India - Agricultural Human Resources Development Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. P-6430-IN MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS ON A PROPOSED CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO SDR 40.5 MILLION TO INDIA FOR AN AGRICULTURAL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MARCH 9, 1995 This document bas a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of January 15, 1995) Currency Unit = Rupee (Re/Rs) US$1.00 = Rs 31.37 Re 1.00 = US$0.032 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES The metric system is used throughout this report. GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR April I to March 31 ABBREVIATIONS ED Education Division of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research GOI Government of India HRD Human Resources Development HRM Human Resources Management ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research MAC Manpower Advisory Council MOA Ministry of Agriculture of GOI PMIC Project Monitoring and Implementation Cell SAU State Agricultural University  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY INDIA AGRICULTURAL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMARY Borrower: India, Acting by its President Executing Agencies: Department of Agricultural Research and Education (MOA) (Coordination); Indian Council of Agricultural Research; and the States of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Tamil Nadu Amount: IDA Credit of SDR 40.5 million (US$59.5 million equivalent) Terms: Standard, with 35 years maturity Financing Plan: Local I Foreign Total - ------(US$ million)---------- IDA 22.4 37.1 59.5 GOI 1.9 0.0 1.9 GOAP 5.2 0.0 5.2 GOH 3.0 0.0 3.0 GOTN 4.6 0.0 4.6 Totals 37.1 37.1 74.2 Rate of Return: Not applicable Poverty Category: Not applicable Staff Appraisal Report: No. 13517-IN This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their |official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Banlc authorization.l  I  MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS ON A PROPOSED CREDIT TO INDIA FOR AN AGRICULTURAL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1. I submit for your approval the following report and recommendation on a proposed development credit to India for SDR 40.5 million, the equivalent of US$59.5 million, on standard IDA terms with a maturity of 35 years, to help finance an Agricultural Human Resources Development Project. 2. Background. Modernizing India's agricultural sector and boosting its growth depend on diversifying to higher-value crops and introducing integrated farming systems. These changes require strategic infrastructural investments and sectoral policy liberalization to encourage private investment in the sector and to integrate the sectoral fabric of India both internally and with the global economic community. To realize this transformation, the quality, technical skills and management of agricultural manpower must improve in consonance with rapidly changing labor market requirements. The significant deterioration in higher agricultural education that has occurred over the last decade must be reversed in order to attract top-quality manpower to the sector and realize better performance from national extension, research and agribusiness systems, for which India has made large investments in infrastructure, extension networks and technology. 3. Much of the progress achieved in the agricultural sector over the last 30 years has been attributable to the State Agricultural University (SAU) system. Following a period of growth, development and international contact in the 1960-70s, the SAUs reached a plateau of achievement in the early 1980s and afterwards fell into serious decline. By 1989 there was widespread consensus that there was urgent need for the Government of India, the states and the SAUs to give attention to upgrading the quality and standards of higher agricultural education and to improving university management. Recommendations were made that the teaching and training responsibilities of scientists should be recognized in addition to research skills. With reduced public sector absorption of graduates currently in effect, students face difficult employment prospects and a lack of preparedness for private sector jobs, including self-employment. 4. As a key element of India's national developmental efforts over the past four decades, both the Central and state governments have invested heavily in staff training to improve competence and efficiency in delivery of field-level services. However, quality of output and cost-effectiveness of these training programs are often lacking, even though the need for staff improvement is keenly felt and there is a governmental willingness to commit public funds to right the deficiencies. Much scope exists to make systems currently in effect in the state development departments more efficient through the adoption of modern human resource  2 management methods. Adequate efforts are currently not being given to: (a) analyzing manpower needs in state development departments charged with frontline extension responsibilities, (b) modifying staff recruitment qualifications and methods, (c) reviewing and refining job descriptions, (d) assessing actual training needs and upgrading training systems, and (e) introducing better management systems and methods designed to improve efficiency and effectiveness. 5. Rationale for IDA Involvement and Country Assistance Strategy. In 1991, GOI embarked on a program of stabilization and reform focused on the investment regime, trade policies, financial sector, taxation and public enterprise. The new strategy aims at reducing fiscal and balance of payments deficits, promoting rapid and sustainable growth in incomes and employment through a broad-based liberalization of the economy, and more effective and efficient public interventions to reduce poverty and to deepen India's human capital. Thc Bank's strategy for India, presented in the Country Assistance Strategy of May 1994, emphasizes support for GOI's efforts to promote an enabling environment for broad-based, efficient, private sector-led growth while accelerating poverty alleviation and the development of human resources. An important element in this strategy is modernizing India's agricultural sector and increasing its growth. In addition to market reforms to improve the incentive framework for agriculture, this transformation must depend on institutional strengthening and improved resource management. The proposed project is consistent with these objectives by fostering policy and institutional reforms complemented by investments to upgrade the quality, management and use of the sector's most important input--human capital. 6. Project Objectives. The project would introduce meaningful changes in the way the Center and the states develop and employ human resources in efforts to modernize the agricultural sector and achieve greater sectoral productivity. It would also encourage changes in investment priorities which would reap higher returns because of the policy and institutional reforms adopted. The project would begin a process of: (a) improving the quality and relevance of higher agricultural education and in-service training programs, and (b) strengthening the capacity of participating states to develop and manage agricultural human resources. The project is considered by GOI and the states as the first in a long-term program to improve agricultural human resources development. 7. Project Description. The project would be implemented over five years and would have four main components: (a) ICAR Strengthening (US$10.1 million):' The project would enhance the Central apparatus to establish nationwide norms and standards in agricultural education, monitor compliance with these standards and prepare future projects. Each participating state's subproject would include: Base costs.  3 (b) University Programs (US$41.8 million): (i) curriculum and syllabus reform, (ii) faculty quality improvement, (iii) revitalization of teaching methodologies, (iv) faculty exchanges within India and with foreign universities, (v) modernization of university administration and management systems; (vi) upgrading of teaching laboratory equipment, computer systems, commllunications, farmiis, libraries and hostels, and (vii) establishment of placement centers and student attachment programs to agroindustries. The project would promote a number of initiatives to involve university clientele more in university management and programs and to improve education-related financial management. (c) In-Service Human Resource Development and Management (HRD and HRM) (US$17.6 million): (i) training focused on job-oriented needs in state- level agriculturc and agriculture-related departnments, (ii) systematic training needs assessments. (iii) training of trainers, (iv) evaluation of training effectiveness, (iv) better instructional facilities, and (v) improved management of public sector employees. (d) Manpower Needs Assessment (US$0.3 million): involving the establishment of broad-based Manpower Advisory Councils to sponsor rigorous studies of labor market requirements and trends, or labor market intelligence, within each state in order to provide state authorities and university officials with technically sound information for crafting public policy, academic programs, budgets and adjustinents to university intake numbers. 8. Policy Reforms. The project supports major institutional and policy reform at the Centr-ail and state levels. ICAR has prepared a Statement of Agricultural Education Strategy andt matrix of key actionis to be carried out under the project. The participating SAUs have prepared a commoni actioni matrix, endorsed by their respective state governments, which contains impor-tant adjustments/activities to be undertaken during project implementation (para 10). The ICAR statement anid ICAR and SALJ matrices have been presented in the SAR and woLIld represent essential clcrnemets of the project's reform package. ICAR's matrix addresses: (a) the estatblishmiient of a statutory body to set norms and standards in higher agricultura.ll education. (b) accreditation of universities and their programs, (c) manpower needs assessmient. (d) admllissions policics at SAUs, (e) edLIcation technology, (f) staffing and facilitile. in the strengthened ICAR, and (g) modern access to scientific information. The commnion SAL' nmatrix focuses on: (i) entr-ance qualifications for students, (ii) student CoLoneCInllg and joh placement serviceS, (iii) education technology, (iv) faculty improvement p11wraml,lS (v) uL1iversity administr-ation and record-keeping systems, and (vi) fiscal manacement In addition. the participating SAUs and states have signed Memoranda of l7 ndcistanding with ICAR agrecing to abide by the norms and standards in higher agricultural education whicth l'AR wouldl iramlle irom time to time.  4 9. Project Costs. Total project costs are estimated at US$74.2 million, with a foreign exchange component of 50% (US$37.1 million). Investment costs and recurrent costs amount to 80% and 20% of base costs, respectively. The IDA Credit would be for US$59.5 million, or 90% of project costs, excluding taxes and duties. The breakdown of costs and financing is shown in Schedule A. Retroactive financing would be provided up to a total of SDR 1.0 million (US$1.47 million equivalent) to finance eligible expenditures after August 22, 1994. To expedite project implementation and reduce the volume of withdrawal applications, a Special Account in US dollars would be established in the Reserve Bank of India with an authorized allocation of US$4.0 million, equivalent to an estimated four months average estimated disbursements. The proposed procurement arrangements and the disbursement schedule are given in Schedule B. A timetable of key project processing events and the status of Bank Group operations are given in Schedules C and D, respectively. The Staff Appraisal Report (No. 13517-IN) dated March 9, 1995 is being distributed separately. 10. Project Implementation. The project would be implemented in five years. The Closing Date of the Credit would be December 31, 2000. The project would be implemented through the existing management system responsible for agricultural development and education at the national and state levels. The major implementors of the project would be ICAR's Education Division (ED) at the national level, and the Secretaries (Agriculture), the participating agricultural universities and Development Departments in the three states. (a) The Center. The Department of Agricultural Research and Education (MOA) would be the nodal agency responsible for overall project coordination. ICAR(ED) would set and enforce norms and standards for accreditation and release of Central funds for SAUs; it would also foster faIculty improvement, promote coordination among SAUs and assist in establishing contacts with institutions outside the country. (b) The States. The Secretaries (Agriculture) would organize, coordinate and monitor project activities at the state-level. A small Project Monitoring and Implementation Cell (PMIC) would be created and attached to each Secretary to manage these tasks. Main responsibilities at the state government level would be: manipowcr planning and adjusting public policies and investments in agricultural education, and humran resource development and management; monitoring project implementation and providing adequate and timely funding to support project activities; approving annual state- lcvel project implementation plans; and designing and coordinating HRD programs in the 14 participating Development Departments. The four participating universities would implement progranis to raise the quality of graduates and improve faculty competence and university mnanagemnent. The university Vice-Chancellors would be responsible for implementing project activities at participating universities. Each state government by executive order would cstablish a broad-hascd Manpower Advisory Council (MAC) consisting of 9-10 members made up of' thrce flromii the state government, three from the SAU(s), three representing NGOs and trade interests and one expert in labor market intelligence. Manpower studies would be car-ied out by quali'ied consultants. MACs would be supported by secretarial units located at one SAU per state. 11. Panel of' Experts. The Government of Switzerland through the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) has agreed to fund a Panel of Experts to advise ICAR and the SAUs as  5 they carry out the project. This Panel would provide a core of technical excellence, continuity and objectivity over a three-year period. Specifically, Panel members would: (a) assist ICAR and the SAUs to develop a plan of action to assist them in their transitions to modern accreditation, educational and management systems; (b) conduct seminars on good education policy and university management practices; and (c) contribute assessments of project progress to facilitate the mid-term review which is meant to enable mid-course corrections to project design. In addition, short-term technical assistance would be provided as required over the three-year period to advise the ICAR and SAUs in special topics to be identified by the Panel. Such short-term assistance would also include seminars sponsored by panel members to stimulate discussion of key educational and administrative issues and present findings/recommendations. Panel members would not undertake any role or responsibility in project implementation. SDC would fund the Panel on a grant basis through its existing Special Studies Consultant Trust Fund administered by the Bank. This would be untied assistance. 12. Project Sustainability. The sustainability of the project would depend on the long- term commitment of GOI and the states to enhance the quality of sectoral manpower and foster its more effective use. The inefficiencies of the status quo are now so pronounced, standards at state agricultural universities have dropped to such an extent, and the economic environment in India is changing so dramatically that the current modes of manpower development/management and academic performance are no longer tenable or sustainable. The changes in the development and use of human resources fostered by the project are now advocated widely in India, and have strong support from the Center and the state governments concerned. Regarding educational norms and standards, the project would support the strengthening of ICAR(ED) as an interim step until such time as a national Agricultural Education Council (AEC) is established with statutory powers to set, monitor and enforce academic norms and standards (para 18). GOI's Ministry of Agriculture has indicated its commitment to the eventual establishment of this council. The reorganization and staffing of the strengthened ICAR(ED) supported by the project would be consistent with those proposed for the eventual AEC. 13. Lessons from Previous Bank/IDA Involvement. Bank experience indicates that levels of investment in project-related training have not declined and have frequently increased during periods of Bank involvement in agricultural sector development. A major reason for this has been that graduates from tertiary agricultural institutions have not met labor market requirements in terms of knowledge and skills thereby needing large infusions of remedial induction and in-service training. Experience also indicates a lack of systematic human resource management in public sector institutions and services, thereby reducing the 2 The total cost of the Panel and associated short-term assistance is estimated at US$575,000. The cost of the Panel has not been included in project cost estimates.  6 effectiveness of' staft'. In a 1992 study,' OED stated that Balnk projects have missed flactors which are key to the stability, relevance and effectiveness of' agricultural higher educaLtion, including: (a) ensuring an adequate flow of resources to an institution; (h) en-endering conditions--including good governance and managemient at the univer-sity lecel--to prolmloU: institutional autoniomy and accountability; (c) creating linkages to clients and colleaLCus; arild (d ) coordtinating research and extension investments with those in ait(icultul-Ld Liniversitles to promiiote institutional synergies, responsiveness and adaptability by CducationI institutions. OED recommilended that the Bank should: (i) involve a broad range of sectoral representatives in problem analyses and project design; (ii) improve project monitoring and evaluation-; (iii) focus project assistance on upgrading university management and developing appropriate ,,overnance; (iv) incorporate agricultural concerns and organizations into university decision-making; and (v) strengthen ties to local and international agricultural researcil instituitions. These lessons have been takeni into aCCOUnt in the designi of the prIoposed projeCt. 14. Agreed Actions. During negotiations with the Government of India, ICAR and the thiee participating states, the f'ollowing assurances and understandings were obtained: Condition of Project Effectiveness. ICAR's Education Division would establish an Accreditation Board satisfactory to IDA. Other Assurances. These assurances relate to actions to ensure the timely implementation of project activities and, among others, woul d include: (a) GOI will make Credit proceeds available to ICAR and the participating states according to GOI's standard arrangements for developmental assistance to central agencies and the states; (b) by April 30 of each year starting in 1996, an annual implementation plan ftor the ICAR activities under the pro-ject acceptable to IDA will be approved by a conmilttee consisting of the ICAR Director-General, Deputy Directorl-General (ED) and FA of ICAR; the ICAR implementation plan for 1995 will be so approved by May 31, 1995; (c) by April 30 ot' each year startilig in 1996, an annual implemenitation plan of' eacih participating state acceptable to IDA, including the par-ticipaitilg universities, development departments and MAC, will be approved by a state-level committee consisting of Secretaries of AgricultUrle and Finance, the Vice- Chancellor(s) of participatting universities, the heads of' the developimient departments and f'our eminent persons nominated by the Government representing education and agr-oindustries; the states' implementation plans t'or 1995 will be so approved by May 31, 1995; (d) the Accreditation Board and the sections of' the strengthened ICAR(ED) will be hully operational and staffed with senior persons acceptable to IDA by Septembner 30, 1995; (e) by June 30, 1995, a Manpower Advisory Council acceptable to IDA will be established in each participaiting state; (f) sLubsequent to the ()1AD. World Bank Assistance to Agricultural Higher Education 1964-1990, Report No. 1(0751, World Bank, WIashington. June IX, 1992.  7 completion of the project-financed studies of higher agricultural education financial management, the participating states, SAUs and ICAR will develop a common strategy by September 30, 1996 for discussion at the Mid-Term Review and at that time would agree on an action plan for implementation; (g) by June 30, 1995, participating states and SAUs will expand the SAU Boards of Management to include at least two additional private representatives of the agricultural sector; (h) on or before June 30, 1995, each SAU will establish a broad-based advisory group in consultation with IDA to meet at least once each year to obtain feedback about the preparedness of university graduates and relevance of their programs and to receive advice about future directions of university activities; (i) participating states will provide adequate and earmarked funds to the SAUs on an annual basis to adequately maintain buildings, facilities and equipment; (j) ICAR's Deputy Director-General (ED) will be given adequate powers to use project funds once annual implementation plans and budgets are approved without recourse to item sanction by ICAR's Financial Advisor; (k) project accounts and the Special Account will be maintained and audited annually according to appropriate auditing principles; (I) a joint mid-term review be held no later than December 31, 1997. Understandings. Understandings were reached that: (A) GOI will release in advance to the participating states those funds necessary to cover about three months of anticipated project expenditures to participating states; and (B) upon receipt of such quarterly funds from GOI, the participating state governments will transfer the funds, together with their own quarterly allocations for the project, to agencies responsible for project implementation, to be used exclusively for eligible expenditures under the project. 15. Environmental Aspects. SAUs have expressed interest in including environmental courses as integral components of curriculum development. Greater dialogue between the SAUs and the wider community, including NGOs, would enable grassroots concerns for environmental issues to be raised for SAU action, both in the classroom and in research. In the long-term, the project would foster the production of higher quality graduates, more attuned to environmental choices and issues, better prepared to communicate technical/business options and opportunities to the farming community and better equipped to develop public policy and sound managerial decisions based on efficiency and environmental considerations. The project could have beneficial environmental impact by encouraging training for staff in public service in environmental topics for agriculture and around specific environmental issues (e.g., integrated pest management, environment impact studies, pesticide management and control, sustainable agricultural management). 16. Project Benefits. The project would support improved human resources development as a means of accelerating agricultural growth. By improving the quality and effectiveness of sectoral manpower, the project would protect and enhance the benefits derived from the considerable investments made and proposed in agricultural research, extension and other services. By strengthening the Center's capacity to set norms and standards in agricultural  8 universities and to accredit such institutions rigorously, the project would foster a national upgrading in the quality of higher agricultural education. Because of policy, administrative, pedagogic and infrastructural improvements made under the project, better quality graduates would be produced at SAUs more compatible with labor market signals. The quality of teaching would improve at the SAUs as a result of staff training received under the project, improved access to worldwide scientific information and enhanced teaching resources and systematic teacher/course assessments. The basic quality of life on campus for both students and faculty would be enhanced through upgraded housing, recreational facilities and health services. A key benefit of the project would be the establishment of worldwide professional contacts in scientific fields and the creation of a new cadre of Indian educators/scientists which would have received exposure to education, education technology and scientific research abroad. It would be constructive if bilateral donors encouraged their countries' educational institutions to establish training and other professional contacts with Indian agricultural universities. Academic inbreeding of both faculty and students would also be curtailed. The project would foster greater interaction between the university and the outside community of entrepreneurs, government, farmers and NGOs. The management and administration of each participating university would become more efficient because of the policy changes made and the management information systems introduced. The project would begin a close examination of and improvement to financial management of higher agricultural education which could ultimately increase the chances for financial sustainability of the system. The project would initiate the establishment of a much-needed national agricultural information system complete with computerized on-line databases at university-level and at ICAR. 17. The project would improve management and operational performance of key agricultural institutions at the Center and state-level because of better, more efficient human resource management. In-service training would be strengthened and be made demand- driven. MACs would provide broad-based fora for substantive debate on agricultural human resources issues and for the formulation of reasoned advice to decision-makers. State policy- makers and university administrators would have access to technically sound analyses of labor market trends on which to base policy, budgetary and academic planning. 18. Risks. As a long-term goal, the project would support the eventual establishment of an AEC to set norms and standards in higher agricultural education. AEC would have statutory powers to enforce these standards through its certification of SAUs and their courses and through their funding of educational programs at the universities. Such a statutory body would help ensure that uniform standards are established at the national level and enforced throughout the country, and given the statutory nature of the eventual council, that higher standards once achieved are more likely to be maintained. A risk exists that action to establish the AEC might experience delays because of the elaborate Center-state consultative and legislative process involved. The implementation of the project would not be adversely affected by delay in establishing AEC since as an interim measure the project would achieve many of the beneficial reforms by implementing the project through a strengthened ICAR(ED). This division would be responsible for monitoring and shepherding the process  9 of state and Central legislative action to establish the AEC. An important activity in IDA supervision would be to track progress in setting up the Council. 19. The project promotes important changes in the way the states develop and use human capital. Progress in implementing these changes might be slowed by the traditional inertia present in agricultural development departments and SAUs. This risk is reduced by the widespread institutional and political support in India for reforms built into this project, as evidenced by the production of sound project proposals produced by ICAR and the states. In addition, the project's mid-term review and other project fora, including supervision missions and Panel seminars, would provide opportunities to assess progress in introducing changes, share experiences and take corrective actions to attain objectives. The project's monitoring and evaluation system should provide a reliable, ongoing gauge of project progress in its various components and thus help guide timely and appropriate corrective actions. 20. Recommendation. I am satisfied that the proposed credit would comply with the Articles of Agreement of the Association and recommend that the Executive Directors approve it. Lewis T. Preston President by Gautam S. Kaji Attachments Washington, D. C.   Schedule A Page I of I INDIA AGRICULTURAL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Estimated Costs and Financing Plan Estimated Costs Project Component Local Foreign 1 Total Foreign ____ ____ ___ ___ __ _ ____ ___ Exchange ----------(US$ million) - (%) ICAR Strengthening 4.8 5.3 10.1 52 University Programs 18.() 23.8 41.8 57 In-Service HRDIHRM 11.5 6.1 17.6 35 Manpower Needs Assessment 0.3 0.0 0.3 Total Baseline Costs 34.6 35.2 69.8 50 Physical Contingencies 2.6 0.4 3.0 15 Price Contingencies a/ -(.1 1.5 1.4 60 TOTAI, PROJECT COSTS' 37.1 37.1 74.2 50 a) Includes toreign exchange contingency tor projected changes in the value ot the Indian rupee vis-a-vis the US dollar. It is assumed that because of the large capital inflows Indi.i is currently experiencing, there will be some real exchange rate appreciation in the early phase of the project. Financing Plan Local I Foreign Total ------(US$ million)--- IDA 22.4 37.1 59.5 GOI 1.9 0.0 1.9 GOAP 5.2 0.0 5.2 GOH 3.0 0.0 3.0 GOTN 4.6 0.0 4.6 Totals 37.1 37.1 74.2 Including taxes and duties of US$ 8.1 million equivalent.   Schedule B Page 1 of 2 INDIA AGRICULTURAL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Procurement Arrangements and Disbursements Amounts and Methods of Procurement Pmject Element ProcurF met Mad : Total Cost ICB 1LC oLwc i_|____ Works Buildings, Water Supply 11.2 1.7 12.9 (7.8) (1.1) (8.9) Goods Equipment and Furniture 11.4 3.9 6.0 21.3 (9.2) (3.1) (4.8) (17.1) Books, Periodicals, Proprietary 2.2 2.2 Equipment/Software and Other Print (1.8) (1.8) Material Livestock 0.2 0.2 .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (0.0) (0.0) Vehicles 1.5 1.5 (1.2) (1.2) Consultancies and Training Policy Support 0.5 0.5 (0.5) (0.5) Implementation Support 2.0 2.0 (2.0) (2.0) Capacity-Building 18.5 18.5 (18.5) (18.5) Miscellaneous Operating Costs 14.6 14.6 (9.5) (9.5) Building Rentals b/ 0.5 0.5 (0.0) (0.0) Total 11.4 15.1 47.7 74.2 (9.2) (10.9) (39.4) (59.5) a/ Uther methods include torce account, prudent shopping, engagement ot consultants and tr ining. b/ May include some renovation of existing ICAR(ED) facilities.  Schedule B Page 2 of 2 Summary Disbursement Schedule Category Amount Percent Financed Allocated --(US$ million)-- Foreign Local Works Buildings, Water Supply 8.9 75 75 Goods Equipment, Supplies 17.1 100 80 Books, Periodicals, Patented 1.8 100 80 Software and Other Print Materials Vehicles 1.2 100 80 Technical Assistance Policy Support 0.5 100 100 Implementation Support 2.0 100 100 Capacity-Building 18.5 100 100 Miscellaneous Operating Costs 9.5 701/ Total 59.5 I/ 90'7r in 1'995 through 1997, 7(0Zc in 1998 and 1999, and 5()' thereafter. Estimated IDA Disbursements FY95 I FY96 FY97 FY98 I FY99 I FY00 FYOI ---------------------------(US$ million)------------------------ Annual 1.5 6.8 17.8 14.7 8.9 6.7 3.1 Cumulative 1.5 8.3 26.1 40.8 49.7 56.4 59.5  Schedule C Page 1 of 1 INDIA AGRICULTURAL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Timetable of Key Processing Events Time taken to prepare: 36 months Project prepared by: Government of India and the Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Tamil Nadu First IDA Mission: September 1991 Appraisal Mission: August 1994 Negotiations: February 1995 Planned Date of Effectiveness: June 1995 List of Relevant PPARs and PCRs: None Note: This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission which visited India in August 1994. The mission comprised: Messrs. W. Nickel (Leader), A. Venkataraman (Sr. Projects Officer), K. N. Venkataraman (Procurement Engineer), A. Pritchard (Consultant Agricultural Specialist) and Ms. T. Karmiris (Cost Analyst). Messrs. C. Maguire (Sr. Training Specialist) and P. Ryan (Consultant Education Specialist) contributed substantially to the conceptualization and design of the project.   SCHEDULE D PAGE 1 of 4 THE STATUS OF BANK GROUP OPERATIONS IN INDIA A. STATEMENT OF BANK LOANS AND IDA CREDITS (As of December 31, 1994) USS Million (net of cancellations) Loan/ FY of ---------------------------------- Credit # Approval Purpose IBRD 1/ IDA 1/ Undisbursed 2/ 1/ 133 Loans/ 10324.9 194 Credits fully disbursed/cancelled 14070.4 1356-IN 1983 Upper Indravati Hydro Power - 170.00 9.37 SF-12-IN 19B4 Tamil Nadu Water Supply - 36.50 2.81 1454-IN 1984 Tamil Nadu Water Supply - 36.50 6.78 1483-IN 1984 Upper Ganga Irrigation - 105.43 9.55 2582-IN 1985 Kerala Power 126.00 - 43.21 1643-IN 1986 Gujarat Urban - 50.34 17.35 1621-IN 1986 Maharashtra Composite Irrigation - 128.82 85.63 1631-IN 1986 National Agricultural Research II - 57.21 12.49 1750-IN 1987 Bombay Water Supply & Sewerage III - 145.00 60.40 2769-IN 1987 Bombay Water Supply & Sewerage III 20.00 - 20.00 2796-IN 1987 Coal Mining & Quality Improvement 322.78 - 24.47 1757-IN 1987 Gujarat Rural Roads - 96.75 32.41 2846-IN 1987 Madras Water Supply 53.00 - 22.09 1754-IN 1987 National Agric. Extension III - 66.62 10.40 2844-IN 1987 National Capital Power 373.00 - 77.55 1770-IN 1987 National Water Management - 114.00 14.55 2785-IN 1987 Oil India Petroleum 140.00 - 4.29 2845-IN 1987 Talcher Thermal 367.00 - 161.83 1780-IN 1987 Uttar Pradesh Urban Development - 120.95 49.84 1931-IN 1988 Bombay & Madras Population - 57.00 25.54 2928-IN 1988 Indus. Fin. & Tech. Asst. 334.37 - 9.60 2893-IN 1988 National Dairy II 200.00 - 132.27 2935-IN 1988 Railway Modernization III 252.50 - 9.40 1923-IN 1988 Tamil Nadu Urban Dev. - 254.73 97.92 3093-IN 1989 Electronics Industry Dev. 8.00 - 7.50 3058-IN 1989 Export Development 120.00 - 8.92 3096-IN 1989 Maharashtra Power 354.00 - 238.65 3024-IN 1989 Nathpa Jhakri Power 485.00 - 378.72 1952-IN 1989 National Seeds III - 147.24 55.02 2022-IN 1989 National Sericulture - 133.35 63.03 2057-IN 1989 Nat'l. Family Welfare Trng. - 72.76 40.54 3044-IN 1989 Petroleum Transport 50.00 - 8.76 2994-IN 1989 States Roads 115.00 - 79.74 2010-IN 1989 Upper Krishna Irrigation II - 160.00 47.08 3050-IN 1989 Upper Krishna Irrigation II 45.00 - 45.00 2008-IN 1989 Vocational Training - 163.85 104.87 3196-IN 1990 Cement Industry Restructuring 293.18 - 96.32 2115-IN '990 Hyderabad Water Supply - 79.90 51.85 2064-IN 1990 Industrial Technology Development - 55.00 45.19 3119-IN 1990 Industrial Technology Development 135.00 - 49.59 3237-IN 1990 Northern Region Transmission 485.00 - 440.10 2133-IN 1990 Populaticn Training VII - 63.96 35.43 3239-IN 1990 Private Power Utilities I (TEC) 98.00 - 21.77 2076-IN 1990 Punjab Irrigation/Drainage - 145.28 107.37 2158-IN 199c Tam,rni Nadu Integrated Nutrition II - 67.52 43.29 2130-IN 199G Technician Education I - 210.74 141.87 2100-IN 199oj Watershed Development (Hills) - 75.00 55.84 2131-IN 199C Watershed Development (Plains) - 55.00 47.09 3325-IN 1991 Dam Safety 23.00 - 23.00 2241-IN 1991 Darn Safety - 130.00 121.51 3364-IN 1991 Gas Flaring Reducticn 450.00 - 21.49 2173-IN 1991 ICIDS I (Orissa & Andhra Pradesh) - 74.35 50.91 3334-IN 1991 Industriai Pollution Control 124.00 - 59.84 2252-IN 1991 Industrial Pollution Control - 31.60 31.81 2234-IN 1991 Maharashtra Rural Water Supply - 109.90 86.97 3258-IN 1991 Petrochemicals II 12.00 - 10.24 3259-IN 1991 Petrochemicals II 203.00 - 111.95 3344-IN 1991 Private Power Utilities II (BSES) 200.00 - 50.30 2215-IN 1991 Tamal Nadu Agricultural Development - 92.80 61.64  SCHEDULE D PAGE 2 of 4 US$ Million (net of cancellations) Loan/ FY of __-- Credit # Approval Purpose IBRD IDA 1/ Undisbursed 2/ 3300-IN 1991 Tamil Nadu Agricultural Development 20.00 - 20.00 2223-IN 1991 Technician Education II - 255.73 214.72 2300-IN 1992 Child Survival and Safe Motherhood - 214.50 137.35 2394-IN 1992 Family Welfare (Urban Slums) - 79.00 79.62 2328-IN 1992 Maharashtra Forestry - 124.00 113.96 2350-IN 1992 National AIDS Control - 84.00 68.26 3436-IN 1992 Power Utilities Efficiency 265.00 - 249.61 3498-IN 1992 Second Maharashtra Power 350.00 - 313.70 3470-IN 1992 Second National Highway 153.00 - 153.00 2365-IN 1992 Second National Highway - 153.00 155.97 2329-IN 1992 Shrimp and Fish Culture - 85.00 85.49 2341-IN 1992 West Bengal Forestry - 34.00 24.68 2433-IN 1993 Agricultural Development Rajasthan - 106.00 93.92 2439-IN 1993 Bihar Plateau Development - 117.00 108.20 2450-IN 1993 Jharia Mine Fire Control - 12.00 11.95 2483-IN 1993 Karnataka Rural Water Supply - 92.00 90.43 2528-IN 1993 National Leprosy Elimination - 85.00 83.83 3632-IN 1993 NTPC Power Generation 400.00 - 400.00 3630-IN 1993 Power Finance Corporation 20.00 - 20.00 3577-IN 1993 Powergrid System Development 350.00 - 323.13 3544-IN 1993 Renewable Resources Development 75.00 - 8.84 2449-IN 1993 Renewable Resources Development - 115.00 115.15 2409-IN 1993 Rubber - 92.00 88.79 2470-IN 1993 Second Integrated Child Dev. - 194.00 195.42 2509-IN 1993 Uttar Pradesh Basic Education - 165.00 154.81 2510-IN 1993 Uttar Pradesh Sodic Lands Reclam. - 54.70 53.36 2572-IN 1994 Forestry Research Education - 47.00 45.84 2573-IN 1994 Andhra Pradesh Forestry - 77.40 76.46 2592-IN 1994 Water Resources Consolidation (Haryana) - 258.00 263.36 2594-IN 1994 Maharashtra Emergency Earthquake - 246.00 229.77 2611-IN 1994 Blindness Control ^ - 117.80 123.60 2630-IN 1994 Population IX (Family Welfare) - 88.60 87.88 3753-IN 1994 Container Transport Logistics * 94.00 - 94.00 3779-IN 1995 Industrial Pollution Prevention * 93.00 - 93.00 3780-IN 1995 Industrial Pollution Prevention * 50.00 - 50.00 2645-IN 1995 Industrial Pollution Prevention * - 25.00 25.65 2661-IN 1995 District Primary Education - 260.30 260.81 2663-IN 1995 A.P. District Heatlh * - 133.00 131.42 Total 17583.70 20693.55 8628.93 of which has been repaid 4925.6 1272.6 12658.09 19420.95 Total now outstandirng Amount Sold 133.8 of which has been repaid 133.8 Total now held by Bank and IDA Total undisbursed (excluding *1) 3644.9 3934.3 1/ IDA Credit amounts for SDR-denominated Credits are expressed in terms of their US dollar equivalents, as established at the time of Credit negotiations and as subsequently presented to the Board. 2/ Undisbursed amounts for SDR-denominated IDA Credits are derived as the undisbursed balance expressed in SDR equivalents (in turn derived as the difference between the original principal expressed in SDRs (based on the exchange rate as established at the time of Credit negotiations) and the cumulative disbursements converted to SDR equivalents at the exchange rates prevailing at the respective dates of disbursements less cancellations expressed in SDR equivalents converted to US dollar equivalents at the SDR/US dollar exchange rate in effect on December 31, 1994. * Not yet effective. Source: Statement of Loans & Credits (LOALA) of December 31, 1994.  SCHEDULE D PAGE 3 OF B. STATEMENT OF IFC INVESTMENTS (as of December 31, 1994) Amount (US$ million) Fiscal Year Company Loan Equity Total 1959 Republic Forge Company Ltd. 1.50 -- 1.50 1959 Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. 0.85 -- 0.85 1960 Assam Sillimanite Ltd. 1.36 -- 1.36 1961 K.S.B. Pumps Ltd. 0.21 -- 0.21 1963-66 Precision Bearings India Ltd. 0.65 0.38 1.03 1964 Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. 0.81 0.40 1.21 1964 Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. 0.96 0.35 1.31 1964-75-79/90 Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. 11.81 2.66 14.47 1967 Indian Explosives Ltd. 8.60 2.86 11.46 1967 Jayshree Chemicals Ltd. 1.05 0.10 1.15 1969-70 Zuari Agro-Chemicals Ltd. 15.15 3.76 18.91 1977-87 Escorts Limited 15.55 -- 15.55 1978-87/91/93 Housing Development Finance Corp. 106.32 4.05 110.37 1980/82/87/89 Deepak Fertilizer and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. 7.50 4.23 11.73 1981-82 Nagarjuna Coated Tubes Ltd. 1.50 0.24 1.74 1981-82 Nagarjuna Steels Limited 2.88 0.24 3.12 1981-86-89-92-94 Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. 132.14 24.49 156.63 1981-90-93-94 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 29.71 9.68 39.39 1982 Ashok Leyland Limited 28.00 -- 28.00 1982 Coromandel Fertilizers Limited 15.88 -- 15.88 1982 The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 18.80 -- 18.80 1982-87 ITW Signode 2.99 1.01 4.00 1982-87 The Indian Rayon Corp. Ltd. 14.57 -- 14.57 1983 Bharat Forge Company Ltd. 15.90 -- 15.90 1984-86 The Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Ltd. 15.95 _ 15.95 1985 Bajaj Auto Ltd. 23.93 -- 23.93 1985 Modi Cement 13.05 -- 13.05 1985-86/90-91-94 India Lease Development Ltd. 8.50 1.08 9.58 1985/91 Bihar Sponge 15.24 0.68 15.92 1986 Bajaj Tempo Limited 30.54 -- 30.54 1986-93/94 India Equipment Leasing Ltd. 5.50 0.44 5.94 1986 Larsen and Toubro Ltd. 21.78 -- 21.78 1986-87-88-92-93 The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. 41.25 13.89 55.14 1986-87-91 Export-Import Bank of India 14.34 -- 14.34 1987 Gujarat Fusion Glass Ltd. 7.52 1.70 9.22 1987 Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer 38.07 -- 38.07 1987 Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 7.74 -- 7.74 1987 Hindustan Motors Ltd. 39.14 -- 39.14 1987 The Gujarat Rural Housing Finance Corp. -- 0.19 0.19 1987 Wimco Limited 4.70 -- 4.70 1987/89-90/92/93 Titan Watches Limited 22.02 1.15 23.17 1988/94 Invel Transmissions Ltd. -- 1.40 1.40 1989 Ahmedabad Electricity Company, Ltd. 20.83 -- 20.83 1989 WTI Advanced Technology -- 0.20 0.20 1989-90 Keltron Telephone Instruments, Ltd. -- 0.56 0.56 1989-92 Gujarat State Fertilizer 40.46 -- 40.46 1989-95 JSB India Securities Firms 2.39 0.37 2.76 1990 UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. -- 0.63 0.63 1990-91/94 Tata Electric 111.88 18.75 130.63 1991 ATIC Industries Export Finance 0.28 -- 0.28 1991 Bombay Electric 68.00 -- 68.00 1991 CESC Ltd. 83.63 -- 83.63 1991 Export Finance - AFDC 0.35 -- 0.35 1991 Herdilla Oxides and Electronics Ltd. -- 0.29 0.29 1991-94 Indust. Credit & Investment Corp. of India -- 25.85 25.85 1991-93-95 Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services 40.00 4.92 44.92 1991 TDICI Development Finance Companies -- 2.05 2.05 1993 TRIVENI -- 1.30 1.30 1991 Varun Transport, Storage & Communications 17.04 3.06 20.10 1992 Arvind Mills 22.13 19.16 41.29  SCHEDULE D PAGE 4 OF 4 Amount (US$ million) Fiscal Year Company Loan Equity Total 1991 INDUS VC MGMT -- 0.01 0.01 1991 Block KG-OS-IV -- 8.20 8.20 1991 INDUS VCF -- 1.01 1.01 1992 Kotak Mahindra 0.66 -- 0.66 1992 Nippon Denro 40.00 5.77 45.77 1992 SKF Bearings 11.50 -- 11.50 1992-94 Creditcapital VF -- 1.11 1.11 1993 NICCO-UCO 3.00 0.25 3.25 1993 20th CENTURY 16.00 0.80 16.80 1993 Info Tech Fund -- 0.64 0.64 1993 CRDCAP Asset Management -- 0.32 0.32 1993 Taurus Starshare -- 7.17 7.17 1994 Gujarat Ambuja 35.14 8.23 43.37 1993-94 Indo Rama Spinning & Weaving 35.00 9.84 44.84 1994 Centurion Growth -- 2.39 2.39 1994 TCAMC -- 0.16 0.16 1994 DLF Cement 39.36 -- 39.36 1994 Global Trust Commercial Banks -- 3.19 3.19 1994 Chowgule -- 4.58 4.58 1994 Centurion Bank -- 3.87 3.87 1994 GESCO Transport & Communications -- 2.15 2.15 1994 ISIC Brokerage -- 0.32 0.32 1994-95 Prism Cement 30.00 5.01 35.01 TOTAL GROSS COMMITMENTS 1361.61 217.14 1578.75 Less: Cancellation, Terminations, Exchange Adjustments, Repayments, Writeoffs and Sales 753.71 84.82 838.54 Total Commitments Now Held by IFC 607.85 132.30 740.16 Undisbursed 73.93 9.39 83.32 Total Outstanding 533.94 122.92 656.86 Source: IFC Statement of Investments as of December 31, 1994.