IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT Public Disclosure Authorized BANGLADESH

Document of The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized

Report No. 17906

BWDB SYSTEM REHABILITATION PROJECT (Credit 2099-BD) Public Disclosure Authorized

May 20, 1998

Rural DevelopmentSector Unit South Asia Region Public Disclosure Authorized 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. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit = Bangladesh Taka (Tk) At appraisal (1989) US$1 Tk. 32.3 ICR 1997 US$1 = Tk. 43.6

FISCAL YEAR OF BORROWER 1 July to 30 June

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY

beel Low-lying area subject to flooding by rain or river water 3oro Rice planted in December to January and harvested during the period April to June BWDB Bangladesh Water Development Board CEC Commission of European Communities CIP Chandpur Irrigation Project CMG Canal Maintenance Group DCA Development Credit Agredment EMG Embankment Maintenance Group ERR Economic Rate of Return -FAo Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCD Flood Control and Drainage FCDI Flood Control, Drainage and Irrigation FES Final Evaluation Study FY Financial Year - FY94 = financial year ending 30 June 1994 GDP Gross Domestic Product GOB Government of Bangladesh GON Government of the Netherlands GPP Guidelines for People's Participation ha Hectare haor Low-lying river backswamp subject to flooding HQ Headquarters HYV High Yielding Varieties ICR Implementation Completion Report IDA International Development Association IO&M Improved Operation and Maintenance khal Natural channel KIP Karnafuli Irrigation Project LLP Low-Lift Pumps LV Local Varieties MEF Maintenance, Electricity and Fuel MIP Muhuri Irrigation Project MOP Murate of Potash MOWR, Ministry of Water Resources MUV Manufacturers Unit Value O&M Operation and Maintenance WFP World Food Program WUG Water Users Group

Vice President: Mieko Nishimizu Country Director: Pierre Landell-Mills Technical Manager; Michael Baxter/Ridwan Ali Staff Member: S. A. M. Rafiquzzaman FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Table of Contents

PREFACE......

EVALUATION SUMMARY...... ii

PART 1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT ...... 1

A. STATEMENT AND EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES ...... 1

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES ...... 3

C. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROJECT ...... 5

D. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY...... 6

E. BANK PERFORMANCE ...... 7

F. BORROWER PERFORMANCE ...... 8

G. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME ...... 8

H. FUTURE OPERATION ...... 9

I. KEY LESSONS LEARNED ...... 9

PART II: STATISTICAL TABLES ...... 11 Table1: Summaryof Assessments...... 11 Table2: RelatedBank Loans/Credits...... 13 Table3: ProjectTimetable ...... 14 Table4: CreditDisbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual...... 14 Table5: Key Indicatorsfor ProjectImplementation ...... 15 Table6: Keylndicators for ProjectOperation ...... 16 Table 7: StudiesIncluded in Project...... 16 Table 8A: Project Costs...... 17 Table8B: ProjectFinancing ...... 17 Table9: Economic Costsand Benefits...... 17 Table10: Status of LegalCovenants ...... ; 18 Table II: Compliancewith OperationalManual Statements...... 20 Table12: Bank Resources: Staff Inputs...... 20 Table13: Bank Resources: Missions...... 21

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. IMPLEMENTATIONCOMPLETION REPORT

BANGLADESH

BWDB SYSTEMSREHABILITATION PROJECT (Credit No. 2099-BD)

Preface

This is the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP) in Bangladesh, for which a credit in the amount of SDR 40.8 million equivalent was approved on 6 March 1990 and made effective on 20 June 1990.

The credit was closed on 31 December 1997 as planned. When final disbursement is completed, based on applications received prior to 30 April 1998, SDR 18.2 million is expected to have been disbursed. SDR 9.9 million was cancelled on 31 December 1994, SDR 4.82 million on 11 March 1996 and SDR 7.88 on 22 December 1992. Financing for the project was also provided by the Government of the Netherlands (equivalent US$ 11.9 million), the Commission of the European Communities (equivalent US$ 16.0 million), the World Food Programme (equivalent US$ 22.5 million) and the Government of Bangladesh (equivalent US$ 4.6 million).

The ICR was prepared by the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme, following a mission1 to Bangladesh from 20 October to 10 November 1997 and revised by staff of the Rural Development Sector Unit, South Asia Region. The Borrower and other financiers have provided contributions that have been included as appendices to the ICR (Appendix C). The draft was reviewed by Messrs B. Ateng, Economist and M. Ahmad, Sr. Irrigation Engineer as peer reviewers. Particular mention should be made of the Final Evaluation Study by an independent team carried out in 1997, with separate funding from the Government of Netherlands. The summary of this studies findings is included in Appendix C.1 as the commentsof the Government of Netherlands.

Preparation of this ICR was begun during the Bank's final supervision mission. It is based on material in the project file in Bangladesh. The Borrower contributed to the preparation of the ICR by contributing views reflected in the mission's aide-memoire (Appendix A) and by preparing its evaluation report (Appendix B).

Mr. R.G. Paterson (Irrigation and Drainage Engineer, Mission Leader); Mr. T. Lohavisavapanich (Economist); and Mr. M.R. Islam (World Bank Consultant Agriculturalist).

i APPENDICES A. Mission's Aide-Memoire B.1 Borrower's Contribution to the ICR B.2 BWDB's Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan C. Co-financiers' Contributionto the ICR

C. I Government of Netherland's contribution C.2 European Commission's contribution C.3 World Food Program's Contribution

D. Financial and Economic Re-Evaluations IMPLEMENTATIONCOMPLETION REPORT

BANGLADESH

BWDB SYSTEMSREHABILITATION PROJECT (CR. 2099-BD) EvaluationSummary

Introduction

1. During the decade before the project, IDA had worked closely with the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) to devise a comprehensive strategy for developing the country's water resources and had financed a number of BWDB's flood control, drainage and irrigation projects. IDA lending to Bangladesh had emphasised the agriculture sector, in recognition of the country's needs and priorities. Within the sector, particular emphasis was placed on developing water resources, strengthening agricultural services and developing complementary infrastructure in other sectors such as transport and power. Consistent with GOB's priorities, increased production of food grains had been the main target of IDA's lending in agriculture. The Bank was the executing agency for the UNDP-financed National Water Plan Project and was leading an international effort aimed at designing an action plan to control annual flooding in Bangladesh.

Project Objectives

2. At appraisal, the main objectives of the project were to protect and increase agricultural production and incomes and to raise standards of living, particularly of landless people and women, through rehabilitation and improved operation and maintenance (IO&M) of BWDB's existing flood control, irrigation and drainage projects. Subsidiary objectives were to (a) increase financing and encourage more efficient use of funds for operation and maintenance (O&M); (b) improve skills and motivation of BWDB staff for O&M tasks; and (c) increase involvement of the farmers in planning, construction and O&M, particularly of on-farm works. These objectives were to be achieved through (a) rehabilitation and improvement (R&I) of about 80 subprojects covering a net area of about 400,000 ha; (b) introduction of IO&M in BWDB's projects, starting in four schemes where infrastructure was still in reasonably good condition; (c) on-farm development works and IO&M in two subprojects with farmers' participation; (d) training of BWDB staff and beneficiaries, particularly for O&M; and (e) provision of technical assistance to assist BWDB in planning, design and execution of rehabilitation, improvement and O&M works and to help strengthen its organisation for O&M and staff development. The Development Credit Agreement (DCA) required that allocations for O&M works, electricity and fuel be increased by 10% per year in real terms until such time as all financing requirements for O&M are covered.

3. The main objectives were clear, realistic and important for the population affected by the water control infrastructure that was to be rehabilitated and improved by the project (Part I, para 4). However, the project was complex, involving several components, the need for cooperation between many institutions and four external financiers, and with a large number of subprojects scattered around the country. It was too complicated for the capabilities and management capacity of BWDB. Moreover, in the early years of implementation, BWDB gave major emphasis to the

ii constructions elements with little progress being made on the O&M components.Consequently the objectives were twice revised in order to have a better chance of achieving sustainability. In 1994, the main objective became the development of the capability within BWDB to introduce sustainable IO&M to its schemes with a strong element of beneficiary participation. In 1996, the development objectives were again revised by limiting them to ensuring that schemes completed would be sustainable (Part I, para 5).

Implementation Experience and Results

4. Agricultural production and farm incomes. The project protected and increased agricultural production and incomes and raised standards of living but not to the same extent as estimated at appraisal. In spite of cancellation of over 50% of the original IDA credit amount,the cropped area was about 70% of appraisal estimates. Incremental paddy production is estimated to be about 56% of the appraisal estimate. Annual net farm incomes are estimated to have increased by between 21% and 80% over the pre-project levels This is more than estimated at appraisal (Part I, para 7 and Appendix D). There is no evidence that the substantial increase in irrigated area, which it was hoped on-farm works would achieve through improved distribution of water, has been obtained; this is mainly due to shortage of water. Financing for O&M has been increased and there has been some improvement in the efficient use of funds; however, establishment costs still amount to more than 50% (and sometimes more than 100%) of the expenditure on maintenance works, electricity and fuel (Part I, para 8). There have been some improvementsin the skills and motivation of BWDB staff for O&M. There has been some involvement of farmers in the operation of sluices but little involvement in planning and construction and almost no involvement in maintenance of the works for which BWDB is responsible. The SAR envisaged Cost Recovery only in irrigation projects but this failed, largely due to the lack of any effective sanction for non payment or adequate safeguards to make those who collected water charges from farmers pay the money collected to BWDB (para 14). The overall quality of construction of R&I works is reported to be good and the maintenance of embankments is now entrusted to maintenance groups of landless laborers (mostly women), which work conscientiously and effectively. However the inability of the BWDB to transfer any maintenance responsibility to the beneficiaries and recent breaking of a covenant concerning allocation of funds for O&M (para 19) give cause for concern. The sustainability of SRP works, as well as other BWDB schemes, must therefore be considered to be uncertain.

5. Impacts on the environment. At appraisal it was agreed that all potential adverse effects of the rehabilitation and improvement works would be assessed during the feasibility studies to be carried out for all subprojects and provisions would be made to remedy these effects, where necessary. The Final Evaluation Study for this project (Draft Report, November 1997) suggests that "there are issues of concern in the fields of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems in particular and it is clear that these have not been taken into account in the planning of either the specific interventions made or the consequences on local land-use patterns, hydrology and ecosystems of these interventions. It is essential that such factors are taken into consideration in the future, for in many cases the negative impacts found could have been mitigated by either minor adjustments to the design of the interventions or other measures. An overall assessment of the environmental impact of SRP would be that it has been important, but that there have been both positive and negative effects and that there is no over-riding environmental impact which has affected the integrity of investments at either the sub-project level or for the project as a whole." During supervision, this was often discussed by Bank missions with BWDB and Implementing Consultants. However, in cases of

iii simple repairs of the infra-structure (restoring the original situation) not much attention was being given to mitigation against harmful effects of past investments. Nevertheless, in particular during the last few years of the projects, and as a result of demands by the affected community and Bank staff insistence, major structures are now routinely equipped with fish or boat passes to restore fish migrating routes and navigation.

6. Participation. One of the areas in which the objectives of SRP have changed most over time has been in the field of participation. These activities were marginal at first, but in the project's later stages have become one of its central objectives. The formulation of participation process was inadequate in the SAR, with some reference to the need for beneficiary involvement. It is widely acknowledged that the formation of Water Users Groups/Organisations(WUOs) in most areas was largely a paper exercise, with consultation of a few locally influential people only. There are no examples within SRP of fully functioning, effective WUOs which have taken over responsibility for the operation of the systems. The problems in large measure stem from the Guidelines for Peoples Participation (GPP), which have now been recognised as fundamentally flawed. New guidelines are being developed to replace them. The problem with GPP were discussed in detail in the September 1996 Aide Memoire and the approach which will be adopted in the future should recognise that the development of effective participation involves far more than the simple attachment of top-down organised groups to an agency with the characteristics of the BWDB. Fundamental to these process is the need to integrate participatory development into the wider framework of local government agencies and civil society. What is clear at this stage is that the development of the participatory component of SRP has failed to its objectives. The project is far from unique in this. It is a characteristic of similar attempts in other water sector projects. The issue is how to make participation happen.

7. The estimated total project cost is US$78.2 million (Tk 3193 million), 70% of appraisal estimates (85% in Taka terms). This has been financed by an IDA credit of US$25.5 million (SDR 18.2 million), a grant from the Commission of European Communities (CEC) equivalent to US$13.8 million and a grant from the Government of the Netherlands equivalent to US$12.1 million. The domestic contribution, equivalent to US$26.8 million, includes the equivalent of US$15.9 million allocated by the World Food Programme (WFP). The cancellation of IDA Credit by an amount of US$ 28.40 m (55.39%) was mainly due to: (a) decisions to reduce the number of subprojects to be financed, in view of slow implementation and capacity constraints, and (b) exchange rate changes substantially increasing the taka equivalent of SDR. The project has been completed in the time allocated but targets and achievements have been reduced. The economic rate of return (ERR) has been re-estimated to be about 30% (SAR 37%) (see Appendix D). The reasons for the lower ERR include higher unit costs, delayed accrual of benefits and lower incremental cropping intensity and paddy yields. Calculations of the likely effect of reduced production due to inadequate maintenance, would reduce the ERR to about 20%. Data to measure the loss of capture fisheries or navigation is not available, but deductions for these losses would not be expected to decrease the ERR below acceptable levels. The benefits of protection from floods and the positive impacts on road transportation and potential for culture fisheries were also not quantified.

8. Key factors affecting the project include invalid assumptions made at appraisal: that the subprojects selected for IO&M would not need rehabilitation; that the implementation schedule was practicable; that BWDB was institutionally capable of successfully implementing the project; and that BWDB was committed to improving O&M and beneficiary participation. The emphasis on

iv the various objectives of the project has changed during implementation, with emphasis moving progressively from construction towards O&M and reorganisation of BWDB. Rehabilitation and improvement of subprojects were much slower than anticipated at appraisal, due not only to the late appointment of CEC-financed consultants for feasibility studies and design, but also to delays in acquiring land for construction, protracted procurement procedures of BWDB and unfamiliarity of BWDB staff with required project procedures due to rapid turnover of staff (paras 15 to 17). Since technical assistance requirements exceeded the capacity of a single source of grant finance, it was decided late in the preparation of the project to split the TA among two donors and two consulting firms, which complicated procedures and coordination. Budget allocation for design work was inadequate, leading to limited field work. In some cases, designs contain flaws. The project was an enclave, with limited coordination or exchange of views with similar activities under parallel projects. This reduced its potential influence for institutionalreform.

9. The Bank's performance (paras 20 & 21) was inadequate in appraisal but generally satisfactory in implementation. The targets set at appraisal were not wholly realistic and the implementation arrangements were very complicated. It was well known that land acquisition and procurement frequently delayed project implementation but the commitment of BWDB to overcome these risks was overestimated. The SAR did not adequately define how to increase farmer participation and did not foresee that rehabilitation would be needed for the proposed pilot IO&M subprojects. Supervision missions generally performed satisfactorily but gave too little emphasis to providing a meaningful role to justify the formation of water users' organisations. Supervision missions were instrumental in having the project restructured to put more emphasis on O&M and twice to redefine the project's objectives. The Borrower's performance was affected by the institutional weaknesses and lack of commitment in BWDB to the O&M and participatory objectives, which seriously weakend implementationprogress. The initiative of the Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) to reorganise BWDB to emphasise O&M, although not specifically a requirement of the appraised project, demonstrates a commitmentto the concepts of the project. MOWR appreciates that BWDB in its present form is unsustainable and already there have been substantial reductions in staff. However, there is no evidence of commitment, particularly political commitment, to recover the costs of O&M of irrigation systems. Budget for O&M works, fuel and electricity was increased by more than 300% during the project period, but continued increase in accord with the covenant did not take place in FY97 and 98.

10. . Outcome: The project achieved the objective of increasing agricultural production (Part I, para 7). Even though sustainability is uncertain (para 19), deductions for likely losses of production due to poor maintenance and for damages to fisheries or navigation would still be expected to leave on ERR at an acceptable level. In addition there are unquantified benefits from protection from floods and improved land transportation. The institutional objectives included in the SAR were not reached. However, through dialogue during project supervision significant progress has been made to reduce institutional weaknesses and to increase commitment to O&M and beneficiary participation. Recent GOB actions to reduce staff levels, to prepare a plan for further reductions, to adopt a new statement on BWDB's role, to produce participation guidelines and to contract with NGOs to help increase beneficiary participation are some of the indications of progress and commitment to further change. More difficult to document, but nevertheless real and important, has been the gradual movement in BWDB attitudes and perceptions of its role. While progress on these issues has been slow and frustrating, what has been achieved would have been unlikely without the continued

v dialogue fostered by this project. On balance this project should be considered marginally satisfactory.

Summary of Findings, Future Operation and Key Lessons Learned

11. Findings. There was a need for this project and there is still a need for further rehabilitation and improvement of existing systems and for improved O&M. However, ensuring that rehabilitated and improved systems are sustainable in the long term should be the first priority in design of any such project. No new project should be started until the long-term sustainability can be assured. BWDB needs considerable encouragement to continue its reorganisation, reintroduce irrigation service fees and develop people's participation. The processing of the proposed Water Sector Improvement Project has been made conditional on achieving adequate progress in each of these fields. This conditionality should be maintained. Maintenance groups have been successful and should be replicated wherever practicable. One of the project objectives was to increase incomes and to raise standards of living, particularly for landless people and women. The preventive maintenance work for the embankments were taken up through maintenance groups, which consist of women labourers generally from landless or female headed households. This approach has ensured better embankment maintenance as well as provided a scope for a better life in terms of empowerment, food security, and health to the group members themselves and to their children (SRP Technical Report No. 43, April 1994). It is important to ensure that the maintenance groups that exist do not wither for lack of resources to pay them under the Recurrent Budget. The field research by the FES Team demonstrated both the desire of local people to be involved and their capacities to organise themselves and mobilise resources around water management issues. It also showed the need to integrate participation into the process from the beginning, and that any project needs to have an organisational structure and relate to institutions which are compatible with such participatory goals.

12. Future Operation. BWDB is relying on WFP to finance most O&M earthworks. An operational plan for the future O&M of project works has been prepared by Chief Engineer SRP, BWDB. Careful review will be needed to ensure that adequate allowance is made for O&M of structures and works not covered by WFP's contribution.

13. Key Lessons: (i) Institutional change requires finding the real cause of problems. In this case increasing budgetary funds for O&M removed excuses and revealed more basic problems of incentives, attitudes and institutional structure;

(ii) Reform of BWDB requires a new mandate, emphasizing tasks of national interest and technical complexity, and provision of technical services to other agencies, at local or regional levels, more suitable to beneficiary participation and service;

(iii) Establishing a project as an enclave reduces its potential influence for policy reform;

(iv) Increasing involvement of beneficiaries requires more time and careful planning of the roles, responsibilities, and interactions of various stakeholders within proposed beneficiary organizations;

vi (v) Realistic project planning is essential, recognizing institutional constraints, proposing solutions where possible, and allowing adequate time for procedures that can not quickly be reformed;

(vi) Government insistence on grant financing of technical assistance, when it leads to complex multi-donor and multi-consultant structures, can be very costly. Joint-financing should be preferred over parallel financing;

(vii) Routine maintenance by groups of the landless poor can be very successful, and the experience should be replicated;

(viii) Successful irrigation cost recovery requires adequate rule of law to ensure funds collected from farmers are received and that sanctions are enforced on those who do not pay. Alternatively a more incentive based approach of transferring greater responsibility for O&M to the beneficiaries may be more likely to succeed;

(ix) Future water sector rehabilitation projects should be made conditional on adequate reforms to ensure sustainability; and

(x) The success of a project in fostering dialogue on issues and a recognition within government and the implementing agency of the need for reform may be its most important long- term contributions.

(xi) Future rehabilitation projects should routinely address environmental damages that may have occurred as a result of the original design and provide for mitigation measures, rather than simply rehabilitating according to the original design criteria; and

(xii) Future rehabilitation project should ensure stakeholders participation in all stages of the project cycle, starting from identification through operation and maintenance.

vii IMPLEMENTATIONCOMPLETION REPORT

BANGLADESH

BWDB SYSTEMSREHABILITATION PROJECT (Credit No. 2099-BD)

PART I: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT

A. STATEMENTAND EVALUATIONOF OBJECTIVES

1. The concept of the project was to support a series of interrelated actions designed to upgrade the level of services provided by irrigation, flood control and drainage projects. First, water control infrastructure, which had deteriorated due to lack of regular maintenance, would be rehabilitated and improved. Second, improved O&M would be introduced gradually in all projects. Third, on-farm development would be carried out in selected schemes to encourage farmers to make better use of the infrastructure, particularly for irrigation. Fourth, BWDB's organization for O&M and for staff development would be strengthened; staff and beneficiaries would be trained, particularly for O&M. Fifth, measures would be taken to transfer part of the financial burden for O&M of irrigation infrastructure from the public sector to the beneficiaries. Sixth, arrangements would be made to involve disadvantaged groups such as landless persons and women in the maintenance works of the projects.

3. These objectives were to be achieved through (a) rehabilitation and improvement (R&I) of about 80 subprojects covering a gross area of about 600,000 ha (net about 400,000 ha); (b) introduction of IO&M in BWDB's projects, starting in four schemes where infrastructure was still in reasonably good condition; (c) on-farm development works and IO&M in two subprojects with farmers' participation; (d) training of BWDB staff and beneficiaries, particularly for O&M; and (e) provision of technical assistance to assist BWDB in planning, design and execution of rehabilitation,

I improvement and O&M works and to help strengthen its organisation for O&M and staff development; and (e) increased Government budget allocations for O&M

4. The main objectives were clear, realistic and important for the population affected by the water control infrastructure that was to be rehabilitated and improved by the project. A final evaluation study (FES)l has shown that the hydraulic structures rehabilitated and improved by the project have been important in the development of the different areas and are valued by all: over 80% of those surveyed, which included all sections of the population, rated the infrastructure in their area as having positive benefits to them. The coastal polders had particularly high ratings with over 90% rating their benefits as positive. Protection from floods, storms and saline intrusion and access to irrigation have transformed the lives of coastal areas. The ratings in beels, haors and khals, where the hazards and benefits are not so obvious, are lower but generally positive.

5. In general, the concept, objectives and components were reasonably well linked. However, the project was complex, involving several components, the need for cooperation among many institutions and four external financiers and with a large number of subprojects scattered around the country. It was too complicated for the capabilities and management capacity of BWDB. Moreover, in the initial years of implementation, management and staff attention appeares to have been too heavily weighted on construction with inadequate emphasis given to the O&M components. Consequently the objectives were twice revised in order to have a better chance of achieving sustainability . In 1994, the main objective became the development of the capability within BWDB to introduce sustainable IO&M to its schemes, with a strong element of beneficiary participation; the number of subprojects was reduced to 35 with a net area of about 310,000 ha. Phased implementation of subprojects was introduced for ten specified subprojects; this required a sequenced mode of rehabilitation to ensure that, before investing in the rehabilitation of a subproject, institutional arrangements for improved O&M of the subproject would be put in place in a timely manner and all necessary actions for implementation of the subproject would be completed on schedule. In 1996, the development objectives were again revised by limiting them to ensuring that schemes completed would be sustainable.

6. The estimated total project cost is US$78.2 million (Tk 3193 million), 70% of appraisal estimates (85% in Taka terms). This has been financed by an IDA credit of US$25.5 million (SDR 18.2-million), a grant from the Commission of European Communities (CEC) equivalent to US$13.8 million and a grant from the Government of the Netherlands equivalent to US$12.1 million. The domestic contribution, equivalent to US$26.8 million, includes the equivalent of US$15.9 million allocated by the World Food Programme (WFP). The cancellation of IDA Credit by an amount of US$ 28.40 m (55.39%) was mainly due to: (a) decisions to reduce the number of subprojects to be financed, in view of slow implementation and capacity constraints, and (b) exchange rate changes substantially increasing the taka equivalent of SDR.

A study in 1997 by an independent consulting team under separate funding from the Govemmentof the Netherlands to evaluate a wide range of SRP activities.

2 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

7. Agricultural production and farm incomes. The project protected and increased agricultural production and incomes and raised standards of living but not all to the same extent as estimated at appraisal. The number of subprojects was only 44% and the net cropped area only about 70% of appraisal estimates. Incremental paddy production is estimated to be about 222,000 t/year, 56% of the appraisal estimate and 88% of the revised estimate. The incremental farm labour demand is estimated to be about 32,000 man-years/year, 28% more than the appraisal estimate. The increase in farm labourer demand is due to introduction of labour intensive HYV T Aman, Boro and high value cash crops (potato, groundnut, spices and vegetables) (Appendix D, paras 6, 7 and I1). Annual net farm incomes for one hectare farms are estimated to have increased by between 21% and 80% over the pre-project income levels for the five subprojects which were analysed in detail. This is appreciably greater than the 11% to 48% estimated at appraisal. However, taking account of changes that would have occurred without the project, incremental net farm incomes are estimated to have increased by between 11% and 32% due to the project. Comparable figures were not shown in the SAR.

8. Financing for O&M has been increased and there has been some improvement in the efficient use of funds. However establishment costs still amount to more than 50% (and sometimes more than 100%) of the expenditure on maintenance works, electricity and fuel1 . The progress in increasing the budget for maintenance works, electricity and fuel met the covented targets through FY96, but budgetary allocations decreased thereafter. There have been some improvements in the skills and motivation of BWDB staff for O&M. The project helped to define improved O&M procedures and developed a framework to incorporate it. However these improved procedures have not yet been fully institutionalizedfor introduction beyond SRP subprojects. The initiation under the project of maintenance by landless groups, mostly female, (see para 18) has been shown to be valuable for efficiently maintaining embankments and canals while providing poverty and gender benefits.

9. There has been some involvement of farmers in the operation of sluices but little involvement in planning and construction and almost no involvement in maintenance of the works for which BWDB is responsible. It was not clear from the SAR how involvement of farmers was to be achieved. It has been recognized that the approach to participatory development, outlined in the Guidelines for People's Participation (GPP)2 , has failed. The Guidelines are in the process of being revised, taking account of the need to integrate with local government. It was not a stated objective of the project to involve people other than farmers, such as fishermen and boatmen. Although the feasibility studies carried out during the project were meant to take account of their needs, there are many cases where the requirements for navigation and fisheries have not been adequately taken into

Expendituresin Tk million(Allocation in FY98)

Year FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 Maintenance,electricity &fuel(MEF) 211 211 223.7 264.9 335.7 556.0 642.3 748.0 714.7 691.5 Establishment 260 270 305 330 335.1 306.4 590.8 644.4 746.4 380 Establishment/MEF% 123 128 136 125 100 55 92 86 104 55

2 Guidelinesfor People's Participationwere initiatedunder the FloodAction Planand subsequentlyadapted for use by BWDB at the time of the first restructuringof the project.They were formallyaccepted by MOWRin mid-1995.

3 account in the design of improvements to the water control infrastructure. Also, planned excavation of khals was often left uncompleted due to inability to agree on details of what was to be done.

10. Impacts on the environment. At appraisal it was agreed that all potential adverse effects of the rehabilitation and improvement works would be assessed during the feasibility studies to be carried out for all subprojects and provisions would be made to remedy these effects, where necessary. The Final Evaluation Study for this project (Draft Report, November 1997) suggests that "there are issues of concern in the fields of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems in particular and it is clear that these have not been taken into account in the planning of either the specific interventions made or the consequences on local land-use patterns, hydrology and ecosystems of these interventions. It is essential that such factors are taken into consideration in the future, for in many cases the negative impacts found could have been mitigated by either minor adjustments to the design of the interventions or other measures. An overall assessment of the environmental impact of SRP would be that it has been important, but that there have been both positive and negative effects and that there is no over-riding environmental impact which has affected the integrity of investments at either the sub-project level or for the project as a whole." During supervision, this was often discussed by Bank missions with BWDB and Implementing Consultants. However, in cases of simple repairs of the infra-structure (restoring the original situation) not much attention was being given to mitigation against harmful effects of past investrnents. Nevertheless, in particular during the last few years of the projects, and as a result of demands by the affected community and Bank staff insistence, major structures are now routinely equipped with fish or boat passes to restore fish migrating routes and navigation.

11. The economic rate of return (ERR) was estimated in the SAR, based on sample projects representing 6% of total project cost, to be 37%. The ICR has re-estimated this to be about 29%, based on actual costs and benefited areas for 68% of project costs, and cropping patterns and yields extrapolated from 5 subprojects out of 35 (see Appendix D, paras 15-18). The reasons for the decrease in ERR include higher unit costs, delayed accrual of benefits and lower incremental cropping intensity and paddy yields. The ICR has made the same assumptions as were made at appraisal when the economic evaluation was based entirely on agricultural benefits: the added security against flood damage and better access to properties as well as public health benefits due to improved drainage were recognized but not quantified. The benefits provided by flood protection works are now relied on much more than was previously the case; consequently, the removal of these benefits would cause greater loss than previously. The generally negative impacts on capture fisheries and water transport and positive impacts on road transport and potential for culture fisheries were not quantified. Calculations of the likely effect of reduced production due to inadequate maintenance would reduce the ERR to about 20%.

12. On-farm works were developed in Polder 55/1 and less intensively in Buri Teesta Irrigation subprojects but there is no evidence that the substantial increase in irrigated area, which it was hoped this would achieve through improved distribution of water, has been obtained. This is mainly due to shortage of water.

13. Training and Staff Development. Over 565 man-months of consultancy were used for training and staff development. This included training of trainers, designing and implementing courses for BWDB staff and beneficiaries/maintenance groups, planning and supervising the

4 improvement of a training facility (now being built with funding from CEC) and study tours. However, the numbers of people trained have generally fallen short of the targets set in the SAR, particularly for the O&M course for beneficiaries, which was, in fact, used for water users' groups. It is reported that the training programmes were appreciated and increased participants' understanding of IO&M and people's participation. However, the FES reported that while training gave BWDB's staff many insights into better ways to perform, the scope for doing so once they returned to their tasks was often limited by the failure of BWDB to change the structure and responsibilities to conform to what had been taught. The institutionalisation of a training capacity is effective with a well-established training section. A staff inventory and job descriptions were prepared and staffing plans developed for all field units and BWDB headquarters. Staff redeployment was designed and training responsibilities reorganized. A personnel management information system has been implemented. The proposed reorganization of BWDB has not used this information system putting into doubt the usefulness of the exercise.

14. Cost Recovery. The Bank accepted GOB's view that it was not feasible to recover costs for flood control and drainage works and the SAR envisaged recovery only in irrigation projects. The only targets related to cost recovery in the SAR were the promulgation of revised Water Rate Rules and their implementation under three irrigation projects. The revised Rules were issued about 18 months later than planned but attempts to implement them failed, largely due to the inability to make those who collected water charges from farmers pay the money collected to BWDB; after a slow start in FY94 when 15% of the amount assessed was recovered, recovery reached 37% in FY95: however, recovery then declined to less than 1% in FY97 after it became obvious that there was no effective sanction for non-payment.

C. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROJECT

15. Factors not generally subject to government control. The project was seriously affected by invalid assumptions made at appraisal: that the subprojects selected for IO&M, which had been completed for only a few years, were in good physical condition and would not need rehabilitation; that the implementation schedule was practicable; that BWDB was institutionally capable of successfully implementing the project; and that beneficiaries' participation would happen easily. The delayed arrival of the CEC-financed consultants seriously affected progress in the early stages of the project. The emphasis on the various objectives of the project were changed during implementation, with emphasis moving progressively from construction towards O&M and reorganisation of BWDB. The introduction by the donors of phased implementation of selected subprojects in an attempt to achieve institutional development activities before construction was authorised was only reluctantly agreed to by BWDB. The added complications caused more delays without achieving the intended increased attentions to O&M. Multiplicity of donors with different requirements and procedures, requires close co-ordination, which could not be achieved in some cases delaying the implementation program. It also caused confusions to Govt. staff and delays in effective implementation and timely reimbursement.

16. Factors generally subject to government control. Guidelines for People's Participation (GPP), which were initiated under the Flood Action Plan and subsequently adapted and forrmally accepted in mid-1995 by the MOWR, were found to be impracticable,thus contributing to the lack of participation by farmers. Increased budgetary allocations to O&M achieved through FY96, decreased thereafter. Civil service rules, with over-emphasis on seniority, provide inadequate

5 incentive for performance and inadequate management continuity. At one stage, delay in appointing BWDB Board members was a serious issue. GOB systems for tendering and contracting make it difficult to award contracts early in the financial year and often cause the start of construction to be delayed until near the end of the construction season. In general, BWDB's resistance to the new procedures for improved water management caused more delays without achieving the intended increased attention to O&M.

17. Factors generally subject to BWDB's control. Rehabilitation and improvement of subprojects were much slower than anticipated at appraisal, due not only to the late appointment of CEC-financed consultants for feasibility studies and design, but also to delays in acquiring land for construction, protracted procurement procedures of BWDB and unfamiliarity of BWDB staff with required project procedures due to rapid turnover of staff. The R&I works were often broken down into a very large number of small contracts, thereby increasing the work load for BWDB; this also resulted in the employment of weak construction firms with ineffective contract management; many responsibilities of the contractors, such as setting out the works, were undertaken by BWDB staff. Many incapable contractors were employed partly because the system of blacklisting such contractors is rarely enforced and the Bank was unable to help. Until the Bank's Standard Bidding Document was accepted by BWDB in 1995, procurement was often further protracted by discussions over conditions of contract. Most importantly, while BWDB management and staff understanding and commitment to the projects O&M and participation objectives has increased over time, these objectives required significant changes in BWDB's initial prevailing culture and priorities.

D. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

18. The overall quality of construction of R&I works is reported to be good and generally of a better quality than found in other projects and non-project BWDB construction. This is attributed to the SRP monitoring system and indicates that major maintenance is less likely to be needed in the short term. A recent survey carried out by an independent evaluation team has shown that the water control structures are highly valued by the communities they serve, which have strong incentives to keep them in good working order. Some flood control and drainage sluices are now operated or controlled by committees of beneficiaries. The maintenance of embankments is now often entrusted to maintenance groups consisting of the landless (mostly women), which work conscientiously and effectively. However, the inability of the BWDB, even with the assistance it had from the project, to transfer maintenance responsibilities to the beneficiaries indicates the difficulties in achieving sustainability of the subprojects, which will not be easy and is likely to take time. Revision of the GPP alone is unlikely to ensure their short term sustainability but will hopefully be effective in the long term if sufficient funds for O&M are made available and continued efforts are made within BWDB to build staff awareness of the importance of O&M for BWDB's objectives

19. The DCA requires that allocations for O&M works and energy be increased by 10% per year in real terms until such time as all financing requirements for O&M are covered. From FY94 to FY96 this was achieved, not only in the amount allocated but also in the amount spent. However in FY97 the amount allocated decreased marginally and the amount spent decreased by over 4% (about 9% in real terms) and only about 70% of O&M needs were funded. This breached the DCA covenant. The allocation for FY98 is only 82% of the allocation for FY97, or 90% if 10,000 tons of wheat from WFP (Tk 75 million equivalent) are added to the recurrent budget. This breaches the covenant and is a sign that GOB lacks the commitment to allocate sufficient funds for O&M. The FY98 allocation

6 for establishment costs is very much less than expected expenditure and it is possible that the allocation for O&M works will be diverted to meet establishment costs, thus reducing the actual expenditure on O&M works. The sustainabilityof SRP works, as well as other BWDB schemes, must therefore be considered uncertain. However, while still hard to document, there has been noticeable progress in changing attitudes to recognize the importance of participation and in willingness to employ NGOs to help achieve participation in both design and O&M.

E. BANK PERFORMANCE

20. When the project was identified in the early 1980s it was consistent with the Government's development strategy and with the Bank's strategy for developing water resources in Bangladesh. The Bank satisfactorily helped to organise, with UNDP financing, project preparation including prefeasibility and feasibility studies, some detailed design and a report on organisation and training for O&M. However, the Bank's performance at appraisal was deficient. While the concept and objectives described in the SAR are generally clear, the targets set were not wholly realistic and the implementation arrangements were very complicated. It was well known and had been identified as lessons learned in several earlier Project Completion Reports that land acquisition and procurement frequently delayed project implementation.Although identified as risks in the SAR, the commitment of BWDB to overcome these risks was overestimated and no specific measures were included to avoid them. The implementation schedule seems to have been designed to ignore these risks as if they did not exist. Although a project objective was to improve O&M and train beneficiaries for O&M, it seems to have been the intention to confine this to training EMGs and CMGs,I rather than the water users, who could have been given incentives to maintain the systems in good condition. The SAR refers to increased farmer participation but there is little discussion of how this would be achieved. The failure to foresee at appraisal that extensive rehabilitation would be needed for the proposed pilot O&M irrigation subprojects was a serious error.

21. The Bank and the cofinanciers (GON, EU and WFP) have run 14 well staffed supervision missions, and mission findings and recommendations have had positive effects on the progress and direction of the project. The Bank maintained continuity in the staffing of supervision missions. Composition of the missions in terms of skill mix was also good. The average length of the missions was three weeks which appears reasonable given the nature of the project. In addition, the resident mission, which managed the supervision task, maintained close contact with the implementing agencies between supervision missions. Detailed terms of reference were prepared for each mission. Performance rating given in Supervision Form 590 are generally consistent with the project's outcome.The Bank, implementing agency, and confinanciers satisfactorily worked together in supervising project implementation. Generally, the missions were helpful to project implementation but often took too optimistic a view of future progress and developments; however, the imposition of additional constraints introduced by insisting on phased implementation for 10 subprojects when the project was restructured in 1994 were so general that to some extent they were counterproductive and thus were mainly ignored by BWDB. A great deal of emphasis was placed on the formation of water users' organizations (WUOs). However, because of the fundamental flaws in the GPP, the WUOs were not given any responsibilities. Consequently, although the specified number are claimed to have been formed, they serve very little useful purpose. Despite the SAR specifying and allocating

Embankment maintenance groups and canal maintenancegroups, which may be considered to fall outside the usual definition of beneficiaries.

7 US$600,000 for a benchmark study and two evaluation studies, the ICR mission had very poor agricultural data; supervision missions did not ensure that the results of the benchmark study were clearly presented and allowed the mid-term evaluation study to be dropped. A Final Evaluation Study (FES) was completed as scheduled by an Independentteam of national and international consultants, funded by GON. Supervision missions were instrumental in having the project restructured to put more emphasis on O&M and twice to redefine the project's objectives.

22. The project at preparation was divided into six components, to suit funding arrangements from four different sources. Due to parallel financing, different management and financial procedures were used which resulted in delays in mobilizing EU funded consultants. Subsequently, coordination between two groups of consultants were difficult at times (Appendix A, para 28).

F. BORROWERPERFORMANCE

23. The Borrower employed consultants, financed by UJNDP,to satisfactorily prepare the main component of the project. During project implementation there was generally no shortage of funds for project implementation and most covenants of the DCA were eventually complied with, including those concerning increasing the allocation of budgetary funds for maintenance (which, however, is now in default) and issuing revised Irrigation Water Rate Rules. However, covenants concerning procedures for land acquisition and subproject O&M programmes and budgets were usually in default. At times, delays in appointing BWDB Board members seriously impeded its functioning. Although audit reports were generally punctual, audit queries were not followed up. Improvements in quality control were a notable success and the quality of construction was reported to be generally satisfactory. Although the Borrower showed some commitment to the main objective of the project, institutional weaknesses and lack of commitment in BWDB, the implementing agency, seriously affected implementation progress. The inability to adequately plan land acquisition and procurement, compounded by breaking the works into an excessive number of small contracts, helped to delay implementation. BWDB often failed to process land acquisition as required by the DCA, which often caused delay to implementation. Delays in land acquisition and in awarding contracts often resulted in contracts being awarded in March, just before the end of the construction season in May. MOWR's initiative to reorganise BWDB to emphasise O&M, although not specifically a requirement of the appraised project, demonstratesa commitment to the concepts of the project. However, there is no evidence of commitment, particularly political commitment, to recover the costs of O&M of irrigation systems. MOWR appreciates that BWDB in its present form is unsustainable and already there have been substantial reductions in staff. Coordination between BWDB and other agencies, particularly Department of Agricultural Extension, was often unsatisfactory.

G. ASSESSMENTOF OUTCOME

24. The project achieved the objective of increasing agricultural production (Part I, para 7). Even though sustainability is uncertain (para 19), deductions for likely losses of production due to poor maintenance and for damages to fisheries or navigation would still be expected to leave on ERR at an acceptable level. In addition there are substantial unquantified benefits from protection from flooding and improved land transportation. The use of landless groups (mostly women) for routine

8 maintenance was successful and also provided poverty and gender benefits. The institutional objectives included in the SAR were not reached. However, through dialogue during project supervision significant progress has been made to reduce institutional weaknesses and to increase commitment to O&M and beneficiary participation. Recent GOB actions to reduce staff leyels, to prepare a plan for further reductions, to adopt a new statement on BWDB's role, to produce participation guidelines and to contract with NGOs to help increase beneficiary participation are some of the indications of progress and commitment to further change. More difficult to document, but nevertheless real and important, has been the gradual movement in BWDB attitudes and perceptions of its role. While progress on these issues has been slow and frustrating, what has been achieved would have been unlikely without the continued dialogue fostered by this project. On balance this project should be considered marginally satisfactory.

H. FUTURE OPERATION

25. BWDB is relying on WFP to finance most O&M earthworks. An operational plan to request a WFP contribution for the future O&M of project works has been prepared by Chief Engineer SRP, BWDB and sent to WFP for review. This plan excludes O&M of regulators or other facilities not suitable for maintenance under food for works programs. A full operation plan has been requested to ensure that adequate arrangements are made for O&M of structures and works not covered by WFP's contribution. The plan should also show performance indicators which can be used to monitor operation and development impact.

1. KEY LESSONS LEARNED

26. Institutional change requires thorough analysis to find the real causes of problems. In this case it was assumed that O&M could be improved significantly through more adequate budgets and improved procedures. Increased budget funds removed excuses and revealed deeper problems of incentives, attitudes and institutional structures.

27. Changing attitudes in a traditional, top-down, engineering-oriented organisation to emphasis on beneficiary service and participation is not an easy process. Reform of BWDB should be based upon a new mandate emphasising tasks of national interest and technical complexity and provision of technical services to other agencies more suitable for managing and maintaining water resources and structures at local and/or regional levels. Relatively simple tasks from a technical point of view should be delegated to the maximum extent possible to decentralised local institutions answerable to beneficiaries

28. The enclave nature of the project, with limited co-ordination or exchange of views with similar activities under parallel projects, reduced its potential influence for institutional reform.

29. Increasing the involvement of the affected population in planning, design and O&M is beneficial but requires more time and careful planning. The roles, responsibilities and interactions of the various stakeholders need to be thought through. The initial peoples participation guidelines turned out to be unworkable. In the Chorai Shomeshpur subproject, where farmers were involved in the planning and design process, several improvements were achieved, but it took time. The formation of water users' organisations is pointless unless they have clear objectives to operate and

9 maintain the works, preferably at least partially at their own expense. Representation of affected people should include fishermen and boatmen as well as farmers.

30. The importance of good planning of project implementation cannot be over-stressed. The time needed for the procedures necessary for acquisition of land and procurement in accordance with Bank guidelines have been well known for many years, yet still these factors are causes of serious delay. The fact that rehabilitation projects often only require small areas of land does not detract from the importance of this. The Bank's new requirements for involuntary resettlement, if followed, should go some way to avoiding delays due to land acquisition in the future. The use of advance procurement, larger contracts and employment of design consultants before signing the credit can help to minimise delays.

31. The prior policy of the Government of insisting on grant-financing of technical assistance can be very costly. In this case, since technical assistance requirements exceeded the capacity of a single source of grant financing, it led to a multiplicity of donors with different requirements and procedures, causing confusion to government staff and delaying effective implementation and speedy reimbursement (Appendix A, para 26). Employing consultants for supervision of construction and separate consultants for feasibility study and design resulted in some conflict and made it difficult to effect quickly changes to design, the need for which only became apparent when work was about to start. Also, supervision consultants should take responsibility for design flaws, if and when identified, and for their subsequent modification.

32. Maintenance groups (EMG and CMG) have been successful and should be replicated wherever practicable. It is important to ensure that those that exist do not wither for lack of resources to pay them under the recurrent budget.

33. Successful irrigation cost recovery requires adequate rule of law to ensure funds collected from farmers are received and that sanctions are enforced on those who do not pay. Alternatively, a more incentive based approach of transferring greater responsibility for O&M to the beneficiaries may be more likely to lead to improved beneficiary contributions to operating and maintaining their own works.

34. There was a need for this project and there is still a need for further rehabilitation and improvement of existing systems and for improved O&M. However, ensuring that rehabilitated and improved systems are sustainable in the long term should be the first priority in design of any such project. The processing of the Water Sector Improvement Project has been made conditional upon progress on the issues affecting sustainability.This conditionality should be maintained.

35. Beyond the specific accomplishments of this project, it succeeded in fostering a recognition within the Government and BWDB of a need for reform, and an open and far-reaching process of discussion and policy development. This process, if continued successfully, may be the most important long-term benefit of the project.

36. Future rehabilitation projects should routinely address environmental damages that may have occurred as a result of the original design and provide for mitigation measures, rather than simply rehabilitating according to the original design criteria.

10 PART II: STATISTICALTABLES

Table 1: Summary of Assessments

A. Achievementof objectives Substantial Partial Negligible Not Applicable

Macropolicies ai Li Li Fl

Sectorpolicies C E[1 0 0

Financialobjectives Fi EC O

Institutionaldevelopment i L L7

Physicalobjectives C EC i O

Povertyreduction L E L L

Gender issues E L ° °

Othersocial objectives L L L ED

Environmentalobjectives Ei L L

Public sectormanagement LiE Li L

Privatesector development L L E L

Other (specify) L L L L

B. Projectsustainability Likely Unlikely Uncertain

Higl C. Bankperformance satisfactory Satisfactory Deficient

Identification L Li

Preparationassistance L Li1

Appraisal L Li

Supervision L Li

11 D. Borrowerperformance satisfactory Satisfactory Deficient Preparation l 3 F Implementation Fl al1 Covenantcompliance ED [

Operation(if applicable) _71l

Highly Highly E. Assessmentof outcome satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory unsatisfactory

12 Table 2: Related Bank Loans/Credits

Loan/credittitle Purpose Yearof approval Status

Preceding operations 1. Cr.1215-BD Extendtraining and visitsystem of 1982 PCR1992 PAR Extension& Research11 extension. 1994 2. Cr. 1287-BD Increasefood production by increasing 1982 PCR1991 Deep Tubewells11 irrigatedarea and strengthening cooperativesystem. 3. Cr. 1384-BD Strengthenand expandcooperative 1984 PCR 1993 Rural Dev.11 systemand BRDB. 4. Cr. 1455-BD Strengthenagricultural research system. 1984 PCRNovember 1993 Agri.Research 11 5. Cr. 1467-BD Improvewater regime to raisecrop 1985 PCR 1996 BWDBSmall Schemes production. 6. Cr. 1591-BD Increasein cropproduction through FCD. 1985 ICR 1996 ThirdFlood Control and StrengthenBWDB. Drainage 7. Cr. 1784-BD Increasein crop productionthrough FCD. 1987 ICR 1996 FourthFlood Control and StrengthenBWDB. Drainage 8. Cr 1870-BD Increasein crop productionthrough FCD. 1988 ICR1996 Small-ScaleFlood Control and StrengthenBWDB. Drainage11 9. Cr. 1876-BD Protectand increaseagricultural 1988 PCR1991 FloodRehabilitation 11 productionby restoringpriority infrastructure. 10.Cr. 2048-BD Protectand increaseagricultural 1989 PCR1997 Third Flood Rehabilitation productionby restoringpriority (Emergency) infrastructure.

Following operations I. Cr.2233-BD Improveimpact of agriculturalsupport 1996 Ongoing,closes June 30, 1998 AgricultureSector Support services. 2. Cr. 2246-BD Promotegrowth in agricultureby 1991 Closedon 31 Dec. 1997 Nat. MinorIrrig. Dev. increasedprivate investment in minor irrigationdevelopment. 3. Cr.2253-BD Promoteagricultural production, incomes 1991 ICR 1995 ShallowTubewells and Low and employment.Deregulation and Lift Pumps encouragementof minorirrigation. 4. Cr. 2791-BD Protectionof riverbanks and formulation 1995 Ongoing River Bank Protection of NationalWater Plan. 5. Cr. 2783-BD Coastal Rehabilitateexisting polders 1995 Ongoing EmbankmentRehabilitation 6. WaterSector Inprovement Increaseagricultural production & 2001 (proposed) Underpreparation incomes. Floodprotection. Redefine GOBrole inwater sector. Beneficiary participation.Rehabilitation and Improvement

13 Table 3: Project Timetable

Stepsin projectprocess | Dateplanned 1 Date actual! latest estimate

Identification Late 1982 (SAR 1.22) Preparation FS Jan 1989 (SAR 1.23)

Appraisal May 1989

Negotiations January 1990

Board presentation 6 March 1990 Signing 23 March 1990 Effectiveness 21 June 1990 20 June 1990 Mid-term review July 1994 Project completion 30 June 1997 31 December 1997 Loan closing 31 December 1997 31 December 1997

Table 4: Credit Disbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual (US$ million)

FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 Appraisal 5.0 10.3 22.0 34.0 42.4 47.7 52.0 53.9 1/ estimate Actual 4.0 5.13 7.46 8.88 11.75 14.57 18.33 25.52/ Actualas % of 80 50 34 26 28 31 35 47 estimate Dateof final Final disbursementis expected,based on applicationsreceived prior to 30thApril 1998,by May25, 1998. disbursement

1/ SDR9.9 million(about US$12 million equivalent) was cancelledfrom the credit on 31 December1994; SDR 4.82 million(US$7.23 million equivalent)was cancelledon 11 March1996 and SDR7.88 million(about US$9.47 million equivalent) on 22 December1996. The reduced creditof US$25.5million is expectedto be fullydisbursed, based on applicationsreceived prior to 30 April 1998. 2/ Estimated.

14 Table 5: Key Indicators for Project Implementation

1. Key implementationindicators in SAR Estimatedin SAR Actual SubprojectsRehabilitated &Improved 80 35 1' AreaRehabilitated and Improved 600,000ha gross 414,000ha gross 400,000ha net 253,168ha net On-FarmDevelopment 17,000ha gross 127ha Polder55/1 2,230 ha BuriTeesta ImprovedO&M Piloted 100,000ha 112,967ha Numberof Beneficiaries 700,000families 460,750families IncrementalPaddy Production 400,000t/year 222,160t/year IncrementalFarm Labour Demand 25,000man-years/year 32,000man-years/year Employmentduring Construction 100,000man-years 62,300man-years IssueRevised Irrigation Water Rate 31 December1990 1 July 1992 Rules ImplementRevised Assessment & 3 subprojects(KIP,MIP, 2 subprojects(KIP & CIP),which failed CollectionSystem CIP) ProfessionalStaff Trained 150 11 l(to 9/97)213if workshopattendance added SupportStaff Trained 1000 313 (to 9/97);600 incw/s OperatorsTrained 900 255 (to 9/97);504 inc w/s BeneficiariesTrained 2500 696 (WUGtraining) MaintenanceGroup Members Trained 801 Allocationfor MaintenanceWorks, Tk million Electricityand Fuel FY90 Tk 256 million 211 allocated FY91 Tk 309 million 224 allocated FY92 Tk 358 million 265 allocated FY93 Tk 399 million 336 allocated FY94 Tk 450 million 556 allocated FY95 Tk 516 million 717 allocated;642 spent FY96 Tk 591 million 966 allocated;748 spent FY97 Tk 684 million 961 allocated:715 spent;70% of O&M needsfunded FY98 Tk 771 million 791 allocated+ 10,000t wheat One subprojecthas 4 components:total sometimesconsidered as 38.

15 Table 6: Key Indicators for Project Operation

I. Key operating indicators in SAR Estimatedin SAR Actual

1. ImprovedO&M Major 1/ 60,000ha 60,428ha 2. ImprovedO&M Small FCD 2 40,000ha 47,789ha

'' KIP, MIP and CIP. 2' Nawabganj.

Table 7: Studies Included in Project

Purposeas defined Study at appraisal/redefined Status Impactof study 1. Feasibilityof 60 To recommendeligibility 49 completedplus Usedto select Subprojects for inclusionin the project reviewof 16 appraised suprojectsfor subprojects implementation. 2. BenchmarkStudies on 9 Assessingproject's impact Completed(1992) Poorlypresented. Subprojects and drawinglessons during Only limiteduse for implementation evaluation 3. Mid-TermEvaluation Assessingproject's impact Dropped,relevant None Studies and drawinglessons during thematicevaluation implementation study wasundertaken' 4. Final EvaluationStudies Assessingproject's impact GON made Qualitativesocial and drawinglessons independentFES in impactsassessed. Poor collaborationwith all economicre- partnersand evaluation. stakeholderson 7 subprojects,in place of 9 as planned originally 5. Modellingfor CIP Make& validate Complete Used for design of mathematicalmodel, train irrigationand drainage staff,transfer model to network fieldoffice for improved management 6. SSSFCDIMitigation Plan Recommendmitigation Complete GOBexpected to measuresfor SSSFCDI implement project recommended mitigationmeasures

Thematicstudies such as: EmbankmentMaintenance Groups ( T.R. No. 43), Role of WUO in Water Mgt. (T.R. No. 54, Local Initiativesin Water Mgt. (T.R.no.55) and LandlessContracing Societies (T.R.No. 56)

16 Table 8A: Project Costs

AppraisalEstimate (US$M) LatestEstimate (US$M) Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total costs costs costs costs Item 1. Rehab.& Imp. 70.4 3.4 73.8 37.9 0 37.9 2. Imp. O&M 17.5 0.1 17.6 14.6 0 14.6 3.Ofd. 1.0 1.0 0.3 0 0.3 4. Trainingand Staff 2.5 0.8 3.3 1.8 0 1.8 5. TechnicalAssistance 6.6 7.6 14.2 7.8 11.8 19.6 6. Equipment& Vehicle 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.4 4.0 TOTAL 98.5 12.5 111.0 64.0 14.2 78.2

Table 8B: Project Financing

AppraisalEstimate (US$M) LatestEstimate (US$M) Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total costs costs costs costs Source IDA 50.9 3.0 53.9 25.5 0 25.5 EuropeanUnion 11.4 3.5 14.9 6.2 7.6 13.8 Governmentof Netherlands 6.6 6.0 12.6 5.5 6.6 12.1 Domesticcontribution 29.6 29.6 26.8 0 26.8 TOTAL 98.5 12.5 111.0 64.0 14.2 78.2

Table 9: Economic Costs and Benefits

r > -- ~~~~~~~~~AppraisalEstimnate3tv ICREstimate9H TotalCosts (Tk million)1' Not available 2,728 TotalBenefits (Tk million)Y Not available 18,561 TotalNet Benefits(Tk million)u 1,145 15,833 ERR(%) 37 30 NPV at 12%(Tk million) 214 1995

" Totalfor 25 years. 2/ Basedon 5 appraisedsubprojects. 3' Based on R&I of 32 subprojects,excluding KIP, MIP and CIP and 2 river bank protectionsubprojects (see AppendixB, Table38).

17 Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants

Bangladesh BWDBSystems Rehabilitation Project Agreement Original Revised Section Covenant Present fulfillment fulfillment Descriptionof type 1/ status2 / date date covenant Comments DCA 3.01(a) 5,10 CP Borrowers AlthoughMWR is commitmentto carry committedto out the projectwith objectivesof the due diligence& project,BWDB's efficiency. commitmenthas been less than wholehearted. 3.01(b) 11 NC Allocationfor Allocationfor FY98 maintenanceworks & less thanFY97 and energyto be increased less than needed. by 10%/yin real termsuntil all requirementsfor O&Mare covered. 3.02 10 C Worksto be selected First 16 selectedprior accordingto criteriain to appraisal.Others Schedule6. generallycomplied. See below. 3.03 3 C Procurementto be A smallamount of accordingto Sched.3 inappropriate misprocurement foundin audit of NCB contracts.A warningwas issued and no further problemsfound. 3.04 10 C Rehab.works to be to Generallycomplied. agreeddesign standardand specification 3.05 10 CP Landacquisition plans Seriousdelay due to & fundsto DC 12 & 6 frequentnon- monthsrespectively compliance. beforeconstruction. 4.01(a) 5 C Borrowerto maintain records 4.01(b&c) I C Auditreports to IDA Late in 1992and within9 monthsof 1993.Audit queries end of FY (i.e.by not followedup. 31/3). Sch.4 Pam 1 10 CP Subprojectcommittee Replacedby Project to be establishedat Councils(PCs). planningstage.

18 Agree Original Revised ment Covenant type Present fulfillme fulfillment Description Section 11 status 2/ nt date date of Comments covenant Para 2 10 CD 31 July 1990 Consultants to be Consultants appointed appointed. by GON and CEC in October 1990 and September 1991, respectively. Para 3 10 CD 30 June 1994 Proposals for O&M plan prepared improvement of O&M and approved by procedures to be BWDB. submitted. Para 4(a) 10 CD 30 Nov 90 Draft annual O&M Often late. 31 March program & budget to each year be submitted. thereafter Para4(b) 10 C 31 Dec90 Draftannual programme Sometimeslate. 31 Julyeach & budgetsto be finalized year thereafter Para4(c) 10 CD 31 Marcheach Draftaggregate O&M Somedelay. FY95 year from1992 budgetsto be submitted. receivedOct 94; FY94 receivedDec 93; FY93 receivedOct 92. Para 5 2 CD 31 Dec 90 1 July92 RevisedWater rate. Rulesto be issued. Para 6 10 CD For 10 nominated 10 provisionalPCs subprojects.Phased formed.Some contracts implementation,i.e. no signedbefore land contractsigned before available.. landobtained, design completedand Project Councilformed. Para7(a) 10 CP 31 Jan 1995 Remainingsubprojects to 26 provisionalPCs have ProjectCouncil. formed. Para 7(b) 10 C 31 Dec95 (i) Each subprojectto have trainedO&M staff. (ii) Actioninitiated to formWUGs, EMGs, CMGs. (iii) Subprojectsto have annualmaintenance plan. (iv) Collectscheme data. Para 7(c) 10 CP 31 Dec96 (i)Develop arrangement Arrangementsnot fully for adequateO&M. adequate. (ii) Collectscheme data. (iii)No contractsfor worksnot completedby 31/12/96.

Sch. 5 Para2 1 C SpecialAccount to be Somemisuse in FY92. usedonly for eligible Moneyrepaid. expenditure.

19 Agree Original Revised ment Covenanttype Present fulfillme fulfillment Description Section I/ status2t nt date date of Comments covenant Sch.6 (c) 10 C Feasibilitystudies confirmnsproposals are soundand ERR >1 5%. (d) 10 CP Beneficiariesto actively Beneficiaryparticipation participatein subproject.generally limited to Socialproblems fully initialconsultation discussed. duringrapid nural appraisaland some operationof sluicegates.

11 Covenanttypes: I = Accounts/audits;2 = Financialperformance/revenue generation from beneficiaries; 3 = Flowand utilizationof projectfunds; 4 = Counterpartfunding; 5 = Managementaspects of the projector executingagency; 6 = Environmentalcovenants; 7 = Involuntaryresettlement; 8 = Indigenouspeople; 9 = Monitoring,review and reporting; 10 = Projectimplementation not coveredby categories1-9; 1l = Sectoralor cross-sectoralbudgetary or otherresource allocation; 12 = Sectoralor cross-sectoral policy/regulatoryfinstitutionalaction; 13 = Other.

2/ Presentstatus: C = covenantcomplied with; CD = compliedwith afterdelay; CP = compliedwith partially; NC = not compliedwith.

Table 11: Compliancewith OperationalManual Statements

Statement number and title Describe and comment on lack of compliance I.OP 12.20 Special Accounts SA used for ineligible expenditure. Later repaid. 2.OPN 2.10 Irrigation water charges & cost recovery Irnigation O&M costs generally not recovered from beneficiaries.

Table 12: Bank Resources: Staff Inputs

Stage of Planned Revised Actual project cycle _ Weeks US$ Weeks US$ Weeks US$ Preparationto appraisal na na 99.5 255.1

Appraisal na na 38.8 107.5 Negotiationsthrough Board approval na na 9.6 28.3

Supervision na na 190.0 299.5 Completion na na 12.7 52.5 TOTAL na ~ na 350.6 742.9 na = not available.

20 Table 13: Bank Resources: Missions

Performance rating

Stage of Month/ No. of Days in SpecializedIDA staff Implemen- Types of project cycle year persons 2' field3' skillsrepresented 4 / tation status Developmen problems t objectives polm

Through appraisal 1984 8+5 C, E, T, N through May 1989

Appraisal through Feb. Board approval 1990

Supervision

I Mar 90 Form 590 update only I

2 Sep 90 3 6 E,C 2 1

3 June 91 5+3 10 E, C 2 1 Management

4 Feb/Mar 3+3 2+9 E,D 2 I 92

5 June 92 Form 590 update only 2 1

6 Oct 92 2+3 15 A,E 2 Covenants

7 Mar/Ap 5+ 3 23 A.D.E 2 1 Procurement 93

8 Jun 93 Form 590 update only 2 not rated Procurement

9 Nov 93 5+ 7 20 W, 1, E 3 3 Management, Procurement

10 May/Jun 5+5 26 W, 1, A,, D, E, U U Management, 94 Procurement

11 Ap/May 5 + 6 32 W,1, A, D, E U U Management 95

12 Oct/Nov 3 + 3 23 1, E U U Management 95

13 Feb/Mar/ 8+ 5 50 W, C, D, l, E, P U U Management Ap 96

14 Jul/Aug 3 n.a. E, D U U Management 96

15 Sep/Oct/ 5+ 4 89 A, E, C S S IOM Nov 96

16 May 97 5 + 4 29 D, E, I, U, P S S IOM

17 Oct/Nov 6 + 3 20 E, A,D, U S U Institutional 97

Completion Oct/Nov 4 20 E,C,A 11 ~~~~~97

I/ I = no problems; 2 = S satisfactory or minor problems; 3 = U = major problems, unsatisfactory. 2/ IDA + other financiers. Some in Dhaka only. 3/ Days shown are full span of mission and not only days in the field outside Dhaka. 4/ A = agriculture; C = economics; D = disbursement; E = engineering; I = institutions; P = procurement; U = audit; W = water resources. T = training; N = environment.

21 APPENDIXA

MISSION'SAIDE-MEMOIRE

CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

B. THE PROJECT ...... 1

C. MISSION'S FINDINGS ...... 2 Achievement of Objectives ...... 2 Project Costs...... 5 Major Factors Affecting the Project ...... 6 Project Sustainability ...... 7 Bank Performance .... 8...... 8 Other Financiers' Performance ...... 8 Borrower Performance ...... 9 Economic Re-evaluation ...... 10 Assessment of Outcome ...... 11 Future Operation ...... 11 Lessons ...... 11

D. FOLLOW-UP ...... 13 IMPLEMENTATIONCOMPLETION REPORT

BANGLADESH

BWDB SYSTEMSREHABILITATION PROJECT (Credit No. 2099-BD)

Appendix A

Mission's Aide-Memoire

A. INTRODUCTION

1. A joint supervision and implementation completion mission, comprising Messrs. R.G. Paterson and T. Lohavisavapanich (FAO/CP), S.A.M. Rafiquzzaman, J. Weijenberg and M. Sayeed (World Bank), and M.R. Islam (Consultant), visited subproject sites and discussed project implementation and results with concerned officials, consultants and other stakeholders. Messrs. S.H. Khan and R. Karim of WFP, M. Alam of CEC, P. de Vries and B. Diphoorn of GON also took part in the mission. Project files, reports and other records available in Bangladesh were reviewed. The mission provided guidance on the Government's contribution to the ICR. The mission would like to express appreciation for the friendly co-operation, assistance and hospitality received.

2. This aide-memoire was discussed at a pre-wrap-up meeting with BWDB on 9 November and finalised following a wrap-up meeting on 10 November 1997 at MOWR.

B. THE PROJECT

3. At appraisal in 1990, the main objectives of the project were to protect and increase agricultural production and incomes and to raise standards of living, particularly of landless people and women, through rehabilitation and improved O&M (IO&M) of BWDB's existing flood control, irrigation and drainage projects. Subsidiary objectives were to: (a) increase financing and encourage more efficient use of funds for O&M; (b) improve skills and motivation of BWDB staff for O&M tasks; and (c) increase involvement of the farmers in planning, construction and O&M, particularly of on-farm works. The project was also to help to determine BWDB's staff requirements and training needs and establish a technical unit at BWDB headquarters to improve planning, budgeting and implementation of O&M.

4. These objectives were to be achieved through (a) rehabilitation and improvement of about 80 subprojects covering a gross area of about 600,000 ha (net about 400,000 ha); (b) introduction of IO&M in BWDB's projects, starting in four schemes where infrastructure was still in reasonably good condition; (c) on-farm development works and IO&M in two subprojects with farmers' participation; (d) training of BWDB staff and beneficiaries, particularly for O&M; and (e) provision of technical assistance to assist BWDB in planning, design and execution of rehabilitation, improvement and O&M works and to help strengthen its organisation for O&M and staff development. The total estimated cost of the seven-years project of US$111 million was to be financed by an IDA credit of US$53.9 million equivalent, a grant from the Commission of the BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

European Communities (CEC) equivalent to US$14.9 million and a grant from the Government of the Netherlands (GON) equivalent to US$12.6 million. The contribution of GOB equivalent to US$29.6 million would be partly financed by food from the World Food Programme (WFP) through Food For Work. The IDA credit was signed on 23 March 1990 and declared effective on 20 June 1990, following effectiveness of the GON and CEC grants. The IDA credit and the grants will close as planned on 31 December 1997.

C. MISSION'S FINDINGS

Achievement of Objectives

5. Key indicators for project implementation are listed below.

Key ImplementationIndicator Estimated Actual Remarks in SAR in SAR Subprojects rehabilitated & improved 80 35 One subproject has 4 schemes. Total sometimes considered as 38. Area rehabilitated & improved 600,000 ha gross 414,000 ha gross Revised target 400,000 ha net 280,925 ha net 310,000 ha net On-farm development 17,000 ha gross 127 ha Polder 55/1 6,000 ha net 2500ha Buri Teesta Improved O&M piloted 100,000 ha gross 112,967ha Number of beneficiaries 700,000 famnilies To be estimated by ICR mission. Incremental paddy production 400,000 t/year To be estimated by ICR mission. Incr. farm labour demand 25,000 man-years/yr To be estimated by ICR mission. Employment during const. & O&M 100,000man-years To be estimated by ICR mission. Issue revised Irrigation Water Rate 31 December 1990 1 July 1992 Rules Implement revised assessment and 3 subprojects 2 subprojects (KIP and collection system (KIP, MIP and CIP) CIP), which failed Professional staff trained 150 111/213(up to 9/97) Number trained/trained + ______workshop Support staff trained 1000 313/600 (up to 9/97) Operators trained 900 255/504 (up to 9/97) Beneficiariestrained 2500 696 WUG training Maintenancegroup members trained 801 Allocation for maintenanceworks, elec. & fuel: . FY90 Tk 256 million 211 allocated FY91 Tk 309 million 224 allocated FY92 Tk 358 million 265 allocated FY93 Tk 399 million 336 allocated FY94 Tk 450 million 556 allocated FY95 Tk 516 million 717 allocated 642 spent FY96 Tk 591 million 966 allocated 748 spent FY97 Tk 684 million 961 allocated 715 spent. 70% of O&M needs funded FY98 Tk 771 million 792 allocated incl. additional Tk 100 million

2 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixA: Mission's Aide-M6moire

6. Rehabilitation and improvement of subprojects has been much slower than anticipated at appraisal due mainly to the late appointment of CEC financed consultants for feasibility studies and design, delays in acquiring land for construction, protracted procurement procedures of BWDB and unfamiliarity of BWDB staff with required project procedures due to rapid turnover of staff. The rehabilitation and improvement works were often broken down into a very large number of small contracts, thereby increasing the work load for BWDB; this also resulted in the employment of weak construction firms with ineffective contract management; many responsibilities of the contractors, such as setting out the works, were undertaken by BWDB staff. Many incapable contractors were employed partly because the system of blacklisting such contractors is rarely enforced and the Bank was unable to help. Until the Banks Sample Bidding Document was accepted by BWDB in 1995 procurement was often further protracted by discussions over conditions of contract. The number of subprojects rehabilitated has been reduced to 35 with a net area of 280,935 ha, some 70% of the appraisal estimate. It is likely that work will still be incomplete on three of these subprojectsl when the Credit closes on 31 December 1997. The quality of construction is reported to be generally good but there has been criticism of some designs, often because the design criteria of the original structures have not been adapted to meet changed conditions or local requirements, which are often contradictory. Nevertheless the completed work is generally satisfactory and effective. A survey carried out for the FES2 found that over 80% of the respondents rated the infrastructure in their area as having positive benefits to them. There is little doubt that rehabilitation and improvement is worthwhile provided it can be shown to be economically viable. To be economically viable the works would have to be sustainable.

7. Improved O&M has been introduced in 6 subprojects Karnafuli Irrigation Project (KIP), Muhuri Irrigation Project (MIP), Chandpur Irrigation Project (CIP) and four (out of seven planned) flood control and drainage (FCD) schemes in Nawabganj Subdivision, which were said in the SAR to be in good physical condition. However, it was found that this was not the case and rehabilitation was found necessary. This seriously affected the project by delaying the introduction of 1O&M. IO&M involves collection of basic scheme data, training of BWDB staff, improved planning, budgeting and O&M procedures and in putting these into effect. Detailed annual planning for routine and periodic maintenance includes needs-based budgets and an allowance for emergency repairs.

8. In many subprojects Embankment Maintenance Groups (EMGs) comprising landless women and Canal Maintenance Groups (CMGs) comprising landless men have been successfully introduced. In September 1997, 88 EMGs and 11 CMGs were at work. However, delayed payments (by 2 to 13 weeks) to these groups are reported in 10 subprojects. EMGs are generally considered to be a good, cost-effective way of maintaining embankments. This prevents small damages increasing over time until the magnitude of the work becomes such that it is necessary to employ contractors. Regular maintenance of embankments has also improved trafficability resulting in some places (such as Polder 55/1) in considerable increase in light traffic. BWDB has made a policy decision to engage EMGs on all projects. It is essential that the EMGs are maintained after the Credit closes but this and other worthwhile innovations have not been institutionalised. The mission has been told that this will be done using FFW, but the modalities of this have not yet been finalised. Other than EMGs and SMGs, beneficiary participation (despite considerable input from consultants) is generally limited to sluice operating committees. Although many Water Users' Groups (WUGs), Water Users'

' Chaptir Haor and Polders 64/IC and 73/2; BWDB hopes to complete the polders before the Credit closes. 2 Ongoing Final evaluation survey, financed by GON. 3 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

Committees (WUCs) and Water Users' Associations (WUAs) exist, their only function is to make requests to higher authority for action. There seems to be no feedback from these requests other than sometimes implementation of their requests. The SAR did not discuss the formation of water users' organisations (WUOs) (only subproject committees are referred to) and did not give any indication of how beneficiaries other than EMGs would be involved in O&M. Guidelines for People's Participation (GPP), initiated under the Flood Action Plan and subsequently adapted for use by BWDB ) during the time of the first restructuring of the project, were formally accepted in mid-1995 by the Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR). They were then found to be impracticable and are now in course of revision; a revised draft is expected in November 1997 for discussion at a workshop to be arranged.

9. On-farm works were developed in Polder 55/1 and less intensively in Buri Teesta Irrigation subprojects but there is no evidence that the substantial increase in irrigated area, which it was hoped this would achieve through improved distribution of water, has been obtained. This is mainly due to shortage of water.

10. Training and Staff Development. Over 565 rnan-months of consultancy will have been used for training and staff development. This included training of trainers, designing and implementing courses for BWDB staff and beneficiaries/maintenance groups, planning and supervising the improvement of a training facility (now being built with funding from CEC) and study tours. The training facility is expected to be completed following the hoped-for extension of CEC's existing Financing Memorandum. More management training and training of staff at regional accounting centres are needed. A staff inventory and job descriptions have been prepared and staffing plans developed for all field units and BWDB HQ. Staff redeployment has been designed and training responsibilities reorganised. A personnel management information system has been implemented. The proposed reorganisation of BWDB has not used this information system putting into doubt the usefulness of the entire exercise. There were two overseas study tours.

1I. Monitoring. The SAR envisaged that a benchmark study (in year 1) and two follow-up impact evaluation studies (in years 4 and 7) would be undertaken on 10 selected subprojects covering engineering, agricultural and socio-economic aspects with a view to assessing the project's impact and drawing lessons during project implementation. The benchmark study was completed in 1992, two years after Credit effectiveness. The impact evaluation studies have not been conducted. Due to the lack of progress of R&I work, the first impact evaluation, due after four years, was cancelled by the external financiers. However, an independent final evaluation study (FES), financed by GON separately from SRP, is in progress, covering three of the ten subprojects selected for the benchmark survey and four others, chosen for their representativeness.

4 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

Project Costs

12. Project costs are compared with appraisal estimates below:

SAR I Actual SAR Actual Tk million US$ million Land acquisition 80.8 60.1 2.5 l Survey & investigation 6.5 7.1 0.2 Rehabilitation & improvement 2070.4 1360.6 64.1 Improved O&M 371.5 526.3 11.5 Maintenance during construction 242.3 7.5 On-farm development 32.3 9.6 1.0 Training/staff development 106.6 75.5 3.3 Technical assistance 458.7 784.9 14.2 Equipment and vehicles 35.5 145.9 1.1 l Miscellaneous 176.9 16.9 Engineering and administration 180.9 206.3 5.6 Total 3762.2 3190.0 111.0 78.5

13. The final total project costs are estimated at Tk 3,190 million (US$78.5 million equivalent), 15% (30% in US dollar) lower than the Tk 3,762 million (US$1 11.0 million) estimated at appraisal. The cost of rehabilitation and improvement per net ha has reduced by about 7% in Taka from Tk 5176/ha (US$160/ha) at appraisal to Tk 4842/ha (about US$121/ha) now. Substantial increased cost was found in the increased inputs of the technical assistance resulting from the changes in the project's focus from the implementation of R&I to IO&M involving people's participation.

14. Funding and Disbursement. The IDA Credit was revised from the original amount of SDR 40.8 million (US$53.9 million equivalent) to SDR 18.2 million (US$25.5 million equivalent) through three amendments. As of October 31, 1997, SDR 13.86 million (US$19.5 million equivalent) were disbursed. By project closing date on December 31, 1997 1, the revised amount of IDA credit of SDR 18.2 million (US$25.5 million equivalent) is estimated to be fully used.

15. Commission of European Communities (CEC). The grant from EU was increased from ECU 13.5 million (US$14.9 million equivalent) to ECU 14.5 million (US$16.0 equivalent) effective from May 1997. By project closing date, a total grant of ECU 12.5 million (US$13.8 million equivalent) is expected to be used. The balance would be cancelled, if not reallocated for continuing with the training programme during the bridging period.

16. Government of Netherlands (GON). The grant in Guilders from GON was increased from Dfl 20.6 million (US$12.6 million equivalent) to Dfl 23.7 million (US$11.9 million equivalent). By project closing date 2, total expenditures are estimated at Dfl 24.2 million (US$12.1 million)3.

I IDA Disbursement would continue till April 30, 1998. 2 GON Disbursement would continue till April 30, 1998. 3 Exchange rate fluctuations cause the amount in US dollars to decrease. 5 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

17. GOB and World Food Programme (WFP). GOB was to contribute US$29.6 million, including WFP's contributions of US$20.6 million. By project closing date, total GOB's contributions are estimated at US$27.1 million, including WFP's allocation of a total of 92,703 tons of wheat and Tk 6.6 million (total US$15.9 million equivalent) allocated by WFP.

18. Cost Recovery. The recovery of O&M costs, particularly for irrigation projects, has long been an issue of major concern. In the early 1980s the Water Rate Act was promulgated and put into effect but without success. The Act was revised in 1990 and a study was conducted under the project to amend the rules of this act and prepare a manual on assessment and collection procedures. The modified rules were approved by BWDB on I January 1992 and then by GOB and became effective on 1 July 1992. The introduction of cost recovery then began in the Ichamati unit of KIP and later in CIP, and was closely linked to the introduction of IO&M. Charges were based on the actual cost of IO&M and excluded costs related to flood protection and water supply. Elected members from WUGs (often pump owners and operators) were made liable for collecting the charge from the farmers benefiting from their pump and handing the collected fees to BWDB, keeping a small commission. In practice many pump owners, elected by the WUGs, collected from the farmers but did not pass on to BWDB, who did not have sufficient powers to enforce this. Naturally payments rapidly dwindled once farmers and pump owners saw that enforcement was not possible. Assessment and collection have now been suspended. BWDB are now considering modifications to the rules and procedures for assessment and collection of irrigation fees but, with the political will lacking and present social and cultural attitudes, the chances for success in the collection of irrigation fees in the near future are slender. Privatising irrigation infrastructure, for instance by handing over to the users, is a possibility that should be explored.

Major Factors Affecting the Project

19. The project was seriously affected by invalid assumptions made at appraisal: that the subprojects selected for IO&M were in good physical condition and would not need rehabilitation; that the implementation schedule was practicable; that BWDB was institutionally capable of successfully implementing the project; and that beneficiaries participation would happen easily. The delayed arrival of the CEC financed consultants, which was beyond the control of the Borrower, seriously affected progress in the early stages of the project. The nature of the project has been changing throughout the implementation period, with the emphasis moving from construction towards O&M and reorganisation of BWDB.

20. Project Restructuring. The project was twice restructured. In 1994 it was agreed that further rehabilitation and improvement would not be started because it was pointless if the completed works would not be satisfactorily maintained. The main objective became the development of the capability within BWDB to introduce sustainable IO&M to its schemes with a strong element of beneficiary participation. The formation of three to five tiers of water users' organisations was added at this stage. The number of subprojects was reduced to 351 with a net area of about 310,000 ha. Phased implementation of subprojects was introduced for ten specified subprojects; this requires a sequenced mode of rehabilitation, where a predetermined level of institutional development must be achieved to qualify for project funds allocated for the next category of rehabilitation works. In 1996

Onesubproject has fourcomponents. The 35 subprojectsare thereforesometimes considered as 38. 6 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems RehabilitationProject ImplementationCompletion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

the development objectives were again revised by limiting them to ensuring that schemes completed would be sustainable.

21. In addition to the formal restructurings of the project, the project has also been used as an instrument to encourage the implementation of the Water Board Reform Programme which was introduced in 1994 and included a plan of actions which would trigger further processing of the then proposed Credits for a Coastal Embankment Rehabilitation Project and a River Bank Protection Project.

Project Sustainability

22. The overall quality of construction of rehabilitation and improvement works is reported to be good, which indicates that major maintenance is less likely to be needed in the short term. A recent survey carried out for the Final Evaluation Study (FES) has shown that the water control structures are highly valued by the communities they serve. Some flood control and drainage sluices are now operated or controlled by committees of beneficiaries. The maintenance of embankments is now often entrusted to EMGs, which work conscientiously and effectively. With these improvement and provided the increased allocations for maintenance works made by BWDB since the start of the project continue, it is not wholly unreasonable to assume that the IO&M that has been achieved will be largely sustained at least in the short term. However the inability of the BWDB, even with the assistance it had from the project, to transfer any maintenance responsibilities to the beneficiaries indicates the difficulties in achieving this, which will not be easy and is likely to take time. Revision of the GPP alone is unlikely to ensure the short term sustainability but will hopefully be effective in the long term if sufficient funds for O&M are made available.

23. The DCA requires that allocations for O&M works and energy be increased by 10% per year in real terms until such times as all financing requirements for O&M are covered. Since FY94, BWDB's O&M budget compares well with the projected amount, based on a 10% compounded increase in real terms corresponding to FY89 allocation. From FY94 to FY96 this was achieved, not only in the amount allocated but also in the amount spent. However in FY97 the amount allocated decreased marginally and the amount spent decreased by over 4% (about 9% in real terms) and only about 70% of O&M needs were funded. This breached the DCA covenant. The allocation for FY98 is only 82% of the allocation for FY97, or 90% if 10,000 tons of wheat from WFP ( Tk 75 million equivalent) are added to the recurrent budget. This breaches the covenant and is a sign that GOB does not intend to allocate sufficient funds for O&M. At the same time, the allocation for salary in FY 98 is about 50% of the amount spent in FY 97, which will necessitate diverting the shortfall amount from the maintenance budget. The sustainability of SRP works, as well as other BWDB schemes, must therefore be considered unlikely.

7 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

Bank Performance

24. When the project was identified in the early 1980s it was consistent with the Government's development strategy and with the Banks strategy for developing water resources in Bangladesh. The Bank helped to organise, with UNDP financing, project preparation including prefeasibility and feasibility studies, some detailed design and a report on organisation and training for O&M. However, the emphasis on O&M needed for sustainability of the rehabilitated works was lacking in the SAR. While the concept and objectives described in the SAR are generally clear, the targets set were unrealistic and the implementation arrangements were very complicated. It was well know and had been identified as lessons learned in several earlier PCRs that land acquisition and procurement frequently delayed project implementation. Although identified as risks in the SAR, no specific measures were included to overcome them. The implementation schedule seems to have been designed to ignore these risks as if they did not exist. Although a project objective was to improve O&M and train beneficiaries for O&M, it seems to have been the intention to confine this to training EMGs and SMGs,l rather than the water users, who would have had more incentive to maintain the systems in good condition. The failure to foresee at appraisal that extensive rehabilitation would be needed for the proposed pilot O&M irrigation subprojects was a serious error. Only passing reference was made in the SAR to the fact that the project would affect people other than farmers.

25. The Bank fielded 14 supervision missions, which were joined by other financiers. Generally, the missions were helpful to project implementation; however, the imposition of additional constraints introduced by insisting on phased implementation for 10 subprojects when the project was restructured in 1994 were so general that to some extent they were counterproductive and thus were mainly ignored by BWDB2. A great deal of unjustified emphasis was placed on the fornation of WUOs. However, because of the fundamental flaws in the GPP, the WUOs were not given any responsibilities. Consequently, although the specified number are claimed to have been formed they serve very little useful purpose. Despite the SAR specifying and allocating US$600,000 for a benchmark study and two evaluation studies, the ICR mission has very poor agricultural data; supervision missions did not ensure that the results of the benchmark study were clearly presented and allowed the two evaluation studies to be dropped. Supervision missions were instrumental in having the project restructured to put more emphasis on O&M and twice to redefine the project's objectives.

Other Financiers' Performance

26. In general the four external financiers of the project co-operated well. IDA supervision missions were frequently3 joined by representatives of the three other financiers and agreements were usually (but not always with CEC) easily reached on such matters as restructuring the project and Credit closing dates. Co-operation with WFP, particularly on quality of work, declined after

I Who may be considered to fall outside the usual definition of beneficiaries. 2 BWDB consider unreasonable the Bank's refusal to disburse against one contract in Chaptir Haor, started without the Bank's approval. 3 Always by GON since 1991. 8 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

1994. Differing disbursement procedures from the three main financiers caused some confusion to the frequently changing BWDB staff.

27. The Government of the Netherlands financed IO&M, equipment and TA for IO&M and project monitoring with no major problems. Their approach was flexible and decisions were made quickly when needed such as to increase the scope of the consultancy services to match the changing nature of the project. The consultants were effective in raising the quality of workmanship and in insisting on correct documentation for disbursement, resulting in delays in disbursement and in non-disbursement for works that did not conform to the requirements of the Development Credit Agreement (DCA). The consultants produced many technical reports covering engineering and organisational aspects of project implementation. The guidelines for the execution of SRP works (TR 48) and IO&M in water management projects (TR 33) and the Water Management Profiles (TR 50) have been quite widely used. However, they were of limited use for lower level staff and none have been translated into Bengali.

28. The Commission of the European Communities financed rehabilitation and improvement, IO&M for 4 years, training, equipment and technical assistance. There was a delay of about eighteen months by CEC in appointing consultants for subproject feasibility studies and detailed design, which delayed project implementation. The failure of BWDB to take account of the time needed (6 to 9 months from submission of a valid request) for replenishment of funds from CEC often caused a shortage of funds available to BWDB. There was often a lack of feedback from Brussels on the status of requests for funds so that BWDB often have no idea at all whether or not their request has any chance of success. There was a delay of more than a year before a decision was made to fund the construction of a training building.

29. World Food Programme allocated resources for earthwork in the rehabilitation of projects in accordance with the agreement with BWDB. In addition, from 1996-97 season WFP also provides resources to support routine preventive maintenance activities through maintenance groups consisting of women workers (EMGs) and involving NGOs as implementation partner. Unlike in the past, from FY96, WFP, through its contributions from multidonors and GOB under its Rural Development Programme, allocates cash in addition to wheat (30% cashl, 70% wheat) to ensure a mixed daily ration for the workers involved in earthwork and maintenance activities.

Borrower Performance

30. The Borrower employed consultants, financed by UNDP, to satisfactorily prepare the main component of the project. During project implementation there was generally no shortage of funds for project implementation and most covenants of the DCA were eventually complied with, including those concerning increasing the allocation for maintenance2 and issuing revised Irrigation Water Rate Rules. However, covenants concerning procedures for land acquisition and subproject O&M programmes and budgets were usually in default. Although audit reports were generally punctual audit queries were not followed up. The quality of construction was generally reported to be satisfactory. Although the Borrower showed some commitment to the main objective of the project, institutional weaknesses in BWDB, the implementing agency, seriously affected implementation progress. The inability to adequately plan land acquisition and procurement,

' Contributedby GOB. 2 However,this covenantis now in default. 9 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire compounded by breaking the works into an excessive number of small contracts, helped to delay implementation. BWDB often failed to process land acquisition as required by the DCA, which often caused delay to implementation. The lack of multi-disciplinary units in BWDB encouraged concentration on construction and makes co-operation with Bangladesh Rural Development Board (BRDB), the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) and other agencies less likely. Changes are now taking place with BWDB incorporating NGOs and other government agencies as development partners. Staff shortages in the Land and Water Use Directorate (LWUD) of BWDB were a continuing problem; this is expected to reduce novv that delineation has been agreed with DAE and phasing out of LWUD is planned. MOWR's initiative to reorganise BWDB to emphasise O&M, although not specifically a requirement of the appraised project, demonstrates a commitment to the concepts of the project. MOWR appreciates that BWDB in its present form is unsustainable; already there have been substantial reductions in staff, by nearly 3,000 in the last year. BWDB plan to reduce from their present strength of about 20,000 (including 700 professional engineers) to about 10,000 by the year 2000. This would partly be done by natural wastage (1000 to 1200 people per year) but enforced redundancies may also be needed.

Economic Re-evaluation

31. The Spring 1996 supervision mission attempted to re-evaluate the project's economic viability. However, this exercise has been postponed due to lack of information. Although the benchmark surveys were conducted in 1991 for 10 subprojects I, the follow-up impact studies never took place. The benchmark surveys provide some useful information on pre-project conditions, e.g. existing facilities and O&M, socio-economic, agriculture, etc. However, the presentation of the findings is complex and it is difficult to draw a full picture of the subprojects, particularly of the cropping patterns and yields, which are presented separately for owner-operator and tenant.

32. Through GON's initiative in late 1996 with the agreement of IDA, CEC and WFP, a final evaluation study (FES) was launched in early 1997 by an independent consultant team under separate funding provided by GON. The FES aims at assessing a wide range of SRP activities, including design, implementation experience and the economic impact. The studies included a wide range of interviews within BWDB and comprehensive field surveys in seven selected subprojects2 . The draft reports are currently being distributed to BWDB, bilateral donors, IDA, etc. for comments and the final reports are expected by end November 1997 following a workshop on 11 November.

33. The project benefits observed by visiting selected subprojects are yet to be quantified. From the mission's field observations cropping intensities and cropping patterns marginally changed between the pre-project and present situations. This indicates that SRP interventions to bring most facilities back to their originally designed condition plus some additional structures have helped to at least maintain the pre-project cropping intensities. In addition SRP R&I works have resulted in positive agricultural benefits, differing in type and extent: assured supplemental irrigation has resulted in a shift to HYV aman in Buri Teesta, regular embankment maintenance has resulted in a shift from local to HYV boro in Pagner Haor and increased diversification in other FCD subprojects.

BuriTeesta Irrigation, Polder 64/l A, Polder64/11B, Polder 55/1, Pagner Haor, Sangu River Protection, KIP, MIP, CIPand SingriBeel. 2 ChaptirHaor, SingriBeel, KIP,Polder 64/1 B, Polder55/1, Dardaria Khal and KanchikataKhal. The selectionof subprojectswere to representthe whole spectrumof subprojectsin SRP and to reflect various levels of TA inputs. 10 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

34. The ICR mission will re-evaluate the financial impact and economic viability of four subprojects, representing 38 subprojects implemented in SRP. The selected four subprojects are Singri Beel, Chaptir Haor, Polder 55/1 and Buri Teesta Irrigation. The analysis will be based on available information from the 1991 benchmark surveys, feasibility reports prepared during SRP, 1997 FES surveys, and additional interviews with farmers in selected subproject areas visited by the ICR mission and the respective Thana/Union agricultural production data.

35. Given the cost overrun (12% for the whole project and 52% for R&I of subprojects) due to 50% reduction in project's physical scope, 30% reduction in the benefited areas from 400,000 ha to 281,000 ha, lower and delayed accrual of agricultural benefits, ERRs of subprojects and the whole project are expected to be substantially lower than the appraisal estimates (23%-38% for five appraised subprojects and 37% for the whole project).

Assessment of Outcome

36. The project has only partially (less than 50% of R&I subprojects) achieved the main objective of increased agricultural production through rehabilitation and improvement. What has been done has been generally successful but its sustainability is not certain. The subsidiary objective of increasing finance for O&M by 10% per year in real terms has been achieved from FY94 to FY96 but not in FY97 and FY98. The overall goal of covering all financial requirements for O&M (DCA section 3.01 b) has not yet been reached. Considerable progress has been made in planning and reduction of costs for O&M and in improving the skills and motivation of BWDB staff for O&M tasks. The involvement of farmers in planning, construction and O&M has been negligible. There has been a noticeable change of attitude in BWDB with O&M now being accepted by many staff as an important function of BWDB. Although the project achieved substantial results it failed to achieve most of its objectives as defined in the SAR and had significant shortcomings. It must therefore be assessed as unsatisfactory in comparison with the originally expected outcome and even with the outcome expected following the first restructuring (July 1994). However, the project outcome might be considered satisfactory if the expected outcome from the second restructuring (December 1996) were to be achieved. However this may only be achieved with substantial delay. The final assessment should therefore await the outcome of the economic re-evaluation.

Future Operation

37. BWDB are relying on WFP to finance most O&M earthworks. An operational plan for the future O&M of project works has been prepared by Chief Engineer SRP, BWDB and sent to WFP for review. This is expected to be available for review by the Bank by 15 December. Careful review will be needed to ensure that adequate allowance is made for O&M of structures and works not covered by WFPs contribution. The plan should show performance indicators which can be used to monitor operation and development impact.

Lessons

38. BWDB need considerable encouragement to continue their reorganisation, reintroduce irrigation service fees and develop peoples participation. While progress is being made on each of these issues it is slow. The continued processing of the proposed Water Sector Improvement Project should be made conditional on achieving clearly defined time-bound targets in each of these fields. 11 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-Mdmoire

39. A multiplicity of donors with different requirements can cause confusion to government staff, especially those lacking experience in external donor procedures, delaying effective implementation and speedy reimbursement.

40. Employing consultants for supervision of construction and separate consultants for feasibility study and design resulted in some conflict and made it difficult to effect quickly changes to design, the need for which only became apparent when work was about to start.

41. The importance of good planning of project implementation cannot be overstressed. The time needed for the procedures necessary for acquisition of land and procurement in accordance with Bank guidelines have been well known for many years yet still these factors are causes of serious delay. The fact that rehabilitation projects often only require small areas of land does not detract from the importance of this. The Bank's new requirements for involuntary resettlement, if followed, should go some way to avoiding delays due to land acquisition in the future. The use of advance procurement, larger contracts and consultants to assist with design and procurement before signing the credit can all help to minimise delays.

42. Increasing the involvement of farmers in planning, design and O&M is not easy. Perhaps this is why the SAR did not spell out what was needed. In the Chorai Shomeshpur subproject where farmers were involved in the planning and design process several improvements were achieved but it took time. The formation of water users' organisations is pointless unless they have a worthwhile purpose.

43. Maintenance groups (EMG and CMG) have been successful and should be replicated wherever practicable. It is important to ensure that those that exist do not wither for lack of resources to pay them under the recurrent budget.

44. Flood control and drainage schemes do not only affect farmers. Due attention must be paid at all stages of the development to other aspects such as fisheries and transport.

45. Before embarking on a pilot project for the collection of irrigation service fees it is essential that a strong political will exists at national and local level and that the rule of law prevails sufficiently to enforce sanctions on those who do not pay their due.

46. The responsibilities of donors, GOB and MOWR to follow up on outstanding issues are not clearly identified. They should be. Clear action plans should be prepared.

47. Specifying in the SAR that benchmark and two evaluation studies will be done during project implementation does not guarantee that the ICR mission will have adequate information on which to base conclusions as to economic viability. The failure to conduct either of the evaluation studies indicates a lack of interest by all concemed whether scarce resources are effectively used.

48. Ensuring that the completed project is sustainable in the long term should be the first priority in design of any water management project.

12 BANGLADESH: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report Appendix A: Mission's Aide-M6moire

D. FOLLOW-UP

49. The FES will be discussed at a workshop on 11 November in Dhaka and important conclusionsreached will be incorporatedin the ICR.

50. The ICR missionwill return to Rome to prepare a draft ICR which will be submittedto the World Bank office in Dhakaby 15 January 1998.The Borrowerwill prepare and make available to the Bank by 15 December 1997 its own evaluation report on the project's execution and initial operation,costs, benefits,the Banks and Borrowersperformance of their respectiveobligations under the DCA and the extent to which the purposesof the loan were achieved.A summary of this report, or the whole report if it is ten pages or less, will be annexed uneditedto the ICR. Otherfinanciers indicatedthat they would providecontributions to be annexedto the ICR.

13 BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix B.1: Borrower's Contribution to the ICR

BANGLADESH WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT ON SYSTEMS REHABILITATION PROJECT (IDA CREDIT NO. 2099-BD)

Introduction

1. Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) under the Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) has been established with the mandate for development and utilization of water resources related to flood control, irrigation and drainage of the country. It is responsible among other activities for the operation and maintenance of its completed projects (544 Nos) covering flood control irrigation, town protection, salinity and erosion control and land reclamation. With the passage of time, condition of these projects deteriorated to a great extent. The main reasons for deterioration are as follows:

- lack of adequate maintenance mainly due to shortage of fund; - lack of effective practices and procedures for O&M; - incomplete or partial project completion; - lack of beneficiaries participation; - changes in the hydrological condition since initial planning; - internal development by others without co-ordinated planning; - lack of inter agency cooperation and coordination; - inadequate operation and maintenance staff; - change in planning concept; - lack of institutional support.

As a result the need of rehabilitation of completed projects were felt and studies were taken up so as to initiate and formulate a project for rehabilitation.

1 BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix B. 1: Borrower's Contribution to the ICR

Background

A. Original project:

2. Based on appraisal by the World Bank during 1988-89 on the conditions of the completed projects of BWDB, the Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP) was initiated in 1991 comprising the following components: a) rehabilitation, improvement and maintenance of some 80 sub-projects covering a gross area of about 6,00,000 ha. b) improved operation and maintenance (IO&M) of three irrigation projects and one group of FCD projects consisting of seven small FCD Schemes. c) on-farm development of two sub-projects (BTIS & Polder 55/1). d) training of BWDB staff and beneficiaries and strengthening of BWDB's training and staff development programmes. e) bench mark evaluation studies of 10 sub-projects; f) cost recovery - pilot study (KIP) g) technical assistance for study, planning, design, monitoring and training;

B. Restructured projects

Physical implementation (1991-94) and fund utilization of the projects were not as per schedule due to certain constraints. Employment of study consultants was delayed and consequently progress of feasibility study, detailed design and land acquisition could not be achieved as per scheduled Annual Development Plan (ADP). Clearance of annual work plan from EEC took longer time which affected implementation programme. Also development of concepts in the form of improved O&M and integrated water management and their practices and adoption in the field took longer time. As a result achievement of the project performance was not satisfactory. Based on the recommendation of May-June, 1994, Supervision Mission, the project was

2 BANGLADESH:BWDB System Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixB. 1: Borrower'sContribution to the ICR restructured in Aug'94 keeping the objectives same but with reduction in scope and introduction of phased implementation approach.

Major changes that came in due to restructuring of the project activities were as follows:

Rehabilitation, improvement and maintenance of 38 sub-projects covering a net area of about 3,10,000 ha. Out of 38 sub-projects 10 sub-projects were included under phased implementation.

- improved O&M of three irrigation projects (KIP,MIP, CIP) and of four small FCD schemes (Morichar Danra, Bhitabari Damosh, Beel Singri and Chorai Someshpur) in Chapai Nawbganj.

3. An Appraisal Mission of IDA, GON, EEC & WFP (Oct-Nov/95) reviewed the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) for the BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project which was completed in February, 1996. The Donors supported the rehabilitation of sub-projects as per Development Credit Agreement (DCA).

4. For the successful completion of SRP sub-project activities, the execution period was extended for six months from July'97 to Dec'97.

Scope of works

5. Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP) included:

I. Rehabilitation & improvement consisting of (a) feasibility studies & detail engineering and (b) monitoring & quality control. The civil works were mainly rehabilitation of embankment, canal, structure and preventive, periodic and emergency maintenance of FCD system.

II. Training & Staff development - (a) to provide training for capacity building of BWDB staff and beneficiaries/ maintenance groups (b) to strengthen personnel planning & staff development of BWDB.

III. Bench Mark Evaluation Study to cover engineering, agriculture, socio-economic and environmental aspects with a view to assess the projects impact and to draw lessons during project implementation.

3 BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix B.l: Borrower's Contribution to the ICR

Implementation arrangements:

6. BWDB under MOWR was responsible for implementation of SRP. Under Member (O&M) the project office was headed by a Chief Engineer (O&M) with two Directorates namely

(a) Directorate of O&M and (b) Rehabilitation. The execution of field works was accomplished through respective Zonal Chief Engineer (CE), Circle Superintending Engineer (SE) and Executive Engineer (EE). The project works were monitored by the Directorates of Rehabilitation and O&M as well as by GON-TA Consultants.

Project Design:

7. Under the Systems Rehabilitation Project feasibility studies of 38 completed sub-projects were carried out with EC funding. Cost of rehabilitation vvasborne by IDA, EC and WFP. O&M works were financed by EC for first four years and by GON for three years.

Consultants

8. Under EC-TA M/s. Halcrow & Partners Ltd. BCEOM and DHV Consultants in association with Development Design Consultants (DDC) and Approtech Consultants Ltd. were engaged for feasibility study and for training & staff development. Under GON-TA, M/s. Euro Consult, Hasconing and DHV in association with BETS Ltd. were engaged for monitoring, quality control and improved O&M.

Objectives

9. The main objectives of SRP were:

a) to restore the project in original condition and to increase agricultural production and income;

b) to generate rural employment opportunity and to raise the standard of living, particularly of landless people, through rehabilitation and improved O&M of existing projects;

c) to strengthen organizational set-up of BWDB and to improve skills and to foster better motivation of staff for O&M tasks;

4 BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix B. 1: Borrower's Contribution to the ICR

d) to increase financing and to ensure more efficient use for O&M through better planning and reduction of cost;

e) to increase involvement of beneficiaries in planning, construction, O&M and for on-farm development works;

f) to increase inter-agency cooperation and coordination.

Activities of SRP

10. The Project activities were executed at the sub-project level, in varying degrees. In all, SRP covered a total of 38 sub-projects which were grouped into 4 categories based on varying objectives, activities and intensity of technical assistance for each sub-project:

1. Model sub-project (MOPS) 4 Nos.(NCA 84916 ha)

2. High Intensify sub-project (HIPS) 2 Nos.(NCA 36800 ha)

3. Rehabilitation & Improvement sub-projects (RIPS) 22Nos.(NCA 78730 ha)

4. Phased Implementation sub-project (PIPS) I0Nos.(NCA 152779ha)

Initially R&I works of sub-projects (38) were slower than appraised for many reasons - mainly due to late appointment of EC financed Consultant who were responsible for feasibility study and detail design. The quality of construction of completed works were generally satisfactory and effective. The infrastructure of the sub-projects rendered positive benefits to the locality. The overall physical progress upto 31st December is 97% and the financial progress is 82%. The remaining 3% of the physical progress is expected to be achieved after completion of the construction work of Bhagyakul Training Institution(BTI) for which time has been extended upto 31st December, 1998 and the financial progress is expected to be achieved by the target date of reimbursement.

5 BANGLADESH:BWDBI System Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixB. 1: Borrower'sContribution to the ICR

Improved O&M

11. Improved O&M was introduced initially in 6 Sub-projects namely KIP, MIP, CIP, BTIS, Polder-55/1 and 4 out of 7 sub-projects of Chapai Nawabganj Sub-Division. It involved the works of canals, embankments and structures which were directly related to water management activities. In SRP maintenance works were of preventive, period and emergency nature. Preventive maintenance of embankment was done by the Embankment Maintenance Group (EMG) which consisted of destitute women of rural area. They were affiliated with BRDB and executed works round the year at regulator intervals or continuously. A total of 92 EMGs out of targetted 157 were formed and maintained for 337.14 km of embankment. EMG was considered successful and cost effective for the maintenance of embankments. BWDB has made a policy decision to engage EMGs in all projects and to maintain them even after the expiry of the credit by using FFW resources and fund out of GOB's revenue budget.

Canal Maintenance Groups (CMG) are for preventive maintenance of canal generally consisting of landless (E 0.2 ha land) people. A total of 43 CMGs were formed and affiliated with BRDB. In all 12 CMGs are actually working and maintaining 99.54 km of canal.

As per agreed decision of DONORs and BWDB, 25% of earth work are to be allocated to Landless Contracting Society (LCS). Since 1992 a total of 367 reaches were allotted to LCS of those 206 have been completed and the remaining 161 are nearing completion.

Water Users Organization (WUO) represents the core of SRP's institutional frame work and expects to assume a major role in Integrated Water Management (IWM). The details about the function, composition, insight and duties of this organization are described in the Guidelines for People's Participation (GPP) prepared in May, 1994. The guide lines are under revision with some fundamental issues of mutual delineation of duties and responsibilities of WIUOas well as bottom up planning.

On farm development (OFD)

12. OFD is one of the main components of SRP concepts. OFD were introduced in two pilot sub-projects (BTIS & POLDER-55/1) covering gross area of 19,190 ha and net cultivable area of 13,870 ha. A number of pilot activities were undertaken through applying several field techniques, bottom up planning, involving all stakeholders, WUO, EMG, CMG, SMG, interrelated agencies, extension activities and cost recovery. The approach showed positive benefits.

6 BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix B. 1: Borrower's Contribution to the ICR

Project substantiability

13. Because of improvement due to rehabilitation Water Control Structures (WCS) are functioning properly. Many structures are now being operated and controlled by beneficiaries. Maintenance of embankment and canal are often entrusted to EMGs & CMGs. They work successfully and cost effectively. BWDB has taken a policy decision to engage EMG and CMG in all projects. The Final Evaluation Study (FES) of SRP has provided useful information and recommendation of future activities in respect of planning, design, agriculture and economy for the sustainability of the project.

Donors performance

14. The project had four donors namely IDA, EC, GON & WFP. The Donors prepared a Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) of SRP in 1990, with an estimated cost of US$ 111.OOm where the contribution of each donor was earmarked. The project cost was subsequently revised to US$69.OOm through three different amendments (IDA-26.8m, EC-17.8m, GON-14.6m & WFP- 9.8m).

Fourteen joint review missions were fielded by the donors. They reviewed the SRP activities, during implementation stages, changed guidelines and introduced additional conditions namely (a) phased implementation approach for 10 sub-projects, where completion of one step was a pre- condition for fund release for subsequent work. (b) formation of specific nos. of WIJO for each sub-project (3) introduction of IO&M in parallel with rehabilitation. (4) cost recovery on pilot basis.

Three main financiers, imposed different disbursement procedures, which sometimes created confusion and hampered progress of work.

GON financed IO&M, procurement of equipments & TA for Monitoring of Progress and Quality Control (MPQC). They also prepared many Technical Reports (TR-54) and Technical Notes (TN-more than 150) on different topics - engineering, organizational, project implementation, O&M etc. Some of them were very fundamental (TR 33, 48, 50) and seldom used at field level. No simplified hand book was prepared as agreed in the aide-memoire.

EEC financed Rehabilitation and Improvement (R&I) and IO&M, training programme procurement of equipments and technical assistance. The appointment of Consultants was

7 BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix B. 1: Borrower's Contribution to the ICR

delayed by 18 months at the very out set. Delay in the availability of funds and reimbursement etc. consequently hampered the implementation of projects.

WFP contributed resources for earth work in the rehabilitation projects to support preventive maintenance through EMG, CMG and thus helping alleviation of poverty from the project area.

Borrower performance

15a. Rehabilitation activities played a vital role in assuring 'grow more food'. It has increased agricultural production and income as well as changed cropped area, cropping pattern, diversification of crops from local to HYV and from single to double, double to triple with higher cropping intensity. b) Accomplishment of works achieved physically and financially for IO&M and R&I respectively showed that concept of IO&M and R&I procedures are being adopted gradually in all selected sub-projects. Four pillars of IO&M (basic scheme data, budgeting, planning and implementation and monitoring) are being exercised by the field staff. Implementation works, quality and progress seem to be satisfactory through constant monitoring and review meetings held at different level. O&M plans are being duly prepared and approved by the appropriate authority for execution. c) SRP concepts and approaches are transferred successfully to specific level in appropriate time through application of information days, planning and evaluation meeting, training, workshops and follow up meeting along with circulation of many technical reports and notes to system managers and users. But their practices and its sustainability are at stake without TA continuity. d) Several MOU signed between BWDB and other inter related agencies such as DAE, BRDB, DOF, LGED etc. engaged in project area has created condition for better inter agency cooperation and coordination. e) MOWR initiated the re-organization of BWDB to give emphasis on O&M for its maximum utilization. f) O&M cost recovery programme and guidelines are being formulated for successful implementation.

8 BANGLADESH:BWDB SystemRehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixB.1: Borrower'sContribution to the ICR

Lessons learnt from the implementationof the project

16 a) Involvement of multiple donors with different requirements and mid way re-structuring causes confusion in implementation and delays works. b) Delay in acquisition and procurement of land is a hindrance for timely implementation of the project. c) A clear cut strategy and institutional framework, users participation in planning, design and O&M activities are essential for effective rehabilitation of physical infrastructures and for sustainable WM. People's Participation for a continuous process and eventual sharing of duties and responsibilities and recurring O&M costs without incentive is not easy due to prevailing socio-political condition. d) Employment of maintenance groups (EMG & CMG) has been successful and cost effective and should be replicated in other projects. e) Sustainability of the completed projects should receive priority in respect of allocation of fund to avoid its deterioration. f) Transparency regarding project management should prevail among system managers and system users. Knowledge of local environment, land, crops and their suitability for water management is required. Resource management by different stake holders should be considered.

srp/o&m/c:/wp6O/resrpre/sattar

9 Bangladesh:BWDB SystemRehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixB.2: BWDB's Operationand MaintenancePlan

BANGLADESH WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD

SYSTEMS REHABILITATION PROJECT (CREDIT NO. 2099-BD)

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN

Bangladesh Water Development Board is responsible among other activities for the operation and maintenance of its completed projects (544 Nos.) covering flood control, irrigation, drainage, protection against salinity, erosion control and land reclamation. With the passage of time condition of these projects deteriorated to a great extent. To avoid further deterioration and to boost up agricultural production incomes and to raise the standard of living particularly those of landless persons and women through rehabilitation and improved O&M of existing completed BWDB projects the Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP) was taken up in the year 1990-1991.

BWDB organizes O&M of its completed projects through Member (O&M) supported by 6 Zonal Chief Engineer's offices, 16 Circles and 48 O&M Divisions. On farm development and water management are being looked after by Land & Water Use Directorate while Land & Revenue Directorate is responsible for assessment and collection of irrigation service fees.

BWDB existing O&M practices include (a) operation of infrastructure like pump house, navigation lock, irrigation-drainage system, (b) maintenance of all infrastructure. The fund is provided by Government of Bangladesh (GOB) from its revenue budget while a major component of earthwork is carried out with the food assistance from WFP.

Presently the O&M is categorized by BWDB into three sub-heads:

(a) Preventive Maintenance (through engagement of EMG, CMG, SMG etc.) (b) Periodic Maintenance (through engagement of contractors) (c) Emergency Maintenance.

Accomplishment of works achieved physically and financially for O&M and R&I respectively in SRP projects showed that concept of IO&M and R&I procedures are being adopted gradually in the completed projects of BWDB. BWDB is planning to introduce the experience of SRP in all completed FCDI projects to ensure better project performance through IO&M with participatory management approach as envisaged in the guidelines of peoples participation (GPP) in 1994 which is undergoing revision to suit the needs of the society. SRP has also developed O&M plan for all its sub-projects and general O&M status reporting format for all BWDB projects. BWDB has endorsed the document for adoption in all the projects. For preventive maintenance work guidelines for Embankment Maintenance Group and Canal Maintenance Group has been approved by the Board. BANGLADESH:BWDB System Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixC. 1: Governmentof Netherland'sContribution to the ICR

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE'

Main Conclusions

1. The analysis presented in this report has contained a range of conclusions at each stage. These are consolidated here into a core set of main conclusion which, whilst presented very starkly, capture the essence of the impacts of SRP, both positive and negative, and provide a base upon which future approaches to the issues of rehabilitation and improvement, operation and maintenance and the involvement of local people in water resources management can be built.

2. Effective construction but poor sustainability: the key overall conclusion is that SRP has been effective in reaching one of its main goals, which is to rehabilitate and improve water control structure in order to benefit the population of the areas in which they are located (even if the scale was less than originally anticipated) but unsuccessful in another, which was to develop a sustainable process of operation and maintenance in order to ensure that the rehabilitated structures do not deteriorate again. As such, whilst there are isolated examples of users managing individual structures and many of the SRP initiatives improved the operational effectiveness of the BWDB in this field, at the end of the project, there is not one sub-project in which a sustainable, participatory system of O&M is in place. This means that the concerns over the sustainability of investments are as real in 1997 as they were in 1990 when the project started.

3. Structural problems: the problems SRP encountered mostly reflected structural, rather than operational, factors. These structural factors relate to both the approach to defining, managing and implementing construction activities and the participation and O&M activities:

* The 'slow' progress and subsequent reduction in the number of sub-projects is a consequence of unrealistic targets, the failure to include non-structural issues in construction management, inadequacies in the design and planning system and the failure of all parties to recognise the need to address these issues in the review process. The inherent complexity of the project exacerbated these problems.

* The failure in the participatory process and in O&M (in terms of a sustainable system for O&M) reflect the need to address fundamental policy and institutional issues before the framework for a meaningful system to manage water resources and structures will exist. In other words, the main problem was that these issues were approached in a project framework whilst the key challenges were beyond the scope of any project. These issues are now widely appreciated and the process of policy and institutional reform in the water sector suggests that the pre-conditions for success may exist in the future.

These are in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the "Final Evaluation Study (FES)" of the project, carried out with Dutch funding.

1 BANGLADESH: BWDB System RehabilitationProject Implementation Completion Report Appendix C. 1: Government of Netherland's Contribution to the ICR

4. SRP was needed: both of the goals of SRP (R&I and O&M) were valid. More than this, the water control structures play a key role in rural life and are highly valued by rural people. There is a clear and paramount need to ensure that those which have deteriorated are restored and, where needed, improved. There is also a clear need to ensure that their deterioration does not happen again, and that their functioning should reflect local needs and conditions. This in turn led to a key conclusion that, whilst the job SRP was designed to do was an important one, a classic project of this sort is an inappropriate vehicle to achieve these ends.

5. Capturing local diversity: these local needs and conditions are complex and varied. Future approaches must be based on an integrated water resources management approach, must take account of the needs and interests of all stakeholders and must recognise the interactions between local-level processes and the wider water resources environment.

6. Building participation: from this, it is clear that the objectives relating to participation are also needed if this is understood to mean the representation of all stakeholders in the decision-making process. This in turn will be contingent upon the existence of an institutional structure in which these interests are represented and which is linked into the wider institutional framework above the local level. The field research demonstrated both the desire of local people to be involved and their capacities to organise themselves and mobilise resources around water management issues. It also showed the need to integrate participation into the process from the beginning, and that any project needs to have an organisational structure and relate to institutions which are compatible with such participatory goals.

7. These are the main conclusions from the FES relating to the structural conditions of the project and the goals which it was intended to meet. There are also many conclusions relating to specific aspects of project performance. This includes fields such as construction quality and management, the design process, specific institutional development activities intended to enhance the capacities of the BWDB and the social, economic and environmental impacts of the project and others.

8. There is no need to repeat all of these conclusions here. Many aspects of the evaluation of these components were positive, both in terms of their individual integrity and quality and in terms of their impact on the culture and structure of the BWDB, though a number of negative conclusions were also reached. There are consequently many positive outcomes from these different parts of the project, with in particular a range of organisational and procedural changes which have the potential to significantly enhance the BWDB's capacities. These are mostly developed only within the project and need further actions to consolidate them and ensure their full institutionalisation.

9. Both the BWDB and the water sector as a whole are undergoing profound changes at the policy and the institutional level. The experiences of SRP have both contributed to these processes and illustrated the need for such changes. The surrounding environment in which SRP was formed has changed to an extent that it is inconceivable that a project with the structural

2 BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix C. 1: Government of Netherland's Contribution to the ICR

faults of SRP would now be supported by either GoB or the donors. The direction of the changes is an exciting one in which the potential for building a sustainable future for water resources management now exists. The recommendationswith which we conclude this report are intended to build on the lessons learnt from SRP and contribute to this process.

The Way Ahead: Devolved Integrated Water Resources Management

10. It is clear from these main conclusions of the FES that the problems which SRP experienced reflect fundamental structural conditions of the policy, institutional and management framework within which the project was formed and implemented. In this, SRP was a creature of its times and, as we have seen, the times have changed. There is now an open and far- reaching process of discussion, policy development and institutional reform in the water sector in Bangladesh; a process which has few precedents in terms of scope or sophistication in the contemporary world. The unthinkable is being thought and the undo-able done.

11. This context has been an exciting one in which to execute this evaluation, and opens the door for recommendations which go far beyond those associated with the immediate implementation of SRP. The study team was specifically asked to consider these broader issues by the FES Steering Committee; a process which has generated the following recommendations:

12. Defining the Policy and Legal Framework: there has been a dynamic of policy development in recent years. This needs to be taken further, with actions to turn the goal of integrated water resources management in to a concrete reality. This will involve policy reforms beyond the water sector and may entail primary legislation in areas such as property and water rights. A coherent strategy is needed and should be developed urgently. This should be seen as a high priority for external support, for a suitable policy and legal framework is a pre-condition for any process of capacity-building and institutional reform.

13. Multi-Agency Subsidiarity: the need for subsidiarity is clear, with the responsibility for different aspects of the management of water resources and water structures devolved away from the centre. In this, it is also clear that trying to do everything through one agency, the BWDB, is inherently flawed. There is a need for multiple agency involvement, including central government departments, local government, NGOs and locally-based community organisations. The division of responsibilities between these different levels and workable protocols for their interaction and co-ordination are similarly essential. This is an inherently complex process which involves re-defining mandates and levels of authority, re-directing budgets, capabilities and facilities and establishing a clear and shared vision on where water resources management is going. This in turn needs to be based on recognising the different characteristics of different types of water resources issues. Some reflect national interests and processes, others are more regional or district in character whilst yet others are predominantly local and should be managed at this level.

3 BANGLADESH:BWDB System Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixC.1: Governmentof Netherland'sContribution to the ICR

14. Reform of the BWDB: the process described here obviously means that a new mandate and structure for the BWDB is needed. This should recognise and build on its strengths as a technical agency and ensure that these traditional capabilities are not lost. In this, the BWDB should act as a technical support agency to others who have direct responsibility for managing water resources and structures at local and regional/district levels. Other agencies, such as the LGED, should also have a role at this level and the 'clients' of these agencies should be able to select who they see as the most appropriate service provider. The BWDB, as a central agency. should also have direct responsibility for structures, resources and projects which are national in character, acting in this as the guardian of the wider public good. Finally, the BWDB should play a part in monitoring and enforcing compliance with national laws, standards and regulations. In this, it again acts as the agency of national interest.

15. Linking to Decentralisation: the process of subsidiarity described above should specifically not be based around a set of dedicated, parallel institutions: the failure of the WUG approach shows the inherent dangers of this model. Instead, it should be based around existing institutions at the local level (with these being flexible and locality-specific) and these institutions should be linked into the emerging structures of local government. The local government tiers will in turn be directly responsible for structures and resources which are supra- local in character and will have a responsibility to ensure that local-level institutions are representative of all stakeholder interests, are not controlled by elite groups and act in a manner which ensures long-term sustainability. Local government should also have a mediation role in water resources conflicts. This should include mediating both between communities, where the actions of one affect the interests of another, and within communities, providing a "court of appeal" where conflicts cannot be resolved within the local organisations. One key issue which needs to be addressed is the types and sources of resources the different levels will need to fulfill their responsibilities. In principle, these resources should be generated locally, but some types of transitional support is likely to be needed.

16. Strengthening Local Institutions: the FES has demonstrated the potential of local initiatives in water resources management, but has also identified the need not to idealise these initiatives. Although they are well-developed in some areas, they are weak in others and will need considerable support if they are to become the focal point of local-level management of water resources and infrastructure. This local-level capacity-building should be seen as one of the highest priorities for external support to the sector.

Actions to Consolidate the Lessons of SRP

17. These points about basic structural and institutional reform have the potential to set a new long-term trajectory for the future of the sector. They are by their nature long-term and there are many actions which should be taken in the meantime to build on the lessons learnt during SRP. As was noted above, there are a number of areas in which SRP has produced approaches and

4 BANGLADESH:BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix C. 1: Government of Netherland's Contribution to the ICR procedures which have considerable potentials for improving the effectiveness of the BWDB. There are also negative lessons to be learnt: what not to do next time as well as what to do better.

There is a danger that these potentials will be lost if concerted action is not taken to consolidate them and integrate them into the changes which the BWDB is currently experiencing. Based on this, we would advance the following recommendations:

18. The long-term future of O&M should be based on profound structural reforms to institutions and policies (see above), but there will be a continuing need to ensure that O&M takes place and improves in the interim. At present, this means ensuring that the BWDB has the capacity and budget to undertake O&M, and that the progress made under SRP does not wither after the project finishes.

19. There is a need for continuing rehabilitation and improvement activities. The means to achieve this should be considered and external support should continue to recognise this as a priority area for support. Headlines such as "Flood control embankment at Zinapur on verge of collapse" (The Independent, 2nd November 1997) demonstrate the urgency of such measures, for the failure of these structures affects millions. These immediate and concrete realities should not be lost in our drive for structural reform.

20. The selection of what to rehabilitate where and, crucially, the details of the design process should be based on locally-defined needs and priorities. This in turn means that the most essential component of any participatory process is at this planning and design stage. This should be a pre-condition of any future activities in this field.

21. Steps to consolidate SRP approaches in both training and human resources management and construction and O&M management need to be taken. This should include measures to develop and institutionalise SRP products such as the personnel management system, the needs- based planning approach, the quality control monitoring system and the new procedures on tendering and contracting.

Changes to Project Structures and the Project Cycle

22. A number of the problems in SRP reflect features of the project's structure and the cycle of formulation, implementation and supervision. This is in addition to the issue of trying to address structural reforms through projects. The following recommendations are intended to ensure that the way projects run is not incompatible with their goals:

23. The multi-donor structure of SRP, with each of the four donors having their own policies and procedures, undoubtedly impeded implementation. Where similar multi-donor structures are needed it is essential that a simpler, more transparent and more coherent designation of responsibilities and procedures is adopted. If possible, there should be one set of

5 BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix C. 1: Government of Netherland's Contribution to the ICR management and financial procedures. The ultimate goal should be for the BWDB to have one set of procedures which apply to all projects, and for donors to work within this system.

24. Future projects should have a project structure which reflects its goal and character. This means that the sort of complex mix of local-level construction activities, participatory development at the local level and institutional development at the level of the organisation found in SRP present profound problems. Good project design will be needed to make sure that a viable structure is in place, with specific detailing of how the management of different components will be achieved.

25. The setting of targets and project planning process must recognise and integrate the non- technical aspects of investment preparation: consultation in design, land acquisition, tendering, etc. A far longer preparatory phase before physical investments should start is needed. The protocols reached in the Compartmentalisation Pilot Project regarding land acquisition provide an important precedent in this field.

26. Projects such as SRP, which have a major experimental dimension to them in terms of developing new ways of doing things, should have greater flexibility in procedures, targets, timing, budgets, etc. This is inevitably procedurally difficult but it would better reflect their process nature and avoid the sort of self-defeating targetism which has characterised SRP.

27. Integral to this should be the integration of adequate monitoring and evaluation into project design and implementation. This must go far beyond the monitoring of physical and financial progress and meaningless "benchmark studies" which have characterised SRP. This approach should be based around the identification and monitoring of robust key indicators which reflect both process and outcomes and which are based on field data collection.

28. The sustainability of these structures must not depend upon central government revenues, but future attempts at 'cost recovery' should wait until there is an adequate institutional base on the ground in which the beneficiaries have the ultimate say over what is needed and how it should be spent, but also bear the consequences of any failure to mobilise resources.

6 BANGLADESH:BWDB System Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixC.2: EuropeanCommission's Contribution to the ICR

European Commission's contribution to

Implementation Completion Report

ALA 89/06 Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP)

Bangladesh Water Development Board

Introduction:

This is the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) of BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project, jointly funded by IDA, European Community, the Netherlands and the World Food Programme. The total cost of the project at its inception was 111 million U.S Dollars, of which EC's share was 14.9 million US Dollars. Through a modification of the Financing memorandum in May 1997, the EC's share was increased to 16 million U.S Dollars (14.5 million ECU). The activities of the project under EC financing, except the construction of a Training Institute, ends on 31.12.97. The financing memorandum is being extended up to 31.12.98 in order to complete the construction of the training institute.

Background of the project:

Government of Bangladesh has made large investment in flood control, drainage and surface irrigation projects since the country became independent. These investments are important for increasing the country's food production, agricultural productivity and rural incomes and the security of rural population. Much of the potential benefits of these investments are not being fully realized. Reasons for this include lack of effective operation and regular maintenance, resulting in deterioration of the systems. This in turn is brought about by:

* shortfalls in funding for the BWDB under the Government budget; * weaknesses in BWDB's organizational arrangements, procedures, staff capabilities and motivation for operation and maintenance; and * insufficient participation by the farmers and farmers' groups.

The need for Systems Rehabilitation Project was identified in 1982. A feasibility study was organized which revealed that about half of BWDB's 400 projects required rehabilitation works. Consequently, detailed feasibility studies for 21 sub-projects were completed during end of 1988. Further more, a study was done in 1988 to analyze the O&M situation in some irrigation projects.

In 1988, the Government of Bangladesh approached the Commission and the Netherlands in connection with a possible cofinancing of the project. BANGLADESH:BWDB System RehabilitationProject ImplementationCompletion Report Appendix C.2: European Commission's Contributionto the ICR

Project Description:

The underlying main aim of SRP is to protect and increaseagricultural production and incomes and to raise standards of living, particularlythose of landless persons and women.

The overall objective of the project was to address the problems of inadequate operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures. In conjunction with the rehabilitation works, parallel programmes were being undertakento improve BWDB abilities in the field of training, staff development and expenditure planning as well as encouraginggreater farmer awareness and participation in the O&M of the sub-projects.

The project comprises following three componentsunder EC financing:

1. Rehabilitation component:It covers the preparation of feasibility studies and detailed engineering designs as well as tender documents for the rehabilitation and improvement works of 65 (out of prior screening of 80) sub-projectsincluded under the project, covering an area of about 365,000ha. It also covers cost of rehabilitation and improvement works in the following five sub-projects:

Buri Teesta Irrigation Project Polder 55/1 Polder 64/1-A Polder 64/1-B and Sangu River Bank Protection.

2. Improved O&M component:It covers the cost of preventive maintenance and periodic structure maintenance works in the following six sub-projects:

ChandpurIrrigation project Muhuri Irrigation Project Karnafuli Irrigation Project Nawabganj O&M subdivision Polder 55/1 and Buri Teesta Irrigation Project.

3. Training and Staff development:This component is designed to overcome operational inefficienciesin personnel planning and training in BWDB by:

* strengtheningBWDB capability for personnel planning and development, * strengtheningBWDB training and staff developmentorganization and * upgrading the capacity of BWDB staff and beneficiariesin O&M through training programmes.

The funding covers the cost of technical assistance,the production of training materials, the organization of training prograrnmesas well as the purchase of necessary equipment and the rehabilitation and expansion of the Hydrologicalinstitute of Bhagyakul. BANGLADESH:BWDB System Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixC.2: EuropeanCommission's Contribution to the ICR

ImplementationArrangements:

Bangladesh Water DevelopmentBoard (BWDB) under the Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) was responsible for implementingthe project. The works were organizedthrough RehabilitationDirectorate for rehabilitation component,Operation and Maintenance Directorate for improved O&M component and Training and Staff DevelopmentDirectorate for training and staff development component.

The TA Consultant: Sir William Halcrow/DHV/BCEOMand their local associates prepared the feasibility studies and designs. The works were done in close consultation with the executing agency, which approved the studies/designs.

Vehicles and equipment were procured for the supervisionof works by BWDB. However, the technical assistance provided by the Netherlands assisted the executing agency with managementand implementation,including supervisionof rehabilitation and O&M works covered under the project.

The Directorate of Training and Staff Developmentimplemented the training and staff development componentwith the assistance of the TA Consultant.

The TA Consultantprovided assistance to strengthen the Training and Staff Development Directorate to ensure efficient implementation.

The rehabilitation of Bhagyakul Training Institute is being implementedunder the TA Consultant's supervision and it is hoped that the work will be completed by June this year.

The Technical Assistance had a total of 748 man-monthsof which 157 were expatriate and 591 local.

Regular meetings (MOWR, BWDB and Donors) were held in order to monitorthe progress of the project.

Cost and Financing: The EC contributionto the project was increased from 13.5 million ECU to 14.5 million ECU. The component-wisecost breakdown is as follows: in ECU

Description of Items - Financing Actual expenditure j Remarks X [leasibility study 1Memorandumprovision2 up to 31.12.97 l . ______2,885,331 Feasibilitystudy 3,052,704 2,885,331*_ _--- Rehabilitation of 5 sub-projects 2,950,000 2,950,000 & vehicles and t 1,687,848 1,634,017 tConstruction in Building improvement Bhagyakul is

(Bhagyakul) ______-__ continuing_- O&M in 6 sub-projects 2,900,000 2,900,000 Technical Assistance, Training 3,855,768 3,215,064 cost and evaluation l Contingencies ______43,680 Total __ 14,490,000 __ 13,584,412_ BANGLADESH: BWDB System Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix C.2: European Commission's Contribution to the ICR

Achievements:

The TA Consultant has carried out feasibility studies on 48 sub-projects (covering a gross area of 361,367 ha, with a net cultivated area of 268,767 ha) and completed 37 final designs (covering a gross area of 304,104 ha). The TA has prepared, in conjunction with BWDB:

* a planning methodology, which detailed the methods used for the surveys and preparation of feasibility studies * technical specification and design criteria * O&M plan/manual etc..

Disbursement of advances for Rehabilitation and 0 & M is 100% complete. However, the reconciliation of advances is not yet completed.

The TA has successfully completed a major reform in this section of the Water Board and has introduced many new essential practices to reinforce and sustain the training and staff development functions of BWDB, such as

a management information system * annual performance appraisals and * manpower planning.

A staff inventory and job descriptions have been prepared and staffing plans developed for all field units and BWDB HQ.

Because the revision of the Guideline for people's participation was not completed, BWDB was unable to implement any beneficiary training programmes.

Management training has been taken by 200 participants and management & planning training by 813 participants. 14 BWDB officials took part in human resource management training and 27 BWDB officials took part in courses on training management development and production of training materials, both held in Thailand.

The TA made a training needs analysis of whole of BWDB.

The rehabilitation of Bhagyakul Training Institute could not be completed on 31.12.97. Additional funds have been placed for the extension and completion of Bhagyakul Institute. The validity of the financing memorandum is being extended up to 31.12.98 and a rider to the TA Contract is being processed to supervise the construction and other related activity of the Bhagyakul Training Institute. BANGLADESH:BWDB System Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixC.2: EuropeanCommission's Contribution to the ICR

New Project:

The Government had submitted proposal to the Commission for a new project entitled "Strengthening Training and Staff Development" to replace the existing one to further support training and staff development in the Water Board. As the extended project phase of

SRP accomplishes the objective of the project and as the proposed project does not figure anymore in the present EC Bangladesh Co-operation Strategy, the Commission has decided not to fund the project.

24.2.98

BANGLADESH:BWDB System Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixC.3: WorldFood Program'sContribution to the ICR

World Food Programme

03 March 1998

WFP's Involvement and its contribution:

Since the inception of the System Rehabilitation Project (SRP) in FY91, the World Food Programme has allocated 92,703 tones wheat and Taka 6,610,500 (total equivalent US$ 15.93 millions) for construction/rehabilitation of 1,050 km embankment, excavation/re-excavation of 800 km canal and year round routine maintenance of completed embankment started from 1996/97.

WFP emphasizes on the involvement of the poorest of the poor including women in the implementation of earthwork activities. In SRP sub-projects, WFP attempted to involve Labour Contracting Societies (LCS) in the implementation of schemes under WFP supported projects. This approach appeared to be an effective way to select target beneficiaries for food aid and also to bring qualitative changes in the implementation of earthwork activities. Based on the experiences in SRP, BWDB in principle accepted LCS/NGO/Water User Committee as a implementing partner and made necessary provision in the guidelines for Food Assisted Projects.

WFP focuses on improving the performance of the projects through the introduction of an effective Operation and Maintenance (O&M) mechanism. WFP allocated resources for both rehabilitation and O&M activities of SRP Sub-projects and emphasized on introduction of a systematic long-term planning of resources for rehabilitation and maintenance simultaneously. Subsequently, in 1996197, a strategy has been prepared for a year round routine maintenance for projects under WFP-assistance including completed SRP sub-project. As has been tried in SRP project (EMG), the food aided maintenance programme emphasizes both on maintenance of infrastructure and on sustainable human development of the earthwork labourers (including maintenance crew).

At large, involvement of different donors in SRP was very useful to pursue BWDB in initiating actions to promote peoples participation in the overall management of the projects, joint efforts were made to ensure that BWDB prepare necessary guidelines to strengthen the O&M of the projects.

In addition, the views of WFP had been narrated in different aid-memoires prepared during the project period which could also be referred to in preparing the ICR. APPENDIX D

FINANCIAL AND ECONOMICRE-EVALUATION

CONTENTS

A. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ...... 1

B. FARM INCOMES ... 4...... 4

C. ECONOMIC RE-EVALUATION ...... 4

D. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ... 6...... 6

TABLES 1. Cropped Area, Yields and Production - Polder 55/1 Subproject 2. Cropped Area, Yields and Production - Beel Singri Subproject 3. Cropped Area, Yields and Production - Buri Teesta Subproject 4. Cropped Area, Yields and Production - Chaptir Haor Subproject 5. Cropped Area, Yields and Production - KIP Subproject 6. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Polder 55/1 - Pre-Project 7. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Polder 55/1 - Without Project 8. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Polder 55/1 - With Project 9. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Beel Singri - Pre-Project 10. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Beel Singri - Without Project 11. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Beel Singri - With Project 12. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Buri Teesta - Pre-Project 13. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Buri Teesta - Without Project 14. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Buri Teesta - With Project 15. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Chaptir Haor - Pre-Project 16. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Chaptir Haor - Without Project 17. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - Chaptir Haor - With Project 18. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - KIP - Pre-Project 19. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - KIP - Without Project 20. Per Ha Financial Crop Budget - KIP - With Project 21. Expenditures - Polder 55/1 Subproject and Beel Singri Subproject 22. Expenditures - Buri Teesta Subproject, Chaptia Haor Subproject and Dardaria Khal Subproject 23. Expenditures - Karnafuli Irrigation Subproject, Chandpur Irrigation Subproject and Muhuri Irrigation Subproject 24. Expenditures - Sangu River Subproject and Kushiyara River Subproject 25. Expenditures - Total Project Bangladesh: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix D: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation

26. Estimated and Actual O&M Costs 27. Summary of Financial and Economic Prices 28. Economic Price Derivation 29. List of Subprojects 30. Economic Analysis - Polder 5511Subproject only 31. Economic Analysis - Beel Singri Subproject only 32. Economic Analysis - Buri Teesta Subproject only 33. Economic Analysis - Chaptir Haor Subproject only 34. Economic Analysis - Karnafuli Irrigation Project only 35. Economic Analysis - Chandpur Irrigation Project only 36. Economic Analysis - Muhuri Irrigation Project only 37. Economic Analysis - Dardaria Khal Subproject only 38. Economic Analysis - Whole Project - R&I of 32 subprojects 39. Economic Analysis - Whole Project - R&I of 35 subprojects 40. Economic Analysis - Polder 55/1 Subproject, including other project costs 41. Economic Analysis - Beel Singri Subproject, including other project costs 42. Economic Analysis - Buri Teesta Subproject, including other project costs 43. Economic Analysis - Chaptir Haor Subproject, including other project costs 44. Economic Analysis - Karnafuli Irrigation Subproject, including other project costs 45. Economic Analysis - Chandpur Irrigation Project, including other project costs 46. Economic Analysis - Muhuri Irrigation Project, including other project costs 47. Economic Analysis - Dardaria Khal Subproject, including other project costs 48. Economic Analysis - Whole Project - 32 subprojects and other costs 49. Economic Analysis - Whole Project - 35 subprojects and other costs IMPLEMENTATIONCOMPLETION REPORT

BANGLADESH

BWDB SYSTEMSREHABILITATION PROJECT (Credit No. 2099-BD)

APPENDIX D

FINANCIALAND ECONOMICRE-EVALUATION

A. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

1. At appraisal, incremental agricultural production was quantified from the improved drainage conditions and expansion of irrigation resulting from rehabilitation and improvement works (R&I), and maintenance of levels of production against potential losses should the deterioration be allowed to continue. The average cropping intensities of the five appraised subprojects (Buri Teesta Irrigation, Pagner Haor, Polder 55/1, Polder 64/lA and Polder 64/iB) were estimated to increase from about 148% at the time of appraisal to 161% with project (WP) with changes from paddy local varieties (LV) to paddy high yielding varieties (HYV), mainly aus, aman and boro, and some crop diversification (oilseeds, potatoes, vegetables). Due to deterioration in project facilities, cropping intensities without project (WOP) were assumed to decline by 10%-20% starting the fifth year and thereafter. Therefore, incremental cropping intensities with the project (WP) were estimated to range from 16% to 50%. Yields of paddy WOP were assumed to remain at the present levels. However, yields of paddy WP were estimated to increase by 7%-25%, representing an increment of 0.20-0.70 t/ha. By extrapolation of the cropping intensities and yields of the five appraised subprojects to total net cultivable area of about 400,000 ha, annual incremental production at full development was estimated at 400,000 tons of paddy, 60% of which represented a net increase over present production levels due to R&1 works and 40% represented avoidance (due to improved O&M) of losses as a result of future deterioration of facilities.

2. Benchmark surveys were conducted in 1991 for 10 subprojectsl but the follow-up impact studies never took place. The benchmark surveys provide some useful information on pre- project (PP) conditions concerning existing facilities and O&M, socio-economics and agriculture. However, the presentation of the findings is complex and it is difficult to draw a full picture of the subprojects, particularly of the cropping patterns and yields.

3. Through initiatives of the Government of Netherlands (GON), a final evaluation study (FES) was launched in early 1997 by an independent consultant team under separate funding provided by GON. The FES aimed at assessing a wide range of SRP activities, including the economic impact. The study included comprehensive field surveys in seven selected

Buri Teesta Irrigation, Polder 64/1A, Polder 64/1B, Polder 55/1, Pagner Haor, Sangu River Bank Protection,ChandpurIrrigation Project(CIP), Muhuri Irrigation Project (MIP), Kamafuli IrrigationProject (KIP), and BeelSingri. Bangladesh: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix D: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation

subprojects 1. The production data from the FES, however, represents the agricultural situation WOP because the surveys were conducted before the completionof R&I works of subprojects.

4. The ICR mission re-evaluated the financial impact and economic viability of five subprojects, selected as representative of the 35 subprojects implemented in SRP, excluding two river protection subprojects. The five selected subprojects are Buri Teesta Irrigation, Chaptir Haor, Coastal Polder 55/1 and Beel Singri Flood Control and Drainage (FCD) and Ichimati unit of Karnafuli Irrigation Project (KIP). Two subprojects (Chaptir Haor and Beel Singri FCD) selected for the analysis differ from those selected at appraisal for which only limited information is available. The Ichimati unit of KIP is an additional subproject selected for the financial and economic re-evaluation. Additional analysis has also been undertaken to assess the economic viability of three further subprojects, Dardaria Khal (FCD), Chandpur Irrigation Project (CIP) and Muhuri Irrigation Project (MIP), by using their actual investment expenditures and benefited areas but the assumed cropping patterns and yields of the Beel Singri FCD and KIP, for which better agricultural information is available. The analysis is based on available information from the 1991 benchmark surveys, feasibility study reports of subprojects prepared during 1993-1994, 1997 FES surveys and additional interviews with farmers in selected subproject areas visited by the ICR mission and Thana/Union agricultural production data.

5. Cropping areas, yields and production and financial per ha crop budgets for the selected five subprojects are presented in Tables 1-20 and summarised below:

Cropping Intensity and Yields

Buri Teesta Chaptir Haor Polder 55/1 Bee] Singri (FCD) KIP PP WOP WP PP WOP WP PP WOP WP PP WOP WP PP WOP WP Cropping Intensity 206 209 214 101 102 105 139 203 225 132 131 151 170 191 208

Yields (tUha) BAus 1.2 1.2 - - - - - 1.05 1.10 1.30 1.10 1.30 - - - B Aman - - - 1.20 1.50 1.50 ------Aus LV - - - 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.60 1.65 ------AusHYV 2.80 2.80 3.00 - 2.00 2.00 1.80 2.55 2.65 2.62 2.74 2.80 2.83 2.83 2.83 Aman LV 2.27 2.10 2.30 1.57 1.83 1.83 2.00 1.73 1.80 1.80 1.65 1.90 2.20 2.12 3.00 Aman HYV 3.04 2.90 3.25 - - - 2.12 2.67 2.80 2.99 2.90 3.25 3.06 2.90 3.25 Boro LV 2.48 - - 1.29 1.30 1.50 2.30 - - 2.48 - - Boro HYV 3.16 3.40 3.80 2.96 3.00 3.00 - - - 4.30 4.50 4.50 4.06 3.98 4.00 Wheat 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.74 1.84 1.84 - - 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 -

6. Cropping intensities PP ranged from 101% at Chaptir Haor to 206% at Buri Teesta. The cropping intensity WOP in 1996/97 in all subprojects, except Buri Teesta and Chaptir Haor, had already increased substantially by 20%-65% over the pre-project levels to 151% at Beel Singri and 204% at Polder 55/1. Also, substantial areas were already brought under HYV aus, aman and boro paddy and some high value cash crops (potatoes, vegetables, etc.). The expansion in the cropping areas and adoption of HYV paddy were due to farmers' own initiatives to invest more on farm inputs and on private minor drainage and irrigation equipment (low-lift pumps

Chatir Haor, Beel Singri, KIP, Polder 64/1B, Polder 55/1, Dardariakhal and Kanchikatakhal. The selection of subprojectswere to representthe whole spectrumof subprojectsin SRP and to reflectvarious levels of TA inputs. Bangladesh: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix D: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation

(LLPs) and shallow tubewells) . However, yields of aus and aman HYV paddy decreased by 5%/- 15% below the pre-project levels due to flash flood and drainage problems and interrupted irrigation water supply.

7. Protection from flash floods and provision of improved drainage and assured irrigation water supply are expected to induce farmers to further expand the cultivated areas and to invest more on farm inputs resulting in increased cropped area, higher paddy yields and shift to HYV paddy as well as diversification to other high value cash crops WP. In addition, expansion of private minor irrigation equipment would help farmers to expand HYV paddy areas in all FCD and FCDI subproject areas. Cropping intensities are estimated to increase by 3%-5% at Buri Teesta and Chaptir Haor, and by 17%-22% at Polder 55/1, Beel Singri and KIP, substantially lower than the overall increases of 16%-50% estimated at appraisal. Overall yields of aus and aman HYV paddy WP are estimated to marginally increase by 2-10%, representing an increment of 0.05-0.35 t/ha compared with an increment of 0.2-0.7 t/ha estimated at appraisal.

8. At Coastal Polder 55/1, as a consequence of the more reliable water control, which is now possible due to the construction of new irrigation inlets, and improved drainage due to new flushing sluices, farmers are prepared to invest more on HYV seeds and other inputs. This results in higher paddy yields as well as the ability to grow HYV rather than LV. The increased area of HYV aus is due to the use of tidal irrigation through the new inlets.

9. At Chaptir Haor, protection from flash floods and the existence of newly constructed drainage facilities enable farmers to shift from LV boro to HYV boro and marginally increase cropping intensity. Moreover, farmers have been draining the Haor by using LLPs to plant HYV paddy earlier in order to avoid risk from flash floods.

10. At Buri Teesta, the improved irrigation system has enabled only a modest increase in irrigation in boro, as there is insufficient water to irrigate more, and has provided reliable supplementary irrigation for about 2,200 ha of HYV aus and aman. Reliable irrigation also improves yields and encourages a shift to HYV paddy and other cash crops. Without the project this would be LV paddy. Despite its profitability, the tobacco area has been decreasing due to marketing problems. With the construction of water outlet pipes, it is now possible to drain out water at will. An increasing number of STWs is also helping to expand HYV aus and aman areas. The drainage of swamp area downstream of the barrage brought about 100 ha back into production. Similarly, at Ichimati unit of KIP, the rehabilitation and improvement of the irrigation system will ensure that reliable water supply is maintained thereby avoiding reduction in cropped areas and aman and boro yields.

11. Beel Singri still suffers from regular flash flooding and inadequate drainage. Newly constructed regulators offer the possibility of more controlled water management which will result in increased cropped areas, higher paddy yields and a shift to HYV paddy. High land of the Barind area has been increasingly used for growing vegetables as marketing is not a problem.

12. By extrapolation of cropping intensities and yields from the five subprojects to 35 subprojects, covering the total net cultivable areas of 253,168 ha rehabilitated and improved under the project, annual incremental paddy production at full development is re-estimated at Bangladesh: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix D: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation

about 222,160 tons, valued at about Tk 1.1 billion (US$25 million), compared with the SAR estimate of 253,168 ton per year (ICR Part II, Table 5).

13. The project is estimated to generate an additional 9.6 million man-days per year of on-farm employment at full development. A total of about 460,750 families would directly benefit from the project. Given the uncertainty about the project sustainibility, a sensitivity analysis has been made and the findings are in para 21.

B. FARM INCOMES

14. At appraisal, the financial impact of the project on farm incomes was calculated for the five appraised subprojects. Annual net farm incomes of one ha farms were estimated to increase by 11%-48% over the pre-project income levels. For this ICR, based on cropping patterns, yields and per ha financial crop budgets in Tables 1-20, annual net farm incomes of one ha farms are re-estimated to increase by 21%-80% over the pre-project income levels for the five selected subprojects, substantially higher than the increments estimated at appraisal. Incremental annual net farm incomes of one ha farms are re-estimated to increase from Tk 5,355 -Tk 19,815 pre-project to Tk 7,440-Tk 26,365 WP. However, incremental annual net farm incomes in WP would be smaller at I1%-32% over the WOP levels, or increments of Tk 1,740-Tk 4,300 as shown below:

Annual Net Farm Incomes-One-Ha Farms (Tk)

Subprojects Pre-Project WOP WP Incremental Incremental (WP-PP) (WP-WOP) Tk % Tk % Buri Teesta Irrigation 17,910 19,270 21,630 3,720 21 2,360 12 Chaptir Haor 5,355 5,700 7,440 2,085 39 1,740 31 Coastal Polder 55/1 10,915 15,330 19,610 8,695 80 4,280 28 Beel Singri FCD 11,060 13,630 17,930 6,870 62 4,300 32 KIP (Ichimatiunit) 19,815 23,800 26,365 6,550 33 2,565 11

C. ECONOMIC RE-EVALIUATION

15. At appraisal, the economic evaluation was based entirely on agricultural benefits. The added security against flood damage, better access to properties and public health benefits due to improved drainage were recognized but not quantified. Similarly, the impact on fisheries and water transport were not quantified. Assuming the import parity price for paddy and including only direct investments on R&I works, the economic rates of return (ERRs) of subprojects were estimated at 23%-45%. The ERR of the whole project, excluding costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP and two river protection subprojects, was estimated at 37% based on extrapolation of ERRs of the five appraised subprojects. For this ICR, using the same appraisal assumptions, ERRs of four selected subprojects (except Beel Singri FCD) are re-estimated at 13%-28% (Tables 30, 32-34). Lower ERRs are due mainly to substantial reduced benefited areas (Buri Teesta from 6,070 ha to 2,232 ha and Ichimati unit of KIP from 15,600 ha to 3,238 ha), delayed accrual of benefits and lower incremental cropping intensities and paddy yields (para 7) . Bangladesh: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix D: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation

The extremely high ERR (97%) for Beel Singri (Table 31) is due to mainly low investment costs but large benefited areas.

16. The economic viability of FCD subproject has been tested by using the assumed cropping patterns and yields of Beel Singri but the actual investment expenditures of the Dardaria Khal (double those of Beel Singri) and the benefited areas (60% smaller than Beel Singri). Based on these assumptions, the ERR of the Dardaria Khal is estimated at 25% (Table 37). Similarly, by using the actual investment expenditures and benefited areas of CIP and MIP, the estimated ERR are calculated at 28% and 34% respectively (Tables 35-36).

17. By extrapolation of ERRs of the four selected subprojects for 32 subprojects, excluding KIP, CIP and MIP, ERR of the whole project is re-estimated at 30% (Table 38). The higher benefits contributed by FCD subprojects, comprising more than 50% of total benefits, have significantly contributed to the high ERR of the whole project. Based on these assumptions but including costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP, the ERRs of the whole project is estimated at 29% (Table 39). The results of ERRs are summarised below:

ERR(%)

Subproject/Whole Project Type of Subproject SAR Estimates ICR Estimates

Buri Teesta Small Irrigation 45 14

Chaptir Haor Haor/Beel 45 a/ 28

Polder 55/1 Coastal Polder 26 b/ 17

Beel Singri Non-Tidal FCD 98

Dardaria Non-Tidal FCD 25

KIP (Ichimati unit) Large Irrigation 13

CIP Large Irrigation 28

MIP Large Irrigation 34

Whole Project c/ 37 30

Whole Project d/ 29 a/ At appraisal, Pagner Haor subproject was selected. b/ At appraisal, ERRs were estimated at 23.1% for Polder 64/lA and 37.9% for Polder 64/lB. c/ Excluding costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP. d/ Including costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP. Bangladesh: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report Appendix D: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation

18. The assumptions for economic re-evaluation followed those used in the SAR as presented below:

(a) The analysis period is 25 years;

(b) All costs and benefits are expressed in 1997 constant prices. Past expenditures have been re-stated in 1997 prices by using GDP deflator and MUV index. Local costs and unskilled labour were further adjusted by a Standard Conversion Factor (SCF) of 0.90;

(d) Incremental O&M expenditures have been used throughout the economic analysis. Expressed in 1997 constant prices, incremental annual O&M costs after completion of R&I works have been estimated at Tk 254/ha for FCD subprojects, Tk 342/ha for irrigation subprojects, Tk 380/ha for haor/beel subprojects and Tk 780/ha for coastal polder subprojects (Table 26);

(e) Replacement assumed at 10 years for O&M and office equipment and vehicles;

(f) Financial prices of outputs and inputs have been based on the 1997 average market prices prevailing in the project areas (Table 27). Economic prices of traded commodities,paddy, wheat, soyabean, TSP and MOP) have been based on the import parity prices, and jute and urea on export parity prices. The average 2000-2005 World Bank's Price Forecasts, October 1997, expressed in 1997 constant value and adjusted for trEnsport and handling charges to farm gate prices (Table 28) have been used for the economic analysis. Non-traded goods, including unskilled labour have been valued at their financial farm gate prices, adjusted by SCF of 0.90;

(g) Build-up of agricultural benefits ( cropping patterns and intensities and yields) have been assumed to occur over a five-year period. The phasing of benefited areas by subprojects is presented in Table 29; and

(h) All labour and draft power (family and hired) have been costed in the analysis.

D. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

20. Several tests were carried out to test the sensitivity of ERRs to changes in key variables: (i) inclusion of all project costs (not only the R&I investments but also training and staff development, technical assistance and equipment and vehicles); (ii) inadequate O&M budget; and (iii) a change in an assumption from import to export parity price for the calculation of the economic price for paddy. If all project costs are included, the re-estimated ERRs are still acceptable and favourable but they would fall to 12%-46% for all selected subprojects (Tables 40-47). The ERRs of the whole project, including all project costs, are calculated at 21% (Table Bangladesh: BWDBSystems Rehabilitation Project ImplementationCompletion Report AppendixD: Financialand EconomicRe-evaluation

48) excluding costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP, and 22% (Table 49) including costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP. The results are summarised below:

ERR (%) ICR Estimates

Subproject/Whole OnlyDirect IncludingAll Inadequate AssumingExport Project R&I Costs Investments O&M Budget ParityPrice for Paddy

Buri Teesta 14 12 6 9

Chaptir Haor 28 21 24 14

Polder 55/1 17 13 11 6

Beel Singri 98 46 81 71

DardariaKhal 25 19 18 17

KIP (Ichimatiunit) 13 12 2 26

CIP 28 23 18 26

MIP 34 22 21 22

WholeProject a/ 30 21 25 19

WholeProject b/ 29 22 20 16 a/ Excludingcosts and benefitsof KIP, CIP and MIP. b/ Includingcosts and benefitsof KIP, CIP and MIP.

21. Inadequate O&M budget has been a major constraint leading to deterioration in the completed FCD and FCDI facilities resulting in decreasing cropped areas. it is possible that the completed subprojects would be maintained at the FY90 budget level as incremental O&M budget is not provided, therefore the completed facilities of subprojects would deteriorate and the cropped areas WP decrease. To analyse the effect of such a situation it has been assumed that cropped areas WP would have decreased by 5% in year 1, 10% in year 2, 15% in year 3, 20% in year 4 and 30% in year 5 after completion of R&I works and thereafter. The decreased cropped areas would be mainly in HYV aus, aman and boro, which would be replaced by LV paddy. Thus, the WP production benefits would decrease by 3%, 5%, 8%, 10% and 15% respectively. The analysis results show that ERRs are highly sensitive to this assumption. Including only R&I investments, the ERRs would fall marginally for five subprojects but substantially to 2% for the Ichimati unit of KIP, 6% for Buri Teesta and 11% for Polder 55/1. The ERR of the whole project Bangladesh: BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Appendix D: Financial and Economic Re-evaluation under these assumptions would still be favourable at 25% excluding costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP, and at 20% including costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP.

22. Assuming Bangladesh was self sufficient in rice and the economic farm gate price based on export parity paddy prices would decrease by nearly 40% from Tk 8,665/ton to Tk 5,324/ton, the incremental net production benefits would reduce between 25% and 55% depending on the coverage of paddy cropped areas, ranging from 70%-87% at Beel Singri, Buri Teesta, Ichimati unit of KIP and Polder 55/1 and almost 100% at Chaptir Haor. The ERRs, including only direct R&I investments, would fall to acceptable rates at 14%-71% for five subprojects, but below the opportunity cost of capital of 12% for Polder 55/1 (6%), Buri Teesta (9%) and the Ichimati unit of KIP (10%). This indicates that future FCD and FCDI investment would need to be justified by more diversification from paddy to other high value crops. However, as noted earlier in para 17, because the large contribution to higher benefits by FCD subprojects, the ERR of the whole project under these assumptions is still satisfactory at 19% excluding costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP, and at 16% including costs and benefits of KIP, CIP and MIP. Bangladesh Table 1 BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Cropped Area, Yields and Production Polder 55/1 Subproject

Pre-project 1/ without Project 2/ With Project 3/

Area (ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area (ha) Yield(t/ha) Total production production Production (tons) (tons) (tons)

B Aus. LV 0 0.00 0 1170 1.05 1229 390 1.10 429 T Aus LV 871 1.09 949 1560 1.60 2496 1560 1.65 2574 T Aus HYV 918 1.80 1652 1170 2.55 2984 3120 2.65 8268 T Aman LV 6882 2.00 13764 3120 1.73 5398 780 1.80 1404 T Aman LIV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aman HYV 735 2.12 1558 4680 2.67 12496 7020 2.80 19656 B Aman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boro LV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Boro HYV 101 2.30 232 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 Jute 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 Wheat HYV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 230 1.80 414 Pulses 1241 0.51 633 2106 0.56 1179 1170 0.56 655 Oilseeds 0 0 0 156 0.6 94 160 0.6 96 Potato 8 7.50 60 546 7.50 4095 780 7.50 5850 Vegetables 0 0.00 0 234 5.00 1170 390 5.00 1950 Groundnut 0 0.00 0 702 1.46 1025 1170 1.46 1708 Chillies 28 0.60 17 390 0.67 261 780 0.67 523 Others 57 1.25 71 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Cropped Area 10841 18937 15834 32425 17550 43527 Net Cultivable Area 7776 7776 7776 Cropping Intensity 139% 204% 226%

1/ Benchmark surveys, june 1992. 2/ Final Evaluation Study financed by GON, 1997, adjusted by additional field data and discussions with local BWDB and DAE staff. 3/ Assumed increased irrigated area with newly construction of irrigation inlets and flusing sluices resulting in shift from local to HYV Aus (40% of NCA) and Aman (90% of NCA) at full development. Bangladesh Table 2 BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Cropped Area, Yields and Production Beel Singri Subproject

Pre-project 1/ Without Project 2/ With Project 3/

Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area (h Yield(t/ha) Total production production Production (tons) (tons) (tons)

B Aus. LV 920 1.30 1196 1620 1.10 1782 480 1.30 624 T Aus LV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aus HYV 856 2.62 2243 1260 2.74 3452 1000 2.80 2800 T Aman LV 1343 1.80 2417 125 1.65 206 210 1.90 399 T Aman LIV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aman HYV 7354 2.99 21988 5550 2.90 16095 7910 3.25 25708 B Aman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boro LV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boro HYV 1917 4.30 8243 3990 4.50 17955 4630 4.50 20835 Jute 108 1.43 154 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 Wheat HYV 307 2.00 614 295 2.00 590 430 2.10 903 Pulses 729 0=62 452 700 0.62 434 560 0.62 347 Oilseeds 131 0.82 107 125 0.82 103 280 0.82 230 Potato 71 10.06 714 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 Vegetables 296 6.58 1948 285 7.24 2063 600 7.24 4344 Fruits 43 25.00 1075 20 25.00 500 30 25.00 750 Sugarcane 213 28.00 5964 210 28.00 5880 200 28.00 5600 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Cropped Area 14288 47116 14180 49061 16330 62539 Net Cultivable Area 10822 10822 10822 Cropping Intensity 132% 131% 151%

1/ Feasibility study, 1994. 2/ Final Evaluation Study, 1997, adjusted by the mission by incorporating damages to both Aus and Aman. 3/ Expected increases in areas to Aman (HYV) and irrigated boro at full development. Bangladesh Table 3 BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Cropped Area, Yields and Production Buri Teesta Subproject

Pre-project 1/ Without Project 2/ With Project 3/

Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total production production Production (tons) (tons) (tons)

B Aus. LV 1017 1.20 1220 375 1.20 450 0 0.00 0 T Aus LV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aus HYV 173 2.80 484 311 2.80 871 530 3.00 1590 T Aman LV 1391 2.27 3158 1258 2.10 2642 297 2.30 683 T Aman LIV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aman HYV 264 3.04 803 919 2.90 2665 1725 3.25 5606 B Aman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boro LV 328 2.48 813 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boro HYV 168 3.16 531 332 3.40 1129 495 3.80 1881 Jute 369 2.20 812 240 2.20 528 240 2.20 528 Wheat HYV 134 2.00 268 163 2.00 326 339 2.00 678 Pulses 127 1.00 127 127 1.00 127 71 1.00 71 Oilseeds 129 0.6 77 106 0.6 64 247 0.6 148 Potato 125 7.00 875 283 7.60 2151 410 7.60 3116 Vegetables 47 6.00 282 184 6.00 1104 212 6.00 1272 Kaon 23 0.70 16 23 0.73 17 7 0.73 5 Tobacco 309 0.90 278 346 1.00 346 198 1.10 218 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Cropped Area 4604 9745 4667 12419 4771 15796 Net Cultivable Area 2232 2232 2232 Cropping Intensity 206% 209% 214%

1/ Benchmark survey, 1992. 2/ Production data by DLWU, BWDB, 1996-1997, adjusted by additional field data and discussions with local BWDB and DAE 3/ Expected increases in irrigated areas resulting in expansion of irrigated aus and boro at full development. Bangladesh Table 4 BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Cropped Area, Yields and Production Chaptir Haor Subproject

Pre-project 1/ Without Project 2/ With Project 3/

Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total production production Production (tons) (tons) (tons)

B Aus. LV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aus LV 0 0.00 0 5 1.00 5 5 1.00 5 T Aus HYV 0 0.00 0 10 2.00 20 10 2.00 20 T Aman LV 51 1.57 80 100 1.83 183 100 1.83 183 T Aman LIV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 TAaan YV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 B Aman 281 1.2 337 25 1.5 38 55 1.5 83 Boro LV 3424 1.29 4417 3250 1.3 4225 1650 1.5 2475 Boro HYV 367 2.96 1086 790 3.00 2370 2400 3.00 7200 Jute 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 Wheat HYV 14 0.74 10 5 1.84 9 20 1.84 37 0 Pulses 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.70 Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 Potato 12 8.29 99 20 8.29 166 40 8.29 332 Vegetables 6 1.65 10 0 0.00 0 0 5.00 0 Groundnut 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 Chillies 21 0.42 9 1S 0.57 9 35 0.60 21 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Cropped Area 4176 6049 4220 7024 4315 10355 Net Cultivable Area 4125 4125 4125 Cropping Intensity 101o 102% 105%

1/ Feasibility Study, 1993. 2/ Final Evaluation Study financed by GON, 1997, adjusted by additional field data and discussions with local BWDB and 3/ Assumed 60% NCA will be covered by boro HYV at full development with improved water management. Bangladesh Table 5 BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Cropped Area, Yields and Production KIP Subproject

Pre-Project 1/ Without Project 2/ With Project 3/

Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total Area(ha) Yield(t/ha) Total production production Production (tons) (tons) (tons)

B Aus. LV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aus LV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aus HYV 448 2.83 1268 318 2.83 900 300 2.83 849 T Aman LV 570 2.20 1254 350 2.10 735 340 2.30 782 T Aman LIV 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 T Aman HYV 2535 3.06 7757 2508 2.90 7273 2800 3.25 9100 B Aman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boro LV 165 2.48 409 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boro HYV 1709 4.06 6939 2088 3.98 8310 2200 4.00 8800 Jute 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 Wheat HYV 0 0.00 0 0 2.00 0 0 0.00 0 Pulses 6 1.00 6 68 1.10 75 90 1.10 99 Oilseeds 0 0 0 40 0.91 36 120 0.95 114 Potato 15 9.14 137 221 9.14 2020 228 9.14 2084 Vegetables 16 6.00 96 222 6.00 1332 200 6.00 1200 Chillies 39 1.19 46 354 1.21 428 471 1.21 570 Sugarcane 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Cropped Area 5503 17912 6169 21110 6749 23598 Net Cultivable Area 3238 3238 3238 Cropping Intensity 1709 191% 208%

1/ Benchmark survey, 1992. 2/ Final Evaluation Study, 1997, adjusted by the mission by incorporating damages to Aman. 3/ Expected increases in irrigated areas resulting in expansion of irrigated boro at full development. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 6

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Polder SS/1

Pre-Proj ect

B. Au T. Au T Au T. Aman T. Amusn T. Aran Whe Pul Oilseed POtat Vegetable chilli Tobacco Other output. LV HY LV L HYV NYV

Main Produce.

Yield(t/ha) 0 1.09 1.8 2.0 0 2.12 2.3 0 0 0.51 0 7.5 0 0.6 0 1.25

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 4820 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 15600 25000 8500

Value 0 5733 8676 10520 0 10218 11086 0 0 3570 0 24225 0 9360 0 10625

By-Products,

Yield(t/ha) 0 1.3 1.8 3 0 2.1 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 0 1040 1440 2400 0 1680 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 0 6773 10116 12920 0 11898 12926 O 0 3570 0 24225 0 9360 0 10625

Inputs.

Seeds(kg/ha) 0 40 40 40 0 40 40 0 40 0 920 0 1 0 50

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 100 80 20

Value 0 336 444 336 0 444 444 0 0 800 0 9200 0 100 0 1000

Urea(kg/ha) 0 20 40 50 0 50 50 0 0 0 25 0 60 0 60

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 0 125 250 312.5 0 313 313 0 0 0 0 156 0 375 0 375

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 20 20 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 30 0 80 0 30

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 156 156 0 234 234 0 0 0 0 234 0 624 0 234

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 2 of Table 6

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 Value O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chemicals:

Value o 0 100 100 0 200 200 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 0 1500 4500 0 0 0 0 1625 0 1625 0 0

Total Labour(md/ha) 0 100 110 100 0 120 130 0 0 30 0 120 0 85 0 55 Price/md so 50 50 S0 so so50 so so 0so so so so 50 50 5

Labour Costs 0 1500 1650 1500 0 1800 1950 0 0 450 0 1800 0 1275 0 825

Total Animal Days(ad 0 30 40 35 0 47 40 0 14 0 22 0 22 0 14 Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Animal Costs 0 675 900 788 0 1058 900 0 0 315 0 495 0 495 0 31S

Total Costs 0 2636 3500 3192 0 5548 8631 0 0 1565 0 13710 0 4494 0 2749

Net Production Value 0 4137 6616 9728 0 6350 4296 0 0 2005 0 10510 0 4866 0 7876

1/ Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30* of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 7

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Polder 55/1

Without Project

B. Au T. AU T AU T. Ama T. Aman T. Ama Wh Pu Oilsee Potat Vegetabl Chil Groundnut Other

Output: LV HY L LI BY HYV

Main Produce:

Yield(t/ha) 1.05 1.6 2.55 1.73 0 2.67 0 0 1.8 0.56 0.6 7.5 5 0.67 1.46 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 4820 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 15600 13000 8500

Value 5523 8416 12291 9100 0 12869 0 0 10260 3920 9000 24225 17250 10452 18980 0

By-Products,

Yield(t/ha) 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.5 0 2.7 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 8B0 60 0 80B00 0 800Boo 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 1200 2440 1840 20D0 0 2160 0 0 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 6723 9856 14131 11100 0 15029 0 0 10710 3920 9000 24225 17250 10452 18980 0

Inputs,

Seeds(kg/ha) 60 40 40 40 0 40 0 0 50 40 10 920 10 1 75 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 100 45 20

Value 504 336 444 336 0 444 0 0 565 800 200 9200 1500 100 3375 0

Urea(kg/ha) 30 40 50 40 0 50 0 0 40 0 10 25 80 60 80 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 187.5 250 313 250 0 313 0 0 250 0 63 156 500 375 500 0

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 60 20 0 25 0 0 0 0 30 30 60 100 80 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 468 156 0 195 0 0 0 0 234 234 468 780 624 0

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 540 0 page 2 of Table 7

0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 135 135 135 135 Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C m1cals. 0 0 0 200 o 0 0 0 value loo 100 lo0 0 0 100 0 0

0 0 0 1625 1625 1625 0 0 Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 0

120 100 90 1S0 0 Total Labou(iNd/ba) 90 130 150 110 0 1S0 0 0 125 30 70 so so so so Price/si 50 so so 50 50 so so so so so so so 1050 1S00 1So0 1350 2250 0 Labour Cots 13S0 1950 2250 1650 0 2250 0 0 1875 450

22 22 22 46 a Total anial Daysad) 30 33 40 25 0 40 0 28 14 18 is 7s 75 7s 7S Price/rd 75 iS 75 75 75 is 7S 75 05 is iS 315 405 495 495 495 103S 0 animal Costs 675 743 t00 563 0 900 0 0 630

iS5S 1952 13710 6088 4725 $324 0 Total Cost. 2317 3379 4475 2955 0 s702 0 0 3320

2355 7049 10515 11162 5727 10656 0 wet Wtoduction Value 3907 6478 9657 8145 0 9328 0 0 7390

1/ Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30t of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 8

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Polder 55/1

With Project

B. Au T. T T. Am T. Am T. Am W P Oilse Pota Vegetabl Chil Tobacc Groundnu output. H HYV

Main Produce:

Yield(t/ha) 1.1 1.65 2.65 1.80 0 2.8 0 0 1.8 0.56 0.6 7.5 5 0.67 0 1.46

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 4820 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 15600 25000 13000

Value 5786 8679 12773 9468 0 13496 0 0 10260 3920 9000 24225 17250 10452 0 18980

By-Products:

Yield(t/ha) 2 1.8 2.3 2.8 0 2.8 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 1600 1440 1840 2240 0 2240 0 0 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Va 7386 10119 14613 11708 0 15736 0 0 10710 3920 9000 24225 17250 10452 0 18980

Inputs:

Seeds(kg/ha) 60 40 40 40 0 40 0 0 50 40 10 920 10 1 0 75

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 100 80 45

Value 504 336 444 336 0 444 0 0 565 800 200 9200 1500 100 0 3375

Urea(kg/ha) 40 50 60 40 0 60 0 0 40 0 10 25 60 60 0 80

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 250 312.5 375 250 0 375 0 0 250 0 63 156 375 375 0 500

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 60 20 0 30 0 0 0 30 30 60 100 0 80

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 468 156 0 234 0 0 0 0 234 234 468 780 0 624

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 80

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 720 Page 2 of Table 8

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chemicals:

Value 100 100 100 100 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0

Irrigation cos 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 0 1350 0 0 1625 1625 1625 0 0

Total Labour(m 100 140 150 120 0 160 0 125 30 70 120 100 90 0 150 Price/md 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Labour Costs 1500 2100 2250 1800 0 2400 0 0 1875 450 1050 1800 1500 1350 0 2250

Total Animal D 30 33 40 25 0 40 0 20 14 18 22 22 22 0 48 Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Animal Costs 675 743 900 563 0 900 0 0 450 315 405 495 495 495 0 1080

Total Costs 3029 3591 4537 3205 0 6053 0 0 4490 1565 2042 13710 5963 4725 0 8549

Net Production 4357 6528 10076 8504 0 9683 0 0 6220 2355 6959 10515 11287 5727 0 10431

1/ Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 9

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Beel Singri

Pre-Project

B. T. T T. Am T. Am B W P oilse Pota Vegetables Fr Sugarcane Groundnu output* HYV

Main Produce:

Yield(t/ha) 1.3 0 2.62 1.80 2.99 0 4.3 1.43 2 0.62 0.82 10.06 6.58 25 28 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 1000 1190 13000

Value 6838 0 12628 9468 14412 0 20726 5291 11400 4340 12300 32494 22701 25000 33320 0

By-Products:

Yield(t/ha) 2.62 0 2 2 2.99 2.5 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 2096 0 1600 1600 2392 2000 2400 0 500 o 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 8934 0 14228 11068 16804 2000 23126 5291 11900 4340 12300 32494 22701 25000 33320 0

Inputs:

Seeds(kg/ha) 100 0 37 35 36 0 36 9 117 36 9 1171 0.5 40 1000 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 15O 65 3.7 45

Value 840 0 411 294 399.6 0 399.6 360 1322.1 720 180 11710 75 2600 3700 0

Urea(kg/ha) 34 0 94 41 91 0 95 40 71 0 0 70 79 150 116 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 212.5 0 588 256.25 569 0 594 250 444 0 0 438 494 938 725 D

TSP(kg/ha) 12 0 50 20 48 0 58 19 39 0 0 54 43 300 58 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

value 94 0 390 156 374 0 452 148 304 0 0 421 335 2340 452 0

MOP(kg/ha) 6 0 25 9 23 0 27 10 15 0 0 14 22 200 20 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 54 0 225 81 207 0 243 90 135 0 0 126 196 1800 180 0 Page 2 of Table 9

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 0 0 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 135 67.5 270 0 337.5 0 0 135 135 270 135 0 0 0

Chemicals:

Value S0 0 150 100 200 0 300 75 0 0 0 100 100 S00 200 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 1500 0 4500 0 1350 0 0 1625 1625 1625 0 0

Total Labour(md/ha) 133 0 158 131 155 0 161 181 90 40 78 161 151 165 231 0

Price/md 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 5o 50 50 50 50 50 50

Labour Costs 1995 0 2370 1965 2325 0 2415 2715 1350 600 1170 2415 2265 2475 3465 0

Total Animal Days(a 36 0 40 40 42 0 42 38 36 14 20 22 22 33 49 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 7s 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 810 0 900 900 945 0 945 855 810 315 450 495 495 743 1103 0

Total Costs 4055 0 5168 3820 6790 0 10186 4493 5715 1770 1935 17600 5722 13020 9025 0

Net Production Valu 4879 0 9060 7248 10014 2000 12940 798 6185 2570 10365 14894 16979 11980 23495 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 10

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Beel Singri

Without Project

B. A T. A T A T. Ama T. Ama Bor W P Oilsee Potat Vegetables Friu Sugarcane Groundnut

Output: L L B HWV

Main Produce:

Yield(t/ha) 1.1 0 2.74 1.65 2.9 0 4.5 0 2 0.62 0.82 0 7.24 25 28 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 1000 1190 13000

Value 5786 0 13207 8679 13978 0 21690 0 11400 4340 12300 0 24978 25000 33320 0

By-ProductS:

Yield(t/ha) 2.6 0 2.62 3.6 2.99 0 4.5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 Boo 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 2080 0 2096 2880 2392 0 3600 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Val 7866 0 15303 11559 16370 0 25290 0 11900 4340 12300 0 24978 25000 33320 0

Inputs:

Seeds(kg/ha) 100 0 37 35 36 0 36 0 117 36 9 0 0.5 40 1000 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 65 3.7 45

Value 840 0 411 294 399.6 0 399.6 0 1322.1 720 180 0 75 2600 3700 0

Urea(kg/ha) 34 0 100 41 91 0 110 0 71 0 0 0 85 150 116 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 212.5 0 625 256.25 569 0 688 0 444 0 0 0 531 938 725 0

TSP(kg/ha) 12 0 50 20 48 0 60 0 39 0 0 0 50 300 58 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 94 0 390 156 374 0 468 0 304 0 0 0 390 2340 452 0

MOP(kg/ha) 6 0 30 9 23 0 35 0 15 0 0 0 40 200 20 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 54 0 270 81 207 0 315 0 135 0 0 0 360 1800 180 0 Page 2 of Table 10

manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 1 0 0 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 135 67.5 270 0 337.5 0 0 135 135 0 135 0 0 0

Chemicals:

Value S0 0 150 100 200 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 100 S00 200 0

Irrigation cost 0 0 0 0 1S00 0 4500 0 1350 0 0 0 1625 1625 0 0

Total Labour(md 133 0 160 131 155 0 170 0 90 40 78 0 160 165 231 0

Price/md so sO S0 sO 50 sO S0 S0 S0 50 50 50 50 so s0 so

Lgabour Costs 1995 0 2400 1965 2325 0 2550 0 1350 600 1170 0 2400 2475 3465 0

Total Animal Da 35 0 40 40 42 0 43 0 36 14 20 0 22 33 49 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 788 0 900 900 945 0 968 0 810 315 450 0 495 743 1103 0

Total Costs 4033 0 5281 3820 6790 0 10525 0 5715 1770 1935 0 6111 13020 9825 0

Net Production 3833 0 10022 7739 9580 0 14765 0 6185 2570 10365 0 18867 11980 23495 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 11

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Beel Singri

With Project

S. T. T T. Am T. Asan Boro V p Oilse Pota Vegetables Pr Sugarcane Groundnu

Output, KY L HYV

Main Produce,

Yield t/ha) 1.3 0 2.8 1.90 3.25 0 4.5 0 2.1 0.62 0.82 0 7.24 25 28 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 1000 1190 13000

Value 6838 0 13496 9994 15665 0 21690 0 11970 4340 12300 0 24978 25000 33320 0

By-Products.

Yield(t/ha) 2.6 0 2.8 3.8 3.25 0 4.5 0 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 2080 0 2240 3040 2600 0 3600 0 525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 8918 0 15736 13034 18265 0 25290 0 12495 4340 12300 0 24978 25000 33320 0

Inputs.

Seeds(kg/ha) 100 0 40 35 36 0 36 0 117 36 9 0 0.5 40 1000 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 65 3.7 45

Value 840 0 444 294 399.6 0 399.6 0 1322.1 720 180 0 75 2600 3700 0

urea(kg/ha) 34 0 100 50 100 0 110 0 80 0 0 0 85 15O 116 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 212.5 0 625 312.5 625 0 688 0 500 0 0 0 531 938 725 0

TSP(kg/ha) 12 0 60 25 50 0 60 0 29 0 0 0 50 300 58 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 94 0 468 195 390 0 468 0 226 0 0 0 390 2340 452 0

MOP(kg/ha) 6 0 40 15 30 0 35 0 25 0 0 0 40 200 20 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 54 0 360 135 270 0 315 0 225 0 0 0 360 1800 180 0 Page 2 of Table 11

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 1 0 0 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 135 67.5 270 0 337.5 0 0 135 135 0 135 0 0 0

chemicals.

Value 50 0 100 100 200 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 100 500 200 0

lrrigation costs 0 0 0 0 1500 0 4500 0 1350 0 0 0 1625 1625 0 0

Total Labour(sd/ha 133 0 165 140 170 0 170 0 90 40 78 0 160 165 231 0

Price/md sO 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Labour Costs 1995 0 2475 2100 2550 0 2550 0 1350 600 1170 0 2400 2475 3465 0

Total Animal Days( 36 0 40 40 45 0 43 0 36 14 20 0 22 33 49 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 810 0 900 900 1013 0 968 0 810 315 450 0 495 743 1103 0

Total Costs 4055 0 5S07 4104 7217 0 10525 0 5783 1770 1935 0 6111 13020 9825 0

Net Production Val 4863 0 10229 8930 11048 0 14765 0 6712 2570 10365 0 18867 11980 2349S 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGADIISH

BUDS SysteMs Rehabilitation Project Table 12

Iselementation Completion Report

Per Ka Financial Crop Budget

Buri Teesta

Pre-Project

B. T. T T. Am T. Am B if P Oilse Pota Vegetables Ka Tobacc Groundnu output Hw

Main Produce.

Yield(t/ha) 1.2 0 2.8 2.27 3.04 2.48 3.16 2.2 2 1 0.6 7 6 0.7 0.9 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 4000 25000 13000

Value 6312 0 13496 11940 14653 13045 15231 8140 11400 7000 9000 22610 20700 2800 22500 0

By-Products.

Yield(t/ha) 2.4 0 2.8 3.5 3 3 3 2.2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 1920 0 2240 2800 2400 2400 2400 3960 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 8232 0 15736 14740 17053 15445 17631 12100 11900 7000 9000 22610 20700 2800 22500 0

Inputs.

Seeds(kg/ha) 100 0 30 30 40 30 30 8 80 35 10 1120 10 15 1 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 4 80 45

Value 840 0 333 252 444 252 333 320 904 700 200 11200 1500 60 80 0

Urea(kg/ha) 25 0 80 30 75 30 80 30 60 0 0 50 80 0 60 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 156.25 0 500 187.5 469 188 500 188 375 0 0 313 500 0 375 0

TSP(kg/ha) 10 0 60 20 100 40 60 45 60 0 0 40 50 0 45 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 78 0 468 156 780 312 468 351 468 0 0 312 390 0 351 0

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 10 0 60 20 40 30 20 0 0 30 30 40 50 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 90 0 540 180 360 270 180 0 0 270 270 360 450 0 Page 2 of Table 12

Manure(t/ha) 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 3 1 1.5 1.5 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 135 0 202.5 202.5 405 270 540 310.5 0 135 0 405 135 202.5 202.5 0

Chemicals Value 0 0 100 0 150 0 200 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 200 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 1500 500 4500 0 1350 0 0 1625 1625 0 0 0

Total LabourCmd/ba) 140 0 160 120 150 130 150 210 115 60 50 120 110 25 260 0

Price/md 50 50 50 S0 50 50 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 50 50

Labour Costs 2100 0 2400 1800 2250 1950 2250 3150 1725 900 750 1800 1650 375 3900 0

Total Animal Days (a 38 0 42 43 45 40 45 45 40 14 20 22 22 10 60 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 855 0 945 968 1013 900 1013 1013 900 315 450 495 495 225 1350 0

Total Costs 4164 0 5039 3566 7550 4552 10164 5702 5902 2050 1400 16520 6665 1223 6909 0

Net Production Valu 4068 0 10696 11175 9503 10893 7468 6399 5998 4950 7600 6091 14035 1578 15592 0

l/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30* of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 13

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Buri Teesta

Without Project

B. T. T T. Am T. Am B W P Oilse Pota Vegetables Ka Tobacc Groundnu

Output. HYV

Main Produce,

Yield(t/ha) 1.2 0 2.8 2.10 2.9 0 3.4 2.2 2 1 0.6 7.6 6 0.73 1 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 4000 25000 13000

Value 6312 0 13496 11046 13978 0 16388 8140 11400 7000 9000 24548 20700 2920 25000 0

By-Products:

Yield(t/ha) 2.4 0 2.8 3.5 3 0 3 2.2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t S100 SO0 S00 Soo 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 1920 0 2240 2800 2400 0 2400 3960 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 8232 0 15736 13846 16378 0 18788 12100 11900 7000 9000 24548 20700 2920 25000 0

Inputs:

Seeds (kg/ha) 100 0 30 30 40 0 30 8 80 35 10 1120 10 15 1 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 4 80 45

Value 840 0 333 252 444 0 333 320 904 700 200 11200 1500 60 80 0

Urea(kg/ha) 25 0 80 30 75 0 90 30 60 0 0 60 80 0 60 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 156.25 0 500 187.5 469 0 563 188 375 0 0 375 500 0 375 0

TSP(kg/ha) 10 0 60 20 100 0 75 45 60 0 0 50 50 0 45 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 78 0 468 156 780 0 585 351 468 0 0 390 390 0 351 0 Page 2 of Table 13

HOP (kg/ha) 0 0 10 0 60 0 60 30 20 0 0 30 30 40 60 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 90 0 540 0 540 270 1S0 0 0 270 270 360 540 0

Manure(t/ha) 1.0 0.0 1.S 1.5 3.4 0.0 4.5 2.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 3 1 1.S 1.S 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 135 0 202.S 202.5 459 0 607.5 310.5 0 135 0 405 135 202.5 202.5 0

Chemicals.

Value 0 0 100 0 100 0 200 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 200 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 1S00 0 4500 0 1350 0 0 1625 1625 0 0 0

Total Labour(md/ha) 140 0 1S0 135 1So 0 160 210 11S 60 S0 125 110 25 280 0

Price/md So S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0

Labour Costs 2100 0 2700 2025 2250 0 2400 31So 1725 900 750 1875 1650 375 4200 0

Total Animal 1ays(a 38 0 42 43 45 0 45 45 40 14 20 22 22 10 60 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 7S 75 75 7S 75 75 75

Animal Costs 855 0 945 968 1013 0 1013 1013 900 315 4So 495 495 225 1350 0

Total Costs 4164 0 5339 3791 7554 0 10741 5702 5902 2050 1400 16735 6665 1223 7299 0

Net Production Valu 4068 0 10398 10056 8824 0 8048 6399 5998 4950 7600 7813 14035 1698 17702 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 14

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Buri Teesta

With Project

B. T. T T. Am T. Am 8 W P Oilse Pota Vegetables Ka Tobacc Groundnu

Output: HYV

Main Produce,

Yield(t/ha) 0 0 3 2.30 3.25 0 3.8 2.2 2 1 0.6 7.6 6 0.73 1.1 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 4000 25000 13000

Value 0 0 14460 12098 15665 0 18316 8140 11400 7000 9000 24548 20700 2920 27500 0

By-Products.

Yield(t/ha) 0 0 3 3.5 3.25 0 3.8 2.2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 0 0 2400 2800 2600 0 3040 3960 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 0 0 16860 14898 18265 0 21356 12100 11900 7000 9000 24548 20700 2920 27500 0

Inputs:

Seeds(kg/ha) 0 0 30 30 40 0 30 8 80 35 10 1120 10 15 1 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 4 80 45

Value 0 0 333 252 444 0 333 320 904 700 200 11200 1500 60 80 0

Urea(kg/ha) 0 0 100 40 100 0 100 30 60 0 0 60 80 0 70 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 0 0 625 250 625 0 625 188 375 0 0 375 500 0 438 0

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 60 30 100 0 80 45 60 0 0 50 50 0 45 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 468 234 780 0 624 351 468 0 0 390 390 0 35.1 0

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 10 10 60 0 60 30 20 0 0 30 30 40 60 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 90 90 540 0 540 270 180 0 0 270 270 360 540 0 Page 2 of Table 14

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 3.5 0.0 4.5 2.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 4 1.5 1.5 2 0.0 Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

value 0 0 202.5 202.5 472.5 0 607.5 310.5 0 135 0 540 202.5 202.5 270 0

Chemicals.

Value 0 0 100 0 150 0 200 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 200 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 1500 0 4500 0 1350 0 0 1625 1625 0 0 0

Total Labour(md/ha) 0 0 170 135 170 0 170 210 115 60 S0 125 110 25 300 0 Price/md 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 so so 50 50 so 50 50

Labour Costs 0 0 2550 2025 2550 0 2550 3150 1725 900 750 1875 1650 375 4500 0

Total Animal Days(a 0 0 42 43 45 0 50 45 40 14 20 22 22 10 60 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 0 0 945 968 1013 0 1125 1013 900 315 450 495 495 225 1350 0

Total Costs 0 0 5314 4021 8074 0 11105 5702 5902 2050 1400 16870 6733 1223 7729 0

Net Production Valu 0 0 11547 10877 10191 0 10252 6399 5998 4950 7600 7678 13966 1698 19772 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 15

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Chaptir Haor

Pre- Proj ect

B. A T. T T. Am T. AM B W P Oilse Pota Oni Chil Tobacc Groundnu

Output, HYV

Main Produce.

Yield(t/ha) 1.2 0 0 1.57 0 1.29 2.96 0 0.74 0 0 8.29 1.65 0.42 0 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 5500 15600 25000 13000

Value 6312 0 0 8258 0 6785 14267 0 4218 0 0 26777 9076 6552 0 0

By-Products,

Yield(t/ha) 2.4 0 0 2 0 2 2.95 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 Boo 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 1920 0 0 1600 0 1600 2360 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 8232 0 0 9858 a 8385 16627 0 4468 0 0 26777 9075 6552 0 0

Iputs .

Seede(kg/ha) 93 0 0 33 0 34 34 99 0 0 994 3 o.5 0 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 300 100 80 45

Value 781.2 0 0 277.2 0 285.6 377.4 0 1118.7 0 0 9940 900 50 0 0

Urea(kg/ha) 0 0 0 67 0 11 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 0 0 0 418.75 0 69 444 0 0 0 0 0 0 219 0 0

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/kg 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 2 of Table 15

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

chemicals

Value 0 0 0 0 0 100 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 0 500 4500 0 1350 0 0 1625 1625 1625 0 0

Total Labour (md/ha) 111 0 0 134 0 119 135 70 0 0 129 65 60 0 0

Price/md 50 50 S0 0 50 50 s0 s0 50 50 50 so 50 50 50 50

Labour Costs 1665 0 0 2010 0 1785 2025 0 1050 0 0 1935 975 900 0 0

Total Animal Days(a 34 0 0 31 0 29 32 20 0 0 22 22 22 0 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 765 0 0 698 0 653 720 0 450 0 0 495 495 495 0 0

Total Costs 3211 0 0 3403 0 3392 8488 0 3969 0 0 13995 3995 3289 0 0

Met Production Valu 5021 0 0 6455 0 4994 8140 0 499 0 0 12782 5080 3263 0 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 16

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Chaptir Haor

Without Project

B. A T. T T. Am T. Am B W P Oilse Pota Oni Chil Tobacc Groundnu

Output - YV

Main Produce,

Yield(t/ha) 1.5 1 2 1.83 0 1.3 3 0 1.84 0 0 8.29 0 0.57 0 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 15600 25000 13000

Value 7890 5260 9640 9626 0 6838 14460 0 10488 0 0 26777 0 8892 0 0

By-Products.

Yield(t/ha) 2.62 1.8 2 2 0 2.5 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 2096 1440 1600 1600 a 2000 2400 0 s5o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 9986 6700 11240 11226 0 8838 16860 0 10988 0 0 26777 0 8892 0 0

Inputs-

Seeds(kg/ha) 70 s0 40 40 0 30 40 99 0 0 994 0 1 0 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 100 80 45

Value 588 420 444 336 0 252 444 0 1118.7 0 0 9940 0 100 0 0

Urea(kg/ha) s0 40 60 50 0 62 75 60 0 0 45 0 60 0 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6 3 6.3 6.3 6 3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 312.5 250 375 312.5 0 388 469 0 375 0 0 281 0 375 0 0

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 30 42 20 0 0 30 0 60 0 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 0 0 0 234 328 0 156 0 0 234 0 468 0 0

0 MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 2 of Table 16

manlure(t/hla) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0000

Chemicals. value 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 0 500 4500 0 1350 0 0 1625 0 1625 0 0

Total Labouir(rfdlha) 111 100 130 134 0 140 160 82 0 0 129 0 65 0 0

Price/md 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Labour Costs 1665 1500 1950 2010 0 2100 2400 0 1230 0 0 1935 0 975 0 0

Total Animal Days(a 20 25 30 30 0 22 24 25 0 0 22 0 22 0 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 450 563 675 675 0 495 540 0 530 0 495 0 495 0 0

Total Costs 3016 2733 3444 3334 0 3969 9105 0 4792 0 0 14510 0 4038 0 0

Net Production Valu 6971 3968 7796 7892 0 4870 7755 0 6196 0 0 12266 0 4854 0 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems RehabilitatiOn Project Table 17

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

Chaptir Haor

With Project

S. A T. T T. Am T. Am B W P Oilse Pota On Chil Tobacc Groundnu output. HYV

Main Produce.

Yieldft/ha) 1.5 1 2 1.83 0 1.5 3 0 1.84 0 0 8.29 0 0.6 0 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 15600 25000 13000

Value 7890 5260 9640 9626 0 7890 14460 0 10488 0 0 26777 0 9360 0 0

By-Products.

Yield(t/ha) 2.62 1.8 2 2 0 2.5 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 Boo 800 800 800 800 Boo 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Value 2096 1440 1600 1600 0 2000 2400 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 Total Gross Value 9986 6700 11240 11226 0 9890 16860 0 10988 0 0 26777 0 9360

Inputs.

0 0 Seeds(kg/ha) 70 50 40 40 0 30 40 99 0 0 994 0 1

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 100 80 45

Value 588 420 444 336 0 252 444 0 1118.7 0 0 9940 0 100 0 0

0 0 Urea(kg/ha) 50 40 60 50 0 62 75 60 0 0 45 0 60

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 0 0 Value 312.5 250 375 312.5 0 388 469 0 375 0 0 281 0 375

0 0 TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 30 42 20 0 0 30 0 60 7.8 7.8 Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 0 0 Value 0 0 0 0 0 234 328 0 156 0 0 234 0 468

0 0 0 MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 2 of Table 17

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chemicals:

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 0 S00 4500 0 1350 0 0 162S 0 1625 0 0

Total Labour (md/ha) 111 100 130 134 0 140 160 82 0 0 129 0 65 0 0

Price/md 50 50 50 50 50 50 so 50 s0 s0 50 50 50 50 S0 S0

Labour Costs 1665 1500 1950 2010 0 2100 2400 0 1230 0 0 1935 0 975 0 0

Total Animal Days(a 20 25 30 30 0 22 24 25 0 0 22 0 22 0 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 450 563 675 675 0 495 540 0 563 0 0 495 0 495 0 0

Total Costs 3016 2733 3444 3334 0 3969 9105 0 4792 0 0 14510 0 4038 0 0

Net Production Valu 6971 3968 7796 7892 0 5922 7755 0 6196 0 0 12266 0 5322 0 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 18

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

KIP

Pre-Proj ect

B. T. T T. Am T. Am B W P Oilse Pota Vegetables Chil Sugarcane Groundnu

Output: HltV

Main Produce,

Yield(t/ha) 0 0 2.83 2.20 3.06 2.48 4.06 0 0 1 0 9.14 6 1.19 0 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 15600 25000 13000

Value 0 0 13641 11572 14749 13045 19569 0 0 7000 0 29522 20700 18564 0 0

By-Products,

Yield(t/ha) 0 0 2.83 4 3.06 4.4 4.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 0 0 2264 3200 2448 3520 3248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 0 0 15905 14772 17197 16565 22817 0 0 7000 0 29522 20700 18564 0 0

Inputs .

Seeds(kg/ha) 0 0 40 35 36 45 30 0 0 36 0 617 0.5 1 0 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 100 80 45

Value 0 0 444 294 399.6 378 333 0 0 720 0 6170 75 100 0 0

Urea(kg/ha) 0 0 80 80 120 80 75 0 0 0 0 250 0 60 0 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 0 0 soo soo 750 500 469 0 0 0 0 1563 0 375 0 0

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 40 50 60 40 200 0 0 0 0 250 60 80 0 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 312 390 468 312 1560 0 0 0 0 1950 468 624 0 0

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 30 0 40 0 120 0 0 0 100 60 0 0 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 270 0 360 0 1080 0 0 0 0 900 540 0 0 0 Page 2 of Table 18

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 4 0 0 0.0

price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 810 0 0 0 0 0 540 0 0 0

Chemicals:

Value 0 0 150 0 100 0 170 0 0 0 0 400 100 0 0 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 1500 500 4500 0 0 0 0 1625 1625 1625 0 0

Total Labour(md/ha) 0 0 102 101 100 110 124 0 0 48 0 130 130 88 0 0

Price/md so so 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 so s0 50 s0 50 50 50

Labour Costs 0 0 1530 1515 1500 1650 1860 0 0 720 0 1950 1950 1320 0 0

Total Animal Days(a 0 0 25 25 25 25 25 0 0 10 0 22 22 22 0 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 0 0 563 563 563 563 563 0 0 225 0 495 495 495 0 0

Total Costs 0 0 3769 3262 5640 3903 11344 0 0 1665 0 15053 5793 4539 0 0

Net Production Valu 0 0 12136 11511 11557 12662 11473 0 0 5335 0 14470 14907 14025 0 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 19

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

KIP

Without Project

B. T. T T. Am T. Am B W P oilse Pota Vegetables Chil Sugarcane Groundnu

Output: HYV

Main Produce:

Yield(t/ha) 0 0 2.83 2.10 2.9 0 3.98 0 0 1.1 0.91 9.14 6 1.21 0 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 15600 25000 13000

Value 0 0 13641 11046 13978 0 19184 0 0 7700 13650 29522 20700 18876 0 0

By-Products:

Yield(t/ha) 0 0 2.83 4.2 3.25 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 0 0 2264 3360 2600 0 3200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 0 0 15905 14406 16578 0 22384 0 0 7700 13650 29522 20700 18876 0 0

Inputs:

Seeds(kg/ha) 0 0 40 35 30 0 30 0 0 36 9 617 0.5 1 0 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 100 80 45

Value 0 0 444 294 333 0 333 0 0 720 180 6170 75 100 0 0

Urea(kg/ha) 0 0 80 80 120 0 200 0 0 0 10 250 60 60 0 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 0 0 500 500 750 0 1250 0 0 0 63 1563 375 375 0 0

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 40 50 60 0 120 0 0 0 33 250 60 100 0 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 312 390 468 0 936 0 0 0 257 1950 468 780 0 0

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 30 0 40 0 60 0 0 0 10 100 40 0 0 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 270 0 360 0 540 0 0 0 90 900 360 0 0 0 Page 2 of Table 19

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chemicals:

Value 0 0 1S0 0 100 0 170 0 0 0 0 400 100 0 0 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 4500 0 0 0 0 1625 1625 1625 0 0

Total Labour(md/ha) 0 0 102 101 103 0 124 0 0 so 65 130 130 90 0 0

Price/md so 50 so S0 S0 50 S0 50 S0 S0 S0 S0 so S0 50 50

Labour Costs 0 0 1530 1S5S 1545 0 1860 0 0 750 975 1950 1950 1350 0 0

Total Animal Days(a 0 0 25 25 25 0 25 0 0 10 20 22 22 22 0 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 0 0 563 563 563 0 563 0 0 225 450 495 495 495 0 0

Total Costs 0 0 3769 3262 4119 0 10152 0 0 1695 2015 15053 5448 4725 0 0

Net Production Valu 0 0 12136 11145 12460 0 12232 0 0 6005 11635 14470 15252 14151 0 0

l/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. BANGLADESH

BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 20

Implementation Completion Report

Per Ha Financial Crop Budget

KIP

With Project

B. T. T T. Am T. Am B W P Oilse Pota Vegetables Chil Sugarcane Groundnu

Output: HYV

Main Produce:

Yield(t/ha) 0 0 2.83 2.30 3.25 0 4 0 0 1.1 0.95 9.14 6 1.21 0 0

Price/t 5260 5260 4820 5260 4820 5260 4820 3700 5700 7000 15000 3230 3450 15600 25000 13000

Value 0 0 13641 12098 15665 0 19280 0 0 7700 14250 29522 20700 18876 0 0

By-Products:

Yield(t/ha) 0 0 2.83 4.6 3.25 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Price/t 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1800 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Value 0 0 2264 3680 2600 0 3200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gross Value 0 0 15905 15778 18265 0 22480 0 0 7700 14250 29522 20700 18876 0 0

Inputs:

Seeds(kg/ha) 0 0 40 35 36 0 30 0 0 36 9 617 0.5 1 0 0

Price/kg 8.4 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 8.4 11.1 40 11.3 20 20 10 150 100 80 45

Value 0 0 444 294 399.6 0 333 0 0 720 180 6170 75 100 0 0

Urea(kg/ha) 0 0 60 60 120 0 200 0 0 0 10 250 60 60 0 0

Price/kg 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Value 0 0 375 375 750 0 1250 0 0 0 63 1563 375 375 0 0

TSP(kg/ha) 0 0 40 50 60 0 120 0 0 0 30 250 60 100 0 0

Price/kg 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

Value 0 0 312 390 468 0 936 0 0 0 234 1950 468 780 0 0

MOP(kg/ha) 0 0 30 0 40 0 60 0 0 0 10 100 40 0 0 0

Price/kg 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Value 0 0 270 0 360 0 540 0 0 0 90 900 360 0 0 0 Page 2 of Table 20

Manure(t/ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Price/t 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chemicals:

Value 0 0 150 0 100 0 170 0 0 0 0 400 100 0 0 0

Irrigation costs 0 0 0 0 1500 0 4500 0 0 0 0 1625 1625 1625 0 0 103

Total Labour(md/ha) 0 0 102 101 0 0 124 0 0 50 70 130 130 90 0 0

Price/md so 50 50 50 50 50 s0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 s0 so

Labour Costs 0 0 1530 1515 0 0 1860 0 0 750 1050 1950 1950 1350 0 0

Total Animal Days(a 0 0 25 25 25 0 25 0 0 10 20 22 22 22 0 0

Price/ad 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Animal Costs 0 0 563 563 563 0 563 0 0 225 450 495 495 495 0 0

Total Costs 0 0 3644 3137 4140 0 10152 0 0 1695 2067 15053 5448 4725 0 0

Net Production Valu 0 0 12261 12642 14125 0 12329 0 0 6005 12184 14470 15252 14151 0 0

1/Assuming hired labour and draft power at 30% of total. Bangladesh BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 21 Implementation Completion Report Expenditures-Polder 55/1 Subproject (Tk Million ) F F F F F F F FY98 Total Rehabilitation works:

Land acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.80 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.43 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 1.61 5.89 5.78 21.02 1.95 11.07 11.24 21.88 80.44 On-farm Development 0.00 0.00 1.14 2.09 0.00 0.29 0.15 0.32 3.99 O&M during construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.40 0.71 7.50 1.71 5.17 17.49 Eng. & Admin 0.11 0.41 0.43 1.68 0.24 1.61 1.01 2.00 7.49

Total 1.72 6.30 7.48 27.39 3.70 24.57 14.11 29.37 114.64 a/ Upto End December 1997.

Expenditures-Beel Singri Subproject (Tk Million)

F F F F F F F FY98 Total Rehabilitation works:

Land acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.93 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.06 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 3.90 2.83 6.28 13.23 On-farm Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M during construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.18 Eng. & Admin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.35 0.20 0.45 1.02

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 5.24 3.11 6.83 15.42

a/ Upto End December 1997.

Source: Actual expenditures for FY91-FY96 are taken from the revised work plans, prepared by CE of SRP (August 1996), the revised Project Proposal (PP) January 1997. Bangladesh BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 22 Implementation Completion Report Expenditures-Buri Teesta Subproject (Tk Million) F F F F F F F FY98 Total

Land acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.06 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 3.13 4.45 4.17 1.23 2.29 7.42 1.60 2.01 26.30 On-farm development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 3.17 5.64 O&M during construction 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.65 0.47 0.62 0.76 0.96 4.64 Eng. & Admin 0.22 0.31 0.42 0.18 0.19 0.56 0.34 0.43 2.65

Total 3.35 4.76 6.43 2.72 2.95 8.63 5.20 6.57 40.61

a/ Upto end December 1997. Expenditures-Chaptia Haor Subproject (Tk Million) F F F F F F F FY98 Total

Land acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.06 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 4.12 13.17 17.04 34.84 On-farm Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M during construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94 2.56 4.50 Eng. & Admin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.31 1.06 1.37 2.78 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 4.61 16.20 20.97 42.33

Expenditures-Dardaria Khal Subproject

Land acquisition 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.06 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 0.00 5.93 5.88 5.80 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.67 On-farm Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M during construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 3.77 1.53 0.36 6.67 Eng. & Admin 0.00 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.30 0.00 0.00 1.72 Total 0.00 6.56 6.32 6.24 1.15 4.10 1.56 0.36 26.29

a/ Upto end December 1997.

Source: Actual expenditures for FY91-FY96 are taken from the revised work plans, prepared by CE of SRP (August 1996), while FY97-FY98 are from the revised Project Proposal (PP) January 1997. Bangladesh BWDB Systems Rehabilitation project Table 23 Implementation Completion Report Expenditures-Karnafuli Irrigation Subproject (Tk Million) F F F F F F F F Total

Land acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.58 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 2.41 14.58 12.86 37.57 67.53 On-farm development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Eng. & Admin 0.10 0.21 0.82 1.60 0.40 1.42 1.22 4.76 10.53

Subtotal 0.10 0.21 0.82 1.71 2.89 16.50 14.08 42.33 78.64

Improved O&M 1.36 3.00 11.70 16.50 3.15 2.28 9.00 35.09 82.08

Total 1.46 3.21 12.52 18.21 6.04 18.78 23.08 77.42 160.72

Expenditures-Chandpur Irrigation Subproject (Tk Million) F F F F F F F F Total

Land acquisition 0.00 9.08 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.25 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.40 0.02 0.00 1.34 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 0.00 27.87 0.20 3.05 11.39 14.23 31.81 6.23 94.78 On-farm development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Eng. & Admin 0.51 3.23 0.67 1.43 1.98 2.33 5.73 1.12 17.00

Subtotal 0.51 40.18 1.04 4.48 14.29 16.96 37.56 7.35 122.37

Improved O&M 7.22 9.17 9.21 17.41 16.00 18.67 49.99 9.78 137.45

Total 7.73 49.35 10.25 21.89 30.29 35.63 87.55 17.13 259.82 Page 2 of Table 23 Expenditures-Muhuri Irrigation Subproject (Tk Million) F F F F F F F F Total

Land acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 1.80 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1.70 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.90 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.60 22.26 32.55 7.74 83.15 On-farm development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Eng. & Admin 0.48 0.32 1.72 1.82 2.25 1.81 3.42 0.81 12.63

Subtotal 0.48 0.32 1.72 1.82 24.55 26.07 35.97 8.55 99.48

Improved O&M 6.87 4.53 24.54 26.05 9.87 1.52 16.67 3.96 94.01

Total 7.35 4.85 26.26 27.87 34.42 27.59 52.64 12.51 193.49 Bangladesh BWDB Systems Rehabilitation project Table 24 Implementation Completion Report Expenditures-Sangu River Subproject (Tk Million) F F F F F F F F Total

Land acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Survey & investigation 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.75 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 4.32 9.68 11.23 2.25 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 28.81 O&M during construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 2.60 0.00 3.00 Eng. & Admin 0.36 0.74 0.88 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.00 2.28

Total 4.80 10.54 12.23 2.55 0.13 0.57 4.02 0.00 34.84

Expenditures-Kushiyara River Subproject (Tk Million) F F F F F F F F Total

Land acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.05 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 1.46 27.25 1.54 17.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.55 O&M during construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.24 3.31 3.01 8.59 Eng. & Admin 0.10 1.91 0.11 1.21 0.07 0.09 0.23 0.21 3.93

Total 1.56 29.16 1.65 18.51 1.10 1.36 3.56 3.22 60.12 Bangladesh Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 25 Implementation Completion Report Expenditures-Total Project (Tk Million)

FY9 FY9 FY93 FY9 P F F FY Total

Land acquisition 0.00 12.20 3.56 12.80 9.48 11.68 10.40 0.00 60.12 7.10 Survey & investigation 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.44 3.46 2.46 0.61 0.00 1360.62 Civil works-Rehab & Impr. 24.57 126.97 90.32 143.56 188.08 219.00 477.28 90.84 9.62 on-farm development 0.00 0.00 1.14 2.09 0.00 0.26 5.13 1.00 526.29 O&M during construction 19.45 22.62 55.86 67.58 36.32 67.81 214.65 42 206.34 Eng. & Admin 9.94 18.19 17.43 22.61 23.45 27.84 58.35 28.53

Subtotal 53.96 179.98 168.44 249.08 260.79 329.05 766.42 162.37 2170.09

75.51 Training & staff dev. 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 39.48 8.49 Technical assistance 102.01 102.01 102.01 102.01 102.01 102.01 75.58 97.27 784.91 145.87 Equipment & vehicle 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 64.87 0.00 Miscellenous 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 16.96

270.25 3193.34 Total 176.18 302.20 290.66 371.30 383.01 451.27 948.47

Source: Actual expenditures for FY91-FY96 are taken from the revised work plans prepared by CE of SRP (August 1996), while FY97-FY98 are from the revised Project Proposal (PP) January 1997. BANGLADESH Systems Rehabilitation Project Implementation Completion Report Estimated and Actual O&M Costs Table 26

Coast H Irriga Total/ Polders Avera 1997 Constant Prices: Required O&M Costs 1/ Establishment & Facilties 17.96 21.34 15.77 9.74 64.82 Preventive Maintenance 11.63 3.10 3.36 10.48 28.56 Periodic Maintenance 51.39 11.37 16.35 20.35 99.46 Emergency Maintenance 1.89 2.23 1.47 2.78 8.37 BWDB Overhead 1.82 0.90 0.86 0.86 4.44

Total Tk million 84.69 38.94 37.81 44.21 205.65 No Subprojects 12 11 7 5 35 Net Cultivable Area (ha) 2/ 56277 78927 51304 66660 253168 Tk/ha 1505 493 737 663 812 (% of average) 185% 61% 91% 82%

Actual 1990 O&M Exp. (Tk Million) 3/ 1373.1 Tk/ha 4/ 725 239 357 321 392

1/ Estimates for 35 subprojects implemented under SRP, Mid-Term Review Report, Sir William Halcrow & Partne Volume 2, Table 7.1, April 1995. 2/ Estimated NCA in 1995. 3/ Actual O&M expenditures (Tk 1040.2 million) for all BWDB's completed subprojects, adjusted to 1997 price 4/ Cost/ha for coastal polder, FCD, haor and irrigation is based on the estimates of the required O&M level BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 27 Implementation Completion Report Summary of Financial and Economic Prices

Finan Economicl/2/ Inputs (Tk/kg): Fin Economicl/2/ Outputs (Tk/ Seeds:

Paddy-LV 5.26 8.66 Paddy-lV 8.40 10.80 Paddy-HYV 4.82 8.66 Paddy-HYV 11.10 10.80 Wheat 5.70 9.41 Wheat 11.30 11.76 Jute 3.70 9.53 Jute 40.00 36.00 pulses 7.00 6.30 Pulses 20.00 18.00 Oilseeds 15.00 13.74 Oilsedds 20.00 18.00 Vegetables 3.45 3.11 Vegetables 150.00 135.00 Potatoes 3.23 2.91 Potato 10.00 9.00 Sugarcane 1.19 1.42 Sugarcane 3.70 3.33 Groundnut 13.00 11.90 groundnut 45.00 41.20 Chillies 15.60 14.00 Chillies 100.00 90.00 Tobacco 25.00 22.60 Tobacco 80.00 72.00 Fruits 4.00 3.60 Fruits 65.00 58.50 Kaon Kaon 4.00 3.60 By-Products: Paddy 0.80 0.72 Fertilizers: Wheat 0.25 0.23 Urea 5.06 6.25 Jute 1.80 1.62 TSP 7.80 10.67 MOP 9.00 9.46 FYM 0.135 0.122

Unskilled Labour (Tk/md) 50.00 45.00 Bullock (Tk/pair day) 75.00 67.50

Irrigation (Tk/ha): T. Aman 1500 1350 Boro-HYV 4500 4050 Boro-Lv 500 450 Wheat 1350 1215 Potatoes 1625 1463

1/ Average projected 2000-2005 World prices in 1995 constant value. Economic prices of traded commoddities are shown in Table 28. Seed costs for traded crops have been estimated as the farmgate prices of the crops plus a premium of 25% to allow for the costs of storage, wastage and transport. 2/ Non-traded commoddities were adjusted by SCF of 0.90 Table 28 BANGLADESH BWDBSystems Rehabilitation Project (Cr. 2099-BD ImplementationCompletion Report EconomicPrice Deviation

Paddy Paddy Wheat Soyabean Sugar Jute Urea TSP MP X M M M M X X M M

Average2000-2005 Projected World Price (US$/t)11 299 299 142 257 240 316 152 132 104 QualityFactor 0.80 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adjustedcif/fob Prices 239 239 128 257 240 316 152 132 104 Freight& Insurance2/ 0 41 77 72 77 72 72

Valueof cif entryport/fob exit port(US$/t) 239 280 205 329 317 316 152 204 176 Valueof eif entryport/fob exit port(Tk/t)3/ 10405 12189 8909 14312 13790 13746 6612 8874 7656 Port and HandlingCharges 4/ 1305 1305 1305 1305 1305 1305 1305 1305 1305 HandlinglTransport/Storage 5/ 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 Valueex-store/market 8727 13867 10587 15990 15468 12068 4934 10552 9334

Processingcosts 349 349 Processingratio 0.65 0.65 0.90 0.10 0.80 Handling/TransportCharges 6/ 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122

EconomicFarmgate Price(TK/t) 5324 8665 9406 13745 1425 9532 5056 10674 9456 EconomicFarmgate Price(TK/kg) 5.32 8.66 9.41 13.74 1.42 9.53 5.06 10.67 9.46

M-lmport;X-Export

1/ World Bank'sCommodity Price Forecasts, May 1997.Average projected 2000-2005 world prices,adjusted to 1997constant value. Rice:Thai, milled,5% broken,FOB Bangkok;Wheat: Canadian No.1 Western Redspring, Thunder Bay; Soybeans: US,CIF, Rotterdam.Soybeans and mustard/linseed are assumed to be equalvalue; Sugar: FOB andstowed at GreaterCarribean port; Jute: white D, Bangladesh,FOB Chalna; Urea: FOB Chittagong/Chalna; TSP: FOB US Gulf; MP: FOBUS Gulf. 2/ BetweenChittagong/Chalna and source of destination. 3/ US$1.0=Tk43.5. 4/ AverageTk 1,450converted to borderprice by SCF of 0.90. 5! Average300 km @Tk 1.38/tNkmconverted to borderprices by SCF of 0.90. 6/ Average15 km @Tk 9/t/kmconverted to borderprice by SCFof 0.90. BANGLADESH

Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 29

Implementation Completion Report

List of Subprojects

Completion Year & Net Cultivable Area

Gross Famili Population

Command

(ha)

PCD Subprojects (Non-Tidal):

1. Dardaria Khal 6220 4330 4330 4884 29309

2. Gangni 3885 2914 2914 4484 26900

3. Morichar Danra 17001 7760 7760 6137 37061

4. Dewankhali Xhal 7996 2301 2301 21671 112190

5. Hizla Embankment 4255 1460 1460 3297 17214

6. Kanchikata Khal 3940 1756 1756 9929 54063

7. Kumarnai Bundh 2765 2325 2325 11222 22903

8. Ichamati Gazaria 29756 25293 25293 60227 331250

9. Beel Singri 13543 10822 10822 6005 51379

10. Chorai Somespur 9844 8766 8786 8759 51175

11. Bhitabari Damosh 12960 11180 11180 8384 45153

Subtotal 112165 0 0 9000 22267 0 47660 78927 144999 778597

Coastal Polder Subproject (Tidal)i

1. Polder 55/1 10800 7776 7776 11219 67312

2. Polder 64/lA 5750 4300 4300 8066 48400

3. Polder 64/lB 7740 5670 5670 21667 130000

4. Polder 39/1B&D 14557 11920 11920 40750 244500

5. Polder 67 1700 1500 1500 5368 32210

6. Polder 58/3 1308 1060 1060 1481 8378

7. Polder 68 3733 2000 2000 2761 17624

8. Polder 66/2 2621 1500 1500 3329 11627 9. Polder 66/3 4832 2419 2419 7428 4928

10. Polder 61/1 8769 7015 7015 15002 85855

11. Polder 64/1C 2051 1640 1640 3067 19789

12. Polder 73/2 11239 9477 9477 10236 64166

Subtotal 75100 0 0 5670 0 50607 56277 130374 734789 Page 2 of Table 29

Haor/Beel subproject 1. Pagner Haor 19075 17167 17167 8455 50730 2. Padma Haor 5050 2003 2003 7978 45563 3. Dhankunia Haor 1692 1351 1351 750 4500 4. Shanir Haor 7761 6721 6721 3354 22010 5. Chaptir Haor 5061 4125 4125 3525 22477 6. Makla Beel 19650 15366 15366 24628 134725 7. Chandra Sonarthal 5714 4571 4571 1734 10073

Subtotal 64003 0 0 0 17167 0 34137 51304 50424 290078

Irrigation Subproject: 1. Buri Teesta 3158 2232 2232 5425 29840 2. Protappur 5200 4000 4000 5400 29710 3. KIP 4049 3238 3238 6770 37235 4. MIP 40510 28000 28000 50820 279520 5. CIP 53036 29190 29190 66535 365948

Subtotal 105953 4000 0 0 0 0 62660 66660 134950 742253

Total (35) a/ 357221 4000 0 9000 45104 0 195064 253168 460747 2545717

a/ Excluding Kushiyara and Sangu river protection, and Chaptai Nawabganj O&M subdivision. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 30

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Polder 55/1 Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben

year 1 (FY91) 1.92 0.00 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.92 year 2 6.76 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.76 year 3 7.70 0.00 7.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.70 year 4 27.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -27.00 year 5 2.70 0.00 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.70 year 6 18.46 0.00 18.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.46 year 7 12.41 0.00 12.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 -12.41 year 8 21.30 5.34 26.64 97.98 97.98 0.00 -26.64 year 9 5.34 5.34 105.21 116.10 10.89 5.55 year 10 5.34 5.34 112.52 134.29 21.77 16.43 year 11 5.34 5.34 119.83 152.41 32.58 27.24 year 12 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 13 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 14 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 15 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 16 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 17 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 18 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 19 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 20 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 21 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 22 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 23 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 24 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 25 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11

#NUM! 30.74 Tk. Milli BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 31

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Beel Singri Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 5 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.22 year 6 3.87 0.00 3.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.87 year 7 2.73 0.00 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.73 year 8 5.92 2.42 8.34 172.85 172.85 0.00 -8.34 year 9 2.42 2.42 182.24 199.31 17.07 14.65 year 10 2.42 2.42 191.66 225.78 34.12 31.70 year 11 2.42 2.42 201.07 252.24 51.17 48.75 year 12 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 13 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 14 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 15 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 16 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 17 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 18 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 19 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 20 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 21 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 22 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 23 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 24 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 25 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79

#NUM! 148.17 Tk. Milli BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 32

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Buri Teesta Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 3.74 0.00 3.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.74 year 2 5.11 0.00 5.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.11 year 3 5.94 0.00 5.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.94 year 4 2.03 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.03 year 5 2.75 0.00 2.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.75 year 6 7.75 0.00 7.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.75 year 7 4.58 0.00 4.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.58 year 8 4.94 0.67 5.61 39.91 39.91 0.00 -5.61 year 9 0.67 0.67 41.04 44.29 3.25 2.58 year 10 0.67 0.67 42.16 48.66 6.50 5.83 year 11 0.67 0.67 43.29 53.04 9.75 9.08 year 12 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 13 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 14 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 15 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 16 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 17 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 18 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 19 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 20 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 21 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 22 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 23 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 24 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 25 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33

#NUM! 6.16 Tk. Milli BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 33

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Chaptir Haor Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 5 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.51 year 6 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.00 year 7 14.26 0.00 14.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 -14.26 year 8 16.20 1.38 17.58 21.45 21.45 0.00 -17.58 year 9 1.38 1.38 22.28 27.02 4.74 3.36 year 10 1.38 1.38 23.10 32.59 9.49 8.11 year 11 1.38 1.38 23.93 38.16 14.23 12.85 year 12 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 13 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 14 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 15 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 16 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 17 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 18 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 19 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 20 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 21 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 22 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 23 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 24 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 25 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61

27.7% 25.21 Tk. Milli BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 34

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Karnafuli Irrigation Project (Tk Million)

FY Investmen O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben

year 1 (FY91) 1.63 0.00 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.63 year 2 3.45 0.00 3.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.45 year 3 12.89 0.00 12.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 -12.89 year 4 17.95 0.00 17.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 -17.95 year 5 5.63 0.00 5.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.63 year 6 16.86 0.00 16.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 -16.86 year 7 20.31 0.00 20.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 -20.31 year 8 37.25 0.98 38.23 105.65 105.65 0.00 -38.23 year 9 0.98 0.98 107.48 114.84 7.36 6.38 year 10 0.98 0.98 109.31 124.03 14.72 13.74 year 11 0.98 0.98 111.14 133.22 22.08 21.10 year 12 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 13 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 14 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 15 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 16 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 17 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 18 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 19 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 20 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 21 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 22 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 23 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 24 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 25 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46

#NUM! 5.87 Tk. Milli BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 35

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Chandpur Irrigation Project (Tk Milli

FY Investmen O&M Cost Land Ac Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs 1 Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 8.64 0.00 0.00 8.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8.64 year 2 52.98 0.00 0.81 53.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 -53.79 year 3 10.55 0.00 0.81 11.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11.36 year 4 21.57 0.00 0.81 22.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 -22.38 year 5 28.25 0.00 0.81 29.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 -29.06 year 6 31.98 0.00 0.81 32.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 -32.79 year 7 77.04 0.00 0.81 77.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 -77.85 year 8 6.47 8.79 0.81 16.07 950.85 950.85 0.00 -16.07 year 9 8.79 0.81 9.60 967.32 1033.56 66.24 56.64 year 10 8.79 0.81 9.60 983.79 1116.27 132.48 122.88 year 11 8.79 0.81 9.60 1000.26 1198.98 198.72 189.12 year 12 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 13 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 14 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 15 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 16 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 17 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 18 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 19 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 20 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 21 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 22 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 23 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 24 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 25 8.79 0.81 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36

28.3% 453.22 Tk. Milli

1/ Land acquisition has been valued at economic net production value in WOP. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 36

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Muhuri Irrigation Project (Tk Million)

FY Investmen O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 8.21 0.00 8.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8.21 year 2 5.21 0.00 5.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.21 year 3 27.04 0.00 27.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 -27.04 year 4 24.47 0.00 24.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 -24.47 year 5 32.11 0.00 32.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 -32.11 year 6 24.76 0.00 24.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 -24.76 year 7 46.32 0.00 46.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 -46.32 year 8 7.52 8.43 15.95 913.87 913.87 0.00 -15.95 year 9 8.43 8.43 929.70 993.37 63.66 55.23 year 10 8.43 8.43 945.53 1072.86 127.33 118.90 year 11 8.43 8.43 961.36 1152.35 190.99 182.56 year 12 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 13 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 14 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 15 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 16 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 17 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 18 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 19 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 20 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 21 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 22 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 23 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 24 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23 year 25 8.43 8.43 977.19 1231.85 254.66 246.23

33.76 475.41 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicle cost by benefited area. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 37

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Dardaria Khal Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 2 7.03 0.00 7.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.03 year 3 6.51 0.00 6.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.51 year 4 6.15 0.00 6.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.15 year 5 1.06 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.06 year 6 3.68 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.68 year 7 1.36 0.97 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.33 year 8 0.97 0.97 69.14 69.14 0.00 -0.97 year 9 0.97 0.97 72.90 79.72 6.83 5.86 year 10 0.97 0.97 76.66 90.31 13.65 12.68 year 11 0.97 0.97 80.43 100.90 20.47 19.50 year 12 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 13 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26 31 year 14 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 15 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 16 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 17 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 18 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 19 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 20 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 21 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 22 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 23 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 24 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 25 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31

#NUM! 43.88 Tk. Milli BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 38 (Cr. 2099-BD) Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Whole Project Tk Million

FY Investmen O&M Cost Land Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs 1/ Acquisit Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben 2/ year 1 (FY91) 34.80 0.00 0.40 35.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 -35.20 year 2 75.80 0.00 0.60 76.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 -76.40 year 3 105.00 1.10 1.30 107.40 71.50 71.50 0.00 -107.40 year 4 148.00 3.20 1.80 153.00 73.50 79.40 5.90 -147.10 year 5 167.30 8.20 2.40 177.90 219.30 231.00 11.70 -166.20 year 6 209.50 17.80 3.00 230.30 745.60 777.10 31.50 -198.80 year 7 515.00 28.40 3.00 546.40 783.50 897.90 114.40 -432.00 year 8 51.80 75.30 3.00 130.10 2356.00 2524.30 168.30 38.20 year 9 75.30 3.00 78.30 2398.60 2921.90 523.30 445.00 year 10 75.30 3.00 78.30 2616.80 3298.40 681.60 603.30 year 11 75.30 3.00 78.30 2710.60 3583.40 872.80 794.50 year 12 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 13 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 14 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 15 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 16 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 17 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 18 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 19 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 20 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 21 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 22 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 23 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 24 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 25 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40

30.1% 1994.95 Tk. Milli

1/ Including only direct R&I works of 32 subprojects, excluding KIP, MIP, CIP and two river bank protection 2/ Valued at the economic net production benefits in without project situation. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 39 (Cr. 2099-BD) Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Whole Project Taka Million

FY Investmen O&M Cost Land Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs 1/ Acquisit Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben 2/ year 1 (FY91) 53.20 0.00 0.70 53.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 -53.90 year 2 137.50 0.00 0.90 138.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 -138.40 year 3 155.50 1.10 1.70 158.30 71.50 71.50 0.00 -158.30 year 4 212.10 3.20 2.20 217.50 73.50 79.40 5.90 -211.60 year 5 233.30 8.20 2.80 244.30 219.30 231.00 11.70 -232.60 year 6 283.20 17.80 3.40 304.40 745.60 777.10 31.50 -272.90 year 7 658.60 28.40 3.40 690.40 783.50 897.90 114.40 -576.00 year 8 103.10 93.50 3.40 200.00 4327.70 4496.00 168.30 -31.70 year 9 93.50 3.40 96.90 4494.40 5065.10 570.70 473.80 year 10 93.50 3.40 96.90 4656.60 5612.50 955.90 859.00 year 11 93.50 3.40 96.90 4784.70 6069.60 1284.90 1188.00 year 12 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 13 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 14 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823=30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 15 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 16 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 17 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 18 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 19 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 20 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 21 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 22 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 23 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 24 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 25 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20

29.4% 2900.26 Tk. Milli

1/ Including only direct R&I works of 35 subprojects, excluding two river bank protection. 2/ Valued at the economic net production benefits in without project situation. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 40

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Polder 55/1 Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen Other P O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Cos Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben

year 1 (FY91) 1.92 4.33 0.00 6.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.25 year 2 6.76 4.19 0.00 10.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 -10.95 year 3 7.70 4.01 0.00 11.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11.71 year 4 27.00 3.89 0.00 30.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 -30.89 year 5 2.70 3.71 0.00 6.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.41 year 6 18.46 3.6Q 0.00 22.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 -22.06 year 7 12.41 5.38 0.00 17.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 -17.79 year 8 21.30 3.20 5.34 29.84 97.98 97.98 0.00 -29.84 year 9 5.34 5.34 105.21 116.10 10.89 5.55 year 10 5.34 5.34 112.52 134.29 21.77 16.43 year 11 5.34 5.34 119.83 152.41 32.58 27.24 year 12 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 13 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 14 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 15 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 16 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 17 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 18 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 19 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 20 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 21 4.64 5.34 9.98 127.14 170.59 43.45 33.47 year 22 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 23 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 24 5.34 5.34 127.14 170.59 43.45 38.11 year 25 -2.32 5.34 3.02 127.14 170.59 43.45 40.43

#NUMI 10.26 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicles costs by benefited areas. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Table 41

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Beel Singri Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen Other P O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 5 0.22 0.77 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.99 year 6 3.87 13.62 0.00 17.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 -17.49 year 7 2.73 9.61 0.00 12.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 -12.34 year 8 5.92 20.83 2.42 29.17 172.85 172.85 0.00 -29.17 year 9 2.42 2.42 182.24 199.31 17.07 14.65 year 10 2.42 2.42 191.66 225.78 34.12 31.70 year 11 2.42 2.42 201.07 252.24 51.17 48.75 year 12 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 13 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 14 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68=21 65.79 year 15 2,42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 16 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 17 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 18 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 19 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 20 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 21 6.43 2.42 8.85 210.49 278.70 68.21 59.36 year 22 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 23 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 24 2.42 2.42 210.49 278.70 68.21 65.79 year 25 -3.22 2.42 -0.80 210.49 278.70 68.21 69.01

#NUM! 127.67 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicles costs by benfited areas. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Table 42

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Buri Teesta Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen Other O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben

year 1 (FY91) 3.74 1.26 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.00 year 2 5.11 1.22 0.00 6.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.33 year 3 5.94 1.16 0.00 7.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.10 year 4 2.03 1.13 0.00 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.16 year 5 2.75 1.08 0.00 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.83 year 6 7.75 1.05 0.00 8.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8.80 year 7 4.58 1.56 0.00 6.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.14 year 8 4.94 0.93 0.67 6.54 39.91 39.91 0.00 -6.54 year 9 0.67 0.67 41.04 44.29 3.25 2.58 year 10 0.67 0.67 42.16 48.66 6.50 5.83 year 11 0.67 0.67 43.29 53.04 9.75 9.08 year 12 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 13 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 14 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 15 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 16 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 17 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 18 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 19 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 20 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 21 1.35 0.67 2.02 44.42 57.42 13.00 10.98 year 22 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 23 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33 year 24 -0.68 0.67 -0.01 44.42 57.42 13.00 13.01 year 25 0.67 0.67 44.42 57.42 13.00 12.33

#NUM! 0.21 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicles costs by benefited area. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 43

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Chaptir Haor Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen Other P O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Costs 1 Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 5 0.51 0.24 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.75 year 6 4.00 1.91 0.00 5.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.91 year 7 14.26 6.80 0.00 21.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 -21.06 year 8 16.20 7.73 1.38 25.31 21.45 21.45 0.00 -25.31 year 9 1.38 1.38 22.28 27.02 4.74 3.36 year 10 1.38 1.38 23.10 32.59 9.49 8.11 year 11 1.38 1.38 23.93 38.16 14.23 12.85 year 12 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 13 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 14 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 i7.61 year 15 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 16 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 17 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 18 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 19 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 20 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 21 2.39 1.38 3.77 24.75 43.74 18.99 15.22 year 22 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 23 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 24 1.38 1.38 24.75 43.74 18.99 17.61 year 25 -1.2 1.38 0.18 24.75 43.74 18.99 18.81

20.69 17.75 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicles costs by benefited area. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 44

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Karnafuli Irrigation Project (Tk Million)

FY Investmen Other P O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Costs 1 Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben

year 1 (FY91) 1.63 1.82 0.00 3.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.45 year 2 3.45 1.76 0.00 5.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.21 year 3 12.89 1.68 0.00 14.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 -14.57 year 4 17.95 1.63 0.00 19.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 -19.58 year 5 5.63 1.56 0.00 7.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.19 year 6 16.86 1.51 0.00 18.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.37 year 7 20.31 2.26 0.00 22.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 -22.57 year 8 37.25 1.34 0.98 39.57 105.65 105.65 0.00 -39.57 year 9 0.98 0.98 107.48 114.84 7.36 6.38 year 10 0.98 0.98 109.31 124.03 14.72 13.74 year 11 0.98 0.98 111.14 133.22 22.08 21.10 year 12 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 13 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 14 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 15 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 16 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 17 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 18 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 19 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 20 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 21 1.94 0.98 2.92 112.97 142.41 29.44 26.52 year 22 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 23 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 24 0.98 0.98 112.97 142.41 29.44 28.46 year 25 -0.97 0.98 0.01 112.97 142.41 29.44 29.43

#NUM! -2.73 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicle costs by benefited area. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 45

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Chandpur Irrigation Project (Tk Million)

FY Investmen Other Land A O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Costs 2/ Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 8.64 16.08 0.00 0.00 24.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 -24.72 year 2 52.98 15.54 0.81 0.00 69.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 -69.33 year 3 10.55 14.86 0.81 0.00 26.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 -26.22 year 4 21.57 14.45 0.81 0.00 36.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 -36.83 year 5 28.25 13.78 0.81 0.00 42.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 -42.84 year 6 31.98 13.36 0.81 0.00 46.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 -46.15 year 7 77.04 19.95 0.81 0.00 97.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 -97.80 year 8 6.47 11.86 0.81 8.79 27.93 950.85 950.85 0.00 -27.93 year 9 0.81 8.79 9.60 967.32 1033.56 66.24 56.64 year 10 0.81 8.79 9.60 983.79 1116.27 132.48 122.88 year 11 0.81 8.79 9.60 1000.26 1198.98 198.72 189.12 year 12 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 13 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 14 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 15 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 16 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 17 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 18 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 19 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 20 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 21 17.2 0.81 8.79 26.80 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 238.16 year 22 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 23 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 24 0.81 8.79 9.60 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 255.36 year 25 -8.6 0.81 8.79 1.00 1016.73 1281.69 264.96 263.96

22.9% 377.22 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicle costs by benefited area. 2/ Land acquisition has been valued at the economic net production value in WOP. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 46

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Muhuri Irrigation Project (Tk Million)

FY Investmen Other P O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Costs 1 Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 8.21 15.52 0.00 23.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 -23.73 year 2 5.21 15.00 0.00 20.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 -20.21 year 3 27.04 14.35 0.00 41.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 -41.39 year 4 24.47 13.95 0.00 38.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 -38.42 year 5 32.11 13.3 0.00 45.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 -45.41 year 6 24.76 12.90 0.00 37.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 -37.66 year 7 46.32 19.26 0.00 65.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 -65.58 year 8 7.52 11.45 8.43 27.40 447.80 447.80 0.00 -27.40 year 9 8.43 8.43 455.55 536.42 80.86 72.43 year 10 8.43 8.43 463.31 579.34 116.03 107.60 year 11 8.43 8.43 471.07 622.27 151.20 142.77 year 12 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 13 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 14 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 15 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 16 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 17 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 18 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 19 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 20 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 21 16.61 8.43 25.04 478.82 665.20 186.37 161.33 year 22 8.43 8.43 478.82 66,5.20 186.37 177.94 year 23 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 24 8.43 8.43 478.82 665.20 186.37 177.94 year 25 -8.31 8.43 0.12 478.82 665.20 186.37 186.25

22.56 263.07 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicle cost by benefited area. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitatio Table 47

Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Dardaria Khal Subproject (Tk Million)

FY Investmen Other O&M Cost Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs Costs Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben year 1 (FY91) 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 year 2 7.03 4.83 0.00 11.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11.86 year 3 6.51 4.47 0.00 10.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 -10.98 year 4 6.15 4.23 0.00 10.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 -10.38 year 5 1.06 0.73 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.79 year 6 3.68 2.53 0.00 6.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.21 year 7 1.36 0.93 0.97 3.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.26 year 8 0.97 0.97 69.14 69.14 0.00 -0.97 year 9 0.97 0.97 72.90 79.72 6.83 5.86 year 10 0.97 0.97 76.66 90.31 13.65 12.68 year 11 0.97 0.97 80.43 100.90 20.47 19.50 year 12 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 13 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 14 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 15 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 16 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 17 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 18 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 19 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 20 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 21 2.54 0.97 3.51 84.20 111.48 27.28 23.77 year 22 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 23 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 24 0.97 0.97 84.20 111.48 27.28 26.31 year 25 -1.27 0.97 -0.30 84.20 111.48 27.28 27.58

#NUM! 31.88 Tk. Milli

1/ Prorata share of training & staff development, TA and equipment and vehicle costs by benefited areas. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 48 (Cr. 2099-BD) Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Whole Project Taka Million

FY Investmen O&M Cost Land Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs 1/ Acquisit Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben 2/ year 1 (FY91) 141.00 0.00 0.40 141.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 -141.40 year 2 178.50 0.00 0.60 179.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -179.10 year 3 203.30 1.10 1.30 205.70 71.50 71.50 0.00 -205.70 year 4 243.50 3.20 1.80 248.50 73.50 79.40 5.90 -242.60 year 5 258.30 8.20 2.40 268.90 219.30 231.00 11.70 -257.20 year 6 297.80 17.80 3.00 318.60 745.60 777.10 31.50 -287.10 year 7 646.90 28.40 3.00 678.30 783.50 897.90 114.40 -563.90 year 8 130.20 75.30 3.00 208.50 2356.00 2524.30 168.30 -40.20 year 9 75.30 3.00 78.30 2398.60 2921.90 523.30 445.00 year 10 75.30 3.00 78.30 2616.80 3298.40 681.60 603.30 year 11 75.30 3.00 78.30 2710.60 3583.40 872.80 794.50 year 12 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 13 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 14 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 15 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 16 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 17 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 18 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 19 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 20 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 21 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 22 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 23 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 24 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40 year 25 75.30 3.00 78.30 2715.00 3868.70 1153.70 1075.40

21.5% 1499.90 Tk. Milli

1/ Including direct R&I works of all 32 subprojects (excluding KIP, MIP, CIP and two river bank protection) development, TA and equipment costs. 2/ Valued at the economic net production benefits in without project situation. BANGLADESH BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project Table 49 (Cr. 2099-BD) Implementation Completion Report Economic Analysis-Whole Project Taka Million

FY Investmen O&M Cost Land Total Cos WOP Net WP Net Inc. Ne Balanc Costs 1/ Acquisit Prod. Ben Prod. Ben Prod. Ben 2/ year 1 (FY91) 193.00 0.00 0.70 193.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 -193.70 year 2 272.60 0.00 0.90 273.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -273.50 year 3 284.80 1.10 1.70 287.60 71.50 71.50 0.00 -287.60 year 4 337.80 3.20 2.20 343.20 73.50 79.40 5.90 -337.30 year 5 353.10 8.20 2.80 364.10 219.30 231.00 11.70 -352.40 year 6 399.40 17.80 3.40 420.60 745.60 777.10 31.50 -389.10 year 7 832.10 28.40 3.40 863.90 783.50 897.90 114.40 -749.50 year 8 206.20 93.50 3.40 303.10 4327.70 4496.00 168.30 -134.80 year 9 93.50 3.40 96.90 4494.40 5065.10 570.70 473.80 year 10 93.50 3.40 96.90 4656.60 5612.50 955.90 859.00 year 11 93.50 3.40 96.90 4784.70 6069.60 1284.90 1188.00 year 12 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 13 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 14 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823-30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 15 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 16 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 17 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 18 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 19 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 20 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 21 149.60 93.50 3.40 246.50 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1456.60 year 22 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 23 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 24 93.50 3.40 96.90 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1606.20 year 25 -74.80 93.50 3.40 22.10 4823.30 6526.40 1703.10 1681.00

21.8W 2239.41 Tk. Milli

1/ Including direct R&I works of all 35 subprojects (excluding two river bank protection) and training & st and equipment costs. 2/ Valued at the economic net production benefits in without project situation. IBRD29649

92' 0 ~~~~~~~~~g.9J0""29

BANGLADESH

lb ~BWDBSYSTEMS REHABILITATION PROJECT

_260/ / K "Q 26N"' / Thakurso*: NiI~~~~~~~~~~kamo> "j ~~~~APPRAISED SUBPROJECTS AlP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IPOE OPERRATGIOJRA26 ,, m angur \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~& ~~A MAINTENANCE SUBPROJECTS ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT SUBPROJECTS \r'Katlhar ~~~~~~~~~~nojr¾tlb 0 ~~~~~~~~SAMPLESUBPROJECTS FOR ICR

~cjAMALUI ' _2R ;J5'H ,Purdro; ttth Y250

RAJSHAHI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;k ~C/pir Hocor ( B---A-MYEJShCH -ASHH-- N SYLHE ' NcwobgoniO&M " > \{Bh ur< o .'

-2A' ~~~~~~~~~~~~Gazipo~ur, IN D IA 240-

-230 23c'r-'--HLt7

Thismap wos produced by ,•/~ r 9K-IL rlo t einUn,ito of The.f LNA World Bok. Theboudaries, ~

onyotherinformtion sAni . gahoi osthismap do notimply, a . 's'"I~~J/0~ theport .f TheWorld Bank 4 *kATAKAIa., Group,any judgmet anthe q Prto r

22.r ony endo-rseet or / 0Pd2r6/ cepoeof such ' 's~

NEPAL', >--"07S

- ~~~~IDIAI ~R~PT1

DI IISO APTL

~~~~ D Bay ofBengal ® NATiONAL ~~~~~~~~~~~21

TF4flA< ~~~~~~~~~~"-~~~~~~~1'I MAINROADS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JUE 99