India - Chambal Command Area Development Projects

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 4570 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) (LOAN 1011-IN) And CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) (CREDIT 562-IN) June 20, 1983 Operations Evaluation Department This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. ABBREVIATIONS APM - Adjustable Proportionate Modules ARDC - Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation CAA - Command Area Authority CAD - Command Area Development CADA - Command Area Development Authority CCA - Cultivable Command Area CIS - Chambal Irrigation System ERR - Economic Rate of Return GDP - Gross Domestic Product GOI - Government of India GOMP - Government of Madhya Pradesh GOR - Government of Rasjasthan HYV - High-Yielding Varieties LMC - Left Main Canal OFD - On-Farm Development O&M - Operation and Maintenance RLDC - Rajasthan Land Development Corporation RMC - Right Main Canal SAR - Staff Appraisal Report T&V - "Training and Visit" (System of Agricultural Extension) VEW - Village Extension Workers FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) (LOAN 1011-IN) AND CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) (CREDIT 562-IN) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Preface ......... ...................................................... i Basic Data Sheets ....................................................... iii Highlights .............................................................. v PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM I. PROJECT SUMMARY .......1................................... A. Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan) .....................................1..... B. Chambal Command Area Development Project (Madhya Pradesh) ...................................... 3 II. MAIN ISSUES ..... ........... .................... .......... 5 A. General ................................................ 5 B. On-Farm Development .......................... ........... 7 C. Water Management and System Maintenance at the Farm Level ....................................... 10 D. Miscellaneous Observations .................... .......... 12 Table 1 - Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan) - Disbursements ............................. 15 Table 2 - Chambal Command Area Development Project (Madhya Pradesh) - Disbursements ........................ 16 Graph World Bank - 24253 Loan 1011-IN - Loan Disbursement Profile .................................................... 17 Graph World Bank - 24358 Credit 562-IN - Loan Disbursement Profile .................................................... 18 Annex I - Comments Received from the Government of India ........... 19 Annex II - Comments Received from the Government of Rajasthan ....... 21 Annex III - Comments Received from the Government of Madhya Pradesh .. 37 This document has a restricted distribution and may be,used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page No. PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT A. Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan).. 43 B. Chambal Command Area Development Project (Madhya Pradesh) ................................... 89 Map IBRD 17098 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) (LOAN 1011-IN) AND CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) (CREDIT 562-IN) PREFACE This is a performance audit of two projects in India. They are the first of a series of Command Area Development (CAD) projects. Loan 1011-IN, supporting command area development in the Chambal area in Rajasthan in the amount of US$52.0 million, was approved in June 1974; the Loan was closed in June 1982 and final disbursement was made in September 1982. Credit 562-IN, supporting command area development in the Madhya Pradesh part of the Chambal area in the amount of US$24.0 million, was approved in June 1975; final disbursement was made in May 1981 and the Credit was closed in June 1981. The audit report consists of an audit memorandum prepared by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) and Project Completion Reports (PCRs) for the Rajasthan Chambal CAD Project dated December 13, 1982, and the Madhya Pradesh Chambal CAD Project dated December 10, 1982. The PCRs were prepared by the South Asia Regional Office. An OED mission visited India in November 1982. The mission held discussions with government officials at State and local levels, project staff and farmers. The information obtained during the mission was used to test the validity of the analysis and conclusions of the PCRs. The audit memorandum is based on these discussions, on interviews with Bank staff associated with the projects, and on a review of the PCRs, the Appraisal Report (430-IN) dated May 29, 1974, the President's Report (P-1462-IN) dated June 6, 1974, and the Loan Agreement dated June 19, 1974 for the Chambal CAD Project (Rajasthan); and the Appraisal Report (698a-IN) dated May 27, 1975, the President's Report (P-1645-IN) dated June 5, 1975, and the Credit Agreement dated June 20, 1975 for the Chambal CAD Project (Madhya Pradesh). Correspondence with the Borrower and internal Bank memoranda on project issues as contained in relevant Bank/IDA files have also been con- sulted. A copy of the draft report was sent to the Borrower on February 23, 1983. Comments received from the Government of India and the Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh are attached as Annexes I to III and have been been taken into account in the report to the extent possible. Some infor- mation postdating events covered by the PCR provided by the Government of Rajasthan could not be incorporated but is included in Annex II. - ii - The audit finds the PCRs comprehensive and accurate with respect to the projects' principal achievements and shortcomings and has no reason to question their conclusions. The memorandum attempts to highlight two crucial, but less than satisfactory, aspects pertaining to on-farm development and water management and system maintenance at the farm level, respectively. The valuable assistance provided by the Governments of India and the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, and by the Command Area Authorities in Kota and Gwalior is gratefully acknowledged. - Ili - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) (LOAN 1011-IN) BASIC DATA SHEET KEY PROJECT DATA Appraisal Actual or Actual as % of Item Estimate Estimated Actual Appraisal Estimate Total Project Costs (US$ million) 91.5 98.2 107 Loan Amount (US$ million) 52.0 52.0 100 Date Board Approval - 06/18/74 - Date Effectiveness 09/19/74 12/30/74 20 a Date Physical Components Completed 06/80 03/82 129/a / Closing Date 06/30/81 06/30/82 11T Economic Rate of Return (%) 19 17 89 Institutional Performance - Mixed/ - Agronomic Performance Good Number of Direct Beneficiaries n.a. 95,000 CUMULATIVE DISBURSEMENTS FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 Appraisal estimate (US$ million) 3.1 9.4 15.8 23.6 33.5 45.4 52.0 - Actual (US$ million) 6.3 8.5 12.1 18.1 24.8 33.1 41.5 52.0 Actual as % of estimate 203 90 77 77 74 73 80 - Date of final disbursement September 14, 1982 MISSION DATA Date No. of Mandays Specializations Performa7ce Types of Mission (mo./Yr.) Persons in Field Represented/d e Trend/f ProblemaA Appraisal 11/73 5 110 - - - Supervision 1 11/74 1 5 I 2 2 T Supervision 2 03/75 2 18 I,B 2 2 T,0 Supervision 3 11/75 2 42 I,A 2 1 M,0 Supervision 4 03/76 3 9 I(2),C 2 2 M,F Supervision 5 10/76 1 4 I 2 1 M,F Supervision 6 03/78 1 30 1 2 1 0 Supervision 7 06/78 3 12 I,E,D 2 1 0 Supervision 8 11/78 3 15 1(2),D 2 1 0 Supervision 9 05/79 2 6 I,D 2 1 0 Supervision 10 02/80 3 9 1,C,D 2 2 0 Supervision 11 08/80 2 6 1(2) 2 1 0 Supervision 12 04/81 2 10 1(2) 2 2 M,T Supervision 13 11/81 2 10 1(2) 2 1 M,T Supervision 14 04/82 2 8 1(2) 1 1 F,T Total Supervision 184 OTHER PROJECT DATA Borrower Government of India Executing Agency Command Area Development Authority - Rajasthan Fiscal Year April 1 to March 31 Name of Currency (abbreviation) Rupees (Re) Currency Exchange Rate: Appraisal Year Average US$ 1.00 - Re. 8.00 Intervening Years Average US$ 1.00 - Re. 8.33 Completion Year Average US$ 1.00 - Ra. 8.90 Follow-on Project: Name Chambal Command Area Development Project (Madhya Pradesh) Credit Number Credit 562-IN Credit Amount (US$ mlIlion) US$24.0 Date Board Approval 06/17/75 /a Calculated in terms of months from the date of Board approval. 7? Original project targets, except for on-farm development, were essentially achieved on time but the targets were revised upwards and the implemen- tation period extended. /c Disappointing results aith on-farm development were partially due to poor institutional performance. T? A - Agriculturist; B - Accounting Specialist; C - Road Engineer; D - Water Management Specialist; E - Economist; I - Irrigation Engineer. /e 1 - Problem free or minor problems; 2 - Moderate problems; 3 - Major problems. Tf 1 - Improving; 2 - Stationary; 3 - Deteriorating. T - Technical; M - Managerial; F - Financial; 0 - Other (Farmers' cooperation concerning water management).  - iv - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - CHAMBAL COMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) (CREDIT 562-IN) BASIC DATA SHEET KEY PROJECT DATA Appraisal Actual or Actual as % of Item Estimate Estimated Actual Appraisal Estimate Total Project Costs (US$ million) 46.6 43.4 93 Credit Amount (US$ million) 24.0 24.0 100 Date Board Approval - 06/17/75 - Date Effectiveness 09/19/75 09/18/75 1 a Date Physical Components Completed 12/78 03/81 169Ta Closing Date 12/31/79 06/30/81 13a Economic Rate of Return (%) 22 21 95 Institutional Performance - Mixed/b - Agronomic Performance Good Number of Direct Beneficiaries n.a. 140,000 CUMULATIVE DISBURSEMENTS FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 Appraisal estimate (US$ million) 5.4 13.1 20.6 24.0 - - Actual (US$ million) 0.3 3.5 9.1 13.6 19.9 24.0 Actual as % of estimate 6 27 44 57 - - Date of final disbursement May 6, 1981 MISSION DATA Date No. of Mandays Specializations Performance Types of Mission (mo./Yr.) Persons in Field Represented./c RTrend Problea Identification 10/73 7 - - - - Preparation 03-04/74 6 192 - - - - Appraisal 11/74 6 115 - - - - Subtotal I/P/A 307 Supervision 1 12/75 1 21 A 1 1 - Supervision 2 04/76 3 66 A(2),B 1 1 - Supervision 3 01/77 1 3 A 1 1 - Project Review 05/77 1 3 A - - - Supervision 4 09/77 2 10 A,C 2 1 F,M Supervision 5 03/78 1 3 A 2 1 F,M Supervision 6 11/78 3 18 A(2),D 2 1 M Supervision 7 02/79 2 10 A,D 2 1 M Supervision 8 - 11/79 1 3 A 2 1 M Supervision 9 08/80 3 12 A(2),B 2 1 0 Subtotal Supervision OTHER PROJECT DATA Borrower Government of India Executing Agency Command Area Development Authority - Madhya Pradesh Fiscal Year April 1 to March 31 Name of Currency (abbreviation) Rupees (Rs) Currency Exchange Rate: Appraisal Year Average US$ 1.00 - Ra 7.98 Intervening Years Average US$ 1.00 - Rs 8.39 Completion Year Average US$ 1.00 = Rs 8.50 Follow-on Project: Name Chambal (Madhya Pradesh) Irrigation II Project Credit Number Credit 1288-IN Credit Amount (US$ million) US$31.0 Date Board Approval 08/10/82 /a Calculated in terms of months from the date of Board approval. Tb Disappointing results with on-farm development were partially due to poor institutional performance. Tc A - Irrigation Engineer; B - Roads Engineer; C - Agriculturist; D - Water Management Specialist. 7-d 1 - Problem-free or minor problems; 2 - Moderate problems; and 3 - Major problems. Te 1 - Improving; 2 - Stationary; and 3 - Deteriorating. 7? F - Financial; M - Managerial; and 0 * Other (Shortage of building materials).  - v - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) (LOAN 1011-IN) AND CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) (CREDIT 562-IN) HIGHLIGHTS A major objective of the two projects, which are located on the respective sides along the Chambal River in the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, was to improve the irrigation system established in the 1960s under the Chambal Irrigation Scheme. The planning and design standards used under the scheme no longer were adequate to meet the water requirements of higher yielding crop varieties, and the projects endeavored to increase the carrying capacity of the canal and distribution network. Furthermore, water logging had become a problem in the initial years of operation, and a drainage infra- structure needed to be provided. Another important objective was to improve irrigation infrastructure and operations at the farm level; the original scheme did not include investments at that level. Additional project features included rural roads, the supply of fertilizers, canalside afforestation, erosion control, and support for an improved agricultural extension service. Implementation of both projects was on the whole successful. The targets for drainage works, canal capacity works, canal security and pro- tection measures, and erosion control measures were either met or exceeded, generally within the original implementAtion period. The Closing Date was extended for both projects, however, because of the slow progress in the on-farm development components. On-farm development included consolidation of holdings, boundary alignment, construction of watercourses and field drains, land levelling, and construction of access roads. Farmers resisted on-farm development for a variety of reasons, the main ones being fears of having to exchange their land for inferior tracts and reluctance to assume full financial responsibility - through loan financing - for the improvements undertaken on their land. In this respect, the scope of the Rajasthan project was more extensive than that of the Madhya Pradesh project; the area covered in the former was 30,000 ha (50,000 ha target) compared with 5,000 ha (12,000 ha target) in the latter. A major shortcoming in both projects was the failure to widely introduce a rotational system of water supply. Such a system would have brought about a more equitable distribution of water among all participants in the 30-40 ha irrigation service units (chaks). The introduction of the system was strongly opposed by the "head farmers" within the service unit who were already receiving water and did not perceive the new system as being bene- ficial for them. A practical weakness of the new system arose as the opera- tional efficiency was greatly reduced where the watercourses were not cleaned regularly; maintenance of watercourses has been a major problem in most irrigation service units. Consequently, the projects' equity goals and - vi - production potential were only partially reached. The economic rate of return was, however, still satisfactory for both projects; it was reestimated at 17% for the Rajasthan project and at 21% for the Madhya Pradesh project. Points of special interest are: - the approach to on-farm development followed under the projects encountered difficulties on technical, organizational and financial grounds, although there are indications that these could be over- come, at least under certain circumstances, with some modifi- cations in the approach (PPAM, paras. 24-33; PCR (Loan 1011-IN), paras. 3.06 and 3.20; PCR (Credit 562-IN), paras. 2.04, 4.03, and 5.01-5.05); - the crucial aspect of water management was not tackled satisfac- torily, primarily because of socio-political factors (PPAM, paras. 34-41; PCR (Loan 1011-IN), paras. 3.05, 3.15 and 6.02); PCR (Credit 562-IN), paras. 2.06 and 4.04); - the reorganized system of agricultural extension and local research establishments were in place and operating, though in terms of quality and coverage they had been lagging behind improvements in the irrigation infrastructure (PPAM, para. 42; PCR (Loan 1011-IN), paras. 3.09-3.13 and 4.01); - budgetary allocations for maintenance of major canals and drains were insufficient at times (PPAM, para. 43); - a system of water charges consistent with certain levels of cost recovery anticipated at appraisal has not been implemented (PPAM, para. 44; PCR (Credit 562-IN), para. 2.11); and - recovery of loans to farmers has been deteriorating since the mid-1970s (PPAM, para. 45; PCR (Loan 1011-IN), paras. 4.09-4.11). - 1 - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM INDIA - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) (LOAN 1011-IN) AND CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) (CREDIT 562-IN) I. PROJECT SUMMARYI/ 1. The Chambal Irrigation Scheme (CIS) in the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh was completed in the 1960s. An Interstate Water Agreement provides for equal sharing of the Chambal River water between the two States. The CIS consists of multi-purpose reservoirs, the Right Main Canal (RMC) and Left Main Canal (LMC) which take off from Kota Barrage, and a hierarchy of distribution network canals. The Rajasthan part covers some 230,000 ha and serves nearly 95,000 farm families, while in Madhya Pradesh the system covers about 320,000 ha with 105,000 farm families. The planning and design stan- dards used in CIS reflected the relatively low level of investment per hectare which was then perceived as adequate for irrigated agricultural development. When subsequently higher yielding crop varieties with higher water demand and drainage requirements were introduced, the CIS could not meet the growing needs. Moreover, waterlogging problems developed in some low-lying areas and production began to decline. With UNDP/FAO assistance, the Governments of India (GOI), Rajasthan (GOR) and Madhya Pradesh (GOMP) undertook a research program during 1967-72 to identify major agricultural constraints and then launched a remedial program of land development, drainage, canal rehabili- tation, etc., called integrated Command Area Development (CAD). A. The Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan) 2. The Chambal CAD Project in Rajasthan was appraised in November 1973; the Loan was signed in June 1974 and became effective in December 1974, three months later than planned. The main project works were completed in March 1982, with some activities having continued until June 1982.21 The Loan was closed one year behind schedule on June 30, 1982 and became fully disbursed in September 1982. 3. The project's objectives were to increase agricultural production and farmers' incomes and to realize higher returns on previous investments in CIS through the upgrading of irrigation facilities and by providing drainage, on-farm development and rural roads. Some afforestation for erosion control, 1/ Adapted from the PCRs. 2/ Although the Completion Mission observed project execution basically as of March 31, 1982, the Government of Rajasthan points out that works were not fully completed by that date (Annex II). - 2 - construction of administration buildings, supply of equipment and fertilizers and studies related to irrigated agriculture were also included. Improved extension and the introduction of a rotational water supply system were expected to bring about a higher production efficiency and wider participation of farmers. 4. The implementation of the project was on the whole successful. Appraisal targets were revised in 1981 to reflect the project's implementation experience and achievements closely approached the revised targets.l. Drainage works for 167,000 ha were completed as planned. For canal lining, the appraisal target of 14 km was subsequently extended, and 53 km were actually completed during the implementation period. The carrying capacity of 911 km of canals was improved, slightly exceeding appraisal targets. The installation of control structures encountered farmers resistance and 147 were placed, or somewhat less than the number anticipate at appraisal and 25% below the revised target. The installation of chak2 outlets and tailend clusters fell short of the targets by 75% and 50%, respectively. On-farm development was expected to cover 50,000 ha and, although survey work was completed for an even larger area and planning almost covered the target area, work was fully implemented in only about 30,000 ha. Road construction/im- provement covered about 281 km. The afforested area in support of erosion control was more than double (2,300 ha) the appraisal target. The Training and Visit extension system was successfully introduced and adaptive research on Nanta Research Farm satisfactorily undertaken. Recommendations to esta- blish economic methods of aquatic weed control were evaluated. It was also found that chemical control of crabs infesting canal walls was effective. The benchmark surveys and farm management studies carried out in the command area produced useful results. 5. The appraisal objective to bring about a more efficient use and equitable distribution of water through the introduction of a rotational water supply system (warabandi) was largely unachieved, however. Water user asso- ciations, which were expected to implement warabandi, were not formed in most parts of the command area as farmers were reluctant to cooperate. Moreover, design standards at the chak level did not facilitate a significant improve- ment in irrigation efficiency, and the water supply to tailend farmers remain- ed unreliable and inadequate. Benefits thus were not as equitably distributed as intended under the project..3 1/ The Government of Rajasthan has provided more up-to-date information, reflecting accomplishments after March 1982 in relation to revised project targets (Annex II). 2/ A chak is an irrigation service unit of about 30 to 40 hectares. 3/ The Government of Rajasthan questions statements in this paragraph, but the audit mission could not find convincing evidence that warabandi was successfully operating (Annex II). - 3 - 6. Project costs were US$98.2 million, exceeding appraisal eatimates by 7.3%. The Bank Loan of US$52.0 million financed 53% of total costs. The balance was financed by GOR, ARDC, participating banks and the farmers. Most project components were completed as scheduled by June 1980, with the excep- tion of on-farm development which continued until March 1982. Construction of roads and canal improvements also continued beyond the original completion date after upward revision of physical targets. 7. Institutions created to implement the project included the Command Area Authority (CAA), the Command Area Development and Water Utilization Department and the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation (RLDC). There were some staffing and coordination problems within CAA. The preparation and processing of documentation for claiming reimbursement for on-farm development expenditure by CAA and RLDC were continually lagging, causing final loan disbursement to be delayed. Poor performance was registered in the loan repayment by farmers. Loan recoveries in 1981 were only 43% for Central Cooperative Banks and 14% for commercial banks, with the latter result reflec- ting commercial banks' particularly inadequate loan recovery system. But the main reasons for low repayment were indiscipline and the perception on the part of farmers that loans made by Government institutions would not be recovered.!. 8. The project's impact on agricultural production has been signifi- cant. Yields increased sharply in the project area between 1979 and 1982, more than doubling for sorghum, wheat, mustard and soybeans, although the experience with sugarcane was not as encouraging. Cropping intensity, at 133% in 1982, was above the 111% expected at appraisal. However, irrigation intensity had reached only about 90% by 1982, while the appraisal mission expected a weighted average for the three subareas of 96% at full development (SAR, Annex 11, Tables 1-3). The experience to date shows that crop produc- tion tends to respond favorably to on-farm development, improved drainage and the frequency of irrigation during the season. Project output was also affected positively by the increased use of fertilizers and of hybrid or certified seeds, by the introduction of new crops and by improved processing and storage facilities. 9. Farm incomes are estimated to have increased significantly, especi- ally in areas with on-farm development.2 The economic rate of return for this project has been re-estimated at 17%. B. The Chambal Command Area Development Project (Madhya Pradesh) 10. This project was appraised in November 1974; the Credit was signed in June 1975 and was declared effective in September 1975. Construction of 1/ See comments by the Government of Rajasthan (Annex II). 2/ The Government of Rajasthan advises that increases in farm incomes averaged from one and one-half times in Area A to three-fold in Area C (Annex II). project works was undertaken until March 1981. The Credit became fully disbursed in May 1981 and was closed on June 30, 1981, 18 months later than expected at appraisal. 11. The objectives of the project were similar to those of the Rajasthan CAD project (para. 3). In addition to supporting the improvement of irriga- tion and drainage facilities, the project emphasized on-farm development as well as improved water distribution to farmers, and sought to upgrade farmers' access to markets and to reduce ravine erosion. Various studies were to assist in promoting future development of the project area; institutions were to be strengthened with respect to project preparation, implementation of CAD projects, and water management. 12. Most project works were successfully implemented. Physical targets were exceeded by 159% for canal capacity works, 142% for erosion control works, 130% for roads, 53% for canal security and protection works (masonry units installed were nearly four times the number anticipated), and 51% for drainage works. Shortfalls of 23% and 28% were reported for the canal control units and aquatic weed control works, respectively. The only real problem encountered affected the on-farm development component; although the chak drainage provided exceeded appraisal targets by 40%, land development fell short of target by 52%..1 Water management studies conducted under the project revealed high water losses and low irrigation efficiency; the results were used in the preparation of a follow-on project (para. 18). 13. On-farm development consisted of a "package" of activities, financed through institutional credit. Experience with the project showed that farmers were reluctant to borrow funds for the purpose because they were unenthusi- astic about land consolidation and boundary alignment, did not see sufficient advantage in land levelling under the present system of levying water charges, and found it difficult to reach agreement amongst themselves on matters concerning common works. 14. Most disappointing in this project was the failure to introduce a more efficient and equitable water distribution system.2/ Even more so than with physical on-farm development works, influential farmers resisted changes in -the present situation with respect to water distribution practices. Consequently, water use efficiency continues to be low and "tail-end" farmers remain at a serious disadvantage vis-a-vis farmers located at the head of the distribution system. 15. Actual project costs were US$45.9 million, or approximately equal to appraisal estimates. The cost composition, however, differed from that 1/ However, the revised target of 5,000 ha established in 1977 was exceeded by about 15%. 2/ At appraisal it was anticipated that the rotational irrigation system then in operation in some chaks would be extended gradually throughout the project area (SAR, para. 4.18). - 5 - estimated by the appraisal mission in that the project's research and exten- sion activities were transferred to another project (Credit 712-IN), canal- side plantations not foreseen earlier were added, and the irrigation and mai drainage activities were expanded while a few other components were reduced..L The latter increased from 48% of total project costs calculated at appraisal to 60%. The IDA Credit of US$24.0 million financed about 52% of total costs as planned. Implementation was not seriously delayed; project activities continued beyond the original completion date mainly to allow time for the enlarged construction program and for the slow-moving on-farm development component. 16. The institutional achievements of the project were similar to those of Loan 1011 (para. 7): the Command Area Authority was successfully esta- blished in Madhya Pradesh, but problems persisted with organizations resporr- sible for assisting farmers in agricultural production and in regulating water use. A Monitoring and Evaluation Unit set up under the project continues to function. 17. Largely as a result of the project, the canal irrigated area increased from 151,000 ha in 1975 to about 189,000 ha in 1979. The crop mix changed in favor of wheat, mustard and sugarcane, while the share of gram and pulses declined. Cropping intensity increased from 105% at appraisal to 127% at the time of completion; the full-development target established at apprai- sal was 125%. Irrigation intensity increased from 65% to 74% (80% projected at appraisal). Overall agricultural production targets were generally met at the time of project completion and crop production can reasonably be expected to increase further for some years to come as water use efficiency is gradu- ally improved. The economic rate of return was re-estimated in the PCR at 21%. 18. A follow-on project, the Chambal (Madhya Pradesh) Irrigation II Project, was appraised in December 1980 and an IDA Credit (1288-IN) of US$31.0 million was approved in August 1982. The project is intended to extend activities into new areas, mostly in Madhya Pradesh, and to improve the less successful parts of the predecessor projects, especially irrigation efficiency and water management, in order to distribute project benefits more equitably. II. MAIN ISSUES A. General 19. The two Chambal Command Area Development projects were identical in their objectives and very similar in design. Both projects aimed at an improvement and extension of the irrigation infrastructure created under CIS, the alleviation of such adverse environmental effects as water logging and deterioration of soils that developed during the years of operation of CIS, and a more reliable and equitable supply of irrigation water to farmers. With the present projects, the capacity and reliability of the system were markedly improved but serious shortcomings remain, primarily at the chak level. 1/ See comments by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (Annex III). - 6 - 20. Management in both of the projects was the responsibility of the respective Command Area Authorities (CAA) especially established for this purpose. The organization and powers of the two CAAs differed somewhat, however. In Rajasthan, the CAA was headed by a full-time Area Development Commissioner with full budgetary powers and control over staff transferred from the various line agencies. In Madhya Pradesh, the Commissioner of Chambal Division served as chairman of the CAA with somewhat less control over finances and personnel.l/ Senior staff in the two CAAs indicated satisfaction with their particular arrangements, however, and it would not be possible to determine whether one organization was more successful than the other without a detailed comparative study. Both CAAs encountered initial staffing problems, a relatively high staff turnover and, periodically, internal coordination problems, but functioned quite smoothly at the time of project completion. 21. The projects were most successful in achieving objectives that related to irrigation engineering, i.e. construction or improvement of canal and drainage works and control structures. Physical targets in this area were mostly reached and, in some instances, exceeded in a cost effective manner. Technical staff displayed resourcefulness in overcoming problems and experi- mented with encouraging results with various materials, methods and designs (e.g. lining of distributaries and water courses, design of outlets). The construction of roads also proceeded well and the initiation of canalside afforestation is commendable. 22. Despite the good results in some respects and hopeful beginnings in others, serious deficiencies and problems remain in the Chambal irrigation system. One of these is the uneven and unpredictable release of water into the main canals. The main reason for this is that the requirements of water for the generation of electricity at the reservoirs are often inconsistent with the optimum flow of water for irrigation purposes. The effects are felt in both Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. An additional problem relates to the length of the main canals (370 km for the Right Main Canal) and the fact that the canal flow entering Madhya Pradesh at times deviates significantly from the agreed volume necessary for a well-functioning irrigation system. It is reported that frequently less than one-half the expected flow is actually received in the lower reaches of the canal system. These problems are un- likely to be alleviated until and unless the States join in bringing about a better adherence to their existing water sharing agreement.2/ 1/ See clarification and comment concerning efforts to improve coordination provided by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (Annex III). / The Borrower disputes the audit position conveyed in this paragraph (Annex I). However, this position reflects the information provided to the audit mission by local officials and farmers. See also comments by the Government of Rajasthan (Annex II). - 7 - 23. Even more problematic is the situation at the chak level where project objectives were achieved only partially. While the projects facili- tated the delivery of water to additional areas, the reliability of water supply at the farm level remains low and continues to prevent the realization of the full benefits from the massive investments undertaken over the past two decades.1/ These issues are highlighted in the following sections. B. On-Farm Development 2/ 24. The PCRs correctly indicate that on-farm development (OFD), as defined under the projects, has encountered major difficulties. This exper- ience is consistent with that of most other States where OFD has been under- taken. The main problem has been farmer resistance due to the complexity of the organizational arrangements involved, continued unreliable water supply and their reluctance to bear the cost. A full OFD package typically involves soil surveys, boundary realignment and consolidation of holdings, construction of watercourses, drains and access roads; and land levelling and shaping. Full package OFD activities in the Chambal CAD projects were to cover 50,000 ha in Rajasthan and 12,000 ha in Madhya Pradesh. While implementation in Madhya Pradesh was unsuccessful, there are definite elements of success on the Rajasthan side. 25. The problems underlying execution of OFD are rather similar in both States: land records are incomplete and difficult to reconcile, some parcels of land are held illegally (encroachment), and the current users resist disclosure; some land is jointly owned by several individuals, farmers are afraid of being shortchanged in the process of land consolidation, either with respect to the area involved or soil quality; farmers also feel they are undercompensated for the production foregone while their land is being consolidated and levelled, even with the recently increased compensation rates; in some cases, there is reported to be a fertility decline for some years because of the disturbance in the top soil and possible exposure of subsoils. The arrangements concerning institutional financing are complex and 1/ The Borrower disagrees with this conclusion (Annex I). However, the conclusion is consistent with the justification given for the Chambal (Madhya Pradesh) Irrigation II Project, which is predicated upon the fact that "... water supply to large areas downstream continues to be insufficient and unreliable" (PCR (Credit 562-IN), para. 2.09). 2/ In the Borrower's view, the Audit Memorandum is giving too much emphasis to the on-farm development and water management components (Annex I). In the audit's view, these were important components of these projects. Physical targets were clearly specified for on-farm development. The objective to introduce warabandi also was explicit in both projects (SAR paras. 4.12 and 4.18, respectively, for the Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh projects). As more and more production and operating constraints are eliminated through additional investments over time, the remaining ones, i.e., especially chak-level water management in this case, are gaining in importance. The audit thus attempts to be constructive by drawing attention to these remaining areas of concern. - 8 - time consuming, especially where there is multiple ownership and all parties concerned have to sign the loan documents. Moreover, farmers are still not confident that there will be a more reliable water supply to their fields after implementation of OFD activities, be it because of the variable water flow in the main canal system or because of inequitable water sharing, i.e. poor management, within the chak. 26. All of these are more or less valid concerns depending on the specific situation of a farmer's field. It has proven extremely difficult for project officials to obtain the necessary consensus among farmer groups and to deal with the legal and institutional obstacles they encountered. Technical problems were more manageable, although there clearly also was a lead and learning time for the executing agencies involved, as is evident from some farmer complaint that expectations about the quality of work were not met. Overall, the experience and current status of the OFD program differ in the two project areas. While in Rajasthan work was completed on 30,000 ha of the 50,000 ha targetted, only 5,000 ha (2,930 ha full-package) of the planned 12,000 ha were completed in Madhya Pradesh. But the crucial difference is in the planned follow-up action. In Rajasthan the CAA has geared up to an annual OFD implementation capacity of about 10,000 ha and is keen to proceed with'OFD with the farmers' cooperation. The prevailing opinion in the CAA in Madhya Pradesh is that full-package OFD is neither feasible nor really necessary and, indeed, no such OFD activities were included there in the follow-on project. 27. It is difficult to conclusively contrast these two approaches. Under the Rajasthan project, OFD work was executed by the agricultural engi- neering staff under CADA with equipment provided by the project. The land in the project area was relatively uneven and definitely benefitted from levelling, although the cost was relatively high (Rp. 2,000-3,000 per ha). Because of the sizeable scope of 'OFD under the project, CADA was able to gain considerable experience with OFD and many of the initial technical and organi- zational problems could be overcome or alleviated. The demonstration effect was clearly visible as satisfied beneficiaries of work completed earlier were testifying to the viability of OFD and beginning to display an income differential over non-OFD farmers. A favorable factor from a farmer's point of view in this area was a somewhat more reliable supply of water. 28. In parts of the Madhya Pradesh project areas, the land is relatively flat and can be irrigated without levelling, although with reduced efficiency. For this reason and because water supply is unreliable, farmers were more reluctant to undertake investment in OFD. The three OFD executing agencies encountered considerable, and sometimes disruptive, opposition from non- cooperating farmers, with the result that these operations were difficult to streamline and work remained partially incomplete (access, drainage) and suffered in quality. 29. In the OED mission's view, and field inspection confirmed this, a precondition to optimal utilization of a canal irrigation system such as the one at Chambal is its construction to a standard which will enable canal operators to deliver water in a reliable fashion to each field. Consolidation of land and alignment of boundaries reduce land fragmentation, facilitate the - 9 - planning of watercourses and drainage ditches and allow a reduction of their length. There also are land savings which partially compensate for the cultivable area lost as the system is constructed. The OED mission has some reservations with respect to the conclusion stated in the PCR for the Madhya Pradesh project that land consolidation and realignment of boundaries should be avoided where possible" (para. 2.04).1/ There is no dispute re- garding the superiority of consolidated irrigated areas. The problem is that consolidation has been a very slow process. The relative success of consolidation in the Rajasthan part calls for a thorough study of the con- ditions under which consolidation could be successful. 30. There is a clear justification for land levelling. Without level- ling, fields rarely allow efficient water use. There either has to be excess water supplied to the field to provide sufficient water to the highest point, with consequent over-irrigation in the lower portions, or some parts of a field are under-irrigated or remain dry. The increased irrigation efficiency that can be achieved as a result of levelling is certain to increase pro- duction and yield high marginal returns. 31. Poor water management at the chak level poses severe problems for both watercourse construction and land levelling because of the widespread disincentives it creates. A common phenomenon under those circumstances is that one group of farmers has a relatively abundant water supply while the other group suffers shortages. With abundance, however, OFD is less attrac- tive because a lower irrigation efficiency can be compensated for through application of a larger volume. Where there are shortages, farmers cannot reap the benefits from OFD. 32. An aspect with far-reaching implications is that of OFD cost re- covery. In both project areas, there has been virtually no recovery of costs related to OFD works so far. Irrespective of whether OFD had been financed through regular bank loans or through special arrangements for farmers ineli- gible for institutional lending (Special Loan Account), farmers have been delinquent in servicing their debt. But as long as some farmers are deprived of the full benefit of their investments because of poor water management, any effort in the recovery of institutional financing will be stifled. Ironically, while this situation persists, there are some beneficiaries who would have been easily able to repay their debts but instead of doing so have been channeling their increased incomes into other on-farm investments and household consumption. 33. The experience with these two projects shows that a relatively successful execution of the major irrigation engineering works, although a precondition to reliable water supply, will not by itself promote an effi- cient irrigated agriculture. Under conditions prevailing in the project areas, the provision of irrigation infrastructure at the chak level was more difficult than the improvement of the upstream portion of the system and continues to be hampered by institutional obstacles. However, various fea- tures of OFD were completed in selected though much smaller than expected 1/ See comments submitted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (Annex III). - 10 - portions of the project areas. With suitable financing indications are that it is reasonable to expect beneficiaries to assume the financial burden resulting from OFD, perhaps with the exception of the cost of design and of construction of common elements of the system and provided there are immediate prospects for farmers to realize benefits. One way to mitigate the institutional obstacles would be by financing from the government budget the water conveyance system to smaller chak points (serving 5-8 ha). Such a policy has been adopted by many State governments in India. C. Water Management and System Maintenance at the Chak Level 34. The biggest problems relate to water management at the chak level and both projects did not achieve any substantial progress in this regard. It should be recalled that an irrigation system was already in place prior to implementation of these two projects, and a considerable area was irrigated. The main deficiency, in addition to inadequate canal capacity, frequent breaches and lack of drainage, was the unreliable and inadequate water supply to tailend farmers. The projects largely remedied the problems related to capacity and drainage. At the farm level, specified areas were to be covered by OFD and in the entire project area a suitable water management system was expected to be implemented. Water management studies were carried out and, as a result, the introduction of a rotational water supply system (warabandi) was proposed. 35. The land within a chak typically belongs to some 40-100 individuals and is subdivided into an even larger number of fields. There is one outlet per chak supplying water from a minor or sub-minor. The construction and maintenance of the water distribution network up to the chak outlet generally has been the responsibility of the Irrigation Department while construction, operation and maintenance at the chak level has been the responsibility of the farmers and the Agriculture Department. It had always been thought that common interest would induce the farmers to cooperate in the use of the available irrigation water. Unfortunately, that cooperation is widely lacking. 36. Initially when water first reached the chak outlet under CIS, the farmers adjacent to the outlet began to irrigate their fields at their discre- tion. As the total water supply at the outlet generally was not sufficient to irrigate the entire chak and the farmers at the head of the watercourses in the chak used water on demand, the quantity and reliability of the water supply decreased with the distance from the outlet. In most cases, tailend farmers could irrigate their fields only partially or not at all, and a sharp economic and social disparity developed between head and tailend farmers. Since head farmers were already irrigating previously, the main benefits from the improvement of the watercourse network (a part of OFD) were to be derived from improved irrigation and production on tailend farmers' fields. Conse- quently, head farmers as a group had much less incentive to participate in project activities than tailend farmers. - 11 - 37. So far the warabandi system, which had been promoted for several years in parts of the Rajasthan project area but had not yet progressed beyond a one-year pilot stage in the Madhya Pradesh project area, has not operated successfully. One of the main reasons is the lack of cooperation of head farmers. Traditionally, head farmers have not had to adhere to a sched- ule and have irrigated at will, frequently trading water amongst themselves informally and usually several irrigating at a time rather than one at a time. With warabandi, their water applications would be time constrained and many are convinced that they would not receive enough water. 38. Another big problem is the maintenance of watercourses, i.e. the portion of the network linking the field channels to the outlet. While watercourses are constructed jointly by the chak members along the field borders, each member is responsible for cleaning the stretch along his field. However, farmers tend to neglect the cleaning and overall maintenance of watercourses is very poor. Again the problem is lack of cooperation. A farmer's cleaning becomes worthless if his neighbors ahead of him do not clean their portion and he receives no water because upstream obstructions are not removed. Head farmers generally get some water even with overgrown and damaged watercourses and the prevailing attitude on their part is that any effort spent on cleaning benefits tailend farmers more than themselves. 39. The OED mission found most unlined watercourses in poor condition, partly as a result of plant growth which had not been removed, but very often even more so because of damage caused by cattle walking across or along extended segments. The hoofs trampling the sides of the ditches caused them to fill up and reduce the effective section for water conveyance. Indications are that lined watercourses are less subject to damage and more easily main- tained. Since water allocation under the warabandi system is based on the carrying capacity of the watercourses, any reduction in that carrying capacity will reduce the volume of water reaching a farmer's field during the watering time span allowed for that field. Unless the watercourses are well main- tained, they effectively fail to deliver sufficient irrigation water to the fields. Farmers' seemingly irrational reaction to this problem in many instances has been to destroy the measuring outlet at the chak head in order to be able to draw more water from the main system rather than to get together and agree on a cleaning regime for their watercourses. 40. While a rotational water supply system seems to be the most effi- cient and equitable approach under the given circumstances, the present implementation is not promising. It is doubtful whether the chak members can resolve their differences by themselves. The fact that no public authority is directly involved in water management at the chak level is a major institu- tional weakness in this case. The Irrigation Department only prepares the warabandi schedules but is not responsible for following up on their implemen- tation. As the agricultural extension services also consider management of a rotational water supply system outside their jurisdiction, the present arrangements lack an effective enforcement mechanism. Government officials, aware of these difficulties, are keen to find ways to deal with them and, generally, continue to support the introduction of the warabandi system. This support is commendable and should be intensified. As an improvement, - 12 - in the audit's view, clear management responsibility should be assigned to a public authority with powers to effectively resolve cases of non-compliance. More effective management, together with further improvements of the canal control measurement and communications infrastructure, should enable the operators of the system to deliver water at predetermined times and quanti- ties. 41. The experience with CIS and these two projects clearly demonstrates that it is important to introduce a proper water management system and create the necessary discipline among farmers from the very beginning when irriga- tion is newly introduced. In this way undesirable practices are less likely to develop and head farmers cannot so easily group themselves into a socio- political force. It is extremely important that farmers, once they have switched to irrigated production, be assured of a reliable water supply. Only in this way is it possible to gain their confidence and cooperation and their willingness to assume their fair share of the burden related to construction and maintenance of the system. D. Miscellaneous Observations 42. Agricultural Extension. The PCRs are short on information concern- ing agricultural extension and the OED mission also was unable to conclusively evaluate the effectiveness of the system (T&V) introduced under the projects. The system is in place and reasonably staffed in both project areas, and operations are reported to be in accordance with the prescribed procedures. But it is not immediately possible to link any successes or shortcomings at the farm level to the extension services. While overall agricultural produc- tion has been increasing, suboptimal or inappropriate agronomic practices are frequently encountered during visits in the project areas. Available evidence suggests that extension operations have been lagging relative to the work of the Irrigation Departments and to their own schedule, although the focus is now shifting more in the direction of the Agriculture Departments. The link with local research activities needs to be strengthened further, particularly in Madhya Pradesh where research work has been reoriented towards the par- ticular needs of project farmers only more recently. 43. Maintenance of Major Canals and Drains. Responsibility for the maintenance of canals and drains up to the chak outlets rests with the Irriga- tion Department with funds appropriated from the Government budget. However, the departments in both States have experienced serious difficulties in discharging their responsibilities in this regard because of shortage of funds. Although there is sufficient technical expertise in those departments and procedures and standards for irrigation system maintenance have been established, maintenance has not been adequate. At the time of project completion, the departments' budgetary allocation for maintenance was only about half of what was required to meet acceptable standards.l/ Consequent- ly, signs of deterioration have become more commonplace again and if this situation continues, the system's efficiency will begin to deteriorate in a few years and take a turn similar to the pre-project course. 1/ The Government of Madhya Pradesh advises that budgetary allocations for maintenance have been increased recently (Annex III). - 13 - 44. Water charges. The topic of water charges is a sensitive and controversial issue and must be considered in a wider than purely project context. As far as these projects are concerned, a system of water charges consistent with certain levels of cost recovery anticipated at appraisal and expected to become effective in Rajasthan in June 1 76 and in Madhya Pradesh one year later has not been implemented to date.. It can be argued that more funds would be available for maintenance if water charges were higher and collected more effectively than they have been. On the other hand, the argument alluded to in the Madhya Pradesh PCR (para. 2.11) that these charges must be reasonable, especially for those farmers who benefit the least from public irrigation investments, also cannot be dismissed. There is no question, however, that as the irrigation systems in the Chambal area become more efficient and the financial gains of a growing portion of beneficiaries become significant it will become more desirable and feasible to levy and collect adequate water charges. The experience with these projects warrants the conclusion that the Bank should vigorously pursue its ongoing dialogue with the Central and State Governments in this regard.l 45. Repayment of Credit. The loan recoveries for Central Cooperative Banks in the Rajasthan command area are reported to have declined from 76% in 1974/75 to 43% in 1980/81. The all-India average for these banks in 1981 was 57% at the primary level and 64% at the Central Cooperative Bank level. Recovery rates for 'OFD loans under the projects are far lower still as most OFD borrowers have not started repaying although payments have come due. In some cases there is a dispute over the due date of such payments in relation to certification of completed works. However, it is clear that the recovery performance is not satisfactory, though in many respects not significantly different from the picture country-wide. The Bank has been involved in an intensive dialogue with the country on this matter with a view to improve credit recovery and the experience with these projects underlines the impor- tance of a continued vigorous pursuit of this dialogue. 1/ The Government of Madhya Pradesh advises that it has been decided to introduce a new rate structure effective with the 1983/84 fiscal year (Annex III). See also comments by the 'Government of Rajasthan (Annex II). 2/ OPS comments on cost recovery as follows: "Para. 44 indicates that both States failed miserably in meeting their contractual obligation in this regard. 'Good reasons are given, but it would seem that the Bank should specifically agree to waive compliance, rather than let the covenants be ignored for 5 to 6 years. By now the Bank should know what realistic goals can and should be achieved, and the covenants, dialogue, and performance should all be more compatible and respected than now seems to be the case."  - 15 - TABLE 1 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) (LOAN 1011-IN) DISBURSEMENTS Loan Agreement Final Category Schedule 1 (06/19/74) DisbursementLa (US$ millions) (US$ millions) 1. Civil Works (a) Infrastructure 18.0 23.4 (b) On-farm development financed through ARDC 8.6 1.9 (c) On-farm development financed through RLDC - 4.0 2. Equipment and Material,T_/ 4.4 5.6 3. Fertilizers 6.1 6.1 4. Technical Assistance and Training /c 0.1 - 5. Interest and Other Charges on the Loan Accrued on or before December 31, 1980 11.0 11.0 6. Unallocated 3.8 - TOTAL 52.0 52.0 /a As of September 14, 1982, the date of final disbursement from the Loan. /b For the following parts of the project: drainage works; canal lining; increased canal capacity and control structures; aquatic weed control; on-farm development; roads; afforestation; miscellaneous works and equipment; and research, operation and maintenance. /c For the following parts of the project: on-farm development, and training (CAA staff). - 16 - TABLE 2 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) (CREDIT 562-IN) DISBURSEMENTS Credit Agreement Final Category Schedule 1 (06/20/75) Disbursement/a (US$ millions) (US$ millions) 1. Civil Works (a) Infrastructure/b 14.4 21.3 (b) On-farm development full package 1.9 /c 2. Equipment and Vehicles 3.5 2.1 3. Fertilizers 0.5 0.5 4. Technical Assistance/d 0.4 /e 5. Technical Assistance/f 0.8, /e 6. Unallocated 2.5 - TOTAL 24.0 24.0 /a As of May 6, 1981, the date of final disbursement from the Credit. /b For irrigation and drainage, roads and ravine erosion control. /c Actual disbursement was US$7,957. 7- For the preparation of further phases of the Chambal CAD Project and of other such projects in Madhya Pradesh. /e Actual combined disbursements for Categories 4 & 5 was US$81,994. /f For preparation of CAD projects throughout India, and for a land development specialist. INDIA PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan) (Loan 1011-IN) CUMULATIVE PERCENT DISBURSED 100 LOAN DISBURSEMENT PROFILE 00 ..O00 **0 **00/ 90 00* / .** .9E/ 80- 40- 20 *** 500 30 ** 400 20 / .*.*..-- 115 PROJECTS, ALL SECTORS, INDIA . ../. ............. 64 AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS, INDIA - - - - - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEV. PROJECT - ACTUAL / ,00- CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEV. PROJECT - APPRAISAL ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 YEARS World Bank-24253 INDIA PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Chambal Command Area Development Project (Madhya Pradesh) CUMULATIVE (Credit 562-IN) PERCENT DISBURSED 100 a.. LOAN DISBURSEMENT PROFILE / *# 4*** * /..* 80 - .** . *' #4 /..* 70- 50 -/ . 40- 00 00 1 4 -0, -0 e* 400 30- 000 20-, .*9. 20- --- - 115 PROJECTS, ALL SECTORS, INDIA / ................. 64 AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS, INDIA -*** - - - - - - CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEV. PROJECT (MP) - ACTUAL CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEV. PROJECT (MP) ***. - APPRAISAL ESTIMATE v iIl I I l I I - I I7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 YEARS World Bank-24358 -19 - Annex I I Page 1 Z- NE4 DELHI U00 1D2100 1ST ETAT INDEVBASSY WASHINGTON DC :OR DR. REDDY, ADVISER TO ED(BANK) FROM ARJLN THAPAN, UNDER SECRETARY, ECOFAIRS, E NO. 1O(.) RE-ER WY TELEX NO.140 Oc APRIL 30, 1983 CGI'MUNI- CATING CONIMENTS Cc GOVP WITH REGARD TG T-E DRAFT AUDIT REPORT ON CREDIT 52-IN rOR ONWARD TRANStISSION TC 0ED(.) COrNENTS Or GOI WHICH APPLY EQLALLY TO BOTm AUDIT REPORTS ON CREDIT c NC. 5u2-IN At!D LOAN NC.1011-IN ARE REPRODUCED BELOW(.) PARA(.) QUOTE(.) 1. AT PACE 9 IN PARA 22 OF THE REPORT, IT HAS BEEN ENTICNED THAT DESPITE THE GGCD RESULTS IN SOlE " RESPECTS AND HCOEcUL BEGliJNINGS IN CTHERS, SERIOUS DEFICI- EiqCIES AND FRCBLEIS kErAIN IN THE CHAPBAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM(.) 0 ONE Ct THESE IS THE UNEVEN AND UPREDICTABLE RELEASE OF WATER INTO THE MAIN CANA'(.) CLRTHER, IT HAS ALSO SEEN SAID THAT IT IS A rACT THAT THE CANAL LOW ENTERING tP AT TIl'ES IS ORE A RESIDUAL QUANTITY RATHER THAh THAT AGREED AND IT IS REPORTED THAT rREkUE TLY LESS THAN HALF THE EXPECTED PLO, IS ACTUALLY RECE I lED Ii THE LO.4ER REACHES Cr THE CAi,AL SYSTEf(.) TnE (.PuITIbN 3RCUCHT ILT APrt-ANTLY DCES NCT APrEAR TO SE CORRECT(.) IT I Su(-rEbTED THAT TtIb PAPA BE N'CDITIED AS CL : - 1 cOR E4UITABLE RELEASE C7 wATER cOR IRRIGATICN AND PO'ER NEEDS De BOTH THE STATES Cc RAJASTHAN AND 'ADHYA PRADESH, THERE IS A STANDING CCIr'ITTEE NO.2 SET UP BY THE MADHYA PRADESH-RAJASTHAN, INTER-STATE CONTROL BOARD(.) THIS CO%MITTEE *EETS rROIl TI E TO TIVE AND LAYS DOWN THE SCHEDULE Or WATER RELEASES TO BOTH THE STATES(.)-BOTH THE STATES HOLD THE VIE'v THAT THIS BILATERAL ISSUE CAN 8E SETTLED BY THEMSELVES THROUGH I-UTLAL DISCUSSIONS." PARA(.) IN PARA 23, IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THE RELIA- ABILITY Or WATER SUPPLY AT THE FARM LEVEL REtAINS LC4 AND CONTINUES TO PREVENT THE REALIZATIC Or THE CULL BENEFITS RO THE NSSIVE INVEST'ENTS UNPERTAKEN OVER THE PAST TWO END D PAGE ONE . 20 - Annex I am Page 2 DECADES(.) THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CCRRECT SINCE NO L SUPPORTING 7ACTS AND :IGURES HAVE BEEN GIVEN(.) PARA(.) IN PARAS 24-40, THE REPCRT DEALS IN DETAIL WITH THE "W SHORTCO"I%GS OF THE CrD PROGRA-'1E AND ALSC 4ITH THE NON- EXISTENCE CO A ROTATIONAL WATER SL-PPLY SYSTEN I.E. WARABANDI. IN THIS RESPECT, IT At BE POINTED OUT THAT AS iOLLD BE REVEALED =RON THE PIGURES GIVEN IN PARA 1-2, IN RESPECT OF BOTH C RAjASTr1AN A\.D "ADhfA PRADESH PROJECTS IT CCUL' BE EASILY BEEN THAT THE FROJECT V!ISLALISED THE CcD ONLY IN A Y ALL PORTIO 01 OP THE OVERALL CClAND AAC Ifh RE&EECT O nARABANDI THERE WASQUA NO PROVISIGN l;; THE ORCJECT AT ALL(.) THE TARGETS IN RESPECT O 000 HAVE ALSO 3EEN 7LL*ILLED TO A LARGE EXTENT(.) IN oA RESPECT CO WARABANDI , Et'PHASI S IS NCoJ BEI NO GIVEN AND ThE CAD * AUTHORITIES ARE TAKING ACTION TC ENCRCE THE SANE IN THE TWO COV'GAvID AREAS(.) AS SLCH IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER SUCH A LEiqGTHY CRITICISt OF THE ITE1S Cc O" AND WARABANDI WOULD BE IECESdARY AT ALL IJ THE PER-ORMANCE AUDIT REPORT(.) ACTLALLY, THE ER"ORKAI.CE REP\RT SHCLLD GIVE tRE WEIGHTACE TO A CRITICAL ANALYSIS GO THE 'AJCR CG PONE>iTS C' TriE PROJECT WHICH HAVE BEEN , It PLENENTED .'HERE CCF'POJENTS HAVE NOT BEEN I t'PLELENTED OR HAVE 3EEN SVALL IN NATLRE, IT WOLLD 3E BETTER m THAT THE RE 'ARKS MADE ARE RECOi''E[DATORe IN NATLRE rOR GIVING DLE IrPORTANCE IN PHASE II O- THE PROJECT(.) Lh4UOTE(.) a I REGARDS(.) No - 21 - 6nnex II Page 1 Z-188 NE 4 DELHI 15S3 132100 IST ETAT INDEBASSi vASHINGTON1 D.C. ýOR DR. REDDY(BA;NK) eRCM ARJLN THAPAN, LNDER SECY.(PB) ECCPAIRS C. 159(.) COMIENTS Cr GCVT. O- RAJASTHAN ON DRAwT ALDIT REPORT CN THE CHAý BAL CAD PRGJECT( L'.111-IN) ARE REPRODLCED E ELOC!(.) PARA(.) -LCT=(.) PRUJECT SLE''ARi- DAGE 2 PARA 2 LINES 3 (.) IT l- '.AI D TH-AT FR2jECT .RES ERE CC PLETED IN IARCH'2(.) HCVEER, WCRIS CC,TI ýLED LP TC JLNE ý2 AS THE BANK IS AwARE(.) THE LIilE, TmEREORE, lEEDS REVISIliN AS SLB-QLCTE THE PROJECT wCRKS dERE CC"PLETED IN JUNE 62 LiNSU3-.4CTE(.) TriS WOLLD NECESSITATE 0 A BASIC REVIllOF I : IGLRES IN THE ENTIRE REPORT IN CRDER TC COVER PROGRESS UPTO JLE 1)2(.) THE FRCGRESS AND ORIGINAL TARGETS AS ALSO REVISED TARGETS 'CR AEL ITENS WORKS HAVE SEEN TABLLATED AND CORWARDED SEPARATELY (TABLE A) (.) g PARA(.) PAGES 2 ArD 3 PARA 4(.) THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH E EEDS REVISION AS THERE WAS AN ArENCDrENT IN THE TARGETS VIDE BANKS 0 LETTER CE 25.,.'>1(.) IT IS SLGGESTED THAT TiE PARAGRAPH IS Su3ETITLTED AS '~CLLCWS(.) SLB1LCTE THE VIPLEMENTATICNi Cr THE FROJECT 'AS Cf. THE WHCLE SLCCESS'~UL(.) DRAINAGE WOCRKS rOR 107,C rA. WERE CCPLETEr AS PLANNEDC(.) rOR CANAL LINING, AF-PRAISAL TARGET Cr 21 r.''. 'AS SLBSE,UENTLY EXTENDED TO 50 K M. AD 33 . REE ACTLALLY COrPLETED DLRI iG THE I rPLEMENTATI ON I CD.) T-IE ACH IEVE-E!T EXCEEDED B ' SI X PER CErNT AS CCMFARED TC REVISED TARCET(.) THE CARR(irG CArACITY C7 911 KM. Oc CANALS AS IlfPROVED, AGAINST THE REVISED TARCET Oý 90] KN., EXCEEDING APDRAISAL TARGET BY ABOLT 1 PER CENT(.) IT 'iAS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE/M"ODIF? 157 CCNTROL STRUCTLRES AGAINST WHICH 147 CONTRCL E STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED(.)THERE WERE ABCLT 10,30C (END Or PAGE ON'JE) -22- Annex IT - L! dERS CG TOTAL CLTLETS l f4 THE C3OhAr D AT THE TIME CF APPRAISAL WHICH INCLUDED Al . UL,"BER Cc LNAUTHORI SED CNES TOC(.) IN ORDER 4 TO rEEP BASIC SIZE CHAb j3 HA. AVERAGE 7OR BETTER LSE Or WATER IN 3c TriE CIELDS, A DECISIWi iAS TAKEV TC RErLCE THE 1LI'BER OF CLTLETS liH THE CO 'A.D TO 4,:=,(.) THIS iAS TC BE DCNE BY REVISING THE 0 CHAK-EA'DI (OLTLET CC Ak) , HUWEVER, wEN Ck-CARr DEVELCPloENT WORKS dERE TANEN LD, IT WAS C-3SERVED THAT THE CHAK CC1AND IS ALTOMATI- C CÅ.-L REVISEr(.) A EECISICN '/AS THEPEC0PE. TAKE7. TO PRCVIDE AFMS E L IC = -EA ERESLLTI G 1 THE REVI SI CH iF TARC,ET TO 2,7D1 0 E sL t(.) A AI ,zT Til 7'43 Xu. EIER CT APLS CCLLC -E CC STRLCTED BY THE ED r[ ARCH 'T() C, rAR" DEVELCPt- ET WAS CRIG^1ALLY EXPEC- 0 TED TC CCVER 1lC MA. wrICH VAS SLBSE,UENTLY REVISED DLE TO 3 ARERS' RESI STANCE 1 THE l ;j TI AL STAGE Tc 33,K HA( .) TOTAL 4CRäK IAS CC'DLETED I\ 3),123-HA. HAVItG LITTLE SHORTALL AS 4 COTPARED T TTIE REVISED TARGET(.) THE SURVE( wOR6 AND PLANNIKG åAS CC PLETED P 77,,j5 HA. AND 4-5,t1J HA. RESPECTIVELY, AGAINST THE TARGET Ur 47,DO0 HA. cOR SURVEY AtND 46, 500 HA. cCR PLANt.ING(.) o RCAD CCSTRUCTIC, I PRCVEr ElT C7 AECLT 221 hr. CELL SHCRT BY ABCLT 5 PER CENT(.) THE Ac=CRESTED AREAS 1,, SLDPCRT CP EROSION CONTRCL vAS "CRE THÅ, DCLBLED CCW PARED TL THE APPF:AISAL TARGET (1000 HA.) E E BUT CELL S iRT A LITTLE b( THE REVISED T RCET (231'rHA.(.) THE TRA 1 G AIV; V I S T EXTE!S I CK 5 YSTE' :AS SUCCESSPULL Y l NTRCDLCED AD AirA-TIVE RESEARCH O '4AKTA RE~EARCH :APý- SATIS-ACTORILY UNDER- 0 TAE.(.) RECl'' EiDATICS TU ESTk3LISH THE ECCNCPIC IETHODS OF »-ÅTIC vEED TRCL äAS EVALLATED(.) IT WAS ALSC cLLNC THAT ~ l ICAL C TCL CRCS I'1E3TIG CA A L 'ALLS 14S E~ECTIVE(.) T TiE ÄEX i - :-i L.VE ( A,, ^ AR "AGEI ENT STLDIES CARRI ED OUT IN Tt-E PROJECT AREAS FRCDLCED LSELL RESULTS(.) L-SL5,UOTE(.) 0 (E,D C. DACE T'C)C) -23 - Annex II Page 3 PARA(.) PAGE 3 PARAGRAPH 5 (.) IN THIS PARA, A STATEMENT C REGARDING wARABANDI NEEDS TC BE REVIEWED IN VIEW C" THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE RESPECT FRCM TIME TC TIME( .) l PPLEMENTATI ON Cr WARABANDI l4 CHAI SAL CC1 AND AREAS IS LIED äi.TH THE EXECLTICN C CFD vCRK S(.) IT WAS DECIDED AT THE PROjECT LEVEL THAT ,ARABANDI 0,HLLD E 1 PLE-E'TED ONLY Iir, THOSE AREAS WHERE CrD WCRKS riAVE BEEN c EXECLTED(.) A TÅRGET Cý 15,2, HA. WAS FIXED rCP THE FRCJECT, AGAINS .1 c -T äICn 13, 322 HA. AREA jAS CCVERED L1DER JARABAKCI BY THE END Cr '<ARCi1 142(.) a7 REGARS DESI6N STAhDARr AT THE CHAh. LEVEL, THE DRINAL IDEA 3c ýEElKG A EIGGER SIZE CHAK(lC HA. AVERAGE) WAS PREC.LDED TC, I"CREASE la4 THE STREA' SIZE C~ CLTLETS, AS THE SIZE Cr THE CLTLET 1 - EFEIE T C THE AREA .c TiE CU tAID( .) A SIxTY HA. f -1-r, I THE J,: -.EC .ju.L CIVE A3LLT 1 CLSEC r'IzC-iARCE WnICH IS E dASED 7RC TriE 91IEä ' Z31, T Ce IRRlGATIC "IANAGE'ENIT ANn BETTER PIELD E eICIEC(.) A S0LLTI0!N L..TUATELY HAS BEEN EVCLVED THAT THE CHA, SIZE I . CD ArEAS CCLLD SE SO PLA,1ED W'ITH THE DELIVERY IN THE TAILE,,P cART ER IN THE CHAK 'A( REI AIN 4 1.5 CLSEC(.) IT wILL 1C 0 ALTV-ATICALLY CCER THE ASPECT C SIlXCANT 1 PRCVENENT IN IRRIGA- Tl 614 E ~1Cl ENC f. * PARA (.) PAGE 4 PARAGRAPH 8(.) TiE cIRST SENTECE .CLLD NEED REVI -bLAd.) TiE iCJECT'S Ir PACT Ck mGRICULTURAL PRDPUCTICN HAS BEEN SI NI~1 CAT AKD ILCi HIGHER THAI, E>°ECTEV CLRI'iG AFPRAISAL (.) (EELDS U'CREASED SiARPLY 1 TriE rROJECT AREA AN,D EVEN EXCEEDED THE 1 TARGETTED AVEPAGE MIELCS EMVISAGED DLRIF%G APFRAISAL (.) CROP-WISE DETALS HiAVE SEE' TA~:LLATED ýkD ARE LkDER rESPATCH SEPARATELY (TAELE 3) (. ) CRFHl ,C I .TE EITY ýAS 3CLNr TO 3E 145.57 PERCENT IN 197Z-,- A,D 141.13 ýER CENT IN 194-1 AGAl ,ST A TARGET CP 11'.74 FERCENT rea r, THERE5f, A SlestrI :A.T 1CREASE( .) 1 , 1 E 7, CRCPPUG ITErJSIT( HAS BEEN INDICATED AT 133 FER CELT U. 5Ž .JHICH APPEARS TO dE INCORRECT(.) Tm1S :IGLRE HAS DEHAFS SEEN ARRIVED AT CN THE BASIS OF ESTIMA- TES CCR TiE Oc ALONE(.)LIKEWISE, THE FIGLRE Cc 11, PER CENT NLOTED AS BEINC THAT ErVISAGED AT APFRAISAL DGES NCT TALLY WITH WHAT IS l =ACT "ENTICNED 11 THE SAR(.) THE AVERAGE IRRICATICN INTENSITY t S24 - Annex II E PAGE ' BEs s Page 4 A, 3 AND ( AREAS l N T-E COt'AND AREA ENV l SAGED AS E9 PERCENT AND Is --10T 137 PER CENT AS I hDICATED IN THE REPCRT(.) AGAINST 69 PERCET, otRIGATICN UNTE:SITY IN THE YEAR 19å-1..AS 93 PER CEKT(.) -ARA(.) DAGE 3 DAFAGRAPH 5 (.) THE CLLUWING REVIJION IN THIS ARAGRADH IS SUCGESTED( .5) SLSQLTE(.) =AR' l CCN ES ARE ESTiUATED TO HAVE INCREASED TC O,E AND A MAL' TI ES IN AREA'A' AD e-~V.E DCLSLED ., PARA '' WHKE IkCREASING AbULT THREE-ICC Uj AilEA','(.) (-' E2 -'.'l RATE . RETLP7 , CR T15 FRCjECT H-C -E~ - TI i TEr AT 17 E E T(-. ) LKSL TE . A(.) ,P AEA L'EP CF ER RS iE CHAPTER ON Ala IS LE: .: i1 A E .5EI l, CC L,:ICATED LEPAk4TELY AND SHCLLD BE E TAsEKs RG, l ZA CE C= (.) E P ARA( Tr, E 7L,- :I G'.G CCi ENITE ARE C 7ERED O0 CmAFTER CLR -C-- RI CLTURAL l' PACT C THE PROJECT CC PETI CN REPORT( ) ACE 14 o 4 AGRAh- 4.J3 (.) CROC CLTT:. EYPERl-ENTS AVE BEE: CCNDLCTED U'REGLLA,L Ti-E FRO.jECT 75Y TrtE EXTENSION .I G U» THE CAD(.) E'/ALLATIC: O O J-P-GRESS 3ASED ON "I R EXFERIVE,TS DCNE BY TmE iAXTA RESEARCH rAR'i IS N'T JUSTIcIED(.) THE YlELD ESTIMATES VOR THE t AlN CRO'S NEED TC BE SUBSTITUTED 2Y Y1ELD ESTIKATES SASED -' C C CRC 6 lUTI 'C EXER I' ENTS CCNDLCTEC bi THE E> TENS lCN wl 1G( .) TrE TABLE AT T,-E :CTTC C PACE 14 .9JLLD HEED TC BE REFLACED ö TA3LE C 3EI 4G DESPATCHED SEFARATELY(.) 3EA'- (.) :GE 15 RACRA 4.?3 (.) TdE TABLE . PAGE 15 E E ·-D GEED T :E EVI E' 1n T-iE C,TE\T C7 TASE'C' zI C SE:T a-TE-<(.) :,C FEL0Tl l7 .E ::LLLD L EED TC zE REVISE A l TkBLE D zEl T GE ARATE f(. ) -- ARA RA fAR-AF 4.5 (.) TtiE LA:T SE,TE.CE C' Tmil E!,D C PAbE =ULR) 25-Annex - 2 -Page 5 m PAGE '-lVE åEGINS ac PARAGRAPH SHOLLD READ AS SBLLCWU(.) SubCTE(.) THE L32 U HYBRID OR CERTIIED SEED ICREASED IN PADD CRO 2 . o ILVTALS l 1 1 7-755 TO 1,5C J ý Ll,TALS IN 1980-51 AND l: wmEAT IT DECREASEC eLI- HTL Y RC 75C Z,LITALS i 1974-75 TQ -1u t blTALS \J 1 )-1( .) LSL-LCTE(.) rA(.) PAGE 1.2 ARAGPAPH ,9(.) T-iE TAELE AT TnE S TTC C' PACE 11 AiD THE El ýST T H EE -l E5 Ci PAGE 17 å"uLLD ED CCRRECi 7 N l 1 ACCC DAdCE ä' l TH T ALE SE'T SEFARATELY(.) o u.'k.LC'TE( .) REGARDS(.) LCRE z -- C0 - 26 - Annex II Page 6 Z-218 NEW DELHI 573 17233J I,DE' BASS åASsINGTON DC TZ: .R. REDD1 ArVISEP TO E.D.( BANK) r90': ARJLN THAFAý. L DER SECRETARi ECOFAIRS NE, DDLHI O. 10(.) Kl NDL RE ER TO f' TELEX NO 15? CP MAY 13,1983 E CGI -L, CATI'IG CO "E:T, Q GCVERýIENT OF RAJASTHAN ON THE D<AaT PRLJECT F Å CR^ A.CE AUDI T RE°CRT ON THE CHAA CAD PRýJECT( lG 111-I a) ( .) THÉ ST4TE CCVERi "ENT mrAVE SENT Lb PLRTHEh COrt!EN'ýTS :elC ARE REPRCCLCED rELCw CR CONSIDERATIO C» THE CEr ':1HILE clNALISING THE AUPIT REPORT(.) PARA(.) .GGTE(.) CHAPTER I PRCJECT SU 'ARi PARA 7 PACE 4(.) IT IS TRLE THAT THERE 'AS S2 E STAC'ING AND COORCINATION PROBLEN I i THE AEalNG AS C cICIAL' OP DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES WERE PLT TOGETHER cRl' Dic:ERENT =IELDS(.) AS SCON AS IT WA REALISED, BOTH 0..D. AND IRRIGATIGN wI'GS WERE FLACED LiiDER THE AD' INI STRATI0 CONTRCL 07 ADDITIONAL CHIEc ENiGl NEER, IRRIGATICWl, CAD 1ND T-iE PRO3eErS WERE SCLVED(.) PARA(.) A.T1CLCr AT THE INITIAL STAGE, DELA? IN FREPARATION AiD PRCCESSIILG Oc 1,OCL'ENTATIONS CCR CETT ILhG REI 'BURSEN,Ei\T OCCuRED AS THE TAc 4 -AD TC GET ACCLSTCt-ED TO THE NEW FATTER: Ai,C (STE" 0 ACCLINTING BLT IT TCOK ONLY A (EAR CR SO(. PARA(.) TE LCA: RECIVERIES rAVE ALSO CCNSLCIERABL 1' I'CRPEASEC l THE (EAr< 1)52-1 3(.) E'cCRT3 ARE EEI NADE TO '1CREASE THE RECOVERIES ACCCRDINC TC THE NUORN'S(.) PARA(.) PARA i PAGE 4(.) IT WAS C3SERVED THAT PRODLCTICN - HAS BEEý SICNICICANT 3LT THE SPEED CP ICREASE WAS LOWER THAN THAT EXPECTEr(.) AS LAND SHAPING IS A MAJOR COMPCNENT OP GPP 4ORK IT DISTURBS THE TOP FERTILF. SOIL AND RECOLPINC THE PERTILITY TAKES SC'E TIWE WHICH HAS Å DIRECT IMPLICATION ON INCREASE IJ, PRODLCTION(.) PARA(.) - 27 - - - Annex II 0F RELEASES ORCM RESERVOIRS FOR FCMER GENERATION OR Page 7 IEETING THE IRRIGATIC4 REVUIREMENT IS DECIDE BY THE 0 åTAMDIIG COMITTEE 0C.2 CF OF- RAJASTHAN INTER STATE ( Åhå) P) COTRCL SCARD, KEEPIIG in VIEW THE AVAILABILITY 0= STCRAGE IN PESERVCIS(.) IT 13 CNLY SECAUSE Cc I,JEVATE STORATE IN THE PESERVOIRS THAT SITUATIONS -INE LEVE A L';REVICTABLE RELEASE Cc IATER IN THE 0 Al <.C u ,-ai a0 (.( T' EET TmE PCsER EL1 01ElTS Ih THE STATE, IT EIIETIEQ VME15 THAT ..ATEF 1S REAC. > CESå C TmE I RR GATI CI RErL I REMENTS ÅrD SVETM"Ej LESS THAS ACTLAL RELIREIENT 70 RILATICN Cl:I'G 5I0lCULTK In IEETING IRRIGATICN 'LPPLIES(.) TIE CAE AS AL-<EME' SEEN IDENTIPIEP AD 4ELL TAKEI CARE OP 0( THE INTER- STATE CCNTROL V3AVD(.) THEREVRE THE SLGGESTIOn FLT 71RTH IN THE EFORT lEGARCING '.LVEM ENT GF ThE CETRAL GCVERNMENT _ la~ r<EDL<AkT(.) DRA(.) PARA 44 DAGE 2(.) TrE RATES CP äATER CH-RC-ES ARE IXED NEEPIN I: VIEA THE ECC\IC'VIC CLNITIONS Cc ThE PR"MEUS 11 THE ARE-++ AREA(.) TE RATE rAVE EEN REVISED L, TVREE OOCAIMICIS A4~ER 197(.) ALTHULGH THE CCST C cTICj sD INTENA CE sni TC E RECCVERE7 R01 ., L rCE THESE XSTEM ,AVE BEEN VLCH HIGHER 7LE TC 11;DE,LACIES I 1 THE STEMS IT HAJ NCT BEEN CcUSIME-ED EVLITAME TL RECCVER ENTIRELY ERCI THE WER(.) ., TE SYSTE1 5 ARE M PROVEI, THE AATER CHARGES i0LC E ASLE TC mEET C AND I EXPENDITLRE(.) LKLOTE(.) REGARDDS(.)  - 29 - Annex II -Ta-1e A TAbLLa A IND~IA Chambal Comiand Area Develogment Project AJASTHAN) (LLAN N.1011-IN) Summary of Project Works Imolowentation 6as oersroent PA,R I As Lur our r-,cord, Item EstimatiRvisod IAchi7ve- Instimate fevised 4 Acht ve- ( as per lestimateim,.nt by Ias per ,esti- 4 ment I apprai-I 131,3.2 iApp. fmat-s 0 30.6.82. S~al __ f____I_ _I_t 1- _3T 4, .6. 7- Irrigation & Drainae Drainage 167000Ka - 167000Ha 167000iia 167000Ha 167000Ha Canal Lining- 14Km 62Km 53Km '4.06Km 50Km 58.03 Km Canal capacity 854 Km 900Km 949 Km 851+ Km 900Km 924.5 Km Control Struc- tures 157 Nos 223"os 16614os 157Nos 157Nos 157Nos Misc. horks (i) Structures - 298Km 285Km 278 o 278 Nos. 219 Nos. (ii) Canal Roads - 114Km 65 Km - 114.14Km 78.76Km On Farm Dev;l,0mein Survey 47000uas. 66720Ha. 72331Ha 47000Ha 47000a 79635Ha Planning & Design 48500Ha - 50736Ha 48500Ha 48500Ha 4617OHa Construction 50000Ha 33000Ha. 33139Ha 50000Ha 33000Ha 33503Ha Roads. State-Highways 53Km 88Km 89Km 53Km S3.6Km 86.02Km ajor Jistt. Roads 123Km. - 12)Km. 123Km. 129.)oKm 128.52Km Other Distt. Roads 40Km - 39Kn. 4oKm. 39km. 39,qCKm. Village Roads 31Km 40Km. 4oKm. 31Km. 40.00m. 38.54Km. Afforzstation: 100Ha. 3300ha. 2285Ha. 1000Ha. 2300 Hz. 22A5Ha. -30 - Annex II Table B (Av- ra, y i.1d in T ons .r h ct. lear. 1 Paddy borChumx ihat Grarri. i Sugarcane. B-nch Line2 2.049 0.439 1.171 0.6)3 40.875 197 4-75 2xpts. not conduct d 2.299 1.101 Expts.not conducted. 1975-76 3.351 0.402 2.267 0.7+9 1980-81 4.356 0.849 2.108 0.74 52.836 1981-82 3.750o 1.484 2.488 1.070 44.202 Targjtted.@ 3.557 0.888 2.210 1.052 71.081 i Bench line and targ.:tt d av:ra;e yields arn as p- r orld Bank Ap)raisal R port. - 31 - Annex II Table C (Average yiLd in Tons per hct. Year P Paddy. Á S,orghum k Wheat.I Gram. l rugarcane Bench Line @ 2.01+9 0.439 1.171 0.693 40.875 1974-75 Expts. not donducted. 2.299 1.101 Expts.not conducted. 1975-76 3.351 0.402 2.267 0.749 0 198Ö-81 4.356 0.849 2.108 0.71+4 52.836 1981-82 3.750 1.484 2.48 1,070 44.2e. Targetted @ 3.557 0.888 2.210 1.052 71.031 @ B-nch line & targetted average yi lds are ' r "-r1 Bank Appraisal R, port. -32 Annex II Table D T, BI - D Crops. Bas- y-ar as >er Appraisal Actual in 198o-S1 production in Tons. production in Tonns. 1. Paddy 12500 159456 2. Sorghum 12200 42616 3. Maize 1400 831+9 4. Wheat 116600 225223 T kkLå- u S.No. - NPme of Ben.ý.11974a75 l 1975-761 1976-77 l 1977-78 1 1978-79 11979-00 1 1980-81 l 1081-82 1 Tntal 1. Short- & Medium Tjrm Loan. By Central Coop. Bank, Kota and Burdi. 441.51 726.10 694.84 557.19 565.74 482.0 567.65 689.66 +743.69 2. Long-T,erm Loan: >y Primary Land Jev' lop- ment Bank, Bunii, Bzran 6 Kota (Anta PJ.) 14.36 6.70 35.70 54.48 35.22 49.88 53.27 77.11 326.72 Nccessary chantds in n--xt two ILn,,s nay alsc be ma:te accordingly. H S4 - Annex-II II - PRO&TX FORCLA IQN' falf 3 In tho last line 3 14 K may b- subs. ParM 2. 0 (7b) tituted by 21 Ka. III - DJEC! Ia MUIHATEKI(I replaced tara6- In the .4th lines the figure '114' may be/ Para 3.03 b$ '21'. In %he 5th 1i; the figure '62' may be replaced by '50'. In the 6ith J-2L '85 per cent' ,h^uld be substituted by 1105.4 per cent'. Zthe ath 5.2 may be replaced by d and In the and X per cent may 9th line e r-placed by 106 per cenft. IgL-_ 2nd-line 'Cropping intensity' is to be Para 3.04 substituted by 'Irrigation int-nsity'. In the last but one line: 8 per cent is be be substitutd by I per cent and In the last line: 920 is to be substitu- ted by 911. PL 7Second sentence is to be dplot-d as Pare 3.05 there was no r-vision under this it-. In the I+th line: the figure '166' ts to be substituted by '147'. ast sent2nce is to b. rvised as "even then th3 project managed to install 1ss than 50 per cent of the revisd quantity of AMs (788)." Pap-e 7 In the 7th line: tht sent nee is to be Parm 3.06 revis-d as "the CFD targ t w s r-visai in 1980 to 33 000 Ha. while construc- tion was compl tcd in 30,103 Ha. by the end of i4arch,1982." In the ItU Linez a part of the sen- tence "rat- of 10,000 Ha. per y=ar is to be substitut,d by "1,000 Ha. per working Division p-r y.ar%. Page 7 After 247 Ka it may be added that "which Para 3.07 were r,vised to 300 Km.' In the third lines the figur, '287' may be revised by '281 km'. In the 4th linc: in plac- of excided the SAR proposals by 16 p r cent" is to be substitut.d by "foll short by about 6 per cent". ...2/- - 35 - Annex II 4._j3_ß In th thira linc: t-. f. .ur '1300' b 2?era 3.08 substitut d by '1111'. In th.- - _4 _i:th -im t .. hr '2 O') i suostitvt-d by '2110'. _ Th. first s .nt ne t ½ revisedi ,s o s: Para 3.14 "Wat .r 1ara, --Tent -,tu as crri A iat by hnta :cs arch Far%n hich a t rnined wat r wastaje 1 .v-ls in chik inlet". . -j. In th last- linc: 56a0 mciy b sub-tttutUJ by para 3.16 5412 in 75-76 and 3300 :.:y b- sub,tit it 1 by 75'36 in 79-80. 2e8'..11 Lst._bt.__n ..n: 14 mc: r Äle- : i 21, Para 3.1- :nd 62 may eiso b r.hyc-d by 7½  C. - 37 - Annex III Page 1 0 Z-373 NEW DELHI 1200 302040 ETAT PTY CRASH CRASH CRASH U TO - INDEMBASSY WASHINGTON D.C TO - DR.REDDY ADVISER TO E.D.( BANK) FROMs ARJUN THAPAN UNDER SECRETARY ECOFAIRS NEW DELHI 0 NO -140(.) REGARDING LETTER OF FEBRUARY 23,1983 FROM MR.SHIV KAPOOR, OPERATIONS EVALUATION DEPARTMENT TO MR. JAIN ENCLOSINGH PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORTS ON THE E CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF RAJASTHAN AND M.P. E LOAN 1011-INAND CREDIT 562-IN RESPECTIVELY (.) COMMENTS OF GOVERNMENT OF M.P. WITH REGARD TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT ON 0 CREDIT 562-IN ARE INDICATED BELOW(.) QUOTE(.) IN GENERAL THE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE REPORT(.) THE REPORT ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT MOST PROJECT WORKS WERE SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED AND THAT PHYSICAL TARGETS WERE UI) EXCEEDED BY 159a FOR CANAL CAPACITY WORKS,142o FOR EROSION 0 CONTROL WORKS,1300 FOR ROADS,53o FOR CANAL SECURITY AND PROTECTION WORKS AND 510 FOR DRAINAGE WORKS(.) THERE WERE SHORTFALLS IN SOME ITEMS(.) HOWEVER SHORTFALLS IN ON FARM E E DEVELOPMENT WORKS ARE WITH RESPECT TO ORIGINAL PROJECT 8 TARGETS SHOULD BE THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT AND NOT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT TARGETS WHICH NATURALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON 0 PROJECTIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXPERIENCE(.) SPECIFIC COMMENTS ARE GIVN+GIVEN BELOW, PARA12: - 38 - Annex III PARA12: THE ACHIEVEMENT FOR FULL PACKAGE ON FARM DEVELOPMENT Page 2 (OFD)WAS IN EXCESS OF THE REVISED TARGET OF 5000 HECTARES 0 THE EXTENT OF NEARLY 180(.) PARA14: THE APPRAISAL REPORT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR INTRODUCTION o E OF ROTATIONAL WATER SUPPLY (RWS) AND THE EMPHASIS WAS ON THE E IMPROVEMENT OF THE MAIN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ABOVE THE OUTLET(.) IRRIGATION EFFICIENCIES AND PRODUCTIVITY OF THE LAND WAS TO BE INCREASED THROUGH OFD WORKS BUT CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE Sl 0 OF CHAK DRAINAGE IN THE PROJECT, A LARGER AREA WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE UNDER THIS ITEM IN LIEU OF FULL PACKAGE OF OFD U) WORKS(.) ONCE THE MAIN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS IMPROVED, o THE QUESTION OF RWS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE TAKEN UP (.) THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DONE IN PHASE II OF THE PROJECT(.) PARA-15: IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT IRRIGATION AND MAIN E E DRAINAGE ACTIVITIES WERE EXPANDED AT THE EXPENSE OF MOST 8 OTHER PROJECT COMPONENTS(.) AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE BASIC DATA SHEET ON PAGE ( IV) THE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS WERE 930 o OF APPRAISAL ESTIMATES THOUGH THERE WERE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE MAJOR ITEMS OF WORK(.) AS FAR AS O.F.D. IS CONCERNED, THIS WAS PROPOSED TO BE FINANCED c THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL CREDIT AND THE CHANNEL OF REIMBURSEMENT WAS THROUGH THE A.R.D.C.(( NOW NABARD)(.) SINCE O.F.D.WAS U) NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR SUCH A LARGE AREA(12000 HECTARES) IT WAS DECIDED TO STICK TO THE ORIGINAL TOTAL AREA OF 32,000 HECTARES BY INCREASING THE AREA UNDER CHAK DRAT+DRAINAGE TO THE EXTENT OF REDUCTION UNDER O.F.D. WORKS(.) THE WORK WAS E CARRIED OUT FROM BUDGETARY RESOURCES AND HENCE LED TO SAVINGS 8s IN THE A.R.D.C. COMPONENTS(.) REALLOCATION WAS DONE TO MEET THE INCREASED TARGETS UNDER OTHER ESSENTIAL ITEMS(.) o AMOUNT SPN+ SPENT UNDER THE ITEM 11 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE" WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE NEED AS EVIDENCED IN PHASE II PROJECT c BEING FORMULATED WELL IN TIME(.) - 39 - PARA20s THE GOMP IS NOT FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE Annexl 1 Page 3 OBSERVATIONS MADE REGARDING ORGANISATION OF C.A.A.(.) THE CONCEPT OF C.A.D. IS IN THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION AND TAKES TIME TO STABILISE,AND THE PROCEDURE NEEDS STREAMLINING, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE REPORT(.) THERE WAS SOME E INITIAL LAG BUT THE MOMENTUM PICKED UP LATER(.) PRESENTLY THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FAIRLY WELL AND SUCH DIFFICULTIES ARE NOT LIKELY TO ARIE+ARISE IN THE FUTURE(.) REGARDING INTERNAL COORDINATION PROBLEMS, THE STATE GO+ GOVERNMENT IS CONSCIOUS ABOUT THE WEAKNESSES IN THE SYSTEM OF COORDINATION AND HAS MADE EFFORTS TO MINIMISE ITS INCIDENCE(.) GAINING FROM THE CHAMBAL EXPERIENCE, THE GOVERNMENT IS CONTEMPLATING ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL RE-ORGANISATION TO PRECLUDE THE (n POSSIBILITY OF LACK OF COORDINATION (.) IT MAY BE RELEVANT 0 TO ADD THAT THE EXISTING CHAMBAL DIVISION WAS CARVED OUT OF THE GWALIOR DIVISION SO AS TO MAKE THE PROJECT AREA MORE OR E LESS COTERMINUS WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION (.) HENCE E E THE CONCEPT OF COMMISSIONER CHAMBAL BEING CHAIRMAN , OF THE .. C.A.A. IN ADDITION TO HIS FUNCTIONS AS COMMISSIONER IS NOT A CORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE SITUATION (.) IN RAJASTHAN , THERE IS NO INSTITUTION OF A DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF THESE FUNCTIONS BEING WIH+WITH THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF C.A.A. DOES NOT ARISE(.) PARA29s THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL SITUATION IN THE MADHYA PRADESH PART OF THE CHAMBAL PROJECT IS CONSIDERABLY 0 DIFFERENT FROM THAT OBTAINING IN RAJASTHAN (.) FARMERS ATTACH CONSIDERABLE SENTIMENTAL VALUE TO A PARTICULAR PATCH OF LAND AND ARE RELUCTANT TO GIVE THEM UP IN LIEU OF EQUIVALENT AREAS E E IN OTHER PARTS OF THE VILLAGE/COMMAND OF THE OUTLET(.) THE PROBLEM GETS ACCENTUATED WHEN THE HOLDINGS ARE TOO SMALL- A PECULIAR FEATURE OF THE CHAMBAL COMMAND IN MADHYA PRADESH (.) 0 RIDING ROUGH SHOD OVER THE FEELINGS OF THE PEOPLE IN RESPECT OF LAND IS BOUND TO BE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE, UNLESS A CHANGE IN It THE SOCIAL OUTLOOK TAKES PLACE FIRST(.) t - 40 - tkKUMA ) AI rit I IML Ur rtraAHAIIUN U- ItL rUK imt Annex IIILO MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE FOR THE COMMAND AREAS WAS AT THE RATE Page 4 OF RS25 PER HECTARE BUT RECENTLY THE GOVERNMENT OF M. P. HAVE DECIDED TO INCREASE IT TO RS.50 PER HECTARE(.) THUS THE POINT MADE THAT ONLY ABOUT HALF OF WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS IS NO LONGER VALID(.) PARA44: WATER CHARGES IN MP HAD WIDE DISPARITIES FROM REGION TO REGION DUE TO HISTORICAL FACTORS AND THERE WAS A LACK OF RATIN+ RATIONALITY BETWEEN LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND FLOW IRRIGATION SCHEMES(.) THE GOVERNMENT OF M. P. HAVE DECIDED TO HAVE UNIFORM RATES FOR PARTICULAR CROPS THROUGHOUT THE STATE BOTH FOR LIFT AND FLOW IRRIGATION SCHEMES(.) ON THE WHOLE O THE NEW RATES EFFECTIVE FROM THE CURRENT YEAR (1983-84) WOULD ( END OF PAGE THREE) PAGE 4:- BE ABOUT DOUBLE OF THE PREVIOUS RATES THOUGH THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CASE OF CHAMBAL MAY OR MAY NOT BE EXACTLY DOUBLE C) SINCE RATES VARIED FROM PROJECT TO PROJECT(,) UNQUOTE(.) COMMENTS OF GOI ON THIS AUDIT REPORT AND COMMENTS OF GOR AND GOI ON THE CHAMBAL RAJASTHAN AUDIT REPORT WOULD BE SENT TO YOU BY MAY 3,1983(.) REGARDS(.) COLLS Z 373 MEA/ KAUSHIK/302310 0 PL READ FOREIGN AFTER REGARDS ( IN END OF THE MESSAGE) TK S - 41 - INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) (LN. 1011-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT December 13, 1982 Irrigation II Divisinn South Asia Projects Department  - 43 - INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) I. INTRODUCTION Agricultural Setting 1.01 India extends over 3,270,000 km2 with less than 50% arable land. Most of agricultural production is rainfed with about 10% irrigation. Foodgrain production dominates the cropping pattern both during kharif and rabi seasons. Paddy, jowar and wheat are the main food grains grown in India. India has a population of about 660 million growing at a rate of about 2% per annum. Since 1960 per capita income has grown at an annual rate of 1.6% and reached $210 in 1979/80. Agriculture remains the dominant sector of the economy and contributes about 40% of GDP and accounts for 70% of all employment and 50% of India's value of exports. During the last 10 years, India has concentrated on increasing foodgrain production by increasing use of irrigation, good seed developed by adaptive research, fertilizer and crop protection supported by improved extension services. Foodgrain production improved over the decade and grew at about 2.8% per annum to make India self sufficient in food production and enabled to build buffer stocks which eliminated the need to import food even during the 1979/80 severe drought. The wettest months are June-September accounting for 80% of annual rainfall. Rajasthan desert receives 200-300 mm while in the Assam hills rainfall aveages 5,000 mm. With these differences of annual rainfall, farmers have benefitted from irrigation whenever possible particularly so during the dry spell of November/December-May/June. Of the land under irrigation, 60% is irrigated by surface sources of water while the rest from groundwater mostly pumped or lifted by privately owned irrigation equipment operated by the use of animal drought (Bullock power). Irrigation ensures stabilized crop production and well planned farm resource allocation. The Sixth India Five Year Development Plan has projcted to irrigate 6.7 M ha so as to increase the surface irrigated area from the present estimate of 35 M ha to 41.7 M ha. It is also estimated that a total of about 74 M ha of land in India could be irrigated by surface water sources alone. So far less than 50% of this land is irrigated. Early Surface Water Irrigation Development in Rajasthan State 1.02 The northwestern part of the state is arid with annual rainfall less than 300 mm. These areas are uncultivable without irrigation. However, large scale irrigation schemes of Rajasthan Canal were developed to bring such arid land into production by using water from the upper Indus basin. The southeastern part with rainfall of about 900 mm can be classified as semi arid. Irrigation is important to sustained agricultural production also in this area, and the Chambal river flowing from South to North is an important source of surface water for irrigation. - 44 - 1.03 The decision to harness the Chambal river for irrigation was made in 1953 and a massive project was undertaken and completed in 1971. However, some water for irrigation was already made available from 1960. This project constructed a barrage at Kota and two main canals. The Left Main Canal (LMC) falls entirely in Rajasthan while the Right Main Canal (RMC) runs both in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh states. The RMC covers 130 km in Rajasthan and 240 km in Madhya Pradesh. Other main features in the original project included: (a) The Gandhi Sagar Dam with a storage capacity of 7,750 Mm3 covering an area of 690 sq km. The power station at this dam has a capacity of 120 Mw. (b) The Ranapratap Sagar Dam with a capacity of 2,900 Mm3 of water and can generate 172 Mw of electricity. The waters of this dam are also used to cool an Atomic power plant which generates 420 Mw electricity. (c) Jawahat Sagar Dam. A much smaller dam with generation capacity of 100 Mw. 1.04 The two main canals (RMC and LMC) have a design capacity to irrigate 460,000 ha in both states combined. The original irrigation project did not include drainage or chak level water conveyance system (water courses). As a result, waterlogging in the farmers' fields was caused by seepage from unlined channels, over irrigation and lack of drains. As the watertable rose because of poor drainage, salinity developed in the area. This reduced cultivable land and cropping intensity. In 1967 the Rajasthan State Government decided to improve the efficiency of water use in the com- mand area (229,000 ha) with the assistance of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). This undertaking was to find means of protecting land against waterlogging and salinity. The project was also intended to control weeds in the irrigation system and improve water conveyance, reduce water losses and develop proper land use for intensification of agriculture in the area. 1.05 The UNDP/FAO project was completed in 1974 and formed the basis for the Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan Ln. 1011). II. PROJECT FORMULATION Identification and Preparation 2.01 Agricultural Production in the command area had not increased to justify the investment in the massive irrigation system for Chambal project. The shortfall in production improvement was attributed to lack or poor - 45 - drainage system, soil erosion, poor roads, inadequate maintenance of irriga- tion and drainage system and the absence of on-farm development program with ellaborate support services. 2.02 The Government of India (GOT) requested the Bank in 1972 to inves- tigate how best these problems could be resolved. The Bank's Irrigation Reconnaissance Mission visited in November 1972 to review the Project and determine its suitability for improvement, management practices and for Bank financing. The FAO/IBRD Cooperative Program was asked to assist the Govern- ment of Rajasthan (GOR) in the preparation of the Chambal Command Area Development Project. This project was appraised in November 1973. Project Scope 2.03 The project was designed to improve and upgrade the construction of existing irrigation facilities, provide drainage and on-farm development. The project area was divided into three categories. Area A (50,000 ha) would be drained and benefit from on-farm development, Area B (117,000 ha) would be drained without on-farm development and Area C (62,000 ha) would benefit only from improvements of the main water conveyance system. A new type of exten- sion service (T&V) was intended to cover the irrigated command area and some areas outside the boundaries of the project. At appraisal it was estimated that 95,000 farm families would benefit from this project. 2.04 The project was designed with the following detailed features: (a) Drainage. The project would construct main, secondary and shallow seepage drains to improve drainage in the Project area. The drainage construction was to cover 167,000 ha or 73% of the command area. (b) Lining. Selected reaches with cut rocks and those infested with crabs or where original compaction was inadequate would be lined to reduce seepage losses and waterlogging. Lining of the canals would cover 14 km altogether. (c) Canal Capacity Works and Controls. Intensive cropping pattern proposed for Area A would increase water demand at peak times over the crop cycle. Hence, the existing capacity of canals in the command area serving On-farm Development area (OFD) would be increased from 0.41 1/s/ha to 0.53 I/s/ha. It was estimated that 850 km of canal needed improvement in capacity. One hundred sixty control structures (cross regulators, gates) would be constructed or improved. It was also estimtated that 4,000 chak outlets would be provided to improve efficient use of water through a rotational system (warabandi) proposed for the project. - 46 - (d) Acquatic Weed Control. Mechanical weed control supplemented with labor was considered adequate for major canals. To achieve this, the project proposed to supply 18 boats, fill borrow pits in the bed of RMC and construct escapes to allow rapid removal of water and create a dry environment. (e) On-farm Development (OFD). With the experience gained from the UNDP pilot project, OFD was restricted to Area A (50,000 ha). OFD involves provision of minor irrigation and drainage ditches, road access to almost all farms and land shaping to enable a more efficient and controllable water use. Realign- ment of farm boundaries was included to facilitate rational layout for irrigation, drainage and accessibility to each farm by road. OFD costs were to be charged to farmers in the form of a loan. At appraisal it was estimated that OFD package would cost Rs 2,750 per ha, including crop compensa- tion. On-farm works were to be preceded by actual surveys, realignment plans and maps, cost estimates for each farm and seek farmers agreement. The project also included the pro- vision of technical assistance to help planning and imple- mentaton of OFD component. (f) Roads. Construction of roads totalling 247 km were proposed under the project to aid distribution of inputs and trans- portation of produce to markets. These roads would also facilitate operation and maintenance of the irrigation and drainage system. (g) Afforestation and Erosion Control. One thousand hectares of plantation was included in the project to stabilize canal banks and arrest gully erosion. (h) Miscellaneous works and Equipment. The project proposed to construct buildings for the administration and provide vehicles and equipment for implementation of different components. This component also included construction of minor structures for flood protection and silt removal. (i) Fertilizer. Top soil of Area A under OFD program would be lost in the course of land levelling, hence, the project would provide 15,000 nutrient tons of various types of fertilizers to restore soil fertility on such farms. (j) Other Features. The project proposed to introduce a rota- tional water supply system (warabandi) in the area to facilitate efficient use and equitable distribution of water. Finances under the project would cover the administration of warabandi, extension sevices for the - 47 - entire project area and operation and maintenance of physical facilities. The project also required a number of studies to be carried out to enable implementing agencies understand project problems. These studies included investigations in hydrology, reservoir system operation, water use efficiencies, drainage design, survey and construction methods for OFD, crab ecology and equatic weed control. The project also required that a unit attached to the Area Development Commissioner be set up to monitor and evaluate project performance and also be responsible for compilation of statistics pertaining to cropping patterns, farm management surveys, benchmark studies and coordinate all reports for the project. Project implementation was designed to cover six years starting in fiscal year 1974/75. Project Objectives 2.05 Project implementation would lead to higher cropping intensities and improved yields of irrigated crops. Also the introduction of high value crops in the cropping pattern was expected as a result of an improved irriga- tion system, improved drainage and supporting services (extension services, credit and supply of production inputs). It was estimated at appraisal that the production of major food grains would increase as follows: Wheat produc- tion would increase from 117,000 tons in 1974 to 240,000 tons at full development in 1988; paddy from 12,000 tons to 72,000 tons; sorghum (jowar) a more tolerant crop to drought would increase its production two fold. Oil- seeds, pulses and sugarcane production were also projected to increase. The appraisal report projected an increase in family incomes from about Rs 1,200/year to Rs 3,000/year at full development. The project was to reduce unemployment and under employment in the area by creating an equivalent of 20,000 full-time work opportunities in the agricultural sector over a 10 year period. Job openings would develop in the services sector as a secondary benefit of the project. Increased food production from the project area was considered a contribution to the domestic food supply and assist in the elimination of food imports. At full development the project aimed at an increase of the annual gross value of production from Rs 200 million at 1974 prices to Rs 480 millin and the economic rate of return of the project was estimated to be 19% over a 30 year life. It was also estimated that 95,000 farm families would benefit from the project at full development. With improvements in drainage, the environment would be more habitable with reduced incidences of diseases particularly Malaria. 2.06 Project costs were estimted at US$91.5 million with a foreign exchange component of US$35 million or 38% of the total cost. The Bank approved a loan of US$52 million having a maturity of 30 years with 7 year grace period. The loan had an interest rate of 7-1/4% per annum. The project loan agreement was signed on September 19, 1974. - 48 - III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 3.01 In the first years, implementation of the project was slower than anticipated particularly the OFD component. During the initial six months following signing the agreement, there was a major re-organization in manage- ment, with a new Area Development Commissioner in place. Technical staff including the Chief Engineering position were left vacant for sometime. Project implementation was almost stationary during this period. Procurement of equipment and machinery were also delayed. Table 1 summarizes Project works implementation. Physical Works 3.02 Irrigation and Drainage Works. The project was designed to provide drainage for 167,000 ha. A drainage master plan was prepared during the first year of the project. The master plan identified priority areas and determined optimum drainage needs for each area. Shallow surface drains were designed basically on a one day storm with 5 years return period and crop submergence period of 40 to 72 hrs. The entire command area was divided into 74 sub-basins in which one or two main drains were provided with secondary drains/main sub-drains, carrier and seepage drains. In the OFD area, link drains were constructed to ensure that field drains discharged into car- rier/seepage drains to sub-drains and main drains. Existing drains were designed and constructed with a discharge capacity of 0.55 1/s/ha which proved inadequate. Drains with higher discharge capacity were constructed under the project. The project recommended a runoff factor of 1.6 1/s/ha providing for retarded runoff on the field due to bunded land that retained moisture. Drains were over designed with a discharge capacity of 2.35 1/s/ha to allow for high rainfall and minimize crop submergence period. Water flow measuring devices were used in drains to determine actual runoff in different catchments in the project area. In one catchment, a runoff of 1.6 1/s/ha was observed which was taken to represent the area. The project completed drain- ing works for 167,000 ha as proposed after extending the project. 3.03 Canal Lining. Field trials were conducted to determine appropriate types of lining. Pre-cast plain cement concrete blocks of 5 cm thick were found suitable for the project. At appraisal, the project proposed to line 14 km of reaches. In the course of project implementation, the lining target was increased to 62 km. Crab infested reaches indentified for lining were 85% of the revised target. Studies on biological and chemical control of crabs and their habitat were undertaken by the project to determine the most appropriate remedy to the crab infestation. At the close of the project, 52 km (84%) of lining was completed. - 49 - 3.04 Canal Capacity Improvement. The Chambal Canal System was originally designed for 0.41 1/s/ha water duty and a cropping intensity of 76%. In OFD areas where land productivity was expected to improve as a result of a more integrated approach to farming, the demand for water would increase to 0.53 1/s/ha to sustain cropping intensities of more than 130%. Canals in these areas were redesigned, widened and deepened to enhance their carrying capacity. The project exceeded the target by 8% in this component and improved the capacity of some 920 km of canal. 3.05 Control Structures. The project proposed to provide 160 control structures to improve water use efficiency. As the need for further improve- ment was considered necessary, the original proposal was revised to 223 structures. However, the project has managed only to install/improve 166 control structures by the end of March 82. Under this category the project also planned to introduce 4,000 Adjustable Proportionate Modules (APM) in the command area. For successful implementation of water rotational system, farmers Associations were considered necessary. These Associations were not formed in most parts of the command area and individual farmers resisted the introduction of water distribution controls. As a result, the number of APMs was reduced to 2,000. Even then, the project managed to install less than 50% of the revised quantity of APMs (959) and 57% (317) of tailend clusters by the end of project implementation. 3.06 On-farm Development. The project identified Area A covering 50,000 ha for OFD. Problems related to initial surveys, procurement of machinery and equipment, organization build-up, contract work, short construction period and farmers' acceptance caused a' slow start and subsequent low rate of implementation. Especially difficult was the land consolidation and boundary reallignment, which preceded the OFD works.l/ The OFD target was revised in 1980 to 33,000 ha and this revised target was fully implemented at the close of the project. The Command Area Development Authority (CADA) has now the capacity to carryout OFD physical works (including land consolidation) at a rate of 10,000 ha per year. With recent acquisition of machinery, CADA is expected to maintain this rate. However, survey work, planning and submis- sion of chak files were accomplished according to the original target cover- ing 50,000 ha. 3.07 Roads. The project provided for the improvement and construction of new roads for a total length of 247 km including state highways, district and village roads. The project has constructed/improved 287 km of road and exceeded the SAR proposal by 16%. This investment has benefitted farm 1/ In most of the Indian states land consolidation encountered strong farmers' objections and was abandoned. - 50 - families by providing easy access to markets at a reduced cost of transporta- tion. A sugar mill at Keshoraipaten on the LMC is now supplied with cane transported on these roads. Road construction and improvements were carried out by local contractors under the Supervision of the Public Works Department of GOR. Designs of cross drainage works and road specificiations were based on norms established under the Indian Road Congress which were acceptable to the Bank. 3.08 Afforestation and Soil Erosion Control. This component which provided for the establishment of 1,000 ha of forest in order to stabilize canal/channel banks was completed ahead of time. Another 1,300 ha of land were brought under forest during the project period, making a total of 2,300 ha. Ring bunds were constructed at gully heads to arrest soil erosion. The effects of ring bunds and afforestation in checking soil erosion are already noticed in the command area. Extension Services 3.09 The project re-organized the traditional approach to extension service and introduced Training and Visit (T&V) concept. Under T&V, priority extension messages are identified during the cropping season and Village Extension Workers (VEW) are trained specifically how to convey to farmers the extension message appropriate to the crop cycle. To ensure timely contact with farmers, the training of VEW allows time in between for field visits. Each VEW covers about 1,500 ha (400 farming families) within a radius of 5 to 8 km. In the villages that VEW operate, a few farmers are selected as 'con- tact farmers' who serve as innovators for the rest of the farmers. VEW visit contact farmers on fixed days of the week to discuss and demonstrate agricul- tural practices relating to a particular crop in the field. Neighboring farmers are invited to participate and discuss the demonstration. VEWs are given practical training once a fortnight on basic recommended agronomic practices which include land preparation, timely planting, use of clean seed or improved varieties, proper spacing, efficient use of irrigation water, fertilizers and pesticides. The extension packages are prepared in consult- ation with Research officers to ensure concerted effort towards improved farming. Agricultural research develops the package and extension service conveys it to the grower. The two disciplines have worked together success- fully in the command area. Research and Development 3.10 Adaptive research was carried out at Nanta farm in an effort to find solutions to problems facing Chambal Command Area. These studies include: soil management practices, water management practices, reclamation of saline and alkaline soils, removal of waterlogging conditions, water use efficiency for individual crops, control of acquatic weeds, crab control and various aspects of agronomy. Specific recommendations were made on how soil fertility could be improved on OFD Area. Work done by Nanta Research farm is - 51 - commendable and well documented. Nanta farm also determined irrigation intervals for different crops to achieve efficient use of water and minimize crop water stress. Crop yields at different irrigation intensities were evaluated to determine optimum levels of irrigation at different stages in a crop cycle. 3.11 Aquatic Weed Control. Nanta Research farm carried out experiments on different methods of weed control to determine the most effective. Weeds in the command area under heavy infestation reduced the carrying capacity of canals by 80%. In addition, water losses were great due to the evapotran- spiration of weeds. About thirty types of weeds were identified in the command area. These were grouped into three categories viz. floating, sub- mersed and emersed weeds, as these would require different treatments to control. Typha angustata was the most common weed in the emersed category. Control recommendations covering chemical, mechanical, biological and cul- tural methods existed before the project started. However, the project initiated evaluation of these recommendations to establish the most economic method which checked further spread of Typha in minors and drains. Trials established that after three underwater cuttings of Typha at one month inter- val, drains and minors could effectively be kept free of Typha by periodic patrols. 3.12 Control of Crabs. Crab infestation on canal walls enhanced water- losses and soil waterlogging condition through seepage. Nanta Research farm carried out studies on crab life cycle and its habitat before different control measures were tried. Chemical control through Ethylene dibromide fumigation proved effective. 3.13 Nanta research farm under the project conducted agronomic research trials on paddy, mustard, gram, coriander, wheat and safflower to determine optimum spacing, fertilizer requirement, seed rates, sowing dates, irrigation intensity and variety selection for high yields. The project has succeeded in introducing cost/benefit analysis in all research studies as a basis for selecting recommendations for command area farmers. 3.14 Irrigation Efficiencies. The irrigation staff carried out water measurement studies which determined water wastage levels at chak inlet to be about 50% of the delivery flow. To reduce this loss, the construction of APMs was considered necessary at the chak inlet. These studies estimated that unlined watercourses lost between 0.2 and 0.4 cusec per km length due to seepage, leakage and operational problems. Additional measurements indicated that unlined minors loose up to 26% of the water conveyed per km length. It also became clear that a delivery flow of 1 cusec to chaks with well con- structed distribution systems below the chak itself was adequate to meet farmers water requirements as against 0.5 cusec which was the amount delivered in most cases prior to the project. However, chak delivery flows under the project averaged 0.8 cfs with a wide range from 0.4 to 1.2 cfs. - 52 - For example in 2 irrigations, a chak received up to 50% variation in delivery and the supply was random and haphazard. 3.15 OFD design standards were unable to improve irrigation efficiency in the project. Irrigation streams were small and could not irrigate effi- ciently fields with graded border strips 250 meters long and approximately 15 meters wide with irrigation gradient of 0.1 to 0.3%. Irrigation efficiencies were only about 40% without taking into account wastage at the inlets, water- courses and general field losses. When these losses are evaluated, the overall irrigation efficiency at the chak level drops to 23%. The present level of farmer's technical skill is most suited to basin irrigation. Border irrigation require extensive engineering skill and cost more to construct than basin irrigation which is estimated at half the cost. With the slow takeoff of rotational water supply system (warabandi), water supply was unreliable and inadequate particularly to tailend farmers. Tailend farmers were disadvantaged because most of the water was tapped by farmers at the head close to the source. Hence benefits of the project were not equitably distributed to the intended beneficiaries at appraisal. Phase II project will concentrate on the operational management problem to ensure equitable water distribution. This will enable farmers under the OFD program to benefit from the project and be able to service loans adequately. Social Economic Studies 3.16 The project initiated benchmark surveys for the command area. At the same time farm management studies were also done in the OFD area. Bench- mark surveys were intended to find out changes in the pattern of employment, gross and net receipts and household expenditure. These surveys determined levels of literacy of the population in the project area and the pattern of agricultural development in terms of cropping pattern, cropping intensity and levels of input use and production trends. These surveys provided useful data on the economic and social situations in the command area and the chan- ges which took place as a result of project activities. The initial survey was conducted in 1975/76 and thereafter similar surveys were repeated and improved each year. The surveys indicate that the level of literacy has increased from 17% in 1975/76 to 23% in 1979/80. The number of people edu- cated to upper primary school level has gone up from 21% to 32%. It was also noticed that mortality between ages 0-5 years has declined. It has been shown that the number of children of this age group has increased from 13% to 16% despite the popularity of family planning programs in the area. Interest in other household occupations has increased, indicating a shift from agriculture. The increased use of machinery in farming has also contributed to this shift. The value of assets per household in current prices has increased from Rs 29,600 in 1975/76 to Rs 47,000 in 1979/80. This increase was due to improved value of agricultural land, number of agriculture imple- ments, number of livestock and investments on more permanent homes. - 53 - The value of total receipts per household at current prices has increased from Rs 5,600 to Rs 8,800 due mainly to improvements in agricultural output. 3.17 Household expenditure pattern has also changed showing an increase of expenditure on clothing, education and medical services. Expenditures on these items have doubled over the project period indicating an improvement in the standard of living of the families in the project area. The land dis- tribution pattern in terms of size of holding has changed. The number of marginal farmers with land holdings of less than one hectare has dropped from 11% to 8%. Medium farmers have increased from 28 to 34%. Tables 2 and 3 summarize some socio-economic indicators in the project area derived from benchmark surveys. 3.18 Farm management studies conducted in the OFD area dwelt on the economics of paddy production, wheat, gram and sorghum. These studies analyzed the different types of production inputs including labor, machinery, bullock, seed, fertilizers and pesticides and their effects on the yield. The total amount of input used for each crop was determined and costed. Crop cutting experiments were used in estimating crop yields. Production of each crop was valued and the unit prices were compared with the cost of production to determine profit margins for each crop. Farm budgets were also prepared and used by village extension workers in their discussions with farmers. Farm management surveys also analyzed credit aspects to determine pattern of crop loan distribution between castes, sources of credit, type of production inputs financed by credit and the repayment position. Project Costs 3.19 At appraisal total project cost was estimated at US$91.5 million, of which US$35 million or 38% of the total cost was foreign exchange. The project implementation period was estimated to be six years beginning fiscal year 1974/75. A Bank loan equivalent to US$52 million with 7 1/4% p.a. interest rate was approved to finance 100% of foreign cost of the project and 32% of the local cost or 57% of total project cost. Most project components were completed during the estimated time except implementation of OFD works. Project targets were revised in June 1981 and loan funds reallocated. Project implementation was extended to March 1982 and loan disbursements to June 1982. Canal lining was increased from 14 km to 62 km, canal capacity works were enhanced by 50 km to 900 km. 3.20 The OFD cost increased by 70% from Rs 1,760 per hectare to Rs 3,000. This amount excludes crop compensation made to farmers. Crop compensation proposed in the SAR was Rs 150 per ha. This amount was to be paid to farmers 1/ The average arable land size per household is estimated to be 3.3 ha. - 54 - for the loss of rabi crop when the land was being prepared under the OFD program. However, in the course of project implementation, Rs 150 ha was found to be inadequate incentive to attract farmers to the program. Hence, the amount for crop compensation was raised and made to relate to the value of crops. The following table shows crop compensation rates for individual crops between 1977/78 and 1980/81. Despite this increase, farmers par- ticipating in the OFD program were still being charged Rs 150 per ha in the loan account while the balance was treated as Government subsidy. Crop Compensation Rates per Hectare Crop 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 Wheat 1,560 1,260 1,270 1,325 Sugarcane 3,125 1,820 2,700 3,750 Gram 950 950 940 1,200 Coriander 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,580 Barley 750 750 750 850 Linseed & other pulses 950 950 950 1,200 3.21 Road construction was extended to 300 km instead of 250 km in the original plan. Afforestation was also increased from 1,000 ha to 2,300 ha. With these changes, the actual cost of the project increased by about 7% to Rs 786 million (March 1982). Table 4 summarizes actual project costs. 3.22 The average exchange rate during the project period was Rs 8.4 per 1 US$ as against Rs 8 estimated at appraisal. In dollar terms the project cost increased by 2% which is considered marginal. Most of the equipment and machinery were procured at prices lower than those estimated at appraisal because price escalations were not as high as projected. The bulk of equip- ment and machinery were procured between 1978/79 and 1980/81 and are still in serviceable condition. It is proposed in the second phase of the project to use the same equipment for most of the construction work. Disbursement 3.23 The Bank has so far disbursed US$43.6 million (as of March 1982); against a total loan of US$52 million (83.8%). On-farm development disburse- ments have been slow despite of increased actual expenditure on this category. This situation was caused by the long process required before getting final approval for reimbursement. The CAA prepares supporting docu- ments for the expenditure incurred on the OFD program, then submits claims to RLDC. It is then the responsibility of RLDC to process such claims and forward them for reimbursement. It is estimated that about US$3 million is - 55 - outstanding which should have been disbursed because expenditure has already been incurred and works completed. Tables 5 and 6 summarize disbursements by categories and accummulated actuals semester wise from 1974/75 to March 1982. Institution Building and Performance 3.24 The Bank recognized the need to ensure efficient management of resources and coordinated activities in the implementation of the project. In order to achieve this, the Government of Rajasthan was required to set up a number of institutions. These institutions included the Command Area Development and Water Utilization Department at the State level and a Command Area Authority (CAA) at the project area. The Command Area Development and Water Utilization Department provided guidance in defining state policy on water use. The CAA had a senior government official (Area Development Com- missioner) at the top with four departments to implement the project. These departments covered Irrigation and land development, Agriculture, Revenue and Cooperative activities. The Area Development Commissioner had authority to execute project works and oversee implementation of roads and afforestation components under separate Government departments. A Land Development Cor- poration (RLDC) was also formed to facilitate implementation of the OFD program through provision of adequate funds and other supporting services. Farmers under the OFD program had to finance all operations on a chak except common facilities like watercourses. The Agricultural Refinance Development Corporation (ARDC) refinanced commercial banks which provided loans to farmers through RLDC and CAA. The GOI and GOR provided subsidies for land development costs and special loans to disadvantaged and ineligible farmers for commercial credit and also covered costs for engineering services. The two governments had to subscribe to the share capital of RLDC. Other project components were financed directly through government budgetary allocation to the executing agents.1/ CAA had setbacks at the initial stage of project implementation because of inadequate staffing due to frequent transfers and delays in finding replacements compounded by some senior positions remaining vacant for a long time. Problems of co-ordination developed because depart- ments within CAA worked in isolation of each other and lacked clear cut division of responsibility. 1/ Public Works Department, Forestry Department and CAA. - 56 - IV. AGRICULTURAL IMPACT 4.01 The appraisal report anticipated an improvement in cropping pat- tern, intensities and yields. The cropping intensity was to increase from 87% to 111% at full development and all the land would be irrigated. The appraisal report analyzed production in three different sub-project areas. This PCR has treated available data representing the whole project area as the average outcome; mainly because monitoring during project implementation did not record data separately for each sub-project area. Nonetheless, results indicate that the pace of development has been slower than originally anticipated. Agricultural Area 4.02 The project area is 170 to 260 m above sea level in a basin of former alluvial plain of the Chambal river with an average slope of 0.08%. The soils are uniform clay loams (black cotton soils) called vertisols which harden and form deep cracks during the dry season. Below 2 meters these soils turn into yellow clay loams and become less permeable to water. This characteristic caused waterlogging and salinity in areas close to the canals due to seepage and inadequate drainage. The project was designed to overcome these problems. Command Area and Crop Production 4.03 The project area covered 229,000 ha; 167,000 ha have effectively been drained and brought to production. Pro'duction of most crops has increased from the low levels of 1973/74. Yield estimates for the project were based on crop cutting experiments performed by Nanta Reasearch Unit on sampled farmers plots. Yield estimates for main crops in the area with project situation are in the following table: Crop Yield Estimates in Tons/ha At Full Development 1973/74 1981/82 1987/88 Irrigated Non-irrigated Irrigated Non-irrigated Paddy 1.6 2.7 1.2 3.0 1.3 Sorghum 0.8 2.1 0.6 2.5 0.7 Sugarcane 30.0 45.0 55.0 Wheat 0.8 1.6 0.8 2.6 0.9 Gram 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.6 Mustard 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 Coriander 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 Soyabean 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 Groundnuts 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.6 /a Crop yields in the OFD areas are estimated to be 20% higher than the project average. - 57 - The project was able to improve grain yields substantially. Paddy yield increased by 69%, and wheat yields more than doubled. The cropping intensity improved from 125% in 1973/74 to 133% in 1981/82. The increase is attributed to intensive drainage and improvements carried out on the irrigation con- veyance system. As a result, production of most crops increased in the project area. The following table shows changes in crop production between 1974/75 and 1981/82. Crop Production in Tons 1974/75 1981/82 Paddy 28,900 98,000 Sorghum 29,900 43,000 Wheat 94,500 176,000 Gram 32,000 36,000 Corriander 4,200 7,500 Soyabean 2,900 3,000 Groundnuts 900 5,400 The production of three main food grains (wheat, paddy and sorghum) alone increased by 98%. 4.04 Irrigation intensity in the command area has varied tremendously depending on whether farmers plots are at the head or tail of the water conveyance system. Irrigated land has been increasing over the project period from 158,000 ha in 1974/75 to 199,200 ha in 1981/82. This shows irrigation intensity improvement from 70% in 1974/75 to 90% in 1981/82. However, irrigation intensities were much higher in drained areas. Field trials under the project indicate that yield increases with the number of irrigations in a crop growing season. The average wheat yield attained during 1980/81 with different irrigation frequencies are shown in the follow- ing table: Number of Irrigation Yields in Tons/ha 0 0.71 1 1.91 2 2.16 3 2.38 4 2.51 It was also observed that the proportion of land that received 4 irrigations or more in the project area decreased from 43% in 1975/76 to 9% in 1980/81 whereas the percentage of fields getting two irrigations increased from 16% - 58 - to 37% over the same period. The reduction in the frequency of irrigation affected wheat crop yield adversely. Wheat yields of up to 4 tons per hec- tare were achieved when adequate irrigation was provided. 4.05 The project was able to improve the use of fertilizers in the command area. Fertilizer distribution to farmers in the CCA increased from 16,000 tons in 1974/75 to 21,500 tons in 1979/80 made up of N, P and K in different proportions. The use of hybrid or certified seed also increased particularly in paddy and wheat from 280 and 750 quintals in 1974/75 to 1,500 and 3,200 quintals in 1980/81, respectively. 4.06 New crops were introduced in the project area; these included hybrid sorghum, soybean and mustard. It is expected that after a few years, these crops will become important in the cropping pattern of the area. 4.07 Facilities for processing crops and storage prior to marketing have also improved in the project area over the implementation period. One rice mill has been added to the two that existed in 1973/74, two pulse mills (Dal) have been introduced with a total milling capacity of 8 tons per hour. A cold storage house with 1,500 tons capacity now exists in the area. The number of godowns has increased from 30 to 121. Each of these godowns has a storage capacity of 100 tons of grain. Forty five more godowns are at varied stages of completion in the command area. 4.08 The number of village cooperatives (Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti) for the Six Panchayat-Samiti have decreased from 177 in 1974/75 to 172 in 1980/81. In order to improve efficiency and economies of scale, five of these cooperatives were merged with existing ones. However, the total mem- bership of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti in the command area has increased from 49,000 to 109,000. Marketing facilities through Food Corporation of India, Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation and the Cooperative Marketing Federa- tion of India are now provided to ensure fair pricing of farmers produce. Road communication extended by the project has played an important role in improving crop movement to the markets. Credit Performance 4.09 Central Cooperative Banks have continued to advance farmers with credit for production inputs under short term arrangements. Types of loans made to farmers by Central Cooperative Banks in the command area are as shown: Type Rs in lacs of Loan 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 Short term 460.9 760.8 653.6 580.6 560.0 471.9 427.2 260.9 Medium term 6.8 1.5 3.7 4.1 4.9 3.1 7.6 6.3 Long term 14.4 6.7 35.7 54.5 35.3 49.9 53.3 53.5 Total 482.1 769.0 693.0 639.2 600.2 524.9 488.1 320.7 - 59 - Loan recoveries by the Central Cooperative Bank have been declining, result- ing in reduced lending especially since 1977/78. They declined from 76% in 1974/75 to 43% in 1980/81. 4.10 Loans for OFD works in the project area were made by commercial banks which were refinanced by ARDC and have accumulated to Ra 20.4 million. Accummulated interest charges as of December 1981 stand at Rs 3.4 million. Terms of these loans include 15 years repayment period with 2 years grace. Recoveries of these loans have also been poor. Out of the principal and interest due in December 1981, only 14% was recovered. At project comple- tion, commercial banks had not finished preparing final loan statements for individual borrowers because CAA hadnot issued certificates of completion of works on most OFD fields. This situation was caused by OFD farmers continued complaints for uncompleted works in their fields. There are indications that one of the main reason for poor recoveries is that farmers in the project area believe that loans made by Government institutions would not be recovered and are therefore treating them as grants. 4.11 Contributing to the poor recoveries is the fact that the terms of agreement between commercial banks and farmers do not state when the grace period should start. Some commercial bank officials contend that the period should commence after the completion works certificate has been issued while others want the grace period to start immediately when the first disbursement is made. Most of these commercial banks are hesitant to present demand notes to the borrowers because of the unresolved policy issues. Another reason for recovery difficulties experienced by commercial banks is that they did not attempt to provide farmers with full banking services including saving facilities. Commercial banks operating in the command area do not have drawn up plans for resource mobilization in the form of savings from farmers. They are purely operating as disbursement houses with no responsibility of raising investment funds. The machinery required for loan recovery was not in place except a few clerks who were assigned to recover interest on loans without the knowledge of actual loan positions of individual farmers. The loan for OFD was a one time service and the farmer could afford to delay repayment without sanctions. It is still unclear whether the same commercial banks would continue to operate in the project area during the second phase of the project. - 60 - V. ECONOMIC EVALUATION Farm Incomes 5.01 OFD and non-OFD farm budgets have been prepared for 3 hectares which is the average size of farm holding. Agricultural production was assumed to be fully developed at the end of 1987/88 crop season. Cropping patterns used in the farm budget (Table 8) represent the proportion of farm land under main crops in the command area. Net farm incomes at 1975 constant prices have increased from Rs 540 to Rs 1,950 per ha in OFD areas as against Rs 540 to Rs 1,260 in the non-OFD areas. The larger increase in the OFD areas is mostly as a result of this project. OFD farm budgets show that farmers capability to repay the development loan under the terms assumed during appraisal, have been enhanced. Benefits 5.02 Incremental production of major crops in the command area including paddy, sorghum, sugarcane, wheat and grain, estimated on the basis of revised yield and cropping patterns Table 9 were valued at 1975 constant economic prices derived from World Bank commodity forecasts. The following commodity price index, at 1974-76 constant dollar were used in the analysis. 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Cereals 94 78 65 63 61 65 72 Fats & Oils 81 83 96 86 88 71 74 Other Foods 97 68 54 50 56 91 70 Yield increase projections at appraisal may not be attained at full develop- ment because of inadequate supplies of irrigation water. Field trial results showed that tailend farmers had lower crop yields than those close to the main source of irrigation water. The inequitable distribution of water had a depressing effect on total production. Incremental Production in Tons in 1982 Appraisal Estimate Actual Paddy 50,000 70,000 Wheat 123,000 80,000 Sorghum 14,000 13,000 Oilseed & Pulses 48,000 7,200 Sugarcane 195,000 41,000 - 61 - Costs 5.03 Project costs include construction of irrigation and drainage sys- tems, equipment and machinery, OFD works, roads, afforestation and project administration. Operation and maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage systems, extension services and on-farm production costs for paddy, sorghum, wheat, sugarcane, gram, groundnuts, soybeans, corriander, mustard and fodder were also included in the analysis. Appropriate conversion factors were used to adjust traded and non-traded inputs and outputs and bring them to a common basis.1/ 1975 constant prices were used in all costs to maintain consistency between costs and benefits in the analysis. Project costs were deflated by the following annual price contingencies taking 1974/75 as base year: Percent Price Contingency Component 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Foreign 0 1.8 8.6 18.3 14.5 11.7 -4.6 7.8 Local 0 -1.1 2.1 5.1 0 16.7 18.7 9.0 The same proportions assumed at appraisal for foreign exchange component in the project costs were used in the analysis. Foreign costs were converted by the prevailing official exchange rate at the time of procurement. Financial and economic input price assumptions used in the analysis are given in Table 10. Family and hired labor was valued at the same rate but adjusted to reflect un and underemployment situation in the rural sector. Rate of Return 5.04 The economic rate of return of the project at appraisal was estimated at 19% assuming a 30-year project life with six years implementation period. Project facilities were assumed to have 30% salvage value of their original cost at 1974 constant prices at the end of 30 years. It is now estimated that at completion of the project, the economic rate of return would be 17%. This estimate is based on actual project cost data from 74/75 to 1981/82 and estimated incremental benefits. Assumptions regarding production, invest- ment, phasing and prices have changed over the period. Production levels of 1987/88 were assumed to be optimum and would remain the same for the rest of the economic life of the project. Table 15 summarizes the Economic Costs and Benefits for the Project. 1/ CF used: Labor 0.6, civil works 0.7 and SCF of 0.8 for other non-traded inputs (bullock). - 62 - VI. BANK PERFORMANCE 6.01 The decision to finance this project was sound and the project has maintained an economic rate of return well above the opportunity cost of capital. The project objectives and technical aspects were generally well received. However, there were some organizational shortcomings which caused major delays in the implementation of the project, particularly the OFD component. The Bank provided technical assistance which guided CAA in implementing OFD program. Most physical targets have been exceeded within the original project period except the OFD program. Implementation of the OFD program achieved 66% of the original target of 50,000 ha but 100% of the revised estimate of 33,000 ha. This is not a small achievement considering that it was an innovative program and farmers had skeptism in its success. The stage of doubts is now over; farmers have confidence in the program and CAA has now a greater capacity to implement the program. 6.02 The project would have achieved even higher benefits if operation and management aspects of the irrigation system, as proposed by the Bank were implemented. Rotational Water Supply system was a key element for equitable distribution of irrigation water. Tailend farmers suffered most as a result of its absence. This problem has since been recognized and phase II just appraised will ensure that physical works implementation include O&M of the irrigation system. 6.03 Bank supervision missions visited the project at an average inter- val of about six months. These missions were generally thorough and helpful in solving many problems that occurred during project implementation. The field office (NDO) participated well in these Supervision missions and helped in the preparation of the second phase of this project. 6.04 The Bank was flexible and agreed to revise original targets and extended the project completion period from June 1980 to March 1982 to com- pensate for delays. Loan funds were also reallocated to accommodate these changes. INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Summary of Project Works Implementation Estimate at Revised Achievement Items Appraisal Estimate by 3,31.82 Irrigation & Drainage Drainage 167,000 ha 167,000 ha Lining 14 km 62 km 53 km Canal Capacity Works 854 km 900 km .949 km Control Structures 157 223 166 Miscellaneous Works Structures 298 km 285 km Canal Roads 114 km 65 km On-Farm Development Survey 47,000 ha 66,720 ha 72,331 ha Planning & design 48,500 ha - 50,736 ha Construction 50,000 ha 33,000 ha 33,139 ha Roads State Highways 53 km 88 km 89 km Major District Roads 123 km - 129 km Other District Roads 40 km - 39 km Village Roads 31 km 40 km 40 km Afforestation 1,000 ha 3,300 ha 2,285 ha e Table 2 - 64 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Type and Value of Household Assets in Current Rs Types 75/76 76/77 77/78 78/79 79/80 Land 21,908 22,103 27,285 27,004 32,656 (74) (69) (72) (65) (69) Residential Houses 3,822 3,467 3,914 5,321 5,625 (13) (11) (10) (13) (12) Sheds & Godown 684 236 330 994 587 (2) (1) (1) (2) (1) Livestock 2,115 3,108 3,603 4,077 4,383 (7) (10), (9) (10) (9) Farm Implements 826 2,036 1,596 2,831 2,213 (3) (6) (4) (7) (5) Others 216 808 1,098 1,262 1,488 (1) (2) (3) (3) (3) Total 29,571 31,758 37,826 41,489 46,952 (Figures in brackets represent percentages of total) Table 3 - 65 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN House Hold Expenditure Pattern In Current Rs Item 75/76 76/77 77/78 78/79 79/80 Food 1,825 1,443 1,947 2,188 2,198 (62) (52) (54) (53) (51) Clothing 582 725 887 939 1,051 (20) (26) (24) (23) (25) Education 89 82 192 200 172 (3) (3) (5) (5) (4) Medical 145 198 228 275 322 (5) (7) (6) (7) (8) Other 318 302 372 500 534 (11) (11) (10) (12) (12) Total 2,959 2,750 3,626 4,102 4,277 (Figures in brackets represent percentages of total) INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Summary Project Costs 1/ Rs 000 Foreign Components 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 Total Exchange % Irrigation and Drainage 6,928 17,893 28,603 44,212 38,057 3Y,229 42,678 33,300 252,900 25% On-Farm Development 1,496 3,079 5,221 9,768 11,390 24,259 36,387 31,400 123,000 35% Roads 6,131 9,594 19,511 18,541 21,208 11,242 8,573 11,600 106,400 25% Afforestation 202 315 429 341 610 883 420 3,300 6,500 5% Fertilizers 51,300 - - - - - - - 51,300 95% o' Project Admininstration 12,046 15,747 16,921 20,413 17,484 23,269 23,020 29,000 157,900 10% a" Sub-Total 78,103 46,628 70,685 93,L75 88,749 98,882 111,078 11u,600 698,000 Interest 88,000 TOTAL 786,000 I/ Include Physical and Price contingencies. Table 5 - 67 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN) Disbursements (US$ M) Actual At Appraisal Revised Disbursement Category June 1974 June 1981 March 1982 1. Civil Works a) Infrastructure 18.0 23.5 20.2 b) On-Farm Development 8.6 6.0 2.0 2. Equipment and Materials Under Part A thru H and L of the Project 4.4 5.4 4.3 a) Directly Imported b) Locally Manufactured c) Imported Items Procured Locally 3. Fertilizer 6.1 6.1 6.1 4. Technical Assistance 0.1 5. Interest on Loan 11.0 11.0 11.0 6. Unallocated 3.8 - - TOTAL 52.0 52.0 43.6 Table 6 - 68 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Disbursements by Semester (Accumulative) Appraisal Revised Estimate Estimate Actual -----------------US$ M----------------) 1975 1st 2nd 3.1 6.3 1976 1st 6.6 7.7 2nd 9.4 8.5 1977 1st 12.4 2nd 15.8 12.1 1978 1st 19.5 2nd 23.6 20.0 18.1 1979 1st 28.1 25.0 20.5 2nd 33.5 30.0 24.8 1980 1st 39.1 36.0 28.2 2nd 45.4 42.0 33.1 1981 1st 52.0 52.0 35.6 2nd 41.5 1982 1st 43.1 March 43.6 June 47.0 1/ 1/ Estimate includes US$3.4 M OFD unclaimed expenditures. INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RAJASTHAN) LN. 1011-IN Farm Budget (3 Ha) at 1975 Constant Ra 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87-1990 Sources of Funds Bank loan 1/ 5,700 Value of Product 1,488 2/ 5,742 5,573 6,524 7,585 7,932 8,578 8,945 10,328 11,445 11,471 11,458 11,464 Total Cash Inflow 7,188 5,742 5,573 6,524 7,585 7,932 8,578 8,945 10,328 11,445 11,471 11,458 11,464 1 a, Uses of Funds OFD Works 5,700 Farm Costs 915 3,127 3,023 3,240 3,506 3,735 3,625 3,520 3,558 3,539 3,549 3,544 3,595 Debt Service - 570 570 1,282 1,212 1,139 1,069 997 927 854 784 - - Total Cash Outflow 6,615 3,697 3,593 4,522 4,718 4,874 4,694 4,517 4,485 4,393 4,333 3,544 3,595 Net Cash Flow 573 2,045 1,980 2,002 2,867 3,058 3,884 4,428 5,843 7,052 7,112 7,914 7,869 1/ Ten years repayment period including 2 years of grace with 10% annual interest rate. 2/ Value of Kharif Crop (OFD works during Rabi) INDIA Chambal Comand Area Development Project (Raasthan tn. 1011-IN) Developonent of Cropping Pattern (With Project) Ha 74/75 75/76 76/77 77/78 78/79 79/80 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86 86/87-2005 Irrigated Paddy 18,637 21,944 19,267 20,342 31,554 34,205 36,585 35,137 35,523 35,330 35,426 35,378 35,402 Sorghum/Maize 696 25 16 127 99 7,532 4,594 5,793 5,857 5,825 5,841 5.833 5,837 Sugarcane 3,310 1,817 2,314 5,416 4,370 1,754 2,259 2,859 2,890 2,874 2,882 2,878 2,880 Pulses (Soyaban) 679 409 224 374 352 566 412 974 985 979 982 9§0 981 Oilseed/Groundnut 1,075 256 256 457 1,208 1,888 2,059 2,747 2,777 2,762 ',769 2,765 2,767 Others I 611 651 11 -2- - - 131 132 131 131 131 131 Subtotal 25,008 25,102 23,199 26,716 37,583 45,945 45,909 47,641 48,164 47,901 48,031 47,965 47,998 Non Irrigated Paddy 14 15 6 19 103 50 21 - - - - - Sorghum 37,399 31,588 48,684 44,550 35,983 62,610 39,165 50,552 51,108 50.830 50,969 50,899 50,934 Pulses (soyahean) 9,048 3,977 4.927 4,030 3,412 4,578 5,838 5,032 5,087 5.059 5,073 5,066 5,069 Oilseed/Groundnut 389 2,074 2,836 3,213 3,649 3.263 9,267 4,409 4,457 4,433 4,445 4,439 4,442 Others 1 5.685 2,579 6,9 5,434 7,608 8 6.793 7,05 7.134 7.095 7J11 7.104 7.109 Subtotal 52,535 47,233 63,246 57,24 50.755 78.924 61.084 67.049 67786 67417 7, 67,508 67,554 TOTAL 77,543 72,335 83,962 88,338 124,869 106,993 114690 115,950 115.318 115,632 115.473 115,552 RABI Irrigated wheat/Barley 94,391 89,972 88,518 98,972 124,836 116,506 107,700 99,151 100,242 99,696 99,969 99,832 99,900 Gra. 29,525 33,983 28,131 24,400 25,125 35,491 41,315 35,907 36,302 36,104 36,203 36,153 36,178 Oilseed/Mustard 1,531 786 775 1,750 1,811 1,570 3,288 2,312 2,337 2,324 2,330 2,327 2,328 Coriander 3,197 2,831 5,573 20,727 7,132 3,933 11,897 9,954 10,063 10,008 10,035 10,021 10.028 Others II 3,691 3.198 3,088 3,143 3.115 3.129 2,947 2,764 2,794 2J779 2,786 2,7_ _ 2.784 Subtotal 132,335 130,770 126,085 148,992 162,019 160,629 167,147 150,088 151,738 150,911 151.323 151,115 151,218 0 Non Irrigated wheattBarley 23,797 16,783 12,419 8,255 9,269 6,276 8,654 9,166 9,267 9,216 9,241 9,228 9,234 Coriander 5.340 5,995 6,304 12,856 4,649 1,686 2,835 3,056 3,090 3,073 3,081 3,077 3.079 Gra. 25,178 34,199 22,358 12,947 12,164 17,075 13,117 14,119 14,274 14,196 14,235 14,215 14,225 Oilseed/Mustard 21,875 12.708 152 12.391 12.684 10,640 8A5aI 11,175 11.298 11,236 11.267 11,251 11.259 Subtotal 76,390 69.685 53.610 46.449 38.766 35,67 33147 57.51 37929 3721 37,824 37,771 37.797 TOTAL 208,525 200,43 179,695 195,441 200.785 196.306 200,254 187,64 189,667 188.632 189147 188.886 189,015 GRAND TOTAL 286.068 27.70 66 7940&2912431.7 307.287 302.294 30.1 103.950 304.359 304.567 Cropping Intensity 125 119 116 122 126 140 134 132 133 133 133 133 133 Irrigation Intensity 69 68 65 77 87 90 93 86 87 87 87 87 87 Cropping Pattern (Tlthout Project) (Ha) I/ Paddy 18,067 Sorghum 37,430 Sugarcane 3,206 Wheat 118,097 Gram 53,399 Mustard 23,406 Coriander 8,348 Soya Bean 9,727 Groundnt 1,464 Others 1 TOTAL 283,980 Cropping Intensity 124 1/ Assumed to remain the same throughout the life of the project. INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan). Ln. 1011-IN Yield Estimates (With Project) Tons/Ha 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84- 1988/89- 1987/88 2005/06 Irrigated Paddy 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.2 Sorghum 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.5 Sugarcane 30.0 32.0 35.0 37.0 39.0 40.0 44.0 48.0 52.0 55.0 55.0 Wheat 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.7 Gram 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 Mustard 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 Coriander 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 Groundnut 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Soyabean 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Non Irrigated Paddy 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 j Sorghum 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 Wheat 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 Gram 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 Coriander 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 Soyabean 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Groundnut 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Mustard 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Yield Estimates (Without Project) Tons/Ha Paddy 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 Sorghum 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 Sugarcane 30.0 31.0 32.0 35.0 37.0 Wheat 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 Gram 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Mustard 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Coriander 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Soyabean 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Groundnut 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 cr Table 10 - 72 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Price Assumptions for Production Inputs At 1982 Constant Prices Financial Economic Rs Rs Agricultural Labor 5 per Man/day 3 per Man/day 1/ Bullock 15 per Bullock 12 per Bullock Day 2/ Day Fertilizers Nitrogen 5.20 per kg 4.7 per kg Phosphate 5.90 per kg 4.0 per kg Potash 2.20 per kg 2.0 per kg 1/ Adjusted by 0.6 (labor CF) 2/ Adjusted by 0.8 (SCF) Table 11 (a) - 73 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Cost of Paddy per ha With Project 1/ Unit Financial Economic Cost Cost Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 24 Bullock 360.00 288.00 days Labor 132 Man/days 660.00 396.00 Seed 25 kg 60.00 60.00 Fertilizer N 50 kg 260.00 235.00 Fertilizer P 15 kg 88.50 60.00 Fertilizer K 5 kg 11.00 10.00 Agro Chemicals 120.00 96.00 Interest on Credit 74.26 - Water Charges 80.00 33.6 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - Total 1,721.26 1,178.60 At 1975 Constant Rs 1,120.39 767.17 1/ At 1982 Constant Prices. 2/ Traded inputs at import parity prices, other inputs at Financial prices adjusted by appropriate CF Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance cost of irrigation and drainage, Rs 42/ha adjusted by SCF. - 74 - INDIA Table 11 (b) Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Cost of Sorghum per ha With Project Unit Financial Economic Cost Cost Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 18 Bullock 270.00 216.00 Days Labor 72 Man/days 360.00 216.00 Seed 10 kg 100.00 100.00 Fertilizer N 30 kg 156.00 141.00 Fertilizer P 20 kg 113.00 80.00 Agro Chemical 25.00 20.00 Interest on Credit 55.62 - Water Charges 35.00 33.60 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - Total 4/ 1,137.12 806.60 At 1975 Constant Rs 740.17 523.02 1/ At 1982 Constant Prices. 2/ Traded inputs at Import Parity prices, other inputs at Financial Prices adjusted by appropriate CF Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance cost of irrigation and Drainage, Rs 42.0/ha adjusted by SCF. 4/ For irrigation crop. Rainfed crop production costs are Rs 951.20 and Rs 743.00 (Financial and Economic costs respectively). However, at 1975 Constant Rs, rainfed crop production costs become Rs 619.15 and Rs 483.63. Table 11 (c) - 75 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Costs of Sugarcane per ha With Project 1 Unit Financial Economic Cost Cost Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 44 Bullock 660.00 528.00 Days Labor 200 Man/days 1,000.00 600.00 Seed 44 sets 1,320.00 1,320.00 Fertilizer N 80 kg 416.00 376.00 Fertilizer P 20 kg 118.00 80.00 Fertilizer K 10 kg 22.00 20.00 Agro Chemicals 350.00 280.00 Interest on Credit 148.64 - Water Charges 115.00 33.6 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - 'Total 4,157.14 3,237.60 At 1975 Constant Rs 2,705.94 2,107.40 1/ At 1982 Constant Prices. 2/ Traded inputs at import parity prices, other inputs at Financial prices adjusted by appropriate CF Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance Costs of irrigation and Drainage, Rs 42.0/ha adjusted by SCF. Table 11 (d) - 76 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Cost of Wheat per ha With Project 1 Unit Financial Economic Costs Costs Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 20 Bullock 300.00 240.00 Days Labor 72 Man/days 360.00 216.00 Seed 100 kg 340.00 340.00 Fertilizer N 30 kg 156.00 141.00 Fertilizer P 20 kg 118.00 80.00 Fertilizer K 5 kg 11.00 10.00 Agro Chemicals 60.00 48.00 Interest on Credit 76.93 - Water Charges 60.00 33.6 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - Total 4/ 1,489.43 1,108.60 At 1975 Constant Rs 969.49 721.60 1/ At 1982 Constant Prices 2/ Traded inputs at import parity prices, other inputs at Financial prices adjusted by appropriate CF Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance cost of irrigation and drainage Rs 42.0/ha adjusted by SCF. 4/ For irrigated crop. Rainfed crop, production costs are Rs 1,029.69 and Rs 820.00 (Financial and Economic Costs respectively). However, at 1975 Constant Rs the rainfed crop production costs become Rs 670.24 and Rs 533.75. Table 11 (e) - 77 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Costs for Gram per ha With Project -/ Unit Financial Economic Cost Cost Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 15 Bullock 225.00 180.00 Days Labor 48 Man/days 240.00 144.00 Seed 65 kg 351.00 351.00 Fertilizer N 10 kg 52.00 47.00 Fertilizer P 20 kg 118.00 80.00 Agro Chemical 60.00 48.00 Interest on Credit 48.89 - Water Charges 40.00 33.60 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - Total 4/ 1,142.39 883.60 At 1975 Constant Rs 743.60 575.15 1/ At 1982 Constant prices 2/ Traded inputs at import parity prices, other inputs at Financial prices adjusted by appropriate CF Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage Rs 42.0/ha adjusted by SCF. 4/ For irrigated Crop. Rainfed crop, production costs are Rs 1,087.30 and Rs 841.00 (Financial and Economic costs respectively). However, at 1975 Constant Rs the rainfed crop production costs become Rs 707.74 and Rs 547.42. Table 11 (f) - 78 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Cost for Mustard per ha With Project - Unit Financial Economic Cost Cost Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 20 Bullock 300.00 240.00 Days Labor 60 Man/days 300.00 180.00 Seed 3 kg 24.90 24.90 Fertilizer N 10 kg 52.00 47.00 Fertilizer P 5 kg 29.50 20.00 Agro Chemical 50.00 40.00 Interest on Credit 13.98 - Water Charges 18.00 33.60 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - Total 4/ 795.88 585.50 At 1975 Constant Rs 518.05 381.11 1/ At 1982 Constant prices. 2/ Traded inputs at import parity prices, other inputs at Financial prices adjusted by appropriate CF. Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage system Rs 42.0/ha adjusted by SCF. 4/ For irrigated crop. Rainfed crop production costs are Rs 715.54 and Rs 522.34 (financial and economic costs respectively). However, at 1975 Constant Rs the rainfed crop production costs become Rs 466 and Rs 340. Table 11 (g) - 79 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Costs of Coriander per ha With Project 1 Unit Financial Economic Cost Cost Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 15 Bullock 225.00 180.00 Days Labor 50 Man/days 250.00 150.00 Seed 3 kg 75.00 75.00 Fertilizer N 25 kg 130.00 117.50 Fertilizer P 10 kg 59.00 40.00 Agro Chemical 100.00 80.00 Interest on Credit 38.16 - Water Charges 18.00 33.6 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - Total 902.66 676.10 At 1975 Constant Rs 587.55 440.08 1/ At 1982 Constant prices. 2/ Traded inputs at import parity prices, other inputs at Financial prices adjusted by appropriate CF Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage system Rs 42.00/ ha adjusted by SCF. Table 11 (h) - 80 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Cost of Soya Bean per ha With Project - Unit Financial Economic Cost Cost Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 15 Bullock 225.00 180.00 Days Labor 52 Man/days 260.00 156.00 Seed 75 kg 225.00 225.00 Fertilizer N 10 kg 52.00 47.00 Fertilizer P 20 kg 118.00 80.00 Agro Chemical Interest on Credit 30.49 - Water Charges 17.00 33.60 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - Total 4/ 934.99 721.60 At 1975 Constant Rs 608.60 469.70 1/ At 1982 Constant Prices. 2/ Traded inputs at import parity prices, other inputs at Financial prices adjusted by appropriate CF Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage Rs 42.00 /ha adjusted by SCF. 4/ For irrigated crop. Rainfed crop production costs are Rs 492.50 and Ra 375.00 (Financial and Economic costs respectively). However, at 1975 Constant Rs, rainfed crop production costs become Rs 320.57 and Rs 244.00 Table 11 (i). - 81 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Cost of Groundnut per ha With Project 1/ Unit Financial Economic Cost Cost Rs Rs 2/ Bullock 20 Bullock 300.00 240.00 Days Labor 82 Man/days 410.00 246.00 Seed 100 kg 600.00 600.00 Fertilizer N 10 kg 52.00 47.00 Fertilizer P 30 kg 177.00 120.00 Agro Chemicals 20.00 16.00 Interest on Credit 44.87 - Water Charges 18.00 33.60 3/ Land Tax 7.50 - Total 4/ 1,629.37 1,302.60 At 1975 Constant Rs 1,060.58 847.88 1/ At 1982 Constant Prices. 2/ Traded inputs at import parity price, other inputs at Financial prices adjusted by appropriate CF. Labor CF 0.6 SCF 0.8 3/ Operation and Maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage Rs 42/ha adjusted by SCF. 4/ For irrigated crop. Rainfed crop, production costs are Rs 1,137.74 and Rs 957.50 (Financial and Economic costs respectively). However, at 1975 constant Rs rainfed crop production costs are Rs 740.57 and Rs 623.25. Table 12 - 82 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Production Costs Without Project at 1975 Constant Prices Financial Economic Cost Cost 1/ (------------Rs/ha---------------) Paddy 717 502 Sorghum 481 337 Sugarcane 1,170 819 Wheat 657 460 Gram 454 318 Mustard 391 274 Coriander 457 320 Soyabean 487 341 Groundnut 880 616 Fodder 642 450 1/ Financial costs adjusted by a conversion factor of 0.7. Table 13 - 83 - INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan), Ln. 1011-IN Operation and Maintenance Costs of Irrigation and Drainage System Budgeted Actual (--------------Rs/ha------------) 1975/76 38.3 16.1 1976/77 44.5 19.2 1977/78 52.8 28.4 1978/79 56.2 25.8 1979/80 66.3 31.9 1980/81 72.5 38.0 1981/82 80.3 42.0 - 84 - Table 14 INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Rajasthan) Ln 1011-IN Economic Farm Gate Prices at 1975 Constant Rupees 1/ (Rs/Ton) Crop 1975 1980 1990 Paddy 1,200 1,300 1,560 Sorghum 790 520 680 Sugarcane 210 174 92 Soyabean 1,510 1,220 1,980 Groundnuts 2,200 1,450 2,190 Fodder 240 240 240 Wheat 1,350 830 1,000 Gram 3,100 3,100 3,100 Mustard 4,600 4,600 4,600 Coriander 4,220 4,220 4,220 Financial Prices Used in the Farm Budget (Rs/ton) Paddy 1,370 Sorghum 1,550 Sugarcane 160 Soyabean 1,740 Groundnuts 1,700 Fodder 240 Wheat 1,430 Gram 3,100 Mustard 4,600 Coriander 4,220 1/ Derived from World Bank actual commodity prices and forecasts, adjusted for quality, transport and handling. INDIA Chambal Command Area Development Project (Rajasthan) Ln. 1011-IN Economic Costs and Benefits Ra'OOO at 1975 Constant Prices Irrigation Total Admin. 1/ Incremental and Project Capital Overhead Production Total YEAR Drainage OFD Roads Afforestation Administration Cost Costs Cost Cost Benefits 2/ 1 5,369 1,302 4,752 144 9,878 21,445 0 56,172 77,617 17,079 2 13,879 2,678 7,441 226 12,962 37,186 0 50,806 87,992 6,709 3 21,760 4,437 14,843 306 13,784 55,130 0 45,375 100,505 (67,320) 4 31,575 7,738 13,241 234 15,885 68,673 0 56,777 125,450 6,834 5 18,879 8,422 14,270 404 13,108 55,083 0 70,768 125,851 82,870 6 24,097 16,326 6,905 539 16,038 63,905 0 82,838 146,743 68,770 7 23,073 21,764 4,635 219 13,647 63,338 0 77,057 140,395 136,889 8 17,385 17,257 5,713 1,528 3,108 44,991 0 71,497 116,488 150,931 9 0 0 0 0 0 5,858 73,535 79,393 223,974 10 - - - - - 5,858 72,514 78,372 280,165 11 - -- - 5,858 73,018 78,876 281,684 12 - -- - 5,858 72,762 78,620 280,896 13-13 - - 5,858 75,484 81,342 281,292 16-30 - - - - - 5,858 75,484 81,342 325,803 Economic Rate of Return 17% 1/ During project implementation period, this cost was capitalized under OFD, Irrigation and Drainage and Project Administration. 2/ Incremental net-value of production. Is I '.  - 87 - INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT December 10, 1982 South Asia Projects Department Irrigation II Division  - 89 - INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) I. INTRODUCTION Background 1.01 At the beginning of the 1970s, there was a growing concern in India over inadequate utilization of the irrigation systems. It was estimated that of the 10 M ha of new land provided with irrigation facilities between 1950 and 1972 only about 70% was utilized in an effi- cient manner. The main reasons for that, as indicated in the 1972 report of the Second Irrigation Commission, were deficiencies in: (i) watercour- ses; (ii) drains and roads; (iii) land leveling; (iv) agricultural sup- porting services; and (v) administrative coordination. The report gave impetus to the trend toward systematic command area development (CAD) works which extended government responsibility for efficient water delivery closer to the farm gate.l/ 1.02 At GOI's request a Bank Group irrigation reconnaissance mission visited India in October 1972 charged both with evaluating whether a project consisting largely of on-farm works was suitable for Bank financ- ing, as well as looking at other potential irrigation projects. By the time the mission was over, 14 Command Area Development (CAD) projects with major emphasis on on-farm development had been proposed, in addition to the GOI list of normal surface irrigation projects which had reached 25. The mission recommended that GO rank these in order of priority so that preparation efforts could be started.' 1.03 The major recommendation of the mission was that CAD projects would be suitable for Bank financing. It agreed with GOI on priorities for two such projects, the Rajasthan Canal project (Cr. 502-IN), and the Rajasthan part of the Chambal project (Ln. 1011-IN). Preparation on these two began almost immediately, and they were appraised in late 1973. They followed the original concepts for project selection fairly closely and consisted of rehabilitation and completion of existing works, adding as large an element of on-farm development as seemed feasible (since farmers' cooperation was required). Chambal Command Area Development Project (Madhya Pradesh) was the third in this series of CAD projects. 1/ CAD generally includes such works as watercourse improvement or lining, land leveling and farm to market roads, and is variously referred to as ayacut development or on-farm development (OFD). - 90 - The Chambal Irrigation System 1/ 1.04 Th, Chambal Irrigation System serves areas in the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. An Interstate Water Agreement provides for equal sharing of the Chambal River water between the two states. The headworks include a series of multi-purpose reservoirs in cascade on the Chambal River, the main dam being at Gandhisagar (MP) and the diversion point to the Chambal area at Kota (Rajasthan) where the Right and Left Main Canals (RMC and LMC) take off from the Kota Barrage. The RMC serves about 127,000 ha in Rajasthan before crossing into MP at Parvati, whereas the LMC serves solely a Rajasthan area of about 102,000 ha. 1.05 The Chambal System canal networks were gradually completed over a period of about 10 years in the 1960's to the then prevailing Indian planning and design standards. The main objective was to provide "protec- tive irrigation" during the monsoon (kharif) season followed by supplemen- tary irrigation during the winter (rabi) months, largely to crops which were perceived to be relatively insensitive to water stress. The networks were unlined with few head regulating and escape structures, and project water delivery points covering 40 ha or larger blocks of land and with inadequate outlet control features. Greater than anticipated canal seepage losses not only reduced the delivery capability of the primary conveyance system but also aggravated the seasonal waterlogging problems for which insufficient drainage arrangements were provided. The high water table at the end of the monsoon season proved to be one of the more serious constraints to optimum time of planting the winter wheat and mustard crops. The distributary canal design flow (discharge) capacities could not meet the critical peak water demands of HYV wheat and rice which developed rapidly in the upper parts of the irrigation blocks following the introduction of irrigation service. Water supply was further aggravated by enforced closures (often during high water demand periods) to repair breaches and remove aquatic weeds. Finally, the water alloca- tion plans and associated canal operating procedures were not consistent with the realities of the conveyance system capability and the irrigation demands of the cropping pattern which had actually developed. 1.06 As a result of these deficiencies only 151,000 ha out of the planned 320,000 ha in the MP part of the Chambal System were irrigated by the canal network in 1974, and results in the Rajasthan part were 1/ The following hierarchy of the water distribution network is used in this report: main canal, branch canal, distributary, minor, sub-minor, watercourse and field channel. The minor conveys water to several sub-minors of watercourses. While most of the watercourses take off from a minor, some take off directly from branch canals or distributaries. - 91 - similarly disappointing. Growing perception of these difficulties led GOI and the Government of Madhya Pradesh (GOMP) to commence a program of remedial measures, the first phase of which was financed under this project. Preparation, Appraisal and Agreement 1.07 A Project Feasibility Report (completed in 1973) was prepared by GOMP and outlined the general plan to improve project efficiency. Final preparation of the plan was assisted by a team from FAO/IBRD Cooperative Program. 1/ The project was appraised in November 1974. Negotiations were held in Washington in May 1975. It was presented to the Board on June 17, 1975 and approved without any questions. The Project at Appraisal 1.08 The project area extends 300 km along the south bank of the Chambal River in Morena and Bhind districts and includes all the major towns of both districts. Its gross area is about 400,000 ha. The popula- tion of the project area is about 700,000, of which about 90% is rural. The average size of the household is 6.7 persons. About 19% of the rural population is literate and 23% belong to Scheduled Castes or Tribes. The average size of farm is 2.4 ha. Some 36% of holdings are 1 ha or less, 45% are between 1 and 4 ha, and 19% are larger than 4 ha. Practically all farms are operated by their owners; owners of small farm units must rely partly on off-farm employment for their livelihood. 1.09 The main project components were: a. Canal Security Works. These included mainly the strengthening the embankments of the Right Main Canal (RMC) and lining of 11 km of canal bed and side slopes to reduce piping damage. b. Canal Capacity Works. Enlargement of distributary canals over 300 km and increasing the carrying capacity of 100 km of watercourses. The increase in capacity from 0.5 to 0.65 1/sec/ha was to enable meeting the demand of high yielding varieties, especially wheat. c. Canal Control Works. These included provisions of cross regulators, escape structures and gated pipe outlets. These were to faciltate the supply of water during periods of 1/ Report No. 35/74 IND. 20, October 1, 1974. - 92 - reduced canal flow and distribute water efficiently during peak periods. d. Aquatic Weed Control. These works were to include additional draw-off structures and additional embankment for two tanks in the RMC and Bhind Canals. They were expected to facilitate aquatic weed control by reducing the time required for canal closure and by enabling rapid drainage of the canals. e. Drainage Works. The project was to clear and improve 200 km of natural drainage courses and to construct 560 km of interceptor drains parallel to distributary canals to reduce seepage contributing to waterlogging along the canals. f. On-Farm Development. Two categories of on-farm development were defined. One, full package treatment including land leveling, construction of watercourses, drains and access roads inside the chaks. For these areas farm boundary relignment was expected to take place to enable rational layout of fields, channels and roads. This area was limited to 12,000 ha. Category two of on-farm development was to be limited to drainage improvement works on some 20,000 ha of flat land throughout the project area. h. Roads. About 206 km of village to market roads were to be constructed. The first priority was to be given to roads serving the chak drainage,and on-farm development full package areas. i. Ravine Erosion Control. A pilot project covering about 50 km of ravine perimeter was to be undertaken to identify the least cost techniques for ravine erosion control. The work was to comprise perimeter bunding and drains with controls structures to reduce the erosive flood water flows. j. Other Components. The project was to finance also operating facilities to improve canal management and distribute water more equitably among users, such as communication network access to both banks of the canal system, canal roads, bridges, housing and buildings for the operating staff. Additionally, it was to provide for mechanical equipment, and fertilizer to restore soil fertility to the original level following leveling. Also, provisions were made for crop compensation in the on-farm development full package areas since it was estimated that the land would be out of production for one dry season during which time the actual land shaping would take place. - 93 - 1.10 The project was to provide funds for studies of further develop- ment in the project area including groundwater exploitation, increasing delivery efficiency by canal lining, reuse of return flows, rzlamation of saline/alkaline soils, improvement of district roads and further intensive on-farm development in the command area. The project was also to provide technical assistance to GOI to help prepare CAD projects in various states. To assist with land development implementation, an internation- ally recruited specialist was to be appointed. The warabandi system was to be introduced in the project area and emphasis was to be given to expanding it in the chak drainage and on-farm development full package areas. 1.11 Cost Estimate. Total project cost was estimated at US$46.6 M with a foreign exchange component of US$9.7 M, 21% of the total. Project implementation was to take three years and to be completed by 1978. 1.12 Labor intensive construction methods were to be used where ever possible. The command area development authority was to supervise and coordinate the planning and implementation of all services and works required for the development of the command area. A small monitoring unit was to be assigned to the Area Development Commissioner's office in order to monitor progress of various project activities. 1.13 The increased production resulting from project activities was estimated at about 500,000 tons of food grains, pulses and oilseeds and about 190,000 tons of sugarcane. The project was to improve the income of about 93,000 farmers, provide the equivalent of about 12,000 man-years of additional employment in agriculture, and increase the production of foodgrains and pulses by about 184,000 tons. The economic rate of return for the project as a whole was estimated at 22%. II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION General 2.01 During its first years, project implementation was delayed by several problems, such as a slow organizational build-up, insufficient budget allocations and shortage of materials and machinery. These problems were gradually overcome but the project implementation period had to be extended. 2.02 After implementation had picked up, it became clear that actual contingencies would be smaller than anticipated at appraisal and that higher physical targets could be achieved (except for on-farm development works, see para 2.04). Consequently, GOMP revised the implementation - 94 - targets (with IDA concurrence). The following table shows the main com- ponents and the physical progress made by the end of March 1981. Appraisal Achieved by Achievement as Estimate March 1981 % of Appraisal Canal Capacity Works - km 400 1,035 259 Canal Security and Protection Earthwork - '000 m 300 577 192 Masonry Lining - '000 m 120 116 97 Gunite Lining - '000 m 130 150 115 Masonry Lining - units 19 74 389 Canal Control Cross Regulators - units 44 39 89 Escapes - units 11 6 55 Pipe Outlets - units 3,000 2,573 86 Aquatic Weed Control RMC Canalization - '000 m 40 28 70 Bhind Canalization - '000 m 160 117 73 Drainage Works - km 760 1,150 151 On-Farm Development Land Development - ha 12,000 5,735 48 Chak Drainage - ha 20,000 28,000 /a 140 Roads - km 191 440 230 Ravine Erosion Control - km 50 121 242 /a Completed by the end of June 1981. 2.03 The above data indicate that the project achieved most of its investment targets. The main exception is the on-farm development program which, as in most other Indian irrigation projects, has been difficult to implement (see below). Largely as a result of project works the canal irrigated area increased from 151,000 ha in 1974/75 to about 189,000 in 1978/79 (compared to 186,000 ha targeted at appraisal). Drainage works - 95 - have largely been completed, serving about 28,000 ha (compared to a target of 20,000 ha). The all-weather rural road network has increased by about 440 km (app--isal target was 191 km). 2.04 The on-farm development program was to include a "full package" of land leveling, construction of watercourses, drains and access roads inside the chaks and required realignment of farm boundaries. The "full package" works were to be financed through institutional credit and, as they included common works serving several farmers (e.g., watercourses), were to be undertaken only after agreement of 2/3 of the landholders had been obtained. However, implementation of the program encountered serious difficulties. Firstly, landholders strongly resisted consolidation and boundary realignment. Secondly, the cost of land leveling was relatively high and the reduction in fertility in the two years following consolida- tion imposed an additional financial burden on farmers. As most of the land is flat (less than 1% slope) fields can be irrigated without land leveling, but at a lower irrigation efficiency. This, however, did not concern farmers since the existing system of water allocation and water charge did not provide incentives for efficient water use (see para 5.04). For these reasons the "full package" progam did not make much progress and the target was reduced in September 1977 (with IDA concurrence) from 12,000 to 5,000 ha. The experience with the land development component indicates that: (i) under local conditions land consolidation and realignment of boundaries is a slow and complicated process and should be avoided where possible; (ii) the financing of common works through credit is a slow and difficult process; and (iii) the demand for credit for land development is likely to remain low. 2.05 With respect to the other components, the works aimed at increasing canal capacity, preventing breaches (canal security works) and blockages (weed control) were implemented according to the plan and have improved irrigation water supply in the sections treated. However, it became clear that even after completion of such works water would fail to reach large areas downstream in a reliable way because of high seepage losses, a fact not anticipated at appraisal. The project officers indi- cate that the drainage works have improved yields considerably but data to quantify such improvements are not yet available. The benefits of the ravine erosion control works are obvious though also difficult to quan- tify. Finally, there has been a considerable improvement in the road network which is essential for supporting a "takeoff" in agricultural production. 2.06 Water Management Studies. These studies were conducted under Bank guidance. The main objective was to study the present irrigation efficiencies and ways to improve them. The following results have been obtained: - 96 - (a) percolation losses in minors were extremely high; in rota- tionally operated unlined ditches, losses were 9-30 cumecs/Mm2 (30-100 cfs per Mft2) in medium textured soils (sandy-loams, loams and clay-loams); (b) in watercourses, 40-60% of the inlet flow was lost in the first 4,000-6,000 meters; (c) field irrigation efficiency ranged from 45-65%; and (d) chak delivery flows varied from 0.2-1.0 cfs 1/ and fluctuated during the irrigation of a chak; flow reaching tail-end fields seldom exceeded 0.2 cfs. 2.07 The studies have shown that present chak efficiency is low - generally in the range of 20-40%, but it could increase to 60-70% provided that: (a) minors and watercourses are lined; (b) chaks would receive a minimum flow of 1.0 cfs at the outlet; and (c) tail-end fields would receive at least 85% of the flow at the chak outlet. These findings were utilized for the planning of Phase II. 2.08 Institution Building. The CADA, following a prolonged gestation period during which it suffered frequent changes of its Chairman/Commissioner, has developed into one of the stronger command area organizations in India. A small Monitoring and Evaluation Unit was established under the project, but it had a limited survey capacity and apart from the survey mentioned above was largely occupied with the preparation of Phase II. The administration of CADA has been recently studied by the Administrative Staff College of India. The main recommendations made (report dated September, 1980) are: (a) Strengthening of the planning and monitoring functions and creation of a Planning and Monitoring Unit; 1/ The metric system has been used in most cases. However, India is still in the process of transition to the metric system, non-metric units are still widely used, and are therefore used in this report in cases where a conversion to the metric system may confuse the reader. - 97 - (b) Establishment of a Project Coordination and Review Committee within CADA; and (c) Creation of a Chambal CAD Board at State level; this board would serve as the top body for policy making, performance review, sanctioning and resource allocation. The first recommendation is being adopted under Phase II, while the other two are still under consideration by GOMP. 2.09 Preparation of Phase II. Phase I experience indicated that despite improvement works on the main conveyance system, water supply to large areas downstream continues to be insufficient and unreliable. A review of the groundwater situation indicated the existence of a considerable potential for conjunctive use of ground and surface water which could relieve water constraints in the downstream parts of the command area. A new perspective plan for the irrigation and road development of the Chambal area over the next 10 years was formulated by the CADA in 1980. The plan indicates that with the development of additional water resources (including groundwater) up to about 280,000 ha could be successfully developed for canal irrigation within the major boundaries of the area covered by the canal network. Following this, GOI requested Bank Group assistance for a Phase II project which includes elements of all of these components, and also provides for extension and upgrading of the drainage and rural road networks and further environmental improvement through ravine arrestation and canalside afforestation. 1/ Cost, Procurement and Disbursement 2.10 Project cost as estimated at appraisal is compared below with actual expenditures: 1/ The project (Chambal (MP) Irrigation II Project (Cr. 1288-IN)) was appraised and approved by the Bank. The credit documents were signed on November 9, 1982. - 98 - Appraisal a/ Actual b/ ---------(RsM)--------- Irrigation and Main Drainage 178.0 c/ 228.0 Chak Drainage 43.5 37.1 On-Farm Development-Full Package 34.3 23.1 Roads 67.6 c/ 62.5 Ravine Erosion Control 5.2 6.3 d/ Supplementary Fertilizer 6.7 6.6 Project Administration, Training 2.4 4.6 Technical Assistance (GOI) 8.4 1.1 Sub-Total 346.1 369.3 Extension and Research 27.0 - e/ Total 373.1 369.3 a/ Including price increases. bi/ As at March 31, 1981. c/ Includes operating costs (Appraisal Report, Annex 4, Table 5). d/ Includes Rs 0.8 M for experimental canal-side plantation. e/ Extension and research activities were undertaken under Cr. 712-IN. The main reasons for the differences are explained in paras 2.02 to 2.05. Disbursements lagged behind appraisal estimates throughout project implementation. The project was fully disbursed on May 6, 1981 (appraisal estimate was December, 1979). Estimates and actuals of the disbursement schedule are in Table 2. Compliance with Covenants (Annex 1) 2.11 GOMP complied with most of the important covenants. Increase of water charges which was to take place by June 30, 1977 was delayed for political reasons but is likely to take place shortly. However, while the increased rates are likely to cover the O&M costs they will not be suffi- cient to recover the capital costs over 30 years, as agreed. There are indications that it may have been undesirable to raise them to such a level before water supply becomes both reliable and equitable. The reason is that water rates are levied at a uniform level irrespective of the irrigation service provided. Therefore their level must be within the repayment capability of those farmers realizing the lowest irrigation benefits (mostly tail-enders). Raising the water rates prematurely would have adversely affected the poorest farmers. - 99 - III. ECONOMIC IMPACT General 3.01 Survey data on project benefits are, at this stage, insufficient largely because the project has only recently been completed. However, a basis for future evaluation of project results has been created. The Monitoring and Evaluation Cell which was established under Phase I con- ducted a benchmark socio-economic sample survey of 216 farm households.1/ The reference year was 1977/78. If repeated after an appropriate interVal (4-5 years), the repeater survey could provide some useful data on project results. However, it must be emphasized that it is difficult to separate the benefits resulting from project rehabilitation works from those resulting from,previous irrigation works. 3.02 Data used for estimating the economic impact included district statistics, results from experimental stations and progressive farmers' fields and results of the bench-mark socio-economic survey (para 3.01). Estimates were made for the project as a whole since the data were inade- quate for estimating the separate impact of each component. Area Irrigated, Production and Farm Income 3.03 The main economic impact has been a result of the considerable increase in the canal irrigated area, facilitated by project works, as shown in the following table: District Morena Bhind Total (Irrigated Area '000 ha) 1974/75 99.4 51.7 151.1 1975/76 103.3 65.0 168.3 1976/77 119.0 61.6 180.6 1977/78 103.5 67.5 171.0 1978/79 123.6 65.3 188.9 Increase 1974/75-1978/79 . 13.6 37.8 1/ Considering the wide variations in pre- and post-project farm benefits the size of the sample used in that survey appears to have been rela- tively small. - 100 - Chak drainage works enabled a considerable increase in crop intensity in the areas drained. An evaluation of drainage impact indicated an increase of about 40% in the cropped area following drainage.l/ 3.04 A comparison between the cropping pattern in 1975/76 (beginning of project) and 1978/79 is shown below: 1975/76 1978/79 (7. of Irrigated Areas) Wheat 52 55 Gram & Pulses 24 16 Mustard 11 14 Rice 9 9 Sugarcane 2 5 Others 2 1 Total 100 100 The most significant changes appear to be the decline in the proportion of irrigated area planted to gram and pulses--marginal irrigated crops (see the following table) and the increase in the proportion of major crops like wheat, sugarcane and mustard. 3.05 The effect of the number of irrigations on the yields of prin- cipal crops was investigated under the socio-economic survey (para 3.01). The results are summarized below: No. of Irrigations Wheat Paddy Mustard Gram -------------- (tons/ha)------------- 1 1.9 0.7 0.8 1.0 2 2.1 1.5 0.9 1.1 3 2.2 1.6 1.0 1.1 4 2.5 1.6 5+ 2.4 2.1 While the above are one year results from a relatively small sample, they indicate that an appropriate irrigation regime will considerably affect crop yields. 3.06 Comparisons of the area benefiting and crop intensity estimates at appraisal and at completion are summarized below: 1/ Source - Impact Evaluation Study by Haq Consultants. - 101 - Appraisal Completion Area Benefiting Cropping Intensity 106% 127% Crop (Irrigation) Intensity Irrigation Intensity 65% 74% Total Production Increases (tons) Foodgrains 180,000 218,000 Pulses 55,000 92,000 Oilseeds 30,000 68,200 Sugarcane 80,000 235,000 3.07 As indicated (para 3.03) the irrigated area increased by about 38,000 ha benefiting about 16,000 families. Drainage works (28,000 ha - see para 2.03) benefited additional 12,000 families. Economic Analysis 3.08 Since the data available were inadequate for separation between the various components the economic rate of return (ERR) was calculated for the whole project. The cost streams include the economic cost of civil works, equipment, administration 4nd incremental O&M costs. For analysis purposes, 50% of the roads constructed under the project were assumed to serve the benefiting areas. The cost of ravine control and canal side plantation were excluded since the associated benefits could not be adequately quantified. The economic prices of outputs and inputs were derived from IBRD estimates and projections and expressed in constant 1975 currency values after appropriate adjustments for freight, handling and processing. Assumptions for the analysis are similar to those made for Chambal (Madhya Pradesh) Irrigation II Project (Report No. 3594-IN). Discounting costs and benefits streams over 30 years results in an ERR of 21% compared with the appraised estimate of 22%. The cost and benefits streams are presented in Table 5. IV. THE BANK PERFORMANCE Appraisal 4.01 The appraisal report outlined a well balanced development plan. The emphasis was on improving the water supply to individual fields through the so called OFD works. However, this could not be achieved - 102 - without the various canal improvement works which reduced the risk of breaches in the canal system and increased the conveyance capacity. Similarly, Earmers could not reap the full benefits of better water supply at individual farm level without better drainage. Finally, given the financial constraints faced by the government, the attempt to mobilize commercial credit to partially finance the irrigation network (from the 40 ha outlet down) was justified. The main design weaknesses (especially the attempt to undertake the OFD-full package) identified in retrospect could not have been avoided at appraisal due to the more limited data and experience available at that time. Supervision 4.02 Ten supervision missions visited the project at an average interval of about six months. The size of a mission ranged from 1 to 5 persons and averaged about 3. Following each mission, letters summarizing the main findings and indicating corrective actions required were sent to GOI and GOMP. It became clear at an early stage that the OFD full package would be difficult to achieve mainly because of farmers' resistance. The supervision mission which visited the project in September 1977, indicated the following reasons for farmers' objection to the "full package": - supply on the main system is untimely and unreliable; - drainage (chak and main) is regarded as the first priority of development; - a reliable distribution system is needed to deliver water to the chak areas; - farmers demand higher crop compensation for the lost season; and - realignment of farm boundaries is not always feasible. 4.03 The Bank was sufficiently flexible in adjusting appraisal tar- gets. When it became clear that the "full package" targets could not be achieved and that the allowance for contingencies would not be fully utilized, the targets of other project components were increased. This approach was fully justified since the project financed a time-slice of works and the physical targets set at appraisal were constrained by the financial resources allocated to the project. 4.04 The Bank rightly emphasized the conduct of water management studies (para 2.06). Since the beginning of 1979, a specialist in water management guided these studies. This, combined with the dedication of CADA staff which conducted the studies resulted in important findings which were used for preparation of Phase II. - 103 - V. SPECIAL ISSUES The 1esson From OFD 5.01 As indir:ated (para 2.03) the on-farm development (full package) program was unsuccessful. One main reason was the attempt to consolidate plots and realign boundaries. This has always been a difficult task especially where topography and/or soil types are not uniform. There were however additional reasons as indicated by the fact that on-farm develop- ment did not progress satisfactorily in most of the irrigation projects in India. These are analyzed below. 5.02 The on-farm works which were to be financed through institu- tional credit consisted of two parts: (i) construction of watercourses; and (ii) land leveling. The watercourses were to bring the water from the government controlled outlet generally serving about 40 ha down to each individual field. Each watercourse usually served several farmers and the cost was to be shared between them. Agreement of 2/3 of the landholders was required. However, the benefits from construction of watercourses were not equal. In general, they were greatest at tail-end fields (usually owned by small farmers) and smallest in holdings located at the head of the watercourses (usually owned by larger farmers). Naturally, landholders belonging to the latter category were less interested in the program. In addition, some farmers were ineligible to receive institu- tional credit (overdues, inadequate proof of land ownership). 5.03 The delays in construction of watercourses resulting from the difficulties with the use of credit induced the States to consider alter- native finance methods. As a result most of the States (including MP) adopted in the late 1970s the principle of financing from budgetary resources the irrigation distribution system down to outlets serving 5 to 8 ha. Such outlets serve small, easy to organize groups of farmers. It is expected that the short distance will enable the construction of field channels leading to each individual field by the farmers without the need for financial assistance. 5.04 The lack of interest in land leveling was for different reasons. Here the farmer's cost included the cost of leveling and the net value of production foregone in the first 2-3 years after leveling due to reduction in soil fertility. His benefits were to come from better irrigation efficiency. However, the flat land enabled irrigation of most fields without leveling, though at a lower efficiency. But under the existing water distribution system there has been no economic incentive to improve efficiency. Once the water has reached the farmer's field, he can irrigate his land without a time limit and upon completion, the water is turned over to the next field. Thus, the farmer can partially compensate - 104 - for a low field irrigation efficiency resulting from an unlevel field by irrigating his field for a longer time (without paying an extra charge). Thus field leveling works did not pick-up because they were perceived to be financially unviable. 5.05 The situation can be changed if the water allocation method is changed. For example, under a rotational water supply system (RWS) each farmer receives a predetermined and fixed amount of water and if irriga- tion efficiency in his field is low he will obtain lower yields or will have to reduce crop intensity. Thus leveling his field will bring him direct benefits. GOMP now plans to introduce RWS in projects where the system has sufficient control and measurement structures so that the operating officers can deliver water at predetermined time and quantities. Table 1 - 105 - INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) Summary Project Costs (Rs Million) Foreign Components 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Total Exchange (%) 1. Irrigation and Main Drainage 6.8 41.3 71.3 50.2 23.2 35.2 228.0 20 Chak Drainage 0.2 1.7 2.6 6.2 9.9 16.5 37.1 20 2. On-Farm Development 0.2 1.2 1.9 15.2 1.2 3.4 23.1 35 3. Roads 1.2 7.9 11.9 11.9 10.8 18.8 62.5 20 4. Ravine Erosion Control - - 0.7 1.7 1.1 2.8 6.3 32 a. Supplementary Fertilizer - 6.6 - - - - 6.6 95 6. Admin/Establishment 0.2 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.5 5.7 15 TOTAL 8.6 59.5 89.7 86.4 46.9 78.2 369.3 Table 2 - 106- INDIA CHAMBAL COMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) Disbursement Actual or Latest Accumulated Disbursement - US$ Million Estimated Disbursements IBRD Fiscal Actual Total Appraisal Revised Disburse- as Z of Appraisal Year & Semester Disbursements Estimate ment Estimate Estimate (US$M) 1976 1st 2nd 0.3 5.4 1 1977 let 1.8 7.6 23 2nd 3.5 13.1 27 1978 1st 5.5 17.2 32 2nd 9.1 20.6 44 1979 1st 10.9 24.0 45 2nd 13.6 15.0 57 1980 1st 15.8 17.5 90- 2nd 19.9 20.0 99 1981 lst 20.2/- 22.0 2nd 24.0 24.0 1/ Upto July 31, 1980. 2/ % of new disbursement estimate. Original closing date: 31 December 1979 New closing date: 30 June 1981 - 107 - Table 3(a) INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) Crop Yield (tons/ha) Future Present 1/ Future 2/ At Without With With Appraisal Project Project Project Kharif - Irrigated Paddy 2.2 2.5 3.2 3.5 Hybrid Bajra - - 2.0 2.2 Sugarcane 34.0 40.0 48.0 50.0 Kharif - Rainfed Bajra 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 Jowar 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 Pulses 3/ 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 Sesamum 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 Rabi - Irrigated Wheat (HYV) 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 Wheat (Local) 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 Pulses 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.8 Oilseeds 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.5 Rabi - Rainfed Pulses 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 Oilseeds 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1/ 1979/80. T/ At full development, 1984. 3/ Inter-planted with Bajra or Jowar. Table 3(b) - 108 - INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRAu3SH) Total Production in Tons At At Full % Appraisal Development Increase Wheat 155,000 215,000 40 Paddy 25,000 20,000 (20) Bajra 30,000 88,000 190 Pulses 55,000 100,000 80 Oilseeds 30,000 75,000 150 Sugarcane 80,000 270,000 240 INDIA CHAMBAL CCHMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROXECT (MADHYA PRADESH) Agricultural Production - Total Area (224,000 Ha) Present Future without rroject 1979/80 With Project Future With Project - Cro Area Production Area Production Area Production Area Production ('000 Ha) ('000 Ton) ('000 Ha) ('000 Ton) ('000 Ha) ('000 Ton) ('000 Ha) ('000 Ton) IHARIP - Irrigated Paddy 12.0 26.5 16.4 40.6 5.2 16.6 5.7 20.0 Hybrid Bajra - - - - 10.0 20.0 11.0 24.2 Sugarcane 2.2 76.5 3.2 127.0 4.9 235.2 5.4 270.0 KHARIF - Rainfed Bajra 27.7 25.7 29,9 32.5 40.0 48.0 40.0 48.0 Jowar 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.1 73.2 15.8 13.2 15.8 rulses 2/ (16.0) 8.0 (1C.6) 11.2 (16.0) 9.6 (16.0) 9.6 Sepamum 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.5 2.4 1.4 2.4 1.4 Sub-Total Kharif 52.9 60.9 75.7 77.7 Kharif Cropping Intensity (%) 24.0 27.0 34.0 35.0 RABI - Irrigated Wheat (HYV) 75.6 142.9 81.7 171.2 82.3 181.1 86.4 207.4 %0 Wheat (Local) 13.9 12.6 15,9 17.4 4.0 4.8 4.2 5.5 Pulses 17.9 20.8 19.9 25.2 30.0 48.0 31.5 56.7 Oilseeds 21.1 19.0 23.1 23.2 30.1 42.1 31.6 47.4 RABI - Rainfed Pulses 32.9 26.1 31.4 27.9 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 Olseeds 21.2 14.9 27.1 21.4 29.0 26.1 29.0 26.1 Sub-Total Rabi 184.8 202.3 205.9 217.2 Rabi Cropping Intensity (%) 82.0 90.0 92.0 97.0 TOTAL 237.7 263.2 285.6 294.9 Cropping Intensity (%) 106.0 117.0 127.0 132.0 Irrigation Intensity (1) 65.0 73.0 74.0 78.0 1/ At full development - 1984. 2/ Interplanted vith Bajra or Joar. - 110 - Table 4 INDIA CRAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) Economic Farm Gate Prices at 1975 Constant Rupees 1/ Crop 1975 1980 1990 Paddy 1,200 1,300 1,560 Sorghum 790 520 680 Sugarcane 210 174 92 Soyabean 1,510 1,220 1,980 Groundnuts 2,200 1,450 2,190 Fodder 240 240 240 Wheat 1,350 830 1,000 Gram 3,100 3,100 3,100 Mustard 4,600 4,600 4,600 Coriander 4,220 4,220 4,220 1/ Derived from World Bank Commodity Price Forecasts June 1982, adjusted for quality, transport and handling (paddy, sorghum, sugarcane, soyabean, groundnuts, wheat). INDIA CRAMBAL COMM!AND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESR) Costs and Benefits Streams for Economic Analysis At 1975 Constant Rs M Incremental Net Irrigation & Chak Administration and Operation and Incremental Incremental Incremental Periods Main Drainage Drainage OFD Roads Technical Assistance Maintenance Cost Benefits I 2/ Benefits II 3/ Benefits 1 5.70 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.80 2 34.20 1.40 7.20 1/ 3.25 0.70 0.30 6.17 4.02 -36.87 3 55.70 2.00 1.60 4.65 1.10 0.92 18.28 6.94 -40.75 4 37.40 4.60 11.20 4.40 0.80 0.94 18.17 10.23 -30.94 5 15.70 6.70 0.70 3.70 0.50 2.24 40.73 12.07 23.26 6 20.90 9.80 2.00 5.55 0.80 2.60 45.73 13.55 17.63 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.84 47.35 14.03 58.54 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 52.48 15.55 65.10 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99 57.26 16.97 71.24 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 61.58 18.24 76.80 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 67.18 19.90 84.06 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 70.91 21.01 88.90 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 74.65 22.12 93.74 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 78.38 23.22 98.58 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 82.12 24.33 103.42 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 87.72 25.99 110.69 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 92.39 27.37 116.74 18-30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 94.25 27.93 119.16 IRR = 21% 1/ Including Re M 6.2 for supplementary fertilizers. 2/ Net incremental benefits due to the expansion of irrigated areas. The stream includes incremental costs of agricultural production. 3/ Net incremental benefits due to improved drainage. The stream includes incremental costs of agricultural production. - 112 - ANNEX 1 INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) Compliance with Credit Conditions A. Conditions not complied with: Development Credit Agreement, Section 3.02 Employ a land development Specialist Mr. R. Leuenberger was with qualifications, experience and employed by UNDP/FAO to for a period satisfactory to the advise project authorities borrower and IDA in Rajasthan Chambal (Loan 1011-IN) and MP Chambal (Credit 562-IN) from early 1976 to mid-1977. B. Conditions upon which action pending: Project Agreement Section 3.02 MP shall furnish to No audit reports submitted the association not later than six so far, GOMP has agreed to months after the end of each fiscal take action. year an audited financial statement of the accounts of the CAA Section 3.04 MP shall, not later Report from the Committee than June 30, 1977 review and adjust charged with reviewing the the charges levied on farmers in the matter still awaited. The Project Area to ensure recovery from mid-1980 elections have said farmers: further delayed the comple- tion of the committee's (i) of all O&M costs review. (ii) of all capital costs in not more than 30 years C. Conditions Met Project Agreement Section 2.05 MP shall not later Draft Plan submitted in than December 31, 1978 prepare and 1978. Plan has been re- introduce a water allocation plan. viewed and comments conveyed to project authorities. Implementation of plan was scheduled for kharif 1979, but serious drought condi- tions forced the project authorities to postpone introduction. - 113 - ANNEX 2 INDIA CHAMBAL COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MADHYA PRADESH) Economic Analysis 1/ 1. Economic prices of wheat and paddy were derived from World Bank commodity price forecasts issued in April 1982 expressed in 1975 constant prices after adjusting for freight, handling and processing. The economic prices for non-traded agricultural commodities were derived by applying a FCF 2/ to their financial prices. The recent sharp downward revisions of IBRD agricultural commodity price forecasts have brought the world market price of wheat and rice to parity with the domestic market prices in India. As a result a FCF of 1.0 has been used in the economic analysis. 2. Foreign costs were adjusted by the International Price Index for manufactured goods at 1975 constant prices. The following International Price index was used in the analysis. 1975 = 100 1976 102 1977 110 1978 = 130 1979 150 3. Local costs were adjusted by standard conversion factor of 0.8 to correct distortions in price relations between traded goods--valued at world market prices--and non-traded goods--valued at local prices. Wholesale price index for India were used to bring these costs to 1975 constant prices. The following wholesale price index was used in the analysis. 1975 = 100 1976 99 1977 = 101 1978 106 1979 = 106 The cost of agricultural labor was adjusted by a factor of 0.67 to reflect the under-employment situation in the project area. 1/ The assumptions made are largely based on those made for Chambal (Madhya Pradesh) Irrigation II Project (Report No. 3594-IN). 2/ Estimated as a ratio of wheat and rice production valued at economic prices to wheat and rice production valued at average domestic market prices.  ·기；  -: 기