India - Gujarat Fisheries Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 6842 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) June 24, 1987 General Agriculture II Div *sion South Asia Projects Department This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ARDC - Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation (now NABARD) CP - FAO/World Bank Cooperative Program OWPRS - Central Water and Power Research Station DACCF - Department of Agriculture, Cooperatives, Forest and Fisheries DPF - Department of Ports and Fisheries ERR - Economic Rate of Return FPCS - Fishermen's Primary Cooperative Societies FTD - Fisheries Terminal Divisions GFCCA - Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association GOG - Government of Gujarat GOI - Government of India IDA - International Development Association MFV - mechanized fishing vessel NABARD - National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (formerly ARDC) OBM - Outboard Motor PISFH - Pre-Investment Survey of Fishing Harbors SAR - Staff Appraisal Report of the World Bank SCF - Standard Conversion Factor FOR OFFICIAL US ONLY THE WORLD BANK Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Ofke Of Directo-Ceefral Opeatens Ivaluatin June 24, 1987 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on India Gujarat Fisheries Project (Loan 1394-INICredit 695-IN) Attachedp for information, is a copy of a report entitled "Project Completion Report on India Gujarat Fisheries Project (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695- IN)" prepare' by an FAO/World Bank Coopcrative Programe. Further evaluation of this project by the Operations Evaluation Department has not been made. Attachment This document has a restricted distibution and may be used by recipients only In the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authoriastion. POR OFFICIAL USE ONLY GUJARAT MISRERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Table of Contents £me REFACE ................ ............................. iii BASIC DATA SHET ..................................... iv EVALUATION SUMMARY v I. INTRODUCTION .......... ......................... 1 II. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, PfPARATION AND APAISAL. ............ 2 Project Origin ...................................... 2 Reconnaissance ............................................. 3 Identification/kreparation .................................. 3 Pre-appraisal/Appraisal ....... .............................. 4 Project Description .................................. 4 III. FRQECT IMELEMENTATION ......................... ....... 5 Loan Wegotiations and Effectiveness ........................... 5 Project Changes after Appraisal .............................. 6 Implementation Schedule ...................................... 6 Implementation of Harbour Ieprovement Component .............. 7 Implementation of other Project Componenta ................... 9 Consultanta and Contractors ................................. 12 Project Coot ............... ... .......................... 12 Project rinancing and Loan/Credit Allocation .......... . 13 IV. INSTITUTIONAL PERMORMANCE AND DEVELOMENT .............. . 13 Implementing Agencies ............................. ...... 13 Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association ............ 14 Fishermen's Primary Cooperative Societieo ............. 16 Fisheries Terminal Division . 16 Accounting and Reporting ...... ............c....... 17 Compliance with Covenants ................................. 17 This document has a restricted distribution and may bo used by ecpients only in the performanc of their ofBcial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disc~osed without World Sank authorition. -ti- V. PROJECT IMPACT .................................. 18 Intended Impact ................................... ... 18 Assessment of Actual Project Impact .......................... 18 Fishermen's Income from Vessels ............................. 21 Re-Estimated Economic Rates of Return ........................0 0 21 VI. BANK PERFORMANCE ........................................... 22 Overall Performance .......................................... 22 Supervisi-)n ............... ...... ...0.. 0 000.0 00000.0000 0 .0 23 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED .... o......................... 23 TABLES 1. Comparison of Appraisal and Actual Costs 2. Actual Expenditures on Harbour Improvement and Shore Facilities - Veraval larbour 3. Actual Expenditures on Harbour Improvement and Shore Facilities - Mangrol Harbour 4. Comparison of Appraised and Actual Improvements - Veraval 5. Comparison of Appraised and Actual Improvements - Mangrol 6. Physical Parameters of Principal Works 7. Financing of Credit Components 8. Schedule of Disbursements (Cumulative) 9. Allocation of Credit/Loan Proceeds 10. Proposed and Present Staffing of kTDs 11. Quick Freezipg and Ice Making Facilities in Project Area 12. Present Processing Units at Principal Ports 13. GFCCA - Comparative Balance Sheets 14. GFCCA - Comparative Profit & Loss Accounts 15. GFCCA - MFV Loans and Recovery Position as at 31 December 1985 16. FPCS in Project Villages 17. Fishing Vessels in the Project Harbours 18. Estimated Marine Fish Landings in Project Area (Centre Wise) 19. Landing Prices of Important Fish at Veraval 20. Escalation in Diesel & Lubricating Oil Prices 21. Cash Flow Projection - 14.8m Trawler 22. Cash Flow Projection - Canoe with Outboard Motor 23. Cash Flow Projection - Outboard Motor (for Existing Canoe) 24. Re-Estimated Economic Rate of Return - Veraval Harbour 25. Re-Estimated Economic Rate of Return - Mangrol Harbour 26. Re-Estimated ERR - Total Project Chart Organizational Structure of GFCCA Ltd. 1. Important Fishing Centres in Gujarat 2. Veraval Harbour 3. Mangrol Harbour Annex I - Comments from GOI - iii - PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (LOAN 1394-IN/CREDIT 695-IN) PREFACE The following is a Project Completion Report (PCR) of the first World Bank financed fisheries project in South Asia. The Gujarat Fisheries Project (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) was appraised in May 1976 and was approved on March 31, 1977. The loan/credit was signed on April 22, 1977 and amounted to US$14.0 million (loan) and US$4.0 million (credit) as against an estimated overall project cost of US$38.0 million e'quivalent (including duties and taxes) of which the foreign exchange component was put at US$11.5 million. The loan/credit became effective on July 19, 1977. The project was expected to be closed by June 30, 1983 but actually closed in March 1985. The Government of India (GOI) and the Go-ernment of Gujarat (GOG) were the ultimate recipients of the loan/credit. Final disbursement reached 91% of the total loan/credit amount. The PCR was originally prepared by GOG based on a review of the Project Appraisal Report (No. 1326b-IN) dated March 16, 1977, the President's Report (No. P-1974-IN) dated March 16, 1977, and the Credit Agreement dated April 22, 1977. At the request of IDA, and with GOI's concurrence, FAO/CP subsequently prepared the attached PCR, incorporating analysis based on supervision reports and other project files, as well as interviews with some members of the appraisal mission, supervising staff, and consultants. Key officials of GOI, GOG, NABARD (formerly ARDC), GFCCA, and DPF were also interviewed by the FAOCP PCR mission and provided useful information. The draft report was sent to the Borrower for comments on March 5, 1987. Comments received from GOI are attached to the PCR as Annex I and their content has been taken into consideration in the final preparation of the report. This report has not been subjected to audit by OED. -iv'- iam assi Data ISet Appratest Aesl sa Battaste Acct- ,gj Total projet con (ute aWims) 38.0 34.9 93 Crodit Aoant (Vo$ ati**) 4.0 4.0 100 LoMs Aount (Va$ aWtion) 14.0 12.24 87 Date of loard Approwel Karcb 31. 1977 Narch 31. 1977 Date of afectvoneso J~e 19. 1977 J 19. 1977 Dat* Phaica OmpenedU GOmplotod Jrns 1986 Co g Dat* Jun 30. 1983 Jam 30 1984 Ecomnc Rat of Rtur 24.0 16.0 In~titutional Perform~anc fat flohey Porfo~arnce STAl I<UTS (Staff weeks) Pr~ppraisal 3.0 Appraia 37.8 18.0 M~gotiaion 14.0 Superision 3.5 7.5 6.3 11.9 3.1 14.3 8.9 3.9 8.1 Other ("Q aud 00) 12.5 12.5 13.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 6.0 3.0 1.0 Total 42.8 48.0 20.0 18.8 24.4 17.6 26.8 21.4 16.4 6.0 10.1 1.0 MMLATIVA DIBUS3iBNT Apprasi sat:aac (18 rnllUoa) 0.2 3.0 8.3 14.0 17.4 18.0 18.0 18.0 Atal (MS8 8ilorn) • 1.1 8.6 10.1 12.0 13.9 13.9 16.42 Actual at oftate 0 37 43 72 69 77 77 91 Date of ~ittl Ddeb.rssastay 10. 1985 51IS2ION DATA Date No. of ~aadays 8alat~oma euto~nsace Typs of ({) Jgk im j itJgU Romef d l4& ~ 2~ La ~ M& L Raoco~ Nov-e/74 FA0/CP 4 120 5. D. 8 Idnt./lprop. Jol-A~S/75 FAo/CP 6 189 5. D. 8 Appraial tsy-Jms/76 IDA 7 189 A..C.D..O.4 Supervision 1 Jne/77 IDA 1 10 A 1 1 - Superviaon II Narch/78 IDa 3 30 A. D. 3 1 1 8ff Supervision I Nov/78 IDA 3 24 A. D 1 1 - S ision IV July/79 IDA 3 36 8.08 1 1 Superviion 7 Feb/ 0 IDA 2 16 0, a 2 2 om Supervisio VI ct-Nov/80 IDA 2 18 0. 8 2 2 IN Superviton VII July/el IDA 2 28 0, 8 2 1 o Supesrvisin VIII ieb/82 IDA 3 36 5. a 2 2 m<1 SuprvisonII S/82 IDA 3 24 5. D a i 1 0l1 S~p1rvisio4Z Apr/83 IDA 2 12 D.1 3 1 i supervis0n II Oct/83 IDA 2 12 . a 2 2 11 Cmsplation har/a6 FA0/CP 3 33 3. D. 8 0O8EB PROJ1CT DATA Sorrser Govenment of Id9a/0aven~t of ujaret fiscal Year of 8orrw.r 1 Apr to 31 Narch Maae ot Currency lupes (as) Currn4y I enS Ratus~ Appralso Tar 8s1 * a 9.00 Intorwenag nar k'erange 1178 US$1 a ag 8.20 179 U881 G ag 8.10 V80 3$1 a Ra 7.90 y81 08$1 k os 8.95 1182 U0$1 a ko 9.65 183 841 a Ro 10.30 I84 08419 a 11.90 V85 0$1 ft 12.20 186 08*la Ra 12.40 L åA Agro-InuTy. - sea~. C - Crodit. D - rnrts Civil Ragnu~~a °81 licbewiso. 1 - ftilsg fe~mol, sr. a - hore laflittmes ~aprt. a - Lss Offteft /b 1 - mrb1free or Nior Pro lft a. 2 - Jkdorate obem. 3 - miador rbem 1 - laproass 2 - Wtatio ys 3 - Doterioraiwri ir - enasnciuls t - r~aglrials 1- Tpcaicas p - faltiejas 0 - Other - v - PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (LOAN 1394-IN{CREDIT 695-IN) EVALUATION SUMMARY Introduction 1. The project was the first IDA-assisted fishery project in South Asia. It was to be the initial phase in a series of projects that would establish a modern fishing industry in India. During the decade preceding the project (1966-1975), marine catch and marine product exports increeAed at an average annual rate of about 8% and 13% respectively. This was brought about by a sub- stantial expansion of fishing vessels, which placed considerable strain on existing infrastructure, particularly on harbor and on-shore facilities. The Government of India (GOI), recognizing these constraints, commissioned the Swe- dish government to review all marine fishing harbors and facilities and to draw up plans for removing bottlenecks. GOI also placed high priority on developing this subsector in its 5th Five-Year Development Plan. Objectives 2. The main objectives of the project were to overcome over-crowding at two existing fishing harbors and improve marketing channels and facilities by modernizing and expanding the harbors and shore facilities on the Gujarat state shoreline, the major northwest marine fishing ground of India. In add.tion, the project was to finance motorized fishing vessels and the modernization of tradi- tional fishing craft, as well as to initiate a modest program aimed at improving living conditions in selected fishing villages. The major features of the proj- ect weres (a) improvement of two major fishing harbors in northwest India; (b) improvement of shore facilities and services at these two harbors; (c) provision of credit to entrepreneurs to establish fish processing, freezing and ice plants at the two harbors; (d) construction and equipping of 270 14.8 m MFV and Nrovi- sion of canoes and outboard motors and their sale on credit and/or hirelpu, hase to cooperatives and fishermen; (e) provision of two net making machines for the cooperative (GFCCA); (f) technical assistance for test fishing, marketing stud- ies, and project implementation. Total project costs were estimated at US$38.0 million. The World Bank provided an IBRD loan of US$14.0 million and an IDA credit of US$4.0 million. The balance of project costs was to be funded by GOI/GOG, ARDC, participating banks, anJ borrowers. Implementation 3. With the benefit of hindsight, the appraisal sought over-ambitious targets. Project implementation was subj4act to delays, initially caused by changes in harbor design. The resultant additional surveys and investigations required, contractual disputes, and the effects of three hurricanes all delayed - vi - completion of the harbors to June 1986 (SAR's completion date was December 1981). Because of delays in harbor construction, installation by public sector organizations of many of the processing facilities was postponed and, even-tual- ly, dropped. These facilities, however, were subsequently established by the private sector in anticipation of the eventual completion of the harbor facili- ties. In addition, a cooperative sector enterprise - Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association (GFCCA) - with heavy commitments to the public sector and which was an under-financed and weak organization, was to rapidly increase its activities over a four to five year period and implement a number of compo- nents, e.g. provide mechanized fishing vessels (MFV), canoes, outboard motors (0BM), construct And operate net-making plants ard fish marketing facilities. This it failed to do. All of the IDA credit was disbursed, but US$1.58 million of the IBRD loan was cancelled. Results 4. Despite delays in implementation, IDA assistance under the project has resulted in development of essential infrastructure required to support the marine fisheries subsector at a time when the need for such facilities was being keenly felt. As a result, the main constraints facing this subsector in Gujarat, mainly excessive overcrowding at harbors and spoilage of fish, have been alleviated. The project has had a positive impact on fishery development. The main benefits weres (i) two harbors were developed; (ii) the MFV trawler fleet doubled between 1976 and 1985; (iii) annual fish production increased from 73,000 to 138,000 tons; and (iv) annual shrimp production increased by 4,100 tons (earning about US$18 million in foreign exchange). Even though investment in public sector fish processing facilities was reduced, the stimulus of the expanded harbor facilities enabled thie private sector to develop processing capacity beyond that estimated for the project. Moreover, incomes of tradi- tional fishermen increased as the actual estch of MFV was 10% to 20% higher than that estimated at appraisal. Finally, the prices paid for marine fish have shown an upward trend and are considerably above those prevailing at the time of appraisal. The ERR for the project has been re-estimated at 16%, compared to the SAR estimpte of 24%. Most components had a much higher FRR than anticipated by the SAR. Despite higher costs, poor performance by the cooperative sector in provision of processing components, delays in construction and three successive hurricanes that destroyed expensive breakwaters and other harbor civil works, it can be concluded that this project has created much needed infrastructure required by fishermen and private sector processors. It has removed congestion in Gujarat's fishing harbors, provided increased amounts of fresh fish, and stimulated the private sector to provide fishery products that earned signifi- cant foreign exchange. Sustainability 5. The overall favorable impact of the project on development of private sector fish processing capacity and on the quantity and quality of fish landed is the main indicator of a favorable degree of sustainability of project benefits. - vii - Findings and Lesasons 6. Varlous lessons can be learned from implementation of this project. The principal ones aret (a) It is desirable to have investigation and design for major works com- pleted prior to loan negotiations. This is particularly important where complex works such as breakwaters are involved. Where this is not possible, the implementation schedule needs to provide adequate time for such pre-construction investigational activities. (b) When significant design changes take place after appraisal, it is necessary to ensure that provision of critically Important equipment (in this case a floating crane) required for successful completion of works is ensured either by being available with the contractor, or provision made for its early acquisition. (c) Particular attention should be paid to the design of credit recovery from beneficiaries when this is through an institution which d,%es not control a large part of the marketed output and when the lending banks do not have sufficient field offices and staff for loan recovery. 001 has suggested that credit should be routed through the State Fisheries Directorate where loan recoveries have been more successful. (d) Due consideration should be given to fishermen's choice in the procure- ment of equipment (in this case OBM) and in the design of equipment (fiberglass canoes), as their efficient use requires acceptability of the make/model. INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN[Credit 695-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. INTRODUCTION 1.01 Since 1976, the development of fisheries has been given high priority by the Government of India (GOI), with marine fish products being an impor- tant element in India's export trade. In addition, the sector provides improved employment opportunities in the fishing districts, and augments the protein content in the fishing fleet, with the number of mechanized fishing vessels (MFV) increasing from 3,000 to 11,000. At the same time, marine catch and marine product exports increased at an average annual rate of about 8% and 13% respectively. However, the principal constraints to further growth were been to be the shortage of harbour and fish processing facilities which had not developed in line with the MFV expansion. In recognition of this, various efforts were made by GOI as well as the state Government, to prepare investment proposals for developing such facilities in the coastal states of India. At the same time, other studies (for example, the FAO/UNDP sponsored "Indian Ocean Fishery Commission") pointed out that while there was limited basic catch and effort data available, the general resources were capable of withstanding a considerably increased level of exploitation. 1.02 Based on the above, the Gujarat Fisheries Project, the subject of this completion report, was initiated as the first World Bank financed marine fisheries project in India. Gujarat state, with the longest coastline and the largest continental shelf area, had a very active fishing population and crowded facilities. The number of MFVs operating from Gujarat bases had gone up from 400 in 1965 to 1,300 in 1975. However, in spite of this growth and the fact that the state commands nearly 25% of India's continental shelf, it accounted for only around 12-15% of India's marine catch. 1.03 The project provided for the improvement of fishing harbours, shore facilities and services at Mangro and Veraval, credit for fish net manufac- turing machines, as well as for establishing fish processing, freezing and ice plants, and the construction of MFVs and their sale on credit to fisher- men. In addition, the project provided for assistance to traditional fisher- men by the provision, on credit, of fishing canoes and outboard motors (OBM), and improvement in the fish marketing system and infrastructure serving eight selected fishing villages. Finally, a technical assistance component for test fishing, marketing studies, and project implementation was included. Over a five-year period (1977/78-81/82) the project was estimated to cost US$38 million (Rs 341.7 million). With the exception of the test fishing operations (for which GOI was responsible), and the credit components (to be -2- financed through various participating banks), the implementation respon- sibility for all other components was with the Government of Cujarat (OG), under the Department of Ports and Fisheries (DPF), formerly the Department of Agriculture, Cooperatives, Forest and Fisheries (DACFF), with the Commis- sioner of Fisheries as Project Coordinator. 1.04 A Project Completion Report was prepared by the Project Coordinator in December 1984. That report, along with traditional information provided by the office of the Commissioner of Fisheries, and the Superintendent Engineer responsible for supervising the harbour construction work, provide the basis for this PCR. In addition, this report is based on a review of the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR No. 1326b-IN); the Development Credit Agreement and the Loan Agreement both dated April 22, 1977; World Bank supervision reports and project files; a field visit to the two harbour sites; and dis- cussions with project related staff at both Ahmedabad, and at the ports. Interviews were held with members of the appraisal mission, supervision staff and consultants and with key officials of GOI, COG, DPF, the Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association (GFCCA), and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), formerly Agriculture Refinance Development Corporation (ARDC). II. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, PREPARATION AND APPRAISAL Project Origin 2.01 With the rapid growth in marine fishery activities in the late six- ties and early seventies, particularly by the relatively smaller traditional credit, and a general awareness that considerable marine resources were available for exploitation even within the shallower parts of the continental shelf, GOI was conscious of the need for further investment to promote this subsector. Government efforts were complemented by multilateral and bilateral sources in carrying out investigations and surveys to ascertain the resource availability and the type and scale of investment required. On the marine resource side, the FAO/UNDP sponsored "Indian Ocean Fishery Commis- sion", submitted a 21 volume report in the early seventies summarizing avail- able knowledge on potential resources of the Indian Ocean. In addition, the UNDP-supported "Pre-Investment Survey of Fishing Harbours" (PISFH) project (1968-72) 1/ carried out investigations to identify potential harbour sites for the operation of fishing vessels drawing more than 1.2 meters. Efforts were already being made by GOI and state governments to promote the use of mechanized fishing vessels, and the modernization of fishing craft and gear. 1/ Between 1974-76, the project was also supported by the Swedish Interna- tional Development Authority. -3- 2.02 During this period mutual interest wav expressed by both GOI and the World Bank in initiating a marine fisheries project in India. In 1972 GOI submitted to the WB a report for a possible "Mysore Fisheries Project"; however, at GOI's request, the project was not appraised and was later can- celled. In 1974, GOI submitted broad proposals for an integrated scheme for the development of fishing harbours on both the east and west coast of the country. The WB, however, was not keen on a "harbours only" type of project. It was felt that the wider needs of the marine fisheries subsector needed to be addressed by including components to finance fishing vessels, fish processing and colN storage facilities and marketing, in addition to harbour development, as wir.l as components targetted at small-scale traditional fishermen. For the identification of such a project, the WB requested the FAO/WB Cooperative Programme (CP) to undertake a reconnaissance mission. Reconnaissance 2.03 A four men CP reconnaissance mission visited India in Novem- ber/December 1974, to review marine fisheries development proposals prepared by GOI and various state governments. It was originally intended that the mission would visit the states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. However, at the request of 001, the mission also covered Gujarat, Karnataka and Maharashtra, for which development schemes had been proposed. Based on various factors, including the respective sizes of the continental shelf, estimates of unexploited waters, and stage of project preparation in the different states, the mission recommended the inclusion of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu in a first project. For the state of Gujarat, the proposals included the improvement/development of fishing har- bours, with allied shore facilities, at Veraval and Mangrol, site investiga- tion and additional studies for the Okha and Porbander ports, and the provi- sion of MFVs. The mission identified additional work which would be essen- tial to complete preparation. Identification/Preparation 2.04 As a follow-up to the above, a CP Identification/Preparation mission visited India in July/August 1975. On arrival, the mission found that the earlier mission's report had not been transmitted to the state governments and the data necessary to complete preparation, as identified in that report, had not been collected. After discussions with 001, agreement was reached on the inclusion of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Kerala in a first phase fisheries development project. 2.05 The mission, on visiting fish landing centers, found that the rapid expansion of MFVs had resulted in existing landing facilities becoming heavily congested, ice production insufficient, and consequently, wastage of landed catch was considerable. The primary objective of the project was therefore viewed as being to improve fish quality and reduce waste, by providing suitable facilities for handling the landed fish catch in the three -4- states. A total of seven locations were identified (three in Andhra Pradesh, and two each in Gujarat and Kerala) for improving/developing fishing har- bours. For Gujarat the components included the improvement of port facilities at Veraval and Mangrol (including protected beaches for the land- ing of canoes), provision of shore facilities and services, ice plants, fish freezing and storage plants, --onstruction of 160 canoes with OBMs, and 120 14.8 m MFVs. In addition, 1t was intended that the project would assist in the improvement of existing vessel. through the installation of ice boxes, or the improvement of fish hold insalation. 2.06 While the mission had carried out a more detailed identification of project components, preparation was still incomplete, and reservations about the report, on this account, were expressed in the WB. Furthermore, it was felt that the proposed project did not include adequate support for artisanal fishermen. Finally, it was agreed in the WB that it would not be possible to appraise, at one time, seven sub-projects in three states and that in the first instance, the project should include only one state. Pre-Appraisal/Appraisal 2.07 Based on discussion between GOI and the WB, the state of Gujarat was selected for the first marine fisheries project, with the intention that follow-up projects would cover the other coastal states. In view of the reservations expressed earlier by the WB on the state of project preparation, a WB pre-appraisal mission visited India from May 5 to June 2, 1976. The mission was able to complete preparation and appraise the project. In addi- tion, it assisted NABARD to complete identification of a subproject for traditional fishermen, and subsequently appraised it. An important issue identified at the time of the mission's return from the field related to the existing financing and organizational weaknesses of GFCCA, an institution which was expected to play an important role in project implementation. It was agreed that acceptable proposals, together with an implementation schedule, for the rehabilitation of GFCCA should be a condition of nego- tiations. Project Description 2.08 As designed at appraisal, the project included the following com- ponents: (a) improvement of the fishing harbours at Mangrol and Veraval to permit more MFVs to use these facilities and to provide better protection against adverse weather; in addition, complementary shore facilities and services (such as auction halls, fish drying areas, gear sheds, electricity and water supply, fuel stations, etc.) at Mangrol and Veraval were to be provided to support both the existing fleet and its future expansion which was expected to occur as a consequence of the project; -5- (b) provision of credit to entrepreneurs to establish fish processing, freezing and ice plants at the two harbours; (c) construction and equipping of 270 14.8 m MFVs and their sale on credit and/or hire purchase to cooperatives and fishermen. (d) assistance to traditional fisheries by: (i) the provision, on credit, of 350 9m fishing canoes equipped with outboard motor and gear, and an additional 1,050 outboard motor; (ii) improvement in the infrastructure serving eight fishing villages; and (iii) improvement in the fish marketing system of these villages through the provision of 4 trucks for use by GFCCA and the construction of a marketing shed at each village; (e) provision of two fish net making machines for GFCCA; and (f) technical assistance for: (i) test fishing operations off the coasts of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh; (ii) fish marketing study; and (iii) consultants for project implementation (total of 50 man months, for harbour engineer, rock excavation specialist, fisheries resource management specialist, and management specialist). 2.09 With the exception of the test fishing operations for which GO was responsible, the project was to be implemented by the Government of Gujarat (GOG) with refinance for credit operations, based on a previously prepared Banking Plan being provided by NABARD. A Project Supervision Committee was to be established at state level, which would be responsible for organizing the execution of the project, by delegating responsibilities to appropriate state agencies. Important agencies among the latter were the Gujarat Ports Directorate (now Gujarat Maritime Board) which would provide the engineering staff to supervise harbour constructicn; and the GFCCA, whose functions would include the construction, along with other local builders, of the project financed 14.8m MFVs, importing the OBMs, and assisting in obtaining a supply of canoes for the traditional fishermen. GPCCA would also be a direct beneficiary as the net making machines would be used in its factory; iz would also be eligible for project loans for the construction and operation of shore facilities, such as ice and freezing plants, as well as for the pur- chase of MFVs to be sold under hire/purchase agreements to fishermen. III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Loan Negotiations and Effectiveness 3.01 The negotiations between GOI and the WB for the joint IDA credit/IBRD loan took place between February 7-18, 1977. The Bank's Board of Directors approved the proposed IDA credit of US$4 million and an IBRD loan of US$14 -6- million on March 31, 1977. The credit/loan was signed on April 22, 1977 and became effective on July 19, 1977. Project Changes after Appraisal 3.02 Various changes were made to the project after appraisal. With regard to the harbour component, design changes became necessary, principally to the proposed development at Veraval. Firstly, the layout of the Veraval harbour was changed, as there was rapid growth in the MFV fleet (30% increase between 1977-79). In addition, various other changes to the original design were made on account of results obtained from additional survey and inves- tigation work (see section on harbours below) done after appraisal. The water supply to the harbours was expected, at appraisal, to be provided through the Municipal water supply system. However, this did not material- ize, and independent water schemes, dependent on more distant water sources, had to be formulated and implemented. 3.03 The component for providing credit to entrepreneurs to set up shore facilities (fish processing, ice plants, etc.) was dropped during implementa- tion, as private processing capacity in the project area expanded very rapidly soon after appraisal (see Table 11), and there was no demand for credit for such purposes. The MFV component was scaled down to 168 units (SAR proposal was for 270), as the participating banks were reluctant to provide credit to fishermen for such vessels, in view of their poor experience in recovering past loans. The traditional fishermen component provided financing for 344 dug out log canoes and 6 experimental fiberglass canoes. However, after appraisal, GOI imposed a ban on felling of logs for canoes; thereafter, efforts during implementation were directed at developing a suitable fiberglass canoe and popularizing it among the fishermen. Also under this component, the number of villages assisted was reduced to seven as development in one of the villages was supported by a separate GOI sponsored development scheme. Finally, the services of the fisheries produce manage- ment specialist, as proposed in the SAR, have not been used. Implementation Schedule 3.04 At appraisal, construction of the Ver...ral harbour was expected to be completed by June 1981, and of the Mangrol harbour by December 1980. The implementation of all project components was expected to be completed by December 1981, with a project closing date of June 30, 1983. In fact, the Mangrol harbour was completed in early 1985, while a small amount of work is still outstanding in Veraval, with completion expected in June/July 1986. Because of delays in implementation, the project closing date was extended to June 30, 1984, with disbursements closing on December 31, 1984. -7- Implementation of Harbor Improvement Component 3.05 The proposals for improving the Veraval and Mangrol harbours were mainly related to construction of breakwaters and quays, excavation and dredging, and constructing necessary shore buildings. Other than the onshore buildings and facilities, the principal works carried out under the project include for Veraval the extension of existing breakwater (334 m), construc- tion of new breakwater (500 m), lending and bunkering quays (1,060 m), open berthing jetties (1,120 m), channel and basin excavation, and deepening of the fishing harbour area. For Mangrol the principal works carried out include the extension of breakwater (293 m), construction of a protection arm (185 m), groyne (75 m), quays (394 m), and basin excavation. For details of SAR proposals and actual achievements, in physical terms, refer to tables 4 to 6. Figures 1 and 2 show the layout of the completed harbours. As at March 1986 both harbours have been largely completed, and are operational. However, at Veraval some important dolosse armoring work still remains at the western breakwater head. This work is planned to be completed before the monsoon season, but successful completion depends on the availability of a floating crane which was expected to arrive in March/April 1986. At Mangrol, all the originally proposed works have been completed; however some improve- ments requested by the fishermen are to be carried out. 3.06 Construction Work. The implementation of civil works has not been smooth. There have been changes in harbour layout and design during the implementation period, which resulted in a significant increase in the scope of work, as compared to what was envisaged at appraisal. In addition, the progress of works was hampered by various other factors, which eventually led to the delay in completing construction work on schedule. At appraisal it was expected that tendering and appointment of contractors for the civil works at the two harbours would be completed by November 1977; however, due to various procedural delays, the contracts were Awarded in October 1978, and work began in January 1979. In addition, the contractor was faced with acute shortages in cement and diesel, particularly in the early stages (thereby slowing down progress), the unexpected difficulty in obtaining stones for use as fill material for the breakwaters, as well as much higher escalation of prices for essential commodities than provided for in the escalation clause of the contract. Consequently, the contractor was faced with serious finan- cial difficulties thereby precluding the possibility of accelerating implementation. The dispute between the contractor and COG on price escala- tion was eventually submitted for arbitration in June 1981, and the award was declared in favor of the contractor, in September 1982. The prolonged proceedings caused further delays in completing the works. In addition, three cyclones (two in the fair working season) struck the coast at Veraval, in October/November 1981 and 1982 and in June 1983, causing damage to the open and breakwaters and shore structures. The western breakwater in Veraval suffered further damage during the monsoon of 1984 and 1985, indicating that the completed part was possibly not sufficiently protected by armoring blocks prior to the monsoon season. The breakwater construction at Veraval, which -8- is a major part of the civil works has also been affected by the absence of suitable equipment (floating crane) for adequate performance of armoring works. 3.07 Implementation Problems. Apart from the reasons described above several technical factors have affected the work progress. At Mangrol unex- pected difficulties were faced with dewatering, within the coffer-dam area on account of the fissured nature of the rock bed. In addition, there was unforeseen extensive rock excavation necessary in the harbour basin. 3.08 At Veraval modifications in the layout were made in 1979. The revised layout included significant increase of length of landing and outfit- ting delays, as well as the repair berth. The location of the berthing jetties was changed to the opposite side of the harbour basin and the basin was widened by 50 m which increased the excavation volume. The planned slipway was changed to a straight quay, and it was decided to use a crane for lifting and placing the boats in the repair yard. 3.09 Continuous modifications have been made to the Veraval breakwater design during the implementation period, based on additional investigations carried ouc. First, hydrographic surveys done after appraisal showed deeper contours much closer to the shore along the western breakwater, and deeper depths at the roundhead location. In addition, new data regarding wave heights and wave period had been collected. Based on these additional data, flume-studies were carried out at the Central Water and Pcwer Research Sta- tion (CWPRS), Pune, the results of which provided the basis for the modifica- tions made. The modifications increased the scope of work considerably for both the breakwaters. For the western breakwater it was decided to use 10.5 tons dolosse instead of 5 tons stones (as compared to original estimates) above low-water on the harbour side. It was also decided to raise the top level of the breakwater by 1.4 m, provide a crest-slab and a parapet wall. A significant widening of the berms was also introduced. The eastern break- water was modified similarly resulting in considerable increase of quantities and cost. 3.10 As suggested by the PISFH, further soil investigations were carried out in order to decide final type and level of foundation for the quay. These findings necessitated modifications on the initial design of the quay walls. The absence of continuous rocky stratum was also observed which resulted in opening of a quarry for recovery of fill material. The overall effect of these modifications, has been that a significantly higher volume of work has had to be carried out than originally envisaged (see Table 6). 3.11 For deepening of the harbour area and excavation of an entrance channel, purchase of dredging machinery and equipment was provided for in the project. Considerable delays were experienced in the acquisition of the dredging equipment as GOG proposed dredging to be carried out under contract in preference to acquiring new equipment for departmental operations under -9- the project. Consequently tenders were floated for both alternatives, i.e. acquisition of new equipment as well as contract dredging. Due to lack of experience and the complexities of assessing the two &lternatives, the whole process took a long time. Eventually, it was decided to purchase (import) a heavy-duty cutter section dredger with accessories. After procedural for- malities, agreement for delivery was executed in April 1980. Shipping of the equipment and assembling of the components took another two years and training of operacing personnel took about six months. Combined with this delay 'n acquiring the equipment, the need for dredging a larger area than originally envisaged was found necessary in view of the increase in the size of the basin. The major work with rock and soft dredging was completed by the end of 1984. Dredging is still going on for deepening of an area for future expansion. 3.12 Improvements of Shore Facilities and Services. The improvement of shore facilities and services provided for under the project (other than the fish processing facilities) are mainly related to various buildings (auction halls, gear sheds, workshops, canteen, offices, etc.), electricity, drainage, water supply, and roads. Details of buildings and facilities proposed at appraisal, and actually implemented are shown in Table 4 for Veraval, and Table 5 for Mangrol. The auction hall at Veraval was changed to three halls (instead of one as proposed) though with a small reduction in floor area. Office buildings, canteens and gear sheds have been constructed mainly in accordance with the original plans. At the time of appraisal, a scheme for water supply to Veraval was underway, through the municipal water supply system, which was expected to provide water for the harbour. However, this did not materialize, which necessitated a water supply scheme exclusively for the project. Wells at Hiram River approximately 18 km from the harbour are yielding adequate quantities of potable water for the port. The problems with source of water resulted in both time and cost overrun. Water supply for Mangrol has been linked with a scheme for a fishing village without major problems. Roads and paved areas have been found necessary to construct to a larger extent than envisaged at appraisal. At Veraval road works are still being executed with the aim of completing a ring road around the harbour area; in addition some works have still to be completed with regard to, among others, the auction halls and drainage. Implementation of Other Project Components 3.13 Mechanized Fishing Vessels. As opposed to the appraisal target of 270 14.8m MFVs, a total of 137 14.8m MFVs were financed under the project. Three boat builders were involved in their construction - two government companies (including GFCCA), and one private boat building yard. The modality of financing evolved was that GFCCA would be the primary borrower of the banks for all the MFVs allotted under the project, and they in turn would supply them to the selected beneficiaries under hire/purchase terms. GFCCA was responsible for the recovery of the loans, and its repayment to the banks, for which they were allowed to retain half percent interest margin. -10- 3.14 The loan recovery mechanism, however, did not work well (see para 4.05), and the banks stopped financing MFVs at the end of 1980, as arrears of repayments started accumulating. In November 1980 the boat builders were informed not to start any new keels. In spite of numerous meetings between NABARD, the banks and GOG, the program could not be revived, and it was decided to stop implementation of the component with achievement at 137 MFVs. The annual achievements in physical and cost terms are shown in the table below; credit disbursed by the different banks included under the banking plan in the program is shown in Table 15. Year No. of MFVs Total Total Bank Financed Cost Loans ------ Rs Million ----- 1979/80 84 17.80 16.02 1980/81 45 11.82 9.96 1981/82 8 2.36 1.99 137 33.98 27.97 A major reason for slow loan recovery was the absence of a proper collection system at field level by the banks. 3.15 Canoes. The project provided for 344 traditional dugout log canoes, and 6 fiberglass canoes to test the latter's suitability for Gujarat condi- tions. However, in view of the ban on using logs for canoes, GFCCA focussed its attention on the development of fiberglass canoes. Initially plank built canoes with fiberglass sheeting (two units), and a ferro-cement canoe were tried which did not meet with the approval of fishermen. Thereafter in early 1980, GFCCA obtained a canoe design from an expatriate naval architect. Based on this, experimental prototype fiberglass canoes were constructed, and extensive trials were carried out. Fishermen, who were actively involved in this exercise, suggested various modifications, which.were incorporated. However, the design was eventually discarded in favor of another design based on the characteristics of the traditional canoe which, after testing by fishermen in project aroa village (Sutrapada) and minor modifications, was found acceptable. This entire process considerably delayed the implementa- tion of this component. Further delays were experienced on account of the reluctance of banks to provide loans to fishermen. By December 1984 a total of 40 canoes had been sold, of which 8 had been purchased by fishermen with their own finance, 3 under a Government sponsored credit scheme, and 29 with bank loans (see Table 7). 3.16 Outboard Motors. The project provided for the import of 1,400 OBMs. After international tendering and selection of the model/make of OBM by April 1979, delays were experienced in obtaining an import license from GOI, which -11- was eventually issued in July 1980. A total of 428 OBMs (300 in April 1981, and 128 in September 1982) were imported by GFCCA, along with spare parts (20% of the OBM value). GFCCA experienced considerable difficulties in selling the moturs, as complaints were expressed by the fishermen concerning their performance. Some spare parts are still in stock in March 1986. It took 13 months to sell the first batch of 300, and 14 months for the second batch of 128. While the motors, after the initial troubles, were apparently performing fairly well, fishermen considered their reliability inferior to another competitive make. Consequently, they were willing to pay a premium to acquire the latter. In view of this, the further import of OBMs under the project was discontinued. 3.17 Marketing and Other Infrastructure for Project Area Villages. Of the eight project area villages identified at appraisal, one (Madhwad) was brought under a separate GOI sponsored scheme for the development of minor harbours. For the remaining villages, seven working sheds for marketing purposes, approach roads for five villages, a connecting road between Mangrol harbour and the coastal highway (17.4 km of total roads constructed, as against the SAR provision for 33.5 km), and water supply systems for four villages (SAR provision for five) were constructed. Finally, GFCCA availed finance for three 1ransport trucks (SAR provision was for four trucks). 3.18 Net Making Machines. As provided for under the project, GFCCA acquired two fish net making machines, which were installed in their factory in Ahmedabad in April 1981. Initially, operational problems were experienced as the capacity of the factory's doubling machines, which are an integral part in the net making process, was insufficient to provide the twine neces- sary to keep the two net making machines fully operational. With the neces- sary additional investment, the net making machines are now fully opera- tional, though utilization is extremely low (between 30%-40% of capacity). 3.19 Test Fishing. The proposed test fishing surveys were aimed at resource data collection, as well as improving fishing methods on the con- tinental shelf off the states of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. Executed by the GOI Exploratory Fishing Project (Bombay) between January 1979 and Septem- ber 1981, the ope-ations ended as being largely an exploratory survey, with data being generated which can be useful for the purpose of stock assessment. Consequently, the implementation of the component did not meet the targets set for it at appraisal. The principal conclusion from the survey results was that while demersal and pelagic resources exist in the deeper waters, any judgment on the financial feasibility of commercial exploitation of these resources requires substantial additional information. Because of the high risks involved, commercial activity in this area was not recommended; instead it was felt that the Fisheries Department's efforts should be aimed at improving and diversifying dngoing fishing operations, and the evaluation of a new generatio., of fuel efficient craft. -12- 3.20 Marketing Study. The All-India Marine Fish Marketing study was carried out between March 1979 and August 1981, and an eight volume report was produced. The study reviewed, among others, demand and supply of marine fish, its present marketing system, the availability ind need for infrastruc- tural facilities for marketing, and the economics of fish marketing. A total of 84 cities and towns were included in the sample covering all the eight coastal states of India, five non-coastal states (Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Nagaland and Meghalaya), and the Union Territories of Goa and Delhi. Among the principal findings were that there was inadequate supply to meet demand, and consequently a need to exploit the deep sea fish resources; a move towards more deep sea fishing would require a considerable investment in working capital and supporting infrastructure; present exploitation levels should be studied before further promotion of small MFVs; there was a need to break up the monopoly of fish traders and to regulate fish marketing at both producing and consuming centers; need for investment in retail fish market infrastructure; a need to review the role and performance of cooperatives and corporations. Finally, the setting up of a National Fisheries Board was suggested, to regulate and oversee the entire fisheries sector in the country. Consultants and Contractors 3.21 Consultancy services were provided under the project for the purpose of harbour construction, and for setting up Fisheries Terminal Divisions (FTD) at Veraval and Mangrol. For the former, a harbour engineer and a rock dredging specialist were contracted for a total period of just over four months during project implementation. The harbour engineer has assisted mainly in reviewing the design of the breakwater and the basic planning of the harbour works. He has paid regular visits to the sites from July 1978 to May 1984 in order to review quality of work executed and advise on difficul- ties being faced. The rock dredging specialist has assisted mainly in evaluating the two alternatives for dredging - contract dredging or purchase of dredging machinery. He also visited the manufacturer of the selected dredging equipment to ascertain the suitability of this machinery. In addi- tion, a consulting firm from the UK was engaged for the purpose of FTD estab- lishment. A team of three has used up a total of nearly 17 man-months between 1983-85. Various reports have been produced, and GOG is presently acting on the recommendations made. 3.22 For the harbour constructior. works, tenders were invited globally for Veraval in December 1977, and locally 'or Mangrol in March 1978. For both harbours, the same Indian contractor was awarded the contracts. As described earlier several problems occurred during the construction period; some measures were taken up by the Government to assist the contractor. This included, for example, the provision of Government owned plant (such as extra dump trucks) at favorable rates, to the contractor. -13- Project Cost 3.23 Table 1 shows a comparison between actual costs and estimatea made at appraisal for the different project components. On completion the project had cost Rs 325.5 million (US$34.9 million), which is 95% of the SAR estimate of Rs 341.7 million (US$38 million). Excluding the estimated cost for the shore facilities component, which was not implemented, total actual cost in Rupee terms represent nearly 105% of appraisal estimates. 3.24 There was considerable underachievement of the physical targets set at appraisal for the MFV, canoe and OBM components (51%, 8% and 31% of the targets achieved respectively), with correspondingly lower actual costs. There was however, a cost overrun for the harbour component, with the cost of works at Veraval being 150% of appraisal estimates, and those at Mangrol 112%. The increase is on account of both the larger scope of the work actually carried out at these harbours, and higher price escalation as com- pared to what was envisaged at appraisal (see Tables 4 to 6). Project Financng and Loan/Credit Allocation 3.25 The Bank was expected to finance 47% of the total project cost with the credit/loan of US$18 million, representing the foreign exchange com- ponent, and about 25% of local costs. In spite of the cancellation of the credit component for processing plants and the considerable reduction in the financing provided against the MFV, canoe and OBN components, the eventual total disbursements of US$16.42 million covered approximately 47% of the total project cost. This is on account of the higher disbursement against the dredger and harbour civil works costs than originally envisaged. The final disbursement was made in May 1985, and the undisbursed balance of US$1,580,493 against the loan was cancelled; the IDA credit was wholly dis- bursed. Loan disbursements were far behind the appraisal schedule, prin- cipally on account of delayed implementation (see Table 8). 3.26 Table 9 shows a comparison of the allocation of actual disbursements between the different expenditure categories with the proposed allocation at appraisal. Disbursements under categories 1 (dredging equipment and spare parts) and 3 (civil works, materials and equipment for the harbours, and village approach roads and water supply) exceeded the original allocations by 53% and 18% respectively, while only 29% of the original allocation was disbursed against consultants' services and 34% against loans by NABARD. With regard to the credit component, IDA/IBRD financing was only available to the extent refinance was made available by NABARD on the request of the participating banks. Consequently, while 428 OBMs were procured under the project, finance from IDA/IBRD covered only 60 units, as the rest were pur- chased for cash by the fishermen (see Table 7). -14- IV. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT Implementing Agencies 4.01 As envisaged at appraisal, implementation of the project was coor- dinated by the office of the Commissioner of Fisheries (who was the Project Coordinator), under DPF. A Project Supervision Committee, under the chair- manship of the Secretary, DPF, was established, which met at regular three monthly intervals. At GOI level, a Central Coordination Committee was set up to monitor the progress of this, and later also of the Andhra Pradesh Fisheries project (Credit 815-IN). Harbour construction by contractors was supervised by a Superintending Engineer, with Executive, Deputy and Junior Engineers under him, deputed from the Gujarat Maritime Board (earlier Gujarat Ports Directorate) for the purpose of the project. The implementation of works, particularly for Veraval, have been beset with both technical and contractual problems, as reviewed earlier, leading to considerable delays. In addressing the former and finding technical solutions, support was given to the harbour engineers by CWPRS in Pune, where all the harbour related model-testing was carried out. GFCCA was responsible for the physical implementation of the components related to MFVs, canoes, OBMs, and the net making machines. The credit for these components was disbursed by various participating banks, based on banking plans prepared by NABARD. Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association 4.02 GFCCA was established in 1956 as an apex fishery cooperative institu- tion, registered under the Bombay State Cooperatives Act, 1925. It has a membership of 72 primary societies and over 1,600 individual fishermen. The objective of the Association is to develop the fishing industry of the state, and provide better equipment and machinery to fishermen, as well as a market- ing channel for their catch. At present, its principal activities include procurement and marketing of fresh fish (mainly freshwater fish), development of fresh water reservoirs, processing and export of marine products, manufac- ture and marketing of fishing nets and twine, construction and supply of fishing vessels, and supply of diesel to fishing vessels. The overall management of GFCCA is vested in a board consisting of 16 Directors, with the Commissioner of Fisheries as its Chairman. Its present organization struc- ture is shown in Chart 1. 4.03 At the time of appraisal the need for both organizational and finan- cial strengthening of GFCCA was recognized, and a program of rehabilitation has already been prepared by a firm of private consultants. While no institutional strengthening proposals for GPCCA were included under the project, assurances were obtained at negotiations that a program of rehabilitation would be implemented. During 1977/78, in line with the con- sultants' report, senior staff were hired to fill the posts of Deputy General Manager (Finance), Senior Production Manager, Bombay plant, and a Senior Marketing Manager, and an improved accounting system was introduced. In -15- addition, GFCCA phased out its old ice plants at Mangrol and Veravall sold both its carrier launch and trawler and closed its canning plant. 4.04 While the operations of GFCCA returned a net profit in 1977/78 and 1978/79, the financial situation of the Association has shown a declining trend thereafter up to 1982/83 (see Tables 13 and 14). Heavy losses were incurred, particularly from the operations of the quick freezing plants at Veraval and Bombay. In addition, large investments in fixed assets did not generate a commensurate turnover; between 1977/78 and 1983/84, the value of fixed assets went up by 200%, while sales revenue went up by only 26% (a decline in the fixed asset turnover ratio from nearly 10 to just about 4). For example, the freezing plant installed in Veraval, in 1980/81, had tremen- dous difficulties in procuring raw material (resulting in very low capacity utilization) in competition with the private processors. The latter had well established fish collection systems, backed up by sufficient working capital for providing advances to fishermen. The net making plant at Ahmedabad had a capacity utilization of beween 30-40% during this period. Finally, the cutback in the MFV componetst under the project adversely affected the viability of CFCCA's Boat Building Yard. 4.05 In addition, GFCCA experienced serious liquidity problems during the implementation period. These were primarily on account of banks refusing to provide further working capital loans to GFCCA, in view of the very poor recovery performance on the MFV loans, and the corresponding increase in its debt-equity ratio. As the MFVs were sold to fishermen under a hire-purchase system, with ownership vested in GFCCA (until full payment is completed), the responsibility for recovering the loans also fell on GFCCA. At the time of appraisal, it was expected that with the strengthening of GFCCA's marketing operations, recovery of loans would become easier. However, GFCCA was unable to enforce a commitment by fishermen to sell their catch to GFCCA. 1/ Fisher- men invariably get cash advances from private fish traders, to whom they sell their catch. Consequently, recoveries from fishermen were very poor, and as at 12/31/85, total recoveries effected (Rs 4.32 million) represented only 12% of the amount due (Rs 35.09 million, including interest), as shown in Table 15. In 1981/82, GFCCA set up a loan recovery cell, with only a marginal effect on recoveries. 4.06 The sale of MFVs was financed by loans from the participating banks to GFCCA. Poor recoveries of these loans have resulted in a build-up of liabilities on the CFCCA balance sheet (see Table 13), and without a cor- responding increase in its capital base. 2/ have caused very high debt (long 1/ A Bank Supervision Mission in February 1982 roughly estimated that GFCCA was capturing less than 1% of its entitled catch. 2/ Share capital was increased by Rs 1.2 million, with a contribution from GO in 1982/83, and a similar increase is expected in 1985/86. -16- term)-equity (including reserves) ratios. As at 6/30/85, the latter was 14:1, as compared to 4:1 as at 6/30/80 (as at 6/30/83) it went to its highest level at 59:1). 1/ As GFCCA was unable to even meet its loan interest com- mitments to the banks, the latter were reluctant to provide further loan finance even for the Association's working capital requirements. 4.07 In recognition of the above situation, COG appoint)d a Committee in 1981/82 to work out a plan aimed at improving the performance of GFCCA. Among the principal recommendations of the report, submitted in July 1982, were: (a) strengthen GFCCA's capital base; (b) relieve GFCCA of the respon- sibility for MFV loan recovery; (c) provide a revolving fund for off-season advances to fishermen. Various proposals have been submitted to Government, based on this report, and the decisions are awaited. Fishermen's Primary Cooperative Societies 4.08 At appraisal, it was proposed that loans for the purchase of canoes and OBMs by fishermen would be processed through the Fishermen's Primary Cooperative Societies (FPCS); in addition, the latter were expected to play an important role in fish marketing. With regard to the first, the role of FPCS was negligible in view of the reduced scope of the component, as com- pared to what was proposed at appraisal. In connection with the latter, while there are 10 societies in the 8 project villages (see Table 16), only 2 (with a total of only 98 canoes) are presently linked with GFCCA for fish marketing (at Sutrapada and Dhamlej). Consequently, marketing intervention by GFCCA in the project fishing villages has been limited. However, to promote FPCS in the project villages, COG introduced a scheme whereby the services of qualified and experienced personnel to work as secretary/manager were provided at subsidized cost, for a period of three years. In addition, training is imparted at an institute managed by the Department of Coopera- tion, to nominees from FPCS. Fisheries Terminal Division 4.09 As provided for at appraisal, FTDs were set up at both ports in 1978 under the office of the Commissioner of Fisheries. During the period of implementation the units were essentially involved in monitoring and coor- dinating the progress of project works. A draft bill for setting up a Fishery Terminals Authority, with all ports in the state under its purview, has been formulated and is presently being reviewed by GOG. 4.10 With the commissioning of the Mangrol harbour, the FTD there has assumed its originally intended role; in Veraval, this is expected to occur 1/ Under the Cooperative Societies Act, the maximum debt-equity ratio per- mirsible is 10:1. -17- by September 1986. The harbour facilities managed by the FTD include: berthing and landing facilities, auction halls, gear sheds, diesel and water supply, ice crushing, canteen, parking and lighting facilities. Headed by the Director, Fisheries Development Division, the present and proposed staff- ing of the two FTDs is shown in Table 10. At present some minor charges (on water use, auction hall facilities, and vehicle entry) are being levied by the FTD in Mangrol on some of the users. The consultants, provided for under the project, have made recommendations in their report for imposing a broad range of levies aimed at recovering FTD costs over a three-year period. The report is presently being reviewed by GOG, with some aspects already having been implemented. Accounting and Reporting 4.11 Separate accounts were maintained for the different major categories of project expenditures. As envisaged at appraisal, the usual Government control and auditing procedures operated for expenditures incurred by GOI and GOG; this includes the accounts of GFCCA, all of which up to the latest completed financial year 1984/85 have been audited. The funds used by NABARD for refinancing the credit components were subject to the audit requirements set out under other IDA/Bank projects; no special arrangements were envisaged for this project. 4.12 As required under the terms of the loan, a statistics cell was set up in the office of the Commissioner of Fisheries, headed by a senior statis- tician. Production surveys were conducted every fortnight at the fishing centers, and annual reports (1978-79 to 83/84) submitted to the World Bank. A biennial census of fishing crafts was carried out in 1977, 1979, 1981 and 1983, and detailed reports produced. In addition, a base-line survey of fish processing and ancillary industries was conducted in 1977, a baseline socio-economic survey of fishermen in 1978, and a survey of the credit-recipients under the project is presently in progress. Compliance with Covenants 4.13 In general, the covenants agreed with GOI, have been complied with satisfactorily. However, GOI has yet to complete its review of cost recovery of investments in fishing harbours. Such a review has been under considera- tion for several years. V. PROJECT IMPACT Intended Impact 5.01 At the time of appraisal, the expected benefits from the project were assessed principally in terms of the incremental fish production from the project financed fishing fleet, as well as the net value added and ice production from the proposed fish processing facilities. Based on this, the -18- annual incremental output of fish from project vessels was estimated at 44,600 tons (including 3,700 tons of shrimp). In addition, annual production of ice from the plants at Veraval and Mangrol was expected to go up by approximately 52,000 tons, while the incremental fish processing units would allow for 1,500 tons of shrimp and 2,000 tons of fish meal (equivalent to 10,000 tons of raw material) to be processed annually. Based on these projected benefits, an economic rate of return (ERR) of 24Z was estimated for the project as a whole. In addition, ERR for individual project com- ponents were also estimated. Assessment of Actual Project Impact 5.02 Considerable downward revisions have taken place in the number of MFVs, canoes and OBMs actually financed under the project. In addition, the component for establishing fish processing facilities was eliminated during the implementation of the project. As the project has been implemented, it has become essentially an infrastructure based project, with 75% of actual total costs being for harbour improvement (as opposed to 50% at appraisal). Only 13% of actual costs are made up of expenditures on direct production components (MFVs, canoes, OBMs and net making plant) as opposed to 36% estimated at appraisal. Consequently, the impact of the project must be assessed in terms of the effect of harbour construction on overall fishery related activities in the area, in which there has been considerable expan- sion during the project period. This would include the development of private sector fish processing capacity, the quantity and quality of fish landed, and most important the level of utilization of the harbour facilities created. 5.03 Harbor Utilization. At the time of appraisal, there was a fleet of 95 MFVs operating out of Mangrol and about 400 NFVs out of Veraval (SAR paras 3.03 and 4.04). At completion of project works, it was estimated that Mangrol would be able to handle 110 MFVs at a time (with a capacity to accom- modate 165 MFVs during emergencies), while Veraval would be able to handle 700 MFVs. As shown in Table 17 an estimated 180 MFY trawlers are presently operating out of Mangrol and 750 NFV trawlers out of Veraval. In addition, there are a few MFV gillnetters also operating out of these harbours, but figures are not available. While the harbour at Mangrol hab been completed in all respects, and all facilities are being utilized, some minor works (other than completing the western breakwater) have still to be completed at Veraval, in connection with among others, the auction halls (which are expected to be completed by the middle of 1986), and moving the bunkering facilities to the location of the jetties. A large number of fishermen (around 40%) are still landing their prime quality fish on the commercial harbour side (for the trash fish they use the new harbour), and consequently the jetties are not being fully utilized. This is partly on account of its proximity to their houses. However, once the auction halls are completed and become operational, and the oil and water points are moved to the jetties, there will be a move away from the commercial harbour. At any rate, the -19- number of vessels operating out of these harbours is already greater than their original design capacity. In view of the expected further growth in vessels number, an expansion in the capacity of both harbours is already being discussed by the Government. 5.04 Fishing Vessels and Fish Landings. The number of fishing veusels has substantially increased in the project area during the period of project implementation. The period 1977-83, for which data is available from the census carried out under the project, shows a 25% increase in the total number of vessels operating in the project area (see Table 17). There was a more than 50% increase in the number of mechanized vessels (increase of 320 MFVs, and 427 motorized canoes) during the same period. However, only a relatively small percent of this increase has been financed out of the project. In addition to an increase in the number of fishing vessels, there has also been an increase in the number of fishing days per vessels. With the protected harbour facilities available, boats are fishing during part of the monsoon season; this was not possible earlier, as boats were beached during this period. However, while detailed data are not available, discus- sions with fishermen indicate that catch per unit effort is beginning to show a declining trend. This has resulted in fishermen making longer trips fur- ther away from the port. At Mangrol, fishermen reported making trips to the far north, close to the Indo-Pakistan border. This way, they are able to maintain absolute catch levels. 5.05 Detailed data have been collected on fish landings in the project area, and this is summarized in Table 18. As can be seen, total landings have fluctuated over the years, though there is an increasing trend. Total fish landings in the project area have increased from 73,000 tons in 1977/78 to nearly 138,000 tons in 1984/85. In particular, there has been a marked increase in total landings during 1983-85. However, this does not represent the total catch of the fleet operating out of the fishing ports. This is on account of the fact that the fleet registered in Veraval and Mangrol operates in the entire west and southwest coast of Gujarat, and their entire catch is not always landed at these ports. 5.06 While data on average annual catch per vessel are not available, data on fish landings for the different types of vessels have been collected. This is summarized below, in terms of maximum and minimum landings, for 1981/82 and 1982/83. 1981/82 1982/83 Vessel Type Max. Min. Max. Min. ------------- tons ------------ 14.8 m MFV 238 112 279 82 Canoe with OBM 41 23 56 16 Non-Powered Canoe 27 7 48 5 -20- Given that the above figures are the extremes, and after discussions with fishermen, average catch per vessel has been conservatively estimated at 135 tons (17% higher than SAR estimates) for MFV trawlers, 17 tons (6% higher than SAR estimates) for canoes with OBM, and 12 tons (9% higher than SAR estimates) for non-powered canoes. Based on this, annual incremental catch from the project supported vessels only (137 MFVs, 29 Canoes, and 428 OBMs) is estimated at around 21,000 tons (including 1,300 tons of shrimp). However, as mentioned earlier, these figures significantly underestimate project impact on fish production. Between appraisal (1976) and now there has been an increase of 435 MFV trawlers using the two harbours constructed. In addition to the other vessels (gillnetters and motorized canoes) also operating out of these harbours. Annual incremental production from the 435 MFV trawlers is estimated at around 59,000 tons (including 4,100 tons of shrimp). 5.07 Fish Processing Facilities. Proposals were included in the project for financing various types of fish processing units, none of which were actually implemented. This was on account of the fact that the private fish processing industry developed considerable capacity of such units, soon after the project started, and there was no furter demand for credit thereafter. The proposals at appraisal, and the actual capacity created outside the project, are summarized in the table below (details are shown in Tables 11 and 12): Incremental Capacity Incremental Capacity (1976-85) Proposed at Appraisal Set up by Private Sector Ice Plant 475 tpd 288 tpd Ice Storage 1,000 tons 1,142 tons Freezing Plant 28 tpd 181 tpd Freezing Storage 750 tons 2,635 tons Fishmeal Plant 75 tpd 60 tpd (raw material) (raw material) As can be seen, the incremental capacity set up independently of the project significantly exceeds the appraisal proposals, with the exception of the ice and fishmeal plants. It would be fair to assume that much of this investment would not have taken place without the investment in the harbours, which was largely responsible for the significant increase in fishing vessels. Fishermen's Income from Vessels 5.09 Operating income and cash flow statements have been prepared for the investments in vessels financed under the project (14,8 m MFVs, canoes with -21- OBM, and OBM for an existing non-mechanized canoe). These are given in Tables 21 to 23. Prices used in the analysis are the average of prices obtained by fishermen in the lapt three years (1982/83-1984/85). As men- tioned earlier, the average annual catch of a MFV is estimated at 135 tons, while that of a canoe with OBM at 17 tons (12 tons for canoe without OBM). The results are summarized below: 14.8 m MFV Canoes with OBM OBM only Item SAR Present SAR Present SAR Present Net Operating Income 84 158 9 53 4 12 Net Cash flow 91 91 3 37 3 10 FRR 53% 40% 30% 75% 55% 121% As can be seen the net income and cash flow generated are much higher than those estimated at appraisal. This is on account of both a higher actual catch per vessel than what was estimated at appraisal, as well as significant increase in fish prices (Table 19). It is also clear that MFV owners should be able to repay their loans from the income generated. Re-estimated Economic Rates of Return 5.09 An economic re-evaluation has been undertaken of the two harbours, as well as of the investments in the different types of fishing vessels. The analysis has been carried out in constant 1985/86 average prices, with past expenditures restated in 1985/86 price terms by using the wholesale price index (WPI). Phased investment costs, in financial terms, for the two har- bours are shown in Tables 2 and 3. After deducting estimated taxes, the costs restated in 1985/86 prices have been converted to economic values by using the standard conversion factor (SCF) of 0.80. 5.10 For the purposes of re-estimating the ERRs of the two harbours, the benefits from MFVs only have been included. These have been estimated from the project financed MFVs (105 in Veraval and 32 at Mangrol); in addition, it is assumed the 50% of the increase in non-project financed vessels is the result of the project investment in the harbours (106 MFVs included for Veraval, and 37 for Mangrol). It is believed that the latter assumption is conservative, as prior to the project investment the harbour capacity was already fully utilized, and a significant increase in vessels would not have been possible. It has been aE med that local financial prices for shrimp and higher category fish (Cl ana C2) reflect their economic value; lower category (C3 and C4) fish have been treated as non-traded goods. The catch for years prior to 1985/86 has been valued at the then prevailing prices, restated in constant 1985/86 terms, by using the World Bank published manufacturing unit value index for the former, and the WPI for the latter to which the SCF of 0.80 was applied. -22- 5.11 All investment costs related to the harbours and the cost of the incremental MFVs have been included in the analysis; in addition, a provision has been made for the replacement cost of MFV engines after a period of ten years. Based on a period of analysis of 20 years, the ERR for the Veraval harbour has been re-estimated at 13% (appraisal estimate - 18%), and Mangrol at 20% (appraisal estimate - 16%). Details of the analysis are shown in Tables 24 and 25 respectively. In reviewing these figures, it is necessary to recognize that while there was a 50% cost overrun for Veraval, it was only 12% for Mangrol. In addition, the actual average catch per vessel as observed over the last few years was between 10-20% higher than that estimated at appraisal. However, in many cases this has required longer trips and consequently higher operating costs for the MFVs. Finally, the prices of marine fish have shown an increasing trend, with weighted average prices considerably higher than what they were at the time of appraisal. 5.12 The re-estimated ERRs for the MFVs (53%, as compared to SAR estimate of 48%), canoes (99%, SAR estimate was 31%), and the OBMs (over 60% as estimated in SAR), show that these investments are economically beneficial, as envisaged at appraisal. Finally, an ERR for the project as a whole has also been estimated by including the costs and benefits from the financing of 428 OBMs and 29 canoes, and the investment costs for the permanent sheds, roads and the trucks. The costs of water supply for the villages, the net making machines for GFCCA, and the technical assistance costs related to exploratory fishing, the marketing study, and for the fisheries terminal division have been excluded from the analysis (as in SAR). Based on the cost and benefit profiles shown on Table 26, an ERR of 16% has been re-estimated. This compares with the SAR estimate of 24%. VI. BANK PERFORMANCE Overall Performance 6.01 Despite delays in implementation, IDA/Bank assistance under the project has resulted in the development of essential infrastructure to sup- port the marine fisheries sub-sector at a time when the need for such facilities was being keenly felt. However, with the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious that the scope of the project, as eventually designed at appraisal, was too ambitious. It was optimistic to expect that GFCCA, with identified organizational and financial weaknesses, would be able to substan- tially increase its level of activities, and implement the various components for which it had complete or partial responsibility (MFVs, canoes, OBMs, net making plants, and fish marketing), on the scale envisaged, over a four to five year period. Appraisal expectations that GFCCA would increase its share in fish marketing also did not materialise, leading to loan recovery problems. The traditional fishermen's component, while no doubt important, did not receive the attention it merited in a project dominated by essential infrastructure development. Consequently, the intended impact through the -23- improvement of fish marketing in the project villages did not materialise. Finally, while the complexities of constructing the marine works proposed were recognised at appraisal, not enough time was provided in the implementa- tion schedule for additional survey work needed. In view of the significant changes made in the design and scope of work (particularly at Veraval), and the considerable survey and testing work that had to be undertaken during implementation, it is obvious that the appraisal of the project was prema- ture. Given the overall implementation experience of the project, the approach adopted by the Bank towards a multi-component, broad based "integrated" project has not been proven to be justified. Supervision 6.02 A total of 11 supervision missions were fielded by the Bank between June 1977 and October 1983. The composition of the missions was technically strong, and there was good continuity of staff between missions. The latter was particularly important, given the complexities and technical difficulties experienced during the implementation of the project. It resulted in con- structive dialogue and rapport between Bank staff and those of the implement- ing agencies. As a result of suggestions made by the Bank during supervi- sion, additional survey and model testing work was undertaken particularly with regard to the harbour developments proposed for Veraval. In addition the missions made concerted efforts by discussions with the various agencies, as well as by making specific recommendations, to expedite the pace of project implementation. The frequency of supervision missions was adequate. However, given that the closing date of the project was extended by a year, and that there were various problems being faced, there should have been further supervision of the project beyond October 1983. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 7.01 In assessing the overall contribution of the project, and for the purpose of drawing conclusions from the experience gained during implementa- tion, the project must be viewed in two parts. Insofar as the investment in fishing harbours and complementary shore facilities and services is con- cerned, the project has no doubt made a positive impact, and resulted in a significant development of different facets of marine fisheries activities in the project area. To a large extent, the near doubling of the MFV trawler fleet, as has happened between 1976-1986, is the result of stimulation provided by the investment in the harbours. In addition to increasing marine fish production, the investment has also stimulated overall economic activity within the project's area of influence, and led to significant increases in the incomes of local fishermen. 7.02 However, the achievement of project targets for the other direct production components was poor. The principal drawback was the inability of the existing institutions to handle the components which were large in rela- tion to their implementation capability, as well as to solve the problems -24- which emerged. The implementation of the MFV component faced serious dif- ficulties, with significant implications on the financial viability of GFCCA. At the same time however, an achievement of the project has been the success in designing a fiberglass canoe, which has now become popular with tradi- tional fishermen. 7.03 Various lessons can be learned from the implementation experience of this project. The principal ones are: a) It is desirable to have adequate investigation and design for major works completed prior to loan negotiations. This is particularly important where complex civil works such as breakwaters are involved. Where this is not possible, the implementation schedule needs to provide adequate time for such pre-construction investigational activities. b) When significant design changes take place after appraisal, it is necessary to ensure that provision of critically important equipment (in this case a floating crane) required for successful completion of works is ensured either by being available with the contractor, or provision made for its early acquisition. c) The physical scale of components should be designed in a manner which is not too ambitious in terms of the implementation capability of the directly involved institutions. d) Particular attention should be paid to the design of credit recovery from beneficiaries when this is through an institution which does not control a large part of the market output and when the lending banks do not have sufficient field ofices and staff for loan recovery. GOI has suggested that credit should be routed through the State Fisheries Directorate where loan recoveries have been more success- ful. e) Due consideration should be given to fishermen's choice in the procurement of eqnipment (in this case OBMs), as their efficient use requires acceptability of the make/model. f) It is desirable to involve beneficiaries in designing the equipment whi-h they are expected to use (as has happened in the case of the fiberglass canoes). g) The local implementing agencies acknowledge the active support they received from WB Supervision missions. This points to the desirability of having continuity of a technically strong Bank super- vision team, as has occurred in this project. INDIA fiUAAL I 1Ah.RJECJ (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Comoarison of Anuralsal and Actual Costs Anoaisal Eatima At4als AAr%uI als.u l.en.l LIte Units Rs'AOO I/ &iLS9D0 .1/ Onh I Bas R MUO USS*000 a/ Pail R-twes is arbour Improvement Masigrof 32.370 3.596 36.353 2/ 3.765 112 11P Veravat 138-508 IS,39 ZM6000 2' 21.i16 150 138 sub-Total 70.878 18.988 244.353 24.933 143 11 shuse Facilities Mangrol 5.741 638 vesaval 25-635 2A12&4 A/ P I I Sub-Total 31.376 3.466 294 36 9 1 L M0tsassised Fishing Vassels 210 66.888 7.432 137 33.971 4.212 S4 6I 61 Isaditional Fishermen Component rastoes. $"cf. nets & equipment 350 11.674 1.297 29 1.843 165 8 6.: 08Ms 1.400 12.132 1.348 428 4.132 504 31 34 :? Permanent Sheds 6 583 65 7 633 73 88 109 112 Roads 33.5 km 3.982 442 17.4 *m 2.53) 293 52 64 66 Water Supply 5 units 3,687 410 4 units 2.905 337 80 79 a1t Trucks 4 696 .. 11 3 382R Ai 75 s 62 1Mltal 32.754 3,639 12.426 1.420 38 39 Net Making Machines 2 1.802 200 2 2.035 256 IOU 113 129 Techutcal Assistatoce 37.976 4.220 32,411 4.UZI as 96 EgQAL 341.674 37.963 325.496 34.88l 95 92 1/ Price contingencies have been distributed among the component costs on an approxtmate basis. in the absence of a detati"d annually phased project cost table in the SAP. .I See Tables 2 & 3 for details; the cost tor Veraval includes RaS million estimated for completing works. .2 The tolouing rates ot exchange (Ra per US$) have been used- . 978/79 - Ps8.211 1979/80 14613.08: 1980/89 - at7.89. 1981/82 - sS.93; 1982/83 - Ps9.63; 1983/84 - RsVO.31t 1984/85 - Rsll.89$ 1986/86 - As12.20. _/ Cost of a study undeltaken by consultants for the GFCCA. GUJARAT FtSHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Actual Exoenditures on Harbour Imurovement and Shore Facilities - Veraval Harbour (Rs*000) 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 t983/84 1984/85 1985/86 a Totil Breakwater 352.6 1,722.5 4.399.8 4,024.2 6.366.3 8,352.9 9,185.1 2,155.6 36.559.0 Landing Quay - 111.6 - 3,210.6 1,440.8 198.5 1,318.3 598.1 6.877.9 Berthing Jetty - - - - 523.9 1,790.1 1,595.8 4J3.2 4.343.0 Oredging of Harbour 2.174.7 5.292.3 5.957.1 1.005.6 30.685.3 3.366.3 2.609.4 147.9 31.238.5 Cofferdam - - 204.0 - 510.0 - - 306.0 I.020.0 Repair Facilities - Civil Works - - - - 432.1 2,798.8 428.3 3.669.2 - Crane for Boats - - 3.295.9 - - - - - 3,296.9 . Foot Overbridge - - - - - - 123.3 83.8 207.1 Construction Plant 1.909.5 - - - 3.206.1 - - - 5.Its.6 Dredging - Purchase of Equipment 9.9 3.7 21.833.3 3,986.5 - - - - 25.833.4, - Operating Cost - - 0.8 516.0 2.223.7 3.195.3 4,435.5 2.40.3 12.781.4 Ruads and Pavements 193.1 29.1 13.9 to ' 182.5 172.2 3,473.5 1.918.8 5,991.a Auction Halls 534.7 97.7 - 339.8 3,391.5 1,137.7 5.501.4 Management Building 278.6 35.8 3.6 26,.. 7.9 6.7 - - 354.2 Canteen Building 143.1 0.9 - - - 3.6 - - 147.6 Workshop - 121.7 - - - 87.5 130.7 16.7 356.6 Gear Shed - 21.5 0.9 218.0 121.3 36.2 531.6 - 929.5 Office Building - - - - - 109.1 272.4 381.5 Fencing - 104.3 139.0 0.4 - 160.7 806.2 153.9 1.364.5 Navigational Aids - 3.9 - - - 87.3 38.0 3.9 112.9 Water Supply - 519.4 153.7 7.6 5.018.5 77.3 4.012.7 107.8 9.897.0 Electrification - - - - - - 1.749.2 865.4 2.614.6 Drainage - - 12.1 30.9 - - 700.0 - 743.0 we Establishment 47.5 81.2 52.5 29.1 30.3 82.3 97.1 4.7 424.7 Contingencies & Miscellaneous 515.1 296.5 600.3 375.9 553.3 1,564.6 966.5 312.1 5.184.3 Cyclone Damage - - - 353.7 3.90.9 1,168.1 - - 4.712.7 Differential Cost on Materials 790.4 - - - 245.5 3.788.9 5.912.7 1.224.0 31.961.5 Price Escalation - 24.2 734.5 1.66il.9 4,604.1 .960.5 1.,296.1 - § . IL sub-Totia 6,947.2 8.656.3 37,401.4 15,451.7 38,910.4 26.870.7 45,261.1 13.200.7 suz.699.5 Estimated Cost for Completion 1'.. J00.!, N1i%tg: Office of the Project Superintending Engineer. G (A'.9-1fi.S dit PRO6JECTH (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Actual Ex0enditures on tarbour ImuroveSent and Shore Facilities - Mangral Harbour (Rs 000) 1978/79 1979/80 1960/81 1981/82 1982/83 JJW.L"d "8g4gs 1985/86 12tal 1.eakwaters 3,549.7 3,181.7 2.155.4 1.422.8 536.8 584.5 2.922.0 336.3 12.689.z Bast Excavation 345.1 267.8 427.2 736.6 4.41.0 459.8 - 1.005.6 7.653.1 Quays & Jettles - 292.8 - - 494.8 592.9 - 345.9 1.776.4 . Shore Works - 566.9 263.7 527.4 572.0 1.831.2 3.776.2 198.7 7.73:.1 water Supply 9.6 - 506.9 282.1 23.8 59.1 14.3 - 895. I EMectrification - - 5.5 37.5 65.9 49;e.0 - 680.9 Navigational Aids - - - - 34.7 - 3.3 14.0 32.0 Cyclone Damages - - 5.1 77.7 46.4 34.5 - 363.1 Miscellaneous Expenses 24.2 - - * - - - - 24.2 W.C. Contingencies 24.9 22.7 66.) 6.1 103.6 620.7 38.9 - 083.0 Differential on Cost of Materials (223.5) 56.3 191.3 (100.3) 239.4 891.5 (22.9) 262.9 3.294.7 Price Escalation - 9. z9i 1 1A.061.3 ___U_L_ J .A) V . 2 V 1 3 Total Cost 1,730.0 4,483.4 3.859.7 3.380.7 7.552 6 6.30.3.4 7.260.3 2.4N..4 36.352.5 Sonurae Office of the Project Superiestenaing Engineer. 44 - 28 - TabLe 4 INDIA GUJARAT FISAERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Cogarson of Appraised and Actual Iwmrovements Veraval Item .aet At!!l Extension of Existing Breakwater 334 . 334 . Construction of New Breakater 500a 500 a Reclamation of Beach Area 7.5 ha 17.5 ha Construction of Landing & Bunkering Quays 535 w 1,060 m Construction of Open Berthing Jetties 1.120 a 1,120 Deepening of Fishing Harbour Area 100,000 m3 135,000 .3 Basin Excavation (Land) * 899,730 m3 Excavation of a 45 m wide Entrance Channel Approx. I km Approx. 1 km Construction of Slipway with Cradle 1 fo. Replaced by Crane Construction of New Paved Roads Y 1.9 km Construction of New Roads Without Paving 1/ 2.6 ko Asphalt Paving of Existing Roads 1/ 2.3 km Auction Hall - Number I No. 3 Nos. - Area 8,250 .2 7,500 .2 Trash-Fish Platform 2,500 .2 Offices 1/ 532m2 Canteen and Shops / 355.2 Gear Sheis 2.250 2 1,494 2 Work Shops 1,250 .2 450 2 Auction Hall Office y 240.2 Surfaced Areas: Net Drying Area Y 4,935 2 Parking Area 1/ 6,580 .2 Fencing 1/ 2.575. Navigation Aid 1/ 2 fos ater Supply 2,000 tons/day 2,270 tons/day Drainage Adequate Adequate Electricity Supply 40 mo 40 w Site for Fuel Supply Adequate Adequate / Physical targets not specified in SAR. - 29 - TabLe 5 SUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IM) Comparison of Appraised and Actual ISprovemts LnMro . item Ib!mt 6A9tal Extension of Breakwater 250a 293 a Protection Am 190 a 185 a Greyne 75 Basin Excavation 8,000a3 Quays as5 394 Formation of Protected Beach for Canoes y Fomation of Land Area for Fishing Related Activities 2 ha V Construction of Roads y 5.71a Construction of Paved Areas 11,845 a2 Auction hall 1,950 a2 1,950 a2 Off ces 398 m2 canteen y 296 Bear Shed 200 m2 400 Q Water Supply 245 tons/day V Electric Supply Adequate Adequate Drainage Adequate Adequate Fish Drying Area y V Workshop 240 a2 Deleted Site for Fuel Adequate Adequate / Physical targets not specified in SAR. / Extent of work carried out not known. 一了クー THIS PAGE 15 BLANK 31 - Table 6 Page 1 INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (loan 1394-IN/credit 695-1M) PbXsical Parameters of Principal Works Physical Contract Revised Status Ouantit Dec=eer 1985 Tw Veraval Western Breakwater stones 1-200 kg 201,000 tons 3750000 tons 448,365 tons Armor Rocks 0.2-2.6 T 88,000 tons 120,900 tons 202.080 tons Dolosse 5 T 3,765 3,414 5,210 12 T 1,240 3,964 4*222 Eastern.Breakwater Stones 1-200 kg from qua"y*. 17,200 tons 91,930 tons 154,109 tons from excavation: 69,400 tons 20,758 tons Armor Rocks 0.2-2.5 T 49,100 tons 51,350 tons 81.980 tons Dolosse 5 T 940 Nos 1JO0 Nos 2,506 Nos 12 T - 1$340 Nos 608 Nos Concrete Grouting 850 m3 2,445 m3 Deleted Capping Slab & Crown Wall - - 8,136 m3 (WBW + EBW) Excavation (land) 708,000 m3 900,000 m3 899,730 m3 Dredging Rock 25,000 m3 25,000 m3 29,700 m-* Soft 110,000 m3 110,000 m3 91,100 M3 Berthing Jetties 8.300 m3 8,619 m3 8,619 m3 Quay Walls 15,440 m3 24,502 m3 23,616 m3 Source: Office of Projects Superintending Engineer. - 32 - Table 6 Pa-ge 2 Physical Parameters of Principal Works PhIsical Contract Revised Status Components Guantityy DecemberT985 Mangrol Western Breakwater Stones 1-200 kg 107,250 tons 107,250 tons 113,593 tons Armor Rocks 0.5-2.5 T 66,200 tons 62,000 tons 46,668 tons Dolosse 2 T 1,659 Nos 1,600 Nos 1,600 Nos 5 T 1.400 Nos 1,575 Nos 1,575 Nos 12 T 816 Nos 816 Nos 753 Nos Rock Excavation (Basin and Land) 54,000 m3 55,175 m3 85,010 3 Block Work for Coffer-Dam 1,310 m3 1,310 m3 1,310 m3 Quays 360 m 360 m 394 m Eastern Breakwater Stones 1-200 kg 55,760 tons 35,000 tons 40,800 tons Armor Rocks 0.5-2.5 T 28,000 tons 27,440 tons 12,238 tons Dolosse 2 T 1,023 Nos 100 Nos 109 Nos 5 T . 450 Nos 450 Nos Capping Slab & Crown Wall - 5,464 m3 - 33 - - Table 7 INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-:N/Credit 695-IN) Financing of Credit Components Item ProJect Total Bank Loans NABARO Refinance Units 7o-s No. Rs'00 No. Rs'00W MFVs 137 33,977 137 27,967 137 22,325 OSMS 428 4,132 60 1/ 185 60 148 Canoes with OBMs 29 1,843 29 1,050 20 g/ 755 Net Making Machines 2 2,035 2 1,628 2 1,221 Trucks 3 382 3 260 3 208 1/ Only a small percentage (14%) of the OMs procured under the project were purchased by fishermen on credit. 2/ Of the 29 canoes with O8Ms for which loans were given by the banks, refinance from NABARD was only sought for 20. -34 - TabLe 8 INDIA GUJARAT FISERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Schedule of Disbursements (Cumulative) 1/ IRD Actual Disbursement as Fiscal Year Apraisal Actggl Percent of Apraisal and Quarter Estimate Disbursement Estimates .....(USS Million)..... 1978 (1) * - (2) - * (3) * (4) 2 - - 1979 (1) 5 - - (2) 1.1 - (3) 1.8 5 28 (4) 3.0 1.1 37 1980 (1) 4.3 1.5 35 (2)* 5.5 1.6 29 (3) 6.8 .3.0 44 (4) 8.3 3.6 43 1981 (1) 9.8 4.0 41 (2) 11.4 6.7 59 (3) 13.0 7.5 58 (4) 14.0 10.1 72 1982 (1) 15.0 10.4 69 (2) 16.0 11.2 70 (3) 17.1 11.3 66 (4) 17.4 12.0 69 1983 (1) 17.7 12.3 69 (2) 18.0 12.3 68 (3) 18.0 13.2 73 (4) 18.0 13.9 77 1984 (1) 18.0 13.9 77 (2) 18.0 13.9 77 (3) 18.0 13.9 77 (4) 18.0 13.9 77 1985 (1) 18.0 15.4 86 (2) 18.0 15.8 88 (3) 18.0 16.1 89 (4) 18.0 16.4 &/ 91 Date of last disbursements May 10, 1985. 1/ Together for both the IDA Credit (US$4 million) and the WS Loan (USS14.0 million). 2/ The undisbursed balance of VS$1.58 million from the Loan was cancelled; tae IDA Credit was disbursed n full. INAIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Allocation of Credit/Loan Proceeds Anr&ia.t - -Actual DVsbusement Actual Allocation 1LU.DERdit LLoaf% Ttal of Anoraisat ......... (US$OOO)......................... () Dredging equipment and spare parts 1.400 1.7 2,145.6 2.147.3 153 1 (2) Civil works, materlals and equipment for Parts A(l) and A(3) of the project 7.900 2.043.4 7.2S3.6 9.297.0 its 11; 13) Consultants' services 600 42.5 132.9 175.4 29 (4) Cost of marketing study and test fishing operat Itoos 3.400 1.260.9 1.927.7 3.188.6 94 I5) Loans by AROC (now NABARD) as described under Schedule 3 of the OCA 4 Agg egl* 9.7.Thl 1.,61.2 34 Tutu% 18.000 4.000.0 12.489.5 16.419.5 91 Amount Casice l et - I.580.5 I.58. Original Credit/Loan Amount L.fD14.000-0 18.00,0 1/ No realocation of loan proceeds was carried out. - 36 - TabLe 10 INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1194-IN/Credit 695-IN) Proposed and Present Staffing of FTDs Veraval 1/ Mangrol 1/ Staff Posts Total Posts Fresent Total Posts Present Director 2/ 1 1 - Market Superintendent 2/ 1 -- - Dep. Mkt. Superindent 2 1 1 1 Chief Accountant 1 1 1 1 Registrar 1 - - - Serthing Master 3 1 1 1 Stenographer 1 - - - Auctioneer 7 1 2 1 Cleaning Foremen 3 1 1 .1 Storemen 1 1 1 1 Security Staff 6 3 5 3 Cleaning Staff 6 3 3 3 Clerks 9 6 7 6 Driver 2 - 1 - Peon 2 - 1 - Total -tw 1/ While the harbour at Mangrol has already been commissioned, Veraval is expected to be officially commissioned later this year. Z/ Responsible for both FTOs. INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Quick Freezing and Ice Making Facilities to Protect Area YearcMakinn Ice Storage Freexing Plant frozen Storjue ail CanapIttyUflit caait Unit "lAlk E .tli (No.) (t/day) (No.) (tons) (No.) (t/day) (No.) (tons) 1976 19 186 9 780 3 42.0 3 750 1977 24 263 12 1.047 7 94.5 7 1.500 1978 26 304 16 1,t62 9 110.0 9 1.785 1979 30 309 18 1.512 to 118.0 to 1.985 1980 32 434 19 1.762 It 134.0 12 2.735 198 34 464 21 1.922 14 166.5 . 14 3.135 1982 35 474 21 1.922 Is 172.5 Is 3o285 1983 35 474 21 1.922 15 172.5 i5 3.285 1984 35 474 21 1.922 15 372.5 i6 3.385 1985 35 474 21 1.922 16 223.0 16 3.385 Sources Offtce of Project Coordinator. -38- Table 12 INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Present Processing Units at Principal Ports Item Veraval magol Porbunder No. Caacit o. Capacity LNo. CaPacitY Ice Plant 22 329 tpd 7 81 tpd 22 272 tpd Ice Cold Storage 16 1,640 tons 3 170 tons 10 350 tons Freezing Plant 16 223 tpd - - 3 25 tpd Freezing Storage 16 3,385 tons - - 3 1,150 tons Canning Plant 1 6 tpd - - - - Fishmeal Plant 1 50 tpd i/ 1 60 tpd 1/ Fish Pulveriser 12 102 tpd 3 25 tpd 2 40 tpd 1/ Raw material. Source: Office of Project Coordinator. IHQJA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 60-tl4) GFCCA - Comoarative Balance Sheets (R8000) As at the Year End 30 June 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 Finess Assets I.67 l.SSt 2.572 12.688 10.1106 6.381 .8603 3.843 Pre-Operation a Project Exp. 149 360 I56 I56 2.658 2.134 181 i5 Investments 25 25 24 12 12 52 2 SIt Current Assets: Hire Putchase Debts (MVe) . 44.957 41.284 38.642 38637 31.604 18.945 - Uthers .1.L962 Is.361 12.782 14AA J.470 17.0!24 16,073 IS.u6S Total Assets 1371 -as38 JULZE1 A 31 -.M.D -hl5 -229A J-iM w Paid Up Share Capital 5,332 s-.329 5.340 4.137 3,974 3.944 3.885 3.979 Roeeves 6.026 5.638 4.907 4.904 4.846 4.844 4.504 4.039 Leus Accumulated Losses (6.7151 .9._1141 19.255) (4.8291 (1.055) tZIPS) is? 6? ft-WIZh11A A2 I,853 - 92 4-212 7.769 -B.S 8 LEA a&& Secured Loans% Government Loans s8,708 17.732 37.088 15.925 12.028 1.297 3.402 3.358 from Banks: Term Loastu 3.019 4,602 4.19 5.897 5.173 3.385 1,476 - Working Capital I.589 1.978 2.677 3.135 2.267 2.221 1.005 Project MFV Related Loans 40.141 36.561 33.782 33.373 26.188 16.774 - Other Loans - - - -------- A2 --B2M 977 Sub-Tutdi 63.457 60.851 58,438 Sfi.3130 48-272 30.313 6-860 4.994 Current Liahilittes *5603 .684 4.346 5.295 3.8J9 6,293 6,747 .A9 Inirce CAital &A Labilitin M7 A8.8 nA2_1ts _"aal of lA .45 11E 22C14C A193 Sourcet Aiudited Accounts of GFCCA *r GUJARAT FTISHEMES PROJECT (Loan 1394-1.4/Credit 695-IN) GFCCA - Comparative Profit & Loss Accounts For the Year Endin" 30 Julie 1285 12A4 19.3 19.2 IBM 1980 1912 192 ...................................t0s*ooo )........................... Sales Revenue 55.421 47.165 40.794 23.253 27.968 36.841 40.499 37.465 Less Cost of Sales 44,225 38.754 35,122 17,365 22.787 30.460 33,351 30.773 I Gruss Profit 11.196 8,411 5.672 5.886 5.181 6.381 7.148 6.692 Expenses . Psoduction/Trading Expenses 6.121 5.523 6.916 6.693 5.059 6.211 6.250 5.409 Selting Expenses 654 622 803 40a 270 346 88 99 Administration Expenses 1.695 1.524 1.527 2.429 1.165 l.888 1.534 1.028 Total Oueratina Exoenses 8.470 7.669 9.246 9.53t 6.494 85)t 7.872 6.536 Operating Prutit/(Loas) 2.726 742 (3.574) (3.643) (1.313) (2.130) (724) 156 Other Income 1.360 1.320 1,353 1,892 1.627 2.069 1,150 706 Profit/(Loss) Oefore Interest 4.086 2.062 (2.221) (1.75l) 314 (61) 426 862 Interest on Loans 1,664 1.865 2.136 2.022 1 059 790 333 796 Profit/(Loss) after Interest L/ 2,422 197 (4.357) (3.773) (744) (851) 93 566 11 Appropriations and prior year adjustments #save not been shown here. REg GFCCA. I' GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-1N) GFCCA - MFV Loans and Recoery Psition la at 31 December Mo1 (Rs*000) Namy of Gank No, 2t Boats Lgag PC i4tcipaI titerest 1oal Recoveries Net Amqunt Financed Advanged "a a Effected Qverdue Bank of Baroda 45 8.196 5.278 7.846 13.124 1.506 11.618 Baik of Isodia 45 9.077 5.081 6.730 11.818 1.460 10.351 1 Dena Bank 20 4.119 2.451 2.954 5.405 551 4.854 1-6 littion Bank 19 4.585 1.911 2.035 3.946 716 3.230 United Bank of Isidia l ....J. 72 Raki 132 1/ 26.728 15.059 20.034 35.093 4.320 30.773 iitfcg: GFCCA. 3/ Of the 137 MFVs finanred under the project. loans for five were given directly to the fishermen by the Sank of India. without going through GFCCA. SII ar - 42 - Table 16 INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 595-IN) FPCS in Project Villages Village & FPCS Membership Share Capital and Oth9eFunds ...R'000.0 Mangrol Sara Mangrol Bara Matsyodyog 233 9.35 Sahakari Mandli Ltd Chorwad (i) Chorwad Shavani Lodhi 239 12.37 Sahakari Mandli Ltd (ii) Chorwad Sagar Utpadak 123 6.55 Sahakari Mandli Ltd* Hitakot Sharat Matsyodyog 70 10.94 Sahakari Mandli Ltd Sutrapada - Sagar Matsyodyog 434 73.45 Sahakari Mandli Ltd Dhamlej (1) Dhamlej Matsyodyog 380 177.86 Sahakari Mandli (ii) Karimi Matsyodyog 137 11.20 Sahakari Mandli Muldwaraka Muldwaraka Macchimar 68 4.40 Sahakari Mandli Ltd Madhwad Macchimar Vividh-Karya kari 316 20.27 Sahakari Mandli Ltd Kotda Kotda Matsyodyog Sahakari 234 5.40 Mandli Ltd - 43 - Table 17 INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/credit 595-IN) Fishing Vessels in the Project Harbours Census F 1 ures 1/ 1977 1979 1981 1983 1986 2/ Veraval .14.8m MFV Trawlers 413 542 581 626 750 14.8m MFV Gillnetters 84 69 74 82 n.a. Motorised Canoes 162 132 223 277 n.a. Non-Powered Craft 53 40 23 11 n.a. Total 712 783 901 996 n.a. Manlgrol 14.8m MFV Trawlers 98 139 166 168 180 14.8m MFV Gillnetters 4 - 7 13 n.a. Motorised Canoes 12 35 85 120 n.a. Non-Powered Craft 60 55 29 8 n.a. Total 174 229 287 309 n.a. Project Area Villages / 14.8. MFV Trawlers 47 99 89 51 n.a. 14.8m MFV Gillnetters 39 28 48 65 n.a. Motorised Canoes 566 602 718 770 n.a. Non-Powered Craft 248 174 113 53 n.a. Total 900 903 968 939 n.a. TOTAL 1,786 1,915 2,156 2,244 n.a. / ased on census taken before commencement of season. / Estimated by local staff at time of visit to project area. / Villages of Mangrol 8ara, Chorwad, Hirakot, Sutrapada, Dhamlej, Muldwarka, Madhwad and Kotda. GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IM/Credit 695-1N) Estimated Marine Fish Landings in Project Area (Cantre Wise) Fishina Landina 1977-78 191&=12 Z A197" 198081 98-82 M2 1982:2 1-2: iL4 taA-A Centre ..... (tona ................................................. (tolls)................................................... Veraval 56.419 79.978 75.326 79.112 81.609 58.036 64.823 88.362 Mangrol 6.572 5.829 11.035 7.852 9.0081 11.160 21.762 21.094 Mangrol - Sara 838 539 505 687 612 529 640 862 C Chorwad 1.122 1.200 1.387 1.077 1.006 518 419 741 4 HIrakut I.065 1.026 679 680 80 813 791 698 Sutrapada 1.378 1.627 1.598 1.394 1.858 873 2.646 3.338 Dhamlej 1.114 453 3.362 8t 851 1.034 2.711 1.390 Muldwarka 1.982 1.439 1.177 1.533 1.513 992 2.121 684 Madhwad 1.537 3.204 2.848 4.202 1.955 3.693 17.179 9.288 Kotda 1.007 3.149 1.962 1.562 740 1.925 15.2b0 11.487 LetAAl 73-034 9044 99,&&& 98,l0 2A0i0 oo033 19,763 128 402 121.9&& $oMre. oftice at Project Coordinator. O4 6' . 45 - Table 19 INDIA UJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Landing Prices of Imortant Fish at Veraval (Rs per kg) Name of Fish 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 If1 g- 1982-83 198384 1984-85 White Pomfret 6.70 9.95 10.50 14.55 19.05 20.15 18.77 Black Pomfret 2.85 4.85 4.15 7.15 7.70 8.50 9.63 Jew Fish 2.65 4.10 3.95 4.65 5.85 6.65 6.18 Hilsa 4.55 4.5 5.05 6.15 6.70 6.80 8.08 Seer Fish 2.80 3.70 4.35 5.85 6.80 7.40 8.23 Silver Bar 1.35 2.30 2.30 2.50 2.90 4.30 3.37 Shrimps 5.05 3.30 4.50 5.20 6.10 9.40 6.54 Prawn-Nediul 13.95 17.15 10.70 15.80 20.20 26.95 22.24 Prawn-Jumbo 44.85 40.15 27.75 42.25 56.65 64.50 63.67 Lobster 30.15 23.40 24.90 26.85 32.95 35.35 38.77 Source: Office of Project Coordinator. -46- Table 20 INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 6F5-IN) Escalation in Diesel & Lubricating Oil Prices 1/ Period Diesel Lubricating Oil Price Index Price Index (Rs7Ttre) - (Rs7F Vtre) - From 03-01-1978 1.47 100 46.10 100 03-01-1979 1.58 107 49.02 106 08-17-1979 1.77 120 49.50 107 09-11-1979 1.69 115 49.71 108 06-08-1980 2.43 165 55.57 121 07-15-1980 2.44 166 56.16 122 12-01-1980 2.45 167 58.72 127 01-13-1981 2.86 195 60.48 131 02-16-1981 2.87 195 60.60 131 04-01-1981 2.90 197 61.35 133 o 07-01-1981 3.24 220 62.18 135 01-01-1982 3.28 223 63.00 137 U 09-01-1982 3.09 210 65.00 141 * 02-15-1983 3.33 226 66.20 144 04-01-1983 3.37 229 67.10 146 0 01-01-1984 3.40 231 68.52 149 12-01-1984 3.18 216 70.00 152 Present 3.40 231 85.00 184 1/ Prices Applicable to Fishermen. Source: Office of Project Coordinator. 1ubiC GU.JARAT PI50NERIES PROJECT (.oan 4394-tt/Cret11t 95-934I rmuh pte prolartkan - fA1a Te..tor Leernoe Catch prima nar3 4n #nvnue/Costs a Iåt.saa Ihrec bart ( bm (#sutet SA ) tons) we~engo fras cateh total catchyear sneens 1/ 9.41 15.00 4.150 fl. 32 % 4.0 9.00 76.950 - C2 97 2.00 05.050 - 3in 14.05 • 4.00 19.400 - C4 9 5 0% 4.60 0.70 .ae50 oIotb 100% 35.00 .&, 20.30 449.700 Oara.n0 cojstl rue~ & 3u0ricants (1% of feet costal l k7.430 f#attenoncc - bm$l & angina 2/ 20.000 frn4^8 Doar malttenancc a replace-ent A/ 85.000 9ag, (1 salppor. a crof f l s8.100 §ca 1/ 23.000 ens.-ance g 10.000 Por t des 5/ 1 . 760 Ml*scea eneous a &Overheada ..000 Tnat2. 104200 Present Inmoeftant Cost 1/ M00.000 »9.00 p t Aaina 8 9O0n 320.000 1j. 160.100 0.0 ftnancc -.la0 24.00 400.000 412100 DmAt tervjefna c6,820 jj.p 35.700 bAraDlannaSa IetCash F1g 00.990 47.900 financtal ata of Return a. I/ 5% C# 1062/k. sa loattor RG36/hG. 25% C2 AS23/ag. 65% C3 sflag. with and aerage ptco of Rat$/kg. Precen Used in the analysts are ste averages of prteas obtatned tn the #mst 3 years 1982/03-1904/5. le 34 trpea a year with 201 fslhing day. 13 hours/day. I2 #§trOs/ur. 9a3.40/Sttre. a 99,o.O0 - ror bu$$. R1*0.00 - por ngfne. a3 tra~ 643.000 opch. 600 a warp Okn0/f. SaLIPper nse.0OOt~ot$. arem kat.ooo/oesh. for 9 months. "*$OG/trip. 2/ 4 tons/tp. 4s175/to. no For cr~ ~ voehemt g/ e . n*ha g a4115Qsonth. 4 manths * s40/month. 094O0 for cran*. 19/ Present avera e investment Cost. j/ at loan. at R2.5%. epayent ha* ben 6stimated on the U s% of a 9-year repay~ent pertoo. after on o yeas grace. 12/ Estjontect cm total Investment. over .0 period af $5 Years, BujaAtA Pts,jEntEt PROJECT ($Gan $394-1N#Credte 695-IN> Caftn Piom prolecton - Cano uten Cytbea- Motzr ane Catch . Rce £AR rtmati feentCati SAR Esate 9er un.Le (as) (a> 4ta) a toni Revenv~ tens~ Caten P*a C-# 20% 3.4 12 40.000 C-2 20% 3.4 6 20.400 C-3 0I 1.7 3 5.t00 C-4 50s .5 18.50 Total ±L.R L.a00 2s.000 Cneratino Cost. Pe & L.ubr$Canta l 7• 138 a:ttenanc* of Sat 2/ I.200 Ualntenanca Repac.ent :,r Motar 2/ 2.025 Gear Uantenanc# a eplaca.ent 4/ 4.000 Mage% i Pao t4 crøw> / 6.450 Misc.Btaneous 3/ 1.040 •Total 21.853 4.0 Oceratino -nco,e 4.600 Prosent Inyesteent Coat g/ 70.000 3t.400 qø 40an 56.000 2/ 26.300 SubstIdy 5.000 2.700 Omn finance 7.000 2.40 Dabt Servleina 15.660 2/ 6.200 Avaraof Annua$ let Cash Fto" 3?.207 2.400 f$nanctal Rate of Return JR/ 75% 30% 1/ 4 noura of operation per day. 215 days. 2.5 $$tro korosene/hour. 8s2.25/tStres 140 Ilttre oi. AlS/tItre. 10 kg grease. R%20/ag. It 3% of new boat valu. 3/ 25% of captial cost. !t 25% ot cap4,at cost. / No mag*s pald oaCh cr.. ~Mber &hares In the ca~ch. a/ t*timated vasae for f#an *4hmn no~.. Øs7.50/48ay for Mach csew. 215 days.. lý/ 5% at oporattnø coat. 1t Proton* *arme InamtMen* cos*. 2/ MT* #oan. at *2.5%. RPOayent ha* boen estmt ~eton the best at a 5 v.. ragaym*nt pertod. j,Q/ tsttated on tota Investment. over a portod of $0 years. IDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Cash Flow Protectign - Outboard Motor (for existing canoe) Canoe Without O8M Average Catch Price Revengel CAnoR&I 1l SAR per Unit prA ks 91aA with OBM Income from 081 eatimate (tons) (Rs) (Rs) (RAs) (Rs) (Rs) Revenue from Catch Fish - Cl 20% 2.4 12 28.800 40.800 - C2 20% 2.4 6 14.400 20.400 - C3 10% 1.2 3 3.6U0 t..100 - C4 50% 6.0 I .80.5Q Tjtal 12.0 52.800 74,800 22.000 7.100 Oueratin costs Fuel & lubricants - 7.138 Maintenance of boat 1.200 2/ 1.200 Maintenance & replacement of motor - 2.025 Gear maintenance & replacement 4.000 2/ 4.000 Wages Food 6,450 1/ 6.450 Miscellaneous S -1-04Q Iot.al 12-2 211853 ,623 2900 ouaratin Income AR AZL 12.111 its20 present Investment Coat f/ 10-000 S-6ag F.inancina MT loan 7.000 4/ 4.600 Subsidy - 400 Own finance 00Q gag Debt Servicing 1.900 4/ 1.900 Averane Annual .et Cash Flow. 10.477 4.200 Financial Rate of Return 5/ 121% > S% 1/ It to assumed that the catch of canoe with ODM is 40% higher than the catch of canoe without SA (see lable 22). 2/ Assumptions are idessotical to those made foe canoe with OG8 (Table 22). 2/ Present average investment cost. 4/ MT loan, at 12.5%. Repayment has been estimated on the basis of a 5 year repayment period. / Estimated on total investment. over a period at 5 years. JOD.1A GUJARAT ff51ERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-I4) Re-estimated Economic Rate of Return - Veraval "arbour j/ yEAL No. of 14.8m MFV Incremental "arbour Cost of oeratiomn IngraMnlal et Incr. TAtal I/ Pro-iect in MFVs used for Cs A/ "IL ./ £R Produc tlotn Z/ Renetits DALLA V' OthaA 2/ Analyvasi I ............... (No . of units) .............. ....................... (Rs'no t ...................... 4978/79 413 - - - 10,137 - - - (10.137) 1979/80 542 70 is as 10.789 29.920 17,264 26.048 (31.925) 1980/8 542 30 - 30 26.878 10.560 25.033 28.411 (34.060) 1981/82 sat 5 87 22 13.070 7,744 3I.S96 45.313 47.097) 1982/83 5a1 - - - 36,590 - 31.824 52.896 (I5.508) 1983/84 626 - 22 .22 23,076 7.744 37.403 71.264 3.041 1984/85 626 - - - 36.290 - 37.807 65.683 (8.414) C 1985/86 626 - - - 10,561 - 38.676 64.395 15.158 a 1986/87 750 - 62 62 12.240 21.824 53.214 89,5u5 2.227 1987/88-68/89 750 - - - - - 53.428 89.505 36.077 1989/90 7SO - - - t2.750 53.428 89.505 23.327 3990/91 750 - - - 4.500 53.428 89.505 31.577 1991/92 ' 750 - - - 3.300 53.428 89.505 32,177 1992/93 750 - - - - 53.428 89,505 36.071 0993/94 750 - - - 3.300 53,428 89.505 32.177 1994/95-95/96 50 - - -- - 53.425 89.505 36.077 '996197 750 - - - 9.300 53.428 89.505 26.777 1997/98-98/99 750 - - - - 53.428 89.505 36.077 Economic Rate of Return 13% 1/ Analysis has been carried out In terms of constant 1985/06 prices. I/ As per fIshing vessel census, *e ltole t7. ;/ For purposes of ERR computatiUP4. tozutst 4Ca. Oe.** been estimats-d from projec financed MFVs (305 for Veraval) and so% of the Increase in non-project fillanced vessels. 4/ Financial cost converted to 1986/86 prices using wholesale price index. and expressed in economic terms by deducting taxes, and using a SCF of 0.80. 5/ Includes provision for replacement of engines. §/ Includes operating cost of vessels. and 0 & M costs for tite harbour. 7/ Based on an average catch of 135 tonts per MFV (see table 21 for catch composition), & actual prices for the ditferent T' years restated in constant 1985/86 terms. INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 895-IN) Re-Eatimated Economic Rate of Return - Manero Harbour j/ Veer . h_Sto. of 14.8m MFVs tacr. MjFV& ALOun COSSaA DL OEAUDU Limr- UaI-Imct- Total I/ eroject I/ 50% of Others I/ Used for Anatysis a/5/Cgij _ WFVs 11 C"i1 Productino Z/ @gfi." ..................... (Rs'OOO) ................... 1978/79 90 - 2.624 - - - (2.524) 1979/o 139 14 13 27 5.622 9.604 6.471 8.274 (12,323) 1980/81 139 is - IS 4.069 S.280 9.009 10.376 (7.962) 1901/82 166 3 12 IS 3.065 6.280 13.011 18.853 (2.503) 1982/83 166 - - - 7.100 - 13.065 22.008 (4.613) 1983/64 168 - 1 1 4.555 352 13.414 25.996 . 1.675 1984/85 168 - - - 5.821 - 13.893 23.960 4.248 H 1985/88 36 - - - 2.386 - 13.943 23.490 7.161 1986/87 to0 - It It - 3.872 13.985 27.945 10.088 1987/8-88/89 180 - - - - - 13.985 27.945 13.980 1989/90 30 - - - - 4.050 13.985 27.945 9.910 1990/91 t80 - - - * 2.250 33.965 27.945 11.710 1991/92 to - - - - . 2.250 13.985 27.945 11.710 1992/93 tSo - - - - - 13.985 27.945 13.960 1993/94 too - - - - 150 13.985 27.945 13.810 '994/95-95/96 ISO - - - - - 13.985 27.945 13.960 '996/97 I80 - - - - 1.650 13.985 27.945 12.310 1991/96-98/99 160 - - - 1 - 13.985 27.945 13.960 Economic Rate of Return @ 20% 1/ Analysis has been carried out in constant 1985/86 prices. 1/ As per fishing vessel census. See table fl. 4/ For purposes of ERA Computation, benefits have boen estimated from project financed MFVs (32 fto Mangroll and SOS of the increase in non-project financed vessels. 4/ Financial cost converted to 1985/86 prices using wholesale prices index. and expressed in economic terms by deducting taxes and using a SCF of 0.80. fi Includes provision for replacement of engines. §/ Includes operating cost of vessels, and OSM costs for the harbour. J/ Based on an average catch of 135 tus pee MFV (see table 21 for catch composition). and actual prices for the the different years restated in constant 1985/66 terms. I - 52 - Table 26 INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN/Credit 695-IN) Re-estimated ERR - Total Project 1/ (Rs'o0) Year Investment operating Incremental Net Incremental Cost Cost Production Benefits 1978/79 12,661 - - (12,661) 1979/80 55,979 22,735 34,322 (44,392) 1980/81 46,787 34,042 38,787 (42,042) 1981/82 33,194 44,607 64,166 (13,635) 1982/83 46,370 47,054 81,264 (12,160) 1983/84 36,241 54,053 106,983 16,689 1984/85 43,177 55,264 100,807 2,366 1985/86 12,947 56,183 99,049 29,919 1986/87 37,946 70,763 128,614 19,905 1987/88 - 68,8t2 122,254 53,442 1988/89 - 67,888 119,540 51,652 1989/90 16,872 67,888 119,540 34,780 1990/91 6,910 67,888 119,540 44,742 1991/92 5,550 67,888 119,540 46,102 1992/93 - 67,888 119,540 51,652 1993/94 3,450 67,741 118,892 47,701 1994/95-95/96 - 67,413 117,450 50,037 1996/97 10,950 67,413 117,450 39,087 1997/98-98/99 - 67,413 117,450 50,037 Economic Rate of Return a 16% 1/ Includes, in addition to the harbours and MFVs, the cost of 29 canoes, 428 OBMs, trucks, roads and sheds; also provision for the replacement of MFV engines and canoe 08Ms is included. INDIA GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT Organisationat Structure of GFCCA Ltd. Chairman General Ranager II La _II Oy. Gentrat Wa4ager Dy. General itanager (Prod.) by. Generat Manager Senior Manager Finance Senior nager et Plant resh Water fisheries Administration (Ver(VeVavae (Ahmedabad) (Aheedabad) (Ahmedabad) Accounts and world Bank ianager veravat and Aanageran re Mater Audit Accounts narketing 1)a 1 Rupen Depot Accounts Reservoir Fisheries rJ _ I 1 ~oi 1he 1letII Assistant Managers Production Boat Engine fresh Fish Freezing Vieset Dehi Fish Retail fish Seed Building Sates and and and ice Pumps Office Shops farms Sard Ser iei Recovery Plant z 04 DS A U- ~ARAT FIS~ERIES PROJECT (Lon 1394-N / Credit 69w-IN) MAP OF IMPORTANT FISHING CENTRES 1N'GUJARAT LOCAI OM MAP G u J A n A T- MANBROI. IF~Nfo ft*oalos eo~ep.d VERAVAL ande the proØCe U~ ø*der prot P fpsd or dessesepasse a greject Umptemntatio 40 FeSho~ MAN *!easaBanomimeased udti C~- - VERAVA KM VALSA K<X.AK 4 a A 8 • A - S E A cess-tr ? l i N D I A GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT -Loan 1394-IN / Credit 695-IN 3 MANGROL HARBOUR *° ' •f . E .A--Ru Å Ø . a^Rn.' i Assetos seat.L A.No owss S p.s.R Im A LA' -å- 8 rATER - - t4 Bft10HG U^ s NET D'REPBR.yARD. t6 PRT acTs 4,xt 8 PA.RKt#. 17 W£ES SRZ ·WtLt3.- TM 0 0 100 150 I N D I A GUJARAT FISHERIES PROJECT (Loan 1394-IN / Credit 695-IN) VERAVAL HARBOUR - #i -x I M3C?e ...LL,. 4C« SbORGE.. 4 rae£c 39 ae*sa m.yABase - s Ii A~ IS STAT~~ 1at SI. &ogum £LoftS*O. Ø 100 200 300 * Ø NA*Tc PAG IS BLANK, SOG 9*0. obo I S?ly DeuyComznissioner' (F g r Mne,x I »Oputy 0:&~0)- Page I (VN ~ 'Ffa-gfi -el *O's Npgg, OF ftIND oIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE t DvAtsT Or ~6IULME Å COOMIATMN tuis tsa ~ . mw Wi-tIlO Comments from C01 flated Me $$ b, $$wv Dear Pleane refer to the copy of the tolex No, 4(1)/86-3.VIII dated 9t Ap~#l, 19? endorse to joitt seoretary mherLes, la Ia tea t regarding oments on tha drat m~eot ~ *pletia report la respeot et Vorld >ank suested Zatega Narine Kher±es utojet la @ujaat an Anhra Y~ah. Ve had bed n aitinf for me &etaile oemts from e State tvernmntø. ve have not æ re±Coved *heir oomnte. Nover, a tar aw %ø o*maente ft tia ~atry i onene, t s stated be~. tat ~ ian jo ee q~oite watøsfatOe~e3 d~ring ffe imifoijeot ~eod VI~i Ie given oonst~sSnt et ad~nitratim and meie Geooeures ~at vere tolloved n bot *omt of India Wa ~rl hak e id*<. It is kne/at the redit omponent et ~o tho r>#tø «de a ~ ohow. The ~ al target a irespeot f netahant" s~ ws3& ~ø*g to be aohieved utili the eredit tfoilty under the pmojest a~ only s0Jl. aor Ot ø rl ak wuod agast ke o0ponent vas not ut # . oth the state Goversnte ad ile iister ado oonoerted eftort to improv~ le eredit utilaton mi respeot to the lending progave eeting at lEe state evel ad at le sentral level ot ~- ofUoerG @t the conerne natonalised anks Vere convened to iaprese upon the bmnking anhoritieo the neeosS of øaroving øy~e lending performanoe. %e bank @onttned vit ther esa tat unless the rep ment of a fe loa sanotioned 9arler iove, teg vere not in a posiLtion to e p ne leading . All thi , because *he banko di not av* o coleotion maohinery at f ieid løvel to motivate the flahermn in repyment or loanø. Simultaneou~ty, tå State Governenta bad their ovn lending programmes for introduction of the fihing vessel. uing he sme period they vere Rucoessful both in lending s vell a managing the recoveries of loan trom the benefioiaries. 2h Department of Piøherles had undertaken lhe prorame of lending directly to the benefioiaie, not through nationaised bank, The succesO of the PieN-eries Department sø attributed to lhe deployment oL satisfactory collection machinery at the field level. In view o£ the above, it could be stated that one of the lesons learned tro h le World Bak projects vas that it would be not praotiable to entrst the lending programme to the nationalised bank in the cases of lending money to fisherien for purohase of boate when they lack in required motivating field personnel, Ingtead, the øredit han to be rooted diretly through me State Directorate of Fiheries. Ve have no other comments to nake. Wit Youræs sinc erely, ilo'umu J&OM Oeamj:jv orouo olue"vdec (gx esqog*me09 I xeuuy 09-