Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report
Project Number: TA 7917 March 2013
Republic of Uzbekistan: Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation (Feasibility Study)
Annex 5: Economic and Financial Analysis with Supporting Tables
Prepared by Lahmeyer International in association with Info Capital Group
For the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
ANNEX 5
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group
InfoCapital Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
ANNEX 5 – ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
CONTENTS
I. PROJECT AREA ...... 1 II. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM ...... 3 A. Kuyu Mazar ...... 4 B. Kizil Tepa ...... 4 III. PUMP STATIONS ...... 6 A. Summary of Main Characteristics ...... 6 B. Energy Consumption ...... 7 C. Energy Costs ...... 9 D. Pumped Volumes ...... 11 E. Recurrent Costs ...... 13 1. Overall ABIS System ...... 13 2. Pump Station O&M ...... 13 IV. CURRENT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ...... 14 A. Cropping ...... 14 B. Farm Size ...... 14 C. Crop Yields ...... 15 D. Unit Costs of Outputs and Inputs ...... 17 1. Crop Prices...... 17 2. Mechanisation Costs ...... 18 3. Labour Costs ...... 18 4. Fertilizer and Agro-chemical Costs ...... 18 5. Border Parity Prices...... 19 6. Electricity Costs ...... 19 E. Crop Budgets ...... 21 F. Current and Future Agricultural Benefits ...... 22 V. PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 24 A. Development Options ...... 24 B. Development Costs ...... 27 C. ‘Without’ and’With-Project’ Recurrent Costs ...... 28 1. ‘Without-Project’ Scenarios ...... 28 2. Non-Energy O&M Costs ...... 29 3. Energy consumption ...... 30 VI. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...... 31 A. The ‘With’ and ‘Without-Project’ Scenarios ...... 31 B. Net Incremental Benefits ...... 33
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page i
InfoCapital Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
C. Development Costs ...... 33 1. Capital Costs ...... 33 2. Recurrent Costs ...... 34 D. Economic Analyses ...... 34 1. Cash Flows...... 34 2. EIRR ...... 34 VII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ...... 37 A. Study Area ...... 37 1. Cropping Patterns, Intensities and Yields ...... 37 B. Crop Budgets ...... 37 C. Farm Sizes ...... 38 D. Without and With-Project Situations ...... 38 E. Rate of Decline ...... 39 F. Returns per Hectare and per Holding ...... 39 G. Overall Financial Impact ...... 40
Supporting Tables
Table A.1 Cotton and Wheat. Border Parity Price Calculations Table A.2 Fertilizers. Border Parity Price Calculations Table A.3 Crop Budgets. Main analysis Table A.4 Crop budgets. Vegetables Table A.5 Crop budgets. Fruit Table A.6 Crop budgets. Fodder Table A.7 Capital costs - Khamza 1 - new(combination) Table A.8 Capital costs - Kuyu Mazar - rehabilitation Table A.9 Capital costs - Khamza 2 - rehabilitation Table A.10 Capital costs - Kizil Tepa - rehabilitation Table A.11 Capital costs - Kizil Tepa Auxiliary - rehabilitation Table A.12 Capital costs - ABMK rehabilitation Table A.13 Capital costs - SCADA Table A.14 Capital Costs - Pilot Farms Table A.15 Capital Costs - Consultancy Table A.16 Capital Costs - PMO Table A.17 Capital Costs - PIU Table A.18 WOP Decline scenario slow Table A.19 Without-project' Irrigated Areas and cropping patterns. Gradual Table A.20 Without-project' Cotton, Forage, Vegetables areas. Gradual Table A.21 Without-Project' Other crops & Wheat areas. Gradual Table A.22 Without-project' Net crop returns. Kuyu Mazar. Gradual Table A.23 Without-project' Net crop returns Kizil Tepa. Gradual Table A.24 Without-project' Net crop returns Karaul Bazar. Gradual Table A.25 Net agric returns. Gradual Without & with project non-energy PS Recurrent Costs - Table A.26 gradual decline Table A.27 Without-Project Power consumption. Gradual decline Table A.28 With -project power consumption. Gradual decline
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page ii
InfoCapital Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table A.29 Decline scenario - failure Table A.30 Irrigated Areas and cropping patterns. Failure Table A.31 Without -project'. Cotton, Forage, Vegetables areas. Failure Table A.32 Without-project'. Other crops & Wheat areas. Failure Table A.33 Without-project'. Net crop returns. Kuyu Mazar. Failure Table A.34 Without-project'. Net crop returns Kizil Tepa. Failure Table A.35 Without-project'. Net crop returns Karaul Bazar. Failure Table A.36 Without-project'. Net incremental agricultural benefits. Failure Without and with project non-energy PS Recurrent Costs - Table A.37 Failure Table A.38 Without-Project Power consumption. Failure Table A.39 With -project power consumption. Failure Table A.40 Capital cost financial phased Table A.41 Capital cost economic phased Table A.42 Cash flow. Gradual decline Table A.43 Cash flow - Failure Table A.44 Expenditure by Outputs Table A.45 Expenditure by Category Table A.46 Expenditure by Year
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page iii
InfoCapital Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
List of Tables
Table 1: ABIS Irrigated Area (ha), by Irrigation System Administrations ...... 1 Table 2: Irrigated and Cropped Areas (ha) by ABIS Irrigation Scheme – 2011 ...... 2 Table 3: Cropping Patterns and Intensities for the Study Area Irrigation Schemes ...... 2 Table 4: The ABMK System - Reach Lengths and Capacities in km and m3/s ...... 3 Table 5: Main Pump Stations within the Study Area - Summary of Main Features ...... 7 Table 6: Power Consumption 2006-2011 for Main Pump Stations with Kuyu Mazar Auxiliary, Navoi and Karaul Bazar (Mwh/Month) ...... 8 Table 7: Energy Consumption and Cost by Irrigation System (Average 2006-2011 Use at 2013 Financial Prices) ...... 10 Table 8: Current and Future Energy Consumption and Pumped Volumes for Total Study ...... 12 Table 9: Non-Energy O&M Expenditure for Main Pump Stations (UZS Million) ...... 13 Table 10: Farm Holdings in Bukhara District (Areas in ha and numbers of holdings) ...... 15 Table 11: Poor Drainage & Salinity Areas and Amelioration Activities ...... 16 Table 12: Crop Yield Assumptions, Present & Future 'With-Project' tonnes/ha ...... 17 Table 13: Summary of Agricultural Produce and Input Prices at Constant 2012 Economic and Financial Prices (UZS/Unit) ...... 19 Table 14: Summary of Net Crop Returns, Present and Future, 'With-Project', at Constant 2012 Financial and Economic Prices, UZS'000 /ha/Crop ...... 21 Table 15: Current Cropping Activity and Net Income in the Project Area ...... 23 Table 16: Total Costs Summary at Constant 2012 Financial Prices in US$ Million ...... 28 Table 17: 'With-Project' Pump Station Annual Non-Energy Costs (Full Cost Option at Constant 2012 Financial Prices in US$ Million) ...... 29 Table 18: Capital Cost Summary at Constant 2012 Economic Prices (Full Cost Option in US$ Million) ...... 33 Table 19: EIRR Summary (%) ...... 36 Table 20: Financial Returns in UZS’000/ha (2012) ...... 37 Table 21: Financial Returns/ha in ‘UZS'000 ‘Without’ and ‘With-Project’ Situations ...... 39 Table 22: Average Financial Returns per Farm in UZS '000 ‘Without’ and ‘With-Project’ Situations ...... 40 Table 23: Total With-Project Saved Financial Farm Returns & Manual Wages ...... 41
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page iv
InfoCapital Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
I. PROJECT AREA
1. Estimates of the total ABIS area vary according to source and definition, but it is generally accepted that the total net irrigable area is approximately 315,000 ha. It is mainly located within 11 districts, and one municipality, within Bukhara Region and two districts in Navoi Region.
2. For administrative purposes, the scheme is divided into five irrigation systems, four in Bukhara and one in Navoi, as detailed below in Table 1.
Table 1: ABIS Irrigated Area (ha), by Irrigation System Administrations ISA District District District Municipality Total ha Bukhara Region 275,111 Amu – Karakul Alat Karakul Jondor 21,475 25,065 33,066 79,606 Shakrud – Dustlik Bukhara Kagan Karaul Bazar Bukhara city 27,967 18,845 16,078 2,350 65,240 Kharkur – Duoba Vobkent Peshku Romitan 24,792 22,756 27,241 74,789 Toshrabod - Jilvon Gidjuvon Shafirkan 27,074 28,402 55,476 Navoi Region Toshrabod – Urtachul Kizil Tepa Karmana 32,360 7,529 39,889 Total 315,000 Source: Amu Bukhara BISA
3. These schemes comprise between two and four administrative districts each, but there is no direct correlation with these and the physical layout of the irrigation canal networks.
4. The total ABIS area can be divided into six virtually distinct networks. Three of these, Kizil Tepa, Kuyu Mazar and Karaul Bazar, are of direct concern to the Project; three other networks, serving Alat and Karakul Districts and parts of Bukhara and Jondor Districts in the south west are not of direct concern.
5. There are 16 main pump stations throughout the system; the Project is directly concerned with six pump stations whilst four others have to be taken into account. The remaining six pump stations serve the above-mentioned south-western part of the Project Area. Three of these, Yamanjar (22m3/s), Alat (42 m3/s) and Jondor I (46 m3/s), draw water which is supplied directly by gravity from the Amu Darya River, via the early reaches of the ABMK and upstream of the Khamza pumps. Three other Stage 2 and 3 pumps, Karakul, Jondor II and Jondor III pump the water to higher elevations and together these six pump stations irrigate approximately 70,000 ha in Alat, Karakul, Jondor (part) and Bukhara (part) Districts. Interventions under this Project are unlikely to have any significant impact on this area.
6. Currently it is estimated that the Project Area of concern to this Study is approximately 250,000 ha of net irrigable land, of which 240,000 ha are irrigated and 10,000 ha lie fallow. It is understood that the Navoi Pumping Station which in the past
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 1
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
irrigated around 8,500 ha, is planning to irrigate around 16,200 ha after the station has been rehabilitated.
7. Table 2 provides estimates of the irrigated areas for all the distinct irrigation networks within ABIS and the cropping activity. The data are also broken down by district.
Table 2: Irrigated and Cropped Areas (ha) by ABIS Irrigation Scheme – 2011
Net Irrigated Cropped System District Cotton Wheat Veg Fodder Other Fallow irrigable Area Area area Yamanjar Alat 620 250158 135 115 42 700 4 624 Karakul 3,739 1,541 917 896 337 295 3,985 33 3,772 Total 4,360 1,7911,075 1,031 452 337 4,685 36 4,396 Alat/ Alat 16,873 6,8034,302 3,666 3,125 1,142 19,038 99 16,972 Karakul Karakul 19,641 8,093 4,815 4,706 1,770 1,548 20,931 172 19,813 Total 36,514 14,896 9,117 8,371 4,895 2,690 39,969 272 36,786 Jondor Bukhara 3,976 1,562 792 763 651 563 4,332 97 4,073 Jondor 20,163 8,785 3,800 3,434 3,172 1,893 21,085 864 21,027 Alat 3,786 1,527965 823 701 256 4,272 22 3,809 Karakul 1,568 646 384 376 141 124 1,671 14 1,581 Total 29,493 12,520 5,942 5,396 4,666 2,836 31,360 997 30,490 Outside Total 70,367 29,208 16,134 14,797 10,012 5,863 76,014 1,305 71,672 Study Area Kizil Tepa Vobkent 20,168 8,166 5,874 4,018 2,416 1,794 22,268 54 20,222 Peshku 22,629 9,855 5,486 4,698 2,777 2,262 25,078 287 22,916 Gidjuvan 26,931 10,300 4,731 6,635 3,133 3,398 28,197 1,229 28,160 Shafirkan 28,047 10,220 6,644 5,345 6,644 3,229 32,082 814 28,861 Kizil Tepa 29,882 8,880 10,224 4,134 4,208 2,588 30,035 4,448 34,330 Karmana 8,258 2,775 3,467 540 1,506 495 8,783 0 8,258 Total 135,915 50,196 36,426 25,370 20,685 13,766 146,443 7,561 143,476 Kuyu Mazar Vobkent 4,554 1,844 1,326 907 546 405 5,028 12 4,566 Romitan 27,184 12,100 6,480 4,546 3,489 2,807 29,422 771 27,955 Bukhara 23,691 9,308 4,720 4,549 3,881 3,357 25,814 577 24,268 Kagan & 18,819 7,120 5,176 2,533 4,252 1,569 20,650 319 19,138 city Bukhara 2,327 300 330 877 366 632 2,505 3 2,330 city Jondor 12,542 5,465 2,364 2,136 1,973 1,178 13,115 537 13,079 Total 89,117 36,136 20,396 15,548 14,506 9,947 96,534 2,220 91,336 Karaul Karaul 15,907 5,715 6,335 1,105 4,476 186 17,817 970 16,877 Bazar Bazar Within Total 240,939 92,047 63,157 42,023 39,667 23,899 260,794 10,750 251,689 Study Area Total ABIS Total 311,306 121,255 79,291 56,820 49,679 29,762 336,808 12,055 323,361 area Source: District Agric. Offices
Table 3: Cropping Patterns and Intensities for the Study Area Irrigation Schemes
Cotton Wheat Veg Fodder Other Cropped Area
Yamanjar 41% 25% 24% 10% 8% 107% Alat/ Karakul 41% 25% 23% 13% 7% 109% Jondor 42% 20% 18% 16% 10% 106% Kizil Tepa 37% 27% 19% 15% 10% 108% Kuyu Mazar 41% 23% 17% 16% 11% 108% Karaul Bazar 36% 40% 7% 28% 1% 112% Within Study Area 38% 26% 17% 16% 10% 108% Total ABIS area 39% 25% 18% 16% 10% 108% Source: Present Study, 2013
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 2
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
II. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
8. The ABMK canal system is very extensive and details of the various reaches are presented in Table 4 below. These do not include offtakes from the main canal serving areas such as Alat, Karakul or Karaul Bazar, nor do they extend beyond the Zarafshan River/Shakhrud Canal. The measurements are approximate.
Table 4: The ABMK System - Reach Lengths and Capacities in km and m3/s
Other Capacity Reach Cumulative Reach name (m3/s) length (km) length (km) Amu Darya River to Dvoynik ABMK 328 17 17 structure (PK 137) Dvoynik structure to first division ABMK (PK 828) - Northern branch 150 67 84 - Southern branch 135 66 150
First junction to Karaul Bazar offtake ABMK 236 41 191 Karaul Bazar offtake to Tudakul ABMK 212 29 220 diversion (Troynik – PK 1520)) Tudakul diversion to Kuyu Mazar PS ABMK 1 60 18 238 Kuyu Mazar PS to Zarafshan River, Shakhru Khachkab Diversion (PK 1796) d 100 10 248 branch Tudakul diversion to Kizil Tepa PS ABMK 2 152 38 286 Kizil Tepa PS to Zarafshan River - West branch to Kharkhur Kharkur Barrage 40 15 310 branch
- East branch to Tashrabad Shafrika Barrage, Rostguy & Jilvan n 69 27 328 branch Other short reaches (approx) 7 335
Source: Present Study 2013
9. Regarding the irrigation areas within the above mentioned 250,000 ha, there are two main systems, Kuyu Mazar and Kizil Tepa and one minor one, Karaul Bazar.
10. All the water, apart from that supplied by the Zarafshan River, serving the above mentioned 250,000 ha is initially pumped at Stage 1 from the ABMK canal via three pump stations, Khamza 1 (64 m3/s), Khamza 1 Auxiliary (45 m3/s) and Khamza 2 (135 m3/s).
11. The water then flows along the next reaches of the ABMK until it reaches its first significant offtake, Karaul Bazar. (There is a small offtake prior to this at Yangiabad, with peak period flows of around 2m3/s). Two Stage 2 pump stations, Drujba (or Dustlik) (10 m3/s) and Karaul Bazar (18 m3/s), which are in good condition, draw water from the right bank of the ABMK and serve approximately 16,000-17,000 ha in Karaul Bazar District. As these
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 3
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis pumps rely on water supplied by the Khamza pump stations they could be impacted by any Project activities related to the Khamza pump stations.
12. Further downstream along the ABMK, the water is divided at the large Troinik division structure near to the Tudakul Lake, with part, along the ABMK 1 or Shakhrud Branch (60 m3/s) feeding the two Stage 2 pump stations of Kuyu Mazar and Kuyu Mazar Floating Replacement (or Kuyu Mazar Auxiliary) pump station (under construction). The remaining part flows along the ABMK 2 or Karkhur Branch (153 m3/s or 95 m3/s, depending on data source), feeding the two Stage 2 Kizil Tepa pump stations. From this division structure near Tudakul Lake, there is also a 100 m3/s channel which can divert water into the Tudakul Lake, during periods when irrigation water requirements are low and there is an opportunity to store water for later use.
A. Kuyu Mazar
13. The Kuyu Mazar pump station (100 m3/s) comprises two sets of pumps, as follows:
(i) One set (60 m³/s) which pumps water along the Shakhrud Canal (100m3/s) (ii) One set (40 m3/s) which pumps water into the Kuyu Mazar Lake along another canal (60 m3/s); this set cannot be used to pump water to the Shakhrud canal
14. Upstream of this station a floating pump station (35 m3/s) was constructed, to supplement the capacity of the main station. This station is currently being replaced by a conventional pump station, of similar capacity to the old one. This station, as can the main station, pumps water from the Shakhrud Branch plus any water released from the Kuyu Mazar Lake.
15. The initial capacity of the Shakhrud Branch (from the Tudakul diversion structure) is 60 m3/s whilst its capacity downstream of the pumping stations is 100 m3/s. Additional supplies, to supplement the volumes diverted at the Tudakul structure, can be drawn from the Kuyu Mazar Lake, when up to around 40 m3/s can be fed back, by gravity, into the AMBK 1 canal upstream of the pump stations, during peak requirement periods. Tudakul Lake can also supplement supplies.
16. The Shakhrud Canal (the final reach of the ABMK 1) eventually terminates at the Khachkab cross regulator. At this point water is sent either along the Northwest Branch, towards Vobkent, Peshku and Ramitan Districts or westwards along the continuation of the Shakhrud canal (which is now the final reach of the Zarafshan River) to supply Bukhara and Kagan Districts. These two canals supply approximately 89,000-91,000 ha in the Kuyu Mazar scheme. Other estimates indicate a total service area of around 97,000 ha.
B. Kizil Tepa
17. The Kharkur Branch or ABMK 2 (153 m3/s) feeds the Stage 2 Kizil Tepa (105 m3/s) and Kizil Tepa Auxiliary (36 m3/s) pump stations. From the main station the water can be sent in two directions as follows:
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 4
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
(i) A 40 m3/s discharge pipe feeds the continuation of the Kharkhur Branch of the AMBK 2 until it reaches the Zarafshan river, at the Kharkhur cross regulator. Here the water flows along the Vobkentdarya canal (towards Vobkent and Peshku – 43,000 ha) or down the Zarafshan river on its way towards the above-mentioned Khachkab cross regulator. (ii) A 65 m3/s discharge pipe feeds two canals, the Urtachul Canal (11 m3/s) to supply parts of Kizil Tepa District and the Shafrikan Canal (69 m3/s), which, after the Rostguy regulator located at the point where the canal meets the Zarafshan River, supplies Gidjuvan, Kizil Tepa and Shafrikan Districts. The total area served lies between 85,000 ha and 92,500 ha. Part way along the Shafrikan Branch there is an offtake to serve a Stage 3 pump station Navoi (18 m3/s) which irrigates around 8,500 ha (or 16,200 ha in future) in Karmana and Kiziltepa District. This pump station is currently being rehabilitated.
18. The Kizil Tepa Auxiliary pump station (38 m3/s) provides year round and peak period pumping capacity to supplement the output from the main station along the Shafrikan Branch.
19. Overall, the two Kizil Tepa pump stations supply irrigation water to approximately 135,000-142,000 ha in the Kizil Tepa scheme.
20. The precise areas served by each Stage 2 or Stage 3 pump station are not entirely clear, and some areas can receive water from both the Kuyu Mazar and the Kizil Tepa pump stations.
21. The Zarafshan River into which/across which the Shafrikan, the Kharkur and Shakhrud canals pass, acts as connector between the two main irrigation systems. There is also a canal running from the Kuyu Mazar Lake which can supply small quantities of water by gravity to Alat and Karakul Districts.
22. Gravity supplies from the Zarafshan River, either directly or via the Shorkul reservoir, supplement pumped supplies from the ABMK. The estimated total annual contribution from the Shorkul Reservoir is around 74 Mm3 or 1.5% of total ABMK supply. Other supplies directly from the river vary significantly between years, total volumes ranging from 120 to around 700 Mm3. These represent from between 3% and 15% of average ABMK flows
23. The Tudakul Lake and the Kuyu Mazar Lake are used for storage, with water being pumped in during months when there is surplus available, beyond that needed for irrigation and leaching. The Kuyu Mazar Lake stored water is used to supply drinking water to Kagan and Bukhara districts (via another pump not included in the 16 mentioned above) and to supplement the flow in the Shakhrud Branch, which is insufficient to provide enough irrigation water during peak periods in June, July and August and at other times. Average extraction flows at peak times in 2011 were around 44 m3/s. Supplies are also extracted from the Tudakul Lake to both the Kuyu Mazar and Kizil Tepa pump stations; high salinity levels constrain the amounts which can be used. Nevertheless records indicate that during July and August, 2011, the average extraction rate was around 66 m3/s.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 5
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
24. There are also numerous direct offtakes from the ABMK to service small pockets of irrigated land lying alongside or near to the main canal alignment. Peak month extraction, throughout the whole network, is estimated at around 8 m3/s.
25. There are approximately 200 smaller pumps (m3/s) operated by ABIS, used to raise water within the irrigation areas, mostly in Shafirkan, Gidjuvan and Vabkent Districts.
26. There are also around 600 pumps, of which about half operated in 2011, used to drain surplus water; these are located mainly in Bukhara, Kagan, Shafirkan, Gidjuvan and Vabkent Districts. Total annual energy costs for these are approximately US$ 3 M. Some farmers also use pumps to ensure water reaches those areas which the main system is unable to supply.
III. PUMP STATIONS
A. Summary of Main Characteristics
27. The main characteristics of the ten pump stations to be considered under this Study are summarised in Table 5 below. Attention is drawn to the 2011 records of pump usage; it will be noted that the Khamza 1 and Kuyu Mazar pumps, in particular, have clocked up enormous usage. The Kizil Tepa pumps, which were installed some ten years afterwards, have worked far fewer hours, and average annual use is also less than at the Kuyu Mazar Pump Station.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 6
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 5: Main Pump Stations within the Study Area - Summary of Main Features
Pump Station Pumps Pump Installed Maximum Instal- Life-time Annual Power Vol. (nr) capacity total dynamic lation use up use (Ave Used (Total (m3/sec/p capacity lift (m) date to 2011 annual (Mwh/ Mm3/yr ump) (m3/s) (year) (Ave hr/ yr 2011) total hrs/ pump) 2011) pump) 1 Khamza 1 8+1 8.4 64 51 1963 201,000 4,300 159 700 2 Khamza 26+4 1.5 40 55 1982 28,000 930 6 25 Auxiliary Total 1+2 - - 104 - - - - 165 725 3 Khamza 2 9+1 15.5 135 54 1974 176,000 4,750 612 2,800 Total 1, 2, 3 - - 239 - - - - 777 3,525 4 Kuyu Mazar To Shakrud 3 20 60 24 1965 211,000 4,489 To Kuyu Mazar 117 1,400 3 20 40/60 20 1965 294,000 6,255 Res 5 Kuyu Mazar 12 3.3 35 24 2012 - - 39 460 Auxiliary Total 4+5 - - 135/155 - - - - 156 1,860 6 Kizil Tepa To Karkhur 4 15 46 48 1975 77,000 2,080 386 1,650 To Shafrikan 6 15 63 74 1975 120,000 3,250 7 Kizil Tepa 22+4 1.5 33 75 1982 21,000 700 23 90 Auxiliary Total 6+7 36 - 142 - - - - 409 1,740 8 Navoi 10+2 1.5 18 65 2013 47 160 Total 6, 7, 8 160 456 1,900 9 Drujba 12 1.5 10 58 1982 - - 13 60 10 Karaul 1997/2 5 4 22 56 - - 55 250 Bazar 012 Total 9+10 - - 32 - na - - 68 310
Total Stage 1 - - 239 - na - - 777 3,525 Total Stage 2/3 na Na 327/357 - na - - 680 4,070 Source: ABIS
B. Energy Consumption
28. Table 6 summarises the average monthly energy consumption for the ten priority pump stations for 2006 to 2011. It indicates that the average total power consumption for the 250,000 ha within the Project Area was 1,517,000 MWh, or around 6,000 kWh/ha. It also provides estimates of the average peak month volumes of water pumped for each pump station, based on assumed pump set efficiencies.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 7
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 6: Power Consumption 2006-2011 for Main Pump Stations with Kuyu Mazar Auxiliary, Navoi and Karaul Bazar (Mwh/Month)
Pump Station Khamza Khamza 1 Total Khamza Total Kuyu Kuyu Total Kizil Kizil Tepa Navoi 1/ Total Total Total Drujba Karaul Total Total 1 Auxiliary Khamza 2 Stage 1 Mazar Mazar Kuyu Tepa Auxiliary Kizil Stage 2 Stage 1 Bazar Karaul 1 Auxiliary Mazar Tepa and 2 Bazar
January 8,919 - 8,919 42,612 51,531 9,782 3,287 13,069 26,282 42 26,324 39,393 90,923 99 448 548 91,471
February 8,595 - 8,595 39,105 47,700 8,432 2,794 11,226 17,483 34 17,516 28,742 76,442 512 1,920 2,432 78,874
March 9,331 - 9,331 35,855 45,186 7,561 2,004 9,565 25,129 240 25,369 34,934 80,120 585 5,992 6,577 86,698
April 8,020 896 8,917 45,546 54,463 6,924 2,863 9,786 28,642 1,976 30,617 40,404 94,867 1,566 7,092 8,658 103,524
May 13,451 2,538 15,988 63,458 79,446 8,814 3,098 11,912 35,198 4,668 3,319 43,185 55,097 134,544 1,606 6,013 7,620 142,164
June 22,538 4,219 26,756 71,034 97,790 11,280 4,649 15,929 47,207 4,959 7,509 59,676 75,604 173,395 1,809 5,084 6,893 180,288
July 26,327 5,511 31,838 81,387 113,225 16,479 5,975 22,454 69,539 13,490 11,815 94,845 117,298 230,523 2,584 7,764 10,348 240,871
August 24,962 3,762 28,724 79,324 108,048 16,702 4,265 20,967 66,898 7,238 10,346 84,482 105,448 213,496 2,037 7,228 9,264 222,761
September 13,872 918 14,790 61,610 76,400 8,897 4,125 13,022 33,164 457 10,015 43,635 56,657 133,058 557 3,276 3,833 136,890
October 10,714 849 11,563 47,655 59,217 6,446 2,090 8,536 22,554 30 3,696 26,280 34,816 94,033 334 5,241 5,575 99,608
November 11,362 408 11,770 37,314 49,084 3,796 1,515 5,311 15,944 32 15,976 21,287 70,371 376 3,841 4,217 74,588
December 7,700 216 7,916 34,597 42,513 4,735 2,121 6,856 9,986 41 10,027 16,883 59,397 85 494 579 59,975
Total 165,791 19,317 185,107 639,497 824,605 109,847 38,786 148,633 398,025 33,207 46,700 477,931 626,564 1,451,169 12,150 54,393 66,543 1,517,712
Ave July/Aug 25,645 4,637 30,281 80,356 110,637 16,590 5,120 21,710 68,218 10,364 11,081 89,663 111,373 222,010 2,311 7,496 9,806 231,816 2006-2011 Ave m3/s in July/Aug 2006- 48 9 56 146 202 85 26 111 109 14 15 137 248 4 14 19 2011 (24 hrs/day pumping) Average 2006- 165,791 19,267 185,057 639,336 824,393 109,863 38,786 148,649 398,025 33,106 46,700 477,830 626,480 1,450,873 12,051 54,293 66,344 1,517,217 2011 Source: Present Study, 2013
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 8
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
C. Energy Costs
29. Table 7 summarises the energy consumption and cost of supplying irrigation water to the various schemes within the Project Area. At early 2013 financial prices, average cost of irrigating areas in Kuyu Mazar, which requires two pumping stages to a combined head of around 75 m, was around UZS 531,000/ha. To those areas irrigated by the Navoi pump station, requiring three lifts to a combined total head of around 195 m, the average cost was about UZS 1,310,000/ha.
30. Currently, many of the pumps have reached a point where the combined pump and motor efficiencies give an overall operating efficiency of around 72%. New pumps are expected to have an initial combined pump and motor efficiency of 87.4%. After around 10 years, assuming that the units have been adequately maintained, it is anticipated that efficiencies will start to fall and at Project Year 25 years it is anticipated that the new pumps will be operating at around 95% of as-new efficiency. Initial savings in energy consumption resulting from improved efficiency would be approximately 17%.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 9
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 7: Energy Consumption and Cost by Irrigation System (Average 2006-2011 Use at 2013 Financial Prices) Area Energy Consumption Energy Cost Irrigation Irrigated area Stage 1 Stage 2/3 Total Per/ha Stage 1 Stage 2/3 Total Per ha Per ha System % in ha % in Mwh Mwh Mwh Mwh UZS m UZS m UZS m UZS m US$ (official scheme total ex) Karaul Bazar 100% 15,907 7% 54,427 66,344 120,771 7.59 5,682 6,926 12,608 792.6 396 Kuyu Mazar 100% 89,117 37% 304,921 148,649 453,571 5.09 31,834 15,519 47,353 531.4 266 Kizil Tepa - Khakhur 33% 45,305 19% 155,015 113,552 268,567 5.93 16,184 11,855 28,038 618.9 309 - Shafrikan 61% 82,352 34% 281,775 288,635 570,409 6.93 29,417 30,133 59,551 723.1 362 - Navoi 6% 8,258 3% 28,255 75,643 103,899 12.58 2,950 7,897 10,847 1313.5 657 Kizil Tepa 135,915 56% 465,045 477,830 942,875 6.94 48,551 49,885 98,436 724.2 362 Total Total 240,939 100% 824,393 692,823 1,517,217 6.30 86,067 72,331 158,397 657.4 329
Source: Table 2 Table 6 Ex Rate 2000 Source: ABMK Bukhara and Consultants Estimates
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 10
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
31. Appendix Tables A.26 and A.27 provide details of future ‘with’ and ‘without- project’ energy consumption, over a 25 year period, for the Project options where a ‘without- project’ gradual decline is assumed, and Appendix Tables A.37 and 38 where it is assumed that pumps will begin to fail totally. Details of the alternative design scenarios are provided in Section VI.
D. Pumped Volumes
32. Official data are available on the monthly consumption of electricity for the 10 pump stations for 2006 to 2011. Estimates of volumes pumped are also provided. Using the standard formula, based on the power consumption, for some stations it would only be possible to achieve some of the stated flows if the pumps were operating at very high efficiency levels. This is clearly not the case and in Table 8 alternative volume estimates are presented.
33. It will be noted, however, that overall the differences are very minor, and could well have resulted from the use of different values for pumping heads. The calculated volumes (and possibly the reported volumes) assume that all the power consumed is used for pumping – in reality, some power, estimated at around 3%, is used for other purposes or wasted. In the context of the general levels of accuracy this is not considered to be of major significance, but actual volumes might be marginally less than the calculations indicate.
34. Table 8 summarises various estimates of the flows at Stage 1 and Stage 2. The higher flows at Stage 2 are explained by the fact that, during peak periods, stored water is extracted from the Kuyu Mazar and Tudakul Lakes, some of this is pumped twice by the Kuyu Mazar pump stations.
35. It is concluded that in the ‘with-project’ situation, for each pump station replaced or rehabilitated, similar volumes of water to those currently pumped will need to be pumped in the future. Where new pumps are installed they will supply similar volumes, but use less energy.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 11
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 8: Current and Future Energy Consumption and Pumped Volumes for Total Study
Present situation With project With- Energy Pumping Reported Calculated Likely Likely New New Irrigated Water use project' Total Unit cost area per ha 2/ efficiency Used head volume efficiency check efficiency volume efficiency Mwh used cost 1/ factor m3 Mwh UZS m UZS/kwh metres m3 m % % m3 m % Mwh ha m3'000/ha million Stage 1 - Khamza 1 165,791 17,309 104.4 55 901 81% 896 72% 796 87% 136,578 82.4% - Khamza I Auxiliary 19,267 2,011 104.4 55 118 91% 117 72% 93 87% 15,872 82.4% - Khamza 2 639,336 66,747 104.4 56 3,061 73% 3,058 72% 3,017 87% 526,684 82.4% Total Stage 1 824,393 86,067 4,080 4,071 3,906 679,134 Stage 2 - Karaul Bazar 54,293 5,668 104.4 60 292 86% 287 80% 266 80% 54,293 100.0% - Drujba 12,051 1,258 104.4 60 48 67% 49 80% 59 80% 12,051 100.0% Total Karaul Bazar 66,344 6,926 340 336 325 66,344 15,907 20.4 - Kuyu Mazar 109,863 11,470 104.4 20 1,449 72% 1,451 72% 1,451 87% 90,505 82.4% - Kuyu Mazar Auxiliary 38,786 4,049 104.4 20 405 57% 406 72% 512 87% 31,952 82.4% Total Kuyu Mazar 148,649 15,519 1,854 1,857 1,964 122,457 89,117 22.0 - Kizil Tepa 398,025 41,554 104.4 61 1,727 74% 1,772 72% 1,724 87% 327,892 82.4% 127,657 13.2 - Kizil Tepa Auxiliary 33,106 3,456 104.4 75 95 60% 97 72% 117 87% 27,272 82.4% - Navoi 46,700 4,875 104.4 65 160 61% 160 61% 160 87% 32,487 8,258 19.4 69.6% Total Kizil Tepa 477,830 49,885 1,982 2,029 2,001 387,651 135,915 14.7 Total Stage 2 692,823 72,331 4,177 4,222 4,289 576,452
Total Stage 1+2 1,517,217 158,397 8,257 8,294 8,195 1,255,587 Source: ABMK Note 1/ March 2013 prices in UZS/kwh 104.4 2/ includes volumes double pumped
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 12
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
E. Recurrent Costs
1. Overall ABIS System
36. Details are provided in the O&M Arrangements Report regarding the overall recurrent costs incurred on the whole ABIS area, including the power and other O&M costs incurred at the pump stations. The costs of the ABMK canal entry dredging are also included.
37. If the pumping power costs for the six project pump stations are excluded, the remaining costs covering the O&M of ABMK, the main pump stations, and the irrigation and drainage system average out for the whole of the 315,000 ha ABIS system at around $50/ha or UZS 100,000/ha. This estimate does not include the WUA costs utilised to finance field level O&M; these costs are, however, included as farmers’ costs within the crop budget calculations.
2. Pump Station O&M
38. Table 9 summarises the non-energy O&M costs for the six priority pump stations, from 2009 to 2011. Expenditure data are divided into three general categories, capital, ‘other’ and salaries. The capital costs mostly indicate slight increases over years, but in the ‘other’ category there is little consistency. It is suggested, therefore, to use the averages for the three year period rather than that for the latest year. For these two categories, total annual average cost is approximately UZS 2,550 M or US$1.28 M for all six pump stations. Where any of the pumps in these pumps stations are replaced, it is assumed that these costs will no longer be incurred, but will be replaced by new costs related to the capital value of the new equipment. It is further assumed that the salaries cost will remain as at present.
39. It will be noted that there is no consistent evidence of a rising trend in O&M costs for the six pump stations or for all pumps included under the ABISOA budget. If the same overall costs are examined over the 2007 – 2011 period, there is also no significant upward trend.
Table 9: Non-Energy O&M Expenditure for Main Pump Stations (UZS Million)
Total Capital Other Capital Salaries & Other 2009 2010 2011 Average 2009 2010 2011 Ave. Ave. 2011
Khamza 1 372 348 297 339 42 101 29 57 396 165 Khamza 1 Aux 88 113 143 115 3 28 7 13 127 174 Khamza 2 355 394 433 394 21 142 42 68 462 205 Kuyu Mazar 160 172 183 172 155 393 32 193 365 124 Kizil Tepa 368 383 368 373 778 75 - 284 657 242 Kizil Tepa Aux 144 133 147 141 572 625 - 399 540 170 - Total 1 487 1 543 1 571 1 534 1 571 1 364 110 1 015 2 549 1 080 Source: ABMK
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 13
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
IV. CURRENT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY
A. Cropping
40. Table 3 summarises current (2011) cropping patterns for the whole ABIS area, and provides a breakdown for all irrigation systems, three of which are of direct concern to this Study.
41. A wide range of crops are grown with state-controlled cotton and wheat representing approximately 39% and 26% of the total cropped area respectively. It is believed that the area statistics for these crops are accurate. Approximately half the wheat area, after harvest, is used to grow short-term ‘secondary’ crops, and virtually all the non-wheat land which is not occupied by cotton or perennial crops is also used to grow seasonal crops. For the overall ABIS area, approximately 10% of the irrigated area is covered by perennial crops (grapes, mulberry, other fruit) From the data provided it can be calculated that overall cropping intensity is approximately 108% (if perennial crops are counted as a single crop) or 118% (if perennial crops are considered as 200% intensity).
42. Cropping patterns and intensities vary between the schemes within ABIS, and details are provided in the above mentioned table. If account is taken of the detailed crop breakdowns of ‘secondary’ crops and of the large area described as ‘homestead’, vegetables represent approximately 18% of the overall cropped area. (Predominantly potatoes, tomatoes, melons, carrots, onions, cabbage and cucumbers). This is a high percentage and one which was not immediately obvious during cursory field visits. Fodder crops, comprising mainly short and long term pasture, lucerne and maize silage, represent approximately 16% of the cropped area.
43. No significant changes can be detected from the cropping data over recent years, and similar patterns are envisaged for the future
B. Farm Size
44. Table 10 provides estimates of the number of farms by size class, based on data provided for Bukhara Region. Data are also presented in the ‘District Passports’ on the numbers of holdings in three size classes, micro-farms which are smaller than 50 ha, small farms which are between 50 and 100 ha, and large farms which exceed 100 ha. Within the districts included in the Study area there were a total of 3,455 holdings in 2012; within the 205,000 ha Study Area which lies within Bukhara Region it is estimated that there around 3,070 holdings. Average holding size is thus around 67 ha.
45. It has not been possible to determine average holding size within each size category, but it is estimated that there are approximately 2,130 micro-holdings, 920 small farms and 20 large farms within the Bukhara Region Study Area. Data from the two Navoi Region ‘District Passports’ do not match that for Bukhara Region and have not been included; it is anticipated that farm size distribution would be similar in the two Regions.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 14
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
46. For analysis purposes it has been assumed that three typical farm sizes would be 50 ha, 100 ha and 200 ha. The number of farms has reduced dramatically over recent years; in 2007 there were over 15,000 holdings in Bukhara Region, currently there are fewer than 4,000. The trend appears to be continuing.
Table 10: Farm Holdings in Bukhara District (Areas in ha and numbers of holdings) Within Bukhara District Agricultural Micro Small Large District Total holdings Area holdings farms farms
ha nr nr nr nr Bukhara 27,390 369 159 11 539 Romitan 27,955 424 6 0 430 Jondor 34,106 327 183 0 510 Kagan 19,138 148 112 0 260 Vobkent 24,788 270 95 0 365 Peshku 22,916 203 203 2 408 Shafrikan 28,861 444 35 1 480 Gidjuvan 28,160 155 161 7 323 Karaul Bazar 16,877 56 84 0 140 Total 230,191 2,396 1,038 21 3,455
Source: District ‘Passports’
C. Crop Yields
47. Comprehensive yield data are available for cotton. At around 3.2 tons/ha for seed cotton, Bukhara Region produces some of the highest yielding cotton in the country. Such a yield is, however, well in excess of what would be expected if the official estimates of soil quality characteristics of the Bukhara soils are accurate. The weighted soil quality score (Bonitet), in 2004, was 50; anticipated average seed-cotton yields for such land is around 2.0 tonnes/ha. First indications are that the soil quality classification is somewhat pessimistic.
48. At 6.0 tons/ha for wheat, the results again are good and compare favourably with yields elsewhere in the country and with those in many other countries; such yields further support that the contention that the natural soil fertility levels are better than the official classification might suggest. It is possible that this average yield understates the actual yield. For vegetables, fruit and fodder, yield levels appeared to be similar to those achieved elsewhere.
49. Care must be taken to distinguish between those areas where no significant salinity, water-logging or water shortage constraints exist and those which have such problems. According to official statistics, in 17% of the 275,000 ha in Bukhara region, groundwater levels were at 2 m or less during July 2011. For the same period only 62% of the area had groundwater with salinity levels below 3 gr/litre. In general terms, however, about 12% of the total area is classified as having unsatisfactory cropping potential, on grounds of salinity and high groundwater.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 15
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
50. In the ‘with-project’ situation it is assumed that most farmers will continue to adopt similar cropping activities and achieve similar results as they do at present. No project-induced improvements have been assumed for the future situation. It would be premature to speculate what improved cropping practices might emerge from the activities proposed for the Pilot Demonstration Farms and to what extent these might be applied in the Study Area. Drainage and salinity problems currently exist, but interventions under the ADB’s Land Improvement Project and the Government funded Amelioration Programme are being implemented and these should soon be having an impact, in both the ‘with’ and ‘without-project’ situations. The impact has been incorporated in the analysis in terms of the reduction in the percentage of cropped area which is considered as having poor growing conditions; currently this is estimated at around 12%. In the near future this is anticipated to decrease to around 5%, mainly due water distribution problems.
51. Table 11 indicates the areas within those districts in Bukhara which are of concern to this Study, which have been classified as having salinity and waterlogging conditions. It also quantifies the areas of land which are included within the two above- mentioned projects’ scope of works. If, indeed, the improvements are focussed on the priority areas, it would appear that most of the problem area will be covered. Only around 6,000 ha in Gidjuvan and Shafirkan appear to have been omitted from the current programmes. Conversely, in Jondor there are indications of an overlapping of activities.
Table 11: Poor Drainage & Salinity Areas and Amelioration Activities Past & planned improvements Unsatisfactory Total Irrigated Amelioration LIP overall growing Area programme programme conditions 2013 District ha ha ha ha Bukhara 27,390 3,100 5,226 4,000 Romitan 27,955 3,200 2,556 6,000 Jondor 34,106 4,000 3,600 32,000 Kagan 19,138 2,400 4,884 Vobkent 24,788 1,000 2,660 Peshku 22,916 1,800 4,540 Shafrikan 28,861 8,900 4,598 Gidjuvan 28,160 2,300 960 Kizil Tepa 30,688 na 2,395 Karmana 20,270 na 2,770 Karaul Bazar 16,877 800 2,184 Total 281,149 27,500 36,373 42,000 Sources: Agricultural Dept. and LIP Project
52. Table 12 summarises the crop yield assumptions applied in the analysis.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 16
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 12: Crop Yield Assumptions, Present & Future 'With-Project' tonnes/ha
Present/Future Irrigation Condition Good Marginal Cotton 3.3 2.6 Wheat 6.0 4.5 Vegetables 13.6 10.0 Fruit 7.0 4.0 Maize silage 27.0 18.0
Source: Regional Agriculture Office/Consultants estimates
D. Unit Costs of Outputs and Inputs
1. Crop Prices
53. With regard to cotton, there were 117 standard prices for seed cotton in 2012, ranging from UZS 211/kg to UZS 1,429/kg. Most produce in Kizil Tepa and Bukhara falls into Class 1, Sub-classes 1 and 2, with staple lengths of between 35 to 37 mm, with an average price of UZS 885/kg. The seed cotton is delivered to local collection centres where it is weighed, graded and stored prior to onward shipment to the ginnery. Government pays for transport from the farm to the collection point, and from there onwards. Cotton seed was sold at an average price of UZS 1,650/kg.
54. For wheat, the average price paid to the farmer by Government in Kizil Tepa in 2012 was UZS 335,000/ton and in Bukhara it was UZS 338,000/ton. Government pays for the transport, from farm-gate, for that portion of the wheat which it purchases. These prices would have applied to approximately half the farmers’ production; the remaining half is consumed by the farmers’ families or sold on the open market, with a value approximately 25% greater than the equivalent Government price. Hence average wheat price to the farmer in 2012 was approximately UZS 380,000/ton. Wheat seed price was approximately UZS 1030/kg; assuming that 50% of wheat seed used is purchased and 50% is self supplied, the average price of wheat seed is approximately UZS 705/kg.
55. It is somewhat more challenging to determine realistic prices for vegetables, fruit and fodder. Most farm-gate vegetable and fruit prices vary widely over the year with the bulk of production being sold at the time when prices tend to be at their lower levels. For the more perishable products there can be considerable wastage. For tomatoes, grapes and some fruits, apart from normal fresh sales, a proportion of the crop is purchased by food processors. There are numerous fruit and vegetable processing enterprises in the country. Significant quantities of fruit and vegetables are traded internationally. Attempts have been made to estimate realistic gross returns (sold quantities x weighted average farm-gate price) for the range of common fruit and vegetables sold. Packaging costs, which are significant, have been included under production costs.
56. Most fodder is not sold directly, but is consumed by livestock owned by the farmer; for analysis purposes, however, fodder crops have been given a indicative monetary value.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 17
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
2. Mechanisation Costs
57. Most cropping activity is on a commercial scale and is heavily mechanised. Virtually all land preparation, subsequent cultivation, planting, fertiliser distribution and spraying is done by machine. As farms get larger, an increasing number of farmers are purchasing their own tractors and some of the associated implements. Pools of publicly owned tractors and equipment are located throughout the Project Area and, for wheat and cotton, their use is organised through the Department of Agriculture.
58. There is a standard rental schedule by activity; farmers are required to supply fuel, for which they are extended partial credit facilities. Although much of the equipment is quite old, the general consensus was that availability and capability were not constraining factors. Farmers tended not to stick rigidly to the recommended number of mechanisation processes and supplemented hired facilities by using some of their own equipment. In general the charge-out rates are low. As and when new equipment is purchased, if all costs, including depreciation, are to be fully recouped, higher charge rates would need to be applied. There is already some evidence that this is happening, with higher rates being charged for hiring new model tractors to accomplish the same output as that achieved by old tractors.
3. Labour Costs
59. The use of manual labour is confined mainly to cotton harvesting, to weeding, to vegetable and fruit tree husbandry and harvesting. For the large scale field crops such as cotton, the tendency is for a labourer to be given responsibility for all manual operations for a specific area for the whole of the growing season. Payments are made in cash and in kind (including the right to use weeds to feed livestock); a net payment of approximately UZS 12,000/workday is considered a reasonable estimate of the cost. Finding such labour was not considered a problem.
60. With the cotton harvest, however, in some areas it was becoming more difficult to find labour. Current labour rates were UZS 180/kg of seed cotton; of this UZS 30/kg was tax. On average a worker could pick around 100 kg seed cotton per day, thus providing a net income of approximately UZS 15,000/day.
61. On most projects it is normal to apply a shadow value to labour, to reflect the fact that there is considerable un-employment or under-employment in rural areas. In the Project Area, limited use is made of manual labour in many crop production activities, except with regard to cotton picking. It has been assumed that a shadow value of 80% should apply to general labour, but not to that involved in cotton picking.
4. Fertilizer and Agro-chemical Costs
62. Fertilizers (including carbamide (N) which is sprayed), agro-chemicals (including leaf defoliant for cotton) and biological pest and disease control measures are supplied by government for use on cotton and wheat, at standard prices. Most of these products, and those required for crops other than wheat and cotton are available on the open market.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 18
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
5. Border Parity Prices
63. For cotton, wheat, urea, triple superphosphate and potassium chloride, border parity prices have been prepared and details of the calculation are presented in Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2
64. Large volumes of cotton lint are exported, with the main buyers being Bangladesh, China and South Korea. There is a rail connection between stations near to the Project Area and China, via Tashkent. Wheat is both imported into and exported from Uzbekistan, but overall there is a net deficit – the main source of imports is Kazakhstan. Most fertilisers, including potassium products, are now manufactured in the country and are also exported to neighbouring countries.
65. For those crops where no border parity prices have been prepared, financial and economic values will be similar. The same costing principle has been applied to agro- chemicals. For mechanisation charge-out rates, it is considered likely that current rates underestimate the real cost. Some rates, however, are being revised upwards as the high cost of replacing old equipment becomes evident. To generate realistic economic values for mechanisation costs, a factor has been applied to financial charge-rates.
6. Electricity Costs
66. Attempts to discuss the economic value of electricity with the appropriate agency were made; a response is still awaited. The early 2013 financial price is UZS 104.4 including tax. There is some trans-national trading of electrical power between Uzbekistan and neighbouring countries and it is understood that Uzbekistan exports power to Afghanistan at around US cents 7.5 per kWh. On similar projects elsewhere, a slightly higher economic price of around US cents 10 per kWh is being applied, but on this Project, and without the opportunity to discuss with the concerned agencies, it has been decided to use a value of US cents 7.5 per kWh in the economic analysis.
67. Table 13 summarises the unit prices for the main outputs and inputs of relevance to the crop budget calculations. They are expressed in both constant 2012 financial and economic terms.
Table 13: Summary of Agricultural Produce and Input Prices at Constant 2012 Economic and Financial Prices (UZS/Unit) Unit Financial Economic Agricultural outputs 2012 2015-2020 Crop Seed cotton kg 885 1,647 Wheat kg 380 536 Vegetables kg 500 500 Fruit kg 800 800 Maize silage kg 175 175 Agricultural inputs Planting material Cotton kg 1,650 1,650 Wheat kg 705 705 Vegetables kg 40,000 40,000 Fruit kg 1 1 Fodder kg 4,000 4,000
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 19
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Fertilizers Urea kg 1,160 834 TSP kg 1,950 1,000 KCl kg 1,170 904 Carbamide kg 400 400 Compost ton 12,000 12,000 Farm yard manure ton 35,000 35,000 Agrochemicals Herbicide lumpsum 10,000 10,000 Insecticide lumpsum 10,000 10,000 General lumpsum 25,000 25,000 biological control lumpsum 10,000 10,000 Mechanisation Land levelling ha 250,000 300,000 Manure application ha 56,000 67,200 Ploughing ha 109,000 130,800 Chisel ploughing ha 36,000 43,200 Irrig canal formation ha 28,000 33,600 Basin formation ha 17,000 20,400 Cultivating ha 51,000 61,200 Planting – cotton ha 17,000 20,400 Planting – wheat ha 15,000 18,000 Planting – other ha 50,000 60,000 Spraying ha 10,000 12,000 Furrow creation ha 45,000 54,000 Cultivating/fertilizing ha 35,000 42,000 Fertilising - single pass ha 24,000 28,800 Rolling ha 15,000 18,000 Harvesting – wheat ha 160,000 192,000 Harvesting – silage ha 60,000 72,000 Harvesting – general ha 50,000 60,000 Chopping cotton stalks ha 6,500 7,800 Transport to field ha 10,000 12,000 Transport from field ton 17,000 20,400 Transport to market ton 60,000 72,000 Fuel litre 1,700 2,040 Equipment Bags & packaging lumpsum 1,000 1,000 Tools & equipment ha 10,000 10,000 Labour Male/female workday 12,000 9,600 Cotton harvest ton 180,000 150,000 Other costs WUA ha 20,000 20,000 Pumping ha 30,000 30,000 Interest ha 3% 0% Contingencies ha 10% 10% Land tax lumpsum/ha 50,000 0 Administration tax lumpsum/ha 23,000 0 Labour tax (cotton picking) tonne 30,000 0 Exchange rate UZS per 1 US$ (late 2012) UZS 2,000 2,650 Machinery factor (financial to economic) 120% Shadow labour factor 80% Electricity kwh 104.4 US c 7.5 Standard conversion factor % 80%
Source: Field data, World Bank Price Projections Table A.1 Table A.2
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 20
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
E. Crop Budgets
68. For evaluation purposes, five crop groups have been identified, cotton, wheat, vegetables, fodder and fruit trees. For cotton and wheat, specific crop budgets have been prepared. For vegetables, fodder and fruit, composite budgets using weighted averages for the predominant constituent crops, have been calculated. Having ascertained the average net income for these three groups, representative budgets for three actual crops whose individual net income lay close to the weighted average were then identified, and their individual budgets presented. Cucumber, maize for silage and mature peaches were selected to represent the three groups.
69. Detailed official model crop budgets exist for wheat and cotton, and farmers are encouraged to comply with these and adopt all the prescribed steps, related to mechanized processes and to the use of seeds, fertilisers and other physical inputs. Government provides credit for 60% of the mechanised and physical inputs, and other costs and charges the farmers’ account as the costs are incurred; the farmer does not necessarily follow all the steps. After harvest, any outstanding debt is settled and farmers are credited with the balance.
70. Generally, official estimates appear to overstate expenditure, particularly in regard to fertiliser usage: estimates of the extent to which mechanisation processes are applied also tend to exceed those which occur in normal practice. The net result is that in financial terms, farmers probably fare better than the production cost estimates indicate.
71. For analysis purposes, two sets of crop budgets have been prepared for each crop or crop group. The first, which would apply to most of the area, assumes average reasonable growing conditions and farmers’ husbandry capabilities. The second budget assumes that the crops are being grown under marginal conditions and are only just generating a positive financial return to the farmer. At present, around 12% of the irrigable area is classified as being poor; if water supplies diminish, these areas are likely to go out of production and other, currently productive areas, will become marginal.
72. Appendix Table A.3 (supported by Appendix Tables A.4, A.5 and A.6) presents the detailed crop budget calculations at both financial and economic prices; the results are summarised in Table 14 below.
Table 14: Summary of Net Crop Returns, Present and Future, 'With-Project', at Constant 2012 Financial and Economic Prices, UZS'000 /ha/Crop
Financial Economic
Land condition good marginal good marginal Cotton 448 205 3,300 2,451 Wheat 807 378 1,750 1,057 Vegetables 2,418 1,073 2,616 1,244 Fruit 2,283 1,010 2,534 1,122 Fodder 2,173 1,056 1,981 934 Source: Appendix Table A.3
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 21
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
F. Current and Future Agricultural Benefits
73. This proposed Project is focussed primarily on safeguarding water supplies and is unlikely to make any significant contribution towards improved cropping productivity. With Government keeping tight reins on the cropping pattern and the prioritisation of wheat and cotton, the opportunities for major changes are also somewhat limited. (Productivity levels for these two crops in the Project Area already appear to be reasonably high.)
74. As indicated above, some interventions, funded externally from the Project, concern the improvement of drainage and should have a positive impact on crop productivity in those areas where drainage problems are currently constraining productivity.
75. Present net crop returns from the three irrigation systems (Karaul Bazar, Kuyu Mazar and Kizil Tepa) within the Project area have been calculated in the following manner. Cropped areas have been taken from Table 2, with cropping patterns differing slightly between irrigations systems. For each irrigation system and for each crop, the cropped area has been split between fully productive, partly productive and non-productive.
76. In the present situation, no areas are considered non-productive as they would be included under fallow land. In the ‘without-project’ situation, as irrigation water supplies diminish and the cropped areas are reduced, increasing areas of land would be classified as non-productive. As water becomes scarce it is envisaged that those farmers at the tail ends of canals would attempt to crop with reduced quantities of irrigation water, and would, consequently, suffer reduced crop yields. Once yield levels drop to a point where no profit would be generated, they would cease production. Table 15 summarises current cropping activity and net production.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 22
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 15: Current Cropping Activity and Net Income in the Project Area
Kuyu Mazar Kizil Tepa Karaul Bazar Total
Irrigated Area ('000 ha) 89.1 135.9 15.9 240.9 Cropping Pattern (%) - Cotton 41% 37% 36% 38% - Fodder 16% 15% 28% 16% - Vegetables 17% 19% 7% 17% - Fruit 11% 10% 1% 10% - Winter wheat 23% 27% 40% 26% Total 108% 108% 112% 108% Cropped Areas ('000ha) - Cotton 36.1 50.2 5.7 92.0 - Fodder 14.5 20.7 4.5 39.7 - Vegetables 15.5 25.4 1.1 42.0 - Fruit 9.9 13.8 0.2 23.9 - Winter wheat 20.4 36.4 6.3 63.2 Total 96.5 146.4 17.8 260.8 Net value of production (UZS million) - Cotton 117,727 163,532 18,619 299,878 - Fodder 27,976 39,893 8,632 76,502 - Vegetables 39,602 64,618 2,814 107,034 - Fruit 24,501 33,906 458 58,865 - Winter wheat 34,990 62,490 10,868 108,348 Total 244,797 364,439 41,391 650,627 Crop production ('000 tons) - Cotton 116.6 162.0 17.7 296.29 - Wheat 120.8 215.8 37.5 374.20
Sources: Tables A.30, A.33, A.34, A.35
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 23
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
V. PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Development Options
77. At the Inception Stage a total development package with an estimated cost of US$517 M was presented, with US$400 M or 77% of the total budget to be invested in replacing or rehabilitating six pump stations, namely Khamza 1, Khamza 1 Auxiliary, Khamza 2, Kuyu Mazar, Kizil Tepa and Kizil Tepa Auxiliary. The remaining 23% was to be spent on four supporting sub-projects, as follows :
(i) ABIS Management Modernisation – US$ 10 m (ii) Amu Darya River Training and Intake Desilting Basin – US$ 30 m (iii) ABMK Infrastructure Modernisation – US$ 50 m (iv) Structural Drainage Improvements – US$ 27 m
78. During the PPTA period there was uncertainty regarding the likely availability of loan funds; that situation still remains at the time of writing. Considerable consideration was given to the identification of a range of Project Options, to match the various estimates of the possible loan value combinations of ADB and other potential cofinancier’s contributions. No clarity ensued and it was finally decided to prepare the Feasibility Study where the full cost of replacing/rehabilitating all six pump stations would be included. The proposed investments are discussed below.
79. Khamza New. This station was constructed in 1963/65 and according to a recent seismic survey is in poor structural condition. In 2011 the average total hours worked per pump in the main station were 201,000. The proposed intervention comprises the construction of a new pump station with the combined capacity of the existing Khamza 1 and Khamza 1 Auxiliary pump stations of 105 m3/s. The capital costs for the civil works were prepared with assistance from Uzsuvloyiha (Design Institute). The specifications and costs for mechanical and electrical components were prepared by the PPTA Consultant. Completely new discharge pipes and intake channel would be required. The overall costs are marginally higher than a previous estimate prepared by the Design Institute in 2008, having allowed for price escalation during the intervening period. The costs, and capacity, used in this report are not those presented in the ADB MOU of March 2013 where a smaller unit, with substantially lower estimated cost prepared by Government, was included.
80. Kuyu Mazar. The pump station was constructed in 1965 and its structure received a similar poor assessment as Khamza 1 when a seismic survey was undertaken. Because it would be difficult/expensive to find a suitable alternative site for a new building it was, however, decided not to replace the existing pump station. In 2011 one set of pumps had worked an average of 211,000 hrs in total and the other set had worked 294,000 hrs. The proposed intervention involves the substantial rehabilitation of the existing pump station building and the complete replacement of the mechanical and electrical components. The discharge pipes have recently been replaced and new ones are thus unnecessary. Nearby a new pump station, (which will replace two floating pump stations and have been working as auxiliaries to the main station), is being constructed. It is thus too late to consider combining the two stations into one unit, as is the case in Khamza 1.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 24
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
81. Khamza 2. This station, the largest of the six priority stations, which was built in 1975, and whose pumps averaged 176,000 hrs worked by 2011, is in reasonably good structural condition and the recommended approach is to replace the existing mechanical and electrical components and make minor improvements to the building. The discharge pipes will also require complete replacement. Although this station is ten years younger than Khamza 1, the pumps have recently been worked much harder than in Khamza 1 and their total working hours are fast catching up with those in Khamza 1.
82. Kizil Tepa. This station was also built in 1975 and the buildings are in reasonable, repairable condition. There are two sets of pumps, comprising ten in total. In 2011 one set had worked an average of 77,000 hrs in total, whilst the other set had worked an average of 120,000 hrs. Despite being considerably less used than those in the previously discussed stations, some pumps are reported as being worn. The proposal is to completely replace the existing mechanical and electrical components. The main costs of replacing the very expensive discharge pipes will be undertaken by the government, as confirmed officially, and are thus not included in the estimated total cost.
83. Kizil Tepa Auxiliary. This station was constructed in 1982 and is located some distance from the main station on a separate canal system, with some connectivity to the canal network served by the main Kizil Tepa Station. It comprises 26 small pumps, which were locally manufactured, and are reported to be less reliable than the larger Soviet pumps installed in most of the other stations. They pump throughout the year. Whilst the general view is that there is no practical way to combine the two Kizil Tepa stations into one larger single unit, as with Khamza New, there are, nevertheless, opinions to the contrary. If the replacement of the discharge pipes from the main station goes ahead in the near future, this would likely thwart any realistic possibility of redesigning the overall system, if such an approach where considered a possibility. The current proposal is to make minor repairs to the building, to replace all mechanical and electrical components and to replace the existing single discharge pipe with two new ones. A mid-March 2013 government statement indicating that the cost of replacing the discharge pipes would be funded from other sources has not been taken into account, pending official confirmation.
84. In addition to the five pump stations a number of other subprojects were considered. Referring back to the above-mentioned Inception Workshop options, and specifically to (i) Management Modernisation, it was finally decided to include a DSS and SCADA sub-project, with a total cost of around $1.74 M and a Water Saving Demonstration Initiative sub-project with a total cost of $1.93 M. The (ii) Amu Darya River Training proposed investment was dropped. Consideration was given to the possibility of replacing some or all of the 25 dredgers working at the intake of the ABMK but, again, this proposal was dropped. Regarding (iii) ABMK Infrastructure Rehabilitation, the original $50 M proposal was cut back and a relatively modest proposal to rehabilitate ten key control structures, at a total cost of $8.5 M has been included. The (iv) Structural Drainage Improvements sub-project has been dropped as on-going drainage works are being undertaken through the ADB’s Land Improvement Project and the Government’s Amelioration Programme. A provision of around $9 M to cover overall project management through a Tashkent based Project Management Office (PMO) and a Bukhara based Project Implementation Unit (PIU), supported by a consultant team has also been included.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 25
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
85. Regarding the implementation period, the phasing applied in this analysis assumes that all the major work can be accomplished within a six year period from loan signing, with minor tidying up activities during the early months of the seventh year. Given the somewhat lengthy preliminary bureaucratic procedures anticipated, the vast scale of investment at five separate locations, the complexities of removing old pumps and replacing them with new ones whilst at the same time ensuring that water supplies are not disrupted, the challenges of installing new control systems with old and new pumps operating side by side and the experiences from similar projects in the country, this is considered to be a very optimistic target.
86. It is assumed that if financier/s can be found to supplement the ADB’s offer of $100 M, the proposed Project could commence in 2014. In the following analysis this year is described as Year 1 and an overall Project Period of 25 years is envisaged. If this scenario was indeed to become reality, then the replaced pumps would become fully operational by around 2020.
87. There could be two main reasons why there is interest in restricting the implementation period to the one described above. The first is that it is unlikely that the ADB loan can, initially, be considered for a longer period. The second reason is that there are fears that if there are longer delays, pumping capacity will decline in some pump stations and irrigated agriculture will be adversely affected. There is little doubt that Khamza New and Kuyu Mazar need to be replaced/rehabilitated soon. Khamza 2, the largest of all the pump stations is a crucial Stage 1 pump station and would appear to be the third priority. Even if work on Khamza 1 were to start in 2014, it will be a further six years before its new pumps will become fully operational. During this period Khamza 2 will continue to be pushed to its limits in the peak months to pump enough water (with that from Khamza 1 and its auxiliary) to the Stage 2 pump stations. This will undoubtedly takes its toll on the Khamza 2 pumps.
88. The key question appears to concern the condition of Kizil Tepa pump station. If the total pumping hours are used as a guide, and the assumption made that the pumps here are capable of achieving similar working lives to the large pumps located in Khamza 1, Khamza 2 and Kuyu Mazar indications are that it has many years left before the pumps require replacement. The less used Kizil Tepa pumps (using 2011 data) have clocked up only 26% of the hours which the most used Kuyu Mazar pumps have worked whilst the most used Kizil Tepa pumps have clocked up 58% of the hours worked by the least used Kuyu Mazar pumps. Evidence from assessment reports is, however, that the Kizil Tepa pumps are in poor condition.
89. The pumps in the Kizil Tepa Auxiliary station are similar to those in the Khamza 1 Auxiliary station, and have worked fewer hours. Given that the pumps are numerous and small and locally manufactured, it should be possible, from a pumping viewpoint, to keep this station operational for some time to come without major rehabilitation. The apparent major consideration relates to the high cost discharge pipe, which is in poor condition.
90. Should other cofinancier’s be found to be willing to supplement the $100 M ADB loans, and, for example, take on the financing of one or more individual pump stations, there is the possibility of staggering the start date/s of these loans. In that way a longer
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 26
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis overall implementation period could result, and some of the practical problems mentioned above could be overcome.
91. Extending the financing/implementation period would not necessarily have a negative impact on economic viability. If, as is considered likely, the Kizil Tepa stations can operate adequately for another ten years or so, it would be economically advantageous to defer the rehabilitation of these stations for some while.
B. Development Costs
92. Table 16 summarises the total estimated capital expenditure for each option and for each sub-project, in financial prices, and indicates the anticipated phasing over the development period. Supporting tables, providing further cost breakdowns, in financial and economic prices, are given in Appendix Tables A.7 to A.17.
93. These costs were based on 2012 prices, and wherever possible, taxes and physical contingencies have been separately identified. Most components related to civil works construction are of local origin, and costing was based on late 2012 schedules of unit costs
94. All investments and benefits have been valued at late 2012 prices. The analysis has to recognise that there are two distinct and significantly differing values for foreign exchange. In late 2012 the official exchange rate for 1 US$ was virtually UZS 2,000 whilst the unofficial rate was around UZS 2,650. The official rate is thus around 75% of the unofficial rate. As per local instructions, for financial cost estimation the official rate has been used – at UZS 2,000 per I US$.
95. The nominal inclusion of taxes and duties costs, have been calculated elsewhere but are not included in the total presented in Table 16. It is understood that there is a real cost applied to items imported for use on government projects, where a charge of 0.2% of the imported value has to be paid by the implementation contractor as a Custom Registration fee.
96. No allowance has been made for inflation, or financing charges, over the potential Loan period in preparing the Table 16 estimates. They have been calculated elsewhere.
97. Physical contingencies have been included, and have been set at levels which are considered realistic in the circumstances. Regarding the main investment in pumping stations, advice from those who have had experience in replacing pumps within an operating station, is that the chances of being faced with unforeseen and potentially costly situations, are high.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 27
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 16: Total Costs Summary at Constant 2012 Financial Prices in US$ Million
Component Pump Stations Management
Khamza 1 1 Khamza 2 Khamza Kizil Tepa Kuyu Mazar Mazar Kuyu Kizil TepaAux Total Option 1
PMO & PIU Pilot Farms Farms Pilot Consultancy DSS & SCADA new rehab rehab rehab rehab rehabilitation ABMK
Civil Works - earth works 22.51 0.34 0.05 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 3.30 26.72 - construction 25.29 2.32 1.30 2.53 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.74 35.07 Sub-total civils 47.80 2.66 1.34 2.55 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 5.04 61.80 Equipment - Mechanical 34.04 13.38 42.24 36.01 9.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 135.16 - Anciliary systems 1.05 0.36 0.52 0.49 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 - Hydraulic steel structures 24.06 1.28 21.90 4.85 53.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.24 108.12 - Electrical equipment 13.80 8.12 18.58 16.95 10.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 68.82 - Instrumentation 0.45 0.41 0.48 0.48 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.36 - Other equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.83 0.33 0.00 1.22 - Vehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 Sub-total equipment 73.40 23.54 83.72 58.77 75.15 0.06 0.25 0.83 0.33 2.64 318.69 Training, Capacity Building & Studies Workshops etc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.06 0.905 0.00 1.47 Demonstration farming operations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.193 0.00 0.19 Sub-total training etc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.06 1.10 0.00 1.66 Consulting Services - international 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.28 0.36 0.00 0.00 4.64 - local 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04 0.08 0.00 0.00 2.12 - other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.36 Sub-total consultancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.68 0.45 0.00 0.00 8.12 Project Management and Monitoring 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.47 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.72
Subtotal management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.47 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.72
Total Capital Costs 121.20 26.20 85.06 61.33 77.22 1.19 8.90 1.45 1.75 7.68 391.99 Physical contingencies civils- rate 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 10% 10% Physical contingencies - value 3.35 0.19 0.09 0.18 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.50 4.49 Physical contingencies non civils - rate 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% Physicals contingencies - value 14.68 4.71 16.74 11.75 15.03 0.24 1.78 0.29 0.14 0.26 65.63 Total Base cost incl physical 139.22 31.10 101.90 73.26 92.39 1.43 10.68 1.74 1.93 8.45 462.11 contingencies
Source : PPTA Consultant’s Estimates
C. ‘Without’ and’With-Project’ Recurrent Costs
1. ‘Without-Project’ Scenarios
98. As described in Section VI, in the ‘without-project’ situation there are two likely scenarios. Pumps will, over time, either (a) become increasingly unreliable and require more maintenance and will breakdown for longer and more frequent periods or (b) they will cease to function completely. In reality they are likely to transcend from the first scenario (a) to the second (b). In situation (a) annual maintenance costs will increase
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 28
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis and annual power consumption will reduce as the down-time periods become longer; in situation (b) maintenance costs will fall and power consumption will cease as the pumps fail. It has been assumed that pump set efficiencies have reached a low plateau and are unlikely to fall further.
99. The Climate Change Adaptation Interim report indicates that total annual volumes of water available from the Amu Darya River are likely to diminish over the coming years. Estimates of the percentage reductions per ten year period are as follows:
Period Best case Worst case
2012 – 2023 5% 11%
2024 – 2033 6% 13%
2034 – 2043 7% 18%
2012 – 2043 18% 35%
100. These reductions have not been included in the analysis.
2. Non-Energy O&M Costs
101. For analyses purposes it has been assumed that the US$ 50/ha mentioned in Section III would continue to apply to those declining areas of land which continue to receive irrigation supplies.
102. Details of the O&M and Periodic Repair costs for the new individual pump stations of direct concern to this Project, are presented in Table 17. Phased ‘without’ and ‘with-project’ costs assuming the gradual pump decline scenario are presented in Appendix Table A.26, whilst those for the pump failure scenario are presented in Appendix Table A.37.
Table 17: 'With-Project' Pump Station Annual Non-Energy Costs (Full Cost Option at Constant 2012 Financial Prices in US$ Million) Kizil % Khamza Kuyu Khamza Kizil Tepa Total Item rate 1 Mazar 2 Tepa Aux Civil Works- 1% 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.33 structures Equipment - Mechanical 2% 0.68 0.27 0.84 0.72 0.19 2.70 - Anciliary systems 2% 2% 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 - Hydraulic steel 2% 2% 0.48 0.03 0.44 0.10 1.08 structures - Electrical 2% 2% 0.28 0.16 0.37 0.34 0.22 equipment - Instrumentation 2% 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 Sub-total 1.47 0.47 1.67 1.18 1.50 6.29 6.29 Total 1.72 0.49 1.69 1.20 1.52 6.62 6.62 Periodic additional 3% 3% 2.20 0.71 2.51 1.76 2.25 (8 years)
Source: PPTA Consultant’s estimates
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 29
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
3. Energy consumption
103. For those of the six priority pump stations which are replaced, once operational, the power costs to deliver the same volumes of water as currently pumped will be reduced. Initially, the power consumption should represent approximately 82.5% of current consumption as the pump set operational efficiencies increase from around 72% to 87%. Such efficiency gains would be sustained for some years, but would, as with all such equipment, gradually reduce. The rate of decline, and the eventual efficiency plateau would depend on the type of equipment installed. Project assumptions are that the new pumps would start declining in efficiency after ten years of operation; and by Year 25 they would be consuming around 5% more power than there were when new. Cheaper, lower quality units are likely to suffer the fastest and deepest rates of decline. Whilst this might be of considerable concern to those who operate the pumping system, it will be of less significance in the economic viability. Costs to be incurred in the medium to long term make relatively little impact on economic viability.
104. Any cost savings due to energy savings are likely to be negated by substantially increased maintenance costs which will inevitably accompany the purchase of sophisticated equipment. It is unlikely that the incredible longevity and low maintenance costs of the currently installed equipment will be replicated in the future. Currently, the annual O&M costs (excluding labour) for the two Khamza 1 pump stations are approximately US$ 260,000; for a new unit, they are estimated at around US$ 1.9 M. This estimate excludes any allowance for periodic major overhauls.
105. Phased details of the ‘without’ and ‘with-project’ power consumption, in the gradual decline scenario are presented in Appendix Tables A.26 and A.27. Those for the pump failure scenario are presented in Appendix Tables A.36 and A.37. It has been assumed that for a three year period, starting in Year 7, there would be a 1.5% annual improvement in overall water management efficiency, resulting from the combined impacts of improving the ABMK structures, improving management’s abilities through the use of the DSS and SCADA systems, the improved instrumentation within the pump stations, the ability for pumped supplies to be more responsive to demand and better management of the Tudakul and Kuyu Mazar reservoirs.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 30
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
VI. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A. The ‘With’ and ‘Without-Project’ Scenarios
106. It is believed that whatever the economic implications might be, it is almost inconceivable that Government would allow the ABIS system to fall into total disrepair. If the six pumps of concern to this Study were to cease operating, the consequences would be catastrophic, as the well-being and livelihoods of so many people would be so severely jeopardised, both in terms of irrigation and DMI water.
107. For purposes of subjecting the proposed investments to scrutiny on economic feasibility grounds, however, it is necessary to create a theoretical ‘without-project’ scenario. It is appreciated that this is a somewhat hypothetical exercise, but the rigours of economic analysis dictate that this must be done, and to this end scenarios of pump decline and reduced irrigation activity have been presented.
108. Appendix Table A.18 presents a theoretical interpretation of what the impact would be on the areas of land which could be irrigated over a 25 year period if the six priority pump stations were not replaced. In this scenario the assumption is that the pumps would not totally break down but, instead, would become increasingly unreliable and more expensive to maintain; the gradual decline scenario.. With increased down- time they would then pump fewer hours per year and there would be fewer hectares of irrigated cropping. In the analysis a 5% annual reduction in the pumping capacity of all pumps has been applied, with differing start dates for this reduction being assumed taking account of the ages and usage of the various groups of pumps. Appendix Table A.18 provides the details. At the same time a 5% annual increase in maintenance costs has been assumed; given the relatively minor current O&M cost, in relation to energy consumption, the impact of these cost increases is not significant. Details are provided in Appendix Table A.26
109. The alternative total failure scenario takes account of the fact that despite the pumps amazing resilience, there are parts which cannot be replaced or strengthened indefinitely and the time will come when they will break down. The spirals in the four main pump stations were all inspected and all were in very poor condition – in Khamza 1 there were actual leakages. Whilst recent records of maintenance expenditure on the six relevant pump stations do not support the contention that the pumps are becoming increasingly unreliable, to what extent the recent O&M cost data reflect the true picture is unknown. It is understood that O&M budgets are limited and it could be the case that as much of the available budget as possible is spent on actually pumping rather than on maintenance. The overall impact on the ‘without-project’ cropping and pumping situation for this scenario is presented in Appendix Table A.29.
110. The total failure scenario aims to reflect the situation during a month within the peak water requirement period, for example, in July or August. The key assumptions regarding the number of years the existing pump stations will continue to fully function and the rate at which individual pumps within each station will gradually cease to function are presented at the base of the table. The annual percentage declines are based on the assumption that discrete numbers of pumps will fail each year, with the number of pumps
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 31
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis failing annually increasing over time, as the work load increases for the remaining pumps. For Khamza 2, for example, it has been assumed that of the ten pumps, one pump would fail in the first year of decline, two in the second, three in third, and the remaining four in the fourth year. The consequences of the pump failure in terms of future ‘without-project’ O&M costs and energy consumption are presented in Appendix Table A.37 and A.38
111. Further assumptions, based on the best information to hand, applied in both scenarios detailed in Appendix Table A.18 and A.29 have been made as follows:
(i) Installed pumping capacity for each pump station, including four which work in conjunction with the six priority pump stations (Table 5) (ii) Volumes of water pumped at all the pump stations including the volumes of water taken by the Karaul Bazar pump stations, which get first call on any water flowing down the ABMK down-stream of Khamza (Table 8) (iii) The volumes of water lost through seepage, overflow and direct extraction from various reaches of the ABMK (iv) The percentage division of ABMK flow made at the diversion structure (located near to Tudakul Lake), between the Shakhrud and Kharhur Branches which lead to the Kuyu Mazar and Kizil Tepa pump stations, respectively (v) The volumes of water extracted from the Kuyu Mazar and Tudakul Lakes to supplement flows from the ABMK during peak water requirement periods. (vi) The volumes of water used for DMI purposes (vii) The areas of irrigated land served by each set of Stage 2 and 3 pump stations (viii) The areas of winter wheat grown would be less severely impacted than those of crops grown in the main summer season
112. From these tables are derived the estimates of the declining areas of land, by irrigation scheme, which would receive irrigation water over the coming years, as the various pump stations pump less water. Whatever happens at Stage 2, once the Stage 1 pumps fail, all irrigation would fail. Given the pre-mentioned assumptions, in the gradual decline scenario it is anticipated that only around 50,000 ha of the current 240,000 ha would remain productive by Year 25.
113. In the total failure scenario there would be virtually no pumping from the Khamza pump stations by Year 12 and by Year 11 the area of irrigated cropping would have fallen to 28,000 ha. Some potential, but unusable, capacity would exist at the new Kuyu Mazar (35 m3/s) pump station and at Kizil Tepa again there would be some potential, but unusable, capacity, up to around 16 years hence. The new Navoi pump station would be unable to function once the Khamza pumps fail. These area estimates then form the basis for subsequent tables, presented in the Appendix, detailing the gradual reductions, by year, in areas of individual crops which would be grown and the decreasing net revenues, in economic terms, which these crops generate.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 32
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
B. Net Incremental Benefits
114. It is assumed in the ‘with-project’ situation, once all the pumps have been replaced, by Year 7 they will be capable of irrigating the same area that is currently being irrigated. For the gradual decline scenario reference should be made to Appendix Tables A.19 to A.24.. For the total failure scenario reference should be made to Appendix Tables A.30 to A.35. Presented here, up to Year 25, are the overall cropped areas, the areas of each crop by irrigation scheme, and the net economic agricultural returns in UZS for the ‘without-project’ scenarios. The overall net returns are based on the cropped areas and the per hectare returns which are detailed in Appendix Table A.3 and summarised in Table 14. The net incremental economic returns, with project, are presented in Appendix Table A.25 and Table A.36 for the two scenarios respectively. As mentioned elsewhere, no improvements in cropping productivity above current levels have been built in to the analysis, apart from those resulting from the on-going improvement in saline and waterlogged areas, which will impact on the ‘with’ and ‘without-project’ situations alike.
C. Development Costs 1. Capital Costs
115. Table 18 summarises Option 1 capital costs, expressed in economic terms. The economic values, which are detailed in the individual capital cost tables, have been derived from the financial costs. It has been assumed that all taxes and duties would be excluded and that a standard conversion factor of 80% would be applied to all local cost elements. Adjustments have also been made to those components which were originally derived in UZS terms. If the official exchange rate were applied here, there would be a mismatch between their $ values and those which were derived directly in $ terms, based on import prices. The adjustments were made to all civil works components for the five pump stations and the ABMK subproject. Foreign and local currency breakdowns of all cost items are also presented in the individual tables. (Appendix Tables A.7 to A.17).
Table 18: Capital Cost Summary at Constant 2012 Economic Prices (Full Cost Option in US$ Million) Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Khamza New 0.0 0.0 33.9 37.8 22.3 8.0 0.0 101.9 Kuyu Mazar rehab 0.0 0.0 5.1 12.5 6.3 0.6 0.0 24.5 Khamza 2 rehab 0.0 0.0 18.7 39.8 21.7 1.5 0.0 81.8 Kizil Tepa rehab 0.0 0.0 12.9 28.8 15.5 1.3 0.0 58.5 Kizil Tepa Auxiliary 0.0 0.0 17.5 36.9 18.6 0.5 0.0 73.6 rehab ABMK rehabilitation 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 5.8 DSS and SCADA 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Pilot Farms 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 Consultancy 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.0 7.8 PMO/PIU 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 Total Base Cost 1.6 2.2 90.4 160.2 88.5 14.9 0.1 357.8 Physical 0.3 0.4 16.1 29.1 17.4 2.8 0.0 66.1 Contingencies Total Cost 2.0 2.5 106.5 189.2 105.9 17.6 0.1 423.8
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 33
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
2. Recurrent Costs
116. The estimated financial incremental non-energy recurrent costs for the gradual decline scenario are presented in Appendix Table A.26. For the failure scenario they are presented in Appendix Table A.37. Given the accuracy level with which these were derived, it is considered appropriate to use these values unchanged in the economic analysis, apart from making similar currency adjustments to those described in the previous paragraph.
D. Economic Analyses
1. Cash Flows
117. Appendix Table A.42 presents the base case, gradual decline scenario, Full Cost Option Cash Flow and utilises the capital economic cost data presented in Appendix Table A.41, the energy consumption data presented in Appendix Tables A.27 and A.28 valued at US cents 7.5/kwh, the non-energy O&M costs from Appendix Table 26 and the incremental net agricultural returns which are detailed in Appendix Table A.25. For economic analysis purposes these net return values are converted into $ terms using the market value for that currency. All values are in constant 2012 economic prices, in US$, and the cash flow is extended over 25 years.
118. Equivalent data sources to prepare the failure scenario Base Case Cash Flow at Appendix Table A.43, are Appendix Tables A.41, A.38, A.39, A.37 and A.36.
2. EIRR
119. Results from the assessment of economic viability indicate that for the Full Cost Option, and assuming a gradual pump decline, with a current capital financial cost estimate of $462 million, a Base Case EIRR of around 13% would result. With the somewhat conservative assumptions made, the result is marginally acceptable. With the total failure scenario, the result is, predictably, a little higher at 16%. For this possibly over-pessimistic scenario the result is reasonably attractive.
120. Whilst it would be possible to increase or decrease these results by modifying some of the key variables, it should be borne in mind that no benefit has been attributed to the protection of current DMI water availability. If these were to be included, it is very likely that the overall EIRR would be substantially higher.
121. The capital costs can be considered as realistic; in the most part they have been based on information provided by suppliers and have taken advantage of having access to a company data base built up over many years. Considerable confidence can also be placed on the estimated future estimates of maintenance costs and power consumption.
122. As with most projects involving large agriculture areas, the data on which less confidence can be placed relates to cropped areas, cropping patterns, crop yields and prices. In this particular project it is suggested that reasonable confidence can be placed on the areas and production of cotton, the main contributor to the overall agricultural net income, as its production is carefully organised and monitored. Similar confidence can be placed on the wheat data. What is less clear is the total area which is actually
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 34
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis irrigated and what cropping takes place on the non-cotton and wheat areas. The analysis assumes that virtually all the officially recognised irrigable area is utilised, apart from around 11,000 ha fallow, with a cropping intensity of 108%. Some allowance has been included in the crop budget analyses to cover farmers’ individual pumping costs, to compensate for the fact that there areas where the irrigation system is inadequate. It is believed that the assumptions used tend towards the conservative. To some extent the impact of any over or under-estimation of key variables in assessing net agricultural returns would be cancelled out as they have been applied in both the ‘with’ and ‘without- project’ situations.
123. The crucial assumption upon which the economic viability of the proposed investment depends is what will happen over time to the pumps, and hence to the irrigated areas, if nothing were to be done. In an attempt to cover the range of possibilities two decline scenarios were devised. The gradual decline scenario takes a relatively conservative view, bearing in mind that by the time any new pumps could become operational, if indeed this project proceeds, the existing Khamza 1 pumps will be over 55 years old and the Khamza 2 pumps around 45 years old. Furthermore, these pumps have been working hard throughout their lives. Whatever happens with the Stage 2 pumps, if the Khamza pumps fail, the whole system fails.
124. Whilst the total failure scenario might be considered over-pessimistic, it should be borne in mind that there have already been catastrophic failures in some discharge pipes, and this situation can only get worse as the pipe walls relentlessly become thinner. Some pumps are leaking through their casings and this a problem which cannot be resolved through the application of innovative repairs; the only realistic solution is replacement. In some stations the operation of all the pumps relies on the two service pumps. If these were to break down the pumps would cease to function; given the age of these service pumps it could well be very difficult/time consuming to effect repairs.
125. No account has been taken of the likelihood that the flows from the Amu Darya will diminish during the next 25 years. Variations between and within years, and the opportunity to utilise the storage capacity of the Kuyu Mazar and Tudakul Lakes to moderate the impacts of inadequate supplies during peak months make the task of predicting impact on overall cropping activity too complex to consider at this stage.
126. The favourable EIRR is obtained despite the high per ha rehabilitation cost at around $ 2,000/ha, and reflects the fact that in the ‘without-project’ situation, given the extremely low rainfall, if the pumps were to fail, agricultural production would virtually cease.
127. A number of sensitivity analyses were carried out and the results of these and the base case analyses are presented in Table 19.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 35
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 19: EIRR Summary (%) Case Gradual Pump Total Pump Decline Scenario Failure Scenario Base Case 12.6 16.4 Sensitivity 1 – 10% increased capital costs 11.6 15.3 Sensitivity 2 – 20% increased capital cost 10.7 14.3 Sensitivity 3 – 3% annual improvement in system 13.2 16.8 efficiency, Yrs 7 to 9 Sensitivity 4 – 2.5% annual decline in pumping capacity 7.8 Na Sensitivity 5 – 10% annual decline in pumping capacity 17.7 Na Sensitivity 6 – 10% annual increase in existing pump 12.8 Na maintenance costs Sensitivity 7 – 10% reduction in seed cotton price 11.3 14.8 Sensitivity 8 – 10% reduction in economic price of 16.9 12.9 power Sensitivity 9 – 50% reduction in economic price of 18.8 14.0 power
128. With regard to increases in capital costs, (Sensitivities 1 and 2,) the results are predictable with a 10% change in cost having an approximately 1% impact on the EIRR.
129. Doubling the assumed annual improvement in system efficiency during Years 7 to 9, (Sensitivity3 ) from 1.5% to 3% has a somewhat surprising minor influence.
130. Changing the annual rates of decline in overall pumping capacity, as applied in the gradual decline scenario, has a very significant impact. (Sensitivities 4 and 5). If the rate of decline was only half the 5% assumed in the base case, the EIRR would fall to around 8%. Doubling the assumed decline rate results in a 17.7% EIRR.
131. Given the relatively minor cost of maintaining the current pump stations, in relation to energy cost, changing assumed annual maintenance costs has little impact, in the gradual decline scenario. (Sensitivity 6)
132. Again, somewhat predictably, any changes to the price of a crop which features heavily in the cropping pattern are likely to have a significant impact. If projected cotton prices fall by 10%, the EIRRs would fall by around 1%. (Sensitivity 7). Changes in the prices of the representative crops in the other crop categories, and of wheat, had approximately half the impact of cotton price changes.
133. With regard to power costs, the base case assumes US cents per kwh. If the cost were to be reduced by 10%, there would be marginal improvements in EIRRs. If an economic price of around US cents 4 per kwh were applied, which is close to the current tariff ( at market exchange rates), the EIRRs would increase significantly, particularly in the total failure scenario.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 36
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
VII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
A. Study Area
134. As discussed in Section 1, within the main Study Area of concern to this Project there are three irrigation schemes as follows :
(i) Karaul Bazar – approximately 16,000 ha, within Bukhara Region, (ii) Kuyu Mazar – approximately 91,000 ha within Bukhara Region, (iii) Kizil Tepa – approximately 143,000 ha within Bukhara and Navoi Regions
1. Cropping Patterns, Intensities and Yields
135. Cropping patterns differ between these schemes and details are given in Table 3, where it will be noted that cotton and wheat represent approximately 39% and 26% of the total cropped area respectively. Approximately half the wheat area, after harvest, is used to grow short-term ‘secondary’ crops, and virtually all the non-wheat land which is not occupied by cotton or perennial crops is also used to grow crops of the farmers’ choice. For the overall ABIS area approximately 10% of the irrigated area is covered by perennial crops (grapes, mulberry, other fruit). Overall cropping intensity is approximately 108%. If account is taken of the detailed crop breakdowns of ‘secondary’ crops and of the large area described as ‘homestead’, vegetables occupy approximately 18% of the overall cropped area. (Predominantly potatoes, tomatoes, melons, carrots, onions, cabbage and cucumbers). Fodder crops, comprising mainly short and long term pasture, lucerne and maize silage, occupy approximately 16% of the cropped area.
136. Table 12 presents crop yield data for cotton, wheat and those crops which were selected to represent the perennial, vegetable and fodder crop categories. The yields refer to the main areas where growing conditions are good and to the marginal areas where salinity, waterlogging and water shortage problems occur. This is discussed above and details of the extent of the problem areas given in Table 11.
B. Crop Budgets
137. Crop budgets, in financial (and economic terms), were prepared for wheat, cotton, cucumbers, maize silage and mature peaches and Table 20 summarises the estimated financial returns per hectare for normal and marginal lands. Details are presented in Appendix Table A.3
Table 20: Financial Returns in UZS’000/ha (2012) Land Condition Good Marginal Cotton 448 205 Wheat 807 378 Vegetables 2,418 1,073 Fruit 2,283 1,010 Fodder 2,173 1,056
Source : PPTA Consultant’s estimates
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 37
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
138. Whilst financial returns to cotton and wheat are rather low it should be borne in mind that the water and land are provided free of charge, that mechanisation facilities are provided at subsidised rates and the farmer is given the opportunity to utilise approximately one third of the land to grow crops of his own choice. Approximately half of the wheat area is used to produce ‘secondary’ crops. Returns from the main crops of vegetables and fruit appear to be very attractive. Whilst in the analysis a financial value has been placed on fodder, in reality most of these crops are consumed by the farmers’ own livestock; large numbers of sheep, goats and cattle are found in the area.
C. Farm Sizes
139. Table 10 provides estimates of the number of farms by size class, based on data provided for Bukhara Region. Data are also presented in the ‘District Passports’ on the numbers of holdings in three size classes, micro-farms which are smaller than 50 ha, small farms which are between 50 and 100 ha, and large farms which exceed 100 ha. Within the districts included in the Study area there were a total of 3,455 holdings in 2012; within the 205,000 ha Study Area which lies within Bukhara Region it is estimated that there around 3,070 holdings. Average holding size is thus around 67 ha. For analysis purposes it has been assumed that three typical farm sizes would be 50 ha, 100 ha and 200 ha.
D. Without and With-Project Situations
140. The main purpose of the proposed project is to preserve the status-quo. In the ‘without-project’ situation, the impact on the individual farmer will depend on the location of the holding, the manner in which the present pumping capacity deteriorates and the water distribution policies which are adopted as supplies diminish.
141. For most farms in the Karaul Bazar irrigation scheme, the 17,000 ha scheme which gets first call on the water being pumped from the Khamza 1 and 2 Pump Stations, it is likely that it will be many years before their supplies will be reduced. The Stage 2 pumps supplying this area are in good condition, and their replacement is not envisaged under this project. For individual farms within the Kuyu Mazar and Kizil Tepa irrigation schemes, the impact will depend on how the declining water volume is allocated between the two schemes, the rate at which the Stage 2 pumps deteriorate and the location of the farm. It is likely that farms located near the heads of the main canals feeding the irrigation areas, in Kizil Tepa, Vobkent, Gidjuvan, Kagan and Bukhara districts will be least impacted whilst those in the remoter districts will be the most severely impacted. Whilst it is envisaged that there would be attempts to spread the water, the realistic scenario is one where the tail-end farms would cease to function and the problem would gradually spread up-stream towards the main irrigation canal outlets as the water supplies diminish. With so little rainfall, the opportunities for farmers to adjust their cropping patterns in the face of declining irrigation supplies are virtually nil.
142. In the ‘with-project’ situation it is assumed that most farmers will continue to adopt similar cropping activities and achieve similar results as they do at present. No project-induced improvements have been assumed for the future situation. It would be premature to speculate what improved cropping practices might emerge from the activities proposed for the Pilot Demonstration Farms and to what extent these might be
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 38
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis applied in the Study Area. Drainage and salinity problems currently exist, but interventions under the ADB’s Land Improvement Project and the Government-funded Amelioration Programme are being implemented and these should soon be having an impact, in both the ‘with’ and ‘without-project’ situations. The impact has been incorporated in the analysis in terms of the reduction in the percentage of cropped area which is impacted by poor growing conditions; currently this is estimated at around 12%. In the near future this is anticipated to decrease to around 5%, mainly due water distribution problems.
E. Rate of Decline
143. This issue is discussed in Section VI. Whatever scenario were to apply in reality, for those farmers who, in the ‘without-project’ condition lose their water supply, the impact of the project would be to save them from total loss. The annual benefit gained would not only be the value of the crop saved, but also the safeguarding of any investments such as those made in perennial crop establishment, in land improvement and in farm-level irrigation and road infrastructure improvement.
F. Returns per Hectare and per Holding
144. Table 21 below presents the likely average return per hectare for lands cropped in the three Study Area irrigation schemes, based on the above presented cropping patterns and the crop budgets. It is assumed that by the time the Project starts, approximately 95% of the irrigated area will be capable of producing good crops and around 5% of the area will be of marginal productivity. Although there are some differences in cropping patterns between irrigation schemes, the calculations indicate that average returns/ha are very similar and average out at around UZS 1,370,000 per hectare (around US$ 500/ha at market exchange rates).
Table 21: Financial Returns/ha in ‘UZS'000 ‘Without’ and ‘With-Project’ Situations Good Land Cotton Wheat Vegetables Fodder Perennial Total Return/ha 448 807 2,418 2,283 2,283 Kizil Tepa 157 206 429 330 220 1,341 Kuyu Mazar 172 176 401 353 242 1,344 Karaul Bazar 153 305 160 610 25 1,253 Average 163 201 395 363 213 1,335 Marginal Land Cotton Wheat Vegetables Fodder Perennial Total Return/ha 205 378 1,073 1,056 1,010 Kizil Tepa 4 5 10 8 5 32 Kuyu Mazar 4 4 9 9 6 32 Karaul Bazar 4 8 4 15 1 30 Average 4 5 9 9 5 32 All Land Cotton Wheat Vegetables Fodder Perennial Total Kizil Tepa 161 211 439 338 225 1,373 Kuyu Mazar 177 180 410 362 248 1,376 Karaul Bazar 156 313 163 625 26 1,284 Average 167 206 404 372 218 1,367
Source: PPTA Consultant’s estimates
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 39
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
145. No differences in cropping patterns between holding sizes have been incorporated in the analysis and the net annual returns for the three selected indicator holding sizes are presented in Table 22 below.
146. The data presented in Tables 20 and 21 apply to both the ’with’ and ‘without- project’ situations as no changes in the current cropping patterns or productivity have been assumed in the ‘with-project’ condition. Farms will operate similarly until the water fails to reach the farm, at which point all production will cease. Experiences on individual farms will naturally vary, depending on the rate in decline of water supply; once the supply starts to decline it is anticipated complete farm failure would result over a short period.
Table 22: Average Financial Returns per Farm in UZS '000 ‘Without’ and ‘With- Project’ Situations Farm Size (ha) 50 100 200 Kizil Tepa 68,663 137,325 274,651 Kuyu Mazar 68,803 137,605 275,211 Karaul Bazar 64,194 128,388 Average 68,356 136,712 273,424
Source: PPTA Consultant’s estimates
147. Despite the heavy mechanisation, because of the nature of the crops grown there is a substantial requirement for manual labour, with a weighted average utilisation per hectare for the overall cropping pattern of around 55 workdays per hectare/year, including 13 workdays used for cotton picking. A daily rate of UZS 12,000 has been used for general labour and UZS 15,000 (net of tax) for cotton picking. Thus average annual labour cost per cropped ha is around UZS 700,000/ha. In the ‘without-project’ situation, for every hectare falling into disuse this would be the revenue lost to the local economy. On a weighted average basis the daily cost of labour is approximately UZS 12,700/day
G. Overall Financial Impact
148. Table 23 summarises the anticipated overall financial impact the Full Cost Option Investment would have up to Year 25, based on an assumed water supply decline scenario that pumps would gradually, rather than catastrophically, fail. In the ‘With- project’ WP situation, returns would remain constant. It indicates that over a 25 year period, the net financial farm income saved would be of the order of US$ 1.49 billion, at official Uzbekistan $ exchange rates.
149. With regard to manual labour, the total value of wages saved as a consequence of project implementation would be of the order of US$ 762 million, or 120 million workdays up to Year 25.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 40
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Annex 5 – Economic and Financial Analysis
Table 23: Total With-Project Saved Financial Farm Returns & Manual Wages
Year 1 5 10 15 20 25 Total Farm returns 25 years Irrigated WOP ha '000 241 222 180 134 94 66 WOP/WP Return/ UZS '000 1,367 1,367 1,367 1,367 1,367 1,367 ha/yr Total WOP return/yr UZS billion 329 304 247 183 129 91 Net WP saved UZS billion - 26 83 147 201 239 2,982 income/yr Net WP saved US$ million - 13 41 73 100 119 1,491 income/yr Labour (manual) WOP Labour use/ workdays 13 12 10 7 5 4 yr million WOP Labour UZS/yr 168 155 126 93 66 46 wages/yr Net WP saved UZS billion - 13 42 75 103 122 1,524 wages/yr Net WP saved US$ million - 7 21 37 51 61 762 wages/yr
Source: PPTA Consultant’s Estimates
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 41
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Economic and Financial Analysis
Appendix
Supporting Tables
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group
InfoCapital Group Table A.1 (a) Border Parity Price Calculations for Cotton - @ 2012 economic prices
Export/Import Substitute Note: Export Indicator product location 1/ Quality of Indicator product 2/ 2012 2015 2020 World price Jan-Aug 2012 3/ = 2,040 Indicator price - 2005 base 4/ = 1,660 1,710 1,610 Indicator price - 2012 base 6/ = 2,002 2,062 1,942 Quality differential (between Uzbek and Indicator product) 5/ x 1.0 1.0 1.0
lint Equivalent value of Uzbek product at transit port 7/ = 2,002 2,062 1,942
US$/ton Assumed transit port China Freight & insurance (between China port and Uzbek border) - 75 75 75 Value at Uzbek border = 1,927 1,987 1,867 Value at Uzbek border 8/ = 5,106 5,266 4,947 Uzbekistan border charges - 20 20 20 Handling/transport/trader margin - between wholesaler/processor and border - 200 200 200 Value at wholesale market/processor = 4,886 5,046 4,727
lint Net processing cost - 400 400 400 Net value at ginnery = 4,486 4,646 4,327 Processing percentage (lint/kg seed cotton) x 33% 33% 33% Net value of lint delivered to ginnery/kg of seed cotton = 1,481 1,533 1,428 Net percentage of cotton seed/kg of seed cotton x 55% 55% 55%
Unit value of cotton seed 9/ = 449 465 433
UZS/kg seed
cotton Net value of cotton seed/kg of seed cotton = 247 256 238 Net percentage of linters/kg of seed cotton x 3% 3% 3% Unit value of linters 10/ = 673 697 649
linters Net value of linters/kg of seed cotton = 20 21 19 Total value of seed cotton at ginnery = 1747 1810 1685
Handling/transport/trader margin - from farmgate to wholesaler/processor - 100 100 100 seed seed
cotton Value at farmgate = 1,647 1,710 1,585 Crop form at farmgate seed cotton
Table A.1 (b) Border Parity Price Calculations for Wheat - @ 2012 economic prices
Export/Import Substitute Import Indicator product location 1/ Kazakstan Quality of Indicator product 2/ US Hard 1 2012 2015 2020 World price Jan-Aug 2012 3/ = 292 Indicator price - 2005 base 4/ = 257 211 195 Indicator price - 2012 base 6/ = 310 254 235 Quality differential (between Uzbek and Indicator product) 5/ x 0.8 0.8 0.8 Equivalent value of Uzbek product 7/ = 248 204 188 US$/ton Assumed source Kazakhstan Freight & insurance (from Kazakhstan to Uzbek border) + 10 10 10 Value at Uzbek border = 258 214 198 Value at Uzbek border 8/ = 684 566 525 Uzbekistan border charges + 20 20 20 Handling/transport/trader margin - between wholesaler/processor and border + 40 40 40 Value at wholesale market/processor = 744 626 585 Handling/transport/trader margin - between local and wholesale market/processor - 40 40 40 UZS/kg Value at local market = 704 586 545 Handling/transport/trader margin - from farmgate to wholesaler/processor - 30 30 30 Value at farmgate = 674 556 515 Crop form at farmgate dry grain Notes : See Table A.2 Table A.2 Border Parity Price Calculations for Fertilizers - @ 2012 economic prices.
Note Urea TSP KCl Normally exported or imported Exported Exported Exported Indicator product location 1/ Europe Nutrient content of marker product 2/ N% 46 P% 46 K% 60 2012 2015 2020 2012 2015 2020 2012 2015 2020 World price Jan-May 2012 3/ = 416 = 463 = 469 Indicator price - 2005 base 4/ = 332 274 232 = 390 328 282 = 386 297 253 Indicator price - 2012 base 5/ = 400 330 280 = 470 396 340 = 466 358 305 Quality differential (between Uzbek and Indicator product) 6/ x 1.0 1.0 1.0 x 1.0 1.0 1.0 x 1.0 1.0 1.0 Equivalent value of Uzbek product = 400 330 280 = 470 396 340 = 466 358 305
Assumed transit port na na na US$/ton Freight & insurance (between Baltic port and point of origin/final destination) na 0 0 0 na 0 0 0 na 0 0 0 Freight & insurance (between Baltic port and Uzbek border) - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 Value at Uzbek border = 400 330 280 = 470 396 340 = 466 358 305 Value at Uzbek border 8/ = 1,061 876 741 = 1,246 1,048 901 = 1,234 949 809 Border charges - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 Handling/transport/trader margin - between border and wholesaler/factory - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 Value at wholesaler/central distributor,factory = 1,061 876 741 = 1,246 1,048 901 = 1,234 949 809 Handling/transport/trader margin - between wholesaler/factory and local distrib + 50 50 50 + 50 50 50 + 50 50 50
Value at local distribution port = 1,111 926 791 = 1,296 1,098 951 = 1,284 999 859 UZS/kg Handling/transport/trader margin - from local distributor to farmgate + 25 25 25 + 25 25 25 + 25 25 25 Value at farmgate (fertiliser) = 1,086 901 766 = 1,271 1,073 926 = 1,259 974 834 Value at farmgate (nutrient) = 2,361 1,958 1,666 2,764 2,333 2,014 = 2,098 1,624 1,389 Form at farmgate bagged bagged bagged
Notes 1/ Source of Indicator product or of product imported into Uzbekistan 7/ Indicator price x quality differential factor 2/ Quality standard of Indicator product 8/ US$/ton value in UZS/kg at 1 US$ = UZS'000 2.65 3/ World Bank. Pink sheets. May 2012 9/ Assumed value of cotton seed as % of lint price 10% 4/ World Bank Commodity Price Projections. Jan 2012. at constant 2005 prices 10/ Assumed value of linters as % of lint price 15% 6/ Value of Uzbekistan product/value of Indicator product. 11/ Uzbekistan imports most of its 1 m ton from Kazakhstan 5/ 2005 constant price adjusted to 2012 constant price using MUV factor 1.206 Table A.3 Part A Net crop returns, UZS'000/ha @ 2012 financial & economic prices. Table A.3 Part B Net crop returns, UZS'000/ha @ 2012 financial prices Table A.3 Part C Net crop returns, UZS'000/ha @ 2012 economic prices Yields and physical inputs per ha Crop cotton wheat vegetables fruit fodder Crop cotton wheat vegetables fruit fodder Unit Crop cotton wheat vegetables fruit fodder Unit WP/WOP wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop value wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop wp/wop value Details Details Details Irrigation condition good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal Financial good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal good marginal Economic Unit Unit nr Unit nr Unit nr Unit nr Unit nr Unit nr Unit nr Unit nr Unit nr Unit nr UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 UZS'000 Yields/Returns Yields/Returns Yields/Returns cotton tonne 3.3 ------2,885 ------885 5,371 ------1,647 cotton tonne - 2.6 ------2,301 ------885 - 4,283 ------1,647 wheat tonne - - 6.0 ------2,280 ------380 - - 3,213 ------536 wheat tonne - - - 4.5 ------1,710 ------380 - - - 2,410 ------536 vegetables tonne - - - - 13.6 ------6,800 - - - - - 500 - - - - 6,800 - - - - - 500 Main Crop Main Crop Main Crop vegetables tonne - - - - - 10.0 ------5,000 - - - - 500 - - - - - 5,000 - - - - 500 fruit tonne ------7.0 ------5,576 - - - 800 ------5,576 - - - 800 fruit tonne ------4.0 ------3,200 - - 800 ------3,200 - - 800 fodder tonne ------27.0 ------4,725 - 175 ------4,725 - 175 fodder tonne ------18.0 ------3,150 175 ------3,150 175 By-product % of main crop value lumpsum 5% 5% 10% 10% ------By-product 144 115 228 171 By-product 269 214 321 241 Gross returns Gross returns 3,029 2,416 2,508 1,881 6,800 5,000 5,576 3,200 4,725 3,150 Gross returns 5,639 4,498 3,534 2,651 6,800 5,000 5,576 3,200 4,725 3,150 Inputs/Costs Inputs/Costs Inputs/Costs cotton kg 55 ------91 ------1.7 91 ------1.7 cotton kg - 55 ------91 ------1.7 - 91 ------1.7 wheat kg - - 220 ------155 ------0.7 - - 155 ------0.7 wheat kg - - - 200 ------141 ------0.7 - - - 141 ------0.7 Seeds & planting vegetables kg - - - - 6 - - - - - Seeds & planting - - - - 240 - - - - - 40.0 Seeds & planting - - - - 240 - - - - - 40.0 material vegetables kg - - - - - 6 - - - - material - - - - - 240 - - - - 40.0 material - - - - - 240 - - - - 40.0 fruit kg ------0.0 ------0.0 fruit kg ------0.0 ------0.0 fodder kg ------40 ------160 - 4.0 ------160 - 4.0 fodder kg ------40 ------160 4.0 ------160 4.0 Urea kg 265 150 160 110 150 150 50 50 50 50 307 174 186 128 174 174 58 58 58 58 1.2 221 125 133 92 125 125 42 42 42 42 0.8 TSP kg 56 45 40 30 50 50 - - 50 50 109 88 78 59 98 98 - - 98 98 2.0 56 45 40 30 50 50 - - 50 50 1.0 KCl kg 6 5 4 3 ------Fertilsers & 7 6 5 4 ------1.2 Fertilsers & 5 5 4 3 ------0.9 Fertilsers & manure Carbamide kg 5 5 ------manure 2 2 ------0.4 manure 2 2 ------0.4 Compost tonne - - - - 4 4 ------48 48 - - - - 12.0 - - - - 48 48 - - - - 12.0 Farm yard manure tonne 1 1 1 1 12 12 5 5 - - 35 35 35 35 420 420 175 175 - - 35.0 35 35 35 35 420 420 175 175 - - 35.0 herbicide lumpsum 5.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 ------50 30 60 40 ------10.0 50 30 60 40 ------10.0 insecticide lumpsum 5.0 3.0 ------50 30 ------10.0 50 30 ------10.0 Agro chemicals Agro chemicals Agro chemicals general lumpsum - - - - 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - - - 75 75 25 25 25 25 25.0 - - - - 75 75 25 25 25 25 25.0 biological control lumpsum 2.0 2.0 ------20 20 ------10.0 20 20 ------10.0 Land levelling ha 0.2 0.2 - - 0.2 0.2 - - 0.2 0.2 50 50 - - 50 50 - - 50 50 250.0 60 60 - - 60 60 - - 60 60 300.0 Manure application ha - - - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ------56 56 56 56 - - 56.0 - - - - 67 67 67 67 - - 67.2 Ploughing ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 109 109 109 109 109 109 - - 109 109 109.0 131 131 131 131 131 131 - - 131 131 130.8 Chisel ploughing ha 1.0 1.0 ------36 36 ------36.0 43 43 ------43.2 Irrig canal formation ha - - - - 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 - - - - 28 28 168 168 28 28 28.0 - - - - 34 34 202 202 34 34 33.6 Basin formation ha 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 17 17 - - 17 17 - - 17 17 17.0 20 20 - - 20 20 - - 20 20 20.4 Cultivating ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 2.0 2.0 51 51 51 51 51 51 - - 102 102 51.0 61 61 61 61 61 61 - - 122 122 61.2 Planting - cotton ha 1.0 1.0 ------17 17 ------17.0 20 20 ------20.4 Planting - wheat ha - - 1.0 1.0 ------15 15 ------15.0 - - 18 18 ------18.0 Planting - other ha - - - - 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 - - - - 50 50 - - 50 50 50.0 - - - - 60 60 - - 60 60 60.0 Spraying ha 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ------20 20 20 20 ------10.0 24 24 24 24 ------12.0 Mechanisation Furrow creation ha 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mechanisation 90 90 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45.0 Mechanisation 108 108 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54.0 Cultivating/fertilizing ha 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ------105 105 105 105 ------35.0 126 126 126 126 ------42.0 Fertilising - single passha - - - - 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 - - - - 72 72 48 48 48 48 24.0 - - - - 86 86 58 58 58 58 28.8 Rolling ha - - - - 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 - - - - 15 15 - - 15 15 15.0 - - - - 18 18 - - 18 18 18.0 Harvesting - wheat ha - - 1.0 1.0 ------160 160 ------160.0 - - 192 192 ------192.0 Harvesting - silage ha ------5.0 3.0 ------300 180 60.0 ------360 216 72.0 Harvesting - general ha - - - - 1.0 1.0 ------50 50 - - - - 50.0 - - - - 60 60 - - - - 60.0 Chopping cotton stalksha 1.0 1.0 ------7 7 ------6.5 8 8 ------7.8 Transport to field ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10.0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12.0 Transport from field tonne 3.3 2.6 6.0 4.5 - - - - 27.0 18.0 - - 51 38 - - - - 459 306 17.0 67 53 122 92 - - - - 551 367 20.4 Transport to market tonne - - - - 6.8 5.0 3.5 2.0 ------408 300 209 120 - - 60.0 - - - - 490 360 251 144 - - 72.0 Fuel litre 120 117 119 113 98 98 44 44 244 188 204 200 202 192 167 167 75 75 415 320 1.7 245 239 243 231 200 200 90 90 498 384 2.0 Bags & packaging tonne - - 120 76 292 215 581 387 - - - - 120 76 292 215 581 387 - - 1.0 - - 120 76 292 215 581 387 - - 1.0 Materials Materials Materials Tools & equipment lumpsum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10.0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10.0 Hired/family workday 15 15 6 6 119 100 120 60 19 15 180 180 72 72 1,428 1,200 1,440 720 228 180 12.0 144 144 58 58 1,142 960 1,152 576 182 144 9.6 Labour Labour Labour Cotton harvest tonne 3.3 2.6 ------587 468 ------180.0 489 390 ------150.0 WUA charges ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20.0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20.0 Private pumping ha 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 10 6 6 30 30 30 30 30 30 30.00 10 10 6 6 30 30 30 30 30 30 30.0 Other Other Other Interest charges ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ------0 0 0 0 ------3% ------0% Contingencies season 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - - 1.0 1.0 217 185 149 131 394 353 293 193 226 184 10% 211 184 160 143 379 340 275 187 248 200 10.0% Land tax lumpsum 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 50 50 25 25 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 ------0 Taxes Administration tax lumpsum 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 ------Taxes 23 23 12 12 ------23 Taxes ------0 Labour tax tonne 3.3 2.6 ------98 78 ------30 ------0 Total costs 2,582 2,211 1,701 1,503 4,382 3,927 3,293 2,190 2,552 2,094 Total costs 2,339 2,047 1,784 1,593 4,184 3,756 3,042 2,078 2,744 2,216 Net returns 448 205 807 378 2,418 1,073 2,283 1,010 2,173 1,056 Net returns 3,300 2,451 1,750 1,057 2,616 1,244 2,534 1,122 1,981 934 Sources: Consultant's estimates and Table 13 Table 12 Table A.4 Part A Selected Vegetables. Crop Budgets @ constant 2012 financial prices. UZS/ha Table A.4 Part B Selected Vegetables. Crop Budgets @ constant 2012 financial prices. UZS/ha
Vegetables (weighted average) Cucumber Early Carrot Main Crop Carrot Early Cabbage Main Crop Cabbage Onion Tomato Melons Early Potato Main Crop Potato Unit Unit units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value Gross Return nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS Gross Return nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS nr UZS/unit UZS Gross Production tonne 20.8 16.0 17.0 22.0 22.0 Gross Production tonne 35.0 22.0 18.0 22.0 14.0 20.0 Wastage % 13% 15% 10% 5% 20% Wastage % 25% 7% 20% 15% 5% 10% Net Production tonne 17.9 492,500 8,160,925 13.6 500,000 6,800,000 15.3 400,000 6,120,000 20.9 250,000 5,225,000 17.6 350,000 6,160,000 Net Production tonne 26.25 225,000 5,906,250 20.46 300,000 6,138,000 14.4 700,000 10,080,000 18.7 400,000 7,480,000 13.3 1,000,000 13,300,000 18 800,000 14,400,000 Input Costs Input Costs Planting material (seeds & seedling) kg 654.4 39,340 1,250,000 6 40,000 240,000 6 20,000 120,000 6 30,000 180,000 1.5 100,000 150,000 Planting material (seeds & seedling) kg 2 60,000 120,000 14 20,000 280,000 2.5 100,000 250,000 5.5 20,000 110,000 (Potatoes) kg 650.0 340 1,105,000 (Potatoes) kg 3000 1,700 5,100,000 3500 1,700 5,950,000 Mineral fertilizers tonne Mineral fertilizers tonne -nitrogen (urea 46%) tonne 0.2 1,160,000 174,000 0.15 1,160,000 174,000 0.15 1,160,000 174,000 0.15 1,160,000 174,000 0.15 1,160,000 174,000 -nitrogen (urea 46%) tonne 0.15 1,160,000 174,000 0.15 1,160,000 174,000 0.15 1,160,000 174,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.2 1,160,000 232,000 0.2 1,160,000 232,000 -phosphorous (TSP 46%) tonne 0.1 1,950,000 117,000 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 -phosphorous (TSP 46%) tonne 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.1 1,950,000 195,000 0.1 1,950,000 195,000 Manure tonne 13.6 35,000 476,000 12 35,000 420,000 12 35,000 420,000 12 35,000 420,000 12 35,000 420,000 Manure tonne 12 35,000 420,000 12 35,000 420,000 12 35,000 420,000 12 35,000 420,000 20 35,000 700,000 20 35,000 700,000 Compost tonne 3.4 2,700 19,800 4 12,000 48,000 0 0 0 Compost tonne 0 0 10 5,000 50,000 0 10 5,000 50,000 10 5,000 50,000 Bio & chemical kg 1.0 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 Bio & chemical kg 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 Mechanisation Mechanisation Pre - Planting period Pre - Planting period Land levelling pass 0.1 250,000 35,000 0.2 250,000 50,000 0.2 250,000 50,000 0 250,000 0 0.2 250,000 50,000 Land levelling pass 250,000 0 0.2 250,000 50,000 0.2 250,000 50,000 0.2 250,000 50,000 0.2 250,000 50,000 250,000 0 Manure application pass 1.2 56,000 67,200 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 Manure application pass 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 2 56,000 112,000 2 56,000 112,000 Fertilizer application pass 1.0 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 Fertilizer application pass 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 Ploughing pass 0.8 109,000 87,200 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 Ploughing pass 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 109,000 0 109,000 0 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 Furrow formation pass 1.0 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 Furrow formation pass 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 Cultivation pass 1.0 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 Cultivation pass 1 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 1 51,000 51,000 Rolling pass 1.0 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 Rolling pass 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 Planting period Planting period Planting pass 1.0 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 Planting pass 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 Growing period Growing period Opening irrigation canals pass 1.0 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 Opening irrigation canals pass 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 Harrowing pass 2.8 15,000 42,000 2 15,000 30,000 3 15,000 45,000 1 15,000 15,000 3 15,000 45,000 Harrowing pass 3 15,000 45,000 3 15,000 45,000 4 15,000 60,000 3 15,000 45,000 3 15,000 45,000 3 15,000 45,000 Fertilizer application pass 1.7 24,000 40,800 2 24,000 48,000 2 24,000 48,000 1 24,000 24,000 2 24,000 48,000 Fertilizer application pass 2 24,000 48,000 1 24,000 24,000 2 24,000 48,000 1 24,000 24,000 2 24,000 48,000 2 24,000 48,000 Harvesting period Harvesting period Mechanical Harvesting tonne 0.4 20,000 20,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 Mechanical Harvesting tonne 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 Transportation (half of total yelds) tonne 8.9 60,000 535,530 6.8 60,000 408,000 7.7 60,000 459,000 10.5 60,000 627,000 8.8 60,000 528,000 Transportation (half of total yelds) tonne 13.1 60,000 787,500 10.2 60,000 613,800 7.2 60,000 432,000 9.4 60,000 561,000 6.7 60,000 399,000 9.0 60,000 540,000 Fuel and lubricants litre 374.1 1,700 635,970 416 1,700 707,200 230 1,700 391,000 220 1,700 374,000 375 1,700 637,500 Fuel and lubricants litre 310 1,700 527,000 255 1,700 433,500 535 1,700 909,500 440 1,700 748,000 480 1,700 816,000 480 1,700 816,000 Packaging tonne 266.8 700 292,261 302 400 120,889 340 400 136,000 464 400 185,778 Packaging tonne 538 400 215,368 576 3,000 1,728,000 190 1,200 228,000 257 1,200 308,571 Tools and equipment lump sum 1.0 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 Tools and equipment lump sum 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 Labor (including hand harvesting) workdays 120.5 12,000 1,446,000 119 12,000 1,428,000 119 12,000 1,428,000 70 12,000 840,000 167 12,000 2,004,000 Labor (including hand harvesting) workdays 133 12,000 1,596,000 100 12,000 1,200,000 158 12,000 1,896,000 60 12,000 720,000 134 12,000 1,608,000 145 12,000 1,740,000 WUA charge months 1.0 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 WUA charge months 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 Private pumping lump sum 1.0 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 Private pumping lump sum 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 Contingencies 10% 0.0 0 553,676 423,459 388,150 345,028 461,700 Contingencies 10% 427,800 401,617 646,900 318,750 1,004,000 1,119,357 Land taxes year 1.0 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 Land taxes year 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 Total costs mln.UZS 6,140,437 4,708,048 4,319,650 3,845,306 5,128,700 Total costs mln.UZS 4,755,800 4,467,785 7,165,900 3,556,250 11,094,000 12,362,929 Net income mln.UZS 2,020,488 2,091,952 1,800,350 1,379,694 1,031,300 Net income mln.UZS 1,150,450 1,670,215 2,914,100 3,923,750 2,206,000 2,037,071 Proportion of veg area planted % 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% Proportion of veg area planted % 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Wholesale bazaar prices sacks, etc type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost Wholesale bazaar prices sacks, etc type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost UZS per unit plastic sack 45 400 plastic sack 45 400 plastic sack 45 400 na UZS per unit na string sack 38 400 banana box 25 3,000 paper sack 70 1,200 paper sack 70 1,200 Table A.5 Selected Fruit Crops. Crop Budgets @ constant 2012 financial prices. UZS/ha
Fruit (weighted average) New orchards Immature orchards Productive apples Productive apricots/peaches New grapes Mature grapes Unit units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value Gross Return ha Gross Production c/ha 94.7 110 85 120 Wastage % 12.4 15 18 10 Net Production tonne 8.3 677,000 6,171,120 9.35 800,000 7,480,000 6.97 800,000 5,576,000 10.8 700,000 7,560,000 Input Costs Planting material kg 66.5 440 385,920 330 5,000 1,650,000 1333 6,000 7,998,000 Mineral fertilizer tonne -nitrogen (urea 46%) tonne 0.1 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 -phosphorous (TSP 46%) tonne 0.0 1,950,000 0 1,950,000 0 1,950,000 0 1,950,000 0 1,950,000 0 1,950,000 0 1,950,000 0 Manure tonne 5.0 35,000 175,000 5 35,000 175,000 5 35,000 175,000 5 35,000 175,000 5 35,000 175,000 5 35,000 175,000 5 35,000 175,000 Bio & chemical kg 1.0 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 Mechanisation Pre - Planting period Land levelling pass 0.1 250,000 20,000 1 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 250,000 0 250,000 0 1 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 Manure application pass 1.0 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 1 56,000 56,000 Fertilizer application pass 1.0 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 Ploughing pass 1.0 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 Furrow formation pass 1.3 45,000 59,850 1 45,000 45,000 3 45,000 135,000 2 45,000 90,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 Cultivation pass 0.1 51,000 4,998 1 51,000 51,000 0.6 51,000 30,600 51,000 0 51,000 0 1 51,000 51,000 51,000 0 Rolling pass 0.1 15,000 1,200 1 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 0 1 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 Planting period Planting pass 0.2 79,000 12,640 2 79,000 158,000 79,000 0 79,000 0 79,000 0 2 79,000 158,000 79,000 0 Growing period Making irrigation canals pass 5.7 28,000 159,040 2 28,000 56,000 6 28,000 168,000 6 28,000 168,000 6 28,000 168,000 2 28,000 56,000 6 28,000 168,000 Harrowing pass 4.5 15,000 68,100 10 15,000 150,000 6 15,000 90,000 4 15,000 60,000 4 15,000 60,000 10 15,000 150,000 4 15,000 60,000 Fertilizer application pass 1.0 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 Harvesting period Transportation (half of total yelds) tonne 4.1 60,000 245,592 0.0 60,000 0 0.0 60,000 0 4.7 60,000 280,500 3.5 60,000 209,100 0.0 60,000 0 5.4 60,000 324,000 Fuel and lubricants litre 327.7 1,700 557,073 293 1,700 498,100 174 1,700 295,800 307 1,700 521,900 270 1,700 459,000 374 1,700 635,800 400 1,700 680,000 Packaging boxes 661.1 1,025 724,163 468 1,500 701,250 581 1,000 580,833 1080 1,000 1,080,000 Tools and equipment lumpsum 1.0 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 Labor (including hand harvesting) workday 108.7 12,000 1,304,880 66 12,000 792,000 32 12,000 384,000 102 12,000 1,224,000 120 12,000 1,440,000 80 12,000 960,000 120 12,000 1,440,000 lump WUA charge 1.0 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 lumpsum Private pumping 1.0 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 sum Contingencies 10% 0.0 0 407,446 419,610 163,440 357,665 349,293 1,084,980 432,800 Land taxes year 1.0 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 Total costs mln.UZS 4,531,901 4,665,710 1,847,840 3,984,315 3,892,227 11,984,780 4,810,800 Net income mln.UZS 1,639,219 -4,665,710 -1,847,840 3,495,685 1,683,773 -11,984,780 2,749,200 Proportion of veg area planted % 100% 4% 3% 27% 27% 4% 35% Wholesale bazaar prices sacks, etc type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost type kg/unit unit cost big wood small wood small wood UZS per unit na na 20 1,500 12 1,000 na 10 1,000 box box box Table A.6 Selected Fodder Crops. Crop Budgets @ constant 2012 financial prices. UZS/ha
Fodder (weighted average) Year 1 Lucerne - fresh Year 2 Lucerne - fresh Lucerne for silage Maize for grain Maize for silage Maize after wheat (for grain) Unit units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value units unit value total value Gross Return Gross production c/ha 99.0 100 350 120 45 270 45 Wastage % 6.0 10 10 Net Production tonne 9.3 569,500 3,676,500 10 175,000 1,750,000 35 175,000 6,125,000 12 450,000 5,400,000 4.05 750,000 3,037,500 27 175,000 4,725,000 4.05 750,000 3,037,500 Input Costs Planting material kg 24.4 6,680 159,200 20 15,000 300,000 20 15,000 300,000 30 4,000 120,000 40 4,000 160,000 30 4,000 120,000 Mineral fertilizer tonne -nitrogen (urea 46%) tonne 0.1 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 0.05 1,160,000 58,000 -phosphorous (TSP 46%) tonne 0.1 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 0.05 1,950,000 97,500 -potash (KCl 57%) tonne 0.0 1,170,000 0 1,170,000 0 1,170,000 0 1,170,000 0 1,170,000 0 1,170,000 0 1,170,000 0 Bio & chemical lumpsum 1.0 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 25,000 Pre - Planting period Land levelling pass 0.0 250,000 10,000 250,000 0 250,000 0 250,000 0 0.2 250,000 50,000 0.2 250,000 50,000 250,000 0 Fertilizer application pass 1.0 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 Ploughing pass 0.9 109,000 98,100 1 109,000 109,000 109,000 0 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 1 109,000 109,000 Furrow formation pass 0.7 45,000 32,400 1 45,000 45,000 45,000 0 45,000 0 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 Cultivation pass 1.3 51,000 68,340 1 51,000 51,000 51,000 0 51,000 0 2 51,000 102,000 2 51,000 102,000 2 51,000 102,000 Rolling pass 1.2 15,000 17,700 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 2 15,000 30,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 Planting period Planting pass 0.9 79,000 71,100 1 79,000 79,000 79,000 0 1 79,000 79,000 1 79,000 79,000 1 79,000 79,000 1 79,000 79,000 Growing period Opening irrigation canals pass 1.0 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 1 28,000 28,000 Harrowing pass 0.6 15,000 9,300 15,000 0 15,000 0 15,000 0 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 1 15,000 15,000 Fertilizer application pass 1.0 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 1 24,000 24,000 Harvesting period Mechanised harvesting tonne 1.6 60,000 98,400 1 60,000 60,000 3 60,000 180,000 3 60,000 180,000 1 60,000 60,000 5 60,000 300,000 1 60,000 60,000 Transportation (assuming 2.5 tonne 4.1 35,060 107,105 4.0 17,000 68,000 14.0 17,000 238,000 4.8 17,000 81,600 2.0 17,000 34,425 13.5 17,000 229,500 2.0 60,000 121,500 tonne/truck) Fuel and lubricants litre 264.5 1,700 449,650 166 1,700 282,200 218 1,700 370,600 310 1,700 527,000 315 1,700 535,500 430 1,700 731,000 250 1,700 425,000 Packaging sacks 32.4 720 38,880 54 1,200 64,800 54 1,200 64,800 lump Tools and equipment 1.0 10,000 10,000 1 10,000 10000 1 10,000 10000 1 10,000 10000 1 10,000 10000 1 10,000 10000 1 10,000 10000 sum Labor work day 11.7 12,000 140,880 12 12,000 144,000 8 12,000 96,000 9 12,000 108,000 15 12,000 180,000 19 12,000 228,000 12 12,000 144,000 WUA charge months 0.6 11,600 11,600 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 1 20,000 20,000 lump Private pumping 1.0 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 1 30,000 30,000 sum Contingencies 10% 160,915 146,970 121,610 171,610 174,123 238,000 159,680 Land taxes year 0.6 29,000 29,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 1 50,000 50,000 Total costs mln.UZS 1,799,070 1,666,670 1,387,710 1,937,710 1,965,348 2,668,000 1,756,480 Net income mln.UZS 1,877,430 83,330 4,737,290 3,462,290 1,072,153 2,057,000 1,281,020 Proportion of fodder area planted % 100% 10% 10% 18% 18% 2% 42% Table A.7 Capital cost - Khamza 1 Pump Station. New. @ constant 2012 financial and economic prices. US$'000
Financial cost Economic cost 1/ Unit Unit nr Unit cost Total Cost Foreign % scf % Total A.Civil Works Local Foreign Local Foreign Total (a) earth works lumpsum 1 8,896 3,812 8,896 3,812 12,708 30% 80% 10,929 (b) construction lumpsum 1 17,704 7,588 17,704 7,588 25,292 30% 80% 21,751 (c) Other earthworks lumpsum 1 6,860 2,940 6,860 2,940 9,800 30% 80% 8,428 Sub-total 33,460 14,340 47,800 30% 41,108 B. Equipment (a) Mechanical - pumps (1) nr 8 493 2,794 3,944 22,352 26,296 85% 80% 25,507 - pumps (2) nr - valves (1) nr 9 46 259 412 2,333 2,745 85% 80% 2,663 - valves (2) nr 9 50 285 452 2,563 3,015 85% 80% 2,925 - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 203 812 203 812 1,015 80% 80% 974 - cranes and lifting equipment lumpsum 1 194 776 194 776 970 80% 80% 931 (b) Anciliary systems lumpsum 1 209 836 209 836 1,045 80% 80% 1,003 c) Hydraulic steel structures - intake lumpsum 1 188 752 188 752 940 80% 80% 902 - discharge lumpsum 1 4,623 18,493 4,623 18,493 23,117 80% 80% 22,192 (d) Electrical equipment - motors (1) nr 8 218 1,233 1,740 9,860 11,600 85% 80% 11,252 - motors (2) nr - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 434 1,766 434 1,766 2,200 80% 80% 2,113 (e) Instrumentation lumpsum 1 91 363 91 363 454 80% 80% 436 Sub-total equipment 12,491 60,906 73,397 83% 70,899 C. Training, Capacity Building & Studies D. Consulting Services E. Project Management and Monitoring Total Base Line Capital Cost 45,951 75,246 121,197 62% 112,007 Physical Contingencies - civil 2,342 1,004 3,346 30% 80% 2,878 Physical Contingencies - other 2,498 12,181 14,679 83% 80% 14,180 Total Capital Cost, including physical contingencies 50,791 88,431 139,222 64% 129,064 Source : PPTA estimates Note 1/ No currency adjustment applied Table A.8 Capital Cost - Kuyu Mazar Pump Station. Rehabilitation. @ constant 2012 financial and economic prices. US$'000 Economic cost 1/ Unit Unit nr Unit cost Total Cost Foreign % scf % Total A.Civil Works Local Foreign Local Foreign Total (a) earth works lumpsum 1 239 103 239 103 342 30% 80% 294 (b) construction lumpsum 1 1,623 695 1,623 695 2,318 30% 80% 1,993 (c) Other structures lumpsum Sub-total 1,862 798 2,660 30% 2,288 B. Equipment (a) Mechanical - pumps (1) nr 3 294 1,666 882 4,998 5,880 85% 80% 5,704 - pumps (2) nr 3 344 1,949 1,032 5,847 6,879 85% 80% 6,673 - valves (1) nr - valves (2) nr - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 113 452 113 452 565 80% 80% 542 - cranes and lifting equipment lumpsum 1 12 48 12 48 60 80% 80% 58 (b) Anciliary systems lumpsum 1 71 284 71 284 355 80% 80% 341 c) Hydraulic steel structures - intake lumpsum 1 203 786 203 786 989 80% 80% 948 - discharge lumpsum 1 80 210 80 210 289 72% 80% 273 (d) Electrical equipment - motors (1) nr 6 156 884 936 5,304 6,240 85% 80% 6,053 - motors (2) nr - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 371 1,509 371 1,509 1,880 80% 80% 1,806 (e) Instrumentation lumpsum 1 81 324 81 324 405 80% 80% 389 Sub-total equipment 3,780 19,762 23,542 84% 22,786 C. Training, Capacity Building & Studies D. Consulting Services E. Project Management and Monitoring Total Base Line Capital Cost 5,642 20,560 26,202 78% 25,074 Physical Contingencies - civil 130 56 186 30% 80% 160 Physical Contingencies - other 756 3,952 4,708 84% 80% 4,557 Total Capital Cost, including physical contingencies 6,528 24,568 31,097 79% 29,791 Source : PPTA estimates Note 1/ No currency adjustment applied Table A.9 Capital Cost - Khamza 2 Pump Station Rehabilitation.@ constant 2012 financial and economic prices. US$'000 Economic cost1/ Unit Unit nr Unit cost Total Cost Foreign % scf % Total A.Civil Works Local Foreign Local Foreign Total (a) earth works lumpsum 1 34 15 34 15 49 30% 80% 42 (b) construction lumpsum 1 907 389 907 389 1,295 30% 80% 1,114 (c) Other structures lumpsum Sub-total 941 403 1,344 30% 1,156 B. Equipment (a) Mechanical - pumps (1) nr 10 575 3,256 5,745 32,555 38,300 85% 80% 37,151 - pumps (2) nr - valves (1) nr 11 39 221 429 2,431 2,860 85% 80% 2,774 - valves (2) nr - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 158 632 158 632 790 80% 80% 758 - cranes and lifting equipment lumpsum 1 57 228 57 228 285 80% 80% 274 (b) Anciliary systems lumpsum 1 104 416 104 416 520 80% 80% 499 c) Hydraulic steel structures - intake lumpsum 1 241 963 241 963 1,204 80% 80% 1,156 - discharge lumpsum 1 4,139 16,557 4,139 16,557 20,697 80% 80% 19,869 (d) Electical equipment - motors (1) nr 10 246 1,392 2,457 13,923 16,380 85% 80% 15,889 - motors (2) nr - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 434 1,766 434 1,766 2,200 80% 80% 2,113 (e) Instrumentation lumpsum 1 96 384 96 384 480 80% 80% 461 Sub-total equipment 13,860 69,856 83,716 83% 80,944 C. Training, Capacity Building & Studies D. Consulting Services E. Project Management and Monitoring Total Base Line Capital Cost 14,801 70,259 85,060 83% 82,100 Physical Contingencies - civil 66 28 94 30% 80% 81 Physical Contingencies - other 2,772 13,971 16,743 83% 80% 16,189 Total Capital Cost, including physical contingencies 17,639 84,258 101,897 83% 98,369 Source : PPTA estimates Note 1/ No currency adjustment applied Table A.10 Capital Cost - Kizil Tepa Pump Station - rehabilitation. @ constant 2012 financial and economic prices. US$'000 Economic cost 1/ Unit Unit nr Unit cost Total Cost Foreign % scf % Total A.Civil Works Local Foreign Local Foreign Total (a) earth works lumpsum 1 20 9 20 9 29 30% 80% 25 (b) construction lumpsum 1 1,768 758 1,768 758 2,525 30% 80% 2,172 (c) Other structures lumpsum Sub-total 1,788 766 2,554 30% 2,196 B. Equipment (a) Mechanical - pumps (1) nr 6 533 3,023 3,200 18,136 21,336 85% 80% 20,696 - pumps (2) nr 4 403 2,282 1,611 9,129 10,740 85% 80% 10,418 - valves (1) nr 11 52 208 572 2,288 2,860 80% 80% 2,746 - valves (2) nr - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 157 628 157 628 785 80% 80% 754 - cranes and lifting equipment lumpsum 1 57 228 57 228 285 80% 80% 274 (b) Anciliary systems lumpsum 1 98 392 98 392 490 80% 80% 470 c) Hydraulic steel structures - intake lumpsum 1 241 963 241 963 1,204 80% 80% 1,156 - discharge lumpsum 1 847 2,797 847 2,797 3,644 77% 80% 3,474 (d) Electrical equipment - motors (1) nr 4 185 1,046 738 4,182 4,920 85% 80% 4,772 - motors (2) nr 6 246 1,392 1,474 8,354 9,828 85% 80% 9,533 - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 434 1,766 434 1,766 2,200 80% 80% 2,113 (e) Instrumentation lumpsum 1 96 384 96 384 480 80% 80% 461 Sub-total equipment 9,525 49,246 58,772 84% 56,867 C. Training, Capacity Building & Studies D. Consulting Services E. Project Management and Monitoring Total Base Line Capital Cost 11,313 50,012 61,326 82% 59,063 Physical Contingencies - civil 125 54 179 30% 80% 154 Physical Contingencies - other 1,905 9,849 11,754 84% 80% 11,373 Total Capital Cost, including physical contingencies 13,343 59,915 73,259 82% 70,590 Source : PPTA estimates Note 1/ No currency adjustment applied Table A.11 Capital Cost - Kizil Tepa Auxiliary Pump Station - rehabilitation. @ constant 2012 financial and economic prices. US$.'000 Economic cost 1/ Unit Unit nr Unit cost Total Cost Foreign % scf % Total A.Civil Works Local Foreign Local Foreign Total (a) earth works lumpsum 1 259 111 259 111 370 30% 80% 318 (b) construction lumpsum 1 1,190 510 1,190 510 1,700 30% 80% 1,462 (c) Other structures lumpsum Sub-total 1,449 621 2,070 30% 1,780 B. Equipment (a) Mechanical - pumps (1) nr 26 44 247 1,131 6,409 7,540 85% 80% 7,314 - pumps (2) nr - valves (1) nr 30 3 17 90 510 600 85% 80% 582 - valves (2) nr 30 4 21 113 638 750 85% 80% 728 - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 101 404 101 404 505 80% 80% 485 - cranes and lifting equipment lumpsum 1 19 77 19 77 96 80% 80% 92 (b) Anciliary systems lumpsum 1 68 272 68 272 340 80% 80% 326 c) Hydraulic steel structures - intake lumpsum 1 105 420 105 420 525 80% 80% 504 - discharge lumpsum 1 10,643 42,633 10,643 42,633 53,276 80% 80% 51,147 (d) Electrical equipment - motors (1) nr 26 56 224 1,456 5,824 7,280 80% 80% 6,989 - motors (2) nr - miscellaneous lumpsum 1 737 2,973 737 2,973 3,710 80% 80% 3,563 (e) Instrumentation lumpsum 1 106 422 106 422 528 80% 80% 507 Sub-total equipment 14,569 60,582 75,150 81% 72,236 C. Training, Capacity Building & Studies D. Consulting Services E. Project Management and Monitoring Total Base Line Capital Cost 16,018 61,203 77,220 79% 74,017 Physical Contingencies - civil 101 43 145 30% 80% 125 Physical Contingencies - other 2,914 12,116 15,030 81% 80% 14,447 Total Capital Cost, including physical contingencies 19,033 73,362 92,395 79% 88,588 Source : PPTA estimates Note 1/ No currency adjustment applied
Table A.12 Capital Cost - ABMK rehabilitation.@ 2012 Financial and Economic Prices. US$'000
Dvoynik Escape-1 Escape-2 Troynik Peresechenie Prokop Kharkhur Tashrabad Rostgoy Jilvon Total Foreign Exchange % TotalForex SCF % EconomicCost 1/
Civil Works - earthworks 510.9 306.0 344.9 751.4 373.9 657.0 142.5 57.7 149.3 7.0 3,300.5 30% 990.2 80% 2,838.5 - structures 146.8 89.6 230.2 28.8 28.2 36.2 149.6 343.4 525.0 165.5 1,743.3 30% 523.0 80% 1,499.3 Sub-total civil works 657.7 395.6 575.1 780.1 402.2 693.2 292.1 401.0 674.2 172.5 5,043.9 30% 1,513.2 80% 4,337.7 Equipment - mechanical 634.5 198.1 234.0 262.1 183.8 340.3 201.6 119.8 27.3 38.2 2,239.6 80% 1,791.7 80% 2,150.0 - electrical 52.0 14.0 14.0 48.5 35.0 42.0 38.5 76.5 38.5 24.0 383.0 80% 306.4 80% 367.7 - instrumentation 2.5 - - - 2.5 - 2.5 4.0 2.5 2.5 16.5 80% 13.2 80% 15.8 Sub-total equipment 689.0 212.1 248.0 310.6 221.3 382.3 242.6 200.3 68.3 64.7 2,639.1 80% 2,111.3 80% 2,533.5 Total Base Cost 1,346.8 607.6 823.1 1,090.8 623.4 1,075.6 534.7 601.4 742.5 237.2 7,683.0 47% 3,624.4 80% 6,871.3 Physical Contingencies - Civils rate % 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% - Cost 65.8 39.6 57.5 78.0 40.2 69.3 29.2 40.1 67.4 17.3 504.4 47% 306.4 80% 433.8 - Equipment rate % 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% - Cost 68.9 21.2 24.8 31.1 22.1 38.2 24.3 20.0 6.8 6.5 263.9 253.4 Total Cost incl contingencies 1,481.4 668.4 905.4 1,199.8 685.8 1,183.1 588.2 661.5 816.8 260.9 8,451.3 3,930.8 1.60 7,558.4 Source : PPTA estimates Note 1/ No currency adjustment applied Table A.13 Capital Cost. DSS & SCADA @constant 2012 financial and economic prices. US$'000
Foreign Foreign Local Total cost scf % Economic cost Item % cost cost Equipment - Computer 50.0 85% 42.5 7.5 80% 48.5 - SCADA 320.0 100% 320.0 0.0 80% 320.0 - Software 50.0 100% 50.0 0.0 80% 50.0 - Survey equipment 12.0 100% 12.0 0.0 80% 12.0 - Meteorological equipment 100.0 100% 100.0 0.0 80% 100.0 - Remote sensing materials 300.0 100% 300.0 0.0 80% 300.0 Sub-total equipment 832.0 99% 824.5 7.5 830.5 Training 60.0 10% 6.0 54.0 80% 49.2 Consultancy International consultants 360.0 100% 360.0 0.0 80% 360.0 National consultants 75.0 0% 0.0 75.0 80% 60.0 International transport 12.0 100% 12.0 0.0 0% 12.0 Sub-total consultants 447.0 83% 372.0 75.0 432.0 Project Management & Administration Reporting 10.0 10% 1.0 9.0 80% 8.2 Local transport 6.0 0% 0.0 6.0 80% 4.8 Administration 95.5 5% 4.8 90.7 80% 77.4 Sub-total Project Management 111.5 5% 5.8 105.7 90.4 Total Base Cost 1,450.5 1,208.3 242.2 1,402.1 Physical contingencies 20% 290.1 241.7 48.4 80% 280.4 Total cost including contingencies 1,740.6 83% 1,449.9 290.7 1,682.5 Source : PPTA estimates Table A.14 Capital Costs - Water Conservation Demonstration Initiative. (3 sites)
@ constant 2012 financial and economic prices. US$'000
Unit Unit cost 1 Farm 2 Farm 3 Farm Extension Area Capacity Building Total % Forex Total forex % Scf Economic Cost Civil works Inter-farm canals - Structures/repairs 25.0 75.0 75.0 20% 15.0 80% 63.0 - Sediment removal 28.0 84.0 84.0 20% 16.8 80% 70.6 On-farm canals - Structures/repairs 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 72.6 20% 14.5 80% 61.0 - Sediment removal 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 20% 6.0 80% 25.2 Demonstration plot - Structures/repairs 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 21.0 20% 4.2 80% 17.6 - Canal repairs 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 20% 6.0 80% 25.2 - Sediment removal 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 12.0 20% 2.4 80% 10.1 Sub-total earth moving 42.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 84.0 126.0 20% 25.2 80% 105.8 Sub-total structures 66.2 41.2 41.2 41.2 75.0 198.6 20% 39.7 80% 166.8 Sub-total civils 55.2 55.2 55.2 159.0 324.6 20% 64.9 272.7 Equipment - Computer/printer/UPS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 10.0 80% 8.0 80% 9.6 - EC/pH meter 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 100% 0.3 80% 0.3 - Soil testing kit/reagents 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 100% 0.9 80% 0.9 - Sonic depth-velocity 25.0 meter 75.0 75.0 100% 75.0 80% 75.0 - Field tensiometers 0.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 6.0 13.2 100% 13.2 80% 13.2 - Wetting front detectors 0.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.0 6.6 100% 6.6 80% 6.6 - Drip Irrigation System 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 135.0 80% 108.0 80% 129.6 - Pressure irrigation 15.0 system 15.0 15.0 15.0 45.0 80% 36.0 80% 43.2 - Micro-meteorology 10.0 station 20.0 20.0 100% 20.0 80% 20.0 - Class A pan evaporimeter 3.0 9.0 9.0 80% 7.2 80% 8.6 - Water table loggers 2.5 7.5 7.5 100% 7.5 80% 7.5 - Mulching machine 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 80% 7.2 80% 8.6 Sub-total equipment 69.0 69.0 69.0 120.5 4.0 331.5 87% 289.9 323.2 Training - WUA training IWRM 20.0 principles 60.0 60.0 0% - 80% 48.0 - WUA training - conservation 20.0 60.0 60.0 0% - 80% 48.0 - WUA training - monitoring 20.0 60.0 60.0 0% - 80% 48.0 - ToT WUAs 10.0 30.0 30.0 0% - 80% 24.0 - Workshops - WUA 30.0 staff 120.0 120.0 0% - 80% 96.0 - Workshops farmers 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 90.0 0% - 80% 72.0 - Workshop National 40.0 40.0 40.0 0% - 80% 32.0 - Farm visits 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 90.0 0% - 80% 72.0 - Community awareness 10.0 30.0 30.0 0% - 80% 24.0 - Curriculum development 15.0 45.0 45.0 0% - 80% 36.0 - Retail staff training 40.0 40.0 40.0 0% - 80% 32.0 Sub-total training 60.0 60.0 60.0 445.0 40.0 665.0 - - 532.0 Field operations - Drilling piezometers 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.0 7.5 20% 1.5 80% 6.3 - Deep ripping 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 20% 3.0 80% 12.6 - Laser levelling 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 24.0 80% 19.2 80% 23.0 - Minimum tillage 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 4.2 20% 0.8 80% 3.5 - Instrument maintenance 4.0 4.0 4.0 50% 2.0 80% 3.6 - Servicing micro-met 3.0 services 6.0 6.0 50% 3.0 80% 5.4 - Shelter belt establishment 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 0% - 80% 4.8 - Pest control 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 20% 1.2 80% 5.0 - Crop budget 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 120.0 20% 24.0 80% 100.8 Sub-total field operations 59.9 59.9 59.9 9.0 4.0 192.7 28% 53.2 158.8 Retail Outlet establishment 240.0 240.0 240.0 50% 120.0 80% 216.0 Total 244.1 244.1 244.1 973.5 48.0 1,753.8 30% 528.1 1,502.7 Physical Contingencies10% 24.4 24.4 24.4 97.4 4.8 175.4 52.8 150.3 Grand total including contingencies 268.5 268.5 268.5 1,070.9 52.8 1,929.2 580.9 1,652.9 Source : PPTA estimates Table A.15 A. Consultant Services. International Staff @ constant 2012 financial prices. US$'000 Work months Base Cost US$'000 Economic Economic/Financial A. International Consultants Persons Visits Unit Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Unit cost Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total forex % Total forex Scf % cost ratio
Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation US$'000 Water Resources Engineer/Team Leader 1 6 pm 4 5 6 6 6 6 33 21.0 84.0 105.0 126.0 126.0 126.0 126.0 - 693.0 100% 693.0 80% 693.0 100% Social and Economic M&E Specialist 1 2 pm 1 1 2 21.0 - 21.0 - - - 21.0 - 42.0 100% 42.0 80% 42.0 100% Environmentalist (M&E) 1 6 pm 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 21.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 - 252.0 100% 252.0 80% 252.0 100% Social Safeguards & Gender Specialist 1 2 pm 1 1 2 21.0 - 21.0 - - - 21.0 - 42.0 100% 42.0 80% 42.0 100% Climate Change Adaptation Specialist 1 2 pm 2 2 4 21.0 - - - 42.0 42.0 - - 84.0 100% 84.0 80% 84.0 100% Climate Change Mitigation Specialist/Carbon Credit Specialist 1 1 pm 1 1 21.0 - - - - 21.0 - - 21.0 100% 21.0 80% 21.0 100% Engineering Procurement & Construction Supervision Chief Resident Engineer 1 5 pm 4 11 11 11 11 48 21.0 - 84.0 231.0 231.0 231.0 231.0 - 1,008.0 100% 1,008.0 80% 1,008.0 100% Mechanical Engineers - design 1 4 pm 4 4 2 2 12 21.0 84.0 84.0 42.0 42.0 - - - 252.0 100% 252.0 80% 252.0 100% Electrical Engineers (HV+Switch Gear) 1 3 pm 2 3 3 8 21.0 - 42.0 63.0 63.0 - - - 168.0 100% 168.0 80% 168.0 100% Electrical Engineers (Motors and Auxiliary Facilities) 1 3 pm 2 2 4 8 21.0 - 42.0 42.0 84.0 - - - 168.0 100% 168.0 80% 168.0 100% Civil Engineers (Structual Design) 1 4 pm 3 3 3 3 12 21.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 - - - 252.0 100% 252.0 80% 252.0 100% Hydrologist 1 1 pm 4 4 21.0 - 84.0 - - - - - 84.0 100% 84.0 80% 84.0 100% Geotechnical Specialist 1 1 pm 3 3 21.0 63.0 ------63.0 100% 63.0 80% 63.0 100% DSS & SCADA Preparation Specialist 1 1 pm 2 2 21.0 - 42.0 - - - - - 42.0 100% 42.0 80% 42.0 100% Survey Engineer 1 1 pm 2 2 21.0 42.0 ------42.0 100% 42.0 80% 42.0 100% Procurement/Contract Specialist 1 4 pm 5 3 2 2 12 21.0 105.0 63.0 42.0 42.0 - - - 252.0 100% 252.0 80% 252.0 100% Instrumentation Engineer 1 2 pm 2 2 4 21.0 - 42.0 42.0 - - - - 84.0 100% 84.0 80% 84.0 100% Institutional Support, Capacity Building and Training Extension Specialist 1 1 pm 4 4 21.0 84.0 ------84.0 100% 84.0 80% 84.0 100% Irrigation and Drainage Specialist 1 2 pm 2 2 4 21.0 42.0 42.0 - - - - - 84.0 100% 84.0 80% 84.0 100% Monitoring & Change Management Specialist 1 2 pm 2 2 4 21.0 42.0 42.0 - - - - - 84.0 100% 84.0 80% 84.0 100% WUA Specialist 1 2 pm 4 4 8 21.0 84.0 - 84.0 - - - - 168.0 100% 168.0 80% 168.0 100% Hydrometeorologist 1 1 pm 3 3 21.0 63.0 ------63.0 100% 63.0 80% 63.0 100% Unallocated 6 6 pm 4 4 4 12 21.0 - 84.0 84.0 84.0 - - - 252.0 100% 252.0 80% 252.0 100% Total International months 62 pm 38 43 41 39 22 21 0 204 798.0 903.0 861.0 819.0 462.0 441.0 - 4,284.0 4,284.0 4,284.0 100% Total International Trips local trips 15 19 18 14 6 7 79 Source : PPTA estimates int trips 12 17 12 11 5 5 62 Table A.15 B.Consultant Services. National Staff @ constant 2012 financial prices. US$'000 Work months Base Cost US$'000 Economic Economic/Financial B. National Consultants Persons Visits Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Unit cost Yr 1 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Total forex % Total forex Scf % cost ratio Project Management US$'000
Hydroelectric Engineer/Deputy Team Leader 1 19 pm 11 11 11 11 11 11 6 72 3.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 18.0 216.0 0% - 80% 172.8 80% Social and Economic M&E Specialist 1 6 pm 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 3.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 - 54.0 0% - 80% 43.2 80% Environmentalist (M&E) 1 6 pm 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 3.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 - 54.0 0% - 80% 43.2 80% Social Safeguards & Gender Specialist 1 6 pm 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 - 36.0 0% - 80% 28.8 80% Climate Change Adaptation Specialist 1 2 pm 2 2 4 3.0 - - - 6.0 - 6.0 - 12.0 0% - 80% 9.6 80% Climate Change Mitigation Specialist/Carbon Credit Specialist 1 3 pm 3 3 3 9 3.0 - 9.0 9.0 - - 9.0 - 27.0 0% - 80% 21.6 80% Engineering Procurement & Construction Supervision Resident Engineer 1 18 pm 7 11 11 11 11 11 3 65 3.0 21.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 9.0 195.0 0% - 80% 156.0 80% Mechanical Engineer - Design 1 5 pm 5 5 2 12 3.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 - - - - 36.0 0% - 80% 28.8 80% Electrical Engineer - HV 1 2 pm 2 2 4 3.0 - 6.0 6.0 - - - - 12.0 0% - 80% 9.6 80% HVAC Engineer 1 2 pm 2 2 4 3.0 - 6.0 6.0 - - - - 12.0 0% 80% 9.6 80% Electrical Engineers (Motors and Auxiliary Facilities) 1 3 pm 4 4 4 12 3.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - - - - 36.0 0% 80% 28.8 80% Civil Engineers (Structual Design) 1 3 pm 4 4 4 12 3.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - - - - 36.0 0% - 80% 28.8 80% Bridge Engineer - design 1 2 pm 2 2 4 3.0 - 6.0 6.0 - - - - 12.0 0% - 80% 9.6 80% Hydrologist 1 2 pm 6 2 8 3.0 - 18.0 6.0 - - - - 24.0 0% - 80% 19.2 80% Geotechnical Specialist 1 3 pm 5 3 8 3.0 15.0 9.0 - - - - - 24.0 0% - 80% 19.2 80% Survey Engineer 1 6 pm 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 3.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 21.0 0% - 80% 16.8 80% Procurement/Contract Specialist 1 8 pm 6 6 6 6 24 3.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 - - - 72.0 0% - 80% 57.6 80% Instrumentation 1 2 pm 3 2 5 3.0 - 9.0 6.0 - - - - 15.0 0% 80% 12.0 80% Electrical Engineer (Installation of Pump and other facilities) 2 12 pm 4 12 12 8 36 3.0 - - 12.0 36.0 36.0 24.0 - 108.0 0% - 80% 86.4 80% Pump Station Civil Works Inspectors (Measurement and Quality control) 2 16 pm 16 16 16 12 60 3.0 - - 48.0 48.0 48.0 36.0 - 180.0 0% - 80% 144.0 80% Mechanical & Electrical Works Inspectors 2 6 pm 18 18 18 54 3.0 - - - 54.0 54.0 54.0 - 162.0 0% - 80% 129.6 80% Electrical Engineer (Transmission and installation facilities) 1 5 pm 6 6 4 16 3.0 - 18.0 18.0 - 12.0 - - 48.0 0% - 80% 38.4 80% ABMK Civil Works Inspectors 2 6 pm 6 6 6 18 3.0 - - - 18.0 18.0 18.0 - 54.0 0% - 80% 43.2 80% Bridge Engineer (Structures and building) 1 2 pm 4 4 8 3.0 - - 12.0 12.0 - - - 24.0 0% - 80% 19.2 80% Institutional Support, Capacity Building and Training Extension Specialist 1 7 pm 6 6 3 3 2 20 3.0 18.0 18.0 9.0 9.0 6.0 - - 60.0 0% - 80% 48.0 80% Irrigation & Drainage Specialist & OFWM Specialist 1 12 pm 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 3.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 - 108.0 0% - 80% 86.4 80% Institutional Specialist (extension) 1 5 pm 4 4 4 4 4 20 3.0 - 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - 60.0 0% - 80% 48.0 80% Monitoring & Change Management Specialist 1 4 pm 3 3 3 3 12 3.0 - - 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 - 36.0 0% 80% 28.8 80% Agronomist 1 12 pm 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 3.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 - 108.0 0% - 80% 86.4 80% WUA Specialist 1 7 pm 6 4 6 6 22 3.0 18.0 12.0 18.0 - 18.0 - - 66.0 0% - 80% 52.8 80% Hydrometeorologist 1 3 pm 6 3 9 3.0 18.0 9.0 - - - - - 27.0 0% 80% 21.6 80% Unallocated 12 18 pm 12 12 12 36 3.0 - 36.0 36.0 36.0 - - - 108.0 0% - 80% 86.4 80% Total National Consultants 213 pm 82 118 130 129 114 99 9 681 246.0 354.0 390.0 387.0 342.0 297.0 27.0 2,043.0 - 1,634.4 80% Trips 15 41 44 44 34 32 3 213 Source : PPTA estimates Table A.15 C. Consultant Services. Supporting Services @ constant 2012 financial prices. US$'000 Units Base Cost US$'000 Economic Economic/Financial Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Unit cost Yr 1 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Total forex % Total forex Scf % cost ratio C. Consultant Support. Per diems and travel International Perdiems mths 38 43 41 39 22 21 0 204 3.0 114.0 129.0 123.0 117.0 66.0 63.0 - 612.0 100% 612.0 80% 612.0 100% International Transport trips 12 17 12 11 5 5 0 62 2.5 30.0 42.5 30.0 27.5 12.5 12.5 - 155.0 100% 155.0 80% 155.0 100% Local Transport for International Staff trips 15 19 18 14 6 7 79 0.2 3.0 3.8 3.6 2.8 1.2 1.4 - 15.8 0% - 80% 12.6 80% Local Transport for National Staff trips 15 41 44 44 34 32 3 213 0.2 3.0 8.2 8.8 8.8 6.8 6.4 0.6 42.6 0% - 80% 34.1 80% Total Consultant Support 150.0 183.5 165.4 156.1 86.5 83.3 0.6 825.4 767.0 813.7 99%
D. Office Equipment and Vehicles Vehicles - Tashkent based no 2 2 20.0 40.0 ------40.0 40% 16.0 80% 35.2 88% Vehicles - Field based no 5 5 35.0 175.0 ------175.0 40% 70.0 80% 154.0 88% Computers/Printers/Copiers no 20 20 1.5 30.0 ------30.0 85% 25.5 80% 29.1 97% Photocopier no 1 1 1.5 1.5 ------1.5 85% 1.3 80% 1.5 97% Furniture ls 1 1 3.0 3.0 ------3.0 20% 0.6 80% 2.5 84% Communications equipment ls 1 1 1.0 1.0 ------1.0 85% 0.9 80% 1.0 97% Air Conditioners no 6 6 0.5 3.0 ------3.0 85% 2.6 80% 2.9 97% Total Office Equipment and Vehicles 253.5 ------253.5 116.8 226.2 89%
E. Workshops/training - general ls 0.4 0.4 0.3 1 150.0 - 52.5 - 52.5 - 45.0 - 150.0 10% 15.0 80% 123.0 82% - gender ls 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 350.8 - 86.5 48.7 86.5 48.7 80.4 - 350.8 10% 35.1 80% 287.6 82% Sub-total workshops/training - 139.0 48.7 139.0 48.7 125.4 - 500.8 50.1 410.6 82%
F. Office operation & management - Administrative staff pm 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 380 1.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 20.0 380.0 0% - 80% 304.0 80% - Report preparation ls 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 - 12.0 20% 2.4 80% 10.1 84% - Other costs ls 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 1.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 6.0 78.0 20% 15.6 80% 65.5 84% Total Office Operation 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 26.0 470.0 4% 18.0 80% 379.6 81%
G. Surveys - Geotechnical ls 0.5 0.5 500 - 250.0 250.0 - - - - 500.0 50% 250.0 80% 450.0 90% - Remote sensing ls 0.5 0.5 25 - 12.5 12.5 - - - - 25.0 100% 25.0 80% 25.0 100% Total surveys - 262.50 262.50 - - - - 525.00 150% 275.00 1.60 475.00 90%
Total Consultants Base Cost 1,521.5 1,916.0 1,801.6 1,575.1 1,013.2 1,020.7 53.6 8,901.7 1,226.9 7,368.9 83% Physical contingencies 20% 304.3 383.2 360.3 315.0 202.6 204.1 10.7 1,780.3 245.4 1,473.8 83% Total Cost including contingencies 1,825.8 2,299.2 2,161.9 1,890.2 1,215.8 1,224.8 64.3 10,682.0 1,472.2 8,842.7 83% Source : PPTA estimates Table A.16 Capital Costs. PMO. @ constant 2012 financial prices. US$'000 Units Base Cost US$'000 Economic Economic/Financial Unit Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Unit cost Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total forex % Total forex Scf % cost ratio 1. Staff Professional Staff - Project Manager pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 1.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.5 72.5 0% - 80% 58.0 80% - Acountant pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 0.8 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 0.4 58.0 0% - 80% 46.4 80% - Procurement Specialist pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 0.8 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 0.4 58.0 0% - 80% 46.4 80% Sub-total Professional staff 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 1.3 188.5 - 104.4 55% Support Staff - Secretary/Computer Operator pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 0.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.3 36.3 0% - 80% 29.0 80% - Translator pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 0.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.3 36.3 0% - 80% 29.0 80% - Office Assistant pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 0.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.2 29.0 0% - 80% 23.2 80% - Driver pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 0.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.2 29.0 0% - 80% 23.2 80% Sub-total Support Staff 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 0.9 130.5 - 104.4 80% Total all staff 52.8 52.8 52.8 52.8 52.8 52.8 2.2 319.0 - 208.8 65% 2. Vehicles and Equipment - Vehicle - sedan no 1 1 20.0 20.0 ------20.0 40% 8.0 80% 17.6 88% - Computers/Printers/UPS no 3 3 1.5 4.5 ------4.5 85% 3.8 80% 4.4 97% - Air conditioners no 3 3 0.5 1.5 ------1.5 85% 1.3 80% 1.5 97% - Photocopier no 1 1 1.0 1.0 ------1.0 85% 0.9 80% 1.0 97% - Furniture ls 1 1 1.0 1.0 ------1.0 20% 0.2 80% 0.8 84% - Communications equipment ls 1 1 1.0 1.0 ------1.0 85% 0.9 80% 1.0 97% Sub-total Vehicles and Equipment 29.0 ------29.0 15.0 26.2 90% Other 3. Office Renovation ls 1 10.0 10.0 ------10.0 10% 1.0 80% 8.2 82% 4. Annual Audits ls 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 7 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 105.0 0% - 80% 84.0 80% 5. Vehicle operation mth 12 12 12 12 12 12 6.0 78 0.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 1.8 23.4 10% 2.3 80% 19.2 82% 6. Office Operation - Staff travel and allowances ls 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 6.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 52.0 0% - 80% 41.6 80% - Office expenses ls 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 0.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.3 36.3 20% 7.3 80% 30.5 84% - Communications ls 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.5 72.5 0.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.2 21.8 0% - 80% 17.4 80% Sub-total Office Operation 46.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 21.2 248.4 10.6 200.8 81%
Total PMO Base Costs 128.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 23.4 596.4 25.6 435.8 73% Physical Contingencies 20% 25.6 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 4.7 119.3 5.1 87.2 73% Total PMO Cost including contingencies 153.6 106.8 106.8 106.8 106.8 106.8 28.1 715.7 30.7 523.0 73% Source : PPTA estimates Table A.17 Capital Costs. PIU. @ constant 2012 financial prices. US$'000 Units Base Cost US$'000 1. Staff Unit Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Unit cost Yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Professional Staff - Deputy Project Manager pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 0.8 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 4.8 62.4 - Assistant Accountant pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 0.8 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 4.8 62.4 - Procurement Specialist pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 0.8 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 4.8 62.4 - DSS/Environment M&E pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 0.8 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 4.8 62.4 Sub-total Professional staff 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 19.2 249.6 Support Staff - Secretary/Computer Operator pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 0.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 39.0 - Translator pm 24 24 24 24 24 24 12 156 0.5 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 6.0 78.0 - Office Assistant pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 0.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 2.4 31.2 - Drivers pm 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 0.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 2.4 31.2 Sub-total Support Staff 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 13.8 179.4 Total all staff 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 33.0 429.0 2. Vehicles and Equipment - Vehicle - sedan no 1 1 20.0 20.0 ------20.0 - Computers/Printers/UPS no 3 3 1.5 4.5 ------4.5 - Air conditioners no 3 3 1.0 3.0 ------3.0 - Photocopier no 1 1 1.0 1.0 ------1.0 - Furniture ls 1 1 1.0 1.0 ------1.0 - Communications equipment ls 1 1 1.0 1.0 ------1.0 Sub-total Vehicles and Equipment 30.5 ------30.5 Other 3. Office Renovation ls 1 1 10.0 10.0 ------10.0 4. Vehicle operation mth 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 78 0.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 1.8 23.4 5. Office Operation - Staff travel and allowances ls 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 - 48.0 - Office expenses ls 12 12 12 12 12 12 72 0.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 - 28.8 - Communications ls 12 12 12 12 12 12 72 0.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 - 28.8 Sub-total Office Operation 31.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 1.8 139.0
Total PIU Base Costs 127.7 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 34.8 598.5 Physical Contingencies 20% 25.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 7.0 119.7 Total PUI Cost including contingencies 153.2 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 41.8 718.2 Source : PPTA estimates Table A.18 Part A Pump Capacity , Pumped Volumes available to Stage 2 pump stations. Assumed 'Without-Project'. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline Stage 1 - Khamza PS unit unit value base Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Khamza pumps capacity Khamza 1 m3/s/PS 65 65 65 65 65 62 59 56 53 50 48 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 32 30 29 27 26 25 23 22 21 Khamza Aux m3/s/PS 20 20 20 20 20 19 18 17 16 15 15 14 13 13 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 6 Khamza 2 m3/s/PS 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 128 122 116 110 104 99 94 90 85 81 77 73 69 66 63 59 56 54 51 48 Total Khamza. Stage 1 capacity m3/s 220 220 220 220 220 209 199 189 179 170 162 154 146 139 132 125 119 113 107 102 97 92 87 83 79 75 71 Proportion of 2012 capacity 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 86% 81% 77% 74% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 40% 38% 36% 34% 32% Pump time % of maximum 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% Volume pumped peak month from Stage 1 m3/s peak month 202 202 202 202 192 183 174 165 157 149 141 134 128 121 115 109 104 99 94 89 85 80 76 73 69 65 - Less other direct offtakes m3/s peak month 5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 Stage 2 - Karaul Bazar PS irrigated area - ha 15,907 Karaul Bazar pump capacity m3/s peak month 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 - Less Karaul Bazar offtake m3/s peak month 19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 - Less main ABMK losses m3/s peak month 7% -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 Available at Tudakul Diversion m3/s peak month 165 165 165 165 155 145 136 127 119 111 104 97 90 84 77 72 66 61 56 51 47 43 39 35 31 28 Proportion of 2012 availabilty % 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 82% 77% 72% 67% 63% 59% 55% 51% 47% 44% 40% 37% 34% 31% 29% 26% 23% 21% 19% 17% Flow division at Tudakul Diversion (TD) (a) Allocation to Kuyu Mazar PS (KM) % 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% To Kuyu Mazar PS m3/s peak month max 60 64 64 64 64 60 57 53 50 46 43 40 38 35 33 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 17 15 14 12 11 - Losses between TD and KM (17 km) m3/s peak month 2% -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 + From Kuyu Mazar & Tudakul Lakes m3/s peak month max 44 44 44 44 44 41 39 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 21 19 18 16 15 14 13 11 10 9 8 7 Available at Kuyu Mazar PS m3/s peak month 111 107 107 107 107 100 94 88 82 77 72 67 62 58 54 50 46 42 39 36 32 30 27 24 22 19 17 Proportion of 2012 availabilty % 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 82% 77% 72% 67% 62% 58% 54% 50% 46% 43% 39% 36% 33% 30% 28% 25% 23% 20% 18% 16% (b) Allocation to Kizil Tepa PS (KT) % 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% To Kizil Tepa PS m3/s peak month 100 100 100 100 94 88 83 78 73 68 63 59 55 51 47 44 40 37 34 31 29 26 24 21 19 17 - Losses between TD and KT (38 km) m3/s peak month 3% -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 + From Tudakul Lake m3/s peak month max 28 24 24 24 24 23 21 20 19 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 Available at Kizil Tepa PS m3/s peak month 123 121 121 121 121 114 107 100 93 87 81 75 70 65 60 56 51 47 43 39 36 32 29 26 23 21 18 Proportion of 2012 availabilty % 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 82% 77% 72% 67% 62% 58% 53% 49% 46% 42% 39% 35% 32% 29% 27% 24% 22% 19% 17% 15% Table A.18 Part B Pump Capacity , Pumped Volumes available for irrigation. Assumed 'Without-Project' . Full Cost Option. Pumps decline unit unit value base Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Stage 2 - Kuyu Mazar PS irrigated area - ha 89117 Kuyu Mazar (KM) pump capacity - New PS m3/s/PS 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 - Main PS - to Shakrud Canal m3/s/PS 60 60 60 60 60 57 54 51 49 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 31 29 28 26 25 24 23 22 20 19 - Main PS - to Kuyu Mazar Lake m3/s/PS 40 40 40 40 40 38 36 34 33 31 29 28 27 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 14 13 Total Kuyu Mazar capacity (to Shakhrud) m3/s/PS 100 100 100 100 100 97 94 91 89 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 71 69 68 66 65 64 63 62 60 59 Proportion of 2012 capacity m3/s/PS % 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 94% 91% 89% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 71% 69% 68% 66% 65% 64% 63% 62% 60% 59% Volume pumped at Kuyu Mazar m3/s peak month 107 107 107 107 100 94 88 82 77 72 67 62 58 54 50 46 42 39 36 32 30 27 24 22 19 17 Volume pumped as % of 2012 pumping m3/s peak month 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 82% 77% 72% 67% 62% 58% 54% 50% 46% 43% 39% 36% 33% 30% 28% 25% 23% 20% 18% 16% - DMI and fisheries m3/s peak month 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Net available for agriculture m3/s peak month 105 105 105 105 98 92 86 80 75 70 65 60 56 52 48 44 40 37 34 30 28 25 22 20 17 15 Proportion of 2102 agricultural water % 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 82% 76% 71% 66% 62% 57% 53% 49% 45% 42% 38% 35% 32% 29% 26% 24% 21% 19% 16% 14% Stage2 - Kizil Tepa PS irrigated area - ha 135915 Kizil Tepa (KT) pump capacity - Kizil Tepa m3/s/PS 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 104 98 93 89 84 80 76 72 69 65 62 59 56 53 50 48 46 43 41 - Kizil Tepa Aux m3/s/PS 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 18 17 16 15 15 14 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 Total Kizil Tepa capacity m3/s/PS 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 122 116 110 105 100 95 90 85 81 77 73 70 66 63 60 57 54 51 49 Proportion of 2012 capacity 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 86% 81% 77% 74% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 40% 38% Volume pumped at Kizil Tepa m3/s peak month 121 121 121 121 114 107 100 93 87 81 75 70 65 60 56 51 47 43 39 36 32 29 26 23 21 18 Volume pumped as % of 2012 pumping m3/s peak month 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 82% 77% 72% 67% 62% 58% 53% 49% 46% 42% 39% 35% 32% 29% 27% 24% 22% 19% 17% 15% - DMI and fisheries m3/s peak month 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 - Net available for agriculture m3/s peak month 119 119 119 119 112 105 98 91 85 79 73 68 63 58 54 49 45 41 37 34 30 27 24 21 19 16 Proportion of 2102 agricultural water % 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 82% 76% 71% 66% 61% 57% 53% 49% 45% 41% 38% 34% 31% 28% 26% 23% 20% 18% 16% 13% Total Stage 1 pumping capacity ms/s peak month 220 220 220 220 220 209 199 189 179 170 162 154 146 139 132 125 119 113 107 102 97 92 87 83 79 75 71 Total Stage 2 pumping capacity ms/s peak month 228.8 229 229 229 229 226 223 220 211 203 195 187 179 172 166 160 154 148 143 137 133 128 124 119 115 112 108 Decline assumptions Khamza 1 decline % 5% 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 86% 81% 77% 74% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 40% 38% 36% 34% 32% Khamza Aux decline % 5% 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 86% 81% 77% 74% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 40% 38% 36% 34% 32% Khamza 2 decline % 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 86% 81% 77% 74% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 40% 38% 36% Kuyu Mazar decline % 5% 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 86% 81% 77% 74% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 40% 38% 36% 34% 32% Kizil Tepa decline % 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 86% 81% 77% 74% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 40% 38% Kizil Tepa Aux decline % 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 90% 86% 81% 77% 74% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 40% 38% Sources : Table 2 Table 5 Table 6 Table A.19 Irrigated Areas and Cropping Patterns. 'Without-Project' Scenario. '000 ha. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Land Area irrigated - Kuyu Mazar '000 ha 89.1 89.1 89.1 89.1 83.5 78.1 73.0 68.2 63.6 59.2 55.1 51.8 48.1 44.6 41.3 38.2 35.2 32.3 29.6 27.1 24.6 22.3 20.1 18.0 16.0 14.2 - Kizil Tepa '000 ha 135.9 135.9 135.9 135.9 127.2 118.9 111.1 103.6 96.5 89.8 83.4 78.3 72.6 67.2 62.1 57.2 52.6 48.2 44.1 40.1 36.3 32.7 29.3 26.1 23.1 20.1 - Karaul Bazar '000 ha 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 Total irrigated area '000 ha 240.9 240.9 240.9 240.9 226.6 213.0 200.0 187.7 176.0 164.9 154.4 146.0 136.7 127.8 119.4 111.3 103.7 96.5 89.6 83.1 76.9 71.0 65.4 60.1 55.0 50.2 % of current level 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 83% 78% 73% 68% 64% 61% 57% 53% 50% 46% 43% 40% 37% 34% 32% 29% 27% 25% 23% 21% Total Cropped Area - Cotton '000 ha 38% 92.0 92.0 92.0 86.5 81.3 76.4 71.6 67.1 62.9 58.8 55.6 52.1 48.7 45.4 42.3 39.4 36.6 34.0 31.5 29.1 26.9 24.7 22.7 20.7 18.9 - Fodder '000 ha 16% 39.7 39.7 39.7 37.4 35.3 33.3 31.3 29.5 27.8 26.1 24.8 23.4 22.0 20.7 19.4 18.2 17.1 16.0 15.0 14.0 13.1 12.2 11.4 10.6 9.8 - Vegetables '000 ha 17% 42.0 42.0 42.0 39.4 36.9 34.6 32.3 30.2 28.2 26.3 24.8 23.1 21.4 19.9 18.5 17.1 15.8 14.5 13.3 12.2 11.1 10.1 9.1 8.2 7.3 - Fruit '000 ha 10% 23.9 23.9 23.9 22.4 21.0 19.6 18.3 17.1 15.9 14.8 13.9 12.9 12.0 11.1 10.2 9.4 8.7 8.0 7.3 6.6 6.0 5.4 4.8 4.3 3.8 - Winter wheat '000 ha 26% 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 54.8 51.5 48.3 45.2 42.4 39.6 37.0 34.5 32.2 30.0 27.8 25.8 23.9 22.1 20.4 18.7 17.2 15.7 Total crops '000 ha 108% 260.8 260.8 260.8 248.9 237.7 226.9 216.8 198.8 186.2 174.3 164.4 153.8 143.7 134.1 125.0 116.3 108.1 100.3 92.9 85.8 79.1 72.8 66.7 61.0 55.6 Cropping pattern Kuyu Mazar - Cotton '000 ha 41% 36.1 36.1 36.1 33.8 31.7 29.6 27.6 25.8 24.0 22.3 21.0 19.5 18.1 16.8 15.5 14.3 13.1 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.2 7.3 6.5 5.7 - Fodder '000 ha 16% 14.5 14.5 14.5 13.6 12.7 11.9 11.1 10.3 9.6 9.0 8.4 7.8 7.3 6.7 6.2 5.7 5.3 4.8 4.4 4.0 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 - Vegetables '000 ha 17% 15.5 15.5 15.5 14.6 13.6 12.7 11.9 11.1 10.3 9.6 9.0 8.4 7.8 7.2 6.7 6.1 5.6 5.2 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.5 - Fruit '000 ha 11% 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.3 8.7 8.1 7.6 7.1 6.6 6.1 5.8 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 - Winter wheat '000 ha 23% 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 17.5 16.3 15.1 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.1 10.2 9.4 8.6 7.8 7.1 6.4 5.8 5.2 4.6 4.0 3.5 Total crops Kuyu Mazar '000 ha 108% 96.5 96.5 96.5 91.7 87.1 82.8 78.6 71.8 66.8 62.2 58.3 54.1 50.2 46.4 42.8 39.4 36.2 33.2 30.2 27.5 24.8 22.4 20.0 17.7 15.6 Cropping pattern Kizil Tepa - Cotton '000 ha 37% 50.2 50.2 50.2 47.0 43.9 41.0 38.3 35.7 33.2 30.8 28.9 26.8 24.8 22.9 21.1 19.4 17.8 16.3 14.8 13.4 12.1 10.8 9.6 8.5 7.4 - Fodder '000 ha 15% 20.7 20.7 20.7 19.4 18.1 16.9 15.8 14.7 13.7 12.7 11.9 11.1 10.2 9.5 8.7 8.0 7.3 6.7 6.1 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.1 - Vegetables '000 ha 19% 25.4 25.4 25.4 23.7 22.2 20.7 19.3 18.0 16.8 15.6 14.6 13.6 12.6 11.6 10.7 9.8 9.0 8.2 7.5 6.8 6.1 5.5 4.9 4.3 3.8 - Fruit '000 ha 10% 13.8 13.8 13.8 12.9 12.0 11.3 10.5 9.8 9.1 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.8 6.3 5.8 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.0 - Winter wheat '000 ha 27% 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 31.1 28.9 26.8 24.9 23.0 21.3 19.6 18.0 16.5 15.0 13.7 12.4 11.1 10.0 8.9 7.8 6.8 5.9 Total crops Kizil Tepa '000 ha 108% 146.4 146.4 146.4 139.4 132.7 126.4 120.3 109.2 101.6 94.4 88.3 81.8 75.7 69.9 64.3 59.1 54.1 49.3 44.8 40.6 36.5 32.6 29.0 25.5 22.2 Cropping pattern Karaul Bazar - Cotton '000 ha 36% 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 - Fodder '000 ha 28% 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - Vegetables '000 ha 7% 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - Fruit '000 ha 1% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - Winter wheat '000 ha 40% 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Total Crops Karaul Bazar '000 ha 112% 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 0.0 0.0 17.8 17.8 Sources : Table 3 Table A.18 Table A.20 Cropped Area. Cotton, Forage Crops, Vegetables. 'Without-Project' Scenario. '000 ha. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
Cotton Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cotton Kuyu Mazar 41% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.4 12.1 13.8 15.1 16.6 18.0 19.4 20.7 21.9 23.0 24.1 25.2 26.1 27.1 28.0 28.8 29.6 30.4 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 - Unaffected '000 ha 34.3 34.3 34.3 32.2 30.1 28.1 26.3 24.5 22.8 21.2 20.0 18.5 17.2 15.9 14.7 13.6 12.5 11.4 10.4 9.5 8.6 7.7 6.9 6.2 5.5 - Total area '000 ha 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 Cotton Kizil Tepa 37% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.3 9.2 11.9 14.5 17.0 19.4 21.3 23.4 25.4 27.3 29.1 30.8 32.4 33.9 35.4 36.8 38.1 39.4 40.5 41.7 42.8 - Reduced yield '000 ha 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 - Unaffected '000 ha 47.7 47.7 47.7 44.6 41.7 39.0 36.4 33.9 31.5 29.3 27.5 25.5 23.6 21.8 20.1 18.5 16.9 15.5 14.1 12.7 11.5 10.3 9.2 8.1 7.1 - Total area '000 ha 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 Cotton Karaul Bazar 36% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 - Unaffected '000 ha 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 - Total area '000 ha 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 Forage Forage Kuyu Mazar 16% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.8 2.6 3.4 4.2 4.9 5.5 6.1 6.7 7.2 7.8 8.3 8.8 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.9 11.2 11.6 11.9 12.2 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 - Unaffected '000 ha 13.8 13.8 13.8 12.9 12.1 11.3 10.5 9.8 9.2 8.5 8.0 7.4 6.9 6.4 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.2 - Total area '000 ha 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 Forage Kizil Tepa 15% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.6 3.8 4.9 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.5 11.2 12.0 12.7 13.3 14.0 14.6 15.2 15.7 16.2 16.7 17.2 17.6 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - Unaffected '000 ha 19.7 19.7 19.7 18.4 17.2 16.1 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.1 11.3 10.5 9.7 9.0 8.3 7.6 7.0 6.4 5.8 5.3 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.3 2.9 - Total area '000 ha 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 Forage Karaul Bazar 28% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - Unaffected '000 ha 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 - Total area '000 ha 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vegetables Vegetables Kuyu Mazar 17% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 2.8 3.7 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.5 7.1 7.8 8.3 8.9 9.4 9.9 10.4 10.8 11.3 11.7 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 - Unaffected '000 ha 14.8 14.8 14.8 13.8 12.9 12.1 11.3 10.5 9.8 9.1 8.6 8.0 7.4 6.9 6.3 5.8 5.4 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 - Total area '000 ha 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Vegetables Kizil Tepa 19% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.2 4.6 6.0 7.3 8.6 9.8 10.8 11.8 12.8 13.8 14.7 15.5 16.4 17.1 17.9 18.6 19.3 19.9 20.5 21.1 21.6 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 - Unaffected '000 ha 24.1 24.1 24.1 22.6 21.1 19.7 18.4 17.1 15.9 14.8 13.9 12.9 11.9 11.0 10.2 9.3 8.6 7.8 7.1 6.4 5.8 5.2 4.6 4.1 3.6 - Total area '000 ha 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 Vegetables Karaul Bazar 7% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - Unaffected '000 ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - Total area '000 ha 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Sources: Table A.19 Table A.21 Cropped Areas. Fruit, Winter Wheat. 'Without-Project' Scenario.'000 ha. (pumps gradually decline). Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
Fruit Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fruit Kuyu Mazar 11% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.2 8.4 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - Unaffected '000 ha 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.9 8.3 7.7 7.2 6.7 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 - Total area '000 ha 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 Fruit Kizil Tepa 10% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.3 5.8 6.4 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.4 8.9 9.3 9.7 10.1 10.4 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - Unaffected '000 ha 13.1 13.1 13.1 12.2 11.4 10.7 10.0 9.3 8.6 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.2 1.9 - Total area '000 ha 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 Fruit Karaul Bazar 1% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - Total area '000 ha 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Winter wheat Wheat Kuyu Mazar 23% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.1 5.3 6.4 7.4 8.4 9.3 10.2 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.3 14.0 14.6 15.2 15.8 16.4 16.9 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 - Unaffected '000 ha 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 16.6 15.4 14.4 13.3 12.4 11.4 10.5 9.7 8.9 8.2 7.4 6.8 6.1 5.5 4.9 4.3 3.8 3.3 - Total area '000 ha 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 Wheat Kizil Tepa - Out of production '000 ha 27% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 7.5 9.6 11.6 13.4 15.2 16.8 18.4 20.0 21.4 22.8 24.0 25.3 26.4 27.6 28.6 29.6 30.6 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 - Unaffected '000 ha 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 29.5 27.4 25.5 23.6 21.9 20.2 18.6 17.1 15.7 14.3 13.0 11.8 10.6 9.5 8.4 7.4 6.5 5.6 - Total area '000 ha 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 Wheat Karaul Bazar 40% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 - Unaffected '000 ha 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 - Total area '000 ha 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Total croppable areas Kuyu Mazar '000 ha 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 Kizil Tepa '000 ha 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 Karaul Bazar '000 ha 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 Total '000 ha 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 Source: Table A.19 Table A.22 Net Crop returns. Kuyu Mazar. 'Without-Project Scenario. UZS million. Economic prices. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
per ha return Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Net returns without-project UZS'000/ha Kuyu Mazar Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total - Cotton (marginal) 2451 4,428 4,428 4,428 4,148 3,881 3,628 3,387 3,159 2,942 2,735 2,575 2,392 2,219 2,054 1,897 1,748 1,607 1,473 1,345 1,224 1,109 1,000 896 797 703 - Cotton (unaffected) 3300 113,299 113,299 113,299 106,121 99,301 92,822 86,667 80,820 75,265 69,988 65,879 61,205 56,766 52,548 48,541 44,735 41,118 37,683 34,419 31,319 28,373 25,575 22,917 20,392 17,993 - Cotton (total) 117,727 117,727 117,727 110,268 103,182 96,450 90,055 83,979 78,207 72,724 68,454 63,598 58,984 54,602 50,438 46,483 42,725 39,156 35,765 32,543 29,482 26,575 23,813 21,189 18,696
- Forage (marginal) 934 678 678 678 635 594 555 518 483 450 419 394 366 339 314 290 268 246 225 206 187 170 153 137 122 108 - Forage (unaffected) 1981 27,299 27,299 27,299 25,569 23,926 22,365 20,882 19,473 18,135 16,863 15,873 14,747 13,677 12,661 11,696 10,778 9,907 9,079 8,293 7,546 6,836 6,162 5,522 4,913 4,335 - Forage (total) 27,976 27,976 27,976 26,204 24,520 22,920 21,400 19,956 18,585 17,282 16,267 15,113 14,017 12,975 11,986 11,046 10,153 9,305 8,499 7,733 7,006 6,315 5,659 5,035 4,443
- Vegetables (marginal) 1244 967 967 967 906 848 792 740 690 642 597 562 522 485 449 414 382 351 322 294 267 242 218 196 174 154 - Vegetables (unaffected) 2616 38,635 38,635 38,635 36,187 33,862 31,652 29,554 27,560 25,665 23,866 22,465 20,871 19,357 17,919 16,552 15,254 14,021 12,850 11,737 10,680 9,675 8,721 7,815 6,954 6,135 - Vegetables (total) 39,602 39,602 39,602 37,093 34,709 32,445 30,293 28,249 26,308 24,463 23,027 21,393 19,842 18,367 16,967 15,636 14,372 13,172 12,031 10,947 9,918 8,939 8,010 7,128 6,289
- Fruit (marginal) 1122 558 558 558 523 489 457 427 398 371 345 324 301 280 259 239 220 202 186 170 154 140 126 113 100 89 - Fruit (unaffected) 2534 23,943 23,943 23,943 22,426 20,985 19,616 18,315 17,079 15,906 14,790 13,922 12,934 11,996 11,105 10,258 9,454 8,689 7,963 7,274 6,618 5,996 5,405 4,843 4,309 3,802 - Fruit (total) 24,501 24,501 24,501 22,949 21,474 20,073 18,742 17,477 16,276 15,135 14,246 13,236 12,276 11,364 10,497 9,674 8,892 8,149 7,443 6,773 6,136 5,531 4,956 4,410 3,891
- Wheat (marginal) 1057 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 923 860 799 742 688 636 587 540 496 454 414 376 340 306 273 242 213 185 - Wheat (unaffected) 1750 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 29,028 27,033 25,138 23,337 21,627 20,002 18,458 16,991 15,598 14,275 13,017 11,823 10,688 9,610 8,586 7,613 6,688 5,810 - Wheat (total) 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 29,951 27,893 25,937 24,079 22,315 20,638 19,045 17,532 16,094 14,728 13,431 12,199 11,028 9,915 8,859 7,855 6,901 5,995
Kuyu Mazar Total Return 244,797 244,797 244,797 231,503 218,875 206,877 195,480 179,614 167,269 155,541 146,074 135,654 125,756 116,353 107,420 98,933 90,871 83,212 75,936 69,024 62,457 56,219 50,292 44,662 39,313 Sources: Table A.21 Table 14 Table A.20 Table A.23 Net Crop returns. Kizil Tepa. 'Without-Project Scenario. UZS million. Economic prices. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
per ha return Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UZS'000/ha Kizil Tepa Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total - Cotton (marginal) 2,451 6,151 6,151 6,151 5,757 5,383 5,028 4,690 4,369 4,065 3,775 3,544 3,287 3,043 2,811 2,591 2,382 2,183 1,994 1,814 1,644 1,482 1,328 1,182 1,043 911 - Cotton (unaffected) 3,300 157,381 157,381 157,381 147,306 137,734 128,642 120,004 111,798 104,002 96,596 90,677 84,103 77,858 71,925 66,289 60,934 55,848 51,015 46,424 42,063 37,920 33,984 30,245 26,693 23,318 - Cotton (total) - 163,532 163,532 163,532 153,063 143,118 133,670 124,694 116,167 108,067 100,371 94,221 87,390 80,901 74,736 68,880 63,316 58,030 53,009 48,239 43,707 39,402 35,312 31,427 27,736 24,229
- Forage (marginal) 934 966 966 966 904 846 790 737 686 638 593 557 516 478 442 407 374 343 313 285 258 233 209 186 164 143 - Forage (unaffected) 1,981 38,927 38,927 38,927 36,435 34,068 31,819 29,682 27,653 25,724 23,893 22,428 20,802 19,258 17,790 16,396 15,072 13,814 12,618 11,483 10,404 9,379 8,406 7,481 6,602 5,768 - Forage (total) - 39,893 39,893 39,893 37,340 34,914 32,609 30,419 28,339 26,363 24,486 22,985 21,319 19,736 18,232 16,803 15,446 14,156 12,932 11,768 10,662 9,612 8,614 7,667 6,766 5,911
- Vegetables (marginal) 1,244 1,578 1,578 1,578 1,477 1,381 1,290 1,203 1,121 1,043 968 909 843 781 721 665 611 560 511 465 422 380 341 303 268 234 - Vegetables (unaffected) 2,616 63,040 63,040 63,040 59,004 55,170 51,528 48,068 44,781 41,659 38,692 36,321 33,688 31,187 28,810 26,552 24,408 22,370 20,435 18,596 16,849 15,189 13,613 638 563 492 - Vegetables (total) - 64,618 64,618 64,618 60,481 56,551 52,818 49,272 45,902 42,701 39,661 37,230 34,531 31,967 29,531 27,217 25,019 22,930 20,946 19,061 17,270 15,569 13,953 941 830 725
- Fruit (marginal) 1,122 772 772 772 723 676 631 589 549 510 474 445 413 382 353 325 299 274 250 228 206 186 167 148 131 114 - Fruit (unaffected) 2,534 33,134 33,134 33,134 31,013 28,998 27,084 25,265 23,537 21,896 20,337 19,091 17,707 16,392 15,143 13,956 12,829 11,758 10,740 9,774 8,856 7,984 7,155 6,368 5,620 4,909 - Fruit (total) - 33,906 33,906 33,906 31,736 29,674 27,715 25,854 24,086 22,406 20,811 19,536 18,119 16,774 15,496 14,281 13,128 12,032 10,991 10,002 9,062 8,170 7,322 6,516 5,751 5,024
- Wheat (marginal) 1,057 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,642 1,527 1,418 1,315 1,217 1,124 1,035 951 871 795 723 654 589 527 469 413 360 309 - Wheat (unaffected) 1,750 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 51,627 48,027 44,607 41,358 38,271 35,339 32,553 29,907 27,393 25,005 22,736 20,580 18,533 16,587 14,739 12,984 11,316 9,732 - Wheat (total) 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 53,269 49,554 46,025 42,673 39,488 36,463 33,589 30,858 28,264 25,800 23,459 21,235 19,122 17,115 15,208 13,397 11,676 10,041
Kizil Tepa Total Return 364,439 364,439 364,439 345,109 326,746 309,301 292,728 267,763 249,091 231,354 216,645 200,848 185,841 171,584 158,039 145,172 132,949 121,336 110,305 99,824 89,868 80,410 59,947 52,759 45,930 Sources: Table A.21 Table 14 Table A.20 Table A.24 Net Crop returns. Karaul Bazar. 'Without-Project Scenario. UZS million. Economic prices. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
per ha return Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UZS'000/ha Karaul Bazar Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total - Cotton (marginal) 2,451 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 - Cotton (unaffected) 3,300 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 - Cotton (total) - 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619
- Forage (marginal) 934 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 - Forage (unaffected) 1,981 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 - Forage (total) - 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632
- Vegetables (marginal) 1,244 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 - Vegetables (unaffected) 2,616 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 - Vegetables (total) - 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814
- Fruit (marginal) 1,122 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 - Fruit (unaffected) 2,534 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 - Fruit (total) - 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458
- Wheat (marginal) 1,057 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 - Wheat (unaffected) 1,750 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 - Wheat (total) 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868
Karaul Bazar Total Return 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 Sources: Table A.21 Table 14 Table A.20 Table A.25 Net Crop Returns. 'With-Project' Incremental Benefits. UZS million. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Option 2 - Khamza 1 and Kuyu Mazar Renewed Without-Project' Return - Kuyu Mazar 244,797 244,797 244,797 231,503 218,875 206,877 195,480 179,614 167,269 155,541 146,074 135,654 125,756 116,353 107,420 98,933 90,871 83,212 75,936 69,024 62,457 56,219 50,292 44,662 39,313 - Kizil Tepa 364,439 364,439 364,439 345,109 326,746 309,301 292,728 267,763 249,091 231,354 216,645 200,848 185,841 171,584 158,039 145,172 132,949 121,336 110,305 99,824 89,868 80,410 59,947 52,759 45,930 - Karaul Bazar 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 Total 'Without-Project' Return 650,627 650,627 650,627 618,004 587,012 557,569 529,599 488,768 457,752 428,286 404,110 377,894 352,988 329,328 306,850 285,497 265,211 245,940 227,632 210,239 193,716 178,020 151,631 138,812 126,635 'With-Project' Return - Kuyu Mazar 244,797 244,797 244,797 231,503 218,875 206,877 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 - Kizil Tepa 364,439 364,439 364,439 345,109 326,746 309,301 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 - Karaul Bazar 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 Total 'With-Project' Return 650,627 650,627 650,627 618,004 587,012 557,569 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 Net 'With -Project' Incremental Return ------121,028 161,859 192,875 222,341 246,517 272,733 297,639 321,299 343,776 365,130 385,416 404,687 422,995 440,388 456,910 472,607 498,996 511,815 523,992 Sources : Table A.22 Table A.23 Table A.24 Table A.26 Without and With-Project Non-energy Recurrent Costs - @ constant 2012 Financial prices. US$ M. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
Current Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Without -project Pump Station O&M - Khamza 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.50 0.53 0.55 0.58 - Khamza 1 Auxiliary 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 - Khamza 2 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.58 0.61 - Kuyu Mazar 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.53 - Kizil Tepa 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.79 0.83 - Kizil Tepa Aux 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.68 Sub-total PS 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.30 1.32 1.36 1.42 1.49 1.57 1.65 1.73 1.82 1.91 2.00 2.10 2.21 2.32 2.44 2.56 2.68 2.82 2.96 3.11 3.26 3.43 Remaining ABIS O&M costs 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.06 4.75 4.46 4.19 3.93 3.68 3.44 3.26 3.05 2.85 2.66 2.48 2.31 2.15 2.00 1.85 1.72 1.58 1.46 1.34 1.23 1.12 Total 'without-project' O&M 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.35 6.07 5.82 5.61 5.42 5.25 5.09 4.99 4.87 4.76 4.67 4.59 4.52 4.47 4.43 4.41 4.40 4.40 4.42 4.45 4.49 4.55 Future 'With-project' Option 1 wp - Khamza 1 1.47 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 - Khamza 1 Auxiliary 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Khamza 2 1.67 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 - Kuyu Mazar 0.47 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 - Kizil Tepa 1.18 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 - Kizil Tepa Aux 1.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 Sub-total PS 6.29 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.30 1.32 1.36 6.62 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 Periodic Maintenance - Khamza 1 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Khamza 1 Auxiliary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Khamza 2 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kuyu Mazar 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kizil Tepa 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kizil Tepa Aux 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total Periodic maintenance 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Remaining ABIS O&M costs 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 Total 'with-project' O&M 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.67 6.70 6.73 12.00 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 21.43 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 21.43 11.99 11.99 11.99 Incremental 'with-project' O&M costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.62 0.91 6.39 6.57 6.74 6.90 7.00 7.12 7.23 16.76 7.40 7.47 7.52 7.55 7.58 7.59 7.59 17.01 7.54 7.50 7.44 Table A.27 Power Consumption. 'Without-Project' Scenario. MWh/year. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
Present usage % future Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Stage 1. Mwh/yr consumption Khamza 1 165,791 100% 165,791 165,791 165,791 157,501 149,626 142,145 135,037 128,286 121,871 115,778 109,989 104,489 99,265 94,302 89,587 85,107 80,852 76,809 72,969 69,320 65,854 62,562 59,434 56,462 53,639 Khamza Aux 19,317 100% 19,317 19,317 19,317 18,351 17,433 16,562 15,734 14,947 14,200 13,490 12,815 12,174 11,566 10,987 10,438 9,916 9,420 8,949 8,502 8,077 7,673 7,289 6,925 6,579 6,250 Khamza 2 639,497 100% 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 607,523 577,146 548,289 520,875 494,831 470,089 446,585 424,256 403,043 382,891 363,746 345,559 328,281 311,867 296,274 281,460 267,387 254,018 241,317 229,251 Total Stage 1 824,605 824,605 824,605 824,605 815,349 806,557 766,229 727,917 691,522 656,945 624,098 592,893 563,249 535,086 508,332 482,915 458,769 435,831 414,039 393,337 373,671 354,987 337,238 320,376 304,357 289,139 Stage 2 Kuyu Mazar Main Station 109,847 100% 109,847 109,847 109,847 103,017 96,529 90,365 84,509 78,946 73,661 68,641 63,871 59,340 55,036 50,947 47,062 43,371 39,865 36,535 33,370 30,364 27,509 24,796 22,219 19,770 17,444 Kuyu Mazar Auxiliary (new) 38,786 82% 31,952 31,952 31,952 29,965 28,078 26,285 24,582 22,964 21,426 19,966 18,579 17,261 16,009 14,819 13,689 12,616 11,596 10,627 9,707 8,832 8,002 7,213 6,463 5,751 5,074 Sub-total Kuyu Mazar 148,633 141,799 141,799 141,799 132,982 124,607 116,650 109,091 101,910 95,088 88,607 82,450 76,601 71,045 65,766 60,751 55,987 51,461 47,162 43,077 39,197 35,510 32,008 28,682 25,521 22,518 Kizil Tepa Main Station 398,025 100% 398,025 398,025 398,025 372,964 349,157 326,540 305,053 284,641 265,250 246,828 229,327 212,702 196,907 181,903 167,648 154,107 141,242 129,021 117,410 106,380 95,902 85,948 76,491 67,507 58,973 Kizil Tepa Auxiliary 33,207 100% 33,207 33,207 33,207 31,116 29,130 27,243 25,450 23,747 22,129 20,592 19,132 17,745 16,428 15,176 13,987 12,857 11,784 10,764 9,795 8,875 8,001 7,170 6,382 5,632 4,920 Navoi (new) 46,700 70% 32,487 32,487 32,487 30,442 28,498 26,652 24,899 23,233 21,650 20,146 18,718 17,361 16,072 14,847 13,684 12,578 11,528 10,531 9,583 8,683 7,828 7,015 6,243 5,510 4,813 Sub-total Kizil Tepa 477,931 463,718 463,718 463,718 434,521 406,785 380,434 355,402 331,621 309,029 287,567 267,178 247,808 229,407 211,926 195,318 179,542 164,554 150,315 136,789 123,938 111,731 100,133 89,116 78,649 68,706 Drujba 12,150 100% 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 Karaul Bazaar 54,393 100% 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 Sub-total Karaul Bazaar 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 Total Stage 2 693,108 672,060 672,060 672,060 634,047 597,935 563,628 531,036 500,074 470,660 442,717 416,171 390,953 366,995 344,235 322,613 302,072 282,558 264,020 246,409 229,679 213,785 198,685 184,341 170,714 157,768
Total Stage 1 and Stage 2 1,517,712 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,449,396 1,404,491 1,329,857 1,258,954 1,191,596 1,127,606 1,066,815 1,009,064 954,201 902,081 852,567 805,528 760,842 718,389 678,060 639,747 603,349 568,772 535,923 504,717 475,071 446,907 Sources: Table A.18 Table 6 Table A.28 Power Consumption. 'With-Project' Scenario. MWh/year. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
Present usage % future Future usage Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Stage 1. Mwh/yr consumption Mwh/yr Khamza 1 165,791 82.38% 136,578 165,791 165,791 165,791 157,501 149,626 142,145 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 Khamza Aux 19,317 82.38% 15,913 19,317 19,317 19,317 18,351 17,433 16,562 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 Khamza 2 639,497 82.38% 526,817 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 607,523 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 Total Stage 1 824,605 679,308 824,605 824,605 824,605 815,349 806,557 766,229 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 Stage 2 - Kuyu Mazar Main Station 109,847 82.38% 90,492 109,847 109,847 109,847 103,017 96,529 90,365 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 Kuyu Mazar Auxiliary 38,786(new) 82.38% 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 29,965 28,078 26,285 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 Sub-total Kuyu Mazar 148,633 122,444 141,799 141,799 141,799 132,982 124,607 116,650 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 Kizil Tepa Main Station 398,025 82.38% 327,892 398,025 398,025 398,025 372,964 349,157 326,540 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 Kizil Tepa Auxiliary 33,207 82.38% 27,356 33,207 33,207 33,207 31,116 29,130 27,243 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 Navoi (new) 46,700 69.57% 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 30,442 28,498 26,652 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 Sub-total Kizil Tepa 477,931 387,735 463,718 463,718 463,718 434,521 406,785 380,434 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 Drujba 12,150 100.00% 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 Karaul Bazaar 54,393 100.00% 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 Sub-total Karaul Bazaar 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 Total Stage 2 693,108 576,722 672,060 672,060 672,060 634,047 597,935 563,628 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722
Total Stage 1 and Stage 1,517,712 2 1,256,030 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,449,396 1,404,491 1,329,857 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 Increasing inefficiency% of new pump factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 101% 101% 102% 102% 103% 103% 104% 105% 105% Net Mwh with declining pump efficiency 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,449,396 1,404,491 1,329,857 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,262,969 1,269,986 1,277,081 1,284,255 1,291,511 1,298,849 1,306,271 1,313,778 1,321,372 Improved system efficiency 1.5%factor % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% Net Mwh with improved system efficiency 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,449,396 1,404,491 1,329,857 1,237,189 1,218,349 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,206,136 1,212,836 1,219,612 1,226,464 1,233,393 1,240,401 1,247,489 1,254,658 1,261,911 Sources : Table 6 Table A.18 Table A.29 Part A Pump Capacity , Pumped Volumes available to Stage 2 pump stations. Assumed 'Without-Project' Full Cost Option. Pumps fail Stage 1 - Khamza PS unit unit value base Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Khamza pumps capacity Khamza 1 m3/s/PS 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 58 44 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Khamza Aux m3/s/PS 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Khamza 2 m3/s/PS 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 122 95 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Khamza. Stage 1 capacity m3/s 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 211 193 152 95 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion of 2012 capacity 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 88% 69% 43% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Pump tours % of maximum 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% Volume pumped peak month from Stage 1 m3/s peak month 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 194 177 139 87 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Less other direct offtakes m3/s peak month 5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stage 2 - Karaul Bazar PS irrigated area - ha 15,907 Karaul Bazar pump capacity m3/s peak month 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 - Less Karaul Bazar offtake m3/s peak month 19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Less main ABMK losses m3/s peak month 7% -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Available at Tudakul Diversion m3/s peak month 165 165 165 165 165 165 165 156 139 102 49 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion of 2012 availabilty % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 85% 62% 30% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Flow division at Tudakul Diversion (TD) (a) Allocation to Kuyu Mazar PS (KM) % 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 36% 34% 34% 34% 34% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% To Kuyu Mazar PS m3/s peak month max 60 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 56 47 35 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Losses between TD and KM (17 km) m3/s peak month 2% -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + From Kuyu Mazar & Tudakul Lakes m3/s peak month max 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 37 27 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Available at Kuyu Mazar PS m3/s peak month 111 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 99 83 61 29 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion of 2012 availabilty % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 78% 57% 27% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% (b) Allocation to Kizil Tepa PS (KT) % 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 61% 64% 66% 66% 66% 66% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% To Kizil Tepa PS m3/s peak month 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 67 33 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Losses between TD and KT (38 km) m3/s peak month 3% -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + From Tudakul Lake m3/s peak month max 28 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 20 15 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Available at Kizil Tepa PS m3/s peak month 123 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 109 79 37 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion of 2012 availabilty % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 65% 30% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Table A.29 Part B Pump Capacity , Pumped Volumes available for irrigation. Assumed 'Without-Project'. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail unit unit value base Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Stage 2 - Kuyu Mazar PS irrigated area - ha 89,117 Kuyu Mazar (KM) pump capacity - New PS m3/s/PS 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 - Main PS - to Shakrud Canal m3/s/PS 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 50 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Main PS - to Kuyu Mazar Lake m3/s/PS 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 33 26 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Kuyu Mazar capacity (to Shakhrud) m3/s/PS 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 80 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Proportion of 2012 capacity m3/s/PS % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 80% 60% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Volume pumped at Kuyu Mazar m3/s peak month 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 99 83 61 29 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume pumped as % of 2012 pumping m3/s peak month 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 78% 57% 27% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% - DMI and fisheries m3/s peak month 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net available for agriculture m3/s peak month 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 97 81 59 27 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion of 2102 agricultural water % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 78% 56% 25% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Stage2 - Kizil Tepa PS irrigated area - ha 135,915 Kizil Tepa (KT) pump capacity - Kizil Tepa m3/s/PS 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 98 76 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Kizil Tepa Aux m3/s/PS 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 17 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Kizil Tepa capacity m3/s/PS 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 116 89 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 As % of 2012 capacity 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 69% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume pumped at Kizil Tepa m3/s peak month 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 109 79 37 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume pumped as % of 2012 pumping m3/s peak month 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 65% 30% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% - DMI and fisheries m3/s peak month 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net available for agriculture m3/s peak month 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 107 77 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion of 2102 agricultural water % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 64% 29% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Stage 1 pumping capacity ms/s peak month 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 211 193 152 95 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Stage 2 pumping capacity ms/s peak month 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 219 208 189 169 169 156 129 90 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Decline assumptions Khamza 1 decline % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 22% 33% 34% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Khamza Aux decline % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Khamza 2 decline % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Kuyu Mazar decline % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Kizil Tepa decline % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Kizil Tepa Aux decline % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 24% 31% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sources : Table 2 Table 5 Table 6 Table A.30 Irrigated Areas and Cropping Patterns. 'Without-Project' Scenario. '000 ha. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Land Area irrigated - Kuyu Mazar '000 ha 89.1 89.1 89.1 89.1 89.1 89.1 89.1 82.3 69.1 49.7 22.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Kizil Tepa '000 ha 135.9 135.9 135.9 135.9 135.9 135.9 135.9 135.4 122.1 87.6 39.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Karaul Bazar '000 ha 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total irrigated area '000 ha 240.9 240.9 240.9 240.9 240.9 240.9 240.9 233.7 207.1 153.2 78.0 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Cropped Area - Cotton '000 ha 38% 92.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 89.1 78.8 58.2 29.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Fodder '000 ha 16% 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 38.5 34.3 25.9 14.2 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Vegetables '000 ha 17% 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 40.7 36.0 26.1 12.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Fruit '000 ha 10% 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.1 20.3 14.6 6.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Winter wheat '000 ha 26% 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 63.2 48.2 25.2 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total crops '000 ha 108% 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 254.6 232.5 173.0 88.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cropping pattern Kuyu Mazar - Cotton '000 ha 41% 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 33.4 28.0 20.1 9.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Fodder '000 ha 16% 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 13.4 11.2 8.1 3.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Vegetables '000 ha 17% 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 14.4 12.1 8.7 3.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Fruit '000 ha 11% 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.2 7.7 5.5 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Winter wheat '000 ha 23% 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 13.6 6.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total crops Kuyu Mazar '000 ha 108% 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 90.8 79.4 56.1 25.5 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cropping pattern Kizil Tepa - Cotton '000 ha 37% 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.0 45.1 32.4 14.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Fodder '000 ha 15% 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.6 18.6 13.3 6.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Vegetables '000 ha 19% 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.3 22.8 16.4 7.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Fruit '000 ha 10% 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.7 12.4 8.9 4.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Winter wheat '000 ha 27% 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 28.2 12.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total crops Kizil Tepa '000 ha 108% 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.0 135.3 99.1 44.6 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cropping pattern Karaul Bazar - Cotton '000 ha 36% 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Fodder '000 ha 28% 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Vegetables '000 ha 7% 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Fruit '000 ha 1% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Winter wheat '000 ha 40% 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Crops Karaul Bazar '000 ha 112% 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sources : Table 2 Table A.29 Table A.31 Cropped Area. Cotton, Forage Crops, Vegetables. 'Without-Project' Scenario. '000 ha. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
Cotton Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cotton Kuyu Mazar 41% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 8.1 16.0 27.0 34.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 31.7 26.6 19.1 8.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 Cotton Kizil Tepa 37% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 17.8 35.6 47.4 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 - Reduced yield '000 ha 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 47.7 47.7 47.7 47.7 47.7 47.7 47.5 42.9 30.7 13.8 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 Cotton Karaul Bazar 36% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 Forage Forage Kuyu Mazar 16% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.3 6.4 10.8 13.7 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 12.7 10.7 7.7 3.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 Forage Kizil Tepa 15% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.1 7.4 14.7 19.6 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.6 17.7 12.7 5.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7 Forage Karaul Bazar 28% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vegetables Vegetables Kuyu Mazar 17% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.5 6.9 11.6 14.7 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 13.6 11.5 8.2 3.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Vegetables Kizil Tepa 19% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 9.0 18.0 24.0 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.0 21.7 15.5 7.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 Vegetables Karaul Bazar 7% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Sources: Table A.30 Table A.32 Cropped Areas. Fruit, Winter Wheat. 'Without-Project' Scenario.'000 ha. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
Fruit Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fruit Kuyu Mazar 11% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.2 4.4 7.4 9.4 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.7 7.3 5.3 2.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 Fruit Kizil Tepa 10% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 4.9 9.8 13.0 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.0 11.8 8.4 3.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 Fruit Karaul Bazar 1% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Winter wheat Wheat Kuyu Mazar 23% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 14.2 19.5 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 13.0 5.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 Wheat Kizil Tepa - Out of production '000 ha 27% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 23.7 34.7 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 - Reduced yield '000 ha 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 26.8 12.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 Wheat Karaul Bazar 40% - Out of production '000 ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 - Reduced yield '000 ha 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Unaffected '000 ha 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total area '000 ha 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Total croppable areas Kuyu Mazar '000 ha 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 Kizil Tepa '000 ha 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 146.4 Karaul Bazar '000 ha 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 Total '000 ha 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 260.8 Source: Table A.30 Table A.33 Net Crop returns. Kuyu Mazar. 'Without-Project Scenario. UZS million. Economic prices.Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
per ha return Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Net returns without-project UZS'000/ha Kuyu Mazar Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total - Cotton (marginal) 2451 4,428 4,428 4,428 4,428 4,428 4,428 4,092 3,434 2,469 1,123 248 ------Cotton (unaffected) 3300 113,299 113,299 113,299 113,299 113,299 113,299 104,694 87,858 63,167 28,738 6,357 ------Cotton (total) 117,727 117,727 117,727 117,727 117,727 117,727 108,785 91,291 65,636 29,861 6,605 ------
- Forage (marginal) 934 678 678 678 678 678 678 626 525 378 172 38 ------Forage (unaffected) 1981 27,299 27,299 27,299 27,299 27,299 27,299 25,225 21,169 15,220 6,924 1,532 ------Forage (total) 27,976 27,976 27,976 27,976 27,976 27,976 25,851 21,694 15,597 7,096 1,570 ------
- Vegetables (marginal) 1244 967 967 967 967 967 967 894 750 539 245 54 ------Vegetables (unaffected) 2616 38,635 38,635 38,635 38,635 38,635 38,635 35,700 29,959 21,540 9,800 2,168 ------Vegetables (total) 39,602 39,602 39,602 39,602 39,602 39,602 36,594 30,709 22,079 10,045 2,222 ------
- Fruit (marginal) 1122 558 558 558 558 558 558 516 433 311 142 31 ------Fruit (unaffected) 2534 23,943 23,943 23,943 23,943 23,943 23,943 22,124 18,567 13,349 6,073 1,343 ------Fruit (total) 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 22,640 18,999 13,660 6,215 1,375 ------
- Wheat (marginal) 1057 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,078 721 328 49 ------Wheat (unaffected) 1750 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 33,912 22,688 10,322 1,551 ------Wheat (total) 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 34,990 23,409 10,650 1,600 ------
Kuyu Mazar Total Return 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 228,861 197,684 140,381 63,867 13,371 ------Sources: Table A.31 Table A.32 Table 14 Table A.34 Net Crop returns. Kizil Tepa. 'Without-Project Scenario. UZS million. Economic prices. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
per ha return Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UZS'000/ha Kizil Tepa Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total - Cotton (marginal) 2,451 6,151 6,151 6,151 6,151 6,151 6,151 6,128 5,527 3,965 1,785 337 ------Cotton (unaffected) 3,300 157,381 157,381 157,381 157,381 157,381 157,381 156,793 141,426 101,438 45,679 8,622 ------Cotton (total) - 163,532 163,532 163,532 163,532 163,532 163,532 162,921 146,953 105,402 47,465 8,959 ------
- Forage (marginal) 934 966 966 966 966 966 966 963 868 623 280 53 ------Forage (unaffected) 1,981 38,927 38,927 38,927 38,927 38,927 38,927 38,782 34,981 25,090 11,299 2,133 ------Forage (total) - 39,893 39,893 39,893 39,893 39,893 39,893 39,745 35,849 25,713 11,579 2,185 ------
- Vegetables (marginal) 1,244 1,578 1,578 1,578 1,578 1,578 1,578 1,572 1,418 1,017 458 86 ------Vegetables (unaffected) 2,616 63,040 63,040 63,040 63,040 63,040 63,040 62,805 56,649 40,632 18,297 3,453 ------Vegetables (total) - 64,618 64,618 64,618 64,618 64,618 64,618 64,377 58,067 41,649 18,755 3,540 ------
- Fruit (marginal) 1,122 772 772 772 772 772 772 769 694 498 224 42 ------Fruit (unaffected) 2,534 33,134 33,134 33,134 33,134 33,134 33,134 33,010 29,775 21,356 9,617 1,815 ------Fruit (total) - 33,906 33,906 33,906 33,906 33,906 33,906 33,780 30,469 21,854 9,841 1,857 ------
- Wheat (marginal) 1,057 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,490 671 90 ------Wheat (unaffected) 1,750 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 60,564 46,843 21,094 2,831 ------Wheat (total) 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 62,490 48,332 21,765 2,921 ------
Kizil Tepa Total Return 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 363,312 333,827 242,950 109,405 19,463 ------Sources: Table A.31 Table A.32 Table 14 Table A.35 Net Crop returns. Karaul Bazar. 'Without-Project Scenario. UZS million. Economic prices (pumps fail). Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
per ha return Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UZS'000/ha Karaul Bazar Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total - Cotton (marginal) 2,451 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 ------Cotton (unaffected) 3,300 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 17,918 ------Cotton (total) - 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 18,619 ------
- Forage (marginal) 934 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 ------Forage (unaffected) 1,981 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 8,423 ------Forage (total) - 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 8,632 ------
- Vegetables (marginal) 1,244 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 ------Vegetables (unaffected) 2,616 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 2,745 ------Vegetables (total) - 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 2,814 ------
- Fruit (marginal) 1,122 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ------Fruit (unaffected) 2,534 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 448 ------Fruit (total) - 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 458 ------
- Wheat (marginal) 1,057 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 ------Wheat (unaffected) 1,750 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 10,533 ------Wheat (total) 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 10,868 ------
Karaul Bazar Total Return 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 ------Sources: Table A.31 Table A.32 Table 14 Table A.36 Net Crop Returns. 'With-Project' Incremental Benefits. UZS million. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Option 2 - Khamza 1 and Kuyu Mazar Renewed Without-Project' Return - Kuyu Mazar 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 228,861 197,684 140,381 63,867 13,371 ------Kizil Tepa 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 363,312 333,827 242,950 109,405 19,463 ------Karaul Bazar 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 ------Total 'Without-Project' Return 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 633,564 572,903 424,722 214,664 74,226 ------'With-Project' Return - Kuyu Mazar 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 244,797 - Kizil Tepa 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 364,439 - Karaul Bazar 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 41,391 Total 'With-Project' Return 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 Net 'With -Project' Incremental Return ------17,063 77,724 225,905 435,963 576,401 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 650,627 Source: Table A.33 Table A.34 Table A.35 Table A.37 Without and With-Project Non-energy Recurrent Costs - @ constant 2012 Financial prices. US$ M. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
Current Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Without -project Pump Station O&M - Khamza 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Khamza 1 Auxiliary 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Khamza 2 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kuyu Mazar 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kizil Tepa 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kizil Tepa Aux 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total PS 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Remaining ABIS O&M costs 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.21 4.62 3.42 1.74 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 'without-project' O&M 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.11 5.52 4.31 2.57 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Future 'With-project' Option 1 - Khamza 1 1.47 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 - Khamza 1 Auxiliary 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Khamza 2 1.67 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 - Kuyu Mazar 0.47 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 - Kizil Tepa 1.18 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 - Kizil Tepa Aux 1.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 Sub-total PS 6.29 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 6.62 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 6.61 Periodic Maintenance - Khamza 1 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Khamza 1 Auxiliary 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Khamza 2 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kuyu Mazar 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kizil Tepa 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Kizil Tepa Aux 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total Periodic maintenance 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Remaining ABIS O&M costs 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38 Total 'with-project' O&M 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 6.65 12.00 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 21.43 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 21.43 11.99 11.99 11.99 Incremental 'with-project' O&M costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.89 6.47 7.68 9.42 10.53 11.99 11.99 21.43 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 11.99 21.43 11.99 11.99 11.99 Table A.38 Power Consumption. 'Without-Project' Scenario. MWh/year. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
Present usage Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Stage 1. Mwh/yr % of current consumption Khamza 1 165,791 100% 165,791 165,791 165,791 165,791 165,791 165,791 147,554 111,080 56,369 ------Khamza Aux 19,317 100% 19,317 19,317 19,317 19,317 19,317 19,317 17,385 13,522 7,727 ------Khamza 2 639,497 100% 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 575,548 447,648 255,799 ------Total Stage 1 824,605 824,605 824,605 824,605 824,605 824,605 824,605 804,436 764,099 639,643 447,648 255,799 ------Stage 2 Kuyu Mazar Main Station 109,847 100% 109,847 109,847 109,847 109,847 109,847 109,847 101,659 85,642 62,151 29,396 6,163 ------Kuyu Mazar Auxiliary (new) 38,786 82% 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 29,570 24,911 18,078 8,551 1,793 ------Sub-total Kuyu Mazar 148,633 141,799 141,799 141,799 141,799 141,799 141,799 131,230 110,553 80,229 37,946 7,955 ------Kizil Tepa Main Station 398,025 100% 398,025 398,025 398,025 398,025 398,025 398,025 396,563 358,338 258,872 120,178 21,805 ------Kizil Tepa Auxiliary 33,207 100% 33,207 33,207 33,207 33,207 33,207 33,207 33,085 29,896 21,597 10,026 1,819 ------Navoi (new) 46,700 70% 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,368 29,248 21,129 9,809 1,780 ------Sub-total Kizil Tepa 477,931 463,718 463,718 463,718 463,718 463,718 463,718 462,016 417,481 301,598 140,013 25,403 ------Drujba 12,150 100% 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 ------Karaul Bazaar 54,393 100% 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 ------Sub-total Karaul Bazaar 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 ------Total Stage 2 693,108 672,060 672,060 672,060 672,060 672,060 672,060 659,789 594,577 448,371 244,502 99,902 ------
Total Stage 1 and Stage 2 1,517,712 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,464,225 1,358,676 1,088,014 692,151 355,701 ------Sources: Table A.29 Table 6 Table A.39 Power Consumption 'With-project' Scenario. Mwh/year. Full Cost Option, Pumps fail
With Project Option 1 Present usage Cost ratio Future usage Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Stage 1. Khamza 1 165,791 82.4% 136,578 165,791 165,791 165,791 165,791 165,791 152,491 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 136,578 Khamza Aux 19,317 82.4% 15,913 19,317 19,317 19,317 19,317 19,317 19,317 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 15,913 Khamza 2 639,497 82.4% 526,817 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 639,497 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 526,817 Total Stage 1 824,605 679,308 824,605 824,605 824,605 824,605 824,605 811,305 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 679,308 Stage 2/3 Kuyu Mazar Main Station 109,847 82.4% 90,492 109,847 109,847 109,847 109,847 100,169 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 90,492 Kuyu Mazar Auxiliary (new) 38,786 82.4% 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 31,952 Sub-total Kuyu Mazar 148,633 122,444 141,799 141,799 141,799 141,799 132,121 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 122,444 Kizil Tepa Main Station 398,025 82.4% 327,892 398,025 398,025 398,025 398,025 398,025 398,025 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 327,892 Kizil Tepa Auxiliary 33,207 82.4% 27,356 33,207 33,207 33,207 33,207 33,207 33,207 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 27,356 Navoi (new) 46,700 69.6% 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 32,487 Sub-total Kizil Tepa 477,931 387,735 463,718 463,718 463,718 463,718 463,718 463,718 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 387,735 Drujba 12,150 100.0% 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 12,150 Karaul Bazar 54,393 100.0% 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 54,393 Sub-total Karaul Bazar 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 66,543 Total Stage 2/3 693,108 576,722 672,060 672,060 672,060 672,060 662,383 652,705 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722 576,722
Total Stage 1 and 2/3 1,517,712 1,256,030 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,486,987 1,464,010 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 Increasing inefficiency of new pump factor % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 101% 101% 102% 102% 103% 103% 104% 105% 105% Net Mwh with declining pump efficiency 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,486,987 1,464,010 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,256,030 1,262,969 1,269,986 1,277,081 1,284,255 1,291,511 1,298,849 1,306,271 1,313,778 1,321,372 Improved system efficiency factor % 1.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% Net Mwh with improved system efficiency 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,496,665 1,486,987 1,464,010 1,237,189 1,218,349 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,199,508 1,206,136 1,212,836 1,219,612 1,226,464 1,233,393 1,240,401 1,247,489 1,254,658 1,261,911 Sources : Table 6 Table A.38 Table A.40 Capital Costs phased @ constant 2012 financial prices. Full Cost Option US$ million Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Khamza 1 new Civil works: - construction of pump house 0.00 0.00 22.71 22.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.41 - construction of intake 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.39 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 0.00 0.00 19.82 19.82 19.82 6.61 0.00 66.06 - installation of discharge pipes 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.48 0.48 0.00 2.41 - installation of equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 2.75 1.21 0.00 4.93 Sub-total Khamza 1 0.00 0.00 42.52 47.33 23.05 8.29 0.00 121.20 Kuyu Mazar rehab Civil works: - rehabilitation of pump house 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.66 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 0.00 0.00 5.30 10.59 5.30 0.00 0.00 21.19 - installation of equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 1.18 0.59 0.00 2.35 Sub-total Kuyu Mazar 0.00 0.00 5.30 13.84 6.47 0.59 0.00 26.20 Khamza 2 rehab Civil works: - rehabilitation of pump house 1.34 1.34 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 18.84 37.67 18.84 75.34 - installation of discharge pipes 0.55 1.10 0.55 2.19 - installation of equipment 1.55 3.09 1.55 6.18 Sub-total Khamza 2 0.00 0.00 19.38 41.66 22.47 1.55 0.00 85.06 Kizil Tepa rehab Civil works: - rehabilitation of pump house 2.55 2.55 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 13.22 26.45 13.22 52.89 - installation of discharge pipes 0.12 0.24 0.12 0.48 - installation of equipment 1.35 2.70 1.35 5.39 Sub-total Kizil Tepa 0.00 0.00 13.34 30.59 16.04 1.35 0.00 61.33 Kizil Tepa Auxiliary rehab Civil works: - rehabilitation of pump house 2.07 2.07 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 16.91 33.82 16.91 67.64 - installation of discharge pipes 1.35 2.69 1.35 5.38 - installation of equipment 0.53 1.07 0.53 2.13 Sub-total Kizil Tepa Aux 0.00 0.00 18.25 39.11 19.32 0.53 0.00 77.22 ABMK rehabilitation Civil works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 2.57 1.61 0.00 5.04 Acquisition/installation of equipmenrt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 1.35 0.84 0.00 2.64 Sub-total ABMK rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 3.92 2.46 0.00 7.68 DSS and SCADA Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 Consultancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Project Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 Sub-total DSS/SCADA 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 Pilot Farms Civil works - off and on farm canals 0.000 0.054 0.162 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.325 Equipment acquisition 0.000 0.166 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.332 Training 0.000 0.300 0.300 0.200 0.105 0.000 0.000 0.905 Field operations - Shelter belts 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 - Levelling 0.000 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 - Ripping 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 - Minimum tillage 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 - Other 0.000 0.002 0.022 0.040 0.040 0.050 0.000 0.154 Sub-total Pilot Farms 0.000 0.535 0.666 0.354 0.145 0.050 0.000 1.750 Consultancy International 0.80 0.90 0.86 0.82 0.46 0.44 0.00 4.28 National 0.25 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.03 2.04 Supporting Services 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.83 Equipment and vehicles 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 Workshops 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.50 Management 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.47 Surveys 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 Sub-total Consultancy 1.52 1.92 1.80 1.58 1.01 1.02 0.05 8.90 PMO Staff 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.32 Equipment and vehicles 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Management 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.25 Sub-total PMO 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.60 PIU Staff 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.43 Equipment and vehicles 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Management 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.14 Sub-total PIU 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.60 Total Base Cost 1.78 2.63 101.45 177.40 92.61 16.02 0.11 391.98 Physical Contingencies - civil works 0.00 0.01 1.61 2.46 0.26 0.16 0.00 4.49 - other 0.36 0.47 15.66 28.47 17.86 2.79 0.02 65.63 Total Capital Costs, incl contingencies 2.13 3.10 118.72 208.33 110.73 18.97 0.13 462.10 Table A.41 Capital Costs phased @ constant 2012 economic prices. Full Cost Option. US$ million Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Khamza 1 new Civil works: - construction of pump house 0.00 0.00 14.74 14.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.47 - construction of intake 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 0.00 0.00 19.14 19.14 19.14 6.38 0.00 63.81 - installation of discharge pipes 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.46 0.46 0.00 2.31 - installation of equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 2.65 1.17 0.00 4.77 Sub-total Khamza 1 0.00 0.00 33.88 37.76 22.26 8.01 0.00 101.91 Kuyu Mazar rehab Civil works: - rehabilitation of pump house 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 0.00 0.00 5.13 10.25 5.13 0.00 0.00 20.51 - installation of equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 1.14 0.57 0.00 2.28 Sub-total Kuyu Mazar 0.00 0.00 5.13 12.55 6.27 0.57 0.00 24.51 Khamza 2 rehab Civil works: - rehabilitation of pump house 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 0.00 0.00 18.21 36.42 18.21 0.00 0.00 72.85 - installation of discharge pipes 0.00 0.00 0.53 1.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 2.10 - installation of equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 2.99 1.49 0.00 5.98 Sub-total Khamza 2 0.00 0.00 18.74 39.84 21.73 1.49 0.00 81.80 Kizil Tepa rehab Civil works: - rehabilitation of pump house 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 0.00 0.00 12.79 25.59 12.79 0.00 0.00 51.18 - installation of discharge pipes 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.46 - installation of equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 2.61 1.30 0.00 5.22 Sub-total Kizil Tepa 0.00 0.00 12.91 28.78 15.52 1.30 0.00 58.52 Kizil Tepa Auxiliary rehab Civil works: - rehabilitation of pump house 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.34 Equipment and mechanical - acquisition of hardware 0.00 0.00 16.25 32.51 16.25 0.00 0.00 65.01 - installation of discharge pipes 0.00 0.00 1.29 2.58 1.29 0.00 0.00 5.17 - installation of equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 1.03 0.51 0.00 2.05 Sub-total Kizil Tepa Aux 0.00 0.00 17.54 36.95 18.57 0.51 0.00 73.57 ABMK rehabilitation Civil works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.67 1.05 0.00 3.27 Acquisition/installation of equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 1.29 0.81 0.00 2.53 Sub-total ABMK rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 2.96 1.86 0.00 5.81 DSS and SCADA Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 Consultancy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Project Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Sub-total DSS/SCADA 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 Pilot Farms Civil works - off and on farm canals 0.000 0.045 0.136 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.273 Equipment acquisition 0.000 0.162 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.323 Training 0.000 0.240 0.240 0.160 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.724 Field operations - Shelter belts 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 - Levelling 0.000 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 - Ripping 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 - Minimum tillage 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 - Other 0.000 0.002 0.018 0.034 0.034 0.042 0.000 0.129 Sub-total Pilot Farms 0.000 0.460 0.571 0.289 0.118 0.042 0.000 1.480 Consultancy International 0.80 0.90 0.86 0.82 0.46 0.44 0.00 4.28 National 0.20 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.02 1.63 Supporting Services 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.82 Equipment and vehicles 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 Workshops 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.41 Management 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.42
Sub-total Consultancy 1.44 1.55 1.44 1.46 0.93 0.93 0.05 7.79 PMO Staff 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.26 Equipment and vehicles 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Management 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.20 Sub-total PMO 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.48 PIU Staff 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.34 Equipment and vehicles 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Management 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.11 Sub-total PIU 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.48 Total Base Cost 1.65 2.15 90.36 160.17 88.49 14.86 0.09 357.76 Physical Contingencies - civil works 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.60 0.17 0.10 0.00 2.92 - other 0.33 0.38 15.05 27.46 17.22 2.68 0.02 63.14 Total Capital Costs, incl contingencies 1.98 2.53 106.45 189.23 105.88 17.64 0.11 423.82 Table A.42 Base Case EIRR calculations. Cash Flows. US$ million. Full Cost Option. Pumps decline
Future usage Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Capital Cost Khamza 1 101.9 0.0 0.0 33.9 37.8 22.3 8.0 Kuyu Mazar 24.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 12.5 6.3 0.6 Khamza 2 81.8 0.0 0.0 18.7 39.8 21.7 1.5 Kizil Tepa 58.5 0.0 0.0 12.9 28.8 15.5 1.3 Kizil Tepa Aux 73.6 0.0 0.0 17.5 36.9 18.6 0.5 ABMK rehab 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.9 DSS/SCADA 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Pilot Farms 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 Consultancy 7.8 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.9 PMO 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 PIU 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Contingencies 66.1 0.3 0.4 16.1 29.1 17.4 2.8 Total capital costs 423.8 2.0 2.5 106.5 189.2 105.9 17.6 Recurrent and periodic costs 3. Pump Station Rehabilitation 3.1. Energy costs - with project 0.000075 112.2 112.2 112.2 108.7 105.3 99.7 92.8 91.4 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.5 91.0 91.5 92.0 92.5 93.0 93.6 94.1 94.6 - without project 0.000075 112.2 112.2 112.2 108.7 105.3 99.7 94.4 89.4 84.6 80.0 75.7 71.6 67.7 63.9 60.4 57.1 53.9 50.9 48.0 45.3 42.7 40.2 37.9 35.6 33.5 Net incremental energy cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.6 2.0 5.4 10.0 14.3 18.4 22.3 26.0 29.5 32.9 36.6 40.1 43.5 46.7 49.8 52.8 55.7 58.5 61.1 3.2. Non-energy O&M and periodic cost - with project 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 21.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 21.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 - without project 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 Net incremental non-energy O&M cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 17.9 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.7 18.1 8.6 8.6 8.6 Total capital and recurrent costs 2.0 2.5 106.5 189.5 106.4 18.3 6.1 9.9 13.4 18.1 22.5 26.7 30.7 43.9 38.1 41.5 45.2 48.7 52.1 55.4 58.5 70.9 64.3 67.1 69.7 Net crop returns - with project 245.5 245.5 245.5 233.2 221.5 210.4 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 - without project 245.5 245.5 245.5 233.2 221.5 210.4 199.8 184.4 172.7 161.6 152.5 142.6 133.2 124.3 115.8 107.7 100.1 92.8 85.9 79.3 73.1 67.2 57.2 52.4 47.8 Incremental crop returns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.7 61.1 72.8 83.9 93.0 102.9 112.3 121.2 129.7 137.8 145.4 152.7 159.6 166.2 172.4 178.3 188.3 193.1 197.7
Net cash flow -2.0 -2.5 -106.5 -189.5 -106.4 -18.3 39.5 51.2 59.4 65.8 70.5 76.2 81.6 77.3 91.7 96.3 100.2 104.0 107.5 110.8 113.9 107.4 124.0 126.1 128.1
EIRR 13%
Sources : Table 18 Table A.26 Table A.27 Table A.28 Table A.25 Table A.43 Base Case EIRR calculations. Cash Flows. US$ million. Full Cost Option. Pumps fail
Base Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Capital Cost Khamza 1 101.9 0.0 0.0 33.9 37.8 22.3 8.0 Kuyu Mazar 24.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 12.5 6.3 0.6 Khamza 2 81.8 0.0 0.0 18.7 39.8 21.7 1.5 Kizil Tepa 58.5 0.0 0.0 12.9 28.8 15.5 1.3 Kizil Tepa Aux 73.6 0.0 0.0 17.5 36.9 18.6 0.5 ABMK rehab 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.9 DSS/SCADA 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Pilot Farms 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 Consultancy 7.8 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.9 PMO 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 PIU 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Contingencies 66.06 0.33 0.38 16.10 29.06 17.39 2.78 Total capital costs 423.8 2.0 2.5 106.5 189.2 105.9 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recurrent and periodic costs 3. Pump Station Rehabilitation 3.1. Energy costs - with project 0.000075 112.2 112.2 112.2 112.2 111.5 109.8 92.8 91.4 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.5 91.0 91.5 92.0 92.5 93.0 93.6 94.1 94.6 - without project 0.000075 112.2 112.2 112.2 112.2 112.2 112.2 109.8 101.9 81.6 51.9 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net incremental energy cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.7 -2.4 -17.0 -10.5 8.4 38.1 63.3 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.5 91.0 91.5 92.0 92.5 93.0 93.6 94.1 94.6 3.2. Non-energy O&M and periodic cost - with project 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 21.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 21.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 - without project 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.3 1.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net incremental non-energy O&M cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.8 8.7 10.0 10.9 12.0 12.0 21.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 21.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 Total capital and recurrent costs 2.0 2.5 106.5 189.2 105.2 15.2 -9.6 -2.7 17.1 48.1 74.2 102.0 102.0 111.4 102.0 102.0 102.4 103.0 103.5 104.0 104.5 114.5 105.5 106.1 106.6 Net crop returns - with project 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 - without project 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 239.1 216.2 160.3 81.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incremental crop returns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 29.3 85.2 164.5 217.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5 245.5
Net cash flow -2.0 -2.5 -106.5 -189.2 -105.2 -15.2 16.1 32.0 68.2 116.4 143.3 143.6 143.6 134.1 143.6 143.6 143.1 142.6 142.1 141.5 141.0 131.1 140.0 139.4 138.9
EIRR 16%
Sources : Table 18 Table A.37 Table A.39 Table A.38 Table A.36 Table A.44 E. Detailed Cost Estimates by Outputs/Components. $ million Kizil Tepa Demonstratio Total Cost Khamza 1 PS Kuyu Mazar Khamza 2 Kizil Tepa PS Aux PS ABMK SCADA n Area Consultants PMO/PIU Item A Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Investment Costs 1. Civil Works 61.8 47.8 77% 2.7 4% 1.3 2% 2.6 4% 2.1 3% 5.0 8% 0% 0.3 1% 0% 0% 2.Mechanical & Equipment 318.7 73.4 23% 23.5 7% 83.7 26% 58.8 18% 75.2 24% 2.6 1% 0.8 0% 0.3 0% 0.3 0% 0.1 0% 3. Environmental and Social Mitigation 0.0 0.0 4. Consultants & Capacity Building (a) Project Implementation 8.1 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0% 0.4 6% 0% 7.7 94% 0% (b) Capacity Building 1.7 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0% 0.1 4% 1.1 66% 0.5 30% 0% 5. Project Management 1.7 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0% 0.1 6% 0% 0.5 27% 1.1 66% Subtotal A 392.0 121.2 31% 26.2 7% 85.1 22% 61.3 16% 77.2 20% 7.7 2% 1.5 0% 1.8 0% 8.9 2% 1.2 0% B. Recurrent Costs 1. Pump Station Power 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2. Pump Sation Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Subtotal B 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Total Base Cost 392.0 121.2 31% 26.2 7% 85.1 22% 61.3 16% 77.2 20% 7.7 2% 1.5 0% 1.8 0% 8.9 2% 1.2 0% C. Contingencies 1. Physical 70.1 18.0 26% 4.9 7% 16.8 24% 11.9 17% 15.2 22% 0.8 1% 0.3 0% 0.2 0% 1.8 3% 0.2 0% 2. Price 29.2 7.7 26% 2.1 7% 7.1 24% 5.1 17% 6.1 21% 0.4 2% 0.1 0% 0.4 1% 5.5 19% 0.0 0% Subtotal C 99.3 25.7 26% 7.0 7% 24.0 24% 17.0 17% 21.3 21% 1.2 1% 0.4 0% 0.6 1% 7.2 7% 0.2 0% Sub-total A+B+C 491.3 146.9 33.2 109.0 78.3 98.5 8.9 1.9 2.3 16.1 1.4 D. Financing Charges During Implementation 1. Interest During Implementation 21.6 6.7 31% 1.4 7% 4.7 22% 3.4 16% 4.3 20% 0.4 2% 0.1 0% 0.1 0% 0.5 2% 0.1 0% 2. Commitment Charges 4.0 1.2 31% 0.3 7% 0.9 22% 0.6 16% 0.8 20% 0.1 2% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.1 2% 0.0 0% Subtotal D 25.6 7.9 31% 1.7 7% 5.6 22% 4.0 16% 5.0 20% 0.5 2% 0.1 0% 0.1 0% 0.6 2% 0.1 0% Total Project Cost (A+B+C+D) 516.9 154.9 30% 34.9 7% 114.6 22% 82.4 16% 103.6 20% 9.4 2% 2.0 0% 2.4 0% 16.7 3% 1.5 0% Table A.45 A. Detailed Cost Estimates by Expenditure Category ($ million) Foreign Local Currency Total Item currency A Investment Costs 1. Civil Works 43.3 18.5 61.8 2.Mechanical & Equipment 55.0 263.7 318.7 3. Environmental and Social Mitigation 4. Consultants & Capacity Building (a) Project Implementation 2.7 5.4 8.1 (b) Capacity Building 1.6 0.1 1.7 5. Project Management 1.7 0.0 1.7 Subtotal A 104.2 287.8 392.0 B. Recurrent Costs 1. Pump Station Power 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Pump Sation Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal B 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Base Cost 104.2 287.8 392.0 C. Contingencies 1. Physical 18.6 51.5 70.1 2. Price 0.0 29.2 29.2 Subtotal C 18.6 80.7 99.3 Base Cost incl contingencies 122.8 368.5 491.3 D. Financing Charges During Implementation 1. Interest During Implementation 0 21.6 21.6 2. Commitment Charges 0 4.0 4.0 Subtotal D 0.0 25.6 25.6 Total Project Cost (A+B+C+D) 122.8 394.1 516.9
Taxes and Duties 90.1 90.1 Total Cost including duties and taxes 122.8 484.2 607.1 Table A.46 F. Detailed Cost Estimates by Year. ($ million)
Total Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Item A Investment Costs 1. Civil Works 61.8 0.0 0.1 22.9 34.7 2.6 1.6 0.0 2.Mechanical & Equipment318.7 0.3 0.2 76.3 140.1 88.7 13.2 0.0 3. Environmental and Social Mitigation 4. Consultants & Capacity Building (a) Project Implementation8.6 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.1 (b) Capacity Building 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 5. Project Management 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 Subtotal A 392.0 1.8 2.6 101.4 177.4 92.6 16.0 0.1 B. Recurrent Costs 1. Pump Station Power 2. Pump Sation Maintenance Subtotal B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Base Cost 392.0 1.8 2.6 101.4 177.4 92.6 16.0 0.1 C. Contingencies 1. Physical 70.1 0.4 0.5 17.3 30.9 18.1 3.0 0.0 2. Price 29.2 0.0 0.1 5.7 12.8 9.0 1.7 0.0 Subtotal C 99.3 0.4 0.6 23.0 43.7 27.1 4.6 0.0 Subtotal A+B+C 491.3 2.2 3.2 124.4 221.1 119.7 20.6 0.1 D. Financing Charges During Implementation 1. Interest During Implementation21.6 0.0 0.1 1.2 4.4 7.5 8.3 2. Commitment Charges 4.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Subtotal D 25.6 0.7 0.7 1.9 5.1 8.2 9.0 0.0 Total Project Cost (A+B+C+D) 516.9 2.9 3.9 126.3 226.2 127.9 29.7 0.1 Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Appendix 1
Financial Management Assessment
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page i
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
APPENDIX 1 – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Summary of Findings ...... 1 B. Country Issues ...... 3 C. Executing Agency ...... 4 D. Funds Flow Arrangements ...... 5 E. Staffing ...... 6 F. Accounting Policies and Procedures ...... 6 G. Internal Audit ...... 8 H. External Audit ...... 8 I. Reporting and Monitoring ...... 9 J. Information System ...... 10 K. Conclusions ...... 10
List of Attachments
Attachment 1: Financial Management Assessment Questionnaire Attachment 2: Organizational Chart of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources of the Republic of Uzbekistan Attachment 3: Structure of the Central Administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources Attachment 4: Flow of Funds and Lending Arrangements Attachment 5: Chart of Accounts (National Accounting Standards No. 21)
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of the FMA ...... 1 Table 2: List of statuary reporting requirements of the MAWR ...... 9 Table 3: Summary of Required Financial Reports ...... 10
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page ii
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this Financial Management Assessment (FMA) is to assess the financial management capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR), the Executing Agency (EA) and the financial accounting units to be established under MAWR for the upcoming ADB-financed Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Project (ABIS Rehabilitation Project). The Project with a cost of approximately $400 million will be implemented over 6 years, starting early in 2013. The estimated project completion date is 30 June 2019 and the loan closing date is 31 December 2019.
2. Within the framework of the FMA the following was undertaken: (i) review and analyze the results of Financial Management Assessment of MAWR, the executing agency; (ii) review of the FMA prepared for the proposed ADB-financed Farm and Agribusiness Development Project in Fruit and Vegetable Sectors (FADP) 2007; (iii) review the EA’s structure and management framework with regard to financial management; (iv) assessment of MAWR’s resources, including its personnel, the scale of Government budgetary support and other sources of income, its information technology equipment and software; and (v) MAWR’s experience in implementing externally financed projects. Consequently, analyses of the EA and PMO’s accounting, reporting, auditing, internal control systems, information systems, and capacity of the personnel were carried out. Additional follow-up interviews with MAWR and PMO staff, discussions with authorities, international financial institutions representatives, reviews of relevant national legislation were also conducted.
3. The FMA is based on ADB’s Guidelines for the Financial Governance and Management of Projects Financed by the Bank (2002). The instrument used for assessment was ADB’s standard financial management assessment questionnaire (FMAQ).
A. Summary of Findings
4. It is concluded that MAWR currently satisfies ADB’s minimum financial management requirements for EAs. The MAWR has a satisfactory financial management capability to: (i) record required financial transactions and balances; (ii) provide regular and reliable financial statements and monitoring reports; (iii) safeguard financial assets; and (iv) submit the required financial documents to auditors with arrangements acceptable to ADB. A summary of the FMA is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of the FMA
Particulars Rating Conclusions
A. Implementing Moderate MAWR is a government ministry that is accountable to the Agency Cabinet of Ministers (COM) of the Republic of Uzbekistan. MAWR has experience in managing and implementing large scale projects financed by ADB, World Bank, and other international funding institutes.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 1
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Particulars Rating Conclusions
B. Funds Flow Satisfactory MAWR has knowledge of and working experience in ADB Arrangements funds flow arrangements. Preliminary funds flow and lending arrangements have been identified in consultation with MAWR and Ministry of Finance representatives. Prior to loan negotiations it is essential to ensure the availability of counterpart funds for year 2009, which were not included in state investment program for year 2009.
C. Staffing Moderate MAWR is moderately staffed with experienced financial specialists. Since the project staff will be newly recruited, it is recommended to organize training and workshops on ADB financial management procedures. It is expected that on-the- job training provided by the staff of other PMO/PIU of ongoing projects, being implemented under MAWR, will also be beneficial.
D. Accounting Satisfactory The MAWR accounting policy is based on the Uzbekistan Policies and National Accounting Standards, which are progressively being Procedures modernized in accordance with International Accounting Standards. For ABIS Rehabilitation Project PMO/PIU separate accounting policy, subject to annual updates, and a financial management manual will be established in accordance with requirements of ADB and MOF of Uzbekistan.
E. Internal Audit N.A. There is no internal audit unit within the structure of the MAWR.
F. External Audit N.A. MAWR has not been audited by external auditor but annual procedural audits are conducted by MOF. Operating PMOs under the Ministry are audited by independent external auditors on an annual basis. Audit of the project accounts will be done in accordance with the International Standards on Auditing (ISA), which complies with the requirements of ADB, and this shall be stipulated in the loan agreement.
G. Reporting and Satisfactory MAWR and PMO reports comply with the reporting Monitoring requirements of the MOF, the Ministry of Economy (MOE), and the State Taxation Committee. Acceptable reporting requirements for the proposed PMO and PIUs shall be stipulated in the Loan Agreement between ADB and Government of Uzbekistan.
H. Information Moderate MAWR’s financial system utilizes the 1S Buhgalteriya Systems accounting software supplemented with the use of excel spreadsheets and manual methods. Management and operational units of projects, being implemented under MAWR, use similar accounting software for internal and project operations, as well as financial reporting.
5. The following findings and observations have been prepared in accordance with the FMAQ categories and based on interviews, follow-up consultations and supporting documents. The completed FMAQ questionnaire is included in Attachment 1.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 2
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
B. Country Issues
6. The successful implementation of large scale projects financed by international financial institutions and the Government is conditional on a favorable political and economic environment in the county. At the project preparation stage, it is essential to conduct a general assessment study in order to identify the possible risks arising from environmental factors and inadequate control mechanisms in the country or organizations responsible for implementation and long-term management of development projects funded by the international financial institutions. The following is the summary of these issues that will influence the implementation of the ABIS Rehabilitation Project:
(i) The Law on Budgetary System1 regulates the budgeting process in Uzbekistan. This law provides the legal basis for preparation, review, approval and execution of the state budget. In case of projects financed jointly with International Financial Institutions (IFI), the PMO is responsible for providing the forecasted project budget for the subsequent year to the MOE for approval in May of the current year. (ii) Government is taking strong measures to transform accounting standards in order to make them consistent with IASs. There is sufficient accounting personnel capacity, provided that they are trained and informed about IASs, contemporary financial management techniques and accounting software. (iii) Internal audit in both the private and public sector is very poor in Uzbekistan. Government ministries and agencies do not have a unit responsible for internal control and audit. CRD of MOF is responsible for internal audit of public sector organizations, but both the scope of its work and its human resources are limited. (iv) In Uzbekistan, the external audit system is being developed based on International Standards on Auditing. External audit is not compulsory for state ministries or agencies. However, Article 1 of the Auditing Law (2000) states that if a certain international agreement signed by the Republic of Uzbekistan lays down rules and regulations other than those contained in the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan on audit activity, the former is applicable. Projects financed by IFIs are subject to annual audit by an independent auditor, as long as the loan agreement between the Government and IFIs stipulates this condition. (v) Existing legal and organizational arrangements discussed in CDSR pose considerable risks, and make the public procurement process vulnerable. Institutional and human resources capacity at the level of executing and implementing agencies should be evaluated and possible institutional and procurement arrangements need to be defined at the stage of project appraisal. Procurement of smaller packages should be subject, at least, to International Shopping and National Shopping methods.
1 Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. 158-II on Budgetary System dated 14 December 2000 and amended on 23 May 2005
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 3
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
C. Executing Agency
7. MAWR will be the Project Executing Agency for the ABIS Rehabilitation Project and have overall responsibility for the Project. A deputy minister under MAWR will be appointed as Project Director and oversee project implementation. MAWR is a ministry of the Government, operated under Regulations2 approved by the Cabinet of Ministers (COM). In carrying out its activities MAWR is accountable to COM. The Ministry’s organizational arrangements and functions were approved by the same resolution of the COM. MAWR is responsible for overall coordination of the country’s agricultural sector, irrigation and forestry. The Ministry was reorganized in 2003 to fulfil its new roles which now include: (i) formulating agriculture and water policies, (ii) improving and introducing new agricultural and water technologies, and (iii) co-coordinating agencies and service enterprises (either state owned or operating on market based principles). MAWR’s organizational chart and structure of the central administration are included in Attachment 2 and 3, respectively.
8. MAWR is largely a self-financing entity, receiving some funding from the state and contributions from its provincial departments and organizations under its coordination. The current annual budget is around UZS 1.7 billion ($850,000) and it is increased in line with inflation. MAWR has two main functions; support for water resources taking around 35% of its budget and receiving around 35% of its funds from the State, and support for the agricultural sector using 65% of the budget and mostly self-financed from provincial and district contributions. MAWR considers that their current annual allocation is sufficient for their activities.
9. Provincial departments and organizations under MAWR are entitled to receive state budget support. The budget for the O&M of the water sector receives a budget of over $400 million a year. All the procedures regarding their application for budget funds and execution of the budget are coordinated by MAWR.
10. MAWR is authorized to attract foreign investments to finance projects in the fields of agriculture, irrigation and forestry and MAWR has experience in the rehabilitation, upgrade and management of irrigation infrastructure facilities and projects. For example the Land Improvement Project and the Amu Zang Irrigation Rehabilitation Project funded by ADB, and the Drainage, Irrigation and Wetlands Improvement Project of the World Bank are implemented with MAWR as the EA.
11. Project Management Office. For the implementation of ABIS Rehabilitation Project, a project management office (PMO) will be set up in Tashkent and a PIU in Bukhara to facilitate project implementation prior to disbursement of loan proceeds. The PMO will be responsible for: (i) financial management, (ii) procurement and recruitment of consultants, (iii) preparing the periodic reports; (iv) screening, preparation, and implementation of subprojects; (v) ensuring compliance with ADB and Government environment and social safeguards’ requirements; (vi) monitoring and evaluation; and (iv) coordinating interaction with relevant agencies. The PMO and PIUs will have permanent Uzbek staff supported by national and international specialists. Comprehensive results based monitoring and management will be a critical feature of the PMO.
2 Appendix 5 to the Resolution of the COM of the Government No 290 of 28 June 2003 on Improvement of the Organization of the Activities of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (amended in 2004)
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 4
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
12. Overall guidance and coordination will be provided by a Project Steering Committee (PSC), to be established by government within six months of loan effectiveness to be chaired by a deputy prime minister. The PSC will comprise representatives from the Cabinet of Ministers (COM), MAWR, Ministry of Finance (MOF), Ministry of Economy (MOE), and the State Committee for Nature Protection (SCNP). The PSC will: (i) provide policy guidance, (ii) review and evaluate Project performance, (iii) review audited accounts, (iv) resolve issues affecting Project implementation as needed, and (v) approve jointly with ADB the subprojects recommended by the PMO. The PSC will meet at least semi-annually.
D. Funds Flow Arrangements
13. The proceeds of the ADB loan will be disbursed according to ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook (2012, as amended from time to time). For large scale contracts for consulting services and equipment following ICB procedures, loan funds will be disbursed through direct payment. For civil works following NCB procedures and small expenditures related to the PMO, reimbursement and imprest fund procedures will be applied. For minor goods or services procured at provincial levels payments to suppliers can be done through corresponding PIU.
14. In accordance with ADB’s project implementation guidelines, after loan effectiveness, MAWR will open two imprest accounts, one for each loan (ADF and OCR) at a commercial bank in Uzbekistan acceptable to ADB. These imprest accounts will be established and managed according to ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook. Total outstanding advances are not to exceed estimated share of eligible project expenditures to be financed through the imprest account for the next 6 months or 10% of the loan amount, whichever is lower. ADB’s statement of expenditures procedure will be applied when reimbursing eligible project outlays and liquidating and replenishing the imprest accounts for individual payments not exceeding $100,000. As per banking regulations in Uzbekistan, the PMO will be required to establish two bank accounts, one for foreign exchange and second account for local currency. The foreign currency account will be used by PMO as its imprest account.
15. During the implementation of previous projects, PMOs operating under MAWR faced delays in receiving counterpart funding for settlement of payment requests to contractors and suppliers tendered at the local level. This is related to inappropriate practices of PMOs in sending requests for funds to MOF. It is important to ensure PMO staff are aware of the correct procedures.
16. As is discussed in the CDSR, in line with the state budgeting process the PMO should identify the project expenditure budgeted for in the upcoming year and send it to the MOE (through MAWR) in May of the current year. Later the request for funds will be sent to MOF. With respect to Amu Bukhara Rehabilitation Project, expenditure needs for the upcoming 2013 year were not considered in the state budget for year 2012, since the feasibility study is not yet approved by the COM. Therefore before the loan agreement is finalized, it will be essential to ensure that the budget for project start-up is available for the initial fiscal year.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 5
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
17. The overall budget for project implementation is included in the Presidential Decree for the Project as an annex, to ensure that sufficient funds are budgeted for each component for each year of implementation.
18. Lending and re-lending arrangements. Since the ABIS Rehabilitation Project is a non-revenue earning project (for MAWR), Government will take the responsibility for repaying the ADB loans. The project beneficiaries are not expected to provide reim- bursement of loans and or to pay for services provided by the project.
19. Management of foreign exchange. MAWR is not greatly experienced in managing foreign exchange risks. MOF needs to be consulted regarding this issue prior to the finalization of loan agreement.
E. Staffing
20. It is proposed that the PMO will be headed by a Project Manager appointed by MAWR and acceptable to ADB. The Project Manager will report to the Project Director. The Project Manager will be supported with national specialists for procurement, financial management, accounting, engineering, social and environmental safeguards, water management, and M&E along with administrative staff. PMO staff will be recruited by the EA using procedures acceptable to ADB. The PMO will be supported by international and national consultants recruited through the Project.
21. To ensure adequate financial and accounting capacity it is proposed to recruit a financial manager and an accountant for the PMO and accountants for the two PIUs who will serve for the duration of the project in the respective locations. In selecting the project financial personnel, special attention will be paid to the experience of the staff with IFIs. Project accounting and finance staff will be trained in ADB procedures. PMO personnel are usually employed on one-year contracts, which are renewed for the subsequent year subject to satisfactory performance of the staff member.
22. Competent staff are available but it is difficult to retain staff as their period of employment comes to an end as the will leave to take up alternative employment. The cap on the salary rates that can be offered that is imposed by government does restrict the PMO in flexible recruitment and remuneration.
F. Accounting Policies and Procedures
23. MAWR through the PMO will be required to establish financial management and accounting systems for the Project in accordance with Financial Reporting and Auditing of Projects Financed by the ADB. The PMO will also be responsible to maintain project accounts and financial statements.
24. MAWR and its PMO use the accrual method of accounting in their regular and project operations. The accounting system of MAWR, as well as of all state and private legal entities in Uzbekistan, is based on the NAS and the national accounting guidelines of the MOF. As it is practiced in other ADB financed projects, the PMO will develop a project accounting manual in accordance with ADB and MOF requirements. The manual will be updated annually to include project accounting policy changes issued by the MOF. The PMO and PIU follow the procedures stipulated in ADB’s Handbook for
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 6
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Borrowers on the Financial Governance and Management of Investment Projects Financed by the ADB (2003). The Chart of Accounts based on NAS 21, in Attachment 5, will be applied by the PMO.
25. All reports and supporting documents on all transactions will be stored and retained by the project financial manager until documents are inspected by state controlling agencies (District Tax Inspection, MOF), after which documents will be stored in archives.
26. Clear segregation of duties will be implemented at PMO level. The Project Manager is authorized to execute the project transactions while the financial manager and the accountant handles recording of the transactions. Payments are approved and made by the project manager and the financial manager. In order to increase transparency and reduce potential misappropriation the double checking system (i.e. requiring the documents to be signed by two persons) for bank reconciliations has been found to be the best alternative in MAWR, since the number of PMO accounting personnel is limited in the case of non-revenue earning projects.
27. Budgeting System. The Ministry’s and the PMO’s budgeting systems will be separate and follow a clear process. The project’s budgets are to be prepared annually by the PMO manager together with the financial manager and other management staff as appropriate. The budget developed by the PMO sets annual physical and financial targets. The budget is presented to the MOE, which after approval, is submitted to MOF for final approval.
28. During project implementation the actual expenditures are compared with planned budgeted expenditures on a monthly and quarterly basis, and reports on an analysis of variations is prepared. Significant variations in budgeted expenditure need to be approved by the PSC prior to actual expenditure.
29. Procurement. All ADB-financed procurement of goods, works, and consulting services will follow ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (2007, as amended from time to time). Civil works contracts costing more than $1 million and contracts for supply (and installation) of equipment and materials valued at more than $1 million, will be awarded under international competitive bidding (ICB) while those valued at $1 million or less will be awarded following national competitive bidding (NCB) procedures acceptable to ADB. Equipment and materials packages valued at less than $100,000 will be procured through the shopping mode. The relevant sections of ADB’s Policy on Anticorruption (1998, as amended to date) will be included in all bid documents issued during implementation of the Project
30. Payments. All project payments are made with payrolls and bank transfers. In accordance with national accounting procedures, instead of invoices, the payroll is stamped (PAID) and assigned an accounting code. Payrolls prepared by the PMO’s accountant are to be checked by the financial manager and the project manager.
31. Cash and Bank. The PMO manager and the financial manager will be the duly authorized signatories to all project-bank transactions. Use of the accounting software “1S Buhgalteriya” (to be installed in the PMO) will allow maintaining the cashbook in a
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 7
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment computerized electronic system. Bank reconciliations are to be undertaken at the end of each month, or at any time as necessary.
32. Safeguard over Assets. MAWR and its PMOs have procedures that assure sufficient controls are undertaken over project assets, and safeguards are in place to protect assets from fraud, waste and abuse. An annual physical inventory of all stocks and materials is carried out as required by NAS and the fixed assets inventory is required to be updated every two years. An inventory stock-take is also practiced when the chief accountant or office manager is changed.
G. Internal Audit
33. As it has been described in previous FMAs for MAWR, currently there are no internal audit units in any government ministry or entity in Uzbekistan. MAWR does not have a department for conducting internal audit of either the ministry’s or project operations. Although the PMOs of ongoing projects executed under MAWR prepare monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements to the financial and economic department of the ministry, these are not intended for internal audit purposes.
34. In Uzbekistan, the Control Revision Department (CRD) of the MOF is the equivalent of a Supreme Audit Institution. This department carries out an internal audit of MAWR, usually every year. However, CRD is mainly concerned with inspecting the compliance of the ministry with budget rules and regulations. CRD does not conduct a “value-for-money” analysis and the department is not involved in identifying gaps in internal control systems and making recommendation on strengthening them, features that are accepted as part and parcel of modern internal audit processes.
H. External Audit
35. Since the state agencies are not required to undergo external auditing, MAWR has not been audited. However, as part of ADB’s conditions PMOs under MAWR are subject to annual external audit. In other ADB financed projects external auditors are selected based on competitive bidding process in accordance with ADB requirements. For the ABIS Rehabilitation Project independent auditors acceptable to ADB will audit the accounts and records yearly to international standards on auditing and in accordance with the provisions of the Loan Agreement and as specified in ADB guidelines. Annual expenditure for an external auditor during project implementation are included in project costs with provision for loan proceeds to finance the services of private auditors and the translation of their reports into English. Terms of reference for external auditor, in accordance with ADB regulations, shall be prepared for the Project after establishment of the PMO.
36. The PMO will have to maintain separate accounts for the Project. Within 6 months of the close of the financial year, certified copies of the audit report, together with the auditor’s opinion, will be submitted by the PMO to the Government and ADB in English. The audit reports will include a management letter and a separate opinion on the use of the imprest accounts and statement of expenditures procedure. The Project is subject to central Government audit by MOF only at project completion, unless any major accountability issue is raised that would warrant carrying it out sooner.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 8
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
37. The external audit undertaken of MAWR PMOs is carried out in a timely manner and issues and recommendations made by the auditions are implemented promptly where appropriate.
I. Reporting and Monitoring
38. MAWR financial reporting follows the NAS procedures and requirements. The Financial and Economic Department of the Ministry prepares reports on budget execution and internal financial activities. These reports are prepared using the computerized accounting software and spreadsheets following existing templates where necessary. The types of reports prepared and their frequency is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2: List of statuary reporting requirements of the MAWR
No Type Frequency
Group 1. Budget Execution
1 Comparative report on budget planning and execution Monthly, Quarterly
2 Report on the inflow and utilization of development funds Quarterly
3 Balance sheet on the implementation of the planned budget Quarterly
Group 2. Internal Financial Activities Balance sheet, Income statement, and Statement of creditors and 1 Quarterly liabilities 2 Cash flow statement Semi-annually Statement of financial and economic condition, Movements in fixed 3 Annually assets, and Statement of movements in equity
39. Project financial statements are prepared using a computerized accounting system and submitted to MAWR, MOE, MOF and ADB on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. The quarterly project progress reports highlights the physical accom- plishments and financial progress and follow ADB formats. Spreadsheet analysis and reports are prepared to adapt to special and supplementary reporting requirements. Based on previous project implementation experience, MAWR has well established financial management reporting responsibilities that specify the type and requirements for reports to be prepared. MAWR through the PMO will establish financial management and accounting systems for the Project in accordance with Financial Reporting and Auditing of Projects Financed by the ADB. PMO will also be responsible to maintain project accounts and financial statements.
40. MAWR, through the PMO, will submit quarterly and annual reports to ADB. The reports will indicate progress made, problems encountered, steps taken to remedy the problems, and a program of activities along with expected progress during the remainder of the implementation period. The reports will also incorporate project performance monitoring data and all relevant financial data. The reporting system will focus on outcomes, efficiency, and quality and will be consistent with international and local
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 9
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment reporting standards, as well as with the design and monitoring framework. MAWR will also provide other reports and information relating to the Project as ADB may reasonably request. Within 6 months of project completion, MAWR will submit a project completion report to ADB that includes information on project implementation, use of both the ADF and OCR loan proceeds, and accomplishments in relation to the Project’s outcome and impact.
41. In general ADB requires the reports listed in the following Table 3 to be prepared by the PMO:
Table 3: Summary of Required Financial Reports Report Frequency Basis Duration Due date Project expenditures Semi-annual Annual Term of project Every 6 months after forecast commencement of loan project Operation plan Annual Annual 12 months January 10 QP-01 Annual Quarterly 12 months January 10 Project expenditures Monthly, Monthly, Monthly, Monthly report Quarterly, Quarterly, or Quarterly, or Annually Annually Annually Audited annual Annual Annual Annual September 1 of the financial statements subsequent year
J. Information System
42. MAWR uses 1S Buhgalteriya accounting software package that is integrated with the Internet for exchange of information. For complimentary reasons, the PMO should use a similar computerized financial accounting and management system. The system should enable the PMO to: (i) respond to operational and project-related queries pertaining to specific accounts, and (ii) prepare financial reports on the transactions that occurred in the reporting period. The accounting system should be capable of generating financial reports for both external and internal use. For some types of reports PMOs use spreadsheets.
43. The PMO will establish a Project Performance and Monitoring System to monitor the Project’s progress in achieving the planned outputs, outcome, and impact within 6 months of loan effectiveness. An M&E unit will be established in the PMO to measure results and report findings to the Government and ADB. During project inception, a matrix of indicators will be confirmed and baseline data for the agreed indicators will be gathered. The indicator data will be updated every 6 months and reported to stakeholders and the public. During loan review missions, the indicators will be validated and may be modified to reflect Project performance and results more accurately.
K. Conclusions
44. Overall, the FMA rated the performance and capacity of the financial management, reporting and monitoring systems of MAWR as satisfactory in serving as an EA for the Project. However it is noted that MAWR should ensure that the PMO is adequately staffed with efficient and experienced personnel, and that MAWR pays
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 10
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment special attention to train project staff in procedural and reporting requirements of ADB as a means to enhance staff professional capacity.
45. Accounting and financial reporting practices of the PMO under MAWR are found to be reliable. The accounting policy and procedures of the PMO is required to be established following both national and ADB regulations, which can be easily accommodated as they are not contradictory. As the ABIS Rehabilitation Project executed by MAWR is a non-revenue earning project, the number of accounting and financial personnel assigned to PMOs is limited as they are only accounting for expenditure, not receipts. However, the reliability of the accounting documentation will be ensured by the current system of authentication that requires double signatures (i.e. signing by two persons) for the most of the accounting documents. As it is practiced by other PMOs, ABIS Rehabilitation Project financial reporting will be computerized, and it will not necessitate any changes in MAWR’s financial reporting system.
46. It is noted that there is no department within the structure of MAWR responsible for internal audit and that the Ministry has not been audited by external independent auditor, apart from the procedural audits that are required to conduct by MOF. This means that is very important that for projects being implemented under MAWR an external annual audit is carried out in a through and timely way in line with the external donor requirements, as will be the case for the ABIS Rehabilitation Project.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 11
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
ATTACHMENT 1: Financial Management Assessment Questionnaire
Topic Response Remarks 1. Implementing Agency 1.1 What is the entity’s legal status / Government Ministry, accountable to the Structure is registration? Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of attached Uzbekistan 1.2 Has the entity implemented an 1. Land Improvement Project. Financed by 2006 – 2011 externally-financed project in the ADB past (if so, please provide 2004 – 2009 details)? 2. Amu Zang Irrigation Rehabilitation Project. Financed by ABD (US$ 73.2 mln. of total US$100.0 mln.).
3. The Drainage, Irrigation and Wetlands Improvement Project. Financed by World 2003 – 2010 Bank (US$60 mln. of total US$74mln.)
4. The Grain Productivity Improvement Project. Financed by ADB
5. Ak Altin Agricultural Development Project. Financed by ADB
1.3 What are the statutory reporting Group 1: Budget Execution requirements for the entity? Comparative report on budget Monthly / planning and execution Quarterly
Report on the inflow and utilization of Quarterly development funds Balance sheet on the implementation Quarterly of the planned budget
Group 2: Internal Financial Activities Balance sheet, Income statement, and Statement of creditors and liabilities Quarterly
Cash flow statement Semi-annually
Statement of financial and economic Annually condition, Movements in fixed assets, and Statement of movements in equity
1.4 Is the governing body for the project independent? 1.5 Is the organizational structure Yes appropriate for the needs of the project? 2. Funds Flow Arrangements 2.1 Describe (proposed) project A flow of funds arrangement is proposed. Structural funds flow arrangements, chart is including a chart and explanation attached of the flow of funds from ADB, government and other financiers.
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 12
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Topic Response Remarks 2.2 Are the (proposed) Yes arrangements to transfer the proceeds of the loan (from the government / Finance Ministry) to the entity satisfactory? 2.3 What have been the major Delays in receiving counterpart funds from problems in the past in receipt of MOF and delays in project startup. funds by the entity? 2.4 In which bank will the Imprest PMO Imprest Account will be opened in a local Account be opened? bank acceptable to ADB 2.5 Does the (proposed) project Specialists with adequate experience of implementing unit (PIU) have management of disbursements will be experience in the management recruited to PMO and PIUs of disbursements from ADB? 2.7 Does the entity have/need a MAWR does not but the borrower (MOF) has capacity to manage foreign capacity to manage foreign exchange risks exchange risks? 2.8 How are the counterpart funds N/A accessed? 2.9 How are payments made from Government contribution is disbursed the counterpart funds? according to the State Program that is annually approved by the Government resolution 2.10 If part of the project is Yes implemented by communities or NGOs, does the PIU have the necessary reporting and monitoring features built into its systems to track the use of project proceeds by such agencies? 2.11 Are the beneficiaries required to No contribute to project costs? If beneficiaries have an option to contribute in kind (in the form of labor), are proper guidelines formulated to record and value the labor contribution? 3. Staffing 3.1 What is the (proposed) For each operational unit (PMO/PIU) at least organizational structure of the one competent financial specialist will be accounting department? Attach assigned for the duration of the project an organization chart. 3.2 Identify the (proposed) accounts To be prepared in the design stage staff, including job title, responsibilities, educational background and professional experience. Attach job descriptions and CVs of key accounting staff. 3.3 Is the project finance and Refer to 3.1 accounting function staffed adequately?
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 13
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Topic Response Remarks 3.4 Is the finance and accounts staff Competent personnel are available. adequately qualified and Financial/accounting personnel with sufficient experienced? qualifications and skill will be recruited 3.5 Is the project accounts and Financial/accounting personnel recruited will finance staff trained in ADB be given special training in ADB procedures as procedures? appropriate. 3.6 What is the duration of the Duration of the contract with PMO/PIU staff is contract with the finance and usually 1 year, renewable subject to accounts staff? satisfactory performance 3.7 Indicate key positions not N/A (no staff have been recruited yet) contracted yet, and the estimated date of appointment. 3.10 Does the project have written TORs have not available but will be prepared position descriptions that clearly at the start of project implementation. define duties, responsibilities, lines of supervision, and limits of authority for all of the officers, managers, and staff? 3.11 At what frequency are personnel N/A transferred? 3.12 What is training policy for the Organization of annual training programs and finance and accounting staff? participating in ADB seminars and workshops. Training in the use of accounting software is also provided by the supplier 4. Accounting Policies and Procedures 4.1 Does the entity have an Yes, 1S Buhgalteriya account software accounting system that allows for the proper recording of For the PMO/PIU a compatible accounting project financial transactions, system using the same software will be including the allocation of established based on regulations and expenditures in accordance with instructions of ADB and MOF the respective components, disbursement categories, and sources of funds? Will the project use the entity accounting system? 4.2 Are controls in place concerning Yes the preparation and approval of transactions, ensuring that all transactions are correctly made and adequately explained? 4.3 Is the chart of accounts NAS 21 is applied. Supplementary paragraphs adequate to properly account for will be added to ensure the compliance with and report on project activities accounting and financial reporting and disbursement categories? requirements of ADB and MOF 4.4 Are cost allocations to the Yes various funding sources made accurately and in accordance with established agreements? 4.5 Are the General Ledger and General ledger and subsidiary ledgers are subsidiary ledgers reconciled verified periodically and in balance?
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 14
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Topic Response Remarks 4.6 Are all accounting and Until inspections by state controlling agencies supporting documents retained are carried out accounting documents are kept on a permanent basis in a in the accounting department. Afterwards they defined system that allows are kept in archives. authorized users easy access? Segregation of Duties 4.7 Are the following functional (i) PMO Project Manager responsibilities performed by (ii) PMO Financial Manager different units or persons: (i) (iii) PMO accountant authorization to execute a (iv) Procurement Specialist transaction; (ii) recording of the transaction; and (iii) custody of assets involved in the transaction? 4.8 Are the functions of ordering, Depending on the type of operation these receiving, accounting for, and functions are divided among the Project paying for goods and services Manager, Procurement Specialist, Financial appropriately segregated? Manager and Accountant 4.9 Are bank reconciliations Financial Manager and Project Manager or prepared by someone other than Deputy Project Manager and Accountant make those who make or approve or approve payments. For the bank payments? reconciliations a double checking system is practiced, i.e. signing documents both by accountant and project manager, accountant and office manager, etc. Budgeting System 4.10 Do budgets include physical and Yes financial targets? 4.11 Are budgets prepared for all Yes significant activities in sufficient detail to provide a meaningful tool with which to monitor subsequent performance? 4.12 Are actual expenditures Yes, monthly and quarterly. Based on these, compared to the budget with preparation of interpretation reports is as reasonable frequency, and required explanations required for significant variations from the budget? 4.13 Are approvals for variations from In advance the budget required in advance or after the fact? 4.14 Who is responsible for PMO Project Manager, Financial Manager, preparation and approval of Deputy Director Project Manager and budgets? Accountant with input from the Project Consultants 4.15 Are procedures in place to plan Yes project activities, collect information from the units in charge of the different components, and prepare the budgets?
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 15
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Topic Response Remarks 4.16 Are the project plans and Yes budgets of project activities realistic, based on valid assumptions, and developed by knowledgeable individuals? Payments 4.17 Do invoice-processing Yes procedures provide for: (i) Copies of purchase orders and receiving reports to be obtained directly from issuing departments? (ii) Comparison of invoice quantities, prices and terms, with those indicated on the purchase order and with records of goods actually received? (iii) Comparison of invoice quantities with those indicated on the receiving reports? (iv) Checking the accuracy of calculations? 4.18 Are all invoices stamped PAID, According to the national regulations, similar dated, reviewed and approved, procedures are practiced with payrolls, i.e. and clearly marked for account payroll is stamped, reviewed and approved, code assignment? and an accounting code is assigned. 4.19 Do controls exist for the Checked by the Project Director/Project preparation of the payroll and Manager are changes to the payroll properly authorized? Policies And Procedures 4.20 What is the basis of accounting Accrual method is practiced (e.g., cash, accrual)? 4.21 What accounting standards are National Accounting Standards and followed? International Accounting Standards approved by MOF 4.22 Does the project have an It will be utilized from previous ADB projects adequate policies and but adapted to conform with project activities procedures manual to guide activities and ensure staff accountability? 4.23 Is the accounting policy and The EAs accounting policy and procedure procedure manual updated for manual does not need to be updated for the the project activities? project activities 4.24 Do procedures exist to ensure Yes that only authorized persons can alter or establish a new accounting principle, policy or procedure to be used by the entity? 4.25 Are there written policies and Yes procedures covering all routine financial management and related administrative activities?
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 16
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Topic Response Remarks 4.26 Do policies and procedures Yes clearly define conflict of interest and related party transactions (real and apparent) and provide safeguards to protect the organization from them? 4.27 Are manuals distributed to Yes appropriate personnel? Cash and Bank 4.28 Indicate names and positions of Project Manager and Financial Manager and in authorized signatories in the the Project Manager’s absence by the Deputy bank accounts. Project Manager and the Accountant 4.29 Does the organization maintain Yes an adequate, up-to-date cashbook, recording receipts and payments? 4.30 Do controls exist for the Yes collection, timely deposit and recording of receipts at each collection location? 4.31 Are bank and cash reconciled on Yes a monthly basis? 4.32 Are all unusual items on the Yes bank reconciliation reviewed and approved by a responsible official? 4.33 Are all receipts deposited on a Yes timely basis? Safeguard over Assets 4.34 Is there a system of adequate Yes safeguards to protect assets from fraud, waste and abuse? 4.35 Are subsidiary records of fixed Yes assets and stocks kept up to date and reconciled with control accounts? 4.36 Are there periodic physical Yes, annually. inventories of fixed assets and For fixed assets – once in 2 years or when the stocks? responsible person (accountant or office manager) is changed 4.37 Are assets sufficiently covered No by insurance policies? Other Offices and Implementing Entities 4.38 Are there any other regional Yes offices or executing entities participating in implementation? 4.39 Has the project established Yes, and will be further developed at the start controls and procedures for flow of implementation of funds, financial information, accountability, and audits in relation to the other offices or entities?
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 17
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Topic Response Remarks 4.40 Does information among the Yes different offices/implementing agencies flow in an accurate and timely fashion? 4.41 Are periodic reconciliations Yes, quarterly or as required performed among the different offices/implementing agencies? Other 4.42 Has the project advised Yes employees, beneficiaries and other recipients to whom to report if they suspect fraud, waste or misuse of project resources or property? 5. Internal Audit 5.1 Is there an internal audit No department in the entity? 5.2 What are the qualifications and N/A experience of audit department staff? 5.3 To whom does the internal N/A auditor report? 5.4 Will the internal audit department N/A include the project in its work program? 5.5 Are actions taken on the internal N/A audit findings? 6. External Audit 6.1 Is the entity financial statement MAWR is audited by the MOF on procedural audited regularly by an matters. PMOs under the Ministry are audited independent auditor? Who is the annually by an independent external auditor auditor? 6.2 Are there any delays in audit of No. Issuance dates of auditors reports are set the entity? When are the audit in accordance with external donor institutions’ reports issued? requirements 6.3 Is the audit of the entity Yes conducted according to the International Standards on Auditing? 6.4 Were there any major N/A accountability issues brought out in the audit report of the past three years? 6.5 Will the entity auditor audit the Auditor is selected on tender basis project accounts or will another auditor be appointed to audit the project financial statements? 6.6 Are there any recommendations N/A made by the auditors in prior audit reports or management letters that have not yet been implemented?
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 18
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Topic Response Remarks 6.7 Is the project subject to any kind Yes, Control Revision Department of MOF of audit from an independent governmental entity (e.g., the supreme audit institution) in addition to the external audit? 6.8 Has the project prepared No, preparation of terms of reference for the acceptable terms of reference Project’s financial statements audit is expected for an annual project audit? to be prepared after establishment of the PMO. 7. Reporting and Monitoring 7.1 Are financial statements Based on NAS prepared for the entity? In accordance with which accounting standards? 7.2 Are financial statements PMO prepares its own financial statements prepared for the implementing unit? 7.3 What is the frequency of Yes. Depending on the form of report monthly, preparation of financial quarterly, annual statements are prepared. statements? Are the reports prepared in a timely fashion so as to useful to management for decision making? 7.4 Does the reporting system need No to be adapted to report on the project components? 7.5 Does the reporting system have Yes, control is exercised by management and the capacity to link the financial specialists at the PMO and PIUs information with the project's physical progress? If separate systems are used to gather and compile physical data, what controls are in place to reduce the risk that the physical data may not synchronize with the financial data? 7.6 Does the project have Yes established financial management reporting responsibilities that specify what reports are to be prepared, what they are to contain, and how they are to be used? 7.7 Are financial management Yes, for planning, budgeting and decision reports used by management? making purposes 7.8 Do the financial reports compare Yes actual expenditures with budgeted and programmed allocations? 7.9 Are financial reports prepared Yes MAWR uses the 1S Buhgalteriya directly by the automated accounting software system. Financial reports accounting system or are they are also prepared using spreadsheets or prepared by spreadsheets or manually as necessary. For the proposed some other means? PMO, it is recommended to install a similar automated accounting system
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 19
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
Topic Response Remarks 8. Information Systems 8.1 Is the financial management Yes system computerized? 8.2 Can the system produce the Yes, if necessary the software can be necessary project financial reprogrammed to produce desired reports. reports? 8.3 Is the staff adequately trained to Yes, training is provided in house and by the maintain the system? software supplier. New staff will also receive adequate training to operate the system 8.4 Does the management Yes organization and processing system safeguard the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the data?
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 20
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
ATTACHMENT 2: Organizational Chart of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources of the Republic of Uzbekistan
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 21
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
ATTACHMENT 3: Structure of the Central Administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 22
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
ATTACHMENT 4: Flow of Funds and Lending Arrangements
Asian Development Bank
Ministry of Counterpart Finance funding Contractors Suppliers Consultants Executing Agency Consulting and PMO Companies NGOs
Participating BISA, WUA and Water Resource Management Institutions ABMK
ABIS
Subprojects
Flow of funds
PIU: Project Implementation Unit PMO: Project Management Office
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 23
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
ATTACHMENT 5: Chart of Accounts (National Accounting Standards No. 21)
No of Name of account Type acc PART I LONG-TERM ASSETS Section 1 FIXED ASSETS, INTANGIBLE & OTHER LONG-TERM ASSETS
0100 FIXED ASSETS A 1100 Land 0111 Land Improvements 0112 Long-term Leasehold Improvements 0120 Buildings and Facilities 0130 Machinery and Equipment 0140 Furniture and Office fixtures 0150 Computer equipment and techniques 0160 Vehicles 0170 Draft animals and Livestock 0180 Perennial Plants 0190 Other Fixed Assets 0199 Preserved Fixed Assets 0200 DEPRECIATION OF FIXED ASSETS CA 0211 Depreciation of Land Improvements 0210 Depreciation of Long-term Leasehold Improvements
0220 Depreciation of Buildings and Facilities 0230 Depreciation of Machinery and Equipment 0240 Depreciation of Furniture and Office fixtures 0250 Depreciation of Computer equipment and techniques 0260 Depreciation of Vehicles 0270 Depreciation of Draft Animals 0280 Depreciation of Perennial Plants 0290 Depreciation of Other Fixed Assets 0299 Depreciation of Fixed Assets Received on Long-term Rent
0300 FIXED ASSETS RECEIVED ON LONG-TERM RENT A
0310 Fixed Assets, Received on Long-term Rent 0400 INTANGIBLE ASSETS A 0410 Patents, Licenses and Know-how 0420 Trademarks, Trade signs & Industrial samples 0430 Software 0440 Rights to use land and natural resources 0450 Organization Costs 0460 Franchise fees 0470 Copyrights 0480 Goodwill 0490 Other Intangible Assets 0500 AMORTIZATION OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS CA 0510 Accumulated Amortization - Patents, Licenses and Know-how 0520 Accumulated Amortization - Trademarks, Trade signs & Industrial samples 0530 Accumulated Amortization - Software 0540 Accumulated Amortization - Rights to use land and natural resources
0550 Accumulated Amortization - Organization Costs 0560 Accumulated Amortization - Franchise fees
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 24
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
No of acc Name of account Type 0570 Accumulated Amortization - Copyrights 0590 Accumulated Amortization - Other Intangible Assets 0600 LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS A 0610 Securities 0620 Investments in Subsidiaries 0630 Investments in Subordinates 0640 Investments in enterprises with foreign capital 0690 Other Long-term Investments 0700 EQUIPMENT TO BE INSTALLED A 0710 Equipment to be installed - Local 0720 Equipment to be installed - Imported 0800 CAPITAL INVESTMENTS A 0810 Work in progress 0820 Acquisition of fixed assets 0830 Acquisition of intangible assets 0840 Formation of main herd 0850 Capital Investments in Land Improvements 0860 Capital Investments in Fixed Assets received on long-term rent 0890 Other Capital investments 0900 LONG-TERM RECEIVABLES AND DEFERRED CHARGES A 0910 Notes Receivable 0920 Long-term Rent Payments Receivable 0930 Personnel Long-term Receivables 0940 Other Long-term Receivables 0950 Deferred income tax on temporary differences 0960 Long-term Deferred Expenses on Discounts 0990 Other Long-term Deferred Expenses PART II CURRENT ASSETS Section 2 INVENTORY 1000 RAW MATERIALS INVENTORY A 1010 Materials 1020 Purchased Semi-finished Goods and Components 1030 Fuel 1040 Spare Parts 1050 Construction Materials 1060 Packaging Materials 1070 Materials for Outside Processing 1080 Inventory and household fixings 1090 Other Materials 1100 ANIMALS FOR BREEDING A 1100 Animals for Growing 1120 Animals for Fattening 1200 1300 1400 1500 PROVISION AND PURCHASE OF MATERIALS 1510 Provision and Purchase of Materials
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 25
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
No of Name of account Type acc
1600 DEVIATION IN COST OF MATERIALS A 1610 Deviation in Cost of Materials 1700 1800 1900 2000 MAIN PRODUCTION WORK IN PROCESS 2010 Main Production Work in Process 2100 TRANSFER OF IN PROCESS INVENTORY A 2110 Transfer of in process inventory 2200 2300 AUXILIARY PRODUCTION IN PROCESS A 2310 Auxiliary Production in Process 2400 2500 GENERAL PRODUCTION EXPENSES 2510 General Production Expenses 2600 DAMAGE IN PRODUCTION 2610 Damage in Production 2700 ATTENDANT ENTERPRISES A 2710 Attendant Enterprises 2800 FINISHED GOODS INVENTORY A 2810 Finished Goods in Warehouse 2820 Finished Goods in Exhibition 2830 Finished Goods submitted to commission 2900 GOODS A 2910 Goods in Warehouse 2920 Goods in Retail Trade 2930 Goods in Exhibition 2940 Items for Rent 2950 Full and Empty packaging 2960 Goods submitted to commission 2970 Goods in Transit 2980 Trading Estimate 2990 Other Goods Section 3 PREPAID EXPENSES AND DEFERRED EXPENSES - CURRENT PORTION
3000 3100 PREPAID EXPENSES A 3110 Prepaid Rent 3120 Prepaid Services 3190 Other Prepayments 3200 DEFERRED EXPENSES A 3210 Deferred income tax on temporary differences 3220 Deferred Expenses on Discounts 3290 Other Deferred Expenses 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 26
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
3800 No of acc Name of account Type 3900 Section 4 RECEIVABLES - CURRENT PORTION 4000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE A 4010 Accounts Receivable form Customers 4020 Notes Receivable
4100 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FROM SUBDIVISIONS, SUBSIDIARIES AND SUBORDINATES A
4110 Accounts Receivable from Subdivisions 4120 Accounts Receivable from Subsidiaries and Subordinates 4200 ADVANCES GIVEN TO PERSONNEL A 4210 Advances given for payroll 4220 Advances given for business-trips 4230 Advances for General Expenses 4290 Other Advances given to personnel 4300 ADVANCES GIVEN TO SUPPLIERS AND CONTRACTORS A 4310 Advances given to suppliers and contractors for inventory 4320 Advances given to suppliers and contractors for long-term assets 4330 Other Advances Given 4400 ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO BUDGET A 4410 Advance payments on taxes and fees to budget
4500 ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO STATE FUNDS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE AND ON INSURANCE A
4510 Advance payments on insurance 4520 Advance payments to state funds for special purpose 4600 RECEIVABLES FROM FOUNDERS A
4610 Receivables from Founders 4700 RECEIVABLES FROM PERSONNEL ON OTHER TRANSACTIONS A 4710 Receivables for goods on credit 4720 Receivables on loans 4730 Receivables to cover material loss 4790 Receivables on other transactions 4800 OTHER RECEIVABLES A 4810 Long-term Rent Payments Receivable 4820 Short-term Rent Payments Receivables 4830 Interest Receivable 4840 Dividends Receivable 4850 Royalty Receivable 4860 Claims Receivable 4890 Other Receivables 4900 ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS CA 4910 Allowance for Doubtful Debts
Section 5 CASH, SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS AND OTHER NON-CASH CURRENT ASSETS
5000 CASH A 5010 Cash in national currency 5020 Cash in foreign currency 5100 CASH ON SETTLEMENT ACCOUNT A 5110 Settlement account 5200 CASH IN FOREIGN CURRENCY ACCOUNTS A
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 27
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
5210 Foreign Currency Accounts Domestic 5220 Foreign Currency Accounts Abroad No of acc Name of account Type 5300 5400 5500 SPECIAL BANK ACCOUNTS A 5510 Letters of Credit 5520 Cash in Checking Account 5530 Other Special Accounts
5600 CASH EQUIVALENTS A 5610 Cash Equivalents 5700 CASH (TRANSFERS) IN TRANSIT A 5710 Cash (Transfers) in Transit 5800 SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS A 5810 Securities 5830 Short-term loans receivable 5890 Other Current Investments SHORTAGE AND LOSS FROM DETERIORATION OF VALUABLES AND OTHER 5900 CURRENT ASSETS A 5910 Shortage and Loss from deterioration of valuables 5920 Other Current Assets PART III LIABILITIES Section 6 SHORT-TERM LIABILITIES 6000 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO SUPPLIERS AND CONTRACTORS L
6010 Accounts Payable to Suppliers and Contractors 6020 Notes Payable ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 6100 L TO SUBDIVISIONS AND SUBORDINATES 6110 Accounts Payable to Subdivisions 6120 Accounts Payable to Subsidiaries and Subordinates 6200 DEFERRED LIABILITIES L 6210 Unearned Discounts CL 6220 Unearned Premiums 6230 Other Unearned Income 6240 Deferred Liabilities on Taxes and Obligatory payments 6250 Liabilities on Income Tax on Temporary Differences 6290 Other Deferred Liabilities 6300 ADVANCES RECEIVED L 6310 Advances Received from Customers 6320 Advances Received from Subscribers to Stock 6390 Other Received Advances 6400 DEBT ON BUDGET PAYMENTS L 6410 Debt on Budget Payments (on types of taxes) INSURANCE DEBT AND DEBT ON PAYMENTS TO STATE FUNDS FOR SPECIAL 6500 L PURPOSE
6510 Insurance Debt 6520 Debt on payments to state funds for special purpose 6600 DEBT TO FOUNDERS L 6610 Dividends Payable 6620 Debt due to leaving founders 6700 SETTLEMENTS WITH PERSONNEL L
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 28
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
6710 Settlements with Personnel 6720 Escrow Salary
No of Name of account Type acc
6800 SHORT-TERM CREDITS AND LOANS L 6810 Short-term Bank Credits 6820 Short-term Loans 6830 Bonds Payable - non-bank 6840 Notes Payable - non-bank 6900 OTHER PAYABLES L 6910 Short-term Rent Payable 6920 Accrued Interest 6930 Debt on Royalty 6940 Debt on Guaranties 6950 Long-term Liabilities - current portion 6960 Payable on Claims 6970 Debt due to employees 6990 Other Liabilities Section 7 LONG-TERM LIABILITIES 7000 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO SUPPLIERS AND CONTRACTORS L 7010 Accounts Payable to Suppliers and Contractors 7020 Notes Payable
7100 LONG-TERM LIABILITIES TO SUBDIVISIONS, SUBSIDIARIES AND SUBORDINATES L
7110 Long-term Liabilities to Subdivisions 7120 Long-term Liabilities to Subsidiaries and Subordinates
7200 DEFERRED LONG-TERM LIABILITIES L 7210 Deferred Discounts 7220 Deferred Premiums 7230 Other Deferred Incomes 7240 Deferred Liabilities on Taxes and Obligatory payments 7250 Deferred Income Tax Liability on temporary differences
7290 Other Deferred Long-term Liabilities 7300 ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS - LONG-TERM PORTION L 7310 Advances Received from Customers - long-term portion 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 LONG-TERM CREDITS AND LOANS L 7810 Long-term bank credits 7820 Long-term Loans 7830 Bonds Payable 7840 Notes Payable 7900 OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES L 7910 Long-term Rent Payable 7920 Other Long-Term Liabilities
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 29
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
PART IV OWNER'S EQUITY Section 8. CAPITAL, RETAINED EARNINGS AND RESERVES 8000 No of acc Name of account Type 8100 8200 8300 CHARTERED CAPITAL L 8310 Common Stock 8320 Preferred Stock 8430 Donated Capital 8400 ADDITIONAL CAPITAL 8410 Revenues from Issuance 8420 Foreign Exchange difference in forming chartered capital 8500 RESERVE CAPITAL L 8510 Assets Revaluation Adjustment 8520 Reserve Capital fixed by Legislation 8530 Property Received on Gratis 8600 TREASURY STOCK CL 8610 Treasury Stock - Common 8620 Treasury Stock - Preferred 8700 RETAINED EARNINGS (NON-COVERED LOSS) L 8710 Retained Earnings (Non-covered Loss) for Reporting Period 8720 Retained Earnings for Prior Periods (Non-covered Loss) 8800 FUNDS RECEIVED FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES L 8810 Grants 8820 Subsidies 8830 Membership fees 8840 Tax Remissions for special purpose 8890 Other funds received for special purposes 8900 RESERVE OF FUTURE EXPENSES AND PAYMENTS L 8910 Reserve of Future Expenses and Payments
PART V FORMATION AND UTILIZATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS Section 9. REVENUES AND EXPENSES 9000 REVENUES FROM MAIN BUSINESS T 9010 Revenues from Sale of Finished Goods 9020 Revenues from Sale of Goods 9030 Revenues from Sales of Works and Services 9040 Sales Return CL 9050 Discounts for Customers CL
9100 COST OF GOODS (WORKS, SERVICES) SOLD T
9110 Cost of Finished Goods Sold 9120 Cost of Goods Sold 9130 Cost of Works and Services Sold 9140 Acquisition/Purchase of Inventory in periodical accounting 9150 Inventory Adjustments in periodical accounting 9200 DISPOSAL OF FIXED AND OTHER ASSETS
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 30
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
9210 Disposal of fixed assets 9220 Disposal of other assets
No of Name of account Type acc 9300 OTHER INCOME FROM MAIN BUSINESS T 9310 Gain from disposal of fixed assets 9320 Gain from disposal of other assets 9330 Paid fines, penalties and forfeits 9340 Income of previous years 9350 Income from short-term rent 9360 Income from writing off payables and depositor debt 9370 Income of attendant enterprises 9380 Financial Donations 9390 Other operating income 9400 PERIOD EXPENSES T 9410 Selling Expenses 9420 Administrative Expenses 9430 Other Operational Expenses 9440 Reporting Period Expenses excluded from taxable base in future
9500 INCOME FROM FINANCIAL ACTIVITY T 9510 Income from Royalty 9520 Income from Dividends 9530 Interest Income 9540 Income from differences in currency exchange (positive) 9550 Income from long-term rent 9560 Income from revaluation of securities 9570 Other Income from Financial Activity 9600 EXPENSES ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY T 9610 Interest expenses 9620 Foreign Currency Exchange difference losses (negative) 9630 Expenses on Issue and Distribution of Securities 9690 Other Expenses on Financial Activity 9700 EXTRAORDINARY GAIN (LOSS) T 9710 Extraordinary Gain 9720 Extraordinary Loss 9800 UTILIZATION OF PROFIT FOR TAXATION AND FEES T 9810 Income Tax 9820 Fees and other mandatory deductions 9900 INCOME SUMMARY T 9910 Income Summary PART VI OFF-BALANCE ACCOUNTS 001 Fixed Assets on short-term rent (leased) OB 002 Inventory deposited in custody OB 003 Materials received for processing OB 004 Goods taken on commission OB 005 Equipment received for mounting OB 006 Forms under seal OB 007 Written-off bad debts OB 008 Security for debt and payment - received OB
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 31
InfoCapital Group Amu Bukhara Irrigation System Rehabilitation Appendix – Financial Management Assessment
009 Security for debt and payment - issued OB 010 Fixed Assets under long-term rent agreement OB 011 Property received under subsidy agreement OB No of Name of account Type acc 012 Expenses excluded from taxable base of the following periods OB 013 Temporary tax remissions (by types) OB 014 Inventory and household fixings in operation OB
Notes:
A - Assets Account CA - Contra Assets Account L - Liability & Owners Equity Account CL - Contra Liability & Owners Equity Account T - Temporary Account OB - Off-Balance Sheet Account
Lahmeyer International in association with InfoCapital Group page 32
InfoCapital Group