Document of The World Bank FOR OFFlCIAL USE ONLY Repcrrt No. 7 6 8 3 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I N D I A KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 6 8 0 - I N ) MARCH 31, 1989 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 KAU - Agricultural University of Kerala CB - Commercial Banks CPCRI - Central Plantation Crops Research Institute CPD - Cashew Project Department CRMS - Cooperative Rubber Marketing Societies GOI - Government of India GOK - Government of Kerala ICAR - Indian Council of Agricultural Research IRB - Indian Rubber Board KDOA - Kerala Department of Agriculture KRMF - Kerala State Rubber Marketing Federation KSCADB - Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank KSCB - Kerala State Cooperative Bank KSEB - Kerala State Electricity Board NABARD - National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development PCC - Project Coordination Committee PCK - Plantation Corporation, Kerala PCR - Project Completion Report SADU - Special Agricultural Development Unit SAR - Staff Appraisal Report FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY THE WORLD BANK Wash~ngton.D.C. 20433 U.S.A. March 31, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on India Kerala Agricultural Development Project (Credit 680-IN) Attached, for information, is a copy of a report e n t i t l e d "Project Completion Report on India Kerala Agricultural Development Project (Credit 680-IN)" prepared by FAO/World Bank Cooperative Program. Full evaluation of t h i s project has not been made by the Operations Evaluation Department. Attachment 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. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT P- Project Completion Report Table of Contents Page No . PREFACE ............................................. i BASIC DATA SHEET .................................... ii EVALUATION SUMMARY .................................. iii OVERVIEW ............................................ v I . INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 I1 . PROJECT IDENTIFICATION. PREPARATION AND APPRAISAL ... 2 Identification and Preparation .................... 2 Project Appraisal ................................. 2 I11 . PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .............................. 3 Start-up .......................................... 3 Project Changes After Appraisal ................... 3 Implementation Schedule ........................... 5 Implementation of Project Components .............. 5 Provision of Minor Irrigation Facilities and Irrigation of Coconuts .......................... 6 Agricultural Research ............................. 8 Extension Services ................................ 8 Credit Component .................................. 9 Project Cost ...................................... 10 Project Financing ................................. 10 Loan Allocation and Disbursement .................. 11 IV . INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT ........... 12 Project Coordination .............................. 12 Implementing Agencies ............................. 12 Lending Institutions .............................. 14 Accounting and Reporting .......................... 14 V . PROJECT IMPACT ...................................... 15 Agricultural Impact ............................... 15 Other Impact ...................................... 16 Incomes and Financial Results ..................... 16 Economic Re-evaluation ............................. 19 VI . WORLD BANK PERFORMANCE .............................. 21 Project Design and Appraisal ...................... 21 Supervision ....................................... 21 VII . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................. 21 Lessons Learned ................................... 22 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. TABLES Sunmrary: Project Target and Achievement Project Expenditures Comparison Between Appraisal Cost Estimates and Actual Costs Comparison Between Appraisal Estimate and Actual Unit Cost Cumulative Disbursements Comparison Between Appraisal and Actual Physical Achievements Loans Recommended, Approved and Disbursed (FY 1978179 - July 1986) Total Loans Disbursed as of July 1986 by Banks Interest Rates Refinancing by NABARD as of July 1986 Yields of Coconuts - SAR and PCR Comparisons Yields of Cocoa, Pepper, Cashew - SAR and PCR Comparison Coconut Production Pepper, Cocoa, Banana, Tapioca, Milk Production Rubber and Cashew Production Seed Garden - Production of Planting Materials Financial Prices of Outputs Used in Financial and Economic Calculations Coconut New Planting (With Irrigation) -1 ha Model Coconut New Planting (With Irrigation), Interplanting Bananas - 1 ha Coconut New Planting (Without Irrigation) - 0.5 ha Model Coconut Rehabilitation (With Irrigation), Cocoa Interplanted - 1 ha Mode1 Coconut Rehabilitation (With Irrigation), Banana Interplanted - 1 ha Mode1 Coconut Rehabilitation (With Irrigation), Fodder Interplanting and Dairy -1 ha Model Coconut Rehabilitation (Without Irrigation) -0.5 ha Model Coconut Rehabilitation in Disease Affected Areas (Without Irrigation) Pepper Rehabilitation Cashew, New Planting --1 1 ha Model ha Model Cashew Rehabilitation -1 ha Model Coconut Rehabilitation (With Irrigation). Capital and Operating Costs -Cocoa (0.8 ha) Coconut New Planting/Rehabilitatfon (With Irrigation), Capital and Operating Costs - Banana Interplanting (1 ha) Coconut Rehabilitation (Without Irrigation), Capital and Operating Costs -Garden Crops (Tapioca) (1 ha) Capital and Operating Costs for 0.1 ha Fodder and One Milk Cow in Coconut Rehabilitation Disease-Affected Areas (Rainfed) Sununary of Financial Prices of Outputs and Inputs (1986 Prices) Cash Flow -Unirrigated Coconut New Planting with Garden Crops (0.5 ha Cash Flow - Irrigated Coconut New Planting with Garden Crops (1 ha Mode1) Cash Flow - Irrigated Coconut New Planting with Interplanted Banana (1 ha Model Cash Flow * Unirrigated Coconut Rehabilitation with Garden Crops (0.5 ha Cash Flow -Unirrigated Coconut Rehabilitation in is ease-~ffected Areas with Fodder and Dairy (0.2 ha Model) Cash Flow - Irrigated Coconut Rehabilitation Interplanted with Cocoa (1 ha Model) Cash Flow - Irrigated Coconut Rehabilitation Interplanted with Banana (1 ha Model) Cash Flow - Irrigated Coconut Rehabilitation with Fodder and Dairy (1 ha Cash Flow - Pepper Rehabilitat.ion Operating Income of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Cash Flow - Plantation Corporation of Kerala Financial Analysis - Plantation Corporation of Kerala Operating Income of the Seed Garden Financial Analysis - Seed Garden Operating Income of the Crumb Rubber Factories Operating Income of 10-Ton Crumb Rubber Factory Cash Flow in Palai, Kozhikode and Kanjirapally Factories Cash Flow for a Typical 10-Ton Crumb Rubber Factory Financial Analysis - 6 Crumb Rubber Factories Summary of Economic Prices of Outputs and Inputs Economic Price of Copra Economic Price Structures (Projected 1990 in 1986 Constant Prices) Economic Analysis - Irrigated Coconut New Planting Economic Analysis - Unirrigated Coconut New Planting Economic Analysis - Irrigated Coconut Rehabilitation Economic Analysis - Unirrigated Coconut Rehabilitation Economic Analysis - Pepper Rehabilitation Economic Analysis - Smallholder Component Economic Analysis - Cashew Development Economic Analysis - 6 Crumb Rubber Factories Economic Analysis - Whole Project MAP 1: - Location of Project Areas CHART 1: Present General Organization Structure I N D I A KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Preface This Project Completion Report (PCR) reviews the implementation of the Kerala Agricultural Development Project i n India f o r which Credit 680-IN i n the amount of USS30 million was approved on February 17, 1977. The c r e d i t was closed i n March 31, 1986 one year l a t e r than scheduled and USS0.5 million the undisbursed portion of the c r e d i t was cancelled. The PCR was prepared by the FAOICP and was revised i n certain respects a f t e r consultation with Asia Region s t a f f . The overview, prepared by Asia Region S t a f f , i s based on the PCR, the Staff Appraisal Report (No. 1325a-IN, dated January 25, 1977) President's Report (No. P1953 of January 19771, Development Credit Agreement, dated April 1 , 1977, and on supervision mission reports. There has been no follow on project. The draft report was sent t o the ~ d r r o w e ron January 13, 1989 for comments; however, no comments were received. - I N D I A KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CR. 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Evaluation Sumary Introduction 1. The Kerala Agricultural Development project was prepared i n 1975 by the Government of Kerala (GOK) with the assistance of an FAOlCP mission, the World Bank Resident Mission i n New Delhi, and Bank headquarters s t a f f . The project was approved i n February 1977 and was designed t o improve the economic s t a t u s of smallholder farmers and the productivity of major foreign exchange earning t r e e crops and pepper. Kerala State accounts f o r most of India's production of coconut, cashew, rubber and pepper. Project Objectives 2. The project was appraised i n 1976 and comprised: ( a ) new planting, rehabilitating, and improving intercropping, of both irrigated and non-irrigated coconut over 35,000 ha.; (b) new planting and rehabilitation of pepper, over 10,000 ha.; ( c ) establishing seed gardens over 435 ha.; (dl new planting and rehabilitation of cashew over 3,750 ha.; (el establishing 9 crumb rubber factories, expanding an existing factory, and improving and developing marketing infrastructure; ( f ) strengthening agricultural research; and (g) providing improved extension services and investment c r e d i t f a c i l i t i e s . The project had a s i t s main objective t o improve the productivity of major foreign exchange earning t r e e crops and pepper with emphasis on improving the economic status of some 75,000 farm families, the majority of whom belonged t o the poorest segment of the population. 3. Project implementation was the responsibility of the Government of Kerala and the Agricultural Refinancing and Development Corporation ( f o r the c r e d i t component). The IDA c r e d i t became effective on June 6, 1977. Total project costs were estimated a t USS69.0 million, including the IDA c r e d i t of USS30.0 million. Implementation Experience and Project Results 4 . The implementation schedule estimated a t appraisal was optimistic for such a complex project. Recruitment of suitable s t a f f and adminis- t r a t i v e delays resulted i n a lag i n the implementation schedule of about 18 months, a s a r e s u l t of which the project period was extended by one year. The c r e d i t closed on September 30, 1986, 18 months l a t e r than anticipated a t appraisal. 5. At project completion, total project cost was Rs 740.0 million (USS72.5 million) compared with appraisal estimates of Rs 619 million - (USS69.0 million), a 20% cost overrun in rupee terms. At full development project costs are expected to amount to Rs 984 million (USS92.5 million), an overrun of 59% in rupee terms. The devaluation of the rupee accounted for the lower level of costs in US dollar terms, where cost overruns were 5 % at project completion and 34% at full development, respectively. 6. The PCR notes that the project has been fairly successful in meeting its broad goals. The most successful component by far proved to be rehabilitated pepper, with rehabilitated irrigated coconut proving to be successful also, but to a lesser extent. Rehabilitated pepper accounted in the main for the project's favorable economic rate of return of 24.5%, which compares with 29.5% for the project as a whole, estimated at appraisal, and indicates the importance of including more than one main crop for development in the project. 7 . At full development total production from rehabilitated coconut is expected to meet the SAR targets and for new planted coconut to exceed the SAR target by 75X. Pepper production is expected to be approximately double that estimated in the SAR. Also at full development the reestimated net incomes of coconut farmers are expected to be almost double, and for rehabilitated pepper farmers almost five times the net incomes estimated at appraisal. Issues and Lessons 8. A project having a large number of components and including recruitment of staff of different disciplines, land acquisition, civil works, construction, etc., all of which entail following prescribed government procedures, is likely to face coordination problems and delays during implementation. In this respect the SAR appears to have been optimistic. It would therefore seem essential at the time of appraisal to determine more realistically, what can be achieved during the project period, and to limit project complexity and problems of coordination, by keeping the number of components and line agencies responsible for implementation of a manageable number. 9. It would seem in retrospect that if the project had concentrated on the smallholder program, including the seed garden, research program and credit component, management would have been able to concentrate its efforts, and would possibly have achieved even better results. Where private sector farmers (backed by sound technical advice and availability of credit), judged the technical programs satisfactory and the returns reasonable, as with rehabilitated pepper and rehabilitated irrigated coconut, the project was successful and sustainable. The other components, largely subject to public sector management have not progressed nearly as well from an implementation or sustainability viewpoint. I N D I A KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CR. 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT IDA Overview Introduction 1. The original Project Completion Report (PCR) for the above project was prepared by FAOlWorld Bank Cooperative Programme (FAOICP). The original PCR was subsequently amended by the Bank based on additional information supplied by FAOlCP t o include i n t e r a l i a further c l a r i f i c a t i o n on various aspects of the the PCR, and information on the agricultural credit component. The IDA overview adds t o the PCR by summarizing the s a l i e n t components, and the findings and lessons, of t h i s complex project. 2. The FAOlCP team discussed the conclusions i n the PCR with the authorities concerned and copies of the original PCR were sent t o the Government of India, but no comments were invited or were received from the Government . 3. The PCR contains a conclusions chapter. A brief summary on project background, implementation experience and project results as well as on issues and lessons t o be learned i s presented below. Project Objectives 4 . The project was designed t o increase smallholder production of coconut, pepper, food crops, and cashew and improve the quality of rubber. The main project a c t i v i t i e s and components were: ( a ) new planting of high yielding v a r i e t i e s of coconut -- 5,000 ha i n Cannanore, Kozhikode and Malappuram d i s t r i c t s , and providing minor i r r i g a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s -- 1,000 ha i n newly planted areas; (b) rehabilitation coconut -- 30,000 ha i n Cannanore, Kozhikode, Malappuram and Trivandrum d i s t r i c t s , and providing minor i r r i g a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s -- 7,500 ha i n these areas; ( c ) improving intercropping i n coconut areas -- 26,500 ha of various garden crops without i r r i g a t i o n ; and about 3,000 ha of cocoa, 3.000 ha of fodder f o r dairy c a t t l e and 2,500 ha of other crops with i r r i g a t i o n ; (d) rehabilitating and planting of new pepper -- 10,000 ha i n Cannanore, Idukki and Kottayam d i s t r i c t s ; ( e ) establishing seed gardens f o r coconut, cashew, cocoa, pepper and other spices ; (f) rehabilitating cashew plantations -- 2,280 ha and planting of new cashew -- 1,470 ha in Cannanore districts as well as establishing a cashew apple processing pilot plant; (g) establishing 9 crumb rubber factories and expanding 1 existing factory, improving and developing marketing and marketing infrastructure: (h) strengthening agriculture research, including training and technical assistance; and (i) providing improved extension services and investment credit facilities. Implementation Experience Project Phasing 5 . Although apparently conservative assumptions were made in the SAR in regard to Government of Kerala's (GOK) capacity to arrange for the recruitment and training of managerial and extension staff of appropriate caliber and in adequate numbers, the PCR finds that the project started slowly due mainly to manpower constraints and administrative delays. As a result the initial planting season (1977178) was lost and project implementation subsequently lagged about 18 months behind appraisal targets, resulting in the project implementation period being extended by one year, to March 1986. Financia1 6. Project cost during implementation amounted to Rupees 740 million and exceeded the appraisal estimate of Rs 619 million by 20%. At full development project cost is estimated to amount to Rs 984 million, resulting in an overrun of about 59% compared with appraisal. Factors contributing to cost overruns other than implementation delays, include the considerable increases in irrigated coconut development areas, and price escalation in construction costs, particularly labor, cement and steel. Organization and Management 7. The complexity of the project required a considerable degree of coordination between government ministries and participating institutions. The PCR found that the Project Coordinating Committee (PCC), which stood at the apex of the organization structure, did not have adequate staff support and was unable to solve major problems promptly and satisfactorily. The Special Agricultural Development Unit (SADU), which had specific responsibility for smallholder development performed reasonably well in the circumstances. Management of the Cashew Project Department, set up within the Kerala Plantation Corporation, was considered weak, and effective field supervision by this unit was lacking. The Rubber Processing Department established in 1977 played only an advisory role and had no effective control over Kerala Rubber Marketing Federation (KRMF) or the Cooperative Rubber Marketing Societies (CRMS) activities. KRMF suffered frequent changes of senior management personnel, and experienced both managerial and financial problems which disrupted project implementation. CRMS, the Research Institutions, Kerala State Electricity Board and the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) (and commercial banks which participated in the project's agricultural credit schemes) performed satisfactorily. Agricultural Performance 8. Excellent performance of pepper rehabilitation, and good performance of new planting of coconut (both irrigated and unirrigated), and irrigated coconut (both irrigated and unirrigated), and irrigated coconut rehabilitation, provided the basis for the success of the project. Pepper Rehabilitation 9. Contrary to the expectations in the SAR very little new planting of pepper was undertaken, however pepper rehabilitation alone produced remarkable results. Although some question exists as to actual pepper yields in the pre- and post-project situations, the PCR concludes that with the doubling of area rehabilitated at 19,842 ha (SAR 10,000 ha) and almost doubling of output price, the ERR for pepper rehabilitation exceeded 70%. The overall impact of pepper on the estimated total project ERR of 24.5% is as a result, significant. More than 80% of total project benefits are estimated to drive from pepper rehabilitation, as compared with about 25% estimated at appraisal. Coconut New Planting 10. The 7,000 ha planted exceeded SAR expectations by 2,000 ha, however economic rates of return at between 3-10% were substantially below appraisal expectations (24-46%) due primarily to cost overruns, and delayed and lower than expected yields. Coconut Rehabilitation 11. 15,166 ha of irrigated coconut were rehabilitated, exceeding SAR expectations by some 7.666 ha, however there was a shortfall of 14,739 ha in the area of unirrigated coconut, where only 7,761 ha were rehabilitated compared with the 22,500 ha expected at appraisal. Economic rates of return of around 3% were also substantially below appraisal estimates of 15-33% due to cost overruns and delayed and lower than anticipated yields. 12. Coconut Intercropping under irrigation met with poor farmer response with only 2,300 ha being planted (SAR 6,000 ha) and only 2,998 cows being distributed (SAR 9,000 cows), however banana intercropping which was not anticipated at appraisal developed well and 900 ha were planted by project completion. Intercropping of garden crops under unirrigated coconut (mainly tapioca), exceeded SAR expectations of 2,000 ha, with some 4,628 ha being planted by project completion. Seed Garden 13. Delays in obtaining suitable land, in constructing access roads, staff quarters and administrative buildings, and in supplying electricity and irrigation facilities, seriously handicapped development of the seed garden. At project completion, only 186 ha out of the 435 ha envisaged at appraisal had been developed, and administrative buildings, staff quarters and roads were only 90% complete. Only 111 ha of the seed garden had been provided with irrigation facilities. Cashew Development 14. Cashew rehabilitation proceeded according to schedule but new planting was only completed in 1984. As improved varieties were not available at the time, ordinary planting materials of local origin were used. The pilot cashew processing plant proposed at appraisal was not established, due in part to a lack of managerial expertise and also to delays in making the decision to proceed. Rubber Processing Component 15. At project completion, of the nine new factories and expansion of an existing factory, only two of the former, and the latter, were operational. The remaining factories are expected to be operational by 1988. Delays and numerous problems occurred at every stage of this component. Lack of construction supervision, due to late recruitment of technical consultants, was an impediment. The three completed factories operated well below maximum capacity due mainly to power supply problems, labor strikes, competition from private factories for new materials and low price incentives. The PCR notes that these problems are expected to be overcome for the existing and new factories by 1992. Agricultural Research 16. The stipulated research programs were carried out satisfactorily and the 30 posts provided for scientists at appraisal were all filled. Extension Services 17. For the greater part of the project period the extension service faced staffing constraints including unfilled vacancies, high turnover and poor caliber staff. Many posts were filled on a temporary basis. Field staff suffered from lack of mobility and hardship allowances, which resulted in dissatisfaction and high turnover. Inadequate training and the amount of time spent on identifying potential participants and helping them apply for credit reduced effective extension efforts. There were clearly some shortcomings but the PCR concludes that a satisfactory extension service was established, although extension staff should concentrate on providing advisory services to farmers rather than spending their time on non-extension activities. The T&V system of agricultural extension was introduced in Kerala STate in the early 1980's. With the proposed broadbasing of extension activities this system should be able to provide advice to the farmers on agronomic problems relating to pepper and coconut. Credit Component 18. Out of the total IDA credit of USS30.0 million, an amount of USS17.3 million (57.6% of the total) was provided for credit. During implementation this amount was increased to USAS22.45 million, (76% of the total IDA credit disbursed). At July 1986, of the total amount disbursed in local currency for agricultural credit amounting to Rs 520.4 million, 83% was for smallholder development, 9% for Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), 2% for cashew development and 62 for rubber processing factories. Disbursements for smallholder development and KSEB were 34% above appraisal estimates and disbursements for rubber processing factories were 122 above appraisal, however disbursements for cashew development were 37% below appraisal estimates. For smallholder development, the lack of a coordinated and uniform lending policy hindered credit operations as did the shortages of staff at Banks (and SADU) which resulted in slow loan processing, particularly in the early years. Competition from various Integrated Rural Development Programs subsidy schemes also impacted adversely on credit demand in the project area, Disbursements of loans for the cashew development and rubber processing factories suffered long delays due to slow bank loan processing procedures. 19. It is too early to judge the effectiveness of the agricultural credit program. As longer grace periods have been provided most loan repayments have not yet fallen due. However, the PCR notes that the recovery of pepper development loans is satisfactory, but that recovery difficulties have arisen under coconut development due to low prices. Of total loans disbursed under the credit scheme, coconut amounted to Rs 298.9 million (57.4%) and pepper development Rs 133.5 million (25.6%). Rates of Return 20. The economic rates of return calculated in the SAR were satisfactory for all components. Total project ERR at appraisal was estimated at 29.5%. The PCR shows that with the exception of rehabilitated pepper, the recalculated economic rates of return for project components are substantially below SAR expectations but that overall, total project ERR amounted to 24.5%. Table 64 attached to the PCR shows that most (about 94%) of total project net benefits are d'erived from the smallholder component. Table 61 shows that starting in 1986 and until 1989 rehabilitated pepper contributed practically all the net benefits of the smallholder program. From 1990 onwards the coconut component collectively contributed marginally to smallholder net benefits but overall rehabilitated pepper is by far the major contributor. For the project as a whole it is estimated that 85X of net benefits are derived from rehabilitated pepper, 9% from the coconut components and 4% and 2% from rubber and cashew development respectively. 21. Very little new pepper was planted. The high rate of return for rehabilitated pepper, results not only from a doubling of output prices and area rehabilitated, but also from increases in yields over those in the SAR. Table 12 indicates that not only post-project but pre-project yields have been revised for PCR purposes. which results in an incremental yield in the outpost year of 720 kg/ha compared with the 375 kglha estimated at appraisal. The PCR provides no explanation for this increase but sates that yield estimates are based on data provided by SADU, the Evaluation Unit and interviews with farmers during field visits. The PCR also makes clear that it is not possible to quantify with accuracy the yields and production at full development. The pepper yields used for PCR purposes are, approximately, the average of the yields estimated in the SAR for rehabilitated and new planted pepper combined, as shown in Table 12. Sustainability 22. The PCR does not comment on the project's sustaintability. Nevertheless it can be concluded that i n pepper rehabilitation and i r r i g a t e d coconut the project's farmers were successful and that there i s every likelihood that additional farmers w i l l replicate and sustain those e f f o r t s i n future. The project focused on the main agricultural a c t i v i t i e s i n Kerala, and the State Government continues t o place p r i o r i t y on agriculture. Steps a r e being taken t o improve agricultural support services t o increase productivity. Findings and Lessons 23. The success of rehabilitated pepper over appraisal estimates and i t s influence on the project's overall economic rate of return, especially compared with the other components indicates the d e s i r a b i l i t y of having more than one main crop f o r development i n a project. 24. Strong commitment from Government and effective management and coordination of e s s e n t i a l project a c t i v i t i e s are basic conditions f o r the success of a complex project. Full time officers i n key positions a t major implementing agencies a r e e s s e n t i a l f o r solving interagency problems during implementation. 25. Successful implementation of f i e l d a c t i v i t i e s particularly i n remote areas i s dependant on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a corps of well trained and motivated s t a f f . Project management should provide leadership a t the policy and management levels, address problems t o reduce s t a f f turnover, and provide appropriate incentives f o r s t a f f required t o work i n remote areas. 26. Extension s t a f f should concentrate on providing advisory services t o farmers rather than spending t h e i r time on non-extension a c t i v i t i e s . I n areas where both project and T&V s t a f f operate, project management should ensure coordination, including: ( a ) clearly delineating duties and responsibilities t o avoid duplication of e f f o r t : and ( b ) reducing d i s p a r i t i e s i n incentives given under the two systems. 2 7 . As the time required t o manage, i . e . organize, coordinate, and control a, project during implementation generally increases with i t s complexity, it i s essential during project preparation and appraisal t o discern, given a particular environment, what i s really likely t o be achieved during the project period. This assessment should take into account: ( a ) a careful review of the l i k e l y response from farmers t o new production technology and the risks resulting from changes i n market prices with new crops (e.g., cocoa); (b) c r i t i c a l path (PERT) analysis of the time needed, i n t e r a l i a : t o r e c r u i t s t a f f ; t o acquire and develop land; and t o construct roads and buildings; and ( c ) appropriate adjustments t o the project size o r scope, t o ensure t h i s i s compatible with the human and physical resources available and length of project period. 28. Responsibility f o r coordinating project a c t i v i t i e s should have included resolving problems such a s farmers being provided a project credit scheme but preferring other Government schemes offering b e t t e r incentives levels. Also, where agricultural c r e d i t is provided by a number of financing agencies with different lending policies, ensuring that such lending policies and terms, conditions and operating procedures are standardized, to ensure efficient and timely loan processing and - . - supervision. INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I INTRODUCTION 1.01 Keralacovers 11Xof the tot81 areaof India. In1971 it accounted for 4% of the total po ulation in India, with a high population density of 9 548/h2 (India, 1 8 2 / h ) and an average per capita income of US$28O (India, Rs 3,500) with considerable unemployment and under-employment. 1.02 When the Kerala Agricultural Development Project was being conceived, the share of agriculture in the State's CDP had declined from 552 to 522 over the decade 1962-72. The area under food grains, mainly rice, covered about 302 of the cropped area and more than 502 of the area devoted to tree crops. Kerala accounted for most of India's production of pepper (9621, rubbar (822). coconut (732) and cashew (572) with considerable contribution8 from Cannanore, Kozhikode and !falapputam, the threa northern, relatively backward districts of the State. Tha cultivation of trea crop8 is moatly a smllholder operation and ia characterized by low yielda, dua to the widespread use of low yielding vatictier and poor husbandry practices. 1 1 PROJECT IDENTIPICATIOU, PREPARATION AUD APPRAISAL Identification and Preparation 2.01 A mission from the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Progrrrmna (CP) visited India in Uay 1974 to aaaist the Agricultural Refinance Corporation, now the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Dovalopment (MMAED), in reviewing its ongoing plantation projects and to identify additional projects for diversified lending, mainly in South India and particularly in Keta1.o A follow-up misaion in Februrrry/Uarch 1975 assisted tha Governments of Kerala (COK) Karnatab and Tamil Nadu in the preparation of a project proposal. , Staff from the World Bank'a officer in Now Delhi and Washington also par- ticipated in the foramlation of this propo8al. 2.02 Project propoarla for Kerala included8 (a) rehabilitation of 30,000 hectare8 (ha) of coconut8 of which 5,000 ha would be interplanted with cocoa, 6,000 ha of pepper 8nd 1s,000 ha of saullholder rubber; (b) establisbent of seed garden8 for coconut and cashew nut; ( c ) establishment of three block rubber factories and modification of an existing factory; (d) provision of consultancies for coconut processing and root-wilt disease control; and (e) training of staff for the rubber processing factories. In addition, 14,000 ha of new planting of coconuts was to be undertaken in Karnataka (10,000 ha) and Tamil Nadu (4,000 ha), including the establishment of coconut seed gardens. Project Appraisal 2.03 A World Bank appraisal mission visited India in May/June 1976. It was then decided to concentrate the project on Kerala (see amp) only, since project preparation there was in a much more advanced stage than in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The project as appraised (Appraisal Report No. 1325.-IN, dated January 25, 1977) intended to increase smrllholder production of coconut, pepper, food crops and caahew and to improve the quality of rubber. It comprised the following components: (a) new planting of high yielding coconut - 5,000 ha in Cannmore, Roz- hikode and Malappuram districts; (b) rehabilitation of 30,000 ha coconuts, including replanting of senile and unproductive palms in areas free of root wilt disease in Can- nanore, Kozhikode, Malappuram and Trivandrum districts; (c) provision of minor irrigation facilities in project coconut areas - 1,000 ha in new planting areaa, and 7,500 ha in rehabilitation areas: (dl intercropping in coconut areaa - 26,500 ha of various garden cropa without irrigation) about 3,000 ha of cocoa, about 3,000 ha of fodder including dirtribution of 9,000 dairy cattle and about 2,500 ha of other crops with irrigation) (el rehabilitation, including replanting of pepper - 10,000 ha in Can- nanore, Idukki and Kottayrm districts) ( f ) establishment of seed gardens for coconut (300 ha), cashew (50 ha), cocoa (20 ha), pepper (35 ha) and other spices (30 ha)) (g) rehabilitation of a State-owned cashew plantation of 2,280 ha and new planting8 of 1,470 ha in Cannanore district, oat.bliahmont of a pilot plant for proceasing cashew apple; (h) establishment of 10 crumb rubber factories (9 new and 1 expansion), each of 10 ton/day capacity, developmant of marketing infrastructure (6 godowns, 17 trucks) and improved marketing; (i) strengthening of research by the Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI), Agricultural University Of Kerala (KAU) and Indian Rubber Board (IBB),including training and technical assistance; and (j) provision of improved extension services and investment credit facilities for project participants. 2.04 Activities (a) to (el known as the suullholders' development, were to be carried out by suull farmers, who were to be provided with investment credit and extension servicer. 2.05 Recognizing the need for an effective organisation to manage and successfully implement this complex project, the following institutional arrangements were nude: (a) A Project Coordination Cornittee (PCC) under the chairmanship of the Kerala Agricultural Production Coamirrioner (see Chart) war made terpon.sible for overall project coordination and monitoring; (b) The suullholder component, including seed garden8 and related exten- sion support, became the rerponribility of, and war implemented through, a new COK adminirtrative entity, the Special Agricultural Developawnt Unit (SADU) headed by the Kerala Agricultural Production , Comirrioner; (c) Carhew development war undertaken by the Plantation Corporation, Kerala (PCK); (d) Implementation of the rubber factory component war the responsibility of the respective Cooperative Rubber Marketing Societier (CRXS) 'and the Kerala State Rubber hrkting Federation (m) and coordinated through the Rubber Procesring Departawnt; (el Agricultural rerearch war the joint rerponribility of CPCRI and KAUj m d (f) IDA funds uore channelled from the Covemwnt of India (COI) to NABMD to firmace participating bankr. 111. PROJECT IMP-ATIOH start-up 3.01 The Bank approved the project on February 17, 1977. The D8velopernt Credit and Project agreemanta were si-ed on April 1, 1977, and the Credit war declared effective on June 29, 1977. S o m delayr occurred becaure COK war not familiar with the procedurer of Bank-arrirted projectr and sought reviaionr of the legal docuwntr after n;80tiationr. 3.02 It had been atreed during project apprairal in Ha7 1976 that CbK and IRB would undertake certain pre-project actionr. There were not completed due to the reluctance of COK to coamit funds and staff bafore c o n f i ~ t i o nof IDA'S financial assistance- This resulted in a slow start of various project activities. 3.03 Manpower constraints within SADU and delayed implementation of credit schemes resulted in the loss of the 1977178 planting season and more than one year's delay in project implementation. Initial delays were experienced in the transfer of suitable land from Forest Department to SADU for seed garden establishment and to PCK for new cashew planting and in positioning of essen- tial staff and in appointing foreign technical consultants for the rubber processing component. Project Changes after Appraisal 3.04 Several changes were mrde during the project period due to implemen- tation problems and in response to farmers' needs. The main changes were as follows: (a) Coconut - New Planting. The appraisal target of 5,000 ha was increased to 7,000 ha; (b) Coconut Rehabilitation. The appraisal target was reduced from 30,000 ha to 27,500 ha. Of the 27,500 ha, 5,200 ha were in root wilt dis- ease affected areas and the balance in disease free areas) (c) Hinor Irrigation Facilities and Irrigation of Coconuts. The irrigated area of new planting was increased from 1,000 ha to 1,925 ha; (dl Fodder Interplantint? in Irrigated Coconut Rehabilitation and Dis- tribution of Cows. The area under fodder war decreased from 3,000 ha to 2,317 ha and the number of cows from 9,000 to 5,671; (el Pepper Rehabilitation. The appraisal target of 10,000 ha was increased to 17,500 hat (f) Seed Cardm. The area for the seed garden complex was increased from 435 ha to 582 ha) (g) Cashew Developawnt. The appraisal target of 2,280 ha was reduced to 2,015 ha for rehabilitation and the cashew apple processing unit was deleted: (h) Rubbor Processin&. The number of new factorier to be constructed was reduced from 9 to 6; and (i) New Project Districts. Wynard district was included for pepper rehabilitation and four new districts (Alleppey, ernakulum, Quilon and Trichur) for coconut development. m a r d district was carved out of Camonore and Kozhikode districts in 1981. Since both these districts were included in the project, the amendment did not mean any change in project area but only specified the new district Wynard in the legal docuwnt. The proposed four new districts were not included in the original project because of the prevalence of coconut root-wilt disease in these areas. - Implementation Schedule 3.05 In general, the project was about 18 months behind the appraisal target. Owing to the initial implementation problems with all project c o w ponents and continuing problems with some, and the revision of appraisal targets, the project was extended by one year (to Uarch 1986). Implementation of Project Components 3.06 A sumnary of implementation targets and achievements is given in Table 1. 3.07 Coconut - New Plantina. Implementation of this component was a success. The appraisal target was increased twice (from 5,000 ha to 6,000 and again to 7,000 ha) because of the good response from famers. Impleaun- tation rate was slow in the first two project years but accelerated con- siderably thereafter, and by 1984 the area planted had exceeded the original appraisal target. 3.08 Coconut - Rehabilitation. The original target of 30,000 ha was reduced to 27,500 because of poor uptake by farmars. It consisted of the following sub-components. Table 3.1: COCONUT REHABILITATIOU SUB-COHPOUEWTS (ha) SAB Revised by COK Achievement Irrigated Root disease free area# Unirrigated Root disease free areaa Root disease affected areaa - 5,200 2,795 Total 3.09 Deaund for irrigated coconut developmant by farmera war high, ar a result of which achieveannt exceeded SAB target. Howver, farmera' reaponae to unirrigated coconut rehabilitation war below expectationr, due in part to credit problems. Reasons for low credit deaund by farmers for this sub-component were the small size of inveatmmt loan# in relation to the value of land to be mortgaged as collateral, reluctance to mortgage land, defective land titles, low calibre of extension staff, restrictive conditions stipulated by NABABD and participating banks, and lack of cooperation by these banks to prowte'project development. The pilot schema for the development of 5,200 ha of coconut in root disease affected areas was included in the project in 1982. Initial impleauntation war slow because of J the Late positioning of field staff and unpreparedness of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank (KSCB) to be responsible for the delivery of credit to farmers in these new areas, but it gradually gained momentum, and cormnendable physical progress was achieved by the end of the project period. Provision of Minor Irrigation Facilities and Irrigation of Coconuts 3.10 Irrigation. The appraisal target for irrigated coconuts was increased Erom 8,500 ha to 9,425 ha because of farmers' demand. After the initial implementation delay, progress accelerated considerably and at project completion 18,221 ha were irrigated: 15,166 ha (sAB 7,500 ha) rehabilitated and 3,055 ha (SAR 1,000 ha) newly planted. Shortage of water was experienced in some areas where a groundwater survey had not been under- taken before pump installation. 3.11 Energization of Pumpsets. At project completion only 7,351 out of 9,380 electric pumps installed were energized (SAR target, 10,875 units) and 1,703 diesel pumps (SAR target 1,900 units) were installed. The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) was unable to cope with the demand because of shortage of materials and manpower and lack of coordinated planning with SADU at the district and field levels. KSEB was also reluctant to provide power to coconut growers because of the low power tariff. Energization of electric pumps accelerated considerably after KSEB was directed by COY in 1984 to give priority to this project component and also when reticulation charges increased from Rs 4,500 to Rs 9,500. 3.12 Intercropping. Interplanting of irrigated, rehabilitated coconut with cocoa and fodder was met with poor farmer response. At project comple- tion only 1,266 ha of fodder had been planted and 2,998 cows distributed. Uptake was poor because other agencies were extending similar schemes which included subsidies. Also, marketing of milk was a problem in some areas, and there was considerable delay in the energization of pumpsets for irrigating fodder. Only 1,089 ha of cocoa war planted (compared with the appraisal target of 3,000 ha) of which 92% were planted in 1978, 1979 and 1980 when the cocoa price was high (Rs 35/kg wet beans). After 1980, the price of cocoa fell to Rs 3.5 and, because of the reported high acidity of the cocoa beans, the only marketing agency (cadbury India Ltd.) withdrew from the market. Cocoa holdings have since been neglected or abandoned, and 900 ha have been replanted with bananas. 3.13 Pepper Rehabilitation. Implementation of this component war con- sidered successful. The SAIL target of 10,000 ha was achieved in 1982. An additional 7,500 ha was approved in August 1981. At project completion, 19,842 ha had been rehabilitated. Very little planting of new pepper was undertaken as originally planned in the SAB. 3.14 Seed Garden. The seed garden complex was increased from 835 ha to 582 ha in September 1981 but its developamnt was seriously handicapped by delays in transferring land from the Forest Departmnt to the Kerala Depart- ment of Agriculture (KDOA), in constructing access road, staff quarters and administrative buildings, and in supplying electricity and irrigation facilities. During the period 1982-1985, 105 has of coconuts were destroyed by drought damage. Damage was also caused by lack of irrigation facilities and wild animals. At project completion the resulting shortfall against the -SAR estimate was 222 ha coconuts, 7 ha pepper, and 10 ha each of cocoa and - nutmeg; about 76 ha of land had still not been made available by the Forest Department; Administrative buildings, staff quarters and roads were only 90% complete, and only 111 out of 186 ha of the seed garden were provided with irrigation facilities. Planting of the proposed additional area of 222 ha coconut and 7 ha pepper is expected to be completed by FY1989. 3.15 Cashew Development. The cashew plantation of the KDOA was trans- ferred to PCK in early 1978. Rehabilitation proceeded according to schedule, but new planting was only completed in 1984 due to the long process involved in complying with the GO1 Conservation Act and further delays in site clear- ing. As improved varieties were not available at the time, ordinary planting materials of Local origin were used. 3.16 The pilot cashew processing plant proposed at appraisal was not established. Initially, there was a misunderstanding of the objective of this component by PCK, resulting in the carrying out of two feasibility studies by the Central Food Technological Research Institute on the estab- lishnmnt of a small-scale commercial plant for processing cashew brandy and jam. Subsequently, a proposal for a pilot plant as envisaged at appraisal was submitted to the Bank in 1980. However, in view of the long delay and the lack of management expertise, COX and the World Bank, in mid-1983, agreed not to proceed. 3.17 Rubber Processing Component. The appraisal report stipulated the construction of nine new factories and the expansion of an existing one. At project completion, only two new factories and the expanded one were opera- tional. Three more factories were expected to be operational by November 1986 and the remaining four by 1988. Delays occurred at every stage of the project period: approval of detailed factory proposals by financing agencies; site selection and acquisition of land: procuremnt of cement, steel and other equipment: construction disputes by contractors over price escalation, and late payments: and: subsequently, procuremnt, mrchinery installation and plant electrification. Lack of construction supervision by I88 due to late recruitment of technical consultants has been an impediment throughout the implementation of thir project component. 3.18 The three factorier operated well below m u i m m capacity. Average capacity utilization in 1985 and 1986 was 652 in Palai, 402 in Kanjirapally and 272 in Koshikode. The low capacity utilization (40-652) of the three factories war due mainly to restricted power supply, frequent power cuts, labor striker and soor difficulties in obtaining raw materials due to com- petition from private factories and lower price incentive. However, capacity utilization is expected to increase to about 832 during PY1987-90 for the first three factories (para 5.17) and by 1992 for the three remaining new factories because more reliable power would be assured, and raw material would be more regularly supplied by the organized producer groups and through provision of better price incentives. 3.19 Development of Marketin8 Infrastructure and Marketina. The provision of physical infrastructure (godown and vehicles) was deleted from the project in the absence of a consensus among concerned agencies. Collection of raw materials and marketing of crumb rubber created considerable problems. Funds available vere insufficient for payments to crumb rubber societies and resulted in shortages of raw material. 3.20 Central Rubber and Testing Laboratory. The laboratory vas estab- lished in a temporary building and started functioning in a limited way commencing January 1981. It became fully functional when it was transferred to a new building with better facilities and a full complement of staff in September 1985. 3.21 Training and Technical Assistance. The programe of overseas train- ing was not fully implemented. Officers who vere sent to Malaysia for train- ing included the project officer, processing engineer, chemical engineer, economist/financial analyst, market research officer and two factory managers. Technical consultants were recruited in January 1979, about 19 months behind schedule. The delay was due mainly to cumbersome and lengthy procedures requiring approval of several government agencies. The technical consultants' contract vas extended by two years up to December 1985 in view of the delay in the establishment of the factories. Agricultural Research 3.22 The stipulated research programmes were carried out satisfactorily both by CPCRI and KAU. In CPCRI a Laboratory-cum-library building and visit- ing scientists ' apartments vere constructed. The laboratory was equipped with sophisticated equipment including an electron microscope. A radio isotope laboratory building was constructed in KAU, and this was fully equipped to support the research programne. All the posts of scientists in CPCRI (17) and KAU (13) have been filled. Five scientists from CPCRI, but only one out of the proposed seven scientists from KAU, have benefitted from training overseas. The project provided for a total of 18 manmonths of consultancy services of which only 2.25 manmonths vere utilized. Extension Services 3.23 Throughout the greater part of the project period, the extension service has faced numerous staffing constraints: unfilled vacancies, high turnover and poor calibre of field staff. It was not fully staffed until early 1984. Many of the posts have been filled on a temporary basis because the Public Service Commission has been too slow to meet project requirements. There was also a high turnover of high level staff. This, and the general dissatisfaction of field staff, was partly due to lack of mobility and hardship allowance. The SAR proposed the purchase of 338 motorcycles for field staff, 20 cars for supervisory staff and 6 10-ton trucks for transport of input supplies, mainly seedlings. Only 2 motorcycles, 3 cars, 6 trucks and 24 jeeps were purchased. Field staff were also not adequately trained to effectively provide agricultural advice and assistance. Considerable time was spent on identifying potential participants and assisting them in loan applications, and this reduced effective extension concerning cultural prac- tices, disease control, etc. The wide dispersion of participating farmers reduced the frequency of extension visits particularly as extens.ion staff were not prepared to purchase motorcycles or bicycles under the inadequate loan, transport or traveling allowances which were provided. -Credit Component 3.24 Under the project, Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank (KSCADB) and 10 commercial banks (CBs) were selected as participating lending banks for the provision of loans to smallholders and KSEB. Loans for the cashew development were provided by CBs, while loans for rubber procesp- ing factories were provided by KSCB rather than KSCADB as anticipated at appraisal. 3.25 Terms and conditions of NABARD's re-f inancing and lending from the participating banks have deviated slightly from the appraisal estimates. The interest rate for NABARD's re-f inancing for minor irrigation development wag reduced from 7.5% pea. to 6.5% pea. since April 1979. Interest rat- for ultimate borrowers were also reduced from 10.25%-10.5% pea. for minor irriga- tion development, snullholder development and KSEB to 10% pea., and the interest rates for other putposer (carhew and rubber procesring factories and marketing) were reduced from between 11.0% to 12.5% pea. to 11% pea. Due to the subrtantial increarer in the development coats and lower prices of output particularly coconut, repayment periods for the smallholder development are longer at 15 years including a grace period of five yearr compared with 12-13 yearr including a grace period of 1-2 yearr estiauted at appraisal. L o w r income due to poor uptaka of intercropr and dairying ir the other factor limiting farmer's repayment ability. 3.26 Table 7 presents the nwnbers of lours recommended, approved and disbursed during the project period. Of the total amount of Rr 904.5 million recomncnded by SADU, Rs 798.4 million war approved by participating banks. Shortfalls were mainly due to the lack of sufficient collateral in the smallholder sector. Because disbursements particularly for smallholders are divided into five inrtallments, disbursements a8 of July 1986 were Rr 520.4 million, or 65% of the total loans approved of which Rs 432.4 million was for the smallholder development (83%). Rs 46.3 million for KSEB (9%). Rr 8.5 million for cashew development (2%) and Rr 33.2 million (6%) for rubber processing factorier. Dirbursements under the snullholder development and KSEB were 34% above the appraisal target of Rr 358.2 million. Higher demands in the irrigated coconut development and pepper rehabilitation urd its increasing development costs are the main factorr. Dirbursmnts under cashew developavnt were 37% below the appraisal estiaute of Rr 13.5 million, while disburs.ementr under rubber procersing factories were 12% above the appraisal target of Rr 33.5 million. The forant war due to the reduced fund requirement from PCK, and the latter war due to the increaring invertment and operating cortr. 3.27 Under smallholder development, disbursements were made for the development of 30,046 ha of coconut including intercropr and dairy, 19,482 ha of pepper and 7,594 niter of electric reticulation. Lour procesring and disbursements, particularly during initial project years, were slow due to shortage of staff within the banks and SADU, and lack of clear lending proce- durer and adequate sanction authority within the bank8 at district level. Delays were also caused by NABARD's slow re-financing process. 3.28 The lack of coordination to achieve a uniform lending policy for smallholder development has limited the credit operations, particularly of CBs. Simple interest had been applied by KSCADB and compound interest by CBs. Moreover, interest rebates of 5% for prompt repayment were extended only to KSCADB's clients. As a result, the anticipated role of CBs in extending loans to smallholders was reduced from 502 to 302 (Table 8). Moreover, competition from various Integrated Rural Development Program subsidy schemes adversely affected potential development and credit demands in the project area. One-third of the irrigation and dairy development costs has been given as a subsidy to sm~llh~ldets.Due to longer grace periods, most of the loan repayments have not yet fallen due. However, it was reported that loan recovery from pepper development was satisfactory, but there was difficulty under the coconut development due to the current low price of coconut. 3.29 Disbursements of loans for the cashew development and rubber process- ing factories suffered long delays due to the slow loan processing procedures in CBs and KSCB and NABARD. 3.30 As of July 1986, total NABARD's re-financing war Rs 410.4 million (Table 10). or about 802 of the total loans disbursed. Re-financing for the smallholder component was about 902 and that for carhew development and rubber processing factories about 75%. Project Cost 3.31 Total project cost (see Tables 2 and 3 and over an implementation period of seven years was estimated at Rs 619 million, (US$69 million). Due to the slow start-up and considerable implementation delays, the actual project cost during the implementation period was Rs 740 million (USS72.5 million), or a cost overrun in Rupers of 20% (5% in US$). However, total project cost over the full development period ir estimated at about Rs 984 million, with a cost overrun of 59% (34% in US$ terms). Major factors con- tributing to cost overruns during the project period were the conriderable increases in irrigated coconut d a v e l o p n t areas, and price escalations in the costs of construction, particularly Labour, cement and steel. Project Financing 3.32 IDA was expected to finance 44% of total project costs, i.e., 100% of all foreign exchange costs and about 33% of the local currency costs. The total IDA credit was US$30 million and COX, COK, NABABD and participating banks, m P , C M S , KSEB and farmers were expected to contribute the balance of US$39 million as shown below. Table 3.2: PROJECT FINANCING -US$ million) Appraisal Estinutes Actual IDA 30.0 29.5 COX and COK 7.O 10.3 NABAED and participating banks 25.5 22.1 CBnS, W, KSHB and KSCB 1.8 6.2 Farmers' Contribution - - 4.7 4.4 Total 69.0 72.5 =111 =Ill The actual credit disbursed was USS29.5 million (40.62 of actual project costs). The shortfall in IDA disbursements of USSO.5 million was due auinly to deletion of the marketing facility component, reduced number of crumb rubber factories, and reduced technical assistance and overseas training components. Loan Allocation and Disburs'ement 3.33 Shortage of staff for maintaining separate and regular accounts was a major cause of delayed Loan disbursement. Cumulative disburssmants (Table 5 ) lagged behind the appraisal schedule throughout the project period despite cost overruns. The folloving table shovs a comparison between appraisal estimates and actual loan allocation. Table 3.3: PROCEEDS OF LOAN ALLOCATION (US$ million) Appraisal Actual as X of Estimates Actual Appraisal Estimates (1) Equipment and Material (2) (a) Equipment for Crumb Rubber Factories (b) Civil Works for New Factories (c) Expansion of Palai Factory (dl Marketing Facilities (3) Technical Assistance & Overseas Training for Rubber 6 Research Components (4) Loan Disbursed to Farmers 6 KSEB ( 5 ) Civil Works & Development (a) Cashew Development (b) Seed Garden (6) Other Civil Works (7) Unallocated (8) Cancelled Total 30.00 30 00 =-== =-s= 3.34 Most of the unallocated fund of USS7.3 million was used to meet credit needs resulting from the increasing costs of the s~llholderc o p ponent. Allocations for the crumb rubber factories, marketing facilities, technical assistance and overseas training were below the appraisal estimates due to low achievement and deletion. IV. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT Project Coordination 4.01 PCC met two to four times annually. PCC did not have a adequate staff support and was unable to solve major problcmr promptly and satisfac- torily. Effective coordination is esaential in a complex project, with many components involving numerous agencies, and to operate at optimum capacity this requires full-time senior staff with the necessary incentives (allowan- ces and transport) and authority. Implementing Agencies 4.02 Numerous State and Central Government agencies were involved in project implementation. As recommended by the appraisal mission several key -organizations were set up prior to the conmencement of the project in March 1977, and these included SADU, a Project Department within PCK and a Rubber Processing Department within IRE. 4.03 Special Agricultural Development Unit (SADU). This war the principal implementing agency with specific responsibility for smallholder developamnt dealing with coconut and pepper development, including irrigation and inter- cropping of coconuts with cocoa, fodder and dairying, related axtenrion support and seed garden development. Taking into consideration that it was a new organization, that the project was the first of its kind and complex in nature, and that SADU was confronted with staffing problemr and other con- straints as indicated in para 3.23, this unit has performed reasonably well. For future operations the essential extension services will be integrated into the TLV system, leaving SADU to concentrate on credit applicationr and utilization. SADU will also assist lending institutions in there operations. 4.04 Kerala Plantation Corporation (PCK). A Carhew Project Department (CPD) was set up within PCK in May 1977 for implementing the project. The organization and management of CPD war weak and effective field supervision war lacking. The Project Office war located far from the plantation rite and the plantation war fragmented into six different, widely scattered arear, separated from the rest of the project area by a river and inaccerrible (no bridge) during the rainy period. Timely availability of inputr, and regular and prompt field maintenance and harverting were not porrible due to labor shortage, mainly becaure higher labor wager were offered by adjacent rubber estates. 4.05 On the recommlndation of World Bank supervirion missions, the visit- ing agent systcm of providing technical input and guidance was adopted. However, only two field visits were made in 1982 and the third in 1986. 4.06 Recruitment of staff by CPD war rlov and moat of the technical per- sonnel had no previour carhew experience. The General b a g e r had additional responsibilities outride the project. 4.07 Rubber Procerring Department. Thir department, established in 1977, only- played ur advisory role and had no effective control of KBM? and CBnS on - - the construction and ohration of rubber procerring factories procuremant of , raw materiala and marketing of crumb rubber. 4.08 Kerala Rubbor Marketing Federation. KEUF suffered from aarnagerial and financial problamr. There were frequent changer of personnel at the senior m&nag&nt level, rerulting in d~rcontinuiEyof p;oject implemnnta- . tion. For the greater part of the project period KB)(Phar been functioning without proper marketing m d financial rupport rtaff Follouing the recow mendation of the Berant Raj Conrultants on organization and nunagenmnt, the management personnel of KBnP ha8 been conriderably strengthened. 4.09 Cooperative Rubber Marketing Societier. Mort societier have shown improved performance. The quantity of rubber procured and sold har increased conriderably, particularly for the Palai factory, and problemr regarding the p r o c u r ~ ~ nof raw materials have been overcoma succerrfully through the t provision of better price incentives to producers and the establishment of rubber producers' societies in FY1986. 4.10 Research Institutions. CPCRI and KAU have carried out their research activities satisfactorily. However, the overseas training and technical assistance programme was not fully implemented. 4.11 Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). Non-availability of materials and the need to change transformers and extension lines were reported to be the major problems faced by KSEB in providing adequate electricity to implementing agencies. Energitation of pumpsets accelerated considerably only in the last two project years resulting from the action of GOK concern- ing farmers' participation and KSEB action priority. Lending Institutions 4.12 The overall performance of N A B M D and participating banks was reasonably satisfactory. A common problem encountered in the project was delay in loan processing and disbursement. More critical problems were the lack of a uniform lending policy, and competition from various IRDB's subsidy schemes. The former has considerably limited credit operations of commercial banks, the Latter has adversely affected the potential development and credit demands in the project area. The establishment of a uniform lending policy and removal of subsidy schemes would have helped increasing the participation of commercial banks promoting potential development and credit demands. Other problems which have delayed and limited credit operations included shortage of staff in the lending banks to handle timely Loan approval, disbursements and supervision; and, lack of clear operational procedures. During the project, an informal cornittee comprising the Director of SADU and repre- . sentatives from N A B M D and all the participating banks, was set up and suc- cessfully solved some of these problemr 4.13 Monitoring and Evaluation. The Evaluation Unit hag produced 15 reoorts which were largely problem-oriented studies. - - - Useful baseline data on pre-project crop yields and farm income have also been collected by the Unit. At the recommendation of a Bank supervision mission, the Unit undertook an .evaluation study of the saul1holder development component, however the study was mainly problem-oriented, and provided Little data on project implementa- tion. Accounting and Reporting 4.14 With the exception of SADU, implementing agencies were generally late in submitting annual audited accounts and reports to IDA, and in some years the delay was more than one year against the stipulated period of five months. The quality of accounts and audit work somatime8 did not meet the standards for IDA financed projects. Until 1984 KBnP did not operate bank accounts for project activities separately from funds handled on behalf of member societies. Compliance with Covenants 4.15 Compliance with legal covenants war generally satisfactory. Excep- tions were that the Kerala State Electricity Boad war unable to provide project farmers with adequate electricity for the energisation of pumprets, that there was considerable delay in the transfer of land for the seed garden complex and for cashew planting, and that annual accounts and audit reports were submitted to the Bank with considerable delay. V. PROJECT IMPACT Afiricultural Impact 5.01 It is not yet possible to quantify with accuracy the yields and production at full development. Yield otiauter (Table8 11 and 12) are based on data provided by SADU, the Evaluation Unit and interview8 with farmers during field visits. 5.02 Coconuts. The appraisal report anticipated that the largest produc- tion increase would come from coconuta. Yield8 of rehabilitated coconut were expected to increaae from 21 nut8/palm to more than 40 in unirrigated and 60 in irrigated area,. In the ca8e of unirrigated coconut,, the appraisal eatiaute wa8 exceeded in the seventh year and at full development the yield i8 expected to be more than 50 nut81palm (Table 11). Yield, of irrigated coconuts were well belov the expected level in the early year8 but increared appreciably thereafter and are expected to reach 80 nutalpalm at full development. Low yield, of coconut8 during the initial project years were due to the fact that moat farmers planted only the Wort-Coaat Tall although hcadative Ordinary and hybrid seedling8 had a180 been recomwnded by the Department of Agriculture, and that only a few farmer8 adopted recomwnded cultural practicer. At full developnt the e8timated annul production of 243 million nuts under the coconut rehabilitation component i8 very clo8e to the SAB ertiaute of 246 million nut8 (Table 13). In the c a m of coconut new planting, production ir expected to reach 88 million nut,, exceedin8 the appraisal eatiaute of 46 million nut8 d m mainly to the 3052 increase in the area8 planted and irri8at.d (Table I). 5.03 Interplanting of Coconuts. Only about one-third of the SAP target of 3,000 ha of cocoa b.8 been met. lo further planting8 were undertaken since 1982 kcau8e of declining pricer. The expected yield of 520 b/ha (dry bema) (Table 12) and an annul production of 520 ton8 by Year 15 ia far belov the S M a88umption of 650 u / h a and 1,950 ton# (Table 14). Prom 1981182 onward, roar farmerr interplanted their coconuta with banana# (unforereen in the S M ) inatead of cocoa. B~nrnrproduction h.8 increared con8iderably from 160 ton8 in 1981 to 5,500 ton8 in 1982 but declined rub- sequently and ir expected to stabilize at 2,100 ton8 annually (Table 14). Similarly, tapioca production increased to 21,000 ton8 but .$.in decreared to 11,000 tons, far belov the appraisal ertiaute of 148,000 ton8 (Table 14). Production shortfall8 -re due to farmerr' reluctance to increase b w a and tapioca planting in the absence of production 10~18. Annul milk production ia estiauted to be about 4 million litre, compared with the SAB target of 15 million litter. 5.04 Peppers. Very little new pepper was planted. Average yields of rehabilitated pepper at full development are reestimated at 875 kgfha com- pared with appraisal 650 kgfha (Table 12) based on assessments by SADU and farmer interviews. Also the pre-project yield of rehabilitated pepper of 275 kgfha has been revised to 155 kgfha. The net effect of these adjustments is to raise the incremental yield of rehabilitated pepper at full development to 720 kgfha compared with the 375 kgfha estimated at appraisal, (a 922 increase). Incremental production is now estimated at about 14,285 tonslyear or about 2.5 times the appraisal estimate of 6,000 tonslyear. Total pepper production is estimated to reach 17,300 tonsfyear at full development, com- pared with the SAR estimate of 8,700 tons/year (Table 141, resulting from the substantial increase in the rehabilitated pepper development area of 19,842 ha (SAR 10,000 ha), and higher yields. 5.05 Cashew. Present yield estimates of 525 kgfha for rehabilitated cashew and 640 kgfha for new planting9 at full development are far below appraisal estimate of 1,300 kgfha and 2,000 kg/ha respectively (Table 12). Also annual production of 2,000 tons of raw nuts from both rehabilitated and newly planted cashews at full development are far below the SAR estimate of 6,400 tons. Reasons for Low yields and production are discussed earlier in paras 3.15 and 4.04. 0 Rubber. The total annual production of the three factories during the last project year was only 3,900 tons, i.e., about 25% of SAR expectation for these factories and is much Less in relation to the SAR assumption for 10 factories. 5.07 Seed Garden. It is anticipated that the project will achieve its target of producing 3.5 million pepper cuttings and about 75% of the cashew seed target; only about 15% of the coconut seedlings are likely to be produced (Table 16). Other Impact 5.08 Crop Developwnt. There was an enthusiastic response from farmers for irrigation of coconuts and rehabilitation of pepper. More farmers are taking remedial meaaures to improve coconut production in disease affected areas. The use of technically specified rubber haa been introduced and popularized. The Central Rubber Testing Laboratory war the first of its kind to be established and haa been able to provide analytical services for quality control of proceaaed rubber and for the treatment and disposal of factory affluent. Mearures are being initiated to establish Rubber Producers Societies for the collection of raw material and supply to rubber processing factories. 5.09 Extension Services. The Extension Service of SADU has been success- ful in organizing farmers in concentrated units for project implementation. However, the inability of staff to concentrate on the delivery of technology packages was due to the h e a y burden of their non-extension activities. 5.10 A~riculturalResearch. CPCRI has identified the vector responsible for transmitting coconut wilt root disease. Findings of soma field trials on coconut, cocoa and cashew undertaken by CPCRI and the KAU are incorporated into recommendations for adoption by farmers. Incomes and Financial Results 5.11 Two farm models, not included at appraisal have been prepared for coconut rehabilitation in order to deal with the condition8 in root wilt affected areaa and to deacribe rehabilitation with irrigated bananaa. The financial rates of return (IBB) for all models have been calculated over a period of 25 years. They are baaed on net income excluding wage8 of family labour (Tables 18-33). The results are suamrized below: Table 5.1: FINANCIAL BATE OF RETUEU (XI Coconut New Planting Unirrigated with garden crops irrigated with garden crops' Irrigated with banana Coconut Rehabilitation Unirrigated with gardm cropa Irrigated with cocoa Unirrigated in diaease affected area with dairy over 50 Irrigated with banana 21.0 Irrigated with dairy 12.0 Pepper Rehabilitation over 60 5.12 Major reaaona for the lower IBBa for a o n of the farm wdela are: much higher investment and oparating coata (Table 4). delayod and lower than expected yielda of the coconut new planting, and higher yield8 of coconuta in the pre-project aitrution (Table 11). Coconuta (new planting8 and rehabilitation) in irrigated areaa with intercropa of banana generated favorable I M a between 21-25%. while coconut rehabilitation in root wilt affected a r u gutrratea the higheat IBB of o w r SOX due to significant increaaea in yirlda in the with project aitrution. The reeatimted I M of pepper rehabilitation ia very favorable at over 60%, due to higher incr-n- tal yields and prices of outputs. The current price of pepper at Ra 41.33 per kg ia nearly double the appraisal eatimate of Ba 21.8 per kg upressed in 1986 conatant value. 5.13 Re-eatimted caah flowa of all the farm modela are preaented in Tables 35-42. The reaults are suamrized below. Table 5.2: PRE- AND POST-PROJECT SMALLHOLDERS INCOME Income Pre- Full Holding Project Development Incremental Size SAR PCR SAR PCB SAR PCR (ha) ........ m . . . . . . . . RS a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coconut New Planting Unirrigated and garden crops 0.5 156 683 3,785 8,305 3,629 7,622 Irrigated and garden crops 1.0 312 1,336 10,336 20,415 10,024 19,079 Irrigated and banana 1.0 - 800 - 23,572 - 22,772 Coconut Rehabilitation Unirrigated and garden crops 0.5 1,464 3,511 2,707 6,265 1,243 2,754 Unirrigated in disease affected areas 0.2 - 883 - 3,448 - 2,565 Irrigated and cocoa 1.0 2,928 4,960 10,281 17,735 7,353 12,775 Irrigated and fodder 1.0 2,928 5,010 9,267 18,296 6,339 13,286 Irrigated and banana 1.O - 5,010 - 18,405 13,395 Pepper Rehabilitation 5.14 The re-estimated net incomes in the pre-project situation is 70-150% higher than estimated at appraisal. This is due mainly to higher prices of outputs (see Table 17). Net income of the farms at full development after debt servicing are re-estimated at Rs 3,448 for a 0.2 ha farm of coconut rehabilitation in root wilt affected area and at Rs 30,650 for the 1 ha farm of pepper rehabilitation. The re-estimated net incomes of the farms at full development are about double the net incomes of the models estimated at appraisal due to higher yields expected at full development and higher prices of outputs. Net income of the pepper rehabilitation model is approximately five times the net income estimated at appraisal. Incremental net incomes of the models are estimated at Rs 2,754 for the 0.5 ha farm of coconut rehabilitation in unirrigated areas with garden crops and Rs 25,575 for the 1 ha farm of pepper rehabilitation, which are expected to provide sufficient financial incentives to participating farmers of the project. 5.15 Cashew Development. Due to one-Year's delay in implementation, poor mananernent and considerably lower yields (Table 12), PCK has been operating st losses throughout the p;oject prriod. These losses have been financed through COK's subsidy and PCK's profit from rubber plantations. However, PCK is expected to have an operating surplus starting in FY1986. Net operating income at full development in FYZOOO is estimated at Rs 10.9 million, or almost 502 higher than the appraisal estimate due mainly to higher output prices. However, the IRR is negative due mainly to lower yields and delayed flow of benefits. Despite an operating deficit, PCK had fully repaid the investment Loans of Rs 8.5 million in FY1985 from its income from rubber plantation (Tables 43-45). 5.16 Seed Garden. Because of considerable implementat ion delays (para 3.14) the seed garden started to produce small quantities of planting - materials only as of FY1985, and incurred financial losses throughout the implementation period. The operating deficit is expected to continue until FY1990 because of the additional investment required for development of the remaining 229 ha of land and completion of buildings under construction. Full development is expected in FY1998 and net operating income is estimated at Rs 6.3 million. This is 502 higher than the net operating income as estimated at appraisal. Due to considerable delays in realizing full produc- tion, the IRR is expected to be negative (Tables 46 and 47). 7 Crumb Rubber Processing Factories. The actual (FY1979-85) and projected (~~1986-2001)operating income of the six crumb rubber factories are shown in Tables 48 to 52. The net operating income of the Palai factory was negative in FY1982, but positive during FYl983-85. The Kozhikode and Kanjirapally factories also had operating deficit throughout FY1983-85. It is estimated that all these three factories would be able to achieve 832 of the installed capacity, and full production would be reached in FY1987 for the Palai factory, FY1989 for Kozhikode, FY1990 for Kanjirapally and FY1992 for the three new factorier. Net operating income at full development is ertimated at Rr 3.6 million per factory, or over double the net operating income estimated at apprairal due mainly to the high selling price of crumb rubber which har increased from Rr 6.6 per in 1976 to Rs 17.2 per kg in 1986. The re-ertimated IRR of the six crumb-rubber factories is only 112 because of the long delay in realizing full production. Economic Re-evaluation 5.18 The analysis has been carried out in 1986 constant prices. The past expenditures were restated in 1986 prices by using the wholerale price index. The foreign exchange costa (Pa) and traded goodr were valued at the present prevailing official exchange rate of USQ1.0 = Rs 12.5. Local costs (LC) and non-traded goodr were converted into border prices by using a staqdard con- version factor (SCP) of 80%. Several specific conversion factors (CPs) have also been ured ar r h o m below. - CPs Insecticides and Pesticides 0.95 Civil Works 0.75 Equipmutt 0.75 5.19 For traded c m d i t i e s , the World Bank's 1990 price projections, expressed in 1986 canstrot values, have been used in all calculations. The derivation of economic prices of fertilisers is presented in Table 55. The economic wage far unskilled labour has h e n taken at Us lO/nunday, or 50% of the prerent minimum wage rate due to high u n u p l o p n t in the State.. 5.20 The derivation of economic prices of outputs is presented in Table 5 3 Coconut, cocoa, pepper and cashew have been based on export parity prices, while rubber has been based on import parity price. Intercrops have been assumed as non-traded goods, thus their economic prices have been based on financial prices adjusted by SCF. A sumnary of economic prices of outputs and inputs is presented in Table 53. - 5.21 In estimating the ERRS, a 25-year period of analysis has been used as the discounted values after Year 25 are negligible. Tables 56-64 present the cost and benefit streams of the various components and the whole project. Total project ERR which has been re-estimated at 24.5% is attributable primarily to rehabilitated pepper (Table 60). In 1986 constant values, at full development, gross benefits for rehabilitated pepper are estimated at Rs 590 million/year, approximately 4.5 times the Rs 131 miLlion/year estimated at appraisal, whilst net benefits, are Rs 533 millionlyear nearly six times the appraisal estirnat= of Rs 90 million. The appraisal, and recal- culated ERRS, are summarized beiow: - Table. 5.3: ECONOMIC RATES OF RETURN ( X 1 ---- -- -- -.---- - -- -- . - ---- - - - - --------.-SAR- PCR Coconut Ne% Pla:.'i 7g : Unirrigazed Irrigated Coconut Rehabilitation: Unirrigated Irrigated Pepper Rehabilitation Smallholder Development Total Cashew Development Rubber Processing Whole Project -.----- - 5.22 The recalculated ERRS of the coconut compcnents which were expected to be major concributors to project benefits at apprdisal, reflect (a) the poor response from farmers to unirrigated coconut rehabilitation, (b) cost overruns and (c) delayed benefits. The snallholder componeEt, with a recal- culated ERR of 28X compared with 241 at appraisal, contribut~dapproximace!y 94% of total project net benefits compared with 68% estimated at appraisal. This arose mainly from rehabilitated pepper which contributed about 90X, of smallholder net benefits while the coconut components contributed absut lo%, compared with contributions estimated at appraisaL oE 385 and 627 respec- tively. The performance of rehabilitated pepper which I s explained in greater detail in paras 5.04 and 5.12 above, represents a significant varia- tion from the appraisal estimates. It is estimated that Lowering the rehabilitated pepper yields by 30% (i.e., to 650 kg/ha at full development), which in our judgement would be more easily sustainable under the project, yould reduce both the rehabilitated pepper and total projecc net benefits proportionately, resulting in a lower ERR for rehabilitated pepper of over 50% and for the project as a whole of over 20%. The recalculated ERSj of cashew development and coconut rubber processing although relatively favourable at 20% and 212 respectively, due primarily to better output pric?~ -are significantly lower than the ERR'S at appraisal. The major reasons for these results were delays in realizing benefits, lower production, cost overruns and reduced numbers of crumb rubber factories. The respective percentage contributions of project components towards project net benefits, compared with appraisal, are approximately as follows: Table 5. : ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAI, PROJECT BENEFITS ( X I --- - --- -- - - SAR PCR - Smallholder Component - --- Rehabilitated Pepper 25 85 Coconut Components - - 43 9 Subtotal - Smallholder Component 6 8 94 Rubber Dsveloprnenr Cashev Development VI. WOR!,D --.- - .-.. --- BANK PERFORZ>!iCE-- -.---.- Project Des igl_ and Appcajsa_l 6.01 The Bank's performance during project formulation, preparation and appraisal was satisfactory. It has been instrumental in aligning, during appraisal, the project scope and design to COK'S agricultural developm5nt strategy and resources. However, given the limited experience of impleae?.r- ing agencies it is considered the project was too complex and had too manj components. The phasing of several activities, such as acquisition of L a ~ d , construction of roads, factories or ot5er buildings, supply of electricity and recruitment of staff, was optimistic; many of the delays could have b2on anticipated. Supervision 6.02 Fourteen supervision missions were fielded by the Bank during the implementation period. In early project years, two missions of multi-disciplinary composition were necessary to provide guidance to inex- perienced staff. Bank supervision missions have maintained constructive dialogue and rapport with COT and COK and have succeeded in accelerating procurement, recruitment of staff and consultants, and improving general project performance. 1 SUMWRY AND CONCLUSIONS 7.01 Overall, the project has been fairly successful in meeting its broad goals. Physical targets of some project components, such as coconut new planting, irrigated coconut development and pepper rehabilitation, exceeded appraisal estimates. Hevea crumb rubber is being producsd and popularized and the Central Laboratory can now provide analytical and advisory services for quality control of processed rubber and the treatment and disposal of factory efELuence. A satisfactory extension service has been established and the capabilities oE CPCRI and KAU have been strengthened. However, the progress of other components, notably coconut rehabilitation, coconut inter- cropping and dairying, seed garden and rubber processing, have been disap- pointing. A t s o ,although physical targets of cashew development were achieved, yields were much lower than expected. 7.02 The incremental net income of smallholder deve:3pment farms is estimated to be between one to five times higher than Gas calculated at aspraisal. In the cashew component, PCK operated at a loss until FY1985, but is expected to reach an operating surplus starting FYl986. Based on a projected ca?acrty utilization of 832, net operating income at full develop- ment for the rubber processing factories is expecced to be about double what was estimated at appraisal. 7.03 The revised economic analysis indicates t h a t exi?pt for the cocsnut development component (ERR, 3-lo%), all other comp.Jnenr.swould have ERRS, ranging from 20% to over 702. Overall, the project's E2R has been re-estimated at 24.52. Lessons Learned 7.04 Strong cor~itmentfrom Covernmenc and effective managemenc and cc2r- dination of essential project activities are basic conditions for the succass of a complex project. Full-time oEficers in key positions at major implementing agencies are essential for promptly solving inter-agency problems that affect implementation prograss. 7.05 Progress in the implementation of field activities depends on the availability of well trained, continuinj and well motivated szafi. Projects need to address problems of incentive; for staff to work in remote areas, of reducing staff turn-over, and providing Leadership ar the policy and management levels. 7.06 Extension staff have to be able to concentrate on providinj adviisr;~ services to farmers rather than spending their time on non-extension activities. In areas having bcth project and TCV staff, clear delineaticn oE duties and responsibilities is necessary to avoid duplication, and measurzs need to be taken to reduce disparity in incentives given under the tvo Syj- tems. 7.07 Project implementation needs to be phased over a sufficiently longer - period to allow time required for land acquisition, Land development, con- struction of buildings and roads, supply of electricity, and recruitment of staff. 7.08 The Likely response oE farmers to new production technology and the risks they may confront with changes in market prices with a new crop (e.g. cocoa) needs to be assessed more carefully during project preparation and appraisal. 7.09 ~armers'participation is Likely to be poor if they also have the choice of similar support from other Government sponsored schemes, with better incentive levels. 7.10 Provision of agricultural credit from different financing agencies requires uniform lending policies and operational procedures in order to standardize lending terms and conditions and ensure efficient and timely loan processing and supervision. INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPHENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Annex - Coconut S.r P!rnrt?& (ha) lrrrgat*d l0dd.l Cora (me.) r w w a C..hW ? a w r C l o n 1*IM@ Cocoa - uehsv Nar plamtlq (hm) uh.bllltaIlom (ha) l a brt.utJ k Wtaa. D.ca cmraCU- 1- att.. I U 1 1 8 Z at.MI avm11abla1 a I l . ~ t l uarmma a n quotad lor 1983186. 7; laceorin c v L d ..1a s a n J -ntL.I. I~OIOCI ~~UI-CLI *II vt mt tm mracim. - I n D l A URAU AGRICULTURAL OWEWMICf PROJECT (CREDIT 680-11) PUWCCT comcr~ot~ mrorr 9 7 / 7 8 1978/79 1979/80 1980181 I981/82 I982/83 1983/M 1984185 1 9 8 5 6 19M& Total I. Coconut new plmtine Unirrlgeted Irrigated 2. Coconut rehabilitation Unirri~ated Irrigated Subtotnl 3. Pepper rehab11ttation I 5. Electric reticulation & 7. C=tenalon aerricea and proJeet coordination 9. Agricultural reaearch 10. Rubber procenaing Total (R. nilllon) (US$ million) - /a Itemm 1-6 a8 of July 31. 1986; 7 nnd I I eo of Scptcclkr 30, 1986; and 8-10 no of hreh 1986. -Table 3 -INDIA KERALA A G R I C ~ T U R A LDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Comparison Between Appraisal Cost Estimates and Actual Costs at Full Development Appraisal /d Actual as X Appraisal /b Actual as X --estimate&million) - ~ c t u xof appraisal eqtimatek ~ c t u xof appraisal (Rs -- (US$ million)- Coconut New Planting Unirrigated Irrigated Subtotal Coconut Rehabilitation Unirrigated Irrigated , Subtotal Pepper rehabilitation Total Smallholder Development Electric reticulation Seed gardens Extension services and project coordination Cashew developmant Agricultural research Rubber processing -Total - - /a Including physical and price contingencies. /b The following official exchange rates are used: average of Re 8.3 during FY77/78- FY81/82, Rs 11.3 during FY82/83-1986. / c Including irrigation facilities. The smallholder development program based on total amount of loan approved and farm- ers' contribution of 10%. - Table 4 -INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-1 N) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Comparison Between Appraisal Estimates and Actual Unit Cost (Rs per ha) Appraisal PCR as X of estimates PCR /a - appraisal estimates Coconut New Plantinq Unirrigated 8,075 13,260 164 Irrigated 12,900 23,400 . 181 Coconut Rehabilitation Unirrigated 6,200 8,100 193 Irrigated 22,500 21,240 94 Pepper Rehabilitation 11,210 9,021 94 Cashew Development Rehabilitation 475 1,345 283 New planting 14,560 16,710 115 Rubber Processing Factories 5.8 8.1 140 - /a Averaga during FW8-86. -Table 5 -INDIA KERACA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Cumulative Disbursements (US$ million) Fiscal Appraisal Actual as Xof year estimates Actual appraisal estimates - /a As of September 1986. - Table 6 - INDIA KLBALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Comparison Between Appraisal and Actual Physical Achievements Appraisal Actual as X of estimates Actual appraisal estimates Coconut New Plantinq (ha) Unirrigated Irrigated Coconut Rehabilitation (ha) Unirrigated Irrigated Total Coconut Development (ha) 35,000 30,046 - 86 Pepper rehabilitation (ha) 10,000 19,842 198 Total Smallholder Development (ha) 45,000 49,888 - 111 Carhew Development (ha) Rehabilitation Plantation Total Cashew Development (ha) Rubber procesring factorier (no. ) Electric pumpsetr (no.) Diesel pumpsetr (no.) Food crops (ha) Cocoa plantations (ha) Fodder (ha) Dairy cove (no.) Banana (ha) - Wells New construction - - 13,862 -- Renovation 4,280 Table 7 - INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Loans Recommended, Approved and Disbursed (FY78/79- July 1986) Applications Loans Balance to recommended Loans approved disbursed be disbursed ha/no. Rs mln ha/no. Rs mln ha/no. Rs mln (Rs mln) Coconut New Planting Unirrigated Irrigated Subtotal Coconut Rehabilitation Unirrigated Irrigated Disease-affected area Subtotal Pepper rehabilitation Total Smallholder Development Electric reticulation Cashew development Rubber processing Total /a Number of electric pumpsets. Number of crunb rubber factories. Total costs. Source: NABARD, KSCADB and KSCB. - Table 8 - INDIA KEIULA AGRICDLTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COKPLETION REPORT Total Loans isb burred as of July 1986 by Banks (Rs million) Coconut Electric Rubber and pepper reticulation Cashew processfn~ Amount % Amount X Amount % Amount X - KSCADB 292.6 68.0 30.8 67.0 - - - KSCB ( 100%) 2.8& 0.3 - - - - 33.2 100.0 CBs /b - - 137.0 31.7 15.5 33.0 8.5 100.0 Total Smallholderr 432.4 100.0 46.3 100.0 ----100.0 8.5 100.0 33.2 - - - - - - KSEB 46.3 100.0 - - - - - - PCK 8.5 100.0 - /a Only the coconut rehabilitation in direare-affected arear. - /b Ten commercial bankr including: State Bank of Travancore, Indian Overrear Bank, Syn- dicatr Bank, Union Bank of India, Canara Bank, Statr Bank of India, Bank of Fhroda, Central Bank of India, South Malabar Cramin Bank and North Malabar Cramin Bank. Source: NABARD, KSCADB and KSCB. Table 9 KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I n t e r e s t Rates ( X pea.) Minor Small Other i r r i g a t i o n farmers purposes NABARD's Ref inancin g Up t o March 1979 Up t o Harch 1983 April 1983 and t h e r e a f t e r KSCB. KSCADB and CBa t o Ultimate Borrowex Up t o March 1979 Up t o June 1980 Up t o March 1981 Up t o March 1983 April 1983 and t h e r e a f t e r - Source: NABARD, KSCAB and KSCB. Tabla 10 - INDIA K E U AGRf CULTURAL DEVELOPME~TPROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Refinancing by NABARD as of July 1986 9 Total refinanced Total by NABARD loan disbursed Amount X Smallholder including KSEB Rubber procersing - Total Source: NABARD. -INDIA KERALA ACRICULTUML DGVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PRO.!ECI COWLETION REPORT Tlelda of Caconutr - SAR and PCR Caapariron ".-. .-..,- Rehabllttation New planting Rehabllitatlon Rcr planting Rehabllltatlon Rcu planting t i - 1 - r - I - r - 1 U r r - I - Unirrl- I r r l - Unlrrl- frri- - Reh.billtation/b Rated gated gated ~ a t e d gated ~ a t e d noted ~ a t e d ~ a t e d gated mated meted .......................... (tree)......................... --------------- (ha) -----------IJnlrrlmated 1977/78 (PreproJ.) 21 2I - - 21 21 - - 3,675 3,675 3,400 1978/79 (Tear I ) 22 23 - 19 19 3,325 3,325 3,300 1979/10 (Tear 2) 23 26 -- -- 21 20 --- -- 3,675 3,500 --- 3,200 1980/01 (Tear 3) -- - -- , 24 34 -- 23 26 4,025 4,550 3 , m 1911/82 (Tear 4) 31 45 28 30 - 4,900 5,250 ------ --- 3 . m 1982/83 (Tear 5) 36 50 10 28 32 4,900 5,600 2,900 1983/14 (Tear 6) 36 60 10 20 30 44 - 6 5,250 7,700 - 1,050 2,750 1984/85 (Tear 7) 36 60 20 30 38 46 8 I I 6,650 8,050 1,400 1,925 2,650 1985/86 (Tear 8) 36 60 30 10 10 51 I I 13 7,000 8,925 1,925 2,275 2,800 1986/87 (Tear 9) 39 60 10 50 42 52 I8 22 7,350 9,100 3,150 3,850 3,150 1917/88 (Tear 10) 40 60 45 60 43 54 26 35 7,525 9,450 4,550 6,125 3.600 m 1918/89 (Tear I I) 40 60 50 65 45 58 35 45 7,875 10,150 6,125 7,875 4,000 1989/90(Tear 12) 40 60 55 70 46 62 45 59 8,050 10,850 7,875 10,325 4,300 1990/91 ( t e a r 13) 41) SO 60 75 78 66 55 70 8,400 11,550 9,625 12,250 4,700 1991/92 (Tear 14) 40 60 60 80 50 70 65 80 8,750 12,250 11,375 14,000 5moo0 -/a Source: SADU and Misaton assumptlona. -/ b this suhcnmpnnent. Coconut In wlth root-affected areas. was not included in the SAR and started only in 1983/14. Table 12 - INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Yields of Pepper, Cocoa, Cashew- SAR and PCR Comparison (&/ha) Pepper Cocoa Cashew (raw nut) Rehabil- ( d ~ Rehabil- itated -New bean) itated New SAR SAR Ave. PCR SAR PCB SAR PCR SAR PCR 1977178 (Preproj. 275 1978179 (Year 1) 275 1979180 (Year 2) 300 1980181 (Year 3) 350 1981182 (Year 4) 500 1982183 (Year 5) 650 1983184 (Year 6) 650 1984185 (Year 7) 650 1985186 (Year 8) 650 1986187 (Year 9) 650 1987188 (Year 10) 650 1988189 (Year 11) 650 1989190 (Year 12) 650 1990191 (Year 13) 650 1991192 (Year 14) 650 Table 13 -INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Coconut Production (Million nuts) Coconut rehabilitation Coconut new planting PCR PCR Without irrigation Without With Direare- With irri- irri- Diseare- affected irri- SAR gation gation Total SAR free area8 area8 gation Total Preproject - - Table 14 IfERAtA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Pepper, Cocoa, Banana, Tapioca, Milk Production Pepper Cocoa Bananas Tapioca Milk -SAR- - - PCR SAR PCR SAR PCR S A R PCR SAR PCR ('000 tone) ('000 liters) - Preproject 2.75 3.08 - 0.76 122.5 0.4 - o o - - 1977 2.66 3.08 - 0.76 101.5 0.4 - - - - 1978 2.33 3.08 - 0.76 102.2 0.6 Table 15 -INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Rubber and Cashew Production Rubber Cashew PCR New R ehabil- SAR PCR planting itation Total - ('000 tons) - -SAR- - ('000 tons raw nuts) --- Preproject 1 LO n 0 F;; cl W 0 Z i4 LC) d 3. . 59 W N p y W a ' 0 0 0 0. 0.0 *--- 0 u NP 0 0 No, Pa' ?? FF r".N 0 0 W O - 0 *N W Q , W Q , 0.0. .9F ?'? QI0 00 Table 17 -INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Financial Prices of Outputs Used i n Financial Calculations SAR PCR (1976 constant prices) (1986 constant prices) Coconut (Rslnut) Pepper (Rslkg) Cashew (raw nut, Rslkg) Cocoa (Rslkg) Crumb rubber (ex-factory, Rslkg) Milk ( b l l i t e r ) Intercrops (tapioca, Rslkg) Banana ( b l k g ) Economic Prices of Outputs Used i n Economic Calculations SAR PCR (1976 constant prices) (1986 constant prices) 1976 1980 1985 1990 Coconut ( b l n u t ) /a 0.30 Cocoa (Rs/kg) 10.00 Pepper ( ~ ~ / k g ) 10.90 Cashew (raw nut, b l k g ) 3-00 Milk (Relliter) 1.60 Tapioca (Rs/kg) 0.30 Crumb rubber (Rslkg) 6.60 Banana (Rslkg) - /a Including returns from husk (Rs 3511,000 nuts) and shell (Ra 1711,000 nuts). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ti u u Y U 1:i-8 i 2 I;. CIIconut k w I l a n t l y ( U l t l a t Irrlgmtlon)-Ulth Garden Crop-0.5 k )(adcl (I.) Y l thmmt tear I4 wnlrrt r I Vear 2 Tear 3 tear 4 tear 5 a 6 vear I tear 8 tear 9 tear lo tear I 1 tear I 2 tear l l a d after - "111. Illrr4 I n c a Cram lwnr u rn - * Total et I n c a -601 3 OI) (311) I15 - pn~ bob mIlW= - .: 1: < . . I g- 1 N U 4 ..a- I , " U I U U 0," Yl thmnt prnk r t InFt. rlmntlne u t r r l n l C*.rtl llrrr l*r*-nlr urn,.. R(lrr. - &.n, 1.1- -- Tnt i l fwrml In8 Cn.t. - (In* ldlny. lr-l l r I ~h..r) vn Y" ( 6 . sI w ~ I.*-I~ I thasv) I * I* cram. 1 r . r C o c a s a d hamanan -* O I 10." - -- uu-0 O O U O - -- uu-0 O 3 U O $ 1. ri $ n.2; 1; $ - -- W N N 0 U C Y u N E 12--u 1: - O U C Ir Ir , N . m u 8 I l u C l h 1: - -- W Ni r N O ." g i g 1s 1: C C U N 2 15 ihr 1~ t Y 3 Z 1 1 I I1 1 1 I I I I I I I $ 1: 1; 1 - -- W N N O ." C U N 5 ; ~ $ 5 i s 1: mu-.- C O U u I 1 I I1 1 1 I I I I I , 1: ti 2, h - -- N N N O. ." 0 1 1 ) C O U U I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I - -- 01-C C O U U - -- 96.1- C O U U - -- O u - a c 3 u u - -- Z Y 3 5 I1 I l l I 1 I I I I I I 1 1: h 1: h - -- N v Y r U C a - .- ri 2 5 3 i12 rri I:U m u - ~ C I . " . " - -- O u r * *'a*." - -- 2 4 r * *a+." -l m t A KEIAU mICUL-L DC.EL.0- VROJECT (CREDIT WO-Ill) MOJCCT U)WLCl10* REPORT Ylthnut Tear 13 prnJCct Tear I Teat 2 Tear 3 Tear 4 Tear 5 ear 6 Tear 1 Tear 8 ear 9 Tear I0 Tear ll Tear II a d after -Total - - - n 6m nnn a o ~ ~ @ 6 o o ~ ~ ~ _ I . r o a ~ I . ( O Total nperatlns Cants (Inrlndlnn la all^ I a h r ) !,lm &@ ( ~ ~ r l w l l nfmally n lmhnr) - 2 . 2 6 5 - Total l n r r r r n t m l h t l n c n - (6,935) (3,QW (rnr) ~r,llo 2).2)0 I m Irrv1.r.l 1.- 7 1 % C P In C A l . - tnDtA KERAU AGRICULTURAL DEVULOn&IIT PROJltCT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT C0)RLETIOII REPORT raaheu Rehabilitation- I ha Model (Rs) Pre- Tear I1 project Year I Tear 2 Year 3 Tear 4 Year 5 Tear 6 Tear 7 Tear 8 Tear 9 Tear 10 and after capital Costs Inputs Plantfne mtcrlal Total Capital Costs Operating Costs tnpota tertilizera .Plant protcctlon Subtotal - = ' - 390 I40 - - 140 390 - - 390 390 I - -3 0 0 -320 - - - - 390 390 I * u, Uaintenance & I Harvesting & ! Subtotal -450 1,490 1,410 2,020 2,195 2.230 2.190 21325 2,145 2,))0 2.6(0 Total Operating Costa - 1,9)0 450 1,883 1,800 2,585 2,370 2.630 2J& 1 i Productlon of Nuts (kg) 1 60 160 114 82 300 362 375 466 408 450 487 525 1 i tncor Croma income k t incow I Incremental Net Income -- (1,530) (1,939) (2.288) (420) - - - - 1.101 07 445 !,lsa 463 80s I I /r Incldea mrn~rin~,Flrc and plant protectlon. Includea harvestins, collectIon, transporting, drying and prckln~,and theFt prcrentlnn. No unurin~. p I : 2 2* a * * m m o m s a r m e 0 m a6q a 2 I,I,. , - Table 30 -I N D U K E U AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Coconut New Planting/Rehabilitation (With Irrigation) Capital and Operating Coats - Banana Intervlantin~(1 ha) (Rn) Without Year 2 project Year 1 and after Capital Coats Inputa Planting materials ~ertilizerr Organic manure Plant protection Plant support Subtotal - 2.650 -- 0 Wages Holing/planting Subtotal - - 920 - 0 Total Capital Coats Operating Corts Inputs Fertilizera Organic manure Plant protection Irrigation charger - - Subtotal 430 300 1.990 Wager Maintenancm Harvarting - Subtotal - - 290 680 400 - Total Opmrating Coats 720 Total Cortr -720 Cross income 1,520 Net Income -800 3.770 5,840 Table 31 -INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Coconut Rehabilitation (Without Irrigation) Capital and Operating Costs - Garden Crops (Tapioca) ( 1 ha) (Rs) Without Year 4 project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 and after Capital Costs Inputs Planting materials Fertilizers Organic manure Wages Total Capital Costs Operating Costa Inputs - Fertilizers Organic manure Wages 280 280 820 840 860 Total Operating Costa - - 435 435 1,680 1,700 1.720 Total Costa - - 435 435 1,850 1,870 1,890 Cross income 1,800 1,800 3,660 3,935 4,245 Table 32 - INDIA KERALA ACRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Capital and Operatinu Costs f o r 0.1 ha Fodder and One Mllk Cow i n Coconut Rehabilitation Disease-Affected Areas (Rainfed) (R8) Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 and a f t e r Capital Costa Purchaae of cow /a- Cattle shed Fodder Establishment Planting materials ~ e r t i l;err i Organic manure Wagea (hired) Total Capital Costa Operating Costa & Feeds Paddy straw Concentrates Service and Other Charges Insurance Breeding Vaccination Vet and medical care Total Operating Corta Total Coatr Gross Incoum. Milk Cow dung Total Grooa Income Net Income /a Replacement of cow i n Year 9. Four lactationr. - . -- - - --a . Table 33 KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Smmary of Financial Prices of Outputs and Inputs (1986 prices) Outputs Coconut (Rs/nut) Cocoa (dried) Pepper Crumb rubber (ex-factory) Cashew (Rs/raw nut) Tapioca Banana Htlk ( l i t e r ) Inputs Seedlings (Rslseedling) Coconut (improved hybrid) Coconut (local hybrid) Cocoa Camhew Pepper (cutting) Banana (sucker) Fodder seed (-/kg) F e r t i l i z e r s (Rslkg) Urea (N) P K 10:4:14 10:5:20 10:4:16 - Lip. (-/kg) Chemical MgS04 ( ~ s l l i t e r ) Conpoet (-/kg) - Labor (Rslmaa-day) -ah Flew - I r r l 8 a t d Cocart lhw P I a n t l y with Wrden C r q . (Iha) (bI n I906 conatant prlcea) Ulthaut Tear I 7 p r a k c t Tcrr I Tcrr 2 Tear 3 Tcrr 4 Tear 5 Tcar 6 Tear 1 t c e r 0 Tcar 9 Tear I 0 Tear ll Tear I 2 Veer 13 T u r I 4 Tear I 5 Tear I 6 end after I n f l a kt ( m a & - Total 1.))1 2.617 2,611 (4.447) ?,II? 1.0n 10.~11 14,675 11.03 20.665 20.665 1 4 . w lo.u, - P r l l r l p m l repaymrrt for I w t e m loan & - - - - 1.000 3.500 5,314 5,314 5.314 5.314 5.314 - /b Intereat r a t e of lm p.m.: repayment nver I 5 yrmrs lncludlng 6-year Rraee pcrlod. - /c AmmmIn~Intereat charged r t 102 p.m. nn 502 n l t n t r l o p e r a t l n ~costs (Table 18). - I m I A KCIALA AClICULTUUAl M V E L O M PROJECT (CREDIT 680-111) PROJECT COWLtTIU4 ICPOW r r a h Ilw Irrlmated C o c a t Icr, P l a r t l n l r l t h Isterplmntrd ~ M (Ihm) - M ( I n I s I986 canatant prlcea) - Ylthnut Tear I ? p r n k c t Tear I Tear 2 Tear 3 Tear 6 Tear 5 Tear 6 Tear 7 Tear 8 Tear 9 Tear 10 Tear 11 Tear 12 Tear 11 Tear 14 Tear 15 tear 16 and a f t e r l n f l w Irt I w a & ROO (I6.34R) 3.066 2.199 1.93 1.993 2,714 4,140 1lOfl 7 7 0 9 I , 17.832 20.970 23.822 23.822 22.362& 23.R22 I P r l w l p l r e p p e n t for low-term l o r n & Intercat b w t e r m loan /C I CJ Zhort-tcm loan \D - T o t a l I kt ah rt- - l a Met Incame excludlnn lmmlly labor (Tnble 19). i - I b Intereat r n t e 01 102 p.m.: repayment over I 5 yearn Including 6-year Rracr perled. - ! I c k a r l n 8 Intereat c h a r ~ c da t 102 p.n. o n 502 at t o t a l o p e r a t l n ~canta (Tahle 19). I - I d RrpIace+nt o f m a r t . ! 1s- ; - 9 2 : * a - 2 .1 : % i- - :3: 2 - - 0 : = I * :. 8 1 - a w * j i t - ' "3 ?- 0 2 z ." a m * r" a - 0 - - M U " S :: 2 - a 8 - - a 0 ? -- I a 3 a n3 s I n a 2 : - : E l l .' ,-' C r s 3 I a a -2z?3 3. .z - l m r A KLIALA ACUICVLTVUL bCVCWMUrt ?IOJCCT (CICIDIT 680-lU) PROJECT (bMLCTlOl( REMIT Camh Clor - l r r l ~ a t e dCocomt k k b l l l t a t t o m 4 t h ?adder and Dairy (Iha) ( I s 1n 1916 ronmtmnt prlcem) Yl thout Tear I 7 project T r r r I Yrnr 2 Year 3 Tear 4 Tear 5 Tear 6 Tear 7 Tear 8 Tear 9 Tear I 0 Tear I! Tear I 2 Tear 13 Tear I 4 Veer I 5 Tear 16 and a f t e r In1la net I n c a & I.onm-trm loan Total O.tllw ? r l m l p a l repapent l o r loma-term l o r n & Imtereet La-term l o r n& I Short-tern lorn & b a -Total I k t caah CIW - l a kt I n c a rmcludlng 1amIIy labor (Trhle 23). - lb Replaccrnt o f prpaet. - Ic Irplrcement of o m cm. I? I n t r r e a t r a t e 01 101 p.m.: r c p r p r n t n r r r llrr y r r r s lncludln6 5-yemr @rareperlad. I*Anrulng - Intereat charged a t 102 p.m. on 501 of t o t a l oprratlng comta (Tmblr 23). - U a h ?lw Pepper Rehmbllltrtlol (Iha) (I.1986conatantprloa) I n Ylt h ~ t Temr I 6 p r o k c t Tear 1 Tear Z Tear 3 Tear 4 Tear 5 Tear 6 Tear ? Tear 8 Tear 9 Tear 10 Tear 11 Tear 12 Tear I 3 Tear I 4 Tear 15 and after - Tota1 fhtlla - - - - P r l u l p a l repayment f o r l m a - t r r m laan& - - - 1.100 1 . m 1,100 1 . m 1.~10 - - Intereat Long-term laan fi I 00 Short-trrr loan \O -Total I lkt U r h rlou - /a kt I n c a e~cludln8famI17 labor (Table 26). - I b Intereat r a t e o f I02 p.m.: repayment ewer f l v e p a r a lncludlng 5-par grmce perled. - I c r a a u l n g Intercat charmed a t I02 p.a. an 50%of t o t a l epratlnm coata (Table 26). Table 63 -INDIA KERALA AGRICULTUUL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Operatinn Income of the Plantation Corporation of India (Rs million in constant prices) Rcvenues Operating costs Net Rehabil- Nev Rahabil- Nev Rehabil- Nev operating IT itation planting Total itation planting itation planting Total income Source: PCK. Table 45 -INDIA ICEICALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Financial Analysis of tha Plantation Corporation of Kerala (Rs million i n 1986 constant prices) Capital costs Net operating Net incremental FY (current prices) Capital coats income income - /a Asrumlng praproject r i t w t i o n for production cortr of Rr 0.3 million and grorr income of R. 0.5 million. - - - - - - -. ' V ' $ L ~ ; ~ l i i f ... -- ..-" 1: a a o r ?= i! .- .- ." B ~ ; r e $ a i ~- g : - - - 4 -. b 2;5 1 . - - - r - - o m - -hi k .. . - - L g f t t j t j e j - - .- .-.- - , j f r I: - - + ;.t d $- ,I!;I -4 L t : r f r t ; t f t r - o w Table 47 - INDIA ACRIC(;TLTURUDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Financial Aqalysie of the Seed Garden (RS'OOO) Invee tment Operating Total costs -cos(Current -- FY ts C O B ~ S Current prices Constant prices Revenue Balance prices) (Constant prices) - /a The following wholesale price indices were ueed during FP77178-VP85186: 2.00, 2.00, 1.71, 1.44, 1.32, 1.29, 1.18, 1.10 and 1.08. Note: FY86-88 including additional investment costs f o r buildinga and equipment. * 'u-d ZS-ZI 5 -**d xsc-I I ' O J l l *JJ amm*P 03 anP O L U ul uOB3anPJd Ou p r o LLM ~1 olqsl)eru uaey uy -uula~r,alu aaafordard o r r 10-1111 .I - - 2'0 C'O 9'0 S'O 9'0 U'O I C ' I Z ' I 2'1 -- 2.0 - - *- - af amaaauy - -- - -- 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 9'0 9'0 S'O S'O 1.0 - w ~ a - ~ a m ~ m ~ l g ~ tea tg(t ism 1 1-OE a -- - O*OZ o-IZ t-OI O-SI I C-z - M3M3 h ) a . ~ d O 6 0 a S 0 ~ .a- -Barn** - - -- 2'0 C'O 9'0 ('0 9'0 6'0 1'1 S ' I 2'1 Z ('0 - -- -- -- 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 9'0 9'0 9'0 9'0 2'0 - - --- - L.(L 1.0~ 1 1's 1-OF.1 I o-rz O-IZ I-61 0 oat -- uoct ogct ugcl ogct o*ct o0rl 9.5 0.1% I*VZ 1.a coo u*c - - - - -- -- Q O I I- 2 QQIt WZ QOIZ - 2 o m 2 m 1 00)'I 022'1 ms OZZ --- co co co ca n co - --- --- 19 09 19 I) 11 1 - - -cgc- - -8.1- - - - 9.c 5T 5T i55 t S c cot 1.1 COO 0-1 7 m . X L'O = - - - ... , ~ r n ) ' ( L 1 ' Q ) ' l t ( ' WI'(l0'01K O ' ) F T = - - - - - 2.0 2.0 COO LOO O'I C.1 0.1 1-0 1-0 9-0 - - - -- 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 9% 9'0 L'O )'O o 9% 2-0 1-0 C-0 - 1'U 1.U 1 1 ' s 1'K lo# O'IC lo# 1-42 2 2 6'CI 6.0 2 1') 1') -- Table 49 I N D I A KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPI(ENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COHPLETION REPORT Operating Income of a 10-ton Crumb Rubber Factory (Typical Crumb Rubber Factory f o r Palghat, Thodupuzha and Hurattupuzha) (Rs million i n current prices) Production (tons) Capacity u t i l i z a t i o n ( X ) Revenue 3.4 17.2 20.6 25.8 31.0 34.4 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Operating Costs Factory operating c o s t s Administration I n t e r e s t Total Operating Costs -3.3 --------- 16.5 19.8 25.5 30.9 33.3 39.8 39.7 39.5 39.4 Operating Income ( D e f i c i t ) - - - - 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.3 - - - - - 0.1 1.1 3.2 .-3.3 3.5 3.6 - /a For only three months. Source: Rubber Board (RB), KRMF and CRHSs. Table 51 -INDIA KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 680-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Cash Flow for a Typical 10-ton Crub Rubber Factory (Palghat, Thodupuzha, Hurattupuzha) (Re million in current pricee) Net operating incorn I h Long-term loan h I BOK/RB/CRC(S ehares Total Out
Группа Всемирного банка · Project Completion Report
India - Kerala Agricultural Development Project
Открыть оригинал документа
Полный текст размещён на сайте публикующей организации. lawenc.com индексирует метаданные и ведёт на официальный источник.
Полный текст
Основные сведения
Организация
Группа Всемирного банка
Тип документа
Project Completion Report
Страна
Индия
Источник
Всемирный банк