Docunent of The World Bank

FOR OFrCAL USE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized

Re"po No. 7806

PROJECTCOMPLETION REPORT Public Disclosure Authorized

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDFARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KEAIRPURII) (CREDIT 648-PAK)

JUNE 2, 1989 Public Disclosure Authorized

Agriculture Operations Division Public Disclosure Authorized Country Department I EMENARegion

Ths document basa restricted distibution and may be usd by redpiens only in the performance of thdir ofikca duties. its contents may no othenrwie be didosed without World Banik authoriztd ABBREVIATIONSAND ACRONYMS

ADA - AssistantDirector (Agriculture) CCA - CultivableCon_and Area Cusec - Cubic feet per second (=28.3 litres per second) DCA - DevelopmentCredit Agreement DDA - Deputy Director (Agriculture) DRIP - Drainage and ReclamationInstitute of Pakistan EEC - European Economic Community ERR - Economic Rate of Return ERTS - Earth ResourcesTechnology Satellites FA - Field Assistant FGW - Fresh Ground Water Ha - Hectare (=2.471acres) GOP - Governmentof Pakistan GOSind - Governmentof Sind ICR - InternationalCompetitive Bidding IDA - InternationalDevelopment Association Kharif - The hot season (mid April to mid October) 1/s/ha - Liters per aecond per hectare m - Meter mm - Millimeter Maund - 37.3 kg. Maund/acre - 0.92 ton/ha M&E - Monitoringand Evaluation O&M - Operationand Maintenance PA - Project Agreement 2CR - Project Cou'pletionReport. PE - Polyethylene PVC - Polyvinlchloride Rabi - The cool season (mid October to mid April) Rs - PakistanRupees SAR - Staff AppraisalReport SCARP - Salinity Control and ReclamationProject SGW - Saline Groundwater SDIP - Sind Departmentof Irrigationand Power t - Ton T&V - Training and Visit TWs - Tubewells WAPDA - Water and Power DevelopmentAuthority WUA - Water User Association $ - United States Dollar. Kal O711ICL Un ONL THEWORLD SANK Washngton.D.C. 20433 US.A.

June 2, 1989

MEMORANDUMTO THE EXECUTIVEDIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECTs Project Completion Report on Pakistan Rhairpur Tile Drainage and Irrigated Farming Development Proiect (Khairlur II) (Credit 648-PAK)

Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled 'Project Completion Report on Pakistan Rhairpur Tile Drainage and Irrigated FarmingDevelopment Project (RhairpurII) (Credit648-PAK)" preparedby the Europe,Middle East and NorthAfrica RegionalOffice. No audit of this project has been made by the Operations Evaluation Department at this time.

Attachment

IThidocumten has a stuted dtbudoe and maybe usd by rxcists only in the pedonmam of tho olc dutesLIts coameni maynot obovd be dbekd wout Wodd 11k alidwtbn. FOR OFICIALUSE ONLY

PAKISTAN

(KHAIRPUR TILE DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATED FARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(KHAIWPUR II) Credit 648-PAK

(Table of Contents)

Page No.

PREFACE (i) BASIC DATA iHEET (ii) EVALUATION SUMMARY (iv)

I. INTRODUCTION ...... I II. PROJECT FORMULATION...... 2 Identification and Preparation . . 2 Appraisal ...... 3 The Appraised Project ...... 3 Negototiations ...... 4 III. IMPLEMENTATION...... 4 Start-Up...... *... 4 Planning and Design ...... # ...... 5 Revisions to the Project ...... 5 Construction...... # ...... 7 Procurement...... * ...... 8 Agricultural Extension .... * 8 Quality and Performance of Project Works ...... 8 Costs...... 9 Project Financing and Credit Allocation ...... 10 IV. PROJECT IMPACT...... 10 Monitoring& Evaluation ...... 10 Agricultural Impact .. 12 Crops and Farm Models ...... 13 V. ECONOMIC EVALUATION ...... 16 Economic Analysis ...... 16 Sensitivity Tests ...... 16 VI. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE ...... 17 WAJPDA...... 17

SCARP Agricultural Wing ...... 17 Sind Department of Irrigation and Power (SDIP)...... 17 Drainage and Reclamation Institute of Pakistan (DRIP)...... 18 Consultants ...... 18 Training...... 18 Operation and Maintenance . ... 18...... Compliance with Covenants ...... 19 Environment...... 10 Performance of IDA ...... 21 i VII. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS ...... 21 TABLES FIGURE MAP - IBRD No. 11528R1

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be diseosed without World Bank authorization. PAKISTAN

KRAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATIONFARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(KRAIRPURII)

CR. 648-PAK

PREFACE

This is a Project CompletionReport (PCR) for the Khairpur Tile Drainage and IrrigatedFarming DevelopmentProject (Khairpur II) for which a credit of US$14.0 million (CR. 648-PAK) was extended to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in July 1976. The project was cofinancedwith a grant from the European Economic Community (EEC) in the amount of 'US$3.75million. The credit closing date was extended once, by three years, to July 31, 1985. The final disbursementwas made on January 28, 1986 and the undisbursed credit balance of US$1.11 million (7.92 of the credit) was cancelled on January 28, 1986.

The report is based on the PCR prepared by an FAO/IBRD Cooperative Program mission that visited Pakistan in December 1986 as well as a PCR prepared by Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) and ILACO (consultants) in December 1985. In addition an IDA mission, visiting Pakistan in May/June 1988 on other matters, met with WAPDAand Sind Department of IrrigaLion and Power (SDIP) officials and reviewed the records of these agencies in an effort to update FAO/CP prepared PCR by gaining further insight on this "pilot" projectand experienceslearned.

This PCR was read by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED). The draft PCR was sent to the Borrower on February 1, for comments by March 22, 1989, but none were received. ( ii)

PAKISTAN

IHAIRPUR TILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATIONFARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(Credit 648-PAK)

PROJECTCOMPLETION REPORT

BASIC DATA SHEET

Appraisal Actual Actual as X Estimate Current of Appraisal Estimate

Total Project Cost (US$ million) 1/ 28.3 30.0 106 Credit Amount (US$ million) 14.0 12.9 92 Date Physical ComponentsCompleted June 1981 July 1985 EconomicRate of Return % 17 8 47 BenefitedArea ha 17,800 17,800 100 Number of Direct Beneficiaries 6,300 families

CumulativeDisbursements 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 19b5 1986

AppraisalEstimate 0.9 4.6 8.7 11.5 13.4 14.0 (US$ million) Actual (US$ million) 0 0.9 1.8 5.2 6.6 7.1 7.7 9.1 11.0 12.9 Actual as 2 of Appraisal 0 20 21 45 49 51 55 65 79 92

Date of Final Disbursements January 28, 1986

ProiectDates OriginalPlan Actual

IdentificationReport 1966 1966 PreparationReport 1971 1971 Negotiations 24 May 1976 25-28 May 1976 Board Approval 24 June 1976 24 June 1976 Credit Signing 22 Jily 1976 22 July 1976 EffectivenessDate 20 October 1976 14 March 1977 ClosingDate 31 July 1982 31 July 1985

1/ Excludingduties and taxes. ( iii )

Mission Data

Monthl No. of Man-daey Speciali- Performance Trend 3/ Type of Year Persons in field zations Ratins 2/ Problem 4. Represented 1/

Appraisal Nov 1974 6 Aug 1975 2 Supervision1 May 1977 1 6 F 1 2 M 2 Mharch1978 1 6 F 1 2 M 3 Nov/Dec 1978 3 22 FAE 2 2 M 4 July 1979 1 11 E 2 2 0 5 Dec 1980 2 10 EF 2 2 T 6 Aug 1981 3 17 EFE 2 2 T 7 May/June 1982 3 12 EEE 2 1 T 8 May 1983 4 16 EPEE 2 1 T 9 Nov 1984 2 12 EE 2 1 M 10 May 1985 2 10 EA 2 2 0 11 October 1985 1 2 E

Completion Dec 1986 3 30 EAF

Other Proiect Data

Borrower IslamicRepublic of Pakistan Fiscal Year of Borrower 1 July to 30 June ExecutingAgency Water and Power DevelopmentAuthority of Pakistan (WAPDA) PrecedingProject Fhairpur TubewellDrainage Project (KhairpurI, Cr.22-PAK) Follow on Projects SCARP Mardan (Cr.877-PAK),Fourth Drainage (Cr.1375-PAK)and Left Bank of OutfallDrain (Cr. 1532-PAK)

1/ E = Engineer,F=Economist, A a Agriculturist 2/ I -ProblemFree or Minor Problems,2-Moderate Problems 3/ 1=Improving, 2=Stationary 4/ M=Management, T=Technical, OOther

CurrencyEquivalents

Appraisalyear, FY76 US$1.00- Rs 9.90 FY77-85 = 11.29 Completion year, FY86 = 16.13 ( iv )

PAKISTAN

KEA'-RPURTILE DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATIONFARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (ERAIRPUR II) (Credit648-PAK)

EVALUATIONSUMMARY

Introduction i. Irrigationbegan in the Indus Plain, in what is now Pakistan,about 3,000 years ago and today about 14.5 million ha are served by the Indus irrigationsystem. With th: -,versionof up to 125.0 billionm' annually from the Indus river and tri' sariea, the hydrologicbalance in the Indus plain is in a state of dynamic change, which has resulted in a rising groundwatertable. A 1981 soil salanity survey by WAPDA reported that 222 (about 3.2 million ha) of the cultivablecoTmanded area (cca) of the Indus irrigationsystem had a water table within 2.0 m of ground surfaceand an additional20% (about 2.9 million ha) within 30 m of the surface. About 50% of the groundwateris brackish,located in saline groundwater(SGW) zones. Soils with a high water table become problematicbecause of salinisationand crop yields are reduced significantlyby such waterloggingaid salinity. In the final stages of this sequence,irrigated farming becomes uneconomicand large blocks of land go out of production. ii. The ComprehensiveDevelopment Plan for Sind (1966 Lower Indus Report) recommendeda series of interrelatedwater sector projects,including subsurfacedrainage projects. Prioritywas given to the developmentof fresh groundwater(FGW) resourcesfollowed by tubewell(TW) drainage iu s, %e groundwater(SGW) areas and lastly horizontal(pipe) drainage where aquifer conditionsdid not permit TWs. Khairpur II was identifiedas one area requiringhorizontal (pipe) subsurfacedrainage because of the relatively shallow soils. The project area, which is com_andedby the Khairpur East Feeder Canal, began receivingirrigation water supplies in 1932. By 1971, over 90% of the 17,800 ha projectarea had SGW within 2.4 m of the land surface.

Project Desian and Objectives iii. The Governmentof Pakistan (GOP) decided that a pilot subsurface (pipe) drainage project should be undertakenat an early date so that experiencegained would be valuable in the efficientimplementation of subsequentpipe drainage projects. The Khairpur II area was selected for this pilot because of shallow soil conditionsand its locationadjacent to the Khairpur I Tubewell Project (Cr. 22-PAK). A project planningreport was prepared in 1971 and was appraisedby an IDA mission in November 1974. The IDA credit (NO. 648-PAK, US$14.0million) was approved in June 1976, signed in July 1976 and became effectivein March 1977. The credit was to finance all foreign exchange costs of the project. EEC cofinanceda portionof project costs with a US$3.75 million grant. ( v ) iv. Project objectiveswere not specifiedin the SAR, however by inference they included:

- (a) increasingcrop productionby - mitigatingthe constrainingeffects of waterloggingand soil salinityon about 14,600 ha through installationof subsurfacetile drainage;

- increasinIannual irrigationwater supplies from about 175 million m to 333 million m3 on about 17,800 ha through canal remodellingand allocatingadditional supplies and on-farm water managementpractices; and

- improvingagricultural extension services.

(b) servingas a pilot to determineappropriate procedures for installingsubsurface (pipe) drainage technologyand to develop capabilicieswithin Pakistan in the planning, design, constructionand operationand maintenance(O&M) of such technology.

In addition to the subsurface (pipe) drainageand canal remodelling components,the project provided for: constructionof 320 km of new watercoursesand rehabilitationof 110 km of existingwatercourses; constructionof improved carrigewaysand bridges on 32 km of minor roads; upgradingagricultural extension; equipment; technicalassistance and training;and, aerial photographyfor the entire Indus Basin (about 170,000 knm2).

V. The project was envisagedas a five-yearproject to be completedby July 1981 with a total estimatedproject cost of US$28.3million (plus about US$ 0.8 million in duties and taxes). WAPDA was designatedas the implementingagency with its General Manager (SouthernZone) having executive responsibilityfor constructingall civil works. One year following completionof the froject, it was to be turned over to Sind Departmentof Irrigationand Power (SDIP) for O&M. The extensionprogram was to be carried out by WAPDA's SCARP KhairpurAgricultural Wing with personnelseconded from Sind Departmentof Agriculture. Most civil works were to be carried out under force account by WADPAwith a limited amount of work (mainly watercourse improvement and land leveling) to be done by small local contractors.

Implementation Experience vi. As should be expected with a pilot project, many implementation delays were experienced-- some were bureaucratic;however most were associatedwith the "learningprocess" of applying a new technology. The ( vi ) project became effective five-monthslate (March 1977) as a result of delays in ppointitgconsultants, and a further four-monthsdelay in start up resultedfrom politicaldisturbances. Delivery of equipmentwas late because tender documentsfor much of the constructionequipment were not opened untIl July 1978. Available togographicmaps proved inadequatefor detailed design and the requiredsurveys were not completeduntil September1979. The StR provided for staff housing but becauseof the isolatedproject area, it was found desireableto upgrade such housing into a colony. vii. The completedarea receivingsubsurface pipe drainage remained unchanged(14,600 ha) from that in the SAR.1' Although there were no significantchanges in the overall project concept, there were substantial changes in quantitiescompleted for certain items, mainly as a result of more detaileddesign. The precisionland levelingprogram was dropped and the road improvementcomponent was reduced. Detailed investigationmade it possible to reduce the 130 small pumping stations to 37 larger stations. The numbers of manholes installedalong the collectordrains was significantlyreduced when it was found that such numbers were not required. Also detailed design made it possible to reduce the length of collectordrains by about one-third, disposal drains and remodeledcanals by about one-balf and lateral drains by two-thirds. viii Most all subsurfacedrainage designswere made in ILACO's headquartersin the Netherland. WAPDA personneldid not participateeven though project funds were availab t_ for this purpose. Rence transferof design expertiseto WAPDA personneLwos not accomplished.The design calls for a minimum groundwatertable of 1.5 m over lateral pipe and 1.0 m between pipes. ix). The initialconstruction procedure (i.e. dewatering,trenching with back hoes, and manual labor) employed for installingthe 300 mm to 380 mm diameter (12 to 15 inches)concrete collectordrains to a maximum depth of about 3 m proved cumbersomeand extremelyslow in the unstable soil conditions of the projectarea. Because of extremely slow progress,an IDA supervision mission was organizedin June 1982 to review installationprocedures. This mission recommendedthat a new technology,successfully operating in Western U.S., be adopted to speed installationof collectordrains. This technology involveda pipe laying machine capable of installing-he 300 mm polyethyline (PE) perforateddrain pipe in a gravel envelope in a single operationwithout dewater'ng. The requiredmachine was ordered by WAPDA and it became operationalin mid 1984. The speed up in installingcollector drains was dramatic, i.e. 87 km were installedin 15 months as compared to 66 km during

11 800 ha of this was transferredto the Drainageand ReclamationInstitude of Pakistan for research related to horizontal(pipe). ( vii ) the first 54 months using the initial technology.Because of implementation delays associatedwith subsutfacedrainage component, it was necessary to extend the project closingdate by three years. All project works were completedabout eleven months followingcredit closing. x. WAPDA proceededwith its schedule for canal remodellingand finished this improvementin 1977. Additionalwater supplies made possible by this remodellingexacerbated the waterloggingproblem and added to the complexity of installingthe collectordrains. xi. Provincialagricultural extension staff were seconded to the SCARP KhairpurAgricultural Wing in July 1977. There were "teethingproblems", (i.e. compensation,equipment, etc). associatedwith these transfers. Eventuallythese problemswere overcome and the T&V extensionprogram became fully operationalby mid 1979. Aerial photographyof the Indus Basin was completedin early 1978 and the benchmarksocio-economic survey was completed during FY80. It took three years to implementthe watercourseimprovement programwbich was completedduring FY86. This watercourseimprovement program was undertakenby WAPDA using small contractors. This is not the normal procedurefor renovatingwatercourses in Pakistan,where the On-Farm Water ManagementDirectorates in the ProvincialDepartments of Agricultureinvolve formalWater Users Associations(WUAs) and farmer me-bers in supplyingall labor requirementsfor such improvements,as well as sharing in the cost of materials. However,WAPDA did organize formal WUAs to assure O&M of watercourse improvements by the farmers. xii. Consideringthe "pilot"nature of the project, the quality of civil works constructedunder the projectappears to be acceptable. Because of the initialdifficulty in laying the collectordrains (para ix), two of these collectors have ceased to operate despite major remedial efforts and seven other became plugged, but have since been cleared. SPID O&Mstaffs reported that PE pipe has been easier for them to maintain than the concrete collector pipe. xiii. The total projectcost, excluding taxes and duties,was Rs 358.2 million (US$30.0million). This representsan increaseof about 26S in domestic currencyand 62 in US dollar terms as compared to the SAR estimates. A comparisonof SAR estimatedand costs are provided in Table 2. The cost of the subsurfacedrainage componentof about Rs 20,000 (US$1,650)per ha is considerablyhigher than the ICB cost of approximatelyUS$750 per ha for a comparable subsurfp-r pipe drainage installation in the Fourth Drainage Project (Cr. 1375-PAK). This higher cost per ha for Khairpur II is understandablebecause of the pilot nature of this project and the associated delays. IDA disbursementslagged substantiallybehind-appraisal estimates. By July 31, 1982, the originalclosing date, US$7.1 (about 50X of the SAR target)had been disbursed. However, the disbursementschedule for this ( viii ) project is very comparableto the disbursementprofile for other water sector projectsassisted by the Bank Group.

Results xiv. The projectdemonstrated the validity of horizontal(pipe) drainage technology,which wuaybe applicablein areas other than thosewhere aquifer conditionmakes vertical (TW) drainage impractical. Additionalexperience, as well as furthermonitoring and evaluation(M&E) is requiredto evaluate the technicaland economic comparativeadvantage of verticaland horizontal subsurfacedrainage in aveas where aquifer conditionspermit effective deploymentof either technology. Because of the relativehigh cost/ha (US$1,650.0)of pipe drainage in Khairpur II, as compared to estimatedcost/ha for Fourth Drainage (US$750.0)and the limitedexperience on O&M matters for the horizontalwesteLe, it is impossibleto make a definitiveevaluation at this time on the relativemerits of the two subsurfacetechnologies in areas where both can be applied. Also, additionalanalysis and evaluationis requiredon the downstreameffects of drainageeffluent from these two technologiesbecause TW effluent,on average,may be 10 times higher than that of pipe systems.

Xv. Because of the design criteria (para viii), the minimum depth to groundwaterin the pre and post project periodsare almost identical(para 4.03, Table 5). Monitoringshows an overallmarginal improvementin the quality of effluent coming from the pipe outlets (Table 7 - data from sumps 7 and 16). xvi. The projectdemonstrated the efficiencyof trenchingmachines installinglarge collectorpolyethylene (PE) pipe in a gravel envelope. For example, it has been reported by WAPDA officialsthat in a stngle day they were able to install the same amount of collectorpipe (about one km) with the trencheras earlier they were able to installin a month using the earlier installationtechniques. This demonstratedpipe laying techniquehas been a factor in the lower ICB bids that have been forthcomingon subsequent horizontal (pipe) subsurfacedrainage projects in Pakistan. PE collector drains have proven easier to maintain than concretecollectors. xvii. Project improvementto the irrigationnetwork has made possible extendingperennial irrigation from 4,000 ha to the full 17,800 ha project area. Additionalmonitoring of groundwaterlevels is required to determine the effectiveuessof the installedsystem in maintaininggroundwater at levels that will not result.indamage to crops and/or soils. It is reported that 1,600 ha of previouslyabandoned land has been reclaimedand is back in production. In addition in a survey of 40 farmers,871 reported improved cropping conditionsdue to drainageon about 401 of their lands. ( ix ) xviii. For agriculturalimpact, the project assumed that under "future without project'"condition, crop yield would be graduallyreduced or stagnated. More land would have waterloggingproblem and become salinizedand sodic, and eventuallywould go out of production. The cropping intensity would decrease from around 110% to 90%. With a'l the physical improvementsin the project area, yield, cropping intensityand productionwould all go up under "future with project" condition. Particularlythe two major crops, i.e. cotton and wheat would have substantialincreases in production(Tables 10 and 11). On the available informationfrom the project area, three farm models have been developed,i.e. 3.5 ha, 7.0 ha and 14.0 ha. Analyses indicatea significantnet increase in per ha income for all three models from without to with project conditions (Tables13-15).

xix. The economic rate of return (ERR) is 7.6%. This rate is substantiallylower than estimatedat appraisal (17%) but still acceptable consideringthe "pilot"nature of the projectand the problems associatedwith the learningprocess. The main reasons for the differencebetween appraisal and PCR estimatesof the project'sERR are the extended implementationperiod - ten insteadof five years - and the significantlylower conmmodityprices that are now projected.

Sustainabilityand EnvironmentalImpact

,x. Sustainabilityof agricultureproduction in irrigatedareas is a major factor in the justificationof subsurfacedrainage projects. Without such improvements,economic irrigatedagriculture can not be sustainedon an enduring basis because of decreasedyields and the developmentof problematic soils resultingfrom waterloggingand salinisation. EfficientO&M is a key to sustainingthe benefits accruing from project improvements. Even though only about 25% of the estimatedO&M requirementsfor this projectarea are currentlybeing provided (para 6.08), it is encouragingthat during the last five years the Governmentof Sind (GOSind)has increasedO&M fundingabout 15% annually to SDIP. Although O&M allocationsare up substantially,individual projects such as Khairpur-IIare still not receivingrequired 0&M funding and SDIP must appropriatelyreallocate available funds. In covenantsassociated with Bank Group assisted projects,such as the IrrigationSystems RehabilitationProjects (Cr.1239and 1888-PAK), GOSind has agreed to maintain full funding of required O&M for such projectsas Khairpur II.

xxi. Subsurfacedrainage projects providefor sustainingbenefits from "in place" infrastructure. Khairpur-IIconstruction scars have all but disappearedas most project infrastructureis buried excert for manholes, 37 sumps and 33 km of disposal drains. Water borne diseases should decrease and the area should become more aestheticallypleasing as land is reclaimedand additionalvegetative cover returns to the area. The overall environmental impact of the project is expected to be positive. Compliancewith Existing Covenants xxii. GOSind was unable to meet the provisionof section 3.01 of the ProjectAgreement (PA) calling for recovery,through water charges from beneficiariesof the full O&T cost and a reasonableshare of the capitalcosts of water sector projectsby June 30, 1988. Accordingto data suppliedby GOSind in March 1987, recoveriesthrough water chargesduring FY86 met less than 50S of OSM allocationto SDIP. A mdjor factor in GOSind inabilityto fulfill this covenanthas been the rapidlyescalating allocations (152 annually during last 5 years) required to efficientlyoperate and maintain water sector facilities. During negotiations(January and March 1988) for the Second IrrigationSystem RehabilitationPro! (Cr. 1888-PAK)and tute proposedAgriculture Sector Loan,l/a new apI..oachwas agreed to by GOP and GOSind fot resolvingthis issue. This approachenvisages: (i) lowering0&M allocatioit'-iv.ugh privatization of public TWs in FGW areas; and (ii) increasi. v:.rr charges collectionby strengtheningthe assessmentand collectioc-tgram. Any shortfallsin recoveriesmeeting O&M allocations followingf'dll implementation (1992) of the program to improvewater recovery assessmentsand recoveries,would be met through appropriateadjustments in water rates by Sind Province.

3xiii. Section4.01 of the DevelopmentCredit Agreement (DCA) requiredthat each year fiscal accounts were to be audited and furnishedto IDA within 6 months after the end of the reportingperiod. WAPDA preauditsaccounts on a continuingbasis and detailed "after the fact" audits were not made for this project. One page audit summariesfor some years were submittedto IDA; however they did not cover the completeproject period and they were not responsiveto the provisionsof the covenant.

Findingsand Lessons

xxiv. Lessons learnedand experiencegained from this projecthave been helpful in guiding the implementationof SCARP Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK),Fourth Drainage (Cr. 1375-PAK)and LBOD (Cr. 1532-PAK)projects. Specifically,these relate to:

(a) viabilityof horizontal (pipe)drainage in alleviatingwaterlogging;

(b) efficiencyof trenchingmachines in installinglarge collectordrains (300 mm); and

(c) need for a well designed and implementedmonitoring and evaluation program.

1/ Approved by the Board on August 2, 1988. ( xi )

On the subjectof monitoringand evaluation,good data and analysis is not availableto adequatelyevaluate this project. This points out the need for a strongM&E during the project period,which should continue for at least 5 to 10 years followingcompletion of the projects in order to fully assess the impact of project improvements. Consequently,a strong M&E program is in place for the Fourth Drainage (Cr.1375-PAK)and LBOD (Cr.1532-PAK).Secondly, monitoringmust continue throughoutthe life of the projectas an aid to efficientO&M. xxv. Additionalinvestigation and study is required to determinethe relativesite specific merits of horizontaland vertical subsurfacedrainage technologies,however projectssuch as Khairpur-IIare providingsignificant insights. xxvi. There is a need for follow up on the issues related to full cost recoveryof O&M allocationsand adequacy of WAPDA's audit procedure. xxvii. Experiencehas shown the necessityof a strong O&M program for subsurfacedrainage system. Trainedpersonnel and appropriateequipment is required. All projectequipment was transferredfrom WAPDA to SPID, which may be in excess of O&M requirements. This is particularlytrue of the large trencherfor laying collectorpipe, which requires highly specialised operators. Currently,SPID receivesabout RS 2.0 million annually for O&M of Khairpur II. This appears to be about 25% of what is required. xxviii. Water managementpractices are importantin delaying subsurface drainagerequirements in non waterloggedareas and reduces somewhat the drainable surplus to be handledby subsurfacedrainage systems. Watercource improvementin Khairpur II was implementedby WAPDA using small contractors rather than involvingfarmers throughformal WUAs. Experiencein the On-Farm Water ManagementProjects (Cr. 1163 and 1603-PAK)has demonstratedthe desireabilityof farmer involvementin reducingproject costs and improving 0&M of watercourseimprovement by farmers. Hence, all subsequentIDA assisted subsurface drainage projects provide for on-farm water management (OFWM) practices to be executed by OFWM Directoratesin the ProvincialDepartments of Agriculturewith farmers, throughWUAs, providingall labor, sharing in the costs of civil works materialsand assuming O&M of such watercourse. PAKISTAN

KHAIRPUR TILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDFARMING DEVELOPMENTPROJECT (KRAIRPURII) (Credit648-PAK)

PROJECTCOMPLETION REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.01 Irrigationbegan in the Indus plain in Pakistanabout 3,000 years ago. Today about 14.5 million ha are irrigatedin the Indus plain in Pakistan. About 90Z of the value of the nations agriculturalproduction is raised on irrigatedlands. Most of the larger infrastructuralworks of the Indus irrigationsystem have been installedduring the last 50 years. About 125 billion m3 of surfacewater is divertedannually from the Indus river and its tributariesto irrigate Indus land. This has resultedin dynamic changes in the hydrologicbalance throughoutthe Indus plain with a general rise in the groundwatertable. Whereas 30 to 40 years ago the depth to groundwater was 16 m or more over most of the area, a 1981 soil salinitysurvey by WAPDA reported that about 22S of the cultivablecommanded area (cca) of the Indus Irrigationsystem had a water table within 2.0 m of ground surface (aoout 3.2 million ha) and an additional207 (about 2.9 millionha) within about 3 m of the surface. About 501 of the groundwaterof the Indus plan is brackish (SGW) and unsuitablefor direct applicationas irrigationwater to field crops. Soils with a highwatertable become problematicbecause of salinizationand crop yield are significantlyreduced. Ultimatelyirrigated agriculture on such land becomes uneconomicand large blocks of land go out of production. Hence, salinity controland reclamationproject (SCARPs)have been a high investmentpriority of GOP since the 1960s. The Water and Power development Authority (WAPDA)was assigned the responsibilityfor implementingsuch projects.

1.02 The Khairpur Tile Drainageand IrrigatedFarming Development Project (KhairpurII) was the second IDA credit' to the Governmentof Pakistan (GOP) for the controlof waterloggingand salinity in irrigated areas. It was the first IDA credit in Pakistan for installinghorizontal (pipe) subsurfacedrainage.

1.03 The Khairpur II Projectwas estimatedat appraisalto cost about US$29.1 million of which US$14 million, representingthe foreign exchange compoiaent,was to be financedby an IDA credit. An additionalgrant of US$3.75 million was providedby the European EconomicCommunity (EEC). The project,which was to benefit some 6,300 families,was designed to provide

1/ The first IDA credit (US$18.0million) for drainagewas the SCARP Khairpur I (Cr. 22-PAK)a five-yearproject in Sind Province,which was completedin 1970. This TW drainage project (217 TWs in FGW and 323 TWs in SGW) covered about 155,000ha in the Khairpur Feeder Canal command. -2- subsurfacehorizontal (pipe) drainage for 14,600 ha and improvedwater service from irrigationcanals and structuresserving 17,800 ha (3,200 ha received drainage treatmentunder Khairpur I). WAPDA was responsiblefor implementation.

1.04 This project completionreport (PCR) is based on a review of the Staff AppraisalReport No.1062a-PAKdated June 14, 1976 (SAR), the Development Credit and ProjectAgreements dated July 22, 1976 and the draft PCRs prepared by FAO/CP in December 1986 and WAPDA's consultantsin December 1985. An IDA mission, visiting Pakistan in May/June 1988, held discussionswith Government of Pakistan (GOP), Governmentof Sind (GOSind)and WAPD^ officialsfor the purpose of finalizingthis PCR.

II. PROJECT FORMULATION

Identificationand Preparation

2.01 The ComprehensiveDevelopment Plan for Sind presentedin the "Lower Indus Report" (1966) envisageda series of interrelatedprojects covering about 5 million hectares to be phased in over 25 years. Prioritywas given to the developmentof fresh groundwater(FGW) resourcesfollowed by tubewell (TW) drainage projects in the saline groundwater(SGW) areas and lastly horizontal (pipe) drainage in those areas where aquifer are not suitable for TW operation. An exceptionto this order of prioritieswas made for the Khairpur II project becauseGOP officialsdetermined a pilot horizontal(pipe) drainage project should be undertakenat an early date to develop proceduresand capabilitywithin Pakistan for applying this technology.

2.02 A 1971 project planning report analyzed the technicaland economic feasibilityof the project. Generally,project objectives would be to increase crop productionthrough improved irrigationsupplies and subsurface drainagewhich would: (a) demonstratethe effectivenessof horizontal (pipe) drainage; (b) provide for an assessmentand evaluationof the costs and constructiontechniques; and, (c) developwithin Pakistan the capabilityto implementhorizontal (pipe) subsurfacedrainage in areas unsuitablefor TW drainage. The report drew special attentionto the need for monitcring and evaluation (M&E) of the horizontaldrainage techniques,as well as design parameters,and to facilitatefuture work in Pakistanon pipe drainage systems. It was emphasizedthat M&E should be carriedout during and after construction.

2.03 The proposed subsurfacedrainage site lies in a narrow belt between the western boundaryof the Khairpur 1 SCARP and the limestoneoutcrops of the Rohri Hills to the east. The project is comnandedby the Khairpur East Feeder Canal, which takes off from the Sukkur Barrage. The soils in the area are alluvial depositsoverlaying a limestonebase, which outcropson the eastern boundary of the project. The limiteddepth of the aquifer made vertical drainage by tubewellsimpracticable/'.

1J Depth to limestonebedrock is less than 5 m over 20S of the projectarea and the remainingarea has an average depth to bedrockof about 12 m. -3-

2.04 Since 1932, when the projectarea was brought under barrage-controlledirrigation, there had been a significantrise £n the watertableoccurred with rises of about 150 mm annually reported. In 1971, the SGW watertablewas less than 2.4 m throughout94% of the project area. The entire project area was at considerablerisk of severe soil salinization. To prevent further soil deteriorationand to ensure better crop production,it became necessaryto install some form of subsurfacedrainage. The other major constraintto increasingagricultural production was an inadequatesupply of water for irrigationduring the dry season.

Appraisal

2.05 The projectwas appraisedby an IDA mission in November 1974 and post-appraisedby another mission in August 1975. The issues discussed followingthe 1974 mission included .he need for a guaranteethat GOSind would allocate additionalwater to the project area from its share of releases from Chashma and Tarbela reservoirs. It was decided that a 14,000 ha projectwould be about the minimum area on which machine-laidpipe drains could be installed on a scale which would be representativeof larger projects.

2.06 Since the project'sdrainage componentwould merely restorea previouslyexisting situationand would not produce an improvementfor which the farmers should be charged, the appraisalmission recommendedthat no explicit drainage charges be levied in the project area.

The Appraised Proiect

2.07 The "Stafr AppraisalReport" (SAR) Report No. 1062a (June 14, 1976) provided for installinghorizontal (pipe) drainage as a means of watertable and soil salinity control covering an area of 14,600 ha "" referred to as Area A in th'eproject map. Canals supplyingboth Area A and an additional 3,200 ha d? kinedby SCARP Khairpur-Itubewells (Area B) would be enlarged to providewater for peak kharif irrigationrequirements and for land reclamation by leaching.

2.08 During the five years (FY 77-81) project period, the following activitieswere to be undertaken:

(a) Installationof subsurfacehorizontal drainage system and surface disposal drains throughoutArea A (about 14,600 ha), consistingof about 2,600 km of buried lateraland collectordrains, 130 small pump stationsand 73 km of surface drains;

(b) Enlargementand remodellingof irrigationcanals and structures (areas A&B), and the reconstructionof irrigationoutlets serving 17,800 ha, includingabout 15 km of distributarycanals, 80 km of minor canals and 170 irrigationoutlets;

1/ 800 ha was handed over to the Drainage and ReclamationInstitute of Pakistan (DRIP) for purpose of experimentationand research;however subsurface(pipe) drainage was installedonly on 500 ha (para 3.06). -4-

(c) Construction of about 320 km of new watercoursesand the rehabilitationof some 110 km of existing watercoursesand associated structures;

(d) Constructionof wider and improved carriagewaysurfaces, and the strengtheningof bridges on 32 km of minor roads in Area A;

(e) On-farm developmentwork through long-termagricultural credit to farmers for land levellingand to contractorsfor purchase of land levellingequipment;

(f) Upgradingagricultural extension services;

(g) Provisionof equipment,vehicles, materials and supplies necessary for the constructionand O&M cf projectworks, for land levellingand for agriculturesupporting services, and spare parts for tubewell installationsin Area B and in the remainderof SCARP Khairpur-I;

(h) Engagementof consultantsto assist WAPDA in detailed design of project works, supervisingconstruction and preparingO&M manuals; and to assist the SCARP Khairpur AgricultureWing in developing extensionservices and in monitoringbenefits in the project area; and

(i) Preparationof aerial photographsfor the whole Indus Basin (about 170,000 kmi) for use in planningwater resourcesdevelopment in the basin. Specializedmaps based on data transmittedfrom Earth ResourcesTechnc ogy Satellines (ERTS) of certainareas within the Indus Basin were to be produced as a pilot study for assessing and measuringareas affected by varying degrees of soil salinizationand waterlogging.

Negotiations

2.09 Negotiationstook place in Washington,D.C. on May 25-28, 1976. The major point discussedwas the wording of the covenant in the Project Agreement (PA) concerningwater charges. The DevelopmentCredit Agreement (DCA) and PA were signed on July 22, 1976.

III. IMPLEMENTATION

Start-up

3.01 The credit became effectiveon March 14, 1977, which was five months late due to delays by WAPDA in appointingconsultants to assist with design and implementationof the project. Politicaldisturbances caused a further delay of about four months. Tenders for a large part of the construction equipmentwere invited in May 1978 and were opened in July 1978. For the most part project equipmentwas deliveredon site about two years followingstart up to the project. -5-

Planningand Desi8n

3.02 Availabletopographic maps were not of required quality for detailed design of the subsurfacedrainage system. Therefore,WAPDA had to carry out a topographicalsurvey between May 1978 and September 1979, which resulted in maps at a scale of 1:7,920 (8 inches: 1 mile) and contours at 30 cm (one foot) vertical interval.

3,03 Subsurfacedrainage was designedby the foreign consultantsin their home office in the Netherlands. This design called for a minimum water table of 1.5 m over laterals and 1.0 m between laterals. WAPDA personnelwere not, involved in this design exercise even though project funds were availableto financetravel expenses. Hence, little if any drainage design experiencewas transferredto Pakistanitechnical staff during this project. WAPDA and their consultantsdesigned the improvementsto the irrigationsystem in conjunction with the SDIP, which called for increase in a surfacewater deliveriesfrom 56.5m3/sec to 98.5m3/sec. Roads and watercourses(30% masonry lining) were designed by WAPDA.

3.04 Aerial photographyfor the whole Indus Basin was completedby early 1978 and the interpretationof data from ERTS was completedwith the help of consultantsin 1981. The Indus photos were extensivelyutilized in the UNDP financed,Bank executed,Indus Basin Planning Study (PAK/74/004-1976 to 1979).

Revisionsto the Project

3.05 There were several minor changes to the project (para 3.06) and a fundamen,alchange in the constructiontechnique for installingcollector drains (para 3.07). The SAR provided limited funding for housing, which was convertedinto a colony at GOP expenses. This upgrading in facilitieswas consideredessential because of the isolatedlocation of this project.

3.06 Khairpur II project was designedas a prototypepilot area to assess constructiontechniques, installation costs, O&M costs and effectivenessof horizontal (pipe) subsurface drainage. There were some minor changes in the location of pipe drains during implementationbut the total area improved remained unchangedat 14,600 ha. except for the 300 ha DRIP area that did not receive treatment.

3.07 From the start of this project, great difficultieswere encountered in laying the concrete collectorpipe. This was due to very unstable soil conditions,which was exacerbatedby excessiveseepage from canals. Dewateringoperations were slow since smaller diameterperforated corrugated plastic pipe had to be installedto draw down water table along the line where collectordrains were to be installed. Near the sump, where the large dewateringmachine could not lay the plastic pipe, verticalwell points were installedfor dewatering. Installationof the heavy concretecollector drains was only averagingabout 1 km per month and a few collectordrain lines were even abandonedfollowing repeated trench cave-ins. In areias of extremely unstable soils, there was excessive settlement of the heavy concrete collector pipes which resulted in two of these drains (Nos 19 and 20) becoming permanentlyinoperable. -6

3.08 The slow and difficult progress precipitateda detailed review of drain pipe installationprocedures and techniquesby an IDA supervision mission in June of 1982. This mission,which includeda highly experienced drainage consultant,recommended that a new "state of the art" technologybe adopted for installingcollector drains using perforatedcorrugated polyethylene(PE) drain pipe within a gravel envelope. Recent improvementsin drainageinstallation equipment and materialswere brought to the attentionof WAPDA by this mission. The newly developedequipme-u successfullyoperating in the USA, could install large diameter (300 mm o: inch) perforated corrugatedPE or PVC pipe with gravel envelope encasementin one operation without the need for dewatering. Adoption of this new system involved the purchaseof a trenchingmachine capableof laying large collectordrains at speeds upto 100 m per hour. After adopting the new technology,daily collectordrain pipe installationrates of one km or more were achieved. This was the averagemonthly installationrate using the initial dewateringand concretepipe system. Even so, additionalproblems emerged i.e. delay in plasticpipe delivery, equipmentbreakdown, unanticipated and excessive custom duties, and a lack of experienceby WAPDA staff and consultantswith these operations.

3.09 This dramatic departurefrom the originalproject plan reflects the experimentalnature of the subsurfacedrainage portion of the project. Although there were no substantialchanges in the overall concept of the project,there were some substantialchanges in the stated quantitiesfor certain items. some of which were made to reduce the scope and cost overruns due to delay. The project works are summarizedbelow:

Prolect Works

SAR /a Actual Remarks

Sump PumpingStation 130 no. 37 no. Para 3.07 CollectorDrains 218 km 153 km Para 3.07 Lateral Drains 2,408 km 823 km Average spacing increasedfrom 60m to 160m.

DisposalDrain 73 km 33 km 16 km of Kot Diji main drain also remodelled.

Remodellingof 102 km 45 km IrrigationSystem

Roads 161 km 27 km Only essential improvementswere constructed.

/a Text and Annex 11 of SAR differ in places. -7-

3.10 The precision land levellingcomponent was deleted from the project as the methodologysuggested in the SAR did not work because of difficulties in organizingcredit and the absence of contractorsto do the work. Detailed investigationand design enabled the number of drainage pump stations to be reducedfrom 130 small stations to 37 larger stations,which also resulted in a reducedtotal length of collectordrains. The areas commandedby each of these sumps became. in effect, a drainage subproject. The provisionof manholeson collectordrains was reducedduring implementationafter it was found that fewer were required. Early manhole design called for them to be buried. Followingheavy rains in 1981, the farmers opened the buried manholes for drainage and as a result, collectordrains became clogged with sediment. This problem has been averted in later design where the top of the manhole is elevatedabout 1.0 m above ground level.

Construction

3.11 Constructionbegan in 1977 on the office, workshop and housing in the Khairpurcolony. Remodellingof irrigati3nworks was carried out during the months of January (1979, 1980 and 1985) wuen canals were closed for maintenance. A disruptivesequence of implementation,which arose from delays in subsurfacedrainage construction,resulted in the completionof canal remodellingahead of drainageworks. Additionalwater supplies aggravated the waterloggingsituation and furthercomplicated the working conditionsfor subsurfacedrain construction. Improvementof watercourseswas carried out (1984, 1985 and 1986) after completionof individualdrainage units.

3.12 The schedule for drainage constructionwas first to construct the pump sumps so that they could be used for dewatering during construction of collector and lateral drains. Collectordrains were then laid and left to drain the area for about two weeks before lateraldrains were laid. Constructionof pump sumps began in June 1979 and of collectors in December 1979. Collectordrain laying proceededvery slowly mainly due to difficulties in dewateringand laying concrete pipes at depths of 1.8 to 3 m in unstable ground (para 3.07). Subsurfacedrainage for the first block (about 300 ha) was not completeduntil 1980, which was over three years after credit effectiveness.

3.13 Frequent mechanicalbreakdowns of constructionequipment caused additional delay and in December 1980 a foreignmechanical expert was employed. By mid-1982, when after 2-1/2 years' work only 38 km of collector drain had been laid out of 150 km required,it was decided to adopt a new pipe laying technology(para 3.08). The speed-up in laying collector drains with this new technologywas dramatic, i.e. 87 km in 15 months compared to 66 km in 54 months with the earlier system. All collectordrains were installedby February1986. This enabled laterals to be completed in March 1986 and watercourse improvements in June 1986. Apart from about 300 ha of drainage in the DRIP area, all project works were completed by the end of June 1986, some five years later than forecast in the SAR. Procurement

3.14 Constructionequipment was generallyprocured through International CompetitiveBidding (ICB), although the collectordrain trencher,ordered in 1982,was procureddirectly from the same manufactureras the trenching machinesordered for installingthe lateraldrains. The PVC and PE pipes were procuredby ICB; the 100 mm dia PVC pipe was mostly manufacturedin Pakistan but all the 250 mm and 300 mm PE pipe's were imported from Canada. Constructionof subsurfacedrains was generallycarried out by WAPDA force accountwith small contractorsproviding labor fo some individualcomponents such as manhole construction. Roads, canal remodelling,open drains and watercourseconstruction was carried out by local contractorsselected through local competitivebidding (LCB) procedures.

3.15 It should be noted that WAPDA's proceduresfor watercourserenovation (1984-86)did not follow the general practice successfullyemployed by On-farm Water Management(OFWM) Directoratesin the ProvincialDepartment of Agriculture. TL_e OFWM Directorates,in such projectsas OFWM I and II (Cr. 1163 and 1603-PAK),organize formal Water User Associations(WUA), whose farmermembers contributeall labor, share in cost of materialsand guarantee 0&M under provisionsof provincialordinances. Followingsuch procedures WAPDA would have reducedproject cost. However, WAPDA did organize formal WUAsfor purposeof facilitatingrequired O&M. WAPDA had these WUAs registeredwith the Sind OFWM Directorate.

Agricultural Extension

3.16 Agricultural extension staff from the Department of Agriculture were secondedto the SCARP Khairpur AgriculturalWing in July 1977 and by July 1978 extensionactivities had begun. Problemsof decliningmorale among the transferredstaff soon emerged due to disparitiesbetween their salaries and those of the staff of SDIP, as well as problemsof transferringvehicles and equipmentfrom the AgricultureDepartment. By the middle of 1979, however, these "teething" problems had been largely overcome and an e,'tension program based on the Trainingand Visits (T&V) system was initiatedin the project area. GOSind sanctioned27 extensionposts for the project. These included the Deputy Directorof Agricultureand one AssistantDirector of Agriculture .(ADA)mainly for the tile drainage areas. Under the ADA were 3 Agricultural Officers, each supervising 6 Field Assistants (FA) and Subject Matter Specialists for the whole Khairpurarea. Each E. covered 2,500 acres representingabout 8-20 watercourseswith 2 to 3 contact farmers per watercourse.

Qualityand Performanceof Project Works

3.17 GenArally,the constructionquality of civil works was acceptable consideringthe pilot nature of the project. Initiallythere was considerable difficultyin laying the concrete collectordrains (para 3.07) which has resultedin serious operationalproblems. Several of these collectordrains, associatedwith sumps 19 and 20 are not functioningdespite major effort by SDIP to rectify. Seven other collectordrains have required cleaning by hydraulicnozzles to clear sediment plugs and several of these are not -9- performingproperly. The performanceof the project works is discussedin Chapt.r 4.

Costs

3.18 Investmentcosts are shown in Table I and sumarized below:

SM Actual Rs US$ Rs U ----- (million) -

Khairpur Project Base Cost 186.2 18.6 346.7 28.7 Physical Contingencies 20.0 2.0 - - Price Contingencies 67.0 6.7 - - Khairpu- Total Costs 273.2 27.3 346.7 28.7

Aerial Photography& ERTS 10.2 1.0 11.5 1.3

Total 283.4 28.3 358.2 30.0

Customs Duties & Taxes 8.0 0.8 61.4 5.1

Total Cost 291.4 29.1 419.6 35.1

The total project cost (excludingcustoms duties and taxes) amounted to about Rs 360.0 M (US$30.0M). This representsan increaseof about 27S in rupees and 6S in dollar terms from SAR estimates. The cost of the subsurface drainage componentwas about Rs 20,000 or US$1,670per ha. This high unit rate was partly due to: (a) the pilot nature of the project,which led to several changesand work interruptions;and, (b) inefficienciesassociated with force account operations. The cost of drainage componentsdropped significantlyafter new installationmaterials and equipmentwere used. No attempthas been made to quantitysuch savingsbecause of numerous variables, e.g. equipmentsunk and depreciatedcosts, overheadsand administrativecosts, etc. However, there are clear indicationsthat the unit cost of subsurface (pipe) drainageusing this "new" technologyhas decreasedand it is estimated to comparableto the drainagecost in Fourth DrainageProject (Cr. 1375-PAK) of about US$750 per ha.

3.19 In 1979, the Governmentimposed an excesive custom'sduty on resin and PE pipes, amountingto Rs 13 per kilogramPVC plus 10% of the cif cost. During early projectyears, the cif cost of resin ranged between Rs. 4-6 (US$ 400-600 per ton). The purpose of imposingthis duty (about 250S of the cost of resin) was to protect local public sector productionof resin, using an outdatedmethod (carbide). While these costs were met from GOP resources, this excessivetax rate has unnecessarilycontributed to high project costs.

3.20 It was possible to substantiallyreduce the SAR estimatedquantities of several items, which helped keep the cost increase comparativelylow despitethe implementationperiod extendingfrom 5 years to 10 years (para 3.10-3.12). The cost of most civil works doubled, however, there were savings - 10 - on equipment,land acquisitionand land levelling,which was dropped from the project. The cost of buildingsincreasee significantly because of costs associatedwith constructionof Khairpuw 3lony. Comparisonof SAR and actual costs are detailed in Table 2.

Proiect Financinaand Credit Allocation

3.21 The IDA credit of U3$14 million,covering about 502 of the project costs (net of taxes and customs duties)was expected to cover the full foreign exchange cost. Actual disbursementsof US$12.89million coveredapproximately 43% of the total costs. US$1.11 millionof the cred4. was cancelled. Table 3 compares the actual disbursementand SAR estimates. In addition to the IDA credit,a grant of US$3.75million, which was given by EEC for civil works constructionwas fully disbursed. The remainingproject costs were met by GOP and GOSind through their annual developmentprogram (ADP).

IV. PROJECT IMPACT

Monitoringand Evaluation

4.01 The project demonstratedthat subsurface(pipe) drainage system can be successfullyimplemented in Pakistan. Valuable experienceand training was gained throughimplementation of the project. Importantlessons were learned relating to new piping material,in particularcorrugated plastic drainage pipes, and use of new equipmentcapable of installinglarge diameter corrugatedplastic collectorpipe in a gravel envelope. Also, SDIP is gaining significantexperience in the O&M of subsurface(pipe) drainage systems. Additionalinformation and experiencewas gained by °akistaniofficials, which has proven valuable in planningfuture subsurface(pipe) projects in Pakistan and as a guide to selectingproper locationsfor horizontalpipe and tubewell drainagesystems. To make a proper selectionbetween these two technologies mniy factorsmust be taken into consideration,i.e., capital costs, O&M and replacementcosts, qualityof groundwaterand irrigationwaters as well as the potentialuse of drainagedischarges, and aquifercharacteristics. In other words, there are other factorsthan just aquifer conditionthat must be consideredin determiningwhether a verticalor horizontalsubsurface system is to be installed. This contraststo the pre Khairpur-IIphilosophs that would limit horizontal(pipe) drainageto sites where aquifer conditionsdo not permit TW operation (para 2.01).

4.02 Improvementsto the irrigationnetwork have enabled perennial irrigationto be extended from about 4,000 ha to the entire projectarea (17,800ha) by increasingthe irrigationwater supply from about 5,665 1/sec (correspondingto 200 cusecs at the head of Patni distributary)to 9,775 1/sec (345 cusecs). However, post projectreleases into Patni distributaryhave been as much 10,500 1/sec or 385 cusecs (Table4).

4.03 In order for the projectto achieve its stated objectives,adequate supply of irrigationwater coupledwith efficientoperation of the subsurface drainagesystem is required. The additionalwater supply is especially criticalfor leachingin this projectbecause of the design criteria calling for maintainingminimum groundwatertable at 1.0 a (para 3.03) Because of - 11 - this subsurfacedrainage design criteria,the groundwatertables in the pre and post constructionperiod have generallyremained unchanged. For example, data from WAPDA's SCARP MonitoringUnit shows that in April 1985, 10 of the project area had a watertabledepth of 1.0 m and 857 of 1.5 m; whereas in April 1987, 202 of the project area had a watertableof 1.0 m and 65S of 1.5 m (Table 5). The same groundwatercondition prevails in the DRIP area (Table 6). It is reportedthat over 1,600 ha of previouslyabandoned land has been reclaimedduring the post projectperiod. In a survey of 70 farmers in 1985, 872 reported improvedt:onditions on about 402 of their land due to drainage.

4.04 WAPDA's Scarp MonitoringUnit (South)also measures the chemical compositionof effluentwater from sumps and the salts in soils in six selectedplots. The results are not conclusive,but the highly saline effluent from the sumps (2,600 to 54,000 micromhos/cm,average 10,000) is an indicationthat salts are being removed from the soil and the quality of this effluent is slowly improving(Table 7). It is estimatedthat about ten times as much salt is now being removedas is being brought in by irrigationwater. The sodium absorptionratio and the electroconductivitymeasured in six selected plots have shown some improvementfor those which have been cultivatedbut some deteriorationfor those which have remained fallow. Overtime,it is anticipatedthat the qualityof the saline drainage effluent will improvegradually until an equilibrumdevelops between salt inflows in the irrigationwater and outflow in the drainage water. This is substantiated by 1988 DRIP report that indicatesin their researcharea, the quality of useableupper groundwaterhas increasedfrom 8% (December1982) to 287 in December 1986 (Table8).

4.05 No specialprovision was includedunder the project for hydrogeologicalmonitoring. However, assuranceswere given by GOP, that WAPDA throughits centralMonitoring Organization (now SCARP Monitoring Organization (SMO),would carry out benchmarkand subsequentfollow-up surveys to monitor agricultural,social and economic changesbrought about by the project. Subsequently,SMO includedlimited projecthydrogeological monitoring of watertabledepth and soil salinity data under its national grid observation point (densityon observationper 10 square miles) program. This data has been analysedby SMO to producecontour maps for watertabledepths 1.5 m and 3.0 m. Such maps (and pertinantdata) may be adequate for evaluatingthe performanceof SCARP tubewells,but it is inadequatefor monitoring a subsurface(pipe) drainage system. A deficiencyin SMO's hydrogeological monitoringfor this project is its breakdowninto water depth criteriaof 0-1.5 m for its highest zone. Since, the subsurfacedesign criteria for this projectis based on maintainingwatertable depths between the lateral drains at 1.0 m, most of the project area would, understandably,fall into the highestwatertable zone categoryduring both the pre- and post-project conditions,which makes the existing groundwatermonitoring program of little value. WAPDA SMO has realized the need for installingadditional observation points in khairpur-IIpipe drainagearea, which would enable more precise monitoringin the future. However, installingthis system is being delayed becauseof financialconstraints. - 12 -

4.06 SDIP is monitoringa record of the following:

- sump discharge (monthly) - water quality of sumps (monthly)

The records from 1985 to date, although not conclusive, shows a slight improvement in the quality of sump water. The high saline effluent 2600 to 56,000 micromhos/cm (average 10,000) indicates that the salts are being removed from the soil. This data also shows that sump discharge has generally been far below the design discharge,and in several cases, the collectorshave ceased to function (Table 9). In absence of reliabledepth to groundwater data, it is not possible to identifythe cause of the problem. Among reasons cited for these continuingproblems by SDIP projectstaff are:

(a) breakage (and blockage)in the collectorline, particularlyin concrete lines;

(b) farmersdigging the pipe drains in areas under paddy. Although paddy cultivationhas been prohibitedin the pipe drainedareas, statisticsstill show that paddy cultivationhas been continued;

(c) inadequateflushing of the pipe drains and general inadequate 0&t of the network (paras 6.08 and 6.09);

(d) clogging of gravel envelope.

4.07 Th1 case study monitoringapproach used by DRIP to monitor each unit (collectorcatchment) separately and intensively,based on annual water and salt balance providesa better diagnosisof problems. Given the experienceof the DRIP and SMO staffs, they are capableof carryingout the M&E to a satisfactorystandard in collaborationwith the SDIP staff.

AgriculturalImpact

4.08 General Although it is too early to evaluate fully the project impact on crops production and farmers' income, there are preliminary indicationsthat show positive project impact:

(1) WAPDA's Scarp MonitoringUnit (South)has measured the chemical compositionof effluentwater from nine sumps and salt in soils in six selectedplots. These resultsavailable are not conclusivebut there appears to be some marginal improvement in the quality of effluent (Table 7, sumps 7 and 16 only). Overtime it is anticipated that the quality of the saline effluent will improve to a point where an equilibrum develops between salt inflow rate in irrigationwater and salt outflow in the drainage effluent. The highly saline effluent from the sumps (.,600 to 54,000 micromhos/cm, average 10,000) is an indication that salt are being removed from the soil. It is estimated that about ten times as much salt is being removed as is being brought in by irrigation water but this should be checked regularly using accurate estimates of quantities pumped and salinity content. The sodium absorption ratio and the electroconductivity - 13 -

measured in six selectedplots have shown some improvementfor those which have been cultivatedbut some deteriorationfor those which have remained fallow.

(2) A 1985 WAPDA survey indicatedthat 61 out of 70 farmerswere of the opinion that farming conditionshad improveddue to drainagework;

(3) By July 1985, it waa reported that 1,600 ha of previouslyabandoned land had been reclaimedin the projectarea.

(4) Even though groundwaterlevels remain relativelyhigh (para 4.03), they are stabilizedat a depth in the lower root zone, or even lower (Tables5 and 6), for most areas and with the additionalwater supplies (para 4.02) for increasedcropping intensitiesand leaching, this contributedto the improvedfarming conditionsmentioned in (2) above.

Crops and Farm Models

4.09 Cropping Intensitr: The BenchmarkSurvey conductedby WAPDA in 1979 indicatedthat the cropping intensityin the projectarea was about 110X. Due to the rise in groundwatertable, build-upof soil salinityand short supply of irrigationwater, it is estimatedthat croppingintensity would reduce in the future without project condition(90X). Cotton would be the most affected crop with a significantdecrease in acreage. It is assumed that a part of cotton acreage would be substitutedby paddy. However, a large increase of paddy may not be possibledue to a limitedirrigation supply and increased soil salinity. In addition, rabi wheat acreagewould also be reduced due to poor drainageand shortageof irrigation. Perennialdate crop, which is somewhat tolerantto salinity,may increaseits acreage. With the project, water-consumingrice is expected to disappearaltogether. Cotton and wheat areas would expand significantlyand the area of dates would increase. Productionof sugarcane,negligible at present, is expected to increasewith improvedroad infrastructure,higher prices,as well as extensionand other services providedby the sugar mills. Croppingintensity would increaseto about 1562 for the with-projectsituation (Table 10).

4.10 Crop yields: Reductionor stagnationof crop yields is expected under future without project conditiondue mainly to worseningsoil conditions,poor drainage and salinity. However,yields would increase through the physical.improvements adopted by the project such as improved drainage,reduced soil salinityand additionalirrigation supply, the strengthenedextension services, as well as the enhancedfarmers' enthusiasm in farming under future with projectcondition. Estimatedyield increases from future without project to with project conditionsare (mt/ha):cotton lint 0.7-1.4, wheat 0.9-2.5, oilseed0.4-0.8, kharif fodder 12.0-17.0and rabi fodder 12.8-20.8. Detailed estimationof yield increaseis given in Table 10.

4.11 Crop Production: Increasedyield combinedwith higher i-opping intensitywould result in a substantialincremental production at full development. Estimatedincremental production of major crops is detailed in Table 11 and summarizedbelow: - 14 -

Withoutproiect With project Incremental

Cottonlint ('000mt) 0.51 8.82 8.31 Wheat ('000mt) 5.58 25.00 19.42 Fodder ('000mt) 40.40 79.40 39.00 Dates (Rs '000) 5,088.00 16,000.00 10,912.00

4.12. Farm-SizeDistribution: According to the WAPDA BenchmarkSurvey, the distributionof farm sizes and areas coveredby variouscategories of farm sizesare summarizedin the tablebelow. Of the totalarea, about 29.3S is rentedand some 5.4% is leased. Over 692 in Zone A (about14,600 ha) and over 612 in Zone B (about3,200 ha), were subdividedin more than one parcel. This leadsto the assumptionthat the very small farms are part of largerholdings since it is generallyagreed thata 1.6 ha unit would be too small to maintain a family. Farm-SizeDistribution

Percentageof Size of Percentageof Category Farms Farm Area Covered Area Very Small 452 1.58 ha 4,300 ha 24% Smail 312 3.56 ha 5,300 ha 302 Medium 172 7.04 ha 5,000 ha 28% Large 72 14.49 ha 3,200 ha 182

4.13 FarmModels: Basedon the above data and assumptions,three farm modelshave been prepared(a) a farm of 3.5 ha of which about half is owned by the farmer and the other half rented,(b) a medium-sizedfarm of 7.0 ha farmed by the owner. and (c) a large farm with 14.0 ha farmed by the owner. With the assumed yields and cropping patterns for each farm model and the per hectare input(Table 12), the financial net return for each farm model throughthe projectdevelopment years are detailedin Tables 13-15and thoseat the full developmentare summarizedbelow:

Model A Model B Model C 3.5 ha Owner 7.0 ha 14.0 ha cum-tenant Farmer Owner Farmer Owner Farmer ~~---- - (Rupees)------Net Income - FutureWithout Project 2,387.4 4,534.3 9,017.0 FutureWith Project 15,287.0 30,587.8 60,541.1 Incremental 12,899.6 26,053.5 51,524.1

IncomePer Rectare FutureWithout Project 682.1 647.8 644.1 FutureWith Project 4,367.7 4,369.7 4,324.4

Returnper Mn/day of FamilyLabor 1/ FutureWithout Project 3.5 6.7 13.4 FutureWith Project 22.6 45.3 89.7

1/ Assume2.7 full time laborper familyand 250 workingdays per year. - 15 -

The above informationshows that the project would have a positive impact on increasingincome in all the three farm models. The data also indicatesthat: (1) the larger the farm size, the higher the net farm income would be; (2) per hectare income would be generallythe same for all farm sizes; and (3) the smallest farm would have the lowest per man-day income.

V. ECONOMICEVALUATION

Economic Analysis

5.01 Project costs and benefits in constant 1985-86 (completionyear) terms are given in Table 16. The resultingeconomic rate of return (ERR) is 7.6%. This rate is substantiallylower than estimatedat appraisal(17%) but still acceptableconsidering the "pilot" characterof the project - introducingdesign, construction,and O&M of pipe drainage systems into Pakistan. The main reasons for the differencesbetween appraisaland PCR estimatesof the project'sERR are the extended implementationperiod - ten insteadof five years - and the significantlylower commodityprices that are now projected.

5.02 As at appraisal,the economic reevaluationtakes into account only the benefits from incrementalcrop productionin the projectarea (17,800ha), disregardingindirect benefits. Outputs and crop productioninputs are shown in Tables 10-12. To maintain comparabilitywith the appraisal report,which used an analysis period of 30 years, includingfive years implementation, project life has been assumed to be 35 years (includingten years implementation).All farms are assumed to reach full developmentin ten years (by 1990-91,project year 15). Farmgate prices for internationallytraded goods are based on the most recent IBRD commodityprice forecasts(January 1988),while those for non-tradedgoods are based on domestic prices (Table 17). Domestic prices have been translatedinto border prices using a standard conversionfactor of 0.9.

5.03 Al nvestmentcosts, except aerial photographyand ERTS survey, and requiredO&M coLts have been included in the calculations. The cost of land acquisitionhas been used as a proxy for benefits foregone. Actual expenditureshave been restated in 1985-86 prices using the wholesaleprice index (Table 18), and economicprices have been obtainedby applying conversionfactors of 0.8 for civil works and 0.9 for all other costs.

SensitivityTests

5.04 Sensitivitytests show that (i) with future costs down by 201 or future benefits up by 102 the project'srate of return would be close to 9%, while (ii) with future costs down by 10% and future benefits up by 102 it wot-tdbe 9.4%, and (iii) with future benefits up by 20% it would be 9.91, nearly equal to the assumedopportunity cost of capital in Pakistan (10). On the other hand, with future costs up by 101 and future benefits down by 101 the rate of return would drop to 5.41. - 16 -

VI. INSTITUTIONALPERFORMANCE

Water and Power DevelopmentAuthority (WAPDA)

6.01 WAPDA entrustedoverall responsibilityfor the Khairpur-IIproject to General Manager (South)with the ProjectDirector responsiblefor on site activities. WAPDA's SCARP KhairpurAgricultural Wing was responsiblefor the agriculturalextension services. The National Bank of Pakistanwas originally responsiblefor credit but this componentwas cancelled. A Project CoordinationCommittee was establishedin 1977 to coordinateactivities of the agencies involved.

6.02 Generally,WAPDA performedsatisfactorily, both technicallyand administratively. Its officialsand personnelproved dedicatedand interested in developingrequired skills. Foreign consultantswere employed to assist with design of drainage and other aspects of implementation. However,WAPDA failed to take advantageof funds providedfor staff training in subsurface (pipe) design (para 3.03). Problems that were encounteredincluded delays in appointingconsultants and in procurement. Some delays in the early part of the project were attributed to lack of experiencedstaff. However, the major delays in collectordrain laying may be consideredto have been beyond the immediatecontrol of WAPDA. There have been no reportsof inadequatebudget allocations.

SCARP AgriculturalWing

6.03 The extensionservice is reportedto have been fairly effective particularlyin demonstrationson leachingsalts and improvedcultural practices. The main problemsencountered by the extensionservice were those relating to the Province as a whole and includedinadequate budgetary allocation,low salariesof extensionstaff, insufficienttravel allowances and shortage of inputs particularlyfor demonstrations(this last being related to budgetaryconstraints). At the beginning,the project purchased inputs for farmerswith demonstrationplots. The wing recovered501 of the costs in cash after harvest. This system was dropped followingan audit query in 1982 and this led to the abandoningof demonstrationplots in the project area. A weekness of the extension 3ystemwas that tenant farmers had little access to extensionstaff as medium and large sized farmerswere chosen to be contact farmers.

Sind Departmentof Irrigationand Power (SDIP)

6.04 SDIP responsibilityis limited to the O&M of project improvements, which WAPDA turned over to them on July 1, 1987. It is too early to fully assess SDIP's ability to efficientlyhandle the requiredO&M. However, SDIP has been unable to reestablishoperation of several collectordrains (para 3.17) and GOSind's O&M allocationto this projectarea is inadequate (paras 6.08 and 6.11). However, these conditionssuggest that: (a) additional O&Mtraining need to be provided to SDIP staff related to OUM of subsurface (pipe) drainagesystems; and, (b) SDIP should allocateadditional O&M funds from its budget for the Khairpur-IIarea. - 17 -

Drainage and ReclamationInstitute of Pakistan (DRIP)

6.05 Out of the project area, 800 ha in the pipe drainage area were handed over to the Drainage Research Instituteof Pakistan (DRIP) to constructand monitor, for the purposeof experimentation,various design criteria for pipe drains. Due to financialconstraints, only 500 ha were provided with pipe drains and the remaining300 ha remain undrained. Design criteria similar to those referred to in para 3.03 were used, which resultedin a generally stable,but relativelyhigh watertable (Table6). Neverthelesssignificant improvementin crop productionhas been noted. This is due to the substantial increase in irrigationsupplies to the DRIP area (croppingintensity increased to 190X). Because of the limitationof the Indus IrrigationSys..em and the general constrainton Pakistan'swater resources,such conditionscannot be generallyreplicated. WAPDA transferredRs 2.67 million to DRIP in 1978, as cost sharing for civil works.

Consultants

6.06 Foreign consultants,engaged by WAPDA for the design and implementationof the drainagecomponent, provided 220 man-monthsof services between 1977 and 1985. The disciplinesprovided includedplanning and design engineers,drainage specialist,agricultural extension specialist, constructionsupervisor and a mechanicalengineer. The subsurfacedesign (para 3.03) may prove satisfactoryfor Khairpur II because of increase surface allocations(para 4.02). However, such design criteria is questionablesince it is not replicablethroughout Pakistan becauseof limitedwater supplies (para 6.05). The consultantsare reportedto have carried out their duties diligentlyand maintaineda good relationshipwith WAPDA.

Training

6.07 In addition to the traininggiven in Pakistanby the consultantsand equipmentmanufacturers, the SAR provided for overseas training for project staff (US$0.3million), which was not used. This was particularlyunfortunate becauseof the foregoneopportunity to train WAPDA staff in horizontal (pipe) drainagedesign (para 3.03). Significantexperience and confidencewas gained by WAPDA staff throughon-the-job training in subsurface(pipe) drainage using modern material and equipment. This trainingshould be extremelyvaluable on future subsurfacedrainage projects involvinghorizontal piping throughout Pakistan.

Operationand Maintenance

6.08 SDIP has responsibilityfor the O&M of the canal and subsurface drainagesystems (para 6.4). O&M of the drairagesystem was transferredon July 1, 1986 to WAPDA's O&M division which maintainedit for one year at the expenseof GOSind before handing it over to SDIP on July 1, 1987. The estimatedO&M cost for projectworks is shown below. - 18 -

Benefited Annual O&M Rs/ha/year area (ha) cost(Rs0o0)

O&M cost of water supplied 247 17,800 4,396 O&M cost of canals 180 17,800 3,203 0&M cost of drainage 308 14,500 4,460

Total 735 a/ 12,060 a/

al Amounts to about US$39.0/ha,or about US$16.00per cropped ac at 1602 intensity.

6.09 The US$39.00O&M cost per cropped ha is high by Pakistanistandards, but it is relativelyinexpensive considering the high water duty (para 3.03) alongwithenvisaged long-term control of water logging and salinity. GOP and the farmersshould expect sustainabilityof project benefits througha strong and efficientOM program by SDIP. SDIP should not have accepted full O&M responsibilityuntil the drainage system was operatingsatisfactorily includingcollectors 19 and 20 (para 3.07) that are not functioning. These should have been placed right by WAPDA as a project cost. In addition, effluent from most collectorsis only 25 to 502 of that planned - the reason for this shortfall,requires additionalanalysis, as well as a determination of the reasons for pockets of extremelyhigh watertable. Even though WAPDA has transferredall project equipment,al.ongwith some experiencedstaff to SDIP, there remainsneed for: (a) intensiveand specializedtraining of SDIP staff if O&M techniquesassociated with pipe drainage;and, (b) increased allocationof O&M funds (para 5.04). WatercourseO&M is the responsibilityof farmersin Pakistanand hence the need for formal WUAs (para 3.15).

Compliancewith Covenants

6.10 The covenantsof the DevelopmentCredit and ProjectAgreements were generallycomplied with except the following:

6.11 Cost Recovery. Section 3.01 of the PA required GOSind, not later than 1978, 1983 and 1988, to review the level of its water chargeswith a view to increasingthem in three stages so that by 1988 water charges in Sind would cover the full cost of O&M of irrigationand drainage facilities,including the projectarea, as well as a reasonableportion of the project's investment cost. The present water chargeswould average about Rs 102/ha/yearin the projectarea at full development. GOSind levies an additionaldrainage cess of about Rs 79/ba/yearon areas served by governmentdrainage schemes. At presentthis is levied on the area covered by SCARP Khairpur tubewell drainage. It is proposed that this drainage cess would be extended in the future to cover the entire project area, in which case the total charges will be about Rs 181/ha. The present level of charges cover only about 252 of the O&M cost of the irrigationand drainage network in the project area. - 19 -

6.12 Data supplied by GOP and GOSind in March 1987 indicatedthat GOSind would not be meeting its cost recoveryagreement in Section 3.01 of the PA. This data showed that cost recovery throughwater charges in Sind Province during FY86 would meet less than 50S of the O&M allocationsto SDIP. A major reason for GOSind's inabilityto meet this cost recovery covenant is the rapidly increasingallocations (over 15% annually during last 5 years) requiredto meet SDIP's requirementsfor O&M of the irrigationand related drainage infrastructure. This increase in O&M allocation is most commendable and indicatesimportance GOSind officialsplaces on this matter. Estimated O&M allocationtargets were included in several recent agreementsfor Bank Group assisted projects in Pakistan includingthe IrrigationSystems RehabilitationProject ,-,1239-PAK).During negotiationsfor the Second IrrigationSystem RehabilitationProject (Cr. 1888-PAK),a new approach was sgreed by GOP, GOSind (also the other three Provinces in Pakistan)on a new approach to achieve full recovery of O&M costs for irrigationand related subsurfacedrainage facilities. This approach calls for:

(a) reductionin O&M costs through privatizationof public opera-ed TWs in FGW areas;

(b) improvingrecoveries through a strengthenedwater assessmentand collectionprogram; and

(c) meeting any shortfallsin recoveries,meeting O&M allocation followingimplementation (1992) of the improvedassessment and collectionprogram throughappropriate adjustments in water rates, which could include drainage cesses.

6.13 Section 4.01 of the DCA requires that accounts for each fiscal year be audited and that financialstatements and audit reportsbe furnishedto IDA not later than six months after the end of the fiscal year. Despite repeated requestsby supervisionmissions, no such statementsand reportswere furnisheduntil 1985 when reportsfor 1977/78 to 1981/82were received. One page audit summariesfor 1982/83and 1983/84 certifiedby the Branch Audit Officerwere provided to the October 1985 supervisionmission. These abbreviatedaudit forms were the only audit reports provided to IDA. It was understoodthat no formal annual audit report is made since all accounts are preauditedon a continuingbasis by WAPDA before any project expendituresare authorized. Detailed "after the fact" audits are not made. This audit proceduredid not fully comply with the provisionof this covenant.

Envir¶rmment

6.14 Environmentalconditions have improvedas a result of this project. Since the project coveredan existing irrigatedarea, that was deteriorating due to water-tablerise and soil salinization,environmental and social conditionswere getting worse prior to the project implementation. Projectionsindicated that without project improvements,a sustainablelong term agriculturalsystem could not be expecteddue to excessivewaterlogging and salinization. Additional land for canal expansionwas not required,but some new open drain locationswere required. The new open drains should provideadditional wildlife habital and facilitateproper disposal of drainage - 20 - discharges. Subsurfacepipe drainage will mitigate the anticipated"without project"degradation of the social and physical environmentof the area. Withoutdrainage, waterlogging would eventuallytake most cropland out of productionand increasevector problems.

Performanceof IDA

6.15 The appraisalreport foresaw the extent of requiredworks but underestimatedthe difficultiesof laying the concrete collectordrains, which should not be consideredunusual for what was consideredto be pilot project.

6.16 Eleven full supervisionmissions visited the Khairpur-Itproject over a period of about 10 years, which averages out to about once yearly. This appears inadequatefor such a complex and experimentalproject. Even so, through1981, these mission underreportedthe seriousnessof the management and technicalproblems plaguing the project. With hindsight,it was obvious by 1981 that laying of collectordrains was delaying the project and, had the decision to purchase a new drain-layingmachine been made earlier, time and money could have been saved. The possibilityof machine-laying300 mm PVC pipe (PE was actually used) was first mentionedduring the 1978 supervision missionbut was ruled out at that time because of the cost. However, the June 1982 IDA supervisionmission forthrightlyrecommended an appropriate technologyfor installingthe PE collectordrains (para 3.7). SubsequentIDA supervisionmissions diligentlyfollowed up on this approach,which was instrumentalin the successfulcompletion of the project.

VII. CONCLUSIONSAND LESSONS

7.01 The ComprehensiveDevelopment Plan for Sind identifiedthe Khairpur II area as having a comparativelylow economic priority for developmentbut considereda pilot horizontal(pipe) drainage projectnecessary. The project has shown that horizontal(pipe) drainage can be successfullyinstalled in Pakistan. However, the estimatedeconomic returns for Khairpur II based on so-far unverifiableassumptions concerning benefits are less than were estimatedat appraisal. The comparativelyhigh overall cost of US$1,670.0per ha reflectscosts associatedwith the "learningprocess" of this pilot project and are not reflectiveof the cost of applying this technologyin the latter stages of the project when a large trenching/pipelaying machine was used in installingthe large PE (300 mm) collectordrains. Experiencegained in Khairpur II has been valuable to WAPDA in applying this now proven technique in Pakistanon such subsequentIDA assisted projects as Fourth Drainage (Cr. 1375-PAK)where the installationof comparablehorizontal (pile) subsurfacesystem is costing about US$750.0per ha.

7.02 It is now envisaged that horizontal(pipe) subsurfacedrainage technologywill be increasinglyapplied in Pakistan in areas requiring drainageand it will not be limited to areas where aquifer conditions prohibitssuccessful operation of vertical (TW) subsurfacedrainage systems. The relativemerits of horizontalor vertical subsurfacedrainage systems will vary from place to place dependingon many factors includingcapital, operatingand replacementcosts, qualityof groundwaterand irrigationwater, depth of aquifer and conditionsfor reuse or disposal of effluent. GOP sill - 21 - must undertakefurther investigationsand analyses to make proper evaluation to determineguidelines of the -met appropriatetechnique for individual situations. Some generalizaitoncan be made but detailed planningguideline should be developedto evaluate items such as:

(a) Water quality - horizontalpipe systems tend to skim better qualitywater from the upper levels of a high watertablearea.

- if water quality is poor deeper in a ground water body the tubevell drains will provide poorer drainage effluent quality.

(b) Energy Requirement-Power for pumpingmust be consideredover the life of project. If gravityoutlets can be developedfor the horizontalpipe system a significantadvantage can be given to these systems.

(c) Cost Factors - items such as initialcost, operatingand maintenanceall require consideration. Operationand maintenancecomplexity is also worthy of consideration.

7.03 The limitedmonitoring of the performanceof the drainage system has so far been inconclusive and more attention should have given to this activity to ensure maintenance of the watertableat the design level. The effectiveness of the drainage subsystemhas been difficult to quantify. There are indicationsthat soil salinity is improving. Published measurements of depth of watertable indicates that watertable has remained almost constant (about l.Om) with the preprojectcondition (para 4.03 and Table 5). This is not surprising and reflects the design criteria (para 3.03). Discussions with farmers and others familiar with the area indicatethat despite increasedirrigation water the waterloggingsituation has improvedsomewhat. About 1,600 ha of formerly abandonedland have been reclaimedand much of this land is now being cropped. It would appear, except for several collectornot working,the subsurfacesystem is generallymaintaining the ground water depth at design levels.

7.04 The subsurfacedesign criteriafor Khairpur II for maintaining minimum groundwaterlevel in the project area about 1.0 m may prove satisfactorybecause of the large water duty provided the project (about .54 1/sec/hacompared to planned deliveriesin the Indus irrigation system of only about .25 1/sec/ha)and if an adequate O&M and water managementprogram is carried out in the project area during the post project period. However, this design is not appropriatein water constrainedarid irrigationsystems, which makes this design not replicablein subsequentsubsurface drainage project in Pakistan. It is for the reason that the design criteria in SCARP Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK)and Fourth Drainage (Cr. 1375-PAK)calls for installinglateral pipe drains at a depth to maintain groundwaterlevels at a minimum depth of about 1.3 m between drains. - 22 -

7.05 The capacityof distributariesand minors serving the project area has been raised by 72S to provide .84 1/sec/haat critical periods. Actual flows in August 1987 in Patni distributoryamounted to .73 1/sec/ha(Table 4). This increase in flows should be matched with intensivetraining of farmer throughextension programs to ensure efficientutilization and optimum crop production.

7.06 The future agriculturalimpact ig difficult to forecastbecause of a paucityof qualitydata coming from inadequateM&E program. Based on the asiumptionsthat there will be no major new crops introducedinto the projectarea, and that conservativeestimates of agricultural improvementswill be realized,the economic rate of return is estimated to be about 7.62. The rate of return would have been higher had the latest drain-layingtechnology been availableat the beginningof the project.

7.07 A strong post prajectO&M program is required to sustainproject benefits. Hence, a strong O&M related training programmust be provided to SDIP staff such as that envisagedin the Fourth DrainageProject (Cr. 1375-PAK)and an adequate level of O&M fundingmust be provided (para 6.04 and 6.09).

7.08 Sound on-farm water managementpractices are essential componentsto a subsurfacedrainage program because among other things it reducessomewhat the drainablesurplus (para 3.15) and thereby the size and cost of subsurfacedrainage infrastructure.Also, water management practiceswill delay the time for installingsubsurface drainage systems in areas not yet waterlogged. In Khairpur II, WAPDA successfully completedits watercourserenovation program in three years. It did not however, follow the successfulapproach employedby OFWM Directoratesin Pakistan of involvingfarmers, through formal WUAs, in the construction of OFWM facilities. Experiencein such projects as OFWM I and II (Cr. 1163 and 1603-PAK)has indicatedthat such farmer involvementreduces project costs and improves farmers'O&M of watercourses. It is these reasonsin subsequentBank Group assisted WAPDA implementedsubsurface drainage projects,i.e. SCARP VI (Credit754-PAK), SCARP Mardan (Cr. 877-PAK),Fourth Drainage (Cr. 1375-PAK)and LBOD (Cr. 1375-PAK),an OFWM componenthas been provided with implementationof this componentby the ProvincialOFWM Directorates. However,WAPDA continuesto follow the Khairpur-IImodel in such non Bank Group assisted schemes,as the Ghotki and South Rohri FGW projectsin Sind Province.

7.09 An appropriateM&E programmust be designed and carriedout in all water sector project and this is particularlytrue of subsurface drainage projects. M&E is essentialin determiningproject resultsand a monitoringprogram is essentialin determiningadequacy of design and installedsystem and as an aid in effecientlyoperating and maintaining the completedproject. - 23 -

List of Tables

Table l: InvestmentCost 2: ProjectCost Estimates 3: Disbursementby Category 4: Maximum Dischargeof Patni Distributory 5: Depth to Watertable 6: Pre- and Post-ProjectGroundwater Depth 7: Water Quality of Swmp discharge 8: Pre- and Post-ProjectGroundwater Quality 9: Monthly Progress Report of Sumps and Pumps 10: Crop Area, Yield and Production 11* EstimatedIncremental Crop Production 12: Per Hectar Input Requirement 13: Farm Model, 3.5 ha 14: Farm Model, 7.0 ha 15: Farm Model, 14.0 ha 16: EconomicBenefits and Costs 17: Prices Used in Financialand EconomicAnalysis 18: WholesalePrice Index and AdjustmentFactor for InvestmentCosts em KHAPUR TtLE DIUII IIU R AT MVELOHE Cn1 tKXUI III (Credit 648-PAK PROt,, eft&naXYR

!nvatnst¢ Coet.a 5 g m114oe

JOU7 171 98" 1272128 1920/Xa INI/B2 1282fik .938 98U 13 I. Ln Acautsittan L9 L.A LA Li Li l, Li Li 11. Civil Wbks Drainage System 2.9 6.8 14.7 14.7 11.9 16.7 37.2 42.5 147.4 Canl Remdelling 1.2 5.2 1.9 2.0 0.7 0.1 1.7 4.4 17.2 Watercourse Reconstructton 0.7 0.7 1.6 8.0 2.5 0 0.1 - 13.6 RoadImprovement 3.1 3.9 3.7 0.3 -t - 11.0 Sub-Iatal 11 L t. .L 2L2 1/1 il IA39. 8J lSea fI1. On-farmusrks LandLevelling - SV. ,OUimmAt.VAhicls Materials to be limerted For Drainage System, Canals, Watercourses & Roads 0.1 0.5 23.1 7.0 6.6 6.7 1.5 21.8 1.3 1.3 69.9 For O05 & SCARPKhairpur Spare Parts - - 1.1 0.1 0.6 - - - - - 1.8 SubTlotal Li QL 34 z14 2. i 1, 31. 14 la 21. V. Aericultural goui.nmnt A Vehicles tn he xmorted for Land Levelling ------For Extension Service - - I.S 0.6 0 - - - - - 2.1 Sub-j0ail - 1-A Li a - - - - - Li VI. Calultants A Trinina - Li LA Li Li Li Li Li L LI IL VIz. Ensineerina A Administration Staffing & Nousing 0.1 0.8 1.8 4.1 4.2 3.8 5.1 5.3 6.4 7.1 38.7 Crop Compensation ------1.0 0.8 0.4 3.4 5.6 Buildings 1.2 7.8 3.0 1.5 0 - - - - - 13.S Subtal 4 LA AIA LA AA Li Li la 1QA A flasic Proiect Cost 1.4 14.6 42.2 $3.7 34.6 37.9 22.9 4-.0 47.9 62.5 346.7 VIlI. Aertal Photooraahv A ERTS VIII.Arial ,hoSparaphyERTS - 5.1 2.7 0.5 1.5 1.0 0 0.4 - 0.3 11.: ITct 1A Ila4L4 AIl ALA38. 24 A4L 62- 3lIL IX. Custom Duties and Taxes - - 17.5 9.1 2.4 0.8 13.0 0.1 18.5 61.4

I/Excludes equpnt2 41.3 62.4 .o - 25 - Table 2 PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KHAIPPUR II) (Credit648-PAK) PROJECTCOMPLETION REPORT

Cost Estimates(Rs million)

SAR Zxcl. Incl.Cont. & PCR/SAR& Cont. Price Increase PCR Coat.

I. Land Acquisition 2.0 2.6 2.3 0.88

II. Civil Works DrainageSystem 44.0 75.8 147.4 1.94 Canal Remodelling 5.5 8.6 17.2 2.00 WatercourseReconstruction 7.2 11.4 13.6 1.19 Road Improvement 3.5 5.6 11.0 1.96 Sub-Total 60.2 101.4 189.2 1.87

III. On-FarmWorks Land Levelling 25.0 38.0 0 0

IV. Eauipment,Vehicles and Materials Drainagesystem, Canals, Watercourses,Roads 59.0 78.2 69.9 0.89 O&M and Spare Parts 4.1 5.4 1.8 0.33 Sub-Total 63.1 83.6 71.7 0.86 V. AgriculturalEquipment and Vehicles For Land Levelling 9.1 12.1 - 0 For ExtensionService 1.4 1.8 2.1 1.17 Sub-Total 10.5 13.9 2.1 0.15

VI. Consultantsand Training 15.0 19.9 23.6 1.19

VII. Engineeringand Administration Staffingand Housing 7.5 9.9 38.7 3.91 Crop Compensation 1.5 2.0 5.6 2.80 Buildings 1.4 1.9 13.5 7.11 Sub-Total 10.4 13.8 57.8 4.19

Basic ProjectCost 186.2 273.2 346.7 1.27 Physical Contingencies 20.0 - - ExpectedPrice Increases 67.0 - - Total 273.2 273.2 346.7 1.27

Aerial Photographyand ERTS Survey 10.2 10.2 11.5 1.13 Total 283.4 283.4 358.2 1.27

CustomsDuties and Taxes 8.0 8.0 61.4 7.67 Total 291.4 291.4 419.6 1.44 - 26 - Table 3

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KHAIRPURII) (Credit 648-PAK)

Disbursements by Category

Development Credit ARreement Amount of the 2 of Credit Allocated Expenditures Actual Category (Expressedin US$ M) to be Financed US$ M

1. Civil Works 1.50 252 3.28

2. AgriculturalCredits through ParticipatingBanks Under Part B of the Project

(a) to farmers for land 1.00 502 of Nil levellingwork amounts disbursed

(b) to contractorsfor purchase 0.40 701 of Nil of land levellingequipment amounts disbursed

3. Equipmentand materialsother 1001 of than for land levelling foreignexpenditures or 100% of local expenditures (a) Sind 0.60 (ex-factory)for 0.20 locallymanufactured goods, or (b) WAPDA 6.00 701 7.56 of expendituresfor other locallyprocured goods

4. Technical Assistance 1.00 1001 1.25 of foreignexpenditures or 70% of local expenditures

Overseas Training 0.30 1002 of foreignexpenditures

Aerial photogr.phyand surveys 1.00 1001 0.61 of foreignexpenditures

Unallocated 2.20

12.89

Cancelled 1.11

Total 14.00 14.00 - 27 -

Table 4

PAKISTAN

KRAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDFARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RHAIRPURII)

(Credit 648-PAK)

PROJECT COMPLETIONREPORT

Maximum Discharseof Patni Distributory(1980-1987)

Year Julv August

1980 205 215 cusecs 1981 225 220 1982 230 230 1983 253 250 1984 243 255 1985 370 370 1986 360 320 1987 385 380

Source: Sind Dept of Irrigationand Power - 28 -

Table 5

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDFARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KHAIRPURII)

(Credit 648-PAK)

PROJECT COMPLETIONREPORT

Depth to Watertablea/

Area in Thousand hectares G.A. with depth to watertableranges from: Month/Year 0 - 90 Cm 91 - 150 Cm

April 1985 1.79 15.21 Oct. 1985 4.14 11.86 April 1986 1.17 12.87 Oct. 1986 4.00 10.00 April 1987 3.70 11.64 Oct. 1987 1.50 13.90

a/ Gross Area = 18.00 Thousand hectares

Source: WAPDA SMO _ 29 -

Table 6

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDFARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KRAIRPURII) (Cr. 648-PAK)

PROJECT COMPLETIONREPORT

Pre and Post ProjectGroundwater Depth (X) '

GroundwaterDepth Pre Project Post Project (cm) (Dec. 1982 Dec 1985 Dec 1986

0 - 50 52 33 11

50 - 100 39 42 73

100 - 200 9 25 15

DRIP area only

Source: Paper by M. Shaikh,R. Ahmad and A. Sipra, InternationalSeminar on HydrologicAspects of Drainage in IrrigatedAras, Tando Jan Pakistan (March28 - 30, 1988). - 30 -

Table 7

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDFARMIRIG DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KRAIRPURII)

(Cr. 648 - PAK)

PROJECT COMPLETIONREPORT

Water Quality of Sumps Discharge (Sumps 7 & 16 only)

Sump 7 Sump 16 Conductivity Conductivity Date micromhoslcm Date in micromhos/cm §gMRled at 25& C Sampled at 25s C

18.11.85 6500 19.11.85 11000 1/ 21. 5.86 6500 21. 5.86 13000 23. 5.86 6400 24. 5.86 13000 25. 7.86 3750 25. 7.86 56no 24. 8.86 5800 24. 8.86 7500 25. 9.86 5200 25. 9.86 32000 .10.86 5200 .10.86 11000 30.11.86 5000 30.11.86 13000 10.12.86 5000 22.12.86 12700 31. 1.87 5400 31. 1.87 12000 2.87 - . 2.87 - 4. 3.87 5600 4. 3.87 11000 30. 4.87 5400 30. 4.87 14500 30. 5.87 4780 30. 5.87 14000 6. 6.87 4560 30. 6.87 12000 15. 7.87 4500 15. 7.87 11000 17. 8.87 4600 17. 8.87 12000 29. 9.87 4950 29. 9.87 12000 17.10.87 4800 17.10.87 11000 11.87 - .11.87 28.12.87 4800 28.12.87 7500 27. 1.88 4700 27. 1.88 8500

Source: WAPDA SMO

V (Initial) - 31 -

Table 8

PAKISTAN

KRAIRPUR TILE DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATEDFARMING DEVELOPMENTPROJECT (KHAIRPURIT)

(Credit648-PAK)

PROJECTCOMPLETION REPORT

Preprolectand PostproiectAnalysis for GroundwaterQuality (2)

Salinity Ec Preproject Postproject Class mmhos/cm Dec. 1982 Dec. 1985 Dec. 1986

Usable 0 - 1.5 8 16 28

Marginal 1.5 - 3.0 29 40 23

Hazardous Over 3.0 53 44 49

Source: DRIP - 32 -

Table 9

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KHAIRPUR II) (Credit 648-PAK)

PROJECTCOMPLETION REPORT

Monthly Progress Report of Sumps and Pumps for the Month of Feb. 1988

Total Energy Working Hours Discharge A. Ft. Discharge Consumption Sump No. 7.5 H.P. 5 H.P in 7.5 H.P. 5 H.P. in A. Ft. KWH

1 164 18 24.11 1.76 25.87. 287 2 400 50 58.8 4.9 63.7 1,210 3 931 - 136.85 - 136.85 4,170 4/5 237 - 34.84 - 34.84 1,533 6 378 98 55.56 9.5 65.06 3,447 7 93 - 13.67 - 13.67 432 8/14 310 - 45.57 - 45.57 1,437 9 346 - 50.86 - 50.86 2,145 10 30 - 4.41 - 4.41 162 11 - 104 - 10.19 10.19 530 12 146 - 21.46 - 21.46 579 13/15 103 300 15.14 29.40 44.54 1,365 16 45 - 6.62 - 6.62 186 17 108 - 15.87 - 15.87 432 i8 130 345 19.11 33.81 52.92 1,506 19 - - - - - _ 20 - - - - - _ 21 037 - 5.44 - 5.44 146 22 06 052 0.88 5.0 5.88 176 23 381 - 56.00 - 56.00 1,968 24 - 248 - 24.30 24.30 845 25 197 - 28.96 - 28.96 879 26 145 152 21.31 - 14.89 1,146 27 137 - 20.14 - 20.14 567 28 247 - 36.31 - 36.31 891 29 31 116 4.56 11.37 15.93 531 30 - 385 - 37.73 37.73 1,407 31 - 697 - 68.30 68.30 2,309 32 - 116 - 11.37 11.37 387 33 296 08 43.51 0.78 44.29 1,455 34 88 - 12.94 - 12.94 582 35 249 - 36.00 - 36.60 1,248 36 308 229 45.27 22.44 67.71 1,860 37 214 105 31.46 10.29 41.75 1,342 38 536 - 78.79 - 78.79 2,487 39 981 - 144.20 - 144.20 5,886 40 133 - 19.55 - 19.55 754

Source: WAPDAS1O - 33 -

Table 10

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KHAIRPURII) (Credit 6L -PAK)

Crop Area, Yield and Production

Area. ha. Yield, kg/ha Production,'000 mt Base Base Base Year W W Year W W Year W W

Kharif

Cotton (lint) 3,640 730 6,300 700 700 1,400 2.5 0.5 8.8 Rice 1,530 2,430 - 1,120 1,340 - 1.7 3.3 - Sorghum 1,650 1,420 1,500 630 630 1,100 1.0 0.9 1.6 Fodder 750 750 1,000 14,000 12,000 17,000 10.5 9.0 17.0 Sugarcane - - 500 ------Dates 760 800 2,000 ------

Sub-Total 8,330 6,130 11,300

Rabi

Wheat 7,760 6,200 10,000 1,000 900 2,500 7.8 5.6 25.0 Oilseed 290 320 1,000 420 420 840 0.1 0.1 0.8 Fodder 2.580 2,450 3,000 16,000 12,800 20,800 41.3 31.4 62.4 Sugarcane - - 500 - - 42,000 - - 21.0 Dates 760 800 2,000 5,300 1/ 6,360 8.000 4.0 2/ 5.1 16.0

Sub-Total 11,390 9,770 16,500

Total 19,720 15,900 27,800

Cropping IntensityX 111 89 156

1/ Rs/ha 2/ Rs million - 34 -

Table 11

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPUR TILE DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATEDDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KHAIRPURII) (Credit648-PAK)

Estimated IncrementalCrop Production (ThousandMetric T.)

Appraisal PCR With Without With Without Project Proiect Incremental Proiect Proiect Incremental

Paddy - 3.4 -3.4 - 3.3 -3.3 Cotton 12.3 4.5 7.8 &.8 0.5 8.3 Wheat 23.7 7.6 16.1 25.0- 5.6 19.4 Sorghum 3.1 2.7 5.8 1.6 0.9 0.7 Fodder - - - 79.4 40.4 39.0 Sugarcane 138.6 35.3 103.3 21.0 - 21.0 Dates 22.6 11.1 11.5 16.0 1/ 5.1 1/ 10.9 Oilseeds 2.5 0.4 2.1 0.8 0.1 0.7 Pulses 0.4 1.1 -0.7 - - _

U Million Rupees K1AI0PL3 TILE DRAINAE MD0 I 648-P Jt PM.ECT EnAIR ItK (Credit 64848AK) Pfr ectar ut 1An rmt

cattbft nice 5 ° rmhup K. feddw1ae r oilt 1seeds AFodr SuqSma p ttes p L k ~-8ia -- -- ars-M-i L p A- b -f- L - - p A -M E L-k -- M

Seeds/kg 15 1S 15 20 20 - 15 15 15 fa So 50 100 100 100 10 10 10 IS 15 iS - - 8.000 120 120 120 1/ Fertilizer/kg S0o 0 0 50 50 - 20 20 30 20 20 30 50 50 70 30 30 40 20 20 20 - -100 605 0 100 Pao$ 25 25 30 2 25. - 10 10 1S 10 10 1S 25 25 30 1S 15 20 20 20 30 - - S0 40 40 0 KIO - - 20 10 10 20 Pesticides peraPpl. I 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 ------1.5 1 1 1.5 Labor, ma- day 78 78 88 78 80 - 20 20 25 50 50 SS 45 45 55 20 20 25 SS 55 60 - 120 40 40 40 Bullock, pair- day 20 20 20 20 20 - 10 10 12 IS IS IS IS 15 18 IS IS 15 1S 1S IS - - 20 1S 1S IS Water charge ft. 90 9090 5 85 - 38 38 38 38 38 38 50S0 0 72 7272 38 38 38 - 174 27 272 272

1/ NUser of seedlings

. ~ ~ S. - 36- ~~~~Table13

PAKISTAN KKAIIPUUTILE GRAINAGAAN10 IRRIGATEDt FAUNING UROIW PRNIU PUOJCT (IUAIRPUA Ill. CR. 548-PM 3.5 II.ctare FarmIhdel. finamial Budget flin Constnt F1850~e)

1ost ISO2 1283 tM toe IoSSI t98? tOM 1989 19910 log,

HamnProduction. Kith PrOJect/a paddy 823.2 823.2 740.9 8GM.0123.2 10. 7 482.2 381.8 197.0 6s.7I cat to" 2531.2 2531.2 2784.3 2847.6 3005.8 3480.4 3986.644740.8 6035.097609.9 9492.0 Wheat 3200.0 374. 0 4176.0 4576.0 4984.0 5944.0 6200.0 7143.4 8157.86 9446.8 tIOOO.0 Sorghum 328.09 328.9 326.9 360.2 360.2 380.2 398.7 398.71 494.1 4S4.1 574.2 Fodder 1804.0 1804.0 1804.0 2373.9S2373.5 2492.0 2810.9 2743.? 2917.0 2217.0 330. 0 as [seed" t57.5 157.5S 172.5S 172.5 187.1S 221.0 309.4 411.8 M2.6 657.0 045.0 totsl 884. 8 94211. t000M6. 110111.81t1134.3 12704.314075.8 1IS0. 8 IS29. 2 21150.425391.2 Main Production. Mitbout Project Paddy 823.2 I4269 t481.8 1149.6 606.S,01690.1 1881.6 1969.8 2191.8 2315.3 2828.4 cot tan 2531.2 2531.2 2373.0 2056.6 1740.2 1423.8 1107.4 791.0 474.8 158.S Uhat 3200.0 3180.0 3180.0 3120.0 3080.0 2888.0 2812.0 2738.0 284. 0 2148. 2340.0 Sorghuma 328.9 328.9 328.0 317.9 317.9 308.9 3O&08.9 L 298.0060 219.2 219.2 Fodder 1804.0 1804.0 1804.0 1710.0 168. 4 I68. 4 1582.I IM. 1 1499.5 1337.9 1272.0 OmIseede 157.5s 157.s 197.53 157I? IS.9 157.9975 157.5s 17. 9 157.9 117.1s 157.5 Total 8844.8 9428.4 930.1 6911.6 8586. 815. 1 7847.1 71I32.4 7268.3 67331 6611.I Incremntal Produt ion

Paddy - -03.7 -740.9 -811t63.6617 M -1087.8 -139.4 -I808.2 -1994.8 -2249.8 -228.t4 Cotton - - 411.3 791.0 1281.1620566 281M.2 3049.86982.3 7451.1 949. 0 Wheat - 04.0 1018.0 1498.0 1904.0 2868.0 3478.0 4407.4 95166 8900. 886.0 Scorgiin - - 42.3 42.3 13.2 89.8 100.7I1I8.2 234.9 358. Fodder - - 683.9 666.L2 804.7 1026.8S1181.6 1417.9 1SM59.2108.0 Osaisede - 19.0 I5. 0 30.0 87.9S 151.9 2914.3 370.1 499.1 78.1 Total 0.3 701.4 2104.2 3045.3 4510.2 62283 8286.4 11029.91441L. 18778.1 ProductionCosts. WIth Project Sao" ~~~~~~927.3982.1 970.1 I00. I1068.9 1065.1 1101.4 1122.2 1174.0 1210.9 1212.3 Vittoe 928.0 972.6 1003.9 1049.) 1091.0 1139.7 1260.0* 1291.7 1421.7 t578.8 1786.4 Plisphete 369.8 382.7 390.2 422.8 430.4 452. 489.4 503.3 534.1 576.2 051.91 Pesticides 703.0 703.0 711.1 758. 791.8 891.0 913.9 1014.5 16. 1408.4 16M.0 Annuet Draft Powor 1562.5 1807.9 1940.0 1771.9 I8039 1824.4 1927.1 1909.3 209. 3 2240.6 2392.5 ulater Charges 228.1S 232.9 238.2 247.6 212.3 259.8 263.5 273.3 287.3 302.4 323.8 Hitrd Labor. 983.0 1002.8 1032.9 1041.3 1069.8 1184.0 1222.8 I13086 1119.2 1700.1 2013.0 Total 5680.1 SM8. 1 6028.4 6348.0 6493.4 879. 7 7107.4 7503.0 8214.3 9012.3 10104.2 Production Costs. Ws%houtProject Seeds 027.3 239.3 935.1 924.2 908.4 898.9 87968 863.3 846.1 776.5 787.6 Nitroge 9281.0 988.9 977.3 944.2 914.1 688.8 898.7 823.60 791.7 742.4 730.6 Phosphate 369.8 392.4 388,.1 375.8I 384.2 354.1 342.9S 330.2 316.4 206.7 29. 4 Pesticides 703.0 764.4 754.8 684.91 817.9 155.0 499.8 432.9 373.7 314.1 205. Animal Draft Pmoer 1582.5 1868.1 1850.0 1959.0 1943.& 498.8 140. 0 1397.5 1348.8 1212.1 1237.9S water Charges 228.5 244.7 241.4 231.9 223.2 219.4 207.4 I98.6 190.1 176.7 114.4 Hired Labor 963.0 1032.3 1014.6 496.3 927.3 M88. 848.8 801.3 786.0 744.6 729.0 total 9880.1I 601.7 9961.2 9724.9 14988 9SM.19 077.9 4847.4 4097.1 4309.7 4227.7 Incremental ProducttonCosts

Seeds - 22.7 39.1t 128.4 150.1I1I8.3 222.8 2961.9 327.0 432.4 104.7I Nitrogen - -I6.1 28.6 105.0 176.9 252.9 392.3 468.1 630.0 834.4 1099.6 Phosphate -0.7 2.2 47.0 86.2 28. 6 126.9 1I3.1 219.7 276.9 358.1 Pesticides - -81.4 -3.7 74.0 IM 9 296.0 418,.1 581.6 814.40 1091.9 1369.0 Animal Graft Power - -61.3 -10.0 180.9 280.1 321.6 477.9 991.8 741.5S 988.0 1I199.0 Water Charges - -12.2 -3.3 19.7 22.1 40.4 S8.1 74.8 96.9 129.8 149.2 Hired Labor . -29.7 16.3 72.0 138.3 275.4 378.2 907.3 731.3 $99.7 1284.0

total -187.8 85.1 621.0 994.6 I4S5.2 2029.0 2569.8 3997.2 4708.8 5876.9

Not Incremntal Retuirn IV,879 638.3 1483.2 209.8I 30991.04198.4 96000.8'472.6 9710.) 128919.86

la All entries for fiscal peers ending in calender yeers eboMa Muy22. 1988 19z06 - 37 Table 14

KH"AIIIO1a1111 69413*0 no1 16914671 18931KG0151169435 flO.jlC aiU8BP Ill. Co. 048-PMt 7 Mactars Pus NOalt. F inancial Siadgs

tin Cwista,t FT66 0.eas*

19811 108 198 1984 19 85 too?198 sle tie 1is0 liii

Rain prtO,SICE. MuithProject /4 Paddr ~~~~~1646,41648.4 1509 2 13M9.4 1416.3 1175.3 934.2 123.2 394.0 131.3 Calto 4425.6 4439.6 451.1I 4717.6 5130.8 5812.3 6644.4 1201.0 1081.S *2643 tIS1520. 0 me.. 600. 0 72M8. 1984 0 8738.0 9520.0 10505.2 12002.0 13651.0 15573.6 18034.4 21000.0 sopeov- M I~548.548.1 948.1 6003 178.3 5I8.3 6341 621.5 711.5 60.5 1t.8a FQWJW ~~~~~3310.03310.0 3310.0 3512.4 3572.4 3149.9 3M4.1 4140S. 4311.4 4171.4 54010.0 Supreans - - Ift680 1612.8 25411S 3848.0 504. 0 Date 1590.0 15200 1590.0 168.0; 1663.0 1152.0 1668.8 2094.4 2422.4 MI,1.6 310. 0 0115Isom" 315.0 315.0 345.0 345.04 375.0 393.8 453.8 549.0 703.5 816.0 1280.0 Total 11839.1 19055,It19021. 4 2 1098.8a22158. 8 24054.6 21255.0 31302.7 381719. 43111.8 52I5. 6

Hamnproduictn without ProJet Padvy 16481.4 1783.6 1838.5 1244.1 300. 4 113. I 2322.6 2489.6 2718.86 2870.0 3283.0 WtOR ~~~~~~4420.84113.2 3198.8 3480.4 2164. 2847.6 2214.8 IS82. 0 049.2 318.4 W."t 8~~~~~~000.0S90. 0 5920.0 544.0 560.G0 5415.0 526. 0 5111.0 4959.0 4188.0C4320.0 SorvliW 54t 548.1 948. 1 S42.1I548. 1 54& 1 148. : U4S.I 548.1 548.1 548.1 Fodder 3310.0 3310.0 3310.0 3142.5 3142.5 342. 5 2910. 2990.0 2837.5 2837.5S 2100.0 Oates 150. 0 1580.0150. 0 1620.0 160. 0 1701.0 1101.0 1101.0 17A5.0 1780 190M8.0 Otilseeas 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 315.0 .315.0 315.0 315.0 TotlaIt 1783.119.0 17318.4 INK0. I65M0.0 108. 3 ISM5. 5 14711L.714110.4 13460.9 13074.1 lncrutalt Produt ton Paddr 131.~2 -M0.3 -S44.8 -18. I -31.0 213W4.- 114,.4 1322.6 91230.S 283.0- Cotten - 3164 854.3 1291.2 1886.8 2966.7 4429.6 6319.0 9112.3 12388.7 f820. 0 10106% ~~~~~~-1255.02048.0 2898. 318. 0 St". 2 873.0 8540.a10014.8 13248.lo 1600 SOrQtA= . 9~~~~~*2. 2 M8.2 281.2 88.1 73.4 1834 5t. 4 211.5 lod$r 420.9 421.0 601.3 950. I1I159. 8 1533.9 1533.9 2310.0 Supreans .1O. I 1812.8 2041.6 3548.0 5010.0 l3ataml 4. 48.0 51.0 161.8 393.4 637. 968.6 129.0 Oulaseda - - 30.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~30.060.0 78.8 1388 23406 3SL8 581.0 245.0

total -1435.2 280. 0 4204.72 580M& 11. 3 11200.5 t8586.0 2268KS208109 39081.5 ProductIon Closts. stilt Project Seeds 2394.8 247L.0 2481.9 2523.0 2535.5 2048.4 288. 3 3001.0 3254.0 3495.8 3779.0 *Itroge 1858.0 1958.2 19194.320"39.7 2101.3 2185.5 2343.8 25397 2818.7 3149.0 3590.2 phosphate, 731.0 l6t. I1 71.6 805.1 815.0 851.5 692.2 988. I038.2 1131.2 1290.0 Potash 5.4 S. 4 5.4 5.02 5.9 6. 5 9. 1 12.6 11.1 22.0 281.8 Ptstcud.a 1460.0 1480.0 1513.3 1539.2 1583.80S I68.I884.I 2131.1 255.4AMt305 M7.343. mnImI Draft Foew 3000.0 3105.0 3130.0 3247.1 3218.0 3201.8 3498.3 3833.6 3829.0 4123.3 4435.0 obter coros ~~409.0S13.0 S17.1 520.8 52O. 528. 551.0 S90.0 630. 612.2 725.8 Ntf 1778.IM01866.4 18a4.S 1911.3 144. 9 2118.6 2285.1 2515.8 2948. 337S..0 4058.0

Total 11742.2 12165.1112310.0 1252.2 12198.0 13225.2 14234.5S15394.7? 11108.4 12027.6 2 Mt81. Production Costit. Muthout Project see" ~~~~~~23948 2381.0 237.1. 2381.5S 2345.8 2334.5 2303.2 2212.6 2241.3 2201.8 2172.4 Nit-12110 148. 0 83.7I1864.7 1771.9 1731.1 1711.0 1641.4 1514.1 1505.1 1438.5S1392.0 PhosPhate 731.0 T23.S 112.? 690. 888.0 617.3 661.5 828,7 600,9 55.1 559. Potash 5.4 5.4 S. 4 S.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 S. 4 5.4 Peaticidda 148006 1424.5 1357.0 1201.3 1224.7 116.6. 1032.3 902.6 789.8 640.1 5i2. Ania.l Oraft P.mr 3000.0 2967.5 2920.0 286.6. 2818.0 2788.8 2658.8 255.8 2443.4 2335.0' 2219.0 Mater Charges 499.0 493.3 465.0 415.7? 448.4 459.3 440.1 422.9 404.3 388.1 371.0 Hired I~ 11786.0 1743.0 1701.9 1853.3 1804.7 3588.L0 1488.8 1374.9 1317.3 1222.4 1161.0 Total 11742.2 11500.7 11388.7 11123.8 10811.0 I088?.6 10201.9 9133.7 1247.7 8807.3 85329.

Incremental Preduction Costs

Sdse - 8.0 110.6 161.5S 189.6 211.9 483.1 7261.4 1012.7 1242.6 I608.7 Nitroge 120.5 181.6 267.8 310.2 418.5 702.4 985.0 1313.6 1114.4 2198.2 Phosphtate - 31.8 54.8 105. 3 128.1 174.2 240.8 341.3 431.3 558.0 131.0 Potash -D- - . 0.5 1.1 3.1 1.2 M1.1 15.6 23.4 Pestlcidas 5.5 155.4 241.9 358.92 520.8 832.5 1234.3 1781.2 2417.8 3011.0 8rnns1 Draft Powe 131.5 210.0 382.1 48. 0 520.0 637.5 1079.9 1385.3 11883 2160.0 vater Cawrgs is.8a 32.1 45. I 9.5 69. 7 116.3 168.0 228.6 288.1 348.8 Hired istr124.5 192.6 258.0 300.2 552.8 168.3 1140.2 ISM2.4 2153.6 288.06 Total 58.4 043.2 1468.3 1915. 2153. 4032.6 1865.0 7820.7 10220.3 130281.I

Not Incremetal dbturn - 858.08 1850.1 2140.4 3693.8 5434.7I 1651.9S10921.0 14448.8 19450.5 26053.

/a All entries for fiscal Mers enidinig in calendar years; Shout duty 32. I988 15046 - 38- Table 15

miAIIPUafILl OR*1680&NO 18810*1(0 F*831N5 OIVILOJIINI PODJCI M8NPUIl CO.648-PAR 14 Mactarefa NOodel011.iFteMiCI 6sdPI tIn Constant neegRuwee,

toot iou2 1243 1064 lO t to toyI" Isem toa too loot lain Production. with. Projct is PaddY 3618.2 31672 1251.4 30181.4 3073.a MOa.%12040. 2 IS36. 0620.6 262.6 Colton~ ~ ~ ~ ~ est. 2 Uso.~2302 2 01115.3too29.9 1 180.213210.68 t1e43.1 19162 7 25366.2 31640.0 Nh"t 1~~~~~~~2400.0 13126.0 IS1I8.0 15640.0tatOd. 0 2020.6 2264.0 26030.4 21664.0 34311.0 4000.0 SorgiumatS 1425 12.)t 141.1 I16.6 180G.6 1160.681lO.1 ItIl$.$ 1061.0S1906.0 244. 2 ladder 1692.0 1802.0 1802.0 6422.1 6422.1 5612.2 1t01.6 1166l 79fl. I 1172.1 o2se.o SUQSCate 1112.1 2410.1 $612.4 "142.0 211op00 Oates 3180.0 3160.0 3330.043802.0 4620.4 1123.2 6540.4 2330.418420.6 0235.6 1t200.0 0Gilsedat 422.1S 472.1S 111I 11.6 162.1 621.0 021.1 1231.3 11812.09101. 0 2631.0 Iota, ~~~~~~~~~~~31706.032124. 0 360001.1 41561.1 441 16. 4 09121.21164.8 63660.0 24002.15S M10.15 10407. 2 Rain Productucn. Without Project paddy 3562.2 3167.2 3162.2 3662.8 3662.16 383t.8 4204.2 4410.0 4008.3 511181.2 5000.4 Cotton 86102 6416.2 82160 28461.7 1001.2 8326.0 6601.2 4221.4 3221.3 3182.6 1182.0 Mlihat 124000 12300.0 12240.0 1108. 0 11020,.011122.0 10681.0 16664.0 126. 0 086. 0 W000. Sorgt..a ~~~~~~~~~~1431.11403.1 1403.1 1120.3 1320.3 1311.4 1311.4 1311.4 1311.4 1315.4 13IS.4 fodder 1802~~~~~~~~s.0 18m. 0 sm020 118. 0 1S83.0 118.0 130.0 1304.0 101. 1021.0 4126.0 Oat.. 3180~~~~~~~~~V4.03180.0 3160.0 3240.0 3240.0 3402.0 3402.0 3402.0 3110.0 311.6.0 3860i OfIigaCds 422.1 412.1 472.1 4722. 472.1 412.6 412.1S 422.1 412.1 422.1 422.1 Total 31206.0 35231.1 31012.9 34211.2 33304.2 32104.1 31261.3 20130.3 2811&6.626011.092121. 3 tnermanta I Producti'on Pad"Y '-301.6 -644.3 -M8. 0 -1220.3 -2111.0 -26113.1 -4081.6 -4023.1S -10004 cotton -4430.0 l044.I 110 66204. 2 1261.1 11116 11112.1 161604 226034 3&066. *Mut 1426.0 2026. 4160.0 6224.0 0032.6 110160.011486.4 10404. 0 24412.0 31000.0 Sorghum ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~21.021.09 100. 1 '0.1 241.3 403.1 403.1 652.1 612.1 1112.8 add -w 604.1 804.1 1220.2 18t1.6 22022 Mt1.I 2912.I 4486.0 sugarcaif - 1112.01 2410.2 2812.4 1413.0 1160.0 Oates fig. 0 ON2.01420. 4 2321.2 3136.8 30284 4600.6 OtI16.6 2304.0 0Oiset.da- - 40- 41.0 10.0 202.11 411.6 180 1110.4 1406.1 236. 6 Total 1802.0 31808.2 2488.3 11214.6 1202. 4 24422.1S38*2.41 4314. 0 "M6.6 26101.9

Production Costs. With Project Seeds 4810.4 482. 0 4011.2 1164.4 1126.2 W8611 6126.0SM861. 1412.1 0662 86133.6 Nutrogai 3110.0 3612.8 3002.1S4026.1 4228.8 4416.1 4601.0 5110.6 11\S 6416.4 220. 6 Phosoisate 143.1S 142.6 11I04.681101.1 1831.0 134.61 1821.0 I0M.8 21.3.0 2312.4 282.1S Potaah 10.8a 10.6a it.3 13.0 16.6 21.2 22.4 34.6 41.0 S6.3 72.0 Pasticuda. t 2111.0900.0 306.1t 31851. 3311.0 3660.6 4101.6 4818. 1424. 6 6511.0 1120.0 Animal Diraft P.. 6012.1 6022.1S 608.8 6346.I646.6 6180. 6006.0 1264.0 160.3I 824.3 881.1I Mater Charoen I001.1 tool.15 I02.0 1010.1 I008.8I 1141.12 1224.1 1201.4 1386.6 1462.8 1121.0 fluted labo 3611.0 3664.2 3713.1 3143.4 2806.44146.6 4426.6 4441.4 1660.6I 644.6 2110.0 Total ~~~~~~~~~~~23740.223634.1S24232. 253123.1 26111. 4 26104.6 29036.1 3220.09 31404.3 3942t. 1 44438.I Production Coats. Wtithout PrJojet Seed 410. 4 4787.6 4726.2 4244.0 4208.2 4811.0 4622.1 4116.6 4406.1 4431.3 4368.2 Nitrogen 3270.0 37112.6 368094 3621.0 3120.3 3411.0 3366.09 3210.3 300. 3 3001.1S 2686.4 Phosphate 1483.51t462. 2 1413.6 1420.8 1304.3 1361.3 1334.1 1226.0 1233.0 1106.6 1116.I P*tash 10.6 10.8 10.68 10.6 10.6a 16.6a 10.6 10.6a 10.6a 10.8a 10.8a pesticides 2900.0 260. 4 2856.4 2760.2 2111S.2 2421.2 2301. 1008.0 1161.1 I68. 0 1480.0 Animal craf t ADM . 012.1 1016. 1862M.1 1280.0 1621.0 1402.1 1322.1 1122.1 4042.1 4602.1 4632.1. Water Chakrgin t01. S 080.6 083 6 06.8. 040.3 016.6& 606. 616.L2 806.2 8040 111.2 Hired Lao*r 3651 0 3121.1 3148.6 3483.6 3332.4 322. 2 3111.1 2606.6t 2666.2 2688.2 2131.0 total 23740.1 23310.?723101. 3 22781.3 22111.1 2IS14.2 21026.2 IMI2. 2 II0111.0 1860.8A 1214.3I

Increinntel Production Coatat Seed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~34.4141 0 410.4 618.0 1210.1 001.4 2410.1 2024 0 3130.09 4164.2 Muroga 1.2 2.1 4116711011431. 0 IM8.3 2626.2 3414.0 4402.2 Phosphate ~~~~~21.611.2 161.2 242.1 361. 401.6 208. 680.0 1 1t3.6 1422.6 Potash - .1 3.1 1.6a 10.4 it.6 24.0o 14.1 41.1 61.2 Pestciedma - 1036 221.1 421.1S 00.1 1272.4 1208.2I 261L8. 3631.1 4814.0 62 00 Animal Draft Prm I0L.2 201.3j 168.1 642.6 w102.1 162&.S 2t*I.S 2666.8 3434.6 4211.0 Motor Charges 12t 0 30.3 63.3 ISI8.S 228.4 32.09 441.2 142.4 667.0 103.6 nited LaboW 68.1 168.3 270.6 424.0 011.4 1311.3 1900.6 644.2 311. 6 1164.0 total .483.0 10410.4 2342.2 4030.0 6079.0 80$10.312342.5 ISM0. 3 201I. 3 26183.8I ...... Om 1.cr~ts R44uw- - 1400.0 2as5.o 51084.0 714. I104. 6 15112.221128. 20108.7 38281.3 11124.1

/a All entries for fiscal years e4ndin in Calen~ mrs sImI ...... July 22. IOU 11:06 PAKISTAN

KHAIRPUR TILE DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATED FARMING IEVELOPNENT PROJECT lKHAIRPUR I1). CR. 648-PAK

Economic Benefits and Costs ______(In Million Re. Constant FY86 TertA)

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 t384 1985 1986 1987 1988

Increeantal Benefits /a - - - - - 3.4 6.5 12.3 18.5 24.4 29.0 39.3 paddy------0.2 -0.7 -1.3 -1.2 -1.6 -2.2 -2.8 - Cotton - - - - - 1.0 1.8 3.7 6.1 7.8 11.0 18.4 - Wheat - - - - - 2.4 4.6 7.3 10.2 13.1 12.8 14.5 - Sorghum - - - 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - Fodder ------0.8 0.9 1.3 2.1 2.5 - Sugarcane ------0.0 0.3 - DateS - 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.3 3.4 4.5 5.4 - Ollseeds ------0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8

Investment Costs 2.4 23.0 61.3 43.0 38.7 38.9 22.7 45.8 41.4 51.6 - - - Land Acquisition/b - 0.2 - 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 - - - - Civil Works - 4.4 11.7 19.7 19.5 24.3 14.4 14.5 33.1 37.5 - - - Vehicles and Equipment 0.2 0.8 38.9 10.4 8.6 7.4 1.6 21.2 1.2 1.2 - - - Consultants and Training - 3.7 4.5 4.3 5.0 2.7 0.1 4.0 0.5 3.4 - - - Engineering and Administration 2.3 13.9 6.2 7.6 5.0 4.2 6.5 5.9 6.4 9.S - -

Incremental O&S Costs - - - - - 3.2 3.8 4.5 B.1 5.8 7.0 7.0 W

Incremental Production Costs - - - - - 1.1 2.1 4.5 7.9 11.0 15.6 21.6 -See"s - - - - - 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.3 1.8 2.5 3.0 - Agrochemicals - - - - - 0.4 0.6 1.4 2.5 3.4 4.4 6.3 - Animal Draft Power - 0 1 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 - Labor - - - - - 0.4 0.8 1.8 3.3 4.8 7.0 10.0

Net Incremental Benefits -2.4 -23.0 -61.3 -43.0 -38.7 -39.8 -22.2 -42.6 -36.0 -43.9 6.4 10.7

Internal Rate of Return - 7.6%

I-.6 a-X

a- PAKISTAN KHAIRPUR TILE DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATEDFARMING DEVELOPMENTPRODECT (KHAIRPURII). CR. 648-PAK ------_------_--__------__----_------EconomIcBenefits and Costs (In N;lion Rs. Constant FY86 Terms)

1989 1990 1991 1992 10993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ------_------__-----_---__----_---___------

Incremental Benefits /a 53.3 70.2 95.3 99.9 104.7 109.8 15.2 118.0 117.8 117.0 117.7 117.5 - Paddy -3.6 -4.2 -5.2 -5.5 -5.8 -6.1 -6.4 -6.6 -6.6 -6.6 -6.7 -6.7 - Cotton 25.3 34.7 49.0 51.9 55.0 58.3 61.8 63.4 62.9 62.5 62.1 61.6 - Wheat 19.5 24.4 30.5 32.1 33.8 35.5 37.3 38.4 36.8 39.2 39.6 39.9 - Sorghum 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - Fodder 3.3 3.4 6.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 - Sugarcane 0.9 1.8 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 - Dates 6.7 8.3 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 - Oilseeds 1.1 1.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

Investment Costs ------Land Acquisition /b ------CivilCorks ------Vehicles and Equipment ------Consultants and Training ------_ - Engineering and Administration ------_ _ tncremental08h Costs 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 c IncrementalProduction Costs 28.6 36.9 47.5 47.8 48.2 48.5 48.9 49.1 49.2 49.3 49.4 49.6 1 - Seeds 3.6 4.2 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 Agrochemicals 8.8 12.2 16.4 16.7 17.0 17.2 17.5 17.7 17.8 17.9 18.0 18.1 - Animal Draft Power 2.9 3.8 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.e 4.6 - Labor 13.2 16.8 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 ------…______------Net Incremental Benefits 17.8 26.3 40.9 45.1 49.6 54.4 59.4 61.9 61.6 61,5 61.3 61.0

8~ PAKISTAN

KHIAIRPUR TILE DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATED FARMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KHAIRPUR tl). CR. 648-PAK ------_------__------__-----_ ----- Economic Senefits and Costs ______(In Million Rs, Constant FY66 Terms)

2001-2011 ------_-.-----.-_------__------__------

Incremental 8 ta /a 117.5 - Paddy -6.7 - Cotton 61.4 - Wheat 40.1 - Sorghum 0.9 - Fodder 5.1 - Sugarcane 4.4 - Dates 9.8 - O0lseeds 2.4

Investment Costs - - Land Acquisition lb - Civil Works - Vehicles and Equipment - Consultants and Training - Engineering and Administration -

Incremental OSM Costs 7.0

Incremental Production Costs 49.6 - Seeds 5.2 - Agrochemicals t8.2 2 - Animal Draft Power 4.6 - Labor 21.7

Net Incremental Benefits 60.9

------__ /a All entries for fitsal years ending In calendar years shown. /b Used as proxy for benefIts foregone. ------_-----_-----_------_------_---__------__-----__----- July 26. 1988 20:27 WI5- 0% - 42 -

Table 17

PAKISTAN

KRAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDFARMING DEVELOPENT PROJECT (KRAIRPURII) Credit 648-PAK

PROJECT COMPLETIONREPORT

Prices Used in Financialand Economic Analysis (in Rupees)

Financial Economic Prices Unit Prices 85/86 89/90 94/95 99/00

Outputs

Paddy t 2,450 1,853 1,549 1,960 2,060 Cotton t 4,520 5,531 5,469 7,438 7,413 Wheat t 2,000 2,327 1,596 1,922 2,056 Sorghum t 1,740 1,133 663 1,132 1,238 Kbarif fodder t 130 117 117 117 117 Rabi Fodder t 150 135 135 135 135 Surgarcane t 300 - 4 118 204 211 Dates t 1,260 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 Oilseeds t 3,750 3,375 3,375 3,375 3,375

Inputs

Seeds - Paddy t 3,400 2,780 2,324 2,940 3,090 - Cotton t 3,600 4,405 4,356 5,924 5,904 - Wheat t 2,900 3,490 2,394 2,883 3,084 - Sorghum t 2,300 1,700 995 1,698 1,857 - Kharif Fodder t 2,500 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 - Rabi Fodder t 40,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 - Oilseeds t 4,300 3,870 3,870 3,870 3,870 SugarcaneCuttings t 200 180 180 180 180 Seedlings(dates) No. 20 18 18 18 18 Fertilizer - Nitrogen t 5,800 6,178 6,660 8,049 8,574 - Phosphate t 4,300 5,449 5,554 6,873 7,147 - Potash t 1,800 3,527 3,298 3,791 4,089 Pesticides Appl./ha 740 666 666 666 666 Bullock Pairday 25 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5

Labor Day 30 27 27 27 27

Note: Economic prices of internationallytraded commoditiesare based on World Bank comuodityprice forecasts(January 1988) while those of non-tradedgoods are based on domestic financialprices observed in 1985/86. - 43 -

Table 18

PAKISTAN

KHAIRPURTILE DRAINAGEAND IRRIGATEDDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KHAIRPURII) (Credit 648-PAK)

PROJECTCOMPLETION REPORT

WholesalePrice Index & AdiustmentFactor for Investment Costs

WholesalePrice Index AdjustmentFactor 1/ 1975/76=100

1976/77 111.92 1.96 1977/78 120.81 1.81 1978/79 128.85 1.70 1979/80 144.73 1.51 1980/81 163.69 1.34 1981182 176.16 1.24 1982183 182.27 1.20 1983/84 201.38 1.09 1984/85 213.07 1.03 1985/86 218.88 1.00

1/ Multiplicativeadjustment factor for restatingcosts in 1985/86 prices.

Source: Pakistan Ecomomic Survey 1984/85, Finance Division,GOP Pakistan's Key Economic Indicators,Vol. 20, Numbers 6 and 9, June/September 1986. P"KtSTMI

KIMWRMTILE I33I ND INIUGEI) SEWLMOR JECTOGtAfRR 11) (Credit 68-O IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

1983 *904 1905 6986 ._____ ._,1976 __ 197 7 6978 *99 6900 6980 1 902

Cultants - Selection 8 oirtmnt * - tq,st **

E%sipmnt-Scification 8iig *i*k**0 0 * * * 0 0 DeLivery

Disposal brains Spss **

Codlectors8 LateraLs * *t *- * - e- e * _.

CaiLsdlling 0000 0000> 0000- 0005000

_ iat Remssesirs s es .g. - s* _

Rcad Iuprtvs :ts eeoc ** * *__

SOR~- - - _

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Octual MAPSECTION IBRD11528Rl

PAKISTAN ~,. Khairpur Tile Droinage and . Irrigated Forming DevelopmentProject Khairpur11 Project -- Projectarea boundary Main canals - Maindrains & - Brnch/other canals Branch drains Main roads(metalled) Unmetaliedroads -- +-.Railway d0 urbatnareas .*.. District bounary l - -- - Tluka boundary * KhairpurI (SCARP)tubewelis Area ®),1o be tile dratned '- Area ISXdrained by K

IRPUAHANIRSTA

I > RoAZI I ) ' .

/ | \ W, }//X+** °t. !~~~~~~~~~~~~~02 3 < < J DW/<7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shahid.ML

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S|_. s.s PAKISTANSvX

TA LUKA 1986

/ t ||S t^~~~~~~~FGHANISTAN{ f so> = Sa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f: