India - Kallada Irrigation and Tree Crop Development Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 9369 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREE CROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 1269-IN/LOAN 2186-IN) FEBRUARY 21, 1991 Agriculture Operations Division India Department Asia Regional Office This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their ofricial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  CURRENCY FOQUIYALENT Name of Currency: Rupee (Rs) Rate of Exchange: Appraisal (May 1981) US$ 1.00 = Rs 8.00 Intervening Years (average) US$ = Rs 11.81 Completion Year US$ 1.00 = Rs 16.00 Fiscal Year of Borrower: GOI and GOK: April 1 to March 31 Weights and Measures: Metric System GLOSSARY kharif - Wet season: June to October Krishi Bhavan - Agricultural Support Services Center rabi - Dry season: November to April chak - Watercourse CCA Watercourse - Small channel below outlet serving a chak down to 5 ha blocks (sub-chaks) with capacity to take full outlet discharge from head to tail. watercourse - A rotational water supply (RWS) system of allocating water among fanners by fixed turns and time periods; flow rate is constant, and time periods are proportional to land holding size. ABBREVIATIONS CAD - Command Area Development CCA - Cultivable Command Area CWC - Central Water Commission DSP - Dam Safety Panel ERR - Economic Rate of Return FAO/CP - FAO/World Bank Cooperative Program GOI - Government of India GOK - Govemmernt of Kerala ha - hectare KIP - Kallada Irrigation Project km - kilometer LMC - Left Main Canal M - Million mm - millimeter MCS - Micro-Conveyance System MIS - Management Information Systems O&M - Operation and Maintenance PMCC - Project Monitoring and Coordination Cell R&R - Resettlement and Rehabilitation RMC - Right Main Canal SAR - Staff Appraisal Report SADU - Special Agricultural Development Unit  FOR OFFICIAL UU ONLY THE WORLD bANK Washington. D.C 20433 U.S.A Officer of Diu.ctnt.Gonval Opeustimt Eval t"In February 21, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on India Kallada Irrigation and Tree Crop Development Proiect (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled "Project Completion Report on India - Kallada Irrigation and Tree Crop Development Project (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN)" prepared by the Asia Regional Office with Part II of the report contributed by the Borrower. No audit of this project has been made by the Operations Evaluation Department at this time. Attachment This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. It contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREE CROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFA CE ....... ..................................... EVALUATION SUMMARY .................................... iii PART I PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE Project Identity .1 Background ...................................... 1 Project Objectives and Description. 2 Project Design and Organization. 3 Project Implementation. 4 Project Results. 5 Project Sustainability. 7 Bank Performance. 7 Borrower Performance. 8 Project Relationships. 9 Consulting Services. 9 Project Documentation and Data ...................... I . . .10 PART II PROJECT REVIEW FROM BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE .1 PART III STATISTICAL INFORMATION .13 Table I Related Bank Loans and Credits .14 Table 2 Project Timetable .......................... 16 Table 3 Schedule of Disbursements .17 Table 4 Project Implementation ............. .18 Table SA Project Costs .22 Table SB Project Financing .25 Table 6A Direct Benefits .27 Table 6B Economic Impact ............... 8.2 Table 6C Studies. 39 Table 7 Status of Covenants .44 Tacne 8A Stall Inputs ... Table 8B Missions. 49 Table 9 Physical Implementation Schedule for MCS .5.2.. 52 MAP IBRD 16023R 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.  i INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) PROJECr COMPLETION REPORT PREFACE This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Kallada Irrigation and Treecrop Development Project in the State of Kerala, India for which Credit 1269-IN in the amount of SDR 52.2 M and Loan 2186-IN in the amount of US$ 20.3 M were approved on June 24, 1982. The Credit/Loan were closed on March 31, 1989, some two years behind schedule. The last disbursement, was on February 9, 1989 for the Credit and October 17, 1989 for the Loan. The PCR was prepared jointly by the Agricultural Operations Division of the Asia Regional Office (Preface, Evaluation Summary, Part I and Part III), and the borrower (part II). Preparation of this PCR was initiated during the Bank's final supervision mission of the project in January/February 1989, and is based inter alia on the Staff Appraisal Report, Legal Documents, supervision reports, correspondence files, and various reports.  iMi INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEVELOPMENT PROFECT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT EVALUATION SUMMARY Objectives 1. The Credit and Loan were made to the Government of India (GOI) for onward lending to Government of Kerala (GOK) to assist in the financing of elements of the Kallada Irrigation and Treecrop Development Project (KIP). The project was a time slice to complete KIP major structures, such as the dam, main and branch canals, and to install an innovative low pressure pipe/open field channel system to irrigate coconut and spice gardens on hilly lands, and paddy in the valley bottoms. The scheme was commenced in the 1960's, but due to paucity of State funds had made slow progess. The project was to complete the dam and right main canal, to extend the right main canal, to fully construct the left main canal, and to install irrigation facilities down to plot level over 37,600 ha. This was to be a 'pilot project', as it was considered that such an untried (in India) and innovative concept for the micro conveyance system (MCS) would not be justified over the whole project amounting to about 61,600 ha. The major benefits were to derive from coconuts, spices, tapioca, and paddy. Implementation Experience 2. The project was slow to mobilize, and although the dam, main canals and branch canals construction proceeded satisfactorily (with the exception of a major tunnel on the left main canal), the distribution network and micro conveyance system installation were very delayed, and fell significantly short of the original target of appraisal, in that only some 12,700 ha had been achieved out of a target of 37,600 ha. This was due variously to land acquisition delays, inadequate survey and design staff, contractor problems due to labor disputes and litigation, to the lack of enabling legislation to install the piped systems until January 1985, and procurement delays for PVC pipes and fittings. 3 . Due to the appreciation of the SDR and US dollar against the rupee, large funds would have been surrendered had the original project scope been adhered to. Thus at the mid-term review in 1986, the project scope was enlarged to include about 50,000 of the typical upland/valley bottom terrain. Due to this and delays in construction, the project was granted a two year extension. Beyond this the project area descends to the flat coastal plain, and this was not included due to concems over the practicality and desirability of bringing irrigation to this area. 4. The aspects causing major concem during implementation were dam safety measures, lack of MCS staff, late legislation for MCS installation, slow execution of studies, the failure to produce a detailed operational plan, the failure of GOK to introduce revised water charges, and the lack of facilities (water supply) for the families displaced by the Kallada reservoir. The major physical delay was the very slow construction of tunnel No. 3 of the left main canal due to inadequate geological investigations, contractor litigation, and inadequate support by GOK for prescribed facilities, in addition to minor failings by the contractor.  iv Results 5. A'. little irrigation has yet commenced, it is premature to consider enhanced production due to the project. However, in spite of the shortcomings and delays noted above, the project may be considered to have achieved positive results in the following aspects: - the Irrigation Department staff have gained valuable training and experience in dam safety measures, canal system design, and piped micro-system design; - the development of a newly introduced MCS system is suitable for hilly terrain, which will act as a pilot project for similar application elsewhere in India; - the provision of a comprehensive road system for 0 & M and public use; - Parapar dam safety has been improved; - the routine monitoring of project development; and - the introduction of an improved agricultural support system. 6. Estimated costs have risen from Rs. 38,300/ha at appraisal to over Rs. 49,700/ha at present. Due to this and slow delivery of benefits, the ERR has reduced from 20% for a 37,600 ha project to 12.4% for a 50,000 ha project, which includes benefits from power generation. Proiect Sustainability 7. As the civil works and MCS installations have been generally constructed to acceptable quality standards, it is envisaged that the project will operate optimally with normal maintenance. An uncertainty is whether or not the beneficiary farmers will replace the flexible hoses in the pipe system from their own resources as intended. If they do not, the project will not maintain its predicted productivity. Additionally, if a comprehensive operational plan is not developed, the project will not perform satisfactorily. Findings and Lessons Learned 8. No irrigation project with major structural components should be appraised until the Bank is satisfied that relevant data on site conditions is adequate, and preliminary designs are completed. Unit rates for construction should be more carefully scrutinized, and those of the local construction industry used instead of hIrigation Department rates. 9. In view of the prolonged analysis of factors contributing to dam safety, much more clearly defined procedures and remedies should be prescribed by the Bank at appraisal including the obligation by the borrower to utilize expert consultants on technical matters beyond its competence. In respect of MCS works, which required controversial legislation to enable installation to proceed, the Bank should have awaited ratification of such legislation before declaring the project effective. In the event, this legislation was not available for some 30 months after effectiveness. 10. Finally, as found in many irrigation projects in India, the Irrigation Department was more concerned with constructing the project than how it would operate to best efficiency. In spite of the introduction of Command Area Development concepts and services in the 1970's, this and other similar projects still do not have comprehensive operational plans, which are essential on complex power cum irrigation system such as KIP.  1 INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269-iN/Loan 2186-IN) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PART I PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE Project Identhy Name Kallada Irigation and Treecrop Development Project Credit Number 1269 IN Loan Number 2186 IN RVP Unit Asia Region Country India State Kerala Sector : Agriculture Background 1. At the time of appraisal, India had a population of about 700 M, growing at a rate of about 2.2% per year. Some 50% of the population were at or below subsistence level, and in order to alleviate poverty and to create employment, especially in the rural areas, Government of India (GOI) gave high priority to agricultural development. This sector is dominant in the Indian economy, and contributed some 40% of GDP, employed about 70% of the population, and was responsible for about 45% of the country's exports. 2. As a major factor in agricultural production, irrigation development was thus given a high priority in this expansion. In 1982, it covered about 54 M ha, and supported about 60% of agricultural production. Results from irrigation project inv_stments were however disappointing, and a considerable proportion of the area nominally developed was yielding poor output due to low efficiency of systems, improper and inequitable operation, and low investment in inputs by the farmers due to low confidence. Recognizing the serious underutilization of valuable resources on which the growth in the economy depended, GOI in the early 1970's developed the concept of Command Area Development (CAD). Its aims were to concentrate attention on irrigation system operation, and the refining of physical infrastructure such as field channels to deliver water to the farmners' plots. Also included were support components such as the supply of inputs, agricultural extension, and credit. 3. The agriculture of Kerala and parts of neighboring Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is unique in India, influenced by the hilly topography, high rainfall, and tropical climate. Except on the flat coastal strip and along inland creeks where paddy and coconuts are predominant, the inland areas are typified by two distinct ecological units - the steep hilly lands with limited soil cover, and the flat valley bottoms with deep alluvial soils. Here, the former carries mainly treecrops such as coconuts, intercropped with various spices and tapioca. The bottom lands were previously exclusively paddy, but now due to high labor costs this is declining in favor of vegetables, bananias and coconuts. Large estates of rubber and oil palm exist, with complimentary small holder production of these crops. Kerala is the largest producer in India of rubber, cashew, coconut, cardamom and ginger.  2 4. Due to the very rugged topography and the tropical climate with average annual rainfall of 2600 mm, irrigation development in Kerala is less than in most Indian States except those in the Himalayas. The net area irrigated in the State was only about 9% of net sown area, compared with the national value of 25%, with little scope for increase. The major application for irrigation has been on paddy, where its main role is to permit double-cropping by advancing the planting date of the first crop, unlike much of India where it is a supplement to the monsoon rainfall, or to assist dry season cropping. 5. In spite of the high average annual rainfall, prolonged drought periods occur which significantly reduce crop yields, especially those of coconuts and paddy. Another important constraint to coconut production is th"' incidence oZ root-wilt disease which has been endemic in parts of the State for over 100 years, for which there is no known cure. Its effects can be reduced by cultural means however, including the use of hybrid strains, increased fertilizer application, and by irrigation. 6. The project, by serving both treecrops and paddy, responds to climatic and cultural requirements, thus assisting the State to increase production of its two major crops. A further factor is the very high population density, which with the small area of the State requires a high production per unit of area. Project Obiectives and Description 7. The Kallada Irrigation Project (KIP) is located ia the valley of Kallada river flowing westwards into the Arabian Sea. It rises in the western ghats (mountains). Its location is to the northeast of Quilon city, situated in the southern most part of Kerala. A project layout plan is given in Figure 1. 8. The scheme was planned as early as the 1950's, initially to increase paddy production in the State. Due to relative price changes, however, in which tree crop products became more attractive than rice, the concept was modified. Construction of the dam, river diversion structure, and elements of the main canals commenced in the 1960's. The project comprises a 85 m high concrete/masonry dam, and a diversion structure on the Kallada river at Ottakal, feeding main canals to right and left bank commands. After passing through very hilly terrain requiring numerous tunnels, aqueducts and syphons, the system was intended to also serve the flat coastal areas. The ultimately commandable area was estimated at 61,600 ha, of which about 50,000 ha is upland terrain of mixed garden lands and paddy, and the remainder is flat coastal paddy lands interspersed with coconuts. 9. Under State funding, the scheme made very slow progress, and by appraisal in 1981, only some 80% of the dam and 63% of the right main canal (RMC) had been completed. In view of the introduction by, GOI/GOK of an advanced piped distribution system for irrigation of garden lands on the steep areas, combined with an open channel system to supply the bottom lands in the same block, the Bank considered that as this mode of irrigation had not been previously applied in India, it would be unwise to support a project to the full potential of 61,600 ha. Instead, it was agreed that a first phase project commanding 37,600 ha would be assisted in the form of a pilot project, which if successful could be followed by a second phase to complete development.  3 10. With a view to completing irrigation facilities up to 37,600 ha, the balance works were defined, and are given in Table 4 of Part III. This 'time slice' was estimated to have a base cost of about Rs. 967 M (US$ 113.8 M), with cost details as shown in Table 5A, Part III. The major components were: a) completion of Parapar (Kallada) dam; b) completion of RMC with a further 24 km; c) construction of 49 km of Left Main Canal (LMC); d) construction of 26 km of branch canals in the right command and 73 km in the left command; e) construction of the distributaries and minors in the areas commanded; f) installation of the composite piped/channel supply system over an area of 50,000 ha, i.e. including a portion of phase JJ;1 g) construction of about 275.5 km of canal service roads;l h) provision of buildings, equipment and materials for irrigation and agricultural agencies; i) the formation of a Kallada Wing of Special Agricultural Development Unit (SADU); and j) the creation of a Planning, Monitoring and Coordination Cell (PMCC). The State agency responsible for implementation was the Irrigation and CAD Department, Government of Kerala (GOK). The project became effective in September 1982, and was scheduled to close in March 1987. A Credit of SDR 52.2 M (US$ 60.0 M) and a Loan of US$ 20.3 M were made to GOI for onward financing of GOK under arrangements then currently in force. Financing details are given in Table SB, Part III. Project Design and Organization 11. The project as conceived by GOK with the assistance of Central Water Commission (CWC) was clearly defined. The Bank during preparation and appraisal refined the details of construction, management, infrastructure and operation. The project was very innovative in the Indian context, in that it traversed very rugged terrain through tunnels and aqueducts, and in that it utilized a low pressure buried piped micro-distribution system in combination with field channels. In retrospect, it would have been more appropriate for the Bank to have ageed to fund a first phase project covering the entire 50,000 ha of typical upland/bottom land terrain, rather than a 'pilot project'of 37,600 ha. Bank preparation and appraisal missions should have accepted the feasibility and practicality of the project physical components, following the detailed preparation with the assistance of the FAO/CP. IL This has been revised to take into account comments received from Government.  4 12. The organization and management structure proposed to construct and operate the project were appropriate, which included ageement by which the management would modify durnng the project period from construction oriented to the G A M role. A major delaying effect on project development was the need to pass legislation enabling GOK to install the piped micro conveyance system such that the small percentage of potential beneficiaries who raised objections could be circumvented legally while installation was in progress, and to authorize GOK to recover a proportion of the cost of such installations. Following very tedious process, the enabling Ordinance was not passed until January 1985, and the Act was finally ratiried in December 1986. This obstruction should have been identified by the Bank during preparation, appraisal and negotiations, and an alternative process applied. Project Implementation 13. As indicated in para 12, the major discrepancy between planned and actual achievement was with respect to the micro conveyance system construction. It was scheduled L'. some 37,600 ha would be installed by March 1986, the original completion date. Due to a combination of: - lack of enabling legislation until January 1985; - delays to topographic surveys; - shortage of trained staff due to rapid rotation of those who had received training from FAO/Cl, - inadequate MCS installation divisions; and - procurement formalities for pipes and fittings, at revised closure date of March 1989, only 12,600 ha MCS had been installed, of which about 3000 ha had been commissioned. 14. The other major cause for delay to irrigation potential creation is the very slow construction of tunnel No. 3 at km 6.4 on LMC. Without the completion of this 3.5 km long lined tunnel in the head reach of the canal, no irrigation may take place in the left command. GOK procedures, failures in funding, periodic inadequate support for the contractor, and lack of geological information for the design of this tunnel in rock of poor integrity were major factors in the delay to the tunnel construction. The GOK and Bank preparation engineers should have insisted on the fullest site investigations before Credit/Loan effectiveness. In the event, after successive rock falls requiring a major realignment, this tunnel will not be operational until late 1I- ' 15. The need for strict adherence to dam safety procedures to satisfy Bank requirements was a factor in the delay to the completion of the Kallada dam. This did not in the event cause a delay to the introduction of irrigation, as the distribution and micro-networks were not advanced enough to permit it. As a result of clear legal documents, the Dam Safety Panel (DSP) was introduced into the project. It immediately identified certain weaknesses, including doubts over the dam's inability to pass the maximum probable flood safety, and structural modifications were required late in the project period. The improved safety of this dam, considering the large population downstream, is a major achievement of the project. 16. A major institutional weakness has been the role and activities (or rather lack of) SADU. It is recalled that it was to mainly concern itself with the distribution of hybrid coconuts and in arranging  5 credit for project farners. Late in the project period, after litde had been contributed by it, GOK suspended its activities and replaced it with a more broadly based support system known as Krishi Bhavans (literally agricultural centers). It is felt in retrospect that the project preparation should have anticipated this weakness, and made more positive specific support arrangements for the project. Due to this, even today only some 20-30 of the required 52 Krishi Bhavans are in place. 17. Althoug'h the preparation by the Bank considered the resettlement and rehabilitation (R & R) of some 277 landless families from the reservoir area, and reference is made to procedures in the SAR, no specific covenant was included in legal documents to enforce satisfactory treatment. 410 families were evicted from the submerged area of the Parapur dam. 36.4 ha of forest land were sanctioned by GOK for rehabilitation purposes and distributed to 391 families, so far. About 4.86 ha of land are to be issued to the remaining 19 families.1 Although GOK was generous in that it allotted a good village site to families who were previously illegal encroachers, throughout the project period Bank supervision missions had cause to report unfavorably on the delay in the provision of a perennial water supply. Project Results 18. The physical achievements under the project to the revised closing date of March 1989, following a two year extension, can be seen from Table 4. From this, major components such as the dam, the RMC, LMC, and right command branch canals are virtually completed. In this command, distributaries are about 85%, but minors are lagging at only 68% of revised targets. In the left command, the branches are about 65% complete, but completion of tunnel No. 3 is anticipated only by late 1990. Here also distributaries and minors are lagging at about 60% of revised targets. 19. It is in the micro-conveyance system that the most serious delays have occurred, in that at closure date only 12,600 ha had been installed out of a revised target of 50,000 ha. Thus although some early installations of the complex pipe/open channel systems are now starting to operate, their characteristics and problems cannot be assessed fully. This is due to the inexperience of the beneficiary groups, and to the lack of regular rotational supplies from the canal system as it is still unfinished. However, site inspections of those blocks which are installed and operating in an ad hoc manner indicate that the system functions as intended, and that the farmers are cooperating in its management. Table 9 in Part Ill gives the projected build up of the MCS installations. 20. A major failing of the project has been the reluctance by GOK to formulate a compreL.nsive operational plan, in spite of persistent Bank representations. The covenant under Section 3.04 of the Project Ageement required that a study be made on operation and maintenance management, which was completed satisfactorily. However, it has not been possible for the Bank to assess the future impact or success oi the plan. 21. The time-slice project underwent some modifications in physical quantities as a result of final design and the extension of target command area from that at appraisal of 37,600 ha to about 50,000 ha, as shown in Table 4. This extension of project size was agreed following a mid term review, when the project revised costs and increase in the rupee values of the Credit and Loan due to the dollar and SDR appreciation were resolved. The expansion to the limits of the hilly topography satisfies the objection made above on project scope, and the project can no longer be considered a "pilot project". The revised cost commensurate with this increased physical scope is given in Table 5A. As a result of this expansion, it was ageed that the feasibility study to be carried out to determine the scope of a Phase II to complete KIP development would have little meaning, and this 3/ This has been revised to take into account comments received from Govemnment.  6 was aborted. It was prescribed in the covenant under Section 3.02 of the Project Ageement. In view of the very different mode of irrigation system in the area beyond about 50,000 ha, doubts over the desirability or practicability of providing irrigation to an area near the sea and densely populated, and the very small area involved (about 12,000 ha), the suspension of the studv is justified. 22. Two additional physical aspects should be noted. Modifications to the Parapar dam have been referred to above, and it should be recorded that following pressure from the Dam Safety Panel (DSP) from its inception in 1982, certain structural measures were carried out which improved the dam's integrity and operation, and ensured its safety. The second refers to project canal roads. Under the terms of the minutes of negotiations, a feasibility study was carried out to determine the extent of canal side roads to satisfy 0 & M and public transport requirements. Although this study was made, albeit very delayed, many revisions were required to both scope and specifications before the Bank could agree to support its recommendations. This resulted in a physical increase by more than 140% over appraisal estimates. 23. In retrospect, the following positive results have emanated from the project: a) Parapar dam was made safe as far as present analytical methods and data would permit, and its water retention properties and structural integrity improved; b) the canal system operation characteristics were improved by the addition of cross- regulators and escapes; c) the concept of piped/open channel MCS installations introduced by GOI and GOK project planners without detailed design and operational considerations was translated into practice for the first time in India; d) farmers' block committees were formed; e) the ineffective SADU system was modified to the Krishi Bhavan approach; and f) an effective multipurpose road network has been initiated. 24. Direct project benefits, both appraisal and present estimates, are shown in Table 6A of Part RI. In interpreting the differences between the two esdmates, it should be remembered that appraisal estimates were made on the basis of 37,600 ha command development, whereas the revised present estimates are on a 61,600 ha command. For a 50,000 ha command, interpolation has been used. 25. Turning to financial indicators, project cost estimates are shown in Table SA. Reference to this table, considering a command of 50,000 ha, indicates a 107% cost increase over appraisal estimates for-a 37,600 ha command. Translating this to a common base, this is an increase from Rs. 36,260/ha to Rs. 56,420/ha, with all costs prior to project inception in 1982 considered sunk costs and not included. Major cost increases are evident on all items, far in excess of pro rata increase in command area, and beyond the contingencies applied. Table 4 indicates that significant physical increases were introduced only on canal structures, MCS installations, and road network. Indeed, reductions in quantities were made with respect to certain branch, distributary and minor canals. Thus on civil works, the preparation/appraisal teams cou:d not have realistically assessed unit rates, a common failing in many irrigation project appraisals in the late 1970's and 1980's. This has arisen by taking the Irrigation Departments' schedules of rates, which are invariably much below those of the local construction industry. A second major increase, beyond prediction, has been the increased  7 cost of land acquisition due to high demand by returning migrant labor, making rural land values here some of the highest in India. 26. Table 6B, Part III gives economic indicators, with the Economic Rate of Retum (ERR) estimates at appraisal, at first Credit/Loan extension in December 1986 by FAO/CP, and at present. Considering a project command of about 50,000 ha, the present ERR estimate excluding sunk costs is 12.4%, compared with that for 37,600 ha at appraisal of 20% . Although the December 1986 estimates show only a marginal effect due to inclusion of power generation (not funded under the project), this is somewhat more pronounced in present estimates. 27. Inspite of these reduced ERR estimates, the project may be considered to be moderately successful, for the reasons given in para 23 above and in Table 6A, and for the improvement it will make to the rural economy of the region. Because of the project, the Irrigation Department has derived considerable expertise in dam, tunnel, canal and MCS design, in system operations, and in project monitoring and coordination. The MCS system utilized, following evaluation after normal operation commences, may be used as a pilot project for irrigation in other hilly areas in India, such as in the watershed projects. Project Sustainabilitv 28. As construction has been to a generally satisfactory standard, and as the socioeconomic aspects have been given due regard, it is confidently anticipated that the project, based on a firm foundation and providing the necessary infrastructure, will give prolonged operation. What is not so evident is the way in which the project will be operated and maintained, in view of persistent failure by GOK to produce an operational plan for the system. If this is not done, and only an adhoc operation continues, the benefits may be substantially lower than indicated in this report. With respect to maintenance, it is assumed that the farmers will themselves replace the final delivery pipe system. Experience elsewhere in India however indicates that this may not occur. If these fears are proved correct, then the efficiency and equity of water supply within the blocks will decline. Bank Performance 29. The identification and preparation of the project were not adequately staffed by engineers to ensure that all pertinent technical and cost aspects were fully covered. Examples are the minimal amount of site investigation carried out for major structures, and the use of unrealistically low unit rates for construction. In addition, it is questioned why only 37,600 ha was selected for Phase I - this is too large for a pilot project, but fell significantly short of the potential development of about 61,600 ha. 30. The appraisal was prolonged over some six months, due to the need to field a second (reappraisal) mission in May 1981 in order to revise and finalize the aspects of agricultural services organization and capability, the predicted impact of coconut root-wilt disease, the role of SADU, the without-project situation, subsidies, and to phase MCS installation to keep pace with new plantings. The appraisal report, although somewhat lacking in detail (a draft Supplemented Data Volume was produced but not released), nevertheless gave a complete coverage of most of the project components. One major weakness was the very cursory treatment given to system operation. 31. Reference to Tables 8A and 8B, Part III indicates an above average Bank staffing input for the proiect. This is due to the very high level of technical assistance provided in the absence of consultants retained by GOK. From late preparation stage until well into execution, the engineer  8 from FAO/CP responsible for translating the pipe MCS concept into practical designs carried out frequent visits to monitor design and installation, and to provide staff training. 32. A further heavy Bank input was with respect to dam safety. From mid 1984 until Credit/Loan closure, the Bank closelv monitored the unsatisfactory actions by GOK in meeting the DSP's recommendations for revised flood estimation. Bank consultants were utilized on several occasions to assist in the analysis. Other technical consultants were provided by the Bank to assist with modifications to tunnel No. 3, LMC, without which progress would have been significantly slower than at present, and the cost overrun would have been much higher. 33. Review of Bank supervision manning and frequency indicates a balanced program throughout, with the appropriate expertise invoked. Bank representations to GOK in many cases resolved problems and reduced delays. At Credit/Loan first extension in March 1987, the Bank made a critical review of weaknesses and shortcomings in implementation, and made their improvement or resolution conditions for such extension. This was repeated for the second extension in March 1988. These exercises produced very positive results, and were implemented in the project reaching its present level of development. Borrower Performance 34. There were major startup problems to the project, in that there was excessive staff rotation, and serious delays in the mobilization and staffing of the PMCC. Although FAO/CP training and design assistance missions were frequent, their effectiveness was diluted by the transfer of trained staff within a short time of their training. Serious bottlenecks developed due to the slow rate of surveys for MCS installations due to inadequate staff and facilities, such as transport and survey equipment. 35. During project execution, once these constraints were largely resolved, the project proceeded satisfactorily on the larger civil works. An exception to this was tunnel No. 3, due to inadequate power supply and explosives, and inadequate geological data with which to design the tunnel. Inadequate field divisions continued to delay MCS works. In the latter part of the project period, when attention should have been focussed increasingly on operational aspects, no adequate provision was made for 0 & M establishment for project needs. At project closure, the staff were impeded in their supervision by inadequate or unserviceable vehicles, which had progessively deteriorated over the project period without replacement. 36. Funding for the project was most inadequate at effectiveness, but thereafter improved. At two intervals during the implementation period thereafter funding was severely constrained, including the period before final Credit/Loan closure. Fund allocation for FY 90 is only 50% of requirements, with the result that flow of benefits will be further delayed. 37. The studies rescribed under the project, and those subsequently introduced, are detailed in Table 6D with notes on their execution and impact. The major studies concerning dam safety, water charges, project management, roads, telecommunications, and base line survey were competently carried out, although not all to schedule. Minor studies of farmer involvement in MCS operation and maintenance and their acceptance of hybrid coconuts were not carried out. Of more concern is the lack of progess on the production of an operational plan, and on reservoir siltation. Hydrometeorologica! studies are making slow progess.  9 38. The attention by GOK to major covenants is detailed in Table 7, Part 111. During implementation, most covenants were in compliance or were being addressed. Four major exceptions were however: a) Section 3.03 - Adequate 0 & M units for the project have not been provided. b) Section 3.04 - Inadequate consideration was given to the detailed operation of the project. c) Section 3.05 - Revised water charges have not been introduced. d) Section 3.08 - It was not ensured that MCS works were carried out together with the conveyance system. 39. For the major part of the project period, the covenant under Section 3.06 (dam safety) was not complied with. Inspite of periodic recommendations of the DSP to revise flood studies and persistent representations by the Bank, only nomimal action was taken. CWC took an excessive time to carry out revised analysis, and ultimately became involved in a dispute with GOK's consultant meteorologist which was only resolved by the introduction of an independent expert into the DSP. Such reluctance to utilize new data to update flood studies in order to improve the safety of the dam, especially with a large population immediately downstream, is not understood. CWC, as the nation's observer on dam safety, should have instead taken the lead in ensuring its safety. 40. Project monitoring by the PMCC was initially unsatisfactory, in that there was little communication between Chief Engineer (PMCC) and the Chief Engineer (KIP). This subsequently improved, and at project closure periodic reports by PMCC were to the required standard and promptly submitted. The PMCC, which suffered from very frequent rotation of Chief Engineers, did not however perform well generally, and a lack of coordination with Chief Engineer (KIP) persisted throughout. Project management at the level of Chief Engineer (KIP) was consistently satisfactory or above average, and the construction units throughout performed satisfactorily. Procurement procedures were generally satisfactory and followed Bank guidelines. Project Relationships 41. Throughout the project cycle, the GOK and project officials cooperated fully with Bank and FAO/CP staff, and the most cordial relations were maintained throughout. Only during the latter stages of the darn safety review was strain evident, but the decision by GOK to seek expert opinion to arbitrate in the sensitive meteorology dispute resolved the issue. Consulting Services 42. A weakness of the project was GOK's reluctance to utilize the services of expert consultants. This was evident until the final stages of the dam safety review, on tunnel data collection and design, on MCS design, on the formation of farmers'groups, and on the various studies, including the derivation of an operational plan. This was thought to be partly due to lack of experience of working with consultants, to reluctance by the Irrigation Department to subcontract their work, and to the tedious process of gaining government sanction for consultant appointment. 43. All construction was carried out by private contractors. In Kerala, the contracting industry is beset with labor problems, which frequently caused work stoppages, onsite violence, cost escalation, and even abandonment of works by the contractors. Many structures were seriously  10 delayed due to this factor. Indeed, the problem reached such proportions that it is questionable whether construction projects in the State may be subjected to normal scheduling criteria, and the environment is not at present amenable to the introduction of further time bound projects on which economic indicators are based. Project Documentation and Data 44. The SAR gave adequate guidance to executing staff and Bank supervision missions, except for lack of technical details on system operation, and on the issue of introduction of revised water charges and procedures for R&R, where it was particularly weak. These exceptions resulted in imprecise language in the legal documents which made these covenants difficult to enforce. 45. At all stages of the project cycle, GOK through Chief Engineer (KIP) provided adequate data required for preparation, appraisal, supervision, and PCR preparation. Had a computer based MIS system been introduced, data retrieval could have been more readily achieved, and project monitoring would have been facilitated.  11 PART 11 PROJECT REVIEW FROM BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE Confirmation of Adequacy and Accuracy of Information in Parts I and Part III 46. Information contained in Parts I and III have been verified and found to be generally satisfactory. Paras. 10 (f) and (g) and 17 of Part I and Tables 4 and 6C of Part III have been revised, as indicated, to take account of Government's comments. Evaluation of Bank's Performance During Project Evolution and Implementation 47. Like other irrigation projects in the State, the original concept of Kallada Irrigation Project was to provide irrigation water to paddy lands with a view to step up rice production for food self- sufficiency. But when the project was submitted to the World Bank for credit assistance in 1980, the focus of the scheme was changed to cover irrigation of tree crops also. 48. The Kallada Irrigation and Tree Crop Development Project is the first World Bank involvement with on-farm irrigation in Kerala. It was the first major gravity irrigation in India with an on-farm delivery system based on low-pressure underground PVC pipes for the irrigation of garden lands. 49. Bank officials gave GO1/GOK sufficient guidance especially regarding on-farm irrigation system by MCS which was a new concept in the State of Kerala. 50. During the implementation period, Bank officials made several visits to the project and contacted GOK and project officials, and gave timely instructions for the proper execution of the works. The Bank's suggestions, such as constitution of a Dam Safety Panel for KIP, forming of farmer's committee, solving problems in the critical work of Tunnel No. HI, forming of Special Agriculture Development Unit, additional Krishi Bhavan Units, communication facilities, etc., were some of the important achievements of the Project. Evaluation of Borroweer's Own Performance During roject Evolution and Implementation 51. Before placing the project before the World Bank for financial assistance, the work of Kallada Irrigation Project was in slow progress due to paucity of funds. During 1981-82, the project was taken up for execution with World Bank assistance. As per the agreement with the World Bank, the project should have been completed by March 1989. During this period, a major portion of the work has been completed. Delay in completion was due to various reasons noted below: (a) scarcity of cement, steel and explosives in certain periods; (b) non-completion of Tunnel No. III in LBMC; (c) labor problems in various work sites; (d) delay in land acquisition; (e) abandonment of works by contractor and works rearrangement; (f) paucity of funds during certain periods; (g) non-shifting of electric lines in some reaches in certain canal  12 system; (f) inadequacy of staff, survey equipment and vehicles during the initial stage of project execudon especially for MCS works; 52. The following factors also contributed to the delay in completing the project: (a) the minor conveyance system under the topographic condition of the project area was a new activity requiring more time for planning, designing, and installation of underground pipes, and staff training; (b) the build-up of agricultural support services to promote on-farm development also needed considerable lead time. 53. Most of the suggestions made by the World Bank officials during their field visits in solving the above problems were taken into consideration and timely actions were taken to implement the same. Assessment of Bank-Borrower Relationship During Project Implementation 54. Relationship between the Bank and project officials was good and effective in all respects.  13 PART III STATISTICAL INFORMATION  Table I Page 1 of 2 INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269 IN/Loan 2186 IN) TABLE 1 Related Bank Loans and Credits Loan/Credit Purpose Year Status Comments Details of Approval 1. Credit 680-IN: To plant or rehabilitate 1977 The project closed The project was fairly Kerala Agricultural coconuts, pepper, seed on 9/30/86, successful, although there > Development Project gardens and cashew, to following a one year was a significant cost (USS 30.0 M) establish crumb rubber extension. overrun. Some USS 0.5 M factories and markets, to remained undisbursed. strengthen agricultural research, and to improve agricultural extension facilities. 2. Credit 824-IN: To improve milk 1978 The project closed The project was considered National Dairy collection, to procure on 12/31/85 on successful. The Credit was Project processing equipment, to schedule. fully disbursed. (US$ 150.0 M) construct milk plants, and to provide training to staff. 3. Credit 855-IN: To strengthen location 1978 The project closed The results of the project National specific research in the on 3/31/86 having were disappointing. Only USS Agricultural agro-climatic zones of had a 3 year 19.5 M of the Credit was Research Project I India, including Kerala. extension. utilized. (USS 27.0 M)  Table 1 Page 2 of 2 Loan/Credit Purpose Year Status Comments Details of Approval 4. Credit 1012-IN: To finance cashew 1980 The project closed The project was considered Cashew Project production in Kerala, on 9/30/87 following to be moderately successful. (USS 22.0 M) Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh a two year The Credit was fully and Orissa, with new extension. disbursed. plantations, research and training. 5. Credit 1028-IN: To reorganize and 1980 The project closed The project was successful, Kerala Agricultural strengthen agricultural on schedule in June and the Credit was fully Extension Project extension in Kerala, with 1986. disbursed. (USs 10.0 M) improved training, U research, equipment, staff and facilities. 6. Credit 1209-IN/ To finance a 2 year slice 1982 The project closed Although most of the Loan 2095-IN: of ARDC's lending on 6/30/84 on physical targets were Agricultural programme. schedule. achieved, the project was Refinance and disappointing due to Development incorrect assumptions on its Corporation IV effect on policy and (USS 350.0 M) institutional improvement. Some USS 9.1 M remained undispersed. 7. Credit 1631-IN: To strengthen location 1985 The project is still The project is oaking modest National specific research in the in progress. The progress. The Kerala Agricultural agro-climatic zones of prescribed closing component is above the Research Project II India, including Kerala. date is 12/31/92, national average level of (USS 69.9 M) but it is progress. anticipated that a two-year extension will be required.  16 INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269 IN/Loan 2186 IN) TABLE 2 Project Timetable Item Date Date Date planned revised actual Identification (EPS) 12/29/78 - Preparation 12/78 - 5/81 - AppraiFal mission 09/80 - 10/80 & 05/81 - Credit/Loan negotiations 03/16/81 03/5/82 - Board approval 04/28/81 06/24/82 - Credit/Loan signing 8 07/06/82 - Credit/Loan effectiveness 09/21/82 - Credit/Loan completion 03/31/86 03/31/88 03/31/89 - Credit/Loan closure 03/31/87 03/31/88 03/31/89  17 INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) TABL 3 Schedule of Disbursements Bank FY/ Cumulative Disbursements X Actual Quarter Appraisal Revised Actual to SAR or Projection Projection revised projection --------------------(US $M)---------------- 1983 1st - 2nd 3.5 - 3rd 7.3 12.3 168 4th 11.1 13.9 125 1984 1st 15.1 15.6 103 2nd 19.1 17.8 93 3rd 23.2 22.6 97 4th 27.4 24.1 88 1985 1st 32.3 24.9 77 2nd 37.3 26.3 71 3rd 42.3 30.9 73 4th 47.4 31.1 66 1986 1st 52.2 32.8 63 2nd 57.1 36.2 63 3rd 60.3 39.9 66 4th 63.5 43.3 68 1987 1st 71.1 45.7 64 2nd 80.0 55.0 45.7 83 3rd 80.3 60.0 50.9 85 4th 65.0 55.7 86 1988 1st 70.0 57.7 82 2nd 75.3 59.3 79 3rd 80.3 61.7 77 4th 64.8 65.6 101 1989 1st 67.9 69.2 102 2nd 71.0 69.4 98 3rd 74.1 76.8 103 4th 77.2 78.5 102 1990 1st 80.3 80.3 100 Disbursement ceased on October 17, 1989.  Table 4 Page 1 of 4 INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DmLOFMNT PBDJECT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) TABLE 4- Pro.iect InDlementation 1/ 2y 2J Indicator Unit Appraisal Revised Actual Completion Istimated estimate estimate achievement (Z) Completion date c- 1. Dan - earthwork Tb..3 20.0 580.0 550.0 100 C - masonry/concrete Tb..3 97.0 440.0 430.0 98 11/89 - saddle dam Th.m3 63.0 7710.0 7700.0 100 C - gates no 100 100 100 C 2. REiht CoanLad a) Main canal - earthworks km 24.0 69.7 69.7 100 C - lining km us 69.7 69.7 100 C - structures No 106 248 234 94 6/90  Table 4 Page 2 of 4 1/ 2J Indicator Unit Appraisal Revised Actual Completion Estimated estimate estimate achievement (X) Completion date b) Branch canals - earthwork km 26.0 47.6 47.5 100 C - lining km ns 43.3 43.2 100 C - structures No 159 287 248 86.4 6/90 c) Disnet to 60 ha - earthwork km 273.0 357.0 311.8 87.4 6/90 - structures No ns 16.83 1430 85 6/90 d) Minors 60 ha - 10 ha - earthwork km 374.0 63.0 44.76 71.05 9/90 3. Left Command a) Main canal - earthwork km 49.0 56.0 55.24 99 12/89 - lining km ns 56.0 53.94 96 12/89 - structures No 198 297 283 95 6/90 b) Branch canals - earthwork km 73.0 64.2 47.2 74 3/90 - lining km us 62.8 34.4 55 6/90 - structures No 195 332 206 62 9/90  Table 4 Page 3 of 4 1/ 2/ Indicator Unit Appraisal Revised Actual Completion Estimated estimate estimate achievement (S) Completion date c) Disnet to 60 ha - earthwork km 236.0 263.0 141.3 54 12/90 - structures No Ds 572 343 60 12/90 d) Minors 60 ha 10 ha - earthwork km 280.0 18.0 12.3 68 6/90 4. Micro Conveyance Syste- (MCS) below 10 ha a) garden lands '000 ha 27.6 36.7 * ) 12.6 25 3/92 b) paddy lands '000 ha 10.0 13.3 ) 3/ c) tanks No D.8 ni Di - - 5. Canal Roads K 113.0 275.5 153.6 56 6/ 6. Buildings X us 100 92 92  Table 4 Page 4 of 4 Notes: 1/ Based on command area of 37,600 ha. 2/ Based on com_and area of 50,000 ha. 3/ Tanks initially included for night storage, but subsequently deleted. 4/ No further road or building construction beyond current con%.racts. 5/ Time slice quantities only. 6/ This takes into account Government comments. Abbreviations: ns - not specified. ni - not included.  Table 5A Page 1 of 3 INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) TABLE SA 5/ Pro.iect Costs Revised Estimated Item ApDraisal estimate estimate Actual at balance cost Local FE Total (1/89) 6/89 after 6/89 Total Total Total (US$ M) 1/ (US$ M) 2/ (US$ M) 3/ (US$ M) 3/ A. Civil works Dam 2.87 6.30 5.21 0.56 Right Command - main canal 8.82 11.26 10.20 0.10 - branch canals 5.86 5.37 5.06 0.46 - distributaries to 60ha 7.26 17.21 15.04 1.91 - minors 60ha - 10ha 1.33 3.24 0.61 2.36 Left Comand - main canal 30.95 30.07 28.22 0.61 - branch canals 5.20 8.96 6.16 2.65 - distributaries to 60ha 6.06 15.66 11.64 3.89 - minors 60ha - 10ha 0.99 1.13 0.01 1.63 Micro Conveyance System (below 10ha) - distribution system 11.71 25.12 12.02 13.40 - tanks 0.81 - . -  Table 5A Page 2 of 3 ; ised Estinated Item Apnraisal estimate timate Actual at balance cost Local FE Total "'89) 6/89 after 6/89 Total Total Total (US$ M) 1/ (US M) g/ (US$ M) ( (US$ M) 3/ Canal Roads 1.21 3.26 0.81 0.61 Buildings 1.67 1.94 1.55 0.23 Sub-total civil works 59.32 25.42 84.74 129.52 96.53 28.41 B. Ancillary Items Equipment and materials 0.62 0.91 1.53. 2.52 2.15 0.16 Land Acquisition 13.50 - 13.50 21.04 19.62 0.30 C. Administrative Overheads 6/ SADU - Kallada Wing 0.92 - 0.92 0.79 0.19 0.53 Planning/Monitoring 0.34 - 0.34 0.87 0.25 0.55 Engineering Supervision 12.72 - 12.72 21.21 19.50 2.78 Total base cost 87.42 26.33 113.75 175.95 138.24 32.73 D. Contingencies Physical contingencies 9.81 2.91 12.72 - - - Price contingencies/ 26.11 7.81 33.92 - - - cost escalation Total Project cost (US$ M) 123.34 37.05 160.39 175.95 138.24 32.73 Total Project cost (Rs M) 1047.7 315.6 1363.3 2656.8 2281.0 540.00  Table 5A Page 3 of 3 Notes: 1/ US$ 1.0 = Rs. 8.50 at appraisal. 2/ US$ 1.0 = Rs. 15.10 at January 1989. 3/ US$ 1.0 = Rs. 16.50 at June 1989. 4/ Deleted from project. 5/ Appraisal estimates based on command area of 37,600 ha, but all other estimates and expenditures based on comand area 50,000 ha following mid-term review. i/ Now converted to Krishi Bhavans.  25 Table SB Page 1 of 2 INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEiVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) TABLE5B Erject Finanng Source Planned at Revised Final actual Estimated at appraisal (11/88) at 6/89 project completion (US$ '000) (US$'000) (US$ '000) (US$ '000) A. IDA Credit Categories 1. Civil works 56,615 69,606 66,049 66,049 2. Equipment, vehicles 3270 1686 1601 1601 and materials 3. Monitoring and 115 359 340 340 evaluation 4. Unallocated Sub-Total 60,000 71,651 67,990 67,990 B. IBRD Loan Categories 1. Civil works 12,315 18,000 19,846 19,846 2. Equipment, vehicles 500 1927 4 4 and materials 3. Monitoring and 185 73 150 150 evaluation 4. Fee 300 300 300 300 5. Unallocated 7000 7000 - - Sub-Total 20,300 20,300 20,300 20,300 C. Cofinancing Institutions nil nil nil nil D. Other external sources nil nil nil nil E. Domestic (GOK) 80,300 59,654 50,755 73,614 A/ Total (US$'000) 160,600 151,605 139,045 161,904 4/ Total (Rs M) 1365.9 2228.6 2285.9 2661.7  26 Table SB Page 2 of 2 Ns: .1/ US$ 1.15 = SDR 1.0 at appraisal US$ 1.00 Rs. 8.50 2/ US$ 1.37 = SDR 1.0 at November 1988 US$ 1.00 = Rs. 14.7 l-/ US$ 1.30 = SDR 1.0 at June 1989 US$ 1.00 = Rs. 16.44 4A/ Includes fee on Loan of US$ 300,000. :/ Based on actual expenditures at June 1989. 6/ Using latest cost estimate for time slice project of Rs. 2656.8 at January 1989, but converted at June 1989 rates. 11 Appraisal estimates based on a project command of 37,600 ha. All other estimates and actual expenditure based on a project command of 53,500 ha.  27 T1DTA KALLADA TRRIQATION4 AND IREEERO DWMEWro PROJECTr Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN TARLE6A Direct Bnefits 1/ 2/ 2// Indicator Appraisal Closing date Full development estimate estimate estimate 1. Increase in income on 17,000 8200 28,918 coconut holdings (Rs/ha`year) 2. Increase in total income 21,000 11,312 36,217 on garden lands (Rs/ha/year) 3. Increase in net income on 4,000 4901 4901 paddy lands (Rs/ha/year) 4. Increase in copra 37,000 5120 41,000 production (ton/year) 5. Increase in rice 10,000 31,320 5/ 40,920 production (ton/year) 6. Work created by project 33 21 35 civil works (million man days) 7. Increase in employment 90 43 121 from intensified coconut cultivation (Man days/ha/year) 8. Total employment generated 2 0.12 4.1 in garden lands (million man days/year) 9. Total employment generated 1 0.04 1.4 on paddy lands (million man days/year) 10. Fall in households in from 70 to 40 not estimated project area below poverty line (%) Note: 1/ Using 19e1 prices; based on command area of 37,500 ha. 2/ Using 1988 constant prices. 3/ By pro-rata. 9/ Based on an ultimate comnand area of 61,600 ha. 5/ Due to increase in yield of paddy from 1800-2000 kg/ha to 3000-3200, based on a 5-year moving average of paddy yield from 1983-1988 in project area.  28 INDIA KALLAI)A IRRIGATION AND TREESCROP DEYEDOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269-1N/Loan 2186-lN) ECONOMIIC ANALsSIS. A. Economic Impact The ERR was calculated using 37,600 ha and 50,000 ha as the command area. The cost and benefits were scaled down to reflect the decline in area from the original SAR area of 61,600 ha. The results are given below: ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN (%)1/ APPRAISAL REVISED2/ PRESENT3/ SCI WSC SCI WSC SCI WSC I. With Power a. 37,600 ha 14.00 20.00 7.10 10.30 6.50 9.70 b. 50,000 ha 9.10 12.60 8.80 12.40 c. 61,600 ha 9.10 12.50 8.50 12.10 II. Without Power a. 37,600 ha not estimated 6.80 9.90 5.20 6.60 b. 50,000 ha 8.80 12.30 7.50 9.30 c. 61,600 ha 8.80 12.20 7.20 9.10 III. Dam Used for Power Alone 7.00 1 3.00 2.10 9.40 When the conmmand area is 50,000 ha, the ERR is slightly higher as compared to the 61,600 ha command area. This is due to the fact that increasing the scope from 50,000 ha to 61,600 ha involves difficult terrain and so the marginal cost is higher than the marginal benefit. If the cormnand area is only 37,600 ha, the ERR is lower as compared to the command areas of 50,000 ha and 61,600 ha. Footnotes: 1/ SCI=Sunk Costs included in analysis. WSC=Sunk Costs excluded from analysis. 2/ By FAO/CP, December 1986. 3/ March 1989.  29 (i) Irrigated Area Assumptions The estimates of increased production from the project are based on the assumption that under each phase, only one-third of the area would be irrigated in the first year, two-thirds in the second year and the entire area from the third year onwards. The area that would be irrigated each year is given below: Cumulative As of Phase (h a) Sep-89 I 3,500 Sep-90 I I 12,500 Sep-91 III 45,000 Sep-92 IV 50,000 Mar-93 V 61,600 Total 61,600 (ii) Yield and Area Under Major Crops Without With With Project (SAR) Project (SAR) Project (revised) Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area (T/Ha) (%) (T/Ha (%) (T/Ha) (%) Coconut (Tall)1/ 27 46 68 46 54 46 Coconut (Hybrid)1/ 1 25 24 90 24 Cassava 16.5 10 25 10 25 10 Paddy 2.1 30 2.4 30 3.2 30 Net Return Rs/ha 8,086 35,400 20,862 1/ Coconut yields are in nuts per tree.  30 (iii). Projections of Yield For Coconuts (With Project) A. Current Yield Estimates (per Tree Model): Nuts/Treo: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year8 Year 9 Tall Coconut(existing) 27 34 40 54 54 54 54 54 54 Hybrid Coconut 30 65 70 90 90 B. Appraisal Yleld Estimates (per Tree Model): Nuts/Tree: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Tall Coconut(existing) 30 40 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Hybrid Coconut 10 25 50 80 100 115 125 Note: For other tree crops, appraisal and current estimates are more or less similar.  31 (iv) a. Benefit and Cost Streams (1988.89 Constant Valuos) 61,600 ha Llfe Span e 60 years Economic Main- Total Increm. Net Cost tonance Economic Econ. Increm. (Base) Cost Cost Benefit Benefit No. Year (A) (B) (C-A+B) (D) (D-C) 1 61-62 0.89 0.89 -0.89 2 62-63 2.63 2.63 -2.63 3 63-64 1.77 1.77 -1.77 4 64-65 1.26 1.26 -1.26 5 65-66 1.04 1.04 -1.04 6 66.87 4.53 4.63 -4.53 7 67-68 9.63 9.63 -9.63 8 68-69 17.20 17.20 -17.20 9 69-70 21.07 21.07 -21.07 10 70-71 24.83 24.83 -24.83 11 71-72 13.77 13.77 -13.77 12 '2-73 18.19 18.19 -18.19 1 3 73-74 24.98 24.98 -24.98 14 74-75 23.58 23.58 -23.58 15 75-76 37.73 37.73 -37,73 1 6 76-77 57.46 57.46 -57.46 17 77-78 117.91 117.91 -117.91 1 8 78-79 140.78 140.78 -140.78 19 79-80 128.03 128.03 -128.03 20 80-81 139.34 139.34 -139.34 21 81-82 199.18 199.18 -199.18 22 82-83 210.97 210.97 -210.97 23 83-84 272.52 272.52 -272.52 24 84-85 276.89 276.89 -276.89 25 85-86 351.06 351.06 -351.06 26 86-87 330.89 330.89 -330.89 27 87-88 279.49 279.49 -279.49 28 88-89 304.10 304.10 33.49 -270.61 29 89-90 148.15 2.34 150.49 133.10 -17.39 30 90-91 242.29 5.76 248.05 251.43 3.38 31 91-92 226.46 6.96 233.42 338.13 104.71 32 92-93 90.70 7.39 98.09 373.32 275.23 33 93-94 7.39 7.39 432.94 425.55 34 94-95 7.39 7.39 530.94 523.55 35 95-96 7.39 7.39 642.72 635.33 36 96-97 7.39 7.39 732.62 725.23 37 97-98 7.39 7.39 788.42 781.03 38 98-99 7.39 7.39 817.87 810.48 39 99-00 7.39 7.39 826.09 818.70 40 00-01 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 41 01-02 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 42 02-03 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 43 03-04 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 44 04-05 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 45 05-06 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 46 06-07 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 47 07-08 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 48 08-09 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 49 09-10 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73 50 10-11 7.39 7.39 828.12 820.73  32 (iv) b. Benefit streams (At Economic Prices) 61,600 ha (in Rupees Millions) Without Project Garden Wet Punia Total Total No. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 54.55 -1.43 0.00 63.12 0.00 53.12 2 8b-90 188.82 -4.96 0.00 183.87 0.00 183.87 3 90-91 361.07 -9.21 0.00 341.86 0.00 341.86 4 91-92 468.86 -12.30 0.00 456.66 0.00 456.56 6 92.93 506.91 -13.30 0.00 493.61 0.00 493.61 6 93-94 516.98 -13.56 0.00 503.42 0.00 503.42 7 94-95 616.98 -13.56 0.00 503.42 0.00 503.42 8 95-96 516.98 -13.56 0.00 603.42 0.00 503.42 9 96-97 516.98 -13.56 0.00 603.42 0.00 503.42 10 97-98 516.98 -13.56 0.00 503.42 0.00 503.42 11 98-99 516.98 -13.56 0.00 503.42 0.00 503.42 12 99-20 516.98 -13.56 0.00 603.42 0.00 503.42 13 00-01 616.98 -13.56 0.00 503.42 0.00 503.42 14 01-02 616.98 -13.56 0.00 503.42 0.00 503.42 With Prolect Garden Wet Punja Total Total No. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 78.37 8.23 0.01 86.61 0.00 86.61 2 89-90 275.03 28.49 0.02 303.54 13.43 316.97 3 90-91 513.40 52.98 0.04 566.42 26.87 593.29 4 91-92 683.68 70.75 0.06 754.39 40.30 794.69 5 92-93 750.08 76.49 0.06 826.63 40.30 866.93 6 93-94 817.99 78.01 0.06 896.06 40.30 936.36 7 94-95 915.99 78.01 0.06 994.06 40.30 1034.36 8 95-96 1027.77 78.01 0.06 1105.84 40.30 1146.14 9 96-97 1117.67 78.01 0.06 1195.74 40.30 1236.04 10 97-98 1173.47 78.01 0.06 1251.54 40.30 1291.84 11 98-99 1202.92 78.01 0.06 1280.99 40.30 1321.29 12 99-20 1211.14 78.01 0.C8 1289.21 40.30 1329.51 13 00-01 1213.17 78.01 0.06 1291.24 40.30 1331.54 14 01-02 1213.17 78.01 0.06 1291.24 40.30 1331.54 Incremental Benefhts Garden Wet Punja Total Total No. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 23.82 9.66 0.01 33.49 0.00 33.49 2 89-90 86.21 33.44 0.02 119.67 13.43 133.10 3 90-91 162.33 62.19 0.04 224.56 26.87 251.43 4 91-92 214.72 83.Ob 0.06 297.83 40.30 338.13 5 92-93 243.17 89.79 0.06 333.02 40.30 373.32 6 93-94 301.01 91.57 0.06 392.64 40.30 432.94 7 94-95 399.01 91.57 0.06 490.64 40.30 530.94 8 95-96 510.79 91.57 0.06 602.42 40.30 642.72 9 96-97 600.69 91.57 0.06 692.32 40.30 732.62 10 97-98 656.49 91.57 0.06 748.12 40.30 788.42 11 98-99 685.94 91.57 0.06 777.57 40.30 817.87 12 99-20 694.16 91.57 0.06 785.79 40.30 826.09 13 00-01 696.19 91.57 0.06 787.82 40.30 828.12 14 01-02 696.19 91.57 0.06 787.82 40.30 828.12  33 (v) a. Benefit and Cost Streams (1988-89 Constant Values) 60,000 ha Life Span = 50 years Economic Main- Total Increm. Nei Cost tenance Economic Econ. Increm. Base Cost Cost Benefit Benefilt No. Year (A) (8) (C=A+B) (D) (D-C) 1 61-62 0.89 0.89 -0.89 2 62.63 2.63 2.63 -2.63 3 63-64 1.77 1.77 -1.77 4 64-65 1.26 1.26 -1.26 5 65-66 1.04 1.04 -1.04 6 66.67 4.53 4.53 -4.53 7 68-68 9.63 9.63 -9.63 8 68-69 17.20 17.20 -17.20 9 69-70 21.07 21.07 -21.07 10 70-71 24.83 24.83 -24.83 11 71-72 13.77 13.77 -13.77 12 72-73 18.19 18.19 -18.19 13 73-74 24.98 24.98 -24.98 14 74-75 23.58 23.58 -23.58 15 75-76 37.73 37.73 -37.73 16 76-77 28.73 28.73 -28.73 17 77-78 58.96 58.96 -58.96 18 78-79 70.39 70.39 -70.39 19 79-80 76.82 76.82 -76.82 20 80-81 83.60 83.60 -83.60 21 81-82 199.18 199.18 -199.18 22 82 83 210.97 210.97 -210.97 23 83-84 272.52 272.52 -272.52 24 84-85 276.89 276.89 -276.89 25 85-86 245.74 245.74 -245.74 26 86-87 173.72 173.72 -173.72 27 87-88 209.62 209.62 -209.62 28 88-89 243.28 243.28 27.19 -216.09 29 89-90 81.63 2.34 83.97 108.05 24.08 30 90-91 114.48 5.70 120.18 204.09 83.91 31 91-92 152.87 6.96 159.83 274.47 114.64 32 92-93 81.63 5.99 87.62 303.02 215.40 33 93-94 5.99 5.99 351.41 345.42 34 94-95 5.99 5.99 430.95 424.96 35 95-96 5.99 5.99 521.69 515.70 36 96-97 5.99 5.99 594.66 588.67 37 97-98 5.99 5.99 639.95 633.96 38 98-99 5.99 5.99 663.86 657.87 39 99-00 5.99 5.99 670.53 664.54 40 00-01 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 41 01-02 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 42 02-03 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 43 03-04 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 44 04-05 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 45 05-06 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 46 06-07 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 47 07-08 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 48 08-09 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 49 09-10 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19 50 10-11 5.99 5.99 672.18 666.19  34 (v) b Benefit Streams (At Economic Prices) 50,000 ha (In Rupees Millions) Without Project Garden Wet Punja Total Total ND. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 44.28 -1.16 0.00 43.12 0.00 43.12 2 89-90 153.26 -4.02 0.00 149.24 0.00 149.24 3 90-91 284.96 -7.46 0.00 277.48 0.00 277.48 4 91-92 380.57 -9.99 0.00 370.58 0.00 370.58 5 92-93 411.45 .10.80 0.00 400.65 0.00 400.65 6 93-94 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 7 94.95 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 8 95-96 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 9 96-97 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 10 97-98 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 11 98-99 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 12 99-20 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 13 00-01 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 14 01-02 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 15 02-03 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 16 03-04 419.63 -11.01 0.00 408.62 0.00 408.62 With Project Garden Wet Punla Total Total No. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 63.62 6.68 0.01 70.31 0.00 70.31 2 89-90 223.24 23.13 0.02 246.39 10.90 257.29 3 90-91 416.72 43.00 0.04 459.76 21.81 481.57 4 91-92 554.86 57.43 0.05 612.34 32.71 645.05 5 92-93 608.83 62.08 0.05 670.96 32.71 703.67 6 93-94 663.95 63.32 0.05 727.32 32.71 760.03 7 94-95 743.49 63.32 0.05 806.86 32.71 839.57 8 95-96 834.23 63.32 0.05 897.60 32.71 930.31 9 96-97 907.20 63.32 0.05 970.57 32.71 1003.28 10 97-98 952.49 63.32 0.05 1015.86 32.71 1048.57 11 98-99 976.40 63.32 0.05 1039.77 32.71 1072.48 12 99-20 983.07 63.32 0.05 1046.44 32.71 1079.15 13 00-01 984.72 63.32 0.05 1048.09 32.71 1080.80 14 01-02 984.72 63.32 0.05 1048.09 32.71 1080.80 15 02-03 984.72 63.32 0.05 1048.09 32.71 1080.80 16 03-04 984.72 63.32 0.05 1048.09 32.71 1080.80 Incremental Benefit Garden Wet Punja Total Total No. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 19.34 7.84 0.01 27.19 0.00 27.19 2 89-90 69.98 27.15 0.02 97.15 10.90 108.05 3 90-91 131.76 50.48 0.04 182.28 21.81 204.09 4 91-92 174.29 67.42 0.05 241.76 32.71 274.47 5 92-93 197.38 72.88 0.05 270.31 32.71 303.02 6 93-94 244.32 74.33 0.05 318.70 32.71 351.41 7 94-95 323.86 74.33 0.05 398.24 32.71 430.95 8 95-96 414.60 74.33 0.05 488.98 32.71 521.69 9 96-97 487.57 74.33 0.05 561.95 32.71 594.66 10 97-98 532.86 74.33 0.05 607.24 32.71 639.95 11 98-99 556.77 74.33 0.05 631.15 32.71 663.86 12 99-20 563.44 74.33 0.05 637.82 32.71 670.53 13 00-01 565.09 74.33 0.05 639.47 32.71 672.18 14 01-02 565.09 74.33 0.05 639.47 32.71 672.18 15 02-03 565.09 74.33 0.05 639.47 32.71 672.18 16 03-04 565.09 74.33 0.05 639.47 32.71 672.18  35 (vi) a.Benefh and Cost Streams (1988-89 Constant Values) 37,600 ha Life Span 50 years Economic Main- Total Increm. Net Cost tenance Economic Econ. Increm. Base Cost Cost Benefit Benefit No. Year (A) (B) (C=A+B) (D) (D-C) 1 61-62 0.89 0.89 -0.89 2 62.63 2.63 2.63 -2.63 3 63-64 1.77 1.77 -1,77 4 64-65 1.26 1.26 -1.26 5 65-66 1.04 1.04 -1.04 6 66-67 4.53 4.53 -4.53 7 67-68 9.63 9.63 -9.63 8 68-69 17.20 17.20 -17.20 9 69-70 21.07 21.07 -21.07 10 70-71 24.83 24.83 -24.83 11 71-72 13.77 13.77 -13.77 12 72-73 18.19 18.19 -18.19 13 73-74 24.98 24.98 -24.98 14 74-75 23.58 23.58 -23.58 15 75-76 37.73 37.73 -37.73 16 76-77 28.73 28.73 -28.73 17 77-78 58.96 58.96 -58.96 18 78-79 70.39 70.39 20.43 -49.96 19 79-80 76.82 76.82 81.24 4.42 20 80-81 249.33 249.33 153.47 -95.86 21 81-82 349.18 349.18 206.39 -,42.79 22 82-83 367.00 367.00 227.88 -139.12 23 83.84 272.52 272.52 264.27 -8.25 24 84-85 276.89 276.89 324.08 47.19 25 85-86 315.95 315.95 392.32 76.37 26 86-87 208.46 208.46 447.20 238.74 27 87-88 251.54 251.54 481.26 229.72 28 88-89 0.00 499.23 490 '; 29 89-90 1.30 1.30 504.25 502.95 30 90-91 2.01 2.01 505.49 503.48 31 91-92 3.22 3.22 505.49 502.27 32 92-93 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 33 93-94 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 34 94-95 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 35 95-96 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 36 96-97 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 37 97-98 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 38 98-99 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 39 99-oC 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 40 00.01 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 41 01-02 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 42 02-03 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 43 03-04 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 44 04-05 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 45 05-06 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 46 06-07 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 47 07-08 4.49 4.49 505.49 601.00 48 08-09 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 49 09-10 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00 50 10-11 4.49 4.49 505.49 501.00  36 (vi)b. Benefits Streams ( At Economic prices) 37,600 ha (In Rupees Million) Withou Project Garden Wet Punja Total Total No. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 33.30 -0.87 0.00 32.43 0.00 32.43 2 89-90 115.26 -3.02 0.00 112.24 0.00 112.24 3 90-91 214.29 -5.62 0.00 208.67 0.00 208.67 4 91-92 286.19 -7.51 0.00 278.68 0.00 278.68 5 92-93 309.41 -8.12 0.00 301.29 0.00 301.29 6 93-94 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 7 94-95 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 8 95-96 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 9 96-97 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 1 0 97-98 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 1 1 98-99 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 12 99-20 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 1 3 00-01 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 14 01-02 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 1 5 02-03 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 1 6 03-04 315.56 -8.28 0.00 307.28 0.00 307.28 With Project Garden Wet Punja Total Total No. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 47.84 5.02 0.00 52.86 0.00 52.86 2 89-90 167.88 17.39 0.01 185.28 8.20 193.48 3 90-91 313.37 32.34 0.03 345.74 16.40 362.14 4 91-92 417.25 43.18 0.04 460.47 24.60 485.07 5 92-93 457.84 46.69 0.04 504.57 24.60 529.17 6 93-94 499.29 47.62 0.04 546.95 24.60 571.55 7 94-95 559.10 47.62 0.04 606.76 24.60 631.36 8 95-96 627.34 47.62 0.04 675.00 24.60 699.60 9 96-97 682.22 47.62 0.04 729.88 24.60 754.48 1 0 97-98 716.28 47.62 0.04 763.94 24.60 788.54 1 1 98-99 734.25 47.62 0.04 781.91 24.60 806.51 12 99-20 739.27 47.62 0.04 786.93 24.60 811.53 1 3 00-01 740.51 47.62 0.04 788.17 24.60 812.77 1 4 01-02 740.51 47.62 0.04 788.17 24.60 812.77 1 5 02-03 740.51 47.62 0.04 788.17 24.60 812.77 1 6 03-04 740.51 47.62 0.04 788.17 24.60 812.77 Incremental Benefits Garden Wet Punja Total Total No. Year Land Land Land Crop Power Benefits 1 88-89 14.54 5.89 0.00 20.43 0.00 20.43 2 89-90 52.62 20.41 0.01 73.04 8.20 81.24 3 90-91 99.08 37.96 0.03 137.07 16.40 153.47 4 91-92 131.06 50.69 0.04 181.79 24.60 206.39 5 92-93 148.43 54.81 0.04 203.28 24.60 227.88 6 93-94 183.73 55.90 O.C4 239.67 24.60 264.27 7 94-95 243.54 55.90 0.04 299.48 24.60 324.08 8 95-96 311.78 55.90 0.04 367.72 24.60 392.32 9 96-97 366.66 55.90 0.04 422.60 24.60 447.20 1 0 97-98 400.72 55.90 0.04 456.66 24.60 481.26 1 1 98-99 418.69 55.90 0.04 474.63 24.60 499.23 1 2 99-20 423.71 55.90 0,04 479.65 24.60 504.25 1 3 00-01 424.95 55.90 0.04 480.89 24.60 505.49 1 4 01-02 424.95 55.90 0.04 480.89 24.60 505.49 1 5 02-03 424.95 55.90 0.04 480.89 24.60 505.49 1 6 03-04 424.95 55.90 0.04 480.89 24.60 505.49  (vii) ECONOMIC PRICES OF FERTII/110, f(MPDoeT 1'AHITY PRICE) 11988 CONSTANT PRICES) ---------------------------------------------------- ----_- --- _ _- ___________________ PARTICULARS NITROGEN PHOSPNATE POTASII PRICE PER METRIC TON WORLD MARKET PRICE (US$) 147.74 157.58 87.23 QUALITY ADJUST1IENTS IX) 100 100 loo WORLD MARKET EQUIVALENT (US$) 147.74 157.58 87.23 INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT 70.00 70.00 70.00 AND INSURANCE (US$) CIF PRICE,8O0BAY (US) 217.74 227.58 157.23 CIF PRICEPROMBAY IRS) AT EXCHANGE RATE OF US$ 1.0 = RS 14.70 3200.70 3345.48 2311.34 DOMESTIC HANDLING AND 80.00 80.00 80.00 TRANSPORT (RS) WHOLESALE PRICE OF PROCESSED 3280.70 3425.48 2391.34 PRODUCTS (RS) PROCESSING/NUTRIENT RATIO I%) 46 48 60 VALUE OF BY-PRODUCT IRS) PROCESSINC RATIO, BY-PRODUCT 1%) PROCESSING COST (RS) WHOLESALE PRICE OF RAW 7131.97 7136.43 3985.57 PRODUCT (RS) TRANSPORT TO FARM- 100.00 100.00 100.00 GATE (1RS? FARN-GATE PRICE (RS) 72Z1.97 7236.43 4085.57 (APPROXIMATELY) 7232 7236 4086 FARM-GATE PRICE PER XG 7.23 7.24 4.09 SOURCE: COMMODITY PRICE FORECASTS AND QUARTERLY REV'EW OF COMMODITY NARKETS-egPTEHBER 1988. 348I5: HiTROCEN: UREA IANY ORICIN)DBAGGED,fob N.W.EUROPE. PHOSPHATE: TSP (TRIPLE SUPERPHOSPHATE),BULX,fob US GULF. POTASH: POTASSIUM CHLORIDE.BULK,fob VANCOUVER. EXCHANGE RATE 14.70 NOS: A CONVERSION FACTOR OF 0.8 IS USED FOR DOMESTIC HANDLING AND TRANSPORT AND TRANSPORT TO THE FARM GATE. IHPORT PARITY PRICES WERE ALSO CALCULATED FOR 1989, 1990, 1995, AND 2000.  (Viii) ECONOMIC PRICES OF TRADED COMMODITIES 11988 CONSTANT PRICES) ________________- ---------- ---------------------- --------- --- --- --- _ _ _ _ _ _- PARTICULARS RUBBER PADDY COCONUT GROUNDNUT PRICE PER METRIC TON -----------------------------------------------------------------------___ WORLD MARKET PRICE (US$) 1449.21 302.51 396.77 547.32 QUALITY ADJUSTMENTS (%) 85 75 100 100 WORLD MARKET EQUIVALENT (US$) 1231.83 226.88 396.77 547.32 INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT 200.OC 0.00 300.00 300.00 AND INSURANCE (US$) CIF/FOB PRICE,BOMBAY (US$) 1431.83 226.88 696.77 847.32 CIF/FOB PRICE,BOMBAY (RS) AT EXCHANGE RATE OF US$ 1.0 = RS 14.70 21047.88 3335.12 10242.58 12455.65 DOMESTIC HANDLING AND 120.00 -80.00 160.00 160.00 TRANSPORT IRS) WHOLESALE PRICE OF PROCESSED 21167.88 3255.12 10402.58 126!,.65 PRODUCTS (RS) PROCESSING/NUTRIENT RATIO I%) 100 67 100 68 VALUE OF BY-PRODUCT (RS) PROCESSING RATIO, BY-PRODUCT 1%) PROCESSING COST (RS) 0.00 130.00 0.00 150.00 WHOLESALE PRICE OF RAW 21167.88 2050.93 10402.58 848.464 PRODUCT (RS) O TRANSPORT TO/FROM FARM- -80.00 -75.00 -80.00 -80.00 GATE (RS) FARM-GATE PRICE IRS) 21087.88 1975.93 10322.58 8348.64 (APPROXIMATELY) 21088 1976 10323 8349 FARM-GATE PRICE PER KG 21.09 1.98 10.32 8.35 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - _ _ _- - _ _ _- - _ _ _-- - --- _ _ _ _ _ _--- - _ _ _-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- SOURCE: COMMODITY PRICE FORECASTS AND QUARTERLY REVIEW OF COMMODITY MARKETS-SEIpTEMBER 1988. BASIS:. PADDY: RICER (THAI), WHITE MILLED. 5% BROKEN, fob BANGKOK. GROUNDNUT: OIL (NIGERIA/W.AFRICA), BULK cif UK, SUBSEQUENTLV,ANY ORIGIN cif ROTERDAM. RUBBER: RSS NO.1, IN BALES. SPOT NEWYORK. COCONUT: COPRA (PHILIPPINES/INDONESIA, BULK, CIF, N.W. EUROPE. NOTE: A CONVERSION FACTOR OF 0.8 IS USED FOR DOMESTIC HANDLING AND TRANSPORT AND TRANSPORT TO/FROM THE FARM GATE. INDIA IS A NET EXPORTER OF RICE AND A NET IMPORTER OF GROUNDNUT (VEGETABLE OIL). SINCE, GROUNDNUT IS AN IMPORT SUBSTITUTE, IN Tl11S CASE, FARM- GATE TRANSPORT COST IS SUBTRACTED FROM TIIE WIIOLESALE I'RICE TO OBTAIN THE FARM-GATE PRICE. SINCE RICE IS AN EXPORT COMMODITY AND fob PRICE IS GIVEN, THERE IS NO JNTERNATIONAL FREIGHT CHARGE. 1ND14 IS A NET IMI'ORIEH OF RUBBER. TIIE INTERNATIONAL FIEIG11T CIIARGE IS THE DIFFERENCE RII 1 WEFK IIAKSlI'R1 CrOST 1ROM NEWIORI, TO INI)ONISIA AN? I'. iJ(Nl:S IA 10 jil1IA% 1'(1111 1111 1(( NI TII0S'PORTATIc0r CISI I NCI.11I 11ll S 01 QN &I Ihl | "I 1 '11'\\ I A(tloHI 11/ j.Ljt Nj.  Table 6C Page 1 of 5 INDIA KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TRRECROP DEVBLOPNENT PROJRCT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) TABLE 6C Studies Title of Purpose as defined By whom Reference Status I-pact of Study at appraisal carried in SARI study out documents 1. Telecom-unications To review the Messrs. 4.17 SAR The study was completed Based on the network study requirements of the Electronics by December 1984, and consultants' project, and to Corporation recommendations made. recommendations, the recomaend suitable of India system was procured equipment for Ltd. and is being ins- procurement. (Consult- talled. 1/ ants) 2. Study to assess To review the PWD, GOK. 4.19 SAR Although the study should The roads programme the feasibility for requirements and Minutes of have been completed and in general has been linking canal service desirability of Negotiations its recommendations unsatisfactory with roads to the public providing link roads submitted to the Bank by serious delays, ard road network. from the canal December 31, 1984, the with GOK increauing service roads to the report was not received the standard of public road network, until July 1986. surfacing, and thus and to establish Following review by Bank, cost, above the physical the programe of agreed criteria. specifications for development was agreed. these and vulnerable sections. 1/ This takes into account Government comments.  Table 6C Page 2 of 5 Title of Purpose as defined By whom Reference Status Impact of Study at appraisal carried in SAR/ study out documents 3. Feasibility study To study the PMCC, PWD, # 5.08 Following the decision to Study abandoned. GOR for Phase 2 of the feasibility of GOK * 8.02 (g) expand the area covered to consider any scheme. extending the SAR by the present project extension of project to its full and from 37,600 ha up to irrigation under development t 3.02 about 53,500 ha to State funding. potential as a PA utilize Credit/Loan value second phase increase, it was project. considered that any area near the coast remaining would be unsuitable for canal irrigation. The > study was abandoned with 0 Bank's concurrence. 1. Baseline survey of To proxide without- Economics t 5.08 SAR Survey completed. To be used in impact project farmers. project situation and evaluation. data for impact Statistics monitoring. Department, GOK D. Planning and To consider PMCC, PWD, * 5.08 SAR Study not carried out. Not applicable. testing of alternative designs GOK alternativet for the micro- corn'eyance systcms. conveyance system to the pipe system being utilized. 6. Study of farmers' To assess the PMCC, PWD, 5.08 SAR Study not carried out. Not applicable. management of piped willindness and GOK micro-con%eyance competence of systems farmers to operate and maintain the piped MCS as installed by the project.  Table 6C Page 3 of 5 Title of Purpose as defined By whom Reference Status Impact of Study at appraisal carried in SAR/ study out documents 7. Study of farmers' Self explanatory PMCC, PWD, x 5.08 SAR Study not carried out. Experience indicates collaboration on GOK Night storage tanks that in India farmers field channel eliminated from the not willing to construction for project description. construct channels summer irrigation in unless paid by lowlands, and methods government, unless on of water distribution their holdings. Night from night storage storage tanks concept tanks. dropped. 8. Studs of factors Self explanatory PMCC, PWD, # 5.08 SAR Study not carried out. Not appli^able. > influencing farmers' GOK acceptance of hybrid varieties of coconut. 9. Water charges To review water and GOK $ 5.17 Study completed in 11/83 No impact to date. study water related # 8.02 ahead of schedule. In charges in Kerala. SAR spite of persistent Bank and representations, the # 3.05 recommendations were not PA reviewed by GOK, nor introduced. 10. 0 A M management To establish rules, PMCC, PWD, # 5.18 Study compieted by Th- project has no stud~ procedures and GOK 4 8.02 6/30/83, on schedule. operational plan to requirements for SAR Since that time, GOK has date, which is effective operation 4 3.0a failed to implement its unfortunate in view and preventive PA recommendations. In spite of commencement of maintenance of of persistent Bank irrigation. irrigation systems representations, a under the project. deta.iled operational plan was never produced.  Table 6C Page 4 of 5 Title of Purpose as defined By whom Reference Status Impact of Study at appraisal carried in SAR/ study out documents 11. Dam flood studies To update the IITM, Pune; - As a condition of second The study produced probable maximum Anna Credit/Loan extension positive results flood for Kallada University, this study was finalized which permitted the dam, in order to Madras; CWC by March 31, 1988 Dam Safety Panel to check dam safety. following prolonged prescribe improved disagreement between CWC safety measures for and IITM over PMP the dam. rainfall. 12. Dam spillway To design the most KERI, Peechi - At the final supervision Designs are being model studies appropriate spillway mission in January 1989, modified on the basis4- energy dissipation studies were still of model results. device, and to study continuing at the These studies should tail water recommendation of the have been completed conditions. DSP. during the design stage, not when the dam is almost complete. 13. Dam leakage To study the leakage Irrigation - Following initial Leakage reduced to studies rate of the masonry Department impounding of the dam, acceptable levels. dam. GOK some leakage was perceived. This wa- studied, and the DSP subsequently recommended grouting, and guniting the upstream face. 14. Reservoir To monitor the rate Irrigation - In spite of persistent Not applicable. sedimentation studies and pattern of Department Bank representation, the siltation in the GOK study was never reservoir. initiated.  Table 6C Page 5 of 5 Title of Purpose as defined By whom Reference Status Impact of Study at appraisal carried in SARI study out documents 15. Geological To provide Irrigation - Study completed. Tunnel No. 3 LMC studies for tunnel geological Department realigned in inlet No. 3 LfC information to GOK reach to avoid assist in unsuitable rock redesigning tunnel conditions. No. 3 LMC. 16.Hydro- To establish Irrigation - Study initiated, with Not applicable. meteorological rainfall and climate Department construction of climate studies stations in the GOR stations in progress, and catchment and some procurement. commands in order to improve hydr6met data for monitoring.  INDIA Table 7 Page 1 of 4 KALLADA IRRIGATION AND TREECROP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Credit 1269-IN/Loan 2186-IN) TABLE 7 Status of Covenants Covenant Subject Deadline Status Reference for Compliance Pro.iect Agreement Section 3.01 GOK shall maintain an adequately - This was formed and commenced operations. Late staffed Kallada Wing of Special in the project period, however, GOK suspended its Agricultural Development Units activities during a review of its role. > (SADU) to promote and organize on- Subsequently, as from September 1987, the farm investment in the project agricultural support was provided by 'Krishi area. Bhavans', which merged the roles of SADU and extension services. Since that date, these have been progressively established in the project area. Section 3.02 (i) GOK shall establish and thereafter 9/30/82 PMCC established and staffed satisfactorily. At maintain a project Planning, times during project period, communications Monitoring and Coordination Cell in between the project design/construction/operati'n its Irrigation Department for staff and PMCC were unsatisfactory, and in monitoring and coordinating project general monitoring ana reporting was weak. development. Section 3.02 (ii) GOK shall cause the PMCC to carry 12/31/84 The study was initiated, but following an agreed out a feasibility study of the expansion of the area to be included in Phase I, second phase of the project. and in view of the small area near the coast remaining, which is unsuitable for canal irrigation, the study was abandoned with the agreement of the Bank.  Table 7 Page 2 of 4 Covenant Subject Deadline Status Reference for Compliance Section 3.03 GOK shall maintain in its - Although one 0 & M division was formed, this has Irrigation Department (i) an 0 L M been considered by the Bank to be inadequate to division and (ii) a Minor operate the dam and both commands. Two further Conveyance dixision for the divisions were considered necessary, but inspite implementation of the minor water of persistent Bank representations, GOK has not conveyance system. complied. In the case of the minor conveyance division, this has been satisfactorily formed and staffed. Covenant partly complied. Section: 3 04 1iH GOK shall furnish the Bank with 9/30/82 TOR's provided by 11/82. Covenant complied. Terms of Reference for a management 4 study to establish rules, procedures and requirements for ensuring effective 0 & M of the irrigation system. SecttionI .04 (ii) Carry out study in 3.04 (i). 6/30/83 Study completed by 2/84. Covenant complied. Section 3.04(iiii As soon as feasible thereafter, - GOK has not taken steps to implement the implement the 0 & M procedures recommendations. Covenant not complied. based on the study. Sect.on 3.'5