Document of The World Bank
Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: 20443-EGT
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
ON A Public Disclosure Authorized PROPOSED LOAN
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$50.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT
TO THE
ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
FOR A
SECOND NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized
May 15, 2000 Public Disclosure Authorized
Rural Development,Water and Environment Group Middle East & North Africa Region CURRENCYEQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate As of end February 2000)
Currency Unit Egyptian Pound LE 1.0 USS0.29 USs 1.0 = LE 3.40 LE = 100 Piasters (PT)
GOVERNMENTOF THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT FISCAL YEAR July I - June 30
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Egvptian and/or Metric Unit English/US Unit
I feddan (fd) = 1.038 acres(ac) I feddan (fd) = 0.420 hectares I hectare (ha) = 2.380 feddan (fd) I kilometer (km) = 0.621 rmiles (mi) I meter (m) = 3.281 feet (ft) I metric ton (mt) = 0.984 long ton (ton)
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CAS Country Assistance Strategy CAP Compliance Action Plan CUA Collector Users Association DAS Drainage Advisory Service DRI Drainage Research Institute DUA Drainage Users Association ECRI Environmental and Climatic Research Institute EEAA Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EPADP Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects ERR Economic Rate of Return EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FARAH Financial, Accounting, Reporting and Auditing Handbook FMS Financial Management System FMPM Financial Management Procedures Manual GD General Directorate GDAFA General Directorate of Administrative and Finance Affairs GIS Geographic Information System GDP Gross Domestic Product GOE Government of Egypt IAS Irrigation Advisory Services IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development llP Irrigation Improvement Project [CB International Competitive Bidding INTESP The Netherlands-funded Institutional and Technical Support Program IS Intemational Shopping IUA Irrigation Users Associations
Vice President Jean-Louis Sarbib Country Director Khalid Ikram Sector Director Doris Koehn Task Team Leader Nejdet Al-Salihi Co-Task Team Leader Tijan Sailah ABBREVIATIONSAND ACRONYNIS(cont'd)
KfW Kreditanstaltfir Wiederautbau(German Bank for InternationalDevelopment Financing) LIB LimitedInternational Bidding MADWQ The Monitoringand Analysisof DrainageWater Quality Project M&E Monitoringand Evaluation MED The Mechanicaland ElectricalDepartment of MWRI MIS ManagementInformation System CMRI ChannelMaintenance Research Institute of theMWRI MOIC Ministryof InternationalCooperation MWRI TheMinistry of WaterResources and Irrigation NAWQAM Canadian-fundedNational Water Quality and Availability Management Project NCB NationalCompetitive Bidding NDP NationalDrainage Project NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganization NPV Net PresentValue NS NationalShopping O&M Operationsand Maintenance PEGD Planningand EvaluationGeneral Directorate PIP ProjectImplementation Plan PMT ProjectManagement Team PMR ProjectManagement Report PVC PolyvinylChloride RIGW The ResearchInstitute for Groundwater SADAS SectorAffairs and DrainageAdvisory Service SOEs Statementof Expenditures TA TechnicalAssistance USAID UnitedStates Agency for InternationalDevelopment USEPA UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency WRC WaterResearch Center WUA WaterUsers Association
ArabRepublic of Egypt
The SecondNational Drainage Project
CONTENTS Page No.
A. Project Development Objectives...... 2
1. Project development objective...... 2 2. Key performance indicators...... 2
B. Strategic Context...... 2
1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project...... 2 2. Main sector issues and Govemment strategy...... 3 3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices...... 3
C. Project Description Summary ...... 5
1. Project components...... 5 2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project ...... 5 3. Benefits and target population ...... 7 4. Institutional and implementation arrangements...... 7
D. Project Rationale...... 10
1. Project altematives considered and reasons for rejection...... 10 2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies ...... 10 3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design...... 10 4. Indications of borrower commitment and ownership ...... 11 5. Value added of Bank support in this project...... 11
E. Summary Project Analysis ...... 12
1. Economic...... 12 2. Financial ...... 12 3. Technical ...... 13 4. Institutional...... 13 5. Social...... 14 6. Environmental Assessment...... 15 7. Participatory approach ...... 16
F. Sustainability and Risks...... 17
1. Sustainability...... 17 2. Critical Risks ...... 17 3. Possible Controversial Aspects...... 18 G. Main Loan Conditions...... 18
1. Effectiveness Conditions ...... 18 2. Other ...... 18
H. Readinessfor Implementation...... 18
I. Compliancewith Bank Policies...... 19
ANNEXES
Annex 1 Project Design Summary Annex 2 Project Description Annex 3 Estimated Project Costs Annex 4 Economic Analysis Annex 5 Financial Analysis Annex 6 Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements
Table A Procurement Methods Table B Prior Review Thresholds Table C Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements
Table 1 Tentative Tendering and Disbursement Schedule for Contracts to be financed by the World Bank Table 2 Tentative Tendering and Disbursement Schedule for Contracts to be financed by the EIB Table 3 Tentative Tendering and Disbursement Schedule for Contracts to be financed by the KfW Table 4 Tentative Financial Arrangementsand Disbursement Categories (All amounts in '000 US$)
Annex 7 Institutional Aspects Annex 7A Sunmmaryof Social Assessment Annex 8 Environmental Management Plan Annex 9 Project Processing Budget and Schedule Annex 10 Documents in Project File Annex 11 Statement of Loans and Credits Annex 12 Country at a Glance
MAPS: IBRD Nos. 30870 and 30871 Arab Republicof Egypt
Second NationalDrainage Project Project Appraisal Document
Middle East and North Africa Regional Office Rural Development Water and Environment Department
Date: May 15, 2000 Team Leader : Nejdet Al-Salihi Country Manager/Director: Khalid Ikram Sector Manager: Salah Darghouth Project ID: EG-PE-45499 Sector Director : Doris Koehn Lending Instrument: SIL Sector Theme(s) : Rural Development
Poverty Targeted Intervention: [ ] Yes [X] No Project Financing Data [X] Loan [ ] Credit [ Grant [] Guarantee [] Other [Specify] For Loans/Credits/Others: Amount (US$m): US$50.0 Proposed terms: [] To be defined [ Multicurrency [x] Single currency [] Standard Variable [ Fixed [x] LIBOR-based Grace period (years): 5 years Years to maturity: 20 years Commitment fee: 0.75% Service charge: % Front-end fee on Bank loan: 1.0% finacig plait (US$mn):
Government 134.8 0.0 134.8 KfW (Germany) 0.4 39.6 40.0 EIB 0.0 50.0 50.0 Netherlands 0.6 3.0 3.6 IBRD 0.0 50.0 50.0 Total 135.8 142.6 278.4
Borrower: The Arab Republic of Egypt Guarantor: N/A Responsible agency: The Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects (EPADP) of the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI). Estimated disbursements (Bank FY/US$M): -F: - 01 2002 2003 2004E Annual 3.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 Cumulative 3.0 12.0 22.0 32.0 40.0 46.0 50.0
Project implementation period: 6 years Expected effectiveness date: January 1, 2001 Expected closing date: June 30, 2007 Implementing agency: The Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects (EPADP) Contact person: Eng. Mohammed Fathi A. Hassan, Chairnan Address: 13 Giza Street, Giza P.O. Box 12211, Egypt Tel: 20-2-573-8039 Fax: 20-2-573-8647 E-mail: cpadp Lcoidsc.gov.eg p:\egypt\re\45499\BOARD\PADBOARDMAY152000.doc A: Project DevelopmentObjectives 1. Projectdevelopment objective: (see Annex 1) The proposed project would be the second time slice of the Government's National Drainage Program of which the first phase (consisting of about 0.7 million feddans of subsurface drainage) is currently being completed under the World Bank-financed National Drainage Project (Ln. No. 3417/Cr. No. 2313-EGT) with cofinancing from KfW (Germany) and the Netherlands. The project's main objectives are to: (i) increase the agricultural productivity of about 0.8 million feddan of irrigated land (Ref. project maps 30870 and 30871) by improving drainage conditions through evacuation of excess irrigation water with subsurface drains into existing open drains; and (ii) avoid yield and production losses on this land, which would result if waterlogging and soil salinity problems were to persist. Other project objectives include building capacity in the Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects (EPADP) through institutional support, technical assistance and training activities provided under bilateral donors' assistance. In addition, the project would assist in identifying and addressing the environmental issues resulting from the discharge of untreated raw industrial and domestic waste into a few open drains in the project areas. 2. Keyperformance indicators Details of key performance indicators are in Annex 1. The key performance indicators showing the achievement of project objectives would be measured by: (i) preventing yield losses of crops (depending on their tolerance for waterlogging and salinity) ranging from 7% for sorghum to 20% for cotton and citrus; (ii) improvement in soil quality through reduced salinity to below 4 mmnhos/cm;(iii) lowering and maintaining the water level on farmer's fields to no higher than 1 .0 m below ground; and (iv) improving capacities in EPADP in terms of number of staff trained and technical assistance provided.
B: Strategic Context 1. Sector-relatedCountry Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project:(see Annex 1) Document number: Report No. 16533-EGT Date of latest CAS discussion: May 7, 1997
The project will support the CAS objective of raising rural incomes through diversified agricultural production based on efficient and environmentally sustainable use of land and water resources. The strategy is to invest in agriculture with emphasis on irrigation and drainage infrastructure as principal vehicles for encouraging sustainable rural development, reducing rural poverty and ensuring the well- being of the rural population. These investments are important because the Agricultural Sector accounts for 36% of total national employment and is the basis of the rural economy. The project will also support the CAS objective of developing human resources through the provision of training and technical assistance to EPADP.
-2- 2. Mainsector issues and Governmentstrategy:
The main sector issues are: The Government strategy to address these issues can be summarized as follows:
(a) The need to increase the efficiency in the utilization (a) Government's strategy is to move towards total of the country's limited water resources and arable land coverage of all irrigated lands with subsurfacedrainage to ensure a sustainable irrigation and drainage based and to rehabilitate old and malfunctioning drains and agricultural system. pumping stations to prevent water logging and soil salinization and to improve water use efficiency.
(b) Relativelylow rural incomes (arising from small farm (b) Government's strategy has been to invest more in sizes averaging two feddans combined with a large rural development, particularly in activities which landless rural population) which is a challenge for target social investments to the needy. Irrigated combatingrural poverty. agriculture development is central to rural development in Egypt.
(c) Cost sharing of investments in the irrigation and (c) Government's strategy has been to legislate for drainage subsectors, which contributes to the cost-sharing arrangements, in which the beneficiaries sustainabilityof the systems. pay the full cost of material and implementationof the subsurfacedrainage [excludinginterest charges] over a twenty-yearperiod.
(d) The need for beneficiary participation to enhance (d) Government's strategy has been to gradually sustainability through a gradual shift of maintenance promote the development of new integrated irrigation responsibility of the subsurface drainage system to water and drainage Collector Users' Associations. beneficiaries.
(e) Environmentalissues involving the disposal of wastes (e) Government strategy has been to monitor the water from industrial and domestic sources into some open quality in these drains and to pass legislationto prevent drains. pollution of water courses. Enforcement,however, needs to be enhanced.
3. Sectorissues to be addressedby the projectand strategicchoices:
A. Increased Efficiencyin the Use of the Countries' Limited Water Resources and Arable Land through Improved Drainage:
The proposed project would increasethe productivity of the irrigated area, as a result of improved drainage conditions resulting from the followingproject components:
- 3 - (i) Rehabilitation of old malfunctioning subsurface drainage systems to ensure control of salinization and water logging of irrigated agricultural land on which subsurface drainage systems were constructed in the past. The main reason for the malfunctioning of these old systems was that, unlike the proposed project which uses continuous perforated subsurface lateral drains, the old systems consisted of separated clay or concrete pipes laid with small gaps between units which resulted in concentrated entry of water through the gaps resulting in entry of sediment causing the eventual blockage of pipes;
(ii) Provision of new subsurface drainage in the new areas of the old cultivated lands as well as in the old and new reclaimed lands; and
(iii) Deepening and remodeling existing open surface drains to ensure that drainage water collected from irrigated lands by the subsurfacedrains is conveyed out of the project area and into the drainage system and its outfalls.
B. Others
Other issues that the project would address include:
(i) Poverty among farm families. Since the project area covers many farm families with average small holdings of about two feddans, the project would help improve the incomes of about 400,000 farm families. This expected positive effect on rural incomes is particularly important in Middle and Upper Egypt where poverty is relatively more severe (see details in Annex 5, Tables 2,3 and 4).
(ii) Cost recovery and sustainability. There is a successful existing cost sharing arrangement supported by legislation whereby the investment costs in subsurface drainage are substantially recovered from beneficiaries over a 20 year period with no interest charged. The GOE thus subsidizes approximately 50 to 55 % of this investment and the beneficiaries contribute 40 to 45 percent in real terms. The same cost sharing arrangements will be applied in the proposed project. The consultation with beneficiaries in the social assessment indicated that they are willing to pay for this investment cost.
(iii) Capacity Building. The project will support development of human resources through provision of training and technical assistance to EPADP's staff, and the overall institutional strengthening of EPADP. The project will also support the associated institutions of the MWRI participating in the irrigation and drainage sectors, such as the DRI (see details in Section E (4).
(iv) Environment. The project will support improvements in reducing water logging and soil salinity as well as reducing the adverse effects on people's health due to disease vectors in standing water in surface on-farm open drains which will be replaced by sub-surface field drains. The project will identify sources of external pollution of the existing open drainage systems in the project areas and prepare an action plan to address them (see details in Section E (6) and Annex 8). The project will also support the EPADP's EnvironmentalUnit in the implementationof the EMP and their site specific environmental reviews.
-4 - C: Project Description Summary
1. Project components:(see Annex 2 for a detaileddescription and Annex 3 for a detailed cost breakdown)
Compeiet Setor CostA % Tota
(a) SubsurfaceDrainage(') Physical - Old cultivated areas (390,000 fed)(2 ) 118.1 42.4 17.5 35.0 - Old-new reclaimedareas ( 110,000fed)(3) 35.5 12.8 5.0 10.0 - Renewal & rehabilitation(300,000 fed)(4) 47.7 17.1 6.3 12.6 SubtotalSubsurface Drainage 201.3 72.3 28.8 57.6
(b) Open drains rehabilitation& remodeling: Physical 19.2 6.9 2.8 5.6 SubtotalOpen Drains 19.2 6.9 2.8 5.6
(c) Equipmentand Materials Physical - O&M equipmentfor open drains 10.1 3.6 3.8 7.6 - O&M equipmentfor subsurface drains 1.7 0.6 - PVC/PE Powder for transition period (2 years) 26.5 9.5 9.5 19.0 - Pumpingstations - EmergencyCenters 8.1 2.9 2.4 4.8 SubtotalEquipment and Materials 46.4 16.6 15.7 31.4
(d) InstitutionalSupport to: Management & Institution Building - EPADP And Physical 9.5 3.4 1.9 3.8 - Social and participatoryactivities including two pilot 1.0 0.4 0.5 1.0 areas - EnvironmentalManagement Plan 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.6 SubtotalInstitutional Support 11.5 4.2 2.7 5.4
Total Project Costs 278.4 100.0 50.0 100.0
(') Cost given in (a) is investment and recurrent costs on subsurfacedrainage less cost of PVC/PE raw material powder for the transition period of first two years. (2) Old cultivatedareas: traditionalirrigated areas under continuouscultivation. (3) Old-new reclaimed lands: areas that were reclaimed first, outside the traditionalirrigated areas. (4) Renewal and rehabilitation:areas with old, dilapidatedor malfunctioningsubsurface drainage.
2. Key policy and institutionalreforms supported by the project:
The project would support the implementation of the following policy and institutional reforms: (a) Administrative Devolution and Procedure Formulation. EPADP would introduce, on a pilot scale, drainage Collector Users Associations (CUAs) and formulate the procedures for participation of beneficiaries in the operation and maintenance of the subsurface drainage system in coordination with the Water Users Associations (WUAs) being established at the Mesqa level under the Bank-financed Irrigation Improvement Project (IIP). EPADP in cooperation with the Netherlands-funded Water Boards Project and the full participation of farmers would also coordinate with the IIP project to look into the possibility of integrating the irrigation and the drainage water users association. These procedures would be submitted for Bank review by the end of the first year following loan effectiveness and an agreed pilot program implemented during the remaining project years until project completion.
- 5- (b) Cost Sharing. MWRI/EPADPto continue its currentpolicy of cost sharing at the tertiary (mesqa) level for both the on-farm irrigation improvements and the on-farm subsurface field drainage system. (c) Improving efficiency of procurement of drainage Plastic Pipe Production Facilities and EncouragingCompetition. The EPADP's seven pipe production facilities were initially financed and established in the Government sector through USAID, World Bank and German support. Spread all over Egypt, these facilities produce 80 mm perforated plastic (polyvinyl chloride or PVC) pipes for laterals and various sizes of PVC and polyethylene (PE) pipes for collectors for the subsurface drainage of irrigated agricultural land. EPADP's current drainage works contracts stipulate that contractors will be provided with the drainage pipes by EPADP. EPADP has taken a first step under the ongoing NDP, through Netherlands funding, to carry out a review of the production facilities by an international independent consultant with a view to further improving the management and efficient operation of the facilities and possible gradual commercialization or privatization. According to the consultant's report, the facilities' operations in EPADP have generally been efficient. At present, there is great demand for the pipes they produce for subsurface drainage, and private sector provision altematives are non-existent. Since there is much sunk cost in these facilities, Government can only benefit by making existing facilities productive. Under the proposed project, EPADP would pursue two actions with a view to further improve efficiency and spur competition: (i) EPADP would carry out a study to look at the options for commercializationor privatization of these facilities, two years after the effectiveness of the Bank loan; and (ii) the project would also require modifications to the current procurement arrangements of drainage pipes to allow works contractors the option for provision of pipes through their drainage works contracts. The EPADP facilities would, in the meantime, over the first two years of the project, gradually convert to commercialized or privatized entities able to compete for the supply of pipes to contractors. This will also open the way for private sector suppliers, who can develop the required lines of production for drainage pipes, to also compete for the supply of pipes. * A World Bank special mission in August 1999 reviewed the issues related to the pipe production facilities and made recommendationsfor a comprehensive study to be carried out to look into the possible commercialization or privatization of EPADP's pipe production facilities. The mission also looked at the possibility for PVC/PE pipes to be procured directly through civil contractors. This mission had recommended that a gradual transition from the current provision of drainage pipes by the EPADP's pipe production facilities to a system of open market competition would be advisable. Under this arrangement, the EPADP pipe production facilities will gradually acquire the status of independent economic units able to compete with other private sector suppliers who may enter the market for production of these specialized drainage pipes. * EPADP has, based on the findings of the aforementionedBank's special mission, agreed on a TOR to carry out such a study using the project preparation PHRD grant. EPADP has furthermore indicated that it would seriously consider the various options recommended by the study for the gradual commercialization and/or privatization of the pipe production facilities. A consulting team will be engaged to carry out the study as soon as the PHRD Grant funds become available (scheduled for June 2000). * The details of the transitionperiod for the provision of drainage pipes during the first two years of the project have been agreed to avoid any disruption to implementationof the drainage program. Based on this arrangement, the current procedures under the ongoing NDP Project will continue to be followed for the provision of PVC/PE raw materials and for synthetic filter materials for the EPADP's pipe production facilities so as to fully cover the requirements for procurement of materials for the first year of the project and 50% of the requirements for the second year. Based on this arrangement, about 30% of
-6 - all pipe production and filter material requirementswill be channeled through provision of raw materials to EPADP's pipe production facilities directly. The remaining 70% will be incorporated in the civil works contracts with contractors having the option of provision of raw materials to the pipe production facilities, or direct purchase from the facilities, or getting the pipes through a private sector supplier. It is thus anticipatedthat EPADP will gradually move over the two-year transition period towards commercialization or privatization of its pipe production facilities. The provision of pipes for the project will also be reviewed after two years of effectiveness and at mid- term to agree on any adjustments which may become necessary, to take into consideration civil contractors preferences in getting pipes, and the efficiency and cost effectivenessof the preferred option. (d) Establishmentand enforcement of sound environmentalguidelines. EPADP would employ sound environmental and health guidelines and practices in implementingproject activities such as: (i) the destruction and removal of cleared weeds and silt resulting from the dredging of open drains by contractors to prevent any bilharzia snails which may appear in drains from re-infecting other drains; (ii) apply chance find procedures for possibly buried cultural heritage in standard civil contracts; and (iii) EPADP, assisted by DRI, which is carrying out water quality studies at the mixing stations (through Netherlands-fundedMonitoring and Analysis of Drainage Water Quality Project (MADWQ) for the Delta and the Canadian-funded National Water Quality and Availability ManagementProject (NAWQAM)project for Upper Egypt), would submit copies of such studies to the Bank; (iv) EPADP, assisted by DRI, would draw up an action plan to evaluate information on pollution discharge into open drains in the project areas, and support implementationof the monitoring plan. Through the resulting mitigation plans and training of regional drainage sector staff, the project would strongly support the Government's policy to improve the enforcement capacity with respect to Environmental Law 48. Agreements in this regard were reached during negotiations; and (v) environmental assessment and EMP implementation (site specific environmental reviews and pollution abatement plans) would also focus on sub-project areas situated in relatively vulnerable locations such as fresh and brackish wetlands along the boundaries of the Nile Valley and Delta and protected nature sites in addition to the reclaimed areas and any project areas with serious pollution hazards. 3. Benefits and target population: (a) Benefits:
The project's main benefits would be derived from and based on improved drainage on 0.8 million feddan of irrigated lands in the Delta and Nile Valley. The net present value of benefits at the 12% discount rate has been estimated at LE 607 million (or US$178 million equivalent). The project's economic benefit-costratio is 2.0.
(b) Target Population:
* The target populationbenefiting from the project is about 400,000 farm households. This is based on the prevailing land ownership and cropping patterns, as most of the farmers in the project area are smallholderswho have an average size of land holding of two feddans.
4. Institutionaland implementationarrangements: (Implementation period: Six years (2001- 2006) Executingagencies: * The project would be implemented by the semi-autonomous EPADP of the MWRI, which is responsible for implementing drainage projects and maintaining both surface and subsurface agricultural drainage systems. The EPADP is headed by a Chairman (First Undersecretaryof State) - 7 - at its headquarter in Cairo with a Vice-Chairmanand two undersecretaries. The project would come under the overall supervision of the Chairman of EPADP who would be the Senior MWRI official in charge of the project. EPADP operates through five "regional sectors" and the Headquarters Office in Cairo. Each of the five field regional departments is headed by an Undersecretary of State supported by an M&E Unit. The total full-time staff of EPADP is about 7,100 of which 650 are civil and mechanical engineers. The intensity of staffing varies among regions with East Delta having the highest and West Delta, the lowest. The Chairman has the authority to recruit or transfer staff as needed which enables a certain flexibilityto meet peak period requirements in the various regions. * The EPADP has had considerable experience in implementing six drainage projects co-financed by the World Bank including the ongoing National Drainage Project (Ln. 3417-Cr. 2313-EGT) and will be responsible for implementing the project along similar lines to the earlier drainage projects. In accordance with its current mandate, EPADP would be responsible for carrying out the design, procurement, field installation and operation and maintenanceof the drainage works. The project will provide logistic support to EPADP headquarters in Cairo and field directorates to ensure continued improvementsto the O&M of the system. * EPADP would, as in the earlier drainage projects, obtain assistance from other agencies of the MWRI (as describedbelow) in implementingvarious project components. Assistance from other ministries would be similarly coordinated by the WRC and its institutes to address the side effects of industrial and domestic wastes into open agricultural drains and coordinated within EPADP by the EnvironmentalUnit. * Other main institutions within the Ministry which interact with the functions of EPADP are: (i) the Irrigation Department which is responsiblefor the O&M of all public irrigation canals and their canal structures. Both the EPADP and the Irrigation Department are structured along regional lines with at least one general directorate in each governorate; (ii) the Water Resources Center (WRC) which conducts research on all aspects of water use, including reuse of agricultural drainage water through its 12 research institutes including the DRI with whom EPADP cooperates in the drainage sub-sector; and (iii) the Mechanical and Electrical Department (MED), which is responsible for installing, operating and maintaining all irrigation and drainage pumping stations, which has been supported by two Bank-fundedpumps rehabilitation projects with the third project awaiting effectiveness.
- EPADP would furthermore be assisted by a Project Management Team (which was a condition of Board Presentation of the ongoing National Drainage Project). This team exists and is functioning well. It is chaired by the Chairman of EPADP and is composed of members from WRC, the Irrigation Sector, MED, the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, in addition to representatives of the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Housing and the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) who are invited to attend, if required. The team meets at least bi-annually and more frequently, if required to address various implementation issues and review the annual program. This team assisted by the EMU would also function as the steering committee for implementationof the EMP.
FinancialManagement. The Financial Management System (FMS) in place in the EPADP is based on principles and procedures defined by the legal framework applicable to the public sector and more specifically to governmental institutions. The Financial Management System in place is satisfactory overall and does not show accountabilityissue; however, several improvements have to be introduced in order to upgrade the Management Information System (MIS). EPADP is implementing an important program which aims at improving its MIS modernization program; however, substantive results would require two years of concerted efforts. In order to implement the project according to Bank's requirements and the required efficiency, EPADP will be required to set up special financial management arrangementsas reflected in an agreed time bound action plan which will be implementedby no later than December 31, 2001. Financial managementarrangements for the project are detailed in Annex 6 and are summarizedbelow. -8 - Accountingand FinancialReporting. The Project Management Team (PMT) Coordinator selected from the Planning and Evaluation General Directorate (PEGD) staff will assure the issuing of the annual project accounts and the quarterly Project Management Reports (PMR) as well as the submission of these documents on a timely basis to the Bank and to the auditors. Procedures for accounts and financial reporting would be developed by a qualified specialist and would aim to conform to the Bank's requirements.
Audit. EPADP will appoint an auditor acceptableto the Bank to carry on an annual audit accordingto the International Standardson Auditing, as issued by the InternationalFederation of Accountants,the Bank's Guidelines (e.g., Financial, Accounting, Reporting and Auditing Handbook ("FARAH")) and specific Terms of Reference (TORs) acceptable to the Bank. The auditor will express a professional opinion on the annual project financial statements and will submit to the Bank an annual audit report within six months after the end of the fiscal year.
Disbursements.Disbursements from the Bank loan would be initially made on the traditional system (reimbursements with full documentation and against Statements of Expenditure (SOEs), and direct payments). It would be converted to the new procedures (i.e., based on Project Management Reports (PMRs)) after the assessment of the financial management system and the issuing of a certification ensuring that this system is operating satisfactorily. The target date for this conversion is December 31, 2001.
SpecialAccount: As in the ongoing NDP, one special account would be established under the project. The special account would be held at the Central Bank of Egypt and will have an initial authorized allocation of not less than US$1.5 million. This allocation would be increased to $3 million when the aggregate amount of withdrawals from the loan exceeds $12 million comes under LACI disbursements. However, if withdrawals are made on the basis of PMRs, then amount deposited in the Special Account should not exceed $5 million. The project's special account would be managed by EPADP and be audited annually by independent special auditors acceptable to the Bank. The EPADP, assisted by the Bank, has carried out a financial and procurement audit for the ongoing National Drainage Project with the objectiveof evaluating the LACI readiness of EPADP for the proposed project. The audit was carried out by independent external auditors for the current NDP Project as an indicator for the proposed NDP-II Project.
Monitoringand evaluationarrangements: Project Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) would be the responsibility of EPADP's existing monitoring and evaluation unit, which will monitor progress against agreed-upon performance monitoring indicators (Annex 1). Monitoring and Evaluation would be guided by the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) (to be prepared by EPADP by December 2000); performance indicators, and the project design summary (Annex 1). EPADP would undertake periodic data collection and analyses with the assistance of the M&E Unit. The M&E Unit would consolidate the M&E reports and include them in the semi-annual (January and July each year) progress reports. The format for the reports would be finalized during the Project's Launch Workshop. They would cover the status of project implementation,any problems which may have arisen and the corrective actions being taken. They would also provide an updated procurement program, disbursement and commitment tables. One part of the progress report would also include crop yields and impact on the functioning of subsurface drainage including O&M, particularly maintenance of open drains. The report will also include data on cost recovery of the field drainage investment cost with comparison of expected vs. actual cost recovery; report on the measures taken to improve the timely delivery of crop compensation to beneficiaries in accordance with Bank policy; and report progress in the implementation of the Environmental Management Plan. In addition to annual progress reports, M&E would be conducted through: (a) Bank supervision missions, and (b) a project mid-term review. EPADP would prepare a detailed mid-term report to serve as the basis for a mid-term review planned for January 2004, and submit to the Bank a
-9- final project evaluation report by December 31, 2006. The project will provide technical assistance for strengtheningM&E and the MIS System.
D: Project Rationale 1. Projectalternatives considered and reasonsfor rejection: Since the project is a follow-on to the ongoing National Drainage Project which itself has followed on five earlier satisfactorily executed drainage projects, general project alternatives which have previously been used satisfactorilyhave been adopted for the proposedproject. In the detailed designs of the drainage system, however, various options of design layouts are continuously being considered and optimal solutions chosen. Some alternatives under the project for the subsurface drainage system have been reviewed, such as: (i) provision of the plastic drainage pipes through EPADP's facilities with raw materials provided to the facilities through IBRD and KfW financing as in the ongoing National Drainage Project (NDP); (ii) provision of the drainage plastic pipes through civil contractors using the provisional sum concept; (iii) provision of the drainage plastic pipes through a two-year transitory period, during which raw materials would be provided to EPADP's pipe production facilities, after which the pipes would be obtained through the civil contracts. In this case, current NDP procedures of civil contractors taking delivery of pipes from EPADP's pipe production facilities, transporting and installing them would be maintained. This procedure would allow for provision of the entire resin powder (or raw material) first year requirements to EPADP's pipe production facilities, and one half in the second year. After the second year, all pipes for Bank-fundeddrainage areas would have to be provided through civil contracts, unless otherwise agreed by the Bank and EPADP.
2. Majorrelated projects financed by the Bankand/or other development agencies: (completed,ongoing and planned) LatestSupieision {Form 59 Ratings Sectorissue Project O:a 4ancd Pr* Only) linplmenntation.Progress Development ______i;: _i;: ftP) 0bective (00) Bank-Financed Completed Waterloggingand -PumpingStations Rehab. Project I (Bank-financed) Satisfactory Satisfactory Increasingsalinity. - DrainageI-V Projects(Bank/IDA-financed) Satisfactory Satisfactory Inefficienton-farm - IrrigationImprovement Project (USAID-financed) Satisfactory Satisfactory Watermanagement. Agingand - PumpingStations Rehab. Project II (Bank-financed) Satisfactory Satisfactory Malfunctioning Pumpingstations. Ongoing - NationalDrainage Project (Bank/KfW-financed) HighlySatisfactory HighlySatisfactory - IrrigationImprovement (Bank/KfW-financed) Satisfactory Satisfactory - PumpingStations Rehab. Project liI (BanklKfW-financed) New New (dueto becomeeffective in 2001) Planned - IrrigationImprovement Project II (BanklKIW-financed) Planned Planned
IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory),S (Satisfactory),U (Unsatisfactory),HU (Highly Unsatisfactory)
3. Lessonslearned and reflectedin the projectdesign: * Given the relatively slow pace of implementationof civil contracts for subsurface field drains situated on farms with small irrigated parcels and the extensive need for detailed coordination between implementing agency, contractor and beneficiary farmer, the implementation period has considered these delaying factors and an implementationperiod of six years has been used.
- 10- * The first four drainage projects have encountered implementationdelays of three to four years mainly due to delays in effectiveness and very optimistic implementation assumptions. Under the satisfactorily completed fifth drainage project, implementation delays owing to delays in effectiveness were reduced to 1.5 years. In the ongoing NDP, implementation delays were further reduced to 11 months. All these suggest that the concerted efforts by the MWRI, EPADP, MOIC, and the Bank must be mobilized to ensure an acceleratedprocess between Board and Effectiveness.
* Although earlier drainage projects, and in particular, the National Drainage Project, have provided institutional support for EPADP, further assistance will continue to be needed under the proposed project in: (i) computerization of the design process for drainage works, construction planning and monitoring; (ii) the operation and maintenance of the drainage system; and (iii) impact monitoring and evaluation. The continued long-term involvement by the Bank and other cofinancing agencies (KfW and the Netherlands Government)to assist EPADP in implementingthese improvementswould enhance the optimum use of resources in the drainage program, which forms a large percentage of investmentsin agricultural infrastructure. 4. Indicationsof borrowercommitment and ownership: * Government recognizes the high priority of the need to provide all irrigated areas with subsurface field and collector drainage and their associated open drainage network. This is accepted as being a vital requirement for the continued functioning of sustainable and intensive irrigated agriculture which has developed in the last three decades, after the completion of the High Aswan Dam. To this end, the project is included as one of the Government's priority projects in its Five-Year DevelopmentPlan (1998-2003).
* EPADP has demonstrated continuous and active participation in project identification and preparation. EPADP had, with the agreement of the Bank, assigned a team of national consultants to carry out a study to identify and prepare the second slice of the National DrainageProgram under the ongoingNational Drainage Project, for evaluation by international funding agencies.
* EPADP will, by the closing of the current National Drainage Project (December 31, 2000), have already completed the detailed designs for about 150,000 feddans to be implemented under the proposed project. 5. Valueadded of Banksupport in this project: The current Bank assistance strategy in Egypt accords high priority to financing projects which improve the efficiency or capacity utilization of existing facilities and, in particular, projects which focus on poverty alleviation and on environmentaland sustainability issues. The implementationof subsurface field drainage on all irrigated land is critical for the successfulperformance of irrigated agriculture and is a priority for the GOE. The Bank's participation has assisted in attracting resources from other bilateral and multilateral donors in the past. Governmenthas, therefore, requested the Bank to continue to support the ongoing drainage program to ensure rationality, continuity and credibility to the programs and for the Bank to continue to act as a catalyst for mobilization of donor involvement. As stated above, the Bank has supported five drainage projects in the past and the current National Drainage Project (Ln. 3417, US$45 million and Cr. 2313 for US$75 million equivalent), all of which have been successfully implemented and are closed, or except one which is currently being successfully completed. Bank support for the project will, furthermore, contribute to ensuring efficient and optimal utilization of the irrigation and drainage system which is vital to the continuationof irrigated agriculture in Egypt.
- 11 - E: SummaryProject Analysis: (detailed assessments are in the project file) 1. Economic: (supportedby Annex4) [x] Cost-BenefitAnalysis: NPV=US$178million; ERR= 23% [ Cost EffectivenessAnalysis [] Other (specify)
The project has been economically justified conservatively on the basis of its agricultural benefits. The economic rate of return is estimatedat 23%. Benefits have been computed by aggregating a one feddan model over a net effective area of 0.72 million feddans (90% of the gross project area of 0.80 million feddans) for the three alternative areas of Egypt under the proposed project (i.e., the Delta and the Nile Valley [Middle and Upper Egypt]). The benefits from the project were computed for 14 major crops (11 in Delta, 13 in Middle Egypt and 11 in Upper Egypt); two crops (rice and sugar cane) are produced only in the Delta and Upper Egypt regions respectively. High value crops that are grown in low volumes in the project area were excluded. Based on available monitoring data, the effects of subsurface drainage in lowering water table depth and reducing soil salinity were assessed before and after, and without and with the installation of subsurface drainage. It was found that vegetables (including broad beans) and fruits (citrus) showed substantial incremental yield increases from improved subsurface drainage and cereals (barley, sorghum, maize) showed only moderate, but favorable yield responses. Details of yield increases per crop from improved subsurface drainage are presented in the detailed economic analysis in Annex 4. Project benefit flows were derived from crop budgets (utilizing drainage effects on crop yields from the monitoring data), adjusting financial to constant Year 2000 economic prices and constructinga benefit build-up based on the total effective area across the three project regions of Egypt entering the project each year. The project benefit flows are presented in Annex 4, Table 2 and subsequently Table 1. Project economic costs were derived from financial costs as reflected in prices quoted in existing field drainage contracts and adjusted to Year 2000 constant prices, excluding public transfers. The economic analysis is carried out over a period of 30 years, which is the useful life of the investmentsmade under the project. The estimated cost of implementationof the subsurface lateral and collector of about US$750/ha is considered comparable to the costs of similar works in other countries with large areas of subsurface drainage systems. Costs also include recurrent costs in the form of O&M of the installed drainage system assumed to continue after the initial project investmentshave been made until the end of the project's useful life. Based on these considerations, the net present value of the project was calculated at the 12 percent discount rate (representingthe opportunity cost of capital) to be LE 607 million (or US$178.5 million equivalent at the current exchange rate), which represents the present value of the incremental national income generated by the investment in subsurface drainage in Egypt.
2. Financial: (see Annex5) Project investments involve both on-farm subsurface and collector investments and supporting investments in related rehabilitation of open drains located throughout Egypt and institution building, both of which have important benefits to individual farmers. Calculation of individual benefits in terms of preventing losses has been carried out on a per feddan basis, comparing "with" and "without" project crop budgets. The average size of land holding per farm family for alternative regions of Egypt has been assumed at two feddans. Financial models have been evaluated for a 2 feddan farm unit, representingthe typical farm unit in alternativeregions of Egypt (Delta, Middle Egypt, and Upper Egypt). On the basis of calculations from these models, investment in subsurface drainage has been found to be financially remunerative, with financial rates of return per farm unit ranging from 25% to 28% (see Annex 5, Table 1).
-12 - Fiscal impact: The Government will provide about LE 435.5 million (US$135.8 million equivalent) in counterpart funds for the entire project, which is annually about 0.6% of the 1997/98 total annual Government investment budget expendituresand should not pose any fiscal constraint. This counterpart funds provision excludes provisions for duties and taxes. The counterpart funds provision would finance 94.3% of the local costs (or about 46% of total project costs) of the project composed mainly of financing for civil works, crop compensation, land acquisition and for equipment or materials procured locally as well as recurrent cost. 3. Technical: The project is technically sound. The drainage works use the latest innovations in the industry, are based on high quality specification of works and on well-established international practices, knowledge and experience gained by EPADP over the last three decades. The anticipated increase in agriculture productivity resulting from the improved soil conditions and timely evacuation of drainage water is reasonableand in line with the present yields achievedby farmers where subsurface drainage was installed and as witnessedby the alternativereduction in yields in areas without subsurfacedrainage. The proposed institutional arrangementsare similar to those used for the ongoing National Drainage Project (as per Section 4 below). 4. Institutional: - Project Management Team of an EnvironmentUnit and the enhancement of the M&E Unit. EPADP is to continue the function of the Project Management Team established under the ongoing NDP and to support the small EnvironmentalUnit established during project preparation as well as to enhance its M&E unit, as agreed during the preparation phase of the project. An Environmental Unit has now been established within EPADP as agreed with the preparation mission. The Environmental Unit consists of an environmentalcoordinator and four staff members attached to the M&E Directorate,to assist with the implementationof the EMP. The Management Information Systems (MIS) activities will be further expanded and this, together with M&E, will become the main tool for monitoring the impact of drainage on crop yields and production. In addition, the established M&E Unit would be enhanced through staffing, training and logistical support. The established Project Management Team will continue to function and a project coordinator will be appointed by EPADP by the end of December 2000. EPADP has, under the NDP Project, established a complaint managementsystem as part of its M&E project funded by the KfW whereby its field staff interact with agricultural cooperatives and beneficiaries to look into issues raised which are critical of its drainage implementationwork with a view to resolving disputes. * EPADP has formed over 2,000 Collector Users Associations (CUAs) based on the Drainage Users Associations and Farmers Participation given under Law 32 of 1964. These associations serve as a forum for EPADP officials to provide information on drainage issues, demonstrate the need for maintenance and receive early warning in the case of malfunctioning field drains and address health, environmental and social concerns. The Social Assessment conducted field interviews specifically designed to address the issues of farmer participation and the formation of effective CUAs. The recommendationsfrom this assessment are in Section 5 below. It is essential for further sustainability to, where possible, integrate the CUAs with Irrigation WUAs such as those being formed under the Irrigation Improvement Project (at Meska level) and expected under the Netherlands-fundedWater Boards Project (at branch and higher levels). The integration process can be achieved with farmer participation at the branch canal level where the same users association could address both the irrigation and drainage issues. To test the integration, two pilot areas have been identified with areas of 2,000 to 3,000 fed in the Delta (Balaktar command area in Beheira governorate and Dakalt command area in Kafr El Sheikh Governorate),both of which have had WUAs established under IIP at the Meska level either put in or currently under construction. A Steering Committee will be established under the chairmanship of the Director of the Netherlands-fundedWater Boards Project with membership of the Irrigation Advisory Services (IAS) of IIP and EPADP field staff and - 13 - participating farmers who will oversee the integration, provide direction for the organization and coordinate efforts in the two pilot areas under the project. It has also been agreed that the Irrigation Advisory Services (IAS) of HIPwill assist EPADP in training its staff on issues related to farmer's organization and awareness aspects. Communication and mobility requirements will be met through the institutional support component of the project. Additional technical assistance and training will be provided through the ongoing Water Board Project funded by the Netherlands bilateral assistance and KfW under the proposed project.
* Technical assistance and training requirements will be met from the provisions of the Netherlands- funded INTESP,KfW, and Water Boards Project. Agreement has been reached, in principle, between the Bank, NetherlandsEmbassy representatives and EPADP to release grant funds under the INTESP component for EPADP (Code 400 - "Contribution Arrangement") and for procurement of goods, amounting to DFL 500,000 to be done under the ongoing IDA Credit or KfW Loan for the NDP. This would release this amount of grant funding for use to satisfy TA and training requirements for the environmental requirements of the proposed project, and in support of the pilot schemes for Developmentof Integrated Water and Drainage Collector Users Associations. * Project Management. The financial management arrangements proposed in the agreed time bound action plan which, if successfully implemented,during the 18-month period, will enable mitigate the risk linked to the insufficienciesidentified in EPADP's existing Financial Management System.
5. Social A social assessment which included extensive field interviews was conducted to focus specifically on the degree of satisfaction of farmers with the drainage system and institutions associated with drainage, as well as the best mechanisms and incentives for the formation of successful CUAs. This assessment was preceded by a small survey conducted independently by EPADP covering specific issues related to crop compensationto ensure that the project is in compliance with Bank policy. The findings of the social assessment have been incorporated in the PAD (Ref. Annex 7A). The social assessment recommends: (i) the need for the EPADP/DAS (Drainage Advisory Service) to enhance their ongoing contact with beneficiaries to increase their sense of ownership and improve their level of awareness; (ii) the need to improve the communicationlinks between farmers and executing and advisory engineers, ensure farmers' cooperation during implementationof the on-farm drainage and the subsequent O&M of the system; (iii) the need for beneficiariesto be encouraged to carry out the maintenance and monitoring work of the on-farm tertiary drainage system under the supervision and advice of the EPADP field DAS engineers. (EPADP is currently working with MWRI to introduce an amendment to present regulations which will be necessary to give the CUAs a framework for operation by merging with the WUA); (iv) DAS should be assisted in improving their services by increasing the number of staff, providing them with training in community organization, extension and communication,transportation, communication aids and adequate incentives; (v) improvement of the procedures whereby crop compensationis paid to farmers, and ensuring that the annual review of crop compensationtariffs is reflected in the compensation;(vi) better collaborationbetween the three main agencies in the field (DAS, IAS and Agricultural Extension) to ensure that farmers receive coordinated and complementaryadvice all of which can be coordinated between the Water Boards Project. Better collaboration between these agencies will assist in strengthening the farming organizations and determine the best mechanisms for integrating Irrigation Users Associations and Collector Users Associations (Ref. Annex 7A Social Assessment). These principles would be adhered to during project implementation.
- 14- 6. EnvironmentalAssessment: EnvironmentalCategory [ ] A [X] B [I]C
* The proposed project has been placed in environmental screening Category "B" consistent with the procedures of World Bank Operational Policy 4.01 "Environmental Assessment." There are no irreversibleadverse environmentalimpacts and major environmentissues are not caused or generated by the project. Overall, the proposed project is expected to have major beneficial impacts on the environment as it would construct subsurface drainage to replace shallow inefficient surface drains which become sources of contamination, overcome the harmful effects of waterlogging and soil salinity and mitigate their associated harmful effects. The project would also contribute to laying the foundation for a long-term solution for disposal of saline effluent and prevention of urban and industrial pollution of the open conveyance drainage system. These potential benefits outweigh the magnitude of the adverse environmental impacts and their severity arising as a result of the actual practice of using the open drainage conveyance.
* The proposed project would not involve involuntary resettlement and would include the use of archaeological "chance find procedures" in the civil works drainage contracts in case buried archaeologicalmaterials are discovered during constructionwork.
* There are limited but significant adverse impacts related to existing open conveyance drains that receive the outflow from the buried field drainage. These issues are of a generic nature and external to the project and could be summarized as follows:
(a) Reuse of Drainage Water. Currently, drainage water in some areas is mixed with fresh water for reuse in irrigated agriculture. Problems could arise if contaminated drainage water is mixed with low quality irrigation water. Drainage water quality is monitored at several mixing stations for salinity, coliforms, BOD and pesticides.
(b) Possible Adverse Effects on Public Health. Any contaminationof irrigation water which may occur and have possible adverse effects on human and animal health would be through the existing open conveyance drains which could become habitats for the schistosomiasisvector, which exists when open drains are malfunctioning and the drainage water is stagnant. The project is contributing to improving the performance of the open drains and increasing the flow in them, thereby contributing to the dilution of the density of flow and the continuous movement of drainage water, thereby forestallingthe possible survival of the schistosomiasis vector.
(c) Agricultural, Industrial and Domestic Waste Pollution. Drainage water from agricultural land collects residues of applied fertilizers and related agro-chemicals. Some drains also receive sewage as well as industrial waste from the villages and cities in the Delta. In areas of Greater Cairo and Alexandria, where drains would contain raw sewerage and/or industrial liquid waste, the poor quality of the water could negatively impact on livestock and crops. Only the first issue may be directly project generated; the remaining two are not generated by the project, although they do affect the quality of drainage water in particular in the Delta.
(d) Weak Enforcement of the River Nile Protection Law 48 of 1982. This law protects groundwater and all fresh surface water, the managementof which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation. Although this Law was not enforced previously, last year EPADP started to enforce the Law. The DRI monitors over 100 points in the open irrigation and drainage water system, while RIGW monitors groundwater with the results being compiled in annual reports.
- 15 - * In order to address the above issues, a Sector Environmental Assessment Report was prepared. It consisted of a Water Sector Review which addressed, among other matters, the policy, institutional and technical aspects of the water sector related to irrigation and drainage and a generic Environment Management Plan (EMP) (see Annex 8) which complements the findings and recommendationsof the water sector review. The EMP was discussed with EPADP during appraisal. The EMP is addressingthe above major environmentalissues related to the project which call for site specific EA reports based on the annual drainage investmentprogram. These issues would relate to the quality of the drainage water and the monitoring of the water quality upstream and downstream, the preparation and mitigationby the major polluters of ComplianceAction Plans (CAPs) which will be submittedto EPADP and the EEAA.
* Enforcement of water pollution in open drains will be the responsibility of MWRI on the basis of Compliance Action Plans (CAPs). During the first year of project implementation, EPADP and MWRI would contact major polluters and would require them to submit each a CAP within six months based on TOR elaborated by EEAA for such plans. Because the severity and magnitude of urban and industrial pollution vary in the different project areas, the project would finance, to the extent possible, during the first 1-2 years, those open drain areas which are not affected by urban and industrial pollution. This will provide time for CAPs to be prepared for those areas which are highly polluted and would enable EPADP and EEAA to establish a monitoring and enforcement system. Subsequent to preparation of individual CAP, the Environmental Unit of EPADP would reach an agreement in writing with each polluter to implement the action plan over an agreed timeframe. In case of non-compliance, MWRI would enforce Law 48/1982 with the assistance of the Governor. Since water discharge standards of Law 48 are extremely strict and cannot be easily met, the Bank's guidelines in pollution abatementand prevention handbook will be used.
* In order to implementthe different environment activities, the project has already established a small EnvironmentalUnit (EU) in EPADP during project preparation to: (a) oversee the preparation of the site specific environment review work with EEAA in requesting polluters to prepare CAPs; and (b) monitor the implementationof the project EMP and the site specific EMPs; and monitor water quality, and in particular, water quality after mixing of irrigation and agricultural drainage water for re-use as irrigation water.
* The funding of the implementation of the EMP has been discussed with EPADP, DRI, and co- financiers, particularly KfW, Netherlands Embassy in Cairo and the Canadian-funded NAWQAM projects and has been agreed, in principle, during appraisal. The main components of the EMP are: (i) training of staff of the EU through workshops and seminars; (ii) support to the EU in the implementation of the EMP; (iii) execution of selected water quality monitoring; and (iv) water quality analyses equipment. Funds have been allocated through World Bank loan for equipment, NAWQAM Project, the ongoing Netherlands-fundedINTESP Project and the Government for TA and training. Agreement has been reached on these aspects.
7. Participatoryapproach: (a) Primarybeneficiaries and otheraffected groups: EPADP's management and key staff have been closely involved in the identification, preparation and design of the proposed project and in field visits to various areas and dialogue with staff on site. A field investigation, including topographic, pedagogical, hydrological, socio-economic and environmental aspects, is conducted in the proposed project areas at least one year prior to initiation of works. The field investigation on technical data required for the design of the drainage system is carried out by EPADP based on agricultural and hydrological data obtained from site investigations, agriculture cooperative and MALR. Involvement of the farming population is especially strong in areas of renewal where farmers - 16- have requested renewal of old and malfunctioning drainage systems. Beneficiaries in general have been supportive of all kinds of field drainage works to the extent of agreeing to the cost sharing of investments. This has been confirmed by the Social Assessment which has been carried out for the project in which it was found that farmers are willing to pay a portion of the incremental income attributed to drainage improvements varying between 15 and 25 percent. This willingness to pay shows that there are strong incentives for farmers to participate in drainage improvement projects (Ref. Annex 7A, p. 81). The project envisages collaboration with the ITigation Improvement Project and the Water Boards Project for the establishment of a pilot combined irrigation and drainage user's association at the secondary canal level. Meanwhile, in every project area where rehabilitation of existing or installation of new drainage infrastructure is planned, farmers will be consulted with respect to benefits, suitability of the infrastructure and timing of construction. Lessons from the past and from the Social Assessment have been reviewed and will be incorporated in the communications program for which funds have been set aside under the project. The assessment has also confirmed perception of clear benefits by farmers and has pointed to areas for improvement for EPADP.
(b) Other key stakeholders: F: Sustainability and Risks 1. Sustainability: The project directly addresses efficient use of water and land resources for agricultural production. The sustainability is closely linked to the optimum use of soil and water resources, which has been achieved by the earlier Bank-supported projects that assisted in improving farm incomes, thus enabling beneficiaries to participate in the cost sharing arrangements and ensuring financial stability and the sustainability of the drainage program. EPADP is responsible for the O&M of the drainage works, provision of equipment, training of staff and technical assistance and is therefore provided with an annual budget for O&M costs of the drainage system. Proceeds from the land tax system assists with the provision of the necessary budgetary support for the O&M costs of the irrigation and drainage system.
2. Critical Risks: (reflecting assumptionsin the fourth column of Annex '1) Risk Risk Rating Risk MinimizationMeasure
From Outputs to Objective
Inadequate design to meet immediate needs Low Apply well-established design criteria from the previous World Bank-financed successful drainage projects. Inadequate availability of O&M budget Low Review yearly budget provisions during supervisionmissions. Lack of cooperationby farmers in participatingin Moderate Farmer consultationand participation in CUAs project design.
Conversionof a public monopoly in pipe production into a private monopoly Moderate Envisaged that study will impose non- monopoly status as a condition of sale of pipe production facilities From Componentsto Outputs Inappropriate designand inappropriate selection Low Apply appropriate technical inputs to process establish proper categorizationcriteria for selection of relevant works and equipment.
Overall Risk Rating Low Risk Rating - H (High Risk), S (SubstantialRisk), M (Modest Risk), N (Negligible or Low Risk)
- 17- 3. PossibleControversial Aspects: None, since this is part of a well-established and continuingprogram which is accorded high priority by Government and beneficiaries and supported by Bank Group, and other multi-lateral bilateral funding organizationsand is vital for the continuedproduction of the agricultural sector.
G: Main Loan Conditions 1. EffectivenessConditions: The Borrowerthrough EPADP would establish a financial managementsystem. 2. Other: (classifyaccording to covenanttypes used in the LegalAgreements) Accounts/Audits: * EPADP has the staffing and ability to prepare and maintain project accounts in a form acceptable to the Bank. These accounts would be kept in EPADP and would be audited annually by an independent auditor acceptable to the Bank. Annual audit reports of project accounts and SOEs will be prepared and submitted in English by auditors acceptable to the Bank within six months after the end of the fiscal year. Manazement of the Proiect: * EPADP has established an EnvironmentalUnit and will complete the staffing of the unit by no later than December 31, 2000. EPADP will continue with current arrangements of the ManagementTeam. Monitoring and Reporting. EPADP will submit to the Bank consolidated semi-annual progress reports in January and July of each year. It will also complete a mid-term review of project progress by September 2003 and submit to the Bank a final evaluation report of project achievements by December 31, 2006.
Implementation: TThe Project ImplementationPlan (PIP) (to be revised by EPADP by December 2000) will be updated by the Borrower during the project's mid-term review.
H: Readiness for Implementation [X] 1. a) The engineering designs for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start of project implementation. [ ] 1. b) Not applicable.
[X] 2. The procurement documents for the first year's activities are being prepared in readiness for the start of project implementation. [X] 3. The Project ImplementationPlan has been appraised and found to be realistic and of satisfactory quality. [] 4. The following items are lacking and are discussedunder loan conditions (Section G):
- 18- 1: Compliancewith Bank Policies
[x] 1. OD 4.30 applies in respect to crop compensationand measures will be taken prior to effectiveness to ensure that there is compliance with Bank policy. [x] 2. This project complies with all applicableBank policies. [ 3. The following exceptions to Bank policies are recommended for approval. The project complies with all other applicable Bank policies.
Task Team Leader: Nejdet Al-Salihi (MNSRE)
J), 4 K[4 Sector Director: Doris Koehn (MNSRE)
Country Director: Khalid Ikram (MNCEG)
- 19 - Annex 1: Project Design Summary
CAS Objectives: Sector Indicators: Sector/CountryReports: (from Goal to Bank 1. Raising rural income through Farm household income increased Project supervision; M&E Mission) agriculturalproduction based on in areas covered by subsurface report on crop yields and Consistentwith Bank efficient use of land and water drainage. production. Farm income missionof economic resources. surveys. development,with emphasison poverty 2. Develop human resources Project supervision and mid- alleviation. through provisionof training (a) Number of staff trained. term review. and technical assistance. (b)Technical assistance provided.
Project DevelopmentObjective: Outcome/ImpactIndicators: Project Reports: (from Objectiveto I. Increase efficiency of drainage (a) Water table lowered in project Project supervision;periodic Goal) of about 0.8 million fed of areas by no higher than 1.0 m semi-annual progress reports Govt. is committedto the irrigated land. below ground; and mid-term review. long-termprovision of (b) Soil salinity reduced to below drainage for irrigated 4 mmhos/cm. agriculturalland and has demonstratedthis by its support in the past and inclusionof the project in its developmentplan. 2. Increasing agricultural About 400,000 farm families Project supervision;farm production and improving rural benefited as follows: income surveys of incremental income 25% benefited YR3 agriculture benefits of farm 40% benefited YR4 families. 60% benefited YR5 80% benefited YR6 100% benefited YR7 Output from each component: OutputIndicators: Project Reports: (from Outputs to I. Timely evacuation of drainage Drainage area completedand Semi-annual progress reports Objective) water to prevent the losses in Income Impact: and project supervision. crop yields resulting from (a) New subsurfacedrainage unreliable drainage with high (500,000 fed) water table. (b) Renewal of old and malfunctioningsubsurface drainage (300,000 fed). (c) Deepening and remodeling Semi-annualprogress reports & 2. To strengthenM&E and O&M existing open drainage project supervisions capability of EPADP. (365,000fed). (d) Training and TA; staffweeks of TA and training provided. Project Components EPADP semi-annualprogress Timely availability of Subsurface and Open Drains reports including M&E reports counterpart funds. This (a) Subsurface drainage (500,000 Bank supervision missions and has not been a problem fed); Budget of US$247.0million mid-term review. in the past six drainage (b) Renewal of malfunctioning utilized as agreed. projects. subsurface drains (300,000 fed); (c) Remodelingof open drains (365,000 fed);
- 20 - F--eaVhjyof Objectives KOYe d.n .e . Wonfto and CCritical :______.ndIca.rst. smptions
Supply of equipment & material Budget of US$19.9 million EPADP semi-annual progress No cost overrun during for O&M of open drains and utilized for purchase of equipment reports includingM&E reports the project subsurface drains and equipment and material as agreed. implementation. for emergency pump stations Bank supervision mission and Adequate and timely mid-term review. availabilityof counterpart funds. This has not been a problem in the past.
InstitutionalSupport for EPADP Budget of US$9.8 million utilized EPADP semi-annual progress Timely availabilityof (a) Provision of equipment and for purchase of equipment and reports and Bank project counterpart funds. This vehicles services as agreed. supervision. has not been a problem (b) Contractual services in the past. (c) Technical Assistance (d) Training (overseas and local)
EnvironmentalManagement Plan Budget of US$0.8 million utilized as agreed. (a) Establishmentof Date established and staffing. EnvironmentalMonitoring Unit Equipmentprovided. Semi-annualprogress reports Timely availabilityof (b) Provision of equipment and MonitoringReport and Bank supervision. counterpart funds. vehicles Specialized Input (SM) (c) Water qualitymonitoring Numbers of staff trained and total (d) TechnicalAssistance time input (e) Training (Overseas and Local) (f) Environmentalimprovement Number of Compliance Action Semi-annual progress reports Timely availabilityof resulting from addressing Plans (CAPs) implemented. and Bank supervision. counterpart funds. discharge of industrial and domestic waste into selected drains. _
Social/ParticipatoryComponent Budget of US$1.0 million utilized includingtwo pilot schemes as agreed. (a) Organizing farmers at Branch Number of Branch level level with awareness campaign associations established. Semi-annualprogress reports (b) Provision of extension Equipment provided. and Bank supervision. communicationequipment (c) Technical assistance on Training of staff and numbers organizationand participatory trained on organization skills. approach (d) Developmentand reproduction of awareness campaign material Number of workshops held and (e) Local training including number and mix of attendees. beneficiariesawareness Legal legislationprepared by the workshops Water Boards Project. (f) Legal frameworkto establish integrated irrigation and drainage associations at the branch level.
-21 - ANNEX 2: PROJECTDESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
1. The Bank Group's involvementwith drainage in Egypt was initiated in December 1970 under the Nile Delta Drainage I Project (Cr. 181- UAR for US$26 million). That project, the first IDA operation in the agriculture sector, covered the improvement of drainage on 950,000 fed. Subsequently,five more projects were approved for drainage implementation: the Upper Egypt I (Cr. 393-UAR for US$36 million), the Upper Egypt II (Credit/Loan 637/1285-EGT) for US$50 million), the Nile Delta n (Credit/Loan 719/1439/40/EGT for US$66 million), Drainage V Project (Ln. 1237-EGT for US$63 million) and the NDP I (Cr. 2313/Ln. 3417-EGT for US$120 million). In total, IDA has allocated US$204 million for the drainage program and the Bank US$157 million. The total area covered by the Bank Group supported projects is 3.32 million fed for open drains, and 3.21 fed for pipe field drains. In addition, these projects provided for the construction of 23 new pump stations and rehabilitation of two existing stations.
2. The IDA/Bank participation in the drainage program has helped attract the support of other donors, such as USAID (US$30 million for the Upper Egypt II Project) and the Federal Republic of Gernany (US$24 million for the Nile Delta II Project, and US$32.0 million for the NDP 1). The Dutch bilateral program has contributed over US$12 million for technical assistance and for establishing a subsurface drainage project on 44,000 fed. The African DevelopmentBank/Fund contributed a total of about US$39 million for the Drainage V Project, US$29 million for the rehabilitation of the malfunctioningdrainage systems on 186,000 fed. The Islamic Development Bank has also contributed US$11 million for new constructionof subsurfacesystems on 75,000 feddans.
B. Project Description
By Components:
Project Component 1 - US$147.00 million (Base Cost) Provision of subsurfacedrainage for about 390,000 fed. in the old cultivated lands and about 110,000 fed. in the reclaimed lands, including 10,000 fed of trenchless drains.
Project Component2 - US$40.69 million (Base Cost) Renewal and rehabilitation of old malfunctioning subsurface drainage on about 300,000 fed. of areas already provided with earlier types of drainage systems.
Project Component3 - US$14.77 million (Base Cost) Deepening and remodelingof open surface drains on about 365,000 fed. mostly in the project areas.
Project Component4 - US$17.50 ' miilion (Base Cost) Provision of PVC/PE powder for transitional period, emergency pumping equipment for the regional emergency centers, subsurface and open drain O&M equipment, miscellaneous equipment, vehicles and spare parts for the drainage program.
1/ Note this base cost does not include cost of PVC/PE powder and raw materialsfor the two-yeartransition period after effectiveness (US$22.5 mzillionbase cost and US$26.5 million total cost).
- 22 - Project Component 5 - US$10.43 million (Base Cost). Institutional support for EPADP, such as: (i) Technical Assistance and Training to assist EPADP and the Water Boards Project to establish a pilot scheme for integrating irrigation and drainage user's associations in the two Governorates of Kafr El Sheikh and Beheira covering areas not exceeding 2,000-3,000 fed each; (ii) Technical Assistance and Training in support of the Environmental Management Plan; (iii) support for farmer's outreach and participatory activities; and (iv) supply of equipment, vehicles, technical assistance and training to EPADP (M&E and O&M of drainage system).
C. Detailed Description of Each Component SubsurfaceDrainage covering 500,000 feddans area
1. Under this component, the following areas will be provided with new subsurface drainage which is detailed in Tables 1 and 2 and summarizedbelow:
Region Area in Feddans (and Co-financiers)* Old Cultivated Old-New Reclaimed Total Lands Lands EastDelta (IBRD) 85,000 19,000 104,000 MiddleDelta (KfW) 95,000 -- 95,000 West Delta (EIB) 93,000 60,000 153,000 MiddleEgypt (IBRD/EIB) 74,000 16,000 90,000 UpperEgypt (KfW/IBRD) 43,000 15,000 58,000 TOTAL I 390000 i 11.00Q0 500.000 * Note: Based on parallel financingof project activities.
Renewal and Rehabilitationof old malfunctioningsubsurface drainage covering 300,000 feddans area.
2. Under this component,the subsurfacedrains will be renewed in the following areas (Table 2 and summarizedbelow):
Regions Area in Feddans Source of Co-financing East Delta 70,000 IBRD Middle Delta 80,000 KfW West Delta 25,000 EIB Middle Egypt 65,000 IBRD/EIB Upper Egypt 60.000 KfW/IBRD Total 300,000
Deepening and Remodeling of existing open surface drains covering 365,000 feddans area:
3. Under this component, following areas open surface drains, main and secondary will be deepened and remodeled to receive subsurfacedrainage effluent as detailed in Table 3 and summarizesbelow:
Regions Area in Feddans Source of Co-financing East Delta 80,000 IBRD Middle Delta 80,000 KfW West Delta 78,000 EIB Middle Egypt 85,000 IBRD/EIB Upper Egypt 42 000 KfW/IBRD Total 365,000 - 23 - Pilot scheme for establishing integrated water and drainage user's associations covering about 5,000 feddans.
4. Currently, water user's associations are being established under the ongoing hrrigation ImprovementProject (Ln. 3832/Cr. 2672-EGT) in Kafr El Sheikh and Beheira Govemorates. There is a pilot program to extend the user's group to a federation covering secondary canals. It will be desirable to integrate these federations to cover the drainage facilities within the service boundaries of each secondary canal. The pilot program will initially focus on two areas about 2,000-3,000feddans service area each.
InstitutionalSupport to EPADP
5. The project will provide support to EPADP through provision of utility vehicles; equipment for field investigations,computers, GIS equipment, laboratory and office equipment; technical assistance for such specialized studies as MIS, M&E, GIS, integrated water and drainage users associations, privatization of pipe manufacturingfacilities and overseas as well as local training for EPADP staff. The project will provide limited support to DRI in their activities related to the project for monitoring of water quality and associated studies related to Environmental Action Plans through provisions similar to EPADP. Additional equipment required for the maintenance of open drains and subsurface drains will also be procured.
New Pumping Equipmentfor EmergencyCenters in each of five regions.
6. Under this component, provision is made for electro-mechanical equipment for emergency centers in each of the five regions with mobile units of 0.5 m3/sec capacity each.
EnvironmentalManagement Plan
7. The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been prepared by EPADP's Environmental Unit supported by consultants. The EMP supports the environmental unit which would increase EPADP's enforcement capacity and preparation and implementation of local environmental mitigation plans, in selected priority areas. Provision is made for all of the environmental aspects to be contracted to DRI under the technical assistance components. The environmental unit which has been established in EPADP will coordinate the environmentalactivities with other agencies, provide training to EPADP staff in environmentalmatters and review each area of implementationfor the environmentalconcems.
Technical Assistance and Training
8. Technical assistance will cover specialized studies and input for the MIS and M&E activities initiated under the ongoing National Drainage Project, formulation of procedures and a detailed program for establishing two pilot areas of 2,000-3,000 feddans each for integrating irrigation and drainage water user's association, and other miscellaneous studies including a follow-on study on privatization and/or commercializationof pipe manufacturingfacilities. Training center activities at Tanta developed under Dutch bilateral assistance will continue as a regular activity of EPADP. The technical assistance and training will be covered by various sources including the German (KfW) and Netherlands bilateral assistance and ongoingCanadian-Funded NAWQAM Project.
- 24 - Annex 2, Table 1
New SubsurfaceDrainage - Old Lands Areas In ThousandFeddans
DESCRIPTIONOF CATCHMENTRELATED i AREA IN THOUSANDFEDDANS FOR TO PUMPINGSTATIONS VARIOUSYEARS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sub-Total East Delta Region
Bahr El Bakar PumpingStation - - 3 3 10 9 25 Farascor Pumping Station - 4 5 6 - - 15 Matariya Pumping Station - 4 5 5 6 20 El Wadi Pumping Station - 5 5 5 - - 15 Gabal Maryam Pumping Station 2 3 - - - - 5 Shandoura Pumping Station 5 - - - - - 5 Subtotal - East Delta 7 16 18 19 16 9 85 Middle Delta Region
Third No. 8 Lower Pumping Station - - - 2 2.8 - 4.8 First No. 8 PumpingStation 4 4 - - - - 8.0 Zaglaul No. 1 Punping Station 5 6 7 - - - 18 Benya & Akhwar - - - - - 4 4 Abu el Koca - 3 2 - - 5 Kafr El Atrash - 3 - - - - 3 Ghoneim - 3 - - - - 3 Kafr El Sawalem - - - 3 - - 3 El Sabrya - - - 2 4 - 6 No. 3 Pumping Station - - 4 4 - - 8 No. 2 Pumping Station First and Second Shekeli - - - - - 5 5 Ahmadiya Demlash - - - 2 3.2 - 5.2 El-Zeiny Pumping Station - - 4 3 3 - 10 Moheib & Zafarany Kom El Arab & Kom El Kasb - - 5 4 3 - 12 Subtotal Middle Delta 9 19 22 20 16 9 95 West Delta Region
El Tabiya Pumping Station - - 2 6.2 5.5 4 17.7 El Bosely Pumping Station - - 6 2.2 - - 8.2 IbiesPumping Station 3 5 - - - - 8 Al Kalaa Pumping Station - - 4 5 - - 9 Edko Pumping Station 3.5 5.2 7.1 3.8 - - 19.6 Hares Pumping Station - - - - 7.0 5.5 12.5 Sieid Eisa Pumping Station 4 4 - - - - 8 Al Hadien Pumping Station 4 3 - - - - 7 Unidentified Areas - - - - 1 2 3 Subtotal West Delta 14.5 17.2 19.1 1 7.2 13.5 11.5 93.0
- 25 - DESCRIPTIONOF CATCHNMINTRIATWED { ~ NTOSN EDN O TO PUMPING STATIONS VAIOUS YEARS O 2001 2002 2100 2004 2005 2006 Sub-tal Middle Egypt Region
IbrahimiyaPumping Station 3 2 - - - - 5.0 East Nile Pumping Station - 3 3 - - - 6.0 Makosa & Al Sawra Pumping Stations - 4 4 - - - 8 El BadramanPumping Station - - - - - 5 5 El Sheik Zeyad Pumping Station - - - 3 3 - 6 Aslaan Pumping Station 3 5 - - - - 8 Tersa Pumping Station - 2 5 - - 7 SenoufarPumping Station - - - 3 4 - 7 Etifih PumpingStation 3 3 - 6 El Tabien & El Samt Pumping Station - 5 2 3 - 10 HawamdiyaPumping Station - - - 3 3 - 6 Subtotal Middle Egypt 6 16 17 14 16 5 74 Upper Egypt Region
Salaain A&B Pumping Stations 3 3 2 - - - 8 El Bayadiya PumpingStation - - - - - 3 3 2nd Gabal A&B PumpingStations - 5 3 - - - 8 Tahta A Pumping Stations - - 2 3 - - 5 El Manshie Pumping Station - - - 2 3 - 5 El Hola Pumping Station - - - - - 2 2 El Deir PumpingStation ------El Rezka Pumping Station - - 3 - - - 3 Al-bayadiya& El Redeiysia Pumping Stations - - - 3.5 2.5 - 6 UnidentifiedAreas - - - - 3 - 3 Subtotal UpperEgypt 3 8 10 8.5 8.5 5 43 Total Surface (Old) _ New Sub-Drainage Lands 39.5 76.2 86.1 78.7 70 67 390
- 26 - Annex 2, Table 2
New SubsurfaceDrainage - Old New Lands And Renewal of Sub-surfaceDrains - Areas in Thousand Feddans
DESCRIPTIONOF CATCHMENT AREAIN THOUSANDFEDDANS REMARKS RELATEDTO PUMPINGSTATIONS . 2001 2002 2003 20 202005 2006 Sub- .___ Total, _;,- _;
East Delta Region NEW SUB-SURFA CE DRAINA GE - OLD NEW LANDS
- El Esteslah 4 8 7 = 197 WestDelta Region - 1t & 2ndEl Bustan 2.5 4 10 9 8 6.5 40 - Al Tahrir Al Ganouby 3 3 5 5 2 1 20 Subtotal West Delta 5.5 7 15 14 10 8.5 60 Middle Egypt Region - El Katei Drain 2 1 3 - El Khonoug 2 1 3 - Kamadir 5 5 10 Subtotal Middle Egypt 2 3 6 5 - 16 UpperEgypt Region - Thomas Afia 2 3 5 5 15
RENEWAL OF SUB-SURFACE DRAINS East Delta Region - Diarb Negm 2 2 4 - Safour 3 3 2 8 - Shoubra Sourah & 2 - 2 3 5 - El Azizya,MeitAssam,Mangoul &Meit Assem 3 5 2 10 - Aghour 1&2, Farsis 2 4 4 10 - El Sanafien & Thala 1&2 2 5 4 11 - El Kanayat & El Sods 1,2,&3 3 5 2 10 - Akrash 7 MobasherBahr Saft 2 3 5 - Kofour Negm 2 5 7 Subtotal East Delta Region 5 15 19 12 10 9 70 Middle Delta Region - Blay & Al Santa 1&2 2 2.0 6.0 - SheirbaMalakn & El Hayatem 2 2.0 6.0 - Mehallet Rauh 3& 4 3 4.0 - Tatay, Samnaty& Toukh 2 3.0 6.0 - Dahtoura 3.0 1.6 6.6 - ShounyEl Thania 1.0 3.0 - El Meselha - 1.7 2.0 3.7 - Sugar - 1.7 1.0 2.7 - El Khadrawiya,El Thania 2.0 2.0 2.8 6.8 - El Atf El Thania - - 2.0 4.20 6.2 - Denshaway 1,3,4& 5 4.0 5.0 4.5 2.4 5.10 21.0 - Samatey, El Etwa & Kotour 2.0 2.0 2.3 1.7 8.0 Subtotal Middle Delta 7.0 16.0 20.7 13.5 12.5 11.0 80.0
-27 - - Kamhah 2.35 2.35 - Kom Hamada Al Thalthah 2.65 1.95 -- 4.60 - El Tanfizy -- 2.05 3.5 5.55 - Al Khandak El Ghardi Shayour 3.0 1.0 4.0 - Gabares el Gharby -- 0.5 1.0 3.5 5.0 - El Ola ------3.0 0.5 3.50 Subtotal West Delta 5.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 25.0 Middle Egypt Region - Al Ashraf el Ola 1.5 4.5 ------6.0 - Beni Saleh Al Thaltha -- -- 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 - Kom Engasha 3.0 2.0 -- -- 5.0 - Shark, Abou Gabai -- 2.0 3.0 5.0 - Kola, Ahwa & Khoulos 1.5 2.5 -- -- 4.0 - Domoshia -- -- 4.0 3.0 7.0 - El Kahamana, Mokhtar & El Dwalta 2.0 2.0 -- 4.0 - South Ehnasia -- -- 2.0 2.0 - Baha El Rabaa & Shoueik 2.0 2.0 -- 4.0 - El Tagen Al Thaltha -- 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 - Gourief 2.0 3.0 5.0 - El Rous El Ola 2.0 3.0 5.0 - El Rous El Thania -- 0.5 3.5 Subtotal Middle Egypt 3.0 14.0 16.0 14.0 5.5 65.0 Upper Egypt Region - El Basioun & Hoshat El Delga 2.0 2.0 ------4.0 - El Mehrouka -- 2.0 3.0 -- -- 5.0 - West El Kosia El Ola ------3.5 1.5 5.0 - Souhag El Ola 1.5 2.5 4.0 - Gerga El Ola ------3.0 3.0 - El Salaa 2.0 2.0 4.0 - Naga Hammadi El Ola El Gharbia -- -- 3.0 3.0 - Naga Hammadi El Sharkia 2.0 2.0 - Kaft El Ola 3.0 3.0 - El Matane 2.0 3.0 -- 5.0 - Armant El Mohiet 2.0 2.0 -- -- 4.0 - Hegazi El Thaletha -- -- 2.5 3.5 6.0 - Northwest Fatira 2.0 2.0 -- 4.0 - Draw & Ekleet 1.8 3.2 5.0 - South Kom Ombo 12.3 14.7 3.0 3.0
Subtotal Upper Egypt 5.5 64.3 74.7 15.0 12.5 - 60.0 Total Renewal of Sub-Surface Drains 25.5 58.5 51.5 25.5 300.0
- 28 - Annex 2, Table 3
Open Drains Remodeling Areas In ThousandFeddans
.RIO AC_ AREAIN THOUSANDFE}DDANS _ DESCRIPTFIONOFCATCHMENT 2001 2002 2003 2004 200)5 2006 Sub-Total I REMARKS RELATEDTO PUMPINGSTATIONS _ _ _ East Delta Region
- Farascor 3 7 7 3 20 -Matariya 2 4 7 2 15 -Bahr El Bakar 3 8 4 15 -El Dabaa & El Maraeiya 5 7 8 20 -Gabal Maryann& Shandorra 5 5 10 Subtotal East Delta 7 14 17 20 15 7 80 Middle Delta Region - Hafir Shehab El Din 5 7.5 15 10 2.5 40 - No. 3 PumpingStation 5 5 7 6 23 - 3rd No. 8 Lower PumpingStation 2.5 7.5 10 - Moheib & Zafarany 2.5 4.5 7 Subtotal Middle Delta 7.5 17 20 17 11 7.5 80 West Delta Region - El Bosely 6 5 4 15 - Ibies 5 5 10 - Al Kalaa 8 6 14 - Hares 9.5 5.5 15 - El Manshia 1,2,3,4 3.0 5.0 8 - Al Masraf El Gharbi 2.5 5.5 8 - UnidentifiedAreas 4 4 8 Subtotal West Delta 5.5 10.5 23 20 13.5 5.5 78 Middle Egypt Region - Eastern Abou Heiba 5.0 5 - Telma, El Sheikh fadel & El Nasirya 8 8 - Makousa & Al Sawra 3.5 2.5 6 - Delga 5 5 -El Sheik Zeyad 6 6 - Kalik 4.5 4 3.5 12 - Tersa 5 2 7 - Senoufar 2 7 9 - El Brombel 5 5 - Etfih 4 2.0 6 - El-Badrashein 5 . 5 -HawamdiyaA El Manawat 2.5 7 1.5 11 Subtotal Middle Egypt 8.5 15 20 15 18 8.5 85 UpperEgypt Region - Abou Teig 4 4 8 - El Marashda 4 5 3 12 -El Manshah 3 2 5 Salaam A&B 2 8 10 - UnidentifiedAreas 2 3 2 7 Subtotal UpperEgypt 2 12 11 10 5 2 42 Total Open Drains Remodeling 31U 69 UI I 72 62 .iL5 305
-29 - Annex 2, Table 4 Yearly Implementation for Various Types
AREA MWL TE1) IN" 00 .EXANS TY-PE RGO A ______2001 2002 2Q03 2004 ~2005 2006 _ _ _ _ _
Old Cultivated Areas East Delta 7 16 18 19 16 9 85.0 Middle Delta 9 19 22 20 16 9 95.0 West Delta 14.5 17.2 19U1 17.2 13.5 11.5 93.0 SubiotalMDelta 30.5 52Ž2 'I 59.1- 56.2 4.55 29.5 2730 Middle Egypt 5 16.0 17.0 14.0 16.0 5.0 74.0 Upper Egypt 3 8.0 10.0 8.5 8.5 5.0 43.0 .. .______.Subtotal _ 39.5 76.2 86.1 78.7 70.0 39.5 390.0 Old New ReclaimedAreas East Delta 4.0 8.0 7.0 19.0 Middle Delta West Delta 5.5 7.0 15.0 14.0 10.0 8.5 60.00 SubtotalDelta 9.5 15.0 22.0 14.0 10.0 8.5 79.00 Middle Egypt 2.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 16.0 Upper Egypt 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 Subtotal 9.5 19.0 28.0 25.0 20.0 8.5 110.0 RehabilitationAreas East Delta 5.0 15.0 19.0 12.0 10.0 9.0 70.0 Middle Delta 7.0 16.0 20.0 13.5 12.5 11.0 80.0 West Delta 5.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 25.0 SubtotalDelta 17.0 38.0 44.0 29.5 26.5 20.00 175.0 Middle Egypt 3.0 14.0 16.0 14.0 12.5 5.5 65.0
Upper Egypt 5.5 12.3 14.7 15.0 12.5 -- 60.0 Subtotal 25.5 64.3 74.7 58.5 51.5 25.5 300.0
Annex 2, Table 5
Annual Implementation Program Areas in Thousand Feddans
IMPEMETATONYEAR___ ITEM : 00 200 200 200 205 20OA
Sub-surface Drainage - Old Lands 39.5 76.2 86.1 78.7 70 39.5 390 - Old-NewLands 9.5 19 28 25 20 8.5 110 - Renewal 25.5 64.3 74.7 58.5 51.5 25.5 300 Subtotal 74.5 159.5 188.8 162.2 141.5 73.5 800 Open Drains - Remodeling 30.5 69 101 72 62 30.5 365 Subtotal 30.5 69 101 72 62 30.5 365
- 30 - Annex2, Table 6
UNIT RATESIN L.E. INDEXEDTO END 1999 LEVEL FOREIGNEXCHANGE PERCENTAGE AND INFLATIONRATES
RATESIN LE USED INFLATION UNIT RATE IN LE IN PREPARATION FACTOR FOR TO BE USED (1999) ITEM REPORT(1998) 1999 RENMARKS
.______Unit Rate Civil Works- Open Drains Excav. < 3m width 2.00/m3 10 2.20 Excav. > 3m width 1.50 m3 10 1.65 Forei n Inflation Spreading& shaping 3/m 10 3.30 1999 1.32 - Structures 2000 2.56 -Bridges 80,000/each 25 100,000 2001-04 2.68 - Siphons 20,000/each 25 25,000 2005-09 2.56 - Aquiducts 12,000/each 25 12,000
Recurrent Open Drains Maintenance 4.9/fed. 20 5.80
Sub-SurfaceDrainage Local Inflation Pipe Manufacturingincluding 1999 6.50 Material - P.E. Collectors 14.57/m 5 15.30 2000 6.40 - PVC Laterals w/o Envelope 2.57/m 5 2.700 2001 6.10 -PVC Laterals w/ Envelope 3.81/m 5 4.005 2002-06 6.00 Transportation& Installation - P.E. Collectors 10.9/m 10 12 - PVC Laterals 2.0/m 10 2.2 - RCC Pipes incl. Supply 501m 10 55 Structures LS 19/fed 5 20/fed - Centers Buildings 152,400/each 5 160,000 - SubcentersBuildings 71,400/each 5 75,000 - Crop Compensation 91/fed, 100/fed 10 100/fed Recurrent -Pipe Drain 5.8/fed 5 6.4/fed - Bldg.Maintenance 2,800/each 5 3,000/each
- 31 - Annex 2, Table 7
Assumed Average Quantities Per Feddan for Various Types of D elopments New Subsurface Remodeling Item of Works Unit Drainage Renewal Open Drains Old- Old A. Pipes Manufacturing New PE Collectors M 12.7 -11.0 5.1 PVC Lateralsw/o Envelop M 68 - 17 27.5 PVC Lateralswith Envelop M 39 - 72 12.6
B. Transport & Installation PE Collectors M 12.7- 11.0 5.1 PVC Laterals M 97- 89 40.1 RCC Pipes (incl. Supply) M 1.0- 1.0 0.41
C. Structures No 1.0- 1.0 1.0
D. Buildings Centers No/000 fed 0.01 one every 300,000 fed
Subcenters No/000 fed 0.05 one every 150,000 fed
E. Crop Comnpensation Fed 1.0 1.0
RECURRENT A. Pipe Drains Fed 1.0 B. MaintenanceBuildings No/000 fed 0.06
OPEN DRAINS REMODELLING Excavation < 3 m wide m3/fed 15.5 Excavation> 3 m wide m3/fed 9.85 Spreading & Shapping km2 /fed 0.92
Structures- Bridges No/fed One per 2,185 fed 0.46 (Costab)Table 200
Structures- Siphons No/fed One per 26,070 0.038 fed (Costab) Table 200
Structures- Aquaduct No/fed One per 5,450 fed 0.184 (Costab)Table 200 Land Acquisition Fed (com. Area) 1.0
Recurrent Open Drains km/fed 0.001
- 32 - Annex 2, Table 8
Assumed Foreign ExchangePercentage for Various Activities
Foreign Physical Foreign Physical ComponentActivity Exchange Contingency 1 ComponentActivity Exchange Contingency
r______: ____ _: ___ 1(% ) (% )
SUBSURFACEDRAINAGE MaintenanceEquipment For SubsurfaceDrainage Old Lands, Old New Lands & Renewal Drain Flushingmachine 85 - Pipe ManufacturingPVC & PE 60 5 Other Equipment 85 - Transport & Installation 60 5 - Structures 50 5 Institutional Support - Maintenance Buildings 30 - - Crop Compensation - - Vehicles 85 - - Recurrent Costs - Motorcycles 85 - - Computers, GIS Equipment 85 - Open Drains remodeling - Expatriate Staff 100 - - ExcavationWork 40 10 - Offshore Training 100 0-10 - Structures 50 5 - Local Training - 0-10 - Land Acquision - 10 - Recurrent Cost - 10 Environmental Management - Heavy Machinery 85 -- Plan - Spare Parts & Misc. including 85 -- attachments - MiscellaneousEquipment 85 - OverseasTraining 100 10 - Contractual Services 85 10 Local Trainine - 10 - Vehicles 85 10 - Computers 85 - Offshore Training 100 - Local Training 100 0-10
Pumping Stations Equipment 85
- 33 - Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs
F : : 7 I 0 tLocal Foreign - Totaii: Project Cost By Component US $ million
Total BaselineCost 108.782 127.693 236.475
Physical Contingencies 4.415 5.699 10.114 Price Contingencies 22.619 9.237 31.856
Total Project Costs 135.816 142.628 278.445
Loca Frign0 Toital Plrpet Cost b Category us s rof-Uo
Goods 3.886 20.949 24.835 Works 91.804 118.342 210.146 Services 1.438 2.693 4.131 Training 1.054 0.644 1.698 Other 37.631 -- 37.631
Total ProjectCosts 135.813 142.628 278.441
A. EstimatedCost
1. Project Costs: The total project cost is estimated at LE 946.611 million (US$278.4 million equivalent), of which LE 484.933 million (US$142.628 million equivalent) or 51.22 percent, is foreign exchange. Project costs were based on unit rates from recent contracts under the ongoing National Drainage Project (Ln. 3417/Cr. 2313-EGT) with some adjustments for variations in unit prices. EPADP pays custom duties generally ranging from 10 to 40 percent for imported equipment and material and 80 percent custom duty on vehicles. In addition to the custom duties, there is 10 percent sales tax on the unit rate cost of imported items plus custom duties. It has been a practice in previous projects, not to include custom duties in the unit rates, and only to consider sales tax, so for this reason, custom duties are not reflected in the unit rates. All costs are based on prices as of June 2000 and physical contingency factors were based on the degree of preparation and firmness of details available. These have been taken as five percent for subsurface drainage works, 10 percent for open drains remodeling, overseas and local training. A provision of miscellaneous unforeseen expenses has been incorporated in base costs for the technical assistance, equipment for open drains, crop compensation, spare parts and institutional support to EPADP, hence, no physical contingency has been used. Cost estimates for each component with quantities unit rates and base cost are given in Annex 7, Tables 5 to 18. Costs due to expected price increases over the implementation period of six years amount to about 13.38 percent of the base cost plus physical contingencies, assuming the following annual inflation rates.
I Fiscal Year I 2000 i 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Foreign 2.00 2.10 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Local 6.40 6.40 6.30 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
- 34 - B. FinancingPlan
2. The Government has, in addition to the World Bank, requested assistance from the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands Governmentand the EIB. The KfW is to provide DM 80 million (equivalent to about US$40 million) of which DM 2.0 million may qualify as a grant covering expendituresrelated to technical assistance and training directly related to project implementation. The loan portion of KfW financing would finance the foreign exchange cost and part of local cost for civil works, equipmentand material and a part of technical assistance and training for about DM 1.0 million not covered under the grant. Current allocation of Dutch bilateral assistance will cover the cost of training center at Tanta, other technical assistance and training not covered by KfW grant, particularly technical assistance and training for the environmentalunit, Water Board activities for two pilot schemes expenses and support to DRI. Netherlands assistance will be about Fl 7.0 million (US$3.6 million equivalent). The co-financing will be on the basis of parallel financing. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that GOE would confirm the cofinancing arrangements for the project by December 31, 2000. The Government has also requested the EIB to participate in the co-financing which is currently under discussion. Initial indications are that the EIB will finance the equivalent of US$50 million of project costs.
3. The proposedBank Loan of US$50 million would finance foreign costs for civil works, equipment and materials, pumping station equipment and installation, vehicles and equipment provided to EPADP and DRI as institutional support in additionto costs associatedwith the EnvironmentalManagement Plan and social participatorycomponent to two pilot schemes includingtechnical assistance and training which is not covered by co-financing/otherfinancing in the sector or by Government. The Government will finance part of local costs including civil works, recurrent cost, construction of centers and subcenters, crop compensation,land acquisition and taxes to be paid on the imported equipment and materials. The following is the tentative financing plans for various componentsof the project.
Financiers FinancingPlan (US$ Million) Local Foreign Total
World Bank --- 50.0 50.0 Kf(W(Germany) Loan 0.4 39.6 40.0 NetherlandsBilateral Assistance (Grant) 0.6 3.0 3.6 EuropeanInvestment Bank (EIB) --- 50.0 50.0 Government of Egypt 134.8 --- 134.8
Total 135.8 1426 2ZT40Q
- 35 - Annex 4: Economic Analysis
Introduction
1. The proposed project would have two beneficialimpacts: (i) increase the agriculturalproductivity of irrigated land by improving drainage conditions through evacuation of excess irrigation water and conveyance through subsurfacedrains into collector and open drains; and (ii) avoid yield or production losses on this land, which would result if waterlogging and soil salinity problems were to persist. Therefore,without the proposed project, crop yields would progressivelydecline from their current levels contributingto substantiallyreduced incomes for the rural population.
Project Benefits
2. The benefits from the proposed project were calculated by aggregating from a one feddan model over a total gross project area of 0.80 million feddans (of which the net effective area is 0.72 million feddans) of irrigatedland for the three alternativeareas of Egypt under the proposedproject. These areas are the Delta and the Nile Valley (Middle Egypt, Upper Egypt). It should be noted that the project agriculturalbenefits have been calculated on the basis of the assumptionthat the net effective agricultural area benefiting from subsurfacedrainage under the project is 90% of the gross project area of 0.8 million feddans (i.e., 0.72 million feddans); 10% of this area is assumed to be used for canals, open drains, roads, paths and villages. Alternative crop budgets representing cropping patterns in these three regions are utilized to determine incrementalbenefits per feddan from improvedsubsurface drainage. Representative crop budgets utilized for each region are available in project files. Since on the average significant differences in crop yields exist between the Delta and Nile Valley, this analysis makes conservative assumptions and uses differential average yields by region. Apart from average yield differences by region, the only regional differences considered in the crop budgets are the cropping patterns, which identify the Delta as a rice growing area and Upper Egypt as a sugar cane growing area. Cropping intensitiesare assumed to be 200% in both the Delta and Nile Valley.
ProductionImpacts
3. The benefits from the project were computed for 14 major crops (11 in the Delta, 13 in Middle Egypt and 11 in Upper Egypt. Middle Egypt has 13 of these crops; two crops (rice and sugar cane) are only grown in the Delta and Upper Egypt respectively. Benefits have been conservativelycalculated by excludingcomnmodities grown in low volume in the proposedproject area.
The incrementalyields for the crops grown are surmmarizedin the table below:
IncrementalYields by Crop Crop YieldIncrease (%) Barley 10 Maize 9 Rice 12 Sorghum 7 Wheat 15 Broadbeans 15 Soyabeans 6 Berseem(L) 15 Berseem(S) 15 Sugarcane 15 Vegetable(W) 15 Vegetable(S) 15 Seed Cotton 20 Citrus 15
-36 - 4. The statistics utilized above are based on monitoring data obtained from areas with moderate (average) drainage problems. Some 5 crops have been recently monitored by the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of EPADP over 3 consecutiveyears in 5 pilot areas. Three of these pilot areas are in Trouga Zone, Beheira Govemorate[Awwad,Safar, El-Maamal], and two of these areas are in Ebshan Zone, Kafr El-Sheikh Govemorate [Ebshan, El-Nashawy]) in the Delta region. The pilots involved monitoring the effects of loweringwater table depth and reducing soil salinity as a result of field drainage on wheat, broadbeans, cotton, rice and maize. The data were collected before and after the implementationof the subsurfacedrainage. For other crops, not monitored in the pilot areas, incremental yields are based on previous data obtained from field trials and utilized under the first National Drainage Project. For conservativereasons, the incrementalyield increasefor rice was revised downwardsto 12% to reflect a compromisebetween the highly conservative 10% average incremental yield obtained for rice in the Mashtul (Delta) pilot area monitoringbetween 1977-1986and the higher 19% average incremental yield for rice obtained in recent EPADP M&E Unit monitoring in the Delta region of the effects of subsurfacedrainage on rice.
Assumptionsin the Analysis
5. Generally,it should be noted that crop yields are a function of several factors (including seed, fertilizer, technologyand other inputs, as well as soil quality, cultural practices, and weather); therefore, it is difficultto separatethe specific effects of drainage on crop yields unless one experimentsand monitors two plots located side by side under the same farm management and controls for factors other than drainage which may account for differentialyields. Moreover,the effects of drainage on yields vary for different crops because crops differ in terms of their tolerance levels for salinity and for excessive moisture in the root zone. Nevertheless,in field trials on plots close to each other and under the same farm management and controlling for certain agricultural inputs, it has been possible to monitor the effects of subsurfacedrainage on crop yields. These findings are, of course, indicative,and shouldnot be taken as absolute measures.
6. The followingassumptions have been made in the analysis:
(a) Project Life. The benefits of the project are assumed to accrue over a period of 30 years consistent with the assumed lifecycle of installed subsurface drainage systems and the flow of benefits from their installation.
(b) Benefits, Benefits Phasing and Build-Up. Since rehabilitation generally involves restoring areas drained by renewed laterals to their optimal state, it is assumed that the benefits of rehabilitation are the same as that of new installation of field subsurface drainage. The build-up of benefits is related to the gradual implementation of the drainage system. It is assumed that a two-year period is required to implement the subsurface drainage contracts. Thus, year 1 is mainly for procurement of pipes for laterals and equipment;year 2 is for installation of the drainage system; whereas in year 3, benefits will begin to flow. The effects of reduced waterlogging on crop yields are assumed to be almost immediate (within 2 to 3 months after installation) whereas that from reduced salinity would become more tangible by year 4 and beyond after the installation of field subsurfacedrainage. Annex 4, Table 2 (attached) presents the benefit build-up for the project. The benefit build-up is based on Table 3, which shows the land area by region per year installed with subsurface drainage. The sum of the area completed for all regions per year is divided by the total area in the entire drainage program under the proposed project to get the percentage of area completed with subsurfacedrainage by year. This percentage of area completed annually is multipliedby the incremental benefit (see Annex 4, Table 5) due to the project to get the benefit build-
- 37 - up. The project benefit stream or cash flow derived from the build-up in Annex 4,Table 2 is presented in the final economic analysisin Annex 4,Table 1.
(c) Prices. Year 2000 constant economic prices have been assumed and utilized in the calculation of benefits in the economic analysis. Economic prices for traded inputs and outputs have been calculated using price forecasts in the World Bank publication, "CommodityPrice Data," dated February 2000 and prepared by The CommoditiesTeam, DevelopmentProspects Group, The World Bank. These shadow prices are presented in Table 8 of this Annex. These prices for commodities have been adjusted to their farmgateborder price equivalents,with appropriateadjustments for quality premia. For example, Egyptian cotton commands a premium in world markets; hence the quality premium for both Nile Delta long staple cotton and Nile Valley middle staple cotton have been appropriately factored in the price adjustments. All economic values have been convertedto local currency at the official exchangerate of LE 3.4 to one U.S. dollar. For non-traded commodities,such as berseem, which are locally utilized, financial prices are assumed to represent economic prices.
(d) Costs. Project economic costs were derived from financial costs by excluding taxes, duties and subsidies using year 2000 constant prices, as reflected in prices quoted in existing field drainage contracts. Recurrent costs for the O&M of the drainage system installed during the project are assumed to continue after implementationuntil the end of the investment's useful life of 30 years and include a depreciation charge for the machinery used in O&M. Although investments in technical assistance and training for institution building apply indirectlyto the country's drainage activities, for conservative reasons, all the related investment costs have been factored in. All incremental investment costs are included in the cost stream. Annex 4, Table 6 presents a summary of project economic costs, including costs related to physical contingencies,derived from the software, COSTAB calculations. This project cost stream is utilized in the final economic analysis in Table 1.
Economic Rate of Return
Based on the foregoing assumptions,the estimated economic rate of return from installation of subsurfacedrainage under the project was calculated to be about 23 percent. Details of the calculations are presented in Annex 4,Table 1. The net present value at the 12 percent discount rate (representingthe opportunitycost of capital) is estimatedat 607.1millionLE (about US$178.5 million equivalent),which represents the present value of the incrementalnational income generatedby the investment.
Cost BenefitAnalysis Summary
[Benefitsand costs are measured in monetaryterms] (LE '000 at Year 2000 ConstantPrices)
PresentValue of Flows EconomicAnalysis Benefits 1,188,897 Costs 581,805 NetBenefits 607,092 IRR 23%
-38 - Summary of Benefits and Costs
The present value of economic benefits are based on an aggregationutilizing a benefit build-up from a one feddan model over a total net effective area installed with subsurface drainage of 0.72 million feddans. The present value of economic costs are derived from financial costs, using year 2000 constant prices, excludingtaxes, duties and subsidies.
Main Assumptions
* Benefit flows are assumed over a period of 30 years; * A 12% discountrate representingOCC is used to calculatethe present value of benefits and costs. * All benefits and costs are expressedin year 2000 constanteconomic prices.
Sensitivityanalysis/Switching values of critical items
The project economic rate of return (ERR) is sufficientlyrobust and not very sensitive to benefit delays, cost increases or benefit declines. Even with a benefit delay of two years, the project ERR is still robust at 17%. Also, with increases in costs of 10% or decreases in benefits of 10%, the ERR is still robust at about 20%. In fact, it would take a delay of benefits by six years before the ERR declinesto a level below OCC. Also, assuming the same level of project costs, it would take benefits to decrease by more than 50% before the ERR switchesbelow the OCC. Alternatively,assuming the same level of project benefits, it would take project costs to about double before the ERR switches to the level of unacceptability. Annex 4, Tables 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) present the sensitivityand switchingvalue calculationsrespectively.
- 39 - Annex 4, Table 1
Delta and Nile Valley Economic, IRR, NPV, and B/C Ratio
Economic Costs and Benefits (L.E. 000 at 2000 ConstantPrices)
Year All Project Total Costs Net cash flow Benefits*
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2001 0.0 80,953.7 (80,953.7) 2002 0.0 161,937.2 (161,937.2) 2003 10,560.0 174,917.1 (164,357.1) 2004 40,697.4 146,872.5 (106,175.2) 2005 88,186.4 106,970.5 (18,784.1) 2006 122,777.8 47,600.7 75,177.1 2007 169,532.4 16,243.4 153,289.0 2008 200,230.4 16,243.4 183,987.0 2009 230,320.0 16,243.4 214,076.6 2010 256,910.6 16,243.4 240,667.1 2011 276,081.2 17,055.6 259,025.6 2012 294,231.0 17,867.8 276,363.2 2013 298,777.3 18,679.9 280,097.3 2014 304,346.5 19,492.1 284,854.4 2015 304,346.5 20,304.3 284,042.2 2016 304,346.5 21,116.4 283,230.0 2017 304,346.5 21,928.6 282,417.8 2018 304,346.5 22,740.8 281,605.7 2019 304,346.5 23,553.0 280,793.5 2020 304,346.5 24,365.1 279,981.3 2021 304,346.5 25,177.3 279,169.2 2022 304,346.5 25,989.5 278,357.0 2023 304,346.5 26,801.6 277,544.8 2024 304,346.5 27,613.8 276,732.6 2025 304,346.5 28,426.0 275,920.5 2026 304,346.5 29,238.2 275,108.3 2027 304,346.5 30,050.3 274,296.1 2028 304,346.5 30,862.5 273,484.0 2029 304,346.5 31,674.7 272,671.8 2030 304,346.5 32,486.8 271,859.6
Internal Rate of Return 22.6
Net Present Value at 12 %: 607,092.7
Benefit Cost Ratio 2.0 * It represents Delta and Nile Valley agricultural benefits.
- 40 - Annex 4, Table 2
Adjustment of Economic Benefit Buildup Pattern to Reflect the Scheduleof the IncrementalProductive Area
% con % con % con % con % con % con % con Adjusted Cmpl. cmpl. cmpl. cmpl. cmpl. Cmpl. cmpl. Annual Year yr-I Ben yr-2 Ben yr-3 Ben yr-4 Ben yr-5 Ben Yr-6 Ben yr-7 Ben Benefit 2001 9.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2002 9.31 0 19.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2003 9.31 113396 19.94 0 23.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,560.0 2004 9.31 194246 19.94 113396 23.60 0 20.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,697.4 2005 9.31 243729 19.94 194246 23.60 113396 20.28 0 17.69 0 0 0 0 88,186.4 2006 9.31 304346 19.94 243729 23.60 194246 20.28 113396 17.69 0 9.19 0 0 122,777.8 2007 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 243729 20.28 194246 17.69 113396 9.19 0 0.00 169,532.4 2008 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 243729 17.69 194246 9.19 113396 0.00 200,230.4 2009 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 243729 9.19 194246 0.00 113396 230,320.0 2010 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 243729 0.00 194246 256,910.6 2011 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 243729 276,081.2 2012 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 294,231.0 2013 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 298,777.3 2014 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2015 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2016 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2017 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2018 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2019 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2020 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2021 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2022 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2023 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2024 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2025 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2026 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2027 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2028 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2029 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5 2030 9.31 304346 19.94 304346 23.60 304346 20.28 304346 17.69 304346 9.19 304346 0.00 304346 304,346.5
-41 - Annex 4, Table 3
IncrementalLand Drained and Available for Productionby Year (000 Feddans) Total Project Land Y2001 Y2002 Y2003 Y2004 Y2005 Y2006
Yl Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6
67.05 143.55 169.92 145.98 127.35 66.15
CROP Delta ------51.30 94.68 112.59 89.73 73.80 52.20 Middle E ------8.10 28.80 32.40 30.60 30.15 9.45 Location Upper E ------7.65 20.07 24.93 25.65 23.40 4.50 Land Use Wheat 0.300 0.320 0.390 Delta 15.39 28.40 33.78 26.92 22.14 15.66
Nile Valley 5.58 17.04 20.09 19.80 18.77 4.78
Barley 0.010 0.010 0.000 Delta 0.51 0.95 1.13 0.90 0.74 0.52
Nile Valley 0.08 0.29 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.09
Broad bean 0.050 0.050 0.070 Delta 2.57 4.73 5.63 4.49 3.69 2.61
Nile Valley 0.94 2.84 3.37 3.33 3.15 0.79
Berseem(long) 0.280 0.270 0.110 Delta 14.36 26.51 31.53 25.12 20.66 14.62
Nile Valley 3.03 9.98 11.49 11.08 10.71 3.05
Berseem (short) 0.180 0.130 0.060 Delta 9.23 17.04 20.27 16.15 13.28 9.40
Nile Valley 1.51 4.95 5.71 5.52 5.32 1.50
Vegetables (W) 0.080 0.110 0.080 Delta 4.10 7.57 9.01 7.18 5.90 4.18
Nile Valley 1.50 4.77 5.56 5.42 5.19 1.40
Cotton 0.180 0.130 0.060 Delta 9.23 17.04 20.27 16.15 13.28 9.40
Nile Valley 1.51 4.95 5.71 5.52 5.32 1.50
Rice 0.340 0.000 0.000 Delta 17.44 32.19 38.28 30.51 25.09 17.75
Nile Valley 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maize (S) 0.280 0.430 0.310 Delta 14.36 26.51 31.53 25.12 20.66 14.62
Nile Valley 5.85 18.61 21.66 21.11 20.22 5.46
Sorghum 0.000 0.050 0.250 Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nile Valley 2.32 6.46 7.85 7.94 7.36 1.60
Soybean 0.000 0.060 0.000 Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nile Valley 0.49 1.73 1.94 1.84 1.81 0.57
Vegetables (S) 0.100 0.220 0.090 Delta 5.13 9.47 11.26 8.97 7.38 5.22
Nile Valley 2.47 8.14 9.37 9.04 8.74 2.48
Sugar cane 0.000 0.030 0.240 Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nile Valley 2.08 5.68 6.96 7.07 6.52 1.36
Citrus 0.100 0.080 0.050 Delta 5.13 9.47 11.26 8.97 7.38 5.22
Nile Valley 1.03 3.31 3.84 3.73 3.58 0.98
Crop intensity 200% 200% 200%
-42 - Annex4, Table 4
New and Renewal SubsuwfaceDrainage in All Project Areas
Cropped Area, Gross Revenue, Pro.uction C3st, Net Revenue and WeightedAverage/Fed in Project Area at 2000 Constant Economic Prices Incremental Weighted Cropped Area Cropping Intensity Gross Revenue Cost of Production Net Revenue per Feddan Incremental Total Net Revenue W/OP. W.P. Net Benef. Average Crop W/O P. With P. W/O P. With P. W/O P. W. P. W/O P. W. P. W/OP. W. P. Net Revenue LE (000) LE/fed Fed. Fed. % % LE/fed LE/fed I.E/fed LE/fed LE/fed LE/fed LE/fed LE (000) LE (000)
202,205 251,566 49,360.5 68.6 Wheat 228,348 228,348 31.7% 31.7% 1,651 1,899 766 797 886 1,102 216
3,168 3,720 551.3 0.8 Barley 6,138 6,138 0.9% 0.9% 1,065 1,172 549 566 516 606 90
29,793 37,163 7,369.8 10.2 Broad bean 38,124 38,124 5.3% 5.3% 1,463 1,682 681 707 781 975 193
127,433 157,240 29,807.4 41.4 Berseem (long) 182,151 182,151 25.3% 25.3% 1,163 1,338 464 475 700 863 164
42,863 8,311.1 11.5 Berseem (short) 109,881 109,881 15.3% 15.3% 533 613 218 186 314 390 76 34,552
146,191 179,181 32,990.2 45.8 Vegetables(W) 61,785 61,785 8.6% 8.6% 4,033 4,636 1,667 1,736 2,366 2,900 534
388 80,512 123,100 42,587.7 59.1 Cotton 109,881 109,881 15.3% 15.3% 2,274 2,729 1,541 1,608 733 1,120
185,038 221,635 36,597.9 50.8 Rice 161,262 161,262 22.4% 22.4% 2,122 2,377 975 1,003 1.147 1,374 227
168,379 195,631 27,252.1 37,9 Maize(S) 225,711 225,711 31.3% 31.3% 1,673 1,812 927 945 746 867 121
66 13,923 16,122 2,198.3 3.1 Sorghum 33,525 33,525 4.7% 4.7% 1,208 1,284 793 803 415 481 0 0 79 4,391 5,055 663.4 0.9 Soybean 8,370 8,370 1.2% 1.2% 1,323 1,415 798 811 525 604
339 105,365 135,079 29,713.5 41.3 Vegetables(S) 87,678 87,678 12.2%/o 12.2% 2,562 2,947 1,360 1,406 1,202 1,541
480 93,303 123,997 30,694.9 42.6 Citrus 63,900 63,900 8.9% 8.9% 3,405 3,914 1,944 1,974 1,460 1,940
1,167 7,415 6,248.6 8.7 Sugarcane 29,673 29,673 4.1% 4.1% 2,038 2,330 1,999 2,080 39 250 211
304,346.5 422.7 Total Project Net IncrementalBenefits
- 43 - Annex 4, Table 5
New and Renewal Subsurface Drainage in all Project Areas Agricultural Benefits at 2000 Constant Prices (LE 1,000 per year)
Without P. With Project CROP Benefits Benefits Yrl | Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6-30
Wheat 202,205 202,205 202,205 230,255 239,265 245,506 251,566 Barley 3,168 3,168 3,168 3,312 3,456 3,600 3,720 Broad Bean 29,793 29,793 29,793 32,715 34,386 36,215 37,163 Berseem (Long) 127,433 127,433 127,433 137,278 143,190 147,170 157,240 Berseem (Short) 34,552 34,552 34,552 37,306 38,948 41,116 42,863 Vegetables (W) 146,191 146,191 146,191 157,427 164,869 170,123 179,181 Cotton 80,512 80,512 80,512 103,674 108,219 115,647 123,100 Rice 185,038 185,038 185,038 193,121 206,322 214,405 221,635 Maize (S) 168,379 168,379 168,379 169,974 189,802 193,813 195,631 Sorghum 13,923 13,923 13,923 13,923 13,923 13,923 16,122 Soybean 4,391 4,391 4,391 4,472 4,472 4,553 5,055 Vegetables (S) 105,365 105,365 105,365 118,214 124,411 128,433 135,079 Citrus 93,303 93,303 93,303 105,171 116,227 121,462 123,997 Sugar Cane 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,973 2,175 3,182 7,415 Net Benefits 1,195,420 1,195,420 1,195,420 1,308,815 1,389,665 1,439,149 1,499,766 Incremental Benefits 0 0 113,396 194,246 243,729 304,346
Annex4, Table 6
Delta and Nile Valley Calculation of Economic Costs (LE 1,000 at Year 2000 Constant Prices)
Yrl Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6
Investment Costs:
Base Financial Costs 88,203.8 177,187.9 193,671.1 161,984.8 120,463.7 54,654.0 Plus: _ Physical Contingencies 3,626.4 7,988.6 8,178.7 6,935.0 5,204.4 2,454.1 Minus: Taxes 2,962.4 5,698.7 5,630.7 4,357.8 3,182.4 1,196.1 Crop Compensation & 8,830.5 19,072.0 23,173.4 19,308.3 16,908.5 8,830.5 Land Acquisition 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equal: I Economic Investment Cost 80,037.4 160,405.9 173,045.7 145,253.8 105,577.1 47,081.5
Recurrent Costs: 916.3 1,531.4 1,871.4 1,618.7 1,393.3 519.2
Total Economic Project Costs 80,953.7 161,937.2 174,917.1 146,872.5 106,970.5 47,600.7
-44 - Annex 4, Table 7 (a)
Delta and Nile Valley Project Areas Sensitivity Analysis (IRR) Economic Costs and Benefits (L.E. 000 at 2000 Constant Prices) !NCREASECOSTSANID DECREASE BENFFITS IN 5% INCREMENTS _E_ =_ I _I I II I gwdII I 22.6 21.7 20.8 19.9 18.9 18.0 16.9 15.8 14.7 13.5 12.3 10.9 21.8 20.9 20.0 19.1 18.2 17.2 16.2 15.2 14.0 12.9 11.7 10.3 21.0 20.2 19.3 18.4 17.5 16.5 15.5 14.5 13.4 12.3 11.1 9.8 20.3 19.5 18.6 17.7 16.8 15.9 14.9 13.9 12.8 11.7 10.5 9.2 19.6 18.8 18.0 17.1 16.2 15.3 14.3 13.3 12.3 11.2 10.0 8.7 18.9 18.2 17.3 16.5 15.6 14.7 13.8 12.8 11.8 10.7 9.5 8.2 18.3 17.6 16.8 15.9 15.1 14.2 13.3 12.3 11 3 10.2 9.0 7.8 17.8 17.0 16.2 15.4 14.5 13.7 12.8 11.8 10.8 9.7 8.6 7.3 17.2 16.5 15.7 14.9 14.0 13.2 12.3 11.3 10.3 9.3 8.1 6.9 16.7 16.0 15.2 14.4 13.6 12.7 11.8 10.9 9.9 8.8 7.7 6.5 16.2 15.5 14.7 13.9 13.1 12.3 11.4 10.5 9.5 8.4 7.3 6.1 15.7 15.0 14.3 13.5 12.7 11.9 11.0 10.1 9.1 8.0 6.9 5.7 15.3 14.6 13.8 13.1 12.3 111.4 10.6 9.7 8.7 7.7 6.6 5.3 14.9 14.2 13.4 12.7 11.9 11.1 10.2 9.3 8.3 7.3 6.2 5.0 14.4 13.7 13.0 12.3 11.5 10.7 9.8 8.9 8.0 7.0 5.9 4.6 14.0 13.4 12.6 11.9 11.1 10.3 9.5 8.6 7.6 6.6 5.5 4.3 13.7 13.0 12.3 11.5 10.8 10.0 9.1 8.3 7.3 6.3 5.2 4.0 13.3 12.6 11.9 11.2 10.4 9.6 8.8 7.9 7.0 6.0 4.9 3.7 12.9 12.3 11.6 10.9 10.1 9.3 8.5 7.6 6.7 5.7 4.6 3.4 12.6 11.9 11.3 10.5 9.8 9.0 8.2 7.3 6.4 5.4 4.3 3.1 12.3 11.6 10.9 10.2 9.5 8.7 7.9 7.0 6.1 5.1 4.0 2.8 _ 12.0 11.3 10.6 9.9 9.2 8.4 7.6 6.7 5.8 4.8 3.7 2.5 11.0 10.3 9.6 8.9 8.1 7.3 6.4 5.5 4.5 3.4 2.2
- 45 - Annex 4, Table 7 (b)
Delta and Nile Valley Project Areas Delay in Agricultural Benefits 2 Years Economic (IRR, NPV, and B/C Ratio Economic Costs and Benefits (L.E. 1,000 at 2000 Constant Prices)
Year All Project Benefits* Total Costs Net Cash Flow 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2001 0.0 80,953.7 (80,953.7) 2002 0.0 161,937.2 (161,937.2) 2003 0.0 174,917.1 (174,917.1) 2004 0.0 146,872.5 (146,872.5) 2005 10,560.0 106,970.5 (96,410.5) 2006 40,697.4 47,600.7 (6,903.3) 2007 88,186.4 16,243.4 71,942.9 2008 122,777.8 16,243.4 106,534.3 2009 169,532.4 16,243.4 153,289.0 2010 200,230.4 16,243.4 183,987.0 2011 230,320.0 17,055.6 213,264.4 2012 256,910.6 17,867.8 239,042.8 2013 276,081.2 18,679.9 257,401.2 2014 294,231.0 19,492.1 274,738.8 2015 298,777.3 20,304.3 278,473.0 2016 304,346.5 21,116.4 283,230.0 2017 304,346.5 21,928.6 232,417.8 2018 304,346.5 22,740.8 231,605.7 2019 304,346.5 23,553.0 230,793.5 2020 304,346.5 24,365.1 279,981.3 2021 304,346.5 25,177.3 279,169.2 2022 304,346.5 25,989.5 278,357.0 2023 304,346.5 26,801.6 277,544.8 2024 304,346.5 27,613.8 276,732.6 2025 304,346.5 28,426.0 275,920.5 2026 304,346.5 29,238.2 275,108.3 2027 304,346.5 30,050.3 274,296.1 2028 304,346.5 30,862.5 273,484.0 2029 304,346.5 31,674.7 272,671.8 2030 304,346.5 32,486.8 271,859.6
InternalRate of Return : 17.3 Net PresentValue at 12%: 390,665.8 BenefitCost Ratio : 1.6
* It representsDelta and Nile Valley agricultural benefits.
- 46 - Annex 4, Table 7 (c)
Switching Year
Delta and Nile ValleyProject Areas Economic (IRR, NPV, and B/C Ratio) Economic Costs and Benefits (L.E. 1,000 at 2000 Constant Prices)
Year All ProjectBenefits* Total Costs Net Cash Flow 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2001 0.0 80,953.7 (80,953.7) 2002 0.0 161,937.2 (161,937.2) 2003 0.0 174,917.1 (174,917.1) 2004 0.0 146,872.5 (146,872.5) 2005 0.0 106,970.5 (106,970.5) 2006 0.0 47,600.7 (47,600.7) 2007 0.0 16,243.4 (16,243.4) 2008 10,560.0 16,243.4 (5,683.5) 2009 40,697.4 16,243.4 24,453.9 2010 88,186.4 16,243.4 71,942.9 2011 122,777.8 17,055.6 105,722.2 2012 169,532.4 17,867.8 151,664.6 2013 200,230.4 18,679.9 181,550.5 2014 230,320.0 19,492.1 210,827.9 2015 256,910.6 20,304.3 236,606.3 2016 276,081.2 21,116.4 254,964.7 2017 294,231.0 21,928.6 272,302.3 2018 298,777.3 22,740.8 276,036.5 2019 304,346.5 23,553.0 280,793.5 2020 304,346.5 24,365.1 279,981.3 2021 304,346.5 25,177.3 279,169.2 2022 304,346.5 25,989.5 278,357.0 2023 304,346.5 26,801.6 277,544.8 2024 304,346.5 27,613.8 276,732.6 2025 304,346.5 28,426.0 275,920.5 2026 304,346.5 29,238.2 275,108.3 2027 304,346.5 30,050.3 274,296.1 2028 304,346.5 30,862.5 273,484.0 2029 304,346.5 31,674.7 272,671.8 2030 304,346.5 32,486.8 271,859.6
Internal Rate of Return 12.8 Net PresentValue at 12%: 62,931.4 Benefit Cost Ratio : 1.1
* It representsDelta and NileValley agricultural benefits.
- 47 - Annex 4, Table 8 (a) Present Financial and Current Economic Farm-Gate Prices _ (] '~~~~~.E.at Year 2000 Prices) Unit Price Unit PriceX Crop Local Unit (kg) Delta Upper Egypt Financial Economic Financial Economic Outputs: Wheat Ton 1,000 653.3 561.0 653.3 561.1 Broad Bean Ton 1,000 1,161.3 1,161.3 1,161.3 1,161.3 Barley Ton 1,000 583.3 583.3 583.3 583.3 Berseem (long) Ton 1,000 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Berseem (short) Ton 1,000 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Tomatoes (winter) Ton 1,000 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 Squash Ton 1,000 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 Onion Ton 1,000 225.0 225.0 225.0 225.0 Sugar-beet Ton 1,000 100.0 49.0 Flax (grain) Ton 1,000 1,250.0 1,190.0 1,250.0 1,190.0 Cotton Ton 1,000 2,539.7 2,384.0 1,904.8 2,066.0 Rice Ton 1,000 600.0 529.0 _ - - Maize(S) Ton 1,000 500.0 467.0 500.0 467.0 Sorghum Ton 1,000 - _ 500.0 459.0 Peanuts Ton 1,000 1,533.3 1,533.3 1,533.3 1,533.3 Maize-forage Ton 1,000 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Tomatoes (summer) Ton 1,000 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 Sesame Ton 1,000 2,916.7 2,916.7 2,916.7 2,916.7 Sunflower Ton 1,000 1,100.0 1,100.0 1,100.0 1,100.0 Soybean Ton 1,000 1,050.0 883.0 1,050.0 883.0 Hibiscus Kg 1.0--_- 12.0 12.0 Watermelon Ton 1,000 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 Sugarcane Ton 1,000 - _- _ 90.0 47.0 Grape Ton 1,000 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 Citrus Ton 1,000 600.0 529.0 600.0 529.0 Alfalfa Ton 1,000 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Annex 4, Table 8 (b) Updating Input-Output Financial and Economic Farm - Gate Prices ______~~~(L.E.2000 Prices) Unit Price Unit Price Crop Local Unit (kg) DelIta Upper Egypt ______~Financial Economic Financial Economic Crop-by-Products: Wheat straw Ton 1,000 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 Bean straw Ton 1,000 60.0 60.0 60.00 60.0 Maizestalks Ton 1,000 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Cotton stalks Ton 1,000 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Cottonseed Kg 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 Berseemseed Kg 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Barley straw Ton 1,000 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 Rice straw Ton 1,000 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Flax straw Ton 1,000 225.5 225.5 225.5 225.5 Inputs: Diesel Liter 1.0 0.40 0.63 0.40 0.63 Transport Ton/Km 1.0 0.17 0.17 Plowing Trac/hr 1.0 20.0 25.77 20.00 25.77 Pumping Pump/hr 1.0 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 Waterlifting MA3 1.0 0.02 0.02 Threshing Thr/hr 1.0 6.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 Winnowing Win/hr 1.0 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Manure MA3 1.0 2.75 2.75 .2.75 2.75 N Kg 1.0 1.10 1.12 1.10 1.12 P205 Kg 1.0 2.06 1.69 2.06 1.69 K20 Kg 1.0 1.43 1.36 1.43 1.36 Labor Man/hr 1.0 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 Donkey Donk/hr 1.0 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Cow Cow/hr 1.0 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 Sprayer Spray/hr 1.0 2.00 2.23 2.00 2.23
- 48 - Annex 5. Financial Analysis
1. Financial analysis was carried out for the project. Although both owner-cultivatedand rented farms are found throughout the project area, only owner-cultivatedfarms are considered in the financial analysisbecause of their predominance. The average size of farm holdings in the three regions under the project is 2 feddans; therefore,the incrementalbenefit and incrementalcost of drainage is assessed for a 2 feddan, owner-operatedfarm. The incremental income with and without the installation of field drainage (represented as net farm cash flow in Annex 5, Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively) is utilized in the incremental benefit stream in the financialmodels. The net farm cash flow models (Annex 5, Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively) are typical representative fanm models for the different agro-ecologicalregions of Egypt; namely, Delta, Middle Egypt, and Upper Egypt.
Price Assumptions
2. Output Prices. The financial analysis utilizes financial prices paid for the individual crops (11 different crops in the Delta, 13 in Middle Egypt and 11 in Upper Egypt) and are based on farmgateprices received by farmers. The financial prices utilized in individual farm models for calculating net farm income are presented in Annex 4, Table 8. They were also used in calculatingincremental farm income due to investment in subsurface drainage under the project.
3. Input Prices. The financial prices used in the various crop budgets which constitute the basis for determining the net farm income comprised two generic set of inputs: those that are non-yield dependent (seed, fertilizer, animal work) and those that are yield dependent (labor for harvesting, threshing, winnowing). The financial prices for inputs used are also presented in Annex 4, Table 8.
Farm Income Analysis
4. On the basis of the foregoing price assumptions about farm inputs and outputs, the incremental benefits (net farm cash flows) due to installation of field drainage are calculated. These incremental benefit streams are presented in Annex 5, Tables 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The financial analysis (Annex 5, Table 1) comprises calculations of the net cash flows to a representative 2 feddan farm unit after deducting incremental costs from benefits. The incremental cost of field drainage installation to the individual farm unit is computed as the sum of the installation contract value plus the cost of the pipes supplied by EPADP or the private sector, plus compensation to farmers for crops destroyed during installation, plus an administrative charge of 10 percent of the installation contract, all on a one feddan basis. The average incremental cost per feddan of field drainage installation is estimated at LE1,200. The net cash flow presented in Annex 5, Table 1 from financial models for alternative regions shows installation of field drainage to be financially remunerative, with financial rates of return to the individual farmer ranging from 25% to 28%.
- 49 - Annex 5, Table 1
Financial Analysis
FinancialModel I FinancialModel 2 FinancialModel 3 Delta Region Middle EgyptRegion Upper Egypt Region
Incremental Incremental Incremental Costs* Benefits Net Cash Flow Costs Benefits Net Cash Flow Costs Benefits. Net Cash Flow LE LE LE LE LE LE LE LE LE
1200 0 -1200 1200 0 -1200 1200 0 -1200 1200 0 -1200 1200 0 -1200 1200 0 -1200 0 373.7 373.7 0 364.5 364.5 0 291.9 291.9 0 655.8 655.8 0 594.2 594.2 0 465 465 0 810.2 810.2 0 768.7 768.7 0 622.6 622.6 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 10013 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7 0 1001.3 1001.3 0 948.7 948.7 0 909.7 909.7
irr= 28% irr= 27% irr= 25%
*Cost Per Feddan of Installationof Subsurfacedrainage is estimated at LEI ,200.
- 50 - Annex 5, Table 2
Net Farm Cash Flow (Financial) Farm Size : 2.0 Feddans Type of Farm Tenure: Owned Location Model I (Delta) W/O Wi Project Major Crops Project Yrl Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6-25 L.E. L.E. L.E. LE. L.E. L.E. L.E.
(1) Wheat 561.4 561.4 561.4 651.9 677.6 694.3 721.8 (2) Barley 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.7 9.2 9.7 10.3 (3) Broad beans 56.7 56.7 56.7 64.9 69.6 74.7 78.7 (4) Berseem (Long) 132.0 132.0 132.0 164.1 183.4 196.2 228.4 (5) Berseem (Short) 26.5 26.5 26.5 35.7 41.2 48.5 54.1 (6) Vegetables (W) 301.6 301.6 301.6 331.9 349.7 359.3 373.5 (7) Cotton 575.4 575.4 575.4 665.0 682.9 710.4 745.1 (8) Maize 302.9 302.9 302.9 307.5 376.5 385.7 384.5 (9) Rice 621.6 621.6 621.6 662.0 726.9 767.4 803.8 (10) Vegetables(S) 257.6 257.6 257.6 285.7 302.3 311.2 324.6
Perennial Crops: (I) Citrus 456.3 456.3 456.3 496.6 536.8 552.9 576.8
Fallow Land (Fed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saved Land (Fed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Land (Fed) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Crop Farm Income 3,300.2 3,300.2 3,300.2 3,674.0 3,956.0 4,110.4 4,301.5 IncrementalFarm Income 0.0 0.0 373.7 655.8 810.2 1,001.3
Annex 5, Table 3
Net Farm Cash Flow (Financial) Farm Size : 2.0 Feddans Type of Farm Tenure: Owned Location . Model 2 Egypt) WIO With Project Major Crops Project Yrl Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6-25 L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E.
(I) Wheat 585.6 585.6 585.6 682.4 719.4 746.9 753.8 (2) Barley 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.7 7.2 7.8 7.9 (3) Broad Beans 41.3 41.3 41.3 49.5 54.2 59.3 59.8 (4) Berseem(Long) 144.1 144.1 144.1 175.8 194.9 208.1 242.4 (5) Berseem (Short) 32.4 32.4 32.4 40.3 45.0 50.9 56.5 (6) Vegetables(W) 787.6 787.6 787.6 829.3 861.9 891.3 947.3 (7) Cotton 232.0 232.0 232.0 284.6 294.2 313.6 317.6 (8) SummerMaize 384.0 384.0 384.0 391.1 452.9 475.9 498.0 (9) Sorghum 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 37.3 (10) Soybeans 86.5 86.5 86.5 88.0 88.0 89.4 98.5 (11) Vegetables(S) 643.0 643.0 643.0 714.4 741.2 763.2 803.0
Perennial Crops: _ l_l_l _l (I) Sugarcane 120.9 120.9 120.9 124.8 125.7 130.6 151.2 (2) Citrus 188.6 188.6 188.6 229.8 261.8 283.8 257.2 FallowLand (Fed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saved Land (Fed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Total Land (Fed) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Crop Farm Income 3,281.7 3,281.7 3,281.7 3,646.1 1 3,875.9 4,050.3 4,230.4 Incremental Farm Income 0.0 0.0 364.5 594.2 768.7 948.7
-51 - Annex 5, Table 4
Net Farm Cash Flow (Financial)
Farm Size 2.0 Feddans Type of Farm Tenure. Owned Location Model 3 (Upper Egypt)
W/O With Project Major Crops Project Yrl Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6-25 L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E.
(1) Wheat 713.6 713.6 713.6 831.6 876.8 910.3 918.7 (2) Broad Beans 57.9 57.9 57.9 69.3 75.9 83.0 83.7 (3) Berseem (Long) 58.7 58.7 58.7 71.6 79.4 84.8 98.7 (4) Berseem (Short) 15.0 15.0 15.0 18.6 20.7 23.5 26.1 (5) Vegetables (W) 572.8 572.8 572.8 603.1 626.8 648.2 688.9 (6) Cotton 107.1 107.1 107.1 131.3 135.8 144.7 146.6 (7) SummerMaize 276.8 276.8 276.8 281.9 326.5 343.1 359.0 (8) Sorghum 147.3 147.3 147.3 147.3 147.3 147.3 186.4 (9) Vegetables (S) 263.0 263.0 263.0 292.3 303.2 312.2 328.5 I I I
Perennial Crops: | _ _
(1) Sugarcane 966.9 966.9 966.9 998.1 1,006.0 1,045.1 1,209.4 (2) Citrus 117.9 117.9 117.9 143.6 163.6 177.4 160.8
Fallow Land (Fed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Saved Land (Fed) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Land (Fed) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Crop Farm Income 3,297.0 3,297.0 3,297.0 3,589.0 3,762.1 3,919.7 4,206.8 IncrementalFarm Income 0.0 0.0 291.9 465.0 622.6 909.7
- 52 - Annex 6. Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements
Procurement
1. As the project implementingagency, the EPADP, has considerableexperience in procurementas shown by a good procurement performancein the National Drainage project and previous five drainage projects financed by the Bank Group. Hence, it would be responsible for procurement under the project. All goods to be financed from the Bank loan proceed would be procured in accordance with the Bank's Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD loans dated January 1999. Basic understanding has been reached that procurement of goods under the KfW and EIB Loans will also be in accordancewith the same guidelines (subject to final approval by the German Government and EIB). The proceduresto be adopted are set out below and procurement arrangements are summarized in Table A. The LACI ComplianceReview of Procurementwas carried out during the pre-appraisal mission (November 1999). This was then reviewed by the Principal ProcurementSpecialist and his commentswere incorporatedinto the review documentwith is included in the ProjectFile (Annex 10).
A. ProcurementMethod
(a) Goods (Equipmentand Materials)
(i) ICB procedures,in accordancewith Bank's guidelines,would be used for the procurement of all vehicles, heavy equipment,laboratory equipment,electro-mechanical equipment for emergencycenters, PVC and PE powder for the transitionalperiod. These items (totaling about US$15.7 million including contingencies)represent about 31.4 percent of the total cost of the componentsfinanced by the Bank. Where compatibilityof spare parts or other items with installed equipment is required, or where items are available from sole source of supply only, contractswould be negotiated directly with the manufacturer or authorized agent; the aggregate amount of direct contracting for such spare parts would be up to US$3.0million equivalent.
(ii) LIB goods estimatedto cost less than $350,000per contract up to an aggregate amount not exceedingUS$5,000,000 equivalent and goods which Bank agrees can only be purchased from a limited number of suppliers,may procured under contracts awarded on the basis of LIB.
(iii) Intemational Shopping (IS) and National Shopping (NS) with at least three quotations from three eligible sources will be used for contracts estimated to cost less than US$200,000 equivalent each, upto an aggregate amount of US$2,000,000 equivalent. Small items costing less than US$100,000and miscellaneousequipment and materials for offices, laboratories,field investigation,etc. which cannot be combined into ICB packages may also be awarded on a NS basis, up to a limit of US$ 1,000,000.
(iv) Tendering schedule for various conmponentsto be financed are summarized in Table 1. Procurement arrangementsare given in Table A. All procurement under the proposed project will be carried out by EPADP.
- 53 - (b) Civil Works. All civil works for the installation of subsurfacedrainage, open drains remodeling and pumping station facilities will be carried out using NCB procedures. Contractors will be pre- qualified and documents issued only to the pre-qualified contractors. Pre-qualification and bidding documents includingbid evaluation reports will be subject to the Bank's review. Only civil works for the construction of maintenance centers and subcenterswould be financed by EPADP. No ICB procedures will be used due to the small scale of contract sizes making it unattractive for foreign contractors (as shown in the current National Drainage Project but who will, nevertheless,be eligible for bidding under NCB proceduresif they wish).
(c) Technical Assistance and Training for EPADP and DRI. These will involve individual consultants,and or consulting firms, mostly hired to support these agencies in design, specialized studies and training. The selection of consultants financed from the World Bank Loan will be according to the World Bank guidelines for the Selection and Employment of Consultants dated January 1997. Consultants engaged for technical assistance financed under the KfW, EIB, and Netherlands financing would be engaged accordingto the proceduresand guidelinesof these institutions. The major part of the technical assistance and training excluding those financed through Netherlands bilateral assistance (US$3.6 million equivalent) will be financed by the KfW grant or loan equivalent to DM 2.0 million (US$1.0 million) and a small portion funded by the IBRD loan (US$0.1 million equivalent) and the Canadian NAWQAM Project to finance items for the EnvironmentalManagement Plan not covered by the Netherlands funded INTESP Project (NLF 500,000). The requirement of consultants for all assignments will be coordinated between the World Bank, KfW, and Netherlands Govemment Representatives,the CanadianNAWQAM Project, and by the EPADP.
(d) Domestic Preference. Under ICB procedures for the procurement of goods only, a margin of preference would be granted to bids offering certain goods manufactured in Egypt, when compared to such goods manufacturedelsewhere. The nationalityof the manufactureror supplier is not a condition to such eligibility. Appendix 2 of the guidelineswill apply to domestic preference.
B. Procurement Details
(a) In the case of pumping equipment for emergency centers, the World Bank, EIB, and KfW will only finance electro-mechanicalequipment and auxiliary equipment for the pumping stations. MED on behalf of EPADP will tender electro-mechanicalequipment with a clause on coordination with the civil works contractor during installation and testing. After the award of an electro-mechanicalequipment contract, the supplier furnishes MED with the basic layout for the proposed equipment. On the basis of this layout, detailed design and drawings are prepared for the civil works by MED civil works consultantsand a separate tender for civil works are floated, which has a similar clause of coordination with the electro-mechanicalequipment supplier during installation and testing under MED supervision. As these are two separate contracts, Bank standardcontract documents for the supply and installation of plant and equipment(November 1997, revised January 1999) will be used for the procurement of electro- mechanical equipment and an NCB standard document will be used for civil works financed by MED/EPADP. Both of these documents were reviewed during appraisal of Third Pumping Stations RehabilitationProject and these are in conformitywith Bank procedures. Furthernore, EPADP/MEDhas agreed to give a written agreement that the Bank's standardbidding and bid evaluation documentswill be used consistently. Technical specificationswill vary for each contract accordingto the scope of work.
(b) EPADP has prepared a detailed program for each tender giving the location of catchment area to be drained, estimatedbase cost, dates when design and tender documents are completed, advertisement date, bid opening, bid evaluation contract award, opening of the letter of credit, equipment deliverydate, installation and acceptancedates and in case of civil works completionperiod, start and completion dates. A detailed tender processing and contract completion schedule is given in Annex 6, Tables 1, 2 and 3
- 54 - respectively for the World Bank, EIB and KfW. Expected disbursement profiles for the World Bank (Table 2), KfW (Table 3), and EIB (Table 4) with required counterpartfunding for World Bank (Table 5), KfW (Table 6), and EIB (Table 7) are shown.
(c) Review of procurement for "LACI Compliance" was carried out during pre-appraisal and reconfirmed during appraisal mission (ref. para 1 above). The Overall ProcurementRisk Assessmentis considered low as EPADP has a high capabilityin Bank procurementprocedures having implementedsix earlier Bank-fundedprojects. Procurementsupervision will be carried out in detail in the field at least twice a year in addition to frequent reviews and communicationswith EPADP from Headquarters. The supervisionswill also cover procurementpost review audits (Ref. also Annex 6, Table B).
Overall ProcurementRisk Assessment
High Average _ _ _ Low X
Frequencyof procurementsupervision missions proposed: Once every six month(s) (includesspecial procurementsupervision for post-review/audits).
(d) The following time has been allowed for various steps of tenderingand completion.
Designs and Tender documentspreparation Advertisementto bid opening 60-90 days Bid evaluation 45-60 days Completion of evaluation of award 30 days Award to opening of the Letter of Credit 30 days or advancepayment Issuance of Letter of Commitmentby the Financing agencies 30 days
Manufacturingand Equipmentdelivery (for pumping equipment) 15-18 months Other Equipmentdelivery 4-6 months Installationand testing period (for pumping equipment) 10-12 months Other equipmenttesting 30 days Acceptance 30 days Guaranteeperiod 24 months Civil Works- Subsurfacedrainage and open drains Completion time 18-36 months
- 55 - 2. The following is the summaryof number of bids expectedto be tendered in each fiscal year financedby the WorldBank givingthe range of estimatedcontract value.
Rangeof ContractVaue CalendarYear Numberof Tenders US$Million
2001 12 6 0.65 to 6:6 0.01 - 2.40 2002 14 3 0.73 to 5.13 0.02 - 2.40 2003 5 4 0.40 to 6.30 0.01 - 1.54 2004 5 3 0.54 to 1.51 0.03 - 0.65 2005 2 0.18 to 0.82
3. In order to proceed with tender processing as soon as designs are ready for the contracts of the first year, EPADP must start to advertise the initial civil works tenders for each region by September 2000, which would enable award of contracts as soon as the project loan becomes effective. Current MWRI's regulations do not allow this; however, there is a precedence from the ongoing National Drainage Project and the Irrigation Improvement Project, which requires approval of the Minister of Water Resourcesand Irrigation. It was agreed that EPADP will seek such approval and inform the Bank, KfW and EIB by September2000.
4. Prior Review Thresholds. All Bank-financed contracts above US$1.0 million for goods, US$1.5 million for civil works and consulting contracts above US$100,000 for firms and US$50,000 for individual consultants as well as the first three contracts irrespective of contract value or procurement methods would be subject to prior review. All other contracts would be subject to post-review on a random basis during supervision missions. This would result in 74% of all contracts being subject to prior review while the rest would be subjectto post review.
- 56 - Table A: Procurement Methods (in US$ Million Equivalent)
ProcurementMethod Total & iBRD ' EIB W herlands ExpenditureCategory ICB NCB Others j ,otal
A. Civil Works
1. Subsurfacedrainage 130.1(23) { 24) [18.71 ((-)) 130.5(23) {24.0} (18.7) ((-)) 2. Renewalof subsurfacedrains 35.4 (6.5) {6.5) [5.5] ((-)) 35.6 (6.5) {6.5} [5.5] ((-)) 3. Open drains remodeling 13.3 (2.0) { 2} [1.5] ((-)) 13.3 (2 ) {2} (1.5) ((-)) 4. Maintenancecenters and subcenters -- 0.60 (-) {L-} ((-)) 0.6 (-) {-) [-] ((-))I Subtotal 178.8(31.5) 0.60 (-) {33.5} [25.7] ((-)) 179.4(31.5) {33.5} [25.7] ((-)) B. Equipment& Materials 1. O&Mequipment 9.40 (2.4) 0.5 {2.5) [3.5] ((-)) 9.4 (2.9) {2.5) [3.5] ((-))I 2. PVC& PE powderfor transitional 23.7 (8.5) . {8.5} [6.7] ((-)) 23.7 (.5) {8.5) period [6.7](-) 3. Electro-mechanicalequipment for 6.5 (2.5) {4.0} [-1 ((-)) 6.5 (2.5){4.0}H emergencycenters 4. Spare Parts and Misc. Equipment 1.9 (0.5) (0.4) {0.5} [0.2] ((0.3)) 1.9 (0.9 ) (0.5) [0.2] ((0.3)) 5. Computers,Lab and GIS Equipment 0.3 (-) (0.2) ((0.1)) 0.3 (0.2) {-) [-] ((0.1)) 6. Vehicles 4.1 (2.5) (0.2) [1.6] 4.1 (2.5) {-} [1.6] 7. Syntheticfilter fabric for transitional 2.8 (1.0) {1.0} [0.81 ((-)) 2.8 (1.0) {1.0) period [0.8]((-)) Subtotal 48.7 (17.2) (1.3) (16.5) [2.8] ((0.4)) 48.7 (18.5) {16.5) [12.8] ((0.4)) C. TechnicalAssistance and Training 1. InstitutionalSupport to EPADP 3.9 (-) [0.2] ((3.3))1 3.9 (- ) { -1[0.2] ((3.3)) 2. EnvironmentalManagement Plan 1.5(-) [1.0] 1.5 (-) {-} [1.01 throughEPADP and DRI 3. Social/Participatorycomp. Including 0.5 (-) [0.3] 0.5 (- ) [0.37]((-)) two pilot schemes Subtotal 5.9 (-) [1.5] 5.93;!j{-} [1 5] ((3.3)) D. Miscellaneous- Government- Financed 1. Crop compensationand land 34.71 (-) {-} [-] [(-)) 34.71 ( -) acquisition 6.77(-) {-} [-] ((-)) 6.77(- 2. Salestax and custom duties 3. Recurrentcost 2.92 (-) f- T 2.92 ( -) Subtotal 44.40 (-) {-} [-i ((-)) 44.4(-){-} [-]H((-}[ 278.4 (50.0) TOTAL {50.0) [40] ((3.7))
Figures in parenthesis( ) representamounts to be financedunder the IBRD loan; figuresin brackets f }representamount to be financedunder EIB loan, figuresin brackets [Lrepresent amount to be financedunder KfW loan. Figuresin doubleparenthesis (( ))represent amount to be financed underthe Netherlandsbilateral assistance. b' Direct purchase,LIB for equipmentand materialsthrough Intemationaland/or national shopping.
- 57 - Table B. Prior Review Thresholds (US$ million)
Expenditure Category Type of Procurement Prior Reiw ContrtValu _____; t :______i;___ ._i____ (US$M iW fin) 1. Civil Works InternationalCompetitive Bidding 1,500,000 53.42 (ICB and Others) 2. Goods- Equipment& Materials Internationalcompetitive bidding (ICB Above 1,000,000 15.21 and others) 3. Services ConsultantsGuidelines (Firm) 100,000 0.10 ConsultantsGuidelines (Individual) __ 50,000 0.05
'' Main consultingservices will be financed from the KfW grant accordingto procurementguidelines and proceduresof the KfW, componentgiven above is a small items to be financed from Bank Loan to cover itemsnot financed by KfW or Netherlandsbilateral assistance.
Table C: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements] (in US$million equivalent)
Total Cost Expenditure Category Purement Method (incluing
______1 NCB Other N. .B.F Contingencies)
1. Works 178.8 0.60 179.4 2. Goods 17.2 - 1.8 29.7 48.7 3. Services -- 1.1 4.8 5.9 4. Miscellaneous _ 44.4 - 44.4 5. Interest during construction -- -- 6. Front-end Fee ------Totai 17.2 I 178.8 47.9 34.5 2 8.40
Note: N.B.F.= NotBank-financed {includes elements procured under parallel cofinancing procedures (from KfW and Netherlands), consultanciesunder trust funds, any reserved procurement, and any other miscellaneous items}. Reference Table (ProcurementMethods) in PAD for detailsof IBRDand EIB financing and "Other Category."
C. Disbursement
5. Disbursementswere worked out for every semester from the tendering schedule given in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
6. The proposedBank loan would be disbursedin seven years against the categoriesof rates shown below. Although EPADP has no intention in principle of requesting financing for technical assistance and trainingfrom the IBRD Loan, and in view of someneed which may arise due to financinggap for the environmentalmanagement plan and other activities. A nominal provisionalamount has been included. This provisional amount of US$100,000 has been included to cover items not covered by KfW, Netherlandsor the EIB loan financing. Amountsnot utilized from this small provisionalamount may, in agreementwith the Bank, be reallocatedfor other categoriesin due course. The followingis the summary of expecteddisbursement.
1/ For details on presentation of Procurement Methods refer to OD 11.02, 'Procurement Arrangements for Investment Operations." Details on Consultant Services can be shown more easily in the Table Al format (additional to Table A, where applicable).
- 58 - DisbursementSchedule US$ Million I _ IBRD FiscalYear 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Annual 3.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 Cumulative 3.0 12.0 22.0 32.0 40.0 46.0 50.0
The following are the categories allocated amount and percent rate of disbursement of the IBRD Loan.
Category Description Amount(US$ Million) Percentof Expenditureto be financed
I-A 1' Civil Works - subsurface drainage contracts 4.5 32% (excluding drainage pipes)
I-B ' Civil Works - subsurface drainage contracts 23.0 54% (including drainage pipes)
I-C Civil Works - open drains remodeling 2.0 38%
11 PVC/PE Powder and Synthetic Filter 9.5 100% of foreign expenditures, 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory cost); 85% of local expenditures for other items procured locally.
IlIl Other Goods 8.0 100% of foreign expenditures, 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory cost); 85% of local expenditures for other items procured locally
IV Consultants' Services and Training 0.1 100% V Fee 0.50 Amount due under Section 2.04 of this Agreement VI Unallocated 2.4 Total 50.00
Civilworks subsurfacedrainage contractswhere drainage pipes are provided by EPADP for contractssigned during the first two years after effectiveness. 2/ Civil works subsurfacedrainage contractswhere drainage pipes are provided through civil works subsurfacedrainage contracts, unless otherwise determined by the Bank and EPADP during the transitionperiod of two years after the effectivenessof the IBRD Loan.
7. All applications for disbursement would be made by EPADP against contracts for: (a) civil works of less than $200,000 equivalent; (b) goods of less than US$500,000 equivalent; (c) services of consulting firms not exceeding US$100,000 equivalent; and (d) services of individual consultants and training costing less than US$50,000, which would be disbursed against statement of expenditures (SOEs). It is estimated that total procurement under SOEs would be about US$4.0 million. Supporting documents for SOE claims would be retained at EPADP headquarters and made available for inspection by the Bank supervision missions and project auditors. The withdrawal applications for direct disbursement from the loan account would be at the minimum equivalent of 20% of the initial deposit to the Special Accounts. Although EPADP is reluctant to use a special accounts provision has been made in the Loan Agreement for an authorized allocation to the special account of US$3,000,000 (US$5,000,000 if PMR option is used) with the first deposit not exceeding US$1,500,000. EPADP may request the balance to be
- 59 - deposited to the special account, when the total disbursed and committed under the loan will have reached US$12,000,000.
8. As separate areas have been assigned for each co-financiers, EPADP will submit withdrawal applications to each financier separately, at the agreed rate of disbursement. With the first withdrawal application of each civil works contract, EPADP will submit a copy of signed contract and evaluation report relevant to the contract. For goods, separate contract for items assigned to KfW and EIB financing will be signed and agreed percentage of 100% for foreign expenditure and 85% for items procured locally will be applied. First withdrawal application for each contract of goods will be submitted with a conformed copy of contract and evaluation report. KfW will finance 100% of technical assistance and training expenditures against statement of expenditures from the loan and grant proceeds.
D. Budget
9. In the past, budgetary requirements and their timely allocation has not been a problem in any of the projects undertaken by MWRI. However, the Govemment is taking full responsibility of paying for goods, materials, civil works and services, manufactured, supplied or provided using local currency, it is prudent to point out the budgetary requirements for each fiscal year. Following requirements does not include custom duties and taxes imposed on imported equipment which can be about forty percent of imported cost.
CounterpartFunding Requiremente(Local Budget) In MilrionL.E.
Equipmeiet& Technical Crop TAxes Rtecurrent Fiscal Civil Mateials Asine& Copsation and Cost Total Year Works Trainin & Land Duies ______~A6ijuisftion _ _ _ _ _ FY2001 26.46 0.92 1.22 9.32 2.96 0.97 41.85 FY 2002 59.50 1.55 1.48 21.42 5.70 1.76 91.41 FY 2003 71.35 1.20 1.13 27.69 5.63 2.30 109.30 FY 2004 64.81 0.68 1.03 24.41 4.36 2.10 97.39 FY2005 50.91 0.40 0.10 22.65 3.18 1.93 79.17 FY2006 24.82 - 0.12 12.53 1.20 0.78 39.45
TOTAL 297.85 4.75 5.08 118.02 23.03 9.84 458.57
E. Audit and Account
Project Financial Management 10. The Financial Management System (FMS) in place in the EPADP, implementing agency for the project, is based on principles and procedures defined by the legal framework applicable to the public sector and more specifically to governmental institutions. The main characteristics of this system are the following: 11. Accounting system. An accounting system based on the cash basis and the outline of budget components is operational and reflected on legal books maintained manually. For the follow up of the other sources of funds, such as those coming from different donors, special accounting books are maintained. It should be noted that these books are not reflecting: (i) the EPADP's contribution, and (ii) the amounts transferred by the donors. Thus, the balances are related to the amounts disbursed and are not reflecting the transactions of the special accounts and the remaining balance at the end of each period.
60 - 12. Budgeting system. An annual approved budget for procurement and disbursement is issued by EPADP based on the needs and actions to be undertaken. The annual budget is submitted to the Ministry of Finance, which is in-charge of controlling the budget through its specialized units. The generalbudget is including the contributions of the donors for the implementationof specific project. The Planning and Evaluation General Directorate (PEGD) is playing an important role for the issuing of the annual budget since this entity is the official, vis-a-vis, donor and the structure responsible for the issuing of the periodical monitoring reports. 13. Disbursements. Payments are authorized by the National Bank of Investment (NBI) on a quarterly basis within the allocated budget and based on a detailed planning of disbursement presented together with supportingdocuments. Payments from EPADP's budget are centralized at the central level and are processed by the budget unit which is responsible for the issuing of all the transactions according to the legal framework. Those related to the donor's contribution are initiated by the Contract's Unit in the General Directorate of Administrative and Finance Affairs (GDAFA), with the collaboration and supervision of the PEGD. The Contract's Unit is also responsible for the reconciliation for the bank's transactions,however, this monitoring is not complete and still maintained manually. 14. Control of the budget execution. A fiduciary responsibility of control of the budget executionand monitoring is assigned to: (i) the NBI which is reviewing the execution on a quarterly basis; and (ii) the Central Audit Authority (CAO) which is acting on an annual basis covering EPADP's own budget as well as donor's contribution. Based on the report issued for NDP, it appears that there is an important scope for improvementin order to allow CAO to express an opinion according to the InternationalStandards on Auditing (ISA). According to the Bank requirements in this field, appointment of an independent auditor acceptable to the Bank has to be considered during the implementationof the proposed NDP II. This will allow EPADP to take advantage of the added value offered by the external auditors during the annual mandatoryreview of the adequacy of the financialmanagement arrangementsand more specificallyof the internal control system. In fact, in addition to the issuing of an opinion on the project financial statements.the external auditors have to submit an annual managementletter describing the inadequacies in the internal control system as well as recommendations which will contribute to improve the monitoring and execution of the project. Terms of reference of such assignment have to be submitted to the Bank before the official appointment. 15. Project Monitoring. The official structure responsible for the project monitoring and reporting is the PEGD. This entity consists of four high level staff and is managing almost ten projects with international financing. Semi-annual monitoring reports are issued by PEGD based on information received from the technical departments, the five sectors, and the GDAFA. These reports are combining physical implementationdata as well as financial information related to commitments, disbursements and available balances from the loans, credits and grants. Even if the system could be considered as globally satisfactory, it still needs considerable improvement to reach the required efficiency and to improve the decision-makingprocess. In fact, PEGD still has to handle periodically a set of 8 sub reports issued by the technical departments, the sectors and the GDAFA. This method of operating involves delays and extra workload related to the needed control and reconciliation of data before the issuing of the semi annual reports. This could also affect the accuracy and reliability of data since new entries have to be handled by the PEGD in order to present an overview on the project implementation. The new application for the monitoring of the projects (MISPF) which will be implemented by no later than August 2000 could be considered as adequate and meeting the needs of this Directorate. However, there is a need to: (i) define the role of the entities involved in the implementationof projects, and (ii) examine whether it would be possible to share the MISPF in order to make the system effective and comprehensive. Otherwise, computerizationof PEGD's activity would be virtual since the data entry would be centralized and not shared.
- 61 - General Assessment and scope for improvement
16. General Assessment. The assessment does not lead to accountability issues, however, some insufficiencies on EPADP's financial management were identified during the review, including incomplete computerizationof the accounting system, non-official definition, by writing, of the financial management procedures, and incomplete Management Information System. It should be noted that EPADP is in the process of addressing several of these issues mainly through the Institutional and Technical Support Program (INTESP), financed by the Government of Netherlands, however, substantive improvementwill require several years of concerted efforts.
17. Scope for improvement. Even if the INTESP is aiming to implement a comprehensive Management Information System the review of this programs shows that many actions have to be undertaken in parallel by EPADP in order to finalize the whole process. These actions are mainly related to: (i) the restructuringof the EPADP in order to operate accordingto its mission, (ii) the purchase of the needed hardware (INTEPS covers a part of the required office equipment), and (iii) strengthening of the GDAFA's.
18. Financial Management System for the Project. Since the ISTESP will not be effective before the year 2003, there is a need during the transition period to set up special arrangements for the management and monitoring of the proposed NDP II. The recommendationstake into account the ongoing MISPF and INTESP actions and could be considered as complementary. It is also assumed that the MISPF would be effective by no later than August 2000. The main actions to be implemented, during a period of 12 months and by no later than June 2001, are the following:
> Identification of the Project Management Team (PMT) headed by an official coordinator for the project. Job descriptions and responsibilities should be issued by writing and included in the Financial ManagementManual. > Hiring of a specialized consultant in accounting,finance, and information system in order to issue a Financial Management Procedures Manual (FMPM) for the project according to TORs acceptable to the Bank. This FMPM will define the flows of funds, the internal control rules, the finance and disbursementprocedures, the relationship between all the internal and external entities involved in the project implementation, the chart of accounts, and the reporting proceduresand rules. > Acquisition of the needed hardwarefor the project team. This action will start at the central level in order to allow the launching of the training program and improvement of the computer's skills especially at the level of the GDA-FA. > Extension of the MISPP to all projects team. Each entity would be responsible for introducing of the data related to their own activity. The role of the PEGD would be centralization,review, and issuing of the Project ManagementReports on a quarterly basis and according to a format acceptableto the Bank. > Hiring of a short-term consultant to assist the GDAFA during a first period of 12 months. This consultant, who should be a high-qualified accounting and finance, will review on a weekly basis the financial and banking records related to the project and address the errors and insufficiencies. This consultant would also play a role of a trainer for the GDAFA staff involved in the project implementation. Specific TORs has to be issued, and submitted to the Bank.
- 62 - > Development of training program. This action should include specific training sessions for procurement, disbursement,accounting, project management, and financial management. The program should include all the staff involved in the project implementationas well as their backups. The level of each staff member in terms of capacity, background, and experience has to be taken into considerationin order to meet the needs.
FinancialManagement Characteristics
19. Organizationof the PMT. The head of this structurehas to be designated officially as coordinator and overall responsible of the project. This person will be responsible for monitoring and evaluation as well as procurement, finance, budgeting, and accounting functions. The PMT head has also the responsibility to affect the adequatenumber of qualified staff at the central and sector levels as assistants in the project managementtaking into account the activity level and the mandatory segregation of duties according to acceptable internal control concepts. To establish a sound financial management system,the PMT head will be assisted during a period of 12 months, by a qualifiedfinancial and accountant specialist operating on a weekly basis at the level of the GDAFA. This short-term consultant will be expected to demonstrate a reasonable knowledge and understanding of World Bank procurement, disbursement, project accounting,financial reporting and auditing guidelinesand procedures.
20. Selection of the Financial and Accounting specialist will be based on the following criteria: (i) University degree in accounting or finance (ii) at least ten years experience, with preference given to consultant whose qualifications include several combinations of the following: both public and private sector accounting,banking, planning and budgeting, procurement and contract management, and previous or current assignmentswith agency managing internationalfinancing; and (ii) knowledgeof international accountingstandards and internal control procedures.
21. To establish an acceptable system for the monitoring and managing of the project, each sector involved in the project's implementationwill designate officially a coordinator responsible for the issuing of sub-project accounts and sub- Project ManagementReports.
22. Financial and accountingpolicies for the project have to be developed. These policies are crucial for ensuring transparency, providing clarity regarding financial aspects to the various stakeholders and finance staff, ensuring uniformity, and enforcing accountability. These policies inter-alia cover the following aspects: (i) expenditures which would be treated as project expenditures including their classification; (ii) expenditures, which would be eligible for reimbursement from Bank loan; and (iii) project accountingpolicies. These policies would be gradually expanded and refined to include aspects such as efficient management and deployment of funds, internal control policies, etc. Sectors would comply with the financial and accounting policies of the project by signing a memorandum of comprehension.
23. Project Accounting System. The sectors involved in the project's implementation would be responsible for the project financial management and accounting duties at a regional level. They would maintain books of accounts for the component managed under their responsibility, prepare and disseminate sub-project accounts and regional financial management reports, and ensure timely transmission of these documents to the PMT's accounting and financial responsible at the central level. The PMT would be in charge of the aggregation process and issuing of the annual project financial statements and the quarterly Project Management Report (PMR) as well as the submission of these documents on a timely basis to the Bank and to the auditors.
- 63 - 24. The overall principles for project accounting are outlined below:
(i) Books of accounts for the project would be maintained on cash basis principles. Project accounts would be maintainedusing the MISPF which, will be implementedby no later than August 2000. Maintaining the reporting financial system to reflect all the transaction flows and issuing of the quarterlyPMR would complete this system.
(ii) Project accounting would cover all sources of project funds, and all utilization of project funds. This would include payments made to and expenditures incurred. All project-related transactions (whether involving cash or not) would be taken into accounts in the reporting system. Disbursements made by the World Bank and the Special Account maintained by GOE would also be included in the project accounting system. Funds received from different sources would be identified separately and reflected in the project accounts.
(iii) Project-relatedtransactions and activities would be distinguished from other activities. This distinction would be reflected at the data-capturestage. An identifiableTrial Balance for the project capturing all projects receipts, expenditures, and other payments under the project would be prepared. A Chart of Accounts for the project has to be developed. The Chart of Accounts should conform to the classification of expenditures and sources of funds as indicated in the project documents (Project Implementation Plan, Project Appraisal Document, COSTAB). The Chart of Accounts should allow data to be captured in a manner to facilitate financial reporting of project expenditures by: (i) project components; (ii) expenditure categories; and (iii) disbursement categories.
(iv) A system of reconciliation between the Project Financial Statements/financialreports and the legal books of accounts have to be defined.
(v) Physical information on key performance indicators that can be readily linked to financial costs would be maintained as part of the project financial managementsystem. Initially, this would be maintained for some high cost items that represent a significant portion of the project cost, and for items for which, data on physical activities can be easily captured. These items have to be identified and indicated in the Internal Control Guidelines. This list would be gradually expanded during implementation.
25. Issuing of the accountingprocedures manual for the project which will outline at a minimum: (a) job responsibilities within the Project Management Team (PMT), (b) monthly and annually accounting ledger closing and reconciliation procedures including centralization and consolidation of data, (c) accounting policies, and (d) banking and cash procedures. It is important that this manual be done in writing so that it can be distributed to all project staff.
26. Information Flow for AccountingPurposes. The information flow will be as follows:
(i) Each sector and technical directorate would generate and maintain vouchers and supporting documentation for expenditures on activities directly managed at their level. Sub project accounts will be issued on a monthly basis and transmitted to the PMT for control, aggregation of data, maintaining of the centralized project accounts and issuing of the project financial statements.
(ii) Expendituresincurred by each sector and technical directorate would be reviewed by the project auditors following the International Standards on Auditing and the World Bank guidelines; and
- 64 - (iii) This system would be reviewed in the light of implementationexperience, and modified as necessary.
27. Internal Controls. The project financial management system should include the following internal control mechanisms:
(i) Operation of a budgeting system, and regular monitoring of actual financial performance with budgets and targets;
(ii) Adoption and operation of simple, clear and transparent financial and accountingpolicies which would govern financial management of and accounting for the project. These policies and procedures have to be included in the Financial Management Procedures Manual.
(iii) Establishment at the transaction level of policies, procedures and systems for ensuring acceptable internal controls mechanism such as checking of expenditures, appropriate documentation, levels of authorization, segregation of duties, periodic reconciliation, physical verification, easy access to supporting documents etc. These policies and procedures would be reviewed and updated periodically; and
(iv) Implementation of a comprehensive system aiming to: (i) the aggregation of data at the central level; and (ii) the issuing of the project financial statements and the PMR.
28. Guidelines for Internal Control Procedures. An internal control has traditionally been defined as all the policies and procedures used by managementto protect an organization's assets and to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the accountingrecords. Its also includes controls that deal with efficiency and adherence to managementpolicies. The principles of an internal control system are as follows:
V Authorization - All transactionsand activities shouldproperly authorizedby management, v- Recording transactions - All transactions should be recorded to facilitate preparation of the financial statements and to establish accountabilityof the assets, Documents and records - The design and use of adequate document should help to ensure the proper recording of transactions, V Limited access - Access to assets should be permitted only with the management's authorization, / Periodic independent verification- Accounting records should be checked against the assets by someoneother than persons responsible for the records and assets, V Separation of duties - The organizational plan should separate functional responsibilities (authorization,operating, handling assets and keeping the records ) and v Sound personnel procedures - Sound practices should be followed in managing the people who carry out the duties and functions.
29. This document should reflect the PMT's activity including a description of: (a) staff positions and responsibilities, (b) transaction's flows, and (c) relation with sectors and other directorate at the central level as well as external authorities/administrationssuch as NIB and Ministry of Finance. This system would be reviewed in the light of implementingexperience and modified as necessary.
- 65 - FinancialManagement Reports
30. Quarterly Project Management Report (PMR) for the project would be generated from the computerized financial management system. These reports would be management-oriented (i.e., summaries rather than transactional details) and would be used for project monitoring and implementation by each sector and at the central level. The PMR should include the three following parts:
(i) Financial Statementsinclude: * Summary of sources and uses of funds l Uses of funds by project activity * Project balance statementof affairs * Cash withdrawal * Cash forecast * Special account statement
(ii) Project progress statements include: * Output monitoringreport using contract managementinformation, or * Output monitoringreport using unit variance as monitoringindicator
(iii) Procurementmanagement report includes: * Contract expenditurereport - Goods and works • Contract expenditurereport - consultant - Procurementmanagement report - Goods and works i Procurement management report - Consultant
Formats of the reports should be part of the Financial ManagementManual.
31. Annually: Audited Project Financial Statements (PFS) would be submitted to the Bank. PFS would include: (i) a statement of sources and utilization of funds or Balance Sheet, indicating funds received from various sources, project expenditures, and assets and liabilities of the project; (ii) schedules classifying project expenditures by components, expenditure categories, and sector; (iii) a Special Account Reconciliation Statement;and (iv) a Statement of Withdrawals made on the basis of Statements of Expenditure (SOEs). Audited PFS would be submitted to the Bank not later than 6 months after the end of the Fiscal Year.
Audit Arrangements
32. Annual project financial statements audited by auditors acceptable to the Bank will be submitted to the Bank within 6 months after the end of the fiscal year. The Terms of Reference (TOR) have to be included in the Financial ManagementManual and approved by the Bank.
33. The audit would be comprehensive and cover all aspects of the project (i.e., all sources and utilization of funds, and expenditures incurred). The audit will be carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing. Terms of Reference (TORs) for this assignment should cover an audit of financial transaction, and an assessment of the financial management system, including review of internal control mechanisms. Each sector as well as structures at the central level would provide the auditor with access to project-relateddocuments and records, and information required for the purposes of the audit. The Auditor would carry out a concurrentaudit during the fiscal year, to bring to management's attention any issues, which need to be addressed.This would strengthen internal controls, and would also facilitate early completionof the annual audit.
- 66 - F. Timetable
34. Assuming a board presentation on June 2000 EPADP will be held to the following schedule for implementing the financial management action plan over the next 12 months. (Note: Action plan will be discussed during negotiations and assurances obtained from the Government to its implementation.)
Action Output Responsibility Effective date
Preparationof TOR for the consultants Detailed program for Chairman, PMT August 2000 and job position description for the PMT the implementationof coordinator & the action plan, TOR, Consultant and JPD Organization of the PMT OrganizationChart and PMT coordinator August 2000 (consulting services- 2 SW)) job description & Consultant Acquisition of the hardware Receptionof the PMT coordinator August 2000 (IDA/IBRDcurrent NDP) equipment Program of Training of the PMD's staff Program: contents and PMT coordinator September 2000
.______timetable Implementationof the MISPF Set-up of the system PMD & September 2000 (ongoing under INTESP) and testing Consultant Training program Report on the training PMT and September to June (consulting services- 10 SW)) consultant 2001 Accounting System for the project Chart of account and PMT & October 2000 (consulting services- 4 SW)) accounting manual Consultant Internalcontrol guidelines FMP Manual PMT & November 2000 (consulting services- 2 SW)) Consultant Reporting System Format and content of PMT coordinator December2000 (consulting services- 2 SW)) the PMR & WB Implementationof the PMR and training Set up of the out put PMT & January 2001 of the staff and testing Consultant Evaluationof Financial Management Financialmanagement PMT & WB March 2001 System assessmentreport
PMD staff training Training performance PMD & June 2001 report Consultant Issuing of the first PMR Integrated Management PMT August 2001 report Issuing of the second PMR, and review PMR and assessment PMT & WB December2001 of the system report
- 67 - ANNEX 6 Table I Page 1 of 4 TENTATIVE TENDERING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY THE WORLD BANK
TENDER DECRIPTION OF ESTIMATED PACKAGE CATCHMENT FOR CIVIL TOTAL COST TENDERING SCHEDULE DISBURSEMENTSCHEDULE CONTAACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION WORKS AND/OR MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL USS LE & BIDS EVA. AWARD L.C. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS DESCRIPTION TENDER DOC. I INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE TION VERY LATION TANCE
CNED-1-2001 SHANDOURAP. S. (5,000 FED) 6/00 9/00 11/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 5/03 2/01 2/03 5/03 CNED-2-2001 GABAL MARYANN P.S. 6/00 9/00 11/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 5/03 2/01 2/03 5/03 (0,000 FEDJ _I CONED-3-01 EL ESTESLAH P.S. (19,000 6/00 9/00 11/00 1/01 2/01 3/01 1/05 3/01 10/04 1/05 FED) CRED-5-01 DIARB NEGM P.S. (4,000FED) 10/00 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 6/03 CR. -00I SAFOUR P.S. (0,000 FED) 10/00 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 6/03 CODED-6-01 GABAL MARYANN & 5/03 CODED-7-01______SHANDORRA (10,000FED=) 6/00 9/00 11/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 5/03 2/01 2/03 CODED-7-01 MATARIYA(15,000 FED) 6/00 9/00 11/00 1/SI 2/01 3/01 5/04 1 3/01 3/04 1 5/04 CNME-8-01 IBRAHEMYAP.S. (9,000FED) 7/00 9/00 11/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 5/03 1 2/01 2/03 5/03 CNME-S-01 ASLAANP.S. (0,000 FED) 9/00 9/00 1H/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 5/03 2/01 2/03 5/03 CODME-I"l- MAKOUSA,AL SARWA & DELGA (1 1,000FED) 0/00 0/00 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 11/03 2/01 0/03 11/03 CRUE 11-01 BENI SALEH, HOSHET EL 8/00 9/00 11/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 51/03 2/01 2/03 5/03 DELGA & SOUHAG EL OLA (0000 FED)I CRUE-12-01 ARMANT EL MOHIET (4000 7.00 8/00 10/00 11/00 12/00 1/01 4/03 1/01 1/03 4/03 FED) MP413-01 PVC/PE POWDER(2,000 -8/00 /00 10/00 12/00 1/01 3/01 2/01 9/01 - - 8/01 9/01 TONS) MP-14-01 PVC/PE POWDER (2,000 10/00 10/00 12/00 2/01 3/01 4/01 4/01 11/01 - - 10/01 11/01 TONS) I MF.15-01 SYNTHETIC FILTER CLOTH (1,500 M) .10/0 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 3/01 3/01 10/01 - 9/01 10/01 EDE-16-01 MISC. EQUIP REQUIRED BY DRI INC. SPARE PARTS 10/W 100 11/01 3/01 5/01 7/01 7/01 4/02 - - 2/02 4/02
EOOM-17-01 PROC. OF 6 LUBRICATION TRUCKS 10/00 11/00 1/01 3/01 5/01 7/01 7/01 6/02 - .. 3/02 6/02 IN-18-01 COMPUTERS, OFFICE EQUIP. & UNFORESEEN FOR 9/00 10/00 12/00 2/01 3/01 5/01 5/01 10/01 - _ 9/01 10/01 EPADP IN-19-01 PRODUCTON OF COMMUNICATIONO/W 10/00 12/00 2/01 4/01 6/01 6/01 12/01 - _ 9/01 12/01 PAMPHLETS, ETC. FOR SOCIAL - PARTICIPATORY WORK. _ _
-68 - ANNEX 6 Table 1 Page 2 of 4
TENTATIVE TENDERINGAND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY THE WORLD BANK
TENDER DECRIPTION OF CATCHMENT ESTIMATED PACKAGE FOR CIVIL WORKS AND/OR TOTAL COST TENDERING SCHEDULE DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE CONTRACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN DESCRIPTION US$ LE & BIDS EVA. AWARD LC. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TENDER DOIC. INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE TION VERY LATION TANCE V-20-01 PROCUREMENT OF INITIAL 7/00 S/00 10/00 12/00 2/01 4/01 4/01 '-- 10/01 1/02 BATCH OF VEHICLES FOR EPADP & DRI STATION WAGONS (2), PICKUP DOUBLE ______CAB,~IN(4),MOTORCYCLES(56)III CNED-50-02 EL WADEY P.S. (15,000 FED) 12/00 3/01 5/01 6101 7/01 8/01 11/04 8/01 .004 11/04 CNED-s5-02 MATARIYA P.S. (20o000 FED) 12/00 4/01 6/01 7/01 9/01 10/01 7/05 10/01 4/05 7/05 CNED-52-02 FARASCOR P.S. (15,010) 3/01 5/01 7/01 8/01 10/01 11/01 2/05 11/01 11/04 2/05 CRED-53-02 SHOUBRA SOURAH 1&2, EL 3/01 5/01 7/01 8/01 10/01 11/01 2/05 11/01 11/04 2/05 KANAYAT & EL SODS (15,000 FED), 1, 2, & 3 CRED-54-02 AL AZIZYA, MEIT ASSAM & 1/01 4/01 6/01 7/01 9/01 10/01 7/04 10/01 4/04 7/04 MAN'GHIUL(10,000 FED)I CRED-55-02 AGHOUR I&2 & FARSIS (10,000 3/01 0/01 7/01 8/01 10/01 11/01 8/04 11/01 5/04 8/04 FED) CODED-56-02 EL DABAA & EL MARAEIYA 1/01 3/01 5/01 6/01 8/01 9/01 12/04 9/01 9/04 12/04 (20,000 FED) CNME-57-02 EAST NILE & TERSA P.S. (13,000) 1/01 3/01 5/01 6/01 8/01 9/01 12/04 9/01 9/04 12/04 CNME-s5-02 MAKOUSA & AL SAWRA P.S. 3/01 5/01 7/01 8/01 9/01 10/01 11/04 10/01 10/03 1/04 ~~~~(8,000FED) CONME-59-02 EL KATAR, EL KHOHOUG (6000 1/01 3/01 5/01 6/01 7/01 3/01 11/03 8/01 11/03 11/03 FED) CODME-60-02 TELMA,EL SHEKHFADEL & EL 4/01 6/01 8/01 9/01 10/01 11/01 2/04 11/01 11/03 2/04 1NASIRYA(0,000 FELD) CODME-61-02 KALIK (12000 FED) _ 6/01 8/01 10/01 11/01 12/01 1/02 7/04 1/02 4/04 7/04 CONUE-62-02 TOMAS & AFIA (15,000 FED) 1/01 3/01 5/01 6/01 7/01 8/01 13/05 I /01 3/05 3/05 CRUE-63-02 NORTHWEST FATIRA, DRAW & 3/01 5/01 7/01 0/01 9/01 10/01 6/05 10/01 3/05 6/05 EKLEET (9,000 FED) MP-64-02 PVC/PE POWDER (2,000 TONS) 4/01 5/01 7/01 8/01 9/01 10/01 10/01 5/02 _ 4/02 5/02 MP-65-02 PROCUREMENT PVC/PE 7/01 8/01 10/01 11/01 12/01 1/02 1/02 8/02 - _ 7/02 8/02 POWDER (0,100 TONS) MF-66-02 SYNTHETIC FILTER CLOTH 5/01 6/01 8/01 9/01 10/01 11/01 11/01 6/02 _ 5/02 6/02 I1.080 KCM) EODM-67-02 OPEN DRAINS EQUIP 2/01 3/01 5/01 7/01 9/01 11/01 11/01 11/02 _ 8/02 11/02 FORKLIFT (7) WEED CONTROL ATT'ACH(7) 1 EODM4s-682 WORKSHOP TOOLS (6 SETS) 3/01 5/01 7/01 S/01 9/01 10/01 10/01 7/02 4/02 7/02
- 69 - ANNEX 6 Table 1 Page 3 of 4 TENTATIVETENDERING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY THE WORLD BANK
TENDER DECRIPTION OF CATCHMENT ESTIMATED PACKAGE FOR CIVIL WORKS AND/OR TOTAL COST TENDERING SCHEDIULE DISBURSEMENTSCHEDULE CONTRACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN DESCRIPTION USS LE & BIDS EVA. AWARD L.C. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TENDER DOC.I INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE TION VERY LATION TANCE V-69-02 VEHICLES-STATION 4/01 5/01 7/01 9/01 10/01 11/01 11/01 5/02 _ _ 3/02 5/02 WAGONS(2),PICKUP DOUBLE CABIN(34),SINGLE CABIN(16), MOTORCYCLES(12) BICYCLES (250) IN-70-02 COMPUTERS, OFFICE 1/01 3/01 5/01 7/01 8/01 9/01 9/01 2/02 - 12/01 - 2/02 EQUIPMENT FOR EPADP IN-71-02 AUDIOVISUALEQUIP FOR 2/01 4/01 6/01 8/01 9/01 10/01 10/01 6/02 - - 4/02 - 6/02 SOCIAL PARTICIPATORY COMPONENT PE-72-02 PROC. OF MOBILE PUMPS FOR 4/01 6/01 8/01 11/01 12/01 1/02 1/02 6/04 - - 6/03 12/03 6/04 EMERGENCY CENTERS CNED-94-03 BAHR EL BAKER P.S. (25,000 12/01 2/02 4/02 6/02 7/02 8/02 5/06 8/02 2/06 - - 5/06 FED) CODFD-95-03 FARASCOR P.S. (20,000FED) 2/02 2/02 5/02 7/02 0/02 9/02 3/06 9/02 12/05 - - 3/06 CRUE-96-03 EL SALAA,EL MATAANA 2/02 4/02 6/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 1/06 10/02 10/05 1/06 HAGAZI EL TALTA (15,000 FED) CODUE-97-03 ABOU TEIG & UNINDENTIFIED 2/02 4/02 6/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 3/05 10/02 12/04 3/05 ______(15,0010FED) MF-98-03 SYNTHETIC FIBER CLOTH 6/02 7/02 9/02 11/02 12/02 1/03 1/03 8/03 - - 6/03 8/03 (R500 KM) EODM-99-03 PROC. OF HYDRAULIC 3/02 4/02 6/02 8/02 9/02 11/02 11/02 11/03 - - 8/03 11/03 EXCAVATORS (5) V-100-03 MOTORCYLCES (50) 5/02 6/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 10/02 6/03 ---- 4/03 6/03 EDE-101-03 MISC. EQUIPMENT REQUIRED 5/02 6/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 10/02 6/03 4/03 6/03 BY DRI CRED-127-04 EL SANAFIEN& THALA I&2 2.03 4/03 6/03 8/03 9/03 - 10/03 3/06 10/03 12/05 - - 3/06 ______(1,00( FED)II CRED-12 AKRASH OBSHER BAHR & 3/03 5/03 7/03 9/03 10/03 - 11/03 10/05 11/03 7/05 - - 10/05 ______SAFT (5,000 FED) ______CODED-129-04 BAHR EL BAKER (15,000 FED) 12/02 2/03 4/03 6/03 7/03 - 8/03 5/06 8/03 2/06 _ 5/06
- 70 - ANNEX 6 Table 1 Page 4 of 4 TENTATIVE TENDERING AND DISBURSEMENTSCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY THE WORLD BANK
TENDER DECRIPTION OF CATCHMENT ESTIMATED PACKAGE FOR CIVIL WORKS ANDIOR TOTAL COST TENDERING SCHEDULE DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE CONTRACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN DESCRIPTION US$ LE & BIDS EVA. AWARD L.C. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TENDER DOC. INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE TION VERY LATION TANCE
CONME-130-04 KAMADIR (10,000 FED) 1/03 3/103 : 5/03 6/03 7103 8103 3106 8/03 12/OS 3/06 CRUE-131-04 WEST EL KOSIA EL OLA & 2/03 4/03 61/03 7/03 8/03 9/03 12/05 9/03 81/05 12/05 GEG= E LA (801 FED)I MF-132-04 SYNT ETC FIRER CLOTII 6/03 7/03 9/03 11/03 12/03 V. 1/04 10/04 - 7/104 10/04 (1,000=K V-133-04 VEHICLES-PICKUP SINGLE 5/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 10/03 7/04 4/04 7/04 CABIN (24) PICKUP DOUBLE ______CABIN (2) IN-134-04 AUDIO REPRODUCTION - 5/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 10/03 5/04 - - 4/04 5/04 SOCIAL PARTICIPATORY ______COMPONENT CRED-148-05 KOFOUR NEGM (7,000 FED) _E 3/04 /504 6/04 7104 1/04 11/06 8/04 /00 11/06 CRUE-149-05 KAFT EL OLA & SOUTH I. 3/04 5/04 6/04 7/04 8/04 11/06 1/14 0/06 11/06 KOMOMOBO (6000 FED) I I . CODUE-150-05 EL MONSHAH (5000 FED) 2/04 4/04 6/04 7/04 8/04 5/04 6/06 9/04 3/06 6/06
Leaend of Designations: CNED-1-2001 : C-Civil Works; N-Old cultivated areas; ED-East Delta; 1-2000-First contract of FY2001 CONWD-3-2004: ON-New reclaimed areas; WD-West Delta CRMD-4-2005 : R-Renewal areas; MD-Middle Delta CODME-2-2002: OD-Open drains; ME-Middle Egypt CNUE-3-2003 : UE-Upper Egypt MP-13-2001 Material-PVC/PE Powder MF-14-2001 Material-Filter Synthetic Fabric EDE-16-2001 : E-Equipment; D-DRI; E-Environmental EODM-17-2001: ODM-Open drains maintenance INS-18-2001 : INS-Institutional V-20-2001 V-Vehicles PE-70-2002 : PE-Pumping equipment for emergency centers ESDM-115-2003: SDM-Subsurface drains maintenance SDE-48-2001 SDt-Stationery, office equipment to DR( for environmental monitoring activities CSP-89-2001 Contractual services for two pilot schemes SBP-90-2002 SBP-Stationery, office equipment to Water Board for two pilot schemes CSMS-143-2004 Contractual services for mid-term/completion reports and social participatory activities.
- 71 - Table 2
TENTATIVE TENDERING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTSPaeIo3 TO BE FINANCED BY EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK JEIB)
TENDER DECRIPTION OF ESTIMATED PACKAGE CATCHMENT FOR CIVIL TOTAL CO)ST TENDERI NG SCHED ULE DISBUR.SEMENT SCHEDULE CONTR ACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATI ON WORKS AND/OR MI lL DESIGN ADVE RTISE OPEN BID ICONTRACT OPEN EQ UIPMENT/MATERI AL US E & BIDS EVA. AWARD L. C. DISBU RSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS DESCRIPTION TENDER
INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTL ACCEP-
CNWD-21-01 AL HADIEN P.S. (7,000 FED) 6/00 9/00o -II/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 5/03 2/01 2/03 VER LAIO 0N3C CNWD-22-0 1 SIDI EISA P.SS(8,000 FED) _ _ /00 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 _3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 _ 6/03 CNWD23-01 T _IBIES P.S. (8,000 FED) 6/00 11/00 1/00 2/01 3/01 _40 /3 40 /3__70 CNWD-24-01 EDKO P.S. (19,600 FED) 8/00 1 9/00 11/00 I1/01 3/01 4/01 10 4/1 10/04 _ _ CONWD-25-01 AL BUSTAN I& 2 (16,500 FED) _ 8/00 8/00 IO/Go 12/00 2/01 _3/01 12/04 3/01 9/04 12/04 CONWD-26-01 AL TAHRIR AL GANOUBY 9/00 12/00 2/01 3/01 4/01 5/01 2/04 5/01 11/03 __2/04
CRWD-27-01 (11,000 ED) U fAM 9/00 1i0/00 1i2/00 1/01 2/01 _3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 6/03
CODWD-28-01 AL MASRAF EL GHIARBI 9/00 11/00 1/01 2/01 3/01 . 4/01 7/03 4/01 4/03 _7/03
CODWD-29-01 A ASIFD (8,000,,& 10/00 12/00 2/01 3/01 4t01 5/01 8/03 5/01 S/03_ 8/03
CRME-30-01 KOLA & KHOULOS (4,000 _ 70-0 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 _3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 6/03 FED) _T_ CRME-31-01 AL SHORFA (6,000 FED 10/00 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 _ 3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 6/03 EM-32-01 PROC. OF 10 DIIMP TRUCKS 10/00 11/00 li0i 3/01 5/01 6/01 6/01 6/02 .3/02 6/02 AND 6 MOBILE WORKSHOPS MP-33-01 PROC. OF PVC/PE POWDER _ _ 7/00 8/00 10/00 12/00 1/1 2/01 2/01 9/01 8/0f 9/01 (2,000 TONS) MP-34-01 PROC. OF PVC/PE POWDER _ _ 8/00 10/00 12/00 2/01 3101 4/01 4101 11/01 10/01 11/01 (2,000TONS) MF-35-01 SYNTHETIC FILTER CLOTH 8/00 9/00 11/00 1/01 2/01 3/01 3/01 1/19/01l 10/01 (1,500KM)_ CRME-73-02 EL BAHA & EL SHOUEIKH 2/01 4/01 6/01 7/01 8/01 9/01 7/03 09/01 4/03 7/03
CRM E-74-02 KOM0 ENGAHA 3/01 5/01 7101 8/01 9/01 _10/01 1/04 10/01 4/04 _7/04 HAKRAMORA, MOKHTAR & ELDWALT (9,00 FD) CRWD-75S02 EL TANAFIZY EL ICIANDAK, 4101 6/01 8/01 9/01 10/01 _11/01 gm0 II/01 5104 _8/04 EL GHARDI SIIAYOUR (9,550
MP-76-02 PROCUREMENT OF PVC/PE 4/01 5/01 7/01 8/01 9/01 10/01 10/01 5/01 4/02 5/02 POWDER (2000 TONS)___ . MP-77-02 PROC. OF PVC/PE POWDER (1,100TONS)_ MF-78-02 SYNTHETICFILTER CLOTH I(1,500 KM)_ PE-79-02 PROC. OF PUMPING EQUIP. CNWD-102-03 EL TABIYA P.S. (17,700 FED) 1/02 3/02--- 5/02 16/02 1 7/02 _ 8/02 3/06 8/02 12/05 13/06 CNWD-103 03 EL BOSELY & AL KALAA P.S. 3/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 _ 10/02 6106 10/02 3106 __60
CRWD-104-03 GABARES EL GHARBY (5,000 = 2/02 4/02 6/02 7/02 8/07 - 9/02 6/04 9/02 30 /
-'72 - ANNEX 6 Table 2 Page 2 of 3 TENTATIVE TENDERING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK (EIB)
TENDER DECRIPTION OF ESTIMATED PACKAGE CATCHMENTFOR CIVIL TOTAL COST TENDERING SCHEDULE DISBURSEMENTSCHEDULE CONTRACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION WORKS AND/OR MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL USS LE & BIDS EVA. AWARD L.C. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS DESCRIPTION TENDER DOC. INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE TION VERY LATION TANCE CODWD-Il05-03 EL BOSELY& IBIES (25,000 2/02 4/02 6/02 7/02 9/02 10/02 1/06 10/02 10/05 1/06 FED) CODWD-106-03 AL KALAA & UNIDENTIFIED 3/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 10/02 11/02 2/06 11/02 I/05 _ 2/06 (22,000 FED) _ CNME-107-03 EL ROUS EL TANIA (4,000 4/02 6/02 8/02 10/02 11/02 12/02 3/06 12/02 3/06 _ _ 6/06 FED) CRME-108-03 BENI SALEH, ABOU GABAL 2/02 4/02 6/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 9/05 9/02 6/05 9/05 (11,000FED) CRME-109-03 DOMOSHIA, EL TAGEN, AL 3/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 11/05 10/02 8/05 - 11/05 THALTHA (13,000FED) CRME-1103 KOM INGASH & SOUTH 4/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 9/05 10/02 6/05 - 9/05 EHNASIA(9,000 FED)I CODME-111-03 EL SHEKH ZEYAD & TERSA 2/02 4/02 6/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 3/05 10/02 12/04 _ 3/05 CODME-1 12-03 EL BROM BEL 3/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 1/05 9/02 2/05 - 5/05 MF-113-03 SYNTHETIC FILTER CLOTH 3/02 4/02 6/02 7/02 9/02 10/02 10/02 5/03 4/03 5/03 (1,500 K(M) EODM-114-03 SPARE PARTS OPEN DRAINS 5/02 6/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 12/02 12/02 8/03 _ - 6/03 81/03 EQUIP - FIRST BATCII PE-I 15-03 PROC. OF PUMPING EQUIP yi 4/02 6/02 7/02 9/02 11/02 10/02 4/05 _ 4/04 10/04 4/05 EODM-I 16-03 SPARE PARTS FOR 2/02 4/02 6/02 7/02 9/02 11/02 11/02 7/03 _ 5/02 - 7/03 SUBSURFACE MAINT EQUIP EODM-117-03 SPARE PARTS FOR 2/02 3/02 5/02 7/02 9/02 11/02 11/02 6/03 _ _ 4/03 - 6/03 EXISTING EQUIP ESDM-118-03 FLUSHERS(10), WATER 4/02 5/02 7/02 9/02 11/02 1/03 1/03 4/04 - - 10/03 - 4/04 TANKS (10), BOOSTER PUMPS (10), TRACTOR (10) CONWD-135-04 AL TAHRIR AL GANOUBY 1/03 2/03 4/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 7/06 8/03 4/06 - - 7/06 19,000FED) CONWD-136-04 FIRST & SECOND EL 1/03 2/03 4/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 3/07 8/03 12/05 - 3/07 BUSTAN (23,500 FED) _ CRWD-137-04 EL OLA (3,500 FED) ______1/03 2/03 4/01 /3 7/3-003 11/04 8/03 8/4-- 11/04 CRME-138-04 GOUREF AND EL ROUS El, 1/03 3/03 5/03 7/03 8/03 - 9/03 3/06 9/03 12/15 _ - 3/06 ______-OLA(10,000 FED)-
-73 - ANNEX 6 Table 2 Page 3 of 3 TENTATIVE TENDERING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK (EIB) TENDER DECRIPTION OF ESTIMATED PACKAGE CATCHMENT FOR CIVIL TOTAL COST TENDERING SCHEDULE DISBURSEMENTSCHEDULE CONTRACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION WORKS AND/OR MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL USS LE & BIDS EVA. AWARD L.C. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS DESCRIPTION TENDER DOC. INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE TION VERY LATION TANCE CNME-139-04 EL SHEKH ZAYED & 1/03 3/03 5/03 6/03 7/03 - 8/03 11/00 8/03 8/06 - - 11/06 SENOFER (13,000FED) I CNME-140-04 EL TEGEN, EL SOF & 2/03 4/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 - 9/03 12/06 9/03 9/06 - 12/06 HAWAMDIA(12,000 FED) CNWD-151-05 HARES PUMPING STATION 2/04 4/04 6/04 8/04 9/04 - 10/04 3/07 10/04 12/06 - - 3/07 & UNIDENTIFIED (15,500 ______FED) CODWD-152-05 804301 3 7 HARES P.S.(15,000 FED) 12/03 2/04 4/04 6/04 7/04 - 8/04 3/07 8/04 12/06 .= 3/07 CODME-153-05 BADRASMAN(5,000 FED) 3/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 Sf02 - 10/02 1/06 10/024 10/04 - 1/05 CODME-154-05 NAWAMDIYA & EL 3/04 4/04 6/04 8/04 9/04 _ 10/04 12/06 10/04 10/06 12/06 MANAWAT (11,050 FED) CODME-1554-5 EL TEBANK EL SAF (6,000 2/04 3/04 5/04 7/04 8/04 9/04 90/06 9/04 6/06 _ 9/06 FED)______
Legend of Desienations: CNED-1-2001 : C-Civil Works; N-Old cultivated areas; ED-East Delta; 1-2000-First contract of FY2001 CONWD-3-2004: ON-New reclaimed areas; WD-West Delta CRMD-4-2005 : R-Renewal areas; MD-Middle Delta CODME-2-2002: OD-Open drains; ME-Middle Egypt CNUE-3-2003 UE-Upper Egypt MP-13-2001 : Material-PVC/PE Powder MF-14-2001 : Material-Filter Synthetic Fabric EDE-16-2001 : E-Equipment; D-DRI; E-Environmental EODM-17-2001 ODM-Open drains maintenance INS-18-2001 INS-Institutional V-20-2001 V-Vehicles PE-70-2002 : PE-Pumping equipment for emergency centers ESDM-115-2003: SDM-Subsurface drains maintenance SDE-48-2001 SDE-Stationery, office equipment to DRI for environmental monitoring activities CSP-89-2001 : Contractual services for two pilot schemes SBP-90-2002 SBP-Stationery, office equipment to Water Board for two pilot schemes CSMS-143-2004 Contractual services for mid-term/completion reports and social participatory activities.
- 74 - ANNEX 6 Table 3 Page 1 of 3 TENTATIVE TENDERING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY KMW
TENDER DECRIPTION OF CATCHMENT ESTIMATED PACKAGE FOR CIVIL WORKS AND/OR TOTAL CDST TENDERING SCHEDULE DISBUPSEMENT SCHEDULE CONTRACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN DESCRIPTION USS LE & BIDS EVA. AWARD L.C. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TENDER DOC. INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE TION VERY LATION TANCE CNMD-36-01 FIRST NO. 8 P.S. (8,000 FED) 6/00 9/00 11010 12/00 1/01 - 2/01 5/03 2/01 2/03 - - 5/03 CNMD-37-01 ZAGLOOL NO. I P.S. (18,000 7/00 8/00 10/00 12/00 2/01 - 3/01 12/04 3/01 9/04 - - 12/04 F-ED) CRMD-38-01 BLAY & AL SANTA 1&2 (6,000 6/00 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 - 3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 - - 6/03 ED) CRMD-39-01 SHEIRBA MALAKAN& EL 6/00 10/00 12/00 1/01 2/01 - 3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 - - 6/03 HAYATEM (6,000FED) CRMD40-01 MAHALET RAU, 3&4 (4,000 7/00 11/00 1/01 2/01 3/01 - 4/01 7/03 4/01 4/03 = - 7/03 FD) CODMD-41-01 HAFIR SHEHAB & ULDIN, 9/00 10/00 12/00 2/01 4/01 5/01 8/04 5/01 5/04 _ - 8/04 MOHEB &ZAFARANY(27,000 FED)II CNMP-42-01 ASLAN A&B (10,000FED) 9/00 10/00 02/00 /01 2/101 -- 3/01 6/03 3/01 3/03 6/03 CODUE-43-01 ASLAN A&B (10,000FED) 8/00 9/00 01/00 1/01 3/01 1 4/01 1 4/01 10/03 11/04 MP-44-01 PROC. OF PVC/FEPOWDEE 7/00 8/00 10/00 12/00 0/01 2/01 2/01 9/01 - - 7/01 09/01 (2,000TONS) MP-45-01 PROC.OF PVC/IP POWDER 9/00 10/00 12/00 2/01 3/01 4/01 4/01 11/01 - 10/01 11/01 (2,000TONS) MF-48-01 SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC 1/00 9/00 11/00 1/01 2/01 3/01 3/01 50/01 2 - 9/01 10/01 (1,500K(M)I IN-47-0 PILOT AREASEXTENSION & 7/00 0/00 10/00 12/00 2/01 3/- 3/01 10/01 7/01 10/01 MANTENANCE SECTOR EQUIPMENT SDE-48-01 STATIONARYOFFICE 9/00 10/00 12/00 I/01 2/01 3/01 3/01 10/01 07/01 10/01 EQUIPMENT& SPAREPARTS I_____I__ CSDE-49-01 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10/00 NEGOTIATE 3/01 - 6/01 6/02 - -3/02 -6/02 WITH DR) FORWATER QUALITY MONITORING _~ -1 50 /1 70 CNMD-80-02 ABU AL KOCA, KAFREL 1/01 3/01 5/04 8/01 2/04 5/04 ATRASH,GHONEIN (11,000 F) I______CRMD-81-02 DAHTOURA,SHOUNY EL 2/01 4/01 6/01 7/01 0/01 1/ 9/01 12/04 9/01 9/04 4 12/04 THANIA TOUKH 2, & SAMATAY(15,600 FED) ______CRMD-02-02 DENSOAWY, 1,3,4&5(9,000 2/01 4/01 6/01 7/01 0/01 -9/01 3/04 9/01 12/03 -- 30 FED) ____ CODMD-83-02 NO. 3 P.S.(23,000 FED) I/Il 3/01 0/01 6/01 7/01 - /01 11/04 I/Il 8/04 --- 11/04 CNUEP-84-02 SECONDGABAL A&B P.S. 2/01 3/01 s/01 6/01 7/01 - 0/0 3/04 0/01 12/03- (0,000FED)____ CRUE-05-02 EL MEHROUKCA(S,000 FD ___ 4/01 5/01 1/01 9/01 10/01 - 11/01 1/04 11/01 12/03 -- 4/04 CODUE-86-02 EL MARASHDA(12,000OFED 3/01 5/01 7/01 a8/1 9/01 - 10/01 6/04 10/01 3/04 -- 6/04 MF-87-02 PROC.OF PVC/PEPOWDER 3/01 5/01 7/1 00 /1 10/01 10/01 5/02 - -- 4/02 5 /02 ______(2,000 TONS) ______
- 75 - ANNEX 6 Table 3 Page 2 of 3 TENTATIVE TENDERING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY KfW
TENDER DECRIPTION OF CATCHMENT ESTIMATED PACKAGE FOR CIVIL WORKS AND/OR TOTAL COST TENDERING SCHEDULE DISBURSEMENTSCHEDULE CONTRACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN DESCRIPTION US$ LE & BIDS EVA. AWARD L.C. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TENDER DOC. o" INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE TION VERY LATION TANCE MP-S8-02 PROC. OF PVC/PE POWDER =/01 10/01 12/01 2/02 3/02 4/02 4/02 11/02 - - 10/02 - 11/02 (2,000 TONS) MF-89-02 SYNTHETIC FILTER CLOTH 10/01 11/01 1/, 3/02 4/02 5/02 5/02 12/02 - - 11/02 12/02 (11500KM) V-90-02 VEHICLES-MICROBUSES 11 1/01 1/01 3/01 5/01 7/01 9/01 9/01 6/02 - - 3/02 _ 6/02 PASSENGERS(6),MCIROBUSES 25 PASSENGERS (6) & BW (25 PASSENGERS (6) CSP-91-02 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5/01 NEGOTIATE 7/01 _ 8/01 8/06 - 6/01 _ - FOR TWO PILOT SCHEMES CSDE-92-02 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4/02 NEGOTIATE 7/02 8/02 8/05 8/05 WITH DRI FOR WATER QUALITY MONITORING SBP-93-02 STATIONARY, OFFICE EQUIP., 2/01 3/01 5/01 6/01 7/01 3/01 5/02 2/02 5/02 COMMON MATERIAL ETC. CNMD-119-03 NO. 3 P.S.& EL ZEINY P.S. 1/02 3/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 99/02 6/06 9/02 3/06 - 6/06 (11,000FED) CNMD-120-03 KOM AL ARAB & KOM EL 2/02 4/02 6/02 8/02 9/02 _ 10/02 1/06 10/02 10/05 - 1/06 KASB (12,000FED) CRMD-121-03 ELKHADRAWIYA, EL THANIA 1/02 3/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 9/02 12/05 9/02 9/05 - - 12/05 SAMATE, EL ATWA & KATOUR (14,800FED) CODMD-122-03 HAFIR SHEHAB EL DIN (20,000 2/02 4/02 6/02 8/02 9/02 _ 10/02 1/06 10/02 10/05 - - 1/06 FED)I I CNUE-123-03 TAHTA A. EL REZKA P.S. (8,000 1/02 3/02 5/02 7/02 8/02 90/02 6/06 9/02 3/06 - 6/06 FED) MF-124-03 SYNTHETIC FILTER CLOTH 3/02 4/02 6/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 10/02 5/03 - - 4/03 - 5/03 (1,500EM) EODM-125-03 MISC. EQUIPMENT 4/02 5/02 7/02 9/02 10/02 12/02 12/02 12.03 - - 9/03 12/03 EODM-126-03 FLAT BED TRUCKS (19) 3/02 4/02 6/02 8/02 10/02 12/02 12/02 12/03 - - _ -- 12/03 CNMD-141-04 THIRD NO. SLOWER, EL 1/03 2/03 4/03 6/03 7/03 - 0/03- 5/06 8/03 2/06 -- 5/06 SABRYA(10,800 FED) CNMD-142-04 KAFR EL SAWALEM 2/03 4/03 5/03 7/03 8/03 - 9/03 6/06 9/03 3/06 _ 6/06 AHMADIYA DEMLASH (8,200 FED) CRMD-143-0 DENSHAWY1-5, EL MESELHA 3/03 5/03 7/03 6/03 9/03 10/03 1/07 10/03 10/06 1/07 & SUGAR (8,200 FED) ___ CNUE.144-04 EL MANSHIE, EL REDEIYSIA 1/03 3/03 5/03 6/03 7/03 _ 0/03 3/07 9/03 12/06 _ 3/07 P.S.(1 1,000 FED) EDDM-145-04 MOTOR GRADERS() & MISC. 3/03 4/03 6/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 10/03 10/04 7/04 10/04 EQUIPMENT ____I
- 76 - ANNEX 6 Table 3 Page 3 of 3
TENTATIVE TENDERING AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONTRACTS TO BE FINANCED BY KfW
TENDER DECRIPTION OF CATCHMENT ESTIMATED PACKAGE FOR CIVIL WORKS AND/OR TOTAL COST TENDERING SCHEDULE DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE CONTRACT SCHEDULE DESIGNATION EQUIPMENTIMATERIAL MIL MIL DESIGN ADVERTISE OPEN BID CONTRACT OPEN DESCRIPTION US$ LE & TDBIDSEVA. AWARD L.C. DISBURSEMENT CIVIL WORKS EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TENDER DOC.j____ _ DOC. INITIAL FINAL START COMPLE DELI- INSTAL- ACCEP- ADVANCE _ TION VERY LATION TANCE
5/04 V-146-04 MICROBUS 11 PASSENGERS 3/03 4/03 6/03 8/03 10/03 11/03 11/03 8/04 (3), MICROBUS 25 PASSENGERS(7), BUS 25 PASSENGERS (7) ______- CSR-147-04 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7/03 NEGOTIAT 9/03 - - - - - 12/06 FOR M& E & SOCIAL E ACTIVITIES CRMD-157-05 EL ATAF EL THANIA (6,800 2/04 4/04 6/04 7/04 8/04 - 9/04 3/07 10/04 12/06 - - 3/07 FED) CODMD-158-05 THIRD NO. 8 LOWER (10,000 3/04 5/04 7/04 8/04 9/04 - 10/04 5/07 11/04 2107 - - 5/07 ______FED)I CNUE-159-05 AL BAYADIYA, EL HOLA & 1/04 3/04 5/04 6/04 7/04 - 0/04 3/07 9/04 12/06 - - 3/07 UNIDENTIFIED (8,000 FED) CRUE-160-05 NAGE HAMMADI EL OLE EL 1/04 3/04 5/04 6/04 7/04 8/04 11106 8/04 8/06 11/06 GHARBIA & EL SHARKIA (5000 FED) EODM-161-05 MISCELLANEOUSEQUIP. 1/04 3/04 5/04 7/04 9/04 10/04 10/04 10/05 7/00 10/05 EODM-162-0s SPAREPARTS OF VEHICLES & 7/04 7/04 9/04 10/04 12/04 1/0s 1/00 0/05 5/05 0/OS _,~______OTHER EQUIPMENT ______Legend of Deshinations: CNED-1-2001 : C-Civil Works; N-Old cultivated areas; ED-East Delta; 1-2000-First contract of FY2001 CONWD-3-2004: ON-New reclaimed areas; WD-West Delta CRMD-4-2005 : R-Renewal areas; MD-Middle Delta CODME-2-2002: OD-Open drains; ME-Middle Egypt CNUE-3-2003 UE-Upper Egypt MP-13-2001 Material-PVC/PE Powder MF-14-2001 Material-Filter Synthetic Fabric EDE-16-2001 E-Equipment; D-DRI; E-Environmental EODM-17-2001 ODM-Open drains maintenance INS-18-2001 INS-lnstitutional V-20-2001 V-Vehicles PE-70-2002 PE-Pumpingequipment for emergency centers ESDM-115-2003: SDM-Subsurface drains maintenance SDE-48-2001 : SDE-Stationery, office equipment to DRI for environmental monitoring activities CSP-89-2001 : Contractual services for two pilot schemes SBP-90-2002 SBP-Stationery, office equipment to Water Board for two pilot schemes CSMS-143-2004 Contractual services for mid-term/completion reports and social participatory activities.
-77 - ANNEX 6 Table4 PageI of I TENTATIVE FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS AND DISBURSEMENT CATEGORIES (ALL AMOUNTS IN "000 US$)
ITEM IBIRD FINANCING PLAN
DISBURSEMENT IBRD EIB FWGOVERNMENT NETHER0LANDS TOTAL CATE- BAMT. CON- LOC FOR- TOTAL LOC. FOR- TOTAL LOC. FOR- TOTAL LOCAL FOR- TOTAL LOC. FOR- TOTAL LOC. FOR- TOTAL GORY '000 TRACT _ IEICN _ EIGN _ EIGN EIGN EIGN EIGN L. CIVIL WORKS (.) CONTRACT COST 41,500 41,500 43,200 43,200 400 33,200 33,600 89560 - 89,560 899.60 117,900 207,960 (1,)RECURRENT ------2,920 2,920 2,920 - 2,920 COST (~BUILDINGS -- - -- 40 - 40 840 -- 40 (d) LAND - - - -34,710 - 34,710 34,710 -- 34,710 ACQUISITION & ACQUISITION 6,770 (e) DUTIES & TAXES _ _ 67 6,770 6,770 _ 6,770
INCLUDING ON EQUrPMENT SUBTOTAL _ 41,500 41,500 43,200 43,800 400 33,200 33,600 134,800 134,800 135,200 117,900 253,100 DISBURSEMENT I-A:CIVIL WORKS I-A 4,500 32% FOR CONTRACTS AWARDED WITHIN 2.0 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVENESS I-B: CIVIL WORKS I-B 25,000 54% FOR CONTRACTS AWARDED WITRHIN Il-A: PYC/PE HI-A 9,500 100% POWDER FOR CONTRACTS (EX- AWARDED BEFORE 2 YRS FACTO AFTERRY EFFECTIVENESS OR I-B: OTHER EQUIP l1-B 8,000 85% 8,500 8,500 6,800 6,800 _ 5,400 5,400 - _ _ _ 400 400 _ 21,100 21,100
MATERIALS OF TOTAL TECHINICALAS- III 50 COST _ _ _ 1,000 1,000 _ 600 2,600 3,200 600 3,600 4,200 ASSISTANCE & TRAINING- (IF PROC. LOCAL
100% OF TOTAL COST IV- UNALLI3CATED IV 2,-950 - - -- TOTDNALLOCATFD IV 050,080 _50,0no 50,000 50,880.060 _ 400 39,60 40,000 134,000 134,000 600 3,000 3,600 130,800 142,600 278,405
-78 - Annex 7. Institutional Aspects EPADP Structure, Project Implementation and Monitoring and Pilot Program for Integrated Water User's Irrigation and Drainage Associations
A. Introduction
1. The first phase of the National Drainage Program (NDP-I) consisting of 0.7 million feddans is currently under implementation with co-financing from the World Bank, Germany (KfW) and the Netherlands. The second slice, NDP II comprises about 0.80 million feddans of the remaining irrigation areas of Egypt requiring drainage systems. The main objectives of the proposed project are to increase agricultural productivity on about 0.8 million feddans of irrigated land by improving drainage conditions through control of waterlogging and salinity, thereby increasing crop yields and rural incomes. Other objectives are capacity building for EPADP through technical assistance and training activities provided under German (KfW loan/grant), Netherlands and Canadian bilateral assistance.
2. The proposed project will provide new subsurface drainage for about 500,000 feddans, and renew and rehabilitate old subsurface drainage in about 300,000 feddans already provided with earlier types of drainage systems in the sixties and seventies. To improve the conveyance capacity of the drainage system where subsurface drains are installed, the project will also deepen and remodel open conveyance drains serving about 365,000 feddans of irrigated lands in the Nile Valley and Delta.
B. Functions and Structure
3. The Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI) is responsible for the development of water resources and the construction and maintenance of the irrigation and drainage systems. The Irrigation Department of MWRI is responsible for the O&M of all public canals. The National Water Research Center conducts research on all water-related issues, including reuse of drainage flows, through 12 research institutes, one of which is of particular concern to the NDP, i.e., DRI. The Mechanical and Electrical Department (MED) of MWRI is responsible for installing, operating and maintaining all irrigation and drainage pumping stations.
4. The semi-autonomous Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects (EPADP) is responsible for the design, procurement and implementation of all drainage works, as well as for maintaining field drainage systems and open drains. The authority is headed by a chairman and assisted by a vice-chairman. There are two directorates at its Cairo headquarters with five departments: Research and Design (RDD), Planning and Follow-up (PFD), Electrical and Mechanical (E&M), Sector Affairs and Drainage Advisory Service (SADAS), and Administration and Finance (AFD). Each directorate is headed by an undersecretary. RDD is responsible for (i) all pre-drainage investigation and the design of field drainage works through its Field Investigation and Design Unit and for (ii) the design of buildings and pumping stations through its Buildings and Structures Design Unit. PFD is responsible for budgeting, the preparation of five-year plans, annual work programs, and monitoring implementation progress through its unit of Planning and Follow-up. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) unit of PFD monitors the drainage works through soil and water sampling. E&M is responsible for the supervision of new pumping stations built by EPADP and for the procurement of construction equipment and vehicles. The unit of pipe factories is responsible for the procurement of equipment and PVC/PE powder for the factories and for pipe production.
- 79 - SADASis responsible for sectors affairs and drainage Advisory services through drainage Advisory unit in each sector.AFD conducts administrationand financialmatters through its two units, one for administration and another for finance. EPADP employs about 7,100 permanent staff in its headquarters and regional offices. Of these, about 780 are civil, mechanical and agricultural engineers and another 1,300 technical assistants. EPADP has adequate staff, but staff distribution over field directoratesvaries.
5. In the field, EPADP is structured into five regional sectors: Upper Egypt, Middle Egypt, the East Delta, Middle Delta and the West Delta. Each regional sector is headed by an undersecretary with separatedirectorates for works and for maintenance. The number of directoratesin each region varies accordingto the size of the area to be implementedor maintained. Typically, a regional office consists of five directorates,two for the implementationof works and three for the maintenanceof both subsurfacedrainage system drains and associatedopen drains.
6. The Drainage Research Institute (DRI) was established in 1976 under an Egyptian-Dutch initiative and is organized into four research divisions: Field Drainage, Surface Drainage, Field Surveys and Economic Evaluation. Its technical staff numbers of about 60 are mostly civil and agricultural engineers with a few soil scientists and agro-economists. In the past, DRI focussed almost exclusivelyon research related to the land drainage programusing pilot studies and surveys to test design criteria, materials and construction methods. More recently, the Institute has been engaged in water reuse studies and monitoringof water quality.
C. Project ImplementationArrangements
7. Project Coordination. EPADP would be responsible for implementing the project, along lines broadly similar to those followed under the ongoing NDP-I. DRI is responsible for research connected with covered subsurface drainage system, including the impact of drainage on water tables and salinity as well as the reuse of drainage water. DRI would also monitor water quality at selected points in the open drains and analyze samples for various parameters. Similarly, assistance from other ministries would be required to address pollution created by discharge of industrial and domestic wastes into open drains. To facilitate implementation, a project coordination committee, established under the ongoing NDP-I will continue. The committee is chaired by the chairman of EPADP and is composed of members from WRC, the irrigation sector, MED, the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Environmental Affairs. The committee meets quarterly to address various implementation issues and to review the annual work program.
D. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
8. Past M&E Program. With assistance from the Agricultural Economics and Statistics Division of MALR, EPADP carried out an ex-post evaluation of its program during 1976 to 1985, covering about 800,000 feddans. As no variable other than yields were measured, the approach followed did not permit the identification of factors contributing to yield differences between sub-areas or over time. In addition, a DRI program to measure the effect of field drainage on agricultural production through crop cuttings was pursued over a period of six crop seasons (1978-87). The program was discontinued at the end of Dutch assistance for this component.
9. Ongoing M&E Program. DRI is carrying out a program in pilot or experimental areas to compare actual with potential drainage benefits. Since 1976, the M&E Unit of EPADP and DRI has monitored water and soil salinity, permeability, and water table depths. This effort was strengthened under the Drainage V Project and now includes some 500 sites. Total area under this program is
- 80 - about 500,000 fed. Baseline monitoring is undertakenprior to drainage installation,and is reviewed one year after field drainage construction,followed by further reviews for at least three more years. To improve information on crop response to field drainage, DRI would continue its program of monitoring water table depths, soil salinity and crop yields in pilot areas. The ongoing program under NDP-I is pursued throughtwo inter-relatedsubprograms: EPADP has expanded its monitoring of physical characteristics, and impact assessment on crop production. This has allowed: (a) a continuedassessment of both physical performanceand the effectivenessof drainage systems with an analysis of crop yield data for selected areas; (b) the evaluation, in physical and economicterms, of yields and of the production response to drainage systems; and (c) the development of planning criteria for use in selecting future drainage and renewal areas. The program will continue under the proposed project.
10. The collectionof data includes water table depths, soil salinity,the dischargein manholes and collector outlets, crop yields and the inputs used with total production. EPADP has made arrangementsto obtain crop yield data for selected areas from MALR and analyzes data to determine the impact of drainage. To capture the drainage impact directly, EPADP has initiated an intensive monitoring exercise in several villages to identify separately the impact of drainage installation and other technologies and the cultural practices employed. This would provide "before vs. after" and "with vs. without" perspectiveson drainage.
11. The continuation of M&E activities is expected to provide quantitative relationships between the yields of major crops and constrainingwater and soil factors, including drainage. The results, expressed in economic terms, would be translated into criteria for the priority ranking of those areas still to be drained or those requiring the renewal of existing subsurfacedrainage.
E. Collector User Associations and Farmers' Participation
12. EPADP has increasingly felt the need for improvedcommunication with farmers in the course of the work by the field staff involving introduction of new drainage, on-farm structures, and the rehabilitation of existing drainage infrastructure.Accordingly, since the early 1990s, EPADP has started organizing farmers into Collector User Associations (CUAs). The CUAs are registered as non-govemmentalorganizations under Law 32 of 1964.
13. Before introducingthe field subsurfacepipe drainage systems, the farmers used to operate and maintain the open drainage ditches in their farms. Because of the complexity of the new systems, EPADP has taken responsibility of maintaining the pipe drainage systems at the farm level. In support of this activity, EPADP has constructed maintenance centers to carry out the maintenance services for both open and subsurfacedrainage net works.
14. The CUAs are based on grouping of farmers in areas provided with subsurfacedrainage, at the collector level. They aim to raise awareness among farmers in dealing with drainage systems in their lands and maintaining newly-implemented pipe drainage. The objective was to strengthen communication through the CUAs, and thus to explain drainage performance and maintenance requirementsto farmers.
15. The goal is that, eventually, with proper training and awareness programs, the farmers could take over overall responsibility for maintaining the pipe drainage systems. They could also participate in the investigation and design phases, and facilitate implementationactivities. By the end of 1998-99, EPADP had formed 2269 CUA's on an area of 257,371 fed (4 per cent of the targeted area). In the absence of a legal framework, organizational and institutional support, the CUA's remain a voluntary group of farmers acting as an interface with EPADP.
- 81 - 16. The basic functions of the present CUAs are:
(a) Ensuring cooperation between the users and EPADP engineers during the investigation and design stages, when soil is being sampled and groundwater level measured.
(b) Involvingfarmers in the planning for the laterals and collectors;
(c) Reducing farmer resistance, and encouraginginvolvement and participation during the implementationstage;
(d) Obtaining assistance from users in refilling the soil over laterals and collectors after installation;
(e) Enabling trained farmers to extend their experience to neighbors in the newly- constructedareas; and
(f) Cooperating with the national awareness programs of the Ministry of Public Health about the environmentaland health impactsof contaminatedwater.
17. The CUA's are establishedaccording to the following procedures:
(a) With the assistance of the drainage extension engineers and coordination of the maintenancedistrict engineer, relevant collectorsare identified.
(b) Regular meetings are held with the concerned farmers in presence of the influential communityleaders such as mayors, and Sheiksin villages;
(c) Users on each collector are assisted to form an association of 3-6 members and to elect their leaders acceptableto the majority; and
(d) EPADP field staff continue to provide consultationto the CUAs after delivery and assist in resolving complaints.
18. The main problems hinderingthe formationof sustainableCUA's are: Technical -- (a) Limited understanding of the performance of the drainage networks; (b) Conflicting crop drainage requirements within the same collector (e.g. while rice requires water submergence, Cotton needs deep drainage) leadingto disputesamong farmers; and Administrative-- (a) Lack of communication between farmers and staff during design and implementation;(b) CUAs have no legal basis and their functionsremain limited.
F. Integrationof Irrigation and DrainageUsers' Associations
19. To ensure the CUAs' sustainability,and to empower them with substantialsystem management responsibilities, coordination with the Water Users' Associations (WUAs) being formed in the Irrigation Improvement project (IIP) areas, should be considered. This integration will allow the WUAs to extend their involvementin both drainage and irrigation infrastructure.Integration of effort between IIP and EPADP will enable use of scarce skills of fanner organization and training and will avoid duplicationof services to farmers. It is proposed that a pilot, multi-disciplinaryeffort in the UP areas be launched underNDP-II to test this approachand to identify conditions for success.
- 82 - Experienceof HP in forming SustainableWUA's
20. MWRI's first experience in forming and organizing farmers associations was in the organization of Water Users Associations (WUA) under the USAID-supported hrrigation Improvement project (IIP) in the 1980s. The goal was to promote farmers' involvement in improvement actions from investigationto completion of infrastructural improvements.They should be involved in the operation and maintenanceof the meska (tertiary)and of associatedwater devices for lifting the water. In the process of implementing IIP, the Ministry staff and farmers have undergone intensive training programs. The IrTigationAdvisory Service (IAS) within MWRI has developed a systematic 7-step procedure for users' organization and training, covering social, technical and financial aspects. To ensure effective participation and sustainability, irrigation legislation has been amended to support WUA's and to delineatetheir responsibilities and duties. The amendment was activated by law No. 213/94, which regulates the formation and powers of the WUAs. Beside irrigation activities, the law allows the farmers to be involved in effective O&M of their meskas, in the collection of O&M costs and in financial and water managementmatters at the meska level.
21. While the amended legislation has provided a framework for the duties and responsibilitiesof the WUAs at the meska level, there is no provision in support of organizingthe WVUAsat the branch canal level (federation). The MWRI is now studying the possibility to amend the law to accommodate federations of users according to the experience and recommendations of ongoing Water Board Project (see next section). The amendment is expected to be ready by 2001. The modified law will consider integrationof drainage with irrigation to form the Irrigation and Drainage User's Associations(IDUAs).
Fayoum Water ManagementProject (FWMP)
22. The MvAWRIhad initiated the Water Board Project in Fayoum Directorate with the assistance of the Netherlands Govemment. The objective of this project is to involve farmers in irrigation and drainage related activities at secondary canal level. The project selected 8 secondary canals in Fayoum and established local water boards. Two different models of Water Boards at the secondary level are being tested by the FWMP/FID. The first model is a Joint Committee at secondary system level through which farmers and governmentstaff jointly participate in the Committee. The second model is a Farmers' Institution where no government staff is involved. Due to the lack of a legal framework,the farmers' group has been established as a voluntary,non-governmental organization.
23. Farmers' participationin water managementat the level of secondary canals is a relatively new concept in Egypt. As a consequencethere is still neither a clear policy, nor definite legislation in this respect. The experiencegained in the Fayoum area aims to contributeto the on-going discussionson the optimal manner for users' involvementin irrigation managementin Egypt. Potential benefits of the creation of an efficient interface between MVVRIstaff and water users at the level of the secondary canal include:
(a) less conflicts between irrigation/drainage engineers and farmers because of regular consultation,resulting in enhanced efficiency and productivity of the field engineers, as well as more sustainablewater managementpractices; (b) improved planning and execution of operation,maintenance, and rehabilitation works as both engineers'and users' points of view are taken into account; (c) higher commitment of the users to infrastructure,resulting in better up-keep of the structures; (d) more efficient water use;
- 83 - (e) more intensive croppingpatterns leading to higher agriculturalproduction; and (f) cost effectiveness.
24. An advantageof organizationsat the level of the secondarycanal, as comparedto the tertiary level, is that the irrigation and drainage command areas are more likely to coincide, enhancing chances of accomplishingreal integrated water managementpractices. The Water Board institution will be formed at the secondary canal (distributory) level. The Water Board should have logical hydrologicalboundaries of the irrigation as well as the drainage system. This means that the whole area covered by one secondary irrigation canal is to be included in one Water Board and that the secondarydrains will be boundaries of the influence area of the Water Board. The WUA (at tertiary level) shouldremain intact but become part of the new institutionat secondary canal level.
25. It is not clear which of the two above-described institutional models (with or without government staff in the Executive Board of the Water Board) is the most suitable for the Egyptian situation. Therefore,it is proposed to evaluate both models during implementationperiod of a pilot scheme, to develop, to test the proper processesand to provide the required legal support for IDUAs. In line with Law 12/1984 and its amendment by Law No. 213/94, final decision-makingpower remains with the MWRI as it is legally responsible for the public channel system. There are advantages and disadvantages to both models, and none can be considered ideal. The experience gained from the water board will indicate the potential of participatory water management organizationsfor Egypt.
G. Pilot Scheme for Irrigation and DrainageUser Associations(IDUAs)
26. The objectives of establishingtwo pilot schemes under the project are to: (i) test mechanisms for integration of irrigation and drainage associations;(ii) strengthen awareness among farmers about irrigation and drainage systems and efficient system management; (iii) support farmer communication and involvement; (iv) strengthen cooperation between users and irrigation and drainage officials concerning the operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems; and (v) ensure sustainability of the system through eventual hand-over of O&M responsibility of both irrigation and drainage to users.
27. In selectingpilot areas for testing IDUAs, EPADP considered:
- Characteristicsof the pilot areas, their boundaries coverage, canals, drains, meskas and status of implementationof IIP type improvements; - Organization structure for the pilot area implementation, including roles of IAS, EPADP (field staff) and the Water Board and their responsibilities; - Training of EPADP field staff to organize and strengthen the coordination and participation of farmers; - ImplementationSchedule; Budgetary requirement; for field staff, equipment,technical assistance and training; and - Selection of Pilot Areas
28. To test the mechanism for integration of irrigation and drainage associations within the irrigation improvementareas, two areas have been selected -- one in Kafr El Sheikh Govemorate and the second in Beheira. These two areas have already been provided with subsurface drainage and irrigation improvementnetworks.
- 84 - (a) BalaktarConmmand Area in DamanhourGovernorate: The selected pilot area on Balaktar canal covers about 3,000 feddans in an upper reach of the canal. It is served by 40 meskas, organized and improved under USAID Project. The WUAs have been already formed and are working effectively on the operation and maintenance activities. This area is bounded by El Zini and El Omum drains. The subsurfacedrainage has been completedunder the ongoingNDP-I project, in 1995.
(b) Dakalt CommandArea in Kafr El-Sheikh: This canal is currently being improved under IIP. Dakalt secondary canal serves an area of about 5,000 feddans and the subsurface drainage has been completed under NDP-I. Only the upperpart of the canal serving about 2,000 feddans with about 30 meskas,will be taken within the IDUApilot scheme. The improvementworks are expectedto be completed by June 2000.
IntegrationMechanism for Implementationof Pilot Areas
29. For implementationof the two pilots, close collaborationbetween the Water Boards project, INTESP, EPADP and IIP is required. Accordingly,it has been agreed to execute the pilot program under the directionof the Water Board Project (WBP). A steering committeechaired by the Director of the WBP and formed of representatives of IlP/IAS, EPADP/ extension, irrigation and drainage district engineers, and representativefarmers of the IDUA's in each of the two pilot areas will be in charge of implementingthe pilot program. The IDUA's tentative implementationplan of the pilot program is presentedin the following table:
- 85 - TENTATIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR IDUAs
Activity Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 Yr. 6 Preparationof Work plan Identificationof pilot Areas
Field Surveyand Social Assessment
Communicationand executeFarmers' awarenessprogram Organize Farmers as _ _ _ _ an integratedIDUAs Procurementof Vehicles
Procurement of Office Equipment
Procurementof other equipment ImplementationofI 1 - - Adaptationworks
ImplementationStage L mI 1 Ll 1 1 _m ______- _ _
Interim Evaluations n
Mid Term Review Reporting H I-
Training N.B: Hatchedcells are completedactivities
- 86- Estimated Cost for the Pilot Schemes
30. The total program costs are estimated at US$602,000, shared between the World Bank, KfW, and the Egyptian Government detailed in Tables 1 and 2, and summarized below:
Egyptian Government US$ 246,500 The World Bank US$ 70,000 KfW US$ 286,000
The IDUAs pilot area costs includeprovision of:
* US$70,000 for procurementof two pickups, 6 motorcycles; * US$286,000 for the recruitment of technical assistance expatriates for farmer Organization,land and water managementexpert and M&E expert for review and analysis. It has also includes provision for local consultants for farmer organization, communicationspecialist, water management, Agro-economist, field coordinatorand support staff. * JUS$19,600for local training, workshops, as well as training of the drainage advisory service field agentsunder water boards trainingprogramme. * US$246,000for the Governmentcontribution to cover salaries of 8 SY support staff, and 8 SY drivers. It also covers running costs for vehicles, office operation,per-diem and field allowances for the local staff, and for unforeseen requirements. The Government Contribution particularly for vehicles operation, salary of drivers and support staff, per-diem and field allowancewill be funded through EPADP budget and allocated in quarterly bases to guarantee the cash flow of the local part of this component.
- 87 - Annex 7, Table 1
SARABREPUBLIC OF EGYPT
WOO-Socialtarticipetory Activities -li diudlqT.. Pilot Proras o Iter2e Irriati-n -ndI-re-na As..ociati-nat Secode-S Ce bc-I i.e., Water Bo-d Bat.iledC..t.
UnIt ---- Q ..titi-B Cst __nit_20 20 B..e Cost (LE '000) 2032004 20 2 00 Total MI_B 2N000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Ot -1
TOe.inisOnI VIdeo Itgiso loni TT-n le -nt-ation Boord Set 7 -- - 7 :0,00 Slidetroisotars jnioINg Slie o nl,artion - 210 - - - - 2. St - 7 - I73000 - 2i. Caselt.tleSPsfRecorder.inciodi,lo Casette Tapo- Set7- 21. tondoItioool atecia l. Fot-.re.' Com-i-etion - - I 000 I7. - - - - 7.0 LesPao 1 4 2 2 1 - 10 20,000 20.0 00.0 40.0 40.0 .20.0 - 200.I D-inPiaho M-l...ss Bsb2-- - -- 2i75000 - 100.0 - - - 150. Doat-e Osebse --- Booter to5sa I35,0001ine - 30 - 5 RoIP------210,000 Treotora165-70 liti Oonhe… … … - 20.0 - - - 20.0 … … …….b,22 500,000 - 100.0 - Olitet urnip-te.. - - 10. d Ht-e -- - - 13.tatal tqapeatad aeii - - - 000 - 25.0 - - - - 25.0 20.05 459.0 40.0 00.0 20.0 - 579.0 tick-Up 000b11 C.bin Iliociding1t.o for pilot scimoee-sOb 2 2 4 9.0 0. Pic-k SingleICebin" 0. 0. n --- 4e05000 - 300 iaotoenY,ielini-ndieg 6 Ilepilot .cho-)e bOebo 6 12 - - - - 340.0 Bicycles - Is1 0,000 40.0 90.0 - - - - 144.0 ..nb.e…50250 400 - 100.0 SobtotalVai.iia.21. - - - 10. Total 711.0 - - - 04.0 244.0 115.1,175.0 4.040.0 40640.0 20020.0 - 1,023.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~28.,5.
Cont. IL Conl. iO0'00 aastr (0I
Pot. tO-l. D"lties Per -oo. I OO. . T.nSinr_Ooaoi Enob~. Taxes! &To.ese Totalte1 i T.... l Taxe Ttal Iote tch. Rta Cofoet oedirAcot A. Eonatnat Coatst W YeIev11isIn 0 Video E'ioile-IitiociiAi.iii Tepee A Oe ,tain onrd 19.7 (.2 2.2 22.1 5.5 0.4 0.6 6.01 0,0 0.4.0 (0.0l PPP SisId necos nluigslidesf. tSilZi'FPOT02411 OlATERlAr, t...scot,teion.. e 1 t2.1 2.2 22.1 55 0,'. . Iaott TpeO,,.-rcodors. iocidilq Cao-tte Tapes . 40 1. PA. ESOIP9IENTAMDRATTRIAI, 6.2 0.4. .7 74 1. 0.1 0.2 . 0.0a 4.B1lo(. 0 to-d-tice If M.t-rioia fet taees' .oeIocati.. EIPAO OlOO bBOT Dr-i rl.ohieg IB1.4 12.2,21.0 215.1 53.3 3.0 6.7 67.7 M-Ohi... 133.3 0.7. 15.0 157.9 79.2 0.0 04.0 10.0 tRADP tQOlrOENT 0 M0IATERIAL 2.0 4.6 46.4 0.0 04.0 (0.0 tpoAop EQUIPMENT_ao OD_Obl Booster Puspa 17.8 (.~~~~~~ 2.3 ~~~~~21.0 ~~~~1.2 ~~2030.6 6.2 0.0 04.0 10.0 EPAliP SOUIPHtNTRSDiHATRIAL. O-t-c tntor 22 1. . 63 . . .01 7.7 0. 400.0 Ei'A5p EOoOPHENTstO_ObTON sttal Sqoipeot od Mlot:-ils. 5(0.1 34.3 61.4 617.7 D. VelaIcir 152. 4 10.1 10.0 100.0 Pick-tipOcobin Coblb lin.1odi.gtoo IlotPilot -ch-noe 310.2 20.3 37.4 373.9 tiP I igl ah 93.0 0.0 11.0 11.00.0 04.0 910.0 tROOP OtIlt Mot-ncyoIoelicod 6 foe pilot ech-eesI 021 19.0 30.5 0. 0.0 5, 1I0.0 (00.2 0.0 04. 10.0 EAtVOCD 27.0 0.2 10.0 150.2 37.,3 2.4 4.4 44.2 .0 04.0 (0 Olcycles .0 EPAO VtOICLES . 10.5 105.2 261 13 31 30.9 SubtotalVali.lal ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~00.0 O0, 4.0 00.0 EPA10P TEH CLtS To teS 034.0 -54.1 90.7 90_6.9_245.3 15.9 29.0 90- 1,352,0 008.3 160.1 1,600.0 397.7 26.0 47.1 77
tapendLtorns by Ploa..ci.tR_lUSS'0001-- Th. 600s-o BOot IORD 201202203 2004 200 2006UpTotal20001 2002 2003 20y 200 2006 Total
Cseta ae eOrIs InldigCnnteSts 03-f. .0~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ . WerTbofs .- C 1- G. - 317 -- -02.~ - 1. -. D-51C Ub0Pooo 9'.'107 -. - - 53.2 - - 17.0 -35.2 - -3. Tators 16k-O . 1t.0 - -_ - - .0 - 2.1 - - - -2.
.1fi- I~~~~IrOit.. 1~ -211 20, . gobt.tal Ogoipsant s-d Kat-Lpia.. 11. 1071. . - 152. 22.0 2.0 2.1 -8 511991. i. . 5. Pich-kURDoble Cabin Ile-iadisgtnn for s~,otl-mo3sesi 4. .: PIch-OpP SiIqIs Cabio 9 - 163… … … … … 0.0a fOOcnsienlodln 6 to, Pilot -oh-,si) 2.2 -0. BicisolsI. 4.6 - - - 6.8 12.3 25.1 - - - -3. 4.0 - - 4.0 26.1 - - - 26. Sobtota1 VehlBSas 3-4.4 ,.t.i. lo - - - -449 0. Bl - - - -24, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~11556~42.0 2,(i. -f3. I03.33 TO- -10 .T-3-,
- 88- Annex 7, Table 2 ARAI, REPUBLIC OF EGYPT Sec-nd National D-1-gaq KfW-5.SnoI1Participatory A.tlotltn inclUding TWO PjIlt pr.nnema fon Int.gr.ted IrIgtonad It-ainag A.nciatlene at a....da-yCanal Level (waton Boardi llotailsdCoats
Onanti-tle$ -- Co.t Baae Coat ILE '000O3 UI t 2O001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total ItE) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
A. Teh.inaI A.e1.t.... fop.tritnt Land Pnd Water Mn-gnee...ttoPort TtalF-Monthn - I - .0 1.0 200;,000 - 50.0 - 25.0 25.0 - 101.0 iNEPatrlateFannrm Ongonloatlon E.nrot St.ff-monthS 1.5 1.5 I I I - 5 50.000 25.0 75.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 - 250.0 National FA-,nrn Orqaniantion Specali0st staff-eoeth, 1 2 2 1 1 - 7 5,000 5.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 5.0 35.0 atIoa.. locilogloqt Ttaff-nonth. 0.5 1 0.5 - - 2 0.000 2.5 5.0 2.5 - - 10.0 Natona Coillcto pnclliot Staff-months 0.5 1 0.5 - -2 0,000 2.5 5.0 2.5 - - 10.0 N.tiolaI ator Mlaaagnet Ongani-sn Staff-.onthS 3 12 12 90 - - 36 3,000 9.0 36.0 36.0 27.0 - - lO.0 topatriate HOE Expont for Re-lac and 0A..Iyis ltalf-e-ths - 0,5s I - 1 .5 350.000 - 25.0 00.0 - 50.0 25.0 150.0 .ltinti.h o-ooI nntstall--oths 2 4 2 4 2 14 5,000 10,0 20.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 30.0 National (bIed CoordInator Staff-no-tha 6 12 12 6 30 5,000 - 30. 60.0 60.0 30.0 - 100.0 atIonal..i .. ppont Staff staff-month. - 1 2 12 6 0 42 2.000 - 12.0 24.0 24.0 12.0 12.0 04.0 sabtntelITeohoIca1 Aastet.ne 04.0 B1. T-ainIng. 250. 205.0 201.0 1092.0 47.0 907.0 P O.11.rkshop./Semlnora 1..npsoa 0.5 I 1 1 0.5 - 4 15,000 7.5 15.0 iSO0 10.0 3.5 Toaneb-et Coate - 60.0 01.5, 2ii3T 210.0 26.0 500.5 47.0 1,057.5 II. Ocorerrat Coet* A. Btecat...tCooat (bfoetlyGo-t. Coetributi..) Office Op. ration Hooth,n 6 12 12 12 0 - 40 1.500 9.0 10. 18.0 10,0 0.0 - 72.0 VohIcl.e Oporation (fnn 2 Vnhicl-ni Monthe 6 12 12 12 6 40 3.000 10.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 18.0 44,0 Sopport Staff 3231t, t 6 02 12 12 6 40 2,000 12.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 12.0 96.0 1)n1nera 323 Mootl, 6 1 32 I32 0 - 40 3,500 9.0 10.0 18.0 or Die0m 1Field Allo....ces l4ot, 18.0 9.0 = 72.0 6 12 12 12 6 - 40a2.000 12.0 24.0 24.0 240 12.0 - 9 SnOfOoren.. lOnmpOOn 1 2 2 2 2 1 10 5,000 5. 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0- 5. 50.00 Total R.carr-t Coats 65,0 130.0 130.0 130.0 70.0 5.u Total 530,0 -110. 43.0 40.0 340.0 269. 20,0.
Innakdoal of Totalo 1-1. fraakd..n of Totalc Innl. COat. (LE ,0003 Cent,is .0003- Lanaa,nteno(I 13-1 Local ~~~LocalDUtIes ph.y. Groan o. 301.DUtln- For. iE,,o. A6Coot. For. Tn..ayDciio tarS. Tacei& alon otalfoci. toocl axes Total Ot. tc, ate Co. enOt toeditrne Acoc.. 1IvaT= at.Costa A. TehIc AOO(et-nn toj,tnnte L-d, -nd Wiat- ilan9vn-t top-rt 01.3 6.3 10.9 100.9 27.0 1.0 3.2 32.0 0.0 04.0 30.0 tlrAtP TECIINICAL_ASSISTANCE_1 nainlFnor raiptc naln 10 21 3.473 0 .6 . 1 0. 401. EPA pat~ionalSoclolpin t F TECHNICAL A.SSISTANCE1 22.4 0.6 25.1 210.51 . 0. 03 3. .00.02.0t'06 TtiOCL SSAC_I toarit o oe o nl e 102 00 3iEEpr16. 316.7 4.3. 2. 4.0 490 0. 4.0 0. EPA"P TECHNICAL~_ASSISTANCE1 OohtntlTeoaivalAaslotnoa .TnIalao0 93.3 6.1 10. .O. 6. 05 7. 2.4 0 Nonviop/Sol31 5.7 . . 40 1. 1.1 . 91 000. 1. iAPTAl Toa Noati,snt Csta1 ~ 97.0 06. 1154 1,354. 20. 19 .62 3. 00 OlfiC-OiOporation t- 09.0 - 00.0 2.2 -. 26.2 0.0 04.0 0.0 EPAD? EOE8 INtinr Iwi.. ... 9 0-.0 0g.0e 26.2n- 263.2 0.0 0.8 10.0 EOADO .Pnn TEC ENCAOOASISTAE_ triate M& E.ldp-tolfor -- adA.yi 14- 9110.7 110.3 -4 32.9 4- 349. 0.0 04.0 10.0 tEPA5P SNtior..IAoo-E. TEHNICAL ASISTAN 6 43.7 7 63.7 . - 10.4 2, 10.7 0.0 84.0 0.0 tOAD? TEC ENCAI_OISTANC_ TotalFed 6.0 2-f.tr 724.0 115.4 1,01.2450.8 21.9 33.97 572.0 0 411. r EINCLAS AC
------g 17- 8o9__- Annex 7, Table 2 KfW - Social Participatory Activities (Including Two Pilot Programs for Integrated and Drainage Associations at Secondary Canal Level i.e., Water Board Detailed Costs
xxpenditures by Financiers (USS '000) The Government 56KfW4 (Uban$ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 7Ttal 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total r. In-atsne Costs A. T7chmioal As.stanc. Expatriate Land and'Water Management Expert Expatriate Farmers Organization Expert 2.4 - 1.3 1.3 - 5.0 - 83.1 - 6.9 7.0 - 27.0 National Farmers Organization Speciali3t 1.2 3.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 - 12.5 6.4 19.6 13.4 13.7 14.1 67.2 National Sociologist 0.2 0.5 0.S 0.3 0.3 - 1.7 1.3 2.6 2.7 1.4 1.4 - 9.3 NationaI Comsunication Specialist 0.1 0.2 0.1 _ _ - 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.7 - - - 2.6 National Water Management Organizers 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - - 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.7 - - 2.6 Expatriate MSE Expert for Revie. and Analysis 0.4 1.7 1.9 1.4 - 5.3 2.3 9.4 9.6 7.4 2a.a National Agro-£conomist - 1.2 2.5 - 2.7 1.4 7.8 - 6.5 13.4 - 14.1 7.2 41.2 Nat:onal Field Coordinator - 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.6 3.6 - 2.6 5.4 2.7 S.6 2.9 19.2 Nat:onal'Support Staff 1.4 3.0 3.1 1.6 9.2 - 7.9 16.1 16.5 8.4 - 48.9 Subtotal 7r chnical Assistance _ 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.7 4.3 - 3.1 6.4 6.6 3.4 3.5 23.0 U. Training a.0 12.4 12.7 10.4 10.4 2.6 50.6 11.2 67.4 68.3 fs.2 54.1. 13.6 269.8 .TorhopsnSn inars T ootalrn"ost f costsint 0.3 0.7 0.7 o.a 0.4 - 3.0 1.9 3.§ 4.0 4.1 2.1 - 16.1 1t. Oacurrent Costs 2.4 13.1 13.5 11.2 10.8 2.6 53.6 13.2 71.3 72.3 S9.3 56.2 13.6 285.9 A. Recurrent Cost (Mostly Govt. Contribution) Office Operation Vehicles Operation (for 2 Vehicles) 2.9 6.2 6.5 6.9 3.7 - 26.2 -- Support Staf' (2) 5.8 12.3 13.1 13.9 7.3 - 52.4 Drivers t21 3.9 8.2 8.7 9.2 4.9 - 34.9 Per Diem s Field Allowances 2.9 6.2 6.5 6.9 3.7 - 26.2 Unforeseen 3.9 8.2 8.7 9.2 4.9 - 34.9 Total 9acurrent Costs 1.6 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.1 2.2 18.7 Total 20.9 44.5 47.2 50.0 29.6 2,2 193.3 23.3 57.6 60.7 61.2 39.3 4.9 246.9 13.2 71.3 72.3 59.3 56.2 13.6 285.9
- 90 - Annex 7A. Summary of the Social Assessment 1
Introduction
The evolution of the National Drainage Program has moved to increasingly incorporate farmers in the operation and management of the system and to contribute to the cost recovery of the infrastructureand its maintenance. Where the farmer played a passive part in the earlier phases of the drainage program, the social aspects, in particular farmer participation in operation and maintenance of the system, is becoming a necessary and accepted feature of project design. The participation of farmers early on in the design of the drainage systems gives them an increased sense of "ownership" and understanding of the technologies that permit them to carry out their livelihoods. I. Rationale for the Social Assessment
The concept of participatory management and its use in Egypt is fairly new, and the experience of forming farmers' associations has, until now, not had a particularly successful history. This is in part due to the lack of experience of technical personnel with community organization and communication experience. But, history of past interventions of the Govemment in agriculture has led farmers both to expect all to be given to them free of cost by the Government, as well as to resist any new innovations that may increase their risks. The challenge then, is to identify incentives and opportunities for the formation of successful associations, and the farmers' perceptions of their role within such organizations.
Bank management decided that the design of the second phase of the National Drainage Program project, should:
1. Assess and incorporate the social lessons of previous drainage projects;
2. Ensure that the farmers' needs would be taken into account in project design;
3. Identify any particular social constraints or problems that would put the execution of the proposed project at risk; and 4. Provide concrete recommendationsfor future effective farmer involvement.
The social assessment focused on these key areas was conducted in September-October, 1999. It built on the results of the survey carried out by EPADP in June 1999 which addressed the issues of crop compensation (social safeguard policy issue) and farmer's satisfactionwith drainage. The field work was conducted by a local consultant and with the participation of EPADP staff. The methodology used for this social assessment consisted of controlled and guided interviews with (a) farm owners and sharecroppers, (b) with groups organized during the first phase, (c) with technical personnel participating in the project in focus groups. These focus group discussions were followed up with individual farmer field interviews. A total of 150 persons, including farmers, staff of EPADP and other key agencies took part in the focus group discussions. Additional information on the operation and other issues related to the drainage system was provided in the interviews with 41 farmers.
The criteria used for the selection of the areas for the social assessment included: (1) the type of drainage, (2) the type of irrigation and water use, (3) crop types and (4) existence or not of water users or drainage users associations. On the basis of these criteria 9 different types of areas were selected for each of two Govemorates: Beheira and Kafr El Sheikh. l The Social Assessment was prepared by a Local Consultant accepted by the Bank with TOR approved by the Task Team. A review f existing documents and experiencesof NDP-1 was conducted prior to the field investigationsand interviews. These findings are summarized below. Some parts of the assessment were carried out jointly with EPADP staff. The report was written from the draft of the consultant by Ms. Concepcion del Castillo (MNSED). The report was cleared by EPADP and MNSED. The complete social assessment report is available from MNSED.
- 91 - II. Key Findings of the Social Assessment
The strategyof the Govemmentof Egypt is to increasinglymove towards a developmentof new organizationsthat join the irrigationand collectorsusers' associationsfor purposesof cost recovery,maintenance, and operationof the systems.NDP-II proposesto pilot the mergingof the irrigationand drainageusers associationsas one part of its institutionalstrengthening component.An importantaspect of this wouldbe the identificationof the stepsto formeffective collectors users' associationsas well as the norms to govern these institutions. While there are legal and institutionalissues to the formationof such organizationsthat are beyondthe competenceof the farmers,the Collectors'Users Associations (CUAs) have to be basedon the realitiesof farmerparticipation in the field and their needs. This calls for a new approachthat will facilitatethe formationand functioningof theseorganizations that fits the characteristicsof thearea of the project. Thesecharacteristics include:
* Small (average farm holding of less than 2 feddans) and fragmented holdings; * Leases of land to increase the area farmed and augment production; * Village based crop rotation in blocks to facilitate irrigation as well as drainage; * Highly intensive cropping (averaging more than 190 percent); and * Important cash crops including cotton and rice as well as horticultural crops.
Cost recovery experience under NDP-I has been fairly successful.
* The drainage investment costs are repaid over a 20 year period at no interest by the beneficiaries according to the stipulations of the Law No. 12 issued in 1984.
e The costs include the installation contract value, the cost of pipes supplied by EPADP, farner compensation for crop losses or damages as a result of the installation, and an administration charge of 10 percent of the installation contracts 2/. * These costs are divided by the total area covered to determine the cost per feddan and the charges applicable to each farmer. * Collection of the annual dues to pay for the investment is the responsibility of the land tax collectors who are given (at this time) 7.5 percent of the total funds collected as an incentive to collection. - Under NDP-I the cost per feddan is calculated to be LE 840. Including the administrative and collection costs the annual recovery payment of LE 49.4 per feddan is required by law.
e At the time of the project's mid-term review the cost recovery in the period between 95 and 97 was 81.45 percent which is good compared to previous EPADP history of recovery rates which was 50 percent and increased to 70 percent in FY91.
There are recommendations to improve the recovery rate even further. These include a system of negative tax incentives on the tax collectors, and the addition of a 10 percent compound interest rate to the farmers who postpone their annual payments until later years.
The documents show the essential role of good maintenance of the drains in order to ensure their efficient functioning. Maintenance and cleaning of open drains have been the most problematic issues, since these require weed cleaning and earth moving (up to 21 million cubic meters of earth moving and weed harvesting annually in the total 19,000 kilometers of open drains works). The annual budget for this amounts to LE 45 million, some of it is done by EPADP laborers in the small drains while other work is awarded to contractors and done mechanically in the sub-surface drains (six times annually for manholes
2 ProjectPreparation Report, Chapter VI,p.78. The averagecrop compensationis LE28per feddan. The farmerspay about40 to 45 percentof the investmentwhile the Governmentof Egyptpays the rest.
-92 - and twice annually for sub-surface pipes). These works cover some 4.6 million feddans financed by EPADP and supervised by its staff. The change to sub-surface drainage for on-farm drains started in 1978 with the objective of making the system more efficient and to eliminate health hazards posed by open drains. The proposed project includes one component for deepening and remodeling open surface conveyance drains serving about 365,000 feddans in the Nile Valley and Delta to ensure that the drainage water collected by the subsurface drains is conveyed out of the area and into the drainage system and its out-falls.
Prior the installment of the subsurface field drainage systems, the existing open drainage ditches were constructed and maintained by the landowners and drainage users. EPADP became obligated to carry out the maintenance requirements for the sub-surface drains because of the technical requirements this involves. With EPADP, in charge of the O&M of the subsurface drains, the farmers no longer have to maintain their privately-owned field drainage systems. But the lack of awareness of the technical requirements to keep the system in good operating condition (clogging the manholes with effluents mostly in the open drains) has been a persistent problem.
Collector Users' Associations (CUAs). The need to educate the farmers to ensure the operation of the drains led EPADP to begin to organize and involve the farmers (at the collector level) in the maintenance of the drainage pipe networks by forming collector users' associations. There are several roles envisioned for these associations: 3
1. Ensuring cooperation between the users and EPADP engineers during the investigation and design stages, when soil is being sampled and ground water level measured.
2. Involving the users in the planning for the laterals and collectors.
3. Avoiding the farmers' opposition, and developing their involvement and participation during implementationstage.
4. Enabling the trained farmers to share their experience with their neighbors in newly constructed areas.
5. Cooperating with the national awareness programs of the Ministry of Public Health about the environmental and health impacts of contaminated water.
In order to establish the CUAs, The Drainage Authority Service's staff (DAS) of EPADP at the drainage sectors have established a participatory methodology which includes awareness raising as well as staff involvement with the farmers, and their active assistance in guiding the farmers through the process of establishing the associations.
Before implementation of drainage works in new areas their duty is to inform the farmers of the benefits of drainage. In all areas the staff persuades the farmers to permit the pipe laying machines enter their fields as well as obtaining their cooperation to work with the executing engineer.
During implementation the DAS staff should instruct the farmers on how to facilitate implementation (e.g. stop flooding their fields for easy motion of machines and equipment and helping the execution engineers in surveying crop compensation).
After implementation the DAS staff assists the farmers in the formation of CUAs, election of leaders, and conducts extension advisory services including on site demonstrations on simple
3Documented from Annex 9 of the NDP-II Project Preparation Report.
- 93 - maintenance and on communication with EPADP for required specialized maintenance. DAS has launched a public awareness campaign to ensure better upkeep of the surface drainage systems including, keeping the drains clean and uncontaminated with garbage, and sharing in the national campaigns related to drainage courses (e.g. treatment and prevention of bilharzia). By the end of financial year 98-99, EPADP had formed 2,269 CUA's on an area of 257,371 feddans (4 percent of the targeted area), including a board membership of 9,982 farmers.
Requirementsfor the Formation of Effective CUAs
The policy of increased farmer participation requires the participation of the largest number of the farmers in single unified farmer's grouping on the meska level in irrigation, and CUAs in drainage, to cover all the water-related activities. The aim is to eventually increase the participation of farmers in the on-farm operation and maintenance of both irrigation and drainage, in collaboration with the drainage and irrigation engineers, who provide them with proper training for raising their efficiency and enhancing their skills.
To achieve this goal requires the rapid initiation of legislation to modify of the present laws and relevant clauses of the Law No. 2113/1989, to permit the formation of users associations for irrigation and drainage, giving them the legitimate institutional integrity on the different levels in all irrigation lands. It is also necessary to clearly define the relation between farmer's associations and the different governmental and non-Governmental organizations (NGOs) which may have direct impact on performance of the newly constituted associations.
O&Matfield level. O&Mof openfield drainswhere field subsurfacedrains have not yet been installedis alreadylegally private. The followingconditions exist:
* Wherefield subsurfacedrains have been installed,the EPADPis responsiblefor partialfinancing and maintaining the system. * Privatization of O&M facilities by forming Water Users Association (WUA) on private watercourses (meskas) have been tested and organized. The amendment of the Irrigation Law authorized the MWRI to establish a special fund to finance improvementworks and a method for repayment by water users. * MWRI has outlined the procedures in a bylaw that covers the legal and administrative aspects of cost recovery for on-farm improvements that include: (a) maintaining meskas at the farmers expense in the event they fail to do so themselves; (b) organizingfarmers groups to maintain and operate meskas facilities; (c) recovering the full costs of meska improvement,and (d) establishing a special fund to finance improvements. * Under the irrigation improvementproject about 4,000 WUAs have been formed and trained by the Irrigation Advisory Services (IAS). The WUAs in the improved areas are now in charge of full operation and maintenance of meska irrigation pumping units and the channels. They also organize and manage the scheduling of irrigation. Their leaders cover the actual O&M costs through the collected fees. WtJAs also have bank accounts to deposit their savings. * It was found that farmers are willing to pay a portion of the incremental income attributed to improvements varying between 15 and 25 percent. The willingness of the beneficiaries to pay shows that there are strong incentives for farmers to participate in improvement projects. * In the process of the privatization of drainage at the farm level, the EPADP has established farmers groups for O&M activities (CUA's). This is still in an experimental stage. Therefore, full
-94 - privatization of O&M on field subsurfacewould require the formation of financially capable trained farmers as first priority. The formation of these groups needs a parallel organization for training and advising them. IIP has considerable experience and can assist in organizing farmers for O&M of field subsurface drainage system. * After having set the rules and procedures for fully operative groups, the irrigation law should be amended to legalize such groups. * In subsurface drainage areas where the IIP has been implemented,it may be more efficient to make use of the already formed WUAs after they have been trained on drainage maintenance. In subsurface drainage areas without IIP involvement, the EPADP could work on the formation of farmers groups with guidance of IIP experience in this area. * Farmers groups can work either by themselves or by means of personnel hired for cleaning the manholes and removing simple clogging in the pipe network. For more specialized maintenance works, such as pipe flushing, repair or replacement of pipe sections, services could be supplied by the EPADP or authorized private contractors under EPADP supervision. These services could be paid for by the farmers groups.
Drainage O&M in the Public Main System. The main, open drainage system is considered to be public land and is totally constructed and maintained by the MWRI. No resettlement or land acquisition issues apply. The O&M of open main drains with bed widths varying from 1 to 1.5 meters and with a depth varying from 3-5 meters below ground level, requires specialized heavy equipment for earthmoving, weed cleaning and harvesting in addition to the maintenance of the structures. Only specialized capable contractors can carry out these works. EPADP selects the contractors through accepted competitive contracting procedures where contractors from private and public sectors have equal opportunities.
O&M costs are currentlypaid by the EPADP. Some studies advise the recovery of a considerable share of the O&M costs for irrigation and drainage facility through the land tax system. The land tax general director has informed us that the land taxes are estimated to amount to 14 percent of the annual rental value of the agricultural lands and change with the productivity factors (land, water, drainage and cropping pattern) based on the net return. The land tax department takes into consideration a significant incremental increase for the areas supplied with drainage projects. The information available at this time is not sufficient to determine whether the tax system would fully cover the needs for drainage O&M cost recovery without modification. However, as properties of less than 3 feddan were recently exempted from land taxes and the prevailing properties in the tile drainage areas are less than 3 feddan in size, it would appear that the land tax may not be the proper solution, unless it is amended to cover small holdings of three feddans or less.
III. General Information on the Selected Sites
1. West Delta Region. The West Delta drainage projects cover about 1.8 million feddans. The size of the West Delta Drainage Sector represents about 25 percent of the total cultivated land in Egypt. Drainage in the West Delta Drainage Sector include: a) Sub-surface drainage covering 740.000 feddans, already executed. b) The ongoing project has covered 30.000 feddans. c) The actual executed areas covered 44,100 feddans, which benefited about 22,000 farm households.
-95- For open drainage system the activities include: a) Widening and deepening main drains in the sector to be ready before the execution of the subsurface drainage project, the total length of these drains is about 3,700 Kilometers b) Miscellaneous construction and/or rehabilitation of existing structures, such as R.C. bridges with different loads; culverts, crossings, railways; aqueducts, siphons, regulators; and pavement roads for P.S. entrances. c) Protecting the sides slopes & embankments of the existing main drains.
Land Tenure and Farm Size. The average farm size in the four sites selected for the social assessment in the West Delta region is approximately4 feddans. In the old land of West Delta, more than three-fifth of land holders have farm holdings of less than 1 feddan (61 percent and 62 percent respectively in Zainey and Kom Hamada) while this percentage is lower (41.7 percent) in Ayman Balaqtar site. In the new land site of Abees, none of the land owners hold less than one feddan and the majority of them hold between land 3 feddans. Most of farms are owned, however fanners lease land on a seasonal basis as well, and this is part of the production system in this region.
Irrigation, Drainage and Institutional Services. The area under subsurface drainage in the sites included in the social assessment in West Delta totals 12,751 feddans plus 200 feddans under modified drainage. There are 68 collectors, and 63 CUAs in the selected sites. In this region and included in the social assessment there are also 69 WUAs in the command areas. In general, the main agencies in Egyptian villages are agricultural cooperatives. As the economy is moving towards privatization the role of the cooperatives is limited. The village extension workers use the village cooperatives as their main site to provide all agricultural services to farmers
Cropping Pattern. The cropping pattern varies within and between districts in the Delta, as well as, between the Delta and Middle and Upper Egypt. The West Delta is characterized as rice growing area. Between 25 to 50 percent of command area in the selected sites was planted in rice in 1998. Wheat, broad beans, alfalfa and vegetables (tomatoes and potato) in addition to (herbs, medical plants and louf) were five main crops of winter 1999. Cotton, rice, corn and vegetables, in addition to (louf, linen, and flax (kettan) were the main five crops in summer 1999.
Area Estimates of Water Use. Between 40 and 75 percent of the Abees area and 10 percent of Zainey, respectively, are partly irrigated by drain water in summer as well as in winter season, while 10 percent of Ayman Balaqter area is partly irrigated by drains in summer season. During summer 10 percent of the Kom Hamada area is partly irrigated by ground water.
2. Middle Delta Region. The Middle Delta Drainage Sector serves 1.8 million feddans located in five Governorates: El-Monofia, El-Gharbia, Kafr-El-Sheik, El-Dakahlia and Domiat. The shape of the region is a triangle. Its apex point is located north of Cairo city at a distance of 23 Kilometers. The Mediterranean Sea and the El-Brolus lake form the base of the triangle in the north with a distance of 248 Kilometers from west to east . The height of the triangle from south to north is 200 Kilometers. The Damietta branch of the Nile River is its eastern limit and the Rosetta branch of the river is its western limit. The length of open drains in the Middle Delta Region is 3,700 Kilometers and the length of collectors is 1,400 Kilometers. The execution of sub-surface drainage covered 1.4 million feddans.
The activities of the Directorate started in 1963. Now the working force consists of 135 civil engineers, 27 mechanical engineers and 24 agricultural engineers. Their task is to supervise the installation of the drainage system, operate and maintain the system and provide extension services to farmers. There are
-96- 779 CUAs in the region serving about 80,000 feddans. The target area in the project for the fiscal year 99/2000 plan is to cover 15,000 feddans with open drains and 18,000 feddans with subsurfacedrainage. The estimated cost is approximately LE 12 million. The activities of Kafr El-Sheik Drainage Directorate include: a) Widening and deepeningmain drains in the sector for a total length of 500 Kilometers at an estimated cost of LE 25 million covering 561,000 feddans. b) The execution of the subsurface drainage covering 310,000 feddans at an estimated cost of LE 84 million.
Land Tenure and Farm Size. The average farm size in the sites selected for the social assessment in the Middle Delta Region is approximately 3.7 feddans with significant differences between old and new lands. In the old lands of the Middle Delta farms of less than 1 feddan represent, between 16,6 percent in Nashart # 1; 43.4 percent in site Seven (the Third); and over one quarter of the farms in Samatai # 4 and Pharaon # 3. In the new land of Nasr the First site none of the land owners hold less than one feddan. Fewer than half of land owners in the selected sites of the Middle Delta hold between 1 and 3 feddans, and approximately one quarter of them hold between 3 and 10 feddans. A small percentage of farms have between 10 and 15 feddans (4.5 percent) with very few landholdings of over 25 feddans (0.7 percent).
Irrigation, Drainage and Institutional Services. The area under modified drainage in the social assessment sample for the Middle Delta totals 5,000 feddans. Similarly, in contrast to West Delta, the number of CUAs is small, totaling 72 with most of these located in Pharaon # 3 and Nashart # 1. There are at this time only 23 WUAs. There are 38 meskas and only 31 improved meskas in this sample. As in the West Delta, the agricultural cooperatives are the main Governmental service agencies represented. As the economy is moving towards privatization the role of the cooperatives is limited. The village cooperative is now used as the location for the village extension workers who provide all agricultural services to farmers.
Cropping Pattern. The cropping pattern varies within and between districts in the Delta, as well as, between the Delta and Middle and Upper Egypt. The Middle Delta is characterized as a rice growing area. Between 25 to 75 percent of the command area in the selected sites was planted in rice in 1998 except site Seven (the Third). Wheat, broad beans, alfalfa and maize, tomatoes and onion, in addition to sugar beet were the main five crops of winter 1999. Cotton, rice, corn and watermelon in addition to sun flower, tomato and beet were the main five crops in summer 1999.
Area Estimates of Water Use. In this sample between 10 and 25 percent of areas in all sites except site Seven (the Third) are partly irrigated by drains water in summer as well as in winter. In Pharaon # 3 and Nashart # I (Upper) respectively 10 percent of the command areas are partly irrigated by ground water both in summer and winter.
IV. Findings of the Focus Groups
There are three general conclusions drawn from the focus groups concerning the perceptions of farmers about the drainage system.
1. Sub-surface drainage is recognized to be a direct cause of substantial increases in agricultural productivity and income by most of the farmers. The extent to which the system has impacted the farmers differs from region to region, but there is general acknowledgmentof the benefits.
- 97 - 2. There is also good public awareness of the benefits to the environment as a result of the drainage system. These are reduced health hazards to humans, as well as improved conditions of the soil and increased agricultural productivity.
3. More complex is the issue of willingness to pay for the maintenance of the system. The drainage system's operation is not as obvious and evident as in the case of irrigation, hence the farmers are less willing to pay beyond the investment costs for the upkeep of the system.
The results of the focus groups discussions have been grouped into three main areas: . (1) issues of performance of the system, (2) issues of performance of the EPADP engineers, and (3) issues of farmers' reactions to the drainage system. The social assessment's findings indicate that the problems are to a large extent related to a lack of awareness and understanding on the part of farmers. This calls for improved training in communication on the part of staff as well as training to improve farmer understanding of the drainage system and increase farmer acceptance of the works that have to be undertaken to install the drainage system and maintain it in good operating condition. In the following section these issues and findings are presented, each followed by analysis and recommendations.
A. Issues Related to Design and Construction
1. Issue: Rehabilitation of sub-surface drains. The farmers believe that rehabilitation should be limited to the sections of the drainage system that are malfunctioning and do not see the need for the rehabilitation of entire sections on the basis of their age alone.
Analysis. There is resistance of farmers to the rehabilitation of some of the sub-surface drains. Their objection is raised because they see that drains are still working. The farmers' objections and resistance can be allayed by information concerning the criteria and rationale used for the selection of areas for rehabilitation. They do not presently understand that if 40 percent of the drains in a command area are not working, there is a need to rehabilitate all that command area to ensure its proper operating condition and benefits to all the farmers in that command area.
Recommendation. The M&E Unit, DAS and the executing engineers inform and discuss with farmers the criteria and rationale for rehabilitation of old drainage systems and the benefits to the farmers affected by it in specific areas. The information must be concise and accurate and include information about the cost recovery, maintenance, and crop compensation issues affecting the farmers directly. [Note: Rehabilitation and renewal of malfunctioning drains is done very selectively by EPADP, however, this may require rehabilitation of collector command areas if a significant portion of the area is malfunctioning.]
2. Issue. Farmer Involvement in drainage design. Farmers in the focus groups say that the technical design and alignment of the drainage systems is an exercise that is done in the offices and does not reflect conditions on the ground, including actual obstacles such as homes or fences.
Analysis. The farmers' complaints that their opinion is not taken into account in the early stages of field investigations prior to the execution of drainage works calls for an evaluation of the way in which field studies are being conducted. Because of the technical requirements of the drainage system, the decisions about drain emplacement are of necessity based on the topographic characteristics and surface mapping, studies that are normally conducted one year in advance of any work execution. Yet there may be room for improved communication with farmers so as to explain to them the rationale for the studies and subsequent decisions. This is particularly important as a farmer issue in the case of the lateral drains. The complaint that the decisions are taken in offices based only on maps calls for this early farmer involvement through information, and for more
-98 - flexibility to take into considerationchanges in land use or constructions that are not evident in maps. The early involvement of farmers in the studies and field investigations preceding the implementation of drainage works will improve the efficiency of implementation and ensure better farmer cooperation.
Recommendations. (1) Establish closer interaction through information and field observations and dialogue between EPADP, field investigation, research and design as well between executing engineers, contractors; and farmers in the early field studies. (2) Ensure that observations of current land use and farmer practices are included routinely as part of the pre-execution survey work to make sure that the drains are modified to the extent possible and meet the drainage needs. [Note:EPADP's design and investigation teams try to the extent possible to avoid destruction of property and there are very few cases recorded.]
3. Issue: Farmers' local knowledge and drainage design. The farmers wish that the engineers and contractors would take into account their knowledge of the land, slope, and elevations between canals and drains, all of which cause problems in the drainage system and which sometimes are not incorporated into the drainage system's design.
Analysis. This complaint shows that the farmers are confusing some of the requirements relating to irrigation command areas and drainage. The farmers' have first hand experience of problems concerning the elevation between irrigation canals and drains that merit consideration. They know when the drains are not operating if they are at the farthest point of the collectors (ranked second as a problem), and they know when they have waterlogged fields. The examination of the conditions on the ground and the operation of the two systems, irrigation and drainage, can result in better design, more efficient operation of both irrigation and drainage, and increased acceptance of the farmers to the implementationof works.
Recommendations. It is normal procedure and the role of the executing engineers to make modifications as appropriate, with the clearance of their supervisors, to ensure the best design of the drainage system. However, in light of the farmers' perceptions, it behooves EPADP to ensure that there are not problems in the emplacement of drains that render them ineffective if the elevation between irrigation ditches and drains are not taken into account. The farmers' complaints should be dealt with seriously and following the established channels for dealing with such issues. [Note: Appropriate topographic surveys are carried out which determine irrigation and drainage layouts. The issue of levels is more relevant for the on-farm irrigation system to ensure irrigation command then is the case for subsurface drainage.]
4. Issue: Farmers and Contractors. The farmers expressed frustration at the delays and level of competency of some of the contractors and the fact that they rarely install the manhole covers. An associated complaint is that the farmers cannot take their grievances to anybody because it works to their disadvantagewith jailing and fines for disrupting the work of contractors.
Analysis. The dissatisfaction of the farmers with the competency of contractors and the manner of execution of works show the need to improve the level of confidence of farmers on the supervising engineers' capacities. The executing engineers have the responsibility of ensuring that the contractors fulfill the terms of their contracts and execute the works according to established standards. But the staff's workload, and in some cases their inexperience, may result in unfortunate cases where the works are approved without adequate examination of the quality of the work. Leaving works incomplete, is not acceptable to farmers nor should it be acceptable to EPADP. The farmers for their part must ensure that the works are not vandalized or manhole covers stolen or destroyed. In order to improve the level of satisfaction there is a need to ensure that the engineers are competent and
- 99 - responsible and that the complaint system is operating and that the farmers can address grievances to the executing engineers if they observe irregularities.
Recommendations. (1) Ensure that the supervising engineers are totally competent to supervise and clear the civil works undertaken by contractors. (2) Strengthen the existing complaint and management information system within the M&E Unit in EPADP so that the farmers are familiar with the procedures to contact with the appropriatepersons in EPADP when questions arise about the quality and process of drain construction. (3) Ensure that the procedures and criteria to facilitate contact between farmers and EPADP are properly designed and implemented. (4) Ensure that penalties are imposed on farmers that obstruct ongoing works without going through the appropriate grievance channels. (5) Ensure that supervising engineers monitor the performance of the contractors and the quality of work.
General Conclusions relating to design issues. The farmers consider that the installation of the sub- surface drains constitutes an investment they are paying for and therefore they should be involved in its design. Clearly, while there are some aspects of design that permit farmer involvement, there are others that cannot be subjected to individual farmers' approval for reasons of expediency. The overall issues and dissatisfaction raised by farmers in relation to design of drainage systems shows more than anything the need for improved communication and training. There is a need to ensure that the procedures for farmer involvement and responsibilities of the executing engineers are working on the ground and that there is no gap between the way things ought to work and the way they are working in reality. The early experiences of the IIP in particular show where there are areas for improvement so that past mistakes are not repeated. These lessons show the need to educate the farmers about the technical features of sub- surface drainage design, and to explain to them which areas are not negotiable. At the same time, there is a need for the EPADP engineers to take the farmers' voice seriously and to ensure that the performance of engineers and contractors is responding to their needs.
B. Issues Related to EPADP Performance
Issues: DAS responsiveness to farmers and DAS staffing. The DAS engineers have too much area to cover and thus their contact with the farmers is less than ideal. This lack of contact reduces the esteem of the DAS among the farmers who feel that they are not as responsive as other agencies, including the irrigation and agricultural extension engineers. The technical personnel complain that there is a severe shortage of staff and lack of means to do their job properly (transportation as well as incentives). Many of the DAS staff work as "temporary" employees although in many cases they may have worked for the agency for up to eight or ten years. Analysis. Farmers are not aware of the areas that have to be covered by each of the DAS engineers. The DAS responsiveness to farmers is constrained by the number of staff, the area each has to cover and the means by which they do their work. In addition, the DAS staff complains that they lack the prestige of the civil engineers within EPADP and IAS because they are currently all agricultural engineers. In addition to the prestige of "title" they suffer from being "temporary" staff, thus without incentives to better performance. Management of EPADP has to be aware of these deficiencies while taking into account the limitations imposed by staffing rules and budgets. Where possible, DAS staff ought to be trained to perform better and promoted for good work. The workload of the civil engineers should be reassessed to ensure proper coverage of the drainage works.
Recommendations. Address existing staff deficiencies by: (1) Improving the level of technical and communications training of the DAS to ensure that they have the technical and extension advisory competence to address the questions and problems raised by farmers. This can be done by strengthening the training center in Tanta as well as by establishing a specialized unit for Drainage Extension within the
- 100 - Water Resources Center to study community organization and drainage issues.4 (2) Improving the way they work so that their level of performance is rewarded by appropriate incentives. (3) Ensuring that there is enough competent staff and transport as well as other means to facilitate their work and increase their responsiveness to farmers.
C. Issues Related to Farmers
1. Farmer awareness. The focus groups showed that there are still farmers that are unaware of the benefits of sub-surface drainage and its relation to improved agricultural productivity.
Analysis: Although the majority of farmers in the areas with drainage have experienced the benefits it brings in terms of yields and productivity, there are some farmers (particularly in areas where there is no subsurface drainage at this time) that are not fully aware of its benefits nor of how the system of sub-surface drainage works. This lack of awareness leads to unnecessary resistance and to a lack of cooperation in some instances. There is a need for concerted attention to this matter so that there is greater acceptance of the system, cooperation with engineers and contractors, and responsibility for the system's maintenance.
Recommendations. (1) Improve the organizational structure of the SADAS to make the DAS a service designed only for service to the farmers with the appropriate level of trained staff in drainage extension. (2) Increase staff training in extension and communication (3) Use the pilot areas to develop and study the best methodologies and vehicles for farmer awareness and other training. (4) Execute the information and awareness campaigns before execution of drainage works in conjunction with existing IUAs and CUAs.
2. Collector Users' Associations. The farmers are unconvinced as to the reasons for the existence of CUA's since these are not providing them with any essential services and at this time they are not serving as mechanisms for the redress of grievances. While farmers are becoming increasingly convinced of the role and importance of the Irrigation Users' Associations, they are less willing and motivated to form any CUAs since they do not see the functions of these associations as significant. This is related to the less evident benefit of drainage in comparison to irrigation. While the farmers are willing to pay for the cost of the investment they are less willing to pay for additional maintenance costs, but they are willing to contribute to the maintenance of the system with their labor. The fact that CUAs are not empowered to collect funds from any of the members means that nobody is willing to provide any dues for operation and maintenanceof the drainage system.
Analysis. The organization of the CUAs in many instances has been a task that has been undertaken in the absence of highly specific roles for the associations and without a legal charter. The farmers are in some instances unaware of the existence of the CUAs as well as their intended role. Because these organizations are not providing them with any services the farmers consider essential, they remain static and inactive. There is a need for a greater level of effort both to clearly define the specific functions of these organizations and to provide the necessary legal framework to make their operations successful in the future. If the role of the CUAs is to serve as the vehicles for maintenance of the drainage system, it is necessary to have active and informed farmer participation as well as the ability to collect fees for maintenance and other functions deemed necessary. The issues of maintenance cost are to be handled transparently and consistently by the DAS because the farmers fear having to pay a high cost for maintenance. The level of organization (collectors, laterals) and the integration with the IUAs are still issues to be resolved. The CUAs should also be the forum for
4 The Water Boards Project, the INTESP, and the Bank's proposed Pilot area component will assist in this effort but a longer term institutional solution should be established to ensure sustainability of these efforts.
- 101 - dialogue and negotiation among farmers on issues of crop consolidation and regulation of drainage to ensure benefits to all the farmers.
In addition to the organizational requirements there is a need for the farmers to have a place they consider their space for meetings, information transfer, education and demonstration, etc. To this end either the existing cooperatives must be made available or new small infrastructure constructed for this purpose, and furnished appropriately to facilitate meetings and to provide educational fora for the IUAs and CUAs as well as the agricultural extension services. [Note: Maintenance centers and sub- centers which are available can be used for gatherings and meetings.] Recommendations. (1) Until the issue of the merging of the CUAs with lJAs is studied and resolved institutionally as well as legally, the role of the DAS should be to organize and establish CUAs and involve farmers before the implementation of drainage works. (2) Jointly establish with farmers the roles and responsibilities of the CUAs. (3) Discuss the modalities of CUA operations with farmers and determine the level of financing required for the CUAs to function effectively in their agreed upon roles. (4) Train the boards of CUA's. (5) Provide training for CUAs members to do simple and regular maintenance work and expand the knowledge and practices to other farmers. (6) Integrate the WUAs and CUAs in areas where IIP has been implemented or areas where water boards at the level of the secondary canals will be implemented. (7) Encourage agricultural cooperatives and local administrationunits to participate with DAS and SADAS in the organization of the CUAs.
3. Cost recovery and crop Compensation. Findings of the EPADP Survey' and the social assessment showed that there were problems related to crop compensationthat included: timeliness of payments, level of compensation (not at market prices) and inefficient mechanisms in the delivery of compensation. To address these issues, there was additional work done in this area during appraisal to ensure compliance with Bank policy. These results have been updated and included in this section of the assessment.
Analysis. The drainage investment costs are paid by the farmers to the land tax collector. However, by law, the farms of less than three feddans are exempt from land taxes. This procedure for payment of the drainage investment costs leads to confusion in the farmers' minds because it is not always clear to them what portion of the money they pay to the tax collector is for the drainage investment and which for land taxes. It is possible that in some cases, farmers with less than three feddans of land may either not be paying for the investment (because they do not pay land taxes), or may be paying more than their share (LE 20/year is a standard payment). The age of farmers (average between 45-55) also has implications for cost recovery with the 20-year period for repayment because often at the death of the original owner when the heirs divide the land, the amounts to be repaid change. This calls for a reassessment of the timing (number of years for repayment) as well as the mechanisms for the cost recovery of the drainage infrastructure.It is necessary for the farmers to have a clear understanding of the conditions for repayment and the portion of payments that are for taxes and for drainage.
Analysis and Changes agreed to during Appraisal. The issue of crop compensation, and the mechanisms by which payments are delivered were re-addressed during appraisal. The cropping calendar as well as the level of cropping intensity leaves little opportunity for drainage works to be conducted when there are no crops in farmer's fields. Thus, compensation becomes an inevitable necessity. Farmers complain that the compensation is below market prices; the payments are not made in a timely fashion (sometimes up to two years' delay after completion of the works), and; payments are not made in a manner convenient to the farmer. The cashier responsible for payments does not make regular visits nor are these announced in advance, requiring farmers to go to the city to
Sample survey on NDP-II Lands conducted by EPADP/SADAS, May, 1999. Annex in the complete SA Report.
- 102 - obtain their payments. This, because of the cost and inconvenience to the farmers, results in further delays and more bureaucratic procedures since crop compensationpayments that are not taken by the farmers within a prescribed period must be retumed to EPADP and the farmers then have to re-submit requests for payments. The results of the EPADP survey conducted in June 1999 shows a fair degree (70 percent) of dissatisfaction with the current system.
During the Appraisal mission it was found that the time lag of up to five years between the time the statements of crop compensationare issued and the actual payment to farmers are caused primarily by (1) delays in the contractors installing the pipes in the catchment area. Compensation is not given until the entire area is finished. (2) Shortage of cash to cover crop compensation for the entire Directorate, and; (3) The accounting unit cannot begin to calculate the compensation for the most current year until all the previous years' compensation has been paid. The original assessment showed that the compensation rates are authorized and regulated by a ministerial decree (number 402/96). This means that, on average, the compensationis estimated to be between 20 to 30 percent below market price. There are some crops that are not included in this decree. It was agreed during the Appraisal Mission that the project would closely follow the procedures outlined by the ministerial decree and ensure that the record keeping and payment procedures are monitored regularly to ensure payment at market values.
The cost of compensation is part of EPADP's budget, but there is room for better planning and management. During the appraisal mission it was agreed with EPADP to establish a pilot network linking the EPADP office in Cairo to the five regions where NDP-II will be implemented. The function of this communication link would be to ensure that there is access to accurate information about crop compensation and how it is to be carried out as well as to have a monitoring mechanismto correct any problems in the process of compensation. The needs and requirements for the establishment of the pilot link will be reviewed by EPADP and the Bank informed by June 30, 2000.
In addition to the establishment of this pilot network, EPADP has agreed to consider the mission's suggestion to include a provisional sum in each contract for the contractor to pay the compensation and get reimbursed from a special provisional account for compensation. This would reduce the long bureaucratic procedures which are the cause of many delays. A similar approach is being used successfully in the IEPproject.
These measures will ensure that the project is in compliance with OD 4.30, and they will be monitored regularly during the implementationof the project.
4. Issue: Farmer relations and drainage operations. Farmers take onto themselves to obstruct drains when it suits their needs for water in the fields (rice farmers in particular) and this creates an imbalance in the system, water-logging some fields that need drainage at a critical time. Fanners have not been successful in dealing with the issues of drainage in mixed farming areas, and some wish the liberalization of cropping had not occurred. This affects the farmers at the end of the collectors particularly at harvest times (cotton harvesting and competing needs for water for rice planting). Another issue is that of the large landowners (that generally have their own "private" irrigation systems), who complain that they wish to be consulted on the scheduling of drainage works on their lands.
Analysis. The needs of drainage for different crops in a production system no longer regulated by govemment present an opportunity to use the CUAs and IUAs as vehicles for farmer interaction and cooperation. It also calls for improvement in the training of farmers to cooperate in the proper use of the system so that obstructing the drains to raise the water table does not occur and negatively affect neighboring farms. The scheduling of works regardless of the size of landholding also calls for
- 103 - cooperation between all farmers. The drainage works must be scheduled according to technical expediency and to the benefit of all farmers and the farmers must all cooperate to ensure that the works are carried out with maximum efficiency.
Recommendation. DAS can conduct information campaigns with farmers to demonstrate to them how they can organize and cooperate in decision-makingso that there is less conflict and improper use of the drainage system. Cooperation between farmers is needed to ensure the execution of works. This issue of community/farmerorganization and management of the drainage system should be one area of focus for the CUAs.
Institutional Coordination. To improve the efficiency of the organizations and agencies working at field level with the farmers there is a need to provide more institutional coherence and accountability. This requires closer working relations and coordination of work between the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI), the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR), and the Ministry of Local Development (MLD). To enhance integrated water management in general and effective drainage system in particular, extension services towards the farmers, and organizing farmers should be a combined efforts of MWRI, MALR, and MLD. There is an additional requirement for coordination between all projects affecting specific areas.
Recommendations:
i. Establish a framework for the integration of these agencies and a strategy for its implementation including training of technical staff and field coordination and resource sharing; and
2. Build on the existing capacities and capitalize the experiences of each of the agencies at the level of field implementationof programs.
Note: Please refer to Project Files for Appendices A & B of the Social Assessment that contain the findings of the individual farmers' interviews and the EPADP's questionnaire on social issues.
- 104- Annex 8: Environmental Management Plan
General
1. Introduction. There are no irreversible adverse environmental impacts generated by the proposed Second National Drainage Project. Overall, the project is expected to have a positive environmentalimpact and contribute to improved land and water management in Egypt. The provision of subsurface drainage would help maintain the water table at low levels and prevent water logging and soil salinization. Preparation of the proposed project has included field-based environmental review by representatives of the EPADP, and DRI.
2. There are limited but significant adverse impacts related to existing open conveyance drains that receive the outflow from the buried field drainage. These issues are of a generic nature and external to the project and could be summarized as follows:
(a) Reuse of Drainage Water. Currently, drainage water in some areas is mixed with fresh water for reuse in irrigated agriculture. Problems could arise if contaminated drainage water is mixed with low quality irrigation water. Drainage water quality is monitored at the mixing stations for salinity, coliforms, BOD and pesticides.
(b) Possible Adverse Effects on Public Health. Any contamination of irrigation water which may occur and have possible adverse effects on human and animal health would be through the existing open conveyance drains which could become habitats for the schistosomiasis vector, which exists when open drains are malfunctioning and the drainage water is stagnant. The project is contributing to improving the performance of the open drains and increasing the flow in them; thereby contributing to the dilution of the density of flow and the continuous movement of drainage water, thereby forestalling the possible survival of the schistosomiasisvector.
(c) Agricultural, Industrial and Domestic Waste Pollution. Drainage water from agricultural land collects residues of applied fertilizers and related agro-chemicals. Some drains also receive sewage as well as industrial waste from the villages and cities in the Delta. In areas of Greater Cairo and Alexandria, where drains would contain raw sewerage and/or industrial liquid waste, the poor quality of the water could negatively impact on livestock and crops. Only the first issue may be directly project generated; the remaining two are not generated by the project, although they do affect the quality of drainage water in particular in the Delta.
(d) Weak Enforcement of the River Nile Protection Law 48 of 1982. This law protects groundwater and all fresh surface water, the managementof which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Water Resources and Ihrigation. Although this Law was not enforced previously, last year EPADP started to enforce the Law, the DRI monitors over 100 points in the open irrigation and drainage water system, while RIGW monitors groundwater with the results being compiled in annual reports.
- 105- 3. The proposed project is the seventh of a series of World Bank-supported investments for the subsurface drainage and builds upon earlier environmentalwork which included input from the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).6 A review of the environmental issues associated with the proposed project was prepared to support project preparation (IWACO, August 1999) based on which an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been prepared to address environmental issues during the implementation process (EPADP/IWACO,March 2000).
4. Water Sector Note: At the request of MWRI, the World Bank has initiated a water sector review with respect to institutional issues and water quality management. The resulting Water Sector Note prepared by IWACO and Delft Hydraulics identified as main and most urgent issue the reduction of discharges of industrial and domestic waste water into the water system. A national program would be needed to accelerate the construction of waste water treatment plants and rural sanitation schemes. Issues for immediate attention are:
* Increase the re-use potential of waste water flows by treatment, storage through artificial recharge, regulatory and financial measures for industries and agriculture and separation of re-usable and non-re-usable waste water flows; * Increase re-use of drainage water along with careful spatial planning of activities (e.g. more salt tolerant crops, aquaculture,specific industrialpurposes); * Improvementof the legal framework;law 48/1982 is under revision; * Set up of organizationsfor solid waste collection and handling; * Upgradingthe present water quality monitoring program; and * Capacitybuilding at the MWRI.
5. Environmental Assessment. The proposed project has been placed in environmental screening Category "B" consistent with the procedure of World Bank Directive 4.01, "Environmental Assessment" and for which an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been carried out. It has been placed in this screening category due to: (a) the limited potential negative environmental impacts associated with constructionactivities for the drainage work envisaged in the project; (b) routine monitoring measures are in place for maintenance of proper water quality; and (c) special monitoring to minimize risk in selected locations in the project area where domestic and industrial wastewater are discharged into open drains. Given that the focus of the proposed project is on drainage for existing agricultural land, it is not anticipated that the project would involve involuntary resettlement or result in drainage of archeological and/or historical sites. All project related works and actions would be subject to a site specific environmental review by EPADP, as part of the design process, to minimize potential localized environmentalimpacts, avoid involuntary resettlement and prevent damage to archeological and historical sites. Environmental assessment would place emphasis, in particular, on subproject locations situated in vulnerable areas, such as coastal, and reclaimed deserts and seriously polluted drains.
6 Water Sector Note on Water Quality Management was prepared (IWACO, 1999),
- 106 - Summary of Environmental Management Plan
6. Objectives: An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been prepared for the project by EPADP based on the EA. The objectives of the EMP are:
- Minimisenegative environmental impacts from drainage works/systems; - Establishment of and support to the Environmental Sub-unit in the General Directorate of Planning and Follow-up of EPADP by Ministerial Decree; - sustainable incorporation of environmental concerns and actions in EPADP activities; - incorporation of the results of the Environmental Assessment issues report in NDP-II implementation;and - stimulate environmental awareness in the drainage sector, especially within EPADP.
7. This would facilitate continued integration of environmental concerns into the construction operation and maintenance activities of the drainage system. The EMP would support: (a) establishment of an EnvironmentalUnit in EPADP; (b) training of regional drainage sector staff with view to improving their enforcement capacity; (c) use of site specific environmental review procedures for subsurface and open surface drainage works; and (d) preparation and implementation of local pollution abatement plans for priority areas/drains including support for continued activities in water quality monitoring and improvements by assisting the ministries and industries in the project areas in preparation of Compliance Action Plans (CAP). Items in the EMP which are not covered under the ongoing bilateral activities under the Netherlands or Canadian projects would be included as a component of the proposed project and would be implemented by EPADP with the support of the Drainage Research Institute (DRI). Detailed discussion concerning the EMP was finalized during appraisal. The EMP includes an environmental mitigation plan and an environmental monitoring plan. It also seeks to regularly monitor enforcement of pollution control Law No. 48.
8. Development of the Environmental Unit in EPADP. The EPADP, as part of the pre-requisite for the proposed project, has established an Environmental Unit whose purpose is to coordinate environmental work carried out by DRI, and/or other Government agencies concerned with drainage activities. An important function of the EPADP Environmental Unit would be to create environmental awareness among EPADP personnel assigned to headquarters and regional field offices. The EPADP Environmental Unit would in.clude a staff of four professionals including a Unit Chief. It would undertake the following functions: (a) responsible for coordinating activities in EPADP related to EA and the EMP; (b) coordinate consultation at site; (c) disseminate environmental information and coordinate environmental training, especially for open drains field operation and maintenance activities; (d) coordinate site specific environmentalreviews for activities at new subsurface and open surface drainage and particularly in the newly-added areas and subproject sites in or near vulnerable areas; (e) coordinate in cooperation with DRI water quality monitoring activities concerning open drains; and (f) coordinate the implementation of local pollution abatement plans; (g) communicate with other agencies like EEAA, Ministry of Health, etc.; (h) establish database and maintain monitoring of water quality downstream of mixing stations where municipal water offtakes are operating; and (i) prepare consolidated environmental reports every six months as an element of the project reporting process.
9. Environmental Training Program. The EPADP Environmental Unit would coordinate implementation of a project supported environmental training program to be conducted by DRI. The training program would be conducted at three complementary levels.
(a) Training would be provided for senior level EPADP officials, such as Chairman, Vice Chairman, Undersecretaries, Director Generals and Unit Chiefs, through one or two day seminars promoting environmental awareness and focussing on key environmental issues in
- 107 - system designs, construction and operation and maintenance. These would include review of the impacts of water quality on the life and quality of drainage facilities; application of monitoring data to management decisions; environmental and health concerns associated with the expanded reuse of drainage effluents; and special issues related to industrial and domestic effluents in drainage waters, legislation and policy developments.
(b) Training for professional staff: Training would be provided to professional staff of EPADP to promote environmental awareness and monitoring aspects of EPADP activities especially those related to Law 48 enforcement activities. One week workshops would be repeated four times a year during the initial two years of the proposed project and then reduced to two times a year. Training in the workshops would cover water quality and environmental management, including investigation and design issues, operational and maintenance concerns, application of guidelines, collection and interpretation of monitoring data, and the use of environmental managementplans.
(c) Environmental Unit Staff: The staff of the EU will receive on-the-job training during EMP execution by the TA component. Besides, staff would receive formal training courses on environmental issues, water quality assessment and data management. Pollution abatement programs abroad may be included as study tours.
10. Site Specific EnvironmentalReview: The EPADP would design and implement a program for site specific environmental review of drainage activities to be conducted under the supervision of the EPADP EnvironmentalUnit and include the use of standardizedformat including:
(a) review of current environmental conditions at the site, including industrial and domestic discharge, solid waste dumping, etc.;
(b) Assessment of potential environmentalimpacts associated with drainage activities, including construction impacts such as dust, noise, and disposal of waste materials;
(c) Evaluation of potential environmental issues associated with the operation and maintenance of drainage facilities including the disposal of waste materials;
(d) Review of the potential need for involuntary resettlement due to construction activities; and
(e) Review of any potential impacts to archeological and historical site from construction activities; progress in undertaking site specific environmental reviews would be included in reports proposed by EPADP Enviromnental Unit. These reports would also identify any special issues which arise and outline mitigation measures to address these concerns.
11. Water Quality Monitoring and Management Plan. The EMP would support Water Quality Monitoring Program to assist EPADP in assuring the drainage system in the project area is designed and maintained in an environmentallysafe manner. The program would include the following:
(a) Program Management. The Water Quality Monitoring Program would be supervised by a Steering Committee chaired by the Chairman of EPADP and including representatives of project related institutions. It would meet twice a year to discuss the status of the monitoring program, trends observed by the program and measures which need to be taken to address potential environmentalissues. The EPADP would work directly with the private and public sector parties to implement the recommendations of the Steering Committee especially when mitigation measures are required to protect water quality. The
- 108 - EnvironmentalUnit would monitor the implementationof mitigation measures and keep the steering committee informed of the progress in addressing these issues.
(b) Monitoring Strategy. The proposed project would support a series of water quality monitoring activities in the project areas, to complement the ongoing program of DRI that includes 110 observation points evaluated on a regular basis. Priority will be given to 8-10 sites in the project areas which require special monitoring due to any risks associated with industrial and domestic effluent. The EMP would support costs associated with special monitoring programs at up to eight locations by contract through DRI. DRI would be requested to prepare EnvironmentalManagement Plans and Compliance Action Plans (CAPs) for industries and priority ranking domestic polluters in the project areas for corrective actions at these sites on the basis of monitoring data and field studies. The estimated cost of monitoring, preparation and monitoring of implementation of the environmental mitigation plan, and provision of basic equipment for DRI are included under the proposed project. The project would through a contract with DRI also monitor any parts downstream of mixing stations where municipal water supply stations are operational in the project areas and prepare a mitigation or pollution abatement plans. Specific monitoring programs would normally be for periods between 12 to 24 months.
(c) MonitoringProgram for Middle and Upper Egypt. Coverage of monitoring in these areas has still not started. The proposed project would support development of a general monitoring program for drains in Middle and Upper Egypt after completion by DRI reconnaissance survey tentatively planned to be completed by the end of June 2000. It is anticipated that the proposed program for this activity would be reviewed by the Steering Committee and requirements for logistical support for the program would be agreed with the Bank by October 2001.
12. Implementation of Guidelinesfor Mixing of Drainage Water. The growing need in Egypt to more effectively use limited water resources is requiring the reuse of agricultural drainage water by mixing it with irrigation water, which necessitates careful planning, field supervision and monitoring. Current Egyptian procedures for mixing follow; (a) the FAO guidelines on tolerance limits for various crops salinity; and (b) the WHO guidelines for various heavy metals and chemical composition of such water and its effect on crops produced for human consumptions. The DRI, with support from the African Development Bank, is currently preparing comprehensive guidelines for mixing irrigation and drainage water under the specific conditions of Egypt. The proposed project would provide logistical support for the application of these guidelines, disseminate them through an environmental training course and support pilot monitoring of their use at two or three locations in the project area, including monitoring of domestic and industrial load pollution at any mixing stations in the project area.
13. Reporting. The EPADP would prepare, as an element of its project reporting requirements, a series of semi-annual environmental reports that outline progress in implementation of the EMP. These reports would be prepared by the EPADP Environmental unit and provide a means for rapid review of the progress in development of the unit as well as addressing specific environmental objectives.
14. Project Supervision: The supervision plan for the proposed project would include the participation of World Bank Environmental staff in selective mission to review progress in implementation of the EMP. It is anticipated that support of these activities would draw upon MNA Environmental Specialist from Headquarters and the Resident Mission. The environmental performance of the proposed project would be included as a standard element of the supervision reports, including the Mid-Term Review and the Implementation Completion Report. The implementation of the EMP would be supervised by a Steering Committee chaired by the Chairman of EPADP. The Steering Committee would include
- 109 - representatives from MWRI, EEAA, DRI and possibly other institutions directly involved in EMP implementation. Responsibilities would be: guiding the EMP implementation progress, facilitating in institutional and legislative issues, main decisions like selection of key sub-project locations with serious environmental issues, guiding the monitoring and enforcement strategies and activities, etc. The Committee would meet twice a year. The EPADP EnvironmentalUnit would serve as the secretariat.
15. EMP Implementation Schedule and Budget. The Environmental Assessment was carried out at pre-appraisal and the draft EMP has been prepared at appraisal and the implementation schedule and budget for this component finalized at appraisal. The implementationschedule will allow EMP activities to be undertaken in a fully integrated manner with other activities to be supported by the proposed project. Preliminary cost estimates have been prepared for the EMP which include contracts for monitoring services and assistance by the DRI. Training and technical assistance to the Environmental Unit shall be through INTESPProject and NAWQAM, in addition to Government budget.
16. Various international programs and projects (especially Canadian and Dutch funded) already strongly focus on improvement of the environmental situation and the capacities of the institutions involved. The NDP-II EA report considers the main environmental issues as identified in the Water Sector Note and the EMP is in line with and strongly supports the main recommendations (regulatory measures for industries, influence of planning of domestic treatment, recommendations for re-use as result of site reviews, use and adjust water quality monitoring program, capacity building at EPADP).
EnvironmentalAction Plan
17. The Action Plan is presented as much as possible in a succession of work packages, activities and tasks built upon each other, both in time and contents. In line with the Unit's responsibilities the following work packages have been defined:
(a) management; (b) training program; (c) disseminationor environmental information exchange; and (d) assessment and mitigation.
-110- Action Plan
18. The table below contains all main activities identified for each of the work packages.
Table 1. Overview of Work Packages and Activities
Work Package Activity number Activity Links
Management a. 1 Agreements,protocols, contracts Beforeimplementation
a.2 Data informationacquisition / exchange Dependson al a.3 User needs assessment,equipment Field/lab.,cars, office specificationand procurement
TrainingProgram b. 1 Trainingprogram identification At start b.2 Training of EnvironmentalUnit Duringfirst year b.3 Environmentalissues for drainageengineers Afterb2 b.4 Environmentalissues for managersand Independent policy makers b.5 Water qualitymonitoring, data handling and Existingcourse ? QA/QC
Dissemination c. 1 Envirommentaldata/information library From start program c.2 Publicrelations: environmental news letter DuringNDP-II c.3 Publicationsby DRI Alreadyscheduled c.4 Disseminationmaterial for public See social assessment consultation
Assessmentad d. 1 Environmentalfield assessments/reviews After b3 and b4 mitigation d.2 Preparationof site specificpollution abatementplans d.3 Water quality monitoringprogram After b3 and b6 d.4 Coordinationon EA by the Unit: environmentalmitigation (see mitigation plan) d.5 Coordinationon EA by the Unit: environmentalmonitoring (see monitoring plan) d.6 Reporting
Environmental Mitigation Plan
19. The environmental mitigation plan is a result of the environmental assessment activities and covers the main identified environmental issues. Most of the issues will not be generated by the NDP-II interventions themselves, but are however related and linked to the drainage sector in general and the NDP-II command areas in specific.
20. For each environmental issue, mitigation measures are indicated, preliminary responsibilities are defined and further reference is given.
- 111 - Table 2. Environmental Mitigation Plan
NX. Env. Issue Mitigationmeasure Responsibility Remarks 1. Water quality in - monitoringdrains in general; C: DRI/Env.Unit - see preliminary general - monitoringof drains in drains, E: DRI programbelow of effluents,at mixingpoints in _ priorityareas 2. Industrialdischarge in Determine/estimate C: Env. Unit - Contactand advice drains concentration,load and impact E: DRI/EPADP/Drainage from EEAA - Advice on ComplianceAction Sectors(MWRI) - Letter from EPADP/ Plans (CAPs) MWRI - Enforceregulatory framework - see procedurebelow - Keep tight databaseof pollutionloads and violations 3. Domesticdischarge in -Determine/estimate C: Env. Unit - Contactand advice drains concentration,load and impact E: DRIlEPADP/Drainage from EEAA on priority for waste water Sectors - Contactand adviceto treatment NOPWASD on functioningof sanitary ______systems,if any
4. Unacceptablewater - advice on mnixingdrainage and C: Env. Unit - Contactand adviceto qualitydownstream irrigationcanal water; E: DRI/EPADP/Drainage MWRI,Irrigation - adviceon re-useof drain water; Sectors Sector - advice on re-use of domestic - Adviceto the waste water; Ministryof Health - adviceon sourcefor drinking 5. Dumping of solid - coverdrains alongsolid waste C: Env. Unit - about 6 km. of waste in drains sensitivestretches E: EPADP coverageis available - Contactrelevant municipalities 6. Involuntary - adviceon resettlealternatives C: Env. Unit - Contactpeople resettlementdue to - compensateaffected people E:EPADP/MPWRI affected; see social drain construction assessment(minor issue)
7. Cultural heritage - applychance find procedure C: Env. Unit - see procedurebelow (archeologicaland (if archaeologicalevidences , E: contractors - items incorporatedin historicalsites) stop activity and bring in contractorcontracts archaeologistfor detailed (probablyminor issue) survey) 8. Disposal of weeds - checksafety aspectsfor C: Env. Unit - mechanicalweed workersduring rehabilitation; E: contractors controlis applied - adviceon avoidingcontact; (thereforminor issue) 9. Ecologicallysensitive - checkif any nearby; C: Env. Unit - worksmost probably areas - define specificecological not in vicinityof this requirements type of areas (probably minor issue)
Note: C: coordination;E: execution/enforcement
21. Most of the mitigation measures are self-explaining in combination with environmental monitoring plan (see next section). The major issues concern issues related to pollution abatement. For a few issues further explanation and definition is given below.
- 112- Preliminarymonitoring strategy
22. Water quality monitoring in Egypt is carried out by various organizationswith different purposes. An overview of the responsibilitieshas been given in the Environmentalassessment Issues report. Main deficiencies in the monitoring programs concern irrigation canal water in general and drainage canal water in the Nile Valley. DRI has a continuousmonitoring effort for the drainage canals in the Nile Delta and Fayoum; this effort has special emphasis on the mixing locations. The NDP-II monitoring support would be orientedto:
- A general drainage canal monitoring component including the Nile Valley to complementthe existing gaps; funding would be organized through the NAWQAM project (Canadianfunded; recipient of the monitoring component is DRI); - A specific monitoring component in the priority drainage command areas as identifiedin the preliminary environmental assessment; funding would be found by adjusting the ongoing program where required; most of the priority areas are situated in the Nile Delta.
23. The monitoring would cover general parameters as well as pollution parameters (32 parameters). Reference is made to the full spectrum analyses by DRI at part/all of the mixing stations. The program considers maximum 10 priority areas during a period of maximum 3 years per command area and a monitoring frequency of 4 to 12 per year. The monitoring locations are related to effluents, mixing stations and other critical issues for each command area.
24. The project will support the provision of basic monitoring equipment for the monitoring activities by DRI as well as the local M&E Units of EPADP in the regions.
Enforcement
Industrial ComplianceGuidelines
25. The principal items of environmentallegislation which control industrial compliance are:
* Law 4 of 1994, Law on Protection of the Environment; * Decree of the Prime Minister 338 of 1995, Executive Statutes of the Law on Protectionof the Environment; * Law 48 of 1982, on Protection of the River Nile from Pollution; and * MinisterialDegree 8 of 1983, Implementationof Law 48/1982 by MWRI.
26. The major environmentallicensing requirement concerns for all industrial facilities:
- should comply to Law 48 and Decree 8 with respect to their effluents; - should have completed the process of environmental impact assessment (EIA). This assessment must be approved by the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA); This approval forms what is called the operatingpermit; - details of the approved EIA, including technical specifications and any attached conditions must be recorded on an official register by the facility operator. Such a register must be kept for a minimum of ten years; - the EEAA will audit the register on an annual basis and can prosecute for any non-compliant activities or emissions; - for discharges in the River Nile, canals and drains legislation requires a permit for the discharge of industrial wastewater;
- 113- - if there is any deviation from the register in the criteria or specification of any emitted pollutant, then the operator must notify the EEAA by writing with the details of this deviation and what is being done to correct it. It is up to the facility, installation or establishment to take the appropriatesamples in order to demonstrate compliance.
27. With respect to identified (either before or during NDP-II execution) industrial effluents in the NDP-II command areas the following procedure will be applied:
- industrieswill be informed concerning the above guidelines; - industries will receive a formal letter requesting for water emission data and documents; - compliancewill be analyzed with these documents and additional water quality data; - in case of non-compliance industries will be requested to draft a compliance action plan (specific measures with a planning to comply); in principle advice can be given; - EPADP will write a letter to that industry for MIWR and EEAA to enforce the Law in case of non-complianceand reluctanceto prepare a compliance action plan.
28. EPADP, whose mandate is to enforce Pollution Control Law 48, carries out monitoring and enforcement of penalties on violators of water quality standards in the main open drains. The data available indicates that between 1993 and 1999, a total of 13,673 violations were identified of which EPADP has been able to secure compliance of polluters with Law 48 in about 52% of the cases and efforts continue to ensure compliance of the outstanding violators. The project will ensure that the question of compliance of violators will be monitored by Bank supervision missions and the percentage of compliance is continuouslyincreased.
CulturalHeritage Assessment Guidelines
29. The known NDP-II project areas concern agricultural lands without known major culture heritage. Unknown heritage might be in the underground, but since subsurface drains are constructed at shallow depth, there is little chance to discoverthem during works.
30. Unknown heritage should be managed through chance find procedures (needed for unexpected discoveries of previously unknown buried sites and features during excavation and construction). Chance find procedures should include the following guidelines:
- the method and procedures to notify the cultural heritage authorities in case a find is suspected; - the waiting period required before work can resume after a chance find occurs and measures for care of found objects are implemented; - development of measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts including possible excavation or salvage operations; - monitoring of heritage sites and the use of chance find procedures; and - training in heritage conservationand managementas needed.
Guidelines for preservationof cultural heritage are being incorporated in the contracts for civil works.
Ecological sensitive areas
31. According to the environmental legislation, a permit is also required for the operation of any installation within 200m off the coast to protect marine waters. This distance has also been applied as criterion with respect to the distance to sensitive areas in NDP-I. For NDP-II the same criterion and consequenceswill be in force. This means:
-114- - check if NDP-II drainage construction works are planned within 200 m from ecologically sensitive areas; for the NDP-II program this mainly concerns the lakes along the northern coast line; - field drain installation should be limitedto the inland side of coastal drains; - if projects are planned beyond the coastal drains, environmentalassessment should be carried out prior to these works.
Site specific (local) pollution abatementplans
32. The mitigation measures under point 1 to 5 of the table 1. will be dealt with in the frameworkof site specific pollution abatement plans. These plans would be drafted for the drains in a selection of 8 to 10 NDP-Il drainage command areas.
33. The actions in the site specific pollution abatement plans will be based on the difference between the currently actual or predicted water quality in drains on one hand and legislation and for the functions acceptable (future) water quality in the other hand. Actions are:
- water quality monitoring in case of insufficient data, within the NAWQAM monitoring framework; - determinationof realistic targets for water quality improvement; - compliance of industries and./or preparation of compliance action plans (CAP' s) in line with the targets; - adjustments of the NOPWASD programme for implementation of treatment systems for domestic waste water; - coverage of drains at critical locations with solid waste disposal in drains; and - monitoring of water quality in the relevant drains will be continued to determine any changes.
34. The NDP-II interventions for the priority areas will be planned at a later stage as much as possible after drafting the site plans and (partial) implementation. With such a procedure EPADP can supply an integrated intervention, which combinestechnical (drainage) and environmental actions in one package.
EnvironmentalMonitoring Plan
General planning
35. For all identifiedenvironmental issues for which mitigation measures have been defined, we have developedclear indicators for monitoring and evaluation purposes.
-115- Table 3. EnvironmentalMonitoring Plan
Nr. Environmental Indicators Monitoring Responsibility Remarks issue frequency 1. Water quality in - Number of samples taken 4 to 12 times per DRI - agreementrequired general in priority areas; year per priority (NAWQAM EPADP/DRI/(MWRI) - Number of samples area project) analyzed; - in general: progress NAQWAM project 2. Industrial - Number of industries in 2 times per year DRI Improvementrelates to discharge in drains NDP-II areas; in progress Env. Unit industry specific - Number of letters to report indicatorsto be industries; determined - Number of violations stops; - Number of CAP's; - Number of letters from MPWRI to EEAA to industries; - improvement water quality downstream; 3. Domestic - Number of main 2 times per year DRI discharge in drains discharges in NDP-II areas; in progress Env. Unit - Number of letters (and report contact) to NOPWASD; - Number of adjusted prioritiesin master plan; .__ 4. Unacceptable Number of advice letters to 2 times per year DRI - Strictly related to water quality MWRI in progress measure 1. downstream report 5. Dumping of solid Meters of coverage along 2 times per year EPADP -budget for 6 km. waste in drains sensitive stretches in progress available report 6. Involuntary Number of people to be Determine for Env. Unit with - way and amount of resettlement due to resettled; each drain prior local drainage compensationis main drain construction Number of people resettled; to and after engineers criterion rehabilitation/co nstruction
7. Cultural heritage - Number of valuable sites Continuous Local drainage - securing any valuable (archeologicaland encountered; application of engineer site encountered is historical sites) - number of sites with action procedure main criterion of arch. Experts 8. Disposal of weeds - occasions of contact of Regular (/week) Local drainage humans to disposal engineer 9. Ecologically Sensitive area (m2) within Determine for Env. Unit Probably none sensitive areas 200 m. each area prior to construction
- 116- 36. The environmental monitoring plan will be partly executed through the environmental site reviews by DRI and EnviromnentalUnit staff. Progress will be reported in progress reports and discussed with the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will be informed in case of structural non- compliance to the EMP in order to take necessary strategic steps.
Environmentalsite reviews
37. In order to achieve a proper implementationof mitigation measures, but especially to maintain a strict monitoring on the main environmentalissues and quality control of measures, environmental site reviews by DRI and the EnvironmentalUnit would be conductedprior, during and after the interventions (at least 3x for each NDP-II priority commandarea).
38. Site reviews should be conducted according to a standard format. The format will be based on the general environmental mitigation and monitoring plans. The environmental site reviews would include the following:
- review of the current environmentalconditions at the site; - verification of the main environmental issues; - specify the EMP (especially the mitigation measures) for each NDP-II command area in case of pre-implementationreview (use general environmentalmitigation plan); - monitor the implementationof the EMP (use environmentalmonitoring plan); - provide advice on the implementationwhere required or requested; and - reporting.
Reporting
39. The followingreporting activities would be incorporated:
- for each environmental site review of an NDP-II area a standard review form should be completed; - site specific pollution abatementplans are presented in the form of reports; - the water quality monitoring programme should be reported four times a year by the implementing agency (DR[); the reports should include recommendations for the environmentalissues 2, 3 and especially 4. - in case of involuntary resettlement separate notes or reports with respect to characteristics of resettlement and compensation; - in case of unexpected cultural heritage notes or reports on characteristics and actions; and - twice per year preparation of a progress report on the environmental management plan (EMP).
40. The progress reports will be discussed during the half yearly Steering Committee meetings. The Steering Committee consists of the Chairman of EPADP, the Chairman of DRI, a representative of the MWRI and a representative of EEAA. The Environmental Unit staff will provide the logistic and secretarialservices. The responsibilityof the Steering Committee are:
- review the EMP progress during NDP-II execution; - advice on strategic and institutionalissues; - advice on adjustmentsin the implementationof the EMP, if required; and - approve the progress report and the half year planning.
- 117- The progress reports and the findings of the Steering Committee are subjected to World Bank review.
ImplementationConditions
41. Resources and materials. This listing provides an indication of the minimum required resources, human, technical and physical to carry out the EnvironmentalManagement Plan (EMP).
Table 4. Staff of the EnvironmentalUnit
Human resources Task description
At least five (5) members of staff with a chief as follows:
* Three (3) Irrigation/Drainage/Civil Provision of professional input in the Site Engineers in charge of 5 Sectors SpecificEnvironmental Reviews and EnvironmentalManagement Plan
Provision of input in communication, * One (1) Communication/GraphicsStaff graphics techniquesand effective Member (part time) presentations for Dissemination and Public Relations
* One (1) Database/GIS/AutoCADStaff Provision of input for the Unit in Member (part time) Data/InformationEntry and Conversion
* One (1) Environmental Provision of input and instruction in the Trainer/Consultant/Institutional environmental aspects of the EMP, Specialist application of environmentalinformation as well as the coaching for the EMP implementation
* One Chief Staff Member Provision of organizational and managerial functions
- 118- Table 5. Overview of hardwarerequired
Hardware Description
One (1) WorkStation consisting of a HW and SW for data/informationentry and conversion;for powerful computer,laser printers (black and mapping; for display and for presentation white color), high end A3/A4 colored printer for presentations, A3/A4 scanner, AOcolor scanner and an AOPlotter. Appropriate softwares
One (1) digital camera One (1) GPS For positioning and location marking when taking samples Four (4) field vehicles4 X 4 for For data/informationcollection, sampling and field EnvironmentalUnit and DRI observationsand environmentalassessments Five (5) sets of simple analyses and sampling Suppliedby NAWQAM project equipment for the 5 regional M&E laboratories Office equipment, furniture,etc. for EnvironmentalSub-unit;
Table 6. Support and services to the EMP implementation
Support by Description Input
Drainage Research - execution of water quality monitoring; Continuous involvement Institute - advice on mitigation measures; - preparation of site specific EMP for each priority area, including CAPs; - support to environmentalsite reviews; - reporting water quality monitoring including recommendations; - support to progress reporting; - development and contributionto environmentaland water quality training; MWRI, EEAA, -advice and legal actions In case of actions, further NOPWASD,etc. on a regular basis Senior local - regular support, phasing out after 4 years For 3 years half time, then consultant - support to format preparation for activities 2 years quart time, during - support to specific environmentalsite reviews subsequent years support - support to site specific EMP; CAP preparation upon request - support to communication - support to reporting International - process management For 3 years 2 months/year, consultant - strategic environmentaladvice then for 2 years - supervision on EA and EMP matters; lmonth/year - review reporting - advice to the Steering Committee Note: Consultancysupport is limiteddue to availablefunds
- 119- Cost estimates
The cost of the environmentalcomponent is based on:
Investments: Based on Table 5; Services: - monitoring (sampling and analyses) based on Section 2.2; it comprises 10 sites 6 times per year at 3 locations by DRI for 2 years per site; - Local services further based on Table 6; - Local services further based on Table 6;
Miscellaneous: - 2 seminars for decision makers; - 3 workshops for EPADP professionalsat central and regional level; - 10training sessions(2 at each regional office) for operation and maintenance staff; - miscellaneous cost
Table 7 comprises the tentative cost estimate for the EMP during the course of the NDP-Il programme. Separately,the cost breakdownsare attached in which also the main funds for the cost items are indicated.
Table 7. Tentative Cost Estimate
Nr. Item Unit Quantity Unitcost (US$) Cost (US $) A. Investment Laboratoryequipment L.S 5 10,000 50,000 Office equipment Set 2 10,000 20,000 Car (Env.Unit/DRI) Number 4 35,000 140,000 ______(210,000) B. Services Sampling Number 864 20 17,000 Flow measurements Number 864 50 43,000 Lab. Analyses/report Number 864 100 87,000 Preparation of Number 10 I,500 15,000 monitoring reports/ advice for follow-up Mitigation Sites 30 3,000 90,000 plan/CAPs/sitereview/ monitor implementation Final report Number I 10,000 10,000 (262,000) C. Training Developmentof Number 2 10,000 20,000 programmeand course materials Overseas visits Missions 18 4,000 72,000 Manager Workshops Staff days 30 1,000 30,000 Prof. Seminars Staff days 70 1,000 70,000 Local training Number 10 2,000 20,000 (212,000) A,B,C- 10% 68,400 Contingencies
Sub-total cost 752,400
- 120- Nr. Item Unit Quantity Unit cost (US$) Cost (US $) |Per diem Day 180 150 27,000 | Ticket Number 20 600 12,000
Local consultants Month 24 4,000 96,000 Local cost Month 36 500 18,000
Contingencies 10% 24,900
Sub-total cost 273,900
Total 1,026,300
Note: the cost items slightly deviate from the official allocations.
- Cost for equipment (US$2 10,000.-) will be born from the IBRD budget;
- Cost for sampling and analyses (US$262,000.-) may be partly covered by the Canadian NAWQAM project (still to be checked) and partly by government budget;
- Cost for training (US$212,000.-) may be born from the NAWQAM budget and government budget;
- The international component of the institutional strengthening and support to the Environmental Unit (DFL 500,000.-) will mainly be born from the Dutch funded INTESP project.
- 121 - Annex 9: Project Processing Budget and Schedule
Project Schedule Planned Actual (At finalPCD stage)
Time taken to preparethe project (months) 13 months First Bank mission (identification) 05/10/1999 05/10/1999 Appraisal missiondeparture 01/31/2000 03/12/2000 Negotiations 04/22/2000 05/2-5/3/2000 Planned Date of Effectiveness 09/30/2000 / 119
Preparedby: Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects (EPADP)
Preparation assistance: PHRD (Japan), CTF (Netherlands)
Bank staff who worked on the project included:
Name Specialty Nejdet AI-Salihi iIrriationEngineer/Civil Engineer Tijan M. Sallah Economist Jean-FrancoisBarres Agricultural Economist Rouchdy Saleh Hassan Natural ResourcesSpecialist Charles Ameur Agriculturist Ashok Subramanian Irrigation InstitutionSpecialist Concepcion del Castillo Social Scientist HishamWaly FinancialSpecialist Samia Msadek Financial Specialist Conchita Castillo Program Assistant
Annex 10: Documents in the Project File
A. Project ImplementationPlan. Includedin Annex 6 of the Project Appraisal Document. Further details will be submitted by EPADP by December 2000.
B. Bank Staff Assessments
LACI Assessmentfor Procurement Social Assessment Report EnvironmentalReport PreparationReports
- 122- Annex 11: Statement of Loans and Credits
EGYPT,ARAB REPUBLICOF A. Statementof Loans/Credits Loan/CreditAccounts List as of April 30, 2000 119 RecordsRetrieved -- Sorted by Financier,Loan Number CCY of Amountin millions (USD) Loan/Credit Financier Project ID Description Conmmit Principal Undisb Disbur Approval Date Closing Date
2430 IBRD P004982 SUEZ CANAL AUTHORITY USD 56.5 0 56.5 21-Dec-59 31-Dec-62 10620 IBRD P004994 IND./AG.RECURRENT IMP. USD 35 0 35 3-Dec-74 31-Dec-80 10640 IBRD P004995 SUEZ REHABILITATION USD 50 0 45.8 3-Dec-74 31-Dec-83 10850 IBRD P004993 TOURAHCEMENT EXPANSION USD 40 0 40 28-Jan-75 31-Dec-82 10980 IBRD P004996 RAILWAYS11 USD 37 0 35.6 20-Mar-75 30-Jun-81 12390 IBRD P005001 PORT OF ALEXANDRIA USD 45 0 41.5 6-Apr-76 31-Aug-85 12760 IBRD P004997 AGR.CR.FRUIT&VEGETABLE USD 50 0 48.6 28-May-76 31-Dec-84 12850 IBRD P004998 UPPEREGYPT DRAINAGEII USD 10 0 10 8-Jun-76 30-Jun-85 12920 IBRD P005000 IND.TEXTILESREHAB. USD 52 0 51.6 22-Jun-76 31-Mar-83 13690 IBRD P005007 ALEXANDRIAWATER USD 56 0 53.2 22-Feb-77 31-Jul-85 14390 IBRD P005002 NILE DELTADRAINAGE II USD 27 0 27 31-May-77 31-Dec-85 14400 IBRD P005002 NILE DELTA DRAINAGEII USD 12 0 12 31-May-77 31-Dec-85 14530 IBRD P005006 REGIONALELECTRIFICATION USD 48 0 46.9 9-Jun-77 31-Dec-81 14560 IBRD P005005 INDUST.IMPORT PRG II USD 70 0 67.1 14-Jun-77 30-Jun-82 14820 IBRD P005011 SUEZ CANAL EXPANSIONI USD 100 0 70.4 9-Aug-77 31-Dec-82 15330 IBRD P005010 DFC III USD 33.3 0 33.3 21-Mar-78 28-Oct-81 15335 IBRD P005010 DFC III USD 6.7 0 6.2 21-Mar-78 31-Dec-82 17320 IBRD P.005015 GULF OF SUEZ GAS USD 75 0 75 19-Jun-79 31-Dec-83 17330 IBRD P005018 POWERGENERATION USD 102 0 102 19-Jun-79 30-Jun-88 18040 IBRD P005022 (DFC V) DIB IV USD 11.6 0 11.6 11-Mar-80 6-Nov-81 18045 IBRD P005022 (DFC V) DIB IV USD 38.4 0 38 11-Mar-80 31-Dec-84 18370 IBRD P005025 TEXTILES11 USD 69 0 0 29-Apr-80 30-Sep-84 18420 IBRD P005021 DFC IV (MIDBI) USD 1.1 0 1.1 13-May-80 15-Feb-83 18425 IBRD P005021 DFC IV (MIDB I) USD 28.9 0 22.5 13-May-80 30-Jun-87 18490 IBRD P005024 PULP & PAPER USD 50 0 49.9 20-May-80 31-Dec-86 18860 IBRD P005026 THIRD POWERPROJECT USD 7 0 7 26-Jun-80 30-Jun-90 18861 IBRD P005026 THIRD POWERPROJECT USD 59 0 54.3 28-Jun-84 30-Jun-91 19280 IBRD P005030 GAS EXPLORATION USD 25 0 25 9-Dec-80 31-Dec-84 20020 IBRD P005031 HADISOLBREHABILITATION USD 64 0 64 26-May-81 30-Sep-88 20410 IBRD P005034 TELECOMMUNICATIONSIII USD 64 0 62.8 21-Jul-81 30-Jun-88 20740 IBRD P005035 DIB V/SSI USD 120 0 118.1 22-Dec-81 31-Dec-88
- 123 - CCY of Amount in millions (USD) Loan/Credit Financier Project ID Description Commit Principal Undisb Disbur Approval Date Closing Date
21030 IBRD P005036 ABU QIR GAS USD 90 0 90 23-Mar-82 30-Dec-86 21760 IBRD P005038 URBAN DEVT II USD 59 0 52.9 10-Jun-82 31-Dec-92 21830 IBRD P005037 EL DIKHEILA PORT USD 132 0 55.4 17-Jun-82 30-Jun-91 22430 IBRD P005040 AGROINDUSTRIES II USD 81.2 0 56.5 8-Mar-83 30-Jun-90 22640 IBRD P005041 VOCATIONALTRAINING USD 38 0 17.6 19-Apr-83 31-Mar-93 22700 IBRD P005039 IRRIG. PUMPING STATIONS USD 41.5 0 40.5 26-Apr-83 30-Jun-92 22800 IBRD P005042 EL DIKHEILA REINF.BAR USD 165.3 0 139.5 12-May-83 31-Dec-88 23300 IBRD P005043 ROAD MAINTENANCE USD 24 0 23 28-Jun-83 30-Jun-90 23520 IBRD P005048 REG.WATERISEWER ENG. USD 4 0 1.1 25-Oct-83 31-Dec-87 24580 IBRD P005046 SM! II USD 170 0 86.4 28-Jun-84 30-Jun-94 24590 IBRD P005045 EXPORT PROMOTION USD 125 0 47.7 28-Jun-84 30-Jun-94 24600 IBRD P005044 CONSTR. IND. USD 100 0 23.6 28-Jun-84 30-Jun-94 25610 IBRD P005049 AGRIC.DEVT. II USD 139 0 80 30-May-85 31-Mar-94 25620 IBRD P005052 DRAINAGE V USD 68 0 63 30-May-85 31 -Mar-94 25690 IBRD P005051 PORT EXPAN.& REHAB. USD 37 0 17.3 6-Jun-85 30-Jun-91 25940 IBRD P005055 VOC.TRNG.III USD 19.3 0 18.1 25-Jun-85 30-Jun-94 27320 IBRD P005060 CHANNEL MAINT. USD 70 0 27.9 26-Jun-86 30-Jun-94 29930 IBRD P005058 ALEXANDRIA WATER II USD 36 0 0 15-Sep-88 31 -Dec-96 30710 IBRD P005138 AGRICULTURE STORAGE USD 40 0 9.2 25-May-89 31-Dec-95 31030 IBRD P005097 POWER IV USD 165 0 139.9 28-Jun-89 31-Dec-95 31370 IBRD P005140 ENGINEERING & TECHNI USD 30.5 0 29.5 5-Dec-89 31-Dec-98 31980 IBRD P005149 IRRIG./PUMPING USD 31 0.7 30.3 15-May-90 15-Sep-98 33530 IBRD P005150 STRUCTURAL ADJUST. USD 300 0 150.1 21-Jun-91 30-Jun-94 33540 IBRD P005111 EG-GAS INVESTMENT USD 84 0 83.7 21-Jun-91 30-Jun-99 34170 IBRD P005146 NATIONAL DRAINAGE USD 45 4.6 40.4 26-Nov-91 31-Dec-00 34410 IBRD P005109 KUREIMAT POWER PROJE USD 220 0 21 5-Mar-92 30-Jun-99 35450 IBRD P005168 PVT SEC TOURISM INF & ENV USD 130 0 0 17-Dec-92 31-Dec-00 36050 IBRD P005168 PVT SEC TOURISM INF & ENV USD 130 8 62.5 18-May-93 31-Dec-03 37190 IBRD P005157 AGRICULTURAL MODERNI USD 54 0.1 53.9 24-Mar-94 30-Jun-01 38320 IBRD P005173 EGYPT IRRIGATION IMP USD 26.7 26.7 0 22-Dec-94 31-Dec-02 40180 IBRD P040507 POLLUTION ABATEMENT USD 20 0 0 21-May-96 31-Mar-03 3 42630 IBRD P054958 POLLUTION ABATEMENT USD 20 18.4 1.6 16-Dec-97 0-Sep-03 43860 IBRD P041410 P. S. REHAB. III USD 120 120 0 6-Aug-98 28-Feb-05 45000 IBRD P053832 PRVT SECT.& AG. DEV. USD 225 225 0 22-Jun-99 31-Dec-05 S0050 IBRD P005004 IRON ORE ENGINEERING USD 2.5 0 2.5 14-Jun-77 31-Dec-81 S0140 IBRD P005016 NEW VALLEY PHOS.ENG. USD 11 0 7.9 1-May-79 30-Jun-85 1810 IDA P004983 NILE DELTA DRAINAGE I USD 26.2 0 24.2 24-Mar-70 31-Dec-80
- 124 - CCY of Amount in millions (USD) Loan/Credit Financier Project ID Description Commit Principal Undisb Disbur Approval Date Closing Date
2840 IDA P004984 RAILWAYS I USD 30.2 0 29.2 21-Dec-71 30-Jun-80 3930 IDA P004985 UPPER EGYPT DRAINAGE USD 36 0 34.9 7-Jun-73 3 1-Jul-81 4120 IDA P004986 DFC I (BOA) USD 15 0 14.7 26-Jun-73 31-Jan-80 4230 IDA P004990 COTTON GINNING REHAB. I USD 18.5 0 18.5 24-Jul-73 31 -Dec-82 4370 IDA P004991 POPULATION USD 5 0 5 23-Oct-73 30-Jun-79 4840 IDA P004988 TALKHA UREA FERTILIZER USD 20 0 20 18-Jun-74 1-Apr-80 5240 IDA P004994 IND./AG. RECURRENT IMP. USD 35 0 35 3-Dec-74 31-Dec-80 5480 IDA P004992 TELECOMMUNICATION I USD 30 0 29.4 8-May-75 31-Dec-80 5760 IDA P004999 DFC II (BOA II) USD 25 0 25 15-Jul-75 30-Apr-81 6370 IDA P004998 UPPER EGYPT DRAINAGE 11 USD 40 0 40 8-Jun-76 30-Jun-85 6810 IDA P005003 EDUCATION I USD 25 0 23.3 22-Feb-77 31-Dec-81 7190 IDA P005002 NILE DELTA DRAINAGE 11 USD 27 0 27 31 -May-77 31-Dec-85 7740 IDA P005009 TELECOMMUNICATIONS II USD 53 0 48.2 7-Mar-78 30-Jun-84 8300 IDA P005008 SOHAG/MINUFIYA AGR.DEV.I USD 32 0 31.7 27-Jun-78 31 -Dec-84 8310 IDA P005012 URBAN DEVELOPMENT I USD 14 0 13.4 27-Jun-78 31-Dec-84 8500 IDA P005017 POPULATION 11 USD 25 0 17 5-Oct-78 31-Mar-86 8680 IDA P005014 EDUCATION II USD 40 0 36.5 19-Dec-78 31-Mar-85 9090 IDA P005019 LUXOR TOURISM DEVT. USD 32.5 0 23.1 17-May-79 31-Dec-89 9350 IDA P005018 POWER GENERATION USD 37 0 37 19-Jun-79 30-Jun-88 9880 IDA P005020 AGRO-INDUSTRY USD 45 0 43.8 1 1-Mar-80 30-Jun-88 10240 IDA P005023 GAS DISTRIBUTION USD 50 0 50 20-May-80 31-Dec-85 10520 IDA P005026 THIRD POWER PROJECT USD 120 0 120 26-Jun-80 30-Jun-89 10690 IDA P005029 EDUCATION III XDR 40.1 0 33.8 7-Oct-80 31-Dec-87 10830 IDA P005028 NEW LAND DEVT XDR 80 0 70.3 16-Dec-80 31-Dec-90 11110 IDA P005027 FISH FARMING DEVT. XDR 14 0 10.2 17-Mar-81 30-Jun-89 11560 IDA P005032 BEHEIRA PROVINCIAL W XDR 56.6 0 55.9 2-Jun-81 31-Dec-93 11620 IDA P005033 TECHNICAL ASST. CREDIT XDR 6.9 0 6.9 16-Jun-81 30-Jun-92 22760 IDA P005158 EMERGENCY SOCIAL FUN XDR 140 0 153.8 21-Jun-91 30-Jun-97 23130 IDA P005146 NATIONAL DRAINAGE XDR 75 1.4 79.6 26-Nov-91 31-Dec-00 24020 IDA P005167 TA PRIVATIZATION XDR 9 0 0.5 25-Jun-92 30-Jun-98 24030 IDA P005152 SCHISTOSOMIASIS CONT XDR 26.8 12.4 14.1 25-Jun-92 30-Jun-01 24760 IDA P005161 BASIC EDUCATION PROJ XDR 55.5 11.2 44.1 25-Mar-93 31-Dec-02 25040 IDA P005153 MATRUH RESOURCE MANA XDR 22 7.4 14.2 27-May-93 31-Dec-01 25850 IDA P005157 AGRICULTURAL MODERNI XDR 67 8.3 58.9 24-Mar-94 30-Jun-01 26720 IDA P005173 EGYPT IRRIGATION IMP XDR 53.3 36.3 11.4 22-Dec-94 31-Dec-02 28300 IDA P005163 POPULATION XDR 17.2 14.6 1.3 21-Mar-96 31-Dec-03 28650 IDA P043102 SOCIAL FUND II XDR 120 11.3 99.9 21-May-96 30-Jun-01
- 125 - CCY of Amount in millions (USD) Loan/Credit Financier Project ID Description Commit Principal Undisb Disbur Approval Date Closing Date
28660 IDA P040507 POLLUTION ABATEMENT XDR 15 0 0 21-May-96 31-Mar-03 30020 IDA P049166 EG-EAST DELTA AG.SERV. XDR 15 13.9 0.9 4-Nov-97 30-Jun-04 30240 IDA P054958 POLLUTION ABATEMENT XDR 15 13.7 0.7 16-Dec-97 30-Sep-03 30740 IDA P057704 PORT SECTOR REFORM XDR 2 2 0 15-May-98 30-Jun-00 30760 IDA P045175 EG-HEALTH SECTOR XDR 90 82.8 6 21-May-98 30-Jun-04 31270 IDA P040858 SOHAG RURAL DEV. XDR 25 24.7 0 27-Aug-98 30-Jun-05 31940 IDA P050484 SEC EDUC ENH PROG XDR 50 47.5 0 15-Apr-99 30-Jun-06 32300 IDA P052705 SOCIAL FUND III XDR 50 49 0 I-Jun-99 31-Dec-02 32540 IDA P053832 PRVT SECT.& AG. DEV. XDR 75 73.7 0 22-Jun-99 31 -Dec-05 32730 IDA P066336 SOC PROT INIT PROJ XDR 5 4.8 0 29-Jun-99 31 -Dec-04 N0080 IDA P005169 ED.ENHANCEMENTPROG. XDR 75 54.9 13.8 24-Dec-96 31-Dec-02 S0130 IDA P004987 ENGINEERING CREDIT USD 0.2 0 0 7-Nov-72 30-Nov-73 S0150 IDA P004989 TALKHA FERT. ENG. CREDIT USD 0.4 0 0 13-Jan-73 31-Mar-75 S0200 IDA P005013 WATER SUPPLY ENGINEERING USD 2 0 0.5 6-Dec-77 30-Jun-80
126 - B. STATEMENT OF IFC's Held and Disbursed Portfolio As of April, 2000
IFC Data Warehouse (Amounts in US Dollar Millions) -- IFC Held ------IFC Disbursed ------FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic Loan Equity Quasi Partic 1994/96/99 Abu Soma Develop 0.(O 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 1983/91/92/94/96/97/98 ANSDK 71.43 22.73 0.00 35.00 11.43 22.59 0.00 0.00 1996 Apache Corp. 0.00 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11 0.00 0.00 1992/97/98 Carbon Black-EGT 14.83 2.96 0.00 0.00 14.83 2.96 0.00 0.00 1999 CIL 0.00 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 1994 Club Ras Soma 3.53 2.37 0.00 0.00 3.53 2.37 0.00 0.00 1993 Cmrcl Int Bank 0.00 15.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.59 0.00 0.00 1997 ECC 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 Egypt Trust 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 1999 HC Investment 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 1986/88/92 Meleiha Oil 0.00 30.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 MGDK 0.00 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.00 0.00 1992/95 Misr Compressor 9.70 3.77 0.00 0.00 9.70 3.77 0.00 0.00 1997/99 Orascom 16.00 4.85 0.00 0.00 16.00 4.85 0.00 0.00 1996 Orix Leasing EGT 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 1997 UNI 4.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Portfolio: 155.19 97.20 0.00 35.00 95.19 65.00 0.00 0.00
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval Project Name Loan Equity Quasi Partic 1999 Allied Producers 6.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000 KIG 0.00 2.26 0.00 0.00 2000 Knowledge Acads 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 1996 ORIX Leasing EGT 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1999 Sidi Krir 70.00 0.00 0.00 122.00 1997 Unipak-Nile 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
Total Pending: 81.70 2.77 0.00 127.00
Note: Values do not reflect off-balancesheet items such as guaranteeand risk managementproducts.
Last Data Update: April 30, 2000 Run Date: May 17, 2000 - 127 - Annex 12
Egypt, Arab Rep. at a glance 9/18/98
M. East Lower- POVERTYand SOCIAL & North middle- Egypt Africa income Developmentdiamond 1997 Population,mid-year (millions) 60.3 283 2,285 Life expectancy GNP per capita (Atlas method, US$) 1,180 2,060 1,230 GNP (Atlas method, US$ billions) 71.2 583 2,818 T Average annual growth,1991-97 Population(%) 2.0 2.3 1.2 I GNP Gross Labor force (%) 2.8 3.2 1.3 GNP Gross per - primary Most recentestimate (latest year available, 1991-97) capita enrollment
Poverty (% of populationbelow national poverty line) .. Urbanpopulation (% of total population) 45 57 42 Life expectancyat birth (years) 66 67 69 Infant mortality (per 1,000live births) 51 48 36 Child mainutrition(% of childrenunder 5) 9 ,, .. Access to safe water Access to safe water (% of population) 64 71 84 Illiteracy (% of populationage 15+) 49 39 19 Gross primaryenrollment (% ofschool-age population) 100 97 ,I Egypt, Arab Rep. Male 107 102 116 Lower-middle-incomegroup Female 93 91 113 ..
KEY ECONOMICRATIOS and LONG-TERMTRENDS 1976 1986 1996 1997 Economicratios GDP(US$ billions) 13.4 35.9 67.6 75.5 Gross domesticinvestment/GDP 28.4 23.7 16.6 17.7 Trade Exports of goods and services/GDP 22.3 15.7 20.2 20.2 GrossdomesticsavingslGDP 16.7 13.8 10.8 13.0 Gross national savings/GDP .. .. 15.8 18.8 T Currentaccount balance/GDP -10.2 -9.4 1.6 0.6 Domestic Interest payments/GDP 0.5 2.4 1.5 1.0 S Investment Total debt/GDP 47.6 84.8 46.3 39.7 Svn Total debt service/exports 6.4 8.4 11.5 8.9 Presentvalue of debt/GDP .. .. 30.9 .. Presentvalue of debt/exports .. ., 105.0 Indebtedness 1976-86 1987-97 1996 1997 1998402 (averageannual growth) GDP 7.1 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.2 - Egypt Arab Rep. GNP per capita 3.7 2.3 3.6 3.1 4.0 Lower-middle-incomegroup Exportsof goodsand services 2.7 5.9 1.6 2.4 10.4
STRUCTUREof the ECONOMY 1976 1986 1996 1997 1 Growth rates of output and investment(%) (% Of GDP) 23173 7' 15 Agriculture 28.3 20.8 l7.3 17.7 Industry 26.2 26.8 31.6 31.8 o Manufacturing 16.1 13.3 24.3 25.2 9 5t 94 95 99 97 Services 45.5 52.4 51.1 50.5 -15 .7
Private consumption 58.5 69.6 78.8 76.8 -30 - General governmentconsumption 24.8 16.5 10.4 10.2 GDI - GDP Importsof goodsand services 34.0 25.6 26.0 24.9 G
197646 1987-97 1996 1997 Growthrates of exportsand imports(%) (averageannual growth) Agriculture 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.4 T Industry 8.4 4.5 4.9 4.6 lso Manufacturing .. 4.9 6.9 8.3 si Services 9.7 3.8 5.6 6.4
Private consumption 6.2 4.7 3.6 3.9 -s 93 64 95 96 97 General governmentconsumption 5.0 0.5 2.4 4.8 Gross domesticinvestment 6.9 -0.4 9.7 10.4 -10 Imports of goods and services 3.2 2.4 1.6 1.9 Exports -nmports Gross national product 6.4 4.4 5.5 6.1
Note: 1997 data are preliminaryestimates. The diamonds showfour key indicators in the country (in bold) comparedwith its income-groupaverage. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete.
- 128- 3 - 32' 34-
MEDITERRANEANSEA |BRoSor 3071
Alooaodrol~~~~~~~~~~~~KY-~~~~> hEl) KAFR EL SHAIKHPotSi TSAZIDg
ALED(4NDR<<)R TOn
,. kSIo&4 -30 ,Erm (7Oj . 1C 0 \ . ,vt w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-KNeirnPS.rsl.(21 ,') >... / koor, ~ZALRtoh, FAYOM& ElDTeb t e r n fihR& El BcfIE re(28) . / v ' ~~~~~~ElR-usETa-ir a -oeERbuos; & g,< x | /~~~~~~~~~~. EPnySubhUTHERN I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~IA SECOALMINYA i DN PROJECT -28 . d Oasis ,_ I EOStAbCEGaba OoA5 WestHJ K . ElBadwy\ 9l r.ahh A Sh JEIM-nh- aSOHAG g\t AL WAD2I | HO , El Kh.-Il oo olr Al T.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nd) /~~~~~~~~A a, NEW SUOSEPC DRAINAE INrra 0.t SEECE CU A_L JA D ID|Sugl ARA_-- B--EUU _LDO-IV-E - L-DS-1700-FDDN--l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Kf NTINA-CAITL- ba ,JEN El 0 ,0, ( 1 ElOlga@EIGharbla &>3cor~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E \ f' El~~~~~~~~~~~~-Kharg. Elm, N~~ "'r,' " SAJ /~~~~~~~~~~~~~- El Kmm:dr \ .^ El T...2 EJ,A fa 0201 40 6r 1,0 11 WJLOMF1EERS E ARABREPUBLIC OF EGYPT '{ 22 L2'2PuS AL SECONDNATIONAL DRAINAGE PROJECTr>Rwi&b2 34 e.n edt r2LEEOKf EP MIDDLEAND UPPEREGYPT/NILE VALLEY REGKON! S/A - ~x|w t-5QP~ ~15p9etttv ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~D._ EDn&kle-t i t vs6ltj2ts F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N,NtWat Fattr LIBYA ] fk AII DRAINAGE TO BE ItfPLEhtENTED: -MAIN ROADS BuhKmOb i Ap o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~RiABLTTOOF OL SUBSURFACE R 5DEIFDN GOVERNORATEBOUNDARIES cWeI-kBeoffP i -*INTERNATIONAL BOUNDAIES<; tk « s Ofre= ei r i pu $ 4 > _ ~~~~~~~~~NEWSUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN N r 2; x, _.t rAN 0 ~~~~~~~~~~OLDNEWLANDS t31000FEDDANI Lf %akeNasser z . unyenoeee v CHA 2o$'>^ ;s^/48i 132fT IBRD30871 30' 31° 32° 'A' CYPRUSC_-D SYR'AN ARABREPUBLIC OF EGYPT -3J'M S SECONDNATIONAL DRAINAGE PROJECT w M e d i t e r raon eaon Seao LOWEREGYPT/NILE DELTA REGION LIBYA NeAof M L- U . . , Cti -7~REPUBUC OFEGP ' Loke'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~keazla~Z~tSIPR 2--v~ aI A6 Q' El Bose~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-E:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MF'~aP5 ~ 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~it , , jHXR,E Kafor NEWS U BSRAEStahrTElBak P N ERN AOLDCULTIVATEDrLANDSS(273000FEDDANI AlGanauby gatr' &\\) REHABILITATIONOF OLD SUBSURFACE DRAINAGESYSTEMS (175000 FEDDANI ,n ; \4t q#/ - ik - BAR,RAGES ubra el El M'EiZ1 * DRAINAGEPUMPINGKSTATIONS K O SELECTEDCITIES GzX O GOVERNORATECAPTAIS 4 E°' ' - -. - -]< - Suez CAIRO NATIONALCAPITAL .ue - GOVERNORATEBOUNDARIES 4'qTorh\ 10 20 40 N0:30 50 t Thisosp nanprodeneda heMap DesgnUnit of heWorld Book MlARtiA M7I12} eI j-O~ KILOMETERS I I Thehoondar,ns, colors, deoomiooijons and anyother infor,ation 1 7' GulFa shannonthis mopdo netimply, enthe port of TheWond Book f%, Group,any jedgmnfontonthelegal stosfenytennry oraeny K Hmdran32'/ / Sebn'zuezo andlorsemontoremeptonce of ndsAboundaries. j 81oI. A AkroshSu a I IE't __ . i 10