Document of The World Bank
FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized ReportNo. 5475-EGT
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
Public Disclosure Authorized ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized
May 7, 1985
Public Disclosure Authorized Projects Department Europe, Middle East and North Africa Region Agriculture I
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise he disclosed without World Bank autborization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENITS
Currency Unit: Egyptian Pound (LE)
LE 1.00 = US$ 0.80 US$ 1.00 = LE 1.25 LE 1.00 = 100 Piastres (PT)
(As of January 5, 1985)
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Egyptian and/or Metric Units English/US Units
1 millimeter (mm) = 0.039 inch (in) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.033 foot (ft) 1 meter (m) = 3.281 feet (ft) 1 kilometer (km) = 0.621 miles (mi) 1 feddan (fed) 1.038 acres (ac) 1 feddan (fed) - 0.420 hectare (ha) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.386 square miles (sq mi) 3 1 cubic meter (m ) = 35.315 cubic feet (cu ft) 1 metric ton (m ton) = 0.984 lcng ton (Ig ton or 2,240 lbs) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.205 pounds (lbs)
GOVERNMENT OF ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT FISCAL YEAR
July I - June 30 FOR OMCUL USE ONLY
PRINCIPAL ABBREVIAT7IONS AND ACRONYMS USED
AFDB African Development Bank AFDF African Development Fund ARC = AgriculturalResearch Center, Ministry of Agriculture BDAC = Bank for Development and AgriculturalCredit CAO Central Audit Organization CIDA = Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency CMP = Channel Maintenance Plan DRI Drainage Research Institute,Ministry of Irrigation EMCIP = Egyptian Major Cereals ImprovementProject EPADP Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects ERR = Economic Rate of Return FAO/CP Food and Agricultural Organization/WorldBank Cooperative Program FIDD = Field Investigationand Design Division of EPADP GOE = Government of Arab Republic of Egypt GRI = Groundwater Research Institute,Ministry of Irrigation HAD High Aswan Dam ICB = InternationalCompetitive Bidding IFAD InternationalFund for AgriculturalDevelopment IMSP = IrrigationManagement Systems Project ISAWIP = Integrated Soil and Water ImprovementProject LCB = Local Competitive Bidding MED = Mechanical and ElectricalDepartment, Ministry of Irrigation M&E = Monitoring and Evaluation MOA = Ministry of Agriculture MOI = Ministry of Irrigation O&M = Operation and Maintenance PPAR = Project Performance Audit Report PPD = Project PreparationDepartment, Ministry of Irrigation T&V = Training and Visit USAID United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment
I hisdament hasaresticted disibution and maybe usd by recpentsoy in theperformance of theiroffica dutiets contns maynot oewie be dilsd without Wodd Dankauthozation. ARAB REPUBUC OF EGYPr
DRAUNAGE V PROJECr
SrAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
Table of Contents
Chapter Page No.
LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY...... i-ii
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1......
II. SECTOR ...... 2
A. General...... 2 B. Agriculture...... 2 - Agriculture in Economy ...... 2 - Agricultural Constraints...... 3 - Government Policies ...... 4 - Bank Involvement in the Sector ...... 5 C. Irrigation and Drainage Subsector...... 6 - Irrigation and Drainage Facilities...... 6 - Problems Associated with Irrigation and Drainage...... 7 - Previous Bank Involvementin Drainage...... 8 - Drainage Projects to be Financed by Other Donors...... 9
III. PROGRAM AND PROJECT AREA...... 10
Physical Features...... 10 Demographic Features, Farm Size and Land Tenure ...... 13 Agricultural Product-.on...... 13 Projects Impacting on Drainage V Project ...... 15
IV. THE 10-YEAR DRAINAGE PROGRAM AND ITS PHASING ...... 15
Background...... 15 Objectives and Scope...... 16 Selection of Areas...... 16 Phasing of Program...... 17 Evaluationof Technical Alternatives...... 18 ImplementationSchedule and Estimated Cost of the Program 19
This report is based on the findings of a Bank appraisal mission to Arab Republic of Egypt in October 1984, comprising Messrs S.A. Rehman, C. J. Perry (Bank), and B. Downs, Jan de Vos and F. Sands (Consultants). Page No.
V. THE PROJECT ...... 19
A. Project Rationale, Scope and Summary Description .... 19 - Project Rationale ...... 19 - Project Scope ...... 20 - Sunmiary Description ...... 20 B. Detailed Project Features ...... 21 - Srxface Drainage ...... 21 - Subsurface Drainage ...... 22 - Maintenance - Buildings, Equipment and Recurrent... Costs ...... 25 - Other Components ...... 26 - Status of Engineering ...... 27 - Environmental Impact ...... 27
VI. COST ESTIMATES, FINANCING, PROCUREMENT AND DISBURSEMENTS 27
Cost Estimates ...... 27 Financing ...... 29 Procurement ...... 29 Disbursements ...... 32 Auditing and Accounts ...... 33
VII. PROJECT ORGANIZATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 33
Institutional Arrangements ...... -. 33 Field Supervision and Quality Control ...... 35 Project Implementation ...... 36 Operation and Maintenance ...... 37 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 39
VIII. PROJECT BENEFITS. JUSTIFICATION AND RISK ...... 40
Agricultural Impact ...... 40 Marketing and Prices ...... 41 Farm Incomes ...... 42 Cost Recovery ...... 42 Benefits and Justification ...... 43 Project Risks ...... 43
IX. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 44 Page No.
ANNEXES
1. Project Costs and Disbursements
Table 1: Base Costs of Project Components by Year ...... 47 Table 2: Total Costs, Including Contingencies, of Project Components by Year ...... 48 Table 3: Summary Accounts by Project Component and by Sub-area ...... 49 Table 4: Summary Accounts of Base Costs by Year ...... 50 Table 5: Summary Accounts of Total Costs, Including Contingencies,by Year ...... 51 Table 6: Breakdown of Summary Accounts ...... 52 Table 7: Estimated Schedule of Disbursements ...... 53
2. Project Implementationand Management
Chart 1: World Bank - 26975, ImplementationSchedule ...... 54 Chart 2: World Bank - 27078, Schedule for Procurment of Equipment by EPADP ...... 55 Table 1: Anticipated Import of Equipment for Subsurface Drainage ...... 56 Chart 3: World Bank - 26976, Ministry of Irrigation- General Organization ...... 57 Chart 4: World Bank - 26977, Organizationof Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects (EPADP) ...... 58 Table 2: Present Status of Technical Staff in EPADP...... 59
3. 10-Year Drainage Program
Table 1: Data on Depth to the Groundwater Table, Soil Salinity, Groundwater Salinity and Soil Permeability for the Catchment Areas in the Nile Delta ...... 60 Table 2: Data on Depth to the Groundwater Table, Soil Salinity, Groundwater Salinity and Soil Permeability for the Catchment Areas in the Nile Valley ...... 61 Table 3: Drainage V Project and Program Areas by Catchment ...... 62 Chart 1.: World Bank - 26974, Schedule for Remodelling of Open Drains (10-Year Program and Drainage V Project) ...... 63 Chart 2: World Bank - 26978, Schedule for Installaticnof Subsurface Drainage (10-Year Program and Drainage V Project) ...... 64 Table 4: Remodelling of Open Drains and Installation of Tile Drains (Quantitiesby Year)...... 65 Table 5: Summary Accounts of Base Costs by Year (10-Year Program) ...... 66 Table 6: Summary Accounts of Total Costs, Including Contingencies,by Year (10-Year Program) ...... 67 Pase No.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 68-70
5. Rate of Return Calculation and Financial and Economic Tables ...... 71
Table 1 - Present Cropped Areas, Yields and Production in Project Areas ...... 72 Table 2 - Present and Future Economic Value of Production - East Delta ...... 73 Table 3 - Present and Future Economic Value of Production - Middle Delta ...... 74 Table 4 - Present and Future Economic Value of Production - West Delta ...... 75 Table 5 - Present and Future Economic Value of Production - Upper Egypt ...... 76 Table 6 - Prices Used in Financial and Economic Analysis .... 77 Table 7 - Incremental Farm Income: 3 Feddan Farm ...... 78 Table 8 - Farm Distribution by Size and Pattern of Land Ownership ...... 79 Table 9 - Costs, Benefits, and Rate of Return by Project Area ...... 80
6. Selected Documents and Data Available in the Project File ..... 81-82
--APS
1. IBRD 18733 - Government of Egypt 10-Year Program and Drainage V Project-Lower Egypt (Delta) 2. IBRD 18734 - Government of Egypt 10-Year Program and Drainage V Project-Upper Egypt -i-
ARAB REPUBUC OF EGYPI
DRAINAGE V PROJECT
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY
Borrower: Government of Arab Republic of Egypt.
Amount: US$ 68 million equivalent.
Terms: Twenty years, including five years grace, at the standard variable interest rate.
ImplementingAgency: Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects.
Project Obiectives: The project's objectives would be to reverse the and Description: deteriorating salt and water balance in project areas, thereby increasing agricultural production, and to strengthen the Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects to improve standards of implementation,quality control, maintenance and monitoring. The project, to be implemented over 5 years, beginning in FY86, would provide continuing support to the Government'songoing drainage program. Based on experience gained from previous drainage projects and on the detailed preparatory work performed over the last two years, the project would include improvementsover current practices in selection of areas, design criteria, technical specificationsand implementationmethods. Open drain remodelling in about 280,000 feddans, and installationof tile drainage in 465,000 feddans wou,d be provided for drainage. Designs of tile drainage would be location specific, with the design capacity of open drains dependent on conditions of drainage basins. Maintenance centers and subcenters would be established and equipped to ensure adequate maintenance of project facilities. The Drainage Authority'smonitoring cell would be strengthened to improve the quality and timelinessof its reporting. -ii-
Benefits and Risks: The project would benefit some 120,000 farm families, and increase the value of agricultural production by about LE55 million/year at full development. Project's risks are minimal. The costs and benefits have been conservatively estimated on the basis of past experience, and implementationpace is based on current levels of performance.
Estimated Project Costs: Local Foreign Total - -(US$ million)---
Surface Drains 15.3 7.4 22.7 Subsurface Drains 51.0 62.5 113.5 Maintenance 7.6 6.0 13.6 Technical Assistance, and Monitoring and Evaluation 0.3 0.8 1.1 Total Base Cost 74.2 76.7 150.9 Physical Contingencies 7.4 7.5 14.9 Price Contingencies 19.5 12.8 32.3 Total Project Costs 101.1 97.0 198.1
Financing Plan: % of Local Foreign Total Total Cost ---- s(US$ million-
Bank - 68.0 68.0 34.3 AFDB - 18.0 18.0 9.1 AFDF - 10.0 10.0 5.1 GOE 101.1 1.0 102.1 51.5 Total 101.1 97.0 198.1 100.0
Estimated Disbursements: Bank Fiscal Year FY 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
-- --- (US$ million) -… Annual 2.0 5.0 19.0 20.0 15.0 7.0 Cumulative 2.0 7.0 26.0 46.0 61.0 68.0
Economic Rate of Return: 23% ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPr
DRAINAGE V PROJECT
SrAFF APPRAkSAL REPORT
L ll!TRODUCTION
1.01 Egypt has a total area of one million (M) squarekilometers (km 2 ) or 238 N feddans(fed), of which only about 3% is agriculturallyproductive. This arablearea of some 6.4 M fed amountsto only 0.14 fed per capita-- amongstthe lowestlevels of availabilityin the world.
1.02 The productivityof this limitedland resourcedepends upon irrigation. Followingcompletion of the High Aswan Dam (HAD)and the introductionof perennialsupplies to all irrigatedareas, cropping intensitiesand water use per unit of area have increasedsharply. A consequenceof intensifiedirrigation has been a risinggroundwater table, and increasedproblems of waterloggingand salinity. In responseto this challenge,the Govermentof Egypt (GOE) has attachedhigh priorityto preventinggroundwater to rise to harmfullevels on existinglands by installingtile drainage(subsurface drainage) systems. This work began in 1960, and has been supportedby the Bank Group since 1970 throughfour projects(with Credits/Loanstotalling US$178 M), for tile drainagein 1.350,000fed in the Nile Delta,and 800,000fed in Upper Egypt. The total area tile-drainedby the end of 1986 will amountto 3.1 M fed, representing about half of the irrigatedarea, and two-thirdsof the area requiring drainage. 1.03 The GOE has requestedfurther Bank supportfor the ongoingprograms in both Upper Egypt and the Delta. The proposedFifth DrainageProject was initiallyconceived during the preparationof the Nile Delta DrainageII Project(Credit 719-EGT and Loan 1439/40-EGT)that providedfor remodellingof open drainson 810,000fed and installationof tile drainson only 400,000 fed. When that projectwas appraisedin 1977, it was expectedthat another projectwould be needed to completethe subsurfacedrainage works in the projectarea.
1.04 ProjectPreparation was initiatedin 1983 with the help of a Food and AgriculturalOrganization/World Bank CooperativeProgram (FAO/CP) mission. In 1984, preparatorywork for a 10-YearInvestment Program was conductedby the ProjectPreparation Department (PPD) of the Ministryof Irrigation(MOI), financedunder TechnicalAssistance Credit 1162-EGT, and by the Egyptian PublicAuthority for DrainageProjects (EPADP). In August1984, the FAO/CP -2-
-isited Egypt to finalize a project preparation report, issued in September, covering the first time-slice of a 10-Year Program.
I. SECTOR
A. General
2.01 Egypt has a population estimated at about 45 M in 1984, increasing at an annual rate of over 2.6%. Arid desert land accounts for about 96.5S of the one M Km2 surface area, leaving only 35,500 km2 of urban and agriculturallyproductive land with a population density of about 1,400/km1. Almost 50S of the population is rural, its proportion having steadily declined from 62X in 1960. Average per capita annual income is US$640.
2.02 The land base for agricultural production consists of 5.5 M fed of "old" lands and 0.9 M fed of reclaimed lands-the so called "old-new" lands. The per capita cultivated area, which was 0.19 fed in 1960, is now only about 0.14 fed. The old-lands include all of the more fertile areas in the valley of the Nile and the Delta where about 971 of the nation's total agricultural production is generated. The old-new lands were developed from the late 1950s through the early 1970s, primarily on the marginal soils along the western edge of the Delta. Nearly all Egyptian agriculture is irrigated, and since completion of the HAD (1968), all irrigation is perennial.
B. AMriculture Ageiculture inthe Economy
2.03 The importance of agriculture in the Egyptian economy changed significantlyduring the 1970s. Historically, agriculture was the dominant sector, providing the bulk of employment and output, and crucial to foreign exchange earnings and receiving substantial budgetary support. The sector's vital role was reinforced by its strong performance during the 1952-70 period. During the 1960s, agricultural production grew at over 31 annually-an exceptional performance. given the relatively high base level.
2.04 In the 1970s, the pace of growth declined to around 21. Given that the high growth rates of the previous decade included the impact of controlled releases of water from Aswan, this does not reflect a significant change in the underlying growth trend and is still an impressive performance. However, other factors accentuated the slowdown in agriculturalgrowth: first, population continued to grow at over 2.51; second, per capita income grew very rapidly, and third, consumer prices for foodstuffs held to extremely low levels compounded the demand increases generated by the first two factors.
2.05 The net effect of these trends is summarized in Table 2.1: - 3 -
Table 2.1: Acricultural Sector Developments Some Key Indicators
1960 1974 1981
Share of Agriculture in value added (t) 28 25 20 Agricultural Exports as X of total Exports 33 25 9 AgriculturalTrade Balance (US$M, current prices) 255 300 -2,500 Self-sufficiency(%) in major products: Wheat 70 37 25 Rice 144 111 102 Sugar 114 96 53 Lentils 92 81 6 Cotton 400 232 150 Heat 95 99 73 Milk 94 93 62
Population Index 100 138 170
Aricultural Constraints
2.06 Three primary constraints to agricuitural growth are: (i) the very limited availabilityof agricultural land; (ii) the difficult situation with respect to the water table and soil salinity, and (iii) weaknesses in the institutionsresponsible for providing agricultural support services. In addition, outmigration of agricultural labor-both to cities and abroad--has resulted in labor shortages at times of peak demand. Further, the Government intervenes significantly to affect cropping patterns and procurement prices, causing distortions in the relative prices of products, and generally depressing the level of farm incomes. However, in the last two years, Government has increased the prices of some agricultural commodities,with a view to providing improved incentives to producers.
2.07 The land constraint is exacerbated by rapid urban encroachment into farm land estimated at 20,000-40,000 fed/year, and by falling productivity, and eventual loss of land, due to waterlogging and salinity. Institutional constraintsare important because the prime source of agriculturalgrowth will continue to be the old lands, where productivity is already relatively high, requiring sophisticated,well-organized, and high quality supporting services, particularlyextension. Constraints of a general nature include overlapping responsibilitiesamong Ministries, low public sector pay scales, and excessive governmentalintervention into pricing and marketing arrangements;more specific issues are the limited availability of high quality seeds, the lack of coomunicationsbetween researcher and farmer, and the inadequate operation, and poor maintenance of the irrigation system.
2.08 The labor constraint is difficult to quantify. Undoubtedly. there are labor shortages at times of peak agricultural demand. manifested by high and rapidly rising wage rates. The main contributory factors appear to be the migration of rural labor to urban areas and other countries in the Middle East, and the impact of remittances on work incentives for agricultural labor. -4-
Goverment Policies
2.09 These constraints, and the growing gap between agricultural production and consumption, are only partially addressed in the current plan (1982183-1986/87) allocations 1/. The gross allocation to the sector shows an increase(from 8Z to 131) in the proportionof total investmentprovided to agricultureas compared to the late 1970s. However,more than half of this amount is for new lands development-an activitywhich directlyaddresses the primaryconstraint of land scarcity,but which has been markedlyunsuccessful in the past, and does not seem to be justifiedin most instances,on technical or economic criteria. Further, if a large program of this nature is undertaken without a careful assessmentof viabilityin each instance,it will competewith existing irrigationfor the limitedwater resources. Of the residualinvestment in the sector,drainage -s appropriatelythe largest single item (about 301).
2.10 AgriculturalSupporting Services, which includeresearch, extension and input supply,account for only a small percentage of the investment plan, although increasesin yield and cropping intensityrepresent a direct alternativeto new land development. In January 1983, researchand extension serviceswere integratedunder the overalldirection of the Agricultural ResearchCenter (ARC) The objectivewas to ensure better coordinationof the two activities,improve quality of advice to farmers, and improverelevance of researchwork. However, in practice,this reorganizationdid not yield the expectedimprovements in inter-servicerelationships and, in early 1985, a MinisterialDecree returned the extensionservice to centralMOA control under an Undersecretary.MOA proposes to maintainand strengthenthe interrelationshipsbetween extensionand researchby regular interaction betweenextension and research officialsat all levels. Furthermore,MOA has, by Decree,established the extensionfunction as separatebut coordinatedwith agriculturalregulatory affairs at governoratelevel and below. By placing the extensionservice under an Undersecretaryhaving specific responsibility for extensionaffairs, the extensionservice will be in a much stronger positionto develop effectively,unencumbered by regulatoryfunctions, and yet maintainingclose relationshipswith the researchservice at all levels. In addition,the Ministry of Agriculture(MOA) has taken action through two InternationalFund for AgriculturalDevelopement (IFAD) projects-Minya and FayoumAgricultural Development Projects (appraisedand supervisedby the Bank)-to divide the currentagricultural service activities into regulatory/administrativefunctions on the one hand, and purely advisory (i.e.,extension) functions on the other. MOA also plans to extend this principleto six governoratesin the Delta under the Second Agricultural DevelopmentProject proposed for Bank financing(para. 3.22). The effects of these recent changes remain to be demonstratedbut the EgyptianMajor Cereals ImprovementProject (EMCIP)and the Rice Researchand Training Project (para. 3.24),supported by the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID),have shown that very large gains in productivitycan be attained. Under both these projects,substantial yield increaseshave been achieved over large areas, and it is now clear that Egyptianagro-climatic conditions are suitablefor even higher yield levels.
2.11 Agriculturalcredit and inputs such as seeds, fertilizersand
1/ For a more detailed review,see IBRD Report No. 5269-EGT,Arab Republicof Egypt - Review of Medium Term InvestmentProgram, October 1984. -5- pesticides are currentlysupplied to the farmer through the Governorate level Banks for Development and Agricultural Credit (BDACs). Inputs are often provided on credit and their costs are deducted from the amount due to the farmer from sale of compulsory quota crops, such as, cotton and wheat. While highly developed and widely available, the current structure of these services does not provide the farmer with much choice among alternative channels and often leads to parallel markets for inputs which are, at official prices, in short supply. Inpuas.supply services were provided by the village cooperatives up to 1977, and there are currently plans to reactivate that system in addition to allowing increased private sector participation in input marketing.
Bank Involvementin the Sector
2.12 Past Bank Group operations in the sector have sought to address major elements in the development strategy. The Bank serves as the executing agency for a UNDP-financedproject (EGY/84/007)for drawing up a master plan for water development and use. The major component of Bank lending, in terms of number of projects and resources committed, has been a series of four drainage projects (see para. 2.25 for details) covering 2.2 million fed of irrigated area. The ongoing Irrigation Pumping Stations Rehabilitation Project (Loan 2270-EGT) is the first phase of a national program to prevent crop losses due to drainage/irrigationpump failures and to strengthen the institution responsible for pumping stations. In this context, the Bank has also drawn attention to the important problem of inadequate maintenance in the drainage and irrigation projects and, as a result, the Government is now engaged in the preparation of a detailed plan, which is proposed to be partly financed by a future Bank operation (para. 2.24). The New Lands Development Project - West Nubariya (Credit 1083-ECT) became effective in October 1981, and involves the reclamation of 24,0CC fed desert land and settlement of 4,000 smallholders, with provision of infrastructure,social services and production facilities.
2.13 In the two IFAD Projects 1/, for which the Bank acts as supervisory agency, emphasis is given to research and extension services. The IDA-financed first Agricultural Development Project (Credit 830-EGT) sought, as a pilot project, tc raise productivity in two governorates, by improving the standard of farm mechanization and strengthening agricultural credit, cooperativesand extension services. Despite initial difficulties, progress has been made with the project, leading to a proposed second project. The Fruit and Vegetables Project (Loan 1276-EGT) includes a variety of components-credit to fruit and vegetable processors and exporters, constructionof the West Nubariya Drain, and a seed farm. This project has also been satisfactorilycompleted, except for the development of the seed farm.
2.14 Other agriculturalprojects financed by IDA/Bank include the Agroindustries I and II Projects (Credit 988-EGT and Loan 2243-EGT), and the Fish Farming Project (Credit llll-EGT). The Technical Assistance Project (Credit 1162-ECT) was designed to help government develop an institutional capacity to undertake planning, feasibility and engineering studies for agriculturalprojects; as a result, suitably equipped project preparation units have now been established in the Ministries of Irrigation and Lanc Reclamation.
1/ Fayoum and Minya AgriculturalDevelopment Projects. -6-
2.15 The main elements of Bank Group involvement in the sector have focused directly on the principal problem of maintaining and improving productivity in the old lands. In turn, this has improved the efficiency of the major organization involved, the EPADP. For the future, this emphasis should be broadened to improve supporting services in these areas, namely, improved research and extension, higher quality inputs, and better water management.
Aspects of the possible involvement of the Bank in the sector are being discussed by the Bank from time to time, with the Egyptian authorities, in the context of broader issues relating to the country's agricultural development strategy and with reference to the role of other sources of external financing.
C. Irigation and Drainage Subsector
Irrigation and Drainage Facilities
2.16 Nile Irrigation Sytem: The system which exists today in Egypt has evolved since 1861 and generates most of the nation's agricultural output. Extending to some 1,200 km below Aswan to the Mediterranean Sea, the system consists of two storage dams at Aswan, seven major barrages on the Nile that divert water into canals. and 31,000 km of canals encompassing 6.4 M fed in 50 command areas. The system is expanding. Some 0.9 M fed of irrigated land (mostly old-new lands) are at higher elevations, served by 178 main and 282 minor pump stations.
2.17 The canal system is operated and maintained by the Irrigation Sector of the MOI, and its Mechanical and Electrical Department (MED) maintains all pumping facilities (see Annex 2, Chart 3, World Bank - 26976 for MOI General Organization). The canals deliver water into meskas which are channels serving 100 to 300 fed. Meskas, in turn, feed marwas, which are farm ditches serving 10 to 100 fed. The iaeskaand marwa systems are owned, operated and maintained by farmers.
2.18 The overall irrigation system iD Egypt is unique. The water comes from a single source, the Upper Nile, and its availability to the system is controlled at a single point, the HAD. Amounts of water delivered into canals are controlled by channel levels rather than by flow measurements. The water distributionand use by farmers takes place within a complex framework of rotation based on a canal system, coupled with rotation among farmers at the meska level. Most farmers in old lands receive water in the meskas typically one-half meter (m) below the elevation of the fields, and pump it from there to the marwas using animal driven sakias (water wheels) or engine powered pumps.
2.19 The operation of the system by MOI is a vast undertaking involving the storage, release, diversion and conveyance of some 56,000 M cubic meters (m3) of water/year. The MOI regulates water supply to each canal command, normally based on monthly water indents prepared jointly by the regional offices of M0I and MOA. For irrigation, the peak demand at diversion point varies from 25 to 40 m3/day/fed, depending on climatic conditions, soil characteristics,crops and acreages in the area and efficiency of the irrigation system. In general, the water allocation rules are equitable. Since the HAD was commissioned, the supply of water has generally been sufficient to enable the farmers to achieve close to 200Z cropping intensity. 2.20 Drainage System. The drainage system for removing excess water from cultivated lands consists of open drains, tile drains and pump stations. The open drain system, built mostly between early 1900s-1965, serves almost 5.5 M fed (mostly old lands) and consists of 16,200 km of open channels. Since the late 1960s, GOE has initiated a series of tile drainage projects to relieve Egypt's waterlogging and salinity problems. In accordance with an agreement reached with IDA, a Presidential Decree, issued in 1973, established EPADP as a single unit, centrally controlled enterprise under the jurisdictionof MOI, with responsibilityfor executing all drainage works in Egypt (para. 7.01). With continuing support from the Bank to the drainage program and the EPADP, the rate of development has increased, and EPADP has become one of the strongest institution in the agriculture sector. As of June 1984, some 2.6 M fed have been provided with subsurface drainage and improved open drain systems. This figure is increasing annually at about 170,000 to 200,000 fed. The drainage operation requires pump stations at various locations. There are currently 73 main and 23 minor pump stations devoted to pumping drainage effluent.
2.21 In areas where tile drains have been installed, EPADP is responsible for maintaining both surface (exceptingmain drains) and subsurface drains (para. 7.01). Open drains in other areas and all main drains are maintained by the Irrigation Sector on the same basis as irrigation canals. As in the case of irrigation, all drainage pump stations operate under the responsibilityof MED.
Problems Associated with Irlgation and Drainame
2.22 Irrigation. The most pressing problems confronting Egypt's canal system are limited control provided by structures, many of which are only partially functional, and inadequate system operation. The MOI, with assistance from USAID, has undertaken a major effort to address these problems. The main elements of USAID's Irrigation Management Systems Project (IMSP) 1/ include rehabilitationor replacement of deterioratedstructures throughout the canal system and a telemetry network to provide water level data from about 200 locations. The structures improvement program began in 1982, and is scheduled for completion by 1988. The data provided by the telemetry system will be compared with requirementsand then fed as input into the Lake Nasser 2/ Simulation Model and the Operating DistributionModel to calculate future operating strategies for the system.
2.23 Drainage. In non-tiled areas, open drains still operate in their original form to maintain the water level 1.5 m below the ground surface. This restrictivedesign and the absence of field drains limit their capability to have a significant effect on the water table. Therefore, the continuous and expanding use of Nile water for irrigation has resulted in a gradual rise in the groundwater table, bringing with it critical problems of waterlogging and salinity in most areas which do not have subsurface drainage to control depth of water table. A predrainage survey carried out in 1984 (para. 3.09) showed that waterlogging is widespread throughout the northern parts of the Delta and is a problem in some scattered areas in Upper Egypt. Thus, GOE is continuing to give high priority to its drainage program (para. 2.09).
2.24 Maintenance of Canals and Open Drains. The problem relates both to
1/ IMSP - USAID 263-0132 of July, 1981. 2/ Reservoir Impounded by HAD. - 8 -
the size of the system and also to the agro-climatic conditions which encourage profuse weed growth in open channels. Maintenance standards and techniques are to be improved under a separate, coordinated program of the MOI. The PPD in the MOI is preparing a comprehensive Channel Maintenance Plan (CMP), as agreed with the Bank in March 1984. In preparing the Plan, the PPD has taken expert advice on the usefulness and safety of applying chemical controls and methods. CMP would include an assessment of current maintenance needs. This work has benefitted from an evaluation of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) for the Gharbia Directorate performed in 1983 by PPD as part of IMSP. CMP would also include: (a) a schedule of channel maintenance work; (b) capability of equipment available with mechanized companies of MOI; (c) equipment and supplies needed to carry out the plan; (d) cost estimates for 5 to 10 years, and (e) design of a program for monitoring the maintenance operations. A supporting Irrigation and Drain Maintenance Project is expected to be prepared, with assistance from FAO/CP, by the end of 1985, and is to be considered for Bank financing in FY87.
PreviLousBank Involvementin Dmainage
2.25 The Bank Group's involvement with drainage in Egypt was initiated in December 1970 under the Nile Delta Drainage I Project(credit 181-UAR for US$26 M). That project, the first IDA operation in the agriculture sector, covered the improvement of drainage on 950,000 fed. Subsequently, three more projects were approved for drainage improvement: the Upper Egypt I (Credit 393-UAR for US$36 M), the Upper Egypt II (Credit/Loan637/1285-EGT for US$50 M), and the Nile Delta II (Credit/Loan 719/1439-40-EGTfor US$66 M). In total, IDA has allocated US$129 M for the drainage program and. the Bank US$49 M. The total area covered by the Bank Group supported projects is 2.56 M fed (47Z of old lands) for open drains, and 2.15 M fed (40Z of old lands) for tile drains. In addition, these projects provided for the construction of 22 new pump stations and rehabilitation of 2 existing stations.
2.26 The IDA/Bank participation in the drainage program has helped attract the support of other donors, such as, USAID (US$30 M for the Upper Egypt II Project) and the Federal Republic of Germany (US$24 M for the Nile Delta II Project). The Dutch bilateral program has contributed over US$4 M for technical assistance (para. 7.05) and for establishinga tile drainage project on 40,000 fed.
2.27 Implementationdelays of three to four years have been common to all of the Bank Group-supported drainage projects. The earlier projects were affected by the 1973 war and its aftermath. Additionally, start-up delays, management problems and overly optimistic appraisal assumptions were the underlying factors in all four projects. The weakness of public sector contractorsand delays in installing tile drainage have been particular problems with the later projects. Table 2.1 shows the current status and schedule for completing field drainage in ongoing projects: -9-
Table 2.2: Implementation of Field Drainage under Ongoig Projects
Completion Scheduled Progress by Half Yearly Semester Total Achieved Project Area 12/31/84 06/85 12/85 06/86 12/86 06/87 _ _ __ Fed -
Nile Delta II 400,000 267,000 50,000 50,000 33,000 - -
Upper Egypt II 493,000 251,000 55,000 49,000 55,000 45,000 38,000
Source: EPADP.
2.28 Closing dates for both projects have been extended by two years (Upper Egypt Drainage II, June 1985; Nile Delta Drainage II, December 1985). Despite delays in implementation, the estimated rates of return are not expected to be much lower than anticipated because for each drainage catchment an operationally independent subproject can be built, and benefits normally become available immediately upon completion of each subproject rather than on completion of the total project. Post evaluation 1/ of the Nile Delta I Project indicated an Economic Rate of Return (ERR) of 17-25% compared to appraisaL estimate of 18%. For the Upper Egypt I Project 2/, though no precise estimate of ERR was made, it was concluded that only a 5Z incremental yield was Lcquired to assure a satisfactory rate of return. EPADP's time-series data for about 35% of the project area reported yield increases, after drainage, of 9% for both wheat and cotton, and 15% for maize.
2.29 The proposed Project would be the fifth in the series of drainage projects. The principal lessons derived from past experience in drainage projects in Egypt-the need for selectivity, realistic planning, site-specific designs, and maintainance of the system and monitoring performance-have been brought out in the Project Performance Audit Reports (PPARs) 31 of the first two projects. These factors, together with supervision experience in ongoing projects, have been taken into account in formulating the design for the proposed project. The more significant of such features are: (a) introduction of technical criteria for selection of areas most in need of drainage; (b) spacing of field drains on site-specific conditions; (c) improvements in technical designs, including modified layout for rice areas; (d) agreement on more realistic implementation goals, based on recent experience; (e) increased attention to construction management and quality control; (f) effective monitoring of the effects of drainage on water table, soil salinity and crop yield, and (g) more effective maintenance of project facilities.
Drainage Projects to be Financed by Other Donors
2.30 The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has reached an
1/ Project Completion Report, Nile Delta Drainage I Project, July 1981. 2/ Project Completion Report, Upper Egypt Drainage I Project, June 1982. 3/ PPAR, Nile Delta Drainage I Project, June 1982, and PPAR, Upper Egypt Drainage I Project, June 1984. - 10 - agreement with GOE to finance an Integrated Soil and Water Improvement Project (ISAWIP) covering 80,000 fed in Gharbia Governorate (see Map, IBRD 18733). Total project cost for the five-year implementationperiod is estimated at US$57 M equivalent, of which CIDA's contributionwould be about US$31 M equivalent. The project, as planned, consists of an integrated package of eight components, including remodelling of open drains and installation of field drains in 50,000 fed, and the construction of a polyethelenepipe factory for producing drainage collector pipes. For the drainage component, the ERR is estimated at about 21Z. Three test areas would be established under the project for monitoring of results and evaluating the project impact.
2.31 The Hamoul Drainage and Soil Improvement Project, approved by the European Economic Community, covcrs 65,000 fed reclaimed from Lake Burullus in the early sixties. The project area is located in Kafr el Sheikh Governorate, north of the proposed program areas (see para. 4.02 and Map, IBRD 18733). The five-year project includes ditching and land improvement works in 30,000 fed, installation of pipe drains in 35,000 fed and improvement of irrigation infrastructure. Total project cost in 1981 prices amounts to US$40 M equivalent. The ERR of the pipe drainage program is estimated at 25%.
ILL PROGRAM AND PROJECT AREA
Physical Features
3.01 Location. The proposed project would form a part of EPADP's 10-Year Program of drainage works (para. 1.04) which covers a gross (total physical) area of 1.33 M fed. The areas encompassed by both the Program and the project are located in four Governorates in the Delta, namely, Sharkiya, Daqahliya, Kafr el Sheikh and Beheira, and four Governorates in Upper Egypt: Giza, Beni Suef, Fayoum and Minya. Details of drainage catchment areas for both the Program and the project are given in Annex 3 (Table 3) and their boundaries are shown on two Maps, IBRD 18733 and 18734.
3.02 The project area comprises 465,000 gross fed, of which the major part, 381,000 fed (82%), is located in 11 drainage basirs in the east, west and central parts of the Delta. The remaining 84,000 fed is distributed in 9 catchment areas in Upper Egypt, extending from Giza near Cairo to Minya, about 200 km south. The project area has been selected on grounds of both drainage need, and the logistical requirementswhich would lend to a cost effective constructionprogram (para. 4.09).
3.03 Climate. The climate in the area is warm and dry, with a mild winter extending from November to March, and a hot sulnierfrom May to September. It supports a continuous growing season for irrigated crops. The mean monthly temperature in the Delta area ranges between 11.9°C and 26.6°C, while in Upper Egypt the range is 12.3°C to 28.5°C. Annual rainfall tends to decrease inland from approximately120 millimeters (mm) along the northern coastal area, to about 78 mm at Kafr el Sheikh, located at the center of the Delta area, to around 26 mm at Giza. South of Giza, precipitation is negligible. Relative humidity is surprisingly high for an arid region, ranging from 52% to 75% in the Delta area and 36% to 58% in Upper Egypt.
3.04 Topography and Soils. The topography of the valley of che Nile and its delta is generally very flat from south to north, and somewhat more pronounced from both east and west towards the river. From Aswan to the - 11 -
Mediterranean Sea, average slope is 1 in 13,000 or about 8 centimeters (cm)/km. Natural drainage under the best of circumstances is very slow, even though the soils have a thick base of permeable sands and gravel.
3.05 Most of the soils are of recent alluvial origin and, when adequately drained and managed, are highly productive. In the Delta areas, the alluvium veries from light to heavy clay, with the heavier clay occurring toward the north. Exceptions to the dominance of clay can be found along the Damietta Branch of the Nile and scattered throughout the middle Delta where silty clay and sandy clay loams occur. Other exceptions are along the desert fringes where fine sandy layers occur in small patches in the Western Delta and scattered subdeltaic deposits of sandy soils underlie silty sand and silty clay in the Eastern Delta. The soils in the north and northwest part of the Delta are composed of marine alluvium. There are heavy clays in the Lake Idku region, and clays to silty clays to a depth of 50 to 120 cm, above marine shells mixed with sand and clay near Lake Maryut. In Upper Egypt areas, the recent alluvium is mostly clay to clay loam.
3.06 Canal System and Irrigation Water Supplies. The areas in need of drainage in Upper Egypt are in the command of Assiut Barrage, which is 360 km south of Cairo (see Map, IBRD 18734). Each sub-area is served by a network of irrigation canals and open drains. The areas located in Lower Egypt are commanded by Delta, Zifta and Edfina Barrages, which are located respectively 25, 78 and 198 km north of Cairo (see Map, IBRD 18733). A complex network of main and feeder canals, irrigation channels,and main and branch drains serves these areas. Table 3.1 summarizes the data on canals and open drains in the Delta, broken down by Governorates.
Table3.1 Sunary of Canalsand Drains
Governorate Gross Area Total Length (km)
_M fed) Canals a/ Drains
Sharkiya 0.63 2,494 1,458 Daqahliya 1.03 3,547 2,592 Kafr el Sheikh 0.53 1,687 1,231 Beheira 0.70 2.308 1,864 Total: 2.89 10,036 7,145
a/ Includes feeder canals offtaking from Zifta and Edfina Barrages.
Source: MOI - Water Master Plan Project.
3.07 Irrigation supplies in the Delta area range between 6,800 to 8,900 m3/year/fed (for cropping intensity close to 200%) in lafr el Sheikh and Beheira respectively. Irrigation supplies higher than the Delta are generally used in Upper Egypt with the exception of Fayoum Governorate where it averages about 6,400 m3 /year/fed. The peak demand during summer varies from 25 to 40 m /day/fed.
3.08 The considerableland slope enables water to be distributed by gravity in the Fayoum Basin, and water supply is continuous, 24 hours, seven - 12 - days/week operation. This feature is unique in Egypt (para. 2.18). Elsewhere, water is distributed by irrigation channels on a rotation basis. Rotations vary with crop and soil, but generally are: 7 days on/7 days off in summer, 7 days on/14 days off,in winter, and 4 days on/4 days off for rice. Despite some shortcomings of the canal system (para. 2.22) in effectively controllingwater supply, its performance is manifest in achieving 190-200% cropping intensities and generally high yields at reasonable conveyance efficiencies (over 60%).
3.09 Groundwater Conditions and Soil Salinity. In order to select areas to be drained on a more methodical basis than in earlier projects, the Field Investigationand Design Division (FIDD) of EPADP carried out reconnaissance investigationsin 1984 to identify areas which had high water tables; at the same time, the soil salinity status was established and hydraulic permeability measurementswere made. A total of 2,800 groundwater depth determinations were made in the Delta and Nile Valley, according to a plan designed to avoid bias due to fluctuations in the water table. This work also benefitted from, and was improved by, some detailed investigationscarried out for field drainage designs in a few selected areas. The results of the investigations were plotted on 1:100,000 and 1:150,000 scale plans by EPADP/PPD and are given in Annex 3, Tables 1 and 2. The plots showed that in the Delta area a generally high water table of 100 cm or less below the ground level occurred in all the drainage catchment areas being included for the program. In the Nile Valley, the situation is less severe, but some areas in the Governorates of Giza, Beni Suef, Fayoum and Minya do suffer from a high water table problem. In other areas, an acceptable depth to water table was found, particularly in the Governoratessouth of Minya.
3.10 The Delta showed large areas of moderate soil salinity (below 6 m.mhoslcm) with some areas, particularly in the more northern catchments, having soil salinity levels which could seriously affect crop yields (see Annex 3, Table 1). The soil salinity status in the Nile Valley could not be established clearly during appraisal since determinationsof soil salinity were not available for many of the areas considered at that time. Nevertheless, some indication was given from the groundwater salinity determinations. In view of the known relation between raised soil salinity levels and groundwater salinity, it appears that salinity is presently not a great hazard in the Nile Valley. On the basis of these data, areas where the water table and soil salinity status did not impede crop production were excluded from the program.
3.11 Hydraulic Permeabilityof the Soils. The hydrauLic permeability of the soils varies from less than 10 cm/day in heavy soils to 50 cm/day, or sometimes considerablymore, in lighter soils. Soils having a low to very low permeabilitypredominate, especially in the east and middle parts of the Delta. The results of permeabilitymeasurements by drainage catchment are presented in Annex 3, Tables 1 and 2.
3.12 Drainage PumPing Stations. Of the 31 pumping stations in the Delta devoted to pumping drainage water from the areas included in the 10-Year - 13 -
Program, only 11 evacuate drainage water from the project area (see Annex 3, Table 3, for catchments served by pumping stations). These pumping stations are in the northern part of the Delta and generally discharge the drainage effluent into the sea or into coastal lakes. They,vary in age from some built in 1954 to those that are just being completed. The effective operation and maintenance (O&M) of these pumping stations would be crucial to the success of subsurface drainage in the Delta.
Demographic Features, Farm Size and Land Tenure
3.13 Rural Population. About 530,000 farms are planned to be covered by the 10-Year Program. Of these, about 139,000 farms would derive benefit during the project period (Annex 6, Table 8). The total farm population involved in the whole Program is estimated to be 2.6 M, and about 828,000 of the rural population would directly benefit from the project.
3.14 Land Tenure and Farm Size. Under the Agrarian Reform Laws which followed the 1952 revolution, some 1 M fed were redistributedto those having little or no land, and farm size was limited to 50 fed for an individual and 100 fed for a family of three. In practice, holdings are much smaller (90% are less than 5 fed, 40% less than 1 fed). In the proposed project areas, the average net farm size is 3.1 fed in the Delta and 2.1 fed in Upper Egypt (Annex 5, Table 8). Fragmentation of holdings has become an important characteristicof agriculture in Egypt: in the last three decades in the project area in the Delta, the number of owners has increased from 78,000 to 218,000. Similarly, in Upper Egypt, the average number of owners increased from 45,000 to 143,000 during the same period.
3.15 Land leasing is common and is the major factor in land consolidation. Whereas there is no formal land consolidation program, a benefit of Government's annual crop consolidation plan is that it allows large contiguous areas of the major crops to be grown by individual farmer (para. 3.17). The average ownership holding is less than 2 fed but the average farm size, including land leased in, is 3 fed. Approximately 50% of all land under cultivation is farmed under some type of leasehold arrangement.
AgriculturalProduction
3.16 Cropping Patterns and Cropping Intensities. The cropping pattern in Egypt is affected by a number of factors including Government quotas, farmer's food needs and degree of commercialization,as well as soil and climate limitations. The most common practice followed in the Delta and Upper Egypt is the three-year rotation based on three major crops-cotton, full-term berseem (Egyotian clover) and wheat--each of which occupies the land for about 5 to 7 months. These three crops are planted in the same plot once every three years, interspersed with broad beans, rice and maize. The dominant cropping rotation is thus as shown in Table 3.2: - 14 -
Table 3.2: CropPing Rotation
Season Winter Summer
Year 1 1 Legume 2 Cotton Year 2 3 Full-term Berseem 4 Maize/Rice Year 3 5 Wheat 6 Maize/Rice
3.17 Cotton, wheat and rice are usually farmed in large contiguous blocks arranged at the village level by the cooperatives, thereby making farm operations more efficient. Farmers often own land in each of the major crop blocks. All farms also grow other cash crops, especially vegetables, and most farms also have some perennial crops, mainly sugarcane in Upp"'rEgypt and citrus in the Delta (grapes are also important in West Delta). There is some regional specializationgoverned mainly by climate, soil conditions and water availability. In Upper Egypt, berseem may be replaced by beans and lentils as the winter crop and, during the summer, sorghum may be planted instead of maize in the hotter areas. In the northern part of the Delta, where the required amount of water is available and incidence of waterlogging is high, rice replaces maize in the crop rotation.
3.18 The cropping pattern in the project area varies within and between districts in the Delta as well as from that in Upper Egypt. A representative cropping pattern, followed in the project areas, is presented in Table 3.3:
Table3.3: CroppingPattern by Sub-areas
Crops East Middle West Upper Delta Delta Delta Egypt -Percentage of Land Cultivated-- Wheat 28 33 31 25 Berseem (full and short term) 55 56 42 46 Cotton 28 31 26 16 Rice 44 43 35 - Maize (summer and short term) 20 12 26 55 Vegetables & Others 12 13 28 42 Perennials 8 8 8 12
Average Crop Intensity 195 196 196 196
3.19 Agricultural Inputs and Services. Agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers,pesticides) are supplied to the farmer through the local BDAC which also provides credit (para. 2.11). The network of supply points is well developed throughout the area.
3.220 The extension service has recently been placed under an Undersecretaryin MOA (para. 2.10), and the regulatory and extension services have been bifurcated whilst retaining close working level interrelationships. Similarly, close interrelationshipsbetween extension and research will be fostered at all levels. In the Governorates of Minya and Fayoum, the extension services are being improved under IFAD-financedprojects (para. 3.22). - 15 -
3.21 Yields and Production. Average yields in Egypt generally exceed the world averages. Some crops such as rice and sugarcane have average yields that are the highest in the developing world. Soils have a high potential, water is of good quality and the climate is highly favorable for all crops that are grown; indeed, if Egyptian yields are compared to regions in other countries with similar climate and irrigation supplies, it is clear that very substantial increases in yield are possible with known technology. The average yields and production for each area are presented in Annex 5 Table 1.
ProjectsImpacting on DrainageV Project
3.22 Three IFAD and Bank supported projects that will have a strong influence on agricultural developement in the project area are the Minya Agricultural Development Project (IFAD Loan 114-EG), the Fayoum Agricultural Development Project (IFAD Loan 157-EG) and the proposed Second Agricultural Development Project, being processed for Bank financing (para. 2.10). The first two projects have, as their main focus, the promotion of governorate level agricultural development, especially through improved extension, research and credit services. Research would be strengthened and extension service reorganized using the Training and Visit (T & V) system. The Second Agricultural Development Project would be carried out in seven governorates (Sharkiya, Daqahliya, Kafr el Sheikh, Beheira, Fayoum, Damietta and Gharbiya of which the first five are involved in the Drainage V Project), concentrating on the introduction of improved technological packages, including farm mechanization, and their timely application. Since the drainage program is principally concerned with the alleviation of a physical soil constraint, projects aimed at removing constraints related to lack of knowledge and inputs as well as adoption of technology by farmers are complementary and reinforcing.
3.23 Aside from the above projects, there are several MOA/USAID programs that are also complementary to, and supportive of, the proposed Drainage V Project. These projects are mentioned briefly below; details may be found in the project file.
3.24 Under crop production, perhaps the most significant programs in the country are the Rice Research and Training Project, the EMCIP and the Agricultural Development Systems Project. The first project which began in 1978 has provided new information on rice production, seed processing and storage. A National Rice Institute at Sakha (near Kafr el Sheikh) is being established under that project. The field demonstrations and techniques employed there have proven to be highly effective in terms of farmers' adoption of technical packages. The EMCIP program is expected to improve production yields for cereal grains (wheat, maize, sorghum and barley), food legumes and forage crops. Progress so far has been good, based on procedures shown to be effective in the rice project (para. 2.10). The Agricultural Development Systems Project is providing technical assistance for a range of agricultural activities, alongside field demonstration of horticultural crops.
IV. THE 10-YEAR DRAINAGE PROGRAM AND ITS PHASING
4.01 Egypt's investments in drainage have, until now, been on a project by project basis, and long-term planning of staffing and equipment have - 16 - consequentlybeen hampered. To overcomethis problem,MOI has drawn up a 10-YearInvestment Program (para. 1.04) based on pre-drainagesurveys (para. 3.09). The proposedproject comprises the first pk.se of this Program. Hence,the qbjectives,criteria for selectionof areas,initial phasing, and technicalalternatives are generallycommon to the Programand the proposed project. Objectivesand SeoPe
4.02 The main objectivesof the DrainageProgram at full developmentwould be: (a) to increaseagricultural productivity on 1.12 M fed net area (1.33 M fed gross area-see Annex 3, Table 3, for area by catchment,and Maps, IBRD 18733 and 18734,for locationof catchments)by providingadequate drainage infrastructurefor the area to improveits drainability,and (b) to transport excesswater and salt out of the area, thus reversingdeterio.ation of the land resourcebase. Of the total net area, about 1 M fed are locatedin the northernparts of the Delta and 120,000fed in Upper Egypt. These objectives would be achievedby: (a) loweringthe water table throughthe installationof subsurfacefield and collectordrains; (b) improvingthe open drainsdisposal systemfor removalof drainageeffluent, and (c) ensuringthat the drainage pumping stations (para. 3.12) are of adequatecapacity and are efficiently operatedand maintained. Concurrently,the Programprovides for the strengtheningof EPADP to improvedesign, supervision, and management activities,with particularemphasis on improvementof monitoringand evaluation (MLE) and maintenance.
SL.-eetiesof Areas
4.03 The primary guide for selecting areas for subsurfacedrainage is a consideration of the closeness of the water table to the groundsurface. Where it is less than 1 m, its effectis to depresscrop yields. This is caused by saturation of a part of the root zone and, in most cases,by an increase in soil salinity.
4.04 During the 1984 investigationsfor depth to water table and soil salinity (paras. 3.09 and 3.10), EPADPsurveyed some 1.2 M fed in the Delta and 0.5 M fed in Upper Egypt. The mean samplingdensity was one observation/2,600 fed. Based on these investigations, and on the criteriafor selection of areas suggested by FAO/CP, EPADPproposed to include in the 10-yearprogram 1.2 N fed in the Delta and 0.3 M fed in Upper Egypt. Whilst the area surveyedin the Delta is characterizedby waterloggingand salinity in varying degrees,the area requiringdrainage in Upper Egypt was further reducedto 144,000fed by applyingmore appropriatetechnical criteria (para. 4.05). Detailsof the 1.33 M fed, now formingpart of the Program,are shown in Annex 3, Table 3.
4.05 The technicalcriteria for final selectionof areas include the following:(a) at least 75Z of an area to be tile drainedshall be shown by site investigation(uniform sampling density for both water table and soil salinityat one observation/1,000fed) to have a water table closer to the groundsurface than 100 cm, and (b) high priorityto be given in such cases where the soil salinityis shown by field samplingand laboratory determinationto be above 4 m. mhos/cmat 25-C saturatedsoil extract,using compositesamples over depth of 0 to 50 cm. It will generallybe desirableto assess the depth to water table in rice areas during the winter, and to take - 17 - repeated measurements in areas where significant seasonal fluctuations of water table may be expected.
Phasingof Prorm
4.06 A study of depth to water table plans (para. 3.09) identified 40 drainage catchments totalling 1.33 M fed with a generally high water table. Following this, the catchments which needed priority drainage were ranked according to their soil salinity status. The establishment of a work site is a considerable undertaking, and it is thus not realistic to implement drainage works in small, scattered patches. These practical considerationshave also been taken into account in the phasing of the Program (para. 4.09).
4.07 Drain spacing and the need for envelope material, as hydraulic conductivityof the soils varies, are the prime determinants of cost/fed. Based on the measurements of hydraulic permeability,drainable surplus (1.0 to 1.2 mm/day) and an average 1.4 m required depth of tile drains, the computed drain spacings range from 20 to 80 m in most drainage catchments. The weighted average drain spacing for the program areas is about 50 m for both Upper Egypt and the Delta. Within the Delta, the average spacings are about 60. 45 and 40 m for East, Middle and West Delta sub-areas respectively. In Egyptian soils, gravel envelope of required grading, dependent upon soil type, is used generally around field drains for spacings of 60 m or more, or where unstable soils are encountered at drain depth. This practice is based upon the criteria laid down in 1978 by the Dutch-EgyptianPanel on Land Drainage (;:ara.7.05) that in soils where the clay content exceeds 401, field drains may be laid without any cwvolopc material. In 1984, the Panel confirmed technical acceptability of this criteria based on review of: (a) results in experimentalareas; (b) reports made by various experts on the use of envelope material in Egyptian soils; (c) aggregate stability of clayey soils in the Nile Valley, and {d) performance of systems installed without envelope material.
4.08 The cost of installing field drains at 50 m spacing is about LE 250/fed. Table 4.1 illustrates the cost variations attributable to variation in drain spacing: Table 4.1: Comparison of Subsurface Draie Co6t
--- Without Envelope- --- With Envelope---
Drain Spacing (m) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cost LE/fed 310 276 259 250 258 250 246 Z variation (compared to 50 m spacing) +24.0 +10.4 +3.6 - +3.2 - -1.6
The above figures show that the cost of installing tile drains in the various parts of the Delta and in Upper Egypt would rarely exceed LE 275/fed.
4.09 The Program has been formulated within the limitations imposed by the feasible rate of implementation. The main consideration in scheduling the - 18 - amount of development to take place annually was EPADP's current implementation capability of about 200,000 fed/year. Allowance for the demand from other projects (paras. 2.30 and 2.31) reduced the expected implementation rate for the Program in its early years to about 170,000 gross fed/year. Most areas selected for developmentduring the initial years are those which had already been provided with remodelled open drains. This approach would ensure that benefits from investmentsalready made would not be delayed. Further, a suitable combination of drainage contracts was planned (see Annex 3, Charts 1 and 2, World Bank - 26974 and 26978) to ensure that the letting of contracts would be consistent with the provision of construction equipment economically. Other main considerationswere that: (a) completion of ongoing projects (para. 2.27) should not conflict with the program objectives; (b) the existing pumping stations (para. 3.12) should be fully operational; (c) under the ongoing programs, constructionof new and rehabilitationof existing pumping stations should take place, and (d) where necessary, prior remodelling of open drains should be carried out in a cost effective manner. Furthermore, the proposed Program takes into account the time required for planning and design, and a realistic assessment of administrativeand financing needs.
Evaluationof TeehnicalAlternatives
4.10 There are two alternative methods which could be used to alleviate the rising water table in the Program areas. These are closely-spacedopen drains, and drainage by deep wells (vertical drainage).
4.11 Closely-spacedopen drains, although a technically feasible alternative, cannot be used in the Program area because farmers would lose 10 to 15% of land from their already very small holdings (para. 3.14). Such a system would cost about US$250/fed for land acquisition alone and would thus be a costlier alternative. In addition, it would take about 150,000 fed out of production and increase the problem of open drain maintenance which is currently not being handled efficiently. This alternative, therefore, is not acceptable.
4.12 Vertical drainage, where practicable,would involve annualized cost/fed which would be comparable to that for tile drainage. With fully integrated use of groundwater and surface water in the zones with usable deep groundwater,vertical drainage might ultimately prove to be a better solution than tile drainage. Its feasibility,however, would depend on evaluation of additional data to be collected, and on the possibility of using the pumped effluent.
4.13 Vertical drainage cannot be considered as an alternative to tile drainage in 1.2 M fed in the Northern Delta because of high groundwater salinity and thickness of clay cap, and hence low economic and technical viability. Furthermore, groundwater pumping in some of the areas would induce sea water intrusion into the aquifer. In the Valley, about 840,000 fed have already been provided with subsurface drains and a further 260,000 fed are scheduled to be completed by June 1987, as part of the ongoing projects. This leaves about 144,000 fed (para. 4.04) with high water table problems, of which only 62,000 fed overlie aquifer containing usable groundwater. The scope of vertical drainage is thus limited. - 19 -
4.14 There are also practical problems in implementingvertical drainage in Egypt-the most important being the lack of experience in installing and operating deep well projects for agriculture. At present, the Groundwater Research Institute (GRI) of MOI is establishing two vertical drainage test areas, each of 4,000 fed, at Mallawi (close to the Program area in Upper Egypt) and Deir Mawas (outside the Program area in the South Delta). The installationof wells, investigationsand studies will take more than four years to complete. The results should provide data which would be useful to ascertain the effectiveness of vertical drainage in lowering the phreatic water table in the clay cap and its viability on a wide scale. In particular, it may be preferable to drain by deep wells some areas where irrigation development at higher elevations is believed to be causing waterlogging of old lands. Such areas are not a part of the proposed project, but could be considered in a later phase. xnplementation Schedule and Estimated Cost of the Program
4.15 The schedule for remodelling of open drains (417,000 fed) is shown in Annex 3, Chart I (World Bank - 26974) and for installation of subsurface drains (1.12 M fed) in Annex 3, Chart 2 (World Bank - 26978). These schedules reflect the agreement reached with EPADP on the phasing of the Program and the factors considered in phasing (para. 4.09). The implementationof these two main components is estimated to proceed as shown in Annex 3, Table 4.
4.16 The cost of the full development,estimated in April 1985 prices, is about £E628 M (US$502 M) of which £E338 M (US$270 M) are local costs and £E290 M (US$232 M) are foreign costs. The total cost includes £E40 M (US$32 M) for physical contingenciesand £E191 M (US$153 M) for price contingencies. The taxes and duties, including contingencies,amount to about E?:71M (US$57 M). In the estimated cost for the Program, the cost of iraintenanceduring implementation has been included for the period of each phase. Cost estimates are given in Annex 3, Tables 5 and 6. Detailed cost estimates by component are available in the Project File.
V. THE PROJECT
A. Project Rationale, Scope and Summamr Description
Project Rationale
5.01 The increased intensity of water use since the commissioning of HAD has led to rising water table, an" in increased soil salinity in many areas served only by open drains (para. 2.53). Much has been learned about the problems of the subsector during t;aeYmnk's long and substantial involvement with drainage in Egypt. The im .coverezztsto be introduced under the proposed project include: (a) selection c.Zpr*--ect area on the basis of priority need for drainage; (b) improvements in .echnicaldesigns; (c) more realistic implementationgoals; (d) increased attention to constructionmanagement and quality control; (e) effective M&E, and (f) improvements in O&M. Implementationof these improvementswould significantly enhance the cost effectivenessand the quality of drainage program, which is the second largest element in agricultural investment in Egypt, after land reclamation (para. 2.09). - 20 -
5.02 Within the context of drainage of the remaining over 2 N fed in Egypt in general, and for the 10-Year Program in particular, thes. improvements are timely. The works proposed under the project would be undertaken in areas where water table and soil stability conditions are far more difficult than previously encountered, and hence the improved design, construction and quality control standards are essential. Furthermore, Egypt's budgetary situation is becoming increasingly tight, and the selectivity proposed under the project (para. 4.05) would ensure improved allocation of scarce resources. Finally, the knowledge gained from the Bank Group's past involvement in the subsector provided the basis for discussing, and agreeing upon, the urgently needed changes.
Project Scope
5.03 Within the framework of the objectives set out in para. 4.02, the proposed project would finance the first time-slice of GOE's 10-Year Drainage Program (para. 4.16). The project drainage works would include: (a) remodelling of open main and branch drains on 280,000 fed, and (b) subsurface drainage system to provide relief for 465,000 fed gross (see Annex 3, Table 3, for area by catchment and Maps, IBRD 18733 and 18734, for location of catchments). These drainage works would be executed by EPADP. Other project components include improvements to ensure more effective M & E, adequate O&M of project facilities and training and technical assistance. The project would also provide equipment for automatic measurement of flow rates in canals.
Summary Description
5.04 The project works would include:
'i) Surface Drainage. Remodelling of about 667 km of existing surface drains;
(ii) Subsurface Drainage. (a) Installationof about 3,900 km of collectors and 46,200 km of field drains, with associated field and outfall structures for subsurface drainage of about 416,000 fed net, and (b) production of about 50,600 km of 80 mm corrugated PVC pipes for field drains;
(iii) Maintenance of Surface and Subsurface Drains. (a) Construction of 9 maintenance centers and 90 subcenters; (b) provision of maintenance equipment for both surface and subsurface drains and of special weed-cutting plant for intensive testing, and (c) maintenance of completed drainage works during the project implementationperiod, and
(iv) Other Components.
(a) Training and Technical Assistance would include short-term expatriate consultants, and local consultants to assist in establishing a monitoring and evaluation system in EPADP, and 43 man-months of practical training of EPADP engineers in countries with comparable drainage facilities; - 21 -
(b) Strengtheningof Drainage Research Institute(DRI) for assisting EPADP in determiningnormative discharge for design of field drains in areas having upward seepage, and for developingrelationships between yield, water table and soil salinity;
(c) Monitoring and EvaluationProgram for monitoring the project's implementation progress and the impact of field drainage on water table, soil salinityand crop yield, and
(d) Provision of Equipment for measurement of flow rates in canals.
B. Detailed Project Features
Surface Drainage(Base Cost US$20.4 M) 1/
5.05 Civil Works and Land Acquisition (Base Cost US$14.7 M). To provide for free-fall outflow from field drains and capacities between 8 and 12 m'fed/day,3 the project would deepen and widen 343 km of open drains in Upper Egypt and 325 km in the Delta in order to maintain a water level at not less than 2.5 m below ground surface (para.5.13). The design and depth of previously remodelled main drains 2/ are based upon this criterion. The total quantity of earthwork excavation is estimatedto be about 8.5 M m3. The projectwould also rebuild and/or extend a total of 481 bridges, 15 siphons and 96 escapesor aquaducts. About 637 fed land would be acquired to accommodatewidening of open drains. As in the past, acquisitionof land is not expected to pose any problem.
5.06 All civil works designs and constructionwould be consistentwith existing specificationsof M0I for earthworksand of IMSP for structures, which are satisfactoryto the Bank. Virtuallyall earthworkswould be carried out with excavatingequipment.
5.07 Equipmentand Spare Parts (Base Cost US$4.4 M) 1/. In order to completeremodelling of open drains in a four-yearperiod, the projectwould provide8 draglinesof 1.20 m3 bucket capacity,17 backhoes or hydraulic excavatorsof 0.75 m3 bucket capacity,2 low-bedloaders for transportof equipment,and required spare parts.
5.08 Administrationand Engineering(Base Cost US$1.3 M). Project costs includeprovision for requiredEPADP staff, and related funding for managing this componentas well as for planning,design and supervisionof surface drainageworks. Based on experiencewith ongoing projects, this cost has been estimatedat lOZ of the cost of the civil works category,6% for land acquisitionand 3Z for importedequipment and spares.
5.09 PumpingStations. OI is committedto ensure that irrigationand drainagepumping stations (paras.2.16 and 2.20) have adequate capacity,and are maintainedand operated efficiently. Much has been done under previous drainage projects(para. 2.25) and the ongoing IrrigationPumping Stations RehabilitationProject (para. 2.12) 3/ to help MOI in improvingboth the
I/ ExcludesUS$2.4 M for flow meters (see para. 5.34). 2/ Includingthose providedunder previous IDA/Bank projects (para. 2.25). 3/ Loan 2270-EGT,which became effectiveon November 3, 1983. - 22 - pumping capabilityand the performance of the pumping stations. In the proposed project area, a futher 11 pumping stations would need improvement. These pumping stations are located in the Delta (see Map,IBRD 18733).
5.10 A specialists' committee constituted by MOI from EPADP, MED and PPD has prepared a report on the condition of the 11 pumping stations devoted to pumping drainage effluent from the project area. MOI has agreed that the specialists committee would plan the required renovation works. It has further been agreed that the pumping stations would be renovated according to the schedule required by the implementation of drainage works under the proposed project. Following renovation of the pumping stations, the Bank would aim at ensuring that the MED would design and implement an effective inspection and O&Mprogram (as per Agreement for Loan 2270-EGT) for maintaining operational efficiency of these pumping stations over the long-term.
SubsurfaceDrainage (Base Cost US$113.6 M)
5.11 Technical Features. Groundwater in the project area would be controlled to safe levels by installing subsurface drains. The areas selected for tile drainage are those in most urgent need of drainage. The data on which the selection was based are relatively good (paras. 3.09 and 3.10) and, consequently, it is not anticipated that detailed investigations,as proposed in para. 4.05 or on 300 to 500 m grid for final design work, would lead to significant changes in the project area.
:5.12 Agreement was reached with EPADP on specific design aspects of subsurface drainage. These are: (a) provision of site specific designs, allowing adjustment of calculated lateral spacing to the nearest 10 m; (b) where large areas of rice are grown, and crop consolidation maps have been prepared by MOA, provision of a modified layout, developed by DRI with assistance from Dutch experts, which takes care of ponding of water in rice fields through a system of sub-collectors; (c) use of envelope for all laterals with a spacing of 60 m or more, and for lesser drain spacings where needed due to the presence of unstable soil at drain depth; (d) provision of artificial envelopes, unless more economical and technically satisfactory gravel designs can be implemented; (e) placement of polyethelene collectors and joints in areas where conventional concrete pipes are difficult to lay, and (f) provision of buried manholes, except where open manholes are required, and of PVC joints. These improvements in design standards are expected to increase efficiency of the drainage system, upgrade quality and reduce maintenance needs.
5.13 For most crops grown in the project area, a water table 1 m below the ground surface is expected to permit improved crop yields. This assessment is based on the results achieved under previous projects (para. 2.28). Furthermore, a 1981 root penetration study I/ indicates that for most crops over 90% of roots are in the top 40-50 cm in heavier soils (Kafr el Sheikh study area) and in 60-70 cm in the relatively lighter soils (Giza and El Minya study areas). With water levels in open drains kept at 2.5 m below ground surface (para. 5.05) for reasons of cost effectiveness,a well designed and
1/ Performed under USAID-assistedEgyptian Water Use and Management Project. - 23 - properly installed subsurface system would effectively lower the water table midway between the drains to at least 1 m below the ground surface.
5.14 In Egypt spacing between two adjacent field drains is usually determined for a normative discharge of 1 um/day (steady state criterion). Drain spacing thus calculated corresponds to the criterion that the water table should drop to a depth of I m below ground surface four days after irrigating the field (non-steady state criterion). For the purpose of computing drain spacings for the Delta areas, an average normative discharge of 1.2 nm/day has been applied to allow for the expected upward seepage. Agreement was reached that DRI would investigate upward flow of groundwater in the Delta for establishing normative discharge for designing subsurface drainage for each sub-area. For Upper Egypt, a normative discharge of 1 mm/day, as generally applied, has been used.
5.15 Design and specifications for the subsurface drainage system would be consistent with DIN standards for such works and for materials to be incorporated in these works. A typical layout for subsurface drains may consist of PVC pipe field drains, with an average length of 200 m, and a gradient between 10 and 20 cm/100 m. The average depth of drains would be about 1.40 m for the required design criteria (paras. 5.13 and 5.14). They would be connected to generally non-reinforced concrete pipe collectors. Some small areas, having problematic soils, and high water table, may require polyethelene collector pipes. The length of the collector would depend on the topographic boundaries but, based on design of 89,000 fed (para. 5.35), would average about 1.5 km. The depth of the collectors would range from 1.6 m upstream to a maximum of 2.5 a-at outlets, and pipe diameter would range from 15-45 cm. They would be laid at a gradient varying from 2 to 10 cm/100 m, with smaller gradients usually associated with larger pipe sizes. Open and buried manholes would be provided, as needed. Stone pitching would be built at collector outlets into open drains for erosion control. A modified layout for rice areas would have a system of subcollectors capable of being closed during periods when drainage is not required, coupled with most features of the typical system. An assurance was obtained at negotiations that EPADP would apply design and selection criteria satisfactory to the Bank (paras. 4.05, 5.6, and 5.11-5.15) for carrying out drainage works under the project (para. 9.01(a)).
5.16 Civil Works and Crop Compensation (Base Cost US$38.1 M). The project would provide for,installing about 3,900 km of collector drains, 46,000 km of field drains with and without envelope (for gravel, 5 cm thickness around the pipe), associated structures and two stores for PVC pipes. These requirements are based on agreed technical features (paras. 5.12 - 5.15), detailed designs prepared by EPADP for 89,000 fed (para. 5.35) and drain spacing determined from hydraulic permeability data (para. 3.11).
5.17 Collector drains would be installed (except in orchards) by heavy duty pipe-laying machines, and field drains by standard trenchers, both similar to those currently being used in Egypt. Field tests have not yet proved that the high speed trenchless plow can be used in the heavy soil successfully and economically. The machines to be provided under the project would have laser controlled mechanisms for economic and precise control of alignment and levels during drain installation. No land, easements or right - 24 - of way would be purchased for installation of subsurface drains, which is the generally accepted practice. However, compensation would be paid to farmers for crop loss during construction.
5.18 Equipment, Vehicles and Spare Parts (Base Costs US$27.1 M, 4.8 M and 16.9 M). The project would provide the required pipe laying machines and support equipment, vehicles and spare parts. The equipment requirements are based on contract packages (see Annex 3, Chart 2, World Bank - 26978), output of collector and lateral laying units and support equipment required to maintain planned pipe laying output, after accounting for equipment which would be available from Bank-assisted ongoing projects (para. 2.27). A complete inventory of equipment to be transferred from ongoing projects is available in the Project File.
5.19 To complete the 416,000 fed subsurface drainage system within the proposed four-year construction period (see Annex 2, Chart 1, World Bank - 26975), 16 collector and 50 lateral layer machines, 45 laser units, 76 backhoe-loaders, 21 wheel loaders, and 23 bulldozers would be procured. Other support equipment to be procured would include agricultural tractors and trailers, mud pumps, low loaders, booster pumps and flushers, vehicles, fuel trailers and stores. For both the new and old equipment, spare parts corresponding to 5-10% of their purchase value and for each operating year would be provided.
5.20 Administration and Engineering (Base Cost US$6.7 M). The project would provide administrationand engineering cost for planning, design, and implementation of subsurface drainage works by EPADP. As in the case of surface drains (para. 5.08), this cost has been estimated at 10% of the civil works category, 6% for crop compensation and 3% for imported equipment and spares. The estimated cost also includes a lump-sum provision for administration in respect of production of PVC pipes.
5.21 Production of Corrugated PVC Pipe (Base Cost US$20.0 M). For ongoing projects, PVC pipe is produced by EPADP using 11 extruding units (6 USAID-financed in Upper Egypt and 5 IDA/Bank-financedin the Delta). For the proposed project, it was considered whether the new PVC units should be set up and operated by the private sector. It was agreed with EPADP to maintain the existing arrangement for the following reasons: (a) the existing plants have shown that they can be operated economically, efficiently and have been able to meet the demand; (b) four new high speed units to be provided by the project are portable, and can be set up in the existing factory compounds using powder ancillary facilities that already exist; (c) the response of the private sector to an invitation to manufacture corrugated PVC pipe is uncertain because it would be a supply to a specific market, and (d) it is desirable that PVC factories should, so far as possible, be set up at the load center of tile drain implementation to minimize costs of pipe transport and pipe damage.
5.22 Peak yearly pipe production requirements have been assessed for the service area of each existing factory. These are about 4,300 km for Upper Egypt (Beni Suef and Assiut), 5,600 km for West Delta (Damanhur), and 8,500 km for East and Middle Delta (Aga and Zifta). In order to meet the demand in Upper Egypt, the project would arrange scheduled rehabilitationof production lines at Beni Suef and Assiut, and would also provide: (a) 2 crushers for - 25 - recycling damaged pipes; (b) spare parts for production lines, and (c) 2,700 tons of PVC compound and purge powder. For the Delta, the project would rehabilitate two production lines (as scheduled by suppliers) at Damanhur and Zifta and would provide: (a) 4 mobile high speed production units,(2 for replacing old and obsolete units and 2 for additional capacity), a blowmould unit for cross pieces and testing equipment; (b) spare parts for production lines, and (c) 12,800 tons of PVC compound and purge powder. The total base cost amounts to US$3.9 M for equipment and spares, US$0.8 N for production expenditures and US$15.2 M for PVC powder and compound.
5.23 Technical assistance and training, amounting to US$0.1 H, would include four man-months of expatriate specialist time in compound formulation and processing, and training of two EPADP's engineers in pipe production, each for a period of two months, by suppliers of production equipment.
Maintenance -- Bukdkie, Eqmpment and RecurrentCosts (BaseCost US$13.6 M)
5.24 The PPD in MOI is preparing au action plan for improved maintenance of irrigation and drainage channels (para. 2.24). MOI has agreed to submit this plan to the Rank not later than December 31, 1985, and to carry out this plan in consultaLion with the Bank (para. 7.16). However, adequate provision is included in this project for outlays required for proper maintenance of project related facilities.
5.25 Buildings (Base Cost US$2.4 M). The project would provide nine maintenance centers and 90 subcenters for subsurface drains and four offices for mobile task force groups for maintenance of open drains in Upper Egypt, and in East, West and Middle Delta. Each center would service about 50,000 fed and each subcenter about 5,000 fed tile-drainedarea. The estimated cost includes provision for land acquisition for these buildings.
5.26 Equipment (Base Cost US$5.4 M). Equipment would be provided for maintaining both surface and subsurface drains. In the case of surface drains, the equipment for mobile task force groups would include light weight excavators, draglines with 1.2 m3 bucket capacity, small bulldozers, low loaders, transport vehicles and office equipment. Some new types of mechanical equipment would also be procured for intensive field trials with the objective of selecting equipment most suited to Egyptian conditions. Such equipment would include a long-reach excavator and a light-weight hydraulic excavator with excavating and mowing buckets, a light-weight crawler for cleaning of drains, light-weight bulldozers, mowing boat with cutters, rotary slasher, and weed push boat with front loader. The equipment for open drains would be operated by a mechanized company of MOI and maintained at its existing facilities. The project would also provide equipment to improve the application of herbicides (para. 2.24). Equipment, including mobile flushing units, booster pumps, mud-pumps and maintenance equipment sets (hand too-is), would be provided for maintenance of field drains. Also, adequate transport and office furniture would be provided for each center and subcenter.
5.27 Technical Assistance and Training (Base Cost US$0.1 M). Four man-months of expatriate consultant time and six man-months of local consultancy services to assist in setting up trials for integrated weed contre'L using special plant and chemical applications and in evaluating -26-
results would be included. Two engineers of EPADP would each receive practical training overseas for three months to facilitate efficient and proper O&M of completed drainage works.
5.28 O&M Cost of Surface Drains (Base Cost US$3.3 M) and Subsurface Drains (Base Cost US$1.5 M) during Project Implementation. The annual cost of adequate O&M for surface drains has been tentatively estimated at about £E3.0/fedat current prices. The present budgetary allocation averages about £El.75/fed. The project would provide funds to correct the deficiency for maintaining surface drains on: (a) 381,000 fed which have already been remodelled (the project would equip this area with tile drainage), and (b) areas where open drains are remodelled as a part of the project. Costs of required maintenance of structures and staff for maintaining and operating the task force groups would be provided.
5.29 Currently, the maintenance of subsurface drains is carried out by technicians and labor employed by EPADP. The project would support progressive extension of this system to the project facilities by providing the required staff for each center and subcenter and related funding.
5.30 Engineering and Administraton (Base Cost US$0.9 M). This cost, estimated at 3Z of the equipment category and l0Z for all other items, would cover engineering and administration of all O&M works.
Other Components
5.31 Improvement in Construction Management and Design Standards (Base Cost US$0.3 M). The project would support EPADP's current efforts to improve construction management and design standards. This support would include seven man-months of expatriate specialist and 9 man-months of local expert time to assist EPADP's Planning and Follow-up Unit in overall planning and monitoring of project implementation and its Design Department in upgrading design standards. Nine engineers of EPADP would receive overseas training (each for a period of three months) in these areas.
5.32 Strengthening Research (Base Cost US$ 0.4 M). The project would provide field allowances for the existing staff of DRI, and required equipment and transport to strengthen its ongoing activities in two fields: (a) investigation of upward seepage in the Delta areas for establishing normative discharge for design of field drains (para. 5.14), and (b) drainage technology and the linkage between depth of water table, soil salinity and crop yield in pilot areas at Mashtul in East Delta and Shereishra/Hararain West Delta. The equipment would include a micro-computer and software, light drilling rig and investigation equipment, water level recorders and indicators and salinity recorders.
5.33 Monitoring and Evaluation (Base Cost US$0.3 M). Three separate but coordinated M&E activities would be carried out during the project development period: (a) day-to-day monitoring of physical and financial progress; (b) monitoring of depth to water table, and (c) soil salinity and impact on crop yield. The project would provide two computers and software (one for Planning and Follow-up Unit and second for FIDD), required transport and equipment, field allowances for existing staff and costs of GRI. Technical assistance and training would include three man-months of an expatriate specialist's - 27 -
time,eight man-monthsof local experts time and six man-monthsfor overseas trainingof two employeesof EPADP.
5.34 Flow MeasurementEquipment for IrrigationNetwork (Base Cost US$2.4M). The projectwould provideequipment for use in conjunctionwith the USAID-assistedtelemetry system (para.2.22) for providingflow rates data from 200 points locatedthroughout the canal system. The MOI would use the data collectedfrom the systemto improveoperational efficiency of the canals. Status of Engineerng 5.35 Final designsand draft tenderdscuments have been completedfor the installlationof subsurfacedrainage on 89,000 fed (21X of the projectarea) in the Delta; these include25,000 fed of El Geneana,24,000 fed of Bani-Ebaid,24,000 fed of Upper Pump StationNo. 1 and 16,000fed of Zarkoun catchments(see Annex 3, Table 3, and Map, IBRD 18733). At the time of appraisal,field surveys by FIDD of EPADP were under way for El Mandouraand Shereishracatchments (See Map, IBRD 18733 for locationof thesecatchment areas),covering 43,000 and 78,000fed respectively.The DesignDepartment of EPADP has sufficienttrained staff to complete,in a year, final designsand tenderdrawings for about 200,000fed. By September1985, EPADP expects to completeconstruction designs and preparationof tenderdocuments for subsurfacedrains covering150,000 fed (33X of the projectarea) and open drains coveringabout 120,000fed (43Z of the projectarea).
Environment Impact
5.36 The projectwould have a favorableimpact on the environment. Providingsubsurface field drains,remodelling of open drainsand improved maintenanceof open drainswould resultin loweringthe water table in the projectarea, and in lesseningthe incidenceof stagnantwater. Moreover,the maintenanceand cleaningof surfacedrains, which serve as waste disposal systemsfor the villages,would improveboth the generalenvironment and rural healthconditions. The improvementof productiveaspects of the environment would contribute significantly to increasedincomes and a better qualityof life for the inhabitantsof the projectarea.
VL COST ESTIMATES. FINANCING. PROCUREMENT AND DISBURSEMENTS
Cost Estimates
6.01 Total projectcost is estimatedat about EE247.6M (US$198.1K equivalent),including US$14.9 M for physicalcontingencies, US$32.3 M for price contingencies,US$4.9 M for incrementalO&M costs of completedworks during project implementation, and US$17.6 M 1/ for import duties and taxes (net of contingencies). Foreign exchange costs are estimated to be about US$97.0M, or about 491 of total project costs. The cost of civil works is based on unit prices taken from: (a) recentcontracts awarded by EPADP for installingsubsurface drains; (b) prevailingrates for earthwork,masonry
1/ Importduties and taxes,including contingencies, amount to about US$22.4M. -28-
structures and items related to constructing and remodelling surface drains, and (c) analysis of actual costs in Egypt for installing subsurface drains with trenching machines, and for excavating existing drains by draglines and hydraulic excavators. Equipment cost estimates are based on unit prices of similar equipment procured recently in Egypt or on price quotations from suppliers. Unit costs have been adjusted to accomodate project conditions and to reflect April 1985 cost levels. Physical contingencies are assumed to be about 101 of the base costs. Domestic price contingencies are estimated as follows: 1985, 7.91; 1986, 12.92; 1987, 9.91; 1988, 10.51; 1989, 10.51,and 1990, 10.11; and international inflation has been estimated as 51 for 1985, 7.5% for 1986 and 8.01 per annum thereafter. Project costs, detailed in Annex 1, Tables 1-6, are sunmarized in Table 6.1. Cost details for individual project components by sub-area (Upper Egypt and the Delta) are available in the Project File.
Table 6.1: DRAINAGE V PROJECT COST SUMMARY
*IEgyptian pound¶ '0001 CUSS*000l 1 10ins ------*------Fareign Base tocal Foreign lotal Local Foreign Totel EIachae Colst
a. 11rt.` ou.IN RENOOEILING
1- DELTA 9.14 * 6.140 A 15.954.8 7.85t S 4.912.3 17.763.B 33 a 2. UPPCR EGYPT 9.319. 9 3.l16F 9 12. 43. a 7.455 9 2.533. 5 9.169 5 25 7 _------_ - - - - ...... ------Sub-total OPEN DRAIN REM0DELLING It. 134.3 9.307. 3 28.441.6 5. 307. 5 7.445 8 22.713.3 33 Is B. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
1. DELTA 52.3l1 4 62.401 5 ld.7l2.B 41. 649 I 49.921.2 2l.770.2 54 ti 2. UPPER EGYPT 11.519 4 15.704 t 27.223.5 9. 215.5 12.563 3 21.773 B 53 14
Sub-Total SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE 63. 30.6 75. 105.5 141.936. 3 5C.0J64 6 2.45 4 t.549 0 55 75 C. OPEr R MAINRISTtUANCE 4.234. 3 5. 795.2 10.030.0 3.387. 4.636. 2 6. 024. 0 56 5 D. SUBSURFACEDRANlt W1AINIENANCE
F. OELTA 4. 172. 1 1.359 4 5. 531.5 3.337.7 1.067 5 4.425 2 25 3 2. UPPER EGtPT 1.067 3 303.4 1.475.7 369.6 310.7 1. IO 5 26 1
Su-mIotIa SUBSURFACE DRAIN MlAINTENIANCE 5.259 4 1.747.8 7.007 2 .207 5 1. 393 3 5.605 3 25 4 E. TRAINING AND TECHN ASSISTANCE 65.5 233.0 353. 5 52.4 230 4 232.ZCI 0 F. SIREINGHTNFNING OF D1 121. 7 309.6 511 2 97.3 311 7 409 0 76 0 G MOIJODRINGFVALUAT ION PROORANNE 147. 3 257.5 4045 117. 6 206 0 323 8 64 0
Total BASELINECOSTS 92.793.? 95.690.S 183114 6 74.235 0 76.712 7 150.94717 SI 100 Physical Coentingencies 9.246.9 9.314.7 18.563.6 7.399 1 7451.8 14.850 9 50 10 Price Tontingencies 24. 434. 0 15.965.8 40.199.3 19. 547.2 12.772 7 32.3:9.6 40 71
total PROJECTCOSTS 126. 476. 6 121. 171. 4 247. £41.0 101. 131.3 96. 937. 1 19. 1I16 4 49 131
march 27. 8985 20:3S - 29 -
Financing
6.02 Tentative project financing totalling US$96.0 M has been agreed by three external cofinanciers. This amount would finance about 55% of total project cost net of taxes and duties (US$22.4 M), or about 99% of estimated foreign exchange costs. The agreed financinigplan provides for parallel financing of identified project components. The proposed Bank loan of US$68.0 N would finance: constructionand maintenance of subsurface drains in the Delta sub-area, procurement of vehicles and office equipment for EPADP and data transducers for canals, and technical assistance and training. The African Development Bank (AFDB) and the African Development Fund (AFDF) are expected to finance US$18.0 M and US$10.0 M respectively. The components to be financed are: constructionof surface drains, construction and maintenance of subsurface drains in Upper Egypt sub-area, and equipment for maintenance of surface drains. Details of financing by expenditure category are shown in Table 6.3. GOE would finance the remaining US$102.1 M from its budgetary resources. The proposed financing plan is summarized in Table 6.2. A condition of effectiveness of the Bank loan would be signing by GOE of AFDB and AFDF agreements (para. 9.03).
Table 6.2 Drainage V Project Financing Plan
Local Foreign % of Costs Exchange Costs Total Total Cost -(US$ M Equivalent)--
IBRD 68.0 68.0 34.3 AFDB 18.0 18.0 9.1 AFDF - 10.0 10.0 5.1 GOE 101.1 1.0 102.1 51.5
Total 101.1 97.0 198.1 100.0
6.03 Special Account. Provision has been made that EPADP may open and maintain in US$2.0 M a special account for funding the items to be financed by the Bank (para. 6.02). The Bank financing would be channelled through a commercial bank to be selected by the Central Bank of the GOE. Deposits into, and payments ou' of, the special account would be made on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Bank. While withdrawals from the proceeds of the propos2d Loan may be handled through the special account, the Bank would continue to accept, in appropriate cases, withdrawal applications in amounts of more than US$20,000 for direct payment and agreements to reimburse.
Procurement
6.04 Procurement for all items under the project would be carried out by EPADP. The required equipment for surface drains, vehicles, PVC compound and subsurface drainage works would be procured through international competitive bidding (ICB), according to Bank Guidelines or the co-financiers' procedures. Togtther, these items represent about US$119.4 M equivalent, or about 68% of project costs net of taxes and duties. Local manufacturers would be allowed a - 30 -
152 margin or the actual custom duty, whichever is lover, on ICB equipment and material contracts to be financed by the Bank. During the implementation period of the project, spare parts amounting to about US$8.0 M would be required for repair and maintenance of equipment. They would be procured directly from the original manufacturers, on the basis of negotiated prices.
6.05 The problems experienced in two ongoing projects (para. 2.27) were partly due to a few very large contracts for subsurface drainage. Bids under the proposed project would be invited for relatively small areas (see Annex 3, Chart 2, World Bank - 26978, for contract packages). Package and slice procedures would be used, whereby contractors may bid for specific parts or for the entire contract. Contracting for subsurface drainage would follow ICB procedures, with all labor, materials (excepting PVC pipe supplied by EPADP), and construction equipment to be supplied by the contractors as part of the contract. The Government would advance to the contractors the approximate foreign exchange value of the equipment and/or spare parts, initially in the form of a mobilization advance, and, subsequently as special advances, on furnishing security by the contractors, as stipulated in the contracts. This procedure is expected to remove the difficultiesexperienced by the contractors in importing equipment and spare parts under contracts for ongoing drainage projects. Furthermore,agreement was reached with EPADP that, to improve utilization of pipe laying machines, local contractors would be required to use the services of technicians from the equipment supplier for training mechanics and machine operators for at least one year.
6.06 Civil works for re odelling of surface drains and for maintenance centers and subcenters (financedmostly by the Government) are not suitable for ICB because they are small and scattered throughout the area, and planned to be implemented in small parcels during the whole construction period. These works, amounting to about US$12.9 M, would be procured following local competitive bidding (LCB) procedures. LCB procedures are generally consistent with the need for economy and efficiency in the execution of the project. There are, however, a few procedures which are inconsistentwith Bank Procurement Guidelines and others which require clarification. In order to make LCB procedures acceptable to the Bank, it was agreed that: (a) representativesof foreign bidders would be allowed to bid, and (b) all bidders would be treated equally in terms of eligibility for any preferences or the requirement of furnishing bids or performance bonds (para. 9.02).
6.07 Also exempted from ICB procedures would be small items costing less than US$100,000, to be procured following LCB procedures in accordance with Bank Guidelines. The total value of items procured in this manner would not exceed US$1.3 M. Also, small contracts of up to US$50,000 equivalent for office and survey equipment may be awarded on a competitive basis to reliable suppliers after quotations have been obtained from at least three such suppliers. The aggregate amourt of such locally procured goods would not exceed US$500,000 equivalent. Procurement arrangementsare shown in Table 6.3. - 31 -
Table 6.3: Procurement Arrangements by Project Component
ICB LCB Other
------US$ M Equivalent----
Civil Works & 86.4 12.9 15.0 114.3 Machinery (39.7) (0.5) (4.7) (11.3] [2.41 E1.31
Equipment,Vehicles 9.9 1.3 3.9 15.1 and Spare Parts (1.8) (0.4) (0.2) [7.4] [0.9] [0.51
PVC Pipe Production 20.8 4.2 25.0 Equipment,Spares (16.0) (1.0) and Materials (3.5] (0.71
Flow MeasuringEquipment 2.3 0.3 2.6 (2.3)
Engineering,Land 4.4 36.9 41.1 Acquisition,Crop Compensation,Etc. (1.0) (0.4)
Total 119.4 18.6 60.3 3/ 198.1
(Bank)1/ (59.8) (1.9) (6.3) 68.0
[AFDF/AFDB]2/ (22.21 (3.3] (2.5] 28.0
1V Covering: Construction and maintenance of subsurface drainage in the Delta; flow measuringequipment and technicalsupport. 2/ Covering: Remodelling and maintenance of surface drains throughout the project; construction and maintenance of subsurface drains in Upper Egypt. 3/ Includes US$21.4 M for taxes and customs duties. - 32 -
6.08 Prior review of procurement documentation by the Bank would be undertaken for: (a) the installation of subsurface drainage system; (b) the procurement of equipment, vehicles and PVC compound, and (c) for all other contracts for works and goods over US$500,000 equivalent. Prior review would apply to about 70X of total project costs. Other contracts would be subject to selective post-award review.
Disbursements
6.09 Disbursements of the Bank loan would be made for:
(a) 100% of the foreign exchange cost or the domestic ex-factory cost of equipment and spare parts, vehicles, PVC compound, purge powder, and other materials or 70% of such items if they are locally procured (US$50.0 M);
(b) 30% of the cost of civil works for: (i) subsurface drainage works, and (ii) maintenance centers and sub-centers (total US$10.5 M equivalent);
(c) 100% of the foreign expenditures for technical assistance and overseas training (US$0.3 M equivalent), and
(d) Unallocated US$7.2 M equivalent.
Disbursementcunder categories (a) and (b)(i) would be made against full -3_ n;ad1ion. Disbursements under categories (b)(ii) and (c) would be made against certified statements of expenditures; supporting documents would be retained by EPADP for review by the Bank. This procedure has been found satisfactory under the two ongoing projects.
6.10 It is anticipated that disbursements would be completed by June 30, 1991, about one year after scheduled physical completion of the project. An estimated schedule of disbursement, shown in Annex 1, Table 7, reflects the implementationschedule (Annex 2, Chart 1, World Bank - 26975), and is si-arized in Table 6.4:
Table 6.4: EstimatedDisbursement Schedule
Bank Fiscal Year Disbursements 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 (us$ M) Annual 2.0 5.0 19.0 20.0 15.0 7.0 Cuimlative 2.0 7.0 26.0 46.0 61.0 68.0
6.11 The proposed schedule features an accelerated disbursementperiod of six years, which is considerably shorter than the country sectoral average of about nine years and the estimated average of eight years for the two ongoing drainage projects. The considerationssupporting the proposed schedule are that: (a) the project would be implementedby a single agency which has long experience of tendering under ICB procedures; (b) most of the Bank loan would be used for procurement of equipment, vehicles, and PVC compound, items which are generally disbursed rapidly; (c) contracts for procurement of spare parts - 33 -
for equipment transferred from ongoing projects would be negotiated with original suppliers and would result in disbursements at an early stage of project implementation, and (d) targets set for subsurface drainage under the proposed project (peak rate of about 150,000 fed/year) are based an implementation rates recently achieved compared to over-optimisticassumptions made for previous drainage projects (peak rate of 340,000 fed/year 1/). The closing date of the loan would be June 30, 1991.
Auditingand Accounts
6.12 A new accounting system was established for EPADP in 1980 by an Egyptian firm of chartered accountants for the ongoing IDA/Bank-financed drainage projects. This system is now operating satisfactorilyand would also be used for the proposed project. The Finance Department of EPADP would establish and maintain separate accounts for the project to reflect the operations, resources and expenditures in respect of the project. The Central Audit Organization (CAO), an independent auditing agency, would continue to be responsible for auditing the accounts of EPADP including those of the proposed project. The CAO, which is auditing the ongoing IDA/Bank-financeddrainage projects, also carried out the audits of the two completed projects (para. 2.29) and was favorably commented upon in the completion reports. Two to three interim reports are prepared by CAO each year on the basis of which an annual report is prepared. The annual audit report, which also highlights a comparison of actual with the budgeted figures, forms part of MOI consolidated report presented to the People's Assembly. Annual audit reports, together with the required financial statements, would be furnished to the Bank. Assurances were obtained from GOE and EPADP that: (a) EPADP would prepare and maintain separate project accounts; (b) the project accounts would be audited annually by independent auditors satisfatory to the Bank; (c) certified copies of the audited annual project accounts and of the final auditors' report would be sent to the Bank for review not later than six months after the end of each fiscal year, and (d) the auditors' report would include, inter alia, a statement that the funds advanced by the Bank for the special account and against statements of expenditure were used for the purpose for which they were provided (para. 9.01(b).
VEILPROJECT ORGAMZATION. IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Institutional Arrangements
7.01 Project Organization. EPADP, a unit of M0I (see Annex 2, Chart 3, World Bank - 26976) would be responsible for most aspects of project implementation,including field investigations,planning, design, procurement, construction and O&EM(paras. 2.20 and 2.21). The present organizational structure of EPADP is shown in Annex 2, Chart 4 (World Bank - 26977).
7.02 The Drainage Authority, headed by a Chairman, is structured along functional and regional lines. It has one Undersecretary in charge of
_/ Nile Delta Drainage II Project, Report No. 1451-EGT dated May 5, 1977. -34- planning, field investigation, design and follow-up, and two Undersecretaries for implementation-one for Nile Delta and one for Upper Egypt. Field supervision of drainage works is the responsibilityof five Directorates in the Delta and sevienDirectorates in Upper Egypt, each headed by a Director General. EPADP's Mechanical Department is responsible for electrical and mechanical equipment and related works, the MKaintenance Department looks after maintenance of completed drainage system, and the Administration and Finance Department is in charge of finance, accounts and procurement. A committee comprising the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, concerned Undersecretary and the head of the Technical Office approves technical specifications. This committee and the Director General (Finance) evaluate bids and make recommendations for contract awards.
7.03 At present, EPADP employs about 3,600 permanent staff in its headquarters office and field directorates. Of these, about 1,200 are civil and agricultural engineers and technical supervisory staff. The present position regarding technical staff sanctioned and those actually in place, tabulated in Annex 2, Table 2, shows that there is a considerable shortage of middle level civil engineers.
7.04 Although the general organizational set up of EPADP is satisfactory, its performance, as brought out in PPARs of two completed projects (para. 2.29), pointed to weaknesses in construction planning and follow-up. Other major problems with respect to ongoing projects (para. 2.27) include: the shortage of staff, particularly at field level; the frequent turnover of staff; and the need for training and career advancement, and incentives for technical staff at all levels. The proposed project would strengthen EPADP's ongoing programs in resolving some of these problems.
7.05 Staff Training. EPADP has a current agreement (1983-85) with the Government of the Netherlands for training and technical assistance by the Lake Yjssel Polders DevelopmentAuthority. The training program comes under the general supervision of the Egyptian-Dutch Advisory Panel (the Panel) on anad Drainage in Egypt. The activities of this Panel have also been financed by the Dutch Government (para. 2.26) since it was established in 1976 mainly for assisting MOI in improving planning and implementation of drainage works. The current program, which expires in December 1985, provides for training EPADP senior staff and instructors in the Netherlands, for consultants to provide training in design of field drainage and in other specialized subjects, and also for the Dutch training team's visits to Egypt for on-the-job training of EPADP and contractor personnel. So far, a total of 250 staff at various levels has been trained, and this program is expected to help about 500 engineers, techniciansand machine operators of EPADP aud public sector contractors engaged in drainage works. Subjects covered in the overall program include field investigations,design, construction planning and management, maintenance of completed works, and machine operation and maintenance. EPADP has proposed an extension of the Dutch training program for a further period of two years (1986 and 1987). Additional training opportunitiesfor EPADP personnel and all other agencies of MOI are provided by the Ministry's Training and Manpower Development Institute. This institute is supported by USAID consultants in designing and conducting training in management, construction planning, O&M and other areas of interest to MOI. Assurances were obtained from GOE that EEADP would review annually, with the Bank, its program for the training of engineers and technicians and would - 35 - regularly inform the Bank of progress in implementing such programs (para. 9.01(c)).
7.06 In order to strengthen the capability of EPADP to implement drainage works more effectively, the project would provide selective technical assistance and training. The present level of participation by EPADP personnel in training is close to the maximum that can be assimilated, and, consequently, assistance is focussed on in-service training and developing improved working methods. The project support would comprise: (a) strengthening the capability of the Planning and Follow-up Unit to use modern techniques for planning and programing of project implementation, together with appropriate methods of reporting progress on all components; (b) setting up a M&E system to assess the impact of drainage on depth to water table, and on such other aspects as may be appropriate; (c) assisting in PVC compound formulation and in pipe production, and (d) setting up trial tests for channel maintenance, using special plant and controlled application of chemicals, and reviewing results of such tests, reconiuending equipment and methods best suited to Egyptian conditions for upgra-ing the standard of maintenance of open drains. An assurance was obtained from GOE that MOI and EPADP would contract suitably qualified expatriate and local experts on terms, conditions and schedule satisfactory to the Bank (para. 9.01 (d)).
Field Supervision and Quality Control
7.07 Staff Requirements. Project implementation would require increase in the number of the technical staff of EPADP (para. 7.03). If EPADP could fill existing vacancies up to their sanctioned level, particularly at the engineers' grades, this would provide the necessary key staff for implementation. There would, however, be an increase of staff required to meet the increased 0&M requirements generated by the incremental areas coming into operation.
7.08 The increase in staff required for O&Mis estimated in Table 7.1:
Table 7.1: lueremental Staff Required for O&M
Actual Incremental Required Above 1984 Level in 84 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 89/90 Total
Delta Civil Engineer 51 0 4 8 12 14 38 Agricultural Engineer 60 0 2 4 6 7 19
Upper Egrpt Civil Engineer 16 0 0 1 1 2 4 Agricultural Engineer 25 0 0 2 2 4 8
Total: 152 0 6 15 21 27 69
Part of this increase may be found from engineers released from construction duties in Upper Egypt (Assiut, Sohag, Qena, Kom Ombo and Aswan Directorates) as construction in these areas should be completed by 1987 (para. 2.27) and also by the degree of success achieved by EPADP in recruiting to sanctioned - 36 - levels (see Anmex 2, Table 2) in the intervening period. Recruitment at entry level (excepting agricultural engineers) has been difficult in the past because of low public sector wages, unattractive field conditions, and availability of more highly paid work in the private sector and neighboring countries. Assurances were obtained from GOE and EPADP that: (a) EPADP would review with the Bank, not later than six months before the start of each of its fiscal years and until completion of the project, the technical staff requirements of the project during the following fiscal year, for effective implementation and quality control of project works and for O&M, and the required additional number of civil and agricultural engineers would be provided on a timely basis, and (b) EPADP would fulfill such requirements, through the provision of necessary resources and facilities, including financial incentives for the recruitment and retention of the staff (para. 9.01(e)).
7.09 Other Quality Control Measures. In order to strengthen field supervision and quality control, particularly for subsurface drainage, it has been agreed with EPADP that: (a) check lists of items to be specifically monitored during constructionof each collector drain system would be maintained; (b) gravel of required specifications for envelopes would be obtained by contractors from processing plants approved by EPADP, and, failing availabilityof satisfactory gravel, artificial filter material would be used; (c) EPADP supervisory staff would receive intensive training in quality control related to field construction and PVC pipe production, and (d) training of Egyptian contractors' staff associated with ongoing projects would be further strengthenedunder Dutch-Egyptianbilateral program in planning and logistics, execution of works and O&M of equipment (para. 7.05).
Project Implementation
7.10 Project implementation is planned for five years as shown in Annex 2, Chart 1. Most of the procurement would be completed during the first three years. Estimated supply of equipment by contractors for subsurface drainage is shown in Annex 2, Table 1, and schedule for procurement of equ-.pment and PVC compound by EPADP in Annex 2, Chart 2 (World Bank - 27078). Remodelling of surface drains would be carried out mainly in the first and second years in Upper Egypt and during the second to fourth years in the Delta. Structures in the open drains would be built during the same period. Construction of buildings for centers and subcenters would be spread over FY87 through FY90. Installation of subsurface drains would commence early in FY87 in the Delta and in FY88 in Upper Egypt, and would be completed during FY90. This schedule for commencing installation of field drainage in the project area would allow prior completion of similar works under ongoing projects (para. 2.27) and prior remodellingof open drains in Upper Egypt (para. 5.06). The remodelling of open drains, installation of subsurface drains and construction of maintenance buildings is estimated to proceed as shown in Table 7.2: - 37 -
Table 7.2: Implementatin Schedule for Drainage Works
Fiscal Year FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 Total
Remodelling of Open Drains (fed) 43 101 66 65 5 280 Installationof Subsurface Drains (fed) - 93 148 140 35 416 Construction of O&M Centers (No) - 2 3 2 2 9 Constructionof O&M Sub-centers (No) - 20 30 20 20 90
7.11 The schedule for constructing drainage works has been derived from past experience as summarized in PPARs (para. 2.29), demands of ongoing works (para. 2.27), and scheduled new works under other projects (paras. 2.30 and 2.31). To ensure that any changes in total program are properly reflected in revised resource allocations to EPADP, assurances were obtained from GOE that until the completion of the project, MOI and EPADP would provide to the Bank for its comments (a) not later than three months before the start of the GOE's fiscal year, EPADP's annual implementation plan, indicating work status, budgetary, equipment and staffing resources required and available, and allocations in M[I's budget for drainage projects, and (b) the proposals for MOI's investment program in the drainage and irrigation subsector (para. 9.01(f)).
Operationand Maintenance
7.12 EPADP would be responsible for the O&M of all completed drainage works, both during the implementationperiod and after completion of the project. However, during constructionand for one year following completion of a contract unit, the contractor would be responsible for the maintenance of the subsurface drains. The responsibility for O&M of subsurface drains and the associated surface drains was transferred from the Irrigation Department to the EPADP in 1979. It helped in establishing lines of responsibilitv in accordancewith geographic units and in structuring and enlarging its O&M orguization to make it a more viable concern.
7.13 The EPADP's existing organizational structure for maintaining both surface and subsurface drains is shown in Annex 2, Chart 4 (World Bank - 26977). The Undersecretary for maintenance controls eight field Directorates, five in the Delta and three in Upper Egypt. Under each Di:ectorate are a number of centers, each responsible for maintaining drainage works in an area of about 40,000 to 50,000 fed. Under the centers are subcenters, each responsiblefor about 5,000 fed of subsurface drains. At present, there are 47 maintenance centers and 214 subcenters. Channel maintenance, which is performed almost entirely by contract, is handled by the Directorates. The staff of the centers and subcenters are mostly concerned with maintenance of subsurface drainage which is now performed exclusively by force account.
7.14 Maintenance of drainage works in Egypt have, in the past, not been of a satisfactorystandard due mainly to extremely difficult environmental conditions (which result in very rapid weed growth in open drains), staffing limitations(para. 7.03) and technical shortcomings. Whilst EPADP has, in the last few years, improved maintenance of drains, further improvement is -38-
required, and the project O&Mcomponent has been designed to help EPADP in implementing required improvements.
7.15 The project would provide: (a) equipment and funds for four mobile task force groups and for an open drain maintenance trial area in the Delta to test new types of mechanical plant for removal of weeds; (b) maintenance centers and subcenters fully equipped and staffed to maintain tile drains; (c) overseas training of two engineers of EPADP staff on the organization and amnagementof O&M; (d) more effective M&E to allow EPADP to determine the effectiveness of installed drainage facilities and maintenance operations, and (e) adequate funds for O&M of the completed facilities during the project implementation.
7.16 At present, MOI is formulating a nationwide CMP (paras. 2.24 and 5.24) which is expected to integrate and improve the effectiveness of channel maintenance in Egypt. This plan will provide for improved maintenance of both irrigation canals and open drains, and thus take care of areas drained previously. Assurances were obtained from GOE that MOI would: (a) prepare and provide to the Bank, not later than December 31, 1985, a plan for maintenance of drainage and irrigation channels, including the budgetary requirements
thereof, and (b) carry out such plan, taking into account the Bank's comments thereon (para. 9.01(g)).
7.17 The proposed method of maintenance during the project implementation period is based on accepted practices in Egypt, i.e., a strong emphasis on mechanical removal of weeds and sediment. However, it is expected that the CMiPwould aim at developing a cost effective balance between mechanical and chemical control of weeds (para. 2.24). The project would provide adequate funds for at least one cycle of open drains clearance each year in place of the current two-year cycle.
7.18 The project allows for a new feature in open drains maintenance. This is the establishment of 4 mobile task force groups, three in the Delta and one in Upper Egypt. Each unit would consist of a few mobile drain maintenance units. Instead of routine maintenance, these units would be directed to particular parts of the drainage system where blockages are occurring. It is anticipated that these units would be cost effective in maintaining good flow conditions in the drains.
7.19 For good maintenance, it is essential for GOE to make adequate budgetary provisions and release funds to EPADP promptly for all aspects of maintenance work. It is estimated that O&M cost/year would amount to about £E4.0/fed for both surface and subsurface drains. Assurances were obtained from GOE that: (a) sufficient funding based upon the estimated cost or agreed target and other resources would be made available annually to EPADP for the proper operation and maintenance of drainage facilities improved and/or installed under the project; (b) prepare, with the assistance of experts, and provide to the Bank, by June 30, 1986, a plan for the implementation of the weed control trials utilizing special plant, together with controlled use of chemicals; (c) carry out such plan, taking into account the Bank's comments thereon, and (e) perform review of the results of the trials, using the specialists group responsible for planning the trials (para 9.01(h)). - 39 -
Monitoring and Evaluation
7.20 In the past, the Planning and Follow-up Department of EPADPhas not been able to provide timely and accurate information on program performance and definitive data on crop responses to drainage. In order to correct this situation, the following changes in the focus and operation of this Department would be made in the proposed project. There would be three separate but coordinated M&E activities for: (a) monitoring the implementation of the drainage program; (b) monitoring the depth of water table and soil salinity in areas to be provided with tile drains, and impact of drainage in those areas where tile drains have been installed, and (c) establishing in experimental areas relation between depth of water table, soil salinity and crop yield.
7.21 EPADP agreed during appraisal that its existing Implementation Monitoring Unit would be provided required resources so as to make this unit more effective. To assist in meeting these objectives, an expatriate short-term consultant and local consultants would be recruited to help in training, setting up the implementationmonitoring system and identifying staff and equipment needs. Assurances were obtained from GOE that EPADP would: (a) adequately staff its ImplementationMonitoring Unit so as to enable it to plan, coordinate, and monitor the activities under the project and promptly make available to it the services of consultants in implementation planning and monitoring; (b) prepare by June 30, 1986, with the assistance of such consultants, and provide to the Bank, for its comments, a plan for monitoring the implementation of the project, and (c) promptly carry out such plan, taking into account the Bank's comments (para. 9.01(i)). The ImplementationMonitoring Unit would also be responsible for preparing and submitting through the Chairman to the Bank: (a) quarterly progress reports no later than two months after the end of each quarter, and (b) a project completion report within six months of the loan closing date. GOE assurances on these matters were also obtained during negotiations (para. 9.01(j)).
7.22 Because of the complexity and difficulties experienced in the past in determining crop yield differences due to drainage, EPADP agreed during appraisal tlat the influence of drainage on water table depth, and such other aspects ar .ay be appropriate would be separately determined. It was further agreed thtacEPADP would strengthen its M&E Unit to investigate and report on required parameters. Measurements of water table depth, monitored by GRI on a network of piezometers recently installed throughout the program area, would be supplemenced by EPADP field crews to give a density of one observation/l,000fed. Determination of soil salinity, when required, would be made on soil samples taken as a composite of the first 50 cm of the soil profile. An expatriate expert and a local expert would be contracted on short-term basis to help EPADP in setting up the program for M&E of the impact of field drainage, including adivising on frequency of measurements, evaluation techniques, and reporting requirement and formats. On major basins in the Delta and Fayoum Basin, water and salt balance models are being constructed by DRI with Dutch cooperation (paras. 2.26 and 7.05). These models would provide a means of determining the effectiveness of subsurface drainage in controlling soil salinity. Assurances were obtained from GOE that EPADP would: (a) not later than December 31, 1985, prepare, with the assistance of expatriate and local experts, and provide to the Bank for its comments, a detailed program for M&Ethe impact of drainage on water table and -40- on such other aspects as may be appropriate, and (b) carry out such program in consultation with the Bank (para. 9.01(k)).
7.23 In addition, EPADP has agreed that its maintenance units would monitor flows in collectors and collect data for assessing drainage performance. These measurements would serve two other purposes: (a) to determine the need for drainage improvements at present, or at a predicted future time, in both undrained and drained areas, and (b) to determine the need for maintenance, repair, or replacement of drainage facilities.
7.24 To improve upon the information on crop response to the drainage criteria, DRI would monitor the water table depths and degree of soil salinity at its Mashtul and Shereishra/Harara research sites (set up with Dutch assistance) where they have been collecting these data and crop yields for the last three years. The results obtained at these sites would be supplemented by DRI's work on test plots to be set up under the Canadian ISAWIP (para. 2.30). The data monitored at research sites, and to be collected for ISAWIP, would relate to: soil, salinity, water table, cropping pattern, yields, irrigation inputs and other technical, economic, and social aspects. Assurances were obtained from GOE that: (a) not later than December 31, 1986, MOI would provide to the Bank for its comments, an initial report on the results of the experiments which are being undertaken by DRI in relation, inter alia, to soil, salinity, water table, cropping patterns and yields, and thereafter to make available annually to the Bank the results of such experiments,and (b) to utilize, as appropriate, the findings of such experiments in the design of the drainage systems (para. 9.01(1)).
ViMI. PROJECT BENEFITS, JUSTIFCATION AND RISK
Agrcutura inpact
8.01 The proposed project would relieve a major constraint to production in the project areas, namely, the high and rising water table and soil salinity status. Other important constraints especially the quality of agricultural supporting services-are progressively being addressed under other projects and programs of GOE (para. 2.10). Relief of the drainage constraint is essential if a progressive decline in yields is to be arrested and significant increases in agricultural production are to be achieved in the future. However, the direct impact on which project benefits are calculated has been assessed only on the basis of the limited changes in yield which are expected without any change in agricultural practices. The implication of this conservativeassumption is that project benefits, though possibly understated,are independent of improvements in input supply, extension and other non-project activities.
8.02 The anticipated incremental yields expected, with and without the project, are shown in Table 8.1. These factors have been applied only to the main crop product: by-product yields have been assumed to remain constant. - 41 -
Table 8.: Icremetal Yield
UPPER EGYPT DELTA Crop with wlo with wlo
Wheat 7 -5 10 -10 Berseem 15 -5 20 -10 Cotton 7 -5 25 -10 Rice 7 -5 10 -10 Maize 7 -5 10 -10 Broad Beans 15 -5 20 -10 Tomato 15 -5 20 -10 Potato 15 -5 20 -10 Onion 15 -5 20 -10 Citrus 20 -5 25 -10 Sugar Cane 15 -5 15 -10
These data have been estimated on the basis of data from the areas with generally less severe drainage conditions. The incremental yields are expected to be less in Upper Egypt than in the Delta areas, since soil salinity conditions in Upper Egypt are relatively better, and soils are generally more free-draining. Incremental production at full development (1996) for major crops is shown in Table 8.2:
Table8.20 Present and Future Crop Production
P RODU CT ION CroN Area Present with w/o Increment a/ fed ------(oo0 ton)------
Wheat 97,186 151 166 138 28 Berseem 192,058 3,624 4,317 3,298 1,019 Cotton 97,617 103 126 93 33 Rice 128,287 207 227 186 41 Maize 104,781 186 203 171 32 Broad Beans 18,138 17 19 15 4 Tomato 43,979 365 431 336 95 Potato 12,293 92 110 83 27 Onion 13,026 65 78 59 19 Citrus 16,834 106 132 96 36 Sugar Cane 6,990 213 245 200 45
a/ Differences due to rounding.
MaketinE and Prices
8.03 Egypt's deteriorating import-exportbalance in agricultural products (Table 2.1) ensures a ready, well developed market for the major crops. For the less significant crops--mainly fruits and vegetables-domestic markets are also readily available. - 42 -
8.04 Prices for agricultural products in Egypt are generally well below world prices, and sometimes--for example, in the case of fodder crops-give distorted incentives to farmers. For the purposes of this project, since no project benefits based on changed agricultural practices are assumed, the incentive structure is not a constraint to achieving project objectives.
Farm Incomes
8.05 Net farm income from cropping activities is estimated at about EE 1,500/year for an average 3 fed farm. Additional income from livestock would increase farm income to about EE 2,200. Smaller farms tend to have somewhat more intensive livestock production and higher incomes per fed. Incremental farm incomes due to project investments are shown in Annex 5, Table 7.
Cost Recovery
8.06 Egyptian law provides for the direct and full recovery of the cost of field drainage over a 20-year period, without interest, beginning within one year of project completion. Provision is also made for the indirect recovery of maintenance costs through the revision of the annual land tax following introduction of drainage. Incremental annual payments for the proposed project would average EE 20/fed, or almost 201 of incremental farm income at full development. This includes both capital cost recovery and maintenance charges. Increased income would more than cover these costs in every year following completion of drainage works, a conclusion supported by two studies of beneficiaries' ability to repay costs conducted by MOA and MOI (study reports available in the Project File).
8.07 Given the relatively high implicit taxation on agriculture due to low, controlled prices of farm produce, and the relative poverty of most beneficiaries, GOE'S cost recovery rules are satisfactory,despite the element of subsidy implicit in the interest-freerecovery pattern.
8.08 The mechanism for effecting recovery, however, is complex and slow-moving. Three agencies are involved--EPADP,which prepares the statement of actual costs; the Survey Department of the Ministry of Irrigation, which verifies the areas held by each beneficiary, and the Land Tax Directorate of the Ministry of Finance, which prepares bills. In consequence, repayments are behind schedule, and records of what has been spent, what has been recovered, and what is due, are often confusing or lacking. GOE has recently revised the cost recovery procedures and introduced an incentive system for the village-level tax collector. This is expected to improve the rate of cost recovery. Assurances were obtained from GOE that suitable arrangements would be made to ensure that cultivators of land benefitting from field drainage works (covered collectors, laterals and related structures) under the project would be charged with annual amount sufficient: (a) to recover capital cost of such works (plus a 10 administrative charge) over a period of 20 years from the dates of completion of each drainage unit, and (b) to cover on a continuous basis, starting two years after the completion of such unit, the maintenance cost of such works, as such cost is determined in accordance with principles satisfactory to the Bank (para. 9.01(m)). Assurances were also obtained that GOE would also cause EPADP, in cooperation with its Ministry of - 43 -
Finance:(a) to provideto the Bank, by December31, 1986, an outlineof the measures and proceduresto be adopted to improvecollection of field drainage costs, indicatingan estimateof the expectedannual collection; (b) to take into account the coments,which the Bank may offer on the methodsand proceduresto be implementedfor improvingcollection of field drainagecosts, and (c) to provide annually to the Bank a report reviewing the progress made in such collectionsand, if necessary,to make proposalsfor its further improvement(para. 9.01(m)).
Benefifts and JustiriLeation
8.09 The gross incremental benefit from project investments has been calculatedon the basis of incrementalproduction (Tables 8.1 and 8.2), and projected1990 border prices (see Annex 5). The net incrementalbenefit was derivedby identifyingthose elementsof productioncosts which are a direct functionof yield levels-harvestingcosts, on-farm processing, and transportation-andcalculating incremental costs associatedwith projected incrementalproduction. Labor costs equivalentto peak-seasonrates have been used, since the incrementaldemand is almostentirely for harvestlabor.
8.10 Net incrementaleconomic benefits per feddanrange from £E96 in Upper Egypt to £E172 in West Delta. Withoutthe project,yields are assumed to declinelinearly over a ten year period;with the project,incremental yields are assumedto developover a four year period followingcompletion of surface and subsurfacedrainage works. (Theseassumptions and calculations are specifiedin more detailin Annex 5.)
8.11 The rate of returnfor the overallproject is estimatedat 23Z, fallingto 17S with a 10 increasein costs or decreasein benefits. For the major areas of the project,located in the Delta, the rate of returnwould remainabove 121 despitelarge increasesin costs (+401).decreases in benefits(-501) or implementationdelays (7 years). In Upper Egypt,although still satisfactory,the switchingvalues (301, 35S and 5 years, respectively) are somewhatmore constraining.
Proj Risk
8.12 The risks associatedwith the projectare limited. Incremental yieldshave been estimatedon the basis of availabledata from areas where drainageproblems were generallyless severe than in most projectareas. Productionbenefits are based entirelyon the yield effectof improved drainage,and are thus not dependenton improvedcultural practices, higher input levels,or other changes. Costs and phasingare based on severalyears of detailedexperience, and no radicalimprovements have been assumed.
8.13 In the Delta areas, only very substantialincreases in projectcosts, or declinesin incrementalproduction values, would cause an unacceptable economic rate of return. For the areas in Upper Egypt, the margin is relatively lower. However, the data already available regardisg the existing high water table and the improveddesign standards accepted fcor tilisproject ensure an acceptably low risk of sub-marginal economic returns 5n Upper Egypt. - 44 -
DC. AGREEMENIS TO BE REACHED AND RECOMUERNDATIONS
9.01 Assurances have been obtained from GOE and/or EPADP that:
(a) EPADP would apply design and selection criteria satisfactory to the Bank (paras. 4.05, 5.6 and 5.11-5.15) for carrying out drainage works under the project (para. 5.15);
(b) (i) EPADP would prepare and maintain separate project accounts; (ii) the project accounts would be audited annually by independent auditors satisfactory to the Bank; (iii) certified copies of the audited annual project accounts and of the final auditors' report would be sent to the Bank for review not later than six months after the end of each fiscal year, and (iv) the auditors' report would include, inter alia, a statement that the funds advanced by the Bank for the special account and against statements of expenditure were used for the purpose for which they were provided (para. 6.12);
gc) EPADP would review annually, with the Bank, its program for the training of engineers and technicians and would regularly inform the Bank of progress in implementingsuch programs (para. 7.05);
(d) MOI and EPADP would contract suitably qualified expatriate and local experts on terms, conditions and schedule satisfactory to the Bank (para. 7.06);
'e) (i) EPADP would review with the Bank, not later than six months before the start of each of its fiscal years and until completion of the project, the technical staff requirementsof of the project during the following fiscal year. for effective implementationand quality control of project works and for OM, and the required additional number of civil and agricultural engineers would be provided on timely basis, and (ii) EPADP would fulfill such requirements, through the provision of necessary resources and facilities, including financial incentives for the recruitment and retention of the staff (para. 7.08);
(f) until completion of the project, MOI and EPADP would provide to the Bank for its comments: (i) not later than three months before the start of the GOE's fiscal year, EPADP's annual implementationplan, indicating work status, budgetary, equipment and staffing resources required and available, and allocation in MOI's budget for drainage projects, and (ii) the proposals for MOI's investment program in the drainage and irrigation subsector (para. 7.11);
(g) MOI would: (i) prepare and provide to the Bank, not later than December 31, 1985, a plan for maintenance of drainage and irrigation channels, including the budgetary requirements thereof, and (ii) carry out such plan, taking into account the - 45 -
Bank's comments thereon (para. 7.16);
(h) (i) sufficient funding based upon the estimated cost or agreed target and other resources would be made available annually to EPADP for the proper operation and maintenance of drainage facilities improved and/or installed under the project; (ii) prepare, with the assistance of experts, and provide to the Bank, by June 30, 1986, a plan for the implementationof weed control trials utilizing special plant, together with controlled use of chemicals; (iii) carry out such plan, taking into account the Bank's comments thereon, and (iv) perform review of the results of the trials, using the specialists group responsible for planning the trials (para. 7.19);
(i) EPADP would: (i) adequately staff its ImplementationMonitoring Unit so as to enable it to plan, coordinate and monitor the activities under the project and promptly make available to it the services of consultants in implementationplanning and monitoring; (ii) prepare by June 30, 1986, with the assistance of such consultants, and provide to the Bank, for its comments, a plan for monitoring the implementationof the project, and (iii) promptly carry out such plan, taking into account the Bank's comments (para. 7.21);
(j) EPADP would prepare (i) quarterly progress reports, submitting these to the Bank not later than two months after the end of each quarter, and (ii) a project completion report to be submitted to the Bank within six months of the loan closing date (para. 7.21);
(k) EPADP would: (i) not later than December 31, 1985, prepare with the assistance of expatriate and local experts, and provide to the Bank for its comments, a detailed program for M&E the impact of drainage on water table and on such other aspects as may be appropriate, and (ii) carry out such program in consultation with the Bank (para. 7.22);
(1) MOI would: (i) not later than December 31, 1986, provide to the Bank for its comments, an initial report on the results of the experiments being undertaken by DRI in relation, inter alia, to soil, salinity, water table, cropping pattern and yields, and thereafter to make available annually to the Bank the results of such experiments, and (ii) to utilize, as appropriate, the findings of such experiments in the design of the drainage systems (para. 7.24);
(m) (i) suitable arrangements would be made to ensure that cultivators of land benefitting from field drainage works (covered collectors, laterals and related structures) under the project would be charged with annual amount sufficient: (a) to cover capital cost of such works (plus a 10Z administrative charge) over a period of 20 years from the dates of completion of each drainage unit, and (b) to cover on a continuous basis, starting two years after the completion of such unit, the - 46 -
maintenance cost of such works, as such cost is determined in accordance with principles satisfactory to the Bank, and (ii) EPAPD, in cooperation with its Ministry of Finance would: provide to the Bank, by December 31, 1986, an outline of the measures and procedures to be adopted to improve collection of field drainage costs, indicating an estimate of the expected annual collection; take into account the comments which the Bank may offer on the methods and procedures to be implemented for improving collection of field drainage costs, and provide annually to the Bank a report reviewing the progress made in such collection and, if necessary, to make proposals for its further improvement (para. 8.08).
9.02 In order to make LCB procedures acceptable to the Bank, it was agreed that: (a) representatives of foreign firms would be allowed to bid, and (b) all bidders would be treated equally in terms of eligibility for any preferences or the requirement of furnishing bids or performance bonds (para. 6.06).
9.03 A condition of effectiveness of the Bank loan would be signing by GOE of AFDB and AFDF agreements (para. 6.02).
9.04 Subject to the assurances and conditions listed above, the proposed project would be suitable for a Bank loan of US$68.0 million for 20 years, including 5 years grace at the standard variable rate. The Borrower would be the Government of Arab Republic of Egypt. ARABREPUBLIC OF EGYPT DRAINAGEV PROJECTI Proiect Coaponents by Year (Egyptian Pounds '000) Total Base Costs . - Edwrtian 85/06 06/07 07/80 00/09 09/90 Pounds (US$ '000)
A. OPEN DRAIN REMODELLING 1. DELTA 1*524.4 5,090.1 4P660,0 4,300*0 362.6 15.954,0 12P763.8 2. UPPER EGYPT 2,005.1 7P309,4 2P662.7 349.6 12P406#0 90989.5
Sub-Total OPEN DRAIN RENODELLING 3,609.5 12P407.5 7.323#6 4,650.5 362.6 28,441.6 22.753,3 B. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
1. DELTA 910.3 43,723.4 37,195.7 20,550.3 4t325*1 114,712.9 91P770,2 2. UPPER EGYPT - 4U5.3 15,037.7 70796.9 3,103.6 27o223.5 217786.8
Sub-Total SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE 910.3 44,200.7 53,033.4 36P347,1 7.420#7 141,936.3 113,549.0 C. OPEN DRAIN MAINTENANCE 331.3 3P236,4 29246,7 2P240.0 1974#7 10P030.0 0.02401 D. SU0BURFACE DRAIN MAINTENANCE
1. DELTA - 1260,9 1.450,6 1632.4 1177#6 5,531,5 4,425.2 2. UPPER EGYPT - - 640.7 97.1 737.0 1,475.7 1t180.S
Sub-Total SUBSURFACE DRAIN MAINTENANCE - 1,26099 2,091t4 1P729.5 1.917,5 7.007.2 5P605,8 Es TRAINING AND TECHN. ASSIOTANCE - 163.9 112.1 77.5 - 353.5 282.6 F. STRENOHTHENING OF DRI 95.1 270.2 94.4 36.9 6.6 511.2 409.0 a. MONITORING EVALUATION PROGRAMME 21.7 171,3 111.4 61,6 30e6 404.0 323,8 Total BASELINE COSTS 4P975.9 61,015,0 65.012,9 45,152.1 11P720.7 100604.6 150,947.7 Phwsical Contindencius 345.2 6,029.1 6,501,3 4,515s2 1172.9 10,563.6 14t050#9 Price Contindencies 113.1 5,96397 13,606.1 15P120#5 5.396,5 40,399.0 32,319.8
Total PROJECT COSTS 5t434,1 73P007,0 05t120.3 64P707.0 10.490*0 247p640.0 190.11,4 *nUUUUMUbbUU mt&SmumanU*UE aumm.m mUBUU*33 UUUU Taxes 304,7 9,631.0 9,769.0 6.494.1 1.741.7 2U0020.5 22.416.4
Foreign Exchanie 2,404.5 40,350,1 42,560.8 20,620,6 7.139,4 121171,4 96,937.1 ' '
April 11 1905 12219 ARABREPUBLIC orF eGYpT DRAINACEV PROJECT Project CiPnoents by Year
Totals Ilnclud1r,s Contiuiuencls Totals Includind Contindwncies (Esv,tion Pournds '000) (U99 '@00)
85/06 06/87 07/10 00/09 09790 Total *S1/6 86/87 37/8l 0/069 89/90 Total ...... S...... U**S**S ***..S . ------.... - - ---.------. -s---u--s A. OPEN DRAIN REMODELLING
1. DELTA 1,549.5 5091143 60322s2 6.4174 59792 20.797,6 1239.6 40729,0 5057.7 51133.9 477.6 16P638,1 2. UPPER EGYPT 2,354.0 0t970.7 3P576.6 493.7 15t31951 1.803@2 7,176.6 2,661.3 395.0 - 12.11641 _...... ___.. __..._ ...... __ _._ ...... ______...... ____ :- __ ---- __ ------______Bub-Total OPEN DRAIN REMODELLINO 31,03.6 14,002.0 93390.0 6,911. 597.2 16,192.7 1,122.9 11905 6 7 919.0 5 528.9 477.6 2.954 2 D. SUWURFACE DRAINAGE
1 DELTA 1,026.9 52P232s6 40.550,3 40,704.9 6,740.0 149.334,7 821.5 41,76861 36,340&2 32P629.0 5.39240 119#467,6 2. UPPER EOYPT - 572#4 20P526,5 11,091.2 4.066,6 37P056,3 - 457.9 16,421.2 68673,0 3.693,3 29.645,4 _ _.I_ ...... _ _ _ I .. _ _ ....I...... __ ...... _ _ . _ _ ...... _ _ ._...... ______I_, ______... I.,..I.I.....I...... ------..------..---____-.------___-_-___--_-______-__- Sub-Total SUDSURFACI DRAINAGc 1 O26-9 52P0050 69-076.0 51P076o2 lt604e 1Obv391n5 321.5 42.244,0 55p261.5 41S00.9 9.2651 149,113.2 C. OPEN DRAIN MAINTENANCE 372.6 3,053,1 2,932,9 3,190O6 31101,3 13459s 290.1 3,062,5 21346.3 2.556,9 2,461.1 10766e9 De IUIUURFACE DRAIN MAINTENANCE
1 DELTA - IS40.0 1,946.0 2o407.2 1.9299 7,02318 - 1.23264 19556.6 1.925,6 1S431.9 64259,0 2. UPPER EGYPT - 056,9 146.9 1,191.5 2,195.3 - - 68955 117.5 95312 1.75162
Bub-Total SUDIURFACE DRAIN IAINTENANCC - IS40,0 2,002.0 2,554,1 39121.4 10O0191 - 1.23246 2,242a3 2.04313 29497,1 6.O0153 E. TRAINING AND TECHN. AOSSITANCE * 194.0 143.5 107.6 445.0 - 155.2 114.6 e6*0 - 356,0 F. STRENIHTHENINo OF DRI 106,5 329.5 121,5 52,3 11.0 620.1 15s2 263.6 97.2 41.9 Its 496.7 0. MONITORING EVALUATION PROORAMME 24,5 20314 144.0 07,9 60,5 520,3 19.6 162,7 115.2 70,3 46.4 416.22 . Total PROJECT COSTS 5,434.1 73,007.0 05,120,1 64,707.0 10,490.0 247,646,0 4,147.3 59,046,2 61,096.3 51.310,2 14,796,4 196,116,4
April 11 1905 12119 "aL EDIFULIC07 =IP
ummeir,Account Lilr intet Cce.tabyNwa Itoypt£aa PaSns '000) SUDDUAFACEDMAIN Pala OPENDRAIN REMODELLING DIJIDURFACEDRAINAGE RAINTENANtCE TRAMININ AND MONITORIRNGsIfoaa -. ..-- - -..- ~~~~~~------OPEN DRAIN ------TECiMN OTAENDNTNEN£NOOF CVALUATIGN ------DELTA urrEREGYPT DELTA UPrER EGYPT MAINTENANCE DELTA UPPEREGYPT ADDISTANCE BIR PDOGD&I£E Total 3 PAmaqt ...... s...... ss...... 0~ .*S .. *.S...... ao.
I. INVESTMENTCO2TD A. CIVIL HOARDS I. EXCAVATIONI FD4A RERCELLING 956.3 POPS IPI as 0. 9. 0. *TDIITURED FOR REMODELLING 3.709,3 3,106.7 - 6.D160 10.,::: 168. 3. COLLECTOR DRAIN INST. AND CC -PIPED 2-EI.DD2 3 ,401:,0 DI. 00Em. 4. LATEDVAIBDAIN INST. -- IO.P6D.2 2,90. - 1,7.la 10.0 £347. S. DUILDINOD FO* FIELD DRAIN MAINTENANCE - - - 302.0 2.03D.7 532.5 - ,PD13.E 10. 3123. 6. PVC - FACTOAT *UILDIRDD - 6.3 - 3 10.0 Soi
Dub-Tatal CIVIL HOARDS 4,665.6 4,076.2 32,442.9 7,336.1 302.0 2.02D.7 552.5 - - 51444.0 £0.0 D.D44.4 3. CORDYRUCTION1EDUIPRSNT
8.DSKINED 1.317.? 090.4 ---- 2,EOO.1 80,0 n20. 2. ACKNGED 797.2 1,13D.P - 19411. 193.0 2. COLLECTOR LAVEAD 2:206,9 769.0 - ---- 3,071.9 £0.0 307.6 4, LATRA LAYRA 7.357 5 3.217.7 -- -- 8 .47. £0.6 DOD. S. TRACTOADlMD RTRAILORD - - 6.45,3: 2,477- - --- 9,132,1 10.0 PIE.: 6, DYER EDNOaYRUTOR EDUEFrENT - P33D 2324.3 --- 306.7 4D.7 13,200a00 .2,7 7. DPANS 662,5 677,3 17,533,4 3,344.3 - - EE,417.D 10.0 G.24£.D
Gai-Total CONDRUCIOGN COtIIPMNY 2,777.4 2,706.6 43,4D3.4 11,332.9 - 06.7 43.7 60,632.5 30.0 6,06D.3 C. OPENAnD TILE MAIN NAINTONANCE EOIU1PMNT -4,612.1 1,423:0 405.4 --- 6403£. 4. 3, VENIELED AND 31630 - - 3,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5202.7P74.D 443 5, 5.7 123,3 140.1 6,2. 00 632.3 C. GPANO FOR MAINTENANCE - - 96.3 - - 96.2 £0.0 £9.0 P. PIPE - PRODUCTION EDUIPRENT 4*003.4 094.9 . 4:DPD,3 £0.0 UP..: 0, PVC- pipe PRODUCTION EXPENDITURES -D2P 207.4 -Is-8,104 I £0. £05. N. PVCCONFOUND - 15,201.6 ~~~~~~~~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~--- ~~ 094. ~~~~~~~~~3,712.0. ,97.6 I.PURG POWDR - - 320.2 24.P £43. 100 £. J. ADRINIDTItATION- ENGINEER. - GWERVIDION D2D.0 7D4,0 6,902,1 £.SOP.2 600.& 373.3 £22.1 20.0 20126.7 1119,7£.0 I,89. R, LAND ACOUID3T.AND CROP COMPENDATION 4,633.0 4.P20.0 6,437.1 1,370.P 6.0 73.5 *2,--- 17433£.0 8.740,41 L. TRAINIRG AND TECNNICAL ADDSIOANCE - - P6,4 - 120.4 D. , a £0. 32.3 M. FLU MEADURIN COPY 3,045.3 3,040.5 0.0 0.0 Total SINVETMENT 10013 £5,954.0 33,406.3 114.712.0 27,232.5 8,559.7 3,924.1 1,137.3 20,0 470.1 3se0.9 £02130.1 PD8 £7,900.9 It. RECURRENT COSTD
A. S AND N DNARAINAE- 4,140.2 I1607.4 330.4 - 0. .5 6176£. 1. B. a ADD a£.1N356C - 13.1 £0.01 8.11 Co 0 RID R TRAINIKO ANDIECN.AODIDT.------333.3 - 33,3 10.0 33.2 5. 0 AND M NONITORtINOAND EVALUATION ------D.04.4 10.0 5.4 Total RECURRENT CODST$- 4oI40.2 P1607.4 330.4 333.0 41.1 DS .56.24, 10.0 634.7 Total DARELINE CODST £5,934.0 12o4166, 114.712.D 37,223.5 10,010.0 5,531.5 1,475.7 333.3 111.2 404.3 £N,044.6 P.0 11,363.6 Phaleoal Contingencies I,290,6 1.240,7 31,478.3 2,722,3 1,303.0 352.2 £47.6 33.3 53.1 40.5 10,5A1.6 0.0 0.0 Pr£aa Cafstitniaflaa 3,513,2 1,639.6 23P130.a 7,1.9 3425.6 1,739.1 572.0 86.2 36.4 75.1 45,391.5 9.1 3000G.1 Total POJECT 0010 1,797,6 13,3918 149,34.7 37056,0 3,450, 7,0233 2,19.3 443. 620.0 520.3 47.64003P.7 2,224. S . US . S.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .... ;; ...... - ...... a: loxes 1,2. 0,2 1,5. ,903 1135 Dl5. 1. 943, 20,020,3 P. 231. Faralan Exchanga 7,067.9 3,029.6 70,722.9 20,36260 7,460.0 1,772.0 334.5 359.7 465.5 332.3 121,171.4 0.9 10.7531.
A,t£lII,------£905-- £2220------ARABREPUBLIC OF EGYPT DRAINAGEV PROJECT Summary A.ccounts by Year abl, Costs (EuwitIon uwuadi. '000) rotaidn Exchande
85/06 06/07 07/00 00/0? 09/90 Total z Aournt
I. INVESTMENT COSTS
A. CIVIL UORKS
1I EXCAVATIONO rOR REMODELLING 305.5 779.4 470.1 336.0 26.0 1925.0 10.1 194.1 2. STRUCTURES rOR REMODELLING 1,223.3 3,655.2 1P770.4 159.1 6,016.0 27.6 189O0.5 3. COLLECTOR DRAIN INHT. AND CC PIPEG 5P019.3 9,105.6 0,747.3 2o066.0 25,010.2 30.0 9*000.9 4. LATERAL DRAIN IN5T. 3,069.1 5P490.5 4,645.4 669.6 13r074.6 27.9 3t866.8 5. BUILDINOS FOR rIELD DRAIN MAINTENANCC 650.0 949.2 630.0 65O.0 2,923.2 21.2 619.7 6. PVC - FACTORY OUILDINGS 06.3 06.3 21.2 18.3 Sub-Total CIVIL WORKS 305.5 11,633.3 191750.6 16.166.0 3,570.6 51,444.0 31.0 16v30.6 B. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
1. DRAOLINES - 2o200,1 2,200#1 OS.O 1,175.1 2. BACKIIOEB 1,9361 1936*1 00.3 1,710.4 3. COLLECTOR LAYERS - 1,730.2 10345,7 - 3,075.9 00.3 2,717.3 4. LATERAL LAYERS 2m429#6 4.963.5 1002.4 0,475#5 OT.3 7,457.4 5. TRACTORS AND TRAILORO 6,374s0 2,Y30.7 210.5 9,323.1 6407 6,036.7 6. OTHER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPHENT 03.5 7,920,1 4P300.1 024.9 - 13P216.6 01.1 10,721,2 7. SPARES 5,506.0 7,944.9 7,131.4 1,755.2 22,417,5 67.3 15,096.1
Sub-Total CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 03.5 26,453.0 21,765.4 10,594.9 1,755.2 60tWS2,G 75.3 45P644o9 Co OPEN AND TILE DRAIN MAINTENANCE EQUIPHENT 10.4 2,544.0 1,603.3 1,237.5 965.4 6o.40.5 00.3 5P173,1 D. VEHICLES AND SPARES - 3P399,6 2.716,5 15310 55.3 6,324.s5 51.4 3,24Bo9 E. SPARES FOR MAINTENANCE 55.9 42.2 55.9 42.2 196.3 54.5 106.9 F. PIPE - PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT 910.3 1,650.3 1,024.6 956.2 340.0 4*090.3 70.0 3.159,S 0. PVC - PIPE PRODUCTION EXPENDITURES - 261.0 397.2 200.1 71.2 1P010.4 11.2 113.0 H. PVC COMPOUND - 4,291,0 7,066.9 6i340,0 1,274.4 10,974.0 06.6 16,412.2 I. PURGE POWDER 33.0 54.3 47.5 9.5 145.0 56.7 125.7 J. ADMINISTRATION - ENGINCER. - OUPERVIOION 166.5 3,140.1 4,026.0 3,027.0 036.3 11,196,7 0.0 0,0 K. LAND ACQUISIT.AND CROP COMPENOATION 1651,5 S5,67.0 4,960.0 4,443.0 U6143 17,403,5 0.0 0.0 L. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASGIOTANCC 3.0 164.6 57.0 90.7 323.3 02s6 267.2 he FLOW MEASURING EQPT 1,524,4 1,524,4 3,040.0 90,0 2,743.9
Total INVESTMENT COSTS 4,663,1 60,722.4 63;552;0 43;401.3 9;790,4 102;130.1 51.7 940o96.1
Il. RECURRENT COSTS _ -_ _ -_ -, _ -_ -_ _ -_ ...... - _ A. 0 AND H DRAINAGE 295.9 917.4 1,333,0 1s657.1 1,913,4 6,117s4 24.4 1,494s6 B. 0 AND M RECEARCII 3.7 3.7 3.7 11.1 7.4 0.9 C. 0 AND n TRAINING AND TEC1I.A5515T. 154,7 105.7 73.1 333,5 06.4 298.0 D. 0 AND h MONITORING AND EVALUATION 16.9 16.9 1699 16.9 16.9 04.4 13.6 11.4 _ _...... , ...... ,...,....,...... _ __. Total RECURRENT COSTS 312.0 1,092.6 1460,1 1,750.7 I1930,2 6.546,5 27.4 1,794.9 Total BASELINE CO0TS 4,975.9 61,015.0 60?012.9 45,I52.1 11.720o7 100,604,6 50.0 95,090.9 Phwsical Continiencies 345.2 6,029,1 6,501.3 4,515.2 1,172.9 10,563.6 50.2 9,314.7 Price Contingencies 113.1 5.963s7 13,606.1 15t120.5 S5i96.5 40.399,0 39.5 15.965.s8 _ ...... ,, .. ., , ,., .... , ...... _... ___...... 1 Total PROJECT COSTS 5,434.1 73,007.0 05,120.3 64,707.0 10,490,0 247,640.0 40.9 121,171.4 11111161L*f *I_USNSUS M%.Wsl -6SJ - oS*- ...... US. Taxes 304.7 9,631.0 9o769,0 6o494.1 1,741.7 20,020.5 0.0 0.0 I4 Foreign Exchange 2,404.5 40,350.1 42t56L.O 20,620.6 7t139.4 121t171#4 0,0 0.0
April 11 1995 12114 MAIa1UBLIC OT GM'-! OLAINMII V PRnlECr Su mar Accounts bY Tear Totals Inoludlng Contlnduncis Totals Includins Contindanoies (EuyptionPaunds '000) (U5 'o000 _ _ __~...... ___...... _ ...... ------I ______-_-______-,__-______--_-____--____ 95106 06/07 07/00 00/09 09/90 Total 15/86 66/07 17/lU 10/19 *9/90 Totel ....UUN **=f S... ft.a*.am* ... seems. U*u* .6s*5Su*n *SS1f4b ...... monsoons .... u*** .man. - ...... a.-^^...
I. INVESTMENTCOSTS A. CIYIL wORKS
la EXCAVATIONS FOR REMODELLING 344.7 9567 651o.4 504.6 42.9 2,500.3 275.7 765.4 521.1 403.7 34.3 2.000.2 2. STRUCTURES FOR RENODELLINO * 1,490,l 4.9l3#6 2P621,1 257.6 9.202.4 - 1,192.1 3J930.9 2009&,9 206.1 7.421.9 3. COLLECTOR DRAIN INST. AND CC PIPES - 7,040.9 l2t230.5 1237J.3 3P297,3 35o313e9 - 5.639,0 9.784,4 10.19,9 2637.9 26.2311 4. LATERAL DRAIN INST. 3.740,3 7,330.9 6.040,0 1,090.3 19.0113 - 2F992.2 5P16497 5.479,0 870.7 S1214*6 S. DUILDINIS FOR FIELD DRAIN MAINTENANCE - 103.1 1,202.2 975.7 1,073.3 4P13150 - 643*0 1.025, 700.5 656.7 36366.@ 6. PVC - FACTORY WUILDINBS 105.4 - - - 105o4 - 14.1 - - U4.
Sub-Total CIVIL WORKS 344.7 14 145 0 26,409.6 23 607.4 5,76.5 70,3553. 275.7 11316.0 2.1262. 13,930.0 4,615.6 56,214.2 B. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPHENT
1 DRA4LINES - 2.6041 2,604.1 - 201282 - - - 2.030J3 2. BACKHOES 2,203.2 - - 2.253,2 - 1,626.6 - - - 1,026.6 3. COLLECTOR LYlRS - - 2.199,3 1.047*7 - 4.047,0 - - 1.75994 1.475,2 - 322J7,6 4. LATERAL LAYERS - 2.065,3 6,309.3 l,406.2 - 10,6607 - 2292.2 5.047.5 1.19,9 69526.6 O. TRACTORS AND TRAILORI - 7.576.6 3530.6 293.5 - 11P400.7 - 6061,2 2.32445 234.0 - 9e12f@. 6. OTHIR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 93.4 9361,3 5,506.2 1I134o4 160175,3 74.7 7,419.0 4#469.0 907.5 - 12.949s2 7, SPARES - 6,500,3 10,100.9 9.79462 2s604#1 29.087,5 - 5.270,6 .0O6 7S543 2,033.3 23P270*0
Sub-Total CONSTRUCTION EQUIPHENT 93.4 31,270.7 270726.4 14,555.9 2,604,1 76.251,5 7407 25,022.9 22.1lel 11.6444, 2.08J3 61,606.6 C. OPEN AND TILE DtAIN MAINTENANCE EQUIPHENT 1l16 3,005.1 2.153,6 1.712,1 1,449,6 33ls2O 9.3 2,404.1 1.7228 1.369,7 I.15I.9 6.664, DO VEHICLCS AND SPPAES 4,051.0 3,503.4 214,3 0552 7,153*9 - 1,240.8 2.802.7 171.5 66.2 6.261,1 Et SPARES FOR MAINTENANCE 66*2 54.2 77s5 63.6 261.5 - 1s.O 41.3 62.0 10.9 209.2 F. PIPE - PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT 1P026i9 1940.3 1,302.4 1.32123 517.5 61081 321,5 1.566*6 1.04290 1.@sO1. 414.0 4.666,6 8. PVC - PIPE PRODUCTION EXPENDITURED 321J1 540.0 410,0 11723 10397.2 - 256.9 432.0 135.0 93.9 1011709 H. PVC COMPOUND - 5064.9 0.997.7 0,724,4 1.096,7 24,631.6 - 4051.9 7.19t1 6979.5 1.517,4 19,46,9 lo rPURG PONDER - 39.6 69.1 65o. 14,2 131.4 - 119 55.1 523 11.4 110.7 J. AININISTRATION - CNOINECR. - BUPERVIOION 1090 2 .98710 5,526.6 4.570,7 1.397, 15,5462.9 150,4 31097.4 4421.3 39466,0 1.11l31 12,410.4 Ks LAND ACIUISIT.AND CROP COMPENSATION 1I564.0 6,664.2 6,007,4 6o721,9 1,439,5 23,697.7 1.491*, 54911, 1,445.9 5,377.4 l.l5s16 13,956.1 L. TRAININS AND TECHNICAL ASBISTANCE 3.4 194,6 73J0 126.5 407.5 2,7 155.7 53.4 109.2 - 326.0 He FLOW MtEAURINS EQPT 1549.5 1.63317 - - - 3.10313 12396 1307.0 - - - 2,146.6 Total INVESTMENTCOSTS 5,002.3 72.404.5 03,162.3 62,205.0 15,354.2 230.299,0 4,045.6 57,937.6 66.529,6 49.744s7 12.203.3 190,631,2 ..... -...------m-a...-ESflD.** *BSUS** USS**.*U *S***U- *U*US** *S-******U*****S *t*-.US------
It. RECURRENTCOSTS
A. 0 AND n DRAINAOE 332.0 1.115.5 1.795,3 2.450.3 31116,1 0,610.1 26693 892,4 1.436.3 1.960,2 2,492.9 7.043,1 A. 0 AND M RESEARCH 4,6 5.1 5.6 - 15.2 - 3#6 4.0 4o4 - 12.1 C. 0 AND M TRAINING AND TECHAOOIT. * 102.6 134oD 100.9 - 418.3 - 146.1 107.1 8007 - 33496 D, 0 AND M MONITORIN6AND EVALUATION 19.0 20.7 22&9 25.2 27.7 1155 15.2 16.5 16.2 20.1 22.2 92.4 _ ...... __.._ .. _ _ ...... _...... ,. . . . _ _ ...... ---- __- :- _____ ------______Total RECURRENTCOSTS 351.9 1.32323 1.950,0 2.502,0 3,143.6 9.235R0 231.S Iage1, 1.566,4 2.06S. 2.515.1 7.407.2 ...... --. .. -- *------...*...... *...... ---*-...... - *--***---*------**.-.. **...... u...... *a u - ...u. -.
Total PROJECTCOSTS 5,424.1 71.0079035.120,3 64,707.0 10,490.0 247,646.0 4.347,3 59,046.2 66.096,3 51.030,2 14,790.4 1901.1164 2
_ ______-:---_-_ . _ _ _ ...... ------_ __ _ - _-_-__ - _. - _---_ _ _--______. _ - April 11 1935 12116 PhuflealCentlnbenclot Phashcsl Bae Castsl ...... ------elntinenesCetlnaen..la...... ,.1 Totalfea.l en r 9I3n9l.li __.__._...... _...... Local ------..... I...... _ _.-..-. Frg -C- add cs------ts@ tnJ@6| --- L'IC Cen. prie Cant
i. :inormtCt mt t::: ,,::, :; ...... :: : :: ,:: ,,:: :[ :.::: ,:: .::, :::;: ::.,,::, :::' '"'::tt tI tCl: i.~~ ~~ ~ ~CC ~ ~~~~~~e Ele! 9.3g S_1 stelIh htans t-e (Ewe).9.15.. 3lfi7. t.n. Ccl 3..le 34s -t, e Puce Cent, "Et!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~e.tep .h leaveStt,,lte I.t.t lena Ten, tnchle.se Toa Fe, laes fae 1.1 Fe. Inch.t fe^seil lae Intel(( Ct, a.Es Cet.z7 3. 13ct961363 utttrtt0C L3 *.17a1^.3 3.3.3 . .-7 3.140.?7 . 317.1 .138.1 314.1 30^.3 331X.4 - ^301.1 31.0. 3a809.1.. -. 3644.3 303.63a.0hr.4 - - .146 I, OlOSIW 1.00420OPM ULUCIOS tMILLIOS 3601. 060CC - PIPES 7.049~~,7374 3,940.3194 0112.::4. 3411.6 704.310.1S,9.. 194. 1. 14S.,*. 1. 32,17.17 3,3.1, 3.22133341 3.9343.33.,1 1409.baSI 1,310.1 2.61,.431.920,1. 146111.3 L 14,40.9
3. NIttI KO t1 KlULt63 I -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....so.49.7 ...... 3.64, tS...... - .. 2,330.1ttt...... 4 '2..... 3 ...... - t...... 2 39 ...... - ..... 7...... 1.2 ...... 3"613.1 ...... 3....7.3 .... Vtt4 't 7 tst1 tItgEt7t7tt
-etal 3. CIVtff0 2.fl 3.61311 32304.11.3136N3,244.2~~. 36e763.330136,2 3.3664.0,322.3274.737,'.100 2.4*0.7~3: 323.31337,423. 3,47.3. .0 3.0.3.7. 4,335.1349463 I.4"0.42170.346,0. 1,221.334 35.93.1 33.2,1,530.526 3IN0.4.969.1,3.31. 371.5.232.3S316.3 3.736,130. 56.241.2Sa66ll36.33e-&.3.337.4 1,336.7.32.94.30: 13,7.0 tt. fflfn200 EPU3I~~LECI00 6. WItINO a MFtL4210N0 AIN 01.4" 3,073.6 3. 27,430. 4062. 0. 2. 4. 3. 9. 390.7 9136:.2 1,4. ,214.6 3,6. 9305 3. e234
0. 3.01*T14*36 3Sf. 1.0931 1173. 42. 31,699.17 169.3, 71. 42. 1,13. 1. 1,1. 30. 3,00. 2,97. 3004. 17. j124 3i303 m.l 1naoamo3.59,1u04106 599. 1. 63 1, 4. 339.4 370.3 2317.6 3. 3,366.1 13.36.1:, 370,2, 4,l. 0310,3. 323. 6. 626 - fit, OOC.. I.l W6 106 20111S011 62,1.0:' 3.36,3 25.1 *11.0 6.4 3.4 361.1 17.333.7 1',04.39.0 £1.3.7 3933.0 19.636.1 37.21:76:7333.0 123.6 ._,7:6 36.9 111::1::03372.7 32.! 309.2 s .3,076.439.0 03=S: 396.12.6 i U.7t096 32.l69 330.2t I 394. n, 3,107.7 3. 0 179 3792.4 3r213 26 3332.6 3 1 3. 74 4 31.4 7*.40 0. 9U40- #0fl601 kLIlSSr *4.4 14. 69. 3. 2.4,: 4.9 3:.2 1. - 6. 37. £1. 64. 1 .7 16.1 ,,,'" ''," D.P91 AISS 3AIn2.1342,7 363.1 3266.1 31.319,2 32*4.6 36. 367,0 23.13, ,9 5. 2. 3.040.1:1 3 1,003 23. ,1. 976. .32 3,1, 3. 6 on 0. 27 *. 3. 03 . . 36 3. 0.0 3.0 33.3 33.31. 13.0 336.4 3.231 32.7 1327. J.61114T0 SUO. - 10933003,32.7 24. 6 a1. -3: 022.2 631 491.7 .. 143. 33. 2,07. I 116, 6. 31.42,6 3,:32. 33.230a S.35 033.3CVCO*305,0. -9 32,94.5297 320.- 1,530 l. ,3.I.4 269433,1. 372.6a 37,21. L.916030 II1101MIL 337O3. 93 59 307 3.N.9 26 3. 3944 . 33 2603, 22. 36. .6194.4 Totem10116fU61 1619 15721. 23,044.4 37E.369334,3.2 116.31M. 2'.306 3.371L 34",321.3 33,467. 32,49. 3,976.6 24,593.6 13.,.233 73,41 3330?3963 6.4 106 33131.6 3. S""INSt 3gt.2*S.1 337 31.2 3.7't*6.1 310.3 5. 9. 37.6 13. 3.1 20.2 34.3 376. t4. i9, 2.0t 10. 3i02. P.060300*36K 191? 354.91 1304.1 0713.0S. 3.29.6 13.0. 930. 1000.0 369P.2 2.3 4. 0,6646 3,4.4 ,24. 2*7.2 7,403 4011 6,47. 0. 6 63 000006666 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~1.07113 4. 00 03 6.1 03 09 0320 02 24 002. 3'.1S I33.3 3. 3.0
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------hid 61C00016110036 3,432.6 2.633,9 396.4 3,337.3 343.6 363.2 36.0 4,8332.7 361.4 3,276.3 10.61311,726.34.0 3,604.05 11,240.15. 317.9 7,467.2 6*4S.316 6.0046.
--.- … latc b--. 1il gipa 76,733.7TI 34.67, 37317.6 391I.94. 7,41.6 1.66. 3773.4 4009332,33.6 3,7. 1496237 9.9373 76744. 33743.14.B39,33. 1,7.3. 3 3. h~~~~~~~~~~l*~33, 3961 ~33334~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~1, 7 l"4 36 ;: 3 12 I1 113 - 53 - ANNEX 1 Table 7
ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Estimated Schedule of Disbursement of Bank Loan (US$ M Equivalent)
Fiscal Year Bi-Annual Cumulative and Semester Disbursements Disbursements
1985/86 18t 0.0 0.0 2nd 2.0 1/ 2.0
1986/87 1st 2.0 4.0 2nd 3.0 7.0
1987/88 ist 8.0 15.0 2nd 11.0 26.0
1988/89 lst 12.0 38.0 2nd 8.0 46.0
1989/90 lst 8.0 54.0 2nd 7.0 61.0
1990/91 1st 4.0 65.0 2nd 3.0 68.0
11 Assuming special fund established. Sl___~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z as& ftp___w g
~~~~_- D | _4S~..~-- ~~~~1~~^__e"qE_--I-- 1--- !---1---11! t- ,III TTTW, t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I X ,C1.l'..emu.....111...... zrb I v 1r S_ * t s~~~~~~~~~~m~inmt,.tOw
___ -4.qIbin2ual At __ l -- ~~~~~t*- - '----^ -- . -- I I, Lfe~~~~~~~1 "______6 a"{"X1 gOD ~ I _"z| ,_s~~~~~~~I UFA4hm3.iiOr.~~~~~~~~~i (04a_t on_" im ownao__ Ts I Xa" ---- Iam - I I&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(scaom .umm.nL 1 F t.T~~m -- - - b~mwmiIu- _~ '_.
_.-- -- (gI)i. . *
c I _* ImII
- - --- ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?- -- me.~~~~~~~~~~~N .t T1-In--- 7- -- -` *1 -- I-- S. -A - IA-5-N - 55 -
2AN=C2 Cbart 2
ARABREPUBC OF EGM DRAU4'GEVPROJECT Schcdulc1o Prowemwntd M c*boand Equi4nwt by EPADP
C=dlaomoam_ - i w ; , I * _ I 46fftion?Am1 - - - 1 21 5iG-IN
Em. Laidin~~~~~~~2. _ _ _ _ 1 3 ,t . cmm. .d I S
, _KWOU an so l jKoSl ] WL lonn | l 1
V~ WAMW 31re 34 21 Na L._ Darnhim 9 Na gm m 1.5 19.
ACP Pgn 0 Gaia wi 1. MP %MM#A=ftUnft2Na,
IL "W %WWCNN Lqmowm 2m tm ~~~1321 S S'S 10
L N 1 3WW 2a .2
3 ilSawa-" sZm9 - , M4 IO IlNat IIIIIETImhI I- L55uchEocmw I N& DWA.dW "wDaNa _dDS"_*t-u0 & *cm bialh C.~ areDINa . I#L0 m 2pm
kMvkmOW I NIL LSBU .o CIA "a1 amCsl
a ino ftj kpif I NM kSupthif 2385?I *Fe~ (Saianu.vwcow) cmA I8.Wm 4n
IL DionP4~ NM~~~~~~~~~~6~ [n
beLffmAinprn o own Na
ftoCLI~AC.e k .5. aw Moft1.316. sobawn On cm- J. ftAbom'.' IreAu=I
"af9otu ob IL1 334 S 510 0 1 - 56 -
ANE 2 Table 1
ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGE V PROJECT
Anticiated Imoort of Eauim=nt for Subsurface Orainage J/
I I I I I l Estimated 2/ Calendar Year ilLa 1 1986j 1T98A7|s | 1 USI
Collector Layers - - 9 7 - 16 2.87 Lateral Layers - 7 35 8 - SO 6.15 Backhoe Loaders - 59 17 - - 76 3.86 Agricultural Trictors 3f - 158 68 6 - 232 2.58 Low Loaders 40-Ton - 1 2 - - 3 0.51 Agricultural - 23 8 - - 31 0.44 Tractor SO-KW wl Blade Laser Equipment - 3 30 12 - 45 1.62 Wheel Loader 1 m3 - 12 8 1 - 21 1.54 Flushes on Tractors - 11 8 3 - 22 0.33 Booter Pumps - 23 8 - - 31 0.14 Mud Pumps - 92 32 - - 124 0.27 Larry and Trailers - 18 7 2 - 27 2.08 Bulldozers - 13 9 1 - 23 2.31 Subtotal for Equipment 24.70 Station Wagon - 37 15 2 - 54 0.30 Pick-ups - 14 8 2 - 24 0.19 Mini Buses - 23 8 - - 31 0.54 Pick-up Toolsets - 23 7 - - 30 0.53 Subtotal for Vehicles lam Total Equipment and Vehicles 26.26 Spare Parts with Construction 2.57 Equipment L/S
1L/ The equipment for subsurface drainage works to be imported by civil works contractors who would be responsible to plan and program construction operations and, accordingly, determine requirement of equipment. gi Foreign exchange costs, excluding local costs, taxes and duties. I/ Assumed that contractors would meet part of the requirement trom locally produced agricultural tractors. _ 57 -
ANNEX 2 Chart 3 ARABREPUSUC OF EGVT DCNADrEVPROJECT MInhhW(ldIfohG.rdO Ogalzlon
-EX]
.~ ~ 9
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_
-G sveiia -i -1imm A am
-Vmb -UMW& LmI I }3IF
l-cA tr I ,
1 I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Am Umu1 I&t.al_rIneI r
XH q-I , ! 'jU F . 1F~~~~~~~~~~~~Uw-2o7 -Tomnm eOmv.a - 58 - Chart 4
ARABREPUBUC OF EGYPT DRAINAGEV PROJECT General Organizatlonof EgyptianPubnlc Authort for Drainage Projects(EPADP)
MER Or
I L ~~~~~~~~~I_ sDO 1CACLOff,
SEWA
ElEaMONIE ' NELAZ.^ *
LO~~~~ |V |l WsL § M | w WsE
I1 I A~AUON I 1 N- SOI
D-Q~~~ DC. C l D.G D
q -Ww S
DG-OerCal 84~~~~~~~~~~~~~Wm-20,77 -59 - ANNEX 2 Table 2
ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Present Status of Technical Staff in EPADP
Field Field Cairo Offices Construction Maintenance Total S A S A S A S A
1. Civil Engineers Director General and Deputy Director General 15 15 22 19 16 15 53 49 Director and Asst. 43 8 70 57 28 18 141 83 Director of Works Engineers 53 15 157 74 55 34 265 123 2. Agricultural Engineers 1/ - 15 - 1 - 85 - 101 Total Engineers l11 53 249 161 99 155 459 369 3. Supervisors 8 25 313 398 389 246 710 669 4. Technicians 21 17 36 84 31 33 88 134
Source: EPADP.
Note: S = Sanctioned; A . Actual
Agricultural Engineers have been recruited to make up for the shortage of civil engineers. AVAAIUWlc OF IflYPT
AA;SUWJIYFflRV IP i IAMAIOK PK8AN
ulAjia..mLkn.Ita the araurAmle Tahlesal I sllSitnitv. Grasiter salinityund Sail Parmubility For the C~atihnIt ra nS Ui*ffa
DeathTabeto flrmduater f nan ... SiIiaJjintvU -10 SLj)/IWCI I/.. raudwoter Salifitly UA/m ponimmtil4tvIni/dayt afm Ocarmnrvat- Ac, oF Deeurrems Ar, at Ocurri.m f. . 3 tD~Fa~ t&urane 1.sL.h1la TI is Is* 160 £5" £71 '00 £116 Or .3 £4 £6 is £16 £2 A4 A l £16 i's6 264 36 lo -roe Shersistwe 7 29 36 29 - 7 34, 72 166 26 so 64 93 its - - 31 Is 31 33 Irooga 26 2s 24 21 - 26 16 7 Is16 I I6 go 166 I66 If0 32 Is 91 97 166 : 6 It 13 so Harass 17 21 42 21 - 17 36 79 1M a 26 93 6 IN9 is is 62 IlDOeshioudy 13 38 4 36 6 13 Be Is 94 6 13 GS 161 16 lee 6 leeIII f6 l66ee 1 - - 26 31 kw I*Ar.Mu 2S 75 - - 23 1f# 1" 166 6 I 25 160 166 66~ - 75 166 lot 166 - - 33s IllTahiya - - 40 46 26 - - 46 141 6 71 64 16 led lee 26 46 o6 go IN - - - 25 is 25 us Dersick 7 II1 3o 26 22 7 19 46 76 25 42 is 63 Al 92 32 - I I 21 11 5 HalhIl1Gmul 29 24 1s 24 6219 63 71 H 6 46 64 S1 91 1se 19 56 75 l6ea6 72 23 go 7 7 - Illaoustily 44 44 6 11 - 44 Al If lee 6 as IN1 166 166 lee 44 76 166 160 - II 23 la la 11 - Weighted Average 16 26 2o 26 4 16 42 76 96 4 12 73 9s 97 I9 23 15 so 92 1t6 4 6 9 II 1s 1o 36
P.S. Ue. II 14 to Il 16 - 64 71 . 5 I6e 6 62 76 6 91 166 21 so 67 75 too 16 14 .14 1s 4 1n 14 £lI norw.t 30 41 19 1t -260 76 69 1662 as 63 let 166 Ise 16o 32 as6I 66f96 166 226 17 17 4 9 4 P.$. N. 7 7 39 1s Is to 7 44, 64 62 3 Is 62 G9 63. 97 11 25 46 61 93. 13 33 a 13 21 a 4 F.5. No.6 17 39 23 it 17 56 59 164 6 35 45 75 75 o6 6 52 as 76 76 24 - 16 6 36 1s - 95.11.N.4 33 26 It 12 -33 69 If 166 69 lot 1ee 1in III ' is11II i Is P.S. VOI3 1 as 1s 46 26 6 36 46 38 6 76 95 1e6 Ise leg 12 to 47 65 ICI 19 6 it - 6 6 1 P.6.16.2 23 32 19 13 13 23 65 74 67 13 91 166 Ise l66 166 23 G9 as 66e 166 22Zs 11 It 11 4 LOfrSNo.I i6 i3 1I 16 5 o6 63 is 91 12 91 El 96 se l66 29 62 74 Is 9to 1 17 26 6 2 Up.rI.de. IA 22 22 26 22 a 22 44. 76 92 6 36 76 96 166 166 26 i6 92 95 160 21 36 24 9 7 s 4 Usgtd :1 42 2s 11 12 is642 67 72 I 12 21 33 13 12 6 2 Average: 26 32 is 17 7 26 is 76 Os 11 67 Al If '94 9M 27 66 72 Al 9726 Z 17 1s is 12 is
I~urfeS.rw 27 31 12 23 a 27 16 69 92 77 .100 166 166 160 Ise 61 76 67 96 166 2I 21 42 4 4 4 4 L.urSam 26 16 Is Is 4626f 36 45 66 63 76 76 Uf 446 S617 77 - 17 25 Il El Iraad 23 II 27 23 9 23 41 el9 1 91 160 160 lee 166 11 63 79 9s log ElGemuom 41 25 1s 16 16 41 Go t6 96 36 77 67 94 166 .40 1s 17 11 a 3 2 Olanfaid 47 26 16 6 3 47 73 619 97171 76 H4 166 166 160 44 74 AG 95 1664622I 17 S 1 4 a Kasabi 47 14 22 6 6 47 fit 63 9? 6 32 17 64 91 i6 Is 42 64 62 116 27 24 24 12 9 3- UawrElUlakar 36 26 26 16 26 36 s6 76 of61s 96 95 91 o1g 166 41 71 62 94 166 43 - 7 21 14 14- salt PS. 26 21 14 is 16 so6 61 65 4 2 65 6I 42 S7 160 35 Go 77 67 M6 411s 31 a 29 6 4 Al Aram 14 1 I9 36 24 14 19 26 7612t 61 164 its 160 I66 17 44 67 63 94 43 33 - 5 - 7 Kcahboqmiband El Shada ZV - - - 54 is Weightend Average: 34 26 1s is 7134 Gs 71 9311 63 79 H4 96 99 46 76 N 93 99 24 14 22 6 14 11 7
Average in Delta 26 26 21 19 6 26 54 71 94 9 61 76 93 96 99 30 64 79 69 1t 661 11 Is 14 14 is 16
I1/ ILCor thesaturation extract .stinwted an thebasis or the IC deteruined in a 1:2.5extract by ,was or Ml Procedures. V/ Accordift to fieldsheets, sand was fmurd In all auser holes; further observations were mude,come9uently the hydraulic peurmability has been estimuted. 5'A ARAUREPUBLIC Of EGYPT ORAINAlEV PROJECT
ARAS 5URVIN0 BY gPA,P FQR ORA2NAGEPert
Data on DOeth to the Gr Table, and Gro water Salinity and Sail PeMAh. 1/jJ/ W_JiIe CatelMt Areas J UlLJLLle Va11ev
CAltnUWi1t.Areas Death, to Groundwater Table (eii_ Groundwater Salinity (ms/cm) SailPan abilit. (Cmed&%L) Aof' num7Jjrfl.s ce Ace. X of Oecurr.,ite Ace. 2 Qf 0CcurrnmLl 2 of 0ecur'ruce GiAs 0-50 50-75 75-100 100-150 1150 450 (75 4100 4150 42 (4 (6 (3 (16 o-s S-10 10-20 20-0 30-5o s-0o-0- Dlo
El Rahawy e 23 a a 54 a 11 38 47 - - - (2)- (4)2- - El asxanda o 0 a 0 (100) a 0 0 a ------2 El Tabeen/El Saff 25 2 25 13 0 25 50 75 83 86 100 lea 100 i00 14 0 29 14 14 0 29 Kurywmt 56 I1 11 0 22 56 67 70 75 aa ea aa 100 lo0 0 0 0 25 25 12 32
El Bats (Fayoutn 44 28 17 0 11 44 72 59 89 35 59 94 100 100 12 1 18 15 1H in 0 El Hasanda EL IPlila 0 50 0 25 25 a SO SO 76 29 86 lo 100 lo0 0 0 60 0 20 20 o
Mlenshat El Dahab 0 0 0 40 60 0 0 0 40 40 100 100 100 100 40 0 20 0 0 20 20 Abu Raheb 0 12 35 12 35 a 12 50 62 62 38 - - - s5 12 38 0 12 0 0 Beni Mazp. 0 0 12 1s 71 0 0 12 29 (2) (2) (1) - - (3) - - (1) - - (1) Itsa 27 a 19 IS 31 27 35 54 69 72 94 94 94 100 - - - - - _ - Kabkab I 8 8 25 50 8 17 25 so (4) (2) - - - C-) (Z) (1) l-) 1-) (2)2-)
El Gabal, Manfalut, Hangabal 0 0 3 l0 86 0 0 a 14 (1)) (3) - - (2) (1) - - El Zenar 0 0 0 25 75 0 0 25 (1) ------(1) Abutiq 0 0 10 0 90 0 0 10 10 - (1) - (1) - - 1) - _ (1) - -
Abutiq 0 6 12 0 82 s 6 16 1s (3) - - - - - (1) lli - tl) - - Tanta 0 0 0 22 78 0 0 0 22 (2) - - - - (2) ------AuladSad Shoosh 0 0 0 0 10o 0 0 0 0 - - - - - _ _ _ _ Sohag (Ienshah. ardess. Araba eL Hadto.Ia) 0 6 0 12 82 0 6 6 18 (3) (l - - (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Om QmenaDir) Sallad 0 0 0 45 55 0 0 0 45 - --() -;1 Hamd 00 0 100M 0 0 0 - - _AsM (Kaon a Dir) Atlya Shenouda El Rldi2a 20 0 0 40 40 20 20 20 60 … _…_- _ _2) - - Salwa Bahary, Salwa Qibli ,a 0 40 10 40 0 0 40 50 - - - - - 12 -- KomObo East 0 0 0 40 60 0 0 0 40 - - - - sen Ban 0 0 0 31 65 0 0 0 Is - . - - . -
Avermad Upooen I 9 6 9 14 60 9 17 26 40 69 59 97 99 100 19 10 24 9 17 9 11 m
I/ Figures in parenthesis indicate nubers of observations made, which are considered too low for statistical analyses. -62- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Table3
D*AT E V PUI3Cr AHo P q
flaInane V Prniert an e ras bywCuarehoit
Phase A Z/ Phase 3 V ProJect Area LocatSon Governorate Hamn Gross Area It Ist Time-Slice 2nd Tire-Slice 3rd Tie-Slice (Feddans) OWan 1 Tile Open V Tile Open Ttle Ur rais Dran Drains Drain grains Draits upr Egypt Siza El Rahawy 16.66 16.6 0 7.000 - 9.o - El Taben L Saff 5.406 5.406 S.400 - - El coraynt 10.300 10.300 S.300 - 5.e00 Fayour El Bats 30.060 30.050 2e.000 - 10.60 Omni Suet El Massande Kiply (11.060) I/ 6.606 (6.0002A/ - (5.006) J - El nya Mnsat El Du"b (11.000) S/ - (6.000 S/ - (S.00) S/ - - Abu Ralub 1S.066 13.606 5.200 - 6.000 - - Itsa 2B.s56 28.566 19.006 - 9.s06 - - Kabkab 20.000 20.006 1i0i.g - 1e.000 - -
Sub-total Upper Egypt 147.860 121.866 62.96 - 60.166 - - wet Delta Oeqahllye Shereishra 7e.060 - 75.060 - - - - thIra Troage 163.066 - - -- 56.066 - 47.000 haress 62.006 15.006 - 47.000 - 15.0o6 El Deshoudy 34.006 10.666 - - 23.506 - le.sa0 New Mryut 9.0e0 - - 9.000 - - 9.006 El Tabiya 45.060 - - 4S.000 - - 45.0o6 Bersick 4s.000 45.006 - Nelk El1Gso 0.oee - 50.0e - - El loussily 25.000 - - - 25.00 -- Zarkoun 32.000 - 16.06 - 16.06 -
Saab-total West Oelta 483.060 25.666 144.000 s4.060 212.506 - 126.s50
North-Middle Oeqwhlije P-S. Io. 11 29.060 - - 29.00 - - 29.0e0 Deita and Kafr-el El andoura 43.066 - 43.06 - - - - Sheikh P.S. Mo. 7 28.060 - - 2a.006 - - 25.060 P.S. Io. 6 24.006 - - 24.060 - - 24.006 P.S. Ilo. 4 45.060 - - 1o.006 - - 4a.000 P.S. Mo. 3 21.00o - - 21.0z 0 - - 21.066 P.S. No. 2 24.006 - 2.4.060 - - - - Lower No 1 z5.0e6 25.066 - - 1s.000 - 11.060 Upper No. 1 24.000 - 24.060 -
Sub-total North-Middle Delta 261,000 25.006 91.000 128.006 1s.000 - 1s7.600
Est Delta Shlarkiya and Upper Serw f/ 35.0e0 38.003 - - 23.506 - 14.500 ftqahliya Lower Ser l 25.000 2z.600 - - 2z.000 - El Irad 5/ 32.00O 22.006 - - 32.006 - - El Genetee 6f 25.060 - 25.060 - - - - 8a1 Ebaid 24.000 24.000 - - Kasabi (Add) "0.0o0 2o0.60 - 20.000 Kasabi (Mein) 28.0a0 - - - - - zB.ooe Bahr El lker 22.000 - 22.006 - - - Seft P.S. 165.000 - 45.060 - 40.000 - 20.0eo El Areen 40.000 - - - 30.000 - 10.666 Kahboun 17.060 - - 17.0e0 - - 17.060 El Seade 17.000 - - - 17.000 - -
Sub-total East Delta 436.006 98.066 146.0so 17.006 200.506 - 69.500
Total Uppr Egypt and Delta 1.529.660 279.660 464.960 191.000 4C8.180 - 373.600 Z2
.1 Areas Cr each catcdt Incl led In drainae progre do not essentially cover the full catchrnt arm. / Phase A Includes the areas cov red by the Project. I/ Phase S aras can be adjusted oeor tim mn the baste oP additional investigations, but are added on in totals- A/ Exclude areas wher open drains have been rndolled. S/ Figures In parenthaess Include ares that will have to be justified by further Investigations. I/ In thes catchnts. areas covered by Canadian Project have ben excluded. 2l Additional areas can be added on the bests of furthar investigations.
001541C | X i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
02 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ii 9_w I_, 2 ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~E V £
,n. il//i~ ~~--- ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -- -- '
el ' t - Zflf f
* 3 N/ ,, pfl /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O/,
r fl//sW/// fi ,fl /t~~~~~~~~flflA' mi ii ~ ~ A -- -X tX - 91 -- !1
I L . ' "~~~~~~ E 1 ______a aa~~~L 64~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
AEXK 3 Chart 2
AAB REluWC OF EGYP GOVERNMENT1O0YEAR PROGRAM AND DAINAGE V PROJECT hmplsn.kton Sch dub florSu tc Dranae
* S0 . 4T~~~~~~~~g amw.44.eyt CDME SW copaN CPco
, i WJ4WAt's7St+ I, t | r/////:tnELWS/aumit//////] VlBOsMAP | E 8 hvzm. r.m#s.mi iti ii analtBi |satl tIwas iMomssPLVAEN / Ptn_ I I II
eGw 1/21±t|mwi, I/2Kl = I I
iz Z nI i-\/II I 1V2VMMGmm-i1 pi tiss' i1\Psaois\MM'C ( C7 I t "7 1 7 U | 7- tW | 7 0 | 7 qt 11 7 ^12 1 _ 7 I t1 s w I ' J
wDke V 1 r en sB I k v \L= !\\\W5i3
zo///f^,H////////!s2 2g/>7Djr%~~~~~~//w>lln c aL 29= V7aITY <2,\,.
~~// I~~~~~~IWIIIA
OLnl xi ~~ ~ ~ a - esnFen tw/ES//Sa\\X;] >4^YEZ 6, | 4 ,, ,, | ,, w ,6 ,* | .,J A 7 I n 61 1 @ M I S X 1
.1 ol~~~~~~~~
a~~~~~ L.A .ha I || [;9 RX_ t -2^^,,,_,~3u L ZlCUI Cil. 1z 2s 1 2 31 1 31 1 2t = . S 1 s 2 2s 1 25 n 12 A -2-t -1/2_.A 1 270M
| | t l sn i~~~~~~~es - en Own. , om' KX - 65 - ANNEX 3 Table 4
ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Remodelling of Open Drains and Installation of Tile Drains (Quantitiesby Year)
Open Drains Subsurface Drains
Year Area LengthExcavation Structures Net area Collectors Laterals ('000 fed- (km) '000 m3 (Nos) ('000 fed) (km) (km)
85/86 43 115 1,322 71 - - - 86/87 101 265 3,452 213 93 880 10,750 87/88 66 153 2,113 135 148 1,390 16,623 88/89 65 124 1,424 99 152 1,438 17,445 89/90 29 71 1,033 129 146 1,363 15,629 90/91 60 119 1,765 202 144 1,499 15,529 91/92 53 87 1,283 131 139 1,519 14,863 92/93 - - - - 116 1,079 11,822 93/94 - - - - 115 1,067 11,596 94/95 - _ _ - 68 1/ 637 7,092 95/96 - 3 1/ 28 295
Total 417 934 12,392 980 1,124 10,900 121,644
I/ These areas are expected to increase as more investigationsare carried out. ARABREPUBLIC or ICYPT DBAINAGEV PROJECT 10-learProgr_ - Sumary Accounta by Year Baae Costs (Euwutava,.'uundb '000) Forulsn Cnct.anga B5/86 56/57 07/7a 00/09 f9/9a 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 Tutul 2 Amount 2S:x:SS *-flaUUb b_L&6&L a.A.L_LS_L_. . ::..: _ L _4z4_-j&J= 1L :_4_ _ I:ELwL= ~_ =S ..J___'^ 1. INVESTHENT COSTS - . ....------A. CIVIL WORKS
1. EXCAVATION. roR REMODELLING 305.5 779.4 470.1 336.0 294.4 355.7 414.0 235.3 3i199.2 9.9 317.1 2. sTRUCTURES roR REMODELLING - 1,223.3 3,655.2 1,770.4 14630.0 2.472.7 1.666.2 *12426.6 27.6 3.429.0 3. COLLECTOR DRAIN INST. AND CC - PIPES - 5,019.3 9.105.6 9,105.6 9.047.7 9.760.0 9.024.2 7.110,3 7,041.0 4,390.7 71,292.3 3U.0 27,066.0 4. LATERAL DRAIN INGT. - 3,069.1 5,490.5 4,645.4 4,637.6 4s,D3.3 4,400.0 3,625.3 3,526.6 2,199.6 36,265.5 27.0 10,077.2 S. BUILDINOC raR rICLU DIHAINMAINTENANCE - 658.0 949.2 600.0 1240.5 073.7 073.7 291.2 502.5 502.5 64709.3 21.2 1,422.3 6. Pvc * rACTORY BUILDINGS - 36.3 - - - 06.3 21.2 11.3
Sub-Total CIVIL WORKS 305.5 11.635.3 1f;750,6 164524.2 16,000.9 10,040.4 17;266.1 I11270;2 11.150.0 7,172.7 1299979;0 32.6 42.329.9 B. CONSTRUCTION EOUIPMENT
1. DRADLINES - 2.200.1 - - 249.4 249.4 2.707.0 02.0 2.241.7 2. BACKNOES - 1,936.1 - - - 1,936.1 80.3 1.710.4 3. COLLECTOR LAYERS - - 1,730.2 2,114,7 10537,9 - 192,2 192.2 576.7 - P 6.344.0 00.3 5604.4 4. LATERAL LAYERS - 2.429.6 4.963,5 2,414.1 1,716,4 947.1 405.9 - 135.3 405.9 13.417.0 003 I1.553 4 S. TRACTORS AND TRAILORS - 6P374.0 2,730.7 210.5 620.2 1 979.9 3.494,6 19000.2 16,434,1 67,3 11.067.2 6, OTHER CONSTRUCTION EoUJrItNT 03.5 0.056.6 4,300.1 2.290.1 2.346.7 600.0 1.270.6 2.537.5 670.3 322.0 23.390.2 00.2 10763.6 7. SPARES - 5592.6 D0063.0 0.335.4 0o.O7.0 7,420.0 6.90Oo0 5.094.7 5076.0 4,004-0 61.061.6 67.3 41,119.3 SubTotal CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 03.5 27.397.0 21.D04.3 16.372.0 14,565,7 0,97501 10.044,6 12.360,0 0266.5 5.532,0 125,290.7 73.7 923260.1 C. OPEN AND TILE DRAIN MAINTENANCE cuUIrMENT 10-4 2P218,9 1.35O.2 912.4 1.00.1 599.2 500.6 209.1 399.5 300D9 7,719.3 73.7 5,61616 D. VEIHICLESAND SPARES - 2,325.9 1004.1 195,1 193.0 249.9 009.5 766.5 369.3 329.1 5,742.3 56.7 3,252.3 E. SPARES FOR MAINTERANCE - 37.7 24.0 37.7 24.0 123.5 46.9 57.9 F. SPARES FOR PUMPINO OIATIONS - 1.437.0 1,437.0 1,437,0 1,437.0 - - * 5.740.0 53.0 32049.B O. PIPE - PRODUCTIONEQUirMENT 910.3 1.771.6 1,024.6 956.2 340.0 720.7 340.0 227.5 102.0 166.0 6.673.5 77.7 5.102.9 H. PVC - PIPE PRODUCTION EXPENDITURES - 250,2 42:92 364,4 252.1 327,6 304,5 230,9 230,9 157:4 2:693,3 10.5 204,1 1. PvC COMPOUND 42 7.0669 7.3509 5.095.4 5,520.6 5.140.7 4.046.9 4.046.9 2,650.7 46,035.1 86.7 39,924,9 J. PURSE PONDER - 332.0 4.3 55.7 35.5 43.1 39.9 32.4 32.4 21.6 340.5 06.0 202.5 K. ADMINISTRATION ENGINCER. - UUPCRVIsION 21.4 1,49S.1 1933.9 1.590.0 1,643.4 1.619.5 1.606.3 1.130.0 1,071.5 710,4 12.042.2 2.8 357.4 L. LAND ACOUISIT.AHD CROP COMPENcATION 10651.5 5,567.0 4.960.0 4,664.3 3.634.0 4.704.4 3.720.9 2.000.0 2,017,0 1,272,4 34*193.4 0.0 0.0 N. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3.0 164.6 57.0 90.7 3.0 54.4 21.0 2.0 10.0 424.2 01.0 247,2 N. rLOW HEASURINO COPT 1524.4 1524.4 ------3,040.0 90.0 2743.9
Total INVESTMENT COSTS 4,519.0 59.983.4 60,992.1 49.060.1 46.033.7 40.075.9 40.391.0 32.302.4 2).774.7 10.429.4 300B061.7 51.4 195,001A6 Ito RECURRENT COSTS
A. 0 AND N SRAINASE 295.9 979.9 1,274.0 1.606.0 2.045.0 1i015-2 1.269#0 1i353i6 1,524.3 1,692.0 12s976.3 10-6 1,377.4 t. 0 AND N RECEARCH - 3.7 3,7 2.7 - - - - 111 7.4 0.9 C- 0 AND M TRAINING AND TECII.ASOIST. - 154.7 105.7 73.1 - 333.5 06.4 206.0 O. 0 AND N MONITORING AND EVALUATION 221.4 221.4 22134 221.4 221.4 221,4 22t14 221,4 221.4 221.4 2.213.0 10.2 402.4 Total RECURRENT COOTS 517.3 1259.6 1,625.6 1,904,2 2,266,9 1.236.6 1,490,4 1,575.0 1,745.7 1,913,4 15,534.7 13.3 2,069.7 Total BASELINE COSTS 3.035.3 61.243.1 62,617.0 51,464.3 40,300.6 42,112.5 41.002,2 33,077.4 27,520.4 20,342.0 396,396.3 49.9 197,950,2 Physical Cor.tlnuanc,si 351,1 6.115.6 6.405.5 5.290.1 4,973.0 4.211.2 4.100.2 3.307.7 29052.0 2,034.3 39,909.6 49.7 19.925.5 Pries Continsmncirs 114.3 5,873.6 13,007.7 16,721.6 22,1O0.7 230061.4 27,600.7 27,310.0 20,t000.022,907.0 191290.0 37.9 72,533.1 Total PROJECT COSTS 5,500.9 73.232.2 02,031,0 73,546,0 750304.1 71,305.2 75,679.3 64,003.9 60,9711.343.204.0 627,604,7 46.3 290,310,9 SSss SS*ww .bXXb^^___,_ML _^) ^_^ _*.4 &OaSV _L JL'-"g_ "1MSG_s- Taxcs 392.0 9,071.4 9,627.4 0.561,4 0.0977. 6.736-0 7,67,1 7.024,2 6,076.2 4,917,2 71.102.1 0.0 0.0 foreign Exchande 2,526.9 400C66.2 42.364.4 36,265.9 30.102.4 20.90971 31001.0 29,700.0 20.292.4 17.033.0 290-310.9 0.0 0.0
APr1l 24, 1905 14137 499-to. ~,o '011. t--uei£. p .
3.r444395t M500CLLiKe 344.7 19244 612.4 504.6 461.0 631. 54.1No.$ .2 -- 4,0t0.z 271.7 5.IISIS N MUSLIm - N.4MI 4,9113.6 3.63.82 56*4.7 4.341,3 3,141.3 745.4 2223 40.1 263.30. 532.2 . 643,4 434.2 2,92.6 5. AStS 60413 55. A"CC - 9310 1.418.81.2 39.1475 - 1.121 2,910.9 2,696.9 3,531.4 2.470.1 *11.*4,439.1 16.1432316.14.1 14,144,4 33.2:1.4 10.2131 2121,7115.4 5,629.0 2,52S.6 - 321134.8 ~~~mur..~~~~~~~~'v:~~~~~~ra~ ~ 3,493.7:3. .41.04 7.499,0 1.424,16 6.495,3 7,413.0 7.32?.: 1,337.7 621,419.38 9.714.4 3602.642 1133.23, 33,414.6 34.196.? 13.42115 7,2932.2 3.3023 97,4346.3 S: WRIlLsOmmminminitmouMich 013 1M . 91t.? 1.32.4 2.143.3 5.9913. S1.364.? 5.479,0 1092.6 6,439.9 0,:7,3.1 1.934.9 4.213.7 4,244.2 49.9118 6. m*94930 "431336n 6.617 691. 18,218. 3,436.3 1371.63. - 41.0 3,033.3 9 In,4 - M3.5 3.oii.3 31.38.? 3.45. 490.2 2,0316.9 341.14. T.in.5 -- *02.I - 4. - SOLVI?s. VMS 144,7 3423024,44.6 - 04.1 34.230 2,911012.2 3139.29, 32,395. 3 23,14.0 24.277,1 14,991.6 233.333.? 271.7 a13Aauo2.29£6.4 3t'AA2.643,9 3,2. 13.113,7 81,322.2 33.226,3 29,262.2 12.2fl1.I 2786600.3 8. fUSS - 2,614.8 - - 2~~~~ 2. ~~ - ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~70.01.1.400.9 -2,092.1 MIMES - 1,331.2 - - - . 294.0 347.3 Dn. s. mani jins - . . - 3.352,2 - 3.316698166 3.LAIWL 2.-3.3".2.1903.91 2.233.6 2313, 214.93.24 9.0339 . . - - 3.S26.4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:n31IW6. L6735 . 2,465.3 4.309.2 1.334.? ,6. 3, - - 2,72.4 2,322.3 20324,3 153.31 30?,? 5. TIAfh0E6011631611 1,492.5 613,1 341.4 160,1 29.33, -II9 364.3 - 7f4 4 1,76.6I 1,1206. 293. 949.3 . ,4. 103610671,9. 8. 8. 424.1 6. win MEII 1U91 2,344,3 4,31M.0 3,391.3 23.332,0 - 4,363, 2.334, 10.211, 92.4 20,4313 5,604.2a 2316.6 3,544.3 942.1 3,839.6 4.43119 8,224.4 6210.6 2324.3 739.1 2,671.6 4.513.3 3337.8 *5.0, I. MIMI - 13.2846. 14.1 39199.2 4,469.6 2.119.3 2,340.1 7713.0 4,894.3 16.3153 33,44~~~-----1.13,9.33730.3 11..5 1,3 20.119,20.764 9,242.4 93.31.7 1.7037 3.143.? 4411.31 496.2 vs31.3M - 3,276.9 3,201.7 9,231.2 919,21. 9,176.7 9,274.4 0.220,4 31,60.6 7,294. 71.313.6 G.933*3in34 39639559 $1.4 22,424,527*3fl*3 13.3233 1 3, a WIGtSgulp uhmnwgu 33,643. 154.360,1 33,363.4 11,739.9 211,167, 19,642.3 512.943, F4F21,939.41.1 gw3rWgT 33.6 21.622,7 2,740,3 3.1630 3,2310.2 973.0 801.M 232.4 *2.301.0 14.396,1 31,231.8 11.244,1 24.4k.? 11.261,9 URitiLe 3,34461d8. fl~~~~~1IWd0 - 74. 3 739.6 913,61,2 9.3 2,491.4 2.292,31 2,312.1 3,371.3 : 5,534,3 3,307~~~~~~~~~~~~29.4212.0 260.0a 431.3 341.0 3,402.0 164.1 753.4 3.196,5 133.3 604.0 26.0. 634.1 022.2' 3.9*4.0 F. I - 44.3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11.5 86.6 -2,321.3 3.421,9 2317.0 212.0 ~33.4 616.7 3.3214 646.2 6261.3 63801.6 ~a FM mwis lAlim - 2.37. 31.009 2.376,4 2.22,SU43..-i,u ~ ~ ~~~~33.3 443 - 2.MA 14.6 41.0 to.3 a 3. 98931395331- ISMIhIS got398. 2.0*6.9 2.092,~~~~~~~~34134.234 3,313.1 23.11 3.644,0 3,141.2 23131.4 - B. M- PiM ll 461I4 IIM303fMC3 - 342, 1,850.3 l,0.3 304.6 1333.3 323.6 9.021,3: 32.11 :,,0. F 2143.9 343.3 179,1 2046. 194.0 560.9 324.6 39".0 449. 1,612.3 2,342.0 8,030.5 434.0 910.4 6. 3. 446 366 72 JP" WP9 27. 6, 1. 0. 1. 4715.2 406,4 443,2 123.4 3.790111 29.06 69.39.116.41. 13.6. M.160 4411.2 36r.7 239. 6 430.1 130.68 a= n5133012 - 1143Ke. - owNutgg3gp 26.1 8.644,3 3.4640,6111,390.9I11 -43,619 15101 652.43.29.3 7.4. .54.311.6 64.1 417.1 n.11 L: LO* 52311,in 2,727. 2.90314 3,1 72,9t 2,47"0.0 2,3223.'2' 1.14.4': 221*3.nl 39.2 "1,75.:4, 44. 0 1111613n&Ii 2.364,3 6,64.5 4,607.4 7.511.3 4.662,4 3.263.3 1,401.1 2.3,0II9 Os1,9193 9.303,6.1. '2.0: 3231.4 39716,1 1,423.1. 433 3..106012.9 3.yS3iU 7fgl36 AOhiOTMCI 3.4 394.0 71.0 4.368,7 4.316.4 3,32239 37,350,3 3,498.3 5,463. 6,443,9 83,444.3 4.054,7 6.346.6? 226.1 6.0 36.1 37.0 6.6 - 2.9 316.5 2.7 5,9201.2 3.46023 326323 24640.? 48.120.2 253.1 26.0 g6t.3 4. 69. 3.6 1. 26. 4. Total 317T51 CO010 4,3.-I'.4 12,1074.419.347',2 76.731.7 13,601.3 09,840.3' 73.27.37,£1,10.3. 26,6371. 40,231.3 309,0171.2 2,624.7 47,263.7 62.311,7 36,343.4 573363,3. 33316.2, 54913220495. It. Mat MIS 6, On34414mm 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~32.61.069,91 ,16.745 2.279,1 1,144.1 3.012,3 2,526.4 2.950,9 3.*n am MMMN - 3,62.19 4,412.7 14,311.7 46A.3 8159 13n.29, 3,903.:4 . I, 36 - - -23, 1.611 1.3403.6 302.31- 13".36, 8,93.3 3.226,3 St9404.5 OWNS* 161i5o 633 19141.0433?1. - 22.4 334.3 0. . 4.0 4. 3. Inm win3 453 19a36i3m 450.3 -1 346.3I 301.6: 307, It2. 249.5 270. 399.2 233.4 $14.4 231.9 421.3 465,9 3146 303.4 24. 2333 399.6 336. 329. 34.9. 233.3 234.2 344.6 90243 MiMEos? g*190 273.2, 603.1 431.0, 2071.3 303.2 IMP2,6 3,0.1 .1..2,,103.0 .. 1 3,242.3 3.9251,23.2431,3 4.141.3 4910.2 14.232,4 405. 9 3.23, 3.4, ,2243932 9. ,233323, roofs 956*19 1C7c,0. 7,*. ,3. 3.762 31339 303. 1566 l3is1,2331.7, 64,23466933 224, 2,691 4.2, ...... 15.0. 1,424.1 10,8324.36303210.54,3116135191361.56233 ...... 29..0.1. tol..36119.. ,38...... 4...... - 68 -
ANNEX 4 Page 1 of 3
ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Monitoringand Evaluation
Background
1. Monitoringof Implementation.In the past, Monitoringand Evaluation (M&E) by EPADP has been concernedwith monitoringphysical project implementationas vell as the effectsof tile drainageon crop yields. In the first instance,the ImplementationMonitoring Unit has had difficultyin keepingup with the activitiesof each contractor. Timely,accurate data to identifyreasons for lack of progressand to identifypotential future constraintshave been lacking. Moreover,follow-up, supervision and checking on qualityof installationshas been inadequate.
2. Impactof Field Drainageon Crop Yield. The crop monitoringunit has been conductingsurveys to ascertainthe effectsof field drains on crop yields since 1970/71. The procedurehas been to comparenet yield changes after installationof field drainswith yields of the same crop within or outsidethe projectarea. Since yield differenceswere the only measurements made, the resultshave been highlyvariable due to the effect of a numberof variables,such as, seed, diseaseand insect control,fertilization, other culturalpractices, management and other factorsnot known or identifiable. Furthermore,the degree to which the tile drainagesystem after installation was workingor not workingwas not known,nor was the degree to which waterloggingand salinityproblems affected the controlareas.
3. To help the GOE in the problemof determiningthe influenceof drainagesystems on crop yields,a bilateralprogram with the Netherlands Governmentwas institutedthrough support of the DRI. Under the auspicesof the Dutch-Egyptian Advisory Panel for Land Drainage in Egypt, DRI, with assistance from Dutch experts, initiated a crash program on economic evaluation of drainage projects in 1977. This program collected yield data on four major crops (cotton,wheat, maize and rice),soil salinityinformation and conducted interviews with farmers regarding inputs used in three pairs of villages, one with tile drains and the other without. All villagessampled were in the Delta. During the 1980/81 season, information was secured on water table depths,groundwater salinity and the statusof the drainage system. The procedure followed was an attemptto rectifythe recognized weaknessesof the EPADP program. The study was carriedout from 1978 to 1981, with a final report issued in September1982. 1/
4. The crash programstudy did not produceclear cut results. Differencesin yield for the four crops betweendrained and non-drained
1/ MOI, Water ResearchCenter, Drainage Research Institute, "Crash Program on V-onomicEvaluation of DrainageProjects," Cairo/Wageningen, September 1982. - 69 - ANNEX 4 Page 2 of 3 villagesvaried from one set of villagesto another. It was found that the drainagesystems in about 40X of the area in two villageswere eithernot required,or not functioning. In spite of the high degree of variationand irregularpattern in yields obtained,it was concludedthat tile drained areas generallyhad higher crop yields than comparablenon-tile drained areas.
ProposedM & E Program
5. Under DrainageV Project,the Planningand Follow-upDepartment of EPADP will now carry out two functions: (a) programming and monitoring the physicaland financialprogress of the tile drainageprogram, and (b) M&E of the depth of water table and such other aspectsas may be appropriatein areas to be providedwith subsurfacedrains as well as those in which drains have been installed. EPADP will staff the existingcomponent units of the Planning and Follow-up Department to the level necessary to assure success of the program.
6. Monitoring of Proiect Implementation. The project would establish an improved information system to monitor the project's overall progress, and plan subsequent phases of the GOE's 10-year drainage program. It has been agreed that expatriate and local short-terxmconsultants, familiar with the factors involved in the implementationof the tile drainage programs, be hired for a total period of about 16 man-months. The consultants would assist in establishing the methodology, training personnel and securing the kind and type of equipment required to streamline data collection, storage and retrieval. They would also assist in designing a format for reporting on project implementation, including: (a) physical and financial aspects of the project by component; (b) progress with procurement of civil works and equipment,and (c) technicalstaff availabilitycompared to requirements.The reporting format would emphasize early identification by project management of potential bottlenecks.
7. Monitoring of Physical Parameters. Tuc cxisting unit would be strengthened to monitor and evaluate the depth of water table and such other aspects as may be appropriate to ascertain that the design specifications and construction standards are adequate to meet project objectives. Information gathered by this unit will be valuable in identifying required changes in design, construction or maintenance standards. In addition, this unit will coordinate with DRI for analyzing the relationship between water table, soil salinity and crop yield. At its research farms, DLI, with Dutch assistance, is carrying out work to determine the relationships between water table, soil salinity and crop yield under controlled conditions.
8. The procedure to be followed for monitoring the depth of water table and soil salinity will be the same as that used in the Reconnaissance Survey in the Drainage V Project investigations. The procedure was successful and enabled EPADP to select those areas most in need of drainage. Measurements of water table depth and soil salinity would be taken at one observation per 1,000 fed. Soil samples, a composite of the first 50 cm of the soil profile, - 70 A-NE 4 Page 3 of 3
would be made at the same time water table measurementsare made to determine soil salinity. The soil sampleswould be taken from 0-25, and 25-50 cm and 50-100 cm depth. For monitoringdepth of water table,the existingnetwork of observationwells will be monitoredby GRI and will be augmentedover time. For obtainingdensity of one observationper 1,000 fed, boringswill be made to depth of 2 meters,as was done in the ReconnaissanceSurvey. It is ultimatelyintended to carry out this type of programon all the irrigated lands under MOI jurisdictionover a five-yearcycle. All measurementswould be repeatedannually after installationof field drainsuntil stable conditionsare reached. By repeatedmeasurements of the above drainage-relatedsoil features,it would be possibleto determineany positive or negativetrends over time.
9. To properlyconduct the field surveys,there will be need for only a few additionalstaff. At the implementationrate of 150,000fed per year, one observationfor every 1,000 fed would requireobservations to be made on 150 bore holes. For this, one agriculturalengineer and one technicianwould be requiredthe first year, and anothersimilar group each additionalyear of the project. At year five, there would be five agriculturalengineers and five techniciansinvolved. There would be a standardcheck sheet that each group would have to completeand be responsiblefor the data collected. This informationwould be made availableto the other units in the Planningand Follow-upUnit. To conductwater table (and requiredsoil salinity measurements)in selectedsites where the MOA is securingits crop yield data, EPADP would coordinatewith MOA for the requirednumber of samplesites. These sites shouldbe in or very near to the area where the tile drainage programis in operation,or where it will be initiatedwithin two years. The analysisof the soil sampleswould be carriedout by DRI and, for this additionaltask, funds would be made availableunder the project.
10. A detailedM&E programfor the above activitieswould be preparedby EPADP,including work scheduleand organization.To assist EPADP in preparing the programand in conductinga mid-termreview, it has been agreed that expatriateand local short-termconsultants would be hired for a total period of about 14 man-months. The consultantswould also assist in designing formatsfor data collection,evaluation and reporting. The programwould make maximumuse of previousexperience an4 would adopt appropriateand cost-effectiveprocedures for data collectionand for establishingkey relationships. - 71 _
ANNEX 5
ARAB REPUBLIC OF ECYPT DRAINACE V PROJECT
Rate of Return Calculation
Assumptions:
1. Cost of open drain remodelling, tile drainage and maintenance are based on unit rates derived from project cost estimates.
2. No allowance has been made for the residual value of machinery, nor has allowance been made for the value of machinery taken over from other projects, since these adjustments are approximately offsetting.
3. All prices are converted at the exchange rate of £El.OOUS$0.80.
4. Crop yields without the project are assumed to decrease linearly over a ten-year period to the levels shown in Table 8.1
5. Crop yields with the project are assumed to increase by 502, 75Z, 902 and 100l of the incremental yields indicated in Table 8.1 in the four years following completion of each catcbment.
6. An economic life of 30 years has been assumed.
7. Unit rates and implementation periods per contract are shown beLow:
Open Drain Tile Maintenance Remodelling Drains
Upper Egypt 88 328 5
Delta 128 328 5
Implementation Period 2 years 2-1/2 years Annual
8. Cost/benefit streams are shown in Annex 5, Table 9. - 72 -
ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJIECT
Present Cropped Areas, Yields, and Production in Project Areas
UPPEREYPT ES7-DELTA NIDDELTA EASTDaTA TOTAL
CROP Area Yield Prod'n Area Yield Prod's Arer TieldProd'n Area ield Prod"a Area Yield Prod't IT/fed) OONt) ITfid) IO t) (Tilfed)000 17/fed)(000 t (Tifed)(DM0 t. IHEAT 17,959 1.3 2. 25,206 1.2 30.2 25,051 1.20 30.1 23,72 1.20 34.1 97,19 1.2 11E IAREY 0.0 4,995 1.1 5.6 59 1.14 0.6 2,076 1.14 2.4 7,499 1.1 L BERSEEN25,3 15.0 300.5 19,390 14.0 71.5 26,07Z 14.00 365.0 39,321 14.00 550.5110,150 14.2 1,56w SRDERSEER 7,324 7.0 51.3 27,144 7.0 190.0 21,269 7.00 IU.9 26,l72 7.00 133.2 91,"0 7.0 37; COTTM 11,312 0.1 9.7 29,232 1.0 29.2 25,709 1.00 25.7 32,4 1.00 32.3 7,617 1.0 Ie RICE 1,019 2.1 2.1 39,497 2.1 30.8 36,46U 2.10 76.6 52,305 2.10 109.3128,297 2.1 .2! S NAIZE 29,273 1.6 46.821,341 1.5 32.8 5,077 1.50 12.1 20,076 1.50 30.1 79,267 1.5 122 U NAIZE 11,568 1.1 12.7 8,207 1.0 1.2 1,503 1.00 1.5 4,236 1.00 4.2 25,514 1.0 27 soRmaUU 3,320 1.5 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,320 1.5 I 3BOAD EAN10,180 0.8 8.2 3,724 0.8 3.0 1,635 0.80 1.3 2,591 0.00 2.1 18,139 0.8 1' V TOMATO3;720 5.6 21.0 1,738 7.7 13.3 1,909 7.65 14.6 1,150 7.65 14.9 9,314 4.L 6A S TONTO 5,010 6.5 42.9 11,027 1.0 80.5 3,M 8.03 31.5 2,731 8L03 21.9 22,690 8.1 I : N TOMATO7,126 10.2 72.7 1,887 L.5 16.0 m 3.45 9.3 1,992 8.45 1.9 lI,73 9.5 114 S POTATO1,375 7.6 10.3 4,943 8.0 38.9 612 9.03 4.9 1,341 9.03 10.8 8,171 9.0 6! N POTATO 221 6.2 1.4 2,196 5.6 12.4 512 5.62 2.9 1,193 5.62 6.7 4,122 S.7 X I ONION 0.0 6i3 5.2 3.4 408 5.19 2.1 m99 5.13 5.2 2,070 5.2 1 S ONION 50 6.5 .0.3 7,752 4.7 36.3 612 4.69 2.9 2,542 4.69 ll.q10,95 4.7 *w: SOYADEAN 2,454 0.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 * 0.0 2,454 0.9 2 WPINIE 1,116 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,116 0.9 1 GROUNIU.TS427 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 427 0.4 0 SESAJE 340 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 340 0.5 0 CITRUS 3,002 4.5 13.9 9,514 4.2 35.8 1,620 4.20 6.8 3,613 4.20 15.2 16,B34 4.3 r. SUGARCANE 5,795 26.0 150.4 0.0 0.0 1,205 0.0 6,9% 21.5 1M
f ARABREPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Present and Future EconomDic Value of Produc tion East Delta
Prsesnt-5 rw Present-> rw I O t A L incre- 2aa--xxzz Pticls s:= zz Incr4wntal lnerenntel 7ner_ta1 CRlOP AkA YIELD UOOUCTJON -VIElLD-111ATIDazzulth wo Prodc t I n meta C-9 Adult Lab Chtld get Value gt valu met vale Crop Byered Crooey4nred - - - eabr- misc t0%) 4 -1) wit w/o P7r44n FIn Icon Fin [con rim lecen rln Icon rin lcen Fin [con ...... -.-.. -..-..- (ee TOO) Adult Chfld ------040 ton ------e/ttn------e/day (La (Le G I Le0 e*) ns WNCAY 2S §X} 1.2 I.$ 21 . 51. isssse 2 6 is Is 3 a 1 21. 7. e 1 2teU S 3 2a t 526 -70 -112 IISO 1eSI BARLEY I e7t 1.14 1.4 2.4 2. a 12 I Is Ill 2 * 2.1 *. III1 279 6 6 1 2 7 44 -7 -44 14 St I CtRStlH 19,121 1400 a.1 sso.s 3. 17 1 24 If 640 S 495 4 ISS. It 12if 6 3 2 1, 2" 248 -13 -1U4 I s 172 Sm *testit 2s 112 70 ee1 1 lISI2 2. a I Zs2es 219.S 164.9 SS. Is1 12 6 6 1 a 44U 186 UU2 -Sl I I S 1 CTeTrON $2U1 1.ee 1.4 32.3 4S2 ? 76 it 2S I$ U .4 291 113 JI*U 1.132 G * 3 2 1.1ee 7121 -$23 -2SU 1.031 S 969 *ICt 52.105 2 10 1.2 109 | 62.8 1I S 7 la 1 II 13. 91. 22it1 sm1§ Sol 6 6 3 2 726 4938 -712 -45|38 1.4St *.*76 S MAIZE 2e.et6 1.se 1.2 2t l 24.1 s 14 7 is le U .1 27.1 6. e IU6 2Si 6, 3 2 39l S sO7o 9 -5S7 I 1 1.71 11MAIZE 4,236 I.0 1 4.2 S. l isl S is 10 4.7 3. e . IS1e 1 12I S S 3 a 53 79 -SJ -79 IS ISS SOewu e. e . *4 Is S. 6.ee ee 172 all 6 6 1 2 I S e S S SR0A0 BEtANS 2.591 o.2SO 0 112 2 s 14 a I to to 111s . 6.6e 245 4Us1 6 6 S 2 Sl 137 -2S _61 77 2es w tamil) 1.9ne SS 14. 0.e ISse Go I e l0is I 13.4 4. 5 III 121 6 6 1 2 2#1 271 IU4 _1S6 421 447 S tCHAtO 2 7II A el 219 6.e ies Go s 2e is 2S z 19.7 6. it2e ize S 6 3 2 3U6 4" -1611 -29l S064 611 N SONTO 1.1n2 11 1e. 0.ISS Is so S to to it. IS1 S. 1 2 12 it S e6 2 293 316 -147 .1s8 *46 47S S POTAtO 1.341 8.01 19. e e . Is aeI2 Zs f 12. 9.*7 3.2 1ZG2 ue4 S 3 2 Ue0 497 -121 -24U S" 745 11POTATO 1 119 S *2 6. 0.8 5 * 7 to la * 1 S S 2.e 10 241 * 6 3 2 146 3es -7 1S3 21 4S8 U 011011m n9 S IS s2 e. ISis s 5 Zs is 6.2 4.7 1.S 141 IIUI G 6 1 a 14 lie -17 -GS, Si 1%
SOIAIIAlt *. 12 *l S. 2.§ 1@ e e 26e Sl3 6 6 3 2 I aee U IU 8 3 LUVIIIES e. e . 12 5 S. S S .S .1 47C 758 S S 3 2 * * I GR5NONTtS . . S Is S 0. . 9 1. 77X 6 6 t 2I II
6 431 17.30S -X36 -111614 10, 74 28141"
InCr~tsl PreWtien WAt / fed a Le 2S9
H10 ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Present and Future Economic Value of Production Mid-Delta
Present..> FW Present-) FhO ; 0 A L Incre- Tllcrmrental Iincremental Increrwwatal CROP AREA YIELD PRODUCTIOII ;:==YIELn--RELATE0u"uwitlh w/o iProduction mental Ilat Value ilet Value lNet Value Crop) Byprod Crop flyprod .- Labur--Hisc tlG) (-It) wi th w,'o Produi Fin Econ Fin Econ Fin Econ - ...... -.-.--- - -.------.. ------...... -. 'ola lO)I Adult Ciild . no ton --- .... (L 000) (Leao (Le MIEAT oaoj 2!i.0511.20 1.8 30.1 45.1 18 2 6 10 l 33.1 27.1 6.0 60 454 -60 -454 120 909 BARLEY 1139 1.14 1.6 0 6 0.9 8 12 8 10 10 0.7 0.6 0.1 2 12 -2 -1Z 4 23 L BERSEEH 26.071 14.00 0.1 365.0 2.6 17 3 20 10 438.0 328.5 109.5 839 164 -420 -82 1,259 246 SH BERSEEM 21,26b 7.00 0.1 148.9 2.1 8 1 20 l 178.7.134.0 44.7 357 86 -179 -43 536 130 COTTnON 251709 1.00 1.2 25.7 30.9 7 70 10 25 10 32.1 23.1 9.0 1,041 5671 -416 -2268 1,458 7,939 RICE 36,466i .10 1.2 76.6 43.8 11 5 7 10 10 84.2 68.9 15.3 506 3443 -506 -3443 1.012 6.88t S MAIZE 8,077 1.50 1.4 12.1 11.3 5 14 7 10 10 13.3 10.9 2.4 159 236 -159 -236 318 472 11MAIZE 1,503 1.I00 1.4 1.5 2.1 4 10 S 10 10 1.7 1.4 0.3 19 28 -19 SW1GHUIJ -28 38 5s 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 a a BROAI) IIEAIIS1,635 0.80 0.8 1.3 1 3 14 2 7 20 10 1.6 1.2 0.4 32 86 -16 -43 49 130 ' W TOMATO 1,9M19 7.65 14.6 0.l1 1S 60 6 20 10 17.5 13.1 4.4 275 266 *-137 -133 412 399 S TOMATO 3.922 N.03 31.5 0.01 15 60 5 20 10 37.8 28.3 9.4 540 584 -270 -292 810 876 N TOMATO 978 8.45 0.3 0.0 15 60 5 20 10 9.9 7.4 2.5 145 156 -72 -78 217 234 S POTATO 1il2 8.03 4.9 0.0 5 10 8 20 10 5.9 4.4 1.5 11f, 227 -55 -1'3 164 340 N POTATO 5.62 512 2.9 0 0 5 9 7 20 10 3.5 2.6 0.9 63 131 -31 -65 94 196 WOnUL;ll 4011 5.18 2.1 0.0 15 60 5 20 10 2.5 1.9 0.6 I 14 53 I -7 ..27 21 8s S (11'011 612 4.9ig 2.9 0.0 15 G0 5 20 10 3.4 2.6 0.q 16 69 | - -35 23 104 SUVA BEAII 0.0 0.0 12 5 n.u 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 LUPIIJES 0.0 0.0 12 5 o.n o.0 0.01 o a a a OiROUUIIIrISU;0. U.3 0.0 5 15 5 0.0 0.0 .u SE5AilC 0.0 0.0 14 0a o 00 0.0 0 0 a 0 0 a C:-RUS 1i.620 4.20 6.N 0.0 61 25 10 85 6.1 2 4 324 606 -130 -242 C:AINE I 454 848 S1X;AR 0.0 0.0 33 15 l ' 0.0 0.0) 0.0 0 0 0 a 84: 1566.89!2 :tttttttt 4,503212.272 -2487 -7595 6.989 19,866 IncrementalProduction Value/fed 253 It w ARABREpUBLIC OV EGYPT
DP.AINAGEV PROJECT
Presentand Future Economic Value of Production West-Delta
Present-> FW Present-> FWD T 0 T A L Incranmontal Incre- Incremental Incremental Ync*.inental NeL Value AREA YIELD PRODUCTION r==YIEL0-RELATEOI P Yield Produclioll mental Net Value Net Value CROP Econ Crop lyprod - - -Labor- - - with *w0o witli w/o Prod'n Fin Econ Fin Econ Fin Crop Byprod 3001 ~--~~------(000 TON) Adult Child Misc (t4) (-%) ------000 ton ------(Le 000) (Le 00 (Le 35.3 18 2 6 10 10 33.3 27.2 6.0 60 457 -60 -457 121 914 WaEAT 25,206 1.20 1.4 20.2 209 4.885 1.14 1.2 5.6 5.9 8 12 8 10 10 6.1 5.0 1.1 17 105 -17 -105 34 BARLEY -61 937 183 L SLASEEM 19.390 14.00 0.1 271.5 1.9 17 3 20 10 325.8 244.3 81.4 624 122 -312 8 1 20 10 228.0 171.0 57.0 456 110 -228 -S5 684 165 sr. BERSEEM27,144 7.00 0.1 190.0 2.7 8,718 28,232 1.00 1.2 28.2 33.9 7 70 10 25 10 35.3 21.4 9.9 1,143 6227 -457 -2491 1,601 CO3TON -3634 1,069 7 269 RICE 381497 2.10 1.4 80.8 53.9 11 5 7 10 10 88.9 72.8 16.2 534 3634 -534 29.5 6.6 430 638 -430 -638 861 1,276 S MAIZE 21.841 1.50 1.2 32.8 26.2 5 14 7 10 10 36.0 305 8.2 9.8 4 10 5 10 10 9.0 7.4 1.6 103 154 -103 -1S4 205 a N MAIZ2 8,207 1.00 1.2 0 SONGt.40 0.0 0.0 4 10 S 0.0 ".0 0.0 a 0 0 0 a 3.0 3.0 14 2 7 20 10 3.6 &.7 0.9 74 197 -37 -98 111 291 SOAGAUSAS 3.724 0.80 0.8 363 TOMATO 1.731 7.65 13.3 0.0 15 60 5 20 10 16.0 12.0 4.0 250 242 -125 -121 375 w 2,277 2.462 S TONATO 11,027 8.03 88.5 0.0 15 60 5 20 10 106.2 79.7 26.6 1,518 1641 -759 -821 0.0 15 60 5 20 10 19.1 14.4 4.8 279 201 -140 -151 419 452 N TOMATO 1,687 8.45 16.0 1.302 2.691 S POTATO 4,843 8.03 38.9 0.0 5 10 8 20 10 46.7 35.0 11.7 868 1794 -434 -897 12.4 0.0 5 9 7 20 10 14.8 11.1 3.7 268 561 -134 -281 402 842 N POTATO 2.196 5.62 130 663 5.18 3.4 0.0 15 60 5 20 10 4.1 3.1 1.0 23 87 -11 -43 34 w ONlION .37 1,31% S ONION 7.752 4.69 36.2 0.0 15 60 5 20 10 43.6 32.7 10.9 198 874 -99 -437 0.0 0.0 12 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOYA SEAN 0 0 0 LUPINES 0.0 0.0 12 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 5 15 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GIOUIONUTS 0 0 0 SESAM 0.0 0.0 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 8,514 4.20 35.8 0.0 61 25 10 44.7 32.2 12.5 1,703 3183 -681 -1273 2,384 4,457 PERRENIAL 0 0 0 0 SUGARCANE 0.0 0.0 33 15 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 215,744 8,549 20,328 -4562 -11717 13,111 32,06 Increar*ntal Production Vak/1 297
I22. ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGE V PROJECT
Present and Future Economic Value of Production Upper Egypt
Present.-> FW Present-> FW I T 0 T A L ==YIELO-RELATED-=increneiital Ilcre- Incrmenital 1ncreurental Incrwmental AREA V:ELD PRODUCTIOII ======IiPUtS-==-=- Yield Production mental liet Value Net Value liet Value CROP Crop IByprod Crap Byprod Labor (days) Hisc with w/o with w/o Prodln Fin Econ Fin Econ Fin Econ .-.---- ....-.- (000 TO1) Adult Child Le (*%) (-) ------… 000 toil - (Le 000) (Le 00 (Le 000) IMEAT 17.958 1.3 1.H 23.3 32.3 18 2 6 7 5 25.0 22.2 2.8 45 263 -32 -188 78 451 BARLEY 0.0 0.0 8 12 B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 a 0 0 L BERSEEM 25.368 16.0 0.1 380.5 2.5 17 3 15 5 437.6 361.5 76.1 685 166 -228 -55 913 221 SH DERSEEli 7,324 7.0 0.1 51.3 0.7 8 1 20 t 61.5 45.7 12.8 123 30 -31 -7 154 37 COTTON 11,392 0.8 0.1 9.1 1.4 7 70 10 7 5 9.8 8.7 1.1 62 523 -44 -374 106 897 RICE 1,019 2.1 1.0 2.1 1.0 11 5 7 7 S 2.3 2.0 0.3 10 67 -7 -48 17 115 S HAIZE 29,273 1.6 1.8 46.8 52.7 5 14 7 7 5 50.1 44.5 5.6 441 650 -315 -464 757 1,114 1i IUAIZE 11.56N 1.1 1.5 12.7 17.4 4 10 5 7 5 13.6 12.1 1.5 116 172 -83 -123 199 295 ° UORGHUIIR 3.320 1.5 1.4 5.0 4.6 4 10 5 15 5 5.7 4.7 1.0 99 156 -33 -52 132 208 BROADBEAIIS 10.18 0.8 1.0 8.2 10.2 14 2 7 15 5 9.4 7.7 1.6 151 404 -50 -135 202 538 W *011ATO 3.720 5.6 20.8 0.0 15 60 5 15 6 24.0 19.8 4.2 263 242 -84 -81 337 323 S TOMATO 5,010 8.5 42.6 0.0 | 15 60 5 15 5 49.0 40.5 8.5 | 560 604 -187 -201 746 806 tiTOMIATO 7,126 10.2 72.7 0.0 I 15 60 5 15 5 83.6 69.1 14.5 1,014 1091 -338 -364 1,353 1,455 S POTATO 1,375 7.6 10.5 0.0 5 10 a 15 5 12.0 9.9 2.1 174 361 -58 -120 j 232 481 IJPOTATO 221 6.2 1.4 11.0 5 9 7 15 5 1.6 1.3 0.3 22 47 -7 -161 30 62 WU OfICI 0.0 0.0 1S 60 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 I0 0 S OlIWIti 50 6.5 0.3 0.0 15 60 5 15 5 0.4 0.3 0.1 2 7 -1 -2 3 9 SOYADEAII 2,454 0.9 0.8 2.2 2.0 12 5 15 5 2.6 2.1 0.4 59 136 -20 ..4E I 79 182 LUPIUES 1,116 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 12 5 15 5 1.1 0.9 0.2 57 92 -19 -31 75 123 ;ROUfIDVNUTS 427 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 5 15 5 15 5 0.2 0.2 .0 8 16 -3 *-5 11 21 SESAME 340 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 14 1S 5 0.2 0.2 .0 1315 20 f CtTRUS 3.0H2 4.5 13.9 0.0 61 20 5 . 13.2 3.5 531 991 -133 -243 664 1,29 1GKARCAIIE 5,785 26.0 150.4 0.0 33 15 5 173.0 142.9 30.1 279 2799 -93 -931 373 3,723 148,116 l::---::- 4.708 8.849 -1772 .3503 6.479 12.352 Increreental Production Valueo'Fad 167
5' - 77 - ANNEX 5 Table 6 ARAB REPUBLICOF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Prices Used in Financial and EconomicAnalysis
Crop Financial Economic EE/ton- Wheat 120 280 Barley 111 280 Berseem 19 12 eqtton 424 1,132 Rice 108 500 M'iize 184 250 Sorghum 172 250 Broad Beans 245 485 Tomato 130 130 N Potato 120 240 Onion 86 180 Soya Bean 260 510 Lupines 478 750 Groundnuts 495 783 Sesame 750 1,763 Citrus 205 375 Sugar Cane 20 134
LAbor - -EE/day-
Adult 6 6 Child 2 2
Note: 1) Economic Prices are based on 1090 grojected prices, expressed in 1985 dollars,adjusted for transportand qualitydifferences. 2) Labor costs are based on peak season rates for harvestinglabor. All incremental demand is assumed to be at harvest rates. 3) FinancialPrices are based on 1983/84 GOE statisticsfor project areas. 78- ANNEX 5 Table 7 ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRArNAGEV PROJECT
Incremental Farm Income 3 Fed Farm
UPPER EGYPt
YIELD PRICES Gross Production Costs/fed Net Production Value Croo Aria Crom BExrod CroM barod Value Eea Est Draft Labor Hisc Present FJW EI Inremnat
(1) fed -- t/f -- -- Le/t------Le ------Wheat 28 0.8 1.6 1.8 120 78 278 42 0 49 75 21 120 123 118 5 L 8erseem 40 1.2 25.8 0.1 19 38 592 3 0 18 44 25 484 550 462 88 Sh Berseem 12 0.3 7.8 0.1 19 38 53 0 0 10 21 16 36 43 35 8 Cotton 18 0.5 1.0 0.1 424 23 229 S9 13 52 236 25 22 25 19 6 S Maize 46 1.4 1.9 1.8 184 26 550 61 0 33 125 18 222 248 204 44 N Maize 18 0.5 1.4 1.5 184 26 160 61 0 33 125 18 31 38 25 13 Broad Beans 16 0.5 1.0 1.0 245 24 127 9 1 37 88 35 45 54 42 12 Vegetables 20 0.6 8.5 120 615 47 0 6 231 38- 422 488 400 ea Citrus 5 0.1 5.6 205 168 100 89 0 310 1S 94 12S 86 40 Sugar Cane 9 0.3 29.6 20 162 88 0 100 211 34 44 58 39 20
212 6.2 2.934 1.520 1.752 1.430 322
DELTA
Y..IELDL. PRICES Gross Production Costs/fed Net Production Value Crmn Aria Cram Bylrod Crm Byind Value Erd Pest Draft Labor Hlc Present ELH EA Iner (3j fed t/F Lc/t Le Wheat 28 0.8 1.7 1.8 120 78 287 29 0 39 88 17 142 147 137 11 L Berseem 32 1.0 24.3 0.1 19 38 447 3 0 15 36 20 376 441 343 98 Sh Berseem 27 0.8 7.8 0.1 19 .38 123 0 0 6 12 14 98 112 90 22 Cotton 32 1.0 1.0 1.2 424 23 453 45 13 37 239 12 121 163 104 S9 Rice 48 1.4 1.5 1.2 166 42 432 33 0 39 123 37 98 107 89 18 S Maize 11 0.3 2.0 1.4 184 26 132 31 0 28 109 1S 73 82 63 19 Vegetables 20 0.6 8.7 120 627 46 6 38 77 70 485 57S 439 136 Citrus 2 0.1 6.0 205 81 100 89 0 310 1S 47 66 40 27 ~~~~~~~======.=3 ======s======z =
200 6 2.582 1.440 1.693 1.305 388
Note: F/W = Future. with Project. FWP = Future. without Project. -79 - ANNEX 5 Table 8
ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Farm Distribution by Size and Pattern of Land Ownership
Average Cultivated No. of Average Project Area No. Owners Governorate Area Farms Size Gross 1/ Net 2/ in Project (fed '000) ('000) (fed) -- (fed '000)- ('000)
Sharkiya 656 277 2.4 67 60.3 23.7 Daqahliya 635 248 2.6 79 71.1 25.8 Xafr el Sheikh 503 130 3.9 91 81.9 19.8 Beheira 777 215 3.6 144 129.6 34.0
Subtotal 2,571 870 3.0 381 342.9 103.3
Average Net Farm Size (fed) 90% 3.1
Upper Egypt Giza 197 96 1.8 12.4 11.1 7.4 Beni Suef 224 120 2.2 11.4 10.2 4.4 Minya 405 213 2.1 40.2 34.8 16.3 Fayoum 291 101 2.9 20.0 17.0 7.0
Subtotal 1,117 530 2.1 84.0 73.1 35.1
Average Net Farm Size (fed) 90% 2.1
Grand Total 3,688 1,400 2.6 465.0 416.0 138.4
1/ Total physical 21 Cultivable area Source: MOA ARABREPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Costs.Benefits, and Rate of Raturn by Project Area
UPPER EGYPT * WEST DELTA
Incr - - - - COSTS- - - Incr - - - - COSTS - - - - Prod'n OR Tiles Maint Total Not Prod'n OoR Tiles maint Total Net year ------LE/fed ------year -LE/fed - - - r - 1 44 5 49 -49 1 64 a 73 -74 2 44 S 49 -49 2 6q 6 70 -70 3 131 S 136 -136 3 131 S 136 -126 4 131 5 136 -136 4 131 S 136 -136 5 66 S 70 -70 5 66 S 70 -70 6 3 5 5 -2 6 7 5 .S 1 7 81 5 5 76 7 141 S S 114 a 121 5 5 116 8 212 S 5 174 9 146 5 5 142 9 257 S 5 212 10 164 5 5 19 10 290 S 5 239 1 11-30 167 5 5 162 11-10 297 5 5 245 Go
ERR=19% ERR=25%
MID-DELTA EAST DELTA
Incr - - - - COSTS - - - - Incr - - - - COSTS - - - - Prod'n OOR Tiles Haint Total Net Prod'n ODR Tiles Haint Total Net year ------LE/fed ------year ------LE/fed ------1 64 a 73 -73 1 0 64 9 74 -74 2 64 6 70 -70 2 0 64 6 70 -70 3 131 5 136 -136 3 0 131 6 136 -126 4 131 S 136 -136 4 0 131 6 136 -136 S 66 S 70 -70 5 0 66 5 70 -70 6 6 5 C 1 6 6 5 1 1 7 121 5 S 116 7 )19 S 5 114 a 181 S S 177 8 179 5 S 174 9 220 5 5 215 9 217 5 S 212 10 247 5 S 241 10 244 5 5 239 11-30 253 5 S 248 11-30 250 5 5 24S ERR.232 ERR=23t Fl 'C u' - 81 - ANNEX6 Page 1 of 2
ARABREPUBLIC OF EGYPT
DRAINAGEV PROJECT
Selected Documents and Data Available in the Project File
A. FAO/CP Documents Related to Proiect Proposals
1. Fifth Drainage Project, Preparation Report and Annexes 1-10, September 1984. 2. Nine-Year Program. Detailed Cost Tables, August 1984. 3. Three-Year Project. Detailed Cost Tables, August 1984. 4. Drainage V Program, IdentificationReport and Annexes 1-9, January 1984.
B. EPADP and PPD Documents Related to the Project and Drainage in General
1. Drainage Project Five, Project Planning Report and Annexes 1-7, December 1984. 2. Depth to Water Table Maps for 31 Drainage Basins in the Delta and 14 in Upper Egypt, 1984. 3. Soil Salinity Maps for 31 Drainage Basins in the Delta and 14 in Upper Egypt, 1984. 4. Messrs Yehia Mohie El Din, Afaf Abd El Aziz, Bahia Ibrahim (MOA) and Wadia Rafla (EPADP) - A Study on the Ability of Farmers to Pay for the Full Cost of Field Drainage Investments in Upper Egypt, 1984. 5. Messrs Yehia Mohie El Din, MabhmoudMansour, Fatama El Zalaki (MOA) and Wadia Rafla (EPADP) - A Study on the Ability of Farmers to Pay for the Full Cost of Field Drainage Investments in the Nile Delta, 1984. 6. N.E. Otto - Report on Aquatic Weed Control for Open Channel Maintenance in Egypt, September 1984. 7. Preliminary Analysis of the Crop Yield Evaluation in some Drained Areas in Upper Egypt, January 1983. 8. Evaluation Research Study on the Effect of Tile Drainage System on Cultivated Land (Shinfas II), 1982. 9. Analysis of the Crop Yield Evaluation in some Drained Areas (Delta), July 1982.
C. Egyptian-Dutch Advisory Panel on Land Drainage (Selected Recent Documents)
Monitoring and Evaluation
1. Workshop on Economic Evaluation of Drainage Projects. September 1983. 2. H.J. Nijland - Economic Evaluation of Land Drainage in Egypt, Final Report Crash Program, 1983.
Technical
3. G.A. Ven - Design of Subsurface Drainage Systems in Egypt, February 1983. 4. Messrs Dayem and Deelstra - An Assessment of Areas with Sandy Subsoil within Subsurface Drain Depth in the Nile Delta, February 1983. - 82 - ANNEX 6 Page 2 of 2
5. A Team of DRI and Dutch Engineers - Monitoring the Performance of a Drainage System with Modified Layout and Comparison with a Conventional System, 1983. 6. Eng. B.H. Kok - Production of Corrugated PVC Land Drainage Pipe in Egypt, January 1982.
Organization and Management
7. Messrs Penninkhof, Fokkens and Dorrah, Lake Yssel Polder Development Authority - Contractors Organization and Costs of Egyptian Tile Drainage Projects, 1984. 8. Messrs Amer and Van der Zel - The Egyptian-Dutch Advisory Panel on Land Drainage: Its Activities and Impact, November 1983. 9. Messrs Dorrah, Fokkens and Perninkhof - Operation and Management of Egyptian Drainage rrojects, July 1983. 10. Mr. J. Penninkhof - Process, Work and Time and Motion Studies of Egyptian Tile Drainage Projects, January 1982.
D. DRI - Selected Recent Documents
1. Lyman S. Williardson - Need for Envelope Material, February 1984. 2. W. Diericks - The Need for Drainage Envelcpe Materials of Egyptian Soils, February 1984. 3. L.C.P.M. Stuyt - Recommendations on the Use of Drainage Envelope Materials in the Nile Delta Area, February 1984. 4. Messrs Amer, Dayem and Khaliq - Hydraulic Design of Collector Drains for Egyptian Soils, February 1983. 5. Design of Modified Lateral and Collector Connection, May 1981.
E. Miscellaneous Documents
1. CIDA - ISAWIP, Summary of Proposed Project, October 1984. 2. MOA, USAID - Proceedings of National Rice Research Institute Conferences: Third (February 1983), Second (February 1982), and First (February 1981). 3. Euroconsult - Study on a Program of Soil Improvement in Kafr El Sheikh Governorate, June 1981.
F. Project Documents
1. Drainage V Project. Detailed Cost Tables, April 1985. 2. COE 10-Year Drainage Program. Detailed Cost Tables, April 1985. 3. Assessment of Equipment and Plant Operating Costs. 4. Agricultural Aspects. . * - - -- 3'8 3
Dumyato
Alexandria No 6
bRA8 REPUollC OF EGYPT / E > GOVERNMENTOF EGYPT10 YEARPROGRAM \ ( VgI/; KI/ o AND DRAINAGEV PROJECT v /) t i4,\ t /,' lii~oi1)NI s lOWEREGYPT 11
AreaDo,CSvered bytY 0 rProgram 5SNJAreci Coveredby DrainageV Project Rq: N , [_ 1 AreasCovered by Nilb Delto I Project(IDA Project) ;\\ ) > V t< /- I r J/i N INAdF.e -I--s\ ) 79 ri 7] Aeci Coveredby Nile Delto11 Project (lDhJelonl Project) ARABREPUBLIC ~OF EGYPT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ id ~~MS~ AABREUBI [ ] AreasProvided with Tile Drainagewith Gwovernment'sowrn Resourcet | n / Ortor, \
r ] AreasCovered by IntegratedSoil and WoterImprovement Project ;rXy/3 (CanDdianCIDA Poject) - Drainageand Soil ImrnovoementProject (EEC Project)9 ee T r
_- DroinageRosin Boundaries Roer an Citbe . N Y gei r * rv ~'(. * §~ ~~~~~ra Cavr by Dring Proec 'V Main Irritoin Crs ,ie -S RoSeIA2and Dan,iella ,, Cdrrs orI1 b Areoi(IA.'BankProject Coefed byNile Deta 11 Prject , SAUDI rw Sorrooes | d w e S | ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
7V Purnping STations EAR ROGR rroT OF 'B EGYYPT0
0 LO WER10 EGYP 20 lES OE P_
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dd9 te ,dol r0 w,I- s 30 a Coveedwyso 103YcrrrPree gr U EreEtas
_ 30 31- | SU D A N ` w _~~ El.. ~~~SIN*~ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT GOVERNMENTOF EGYPT EMtA~)mF.A.i10 l YEARPROGRAM it X l H 2 r/ ,r' AND DRAINAGEV PROJECT
g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o COWi"2IoVWh / f~~~~~~~~~r.igMA.ICraw.AIs jcl
Ai. i .. C..d Xb, .I P,.
I S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MA I <- X il $. I
CAtRO C. N.Drok"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II IwpP (IA.ni V - a
FAYOUMBENIANDSUEF VA AIN-~~N \poboud)J *0 ISkL~~~~fAUS5 .'* 0,11 \%~- a i I / I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AmkioK x. EM Arm C. wl- -b I PU,- IS~ IUiMITUS~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~& DrASEOPEYT r GIZ~~AtGOVERNORALTEi I t - ______salof Ži~~~~~~~~~~Pwqm
8-1AILli'N______t. I ' a uat WU f 0