projectcomponents represented a balanced investment in drainage and irrigation infrastructure and in agriculturalresearch, extension, on-farm water management works and other inputs.

4.2 In the light of its objectives, the scope of the project was appropriate. However, asexplained in para 5. 1, the size was not related to availability of local funds. It also appears that GOP wasnot fully convinced of the technical superiority of the components included in the project design, sinceECNEC requested the Soil Survey of Pakistan to conduct an independent technical review of the projectafter it had been negotiated. This led to significant delay (about 2 1/2 years) in project implementation(para 5.1). However, these issues were resolved. The project was well prepared both conceptually andin overall engineering design, but left details to the implementation phase, which created further delayssince WAPDA staff did not have enough experience in subsurface drainage design and construction.CIDA provided a team of Canadian drainage engineers to assist with the preparation of detailedengineering designs and to train WAPDA staff.

4.3 The roles of the institutions responsible for the project were clearly defined and understood.Some of the responsibilities were modified during project implementation (e.g., transfer of responsibilityfor watercourse remodelling from the Irrigation to the Agriculture Department). In general, thesechanges contributed to the overall success of the project.

4.4 Subsurface pipe drainage being relatively new in Pakistan at the time of appraisal, itsinclusion in the project could be considered as innovative, particularly considering the debate overtubewell drainage and pipe drainage going on in the country at that time. Given the complex hydraulicconductivity of the various soil strata found in the project area, pipe drainage was the best choice.

5. Project Implementation

5.1 Credit Effectiveness. Even though the legal documents were signed on February 7, 1979,the IDA credit became effective only on October 16, 1979, due to delay in appointment of consultants,which was a condition of effectiveness. However, project implementation did not start immediatelythereafter due to: (i) lack of support from GOP and minimal Rupee financing provided forimplementation during FY80 and FY81 as a result of serious financial constraints; and (ii) appointmentof a high-level technical committee to review the scope of the project, and ECNEC's decision to deferapproval until completion of the technical review.

5.2 Project Revision. Extensive discussions were held among IDA, CIDA and GOP over atwo-year period to resolve the issues raised by GOP and to get project implementation started. Agreement

Some technical questions were raised after appraisal regarding the advantages of horizontal (pipe) and vertical(tubewell) drainage, but these were resolved later and the project concept was eventually accepted by allparties.

4

was reached in late 1981, the project size was reduced and the implementation schedule changed toaccommodate the Government's financial constraints. Principally this was done by excluding, for laterdevelopment under a proposed Swabi SCARP, the USC command area, and deleting a small part of theLSC area and the rural market road component. The revised project covered 123,600 ac (50,040 ha).Its principal parts were:

installation of subsurface drainage covering about 73,000 ac with a water table depth of lessthan 5 ft;

remodelling of surface drains on about 101,600 ac;

remodelling of the LSC system to provide increased capacity and improved operationalefficiency;

reclamation of about 14,600 ac of abandoned or marginally productive saline-alkaline land;

on-farm improvements through watercourse remodelling covering about 123,600 ac andprecision land levelling on about 20,000 ac; and

others as at appraisal.

5.3 The revised project costs were estimated (at mid-1981 prices) to be US$131.3 million (PRs1,301 million). IDA and CIDA financing remained the same as at appraisal. The IDA credit closing datewas moved to June 30, 1988.

5.4 Main Variances. The 2'h year start-up delay indicates that the project was probably noton GOP's priority list. If the project cost had been compared to the overall budget availability for thesubsector and other Government commitments in the subsector over the intended project implementationperiod, the financial constraints could have been identified and a reduced project could have beenprepared in the first place. In retrospect, the start-up delay could perhaps have been avoided.

5.5 Implementation started slowly in the second quarter of 1982 but gained momentum in 1984.However, further progress was slow due to poor performance of: (i) a local contractor who was awardeda contract in late 1985 for remodelling of surface drains; (ii) an international contractor who was awardeda contract in mid-1986 for installation of subsurface drains on about 49,000 ac; and (iii) a local contractorwho was awarded a contract at the end of 1986 for remodelling of the irrigation distributory system.

5.6 Since at the time of project preparation and appraisal detailed designs had not beencompleted for the drains, they had to be prepared during implementation. The total length of drainsincreased as a result. In addition, the Abazai gated weir on the Swat river controlling the flow into theMunda headworks had to be modified as well, to avoid siltation problems at the intake.

5.7 Originally, the project was to be implemented over a six-year period. However, due to thepoor performance of contractors, the paucity of counterpart funds and the increase in the volume of work,the project was implemented over a period of eleven years.

5.8 Unit I subsurface drains covering about 24,000 ac were installed on schedule, over a periodof two years. Unit II subsurface drains covering about 49,000 ac were installed over a period of fouryears with actual completion always lagging behind target. The contractor had serious cashflow problems

5

and equipment difficulties. Additional trenchers had to be brought in from other sites and new trenchershad to be bought to accelerate performance. Without these measures, the contract would not have beencompleted.

5.9 Both trenchers and trenchless ploughs were used in subsurface drain installation. It appearsthat the trenchless ploughs caused some problems during construction with silt entering the drains fromabove. More frequent flushing of drains constructed using trenchless ploughs may be required ascompared to trencher-installed drains."

5.10 Subsurface drain construction was also hampered by the non-completion of surface drains,which were on the critical path of the implementation schedule. Late acquisition of the necessary right-of-way hindered construction progress as well.

5.11 The surface drain remodelling contract was awarded in October 1985 with an estimatedcompletion period of 42 months. However, the contractor's performance was inadequate resulting in hisexpulsion in 1988 - after three years he had only completed 25 % of the scheduled works. The remainingworks were split into three smaller contracts, retendered and awarded in 1989. These smaller contractswere completed in 1991, about six months behind schedule. Considering that without completion of thesurface drains, the effluent from the subsurface drains could not be evacuated, this aspect should havebeen given priority. It is not clear why the first contractor was allowed to continue for three years whenit was evident that his performance was inadequate'. Overall, surface drain remodelling that couldhave been completed in 2-3 years was completed over a six-year period. This variance could, inretrospect, have been avoided by better project preparation before appraisal and better contract sizing andselection procedures.

5.12 Canal remodelling work was carried out under two major subheadings: LSC and itsstructures; and (ii) distributory canals and their structures. LSC remodelling was carried out through tworelatively trouble-free contracts (delayed by about one year). The contractor remodelling distributarieswas expelled after about 18 months, having completed only 10% of the scheduled work. The remainingworks were split into two contracts, retendered and awarded in 1989. The work was completed in 1992with about one year delay. Again, this completion delay could have been avoided by proper contractsizing and selection procedures. The delay meant that increased irrigation supplies could not be delivereduntil the 1992 cropping season.

5.13 Even though contracts were completed late, the quality of construction appears to be goodin general. However, there were some technical problems in the construction of the Jindai aqueduct. Atthe upstream end of the aqueduct, foundation failures were experienced. Investigations carried out so farindicate that improper or inadequate placement of clay blanket aprons might have contributed to thefailures. This is a critical aqueduct in the LSC and the failures led to delayed supply of increasedirrigation deliveries to the system. During its field visit, the PCR mission noticed several leaks alongthe joints in the aqueduct. It appears that waterstops have not been constructed properly. These leaksshould be monitored and remedial action taken if necessary.

I/ See Appendix 1, Comments by CIDA, fourth paragraph.21 End of Year 1 - 3% completed compared to a target of 18%; end of Year 2 - 18% completed

compared to a target of 56 %.

6

5.14 On-farm works were carried out successfully under the responsibility of the AgricultureDepartment. Water Users' Associations were formed as required during the implementation period.However, these associations have so far not been performing as expected in maintaining the renovatedwatercourses. The T&V system of agricultural extension was introduced in 1981 covering the Mardan,Charsadda and Swabi districts. Staffing and equipment purchase were based on SAR proposals. Twointernational consultants were assigned to the Agriculture Department. For the purpose of monitoringcropped areas and yields, a District Statistical Officer and 12 crop recorders were provided by theproject. However, the impact of the extension service on agricultural production appears to be fairlylimited so far. CIDA conducted an extensive review of the performance of the T&V system in 1985 aspart of the agro-economic survey. The review concluded that the system was not being effective, withonly about 5 % of the farmers benefitting from it. The PCR mission conducted spot-check interviews withproject beneficiaries which confirm the findings of the CIDA review. Land reclamation using gypsumand precision land levelling have been carried out by the Agricultural Research Institute at Tarnab asoriginally envisaged.

5.15 Project Costs and Financing. In mid-1992, total project cost was reported to be PRs 3.18billion (US$168.8 million), which translates to PRs 25,753 per acre, compared to the 1981 revised costestimate of PRs 1.30 billion (US$131.3 million), which translates to PRs 10,526 per acre. Thisrepresents a cost overrun of 144% in Rupee terms. Expressed in US dollars, which reflects thedevaluation of the Rupee, project costs increased by only 29%. The cost overrun was partly due toquantity increases and partly to unit cost increases. The major part of the cost increase was attributableto civil works which now account for 58% of total project costs compared to 38% in the 1981 revision.Of the total cost, 35% was financed by IDA, 15% by CIDA and the balance of 50% by Government,compared to 46%, 19% and 35%, respectively, anticipated in 1981.

6. Project Results

6.1 Crop Production. Most of the increased production from the project will result fromhigher yields of the major crops due to improved drainage conditions, reclamation of waterlogged or salt-affected land and, to a limited extent, from improved agricultural services provided under the project.Full development yields of all crops except maize and rabi fodder are now estimated to exceed thoseprojected in the 1981 revision, with sugar beet and sugarcane exceeding the earlier estimates by 46% and21% respectively (see Part IIt/6A). The PCR crop yield estimates are based on data collected by theproject's Statistical Unit and the Agricultural Department, and were confirmed by farmer interviews inthe field. Additional irrigation deliveries have just started to materialize, which may assist in increasingyields further.

6.2 Overall cropping intensities are expected to increase from 156% (without project) to 180%at full development, as projected at appraisal. However, there are differences in the cropping patternsof the individual farm models used by the PCR mission as compared with the SAR models. A 3%increase in cropping intensity over SAR estimates is assumed in maize, vegetables, sugarcane andorchards, whereas the area under kharif fodder is decreased by 5% more than was assumed in the SAR.The increase in cropped area concerns, above all, the main cash crops (vegetables, sugarcane andorchards). The expected stronger decrease in fodder relative to the SAR estimate is due to widespreadfarm mechanization over the last decade, which replaced draft animals by tractors.

7

6.3 The project will be successful in achieving its major objectives of increasing cropproduction by bringing abandoned or marginally productive land into production", raising crop yieldsby providing adequate drainage, improving the irrigation system, increasing irrigation water supply,providing land levelling, and watercourse improvement. However, the impact of the agriculturalextension system has been well below expectations so far. Attainment of physical targets though delayedhas been largely achieved in the implementation of the project's major components. At full development,the project would generate higher agricultural production than estimated at appraisal and project revision,including sugarcane, sugar beet, vegetables and fruit (see Part III/6A).

6.4 Through drainage improvements and construction of irrigation structures, the project hasimproved water security, facilitated double-cropping and increased yields. Although the irrigated landunder the project remained the same (123,600 ac), the amount of water supplied year-round hasincreased. As a result, farmers are able to plant a second crop of vegetables.

6.5 Income Effects and Employment. Due to the project, farm incomes in the LSC area haveincreased and will increase further. Farm budget analysis shows that net incremental income, expressedin 1992 prices, would be about PRs 19,180 (2.0 ac farm), PRs 71,920 (7.5 ac farm) and PRs 206,110(21.5 ac farm) at full development, representing a real increase of 139%, 157% and 182%, respectively,over appraisal estimates. With a farm family size of seven persons, per capita incremental income forthe smallest farm size would be about US$109 equivalent at full development. The project directlybenefits some 23,000 farm families (the same as envisaged in 1981).

6.6 Landowners have benefitted more than tenants. In some areas, land values doubled andeven trebled after project works were completed. Some owners were reported to have increased landrents charged to their tenants. Since productivity also increased, both landowners and tenants realizeda net gain.

6.7 Economic Rate of Return. As presented in Part III/6B, the project's economic rate ofreturn (ERR), re-estimated following the SAR, is about 13%, 5% lower than the appraisal estimate and9% lower than the 1981 estimate. This result is mainly due to higher investment costs per unit area thanestimated at appraisal or project revision, delayed benefits due to the prolonged implementation periodand a lower ratio of output to input prices than anticipated earlier, which are not fully offset by the highercrop yields now projected at full development. However, because of the substantial change in the scopeof the project (exclusion of USC covering 30,580 ha), the recalculated ERR is not strictly comparablewith the appraisal estimate.

6.8 Sensitivity tests show that a reduction in benefits by 10% or 20% or an increase in costsby 10% or 20% will lower the ERR to about 12% and 11%, respectively. The project is thus not verysensitive to variations in either costs or benefits.

6.9 Environmental Impact. In the project area, groundwater levels had risen significantlysince irrigation was first initiated near the end of the last century, and low-lying land without adequatedrainage had become waterlogged. Standing water bodies had developed in several areas, providing ahabitat for mosquitoes. The project has effectively drained the marshy waterlogged areas and generally

" See Appendix 1, Comments by CIDA, sixth paragraph. The farm models prepared for the agro-economicanalysis (para 6.5 and Annex 1) include the land that was marginal or out of production, but do not show theestimated output separately.

8

lowered groundwater levels, thus reducing the breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Abandoned orunproductive land has been reclaimed. Adequate water supply for sustained crop production is beingprovided, allowing higher incomes for participating farmers. The overall impact of the project on thenatural and social environment is, therefore, generally positive.

7. Project Sustainability

7.1 Project sustainability, i.e., continuity of production benefits derived from the project, willdepend on: (a) availability of trained staff with adequate equipment to maintain the system; (b)availability of funds to meet full O&M costs; and (c) not only local acceptance but active local supportfor the project, to minimize the risk of neglect or deterioration.

7.2 Although it is too early to judge whether the above has been achieved, some preliminaryobservations can be made. Adequate equipment such as trenchers and draglines has been transferred tothe Irrigation Department. The mechanical workshop constructed under the project would continue toprovide necessary repair and maintenance facilities for the O&M equipment. The Asian DevelopmentBank is financing the Swabi SCARP covering the USC command, and the same WAPDA personnel whocarried out SCARP Mardan are involved in this project. Therefore, required expertise would be availablefor the Irrigation Department to draw from over the next few years. Assurance of adequate O&M funds,however, still remains an issue. While there is consensus on the need to increase the level of water ratesto meet funding requirements -- rates have been increased by 25% for FY94 - its continued political andsocial acceptability is critical. For the sustainability of the project's irrigation and drainage system, andgiven the limitations on the Government's ability to meet O&M costs flly, it is important that farmerscontribute more towards meeting these costs. While recovery of O&M costs is vital, consideration shouldalso be given to the issue of obtaining a contribution towards investment costs (as envisaged at appraisal).

7.3 Cost Recovery. Currently, O&M costs of irrigation projects and construction costs ofOFWM projects (and components) are partially recovered through water charges and payment of a shareof the costs, respectively. Irrigation water charges are levied according to the area and the type of cropsgrown. Water rates for the main crops at appraisal and credit closing are as follows:

Appraisa (199)79 Credt Closiang (OM2)

0: : i .(PRsItac) ...

Sug"YArMa 41.00 82.40

Sugar beet 26.00 53.60

Wheo 12.00 24.00

Mi 12.00, 24.00

Orcad 26.00 106.40

Vegetables 26.00 53.60

Between 1979 and 1992, the rates have doubled in nominal terms (except for orchards where the rate hasincreased fourfold), but still represent on average PRs 51/ac/yr taking into account cropped areas andcropping intensities.

9

7.4 At appraisal, it was agreed that water charges would be raised in three stages - by July 1,1981, July 1, 1986, and July 1, 1991 - so that they would be sufficient to recover the full cost of O&Mplus a reasonable portion of the investment cost of irrigation and drainage facilities in NWFP. Revenuefrom water charges, at present levels (PRs 6.3 million), covers only 38% of the estimated O&M costsat full development (PRs 16.7 million), and an annual subsidy of PRs 10.4 million will be required.

7.5 The level of charges needed to recover O&M costs would have no significant impact on netfarm income. For example, a rate covering estimated O&M costs only would imply an annual paymentof PRs 270 for a small farm of 2.0 ac. This is equivalent to 0.8% of gross farm income, 1.2% of netfarm income, and 2.9% of total production costs.

7.6 As shown above, irrigation water charges do not fully cover the estimated cost of effectiveO&M, but it will be difficult to increase them substantially in the short term. A Nationwide Study forImproving Procedures for Assessment and Collection of Water Charges and Drainage Cess (1990)recommended that water rates be increased by 25% in 1990-91 in all provinces and then by 10.54%compounded annually, assuming that correct water rates are applied to the actual areas under cultivation.If this recommendation were applied in NWFP, water charges would average about PRs 63/ac in the LSCcommand area initially (rising from the 1992 level of PRs 51/ac by 25%) and would reach PRs 135/acin eight years at 10% compounded annually, which would be adequate to recover the estimated O&Mcosts of PRs 16.7 million. While such increases are not insignificant, they appear feasible from theperspective of farmers' ability to pay, especially considering that at full development real net farm incomewould have risen considerably even for the smallest farm (2 ac).

8. Donor Performance

8.1 The performance of IDA was generally satisfactory throughout the implementation of theproject. Twenty supervision missions (18 jointly with CIDA, the co-financier) were mounted betweenMarch 1979 and October 1991. IDA and CIDA adopted a flexible approach in the provision ofequipment and technical assistance, and the extension of the project implementation period. Theprovision of a five-member Canadian drainage team (para 4.2) greatly assisted in the design of thesubsurface and surface drainage works, and in training WAPDA and local consultant staff. Similarly,by allowing contractors to purchase equipment they considered necessary for executing their contractsagainst a mobilization advance, rather than procuring the equipment listed in the SAR, IDA enabled theBorrower to save some costs.

8.2 The procedures approved by the Bank for pre- or post-qualification of contractors, however,need to be reviewed further by both Borrower and Bank. As said in paras 5.11 and 5.12, poorperformance of contractors led to serious implementation delays and deferral of benefits resulting in lowerthan anticipated economic results. The Bank Group should perhaps in the future encourage a thoroughreview by relevant Borrower agencies of both technical and financial capability of potential contractorsprior to contract award.

8.3 Lack of attention to financial constraints led to delay in ECNEC approval of the projectwhich delayed start-up by about 2% years. To prevent reoccurrence of such situation, the Bank Grouphas made ECNEC approval a condition of credit effectiveness since 1981.

8.4 Lessons learned can be summarized as follows:

10

investment in irrigation and drainage is economically sound. Efficient agricultural supportservices should be provided to make such investment effective;

a meaningful agro-economic evaluation becomes possible only when the baseline surveycarried out prior to project start is supplemented by regular follow-up surveys during andafter project implementation (see para 12.2);

financial capability and willingness of the Borrower to execute the project should beascertained carefully before credit approval. Consequently, ECNEC approval has beenmade a condition of credit effectiveness in lending to Pakistan (para 8.3);

technical capability of the Borrower and resultant TA requirements should be examinedcarefully during project preparation;

specific agreement should be obtained from the Borrower regarding annual budgetaryprovision for regular maintenance of project facilities;

it is important that final designs of canals and drains are prepared for the first project yearprior to loan negotiations.

9. Borrower Performance

9.1 The performance of the Borrower throughout project implementation was belowexpectations. Problem areas were project approval and contract packaging, selection, award andmanagement, which led to considerable implementation delays. The chief implementing agency,WAPDA, executed the project through its consultants. Day-to-day activities were under the direct controlof the consultants. Decision-making by WAPDA was bureaucratic and contributed to delays in selectingand awarding contracts. Similarly, right-of-way acquisition was not always carried out in time resultingin contractor claims.

9.2 Lessons learned can be summarized as follows:

adequate time should be allowed in the implementation schedule for preparation of finaldesigns, if this has not been done prior to project approval;

management skills and procedures of the implementing agency should be reviewed andimproved, if necessary. More decentralized decision-making may prove benefical;

- right-of-way acquisition should be carried out in time based on design requirements;

- selection procedures for the award of contracts may require improvement, or existingprocedures more careful application than under the project;

capability of local contractors (both financial and technical) should be analyzed prior todetermining contract packages;

- timely release of funds is necessary for smooth project implementation;

11

monitoring and evaluation surveys should be carried out regularly to obtain reliable dataon project impact.

10. Project Relationship

10.1 Even though the project was the first in the subsector assisted by IDA in NWFP, the chiefimplementing agency had already established a good working relationship with IDA under other projects.This relationship continued throughout implementation. Documentation on file indicates the frustrationshared by senior management of WAPDA and IDA regarding the poor performance of contractors. IDA,CIDA and the consultants worked in good harmony to eventually resolve most of the project-specificproblems.

11. Consulting and Contractor Services

11.1 The consulting services provided by a Pakistani-US joint venture and the technical assistanceprovided by the Canadian drainage team were appropriate. The consultants monitored the performanceof the contractors and kept IDA advised on a weekly basis of delays, bottlenecks and remedial actionneeded. The Canadian drainage team assisted in the preparation of designs for Unit I and Unit n1subsurface drains, trained counterpart staff, and prepared a drainage manual."

11.2 As stated in Section 5, the performance of contractors was varied. An, internationalcontractor responsible for subsurface drainage works and some of the local contractors responsible forremodelling of surface drains and distributaries performed below expectations.

11.3 The contractors supplying gravel envelope material and PVC pipes performed well anddelivered on schedule. The gravel contractor corrected his initially poor performance by following theexcellent advice given by the project consultants. The Nowshera PVC pipe factory was assisted by CIDAand IDA through timely provision of needed equipment, including a second extruder line capable ofproducing up to 12-inch PVC pipes.

12. Project Documentation and Data

12.1 The SAR and the Credit and Project Agreements (including amendments) provided a basicframework for IDA, the Borrower and the project implementing agencies. The Memorandum ofUnderstanding between CIDA, GOP and IDA provided the necessary framework for implementing thecomponents cofinanced by CIDA.

12.2 Information for the preparation of the PCR, except for the evaluation of agricultural impact,was readily available. A good system of monitoring physical progress of works was put in place by theconsultants. However, there was no follow-up to the baseline survey on agriculture carried out in 1985.The CIDA follow-up survey is planned for 1995. The draft PCR prepared for the Borrower by theconsultants (February 1993) was confined to physical facilities (irrigation and drainage). On these aspectsit provided useful information. Information available at WAPDA was used in calculating actual projectcost and in estimating O&M expenses.

I/ Original text changed in response to CIDA's comments; see Appendix 1, fifth paragraph.

12

PART II

1. Mardan Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (SCARP) (Cr 877-PAX)aimed mainly at control of waterlogging and salinity, increasing wateravailability in the irrigation system (123,600 acres of CCA), conserving andmaximizing use of the available water resources through remodelling the existingirrigation system, surface drains and laying of sub-surface (tile) drains in thearea.

2. Financial assistance to the project was provided by the World Bank(IDA) and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) (US$60 million andCan$30 million respectively). Commenced in 1979, the project was completed by31 December 1992.

3. The project was initially scheduled to be completed in 1986-87.However, its completion was delayed due to default of three main contractors,increase in the scope of work and insufficient release of funds from theGovernment of Pakistan (GOP) against the demands.

Maiotr Chanaes

4. There were no major changes made in the original design except someincrease in the scope of civil works including

a. Increase in the length of drains.b. Construction of 21 railway bridges.c. Increase in the number of culverts and bridges across

irrigation and drainage channels.d. Conversion of 156 water courses into minors and construction

of additional gated inlet structures for minors.e. Construction of a mechanical workshop for maintenance of

heavy equipment.

Rates of Return

5. With the implementation, the project incremental benefits will be Rs.628.477 million at full development. The BC rate is 1.2:1 while net presentworth (NPW) is Re. 978.516 million. The calculated EIRR is 14%.

Proiect uonitorino

6. WAPDA's SCARP Monitoring Organization is responsible for regularbenefit monitoring and evaluation of:-

a. Intensities, yields and agriculture production of various crops,i.e. rabi and kharif.

b. Depth of water table at least biannually.c. Salinity and sodicity status at proper intervals.d. Quality of effluent from the tile drains and surface drains.e. Economic activities in the project area.

13

f. Functioning of tile drainage laterals/collectors.g. Quantity of effluent from the tile drainage units.h. Rainfall data and flow of surface drains.

Overall Impact

7. The statistical data collected by Pakistan Academy for RuralDevelopment, Peshawar revealed that substantial increase in crop yield has takenplace in the project area as shown in the table below, from the commencement in1979-80 till completion of the project.

IncreaseYield/Acre Yield/Acre in YieldDuring During 1980-81 to

Sr.No. Name of Crop 1980-81 1991-92 1991-92

XHARIF CROP YIELD PER ACRE

a. Maize 0.83 M.Ton 1.25 M.Ton 0.42 M.Tonb. Paddy 1.10 n 1.40 n 0.30c. Sugarcane 21.25 " 33.90 n 12.65d. Sunflower 0.50 n 1.00 n 0.50e. Soyabean 0.60 " 1.00 " 0.40

RABI CROP YIELD PER ACRE

a. Wheat 0.58 " 1.00 0 0.42b. Rape and Mustard 0.15 " 0.40 " 0.25c. Sugar Beet 20.00 " 30.00 " 10.00d. Potato 6.25 " 8.75 " 2.50e. Tobacco Virginia 0.90 " 1.25 " 0.35f. Sunflower 0.60 " 1.25 " 0.65g. Soyabean Spring 0.50 " 0.90 n 0.40 n

8. From the above statistics it is clear that improvement in theirrigation and drainage system has had very significant and positive impact onproductivity of the area. Specifically, the maize and tobacco crops, which usedto be frequently destroyed in heavy rainstorms, are now safe from flood hazards.The cropping pattern in the newly-drained area is changing fast; more and moreland is converted into fruit orchards. The price of land has also gone up. Ina nutshell, one can say that the inhabitants are very happy with the drainagemeasures taken in the area.

Bank's Performance

9. The Bank's performance remained excellent throughout the projectimplementation period. Except during the Gulf War, no significant problem intransfer and flow of funds was encountered. The half-yearly visiting missionsof the Bank, for appraisal of the progress of the project, have been veryproductive; problems, if any, were solved jointly by the borrowers, donors and

14

allied agencies. The Bank's selection of the personnel for the missions wasexcellent - there was mutual understanding and effective communication.

10. However, the Bank's pre-qualification guidelines for constructioncontractors and equipment vendors need to be rigidly enforced to ensure that noincompetent bidder is included in the tender process. In Mardan SCARP there wereseveral contractors who were not technically and financially sound; somecontractors had to be replaced, others required long extensions of time forcompleting their assigned works. This was one of the main reasons leading todelayed completion of the project by some seven years.

15

PART III

1. Related Bank Loans and/or Credits

Lan/Credit Prpoe Yewr of Credi status C _auentsTide Approval AmontKhairpur Groundwater and Salinity Control of waterlogging and alinity 1962 US$21.15 M. Conpleted No PCR listedControl Project (Cr. 22-PAK) in OED

Directory

Khairpur rtile Drainage and Irrigated Tile drainge and irrigation 1976 US$14 M. Comnpleted PCR issuedFarmniig Developmnent Project developmnent June 1989(Cr. 648-PAK)

Salinity Control and Reclnamtion Control of alinity nd water-logging 1977 US$70 M. Completed Draft PCRProject (SCARP) VI (Cr. 754-PAK) issued Dec.

1993

On-Farmn Water Management To increaae agricultural production by 1981 SDR 33.4 M. Complted PCR iuued(OFWM) Project (Cr. 1163-PAK) improved management of water saved June 1988

through watercourse renovation andcleaning and related nmasures in thefour provinces.

ConumAnd Water Managemnent Project To increase agricultural production 1984 SDR 43.7 M. Conpleted Draft PCR(Cr. 1457-PAK) through improved water mnage- under

ment, along with supplying preparationagriculturil services and non-waterinputs in even sub-project areastotalling 510,000 ac located in all fourprovinces.

Left Bank Outfall Drain - Stage I To provide an ultimate outlet to the 1984 SDR147.6 M. OngoingProject (Cr. 1532-PAK) sea for drainage effluent from

irrigated areea of the Lower IndusBasin.

Second On-Farm Water Management To consolidate gaina achieved under 1985 SDR 34.8 M. Completd PCR issuedPoject (Cr. 1603-PAK) Cr. 1163-PAK nd improve OFWM May1993

programs in the four provinces toenable them to realize their potential.

SCARP Transition Pilot Project Testing trnsfer modes of public 1986 SDR 8.7 M. Completed PCR issued(Cr. 1693-PAK) tubewell operation in fresh June 1993

groundwater areas to privateownership nd operation.

Third On-Farm Water Management To increase agricultural production by 1991 US$36.3 M., OngoingProject (Ln. 3327-PAK, Cr. 2245- effective use of water sved through SDR 33.4M.PAK) renovation of watercourec and

related measures in irrigated as wellas kbani areas of the four provinces,FATA and FANA.

Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia Project Increase agricultural productivity and 1992 SDR 39.6 M. Ongoing(Cr. 2410-PAK) income by improving reliability of

water supplies and surface drainaepand reduce the need for subsurfacedrainage.

Second SCARP Transition Project Follow-up on SCARP Trnsition Pilot 1991 SDR 14.8 M. Ongoing -

(Cr. 2257-PAK) Project to transfer public SCARPtubewelbs to private ownership andoperation in fresh groundwater are".

16

2. Project Timetable

Iten Date Planned Date Revised Date ActualIdentification - Nov. 1976

Preparation - Dec. 1977

Appraisal Feb. 1978 - Feb./Mar. 1978

Negotiations Start Nov. 27, 1978 - Dec. 1978*

Board Approval Jan. 23, 1979 - Jan. 23, 1979

Credit Signature Feb. 6, 1979 - Feb. 7, 1979

Credit Effectiveness May 8, 1979 Oct. 16, 1979" Oct. 16, 1979

ECNEC Approval - - Feb. 23, 1982

Credit Closing June 30, 1986 June 30, 19882i June 30, 1992Credit Completion - - Sept. 3, 1992

* Nov. 27 - Dec. 4, 1978.

" Last of three extensions.v Agreed in October 1981; followed by four one-year extensions.

3. Credit Disbursements

Cumulative Estimated and Actual Disbursements(in US$ milCion)

FY7 FY8 FFWY8 FY8Z FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 | FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93

ApprsTsal Estimste1 ' 0 1.5 8.5 22.5 39.5 51.5 60.0 - - . - - -

Actual 0 0.32 0.82 1.37 2.27 5.48 9.31 14.20 18.74 25.32 30.05 40.33 49.95 58.16 60.00

Actual as X of Appraisal 0 21 10 6 6 11 16 24 31 42 50 67 83 97 100

Date of Final Disbursement: Septeber 3, 1992.

Appears to be Inconsistent with DCA which shows (original) closing date as 6/30/86.

Note: At project revision in 1981 no revised disbursement schedule was prepared.

18

4. Project Implementation

A. Physical Targets and Achievements

Item Unit SAR Revised late Actual Actual a % of1981 Revied

Land acquisition ac 15,800 11,000 - -

Lower Swat Canal remotdeing ac 134,500 123,600 123,600 100

Benton Tunnel Upper Swat ac 75,500 -

Command

Surface drainage ac 185,000 101,600 101,600 100

Subsurfacedrainage ac 110,000 73,000 71,500 98

Watercourse remodelling ac 143,000 123,600 123,600 100

Land reclamtion ac 25,000 14,600 14,600 100

Land levelling ac 35,000 20,000 20,000 100

Rural mnarket roads mi 100 - -

Agricultural extension ac 185,000 123,600 123,600 100

Monitoring ec 185,000 123,600 123,600 100

Equipment procurement" Per list -

Consulting services stff-monthe 461 420 1,038 247

Training programs saff-months Generally pecified Same as at 3/ N.A.apprmisal

" Equipment for subsurface and surface drainage was procured by contractors against advance payment.

2 Equipment procured under the project, transferred to the Irrigation Deprtment nd the Swabi SCARP upon completion ofSCARP Mardan and to be written off, as given in Annex 2.

Trmining courses (as shown by WAPDA and supervisory consultants):

Training/Localion */ Disciplie (and Number) Trned

Drainage Pipe Testing in Canada EN (1)Installation of Subsurface Drainage SS (1)

Course in Canada and USBRditto EN (1)ditto EN (1)ditto EN (1)

Installation of Subsurface Drainage EN (1)Course in Canada and USBR

ditto EN (I)ditto EN (I)

Design of Subsurface Drainage Course EN (I)at WAPDA Academy, Tarbela

ditto EN (1)ditto VAR (28)

Note: EN = Engineer, SS - Soil Scientist; VAR = Various.

1 See Appendix 1, Comments by CIDA, last paragraph.

19

5. Project Cost and Flnandng

A. Project Cost

SARC,sta Revisd Cost Ac I Cost> Actml as % of(Sept 1981) (Jue 30, 1992) Reuid Cosd

PRa USs PRi usS FRi usS PRs uss

lud Acquiso and Crop Damage 73.2 7.4 38.0 3.8 62.3 3.4 165 39

Coipsation

Civil Works

Benton Tunnel 7.9 0.3 - - - - - -

Lower Swat Canal Renmodelling 12S.7 13.0 117.0 11.3 591.0 28.7 505 243

Open Drainage 73.3 7.4 49.0 4.9 465.3 20.7 950 422

Subaurface Drainage 314.3 31.3 267.0 27.0 500.9 27.2 138 I

Rood Inprovements 14.9 1.5 - - - - -

ConsructionC arnp & Workshop 7.9 0.3 15.0 1.5 53.4 3.8 356 253

Engineering, Supervision & 65.3 6.6 50.0 5.1 232.3 12.4 466 243

Administmtion

Sub-Total 612.3 61.9 493.0 50.3 1843.4 92.8 370 134

On-Fam lIproveneat.

Watercourse remnodelling 10.9 1.1 13.0 1.3 107.6 5.6 823 431

Land Reclanmation 31.7 3.2 25.0 2.5 17.4 0.3 70 32

Land Levelling 20.3 2.1 16.0 1.6 25.3 1.4 153 SS

Engineering, Superviaion & 6.9 0.7 6.0 0.6 16.1 0.3 263 133

Adminisnntion

Sub-Total 70.3 7.1 60.0 6.0 149.0 7.8 248 130

Agricultrl DevelopLut

Extension 11.4 1.2 11.0 1.2 44.7 2.1 406 175

Maize Seed Production 1.5 0.1 2.0 0.1 - - - -

Sub-Total 12.9 1.3 13.0 1.3 62.1 2.9 478 223

Monitoring 6.9 0.7 3.0 0.3 11.2 0.6 140 75

Equipment & Vehicles 241.6 24.4 205.0" 20.7 291.7 19.3 142 93

Technical Assstance 40.6 4.1 66.0 6.7 266.8 15.3 404 228

O&M during C enstrim 26.7 2.7 23.0 2.3 3.6 0.2 16 9

Interest during Construction - - - - 490.3 26.5 -

Bae Cost 1035.0 109.6 911.0 91.9

Physical Contingencies 115.3 11.7 70.0 7.1 -

Price Contingencies 284.2 28.7 320.0 32.3 - - - -

Total Project Cost 1485.0 1S0.0 1301.0 131.3 3130.9 168.8 244 129

" January 1979 prices.v Mid-1981 prices."Annual expenditures in PIs fromn FY80 to FY92 converted to US dollars uing average annual exchange rate presnted in MP

International Financial Statistics." Includes taxes and duties of FRe 75 nillion, past of which on item under oder components." Not part of ba cost in SAR (pae 30.

20

Comments

(a) The project scope was revised in 1981. This revision led to the dropping of the works onUpper Swat Canal command (Benton Tunnel), road improvements, and investments inmaize production. As noted in (d) below, Abazai gated weir and mechanical workshopwere added.

(b) Total project cost at completion was PRs 3.18 billion (US$168.8 million) compared to the1981 revised cost of PRs 1.30 billion (US$131.3 million), a cost overrun of 144%.Expressed in US dollars the overrun was 29%.

(c) The major share of total cost was civil works, which increased by 270% accounting for58% of the total, compared to an estimate of 38%. Of civil works cost, surface drainageincreased by 850% absorbing 25% of the total, followed by Lower Swat Canal remodellingwhich increased by 405% absorbing 32% of the total.

(d) The cost overrun was due to both quantity increases and price escalation. The quantityincreases included land acquisition (increase from 1,320 to 1,370 ac), earthwork for surfacedrains (from 4.7 to 7.46 million cubic yards due to increase in the length of drains and theircarrying capacity), increased number of structures such as bridges (from 120 to 561),watercourse crossings (from 50 to 370), drainage outlets (from nil to 1,561), gabion outfallstructures and other structures (from nil to 201), earthworks (increase from 3 to 3.4 millioncubic yards), inclusion of Abazai gated weir remodelling, mechanical workshop andconversion of 159 watercourses into minors, land acquisition for construction of camps(increase from 22 to 30 ac), and increase of technical assistance (from 420 to 1,038 staff-months). The subsurface drainage area was reduced by 1,523 ac (from 73,000 to 71,477acres) due to the resistance of farmers.

(e) The average cost per acre envisaged at revision (1981) - 123,600 ac project area to bedeveloped at a total cost of PRs 1.3 billion (US$131 million) - was PRs 10,526(US$1,062). The completed area of 123,600 ac at a total cost of PRs 3.18 billion (US$169million) gives an average of PRs 25,735 (US$1,366) per acre.

21

B. Project Financing

Expenditure Categories Original Revised Final Final %

.............. .US$ million.

IDA Credit "

Civil Works 45.0 42.0 46.4 27

Vehicles, Equipment and 9.0 9.0 5.8 3Materials

Consultants and Training 4.8 6.2 7.8 5

Unallocated 1.2 2.8 - -

Sub-Total 60.0 60.0 60.0 35

CIDA Grant 25.0 2 25.0 25.0 15

Domestic Funds 65.0 46.3 83.8 50

Total 150.0 131.3 168.8 100

" Original - Development Credit Agreement of Febmary 7, 1979; Revised - Amendment of April 29,1982.

21 Equivalent to Can$30 million - utilized for civil works (Can$8.85), equipment (Can$7.77), drainsand TA (Can$11.72), agro-economic survey (Can$0.84) and reserved balance (Can$0.82).

22

6. Project Results

A. Direct Benefits

Indicators Units Appraisa Revised PCR EdimateEstimate Edimate (Fug Devdopnent)

Area Developed- LSC ha 54,470 50,040 50,040- USC ha 30,5S0 -

Cropping qItensiy- LSC % 180 180 180- USC % 175 -

Production (future with project)

Maize tons S6,700 55,500 56,000

Fodder 440,200 281,700 252,300

Vegetables 40,700 26,000 54,600

Wheat 76,100 48,700 44,272

Tobacco 13,800 - (*)

Sugar beet 229,000 146,600 177,100

Sugarcane 1,388,000 888,300 2,368,400

Orchard 37,700 24,100 88,500

Yied (future with project)

Maize tonsh 3.0 3.4 3.2

Fodder - Kharif 30.0 32.2 34.6Fodder- Rabi * 45.6 46.9 44.5

Vegetables 16.0 16.6 18.2

Wheat 2.6 2.7 3.0

Tobacco 1.6 - (*i)

Sugar beet 39.3 40.5 59.3

Sugarcane * 50.1 52.9 64.2

Orchard 13.5 13.8 14.8

Incremental Fan Income - LSC

Size of Farrn

2.0 ac PRs 3,600 3,600 19,180

7.5 ac PRa 12,560 12,560 71,920

21.5 ac PRa 32,740 32,740 206,110

Inremntal Farm Income - USC

Size of Farm

2.0 ac PRE 1,525 - -

7.5 ac PRs 4,780

21.5 ac PRs 11,210 - -

Beneficiary Famrilies Nunber 39,000 23,000 23,000

Employment Creation Work-days 3,100,000 1,825,000 2,700,000

LSC - Lower Swat Cansl; USC - Upper Swat Canal.

(*) Tobacco not grown on large aras now because it in labor-intensive.

23

Comments

(a) The area to be developed envisaged at appraisal was 85,050 ha, comprising LSC with54,470 ha and USC with 30,580 ha. The project revision in late 1981 led to the deletionof USC and a small part of LSC. Thus the revised estimate, based on LSC, is 50,040 ha.

(b) The estimate of cropped area was based on data collected by the Irrigation Department,Mardan during 1981-1992; crop yield estimates were based on data collected by theStatistical Officer and the Deputy Director Agriculture, Mardan during 1984-1992,supplemented by PCR mission estimates and the baseline survey carried out in 1985 withCIDA financing. A final survey is planned by CIDA in 1995.

(c) Restated in 1992 prices, incremental farm incomes estimated at appraisal are PRs 8,024 (2ac farm), PRs 27,996 (7.5 ac farm) and PRs 72,977 (21.5 ac farm).

(d) The number of beneficiary households is derived by dividing the cultivable command areaby the average farm size (5.4 ac).

B. Economic Impact

Appraisal Estimate Revised Actual (at FullEstimate Development)

Economic Rate of Return 18% " 22%21 13%Underlying Assunptions

Project Life 30 years 30 yearsFull Development 3' 1996 (46,370 ha) & 2000 (44,130 ha) &

2001 (8,100ha) 2005 (5,910 ha)Valuation of Traded Component CF of 1.00 CF of 1.00Valuation of Civil Works CF of 0.88 CF of 0.88Valuation of Non-Traded Component CF of 0.85 CF of 0.85Valuation of Unskilled Labor CF of 0.70 CF of 0.70

Sensitivity tets showed ERRs raqing from 18% in the base cane to 13 % (assumiin construction coAs up I 5, benefits down IS%,contuction delayed 2 years, and fuU developmant reached in 20 insad of 15 years). See SAR, paras 6.08, 6.09.

2/ Memo dated October 23, 1981, provides ERR but no mippoting calculations.

3v First line - area already under production; econd line - are to be reclaimed (SAR, Annex 1, Table 25).

24

Comments

The lower ERR is attributed to a combination of higher investment costs than estimated atappraisal, prolonged implementation period resulting in delayed accrual of benefits, and a lower ratio ofoutput to input prices than envisaged at appraisal or revision which is not fully offset by higher cropyields now expected at full development. However, because of the change in project scope, thereestimated ERR is not strictly comparable with the appraisal estimate.

C. Flnancial Impact

Not Applicable

D. Studies

Study lTid 7 rpse Deried at Appraisal Status Impct of Study

Agfo-conornic To monitor performance of the project in Carried out in 1985. The study has provided baslineSurvey improving agricultural production. Report isaued in 1986. data that would be used in the

follow-up evaluation cheduledfor 1995.

Drainage Manual Not anticipated at apprail. Completed in 1986. Provided guidance for design ofsubsurface drainage in Unit 1.

O&M Maal Not anticipated at apprisal. Completed in 1988. Provided adequate guidance forstaff of NWFP IrrigationDepartment.

Feuibility Study for To determine feasibility of rehabilitation and Completed in 1988. The Swabi SCARP hb beenSwabi SCARP development works in the USC command appraised by the Adan

area. Developnent Bank and financinghas been approved. The projectcommenced in 1992.

25

7. Status of Covenants

Coveant Deadl_e for stoCemplane

Deelepmat CreditAgmmeat

3.05 Extablishment of Project Steering and Unspecified In compliane.Coordination Committes.

3.07 Adequate quantities of cettified seed available Unspecified Subiazlsily in compliane.for sae to farmers upon completion of eachpart of the project.

3.08(I) Establishment of progrm for monitorng of Unspecified In compliane.imgation deliveries, drainaes flows, watertable depths, land reclamation and agriculturalproduction in the project area at least untljDec. 31, 1992.

3.08(ui) Esablishment of a program to evaluate the Unpecified Parally in compliance.socio-economic asects and benefits of theproject at least until Dec. 31, 1992.

3.09 Borrower to discuss with IDA prices of soil Sept. 30, 1932 (04/32 Unkown.amendments. atmeme)

4.01(b) Audited financial statements to IDA within six Unspecifed Subsaully in compliane. Audit reporsmonths of the end of each FY. wee ubmittd as required but oftn late.

Project AgreemetNWFP

2.01 Provide neceary fundr, facilities etc., Unspcified In compliae.required for parts of the project under itsesponsibility.

2.02 Make timely budgetary allocations and make Unpecified In compliance.staff available to operate and maintainequipment transferred.

2.03(a) Present insurance plans with budgetary Unpecified In compliance.estimates to IDA.

2.04 Introduce T&V methodology and release daff June 1982 (04/82 In compince.from non-extension duties amendment)

2.05(a) Provision of vehicles to extension workers in June 1982 (04/32 In compliae.project are. amendment)

2.05(b) Payment of compensation to extension workers June 19U2 (4/32 Unkwn.for expenditures incurred during duty travel, amendment)

2.06 Allocation of water from Swat river to LSC Unspecified In complince.command area.

2.07 Water channelled through Benton tunnel to be Unspecified Debted in 04182 amendmnt.allocated to USC command area and landreclamation to have priority.

2.08 (orig.) Establishment of Farmers Group for each Unspecified In compliance.project watercourse.

3.01 Revision to the structure and level of water On or before Unknown.charges. July 1, 1981

(orig.)

3.02 Periodic increase in level of water charges. Unpecified Patil compliae. One increa of 25Xwas made in 1985. Anothr 25 % incehas been made for FY94.

26

Project AgremWAPDA

2.02 Employ consultants to aseist in implemention. May 8, 1979 Effectiveness condition. Debayedcomplhance (i.e., Oct. 1979)

2.03 Submission of an annual project inIple- Substantially in compliance.mentation plan together with budgearyestinates for the following fiscal year not laterthan March 31 of each year.

2.04(a) Insurance for imported goods. Unpecified In compliance.

2.06 Furnish IDA with a survey of requirements for Unspecified Delted in 04/82 amendment (rual roadsrural market roads. component was drepped).

2.07 (orig.) Study depths to water table nd furnish reports. June 30, 19S7 (04182 In compliance.amendment)

2.09(orig.) Establishment of Reclamation Unit. July 1, 1983 (D4/82 In compliance.amendment)

27

8. Use of Bank Resourcs

A. Staff Inputs (staff weeks)

Year Prespprisal Apprasl Negotiatim Supmnion Totl

Pre-FY81 23.3 108.0 11.7 27.7 170.7

FY81 - - - 16.7 16.7

FY82 - - - 34.9 34.9

FY83 - - - 19.9 19.9

FY84 - - - 40.2 40.2

FY85 - - - 35.4 35.4

FY86 - -- 33.3 33.3

FY87 - -- 20.6 20.6

FY88 - -- 21.1 21.1

FY89 - - - 15.7 15.7

FY90 - - - 16.3 16.3

FY91 - - - 4.5 4.5

FY92 - - - 4.3 4.3

FY93 - -- 17.4 17.4

FY94 - - 2.3 2.3

Total 23.3 108.0 11.7 310.6" 453.3

"Including 19.7 gaff weekb fr PCM, of which 14 sps_ by FAOICP.

B. Missions

Pedonunce Ratnge

Sue Of Pruct MontbYea No. Of Days In ReWd Speczatons Status" 3 Twed 4' Type etCyde Poe. Repepeented" Poblsm W

IentIcatIon Cand out by GOP ConsuktanPreparmion)Appraisal Ma h 78 7 25" AG(3), DE. EC, EN, S - -

Supervison I Mach 79 1 7 AG, JM - -

Superv on2 Jun 79 1 7 EN, JM 2 -4'

Supervision 3 Feb. 80 3 10 AG. DE, EN, JM 2 2 F, MSuperviion 4 Nov. 80 3 141 DC, EC, EN, JM 3 2 F. P, MSuperAsion 5 Sept. 81 4 15 EC, EN. E, 00, JM 3 1 F, PSupervison Feb. 82 1 4 E, JM 2 1 M, TSupervsion 7 June 82 3 7 DE, EN. E, JM 2 1 MSupersion 8 May 83 4 7 DE, EC. EN. E, JM 2 1 T, MSupervision 9 Nov. 84 3 10 AG. DE. EN, JM 2 1 M. FSupervilon 10 Aprl 8 2 9 AG. E. JM 2 1 M. F

O0rl Statue Dev. Inpmt Conpi. w. Cov. Proect Mg Av_. Funds

Super4s 1on1I Oct.85 3 10 AG, EN, E. JM 3 2 - 3 2 7@

Supervision 12 Aprl 80 3 11 DE, EN E. JM 2 1 - 2 1Suprvbsion 13 Nov.86 1 6 EN 2 1 2 1Supetvbion 14 Aug. 87 2 10 ADMI.E, JM 2 2 - 3 1Supervion 16 June 88 3 16 AG. E(2) JM 2 2 - 3 1Supervalon 10 Feb. 89 2 8 EN E. JM 3 2 - 3 1Supervlon 17 Oct 89 1 9 E, JM 2 2 2 2 2SupdvigonIS may 90 2 11 AE, IE, JM 2 2 2 2 2Supevlon 19 July 81 1 4 E - - - - .-

Supervison 20 Oct 91 1 10 E. JM 2 1 2 2 2PCR Feb. 93 3 14 AG, FA, E --

D"D in field pertly esdmated by PCR misson hsice supervision miskion worked on more than on. project nd did not always specify tim spent on each.I Two perona part-time 113 and 1 days); " Two persons part-time (5 days); On. person part-time; One person pat-time observ.

"ADM - Adminitrative otficer AE - AgHcultwal economist; AG - Agriculturaist DC - Division chief. DE - Drainage *ngner; EC = Economidt. EN = Engineer FA = Fincial analyst; E =Irigation eineear 00 a Operations officr SS ; Soils Spedalat JM = Joint mission ncluding CIDA nd Canadian embassy staff.3 1 = Problem-free or minor probisms; 2 = Moderate problems; 3 a Major Problems.4 1 - improving; 2 = Stationary.4 F = Fwancial; M a Mangrial P = Politicd; T = Techndcal.4 Credit not yet effectit but difficultes beng experienced with prospective consult on provWion of servics for the project7/ 1 = No sinificnt problems; 2 - Moderate problems; 3 - Major problms, but appopriaot ections am being taken to address these problems.IL Lked supervision, no Form 590 prepared.

29

ANNEX 1

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

A. IMPACT ON FARM INCOMES

1. The SAR estimated increases in farm income based on changes in net agricultural income,including wage income from off-farm work in agriculture, for three different farm sizes as follows(Lower Swat Canal command; SAR, Annex 1, Table 19).

Net Farm Income (PRs)

Size of Fanniuture without Future with - i crental -% Cange l(ac) P*jc

2.0 .3 10 17, 12, 2460

21.5 17,465 50,205 32,4 0 2 8

Restated in 1992 prices, incremental incomes would have been PRs 8,024 for the 2.0 ac farm,PRs 27,996 for the 7.5 ac farm and PRs 72,977 for the 21.5 ac farm.

2. A baseline survey was carried out in 1985 on behalf of CIDA to ascertain current conditionsand levels of inputs and production. Surveys were to be repeated annually to measure the benefitsresulting from drainage and irrigation works, but this was not done. A final survey is now planned byCIDA for 1995. Therefore, the estimates of crop development which has taken place in the project areaover the past ten years are largely based on data collected by the Irrigation Department (cropped area),the statistical officer of the Agriculture Department, Mardan (crop yields), and on PCR mission estimates.

3. Following appraisal assumptions, the overall cropping intensity is projected to increase to180% at full development (project year 21 and 26, respectively; see para 5 below). This increase ismainly due to the increased area under sugarcane and orchards. As shown in Part III/6A, the PCRestimates of full development crop yields are higher than those estimated at project revision, with theexception of maize and rabi fodder.

4. The effect of the project on farm income has been recalculated by preparing farm budgetsfor the three different farm sizes. The results show that incremental farm incomes at full developmentin 1992 prices are PRs 19,180 for the 2.0 ac farm, PRs 71,920 for the 7.5 ac farm and PRs 206,110 forthe 21.5 ac farm, representing real increases of 139%, 157% and 182%, respectively, over the appraisalestimates. Project-financed irrigation and drainage facilities and land reclamation, no doubt, provide animproved base for agricultural production. The project directly benefits some 23,000 farm families (astargeted at project revision) and will generate additional employment of about 2,700,000 work-days peryear (about 150% of the number expected at project revision).

30

Project Completion ReportPAKISTAN: Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. S77-PAK)

Annex 1: Economic Evaluation

B. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Appraisal Estimates

5. At appraisal, the project's economic rate of return (ERR) was estimated to be 18% "based on the following assumptions:

- project life of 30 years, including an implementation period of 6 years;

- full development reached about 8 years after completion of works, and in areas to bereclaimed about 13 years after completion of works (Annex 1, Table 25);

- prices of wheat, maize, sugarcane and beets, tobacco, oilseeds, and fertilizer based onprojected 1985 world market prices expressed in 1978 terms;

- all farm labor valued at 70% of market wage rates;

- specific conversion factors of 1.15, 0.88 and 0.82 used to convert cost of land acquisition,civil works and on-farm improvements, and the SCF of 0.85 to convert all other local costsinto border prices;

- consideration only of incremental crop production in the area scheduled for irrigation,drainage and land development Oand reclamation).

The scope of the project was revised in 1981 and the ERR reestimated at 22%.

PCR Estimates

6. The recalculation of the project's ERR follows the SAR. The main differences are:

- actual costs are used for FY79-80 to FY92-93 (Table 1); past costs have been restated in1992 prices, using the GDP deflator for local and the MUV index for foreign exchangecosts (Table 2);

- consideration of incremental production includes wheat, maize, sugarcane and beets, fodder,vegetables and orchards;

- all values are expressed in 1992 terms, the project's final disbursement year;

Ban case.

31

Project Completion ReportPAKISTAN: Saliniqt Contrl ad Reclamation Project (SCAlP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 1: Econonmic Evaluation

- prices of internationally traded goods are based on the SAR for the Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia(South) Irrigation and Drainage Project (Report No. 10461-Pak, June 11, 1992) (Table 3).

The recalculated ERR is 12.7% (Table 4), about 5% lower than the appraisal estimate and about 9%lower than the revised (1981) estimate. The principal factors which have contributed to this result arehigher investment costs per unit area than estimated at appraisal, delayed benefits due to implementationdelays, and a lower ratio of output to input prices than projected at appraisal, which are not fully offsetby the higher crop yields now expected at full development. However, because of the substantial changein the scope of the project (exclusion of USC, covering 30,580 ha), the recalculated ERR is not strictlycomparable with the appraisal estimate.

32

Project Completion ReportPAKISTAN: Salinity Control & Reclamation Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 1: Economic Evaluation

Table 1. Investinent Cost in Financial and Economic Tenns (PRs Million)

FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86

1. Land Acquistion/Crop Damage Compens. 2.350 (0.220) 0.527 5.850 0.196 5.497 7.244Cost with CF of 1.15 1/ 2.702 (0.253) 0.606 6.727 0.225 6.321 8.331

2. Equipment 0.155 3.140 0.776 101.778 78.818 13.701 27.321Less Duties and Taxes - 0.574 2.622 41.251 3.647 22.579Net Equipment 0.155 3.140 0.202 99.156 37.567 10.054 4.742

3. Civil Works - Drainage 0.139 2.598 15.921 15.864 24.132 86.801 133.794Cost with CF of 0.88 1/ 0.122 2.286 14.010 13.960 21.236 76.385 117.738

4. CiviL Works - Canal Remodelling - - 1.988 3.875 17.568 30.117Cost with CF of 0.88 1/ - - 1.749 3.410 14.460 26.503

5. Engineering, Supervision I Admin. 0.746 2.312 2.711 8.314 12.390 15.691 18.751Cost with CF of 0.85 1/ 0.634 1.965 2.304 7.067 10.532 13.337 15.938

6. Monitoring and Evaluation - - - - - -Cost with CF of 0.85 1/ - - - - - - -

7. Technical Assistance 3.931 9.679 7.678 28.051 14.270 14.415 17.049

8. Operation and Maintenance - - - - - - -Cost with CF of 0.85 1/ - - - - - - -

9. Agricultural Extension - 4.651 5.334 3.188 3.115 2.815 4.853Cost with CF of 0.85 1/ - 3.953 4.534 2.710 2.648 2.393 4.125

10. Watercourse Remodelling - - - - 22.633 13.767 21.000Cost with CF of 0.82 1/ - - - 18.559 11.289 17.220

11. Interest 0.327 1.757 5.177 11.553 16.128 30.026 49.815...- ----- ------ ------- . ------- ....... . .-------....... .

Total Financial Cost 7.648 23.917 38.124 176.586 175.557 200.281 309.944

Total Economic Cost 2/ 13.755 36.618 55.519 257.244 181.039 247.748 339.111

1/ As in the SAR (Annex 1, Table 23).2/ ExcLudes interest, duties and taxes. Past expenditures restated in 1992 terms using GDP deflator for

local and MUV index for foreign exchange conponents (equipment, technical assistance); see Table 2.

33

Project Comphtion ReportPAKISTAN: Salinity Conl & Reclamation Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 1: Economic Evaluation

Table 1. Investanent Cost in Financial and Economic Tenms (PRs Million)(Continued)

FY87 fY8 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 UY29

1. Land Acquistion/Crop Darmge Copens. 6.000 4.070 1.499 0.776 17.650 11.195 35.861Cost with CF of 1.15 1/ 6.900 4.680 1.724 0.892 20.297 12.874 41.240

2. Equipment 7.376 1.966 (0.100) 32.095 19.550 4.801Less Duties and Taxes 1.741 0.823 - 11.861 0.048 0.592Net Equipment 5.635 1.143 (0.100) 20.234 19.502 4.209 -

3. CiviL Works - Drainage 123.104 47.239 26.629 151.135 191.040 196.040 93.524Cost with CF of 0.88 1/ 108.332 41.570 23.433 132.999 168.115 172.515 82.301

4. Civil Works - Canal RemodellIng 40.692 87.186 125.457 92.701 72.710 118.700Cost with CF of 0.88 1/ 35.809 76.724 110.402 81.577 63.985 104.456 -

5. Engineering, Supervisfon & Adnin. 23.731 31.277 22.210 32.129 26.657 35.919 3.104Cost with CF of 0.85 1/ 20.171 26.585 18.878 27.310 22.658 30.531 2.638

6. MonitorIng and Evaluation - 8.792 - - - 2.424 -Cost with CF of 0.85 I/ - 7.473 - - - 2.060

7. Technical Assistance 25.453 21.525 24.327 27.415 51.378 21.730 2.970

8. Operation and Maintenance - - 3.245 0.309 - -Cost with CF of 0.85 1/ - - 2.758 0.263 - -

9. Agricultural Extension 2.777 3.729 6.430 3.722 21.534 - -Cost with CF of 0.85 1/ 2.360 3.170 5.465 3.162 18.304 - -

10. Watercourse RemodeLLing 5.935 10.258 14.200 14.074 16.920 30.214Cost with CF of 0.82 1/ 4.867 8.412 11.644 11.541 13.874 24.775

11. Interest 69.865 88.817 105.739 53.267 47.319 10.500 8.232

Total Financial Cost 304.933 304.859 329.636 407.621 464.758 431.523 143.691

Total Economic Cost 2/ 316.353 265.954 255.528 368.802 409.119 373.150 129.149

1/ As in the SAR (Annex 1, Table 23).2/ Excludes interest, duties and taxes. Past expenditures restated in 1992 terms using GDP deflator for

local and MUV index for foreign exchange components (equipment, technical assistance); see Table 2.

I. I - - - - - - - t. sJ lg

I ~. Id 3

[-~~~ - - -

a: § §~~~~~~0w x

35

Pret ConpbUon ReporPAKIS4N: Salinity Conrol & Raclkmatin Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Anex 1: Economic Evaluation

Table 3. Prices Used in Financial and Economic Analysis"

I | |~~~ FhmeW Ire | Ec eemi Ik

Ct l99-92 I 1M1-92 199-99 Fum 2006w07

out" ............... ........... . ..

Wheat kg 3.94 4.73 6.09 5.52

Paddy (IRRI) kg 2.50 3.09 2.53 2.54

Fodder: kg- Kharif 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30- Rabi 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.34

Sugrcane kS 0.39 0.33 0.56 0.60

Vegetables: k4- IQharif 3.37 3.29 3.29 3.29- Rabi 3.87 3.29 3.29 3.29

Orchards kS 3.75 3.19 3.19 3.19

Maize k4 4.25 3.7S2v 4.87 4.42

Sugar beet k4 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.31

Seeds

Wheat kg 5.14 5.57 7.1S 6.51

Paddy (IRRI) k 3.32 3.36 3.54 3.1S

Fodder: kg- bharif 5.53 4.70 4.70 4.70- Rabi 20.00 17.00 17.00 17.00

Sugarcane kg 0.49 0.33 0.56 0.60

Vegetablea ac 130.00 110.00 110.00 110.00

Orchards ac 106.00 90.00 90.00 90.00

Maize kg 5.53 4.97 4.97 4.97

Sugarbeet kg 1.75 1.49 1.49 1.49

Nitrogen fertilizer kg 8.75 12.89 13.12 12.25

Phosphate fertilizer kg 9.04 9.39 10.65 10.48

LAbor hr 4.00 2.30 2.30 2.80

Bullock hr 3.00 6.30 6.80 6.30

Fiancial prices based on data provided by WAPDA, Peshawar, ecornoic prices basd on SAR for Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia(South) Irrigation and Drainage Project - June 1992. Cost of labor converted to economic cost using a specific conversion factorof 0.70, al other local coss by using the standard converion hftor of 0.35.Using wheat price less discount of 20%.Usally demands a premium over output price.

36P-ject Co-ple Reo

PAKUTAN: Saliniy Coarl & Recl_mm Proje (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAR)Anx 1: Economic Evauaion

Table 4. Economic P essinent

I I I fib

........................ (Pts.. li)........ )..................I

1 (79-) 13.755 (13.755)

2 36.618 (36.61S)

3 55.519 (55.519)

4 257.244 C257.244)

5 181.039 (181.039)

6 247.748 (247.748)

7 339.111 (339.111)

8 316353 (316.353)

9 265.954 (265.954)

10 255.528 (255.528)

11 (9-( 368.102 (368.802)

12 409.119 (409.119)

13 373.150 (373.150)

14293) 129.149 113.019 (16.130)

15 14.2 226.225 212.025

16 14.2 339.304 325.104

17 14.2 452.325 438.12S

13 14.2 565.175 550.975

19 14.2 935.504 921.304

20 14.2 1091.365 1077.165

21 9-0 14.2 1242.810 1228.610

22 14.2 1260.889 1246.689

23 14.2 1279.140 1264.940

24 14.2 1297.159 1282.959

25 14.2 1315.237 1301.037

26 14.2 1243.563 1229.363

27 and lar 14.2 1244.755 1230.555

ERR - 12.7%

u S Table 1.

ased on daa provided by WAPDA, Pr:awa PR& 16.7 muiLion converted to border pices using SCF of 0.85.Te pojsc con rIa a mo e of diffea but ierreatod components. For example, lad reclamation in cetain panrs of tieproc ame (14,600 a) cm only be caried out if drinSe ha been provided. Incremenael producdon is therefore a*rumed tooccur ae completo of all pjec worb. IcremWal producwto generated prior to project year 14 is difficult to quantifyreliably and is dtefore ot included in th ERR comwuttion.

Project Compiction RcportPAKISTAN: Salinity Control & Reclamnalion Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 2: Equipment List

-' .*...................................................... (Page 1)TabLe 1. k .-

S.Not lupo:td items: I JIport Frif.e : Duties: I Otbor Charges: I Local Cost Crund Tvtal: 1 u;.t Cost : Dot. o(Foreign Cost :,- Inport

, - 2 , s 4 J ; s J .t ~ (4+5)74 (S53) 0 t _

IDA l. Ir.mp 'ruc Is - s tos: 6,740,544.00 6,598,128.00 7e3,900.35 7,382,030.35 14,122,814.35 D41,524.-6 1-12-83:-do- 2. Crccrote 11ixer Trucbs: 4 Non: 2,239,046.00 2,191,041.00 260,331.95 2,052,022.85 4,091,000.85 1,172,7G7.21 -do--do- 3. 1ront End Loader - 4 Nos: 3,102,500.00 2,360,239.00 103,136.01 2,523,425.81 5,685,925.81 1,421,481.45 4-17-83:-do- 4. .elf Propelled vibratory floller-2 llcs3,318,537.37 5,30l,200.00 227,230.29 5,Cl1,490.29 8,93G,027.66 4,465,013.83 4-3-b4:-do- 5<. iluol Trucke - 2 Nos: 1,305,212.00 1,378,102.00 121,738.41 1,499,920.41 2,805,132.41 1,402,5CO.21 -do--do- 6, flaint. Service Trucks - 2 ltos: 1,304,470.00 1,377,389.00 121,000.03 1,499,079.03 2,803,558.03 1,401,779.02 -do--do- 7. .uter Trucks: - 3 Ilos, 1,098,847.00 1,149,704.00 101,574.52 1,251,278.52 2,340,125.52 780,041.84 -do--do- g. :.ump Trucks (6CY) - 6 l1os 1,787,127.00 1,887,013.00 106,7i4.47 2,CS3,727.47 3,640,854.47 040,143.41 -do-do- g. bozero (105 lip) 5 Hos: 4.146,144.00 2,C08,137.00 336,209.59 2,244,340.59 ,a 0;0,490.59 1,416,008.12 S-3-64:

-do- 10. D'wers (140 bp) 3 Nos: 2,959,409.00 1,861,677.00 239,s94.90 2,IU1,861.90 5,061.160.90 1,687,053.63 o -.-Jo-do- .11. .beeps-foot RollersS oie: 1,220,447.00 767,723.00 98,905.08 8s6,6s8.68 . 2,087,135.68 417,427.14 -do- ~-do- .12. Vans - S Nos: 472,465.00 513,7D4.00 537,956.11 1,071,780.11 1,544,245.11 308a4s9.02 14-3-84:-do- 13. Lov Bea Truck-Truilors - 2 Nos: 3.161,820.00 1,001,477.00 185,254.15 2,176,731.15 5,338i5S1.15 2,G69,23.sa 11-4-14:-do- 14. -ack H1oe/Loaders - 6 NoJ: 3,109,010.00 2,014,904.00 275,540.94 2,290,524.94 5,400,134.94 900,022.40 21-5-84:

15. Corrugator iquJoment (YPws.ehr PVC, 3,059,593.68 4,810,350.00 531,008.72 5,341,953.72 5,401,552.40: XDwshera 8VC 21-2-84:1 :'o ractory) ) Factory:S 16. lotor Graders - 3 Nos: 2,562,334.50 - 820,001.93 820,001.93 3,382,336.43 1,127,145.48 20-5-84:

-do-. 27. Crans/Dragline -lUnit: tS- L <t 41.J132,227.55 32,245,679.00 9,B30,127.57. 42,075,806.57 83,203,034.12 83,208,034.12 10-5-94-do- .1. 'I'l eau=er 1qulkinent (ille ['river) 2,118,245.93 - 48,701.30 48,101.30 2,166,947.23 2,166,947.23 13-5-84:

I Nos! --do- 19. Osewtering Sct(500 G:9)- 5 Nos: 475,747.72 - 45,705.46 45,.05.48 521,453.20 104,290.64 19-G-94:

- °- 0 0. Coicrete Prtch lant- 3 Nos: 5,696,128,.60 851,236.00 129,107.40 980,043.4.0 6,676,532.20 2,225,510,73 20-6-94:CrDA 21. Ai-56(21- din) Compressed

Air so9er Vibrators: - 12 Nos:. 65,831.95 721,130.32 30,263.99 751,400.3i 817,232.26 68,102.69 1-1-95:-do- 22. A'-7M(31dia) Coapressed -

Air Poker Ylbrator, - 12 Nos: 72,119.23 790,008.89 33,154.38 923,103.27 895,282.55 74,606.08 -do--d AI-95 (lb' dit) Compressod ,

Air c ,er Yibrators: - 12 Kos, 88,702.18 972,318.03 40,805.39 1,013,124.02 1,101,880.20 91;8,3.85 -6o--d'.- _4. :c--*-- ss for Item Ho:21.22 h 23

a) -' lilons 50ft length: for PSI Serv-lea - 36 tlos: 22,930023 251,102.31 10,541.39 261,723.70 284,653.93 7,907.05 -do-

b) ' llose Clav Coupling - 721. 7,507.80 82,241.95 3,451.40 83,G93.41 93,201.21 1,294.46 -eo-C) ilubber Sqols 3604 1,294.45 14,179.65 595.03 14,774.73 16,C09.18 44.04 -do-d) nand lype Claups: 724 628.74 C,887.25 289.03 7,170.28 7,805.02 10a.40 -do-

( Contd ....... l/2 .. )

Project Completion RcportPAKISTAN: Salinity Control & Reclamation Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 2: Equipment List

TabLe 1. List of Equipment - MARDAN SCARP (Page 2)

IL liported Items:2 3 -4 a5 (4+5) 7 (3+0) 8 9

CIDA. 25. Air Conroasaors (350 CDI)vithout Concrete Vibrators1 air boes: - 6 fos: 1,765,000.00 35,290.00 3n,672.70 74,962.70 1,839,982.70 304,66n.45 1-3-85

-do- 26. Generators (50 Kw) 4 Nos " - 1,000,00n.00 - 22,a89.8n 22,899.80 1,022,89D.80 255,724.95 12-1-85:

IDA . .27. Laboratory Equipments (Tarnab Faru, Turnnb FmOtbor Component): 1.348,674.06 514,052.00 54,489.59 568,541.59 1,917,215.65 other coop- 14-3-85:

onent Co,

-o- 29. Elevating Scrnpers(ll Cy) vith Agric- 4,932,910.00 2,037,533.00 468,062.20 3,406,395.28 . 39,30 Other coapo-18-4-S5Loser Control: - 4 Nos:- Lulture nnt fi.O. .1 Yibratirg Plate compactor other N.V..P: 16 Hos:

Womponeat -do- 29. PiT.C. P)Dstint Tubing 10,357,004.30 10,608,C58.00 1,G70,201.29 12,'78,059.29 22,6u5,863.59 Nvsbwra 30-6-85:

iixtrudsr - 1 No (Hoah-ara P -pVC FactoryPVC, Factory): Nov herto

-do- 30. Troncber(Drainega Tubing 2,7S1,545.20 2,465,456.00 370,5800 2,856,01e.80 5,Q7,562.00 v,837,5G2.Co -dlaying Equipment) 1 No:

-do- 31. Gravtl Trailers: 2 tics: f3i4,085.00 D90,775.00 77,279.,0 076,054.20 1.3'0,139.29 t55,CG£*eo -do--do- 3-. Piv Clerners: 1 N0os: 101,127.10 179,C68.00 10,507.79 189,575.79 291,102.8S 25;,102.89 -do-

*.. 33. Corrugator Equi)ment (Nowshere PVu 2,918,970.00 4,503,906. *o 112,915.66 4,616,824.5p 7,535,794,66 7,535,794.65 1-6-S8

Factory):

CIDA 34. CJ-7 J',op:u 25 IIOS: 2,s.0,Coo.00 2'',C00.00 21i,712.00 462.-1-.00 2,9G2,712.00 116,508.48 1-1-61:

IDA/6 35. Trencher Machine 2 Nos

36. Cravel Trailer 5 Nos- . Total:- 119,659,245.84 94,942,686.00 18,204,897.31 113,147,563.31 232,606,829.15

Project Completion ReportPAKISTAN: Salinity Control & Reclamation Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 2: Equipment List

TabLe 1. List of Equipment - MARDAN SCARP (Page 3)

MASr"sollltg llo 17~~ of ltm Pod?U~ntm

S.So: lportd lte=: ,lprted Price: Dut:-s: Other Charces: Local Coott Grand Total: nit Cost: Date f* . * , * * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Im~~~~~~~~eprt:

i i 2 * 3 4 e S o(4*5) i (3.0) * 5 ' 9

ITMA It (CraftleDrerllno)

CIDA 17(n) Draglno/Cr.z(D0 Tons) 2 Nos: 1,30,96,961.70 94,a3,433.48 28,91,034.20 1,33,71,471.fS 2,44,71,429.21 1,22,35,714.69 10-5-84.

i40° 17(b) Drazline/Cren.(60 Taou) 5 llo: 2,2t,7e,922.27 i,81,06,341.41 5G,21.191.63 2,40,17,533.04 4,74,90,456.31 94,99,291.26 -do-

-do- 17(c) Truck Croeas (75 Tas) I NO: 55.56,342.5e 43,55,904.11 13,27,901.74 56,113,S05.85 1,12,40,148.43 1,12,4O,148.43 -do-

Totali- 4,11,32,227.55 3,22,45,079.00 95,30,127.57 4,20,75,50.57 8,32,03,034.12

Total Nos 190of Equipment

Project Completion ReportPAKISTAN: Salinity Control & Reclamation Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 2: Equipment List

TabLe 2. LIST OF MACHINERY TRANSFERRED TO IRRIGATION DEFARTIENT

S.No. DLSCI11PTION QUANTITY DONUL AGENCY AMOUNT R!FMARKS

1. Dump Truck (Mitsubishi) 10 CY 5 Nos IDA Rs. 4707624.80

2. Dump Truck (Isuzu) 6 CY 5 Nos IDA Rs. 3200712.05

3. Transit Mixture (Mit) 5 CY 1 No. IDA Rs. 1172767.21

4. Mobile Workshop Truck (Isuzu) 1 No. IDA Rs. 1401779.21

5. Fuel Service Truck (Isuzu) 2950 Lit: 1 No. IDA ' Rs. 1402566.21

6. Water Tanker (Isuzu) 7000 Liters 1 No. IDA Rs. 780041.84

7. Dozer D53A (Komatsu) 105 HP 2 Nos IDA Rs. 2836196.20

8. -do- 140 HP 1 No. IDA Rs. 1687053.63

9. F.E.Loader (Kawasaki) Bucket 3 CY 2 Nos IDA Rs. 2842962.90

1O. Backhoe (Palazani) Bucket 6 CY 4 Nos IDA Rs. 3600089.96

11. Lowbed Trailer (Renault) 70 Tons 1 No. IDA Rs. 2669275.58

12. Motor Grader (Champion) 125 HP 2 Nos CIDA Rs. 2254890.96

13. Air Compressor (Atlascopco) 350 CFT 1 1o. CIDA Rs. 306660.45

14. Generator (Blackwooihodge) 50 KW I No. CIDA Rns. 170483.30

15. Concrete Batch Plant (Equifab) 0.5 CM/Bag I No. CIDA Rs. 2225510.73

16. S.P.V. Roller(Ingresollrand)50000 Ibs 1 No. IDA Rs. 4465013.83

17. Sheepfoot Roller (Komatau)10000 lbs 4 Nos IDA Rs. 1670908.50

18. Flushing Machine 26 GPM 1 No. IDA Rs. 291102.89

41

Project Completion ReportPAKISTAN: Salinity Control & Reclamation Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 2: Equipment List

TabLe 3. LIST OF EQUIPMENT TRANSFERRED TOSWABI SCARP PROJWCT

S.NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY

1. Dump Truck (Mitsubishi) 10 CY 10 Nos

2. Dump Truck (Isuzu) 6 CY 2 Nos

3. Fuel Service Truck 1 Nos4. IlIaintenance Workshop Truck 1 Nos

5. Water Tanrker 2 Nos

6. Transit Mixer 3 Nos

7. Lctwbed Trailer 1 No.

8. Truck Crane 1 No.

9. Frontend Loader 2 Nos

10. Backhoe 2 Nos

11. SPV Roller I No.

12. Sheepfoot Roller 1 No.

13. Dozer (105 HP) 2 Nos

14. Dozer (140 HP) 2 Nos

15. Batching Plant 2 Nos

16. Air Compressor 4 Nos

17. Gravel Trailers 7 Nos

18. Generator 3 Nos

19. Trencher Machine 2 Nos

-49 Nos

Project Completion ReportPAKISTAN: Salinity Control & Reclamation Project (SCARP) Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)

Annex 2: Equipment List

TabLe 4. LIST OF EQUIPMENT TO BE SURVEYED OFF

S.NO. DESCRIPTION MAKE MODEL/TYPE CAPACITY MACHINE SERIAL NO.

1. Dragline FMC Linkbelt LS - 318 80 Tons 21CH3-227

2. Dragline -do- LS-118 60 Tons 9LV-20470

3. Dragline -do- LS-118 60 Tons 9LV-20471

4. Dragline -do- LS-118 60 Tons 9LV-20472

5. Dragline -do- LS-118 60 Tons 9LV-204734-C

6. Dragline -do- LS-318 80 Tons 21CH3-228

7. Motor Grader Champion 710A 129 HP 15651

8. Dewatering Set Monarch PH20 500 GPM 974

9. -do- -do- 979

10. -do- -do- 980

11. -do- -do- 981

12. -do- -do- " 982

13. Pile Hammer Unit Berming Hammer B225 29000 ft: Ibs/Blow 42752Dragline FMC Linkbelt LS-118 60 Tons 9LV-2^469

43

Appendix 1

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

PAKISTAN

SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) MARDAN

(Cr. 877-PAK)

COMMENTS BY CIDA

JPt 21 '94 1 I: 12M 44 P.

de C D_!i a.CANADA

20i grC^yAD c2Ei1i l P EA OG4 lull, Qc KA OG4

TgL*COPIE B rAX NO de/of pages 1 + 2

A l' i de Vt n'p de ;;Dw N. de~~~~~~~~~Yaz rw n. no r.

A Mr. Pet STO Agriculture Ceation Div. Letter Dec.23, 1993 (202) 522-1778

-g _t -

The World Bank

¢ Nte N- de r

ID Jmbn JackanE5BF0309 JhM.y 21, 1994

Dixectaz gb*Ise/Division N' Gs tr de tf1flrBwdh/Dixuiticx Tq . FhXno.S8Uth Asia 714/10602 (819) 997-4747 (819) 953-0956

Enclosed please find the corments on the draft Project CompletionReport for Scarp Mardan Project from CIDA's Technical ServicesDivision. We apologize for the delay.

oo- a2 , v John Jackc iSenior Devi opment OfficerSouth Asia

Attch.

JGtl tZ1 ' 9- 1 1: 1 3f1 P45 P.2

Diroction gfz&ale de l'axieAsia Branch XUUNRANDWX NOTZ DE SVI1CK

7 Security-Class.-de s6curitlJOHN JACKSON

TO OPERATIONSA SOUTH ASIA Our File/Notre r6f6renceJ 7714/14* to Go7_

7 7 t Your file/Votre r6f6renoe

FWX COLIN LOVEGROVEDB TECHNICAL SERVICES p Date

C, JJanuary 19, 1994

OB311! P20jZCT CXIPLNflWI REPORT

As per your request I have reviewed the World Banks completionreport for Bcarp Mardan.

In para 1 there should be a mention of the roadB as these wereincluded in the original, although as mentioned in para 2 theywere later dropped.

It is nice to see that for the sub-surface drainage that "Unit1 subsurface drains covering about 24,000 ac were installedover a period of two years on schedule by a Canadian contractorutilizing CIDA grant funds. Unit 11 subsurface drains coveringabout 49,000 ac were installed over a period of four years byanother international contractor with actual completion alwayslagging behind target because of cash flow and equipmentproblems." - a recognition that CIDA"s portion went well' andthe Bank's didn't. We actually can get things right at times!

I disagree with the statement that more frequent flushing ofdrains constructed using trenchleas ploughs as compared totrencher-installed drains. There is no evidence to supportthis. (page 5)

The Canadian Drainage Team assisted in the preparation on Unit1 and Unit 11, not just in Unit 1 as reported. (page 11)

I cannot find any references in the economic analyses to thevalue of the crops now grown on the 25,000 acres of land thatwas marginal or out of production. The report does not make itclear if this area was rolled in with the crop yields preentedor whether this large increase in production in the area hasbeen accounted for.

JAN P1 '9J 1 1: 13$ 46 P. 3

On page 18 the number trained is not correct. In most of thecourses given in Canada there were sveral involved aach time.There were more than 1 involved in the first course at WapdaAcademy. All told, since r do not have this information athand I would guesstimate that some 75 or more received sometype of formal training either in Canada or in Pakistan. Therewas also a course given in Pakistan on Drainage Pipe Testing,which has not been mentioned in the report. The course wasgiven at the Nowshera Pipe factory.