India - Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Extension Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 9033 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT (CREDIT 1219-IN) SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 iculture Operations Division ia Department a Region cument has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of ricial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  gyZur rMaiT X~a IS IlLrroncv: Rupee (Rs.) 1 lakh (100,000) 1 crore (10,000,000) Rate of Exchange: Appraisal (May-June 1981) US$ 1.00 - Rs.8.00 Intervening Years (average) USS 1.00 - Ps.11.81 Completion Year US$ 1.00 Rs16.50 Fiscal Year of Borrower: GOI and GOAP: April 1 to March 31 Weights and Measures: Metric System = viationn U4e1 BHP - Brown plant Hopper CAD - Cozmand Area Development DOA - State Government Directorate of Agriculture DOE - Directorate of Extension - Government of India GOAP - Government of Andhra Pradesh GOI - Government of India IDA - International Development Association MOA - Ministry of Agriculture - Government of India MCE - Monitoring and Evaluation NAEP - National Agricultural Extension Project SAU - State Agricultural University SMS - Subject Matter Specialist T&V - Training and Visit VEN - Village Extension Worker  FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY THE WORLD BANK Washington. D.C 20433 U.S.A OVIIe CA Ggectqw-cefalw Op.at"w' tvakuatiou September 24, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report: INDIA - Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Extension Project (Credit 1219-IN) Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled "Project Completion Report on India: Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Extenision Project (Credit 1219-IN) prepared by the Asia Regional Office and the Borrower. Full evaluation of this 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.  PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT FOR OFICIL USE ONLY INDIA ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT (CREDIT 1219-IN) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. PREFACE ...................... i Evaluation Summary .ii Part I: Project Review from Bank's Perspective. 1 Prcject Identity .1. Background. 1 Project Objectives and Description. 2 Project Objectives. 2 Proiect Components. 2 Project Design and Organization. 2 Project Implementation. 3 Project Results. 4 Project Objectives .................................. 4 Physical Results ................................... 4 Financial Performance ............................... 4 Economic rate of return .............................. 4 Project Impact ..................................... S Project Sustainability ................................... 5 Bank Performance ....................................... 6 Borrower Performance ..................................... 6 Project Relationship ..................................... 6 Consulting Services .......... ........................... 6 Project Documentation and Data ........................ 6 Part II: Project Review from Borrower's Perspective. 9 Part III Statistical Information. 21 Related Bank Loans and/or Credits .22 Loan Disbursements .25 Project Implementation .28 Project Costs and Financing .29 Project Costs .29 Project Financing .29 Project Reults .30 Direct Benefits .30 Economic Impact .31 Status of Covenants .33 Staff input .34 Missions .35 Comnents of Borrower on Parts I and III .37 Map IBRD 16103 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.  PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT TNDIA ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT fCr. 1219-IN) PREFACE This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Extension Project for which Credit 1219-IN in the amount of SDR 5.3 (US$6.0 M) was approved on March 30, 1982. The Credit was closed on March 31, 1989, one year behind schedule. It was fully disbursed and the last disbursement was on October 3, 1989. The PCR was jointly prepared by the Asia Division, New Delhi Office (Preface, Evaluation Summary, Part I and III) and the Borrower (Part II). Preparation of this PCR was started during the Bank's final supervision mission of the project in July 1989 and is based, inter alia, on the Staff Appraisal Report; the Credit and Project Agreements; supervision reports; correspondence between the Bank and th( borrower; and internal Bank memoranda.  - ii - Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Extension Project (Cr. 1219-TN) Evaluation Summary This project was designed to achieve early and sustained increases in ;ricultural production throughout Andhra Pradesh through reorganization and :rengthening of the extension services of DOA. It aimed at systematic t-ovision of useful advice on farming practices through programmed village Lsits from regularly trained field staff operating under a unitary extension ~rvice and with continuous iupport of the research system. nplemfentat ion Experience To achieve the goals, the project made available a Credit of SDR 5.3 :.llion to provide mobility, housing, training, incremental staff and ?ei-ating funds for the field extension services and monitoring and evaluation sit. Except on "training", there were slippages in impleme tation in all the ijor components: staff, housing and mobility. Of these, the variation was ie highest in positioning of VEWs: only 3869 as against 6776 originally Lanned for could be positioned during the project. (Details at Table 4.) With the above limitations, the project designed organisational :ructure, end a training and visit oriented extension system with active apport of tha research system, were fully established. This project in its arly phase had a set back from inadequate budgetry support, rapid turnover i senior managers and temporary disruption in field supervision due to cansfer of extension officers to the control of mandals (Panchayati Raj "ustitutions); necessitating extension of the project by twelve months. The Bank and GOI/MOA missions assisted the GOAP to focus attention on ay implementation issues and establish a professional extension service. aspite poor start up and administrative problems which persisted, GOAP :ilized in full the credit of SDR 5.3 million. The project has enabled GOAP to establish a single line extension .rvice with functional linkages with the agricultural research system, -riodic training to field staff, placement of SMSs at field level, regular :llage visits and closer contact with farmers. Consequently, farmers are ?preciative of the extension services and significant production gains have Bsulted. Rice yields have increased during the project to a level which .bstantially exceeds that required to obtain a 50% ERR if that increase could B attributed to the project; it is not possible, however, to directly link "is productive response to the extension service. There has been no =gnificant change in the jowar (sorghum) yields. Input use hias increased  - iv - substantially during the project (Details at Tables 6A and 6B.) Developmental changes are prominent in areas under irrigation. On rainfed agriculture, the impact is not that perceptible. Besides, serious regional imbalances in growth also exist. GOAP in future will need to focus on rainfed agriculture, horticulture, tree farming, fodder devleopment, issues on natural resources conservation, human resources development, planning and agricultural management. Sustainability 4. Timely and adequate budget support and continued commitment to provide integrated research based extension service to the farmers are critical for sustainability. Anticipated risks on weakening of the established structure could be avoided by broad-basing the extension approach and the increased accountability to local institutions. Development of a farmer-paid field extension service also deser_ves serious consideration. Findings and Lessons Learnt 5. Overall project goals have been attained despite certain field staffing inadequacies. The Credit of SDR 5.3 million has been fully utilized with a project extension of 12 months and cost overruns largely due to inadequate management. The following lessons may be learnt from this project, one which attempted to bring about organisational and process changes: a. deployment of staff, if critical, must be a precondition; b. appraisal should address sustainability issues; and c. a capacity and willingness to undertake a mid-course review and correction is a must for effective project implementation.  1 INDIA ,&NDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTUR h EXTENSION PROQJECT Cr1219IN) PROJECT COMPLETION r2PoRT Part I: Project Review from Bank's Perspective 1. Project Identity: Name: Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Extension Project Credit Number: 1219-IN Credit Amount: SDRs 5.3 million/US$6.0 million Board Approval: March 30, 1982 RVP Unit: AS4 Country: India Sector: Agriculture 2. Background 2.01 Government of India's developmental plans consistently assign priority to alleviating poverty and creating employment in rural areas. Agriculture is the dominant sector in Indian economy; it engages 70% of the labor force and contributes about 40% of the G.N.P. Establishment of an efficient extension service to promote faster spread of improved farm technologies is one of the planks chosen by the national government for development of agriculture and rural economy. 2.02 State governments have direct responsibility for agricultural extension. The most important sector of the economy of Andhra Pradesh, the fifth most populous state in the Indian Union, is agriculture. Rice and Jowar are the major crops of the state; Andhra Pradesh is one of the important cont-lbutors to the national food reserves. Besides, a wide range of commercial crops are also cultivated. Before this project the extension services of the state were organised orn conventional lines: parallel extension set up for various commodity crops; diffused multiple lines of control; inadequate research support; and multiprupose field functionaries with responsibilities for non-extension activities as well. 2.03 The Government of Andhra Pradesh first introduced the re-organized extension system in the command areas of the four irrigation projects covered by the Andhra Pradesh Composite Irrigatioa Project (Ln 1251-IN). IDA approved a credit of US$6.0 Million for the Andh::a Pradesh Agricutural Extension Project, in March 1982 to overcome the weaknesses noticed in the command area project and establish re-organized extension system on the T&V model in the whole state of Andhra Pradesh.  2 3. Project Objectives and Description 3.01 Project Objectives: The project was designed to achieve early and sustained increases in agricultural production throughout the 22 districts of Andhra Pradesh through the reorganization and strengthening of the extersion services of DOA. Specifically it aimed at providing farmers on a regular and systematic basis with up-to-date advice on farming practices best suited to their specific conditions and capable of having an immediate impact on production and income. The method chosen was programmed visits from regularly trained field staff under unitary control supported by professional advice of the research system. 3.02 Proiect Components: The project supported: a. provision of transportation (16 cars, 65 4-WD vehicles, 874 motorcycles, and 7000 bicycles), office equipment and audio visual aids; b. provision of incremental operating funds, travel allowances, vehicle operating costs, and extension materials; c. construction of housing for extension workers and hostel accommodation at training centres; d. provision of funds for training of extension staff at different levels; e. provision of incremental staff and incremental salaries to upgrade 1000 posts of VEWs; and f. creation of a monitoring and evaluation capacity through provision of staff, transportation and operating expenses. 4. Proiect Design and Organization 4.01 The project was designed on a very well tested logical conceptual frame: unified extension service, one village extension worker for about 800 farm families, regular pre-scheduled visits with specific timely messages, close supervision and guidance by an agricultural graduate extension officer, support provided by field subject matter specialists, fortnightly field oriented training and monthly workshops with the research system. To operationalise the chosen extension system adequate funds were provided to establish single line of control with strong linkages with the research system, train staff regularly on latest technologies, establish organizational structure and procedures for project M&E Unit, and for housing, mobility and teaching aids. The GOI and GOAP clearly shared and understood the project concept, aims and approacnes. 4.02 The project was thoroughly prepared with due consultations with the GOI/GOAP/ SAU officials. The roles and responsibilities, the linkages critical for success and methods of field operation were clearly articulated,  3 discussed and finalised. The project attempted to fulfill the national and state requireme.ts for technology transfer at the farm level. 4.03 In retrospcct, one could vouchsafe that the project design and organization has vastly improved the technology delivery capability of the DOA through establishment of a professional extension service with a sound structure, training and mobility, with appropriate linkages with the research system and a closer contact with the farmers. In this process, the project, perhaps in it's anxiety to establish a cost eff-activa unitary extension service, accommodated staffing of incremental VEWs through deployment from Panchayati Raj/CADA departments and upgradation of DOA lower level field staff. This decision, unfortunately, resulted in serious inadequacy in field level staffing and positioning of poorly qualified persons as VEWs and affected adversley the output of the project throughout it's cycle. S. PEroject Implementation 5.01 Except on 'training", there was slippage in project implementation in all the other three major components: Equipments and vehicles, civil works and incremental staff costs funded by this project. Of these, the variation between the numbers of field level VEWs planned and actually positioned was the gravest (Details at Table 4). 5.02 The project at appraisal estimated the requirement of VEWs as 6776 and agreed to draft 2421 persons from Panchayati Raj establishment and upgrade 4355 field functionaries of DOA as VEWs. But, despite governmental assurances at appraisal and negotiations it was not possible to redeploy p rsons from Panchayati Raj Department. After protracted negotiations over 3 years, it was agreed by GOAP/GOI and Bank to position a reduced number of 4000 persons as VEWs by assigning varying farm family/VEW ratio based on field requirements. 5.03 However, the state finally positioned only 3869 persons as VEWs and these too, were niot rationally allocated among the districts according to need. Repeated efforts to get them redeployed never succeeded till the close of the project due to one administration hurdle or the other. Besides, during project implementation, the extension officers were transferred to the control of the "Mandals" (Panchayati Raj) - thus snapping the unitary line of control insisted and agreed to at negotiations. This change though set rignt later had in the meanwhile affected seriously project super.-ision and guidance. 5.04 This project in its early phase suffered from inadequate funding, rapid turn over of state level managers and unstable political environment. Personnel management problems persisted throughout the project with palliative actions taken now and then with indifferent results. Consequently, the closing date of the project had to be extended by 12 months. 5.05 The project at appraisal realised that transfer of multi-purpose field workers and establishment of a single unified professional extension service will be difficult for the government to make and maintain; but wished it away by noting the numbers to be deployed as a small proportion (when in fact it was 35%) and that the GOAP had given assurances. The appraisal  4 mission had also noted frequent staff changes in the upper ranks of the government and lack of sustained informed and motivated management as yet another major risk factor. This anticipated risk was sought to be corrected through close supervision by the Bank. 5.06 The supervisional efforts of the Bank were regular and directed towards improving quality of extension performance and focussed sharply on major administrative issues. There was not a single supervision mission which had not pointed out the inadequte staffing issue. One of the missions in Eebruary 1984 suggested that in case the state had serious problems in deployment of staff, the area of the project coul.d be suitably reduced so that farmers could get better services. For some unknown reason or the other, this was not persued. 5.07 There was no other major implementation issue. At appraisal the project cost was US$ 8.7 million. The final cost is US$ 10.2 million as shown in Table SB. The project on request by GOI/GOAP, was extended by 12 months and the entire credit of SDR 5.3 million was fully disbursed. 6. Project Results 6.01 Project Obiectives: Overall the project was successful in meeting its principal objectives of reorganizing and strengthening the extension services of DOA. It enabled establishment of a single line extension service with functional linkages with the research system, periodic training to field staff. placement of subject matter specialists at field level, regular village visits and close contact with the farmers (wherever VEWs were in position) and an M&E unit to assess project progress and impact. Consequently, there were significant agricultural production gains. (Details at Table 6.) 6.02 Physical Results: At Table 4 results of the planned physical components is displayed. During project implementation the physical targets on staff, civil works, and to a limited extent, on vehicles was scaled down. Inspite of this, physical targets have not been achieved though the credit has been utilized in full indicative of cost overrun, that too mainly on staff salaries. 6.03 Financial Performance: Against a credit estimate of US$6.0 million at appraisal, the actual disbursement at close of project was US$ 6.4 million due to SDR/Dollar exchange rate variations. Credit disbursement which was poor in the initial years picked up some ..,omentum later but remained static throughout 1986, 1987 and first half of 1988 and ended in a spurt at the time of credit closure. (Details are at Table 3 and 3A). Thus the credit though utilized in full has not been judiciously spread out reflecting inadequate financial support and management. 6.04 Economic rate of return: Attributing a precise level of benefits to an extension project is rather difficult since crop production and productivity result from interaction of innumerable physical, biological and socio-economic factors. However, the appraisal mission justified the project on the grounds that ERR would be 50% in case the yields of the two of the  5 major crops, rice and jowar, went up by 6 and 2 kgs/ha respectively. During the project, rice yields have increased to a level which substax.tially exceeds that required to obtain a 50% ERR if that increase could be attributed to the project; it is not possible, however, to directly link this productive response to the extension service. There has been no significan_ change in the jowar (sorghum) yields. (Details are at Table 6A and 6B). 6.05 Project Impact: The farmers are quite appreciative of the regularity of visits of the extension services and the technical assistance provided by them. Use of inputs has increased consie