Morocco - Small and Medium Scale Irrigation Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 14676 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT MOROCCO SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 2253-MOR) JUNE 26, 1995 Agriculture Operations Division Maghreb and Iran Department Middle East and North Africa Regional Office This document has a restricted distribution and mav be used bv recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  KINGDOM OF MOROCCO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT (Loan 2253-MOR) CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency Unit = Dirham (DH) Appraisal Year Average: US$ 1 = DH 6.00 Implementation Years Average: US$ 1 = DH 8.72 Completion Average: US$ 1 = DH 9.5 WEIGHT S AND MEASURES Metric System ABBREVIATIONS ASAP Agricultural Sector Adjustment Programme AUEA Water Users' Association CMU Central Management Unit CNCA National Agricultural Credit Bank DER Directorate of Rural Equipment DPA Provincial Directorate of Agriculture DPAE Directorate of Planning and Economic Affairs ERR Economic Rate of Return FAO/CP Food and Agricultural Organization/World Bank-Cooperative Programme IMF International Monetary Fund LPEE Laboratoire public des etudes et essais MARA Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform O & M Operation and Maintenance ONE National Electricity Authority ORMVASM Regional Office for Agricultural Development for Souss-Massa PAGI Large-Scale Irrigation Improvement Project PCC Project Coordination Committee PCR Project Completion Report PRV Research and Extension Project SAP Special Action Programme SAR Staff Appraisal Report SMSI Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation FISCAL YEAR OF BORROWER January I - December 31  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY THE WORLD BANK Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. ice of Director-General perations Evaluation June 26, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Morocco Small and Medium-scale Irrigation Project (Loan 2253-MOR) Attached is the Project Completion Report (PCR) on the Morocco Small and Medium-scale Irrigation project (Loan 2253-MOR). Parts I and III were prepared by the FAO/CP for the Middle East and North Africa Regional Office. Part 11 was prepared by the Borrower. Part of a national shift in emphasis from large-scale irrigation, the project aimed to up-grade or create five irrigation perimeters which differed greatly in size and other characteristics. Forming users' associations and turning over operation and maintenance (O&M) to them was a key objective. Budget constraints hampered implementation. Four sub-projects commanding 13,420 ha were completed about three years later than projected. The quality of civil works was adequate. The project outcome is rated as satisfactory. Farmers are making good use of irrigation, intensifying cropping even more than projected at appraisal. However, benefit estimates are not based on monitoring and evaluation, which never got started because baseline studies were not completed. Operation and maintenance arrangements are adequate. Therefore, sustainability is rated as likely despite inadequate water supply or declining aquifers on some sub-projects. Much progress has been made in creating and solidifying irrigators' groups. Therefore, institutional development is rated as substantial. The PCR presents a fair and complete assessment of the project and its expected impact. An audit is planned. Attachment This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.   FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT KINGDOM OF MOROCCO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT (Loan 2253-MOR) TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................i EVALUATION SUMMARY ....................., ii PART I: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTIVE .... ........ 1 1. Project Identity . .......................................... 1 2. Background ............................................. 1 Economic Context . ....................................... 1 Policy Context .......................................... 2 Macro-Economic Situation During Project Implementation ............... 2 3. Project Objectives and Description ............................... 2 4. Project Design and Organization ...................... 4 5. Project Implementation . ....................................... 5 General .............................................. 5 Main Components . ....................................... 6 Monitoring and Evaluation ........... ....................... 7 Studies, Technical Assistance and Training ........................ 7 Management ........................................... 8 Rislcs ............................................ 8 Project Cost ........................................... 8 6. Project Results . ........................................... 9 Water Availability . ...................................... 9 Support Services ........................................ 10 Agricultural Development ................................... 11 Water Users' Associations .................................. 11 Economic Returns . ....................................... 12 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 KINGDOM OF MOROCCO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 2253-MOR) PREFACE This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project in Morocco for which the Loan 2253-MOR in the amount of US$ 42.0 million was approved in March 1983. The loan was closed on December 31, 1992, three years behind schedule. A sum of US$ 11.2 million was cancelled. This PCR (Parts I and III) was prepared by staff of the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme (FAO/CP), who visited Morocco from October 17 to 31, 1993. Part II was prepared by the Borrower. The report is based, inter alia, on information gathered by the FAO/CP team and the project staff and through discussions with officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Public Works (Hydraulics Department), Bank staff associated with the Project, the Staff Appraisal Report, the Loan Agreement, the Preparation Report, Supervision Reports, correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower and internal Bank memoranda.   - ii - PROJECT COM1PLETION REPORT KINGDOM OF MOROCCO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT (Loan 2253-MOR) EVALUATION SUMMARY Background, Objectives and Design The Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation (SMSI) project was conceived at a time when the Government had decided to increase the share allocated to agriculture in the public investment programme, and within that sector, specifically to the rainfed areas and SMSI schemes, in order to remedy its disappointing performance. The increased emphasis on SMSI also reflected the recognition that this sub-sector, in contrast to large-scale irrigation, had been relatively neglected in the past and offered an opportunity for substantial increases in agricultural production. The project was implemented during a period of severe financial crisis, at which time public investments were drastically cut, thus affecting most projects, including the SMSI project. The central objective of the SMSI project was to establish a systematic approach to the development of the sub-sector through (i) the creation of a viable legal framework; (ii) the design and implementation of workable arrangements for farmers' responsibility in operation, maintenance and cost recovery of the irrigation systems; (iii) the building up of SMSI experience in the Provincial Directorates of Agriculture (DPA). This approach was to be established through the construction of the Jemaa Sahim and Middle Sebou schemes, the rehabilitation of the Souss, Ghiss and Chichaoua schemes, and the preparation of a second-stage project. The project was well designed as the systematic approach adopted laid the foundation for long-term development of the sub-sector. The Second SMSI project, appraised in May 1987, is now being implemented. Project Implementation The project became effective in January 1984 and the closing date, initially planned for end December 1989, was delayed by three years to end December 1992. Due to the difficult budgetary situation faced by the country at that time, progress was initially slow, in spite of frequent and regular World Bank Supervision Mission interventions. The Loan agreement was amended twice, the first time in 1985 under the Special Action Programme (SAP), which increased the disbursement rate for civil works from 40 to 60%, and the second in 1987, when  - iii - the Middle Sebou sub-project and an amount of US$ 8 million from the loan were cancelled. The project cost was originally estimated at around DH 325 million (US$ 57.5 million), not taking into account the Middle Sebou sub-project. The actual cost is estimated at around DH 448 million (US$ 53.8 million) or in DH and US$ terms, 138% and 94% respectively of the estimate. The large difference between the DH and US$ rates results from the significant appreciation of the US$ versus the DH during proiect implementation. Actual disbursements totalled US$ 30.8 million or 91% of the loan amount as amended in 1987 (US$ 34 million). Broadly speaking, the physical targets planned for the irrigation infrastructure were met and even exceeded, but with a delay varying from two to four years. Irrigation development within the four schemes totalled 13,426 ha instead of the 12,880 ha planned at appraisal. The high standard of construction can be largely attributed to the quality and continuity of the project management (CMU, ORMVASM and DPAs). The construction and equipment programme to support the introduction of improved technical packages was partially cancelled, in order to use the limited budget available to complete the irrigation infrastructure. Support activities were nevertheless frequently financed by other projects. Data on on-farm investments are unfortunately not available as the monitoring and evaluation system was weak and did not record them. Local technicians have nevertheless noticed that some farmers have purchased motorized as well as animal traction equipment and upgraded cattle, have established orchards, etc. Project Results Following project implementation, water availability to farms increased, but reliability varies from one sub-project to another, depending on water sources. The Jemaa Sahim scheme has a guaranteed water source of 300 1/sec which would meet water requirements in the peak demand month. Rehabilitation of the three traditional schemes has reduced losses and increased availability by at least the appraisal estimates of 25 to 45 %. Water resources provided by the tubewells and wells constructed by the project would approximately cover the projected demand of the Souss scheme for the near future. Long-term water availability for the scheme is an important issue discussed in para. 7.2. Water resources for the Ghiss scheme during periods of peak demand are likely to amount to only about 50 to 60% of the appraisal estimate. Land use and cropping intensity will therefore have to be adjusted accordingly. Water available in the Chichaoua scheme is more than adequate to irrigate the equipped area. However, water resources misused in the upstream areas could be reallocated for further extension of the scheme if a water rights rental market were to be established. The Directorate of Planning and Economic Affairs (DPAE), which had been entrusted responsibility for monitoring and evaluating project benefits, is still completing the Souss, Ghiss and Chichaoua economic and social baseline surveys. Notwithstanding the almost total absence of reliable data on project impact, a rough estimate of the "present" and "at full development" agricultural production has been made in collaboration with DPAs and ORMVASM staff. The actual cropping patterns show clearly that, as soon as water is available, farmers react quickly to market opportunities. Farmers give preference to citrus, olives,  - iv - sugarbeet, grain legumes and alfalfa, for which the returns are high. Yields are promising and it is anticipated that, at full development stage, they are likely to exceed the planned appraisal levels. Total expected production could therefore exceed the appraisal estimate. The estimated actual Economic Rate of Return (ERR) is nevertheless slightly lower (13.5% instead of 15%) than envisaged at appraisal due to (i) the very low viability of the Ghiss sub-project (4%) because of overestimated water resources and (ii) the marginal ERR of the Jemaa Sahim sub- project (9%) with high per ha investment costs and some delays in completion and intense use of the irrigation infrastructure. The constitution of Water Users' Associations (AUEA) in all four sub-projects can be considered as one of the most important accomplishments of the project, in spite of the delays experienced, due essentially to numerous administrative and legal hurdles. Creation of "de facto" associations prior to promulgation of the law, has allowed the project, since the early stage of operation of the schemes, to gradually entrust the operation and maintenance responsibility to the water users. Nevertheless, in spite of all the achievements, much remains to be done to arrive at full responsibility of AUEA for operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems. It is not yet clear whether the farmers of the Souss and Jemaa Sahim schemes will be able to pay the full 0 & M cost plus an adequate allowance for depreciation of the pumping stations. Project Sustainability Both the rehabilitated traditional schemes and the new one are expected to be correctly operated and maintained by the AUEA as farmers appreciate the value of irrigation water and have already agreed to contribute substantially, although not fully, to the operation and maintenance cost. It will, however, be necessary to fix, as soon as possible, in agreement with the AUEAs in each of the four schemes, the water charges in Ghiss and Chichaoua at a level that could cover 0 & M cost and a fair percentage of the irrigation infrastructure investment cost, including in Souss and Jemaa Sahim adequate allowances for depreciation. The sustainability of groundwater resources in the Souss valley will depend on full implementation of the 1981 decree for control of private pumping in the Souss aquifer. However, even with strict control of private pumping, there would be a continuous drawdown of the water table due to the annual deficit of the Souss aquifer. Water resource availability for the Souss scheme would nevertheless not be an issue for its sustainability but pumping costs would increase continuously. Lessons Learned The experience with this project shows that: (i) the establishment of AUEA seems to be a correct approach to the problem of operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes;  (ii) AUEA should be established in time for the beneficiaries to be able to influence the final design of the rehabilitation works; (iii) the agreements between AUEA and the Government specifying the rights and duties of both parties should be signed before the rehabilitation works are completed; (iv) flexibility is an important factor in the design of SMSI projects; (v) a well designed and staffed monitoring unit is instrumental in implementing a decentralized project; (vi) continuity of capable project management at both central and regional levels is a crucial factor for project success; (vii) in support services, necessary efforts should be dedicated to efficient use of water at farm level; (viii) to overcome the rigid traditional water rights for optimal water resources allocation, SMSI projects should encourage the development of a water rights rental market; (ix) SMSI projects should exploit the considerable amount of hydrological and geohydrological data of the Hydraulic Administration for assessment and planning of water resources available for irrigation schemes; (x) More effort is required to convince Authorities in gathering adequate socio- economic data in order to monitor and evaluate project benefits.  PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT KINGDOM OF MOROCCO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 2253-MOR) PART I: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTIVE 1. Project Identity Project Name Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project Credit No. . Loan 2253-MOR RVP Unit MENA Region Country : Morocco Sector Agriculture Sub-sector . Irrigation 2. Background Economilc Context 2.1 The Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation (SMSI) project was conceived in the late 1970s, at a time when the relative importance of agriculture in the Moroccan economy in terms of production, export and employment had declined while other sectors had grown more rapidly. The value of agricultural output had increased at an average annual rate of 2.4% (in constant prices) during the preceding fifteen years, a lower rate than in the other sectors of the economy and less than the growth of demand for agricultural products, which led to a rapid increase in imports. The average growth of agricultural imports during the period 1978-1980 was 20% (in value), while agricultural exports expanded at 15% per annum. The agricultural trade balance therefore deteriorated, with the ratio of exports to imports having declined from about 130% at the beginning of the 1970s to 70% in 1980.  -2 - Policy Context 2.2 To counteract the disappointing performance of the agricultural sector, the Government decided to include a remedial strategy in the 1981-1985 Development Plan, the main points of which were, inter alia: (i) to increase the share devoted to agriculture in the public investment programme; (ii) to increase public investment in the rainfed sector and in small and medium irrigation schemes; (iii) to establish a price policy that would ensure equitable returns to the farmer and stimulate import substitution for the basic foodstuffs; (iv) to expand the role and lending programme of the National Agricultural Credit Bank (CNCA). That strategy was in line with the Bank's recommendations for the sector. Also, the increased emphasis on small and medium-scale irrigation reflected the general recognition that this subsector had been relatively neglected in the past and offered an opportunity for substantial increases in agricultural production. Annual investments in SMSI were projected to increase fivefold under the Plan. Macro-Economic Situation During Project Implementation 2.3 The project was declared effective in January 1984, at a time when the country was in the midst of a severe financial crisis. Beginning in early 1983, Morocco's financial situation deteriorated rapidly and net foreign assets declined sharply, prompting the Government to impose emergency restrictions and massively curtail public expenditure. A set of extensive stabilization and adjustment policies were drawn up by the Government and supported by a series of three IMF standby arrangements and World Bank structural adjustment loans. Substantial improvements were achieved through these operations, but at the expense of a drastic reduction in public investment, thus affecting most projects, including World Bank-supported projects like the SMSI project. 3. Project Objectives and Description 3.1 The central objective of the SMSI was to establish a systematic approach to the development of the neglected sub-sector of the small and medium-scale irrigation schemes. Morocco has considerable potential for increasing agricultural diversification, yields, production and income on lands that could aggregate to several thousand hectares through the rehabilitation of degraded SMSI schemes and the creation of new ones. These schemes are widely distributed throughout the country and exploitation of their potential could help meet food deficits in various highly-populated urban areas as well as improve the standard of living of small farmers in poverty stricken rural areas. 3.2 The systematic approach implied (i) the creation of a viable legal framework, (ii) the design and implementation of workable arrangements for farmers' responsibility in operation, maintenance and cost recovery of the irrigation systems, and (iii) the building up of SMSI experience in the Provincial Directorates of Agriculture (DPA) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform (MARA). This approach was to be established through the development of five specific SMSI schemes and the preparation of a second-stage project.  - 3 - 3.3 At appraisal, the project consisted of the following main components: (i) * Irrigation infrastructure for (a) the rehabilitation of three traditional schemes (Souss, Chichaoua and Ghiss) and (b) the establishment of two new schemes (Middle Sebou and Jemaa Sahim). * Souss. The deteriorated traditional earth channel ("seguias") network of the scheme, which is constituted of 12 sectors totalling 9,650 ha, would be replaced by about 125 km of concrete primary and secondary canals, following the same layout of the traditional network. Existing concrete-line canals would also be rehabilitated. The scheme's water resources, which relied entirely on stream resurgences now dried up, would be provided by 13 wells and about 60 tubewells through 25 pumping stations. The installation of about 53 km of power supply lines and the improvement of about 60 km of unsurfaced roads would complete the infrastructure. * Chichaoua. The rehabilitation of this spring-fed scheme of 1,900 ha would include the lining of 57 km of deteriorated primary and secondary canals, the construction of two syphons, a drainage network and erosion control works. About 56 km of unsurfaced roads would also be rehabilitated. * Ghiss. The rehabilitation of this river-fed traditional scheme would include: the construction of about 52 km of concrete-lined canals to replace the deteriorated network on the existing 780 ha and to serve an extension of 140 ha, a total of 920 ha; the construction of a new diversion weir on the Ghiss river and a conveyance canal of 4 km; subsurface drainage on 400 ha of heavy soils; a collector to divert excess rainwater and drainage water to the Mediterranean; flood protection dikes and an interconnector canal to divert excess water of the Ghiss river into the Nekor irrigation scheme. * Jemaa Sahim. This new sprinkler-irrigation scheme of 410 ha, to be supplied by the existing Safi canal, would be equipped with a pumping station with a rated capacity of 400 I/s, about 14 km of underground pipes and mobile sprinklers. * Middle Sebou. This new gravity scheme of 4,870 ha would be constituted of 28 sectors to be supplied by 5 first-stage and 6 second- stage pumping stations lifting water from the Sebou river, with an aggregate flow of about 6,000 1/s. (ii) Support activities. The concerned Regional Office for Agricultural Development for Souss-Massa (ORMVASM) in charge of the Souss  scheme, the DPAs of Marrakech, Al Hoceima, Safi and Fes in charge of the Chichaoua, Ghiss, Jemaa Sahim and Middle Sebou schemes respectively, and to the Central Management Unit (CMU) would be strengthened and equipped. This would include the construction and equipping of staff houses, centres for livestock development, artificial insemination, milk collection, extension work, and livestock breeding, as well as equipment and vehicles. Technical assistance would also be provided to support the irrigation infrastructure implementation and on-farm development. It would consist of short-term and long-term consultant services in equipment procurement, construction supervision and farm mechanization. Overseas and local training, supplementary implementation studies and initial operating costs would also be provided. (iii) On-farm development. Crop and livestock development investments and short-term inputs would be financed by credit. 4. Project Design and Organization 4.1 The substantial changes in irrigation development policy introduced by the Government under the 1981-1985 Development Plan have provided the basis for the project design. Government objectives have shifted from the considerable support to the large-scale irrigation sector during the seventies, to emphasis on the development of small and medium-scale irrigation schemes for their lower costs per hectare and more rapid build-up of benefits, increased recovery of operation/maintenance and investment costs from farmers, and reduction of social and regional income disparities through investment and employment creation in depressed areas. The project was well designed as it has contributed substantially to the implementation of this policy. The systematic approach adopted by the project, which involved a legal framework for the creation of water user associations responsible for operation and maintenance of networks and for cost recovery, and the building up of SMSI experience in MARA, has laid the foundation for long-term development of the sub-sector. A follow-up operation, the Second SMSI project, appraised by the Bank in May 1987, is now being implemented. 4.2 The irrigation infrastructure, the main project component, was composed of five sub-components corresponding to as many SMSI schemes, located in various socially and environmentally diverse regions of the country. The component diversification enabled the project to capitalize experience in SMSI and its flexibility allowed necessary adjustments. Due to budget constraints (para 5.1), the new and modem scheme of Middle Sebou was cancelled at the early stage of the project without altering the project central objective. Based on existing engineering studies, the irrigation infrastructures of the four remaining schemes are well designed. In the Souss, the capacities of a number of new tubewells had been a matter of concern as they fell short of expected yields. The ORMVASM, with adequate assistance from the Regional Directorate of Hydraulics, has efficiently solved this groundwater exploitation  problem. However, water resources' evaluation in the Ghiss river, carried out during preparation and at appraisal, and based on very short hydrological records, was over-optimistic for the low flow season. 4.3 Responsibility for project implementation was entrusted to the Directorate of Rural Equipment (DER) under the overall coordination of a Project Coordination Committee (PCC), which included representatives of the main directorates, ministries and agencies involved. Monitoring, coordination and reporting of project activities was to be provided by the CMU established within DER's Division of Rural Development, and evaluation by MARA's Directorate of Planning and Economic Affairs (DPAE). Day-to-day implementation of irrigation infrastructure and support activities was entrusted to the construction divisions of ORMVASM and the DPAs. The project organization was well designed and has fulfilled its role. 5. Project Implementation General 5.1 The project was approved in March 1983 and signed in June 1983, but did not become effective until January 1984. The closing date, initially planned for end December 1989", was delayed by three years to end December 1992. Due to the difficult budgetary situation faced by the country at that time, progress was initially very slow, in spite of frequent and insistent World Bank Supervision Mission requests. During the first four years (1983-1987) of the project, total expenditures amounted to less than 20% of total project costs. In March 1985, under the Special Action Programme (SAP), the project implementation schedule was modified and the disbursement rate for civil works was increased from 40 to 60%. A second amendment to the Loan Agreement, signed in 1987, stipulated: (a) to restructure the project by cancelling the Middle Sebou sub-project and by extending the total length of irrigation canals to be rehabilitated in the Souss perimeter from 125 to 300 km; (b) to extend the applicability of the disbursement percentage increase under the SAP to the project closing date, and (c) to cancel an amount of US$ 8 million from the loan. Furthermore, an agreement was reached between the Government and the World Bank on financing procedures (special account and direct payment) that would enable speeding up of implementation of the project components. The rates of disbursement increased substantially from 1988, and in a five-year period about 80% of the total project cost was disbursed. In spite of the three-year extension of the project, however, and the more efficient financing procedures introduced in 1987, an additional US$ 3.2 million was cancelled at the closure of the project. Main Components 5.2 Irrigation. Implementation of the irrigation infrastructure was hampered by the long and slow bidding and contract award procedures, resulting mainly from the above- " The Staff Appraisal Report Cost Tables present a five-year schedule (1983-1987) whereas the Schedule of Disbursements starts from FY 1984 and ends in FY 1989.  mentioned country budget situation. The Souss scheme rehabilitation, which was initiated in 1983 as planned, was suspended in 1984 and 1985 due to budget restrictions. It was subsequently further delayed by the poor performance of a tubewell contractor, thus stalling implementation of the pumping stations. Meanwhile, construction of the distribution systems was proceeding satisfactorily. One of the principal sectors of the scheme, with an area of 3,550 ha, was first irrigated in July 1991. The entire scheme, including the additional 135 km of roads, was completed in mid 1993 instead of end 1987 as planned. The Chichaoua, Jemaa Sahim and Ghiss schemes were planned to be initiated in 1983 and completed by the end of 1987. They were practically completed and operational in September 1989, June 1990 and May 1991, respectively. However, some minor works on bank protection at Chichaoua and supplementary protection of the head canal and diversion structure in the Ghiss were achieved only in 1992. 5.3 Broadly speaking, the planned physical targets were met or even exceeded (Table 4). Hence, total irrigated area amounted to 13,426 ha compared with 17,800 ha as planned at appraisal. This was mainly due to the exclusion of the Middle Sebou scheme (4,865 ha). A few other discrepancies have occurred, such as in the "road improvement" component in the Souss sub-project (192 km instead of 60 km) and in the Chichaoua sub-project (21 km instead of 56 km); in the "primary canal" of the Ghiss sub-project (8.6 km instead of 7.8 km) and in the "power supply line" in the Jemaa Sahim sub-project (0.23 km instead of 3 km). The main reasons for these, according to the Project Management, is that a few estimates made during preparation had to be corrected during implementation on the basis of the detailed design bills of quantities. Other reasons may also be given, such as the amendment to the Loan Agreement in which the length of the irrigation canals of the Souss scheme was increased from 125 to 300 km, and also created the need for an increased length of roads to maintain the primary canals or the construction after appraisal of a new power line to supply a village close to the pumping stations of the Jemaa Sahim scheme. 5.4 Support activities. Notwithstanding the budgetary and administrative difficulties, the early implementation of support activities to strengthen the CMU, the ORMVASM and the DPAs has enabled a high standard of construction of the irrigation infrastructure to be secured. An important factor contributing to the success of the project has been a general continuity in staffing at the CMU as well as at the ORMVASM and DPAs till the project completion. A few key problems in civil construction were actually solved with the help of Bank supervision missions. Support activities for introduction of on-farm investments, cropping patterns and irrigation techniques were provided late. The programme was partially cancelled in order to use the limited budget resources available to complete the irrigation infrastructure. Hence, in the Souss scheme, the planned houses, offices and other buildings have not been constructed. However, support activities have benefited from facilities financed by other projects (Large Scale Irrigation and Research and Extension Projects, etc.). 5.5 On-farm development. On-farm investments were delayed consequent to the delays in completing the irrigation infrastructures. At appraisal, it had been planned that they would include: animal traction equipment, orchards, purchase of in-calf heifers and construction of stables for a total cost of US$ 1.2 million, to be financed through credit or by self-financing. Local technicians have noted that some farmers have purchased motorized as well as animal  - 7 - traction equipment and upgraded cattle, have constructed stables and have established orchards; they are nevertheless unable to quantify these investments. The project monitoring and evaluation system has not recorded the on-farm investments and as the National Agricultural Credit Bank (CNCA) accounts do not permit to distinguish the loans attributed to farmers cropping within the four schemes, there are no data available as far as on-farm development is concerned. Monitoring and Evaluation 5.6 Day-to-day monitoring, coordination and reporting of project activity as well as evaluation of project implementation, agricultural production, and cost recovery was planned to be done by the CMU which had been established within DER. It was also planned to entrust to the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of DPAE the responsibility for implementing an economic and social baseline survey of the sub-project areas and for monitoring and evaluating project benefits. CMU performed very well; it monitored project activities, supervised DPA's and ORMVASM's implementation works and prepared quarterly reports on time. Nevertheless, data on agricultural production were not collected by DPAs and ORMVASM because agricultural development started only recently and first priority was not given to that task. The monitoring and evaluation of the project benefits, entrusted to DPAE, is up to now unsatisfactory. The economic and social baseline surveys in the Ghiss and Chichaoua schemes, started in 1987, are reportedly to be finalized soon. The Souss baseline survey, initiated in 1991-1992, should be completed in the following months. DPAE is presently in the process of defining a monitoring and evaluation methodology. It has also recently been strengthened in order to be able to evaluate the benefits of agricultural projects. It should nevertheless be questioned whether DPAE, even with strengthened resources, will ever be in a position to evaluate the benefits of a large number of projects implemented simultaneously. Studies, Technical Assistance and Training 5.7 The Service for General Studies attached to DER carried out the second-stage SMSI project preparation in close collaboration with the FAO/CP. The preparation did not require any assistance of a consultant in rural engineering although 4 man-months had been planned for that purpose in SMSI 1; the Laboratoire public des etudes et essais (LPEE) was nevertheless granted contracts for supervising geotechnical works as well as the first tranche of works for SMSI-II (para 5.8). 5.8 Technical assistance was planned to consist of 12 m/m of short-term experts (5 m/m in electro-mechanical engineering, 3 m/m in farm machinery and 4 m/m for the above-mentioned consultant in rural engineering) and 48 m/m of long-term experts (24 m/m in civil engineering, 12 m/m in electro-mechanical engineering and 12 mlm in agricultural extension), not taking into account Middle Sebou requirements. However, the project was implemented without any intervention of consultants. Main reasons seem to be that (i) alternative solutions were identified by the project management: tender documents for Jemaa Sahim and Souss were prepared by the local consulting firms in charge of preparing detailed designs; use of LPEE for the control of complex works; use of ORMVASM expertise to control complex electro-mechanical works and use of the facilities provided under the World Bank financed Research and Extension project to  - 8 - strengthen the extension services; (ii) the project management did not give high priority to the recruitment of consultants; (iii) local procedures for the recruitment of consultants are cumbersome. It should nevertheless be noted that the contribution of specialists in farm mechanization and in extension would have been useful to better serve the farmers. That comment is also valid as far as the training of the extensionists is concerned. The SAR had planned to send four extension trainers overseas for a three-month training period, but this was substituted by a local one week refresher course. Management 5.9 The project was implemented, as foreseen at appraisal, under the general authority of the Directorate of Rural Equipment. The ORMVASM and the DPAs of Al Hoceima, Marrakech and Safi were the respective implementing agencies for the Souss, Ghiss, Chichaoua and Jemaa Sahim sub-projects. The Project Coordination Committee established in 1983 met only once, owing to the fact that since the project design was simple, the management did not encounter national coordination problems which would have required the meeting of the PCC. On the other hand, the Regional Sub-project Coordination Committees, also established in 1983, met regularly once or twice a year and were instrumental in solving coordination problems. Risks 5.10 The SAR identified two of the main risks which could affect a successful outcome of project implementation: (i) the formation of Water Users' Associations (AUEA) and their management; (ii) a possible shortfall in Government budgetary financing, which could delay implementation and adversely affect costs and benefits. In actual fact, the project implementation was severely constrained by the lack of financing in spite of the frequent interventions of the World Bank. Due to the fact that on average, schemes were put into operation with a delay of three years and that the project started by establishing "de facto" associations, the very long delay in revising the 1924 ASAP Law regarding AUEA has been less detrimental than it could have been. On the other hand, the SAR did not mention water availability as a possible constraint when in fact there is a risk that there may not be enough water for the Ghiss scheme and, later, for the Souss one. Project Cost 5.11 The project cost was originally estimated at around DH 325 million (US$ 57.5 milion), not taking into account the Middle Sebou sub-project cancelled in 1987. The actual cost is estimated at around DH 448 million (US$ 53.8 million) or in DH and US$ terms, 138% and 94% of the estimate respectively. The large difference between the DH and US$ rates resulted from the significant appreciation of the US$ versus the Dirham during project implementation (DH 6.00 per US$ at appraisal and on average DH 8.8 per US$ at implementation). Taking into account that many support activities in the Souss and Ghiss sub- projects were not financed by the project, that on-farm investments were not recorded and that the total length of irrigation canals to be rehabilitated under the Souss sub-project was increased  - 9 - from 125 to 300 km, it can be concluded that total project costs are close to the appraisal estimates. Hence, actual unit costs per ha expressed in 1993 constant prices, including support costs, vary from US$ 3,054 for the Chichaoua sub-project to US$ 8,707 for the Jemaa Sahim sub-project. At appraisal, they had been estimated to vary from US$ 2,420 to 8,530. 6. Project Results Water Availability 6.1 Water availability to farms following the project implementation varies from one sub-project to another, depending on the water sources. The water balance in the four schemes is presented in Table 6.A. The new and modem Jemaa Sahim scheme, with an irrigation area of 443 ha (planned area: 410 ha), has an exceptionally guaranteed water source as it can draw a maximum permanent flow of 300 1/s from the existing Safi canal, which is an extension of the Doukkala canal and the source of municipal and industrial supply of the city of Safi. The fixed maximum water allocation provides an average excess of about 50% but just meets water requirements in the peak demand month (July). Water transfer from the canal to the sprinkler- irrigation scheme is provided by a pumping station with a rated capacity of 400 l/s (4 pumps of 100 l/s). During peak demand season, the scheme is operating at about 90% of its capacity. This could be considered as a good performance for a new scheme where farmers have not yet acquired long experience in irrigation. 6.2 For the three traditional schemes (Souss, Chichaoua and Ghiss) rehabilitated by the project, the common feature in water availability is a considerable reduction of water losses along the irrigation networks. The corresponding gain in water availability would be equal to or higher than 25% to 45% as estimated at appraisal. The Chichaoua scheme, which is fed by several permanent springs surging from the northern piedmont of the Atlas Mountains, has had adequate water supply, even during the severe droughts of 1991-92 and 1992-93. Resulting from the important reduction of water losses in the distribution networks, water available at the plots has increased substantially over the whole scheme and farmers are requesting an extension of the rehabilitation works to downstream areas. However, the study in irrigation techniques, carried out by DER's Service for Irrigation Research", has shown that water distribution which is still applying the strict traditional water rights, is far from optimum: as water losses in the distribution network have been reduced, downstream plots are now adequately supplied but upstream plots are still being oversupplied. It seems that water resources misused in the upstream areas could be reallocated for further extension of the scheme, but it is well-known that it would be difficult to change traditional water rights. A more efficient water allocation system for better use of water resources would need the development of a water rights rental market. 6.3 The Souss scheme used to be irrigated by the diversion of stream resurgences. Prior to project implementation, much of the area was under rainfed cultivation as resurgences have DER. Service des Experimentations d'hydraulique agricole. Amdlioration des techniques d'irrigation dans les perimatres PMH. Rapport de synthese et programme d'action. Septembre 1991.  - 10 - gradually disappeared, following continuous drawdown of the valley water table. Water resources provided by the 76 tubewells and wells constructed by the project would fully cover the projected water demands of the 12 sectors of the scheme, with a total irrigated area of 10,160 ha (planned area: 9,650 ha), except for one sector where the slight water shortage could be managed by increasing pumping time to about 22 hours/day during peak demand season. The important issue of long-term water availability for the scheme through pumping from the overexploited Souss aquifer is discussed under Project Sustainability (para 7.2). 6.4 Water resources for the Ghiss scheme would be provided by a weir diverting the Ghiss river flow. At appraisal, the average river flow available for water supply of the scheme during the critical month of summer irrigation (July) was estimated at 350 l/s, resulting in an average deficit of about 50 1/s in relation to water demand, which was considered manageable. This estimation was based on a very short (8 years) hydrological record of a station which was later considered unreliable and consequently abandoned in 1973. According to the hydrological simulations of Ghiss river carried out recently by the Directorate of Water Resources in the framework of the preparation of the Regional Water Master Plan", available flow for summer irrigation diversion would amount, on average, to about 50% to 60% of flow estimated at appraisal. Projected land use and cropping intensity in the Ghiss scheme would have to be adjusted accordingly. According to the same hydrological simulation, the planned transfer of water resources from the Ghiss river to the Nekor scheme would only be feasible, on average, once every two years. Support Services 6.5 Support activities were designed for servicing the two other main components of the project, irrigation infrastructure construction and on-farm development. As such, support services have essentially fulfilled their role. Notwithstanding the already mentioned budgetary and administrative constraints, the CMU, ORMVASM and DPAs have carried out the necessary engineering studies and detailed designs of civil works and efficiently managed 117 contracts for civil works construction, equipment procurement and services. Supervision was also satisfactory as the irrigation infrastructure can be qualified as of high standard. The damages to the infrastructure resulting from the heavy floods of 1989 at the Ghiss and Chichaoua schemes have been repaired adequately. 6.6 Extension Centres were established or strengthened in each of the schemes and farmers have reported that the number of extensionists is adequate. On the other hand, improved irrigation techniques and improved small-scale farm machinery and equipment are not yet available for dissemination due to the cancellation of or delay in carrying out the planned studies. " According to the simulation results, out of every 10-year period, the discharge of Chiss river in July would be nil for 3 years, less or equal to 200 I/s for 2 years and higher than 400 I/s for 5 years. Ministare des travaux publics, de la formation professionnelle et de la formation des cadres. Administration de l'hydraulique. Plan directeur de l'am6nagement des bassins Loukkos, Tangerois et Cotiers mediterraneens. Analyse des 6coulements de l'oued Rhiss. Juin 1993.  Agricultural Development 6.7 The actual cropping patterns show clearly that farmers react quickly to market opportunities as soon as water is available. Farmers then give preference to citrus, olives, sugarbeet, alfalfa, vegetables and grain legumes, the returns of which are quite attractive. Farmers' interest in orchards is well known, but the SAR planned cropping pattern had nevertheless not anticipated the importance of the new orchards which would be established. Up to the present, farmers have already planted 1,640 ha of new orchards and soon they envisage planting another 600 ha. The area planted to alfalfa should also exceed the SAR planned figure, as well as those of sugarbeet and grain legumes. On the other hand, cereals, maize and winter forage are likely to be less cropped than envisaged at appraisal (Table 6.B). Furthermore, on the basis of present yields, there is clear evidence that appraisal yield estimates are conservative and will probably be exceeded at full development. As a result of the revised cropping patterns and yields, production of citrus, sugarbeet, olives and alfalfa is likely to considerably exceed the SAR estimates. On the other hand, maize and winter forage production may be lower than anticipated. Water Users' Associations 6.8 The constitution of Water Users' Associations in all four sub-project areas and as specified at appraisal, could be considered as one of the most important accomplishments of the project, in spite of the delays, due essentially to numerous administrative and legal hurdles. Moreover, creation of defacto associations, prior to the promulgation of the law in December 1990 and publication of the application decree in May 1992, has allowed the project, since the early stage of operation of the schemes, to gradually entrust responsibility for their operation and maintenance to the water users. In the Souss, 21 associations with a total of 5,504 members have been created, covering the 21 irrigation sectors of the scheme. In Chichaoua, 13 associations with 1642 members have taken over the responsibility of operation and maintenance of the rehabilitated scheme. The new Jemaa Sahim scheme, which has a unique water source, the pumping station supplying the whole sprinkler system, has only one association grouping all farmers of the scheme. In the Ghiss scheme, due the severe drought of two successive years following the rehabilitation completion, farmers have not yet benefited from the projected water resource improvement, mainly for summer irrigation; two out of three associations have been formally created. All associations are being converted to a de jure basis and agreements between the administration and the associations are being drawn up following the new legislation. 6.9 In the Souss and Jemaa Sahim schemes, which are supplied by pumping, the associations signed contracts with ONE for the power supply to the pumping stations. Funds for payment of operation expenses have been set up at Chichaoua, Jemaa Sahim and the Ghiss. In the Souss, farmers pay the AUEA in advance for water at about 0.30 DH/m3 (sufficient to cover the costs of energy and direct operating expenses). In spite of all the achievements, much remains to be done to arrive at full responsibility of the water users' associations for operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems. This is particularly so for the two pumping schemes  -12 - where the equipment is relatively sophisticated. The administration will need to continue to provide technical supervision for some time while the AUEA build experience and train their own personnel. 6.10 In spite of the fact that DER staff are still convinced that farmers should pay the total amount of the operation and maintenance costs and a fair percentage of the investment costs of the irrigation infrastructure, their present position is quite pragmatic and flexible. Each scheme has been studied separately and specific solutions proposed. In the case of Chichaoua and Ghiss, the farmers' participation in investment costs has been set at 10% and recovery should not be a problem. However, to help provide for the longer-term heavier maintenance items, MARA is discussing with the Ministry of Finance the possibility of this participation being retained rather than disappearing into the state treasury. On the other hand, the pumping stations of the Souss and Jemaa Sahim schemes will have to be replaced regularly and it is not yet clear whether the farmers will accept or, indeed, be able to pay in full the 0 & M cost plus an adequate allowance for depreciation. In these two cases, MARA's view is that the farmers should not be asked to reimburse the state, but instead they should build up a revolving fund to cover the eventual cost of pump replacement. The DPA and ORMVASM are advising the AUEAs to gradually increase charges for this purpose. Economic Returns 6.11 Although project impact data were not collected by the DPAE and the CMU, the mission working with DPA and ORMVASM staff was able to roughly estimate the "present" and 'at full development" agricultural production (Annex 2). Nevertheless, data were not detailed enough to make reasonable estimates of the "Without" and "With Project" situations of some farm models. Global data related to the entirety of each of the four schemes were utilized to present the "without project", "actual" and "at full development" situations. As the baseline surveys of the four schemes have not yet been completed (para 5.6) the SAR data were used to estimate the "Without Project" situation. 6.12 The estimated actual Economic Rate of Return (ERR) is slightly lower (13.5% instead of 15%) than anticipated at appraisal (Part III, Table 6.C). This results from the fact that the viability of the Ghiss sub-project is very low (4%) due to the limited water resources and that the ERR of the Jemaa Sahim sub-project is marginal (9%) due to the high per ha investment costs and to some delays in completion and intensive use of the irrigation infrastructure. 7. Project Sustainability 7.1 With the exception of the Ghiss scheme, the principal components of the project, which are the irrigation schemes, are likely to maintain an acceptable level of benefits throughout their economic life. Both the rehabilitated traditional schemes and the new one are expected to be correctly operated and maintained as farmers appreciate the value of irrigation water and are contributing substantially to the operation and maintenance costs. It will  - 13 - nevertheless be necessary to fix, as soon as possible, in agreement with the AUEAs in each of the four schemes, the water charges at a level which would cover the total amount of the 0 & M costs including in Jemaa Sahim and Souss adequate allowances for depreciation plus, if possible, a reasonable percentage of the investment costs of the irrigation infrastructure. 7.2 In relation to the groundwater resources sustainability in the Souss valley on which would depend the sustainability of the Souss scheme, assurances were obtained for an action programme to implement the 1981 decree for control of private pumping in the Souss aquifer. The water balance of the Souss aquifer can be summarized as follows"'. The total non- renewable reserve of the aquifer is estimated at 40,000 million m3. Between 1969 and 1991, there was an overexploitation of about 2,500 million m3 (average: 110 million m3/year) from this reserve, resulting in a total drawdown of the water table of 10 to 35 m in the central part and of 5 to 10 m in other areas. Current annual drawdown varies from 0.5 to 2 m around the Taroudant area and from 1 to 3 m in the Guerdane area. However, downstream of the Aoulouz dam and in the surface water irrigation scheme of Issen, recharge water and return flow have increased the water table by 0.5 to 1.5 m annually. Even with the strict control of private pumping, it is estimated that there would be an extension of private irrigation of about 250 ha/year. This extension would correspond to an additional, albeit marginal, stress on the aquifer of about 2 million m3/year. Water requirements of the Souss scheme rehabilitated by the project would amount to a net withdrawal of 70 million m3/year (Table 6.A), which corresponds, for the whole project life, to about 2,000 million m3 or 5 % of the total aquifer reserve. As the Souss aquifer would have an annual deficit of about 100 to 200 million m3, depending on rainfall, there would be a continuous drawdown of the water table. Water resources availability for the Souss scheme would not be an issue for its sustainability but pumping costs would increase continuously and would have to be taken into account. 8. Bank Performance 8.1 Bank performance in preparation and appraisal was satisfactory, taking into account that this project was the first Bank investment in the SMSI sub-sector. Nevertheless the main risks could have been more accurately assessed (para 5.10). Supervision missions visited the project frequently and regularly (on average every six months) with good staff continuity. They were well staffed from the technical standpoint and were able to make significant contributions to the implementation of the project: design of the repairs to the damaged works in Chichaoua and Ghiss following the severe flood of 1989, water resources analysis of the Souss aquifer, investment costs recovery analysis, etc. Furthermore, the supervision missions acquired a good understanding of the project's implementation problems and assisted in overcoming some of the most salient implementation constraints, particularly the lack of financing. This was highly appreciated by project staff. " Ministere des Travaux publics de la formation professionnelle et de la formation des cadres. Administration de l'hydraulique. Direction de la rdgion hydraulique du Souss-Massa et Draa/Agadir. Etat d'etiage de la nappe du Souss. Juin 1993.  - 14 - 8.2 The Bank proved responsive and flexible in restructuring the project scope in the light of the budgetary constraints and in undertaking a Special Action Programme. A total of US$ 11.2 million was cancelled from the original loan and the project was extended by three years. On the other hand, the Bank should perhaps have insisted more on the hiring of consultants and on the undertaking of the baseline surveys and the evaluation of the project benefits. 9. Borrower's Performance 9.1 It should be pointed out that MARA pursued the project's objectives with as much resolution as the Bank. A competent staff was assigned to the project during the whole implementation period both at central and regional levels. Competence and continuity of project management certainly made a significant contribution to the project's success. 9.2 On the other side, Government did not provide adequate funding for the project, thus inducing considerable delays in project implementation. The practice of allocating a certain budget amount but without committing the required funds to the project every year to cover expenditures also had a negative impact on project implementation as it led in many instances to the slowing down or abandonment of project works by the contractors. However, these facts should be seen in the light of the general, severe public finance situation of Morocco in those years. Other weaknesses on the part of the borrower relate to its reluctance to mobilize international consultants that could have strengthened the support services to farmers, and to DPAE delays in implementing the baseline surveys and in evaluating project benefits. 10. Lessons Learned 10.1 Experience with this project shows that: (i) the establishment of Water Users' Associations (AUEA) seems to be a correct approach to the problem of operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes; (ii) AUEA should be established at a time when the beneficiaries could influence the final design of the rehabilitation works; (iii) the agreements between AUEA and the Government specifying the rights and duties of both parties should be signed before the rehabilitation works are started; (iv) flexibility is an important factor in the design of SMSI projects; (v) a well designed and staffed monitoring unit is instrumental in implementing a decentralized project;  - 15 - (vi) continuity of capable project management at both central and regional levels is a crucial factor in project success; (vii) in support services, necessary efforts should be dedicated to efficient use of water at farm level; (viii) to overcome the rigid traditional water rights for optimal water resources allocation, SMSI projects should encourage the development of a water rights rental market; (ix) Future SMSI projects should exploit the considerable amount of hydrological and geohydrological data of the Hydraulic Administration for assessment and planning of water resources available for irrigation schemes. 11. Project Relationships 11.1 The relationship between the Bank and the Moroccan authorities was excellent during the whole project. The recommendations made by the frequent supervision missions were generally considered useful and followed by concrete actions. 12. Consulting Services 12.1 Detailed designs for irrigation infrastructure and related works were completed satisfactorily by local consulting firms without any assistance from international consultants. In fact, none of the 99 man-months designated for short-term and long-term specialists was used (paras 5.7 and 5.8). Moreover, the preparation of the SMSI Second Phase project was carried out by the DER "Service des etudes generales" with the assistance of FAO/CP (Part III, Table 6.D). 13. Project Documentation and Data 13.1 The Preparation Report and the SAR proved to be useful during project implementation. The involvement of DER staff in project preparation and appraisal greatly contributed to the understanding of the loan agreement and the appraisal document. 13.2 From 1984 to 1992, the CMU prepared quarterly progress reports following a standard presentation agreed with the Bank. The CMU collected basic data for the last supervision mission to help in preparation of the Project Completion Report. However, DPAE did not collect or process data which would have permitted the preparation of a project impact analysis and no information was available on the credit component implemented by CNCA.  - 16 - PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT KINGDOM OF MOROCCO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT LOAN 2253-MOR PART II: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE (Translated from the Original French Version) (a) Verification of the data in Parts I and III: As a whole, the data in Parts I and III are consistent with the data available to the Irrigation Development Department, with the exception of the figures on p.6, para.5.3., regarding the area covered by the Middle Sebou subproject (4,865 ha instead of 410 ha) and the total length of the primary canals (G and D + 1) for the Ghiss subproject (8.6 km instead of 13.4 km). These changes have been made in the text. (b) Comments on Part I: p.6. para. 5.4: * -lWith regard to the irrigation technique improvement component, the research and demonstration studies began in October 1989, well before the completion of the improvement works at the Chichaoua perimeter. .7. para. 5.6 Monitoring and evaluation: At the time of the project preparation, a monitoring and evaluation system for this type of project had not been designed causing the delays experienced in the monitoring and evaluation of project benefits, despite the efforts made by DPAE to conduct reference surveys on the Ghiss, Chichaoua and Jemaa Shim [sic] schemes. Finally, with a view to monitoring and evaluating this type of project, before project startup an appropriate system must be devised with sufficient funding and, if necessary, the pertinent technical assistance. p2.7. para, 5.7: - Five contracts were awarded to LPEE, of which three for the supervision of geotechnical works at the sites of water deviation works at Chichaoua and the first tranche of works for the SMSI-II project.  - 17 - R.10. para. 6.: - The number of contracts managed was 117 for the various components of the project. p. 13. para.7. 1 [French Versionl: - At present, the users of irrigation at the four schemes are shouldering the entire maintenance and operating cost. Beneficiary contribution of a minimum of 10% of the investment cost is now being discussed with the Ghiss and Chichaoua irrigation associations. With regard to the replacement of the electromechanical equipment at Souss and Jamaa Sahim, responsibility for amortization costs for the equipment is now being studied on the basis of the farmers' reimbursement capacity. .p15. Rara. 10.1 (iii) [French versionl: - The agreements to be concluded with the water user associations must be finalized before the start of competitive bidding for the rehabilitation works. p.15. para.10.1 (ix): - The irrigation improvement studies for the SMSI-I schemes include all hydrological and geohydrological data available at the regional level. (c) Performance of the Bank during project implementation: During implementation of the Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project, Bank performance was satisfactory. In point of fact, recognizing the difficulties of implementing such a project, the Bank agreed to restructure and extend the project by three years. The Bank played an active role in eliminating several constraints during project implementation, as evidenced by the large number of missions it sent. The major constraint that was resolved was that of budget reduction and the establishment of a working capital fund within the 7rdsorerie G{nerale du Royaume. (d) Performance of the Borrower during project implementation: The Government of Morocco did its utmost to carry out the project successfully and considers that project implementation was satisfactory overall. The Government placed great importance on carrying out the project activities, given the project's importance to the development of small and medium-scale irrigated farming. The efforts made by the Government of Morocco can be summarized as follows: - mobilization of the maximum of available funds, despite the budget restrictions adopted by the State during the period of project implementation;  - 18 - - allocation of competent high-level staff with the personnel necessary for project execution; - organization of project management at the central and regional levels; - establishment of a coordination structure (committees) composed of the various project players and beneficiaries (provencial committee and national committee); - promulgation of regulatory texts governing the organization of farmers on the various irrigated schemes into water users' associations, to take on responsibility for maintenance and operating cost with a certain level of participation in investment cost. (e) Relations between the Bank and Borrower: Under the Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project, relations between the Government of Morocco and the Bank were excellent at various levels, which facilitated implementation of the project in question.  - 19 - PROJECT COMPLMION REPORT KINGDOM OF MOROCCO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT LOAN 2253-MOR PART III: STATISTICAL INFORMATION Table 1. Related Bank Loans Loan Number and Title Year of Purpose Original Status Approval Loan Amount (USS million) - Loan 2253-MOR 1983 Support the development of the 42.0 Closed Small and Medium Scale neglected Small and Medium Scale December Irrigation Project I Irrigation Sub-sector through the 1992 creation or rehabilitation of five schemes and the preparation of a second-stage project - Loan 2590-MOR 1985 Support the first phase of 100.0 Closed Agricultural Sector implementation of the Government's. June 1987 Adjustment Loan programme of adjustment in the agricultural sector. The principal objectives of the programme were to improve the growth rate in agriculture within the overall constraints in public resources - Loan 2656-MOR 1986 Support and complement the reform 46.0 Closed Large Scale Irrigation package agreed upon under the First June 1993 Improvement Project Agricultural Sector Adjustment Loan with regard to the irrigation sub- sector through the rehabilitation of about 150,000 ha, the improvement of operation and maintenancel operations and the setting up of an efficient management information system - Loan 2885-MOR 1988 Support the second phase of 225.0 Closed Second Agricultural Sector implementation of the Government's April 1992 Adjustment Loan medium-term agricultural sector adjustment programme within the framework of a general macroeconomic restructuring programme. The essential objectives were to foster efficient agricultural growth and to contribute to the reduction of budgetary and current account deficits to manageable levels - Loan 2954-MOR 1988 Finance a part of the Government's 23.0 On-going Second Small and Medium public investment programme in Scale Irrigation Project small and medium scale irrigation during the 1988-92 Plan through the renovation of about 120 traditional irrigation schemes and the equipment of seven spate irrigation repair brigades to operate in poverty areas in selected Southem Provinces - Loan 3088-MOR 1989 Financing of activities of CNCA 190.0 Closed Seventh Agricultural from 1990 to 1993 December Credit Project 1993  - 20 - Table 2. Project Timetable Itemn Date Planned Date Revised Actual Date - Reconnaissance - - April 1980 - Identification - - November 1980 - First Preparation Mission - - January 1981 - Final Preparation Mission - - February 1982 - Appraisal May 1982 - May 1982 - Loan Negotiations January 1983 - January 1983 - Board Approval March 1983 - March 1983 - Loan Signature June 1983 - June 1983 - Loan Effectiveness - January 1984 - Loan Closing December 1989 - December 1992  - 21 - Table 3. Loan Disbursements A. Cumulative Estimated Adjusted and Actual Disbursements IBRD Fiscal Year Appraisal Adjusted Actual | % of Appraisal % of Adjusted Semester Ending Estimate Estimate" Estimate Estimate FY 1984 December 1983 0.3 - - - - June 1984 2.8 0.4 0.36 13 90 FY 1985 December 1984 4.3 0.4 0.43 10 108 June 1985 6.7 0.9 0.87 13 97 FY 1986 December 1985 10.5 1.2 1.17 11 98 June 1986 16.1 1.5 1.50 9 100 FY 1987 December 1986 22.3 1.8 1.80 8 100 June 1987 27.5 2.9 2.91 11 100 FY 1988 December 1987 32.2 5.7 5.63 17 99 June 1988 36.1 8.0 6.64 18 83 FY 1989 December 1988 39.5 12.0 8.07 20 67 June 1989 42.0 15.5 12.10 29 78 FY 1990 December 1989 - 22.0 15.30 36 70 June 1990 - 24.0 16.71 40 70 FY 1991 December 1990 - 30.0 19.49 46 65 June 1991 - 34.0 22.29 53 66 FY 1992 December 1991 - - 23.83 57 70 June 1992 - - 27.80 66 82 FY 1993 December 1992 - - 29.70 71 87 June 1993 - - 30.81 73 91 " As of December 1987 after cancellation of US$ 8 million.  - 22 - Table 3. Loan Disbursements B. Planned and Actual Disbursements by Category Category Planned" Revised' Actual' Actual as a % l l I of Revised . ........... (US$ million) . 1. Civil Works 26.0 20.0 24.7 124 2. Equipment 5.6 5.6 1.6 29 3. Civil Works and Equipment 4.2 4.2 3.2 76 for Power Supply 4. Consultants and Training 1.2 1.2 0.9 75 5. Fee 0.3 0.3 0.3 100 6. Unallocated 4.7 2.7 - - 7. Fund - - 0.1 - Total 42.0 34.0 30.8 91 " Loan Agreement of June 1983. 2/ Amendment to the Loan Agreement approved in June 1987. 31 Last disbursement made in May 1993 at which time the loan account was closed and the remaining balance of US$ 3.2 million was cancelled.  - 23 - Table 4. Project Implementation Ratio (Key indicators) Component Ulit Planned SAR Actual Ratio Actual/Planned I I (or Revised) (%) A. Irrigation Infrastructure (a) Souss Sub-project - Rehabilitation Area ha 9,650 10,163 105 - Tubewells & Wells U 73 75 103 - Pumping Stations U 25 25 100 - Canal Network km 300 261 87 - Power Supply Line km 53 45 85 - Road Improvement km 60 192 320 (b) Ghiss Sub-project - Rehabilitation Area ha 920 920 100 - Diversion Weir U 1 1 100 - Conveyance Canal km 4 4.2 105 - Primary Canal km 7.8 13.4 171 - Secondary & Tertiary Canals km 39.6 48 121 - Soil Drainage Network km 400 386 96 - Excess Rainwater Drainage km 17 18 106 (c) Cbichaoua Sub-project - Rehabilitation Area ha 1,900 1,900 100 - Irrigation Network km 57 43 75 - Syphons m 450 660 146 - Road Improvement km 56 21 37 - River Intake U - 3 (d) Jemaa Sahim Sub-project - New Area Implemented ha 410 443 108 - Pumping Station U 1 1 100 - Underground Pipe km 14 16 114 - Power Supply Line km 3 0.23 7 - Drainage Network km - 20.8 B. Support Activities" - House, Offices U 125 17 14 - Milk Collection Centres U 7 3 43 - Livestock Centres U 7 4 57 - Breeding Stations U 11 1 9 - Artificial Insemination Centres U I 1 100 - Breeding Animals U 22 2 9 - Vehicles U 36 25 69 - Motorcycles U 72 8 11 - Technical Assistance m/m 60 - - Overseas Training rn/m 35 - - Local Training m/m 80 30 37 Excluding the Middle Sebou Sub-Project.  Table 5. Project Costs and Financing A. Project Costs Breakdown of project costs by Loan Categories (n million DH) Categories 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 TOTAL SAR* SOUSS SUB-PROJECT Irrigation Infrastructure 10.0 3.8 1.6 2.1 9.8 70.5 65.0 842 51.4 14.8 313.1 176.1 Support costs 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.9 47.4 On-farm Investments 4.1 Sub-total 10.1 4.3 1.6 2.2 10.6 71.0 65.4 84.7 51.9 152 317.0 227.6 GHISS SUB-PROJECT Irrigation Infrastructure 0.0 0.0 16.4 10.2 17.4 4.6 4.3 1.6 1.1 0.9 56.6 34.8 Support costs 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.8 6.1 On-farm Investments 0.6 I Sub-total 0.0 0.0 17.5 10.8 17.8 5.0 4.6 1.6 12 1.0 59.4 41.5 CHICHAOUA SUB-PROJECT Irrigation Infrastructure 0.0 3.2 2.1 7.0 11.0 8.1 2.4 0.7 1.8 0.0 362 19.4 Support costs 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 02 5.8 5.9 On-farm Investments 1.3 Sub-total 0.0 4.3 3.4 7.9 11.8 8.6 2.4 1.1 2.4 02 42.0 26.6 JEMAA SAHIM SUB-PROJECT Irrigation Infrastructure 0.0 0.2 4.6 6.7 4.3 3.0 12 02 0.3 2.3 22.8 13.8 Support costs 0.0 0.6 12 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.2 02 0.5 0.9 5.6 5.5 On-farm Investments 0.7 Sub-total 0.0 0.8 5.8 6.9 4.7 3.3 2.4 0.4 0.9 32 28.4 20.0 CENTRAL MANAGEMENT UNIT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 02 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 9.0 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 10.1 9.5 28.3 27.9 45.1 88.1 75.2 87.9 56.3 19.6 447.8 324.7 * Including physical and price contingencies  - 25 - Table 5. Project Costs and Financing B. Project Financing T Planned | Actual . (US$ million). IBRD 42.0 30.8 Govermment" 56.4 23.0 CNCA 1.0 N.A. Beneficiaries 2.2 N.A. Total 101.6 53.8 Estimated as balance of total project cost minus IBRD's contribution.  - 26 - Table 6. Project Results A. Water Balance T Water Demand Water Resources Ghiss (Irrigated Area: 920 ha) Critical Month (July) - Net at Plot 260 I/s - Gross at Headworks " 400 I/s 220 I/s " Annual - Gross at Headworks 8,700 m3/ha - Total for Scheme 8 mill. m3 60 mill. m3 2' Chichaoua (irrigated Area: I,900 ha) Critical Month (July) - Net Demand at Plot 565 I/s v - Gross Demand at Headworks 940 I/s 1,100 I/s Annual - Gross at Headworks 10,350 m3fha 3 - Total for Scheme 19.7 mill. m3 35 mill. m3 Jemaa Sahim (Irrigated Area: 440 ha) Critical Month (July) - Net at Plot 200 I/s 4 - Gross at Pumping Station 4/ 300 I/s ' 300 I/s Annual - Gross at Pumping Station 9,560 m3/ha - Total for Scheme 4.2 mnill. m3 7.9 mill. m3 Souss (Irrigated Area: 10,160 ha) Critical Month (July) - Net at Plot 2,410 I/s 4' - Gross at Pumping Station 4/ 4,810 I/s ' 4,570 I/s Annual - Gross at Pumping Station 9,480 m3/ha - Total for Scheme 96.3 mill. mn3 67.4 mill. m3n" " Assuming field efficiency of 75%, conveyance efficiency of 85%. 2 On average, according to hydrological simulation. 3 Assuming field efficiency of 75%, conveyance efficiency of 80%. 41 Assuming 20-hour irrigation/pumping. 5' Assuming field efficiency of 85%, conveyance efficiency of 90%. 6/ Assuming field efficiency of 75%, conveyance efficiency of 80%. 7' Net extraction from Souss aquifer.  Table 6. Project Results B. Cropping Pattern, Yields and Production Appraisal Estimate Mission Estimates Full Devlopment as a % of With Project Appraisal Estimate Selected Crops Before Project With Project Actual Situation Full Development Ajrea I Yields I Production Area |Yields |Production Area |Yidds | rdcin Area |Yields |Production Area |Yields |Production ........-- -. (%) . ..-..-..-..- (ha) (tons/ha) ('000 tons) (ha) (tons/ha) ('000 tons) (ha) (tons/ha) ('000 tons) (ha) (tons/ha) ('000 tons) l Cereals 4,550 1.0 4.6 3,800 2.9 11.0 2,350 2.5 5.9 3,170 3.2 10.1 83 110 92 Grain Legumes (Green) 40 4.0 0.2 230 13.0 3.0 270 5.0 1.4 430 7.0 3.0 187 54 100 Winter Vegetables 330 15.0 5.0 1,070 26.0 27.8 560 25.0 14.0 970 30.0 29.1 91 115 105 Sugarbeet - - - 60 45.0 2.7 180 52.0 9.4 200 50.0 10.0 333 111 370 Winter Forage (000 UF) 220 3.0 660.0 1,490 3.9 5,770.0 110 5.0 550.0 950 5.0 4,750.0 64 128 82 Maize 870 1.5 1.3 2,370 3.3 7.8 1,170 2.7 3.2 790 3.5 2.8 33 106 36 Summer Vegetables 440 15.0 6.6 1,635 28.0 45.8 610 20.0 12.2 1,400 30.0 42.0 86 107 92 Alfalfa (000 UF) 610 5.0 3,050.0 1,155 8.2 9,460.0 830 6.5 5,395.0 2,330 8.0 18,640.0 202 98 197 < Olives 3,360 1.5 5.0 3,365 2.7 9.1 4,130 2.0 8.3 4,550 4.0 18.2 135 148 200 I Citrus 90 15.0 1.4 90 22.0 2.0 900 20.0 18.0 1,000 35.0 35.0 1,111 159 1,750 Other Fruits 130 4.0 0.5 165 18.0 3.0 190 6.0 1.1 270 10.0 2.7 164 150 90 Other Crops - - - 275 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Area Cropped 10,640 - - 15,705 - - 11,300 - - 16,060 Total Project Area 13,426 - - 12,880 - - 13,426 - - 13,426 Harvest Intensity 84 - - 131 - - 90 - - 137  - 28 - Table 6. Project Results C. Economnic Impact" Economic Rate of Return | SAR Estimate PCR Estimate (%) . Souss Sub-project 17.3 14.4 Ghiss Sub-project 15.3 3.8 Chichaoua Sub-project 16.7 20.8 Jemaa Sahim Sub-project 14.5 9.1 Whole Project 15.02 13.5 D. Studies Studies Status Com ents Detailed design for some irrigation infrastructures Done Local Consulting Firms Preparation of a second-stage SMSI Project Done DER with the assistance of FAO/CP Use of Small-scale Farm Machinery and Equipment - Consultant never recruited " See Annex 2 for assumptions. 2/ The actual ERR is higher than 15.0% as that rate includes the Middle Sebou Sub-project, cancelled in 1987, the rate of which was only 12.9%.  - 29 - Table 7. Status of Covenants | Loan StatusOriginal Revised I Agreement Status Date Date Description of Covenants Cormnents Section 3.01 (a) OK - - CNCA shall make agricultural credit available to farmers. 3.02 (a) OK - - Employment of consultants. 3.04 (a) OK - - Maintain MARA's unit for irrigated crops in DPV. 3.04 (b) OK - - Construct field offices at Chichaoua. 3.04 (c) Rev. - - Establishment of an Irrigation Operations Not applicable since corresponding Division in DPA of Fes. sub-project has been cancelled. 3.06 (c) OK - Preparation of quarterly reports. 3.06 (d) OK - - Preparation of an economic and social baseline Surveys completed; results not yet survey. available. 3.07 (a) OK - - Regulate pumping of groundwater in Souss ORMVSM maintains monitoring valley following decree No. 2.79.606 of unit. 9/9/81. 3.07 (b) OK - - Provide the Bank with information on pumping - regulation of the Souss aquifer. 3.08 OK - Control diversion of water from Ghiss River. 3.09 OK 06130/85 - Establishment of water users' association in Defacto acsociation was converted t Jemaa Sahim. de jure status in December 1992. 3.10 OK 12/31/85 - Establishment of legal framework for water Law signed 12/90 and published in associations. official bulletin January 1991. Application decree published 05/92. 3.10 OK - - Ensure conformity of water users' associations with said legal framework. 4.02 (a) OK - - Ensure that annual budget resources allocated to each department. 4.02 (b) OK - - Furnish to Bank annual budgets of project activities as included in Loi de Finance or Progr. d'emploi. 4.03 (b) OK - - Send Bank audit reports. 4.04 OK - - Ensure adequate 0 & M. 4.05 OK - - Establish water charges to recover all 0 & M Formulae agreed at negotiations costs and a reasonable proportion of SMSI-I1. DER to negotiate level with investment costs. associations. Sch.1-4 (b) OK - - Establishment of water users' association and 8 dejure and 6 defacto associations of variable plan for use of water of Tajoujet exist. canal in Chichaoua. Sch.1-4 (c) OK - Establishment of water users' associations in 2 de jure and I defacto associations Ghiss. exist.  Table 8. Use of Bank Resources A. Staff Inputs (Staff Weeks) To FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Total Preparation and Pre- 101.5 - - - - - - - - - - - 101.5 Appraisal Appraisal 37.4 47.7 - - - - - - - - - 85.1 Negotiations - 4.8 - - - - - - - - - 4.8 Sub-total 138.9 52.5 - - - - - - - - - - 191.4 Supervision - 4.7 6.0 2.4 7.7 8.8 8.4 8.0 9.6 7.3 9.2 2.3 74.4 PCR - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.2 13.2 Total 138.9 57.2 6.0 2.4 7.7 8.8 8.4 8.0 9.6 7.3 9.2 2.3 13.2 279.0 W  - 31 - Table 8. Use of Bank Resources B. Missions Stage of Project Cycle Month/Year No. of | Days in | Specialization Performance Persons Field Represented" Rating Status2' Preparation and Pre- 02/1982 9 N.A. 2 1, A, 4 E, L Appraisal3' Appraisal 06/1982 6 N.A. 1, A, 2 E, S, H Supervision 1 09/1983 2 8 1, E 1/F Supervision 2 02/1984 2 10 2 1 1/M Supervision 3 10/1984 1 5 I 2/F Supervision 4 02/1986 2 3 I, H 3/F Supervision 5 08/1986 1 16 1 2/F, M Supervision 6 12/1986 3 12 2 1, E 2/F, M Supervision 7 11/1987 3 5 2 I, A 2/F, M Supervision 8 04/1988 1 11 I 2/F, M Supervision 9 09/1988 2 8 I, A 2/F, M Supervision 10 04/1989 2 15 1, A 2/F, M Supervision 11 10/1989 2 16 I, A 2/F, M Supervision 12 06/1990 2 11 I, A 2/F, M Supervision 13 12/1990 2 15 I, A 2/F, M Supervision 14 06/1991 2 12 A, E 2/F, M Supervision 15 12/1991 2 12 A, I 2/F, M Supervision 16 05/1992 2 12 A, I 2/F, M Supervision 17 03/1993 2 N.A. A, I 2/F, M Completion 09/1993 2 10 E, I I: Irrigation Engineer; A: Agronimist; E: Economist; L: Livestock Specialist; S: Sociologist; H: Hydrogeologist. v 1: Problem free or Minor Problems; 2: Moderate Problems; 3: Major Problems; F: Financial; M: Managerial; T: Technical. 31 Project preparation was largely undertaken by Moroccan staff with the assistance of three FAO/CP bus- stopping missions, for which manpower details are not available. The FAO/CP final preparation mission was then organized  - 32 - Part El1: Annex 1: Note on Detailed Project Costs Detailed project costs of the Souss, Ghiss, Chichaoua and Jemaa Sahim sub-projects, in current terms, are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Table 5 details for each of the four sub-projects, in constant 1993 DH, the Investment Costs, the Operation Costs and the Maintenance Costs. Incremental operating costs of the extension services are listed in Table 6.  MOROCCO: Siii3l Nix] Mediutim-Scalc Irrigatioi lrujecl (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report Pnrt III: Aninex 1: Note ont tetailed Project Costs Table 1. Detailed Project Costs - Snuss Sub-Project (Current 1)11) 19841 1985 16 9877 1988| 1989| 190 19 19921 1993 TOTAL IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE 14sondagesl&19forages 7988648 3109499 1009795 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12107941 SpultsreglondAhmar 563714 433280 264826 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1261820 7puitsregionAhmar 816517 6921 257925 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 1081363 Crousoment de 40 forages 0 0 2042154 5347193 0 0 0 0 0 7389347 Creusement de 23 forages 0 0 0 2263082 11806823 0 0 0 0 14069906 Reseau dirrig. sect.D9 0 0 0 0 25236984 14590161 15661464 4004728 0 59493337 Reseau dirrig. sectAval 0 0 0 0 23855287 20459521 2712481 506071 928712 48462072 Genie civil stat. pomp. secteur 09 0 0 0 0 5979066 6452579 1043763 0 0 13475407 Reseau dirrigation secteurs Amont 0 0 0 0 0 9042531 24475723 7970359 1701165 43189778 Geniecivildessecteurs Amont 0 0 0 0 0 4100337 1469332 606922 0 6176591 Genia cMl des secteurs Aval 0 0 0 0 0 0 5903442 9634510 2307832 17845784 Reseau rouler (80<m) 0 0 0 0 0 0 7799618 2199512 0 9999130 Reseau routier (135Km) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12609500 2988736 15598236 Complement reseau dirrigation D9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 801125 156875 958000 2 forages d'exploitatlon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1200000 1200000 Curage et develop. 8 IBrages 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 999650 999650 W Control travaux Cabo) 600000 500000 700000 80000 1880000 W Equip. electromeca. secteur D9 0 0 0 0 0 9264988 4751908 975294 0 14992191 Equip. electromeca. secteurAval 0 0 0 0 0 0 11417651 9247877 1222370 21887898 Equip. electromeca. secteurAmont 0 0 0 0 0 0 6510572 469676 0 6980248 Electrif. stat. pomp. 0 0 0 1996122 2994183 0 1952709 618243 2008973 9570230 CouvwerLe aerlome 90000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90000 Levee prolas en long 132690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132690 Etude de lequipement 274326 0 23266 60018 156017 47083 38996 0 0 0 599708 Additd levee profils en long 122903 132284 19208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 274395 Carte occupat. sdls par satallte 140965 0 0 0 0 0 0 346246 0 487211 Etude artrages prise pour segulas 0 0 0 0 245520 220038 0 124633 0 590191 Etude equipement 2eme tranche 0 0 0 0 342166 208238 0 538278 1184917 2273599 Total lrrigation Infrastructure 9988798 3822949 1575019 2102172 9762415 70507112 64977390 84198662 51352974 14779231 313066722 SUPPOllT COSTS Fourniturede3RLet2R9TC 239145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 239145 Fourniture de 2 Land Rover 189315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189315 Fourniture de 8 v6hicules legers 0 0 0 553216 0 0 0 0 0 553216 Salalres & Deplacem. 75000 49000 49000 110000 219000 434000 446000 473000 482000 458000 2795000 O & M Vohicules 10000 10000 10000 200W 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 10000 160000 Total Support costs 85000 487460 59000 130000 792216 454000 466000 493000 50200 4680D0 3936676 ON-FARM INVESTMENTS N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. NA. NA. NA. TOTAL SOUSS 10073798 4310410 1634019 2232172 10554631 70961112 65443390 84691662 51854974 15247231 317003399  MOROCCO: Stinll ailtl Mediu,m-Scik trrigilinii Prnjclc (Loin 225.1-MOR) - Project Completion Report Part III: Auiiex 1: Note ott D)etailed Project Costs Table 2. Detailced lroiect Costs - Chtiss Sul)-Project (Current Dil) 1986 1987 1988 1989T 19901 1991 | 19921 19931 TOTAL IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE ConduitesG & D+l 8128768 1729246 1179373 42856 11080243 Barrage derivation sur Ghiss 2648162 147546 247974 3043682 Protection eaux sauvages 2071104 2021275 510760 1007649 2092720 7703508 Reseau irrigation 2440782 3248627 4439092 366652 493392 10988545 Conduite tete morte 2421360 9647618 681233 1002434 13752645 Drains aspirateurs 314852 220435 40814 576101 Reseau de pistes 645244 139335 61955 846534 Drainage profond 1106016 2243943 217076 3567035 Protection conduite tete morte 342160 989256 97103 8674 1437193 Reparaton conduite tete morte 1094416 828830 1923246 Recalibrage oued Ghiss 498257 498257 Controle geotechn. 1128758 1128758 Remise etat reseau drainage 55500 55500 u Total Irrigat Infrastr. 16417574 10213298 17445685 4634755 4266730 1592929 1094416 935860 56601247 SUPPORT COSTS Construction 4 bureaux 156329 31894 11767 199990 Construction 4 logements 737976 19013 55546 812535 Vehicules 250050 26731 22868 299649 Materiel veterinaire 109992 109992 AEP batiments 14803 14803 Electrificat batiments 28678 28678 Suivi 144600 289200 289200 289200 289200 1301400 Total Support costs 1038905 590157 327698 355549 289200 0 109992 55546 2767047 ON-FARM INVESTMENTS N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. TOTALGH_SSSUBPROJECT _ 17456479 _10803455 17773383 4990304 4555930 1592929 120440_8 991406 59368294  MOROCCO; Snuill mid Mediumi-Scalc lrrigalinii Itnjce1 (Loan 2253-MOR) - Projecl Crmpictioii Rerort Part III: Annex 1: Note on D)etailed lroject Costs Tnble 3. Detailed Project Costs - Cliicinoua Sub-ProJect (Current 1)11) 1 19851 19861 19871 19881 19891 1990o 1991 | 19921 19931 TOTAL IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE Oiuvrges Iradtissemenl 399942 107221 166734 0 0 0 0 0 0 673897 Stablisation berges 1150617 345948 1820208 712084 0 0 0 0 0 4028857 PRehablitat. reseau 1500614 646553 134618 0 756570 191963 0 0 0 3230318 Betcnnage resetu 551013 1928629 3849555 1967311 0 161082 0 0 5457590 Assinissement agricde 0 0 100680 170601 0 0 0 0 271281 Plstes 0 141298 772407 622953 0 0 1716554 0 3253212 Siphon Bou Anneflir 0 279185 6000 108002 0 0 0 0 393187 3 Barrages prise 0 2479642 5529210 4123500 724906 0 0 0 12857258 Siiron 1ranchiss. 0 0 0 0 939546 0 0 0 939546 Trav. compl. barrages price 0 0 0 0 528058 0 0 0 528058 Stablisal. berges 0 0 0 0 0 459075 0 0 459075 Couvertiure aerienne 131096 124200 0 0 347675 0 103897 0 0 706870 Eludes geotedmn. 317235 0 32829 0 0 0 0 0 350064 Conlrde travaux 0 0 0 0 16703 0 60448 0 77151 Tola Irrigat. Infrastr. 318271 2092170 6950314 11002765 8096612 2401176 724054 1777002 0 36226364 SUPPORT COSTS Constduct. batiments 583144 1024192 657095 228756 0 0 0 0 158822 2632009 AEP puits) 0 0 16170 7400 0 0 0 0 23570 AEP batiments 0 0 88372 9819 0 0 0 0 98191 AEP brrtncements 0 0 19778 0 0 0 0 0 19778 Amenagemrmts divers 0 0 0 0 0 4500 0 0 4500 Postb transformateur 0 0 116931 27964 0 0 0 0 144895 Modopomnpe AEP 0 0 0 24000 0 0 0 0 24000 Vehiwles 214668 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 214668 Veilcules 102700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102700 Motocydettes 0 0 0 49760 0 0 0 0 49760 Bacs refrigerants 0 0 0 0 0 126500 0 0 126500 Materiel velerinaire 0 0 0 0 0 8877 117941 0 126818 Materiel audiovis. 0 0 0 0 0 9880 131270 0 141150 Materid agricole 0 0 0 0 0 24611 326985 0 351596 Fcumiiture bureau 0 0 0 0 0 226813 17072 0 243885 Fcumiture bureau 0 0 0 0 0 0 15000 0 15000 Fcrlukre bureau 0 0 0 0 0 0 15880 0 15880 Bectrifical. batiments 0 0 0 81790 0 0 0 0 81790 Secitificat. batiments 0 0 34401 0 0 0 0 0 34401 Suivi 264200 273900 273900 273900 273900 Totdl Sipport costs 1144712 1298092 930995 778308 474633 0 401181 624148 158822 5810891 ON-FARM INVESTMENTS NA. N.A. N.A. N.A. NA. NA. N.A. NA. N.A. N.A. TOTALCHICHAOUA 4326983 3390262 7881309 11781073 8571245 2401176 1125235 2401150 158822 42037255  MOROCCO: Small anti Medium-Scale Irrigatkin Prljecl (LAoan 2251-MOR) - Prijcc Cnmpiletion Report I'art III: Autitex 1: Note on D)efniledl I'roject Costs Table 4. I)etliled Prolcct Costs - Jemotn Snitint Suib-Project (Current Di) 19198|186 987 19881 1989 01992 ____L_ L__. _.......... ... - ---- I .. .__. ..... . ._---1 IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE 1985 __5~~9_-91193 :TO:TAL Pisles & colatures 1834573 1681406 0 406311 100014 0 0 4022304 Genie civil stat. pomp. 0 138831 604157 761436 0 0 0 405841 1910265 Canalisat. bomnes 0 3605671 2845990 558072 298429 0 0 585858 7894020 Barodage porte 0 0 0 0 29648 0 0 29648 Conduites 0 0 0 0 0 0 322120 74438 396558 Electritic. stat. pomp. 416932 0 0 0 0 0 0 515927 932859 Controle tIrav. 0 42269 0 13552 0 0 0 55821 Mater. elec. stat. pomp. 232658 697975 1255245 831532 125256 555339 0 0 558000 4256005 Crepines 0 0 0 0 0 9980 0 9980 Electropomp. 0 0 0 0 0 29512 0 29512 Mater. mobileltrig. 1612146 0 0 1091055 217904 151385 0 148152 3220642 Divergert lrdg. 0 0 23616 0 0 0 0 23616 Total irrigat. Infastr. 232658 4561626 6723422 4305295 2955682 1201334 190877 322120 2288216 22781230 SUPPORT COSTS L Constr. agence 396800 1006481 0 0 0 170958 0 0 1574240 Infirmerie veter. 0 0 106720 0 70963 0 0 177683 Centre intercoop. 0 0 151440 100349 193279 0 24572 469640 Centre colecte lalt 0 0 0 39780 0 27134 27001 93915 AEP batiments 0 0 0 0 0 0 198440 125560 324000 Station monte 0 0 0 0 0 0 111361 88212 199573 Mob4ier bureau 0 0 0 69700 0 0 0 69700 Vehicules 103929 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103929 Vehicules 0 0 0 0 2474 0 0 2474 Vehicules 59003 0 0 0 0 0 0 59003 Genheurs 0 0 0 0 0 29800 0 29800 Equip. coil. bfet 0 0 0 0 168615 0 0 55385 224000 Audiovisuel 0 0 0 0 73810 0 69119 47071 190000 Equip. centre elev. 0 0 0 0 0 73198 12277 85475 Machine elec. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12500 12500 Photocop. 0 0 0 0 0 58000 0 58000 Ordinateur 0 0 0 0 0 0 90499 10055 100554 Electrific. batim. 0 0 0 0 400001 0 0 559999 960000 Architect. bat. 0 0 0 9980 0 0 0 9980 Suivi 107800 172800 172800 172800 172800 81400 880400 Total supp. costs 608529 1238284 172800 430960 392609 1161500 188132 545769 886282 5624866 ON-FARM INVESTMENTS N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. TOTAL JEMAA SAHIM 841187 579990 6896222 4736?55 3348291 2362834 379009 867889 3174498 28406096  MOROCCO: Smiiall anid Mcdliin-Scalc Irrigatioii lronject (Loanr 2253MOh1R) - Project CompIcliom Report Palt III: Anniex 1: Nole onii Deailed Project Cosls 'I'Tble 5. Iives(nielit am(i Operatlion & Malagehllent Cos(s (Consltant 1993 DII) 1904 1905 1908 1907 1900 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1990 1999 2000 2001 2020 SOlSS SJB -PFlOJECT A. INVESTMENr IlrIgaon (lrrdgr) 6584 2498 873 1061 4591 33405 29123 36962 21592 6133 rTigaton (local) 9982 3524 1316 1690 7457 51019 44892 54365 31548 0646 Suppfrtlcr eig.t) 56 318 33 66 373 215 209 216 211 194 Support (local) 85 449 49 105 605 334 322 310 306 274 8. OPERATION Ml\lTENARNCE Opoalcon 15850 15650 15850 15050 15050 18730 10730 20955 blnltmance 340 600 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 5084 TOTAE 16708 6789 2271 2921 13026 05773 74546 91062 53999 15927 17000 17000 17000 17000 17000 19800 19000 26039 a0-Iss sJB-PnwEcT A- INVESTMENT IrTigalion (krdgn) 0 0 9096 5155 0205 2196 1912 699 460 300 InlgaUon (local 0 0 13720 8211 13326 3408 2948 1029 672 547 Supporl (rc-elgrl) 0 0 578 290 154 168 130 0 46 23 SupPJn (local) 0 0 068 474 250 261 200 0 00 32 U. B. OPERATION MtA NTENANCE Operalcn lbinlenanco 430 860 1730 1730 1730 1730 1730 4690 2028 TOTlt 0 0 24260 14139 21936 6032 5190 1720 1246 1421 860 1730 1730 1730 1730 1730 4690 2026 C-lC.AOLJAs SJ-PInOJECT A. INVESTMENT rrlgalon lcrdgn) 0 2079 1159 3500 5175 3836 1076 318 747 0 lrrlgaton (ocal) 0 2933 1748 5588 8405 5951 1659 468 1092 0 SuppcTt (Urrelgri) 0 748 719 470 366 225 0 176 262 66 Suppcrt(local) 0 1055 1085 748 595 349 0 259 383 93 'B. OPERATION MAINTENANCE Opration ainlrenance 170 340 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 699 TOT& 0 6815 4712 10314 14540 10360 2905 1560 3175 849 090 690 690 690 690 690 690 699 JEMM SAHIM SUB -PROJECT Ak INVESTMENT lrrigaIon (creign) 0 152 2527 3394 2025 1400 538 04 135 950 in-IgaUon (local) 0 214 3012 5405 3209 2172 030 123 198 1339 Supporl (icrolgn) 0 398 606 87 203 106 521 83 229 360 Support (local) 0 * 561 1035 139 329 289 802 121 335 510 'B. OPEnlATION MAlNTENANCE Opcralon 785 705 705 705 705 785 705 705 785 785 705 Malntenance 230 460 930 930 930 930 930 930 930 4790 1636 TOftt 0 1325 0060 9025 5045 4047 2691 1426 2143 4890 1715 1715 1715 1715 1715 1715 5575 2421  - 38 - MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report Part [I: Annex 1: Note on Detailed Project Costs Table 6. Incremental Operating Costs of the Extension Services" Scheme DHlYear Souss - Ghiss 42,000 Chichaoua 89,000 Jemaa Sahim 45,000 Source: Mission estimates on the basis of data presented by ORMVASM and DPA staff. " Including salaries of additional staff, operating costs of vehicles, etc.  - 39 - Part III: Annex 2: Note on Economnic Analysis 1. MARA's Directorate of Planning and Economic Affairs (DPAE) was in charge of defining the "Without Project situation", by conducting four baseline surveys, and of regularly evaluating project benefits. However, at the time of the mission's visit DPAE had not yet processed the baseline survey data nor had it started collecting data to evaluate project benefits. The mission was therefore obliged to roughly estimate the "present" and "at full development" agricultural production on the basis of limited data collected by DPA and ORMVASM staff and, principally, their broad knowledge of the project area. 2. Main assumptions underlying the PCR estimates of the Economic Rate of Returns are: (i) Land use "before" and "during the project" presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively for the Souss, Ghiss, Chichaoua and Jemaa Sahim schemes. (ii) Economic prices and costs listed in Table 5. These prices are mainly taken from the SAR of the Second Large-Scale Irrigation Improvement Project (March 1993). (iii) With and without project, Per Ha Economic Returns for Selected Commodities (Table 6). Technical parameters of the "With" and "Without Project" situations have been taken from the Preparation (FAO/CP) and SAR Reports. Due to the limited accuracy of the data used to estimate the economic benefits of the project, it has been voluntarily decided not to have specific per ha budgets for each of the schemes, but rather to have "National/Ha budgets" only. (iv) Per Ha Economic Returns Progression for Selected Commodities (Table 7). Annual increases have been arbitrarily fixed at 20%, 30%, 30% and 20% respectively of the difference between "Full development" and "Without project" net returns in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of the project. It is indeed assumed that full development will be reached in 4 years because the present situation shows that many farmers have, since water is available, started intensifying their production. (v) Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11 present the economic benefits resulting from the rehabilitation or construction of the Souss, Ghiss, Chichaoua and Jemaa Sahim schemes respectively. Economic benefits are calculated by aggregating Land Use (Tables I to 4) and Per Ha Economic Returns Progression (Table 7). (vi) The "Without Project" situation, taken from the SAR as more precise data are not yet available, has been considered constant during the whole project life.  - 40 - (vii) Tables 12 to 16 present the flows of economic costs and benefits in 1993 constant DH for each of the four schemes and for the whole project: - investment costs; the data detailed in Annex 1, Table 5 are adjusted by the Standard Conversion Factor (SCF); the life of the irrigation rehabilitation and new construction works is assumed to be 30 years not taking into account the construction period; - operating costs; they include the Operation Costs of the pumping stations (Annex 1, Table 5) and the Incremental Operating Costs of the Extension Services (Annex 1, Table 6), adjusted by the SCF; - maintenance costs; the data presented in Annex 1, Table 5 are adjusted by the SCF; - incremental net economic benefits (Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11). 3. Main assumptions underlying the SAR economic analysis are: - project life: 35 years; - irrigation is assumed to start in the year following the completion of all construction or rehabilitation works; - full farmer participation in irrigation is projected for year 11 and full development for year 21; - period from start-up of irrigation to full development is five years or less for crops; - economic prices were derived from the Bank's projections of world market prices; non-traded inputs and outputs have been valued at their market and farTngate prices, adjusted by the appropriate conversion factor; investment and operating costs have been valued at economic prices.  - 41 - MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irigation Project (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Complenon Report Part m: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 1. Land Use - Souss Scheme"' Before Project2/ 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997-2020 (3/4/ (4/ (E/ (6/ (6/ (6/ Cereals 2940 820 1050 300 1000 1500 2000 Grahi Legumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Winter Vegetables 0 160 180 200 300 400 500 'Jhter Forage 0 0 0 200 300 400 500 Sub-total 2940 980 1230 700 1600 2300 3000 Maize 280 300 400 400 400 450 500 Summer Vegetables 260 350 390 520 650 800 1000 Sub-total 540 650 790 920 1050 1250 1500 Alfalfa 440 320 840 1280 1500 1800 2000 Olhres 2810 3150 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 Citrus 90 880 920 1000 1000 1000 1000 Other Frubts 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 Sub-total 3340 4350 5760 6330 6550 6850 7050 TOTAL 6820 5980 7780 7950 9200 10400 11550 ikrigable Area 10163 10163 10163 10163 10163 10163 10163 HlarvestIntersity (6/ 71 62 85 91 105 120 133 1 / Irtrastructire completed, scheme by scheme from July 1992 to mid 1993. 2/ Staff Appraisal Report data. 3/1992: Cropping season 1991-1992. 4/ ORMVASM's data S Mission estimates based on discussions with ORMYASM's staff 6/ Afalt area Is courted twice to account for multiple cuts.  - 42 - MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irnigaion Project (Loan 22S3-MOR) - Project Compleion Report Part m: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 2. Land Use - Ghiss Schemeu Before With Projet Project 2/ 1992 1983 1994 1995 1996 1997- 202 (3/4/ (4/ (5/ (51 (5/ (5/6/ ( Ha ..... Cereds 450 440 440 440 420 410 400 Grain Legumes 20 0 0 0 40 60 80 Winter Vegetables 200 220 1IO 20 200 200 20 WinterForage 120 100 120 120 110 110 100 Sub-total 790 760 720 7e0 770 780 780 Maize 70 30 10 30 30 30 30 Summer Vegetables 70 30 20 40 50 60 80 Sub-total 140 60 30 70 80 90 110 Alfalfa 130 140 60 100 110 120 130 Olives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Fruits (N-A) - 50 60 70 80 90 90 Sub-total 130 190 120 170 190 210 220 TOTAL 1060 1010 870 1000 1040 1030 1110 Irigated Area 920 920 920 920 920 920 920 HarvestIntensity (71 129 125 102 120 125 130 135 1/ Infrmstructure was completed in May 1991. but due to the low rainfall there was almost no water durng 1992 and 1993 summers; the 1994 cropping season Is therefore the first one during which the new infrastructure will probably be properly used. 2/Staff Appraisl Repoit data. 3/ 1992: Cropping season 1991-1992. 4/ OPA's data. S/ Mission stimates based on discussions with OPAs staff. 6/ Due to limited water availabilty in July. August and September appraised total area of summer cropi has been reduced from 400 Ha. to 240 Ha. 7/ AlfaIta area is counted twice to account for multiple cuts.  - 43 - MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report Part HI: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 3. Land Use - Chichaoua Scheme" Before Project 2/ 1990 1991 1992 1993-2020 (3/4/ (41 (41 (5/ Cereals 950 900 850 750 700 Grain Legumes 0 0 100 200 300 WVinter Vegetables 130 150 150 200 200 Winter Forage 100 150 200 300 350 Sub-total 1180 1200 1300 1450 1550 Maize 520 600 700 750 800 Summer Vegetables 110 130 150 170 190 Sub-total 630 730 850 920 990 Alfalfa 40 60 90 120 150 Olives (6/ 550 550 550 550 550 Other Fruits 130 130 130 130 130 Sub-total 720 740 770 800 830 TOTAL 2530 2670 2920 3170 3370 Irrigable Area 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Harvest Intensity (7/ 135 144 158 173 185 1 / Infrastructure completed in September 1989. 2/ Staff Appraisal Report data. 3/ 1990: Cropping season 1989 -1990. 4/ Mission e4ttrtes- based on discussions with DPA's staff. 5/ DPA's data and Mission Estimates. 6/ Olive trees intercropped with winter and summer crops. 7/ Alfalfa area is counted twice to accountfor multiple cuts.  - 44 - MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Compiedon Report Part ImI: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 4. Land Use - Jemaa Sahim Scheme" Before Project2/ 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995- 2020 (3/4/ (4/ (4/5/ (6/ (6/ ( . Ha .) Cereals 210 220 180 130 100 70 Grain Legumes. 20 130 30 50 50 50 Winter Vegetables 0 30 20 30 50 70 Sugarbeet 0 0 170 190 200 200 Winter Forage 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 230 380 400 400 400 390 Maize 0 110 110 50 70 70 Summer Vegetables 0 20 90 50 100 130 Sub-total 0 130 200 100 170 200 Alfalfa 0 10 10 10 30 s0 OlIves 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Fruits 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 0 10 10 10 30 50 TOTAL 230 520 610 510 6S0 640 Irrigated Area 443 443 443 443 443 443 HarvestIntensity (7/ 52 120 140 117 142 156 1/ Infrastructure completed in June 1990. 2/ Staff Appraisal Report data. 3/ 1991: Cropping season 1990-1991. 4/ DPA's data. 5/ Reduclon in harvest intensity due to power cuts. 61 Mission estmates based on discusslons with DPA's staff. 7/ Afalfa area is counted twice to account for multiple cuts.  - 45 - MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report Part mII: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 5. Economic Prices" DH per Ton Selected Commodities Cereals 2,200 Maize 1,600 Sugarbeet 330 Green Legumes 2,000 Winter Vegetables 1,600 Summer Vegetables 1,300 Forage (per 1,000 FU) 2,000 Citrus 1,300 Olives 3,100 Other Fruits 2,500 Conversion Factor for Selected Inputs Seeds 1.0 Manure 1.0 Fertilizers 0.8 Chemicals 1.0 Mechanization 0.9 Labour 0.8 Standard Conversion Factor: Investment Costs and Operation and Maintenance Costs 0.9 Source: Kingdom of Morocco: Staff Appraisal Report of the Second Large-Scale Irrigation Improvement Project - World Bank, March 1993 and Mission Estimates. " 1993 Prices.  MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scate Irrigat/on Project (Loan 2253-HOR) - Project Completion Report Part III: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 6. With and Without Project Per Ha. Economic Returns for Selected Conmodities" Cereals Maize Sugarbeet Green Legumes Winter Summer Alfalfa Bersim Citrus Olives Other Fruits I I I ~~~~~~Vegetables IVegetablesI| Without With |Without With Without With Withoutl With WithoutlWith WithoutW With Witho ith Without With Withoutl With Withoutl With Without With . ................................ ... . (DH per ha) ....... .............................. roduction osts" v peeds 350 350 180 180 - 1,200 375 600 5,700 7,600 400 600 - 500 700 - - anure - - - - - - 2,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 - - - - - 600 - 400 - - Fertilizers 160 800 240 800 - 2,400 - 800 320 2,400 320 2,400 . 320 640 . 640 2,000 4,000 - 640 400 800 hemicats - 300 - 300 - 260 - 400 250 3,600 500 3,000 - 200 - - 1,300 2,600 - 500 500 1,000 echanization 252 756 252 756 - 630 315 630 1,386 2,268 1,575 3,150 378 630 378 630 1,386 2,835 315 630 378 756 > abour 600 800 800 960 - 4,000 800 1,600 3,200 4,800 2,800 4,400 2,000 3,200 1,600 2,000 3,400 6,800 2,000 3,200 2,400 4,000 oontingencies 138 304 148 304 860 350 600 1,484 2,662 955 1,750 272 470 252 400 804 1,685 235 540 372 754 First Esta- - - - - - - - - - - 1,340 1,340 - - 2,000 2,000 400 400 2,000 2,000 t ishment" Total 1.500 3.310 1.620 3.300 - 9.350 3.840 6,630 16.340 29.330 10,550 19.300 4.310 6.480 2.730 4.370 10,890 20.520 2.950 6.310 6.050 10,310 ross Vatue f Product." ain Product 2,200 7,040 2,400 5,600 - 16,500 8,000 14,000 24,000 48,000 19,500 39,000 10,000 16,000 6,000 10,000 19,500 45,500 4,650 12,400 10,000 25,000 y-Product 750 1,310 900 1,310 - 1,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 2.950 8.350 3.300 6.910 - 18.000 8.000 14.000 24,000 48.000 19.500 39.000 10.000 16,000 6.000 10.000 19.500 45.500 4.650 12.400 10.000 25,000 alance 1,450 5,040 1,680 3,610 - 8,650 4,160 7,370 7,660 18,670 8,950 19,700 5,690 9,520 3,270 5,630 8,610 24,980 1,700 6,090 3,950 14,690 " At full development. 21 Economic prices are listed in Table 5. 3/ Waler costs have not been included to avoid double counting as operation and maintenance costs of the irrigation infrastructures have already been taken into account. " On the basis of 5 years for alfalfa, 25 years for citrus and 30 years for olive trees.  - 47 - MOROCCO: Small and Nfedium-Scale [rrigaton Project (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report Part m: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 7. Per Ha. Economic Returns Progression for Selected Commodities, Without Project years 2J Project 1 2 3 4-30 . DH per Ha ....... . .. Cereals 1450 2170 3250 4320 5040 Maize 1680 2070 2650 3220 3610 Sugarbeet - 4330 6490 7790 8650 Legumes 4160 4800 5770 6730 7370 Winter vegetables 7660 9860 13170 16470 18670 Summer vegetables 8950 11100 14330 17550 19700 Alfalfa 5690 6460 7610 8750 9520 Winter forage 3270 3740 4450 5160 5630 Citrus 8610 11880 16800 21710 24980 Olives 1700 2580 3895 5210 6090 Other fruits 3950 6100 9320 12540 14690 Source: Tables 5 and 6 and mission estimates. 1/ Annual increases are arbitrarily fixed at 20%, 30%, 30% and 20% respectively of the difference between "Full Development" and "Without Project' net returns, in the 1 st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of the project. 2/ Project starts in the cropping season which follows the completion of the irrigation infrastructure (Chichaoua: 1990; Jemaa Sahim: 1991; Souss and Ghiss: 1992).  - 48 - MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigadon Project (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report Part m31: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 8. Total Economic Benefits - Souss Scheme Without Project 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997- ( 1993 Constant 'OOODH .................) 2020 Cereals 4263 1779 3413 1296 5040 7560 10080 Grain Legumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Winter Vegetables 0 1578 2371 3294 5601 7468 9335 Winter Forage 0 0 0 1032 1689 2252 2815 Sub-total 4263 3357 5783 5622 12330 17280 22230 Maize 470 621 1060 1288 1444 1625 1805 Summer Vegetables 2327 3885 5589 9126 12805 15760 19700 Sub-total 2797 4506 6649 10414 14249 17385 21505 Alfalfa ?504 2067 6392 11200 14280 17136 19040 Olives 4777 8127 15580 20840 24360 24360 24360 Citrus 775 10454 15456 21710 24980 24980 24980 other Fruits 0 0 0 627 735 735 735 Sub-total 8056 20649 37428 54377 64355 67211 69115 TOTAL 15116 28512 49860 70413 90934 101875 112850 Total incremental 13396 34744 55297 75818 86759 97734 Source: Tables 1 and 7  - 49 - MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project (Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Repon Part m: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis Table 9. Total Economic Benefits - Ghiss Scheme Without Project 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997-2020 . 1993 Constant'OOODH .................) Cereals 653 955 1430 1901 2117 2066 2018 Grain Le