Public Disclosure Authorized 'N' -4 1,-F f: R~~~~~~~~~`;r],.

P.AKIS"IAN~ DRAINAGE SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT'

-NATIONAIL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME Public Disclosure Authorized

CONCEPT FRAMEWORK NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME Public Disclosure Authorized

-i NTINIMLTDRANG .11 jIneratonl imto JUNE 1993 41~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,_,_ _ __!_' _ __.

MI. sm. y Public Disclosure Authorized

NATIONAL ENGINEERING Mott SERVICESPAKISTAN (PVT) ) ) 1 MacDonald DRAINAGESERVICES Limited ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

WATER A POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

PAKISTAN DRAINAGE SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME

MAIN REPORT: VOLUME 2

CONCEPT FRAMEWORK NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME

JUNE 1993

NE E NATIONAL ENGINEERING Mott SERVICES PAKISTAN (PVVT) 1 1 1 MacDonald 1 LIM1TED J Intcrnational Limitcd PAKISTAN DRAINAGE SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME

(LIST OF VOLUMES)

VOLUME I - PAKISTAN DRAINAGE SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

VOLUME 2 - CONCEPT FRAMEWORK NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME

VOLUME 3 - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS

VOLUME 4 - DATA (WATER, SOIL & AGRICULTURE) PAKISTAN-DRAINAGE SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME

LIST OF CONTENTS

Page Nr.

List of Contents i

List of Tables iv

List of Figures v

Abbreviations vi.

LocalTerms x

ConversionTable xi

Soil and Water Quality Definitions xi

VOLUME 2

CONCEPT FRAMEWORK NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME

CHAPTER 9 NATIONALDRAINAGE PROGRAMME

9.1 Objectives of the Programme Approach 9-1

9.2 Justification or the ProgrammeApproach 9-1

9-2.1 Problemswith Large Projects 9-1 9.2.2 Advantagesof the ProgrammeApproach 9-3 9.2.3 EconomicJustification of the ProgrammeApproach 9-3

i 9.3 Concept Framework for the Drainage Programme 9-9

9.3.1 Goals and Objectives 9-9 9.3.2 Continuity and Dependency of Schemes 9-10 9.3.3 Proposed Concept Framework 9-11

9A Preliminary Costing and rimetable ° 2

9.4.1 Drainage Interventions to be Costed 9-12 9.4.2 Budget and Timetable 9-15

9.5 Investments in Drainage Sector 9-16

APPENDIX - IX

CHAPTER 10 FUTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROGRAMME APPROACH

10.1 Introduction 10-1

10.2 Projects and Programmes in the Drainage Sector 10-1

10.3 Programme Preparation 10-2

10A Development of a Participatory Approach 10-3

10.5 Preparation of the National Drainage Programme Outline Terms of Reference 104

10.6 Monitoring and Research 10-6

10.6.1 Major Issue 10-6 10.6.2 Monitoring and Research Needs 10-7 10.6.3 Data Requirements 10-8 10.6.4 Research Needs 10-9

10.7 Operation and Maintenance 10-10

10.8. Drainage Cess 10-11

CHAPIER 11 ROLE FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR ACTION (including reference to social aspects)

11.1 Introduction 11-1

11.1.1 Towards a Role Franework 11-1 11. 1.2 Policy, Standards and Legislation 11-2 11.1.3 Planning 11-2

.. 11.1.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 11-4 11. 1.5 Recurrent Physical Monitoring and Analysis 11-4 11.1.6 Implementation 11-5

11.2 Existing Situation 11-5

11.2.1 General Constraints 11-5 11.2.2 Deficiencies and Gaps in Responsibilities 11-7 11.3.3 Drainage Operation and Maintenance 11-8

11.3 Guidelines ror Action 11-9

11.3.1 Defining a Role Framework 11-9 11.3.2 Environmental Assessment 11-13 11.3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation 11-13 11.3.4 Physical Monitoring and Analysis 11-14 11.3.5 Drainage Management and Finance 11-15

CHAPTER 12 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

12.1 Introduction 12-1

12.2 Background 12-1

12.2.1 Previous Findings 12-I 12.2.2 Current Training Programmes 12-2

123 Training Needs Assessment 12-4

12.3.1 Specific Areas for Training 12-4 12.3.2 Institutions and Staff 12-6

12.4 Recommended Training Programmes 12-8

12.4.1 Seminars and Workshops 12-8 12.4.2 In-country Training Programmes 12-9 12.4.3 Out-of-country Training 12-12

12.5 Conclusions and Future Action 12-12

APPENDIX - Xn

... LIST OF TABLES

Table Nr. Page Nr.

9.1 Comparison of Projects and Programmes 9-4

9.2 Comparison of Projects and Programmes 9-6

9.3 Eftect of Delay on Equivalent Projects and Prograrvmes 9-7

9.4 Economic Gains of the Programme Approach 9-8

9.5 Concert Framework for the National Drainage Programme 9-13

9.6 Preliminary Budget and Timetable for the National Drainage Programme (Rs M at 1993 prices) 9-17

9.7 Anticipated Drainage Sector Investments 9-18

Appendix-lX Comparison of Projects and Programmes I Large Project Delayed (Establishment Trimmed) 2 Large Project Delayed (Establishment Maintained) 3 Equivalent Programme Delay (Establishment Trirmmed) 4 Equivalent Programme Delay (Establishment Maintained) 5 Analysis of Equivalent Projects and Programmes

11.1 Categories for Key Environmental Activities in Development Planning and Implementation 11-1

11.2 Irrigation. Drainage and the Environment Proposed Institutional Responsibility Chart 11-10

12.4 Seminars on Environmental Assessment in the Drainage Sector 12-10

12.5 Four Week Intensive Course on Environmental Assessment and the Drainage Sector 12-11

12.6 Training for Farmer Participation Workshops (Training for Trainers) 12-13

Appendix-XII 1 Recommendations/Activities from First Workshop on Environmental Impact Assessment in Drainage Sector in Lahore - April 1992 2 Recommendations/Activities from Two-day Seminar in Lahore - September, October 1992 3 Recommendations/Activities from Two-day Seminar in Karachi - October 1992

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Nr.

9.1 Comparison of Projects and Programmes

11.1 Canal Revenues and O&M Costs

11.2 BalochistanIrrigation and Power Department Key Elements HighlightingDrainage O&M

11.3 Sindh Irrigation and Power Deparanent Key Elements HighlightingDrainage O&M

11.4 WAPDA: Key Elementsof Proposed Organization to strengthen Planning and Environment

12.1 Short-term In-Country Training Programmes

v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A

Ac Acre ACE Associated Consulting Engineer (Pvt) Limited ADBP Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan ADB Asian Development Bank ADP Annual Development Programme APCC Annual Plan Coordination Committee AXEN Assistant Executive Engineer

B

Bcm Billion cubic meter BM&E Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation BMIAD Balochistan Minor Irrigation and Agriculture Development

C

CAA Civil Aviation Authority CDWP Central Development Working Party CE Chief Engineer cfs Cubic feet per second CSU Colorado State University CWM Command Water Management

D d day DRIP Drainage and Reclamation Institute of Pakistan DSEA Drainage Sector Enviromnental Assessment

E

EAD Economic Affairs Division EC Electrical Conductivity ECNEC Executive Committee for National Economic Council EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPC EnvirommentalProtection Council

F

FFC Federal Flood Commission FGW Fresh Ground Water FIDIC Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs- Conseils

vi G g gramme GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographical Information Systems GM General Manager GW gigawatt

H h hour ha hectare hm hectare-meter hmi3 cubic hectometre

I

IBM Indus Basin Model IBMR Indus Basin Model (Revised) IBWR Indus Basin Water Authority IDA International Development Association IDC Interest during construction IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IRA Indus River Authority ISM Irrigation System Management ISRP Irrigation System Rehabilitation Project IWASR. International Waterlogging and Salinity Research Institute

K kg kilogramme km kilometre km2 square kilometre kt kilotonne kw kilowatt kwh kilowatthour

L

LBOD Left Bank Outfall Drain

M

M Million m metre M2 square metre m3 cubic metre Ma million acre Mha Million bectare Maf million acre feet M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

vii ME&R Monitoring Evaluation and Review Cell Mhim million hectare meter mm millimeter mm2 square millimetre MMI Mott MacDonald International Ltd, (UK) Mt million tonne MW megawatt

N

NCA National Commission on Agriculture NCS National Conservation Strategy NDP National Drainage Programme NEC National Economic Council NESPAK National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt) Limited N/K Net Benefit Investment Ratio NPV Net Present Value NWFP North West Frontier Province

0

ODA/UK Overseas Development Administration of UK OFWM On Farm Water Management OMR Operation, maintenance & replacement O&M Operation & maintenance

P

PAD Provincial Agriculture Department PBME Project benefit monitoring and evaluation PC Planning Commission PCW Punjab Cotton Wheat PC-I to PC-V Planning Commission Proforma(s) PDWP Provincial Development Working Party PHED Public Health Engineering Department PEPO Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance PEA Punjab Engineering Academy PEPC Pakistan Environmental Protection Council PID Provincial Irrigation & Power Department PWD Public Works Department P&D Planning and Development PMW Punjab Mixed Wheat PRW Punjab Rice Wheat PSW Punjab Sugarcane Wheat

R

RSC Residual Sodium Carbonate RAP Revised Action Plan RBMP Right Bank Master Plan RBOD Right Bank Outfall Drain

viii s s second SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio SCARP Salinity Control and Reclamation Project SCWN Sindh Cotton Wheat North SCWS Sindh Cotton Wh.!at South SE Superintending Engineer SGW Saline Ground Water SMO SCARP Monitoring Organisation (WAPDA) SRWN Sindh Rice Wheat North SRWS Sineh Rice Wheat South

T t tonne

U

USAID United States Agency for Intemational Development w

W watt WAPDA Water and Power Development Authority WASA Water and Sanitation Agency Wh watthour WRP Water Resources Planning WSIPS Water Sector Investment Planning Study WUA Water User Association x

XEN Executive Engineer y y year

ix DESCRIPTlON OF LOCAL TERMS

Bandat Eardhenembankment corstructed along the contour forming rectangularponds

Barani Rainfed areas

Bosi Winter crop grown largely on residual moisturefor summer crops but which has one irrigation.

Bunds Earthen embankments

Chak An area servedby a watexcourse

Dubari Winter crop grown using the residual moisture from the summer crops

Gur Crude sugar prepared at farm from the sugar cane

Gandas Local name for earthen embankmentsconstructed alongthe contour to hold water

Hari Sharecropper

Karez A horizontal hand excavated gravity flow well generally used to obtain irrigation water in Balochistan

Kharif Summercropping season, Ist April to 30th September

Mogha Uncontrolledoutlet from parent canalto watercourse

Pattan Tribe name

Pancho Water Water drained from rice fields during the periodic replacementof standing water

Rod kohi Traditionalsystem of flood irrigationfrom hill torrents debouchingto plains

Rabi Wintar croppingseason, Ist October to 31st March

Riwaj-e- Set of rules for diverting water for irrigation Abpashi from flows in a naturalchannel

Sui Gas Natural gas obtainedfrom Sui fields in Balochistan

Wah Local term for hill torrent

Zam Local term for hill torrent

Zamindar Large Landowners

x CONVERSIONTABLE

EnglishUnits MetricUnits 1 inch Oin) = 25.4 millimetres (mm) 1 foot (ft) = 30.5 centimetres (cm) 1 yard (yd) = 0.915 meters (m) 1 mile (mi) = 1.609 kilometres(km) 1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectares (ha) 1 square mile (sq.mi) = 259 ha I pound (lb) = 0.454 kilograms (kg) I long ton (lg ton) = 1.016 metric tons (t) 3 1 cubic foot/second(cfs) - 0.0283 cubic meterslsecond(m /sec) = 28.32 litres/second (1/see) I acre foot (AF) = 1 233.5 cubic meters(m3) I parts per million (ppm) I milligramllitre(mg/I) = 0.00156 millimbo/cm (mmhoJcm) = 0.00156 decisemenlmeter (dSWm)

SOIL AND WATER QUALITYDEFINITIONS Soils

Description Class ECe SAR (dslm) Surface Salinitv Non saline Si < 4 Slightlysaline S2 4-8 Moderatelysaline S3 8-15 Highly saline S4 > 15

Soils SalinitvJSodicity Nonsaline-Nonsodic NS-NS < 4 < 13 Saline Nonsodic S-NS > 4 < 13 Saline-Sodic SS > 4 > 13 Nonsaline-Sodic NS-S < 4 > 13

Prrrl:e Classification(0-180 cm) No salinityor sodicity at any depth: NS-NS Salinitypresent but no sodicityat any depth: S-NS Salinityand sodicitypresent at any depth: SS No salinitybut sodicitypresent at any depth: NS-S

Water Description EC*106 EC SAR RSC (micro- (dSJm) mhos/cm)

Fresh (usable) < 1500 < 1.5 <10 <2.5 Marginal 1500-3000 1.5-3 10-S18 2.5- 5 Hazardous 3000+ 3+ 18+ 5+

xi CHAPTER 9

NATIONAL DRAINAGE PROGRAMME

9.1 Objectives of the Programme Approach

The programme approach to drainage is understoodhere to mean the implementationof drainageby mean of a series of interventionsin the form of schemes(structural intervention) and changes in water managementpractices (non-structural interventions), coming under the 'umbrella' of a standardised set of procedures for their selection, financing and implementation.

The prinmaryobjectives of the programmeapproach derived from the Terms of Referenceare: a) To overcome the perceived shortcomings of the normal project approach and particularlythe time taken in starting up and completingindividual projects; b) That the projectstend to be area-specificand thus concentrateinvestment in favoured areas whereas, the greatest need for drainage is now in small a'reas rather than in project-scaleblocks. c) AffordingGOP and Provincialofficials flexibilityin tacldingdisaster problem areas withoutthe rigiditiesof projects;

The desire for a differentapproach is based on the reasonableview that the time taken over projects is too long and that by allowingpriority to be given to the small areas, it may be possibleto improvethe economicreturns to investmentin drainageand also reduce adverse environmentalimpacts. A properly focused programmneapproach could therefore, improve the overall efficiencyand acceptabilityof drainage investment.

There are, however,special constraints in applyingthe programmeapproach to the drainage sector. In contrast to On Farm Water Management (OFWM) and Irrigation System Rehabilitation(ISR) programmes,which relate to rehabilitationand improvementof existing facilities,in drainagesector major new facilitiesmay have to be created particularlywhen it comes to the disposalof very salinedrainage water, and these constraintsneed to be identified and examinedobjectively.

9.2 Justification of the Programme Approach

9.2.1 Problerms with Large Projects

The basic objective of the progranune approach derives from its perceived comparative advantageover projects. Large projects looking for fundingby external donor agencies,go through a very long gestationof 2-3 years, often much longer, before constructionbegins. The problem does not end there as these require large resources in terms of manpower,

9-1 offices, equipment and above all, finances. The competition for finances results in underfundingand large projectstaking muchlonger to completethan technicallyfeasible. This increasescosts and reducestheir viability(by delayingbenefits as well as increasingcosts).

Such projectsshould restrain further investmentbut becauseof the socio-politicalpressure for new projects in new areas, more and more projects are started with the result that there is effectivelya block on anythingbeing completed.

One solutionhas been to stage projects, completingthose componentsand areas which can be completedand postponingthe others to a late stage. However, the freedomto convert an on-goingproject into what is, in affect, a programmeof staged developmentis usually very limited. Drainage pumps must be provided with electricity(the usual source of power) and a meansof disposingof salinewater, and in this way, each componentdrags along the others, no matter how late they may be.

Once one or two contractshave been started, projectsare rarely divisiblealthough sometimes it is possibleto leaveout part of the area. However,this concentratesthe projecton a smaller area and in practice, this is doneonly wherethere are reasonsother than financialstringency to justify omissionof part of the area (for example,unit H of SCARPVI becauseit has fresh groundwater,or area C of SouthRohri becauseof private tubewelldevelopment).

More often completionof large projectsis held up by one or two components,often thosethat appear least critical at the start of the project but run into contractualdifficulties (eg the surface drains for Mardan SCARP, and the same for Nawabshahsub-project of LBOD). These difficulties are particularly likely with contracts made large enough to attract internationalcontractors but too large for the local contractorswho often win them, to resource adequately. The programme approach might provide a continuum of smaller contractswhich although more costly to supervise,would providethe opportunityto identify and build up more capable local contractors.

Anotherproblem with large projects is the unevenloading they place on the implementation agencies,and this is only partly overcomeby the use of consultants.This unevenloading is increasedby the separationthat occursbetween the effortsand thinkingthat goes into setting up the project, and that which goes into construction,with quite different people being involvedin the two activities.

When it becomes necessary to modify the project during constructionin order to get it completed, it is unlikely that the changeswill be decidedby criteria completelyconsistent with those used in the originalproject formulation.It is rare for agriculturalpractices and economicsto be consideredonce the project has been started. Also it is unlikelythat there will be much feedbackfrom constructionto the formulationof the next project. Thus, both planners and constructorslive in separateworlds, each blamingthe other or that third force, the operators, for the project's shortcomings.

The differentperception of these shortcomingsare revealingbecause they tell us much about the problemsof large projects. Whereas planners terndto grumble that the contractorsand operators of drainage projectsfavour expediencyat the expenseof benefits and extra costs, conators and operators often complain the projects are unnecessarilycomplicated and expensiveto build and operate. In part, these are both aspects of the same problem, namely that extra resourcesand effort are required to hold large projects on course and responsive to their originalobjectives. Also, with increasingdemands on resources,particularly finance,

9-2 the WSIPShas shownthat it is not reasonableto expectthese resourcesto be easy to come by. A new more flexible approachis required with more divisible investmentable to make more efficientuse of resourcesas these becomeavailable.

9.2.2 Advantages of the Progrnane Approach

The precedingsection on the problemswith large projects has pointed to several potential advantagesof a programmeapproach whichinclude:

- divisibilityof investment,enabling a more flexibleresponse to availableresources and evolvingneeds;

- continuity(if not constancy)of effort, enablinga closerrelationship between planning and construction;

- sharper focusingon areas of greatest need (for exanple pocketsof high waWrtable and impededsurface drainage);

- wider distributionof such areas giving the flexibility to deal with problems on a regionalscale, not just within a particularproject area;

- quicker gestationof individualschemes once the programmeframework has been set up;

- smaller parcels of work with less risk of one contact holding up others, and the opportunityto rectify problems before allowing weak contractorsto participate in further schemes.

9.2.3 Economic Justification of the Pogranmme Approach

The economicadvantage of a programmeapproach is illustratedby an analysissimilar to that carried out by the WSIPS(Main Report, Section5.2.4) to showthe impactof delays due to underfundingon large projects. Table 9.1 analysesthe financesand economicsof a project similar to that analysed by the WSIPS. Under the ideal oDnditionsassumed at the project inception,this project was expectedto take four years to constructat a cost allowingfor price inflation,of Rs 4 billion. If interestduring construction ([DC) is chargedat the full compound rate, then this cost rises to Rs 4.93 billion. Either way, the economicreturn would yield a net benefit investmentratio (N/K ratio) of 1.40 (12% discountrate) and an internal rate of return MRR)of 16.2%. This is reasonablyrepresentative of the return which might be expectedfrom a drainageproject of this size.

It is, however, a large project to resourcefully within four years and the WSIPS has given examplesof large projects which typically take twice as long to complete as they should becauseof intatable constraintson fundingand other resources. Changingthe parameters in Table 9.1 models what happenswhen the same project is delayedso that as well as taking somewhat longer to start, it also takes double the time to construct as was originally envisaged.The results are given in Appendix IX. These show that even if the supervision establishmentis trmed to take accountof the lowerlevel of activity, price inflationpushes the cost of the project up from Rs 4 billion to Rs 5.1 billion. If IDC is added, then the

9-3 TABLE 9.1 Compariso of Procs and Progam_m

A. LARGE PROJECT UNDER IDEAL CONDMONS

Basic mpins Stat of Conscio (year) 4 Incrcmna Bancfitwith Projed (Rs Wyear) 682 rTm for Project Prepratio (as) 1.5 Build-up of B8neft (years) 2.0 rTm for Project Approval (yars) 1.5 O&M Costs (% bas cost of woks) 3.0% Period of Consruction (ars) 4.0 Foreign Exchng Conte (% of cot of works) 50% Preparation Costs (% total cost of works) 3.0% Ecomic Conversin Factor (Rupec coats only) 0.9 Supervion Costs (% of cost of works) 7.5% DiscountRate 12.0% IlteretDuring Construcion 12.5%5 Year BaseCost (Rs M) Coat iad Inflation EconomicCost Benefits ( M) Discounted* Negtive Positive Nr Works Estab Rs M IDC O & M Total Grss Net Costs Benefits Strm Stm I 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 25.0 27.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 4 625.0 46.9 862.6 53.9 0 641 0 -641 407 0 -407 0 5 625.0 46.9 936.7 166.4 0 641 0 -641 364 0 -364 0 6 625.0 46.9 1.017.9 288.5 0 641 0 -641 325 0 -325 0 7 625.0 46.9 1.106.2 421.3 75 716 0 -716 324 0 -324 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 341 266 30 138 0 107 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 27 246 0 219 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 24 220 0 195 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 22 196 0 174 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 19 175 0 156 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 17 156 0 139 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 15 140 0 124 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 14 125 0 III 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 12 Ill 0 99 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 11 99 0 88 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 10 89 0 79 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 9 79 0 70 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 8 71 0 63 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 7 63 0 56 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 6 56 0 50 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 6 50 0 .45 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 5 45 0 40 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 4 40 0 36 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 4 36 0 32 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 4 32 0 28 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 29 0 25 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 25 0 23 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 23 0 20 2500 263 44001 930 1800 4363 15345 10983 1681 2243 -1419 1982 Tota Cost (at constantprices) 2.763 NIK = 1.40 NPV 563 Total Cost (ic inflaodC) 4.931 BIC Ratio = 1.33 IRR 16.2% Notes: * excluding costs of initialpreparation and IDC ** costs and benefits discountedto year I hIflation assumed as for the WSIPS (7.5% on Rupcccoats. circa 10% on forcign costs) IDC calculatedon cumulativecosts (at current prices) up to currets half year

9-4 funding requirementgoes up from Rs 4.93 billion to Rs 7.46 billion, thus making it very difficultto completethe projectwithout reducing its scope. Even if the projectis completed in fill, benefits are delayedwith the result that the N/K ratio is reduced from a respectable 1.40 to a marginal 1.02 (IRR 12.2%).

In reality, it is likely that the establishment(staff, offices, vehicles etc) retained for supervisionof the delayedproject will be very similarto that requiredfor the originalproject and in this case the cost of the delayedproject will rise to Rs 5.54 billion or Rs 7.98 billion with IDC and the economicreturn represented by the NIK ratio, will fall to 0.95. That means that the project no longer remaminseconomically viable.

An equivalentprogramme on the other hand wouldprobably be more expensiveto supervise and loose some of the economiesof scale of a well run large project, but it shouldbe able to generatehigher benefitsby sharperfocusing on real needs.Table 9.2 modelsa programme of similar size to the project shown in Table 9.1. For ease of comparisonit is assumedthat the progranmmetakes as long to prepare as the project, but the costs wouldbe lower as some of the effort (eg feasibilitystudies of individualschemes) is transferred to programme supervision(the costs of which are thereforeincreased). The costs of initialpreparation are included in the financial cost stream (as the establishmentcosts in years 1-2) fur both the project (Table 9.1) and the equivalentprogramme (Table 9.2) to give a consistentcomparison of total costs. However, followingthe usual practice, the initial preparationcosts are not includedin the economicanalysis which is affectedfar more significantlyby the fundamental advantagesof the programmeapproach, namely

- the abilityto completethe first schemesearly in the programmeand start buildingup benefits (albeit withsome O&M costs) well before the alternativeproject shows any reurn; and

- the ability to increasethe scale of the benefits by sharper focusingon areas of real need (a 10% increase in benefits has been assumed, the conditionsfor which are discussedlater).

Table 9.2 assumesthat under idealconditions the first schemescould be evaluated,designed, tenderedand constructedwithin two years of the start of the project. As in the case of the project, the build up of benefits after completionof the works shouldbe very rapid (within two years). This is becausedrainage benefits derive mainlyfrom alleviatingexisting losses.

Comparisonof the programme(Table 9.2) with the original project (Table 9.1) show that the programmeapproach is expectedto producea NIK of 1.87, whereasthat of the project was 1.40. This represents a Rs 501 M or 89% gain in net present value (NPV) from the advantagesof the programmeapproach.

Another benefit of the programmeis that IDC should be greatly reduced by handing over individualschemes as they are commissioned.Although this has no impact on the economic comparisons,it reducesthe perceivedfunding requirement of the projectshown in Table 9.1 from Rs 4.93 billion, to Rs 4.50 billion (Table 9.2). It would be nice to believe that this would nuakeit easier fur fill fundingto be maintained,however, the oppositeis more likely since, as it will be shown below, the programmeis able to withstandcut backs in funding with less damagethan projects.

9-5 TABLE 9.2 Comparison of Prtjects nd Pmgrammes

B. EQUIVALENTPROGRAMME

Basc assumptions S5t of Programme(year) 4 IncremcantBcnefit with Programme(Rs M/year 750 rime for ProjectPreparation (years) 1.5 Timc to Completionof First Scheme(years) 2.0 Time for Project Approval (years) 1.5 Build-up of Benefits (years) 2.0 Durationof Programme(years) 4.0 O&M Costs(% basecost of works) 3.0% PreparationCoats (% totalcost of works) 2.0% ForcignExchangc Conent (% of comtof works) 50% SupervisionCoas (% of costof work.s) 10.0% EconomicConversion Factor (Ru.pee costs only) 0.9 InterestDuring Construction 12.5% DiscountRate 12.0% Year BaseCost (Rs M) Costincl Inflation EconomicCost Bcncfits(Rs M) Discounteod*Negative Positive Nr Works Estab Rs M IDC O & M Total Gross Nct Costs Bcnefits Strcam Stream I 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 16.7 18.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 625.0 62.5 882.6 55.2 0 656 0 -656 417 0 -417 0 5 625.0 62.5 958.5 115.1 0 656 0 -656 372 0 -372 0 6 625.0 62.5 1.041.6 125.0 56 713 188 -525 361 95 -266 0 7 625.0 62.5 1.131.9 135.8 75 731 375 -356 331 170 -161 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 563 488 30 227 0 197 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 27 270 0 243 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 24 241 0 217 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 22 216 0 194 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 19 l93 0 173 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 17 172 0 155 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 15 153 0 138 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 14 137 0 123 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 12 122 0 110 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 11 109 0 98 IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 10 98 0 88 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 9 87 0 78 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 8 78 0 70 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 7 69 0 62 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 6 62 0 56 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 6 55 0 50 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 7S 750 675 5 49 0 44 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 4 44 0 40 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 o75 4 39 0 35 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 4 35 0 32 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 3 31 0 28 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 3 28 0 25 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 3 25 0 23 2500 300 4066 431 1856 4481 17625 13144 1743 2807 -1217 2281 Total Coat(at constantpriccs) 2.800 N/K = 1.87 NPV 1.064 TotalCost (me inflahionl11C)4.497 B/C Patio = 1.61 IRR = 20.5% Notes: excludingcosts of initial preparationand IDC 0* costsand beaefits discounted to year I Inflationassumed as for the WSIPS(7.5% on Rupeecots. circa 10% on foreign costs) IDC calculatedon costs (at current prices) in prcviousfnaucial year only

9-6 Indeed, in the current economic climate, one of the main justifications for a programme approach is its resilience to cut backs when, as usually happens, resources are limited and projects and programmnessuffer underfunding. Bothtypes of investmentwill suffer extra cost due to lower utilisationof the original establishment,but the programmetype of investment should be able to complete schemes, save IDC and start earning benefits. Moreover, if the reduced level of funding is likely to last for sometime, or is anticipatedin the first place, the programme could be made to adjust its targets accordinglyand reduce its establishmentto level required for the lower level of output.

Table 9.3 and Figure 9.1 summarisethe impact of a range of delays on the economicsof the project and programme approaches presented in Table 9.1 and Table 9.2. Examples of the results for 100% delay (to 8 years duration), with and without associated trimming of the supervisionestablishment, are given in Appendix IX.

TABLE 9.3

Effect of DeLay on Equivalent Projects and Prograi_es

Project Approach Pror_rammeApproach Delay Start Duration ------Year (years) Cost Rs N Cost Rs M N/K Ratio Cost Rs N Cost Rs N N/K Ratio excl IDC incl IDC excl IDC incl IDC

0Z 4 4 4.001 4,931 1.40 4,066 4,497 1.87 50X 5 6 4,900 6,563 1.15 5,037 5,597 1.92 1001 5 a 5,541 7,976 0.95 5,752 6,407 1.93 1501 5 10 6.275 9.621 0.78 6,575 7,330 1.89

Notes: 1. Costs are at current prices tie inctuding inflation) 2. The annual costs of supervision are assumed to be the same in aLL cases (ie establishment maintained) 3. Graphs in Figure 9.1 assume a start in year 5 for all cases (includingno delay)

Figure 9.1 shows the very great increasein costs whichdelay causes, especiallywith projects if IDC is applied. The application of IDC was criticised by the WSIPS because it had the effectof reducingthe real rate of funding and therebyholding up project completion, the very opposite of what it was intendedto do. It is also appliedin differentways and the calculation used here is probably conservative. All that can be said is that the programme approach, if efficientlymanaged, should incur less IDC and that real costs Ciewithout IDC) will be only slighdy more than an equivalentproject.

The small amount extra real costs ascribed to the programme approach (allowing for the savings in preparation effort) are necessary because the success of programmes (relative to projects) is critically dependent on the quality of scheme selection, appropriatenessof the design, speed of approval and tendering and thoroughness of contract supervision. If these qualities are achieved then the extra effort should be repaid by a quicker, higher level of benefits. But it would be all too easy for these qualities to be neglected, resulting-in inappropriate schemes in the wrong places, poor construction and a large establishment consuming most of the investmentand providing much of the rigidity of large project with much less clarity of purpose.

However, given the extra effort which the small increase in costs imply, it is assumedthat a programme could generate 10% more benefits than an equivalent investment in a large project mainly because the programme could concent.ate on lower cost interventions and areas of maximumneed.

9-7 N/I Ratio (EstahbishmentMatntailrd) , Inflation in Costs

9- , . .. .w., ; ,,

, , ,. , I'. , ,, r , ., , # n~~~*,.-

ai > *Si i 0 g 1t {i :1 feXX \" ; SClf ; S X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* sg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. tH f .. , . *,. Ii:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

CD 5~~~~ 5* ~SS. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c

.4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .' . '; ' The lower part of Figure 9.1 shows the NIK ratio for the project and for the equivalent programmewith and withoutthe extra benefitsdiscussed above. The graph showsthat if there is a delay in the compietion, the economicreturn of both the project and the equivalent programmedeclines, but at a greater rate for the project.

The calculationof the programmebenefits assumesthat if the whole programmeis delayed the time to the completion of the first scheme is also delayed by half the amount (in percentageterms) as the programmeas-a whole. Thus, for a programmedelayed to take 8 years rather than 4 years Wtcomplete (100% delkyed),\thetine to completionrof the first scheme is assumedto be 3 years rather than 2 years (50%,delayed). . . . ~ ~~~-. .- '% . * C In these cirmstances and assumingthe establishmentis not trimmed, the programmewill showsome loss of return if delayedbut it will remainviable even if extendedover more than twice its original duration. Even without the extra benefits from the progranmme's concentrationon lower cost- interventionsand areas of mitimum need, the programme approachwould be economicallymore resilientthan equivalentinvestment in a large project, simplybecause of earlier commissioningof individualschemes and thus, earlier generation of benefits.

Table 9.4 shows the gains in NPV representedby the above comparisons.These gains are very considerable and illustrate the economic advantage of the programme approach particularlywhen resources are limited and underfundingcauses significantdelays in the completionof investment.

TAME 9-4 Econmic Gains of the Programe Ap2roacl Programne Approach

Project Approach WWitb 102 Extra Benefits" Without Extra Benefits"

DeLay Duration N/K NPW l/K NPV IPV W/K NPV NPV (years) Ratio Rs N Ratio Rs N Gains Ratio Rs 1N Gain* Rs 1 'RS li 02 4 1.38 484 1.86 829 446 1.64 705 221 502 6 1.15 181 1.81 710 529 1.57 514 333 100l 8 0.95 -53 1.64 493 546 1.41 325 378 150Z 10 0.78 -233 1.49 336 569 1.27 190 423 Notes: 1. * indicatesa comparisonrelative to the equivalentinvestment in a large project delayedby similar amount 2. Figures are all for a start in year 5, with returns discounted at 12% per annumto year 1.

Of course not all drainageinvestment is capableof conversionto programmeapproach. The large incrementsof investmnentneeded to constructspine drains for safe disposal of large amountsof saline drainageeffluent cannot be broken down into viable smallschemes. A very lage investmentis neededbefore significantbenefits can be generated. There are however, an increasingnumber of smaller scale interventionswhich could be taken up under the programmeapproach leaving a smaller numberof projects to deal with those interventions which are unavoidablylarge. In the case of the smaller scale interventions,the switch to a programmeapproach appearsjustified.

9-8 9.3 Concept Framework for the Drainage Programme

9.3.1 Goals and Objectives

Whereas, the overal goal of the Drainage Programme might be said to be:

- to improve the economicand environmentalperformance of drainage investment,

there are a number of more specific objectives which can be identified along the route towards achieving that goal and defining the content of the programme. The positive objectives, still in very general terms, would include:

i) Private sector involvement by increasing the participation and contribution of beneficiariesin drainage,

ii) Real needs by targetinggovernment investment on areas in greatest need of drainage (and conversely, avoidingdrainage and associatedenvironmental hazards where these are not justified),

iii) Appropriate technologies by targeting investment on cost effective drainage technologies appropriate to the particular area and the prevailing environmental constraints,

iv) Quicker returns by targeting drainage investmenton smallerscale, quicker yielding interventionsappropriate for inclusionwithin the programme approach to drainage,

v) Improved continuity to build up, by means of internal monitoring and feedback under the programme,the capabilityto select, designand construct cost effectiveand appropriatedrainage interventions,

vi) Learning from the past by appropriate modificationor rehabilitation of existing drainage to increase its cost effectivenessand reduce adverse environmentalimpacts (and also provide an importantfeedback to the designof new schemes, and operation and maintenance).

Private sector involvementis placed first because it is the most easily neglected objective, requiring special ingenuityand discipline on the governmentside if the beneficiaries are to take on any part of the cost of drainage. The recent history of charging for irrigation and other water supplies shows that it is very difficult for the government to recover costs, particularly from farmers, and that as far as possible, governmentmust find ways of getting out of spending money where the private sector might be expected to invest or provide investmentin labour, land and materials.

Although this and several of the other objectivesmight be tacldedby projects, it is doubtful if they could match a programmein providingthe flexibilityor opportunityfor better returns to government investment. Nor would a project provide the same continuity to develop improved capabilityand receive the feedback from previous interventions.

9-9 93.2 Continuity and Dependencyof Schemes

It is importanthere to differentiatebetween the continuityof effort discussedabove and the spatial continuitynornmally associated with drainage projects. The latter arises where it is necessaryto link up schemesin order to providea means of disposingof salineeffluent. For example, a surface drainagescheme precedinga series of sub-surfacedrainage schemesso that the first providesthe meansof disposingof saline water from the sub-surfacesystem.

Continuityin the programmecontext matters more where it is necessaryto generate better understandingand technicalcapability. Tbis will be done by puttingresources into a series of schemes focusedfor example, on interceptordrains. These schemeswould not be in the same area but would be distributedto give the maximumbenefit and make best use of the resources.These resourceswould includethe presenceof privatesector contractorsand their equipment,who may have worked alreadyon similar schemes and/or will have reasonable expectationof working on future ones.

Even simple technologies such as surface drain schemes would also benefit from the continuityunder a programmeto pickup the lessons from the past and carry forward the successfulmethodologies.

It is not, however, possibleto have it both ways. Either the progranmmelooks to continuity of effort or it compromisesthis in order to link togetherdifferent kinds of schemeswithin one particular area (eg sub-surfacedrainage following surface drainage).However, there are real dangers in this latter approach as it is the interdependenceof componentswhich prevents projects being quick yielding, and this needs to be avoided in programmes by keeping schemesapart.

Therefore, it is proposed as a matter of principle, that the programme should avoid interdependenceof schemesand the dangerthat completionof one scheme mighthold up the other.

Indeed, each scheme shouldbe capableof being completedand generatingits benefits without any interventionfrom anotherscheme, unless that schemeis alreadycompleted. For example, a drainagescheme could make use of existingcapacity in a downstreamsystem, but not in a systemwhich is still to be built.

As well as preventing one schemeholding up another, this also disposesof the questionof whether evaluationof the first scheme should allow for any benefits of providing an oudet for a later scheme. Given the present state of public funding and the possibilitythat the secondscheme may not materialisefor manyyears, and probablynot in the form envisaged at the time to first scheme is being put together, it would not be proper to attribute the first scheme with benefits of any later schemes. Better that the later scheme is able to treat facies provided by earlier schemesas sunk costs, even if logicallythis leads to the first scheme being trimmed of any spare capacity for later extensions.It makes little sense to spend money on spare capacity which may not be used for many years whilst other developmentis being held up for lack of funds.

As things stand at present, there is a fair amountof spare capacityin drain systemswhich couldbe taken up by new schemesprovided the bottlenecksare removed.Therefore, it should not be too difficult to put together a programmewbich providesthe desired continuity of effort without making schemesdependent on each other.

9-10 933 ProposedConcept Framework

The conclusionof the above discussionis that the Drainage Programmeshould: i) not providestructural interventions in thoseaspects of drainagewhich can reasonably be encouraged through private sector action (eg sub-surface drainage in fresh groundwaterareas); ii) ficus its structuralinterventions on smallschemes serving areas normallynot greater than say 5000 ha, where such interventionsare economicallyand environmentally justified; iii) concentrate sub-surface drainage interventionson areas underlain by SGW, the pre-monsoondepth to watertableis consistentlywithin Im (3 ft) and where there is an environmentallyacceptable solution for the disposalofdrainage effluent; iv) concentratesurface drainage interventionson areas where this is economicallyand envirommentallyjustified by the risk of stormwaterdanage or the irrigationprocess (eg for rice), or where this is a part of (i) or (iii) above; v) give special attention to structural and non-structuralinterventions which could improve the economicand environmentalperformance of completedprojects and alreadyexisting facilities, including

- involvementof the beneficiariesin implementingenhancements and taking appropriateresponsibility for future O&M,

- -reassessingneeds and utilising capacity more effectively by eliminating bottlenecksand reallocatingcapacity on the basis of present economicand environmentalneeds, eliminating'over drainage' and bringing in new areas in real need of drainage,as appropriate; vi) generate a continuity of approach with closer links of understandingbetween the selection, design, construction and operation of drainage technologies most appropriateto the programmeapproach, including a series of investmentspromoting:

private sector action in drainage and land reclamation by structural and non-structural interventions(eg electricity distribution for tubewe'ls and drainage pumps in waterloggedareas, rippers for sub-soiling,gy-psum for sodic waters and soils, land levelling equipment) using existing agencies whereverpossible, but withinthe frameworkof a more focusedand rigorous evaluationof the drainageobjectives;

small scale surface drainage schemes (eg provision of culverts, new drain inlets, smallscale collectorand stormwaterdrainage systems,regrading and unblockingof existingsystems) selected as economicallyand environmentally justified,

schemesto control canalseepage in selectedreaches (eg cut-offs,interceptor drains, skimmingwells, tree planting) again selected as economicallyand environmentallyviable,

9-11 TABLE 9.5

ConceptFramework for the Natonal DrainageProgramme

Initiative Type of Scheme Execution(f NDP Input I |not NDP direct)

A. PrivateSector 1. TlwelIs In FGW Farmersat own Extensionmessages Involvement agric. areas cost on drainageaspects for ext serlvcei mediadelivery.

2. Watercourselining Farmersat owr Edxtensionmessages in FGW areas cost for ext. serivCe OFWMWmediadeivery.

3. Land reclamation a) Sub-soiling . Farmersat own -' - costeOFWM b) Sodlcity Control -. - - -

c) Land levelling _ _-

4. Watercourselining Farmersthrough - - in SGW areas OFWM

5. 'On-farm' drainage a) culvertMnlet - - Adviceand. construction considerationfor assistanceunder S.

b) surface drains - ' - - N -

c) buried pipe drainage - - Advice& consider- ationunder D.

6. Pump electrification WAPDASCARP Schemeselection. only in waterlogged Electrification specificationand areas/SCARPtransition fRnance.

7. Rehabilitationof Ifigation Dept Partialfinancial tributary/sub-drains with farmers assistance. assistance.

B. SurfaceDrainage 1. Culvertsfor HighwayBoard. Schemeselection. drainageimpeded by Railwaysetc. specificationand roads etc. finance

2. Inlet to existing IrrigationDeptt: - - drains

3. R&I of existing branch & main drains

9-13 smallscale sub-surfacedrainage schemes to deal with pocketsof acute need or : to pi-dviuc a tiwuusiraiiun w generate interest in private sector involvement(simple well schemes and small scale 'tile' drainage), particularlywhere this cannot reasonablybe providedby the landowners(eg in urban and peri-urbanareas, in productiveareas sufferingfrom excessive seepageor runoff from adjacentcanals, drains, storage reservoirsetc) again selected on the basis of proper economic and environmentalevaluation, especiallywith regard to the disposalof the sub- surface drainageeffluent. v) avoid committingthe programmeto concurrentinterventions in the same area, which are dependenton each other for successfulcompletion.

9.4 Preliminary Costing and Timetable

9.4.1 Drainage Interventions to be Costed

The last section identifiedfour types of interventionin drainage,which could be taken up in the first phase of the Drainage Programmeand include:

A. private sector involvementand governmentintervention to encouragethis, B. small scale surface drainageschemes, C. schemesto control canal seepage, D. sub-surfacedrainage of pocketsof acute need.

Althoughthere may be some overlap between these, it is proposed that these should be resourcedas separateinitiatives so that one does not tend to take over the others and that no initiativeis completelyneglected (particularly A.) Table 9.5 sets out the types of schemes envisaged under each of these initiatives and identifiesthe need for programmefinance for:

- technicalassistance and monitoringof all the initiativesand schemes,

- electrificationfor drainagepumps (including tubewell pumps) in waterloggedareas,

- electrification/subsidyfor transitionof one or group of SCARPwells in FGW area to private sector, as and when their useful life is over;

- culverts, inlets and small scale surface drainage schemes (including the rationalisation,rehabilitation and extensionof existingschemes) for agriculturaland peri-urban lands and for wetlandimprovements,

- interceptordrains and skimmingwells for control of canal seepage,

- small scale sub-surfacedrainage (well or 'tile' drainage)of waterloggedpockets of agricultural land and rural setdements(mcluding rehabilitationand extension of existingSGW SCARPs),

- mitigationof environmentaleffects of SGW SCARPsthrough relocationof drainage facilitiesor changeof drainagetechnology,

9-12 - small scale improvementsto the disposal systems for the above drainage and that from industrialand commercia'facilities.

All these schemesrequire systematicevaluation of their economicand enviromnentalviability particularlywith regard to effluentdisposal. Several of the schemesrequire evaluationbased on whether the area can be consideredwaterlogged and whether the area can be considered a fresh groundwaterarea.

These and other aspectswill certainlyrequire site investigationand this investigationwill have to be linked into monitoringof the mediumterm position, especiallywith regard to rainfall, irrigation supplies, watertable depth and existingdrain flows, and the quality of canal and drain water. It is therefore, proposed that the NationalDrainage Programmeshould make a substantiaiinvestment in:

- restoring raingaugesin rural areas, particularlydistrict headquarters,

-- introducingmore reliable measurementof flows in selected canals and drains, and also monitoringchemical parameters on a long term basis,

- infilling the gaps in the existing WAPDA SMO network of observation-wells, levelling in the gauges to national datum, and providing a sample of wells with recorders,

- a GIS to store and process the data, particularlyon rainfall and watertabledepth.

9.4.2 Budget and Timetable

The size of the Drainage Programme depends partly on how quicldy each of the four initiatives and the investmentin medium/longterm monitoringoutlined above can be got moving. Even with a substantialinvestment in externaltechnical assistance it would probably take a year or so before the first schemes could be initiatedand at least 2 years before the whole programme would be 'up to speed'. At this point the size of the project will be determined by the flow of viable schemes and what can be financed, in addition to other commitments,under each year's Annual DevelopmentProgramme (ADP).

The WSIPS indicatedthat it is the ADP which will be limitingbut that this limitationwill rot be the same in every province.Indeed, the WSIPSfinancial projections suggest that there will be no spare funds in the Sindh, NWFP and BalochistanADPs (and particularly in the 'accelerated programme') until at least the second half of the decade. Even in Punjab, experiencewith past projects suggeststhat it would be very difficultto sustainat 1988prices, an annual investmentin excessof say Rs 750 M per year (the size of the ISRP-IIrequirement and twice that of OFWM-]r), possiblymuch less. The preliminarybudget given in Table 9.6 is based on a maximumspending in Punjab of just Rs 300 M/year (equivalentto Rs 490 M/year at today's prices), but the effect on the total price is given in the notes for rates ranging from Rs 250 M/year to Rs 750 M/year (the ISRP n level).

An annual spending of Rs 300 M in Punjab would support perhaps six schemes running concurrendy in categoriesB, C and D, costingan averageof Rs 75 M and lckingtwo years to implement,with Rs 75 Mlyear reserved for schemes in category A. Using this as the yardstick, it is proposedthat at this stage the Punjabdrainage progranmme could be designed to handle a maximum at any one time of 12 schemes comprising 6 in category A, 3 in

9-15 TABLE 9.5 (Contd..)

ConceptFramework for the NationalDrainage Programme

Initiative Typeof Scheme Executionrif NDPInput not NDPdirect)

4. Rationalising/extending - - edsting schemes

5. Small scalenew schemes WAPDA(or -' - IrrigationDept)

6. Wetlanddevelopmant Fisheies DeptL - - schemes (or WAPDAon agencybasis)

C. CanalSeepage 1. Canallning/remodellng IrrigationDept Technicaladvices Control monitoringof drainageissues

2. Tree planting IrrigationDept -' - a Interceptordrains/ WAPDA(or Scherneselection, skimmingwells IrrigationDept) specificationand finance.

D. Sub-surface 1. Drainageof WAPDA Drainage wat edloggedPockets

2. Drainageof urbanand PHED(or WAPDAon Schemeselection, per i-urbanareas agencybasis) ciion and posstblefinance a Drainageof Owner(or WAPDA/ Technicaladvice industial and PHEDon agency and consideration commercialfacilities basis for assistancewith off-siteworks

4. RationalisingAimproving IrrigationDepL Technicaladvice & existingSCARPs in (or WAPDAon monitoringof FGWareas agencybasis) drainageissues.

5. Rationarising/improving -'- Schemeselecion, existingSCARPs in specfication and SGWareas finance.

9-14 categoryB, 2 in categoryC and I in categoryD. Programmesin the other provinceswould follow as finances permit, on the assumptionthat it would be better to have a lag in the programmesthan start buildingup the establishmentbefore there is sufficientmoney to pay for the actualwork. The lag wouldalso allowresources to be concentratedon sortingout the methodologiesin one province before movingto the rest. Increasing lag would reduce the peak in fundingrequirements in 1998-99.

Table 9.6 assumes the first phase programmewould run for no more than 6 years with the provincial shares of the programme according to the shares in the present 'accelerated progranune for anti-waterloggingand salinity control'. This gives a total programme(DP) of Rs 3.81 billion at 1993 prices or Rs 5.78 billion including inflation. Increasing the maximumrate of spendingin Punjab to Rs 750 M/year (1988 prices) would increasethe overall cost of the programmeto Rs 9.59 billion at 1993prices or Rs 14.55 billion including inflation.This wouldmake it a very large programmeand perhapsnot readily'bankable' and certainlymore vulnerableto upsetdue to problemswith fundingand in maintainingthe flow of schemesto be implemented.For this reason a more modestprogramme has been proposed at this stage.

9.5 Investments in Drainage Sector

In formulatingthe concept framework for National Drainage Programme, in addition to ancilliarymeasures, in surface and sub-surfacedrainage attention was mainly focussed on smallinterventions for areas wheredrainage infrastructure either exists or is not required and the interventionwas capableof generatingquick benefits without dependenceon any other scheme or schemes.This involvedthe choice of developmentmodes that are divisibleand which could be accomodatedwithin the constraintsof resource availability.

While the implementationof such a programmecan fulfill the needs in the drainage sector to a large extent, it cannot provide an overall framework for a balanced development requiring measures intimately related to the programme. These measures are largely representedby major infrastructuraldevelopments such as, intra/inter- provindal drainage links and outfall drainsfor safe disposalof saline drainageeffluent, outside the system,from componentdrainage units or areas where interim disposaloptions may have adopted.

For orderly developmentof the drainagesector it is therefore, necessarythat implementation of infrastructuralprojects should proceed simultaneously with NationalDrainage Programme. Keepingthis in view an attempthas been made to identifythe overall investmentneeds in the drainagesector and these are broughtout in Table 9.7. During 6th and 7th Plan periods the approximateexpenditure was 10 to 12 billion ruppeesper plan. Keepingin view the resource constraints,it is estimatedthat total layoutupto end of I1th Plan (2013), inclusiveof National DrainageProgramme, would be 63 to 64 billion ruppees.

9-16 TABLE 9.6

Preliminary Budget and Timetable for the National Drainage Programme (Rs M at 1993 prices)

Year Punjab NWFP Sindh Balochistan Federal Total

1993/4 -start of programme preparation- 45 45 1994/5 -start of approval/funding process- 25 25 1995/6 -approval and consultant selection- - 1996/7 3D - - - 10 40 1997/8 260 10 30 0 25 325 1998/9 490 80 260 10 45 885 1999/0 490 170 430 60 A!5 1195 2000/1 260 170 430 60 35 955 2001/2 0 80 220 30 10 340 Total 1530 510 1370 160 240 3810 Shares 43% 14% 39% 4% - 100% Total incl 1958 867 2330 280 345 5780 inflation

Notes: 1. Estimate based on maximum implementation capacity (Punjab) of Rs 300 M/year at 1988prices, equivalentto Rs 490 Mlyear at 1993 prices. 2. Inflation estimated according to factors used for WSIPS assuming 50% foreign exchangecnsts. 3. Provincial shares based on shares under 'tccaeratd Programme for Anti-Waterloggingand Salinity Control. 4. Supervisioncosts are split betweenthe provincial and federal budgets. 5. Effect of varying base rate

Base Rs M/year (1988) - Total Programme Rs M - 1993 Prices With inflation

200 2560 3883 3OO(used above) 3810 5780 500 6440 9770 750 (ISR-II) 9590 14548

9-17 TABLE 9.7 Anticipated Drainaze Sector Investments Drainage Area |Total Expend: lAh 9th lath 11th SpDJ S.Nr. Name orfoject uptoit PlanPln PaCastpbn Plan (Ma) (Mini (RLMiII) 1993 |h1993-98 1998-03 203-0 2008-13 PUNJAB

1. Drainae Pgram 1370 260 1.110

11. Drainae Projects i) On-Going Sub-Surface Drainage 1. Gojra-Khewra-U 0.120 0.49 308 202 106 2. Drainage-1V 0.130 0.053 2.000 1.400 600 3. SXKamalia(Saitne) 0.036 0.073 339 186 153 4. Khushab 0.058 0.024 1.160 343 817 Surface Drainage 5. Eastern-SadiqiaPhase-I 0.618 025 1.511 850 661 6. Upper Recchna(Deg) 0.468 0.189 265 150 115 7. Sukh Nai Outrfal Dr 0.000 0.000 400 262 138 Sub-Totalt(1-i) 25590 ii) New Sub-Surface Dra & Eastern-Sadiqia Phase-lI 0.326 0.132 4.00 900 2.200 900 9. Eastern-Sadiqia (rem) 0130 0.053 975 500 475 10. CBDC (rem) 0.105 0.043 340 340 11. D.GJChan (saline) 0229 0.093 1.1W 1.100 12. SCARPTr.JPTW 2500 800 1.100 700 13. Indus-Munda unit o].o 0.021 383 383 14. Chashma CAD-111 0.070 om8 525 525 15. SCARP Greater Tbal 0.300 0.121 23W 400 1.540 SurfaceDraiae 16. Sukh Beas (rem) 0.813 0.329 2.5W 1.300 1.200 17. Upper Rcchna (rem) 0390 0.158 2.0 40 1.600 18. Trans Punjab Drainage Link 10.0W 1.500 4.000 4.500 Sub-Total (11-ii) 3.200 5.183 6,565 7.215

Ill. Project Pltnnng 1300 250 300 350 4D0 Total (- ni ab): 3.864 1.565 35.316 3.393 6300 6.593 6.915 7.615 4.500 SINDH

I. Drainage Programme 1230 30 1200

11. Drainage Projects i) On-Going Surfacecum Sub-Surface Draage 1. LBOD5Stage-l 1.019 0.413 12.000 4,600 3600 3D00 800 (Noah SbahSanghar. Mirpur Khas) SurfaceDrainage 2. ICotri Surfce Drainage 1,407 98 809 500 *-i) New Surfacc cum Sub-Surface Dranage 4. LBOD5Stage-11 S.450 3.00D 2.766 4-1 _SKbairpur 0.328 Q133 4-2 ..Mo 0.095 0.038 4-3 _Digri 0.274 0.111 4-4 _TTandoAdam Q.484 0.196 (2684) 1.084 1.600 4-S _Tando M. Kban 0Q330 0.134 4-6 .Tando Bhago 0D90 0.036 5. Khipro 0.370 0.150 100 L500 6. Farast 0.339 0.137 2.600 500 2.100 7. Umarkst 0.300 0.121 2.300 2300 & SCARPTransitIonikPTW 1000 500 500 9. Gboltki Sale 0.429 0.174 1.011 210 800 0 Surfacedrainage Improementt Euiat:Dr. I Lar:Shikar(Dul3.17) 0227 0.09_ 329 329 10-1 Razodero (Du 14) 0205 0.063 593 593 10-2 SKot-Miro(DulS.16) 0301 0.122 261 261 10-3 Tajodero(Du23) 007 0.011 79 79 11. North Dadu (Du 2122) 0.478 0.194 731 100 631

12. RBODStage-I 12-1 Ext MNVD(M'roKhan) 341 341 12-2 lndus Link (MNVD-lIdus) 609 609 12-3 Remodel: MNVD as RBOD 436 436

Kandkot'cul Shadadkot 13. Begari-Frontier(DuS.6) 0.482 0.195 1.725 .200 525 South Dadu 14. Dokri (Du-24) 0.120 0.048 504 144 360 0 15. Wanab. (Du-20) 0.129 0.052 392 392

9-18 TABLE 9.7 Ant icipated Drainae Sector ivvestments Draina4 Are Total Ei&pend: 8th 9th 10th 11th Spill S.Nr. Nameat Project Cost |uploiun4 a Hln9te Pl (MaR(RlMilMla D| (Mla) 1993 1993-98 199S-03 2003-08 2008-1 RBOD_.Suage-Ill 16. Rea nt Rr 01BOD(Hairdin) 2.721 2.000 721 Kadkot-Trbul Shaadkot 17-1. Siltnkot(Du-1l) 0248 (100 1.066 400 666 17-2 ------(Du-7&9) 0387 0.157 13.9 84 1514 RBOD- Stge-111 Kandkot l'ul Shadadkot 17-3 Ghauikhairo (Du- 12) 0.312 0126 1.067 1.067 17-4 Mauladad (Du-10) 0.120 0.049 356 356 I. Johi (Du-25) 0.148 0.060 653 653 RBOD..Stage- IV KandkotThul Shadadkot 19. SaifuDahMagi (Du- 18) 0.164 0.066 499 499 20. SouthDadu (DU-26) 0.276 0.112 1.403 1.403 Ill. ProjectPlanning 760 160 180 200 220 Total (Sindbi: 7.682 3.110 46,391 4,698 63s58 63514 7.146 7,316 14.158 NWFP 1. DrainageProgramme 460 10 450 11. DrainagePrects i) On-Going Sub-SurfaceDrainage 1. SwabiSCARP 0084 0.034 3.620 157 1.603 JIm60 0 i) New Sub-SurfaceDrainag rYafurDebri-l1 0.013 0OOS 270 10 260 3. Chasha CAD-11 0030 0.012 98 98 4. Pchur SCARP 0.046 QO019 230 20 210 5. Bannu-11 0.064 0.026 200 50 350 6. Doaha Dandzai SCARP 00D89 0.036 480 480 7. PeshawarSCARP (rem) 300 ISO 150 1l1. Project Planning 580 130 140 ISO 160 Total CNWFP1: 0325 0.132 6.238 237 2.513 2.698 630 160 BALOMHISTAN 1. Drainage Programme 140 140

11. Draina Prjects ) On-Going SurfaceDr_ge 1. Pat Feeder Com: (Du23.4) 03503 0.204 1340 240 600 500 ii) New Sub -Surface Drainage 2. Intercepting Dr.(Pat) Surface Drainage 3. Kirthar Cana(DU-19) 0.192 o078 72 383 342 4. LesbclaCanal Com: 3W0 200 100 5. Other Are 225 195 30 Ill. Proect Planning 230 50 55 60 65 Total (Balochistan): 0.695 0.281 2.960 240 1.428 1.167 60 65 0 Grand Total (Pakistan) 123566 5.088 9005 8.568 16.799 16.972 14.751 15.1S6 1S.6SS Area which may require drainge aiter canal construction/remodelling&

9-19 AppendiXiD TABLE IX-1 Comparisonof Projectsand Programmes Al. LARGE PROJECT DELAYED (ESTABLISHMENT TRIMMED)

Basic -suapin Start of Construction (year) 5 Increments Benefit with Project (Rs year) 682 rme for Projed Prepaation (Ys) 1.5 Build-up of Benft (yers) 2.0 rime for Project Approval (ycars) 2.5 O&M Costs (% base ca of works) 3.0% Period of Construton (yrs) 3.0 Forcign Exchang Coacnt (% of cobt of works) 50% Preparaio Costs (* total cost of works) 3.0% Economi Converson Factor (Itapee cowsony) 0.9 Supervision Costs (% of cost of works) 7.5% Discount Rate 12.0% hfntrest During Construction 12.5% Year Base Cost (Rs NI) Cost ini Inflation Economic Cost* Bcncfls (Rs MI) Discounted* Negative Positive Nr Works Estab Rs M IDC O & M Total Grocs Net costs Be_efts stream Stram I 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 25.0 27.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 312.5 23A 468.4 29.3, 0 320 0 -320 182 0 -182 0 6 312.5 23.4 508.9 90A 0 320 0 -320 162 0 -162 0 7 312.5 23.4 553.1 156.7 0 320 0 -320 145 0 -145 0 a 312.5 23.4 601.1 223.9 0 320 0 -320 129 0 -129 0 9 312.5 23.4 653.4 307.3 0 320 0 -320 116 0 -116 0 10 312.5 23.4 710.3 392.5 0 320 0 -320 103 0 -103 0 11 312.5 23.4 772.2 485.2 0 320 0 -320 92 0 -92 0 12 312.5 23.4 839.7 585.9 75 395 0 -395 101 0 -101 0 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 341 266 17 78 0 61 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 15 140 0 124 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 14 125 0 III 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 12 111 0 99 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 11 99 0 as 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 10 89 t0 79 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 6507 9 79 0 70 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 8 71 0 63 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 7 63 0 56 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 6 56 0 50 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 632 607 6 50 0 45 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 5 45 0 40 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 632 607 4 40 0 36 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 4 36 0 32 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 632 607 4 32 0 28 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 29 0 25 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 25 0 23 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 23 0 20 2500 263 5184 2276 1425 3988 11935 7948 1170 1191 -1030 1051 Total Cost (at constnt prices) 2.763 NIK = 1.02 NPV = 21 Total Cost (ic inflation/iC) 7.460 B1C Ratio = 1.02 IRR = 12.2% Notes: * exluding costs of initialprepaation and IDC ** costs and benefitsdscounted to year I Inlation assmed as for the WVSIPS(7.5% on Rupeecosts. circa 10% on foreign costs) IDC calculaed on cost (at current prices) up to haf year

1 Ap~ie. DC Comparison of Projects and Programmes TABLE KC-2

A2. LARGEPROJECT DELAYED (ESTABUSHMENT MAINTAINED)

Basic assumptions Start of Construction(year) 5 I Benet with Project (Rt Mlyer) 682 rTmcfor Project Preaatio (years) 1.5 Build-upof Bcnfits (years) 2.0 Time for Project Approval(yers) 2.5 O&M Cos (% base cos of works) 3.0% Period of Consuction (ycars) 8.0 Foreign ExchangeConent (% of coat of works) 50% PreparationCosts (% totl cost of works) 3.0% EconomicCovesion Factor (Rupee cots only) 0.9 SupervisionCoas (% of cost of works) 15.0% Discount Rate 12.0% InterestDuring Construction 12.5% Year BaseCost (Rs M) Cost ind Inflation EconomicCost* Benefits(Rs M) Discountod" Neptivc Poitive Nr Works Estab Rs M IDC O & M Total Gross NIet Costs Benfts Stream Stream I 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 2 0.0 25.0 27.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 312.5 46.9 501.0 31.3 0 344 0 -344 195 0 -195 0 6 312.5 46.9 544.5 96.7 0 344 0 -344 174 0 -174 0 7 312.5 46.9 591.7 167.7 0 344 0 -344 155 0 -155 0 8 312.5 46.9 643.1 244.8 0 344 0 -344 139 0 -139 0 9 312.5 46.9 699.0 328.7 0 344 0 -344 134 0 -124 0 10 312.5 46.9 759.9 419.9 0 344 0 -344 111 0 -111 0 11 312.5 46.9 826.1 519.0 0 344 0 -344 99 0 -9 0 12 312.5 46.9 898.2 626.8 75 419 0 -419 107 0 -107 0 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 341 266 17 78 0 61 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 15 140 0 124 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 14 125 0 111 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 12 111 0 99 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 11 99 0 88 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 10 89 0 79 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 6S2 607 9 79 0 70 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 8 71 0 63 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 7 63 0 56 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 6 56 0 50 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 6 50 0 45 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 5 45 0 40 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 4 40 0 36 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 4 36 0 32 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 4 32 0 28 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 29 0 25 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 25 0 23 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 682 607 3 23 0 20 2500 450 5541 2435 1425 4175 11935 7760 1244 1191 -1104 1051 Total Cost (at constan prics) 2.950 N/IK= 0.95 NPV = (53) Totl Cost rCdinflstion/IDC) 7.976 B/C Ratio = 0.96 IRR= 11.5% Notes: * excludingcost of initia preparation n IDC ** costs and benefitsdiscounted to year I Inflation assumed as for the WSIPS (7.5% on Rupee costs, circa 10% on foregn costs) IDC calcdated on costs (at current prices) up to half year Appnfixi D Comparisonof Projectsand Progranunes TABLE IX-3

B1. EQUIVALENTPROGRAMME DELAYED (ESTABUSHMENT TRIMMED)

Boascasuunptimm Start of Prgme (yer) S IncrementalBeneft with Pgran (Rs MIyer 70 Time for Project Preparation(years) 1.5 rTm to Completionof First Sdchme(year) 3.0 r for Project Approval(yrs) 2.5 Build-upof Beaefits (years) 2.0 Duraton of Progrmm (yea) 8.0 O&M Costs(% base cost of works) 3.0% Prepartion Costs(% totalcost of works) 2.0% Foreign Excang Coatnt (% of coat of works) 50% SupervisionCosts (% of cost of works) 10.0% EconomicConves Factor (Rupeecosts ony) 0.9 nktrect Durin, Consruction 12.5% DiscountRate 12.0% Year BaseCost (Rs M) Cost mid Inflation EconomicCost Bnefits s MI) Discounted" Negaive. Positivc Nr Wodrs Eab Rs M IDC O &M Total Gross Nct Cosls Bencfits Stream Stream 1 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 16.7 18.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 312.5 31.3 479.3 30.0 0 328 0 -328 186 0 -186 0 6 312S 31.3 520.8 62.5 0 328 0 -328 166 0 -166 0 7 312.5 31.3 566.0 67.9 0 328 0 -328 148 0 -148 0 8 312.5 31.3 615.1 73.8 38 366 107 -258 148 43 -104 0 9 312.5 31.3 668.6 80.2 47 375 214 -161 135 77 -58 0 10 312.5 31.3 726.8 87.2 56 384 321 -63 124 103 -20 0 11 312.5 31.3 790.2 94.8 66 394 429 35 113 123 0 10 12 312.5 31.3 859.2 103.1 75 403 536 133 103 138 0 34 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 643 568 17 147 0 130 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 15 153 0 138 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 14 137 0 123 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 12 122 0 110 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 11 109 0 98 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 10 98 0 88 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 9 87 0 78 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 8 78 0 70 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 7 69 0 62 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 6 62 0 56 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 6 55 0 SO 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 5 49 0 44 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 4 44 0 40 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 4 39 0 35 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 4 35 0 32 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 3 31 0 28 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 3 28 0 25 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 3 25 0 23 2500 300 5277 600 1631 4256 O1500 10744 1264 1856 -683 1276 Totl Cost (at constan priecs) 2.800 NIK = 1.87 NPV = 592 Totl Cost (me inflation/lC 5.877 BIC Ratio= 1.47 IRR= 18.3% Notec: * exludig costs of initil prparation an IIDC ** c and benefitsdiscounted to year I nfation amed as for tbh WSIPS(7.5% on Rupee costs,cira 10% on foreigncost) IDC calulated on costs (at currnt prices) m previous funcid yer ody

3 Appndix IX Comnparisonof Projects and Programmes TABLE IX-4

52. EQUIVALENTPROGRAMME DELAYED (ESTABLISHMENT MAINTAINED)

Baskcasumptions Stut of Progrmme (year) 5 1ncrmntalBenefit with Progamme (lb M/Year 750 Timc for Projeat Prepartion (ye) 4.5 rime to Compition of First Scheme yars) 3.0 Time for Project Approval (yars) 2.5 Budd-upof Bnefift (yeas) 2.0 Durationof Programme(yeas) 8.0 O&M Costs(% bse castof wor 3.0% PrepaationCosts (% totl costof works) 2.0% ForeignExhge Coecent(% of cestof works) 50% SupevisionCosts (% of costof works) 20.0% EcononzicConversion Factor (Rupec costs only) 0.9 InterestDuring Co_ 12.5% DiscountRate 12.0% Year BaseCost (Rs M) cost Melnfation EconomicCost Benefits(Rs M) Disoountod* Ncgative Positive Nr Works Estab Rs M IDC O & M Total Gross Net Cost Benefts Stram Stream 1 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 16.7 18.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 312.5 62.5 522.8 32.7 0 359 0 -359 204 O -204 0 6 312.5 62.5 568.1 68.2 0 359 0 -359 182 0 -182 0 7 312.5 62.5 617.4 74.1 0 359 0 -359 163 0 -163 0 8 312.5 62.5 671.0 80.5 38 397 107 -290 160 43 -117 0 9 312.5 62.5 729.4 87.5 47 406 214 -192 146 77 -69 0 10 312.5 62.5 792.9 95.1 56 416 321 -94 134 103 -30 0 11 312.5 62.5 862.0 103.4 66 425 429 4 122 123 0 1 12 312.5 62.5 937.3 112.5 75 434 536 101 III 138 0 26 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 643 568 17 147 0 130 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 15 153 0 138 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 14 137 0 123 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 12 122 0 !10 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 11 109 0 Q8 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 10 98 0 88 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 9 87 0 78 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 8 78 0 70 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 7 69 0 62 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 6 62 0 50 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 6 55 0 5S 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 5 49 0 44 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 4 44 0 40 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 4 39 0 35 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 4 35 0 32 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 3 31 0 28 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 i5 750 675 3 28 0 25 30 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 750 675 3 25 0 23 2500 5SO 5752 654 1631 4506 15X0 10494 1362 1856 -765 1259 TotadCast (at constaprices) 3.050 NIX = 1.64 NPV = 493 Totd Cast(md inflation/11C) 6.406 B/C Ratio= 1.36 IR = 16.9% Notes: * xcxudig cost of inital preparationand IDC ** coss andbenefits diunted to year I Inflationassumed as for theWSIPS (7.5% on Rupeeeosts. circa 10%an forei coats) IDC caulated Oncoats (at current prices) n previousfinal yearoly

4 Appendix IX TABLE IX-5 Analysis of Equivalent Projects and Programmes Costs in Rs M Project (estab maintained) Duration % Delay Cost incl lnlation N/K NPV (yeas) _- -ex IDC- - incl IDC - 4 start 4 4001 4931 1.40 4 0% 4340 1.00 5351 1.00 1.38 484 5 25% 4611 1.06 5934 1.11 1.26 323 6 50% 4900 1.13 6563 1.23 1.15 181 7 75% 5210 1.20 7242 1.35 1.05 56 8 100% 5541 1.28 7976 1.49 0.95 -53 9 125% 5895 1.36 8767 1.64 0.86 -149 10 150% 6275 1.45 9621 1.80 0.78 -233 Progamme (estab nimWined) Costs in Rs M Duration % Dely Cost inci Inflation N/K NPV NPV (years) -ex IDC - - inci IDC - Gain 4 start 4 4066 4497 1.87 4 0% 4414 1.00 4882 1.00 1.86 930 446 5 25% 4715 1.07 5229 1.07 1.86 829 506 6 50% 5037 1.14 5597 1.15 1.81 710 529 7 75% 5382 1.22 5988 1.23 1.74 598 542 8 100% 5752 1.30 6406 1.31 1.64 493 546 9 125% 6149 1.39 6854 1.40 1.59 420 569 10 150% 6575 1.49 7333J 1.50 1.49 336 569 Pr_oaame (estb nairtined no extra benefits) CoStr in Rs M Duration % Delai Cost incl Inflation N/K NPV NPV (years) |__ - ex IDC - - inil DC- Gain 4 start4 4066 4497 4 0% 4414 1.00 4882 1.00 1.64 705 221 5 25% 4715 1.07 5229 1.07 1.63 619 296 6 50% 5037 1.14 5597 1.15 1.57 514 333 7 75% 5382 1.22 5988 1.23 1.50 417 361 8 100% 5752 1.30 6406 1.31 1.41 325 378 9 125% 6149 1.39 6854 1.40 1.36 263 412 10 150% 6575 1.49 7333 1.50. 1.27 190 423 Pmogamre nder ideal conditions Costs in Rs M Duration % Delay Cost incl Inflation N/K | NPV NPV

(years) _ |ex IDC- | - incl IDC - | __ |_Gain.

___s_t14 402469 47 1.87 943 620

5 CHAPTER 10

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROGRAMMEE APPROACH

10.1 Introduction

The previous chapter outlined-the objectives, advantagesand concept frameworkfor the NationalDrainage Programme. It showedthat there are significanteconomic advantages to be gained from the programmeapproach through

its increasedflexibility to match availableresources to needs, and develop new technologiesand approachesidentified as uecessarymitigatory measures by the EnvironmentImpact Assessment,

- its capabilityto focus on points of greatestneed, distributedwidely to deal with problemswherever they occur, not just in particular project areas,

- its potential for quick implementation(once the frameworkis set up) and the lower risk of one scheme holdingup another.

However, the programme would not be an arbitrary collection of small schemes but a c*ampaignto graduallyimprove technologies and sustainabilityby a mixtureof structuraland non-structuralinterventions intended to maximiseparticipation by the beneficiaries.

10.2 Projects and Programmes in the Drainage Sector

The programmeapproach is not able to, or intendedto, replace the role of the project in providingthe large incrementof investmentneeded to ennstruct a major outfall system or provide completecoNer of a whole area (both requiring and justifyingthe investmentin the outfall). Indeed, a strong case has been made for avoidingan area-basedapproach under the programme,especially where this might tie the programmeto a particular area and cause it to quicldydegenerate into the situationtypical of manyprojects, where the benefitsfrom one scheme depend en completionof work in an adjacentare,.

The programme approach offers significant advantages* ver the project approach which should not be jeopardisedby bringing projects under the programme. While it may be possible for the programme to make certain interventionsin support of, or instead oT, particular project components,the programmeapproach is bound to be quite differentfrom that of the project. The rogrammewill be sharply focusedon the most deservingschemes and emphasiseprogramme, rather than projectobjectives. In this respect, the programmeis expectedto be far ahead of the project in terms of the developmentof new technologies, participatorydevelopment of a nationalenvironmental strategy.

The progranmmeshould not be burdenedat its outsetby simplybringing existing low priority and problem projectsunder the programme.Instead, the projects shouldbe either completed

10-1 as planned,or closed, so that the programmewould then considerwhat interventions,if any, can be made under the programmeapproach to add value and improvethe sustainabilityoe previousinvestment.

10.3 Programme Preparation

Table 9.5 gives somefairly specificexamples of the types of schemesenvisaged under the programme. These include both structural and non-structuralinterventions with a heavy emphasison the latter.

However, it has alreadybeen noted that there is a strong bias, not only amongstengineers, whichtends to favourstructural schemes. Yet the DrainageSector Environmental Assessment has showntime and time again that structuralinterventions are not enoughto achievethe full benefits of drainageand indeed may result in adverseimpacts, environmental and otherwise. Examplesgiven in Volume 1 of this report includethe apparent continuedaccumulation of salts in areas drained by surface drains, tile drains and tubewells even where, as in the last case, drainage water is fresh enough to be reused to increase leaching and avoid the accumulationof salts observedin the root zone. Inspiteof the inadequaciesof the data, it is clear that there have been failuresof water managementand this has preventedfull realisation of the benefits which shouldhave come from drainage. Indeed the failure to introducenon- structuralchanges to complementthe structuralwork is jeopardisingthe sustainabilityof the whole system.

A programmecomprised only of structral interventionscarries great dangers.It is likelythat it schemesare chosenpurely becausethey wouldtackle an area of high watertable(assuming it is not a rice area), it is very likely that money will be spent unnecessarilydealing with a problem whichmay need to solved at least partiallythrough more carefulwater management. Indeed, if water managementis not attendedtoo it is possiblethat the schemewill not work and more seriously, it will impact adverselyon the overall drainagestrategy.

The overall drainage strategy set forth in Volume 1 of this report is based on the twin objectivesof

i) achievinga balanceof water and salt in the root zone and appropriatecontrol of the watertabledepth; and

ii) achievingas a first steptowards sustainabilityfor the Indus basin as a whole, a balancebetween the salinitycoming into the systemand that disposedof to the sea.

This secondobjective will not be achievedimmediately and in the interimwill require salinity to be temporarilyadded to storage in the saline aquifer and ponds providedfor the purpose. However, it meansthat even wherethere is no method at present of disposingof the salinity to the sea, great cautionshould be exercisedin mobilisingsalinity already in comparatively safe storage in deep groundwater.

This places a severe constraint on the selection of sub-surface drainage schemes to be includedunder the programme,especially as such drainagein fresh groundwaterareas is to be left to the private sector pumping of groundwater for irrigation. It suggests that the emphasis of the programmewill be much more on measures which are preventative, or

10-2 mitigateor reverse harmful impactsof existingschemes.

However, the programmeapproach offers the flexibilityto taclde some very acutedrainage problems which so far have been largely ignoredby projects.

The developmentof irrigatedagriculture has not onlyled to drainageproblems in the cropped areas, but also to increasesof populalionand rural infrastrucLurewhich have encroachedon agriculturalland and now suffer similar drainageproblems. The source of the problem is the extra water which has come into the area for irrigationand the networkof canals, roads and railwayswhich have blocked old drainagepaths. The programmeapproach with its flexibility to focus on points of greatest need shouldcertainly look to tacklingthis problem.

The public health benefits of using land drainage technology to relieve waterloggingin villagesand peri-urbanareas on former agriculturalland is likelyto be very significant.Many settlementshave grown up in a way which makes it very difficult to install street drains or sewers, and to prevent these being blocked with solid waste. Drainage by tubewells might offer practical solutionand allow use of latrineswhere otherwisethis would be impossible. However, there are environmentalimplications in providing such drainage which require carefulassessment and wherenecessary mitigation measures. The presentpractices of PHEDs in discharginguntreated wastes into open channelsindicate the need not only to enact the relevant legislationcontrolling such discharges,but also to take a more global view. It is consideredthat this would be an appropriatefunction of the NationalDrainage Programme which would contributeto the design and possiblypart- of the finance.

The further preparationof the National Drainage Programmewill need to give particular attentionto the sharingof costs and the institutionalresponsibilities for implementation,for which preliminaryrecommendations are made in Table 9.5.

10.4 Development of a Participatory Approach

A participatory approach is one in which the potential beneficiaries of a scheme are given an opportunityto participatein the selectionand construction(for example,by contributingthe land or labour) and carry a large part or all of its running and maintenancecosts. The approach is intended to create sustainabilityby generating a sense of ownership and responsibility.

It will not be easy to develop such an approachin the drainage sector, but a start has to be made by involvingthe communitiesin the selectionof schemes. This shouldbe much easier with the small schemesproposed under the programmeapproach than with projects.

The proposal is that the programmeteam shouldvisit selectedcommunities and after touring the area, make presentationof the problemswhich could be tackled, the probable sources of these problemsand the actionwhich couldbe taken to deal with them. Someexamples would be prepared to illustrate the costs of differentsolutions and in discussion,these would be subjectedto screeningusing the checldistof impactsdeveloped in Chapter 4 of this report. Additionalmeasures to mitigate the negative impacts would be identified and the positive impactswould be used as a basisfor discussingwho shouldpay for the proposed action, who would take responsibilityfor its sustainedeffectiveness and how mightthe financial cost be reduced by communityparticipation.

10-3 The level of subsidy and technicalsupport which is necessaryto achieve this approach will have to be evaluated by the team and built into the programmebudgets. The contribution expectedfrom other govermmentagencies and how this is to be financedwill also have to be determined.

10.5 Preparation of the National Drainage Programme Outline Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference for the detailed preparation of the first phase of the National Drainage Programmeto 2000/1 are i) to build on the existingconcept framework covering

A. privatesector involvementand governmentintervention to encouragethis,

B. small scale drainage schemes.

C. schemesto control canal seepage,

D. sub-surfacedrainage of pocketsof acute need. ii) to develop a portfolio of such interventionswhich

- snmaximiseprivate sector action by designing appropriate non-structural interventionsto encouragewider participation in improvingthe economicand environmentalperformance of drainageand its sustainability,

- identifystructural interventionsunder the programmefor small independent drainageschemes (normally not greater than 5000 ha) and evaluatethe costs, benefit and environmental impacts of each intervention together with measuresto mitigateor reverse adverse impacts,

identifystructural and non-structuralinterventions which would significantly improvethe economicand enviromnentalperformance of completedprojects and already existing facilities and evaluate the costs and benefits of the proposed interventions,giving particular attention to the sustainabilityof O&M, eliminatingdrainage bottlenecks and reallocatingcapacity to eliminate over drainage and bring in new areas of real need,

- identify small scale surface drainage schemes such as new culverts, drain inlets and channelworks, and evaluatethe costs and benefits from improved drainageof crops and rural infrastructureand from measures to mitigateor reverse adverse impactson wetlandsand the environmentin general,

- identify schemes which can be implementedindependently of other new drainageinfrastructure to control seepageincluding line plantations,cut-offs, interceptorand drainsand skimmingwells and evaluatethe costs and benefits and environmentalimpacts of each schemetogether with measuresto mitigate or reverse adverse impacts,

10-4 designschemes to monitorand fully evaluatethe effectivenessof tree planting to lower or prevent high watertablesby biologicalabstraction.

identify small scale sub-surfacedrainage schemes to deal with pockets of acute need particularly affecting human settlements. cultural properties. essential infrastructure and factories as well as potentially productive agriculturalland. and evaluatethe costsand benefitsof preventativemeasures and necessarydrainage works and the environmentimpacts especially with regard to the disposalof the sub-surfacedrainage effluent.

design an institutional framework for sharing the cost of schemes and maximisingthe sustainabilityof their future O&M.

develop an institutionalcapability to sustain the programme approach by training in public and governmentagency participationin the identification and implementationof potentialschemes and in their future O&M. and by giving emphasis to sustainabilitythrough small scale and non-structural interventions.

design interventionsfor improvingthe monitoringof rainfall. river. canaland drain discharges and water quality. increasing the density and utility of groundwater observations. including the development of a GIS and hydraulic/waterquality compute model of the river and main stem drainage. iii) The portfolio of interventionsto be developedfor Phase I of the NationalDrainage Programme is expected to cost no more than Rs. 5 billion over seven years. distributed betweenithe provinces accordingto the agreed shares. A preliminary breakdown giving emphasis to encouraging private sector involvement and recognisingthe environmentaland other constraintsto sub-surfacedrainage. envisages that schemes runningconcurrently in categoriesA, B. C and D in Section i) above will be in the ratios: 6:3:2:1 but because the cost to the programmeof schemes in categoryA will be much less than in the other categoriesthe costs to the programme will be in the ratios 1:1.5:1:0.5. The portfoliofor Phase I of the NationalDrainage Programme is expected to total some 60-70 schemes in category A (csting an average of Rs 18 M per scheme) and about 50 schemestotal in categories B. C and D (costing about Rs 75 M per scheme). The preparationof the Phase I programme will prepare sufficientschemes to produce a viable portfolio for the first year of programme implementationcomprising not less than 10 schemes in Category A. 3 schemes in categoryB, 2 schemesin categoryC and 1 scheme in categoryD- None of these schemeswill be taken from on-goingor alreadyplanned projects unless those projects are to be closed or curtailed and the programme's able to identify interventionswhich qualify accordingthe programmeis own criteria and priorities' iv) Not all the cost of the programmewill be met by funding under the 'accelerated programme of antiwaterloggingand salinity control', some will be met by private sector contributions,very often in kind through provisionof labour and land etc. or by other governmentagencies (eg CAA for drainage of rural airporus).The actual share will depend on the exact nature of the works, the attitude of the potential beneficiariesand the amountwhich they can contribute.In manycases, it may be felt that the costs should be shared with those causing the problem rather than those

10-5 benefittingfrom its solution.The preparationof the Phase I programmewill examine such issuesand recommendsuitable criteria for financingaction under the programme to remedy matters which are beyond the power of the beneficiariesto rectify themselves.The preparationof the Phase I programnmewill evaluatewhat proportion of the total cost of the programmeis to be met under the 'acceleratedprogramme', by the beneficiariesand other sources of budget.

10.6 Monitoring and Research

10.6.1 Major Issue

The major issues in the drainagesector are the estimationof quantityand qualityof drainage effluentand its sustainabledisposal. What quantityof effluentwould be generatedfrom an area depends upon the planning objectives ie; the level at which the watertable is to be maintainedand the accuracywith which the drainablesurplus can be estimated.

To define the planning objectivesand establishdrainage need, data on crop losses and its relationshipwith depth to watertableunder varioussoils, climateand shallowgroundwater quality is required. Similarly; what percent of losses due to drainge deficiency can be recoveredwith various drainage technologies. As each technologyitself or through its misuse may have enviromental impactswhich may questionits sustainability.yet another issue to be explored. Sincewater is the carrier of salts, the issue of water balancecannot be divorced. To estimate drainablesurplus, insteadof current practiceof taking supportof empiricalcoefficients, there is need to provide a sound researchsupport to these values.

The disposalmethods for drainageeffluent currently in use include:

A. Re-cycling

- Re-usewithin the drainedarea when effluentis disposedin watercoursessuch as in case of tubewelldrainage of FGW areas;

- Re-use within the same canal commandwhen effluent is disposeddirecdy into canals such as in case of tubewelldrainage of SGW areas;

- Re-use in another canal commandwhen the effluent is pumped into canals such as in case of surface drainageof rice areas of Right BankIndus;

- Re-use in other distantcanal commandswhen effluentdisposed into rivers is divertedinto canals at downstreambarrages; and

- Re-use in riverain areas through tubewellirrigation when effluentdisposed is allowedto seeDinto groundwaterreservoir.

B. Evaporation Ponds

- Disposal of saline effluent outside the canal command boundary with no irrigatedareas downslopesuch as in case of SCARP-VI;

10-6 Disposalof salineeffluent ouside the canalcommand boundarv with irrigated areas on the downslopesuch as in case of Eastern Sadqiaproject;

Disposalof salineeffluent in naturaldepressions within the canal commanded areas such as Hairdin pond in Pat Feeder canal.

C. Disposal into Lakes

- Tenporary disposalof saline effluentinto lakes such as Miro Khan draining into Hammallake and MNV into Mancharlake.

D. Disposal into Sea

- Disposal of saline drainage effluentinto sea through carrier drains passing through irrigated areas such as LBOD.

All these disposal methodswill have environmentaleffect on naturalresources and habitat.

Re-cyclingof drainage effluent, in any form it may take, will result in recycling and redistributionof salts. In areas where recyclingresult in export of salt improvementcan be expected.But in areas whererecycling is withinthe drained area or wheresalts are imported, salt concentrationis likelyto increase.What effectit has on the resourcedepends upon where these salts accumulate.To determnineabsorption capacity of soils for these salts, soil salinity needsto be related with crop responseunder our own managementconditions.

Creation of evaporationponds, in perviousareas, adjoiningor within the canal command boundaryis expectedto result in rise of watertablein adjoiningareas; on upstreamside due to obstructionof normalgroudwater flow and on downstreamside due to increasedrecharge.

Salinedrainage effluent disposal into lakes may result in effectingthe flora and fauna. Carrier drains taking saline effluentto sea if passing throughFGW zones may pollutethe reservoir.

10.6.2 Monitoring and Research Needs

The monitoring data and research needs fbr the drainge sector environmentalassessment stems out of the issues discussed above or may be many more as one moves alongwith monitoringand research. The basics is that emphasisbe laid on collectionof vital data and understandingprocesses and mechanismsfor better future prediction.

The resources involved are; water which carries the salts and other pollutionsand water bodies (lakes, rivers & canals), soils and groundwaterwhich are the recipients.In order to monitorthe salts and other pollutionsfollowing data will be required:

the quantityand quality of drainageeffluent entering canals, drains, lakes, evaporationponds and rivers;

salinity build-up, its causes and variation in lakes, ponds and grounwater (both shallowand deep);

periodicmonitoring of salinitystatus of the soil profilesupto root zone and beyond;

10-7 In addition,monitoring of watertablebehaviour near pond areas, evaporationrates and other pond operationaldata wouldbe required.

10.63 Data Requirements

During DSEA study it was observed that the data required was not only scanty and intermittentbut also scatteredand not readilyavailable. It istherefore, proposedthat a system to collect environmentaldata, its storing and retrival be established.From point of view of DSEA followingtypes of data wouldbe required:

A. Surface Water

Outflowsfrom all major surface drainage systems into canals, rivers, lakes and ponds;

IDaily river flows at all barrages, headworks and at intermediate points considerednecessary;

Chemicalquality of outflowsfrom major surface drainagesystems into water bodies and river water quality at all barrages, headworks and intermediate points be observedat least once a month. Three water samplesduring period of Octoberto April should also be tested for publichealth parameters, trace elementsand pesticides.

B. Groundwater

Quantityof tubewelldrainage effluent directly pumping into watercoursesand canals to be continuoslymonitored.

Chemical qualityof tubewelldrainage effluentmay be tested. Frequencyof testing to be adjusted keeping in view the changesrecorded.

Shallowgroundwater quality, in FGW zones, to be periodicallymonitored. Few samplesmay also be tested for public healthparameters, trace elements and pesticides.

C. Soils

Profile salinityof the root zone in irrigated areas to be repeated once every 10 years in the first instance.

Basedon the results, the frequencyof observationmay be increasedfor area! where salinity is buildingup to find the remedy, and may be reduced for areas not showingany increasingtrend.

In cotton-wheatzone and orchardsfew profiles may be selectedat randomto determinepesticide and fertilizerpollution of the soil at different depths.

10-8 D. BiologicalMonitoring

- Biologicalmonitoring in rivers and lakes be introduced.

10.6.4 Research Needs

It may be difficult to identify at this time the detailed research needs for DSEA. As the evaluation proceeds, the unknowns may elaborate further requirements. In the following however, an attempt has been made to broadly define the areas of research.

A. Recharge from Conveyance Systefn

Water is the carrier of salts in the system and unless accurate water budgeting can be done no meaningfulsalt budgetingis possible. Lossesfrom the system can be broadly divided into two portions ie; a) above the mogha ie; in canals and distributaries;b) belowthe mogha ie; in watercourses,farmer's channels and fields.

Whereas, losses above mogha and its fraction which recharges the groundwaterreservoir is relativelybetter known, the fraction of losses below mogha which recharge the reservoir are any body's guess.

It is therefore, necessarythat a fresh look on the whole subject of water losses and recharge be made to understandthe mechanismof loss from the conveyancesystem and the part which recharges the groundwaterreservoir and its variation with depth to watertable.

B. Sub-sirrigation/Evaporation

Percent of cropwater requirement met with from the shallow groundwater and its variation with depth to watertableand type of crop needs to be determinedto estimatesalt contribution to the soil from groundwater. Similarly, evaporationfrom groundwater, as fraction of pan evaporation, is required to determine inflow of salt from groundwater into soils.

C. Mechanism of Salt Movement in Soils

Salts present in the soil and those brought in by the water move as a result of percolationof water through the soils. What fraction of the salt is retained in the soils and that leached into the shallow groundwater needs to be determined alongwith their variation with depth to watertable and soil texture.

D. Salt Balance Studies

In the report an attempt has been made to determine salt balance for various drainage technologies.The preliminary observationsihdicate that salts in tubewell irrigated areas are accumulatingin the soils. Similarly, doubtshave been createdregarding efficacyof tile drains in controlling soil salinity in areas underlain by brackish groundwater, under prevailing irrigation practices. This calls for controlled studies to draw firm conclusionsfor future guidance.

10-9 E. Crop Yield and Deth to Watertabk

Responseof various crops to depth to watertable will be different and will also depend upon the chemicalquality of the shallowgroundwater. This knowledgeis necessaryto estimatethe optimum depth to watertablein various agroclimaticzones for drainage design and disposal.

F. Crop yideldand Soil Salinity

Level at which salinity starts affecting various crops in our environments needs to be determined to estimate the salt storage capacity of the soils.

G OperationalHazards of Ponds

Disposal of saline effluent into ponds is a relatively new method in Pakistan. Controlled investigationand research data needs to be collectedof all operational aspects to understand the environmentalimplications.

10.7 Operation and Maintenance

Drainage facilities include surface and subsurface drainge systems. The surfcace drainage systems are mosty gravity flow except rice areas in Sindh where pumped drainage is provided. Sub-surfacedrainage systems includeFGW & SGW tubewells and tile drains.

Sustainabilityproblems of sub-surface drainage system are already discussed in Sec:3.1.6 (Vol-1). Nearly 45% of PiD's budget is spent on their operation and only 16% of O&M cost is recovered. PID's are finding it difficult to live with this situation and efforts are afoot to privatise FGW tubewells. However, as tile drains and SGW tubewells will continue to be operatedby PID's, the financial constraints are likely to continueaffecting operation.

Sample informationfor a drainge circle in Punjab indicatethat of the total budget of Rs. 26 m, 63% is spent on regular establishment,21% for flood embankmentmaintenance (1 18 miles) and 16% for surface drainage maintenance.The total catchmentarea for the surface drains is 3 Ma which have 608 miles of main drains, 388 miles of branch drains and 131 miles of tributary drains. The estimated expenditureof drainage circle is Rs.9 per acre, of which, Rs. 1.5 per acre is spent on drains maintenance.

The analysis given above indicatesa large proportionof budget spent on establishment.Ever deteriorating maintenance of drains suggest that huge contigents of Mates and Beldars appointed to maitain certain lengths of drains so far have been unable to cope with the situation. There is a need to evolve some more efficient way of maintainingthe drains. Experiments can be done to let out the maintenanceof one complete system upto outfall through a contractor.

The bugetary position of drainage divisions is also poor and there is litde hope for improvementunless more fuids are generated.

10-10 10.8 Drainage Cess

The current practice of drainge cess is that area provided with drainagefacility should pay. In view of reservoirs and inter river links water from one place is carried long distances to irrigate areas. Link channels carrying water on their way create drainageproblems where as the benefit from this water is obtainedby another area. For exampleShorkot-Kanmia saline project became necessary because of seepage from TS link which carries water for use in Bhawalcanal; BRBD and MR link cause water loggingon their way while most of their water is used in CBDC and Upper Dipalpur canals and so on.

In view of this situation the concept of levying drainage cess needs to be reviewed. It is proposed that a uniform drainage cess per acre in canal irrigated areas be levied irrespective of whether drainge facility in that area is required or not. This option has the advantagenot only of generating more funds but also the burden would be shared by a large section of the farming community.To avoid burdening small land owners it can be limited to holdings of more than 12.5 acres.

10-11 CHAPTER 11

ROLE FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR ACTION

11.1 Analysis of Basic Requirements

11.1.1 Towards A Role Framework In establishinga role framework for institutionsthe key activities with referenceto the environmentare listedin Table 11.1. TABLE 11.1

Categories for key eavironmental activities in developmentplanning and implementation

Category Key Activity

Policy and Legal: - policy formulation - macro environmental assessment - setting of quality standards - derivelegislation - ensure enforcement mechanisms

Planning: - establishenvironmental strategies - environmental impact assessment - economic (environmental) appraisal - modify programme and project design - incorporate monitoring and evaluation (environmentaland socio-economic)

Implementation: - activateenhancement measures - implementpreventative measures - implementmitigative measures - invoke legal action Monitoringand Evaluation: - environmentalimpact monitoring and evaluation - socio-economicmonitoring and evaluation - recurrent monitoring of key variables

Il-i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11.1.2 Policy, Standardsand Legislation

In the context of irrgation and drainage, there is an urgent need to establish ambient water qualitystandards embracing not only variables related to industrialeffluent finding its way in irrigation and drainage channels, but also the presence of salinity, toxic metals, bacteria and other organismsparticularly in the context of crops, human and animal health.

Since differentstandards would apply for differentuses of water, it would not be appropriate to set legally rigid universal standards. While national ambientstandards would provide a yardstick, there would need to be clear definition of how and where different local quality standardswould be applied.Even where irrigationor drainagewater is not directly consumed by humans, there is a need to ensurethat pollutantsor harmful organismsare preventedfrom entering the food chain and standardsneed to cater for this aspect.

At the Federal level, the Federal EPA together with the Ministry of Water and Power, supportedby WAPDA, the Ministry of Health and other concernedbodies, should evaluate Provincialproposals and set Nationalquality standards, especially for water. Local variations in specific quality standardsshould be permitted and Provinciallegislation should be drawn up to cater for these.

At Provincial level this wouldrequire, as a minimum,the participationof the followingkey institutions:

- EnvironmentalProtection Agencies (EPA) - Planningand DevelopmentDepartments (P&D) - ProvincialIrrigation Departments (PID) - Public Health EngineeringDepartments (PHED) - Agriculturaland Fisheries Departments.

Detaied legislationand suitable delegation of enforcementpowers to Provincial EPAs is essential if quality standardsare to be met

11.1.3 Planning

A. Environmental Strategy

In additionto environmentalstrategies at Nationa!and Provinciallevel there may be a need for an additionalspecific focus on preparationof local or sectoral strategies.

The ProvincialPlanning and DevelopmentDepartments (P&D) would be suitableagencies to be responsible for this task, with assistance from the EPAs. Local and sectoral strategies would assist in determining when environmentalimpact assessment is required and in indicatingits required scope. Such strategiescould be adopted from those currentlyused by, for example, the World Bank (OperationalDirective No:4) or the Asian DevelopmentBank.

B. Environmental Impact Assessment

Line Deparnmentswould be expectedto ensure that environmentalimpact assessment(EIA) is undertaken where policy guidelinesand environmentalstrategy dictate a need. There is a

11-2 basic requirementfor a minimalbut adequatein-house expertise to appreciatethe technical and disciplinaryscope applicableto each EIA and to ensure that EIA field activitiesare undertakento an adequatestandard.

It would be costly and wastefulof scarce manpowerresources for any singleDepartnent to maintaina suitablerange of residentEIA specialists.This could be either with a centralised governmentagency or throughconsultants.

C. EIA Field Services

If Governmentwere to provideEIA field services,then these shouldbe centralised,probably under a specialisedwing of the Federal EPA. However,it wouldbe consistentwith GOP policy to promote developmentof this capabilityin the private sector. Government'sown direct role in EIA wouldthen be regulatoryand supervisory.

However,Federal and Provincialline Departmentswill needthe capabilityto be involvedin requisitedata collection,monitoring and analysisto feed into ElAs and the planningprocess generally.

D. Environmental Economics

Althoughmethodology is still evolving,economics may be appliedto many environmental parameters. This can be especiallyvaluable when:

- -theresults of EIA are ambiguousand trade-offsoccur

- economicanalysis lends weight to the environmentalists'conclusions, whether positiveor negative. The latter is especially important in helping to influence senior decision makers. Environmentaleconomics is relativelynew and there is need to impart specifictraining to developthis capability.

E. Provinciai Contributions

In the short term, recognisingthe shortageof manpower,Provincial EPAs might assist at local level for smallerprojects or componentsby participatingon a collaborativebasis with line Departments in supervisingselected ETAs and they might thereby offer on-the-job training. However, as essentiallywatch dog agencies, it would not be appropriatefor them to be officiallyresponsible for provisionof EIA field services.

P&Ds would be expectedto screen project proposals to ensure adequateconsideration of environmentalaspects, as they do for technical and economicaspects at present. They .thereforerequire environmentaldivisions.

For projectscreening to be carriedout effectively,EPAs will require analyseddata obtained largely from the line Departmentswho will have main responsibilityfor regular technical monitoring(see below).

11-3 F. Veto Powers in Project Screening

Screeningof projectsand powers of veto are exercisedby ProvincialDevelopment Working Parties (PDWPs),Central Development Working Party (CDWP) and by ECNECfor different levels of projects.

Federal and ProvincialEPAs, with their responsibilityfor standardsand legal requirements, should as a minimumbe involved on an advisory basis in the screening process and to exercisepowers of veto, throughtheir adequaterepresentation on the PDWPs,the CDWPand ECNEC.

11.1.4 Monitoring and Evaluation

EnvironmentalM&E have several objectives:

- indicatingrequired adjustmentsto projects under implementation

- revealing needs for implementingmitigative, preventative or enhancement measures

- verifying the pre-project environmentalassessment in order to improvethe qualityof future assessments

- feeding informationback into the planningprocess.

It is a cross-sectoraland relatively comprehensiveexercise, requiring recurrent physical monitoringand analysisof key variables.Individual implementing line institutionsshould not necessarilybe expectedto undertakecomprehensive M&E althoughthey shouldbe required to perform regular samplingand analysisof selectedvariables.

Withinthe water sector, WAPDAis likelyto be the appropriateoverseeing agency for M&E at Federal level, while P&Ds should in future have main responsibilityat Provinciallevel. Field services are likely to be contractedout. The EPAs must have sufficientexpertise to assist in the designof M&E exercises,evaiuating the resultsand undertakespot check-sin the field to collect and analysetheir own sample data to "evaluatethe evaluators".

11.1.5 Recurrent Physical Monitoring and Analysis

Regular monitoringand analysisof key variables,such as water quality, should normallybe the responsibilityof the implementingor operating institutions. It would also be their responsibilityto take remedial action or, if outside their operational scope, to lodge a complaintwith the EPA against the concernedinstitution. The EPAs' role, as watch dogs, wouldbe to carry out spot checks on a sample basis to ensurethat monitoringto a required standard is being carried out and also that correctivemeasures are being implemented. For this the EPAs need a field capacityand adequatelaboratory facilities.

Comprehensive monitoring and analysis of surface water quality in rivers, canals, drains, lakes, ponds and affectedcoastal zones, as well as monitoringof groundwater,is seen as an essential activity. A network of key monitoringpoints needs to be established,involving close coordinationbetween several concernedDepartnents and agencies.

11-4 The key coordinatinginstitutions are likely to be the EPAs togetherwith the P&Ds while those collectingand analysing water samples would include PIDs, WAPDA, PHEDs, Agricultureand FisheriesDepartments.

Waterquality monitoring should cover industrialeffluent and related chemicals,salinity and sodicity, agriculturalchemicals, silt, harmful organismsand water borne disease agents generally.Evaluation of the resultsof analysiswould be needed in terms of direct effectson agricultural production. human and livestockhealth, fisheries, wildlife and vegetation generally. The scopeof monitoringand evaluationwould need to be sufficientto assess relatedaspects such as re-useof drainageeffluent and risks of pollutantsprogiessing through the food chain. etc.

1I .1.6 Implementation

While implementationof corrective measures would be the responsibilityof each line Department.in this case particularlythe PIDs, there is a basic requirementfor all relevant institutionsto be aware of relevantlegislation which mightbe invoked. It is also essential for legalpowers of enforcementto be delegatedto the ProvincialEPAs.

11.2 Existing Situation

11.2.1 General Constraints

A. Overview

Many technical,financial and managerialconstraints on effectiveand sustaineddevelopment of irrigationand drainagesystems are in fact inextricablyrelated to broader (pan-sectoral) issues of poor public sector managementand budgetaryand financialdeficiencies. This is especiallycritical at Provinciallevel since line Departmentsare the main executingagencies for developmentand are also responsiblefor recurrent activities such as operation and maintenanceand provisionof services. Evaluationreports of programmesand projectshave tendedto emphasisshort term physical benefitswhilst, in manycases, under-emphasisingor completelyomitting discussion of:

- the shortlived nature of physicaland economicbenefits

- the failureto actuallyrecover financialcontributions from beneficiaries

- the increasedstrain on establishmentoverheads, recurrent finance and manpower, often due to creationof new sections/wingsunder development programme auspices

- the tendencyfor Departmentsto proposedevelopment projects to get aroundrecurrent financeconstraints.

It is importantto recognisethat these widerproblems need to be overcomeas a pre-requisite to the planningand achievementof effectiveand environmentallysustainable development.

The recommendationsarising out of the workshopsconducted during the study (Chapter12) underlinedthe issue of poor internalmanagement, lack of incentivesetc; in public sector

11-5 departments.The need to conducta form of internalmanagement and proceduresaudit was recognised.

B. Planning and the Environment

Althoughfour ProvincialEPAs have been established,as yet no ProvincialEnvironmental ProtectionOrdinances have been issued.These are stillunder scrutiny at Federallevel. There is no coordinationof environmentalpolicies or programmes Federally or Provincially. Developmentstrategy is influencedmainly by economicobjectives. There are no specific environmentalstrategies and little allowancefor environmentalaspects generally, although this situationis likely to changesoon.

A fundamentalproblem is that planningat Federaland Provincial levels, andby agenciessuch as WAPDA, is generally undertakenon a project by project basis, such that apparent strategiesor plansoften do no morethan reflectthe balanceof projectsproposed, rather than the other way around.

An integratedapproach to planning programmesor projects has rarely been implemented. This is unsatisfactoryfrom both environmentaland economicviewpoints where cross sectoral effects and linkagesexist.

Provincial planning activities are geared mainly to prioritising Five-year and Annual Developmentbudget allocations on the basis of projectsubmissionsdetermined autonomously by the respectiveline institutions.Thus, while P&Ds are involvedin approvalprocedures, they can only play a limitedrole in determiningthe scopeand rangeof projectsput forward. Hence, they only partly influencestrategies and the balancebetween subsectors.

C. Organisation and Managanent

Almostall govermmentinstitutions are managedon rigidlyhierarchical and autonomouslines of command,horizontal linkage are oftenweak and even discouraged.In general,this inhibits effectivecoordination or integrationof activitiesbetween lines of commandat any level.

Tendencyto create new institutionsneeds to be curbed, as it createsnew lines of command and further reducesco-ordination and also increasebudgetary constraints. Instead, periodical evaluationand restructuringthe existingones may achievethe same objectiveseconomically.

This has particular implicationsfor the organisationand managementof irrigation and drainagesystems. Co-ordination will only be achievedthrough actual integrationof irrigation and drainagefunctions at all levels withinthe establishmenthierarchy, with particular regard to utilisingand delegatingresponsibilities between existing lines of command.

D. Recurrent Finance

PIDs, suffer from recrnt budget constraintswhich are perceivedto particularlyaffect

- operation,maintenance and repair of existingequipment, canals, drains, buildings, etc

purchaseof replacementequipment, machinery, etc

11-6 Budgetexamples for SindhProvince, given in the RightBank MasterPlan (RBMP9, 1991), suggest that in real terms the overall recurrent budget allocationremained more or less constant between 198687 and 1990-91,although establishment staffing increasedand new institutionswere created. The effect was proportionatereduction of funds for replacement equipmentand repairs and maintenancegenerally.

Recurrentbudget deficienciesare due largely to poor revehue structures, relativelyhigh Provincialdebt repaymentcommitments, and weakpolitical and legal control whichinhibits both raisingof taxesand actualrevenue collection. A well knownexample is water charges. These have not been increasedsince 1981and, as the ACE study (1990)confirned, charges due are in any case under assessed.

Canal relatedrevenue-expenditure gaps for 1988-89are illustratedin Figure 11.1.

Anotherproblem is that fundingof the DevelopmentBudget is seen as largely a Federalor internationalconcern for which ProvincialGovernment is only pardy accountable.Hence there is littleinterest in evaluatingthe benefitimpact of developmentprogrammes or projects, let alone recoupingeven a smallproportion of the costs from the beneficiaries.

E. Expertise

Since it will take time to build up an environmentalcadre in Pakistan, it would be inappropriate in the foreseeable future to expect line Departments ;o each employ environmentalspecialists. Proposalsfor environmentalinstitutional strengthening should probablytherefore be limitedto EPAs, P&Ds and key Federal agenciessuch as WAPDAin the short term.

11.2.2 Deficienciesand Gaps in Responsibilities

A. Monitoring and Evaluation

The Monitoringand evaluation(M&E) cells of ProvincialP&D Departmentshave no field capacity and thereforedo not undertakeeither economicbenefit or environmentalimpact evaluation.Their role is limitedto pre-projectphysical implementation monitoring and actual expenditureson the basis of data receivedfrom the executinginstitution.

-Thisapproach is inadequatefrom an economicviewpoint and is of no relevanceto M&E of cross-sectoralenvironmental impact. No Provincialcapability to provide the necessary feedbackto improve either future economicplanning or pre-projectenviromnental impact assessmentthus exists.

The PC-Is (and subsequentPC's) do not cuurrentlyembody any specific environmental aspects.Modification of the PC documentsto includeenvironmental considerationswould be a relativelystraight forward procedure and couldbe readilycarried out.

B. Recurrent Physical Monitoring

Recurrent monitoringof water quality should be seen as a major focus for attention. Currently,no regularwater qualitymonitoring programme exists and the data availableis not only limitedbut also intermittentand sporadic.

11-7 Fig. 11.1

Canal Revenuesand O&M Costs (Rupeesper CCAAcre: 1988189)

1/o ......

14 0 - ...... _...... a.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 140-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... 1 w ...... /......

j1X-// _ ,_ ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... CLC 80- / . __ ------...... a: ...... _......

2 0- / _ ... ._

Sindh Punjab Balochistan NWFP Source of Data: ACE Study, 1990 WAPDAmonitors periodicallythe soil salinityand depth to water table in canal irrigated areas and selected SCARPs. Intermittentmeasurements are also availableof river water quality and at selecteddrain outfalls.

PIDs generallydo not monitor water qualityin canals and only rarely in rivers, pond *r lakes. EPAs have so far had little involvementin water qualitymonitoring although Pun X EPA has done a little in the Ravi River in the contextof industrialpollution.

PHEDs undertakesome monitoringof water but only to check on treatmentin their own water supplyschemes, although it is well knownthat people in rural areas often take their water from canals or other sources. They do no monitoring of water borne diseases. Laboratoryfacilities are extremelylimited and SindhPHED has none.

Soils on farms have rarely been analysed for anythingother than fertility. It would be desirableto regularlymonitor soils for changesin salinity and sodicityand for agricultural chemicals.

To fill the gaps, a coordinatedapproach involvingseveral institutionswill be required, sufficientnot only to ensure comprehensivemonitoring and analysis but also to enable evaluationof matterssuch as criticallinkages in the food chain.

11.2.3 Drainage Operation and Maintenance

A major cause of poor drain operationand maintenance(O&M) is lack of integrationof control into the overall irrigationsystem's managementand organisationalstructure. A related cause is lack of priorityaccorded to drainageby both farmers and PIDs alike.

Since many drains do not operateproperly due to poor operationand maintenance,farmers are least likelyto appreciatebenefits of drainage.However, both farmers' and PIDs concern withdrainage varies with circumstancesand is understandablyhighest where they are aware of land going out of productiondue to waterloggingor salinityand perceivethat appropriate drainagecan enablereclamation.

O&M of irrigation and drainage is co-ordinatedat the level of XENs in NWFP and Balochistan,so that the potentialfor improvedintegration and coordinationexists.

In Lahore, Faisalabadand Sargodhazones in Punjab and Kotri barrage commandin Sindh the co-ordinationis at the level of CEs but even in this case responsibilityis divided at SuperintendentEngineer level. Drainagein Gudduand Sukkurbarrage commandsare under Chief Engineer (DEV) at Hyderabadand are therefore operatedand maintainedseparately from the irrigationsystem.

Meanwhile,the Director of Land Reclamation,based in Hjderabad, independendycontrols, via an XEN, somenon- SCARPdrainage operation and also collectionof depth-to-watrtable data within the same vicinity of Sukkurbarrage command. Neither the Chief Engineerof Sukkurbarrage nor his subordinateshave any controlover these drainageactivities and they are not even coordinatedbetween themselves.

Another limitation in Sindh is that the only Mechanical Circle controlled by the SuperintendentEngineer (Mechanical)is under the auspices of Chief Engineer, Sukkur Barrage. Equipmentis hired out to other divisionsincluding to SCARPdrainage divisions.

11-8 However, there tends to be competitionfor access and often equipmentis not available at the right moment.

Fragmentation of responsibilitieswithin geographic areas reduces efficiency and inhibits realisation of economiesof scale.

Where constraints on budget, equipment or manpower exist, maintenance of canals is iviably given priority over surface drains, even when under the auspices of the same Executive Engineer (XEN) and when similar staff and equipmentmight sometimesbe used. Recurrent budget constraintslimit the availability of mechanicalspare parts and replacement of equipment.

Considering the range of difficulties cited above, it is understandable that incentives and enthusiasmfor drainage operation and maintenanceare generally low.

11.3 Guideines for Action

113.1 Defining a Role Framework

A. Outline

Environmental impacts and effects of any physical developmentintervention, tend to cross several sectors, such that concernedinstitutions inevitably will have broad interests. Although the DSEA study must consider all impacted sectors and institutions relevant to them, recommendations cannot be made in isolation or without recognition of yet wider responsibilitiesof environmentaland developmentplanning institutions generally.

In view of the above, and considering the environmentalexpertise shortages and financial constraints, there would be substantialbenefits in exploitingexisting institutional structures as far as possible, avoidingduplication and ensuring that institutionalrecommendations blend with proposals emanating from other sources.

Table 11.2 outlines a suggestedframework for institutionalresponsibilities, with particular reference to drainage developmentand the environment. In addition to filing responsibility gaps by indicating the range of institutionswhich shouldbe concernedwith each activity, the Table implies that action may be required to allocate certain responsibilities between WAPDA, the PlDs and other key institutions.

B. PlDs and WAPDA

In the medium to long term an enviromnentalcapability shouldbe introduced in each PID to enable consideration of environmental aspects and, where applicable, overseeing environmental impact assessment. It would be appropriate for this to be incorporated into existing Planning and MonitoringCells. Such a capability must be sufficient for specifying the range of disciplines required for ElAs in different circumstancesbut it would not be appropriate or necessary for individual line institutionsto have their own EIA field capacity. This work would be contracted out.

In the short term, the main environmentalcapability with regard to the water sector should lie with WAPDA, which should be strengthened accordingly.

11-9 TABLE 1.12 Irrigation, Draimac and the linvirbnment: Proposed Institutional Rcsponsibility Actiny or Rcsponsiboility.-PrnIpa Oversceing or I OithcrConcerned

Policy and Legal Aspcets National Environmental Policyformulation EPC FPC Federal l.PA Macro Environmental Assessment WAPDA Federal EPA National Water Quality Slandards Federal EPA WAPDA:Mins. of (Proposed IBWA?) Water, Health, Agric. Misheries Provincialand Local Watcr ProvincialI}PAs P&Ds: IPDs: PHIEDs: Quality Standards Agric & Fishcries Legislation Fcderal and Provincial Ministryof law EPAs (Proposed IBWA?) Law Departments Ordinancesand Enforcement Powers Federal and Provincial Ministryof Law Cabinets Law Departments Programmc and Project Planning National EnvironmentalStrategy Federal EPA WAPDA FPC ProvincialEnvironmental Strategy P&Ds ProvincialE-PAs National Drainage Programme WAPDA IPDs: P&Ds EnvironmentalImpact Assessment WAPDA IPAs: P&Ds IPDs Proiect Appraisal/Review WAPDA EPAs P&Ds FPC Design and Construction National and Inter-Provincial WAPDA IPDs Drainage Network Design EPAs Provincialand Local Design IPDs WAPDA; EPAs Construction IPDs WAPDA Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) EnvironmentalImpact M&E WAPDA Federal E-PA P&Ds ProvincialEPAs Socio-economic M&E WAPDA IPDs P&Ds Physical Monitoring and Analysis Water Quality Monitoring Masterplan WAPDA FPC Federal EPA (Proposed IBWA?) ProvincialWater Quality Monitoring P&Ds IPDs: PHEl}s; Agric EPAs Fisheries Soil Quality Monitoring Depts Agriculture WAPDA: EPAs Groundwater Monitoring on Farm Depts Agriculture IPDs: IPAs Implementation of Correctivc Measures Operating or implementing EPAs institutions

11-10 WAPDAshould assume greater responsibility for programmeand systemplanning, economic appraisal,environmental assessment and monitoringand evaluationof bothenvironmental and socio-economicimpact.

It is thereforerecommended that WAPDAshould undertake the following:

- strategic drainage network planning

- macro environmentalassessment and identifyingkey effects and impacts

- propcsingstrategies for the water sector whichtake these into account

- overseeingenvironmental impact assessment of major undertakings

- appraisal of programmes and projects from both social cost- benefit and environmentalviewpoints

- socio-economic M&E

- ovepseeingenvironmental impact M&E

- draftinglegislation concerning groundwater abstraction and tubewelldevelopment

- coordinatinga Nationalmaster plan for irrigationwater and drainageeffluent quality monitoringand analysis. It is strongly recommendedthat WAPDA shouldbe strengthenedto undertakethe above tasks. This should include promotingthe powers and status of both environmentaland economic planning units. It is therefore recommendedthat there should be a Chief Environmentalistwho shouldbe the same grade and status as the Chief Engineerfor Water ResourcesPlanning. as shouldthe Chief Economist.

Thesethree Chiefsand their constituentdivisions would make up the core for all WAPDA's planning and evaluationactivities and so might be called the "Planningand Evaluation Group". All three shouldexpect to liaise closelyand to report directlyto the GM Planning. This proposedset up is illustratedin Figure 11.2.

C. Other Concerned Institutions

EnvironmentalProtection Agencies

The Federal and ProvincialEPAs will have essentiallycoordinating, advisory and watchdog roles. They will be responsiblefor overseeingpreparation of qualitystandards (both ambient and site specific),drafting legislation,preparing guidelines for EIAs and for spot checking or samplemonitoring of pollution,etc.

They shouldhave sufficientexpertise to playa majorrole in ensuringmonitoring and analysis of key variables, such as water quality, where several sectors or institutionsare involved. For this they would also need adequatelaboratory facilities and somefield capacity.

11-11 WAPDA: Key Elementsof Proposed Organisation to strengthen Planning and Environment

Member/M.D.Water

G.M Planning

ChiefEnvironmental ChieEconomist ChiefEngineer (WRP) j Ohe Chiefs+ Directrs

EnviromentaDiviion F Planningand Ten ietr

Er___ronmer___D ___n EvaluatronDivsionTehiaDrcts ProposedIPlanningandEvaluat(onGroup

| | ~PmpopsedPlanning and Evaluation Group The EPAs should not be expectedto undertakeElAs but they should have the capacity to providetechnical advice for them and appraisetheir quality. Fieldworkfor ElAs would be the responsibilityof the line institutions. Likewise, most monitoringactivities aimed at checkingthat standards are being met would be undertakenby the implementingagencies, includingself-monitoring by private industries. The EPAs' role will be to spot or sample check to ensure that the various institutionsare fulfillinglegal requirements.

It is clearly essential for the necessary legislationto be drawn up at both Federal and Provincial levels and for EPAs to be granted powers to take legal action and ensure enforcement.

Plannin! and DevelopmentInstitutions

For strategic planning within the water sector, there will be a need to identify priority environmentalissues between sectorsand prepare specificenvironmental strategies. These would place water and drainage sector issues in their proper context at both Federal and Provinciallevels.

The Federal Planning Commission(FPC) with its attached agenciesis the most appropriate authorityto undertakethis task at Federal level, in liaison with WAPDA, and the P&Ds at Provinciallevel, in liaisonwith EPAs.

At present the FPC and the :'&Ds have main responsibilityfor screeningproject proposals, from both technicaland economicviewpoints but it wouldbe appropriatefor environmental screeningto be added to the projectappraisal process.

The NationalConservation Strategy recommendsthat the ECNEC shouldhave its mandate broadenedto includethe environment,which would implystrengthening the FPC accordingly.

It is strongly recommended that each P&D should have an EnvironmentalDivision to undertakepreparation of enviro;mental strategies, screen projectsand ensurethat EIAs were undertakento an adequatestandard. These divisionswould liaise with the EPAs and take advicefrom thern when needed.

It is further recommendedthat P&Ds, as the senior technicalinstitutions at Provinciallevel, should take the lead in establishinga suitable coordinatingbody or committeefor water qualitymonitoring and analysis. The EPAs would also play a major role in this.

Agicultural Departments

The Departmentsof Agricultureprovide advisory services in the field of agricultureextension and on farm water management.They shouldensure judicial use of agriculturalchemicals to prevent these enteringinto drains or pollutinggroundwater and drinkingwater supplies,etc.

Public Health EngineeringDepartments (PHEDs)

PHEDs oversee water suppliesand sanitationin rural areas and smaller towns but they do little monitoring. Where monitoringdoes take place, it is onlyof PHEDs own water supply schemes. A comprehensiveapproach is required, coveringall sourcesof drinkingwater used, water borne diseases, etc.

11-12 PHEDsneed data on waterquality, pollution and diseaseproblems, and their relationshipto health in specific locations. By participatingin monitoringand evaluation,and regular physicalmonitoring, it shouldbe possibleto build a clearerpicture of theseproblems in rural areas and to identifywhere pollutants may be passingthrough the food chain.

PHEDsshould therefore actively participate in a muchwider range of activitiesthan they do at present. For this, they shouldalso have improvedlaboratory facilities and additionalfield staff for physicalmonitoring purposes.

FisheriesDepartments

Their main role, with reference to the drainagesector and the environment,should be to closelymonitor all waters, especiallyrivers and lakes, where drainagefrom irrigatedareas may be affectingfish productionand aquaticlife generally. Like the PHEDs, they should undertakemonitoring and laboratoryanalysis in sufficientdetail to includeidentification of pollutantspassing throughthe food chain.

113.2 Environmental Assessment

Althoughultimately each Provincialline Departmentwill be responsiblefor environmental assessment,and shouldhave its own environmentalpersonnel within Planning and Monitoring Cells, in the shortto mediumterm it will be onlythe EPAs,WAPDA and the P&Dswho will have any significant environmentalexpertise. Unfortunatelyeven this is likely to be engir.eeringbased, which is of only marginalrelevance to the issues in hand.

The EPAs' role, togetherwith the P&Ds, will be to stipulateunder what circumstancesEIAs will be required, to provideadvice and to assist P&Dsin screening EIA quality.

Future assessments will have to be contracted out and expatriate and local expertise, particularlyenvironmentalists with natural science backgrounds. will be required in the foreseeablefuture.

Establishmentof centralisedGovernment EIA field servicesis not recommended.In the long term it will be more efficient to exploit the private sector and research and academic institutions.

1133 Monitoringand Evaluation

Monitoringand evaluationof water sector projects and programmes shouldbe the main responsibilityof WAPDAat Federal level, and the P&Ds at Provinciallevel, supported technicallyby the EPAs. Self monitoringand evaluatingby line institutionsshould be minimisedand in any case they will not have adequateexpertise in the foreseeablefuture to undertakecomprehensive environmental impact or socio-economicM&E.

Althoughin the past P&Ds have been reluctantto engage in field activities,as the senior technicalinstitutions at Provinciallevel, it would be appropriatefor them to do so in the future. This would also help to improvethe qualityof planning and ensure the M&E is carriedout objectively.

11-13 The P&Ds need substantialmanpower and budgetarystrengthening to incite them to develop a field capacity for both socio-economic and environmentalimpact monitoring, especially as they have multi-sectoralresponsibilities. Even if internalmanpower were insufficient,they should be allocatedsufficient budget to ensure services can be contractedout.

Similar arguments apply to WAPDA but if most M&E is undertaken at Provincial level, WAPDA might be involvedless frequently. WAPDAshould therefore expect to focus on M&E of projects implementedunder the auspicesof PIDs in order to reduce the burieai on P&Ds.

Collaborationand coordinationbetween WAPDA, P&Ds and the EPAs would be essential for each water sector related M&E exercise.

113.4 Physical Monitoring and Analysis

WAPDA could take the lead in devising a Nationalwater qualitymonitoring master plan, in particular liaisingwith the ProvincialP&Ds, PIDs and the EPAs. The main purpose of the masterplanwould be to define the precise responsibilitiesof PID staff and the technicaland financial requirementsto establish an effective networkof monitoringpoints and suitable laboratory facilities. This would be partly in recognitionthat PIDs are likely to play a leadingrole in actuallycollecting samples since they havevast numbersof canal staff already in the field in suitablelocations.

In the Provinces,P&Ds should take the lead in establishingcoordination committees to assist in agreeinglocalised water qualitystandards and to helporganise comprehensive water quality monitoring. The EPAs would have a major role to play in this. The committeesand the EPAs would have a duty to ensurethat there are no gaps and that all interestedparties are satisfied. AlthoughPIDs staff are likely to collect the majority of water samples, other concernedinstitutions, such as PHEDs, FisheriesDepartments, etc, will also wish to do their own samplingand analysis.

Althoughto a large extent Departnents will be responsiblefor their own self-monitoring, analysisand implementationof correctivemeasures, each line Departmnentshould, as far as possible, monitorthe activitiesof the others. For example:

- Fisheries Departmentcould monitor effluents discharges by PIDs into lakes and rivers,

- PHEDs could monitor water, from the health viewpoint, from any known potable source and also from wherediseases might emanate, such as mosquitobreeding areas

- AgriculturalDepartments could monitorwater in watercourses

- PlDs could monitorwater at key systementry points and near relevant industrialand sewerage outletsor other sources of pollution

- The EPAs shouldprovide additionalsupport with sample spot checks.

There will be an associatedneed to identify suitablelaboratory facilities for each concerned institutionand to providethe necessarybudget for monitoringto commence. The monitoring

11-14 programmeshould be sufficientlycomprehensive to be able to trace water borne chemicals and pollutantsthrough the food chain and evaluatethe implications.

Complaintswould be channelledthrough the EPAs who would determinethe need to take legal action, if any.

113.5 Drainage Management and Finance

A. Organisation of Operation and Maintance

Effectiveintegration of irrigationand drainageactivities is only likelyto be achievedif O&M of both canals and drainsis containedwithin the lines of commandof the relevantfield based officers, starting from Executive Engineers (XENs) downwards. This would facilitate coordinateduse of manpowerand equipment.

It is necessaryto ensure that equipmentis availableto be used at the right moment,which couldbe better coordinatedunder singleand localisedlines of command.

In most PID structures,the existingsetup is conduciveto integrateddrainage and irrigation O&M,of surfacedrains at least. However,in Sindhthe situationneeds rectifying. SindhPID shouldbe required to restructurecontrol of drainagesystems, reallocating responsibilities so that lines of commandstart withChief Engineersof respectivebarrages and pass throughthe XENs,who are currentlyonly concernedwith canals.

B. Career and Training Initiatives

Experiencesof SCARPtubewells, Sindh drainage arrangements and alsoof CommandWater Managementpilot projects (see Bettset al, 1989),suggest that if personnelare divertedaway fromthe mainlines of command,then their promotionand hence careerprospects are limited. This appliesparticularly at morejunior levels, below XEN grades.

There may be a case for a specificcorps of drainagespecialists for planning and design purposes, at relativelysenior levels. However,even at this level, it is likely that no more than specific"adjustment" training of existingirrigation engineers will be needed.

Developinga separatecadre of drainagespecialists with separatelines of commandis not recommended,particularly as this wouldmake it moredifficult to integratedrainage operation into a comprehensivewater managementstrategy.

Traininginitiatives aimed at improvingoperation and maintenanceof irrigationand drainage systemsgenerally were presentedin the WaterSector Investment Plan (WSIP,Vol 3, 1990). Also, a number of training programmeswere implementedunder the second Irrigation SystemsRehabilitation Project (ISRP2).

It shouldbe noted that the benefitsof such trainingprogrammes have not been evaluatedin detailby any agency and as such no firm recommendationscan be made withinthe context of this study.

11-15 C. Cost Recovery and Drainage Cess

It would not be realisticto expectdrainage cess to cover even direct O&M of drainageuntil such time as water charges are raised and revenue assessmentand actual collectionare improved. Indeed, drainagecharges, where they existat all, are minimal,which is indicative of the current situation. Even if there was politicalwill to significantlyincrease charges, there is no immediatelikelihood of a reasonableproportion being collected. Any discussion of a rational and equitableapproach to cost recovery and drainage cess is, at this stage, hypothetical.

It appears that only SindhProvince has so far implementedany drainage cess charges. The stated objectiveis to recover 25% of direct O&M costs. The charges, whichhave recently been revised, are appliedonly in selectedareas as follows:

- Rs 32Jacre in fresh groundwaterareas wherethere are tubewells and tile drainage

- Rs 5/acre in other areas for surface drainage.

The Boardof Revenueis responsiblefor collection.

Success in collectiondepends largely on farmers' perceptionof the need for drainage. For example, in the wet-foot rice growing areas of the Right Bank of Sindh, most farmers consider drainageunnecessary. For the Larkana-Shikarpurarea, the RBMP (1991) report indicatesthe following:

DesireableIPD recurrent expenditure(drainage): Rs 90/acre Actual IPD recurrent expenditure(drainage): Rs 42/acre Officialdrainage cess charge: Rs 5/acre

Actual collectionas percentof cess due: 13% Actual collectionas percentof actual expenditure: 2% Actual collectionas percentof desirableexpenditure: 1%

Farmers are more likely to agree to pay drainagecess where the benefits are obvious,such as when land is reclaimed,or seen to be going out of productionin the absenceof adequate drainage. It is possiblethat the farmers in Larkana-Shikarpurhave good reasonnot to pay: manyof the drains are blockedand, dependingon the crop grown, the benefitsof operational drainage might in any case be negligible.

Most officials agree that drainage cess should be incorporated into overall charges for irrigation water and drainage because this will greatly simplify assessmentand collection procedures. The most rational and equitableapproach is seen by PID staff to be one which *relates drainage cess to the type and cost of service provided rather than, say, scaling drainagecess in proportionto irrigationcharges for different crops.

The impliedrationale is related dosely to the engineers'perception of benefit of drainage, which appear to be linked to technicalcomplexity and installationcost, althoughthese might not correlate with farmers' willingnessto pay or withbenefits realised.

11-16 This could mean, for example, differentiatingdrainage cess charges in ascendingorder, as follows:

- flood alleviation drainage - other surface drainage - tile drainage - tubewelldrainage in FGW areas - tubewell drainage in SGW areas.

It is preferable, in theory, to determinetype of drainage installation,and drainage cess, accordingto cost-benefitcriteria rather than on groundsof technical'need' or feasibility. Cost-benefitanalysis should of course includevaluation of crop output benefits and not be based only on the cost of providingdrainage facilities. Farmer's willingnessto pay is likely to correlatewith their perceptionof benefits arisingfrom improvedagricultural production, which may have little relationshipto cost.

The existingcrop water charges, beingbased on crop water requirements,do not necessarily correlate well with an optimalcost-benefit relationship since the financialor economicvalue of the crop is not taken into consideration.

The drainage cess shoulu, ideally, be related to both the cost of service vrovided and the value of benefitsfor dominantcrops of the area conceried. There is a need to assessfarmers willingnessand ability to pay whichwould also provide indicatorsof benefits,and this lends weight to the argumentthat farming communitiesshould be consultedbefore design and constructionof drainageschemes.

Under present arrangementsthere are water charge differentials,although modest, not only between Provinces but also between seasons and between some canals. These offer a precedent for implementingdifferential drainage charges between localities and cropping zones, etc. it is concludedthat a theoreticalcost-benefit approach to determiningdrainage cess must be tempered by practical realities with the objectiveof optimisingactual revenue collection, whilst taking accountof the present social and politicalclimate.

11-17 CHAPTER 12

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

12.1 Introduction

In relation to training the Terms of Referencefor this study stipulatethat it should:

"Develop and carry out a training programme for GOP and Provincial Officials related to water sector planningand developmentwith special emphasison drainage and environmentalrelated matters;

i) Prepare trainingprogramme, includingtraining materials ii) Carry out training programme, i.e. on-the-job, seminars, workshops etc." (Clause4.14)

These duties were implementedin two discrete phases. The first phase was concernedwith an assessmentof the training needs of staff in the various relevant agencies. It includedthe preparation and provision of a Two-day Workshop in Environmental Awareness in the Drainage Sector. The secondphase was principallyconcerned with developingand carrying ovit one-day and two-day Training Seminars in Lahore and Karachi. These seminars are described in detail in Appendix XII.

Specific training needs and proposals to meet these are described in Section 3 herein. The recommendedtraining programmesare briefly described in Section4 and Section5 contains Conclusionsand Future Action.

12.2 Background

12.2.1 Previous Findings

A country wideand comprehensiveevaluation of TrainingRequirements in the Water Sector was carried out as part of the Water Sector InvestmentPlanning Study (WSIP 1991). This study reviewed previous reports and studies relating to training. It also set out to assess training capabilities in the various Government agencies and in appropriate educational institutions in Pakistan. The report identified a wide spectrum of training needs, noting "..training is required for almostall staff in WAPDA,the PID's and the PAD's, and for this reason a permanentin-house training capabilityneeds to be establishedin each organisation".

Ile WSIP study identifiedeight main areas where training would be targetedtowards skills and standards. These are:

- basic academicand professionalstandards - project planning - project design - project implementationand supervision - system operation and water management - system maintenance

12-1 - water managementby farmers - project benefit evaluation

In recognitionof the major traininginput that wouldbe needed to cover such a wide spectrum of needs, the study stressedthat the trainingeffort must be weightedtoward improvedwater managementand operationand maintenanceprocedures as these areas are the most likely to result in increasedagricultural production.

The WSIP studyalso recognised even in the three selectedareas that the "traininginvestment will have to be massiveif any tangibleresults are to be realised"

As the WSIPstudy was programme,rather than project, orientatedits assessmentof training needs in such broad areas can be anticipated.Other recent studieshave generallybeen of a more projectorientated nature and have accordinglyidentified specific training needs related to particular projects (ISMP 1986, ISMP 1988). A comprehensivebibliography is given in the WSIP studyand is not repeatedherein.

12.2.2 Current Training Programmes

The principal in-countrytraining programmesare run by ai limited number of training institutes.Although these instituteshave not been reviewed in detail by this study, a brief overviev%is presentedbelow.

The academicinstitutes mainly concerned with training in-servicestaff from WAPDA, the PID's and PAD's are listed below:

The Punjab Engineering Academy (PEA) The Centre of Excellencein Water Resources Engineering,University of Engineeringand Technology,Lahore

WAPDA- Administrative and ManagementStaff College.

The PunjabEngineering Academy runs regularpre-service and in-servicetraining courses for engineers,most of whom come from the PID's.

The pre-servicecourse is:

GeneralEngineering Training for Sub-DivisionalOfficers and AssistantExecutive Engineers on their first appointmentin the EngineeringDepartments. This course is of four months duration and covers a wide range of subjects including engineering,accountancy, project planning, management,computer orientation, government department rules and regulations.

The in-servicecourses are: a) Seminar ManagementCourse for Superintendingand Chief Engineergrades of one week's duration. b) SeniorLevel Training Course in Managementof one month's durationfor Executive and SuperintendingEngineers. c) EngineerTraining Course in Engineeringand Managementof 2 month's durationfor Sub-DivisionalOfficers and ExecutiveEngineers.

12-2 In additionto the above regular 'service trainingcourses the Academyruns regular courses in Computers and in Management.Also a series of short courses sponsored under the Irrigation System ManagementProgramme (ISM-US AID) covering Surveying, Design, Construction,Contract Administration and Operationand Maintenancehave also been given.

The Centre of Excellence in Water ResourcesEngineering is a semi-autonomousFederal Institutewithin the Universityof Engineeringand Technology, Lahore. It essentiallyconducts postgraduatedegree programmesfor diplomas,MSc, MPhil and PhD in Water Resources Managementand Hydrology. The Centre also conductsshort courses in a variety of topics. These are generallyrelated to topicstaught in the Master'sprogramme or to ongoingresearch activities.For example,short courses being conductedin 1992 are: a) Micro-ComputerSimulation of RegionalSaline Water Movement in response to Pumping:this is a two weekcourse largelydirected towards computerfamiliarisation and applicationsin modelling saline and fresh water aquifers as exist in SCARP areas. b) Micro-ComputerApplications in Monitoring,Evaluation and Managementof Water Resource Projects; this is a series of three week courses dealing with computer programming and applications in water resources, agricultural developmentand management.

The Centre intends to host, in April 1993, an international seminar on Environmental Assessmentand Managementof Irrigationand Drainage Projects for SustainedAgricultural Growth.

The WAPDAAdmin.strative and Staff ManagementCollege has centres in Lahore; the Staff Collegeand DistributionTraining Institute. in the Tarbela Academnyand in the Faisalabad Academy.The collegeand its associatedAcademies and TrainingInstitute run a series of pre- service and in-servicecourses. These are briefly listed below.

The pre-servicecourses are: a) IntegratedCourse for Junior Engineersof 6 monthsduration. b) Junior ManagementCourse of 6 monthsduration.

The in-servicecourses are: a) ManagementDevelopment Course of 10 weeks duration for ExecutiveEngineers. b) Senior ManagementCourse of 20 weeks duration for ExecutiveEngineer grade up to Chief Engineergrade. c) Project ManagementCourse of 4 weeks durationfor ExecutiveEngineers and above.

Varioustechnical courses are alsorun on topics in the fieldsof civil and electricalengineering both at Faisalabadand Lahore.

Other instituteswhich mightbe relevant to the future conduct of in-countrytraining courses in the environmentaland drainagefields are listed below:

12-3 Institute of Environmental Engineering and Research, University of Engineeringand Technology,Karachi

NWFP Universityof Engineeringand Technology,Peshawar

Rural Academy, NWFP, Peshawar

GovernmentPolytechnic Institute, Quetta

AgriculturalTraining Institutes, Quetta and Peshawar.

12.3 Training Needs Assessment

12.3.1 Specific Areas for Training

There is a wide spectrumof areasin the Water Sector for whichimportant training needs can be identified.Many of these areas have been assessedin the WSIP report as noted in above. There are also many recent and on-going programmes which have significant training components.

The IrrigationSystem ManagementProgramme (ISMP-I)covered, during the period 1984- 1988,both overseas training and in-countryshort courses. The PunjabEngineering Academy was upgradedunder this programmeand ran a series of short courses in surveying, design, construction,management, computer skills and so on. ISMP-II,starting in 1991 and funded by USAIDhas also an ambitiousmulti-subject training programme(WSIP 1991).

To deal effectively and equally with all perceived training needs would require the mobilisationof unrealisticallylarge resources,both financialand technical.It is unlikelythat seriousconsideration would ever by givento any large or all-embracingtraining programmes. A specifictargeted programme,limited both in scope and duration, will have a significantly betterchance of attractingfunds and of being implemented.As the current study is concerned principallywith the Envirommentand with the Drainage Sector it has concentratedits effort in assessingtraining needs in these related sectors only.

This assessment is carried out through a combinationof report reviews, interviews and discussions,a questionnaireand, principally,through the Workshopsand Seminarsconducted duringthe course of this study.These seminarsare discussedin more detailin Section 12.4.1.

The principal areas identifiedfor training, within the frameworkof the Drainage Sector EnvironmentalAssessment Programme, are listed below: a) Environmental Impact Assessment;purpose, uses and methods.This appearsto be the single mIost important target area, both in general EIA and in its specific applicationin the water sector. b) Drainage Technologiesin the Indus Basin; the nature, mechanisms,water and soil chemistryof drainagemethods. This would be aimedat those directlyor peripherally involved in the irrigationand drainagesectors. This area of trainingcan be given at two levels of intensitywhich are;

12-4 (i) General awarenessof drainage and its environmentalimplications, and

(ii) Intensivedrainage and EIA course.

The former could be achieved in a relativelyshort number of training hours. The latter course could require several weeks. Indeed many accreditedtraining courses in drainagemanagement and technologyare of several monthsduration. This detailed course would apply to those engineers and agriculturalistsactually working in the irrigationand drainagesectors. c) Training for Participative Field Workshop (Farmers Participation)

An essentialrecommendation of this study is that farmers, as the prime producersin the irrigation and drainage sector, should be actively involved in the planning, implementation,operation and maintenanceof irrigation and drainageprojects. This is not the case at present and there is a communicationand understandinggap between the farmers and the professionalagriculturalists and engineers involved in irrigation and drainage.The perceptionsof these groups are often seen to be poles apart and yet it is the farmers' perceptionswhich influence his actionsand production capacity, not the perceptionof the professionals.This topic is elaboratedunder the Institutionssection of this report. The role of agriculturalistsand engineers in this contextwould be to explaintechnical options to the farming communitiesand to seek the farmers' opinionson drainagematters. Suchcommunications could be established through participativeworkshops. The training need relates to developingskills to communicatewith farmers and to conduct these workshopsin an effective manner. Skillsto be acquiredwould be essentiallycommunication and presentationskills and how to apply these in developingand running workshops in the field. This course would thus be a "training-of-trainers",requiring about one week at each location which includesfield practice. d) Indus Basin Drainage Information (Travelling) Seminar

This NationalDrainage Programme study has prepared a series of recommendations relating to water management,drainage issues and sustainabilityof the Indus Basin Irrigation and Drainage systems.These are covered elsewherein this report. Many of the associatedconcepts and issues are complexand would require a significant expenditureof time from those who need to or wish to understandthese concepts. This study, in recommendingthat all these professionalswho are directly or even peripherally involved in the drainage sector should have a good understandingof these-aspects, proposes a Travelling Seminar to disseminatethis information.This seminar shouldbe mobile, a "roadshow",and be presented to participants in all four provinces, particularlythose in the concernedagencies.

12-5 123.2 Institutions and Staff

The principalinstitutions directly involved in environmentalmatters and in the drainagesector are:

o EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) o Water and Power DevelopmentAuthority (WAPDA) o Provincial IrrigationDepartment (PID) o ProvincialAgriculture Department (PAD) o Planning and DevelopmentDepartment (P&D) o Public Health EngineeringDepartment (PHED) o Fisheries Department

It is noted elsewhere in this report that environmentalexpertise is virtually non-existentin Pakistanand that the limitednumber who work in environmentalunits are generally engineers by training. Additionally, and appropriatelyperhaps, the emphasisin environmentalmatters has been in the public health engineeringsector. Environmentalexpertise in the irrigation, drainage and agricultural sector has, when required for EIA preparation, been largely contractedout to foreign consultants.This matter is, to a limiteddegree, being addressedby overseas longer term training, that is, I year or more at postgraduate degree level, of Pakistaninationals who are in post in EPAs and elsewhere. Within Pakistanthe Institute of EnvironmentalEngineering and Research in Karachi is also helping to redress the balance although its emphasis lies strongly in the public health engineering sector. This is also appropriatein view of the extreme importanceof this latter sector in Pakistan.

It is considered likely, in the short term at least, that the provision of non-engineering environmentalistswill continue to be from outside the country. However "adjustment' training of those staff in post in the relevant institutionsis perfecdy appropriate. This refers to equ':ppingthose staff, predominantlyengineers, with new skills and capabilitiesto match the new rernents of their posts and of their parent institutions.

The existingand recommendedproposed institutionalarrangements are discussed elsewhere in this report. The EPAs have major roles to play as setters of quality standard, as "watchdogs' in enforcing such standardsand as advisersto other instituitionsin the theory and practice of EIA in many sectors. In connection with the drainage sector, taken herein as includingirrigation, the EPA staff will need to become at least broadly acquaintedwith the environmentalimplications of irrigation,drainage and flood control projectsand programmes.

WAPDA, as the main authority currently involved in the planning and design of major programnmnesand projects, needs an in-houseenvironmental capability in order to carry out, or at least supervise the executionof, EIAs where such are required. In recognitionof this WAPDAhas created an EnvironmentalUnit. Currently this unit is small and understaffedand a recommendationhas been made elsewherein this report that it is strengthened.It also lacks expertise in the drainage sector. Existing staff in this unit, and new staff when recruited, would benefit from training in all four primary target areas identified in Section 12.3.1. Awarenesstraining in EIA and in drainagetechnologies, courses (a) and (bii) above, should also be given to others involvedin the water and planning sectors, includingChief Engineer, Senior and Executive Levels.

12-6 The forthcomingAsian DevelopmentBank's Technical Assistance Project for WAPDA's EnvironmentalCell will of course provide invaluableon-the-job training for the staff of the Cell. This project is scheduledto start in early 1993.

The PIDs have historically been responsible for the operation and maintenanceof surface water delivery and drainagedisposal systems and are also,"to a limited extent, involved in planningand designof new and rehabilitationirrigation projects. As the principal institution involved in field activitiesthe PIDs have much influenceon the success or otherwiseof the irrigation and drainage sector in Pakistan. The operation and maintenance of drainage schemes including the extensive SCARP schemes comes under their control. It is thus fundamentallyimportant that PID staff possess the expertisenecessary to effectivelymonitor and manageall such schemes.Drainage theory and technologyis not necessarilycomplicated but does require the acquisitionof some specialisedknowledge and skills as in, for example, the fields of soil and water chemistry, watertable control, crop response to water table and salinitylevels and so on. Ic is not recommendedthat cadres of drainagespecialists be trained up, with lines of commandseparate from those of the PID field engineers. However, the existingtrained irrigationengineers of Executiveand assistantgrade would be provided with the specific 'adjustment" training referred to above. This training, Course bQii)(Section 12.3.1), would includethe environmentalimplications of drainage.

The more senior staff in the PID would benefit from the shorter training in the aspects of a generalawareness of drainageand its environmentalimplications [Course b(i) Section 12.3.11.

The Planning and DevelopmentDepartments will clearly have a significant role to play in evaluating and approving the environmental impact assessment aspects of proposed developmentprojects. This would be an additionto their current responsibilityto appraisethe technical and economicaspects of such projects. The NWFP P&D have an Enviromnental Division and it is understood that the other provincial P&D Departments will also have EnvironmentalDivisions sometime in 1993. Doubtlessthe staff of such divisionswill have some background in envirommentalmatters. This could be built upon by their participation in the identifiedshort trainingcourses, [(a) and b(i) Section 12.3.1]. Other additionaltraining needs should be assessedto accord with their expectedduties but this lies outside the scope of the current study.

Staff of the Public Health Engineering Departmentsare amongst those most familiar with environmentalmatters, largely relating to water quality, pollution, diseases and water treatment. The principaltraining areas, listedas (a) and b(i) above, would both broaden their staffs' awarenessof the importantlinkages with the irrigationand drainage sector and provide a technicallink of commonunderstanding with these staff in WAPDA and the PIDs who are more directly involved in these sectors. Such an understandingwould facilitate the essential communicationand liaison between these institutions.

Finally, but by no means least importantly,the PADs have a significant role to play in enviromnentaland technicalaspects of drainage. Apart from the obvious, but not extensive, aspect of agricultural chemicals causing direct or indirect adverse consequences,the entire thrust of the government's objective is to achieve greater productivity at field level. The PADs are wholly concernedwith this aspect and thus with the associated aspects of water supply, drainage removal, salinity and sodicity control. The participation of PAD staff in those same courses proposed for PID field staff is recommended. Where differences in technicalbackgrounds exist the courses can easily be adapted to accommodatethese.

12-7 12.4 Recommended Training Programmes

12.4.1 Seminars and Workshops

A total of eight days of Workshops and Seminars were conductedduring this study as follows:

(i) Two-Day Workshop on EnvironmentalImpact Assessmentin the Drainage Sector; Lahore 8, 9 April 1992.

(ii) One-DaySeminars on the Role of EIA in Project Planning, Implementation and Operation;Lahore 29 September1992 and Karachi 4 October 1992.

(iii) Two-Day Seminars/Workshopson EnvironmentalImpact Assessmentin the DrainageSector, Lahore 30 September,I October 1992, and Karachi 5 and 6 October 1992.

These were conducted principally by the Consultants staff together with invited guest speakers. The numberof delegatesattending each sessionaveraged about 25 such that a total of some 125 staff attended.

The initialWorkshop carried out in Lahore presented four topics as follows:

- EnvironmentalImpact Assessment - EnvironmentalLegislation and Policies - ChecklistApproach in Sectoral EIA - Choice of SectoralEIA Formats for Pakistan.

The participants applied.as a case study, the ICID draft checklistto the SCARP-Itubewell project. The latter part of the workshop was concerned with the identification by the participantsof importantissues in the environmentaland drainagesectors. This was conducted as a form of 'scoping' session using a 'key-words on cards" technique. The participants initiallyidentified a large numberof major issues. Then concentrating,in teams, on a limited number of these issues, the participantsprepared the list of Recommendationand Activities (See Table 1, AppendixXII). I

The seminars conductedduring the second training phase in Septemberand October 1992 were divided into a 1 day seminar series for senior managerialstaff and a two day series for middle level managementstaff.

The one day se-i.nar series covered aspects of:

- Drainage Issues in Pakistan - Environmental Impact Assessment - EnvironmentalLegislation and Policies - Environmental Assessment Formats.

For the two-day seminarsboth the content and the degree of detail were increasedto cover;

- The Need for Drainage - Drainage Issues in Pakistan

12-8 Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Assessment Formats Checklistfor EnvironmentalImpact Indication EnvironmentalAssessment of Drainage in Pakistan.

Similarlyto the first workshopin Lahore, the latter part of the two day seminar series was dedicatedto a form of "scoping*session in which the participantsidentified issues and constraintsrelevant to their jobs and to the organisationsin which they worked (SeeTables 2 & 3, AppendixXII).

Evaluationsof the Workshopsand Seminarswere carriedout using a questionnaireissued to the participants.The returnswere generallyvery favourableindicating that the sessionwere well received.Some comments will prove usefulfor future trainingexercises. Further details of the seminarsare given in AppendixXII to this Report.

The seminars also proved useful in assisting the assessmentof training needs and these findings have been taken into account in formulating the contents of the recommended training courses.

12.4.2 In-Country Training Programmes

Basedon the trainingneeds areas identifiedin Section3 and on the targetbeneficiary groups, a numberof short in-countrytraining programmes is recommended.

These are illustratedin Figure 12.1. Three specificcourses are proposed.These are described below:

Seinar on Environmental Assessment in the Drainage Sector

This wouldbe a three day coursesimilar in its contentand scopeto the Seminar/Workshops presented during this study. Subject areas to be covered are given in Table 12.1 Target groups for training would be from the principalentities involveddirectly or peripherallyin the DrainageSector. This will be a fairly intensivecourse and accordinglythe staff chosen to attend must be properly selected so that they wil participate actively and obtain the maximumbenefit from the course.A selectedcase studywould be includedand to allowthis, the course durationproposed is three days rather than the two days allocatedto the'Seminars already conducted.The maximumnumber of participantsshould not exceedforty at these Seminars.This coursecould be presentedin-house in the trainingor conferencerooms of the variousdepartments or usingthe facilitiesof local provincialtraining centres.

Four Week Intensive Course on Environmental Assessmentin the Drainage Sector

This course would provide the fairly detailed coverage of drainage required by those engineersand agriculturalistsactively working in the drainage(and irrigation)sectors. The course is not intendedto produce subject matter specialistsbut rather to provide an insight into the various elements of drainage and in particular sub-surface drainage. The environmentalcomponent of the coursewould famliarise participantswith EA methodologies and their applications.Course details are given in Table 12.2

12'-9 Short Term In-Country Training Programmes

.~~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~~~~~ee~~~~~~~~..%%......

EIAcomnctos ~~~~~~rinage Technologies ...... ,...... Aprlation .. Prrecntai

......

...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....*.....*..

Seiaro EA inntensive Courseon EA

...... ,,.....,..,...oerto)Iinn

P~~~~~~~Sco tf fedSco andldPaD tf WAPDA~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~A

...... PHEDPAPD EPA . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*.*.*.*.*.*.*..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I .~~~~~~~...... '.1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TABLE 12.1

Proposed Content of Seminars on Environmental Assessment in the Drainage Sector

(Duration = 3 days)

Drainage

Crop response to high water tables and salinity Need for drainage and priority areas Methods of drainage; surface, subsurface tubewell/tiles, natural Methods of disposal of saline water Salinity, sodicity and soil reclamation Salt balance in irrigated areas Environmental impacts of drainage

National Drainage Programme

Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental Legislation and Policies

Check-list Approach in Sectoral EIA

EIA Formats for Pakistan

12-10 TABLE 12.2 Proposed Content of Four WeckcItensivc Course on Environmental Assessment and the Drainage Sector Proposed Topic Scope Duration (days) 1. Technical Aspects of - Crop yield response to 5 Drainage and Waterloggingand salinity Irrigated Agriculture - Assessmentof drainage needs and priorities - Methods of drainage; surface, tubeweiLItile and natural drainage - Disposalof drainage water - Salinity,sodicity and soil reclamation - Salt balance in irrigated areas

2. Operation and - Responsibilities,institutional 2 Maintenance of framework Drainage Systems - Costs and budgets

3. Environmental - 3 Assrssment and Environmental Planning

4. Environmentaly - Existing legislation,planning 1 relatedLegislation and regulatory frameworks, and Policies legislativeenactment and enforement

5. Institutional - Responsibilitiesfor EIA I Framework preparation and EIA approval, monitoring and evaluation.

6. Role of Funding - EA requirements, policiesand 1 Agencies conditions

7. Checklist Approach - EA requirements of checklists,. 2 in Sectional EIA the ICID checklist

8. Drainage disposal - Constraints on disposaL 0.5 options in the Indus environmental consequences Basin provincial drainage needs.

9. National Drainage - Outline of its scope and .05 Programme implications

10. Site Visits - Visits to projects and areas of 3 particular relevance.

11. Course Assessment - Course work to be completed by 1 participants and assessed by trainers. Total 20

12-11 The course would be conductedat one or more of the appropriatetraining institutesso that it is availableto participantsfrom all provinces.The course shouldbe residential.

Of particular importanceis the selectionof appropriateparticipants; staff shouldbe activelv engaged in field activities or directly associated with such. The course would thus be especiallyrelevant to field (or planning)staff in SCARPdrainage projects, both tubewelland tile. The course could be consideredas an essentialcomponent of the training requirements of such staff. Participantswould be assessedon completionof the course.

One Week Training for Farmer Particpation Workshops

The rationale for this course has been explained in Section 12.3.1. This course aim is to provide simplecommunication and presentationskills to those involvedin project planning and in projectoperation and maintenance.Participants who successfullycomplete the course would be able to plan, organise and run workshopsin the field in which local farmers and others involvedin agriculturaldevelopments would be present. Through the skills acquired in the training course the participantswill be able to present their plans and proposals in a coherent form to the invitedaudiences. More importantly,they will be able to develop and encourageparticipation from the audienceso that the views and perceptionsof the farmers are understoodand incorporatedinto the planning,operation and maintenanceprocesses.

The course is essentially formulated to train those who will in turn be,cometrainers and conduct field workshops. A proposed course outline is given in Table 12. 3

12.4.3 Out-of-Country Training

Previousstudies have confirmedthe poor uptake from Pakistan for out-of-countrytraining courses (WSIP 1991 etc). Such courses can be very effective but all suffer a common disadvantage;they are expensive.Whilst not denyingthe validity and value of such training initiatives, this study is not recommendingthat a funding commitmentbe made to such training. Ratherthat the limitedfunding which mightbe made availableto training shouldbe largely dedicated to reachingthe largest target groups with broadly coverage.This can only be achievedin-country, using externaltraining expertise to complementthat availablelocally. A secondarybenefit is that the capabilityof the local training instituteswill be enhancedby conductingcourses using, at least initially, foreign expertiseand gradually replacing this expertisewith nationaltrainers.

12.5 Condusions and Future Actions

Previous studies indicatethat a wide spectrumof training needs have been identified in the water sector. Many of these recur in the drainage sector and will ultimately have to ge ade-essed to improve the chances of successof current and future projects in this sector.

This study proposesa pragmaticview of training; simplythat the most practical approach is to concentrateon a limitedrange of topics and to introducethese to a large number of staff in the relevant institutions.

12-12 TABLE 12.3

One-Week Training for Farmer Participation Workshops (Training of Trainers)

Topic Scope Duration

1. Presentation Skills - Purpose of presentations - Audience - Preparation requirements - Presentation techniques - Visual Aids 2 days

2. Conducting Effective - Organising, Logisticsand Structure Workshops - Participative Communication Techniques - Managing discussion groups - Keepingrecords - Need for Feed -back to participants - Commitments 2 days

3. Field Practical Application 2 days

12-13 The training effort is directed towards developing a sound awareness of Environmental Assessmentsand of the nature, mechanismsand chemistryof drainage methods in the Indus Basin. It is not directed towards the productionof experts in either of these associatedfields. A limited number of in-country training courses are proposed to achieve these ends. These courses have been outlined (Section 12.4.2). The future actions required are to prepare proposals for funding such courses so that these can be considered by potential donor agencies as well as by the Governmentof Pakistan.

12-14 APPENDIX- XII TRAINNG WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS CONDUCTED DURING THE STUDY

1. Introduction

1. A total of eight days of Workshopsand Seminarswere conductedas follows:

i) Two-DayWorkshop on EnvironmentalImpact Assessmentin the Drainage Sector; Lahore 8, 9 April 1992

ii) One Day Seminarson the Role of EIA in Project Planning, Implementation and Operation;Lahore 29 September1992 and Karachi 4 October 1992.

iii) Two Day Seminars/Workshopson EnvironmentalImpact Assessmentin the Drainage Sector, Lahore 30 September,1 October 1992, and Karachi 5 and 6 October 1992.

2. These Workshopsand Seminarswere conductedprincipally by the Consultantsstaff; Team Leader, Principal EnvironmentalSpecialist and Training Specialist. Invited guest speaks also contributedas follows:

Mr. M. A. Saleemi, Director General, Punjab EnvironmentalProtection Agency; Lahore 8 April, 29 Septemberand 30 September.

Eng A. R. Memon,Former General ManagerWAPDA, Lahore 9 April.

Mr. T. A. Jafri, Chief (Planning),Planning and DevelopmentDept., Governmentof Sindh; Karachi, 4 October.

Mrs. Mahtab Akbar Rashdi, Director General, Sindh EnvironmentalProtection Agency;Karachi, 4 and 5 October.

3. Openingand closingaddresses were carried out by:

Mr. ShamsulMulk, MemberWater, WAPDA Mr. Javed SaleemQamar, General Manager (Planning)WAPDA Mr. Nayar Bari, Secretary, Housing Town Planning and Environment Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi Mr. Richard Birch, Director, Mott MacDonald International, Karachi

2. First Two-Day Workshop lahore 8, 9 April 1992

4. The Workshopgiven in Lahore on 8 and 9 April combineda training elementin the presentationsand discussionsgiven on the first day with a workshopelement in which the participants produced a set of recommendationson the second day. It was formulated partly to provide informationand guidance on the use of EIA in the

1 Drainage Sector and pardy to serve as a means of assessingfurther trainingneeds.

5. The format adoptedwas the presentationof four topics, each within a 40 minute slot, includingdiscussion and questions.The topics were:

- Environmental Impact Assessment: its purpose, methodsand applications.

- Environmental LeBislationand Policies: with particular reference to the Pakistan EnvironmentalProtection Ordinance No. 37 (1983) and other relevant legislationin Pakistan.

- Checklist Approach in Sectoral EIA: The use of checklistsas a working tool in assessingthe environmentaleffects of new or existingprojects with particular referenceto the ICID Draft Checklistfor EnvironmentalImpact Indication(Hydraulics Research 1991).

- Choice of Sectoral EIA Format for Pakistan: illustratingthe applicationof; the Pakistan EnvironmentalProtection Ordinance 1983, the World Bank OperationalDirective on EnvironmentalAssessment and the UK Overseas DevelopmentAdministration Manual of EnvironmentalAppraisal.

6. The Workshopparticipants applied, in an outlineformat, the ICID draft checklistto the SCARP-ITubewell Project in order to provide an initialindication of the overall environmentalimpact of that project. The results of this exercise proved to be remarkablyconsistent despite the diversebackgrounds of the participants.The project was judged to generallyhave favourableenviromnental impacts and was allowed to proceed to the next phase', using the ICID guidelinecriteria. Of particular interest was the frequent invocationof the item in the checklistwhich indicated that additional expertisewould be required before a judgementcould be made. This aptly illustrated the need, in an EnvironmentalAppraisal or at an EIA stage, to ensure that the appropriate expertise is available. It allowed the participants to recognise where particular gaps existed in the expertiseavailable.

7. Invited guest speakers also gave valuable presentations.These were Mr. M. A. Saleemi, Acting Director General of Punjab EPA, who spoke on Enviromnental Legislationand Eng A R Memon,former GeneralManager, WAPDA,who spoke on EnvironmentalWater Sector and Drainage Issues.

8. The latter part of the Workshop was dedicated to the identification, by the participants, of important issues in the environmentand drainage sectors and the assessmentof recommendationsand points for action relating to these issues. The group identifieda total of twelve significantissues as listed below.

- Legislation - Ecology - Public Awareness - Funding - Pollution - Salinity & Water Tables - Policies - People - Training - Agriculture - Agencies - Various Specifics (Monitoringand Evaluation)

2 9. Six of these issues, comprisingthose on the left above, were debated by discrete teams of participantsand subsequentlyin a plenary session by all participants.

10. The Recommendationsand Activitiesshown on Table 1 were formulated by the group. Many of the recommendationsmade are not specificallyrelated to trainingand where relevantin other aspectsof this study, have been or will be taken into account.

11. Two manualswere issuedto participantsat the Workshop.These were:

(i) Workshop Document; containingnotes on:

- EnvironmentImpact Assessment - Checklistfor EnvironmentalImpact Indication - EnvironmentalAssessment Formats o PakistanEnvironmental Protection Ordinance 1983 o World Bank Operational Directive on Environmental Assessment o UK Overseas Development Administration: Manual of EnvironmentalAssessment

(ii) EnviromnentalEffects of Irrigation Drainage and Flood Control Projects, Checklistfor EnvironmentalImpact Assessment, Prof. Dr. Ing J F Mock and Dr. P Bolton, InternationalCommission.on Irrigation and Drainage, Report OD/TN 50, February 1991HR WallingfordUK.

12. An evaluationof the Workshop was carried out using a questionnaireissued to the participants.The returns indicatedthat the Workshopwas very well receivedby the participantsand judged to be of value of them in their professionalcareers.

13. The format adopted in the Lahore Workshop successfully served its purposes in assistingthe assessmentof training needs, amongstthe other elementsnoted above and in Table 1.

3. Second Series of Seminars/Workshops, September/October 1992

3.1 Structure of Seminars/Workshops

14. This series of Seminars,which was given in Lahore and in Karachi, was divided into two parts. Each part was to be attendedby a differentgroup of delegates.

15. The first of these was a self-ontained I day seminar to which were invited senior managerial staff of Director General and Chief Engineer levels in the various departments and concerned Ministries.This seminar focused on the need for and applicationof EIA in Project Planning, Implementationand Operation.

16. The second two-day seminar was directed towards seminar staff of grades 18/19 level. It provided a more detailed appreciationof EIA procedures, illustratingtheir applicationin the drainagesector in Pakistan.The seminar also coveredthe need for drainage as well as drainagetechnologies and priorities relevantto Pakistan.

3 3.2 One Day Seminarson the Role of EIA in Project Planning, Implementation and Operation;Lahore 29 Septemberand Karachi 4 October 1992

17. This seminar series covered the followingaspects:

- Drainage Issues in Pakistan - Environmental Impact Assessment - EnvironmentalLegislation and Policies - Environmental AssessimentFormats

18. In the Lahore seminar the delegatesparticipated in a sructured discussionsession using a 'key-words on cards' technique' to identify .najor issues and constraints relating to Environmentalmatters and to Project Planning and Implementationin Pakistan. Major issues/constraintsidentified were as follows:

- Legislationand Enforcement(principally the lack of) - Inadequate Training and Education - Institutional Constraints and Iiiadequacies of Inter-Institutional Liaison - Need for Public Awarenessand InformationDissemination - Need for Guidelinesto identifyprojects requiring EIA in Pakistan.

19. Similar discussionsconducted during the Karachi Seminar placed emphasison the deficiencies of internal management in the various organisations, both in their managementstructure and, more importantly,in internal operationalprocedures.

3.3 Two-Day Seminars on EnvironmentalImpact Assessmentin the Drainage Sector. Lahore and Karachi

20. This seminar series coveredthe followingaspects:

- The Need for Drainage: crop response to high watertables and salinity. surface flooding, status of land drainage, drainage developmentsto date. future requirements.

- Drainage Issues in Pakistan: drainage technology, salt balance issues. disposalof drainage water, opportunitiesfor impact mitigation.

- Environmental Impact Assessment: purpose, need, data handling, public perceptions,measuring impacts, EIA methodology,sectoral planning. public participation.

- Environmental Assessment Formats

i) Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance 1983; function, powers, format, EIA qualitystandards, relationshipwith other EIA formats

Basedon the MetaplanMethod of CommunicationTools for Planningand LearningGroups, MetaplanSeries No. 7, MetaplanGmbH.

4 ii) World Bank OperationalDirective on EnvironmentalAssessment; purposeand natureof EA, types, institutionalaspects, EA procedures

iii) UK, ODA, Manualof EnvironmentalAppraisal; EA steps, screening, appraisal, environmental impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation.

- Checkrist for Environmental Impact Indications; background,checklist, data sheets, methodof operation, interpretationand evaluation.

- EEnvironmentalAssessment of Drainage in Pakistan; Using EIA check-list for project planning, project failures, EA of drainage in Pakistan, collaboration- a planningteam using EIA.

21. The latter part of the seminarwas allocatedto a Workshopsession on the themes of Issues and Constraintsin Pakistan, again using the "key-wordon cards" technique referred to earlier. This was conductedalong the lines of a 'scoping' session as commonlyapplied in EIA. The delegatesthus because familiarand participatedin a scopingsession as well as practicisingrapid communicationtechniques.

22. In the secondseminar conductedin Lahore, the delegatesapplied the ICID check-list to the SCARP-Itubewell project. The average 'score' attributedto the project was I80 thereby, judging it to have generally favourable environmentaleffects. A significantnumber of issues, averagingabout 10 in the total check-listof 53 items were identified as well as a recognitionof the need for expertiseother than that representedby the various professionalsattending the seminar. The results of this exercise were then used to determine the disciplinesto be represented, and their relative inputs, in a proposed preparationstudy for SCARP-1,embodying an EIA component.The check-listapproach proved, from the results returned, to be a useful tool for assessingexpertise requirements for project preparationstudies.

23. The 'scoping' session conductedin Lahore identifieda numberof major issues and constraintsinfluencing the effectivenessof the public sectororganisations and projects representedby the delegates.These were:

(i) Internal Bureaucracy (Ii) Inadequatetraining Ciii) Technicalconstraints (vi) Poor (unfair)job incentives (v) Women's rights (Vi) Inter-sectoral weaknesses (vii) Politicalinterferences (viii) Financial constraints (Lx) Inadequateenvironment law enforcement

24. The first seven itemsof the abovelist were debatedby discreteteams of participants and subsequently in a plenary session. Despite the diversity of topics the recommendationsarrived at by the delegateswere relativelypolarised. In particular the wide disaffectionwith organisationalinternal bureaucracy and with the lack of a merit orientated system in the government posts was notable. The specific recommendationsderived are listed in Table 2.

5 25. In the Karachi seminar the ICID check-listwas applied by the delegates to the Larkana-ShikarpurSurface Drainage Project. The resultingscore sheets indicatedthe project to be generally favourablewith few adverse impacts. The disposal of the relatively saline drainage flows was singled out as being potentiallya significant adverse impacton downstreamusers.

26. The 'scoping' session conducted in Karachi identified five major issues and constraints.These were:

(i) Lack of inter-agencycoordination (ii) Poor Internal Management/Bureaucracy (iii) Public Awareness,Education and Training (iv) Need for protectionof Natural Resources (v) Inadequatelegislation and enforcement.

27. Six teams, of four to five participantsper team, debatedthe first four items on the above list. In a plenary sessionthe recommendationslisted in Table 3 were prepared. The aspect of poor internal managementwas again singled out as being a major constraintin the delegatesorganisations.

4. Participants Evaluation of Seminars

28. A seminar review questionnairewas issued to all participantsto,complete at the end of the two day seminars.The questionnairecomprised a scoringsystem under various headings as well as requesting written commenms.The returns indicated that the seminars were generally very well received, with some notableexceptions.

29. The participantswere required to indicatewhether the seminar topics were relevant or not to their own jobs/careers. Interestinglythose who considered the topics relevant to their job invariablyreturned high favourablescores. Converselyseveral of those who consideredthe topics irrelevant to their jobs were more critical of the seminar. The participation of delegates for whom the topics had apparently no relevance aptly illustrates one of the principal recommendationsof the seminars regarding training; that often staff are inappropriatelyselected for training and thus the training effort, whether good or bad, is largely wasted.

30. Some other points which emnergedfrom the questionnairewere:

i) Longer duration; several suggestedthat the seminar programmewas too intensiveand would have preferred a 4 or 5 day seminar.

ii) Several returnssuggested that the use of a case studyto illustrateEIA procedureswould have enhancedtheir understanding.

iii) Several requestedthat the seminarhandouts should have been issued several days in advance of the seminar in order to provide opportunityfor pre-study.

vi) Severalparticipants considered the workshopelement to be irrelevant to the theme of EIA procedures.

6 31. Such review commentsas noted above are of value in formulatingfurther training courses and programmes. These have been taken into account in relation to recommendationsansing out of this elementof the study.

7 TABLE I

R.eoinomdatiau.IAetivities frm First Workshop on Eviroumetal lmpsctAssets is the Draime Sector (Labors 8ad 9 April 1992)

Reeommendation/ActitityImpkmentg Other Schedule Comment Iskitutions coerned for I Institutio CmnpleCton

L Enfoie Pakan Pakitn - Top Priorif Te PEPC formedunder this Ordinance Environeta Environmental (1983)ha nevermel tocamyout its ProtectionOrdinance 37 Protection pime function;toensue enoreemen Councl (PEPC) of theOrdinance. There e many botteewbwhich only the PEPCcan removein orderto makethe Ordinance effective.

2. Mae a legalobligation PEPA All developers After I above Theobjective is to informthe publi topublkie prwed of al propoed projectsso that they d PmeheatprojtIs canpartipate support objectetc.

I Ctegorie projects (i) Aid Agenries - (i) Already A screeningteategorisationprocedure requiringEIA automatic similarto World BankOperatinal (ii) PEPAs - (ii) aster1 Directive4.0 couldbe used. above (iii) P&D Depts. - (iii) Afier SeeComment 5-below. July92

4. Preparebctter defimed PEPA Provincial After I above Thisshould be an ongoingprocesL ervironmewallaNS EPA's

S. P&D should ren ElAs P andD Provincal AfterJuly92 This daterefers to timebywhich EPA'sand the EnvironmentalUnits within Pand D's Depts shouldbe operational

6. Whoshould monitor EPA's LineDepts and Afier ! above EPAcould provideWAICHDOG role. polution? Developes

7. StrengbenEnvironmental EPA/P&DWAPDA PrivateSector - Unitscurrentlyunder-staffed and lad Units Consultants expertiscoverage.

L Determinestrict EPA PHEngDepm/ Ongoing EnvironmentalQ,uarity PMWAPDA standard

9. Selectaport staff AU approprite - Within months List of staffwill be publishedin this for training Institutions study if made amilabl.

10. Developmentof Consultants All appropriate Within months To appearin projectrcports. profesiora couex And Institutions

IL Developmentof, Consultants AUappropriate Within months (i) lnstitutionsappear tohave no on-the-job training Institutions froral on-the-job trainingprocedures formats (ii) To appearin projectrpor

12. EPAsshould project EPA NGCsuMedia Ongoing EPA hzvesome budgetary alloetion for poativehmagean tbi trget schookand media for pubric mane.

8 TABLE2

Recommc,dations/Activities from Two-day Seminar in IAhore-30 September. I October 1992

RecommendationlActivity Implementing Comments Agency

1. Instituteproper proceduresin WAPDA. PID. To introduce coherentand consistent organisationto ensurefairness PAD. EPA. PHED. policiesand proceduresin anduniformity of standards,staff P&D. Other organisationswould requirethe conditions.responibilities. preparationand enforcemnentof a promotionsetc. 'buiness pla and the applicationof an internal managementand structure Preparaebusiness plan and apply auditingprocedure. mheintenal audit internalmanagement and procedures documentshould be pubrishedwithin the audits. organisationand ils recommendations enforced.

2. Training initiatives Although a widesprcadneed for training (i) Selectappropriate staff only All wasrecognised the selectionof for training. not favouredstaff. inappropriatestaff M a rewardor perk

and rather than a needwas criticised- Also - (ii) Ensuretrained staff are the subsequentposting of trained stiff enabledto practiceacquired to positionsnot requiringtheir (trained) sikils. specircallyacquired skills was noted. .

3. Public Awarens and All - using helack of information relatingto participation:the publicationin Press.Radio Governmentsplans to developprqects the mediaof information relating and Television. wasperceived as a majorconstraint in to proposedprojects and preventingthe active participationOf developments. NGOOs the public.'This particularly so in projectswith signifiant potential environmentaleffects

4. AdversePolitica Influencein Media As with 3 above.a legal requirementto ProjectFormulation lo be reduced. NGO's publishproposed project detailswould Donor Agencies allow public participationand discourageadverse political influences.External donoragencies could also play a role by adheringto their policy guidelinessuch as ensuringpublic pai ik pation in EIA. etc.

5. Women'sRights through Educationin schoolsto changecurrent (i) Education perceptionsis seento be singlemost im)Equa rights opportunitiesin important meansof enhancingwomens PublicSector role in society.

9 N~~~~~~~~~Eo A .in *111~~~I dJ~~~j[:1 1i''1I~~A 1 *~~~ j.d t $LJh'1 114 j a ~I '8 1 L~idai ~ ~ .i [liii 1~~41