AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
TUNISIA
RAS DJEBEL-GALAAT IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
COMPLETION REPORT
COUNTRY DEPARTMENT Prepared by NARD.2 NORTH REGION March 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page KEY DATA i-iii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SECTORAL AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1
2.1 Description of the Long-term Programme 1 2.2 Project Description 3
3. PROJECT FORMULATION 5
3.1 Project Background 5 3.2 Preparation, Appraisal, Negotiation and Approval 5
4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 6
4.1 Effectiveness and Start-up 6 4.2 Modifications 6 4.3 Implementation Schedule 7 4.4 Reporting 8 4.5 Procurement of Goods and Services 8 4.6 Sources of Finance and Disbursements 9
5. OPERATING PERFORMANCE AND OUTPUTS 13
5.1 Overall Trend 13 5.2 Operating Results 15
6. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE 18
6.1 Management and Organization Efficiency 18 6.2 Staff Recruitment, Training and Further Training 19 6.3 Performance of Consultants, Contractors, Suppliers and the Borrower 19 6.4 Management Consultants 20 6.5 Clauses and Conditions 20
7. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 21
8. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 22
9. SOCIAL IMPACTS 23
10. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 23
11. SUSTAINABILITY OF OUTPUTS 24 12. PERFORMANCE OF THE BANK AND OTHER COFINANCIERS 24
12.1 Project Objectives and Justifications 24 12.2 Project Implementation and Operating Results 24
13. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS 25
13.1 Conclusions 25 13.2 Lessons 26
This report was prepared by Messrs. F.E. EBEN, Agronomist, Mission Leader, and A. RANDRIATAVY, Rural Engineer, following a mission to Tunisia from 17 November to 4 December 1994. LIST OF ANNEXES
Number of pages Pages 1. Country Map: Location of Project Area 1
2. Implementation Schedule 1
3. Project Costs, Goods and Services, Contractors and Suppliers 1
4. Increases in Area and Production 1
5. Prices of Products 1
6. Financial Results 1
7. Additional Production 1
8. Economic Rate of Return 1
9. Organization Charts 2 I. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
Currency unit : Tunisian Dinar UA 1 : TD 0.681526(Appraisal, Oct. 1982) UA 1 : TD 1.4382 (December 1994)
A. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Metric System
II. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADB : African Development Bank ADF : African Development Fund CRDA : Commissariat régional de développement agricole DGETH : Direction générale des études et des travaux hydrauliques EGTH : Etudes et grands travaux hydrauliques EIRR : Economic Internal Rate of Return GDP : Gross Domestic Product KFW : Kreditanstalt für wiederaufbau LC : Local Currency LGS : List of Goods and Services OMVVM : Office de mise en valeur de la vallée de la Medjerda PCR : Project Completion Report PDEN : Plan directeur des eaux du Nord SECADENORD : Société d’exploitation du canal et des adductions des eaux du Nord TD : Tunisian Dinar UA : Unit of Account of ADB
Fiscal Year
1 January to 31 December i
A. KEY DATA
1. Country : Tunisia
2. Project : Ras-Djebel-Galaat Irrigation Development Project
3. Loan Number : CS/TN/AGR/82/018
4. Borrower : Government of Tunisia
5. Beneficiary : Government of Tunisia
6. Executing Agency : Direction générale des Etudes et Travaux Hydrauliques, Ministry of Agriculture
A. LOAN Estimates Actual
1. Amount (UA million) 23.6 9.89
2. Interest rate 9.5 %
3. Statutory Commission 1 %
4. Commitment Charge 1 %
5. Repayment Period 14 years
6. Grace Period 6 years
7. Negotiation Date 23-24 November 1982
8. Approval Date 14 December 1982
9. Date of signature 7 January 1983
10. Effectiveness Date 31 December 1984. ii
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Total Cost -----At Appraisal ------Actual ----- (in UA million) F.E. L.C. Total F.E. L.C. Total 39.98 43.21 83.19 23.11 13.81 36.92
2. Financing Plan -----At Appraisal ------Actual ----- (in UA million) F.E. L.C. Total F.E. L.C. Total ADB 23.60 - 23.60 9.89 - 9.89 KFW 16.38 - 16.38 13.22 - 13.22 Government - 43.21 43.21 - 13.81 13.81 Total 39.98 43.21 83.19 23.11 13.81 36.92
3. Effective date of first disbursement : 20 February 1986
4. Effective date of last disbursement : 17 May 1994
5. Implementation start-up : July 1983
6. Project completion date : November 1994
C. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
1. Unspent balance :
2. Overruns/Underruns in relation to the schedule
- Effectiveness : 1 year - Completion date : 6 years - Last disbursement : 6 years - Number of extensions of deadlines : 2
3. Implementation status : Completed
4. List of verifiable indicators :
5. Institutional performance : Satisfactory
6. Performance of Contractor : Satisfactory
7. Performance of Consultant : Satisfactory
8. EIRR (Economic Internal Rate of Return) :
Appraisal: 12 %; PCR: 10.6 % iii
D. MISSIONS DATES EXPERTS S/MONTHS
- Preparation July 1982 FAO - - Appraisal October 1982 3 1.5 - Monitoring November 1990 1 0.5 - January 1992 1 0.5 - Supervision September 1987 1 0.2 August 1989 1 0.5 - PCR 17 Nov. – 4 Dec. 1994 2 1
E. DISBURSEMENT (UA million) Estimates Actual
- Total disbursed 23.60 9.89 - Amount cancelled - 13.71 - Unspent balance - - - Average annual disbursement 4.72 1.10
F. CONTRACTORS – SUPPLIERS
- 34 enterprises and suppliers : UA 34.88 million (See list, responsibilities and individual amounts in Annex 3)
G. CONSULTANTS
- AHT : Engineering studies and supervision UA 2.30 million - SCET-Tunisie: Studies on Irrigation System UA 0.24 million 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Tunisian agriculture plays a preponderant role in the country’s economic and social development process. In fact, despite many handicaps (climate, water, land organization), agriculture today contributes about 13% of GDP, provides 35% of employment, and 8% of export earnings. In comparison to 1960 data, these figures indicate a substantial decline in the contribution of agriculture to the national economy because, at that time, agriculture accounted for 24% of GDP, 56% of employment and 60% of export earnings. This drop does not, however, reflect a decline in agricultural activities, but more rapid expansion of the other sectors of the economy, in particular petroleum, manufacturing industry and tourism.
1.2 Located on the confines of the Sahara, and although largely open to the Mediterranean Sea, three quarters of Tunisia has an arid to semi-arid climate. This situation, combined with the great variation in Mediterranean climate, makes water scarce and unevenly distributed in time and space. Consequently, agricultural intensification entails an improvement of productivity in the sector which depends on the solving of two key problems: control of water in order to avoid climatic hazards, and agricultural reform to make farms viable. This accounts for the Government’s constant efforts to mobilize water and use it in accordance with the Water Master Plan of the North and Far North (PDEN).
1.3 The Ras Djebel/Galaat Andalous Irrigation Development Project falls in line with these efforts to mitigate the effects of climatic hazards, reduce food shortages in compliance with the adopted development strategy which gives top priority to the agricultural sector. The project should increase the income of farmers and directly benefit a population estimated at 15,000 inhabitants. The project comprises 4 separate irrigation areas: Ras Djebel, Aousja, Henchir-Tobias and Galaat El Andalous. It covers the north-east coastal plain and the Lower Oued Medjerda Valley which ranks first in agricultural production in Tunisia. In fact, the region has one-quarter of the total irrigated lands, which account for one-third of the national agricultural production.
1.4 In this light, the Bank attaches special importance to the development of Tunisia’s agricultural sector. Commitments by the Bank Group in the agricultural sector in Tunisia currently amount to UA 425.5 million. This project is the second Bank Group operation in the sector. The first loan in the agricultural sector was granted in 1968 for the Medjerda Valley Development Project (UA 2.75 million).
2. SECTORAL AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES
2.1 Description of the long-term Programme
2.1.1 The project is consistent with the objectives of the 6th Five-Year Economic and Social Development Plan of Tunisia (1982-1986) in the agricultural sector. The objective of the Plan was to maximize irrigated agricultural production in order to contribute to food security, integrated development of the rural world, and balanced town-village development. To achieve this objective, the Government’s strategy centres on the following main activities: 2
- better assessment of the quantity and quality of water resources;
- intensification of agricultural development in the existing irrigated areas by rehabilitating and protecting such areas and by implementing integrated development programmes;
- establishment of new structures in the areas to facilitate satisfactory development;
- promotion of minor water facilities to better contribute to regional balance (surface wells, boreholes, hillside lakes, floodwater);
- accelerated tapping of surface and subsurface water resources;
- more balanced distribution of investments in the regions of the country.
2.1.2 The Ras Djebel/Galaat Andalous Irrigation Development Project is a sub- component of the Water Master Plan for the North and Far North (PDEN). The objectives of the Plan are to develop means (dams and transfer structures) for the control and mobilization of surface water resources in order to best satisfy multiple purpose needs (drinking water, irrigation and industry) until the year 2007. PDEN aims at transferring water resources from the North-West region of Tunisia, the real watershed of the country, to regions with insufficient water (Medjerda Valley as well as Bizerte, Tunis, Cap bon, Sousse and Sfax regions).
2.1.3 In 1974, PDEN defined a scenario in several phases focused on the construction of dams. The first phase consists in the development of 16,620 ha of land, the construction of the Medjerda-Cap Bon canal and the construction of the Sidi Salem dam (1981). The second phase comprises the construction of the Joumine dam and the development of 20,000 ha of land including 7,185 ha which make up the Ras Djebel/Galaat Andalous Project with which this report is concerned. The third phase comprises the development of the Sejnane (400 ha) area and the construction of the Sejnane dam (1993) for impounding 76 million m3 of water for drinking and irrigation purposes. The fourth phase of PDEN aims at constructing Sidi El Barrak and Barbara dams; they are currently being constructed and are scheduled to be flooded in 1997. The later phases will ensure the construction of the following dams: Mellila, Kebir, Zerga, Moula, Tune, Ziatine, etc. 3
2.2 Project Description
2.2.1 By using water from the PDEN water system, the project aimed at protecting the Ras Djebel and Aousja (3.145 ha) areas where the water-bearing beds were over- exploited, and at bringing under irrigation the Galaat El Andalous and Henchir Tobias areas (4.000 ha) which were almost entirely under rainfed cultivation, so as to reduce shortfalls affecting major food items such as cereals, milk, meat, fruits and vegetables. At full development, the expected additional output was estimated at 2,170 tonnes of tree crops, 11.5 million litres of milk, 1,135 tonnes of beef and 445 head of heifer.
2.2.2 The project consisted in developing, for sprinkler irrigation, 7,185 ha of land divided into four areas:
- Ras Djebel : 1,354 ha; - Aousja : 1,791 ha; - Henchir Tobias : 1,750 ha; - Galaat Andalous : 2,290 ha.
2.2.3 The project area covers the north-east coastal plain of Tunisia and the Lower Oued Medjerda Valley, located between Tunis, to the South, and Bizerte, to the North. It is easily accessible through many tarred roads. On the other hand, circulation within the areas posed a few problems, in particular, during the rainy season, and the project provided for the improvement and construction of roads.
2.2.4 Complete equipment for irrigation of the areas was supposed to allow for intensification of production and appropriate crop rotation. Irrigation using groundwater table resources was already a tradition in most of the areas, and the water brought by the project was supposed to allow for:
- widespread irrigation;
- an end to over-exploitation of groundwater resources and considerable risks of soil and groundwater salinization;
- achievement of a land occupancy rate ranging from 1.25 to 1.46;
- a substantial increase in production yields corresponding to double or quadruple the yields depending on the crops;
- the development of livestock, which was negligible before the project but which will be an essential element in the income of producers. 4
2.2.5 The project components relating to hydraulic equipment were supposed to be implemented by the Department of Studies and Major Hydraulic Works (EGTH) of the Ministry of Agriculture, in compliance with a schedule spread out over 5 years. The project development sub-component (management of irrigation networks and agricultural supervision) was supposed to be implemented by the Office de mise en valeur de la vallée de la Medjerda (OMVVM); strengthening of the staff and equipment required for this purpose was envisaged in the corresponding component of the project.
2.2.6 At appraisal, the project had the following components:
A. Irrigation works:
A.1 General infrastructure, comprising:
i) the mobile dam on the Medjerda dam with two sluice gates;
ii) the Tobias irrigation complex, consisting of a 6m3 station pumping water from the dam to the Tobias- Utique canal;
iii) the Tobias-Utique canal, which is 11,700m long, supplies water to the areas;
iv) the Aousja – Ras Djebel common infrastructure, consisting of a pumping station with a discharge rate of 2.1 m3/s to the canal.
A.2 The development of the irrigation areas comprising, for each area, the installation of a network of water supply conduits and fountains and a network of drainage pipes, as well as the construction of major roads. This sub-component also comprises specific facilities for each area as follows:
i) Henchir-Tobias : two pumping stations, for irrigation from the canal and for drainage respectively;
ii) Galaat Andalous : two pumping stations, for irrigation from the canal and for drainage respectively;
iii) Aousja : a 13,400 m3 storage reservoir;
iv) Ras Djebel : a secondary pumping station with a discharge rate of 1.2 m3/s and a 17.000 m3 storage reservoir. 5
B. Farming operations
Farming operations comprise the procurement of network maintenance equipment, milk collecting gear, and the construction of buildings in each irrigation area.
C. Design, Inspection, Supervision and Monitoring: This component comprises, in particular, a consulting engineer.
3. PROJECT FORMULATION
3.1 Project Background
3.1.1 For the past several decades and through the implementation of various five- year plans, Tunisia has tried to increase and diversify its agricultural production in order to achieve its food self-sufficiency policy, reduce its imports and increase its export earnings. However, the Tunisian agricultural sector faces unfavourable conditions, which slow down its growth; these include irregular rainfall, inadequate water resources and poor quality of water, soil degradation, and inadequate socio- economic organization. These unfavourable conditions, against which the Government has been struggling, have received the attention of various partners which assist the development of Tunisia.
3.1.2 At project design, Tunisia’s agricultural production potential was still underexploited. Moreover, the country imported great quantities of foodstuffs (cereals, animal products, fruits and vegetables). Water resources could be mobilized from dams, boreholes and wells. The two schemes in Tas Djebel and d’Aousja (3,145 ha) existed before the project and were irrigated with water from wells. However, water in most wells was becoming salted as a result of sea water movements in the watertable. Against this background, it was therefore decided to carry out the Ras Djebel/Galaat Andalous project, which is an important component in the second phase of PDEN and which consists in the agricultural development of 4 areas. The Bank Group and KFW responded favourably to the Government’s request for the financing of this project.
3.2 Preparation, Appraisal, Negotiation and Approval
3.2.1 The Ras Djebel/Galaat Andalous project was prepared in January 1982, first under the name “Protection of Ras Djebel and Aousja (52,500 ha)” by the FAO Investment Centre. Then it was extended in April 1982 to five areas: Ras Djebel, Aousja, Henchir Tobias, Galaat Andalous and Zouaouine. Following the KFW mission in June 1982 and that of the Bank Group in July 1982, the size of the project was finally set at 7,185 ha comprising the following schemes: Ras Djebel (1,354 ha), Aousja (1,791 ha), Henchir Tobias (1,750 ha) and Galaat El Andalous (2,290 ha).
3.2.2 In September-October 1982, the Bank sent a project appraisal mission to Tunisia. This mission worked in close collaboration with the KFW mission and all Tunisian services concerned with the project. No major problem was raised during the negotiations. The loan was approved by the Bank on 14 December 1982, while KFW approved the loan on 25 June 1985. 6
4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Effectiveness and Start-up
4.1.1 The conditions precedent to loan effectiveness were as follows:
i) Government’s undertaking to regularly include in its annual budget appropriations needed to finance its share of the project costs as set out in the financing plan;
ii) Government’s undertaking to seek additional financing in the event of project cost overrun;
iii) Government’s undertaking not to utilize proceeds from the loan to pay the various duties and taxes relating to the goods and services needed for project implementation;
iv) Evidence by Government that the financing agreement with KFW has been signed or that the latter has given a written undertaking to participate in financing the project.
4.1.2 On the whole, all the above conditions were fulfilled in accordance with a relatively acceptable schedule. In fact, the loan became effective in December 1984, almost two years after the signing of the Loan Agreement. The development works started 3.5 years behind schedule (start-up scheduled for mid-July 1983; effective start- up: January 1987). The delay was due to the late approval of the KFW loan (co- financier of the project), and to the time required for the design studies.
4.2 Modifications
4.2.1 The major modifications were related to the technical design of the general infrastructure following the design studies, as well as to the organization of the implementation of the “development” component to be carried out by the Office de Mise en Valeur de la Vallée de la Medjerda (OMVVM). They are outlined below:
i) the initial project design provided for the Tobias-Utique canal as the source of water supply to all the schemes with a common water pumping and supply infrastructure for Aousja and Ras Djebel, as well as a pumping station for each of the Henchir Tobias and Galaat Andalous schemes. The facilities comprised a common water supply infrastructure for Henchir Tobias and the future second tranche, directly from the Tobias complex instead of the canal, and a common water supply infrastructure for the three other schemes in Galaat Andalous, Aousja and Ras Djebel, from the end of the Tobias-Utique canal, whose capacity and length were reduced;
ii) the development was entrusted, since 1988, to the Commissariat régional de développement agricole (CRDA) in each respective Governorate, the CRDA of Ariana for Galaat Andalous and part of Henchir Tobias, and the CRDA of Bizerte for Ras Djebel, Aousja and 7
the other part of Henchir Tobias. It is the new organization in the entire Tunisia for the supervision of farming operations, the coordination of all development activities in the regions to be carried out by the regional Governor. The regional development authorities, in particular OMVVM, were dissolved. CRDA is organized and has the facilities to be the only collaborator of producers throughout the Governorate. However, the management and maintenance of the general infrastructure, comprising the dam, all the pumping stations and the canal, are entrusted to Société d’exploitation du canal et des adductions des eaux du Nord (SECADENORD);
iii) the implementation of institutional reforms, in particular the policy of privatization and State divestiture from competitive activities (supplies, marketing, pricing, collection of agricultural products, etc.) reduced the volume of goods and services in the “Development” component.
4.2.2 These modifications did not in any way affect the objectives of the project, at least negatively, but rather contributed to substantial savings in the project cost by reducing the volume of works for some structures (canal). They increased the irrigated areas substantially by nearly 13% in comparison with the initial forecasts, and provided for more efficient agricultural guidance by concentrating it on a smaller territory.
4.3 Implementation Schedule
4.3.1 According to the appraisal report, project implementation was to cover five years, from 1983 to 1987. In reality, project implementation actually covered eight years, from 1987 to 1994. Irrigation development works, the main components of the project, started 4 years behind schedule, and covered a period of 6 years from 1987 to 1992. The construction of feeder roads to be used by farmers started only in 1992. The project was therefore completed 7 years behind schedule on the whole, for reasons that are explained below. The project implementation schedule, in comparison with the proposed schedule, is given in Annex 2. 8
4.3.2 The first reason for the delay was related to the start-up, and was due to the delay in obtaining co-financing for the project. In fact, the loan agreement with KFW was signed only in June 1985, two and a half years after the ADB loan approval. The project could not start without this financing.
4.3.3 Another reason for the delay was related to the engineering studies. The studies, which were a precedent to the calls for tenders for the works, started only at the end of 1985. The contract for the studies had already been signed in December 1984, but the studies effectively started later because of delay in the finalization of the financing. In fact, the delay is only apparent since the period of nearly two years, required for conducting the studies, was not taken into account in preparing the provisional schedule during project appraisal.
4.3.4 From the foregoing, it followed that the contracts for the major works were signed only at the end of 1987. The actual delay in the implementation of the works was 6 years instead of 5 years estimated at appraisal. Construction of the feeder roads started only at the end of all the development and equipment works on the schemes so as to avoid degradation by worksite machinery, and the corresponding period was not taken into account at appraisal. Consequently, the programme started only in 1992, and was implemented over a period of two and a half years.
4.3.5 The overall delay of seven years was therefore essentially due to project start- up, and stems from the period of nearly three years between the approval of the ADB loan and that of KFW, nearly two years for the detailed studies, and two years for the construction of feeder roads; the last two periods cover four years, which were not taken into account in the provisional schedule in the appraisal report. Consequently, if these periods, which could not be accounted for in the project or which were omitted in the provisional schedule, are not considered, the actual delay is reduced to one year for the development works. It does not seem that special measures could be taken to reduce these various delays in the actual project implementation.
4.4 Reporting
The appraisal report did not specify either the nature or frequency of documents which the borrower should prepare and send to the Bank. Nevertheless, the borrower produced a few periodic progress reports on the project. It also sent to the Bank all the reports on the examination of bids. Unfortunately, the mission could not have the project completion report prepared by the Executing Agency despite the Bank’s insistence. In other words, the PCR of the borrower was not prepared.
4.5 Procurement of Goods and Services
4.5.1 The appraisal report provided for the procurement of goods and services for the project through international competitive bidding, on the basis of a short list as regards the services of the consulting engineer.
4.5.2 The procedure for international competitive bidding was followed systematically by the Executing Agency, without any particular problems. Only the electrification works were awarded by direct negotiation to Société tunisienne d’Electricité et du Gaz, which has the monopoly of the installations. The project was implemented on the basis of nine invitations to bid, comprising several components in most cases: 9
i) General infrastructure: works, supply and installation of equipment;
ii) Development works in the areas: works, supply and installation of equipment;
iii) Supply of special hydraulic spare parts;
iv) Supply of mobile irrigation equipment;
v) Construction of buildings;
vi) Feeder roads in the areas of the Governorate of Ariana;
vii) Feeder roads in the areas of the Governorate of Bizerte;
viii) Rolling stock;
ix) Supply of a power shovel.
4.5.3 The civil works of the general infrastructure were awarded to a Chinese company, the only foreign company which participated in the project. All the other services were entrusted to enterprises and suppliers established locally, nationally or representing foreign companies. The contracts awarded to local enterprises account for 87% of the project cost. Implementation of the project led to the conclusion of 34 contracts; a list of the contracts, with their respective amounts, is given in Annex 3.
4.6 Source of Finance and Disbursements
Project Costs
4.6.1 Project costs were determined on the basis of payments made by the Executing Agency from the resources of the ADB and KFW (co-donors) loans, and from the Tunisian budget. Table 4.6.1 below gives the costs by component, in millions of Tunisian Dinars (TD) and UA, in comparison with estimates at appraisal. Details of the costs and all the contracts awarded are given in the table in Annex 3. 10
Table 4.6.1 Project Cost (including contingencies)
------Appraisal ------Actual ------TD UA TD UA Components Million Million Million Million %
A. Irrigation works A1. General infrastructure 14.48 21.25 22.22 19.69 153.5 A2. Land development works 13.99 49.88 16.39 14.52 48.2 B. Farming operations 7.07 10.37 0.20 0.18 2.9 C. Design, supervision, monitoring 1.15 1.69 2.86 2.53 248.3 Total 56.69 83.19 41.67 36.92 73.5 Variation actual/estimates in % -26.5 -55.6
4.6.2 In the table, the rates of actual expenditure in comparison with the estimates are calculated on the basis of costs in TD. The table shows in particular a substantial reduction in the overall project cost in comparison with the estimates (-26% in TD), despite an apparent increase in the costs of the general infrastructure sub-component. Explanations for the differences are given below:
i) As regards the apparent increase in the costs of general infrastructure, it is actually due to a change in the classification of equipment following modifications in the technical design and management organization in the sub-component (see paragraph 4.2.1(ii) above): the pumping stations, initially defined as forming part of the general infrastructure sub-component, which is managed and maintained by SECADENORD. In fact, it seems that the overall cost of the Irrigation Works component (the two sub-components) was reduced by 20% ;
ii) The procurement of goods and services proposed for the Land Development Works component was reduced considerably, as a result of the State’s privatization and divestiture policy. The revenue from the sale of water now enable the supervisory structures to ensure smooth running of the infrastructure, procure equipment for routine maintenance works and resort to companies for more significant repairs. It should also be noted that the personnel and administrative expenses of the project were not clearly recorded;
iii) The project benefitted from very open competition among enterprises, marked especially by the participation of a Chinese enterprise whose prices were generally moderate; 11
iv) The average inflation rate applied at appraisal was rather high, 10% per year for costs in both foreign exchange and local currency, whereas the actual rate during project implementation was about 4% per year on the average.
4.6.3 Expressed in UA, the actual project cost stands at UA 36.92 million as against UA 83.19 million estimated at appraisal, which represents a 55.6% reduction in comparison with the estimates. The cost reduction rate is higher than that of the costs expressed in TD, and this difference is due to the significant depreciation of the Tunisian Dinar in relation to the Bank Unit of Account during project implementation; the exchange rate moved from UA 1 = DT 0.68 at project appraisal in 1982 to UA 1 = TD 1.4382 in the fourth quarter of 1994.
Financing
4.6.4 The financing of the project, as estimated at appraisal, in comparison with the actual financing at implementation, is presented in Table 4.6.2 below, in UA million. Implementation details by component, with the contracts awarded, are given in Annex 3.
Table 4.6.2 Financing of the Project (UA million)
------Appraisal ------Components ADB KFW GVT Total
A. Irrigation works A1. General infrastructure 6.60 4.59 10.06 21.25 A2. Land development works 13.67 9.46 26.75 49.88 B. Farming operations 3.16 2.21 5.00 10.37 C. Design, supervision, monitoring 0.17 0.12 1.40 1.69 Total 23.60 16.38 43.21 83.19 Percentage (%) 28.4 19.7 51.9 100.0
------Actual ------Components ADB KFW GVT Total
A. Irrigation works A1. General infrastructure 3.27 10.43 5.99 19.69 A2. Land development works 5.15 2.00 7.37 14.52 B. Farming operations 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.18 C. Design, supervision, monitoring 1.33 0.79 0.41 2.53 Total 9.89 13.22 13.81 36.92 Percentage (%) 26.8 35.8 37.4 100.0
Variation actual/estimates in % -58.1 -19.3 -68.0 -55.6 Cancellation (in AU million) 13.7 12
4.6.5 This table calls for the following comments:
i) mobilization of financial resources for the project reduced considerably given the significant reduction in costs. That is why the Government presented two requests for cancellation of part of the ADB loan in January 1989 and May 1992 in the amount of UA 10.5 million and UA 3.5 million respectively, or a total amount of UA 14 million. However, expenditure after the cancellations exceeded the balance for disbursement, and part of the loan (UA 0.39 million) had to be reactivated in December 1993 to honour them. The final amount cancelled from the ADB loan is UA 13.71 million, which corresponds to 58.1 % of the initial amount;
ii) ADB’s contribution to the financing of the project (26.8%) was maintained almost at the level estimated at project appraisal (28.4%). That was a requirement imposed by the Bank during consultation between the donors in September 1987. On the other hand, KFW decided to bear a significant portion of project costs exclusive of tax and customs duties, initially intended to be borne by the Government; this led to a substantial increase in its share in the final project financing, which increased from 19.7% to 35.8%.
Disbursement
4.6.6 Disbursement of the ADB loan is summarized in Table 4.6.3 below:
Table 4.6.3 Disbursement Schedule of the ADB Loan (in UA thousand)
Year Estimates Actual
1983 680.0 - 1984 6,100.0 - 1985 9,660.0 - 1986 4,840.0 94.6 1987 2,320.0 170.7 1988 - 3,183.8 1989 - 1,849.5 1990 - 1,906.0 1991 - 1,022.2 1992 - 566.2 1993 - 142.6 1994 - 348.0 Total 23,600.0 9,883.6
Average annual disbursement 4,720.0 1,098.2 13
4.6.7 This table calls for the following remarks:
i) the first disbursement was more than two years (26 months) behind schedule. The late disbursement was due mainly to the delay in finalizing project financing, since the agreement with KFW was signed only in June 1985, which is two and a half years after approval of the ADB loan;
ii) the contract for the engineering studies for the project infrastructure, a precedent to corresponding calls for tender, was signed in December 1984, but the studies actually started only in 1986 for the reasons given in (i) above. The contracts for major works were therefore awarded only at the end of 1987, which accounts for the relatively significant disbursements as from 1988 only;
iii) the bulk of payments for the irrigation works were made before 1992, with disbursement for the closing years corresponding especially to the construction of internal feeder roads, most of which were initiated, or could be initiated, only in 1992 and 1993, at the end of the development works.
5. OPERATING PERFORMANCE AND OUTPUTS
5.1 Overall Trend
5.1.1 The physical outputs envisaged for the project, especially the irrigation infrastructure, were totally completed. The total surface area covered by the project increased slightly during implementation, by 13% in comparison with the estimates, increasing from 7,185 ha to 8,105 ha. Table 5.1.1 below gives a comparative presentation of the main physical outputs of the project in relation to estimates at appraisal. 14
Table 5.1.1 Comparison of Estimates and Actual Outputs
Items Units Estimates Actual
General infrastructure Mobile dam U 1 1 Drainage pump U 1 1 Tobias-Utique canal - Length Km 11.7 9 - Capacity M3/s 6 4.5 Pumping stations on the canal - to Aj + R-Dj U 1 - - taken to R-Dj U 1 1 - to H.T. U 1 - - to G.A. U 1 - - to H.T. + Ph.2 U - 1 - to G.A. + Aj + R-Dj + U - 1
Development of areas Areas equipped - Ras-Djebel ha 1,354 2,000 - Aousja ha 1,791 1,800 - Henchir Tobias ha 1,750 1,805 - Galaat Andalous ha 2,290 2,500 - Total ha 7,185 8,105 Feeder roads Km 116 218
Aj, R-Dj, H.T., G.A. : Aousja, Ras-Djebel, Henchir-Tobias and Galaat Andalous areas respectively.
5.1.2 The differences between the estimates and the actual outputs as regards the general infrastructure stem from modifications of project design during the engineering studies, as already indicated in paragraph 4.2.1(i). The modifications concern the adoption of a common irrigation infrastructure for the Galaat Andalous, Aousja and Ras Djebel areas, and autonomous supply for Henchir Tobias, which led to a reduction of the capacity of the canal that served only these three areas, instead of all of them as initially designed. The increase in the total surface area developed is due mainly to that of Ras Djebel, where a more substantial portion of the ground water was considered in meeting the needs, that is 50% instead of 30% in the initial design; the additional supply covered the needs of a larger surface area.
5.1.3 The current operating conditions in the areas have not changed in comparison with those envisaged in the sense that, based on private appropriation, direct tenure is predominant, except the rare cases of leasing of land by some landowners in Henchir Tobias.
5.1.4 It was noted, when flooding started, that beneficiaries were rather reluctant to irrigate their farms from the installed network. In the Ras Djebel and Aousja areas, this is due to the fact that the project constitutes a supplement of water resources aimed at 15 putting an end to over-exploitation of groundwater, and that the farmers there have a long tradition of irrigation from their own water points. As regards the Galaat area where the developed lands, inaccessible throughout winter before the project as a result of submersion, may be considered as newly reclaimed thanks to drainage, the reluctance is due to the fact that people begin by establishing their farms before procuring equipment for irrigation.
5.1.5 Despite the slow start, which in fact corresponds to the phase required before adoption of a new technology, procurement of equipment for irrigation and subscription to the network subsequently developed a little more rapidly. The use of water resources from the network for irrigation in 1994, the third year of flooding, covered nearly 50% of equipped areas.
5.2 Operating Results
5.2.1 Exploitation of the new irrigation system in the developed areas is still too recent, only two full crop years since April 1992, for any significant results. The supervisory structures (the CRDAs of Ariana and Bizerte) are still at the level of sensitizing and training beneficiaries, and have not so far organized any systematic surveys to monitor the production trend properly. In paragraph 5.1.4 above, we saw that the adoption of irrigation is still rather far from covering all the areas.
5.2.2 It could, however, be pointed out that no modification of the initial estimates is envisaged at this stage as concerns the choice of crops and rotation, imposed by the soil and climate. The major cereals such as wheat, vegetable crops and fodder crops for the development of dairy livestock in particular, are still the order of the day and correspond to the choice of the producers. The current policy wants that the producers be left free to make their choice, depending on market needs. In the light of the increase in areas under irrigation and the crops grown, as analyzed in more detail below, the farmers are really interested in fodder crops and livestock.
5.2.3 The table in Annex 4 gives the 1994 increases in cultivated and irrigated areas; the increases are summarized in Table 5.2.1 below. Furthermore, the results of estimates made by the CRDA supervisors in Bizerte as concerns the increase in production, are also shown in the table in the Annex, in particular a significant increase of production depending on the adoption of irrigation. 16
Table 5.2.1 Increases in Cultivated and Irrigated Areas
Crops Before flooding Situation 1994 Areas in ha Areas in ha Total Irrig. Total Irrig.
- Tree farming 1,297 791 1,235 803 - Variation in % -4.8% 1.56% - Field crops 3,985 1,019 5,019 2,319 - Variation in % 25.9% 127.6% - Vegetable crops 2,985 2,214 3,227 3,095 - Variation in % 8.1% 39.8% - Total cultivated 8,267 4,024 9,481 6,217 - Variation in % 14.7% 54.5% - Rate of irrigation in % 50% 77% - Geographic area 8,105 8,105 - Occupancy rate 102% 117%
5.2.4 A review of the data on the increases in areas and production, after two full crop years since the introduction of the irrigation network, shows the following trends:
i) Increase in the total cultivated areas by 14.7%, including 25.9% for fodder crops. The objective here is 10,592 ha of cultivated land, which is 1,111 ha more than the current situation;
ii) Increase in the total irrigated areas by 54.5% in comparison with the initial situation, and concurrent reduction of rainfed crops by 23.1%. The reduction in tree farming is evident in the uprooting of aging plants. The most significant increase is that of the field crops (wheat and fodder) reaching 127.6%, made up essentially of fodder crops since the cultivated areas under wheat have not changed much; this shows a high trend towards intensification of livestock. The increase in irrigated areas for vegetable crops, the main source of income for the project, with livestock, stands at 39.8% ;
iii) The total irrigated area increased from 49% to 66% of the total cultivated area after two full crop years, the most significant increase being that of Galaat Andalous which doubled (from 27% to 55%);
iv) General increase in production in the Ras Djebel, Aousja and Henchir Tobias areas, by about 40% in quantity, reaching 93% for the field crops and 21.8% for vegetable crops. Information on the increase in production in Galaat Andalous area is not available, but the relatively rapid increase in irrigated areas, in particular for field crops which correspond to the natural potential of the area, with 128% increase, also suggest a significant increase in production; 17
v) General increase in yield thanks to irrigation, with an average rate of 24.4%, the most significant increase being that of field crops reaching 73% (308% in the Ras Djebel area).
5.2.5 These trends confirm, to a large extent, the estimates at appraisal, with the following differences:
i) There is a more rapid increase in yields once crops are effectively irrigated from the network. The target yields represent 170% of the initial yields for vegetable crops and field crops, except in the Galaat Andalous area where an increase of about 300% is expected for wheat. In the light of the results as presented in paragraph 5.2.4(iv) above, the target yields should be attained in three years, starting from the year the network water is used. At project appraisal, it was estimated that the increase in yields would be slower, over six years;
ii) On the other hand, the increase in irrigated areas is slower. Table 5.2.2 below shows the increases in irrigated areas in comparison with the objectives. The objective here was to reach a soil occupancy rate of 125%, since water needs are fully satisfied from the network, either totally or as an addition. Achievement of this objective entails complete equipment of the farms. The current equipment rate is 50% of the total area, but the movement is speeding up (see paragraph 5.1.5) and it is estimated that the objective should be achieved within five years as from the year the water of the network is used, whereas it was estimated at appraisal to take three years.
Table 5.2.2 Increase in Irrigated Areas, in hectares
Crops Before Flooding Situation 1994 Object. Area % object. Area. % object. Area
- Field crops 1,019 23% 2,319 51 4,523 - Vegetable crops 2,214 43% 3,095 61 5,108 - Tree farming 791 82% 803 84 961 - Total irrigated 4,024 38% 6,217 59 10,592
5.2.6 The increases are due to the rather advanced stage of technology of the producers and to the long local tradition of irrigation. Producers encounter no particular difficulty in adopting modern farming methods, but hesitate and require some period of observation before moving from local irrigation to that from the collective network. 18
5.2.7 The various trends in the behaviour of farmers as regards the choice of crops, and the supervision policy of structures responsible for them, do not show any objection to the project objectives as determined at appraisal. Consequently, it is estimated that the final configuration of development works on the areas, at full development, and the production structure, will not be modified in comparison with the initial estimates.
6. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE
6.1 Management and Organization Efficiency
6.1.1 From project start-up to completion, the project executing agency was Direction générale des études et des travaux hydrauliques (DGETH) (Directorate General of Studies and Irrigation Works). Until 1988, the Executing Agency was referred to as Direction des études et grands travaux hydrauliques (Directorate of Studies and Major Irrigation Works) as indicated in the Appraisal Report. DGETH comprises two directorates: the Direction de la plannification des eaux et des études hydrauliques (Directorate for Water Planning and Hydraulic Studies) and the Direction de l'exploitation des barrages et des ouvrages hydrauliques (Directorate of Dams and Irrigation Works). Each directorate has sub-directorates and services. DGETH is responsible for : - carrying out general irrigation studies ; - planning the country’s water resources for urban, agricultural and industrial needs ; - drawing up master plans for utilizing water resources ; - carrying out studies on major irrigation development works ; - studying, implementing and supervising the implementation of irrigation, drainage and sanitation works as well roads and feeder roads in the major agricultural schemes; - studying, implementing and supervising the implementation of structures on the country’s wadis; - studying, implementing and supervising the structures for protecting agricultural areas against floods ; - studying, implementing and supervising major irrigation works; - operating, monitoring and maintaining dams.
6.1.2 At project start-up, DGETH employed 128 engineers. At the moment, there are only 48 left. Several of them have been transferred to other services. Currently, DGETH has 800 employees, all categories considered. For the supervision of works, DGETH transferred 13 engineers with field experience to the project, not to mention contributions from engineers from the central administration. All these senior officials have efficiently contributed to the successful construction of the project’s irrigation infrastructure. 19
6.1.3 In the Appraisal Report, it was intended that management and supervision of the irrigated areas would be entrusted to Office de la mise en valeur de la vallée de la Medjerda (OMVVM) (Medjerda Valley Development Authority), a public authority under the supervisory authority of the Ministry of Agriculture. At the time, the country had several development authorities and several Commissariats régionaux de développement agricole (CRDA) (Regional Agricultural Development Authorities). In 1998, the Government decided to close down all the development authorities. Ever since, the management and supervision of the 4 project areas were entrusted to the two CRDAs in Araina and Bizerte covering the project area.
6.1.4 The CRDAs are administrative public establishments (EPA) under the technical supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture. They have a legal status and financial autonomy. They also have sufficient human resources and material to carry out their work. The CRDA comprises all the services of the Ministry of Agriculture within each Governorate (Prefecture). They are headed by a Commissioner with the rank of a Director General in the Civil Service. The staff is distributed between the divisions comprising arrondissemnts (units based at the headquarters). In the administrative delegations, CRDA is represented by territorial extension units (CTV) - 7 in Bizete and 5 in Ariana.
6.1.5 The preparation mission for this completion report feels that DGETH was operational and efficient. In fact, all the project’s irrigation infrastructure was completed over a six-year period, the usual time-span required for this kind of work. The project developed and equipped four areas with a total area of 8,105 ha instead of the 7,1805 ha proposed at appraisal. As regards project implementation, DGETH satisfactorily managed 34 service contracts generated by nine (9) invitations to bid.
6.2 Staff Recruitment, Training and Further Training
Staff recruitment did not pose any problems. They were recruited according to procedures in force in the country. Furthermore, there was no recruitment of expatriate staff for the project, since this had not been planned in the first place. Moreover, the project had not provided for a specific staff training programme. All senior staff, technicians and skilled workers recruited for the project were trained in the corresponding national institutions. One KFW-financed training session was provided for in the project, but the Executing Agency did not need it.
6.3 Performance of Consultants, Contractors, Suppliers and the Borrower
6.3.1 For the engineering design and works supervision, the Directorate General of Studies and Irrigation Works (DGETH), the project’s executing agency, was assisted by the engineering consulting firm AGRAR UND HYDROTECHNIK (AHT). Except for the slight delay in the design of the Tobias-Utique canal (9 km), the services provided by the consultant were satisfactory. As regards the services by the various contractors and suppliers, there were no major problems on the whole. These services were generally provided according to the terms of the contracts signed for the purpose; the same applies to the deadlines and technical specifications. Therefore, they did not pose any particular problems. The entire irrigation infrastructure is satisfactory. Better control of costs by the enterprises reduced project implementation costs. 20
6.3.2 The performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency is satisfactory: the loan became effective two years after the loan agreement was signed, disbursements were made on a regular basis, which ensured a steady flow of supplies to the construction sites; all the physical outputs were implemented over a six-year instead of a five-year period as estimated at appraisal; the Government honoured all its commitments concerning project staffing and its counterpart contribution, which amounted to 38.24% of the total project implementation cost. All these facts indicate good performance by the Borrower and Executing Agency of the project.
6.4 Management Consultants
The project did not provide for the recruitment of a management consultant. Government services, namely the Ministry of Agriculture, DGETH and CRDA, have so many management skills that the Borrower did not see any need to recruit a management consultant for the project. The proof is that the administrative, technical and accounting implementation was carried out smoothly. This shows that there are appropriate national skills in many areas.
6.5 Clauses and Conditions
6.5.1 The institutional clauses and conditions of the project were not modified from start-up to completion. The change of name or transformation of the Directorate of Studies and Irrigation Works (DEGTH) into the Directorate General of Studies and Major Irrigation Works (DGETH) did not modify the institutional clauses and conditions of the project executing agency. The latter are perfectly in line with the purpose and socio-economic benefits of the project.
6.5.2 The "Other conditions" required of the Borrower in the loan agreement were as follows:
i) See to it that account books are held in which all the project investments financed wholly or partly from the loan will be kept and that separate accounts are kept for loan proceeds and proceeds from other sources of finance;
ii) Provide the Medjerda Valley Development Authority (OMVVM) with the material and human resources it requires to manage the project during and after its implementation;
iii) Apply the agrarian reform contained in Law No. 60/6 of 26 July 1960 by trimming down particularly the size of very large farms at Henchir Tobias and Gallat El Andalous to a maximum of 50 hectares, and to incorporate them into the project by 1998 so as to make the general infrastructure a gainful venture.
6.5.3 As far as the first two conditions are concerned, the specific arrangements by the Borrower for normal operation of the Tunisian public services were satisfactory, without there being any need for specific measures to that effect. The ledgers for the loan and other sources of financing were consulted by the completion mission and facilitated determination of the costs and financing of effective project implementation. The CRDAs, which replaced OMVVM in monitoring agricultural development, have 21 the human resources and equipment required for project management thanks to their policy of cost recovery (see paragraphs 4.6.2 (ii) and 7.2).
6.5.4 Concerning the implementation of the agrarian reform in the Henchir Tobias and Galaat Andalous areas [other condition (iii)], the Borrower finally estimated that the socio-economic context in the project area was unfavourable for such an operation, which was therefore not implemented. Land ownership is considered sacred in the area and it proved dangerous to meddle with it. Furthermore, it appears that this operation was not indispensable for making the general infrastructure more profitable, given that the cultivated areas in these two regions (see paragraph 5.2.3 and Annex 4) increased by more than 40% since flooding and that the irrigated areas more than doubled. To date, the fact that this condition remains unfulfilled does not have a negative impact on the achievement of project objectives.
7. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
7.1 Farming the equipped areas is exclusively limited to the farmers already based there. The appraisal report distinguished 12 types of farms for the entire project and gave the results of this analysis of the operating budget for each type. The analysis shows that the operating income ranges from TD 500 to TD 2,100 per hectare according to the type of farm, with increases from twice to fifty times as much as the initial income. However, the analysis gives only the final values of costs and products without highlighting either the production structure for each type of farm or the structure of the costs leading to the results. Therefore, it is impossible to carry out a comparative analysis of outputs and forecasts at this level.
7.2 Therefore, a global analysis of the expected financial results at the level of the farmers was carried out. The analysis is based on a study conducted in 1990 on the operating budget per hectare for every crop grown under the project. The comparison between the pre-project situation and that at full development was carried out with 1994 conditions, taking into account the producer prices of that year as mentioned in Annex 5. The production costs include the external labour costs, as well as the water charges at the current rate of TD 0.06/m3. The timeframe of the analysis is given in the table in Annex 6. It shows that the average operating income per hectare, without the project, would currently be TD 554, whereas it actually stands at TD 1,540 at full development with the project, i.e. a 2.8-fold increase in comparison to the income without the project. The average farm was 0.8 ha in the Ras Djebel and Aousja areas; the average income per farm amounted to TD 1,230. The income is practically equivalent to the average income in Tunisia, which stands at TD 1,300.
8. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
8.1 At appraisal, the internal rate of return was estimated at 12%. To determine the rate, the appraisal mission had taken into account only the anticipated profits from irrigation, represented by additional production. The trend of production towards full development was supposed to take five to seven years depending on the crops involved, 22 whereas production without the project was supposed to deteriorate rapidly and disappear completely in nine years. The entire project costs were taken into account (investment and replacement costs, production costs, operating and maintenance costs of the infrastructure), with the exception of studies and supervision costs.
8.2 A new estimate of the rate of return was made, with 1994 as the reference year. Determination of the benefits is based on the results of the analysis of the current and foreseeable situation, as explained in section 5.2 above. The additional production at full development was calculated on the assumption that the increase in the irrigated areas towards full-scale irrigation would take place in five years; however, the trend will take three years as regards the yields. The economic prices of agricultural produce, provided by the National Centre for Agricultural Studies and fixed as part of the preparation and monitoring of the national development plan, are presented in Annex 5.
8.3 As regards the costs, the investment costs prior to the reference year were adjusted to the inflation rate. The economic costs for investments correspond to financial costs exclusive of tax and customs duties, with the exception of civil works, which were reduced by 10% in order to take into account local taxes on consumption and income. The structure of the production costs is identical to that defined at appraisal, the prices being those of the reference year. The operating and maintenance costs for the irrigation infrastructure are calculated at a rate of TD 0.075/m3, corresponding to the equilibrium and higher than the current charges of TD 0.06/m3.
8.4 The calculation of the project costs and benefits is presented in Annex 7. The rate of return was calculated over a production period of 28 years, namely from 1992 to 2017, which correspond to the same conditions as at appraisal. Costs and profits were brought down to the constant value in TD in 1994.
8.5 According to the above-mentioned assumptions, the rate of return was re- estimated at 10.6% (see table in Annex 8). There is a decline in comparison with the estimate at appraisal, despite a 25% decrease in project cost. The following considerations may account for this result :
- the gap between the completion of the first investments and the start of farming operations is seven years more. At appraisal, this difference was three years only;
- the rapid deterioration of production without the project, an assumption made during appraisal, giving more weight to additional production, did not take place. The farmers became aware of the negative impact of a high level of salt on productivity, and became attentive to monitoring its levels in the water and soil.
9. SOCIAL IMPACTS
9.1 The project’s socio-economic impacts were positive and manifold. The Ras Djebel/Galaat Andalous irrigation development project, which was one of the components of PDEN, provided the rural world with drinking water and high quality 23 irrigation water. It also opened up good soils for irrigation, cultivated dry before project implementation.
9.2 After two crop years, the yields were encouraging and promising, a sign of increased agricultural production and farmers’ income. The project created jobs (farm labour), milk co-operatives and processing industries. At the level of production structures, the project implemented the agrarian reform (land consolidation) in order to distribute farmland to a greater number of farmers and to make farms viable.
9.3 Women’s social conditions improved thanks to an increase in food production (cereals, vegetables) and livestock products (milk, eggs). In the project area, women devote most of their time to market-gardening, harvesting and transporting fodder, feeding cattle and milking cows. The project allows for the intensification of highly nutritious vegetable and fodder crops, leading to higher yields and improved livestock feeding. Thus, women’s incomes increased, improving their living conditions and the family’s nutrition.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
10.1 The project’s environmental impact was not exhaustively assessed at appraisal. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that solving the environmental problem posed by the deterioration of natural resources was the project’s main concern. Such deterioration was due to the progressive increase in the level of salt in the soil and water tables, resulting from the overexploitation of these water-table resources for irrigation.
10.2 Prior to the project, the areas were irrigated by wells whose water supply came from water tables. The resources of these water-tables normally only allowed 22% to 50% of the area to be irrigated, depending on the location of cultivated areas; however, the vital necessity to increase production often led to their overexploitation. Moreover, the project area is characterized by the presence of a saline water table at ground level, which is progressively contaminating the water table used for irrigation purposes, owing to its overexploitation, which favours the incursion of water from the saline water tables. Therefore, it was necessary to bring additional water to these areas in order to put an end to the overexploitation, the accelerated deterioration of natural resources and the impoverishment of the farmers.
10.3 In view of the above-mentioned concern, the positive impact of the project was almost immediately felt in a tangible manner. When the first drainage system operation in the Galaat Andalous area took place, the evacuated water had a higher salt content than the ocean, and subsequently progressively fell to more normal levels. By using the water resources from the network, irrigated areas and yields soon increased significantly, which is a sign of improved soil and water table conditions. Although the project’s environmental impact can be rated as very satisfactory, the Tunisian Government has established a network of measures and supervision, in order to permanently monitor the phenomenon of salinization which can have serious consequences on natural resources and agriculture. It should also be stressed that there are no water-borne diseases in the project area.
11. SUSTAINABILITY OF OUTPUTS 24
11.1 The Ras Djebel/Galaat Andalous irrigation development project was designed in a manner to ensure the sustainability of outputs and the expected agricultural production. It was the subject of detailed engineering studies so that quantities can be properly estimated. This project, which allows for rational utilization of the Sidi Salem dam water, is in line with the complete development of the Medjerda Valley, which is considered to be the breadbasket of Tunisia. In fact, it is an important phase in the global programme of the Water Master Plan for the North. That is why the irrigation infrastructure constructed under the project (mobile dam, pumping stations, discharge pipes, supply reservoirs, etc.) were constructed in reinforced concrete. Given the topographical characteristics of the Henchir Tobias and Galaat El Andalous areas, in which land levels are very low, a major and efficient drainage system has been envisaged.
11.2 Operation of the network and the four project areas is ensured by the CRDAs (Commissariats régionaux de développement agricole) of Bizerte and Ariana. They have the human resources and equipment required to carry out their tasks. They have human resources (permanent and temporary or casual staff) and equipment made up of their offices, transportation equipment, workshop, maintenance and repair equipment, stores for spare parts and engineering vehicles for direct labour, although the current trend is to resort to private enterprises as much as possible. CRDA’s operating budget (costs related to the purchase of irrigation water from SECADENORD, electricity costs for pumping and the various maintenance costs) and equipment budget are financed from their own resources and the State (budgetary allocations). The operating costs of these structures do not pose any problem in the foreseeable future. The yields and production expected at full development will reduce imports of principal foodstuffs (cereals, vegetables, fruits, and livestock products).
12. PERFORMANCE OF THE BANK AND OTHER COFINANCIERS
12.1 Project Objectives and Justifications
It should be noted that the project objectives at appraisal did not change after the investment period and during the exploitation phase. They are consistent with the priorities of the agricultural sector and the irrigation sub-sector, namely increasing and diversifying production, increasing irrigated areas with a view to achieving food self- sufficiency. These priorities are primordial and remain the same in all the Economic and Social Development Plans for Tunisia. The loan conditions were consistent with Bank policy in the sector, and nothing happened to modify or diminish the validity of the initial priorities.
12.2 Project Implementation and Operating Results
12.2.1 Between 1987 and 1989, the Bank organised three technical supervision missions and two monitoring missions. These missions made it possible to solve certain problems relating to project implementation and closely monitor the operations. The problems included the distribution of financial allocations by contract and component and updating of the list of goods and services taking into account the cancellation of UA 10.5 million from the loan. There was no financial supervision mission by the disbursement department to the project. The number of technical supervision missions 25 was insufficient. Six technical supervision missions (from 1987 to 1992) would have been adequate and sufficient. From 1990 onwards, the Bank was not able to carry out other supervision missions. However, this inadequacy did not have any significant negative impact on project implementation, because the executing agency had already acquired sufficient mastery of implementation organization and Bank procedures.
12.2.2 KFW, the cofinancier, was particularly efficient and co-operative during project implementation. It always consulted the Bank before taking any decision relating to proper implementation of the project. Its supervision missions were the most regular. The Borrower, through the project executing agency, performed well in project implementation. It always tried to comply with Bank rules of procedure for the procurement of goods and services. However, it noted and regretted the slow and complex Bank procedures involved in disbursement.
12.2.3 Despite the late project start-up in comparison with the initial time limits, project implementation was satisfactory and without any major difficulties thanks to the close cooperation between the cofinanciers, the Borrower, the project executing agency and the various Bank departments. The Borrower scrupulously honoured its commitments towards the Bank. That is why, disbursements were never suspended. Its performance was excellent in the sense that the entire irrigation infrastructure and developed areas were satisfactory, and that substantial savings were made during project implementation. The total project cost after completion was 55% lower than the estimates in the appraisal report.
12.2.4 The Bank gave first-class support to the Government during project implementation. The staff of the project executing agency became familiar with Bank procedures. They acquired experience in implementing and managing Bank-financed projects. The Borrower believes that Bank assistance was very useful in project implementation. The Government, for its part, fulfilled all the essential loan conditions. In short, it honoured all its commitments to the project.
13. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS
13.1 Conclusions
13.1.1 Generally speaking, the Ras Djebel/Galaat Andalous irrigation development project was well implemented and completed. It was spread out over a period of approximately 10 years, from loan approval to completion. The project idea goes back to 1974 when the Water Master Plan for the North was defined in several phases. The present project is part of the second phase of the PDEN programme. Project preparation goes back to 1981, the appraisal file was finalized in December 1982 and the project took off in January 1987. The works, scheduled to be completed in June 1988, were effectively completed in April 1992.
13.1.2 The objectives defined at project appraisal remained the same during implementation and operation. This entailed the agricultural development of the four areas, which are still in their second crop year (1992/93 and 1993/1994). The yields during the two crop years were encouraging and promising. At full development, the additional production expected was estimated at 2,450 tonnes of cereals, 66,700 tonnes of vegetables, 4,500 tonnes of fruits, 13 million litres of milk, 1,300 tonnes of beef and 26
500 heifers. The production will contribute to the policy of food self-sufficiency, decrease imports of major foodstuffs and improve the financial income of the farmers concerned.
13.1.3 The project preserved the Ras Djebel and Aousja areas, the water tables of which were over-exploited and saline before completion of works and the start-up of irrigation. This created great enthusiasm among the farmers concerned who have always been eager to work the land. The identification and implementation of several similar projects would be more appreciated, since Tunisia wanted to increase and diversify its agricultural production with a view to achieving its policy of food self- sufficiency and considerably reducing imports of major foodstuffs.
13.1.4 At appraisal, the project cost was estimated at UA 83.19 million. The actual cost after project implementation amounted to UA 36.92 million. Thus, total project cost after completion was 55.6% lower than the estimates at appraisal. This reduction in implementation costs is due to the parity of the Tunisian Dinar, the relatively low prices of goods and services, improved cost monitoring by enterprises and infrastructure resizing.
13.1.5 Lastly, the Borrower and the project executing agency assumed their responsibilities by honouring their commitments towards the Bank and because of the competence and devotion of the national senior staff placed at the disposal of the project. Their accountability was the key element for good project implementation. However, the agricultural development of the areas is only at its beginning and virtually at a standstill. Farmers have demonstrated a certain reluctance to use water from an installed network for irrigation. Since the CRDAs responsible for supervision are aware of this situation, they will take measures to reach production objectives rapidly.
13.2 Lessons
13.2.1 The project was not sufficiently supervised by the Bank. It was monitored by many different officials since loan approval in December 1982 (project officers, loan officers, disbursement officers). This circumstance was the reason for the disappearance of the first project file and the unavailability of technical supervision reports. The periodic supervision missions of a project should be systematically undertaken at least once a year. Each supervision or monitoring report should be kept in the project file.
13.2.2 The relatively long duration of the engineering studies after loan effectiveness was one of the causes of the late delayed start-up. It would be appropriate for the Bank to carry out the detailed studies when the project’s feasibility study conducted. This would also allow for reliable estimate of quantities, and even proper cost control for goods and services.
13.2.3 The late provision of funds by KFW, one of the project’s cofinanciers, was the main reason for the delay in project start-up. In cofinancing, the Bank should in future ensure that the respective loans are approved within the same month or within a time lag not exceeding three months. 27
13.2.4 There were two cancellations of part of the loan for the project: UA 10.5 million in 1989 and UA 3.5 million in 1992, i.e. a total of UA 14.0 million. After these cancellations, the available loan balance did not suffice to cover the remaining expenses. Confronted with this situation, the Bank, in 1993, had to reactivate part of the loan (UA 0.39 million) in order to honour these expenses. Henceforth, the Bank should pay very careful attention to the Borrowers’ hasty requests to cancel part of their loans.
ANNEX 2 TUNISIA RAS DJEBEL-GALAAT IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Implementation Schedule Components Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 LOAN AP[PROVAL ADB V KFW V GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE Mobile Dam Estimated
Actual Pumping Station Estimated Actual Tobias-Utique Canal Estimated Actual Aousja Infrastructure Estimated Actual DEV. WORKS ON IIRRIG. AREAS Sewerage & Drainage Estimated Actual Equipment Estimated Actual Feeder roads Estimated Actual Flooding Estimated Actual STUDIES AND MONITORING Studies Estimated Actual Monitoring Estimated Actual
Estimated
Actual ANNEX 3 TUNISIA RAS DJEBEL –GALAAT IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Project Costs by Goods and Service, Contractor, Supplier, and Donor (in DT exclusive of tax and customs duties)
Components Contractors Costs Financing And Goods and Services Suppliers ADB KFW GVT
A1. GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE
CW for Dam Construction, Pumping Stations and Pipes CWE 6835538.3 888761.7 3643115.9 2303660.6 Pipe Supply EL ANABIB 5970421.7 1631652.5 1778670.5 2560098.6 Piping Accessories SOFOMECA 502844.6 245277.6 110964 146603 Air Relief Valves ROULEMENT 82625.7 13405.7 10955.1 58264.9 Valves FONDERIES REUNIES 289478.7 162294.5 69098.4 58085.8 Butterfly Valves BROSSETTE 219949.4 65266.8 83066.9 71615.7 Water Hammer Protection BROSSETTE 161181.1 47861.3 84589.5 28730.3 Mudtrap BROSSETTE 164850 75471.5 26844.7 62533.8 Power Supply STEG 847375.5 388798.8 458576.7 Culverts SOGIT 123069.4 70104.8 52964.5 Pumping Station P4 ETRAPH 231719.8 101956.7 129763.1 Pumping and Dam Equipment AGRICULTOR 4180023 3866525.9 313497.2 Tobias-Utique Sluices/Canals SOTUDIEM 44463.8 36085.8 8378 Pipe Supply>400 EL KANAOUET 2155437.5 1725249.8 430187.6 Pipe-laying AC Aousja SAHBI MEKKI 414508 3318665.5 82641.4
TOTAL A1 22223486.3 3690851.9 11767033.1 6765601.3
A2. DEVELOPMENT WORKS ON IRRIGATION AREAS
Mobile Equipment AGRICULTOR 2326124.9 650980.9 786549.6 888594.4 Aousja passage pipes GTS 105550.4 .31970.4 26909 46671 Meters with flow restriction FONDERIES REUNIES 637917 220532.9 76764.1 340620 Pipe supply AC SICOAC 1663858.7 584877 267674.3 811307.5 Pipe-laying AC SOGIT 1079006.8 4499581.7 629048.6 Pipe-laying KHEMAIS 573430.8 252006.5 321424.3 Drainage GTS 5054427.4 2223948.4 2830479 GA1earth roads SOROTRAPT 479351.3 133589 345762.3 GAHT2 earth roads SOGIT 652073.3 286912.3 365161.1 GA3 earth roads SOGIT 719504.1 316581.8 402922.3 RJ4 earth roads RAOUDI B. 693637.1 124225.9 569411.2 HT1 earth roads KOBBI K. 530820.6 273266.4 257554.2 RJGA earth roads KOBBI K. 494800.6 254723.3 240077.3 Earth roads RAOUDI BECHIR 1374664.1 1099731.3 274932.8
TOTAL A2 16385167.1 5803573 2257628.2 8323965.9
B. AGRICULTURAL DEVLEOPMENT
Buildings Tobias Backhoe ENNOUR 31536.4 18448.8 13087.6 Rolling Stock AGRICULTOR 89661.6 74606 15055.6 RENAULT AFRIQUE 82094 68309.1 13784.9 TOTAL B 203291.9 161363.9 0 41928.1
C. STUDIES AND MONITORING
Studies and Supervision AHT 2236903.8 1298263.2 556398.5 382242 Amendments AHT 357070.5 207238 88816.3 61016.2 Irrigation Study SCET TUNISIE 266219 251150 15069
TOTAL C. 2860193.3 1505501.3 896364.8 458327.2
GRAND TOTAL 41672138.7 11161290 14921026.1 15589822.5 ANNEX 4 TUNISIA RAS DJEREL-GALAAT IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Increases in Area and Production Prior to Irrigation Situation in 1994 Rainfed Crops Irrigated Crops Total Production Dry Crops Irrigated Crops Total Production Increased Yield due to Irrigation Ras Djebel 2000 Tree Farming 320 534 854 5700 310 579 889 6000 Variation -3.10% 8.40% 4.10% 5.30% 1.10% Field crops 267 75 342 2980 60 177 237 8430 Variation -77.50% 136.00% -30.70% 182.90% 308.20% Vegetable crops 94 976 1070 21400 85 1223 1308 28290 Variation -9.60% 25.30% 22.20% 32.20% 8.10% Total 681 1585 2266 30080 455 1979 2434 42720 Variation -33.20% 24.90% 7.40% 42.00% 32.20% % irrig. 0.7 0.81
Aousja 1800 Tree Farming 2 105 107 510 2 72 74 510 Variation 0.00% -31.40% -30.80% 0.00% 44.60% Field crops 505 163 668 7910 396 407 803 21640 Variation -21.60% 149.70% 20.20% 173.60% 127.60% Vegetable crops 190 909 1099 28600 47 1265 1312 32290 Variation -75.30% 39.20% 19.40% 12.90% -5.40% Total 697 1177 1874 37020 445 1744 2189 54440 Variation -36.20% 48.20% 16.80% 47.10% 25.90% % irrig. 0.63 0.8
Henchir Tobias 1 1400 Arbo 15 90 105 460 15 90 105 550 Variation 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.60% 19.60% Field crops 755 250 1005 12300 845 367 1212 14650 Variation 11.90% 46.80% 20.60% 19.10% -1.20% Vegetable crops 150 150 2130 165 165 2940 Variation 10.00% 10.00% 38.00% 25.50% Total 770 490 1260 14890 860 622 1482 18140 Variation 11.70% 26.90% 17.60% 21.80% 3.60% % irrig 0.39 0.42
Galaat Andalous+Henchir Tobias 2 2905 Tree Farming 169 62 231 - 105 62 167 - Variation -37.90% 0.00% -27.70% Field crops 1439 531 1970 - 1399 1368 2767 - Variation -2.80% 157.60% 40.50% Vegetable crops 487 179 666 - - 442 442 - Variation -100.00% 146.90% -33.60% Total 2095 772 2867 - 1504 1872 3376 - Variation -28.20% 17.80% 17.80% % irrig. 0.27 0.55
Total Irrigation Area 8105 Tree Farming 506 791 1297 - 432 803 1235 - Variation -14.60% 1.50% 64.80% Field crops 2966 1019 3985 - 2700 2319 5019 - Variation -9.00% 127.60% 25.90% Vegetable crops 771 2214 2985 - 132 3095 3227 - Variation -82.90% 39.80% 8.10%
Total 4243 4024 8267 3264 6217 9481 - Variation -23.10% 54.50% 14.70% Irrigation Ratio % 0.49 0.66 Occupancy Ratio % 102% 117% ------Henchir Tobias 1 : supervised by CRDA of Bizerte Henchir Tobias 2 : supervised by CRDA of' Ariana (405 ha) ANNEX 5 TUNISIA RAS DJEBEL-GALAAT IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRICES OF PRODUCTS IN TD
PRODUCTS ------Producer Prices------Economic Prices------During At Completion During At Completion Appraisal Appraisal Field crops Hard Wheat 90 255 135 214 Barley 140 158 Bersim* Sorghum* Vetch-oat* Alfalfa* Broad Beans 160 160 160 Total field crops Winter vegetable crops Late Potatoes 94 270 99 270 Garlic and Onions 153 180 163 160 Peas 188 375 198 375 Carrots 49 105 51 105 Total winter vegetable crops Summer vegetable crops Season potatoes 80 235 85 235 Tomatoes and Pepper 52 85 56 85 Beans 600 607 710 Water melons and Gourds 73 200 80 200 Melons 104 200 110 200 Artichokes* 142 190 149 190 Total Summer Market- Gardening Tree Farming Citrus Fruits 117 355 122 385 Pomegranates 179 230 189 230 Olives 117 300 117 310 Medlars 270 241 270 Pears-Apples 415 327 415 New Pears 415 327 415 Table Vines 259 310 259 310 Almonds 270 241 270 Apricots 270 241 270 Total Tree Farming Livestock Production Beef 629 2000 805 1470 Mutton 15000 600 1100 Milk 140 310 200 240 Surplus Heifers 1650 620 1650 ANNEX 6 TUNISIA RAS DJEBEL-GALAAT IRRIGATION PROJECT PRICES IN TD CROPS Producer W/O PROJECT, CONDITIONS IN 1994 DURING THE ONGOING PROJECT Prices Area Cost/ha Total costs Yield Production Value Area Cost/ha Total costs Yield Production Value TD ha TD 1000 TD T/ha t 1000 TD ha TD 1000 TD T/ha t 1000 TD Field crops Hard Wheat 255 1956.0 177.5 347.2 1.16 2269.0 578.6 1349.1 339.2 457.6 3.5 4722.0 1204.1 Barley 140 974.6 151.2 147.4 1.8 1754.3 245.6 Bersim* 998.3 60 59899.2 Sorghum* 671.2 60 40271.2 Vetch-oat* 1542.0 3 4626.1 802.0 5 4010.2 Alfalfa* 500.9 50 25042.6 Broad Beans 160 662.2 72.8 48.2 1.3 860.8 137.7 201.9 1.5 302.9 Total field crops 5134.9 105.7 542.7 961.9 4523.5 457.6 1204.1 Winter vegetable crops Late Potatoes 270 304.6 1807.9 550.6 11.16 3399.0 917.7 373.4 1890.0 705.7 14 5227.4 1411.4 Garlic and Onions 180 133.1 1030.3 137.1 9.54 1269.9 228.6 373.4 720.0 268.8 8 2987.1 537.7 Peas 375 373.4 1076.3 401.9 7 2613.7 980.1 Carrots 105 57.0 623.7 35.5 9.9 564.0 59.2 1014.1 1312.5 1331.0 25 25352.8 2662.0 Total Winter vegetable crops 494.6 1462.3 723.3 1205.5 2134.3 1268.5 2707.4 5591.2
Summer vegetable crops 235 952.1 1945.8 1852.5 13.8 13138.6 3087.6 353.1 2350.0 829.7 25 8826.9 2074.3 Season Potatoes 85 559.5 657.9 368.1 12.9 7217.7 613.5 416.2 1219.8 507.7 35 14568.7 1238.3 Tomatoes and Pepper 600 373.4 246.0 91.9 1 373.4 224.0 Beans 200 45.1 1260.0 56.9 18 812.2 162.4 373.4 1950.0 728.1 25 9334.6 1866.9 Water Melons and Gourds 200 582.6 560.0 326.3 8 4661.1 932.2 799.8 1950.0 1559.6 25 19994.6 3998.9 Melons 190 99.8 266.0 26.6 4 399.3 75.9 657.6 345.8 227.4 7 4603.5 874.7 Artichokes* 2239.2 1174.7 2630.3 4871.6 2973.5 1326.5 3944.4 10277.2 Total Tree Farming Citrus Fruits 355 223.4 798.8 178.4 9 2010.2 713.6 224.5 1331.3 298.8 15 3367.2 1195.4 Pomegranates 230 89.1 517.5 46.1 9 802.0 184.5 91.4 690.0 63.0 12 1096.5 252.2 Olives 300 119.6 105.0 12.6 1.4 167.4 50.2 132.0 300.0 39.6 ? ? ? 527.9 158.4 Medlars 270 28.2 405.0 11.4 6 169.2 45.7 121.8 810.0 98.7 12 1461.9 394.7 Pears – Apples 415 179.9 744.9 134.0 7.18 1291.8 536.1 208.7 1120.5 233.8 10.8 2253.8 935.3 New Pears 415 30.5 1245.0 37.9 12 365.5 151.7 Table Vines 310 146.6 496.0 72.7 4 586.6 181.8 152.3 992.0 151.1 8 1218.3 377.7 Almonds 270 84.6 101.3 8.6 1.5 126.9 34.3 Apricots 270 100.4 337.5 33.9 5 502.0 135.5 Total Tree Farming 971.8 512.1 497.7 1881.7 961.1 960.3 923.0 3465.3 Livestock Production Beef 2000 468.4 390.3 780.6 1352.8 1690.9 3381.9 Mutton 1500 25.4 28.2 42.3 Milk 310 67.6 363.6 112.7 1652.8 13329.0 4132.0 Surplus Heifers 1650 331.3 502.0 828.3 Total Livestock Production 561.4 935.6 3336.9 8342.1
Grand Total 8840.5 4955.4 9856.4 10592.3 11369.2 28880.0 Costs 4955.4 11369.2 Margin 4901.0 17510.8 Margin per hectare in TD 554.4 1540.2 Rate of Increase 2.8 ANNEX 7 TUNISIA RAS DJEBEL-GALAAT IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Additional Production at Full Development, Quantities and Economic Value PRODUCTS Estimate at Completion : 1994 Quantity Econ. Price Value T TD 1000 TD Field crops Hard Wheat 2453.0 214 524.9 Barley -1754.3 158 -277.2 Bersim* 59899.2 Sorghum* 40271.2- Vetch-oat* 615.9 Alfalfa* 25042.6 Beans -557.9 160 -89.3 Total field crops 158.5 Winter vegetable crops Late Potatoes 1828.3 70 493.7 Garlic and Onions 1717.2 160 274.8 Peas 2613.7 375 980.1 Carrots 24788.8 105 2602.8 Total Winter vegetable crops 4351.4
Summer vegetable crops -4311.6 235 -1013.2 Season Potatoes 7351.0 85 624.8 Tomatoes and Pepper 373.4 710 265.1 Beans 8522.4 200 1704.5 Watermelons and Gourds 15333.5 200 3066.7 Melons 4204.2 190 798.8 Artichokes* 5446.7 Total Summer vegetable crops Tree Farming Citrus Fruits 1357.0 385 522.5 Pomegranates 294.4 230 67.7 Olives 360.5 310 111.8 Medlars 1292.7 270 349.0 Pears-Apples 962.0 415 399.2 New Pears 365.5 415 151.7 Table Vines 631.7 310 195.8 Almonds -126.9 270 -34.3 Apricots -502.0 270 -135.5 Total Tree Farming 1627.9 Livestock Production Beef 1300.6 1470 1911.9 Mutton -28.2 1100 31.0 Milk 12965.4 240 3111.7 Surplus Heifers 502.0 1650 828.3 Total Livestock Production 5820.9
Grand Total 17405.3 * : Included in the livestock yield
Changes in Production and Costs, in 1000 TD Areas Appraisal Completion Ras Djebel 1354 2000 Aousja 1791 1800 Henchir Tobias 1750 1805 Galaat Andalous 2290 2500 Total 7185 8105 Increase 1.13
Production Costs at full development, at 1994 Prices 5872.7 for all the areas Maintenance Costs at full development, at 1994 Prices 2891.8 for all the areas 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Area Change in % 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1 1 1 Yield Change in % 0.6 0.8 1 Additional Production 0.3 0.46 0.64 0.8 0.92 0.98 1 Change in % Additional Production 4921.9 7773.3 11139.4 13924.3 16012.9 17057 17405.3 Change in Value Operating – Maintenance 1362.9 1684.5 2024.3 2602.6 2891.8 2891.8 2891.8 Production Costs 2767.8 3421.0 4110.9 5285.4 5872.7 5872.7 5872.7 ANNEX 8
TUNISIA RAS DJEBEL-GALAAT IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Calculation of the IRR at Completion
Investment Maintenance Production Additional Additional Year Replacement Operating Costs Additional Production Income Costs 1985 642.1 642.1 -642.1 1986 651.7 651.7 -651.7 1987 9734.3 9734.3 9734.3 1988 12840.2 12840.2 -12840.2 1989 7257.0 7257.0 -7257.0 1990 3680.0 3680.0 -3680.0 1991 4040.2 4040.2 -4040.2 1992 1225.0 1362.9 2767.8 5355.7 4921.9 -433.8 1993 2818.1 1684.5 3421.0 1923.6 7773.3 -150.4 1994 2057.4 2024.3 4110.9 8192.5 11139.4 2946.9 1995 2602.6 5285.4 7888.0 13924.3 6036.3 1996 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 16012.9 7248.4 1997 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17057.2 8292.8 1998 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 1999 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2000 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2001 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2002 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2003 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2004 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2005 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2006 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2007 7683.6 2891.8 5872.7 16448.0 17405.3 957.3 2008 250.7 2891.8 5872.7 9015.1 17405.3 8390.2 2009 576.6 2891.8 5872.7 9341.1 17405.3 8064.2 2010 421.0 2891.8 5872.7 9185.4 17405.3 8219.9 2011 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2012 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2013 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2014 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2015 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2016 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9 2017 2891.8 5872.7 8764.5 17405.3 8640.9
EIRR 10.6% ANNEX 9 Page 1 of 2 TUNISIA PROJET D’AMENAGEMENT HYDROAGRICOLE DE RAS DJEBEL-GALAAT Organisation Chart of DGETH (1994)
DIRECTORATE GENERAL IRRIGATION WORKS AND STUDIES DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR GENERAL: JEBALI ALI
IRRIGATION WORKS AND PLANNING IRRIGATION WORKS AND DAM MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION WORKS DEPARTMENT SUB-DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR : GHALLEB KHALED SUB-DIRECTOR: DIRECTOR : BEN SLIMA SAID MAOUI MAOUIA
IRRIGATION WORKS AND IRRIGATION WORKS AND IMPLEMENTATION DAMS OPERATORS DAMS MAINTENANCE ROGRAMMING AND DIVISION DIVISION SUPERVISION OF WORKS WATER PLANNING SERVICE IRRIGATION STUDIES SUB-DEPARTMENT Mr. AYEB Mr. ABID SUB-DEPARTMENT ABDELHEDI TAOUFIK Mr. LOUATI FILALI
CIVIL ENGINEERING DAM OR WORKS ’ICHKKUL AND CAP BON IRRIGATED AREA STUDIES AND WATER PLANNING SERVICE IRRIGATION SUPERVISION OR REGIONAL CENTERS WORKS SERVICE DEV ELOPMENT SERVICE MONITORING SECTION Ben TORKIA
Mr. SELAMI Mrs. CHEKIR Mr. BOUSAÏD JEMALI
PUMPING STATIONS SERVICE TOPOGRAPHY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY E LECTRO-MECHANICAL MEDJERDAH REGIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEYING SERVICE SECTION CENTER AND SERVICE Mr. GHANOUCHI’ SURROUNDINGS Mr. HELALI LARGUECH HADJ AMOR AHMED SMALL DAMS J. OUSLATI IMPLEMENTATION SERVICE
Mr. KSIBI GEOLOGICAL STUDIES AND REGIONAL CENTER OF SOIL MECHANICS SERVICE DAMS IN CENTRAL TUNISIA ILLOULI TAOUFIK MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT SERVICE KHALOUFI DAOUD ABDELHAMID ANNEX 9 Page 2 of 2 TUNISIA
PROJET D’AMENAGEMENT HYDROAGRICOLE DE RAS DJEBEL-GALAAT Organization Chart of CRDA (1994)
C.R.D.A. BIZERTE
ADVISORY AND PROMOTIONAL IRRIGATION AND RURAL REAFFORESTATION AND SOIL AGRICULTURAL STUDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION CONSERVATION DIVISION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIVISION PRODUCTION VULGARISATION ET PROMOTION
PLANT PRODUCTION DISTRICT RURAL ENGINEERING DISTRICT FORESTRY DISTRICT STUDIES AND STATISTICS DISTRICT HUMAN RESOURCES DISTRICT
Rural Engineering Section * Bizerte Section Studies and Human Resources and Claims Horticulture and Orchard Monitoring and Section Section * Sejnane Section
Arable Crops Section EXPLOITATION OF IRRIGATED AREAS DISTRICT
LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION DISTRICT
Animal Health Section
Livestock Breeding Promotion Centre
C.T.V. RAS-DJEBEL
C.T.V. UTIQUE
C.T.V. MATEUR
C.T.V. THEZELA
C.T.V. JOUMINE
C.T.V. SEJNANE
C.T.V. MENZEL BOURGUINBA
C.T.V. EL ALA-ML JEMIL
C.T.V. BIZERTE NORD-SUD
WATER RESOURCES DISTRICT WATER AND SOILSOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT DISTRICT FINANCING AND FINANCING FINANCIALMATERIAL AND AND ACCOUNTING BUILDINGS DISTRICT DISTRICT EQUIPMENT Water MAINTENANCE Supply Pipes DISTRICT * InternalINCENTIVESAgriculturalRuralM Appointmentsonitoring Institutions DISTRICT Credit and LegalMaterialContractsBudget andGeneral Social and Accounting and Section TreasuryBuildings Supply NetworksRasandMateur-Djebel Major Section Section WorksSection SoilLaboratory Studies Section Section StatisticalSection District Section