Document of The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized Report No. 12468

PROJECT COMPLETIOhREPORT

Public Disclosure Authorized REPUBLICOF

FIFTH HIGHWAY(RURAL ROADS) PROJECT (LOAN 2108-TUN)

NOVEMBER8. 1993 Public Disclosure Authorized

FILE Copy

Report No: 12468 Type: PCR

Infrastructure Operation Division Country Department I Public Disclosure Authorized Niddle East and North Africa Region

This document has a resticted distibution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their officdu duies. Its contents may not otherise be d'iclosed wibout Wodd Bank authorizaton. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit = TunisianDinar (DT)

EXCHANGERATE;S

Appraisal Year Average 1 DT 0.46 Intervening Year Average 1 = DT 0.81 CompletionYear Average 1 = DT 0.93

GLOSSARY

BNT - Banque Nationale de Tunisie (NationalBank of Tunisia) CTV - Cellule Territonale de VulgarisationAgncole (ExtLnsionCenters) DGPC - Direction Generale des Ponts et Chauss6es(Highway Department) DPV - Direction de la ProductionVegetale (Crop ProductionDepartnent) ERR - Economic Rate of Return GR - Genie Rural (Rural EngineeringDepartment) ICB - International Competitive Bidding LA - Loan Agreement MA - Ministry of Agriculture MPW - Ministry of Public Works MTC - Ministry of Transport and Communications SAR - Staff Appraisal Report

REPUBLICOF TUNISI

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 - December 31 FOR OFFICIALUSE ONLY

THE WORLDBANK Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A

Office of Director-General Operations Evaluation

November 8, 1993

MEMORANDUMTO THE EXECUTIVEDIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Tunisia Fifth Highway (Rural Roads) Proiect (Loan 2108-TUN)

Attachedis the "Project Completion Report on Tunisia- Fifth Highway (RuralRoads) Project (Loan 2108-TUN)",prepared by the Mtddle East and North Africa RegionalOffice. Part 2 summarizesthe findingsof a borrower-produced PCR.

Project objectives were to improve the standard of living in rural areas, raise agricultural production, enhance rural communication and strengthen institutions with rural development mandates. Rural road works (road improvement and maintenance), complementary investments in extension services and irrigation, farm credit and technical assistance were main components. Project implementation and attainment of objectives suffered from complex and unclear objectives, inadequate preparation and appraisal and weak institutions. Implementation took five years longer than originallyplanned for a totalof almost ten years. Major physicaltargets were achievedor exceededbut institutionaldevelopment aspects, includingroad maintenance,were cut back to varying degrees.

The PCR is frank but lacks basic informationabout projectoutcomes and implications,the reaultof inadequatemonitoring and evaluationarrangements and poor supervisionperformance. As a result,overall project outcome cannot be rated. Institutional development is rated as negligible, and sustainability as uncertain. The projectwill be audited.

Attachment

This docxanmnthas a restricteddistribution and may be used by recipientsonly in the performanceof theirofficial duties. Its contents.ay not otherwisebe disclosedwithout World Bank authorization. FOROFFCIAL USE OiLY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE...... I ...... i

EVALUATIONSUMMARY ...... ii

PART I: PROJECT REVEW FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTVE ...... 1 ProjectIdentity ...... 1 Background:The Agrcultual Sector, TheTransportSectorandThe HighwaySubsector...... 1 ProjectObjectvesand Description ...... 3 ProjectDesipnandOrganization ...... 6 Projectpl nati ...... 9 MajorPectResults ...... 18 ProjectSustnability ...... 24 Bank's Perfo.ance ...... 25 Bonrower'sPeorance ...... 27 Relationsbetween The Bank and The Borrower ...... 28 ConsultantServices ...... 28 Project Documention and Data ...... I ...... 29

PART II: PROJECTREVIEW PROM THE BORROWER'SPERSPECTNVE ... 0...

PART III: STAIISTICAL INFORMATION...... 32

IBRD MAP No. 24898

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

This Project CompletionRport describes the preparation, appraisal, and implementationof a FifthHighway Project in Tunisia,for whichLoan 2108-TUN in the amount of $35.5million was signedon May 14, 1982. The loanwas scheduledto becomeeffective by September13, 1982,but becameeffective nineteen months later on April 24, 1984, due to delaysin issuanceof the decreerearding a govemmentalcommittee to coordinatethe vanous activitiequnder the project. The loan was closedon October31, 1991,after four extensions. Ultimately,$31.5 millionwere disbursed and $4.0 millionwere cancelled. The EvaluationSummary and Parts I and m of the PCR wereprepared by the nfrastructureOperatons Divisionof CountryDepartmenit I, MiddleEast and North Africa Region,on the basis of the StaffAppraisal Report, the Loan Agreement,supervision reports, correspondencebetween the Bank and Tunisian authonties, intenal Bankrecords, and a working draftprepard jointlywith the Highway Directorate (Direction Gen6rale des Pontset Chaussdes), Ministryof Equipmentand Housing, as wellas otherinformation gathered during a PCR missionin April-May1993. The Govenmentof Tunisia has prepared a separateProject CompletionReport on the basis of the same workingdraft. Part II of the present report summariM3 the maindifferces betweenthe twodocuments. EVALUATIONSUMARY

Project Objectivesand ExperienceGainedh

(i) The Fifth Highway (Rural Roads) Project was a continuationof activities undertake in the ThirdHighway (Rural Roads) Project to improverural roadsand upgradethe agnculturalareas surroundingthose roads. In most respects,the two projectshad adopted simiar physicaldesigns, time-frames and analytical and administrative approaches. The number of rural roads to be improvedwas roughlyequal (1,000 km inthe Thirdand 1,200In in the Fifth)and the projectshad similarexecution p&iods of 8 and 10 years, respectively.

(ii) L. eachproject, iurl roadswere selected and justed on thebasis of combined transportand .griculturalbenefits and costs, and both projectssought to generateagricultur benefitsby ensuringthe provisionof agriculturalinvestments and extensionservices (para. 4.02). Whilethe ThirdProject actually included Bank financing to supportagricultural credit, the Fifth Projectonly obligatedthe Govenmmentto ensurethat credit would be available. On theother hand, the FifthProject made extensive efforts, as did theThird, to facilitateextension servicesthough provision of physicalficilities for the agets and throughtraining. (iii) Similarintearental committeeswere used in both projectsto coordinate variousproject activities. However, the Fifth Projectrequired a muchmore detailed planning and monitoringprocess, with budget projectionsand imlementation schedules for all governmentalfunctions, both in the Ministry of Public Works and in the Ministry of Agriculture.Moreover, the changein agriculturalactivities was to havebeen studied,planned andexecuted in detail,wnth comprehensive monitoring to ensurethat planswere caried out and to providea basis for impactassessment. (iv) The Fifth Projectalso servedas the vehiclefor a numberof activitiesrelated to the rural roads program (para. 3.02 (b) to (M(i), (v), (vii), and (1i) ). Among them were a programof ruralroad maintenance,improvement of roadsfeeding into therural roadsimproved under the project,construction of other rural publicworks such as irrigationschemes, studies of rural road constructionand maintenancetechniques and of a follow-uprural roadsproject, and technicalassistance and taining to carry out the variousroad and agriculturalcomponents. All of these,except the rural road maintenanceprogram, received financing under the loan. In addition,there wereactivities unrelated to rumlroads, also financedunder the loan:preparation of a classifiedroad rehabilitationprogram and procurementof equipmentfor Tunisia'svehicle testingprogram as a contributionto road safety(para. 3.02 (f) (vi)and (g)f. Results (v) in general, executionof the rural roads componentsof the project was more satisfactorythan execution of theagricultural ones. The first extraneouscomponents, the study of a programto rehabilitateclassified roads was mostlyexecuted under another project (para. 5.27)and resulted,under tis Project,only in a modesttechnical assistance consultancy to help prepare bidding documentsfor 312 km of rehabilitationworks. The second extneous component,procurement of vehicleinpection equiptnent,was held up for manyyears due to delaysin designingthe componentby the agencyin charge, fte Mnin:tryof Transportand Communications(paras. 5.03(b)and 5.12). As a result, this componenttook up nearlydouble the amountbudgeted for it under the Project. - lii - (vi) Constructionof the Projectnrral roadswas largelycompleted by 1988,two years behindschedule, though supplementary works continued through 1992 (para. 5.01 and 6.03). Whilecost performance is difficultto establishaccurately due to designchanges and changesin the value of the currency,oveall costs were generallywithin the parametersestablished at appraisal.Hov ever, rural road maintenanceposed someproblems. Maintenance,especially routinemaintenance, was not carriedout systematically(para. 6.02)and even thoughbudgets for routinemaintenance have been steadilyincreasing (para. 5.14), moneymay have been divertedto other works. Spotimprovements on *oadsfeeding into projectroads were carried out mostlyin parallelwith the workon the correspondingproject roads though achievement fell considerablyshort of the projectedvolumes (para. 5.1S).

(vii) Constructionof extensioncenters (CTVs) was delayedmore than coi-truction of rural roads,and althougha substantialnumber of theCTVs was completedby 1988,the last six were not finisheduntil 1992 due to hisufficientbudgets (para. 5.17). The agricultural componentsuffered most seriously from inadequate implementation of planningand monitoring elements. The CoordinatingCommittee failed to have regular meetingsand the -'anous supportig consultancieswere utilizedto an extent much less than foreseenat appraisal. Timetablesand action plans for thegovemorates and the extension agreements were not prepared or submittedto the Banknor were seminarsheld for local officials(para. 5.07). After 1985, the two partiesagreed that the Govemmentneed only to submitthe annualbudget of theagency in chargeof the agriculturalcomponent. All the extensionagents received some training and had introducedextension contacts in variousdegrees but data is lackingto quantifythe extent of the adoptionof new farmingtechniques and to comparethe currentuse of such techniques withprojections at appraisal.The recorddiscloses repeated references to institutionalproblems in Tunisia'sextension system (such as parallelextension services dealing with differentcrops), whichwas describedas undulyfragmented and inhibited in scope. Theseproblems have recently beenalleviated through a consolidationof extensionservices. The construction of theCTVs also contributedto this administrativeimprovement (para. 6.16). The improved roads in combinationwith the CTVshave substantiallyhelped the funtioningof the extensionservice.

(viii) The appraisalused a complexprocedure to establishan ERRfor eachrural road in the first year's program,based on both trafficvolumes and agriculturalproduction and not on simplifiedmethodologies that the Bankhad developed(para. 6.10). The complexitieswere due not only to conceptualproblems but extraordinarydata demands(paras. 6.12 and 6.13). A studyis currentlyunder way to establishthe impact,including the ERR, of a sampleof the FifthHighway Project roads, but its resultswere not availableat the timethe present report was finalized. Further, the conceptualand datacollection complexities are so great that theycast doubt on the utility of the procedure,particularly for roads directly affectedby Tunisia's increasinglyurbanized and affluenteconomy (para. (xii)and para. 6.14). Nevertheless,the vigorous traffic growth on most project roads points to a most likely favorableeconomic outcome(para. 6.15).

(ix) Large scale use of consultantswas contemplatedat the time the loan was made, but only about a third of the funds for this purposewas disbursed;much of this shortfall occurred either because they were not sufficientlydefined at appraisal or because the Governmentdid not view them as necessaryor helpful(para. 6.0S). However,the Project benefitedfrom the continuedinvolvement of the consultingjoint-venture (Tunisian and French) that had preparedthe Project with financingfrom the Third HighwayProject, and that, as a - iv - group or as separate consultants, assisted in implementation. The same joint-ventureis now carrying out the impact study and the preparationof the proposed Seventh Highway Project.

Sustainability

(x) The experienceof this Fifth Project suggeststhat it is only partly sustainable.The roads themselveswill require more systematicmaintenance if they are to latq to their projected term, though they are built well enough to last for some time even in the face of insufficient maintenance. The maintenanceof improved roads remains a problem as maintenancebudgets are in general insufficient,fungible between categories of roads, and most personnelconcerned with impaved roads considerthem not to be real roads. On the evidenceof the Fifth Project, the systems of identifyingand building rural roads in conjunctionwith agricultur initiatives have not become firmly rooted in the Tunisian environmentand will have to evolve (pan. 7.01). TIis experiencecontrasts somewhat with that under the Third Project where the linkage between road and agncultural investments was considered to be desirable (even though the provision of agricultural credit was regarded as inadequate) and where several key Tunisan officials strongly spported the integrated approach.

Conclusionsand Lesons Learned

(xii) General. The Project succeededin achieving its main physical objectives, the constructionof improvementson nearly 1,200 km of rural roads and the constructing and equipping of 55 CTVs. The use of a single constructioncontract to cover work at several scattered sites is administratively advantageous, contributed to the result and should be consideredfor use elsewhere (para. 8.03). Ancillaryphysical objectiveswere only partly met (feeder roads branching off the project roads and vehicles for use by extension agents) or were not subject to full reporting (rural infrastructureworks and farm investments). However, the Project fell short in the implementationof its non-physicalcomponents and was deficientin the use of consultantstoward that end (paras. 5.07 and S.25). The Project, also, is only partly sustainable because road maintenanceis still deficient on some rural roads and because an effectiveroad maintenancesystem and integratedrural road - agriculturaldevelopment program, stll, do not have an adequate institutionalbasis (para. 7.01).

(Xiii) Project Scope. The integratedapproach used in this Project presupposedcertain essential requirementswhich were not met:

(a) a sense of ownership in the Project by all participating government agencies (para. 8.04 (b)); (b) effectivemechanisms for coordinationamong these agenciesand withinthe Bank; (c) intensiveBank supervision(para. 8.02); and (d) clear articulationof the benefits of the integrated approach (para. 8.04 (a)).

(xiv) Quality at Entry. The Project suffered from serious defects jk initiQ. The selection of roads occurred without an adequate road inventory (para. 8.04 (c)). The road designs were inappropriate because in most instances additional improvements were added shortlyafter the inital work was completed(pan. 6.02) and Project analysiswas too academic and executionprocedures were exceedinglycomplex (paras. 3.02 and 6.14). In addition, many Project componentswere not fully thought through and inadequatelylaid down in the Project *~~~~~~~-1r. __ .-- '__] A - * ;e +2osa a h - v - (xv) ProjectExecution. This complex integrated Project also fell short of expectations becauseof inadequaciesin executionincluding:

(a) too limitedBank supervisionand discontinuitiesin Bank staff assignedto the Project,especially for tfieagricultural components (pam. 8.01); (b) inadequateinformation flows and monitoring caused by non-implementationof the Project component (monitoringand auditing consuitancy(para. 5.24) ) specificallydirected to theseneeds; by too limitedreporting requirements (para. 12.04);and, generally,by the Bank'sacquiescence in insufficientproduction of informationon the Project(para. 12.03);and (c) insufficientcoordination of Bankactivities in supportof the Project. REPUIUIC OF TUNISIA

fIHIGHWAY(RURAL ROADS) PROJECT (LOAN 2108-TUN)

PROJECT COMPLETIONREPORT

PART k PROJECT REVIW FROM TH1 bANK'S PERSPECTIVE

I: PROJECTIDENTITY

Name: Fi Hghway (Rural Roads) Project Loan Number: 2108-TUN Loan Amount: $35.5 million RVP Un t: MENA Country: Republicof Tunisia Sector. Transportation Subsector. Highway

11:BACKGROUND: THE AGRICULTURALSECTOR, THE TRANSPORTSECrOR AND THE HIGHWAYSUBSECTOR

2.01 In the face of rapid urbanization(from 36% in 1960to 54% in 1990)Tunisia's gicultural sect hasexperenced only slowgrowth over thepast seval dedes. Theavge valueof the grossdomestic product from agriculture rose by about10% over thedecade of the 1980's,with considerable vadaions fromyear to yeardue to naturl fctors suchas weatherad locusts. As agrculturegrew more slowlythan the economyas a whole,its sharein the GDP, fell from almost18% in 1976to around 15%in the mid 1980's. It appearsthat the producin of severaltraditional crops such as cerals and oliveoil had only slowgrowth or noneat all in comparisonwith vegetablesand fruitswhich epanded morerapidly:

AverageAnnual Production (thousandsof tons) 1974-1980 1982-1986 1987-1991 Cereals 990 1170 1408 Oliveoil 107 98 112 Tomatoes 296 378 500 Potatoes 117 143 215 Citrus 188 194 240

This productionwas achieved with a slightlydeclining absolute number of personsengaged in the sector (a decreaseof about 4% between1975 and 1988). Moreover,while the tota populationcontnued to rise, the prorton of agrcultural workersin the labor foe feU steadilyfrom 379Oin 1975 to 24% in 1988. These data point to shifts in the nature of agricultral producdon,to risingproductivity in the sectorand to improvementsin fte conditions of rura life thoughnot a reversalof the long term exodusfrom the farmsto the cities. - 2 -

2.02 In contrast to agnculture,the value of output in the transport sector grew significantlyduring the 1970'sand 1980'skeeping pace with thegrowth in the overalleconomy whichexpanded rapidly in the 1970's at 7 to 8% per year, with rises in manufacturingand tourism,as well as sharpincreasts in Tunisia's oil revenues. In the 1980's averageoverall growthremained positive but averagedonly 3.6%as the sectorswhich had driventhe economy in the prior decade experiencedreduced demandand lower prices. By 1988, transport represented4.5 % of GDP as against4.4 % in 1976. 2.03 The overallgrowth in transporthas also been markedby an increasein road transport'sshare of surfacemovement of both passengersand freight, and by the mid-1980's road transportaccounted for more than90% of all passengertraffc and, if captivephosphate trafficis excluded,for nearly70% of freightmovements. These developments are evidenced by increasesin trafficdensity on the pavednetwork (10% annually between 1977 and 1992). Thevehicle fleet also expandedrapidly from 71,000 in 1972to 258,000in 1984and to 350,000 in 1992. While the lengthof the networkincreased only marginally,its conditionimproved fromroughly 7,500 km of pavedroads around1970 to over 9,000 kanin 1984. By then the networkconsisted of about 17,000km of classifiedroads (roughlyhalf of them paved)and 20,000km of unclassifiedroads (about 85% unimproved earth tracks). 2.04 The mostimportant issues regarding Tunisia's road systemin the early and mid 1980's were: (a) About two tirds of the pavedroads were 5.5 m or less wide, accordingto a RoadMaintenance Study of 1984,financed under the TunisiaFourth Highway Project,and manyof themneeded to be widenedto carry their currentlevels of traffic; (b) Maintenance,which was decentralizedin 1981 needed to be strengthened, parficularlythrough better organization(e.g. by designatinga specificagency to maintainrural roads),improved central support to regionalroad unitsand greater provisionof equipmentand training; (c) Regionaland localroads needed to be improvedin supportof the Government's overall programof rural and regionaldevelopment, which in turn supported Governmentobjectives for increasedagricultural production and more even incomedistrbution.

Thefirst two pointsare beingaddressed by theHighway Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project (Sixth HighwayProject, Loan 2896-TUNof January 15, 1988),which is currently under implementationwhile the lastpoint represented the principalthrust of theFifth Highway(Rural Roads)Project. Two newprojects are beingprepared, covring respectivelyrural roadsand a road improvementprogram.

2.05 Public sectorinvestments in Tunisiahave oeen guidedby a seres of five year plans, includingthe Fifth (1977-1981)immediately preceding the Fifth HighwayProject, the -3 -

Sixth(1982-1986) roughly paralleling the originalProject peiod and the Seventh(1987-1991) whichcovered the extendedProject period. Most of the Projectrural roads were improved duing the Sixthplan which increased the Govemment's emphasis on rural developmentthrough the expansionof the rural roadsprogram throughout Tunisia. Whilethe shareof transportin total investmentshas steadilydecreased from 17.6 % in the Fifth Plan to 8.3% in the Seventh Plan,the shareof roadsand road transportin totaltransport investments has goneup from27% in the earliestpeiod to 52%in thelatest period (actual investments for the Fifthand SixthPlans andplanned investments for the SeventhPlan). Investmentsin roads(excluding road tra1i.prt) showa risingtrend for the Fifthand SixthPlans from an annualaverage in real 1985DT of DT 27.1 millionin the first period to DT 35.6 millionin the first four yearsof the secondperiod. In the years 1985-86, the Projectaccounted for roughly12-15% of all road investments.The total roadsbudget (capital, maintenance, administration) averaged DT 39.7 million(in constant 1985DI) in the Fifth Plan and DT 50.1 millionin the first four years of the SixthPlan, with recurrentmaintenance accounting on averagefor DT 12.6 million(or 25%) of the average budgetin the latter period,a 28% increaseover the averagein the Fifth Plan. This worksout to DT 1,378per kin of pavedroad in 1984. 2.06 TheBan's policyconcerns regardng T:nisia's transportsector have focussed on issuesof productivity,government reguion, pricingand taxation; many of theseconcerns were voicedas earlyas the 1960'sand continuein thecurrent dialogue in a proposedTransport Sectr DevelopmentProject. Some of the road tanwsportindustry and enteprises in the railway, maritimeand aviationsectors are all state ownedand the Bankhas continuallyemphasized the needfor improvedproductivity of theseenterprises. In the roadssector the Bank has advocated grater flexibilityin themanagement of publicsector firms and greater involvement of pnvately ownedopers, processeswhich are beingimplemented, albeit slowly. Roadtransport pricing is thoughtto be too rgidly controlledwhile road user taxation,though ap iat in overall amount,is thoughtto be biased in favor of cetain categoriesof vehicles (heavyvehicles). Improvementsin the reviewof transportinvestment proposals have also been a long term concern,focussing particularly on the creationand strengtheningof institutionsfor thispurpose. Thereis nowgreater emphasis on addressingroad safetyand envirnmntal problemsalthough of al the abovebroader policy issues, the Projectonly focussedon road safety.

2.07 A summaryof prior and cunt BankGroup operations to assistTunisia's road sectoris shownin Table A: Related IDA Credts and BankLean.

m. PROJECTOBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

3.01 The Projectadopted a similardesign strategy and set of d&jectivesas the Third Highway(Rural Roads) Project, whichprovided for rural roads' improvementin conjunction withprograms of investment,credit and extensionto supportagricultural activities in the zones

41 - 4 -

of influence(defined as approximatelyone km on eitherside of the improvedroad) of the roads. However,there were somedifferences between the two projects: (a) whereasthe ThirdProject covered eight governorates,the Fifth includedseven of the samegovemorates plus twelve others, thus coveringnineteen of Tunisia's twentythree governorates; 0) theinvestment activities in eachgovernorate under the Fifth Project were covered by a detailedAction Plan and all activitiesunder the Projectwere to be specified yearlythrough annual Action Plans; (c) the Third Projectprovided for an actualallocation from a Bank loan (Second AgriculturalCredit Project) for credit in support of farmers in the zones of influenceas well as credits from variousother identifiedsources. The Fifth Projectonly madeestimates of the credit likelyto be requiredin each area and specifiedthat BanqueNationale de Tunisie(BNI) wouldensure that credit would be availableas required.

(d) the Fifth Projectadded the followingelements:

(i) a speca programto improveselected feeder roads which branched off therural roadsimproved under the Project (though some feeder roadswere includedin the ThirdProject); (ii) a programof modestrua infrastructureworks (e.g. smalldams) to be designedand executed by theMinistry of Agriculture'sG6nie Rural(GR) or RuralEgineering Department; (iii) consultingassistance for designand executionof the Projectand studyof generalissues related to rurl roads;and (iv) procurementof vehicle inspectionequipment to promote road safety. The.Fifth Project thus intendedto havea morecomprehensive investment program and greater surveillancein the processof executionthan the Third. 3.02 As approvedby the Board,the Projectincluded: (a) A te-year program(1983-1985) of rural road improvementstotalling some 1,200km, of which400 km had been appraisedwhen the Project was approvedand the rest wereto be agreedby the Bankin two annual increments(Table B: Rural Road Improvements as Plroposedat Appraisal and as Fnally Executed);

(b) Spot improvementsto feeder roads branchingoff the improvedrural roads: the spot improvementswere not specificallyidendfied but were estimatedat one pavedford for each 4 kn of feederroad or one culvert to each 1.5 km of feederroad. Spotimprovements were carred out in only ninegovernorates or feederroads of only 23 of the improvedrural roads ( Table C: Spot Improvementson Related Feeder Roads); (c) A road maintenanceprogram for the rural roads improvedunder the Project:this programwas not specifiedat a isal exceptwith respect to annualcost ($7.5million equivalentj but it was to havebeen descrbed in detailin actionplans to be submittedannually; (d) Complementaryinvestments related to agnculturein zonesof influenceof each rural road to be improved:while these investments were not hsted in full detil at appraisal,they included:

- 55 buildingsfor aetensioncenters (CTVs) (valued at $1.7 milion equivalent), - equipmentfor thesebuildings, (valued at $0.2 mifflionequialent), - vehiclesfor the 55 CTVs(valued at $0.9 millionequivalent), - rural infrstrucre schemes,which were sometimesalso desied as rigationschemes, small scale irrigation schemes, land dninage worksand smallirgation dams,and whichwere to be submitted to the Bankfor reviewprior to implementationeven thoughthe Bank was not to financeany of them (valuedat $4.5 million equivalent);

(e) Creditfrom BNT at variousterms to farmersin the influenceareas of the rural roads subjectto improvement.The purposesof these creditswere not spefledout but samplelists of goodsto be financedwere prepared. The aggeg amountof BNT credit includedin the Project costs was $8.8 millionequivalent ($2.9 millionequivalnt short term and $5.9 millon mediumand long term)and BNT credit representedabout two- thrds of credit fromall sources(none of them from the Bank)included in Projectcosts. (f) Consultingservices to assistin: (1) the feasibility, design and implementationof ruml road improvements; (ii) preaation of guidelinesfor spotimprovements; (ii) monitng, auditingand impactevaluation of the Prroject; (iv) a studyof constuctionand maintenancematerials and techniques for unpavedroads in Tniia; (v) preparin of a foLow-onproject (vi) p of a classifiedroad rehabilitationprogram; (vii) preparion of extensionand credit programsfor thesecond ant thirdyears of the Project; and - 6-

(viii) training of extensionagents, includingoverseas traimng missons;

(g) Procurement of equipment for vehicle inspection stations: no list of equipment was prepared at appraisal and the list eventuallyfilanced was subject to lengthy discussionsbetween the Bank and the Government. This Project element was intended to support a broader highway safety component in the Fourth Highway Project, a component which itself remained to be precisely defined at that time (see Report No. 8648, Project CompletionReport for the Fourth Highway Project, Loan 1841- TUN, March 18, 1990).

3.03 Implementationof the Project was to be the responsibility of an interagency Coordinating Committee, including rpresentatives of the Ministries of Public Works, Agriculture, Plan, Transport, Communications,and Interior and BNT (this Committee had already been establishedunder the Third HighwayProject). The DirectionGdn&6ale des Ponts et Chaussees(DGPC), that is, the HighwayDepartment, was to be responsiblefor all activities, mcludingtechnical assistance, relating to roads as well as the socio-econonic impact study, while the Ministry of Agriculture(MA) would have charge of all activitiesrelated to agriculture, mcludingtechnical assistance for that purpose. The procurement of vehicle testing equipment would be handledby the Directorateof Land Twanspot(DTI) in the Ministry of Transport and Communications(MTC). BNT would administeragricultual credit with the assistance of MA extension staff. The Project was to extend from mid-1982 to mid-1987, about the same implementationperiod as originallypredicted for the Third Highway Project. This period was comparableto the profile of disbursementsunder the Tunisia First Highway Project, but about two years less than the historicalprofile for projects in Tunisia generally.

IV. PROJECr DESIGN AND ORGANIZATION

4.01 The Project was idendfiedduring a missionto Tunisia in November 1978 and was prpared by the DGPC with assistancefrom French and Tunisianconsultants financed from the TunisiaThird HighwayProject (Loan 1601-TUN).The consutants prepared a 17 volumereport (1980 study) on 2,714 km of rural roads. The roads were chosen for study jointly by representativesof the Ministries of Public Works, Agriculure and Interior from among 18,000 km of rurl roads adned by DGPC. Some of these also were part of the systemof 17,700 km of (paved and unpaved)classified roads. The list was further refined to 212 road segments after consultationsbetween the consultantsand the Tunisianauthonties. Engineering,traffic and agronomic data for each road were analyzed and economic rates of return (ERR's) were calculated using a model called MAGON which was a simplifiedversion of the Bank's Rural Road Model. Appraisal took place in June 1981 after two and one half years of preparation.

4.02 The Project was to be a continuation of the rural roads lending in Tunisia supportedby the Third Highway Project (Loan 1601-TUN)which was under way in 1978 and was not completeduntil 1986. (The PPAR for the Third Project, Report No. 7182, was issued on April 11, 1988). From the beginning,the Fifth Project, similar to the Third one, was to -7- includefinancing and other activitiesin supportof agriculte in the roads' zonesof influence. However,doubts were raised wthin theBank whether the agricultural components of the Third Projectwere being properly executed and whether similar components should be partof theFifth Project. The Governmentof Tunisia was opposedto discontinuanceby the Bank of the integratedapproach in its rural roadslending to Tunisiabecause this wouldbe contraryto the Govenment'sapproach in its overallnrral developmentprogram. The Goveementalso was not !nterestedin usingthe Bank's 'new approach"to rural roadslending. Althoughthe Bank deteminedthat agriculturalsupport activities in the Tlird Projectwere not as deficientas had appearedinitially, the decision was madeto excludeaU agricultural credit from Bank's financing underthe proposedFifth Projectthough such credit wouldcontinue to be part of the Project.

4.03 As Tunisia'sr roadsprogram was very largeand could not be financedby the Bak alone, co-financingwas envisionedfor the Fifth Project from the start. However,the Governmentrefused to inviteany co-financingfrom commercial banks on the groundsthat this methodof financingshould be aeservedfor projectsof a directlycommercial chaacter. Nor couldco-financing be raisedfrom any other source. Accordingly,the programfinanced by the Bankwas scaledback from 5 to 3 years. Roadmaintenance equipment in supportof keeping theroads maintained was originallyincluded for financingunder the Fifth Project, but whenco- financingbecame unavailable some unused funds under the FourthProject were reallocated for this purpose.

4.04 Negotiationstook place early in 1982 followedby loan signaue in May. Effectiveness,which had been foreseen for September1982 did not occuruntil Aprfl 1983; this was due to delays in issuanceof the decree establishingthe govemmentalcommittee to coordinatethe variousactvities under the Project. This was, in fact, the samecommittee as the correspondingcommittee under the ThirdHighway Project but had to have its jurisdiction expandedto coverthe newproject. The plannedproject timetable and the plannedcumulative disbursementsunder the loan are shownin Table D: Project Timetableand TableE: Projected and Actual CumulativeLoan Disbursementsrectively. 4.05 Projectcosts as originallyestimated are shownin Table F: Project Costs, and correspondto capital costs of the improvementworks on 1,200 km of roads and related agriculturalsupport investments over the sixyears 1982-1987.Of the estimatedDT 53 million, roughly20% representedtransfer taxes. The plannedpattern of Projectfinancing is shownin Table G: Project Fiancing. Recurrentbudget requirements in supportof the Projectwere esdmatedto equalabout DT 2 millionper yearby the sixthyear of implementation. 4.06 The bulkof civilworks procurement under the loan was to be executedunder the Bank'snormal ICB rules. Ruralroad improvement works would be aggregatedinto lotsvalued at a minimumof DT 500,000each and lots wouldin tun be bid in groupsof at least DT 3 million,with biddershaving the optionof biddingon one or more lots in eachgroup. CTVs and spot improvementswould be procured under local competitivebidding. Equipment procurementwould be mostlyby locallyadvertised bidding or, in the caseof vehicleinspection equipment,after negotiation with suppliers of equipment ihatwould be compatiblewith wbatwas alreadyin use in Tunisia. -8-

4.07 The specificitems to be includedunder the Projectwere spelled out onlyin part. Annex 2 to Schedule 2 of the Loan Agreement ()A) showed in the lrst year of the program, improvement(upgrading or construction)of 400 kn in 33 listedsections of rural roadslocated in eight governorates.An additional800 km of about70 sectionswere to be agreedbetween the Bankand Governmentfrom time to time for the secondand third years of the programon the basis of feasibilitystudies and detailedengineering. The 55 extensioncenters and related equipmentto be includedunder the Project were not identified,but it was noted that the extensioncenters would serve the agriculturalareas aroundthe roadsto be improvedunder the Project, nor was there any indicationas to the locationof spot improvements.Some of this informationwould have emergedfrom submissionsunder a covenant(LA, Section3-03 (n)) whichrequired the Borrowerto submitannually a plan of activitiesto be carried out in the followingyear. The natureof vehicleinspection equipment for five inspectionstations also was not specified. 4.08 Loancovenants covered the usual requirements related to Projectexecution (fabin- H: Status of Covenants). 4.09 Projectdesign and organizationwere amendedon severaloccasions: (a) In June 1985,the reimbursablepercentage of expendituresfor rural road works was raised from 40 to 52%. After the loan was made, the value of the DT fell significantlyin relationto the US dollar and with that changethe orginal reimbursablepercentage of 40% would only have coveredpart of the foreignexchange costs.

(b) In December1986, the LA was amendedto establishprocedures for the use of loanwithdrawals on the basis of statementsof expendiures. This procedurewas intendedto apply to contractsvalued under $100, 000 equivalent for agicultural extension buildings and spot road improvements.The amendmentwas supposedto facihitatedisbursements and overcomea seriouslag in utilizationof the loan. (c) In January 1989, the provisionof vehicle inspectionequipment was reducedfrom the originalfive stationsto two at and Tunis. This changeresulted from a decisionby the Tunisianauthorities to concentrate vehicle inspectionactivity at the two most heavily used stations. However,in the endthe equipment financed by the Bankunder the Project was usedat six stationsand, whilethe Bankgave its concurrenceto this, the LA was not formallyamended. (d) In March 1989,the procurementrequirements of Schedule4 of the LA were amendedto allow local competitivebidding on rural road works financedunder the loan, provided that no preferencewould apply, that bid and performanceguarantees would be equal for every bidder, and that bidswould be openedin public. At thispoint all of theoriginal rural road -9 -

works under the Project had been completedand this amendment was specificallydesigned to allow financingof pavementon eight previously financed (under the Third or Fifth Projects) road sections where traffic had increasedbeyond expectations. Contractswould not exceed$400,000 equivalent individually or $2,000,000 all together. The original requirementfor ICB thus was not considered necessary.

V. PROJECr IPLEMENTATION

Timing of Implementation d Extent of Completion

5.01 The Project, which was scheduledfor completionat the end of 1986 (with loan closing a year later), actuallywas finished five years behind scheduleat the end of 1991 (with loan closing 3 monthslater). However, delaysvaried amongindividual components, with rural road works, the major part of the Project in terms of money, being minimallydelayed while other elementswere delayed up to five years (ImplementationSchedules I and DEand Table LoProject Expendkures by Year). Similarly,completed rural road works met the target of the programmed 1,200 kn while other Project elementsfell short of targets in various degrees, as shown in Table F: Project Costs.

5.02 All of the rural road works were tendered by September 1985. By September 1983, all of the first group of 400 km (the first group) was completed,and by December 1984 al of the secondgroup of 400 km (the secondgroup). Most of the third group of 400 kn (the third group) was completedby early 1986 as scheduledbut two roads were delayed to 1987and 1988 respectively due to the failure of the original contractor. Table J: Rural Roads Inprovement Contracts summarizesthe informationon contracts and contractorsin the three groups of rural road improvements. Later, additionalrural road works were included to pave eight sections improved under this Project and the Third Project.

5.03 (a) Implementationof the main physicalcomponent for agriculture, the construction of CTVs, went safisfactorilyafter somedelays at the start. By late 1986 less than half of the CTVs had been built, by 1988 this number had risen to only 43 and the projectednumber of 55 CIVs was not reacheduntil 1992(Table K: Progress in Consticton of CTVs). Another 41 CTVs were built during this period financed soldy from the Government budget, which were also to serve the farmers in the roads' zones of influence. In addition, there were 13 CTVs, which were in rented buildingsand were also linked with these rural roads. Therefore, there are 109 CTVs amongthe 400 Centresde MunwonAgricole, most of them built in the last 15 years, which serve the rural roads under the Project. Training programs for extension agents began in 1983 and were concluded in 1984 and 1985, even thoughexpenditures extended through 1988. Equipmentprocurement for most CTVs was mostly completelyby 1984 and the procurement of motor vehicles, though mostlyfinished by 1987,continued through 1990 but was never completed(Table L: Construction of CTVs and Table M: Expenditures for - 10-

CTVs, CTV Equipmentand Vehiclesand Extension Iaining and Studies). Similarly,spot improvements on feederroads wee onlypartially executed (Table C: Spot Inprovements on Related Feeder Roads) and no report is available ngardingcompletion of rural infrastructure(which was part of theProject but not to be financedunder the loan)other than an indicationof a globalexpenditure of $3.4 millionequivalent.

(b) The componentrelated to vebicleinspection equipment suffered the mostserious diversionfrom the schedule;it was subjectto repeatedredesigns and was finally not completeduntil 1992,covering six stationsinstead of the originalfive (later amended to two) stations (Table N: Equipment for Vehicle Inspection Stations). (c) Technicalassistance and fellowships (overseas missions) are summarizedin Table 0: Expendituresunder Project for Techal Asstance (includingTraing and OverseasMisions). Therewere seven consultancies, six withthe Ministry of Public Worksand one with the Ministryof Agnculture,which includes the extensionagents trainingcontracts with the Ministryof Agricultureand the overseasmissions. The studyof constructingtechniques of unpavedroads was delayedby nearly two years, but the impactstudy was deliveredonly a few monthsbeyond target. The studyto preparea followon project of rural road improvements(Part H rf) and riii)of the Descriptionof the Projectin the LA) was delayeddue to problemsin procurementand eventuallywas transferredfor financg underthe ongoingSixth Highway Project. (d) The reasons for delays of various componentswas due mainly to failure of coordinationamong participants in the Project.

5.04 As a resultof the partal executionof the Project (i.e. the purchaseof vehicles and use of technicalassistance) and as a resultof the changein the exchangerate of the doLar in rlation to the Tunisiandinar (from$1 = DT 0.46 at appraisalto $1 =DT 0.93 currently), about$4 millionof the loanwas not usedand thisresulted in cancellationof $3 millionin April 1990and $1 millionat loanclosure.

Coordbiat Ip aon of Rura Road Improents and of Supporting Project Elements.

5.05 More than70% of the Project'sbaseline costs were for rural road construction andassociated consulting services. Mos. of theremainder was for elementswhich were intended primarilyto help stimulateagricultural production in the roads' zonesof influence. To ensure that the supportngelements were properly camred out, the SARincluded vanous bar charts, budgetprojections and actionplans. The Projectwas to be executedin threegroups, beginning in the first, secondand third years of the Project,each extendingover three years and each consisingof oneyear of ruralroad design and twoyears of rurl road constuction.During each three year peiod parallelprograms of rura road maintenance,spot road improvementsand - 11 - agriculturalpromotion should have taken place; how--ver,many of these activities were shown to continuefor several years beyond the three years associatedwith each group. The budgetary consequencesof all these activitieswere originallyincorporated into capital and recurrent budget requireirents for the Project as a whole for each of the six years of Project execution (Tables 2(a) and 2(b) of Annex 8 of the SAR). The capital budget requirementsbecame the "overall program" (Secdion3.03 (b) of the LA and SuipplementalLetter No. 1).

5.06 Detailedimplkmentation of the Project was to be carried out under variousaction plans and annual programs. These included:

(a) An action plan for extension work for each iiidwiidualroad, based on an agriculturalsurvey madeby the extensionagents of all farmers served by the road and specifying 'key farm parameters which affect absorptive capacity for new techniques and the ability to qualify for new credit". The action plan would include road by road, extensionguidelines, yield targets and credit needs, as well as a frameworkfor project monitoringand evaluation(Parts C and D of Annex 6 of SAR).

(b) An action plan for each governoratecovering all rural road improvementswhich the Project would financein that governorateand related support activities under the Project (spot road improvements, CTV buildings and equipment, minor irrigation works, and agricultural credit).

(c) Annual programs consistentwith the overallprogram (SupplementalLetter No. 1 contained action plans for the eight governoratesincluded in the first group) which would include the preparationand updatingof road feasibility studiesand the preparationof integrated action plans (Part B of Annex 6 of SAR).

The foregoingprovisions of the SAR were incorporatedin Secton 3.03 of the LA, which called for: in subsection (a), execution of the Project in accordancewith the agreed overall action program; in subsection(b), the Borrower,through its ProjectCoordinating Committee, to submit annually, for Bank comment, a plan of project operations consistent with the overall action program; and in subsection (c), submissionto the Bank of feasibility reports for rral road improvementsin the second and third groups, and extension guidelines, farm budget analyses and implementationdata for extension to be carried out in each year of the Project.

5.07 The Bank's file does not disclosehow the foregoingprovisions were implemented.

(a) While all rural roads in the secondand third groups appear to have been included in the 1980 study, the file containsno reference to their formal inclusion under the Project or to updatingof the feasibilityconclusions of the 1980 study.

(b) While a Tunisianfirm was engagedabout the beginningof 1986to make surveys of agricultural potential and prepare agriculturai development programs for Project roads in 13 governorates, the results of its work are not on file. - 12 -

Accordingto the MA, the firmprepared a reportfor each road in the secondand thirdgroups and by the endof 1987had completed nearly 70 reportswhich were mai3tainedonly at the Ministry. Neitherdoes the filecontain action plans for te govemoratesresponsible for the sectionsof ruralroads in groupstwo and three. The file does containcopies of budgetrequests made by the Directionde la ProductionVEgeta1e (DPV), or CropProduction Department, for the years 1984, 1985, 1987 and 1989,which provide justification for variousexpenditures by DPV nationwideon constructionand equippingof CTVs, trainingof extension agentsand operatingcosts (suchas motorfuel) in supportof the FifthHighway Project.-According to the MA the two partiesagreed to substitutethese national budgetsfor the actionplans for eachgovernorate referred to in para. 5.06 (b) above. Nor does the file indicatewhether seminars were held in each of the governoratesto fmiliarize localofficials and extensionagents with the Project, to brief themon the road - by - road actionplans or to explainthe farm surveys extensionagents would have to make (PartD of Annex 6 of SAR). Accordng to the MA, the surveysby extensionagents referred to in para. 5.06 (a) abovewere not madebecause they were inappropnateto the educationallevel of the agents and would require contactswith large numbersof farmers thus divertingthe agents from other essentialwork. Finally, there is no record of formal submissionto the Bankof annualprograms or actionplans for individualroads. In fact, it was reportedin early 1987,that the ProjectCoordinating Committee had not met for over a year.

5.08 The abser^,eof documentationon actionplans and annual programs suggests that the supportingelements were not implementedin accordancewith the movell progam" andthat monitoringand evaluationcould not be done on a systematicbasis. Some informationwas collectedon credits and extensionprovided in a sampleof the zones of influences. ITnis informationpermits us to estimatethat the creditsgiven in thosezones of influenceswere in the order of DT 4 millionand wereadequate. CivilWorks in General 5.09 Detailed designs and contractdocuments for the first group of mral roads improvementswere prepared under a consultancyfinanced from the TunisiaThird Highways Project. Similardocumentation for the secondand third groupsof rural roads improvements weremade available under further contracts with the sameconsultants financed from the current loan. All these works were executed by DGPC after internationaltendering. Spot improvementsof feederroads rumnning into mral roadsimproved under the Projectwere also to be executedby DGPCaccording to proceduresand criteria to be developedby consultants financedfrom the loan. However,only a smallpart of the projectedspot improvementswas carried out and DGPC never engaged consultantsunder the Project to develop special procedures. Therefore,DGPC executed the worksunder its normalprocedures. Supervision of rural road works was to be done by DGPC with the assisnce of consultantswhile the arrangementsfor supervisionof spotimprovemets was to be specifiedlater and, therefore,no specialprocedures were used. In general,aU work was supervisedby the RegionalDirectorates - 13- of DGPC under the general responsibilityof DGPC's Central management. Rural road improvementworks were almostaU awarded to localfirms with the exceptionof a bidderfrom Hungary. Spot improvemenitswere executedby smalllocal firms experiencedin masonryand concretework.

5.10 Rural infrastructureworks (such as minorirrigation) as well as the designand feasibilitystudies for those works,were to be executedby the G6nieRural (GR)of the MA. Whilefinancing out of the Bankloan was not availablefor theseworks, GR was to submitthe detailsof each schemefor the Bank'sreview before implementation (SAR, Annex 6, para. 9). However,it appearsin the filesthat GRdid not submitany suchdesigns or studiesand specific infrastructureworks that couldbe attrbuted to the Projectwere reportedonly in an aggregate amount. 5.11 The constructionof CTVswas to be the responsibilityof the MA. No special provisionsfor the designand supervisionof the CTVswere included in the Projectdocuments and procurementwas to be carried out under local competitivetendering procedures. The bidderswere provided with buildingplans and billsof quantities. 5.12 The designof vehicleinspection stations for whichequipment was to be procured underthe Projectpresented major difficulties as it dependedon thedevelopraent of a road safety program. An initialreport on thisprogram financed under Tunisia Fourth Highway Project was submittedin early 1984. A final decisionby the Governmentwhereby the inspectionstatons becamethe responsibilityof the governorateswas not made until early 1990 at whichtime anothertwo years wouldhave beenneeded to designthe stations. Insteadit was decidedthat equipmentunder the Project would be procuredfor four (later reducedto two and finally increasedto six) existng stationsto replaceunits which had becomeworn out.

RuralRoad Improvements and Mainte 5.13 Therural roadimprovements were largely carried out on theroads listed in Annex H to Schedule2 of the LA (the initial400 km) and on other roads tentativelyidentified at the time of appraisal(the remaining800 kin). However,some roads, on the basis of traffic,were furtherimproved after the initialwork prinarily by wideningthem or by providingthem with bituminoussurfaces and a part of theseadditional works were financedunder the loan. The supervisionof the rural road improvementworks was done by the regional and central administaions of DGPCin accordancewith theirnormal procedures and withoutthe assistance of consulants. 5.14 (a) Part D of the Descriptionof the Projectprovided for the implementationof a maintenanceprogram of 'all improved'rural roads. Section4.04of the L staes that theBorrower shall cause all the 'Rurl Roads' (thatis, roadsimproved under the Project)as well as other rural roadsoffering an appropriatelevel of service to be maintainedand to providethe necessarybudgetary and other resourcesto that end. Table2 ) ofAnnex 8 of the S4R indicatesa projectedrecurrent road maintenancebudget for 10,000km rising from DT 187,000in the first year to - 14 -

DT 3,750,000 in the last year. The exact coverage of roads to be achievedby this budget is not indicated.

(b) Table P: MlaintenanceExpenditures for Rural Roads under the Project, other Improved Rural Roads and All Roads, 1983-1992,shows actual performance of various road maintenancebudgets in Tunisia in the period 1983 - 1992. This indicates that all road maintenanceexpenditures have roughly doubled over the decade in nominal terms and gone up by about 50% in real terms. The expendituresfor rural roads have gone up much more steeply (by a factor of nearly eight) and, for rural roads under this Project, to DT 1.1 million in 1989 and to an averageof nearly DT 2.4 million in *:990-92,or about DT 2000 per km of such roads. However, it appears that the expenditures for rural road maintenanceinclude periodic maintenanceand minorimprovements; separate data is not available to separate routine from periodic maintenanceon many roads. While the Bank's supervisionreports do not indicate which roads were visited during supervisionmissions, a mission in late 1988 which inspectedrural roads in four governorates reported that the roads they saw seemed to have had no routine maintenance. More informationon routine maintenanceof rural roads may emerge from a study currently under way. Meanwhile, it will be difficult to compare budget performancefor rural road maintenance,particularly routine maintenance,with targets at appraisal.

Spot Improvements on Feeder Roads Serving Improved Rural Roads

5.15 DGPC had responsibility for selecting and executing minor improvementson roads feeding into the rural roads being improved under the Project. Over 90% of these expendituresoccurred in the years 1984 through 1987 and nearly all were for culverts and small bridges. Of roughly 20 spot improvements, about one half are associated with rural roads improved under the first group, about one quarter with roads under the second group and the rest with roads not part of the Fifth Highway Project. The total value of these works is about DT 0.9 million, roughly 60% of the amount foreseenat appraisal. No informationis available as to the reasons for the final content (location and amount of the works) of this Project component.

Minor Irrigation Works

5.16 This element was to include small scale irrigation, irrigation dams and land drainage works.

CTV Buildings

5.17 The phasing of CTV constructionis shown in Tables K and L and the location of these works and the rural roads to which they relate is shown in these tables and in the map. The most activeperiod of constructionwas in the five years 1984-1988when an average of eight units per year was built annually. Four govemorates had only one unit built while three - 15 - govemoratesaccounted for one third of the units. The generaldesign which was somewhat adjustedin each region providedfor six roomson one floor,including a meetingroom and a kdtchen,with a total area of about150 n2 . The construction,equipping and staffingof CTVs apparentlywas not done in coordination,as equipmentpurchases and trainingpreceded the constructionof manyCTVs. Consequently,extension agents were in their posts and had to dependon rentalaccommodations.

CTV Equipment

5.18 This elementrepresented le.s than 10%of the costof the buildings.It included: (i) demonstrationand testing equipmentfor extensionagents and (ii) office fumiture and equipment. Nearlyall of this equipmentwas procuredin 1983 and 1984,before any of the CTVswere built. 5.19 Thoughveiicks were only one of the itemsof equipmentfor use by extension agents,this categorywas treatedseparately in Projectcost tablesand in the LA's List of Goods. The Projectenvisioned roughly one vehicleper CTV whichrepresented about 20% of the cost of CTVs. Aboutone thirdof thevehicles were procured two yearsbefore any CTVswere built and over 90% weredelivered by 1986when only 28 CTVshad been completed.

AgriculturalCredit 5.20 Short, mediumand long-termcredit was to be provided,without resort to the Bankloan, to farmersin the roads' zonesof influence,in amountsup to nearlyDT 7 million equivalent,and the Borroweragreed that BNTwould provide the necessarycredit given that it mightnot be availableotherwise. The Thrd HighwayProject had had difficultyin mobilizing agriculturalcredit for farmers,but thisdifficulty was not expectedto continuethrough the Fifth HighwayProject. In additionto BNT financing,capital requirements were to be met by the farmersthemselves and the Government(through a subsidy)for some mediumand long term financing.Total BNT credit commitments over six yearswere to be nearlyDT 4.5 millionand farmer and Governmentfinance was to total about DT 2.5 millionover the period. No systematicevaluation of credit needs was made as the detailedannual programs described in para. 3.09 of the SAR and referred to in Section 3.03 (c) of the LA were not prepared nor their relatedfarm surveysor representativefarm models. As a result,data was not generatedon the creditsactually utilized in the FifthHighway Project. However,a samplesurvey has been msvz for severalgovernorates on the basis of whichit was estimatedthat BNT providedcredits to farmersin the zonesof influencein the amountof DT 4 millionover the period 1986to 1992. Whileone mayconclude that BNTcredits were made available in the area whichwas sampled, the sampleis too constrictedto judge whethercredit was adequatein all zones of influence. Moreover,no data is availableon the financing(by the farmersand the Government)and the adequacyof the overallfinancing provided can, therefore,not be determined. - 16-

Consultg Servces - General

5.21 Consultantassistance was to phy a crucialrole in implementationof theProject. It was to supportthe process of ruralroad design(including economic feasibility determination) andconstruction, execution of variousother programs, and monitoringand evaluation of project results. In addition,corsultants were to assistin preparationof two follow-upprojects both for rural roadsand for rehabilitationof classifiedroads. The DGPCand variousunits of the MA were to be the principalbeneficiaries of the consultants'work.

ConsultingServices - DGPC:Design and Supervisionof Runl Road Improvements 5.22 A contractwas signedin April 1981for the designof 410 kn of roadsin eight governoratesintended for constructionunder the Project. Thiscontract was withthe samegroup of Frenchand Tunisianfirms whohad donethe feasibilitystudies and was financedfrom the ThirdHighway Project loan. Extensionsof this contractwere signedwith the sameconsultants for thedesign (including deterination of economicfeasibility) of theremauiing 800 km of rural road improvements,even though the Technical Assistance Implementation Schedule (Chart 5 of the SAR envisionedtwo separateconsultancies for the secondand the third groups.

ConsultingServices - DGPC: Design of Spot Inprovements on Feeder Roads Serving ImprovedRural Roads 5.23 The workconcerned primarily the removalof difficultiescreated by waterat low points in a feeder road's alignment. The consultancywas to provide guidelinesfor DGPC regionalengineers in developingprograms of spotimprovements. No termsof referencewere everdrafted for thisconsultancy (though outline tems of referencewere mentioned in the SAR) andno one was ever appointedto it. The file doesnot indicatethe reasonfor this omissionor whetherit was ever discussedbut the reducedsize of this part of the Projectmay have reduced the needfor the conultancy.

ConsultingServices - DGPC: Auditingand Monitoringand Inpact Evaluation 5.24 This consultancywas not implementedas originallyforeseen. No specific consultancyrelated to auditingand monitoringwas describedin the SAR althoughan outline termsof referencewas mentionedin the SAR. Whileauditing and monitorngwas refeTredto in the TechnicalAssistance Implementation Schedule (Chart 5 of the SAR)and in Part H (1) (7) of theDescnption of the Project,it was not developedor put into effect. The impactevaluation was to utilize the trafficand agriculturaldata collectedin Projectmonitoring and, in addition, consultantswould do surveyson a sampleof roadsfrom the Thirdand FifthHighway Projects. These surveyswould address the full rangeof nual developmentimpacts, including household income,consumption, personal mobility and communication, provision and utilization of services and migrationpatterns, in additionto trafficand agriculturaldata. An initial ImpactStt dy report was madeby someof the samegroup of Frenchand Tunisianconsultants who had done the feasibilitystudies, but on the basis of one surveyin 1986concerned primarily with traffic countsand agriculturalproduction, not a seriesof surveys. But the ImpactStudy made use of - 17- otherdata as well, suchas the 1984Census. Currentlyanother study is underway by the same groupof consultantsto preparea furtherrural roadsp;,ject for Tunisia(the SeventhffHighway Project)and this includesa esurveyof the Fifth HighwayProject roads coveredin 1986plus seven other roads from that Project. As in 1986,the current studyis limitedin scope and primarilyconcerned with trafficand agriculture.Some of the findingsof the 1986survey and somepreJmiary resultsof the currentstudy are discussedin ChapterVI below. Consling Services- DGPC: Study of Techniquesfor UnpavedRoads In Tunsa 5.25 This studywas executedby two of theFrench and Tunisian consultants who were part of the consortiumthat had done the feasibilitystudies for the Project. The studymade detailedlaboratory analyses on a sampleof 26 unpavedroads and reviewedthe geotechnical methodsused in their construction.The studyconcluded that there were indeeddeficiencies in the constructionof the roads (e.g. insufficientfines in the aggregate)and that the most importantproblem of unpavedroads in Tunisiawas the implicitbelief that only a pavedsurface madea real "road'. The lack of adequatemaintenance was identifiedas a problemof equal imporance,pardy relatedto the derogatoryview of unpavedroads. The studyrecommended observationof tightertechnical standards for constructionof rural roadsand rationalizaonof maintenanceby concentratingauthonty in the govemors and by setting up dedicatedbudgets, personneland equipmentfor maintenanceof unpavedroads. The Bank'sfile doesnot indicate how the study'srecommendations were followed up. Consulting Services - DGPC: Preparatory Study for Next Phase of Rural Road Improvement

5.26 A Bankmission in late 1988prepared draft terms of referencefor this studyfor consideraionby the Govemment;this was originallyscheduled for the latter part of 1982,and by theend of 1989,proposals had beenreceived and evaluated.A Britishconsultant was given the highestevaluation to which the Bank agreed. However,the CentralTendering Board decidedon cost groundsto give the contractto anotherbidder. The Bankdisagreed, refused financingunder the loanand proposed a rebid (para. 9.03). A highlevel Bankl mission, a year later, whichwas to resolvea numberof procurementissues in Tunisiaresulted in an agreement to rebid this work on a modifiedbasis and to financeit underthe SixthHighway loan because insufficienttime remained before the FifthHighway loan would be closed. In additionto this principalstudy for additionalrural road improvements,two smallerstudies covering about 600 km of rural roadsfor inclusionin the nextrural roadsproject (the proposedSeventh Highway Project)had been contacted in 1984and werefinanced under the Fifth HighwayProject.

ConsultingServices - DGPC: Preparation of a Program of Road Rehabilitation

5.27 The study of a programto rehabilitateclassified roads was financedunder the FourthHighway Project and the Fifth only financedthe preparationof biddingdocuments for 312 km of road rehabilitationworks. - 18 -

Consulting Services - MA: Preparation of DetaUedExtension Programsand Credit Need Projections

5.28 Though this work is described under AgriculturalExtension in the Descriptionof the Project Part B of the LA, it is not included under Part H, Technical Assistance and Fellowships. However, the Technical Assistance ImplementationSchedule envisioned two separate consultanciesfor the second and third groups that were to be executed in 1982 and 1983; the record does not indicate how the first group was to be covered. In any event, one consultancywas arranged in late 1985 with a Tunisian firm (one of the group which had done the feasibilitystudies) to study the zones of influenceof roads in all three groups. Most of the consultant's reports, which resulted from this work, are only available in the files of the MA. It also seems that the 'systematic agriculturalsurveys of aUfarmers served by the project roads" (para.3 of Annex 6 of SAR), which were to serve as baseline data for preparation of action plans, were not carried out. The consultantsthus did not have some of the material that was to underlie their work.

Consulting Services - MA: Training of Extension Agents

5.29 This activity was scheduled to occur over four years (1983-1986). It was implementedthrough a contract made with a Tunisianindividual in June 1983. The contract covered25 one week courses (five series of five one week courses)in communicationtechniques for 87 extensionagents extendingover 14 months. The quality of this training was reported to have been very effective.

Fellowships

5.30 Part H (2)of theDescription of the Projectof the LA provided for short training missionsoverseas for staff of DGPC and MA. The file indicatesthat three such missionswere arranged through French entities for visits to France for 25 agricultual engineers of the Directionde la ProductionVegetale (DPV). No other activity of this type was carried out under the Project.

VI. MAJORPROJECT RESULTS

Achievement of Project Objectives

6.01 The Project objectivesas stated in para. 3.02 of the SAR referred to the specific rural roads to be covered by the Project and their zones of influence, to the organization responsiblefor maintenanceof these rural roads, to the institutionalframework and process for improvingTunisia's rural roads and to Tunisia's highwaysafety program. About 1,200 km of rural roads were to be improved to "minimum all weather" standard, and agricultural production and living standards, including access to social services, in the roads' zones of influencewere to be increased. About 1,186km of constructionhave been completed. Whether the levels of service currently provided by the roads remain at the standard achieved after - 19-

improvementis uncetain, but the lack of a systematicapproach to routine and periodic maintenancesuggests that thisis unlikely. On the other hand, manyroads received additional improvementssuch as pavementstrengthening (widenng and/or overlaying),or a double bituminoussurface treatment. Theseadditions were madeprimarily on the basisof trafficand are shownin Table B. Whilesome of theseimprovements were madeunder the Project,others werenot. Accordingly,there is no comprehensiverecord of the capitalexpenditures that were necessaryto bring eachroad to its presentcondition. Similarly, there is no overal accounting of what occurredin the roads' zonesof influence. Someimpact studies were carried out on selectedroads in 1986(published in 1987)and others are curren*lyunder way (TableQ-1: List of Roadsin lmpactSurveys). The data on the roads of the 1987 studyare summarzedin Table Q-2: Slected Data cn the Sample of Roads Beforethe Project (1988,1979 or 1980) and After the Project (1985or 1986). Additionaldata fromthe impactstudy currently under way are smmanzed in Table Q-3:Selected Data on a Sampleof Roads Beforethe Project (1978,1979 or 1980)and After the Project (1992). The 1987study suggests that agricultural productionrose in aUareas but the increasewas very modestin 25% of the sample. However, as the periodstudied was from severalyears beforethe improvement,which obviously is too long, to only one or two years hrefter, whichis too short, the fuU impacton improving agriculturaloutput could not be captured.

6.02 The Project includeda study of rurl road constructionand maintenance techniquesfor Tunisia,which made concrete recommendations for improvementof rural roads maintenanceorganizaions. The file does not indicateany specificfollow-up on this study. Beyondthis studyand a covenantto maintain'improved' rural roads (Section4.04 of LA), the Projectcontributed little to helpimprove rual road maintenance.The SARdid set out cetain budgetarytargets for road maintenanceon a 10,000km road network,and maintenancebudgets did increase. However,it is difficultto establishhow muchwas actuallyspent on nuralroad maintenance,in particularroutine maintenance, especialy since maintenance funds are fungible betweencategories of roads. Moreover,the Projectdid not includeany rvision of the structure of the maintenancesystem which remained essentially unchanged and manyworks continued to be more in the natureof emergencyrepairs rather than scheduledinterventions. 6.03 Thc Project was based on an elaborate procedure designed to integrate improvementsto rural roads with their relatedagriculture. It beganwith a selectionprocess includingfeasibility studies, proceeded to designstudies and concluded with theprocurement of the constructionof all roads in a particulargovernorate together in a single contract Concurrendy,the Projectenvisioned a systemfor stimuatingincreased agricultural production throughancillary public works, intensifiedextension, and guaranteedaccess to credit. The wholeprocedure was to be subjectto comprehensivemonitoring and evaluation. Someof the procedurewas a repetitionof whatwas donein an earlierBank project (preliminar studiesand road construction).However, the part of theprocedure related to agriculturalsupport was only pardy implementedand cannotbe consderedto havebeen firmly insttutonalized. The special supportprovided by severalTunisian officials in the Third HighwayProject did not continue whenthey were transferredto other duties. The Projectthus only pardy met its objectiveof improvingthe institutionalframework for rural roads. - 20-

6.04 The Project was to contribute to a comprehensiveroad safetyprogram that was being developedunder the Fourth Highway Project. The Project did result in a supervision missionvisit to Tunisia of a Bank highwaysafety expert in 1984who formulateda pilot highway safetyprogram for considerationby the Government. The file does not indicatewhat the expert recommendednor the impactof his work. However, the Government'svehicle testingprogram has continuedto expand graduallyso that by the end of the eighth plan (1996), there will be 23 stationsin operation. The loan providedfinancing of equipmentfor six stationswhose existing stock had become worn out. The acquisitionof vehicle testing equipmentdid help to evidence the Bank's continued concern about road safety in Tunisia but the discussionsrelated thereto seemed to have had limited impact on the Govemment'spolicy or programsregarding the issue. Moreover, more recent developmentsindicate that other types of interventions may have a greater impact on safety than vehicle testing.

Adhievementof Physical Targets

6.05 Physical targets of the most importantelements of the Project were mostly met or even exceeded. Rural road improvements,while slightlyunder the 1,200 km target, in many casesinvolved more extensiveand costlierworks thanorginally foreseen. The numberof CTVs built also matched the 55 units planned. Several other Project elements, which had not been specifiedin physical terms but only in monetaryamounts, had significantshortfalls in monetary terms; namely, spot improvementsto feeder roads, purchases of vehicles, and minor irrigation works. The impact of these short falls on the Project cannot be determined. However, for vehicle inspection equipment, expenditure was nearly twice the target. Technical assistance expenditurealso was below planned fnancial targets (one half if measuredin DT or two thirds if measuredin US$), indicatingthat much of it simplywas not carried out. The consultancies on spot improvements, on auditing and monitoring were not implemented at all. The consultancieson the next phase of rural roads improvementand on road rehabilitationwere financedunder the Sixth and Fourth HighwayProjects respectively. The consultancieson impact evaluationand for detailed agriculturalextension programs were carried out only in part. The implementation of consultancieswould perhaps have been greater if detailed (not merely outlined)terms of referencehad been prepared for them at appraisal. However, the mair.reason for the non-executionor partial executionof consultancieswas that the Governmtentdid not view them as necessary or helpful and the Bank acquiescedin the Government's not pursuing these componentsof the Project. The record on Pioject implementationprovides evidence that Project components that had been planned in detail at appraisal, particularly to the point of physical specification,were much more likely to be camed out than those that were subject to a general descriptiononly.

Project Costs

6.06 Project accounts were kept in DT, the currency in which procurement overwhelminglytook place. Accordingly, Table F shows cumulativecosts in current dinars converted into US$ equivalent at the average rate of exchange over the course of Project implementation. In the absenceof completedata on agriculturalcredits, Project costs are shown withoutan estimateof such costs ($64 millionequivalent). The correspondingtotals at appraisal - 21 - were$105 (withagricutural credits) and $91 (without)million equivalent. If costs are shown in this manner,the Project is seen to have cost substantiallyless than projected,primaily becauserura road works,which were about 70% of the costs, wereincurred in dinars, which lost value in terms of US dollarsover the past decade. In addition,the fact that several componentsof the Project were not fully implementedalso contributedto reduce costs. Comprehensiveinformation on the foreignexchange content of the Projectwere not available as the authoritieswere not able to quandfythem. 6.07 Whileproject costs were incurredover 10 years, other costs were concentated between1984 to 1986; they fell precipitouslyin 1987 due to the financialproblems of two contractors. If the expendituresfor rural road worksare expressedin constant1982 dinars (usingthe consumerprice indexthrough early 1992),they wouldamount to DT 32.7 million, about 11% over the appraisal estimateof DT 29.4 million, includingthe 10% physical contingency.A similarcomparison of CIV constructioncosts indicatesthat theycost only 3% more thanprojected, DT 1.23 million,as againstthe appraisalestimate of DT 1.20 million. Thesebuildings were substantiallyexecuted as designed.For othercomponents of the Project, comparisonof the overallprojected and finalcosts is not meaningfulbecause these components werenot carriedout as projected. 6.08 Large numbersof similarunits of work were procuredunder both rural road improvementsand CTV construction. The averagecost per km of improvementsis roughlyDT 30,000(m 1982Dinars) or DT 60,000(in 1992Dinars) or $65,200and $64,500respectively. Anexamination of per kn improvementcosts of individualroads shows considerable variations. Thesevariations reflect differencesin the natureof the improvements,construction conditions and the valueof the dinarand certainconstruction materials. The averagecost of a CrV was DT 16,600 (in 1982 Dinars) or DT 33,000 (in 1992 Dinars) or $36,100 and $35,500 respectively.If the costs of CTVsbuilt at roughlythe sametime are compared,they are very similar. Also, CTVs built in the early years cost close to the indicatedestimates while discrepanciesbetween projected and realizedcosts occurredin later years, whichsuggests that the originalesfimates were used unchangedthroughout.

6.09 Table E comparesactual with projecteddisbursements. The relativedelays in physical execution are mirored in the rates of disbursement,with road improvement disbursementsreaching about 70% of their ultimateprojected level (includingdistributed contingencies)by the beginningof 1988while all other categoriestrailed behind. In the end, road improvementswere within3% of projections,while all other elementsfell significantly below that level with the exceptionof fellowships,which were as foreseen,and vehicle inspeion equipment,which absorbedroughly double the amount of loan funds originally allocated (Table R: Evolution of Disbursements by Category). The actual rate of disbursementexceeded by abouttwo yearsthe typicalTunisia disbursement profile (Table E).

EconomicEvaluation 6.10 The economicevaluation at appraisalconcentrated on the roads and related agriculturalactivities, which were treatd togetheras one singleeconomic activity. (rhe SAR - 22 - had not quantfiedthe vehiclesafety equipment component). The analysissought to segregate traffic on the project roads into passenger,non-agrcultural commodity, and agriculturAl commoditytraffic. Also, tfie analysissought to establishtwo types of benefits:(i) traffic benefitsbased on improvedvehicle operating costs for passenger and non-icultural commodity flowsand (ii) agriculturalbenefits based on the netvalue of incrementsin agriculturalproduction in the roads' zones of influence,which would includethe traffic benefitsfor agricultural commoditytraffic. These benefitswere then comparedwith costs to obtain an ERR. For purposesof the analysis,the followingcosts wereconsidered: - the rural road improvementconstruction costs (but not the cost of spot improvementson roadsfeeding into projectroads, nor the costof relatedstudies, supervisionand overseasvisits);

- costof acquisitionof CrV buildings,equipment and vehicles(but not the cost of relatedstudies, traimng and overseasvisits);

- costof on-farminvestments, except seasonal inputs covered in farmbudgets (but not the cost of minorrumal works such as irrigation);

- cost of routineand periodicroad maintenance;and

- cost of farm operations.

The SARdoes not explainthe rattonalebehind the inclusionof somecosts and the exclusionof others. All benefitsand costs wereprojected for a period of 21 years. 6.11 The SAR economicevaluation was based on data from the 1980 study. A swrmmaryof this data for the 33 roadsin the first groupis shownin Table2 of Annex of the SAR.Similar summaries, also based on the 1980study, for the secondand thirdgroups of roads were not found in the Bank's files. Table S: Rural Road Inprovementsand Related Parameters for Economic Evaluation provides some of this base data as well as the correspondinginformation for the present,to the extentit is available. 6.12 The originalevaluation had manycomplexities both in conceptand execution. It soughtto segregateagricultural impacts within a particularperimeter and to separatethe prmary impactsof agricultl activitieson tnort (throughtransport of inputsand products) from their secondary(income) effects. Most frequentlyroad constructioncosts and traffic benefitswere not lined to agriculturalinvestment costs and incrementalagricultural added value. Sometimes,traffic benefits caried the road investmentand sometimesagricultural benefitsprovided the bulk of the benefits,though in mostcases road investmentssubstantially exceededagricultural investments. While all these vaniationswere within the range of possibility,they showedtat each casewas sui gneris andthat specialplans would have to be preparedfor each case, somethingwhich was neverdone. - 23 -

6.13 The data requrementsalso were immense. Existng as well as future traffic projectionsof freighttraffic needed to be segrated by load type excludinggenerated non- agrcultural freight taffic. Passengertraffic had to be projected, thoughagain excluding generatedtraffic. Maintenance(routine and perodic) had to be establishedfor eachroad and correspondingsevice levels would need to be estimated,including the costs of capacity expandinginvestments to maintainthese service levels. Crpping patterns needed to be developed,costs (both on and off-farm),harvests and prices needed to be projectedfor individualcrops, and investments(oth on and off-farm)needed to be determined. All these proectionswere required to be madeover two decades. Evenif themonitoring system had been establishedas intended,the replicationof this data on an apost basis wouldhave been very difficult;the absenceof monitoringsystems made the task impossible. Accordingly,it was agreedsome years ago that the impactevaluations would be limitedto samples,but this work has only been implementedrecently in connectionwith preparationfor the proposedSeventh HighwayProject. Althoughsome data has beencollected, which provided the basis for Table S, furtherdata and calculatedresults, with ERRs, were not availableat the time the present reportwas finalized. 6.14 These experienceshave raised the issue of whetherthe existing system for selectionand evaluationof rural roadsis the mostsuitable one that couldbe devised. It was developeddunng a periodwhen the country had a substantiallylower per capitaincome and was substantiallyless urban. In the Northernand Easten parts of the countrywhere most of the peoplelive and wheremost of the roads under the Projectwere built, rura life is becoming more closelylinked to the city and the role of agricultureis changing,becoming for manya secondaryoccupation. This suggeststhat the planningof rural roads may need to be based more on traffic and broader social, regional,economic land planningand transportsystem considerations,and less on agriculturalproduction, at least in thoseareas of the countrywhere urbaninfluences are stronglyfelt. 6.15 Table S showsthat mostroads under the Projecthad a significanttraffic increase whichshould by itself be sufficientto justify the improvementsmade. However,it wouldbe difficultto quantifythis pointin the absenceof reliabledata on the conditionof theroad before improvement,over the interveningyears and todayand on the amountsspent for the road over the past ten years. Also, tffic performancemay reflect not so much conditionsof the individualroads but therise in the generalprosperity of Tunisiaand the accompanyingincrease in motorization.

6.16 Table S as wellas TablesQ-1 and Q-2 givesome indication on the evolutionof agriculturein the roads' zonesof influence.These suggest significant increases. Howeverthe aggregateincreases are not of the order of magnitudeindicated at appraisal(on a discounted basis, group one roads at appraisalshowed agricultural benefits equal to 2.4 times traffic benefits). The causal link betweenthe road improvementsand the agriculturalupswing is difficultto establish. The increasein productiondid not followdirectly upon ihe improvement of the roadsbecause of the tee year droughtof 1986-1988.In the early yearsafter the roads were improved,extension services were hamperedby the fact that they were scatteredamong severaladministrative organizations but theyhave recently been combined in oneagency, which - 24 - opetes underunified programs. TheCIVs are managedby agriculturalengiees, assistedby agriculturlist and extensionagents together with the chiefsof the suborinate extensionunits attachedto the CIVs. The estabLishmentof the CTVsand the improvementof the roadshas led to improvedtechnical servces to the farmersand more frequentextension contacts. The constuction of the CIVs permitted the improvementof extension servicesand of the adminitrative strucue of the agency whichprovided them. As rgards the prvision of agriculuralcredit and its contributionto the growthof agnculturein the zonesof influence,it wasimpossible to obtaincomplete information on the creditactivities of BNT,the Government and the farmers. On the basis of a samplestudy of the creditsprovided by BNTin someof the zones of influence,it can be inferredthat the provisionof credit by BNT was adequate. However,the droughthas seriouslyimpacted the operationsof BNT becauseof the farmers' inabilityto repaytheir loans and the consequentunwillingness of BNT to providethem more credit.

Envonmental Impat 6.17 Theenvironmental impacts of theProject would encompass not onlythe roadsbut relatedagricultural acivities. The road workswere carnied out largelyon existingahgnments and therefore, had limited impact on soil erosion, slope stability or water flows. The agricutral activitiesprobably had more significantecological repercussions, especially when there was expansionof irrigationperimeters and greateruse of ferlize and pesticideswith crop inmensification.

VII. PROJECTSUSTAINABIL1TY

7.01 he issue of sus_ nabilityis aised in two waysin this Project:the sustainability of theprcedum for selectionand executionof rumlroad improvementworks with the attendant supportactivities and the sustainabilityof benefitsgenerated by the road improvements.The seon, designand construction procedure for roadimprovements have become formalized and repeatedin two project cycles (the Third and Fifth HighwayProjects). They require large amountsof consutingassistance and so far havebeen assoiated with largeinfusions of extnal finance. The willin and financialcapacity of the Tunisianauthorities to maintainthese programson their own remainsto be demonstrated.Indeed, the analysisprocedures and the modelare very complexand may not be fullyunderstood. The Government,however, wishes to continuethese proceduresand has not so far been interestedin the Bank's simplified apprach. The sustinability of road improvementbenefits dqpends on adequate road maintenanceand estblishment of the necessaryorganization to achieve this. While maintenancebudgets have been increasing, the organizationalstrcture for rural road maintenanceremains unchanged and does not providesystematic maintenance services. - 25 -

VIII. BANK'SPERFORMANCE 8.01 The Bankmade a majoreffort to resolvethe difficulties of an inherentlycomplex project. Missionsand staff inputs which supportedtis effort in substantialmeasures are mmard in Tables T: MiNions and U: Staff Inputs. The Project involved close collaborationof severaladministrative structures both on the side of the Goverment and the Bank. Prtect designsought to identifyand addresspotential problems in detail(by the use of coordinatingbodies, actionplans, annualprograms and other measures)and to assess risks realistically. Faced with the possibilitythat difficultiesin the executionof the agricultural supportactivities of the Third HighwayProject would apply to the next project as well, the Project designers wanted to abandon the integrated approach and concentrateo,. r%d improvementsbut werepersuaded otherwise by theGovernment and by moreoptimistic reports firomsome Bank staff. 8.02 However,in the executionof the Project the Bankdid not commitresources commensurateto the complexitiesof Project design and particularlyof its agricultural components. Out of 28 supevision missions,only six were by or includedagricultural specalists. Afteran inital missionwithin six monthsof loanapproval, intervals between visits by agriculturalspecialists became lengthier, with a twoand a half yeargap fromearly 1985and no visits at all after early 1988. As a result, failuresin monitoringand in followup went unobservedand unremedied. 8.03 Facedwith the limitaionof resources,the Bankappropriately concentrated on the Project's largestand most manageablecomponent, which was completedclose to its physical targetsand its time table. The Projectcontinued the contractingsystem of the ThirdHighway Projectwhereby works are groupedin lots coveringseveral roads in a governoratebut the lots wereconsiderably higher in valueapproaching an averageof $3 millioneach. The experience of this contactg systemappears to havebeen administrativelyconvenient by consolidatinga numberof smallerscattered works. This systemmay have application elsewhere and shouldbe examinedin detail. Even thoughthe rual roadsthemselves became the primaryfocus of Bank concem,the Bankdid not expendmuch effort to draw attentionto the fact that maintenanceof theseroads was insufficientor to devisemeans to overcomethe problem. 8.04 Besidethe unduecomplexities of the Project(further exacerbated by the highway safetycomponent which involved a third ministry),the Projecthad other designweakness: (a) The attemptto mix into a singleproject the constructionof rural roads by one Ministrywith the intensivedevelopment of agnculturein the adjoiningareas by anotherMinistry presents inherent difficulties of administrativeincongruities and programmiatcclashes. Both organizationsare structuredappropriately for efficientdelivery of ffeir respectiveservices and programs,but have difficulty separatingout smallsections of road and agriculturalareas for specialattention. Moreover,these sections may not correspondwith the highestpriorities in their respectiveroad or agriculturalsystems. A methodto combineefficiently rural roads and rural developmentis desirable. Such a combinedapproach was - 26 -

regrded by the Governmentas havig been effectivein the Third Highway Projectthough only a smaUpart of the parallelinvestments were actuallymade there (ProjectCompletion Report, ThirdHighway Project, Reportno. 7182 of April 11, 1988). (b) The Bankalso shouldensure that its projectsare based on a senseof ownership by the relevantagencies of the Governmentso that the projectsdo not languish of effectivebureaucratic support. Suchsupport is reportedto havebeen actively providedin the Third HighwayProject but, with personnelchanges, was not maintainedin the Fifth Project. (c) the selectionof the initialarray of roads for feasibilitystudy from the universe of Tunisia'srural roadswas madeon the basis of an administativeprocess and withoutthe availability of a roadinventory. Under these circumstances priorities, interdependenciesand linkagesare difficultto establishand a road's economic functioningmay be unclear. Severalroads turned out te '-- near urbanareas and an agriculturalmethodology may thereforehave beeninapropriate for them.

(d) The role of rural roads in an increasinglywealthy and urban economylike Tunisiacannot be properlydefined m termsof surroundingagricultural activities om;y. Increasingly,rural inhabitantshave off-farmemployment and resort to agricultureonly as a secondarysource of incomeor as a socialsafety net. The analysis of rual roads needs to account for this new dimensionand needs to concernitself with suchissues as traffichierarchies, regional and landplanning, installationof public udlities, provisionof social services, the structure of transportsystem, the controlof urban sprawland the protectionof ecosystems. The use of agricultureas the primaryfactor of analysisin rural road projects shouldbe limitedto caseswhere this is the appropriatecontext.

(e) The Project sought to use agriculturalextension and credit as the major instrumentsto promoteagricultura development in the roads' zonesof influence. However,Tunisia's extension system was reportedto be seriouslyflawed. With variousproject and commodityorganizations having introduced their own semi- autonomousextension systems for individualcrops or regions,Tunisia was said (in December1984) to have no effectivenational extension service. Extension agentswere said to be preoccupiedwith administrationand other non-extension work duringup to 70% of teir time and farmerswere being advised by seveal agents,depending on the subject. Demonstrationplots weresaid to be too large and too few in number. The agentsreportedly lacked transport and their link to researchwas weak. Informationon credit needsand supply,which the agents were to use, was not beingcollected but, accordingto a 1987 report, lack of credit appearednot to be a constraint. This "classicaltype" of extensionwas thoughtby someobservers to be less effectivethan the rural developmentmodel wherethe farm is studiedas a whole,not by crop or problem. Bankstaff thus had misgivingsabout the extensioneffort applied in this Projectand was divided - 27 -

on what wouldbe better. In this sensethe Projectprovided a poor test of the hypothesisthat extensioncould help in conjunctionwith a betterroad to stimulate agriculturaloutput.

IX. BORROWER'SPERFORMANCE 9.01 While the Borrowerinsisted that the Project be designedon an integrated road/agriculturebasis, it did not pursuethe agriculturalcomponents vigorously and from the begnning,failed to carry out the proceduresset out thereforein the loan documents.Perhaps the absenceof actionplans and other planningdocuments made no differenceto agriculual growth but withoutthese actionsthe Projectcould hardly have servedas a fair test for the k pothesisconnecting increased agricutural production with deliberate promotional activities. 9.02 The Projectdesign placed significant responsibility in the Project Coordination Committee(a simrla committeealready was operatingunder the ThirdHighway Project) whose investiturewith responsibiltyfor coordinatingthe FifthHighway Project was a conditionto the ffecidvenessof the LA. However,the influence of thisCommittee on Projectexecution appears to have been limitedpary becausethe Committeesuspended its meetingsfor a consieable length of time. However,even when it met, the Committeewas unableto overcomethe shortcomingsof its constituentagencies, especially the Ministryof Agiculture. The monetary and institutionalstakes of thisMinistry in the Projectwere a smallfraction of thoseof DGPC. Moreover,its administrativeorganization did not confonnto the zones of influenceassociated with eachroad and, by offeringspecial savices for the farmersin thosezones, the agricultural staff was required to supermposeseemingly arbity dividinglines on top of the extg spheresof responsibility. 9.03 By and large procurementof goodsand seices and executionof worls went withoutcomplaints from suppliers. The Bankdid refuseto financeone consultancyunder the loanbecause it consideredthat its guidelineshad not beenfollowed (para. 5.26). A numberof Projectcomponents (e.g. feederroad spot imprvements)were not fullyexecuted. 9.04 The road safetycomponent, which was under thejurisdiction of MMC,suffered major delays and restructuring. One reason for this was that this componenthad not been designedwhen the loan was madeand more than six yearselpsed beforethe Govemment, after consideringseveral alternatives in succession,was ableto fix on plansfor this component. 9.05 Theperformceof theGovernment regarding rura roadmaintenance is variously reported. Thereare credibleindications that maintenancewas deficient. However,the Project madelimited provision for rural road maintenanceother than budgetary projections in the SAR for maintenanceof 10,000km of roads;also the Projectcontained a covenantthat all rural roads underthe Projectand "all other improvedrural roadsoffering an appopriatelevel of service" shouldbe adequatelymaintained. The Projectdid not addressthe institutionalissue of howthe various echelonsof Tunisia's road administrationshould accommodatethe maintenanceof - 28 - scattred road sections, some as short as seven kIn, in their general road maintenancesystems. The task described in the covenant thus may have been difficult to fulfill.

9.06 The Borrower's performance with regard to the LA is summarizedin Table H. There were significantshortfaLs in comphanceby the Borrowerwith LA provisions. In addition to the points referred to above, the Borrower in all cases but one was late in submittingaudit reports. However, land acquisitionwas never reported to cause a problem.

X. RELATIONSBETWEEN THE BANK AND THE BORROWER

10.01 Relations between the Bank and the Tunisian authorities were friendly and cooperative throughout. Two serious issues between the parties occurred in the preparatory stages of the Project regarding the integrated design of the Project and the possibility of co- financing. The Governmentin both instanceswas able to persuade the Bank to its point of view. The disagreementon proement of certain consultingwork, which involvedTunisia's Central Tendering Board, was resolved in the context of a Bank mission to Tunisia concerned with a number of procurement issues.

XI. CONSULTANTSERVICES

11.01 The Project providedfor a large amount of consultingservices (324 staff -month or somewhatunder $3 millionequivalent excluding escalation). The actualamount spent for this purpose under the Project and financedfrom the loan was under $1 millionequivalent due to the fact that many of the consultancieswere not implemented. Consultantsplayed a major role in the selectionand design of ral road improvements. They took no part in supervisionof the Project and this separationof the designersfrom any responsibilityfor executionmay have had impacts also on the quality of the design as well as on the control of the works. The role of consultantsin the design and executionof lesser works (CTVs, spot improvementson rural roads and lesser rural works) was limited. The designs and studiesthat were needed for this purpose were prepared by local officials of the MA.

11.02 Consultantservices for this Project, except for tra work and study missions abroad, were providedby sub-assemblagesfrom the joint-ventureof French and Tunisiansfirms that had made the original feasibility studies of 1980. This arrangement fostered a unified approach to the work, may have helped in coordination of the participating agencies of the Governmentof Tunisiaand could have helped to reduce costs. However, it probablyalso made it difficult for other firms to competeand may have precluded the infusion of divergentviews.

11.03 Bank review of the work of the consultantswas generally not intensive. As the consultantshad become familiar with the rural roads of Tunisia because of their long work as a group on these problems, the Bank's degree of supervision may have been appropriate. However, closer supervisionof the work of the consultantsconcerned with agriculture would have been helpful. - 29 -

XI. PROJECrDOCU?MEATION AND DATA 12.01 The SARcontained much detailed information on individualProect components and this infomaton was extensivelysupplemented by materialin the ProjectFile. However, the usefulnessof this documentaionwas Imitedas the Projectproceeded from very early on withoutreference to this mateial (for example,the action plans and implemenationschedules). 12.02 Therequirements for documentaionregarding farm budgets and credit needs wer very demanding. This may have been one cause why the provisionof creditwas never monitoredin accordancewith Project specifcations because the agriculturalinvestments and the relatedrecords were madefor the administive unitsof MA as a wholerather han for the zonesof influence.

12.03 Datafor preparationof thePCR were lacking in significantrespects. The Borrower'sPCR was not availableat the time specifiedand, althoughthe Bornower collaborated in the draRfingof this report, it did Pot produceeconomic data. Onthe basisof the Bank'sfile there was considerableuncainty as to whichProject components had beenfinanced under the loan or includedin the Project,as to the courseof the Borrower'sexpenditures for individual componentsand as to the progressof their physicalexecution (pars. 5.07).

12.04 A moredetailed and systematicreporting keyed to the implementationprogram envisionedin the SARand to the principalobjectives of theProject would have been desirable. Withthe additionof informationdeveloped for thisProject Completon Report, considerable data is nowavailable about the Projectand its impacton the nrul economy. REI!WLIC OF TUNISIA

FIf SHIGHWAY(RURAL ROADS) PROJECT (LOAN 2108-TUN)

PROJECT COSCLETIONREPORT

PART II: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE

1.1 The Government's view of the Project is contained in the Project Completion Report (PCR)it submittedin late June 1993 (Republiquede Tunisie, Ministbrede l'Equipement et de l'Habitat, Direction G6n4rae des Ponts et Chaussdes;Rapport d'AchevementCinqui2me Projet Roudter Routes Rurales - PMt 2108 Tun). This report is based on the draft prepared by the Bank, discussed and amended extensivelyduring a Bank mission to Tunisia in April/May 1993. The Government's report is basically very similar to the current Parts I and II of the present PCR with some changes in emphasisand detail. It is available in the Project files.

1.2 The Govemment's report concurs with Parts I and II that the physical objectives of the most important Project elementswere attained and that achievementof Project elements that were spelled out in detail at appraisal was generally better than the Project elements that were descibed only in general terms. The Govemment's report also agrees that there were serious problems of nt inisa coordination, though the Government's report notes that coordinationof many Project activities took place at the provincial level. i.3 The main difference betweenthe two documentscan be summarizedas follows:

The Government's views on regulation of road transport and on pnce control in transport varies from the Bank's point of view;

rTheGovemment's PCR mentions the existence of EERs for the second and third groups of roads; and

The Governmet's PCR does not mention the absence of informationin the files about roads -'d related elements.

1.4 The Government'sPCR notes several facts concerningthe history of the Project that the Bank's PCR does not mention, but which provides additionaluseful insights into the process of Project execution:

There were no foreign constructioncontractors in this Project except one Hungarian (previouslymentioned) and one Chinese (not yet referred to);

Procurementof vehicleswas limited by Government-widerestrictions on vehicle imports; - 31 -

Training visits for agricultural experts were made not only to France (already mentioned)but also to Australia (not yet indicated); and

The third group of roads was not prepared by the original consult^iitsbut by another firm. }REPUBLICOF TUNISIA

FIFTH HIGHWAY (RURAL ROADS) PROJECT (LOAN 2108-TUN)

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

PART 111:STATISTICAL INFORMATION Table A: Related UDACredits and Bank Loans

Loan Number FY of and Title Purpose Approval Status Loon 746-TUN Improvemet and constructionof about 275 km of primary and 1971 Completed;PPAR no. 2732 First HighwayProject secondary roads; reconstructionand rehabilitationof 51 bridges 12/79 and culverts; resurfacingand rehabilitationof 1920kn of paved roads; reorganizationand strengtheningof highwaymaintenance operations; improvementof arrangementsfor transport coordination;study of road user taxationand road tanff rens. I Loan 1188-TUN Improvementof 225 km of primary and secondaryroads updating 1976 Completed;PCR no. 5647 Second HighwayProject 1968Transport Survey;preparation of rual roads program. 5185 Loan 1601-TUN Improvementof about 1,000 km of mrul oads and 1978 Completed;PPAR no. 7182 Third Highway(Rural complimnentaryagricultual investments;purdas of road 4/88 t Roads)Project maintenanceeqiipinelt, spwes and tools, studies of about 2,000 |______kmof additionalselected rural roads. Loan 1841-TUN Rehabilitationof about 800 km of eaved roads; first three years 1980 Completed;PCR no. 8648 Fourth Highway Project of six year ma_itenanceprogram includingacquisition of 5/90 equipmentand materials;studies and training; materialstestig and trffic countingequipment; studies and entgineenngof about 1000km of rural roads.

Loan 2896-TUN Upgradingof maintenancemanagement and rehabilitationof 800 1988 Ongoing HighwayMaintenance and km of priority roads, five year program of routineand periodic RehabilitationProject maintenance;workshop construction; acquisition of road maintenance,workshop and laboratoryequipment; rehabilitation of 800 km of roads; preparationand implementationof the five year training plan; studies related to the foregoing.

Souc: Bank Files - 34 -

Table B-1: Ruml Roads Improvementeas Page I of 3 Proposed at Apprasa (A) and as Fnmay Executed ()

La"gth Iment ttLvelI Vlidth Cot (00.0 D Coot Km(Dl) _-Ferm oraSeon Pawed_ Aoe NumblermNe . Lots A E A E (im) (ine A E A E swtans

204 U047-oEt, d'A210 2A 13,0 16.47 M4 M4 6 5 360 2S823 205 MC171P-24 2A 8.8 8,40 N3 N3 6 161 1240 17566 40 12 20S RVSE234tfaia 28 7,0 el89 N44 N4 6 160 22657 2658 SdI IbuRouts-GPO 2WA 2S,3 19.70 N4 N4 6 6 669 818 22490 41 623

707 Noame JA 6,2 7,44 NS N3 S 6 146 26X630 17605 35783 708 Awlsnne CP3 JA 0.5 6.06 Ns Ns 7 a 103 171.60 16*46 28364 09 Otrult easa A 7.0 S6S1 NO NS 7 100 162.0 14 266 28 060 710 CirtultToasur TA 6,6 6590 NO N3 5 126 174,97 18024 28665 711t ed-Noua 7A 10.3 7,08 N3 NO 7 6 193 26620 1S736 37560

S07 M9aeth- Osl SC 8,0 723 N2 N2 5 S 114.0 75,7 14260 10470 608 mUe-Sra-.Zat 8C 6.7 6.37 N2 M4 6 6 1S0,2 110,3 2166 13176 609 KettanaZIg Beranla SC 6,4 5,12 N5! N2 5 5 61,2 44,8 1507 6 770

901 busM'Khfl OA 13,0 12,2 NO N3 a 246 16823 802 Sidi Abd _bset OA 16,2 12 NS Ns 6 S 290 22 s76 S03Eob OA 6,0 5.9 N3 NO 6 133 2386 22167 39417 SOSAeKdCrab 9A 9,7 9.6 N4 N4 a 5 486 36876 807 KetMeaUar GA 20.1 19,6 N4 M4 6 750 37313

1602 Berbla-Touam- Naa 15t 16.1 10.o N3 NO 6 270 10 917 1503 Ucn-8t HUMsen 15B 12,6 12,e Y3 NO 6to6 196 802s 16 476 24 729 1508 SauOthA-Menrme Kwnel 16A 21,2 20,5 4 N4M toe 61t06 728 804,6 34s40 40996 15I06 DouOthnm-Zaut Kontc 1%0 6.0 7,9 Ns NO 5 128 16000

1602 Bounwrde-SiJem IOA 15.3 17,82 N4 N4 a a 7 9641,02 42022 35072 1651 SOU498eura ISA 26, 24,94 NS Me 9 6 408 46E,83 16003 16401 1652 Swas i-Wd1Bouhble ISA 10,0 10,04 N3 M4 9 6 171 246,36 17180 24737

1701 DIsbnana-Ageng 17A 16.2 15,38 M4 N3 a 5 1S9 926 13002 1702 El Amm-easg 17A 11.6 11,36 N4 Ne4 6 064 4e00 ooo 1703 TanikraBuJabOe 17A 12,2 11.98 Me H4 6 6,2 309 616 27767 34037 1704 SldlAbdeke ITA 11,7 11,27 Ns NO 6 22S S36 19060 1751 Ould Ah:ned-Cogran 17A 11,0 10,75 NO NO 6 5 180 363 17273

1501 OugtlhbG ISA S,70 S,40 N3 NO 6 126 224eo 14108 25600 1802 MaunseSdl Chanwkh 18A 11,60 11,S0 NO NO 6 144 350,47 12t22 31 256 1603 dbts-HasJ8etb 16A ,46 9.45 NO NO 0 216 309,50 22867 32751 1604 Moueae- Kantra ISA 11,S0 11,0 NO NO 6 216 2S4,s4 18 05 24s70 1605 KhUEl-Oubbigla 1SA 11,57 11,57 NO NO 6 160 269,57 14143 26028

8IToTAL-16sTRANCHE - 408 367.40 -. - - 833 12348 21804 61876 - 35 - Table B-2: Rural Roads Impements as Page 2 of 3 Proposed at Appraisal(A) and as Finally Executed (E)

_ Len __ ___l ¶4d8th cost p0.0 01) Cats KmoD t *~~~~~rati Pavd _-@ PA" RtUW& _ftwf Lts A E A E ) (m) A E A E Kef 151 ElKseur4eto IC 27.2 28. N3 N4 9 6 640 2174.4 1t85 81134 162 Dr Esnabe-TlEl oztoane 1D 263 26.9 N3 14 0 6 448 ?.708 153 Aln El Kami 10D 11,2 12,4 NS3 3 s Unpave 136 2053,1 12321 63736

W0S014l Keabeu.6 3C 7.0 7,0 NS N4 6.5 104 24s.739 16414 34620 012 C4u YAusef SC 6.6 6s6 N3 N4 6,6 130 172,265 19118 25332 613 &ragChuba 30 S,t -e,1 144 144 9 203 214,25 26062 28414 3 Hlaldh 3C 0.3 0, N4 N4 O 278 420,2sc 29892 46193

Ot1A IWE04-UenzalTomlm Aamour SD 10.8 1,7 Ni NIS 6. 401 6S6,1 37830 39748 BlSb FME 604 30 4. 8m51 14 44 6.6 164 141,7 328N3 40370 OlSoOGMhIahaU-Oa Albch SD 4.8 4,41 N N4 64. 144 200 32000 45851 818 TuOatwa 3D e,s 7.2 NB N4 8.6 110 240.4 174e0 8331 s18 DerChbhou PE GM Mad SD 9.1 S.4 NS tN4 C. 101 221.4 11000 26046 Uss Lodino sO 10. s,77 N3 N4 5,6 141 23,88 138s6 2423

Kabw=u 410 GP2 Oaoba AlaA mtsth 4A 20.0 20.0 e3 N4 6 263 781 1260 39060 454 A Ra-SzaOuedKcukl 4A 27.0 27,0 NB N3 6 639 855 13983 81 667

608 RmihsThala 60 43.6 43.6 Nt N4 6 1486 2110 34083 48534

8kt Bouaii: 09 CF3 Ago- Jlna.HoAama so 0.0 6.6 NB NS 6 170 747?0 18839 23788 662 SirEaHdaLHblhda 80 26.6 24,9 Ns N3 6 5 S4" 21333

Tunl(ahna) 1002 ordiTouQPontde 8Lzkte laA 12O 12,0 NS N3 6 158 428,000 13167 36e67 1008 eJLakhdhma4MHk9m1a ICA 10.6 106 N4 NI4 5 18 620 s0000 49057 1005 OuedEUnfu IOA 6.2 8.2 NB N3 t 146 218 17683 2B666 1054 Jebbo. El Srdl dtYou 1OA .o0 6.0 NB NB 01 1610 15167 2SS 1066 WSat-J"e Ammar ICA 6.4 5.4 N3 N3 6 03 is9 17222 29444

1401 SWISads-UMD-P 1MA 90.8052 NB N2 6 8 174 273,02D 17756 28 879 1402 Moknlne 14A 8.0 8,0 N3 N2 5 140 143,435 17600 1709 1455 Essda 14A 9.0 0,0 Ns N2 s 188 2,710 20088 29968 t466 AloulChlKnanadUA 10,0 10.0 NB N2 6 121 191.130 12100 10118 1480 l Hrik 14A s,0 3.0 NB N2 5 4.2 S6 81.23 11 67 27077

1404 HtenrChfachir 148 19,4 14,6 NB N2 6 5 278 14330 1408 Sebb9hIN. 14B 14,0 17,1 NS N2 5 5 290 186S.460 2107 38 319 1467 ElChoubr 148 13.4 1S,1 N3 N2 5 238 17012

61TOMAUNDTPMANWE 94 an 8 169 16827 20712 39646 - 36 -

Table B-3: Rural Rgads Improvementsas Page 3 of 3 Proposed at Appraisal (A) and as Pinally Executed (E)

ength Irnpemt Lvel I ld OC4a (Qtt0cm I Cott Kmrn-T WednIhmberlName LitefA E A E (in (m)

Third T ra wlhe------Zmam 11t6 PItJNFRVEt838 11C 12.7 1,0S N3 N8 6 306 6an 240*4 6056 152 0. shew SWd1Mratn 11C 20,6 19,72 NS N3 C 360 824 18002 41 78 1188 MC48BKhdf4g4adhour 1iC 11.9 12,29 N3 N3 a 238 613 20000 41741 1164 RVEONO WThlblka 11c 6,18 la 8 16C 260S1

116 R8R 514 110 6C8 4,31 NS Na e 86 110,396 1468 2614 1154 RWEUS 110 10,3 10,04 N3 Ns 4 138 43.43S 1324 48470 115t Pbat GdW4*Mtlaha 110 4,9 4,78 N3 NO 5 121 15S,682 24684 3e130 1C1t RWE501 110 6,7 5,32 N2 N2 4 es 166,68 18e? 31S31

1182 JebeiTTf RVE 573) 1E 4,7 4,35 N3 NS 5 6 120 8,864 25632 115601 1166 Pkis Momeg 11E 8,16 NO NO S £ 284,11 29018

1361 S8uan-d Haned-E4ooI 130 11,2 11,02 NO N3 6 201 230,056 17946 20058 1852 Ou.d U -Sldl Baugossa 130 8.6 7r98 N3 N3 6 74 S00,425 8708e 3788 1158 SidiLaibi 130 4.6 7,53 NO NO 6 e5 170,900 15466 22e97 117 AnaouY M OPItI 13C 9,3 8.93 N2 N4 6 170 470,471 1e8S625564 1169 Eatmotna 13C 7 7,94 NO N4 6 140 402,282 2000 G o6 ra-n 651 6tP7Own EziOum Hmni 9E 18.4 18 N4 Na S 631 S4293 ON2 OwualnB' Assfd-Oouu FejJa e8 17 16.76 N3 N3 6 5 S31 1426 1*471 01724 68 &9S met wla S8 58 CM38 N3 N3 6 83 156091 06 Oum eni-Uhu sEt a 4.82 14 W4 6 18e 66600 S04 8.a anou-w ,saw-JaIt h go 1s 10,04 N3 NO 6 8761 2566o o60 8ajbl sougnbmw sC 10 12 N3 N3 6 171 14S9 17100 62266 WM Kd) 8eb-lhl-Zdba 6C 18 I6,4 NO NO 6 6 408 25800 6 JefsuaG k so 7 6S. NO N3 6 5 11I 15867 Deja~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1202bKw VAfsCua- PW 12C 13,6 8,15 NO N4 6,6 136 266,702 10000S 1671 1261 SWdSma£-Matouta 12C 10,6 10.7 N4 H4 9 t 806 8sk,343 26426 81247 1252 KrM HaaMd- La Fag 120 10.3 9,93 14 N4 9 6 126 472,436 12138 47677 1283 Ajywad Oruaga- blata 120 33,S6 31.2 N3 NO O'5 5.5 646 12SMS 1S 78 41661 1264 T.e)ow-An Yoga. 12D 15.2 16.76 M N3 9 223 3861766 14871 21 SW 1256 awggR-Fha (aC 74) 120 162 16,61 NO N4 9 6 14 1S2,184 95S0 7617 1266 RVE704-7a6 120 12,39 12.39 N2 N2 e,6 175 2696141 14214 26015 1257 Orbh EOuOd-UoutwnaudQPS 12E 21.3 18,06 NS Ns 0 288 62I.8 1 621 84066 1258 Ha4Swdaux 12E 10,7 10,31 NO N2 6 145 26,817 13851 25879 1266 MedJszS i8b- 12E 8,1 7,e8 N4 N4 9 310 892,se 38 272 51 07 120 U0C2 128 C,o 527 N NO 6 73 100,7 105S0 26626 12et MC 131-E 12E 7,8 9,09 NO N3 6 121 11,119 1i518 34227

8ItOTAL-smWNdmEi 37,6s 38,9 7062 13865 1 005 _36S036 - 37 - Notes:

1. Improvementlevels are as follows:

N-3: 3m platform covered with 20 cm of selectednatural gravel on good soils and 25-40 cm of selected nabual gavel on poor soils.

N-4: 9m platformcovered with 3550 cm of selectednatural gravel on each l.Sm shoulderand combinationof 15 cm of crushed rock on 6m of cariage way.

N-5: Sameas N-4 except platform is lIlm, shoulder 2.5m each and carmageway is sealed with double surface trment.

2. Subsequentimprovements were made on the basis of traffic and were of two types: Renforcementof the base through additionof gravel and sealingwith double surface tment

3. Somecosts are regroupedfor two or moe roads. Page 1 of 2 Table C: Spot Improvements on Related Feeder Roads

Governorate No. of nru roads zone Nature of Works Cost (000 DT) 204 BourouisAgricole Constructionof submersibleculvert 84,4 201 202 & 203 Massouge - Fouma - Rmil Constructionof culverts of which two submersible 28,3

______112,7 1602 1651 Cbhimet ajilet Constructionof culvert 55,6 1652 GHdarat Constrtion of culvert 18,6 74,2 Sfax 1701& 1703 Boujarbouaj-benima Sealing and Paving 167,1 Agenga Dokhae - Boujarboua Dokhane Culvert S1 218,1 La Kef 101 to 108 zourine doghra - garnialfaya 58,8 region o. Mellegue Constructionof culvert with head works ._.___oo 58,8 309 353 & 305 Bo;j Hfaiedh Village Constructionof Culvert 94,8 Dar Chichou Constructionof Culvert 33,1 318 Lezdine Village Improvementof Base Courseand trainingworks 18 355 145,9

Kssserine 506 & 507 Thala - Rouhia Vanous Improvements 44,3

______~~44 ,3 652 Constructionof culvert over Oued eleben 65,7 658 & 659 Conshructionof culvert 103,6

______I ______I______I______169J3 Page 2 of 2 Table C: Spot Improvements on Related Feeder Roads

Governorate No. of rural roads Zone Natureof Works Cost(000 DT) 711 Mezl Mimoe Tree Culverts 13,8 13,8 Kairoum 454 Sidi Abdall Constructonof culvert/O.El Fe Abida Consht on of culvertt/O.Mlayeh 91,9 Hmaidet Costuctiionof cuet/O. Zeroud

9? ,9

Total 929,0

Sourc: DGPC Not.:lbis table covers aly thos nne govort wherespot ixuprovements an feederoads ae made.

w4 - 40 - Table D: Project imetable

l______Planned Revised Actual Identification 1278 _1 Preparation Beginning 6/80 4/80 4/80 Preparation End 12/80 2/81 5181 Appraisal Mission 2/81 5/81 6/81 6/81 . l Loan Negotiations 1/82 2/82 Board Approval 6/82 3/23/82 3/82 l LoanSignature NA 5114182 Loan Effectiveness 9/13182 12/13/82 04/21/83 03114/83 05/16/83 LoanClsingC 12/31/87 12/31/88 03/11/92 12/31/89 06/30/91 ______10/3 1/91 Project Completion 12/31/86 12/31/91

Source: Bank Files - 41 - Table E: ProJectedand AUWl CumulativeLoan Disbursements (US $ mion equivalent)

All Bank Projectionin Traroport All Tunisia Tunisia: Actual Amount Quarter SAR Prolects Project HighwaysI Cumulative FY 1Y83 Sep.1982 .5 Dec.1982 .5 Mar.1983 .5 Jun.1983 .6 3.7 3.9 1.9 .52

Sep. 1983 .8 .52 Dec.1983 2.4 6.5 6.5 1.9 .52 Mar.1984 4.1 .52 Jun.1984 5 9.8 9.? 4.3 .52 F_ 1985 Sep.1984 7.5 1.66 Dec. 1984 10.3 13.5 13.2 6.1 1.66 Mar.1985 13.3 3.46 Jun.1985 16.3 17.3 16.8 14.5 3.64

Sep.1985 19.2 6.95 Dec. 1985 21.9 20.9 20.3 21.5 6.95 Mar. 1986 24.6 11.87 Jun. 1986 27.3 24.3 23.6 26.4 11.95 FY 198 Sep. 1986 30.0 13.64 Dec. 1986 31.4 27.2 26.4 27.4 15.95 Mar. 1987 32.8 18.45 Jun. 1987 34.1 29.7 28.8 29.5 20.44 FY 1488 Sep. 1987 35.4 21.27 Dec. 1987 35.5 31.7 30.8 30.6 21.72 Mar. 1988 22.86 Jun. 1988 33.3 32.4 35.5 24.13 FY 1989 Sep. 1988 24.51 Dec. 1988 34.6 33.7 26.50 Mar. 1989 27.75 Jun. 1989 35.5 34.7 27.97 FY 1990 Sep.1989 28.28 Dec.1989 35.5 28.48 Mar. 1990 29.67 Jun. I1990 30.04 FY 19"1 Sep.1990 30.30 Dec. 1990 30.30 Mar. 1991 30.33 Jun. 1991 30.33 FY 1992 31.06 Sep. 1991 31.18 Dec. 1991 31.47 Mar.199 _. - .._ , J _ _ -__ Source: SankFiles Table F: roject Costs (in milons)

Aepratsal Costs Final Costs Variations With contfngences Wfth Contingencies 8eparate included DT US DT US PT us miLlionsm(0) Nillions(US) ______A B C 0 CA 0 -8a RuralRoad Works 26.70 5207 36.67 71.50 46.36 57.74 9.70 -1376 Spot trprovementson Related FeederRoads 1.61t 31 - 2 05 4,00 0.93 1,16 -1,12 -2.84 FfnatAgrf0ul. investments - Constructfon of CNV 0,89 1.74 1,23 2,40 1,34 - Equipment CTV 1,67 0,11 .0,73 in 0,11 0,22 0,15 0,30 0,10 - Vehicles in CTV 0,13 -0,05 -0,17 0,45 0,87 0,62 1,20 0 28 0,35 - Irrigation Works 2.30 3 -0,33 -0,85 338 6,60 027 0,34 -3.11 -6.26 Short-TermCredts 1,18 2,29 1,79 3,50 NO ND ND ND Long-TermCredits 3.42 6 5_23 10.20 Equipt. (Vehicle Inspection) 0,33 063 0-41 0.80 100 1,25 0.59 0,45 TechnicalAssistance 1 42 2.76 _ 190 3.70 096 120 -094 -2.50 Overseasmissions 0 0 09 0 05 0 10 0 07 0.09 0.02 -0.01 N sase total 38.45 74.98 - - PhysicalContingencies 3,84 7 50 Financial Contingencies 11 21 21.86 Project Total Cost 5350 104.33 - - - Front-ed fee in Bank Loan 0270 050 0,27 OSO 042 053 0.15 003 Total Cost with Credit 53 77 104 83 53,75 104,80 ND IID D _ = D Total Cost Without Credit 49918 f5 88 46,73 91 10 64,44U -26,66 Sources: OPC and Ministry of Agriculture Note: 1. USSequivalent cost at appralsal are OT costs converted at lDT u USS 1.95 and at completion are OT costs converted at I DT USS 2. Contingencies were spread as in SAR(Table 3.3) 1.24 3. The amot of credit is estimated based on a suuple of roads. Table G: Project Financing (in millions)

PRoPOEo (USSmillion ) FINALCOSTS CUSSmitlions)

NPIJMA MTC OMT amV. CULT. COST K TOTAL MPW MA HTC ONT GOVT. CULT. | ______. _ PART. COST K TOTAL PART. RuratRoad Works 42-6 - -9 40x 71,5 2 - 28115 492 s7.7

Retatedfeeder Roads 2?7 .___ - .t3 33x 4 0 __ _ - - 029 2S% 1,16 FfnalAgricul. investments - Construclion of CTV 1.7 0,7 - Equipment 292 2.4 1,21 0,46 272 1,67 in CTV 0.1 0,2 672 0,3 - Vehifces InCTv 0o7 0,0? 0,06 462 0,13 025 426 1,2 0.20 0,16 442 - IrrigationWorks _ 6,6 -_- 0,35 6.6 0,34 034 Short-Term Credits 2,9 0,6 3,5 ong-lermCredits S9 2 2.3 -0,2 - - _ Equfpt. (Vehicte 0,3 0,5 Insetion) 63K 0,8 0,36 0,89 m 1,25 Technical Assistance 0.7 0,2 - 2-8 76X 3,7 0.30 0,03 0-86 m 1220 Overseasmissions - 0-t 100X O, - - 0.09 101K Front-end fee on the lank's Loan - - - - - 5 100X 0.5 - - - - ..t.!L lOOKX0, Total| 46 _,3 _,3 8,8 2 2,9 104,8 2 30,9 15 36 - - A

Sources: DGSC and infstry of Agrieulture vote: 1. USS equivalent cost at appraisal are DT costs converted at tOT a US$ 1.95 and at completion are WT costs converted at 1 DY a USS 1.24 -44-

'-I~ ~~~~~~~~I

61~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Page 2 of 2 Table HI: Status of Covenants

Loan Ag Dnet Status R e e ece .______.______LA 3.06(c) Borower shall,through its Projet Coordinating Quarely Mportswer furnishedfor mostquaers by the Diection G6rale des Commttee, furnishquartely progressrepots. Pontset Chausae, not the ProJectCoordinaing Coimie d covraedol the administativeand fiuancialacuite rlting to ral road improvemet .______- . _ works andonly for each governorste asa whole. LA 3.06 (e) Borower shall fumishto th Banka compwtionreport CompetionRepont was due on Apri 30, 1992and was atuady recived in May on the Poj aaer comnleionof the Pirojecbut in 1993. any event by six mnths after the ClosingDato or a Iaer date agreedby the Bank.

LA 3.07 Bor shallacuire landas equied r Prjct. Prot not affectedby landacquisilc problms. LA 4.02 (a) Borrowershatl cause the Midstry of PublicWorks, the Account were directedat capial costissubject to finance and (0) underthe Po3jct, Ministy of Agricutureand the Minstry of Tuansport not at recuwentbudget requirements under the Projet (e.g. cxtensionwork). andCommunications to maintin Projet accouts to Auditrepors wer receivedfor the yaus 1983tI ough 1988. In aDcasms but refltct the Miisties'opemtionsfor the Prtoct and one, theywete rcived morethan 6 monthsafter the Cedof the accountingyear, hve suh accountsaudited each year ard furib witb delaysof up to 27 month. copiesof the auditsto thwDa six monthsafter the end of eaeb ficl year. LA 4.04 Botower sha1lcause roads himved underth No system data avaiableon Borowmesoverall effort for mainenanc Project, of as waRas other hmprovedrods offeringan roads,rural roads or Projct roads. However,ocasionl fearces in filesto apprpriae evel of sevic, to be manained. maintnanc status of ras indicate tha mainteae was provided. Source:Ban Fiks Table I: Project Expenditure by Year (in D.T.'

I~~ _. ~~ _ _ - - ___ . Items DEP 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Total PurchasingMaterials ME 7,245 602,757 1,171,781 341,199 4,742,960 145,210 42.002 , 7,053,154 RuralRoad Works ME 476,027 5 544,088 11,524,617 10,007,145 2,960,103 10,176,901 2,683,371 2,678,559 227,129 86,483 46,304,423 Spot Inprovementson Related FeederRoads HE 284,132 226.720 167,930 172,144 27,128 18,375 29,961 2,685 929075 AgriculturalInvestioents MA - Constructionof CTV 486,900 138,100 94,900 143,600 206,400 155,900 8,000 107,200 1,341,000 - EquipmentIn CTV 26,600 66,300 4,300 3,200 100,400 - Vehiclesin CTV 99,900 137,400 23,500 2,900 - IrrigationWorks 20,700 270,000 284,400 - . 270.000 Short-TermCredits Long-TermCredits

Equipt. (VehicleInspection) MT = . _____.._822,948 179,353 1_002,301 Technical Assistance ME 2,800 197,541 145,231 240,140 169,252 173,190 32,694 __ _ __ 960.848 1 ______MA I______I_ _ _ _ _ I__ _ _ I______Overseasmissions 2,300 18,900 45,800 2,300 __ - _ . 69,300 01 Total = 607,627 6,110,961 12,429,268 10,697,315 3,423,099 10,523,719 2,908,146 2,917,814 1,060,762 643,0361 51,321,747 Source: DGPC

Note: The ifne for credits is Left btank because only partial information is available. - 47 -

Table J: Rural Roads improvement Contracts

Lot No. I Governorate I Length/kb Contract Detafls

Original Revised Contract Contract Amount Amount FIRST TRAICHE(1983-84) BidsOpened Contractor ('000OT) (_000DT) Comp(etionDate 2V

2A Siliana 31.8 11/09182 A 993.8 1,240 6/27/83 2B SiLiana 22.1 11/09/82 B 1t644.7 1,900 6/24183 7A Gafsa 38.8 11/09/82 C 1,059.5 1,060 8/09/83 8C Gabes 22.1 11/09/82 D 376.7 230 9/14/83 9A Sizerte 62 11/09/82 E 2,436.0 2,365 6/07/83 15A Monastir 24.1 11/09/82 F 840.4 713 7/15/83 155 Monastir 35.8 11/09/82 G 781.3 1,027 8/14/83 16A Mahdia 53.8 11/09/82 F 1,677.3 1,677 9/01/83 17A Sfax 61.9 11/09/82 E 2,250.0 2,057 6/23/93 18A Nedenine 55.5 11/09/82 C 1,500.0 1 475 8/11/83

TOTAL 407.9 13,559.7 13,744

SECOND TRAUCHE (1984-85) _ _ IC Kef 27.2 02/18/84 H 1,555.5 2,170 11/07/84 1D Kef 36.5 02/18/84 1 1,607.4 2,058 10/22/84 3C Nabeul 31.2 02/18/84 J 1,004.7 1,051 10/24/84 3D mabeul 45.6 02/18/84 K 1,758.8 1,947 10/22/84 40 47 02/18/84 L 1,385.4 1,636 04/15/84 SC Kasserlne 43.6 02/18/84 N 1,979.1 2,095 10/22/84 60 Sidi-Bouzid 34.5 02118/84 N 844.3 748 11/24/84 1OA Tunis 42.2 02/18/84 J 1,557.3 1,573 10/10/84 14A 39.8 02/18/84 0 966.5 965 10/24/84 14B Sousse 46.8 02/18/84 P 1580.1 1,862 12/11/84

TOTAL 394.4 14,239.1 16,105 _

THIRD TRANCHE (1985-86)

9B 43.7 09/09/85 a 1,382.5 1,600 03/12/86 9C Bizerte 44.7 09/09/85 F 1,615.9 1,800 03/12/86 1iC 50.4 09/09/85 a" 2,096.8 2,500 04/15/86& 9/1/87 I1D Ariana 24.6 09/09/85 R 841.1 950 03/15/86 lIE 12.6 09/09/85 S 631.6 752 04/15/86 12C Beja 60.5 09/09/85 T 2,925.3 3,300 04/15/86 12D Beja 46.2 09/09/85 C" 1,558.0 2,000 03/22186& 17/10/88 12E Beja 51.6 09/09/85 R 1,746.3 1,950 05/15/86 .3C 47.6 09/09/85 F 1,705.1 1,900 08/01/86

TOTAL 381.9 14,502.6 16,752

Source: DGPC

1/ Contractwas rebidafter failureof originalcontr&ctor. 2/ Final payment(usuatly 10% of contractprice) was made from about one to three years Later,after expirationof guarantee period. - 48 -

Table M Pssm iCotuctin of CrVs Page 1 of 2

rovwnt C*V 1983 1984 1 9851 1986| 1987| 1988| 1989| 1990 1991 19

Turis - BArous KhlIdla - - - -_

Zagho2 El Amiam OuedRmal

Nabeul Ouedel Khatf

Ara BordiToull Pontde Bizete Saida Bad El Amri Lansarine OuedEilil Momagula Mnihla

Baa ElGossa a Ouchtata e Dougigaa Toukiaber

LaKe Ain larma AinFdhil Tii Ghozlane onioane Sld Bourouls Bhlrine .

BorjMassoudi

Jendouba El Awuaoudha El Khadra a 0LMangouch

B ist BouM'Khtita

Gabtnani a eawan Touajnia Bsbassia

Soussa GrimRth Ktoussia . - 49 -

TaboK: Progr.ss iucousbuctcof CTVs Page 2 of 2

oveonorates ICTV 19831 t984 1985 1 98 198711988 1989 1 990 1991 1992

Mahdia soma ChehimetNord Ababssa .

Stax BouJaboua Agenga SakietEzzit El Amra

Kalrouan Essea

Gabes Zarat SBdiouzid Rabta OubedHafous

Kesserlne Barmeina a Ramada Ain Lehmedna Dachra Thaa .

Monastir Benanes SoukSayadi Sahflne

Medenine HassiJerbi Grabet

TotalbyYear 2 7 8 t1 6 9 5 4 1 2

CumulativeTota 2 9 17 28 34 43 48 52 53 55

Source:Ministy of Agriculture - 50 -

Tabl L:CCmAmetion of CrVs Page 1 of 2

No. of C.T.V. CTVbult underthe WhProJect ______Buili Appraa Other Rented Govenorates C.T.V. RoadNo. No. Costs Final Costs Projects

BENAROUS MiQldia 1163 1 15000.00 16 954.75

ZAGHOUAN OuedRMal 1152 2 42 000.00 48463.38 EiAmaim 1164 ______1 2

NABEUL Oued Khatf 315a 1 .17 O0.00 2481395

______1

TUNISARIANA BorJToull 1002 7 119 000.00 197402.56 PontBizerte 1002 Salda 1003 M'Nihbla 1005 Bor El Amri 1104 Lansarine 1155,6,4 0. Eil 1005 ____ 2

BEJA El Gossa 1253 4 92000.00 97795.42 Ouchtata 1253 Ain Younes 1254 Dougga 1255 4

KEF Ain Fdhil 151 3 64 000.00 82635.35 TeliGhoziane 152 Ain Krma 153 '______4

SIUANA Le KriPb 204 4 68 000.00 68 302.73 Bhidne 205 aSBou Rouls 255b_

JENDOUBA El Aouaoudha 1357a 3 59000.00 76550.37 El Mangouch 1359 Ei -Khadra 1351

BizERTE Bou M'Khila 901 6 150 00.00 159717.94 Gana It 951 Bcheya 952 Benals 907 Besbassia 961 7 2 - 51 -

TabL: Ctrv.ctiaOf crVs Page 2 of 2

No.of C.T.V. cTv bui underthe th Proect

AppraW _ ther Rented Govenorates C.T.V. RoadNo. NO Costs flnd Costs ProJects

SOUSSE Kroussba 1404 3 80000.00 7491318 Grimit 1401 Essed 1456

MAHDIA Ababsa 1602 3 55 000.00 59721.31 Samm 1651 ChimetNord 1651

~~______4 SFAX Agenga 1701 4 66000.00 83273.80 Amira 1702 BouJarboua 1703 SakdetEzzit 1704

______3 2

KAROUAN Essara 454 1 15000.00 15362.00 1 1

GASES Zarat 808 1 15000.00 16345.83 1 _

SIDIBOLiMD OuledHaffouz 609 2 60000.00 74517.13 Rabta 662 _

KASSERINE Barmeina 508 5 109000.00 143916.03 Rmada 508 Thala 508 Dachra 508 AinLahmadna 508

MONASTIR Benane 1502 3 75000.00 6544367 SoukSayadi 1505 Sahline 1506b

MEDENINE HassiJerbi 1803 2 32000.00 35098.41 Grabt 1805

TOTAL 55 133000.00 1 341 227.79 41 13

Source:Ministry of Agricufture 'I t

-

3i g

_' _

- .45

X 0 1U-8 zs ~II - 53 -

TableN: EqWpmt for v chicleInspection Statios Page 1 of 2 AvorageExchage Rafe:US$1 = 0,983D.T.

CostH.T Names EquipmentType D.T. U.S.$

BrakingTesting I W 712 34625,80 35208,61 PlaqueaJeux LMS 20/2 7734,99 785.18 LiftingJack P.L 7470.62 7596.36 BrakingTesting iW 2-E 12102.04 12,305.74 SuspensionTesting SA 20 11193,76 11582.17 NABEUL SkidPlate MINC 10 4537,35 4 613,72 GazAnalyzer AG3M 7081.35 7 200,54 UiftingJack V L 4622,50 4 700.31 2 BeamsLET GLA 10 9 999.21 10,167,51 Hardwareand Software Equipment 19315.59 19640.69

BrakdngTesting I W 712 34,625,80 35,208,61 Plaquea JeuxLMS 20/2 7 734,99 7865.18 UftingJack P.L 7470,62 7.596,36 BrakingTesting VW 2-E 12,102,04 12305,74 SuspensionTesting SA 20 11193,76 11382,17 BIZERTE SkidPlate MINC 10 4537,35 4613,72 Plaquea JeuxPMS 3/2 6 698,58 6811.32 GazAnalyzer AG3M 7081,35 7 200,54 Uftinj JackV L 4622,50 4700,31 2 BeamsLErGLA 10 9999,21 10167,51 Hardwareand Software Equipment 19315,58 19640.69

BrakingTesting I W 7/2 34625,80 35,208,61 Plaquea JeuxLMS 20/2 7734,99 7865.18 UftingJack P.L 7470,62 7596,36 BrabingTesting iW 2-E 12102.04 12305,74 SuspensionTestng SA 20 11193,76 11382,17 SOIUSSE SkidPlate MINC 10 4537,35 4613,72 Plaquea JeuxPMS 312 6 698,58 6811,32 GazAnalyzer AG3M 7 081,35 7200.54 LiftingJack V L 4 622,50 4700,31 2 BeamsLET GLA 1O 9999,21 10167,51 Hardwareand Software Equipment 19315.58 19,640,69 . BrakingTesting I W 712 34625,80 35208,61 Plaquea JeuxiLMS 20/2 7734,99 7865,18 UftingJack P.L 7470,62 7596,36 BraidngTesting iW 2-E 12102,04 12305,74 SuspensionTesting SA 20 11193,76 1138217 IROUAN SkidPlate MINC 10 4537,35 4613,72 Plaquea JeuxPMS 3/2 6 698,58 6811.32 GazAnalyzer AG3M 7081.35 7200,54 LiftingJack V L 4622.50 4700,31 2Beams LET GLA 10 9999,21 10167,51 Hardwareand Software Equipment 19315.58 19640,69 - 54 -

lob1cN: Ep f Vebicbl Iosectio Satdons Page 2 of 2 Aveae Emchang Rate: USS1 0,983 D.T.

CostH.T Names EquipmentType D.T. U.S.$

BrakingTesting I W 7/2 34625,80 35208,61 Plaquea JeuxLMS 2012 7734,99 7865,18 UftingJack P.L 7470,62 7596,36 BrakingTesting W 2-E 12102,04 12,305,74 SuspensionTestingSA20 11193,76 11382,17 GAES SkddPlate MINC 10 4537,35 4613,72 Gaz Analyr AG3M 7081,35 7200,54 LiftingJack V L 4 622,50 4700,31 2 Beam IET GLA10 9999,21 10,167,51 Hardwareand Software Equipment 19315,59 19640,69

BrakingTesting I W 712 34,625,80 35,208,61 Plaquea Jeux LMS 22 7734,99 7865,18 UftingJack P.L 7470,62 7,596,36 BraldngTesting iW2-E 12,102,04 12305,74 SuspensionTesting SA 20 11193,76 11382,17 LEKEF SW PlateMINC 10 4537,35 4613,72 Plaquea Jew PMS312 6698,58 6811,32 GazAnalyzerAB3M 7 081,35 7200,54 UftingJack V L 4622,50 4700,31 2 eamnsLErGLA 10 9999,21 10167,51 Harwareand Software Equipment 19315,58 19640,69 .______125381,78

Uftng JackP.I 7 470,62 7 596,36 MAINTENANCE LiftingJack V L 4622,50 4700,31 SECnON 3 BeamLETGLA 10 14998,81 15251,26 BENAROUS SpareParts and Tools 54556,74 55475,02 81 648,67 D.T. EQUIPMENT 833939,32 847975,87 FEES 45414,08 46178,47 ______879353,40 894154,34 D.T. FF.

11st 700000,00 711782,13 PAYMENTS 12nd 179353,42 182372,23

Total 879354,42 894154,36 Table 0: Expenditue. Under Loan to Technicd Assistanc (IncludingTraming and Overseas Missions)

1982 Is83 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1t89 lo90 1S91 TOTAL Study and PrspRrotion 2nd Tr. 187 741 9066 196607 of 3rd Tr. 118866 82481 201346 BiddingDocuments .______187741 127931 82481 398153 Studyof Impactof Rural Road 29887 62498 82385 Teohnico-EconominoStudy of the possibIIties using iocai materials In 78 907 4630 83 36 constructionof rural roads

ALL STUDIES t87 741 127931 82 481 108794 57128 664074 Training of ExtensionAgents - Training 2800 9800 17300 3400 3200 2300 - Study 38 800 6500 55 000 992S0800 17300 3400 S8200 2300 _ . s03o800

OverseasMissions 2300 18900 4&,jo 2300 __ . . 9 300 #n ALL STUDIES,TRAINING ANOMISSION 6 100 28700 63100 5700 58200 2 300 _ 163100

TOTAL 5100 216441 191031 242440 189252 173190 . . , _ . 727174 Table P: Maizatemce E .enditurefor Rural Ras under th Project Page I of 2 (otherImproved rural roads and an roads)

TYPEOF EXPENDUI_E 183| 1984 | 1985 1966 | 1987 | 196 1989 1990 | 1991 | 1992

1st Part ______-_.

V HIGHWAYPROJECT 1,271 20,9 31,321 29,32_I665,41 1*,04 | 55,61 1035,12 198 1120,09

Maintenance of all rural roads 486.271 802,4| 715.121 7001 1544,71 1100,251|6624S | 1777,3 2186,1 2693.55

Maintenanceof all roads 696427 2545,91 3278,121 6003.57 3935,7 4762. 8276,65 8513A 7535, 12923.

2ridPart

V HIGHWAYPROJECT 345 1 1025I 3911 413,3 i 167,51 9312 11317,787 74826 491,84 Maintenance of al ruralroads 274,3 482,8 1385,1 1 I 4S71 4771 77.S1 3103,7815839132 1917,381 2011,9 1

Maintenanceof all roads 6066,2 12352,567 3496,15311627,125 11342,357 1 1128,31|4187,693 19528.0281 11369,64 | 13928.8

.irdPart V HIGHAY PROJECT j I 4 1161 6,016I 158,016| 306.06611193,406 673.366

Malintofailruralrd s 11 | 521 63 1 1681 1881 306.91616 82,116 11249.066 12421.1061 lMaintenanceofall roads I 10601 6821 5153 1135 4473,5 1169,4162602,916 4444,066 5236.106 4170.806 Table P: Maintenanro Expeitres by DPC for Rural Roads and Other Roads Page 2 of 2 (otherImproved rural roadsand all roads)

TYPE OF aPENDffURE1983 | 1984 1985 1 1988 1 1987 | 1988 1 1989 1 1990 1 1991 1 1992 GROSS TOTAL

T1+T2+T3 ______

V HIGHWAY PROJECT 1,27 | 365.9 1056.321 424.321 1184.1 345.556 1144,8961 2658973 1 21380661|2825286

Miaintenarce of allrurail road 771.71 1337.21 2163,221 1325,971 2209,7 1 1484.66614348,34U886A,498 16642S86 |61402- iMaintenanceof mads - 14110.47 5s8o 12527,2718765.695975.557 7059,91615067,26 m 2248349 124141,44 31033.16

N.B. - Dataare lackingabout maintenance in the govemoratesof SousSQ For the rest of the country,the overallexpenditures by DPCfor maintenance

- Over the period1983-1992 Is 11605 000 for rural s - Roadsunder the Fifth HighwayProject 36171 000 for all rural roads;and - 150521 000million for all roads Table Q-1: List of Roads in Impact Surveys Page 1 of 2 (1987-1993 Stdies)

Roadssurveyed during the VthHwy Project OtherRoads In the 1987& 1993 In the 1993Study In the 1987& 1993 In the 1993Study Studies only Studies only

North

MedjerdahValley 901 903 1304-1202A 1358

NorthWest 151-206 103-105-203 1201

NorthEast 1054 1102-1105 1101

Cape Bon ._._.___355 301-305

MiddleWest .______401-406 658 501-507 MiddleEast 1505-1602 1457 1107 ._._ ._._.n_ 0, Sfax 1703 1702 651 . , . _

South 808-1803-709 706-801 659 Table Q-2: Selected Data on Sample of Project Roads Before Project Page 2 o f 2 (1978, 1979, or 1980) and After Project (1985 or 198"6

Ratio of Yr of Pop. Pop. Motorized value of Impso before after traffic except Govemnorate produc- lfrigatd and Number of Road Length ventn 1984 1984 farm tractors Farm Tractors icycles tion Hese.

before - - Before After Before Afr Bef Aftr andafr Bfore After

Gafsa 709 7.0 1984 310 357 63 78 18 20 124 111 1.43 661 Gabes 808 661 8.7 1984 5401 4,064 90 189 39 42 72 176 '.58 Bizerte901 165 237 13,0 1985 1,160 929 17 59 16 5 7 24 1.06 0 0 Monastir 1505 21.2 1984 4,930 4,937 86 127 39 13 66 62 1.18 Mabdia 1602 0 10 18.3 1985 2,080 2,525 77 54 43 9 33 91 1.50 0 Sfax 1703 8 12.2 1985 1,7sP 3,044 36 94 18 4 11 26 1.68 0 0 Medenine 1803 9.5 1985 1,200 4,527 135 70 14 61 204 2.78 0 58 Average road from Hwys III and V NA NA NA 68 195 22 25 SO 97 1.78 5242 8810

Source: Staff AppraisalReport and Rural Roads ImpacStudy

1/ Inpact Study indicates1975 populationof 4,112 2 Impact St$y indicates1975 populationof 2,559 3/ Inpact Study inicates 1975 populationof 3,460

Note: 1984 populationesdimat derived from populationfor census enumeation district as a whole. Table R. Evolutionof Disbursementsby Category (n MiliionsUS$)

Categories _Proected EffectivePay mens at

Not Alloc. Not Ailoc. - 11184 - 9185 - 6f86 -1I8 -12188 End Not Distrib. Not lstrib Prolect Rural Roads Works 21.00 28.90 1.1 6 10.7 20.1 24.1 28.1 CTVConstruction and Rehabilitation 0.5 0.7 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.3 0.5 ExtensionMaterial 0.1 0.2 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1

Vehicles 0.4 0.5 0 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1

Ad Hoc Improvements 1 1.3 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 Technical Visits Material 0 Inspection 0.4 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 Consultants 2.1 2.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.9

OverseasMissions 0.1 0.1 0 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Fees/BankLoans 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Unallocated 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Amountof Payments 35.5 35.5 1.6 6.9 11.7 22 26.4 31.5 Total Amount Foreseenfor this _ - 5.8 19.2 27.3 35.5 35.5 35.5 DueDate

Source: WorldBank - 61 - Tabl S Rod Road 1rwementsand Related Page I of 3 Paraetr for Economic Evaluation

Cost per Tra0b Agd Co TotalCost Populaton CultivatedAru -- d udKM a)t -o iwd 1per (DT) per Kl Swd ("a _A AN NI A A N A N A fN A N A N

1a1Grup

91lang 204 MC47-oob dA 2A N4 N4 260I3 1t8001S 100 2S00 3040 t?S42 205 MC 11.-GP2M 2A N3 N3 17668 40312 77 200 17 22820 4266 380 4100 1050 3390 2S6 ol8 oumRoua-OPS 2B N4 N4 22867 72 260 1870 6600 2840 9000 20SRVE 23 - G&an 2A N4 N4 £2490 415 23 9S 400 4680 80o0 9080 7000

707 Nouanr 7A N3 NS 1780S 35M79 112 220 200 450 SS3 78S 08 hAone WPS ?A NM 43 1S848 23sa4 60 120 480 1230 830 760 700 ClrWit alea 7A NS NS 14280 2000 88 1SO 97.0 17288 3220 310 840 S8 SW0 710 CoultTwoas ?A NS NS 18824 2ss85 S33 620 640 6DO 711 SanneddHaum 7A NO N3 18738 37 9 t108 200 S6O 518 3 150 4S00

Gabsa 807 Uaed - Segu 8C U2 N2 14250 10470 83 300 8000 1.10 8.00 808 Maret4adria-ZaRt 80 N2 N4 21862 13176 108 70 17S 17439 1288 640 s800 1,81 3.00 809 Ket_ana-Z,Bria SC N3 N2 1507 86770 110 *SO 840 2000 1.25 3.00

0o01Bou M'Kha #A N3 NO 18023 31 200 1160 2600 2002 4500 902 SldlAbdob et OA NO NS 22576 30 250 00 32o 1800 903 Eokb A NS NS 22187 39417 39 240 4425 620 438 700 200 1 035 OSAKof Gab 9A M4 N4 35876 45 400 940 4200 2467 07 KefMezm OA N4 N4 87313 80 350 *6S0 3600 3017

1505a Otsrnn.-Mdragom iSA N44 N4 34340 40095 135 200 4030 6470 4021 4 28 1602B8mh-Tou 2dNalJ 189 NO NO 14917 73 200 2658 3500 2015 2015 1SOSMoknn - BOWHUMn 1S9 NO NO 18476 24729 174 220 2 1832S 2682 1600 2215 1431 1431 IWO6bBou Oth"Ma-Monzal UB NO N3 18000 69 105 3080 4880 2678 2676

1802 Soumdes- sm 16A N4 N4 42022 SS37n 9S 80O 208O 2811 8093 8SOO 1s6 soua8sl-8omr 16SANS N4 1600 18401 1013 1000 1011t 1280 17741 208O0 l652 SGuasf-SouHaa ISA NO N4 17100 24737 84 20S0 2823 3833 4600

1701 Jbena-Agenea 1VA N4 NS 13092 113 1260 400 7 520 1702 ElAma-wnlana4ti 17A N4 N4 30000 16S 085 1500 3150 03 Tanour-BouJboup-(R 17A N4 N4 27787 3407 79 1736 1 21082 3584 1750 7010 1704 81dlAbdlkan 1t A NO NO1080 6S 844 81O | 2600 1751 Oued Ahm-Ghogme 17A NS NS3 17273 77 8E 1S1O 4 740

Medenin: 1801 OugKribl IBA NO NS 143S8 26500 170 380 SW0 g00 1802 Mosnaa-SdlCtmme I1A NO N4 12522 31258 106 400 1010 1670 1803 GsI .bslJsrbl 18A NO NS 22867 32751 162 280 014, 16213 2600 1030 1800 1s84 Mounes-E3Kantaa 18A N3 M3 18 365 24070 78 688 1200 8180 180SKbeoui- Oubbigla ISA NO NO 14140 2 028 180 250 880 3200

TOTAL _ 21 004 31678 _21S04S338U

A. at Appras N-Now

Sourco:OPOC and Minisy ot Agrcuture - 62 -

TableS: RPal RoadImproriemets and Related . Page 2 of 3 Pat tmt for Econaoic Evaluation

Coa pet Tfom AOd Coat Towa Cott Popula|or O aso'dWeft Standwd K am 1S I pe (on pr IM sfted flow Nn A A .N A N A N A N A N 2nd GfoUP

161 El Kacur-8e IC NI Ns IS13 81134 25 220 1668 4000 7738 1080 1s2 Do Eaaalam-T0El GhE2a 10 NS N4 17708 20 so 4728 17677 e9743 2s5 2000e ass0 80s 163AlnEIKarrma ID N3 N3 12321 63736 20 35 1444 2"

Nabstri a09 Sldl Ka%oUW 30 N3 NI 14857 2So 400 3100 312 BoNYouf 3C N3 NI 1918 634087 160 30 1300 313 oBtg Chlba 30 N4 NI 25062 200 400 3060 363 Hadh 30 N14 N4 20ss2 300 410 2100 316.1W e04manaoTmni.) 30 N4 NI 87430 39748 6oo 7420 a16ba S04 30 N4 M4 32063 40370 4tO 1160 sis5 DarC2,Ihbh-O Abouche 3D 1N4 N4 32000 45351 700 16087 22 00 48 87 6600 318 T Rot 30 NI NI 17460 38380 10 1400 318 Ow ChbchouME 003Ntd) 30 N3 NI 110to 2504s 6o 3060 366Ladin 30 NI NItJ 1368 2423? 300 2400

410CP2oIbatnSAIMSIkha 4A N3 N4 126ts 39050 120 S60 65t7 454 AW-e*0aOuwdKau 4A N3 NI 10S03 8t167 100 400 45? 1SM41 362s6 am 3 60 684S 4 1O0

OSRouhla-ThaIa 60 N4 NI 34083 48394 86 80 34083 51076 o88 s 400 18403 17467

6090PO Ag. Omb. um Hana 80 NS N3 19088 23 763 1oo 2401 20057 26 I4 1687 2 0oo 1262D 882 WtE HWl-4HIbhh N3 N3 21 33 300 7443 0700

Tunis(On4 1o02S To-Pont d4mt N3 3ss7 1o200 1003 8* Lakhdln. S Ikamlap NI 30.00 49.06 IOs OwudElaD& 1 NI 17.60 26.50 6434 19076 41478 lo04 Jebbest O SeWYouno IC N3 11.17 32.8? 260 636 1056 WBatra OjebolA _m tA N3 17.22 2944 647 4500 124

1401SIdl Samn.eO, W GP 2 1 N N2 soo 230 B000 t1 000 1402MoknlN NI 12 1SD 1u1 146CE ha 14J NI3 N2 200 177 146SABoul NI 12 1oo 1266 2100 1340 1460E3 dk I N3 N2 1000- soo 4369 1228 1404 HemehilChfhir I N3 N2 250 2650 4500 12100 1403 Sbbaght I NI3 N2 300- I0 1457EIChoubra 11 13N2 260 2113

TOTAL 16503 3a597 6 029 18 983 38 e28 86US t 300 37 622 7843

A * at Appraind NI-Now

Soun: OP90 andUtnisy odAgrculture - 63 -

Table S: Rural Road Improvementsand Related Page 3 of 3 Parametersfor EconomicEvaluation

Coa per 'rafto 'Agd Coot IToW Co"t |Ppulon OjICU=Z Stwidwd 1 KUf MD) Ipd) par aDm) perKi (D1) |swd PWadNl&NVaG I A N | A _UN IA 1N4 A 14 A A N A 3rd Ofoup Zaghouan 1StJouft RVE w36 tI N3 N3 24094 6053 8 429 20 094 2080 3 s5o 11620. Sidi Mrih 1 N3 Na 18932 41 786 132 480 S8tt 18632 49982 co8 4430 t 16a MC KhadhrA-Nadh 11 N3 NS 20 000 41741 42 130 20000 1o30 3200 1164 RIOIe23GqaroTbThf& IC N3 25081 128 331

Naboul 1104RVE 84 11D 13 143 14635 23614 250 1468 1660s 2820 1164 RVE t26 10 N3 N3 13204 43470 160- ; 9378 13204 44842 2080 1820 ttssGalay"uan 1D N3 N3 24694 32130 100 24 894 S80 1005 t16e R/5so0 1 N24 N2 18667 a1331 100 16867 800 2565

BSnAroun 182JebbeTuIt 1IE N3 N3 25 532 115601 800 82 302 26532 42 013 s8o 600 490 1163PFite Uornao 1 EN3 N3 29916 700 600 700 1325

Jandouba 136t SouaIaHanwd 4N3 N4 17948 209S 60 300 1794 4870 4000 13820. UobIz 4N3 N3 8706 37647 40 260 8706 1880 16S" t153 StdilbtLa NO 13 1648S 2269 40 250 1t458 1936 17S 11S7aA*acudha It N2 144 16926 52S84 so 200 10 104 6S92 42467 2290 14t0 ttSs Badrouna 1a N3 N3 20 000 60SW3 100 400 20000 2120 2840

96S Oum Ezzid 98s N4 N4 34293 60 2E0 34293 1416 2500 14t4 952 Dne BuAftld 9S N3 N3 19471 31 724 60 380 19471 31724 s6e W000 607 961 Bordl Baabala 98 N3 N3 15091 110 460 16091 689 3800 713 964 Oum1Hnl 98 N4 NO 39 60 40 180 30 600 S54 700 718 904S. Uanout 90 N3 NO 23 S6O 80 400 23500 133 4000 1799 905 Bezina Jbel Bougamino sc NO NO 17100 32266 70 350 17100 32265 1690 4000 1O03 90SbKd Grab 9C N3 N3 26500s0 600 2S600 1126 2600 2466 9s3 Jefta El Garbs C NO NS 166e7 60 00 s8867 689 2500 1116

Seja I2n2bKmarK iazouar 1 N2 N4 100o 31S 801 10000 7nO 1100 12St1Baldtmat a N14 N4 29429 3i247 > 100 2a429 3070 4380 1262Kew H4addad&La Fare NO 844 12138 47577 60-10C 12120 2330 3470 1253Ayayda Mergaga N3 N3 19373 41901 > 100 19373 2910 s5O6 1264T"tour-Ain Yount 2D N3 NO 14671 21 69g > 100 14671 760 2030 1256Ootgga4an&a MC Z N3 N4 9 60e 7817 > 100 5978 96s0 6613 2220 6000 1256RVE 704 -705 1 12 N2 14124 20915 50-10 14124 620 1800 267Grtch iEl Oued a N3 NO 13621 343s > 100 13621 1230 40t0 12J61HallSardoul 12E N3 N2 13661 25878 > 100 13ss1 1140 1470 1269 MedjezEl Bab Z N4 N4 3a272 610 7 60-1 38 272 2640 2260 1280tM 29 12i 13 N3 10 So 288 20 50-1 10 s5o 810 766 12e UC 131 E 12 NO N3 15 S13 34227 50-10( 16513 U2 1416

TOTAL _ o19OS3603 19 141 284 07S

A - at Apprai"ai N - Now

Source: OPGC andMin"lq otfAgzkulturo - 64 -

Table T: Miions Page 1 of 2

_- -__ _ = Month) No.of Days in Year StaH Fied SpecializationRepresented Pgs Nature of Problems

Trogh lin78 2 21 HighwayEngineer Appraisal Economist 6/79 2 17 HighwayEngineer Ecoomis 4180 2 22 HighwayEngineer Economist 6/80 3 1I HighwayEngineer Economit AgricultUralist 21.S 3 23 HighwayEngineer Economist Agronomist 5/S1 2 10 HighwayEngir Ecnomist

Apprs _thg6/81 4 18 HighwayEngineer BoaidAroal Economist Soiologist F;aCis Anayst 10/81 4 21 HighwayEnginor Economist Agricut. Ext Specislist Resarh Asistan 12/S1 1 6 Sociologist 1182 1 5 HighwayEngineer

9/82 4 12 HighwayEnginter I Economist(2) Agronomist 2/83 1 1 Highwa BEgier 2 Mnagemet 5lS3 3 2Z iphwayEaginer I Economist(2) 6S3 1 NA Agroist NA NA 3/84 4 10 ghway Engineer(2) 2 Disbu t Economist Finances Taffic Ssfety Expe Maagemen 8184 3 10 Highwa Engieer 2 Disbusemean Ecoomist Finac Traffic Safty Expert Manag_n| 10/84 2 4 Agronomist() NA NA 2/85 3 is Hgway Engineer 2 Disbrsemet Economist Finances Agronomist Managemen 9/s 3 20 Deuty Distict Chief 2 Didsbumut HigbwayEgieer Finan Economist Mnagmna 12/85 2 10 HighwayEnginr NA NA Ecoomist 7/86 2 13 HighwayEngineer 2 Funances Econmist Managemt 2187 3 i3 Depqy DivisionChif 2 Fnance Highway nin Mnagemet Economist 5/7 1 7 Fnanci Anslyst NA NA 7/87 2 5 Economit NA NA

_ _Agronomist I .

Note: Days in field ame based on acl days in field for thit participant in minsion who stayed the longest, not on days in field spen on the project. - 65 -

Table T: Missons Page 2 of 2

MonibI No.of Day in Yar Saff Filod Spetio R _praad R8tins NaUe of Pwblem

Apprsal thmugh 10/87 1 S HighwayEngucr NA NA BowsdApproval 2/88 2 10 Agroomist NA NA 3/88 1 9 HighwayEngier 2 Filn , Man _a s1/a8 3 14 Highwa Eqiar 2 Finances,Maageeut Economist(2) 2/89 3 9 Highwy Engiaer (2) NA NA Ecomit 3189 3 7 Hiway Engineer NA NA Economist(2) 11/89 2 1 1 Highwy Eagine 2 Fiaes Manageme aEosomist 2n90 1 5 Hlghway Enginee NA NA 5/90 2 5 Hghuwy Enginee 2 Finanes, Mangement Economist 9/90 1 6 HighwayEngineer NA NA 11/90 1 12 Higw Enginbeer NA NA 3191 1 6 Higway Egineer NA NA 6/91 1 13 HIghiy Engir NA NA 2/92 2 11 Highwy EBgie 2 Fr .Mansgemcm Economist

Soure: Bank filas

Note: Days in field arc based on actual days in field for that participant in mission who styed the longesl not on days in fidd spent on the projecL - 66 -

Table U: Staff Inputs (in person weeks)

Loan Preparation Appraisal Negotiations Processing Supervision PCR Total

To FY83 48.6 41.2 4.6 7.6 10.8 112.8 FY 84 5.3 5.3 85 .3 11.8 12.1 86 .2 6.0 6.2 87 1.2 10.1 11.3 88 7.6 7.6 89 6.9 6.9 90 8.2 8.2 91 3.7 3.7 92 1.7 1.1 93 8 8.0

Totat 8. 41.2 4.6 9.3 72.1 a 183.8

Source: Bank Files I11 I j11 ,: j X~~~~~~~~~~~Ia l EL 1g1 I I I ~~~~~~~i , ~~I

0 Iw I rl {9HIj I I11 !l -"$ l l telS1 | I I j - _~~~~~~~WIS*W

!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iW MR41:

j 1 i I-Im" -1191.aInp;mpS~~~~~~~~~~~s--: 1 _'l .: II a I III Iii -___ .~~*± . K;__ u .w.3 npaq3S uops"mald!~~~5, ' _~~~~~~~~ _ U*Ss -- -- I------B; i gE i 1' i i |i 1| E; sZ i,

-I ------I ----'- -- - i ------

ik~~~~~~~~~~*I

- * ------1------,-- - -

_T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--t------~~~~~~~~~~~______------_____.__1------______------____.__-______d______._aX__ 1- ---.--- - -t- - L ------i ------l'------x - ---- t------j------

.,.t,. ______a-a ------_____. ------_ X -!!!---!t------

~~~~~St------__ ~,i------o ------_----_-______a------______1j!',~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------_a ------e 1 .5------

" !.i....ee e.e e..e....- _ 30'30 I-I'W tOS ~~~~~353 f-O' V30C TUNISIA FIFTHHIGHWAY PROJECT (RURALROADS) 370OW -37'

36s30' 36Ž30-

3500'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OMA CON/X<'AND

34' 037~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3-0- IN) ;X .s t /''s---Z 1ZR \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a ,{ n CWSXX .. ./7 /Sg \ A - 4 w-.. ab \ 'SX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OAS

y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CMiSALTWAYIRLIMIS dosm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> - - oo-19

\ .'K> -_ W.

- 5- - ALGIlI /, ,. f

WI DAX 0 93'X 900' 9-30

10 20 J0 40 SolEE f LUNISIA o N,,,3- ;< LIB_A%RY . g$-

, 2 ALGERIA ,,,t,>_~

/ sw"~ - TS< | ) LIBYA

OD