lydr Prepared for: I/';"'if National Planning C01111nissiol1 Secretariat Central Monitoring and Evaluation Division Singh Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
·,
"
Agricultural Projects Services Centre (APl{.OSC) P.O. Box 1440, RamshahPath Kathnlandu, Nepal Phone~: 2-20595, 2~ 15971 ~ 2-27599 Telex 2305 APR()SC, NP . Fax 0977-1-222300,
.. Table of Contents
Page
Nl!\P
I. HIGHLIGTS 1
II. BACKGROUND 3 ..., A Rational ~ R Formulation 4 C. Objectives and Scope at Appraisal 5 D. Financing Arrangements 6 E. Completion 6 F. Ex-post Evaluation 7
III. IMPLE:MENTAnON PERFORivtAl"TCE 8
A Design 8 B. Contracting, Construction and Commissioning 8 C. Organization and Management 8 D. Actual Cost and Financing 9 E. !mplementation Schedule 10 F. Technical Assistance 10
IV. PROJECT RESULTS 11
A Operational Performance 11 B. Institutional Development 12 C. Financial Performance 13 D. Re-estimation ofthe Economic Internal Rate ofRetum 13 E. Socio-economic and Socia-cultural Result 14 F. Women in Development 14 G. Environmental Impacts and Control 15 H. Gestation and Sustainability 15
V. KEY ISSUES AFFECTING THE PROJECT 16
VI. CONCLUSIONS 17 A Overall Assessment 17 B. Lesson Learned 17 C. Follow-up Actions 18
Appendixes
.". i' ABBREVIATIONS A!'lD ACRONYNIS
ADBn,l Asian Development Bank, Manila BIP Birganj Irrigation Project BLG\VP Bhairawa Lumbini Ground Water Project ell' Cost Insurance and Freight DG. Director General Dor Department ofInigation DCA Development Credit Agreement EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return FAO .Food and Agricutlure Organization G01 Government of India GwI General Manager HlVIGIN Rig Majestly Government of Nepal HYV High Yielding Variety IDA International Development Association ICB International Competitive Bidding ISF Irrigation Service Fee LCB Local Competitive Bidding MOLR...Vf Nfinistry of Land Refonn and Management NIOA Ministry ofAgriculture MOF Ministry of Forest NIWR Ministry ofWater Resource NEC Nepal Eastern Canal NTIP Narayani Tubewell Inigation Project NPC National Planning Cmmission NZIDBIP Narayani Zone liTigation Development BoardIProject NKC Nippon Koei Company (Japan) NCCN National Construction Company ofNepal O&:NI Operation and Maintenance PCR Project Completion Report PENI Post-Evaluation Mission PPAR Project Perfonnance Audit Report RWS Rotational Water Supply SAR Staff Appraisal Report TDC Town Development Committee T&V Training and Vist (System) VDC Village Development Committee WUG Water User Group Currency Equivalents
At Appraisal (December 1972)
USS1 ?\TRs 10.15 N'Rsl USS 0.0985
At Project Completion Report (December 1982)
US$1 ::: Nrs 13.10 NRs 1 = US$ 0;0763
At PP.4.R Report (June 1996)
USS1 = NRs 56.00 NRs 1 ::: US$ 0.0179
Weight and Measures Equivalents
1m = Meter (3.28 feet) 1 m 3/see ::: Cubic Meter (35.3 Cubic ft) per second 1 km ::: Kilometer (0.62 mile) 1 ha = Hectare (2.47 acres) M' ::: wfillion 1 ton ::: 2,205 pounds (LBS) kg Kilogram
Notes:
Fiscal year July 16 - July 15 $ Refers to US Dollars and NKs to Nepalese Rupees. .>
r \ j t~) /\ I ~ f- ~ II '" r f~-' L I ,:;• i! II
I N A LOCATION OF TUaEUELLS MAP
o / o CHQRMX I OPAlil~~(i o . f .~ L.AL.PARSA b'" \ Q o O II' C· ~ / (>. .\ 0 J{ 0 . Ol(AL.ArlA . 1'i0"%$A. ,.. .. ,y. ~. J .~ .. _~~~~__.-.....,:;.. -ROAD \----~.-- . 0 '''''''' j 0 qAt...L.J:RAH PUR
y'---.~~ UTERN CAN"'.L. 0 tf ',- Pl:PA~PA"J: L.EGEND
'" "'"", VA , \) " 0 o TU8f!WEL.L.S \ PHUL.e"RJ:V...:
-~'.' ""'."",".,., ," '''''·r''·''~~·''~''. 1. HIGHLIGHTS
1. Objectives and Scope:
The project was intended to inigate an area of 2)700 ha, and increase agricultural
production, employment by intensification of cropping intensity and hence the fanners income in the project area.
2. Cost, Financing and Schedule:
The original cost of the pr~iect was estimated at US$ 0.95 million during the appraisal.
Theprojectwasst:artedin 1974an.d was scheduled 'to be completed by 1977. The schedule
adopted :in the appraisal was optimistic and completion was delayed by 3 years. The actual
expenditures amounted to USS 1.6 :Million.
3. Implementation:
The construction of tubewells and related facilities was completed by the end of 1980.
The original targeted inigational command area of ~ 700 was not covered due to many
problems especially failure ofwells, Actual command area was 1875 ha.
4. Institutional Aspects: .
Irrigation operation and maintenance (0 & M) remained poor because of weak fanners organizations, lack of training on 0 & M and inadequate number of water management e.x.iension staff. Higher 0 & M cost and lesser collection of Irrigation Service Fees (ISF) threaten the sustainabiIity of system operation.
5. Environmenta' Impact: The project did not have any negati've environmental impact. However, the ground water level has decreased as revealed from discussion with the fanners. 6. CosttBenefit Assessment:
The Economic 1nternal Rate of Return. (EIRR) calculated by PPAR stands at 1 g percent.
The higher EIRR is mainly due to the lower inveSlment cost (whichis about Rs.62000 per
ha. at 1996 price) and higher adoption of modern technologies by the fanners.
7. Overall Performance and Sustainability:
The project is rated as successful . Socio economic condition of the farmers is better off.
However, the tubewells ran intoproblerns due to faulty designs. Operation & Main tenance is very high. Farmers are not motivated to pay Inigation Service Fee (ISF). On the other hand, project management has not been able to collect ISF as assessed .
8. Feedback:
The grOlmd water development is not so easy in Nepal The success and sustainability of the project d..ePends on the considerable technical supervision, more involvement and participation of the fanner and strong institution building efforts. Project formulation and design should specify the roles and that WUG are expected to petfonn. Project should pay attention to collect the ISF and maintain the tubewells properly.
? II. BACKGROUND
'" A. Rational:
Before the launching of Nepal's first development plan in 1957, only a tew
substantial irrigation schemes had been undertaken by miG/N. During the fIrst and
Second Development Plan (1957-62 and 1962-65 respectively) HMGlN's irrigation
programmes were concentrated on building medium sized system (15-60, 000 ha.) in the
Eastern and Mid-western T arai. In the Third Plan. a programme was launched for
consttuction of minor irrigation project} mostly in the Tarai. HMGIN then switched in the
Fourth Plan (1970-71 - 1974-75) to a policy of constructing medium sized irrigation
projects mainly in Tarai. During the plan period it was envisaged to provide irrigation to
, 1&3,633 ha. of which 15,000 ha. was to be covered by tubewell irrigation. The Birganj
lnigation Project (BIP) (later converted to NZIDB in 1973) was designed to develop the
irrigation facilities in Bara and Parsa with a target of introducing double cropping of
paddy. This project was the first irrigation/agricultural project fmanced by IDA in Nepal
" to provide tubewell irrigation facilitating in an area of 2, 700 ha. as pilot Project.
The Project Area:
The project area under rubewell irrigation is located north of the NEC, in Bara and
Parsa districts and covers approximately 200 sq. km. It has a rectangular fOlln with a
10ngitudinal axis of 20 km., oriented east-west. The southern border is the Eastern Gandak
canal. The area is situated along latitude 27~ and longitude 85"E. The elevation varies
£i'om 105 to 85 m. MSL.
nvo all weather roads: Bil'gunj. Katlunandu Highway and Birgunj - Kalaiya road
pass through the tubewell area. There are also a number of fair weather roads. In the
nOlih of the area} there i~ an airport at SU1U'3.
~ B. Formulation:
In 1959, an agreement was signed between Hlv.IGIN and the Government of India
(GOl) for the execution of the Gandak Irrigation and Power Project. Under this
agreement, GOl was to finance and construct a barrage on the Gandak river and irrigation
systems on its left and right banks commanding a total area of about 1.2 M fu1 in Indi.:'l and
60:000 ha in Nepal. In Nepal, the inigation system was only to be constructed as a
secondary canals of 0.57 m3/see (20 cusses) capacity. it was agreed that the construction
of the distributary system below 0.57 rn3lsee capacity woula be the responsibility of
HMGN. Under this agreement, India started construction of the Nepal Eastern Canal
(NEC) and deep tubewells in 196&.
In 1969, Nippon Koei Company (Japan) was contracted under the FAOIUNDP
NEP 7 Project to prepare a Master Plan for the Central and Eastern Term, inCluding the
preparation of feasibility studies for selected areas. The .Birganj Itrigation Project was
identified for inclusion in the studies by F AOfrBRD Cooperative Program mission in early
1970. Initially, the Bank decided not to participate in an ongoing Indian aided project and
Nippon Koei commenced the preparation of a feasibility study for a 10,000 ha
groundwater development project for 300 tubewells in the Birganj area. The feasibility for
a combined swface and Gt'owld Water Project ill Birganj area was completed by NKC in
August 1971. Project appraisal took place in Nov. Dec. 1971. during the appraisal, it was
agreed that HMGN would set up a special project Board, the Narayani Zone Irrigation
Development Board (NZIDB), to be responsible for the execution and operation of the
project.
When it became apparent that the Indian aid project would be completed by 1972 and that sUlface water development had a higher priority than groundwater development, the World Bank agreed to [mance a joint smface and groundwater development project. illvIGN, F AO/UNDP and the Bank subsequently agI'eed that Nippon Koei should prepare
21 a feasibility study for a combined surface and groundwater project. It was also agreed that
\I' the groundwater component should be limited to the re-equipping of 14 existing tubewells
(also constructed under Indian aid) and the drilling of 14 new tubewells. The total " groundwater area was thus limited to 2,730 ha; It was also intended to function as a pilot
operation for future large scale groundwater development. The project was approved by
the World Bank, Board ofDirectors on March 20, 1973.
C. Objectives and Scope at Appraisal
The main objective of the project was to raise agricultural production, incomes and
employment by intensification of crops in an area of about 2,700 ha. This was to be
achieved by completing and improving the exisUng ilTigation works so that a switch to
higher yielding varieties of paddy in the rainy season and to irrigated upland crops in the
d1y season would be possible. The objective was puisued by rehabilitation of existing and
construction of new public tubewells north of the Nepal East canal. This component had
as its main purpose of testing the feasibility of groundwater development for groups of
fanners with a view of future expansion of this pilot scheme. In addition, the project aimed at providing coordinated package of agricultural support services (agricultural extension and research, cooperation services, service roads, etc.). Since the project was
one of the ftrst of its type and scope in Nepal, institution building and demonstration
effects were considered important objectives, too.
The specific compone1lts of tile project were:
(i) Testing of existing tubewells and replacement of inadequate pumps, motors and
control de"ices.
i (ii) Drilling and equipping ofabout 14 new tubewells. (iii) Construction of about 18 km of 1yIg .. transmission. lines to sen.ice existing and new tubewells.
<; (iv) Construction of related storage tanks and irrigation. distribution syst~n1s, consisting .. of lined main canals,~ unlined secondary canals to the turnouts commanding 30 40 ha service w.nts each, and drainage networks in the command of each tubewell . ..
D. Financing Arrangement:
The project cost was estimated Rs 9.6 M. during the appraisal. This was to be
financed by IDA (60 percent), HMGIN (30 percent) and by fanners remaining 10 percent
. Due to cost over nm (more then double) HMGr'N had-to fInance a larger part of total
cost then it was estimated at appraisal (about 44% vs. 30%) (Detail in Appendix-I)
E. Completion:
The project was to be completed in five years beginning July 1973 to June 1978.
The implementation period had to be ex'tended from the initial 5 to 8.5 years. Cost
ovemm was due to inflation, underestimation of quantities of inputs needed and time
ovemm. The time ovemm was due of difficulties in procuring goods and services, limited
local contracting capability, delay in identifying and recruiting consultantS, limited interest
by outside contractors and shortage of construction materials.
Among the 29 deep tubewells, 14 tubewells have been constructed under Indian aid
(called 'old tubewells), and 17 tubewells including three redrilled old tubewells and one
tubewell converted for observation well under Narayani stage I project (called new
tubewells) .
In 1985, it was found that nine tubewells had been collapsed and re-drilling was
required. After the arrangement of the fund from Bhairawa - Lwnbini ground Water
project (BLGWP IDA credit 1316) redrilling began in 1988 and completed in March
1989.
() " F. Ex-post Evaluation
The Project Petformance Audit Report (pPAR) focuses on the pertinent aspects of
the project and presents finding of the PEM and the field visits conducted from 8 to 17
June 1996. The assistance provided by NPC~ NZIDP, project staff and the fanners in the
preparation ofthis report is greatly acknowledged.
The field assessment methodology adopted was Rapid appraisal using both the
primary and secondary data. The household survey of the fanners were conducted
through a structure questionnaire. The method of sampling was purposive to select the
tubewell area and random to select the fanners . Sample was taken from both the operating
and non-operating tubewell areas. Representative households. were also surveyed
purposively from· the control area in order to compare benefits of 'with' and 'without'
project situations.
Narayani Tubewell Irrigation Project (NTIP) is a component of Birgunj Irrigation
project stage I which was later converted to NZIDP. Thus, due to unavailability of
Reparate data, reports (pCRJS~), and other related documents, it was extremely difficult
for PEM to disaggrate NTIP from NZIDP.
Copies of the draft report will be send to executing agencies, NPCs, \VorId. Bank
for review and comments. The comments received will be taken into account in finalizing
the report.
.,
7 III IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE
( ?1
A Design:
The project was designed to complete the rudimentary system build with assistance
from GOl, to install 14 new tubewells and redrill 9 tubewelis to provide year - round reliable
water supply in an area of 2,700 m.. The project was designed on the basis of feasibility
under-taken over the period 1965-69, and the :findings of identification/preparation mi')sions
over the period 1969-71 and the appraisal mission in 1972. The ini~ design of some wells \ were faulty. The consultants, given responsibility for the design of the tubeweUs had limited
experience in underground water development technology. This was aggravated by poor
construction supervision and poor 0 & M The ultimate result has been that some wells never
operated and other provided an unreliable irrigation. (The detail performance of wells is
presented in Appendix-2).
'" B. Contracting Construction and Commissioning: The project experienced difficulties in attracting foreign contractors . The use of local
contractors caused delays in implementation due to limited contracting experiences,
cumbersome administrative procedures and shortage of construction materials.
The peIfonnance of the contractors has been poor by international standard. The
perfonnance of the National Construction Company of Nepal (NCCN) which was awarded
contracts for the construction of the project headquarters and tubewells (phase - 1) has been especially disappointing.
R C. Organization and Management:
Narayani Zone Inigation Development Board (NZIDB) was created in 1973 for
;\I executing the Narayani Irrigation Project (NZIDP stage I). The main purpose for setting up
this semi-autonomous agency was to ensure proper co-ordination between the various
.Ministries involved in tlw implementation of the pr~iect.
The powers of NZIDB were vested in an eight member Board of Directors chaired by
the secretary of :MVlR, and members represent:'ltives from the Mlnistries of MLRM. MOA,
NPCS, MOF, DOl and as secretary the GM of NZIDR The field network is controlled by
GM who has four division under him: Engineering. Agriculture, Administration and Finance.
The present staff for operation and maintenance of tubewells are: one assistant engineer, one
overseer, 18 pump operators, three supervisors and one assistant electrician (detail Appendix
3). In project office Bara, there is a small workshop capable of minor repairs only. The main
limitations are lack of spare parts rather than limited manpower. The operators may sometime
be a constraint for the proper utilization of the water. Many of them are recruited from
distance villages and are not required to stay near the wells. The operators presence being
irregular the fanners do not receive water in the required time.
D. Actual Cost and Financing:
The SAR estimated tubewell irrigation cost was 1\TRs 9.6 M. The actual cost for
existing and new tubewells was 1\TRs. 19.8 M. (Appendix. 1). Thus, a cost overrun of
approximately more than double has been experienced. The appraisal cost estimate could have
been updaJed at the time of credit negotiations wblch could have added to the smooth
functioning of the project activities.
Q An IDA credi~ (373 NEP) was approved by the World Bank Board on March 1973
.. under Nepal - Birganj Irrigation Project Narayani Zone. The was estimated closing date was
December 1978 at appraisal however, extension was till December 1981.
E. Implementation Schedule:
The project, as initially defined, was to be implemented ovp,r a five year period Jury
1973 to June 1978. In January 1974, an implementation schedule was prepared as shown in
-:hart 1. However, immediate difficulties were experienced with the tendering for the civil
works. Only one tender was received for the civil works to be constructed for the existing
tubewells (stage - 1). There was also a lack of interest for the supply of pumps and electrical
facilities required for the groWld water scheme phase I. The contract had to be retendered.
F. Technical Assistance:
On December 1973, a contract for consulting service was s~ed by NZIDB and
,. Nippon Koei company (NKC) Japan. Approximately 400 man months of consulting services have been provided. Of these, 365 man months have been financed out of credit (373) while
another 35 man month have been financed from NZIDP stage IT credit (856). The services
provided by consultant have generally been satisfactory. The main tasks of the consultants
were (i) to prepare topographical maps ii) to provide engineering services including planning,
design, constnlction snpervision and preparation of tender documents ill) administrative and
agricultural services iv) preparation of feasibility studies. Five missions and fourteen
supervision teams from World Bank visited the· project area. The success of project
implementation could not have been attained without the consultants inputs that were provided
during the project period.
~
10 IV. PROJECT RESULTS
,.
A. Operational Performance:
The main objective of the project was to increase crop production, fann incomes and
non-fann incomes by providing tubewell inigation facilities in the northern part ofNEC.
The croppihg intensity have been increased from 137 percent (pre-project) in 1974 to
194 percent in 1996. Similar1:y, the yield of major crops has increased. Both the yield and
intensity are higher than the control area.
It is observed that fanners are not using chemical fertilizer at recommended doses due
to the unavailability in time. Sometimes, they have to depend on India, as well. Fanners ate
using their own local varieties seeds and a few fanners use the improved varieties from
PatVJarupur Agricultural Research Centre (PARC). Even though there is access to water and
market access fanners are not interested in vegetable cultivation. Ex"tension service may help
to increase the. income by cultivating cash crops. Among the cash crops, sugarcane and
;), oilseed are common in the tubewell area. (The cropping intensity and crop yield is given in
Appendix .10) . With the assistance of the World Bank in 1975, the then existing ehiension
services in the. project area was changed to the Training and Visit (T & V) system. It was the
first system introduced as a pilot scheme. Originally, it was planned to, confme the T & V
system to the project area only but later it was eX"tended to the entire Bara and Parsa district.
Thus, tubewell and T & V system both were introduced in the project area.
In the project area, majority of the farmers live in better condition (economic, social)
as compared to control area. Overa.ll cropping intensity is estimated at 194 in a net cultivated
area of 1875 ha. Before the project the area was under local varieties which has been replaced .. 1 1 by high yielding varieties (HYV). Paddy, wheat pulses. sugarcane, potato are the major crops fl, in the project area. The yield~ of major crops are significantly higher than control area and the
district average. The agricultural inputs (seed, fertilizer. labour, land ta-\., irrigation) priceR
increased relatively faster than the output price. The input used for major crop production
per ha. is presented in Appendix -12 )
The Water User Groups (U/UG) are not functioning well. The relationship between
\VUG and implementing agency is not satisfactory. The unequal distribution of water among
fanners, inadequate maintenance of physical system, confbct between users and the authority
and the higher 0 & M cost are the major operational problems. On the other hand, \\'''UG are
also not interested for the operational management of the tubewells, since they know that 0 &
M cost is higher than ISF.
Most of the project fmanced m,tior equipments were available from NZIDB. 0 & M
~ is the main function at present . The minor repair and maintenance of tubewell is done fi'om
buying the parts from India. Due to budget constraints, the parts needed for repair works are
not stocked.
B. Institutional Development:
NZIDB is a semi autonomous agency whose functions includes (a) approval of annual
budget (b) staff appointments (c) approval of awards of contracts (d) semi-annual review of
implementation of programme and progress and (e) co-ordination of policy matters on
progratmne budget and fmance. Under NZIDB, the Tubewell sub-division is located in
Kalaiya headquarter of Bara district. Day to day functions are operated by sub-division and
other decisions are done by NZIDB. The operation and maintenance and field \york are done
by the limited staff (Appendix -3). Elich lubewell have its own VlUG, elected by filmKrs.
These \\:UG were supposed to work with project staff in mobilizing farmers to construct fic·ld
1") channels to operate and maintain. It is observed that 'WUG are not functioning well and the
relation with project staff is not satisfactory. The service of Junior Technician (IT) is not
available at present. Previously, the services of IT regarding water requirement, water
distribution and extension was encouraging.
C. Financial Performance:
The financial perfOlmance of J\."TIP is not encouraging and satisfactory. At appraisaL
ISF was Rs. 100iha. In 1977-78 the rate increased to Rs. 2001ha. Presently since (1987-88)
the ISF is charged Rs. 400/ha. However, ISF collection performance is about 46.5 percent , . Detail is presented in Appendix.:! The recovery from Tubewell has been significantly better
--partly due to more reliable and equitable services and partly due to mqre effective enforcement
(a fanner is supplied with water only upon the presentation of payment for the last delivery).
The government's own budgetary resources are severely limited. The small 0 & M budget that is provided each year is insufficient to cover the actual 0 & M requirement Moreover, actual release of 0 & M funds is often delayed and has to be spent within a short period of time.
D. Re~estimation of the Economic Internal Rate ofReturn (EIRR):
At current level of pelionnance, the EIRR was estimated at 18 percent (Appendix
21) The EIRR has been calcUlated on the basis of direct incremental economic benefilS of crops by comparing 'with and without project (comman.d and control)situation. The direct economic benefits of the project are from increased crop production resulting from increased cropped area, higher yields and increased cropping intensity. The cropping intensity has been estinlated to be 194 and 159 percent in with and without project situations respectively.
The per hectare ne·t incremental benefit in 1996 has found to be Rs 13,637 for paddy,
Rc; 1,169 for wheat, Rs 388 for oilseed, Rs 2,721 sugarcane and Rs. 685 for pUlses. The total
n net incremental benefits of the pro.iec~ has been calculated to be Rs. 4,6142,000 (Appendix
~ 11)
Socio-economic and Socio-cultural Result:
The sample survey done by PEM fOWld that the average size of 11,5 person pel' house
hold The literacy rate was found to be 44 percent . The estimated· per household income ir.;
Rs. 16,948. The living condition and household assets has increased after the intervention by
the project. The socio-economic condition of command area is better then· the control area.
The land price has reached to Rs. 5,00,OOOlha. almost the double of control area. The
average land holding size is estimated 2.0 and 1.93 ha. command and control respectively
(Appendix-7) Similarly, the livestock holding has increased' which has helped to increase
income and agticultural production. The annual incremental benefit in 1996 is estimated to
about 46 M. with additional farm and non-fatm employment. This project contributed to a
reduction in poverty by improving the availab:Uity of food, increasing fanners income and
creating rural employment.
Intangible benefits (road: education, nutrition water, health) has increased the
awareness. As a result, access to input, new technology, employment market information and
basic social services has increased. Some fanners have been encouraged and shifted to
higher value crops such as, vegetables, pulses, and oilseeds.
F. '''omen in Development:
The project did not provide any direct focus on women. However, the indirect
benefits to women seems to be more prevalent. The PEM survey estimated that the literacy
rate for female is 21 percent. The percentage of school going git1s (~-1 0 years)~ is 42 percent.
As the household income and assets has considerably increased, \vomen have bought gold
omaments for themselves and for their daughter'S ma111ages which is generally conunon in
1,1 Tarm districts. The participation in different agricultural activities is estimated to be 43 percent
" (Appendix -9). The participation of women in vVUG is not encouraging due to social reason.
G. Environmental Impacts and control:
The project has benefited the environments by changing the dry area into a green area
of different crops. However, the development of sand pumping problems suggests that water
level has decreased: the deposit of sand may affect the productivity. There was no indication
of negative impact from the use ofchemical fertilizer and pesticides which were applied in low
rates.
H. Gestation and sustainability:
The sustainability of the project depend on the commitment and capacity of water
users to provide 0 & M. PEM observed that farmers are unwilling to cover the 0 & M cost
because the servioe, is not reliable .. To change this situation, the project needs substantial
effort to regain farmer's trust at;l.d confidence and to develop better relationship between ~ fanners and project staff.
1<:; v. KEY ISSUES AFFECTING THE PROJECT
1. Groundwater development in Tarai is not so easy. A major constraint is the lack of
teclmicians ~o maintain the facilities. The best available technology appropriate to local
conditions will be needed for the design and construction of tubewells. Other pre
requisites for successful operation are regular supply of electricity, adequate workshop
facilities the maintenance and adequate stock of spare parts and budget to support for 0 &M.
2. The implementation of the irrigation projects in Nepal is time over run and cost 7 overrun. The factor for these reasons are shortage of technical staff, shortage of
construction materials, and limited construction capacities of LCB. Consequently,
Nepal has limited capacity to implement underground inigation projects.
3. The collection of ISF is not satisfactory. On the other hand the 0 & Iv1 cost is very
high .The project should enforce collection of ISF and impose rules to delinquent
farmers.
111 VI. CONCLUSIONS
A. Ovet'all Assessment;
The PEM considers the project to be successful . Physical facilities and SOClOM
economic conditions of the :GuIDers were improved. However, the project paid insufficient
attention to develop and strengthen farmer's capacities to operate and maintain. The
maintenance work is inadequate and the facilities are deteriorating . The actual inigated area is
lower than expected. Average ISF collection rate is 46.5 percent. The a & M cost per ha is
about Rs. 1,500 which is very high. out of 14 tubewells , three pumped sand and gravel from
the beginning and were never operated. Other three subsequently failed for the same reason.
The result is believed to be due to failure of casing Iscreen assembly probably at the key joint
on the fibber glass pipe constl1lction .
B. Lesson Learned:
The following key lessons are derived from the project .
i) The cost recovery and financial sustainability of inigation system can not be atbined
unless water users accept full responsibility for the management and maintenance of
system facilities. ii) Project formulation and design should specify the roles and functions that water users
are expected to perform and pay attention to the process by which those skills and
capacities are transferred to water user groups. iii) If water users assume the resources as a gift from tpe govenunent and remain
dependent on external sources for the a & wI, they are unlikely to actept subst.antial responsibility for the management and maintenance. iv) Poor design and construction of weils has increased the cost of the project and the
actual inigated area is below the target .
1'1
\
"' v) LCB and other facilities delayed the completion ofthe project. vi) The cost estimates must be realistic to enable better assessment of economic viability .
The tubewells irrigation scheme~ for example, calculated the electricity tariff rate at Rs.
0.12 kwh in 19i2 and cWTently, the rate stands at Rs. 3.05 kwh. vii) Performan~e of completed tubewells ~'Ystem had suffered from unreliable power
supply shortage of spare parts and poor maintenance . However : power supply is
improved as the national power grid is completed.
C. Follow up Actions: i) Ongoing and proposed underground irrigation projects should be reviewed to
determine the measures that should be taken to improve famler's participation and to
reduce the 0 & M cost. n) It is very possible to collect more ISF iffanners get reliable water supply . Government
require strong commitment to provide the water and to enforce the collection ofISF . iii) As this is the first IDA financed inigation project, it will be an additional praise worthy
contribution ifIDA continue infonnal monitoring/supervision in the future. Thi.;; can be
done simultaneom:ly with NZIDP stage Ii and ii1 which are under implement~lli()n .
In summary it is found that the project is successful. The main results from the prqject are (a) increased cropping intensity (b) increased yield (c) increased the socio economic condition of the farmer in the project area.
1~ APPENDIXES
APPENDIX
1. Project Cost 1.1 Status ofProject Financed 'Vehides and Construction Equipments 2. Pelfolmance Summary of Old and New Tube\vell Ill1gation 3. Technical Staff: Appraisal and present 4. Inigation Service Fee Recovery Performance 5. Physical Achievements. 6. Distribution ofLiteracy 6.1 Distribution of School Going Children (5-10) 7. Average Household Size 7.1 Average Land Holding 8. Average Household Cash Income from Different source 9. Participation Between Sexes for different fann Operations 10. Yield of major Crop and Cropping Intensity " 11. Net Value of Crop Production and Incremental Benefits 'lVith and Without Project ' 12. Input Used for Crop Production Per ha. 13. Cost, Income and Net income 14. Estimates of Financial and Economic Prices. 15. Typical FalID Budget: 16. Net inigated ,Area for EIRR 17. Estimated Annual Cost 0 & 1\1 18. Economic Re-evaluation Assumptions 19. Without Project Net Benefit at 1996 Price. 20. With Project Net Benefit at 1996 Price 21. The Re-estimation of Economic Cost and Benefit and EIRR
Chart Appendix - 1
Projeci Cosi (Rs '000)
, Item AEEraisal (Rs '0(0) , . 1. Dri1li11£ of wells 2.800 . 2. Civil works
; 4. Pump equipmem and electrical connection 2300 : : Total 9,600 19.800 , I US~ 948)1 (USS; L645)2 Source: l'.;rTIP
1) The appraisal report used a rate of1\'Rs. 10.125 USS 2) Based on average exchange rate ofNRs 12.04 US$ over the project period.
'" Status ofProject- Financed Vechicles and ConstlUction Equipment (Appraisal, Present Status)
Appendix-l.l
Particulars ! Appraisal Estimates and . Remaining at the I Pre~;ellt Stat;JS . I Distribution project A. Equipment and Veclricles for I , Am Pickup I. 1 ,I Tractor 1 1 R. Motorcycle I 3 3 R B. ConstlUction I:quipm:::nt and I I Vechicles I I Crane ! 1 I 1 R. Source ; NTIP
R Running ~'R=Not RUllillng Not = Not Available .,. Appendix - 2
Performance Summary of Old and New tu bewell Irrigation Systems
I S.No. I Well No Location Svstem Well Command I Remarks I I Commissio Oiacharge Area ilia) I 1 , ned (lIs) : ~--'-~------~--O~ld~~~r~~wlli~s------~~------'-~~----~------~------~ : 1 iIi Kalava 0 54 57 ~1 '" .. , 56 57 Patsaum 1------; 7 I 197t": 58 57
s 1976 Patauda 1976 I Inarwala 1976 IBhetaUfa 1976 III 17 . Bhalutila : 1976 ! 83 i 100 I US I 12 18 Bhawarlipur I a I 1976 57 75 US I 13 I 19 Bishenbamur 1978 80 100 US 14 20 LalParsa 1975 I 73 75 US New Wells ! .1 1 N·l Rarnpurlb 1979 80 I 120 US t 2 N-2 SairiYR I b 1979 80 120 NW 3 i N·3 Shacauralb 1979 80 120 NW 14 N·4 Sitaipur 1979 80 120 5 ' N·5 Sitalpur 1979 80 120 6 N·6 '. Shis.hwantslb 1979 I 80 120 US I
7 N-7 I SaJerarnpur 1979 80 120 8 N-S Motiear 1979 80 120 9 N-9 Motiear 1979 80 120 10 N-IO ' Dohan I 1979 I 80 120 11 N-ll Buciyad 1979 80 I 120 ~. N·l2 Awashupur Ie 1979 80 120 US 13 N-l3 I Baiewa 1979 I 80 1:20 US 'NWI 14 ! N-14 I Khutwa c i 1979 ! 80 120 U dd ,,1 Source: 1\'TIP /a Old well being replaced due to sand pumping - ",111 be replaced with 80. lis capacity and extended command area. /b Original well being replaced due to Stnl0tlm1l failure oftibre glass casing and screen. iii Ic Require l'eplacernent welL US == Unsemcable N\V = Never Worked Appendi,,-3 " Technical StarT: Appraisal and present
Post Level Available, at Appraisal present Estimate i Engineer , G III f--'" Overseer NGr 3 Pump operator NGIJ 18 SUQmiser NO II 3 Senior Electrician NGr ~or Mechanics i Asst electrician NO II 2 I Junior Mechanics N.Gll I Pump overator NG II 30 "r f J.l NGI , ITA NO II 10 I Senior pump operator NO! 5 Surveyer; Source : ~TIP .. Appendix - 4
Irrigation Sen'ice Fee Recovery Performance
S.No Fiscal Year Rate per (ha:) Assessment Amount Collected Rate of NRs. (NRS) ; in (NRs) Collection in (%) 1975-76 , .~ 100 1,083 ! 1.083 1 100.0 2. 1976-77 100 13_.0_-' '~.; 1'1.... 0'04 I' Q'l". .... :J I 3 , 197i-78 200 48.696 45.806 I 94.1 . I ! 4. I 1978-79 200 I 74,425 73,023 98,1 I 5. 1979-80 I, 200 70,232 67,441 96.0 6. 1980-81 I 200 93,983 I 89,974 95.8 7, 1981-82 200 I 137,217 I 134;153 97.8 8. 1982-83 200 193,927 I 184,551 95.2 9. 1983-84 200 153,761 i 127835 83.1 10. 1984-85 200 i 154,629 ]40,628 90,9 11. 198.5-86 I 200 107,897 73,617 68.2 12 1986-87 400 442,400 106,119 24.0 13. 1987-88 400 4312.400 55.052 12.8 14. 1988-89 400 407,600 68,481 16.8 15. 1989·90 400 I 673,172 I 44,012 6.5 16. 1990·91 400 713.333 ! . 536,727 75.2 17. 1991-92 400 I 713333 258966 36.3 18. 1992193 400 575200 ! 3,32036 57.72 . 19. 1993·94 400 575,200 1.91 430 33.28 I 20. 1994-95 400 575,200 2,45,547 46.81
L...-..-.-- - Total...... --- I - I 54,41,99SL __25,3~1~ ____ 46.5 Source NTIP, 1996. " AppendL'\, - 5
Physical Achievements
Details Old vVelis New Wells Total 1. Area (hu I '90 1680 2470 2. "Vells No 14 14 28 11 '1 .... '1 "\ 3. Canal ,vith bnck and concrete hrunQ k11l. • 1._ .:J.:.._ -13.'" 4.Relatecl Struchlres (NOI "'\ 1 4.1 Division boxes , .... 191 263 I 4.2 Culverts 18 40 58 i 4.3 Parshall Flumes 11 25 36 ,i 4.4 Foot Paths 139 42 18J I 4.5 Cross Drains 16 1""I '14.6 Drops i ~ : 4.7 SYPEon 6 6 I Tot.al 247 321 568 Source : NTIP .. Appelldix-6 Distribution Of Literacy (percent)
Size Command Control lv1ale Female Total Male Female Total Small 18 22 40 12 10 22 I I Medium ~ 23 18 41 16 12 28 Large 27 23 50 21 14 35 Average 23 21 44 18 12 30 Source: Field Household Survey, 1996
Appendix-6.1
Dis~bution Of School Going Children (5-10 Years) (percent)
Size . Command Control . Male Female· Male Female .", Small 32 41 17 14 Medium 36 44 28 22 Large 42 40 I 37 36 Averag(!. 37 24 ... 42 27 -- ,. 1_ Source: Field Household Survey, 1996 Appendi\~7 .. Awrage Household Size (No)
Comnumd Family Control ...-' Size Male Fem,lle .Male Female Total 1-- '--j-----:-' ~~-.----~-.-, Small It"t. "~ 4 3 lvledium : Large . ~ , Average Source' Field Household Survey, 1996
Appendix-7.1
Average Land Holding (ha)
Size Command Control i Irrigated Urumgl1te Total Irrigated I Unirrigate I Total I I'd, I ISmall 0.64 I O.~8 0.92 I . 0.72 0.i2 ! I\1edium 1.20 I 0.42 1.62 1.33 1.33 !; - i Large 1.61 I 1.&4 3.45 I 0.31 3.42 3.73 , I ~ ...,----- I J Average 1.15 0.85 2.0 , 0.10 I 1.83 1.93 I I --- -.-~--- Source: Field Hou,>ehold Survey, 1996 Appendi,,\-8
Average Household Cash Income From Different Sources (Rs)
Command Control Sources Medium i Lame Average Small Medium i Large Average I ~ ~--. .. " Foodgrain 1,850 . 4.322 2,434 840 L180 .; 1,680 1.233 Cash CroE , 1.300 3.650 1.863 350 650 1.100 700 Livestock 450 605 387 260 392 830 494 Business 1.800 1.798 430 1.609 2.352 1.464 Services 8,500 6,933 4,600 7AOO 5,200 5.733 Others 3,533 2JOO 2,600 4,100 2,934 Total 16,948 8,580 13,831 15262 12,558
'" AppendL\:-9
Participation Between Sexes For Different Farm Operations
Farm Operation Percentage Of Participation By Sex
• Field Pre.raration 88 -12 47 Trans'p!anting 30 70 ~1anurin~g~,______~______4")~~______58 : \.Veeding: 48 52 ...... :.;, Inigation:::-...____-i--~____R':;.::...:....., _____...;.....______.::.15 Harvesting 45 I ThreshingWinnowing I IClearing/Store 68 L..Qverall 57 43 Source: Field Household Survey, 1996 ..
Appendh:~ 10
Yields Of Major Crop and Cropping Intensity
Crop Appraisal Before A vernge appraisal 1996 ic Without The Development & before develop Project Estimates ic ment (Control.A.rea)/c Arellia Yield;b Arelliu Yieldlb }\reaJB Yieldfl) Arewa ! Yield/\) Areata Yieldlb i PaddY. 96 ! 1.9 85 2.1 90.5 2.0 98 3.6 88 2.7 Wheat 35 j 1.3 36 1.5 35.5 1.4 48 2.1 37 1.9 ') Oilseed 1 i 0.8 5 0.7 3 0.7 L. .. 1.1 10 0.7 , 'p ? oS I ~ u.~ I ~., U., H) l.L lL I 0.8u.~ i IPotato ! 1 I 12.0 i 3 14.0 ! 2.0 13.8 4 19 ! 3 i 16.0 Sugarcane ..,? 17 4 20 3.0 19.0 14 48 I 9 i 30 Cropping j Intensity 137 14.2 139.5 194
I (%J ..... - , .... ; 115~ I I a) Area are Assumed in Percentage area Cropped b) Yield Are Assumed in Ton Per Hectare c) Field SlllVey 1996, estimates .
. " Appendix-II
Net Value Of Crop Production and Incremental Benent With and Without Project
Cultivated With Project Without Project Net ~ Land f\rea Net Total Area Net Total Incremental (ha.) Income Net (ha.) Income Net Beni{fit (Rs.) Benefit (Rs.) Benefit (Rs'OOO') ; (Rs.000) i : (Rs.OOO) ] Paddy 1834 16.638 i 30.514 1650 i 3,716 6,131 ! 24383 , " I 900 11,688 I 10,519 I 694 i 9,153 i \Vhe~t 1.968.. i 1.366 . Sugarcane 263 i 24,513 I 6,467 I 169 7.310 ! 1,235 I 5,232 ! Pulses i 338 I 11,506 3.889 I 225 I 6~048 j 1,261 I 2,258 j Oilseed 225 I 13,776 3,100 187 I 6,675 1,248 1,852 1 Potato 75 j 75,120 6,534 56 I 58,387 3,270 3,264' I Total I I ! 61,023! I I 14,611 I 36,14~ Source: Field Household Survey. 1996
>if
'" If
Appendix -12.
Input Used for Crop Production Per Ha .
I_ ... _~ ..___...._ ..~_ :::-.___._ _ _ .." __ .. _ ..2Y!!!! P!$ct . .... Without ~rojec.~. r;-'-'__. _._____...____l~lWy..._.:.. 'Wheal ~~£,!!'';af!.~ Ol~eeds., !?ulse_s_ Potato Pad~~~~~can!? Oilsee~l~ Pulses Potato ~ee Fertilizer__._.._ ..-_.. {hl.).)__ C2:.L...... _.__...... __.,.._ ...... __..__..._. -- Urea 75 30 280 40 15 50 20 30 150 10 60 l:SMi~\p-'''-' ~~ 40_... _._..§Q 20 5 _ 20 20 39\-" 201 Potash 10 8 SO 10 5 10 - 10 .. .'. 15_ -"--'-.---.-~.-~'-~-- ,-~-~-~.-- - ,-,-,~-~---",- C0!!!l>'Q.~!l!~n)._ 2 -. ___...___ . ~.._.._.. _.__ - - 3 6 14 - .. .. !.abouf Mld ...___ ....--J!Q.---.----24f-... ---... !.~Q .. 74 38 150 120 68 21.Qf-~ ___~~ ______}~ ~~ami1y__.___ ._____.. _.§9 __~Qt .....-.-JOS. 50 20 100 70 50 130 40 .__ ..?? 90 Hired 50 34 85 24 18 50 50. 18 80 26 10 78 1 -"-Pesticides .(Rs.) ..r------.--300..-- .------200_. 200 . 100 400 400 200 250 200 120 .------.--500... !!~dlo~k (!>air~) 40 30 ' __ '. __._. 25 4Q 20 10 70 55 10 35 10 35 I~:ac!~!1.i!ourl__.__JQ ___.__..!~ ..__..... _..J. _ 4 5 4 8 4 5 4 .. 10 !!!!&.,!~~n(Rs. L____.__300 100 ------I -I Land Tax (Rs) . ..' - 30 30 - - 30 30 .. - .------.-----..--. ------·---·..·l"....··.... Production(1vtt.) 3.6 2.1 48 1.1 1.2 19 2.7 1.9 30 0.7 0.8 16 Source: Household field survey 1996 1 JI _Appt:ndix -13 Cost Income and Net Income (Rs. I ha.) ",__"M ___-"' ~,,_...~ __• _.~.__ ..__ Without Project .P.<[dL. W!tea~T~g Pesticides 300 _,~w. __~200__ 200 400 250 200 120 500 -- 100 400 200 ..1------ Bullock 2100 ---1750 ,-- 2800 1400 700 2800 4900 3850 700 2450 700 2450 W"_~_ _~~,_.~._~ ·w.____ Tractor___ ,.. ____ 2000 3600 ___,,~~u.,,_-" __1600 ,~~_ 1000 800 800 1600 800 1000 800 - 2000 ~~ ...... ,-".~-- ~-. .---~.- ---"~ r---------'. -~---. ---~.-- lrr~tion 300 100 - ---~,----" ---- '---' ----~---~~- lAnd Tax 30 30 30 30 --,---~,,-- Total Cost 11442 10012 11967 6574 6494 19880 12,044 8,872 11690 6275 2952 21613 ------ -- - ------"" ---,, Income 28,080 21,700 20,350 18,000 95,000 21060 13,900 22,800 12,950 ,_~1,OOQ ~8.Q,OO..Q ~-- ~~",--.------ ,,_}~1..i~Q. Net Income 16,638 11,688 24,513 13,776 11,506 75,120 9,016 5028 11,110 6,675 9048 58,387 '--L. Source: Field Household Survey, 1996 -Calculated fi:om Inputs used f()f crop production und price Appendix-l 4 Estimates of Financial and Economic Prices (Rs) Commodity Unit Financial Price Economic Price " A.ln~uts Seed 1. --Padd-- _. - K 14.50------14.50- . - 2. ,\Vheat i tI i 15.00 I 15.00 i 3. I\1aize " ! 14.00 I 14.00 4. Oilseed " I 38.00 .38.00 I • 5. Pulses " I 36.00 36.00 6, Sugarcane " 00.30 00.30 7. Potato " 10.00 10.00 Fertilizer " Urea Kg. 6.72 17.86 DAP tI 16.88 19.36 .. Potas " 8.50 11 Compost lvft. 200 100 ! I Labour Manday 55 28.00 Bullock " 140 70.00 Tractor Hour 200 200 Electricity Unit 3.05 5.00 B. Output I Paddv hit. 7,800 7,800 \lrl1eat " 7,000 , 7.000 I , Oilseed " 18~500 18,500 Pulses " 15,000 15,000 Sugarcane II 760 760 Potato. " i 5,000 I 5,000 .. _ ..___ ~ f ~. $I v Appendix -15 TYI)ical Farm nudget : Production cost, Value, Income,and Net Incremental Benefit of 1.ha. holding With &Witbout Project __ ...______·, __'c_.___ ._.~~._ '_"~ Cro~~_I~ _____. Without Project Net .. ,,--,-~~,-, W!~!!.r.!·ojecl '~"-'-'-- - -- Area Yield Produc- Value Cost Net Area yield Production Value Cost N-:t Increm.::nfa (Ita) l\t./ha.) lion (wI.) lRs.) (Rs.) Incme (Ha.) (Mt./ha) (MU (Rs) (Rs.) IncoIlle I fkndits (Rs.) CRs.) (Rsl I·------·---.-+------.·.-~- -"-'--- . 27300 11213 0.88 11830 6890 9197 _.r~d~y__ 0.98 3.6.. .- 3.5 16087 2.7 2.4 18720 .. __ .. ------_._,_.- ,._._---- -~ ---~--,- -_._."'''' ,----,_._" r-'---' 7000 4806 0,37 ._.Wheat ,w___,_,,~, 0.48 2.1 1.0 2194 1.9 0.7 4900 3675 1225 969 -_._.-~----"--~~" --,--,-~- "-_., ..-,"----.~.,--- ..-.------.---- ._-- Oilseed 0.12 1.1 0.1 1850 789 1061 0.10 0.7 0.07 1300 627 673 388 -~,~-,--~ .-_. .-,~--,-,- ~--~-'"---, -- ~----~ -- .. 3000 1169 0.12 1146 354 _~._._~ ~' 685 Pulses 0.18 1.2 0.2 1831 0.6 0.1 1500 •• _. 'W_¥"'__ ~-.,'----~~. ---~-.~ '- .~.-. ~----- ~---"--'- ..--.--. ---.._--" ... -' Potato 0.04 19.0 0.8 4000 795 3205 0.03 160 0.5 2500 648 1852_..__ .. 1353 .•.--'~._-_.' ". ',.---,--.~,.-" '"--.-~,------, ,_..'- ,_._---»-.--_. --..,------~------. "" -----, Sugarcane 0.14 48.0 6.7 5092 1675 3417 0.09 30 2.7 2052 1052 1000 2·117 ..••..- .~-*,~",~'"'-. ,.-_._---, -~- ~'-"--'-' _."------..- ". -.-~----- Total 1.94 1.59 .___•.______.__._ ..•...1_._.15009 Source: Field IIouschold Survey, 1996 Area are assumed in pen.;entagc of cropped a.-c:a . ., Appendix - 16 ,. Net Irrigated l-\rea for EIRR The ground water scheme was planned to irrigate 2~730 ha. but indications are that under nonnal condition i.e. no power failure! no major breakdown etc. the actual irrigatable would be lesser as targeted. All new wells have a capacity of about 80 lis and are able to irrigate about 90 ha. only instead of 120 ha. as planned. therefore a total of 1,875 ha. land is considered for EIRR. Irrigable Area from serviceable wells Tube wells Area (ha) 11 old wells 705 13 new wells 13 x 90 1170 1,875 (Detail perfonnance oftubewell is presented in Appendix. 2) Year 'Mise Irrigation Facility Year No. ofwells Ha I Percent 1976 7 420 I 22 1977 2 520 . I 32 1978 2 705 I 38 /1979 I 13 1875 I 100 .. Appendix - 17 Estimated Annual Cost of Operation and maintenance (80 ha. net irrigated) RE. A Salaries 30.000 B. Electricity 10~OOO unit C. Repair and maintenance Pump, motor, switch gear 5,000 Structure canal .25,000 D. 11iscellaneous + Contingencies 30,000 1,20,500 '" 0& M Cost/ha 1,500 Total 0 & M cost 1,875 x 1500 = NRs. 28,12,500 " .. f Appendix - 18 Economic Re-evaluatton Assum ptions The EIRR i'S re-estimated for the agricultural crop production. .Major as.'Sumptions underlying the re-estimation of the EIRR are as follows. 1. ,All cost and benefits are convened into constant 1996 price using national consumers price Index. All cost and benefits are expressed in teffils ofN"Rs. 2. The cost of production and value of crop output are calculated :in tenus of economic prices. 3. Inputs and outputs are assumed to be same after 1996 to the project life. 4. The cost of the project does not include the cost of land acquisition and taxes and duties paid by project. 5. The economic life of the project assumed to be 30 years from. " 6. The total actual inigated area was assumed to 1875 ha. The incremental benefits has been estimated according to irrigated area. 7. The project benefit has been derived from the incremental crop production and cropped area by paddy 1834 ha, wheat 900 ha. oilseed 225 ha. puL~es 338 ha, sugarcane 263 ha and potato 75 ha (Appendix 7). 8. The EIRR are based on the incremental net benefits of the project, derived from the difference between the net value of crop of production under the "with" and tI\'~thout" project situation for the period from 1974 to 2004. The yield and crop area assumption are:in Appendix 10. ~ ~ Appendix. -19 Without Project Net Benefit at 1996 Price For Narayani Project Year '·N(~~~(~~l~~~~a :;' ~;~) N(:~) su~:r(:s:o) N(~~(~~~£;!~'~~' P~:;;I~:)~~),am:'I,i~J~;~~~~ 197;11 755X \697 ---12826 4277 666~8~8r-Io33e) 56 -579 5439 56 305 '(~~61- i()3 -----,179 37200-----38 ----1414 .-- i84S() 1695 4309 667 2875 10370 59 61l 5490 103 ....7(~i') -..... ·---··---'--r·----·12913 •. -.--.-r----,------.--59t--3251"-4i~)31'__ ..• __ ._.. -''''495___ ---37.970__._,.. 39-.:169._____ ---'18687..,__, 76g0 1693 13000 4340 668 2902 10404 62 644 5541 61 346 ·19,10 101 512 3~756 39 1526 18930 7742 -·-16-;10--13088 4372 670~928 10438 651--6801---'5593 --66--369-'5092 HM 530'39558-4() 1585 --"'i91so 7Ro·i'-1(j,~8-----13176'-:t.405 671 2956 10473 68 717 56451---·70r--394 '52,18 ·'10,1 548 ,10377'----41 1646 '---19437 1979 7g()7---I<;g(~ --13265 4437t--672' 29R3 10507 12 756 --- 5698 74 --'--420 '--'5469 105 ..' 567 41213 42---1710 ----]'9702 ---....1~)80 7<)'3() 168,1 13355 ---4470 - 674 301110542 76 798 -5752 -78 --418~5575-- Jiis"- 587 42066 42-----1777 19974 --"---j<)g-[ 79()'!-1(iS2--i344s- 4503' 675 3038 10576 80 842 5805 -S2 r--477 -57~6 - 106 607 42()37 4::1 18,16'-20255 1 le;;:]- )S,Z;---j(iR0 --"13536 -~536 676 3067 I06i\--S4" 888 5860 87 --50~t-592{- 106 ---62813826 44 1918 20545 1983 - ),t--l(~78 13628 4570 617 3095 I064t ---88-937 ---59-1-5--92 ----542 610-1'! (xi 650'41733 45 i9n 20843 1984 Rlgel---]1,75- 13720--4603~79r--3i24 --10681 "---93 988 5970 97 578--6292' 107----672 ---45659 ---45'''-2069 21151 f--....----_~. t___------. -- r------____ ..""___...______.. _____ "_ ..__ .. _.. ___ ... ____ ..______,085 Q55 13813 10716 6026 695 46604 46 ------.. ,------1673 ·1637 680-- 3153 97- 1042-' - 102 617::-- .. ----_::-·"1"-,6485 107 2150 ----_,_.21,169_____ 1986 1\321 Hill 13906· 4672 681 3182 10751 102 1100 6082 108 657 6684 108 719 47569 47 22::13 21797 ---i~i87 --- 83gB 1660 14000 4706 682 3211 'Io786 108 1160 6139 --114'--70'" "'6889 ----j(}8 ----..-74-1 4ii553 48 '-~i320---22136 1988 15/-i(;(;~ ---140951---4741 684 3241 10822 113 122,1 -~7-121 t---- -"7iIJi -- )()8 --7iii '19,558 -----49 . 2,110 22/186 ..... ------... "----,- . ------747 . - '- --- -"_....- ..- ..--- 98() R521 1665 14190 4776 685 3271 10858 1)9 1291 6255 127 797 7319 }()() 796 5058,1 49 250,1 22849 \090 f\593t--1'(i63~286 4lli--686~301 10893 - 125 1362 6ill~5 ----850-75~3!- )(~)----823 --:51631 "---:SO -26{)1 - --'23223 )091 116112--1-(;(;6---14382 4846 687 3332 10929 131 1437 6372 141 906-7775 ----ll(}·---gsj 52700---51- 2702 ')()2 23611 " .. 87~1 1658-- -14479--4882 689 336310%5 --138 1516r---6432---150 966"--801/- iio ---R8i 53791 52 2807 00 24012 1 1 ~~02t~)(i:)~ -1,1577 491R _(590 3394 11001 145 1599 6492~59 1030'--8260 --,,---~-- ..------ 110 24428 887~_J(~~ __._I.16~ 4955 691 3425 1103 1~_3 1687---65~=-!.~=:JQ2~ .. _?~_i~i III 891H 1652 \·1775 4991 693 '3457 II 073 161 1780 6614 177 1171 87751 ... -~~: ------'------~--- --_. III 19%-20(H 90 I () -_..I.~~.o __ 14876 ,-5Q3~ 694 3'!?9 11 II 0 __16~ ~_878.__.J5~2~ __!~ __..._t~48 1t .. 9048 225 26797 ,~ .A.ppt!ndix-20 With Project Net Benefit at 1996 Price i Paddy Vt'lleat Sug:rrcane Oils..."'ed Pulses Potato .-illcropsl Net II Year 'N.BIha Area I T. NB N.Btha Area T,NB N.BIha Area T.NB N.B/ha Area T. NB IN.Blha Areal T.NB N.Blha l\rea T.NB Total NB Iincrementa n (Rs) (ha) I (RsOOO) (RS) (ha) (,RSOOO) (RS) (ha) (RS 000) (Rs) (ha) (Rs 0(0) (Rs) (ha) (RsOOO) (Rs) (ha) (Rsooo) (RsOOO) jI Balefit , Rs(OOO) 1974~ 7558 1697 12826 4277 666 2848 10336 56 , 579 5439 56 305 4650 103 479 37200 38 1414 184501 0 1975~ 7619 1695 12913 4309 667 2875 10370 59 611 5490 59 325! 4793 1031 495 37970 39 1469 18687: 0 1976'; 9651 li04 16441 4417 681 3008 13508 65 882, 735~1 63 466 6384 112 714 46756 40 1892 234041 4474 1971: 10589 11121 18133 4473 695 3110 14942 72 1081 8212 68 558 7144 121 865 50938 421 2157 259041 6724 1978~ 11161 1721 19212 4512 7101 3202 15808 80 1268 8735 73 636 7626 131' 1000 53579 44 23741 276921 8255 405551 . 19791i 16638 1731 28789 4688 724 3396 24513 89 2180 13776 78 1074 11506 142 1633 75120 46 34831 20853 I 1980 16638 1139 28938 4688 740 3467 24513 99 2417 13776 84 1151 11506 154 1767 75120 49 36441 413851 21410 1981 16638 1748 29088 4688 755 35391 24513 109 2680 13776 90 1233 11506 1661 1913 75120 51 3813 42266! 220111 1982 i 16638 1157 29239 4688 770 3612 24513 121 2971 13776 % 1322 11506 180 2071 75120 531 3990 432051 22660 1983 16638 1161 29391 4688 186 3687 24513 134 . 3294 13776 103 1416 11506 1951 2242 75120 56 4175 442041 23361 19841 16638 1776 29543 4688 803 3764 24513 149, 3651 13776 1101 15Ii, 11506 211 2426 75120 58 4369 452711 24120 1985f 166381 1785 29697 4688 819 3842 24513 165 4048 137761 lUil 1626 11506 228 2627 75120 611 4571, 464101 24941! 1986! 16638 1194 29851 4688 837 3922 24513/ 183 4488 137761 126! 1742 11506 247 28431 75120 64 47831 476291 258311 1987f 166381 1803 30006, 4688 854 4003 24513 2031 4975 137761 1361 1867 11506 267 3077 75120 671 5005! 48933! . 267971 , 1988 16638 1813 30161 4688 872 4086, 245131 225 5516 13776 1451 2000 11506 289 33311 15120 10 5'---;); 50332l 27845 1989 16638 1822 30318 46&8 8901 4171 245131 249 6115 13776 1561 2143 11506 313 36061 75120 73 5480 518331 28984 11990-2004 I 166381 1834L_ 30514 4688 9001 4219! 245131 263, 6447 13776: 2251 3100 11506, 3381 38891 75120 751 5634 538031 30.5801 1(\ '" Appendi'{-21 Re-estimation of Economic cost and Benefit £in RsOOO) and EIRR Year Investment I operating cost Total Intlator Total Cost at Incremental8enefit Incremenlal Net benefit I ' Cost I 1996price 1974 300 a 3001 6.esl 1818 a -1818 1975 3300 0 3300' 6,16! 20328 a -20328 1976 6700 0 6700 6.34\ 42478 4474 -38004 1977 4700 a 4700 5.841 27448 6724 -20724 1978 1800 0 18001 5.26f 9468! 8255 -1213 1979 9001 0 900 5.esl 4554 20853 16299 1980 2100 a 2100 4.92! 10332 21410 11078 1981 0 700 700 4.541 3178 22011 18833 1982 0 700 700 3.691 2583 22660 2!1077 1983 a 700 700 3.441 2408 23361 20953 1984 0 700 700 3.19j 2233 24120 21887 1985 0 700 700 2.89,' 2023' 24941 22918 1986 0 700 700 2.56t 1792 25831 24039 1987 0 700 700 2.2&! 1596 26797 25201 1988 0 700 700 2.051 14351 27845 26410 1989 0 700 7001 1.861 13021 28984 21682: 1990 0 700 700 1.69! 11831 30580 29397 1991 0 700 700 1.51 1050 30580 29530 1992 01 700 700 1.26\ 8821 305801 29698 1993 0 700 700 1.16i 812 30580 29168 1994 0 700 700j 1.081 7561 30580 29824 1995-2004 0 700 7001 1i 7001 30580 298801 IRR = 18 Percent tI Appendi-x-21 Re-estimation of Economic cost and Benefit ( in RsOOO) and EIRR I ¥<:ar Investment operating cost Total 1ni1ator Total Costat /- fncrem<:ntal B<:nefit Incremental Net lx:nefit ) I I Cost r 1996price '1974 i 30.J - 300! 6.061 IS1S1 0 -1818 I 1975 1 3300 -I 3300 6.161 20328j -20318 1976 I 6700 -,! 67001 6.341 _424781 447~1 -38004 10'1'7 I - I, ! 4700 J 47001 5.841 274481 6724 -20724 1978 1800 - 1800 5.261 9468: 8255 -1213 '1979 900 900 5.061 4554~ 208531 16299 - I 1980 2100 - 2100 4.92! 10332! 214101 11078 1981 I - 700 700 4.54! 31781 22011 18833 1982 -[ 7001 700 3.691 2583i 22660 20077 1983 - 700 700 3.441 24081 23361 20953 1984 ! - 700 700f 3.191 2233 24120 21887 1985 - 700 700/ 2.89j 2023 24941 22918 2 -_I 1986 - 700 7001 •.)01 1792, 25831 24039 1987 - 700 700! 2.28\ 15961 26797 25201 ,1988 - 7001 700 2.05: 14351 27845 26410, 11989 -, 7001 700 L86i 13021 28984 27682i 11990 -I 7001 700 1.69i 1183! 305801 29397 1991 -,1 7001 10.501 I \ 7001 l.5i .305801 295301 1992 - 700 700! 1.26i 8821 305801 296981 ,1993 -! 7001 1001 I.l6 812! 30580! 297681 /1994 -I 7001 7001 LOS 7561 305801 29&24[ i1995-2004 -I 700( 700i 7001 30580i 29880f EIRR= 18 Percent ~ ~ .. c".... vt Narayani Tubweil Irrigation Project Construction Schedule & Actual i-'rnarF'CC WORK ITEM 1974 1975 ' 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ., 3 4 1 2 J 4 1 2 3 4 I 2 3 .j. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 TUBEWELL SCHEME TUBEWELL ORILUNG qrar rJrar rJr ••• ••• • PHASE I CIVIL WORKS (1050 hal rJr(ff rJr • ••• •• •• • • •• • PUMPS ELECYRICAL i~STALLATION 01 rJr::r ••• •• PHASE II CIVIL WORKS(1,680 hal 01 rJr:-, rJr:; :]T" ••• •• • ••• •• • •• •• •• • •• • PUMPS ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION rJr':ll' cr. ••• •• LEGEND 7""<7"<7" CONSTRUCTION SCHEDU LE AS PER JANUARY 1974 •••••• ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS {;}"