Doc The W
FOR om%" Public Disclosure Authorized Rq.t No. 9915
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
BANCLADESH Public Disclosure Authorized
DRAINAGF AND FLOOD CONTROL 1I PROJECT (CREDIT 1184-BD)
SEPIEMBER 23, 1991 Public Disclosure Authorized
Agriculture Operations Division Public Disclosure Authorized Country Department I Asia Regional Office
This document has a restricted distribution and maN be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents mav not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY AND EOUIVALENT UNITS (May 1990)
Bangladesh Taka 1 = USS0.029 US$1 = Tk 35
FISCAL YEAR July 1 - June 30
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
1 kilometer (kim) = 0.62 mile (mi) 1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres (ac) 1 metric ton (m ton) = 2,205 pounds (Ibs)
ABBREVIATIONS
BADC - Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation BRDB - Bangladesh Rural Development Board BWDB - Bangladesh Water Development Board CB - Chalan Beel Polder D Sub-Project CIDA - Canadian International Development Agency DAE - Department of Agricultural Extension DCA - Development Credit Agreement FCD - Flood Control and Drainage FDR - Flood Damage Rehabilitation FFW - Food-for-Work Programme GOB - Government of Bangladesh HH - Hail Haor Sub-Project HYV - High Yielding Varieties IDA - Intemational Development Association LCB - Local Competitive Bidding LLP - Low Lift Pump MOA - Ministry of Agriculture and Forests MOP Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock MOI - Ministry of Irrigation, Water Development and Flood Control O&M - Operation and Maintenance PCR - Project Completion Report SB - Satla Bagda Sub-Project STW - Shallow Tubewell UNDP - United Nations Development Programme WFP - World Food Programme
GLOSSARY
Aman - Rice planted before or during the monsoon and harvested in November of December. Aus - Rice planted during February or March and harvested during June or July. B. When preceding a crop means broadcast. Beel - Low-lying area subject to flooding by rain or river water. Boro - Rice transplanted in January or February and harvested in Aprl, May or June. Khal - Natural channel. Kharif - Summer cropping season (May through November). Monsoon Season - Period of rains starting in June and ending in October. Rabi - Winter cropping season (November through May). T. - When preceding a crop means transplanted. FOR OFMCIALUSE ONLY THEWORLD BANK Washington.DC 20433 US.A ok.e OdD0Wcvt.4CAVW&1 Op.#taww Etv"uti
September 23, 1991
MEMORANDUMTO THE EXECUTIVEDIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: ProjectCompletion Report on Bangladesh Drainageand Flood Control II Prolect (Credit1184-BD)
Attached,for information,is a copy of a report entitled"Project CompletionReporr on Bangladesh- Drainageand Flood ControlII Project (Credit1184-BD)" prepared by the Asia RegionalOffice with Part II of the report contributedby the Borrower. No audit of this projecthas been made by the OperationsEvaluation Department at this time.
Attachment
This document has a restricteddistribution and may be used by recipientsonly in the performance of their officialduties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bankauthorization. FOR OFFICIALUSE ONLY
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
BANGLADESH
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (CREDIT 1184-BD)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ...... j....
EVALUATION SUMARY...... ii
PART I - Project Review from Bank's Perspective ......
A. Project Identity .2 B. Background 1 C. Project Objectives and Description...... 1 D. Project Design and Organization ...... 2 E. Project Implementation ...... 3 F. Project Results ...... 3 G. Project Sustainability ...... 6 H. Bank Performance ...... 6 T. Borrower Performance ...... 7 J. Project Relationship ...... 7 K. Consulting Services. 7 L. Project Documentation and Data ...... 8
PART II - Project Revie-"from Borrower'sPerspective ...... 9
PART III - Statistical InTformqation...... 11
A. Bank Related Credits ...... 11 B. Project Timetable ...... 12 C. Credit Disbursements ...... 12 D. Project Implementation - 13 E. Project Costs and Financing ...... 14 F. Project Results ...... 16 G. Status of Covenants...... 18 H. Use of Bank Resources ...... 19
ANNEX A Financial Reassessment and Economic Re-Evaluation . . . 21
MAP 1 (IBRD 23189) MAP 2 (IBRD 23190) MAP 3 (IBRD 23191)
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. i
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
BANGLADESH
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CON'YROL II PROJECT (CREDIT 1184-BD)
PREFACE
This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Second Drainage and Flood Control Project in Baneladesh for which Credit 1184-BD in the amount of SDR 24 million was approved on October 27, 1981. The credit was closed on June 30, 1989, two years behind schedule. It was fully disbursed and the last disbursement was on December 29, 1989.
The PCR was jointly prepared by the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme (Preface, Evaluation Summary, Parts I and III) and the Borrower (Part II). It is aased on the findings of an FAO/CP mission which visited Bangladesh in May 19ijo, the Staff Appraisal Report, the Development Credit Agreement, supervision reports, correspondence between the Bank and the Borrowe: internal bank memo.anda, evaluation study reports prepared by local consultants and discussions with staff of the Bank and the Borrower concerned with the project. FAO/CP's report was reviewed by ASlAG and, apart from minor corrections, remains as submitted. Subsequent comments by the Borrower on Part III have been reflected in the report, where appropriate. 'iii
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
BANGLADESH
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (CREDIT 1184-BD)
EVALUATION SUMMARY
Objectives
1. The principal objective of the project was to promote an increase in production of rice and other crc s by increasing (a) cropping intensities by making more land available for double cropping during the monsoon season following the controlling of seasonal floods and (b) crop yields through greater use of crop inputs because of reduced risk of crop failure due to flood hazard and through increased use of higher yielding varieties of paddy which would perform well with reduced depth of floods. The project, which was to be completed in about five years, was to comprise the protection from floods and improved drainage for three areas totalling about 79,000 ha by constructing embankments, drains, water control structures, roads and associated structures.
Implementation Experience
2. Project implementation was somewhat slower than anticipated at appraisal due to: (a) frequent changes to the agreed Project Proformas made by Government of Bangladesh (GOB) without reference to IDA in order to reduce costs; (b) shortage of funds for construction due in part to slow replenishment of the project revolving fund; (c) delays in design of civil works due to shortage of staff in the Bangladesh Water Development Board's (BWDB) central design office; (d) slow land acquisition; and (e) inadequate preparation of one subproject, which resulted in substantial changes. The eXceptionally severe floods in 1987 and 1988 caused extensive damage to project works which were only substantially completed in 1990 using project funds, Food for Work Programme (FFW) and funds from Flood Damage Rehabilitation Projects. There was no agricultural component in the project, which suffered from the lack of coordination between BWDB and Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), observed in other projects. Actual disbursements amounted to SDR 23.96 million (US$27.9 million), out of a total credit amount of SDR 24 million (US$27 million at time of appraisal). Costs of the project as originally designed were less in USS and SDR terms than estimated at appraisal due to devaluation of the Bangladesh taka and changes to one subproject. As a result, it was possible for the Bank to increase the scope of the project so that US$12.1 million was used for flood damage rehabilitation (FDR) of embankments and water control structures throughout Bangladesh damaged during the 1984, 1987 and 1988 floods and the May 1985 cyclone. The crediL closed on June 30, 1989 and the final disbursement was on December 29, 1989. iv
3. Project results are difficult to evaluate owing to inadequate data on project benefits. The project achieved substantialreduction in flooding depth on about 34,530 ha in two of the subproiect areas but had little effect on flooding in the third subproject. Consequently,it has been estimated that there would be an increase in production of paddy of 30,700 tons per year and 6,000 tons per year of wheat at full development. This is considerablyless than estimated at appraisal (60,400 tons of paddy and 10,000 tons of wheat per year) due to lower assumed incremental rice yields, loss of cultivable land for constructionof embankments which was underestimatedat appraisal, a reduction in the area of grain crops grown due to diversificationto other crops and the lack of benefits in the badly designed subproject. By reducing the flooded areas, the project reduced the area suitable for open water fisheries (while increasing the area suitable for agriculturalproduction) and natural stocking of the remaining beel areas with fry during floods is now much restricted. It has been estimated that the loss of fish production is about 960 tons per year. Constr'tctionand improvement of more than 500 km of roads and embankments have improved road transport and more than compensated for obstructionsto navigation caused by the constructicn of embankments and water control structures. The project has improved the livelihood of some 110,000 farm families. The economic rate of return for the Lirojecthas been reestimated to be 7Z. This is considerably lower than the 232 estimated at appraisal due to lower estimated incrementalproduction and delays in achieving benefits.
Sustainability
4. The sustainability of benefit- generated by the project depends on the project works being properly maintained and operated. There is no adequate provisionof budget for maintenanceworks: what budget is provided is for staff, office and vehicle operating costs; maintenance work is generally only financed under FFW, FDR or other projects. There is no regular programme for carrying ouc minor repairs, which, if effected early, could save rapid detericrationand much larger cost later. It is difficult to be confident that the flood control works will be in adequate condition to withstand flitra flt,,ega And storms- The Bank is addressing this maintenanceproblem under the BWDB Systems Rehabilitation Project (Cr. 2099-BD). Furthermore, in the case of Chalan Beel, there are indications that extensive construction of flood control embankments, by restricting t:,e spread of flood water, results in higher flood levels in the water courses thereby increasing the likelihoodof embankmentsbeing overtopped.
Findings and Lessons
5. The project was less successful than estimated at appraisal due to one subprojectbeing poorly prepared, damage and delay in achieving benefits caused by exceptionallysevere floods in 1987 and 1988, and other implementationdelays. It is difficult to quantify the benefits of the project because monitoring and evaluation of benefits are inadequate for the preparation of the PCR. GOB has not complied with covenants of the Development Credit Agreement which required it to undertake benchmark surveys and monitor the benefits being derived from the project. The mission found that BWDB staff were mainly concerned with construction and had little interest in estimating the extent of the benefits the project generates. DAE staff were often unaware of the project's objectives and did not directly monitor benefits. The project was prepared without the v benefit of any overall regional plans and the effects of the subprojects on upstream water levels and other aspects were given scant attention. It has now been realized that the combined effects of many such projects can be appreciable and that regional studies are needed before their planning.
6. Lesons to be derived from the project are that project preparation requires close scrutiny of feasibility studies, regional development plans are necessary to estimate the overall effects of a number of subprojects,and it is necessary to arrange finance for a project benefitmonitorinb component in order to obtain satisfactorydata on project results. Beneficiariesshould be involved in project design to encourage an interest in the project which could later become an involvement in maintenance and to avoid cutting of completed embanki.entsby providing water control structureswhere needed. PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
BANGLADESH
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (CREDIT 1184-BD)
PART I - PROJECT REVIEW FROM BANK'S PERSPECTIVE
A. Project Identity
Project Name Drainage and Flood Control II Project
Credit Number: 1184-BD
RVP Unit Asia Region
Country Bangladesh
Sector : Agriculture
Sub-Sector Drainage and Flood Control
B. Background
1. The project was initiated at the request of the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) to support the agriculturaldevelopment efforts outlined under the Second Five-Year Plan (FY81 to FY85,. The main objectives of the plan were to obtain food self-sufficiencyby the end of the plan period, to create employment for the rural poor in order to improve incomes and nutritional standards and to 4inrea.e e rt eanita T n4- e 4re- cf d z.-z_g an.. fl:c-c agricultural land was seen as one of the effective means of achieving these goals.
C. Project Objectives and Description
2. in line G.^B'.s'to.Sec^..d Fivc-vCar PlIan,U,e 1 siiAL6l uljauLive was to promote an increase in rice and other crop production by: (a) increasing cropping intensities due to more land becoming ava.lable for double cropping during the monsoon seasonby controllingseasonal floods;and (b) increasingcrop yields with greater use of crop inputs because of the reduced risk of crop failure due to flood hazard and through the increased use of higher yielding variaties of paddy, which was possible with better control of water levels.
3. The project was to comprise the protection from floods and improved drainage and communicationsfor three areas by constructingembankments, drains, water control structures, roads and associated structures. At Chalan Bee! (Map 1), construction of about 134 km of embankment, drains and nine water contirolsLrucLures and constructicnand improvement of about 145 km of roads would improve an area of about 38,000 ha. At Satla Bagada (Map 2), construction 2
and improvement of about 121 km of embankment, drains and 459 water control structures and construction of about 72 km of new roads would improve about 21,000 ha. At Hail Haor (Map 3), construction of about 13 km of embankment, drains and a water control structure and improvement of about 64 km of roads would improve a gross area of about 19,000 ha. A fisheries study, infrastructure investmentsfor fisheriesdevelopment and investigationsinto the potentialfor groundwater developmentwere also proposed componentsfor Hail Hoar.
D. Project Design and Organization
4. The project,which was similarin concept to the Drainage and Flood Control Project (Credit864-BD), was prepared by the BangladeshWater Develop-mentBoard (BWDB), assisted by foreign consultantswho prepared a feasibility report for each sub-project. Two of these feasibility reports formed a good basis for sub-projectdesign but the third (for Hail Haor) was found during implementation to be unsatisfactoryand the sub-projectwas not successful.The project concept was clear but in designing the project insufficientattention was given to the involvementof the beneficiariesand other related agencies.The project was to include only civil works. Although the SAR described extension services in the project areas to be poor to non-existent,it was consideredthat other ongoing and proposed Bank extension projects (such as Extension and Research Project, Credit 729-BD) would adequately cope with the need for improved extension.A covenant was included in the DevelopmentCredit Agreement (DCA) requiring the Borrower to ensure that adequate coverage of the project areas with extension services would be maintainedbut this was not achieved.The projectwas prepared without the benefit of any overall regional plans and the effects of the sub-projects on water levels outside the protected areas were given scant attention. It has now been realized that the combined effects of many such projects can be appreciableand that regional studies are needed before planning such sub-projects.Cost rec:.ery was considered to be neither appropriatenor feasible for drainage and flood control projects.
5. The project, other than the fisheries study, was to be implementedover about five years 1 by BWDB: this arrangementwas satisfactory.In order to ensure that close contact would be maintainedbetween BWDB and other agencies, such as the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Bangladesh Rural Development Board (BRDB) and the BangladeshAgricultural Development Corporation (BADC), a Project CoordinatingCommittee was proposed for each sub-projectbut this Bas never effective due to lack of incentive for other agencies to participateand to BWDB's lack of interest in aspects other than construction.
L. A Joint Project Revolving Fund with initial amounts of Tk2O million (US$1 million) provided by IDA and Tk2 million provided by GOB was to be established in a commercial bank and operated by BWDB to finance civil works carried out by contract and local purchase of equipmentand materials. This was found to be good in principle but the amounts needed to be increased.
1 SAR, para 4.12, says that project implementationwould take five years. Implementationschedule shows 4.7 years. The DCA shows project completion 4.5 years, after credit signing. 3
E. Project Implementation
7. The credit was declared effective in July 1982, following GOB's approval of the ProjectProformas (PPs)for the three sub-projects.Project implementation was delayed by: frequentchanges to the agreed PPs made by GOB without rete.ence to IDA in order to reduce costs; shortage of funds for constructiondue -1ipart to slow replenishmentof the revolving fund; delays in design (even minor works were designed in BWDB's central design office); slow land acquisition; and changes to the project at Hail Hacr.
8. Reassessment of the scope of the Hail Haor sub-project resulted in substantialchanges. The water control regulatorwas found to be unnecessaryand was omitted, a submersibleembankment was added to protect boro crops from early flocding and emergency strengtheningof the Manu River left embankmentnorth of Maulvi Bazar was included in the project. The need for these changes could have been avoided with better project preparation.Due to these changes in scope and reduced unit costs in US$ terms, the Development Credit Agreement (DCA) was amended to permit the resulting saving in project funds to be used to finance rehabilitationof water control structures damaged in the 1984, 1987 and 1988 floods and the May 1985 cyclone.
9. The exceptionallysevere 1987 and 1988 floods caused extensive damage to project works, particularly at Chalan Beel and Satla Bagda, which have only recently been substantiallycompleted using a combinationof project funds, FFW and funds from the Flood Damage RehabilitationProjects. In general the works at Chalan Beel and Satla Bagda have been construc.tedin accordancewith appraisal proposals and to locally acceptable standards. If properly maintained, they should be able to withstand floods up to designwater level. At Chalan Beel there is still a need for additionalwater control structuresand improvementsto the drainage in the southeasternpart of the sub-projectarea. At Satla Bagda there is some drainage congestion to the south of Polder 2, which also requires additional water control structures and improved drainage. BWDB consider that once these additional structuresare built there will be no need for farmers to cut embankments to improve drainage flows to the river as hanpened extensively following the 1987 and 1988 floods. At Hail Haor one bridge on the "main' road on the uest of the sub-projectarea has been left unfinished for several years, while a legal dispute between BWDB and the contractor drags throtgh the courts.
10. The fisheries and groundwater studies at Hail Haor were carried out but no fisheries infrastructurehas ieen provided in the project area.
F. Project Results
11. Since neither the planned benchmark survey nor the planned monitoring programme was carried out as required by the DCA, the project impact cannot be properly evaluated. However, Evaluation Studies we,.e carried out by local consultants in 1988/89 with a view to giving a basis for the preparation of a PCR. Lack of records of annual flooding and crop production posed problems for the consultants in making quantitativeevaluations. The consultantspoint out that there are serious weaknesses in the methodology adopted. The brief field visits carried out by the PCR mission did not give sufficient information to improve the data in the Evaluation Studies. In the absence of other data, the 4
cropped areas, yields and production given in the Evaluation Studies form the basis of the PCR re-evaluationof the project but it is difficult to be confident of the results, which should be considered as indicative only. They are neverthelessdiscussed in some detail in order to give a qualitativeindication of the pLUJeiL beILVIA.L
12. The project aimed to decrease the depth of flooding in the sub-project areas and the evaluation studies estimate that in a year of normal flooding considerable reduction has been achieved: about 24,600 ha at Chalan Beel and about 9,900 ha at Satla Bagda. The project did not have much effect on flooding at Hail Haor. Table 6A in Part III shows the extent of flooded area by different inundation depths, as estimated in the SAR and in the Evaluation Studies. The SAR did not relate the flooding depths shown to cropping patterns nor otherwise explain their significance.Comparison between SAR and the Evaluaticn Reports, confirmiedby field visits, indicatesthat:
(a) Pre-project flooding conditions are quite different, particularly at Satla Bagda and Hail Haor. Satla Bagda had a deeper inundation problem than the SAR estimated,whereas Hail Haor's floodingproblem appears to be less pronounced than the SAR estimated.
(b) Post-projectconditions are also different between the two reports. Chalan Beel was expectedto have about 14,000 ha with less than 30 cm flood depth under the SAR estimate, whereas the Evaluation Study estimate is much more (25,000ha). Satla Bagda achievement is difficultto com^-aresince the SAR projectionis not clear. Hail Haor achievementis marginal.
13. The project re3ults in an estimated increase of production at full developmentof 30,700 tons/year of paddy and 6,000 tons/year of wheat. This is considerably less than estimated at appraisal (Part III) due to: the small improvement at Hail Haor; the SAR did not account for all land lost for construction of embankments; the area of non-grain crops has increased; and incrementalrice yields assumed in the EvaluationReports are lower than assumed in the SAR.
14. At Chalan Beel, the Evaluation Report states that before the project, broadcastaman and aus were the dominant crops in the wet season.Local boro was the main crop grown in the dry season in lower land. Aus and aman were damaged by early flash floods and aman by high floods during the monsoon season. Dry season crops were affected by periodic drought. Embankments constructedunder the sub-project have reduced losses to the aus and aman crops by preventing floods e,1teringfrom the surroundingrivers. Inside the polder, some flooding by rainfallwould still occur as gravity drainage provided under the sub-project depends on the water level of the surroundingrivers. The reductions in depth and incidenceof floodinghave reduced the risk of crop failure. This has enabled shifts from broadcast to transplantedaus and aman and also from local to high yieldingvarieties. Drainage improvementhas encouragedthe farmersto transplant boro and winter vegetables earlier,which in turn allows early transplantingof HYV aus and aman. The project constructedmany irrigationinlets which provide a more reliable irrigation supply than unregulatedkhals and permit storage of drainagewater and return irrigationflows from inside the polder as well as the 5
controlledtrapping of water from occasional floods outside the polder for use for irrigation. The PCR mission noted that the average yield of the boro crop in the west of the project area was slightly increaseddue to protection from the occasional early flash flood from the Barind tract.
15. Satla Bagda is reportedto have similarbenefits to Chalan Beel except that the main dry season crop is aus rather than local boro and aman was not subject to the early flash floods. The PCR mission noted that dry season crops were previously subject to daily tidal flooding and cyclonic surges, which are now controlled and can be used for irrigation.Water control structuresalso permit irrigationby low-liftpumps of areas near khals using trapped runoff and return irrigation flows, as well as the controlled trapping of water when the river level outside the polder is high. The first appreciablebenefits were in 1986 and 1987. The 1988 flood caused extenAve damage which was not repaired in time for the 1989 flood. The first time the full area is expected to be protected is 1990.
16. At Hail Haor, the only flood control work in the original project which was constructedwas the north flood embankment.This still has several openings in it and does not provide reliablecontrol of floods.The submersibleembankment which waa added to the project in the southeastof the sub-projectarea protects about 750 ha of boro from early floods which would otherwise damage the crop roughly every other year. BWDB proposed that improvementsto the drainagewould be carried out under the FFW, but have found difficultyin recruiting labour for this work because local wage rates are higher than the value of food given under FFW. Project funds were also used for urgent repairs to the Manu left embankment and hence contributed,along with funds from FDR, FFW and other sources, to the flood protection of Maulvi Bazar, as well as the project area and the area to the north of the north flood embankment.However, details of the other costs of Manu embankmentwere not available to the PCR mission and the benefits from this have not been estimated. Considerablebenefits are derived from the main road on the west of the project area (completeexcept for one bridge), the village road and north embankment which also acts as a road. To a lesser extent the submersible embankment also improves access. The benefits from improved accessibility built up gradually from 1983/84 to 1989/90 and will reach full development when the bridge on the main road is completed (assumed to be in 1991/92).
17. The livelihoodof some 110,000 farm families has improved and the average farm income has improved (Part III, 6 D and Annex A). Construction and improvementof over 500 km of roads and embankmentshave improved road transport and more than compensated for the obstruction to navigation caused by the constructionof embankmentsand water control structures.
18. By reducing the flooded areas at Chalan Beel and Satla Bagda, the project reduced the area suitable for open water fisheries (while increasing the area for agriculturalproduction). Furthermore, the natural stockingwith fry of the remaining beel areas during floods is now much restricted.On the other hand, it is now practicableto develop intensivefish rearing in the protectedbeels, but to date, although studies have been carried out, no action has been taken on this 6
19. Economic rates of return (ERRs) have been reestimated on the basis of inadequatedata (para 11) and the results (Part III, 6 C and Annex A) should be treatedwith caution. The reestimatedERRs are lower than estinatedat appraisal due to much higher economic costs of construction,lower incrementalproduction and the delay in achieving benefits.
G. Project Sustainaility
20. The sustainabilityof benefits generated by the project depends on the projectworks being properlymaintained and operated.The responsibilityfor this remains with BWDB but there is no adequate provision of budget for maintenance works: what budget is provided is for staff, office and vehicle operatingcosts; maintenancework is generally only financed under FFW, FDR or other projects. There is no regular programme for carrying out minor repairs, which if effected early could save rapid deteriorationand much larger cost later. It is difficult to be confident that the flood control works will be in adequate condition to withstand future floods and storms. However, the Bank is addressingthis problem under the BWDB's Systems RehabilitationProject (Cr. 2099-BD). Furthermore,in the case of Chalan Beel polder D, there are indications that extensive constructionof flood control embankments,by restricting the spread of flood water results in higher flood levels thereby increasing the likelihood of embankments being overtopped. Nevertheless, the embankments were designed to withstand the one in fifty years flood with 0.9 m of freeboardand the benefits have been estimated on the assumptionthat the works will survive for the life of the project (30 years).
H. Bank Performance
21. Appraisal relied on feasibilitystudies prepared by foreign consultants which, in the case of Hail Haor, turned out to be unsatisfactory.Although the DCA required the Borrower to monitor benefits and carry out a benchmark survey, no financewas allowed for these operationswhich were thereforenot carried out. It was not clear from the SAR how flood protectionwould result in increased agriculturalproduction.
22. Twelve missions, from Washington and the Resident Mission in Bangladesh supervisedthe project between 1982 and 1989. Supervisionmissions were unable to enforce conditionsof the credit agreementconcerning audit of accounts:only when the bank took a stand and refused to extend the closing date until audit reports were available,did auditing get up-to-date.
23. The Bank adopted a flexible attitude to reallocation of funds between disbursementcategories and amended the DCA to allow for financing Evaluation Studies and Flood Damage Rehabilitation.
24. The main lessons learnt by the Bank and the Borrower are that project preparation requires close scrutiny of feasibilitystudies, regional plans and the involvement of beneficiariesand that it is preferable to arrange finance for a benefit monitoring component in order to acnieve satisfactorydata. More water control structuresare generally required than was considered necessary at appraisal.The need to ensure adequate and timely funding of the revolving fund to maintain uninterruptedprogress of civil work construction is another 7
lesson from experience of the project. Further, up-to-date auditing can be achieved if the Bank uses the means available to persuade GOB to comply.
I. Borrower Performance
25. Once the subprojectswere identified,the Borrower relied on consultants for detailed project preparation.More careful supervisionmight have improved the preparationof Hail Haor. Project implementationwas significantlydelayed by frequent changes to PPs, delays in design, slow land acquisitionand shortage of funds for constructioncaused in part by delay between IDA disbursementand money being placed in the revolving fund. Nevertheless, the Borrower did eventuallysubstantially complete Chalan Beel and Satla Bagda subprojectsafter overcomingconsiderable difficulties caused by unusuallyhigh floods in 1987 and 1988. The Borrower consistently failed to furnish to IDA on time audited financial statements and audit reports. The Borrower did not undertake the benchmark survey, nor the monitoringprogramme designed to assess the impact of the project on agriculturaldevelopment as required by the DCA. Once the Bank agreed to finance the EvaluationStudies the Borrower arranged for these in 1987, but the terms of referencedid not require collectionand presentationof annual project specific data on agriculturalproduction. 1
J. Project Relationships
26. Good relationswere maintained between the Borrower and the Bank mainly through frequent communicationbetween BWDB and the staff of the Bank's Resident Mission in Bangladesh. There were, nevertheless, lapses such as unilateral changes to PPs (para 7).
27. There was a serious lack of communicationbetween BWDB and the agricultural extension serviceand no effort was made to provide coverage of the project area with extension services. The project cocLdinationcommittees established to ensure cooperationbetween BWDB and other agriculturalagencies of the Borrower were never effective (para 5).
K. Consulting Services
28. The project was prepared by BWDB assisted by foreign consultantsfinanced under the IDA Technical Assistance Credit 622-BD, who prepared a feasibility report for each subproject.Changes to the feasibility report recommendations introduced during appraisal included the omission of pumped drainage and reduction in incrementalyields and estimated ERRs. The feasibility study for Hail Haor was subsequentlyfound to be based on inadequatetopographical survey and hydrologicaldata: this resulted in substantialchanges to the projectwhich considerablyreduced its benefits.
1 This was stated by the consultantwho carried out the study. The PCR mission was unable to find a copy of the terms of reference in the Bank files, but has been informed that they here prepared by the Bank in 1983 and only approved by BWDB in 1987. 8
29. Local consultants were employed under the project for the evaluation studiesof the three subprojectsconducted in 1988/89.The studiesappear to have been well conducted and in general the results are clearly presented. However, they lack year by year recoras or fiooding, crop arLes aiiu yieiLib wiLiL uidikeb it almost impossible to estimate accurately the agricultural impact of the project. The economic analyses were unsatisfactory.
L. Project Documentationand Data
30. The Staff Appraisal Report generally provided a useful framework for the Bank and Borrower during project implementation.However, there was no provision in the legal agreementsand appraisalreport for financingagricultural extension and benefit monitoring. Consequently,although covenants were included in the DCA, requiringthe Borrower to take action on both these, almost nothing was done and the data on crop areas and yields are inadequateto estimate accuratelythe benefits of the project. 9
PART II
PROJECT REVIEW FROM BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE 1/
A. Bank Performance
1. The performance of tbe Bank during evaluation and implementationwas generally satisfactory. The observationof the Review mission from time to time helped implementationon the project properly.
2. The IDA mission and RM.Bmade a number of field trips to inspect the works while in progress. They provided necessary advice and assistance as and when requiredwhich helped improve the quality of works. Also, or.financial and technical matters, the help and co-operationextended by the Bank is no less important for the successful completion cf the project.
3. The Bank introduced revolving fund system in order to ensure easy and timely un-interrupted flow of fund for the implementation of the project properly. But due to lengthy and cumbersome release procedureof revolving fund now in force, the very purpose of revolving fund was defeated resulting in this slow flow of fund to the field. From lessons learnt in the process of this slow fund flow affecting the implementationof projects SAFE fund flow system has been introduced instead of revolving fund, which is in operation in a number of current credits.
B. Borrower Performance
4. The overall performance of the borrower is quite satisfactory. Almost all the physical components of the project like embankments, water control structures, roads, bridges and culverts are completed in accordance with their respective designs and specifications. Yet there are some lapses noticed in the field of construction of physical works for reasons beyond control.
5. In Hail Haor sub-projectconstruction of Gopla regulatorwas abandoned as the technical and hydrologicalbehavior of Hail Haor and Gopla river did not support construction of the regulator. Besides, IDA mission in 1985 also recommendedfor further studies. The project consultantMIS. NEDECO could not identify this necessary in their Feasibility Report for Hail Haor sub-project. In this sub-project also, constructionof a bridge could not be completed and had to be abandoned following on injunction by the Court. Construction of internal and submersibledyke and drainage channel proposed to be executed under Food for Works Programme could not be done due to low wheat rate and cash wage problem.
6. There ere still some local drainage congestion in the Satla-Bagda sub- 1/ This is a summary of substantivecomments from the Borrower. 10
project, after completion of the project. This sort of problem is not uncommon in newly completed drainage and flood control projects. This difficulty should be overcome gradually after study. Additional drainage regulators might have to be built and the drainage canals within the project might have to be re- sectioned.
7. For development of Agriculture and Fisheries under DFC-II Project a study have been taken up under IDA assistance. The necessity for re-excavation of the drainage channels may be identified under that study.
8. The problem of implementation that generally affects the completion of the works is the system of selecting suitable contractors for the execution of works. Award of contracts of works on the basis of tender was hampered and delayed due to administrative procedures. The project also hampered due to land acquisition constraints.
9. GOB fund allocation and timely release was found to be irregular sometime and as such fund could not reach the field in time affecting utilisation of RPA fund.
10. During the process of implementation it is however learnt that better organisational activities, timely receipt of land possession and release of fund are required for timely completion of works.
C. Bank-Borrower Relations
11. During the process of implementation of the project it is evident that a warm and cordial relationship have been established between the Bank and the Borrower. This has encouraged the Bank to come up with all the financial assistance needed, advice and supervision in one hand and allowing the Borrower to utilize the assistance for the betterment of the project on the other. 11
PARTII r- Statistical Infonration
A. Rolated Bank Credits
Credit Line PurDose Year of Status Comments Approv I Chandpur IrrigationII Flood control,drainage 1972 Closed (Cr.840-BD) irrigationfor increased agriculturalproduction
TechnicalAssistance Feasibilitystudios of 1978 Closod (Cr.622-80) sub-projectofor Cr 966-BD and Cr.1184-B0 Extension and Research Improvedagricultural 1977 Closed (Cr. 729-B0) extension and research Drainage and Flood Drainage and flood 1978 Closed PPARdrafted Control (Cr.864-BD) control for increased June 1986 Dec. 1989 agriculturalproduction
Small Scale Drainage Same as above 1979 Closed PCR under and Flood Control Dec. 1987 preparation (Cr.966-D)
Water D-velopment Improvement of water 1984 In Board Small Schemes regime to increase progress (Cr.1467-BD ) crop production Flood Rehabilitation Irrigation,drainage 1985 Closed PCR under (Cr.1S87-BD) and flood protection Dec. 1987 preparation rehabilitation
Third Flood Control Increase in mainIy 1985 In and Drainage paddy production progress (Cr.1591-90)
Fourth Flood Control Some as above 1987 In and Drainage progress (Cr. 1784-SD)
Smail acal- tIood Same as above 1988 In Control,Drainage and progross IrrigationII (Cr.1870-BD) Second Flood Protect and increase 1988 In Rehabilitation agriculturalproduction Progress (Cr.1878-BD) Third Flood Sameas above 1989 In Rehabilitation Progrone (Cr.2048-BD)
BWDB System Protect and increase 1990 In Rehabilitation agricultural production progress and incomosand raise standards of living 12
B. Project Timetable
Date Planned Date Revised Date Actual
Preparation n.a. n.a. June 1980
Appraisal n.a. n.a. June-July 1980 Feb. and Apr. 1981
Credit negotiations Jan. 1981 July 1961 Aug. 26 to Sept. 3, 1981
Board approval March 1981 Aug. 1981 Oct. 27, 1981 Sept. 1981
Credit signature n.a. n.a. Jan. 8, 1982
Credit effectiveness Apr. 8, 1982 June 9, 1982 July 14, 1982
Credit closing June 30, 1987 June 30, 1988 June 30, 1989
Credit completion June 30, 1986 June 30, 1988 Dec. 29, 1989
41. Comments: Preparationwas based on feasibilitystudies by foreign consultants financed under Cr.622-BD. The first appraisalmission appraised Chalan Beel Polder D and another sub-projectwhich was later omitted from the project. When feasibilityreports were available,the second appraisal mission reappraisedChalan Beel and appraised Satla Bagda and Hail Haor. The third mission appraised the fisheriescomponent.
C. Credit Disbursements
CumulativeEstimated and Actual Disbursements
FY 82 FY 8a FY64 FY 05 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 ... U.S Tllion).
Appraisalestimate 1.0 5.0 18.0 20.6 26.5 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Actual 0 1.4 2.1 8.9 6 . 16 8 19.8 27.7I/ 27.9 / Actualas X of ostimate 0 28 16 19 27 62 78 102 108 Date of finaldisbursement 29 December 1989
1/ Higher disbursemntamount due to change in value of SDR againstUS dollars.Although the approlial report *xpr.ssed the creditamount in US dollars, the IDA creditIs expresed in SDR, 13
D. Project Implementation
Indicators Appra. al Actual Estimuze 1/ (or PCR Estimate)
Chalan Beel Land acquisition (ha) 1,153 560 Embankments (km) 134 132.9 Drainage regulators (No.) 9 13 Drains (km) 193 134.3 Roads: - main (km) 48 76 - village (km) 97 25.6
Satla Bagda Land acquisition (ha) 552 685.2 Embankments (km) 121 148.1 Gravity regulators (No.) 9 12 Inlet structures (No.) 450 372 Roads: - main (km) 41 55.4 - village(km) 31 50.2 - culverts (No.) 11 11 - bridges (No.) 5 5 Ferry (No.) 1 1
Hail Haor Land acquisition (ha) 31 0 Embankments (km) 13 36.7 Gravity regulator (No.) 1 0 Secondary drains (acres) 21,800 0 Roads: - main (km) 32 18.9 - village (km) 32 11.3 - bridges(No.) 8 ( 34 - culverts (No.) 10
1/ Quantities taken from SAR, Annex 1, Tables 12 to 14. Different quantities are given in paras. 4.02 to 4.04
42. Comments: Chalan Beel and Satla Bagda were completed generally in accordancewith appraisal proposals. Hail Haor was changed appreciably from appraisal proposals (see Part I, para. 16). 14
E. Project Costs and Financing
(1) Project Costs
Appraisal Estimate 1/ Actual Local Foreign Total ...... (USS million) ...... Chalan Beel Land acquisition 6.67 - 6.67 2.08 Civil works 10.02 0.88 lC.90 9.16 Equipment and vehicles 0.20 0.21 0.41 0.19 Eng. and administration 1.94 - 1.94 1.69 Total 18.83 1.09 19.92 13.12 2/
Satla Bagda Land acquisition 1.31 - 1.31 1.07 Civil works 11.01 2.20 13.21 9.95 Equipment and vehicles 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.02 Eng. and administration 1.54 - 1.54 1.37 Total 14.02 2.26 16.38 12.41 2/
Hail Haor Land acquisition 0.22 - 0.22 0 Civil works 2.58 0.65 3.23 1.80 Equipment and vehicles 0.14 0.08 0.22 0.02 Eng. and administration 0.39 - 0.39 Fisheries component 0.37 0.13 0.50 )0.49 Groundwater investigation 0.18 0.37 0.55 ) Total 3.88 1.23 5.11 2.31 21 Flood Damage Rehabilitation 3/ 0 0 0 12.14
Grand Total 36.73 4.68 41.41 39.98
1/ Including physical and price contingenciesallocated to each item on the basis of SAR estimates given for expenditureschedules (Annex 1, Table 16 SAR).
2/ Costs incurred under Cr.1184-BD only: excludes FFW, FDR for Chalan Beel, Satla Bagda and Hail Haor.
3/ Rehabilitationof embankmentsand water control structures throughout Bangladesh damaged during the 1984, 1987 and 1988 floods and the May 1985 cyclone. 15
(2) Project Financing
Source Planned (DCA) Final Comments (SDR '000) (US$'000) (SDR '000) (US$'000)
IDA
Civil works 20,140 22,700 23,349 Final includes FDR.
Equipment, material, vehicles 530 600 104
Studies 620 700 140 Evaluation Studies.
Special Account 0 0 365 Exchange rate fluctuations. Unallocated 2,710 3,000
Sub-total 24,000 27,000 23,959 27,910 Final is higher than planned due to changes in rate of exchange between
SDR and US$.
GOB 12,000 ) Taxes and ) 12,070 Duties 2,000 )
Total 41,400 39,980 16
F. Project Results
(1) Extent of Flooded Area by Different Inundaton Depth
...... SAR Estimates 1/...... EvaluationStudy. Flooding Depth Pre- Post- Flooding Depth Pre- Post- Project Project Project ProJect .....('000 ha)...... ('000 ha)... Chalan Beel less than 30 cm 0 14.2 less than 30 cm 0.6 2/ 25.2 30 - 150 cm 16.4 10.1 30 - 90 cm 13.7 2/ 9.5 90 - 450 cm 16.2 8.1 90 - 180 cm 28.1 2/ 11.1 180 - 360 cm 4.8 2/ 1.4 more than 360 cm 5.9 2/ 5.9 Total 53.1 53.1 Satla Bagda 30 - 90 cm 0.2 2.4 less than 30 cm 0 1.6 90 - 150 cm 12.8 3.8 30 - 90 cm 0 2.4 90 - 450 cm 3.1 5.7 90 - 180 cm 0 5.9 180 - 360 cm 21.2 12.5 more than 360 cm 4.0 2.8 Perennial 4.0 4.0 Total 29.2 29.2 Hail Haor less than 30 cm 1.3 7.3 less than 30 cm 7.8 7.3 30 - 90 cm 9.8 6.1 30 -90 cm 4.4 6.0 90 - 150 cm 6.8 7.7 90 - 152 cm 6.1 5.0 90 - 450 cm s.8 3.2 more than 152 cm 6.1 6.1
24.4 24.4
1/ Compiled based on descriptiongiven in para. 6.02 of SAR. Expected changes in Satla Bagda are difficult to understand. 2/ From FeasibilityReport for Chalan Beel.
(2) Direct Benefits
IncrementalProduction Appraisal Estimated at Estimate 1/ Full Development ...... ('000 t/year).
Chalan Beel Paddy 32 20.7 Wheat 0 5.0 Satla Bagda Paddy 13 7.0 Wheat 10 0.8 Hail Haor Paddy 15.8 3.0 Wheat 0 0.2 TOTAL Paddy 60.8 30.7 Wheat 10 6.0
1/ Excluding effects of irrigationwhich is made practicableby the drainage and flood control works. 17 (3) Economic Impact
Appraisal PCR Estimate Estimate
Economic Rate of Return (Z) Chalan Beel 25 11 Satla Bagda 21 0 Hail Haor 24 8 Whole Project 23 7
Underlying Assumptions Economic Price of Rice 5,750 5,800 (in 1990 Tk per ton) Project Life 30 years 30 years Standard Conversion Factor 0.75 0.80 Benefits Agricultureproduction Agriculture production, improved access at Hail Haor. Effect on Fisheries Omitted Included. O&M Costs (Economic) 3.6Z of capital costs 2Z of capital costs
43. If annual O&M costs are assumed to be 3.62 of capital costs, the PCR reestimatedERR for the whole project becomes 6Z.
(4) Financial Impact
Relative Increase in Farm Incomes at Full Development Appraisal Estimate PCR Estimate (Z) (Z)
rhnn_ Reel!. T.and owner 160 74
Satla Bagda Land owner: 140 22
Hail Haor Land owner: 70 10
Cn A n.ne. A.
(5) Studies
Purpose as Defined at Appraisal Status Impact
(1) To assess the effects of the proposed water Completed None control structureson the fisheries in Hail by Dept. of Haor area and to propose a fisheries Fisheries enhancement programme.
(2) To establish the feas'bilityof shallow tube- Partly done SLtdy a&ua icul well irrigation in the Hail Haor sub-project by BWDB because no ground- area. water potential. 18 G. Status of Covenants
Covenant DCA Subject Deadline Status for Compliance 2.02 (b) WDB to finance project In compliance. j.evolvingfuiad a
2.02 (d) Borrower shall maintain Tk2 In compliance. million in the revolvingfund
3.02 Borrower to employ Only considered consultants,if needed necessary for evaluation studies.
3.03 BWDB to construct In compliance. embankments to designs satisfactoryto IDA
3.04 (a) Borrower to maintain Cell maintainedhut Monitoring cell did not monitor benefits.
3.04 (b) Borrower to establish/ 30 June 1982 Established July 1982 maintain 3 project (but not effective). coordinationcommittees
3.06 (b) Monitoring cell to 30 Apr. each Done by 1 July each furnish IDA work and year year because approved procuremuntschedules budget not known annually before then
3.06 (c) Borrower to record and Not complied. monitor benefits from project
3.07 (a) Borrower to acquire all As and when Land acquisitionwas land required needed otten late.
3.09 Borrower to establish 31 March 1981 Member (0 & M) in BWDB position of Oct. 1981. appointed,Oct. 1981 Member (0 & M) and appoint officer and support staff
4.01 (c) Audit reports to be 31 Dec. each Very late. submittedwithin 6 year months after end of fiscal year
4.02 (b) Borrower to furnish 31 Dec. 1982 Late. IDA ar.inspection and maintenance programme for embankments
4.03 (a) Borrower to complete 31 Dec. 1983 No benchmark survey. benchmark survey and First follow-up survey two follow-up surveys completed in 1989. after completion of project works 19
H. Use of Bank Resources
(1) Staff Inputs
Task FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY86 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 TOTAL LENP Preparation .4 4.4 2.8 .1 7.7 LENA Appraisal 8.7 60.9 6.4 61.0 LENN Negotiations 2.0 2.0 LOP Loan Preparation .1 1.8 6.1 7.8 SPN Supervision 4.0 16.3 19.2 17.6 10.7 12.5 1.4 1.1 .1 82.8 PCR PCR .7 .1 .8 PAD Project Administration .1 .1 .4 .1 .2 .9 TOTAL .4 8.2 66.3 18.7 16.3 19.3 17.9 10.8 12.7 1.4 1.8 .2 163.0
(2) Missions
Mission Month/Y*ar No. of Da S!cializationp Performance of _Fors3ns inF-olda Rprosont a1/ Status 2/ Pio6T* 3/ Preparation 1979/80 BWDB assistedby foreign consultants Appraisal - 1 Jun. 80 3 EC, IE, AG - Appraisal - 2 Feb. 81 3 EC, IE, IE Appraisal - 8 Apr. 81 3 EC, F Supervision- 1 Aug. 82 4 8 IE, XE, IE, AEC 2 F Supervision- 2 Jan. 88 2 RSB 4/ IE, CTE 2 F Supervision- 3 June 83 1 a AEC 1 Supervision- 4 Feb. 84 2 RMB 4/ IE,IE 2 11,T Supervision- 6 May 84 2 7 AEC, AEC 3 M, T Interim Supervision Oct. 84 1 n.s. AEC n.a. n.s. Supervision- 6 Jan. 86 6 11 IE, IE, IE, AEC, EC 2 M, T Supervision- 7 Oct. 86 a 6 AEC, AG, ACT 2 n.a. Review Jan. 86 1 10 IE n.a. n.a. Supervision- 8 July 88 a RMS 4/ IE, IE, AG 2 n.n. Supervision- 9 Oct. 86 n.s. n.a. n.a. 2 n.a. Supervision- 10 May 87 a RIB 4/ XE, AG, DSB 2 n.a. Supervision- 11 July 88 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 n.a. Supervision- 12 Jan. 89 2 RMB / IE, DSB 6/ Completion§/ May 90 3 10 IE, AG, EC -
1/ Specialization:EC = Economist;IE = IrrigationEngineer; AG = Agriculturist;AEC = Agri. Economist;CTE = ContractEngineered; ATC = Accountant;DSB = DisbursementOfficer; F = FisheriosSpecialist.
2/ Performancerating: 1 = Problem .... or minor problems;2 = Moderate problems;3 = Major problems. 3/ Type of problems:F - Financial;M = Managerial; T = Technical. Types of problems wero not recorded in supervisionreports after January 1986 because of change In reportingformat. 4/ Supervisionby ResidentStaff, number of days spent not recorded. 6/ No report available. 6/ FAO/CP.
(3) Costs
44. No data are available on cost of staff inputs broken down by each stage of the project cycle. 21 ANNEX A Page 1
BANGLADESH
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT
FINANCIAL REASSESSMENTAND ECONOMIC RE-EVALUATION
General
The period of observationof farmers' response to the changedwater regime in the affected areas since the completionof works has been too short to provide a basis on which to make reliable forecastsof changes in cropping pattern and farming practices. The unreliability of the benefit forecasts is further compromisedby the lack of long-termflood height, timing and volume records for the areas, which could provide a basis for predicting frequencyof flood damage reduction. Furthermore,in the absence of any project benefit monitoring, the data on recent crop areas, productionand yields are not derived from systematic surveys but from secondary sources and very limited field observations.
The PCR used the post-projectcrop yields and cropping patterns estimated for the normal flooding year by the Evaluation Study, which were also used for their "Scenario I" analysis. The Study, however, made an additional analysis (Scenario II) with higher crop yields and cropping intensities assuming that further investment in irrigationwould take place in the project area. The SAR also made similar assumptions and provided additional cropping patterns with irrigationdevelopment. However, the SAR did not carry out the analysis for this as the irrigation developmentwas considered to be an indirect effect of the project. For the same Lea un, Lhe PCR did not take account ot tiis seconaary effect on crop yield and cropping intensities,which would probably occur in the future if the project is maintained adequately.Furthermore, the SAR assumed that their projected yields would be attained 15 years after completion of the project. This appears to be too cautious.Although the PCR mission is unable to verify this, the level of crop yield targeted in the SAR would not require suostantiai changes in present farming practices.
Neither the SAR nor the PCR have evaluatedthe effect of the project works on areas outside the polders.
Financial Reassesment
The actual investment costs are shown in Tables 9.to 11. The total investment costs are compared with the SAR as follows: 22 ANNEX A Page 2
SAR Estimates 1/ PCP.Actuals 2/
...... (Tk million)......
Chalan Beel (CB) 318.7 365.51
Satla Bagda (SB) 156.6 347.29
Hail Haor (HH) 57.4 65.55
Totil 532.7 778.35
1/ Including physical and price contingenciesin 1980 terms. 2/ In current terms but excludingFFW and FDR costs.
These costs have been obtained from the accounts of the respective circle offices of the BWDB. However, the cost of equipmentand vehicles for SB compared with the physical quantities purchased by the project, appears to be under-accounted.
Because of the continuing change in the exchange rates over the project period, the annual investment costs have been converted to US dollars by the average exchange rates in the respective periods. The period average exchange rates are shown in Table 9. The totals are compared with the SAR estimates in Part III, 5A.
The per ha financial benefit at farm level, in accordance with the SAR, is based on the average per ha gross value of output less per ha production costs, both valued at financial prices. The results are summarized in the following table. 23 ANNEX A Page 3
FinancialCost and Benefits (Tk/ha)
SAR 1990 Prices PCR 1990 Prices
W W inc. W W inc. CB
Gross value of production 14,900 39,200 164 11,500 16,800 46 Productioncost 1/ 5,400 14,600 169 7,700 10,200 32 Farm income for a landowner 9,500 24,600 160 3,800 6,600 74
SB
Gross value of production 17,400 41,100 135 14,400 17,300 20 Production cost 1/ 6,100 14,200 134 8,500 10,100 19 Farm income for a landowner 11,400 26,900 136 5,900 7,200 22
HH
Gross value of production 19,200 34,700 80 13,700 14,600 7 Production cost 1/ 6,500 13,400 106 8,600 9,000 5 Farm income for a landowner 12,700 21,200 66 5,100 5,600 10
1/ Includes only 2C7 of the labour cost assumed to be the cost of the hired labour.
W = Future without project. W = future with project.
Economic Re-evaluation
Economic re-evaluationis at spring 1990 constant prices. Import prices for rice, wheat and some inputs have been derived from World Bank price projections,dated January 1990, using the average of the forecastsfor 1990 and 1995. Export prices for jute and urea are based on information from the BangladeshJute Corporationand BangladeshChemical IndustriesCorporation, world price trends and estimatedaverage costs to destination.Derivations to farmgate level are shown in Table 7.
The prices of non-traded commoditieshave been adjusted by the Standard ConversionFactor (SCF) of 0.8. The costs of farm labour and irrigationhave been adjusted by the respectiveConversion Factors (CF) of 0.75 and 0.85. A list of financial and economic prices used in the analysis is given in Table 8.
The economic costs of investmentinclude the value of wheat distributed under the Food for Work (FFW)programme for work carried out on the project after 1981 at an economic price of Tk8,000/ton and costs incurred under the Flood Damage RehabilitationProjects (FDR). (See Tables 10 to 12).
To obtain economic costs, the financial costs of investment have been adjusted as follows: 24 ANNEX A Page 4
(a) Taxes and duties have been deducted from the costs in the same proportionsas assumed in the SAR.
(b) The cost to BWDB of la-idacquisition has been omitted.
(c) The local costs have been adjusted by the SCF 0.80. In the absentce of any informationon this from the BWDB accounts, the proportion of local costs in the actual costs has been assumed to be the same as in the SAR.
This results in the following factors by which financial costs must be multiplied to convert to economic costs.
CB SB HH
Civil Works 0.77 0.79 0.74
Equipment and Vehicles 0.54 0.53 0.62
Engineering and Administration 0.77 0.77 0.77
The series obtained from the above adjustmentshas been brought to 1990 prices level by adjusting the annual figures in Taka by the respective GDP deflators for Bangladesh,as shown in Table 9.
Net project incrementalagricultural benefits have been obtainedusing the cropping patterns, yield, input and price assumptions shown in Tables 1 to 6, valued at economic prices. The assumedphasing of incrementalagricultural costs and benefits is as follows:
1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 onwards ...... (Z of full developmentbenefits) .
CB
Incrementalbenefits 30 0 0 0 70 100 Incrementalcosts 30 30 0 0 70 100
SB
Incremental benefits 40 60 40 0 30 100 Incremental costs 40 60 60 0 30 100
HH
Incremental benefits - - - 100 Incremental costs - - - - - 100 25 ANNEX A Page 5
The re-evaluationassumes a project life of 30 years and that the project works will be fully maintained.
The benefits of improved accessibilitydue to roads and embankmentsin the Hail Haor sub-projectare estimated at 3Z of the marketable surplus in 1990 when 36 km of road and embankmentwere completed.The benefits in the other years are ir proportion to the length of roads and embankmentsoperating in those years. The length of road and the assumed benefits are as follows:
Hail Haor
1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90
Roads (km) 5 10 15 20 25 30 36
Benefit 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.0 (Tk M)
The loss of fish productionhas been deducted from the project benefits. Based on informationin the EvaluationStudies, the loss of fish has been assumed at 37 kg/ha/year. This, valued at a net economic price of Tk2O/kg, has been deducted from the full developmentnet benefit stream. The estimated loss is as follows:
Loss of Area Production Value to fishing (Ha) (Ton/Year) (TK M/Year)
CB 24,578 900 18.0
SB 1,580 58.5 1.2
The economic cost and benefit streams are shown in Table 13. The re- estimated economic rates of return for CB, SB and HH are 11?, OZ and 8Z
The ERR for the whole project is 7Z. The ERR is lower than that estimated in the SAR because: (a) the assumed farm incremental benefits are lower than those in the SAR; (b) the economicinvestment costs are significantlyhigher than those in the SAR as shown below:.
SAR PCR 1980 Prices 1990 Prices Current Prices 1990 Prices ...... (Tk million).
CB 84.6 202.2 328.4 435.2 SB 105.0 250.9 285.7 397.1 HH 34.7 82.9 38.9 64.3
Total 224.3 536.1 653.0 896.6 BANGLADESH
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (Cr. 1184-BD)
Cropped Area, Yield and Production Chalan Beel Polder-D Sub-Project
Cropped Area Yield Production ...SAR 1/ .... PCR 2/.. ... SAR 1/...... PCR 2/.. ...SAR 1/...... PCR 21..
W W W W W W W W w w w w ..... ('000 ha) ...... (tons/ha)...... ('000 Paddy tons). B. Aus (L) 8.9 10.1 8.9 8.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.5 14.2 18.2 12.5 12.8 T. Aus (L) - - 7.0 3.9 - - 1.5 1.6 - - 10.5 6.2 T. Aus (HYV) 4.1 4.1 - 4.1 3.7 4.1 - 2.2 15.2 16.8 - 9.0 B. Aman (L) 15.8 8.1 16.2 4.0 1.1 1.5 0.8 1.4 17.4 12.2 13.0 5.6 T. Aman (L) 4.1 - 0.5 0.7 1.6 - 1.7 1.8 6.6 - 0.9 1-3 T. Aman (HYV) 2.4 14.2 - 4.1 2.3 3.2 - 2.4 5.5 45.4 - 9.8 Boro (L) 9.7 9.7 9.8 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.0 2.0 27.2 27.2 19.6 4.0 Boro (HYV) o - - 2.1 12.2 - - 2.7 2.8 - - 5.7 34.2 Total 45.0 46.2 44.5 39.5 86.1 119.8 62.2 82.9 Other Crops Jute 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 2.1 Wheat 4.1 4.1 1.4 3.6 2.8 2.8 1.6 2.0 11.5 11.5 2.2 7.2 Pulses 8.1 8.1 7.1 10.7 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 9.7 9.7 6.4 9.6 Oilseeds and others 6.1 6.1 4.1 4.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 3.7 3.7 2.1 2.8 Total 19.1 19.1 13.5 20.5
Total Cropped Area 64.1 65.3 58.0 60.0 Net Cultivated Area 38.5 38.5 58.5 37.3 Cropping Intensity (Z) 166 169 151 161
1/ SAR projection; W = without project, d = with project. 2/ PCR assumption for -q norma] flooding year, based on Evaluation Study Report, 1989. Substant.al reduction in total Aman cropped ' arEa and high i-icreasein yield of B. Aman (L) between W and W situEationsare inexplicable. s x >: BANGLADESH DRAINAGEAND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (Cr. 1184-80) ropp..d Area. Yield and Production lbil Haor Sub-Prolect
Croppod Aron Yield Production .. . . 17P.SAR CRPCR /...SAR . PCR 21j-
w w w w w W w w w w w w ...... ('000ha) ...... (tons/ha) . -...... ('000 . Padd tons) B. CL) Aun 6.7 7.7 6.8 8.4 1.7 2.0 1.3 1.3 11.4 15.4 8.8 8.3 T. Aus (L) 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.6 0.4 T. (HYY) 0.4 1.4 1.6 Aus 2.4 2.4 1.3 0.9 3.2 4.1 2.8 3.0 7.7 9.8 3.6 2.7 B. Aan (L) 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.9 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.6 6.8 T. 6.4 6.1 6.2 Aan (L) 8.3 6.9 8.9 9.3 2.0 2.3 1.7 1.7 16.6 13.6 16.1 16.8 T. mn (HYV) - 2.8 - 0.1 - 3.7 - 2.9 - Boro 10.4 - 0.3 (L) 2.4 2.4 4.1 4.6 2.3 2.8 1.8 1.9 6.6 6.7 7.4 8.7 Boro (HYV) 2.0 2.0 0.6 1.0 4.1 4.6 3.6 3.6 8.2 Totol 9.2 1.8 3.6 25.6 26.6 2a.3 27.2 66.6 71.9 44.2 47.2 Other Crops Juto- 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 Wheat 0.3 0.3 - 0.1 1.4 1.9 - 1.8 0.4 0.6 Pulses - 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - 0.7 0.7 - - 0.1 0.1 Otloeds - - and others 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.4 Total 2.I2T 1.2 T otal Cropped Area 27.8 28.8 27.8 28.4 Net CultivatedArea 18.1 19.4 18.4 :18.4 Cropping Intonsity (X) 163 149 161 :154
J SARprojection; U = withoutproject, W = with project. t/ PCR assumptionfor normal floodin*i year,bosed on Evaluation Study Report, 1989.
>o w:31 BANGLADESH
DRAINAGEAND FLOOD CONTROLII PROJECT (Cr. 1184-BD)
CroppedArea *Yield and Production SatlaBagds Sub-Project
Cropped Area Yiold Production ... SARfY ...... -CR 3y .. ... SJkR1/ .... PCR2/ .. ... SAR17 ... PCR2/.. w w w w w w w w w w w w ..... ('000 ha) *---- (tons/ha) ...... ('000 tons) . "as (L) 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.7 2.0 2.3 1.6 1.7 (. Aus (HYY) 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.2 - 4.1 - 0.1 - 4.8 - 4.1 - 18.9 - 8. Aman (L) 4.1 0.4 6.7 3.1 3.0 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.4 7.8 11.4 4.3 4.2 T. Amon (L) 0.6 2.4 0.2 1.8 2.3 2.8 1.6 1.8 1.2 6.7 0.3 2.9 Mixed Aus-Aman 31.4 3.3 12.4 11.6 2.1 2.4 1.7 1.8 23.9 7.9 21.1 20.7 Boro (L) 2.0 2.0 4.2 4.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 4.2 4.2 8.4 8.2 Boro (HYV) 4.4 4.4 3.8 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.2 19.4 19.4 15.6' 19.7 Total T2.8 22.6 24.1 25.7 67.3 89.9 50.3 67.3 Other Crops Jut o 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.2 Wheat 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.1 0.5 2.3 3.7 Pulses 1.3 1.8 0.6 10.4 0.1 0.9 3.6 4.5 3.0 3.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 Oilseeds and others 0.8 3.6 4.6 2.4 3.1 3.3 5.0 6.1 3.3 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 2.3 4.0 2.e 2.0 Total Ti 1I i.4 Ti Total Cropped Area S0.1 36.0 32.6 33.6 Net Cultivated Area :2.8 21.4 22.8 21.6 Cropping Intensity (%) 132 164 142 1S6
11 SARproJection; 7 without project, W = with projoct. 2/ assumption PCR for normal flood'ng yoar, based5n Evaluation Study Roport, 1989.
s > BANGLADESH
DRAIHAOEAND FLOODCONTROL II PROJECT (Cr. 1184-9D)
Per Hectar- Farm Inputs and Cost of Production Choari Beol Poidor-D Sub-Project
...... Farm Inputs .I/ ...... Cost or he ... 2 F*rtllizersn ^ro-ch.mTcof Ijjigotion Bullock Labour Finan! Sed Economic Ursa TSP -MP (Tk) (Tk)ppair daye) (m*n is) i!E1/ T Tk7g - (ijY .. (Tk) Future without Pro3 ct BE Aun Pro - - - - 44 148 4,690 8,192 T. Au* 30 - - - - - 44 16. 4,026 7,870 B. Aman 100 - - - - - 30 100 3,600 6,800 T. Assn go - - - - - 46 149 4,110 7,768 Boro ao - - - - - 47 Boro 186 4,2o0 8,374 (HYV) 30 80 30 - 200 (180) §J 3,000 (2,660)5/ 48 Jute 170 8,116 12,048 10 30 10 - - - 46 Wheat 149 4,190 7,930 120 80 26 16 - 600 (610)6/ 46 90 6,067 Pulses 7,927 80 - - - - - 43 Oi lsads 30 8,986 4,085 10 - - - - - 36 66 3,085 4,418 Future with ProJoct U. A-us 100 - - - - - 44 148 4,690 T. Aun 6,192 ao - - - - - 44 165 4,026 T. 7,870 Aus (HYV) 30 40 10 - - 2,000 (1,700)5/ 47 S. to6 6,630 10,260 Aman 100 - - - - - 44 148 4,890 T. Aman 30 8,192 - - - - - 48 149 4,196 7,826 T. Amsn (HYV) 30 60 20 - - - Boro 47 165 4,680 6,910 30 - - - - - 47 Boro (HYV) 185 4,280 8,374 3o 86 36 - s00 (180) E/ 3,000 (2,660)5/ 48 176 8,165 Jute 12,274 10 3o 15 - - - 48 160 4,800 8,076 Wheat 120 110 30 15 - 1,000 (860)6/ 60 110 6,982 9,380 Pulses 30 - - - - - 43 30 3,986 Oi lseds 4,088 10 - - - - - 36 86 3,086 4,418
M/Mission eatimat.s based on data obtained in the field and selected sub-project feanibility report. of Second Smell Scale Drainago and Flood Control Project (Cr. 1810-80). Local consultants for *valuation study for this sub-project were unable to provide crop budt date used in their evalusticn. / Computed on the bae a of prices given in Table S. !/ Excludes hired labour cost. 4/ Includes economic cost of labour valued at Tk3O per men-day. !/ Figures in paronthesis are economic costs.
oxE BANGLADESH
DRAINAGEAND FLOOD CONTROLII PROJECT (Cr. 1184-BD) Per HectareFaor Inputs and Cost of Production 5atlaBagda Sub-Project
...... Farm Inputn I/ ...... Cost por ha 2/ ...Fertilizers.. igro-chemicars irrigation Bullock Labour Finan- Tonoemc Seed Urea TSP -P (Tk) (Tk) (pair days) (man-ays) cial& / 4J 07 ..... ( ..... (Tk) . Futurewithout Project B. Au*n0 1 - - - - 46 149 4,776 8,290 S. Aan 100 - - - - - 44 148 4,890 8,192 T. Man 30 - - - - - 44 165 4,026 7,070 MixedAus-Aman 100 - - - - - 46 149 Boro 4,776 8,290 30 - - - - - 47 166 4,280 8,374 Boro (HYV) go 150 70 30 500 (400) 5/ 5,000 (4,250)6/ SO 200 11,266 16,026 Jute 10 30 10 - - - 45 149 4,190 7,930 Wheat 120 50 20 - - 6oo (610)/ 43 85 6,577 Pulses 7,242 30 - - - - - 40 30 3,730 3,884 OlIseds 10 - - - - - 36 66 3,086 4,418 Futuroith Project U.-u-si7 100 - - - - - 46 149 4,775 8,290 T. Aus (HIY) 30 160 70 30 800 (480) 6/ 2,500 (2,126)6/ SO 200 9,86S B. Amn 13,980 100 - - - - - 44 148 4,690 8,192 T. Aman 30 - - - - - 46 167 4,110 7,998 Mix,d Aus-Aman 100 - - - - - 46 149 Boro 4,880 8,368 30 - - - - - 47 18S 4,280 8,374 Boro (HfYV) 30 1SS 70 30 500 (400)S/ 6,000 (4,260)S/ SO 200 Jute 11,280 16,0S4 10 30 10 - - - 45 149 4,190 7,930 Whoat 120 85 25 1S - 1,000 (860)6/ 47 90 6,577 Pulses 8,384 30 - - - - - 40 30 3,730 3,884 Oilseeds 10 - - - - - 36 85 3,086 4,418
/ Missionestimates based on data ob ainod in the field and selectedsub-project feasibility reports of SocondSmall Scalo Drainagoand Flood ControlProject (Cr. 1870-BD).Local consultants for evaluationstudy for this sub-projectwere unrble to providecrop budgetdata used Ii their evaluation. 2/ Coeputodon the basisof priceoglon in Tablo S. F/ Exclud-e hired labour cost. 4/ Includes economic cost of labour volued at Tk30 per man-day. / Figures In parenthesis are economi: costs.
z t
LA: BANGLADESH
DRAINACEAND FLOOD CONTROLII PROJECT (Cr. 1184-8D) Per HectareFarm n and Cost of Production HaTl HH-rSub-Project
...... Farm InputsI/ ...... I..,...... Cost per ha 2/ ...Fertilizore.. Asro-chTcals Irriustion BB.ullock Seed Labour Finan- Economic Ur eiMTSP mP (Tk) (Tk) (pairdays) (man-dayy) ciii .. . . 3F T (VT 7 .....(Tk). Future without Project B. Aiu P 100 - - - - - 43 145 T. Au: 30 4,606 8,034 - - - - - 44 1S6 4,026 T. Aus (HYV) g0 es as _ 150 (120)6/ 7,870 B. 2,300 (1,966)5/ 48 170 7,415 11,489 AJn 100 - - - - T. Asan - 46 149 4,776 8,290 30 - - - - Boro 30 - 44 156 4,026 7,900 - - - - - 46 163 Boro (HYV) 30 120 SO 4,196 8,246 20 300 (240)y 6,000 (4,250)5/ 50 190 10,766 16,180 Jute 10 30 16 - - - 48 160 4,300 8,076 Gilseeds 10 - - - - - 36 66- 3,086 4,418 Futurewith Prolect B. Aus 100 - - - - - 43 T. Aus 30 146 4,605 8,034 - - - - - 44 T. Au* (HYV) 30 166 4,026 7,870 90 36 - 200 (160) 5/ 2,300 (1,966)5/ 49 B. Assn 100 - 175 7,676 11,776 - - - - 45 149 4,776 T. Aman 30 - - 8,290 - - - 44 156 4,026 7,900 T. Aman (IYV) 30 90 36 _ 200 (160) 6/ _ 49 176 6,276 Boro 30 - - 9,821 - - - 46 164 4,196 8,276 Boro (HYV) 30 120 s0 20 3l00 (240) Jute §/ 6,000 (4,260)5/ 60 190 10,766 15,130 10 30 16 - - - 48 150 Wheat 120 86 26 4,300 8,076 1S - 1,000 (860)5/ 47 90 6,677 8,384 Oilxsds 10 - - - - - 36 66 3,086 4,418
Missielon *stimateo based on data obtained In the tfidd and selectedcub-project feasibility reports of Second Drainageand Flood Control Project(Cr. 1870-8D). Small Scale Localconsultants for evaluationstudy for this aub-projectwere unable to provide crop budgetdata used In thoirevaluation. 2/ Computed on tho basis of prices given In Table 8. 1 Excludbehired labourcost. S/ Includeseconomic cost of labour valuod at Tk3O poe man-day. i Figures In parentheslsare economic costs.
Vo'5. 0% >E 32 ANNEX A Table 7
BANGLADESH
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (CREDIT 1184-BD)
Derivation of Economic Prices
Import Parity Rice Wheat TSP MP
...... (US$/ton). Projected 1990/1995 price 1/ 250 161 162 103 Quality factor 0.75 0.9 1.0 1.0 Adjusted FOB value 188 145 162 103 Freight and Insurance 3/ 40 70 66 66 Value CIF Chittagong 228 215 228 168
...... (Tk/ton).
CIF Chittagong (US$1 = Tk35) 7,980 7,521 7,979 5,880 Port taxes, handling 4/ 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Transport, storage & handling 5/ 360 360 360 360 Value project area markets 9,540 9,083. 9,539 7,440 Transport, handling 6/ 120 120 120 120 Sub-total 9,420 8,961 9,419 7,320 Processing ratio 0.62 0.90 .0 1.0 Farm-gate price 5,840 8,065 9,419 7,320
Export Parity Urea Jute
....(US$/ton).... FOB Chittagong 2/ 206 290
..... (Tk/ton).... FOB Chittagong 7,210 10,150 Port taxes, handling 4/ 1,200 1,200 Transport, storage & handling 5/ 360 360 Value market 5,650 R.59a Transport and handling 6/ 120 120 Sub-total 5,770 8,470 Processing ratio 1.0 0.85 Farm-gate price 5,770 7,199
1/ World Bank Commodity Prices, January 1990. Average of 1990 and 1995 projections, brought to 1990 constant prices by Manufacturing Unit Value Index: 1990/1985 = 1.4439. 2/ Based on information from Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation and Bangladesh Jute Corporation, world price trends and estimated cost to destinations. 3/ Between Chittagong and source. 4/ Average of Tkl,500, adjusted by SCF 0.80. 5/ Average 300 km. Tkl.50/t.km, adjusted by SCF 0.80. 6/ Average 15 km. TklO.00/t.km, adjusted by SCF 0.80. 33 ANNEX A Table 8
BANGLADESH
DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (CREDIT 1184-BD)
Financial and EconoriicPrices in Takas in Constant 1990 Prices
Outputs Unit Finan- Economic Inputs Unit Finan- Economic cial Prices cial Prices Prices Prices
Paddy kg 5.5 5.8 1/ Labour day 40.0 30.0 3/ Wheat kg 5.7 8.0 1/ Bullock pair- 85.0 68.0 2/ Jute kg 5.5 7.2 1/ day Pulses kg 9.0 7.2 2/ Urea kg 5.0 5.8 1/ Oilseeds kg 11.0 8.8 2/ TSP kg 5.0 9.4 1/ MP kg 4.0 7.3 1/
Seeds Paddy kg 9.5 7.6 2/ Wheat kg 8.1 6.5 2/ Jute kg 16.5 13.2 2/ Pulses kg 11.0 8.8 2/ Oilseeds kg 11.0 8.8 2/
______1/ Derivation of economic prices is shown in Table 7. 2/ Adjusted by SCF 0.8. All seed is locally produced. 3/ Adjusted by CF for labour : 0.75. BANGLADESH DRAINAGEAND FLOODCONTROL II PROJECT (Cr. 1184-SD) ExchangeRates and Bangladesh CDP Deflator.
1980/81 191/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/86 1986/8U 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90
Exchange rates Tk/USS y 10.0 20.1 23.4 26.0 28.7 29.2 30.7 31.3 32.0 86.0 GDPDeflator. V 90.7 100 112.8 118.4 137.8 168.4 167.3 187.4 200.6 218.6 Factor for 1990 price 2.89 2.186 1.92 1.88 1.67 1.37 1.29 1.16 1.081 1.0 conversion
1/ From IF International Financial Statistics,May 1990 and Yearbook1989, Two Year Midpoint of the AnnualAverago (rf). !I BangladeshBureau of Statisticsand IMF InternationalFinancial Statistics, Yearbooks 1987, 1990 and May 1990 Issue.
cr0x
to > BANGLADESH DRAINAGEAND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (Cr. 1184-8D)
Chalon Beel Sub-Project - Actual Invoeteent Costs
1981/82 1982183 1983/84 1984/86 1985/8L 1988/07 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 Total ...... (Tk'O00) 1/...... Land Acquisition 8,161 162 12,626 7,923 21,287 Civil Works 8,618 5,328 34 67,016 249 12,396 25,920 65,170 44,829 Equipment and Vehicles 38,198 61,810 14,668 281,130 - 369 340 661 2,661 Engineering and Administration 691 723 - 6,317 348 2,630 8,729 9,631 10.680 9,614 2.606 9 42,046 Total 3,748 16,637 46,616 83,276 79,447 62,919 70,366 14,601 386,609 Food Damago Rohabilitation Food for Work - Wheattons 96,310 22,601 117,811 176 ...... (USI'000) 2/. LrI Land Acquisition 167 8 606 297 729 Civil Works 12 212 170 1 2,077 630 1,037 2,441 1,636 1,179 Equipment and Vehicles - 16 1,976 465 9,164 Engineering 14 21 91 23 23 A Administration 17 112 289 381 - 187 388 310 80 - 1,691 Total 188 6e4 1,826 3,119 2,721 1,724 2,248 458 12,943 Flood Damago Rehabilitation Projocts 2,978 643 3,021
11 Source: BDB, RaJshahl. J See Table 9 for exchange rates.
C.Ig. 0 BANGLADESH
DRAINACEAND FLOOD CONTROLII PROJECT (Cr. 1184-BD)
Satl Bngdn Eub-Probect - Actual InvestmentCosts
1981/82 1982/83 19sn3/84 1984/85 1986/8S 1988/87 1987/88 1988189 1989/90 Total
...... (Tk'000) ...... Land Acquisition 2,648 81 11.,208 4,907 8,160 87 S5l 27,640 Civil Works 9,219 18,621 14,867 Equipmnt 44,761 89,652 44,216 60,679 281,414 and Vehicles - - 640 - - 75 - Enginoering and Administration 1.779 9,188 615 ,278 A40 7,304 6,616 7.0e 37,818 Totsl 21,644 21,885 32,391 66,069 106,106 49,993 68,200 347,287 Flood Damage Rehabilitation Food for Work - Wheat tons 37,687 308 312
.(USS'000...... (usstoo) /.. Land Acquisition 132 a 448 184 Civil 279 3 18 1,067 Works 469 796 676 1,876 Equipmentand Vehicles 3,070 1,440 1,935 9,961 - - 22 - - 2 24 Engineering A Administration 88 186 261 240 250 183 226 1,374 Total 879 9856 ,296 2,100 8,600 1,628 2,179 12,413 Flood Damage Rehabilitation Projects 1,074 1,074
1 Source: 83B, Banral. Exchange rates, Table 9.
Eum-:> BANGLADESH
DRAINAGI:AND FLOOD CONTROL II PROJECT (Cr. 1184-0D)
Hail Hnor Sut-Prolact - Actual Investment Costs
1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1986/86 1986187 1487/88 1988/89 1969 till Total ...... CivilWork. k /...... Embankmentalong Manu River - Upgrading 340 2,368 old 741 4 3,443 embankmntet/ 1,248 - - Other - - 6,190 684 390 2S6 6.811 5.379 439 2.970 8,397 12,481 9.713 2.661 1,496 41,19iz Sub-total 1,498 6,811 5,379 439 3,310 21,029 11,038 3,036 1,496 63,03i Equipment and Vehicles - 266 57 41 Enginering and Administration 887 1.463 1.999 427 811 3as 4.418 2,016 163 12.162 Total 2,366 7,639 7,436 907 4,121 25,445 13,053 3,188 1,496 66,641) Flood DamageRehabilitttion Food for Work - Wheat (tons) 70 88 87
...... (USI'00)2/...... Civil Works 74 248 216 Equipment and Vehicles 1S 113 685 363 - 11 2 2 96 1,796 Engineering & Administration 43 - - - - 63 80 18 28 IF 144 64 6 43 48e Total 117 322 297 34 141 829 417 100 43 Flood Damgr Rehabilitation 2,30C Projects 2 2
I/ Source: B838, MoulviBazer. 2 Exichangsrates from Table 9. P Aeumedto bo half for ManuRiver and half for north flood embankmentfor 1988/87 onwards.
IN DRAIACE PM F1L0 COTROL 11 PFA0J
Economiscn Cot*nd Benefit Stream (IM9 Tl mi IIi cm)
...... Chalon sel- ...... Sstls 9*0Ao ...... il IFbor ...... Whole Pro**c uu InY9ltl- DM1 Incremntl N netmen Ohl Incr_wnt-al met InvootAnt M Incemental tM Not Flo cot faD 8 nef ;tA Mr. C Come anifite8k FtocM Cont rmtc 8vfiX Eiow
I 1.0 -1.0 18.7 -18.7 3.8 -3.8 -23.S
2 22.6 -22 .6 32.9 -32 .9 10. 7 - 10. 7 -66 .2
3 4 .3 -46. 3 30. 1 -30 .1 10.2 0. I - 10. 1 -8.5 .
4 90.9 -90.9 63.2 -63.2 2.1 0.3 -0.8 -164.9
a 60.S 30.3 -30.2 104.7 9.5 -95.7 3.9 0.4 -3.5 -128.9
6 45.9 -28.7 -74.6 53.1 14.3 -38.8 19.3 0.6 -18.7 -132.1
7 67.9 0 -67.9 64.7 4.9 -59.8 11.1 0.7 -10.4 -128.1
a 9.2.8 0 -92.8 0 0 . 0 2.4 0.8 -1.6 -94.4
9 17.3 63.0 35.7 29.7 8.0 5.9 -31.8 1.8 1.0 -O.S 3.0
10 tO 30 _ 8.7 82.8 74 1 8.0 25.2 *17.2 1.3 9.6 8.3 99.6
436.2 397.1 64.3
00 ERR i. V's -Os as IBRD 23189
Mc, n r"ver left embankment
Norht floodMALV Kagabola embankment BAZAR X \ gauge sfafion
VillageRoad
Incomplete bridge I-
[oDhohz ~~~~~~~- a E --Eoo a-.sratstatio
u mgop aovno Impon b l.o. ho oo.- of. d'by. PROJCTwoRS bmr l R d- .D,oILAG, -OAID.y ft, h.r -o- h. 2Wd B-45k l.,h W-trnl-1o h...-c N.lb
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY Eh'.BANKMENTS- ofBANyGLADESHlOfyIor. - .- any.0hv DRAINAGEAND FLOOD CONTROLII PROJECT HAIL HAOR SUBPROJECT INDIA
PROJECTWORKS
PROJECTAREA BOUNDARYEMAK NT RIVERS MAIN ROADS
- ROADS VILLAGEROADS INDIA
0 1 2 3 4 5
KILOMETrM
AWWGST1991 IBRD23190
BANGLADESH DRAINAGEAND FLOODCONTROL 11 PROJECT CHALANBEEL SUBPROJECT
PROJECTWORKS
t - < * EMBANKMENTS NIYAMATPUR THANA . REGULATORS - 8- VILLAGEROADS
IMPROVEDROADS
EXISTINGMAIN ROADS
RIVERS,BEELS, KHALS
0 2 3 4 5
KILOMETERS
MANDA
- THANA
TANORE THANA
DUR.GAPUR INDIA
lh,t ,Zno h.,. bee, p~db The oi okt-oeeeeI f, lh ,ed,e,,.e .,,oordeW --1 l C.'p T-d--l- INDIA ,d-ed th. bc,,do,,c-,e, oth,, -,p d-qsstt tep' . h Th. Wed -kd th-
PABA Intmo oIFmoeo "I-po,o5ol- |THANA>pE;a o°st''{>!w~ BANGLADESH DRAINAGEAND FLOOD CONTROL11 PROJECT SATLABAGDA SUBPROJECT PROJECTWORKS AN^ A DtN(A REGULATORS h- - - VILLAGEROADS r # , CLOSURES t4YANMO,R RIVERS,BEELS, KHALS Th.. mop ho, been preporsd br - The World BTh,, sroffVY-ls.olt for *he com'en,ence of the ,., reoders ond eorolrnefr for the . into.aol ueof The Woffd Blonkr-~ -nd tho lntmnohonol fnonc- Cortororron. Th. deoornnotrmr, ueed ond the b.roudorre, tho n onthr, mop do not rinplr. on rth pnOrt of The Wortd honk ond tt e Intemnorronol Irnonce Corporotron onr judg--ment on the.etot totr. I of ony *e rariory ornr endorsemenr or or.rptoncer of dchf-o-ndorite. POLDER 1 POLDER 2 POLDER 3 ) 1 2 3 4 5 I I \OETR KILOMETERS N S W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o