India - Maharashtra Irrigation Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 5940-IN PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - FIRST MAHARASHTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT (CREDIT 736-IN) November 21, 1985 Operations Evaluation Department IThi docament hm a regrctd dstributem and eay be usd by reipleats Only in the perfance of th elidal duties. IS contents -y not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. ABBREVIATIONS ARDC - Agricultural Refinance and tevelopment Corporation CAD - Command Area Development CADA - Command Area Development Authority CCA - Culti4able Command Area DCA - Development Credit Agreement ERR - Economic Rate of Return COI - Government of India COM - Government of Maharashtra ICB - International Competitive Bidding I0 - Irrigation Development IDA - The International Development Association LBC - Left Bank Canal MCIP I - First Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project MLDC - Maharashtra Land Development Corporation MPA - Maharashtra Project Agreement NABARD - National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development NDO - The World Bank's New Delhi Office OED - The Operations Evaluation Department O&M - Operation and Maintenance PCR - Project Completion Report PPAM - Project Performance Audit Memorandum PPAR - Project Performance Audit Report RaC - Right Bank Canal SAR - Staff Appraisal Report SLA - Special Loan Account TMC - Thousand Million Cubic Feet .ALMI - The Water and Land Management Institute MWUP - Maharashtra Water Utilization Project FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - FIRST MAHARASHTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT (CREDIT 736-IN) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Preface ............................................................ Basic Data Sheet ................................................... .. ii Highlights ....................................................... .. .ii PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM I. PROJECT SUMARY ............................................. 1 II. MAIN ISSUES ............................ o . .................... 4 A. Cropping Patterns and Irrigation Intensity ............ 4 B. Maintenance and Cost Recovery .......................... 5 C. On-Farm Development .................................... 6 D. Conclusions ........................................... 7 Attachment I. Comments from the Borrower ................... ...... 9 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. Introduction ............................................... 15 II. The Project at Appraisal ..... ............................ 16 III. Project Implementation ..................................... 19 IV. Performance of the Borrower (ID) ........................... 21 V. Agricultural Impact ........................................ 24 VI. Economic Re-evaluation ..................................... 26 VII. Bank Performance ............................................. 27 VIII. Lessons Learned and Issues ................................ 28 Tables Map This domaent has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipiaets only in the perforance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - FIRST MAHARASRTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT (CREDIT 736-IN) PREFACE This is a Project Performance Audit Report (PPAR) on the India First Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project (MCIP I) for which Credit 736-IN in the amount of US$ 70 million was approved in July 1977. The final disbursement was made in May 1984 when the Credit was fully disbursed. The audit consists of a Project Performance Audit Memorandum (PPAM) prepared by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) and a Project Comple- tion Report (PCR) dated November 6, 1984 prepared by the South Asia Regional Office. The audit memorandum is based on a review of the Appraisal Report (1486a-IN) and the President's Report (P-2036-IN) both dated June 30, 1977, and the Credit and Project Agreements dated October 11, 1977. Correspondence with the Borrower and internal Bank memoranda on project issues, as contained in relevant Bank files, have been studied and Bank staff associated with the project have been interviewed. An OED mission visited India in February/March 1985. Discussions were held in Bombay with the Government of Maharashtra's Irrigation Depart- ment and Command Area Development Authority, while a visit was made to Auran- gabad and the project area to inspect project works and meet local officials and farmers. The mission also visited New Delhi where discussions were held with the Government of India's Department of Economic Affairs and with staff from the World Bank's resident mission. The audit agrees with the principal conclusions in the PCR. In addition to summarizing the objectives and results of the project, the PPAM discusses issues relating to the cropping systems adopted, maintenance and cost recovery, and on-farm development. A copy of the draft Audit Report was sent to the Borrower in June 1985. Comments received are included as Attachment I. The audit gratefully acknowledges the assistance provided by many Government officials and farmers who supplied information to the mission. PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT INDIA - MAHARASHTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT I (CREDIT 73b-IN) BASIC DATA SHEET KEY PROJECT DATA Appraisal Actual or Actual as 2 of Estimate Estimated Actual Appraisal Estimate Total Project Cost (USS million) 140.0 183.4 131/a Credit Amount (USS million) 70.0 70.0 100 Board Approval Date 7/19/77 - Effecciveness Date 1/11/78 3/01/78 - Date Physical Components Completed 12/81 3/85 - Closing Date 3/31/83 3/31/8/b - Economic Rate of Recurn (2) 17 17 Institutional Performance Satisfactory; Improved as project was Imolemenred Agronomic Performance Moderate/c Number of Direct Beneficiaries 15,000 farm families CUMULATIVE DISBURSEMENTS FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 Appraisal estimate (USS million) 2 12 28 45 62 70 - Actual (USS million) 0 12.2 23.3 39.7 51.5 65 70 Actual as I of Appraisal Estimate - 102 83 88 83 93 - Date of Final Disbursement: May 25, 1984 MISSION DATA Date No. of Mandays Specializacions Performance Types of Mission (Mo./Yr.) Persons in Field Represented/d Rating /e Trend/f Problems/g First Mention in Files 1971 Preparation 1976 Appraisal 09/76 8 3E. IR, IE,2A Supervision 1 06/78 4 E,FA,R,EC I - T Supervision 11 07/79 2 E.EZ 1 2 T Supervision III 07/80 1 E 2 2 TH Supervision IV 03/81 1 E 2 2 FM Supervision V 12/81 I 2E 2 2 TM Supervision VI 07/82 2 2E 2 2 TMO Supervision VII 01/83 2 2E 3 2 FMO Supervision VIII 07/83 4 2E,2A 2 2 FM Supervision IX 03/BA I E 2 2 MO Note: Road Engineers have supervised the road components five times during implementation OTHER PROJECT DATA Borrower Government of India Executing Agency Government of Maharachrs Fiscal Year April - March Name of Currency (Abbreviation) India Rupee (Ra) Currency Exchange Rates: Appraisal Year Average Rs. 9 1981 Ra. 10 1984 Ra. 11 Follow-on Project: Name: Naharashcra Composite Irrigation Project III Credit: Number : 1621-IN Credit Amount: USSlO0.0 million Date of Board Approval: 7/16/85 /a Costs exceeded due to delay in implementation and extra canal Lining that become necessary. lb Delayed due to shortage of materials, lining specification problems, and need for additional work. 7- See Chapter V. Id E- Engineer; FA-Financial Analyst; A-Agriculturalist; R-Road Specialist; EC-Economist. 7 I-problem-free or minor problems; 2-moderated problems; and 3-major problems. If I-improving; 2-stationary; and 3-deteriorating. 7& F-Financial; M-Wanagerial; T-Technical and O-Other. - iii - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPROT INDIA - FIRST MAKARASKTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT (CREDIT 736-IN) HIGHLIGHTS The First Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project (MCIP 1) was the first major irrigation project to be supported by the Bank Group in the drought-prone Deccan Plateau in India. The project was designed to provide financial support for four years for a project which had already been started by Government. The project involved completing two main canals and providing an irrigation distribution network on an area of 95,000 ha in Jayakwadi, using water from the Godavari River. Development of this command area will be continued under a recently approved follow-on project. Through providing irrigation in an area previously devoted to low-yielding rainfed crops the project was expected to bring about a substantial increase in crop production, especially for wheat, sorghum, paddy, cotton and sugarcane. The project also included a small component for upgrading a nearby irrigation scheme at Purna. The project has been completed largely as planned and the Credit has been fully disbursed. However, implementation was considerably delayed and there was a cost overrun (in US Dollar terms) of 31%. The delay was caused primarily by the lack of interest on the part of contractors in tendering for project works, persistent shortages of construction materials, and the need to change the specifications for canal linings to overcome problems caused by the very difficult soil conditions in the project area. The delay in implementation and the need for upgrading and increasing the extent of canal lining were also major factors contributing to the cost overrun. The economic rate of return from the project has been reestimated to be 17%, the same as at appraisal. Some of the lessons learned and other points of interest are as follows: (a) Although the project is still at an early stage of development, the extent to which farmers have adopted irrigated crop production has been disappointing. Many farmers have continued to produce rainfed crops (PPAM para. 11). (b) A fully satisfactory cropping system has not yet been introduced into the project area. Some crops, which were expected at appraisal to play important roles in the overall cropping pattern, have produced rather discouraging results. For example, wheat has proved to be rather susceptible to the relatively high winter - iv - temperatures at Jayakwadi, while cotton has been unpopular with farmers. However, groundnuts, sunflower and sugarcane have been more popular than expected (PPAM para. 12). (d) Farmers have been required to pay water charges which have been levied at fixed rates per hectare for different crops. The revenue from these water charges has been approximately equal to the operation and maintenance costs for the irrigation system (PPAM para. 13). (e) The original system under which farmers were expected to finance the cost of communal on-farm works (watercourses and drains) was discontinued due to farmers' unwillingness to participate, and this work has been financed by Government as part of the project cost in the same way as the main irrigation system (PPAM para. 14). (f) Farmers' outlet committees are expected to assume responsibility for maintenance of communal on-farm works and, eventually, foz operation of rotational water delivery systems within the outlet commands. Although a start has been made in establishing these committees, it will take time before they become fully operational (PPAM paras. 15-16). (g) The Bank has recently approved a fol1ow-on project (Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project III - Credit 1621-IN). In view of the disappointing progress made so far with development of irrigated cropping under MCIP I, this large-scale follow-on project may be somewhat premature unless a very serious effort is made to encourage farmers to adopt much more intensive irrigated farming systems. -1- PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEHORANDUM INDIA - FIRST MAHARASETRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT (CREDIT 736-IN) I. PROJECT SUMM4ARY 1. Project Description. The First Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project (MCIP 1) was the first major irrigation project to be supported by the Bank Group in the drought prone central Deccan plateau, an area in India which has traditionally been devoted to extensive rainfed agriculture. The project was designed to increase the reliability of crop production in the rainy season and permit production of a second crop during the dry season. The principal crops were wheat, sorghum, paddy, cotton and sugarcane. The project provided support for a four year slice of development in the Jayakwadi area using water from the Godavari River impounded by a dam at Paithan. The Governments of India (GOI) and Maharashtra (GOM) had previously financed construction of this dam and the first 134 ks of the main left bank canal (LBC) and 20 kms of the right bank canal (RBC) with their own resources. A water distribution network serving 56,000 ha had also been developed in the areas served by these main canals. Under MCIP I the two main canals were to be completed, at which stage the LBC would extend for 208 kms and the RBC for 134 kas. An additional distribution network covering 95,000 ha was also to be developed, including land shaping on 45,000 ba. Construction of the main irrigation network was to be financed by Government, while the farmers were expected to finance on-farm development works (field channels, land levelling, etc.) under a credit program supported by the project. In addition to the main work at Jayakwadi, the project also included a small component for upgrading the distribution system on 30,000 ha and providing drainage on the Purna Irrigation Project in an area adjacent to Jayakwadi. The project at Purna had been supported with an IDA Credit in 1962 (Credit 23-IN). In addition to the main irrigation works the project also included construction and upgrading of 385 kms of link roads in the project area, construction of 11 market centres, and support for project management and agricultural extension. It was expected that the Jayakwadi/Purna Command Area Development Authority (CADA) would assume responsibility for the construction and subsequent operation of the project. Development of irrigation in the project area has also been influenced by activities financed under Maharashtra Irrigation II Project (Credit 954-IN) approved in 1979 and Maharashtra Water Utilization Project (Credit 1383/Loan 2308) approved in 1983. These projects included components for further development of irrigation facilities in the Jayakwadi command area, pilot programs to improve irrigation system operations and trials to develop improved cropping systems and better irrigation methods. A further follow-on project (Maharashtra Composite Irrigation III Project) has also been approved recently. This project will complete development of irrigation infrastructure under Jayakwadi Command, although emphasis will also be given to introduction of improved water management and more productive farming systems throughout the command area. - 2 - 2. Project Cost. At appraisal the project was expected to cost US$140.0 million. Fifty percent of this was to be financed with an IDA Credit of US$70.0 million, while the remaining 50% was to be provided by Government. Actual expenditure under the project amounted to US$183.4 mil- lion, an overrun of 31%. However, the overrun was 45% if the calculations are made in terms of Indian Rupees. Several factors contributed to the cost overrun, including a long delay in implementation, and thus higher price escalation, improved design standards which were adopted especially for canal lining, and an increase in the extent of the road network constructed. The project took more than seven years to complete, compared with the four years forecast at appraisal. This delay was caused by the need to refine the design criteria for canal lining, by persistent shortages of essential construction materials, and by farmers' unwillingness to finance on-farm development works with institutional credit. Beginning in 1980 the system for financing communal on-farm works (canals, drains and structures below the outlet) was changed and these were paid for by Government in the same way as done for the main irrigation works. Delays were also experienced in making arrangements for completing construction of the main canals. No response was obtained from contractors even though tenders under international competitive bidding procedures were advertised twice, and the work was eventually undertaken by the Irrigation Department. 3. Achievements. Despite the delay and the modifications made to designs for canal linings, the project achieved most of its targets for physical development. At Jayakwadi both main canals were completed as planned and the irrigation network was installed on about 87,000 ha of land, compared with the target of 95,000 ha. Most of the land shaping was also completed as planned at Jayakwadi. The improvements planned at Purna were also completed except that it was decided not to line minor canals as pro- posed originally. The length of roads constructed under the project was increased from 385 kms planned at appraisal to 489 kms. All of the 11 market centres were also constructed according to plan. 4. Agricultural Impact. As construction of irrigation works was com- pleted only recently in most of the project area, the irrigation system is still not fully operational and most farmers have only partially adopted irrigated cropping. It is thus early to judge the impact which the project will have on crop production. However, at present the intensity of irriga- tion is low, while a fully satisfactory cropping system has still not been adopted. The annual rainfall in the project area is usually between 750 mm and 1,000 mm and this is sufficient to permit rainfed production of sorghum, millet, safflower, and short-staple cotton. At present about 80% of the irrigible land is still used for production of rainfed crops, while only about 60% of the land is irrigated at some stage in the rainy season (Kharif), the dry season (Rabi), or the hot season. Issues concerning irrigated cropping systems are discussed in more detail later in this report. 5. The Design of Canal Linings. Most of the soils in the project area are black vertisols with a clay content of over 50%. These swell and lose their structure when wet. MCIP I was the first project to attempt construc- tion of irrigation works under these severe conditions on the Deccan - 3 - Plateau. Unfortunately, the problems posed by these soils proved more diffi- cult than expected at appraisal and major changes had to be made in the way canals were lined and minor structures were designed. For the main canals it was necessary to increase the strength and thickness of the concrete lining and back it with a non-swelling layer of murram. About twice the length of distributaries was lined compared to the appraisal targets. 6. Maintenance and Cost Recovery. Most of the project infrastructure was completed recently and little maintenance has been required so far. Furthermore, despite the very difficult soil conditions in the project area, considerable care was taken with the design, especially of canal linings, and this should reduce subsequent maintenance requirements. However, some of the works which were constructed prior to the project, especially the first sections of the main canals, were not constructed to such high standards and they are already experiencing maintenance problems. It is too early to judge whether maintenance of on-farm works will be carried out satisfactorily, except to note that it seems inevitable that a considerable amount of time will be required to establish throughout the whole project area fully func- tional farmers' committees (outlet committees) which will assume this maintenance function. 7. Maintenance costs for the main irrigation system are recovered through water charges which are levied at fixed rates per hectare per season. Rates vary for different crops depending on their average water requirements. The level of water charges in Maharashtra is one of the highest in India and the total revenue derived from them has recently been about the same as annual expenditure on operation and maintenance for Jayakwadi Command. 8. The Economic Rate of Return. At appraisal the main component of MCIP 1, development of Jayakwadi, was expected to have an economic rate of return (ERR) of 17%, although the appraisal report noted that this would have been lower if a share of the sunk costs (for the dam and main canals con- structed before the the project started) had been taken into account. The PCR has reestima-ed the ERR for Jayakwadi at 13%, and this calculation also (correctly) does not take account of sunk costs. At this stage of the pro- ject's development it is too early to predict with confidence whether the assumptions about irrigated cropping patterns which have be-n incorporated in the calculation of the reestimated ERR are realistic. However, the reesti- mated ERR is relatively low and this is what the audit would expect for this type of project, given the long investment period, the difficult soil condi- tions and the relatively low proportion of land irrigated each season. 9. For the small component for rehabilitation of irrigation at Purna the PCR suggests that the reestimated ERR will be 36% compared with only 13% estimated at appraisal. This high rate of return was possible because the project was able to bring about significant improvement in productivity yet only a small investment was necessary on this established irrigation scheme. -4- II. MAIN ISSUES A. Cropping Patterns and Irrigation Intensity 10. At appraisal it was expected that the project would provide irriga- tion facilities at Jayakwadi for an additional 95,000 ha of land. This would include 50,000 ha (the irrigation infrastructure area) where only the main irrigation system would be provided and 45,000 ha (the full package area) on which complete on-farm development would be provided in addition to the irri- gation infrastructure. The on-farm developments included field channels, farm drains and land shaping. Prior to the project almost all of this area was used for production of rainfed crops in tne single annual rainy season or using residual moisture after a fallow period during the monsoon. The provision of irrigation under the project would permit crop production out- side of the rainy season and the overall cropping intensity in the irrigation infrastructure area was expected to increase to 125%, compared with 102Z without the project. For the full package area the cropping intensity was expected to increase to 130% when the project became fully developed. Substantial increases in yields were also expected for all crops due to the assured water availability. For example, in the irrigation infrastructure area overall average yields of sorghum, wheat and cotton were expected to be more than three times as high with the project as without, while for the full package area the comparable ratios were forecast to be more than four to one (SAR Annex 8, Tables 2 and 3). 11. Although the project is still at an early stage of development, preliminary indications are that the intensity of irrigation has been much less than expected, while a significant share of the total cropped area has remained under low yielding rainfed crops. The PCR (Table 8) indicates that at Jayakwadi in 1982/83 the overall cropping intensity was 147%, although only 39% represented irrigated crops, while rainfed crops accounted for 108%. At full development the PCR suggests that the overall cropping inten- sity will have increased to 165%, although only 67% of this would represent irrigated crops. This overall cropping intensity is significantly higher than that expected at appraisal - an overall average intensity of 127% at full development (SAR Annex 8, Tables 2 & 3). However, at appraisal it was assumed that all crops would be irrigated when necessary, and they would all provide much higher yields than those obtained from rainfed crops. This is in marked contrast to the present expectation that a high proportion of the total cropped area will remain under low-yielding rainfed crops. 12. Several factors have contri:uted to the slower than expected uptake of irrigation at Jayakwadi. First, rainfed agriculture is feasible in the area, even though it may be unreliable, and many farmers have not yet adopted irrigation. Second, the size distribution of holdings in Jayakwadi is skewed with several relatively large holdings. No land consolidation or redistribu- tion has taken place in the area and farmers with large holdings have had less incentive to adopt intensive irrigated methods of production. Third, some of the traditional practices used for rainfed crop production are not - 5 - compatible with irrigated agriculture. For example, some crops are tradi- tionally planted towards the end of the rainy season. This effectively ties up the land for both the wet and dry seasons and thus precludes irrigated crop production in either. Fourth, water charges are levied at fixed rates per hectare per season for different crops. Although this system is attrac- tive from the viewpoint of cost recovery, it may act as a disincentive to supplementary irrigation during the rainy season, especially because the present arrangements require that farmers must apply to the Irrigation Department for water well ahead of the cropping season, and pay the water charges whether they irrigate or not. Farmers are reluctant to do this for the monsoon (kharif) season because, in an average year, they do not need irrigation. Under MCIP III GOM has agreed to alter these arrangements and make supplementary irrigation available for kharif seasonal crops whenever half of the farmers concerned request irrigation water. Finally, several specific problems have affected individual crops. For example, wheat, which was expected to be one of the principal crops, has been adversely affected by the rather high temperatures in the project area, while cotton has suffered from reaching the productive stage before the end of the wet season. On the other hand, some crops including groundnuts, sunflower and sugarcane have proved more popular than expected, and pilot work with farming systems supported under the follow-on projects has demonstrated that highly productive intensive irrigated systems are possible at Jayakwadi. Nevertheless, a fully satisfactory farming system has still not been adopted in most of the project area. Perhaps more progress would have been made in resolving this issue if more attention had been given to agricultural matters during the course of supervision, for no agriculturalist was included on any supervision mission until almost the end of the project period. B. Maintenance and Cost Recovery 13. Maintenance of the main irrigation system is CADA's responsibil- ity. If CADA continues to receive adequate funds to carry out this function, maintenance of the main system should not be a problem, for the works con- structed under the project (especially the canal linings) were designed to suit the difficult soil conditions in the project area. However, some of the irrigation works constructed prior to the project, especially the upper reaches of the two main canals, have suffered from inadequate maintenance, due to a combination of inappropriate design and lack of funds for main- tenance. At present there is no direct connection between the extent of cost recovery and the availability of funds for operation and maintenance, for water charges received from farmers are paid directly into the State Govern- ment's revenue, while CADA depends on a budgetary allocation for its own funds. However, water charges have been set at relatively high levels and data supplied to the audit mission by CADA indicate that average assessed water charges currently amount to about R200/ha, while overall operation and maintenance (O&M) costs have been equivalent to about RI50/ha. However, only - 6 - about 80% of assessed water charges have been collected. Thus, total collec- tions have been approximately the same as total O&M costs.1/ In addition, farmers make indirect payments through taxes levied on farm product prices. Even though water charges paid by farmers may be equivalent to O&M costs, it seems unlikely that any significant proportion of the scheme's capital costs can be recovered this way. The Project Agreement (Section 3.06) expected that all O&M costs would be recovered and "to the extent possible, the cost of infrastructure investment, having regard, inter alia, for the incentives and repayment capacity of farmers in the Project Area". C. On-Farm Development 14. For the "full package area" on-farm development (OFD), including field channels, drains and land shaping, was provided. The field channels were designed to improve the efficiency of the water distribution system between the outlets and the farmer's fields. The field channels and drains (Part 1 Works) were expected to be shared by a group of benefitting farmers, while land shaping (Part 2 Works) was to have been undertaken for individual farmers. Originally it was expected that all OFD would be financed under a credit program, which included special provision to enable loans to be made to farmQrs who would not otherwise be eligible for credit, because they had defaulted on earlier loans. However, farmers proved reluctant to finance the Part 1 OFD Works with credit, at least to some extent because every farmer did not want to irrigate all of his land and therefore did not want to pay his full share of the costs involved. With effect from October 1980 the system was changed and Part 1 OFD was financed in the same way as the main irrigation system, that is as a grant.2/ Similar changes have been made for other irrigation systems throughout India. Land shaping on individual farmers' fields has continued to be financed with credit and farmers have beer willing to do this because they recognize that the work is for their own benefit. 15. Eventually it is expected that operation and maintenance of the communal water courses and drains will be undertaken by farmers' organiza- tions (outlet committees). On average each committee will include about 10 to 15 farmers with 20 to 25 ha of irrigated land, and they will be consti- tuted in such a way that farmers with land at the tail end of the water courses and underprivileged farmers are adequately represented. These com- mittees have already been established throughout the area where OFD has been completed, although it must be expected that it will take considerable time for them to become fully functional, and it is uncertain at this stage if 1/ Data in the PCR (para. 4.07) suggest that the amounts of water charges collected have been lower than indicated here. 2/ Farmers who took out loans for Part 1 OFD before October 1980 will apparently be expected to repay these as originally agreed. The audit will be surprised if they show much enthusiasm for repayment if some of their neighbors do not have to pay for this work. - 7 - they will prove capable of providing adequate maintenance for the communal irrigation works. 16. The project has made significant progress with introduction of a rotational water use system within each outlet command, under which each farmer will be provided in turn with his water allocation, according to a pre-determined published schedule. This system has already been introduced on about half of the areas presently irrigated, and it shows considerable promise of providing a more equitable water distribution system, compared with the traditional system under which farmers at the head of the water courses obtained unfair advantage compared with people lower down. So far CADA has assumed prime responsibility for operating this system, but it is hoped that farmers' outlet committees will eventually take over this func- tion. D. Conclusions 17. Physical development of irrigation under MCIP I has been completed largely as planned, although implementation was delayed and there was a significant cost overrun. Considerable experience has been gained with designing irrigation structures suitable for the difficult soil conditions on the Deccan Plateau, for these were not sufficiently well understood at appraisal. Progress has also been made with introducing improved water dis- tribution systems, although it will take time before farmer's organizations will be able to take over operation and maintenance of all communal irriga- tion networks throughout the command area. The agricultural performance in the Jayakwadi Command Area has been rather disappointing to date, for much of the cultivable land is still being used for production of rainfed crops; in 1982/83 only 39% of the available irrigable land was irrigated. However, pilot programs undertaken in the Jayakwadi area have demonstrated that irrig- able land can be put to much more intensive and productive use. Development of irrigation in the Jayakwadi area will te completed under a recently approved follow-on project (MCIP III). When this project has been completed the total area of irrigated land in Jayakwadi (and the adjoining Majalgaon Command) will be about 300,000 ha. MCIP I (and MWUP) have provided much valuable experience which will contribute to improved performan _e under the follow-on project, especially through developing suitable designs for irriga- tion structures, introducing improved water distribution systems, and identi- fying appropriate cropping systems. Testing of improved methods for water distribution and more productive cropping systems started as part of MWUP will also be continued under MCIP III. Nevertheless, in view of the disap- pointing progress made so far with development of irrigated cropping under MCIP I, this large-scale follow-on project may be somewhat premature unless a very serious effort is made to encourage farmers to adopt much more intensive irrigated farming systems. i �� � � � � `С� �г� �� � � .�1 . � 9 BORROWER"S COMMENTS Attachment I Page 1 sTJM3!r BOSE 1TREW qTWr1r EEPUTY SEM:TARY TEL 3014140 an frq, wr* N-4 1.1 Gcyvern-rn en of India (Bharat Sarkar) Ministry of Finance (Vitta MantralaYa) Department of Economic Affairs (Arthik KarYa Vibh2g) qt fkF; O/New Delhi. the 2Rth Aug- 19 85 De ar Mr Wa ides Mr. Yukinori Watanabe, Director, Operations Evaluation Departnient, vide his letter of June 3rd 1985 to Mr. A. Thapan had sought commnts on t1-P- draft Project -Per-formance Audit Report of the Ist Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project (Credit 736-IN) - Our comments on the PPAR are enclosed. We shall be grateful if these com-ents are transmitted to Mr. Yukinori Watanabe in the Operations Evaluation Department of Bank-. Kindly acknowledge receipt. Yours sincerely, Ar - CSUM-74, BOSE) Mr. Bevap E. Waide, Chief of Mission, 55 Lodi Estate, New Delhi - 10 - Attaciment I Page 1 COPEZRrS ON THE DRATT PPAR ON THB LPIRST- MAHARASHTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROjECT (CREDIT 736-IN) While we are generally in agreevent with the evaluation of the project by OED, our comments on some of the major issues highlighted in the Project Performance Audit Report are as follows :- 1. PARA 11 of PPAM expresses concern that while the project is still at an early stage of development, the indications are that the intensity of irrigation has been much less than expected, while a significant share of the total cropped area has remained The audit wish- es to emphasizeunder low yielding rainfed crops. Our experience in most that high priority shouldprojeCts has been that it takes time for farvers to change over be given to developing from rainfed to irrigated agriculture. Efforts to evolve a improved crop- ping systems satisfactory cropping system are being made through adaptive in order to rectify the research, extension work and the Maharashtra Water Utilisation present under- utilization of Project (Credit No. 1383-IN & Loan No.2308-IN). the agricultural potential in the The main reason for under-utilisation of the project project area. potential in Jayakwadi Project, is absence of suitable crop in the kharif season which would give adequate profits to the faxriers. The Governent of Maharashtra has already taken up intensive adaptive trials in Jayakwadi as well as Purne project in coordination with the Agri. University. Agricultural Extension Services, Research organisations so as to identify suitable crops varieties for the kharif season, exact sowing tile, cropping sequences and appropriate package of practices to suit the farmers financial capabilities which would give a higher income and also provide incentive to the farners to switch on from rainfed crops taken at present in the mid  11 - Attachment I Page 3 season kharif and rabi to the regular kharif irrigated crop. Although the 2. Audit feels that one of the factors which had led to water charges levied in the slower then expected uptake of irrigation at Jayakwadi is the wet season are relatively fixed water charges according to the season and crop ( para 12 low the audit understands of PPAM). 'This, it has been observed may act as a disincentive that farmers are reluctant to supplementary irrigation during the kharif season. In our to commit them- selves to pay- opinion, it would not be wholly correct to attribute low kharif ing these fees, hoping utili7ation to fixed water charges. Kharif water charges are that the rain- fall will already fixed at only 1/3rd of the normal rates which makes it prove adequate. more of a "insurance premium", the farmers will gradually accept the idea of insurance. Moreover, GOM have also taken steps to release water early in the monsoon so as to enable farmers to sow their-kharif crop earlier, which would then leave them enough time to prepare for the Rabi crop. 3. Para 13 of PPAM mentions that some of the irrigation projects constructed prior to the project have suffered very inadequate maintenance due to a combination of inappropriate designs and lack of fun's. The works constructed prior to the projact were according to the specifications then stipulated. There is However, problems peculiar to the black cotton soil were evidence of encounter and there were deterioration at certain locations poor main- tenance in which were promptly repaired and build upto improved standards. some places and this has This was part of the process of learning through project not all been promptly implementation ;n an area with "difficult soil conditions" repaired. 4. Para 14 of PPAM states that-the original system under which farmers were expected to finance the cost of communal on-farm works was discontinued due to farmers unwillingness to participate. This is only partly true. The change in the Attachment I -12- Page 4 pattern of financing of OFD works was atainl$y to the decision A of the Government to take up tbei responsibilitirs of delivering water efficiently right upto the farm gate. 5. The report (para 17 ) concludes that in view of the disappointing - progress with the development of Although suitable irrigated cropping under MCIP I, it may be premature to plan cropping systems may Bank participation in a follow-on project. MCIP was the have been identified, first major irrigation project to be taken up with 'ank these have still not assistance in the region. Audit has recogniseAthe difficulties been widely adopted and encountered in the project due to the peculiar nature of the high priority should be soils which dela)e d project completion. As pointed out above, given to introduction the factors which have slowed down the development of of more intensive irrigation in the project area have been identified and suitable irrigated farming solutions to the problems have been evolved. Special attention ys is being given to adaptive research, extension work and training of f armers. Both MMUP and the recently approved Maharashtra Composite Irrigation (III) Project (Credit No. 5376-IN) are focussing on the need to develop irrigated agriculture, building up on the experience of MCIP I. - 13 - INDIA Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project I IDA Credit 736 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT November 6, 1984 Irrigation II South Asia Projects Department ーノター ／どノ3 ノか分ど局がそ - 15 - INDIA. MAHARASHTRA IRRIGATION PROJECT I (Cr. 736-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION Background 1.01 Maharashtra is India's third largest state. It extends to 308,000 km2 and has today a population of about 64.2 million. Two thirds of its labour force is engaged in agriculture; about 452 of these are landless. The total cultivable area is about 18.2 m ha; there is little or no scope for its extension. Only some 2.5 m ha are at present irrigated; about 1.1 m ha from wells and 1.4 m ha from surface sources. Groundwater resources in the state are limited to shallow, low-yielding, albeit widespread aquifers. The extent of surface irrigation is constrained by the seasonality of the rivers, by a topography that is, compared to other irrigated areas of India, not very favourable and by the fact that most of the soils are black basaltic ver- tisols which are difficult to handle under irrigation. Nevertheless, by now great strides have been made to develop surface irrigation systan . 1.02 ' Bank Support. The Bank has supported a considerable share of the State's irrigation development program. The first project, which was also the Bank group's first irrigation project in India, was the Purna Irrigation Project (Cr 23-IN, US$13 X, 1962), which contributed to two storage dams on the Purna river and the main and distributary canal system in the service area. The project under review (Cr 736-IN, USPO M) was next, approved in 1977: it was the first of what was expected to be a series of composite irrigation projects. The Second Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project was approved in October 1979 (Cr 934-IN; US$210 M): that project is financing the development of an irrigation infrastructure and storage dams on five other rivers. The Maharashtra Water Utilization Project, (MWUP) approved in 1983, (In 2308/Cr 1383) is a direct follow-up of the project being reviewed: it Contributes a total of US$54.7 M to developing the distribution system down to the 8 ha level on about 95,000 ha in five scheme areas, as well as sup- porting trials, investigations and demonstrations into the better utilization of irrigation water by developing appropriate cultural practices for remunerative crops, many of which are yet to be identified. 1.03 Groundwater development has been, and is being, assisted under several agricultural credit and rural electrification projects to which the Bank group has contributed (Cr 293, 540, 572, 715 and 911-IN). The haharashtra Agricultural Extension Project (Cr 1135-IN, US$23 M) extended the agricultural extension component in the project reviewed in this PCR over the - 16 - entire state. This component was based on the training and visits (T&V) system. Identification. Preparation, Appraisal 1.04 The Maharashtra Irrigation Project, or, as it became known, the first Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project (MCIP I) was first mentioned in the Bank's files in July 1971. FAO/WB Cooperative Programme have submitted a preparation document in 1976. The Bank appraised the project in September/October 1976; it was negotiated in April 1977 and presented to the Board on July 19, 1977. The project became effective on January 13, 1978. II. THE PROJECT AT APPRAISAL 2.01 The Project Area . The project area extends to two irrigation com- mands: Jayakwadi, served by diversions from the Paithan reservoir on the Godavari river, and Purna, supplied from the Siddeshwahr diversion weir on the Purna river, one of the major tributaries of the Godavari. The two sub-areas are in the "scarcity" (less than 750 a) and "assured" (750-1000 um) rainfall zones, east of the coastal mountain range, the Ghats. In both areas the rainfall, while adequate for extensive subsistence agriculture, based on sorghum and millets, is spasmodic and of relatively short duration (usually less than 4 months). Therefore, irrigation has a dual role: to supplement rainfall in dry years to ensure at least one satisfactory crop, and to use stored water in the dry seasons, to support two-season, rabi (winter) and perennial crops, e.g. cotton, wheat, rabi groundnuts, bananas and sugarcane. Irrigation into a third season - the pre-monsoon, very hot and dry "summer" (April-June) while desirable on purely agronomic grounds, introduces the problems of non-beneficial water losses by evaporation from the shallow, extensive reservoirs, that need to be evaluated against the potential benefits. 2.02 The Javakwadi Component. The component area lies on both banks of the Godavari river, on which the Paithan dam and reservoir was completed in 1975 by GOIIGOM without Bank Group involvement. They also built the first 100 km of the left-bank canal (PLBC) and its appurtenant distribution system, but only the first 20 km of the right-bank canal (PRBC) were completed before the project under review was appraised. These works, which served about 53,000 ha of a potential first-phase area of 1183,000 ha - 141,000 ha on the left bank 42,000 ha on the right Iank, - were financed entirely by GOI/GON. 2.03 The Purna Component. The Purna component has been functioning since 1967, when the IDA-financed first phase (Cr 23-IN, US$13 M) began to deliver water. However, that project, apart from financing the completion of two dams on the Purna river at Yeldari and Siddeswahr and its associated hydro-electric power plants, has only supported an about 80 km main canal and distributaries and minors of 400 km. There was no component for water- courses or any form of on-farm development: at that time GOI and the Bank expected that the farmers will do all on-farm work themselves, with institu- tional loans if necessary. 2.04 The Composite Project. In formulating the composite project, much attention was paid not only to review the kind of development previously - 17 - believed to be best suited to the drought-prone areas of the Deccan Plateau, but also, learning from the lessons of the first phase (para 2.03), to include components that would assist in the speedier utilization of project works, and the institutions built up to implement and operate the project. Therefore the project, as appraised, had the following components: [(see also paras 4.01-4.02 of the Appraisal Report (No 1486a-IN of June 30, 1977)]: (a) completing the Jayakwadi main canals: the Paithan LBC between km 100-208 and the Paithan LBC between km 20-132 where it debouches into the proposed Majalgaon reservoir; If (b) providing a distribution network, lined down to the minors (but not field channels) and its corollary drainage network to serve: (i) 57,000 ha of the Paithan LBC command (ii) 38,000 ha of the Paithan RBC command (iii) 30,000 ha in the Purna scheme Cc) rehabilitation, upgrading or constructing as appropriate, 385 km of minor link roads; (d) providing 11 market centers; (e) landshaping and field channels, to serve 45,000 ha; Cf) monitoring facilities, to enable more exact quantification of non-beneficial water losses and to quantify project benefits; (g) providing the necessary vehicles, equipment and buildings; (h) upgrading and modernizing the agricultural extension service; and (i) assistance for future project preparation. Cost Er%'weas at Appraisal 2.05 At aeil-aisal, the total project costs, including physical contingen- cies and price escalation, were estimated at US$140 M, of which the Jayakwadi component was expected to cost US$131.7 M, Purna US$8.0 M and other items that could not be allocated to either project, about US$0.3 M. The expected principal items of expenditure, expressed as percentage of the cost estimates, were as follows: If Construction of the Majalgaon dam, development of its potential service area of about 94,000 ha was expected to be taken up by GOM/GOI after the completion of the project under review: this, in fact, is now in progress (1984). - 18 - Javakwadi The canal and drainage network, including lining, distributaries and minors 77% Command area development works /A 11% Link roads 5% Agriculture extension services, monitoring, market yard construction 42 Other equipment 2% 100% /b Purna Modernization 68% Link roads 23% Extension services and market yards 9% 100% L Landshaping and field channel lining. L Errors due to rounding. IDA-s contribution to the project was US$70 M, expected to amount to 50% of total costs; GOI/GOM would contribute the balance. Contracting and Procurement 2.06 At appraisal it was determined that (a) all works except those on the main canals were too small and scattered for international competitive bid- ding (ICB) and therefore were to be let out on small local or piecework contracts; (b) on the main canals, ICB contracts for a minimum of US$6 M, or about a fifth of the total estimated costs, were to be floated; (c) since equipment had to be mostly compatible with the Irrigation Department's exist- ing fleet, it was estimated that about 40% would be procured under ICB rules, the balance under GOM's procurement rules which were found satisfactory. Implementation Organization 2.07 Project implementation was estimated to take about four years; it was expected to be completed during the 1977/78 - 1981/82 construction seasons. The then newly formed (1974) Command Area Development Authority's Administrator was to coordinate activities. The following agencies were expected to be involved: (a) Irrigation and Power Department - to construct the entire distribu- tion system down to the chak (watercourse) outlet, including their operation and maintenance; (b) Department of Agriculture - to operate agricultural extension, water management, agricultural support and input services, including production credit; (c) Public Works Department - to construct the link roads and appurtenant buildings; - 19 - (d) Revenue Department - to administer land revenue matters; and (e) Maharashtra Land Development Corporation - to execute on-farm development works: Part I (field channels) and Part II (landshaping works). Expected Benefits 2.08 The project was expected to yield a rate of return of 14% in areas where command area development (CAD) works would be deferred to a subsequent stage and 19% where CAD works would be ciompleted; aggregated over the entire expected 5-year timeslice of the project, a 17Z economic rate of return was expected. III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION General 3.01 The first two Supervision Missions, in June 1978 and July 1979, reported good progress after minor initial difficulties, but already noted what later emerged as a major technical problem: effectively and lastingly lining canals in the plastic, swelling vertisols of the project area. Canal lining to prevent excessive conveyance losses was foreseen by the appraisal mission and has taken on added urgency when it was found that water losses in new, unlined channels were at an unacceptably high rate. The exact technical specifications of canal lining under the soil conditions of Jayakwadi was determined in the course of project implementation, (to some extent by trying different empirical solutions) and the technique duly applied in this and other projects (para 3.05). 3.02 Another problem that was to account materially for the eventual delay and for a major part of project cost increases was persistent shortages of construction materials, mainly cement, and to a somewhat lesser extent steel; often diesel fuel was not available. While shortages have been reported by supervision missions since 1978, cement actually provided for project works between January 1982 and March 1984 was only 52% of requests. 3.03 The major problem noted, partly in the project area, partly in sec- tions completed without, and prior to, Bank involvement, is that farmers were - and to some extent are to this day, - slow to take up the use of irrigation water. There would appear to have been at least two possible causes for this. One, identified and, on a pilot scale, solved during the implementa- tion of this project, was that because of faulty layout, design and construc- tion of the field channels and in some cases also minors, water supplies to the farms were unreliable and irregular. Two large scale investigationc were organized within the Jayakwadi command in an effort to overcome the problem. The investigations were eventually financed out of a subsequent loan (MCIP II, Cr 954-IN), although this project has also contributed about US$0.15 M. They essentially consisted of appropriately redesigning the tertiary and the field distribution system, and lining parts of it, thereby ensuring a reli- able, predictable water supply to farmer's fields. Both have successfully induced farmers to increase their irrigation intensity considerably. A Pilot Project, costing about Rs 4,000/ha, proved too expensive. Its successor, the Farmers' Project, cost only about half; the difference was that minors and - 20 - watercourses were selectively, and not fully, lined. The findings were incorporated in MWUP (pars 1.02) for about 45,000 ha and will form part of a subsequent project, at present under consideration. Table 1 shows the results. Resolving a second possible cause, failure to have identified to date appropriate cultural practices and a really profitable crop mix for Jayakwadi's very difficult soils, is a longer-term problem, which is also addressed in MWUP and will continue to receive attention in subsequent irrigation and adaptive agricultural research projects in the State. 3.04 Owing partly to material supply problems (para 3.02), the credit was not closed until March 31, 1984, i.e., one year later than expected at appraisal. Physical completion, expected in June 1982, is now expected by March 31, 1985. Table 2 gives details of completed works, those yet to be finished and the estimated time taken to do so. Desitn and Quality Standards 3.05 At appraisal, it was expected that canal lining will prove a dif- ficult task because of soil conditions. To ensure that design standards laid down were actually being followed, quality control laboratories were envisaged for both of the project areas. They were established as per the planned timetable. Within their brief, they functioned well from the begin- ning and in most cases concluded that specifications were indeed followed. However, site supervision was for a long time inadequate. The problem to develop specifications that were suitable became, however, the major issue (para 3.01). Eventually all lining was installed onto a murrum layer of about 1 m thickness, which, being a stable material whether wet or dry, acted as a cushion between the swelling black soil and the concrete lining. Once field supervision was sufficiently tightened by preparing manuals and check- lists, staff of the Irrigation Department adequately trained, the construc- tion of waterproof joints between the sections ensured and the right specifications for the slabs identified, lining presented only minor techni- cal problems. However, because of the high conveyance losses in unlined channels, which, unlike under the very different soil conditions of the Indo-Gangetic plain, do not diminish to acceptable levels even with prolonged use (para 3.01), more field channel lining had to be done than planned (Table 2). 3.06 The original lining specifications and their construction standards proved inadequate also in the head reaches of the Jayakwadi main canals, which were completed before implementation of the project under review (para 2.04). Considerable repair and reconstruction work was therefore needed before water could reliably reach the project area. This, while contributing to the final identification of suitable design standards and helping to develop the right degree of construction supervision, further delayed project execution by diverting scarce materials, funds and design and supervision resources to repair works. Malaria Control 3.07 Measures by GOM and GOI to contain the expected increase in malaria incidence in the areas to be brought under irrigation were requested through a special covenant in the Project Agreement. Such measures were duly taken; Table 3 shows the results of malaria control measures in the administrative districts of which the project area is a part. Project Costs 3.08 Against an estimated cost of Rs 1,260 M, actual costs incurred until 31 March 1984 were Rs 1,549 M; cost of works yet to be completed are estimated at Rs 281 M i.e. a total project cost of Rs 1,830 M, or 45% over appraisal estimates in terms of contemporary Indian Rupees. Expressed in terms of contemporary US dollars, however, the cost overrun is only 31Z. The extra costs are due to the delay in implementation of almost 2-1/2 years and the need for additional works made necessary by the extra length and higher than expected specifications for canal lining; the fact that the deep excava- tions encountered harder than expected rock; more excavation was required than the original measurements made by the Trrigation Department indicated, and the need to have more control and other structures than expected. In hindsight, it became clear that the estimates submitted to the appraisal team were not prepared with sufficient care. Table 4 shows the cost turnout, in terms of percentages above appraisal estimates, of the principal items. IV. PERFORMANCE OF THE BORROWER (ID) 4.01 Implementing the Project Components. The project was implemented, as originally planned, by the Irrigation Department (ID) whose brief was to build the main canals and the distribution network, including the minor canals [para 2.04 (a) and (b)]. Except for the overall delays indicated, (para 3.04) the ID's performance was, in the end, satisfactory. Initially, however, there was an imbalance between major and minor works, biased towards the former, which, if unchecked, would have delayed the realization of project benefits. Partly due to pressure put on ID by supervision missions, the problem, as noted, was resolved. However, CADA never became the coor- dinating authority it was expected to be (para 2.07). Its agricultural wing, under the Deputy Director of Agriculture, who still reports functionally to the Administrator and technically to the Joint Director of Extension, operated the agricultural extension component until the Maharashtra Agricul- tural Extension Project (Cr 1135-IN) became operational and CADA extension staff were returned, at short notice, to the Department of Agriculture (para 1.03). The CADA were originally expected to be the coordinating, controlling and organizing body for all on-farm development works which were to be imple- mented by the farmers and financed, through loans from the Land Development Banks, (refinanced by the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation, (ARDC - changed in 1983 to National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Develop- ment, NABARD). However, it proved too difficult to secure farmer cooperation quickly enough to ensure the timely execution of the common works (field channels) below the outlets. Therefore these Part I works, as they came to be designated, became a project cost, designed and implemented by CADA. Part II works, landshaping, continued to be done at the farmer's expense under the control of District Soil Conservation Service staff, who eventually were absorbed in CADA. Performance was satisfactory: only some 4% of works remain to be completed (Table 2). - 22 - 4.02 Performance of Implementing Agencies (a) The Irrigation Department, under a Chief Engineer, has performed satisfactorily. Construction achievements, given the recurrent and persistent material shortages, improved considerably during project implementation; quality control was satisfactorily established during project implementation; major works proceeded in a reasonable phas- ing. (b) The CADA was not able to keep up with field channel development; on the Paithan LBC it fell behind by about 24,000 ha compared to the development of the distribution network. However, once field channel development became part of project works, no further delays occured; the original gap will be closed in the next phase of the project. (c) The Department of Agriculture, at first under the Deputy Director of Agriculture, CADA and later under the Joint Director, Agricultural Extension, has performed well and had the organizational side of the T&V system well in hand. Its main handicap was the fact that no fully satisfactory package of practices for irrigated agriculture on the black soils has been developed by the Agricultural University responsible for the work which, naturally, handicapped effective agricultural extension activities. The Maharashtra Water Utilization Project (Lu 2308/Cr 1383) approved in 1983 is addressing this problem (para 3.03); the proposed third Maharashtra Composite Irrigation Project, now being processed, also relies heavily on lessons learned and problems identified and resolved during the execution of this project. (d) The Health Department, GOI, which implemented malaria control, has performed satisfactorily (Table 3 and para 3.07). Compliance with the Legal Agreements 4.03 The legal base of the project was vested in Lhree agreements, dated October 11, 1977: the Development Credit Agreement (DCA), with GOI, the Maharashtra Project Agreement (MPA), with GOM, and the ARDC Agreement, with the Agricultural Refinance and Development corporation, subsequently renamed NABARD (para 4.01). Only the MPA and the ARDC agreement contained specific covenants. 4.04 Covenants in the DCA were substantially met, with the sole exception of slight delays in submitting financial statements and audits. 4.05 The financial covenants in the ARDC agreement were overtaken by events, when Part I on-farm development works, the major expected item of expenditure, became part of project costs [para 4.02 (b)]. Part II on-farm works, landshaping, were mostly (up to 90%) financed out of a Special Loan Account (SLA), which was set up to finance landshaping by MLDC for farmers who, because of earlier defaults, are not eligible to receive ordinary com- mercial loans. Applications for SLA funding are processed by the commercial banks in the normal way, but are 100% refinanced by SLA. Recovery, after the expiry of the grace period (which is still running), will be by the Land Revenue Department [para 2.07(d)] as arrears of land revenue. Thus, NABARD's - 23 - involvement in the project became almost nominal and the specific financial covenants in the ARDC agreement lost their significance. Cost Recovery 4.06 Section 3.06 of the MPA obligates Maharashtra "to review and, if necessary, increase its ... water-related charges in the Project Area ... with the objective of collecting full operational and maintenance costs and, to the extent possible, cost of infrastructure investments, having regard for the incentive and repayment capacity of farmers..." 4.07 The overall recovery of water charges in Maharashtra is improving: from about 35Z of assessments in 1976-77 (when MCIP I was appraised) to about 80% in 1982-83. During the same period in Jayakwadi, where irrigation, to all intents and purposes, has only started about five-six years ago, water charge collection rose from virtually nothing to 30%. A further measure of progress is that while in 1979/80 recoveries in Jayakwadi covered a mere 7% of actual O&M costs, the figure rose to 52% by 1982/83. At the same time in Purna, an older, better established project and where, with existing farming technologies, crops respond well to irrigation, virtually all assess- ments have been recovered. There is thus no doubt that tangible progress is being made, according to the letter and intention of the cost recovery covenant (para 4.06) not only in the project area but the whole State. 4.08 Further issues are that, along with Gujarat and West Bengal, water charges in Maharashtra are amongst the highest in India. The actual figures are: RsLha Rs ha kharif seasonals 50 hot season seasonals 150-250 rabi seasonals 75 perennials 750 Actual 0 & M costs are around Rs 140/ha; it is estimated by ID that first-class maintenance would be possible, on a sustained basis, for about Rs 177/ha. Thus, albeit slowly, Maharashtra is progressing towards a self-sustaining assessment and collection through directly charging the irrigators; higher charges at the present juncture may well dissuade farmers in the relatively new project areas, like Jayakwadi, to increase irrigation and water use. 4.09 In conclusion it must be noted that farmers also pay indirectly for irrigation water. There are market taxes on sugarcane, bananas and cotton. While the two former depend heavily on well water, it is an established fact that the area devoted to them increases sizeably as soon as surface irriga- tion is introduced. Similarly the growing of long-staple cotton is tied, in western Maharashtra, to surface irrigation. Thus, actual revenue accruing to GOM from surface irrigation projects is already considerably in excess of water charges collected and even on current trends and without further tech- nological advances--which is a pessimistic scenario-is likely to increase considerably. - 24 - V. AGRICULTURAL IMPACT 5.01 Introduction. Agricultural statistics are collected by two entities: the Revenue Department, which groups its information according to village and zilla parishad units and does not disaggregate irrigated and non-irrigated crops, and the Irrigation Department. They only record crops for which the farmer requests water and ignore unirrigated crops, even if grown on land that is served by an irrigation distribution system. Since the project area is by no means permanently drought-affected - average rainfall is between 750 and 1000 mm - the extent of the irrimated areas (Tables 5 and 6) do not give any valid indication of the cropped areas. Large areas grow rainfed crops in the kharif and some are cropped on residual moisture through part or the whole of the rabi; none of this shows up in the data presented in Tables 5 and 6. However, the Parbhani University has conducted a socio-economic study of the Jayakwadi and Purna commands; in the former, in an area already served by irrigation. The findings of this study, together with data for the years before and after the survey period, collected by ID, give a basis for determining the present agricultural status of the prc 2ct area and enable projections updates to be made for full development with and without the project. 5.02 The Pre-Proiect Situation. Tables 5 and 6 give the irrigated crop- ping patterns for the entire Jayakwadi and Purna commands (183,000 ha and 60,000 ha, respectively). However, the pre-project irrigation network in Jayakwadi covered only 53,000 ha, while the entire CCA of Purna was already served, if not very effectively, by a distributioa network. By the time this project was completed, the area served by some form of irrigation in Jayakwadi has increased threefold, whereas in Purna there could be no increase, only a better and more reliable delivery system. 5.03 According to the socio-economic survey, (para 5.01) overall cropping intensities, which are the final measure of farming standards in areas served by an irrigation network, have increased further. Jayakwadi /a Purna 1976/77 140 147 1977/78 148 155 1978/79 151 158 L Irrigated sample area (para 5.01). Perusal of Tables 5 and 6 would suggest that there has been considerable further overall increase in irrigated areas in the Jayakwadi command between 1978/79 and 1983/84, during which period the irrigable area has doubled. In Purna, while there has been a decrease in the irrigated area, this was far less than the reduction in the amount of water available in the river during - 25 - the same period. The following figures compare inflows into the reservoir serving the Purna project with irrigated areas: 7678 7711/8 78/79 79180 80/81 81182 8283 Inflow(TMC)(1) 17.4 31.4 26.8 37.7 26.0 13.3 7.2 Irrig. area(000 ha)(2) 44.6 43.2 36.4 28.5 32.8 36.6 23.1 Equivalent to water depth (in cm) 39 73 74 132 79 36 31 Data for 1980/81-1982/83 would indicate an upward trend of water utilization: this is the period during which project works became effective. The seem- ingly poor performance of 1979-80 is mostly accountable by the large inflows coinciding with an exceptionally good and long monsoon and consequent lack of demand for irrigation in an area which is classed as an "assured rainfall" zone (para 2.01). 5.04 Expected Full Agricultural Development. The full expected agricul- tural developments that will be achieved by this project are necessarily notional. The major lessons during project implementation (Chapter VII) although only partially added to this project during execution, were incor- porated in MWUP (para 3.05) and will, in the normal course of development, form part of future developments in the project areas. "hey are certain to produce a greater overall agricultural impact than was envisaged at appraisal, by implementing the appraised components only. The important point is that none of the problems could have been identified if the project under review had not been implemented as designed, and that their solution does not alter or makes redundant executed project works: on the contrary, it uses them in their entirety, as an essential starting point for further development. 5.05 Future agricultural development under the circumstances envisaged can, qualitatively, be summarized as follows. These conclusions are based on discussions with farmers, agricultural research and extension workers and mission findings. (a) Wheat is an unrealiable crop, in that good yields are critically dependent on a cold rabi. The area is not increasing; farmers state that they would reduce the area once suitable alternative crops are identified. (b) Groundnuts are increasing, especially in the hot season when water control is easiest and farmers can get good yields (Table 7). This is particularly so in Purna which has a longer irrigation history than Jayakwadi, and lighter soils. (c) Cotton is increasing from a low base in Jayakwadi but is decreasing in Purna. While the soils are progressively lighter and more - 26 - suitable for cotton as one goes east from the Paithan dam into the Purna command, the increasing rainfall makes effective pest control, the principal criterion to successful cotton growing, increasingly difficult. (d) The other major crops, of which sorghum, the traditional staple of the area, is the most important, do not show a consistent trend: perhaps the only clear indication is the increasing diversification in Jayakwadi and the growing trend for the hot-season crops in both commands. 5.06 Bearing the foregoing considerations in mind, Table 8 was compiled, showing best estimates and data for the pre-project situation and development attained by the last year for which data are available. The estimated developments of cropping patterns by circa 2000, assuming, notionally, that no further major developments in farming systems and agronomic practices were to occur and the equally notional without-project situation is shown in Table 9. This is most unlikely because of the already ongoing MUP (para 1.01), which has as a major objective to address this very issue. Table 7 which show projected yields by project completion, must be regarded as cautious estimates. VI. ECONOKIC REEVALUATION 6.01 The project's economic rate of return (ERR) has been re-estimated on the basis of the cropping patterns, yields and economic prices shown in Tables 7, 8, and 9, the actual annual costs incurred and expected to be incurred (Table 10). It is however important to note that the project has established the necessary, and per unit area the most expensive, part of the irrigation infrastructure that will enable farmers to adopt agronomic and farming system research findings. Some of these are close to general accept- ance; some have yet to be fully developed. Therefore, the ERR given below is a cautious estimate: minor future additional farm-level investments are likely to bring high rates of return because of works executed by this project without which they could not be made. 6.02 Based on the foregoing, the ERR of the Jayakwadi component is now estimated to be 13%; that of Purna, which, as noted (para 2.03) was mainly a rehabilitation and final-phase completion component, is estmated to be 36%. The combined project is expected to show an ERR of 17%, same as at appraisal. However, the component parts of this figure are now seen to be different than at appraisal (para 2.05) and therefore are comparable only in that they show the project investments to have been sound. - 27 - VII. BANK PERFORMANCE 7.01 The Bank's involvement in preparing the project was indirect, in assisting FAO-World Bank CP, who, in their turn, worked with GOM's ID. The problem addressed early in preparation was to identify a sufficient range of high-value crops: this issue was discussed with the Agricultural University in Parbhani by the Bank's appraisal mission as well as by FAO/WP CP person- nel. The University were requested, and agreed, to work on the problem. 7.02 On the engineering side the problems associated with conveyance losses and the need to resolve the problem was highlighted at appraisal; its solution, although eventually achieved, took longer, and cost more per unit, than the information available to the preparation and appraisal teams has suggested. Supervision 7.03 The project was supervised ten times by the Bank's NDO, between June 1978 and March 1984, first at yearly and after 1980 at about six-monthly intervals. The missions addressed design criteria, specifications and quality control in detail and have contributed to a considerable extent in eventually identifying the right specifications, and the necessary supervi- sion measures to have them executed. 7.04 The road component was separately supervised by consultants. Accord- ing to the Chief Engineer, Roads and Highways, these visits have helped them in arriving at appropriate specifications for link roads which have now been made departmental norms. 7.05 In the course of supervision missions Bank engineers have developed close professional relationships with the senior engineers of GOM's ID who were involved with design of structures and with construction quality con- trol. This close professional cooperation proved of great value in changing and adapting specifications as soon as there was practical evidence for the need to do so. The Bank has also invited specialist consultants to join supervision missions, and identify, and advise on, causes of farmer reluc- tance to use irrigation water more extensively. The outcome of this col- laboration was the Pilot and Farmers' Projects (para 8.04) initiated under MCIP I but finally implemented under MCIP II (Cr 954-IN). The need to strengthen in-service training of irrigation and civil engineers, and to train agriculturists in aspects of irrigated agriculture, has also been identified during supervision. As a result, the Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI) was established in Aurangabad, financed by MCIP II. It is already a major force in the training of Junior and Assistant Engineers who are directly engaged on the detailed design and construction supervision in Maharashtra. The training and seminars in WALMI, conducted for Executive and Superintending Engineers, is also contributing to improved project con- cepts and formulations in the State. - 28 - Follow-Up Supervision 7.06 In view of the fact that all project works are not yet completed (para 3.04 and Table 2) it would seem highly desirable to supervise the project once more. This would be necessary, not only to verify compliance with the Credit Agreement that the Borrower finances and completes all out- standing works in case of cost overruns, but also because Bank involvement in a subsequent phase of the project (para 2.04) is being sought by GOI/GOM. VIII. LESSONS LEARNED AND ISSUES 8.01 Design and Quality Control. Probably the most important, and most widely applicable, lesson learned was how to line canals of any size on the black Deccan vertisols, and how to ensure that the design specifications arrived at are actually implemented as planned. Experience so far indicates that linings installed on an adequate backfill of non-shrinking, and readily available, murrum will be durable. 8.02 The project has shown that all channels serving more than about 100 ha, i.e., down to minors, must be lined, not only to reduce actual conveyance losses but also to make the system responsive and easier to operate. However, if lining were for no other purpose than to reduce losses, it is still essential. 8.03 Construction Supervision. The need to ensure frequent and adequate field supervision by responsible engineers of the Irrigation Department of the construction of the many structures that are necessary in the relatively broken Deccan countryside has also become manifest. Problems arose with major aqueducts, super passages and syphons, many of them built before MCIP I project works commenced; several had to be repaired or even rebuilt, delaying not only project implementation but also the realization of benefits within the area developed under this project. However, supervision has improved considerably during project implementation. 8.04 The Pilot and the Farmers' Project. Probably the most important conclusion on the irrigation engineering side was to determine precisely the need and extent of on-farm works before farmers can be persuaded to make adequate use of irrigation water. The key issue was predictability and reliability of water supply: the project has clearly shown that without a great deal more lining below the chak (watercourse command) outlet, this will not be possible. Under the Pilot Project, all of the field channels, were lined; in the Farmers' Project, only about 10-15%. Table 1 shows not only the achievements under these two projects, but also the very low irrigation intensities before either was implemented. Identifying the need for these exploratory projects has largely been possible because of the close profes- sional cooperation established between supervising Bank staff and GOM irriga- tion engineers (para 7.05). - 29 - 8.05 It was not possible to determine during the implementation period of these projects the extent of the most economical lining of field channels. The KWUP (Ln 2308/Cr 1383) defined it as "5 m upstream and downstream of structures, in stretches wher2 channels run in high fill, along curves [and other weak points]" [SAR No. 4349-IN, para 3.04(c)]. These guidelines may have to be modified; however, the need for selective lining (even if not its extent) was emphatically highlighted by this project. Issues 8.06 The major issue which remained unresolved during the life of the project under review is the identification of a profitable crop mix and the correct on-farm cultural practices required to ensure renumerative yields of the crops selected. The need to do so, however, was apparent during project preparation. It was then expected that wheat would be a reliable, remunera- tive crop. This has not come to pass; no variety at present shows the neces- sary tolerance to the usually high temperatures during tiller, and, more importantly, ear initiation. At present wheat yields only reach remunerative levels in years when December/January temperatures are below normal. Even then, yields comparable to the Indo-Gangetic Plain, where irrigation is cheaper than in the Deccan, are, on present scientific evidence, unlikely. 8.07 Alternative crops that would, potentially, give an income and return to water comparable to what was expected of wheat, are groundnuts and cotton - beside perennial crops like sugarcane, and crops with limited markets like bananas and field vagetables. While, judging from experience in other countries with similar soil problems, it seems highly probable that a wider range of potentially remunerative crops can be identified, this has not been done to date. The MWUP (para 8.05) is currently addressing the problem. When finally resolved, one can expect a considerable shift from the cropping pattern shown in Table 9 towards more cotton, groundnuts, and possibly other oil-producing crops (e.g. sunflowers) which would sizeably increase the project's ERR. In the light of India's chronic and growing shortage of vegetable oils, coupled with near self-sufficiency in foodgrains, farming systems which would include more selective irrigation aimed at promoting these higher value crops, would seem the appropriate development objective.  -31- Tblea 1 HAEARASETRA CQMPOSITE IRRUCATION Pr~EC x Proijet Comlation RePort eaulta from Pilot and Parmmae Pro>ct A. Pilot Projet <CCA - 5,143 ha) 1rriated Cropa and Irrigation Intensitie 1979/80 1980/S1 1981/82 1982/83 Area % of krea L of Area Z of Arca- TofT (ha) CCA (ha) CA <be) CCA (ha) CCA Type of Crop Perenntala 138 3 377 7 592 12 698 14 art f Cropm 314 6 245 5 676 13 951 1 Rahl Crope 361 7 697 14 811 16 1,430 28 got eather Cropa 221 £ 473 9 556 11 231 4 Total 1,034 20 1,92 35 2.635 51 3,310 64 Completton of Phygical Infrastroeture at lear End (Z) 16 34 72 n-a.2/ 11 Up to March '83 only. 2/ Not avallable. Irrigation Itentemtie ln Completed Minore 1979/80 1980/81 - 1981/82 1982/83 Rate of Irrigation Rate of Irrigatton Rate of Irrigation CCA Completion Inteneity (Z) Completton Intenity (Z) Completion Intenaity (Z) Irrigation Distr. /inor (ha) at lear End at lear End at Teer End At Tear End At lear End At lear End lutenatty (2) Dy 4-PlC 279 31 43 77 77 100 83 107 minor 1~-PLUC 1,001 29 12 59 36 96 42 59 Dy 13-PLBC 692 40 14 66 23 96 70 66 Dy B-PLC 421 41 10 76 20 98 70 67 b. Farmer, Project (CCA - 7,512 ha) Irrigated Crepe and Irrigation Intensitiec 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 Area Y f Area Z of Area % of Area ~f~?t Type of Crop (ha) CCA (ha) CCA (ha) CCA (ha> CCA Perennial 269 4 812 11 1,010 13 1.081 14 Måarif Crops 912 12 447 6 827 11 810 ti RabL Cropa 381 5 910 12 1,192 16 899 12 Hot Weather Crops 231 3 477 6 693 9 447 6 Total 1,9 24 2,646 35 3,722 A9 ,26 43 Completion of Phygical Infrastrueture at Yoar End<Z) - 11 55 Irrigation Inteneitien to Completed Minor 197S/SO 1980/81 1961/82 Rate of Rate of Rate of CCA Completton Irrlgation Completlon Irrigation Ccfplet ton Irrigation minor (ha) at lear End Intenatty at Year End Intenatty at Year End Intenatty 2 ~22 2 300 - 18 10 46 100 51 oA 52 - 11 100 29 100 70 88 49 - 8 100 41 100 84 9 163 - 26 80 60 100 135 C. Unimproved Control Arema CCA - 7,529 ha) 1979/80 1980/81 _ 1981/82 Area . of Area % of Arema of Type of Crop (ha) CCA <ha> CCA (ha) CCA Perennialg 212 3 578 7 560 7 Cartf Crops 538 7 132 2 451 6 Rabl Crops 356 5 602 8 524 7 Bot Veather Cropa 369 5 525 7 556 7 Total 1.477 20 1,837 24 2.091 27 -32 - IULE NAB48484284 COQUESIER IRRIGATIONLEROJECT.1 ic (736) Proiect..Coamletion .Renart Pwa ica1 -Achie"amenta Z SAR estimate Expected Divergence from SAR completed Time of targets by Completion by .Mar.31. .1984 CMetIon --- Remaxke Pa4ithan LBAC Earthworks 100 completed Lining 99 - do - - 1 Structures 14 - do - + 46 Lining distribucaries and minors 114 6/85 + 75 Raitlem .RAC Earthworks 104 12/84 + 7 Lining 93 3185 + 24 Structures 183 12/84 + 83 Distributaries and minors 97 6/85 + 10 Landshaping 95 6/84 + 5 Field channel lining 40 3/85 Drainage works 71 12/84 Road worke 95 3/85 + 26 Special Rnaira Main canal lining 71 3/85 ) Aqueduct repairs 17 3/85 ) If Other structures 3 3/85 ) parna Main canal 172 completed + 72 Structures 104 completed + 4 Minor canal lining 4 3/ - 96 target reduced CAUDAltk Field channel lining 4 - 96 target reduced Landshaping 18 3/85 Harket entrea 100 completed / Works necessary to ensure water supplies to project area. Includes work in section upstream of Bank-supported area. ?/ No more work proposed. - 33 - Table 3 INDIA MAHARASHTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT I Project Completion Report Malaria Incidence between 1977 and 1983 In the Anrangabad, Jalna. Beed and Parbhani Districts 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 182 1983 Aurangabad 27382 13990 8397 8523 4241 3514 3529 Jalna. - - - - 1340 1385 1748 Beed 17639 11199 8694 4642 3372 2569 2982 Parbhani 18467 11452 1722 4158 2665 1236 1644 Note: Old Aurangabad district was divided into Anrangabad and Jalna in 1981. Table 4 -34 - INDIA MAHARASKTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT I Project Completion Report Actual Expenditura on Selected Items Cost Changes over SAR Estimates in Rs in US$ Main canal works incl. lining + 84 + 58 Lining distribution network + 120 + 83 Drainage + 25 + 17 0 & M equipment facilities - 25 - 17 CADA works including lining + 91 + 62 Weighted average of all works + 45 + 31 MmARsnghA conitoaiza.11GAO .PROJECT.-1 Praiect .ComPletion.Renor. CroninR Pattern-Chapes .In Javakwadi .- 1975/76."o.1982/83 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 Average ----------------------------as per cent of average-------------------------- (ha) Khai. Rice 13 480 78 38 19 10 78 82 1,678 Sorghum 52 264 147 60 23 11 97 146 3,546 Groundnuts - 4 65 106 61 40 303 120 504 Vegetables, Spices Other 83 57 81 42 40 22 130 344 2,592 Wheat 101 164 126 87 62 65 91 103 6,435 Sorghum 85 211 91 93 70 124 40 86 6,258 Gram 107 93 101 76 66 99 122 135 929 Vegetables, Spices, Other 112 60 80 96 82 215 78 77 448 Hot .seasonA Groundnuts 3 i 11 39 128 328 133 150 2,672 Vegetables, Spices, Other 588 32 4 8 11 45 11 - 291 Exe-I80an Cotton 78 5 95 107 218 69 114 115 1,929 Vegetables, Spices, Other - 17 81 142 134 - 125 - 70 Perenaiale Sugarcane - 5 21 34 51 104 221 265 2,612 Bananas - 10 14 52 140 - 285 - 115 Orchards - 70 42 90 172 - 105 214 129 Total Irrigated area (ha) 20,835 44,468 24,906 19,714 19,688 28,090 31,528 42,873 23,950 Total Irrigated area (percent of mean) 87 186 104 82 82 117 132 179 100 MANARA8RTRA .COMPOSITE .IRRIGATION .PROJECT .I Proect .Canletion .Renart Croanon.ta-tern.Chans in -.Puxa .-: 1975/76 .o .1982/83 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 Average -------------------------------as per cent. of average---------------------- (ha) Rice 125 238 129 73 63 81 49 42 4,936 Sorghum 359 91 70 47 91 69 32 40 923 Groundnute 329 134 205 28 42 7 2 52 96 Vegetables, Spices Other 389 189 55 41 49 38 18 21 107 BLhi Wheat 128 147 117 88 87 86 92 56 13,073 Sorghum 283 130 28 64 150 32 37 76 268 Grain 94 122 41 40 252 46 92 112 543 Vegetables, Spices, Other 196 81 133 54 191 47 65 32 281 Groundnuts 83 59 99 98 130 196 35 NA 7,661 Vegetables, Spices, Other 179 91 69 120 94 98 107 NA 480 hw-§eason Cotton 286 74 51 42 128 123 42 76 704 Vegetables, Spices, Other 285 51 56 63 143 66 35 - 806 Rerewniall 123 114 130 102 77 88 110 84 3,461 Total Irrigated area (ha) 44,638 43,223 36,446 28,501 32,835 36,576 23,115 NA 33,339 Total Irrigated area a (percent of mean) 134 130 109 85 98 110 69 NA 100 i, - 37 - Table 7 INDIA MARARASHEA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT I Project Completion Report Recorded Yields (t1ba) Socio-econ. Adapted for SAR Survey PCR Pre-project Future j/ (1976-79) CADA W V Sorhum Rharif IR 0.6 2.7 2.4 1.5 1.8 3.0 Kharif RF - - 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 Rabi IR 0.43 2.0 3.0 1.2 2.3 3.2 Rabi RF - - 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 Rice IR - 1.8 1.4 0.8 1.5 2.8 Wheat IR 0.36 1.8 2.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 Pulses IR 0.35 0.35 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 RF - - 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 Gram IR 0.35 0.70 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 RF - - 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 Cotton IR 0.3 1.8 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.7 RF - - 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 Groundnuts Kharif RF - - - 0.6 0.8 1.0 Rabi IR - - - - 1.0 1.3 Hot season IR - - - 1.5 1.5 1.8 2/ Sugarcane IR 50.0 80.0 68.0 80.0 80.0 95.0 jj Average of with and without land shaping (Annex 8, tables 2 and 3). i; In the hot season of 1984, actual recorded grounduut yields were said to be 2.4 t/ha. IR - irrigated RF - rainfed - 38 - Table 8 INDIA HAVARASETRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT I Project Completion Report Pre Project, Present and Future Croppint Patterns Javakwadi Purna 1976177 1/ 1982/83 ' CCA 2,000 1976/77 2/ 1982/83 3/ CCA 2,000 RF IR RF IR RF IR RF IR RF IR RF. IR Kharif Rice - - - 2 - 2 - 9 - 13 - 13 Sorghum 23 - 15 3 14 3 32 6 29 2 27 5 Pearl Millet - - 10 - 10 2 - - - - - - Green & Black Gram 14 - 14 - 15 - 5 - 3 - 3 - Cotton 13 - 12 3 10 6 14 3 20 2 14 3 Groundnuts 2 - 2 1 2 5 6 1 3 2 3 9 Total Kharif 52 - 53 9 51 18 57 19 54 19 47 30 Rabi Wheat - - - 14 - 14 - 26 - 23 - 20 Sorghum 48 - 40 10 36 14 22 2 15 2 10 3 Chickpea 6 - 6 2 5 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 Safflower 9 - 9 - 6 - - - - - - - Total Rabi 63 - 55 26 47 31 24 29 18 28 12 26 Hot Season Groundnuts - - - 3 - 12 - 10 - 14 - 20 Others - - - 2 - 1 - 1 - 3 - 4 Total Bot Season - - - - - 13 - 11 - 17 - 24 Perennials Sugarcane - - - 3 - 3 - 3 - 12 - 14 Bananas - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - 9 - 12 Total Perennials - - - 4 - 5 - 6 - 21 - 26 Total Cropping Intensity 115 - 108 39 98 67 81 65 72 85 59 106 115 147 165 146 157 165 1/ Refers to area brought under irrigation by project (95,000 ha). g/ From Socio-Economic Survey by Parbhani University. 2/ Extrapolated for 2 above. -39 - Table 9 INDIA MAHARASHTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT I Economic Farmate Prices for Maharashtra (in constant 1984 prices) 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1. Cotton 7690 6630 6280 6960 6670 5930 6990 7050 2. Paddy 2110 2400 1970 2340 2720 1740 1710 1700 3. Wheat 1880 1860 2120 2160 2310 2030 2130 2030 4. Groundnut 6460 6140 5010 4020 5480 3320 3160 3610 5. Sugar 80 30 60 450 210 20 30 90 6. Pulses 4030 4360 4060 4530 5100 3720 3760 3660 7. Sorghum local 1960 2120 1970 2200 2480 1800 1830 1780 hybrid 1830 1980 1850 2060 2320 1690 1710 1670 8. Bananas 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 9. Nitrogen 5910 5770 6010 6820 6920 5630 5170 5390 10. Phosphate 5090 4660 5410 5990 5710 5280 5320 5670 11. Potash 2920 2850 3090 3650 3690 3180 3090 3230 - 40 - Table 10 INDIA XARARASRTRA COMPOSITE IRRIGATION PROJECT I Project Completion Report Annual Schedule of Expenditures (Rs X) Javakwadi Purna Overheads Total 1977/78 90.6 0.6 5.8 97.0 1978/79 153.9 1.5 17.3 172.7 1979/80 166.5 7.2 22.6 196.3 1980/81 171.9 10.5 32.3 214.7 1981/82 233.1 8.6 56.1 297.8 1982/83 243.5 16.0 53.3 312.8 1983/84 194.9 6.8 56.4 258.1 1984/85* 238.6 42.0 280.6 Total 1493.0 51.2 285.8 1830.0 * Estimated - 41 - IIAllAASIMtW .IRR!GATIQW.I PROJECT Proiect Comolation enort Derivation of Economic Prices if 2/ (Constant 84 Prices) Cotton Medium Spit ta a Gmounda Dea KkS Sm Nuicae lboal 61 R s PtasL § World Market 1984 (USS/ton) 1,950 495 167 285 250 148 155 84 Price quality Adjustment (2) 90 - - 75 95 - - - World Market Equivalent Indian Production (USS) 1,755 495 167 214 238 Less Transp. & Insur. (USS) - 145 - - - - 40 +50 .65 +65 Domestic Border (US/ton) 1.610 495 167 214 198 198 220 149 Exchange Rate 11 Es-IUSS (Rs/ton) 17,710 5,445 1.837 2.354 2,178 2.178 2,420 1,639 Transport to Bombay (00L in Rail, Handling SCP) (Ralton) -180 400 + 220 .260 - 165 + 300 7/ +300 7/ +300 7/ Wholesale Price Process (R0/ton) 17,530 !/ 5,845 2,057 2,614 2,013 2.478 2,720 1,939 Processing (SCP 0-8) (as/ton) 402 - 440 - - -1,090 7/ - - - Processing Ratio () 33 68 - 66 10 46 L/ 48 L 60f Wholesale Price (Rahon) 5,652 3.675 2.057 1,725 - - - - Less: Transp. Faragate (SCF 0.8) .Rs/ton) - 131 - 70 - 30 - 30 - - - - Economic Faragate Price I/ (Re/ton) 7,050 2/ 3,610 2,030 1,700 90 5.390 5.670 3.230 J1 Source: IBRD Comeodity Price Forecasts dated January 16, 1984 Pricing asis: Wheat: Canadian No. 1, Western Red Spring, F0 Thunder Bay. Rice: Thai, Willed 51 Broken, OB Bangkok. Cotton: Mexican Middling 7-3/321, CIF N Europe. Ground- Mets: Shelled, any origin, CIF Europe Maize: US go. 2, Yellow. POB Gulf Parts Sugar: World, ISA Daily Price, OB and stowed at Greater Carribeen ports V India is at the margin of self-saufficiency in food grain@. It ia assumed that. depending on the harvest. imports of exports are likely to occur in the short and medium run. Therefore, international transport costs have been omitted. India is a net exporter of cotton and a net importer of oilseeds. It is asmed that international transport costs to Lurope correspond to those to Indian ports in the case of groundnuts. Haharashtra is importer of food grains ad oil, exporter of cotton and sugarcane. y Rounded jf Wholesale prices refers to lint values only which determine 33 per cent of the far"aate price of seed cotton. The value of cotton seed which makes up for 67 percent of the far- gate prxce of seed cotton has been de- ived from domestic wholesale prices of cotton seed applying SCF of 0.8 wholesale price of cotton seed are assumed to follow the projected price developments of oilseeds in the project .eriod. I/ Economic price of seed cotton. 6J Source: INRD Commodity Price Forecasts dated June 1983. Price Bais: Nitrogen: World Market price of area, FOB Europe, bagged Phosrhate: World Market price for T.S.P. (Triple Superphoshate). 70 US Gulf Potash: World Market price of Potass um chloride FOB Vancouver. India and the State of Msharanshtra are expected to remain net importers of fertilizer during the project period. V Domestic transport and handling to fargate. 1 aNtrient Ratio iwrang :as j uarla ,e <ang :aueu «t'E49 94l' O'tl9 U"'£ £'fl9 il'9 tr Xfr «fi 21T*t tå'såt r,! 90'9 91948R 99481 bi'lti t '0 IlVj. 1. iLt' 3. * •I'--GV:- 2tt: . -£M30 13 113I IIN3G3M1 Im 't Ul'o u't Ct W' Ult ;4't g't 't Wt'* ;'t ;'t ;t ;'t 44 96't ;lt :å ot :o 9 it'si Ot'«i t't; I ;'TZ 's'rår ;t't s.'10 .1'03 DFMM v101 ult W't W' Ul'k Wt 4t u .' 41't ' '.4 bi'$ Wt Ut U' Ut c4i 4 't to0 9t'o ti' f wt' [ w9' l är'U -OJ 3MNiW M OlIfiI) TIL1 b' Id'; i' 8' ull Bi' 86': g0-4 u' s6; fV '' ti' e , ' vi '; 4': f l ': 0 i t:l ' t': o4 09 t'o ' 't- - . no rJSM oIW M NIAVMI ä6' WZ' il' tålt £6' U' 6 tå'• 6' ': .W•: V': :i' I' :' it': iålc C0 4 '0 W! W' VY * 9' UJMWA¥ 3W 9lL fW 4w N214M 46%H belft '0å' ZVEEW OM1c LJcCO r 10 14IIKI WIIii - - - - - - . - - - . - IS'S! It'bil O': fl'tt G'*'w ntöva w etk wotL we' n- a' t; LIIMI »1 g01 :i . I • å • M . ff t -' w .. ..'.. NI .. . . .. .'.' '' : 'n «'n ss' ; i 't ..'. : '.t ' .... .. . .. . .. . ..M A I ..1 el,'41 bilu9 661M p'l99 N'SM i9'-tu et.om0e41 g'TM 81'412 (C'OP 090'10 40'1tt 00'161 ;V'W 09'?41 99'091 3.0f9 "911t KVtl Eti LO'COr 2'" 2: WIINM31 WII21 MM¥1~ Itzkl It'i l1t1 i'ti 'fl'it it'CI f1'9I O'tfI 2'191 t'60t å't41 å'IT tsIetl g9'119 OV'UE 46' :if 'ttL b ' U '£49 1c'å G 'lL I!' C 4'? t J '- &:'£3 331091 tin .N 13' tV9 K'l9 ti99 919 0'99 L0'l 111091 E'KL O'; @'ttt .Pu« St'.99 tOstV L.'L.5 64it99 We'P 14'01S ut'tt r't&Ot 105 CI'PtI sl'et S-'Eo: Ws'9e tt''.' 1;4i9-C VW3AT ^11 Kim, mNim f'lin WIIRT 'Y9 Ik't 80'09 n'MS 9'9 i 'n t 01'? 90'IE :5'lif N I'CO dI'c t 0.1!t Ui t'Ie te'tot 9'9! 9'69: 9f'X: MI.t2 i'C 971" et.: S: i0C IM T vui IIM' 3 104M ly ::eo* UR V!ß 1014 1ivnr!nm :uzw3 im 1'£ tL'tU tU Mtu tL*L t'Eg 09'a4 r'ous eiti «'r.: åj':t G«'et t;'H9 2?''Ge »'Ii in' 91'tiS 1e'19 åC'22 95'it l'"63 tS'itS i-«. t:'Jt lt'L!i 13F0¥u unu:n1 rw am E'1tS E't 'tt r! s';«t 8'i«. se';« «'itu uå'±u 9i'itS ;:':t! If'itu 99'!! it tt4( 94'SåI :tii u9'ut9 n'9u :s'9. :o'9n cc't t'9ut 29'åst å!'rr :r';:: It'qé: 9SFU¥ 1 fl100<1ln 3W IN 9«'Nil «'lt 9t'S; l9961 9?'Iå'9 9t'961 n l £*'it It'?1 §9'9»: t'911 t'est II'0U1 6'u' !1'«91 tt'«st å'ti 'st s fit'99 tt'5Ui 'rt&t ro«; :i' tt't 1>;-i «'tt? .:F031 lICV0 1n2119 311 IN . .... ..Q.........Q.Q... ............ ....... :'OI :*'UH1tI NvI1D0Mtd ''UIIIUCW0 :11J33 13 '6 n-:c0E1 000e uå; Båt lUi 9M; E£W tål! t;6 Vått 1661 OUt 686! 184! .:i 766M Uå6 tu: t: Cå tIet *i1! Ow t.å :' 3mi W01''11 t W Bl sO Wt I 40 ig1i'wNv fil00b1 10 9 1l1 m1995-0 91 162 t 0rVi I 180439 MD13'd10 1310$4 malm 01115 Bellis Us190: Uul? 3iN 1 01% 9,1110,61tr? fi wil0,61wä s% . U,91,tt 191 1,01 öv 301WOM li 0,5 '1M1t05 C1VIV 301WI 1IPVv L 。―。…，：。 ·”1.&.1專當偶．開j•”‘門州jol州，拙1刊。外”1 償，勵1勵．認中馮，勵馳，勰計“，儲，l矗．謝t必，訪t矗1．當擊望魷，必e靈必卜，c弓t。，，館鬱闐，”之唱乙，必C勰必口，t!：開，‘嗡l。電’了，I;r,&O,I!‘亡甲·騙吧”言占·‘•，鉀卜弱“！卜”,,11·，C，配之·g常，C儲·CC，必11·1！以誠二寥 IIOm寫名n緬《州11州’唱 &,gU,eC矗，露C矗，必96，記L“必《‘,tC必，C乙，，之‘矗，之C&,CC矗‘究之必，疋‘6,：《必，必C矗，C合矗‘•雲忿g，忖！r你‘觔I之i，輪計之01，開之l電，O口！毛令‘令甲C俗‘，。雹夜榆訌，必！甩1閱〕育遞O。 州弊弊州州州州州州州州州州州州州淡：讖：讖：齡：湍：狀、蘿：斗：而；騙、’嘿無儒‘譏認鱉訂 蠶！’《方，．舂當各，言j，計訌9 .1。，.t蠶，1之，”。育101個婦 二：。O::::：。．－。‘::：。狀眾默狀汗：必：必：i,．。：:．絮黜禁 《舀’魷館．開［盧，C必！弘．C擊t號，你Ieg必，唁gt計：．勞C觔之，i：亡O《’,!11纏州界潺r‘二閱】l州裂‘，鳥馴I啊10必辦 必必’吋鉀，軍t常計，C合‘擊，O甲什，。，tC．之蠶．名，合必C計，CC《t，此鬨Ilnl唱I開I啊唱弘［毬〕劉I開1為〔州：間l 《O‘舂g,,O矗《，O之！&：矗！.！之1&I「O,（·S細A黑劉眾 開，奮電矗．勵鵲，胎〔‘奮．寥！《唱，《hC,‘《，,6·劇州沌 弘，卜言之。，甲9 IC，七亂館，tl 90,119日，寫：r參’&：·賺州司1潤潤叩論劇劍齣。 卜t，必卜I奮’肚唱當，口之！O，妒I儲，t以一言··悶幼叔寫切11間I以名I個 富C‘華心I必，俗口磚，幼［必！&t電電閱．憫可么，，的r矗寺，：一1朧，鶴私脾〕辟1翰 響‘勁。1閱切”&) 露，。k，偉“，斷斗，跋，。，el。綢，I勰必l,,d&,l鍵”，縱，.，州。，‘闢“,”之電‘,0．之“,．電之“,&1&,”電電電‘,,，鸛，ce奮“，之。，t心，t•認‘”協．,,,，之，號。r，【亡·：。r0。。10．凡”Ar，二1川。，抓二〝讓！謝，1閱叫劉，1 州州鱸，•訕，齡奮擊”繡購‘辦驢‘唱”，《”電，,“儲，,&，皓，“編“•龍，,e.&,，仲，1必，，必‘d飲‘!‘弱r,,,，館，,,C參r二，，館必右蓄，藝，：館，O望el•，鰓e《必，乙之e,&，《《1 OC,&：鉍，”可：】才。•．實州”lr闢二．。驕黝二劉 華誰：以：常露常界認邸縱婪之礬；縱；婪漿嬰！：斗；}：響誌思；：森號以：；驟錢【記潔討：綴業；鑒：眾媒觀：訌：緊：認：業：：森‘，龍以紫森黜 己〕實開j闢11網約IJ〕網韶育闔』闐討號州名I」劉舅g馴’口 鈴‘帖，什．輪寥輪．輪言輪，魷電鈴，甲必I，卜，，矗Ift，甲必1《‘,g&t右擊，,6富個，，痲官弓l&，必！俗必，甲矗I寫•，011么矗’必Cle&，俗一電合蠶，輪！Ot”鸛1 01&i騙I&&&!t實，當計1 ge,t&le必，甲二11卹，!.:t三’1,’寫矗，O【I：訪輩口開1中州到償！州儿1規蔔卞饑二取 謀亂誹騙斗斗斗亂斗騙斗騙斤亂露認坏騙鵝：】｝：認：;}：勰：騵攤：；鑠：認：鳥誌瀾：計排：婪：;}：器；;I：雜婪：荔：認：灣：g：話：討：h：斗：話：‘霑掛默綴甲娥黜 二）計開盧調劉鳥1戶切I：闐望O細馴抓1物寫申必l〔劉瀾亂歡，勿 開鈴州鱸勵輪認以1嗡唱必“!,“奮開州合“I蠶各也I之細蓄！&！儲邵榭寫叫Ic斗l柑‘I州電卜•必I榭IC嚇I言口占！開縴：。《‘!9必屆1“。！ 唱B州h幼！煙11細Nl‘二〕ro藝d:q妒W矗開計·515粩細州1 jl膩州0〕1馮J二凶J輩：g必：j劉】lq孵渥幼：。〕］觔d 必啊．】祖購111閱闐之二：rQ闢 ：。斗】r，谷d叩廈』甲，1響蓄：】名1，闖刃，羈名唱m澗州 響：亡閱： ........................ PKPACT =LITTON REPORT ---------- * .............. FRUCT CHI ÄND KMISIT sykEAMS FOR r.MIC i ANALIGIS - PURO Rue?@ IN MILLION RUPEES ... . .................................... _.. ................ ........... . .... . ... .................................. ............... . ................................ . ------ .9.-7 1978 1979 lm Ini Ini 19113 1"4 im 19% 11417 11MIII åm åfn 11HRI 1992 åtgå 1994 im 1"6 1"7 IM IM ......... .................... . ........................ ~.. .................... ----------- I ............ . - - ---- - ------- - ---------- - - - ----- - ------ - ---- - ---- A. bir omi, AGRitut.Ttm oRoyxT.om wimr pim- .................. ........................ :- .... .. ....... .. . .... ....... ....... . . ..... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... s= VALUE WIIMOUT ItLicl .3.40 39.2 352.30 ffl.III 508X 433,10 4113,77 524,29 5MA5 585,79 606o37 621o51 641.18 molft 60,96 661,00 460,31 660-m MäG 60.54 U8.54 do.54 dom U4,54 PRWITION COSI 11.ý 17m Ro&Cl 31.96 88.83 93.31 101.19 110.41 108.87 114.75 117,78 121).09 122-94 124.0 125.83 127.49 129.05 129.32 129.22 129,15 127973 129,32 19.26 129@26 129.26 129424 In.24 Kl Vmul d!Tuff km PTUCT 1-6.42 225,30 Mffi 3n42 398,41 324.23 369.02 494.51 438.46 462,85 481,97 495,64 513,8f 531.86 531.64 53h711 $31.16 112.95 531,22 U1,2m 531@28 532#28 531#20 8. MIT KW:t AGRICkLIM PRODKWk ii% RUC - . .................. ..... . ................ .. ..... ....... .. . . . ....... . ..... ... . .. ....... .. .. . ....... ....... .... JALLI 211H FROJel 278. 4C 330,41 433.43 537,77 5579.54 44,27 546.46 589.90 622,67 ö46.80 697X 742.80 714,74 849.20 876.22 män m å3 ium tom msm täm yms22 men m mi F*= 11011 COSI WITH FRUCT el.,11 4.49 D9.02 121.43 134.10 133,82 341.81 147,42 151.86 156,22 162.59 168.93 175.90 182.42 187.05 191.08 195.20 197.93 KOJ41 2111s211 N1.112 X2#46 X1,9 X1,57 HET VALUE WIIR PM '20ACT .1 ii. ,36.2,2 J;4,41 416.34 445.44 359,45 404.65 442,40 470.81 490.53 534.33 523.87 8111.74 U6.78 689.17 732,50 734.43 758,37 760,11 763,07 M ff 765,7# 746,78 767424 Ihuffl TAL WICUVURK KNET" .3 10.91 35, 4 1. U.72 47,03 35-22 35-63 35.97 32.35 27.73 52.86 7841 105.25 134.92 157,53 IN.72 203.27 0.42 228." 233@77 Mö52 ZH,4@ 235.» 235#% c. femic CJST -- ........... .400011UTION 00a :.0. 7ÄR 9.44 7.07 13.65 5#14 Rm 0.36 4.19 4.6. f.20 8.42 2.87 1.09 NUT Iffl 0.02 0.65 0.4 0,65 0.46 0.17 0,04 WifKr W KEEPIISS ADRIMISIKAllom 10.34 9.41 14,34 3.74 35s07 25.31 19.34 18.63 8 ultiltk IMSIKMI Fblim 20.11A 21,1l6 26,116 33d1 51. f9 47.84 26.72 19.76 EXTEMICK RUICL 0,37 §8 2.49 1.116 2,73 0.62 0.34 0,71 MONITORING 0.06 0.48 0.14 -),M SUSTOTAL. 4-32 0.16 .08 1.111 i-79 1.'.0 0.48 1.37 TOTAL IIRKSIMw Cosi 210X 212.112 To. 94 35.47 34.78 43.94 27.20 23,23 ~ lit* l Mälkin~ FIAM . olja 0.59 0.54 0.60 0.13 0.01 1.98 1.98 .% 1.71 f.fo l.911 l." l.99 1,1c 1.98 h" x." im TOTAL COST 2. C 22. 7.' 3.32 36.06 55.32 49.54 27.33 .1,14 läg 1.18 1..10 ..96 1.98 1.98 l.95 1-91 1.95 l." l." 5. ME! V-avmTAL KMEF!« -------------------- .... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... ...... . ... .... ....... .... . .. ....... . . . ... ....... .... . . . dr MEFI! :9.47 -.&äi b, 10 0.64 -5.29 -14.32 0,30 14.13 34X 25,7 50.M '8,22 102.27 132.94 155,55 179,74 201.29 223.44 226,91 20.81 231.54 232*50 233,52 M.91 .ntarmj Roms of Ressirr of bet strems ,69-.*...888.86«88.88ggra=skttag.g-9 al 34.4n INDIA MAHARASHTRA IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT C Project Area '1k Pqec - Canal AU RA NGA BAD °. D I 5 T R l C T å Pr * Main d Sub A -i1 P,ao mTHAN DAM .o . A H M E DNAGA R u,,, D 5 T R l C--- --- B H I R D Dl5 T R C T .INDIA *År °'' -- - M GAf on.. , a f r . nS. -,.. P1 -g ., ,..ms. - r,- r.-.'s r apr - e,s' f a. INDIA COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITE PROJECT Projeci Area 5 Pl<r crcs Proposed Conal (,n,cr-nn -1 n ehob.i.rt.o. . cnla s nor part oF IBRD P,O.c< Proposed Rod% ------Roods to be Rehub.I.tjted -- Ens.ng Roods - - Proposed TI.. ..-. n 1- v J"o ...............E.sung Telephone ls A 0roposed Ie~Tel hne 'ph rn ns £ Ex.st.ng Teephone 'eomv M.n More, A...boa * Sb Mnrke. o C-.es and Tons rPrpoed Du. J.d 1 oL (PJo, P.31 cf - E..s0ng 90-ms ad Fuh-, -D-stfrect So,undon-s £ PAR BHANI T R RC CT -.... . - -...... - -....- 001000.. ~ ~ - 8tC.22 - nH i R T R 1C T ！古：: