Balochistan Water Resources Development Project – Mula River

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

Project Number: 48098-001 November 2018

Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Balochistan Water Resources Development Project (Financed by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction)

Pre-Feasibility Report – Mula River Basin

Prepared by: Techno-Consult International (Pvt.) Ltd. (Water Division)

Karachi, Pakistan

For: Irrigation Department, Government of Balochistan, Pakistan

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

The Government of Balochistan

Balochistan Water Resources Development Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (TA 8800-PAK)

PREFEASIBILITY REPORT OF MULA RIVER BASIN 20th October, 2017

i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 1 Background of BWRDP and the PPTA Assignment ...... 1 Mula River Basin ...... 2 Potential for Water Resources Development in Mula River Basin ...... 2 PPTA Scope of Services ...... 3 Outline of the Report ...... 4 2 Methodology ...... 6 Option Study – Selection of River Basin and Sub-projects ...... 6 LAR and Social Reconnaissance/Screening Surveys ...... 6 Field Surveys and Investigations by the Design Team ...... 7 Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations ...... 8 Existing and Proposed Irrigated Agriculture ...... 8 Land Capability Assessment and Soil and Water Quality ...... 9 Initial Engineering Design of Sub-Projects ...... 9 Existing and Proposed Cropping Pattern ...... 9 Existing and Proposed Cropping Intensity ...... 9 Rapid Environmental Assessment ...... 10 Engineering Estimates ...... 11 Economic and Financial Analysis ...... 11

3 Study Results – Mula River Basin ...... 12 Current Water Balance of Mula River Basin ...... 12 Selected Sub-Projects ...... 12 Water Availability of Potential Sub-Projects ...... 12 Water Required for Development of Sub-projects in BWRDP and Pipeline Sub- projects ...... 13 Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations ...... 13 Agriculture and Watersheds ...... 14 Gender Aspects in Mula River Basin ...... 14 Potential Impacts Assessment for Mula River Basin ...... 15 Rapid Environmental Assessment ...... 16 Layout Plan, Initial Design and Engineering Estimates of Potential Sub-projects .. 16 Economic and Financial Analysis ...... 17 Analysis of Targets Accomplished ...... 17

4 Study Results – Sub-Project Level ...... 20 Churri infiltration gallery Sub-project ...... 20 Pashta khan & Garambowad Sub-project ...... 33 Karkh River Development Sub-Project ...... 48 Kharzan Hatachi Core Sub-project...... 63 Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali Perennial Irrigation Sub-project ...... 76 5 Water Availability and Crop Water Requirement of Sub-Projects ...... 88

ii List of Tables Table 1: Water balance available in the current scenario for Mula river basin ...... 2 Table 2: Schedule I water sector projects requiring an IEE ...... 10 Table 3: Schedule II water sector projects requiring an EIA ...... 10 Table 4: Balance water available in current scenario for Mula river basin ...... 12 Table 5: Surface water available for the potential sub-projects using ArcSWAT Model ...... 12 Table 6: Water balance of Mula river basin in post-BWRDP and post-pipeline sub-projects 13 Table 7: Land use wise area under sub-projects of Mula river basin (ha) ...... 14 Table 8: Environmental categorization of sub-projects in Mula river basin ...... 16 Table 9: Design features of five sub-projects in the Mula river basin ...... 16 Table 10: Estimated cost and target of selected sub-projects in Mula river basin ...... 18 Table 11: Cost of development of sub-projects in Mula River basin sub-projects ...... 19 Table 12: Economic analysis of selected sub-projects ...... 19 Table 13: Salient features - Churri infiltration gallery sub-project ...... 21 Table 14: Initial cost estimate for Churri infiltration gallery sub-project ...... 22 Table 15: Demography of Churri infiltration gallery sub-project ...... 22 Table 16: Areal Mean Annual Rainfall in mm- Mula River Basin (1980-2014) ...... 23 Table 17: Involuntary resettlement impact categorization checklist ...... 24 Table 18: Indigenous peoples impact categorization form ...... 25 Table 19: Environmental checklist for Churri infiltration gallery sub-project ...... 26 Table 20: Total area and cost of Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation sub- project ...... 35 Table 21: Salient features of Pashta Khan ...... 35 Table 22: Salient features of Garambowad ...... 35 Table 23: Initial cost estimate for Pashta Khan and Garambowad sub-project ...... 35 Table 24: Demography of the sub-project area ...... 36 Table 25: Involuntary resettlement impact categorization checklist ...... 37 Table 26: Indigenous peoples impact categorization form ...... 38 Table 27: Environmental checklist for Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation sub-project ...... 39 Table 28: Salient features - Karkh river core sub-project ...... 52 Table 29 Initial cost estimate – Karkh river core sub-project ...... 52 Table 30: Demography of Karkh River irrigation sub-project area ...... 52 Table 31: Involuntary resettlement impact categorization checklist ...... 53 Table 32: Indigenous peoples impact categorization form ...... 54 Table 33: Environmental checklist for Karkh irrigation sub-project...... 56 Table 34: Salient features - Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery sub-project ...... 65 Table 35: Initial cost estimate for Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery sub-project ...... 65 Table 36: Demography of core sub-project ...... 66 Table 37: Involuntary Resettlement Impact Categorization Checklist ...... 67 Table 38: Indigenous Peoples Impact Categorization Form ...... 68 Table 39: Environmental checklist for Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery sub-project ...... 69 Table 40: Salient features - Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project ... 78 Table 41: Initial cost estimate for Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project ...... 78 Table 42: Demography of Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project ...... 79 Table 43: Involuntary resettlement impact categorization checklist ...... 80 Table 44: Indigenous Peoples Impact Categorization Form ...... 80 iii Table 45: Environmental checklist for Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub- project ...... 82 Table 46: Analysis of Water Availability and Crop Water Requirement ...... 88

List of Figures Figure 1: Location and spatial spread of 5 sub-projects in the Mula river basin ...... 5 Figure 2: Location of existing infiltration gallery ...... 20 Figure 3: Unlined channel in the command area ...... 20 Figure 4: Churri infiltration gallery sub-project - Layout plan ...... 29 Figure 5: Channel typical cross sections ...... 30 Figure 6: Fall structure - Typical plan and sections ...... 31 Figure 7: Infiltration gallery – Plan & sections ...... 32 Figure 8: River Bed at Pashta Khan ...... 34 Figure 9: Earthen channel ...... 34 Figure 10: Lined channel ...... 34 Figure 11: Existing Ganda ...... 34 Figure 12: Earthen channel ...... 34 Figure 13: Existing pipe aqueduct ...... 34 Figure 14: Existing water storage pond ...... 34 Figure 15: Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation sub-project – layout plan .... 42 Figure 16: Typical section of weir ...... 43 Figure 17: Typical section of off-take well...... 44 Figure 18: Channel typical cross sections ...... 45 Figure 19: Typical section glacis fall structure ...... 46 Figure 20: Typical section of time division structure ...... 47 Figure 21: View of Wanderi Weir ...... 49 Figure 22: View of damage portion of Chutta weir ...... 49 Figure 23: View of Khadri weir ...... 50 Figure 24: Location of proposed infiltration gallery at Jhalaro PIS ...... 50 Figure 25: View of Acherwand weir ...... 50 Figure 26: View of channel off-take point of Acherwand weir ...... 50 Figure 27: View of Sinjori weir ...... 51 Figure 28: Karkh river development sub-project – layout plan ...... 58 Figure 29: Typical section of weir ...... 59 Figure 30: Infiltration gallery – plan & sections ...... 60 Figure 31: Channel typical cross sections ...... 61 Figure 32: Fall structure - typical plan and sections ...... 62 Figure 33: Structure of the sub-project ...... 64 Figure 34: Existing channel and bifurcation ...... 65 Figure 35: Existing gabion wall ...... 65 Figure 36: Discussion with farmers in Kharzan...... 69 Figure 37: Discussion with farmers in Hatachi ...... 69 Figure 38: Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery sub-project – layout plan ...... 72 Figure 39: Infiltration gallery typical cross section ...... 73 Figure 40: Channel typical cross section ...... 74 Figure 41: Fall structure - typical plan and sections ...... 75 iv Figure 42: Ganda at Manyalo ...... 77 Figure 43: Channel at Raiko ...... 77 Figure 44: Channel at Manyalo ...... 77 Figure 45: Stream alignment in 2004 (on left) & 2016 (on right) ...... 77 Figure 46: Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project - layout plan ...... 84 Figure 47: Typical cross section of weir ...... 85 Figure 48: Channel typical sections ...... 86 Figure 49: Fall structure - typical plan and sections ...... 87

Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank BWRDP Balochistan Water Resources Development Project BID Balochistan Irrigation Department CFSR Climate Forecast System Reanalysis CN Curve Number DEM Digital Elevation Model EA Executing Agency ET Evapotranspiration FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FDRM Flood and Drought Risk Management GOB Government of Balochistan Irrigation Department GIS Geographical Information System GLC Global Land Cover HRUs Hydrologic Response Units HWSD Harmonized World Soil Data IRBM Integrated River Basin Management IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management MCM Million Cubic Meter PPTA Project Preparatory Technical Assistance SCS Soil Conservation Services SOLAWC Soil Available Water Capacity SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool TA Technical Assistance TCI Techno Consult International USDA-ARS United States Department of Agriculture-Agriculture Research Services 1

1 Introduction Background of BWRDP and the PPTA Assignment

Balochistan is an arid region characterized by low rainfall and frequent dry spells and persistent droughts. The scarcity of water is one of the most critical issues of Balochistan. Despite being the country’s largest province in terms of geographical area, Balochistan is facing acute water scarcity. The increase in population and demand for economic development has resulted in indiscriminate abstraction of groundwater, which is only 9% of total water resource available in Balochistan. Now the deep groundwater is being used through drilling of tubewells up to a depth of 300 m and water table is lowering at a rate of 2- 6 m per annum. The lowering of water table and groundwater depletion is basin specific and even within basin, some of the sub-basins outside national electric grid have potential for further development of groundwater. Situation is rather critical in basins within national electric grid, where water table is lowering at a rapid rate and depletion is posing serious concerns.

The Government of Balochistan (GoB) intends to address issue of water scarcity and management of scarce water resources in fragile environments of province in an integrated manner and at same time develop new livelihoods using available surface water resources. This will reduce dependence on scarce and diminishing groundwater resources with support of Asian Development Bank (ADB) through formulation of Balochistan Water Resources Development Project (BWRDP) for the Zhob and Mula river basins.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has signed a contract with Techno Consult International (TCI) for the implementation of project preparatory technical assistance under the ADB PPTA-8800 (PAK) for the BWRDP’ under the guidance of the Government of Balochistan (GoB) through the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (GoP).

Pre-feasibility report of sub-projects in the Mula river basin include one core sub- project and four sub-projects. The Balochistan Irrigation Department (BID) is executing agency (EA) and On-farm Water Management (OFWM) Directorate General of the Balochistan Agriculture and Cooperative Department (ACD) is implementing agency (IA).

The indicative outcome of BWRDP is to improve land and water resources, agricultural production and farm income of 7559 rural households by: (i) bringing 5927 ha of new lands under cultivation; (ii) improving 9893 ha of existing irrigated lands in terms of land and water; and (iii) protecting 4410 ha of watersheds; and (iv) 130 ha of high value agriculture on solar-powered drip irrigation. The project will: (a) construct a new water storage dam and Spate irrigation sub-projects (floodwater); (b) improve 276 km of canals, drains, and Karez (subsurface water channels); (c) develop a satellite-based water information system; and (d) build capacity of the local communities, the ID and ACD selected river basins and potential sub-projects.

In the beginning of PPTA Assignment, EA identified four river basins (Hingol, Pishin, Mula and Zhob) for selection of two potential river basins, where process for pre-feasibility of sub-projects can be initiated. Therefore, a basin selection criteria referred as Stage #1 criteria was developed [for details see Report on the Basin and Sub-project Selection Process and Criteria]. Out of the four river basins, Zhob and Mula river basins were selected for the pre-feasibility and feasibility studies.

Based on five stage criteria developed, within Mula river basin four stage process (from Stage #2 to Stage #5) for selection of sub-projects for pre-feasibility and feasibility was developed [for details see Report on the Basin and Sub-project Selection Process and Criteria]. Finally following five sub-projects were selected for pre-feasibility in Mula river basin:  Churri perennial irrigation sub-project (infiltration gallery)  Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation sub-project 2

 Karkh River core sub-project (perennial)  Kharzan Hatachi core sub-project (infiltration gallery)  Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project

The report covers pre-feasibility of 5 sub-projects and farmers’ managed irrigation schemes of Mula river basin, which along with sub-projects of Zhob river basin would constitute BWRDP. The cost of high ranking 9 sub-projects from Zhob and Mula river basins for BWRDP is US$ 93.30 million, whereas cost of 5 sub-projects and farmers’ managed irrigation schemes for Mula river basin is US$ 30.46 million.

From selected 5 sub-projects of Mula river basin, 1Karkh River core sub-project and 2 Kharzan Hatachi perennial irrigation sub-project (infiltration gallery) were selected as core sub-projects for which feasibility and engineering design was undertaken.

Mula River Basin

Mula River originates from peaks of Herboi Mountains in Kalat district. It carves its course through hilly terrain and runs through plains of Jhal Magsi till it drains out into Hammal Lake at Shambani. Total length of Mula River is 301 km and elevation ranges between 2,500 m to 47 m from head to tail. The river basin covers 15,082 km2. Mula river basin has adjacent boundaries of Kachhi river basin in north and east, Gaj river basin in south and Hingol and Pishin-Lora river basins in the west. The estimated annual water availability at 50% probability in Mula river basin is around 305 MCM [for details see Report on the Water Balance Study].

The Mula river basin lies in an arid region and rainfall pattern varies from Mediterranean to Monsoonal with mean rainfall varying between 110-250 mm per year. About 40-60% of rainfall occurs during July and August as basin lies in monsoon belt, while 20-30% rainfall occurs during January to April. Mean annual temperature varies from 13- 35°C. Winters are cold with temperature variation below freezing point and high wind velocity. Summers are hot and last from April to September.

Potential for Water Resources Development in Mula River Basin

A comprehensive study on ‘Water Balance’ was undertaken, which indicated that water resources of Mula river basin largely comprised of surface, groundwater and canal water from Indus basin irrigation system. The availability of surface water was estimated using ArcSWAT Model and comprised of internally generated runoff and base flow, as two components of surface water. Surface water and groundwater availability was assessed at sub-basin level using 50% probable rainfall because there was extremely high climatic variability in the incident rainfall [for details see Report of the ‘Water Balance Study’]. For pre-feasibility, surface water availability was estimated for selected sub-projects. Balance water available in current scenario for Mula river basin was estimated and presented in Table 1. The balance water available for future development indicated that there is an ample potential available for water development in basin. However, groundwater is overdrawn in some of sub-basins especially in areas having access to national electric grid, whereas some of sub-basins still have potential for development of groundwater in non-grid areas.

Table 1: Water balance available in the current scenario for Mula river basin Surface Water Groundwater Water Resource (MCM) Recharge (MCM) Internally generated surface water in the river basin 305 108

1 The Karkh River Development Core Sub-Project is a cluster of six perennial irrigation sub-projects. 2 Hitachi Kharzan is cluster of two perennial irrigation sub-projects. 3

Water allowance from Indus river system 82 15 Total water availability 387 123 Water use in Mula river 134 168 Water use from Indus 82 - Total water use 216 168 Balance water available for future development 171 -45

PPTA Scope of Services

The general scope of services of PPTA BWRDP covers (a) rapid assessment of four rivers basins and selection of two rivers basins through screening, ranking and prioritization; (b) detailed assessment of selected two rivers basins; (c) preparing feasible subprojects within selected basins; and (d) developing detailed feasibility of high potential 2-3 core projects for implementation. The specific scopes of services are as follows: (i) collect all relevant available sectoral information including GoB’s development and investment plans, prefeasibility and feasibility studies, literature and other secondary data on water availability, uses and management; (ii) collect and provide all water related information that are required to develop satellite-based water information system for Balochistan; (iii) conduct desk study on agriculture, natural resources and rural development (ANR) sector’s situation analysis regarding social, economic and environmental water uses and its management and identify gaps; (iv) conduct rapid assessment of four rivers basins, develop screening, ranking and selection criteria for potential river basins and in consultation with GoB and other main stakeholders and using criteria select two main rivers basins for detailed assessment; (v) conduct hydrological studies at basin scales using water balance approach including flows, floods, sediment and water use analysis; (vi) review water resource development and investment plans, policy, water strategy and institutional efficiency; (vii) assess procurement, financial management, safeguards and implementation capacities of ID, ACD and GoB following ADB relevant guidelines; (viii) based on above submit inception report indicating analysis, gaps, needs and (ix) remedy as well as directions for further study; (x) identify potential projects/subprojects within selected basins and screen and rank them; (xi) carryout all type of surveys including topographic, soil and water quality, agriculture, water uses, social and gender, resettlement, environment and geotechnical investigations as needed; (xii) conduct detailed hydrological study on water availability for different probabilities, estimation of floods, and water diversion and drainage requirement as well as flood related studies for cross-drainage works as per need; (xiii) carryout climate change impact and vulnerability assessment in general and two basins in specific and suggest adaptation and/or mitigation measures, if any and associated cost; (xiv) prepare preliminary design, estimate cost and benefits and conduct economic and financial analysis of individual subprojects as well as for each basin-scale; (xv) prepare environmental assessment and review framework and resettlement frameworks; (xvi) bundle schemes/subprojects into sizeable, manageable and feasible core projects within river basins; (xvii) select top ranking 2-3 core projects of about $40-$50 million, conduct engineering design and detailed feasibility, prepare contract packages and bidding document; (xviii) prepare land acquisition and resettlement plan, gender action plan, environmental impact assessment of core projects; 4

(xix) feasibility studies of potential core subprojects within two selected river basins. The feasibility study will cover technical, economic and financial, safeguards, climate change, and governance related issues. (xx) prepare PC-1 for each core subproject; (xxi) assess EA’s capacity in financial management including integrity (money laundering and financing for terrorism), safeguards, procurement and implementation; and (xxii) conduct due diligence and assist EA and ADB in loan processing and preparation of relevant documents; (xxiii) prepare ToRs and implementation plan with timeframe, and recruit subcontractors as required. (xxiv) incorporate recommendations made by the Satellite-based water information system team in the final report.

Outline of the Report

The Pre-feasibility report comprised of four Chapters including Introduction, Methodology, Study Results at baseline level. In the Introduction chapter, the project background is presented along with an introduction to Mula river basin and its salient features. The Methodology Chapter presents approach and methodology used for conduct of various studies and investigations including sub-project selection process and criteria, water balance, soil and water quality, agriculture, climate change adaptations, environmental aspects, engineering studies, and financial and economic analysis. The Results are presented in two Chapters. Chapter #3 presents results of pre-feasibility studies carried out at basin level, whereas in Chapter #4 results of sub-projects are presented including preliminary layout and designs, economic and financial analysis, etc. The location and spatial spread of the five sub-projects selected for pre-feasibility study are presented in Figure 1. 5

Figure 1: Location and spatial spread of 5 sub-projects in the Mula river basin

2 Methodology

This Chapter provides information about approach and methodology used for conduct of surveys, investigations and studies under pre-feasibility of 5 sub-projects in Mula river basin.

Option Study – Selection of River Basin and Sub-projects

The selection of river basin and potential sub-projects for feasibility was based on 5 stage selection process and criteria [for details see the Report on ‘Basin and Sub-projects Selection Process and Criteria’]. The five stages of selection process are:

 Stage 1: Selection of potential river basins – EA identified four river basins out of which two river basins need to be selected based on availability of water and land for development of irrigation sub-projects. The criteria of investments made in river basins in last decade was also selected so that equity in distribution of benefits to communities can be maintained.  Stage 2: Preparation of longlist and preparation of shortlist of possible sub- projects from longlist – The stage #2 process started with collection of data of schemes from EA and IA. These schemes were documented in to a longlist comprising of 183 schemes for the Mula river basin. Out of these schemes the schemes having possibility of developing irrigated agriculture were selected and constituted a shortlist.  Stage 3: Selection of potential sub-projects from shortlist – In this stage, a detailed study was conducted using available data for sub-projects listed in shortlist using GIS and remotely sensed data and use of ArcSWAT Model for assessment of water availability at sub-project level. In this stage three criteria were used comprising of water availability using Model, available land from GIS/RS data and ratio of command and catchment area.  Stage 4: Selection of sub-projects from potential sub-projects – In this stage detailed integrated surveys, initial field investigations by engineering and agricultural specialists were undertaken. Based on a detailed and comprehensive selection criteria of water availability, land availability, number of households, willingness of communities, agriculture, soil, and economic and financial analysis of five sub-projects, sub-projects worth of US$ 30.46 million were selected.  Stage 5: Pre-Feasibility of sub-projects and selection of core sub-project – Out of the five sub-projects, two high ranking sub-projects were selected as core sub-projects worth of US$ 13.35 million for feasibility study.

LAR and Social Reconnaissance/Screening Surveys

The Sub-Consultant of PPTA3 carried out reconnaissance surveys of 39 shortlisted schemes by using FGD approach covering common aspects in terms of: a) Revenue Villages and settlements; b) scheme households; b) household and total population; c) education and health facilities; d) surface and groundwater resources; e) water supply and sanitation; f) water availability; g) land ownership and entitlements; h) water rights; i) social conflicts and conflicts on water; j) water and land availability; k) distribution of land owners and landless; l) livestock owners and land and livestock owners; m) community willingness to participate and organize themselves in different Farmer’s Organizations (FO)/Water User Associations (WUAs) in line with WUA Act, BIDA Act and CIFO Regulations (i.e. watershed, command area, Khushkaba farming, etc.); cost-sharing in sub-project development; n) ready to take over the O&M activity; o) ready to permit Warabandi (water schedule) under new

3 As per TOR of the PPTA Consultant, the PPTA Consultant hired the services of the Sub-Consultant to undertake the required Socio-Economic and resettlement surveys of the potential as well as selected sub- projects. 7 command area4; and p) issues faced and potential for water development and management and/or livelihood in potential sub-projects.

2.2.1 Community Consultations

Meaningful consultation was carried out at reconnaissance stage and after completing design layout, community consultations were organized to share pre-feasibility and design layout with community to seek their willingness regarding pre-feasibility and initial design of sub-project. Community was appraised regarding strengths and limitation of sub- project, availability of water and size of command area. The water distribution procedures including Warabandi system and allocation of water for sub-project were also discussed.

The issues related to water rights and land tenure were discussed with community and their willingness to share cost in some of interventions was also ensured. Finally, community as a whole was asked to ensure acceptance of layout and design of sub-project. In all selected sub-projects included in BWRDP from Mula river basins, there was no conflict on land and water.

Meaningful consultation as per ADB SPS was carried out; (a) once at reconnaissance stage and (b) second during detailed socio-economic baseline surveys. The second round of public consultations are substantiated with date, location and name of participants, their signatures/thumb impression and views. The outputs/results of these consultations will be reflected in PPTA under progress umbrella report i.e. “Poverty, Social & Gender Assessment”.

2.2.2 IR& IP Screening Surveys

IR and IP surveys as per ADB-SPS guidelines and standard checklists was carried out to assess categorization of sub-projects.

Field Surveys and Investigations by the Design Team

Field surveys and investigations were carried out for each sub-project site by field team of engineers, agricultural and watershed specialists and topographic surveyors to collect preliminary information required for pre-feasibility, and layout and design of each of sub-projects. Engineering surveys of initially selected sub-projects were conducted to assess water resources, topography, geology, accessibility, agriculture potential and existing structures. Typical features and suitability of each site was evaluated and based on evaluation sub-project was categorized. The aspects covered for each of sub-projects during the surveys are: existing infrastructure, feasible site location(s) for proposed intervention, appraisal of topographical constraints and agriculture potential, and assessment of available water at sub-project source.

The site suitable for development of water source was surveyed to explore possible options for layout and design of water development at site. The alternative options were discussed with community and EA engineers and on basis of source development plan, a sub-project was categorized as perennial irrigation or flood irrigation sub-project or sub- project having water from perennial and floodwater sources. On basis of intervention type, three types of sub-projects were considered and selected for: diversion weirs, off-take wells and infiltration galleries. The sub-projects mostly cover development of new command area and improvement in existing commands.

4 The concept of new command area is perceived wherever; the irrigation system does not exist and the area was not under command of any irrigation infrastructure. 8

Integrated land use including new command area, existing commands, watershed area, and khushkaba farming were assessed within a sub-project. Demarcation of command area and watershed area was done with help of engineering surveys and terrain analysis using GIS based imagery such as Digital Elevation Model (DEM). In each of sub-project, new and existing command area development, watershed management and khushkaba farming interventions were designed. Water assessment and water balance at sub-project level.

Surface water comprising of internally generated runoff and base flow and groundwater (in terms of recharge) were assessed using Arc-SWAT model [for details see ‘Water Balance Report’]. The surface water and groundwater availability at sub-basin level was estimated using 50% probable rainfall. Current water demand was estimated to determine potential water at basin level. Major sub-sectors of water use considered to estimate current water use are: agriculture; domestic; livestock; industrial and commercial; and minimal environmental flows. Agriculture is largest user of water in the basin.

For pre-feasibility studies, surface water availability for each sub-project was estimated using ArcSWAT model. The results from model were compared with measured flows collected by EA and verified using float method by engineering team in each of sub- project. The historical flows data collected by EA was also used to calibrate Model.

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations

The impacts of climate change were assessed under climate change study undertaken in PPTA Assignment at basin and sub-project levels. Hydrological modeling was undertaken for basin level for wet and dry years for selected climatic parameters and vulnerability analysis. The study proposed engineering and biophysical adaptations for mitigation of vulnerability associated with climate change in river basin and at level of sub- projects. The proposed engineering measures were considered and duly incorporated during planning and design of all sub-projects. The details of design adaptations and specific climate change interventions are discussed in feasibility reports.

Existing and Proposed Irrigated Agriculture

In integrated field surveys and surveys conducted by pre-feasibility team, Agricultural Specialist and Agricultural Engineer collected information related to crops, cropping patterns and cropping intensity. In addition, baseline information was collected regarding productivity and economics of crop production in context of developing farm budgets by Economist. Based on existing cropping pattern and cropping intensity, analysis was conducted regarding gross irrigation water demand for command area. Based on water demand and total water availability at head, design cropping intensity was formulated. The interventions related to various activities at farm and command level are:  Command area development covering aspects of: a) improvement and lining of main watercourse; b) farm and field layout using surface irrigation hydraulics; c) precision land levelling including Laser land levelling; d) installation of naccas, culverts, etc.  Kaccha tracks5 in command area roads to transport the products to nearby paved roads  Warabandi schedule for sub-project and water allocation time for each farm  Strengthening of local service providers (selected existing tractor rentals) for provision of services in land leveling, planting on beds and irrigation in furrows, harvesting, threshing, etc.  Strengthening of supply providers to supply quality inputs to farmers at fair prices and linkages with national companies

5 Kaccha Track is an unpaved road and it could be either new construction or rehabilitation depend on the sub- project. 9

 Integrated land use for watershed covering forest plants, arid fruit plants, shrubs and forages  Improvement of khushkaba farming system and design of runoff farming to enhance input of localized runoff to increase availability of water to crops, plants, shrubs and grasses  Integrated land use for watersheds covering forest plants, arid fruit plants, shrubs and forages under micro-catchments and storage of runoff in-situ.

Land Capability Assessment and Soil and Water Quality

Soil studies were carried out in field based on soil characteristics like soil texture, soil color, soil thickness of horizons/layers and pH according to Soil Survey Manual (USDA Handbook 18). Soil samples were also collected for laboratory analysis. Depth is an important function for selection of shallow and deep rooted crops. The other factors for decision making regarding design cropping pattern are: a) farmers preferences to ensure food security and cash crop to earn livelihood; and b) market demand so that what farmer grow can sell in market at a price to earn profit and optimize profit margins.

Water Samples were collected from selected sub-projects and analyzed for pH, soluble salts, cations, anions and RSC. Best practices were developed in relation to overall objectives of BWRDP to enhance income of household through enhanced productivity and production.

Initial Engineering Design of Sub-Projects

Initial engineering design of sub-projects is based on water availability, site topographical parameters, geological and geotechnical aspects, command area constraints and farmers’ willingness. The design layout included source development options and its initial design, irrigation distribution network along with hydraulic and social structures. The intervention types considered included: water storage dams, diversion weirs and off-take wells. The hydraulic design was followed for initial structural designs to prepare layout drawings and effective estimation of bill of quantities (BOQs) to compute infrastructure cost. This information was provided to Economist for detailed economic and financial analysis. The water conveyance system for command area was planned as a network of canals, watercourses and field channels. The canal design was based largely on topography, water demand, layout of command area and highest field in command area. Cross drainage structures, where necessary, were designed and sited in the initial design.

Existing and Proposed Cropping Pattern

Baseline surveys were conducted while undertaking integrated field surveys and investigations made by Agriculture Specialist and Agricultural Engineer. These surveys provided information regarding crops and cropping pattern in each of sub-project selected for pre-feasibility. Based on existing cropping patterns, farmers preferences and options available for introducing high value crops a design cropping pattern was developed. During community consultations, design cropping pattern was shared with farmers in selected sub- projects and their willingness and acceptance was ensured.

Existing and Proposed Cropping Intensity

Baseline surveys were conducted while undertaking integrated field surveys and investigations made by Agriculture Specialist and Agricultural Engineer. These surveys provided information regarding crops and cropped area under both rabi and kharif seasons. Based on existing crops and cropping patterns, cropping intensity was computed for both crop seasons. Cropping intensity in a given season is computed using cropped area under a given sub-project or farm divided by sub-project command area or farm area. Multiplying this 10 with 100, one gets cropping intensity in percent. Adding seasonal cropping intensity, cropping intensity on annual basis was computed at sub-project level. During community consultations, design cropping intensity was shared with farmers in selected sub-projects and their willingness and acceptance was ensured.

Rapid Environmental Assessment

The ADB requires consideration of environmental issues in all aspects of Bank’s operations. The requirements for environmental assessment are described in ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS), 2009. Environmental assessment at basin level was undertaken using ADB’s Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) checklist for irrigation including five selected sub-projects for pre-feasibility. As per ADB SPS, subprojects or standalone projects are screened according to type, location, scale, and sensitivity and magnitude of their potential environmental impacts, including direct, indirect, induced, and cumulative impacts. Sub-Project or standalone Projects are classified into following four categories: ‘Category A’: A proposed project is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are irreversible, diverse, or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area larger than sites or facilities subject to physical works. EIA including EMP is required. ‘Category B’: The proposed project’s potential adverse environmental impacts are site-specific, few if any of them are irreversible, and in most cases mitigation measures can be designed more readily than for category A projects. IEE including EMP is required. ‘Category C’: A proposed project is likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts. An EIA or IEE is not required, although environmental implications need to be reviewed. ‘Category FI’. A proposed project involves investment of ADB funds to or through a financial intermediary. The financial intermediary must apply and maintain an environmental and social management system, unless all of financial intermediary's business activities have minimal or no environmental impacts or risks.

Accordingly, an environmental assessment using Balochistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (Amended 2013) IEE and EIA for Irrigation, as given in Table 2 and Error! Reference source not found., was conducted. The environmental assessment equirements of Balochistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (Amended 2013) are different from those of ADB. The GoB environmental regulations categorize development projects into two schedules, according to their anticipated potential environmental impact. The proponents of sub-projects with potential for more adverse environmental impacts (Schedule II) are required to submit EIA. While, for proponents of sub-projects with potential for less environmental impact (Schedule I), must submit an IEE with respective EPA. The Schedules area as follows:

Table 2: Schedule I water sector projects requiring an IEE Water Management, Dams, Irrigation and Dams and reservoirs with storage volume less than 50 m3 Flood Protection or surface area less than 8 km2. Irrigation and drainage projects serving less than 15000 ha. Small-scale irrigation systems with total cost of less than Rs. 50 million.

Table 3: Schedule II water sector projects requiring an EIA Water Management, Dams, Irrigation and Dams and reservoirs with storage volume of 50 m3 and Flood Protection above or surface area of 8 km2 and above. Irrigation and drainage projects serving 15000 ha and above. Environmentally Sensitive Areas All projects situated in environmentally sensitive areas

According to regulations, if sub-project situated near environmentally sensitive area and cost as per conceptual design is greater than Rs. 50 million then EIA is required.

Engineering Estimates

After layout and initial structural design of infrastructure of a selected sub-project, a detailed Bill of Quantities (BOQ) was prepared. Rate analysis was carried out for major items of BOQ to find prevailing rates in basin and at sub-project level in Balochistan. For this purpose, prevailing market rates were used and compared with similar projects to establish item rates used for preparation of cost estimates. Typical rates for various structures have been adopted, which are based on market rates for labor and construction material in a given sub-project. Engineering estimates were developed for each sub-project using layout and standard designs for computation of detailed BOQs and markets rates. The infrastructure cost was provided to Economist for detailed economic and financial analysis at sub-project level.

Economic and Financial Analysis

The economic and financial analysis was carried out using economic and financial prices using price datum, exchange rate and standard conversion factor (SCF) parameters. The financial prices have been shadow priced to remove distortions on account of taxes and subsidies as well as shortages or surpluses of labor and materials. Based on component wise agronomic data related to present and future cropping intensity, crop yields and associated crop inputs, crop budgets under “with” and “without project” scenarios of economic and financial; prices were prepared. Gross value production, cost of production, net value production and incremental benefits were computed by multiplying respective acreage under “without” and “with” project scenarios.

Total economic benefits comprised of two elements: livestock and crops benefits. The stream of total economic benefits was constructed until year 30. It is important to mention that individual components of benefits stream showed increase in view of annual rate of growth of human and livestock population, which was taken as 2.3 and 2.9 percent, respectively. Due to higher levels of human and livestock population, benefits are projected over 30 years’ time period of project time horizon. The benefit stream gone up over time in view of increase in human population, animal population and irrigated crop income all of which were rising annually. Data on current cropping patterns, cropping intensities, crop yields and by-products, and farm gate prices were collected under various surveys including integrated surveys:  Interactive group dialogues at sub-project level using a pre-tested checklist;  Semi-structured interviews using a sample size of 35% of total households for socioeconomic baseline and other indicators.

Based on outcome of integrated field surveys, quantified benefits of various land uses at each of sub-project were estimated covering: irrigated commands; watersheds and groundwater recharge; and khushkaba farming. The implementation of sub-project would result in increased crop production, by having increase in cropping intensity from as low as 40% to 120% and improvement in yield per ha. The benefits from forest, arid fruits and forages were also taken in to account. Moreover, economic analysis of selected sub-projects was carried out by translating benefits into monetary terms. To be realistic, sub-project returns were assessed at their true value to national economy rather than more profitability to farmer.

The IRR was estimated through cost and benefits streams, calculating net cash flow and using IRR function to calculate IRR. Two sets of sub-project benefits data were used and calculated at financial and economic prices.

3 Study Results – Mula River Basin Current Water Balance of Mula River Basin

Balance water available in current scenario for Mula river basin is presented in Table 4. The model results along with water balance computations are presented in ‘Water Balance Report for Zhob and Mula river basins’.

Table 4: Balance water available in current scenario for Mula river basin Surface Water Groundwater Water Resource (MCM) Recharge (MCM) Internally generated surface water in the basin 305 108 Water allowance from Indus basin irrigation system 82 15 Total water availability 387 123 Water use of Mula river basin 134 168 Water use from Indus basin irrigation system 82 - Total water use 216 168 Balance available for future development 171 -45

Selected Sub-Projects

Based on five stage selection process, following five sub-projects, valued at US$ 30.46 million were selected for pre-feasibility study:  Churri perennial irrigation sub-project (infiltration gallery)  Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation sub-project  Karkh River core sub-project (perennial)  Kharzan Hatachi core sub-project (infiltration gallery)  Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project

Karkh River core sub-project and Kharzan Hatachi core sub-project were selected valued at US$ 13.35 million. Feasibility and engineering design will be carried out for two core sub-projects, and are duly submitted as separate reports. The details of pre-Feasibility studies for sub-projects covering various aspects discussed in Chapter #2 are presented in Chapter #4. The summary of the pre-feasibility results at basin level are presented in following sections.

Water Availability of Potential Sub-Projects

Measured data is not available at points where water is to be diverted for meeting demand for sub-project. The surface water was estimated at a particular node of sub-project using catchment area as an input to Arc SWAT Model (Table 5).

Table 5: Surface water available for the potential sub-projects using ArcSWAT Model No Sub-project Name Surface Water Availability for Sub-Projects (MCM)* 1 Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali PIS 105.77 2 Pashta Khan & Garambowad PIS 14.24 3 Balina Hassoi PIS 116.15 4 Kharzan Hatachi Infiltration Gallery 125.75 5 Bulbul FIS 2.05 6 Churri Infiltration Gallery 37.58 7 Jehan Bent PIS 134.34 8 Sehrki FIS 1.27 9 Shakrani FIS 1.5 10 Mishk Sarap Dam 3 11 Zebra PIS 142 12 Kandh PIS 142.50 13 Haddi PIS 142.67 14 Karkh 20

*NOTE: The values in the table shows the gross water available at a particular sub-project location. However, the proposed water use at any location will decrease the water available at downstream locations. Accordingly, an integrated approach has been adopted for proposing water use at each sub-project location.

Water Required for Development of Sub-projects in BWRDP and Pipeline Sub-projects

Water required to irrigate new command area of 5 sub-projects was estimated as 15.2 MCM based on design cropping intensity of 120%. The current availability of surface water in pre-BWRDP scenario for future development of water in river basin is 171 MCM based on internally generated surface water and current utilization. The additional water required to irrigate new commands of five sub-projects is around 15.2 MCM, which is comprised of 6.9 MCM for Churri Sub-project, 2.9 MCM for Pashta Khan & Garambowad PIS, 0.8 MCM for Karakh River sub-project, 1 MCM for Kharzan Hatachi and 3.6 MCM for Manyalo Raiko Sub-project. Currently, no other water sector development project is under implementation in river basin besides Naulong dam, requiring 116.8 MCM of surface water to meet demand of command area using high efficiency surface irrigation systems. This results in balance of 85.6 MCM of surface water for future development of water in basin. Therefore, surplus water available to farmers in wet years would motivate farmers to increase cropping intensity. Potential for future development in Mula River basin is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Water balance of Mula river basin in post-BWRDP and post-pipeline sub- projects Description Estimated Water Availability (MCM) Existing Scenario – Pre-BWRDP Estimated water availability in Mula river basin 305 Existing surface water use within Mula river basin 134 Existing balance of water in Pre-BWRDP scenario 171 Future Scenario – Post-BWRDP Water required for BWRDP sub-projects excluding existing uses 15.2 Potential for water development in post-BWRDP scenario 155.8 Future Scenario – Post-Naulong Dam Water required to irrigate the command area of Naulong Dam 116.8 including existing uses Existing water uses within the designed commands of Naulong 46.6 dam Water withdrawal from Mula river basin in post-BWRDP and 219.4 post-Naulong dam scenario Balance water available in Post-Naulong dam scenario 85.6

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations

Based on the climate change study report:  Climatic trends quantified using statistics and modeling yields bring variety of results. The results show some similarities as well as discrepancies among parameters, both spatially and temporally. Briefly describing historic data analysis, results for Mula watershed shows decrease in maximum temperature and more frequent floods in watershed. The future climatic trends using Global Circulation Model (GCM) data are included in the Feasibility Report.  The potential changes in climate can cause multiple effects on watersheds. It is anticipated that Mula watershed might face more flash floods in future which is a blessing if that water can be captured for beneficial use. Presence of excess water needs to be taken care off and taken possible advantages also.

Agriculture and Watersheds

Command area development is included as an integral part of all sub-projects: a) watercourse improvement and lining; b) precision land levelling; c) farm and field layout using surface irrigation hydraulics; d) kaccha tracks for disposal of produce; e) service and supply providers and strengthening; f) productivity enhancement demonstrations; and g) social organization and capacity building of male and women organizations.

Watershed development activities under a sub-project included development of earthen micro-catchments (eyebrow terraces), digging of pits, addition of compost, and termite treatment and plantation of timber/forest/arid fruits trees, shrubs and grasses. In steep slope areas, eyebrows will be strengthened using loose stones. As far as possible, check structures and gabion structures must be avoided and only incorporated in critical locations. One has to keep in mind that structural interventions can’t be translated in enhanced income as farmers and BWRDP’s prime objective is to enhance household income from agriculture and watershed management. Water storage ponds will be developed to furnish water for establishing surface cover (plantation of trees, shrubs and grasses) and recharge to groundwater.

The proposed and existing command areas in selected sub-projects are given in Table 7. It is expected that in command area of sub-projects, cropping intensity of 120 percent would be achieved within initial 2-3 years after operation of irrigation sub-project. The design cropping pattern also included high value crops, fruits and vegetables based on local environments. The strengthening of local service and supply providers would provide input for enhancing productivity rather water productivity. Farmers training and capacity building would also help farmers to plan and manage farm as a business and enhance their profit margins.

Table 7: Land use wise area under sub-projects of Mula river basin (ha) Watershed Khushkaba Total Irrigated Area No. Sub-Project Area Area Area New Improved 1 Churri Sub-project 685 115 8 350 1158 2 Pashta Khan & Garambowad 377 456 6 50 889 Sub-project 3 Karkh River core sub-project 250 2,000 210 75 2535 4 Kharzan Hatachi Core Sub- 106 575 85 378 1144 project 5 Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali 364 314 13 425 116 Sub-project 6 Improvement of Farmers ’ - 2250 - - 2250 Managed Schemes Total 1,782 8,710 321 1278 9091

Gender Aspects in Mula River Basin

The status of women in rural Balochistan, as for rest of villages in Pakistan, is acutely disadvantaged. Women bear high share of poverty burden; have unequal access to economic options and social services lower endowments of land and other productive assets. Women are severely hindered in their horizontal and vertical social mobility. Gender discrimination has become an issue in Pakistan with many Government and non- Government organizations working to resolve issues within last decade however situation does not seem changing due to man dominated family and tribal system. Like any other parts of Pakistan, women in Balochistan commonly face problems in family law, discrimination at work place, discrimination in education, physical or psychological abuse, and social restrictions. The literacy rate and school enrolment ratio of girls in province is very low, with girls remaining at home to complete domestic works with mother including fetching of water, take care of livestock and helping their families in works related to farming. 15

3.7.1 IR and IP screening surveys

IR and IP assessment was carried out and as per ADB-SPS guidelines and standard checklists. The survey indicates that all selected sub-projects in Mula River basin are falling in Category C with respect to IR and IP. The sub-project wise IR and IP status is discussed in section-4 of this pre-feasibility report. The proposed engineering works are of rehabilitation of existing irrigation infrastructure and shall be restricted to existing available RoW. In rare case, change in alignment was unavoidable, LARF for BWRDP in place and BID shall follow guideline envisaged in framework.

Census surveys were carried out in command of each sub-project and briefly discussed in respective section of each sub-project with their population and tribal structure. The details are in PPTA “Poverty, Social and Gender Assessment Report”. In Mula river basin, communities in each sub-project area is of homogenous form, they are Muslims and belonging to Baloch ethnic group. There is no community to be declared as IP having unique identity, culture or language as defined in ADB SPS. Therefore; these communities does not qualify for IP.

Potential Impacts Assessment for Mula River Basin

The potential impacts assessment is only possible for selected 2 core sub-projects where engineering design outline is available. In case of non-core sub-projects, if required; this kind of impacts assessment will be carried out during feasibility/detailed design of sub- projects. As at this stage, there is no design outline and accurate assessment is not possible. In case, if there are any such impacts, are to be mitigated in respective IEE reports to be prepared during detailed design of sub-projects. The brief impacts assessment for sub-projects in Mula River basin are discussed as follows.

Change in alignment

The proposed engineering works for Karkh River core sub-project is to rehabilitate existing irrigation infrastructure. As shown in site specific pictures (Annex-Y), the proposed rehabilitation works will be confined to existing ROWs. The construction of new canals/irrigation structures or change of alignment will not be involved. As discussed earlier and in respective sections, following this approach, rehabilitation and of subproject is not expecting to have any physical or economic displacement, therefore, there is no possibility of land acquisition (temporary or permanent) and consequently no involuntary resettlement impacts are anticipated thus subprojects are classified as Category "C” for IR.

Contractor’s camp

As a normal practice experienced by EA over previous Government and donor funded projects, Contractor uses a rented building in nearest town as a Main Camp for accommodating his staff and storage of construction material. The temporary site camp is used only for completion of specific section works of channel and required construction material placement on daily basis, which requires total area not more than 500 ft2. The required area is available and people is willing to provide free of cost.

Construction machinery

In case of Karkh River and Kharzan Hatachi core sub-projects, major engineering works are lining of existing irrigation channels; therefore; heavy machinery is not required. Mostly access routes developed by farmers to their farms are available for use by Contractors. In case of command area development, existing alignment for each agriculture farm is available and EA/Contractor’s work shall be confined to existing RoW. In case of Karkh River and Kharzan Hatachi core sub-projects, major engineering works are lining of 16 existing irrigation channels; therefore; heavy machinery is not required. Mostly access routes developed by farmers to their farms are available for use by Contractors.

Command area development

In case of Karkh and Kharzan Hatachi core sub-projects, command area development works shall be carried out on existing alignment. New interventions are not envisaged.

Watershed management

The proposed watershed and rangeland development works are carried out in consultation with communities in upstream or anywhere (to be identified during feasibility/detailed design stage) in vicinity of sub-project where there are no settlements, agriculture or any commercial activity. The scope of watershed interventions are limited to construction of small check dams (height will not be more than 5ft) earth fill or stone masonry and plantation of saplings. As experienced over the World Bank funded Balochistan Small Scale Irrigation Project (BSSIP) 2009-2014, watershed component shall be carried out through participatory approach (establishment of Village Watershed Committees-VWCs) on communal lands not used for agriculture or any other commercial/beneficial uses. The land ownership will remain with famers not EA/GoB.

Rapid Environmental Assessment

REA for irrigation sub-projects was undertaken using a checklist and sub-projects were categorized in terms of categories related to conduct of IEE or EIA as per ADB’s Guidelines and Pakistan Environment Regulations 2000 for IEE/EIA (Table 8).

Table 8: Environmental categorization of sub-projects in Mula river basin No. Sub-Project Intervention Categorization ADB’s Pakistan Guidelines Regulations Churri Sub-project Infiltration Gallery Category – B IEE 2 Pashta Khan & Weir and Off-take Well Category – B IEE Garambowad Sub-project 3 Karkh River Core Sub- Rehabilitation and improvement of Category – B IEE project Irrigation Network 4 Kharzan Hatachi Core Sub- Infiltration Gallery Category – B IEE project 5 Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali Weir Category – B IEE Sub-project

Layout Plan, Initial Design and Engineering Estimates of Potential Sub- projects

The layout plan and initial designs were prepared for five sub-projects and details are presented in Chapter 4. There are 3 infiltration galleries, 3 off-take wells and 7 weirs in selected sub-projects (Table 9).

Table 9: Design features of five sub-projects in the Mula river basin Area No. Sub-project Design Features of Sub-projects (ha) 1 Churri Sub-project - Gallery Length = 270 m 685 - Gallery Rectangular Conduit = 2m x 2m - Off-take Well = 1 No. - Channel Dimensions = 1m x 0.75m - Length of irrigation network = 11.15 km 2 Pashta Khan & Garambowad Pashta Khan: 377 Sub-project - Weir Length = 120 m 17

- Weir Height = 0.6 m - Channel Dimensions = 1m x 1m - Length of irrigation network = 16.5 km Garambowad: - Off-take Well = 1 No. - Channel Dimensions = 0.3m x 0.3m - Length of irrigation network = 5.5 km 3 Karkh River Core Sub-project Chutta PIS: 250 Rehabilitation of Weirs = 1 Nos Rehabilitation/Lining of Irrigation Network - Length of irrigation network = 21 km Jhalaro PIS: Design of Weir =1-m - Weir Length = 106-m - Channel Dimensions = 0.75m x 0.5m 4 Kharzan Hatachi Core Sub- Kharzan: 106 project Infiltration Gallery Length -=475-m - Length of irrigation network = 12,809-m Design Capacity = 0.3 cumecs Proposed Pipe = 120-m Existing Main Canal = 597-m Proposed Main Canal =530-m Existing Distributary Canal = 4110-m Proposed Distributary Canal = 7,453-m - Rehabilitation and improvement of Irrigation Network and Cross Drainage Structures Hatachi: Infiltration Gallery Length -=740-m - Canal Length = 28,790 m Proposed Pipe = 2,228-m Design Capacity =0.5-cumecs Existing Distributary Canal = 630-m Proposed Distributary Canal = 17,988-m

5 Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali - Length of irrigation network = 22 km 364 Sub-project - Weir Length = 530 m - Weir Height = 0.6 m - Channel Dimensions = 1m x 1m

The preliminary cost estimates were prepared for infrastructure works including source development and irrigation network, command area development, watershed management and groundwater recharge, khushkaba farming development, gender development and service/supply providers capacity development works and summarized in Table 10.

Economic and Financial Analysis

The results of economic and financial analysis of sub-projects are presented in Tables 10 to 12. The economic analysis indicated that selected sub-projects are feasible. It also shows that dams in general have higher benefit to cost ratios; hence higher returns on investment could be accomplished. But unit cost of development of land is 2-3 folds higher than weir-controlled irrigation sub-projects, thus benefits of increasing number of households reduced to one-half to one-third. The overall policy of GOB is to extend benefits of investment projects to many farmers instead of few getting higher benefits.

Analysis of Targets Accomplished

The selected 5 sub-projects in Mula river basin and lump sum amount for improvement of farmers’ managed irrigation schemes was kept in BWRDP. The analysis of targets in Mula river basin indicated that 1,782 ha of new irrigated commands against a target of 10,000 ha for BWRDP was accomplished. The selected sub-projects and farmers’ managed irrigation schemes also provided 5,710 ha of improved existing irrigated lands against a target of 20,000 ha for BWRDP. The cost of selected five sub-projects and farmers’ managed schemes comes to US$ 30.46 million. A comparison of selected sub- projects against Project objectives is given in

Table 10 and detailed economic analysis is presented in Table 11 and Table 12.

Table 10: Estimated cost and target of selected sub-projects in Mula river basin Estimated New Improved Number of No. Sub-Project Cost Command Command Households (Million $) Area (ha) Area (ha) Project Targets 100 10,000 20,000 10,000 1 Churri Sub-project 3.04 685 115 106 Pashta Khan & Garambowad Sub- 2 4.64 377 456 129 project 3 Karkh River Core Sub-project 7.05 250 2,000 1229 4 Kharzan Hatachi Core Sub-project 6.30 106 575 850 Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali Sub- 5 6.58 364 314 350 project Improvement of Farmers 6 ’ 2.86 - 2,250 725 Managed Schemes Total 30.46 1,782 5710 3,258 % of Project Targets Achieved 31 18 28 33

Table 11: Cost of development of sub-projects in Mula River basin sub-projects Command Total No. Sub-Projects Infrastructure Area Watershed Khushkaba (Million Million $ FIRR EIRR Development Rs.) 1 Churri Sub-project 286.78 28.06 0.42 4.42 319.68 3.04 26.00% 25.41% Pashta Khan and 2 Garambowad Sub- 441.17 44.12 0.50 1.15 486.94 4.64 24.26% 22.63% project Karkh River Core 3 570.61 151.20 17.70 1.05 740.56 7.05 16.56% 15.46% Sub-project Kharzan Hatachi 4 596.57 50.94 7.23 6.32 661.06 6.30 16.61% 16.43% Core Sub-project Manyalo Raiko and 5 Rind Ali Sub- 641.59 40.68 0.66 7.50 690.43 6.58 16.79% 16.12% project Improvement of 6 Farmers’ Managed 150 150 - - 300 2.86 - - Schemes Total 2686.71 465 26.51 20.44 3198.66 30.46 - - Notes: Detailed Cost Estimates are included as Appendices FIRR & EIRR Financial and Economic internal rate of return were revised accordingly. Infrastructure Cost of all structures and its components. Command Area Development This includes the cost of water courses, storage tank, land leveling, demonstration of bed plantation, HEIS pilot farms, earthen track, capacity building and social organization. Watershed Cost of development of earthen micro-catchment, seeding of natural grasses, loose stone and gabion structures. Khushkaba Cost of development of rainfall water harvesting system

Table 12: Economic analysis of selected sub-projects No. Sub-Project Cost (Million Rs.) Benefit-Cost Ratio NVP (Million Rs.) FIRR (%) EIRR (%) 1 Churri Sub-project 319.68 3.42 703.60 26.00% 25.41% 2 Pashta Khan & Garambowad Sub-project 486.94 2.74 770.79 24.26% 22.63% 3 Karkh River Core Sub-project 740.56 1.80 562.8 16.56% 15.46% 4 Kharzan Hatachi Core Sub-project 661.06 1.81 488.2 16.61% 16.43% 5 Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali Sub-project 690.43 1.94 602.70 16.79% 16.12% Note: Detailed Economic Benefit Stream and Analysis sheets are included as Appendix - VI 20

4 Study Results – Sub-Project Level Churri infiltration gallery Sub-project 4.1.1 Area of sub-project

The sub-project is proposed on Sohinda River, a tributary of Mula River, in Zehri area. It is located in tehsil Zehri, district Khuzdar, Balochistan. It lies in UTM Zone 42R at 3165353.56 Northing and 281173.16 Easting. The proposed structure is an infiltration gallery. The sub-project is located north-east of Khuzdar at a distance of 137 km, that is 79 km north of Khuzdar via N-25 Highway to Levies Check Post, and then 58 km east to sub-project location. The sub-project is proposed on a flat terrain. There is considerable land available for irrigation. The proposed sub-project will use sub-surface flow for irrigation. The available sub-surface water is limited, which restricts total area that can be developed.

The sub-project will bring 800 ha under cultivation out of which 115 ha are already under cultivation. After construction of this sub-project, lands belonging to two villages in Zehri Area will be benefitted.

4.1.2 Physical characteristics

The geological features of sub-project comprise of alluvium and extrusive mud. Areas adjacent to sub-project location, including some parts of command area, have underlying Eocene sedimentary rocks. High mountains having steep slopes are found in upstream of sub-project. The terrain is generally flat in sub-project area and is suitable for agriculture. At location of proposed infiltration gallery is narrow and only 270 m wide. The river slope in this reach is 1:125. The site is located in north of basin on an isolated tributary of Mula River, as located in Figure 1. The proposed sub-project has a catchment area of 1,070 km2 with an estimated 37.6 MCM annual water available. The river is non-perennial in this reach, but there is sub-surface flow 3 m below ground level.

The typical soils in sub-project are moderately deep silty clay loam, weakly structured and moderately deep silt loam, and, massive to platy structure. Some area comprises of shallow gravelly soil. The quality of water was tested at proposed sub-project. The water has a pH of 8.1 and 329 parts per million total dissolved solids (TDS), RSC is 1.84 and SAR 2.1. The water is fresh and suitable for irrigation.

4.1.3 Existing irrigation infrastructure

Infiltration gallery exists at proposed location (Figure 2). It diverts sub-surface water to an unlined channel (Figure 3). The arrangement provides 0.2 cumec to command area which does not meet total irrigation water requirement of area. The remaining irrigation water requirement is met through groundwater extraction.

Figure 2: Location of existing infiltration Figure 3: Unlined channel in the gallery command area

4.1.4 Proposed interventions

An infiltration gallery is proposed that will divert sub-surface flow of Sohinda River. The diverted sub-surface water will meet irrigation water requirements of existing and potential command areas. The layout plan for proposed infiltration gallery is given in Figure 4. The proposed infiltration gallery, as shown in

Figure 7, is a 270 m long perforated conduit underlain across Sohinda river. The conduit will intercept sub-surface water and divert it to an off-take well. Flow from off-take well will be diverted through a 1.2 km long underground RCC conduit to an open channel. The proposed conveyance system consists of main canal, which is 4 km long, and branch canals, which are 7.15 km in length.

Cross drainage structures, where necessary, are provided along canal network. Protection of command area from flood damages are also ensured through provision of a 2 km protection bund. Three water storage tanks will provide water for drinking purposes, while an equal number of washing and animal drinking structures will provide for social and livestock water needs in command area. The salient features of proposed intervention are given in Error! Reference source not found..

Table 13: Salient features - Churri infiltration gallery sub-project Type of structure Infiltration Gallery N 3165353.56, E 281173.16 Coordinates of Sub-project Zone 42R Length of Infiltration Conduit (m) 270 Length of Conveyance Pipe (m) 1,200 Length of Main Canal (m) 4,000 Length of Branch Canal (m) 7,150 Manholes 15 Aqueduct (m) 150 Cross Drainage Structures (m) 200 Fall Structures 15 Time Division Structures 16 Flood Protection Bund (m) 2,001 Water Supply Storage Tanks (No.) 3 Washing Structures (No.) 3 Animal Drinking Structures (No.) 3 Design Command Area (Ha) 800 Watershed Area (Ha) 8 Khushkaba Area (Ha) 350 Available Water (MCM) 37.6 Cost of Infrastructure (Mil. Rs.) 286.78

Table 14: Initial cost estimate for Churri infiltration gallery sub-project Amount No. Items Unit Quantity Rate (Rs.) (Rs.) 1 Gallery conduit m 270 96,000 25,920,000 2 Off-take well Nr. 1 150,000 150,000 3 Canal m 11,150 11,600 129,340,000 4 RCC pipe m 1,200 40,000 48,000,000 5 Manhole Nr. 15 100,000 1,500,000 6 Aqueduct m 150 104,300 15,645,000 7 Cross drainage structure m 200 25,000 5,000,000 8 Flood protection bund m 2,001 20,000 40,025,000 9 Drop / fall structure Nr. 15 500,000 7,500,000 10 Time division structure Nr. 16 200,000 3,200,000 11 Domestic water storage tank Nr. 3 2,500,000 7,500,000 12 Animal drinking structure Nr. 3 500,000 1,500,000 13 Washing structure Nr. 3 500,000 1,500,000 Total Cost (Rs.) 286,780,000

4.1.5 Socio-economic profile

The main tribe living in sub-project is Zehri Tribe; as ultimate beneficiary of sub- projects. Brahvi is main language, while Urdu is used as an alternate language. The communities belong to Muslim religion. The clans in area are Zarakzai, Kehni, Jatak, Terasani, Raisani and Battar. Demographic details of sub-projects are given in Table 15.

Table 15: Demography of Churri infiltration gallery sub-project Sub- No of Water/Land Total Village Female project Shareholding Estimated Male Population Name Population Name Households Population Churi Sub- Churi & project Kahan 106 756 416 340

The integrated surveys indicated that lands are reported in cadastral records for three villages, which would be part of designed command. The land under command of source belongs to residents of about 2 villages called Mall and Kahan. The land owners take water from Nawab in Anjira on annual basis and annually provide 180 bags of wheat as compensation on 12 hours of water. All expenditure is responsibility of land owner and does not provide any share in other crops and orchards except 180 bags of wheat.

If the water is increased after development of sub-project additional land could be brought under command, as land is available and farmers have installed over 500 tubewells at the tail end. However, tubewells are not allowed in source command area. Land rights in whole of Zehri area are not registered in settlement record.

The source is traditional infiltration gallery in Sohinda River (at the downstream called Mula River) just few meters downstream of Zehri perennial scheme. About 0.04 to 0.07 cumecs of water is drawn from source. Rainfall data of 3 rain gauge stations namely Khuzdar, Kalat and Gandawa of the Mula river basin was collected from Water Resources Planning, Development & Monitoring Directorate of Balochistan (WRPDMD) and Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD) for period of 1980-2014. After filling data gaps from Climate Forecast System Re-analysis (CFSR) data, the analysis was conducted using ARC- SWAT Model for estimating areal mean annual rainfall at level of river basin ( Table 16). ARC-SWAT Model uses Theissen polygon method for distribution of rainfall. 23

Table 16: Areal Mean Annual Rainfall in mm- Mula River Basin (1980-2014) Station: Khuzdar, Kalat, Gandawa Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1980 46 24 86 14 1 4 7 0 0 32 12 6 233 1981 64 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 15 15 107 1982 9 27 16 20 29 0 42 36 0 10 12 15 216 1983 5 23 6 9 4 0 30 58 25 0 6 3 170 1984 4 9 45 23 1 8 31 16 1 0 6 13 155 1985 14 2 12 15 0 40 26 18 0 0 3 11 142 1986 26 35 18 2 1 7 87 31 0 4 5 1 217 1987 14 19 33 27 5 2 12 3 0 0 1 13 130 1988 23 5 31 2 4 44 38 0 0 0 1 2 151 1989 12 13 40 8 0 25 58 1 6 2 8 15 188 1990 59 50 22 6 3 3 9 12 0 0 8 16 187 1991 40 33 31 8 1 0 0 0 1 5 4 28 152 1992 8 21 12 11 0 17 3 17 0 4 16 23 131 1993 22 6 12 11 3 36 10 0 0 8 0 5 114 1994 16 17 14 4 82 48 11 10 6 2 10 5 223 1995 17 13 16 2 1 47 9 0 3 12 14 14 147 1996 21 11 1 9 7 20 4 0 0 2 0 18 94 1997 4 30 45 7 17 41 5 5 23 32 9 23 241 1998 18 7 12 1 12 4 3 0 0 0 2 70 131 1999 6 4 7 4 2 3 1 1 0 1 20 1 49 2000 2 1 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 9 0 10 34 2001 3 8 0 3 38 16 10 0 11 1 1 10 101 2002 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 25 7 10 21 73 2003 5 2 1 1 19 0 20 14 1 2 12 2 79 2004 4 0 0 0 1 11 1 0 1 22 13 181 235 2005 8 34 20 3 2 9 1 0 0 5 2 19 101 2006 16 6 4 1 29 23 11 8 107 7 5 29 246 2007 34 7 11 60 20 5 24 18 1 8 51 0 241 2008 5 0 1 0 12 10 19 68 41 2 32 27 216 2009 50 7 15 2 17 0 15 28 1 10 6 36 186 2010 3 24 1 9 42 23 0 37 0 2 6 65 214 2011 4 22 21 23 6 0 22 27 36 12 4 0 177 2012 8 10 13 26 12 16 19 58 31 0 0 16 211 2013 0 90 44 35 2 46 25 111 0 0 24 0 376 2014 0 41 53 12 0 2 29 0 0 0 0 0 137 Average 16 17 18 10 11 15 17 17 9 6 9 20 166

During the site visit, it was learned with consultation of landowners that they have no conflict in terms of water distribution/rights. The available water is being diverted to cultivated land/field as per land capacity/farm size according to time division rule and they ensured that they will follow this current rule of water distribution/right in future as well. The water rights of water source are of Sardar family having about 4-6 shareholders.

Sub-Consultant for integrated surveys organized community consultation at sub- project level after initial design of sub-project was ready to share design and seek full ownership of sub-project. No dispute was reported on land and water rights and farmers agreed to participate in sub-project development. Meaningful consultation as per ADB SPS was carried out; (a) once at reconnaissance stage and (b) second during detailed socioeconomic baseline surveys. The second round of public consultations are substantiated with the date, location and name of participants, their signatures/thumb impression and views. The outputs/results of these consultations will be reflected in PPTA under progress umbrella report i.e. “Poverty, Social & Gender Assessment”. 24

4.1.6 IR and IP Screening

IR and issues related to IP were assessed for sub-project in line with ADB SPS and standard checklists. During field visits, it was confirmed that subproject proposed for rehabilitation will be implemented on existing alignment of irrigation channels as well as other structures. The proposed rehabilitation works will be confined in existing ROWs. The construction of new canals/irrigation structures or change of alignment will not be involved. Following this approach, rehabilitation and of subproject is not expecting to have any physical or economic displacement, therefore, there is no possibility of land acquisition and consequently no IR impacts are anticipated thus subprojects are classified as Category "C for IR. Impacts are presented in Table 17.

Table 17: Involuntary resettlement impact categorization checklist Probable Involuntary Resettlement Effects Not Yes No Remarks Known Involuntary Acquisition of Land X The rehabilitation works to improve existing irrigation infrastructure is proposed for sub- projects covered under this pre- 1. Will there be land acquisition? feasibility. The proposed rehabilitation works are to be restricted to available existing RoW and therefore; no land acquisition is envisaged. 2. Is the site for land acquisition known? X 3. Is the ownership status and current usage of X land to be acquired known? 4. Will easement be utilized within an existing X Right of Way (ROW)? 5. Will there be loss of shelter and residential X There are no structures within land due to land acquisition? RoW. X The proposed rehabilitation works 6. Will there be loss of agricultural and other are to be restricted to available productive assets due to land acquisition? existing RoW X The proposed rehabilitation works 7. Will there be losses of crops, trees, and fixed are to be restricted to available assets due to land acquisition? existing RoW 8. Will there be loss of businesses or enterprises X due to land acquisition? X The proposed rehabilitation works 9. Will there be loss of income sources and are to be restricted to available means of livelihoods due to land acquisition? existing RoW Involuntary restrictions on land use or on access to legally designated parks and protected areas X The proposed rehabilitation works 10. Will people lose access to natural are to be restricted to available resources, communal facilities and services? existing RoW 11. If land use is changed, will it have an X As explained above adverse impact on social and economic activities? X 12. Will access to land and resources owned

communally or by the state be restricted?

Information on Displaced Persons:

Any estimate of the likely number of persons that will be displaced by the Project? [ ] No [ ] Yes If yes, approximately how many? ______

Are any of them poor, female-heads of households, or vulnerable to poverty risks? [ ] No [ ] Yes Are any displaced persons from indigenous or ethnic minority groups? [ ] No [ ] Yes Note: The project team may attach additional information on the project, as necessary.

The subproject is located in district Khuzdar of Balochistan where no indigenous or ethnic minorities (EM), as ADB SPS describes them to be, have been found living in or around selected subproject. All persons are Muslim and they do not recognize themselves as IPs. The ADB's policy on IPs is therefore not triggered. Therefore these subprojects are categorized as "C" for IPs and no IP plan would be required. Table 18.

Table 18: Indigenous peoples impact categorization form

A. Project Data Country/ Project Title: ADB TA:8800:PAK: Balochistan Water Resources Development Project

Department/ Division: CWER Processing Stage:

Retroactive Financing: New Project: X

Lending Project Loan Financial Intermediation Loan or Equity Investment Modality:  Program Loan6 Emergency Loan  X Sector Loan SDP Loan

Categorization Status: New X Re-classification Previous Category

B. Identification of indigenous peoples in project area

Impact on indigenous peoples (IPs)/ Not Yes No Remarks or identified ethnic minority(EM) known problems, if any Are there IPs or EM groups present in project locations? X

Do they maintain distinctive customs or economic activities that may make them vulnerable to X hardship?

Will the project restrict their economic and social activity and make them particularly vulnerable in X the context of project?

Will the project change their socioeconomic and cultural integrity? X

Will the project disrupt their community life? X

Will the project positively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status? X

Will the project negatively affect their health, X education, livelihood or social security status? Will the project alter or undermine the recognition of their knowledge, preclude customary behaviors X or undermine customary institutions? In case no disruption of indigenous community life as a whole, will there be loss of housing, strip of X land, crops, trees and other fixed assets owned or controlled by individual indigenous households?

C. Anticipated project impacts on indigenous peoples Project activity and output Anticipated positive effect Anticipated negative effect

6 Applies to program loans with investment components. 26

1 2. 3. 4. 5.

D. Decision on Categorization

After reviewing the answer above, the head Environment and Social Unit (ESU) agree that the project:

Should be categorized as an A project, an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) is required or, for sector/FI projects, an Indigenous Peoples Development Framework (IPDF) is required

Should be categorized as a B project, a specific action favorable to indigenous peoples/ethnic minority is required and addressed through a specific provision in RRP and in related plans such as a Resettlement Action Plan, a Gender Action Plan or a general Community Participatory Plan

X Should be categorized as a C project, no IPDP/IPDF or specific action required

Project Team Comments: The project area is falling in District Khuzdar of Balochistan Province and there is no Indigenous People in the project area.

To minimize resettlement and other social adverse impacts, proposed rehabilitation works shall be carried out along existing available RoW and all works shall be restricted inside existing ROWs. If in case, any unavoidable change in alignment or new interventions required during detailed design, BID needs to address issue in line with LARF prepared for BWRDP.

4.1.7 Environmental assessment

An environmental assessment using ADB’s Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) checklist for irrigation is given in Table 19, was conducted and results of assessment showed that sub-project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The sub-project is classified as Category B.

Table 19: Environmental checklist for Churri infiltration gallery sub-project Screening Questions Yes No Remarks A. Project Sitting Is the Project area adjacent to or within any of the following environmentally sensitive areas? Protected Area  Wetland7 Project design will provide measures to  ensure minimum flow required. Mangrove  Estuarine  Buffer zone of protected area  Special area for protecting biodiversity  B. Potential Environmental Impacts

Will the Project cause  EMP will provide measures to avoid conflicts by adopting local and  traditional water rights mechanism already exists in area.

7 Mula River ends up in Hamal Lake is some 58 km from Larkana in District Qambar Shahdadkot of Sindh Province. Which is a Wetland and any activity at upstream of the River can affect the health and performance of the wetland. 27

Screening Questions Yes No Remarks Project design shall include facilities for  easy access of people and animals.   Over pumping of groundwater, leading to salinization  and ground subsidence?8 Loss of precious ecological values (e.g. result of encroachment into forests/swamplands or historical/cultural buildings/areas, disruption of  hydrology of natural waterways, regional flooding, and drainage hazards)?

Conflicts in water supply rights and related social  conflicts? Impediments to movements of people and animals?  Potential ecological problems due to increased soil erosion and siltation, leading to decreased stream  capacity? Insufficient drainage leading to salinity intrusion? Noise control measures to be specified  in EMP. Impacts are transient. Dust? Dust control measures to be specified in  EMP. Impacts are transient. Labor-related social problems especially if workers Control measures to be specified in  from different areas are hired? EMP. Impacts are transient. Waterlogging and soil salinization due to inadequate Project design shall ensure proper  drainage and farm management? drainage design. Leaching of soil nutrients and changes in soil characteristics due to excessive application of  irrigation water? Reduction of downstream water supply during peak  seasons? Soil pollution, polluted farm runoff and groundwater, and public health risks due to excessive application of  fertilizers and pesticides? Soil erosion (furrow, surface)?  Scouring of canals?  Logging of canals by sediments?  Clogging of canals by weeds?  Seawater intrusion into downstream freshwater  systems? Introduction of increase in incidence of waterborne or  water related diseases?

4.1.8 Agriculture

At present, agricultural productivity is low in sub-project due to inadequate irrigation system. The existing cropped area is 115 ha with 14% cropping intensity followed by cropping pattern wheat – rabi vegetables – cotton – melon and small number of orchard. The yield and production are not good enough to support landowner to enhance agricultural productivity.

The design agriculture targets for sub-project were made keeping in view current irrigated cropped area, cropping intensity and yield in sub-project through findings of field survey in sub-project area. The landowners are interested in profitable crops and fruits in future as proposed for sub-project development. Existing cropped area will be enriched from 115 ha to 960 ha and cropping intensity will be enhanced from 14% to 120%. The gross irrigation requirement and detailed existing and design agriculture targets are given in Appendix I.

8 Lead to depletion of ground water 28

The cropping pattern will change and it is expected that farmers will adopt design cropping pattern in a period of 5-6 years of completion of sub-project. The percentage of cropped area will increase for high value crops due to reliable availability of irrigation water. The existing cropping intensity is 14%, whereas design cropping intensity is 120%, which would be accomplished in 5-6 years of completion of sub-project. The strengthening of local service and supply providers in terms of capacity, linkages with national companies and provision of land levelling and plantation machinery for furrow-bed irrigation would help to enhance crop productivity and profitability. 29

Figure 4: Churri infiltration gallery sub-project - Layout plan

Figure 5: Channel typical cross sections

Figure 6: Fall structure - Typical plan and sections

Figure 7: Infiltration gallery – Plan & sections

Pashta khan & Garambowad Sub-project

4.2.1 Area of Sub-Project

Areas of Pashta Khan and Garambowad are located at a distance of 7 km from each other on Anjira River which drains into Mula River near Pashta Khan. Schemes were bundled as one sub-project due to close proximity of smaller schemes. The infrastructure including head regulators, channels and other hydraulic structures were designed in isolation. Both the schemes were considered as one sub-project. Pashta Khan perennial irrigation scheme is proposed on Anjira River, a tributary of Mula River, in Pashta Khan. It is located in tehsil Mula, district Khuzdar, Balochistan. The proposed weir lies in UTM Zone 42R at 282531.31 Northing and 3111451.19 Easting. Garambowad perennial irrigation schemes is located on Anjira River about 70 km from Khuzdar via Pashta Khan Road. The proposed off-take well is located at elevation of 1175 m, UTM Zone 42R, 3116793.27 North and 278441.97 East. Garambowad village is located on left bank of river.

The schemes are north-east of Khuzdar in Pashta Khan area at a distance of about 64 km, that is 28 km north via N-25 Highway (RCD Highway) to Baghbana area and 36 km east on unpaved road and hilly track to scheme location. Both schemes are located on bents at both right and left banks of Anjira River surrounded by high mountains having little area on flat terrain. The proposed sub-project will use perennial surface flow for irrigation. As available land is limited, available water will fulfill crop water requirement. Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation schemes will bring 833 ha under cultivation out of which 456 ha is already under cultivation, while 377 ha will be additional command area. After construction of sub-project, 8 villages in Pashta Khan, namely Killi Mohd Noor, Kechri, Daraz, Akro, Senar, Sherki and one village of Garambowad will come under cultivation.

4.2.2 Physical Characteristics

Geological features of sub-project comprise of Eocene and Paleocene Sedimentary rocks. Areas adjacent to sub-project, including parts of command area, have underlying Cretaceous and Jurassic Sedimentary rocks. The sub-project is located at tail of Anjira River, a tributary of Mula River. The sub-project is proposed on relatively narrow gorges where river is bounded by high mountains on both sides. At Pashta Khan, river is 185 m wide and at an elevation of 1104 m above mean sea level, while at Goramboward, river is 220 m wide and 1175 m above mean sea level. The river is very steep in this reach, typically on a 1:100 slope.

The bents are bounded by high hills on one side and Anjira River on other. Terrain is generally flat in sub-project and is suitable for agriculture. According to hydrological study of surface and sub-surface flow at sub-project level, using ArcSWAT Model, annual water availability was estimated as 14.2 MCM. The Model results were compared with observed flows. During site visit in November (2016), 1.19 cumec flow was observed in river. The Arc SWAT model for November estimates that river flow of 1.22 cumec. This shows the model estimates close to actual flows.

Soils in area generally comprise of shallow clay and clay loam. The area also comprises of shallow gravelly soil. The soils are slightly or moderately calcareous. No salinity-sodicity was encountered in these soils. The quality of water was tested at proposed sub-project. The water has a pH of 8.2 and TDS of 595 parts per million. RSC is 0.65 and SAR 1.58. The water is slightly saline, but not sodic.

At Pashta Khan, flow to existing commands is diverted through locally constructed head up wall called ganda, which is made of stone, debris and bushes. The river flow is guided by an earthen unlined channel (Figure 9) to command area. At some places, lined channels were provided (Figure 10). 34

Pashta Khan Pashta Khan Pashta Khan

Figure 9: Earthen channel Figure 10: Lined channel Figure 8: River Bed at Pashta Khan

At Garambowad, a ganda was constructed (Figure 11) to guide river flow to command area, which is on left side of river. An earthen channel (Figure 12) takes flow to command area. The locals have constructed pipe aqueducts (Figure 13), at river crossings. An earthen pond (Figure 14) located in command area stores surplus water for use in dry season.

4.2.3 Proposed interventions

New structures like extension of head water works, water intake structure, open channel lining, social structures and time division structures be constructed for an efficient use of water for enhancement of cropping intensity in command area of water intake structure. The provision of permanent infrastructure will improve system efficiency by reducing losses and conveyance times between source and outlets. These savings will lead to expansion of existing command area, diversification of existing cropping pattern and an increase in cropping intensity. Additional advice regarding crop production will lead to improved practices and subsequently, increased yields.

Figure 11: Existing Ganda Figure 12: Earthen channel Garambowad Garambowad

Figure 13: Existing pipe aqueduct Figure 14: Existing water storage pond Garambowad Garambowad

In Pashta Khan, a weir is proposed to divert perennial flow to command area, which will assure extension of command area on higher elevations. The available perennial water will be utilized for irrigating extended command area so that farm income and livelihood of local people will be improved. In Garambowad, an off-take well is proposed to provide sustainable irrigation water to existing and available command area of Garambowad village along the river. The sub-project will also provide protection bunds along some reaches of channel, which is located in toe of hills, to preserve it from floodwater. Availability of water round the year will increase productivity of area and enhance income generation activities in area. 35

Two options were considered for both locations. The first being an off-take well, as head works, with flood protection for command area with cross drainage structures. The other option being infiltration gallery along with lined irrigation channel up to command area. From economic analysis, option 2, a weir with conveyance system and flood protection bunds, were opted for Pashta Khan for irrigating command area of 753 ha and option 1, an off-take well with proper conveyance system and flood protection bunds, were opted for Garambowad for irrigating command area of 80 ha. About 376 ha of potential command area was observed, which can be cultivated under sub-project. The interventions of sub-project are given in Tables 21 and 22.

Table 20: Total area and cost of Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation sub-project Total Command Area (Ha) 833 Total Available Water (MCM) 14.2

Table 21: Salient features of Pashta Khan Type of structure Weir Coordinates of Weir N 282531.31, E 3111451.19 Zone 42R Length of Weir (m) 120 Height of Weir (m) 0.6 Total Length of Canal (m) 16,500 Left Canal (m) 6,500 Right Canal (m) 10,000 Time Division Structures (Nr.) 10 Cross Drainage Structure (m) 300 Fall Structures (Nr.) 8 Flood Protection Bund (m) 4,271 Water Storage Tanks (Nr.) 3 Washing Structures (Nr.) 3 Animal Drinking Structure (Nr.) 3 Command Area (Ha) 753

Table 22: Salient features of Garambowad Type of structure Off-take Well Coordinates of Off-take Well 3116793.27 N, 278441.97 E Zone 42R Length of Canal (m) 5,500 Time Division Structures (Nr.) 5 Cross Drainage Structure (m) 100 Fall Structures (Nr.) 4 Flood Protection Bund (m) 550 Water Storage Tanks (Nr.) 2 Washing Structures (Nr.) 2 Animal Drinking Structure (Nr.) 1 Design Command Area (Ha) 80

Table 23: Initial cost estimate for Pashta Khan and Garambowad sub-project Pashta Khan PIS Amount No. Items Unit Quantity Rate (Rs.) (Rs.) 1 Weir M 120 445,000 53,400,000 2 Canal m 16,500 11,600 191,400,000 3 Cross drainage structure m 300 25,000 7,500,000 4 Drop / fall structure m 8 500,000 4,000,000 5 Time division structure Nr. 10 200,000 2,000,000 6 Flood protection bund Nr. 4,271 20,000 85,420,000 7 Washing structure Nr. 3 500,000 1,500,000 8 Animal drinking structure m 3 500,000 1,500,000 9 Domestic water storage tank Nr. 3 2,500,000 7,500,000 Total cost ( Rs ) 354,220,000 36

Garambowad PIS No. items Unit Quantity Rate (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 Off-take well Nr. 1 80,000 80,000 2 Canal m 5,500 11,600 63,800,000 3 Drop / fall structure Nr. 4 500,000 2,000,000 4 Domestic water storage tank Nr. 2 2,500,000 5,000,000 5 Animal drinking structure Nr. 1 500,000 500,000 6 Washing structure Nr. 2 500,000 1,000,000 7 Flood protection bund m 550 20,000 11,000,000 8 Syphon m 100 25,000 2,500,000 9 Time division structure Nr. 5 200,000 1,000,000 Total cost ( Rs ) 86,880,000

4.2.4 Socio-economic profile

The land and water rights mainly belongs to different clans of Zehri tribe including Nathkani, Terasani and also some other tribes including Jattak. About 406 landholding households were reported in sub-project, which includes 200 Pashta Khan, 82 Garambowad and 124 Mengalabad (Table 24).

Table 24: Demography of the sub-project area Total Land/Water Sub-project Name of Shareholding Total No. Name Villages Household Population Male Female Pashta Khan 200 1187 613 574 Garambowad Guramabad 82 544 275 269 1 Mengal Abad 124 664 353 311

The land rights are equitable and all residents have share in land. The land of Pashta Khan and Mengalabad is reported in cadastral record while land of Garambowad has no settlement record. The cultivated land in sub-project was 833 ha, which includes 753 ha in Pashta Khan and 80 ha in Garambowad. Farmers prefer to use floodwater for irrigation as it brings sediments enriched with nutrients and thus results in reduced fertilizer cost.

The source is Mula river water diverted through kaccha traditional diversion bund. Pashta Khan and Mengalabad share single diversion bund. While Garambowad is 8 km upstream made their own diversion bund. Significant perennial flow can be seen at both diversion sites but farmers can divert only few cusecs in earthen channels. Water is available throughout the year. There is no conflict prevailing in sub-project related to water rights and water distribution. The available water is being diverted to each of farm and water allocation is based on land holding.

The approach of community participation was shard with beneficiaries of each sub- project and no dispute was reported on land and water rights and farmers were agreed to participate in development of sub-project. Community demands include separate head works for Pashta Khan and Garambowad, channel lining of two separate channels for upper and lower command areas for Garambowad, channel lining for command area of Pashta Khan on right bank of river and if possible to khushkaba land across tributary river Amber Zehri, channel lining for left bank lands of Mengalabad, which also includes land owners from Pashta Khan, protection bund for sub-project command area of Garambowad, Mengalabad and Pashta khan (including land of Pashta Khan hit by tributary Amber Zehri) also as well in khushkaba lands, structure to bring water on left bank for Mengalabad command area.

Involuntary resettlement (IR) and issues related to indigenous people (IP) were assessed for the sub-project in line with the ADB SPS and standard checklists. 4.2.4.1 Involuntary Resettlement 37

During field visits, it was confirmed that subproject proposed for rehabilitation will be implemented on existing alignment of irrigation channels as well as other structures. The proposed rehabilitation works will be confined in existing ROWs. The construction of new canals/irrigation structures or change of alignment will not be involved. Following this approach, rehabilitation of subproject is not expecting to have any physical or economic displacement, therefore, there is no possibility of land acquisition and consequently no involuntary resettlement impacts are anticipated thus subprojects are classified as Category "C for IR. Table 25.

Table 25: Involuntary resettlement impact categorization checklist Probable Involuntary Not Yes No Remarks Resettlement Effects Known Involuntary Acquisition of Land X The rehabilitation works to improve the existing irrigation infrastructure is proposed for sub-projects covered under this pre-feasibility. 1. Will there be land acquisition? The proposed rehabilitation works are to be restricted to the available existing RoW and therefore; no land acquisition is envisaged. 2. Is the site for land acquisition X known? 3. Is the ownership status and X current usage of land to be acquired known? 4. Will easement be utilized within X an existing Right of Way (ROW)? 5. Will there be loss of shelter and X There are no structures within the residential land due to land RoW. acquisition? 6. Will there be loss of agricultural X The proposed rehabilitation works and other productive assets due to are to be restricted to the available land acquisition? existing RoW 7. Will there be losses of crops, X The proposed rehabilitation works trees, and fixed assets due to land are to be restricted to the available acquisition? existing RoW 8. Will there be loss of businesses X or enterprises due to land acquisition? 9. Will there be loss of income X The proposed rehabilitation works sources and means of livelihoods are to be restricted to the available due to land acquisition? existing RoW Involuntary restrictions on land use or on access to legally designated parks and protected areas 10. Will people lose access to X The proposed rehabilitation works natural resources, communal are to be restricted to the available facilities and services? existing RoW 11. If land use is changed, will it X As explained above have an adverse impact on social and economic activities? 12. Will access to land and X resources owned communally or by the state be restricted? Information on Displaced Persons:

Any estimate of the likely number of persons that will be displaced by the Project? [ ] No [ ] Yes If yes, approximately how many? ______

4.2.5 Indigenous People

The subproject is located in district Khuzdar of Balochistan, where no indigenous or ethnic minorities (EM), as ADB SPS describes them to be, were found living in subproject. All persons are Muslim and they do not recognize themselves as IPs. The ADB's policy on IPs is therefore not triggered. Therefore these subprojects were categorized as "C" for IPs and no IP’s Plan is needed. Impacts are presented in Table 26.

Table 26: Indigenous peoples impact categorization form

A. Project Data Country/ Project Title: ADB TA:8800:PAK: Balochistan Water Resources Development Project

Department/ Division: CWER Processing Stage:  Retroactive Financing: New Project: X

Lending Project Loan Financial Intermediation Loan or Equity Investment Modality:  Program Loan9 Emergency Loan  X Sector Loan SDP Loan

Categorization Status: New X Re-classification Previous Category

B. Identification of indigenous peoples in project area

Impact on indigenous peoples (IPs)/ Not Yes No Remarks or identified ethnic minority(EM) known problems, if any Are there IPs or EM groups present in project locations? X

Do they maintain distinctive customs or economic activities that may make them vulnerable to X hardship?

Will the project restrict their economic and social activity and make them particularly vulnerable in X the context of project?

Will the project change their socioeconomic and cultural integrity? X

Will the project disrupt their community life? X

Will the project positively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status? X

9 Applies to program loans with investment components. 39

C. Anticipated project impacts on indigenous peoples

Project activity and output Anticipated positive effect Anticipated negative effect 1.

D. Decision on Categorization

After reviewing the answer above, the head Environment and Social Unit (ESU) agree that the project:

Should be categorized as an A project, an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) is required or, for sector/FI projects, an Indigenous Peoples Development Framework (IPDF) is required

X Should be categorized as a C project, no IPDP/IPDF or specific action required

Project Team Comments: The project area is falling in District Khuzdar of Balochistan Province and there is no Indigenous People in the project area.

To minimize resettlement and social adverse impacts, proposed rehabilitation works shall be carried out along existing available RoW and all works shall be restricted inside existing ROWs. If in case, any unavoidable change in alignment or new interventions required during detailed design, BID needs to address issue in line with LARF prepared for BWRDP.

An environmental assessment using ADB’s Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) checklist for irrigation was conducted and results of assessment ( Table 27) showed that sub-project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The sub-project is classified as Category ‘B’ and thus an IEE is required.

Table 27: Environmental checklist for Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation sub-project Screening Questions Yes No Remarks A. Project Sitting Is the Project area adjacent to or within any of the following environmentally sensitive areas? Protected Area  Wetland10 Project design will provide measures to  ensure minimum flow required. Mangrove  Estuarine 

10 Mula River ends up in Hamal Lake is some 58 km from Larkana in District Qambar Shahdadkot of Sindh Province. Which is a Wetland and any activity at upstream of the River can affect the health and performance of the wetland. 40

Screening Questions Yes No Remarks Buffer zone of protected area  Special area for protecting biodiversity  B. Potential Environmental Impacts

Will the Project cause Loss of precious ecological values (e.g. Result of encroachment into forests/swamplands or historical/cultural buildings/areas, disruption of  hydrology of natural waterways, regional flooding, and drainage hazards)?

Conflicts in water supply rights and related social EMP will provide measures to avoid conflicts? conflicts by adopting local and  traditional water rights mechanism already exists in area. Impediments to movements of people and animals? Project design shall include facilities for  easy access of people and animals. Potential ecological problems due to increased soil erosion and siltation, leading to decreased stream  capacity? Insufficient drainage leading to salinity intrusion?  Over pumping of groundwater, leading to salinization  and ground subsidence? Impairment of downstream water quality and therefore, impairment of downstream beneficial uses  of water? Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people?  Potential social conflicts arising from land tenure and  land use issues? Soil erosion before compaction and lining of canals?  Noise from construction equipment? Noise control measures to be specified  in EMP. Impacts are transient. Dust? Dust control measures to be specified  in EMP. Impacts are transient. Labor-related social problems especially if workers Control measures to be specified in  from different areas are hired? EMP. Impacts are transient. Waterlogging and soil salinization due to inadequate Project design shall ensure proper  drainage and farm management? drainage design. Leaching of soil nutrients and changes in soil characteristics due to excessive application of  irrigation water? Reduction of downstream water supply during peak  seasons? Soil pollution, polluted farm runoff and groundwater, and public health risks due to excessive application  of fertilizers and pesticides? Soil erosion (furrow, surface)?  Scouring of canals?  Logging of canals by sediments?  Clogging of canals by weeds?  Seawater intrusion into downstream freshwater  systems? Introduction of increase in incidence of waterborne or  water related diseases?

4.2.6 Agriculture

At present, agricultural productivity is low due to inadequate irrigation system in sub- project. The existing cropped area is 456 ha with 55% cropping intensity followed by cropping pattern wheat – rabi vegetables – cotton – rice - barley - melon and less number in orchard. The yield and production are not good enough to support landowners to enhance agricultural productivity. The designed interventions for sub-project include cropping intensity of 120% coupled with cropping pattern including high value crops. The designed agriculture interventions in sub-project will enhance existing cropped area to 1000 ha and cropping 41 intensity will be enhanced from 55% to 120%. The landowners are much interested to propose profitable crops. The gross irrigation requirement and detailed existing and designed cropping pattern are given in Appendix II.

Two major interventions are part of agricultural design: a) increase in cropping intensity from 55% to 120%; and cropping pattern is modified by including high value crops. The local service providers (tractor rentals) and local supply providers will be strengthened to provide service to farmers in Laser land levelling and precision planting for furrow-bed irrigation, whereas supply providers will provide quality inputs of seeds, plants, fertilizers, etc.

Figure 15: Pashta Khan and Garambowad perennial irrigation sub-project – layout plan

Figure 16: Typical section of weir

Figure 17: Typical section of off-take well

Figure 18: Channel typical cross sections

Figure 19: Typical section glacis fall structure

Figure 20: Typical section of time division structure 48

Karkh River Development Sub-Project 4.3.1 Area of sub-project

In Karkh area, six sub-projects namely Wanderi, Chutta, Khadri, Jhalaro, Acherwand and Sinjori are located on Karkh River and bundled to make it a core sub-project. The sub- projects are a few km from each other and are therefore being bundled. Wanderi perennial irrigation sub-project is proposed on Karkh River. It is located in Union Council Abad, tehsil Karkh, district Khuzdar, Balochistan. The proposed weir lies in UTM Zone 42R at 3067666.38 Northing and 318230.36 Easting. Chutta perennial irrigation sub-project is proposed on left bank of Karkh River. It is located 42 km from Khuzdar in Union Council Abad, tehsil Karkh, district Khuzdar, Balochistan. The proposed weir lies in UTM Zone 42R at 3068483.89 Northing and 318183.44 Easting. Khadri perennial irrigation sub-project is proposed on right bank of Karkh River upstream of Karkh Bazar. It is located 72 km from Khuzdar in Union Council Abad, tehsil Karkh, district Khuzdar, Balochistan. The proposed weir lies in UTM Zone 42R at 3069147.25 Northing and 318735.75 Easting. Jhalaro perennial irrigation sub-project is proposed on left bank of Karkh River upstream of Karkh Bazar. It is located 75 km from Khuzdar in Union Council Abad, tehsil Karkh, district Khuzdar, Balochistan. The proposed weir lies in UTM Zone 42R at 3069450.82 Northing and 318965.12 Easting. Acherwand perennial irrigation sub-project is proposed on right bank of Karkh River upstream of Karkh Bazar. It is located 77 km from Khuzdar in Union Council Abad, tehsil Karkh, district Khuzdar, Balochistan. The proposed weir lies in UTM Zone 42R at 3071029.12 Northing and 319626.61 Easting. Sinjori perennial irrigation sub-project is proposed on right bank of Karkh River upstream of Karkh Bazar. It is located 79 km from Khuzdar in Union Council Abad, tehsil Karkh, district Khuzdar, Balochistan. The proposed weir lies in UTM Zone 42R at 3073729.22 Northing and 320874.34 Easting.

All these sub-projects are bundled in a package and located in Karkh, at a distance of 82.4 km east of Khuzdar on Ratodero-Gawadar Motorway (M8). These sub-projects are located on bents at both left and right banks of Karkh River surrounded by high mountains having a large area on flat terrain. These sub-projects are using perennial surface flow for irrigation. The core sub-project selected for rehabilitation will bring 2250 ha under cultivation out of which 2000 ha are already under cultivation, while 250 ha will be additional command area.

4.3.2 Physical characteristics

The geological features of sub-project area comprise of Oligocene and Eocene Sedimentary Rocks. Area adjacent to sub-project location, and also some part of command area underlying Eocene Sedimentary Rocks. High mountains having steep slopes are found in upstream areas of sub-project. The terrain is generally flat in core sub-project and is suitable for command area development. The sub-projects are constructed on narrow gorges having a river width varies from 100 m to 150 m. The Karkh River has a longitudinal slope of 1:175 in these reaches.

The overall water balance at basin level was carried out through hydrological modeling of river basin. Stream flow and base flow is predicted for each sub-project by specifying location on particular river reach in a GIS interface supported hydrological model ArcSWAT. ArcSwat model was used to simulate groundwater and surface water based on available meteorological, land use and soil data records. The calibration of model was carried out for observed stream flow data for 9 years. The results of water balance study represents proportion of each component of hydrological cycle.

Wanderi perennial irrigation sub-project

Salient features of existing infrastructure in Wanderi perennial irrigation sub-project provides water supply to different villages in its command area. A diversion weir 130 m in length and 2 m in height from river bed (Figure 21). The details are: a) lined channel of 5,500 49 m; b) 3,000 m from existing weir through gated regulator under BCIAP; c) 1,500 m along with other hydraulic structures under BRSP; and d) 1,000 m along with other hydraulic structures by EA.

Figure 21: View of Wanderi Weir

Chutta perennial irrigation sub-project

A diversion weir 135 m in length and about 1.8 m in height from river-bed (Figure 22).  Lined covered channel from existing weir through gated regulator followed by open lined channel having total length of 600 m (totally chocked and silted up with grasses and weeds even on top covered slab of the channel), require to be rehabilitated/restored.  An earthen escape channel in a length of 50 m was constructed to divert floodwater back into river at downstream side was also found chocked with grasses and weeds which also need to be restored with stone pitching as shown in attached cross section.  An inlet lined channel portion leading to existing circular water storage reservoir having internal diameter of about 30 m along with a pumping station (3 pumps) and delivery pipes of 6 inches diameter (MS Pipe) connected with collector pipe of 0.304 m diameter (MS Pipe) discharging into an existing trifurcation structure was found abandoned due to following facts.  All the pumps are out of order and are to be replaced by new one.  Some lengths of delivery pipe (MS) and main collector pipe (MS) need to be replaced for proper functioning to command 225 ha of land in vicinity and behind Chutta Village which are highlands and can’t be commanded by gravity.

Figure 22: View of damage portion of Chutta weir

Khadri perennial irrigation sub-project

A 2 m high vertical drop weir having a top width of 2.3 m was constructed under BCIAP (Figure 23). The weir is functional and has no significant issue but only needs cleaning. However, sometimes water overtops flood protection bund. 50

Figure 23: View of Khadri weir

Jhalaro perennial irrigation sub-project

There is no proper head works at the source (Figure 24). Presently, 3.3 cusecs water is diverted to command area by a local weir called “ganda”. There is an existing earthen channel, which is in deep cut (about 3m). During floods, this channel is choked and silted up. The pH of the perennial flow is 7.95 and TDS is 415 ppm.

Figure 24: Location of proposed infiltration gallery at Jhalaro PIS

Acherwand perennial irrigation sub-project

A weir was constructed under BCIAP (Figure 25). Channel and under sluice gates are not functional (Figure 26). 2.5 km channel length is lined. Grasses and weeds are grown in upstream and downstream of weir.

Figure 25: View of Acherwand weir Figure 26: View of channel off-take point of Acherwand weir

Sinjori perennial irrigation sub-project 51

A weir was constructed under BCIAP ( Figure 27). Sluice gate is not functional. 2.5 km channel length is lined. Grasses and weeds are grown in the upstream and downstream of the weir.

Figure 27: View of Sinjori weir

4.3.3 Proposed interventions

This sub-project includes rehabilitation of existing weir namely Chutta weir. One new weir is designed at Jhalaro, where water is presently diverted by temporary diversion bunds. Furthermore, lining of irrigation network and cleaning will be carried out at several locations and discussed below.

Wanderi perennial irrigation sub-project

Lining of unlined portion of channel up to tail of command area having total length of about 1000 m.

Chutta perennial irrigation sub-project

Rehabilitation of weir cutoff wall will be done to prevent under-seepage through weir structure. Repair and rehabilitation of damaged portion of weir in length of about 30 m on its right side will be done. Existing sluice gate and head regulator gate with all necessary mechanical works including replacement of ropes and pullies will be repaired. Extension of lined channel up to tail of command area in a length of about 1000 m. A siphon to cross new Khuzdar-Shahdadkot road in a length of about 25 m on newly proposed lined channel from existing trifurcation structure up to next existing trifurcation structure located in tail of command area. The excavated dumped material/earth lying on both banks of existing lined channel and water storage reservoir, which at present is silting channel and reservoir during rainy season also required to be either disposed-off or to be dressed away in low lying areas of command area.

Jhalaro and Khadri perennial irrigation sub-project

Extension of flood protection bund in terms of height will be provided.at Jhalaro perennial irrigation sub-project. A 106 m weir is proposed across river width. This weir will divert surface water to existing command area. Flood protection bund will be provided for command area protection adjacent to weir structure. At Khadri, lining of existing canals will be carried out.

Acherwand perennial irrigation sub-project

Cleaning of grasses and weeds in upstream and downstream weir and 1 km channel lining will be provided.

Sinjori perennial irrigation sub-project

Cleaning of grasses and weeds in upstream and downstream weir and 2 km channel lining will be provided. Table 28 Shows salient features of core sub-project and Table 29 shows initial cost estimate of core sub-project.

Table 28: Salient features - Karkh river core sub-project Rehabilitation of Weir at Chutta (No.) 1 Proposed Gabion Weir at Jhalaro (No.) 1 Construction of Conduit - RCC Pipe (km) 0.37 Channel Lining (km) 34 Fall Structure (No.) 5 Transition Chamber (No.) 1 Siphon (No.) 1 Washing Structure (No.) 6 Cattle Drinking Trough (No.) 6 Protection Works ( Flood And Guide Bund) (No.) 10 River Bed Cleaning And Other Works - Water Storage Tank (No.) 6

Table 29 Initial cost estimate – Karkh river core sub-project No. Components Unit Quantity Amount (Rs.) 1 Jhalaro Weir m 106 66,781,450 2 Chutta Weir Rehabilitation Works - - 132,866,050 3 Irrigation Channel m 34960 210,497,400 4 Rcc Pipe Line ( Under Ground ) m 347 4,869,000 5 Fall Structure Nr. 5 1,360,500 6 Transition Chamber Nr. 1 119,675 7 Siphon Nr. 1 2,745,000 8 Washing Structure Nr. 6 1,304,360 9 Cattle Drinking Trough Nr. 6 698,700 10 Protection Works ( Flood And Guide Bund) Nr. 10 103,511,700 11 River Bed Cleaning And Other Works - - 40,852,000 12 Water Supply System - - 5,000,000 Total cost (Rs.) 570,605,835

4.3.4 Socio-economic Profile

Residents of 5 villages would be part of core sub-project. As Acherwand and Sinjori are two mouzas having same beneficiaries which are resident in Nokjo village. The land and water rights belongs to different tribes’ residents of five villages including Akhundani, Karela, Chutta Botani, Chandio, Rind, Sasoli, Jamot. About 1200 households were reported in core sub-project area, which will be benefited from core sub-project (Table 30).

Table 30: Demography of Karkh River irrigation sub-project area No. Village Name Estimated No of Households 1 Wandri 256 2 Chutta 130 3 Khadri 259 4 Jhalaro 325 5 Nokjo (Sinjori, Acherwand) 230 Total 1200

The land rights are equitable and all residents of five villages have share in land. The land of all six sub-projects is reported in the cadastral record. While nearly all land in each sub-project have been distributed by the shareholders after the construction of sub-projects in 2001. The cultivated land reported and observed in all six sub-projects altogether is about 2000 ha, while the expandable land is about 250 ha. Flood irrigation is not practiced in all of the six sub-projects.

The source of all six sub-projects is river water. Five sub-projects were constructed by GoB under BCIAP funded by World Bank in 2001 and water is diverted through five weirs built in series. While one of sub-projects, Jhalaro, is completely a new sub-project and water is diverted by kaccha traditional diversion bund. The water rights in all of six sub-projects are equitable and well established. The water rights of water source are of Sardar family having about 4-6 shareholders. The farmers in sub-project are not facing and concerns related to water rights of distribution of water. The available water is being diverted to various farms in existing commands according to water allocation fixed for each of farm.

The communities of these sub-projects have experienced with foreign funded projects like World Bank and Balochistan Rural Support Program (BRSP) in past. Therefore; community was very much willing to participate in development of sub-project. While no dispute was reported on land and water rights. The demand of beneficiaries of five sub- projects already constructed was largely repair in weirs headwork, repair in lined channels, lining of new channels for new command areas, protection bunds for command areas of each sub-project. While beneficiaries of new sub-project Jhalaro demanded for construction of new headwork, lining of channel up to last command areas and protection bund for command area.

IR and issues related to IP were assessed for sub-project in line with ADB SPS and standard checklists. During field visits, it was confirmed that subproject proposed for rehabilitation will be implemented on existing alignment of irrigation channels as well as other structures. The proposed rehabilitation works will be confined in existing ROWs. The construction of new canals/irrigation structures or change of alignment will not be involved. Following this approach, rehabilitation and of subproject is not expecting to have any physical or economic displacement, therefore, there is no possibility of land acquisition and consequently no involuntary resettlement impacts are anticipated thus subprojects are classified as Category "C for IR. Table 31.

Table 31: Involuntary resettlement impact categorization checklist Probable Involuntary Resettlement Not Yes No Remarks Effects Known Involuntary Acquisition of Land X The rehabilitation works to improve the existing irrigation infrastructure is proposed for sub-projects covered under this 1. Will there be land acquisition? pre-feasibility. The proposed rehabilitation works are to be restricted to the available existing RoW and therefore; no land acquisition is envisaged. 2. Is the site for land acquisition known? X 3. Is the ownership status and current usage X of land to be acquired known? 4. Will easement be utilized within an existing X Right of Way (ROW)? 5. Will there be loss of shelter and residential X There are no structures within land due to land acquisition? the RoW. 54

X The proposed rehabilitation 6. Will there be loss of agricultural and other works are to be restricted to the productive assets due to land acquisition? available existing RoW X The proposed rehabilitation 7. Will there be losses of crops, trees, and works are to be restricted to the fixed assets due to land acquisition? available existing RoW 8. Will there be loss of businesses or X enterprises due to land acquisition? X The proposed rehabilitation 9. Will there be loss of income sources and works are to be restricted to the means of livelihoods due to land acquisition? available existing RoW

Involuntary restrictions on land use or on access to legally designated parks and protected areas X The proposed rehabilitation 10. Will people lose access to natural works are to be restricted to the resources, communal facilities and services? available existing RoW 11. If land use is changed, will it have an X As explained above adverse impact on social and economic activities? 12. Will access to land and resources owned X communally or by the state be restricted? Information on Displaced Persons:

Any estimate of the likely number of persons that will be displaced by the Project? [ ] No [ ] Yes If yes, approximately how many? ______

4.3.5 Indigenous People

The subproject is located in District Khuzdar of Balochistan, where no indigenous or ethnic minorities (EM), as ADB SPS describes them to be, have been found living in or around selected subproject areas. All persons are Muslim and they do not recognize themselves as IPs. The ADB's policy on IPs is therefore not triggered. Therefore, these subprojects have been categorized as "C" for IPs and no IP’s Plan will be needed. Impacts are presented in Table 32.

Table 32: Indigenous peoples impact categorization form A. Project Data Country/ Project Title: ADB TA:8800:PAK: Balochistan Water Resources Development Project

Department/ Division: CWER Processing Stage:  Retroactive Financing: New Project: X

Lending Project Loan Financial Intermediation Loan or Equity Investment Modality:  Program Loan11 Emergency Loan  X Sector Loan SDP Loan

Categorization Status: New X Re-classification Previous Category

B. Identification of indigenous peoples in project area

Impact on indigenous peoples (IPs)/ Not Yes No Remarks or identified ethnic minority(EM) known problems, if any

11 Applies to program loans with investment components. 55

Are there IPs or EM groups present in project locations? X

Do they maintain distinctive customs or economic activities that may make them vulnerable to X hardship?

Will the project restrict their economic and social activity and make them particularly vulnerable in X the context of project?

Will the project change their socioeconomic and cultural integrity? X

Will the project disrupt their community life? X

Will the project positively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status? X

Project activity and output Anticipated positive effect Anticipated negative effect 1.

D. Decision on Categorization

After reviewing the answer above, the head Environment and Social Unit (ESU) agree that the project:

Should be categorized as an A project, an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) is required or, for sector/FI projects, an Indigenous Peoples Development Framework (IPDF) is required

X Should be categorized as a C project, no IPDP/IPDF or specific action required

Project Team Comments: The project area is falling in District Khuzdar of Balochistan Province and there is no Indigenous People in the project area.

4.3.6 Environmental assessment

An environmental assessment using ADB’s Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) checklist for irrigation was conducted and results of assessment ( Table 33) showed that core sub-project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The core sub-project is classified as Category B. Thus an IEE is required.

Table 33: Environmental checklist for Karkh irrigation sub-project Screening Questions Yes No Remarks A. Project Sitting Is the Project area adjacent to or within any of the following environmentally sensitive areas? Protected Area  Wetland12 Project design will provide  measures to ensure minimum flow required. Mangrove  Estuarine  Buffer zone of protected area  Special area for protecting biodiversity  B. Potential Environmental Impacts

Will the Project cause Loss of precious ecological values (e.g. Result of encroachment into forests/swamplands or historical/cultural buildings/areas, disruption of hydrology of natural waterways, regional flooding,  and drainage hazards)?

Conflicts in water supply rights and related social conflicts? EMP will provide measures to avoid conflicts by adopting local  and traditional water rights mechanism already exists in area. Impediments to movements of people and animals? Project design shall include facilities for easy  access of people and animals. Potential ecological problems due to increased soil erosion and  siltation, leading to decreased stream capacity? Insufficient drainage leading to salinity intrusion?  Over pumping of groundwater, leading to salinization and  ground subsidence? Impairment of downstream water quality and therefore,  impairment of downstream beneficial uses of water? Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people?  Potential social conflicts arising from land tenure and land use  issues? Soil erosion before compaction and lining of canals?  Noise from construction equipment? Noise control measures to  be specified in EMP. Impacts are transient. Dust? Dust control measures to  be specified in EMP. Impacts are transient. Labor-related social problems especially if workers from  Control measures to be

12 Mula River ends up in Hamal Lake is some 58 km from Larkana in District Qambar Shahdadkot of Sindh Province. Which is a Wetland and any activity at upstream of the River can affect the health and performance of the wetland. 57

Screening Questions Yes No Remarks different areas are hired? specified in EMP. Impacts are transient. Waterlogging and soil salinization due to inadequate drainage Project design shall and farm management?  ensure proper drainage design. Leaching of soil nutrients and changes in soil characteristics due  to excessive application of irrigation water? Reduction of downstream water supply during peak seasons?  Soil pollution, polluted farm runoff and groundwater, and public health risks due to excessive application of fertilizers and  pesticides? Soil erosion (furrow, surface)?  Scouring of canals?  Logging of canals by sediments?  Clogging of canals by weeds?  Seawater intrusion into downstream freshwater systems?  Introduction of increase in incidence of waterborne or water  related diseases?

4.3.7 Agriculture

At present, there is fair agricultural productivity in sub-project. The existing cropped area is 2,000 ha with 89% cropping intensity followed by annual cropping pattern wheat – kharif vegetables – melon – fodder. The planned interventions for agriculture in sub-project will increase command area from 2,000 ha to 2,250 ha and cropping intensity will be increased from 89% to 120% which make cropped area up-to 2700 ha. The high value crops are included in design cropping pattern. The detailed existing and design gross irrigation requirement are given in Table III.1 & III.2 of Appendix IV, respectively. It is expected that design cropping intensity would be achieved within 5 to 6 years after completion of sub- project. The design cropping pattern includes high value crops, which will help to enhance farm income. Efficient use of water and production technology would help to increase water productivity and profitability of farming. 58

Figure 28: Karkh river development sub-project – layout plan 59

Figure 29: Typical section of weir

Figure 30: Infiltration gallery – plan & sections

Figure 31: Channel typical cross sections

Figure 32: Fall structure - typical plan and sections

Kharzan Hatachi Core Sub-project 4.4.1 Area of core sub-project

The core sub-project lies in UTM Zone 42R and coordinates of 3103885.09 North and 313839.58 East. The mean altitude of sub-project command area is 600 m above mean sea level. The location of sub-project is shown on Location Map in Figure 38. The Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery is located on Mula river about 120 km north-east of Khuzdar via Ratodero-Gawadar motorway. A field visit to site location and adjoining areas was conducted on November 23rd, 2016, to get firsthand information about existing conditions. Visiting team walked through stream bed and adjacent areas for locating most favorable site to provide proposed intervention. In addition to general visual observation of vicinity, local inhabitants were consulted to find out location and extent of command area, Khushkaba area, sailaba area, and watersheds. The information was used in GIS environment and related studies to formulate core sub-project. The core sub-project is proposed on river bents and limited land is available for irrigation. The proposed core sub-project will use available surface water as well as sub-surface flows for irrigation. The core sub-project is designed to bring 681 ha under irrigation out of which 575 ha are currently under irrigation facility, while new command area of 106 ha will be developed. After construction of core sub-project, lands of two villages in Mula Tehsil, namely Kharzan and Hatachi will receive irrigation facility. Kharzan is located on right bank while Hatachi is on left bank of Mula River. Kharzan is tehsil headquarter of Mula.

4.4.2 Physical characteristics

The geological features of sub-project comprise of Paleocene sedimentary rocks. Area adjacent to core sub-project, and also some part of command area has underlying Eocene sedimentary rocks. The sub-project is located in middle reach of Mula River. The sub-project is proposed on relatively wide gorge where river is bounded by high mountains on both sides. The river has a width of 530 m and an elevation of 638 m above mean sea level. Moreover, river is very steep in this reach having a longitudinal slope of 1:70. Kharzan and Hatachi are largest bents on river. Both bents are bounded by high hills on one side and Mula river on other side. Terrain is generally flat in core sub-project and is suitable for irrigated command. The new command area is on a degraded rangeland.

The overall water balance at basin level is carried out through hydrological modeling of river basin. Stream flow and base flow is predicted for each sub-project by specifying location on particular river reach in a GIS interface supported hydrological model ArcSWAT. ArcSwat model is used to simulate groundwater and surface water based on available meteorological, land use and soil data. The calibration of model was carried out for observed stream flow data for 9 years. The results of water balance represents proportion of each component of hydrological cycle. The site is located in middle part of basin on main Mula River. There are number of existing sub-project diversion upstream of this location. However, there is substantial potential for a new sub-project having a catchment area of 5,219 km2. The annual average availability of water is 125.8 MCM. There is perennial surface flow available at site. The results from model were compared with measured flows during site visit. During site visit in November (2016), 5.09 cumec flow was observed. The ArcSWAT model for November estimates that river will have flow of 3.39 cumec. This shows that order of magnitude estimated by model is in close conformity with actual flows.

The soil type is very deep clay. The soils were moderately calcareous. No salinity and sodicity was encountered in soils. The river water quality is fresh in this reach having TDS of less than 500 ppm. Perennial surface flow is diverted to irrigate existing command area in Hatachi and Kharzan villages. Due to presence of considerable surface water, it is also used for stock water and domestic use. Although, perennial flow is used for irrigation, floodwater is also available during high flows.

An intake structure ( Figure 33) and water channel (Figure 34) were constructed under BMIAD project about 20 years ago with some protection wall of gabion (Figure 35). Over the years, some part of gabion wall were damaged due to floods in Mula River. The intake structure is reported to be damaged and not supplying water to supply channel. The irrigation channel is generally in good condition for carrying water to Kharzan and Hatachi. The farmers of sub- project contribute for making a channel from river on self-help basis and connect it into supply system of channel for two villages. In recent years, irrigation department has provided gabion protection wall to this river channel to avoid flood damages. There is considerable perennial flow in river that can be used for irrigation through effective diversion and can bring additional land under cultivation. The floodwater in river causes damages to existing intake system which requires engineering solution. Absence of proper flow diversion structure restricts villagers to use perennial flow.

4.4.3 Proposed interventions

New structures like extension of infiltration gallery tunnel, lining of infiltration gallery wells, infiltration gallery tunnel cleaning; lining of covered channel, open channel lining, social structures and time division structures be constructed for an efficient use of water for increasing cropping intensity in command area. The provision of permanent infrastructure will improve system efficiency by reducing losses and conveyance times between source and outlets. These savings will lead to expansion of existing command area, diversification of existing cropping pattern and an increase in cropping intensity. Additional advice regarding crop production will lead to improved practices and subsequently, increased yields.

Figure 33: Structure of the sub-project

The objective of core sub-project is to provide irrigation water to existing and new commands in Kharzan and Hatachi villages. The core sub-project will also provide facility of protection bund along some reaches of command to preserve it from floodwater. Availability of water round the year will increase productivity of command area and enhance farm income. Two options were considered. The first being a water intake structure, as head works, with proper flood protection works for canal system and lining entire water channel to command area including drainage structures. The other option being infiltration gallery along with lined irrigation channel up to command areas. Infiltration galleries along with lined irrigation channel are proposed for irrigating command area. About 681 ha can be brought under command. The layout plan and different cross sections of canal and infiltration gallery of core sub-project are shown in Figure 38 to 51. Moreover, flood protection bunds at various locations of core sub-project were proposed for both existing and new commands. 65

Figure 34: Existing channel and bifurcation Figure 35: Existing gabion wall

The salient features of proposed interventions are shown in

Table 34 and a brief estimate is showing infrastructure in Table 35.

Table 34: Salient features - Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery sub-project Type of structure Infiltration Gallery Coordinates of Infiltration Gallery N 3103885.09, E 313839.58 Zone 42R Infiltration Gallery Length (Kharzan) (m) 475 Infiltration Gallery Length (Hatachi) (m) 740 Proposed Pipe from Infiltration Gallery (m) 2,350 Length of Canal (m) 41,600 Channel Lining (m) 10,000 Flood Protection Bund (m) 6,600 Aqueduct (No.) 7 Fall Structures (No.) 33 Off-take Structure 20 Water Storage Tanks 2 Washing Structures 2 Cattle Drinking Structures 2 Command Area (Ha) 681 Khushkaba Area (Ha) 378 Available Water (MCM) 125.8

Table 35: Initial cost estimate for Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery sub-project No. Items Unit Quantity Amount (Rs.) 1 Infiltration Gallery and Offtake Well Nr. 2 196,125,650 2 Flood Protection Bund Nr. 4 137,862,500 3 RCC Pipe Line ( Under Ground ) m 2400 56,871,250 4 Irrigation Channel m 39,400 185,055,650 5 Fall Structure Nr. 33 8,973,500 6 Cattle Drinking Trough Nr. 2 232,900 7 Washing Structure Nr. 2 432,500 8 Offtake Structure Nr. 20 797,500 9 Transition Chamber Nr. 4 371,750 10 Super Passage Nr. 1 419,250 11 Aqueduct Nr. 7 3,176,200 12 Water Supply System - - 6,250,000 Total (million Rs.) 596,568,650 66

4.4.4 Socio-economic Profile

The land and water rights belongs to different clans of Zehri tribe mainly Musiani, Jam, Changlani, Naqeeb, Battar and also some other tribes including Jattak, Naqeeb, etc. About 821 household were reported in core sub-project including 411 households in Kharzan village and 410 households in Hatachi village (Table 36).

Table 36: Demography of core sub-project Total Land/Water Sub-project Name of Shareholding Total No Name Villages Household Population Male Female Kharzan Hatachi 410 2469 1203 1266 1 Hatachi Kharzan 411 2570 1380 1190

The land rights are equitably shared among the residents. The lands of both villages is reported in cadastral record. The cultivated land reported and observed in core sub-project was 575 ha including 250 ha of Kharzan and 325 ha of Hatachi village. The new command area is around 106 ha. There is also considerable khushkaba land in both villages. In Kharzan a tributary to Mula River called Ghurr can irrigate 258 ha which is currently uncultivated. While in Hatachi khushkaba land is located in mountains called Gorani and Ghatti having more than 120 ha of land, which is currently irrigated from localized runoff. There is no access to the site through vehicle. But farmers are trying to develop an earthen road for the area. Flood irrigation is practiced to improve soil fertility as sediments deposited with floodwater are enriched with nutrients.

The source is Mula river water diverted through kaccha traditional diversion bund. Both communities share single diversion structure and distribute water equally among both villages. In 2002 Irrigation scheme was constructed under BCIAP funded by World Bank. The scheme consists of intake head works, distribution structure and syphon to cross water for Hatachi command area. In flood of 2007, intake structure become non-functional and farmers again started diverting water through kaccha diversion bund. This situation also created tension among both communities on distribution of water. Which was resolved by civil administration by monitoring equitable distribution of water. Kharzan residents also registered a court case on Hatachi farmers on distribution of water. The matter has been settled between communities but court case is still under progress. The design water demand will be diverted to design command area. Water allocations are based on size of farm in terms of time per unit ha.

Kharzan beneficiaries reported that they have no benefit of core sub-project built in the past. Intake structure and protection bund made were washed by 2007 floods. Now they are diverting water from kaccha diversion as before and core sub-project is now for Hatachi village as they get all water safely through syphon up to command areas and their channels are kaccha due to which more than half of water is wasted. Further, they also told about dispute and court case between both communities. They would only be part of core sub- projects if their demands are met and if not then they have objection to build core sub-project for Hatachi village. They were also told to provide application to enlist their demands. Kharzan notables provided application in which they demanded for weir instead of intake structure in case both villages share single head works, proper distribution structure to share equal water between both communities, flood protection for command area, Channel lining up to their tail end commands.

Firstly, Kharzan notables did not agree initially for surveys but later on they agreed. Hatachi beneficiaries are having 50 % shareholders of water as diversion structure is in their limit and it is responsibility of Kharzan village to construct bund and provide 50 % of water. The community is of the opinion that they would resolves issues shortly and hopefully all of 67 water users would participate. But they suggested that best way to resolve issue is to construct separate headwork for both villages, if weir is not suggested for core sub-project.

4.4.5 IR and IP Screening

IR and issues related to IPs were assessed for core sub-project in line with ADB SPS and standard checklists. During field visits, it was confirmed that rehabilitation of sub-project will be implemented on existing alignment of irrigation channels as well as other structures. The rehabilitation works will be confined in existing ROWs. The construction of new canals/irrigation structures or change of alignment will not be involved. Following this approach, rehabilitation and of core sub-project is not expecting to have any physical or economic displacement. There is no possibility of land acquisition and consequently no IR impacts are anticipated, thus sub-project is classified as Category "C for IR (Table 37).

Table 37: Involuntary Resettlement Impact Categorization Checklist Probable Involuntary Resettlement Not Effects Yes No Remarks Known

Involuntary Acquisition of Land X The rehabilitation works to improve existing irrigation infrastructure is proposed for sub-projects covered under this pre-feasibility. The 1. Will there be land acquisition? proposed rehabilitation works are to be restricted to available existing RoW and therefore; no land acquisition is envisaged. 2. Is the site for land acquisition X known? 3. Is the ownership status and current X usage of land to be acquired known? 4. Will easement be utilized within an X existing Right of Way (ROW)? 5. Will there be loss of shelter and X There are no structures within RoW. residential land due to land acquisition? 6. Will there be loss of agricultural and X The proposed rehabilitation works are other productive assets due to land to be restricted to available existing acquisition? RoW 7. Will there be losses of crops, trees, X The proposed rehabilitation works are and fixed assets due to land to be restricted to available existing acquisition? RoW 8. Will there be loss of businesses or X enterprises due to land acquisition? 9. Will there be loss of income sources X The proposed rehabilitation works are and means of livelihoods due to land to be restricted to available existing acquisition? RoW Involuntary restrictions on land use or on access to legally designated parks and protected areas 10. Will people lose access to natural X The proposed rehabilitation works are resources, communal facilities and to be restricted to available existing services? RoW 11. If land use is changed, will it have X As explained above an adverse impact on social and economic activities? 12. Will access to land and resources X owned communally or by the state be restricted? Information on Displaced Persons:

Any estimate of the likely number of persons that will be displaced by the Project? [ ] No [ ] Yes If yes, approximately how many? ______

The core subproject is located in district Khuzdar of Balochistan, where no indigenous or ethnic minorities (EM), as ADB SPS describes them to be, were found living in or around core subproject. All persons are Muslim and they do not recognize themselves as IPs. The ADB's policy on IPs is therefore not triggered. Therefore these subprojects have been categorized as "C" for IPs and no IP’s Plan would be required (Table 38).

Table 38: Indigenous Peoples Impact Categorization Form A. Project Data

Country/ Project Title: ADB TA:8800:PAK: Balochistan Water Resources Development Project

Department/ Division: CWER Processing Stage:  Retroactive Financing: New Project: X

Lending Project Loan Financial Intermediation Loan or Equity Investment Modality:  Program Loan13 Emergency Loan  X Sector Loan SDP Loan

Categorization Status: New X Re-classification Previous Category

B. Identification of indigenous peoples in project area

Impact on indigenous peoples (IPs)/ Not Yes No Remarks or identified ethnic minority(EM) known problems, if any Are there IPs or EM groups present in project locations? X

Do they maintain distinctive customs or economic activities that may make them vulnerable to hardship? X

Will the project restrict their economic and social activity and make them particularly vulnerable in the context of project? X

Will the project change their socioeconomic and cultural integrity? X

Will the project disrupt their community life? X Will the project positively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status? X

Will the project negatively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status? X Will the project alter or undermine the recognition of their knowledge, preclude customary behaviors X or undermine customary institutions? In case no disruption of indigenous community life as a whole, will there be loss of housing, strip of land, crops, trees and other fixed assets owned or X controlled by individual indigenous households? C. Anticipated project impacts on indigenous peoples

Project activity and output Anticipated positive effect Anticipated negative effect 1. 2.

13 Applies to program loans with investment components. 69

3. 4. 5.

D. Decision on Categorization

After reviewing the answer above, the head Environment and Social Unit (ESU) agree that the project:

Should be categorized as an A project, an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) is required or, for sector/FI projects, an Indigenous Peoples Development Framework (IPDF) is required

X Should be categorized as a C project, no IPDP/IPDF or specific action required

Project Team Comments: The project area is falling in District Khuzdar of Balochistan Province and there is no Indigenous People in the project area.

To minimize resettlement and other social adverse impacts, rehabilitation works shall be carried out along existing available RoW and all works shall be restricted inside existing ROWs. If in case, any unavoidable change in alignment or new interventions required during detailed design, ID needs to address issue in line with LARF prepared for BWRDP.

Figure 36: Discussion with farmers in Figure 37: Discussion with farmers in Kharzan Hatachi

4.4.6 Environmental assessment

An environmental assessment was undertaken using ADB’s guidelines for rapid environmental assessment (REA) checklist for irrigation ( Table 39). The results of assessment showed that core sub-project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The core sub-project is classified as Category B. Thus, IEE is required.

Table 39: Environmental checklist for Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery sub-project Screening Questions Yes No Remarks A. Project Sitting

Is the Project area adjacent to or within any of the following environmentally sensitive areas? Protected Area  70

Screening Questions Yes No Remarks Wetland14 Project design will provide measures to  ensure minimum flow required. Mangrove  Estuarine  Buffer zone of protected area  Special area for protecting biodiversity  B. Potential Environmental Impacts

Conflicts in water supply rights and related social EMP will provide measures to avoid conflicts? conflicts by adopting local and  traditional water rights mechanism already exists in area. Impediments to movements of people and animals? Project design shall include facilities for  easy access of people and animals. Potential ecological problems due to increased soil erosion and siltation, leading to decreased stream  capacity? Insufficient drainage leading to salinity intrusion?  Over pumping of groundwater, leading to salinization  and ground subsidence?15 Impairment of downstream water quality and therefore, impairment of downstream beneficial uses  of water? Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people?  Potential social conflicts arising from land tenure and  land use issues? Soil erosion before compaction and lining of canals?  Noise from construction equipment? Noise control measures to be specified  in EMP. Impacts are transient. Dust? Dust control measures to be specified  in EMP. Impacts are transient. Labor-related social problems especially if workers Control measures to be specified in  from different areas are hired? EMP. Impacts are transient. Waterlogging and soil salinization due to inadequate Project design shall ensure proper  drainage and farm management? drainage design. Leaching of soil nutrients and changes in soil characteristics due to excessive application of  irrigation water? Reduction of downstream water supply during peak  seasons? Soil pollution, polluted farm runoff and groundwater, and public health risks due to excessive application of  fertilizers and pesticides? Soil erosion (furrow, surface)?  Scouring of canals?  Logging of canals by sediments?  Clogging of canals by weeds?  Seawater intrusion into downstream freshwater  systems? Introduction of increase in incidence of waterborne or  water related diseases?

14 Mulla River ends up in Hamal Lake is some 58 km from Larkana in District Qambar Shahdadkot of Sindh Province. Which is a Wetland and any activity at upstream of the River can affect the health and performance of the wetland. 15 Lead to depletion of ground water 71

4.4.7 Agriculture

At present, agricultural productivity is fair in sub-project but due to inadequate irrigation system in core sub-project, landowner can’t bring command area under irrigation. The existing cropped area is 575 ha with 84% cropping intensity followed by annual cropping pattern of mix vegetables, rice and fodders – wheat. The productivity is low and income is inadequate to support family. The designed interventions for agriculture are aimed to increase cropped area from 575 ha to 817 ha and cropping intensity from 84% to 120%. The gross irrigation requirement and detailed existing and designed gross irrigation requirement are presented in Tables V.1 and V.2 of Appendix-V.

It is expected that design cropping intensity of 120 percent would be achieved within 5 to 6 years after completion of core sub-project. The design cropping pattern includes high value crops to increase farm income. 72

Figure 38: Kharzan Hatachi infiltration gallery sub-project – layout plan

Figure 39: Infiltration gallery typical cross section

Figure 40: Channel typical cross section

Figure 41: Fall structure - typical plan and sections 76

Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali Perennial Irrigation Sub-project 4.5.1 Area of sub-project

Manyalo Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project is located on Mula river, in district Khuzdar, about 50 km north-east of Khuzdar. The coordinates of sub-project are 3096496.83 North and 293914.18 East and average altitude of sub-project’s command area is 850 m above mean sea level. The location of proposed weir, canal and command area of sub-project is shown in Figure 46. Manyalo and Raiko are located on right bank of river, while Rind Ali is located on left bank of river. Access to sub-project site from Khuzdar is through M-8 motorway which connects to a dirt road crossing Mula river basin boundary on north-east side of M-8. A field visit to sub-project site location and adjoining areas was conducted on November 19th 2016, to get firsthand information about area and existing conditions. Visiting team walked through stream bed and adjutants areas for locating most favorable site to provide proposed intervention. In addition to general visual observation of vicinity, local inhabitants were consulted to find out location and extent of command, khushkaba, sailaba and watershed. This information was coupled with GIS and other desktop studies to formulate proposed sub-project.

4.5.2 Physical characteristics

The geological features of sub-project comprise of Eocene and Paleocene Sedimentary rocks. Area adjacent to sub-project location and also some part of commands has underlying Cretaceous and Jurassic Sedimentary rocks. The surrounding area of Manyalo, Raiko and Rind is surrounded by steep mountains having three gorges. Two tributaries confluence into main Mula River from eastern and western gorge just upstream of command area. Terrain is flat at this location which is suitable for command area development.

The water balance at basin level is carried out through hydrological modeling of river basin. Stream flow and base flow is predicted for sub-project by specifying location on a particular river reach in a GIS interface supported hydrological model ArcSWAT. The model was used to simulate groundwater and surface water based on available meteorological, land use and soil data records. The calibration of model was carried out for observed stream flow data for 9 years. The results of water balance study represents proportion of each component of hydrological cycle. The results from model were compared with measured flows during site visit. During site visit in November 2016, 3.39 cumec flow was observed in river. The ArcSWAT model for November estimates that river will have 2.86 cumec flow. This shows that Model under predicts flows.

The soils are deep silt loam, shallow gravelly silt loam, moderately deep to deep silty clay loam and a small area comprises of shallow gravelly soil. The soils were slightly calcareous. Soils are non-saline and non-sodic. The water quality tested at site indicated TDS of 378 ppm and pH of 8.3, which is non sodic and non-saline. Farmers are practicing Sailaba farming (spate irrigation) using earthen diversion structures locally named as ‘gandas’ (Figure 42), which is used to guide flow to command area. The command area is on both, left and right side of river. Perennial flow is observed on site. An earthen channel takes flow to command area. At some places, this channel is lined. There is considerable perennial flow (around 2 cumecs) that is adequate for irrigation of design command area as well as additional land in neighborhood. Absence of effective and sustainable diversion structure restricts villagers to use perennial flow.

Figure 42: Ganda at Figure 43: Channel at Figure 44: Channel at Manyalo Raiko Manyalo

Ganda

4.5.3 Proposed interventions

The objective of sub-project is to provide more irrigation water to existing and available command area on both side of Mula River in three nearby villages along the river. The sub-project will also provide protection bund along some reaches of command area to preserve it from floodwater. Availability of water round the year will increase productivity of area and enhance income generation activities in the area.

A 250 m wide weir is proposed to be constructed across the river to raise water level and supply irrigation water in channels that will be constructed on each side of river. Alternatively, two separate infiltration galleries one on each side along with irrigation channels was also discussed. However, stream alignment in past 15 years has been changing ( Figure 45), therefore infiltration gallery option is not recommended. The proposed Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali weir is meant to divert perennial flows of Mula River to use throughout the year. The water from weir, through a system of canals, will be delivered to lands, lying on both sides of Mula River. The layout plan for sub-project is given in Figure 46. After construction of weir, 364 ha of additional command area is expected to be available, besides, existing area of about 314 ha, which will be provided irrigation facility for increasing cropping intensity to 120%.

The proposed weir channelizes river flow into two canals on right and left sides of weir. The command area lies on both sides of river bank for which separate canals have been proposed. Fall structures have been provided along the canal to dissipate energy of flow on steep terrain. Cross drainage structures are provided at each crossing or intersection of canal with natural streams. Nurr Jhal and Ghathri Jhal are major wide stream crossings in right and left canal alignment. The canals would irrigate a total command area of 678 ha.

Figure 45: Stream alignment in 2004 (on left) & 2016 (on right)

Table 40: Salient features - Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub- project Type of structure Weir Coordinates of Weir N 3096496.83, E 293914.18 Zone 42R Weir Length (m) 530 Weir height (m) 0.6 Left Side Length of Canal (m) 9,000 Cross Drainage Structure (m) 950 Flood Protection Bund (m) 900 Fall Structures (Nr.) 4 Time Division Structures (Nr.) 12 Right Side Length of Canal (m) 13,000 Cross Drainage Structures (m) 1,450 Flood Protection Bund (m) 1,750 Fall Structures (Nr.) 7 Time Division Structures (Nr.) 8 Design Command Area (Ha) 678 Watershed Area (Ha) 13 Available Water (MCM) 105.8

Table 41: Initial cost estimate for Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub- project No. Items Unit Quantity Rate (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 Weir m 530 445,000 235,850,000 2 Canal m 22,004 11,600 255,246,400 4 Cross drainage structure m 2,400 25,000 60,000,000 5 Flood protection bund m 2,650 20,000 53,000,000 6 Drop / fall structure Nr. 11 500,000 5,500,000 7 Time division structure Nr. 20 200,000 4,000,000 8 Domestic water storage tank Nr. 8 2,500,000 20,000,000 9 Animal drinking structure Nr. 8 500,000 4,000,000 10 Washing structure Nr. 8 500,000 4,000,000 Total (million Rs.) 641,596,400

4.5.4 Socio-economic profile 4.5.4.1 Population and community structures

About 734 households were reported in sub-project, which will be benefited from irrigation facility, details are given in Land and water rights belongs to different clans of Zehri tribe mainly Musiani and Jam. River turns left from Manyalo, a bent is formed on right bank called as Mouza Kericho. This Mouza could come under command from Mula River. Therefore data for Mouza Kericho was also be collected. Altogether 8 villages would be part of sub-project. However, beneficiaries of Mouzas Nurr and Kericho are mostly residents of Manyalo, Raiko, Rind Ali and Sabuz. No dispute was reported on land and water rights and farmers agreed to participate in development of sub-project. Farmers demands that head works consisting of feasible structure enough to facilitate all communities, right bank channel to provide water to Manyalo, Raiko and Kericho, left bank channel to provide water to Maloki, Sabuz, Jhakar, Thutt and Rind Ali, provision of feasible structure on tributary Nurr to irrigate land available at Mouza Kericho, protection bunds for command area of all villages. Khushkaba land is also available in sub-project and belongs to residents of all villages.

Table 42.

Land and water rights belongs to different clans of Zehri tribe mainly Musiani and Jam. River turns left from Manyalo, a bent is formed on right bank called as Mouza Kericho. This Mouza could come under command from Mula River. Therefore data for Mouza Kericho was also be collected. Altogether 8 villages would be part of sub-project. However, beneficiaries of Mouzas Nurr and Kericho are mostly residents of Manyalo, Raiko, Rind Ali and Sabuz. No dispute was reported on land and water rights and farmers agreed to participate in development of sub-project. Farmers demands that head works consisting of feasible structure enough to facilitate all communities, right bank channel to provide water to Manyalo, Raiko and Kericho, left bank channel to provide water to Maloki, Sabuz, Jhakar, Thutt and Rind Ali, provision of feasible structure on tributary Nurr to irrigate land available at Mouza Kericho, protection bunds for command area of all villages. Khushkaba land is also available in sub-project and belongs to residents of all villages.

Table 42: Demography of Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project Sub-project Total Land/Water Total Name Name of Villages Shareholding Household Population Male Female Manyalo 263 2063 1048 1015 Raiko 151 961 488 473 Saboz 78 610 303 307 Sarwari Karacho 95 728 337 391 Manyalo Maloki 67 584 305 279 Rindli 38 243 131 112 Jhokar 22 195 100 95 Thudd 20 199 99 100

The land rights are equitable and all residents have share in land. The lands of all villages are reported in the cadastral record. Residents of all villages have some land in different Mouzas. The cultivated land reported in sub-project was about 678 ha, in which land under new commands was about 364 ha. Flood irrigation brought heavy load of sediments enriched with nutrients and reduce demand for fertilizers.

The source of water is Mula River. The water is diverted through earthen diversion bunds. Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali share same bund while for Maloki, Sabuz, Thutt and Jhakar just upstream are using another diversion bund. Significant amount of water can be seen at diversion site but farmers can divert only few cusecs due to absence of proper head regulator structure. The water losses are more in earthen channels. The source is active throughout the year. In consultation with community indicated that they do not have any conflict on water rights and distribution of water. The available water is being diverted to farm based on water allocations made as per Warabandi designed for command area.

During pre-feasibility study, it was observed that Maloki, Sabuz, Thutt and Jhakar are located on left bank upstream of Rind Ali village. All of land in Jhakar and Thutt belongs to Manyalo residents, while there is considerable land in Maloki and Sabuz. The community demands that while supplying water to left bank command areas of Manyalo that is Jhakar and Thatt and to Rind Ali should also be provided water as they have lands in Maloki and Sabuz villages. The meeting was held with all beneficiaries of left bank along with Manyalo including Sabuz and Maloki. They all agreed to irrigate left bank command area of Manyalo as well as Sabuz and Maloki as most of land owners belong to Manyalo.

IR and issues related to IPs were assessed for in line with the ADB SPS and standard checklists. During field visits, it was confirmed that proposed rehabilitation will be implemented on existing alignment of irrigation channels as well as other structures. The proposed rehabilitation works will be confined in existing ROWs. The construction of new canals/irrigation structures or change of alignment will not be involved. Following this approach, rehabilitation and of subproject is not expecting to have any physical or economic displacement, therefore, there is no possibility of land acquisition and consequently no IR impacts are anticipated, thus subproject is classified as Category "C for IR (Table 43). 80

Table 43: Involuntary resettlement impact categorization checklist Probable Involuntary Resettlement Not Effects Yes No Remarks Known

Involuntary Acquisition of Land X The rehabilitation works to improve existing irrigation infrastructure is proposed for sub-projects covered under this pre-feasibility. The 1. Will there be land acquisition? proposed rehabilitation works are to be restricted to the available existing RoW and therefore; no land acquisition is envisaged. 2. Is the site for land acquisition X known? 3. Is the ownership status and current X usage of land to be acquired known? 4. Will easement be utilized within an X existing Right of Way (ROW)? 5. Will there be loss of shelter and X There are no structures within RoW. residential land due to land acquisition? 6. Will there be loss of agricultural and X The proposed rehabilitation works are other productive assets due to land to be restricted to available existing acquisition? RoW 7. Will there be losses of crops, trees, X The proposed rehabilitation works are and fixed assets due to land to be restricted to available existing acquisition? RoW 8. Will there be loss of businesses or X enterprises due to land acquisition? 9. Will there be loss of income sources X The proposed rehabilitation works are and means of livelihoods due to land to be restricted to available existing acquisition? RoW Involuntary restrictions on land use or on access to legally designated parks and protected areas 10. Will people lose access to natural X The proposed rehabilitation works are resources, communal facilities and to be restricted to available existing services? RoW 11. If land use is changed, will it have X As explained above an adverse impact on social and economic activities? 12. Will access to land and resources X owned communally or by the state be restricted? Information on Displaced Persons:

Any estimate of the likely number of persons that will be displaced by the Project? [ ] No [ ] Yes If yes, approximately how many? ______

The subproject is located in district Khuzdar of Balochistan, where no indigenous or ethnic minorities (EM), as ADB SPS describes them to be, have been found living in or around selected subproject. All persons are Muslim and they do not recognize themselves as IPs. The ADB's policy on IPs is therefore not triggered. Therefore these subprojects were categorized as "C" for IPs and no IPs Plan will be needed (Table 44).

Table 44: Indigenous Peoples Impact Categorization Form A. Project Data

Country/ Project Title: ADB TA:8800:PAK: Balochistan Water Resources Development Project

Department/ Division: CWER Processing Stage:  Retroactive Financing: New Project: X

Lending Project Loan Financial Intermediation Loan or Equity Investment Modality:  Program Loan16 Emergency Loan  X Sector Loan SDP Loan

Categorization Status: New X Re-classification Previous Category

B. Identification of indigenous peoples in project area

Impact on indigenous peoples (IPs)/ Not Yes No Remarks or identified ethnic minority(EM) known problems, if any Are there IPs or EM groups present in project locations? X Do they maintain distinctive customs or economic activities that may make them vulnerable to X hardship? Will the project restrict their economic and social activity and make them particularly vulnerable in X the context of project? Will the project change their socioeconomic and cultural integrity? X Will the project disrupt their community life? X Will the project positively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status? X Will the project negatively affect their health, education, livelihood or social security status? X Will the project alter or undermine the recognition of their knowledge, preclude customary behaviors X or undermine customary institutions? In case no disruption of indigenous community life as a whole, will there be loss of housing, strip of land, crops, trees and other fixed assets owned or X controlled by individual indigenous households?

C. Anticipated project impacts on indigenous peoples

Project activity and output Anticipated positive effect Anticipated negative effect 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

D. Decision on Categorization

After reviewing the answer above, the head Environment and Social Unit (ESU) agree that the project:

Should be categorized as an A project, an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) is required or, for sector/FI projects, an Indigenous Peoples Development Framework (IPDF) is required

X Should be categorized as a C project, no IPDP/IPDF or specific action required

16 Applies to program loans with investment components. 82

Project Team Comments: The project area is falling in District Khuzdar of Balochistan Province and there is no Indigenous People in project area.

4.5.5 Mitigation Measures

4.5.6 Environmental assessment

An environmental assessment was undertaken using ADB’s guidelines for rapid environmental assessment (REA) checklist for irrigation ( Table 45). The survey of checklist was conducted and results of assessment showed that sub-project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental and social impacts. The sub-project is classified as Category B, thus, IEE is required.

Table 45: Environmental checklist for Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project Screening Questions Yes No Remarks A. Project Sitting

Is the Project area adjacent to or within any of the following environmentally sensitive areas? Protected Area  Wetland17 Project design will provide measures to  ensure the minimum flow required. Mangrove  Estuarine  Buffer zone of protected area  Special area for protecting biodiversity  B. Potential Environmental Impacts

17 Mula River ends up in Hamal Lake is some 58 km from Larkana in District Qambar Shahdadkot of Sindh Province. Which is a Wetland and any activity at upstream of the River can affect the health and performance of the wetland. 83

Screening Questions Yes No Remarks Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people?  Potential social conflicts arising from land tenure and  land use issues? Soil erosion before compaction and lining of canals?  Noise from construction equipment? Noise control measures to be specified  in the emp. Impacts are transient. Dust? Dust control measures to be specified  in the emp. Impacts are transient. Labor-related social problems especially if workers Control measures to be specified in the  from different areas are hired? emp. Impacts are transient. Waterlogging and soil salinization due to inadequate Project design shall ensure proper  drainage and farm management? drainage design. Leaching of soil nutrients and changes in soil characteristics due to excessive application of  irrigation water? Reduction of downstream water supply during peak  seasons? Soil pollution, polluted farm runoff and groundwater, and public health risks due to excessive application of  fertilizers and pesticides? Soil erosion (furrow, surface)?  Scouring of canals?  Logging of canals by sediments?  Clogging of canals by weeds?  Seawater intrusion into downstream freshwater  systems? Introduction of increase in incidence of waterborne or  water related diseases?

4.5.7 Agriculture

At present, agricultural productivity is low. The existing cropped area is 314 ha with 46% cropping intensity followed by annual cropping pattern of cotton mix-wheat mix. The designed interventions for agriculture include: a) increasing cropped area from 314 ha to 814 ha and cropping intensity from 46% to 120%. The gross irrigation requirement are given in Tables VI.1 and VI.2 of Appendix-VI.

It is expected that designed cropping intensity of 120% would be achieved within 5-6 years of completion of sub-project. The design cropping pattern includes high value crops to enhance farmers’ income.

Figure 46: Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali perennial irrigation sub-project - layout plan

Figure 47: Typical cross section of weir

Figure 48: Channel typical sections

Figure 49: Fall structure - typical plan and sections 88

5 Water Availability and Crop Water Requirement of Sub-Projects

Table 46: Analysis of Water Availability and Crop Water Requirement Gross Irrigation Requirement S. Available Water Sub-projects for Designed Command Area No. (MCM) (MCM) 1 Churri Sub-project 37.58 8.00 Pashta Khan and 2 14.24 8.00 Garambowad Sub-project Karkh River Core Sub- 3 20.00 18.50 project Kharzan Hatachi Core Sub- 4 125.75 7.00 project 5 Manyalo Raiko Sub-project 105.77 7.00 Total - 48.5 Note: Gross irrigation requirement for designed command area is 48.5 MCM which is comprised of 15.2 MCM for new command area and 33.3 MCM for improved existing command area.

A-1

Appendix – I: Churri Sub-project Table I.1: Proposed gross irrigation requirements - Churri sub-project

Conveyance efficiency 82% Field efficiency 80% Irrigation efficiency 65% Command Area 800 Hectare Crops Cotton Fodder Kh. veg Pulses Onion Barley Wheat Melon Orchard Rab. veg Total Month % 2 21 9 21 5 5 30 18 4 3 120 Area (ha) 17 171 69 171 43 43 240 146 34 26 960 Apr 0 19 6 0 5 4 26 25 2 0 86 May 1 27 11 0 11 7 15 28 2 0 103 Jun 5 36 20 0 11 12 0 28 2 0 113 July 4 38 17 0 7 2 0 25 2 0 95 August 2 40 11 0 0 0 0 22 2 0 77

September 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 39

October 1 21 0 1 0 0 17 0 1 0 41 November 0 12 0 19 0 0 18 0 1 2 51 December 0 3 0 10 0 0 16 0 0 1 30 January 0 3 0 1 0 0 17 0 0 1 23 February 0 3 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 2 40 March 0 7 0 0 2 1 24 18 1 0 53 Annual Demand (Hectare-Meter) 752 Annual Demand (MCM) 8 Maximum Demand (Cumec) 0.43

A-2

Table I.2: Agriculture with and without project - Churri sub-project Fodder Barley Crop Cotton Kh. veg Pulses Onion Wheat Melon Citrus Total Cabbage Area (Ha) 2 20 10 20 6 5 28 17 4 3 115 Cropping intensities (%) 0.3 2.5 1.3 2.5 0.8 0.6 3.5 2.1 0.5 0.4 14 Yield (Kg/Ha) 1750 17500 9650 600 12400 2200 1975 6900 6000 12400

Project Project Without Production (Tons) 4 350 97 12 74 11 55 117 24 37 Area (Ha) 17 171 69 171 43 43 240 146 34 26 960 Cropping intensities (%) 2 21 9 21 5 5 30 18 4 3 120

With Yield (Kg/Ha) 2800 27,200 18500 1105 18000 4850 3,650 13000 13500 17,800 Project Project Production (Tons) 48 4651 1277 189 774 209 876 1898 459 463 3

Table I.3: Economic and financial analysis - Churri sub-project Benefits From Farming Million Rs. Scenario Conditions Area (ha) GVP Farm Cost NVP Without Project 115 6.46 2.62 3.84 Main Crops - Financial Prices With Project 960 232.4 50.6 181.8 Without Project 115 7.51 3.59 3.92 Main Crops - Economic Prices With Project 960 213.5 50.4 163.12 Khushkaba Farming - Financial Prices With Project 350 72.30 10.35 61.95 Khushkaba Farming - Economic Prices With Project 350 68.6 10.3 58.3 Watershed & Rangeland Farming - With Project 8 0.4 0.1 0.3 Financial Prices Watershed & Rangeland Farming - With Project 8 0.3 0.1 0.26 Economic Prices Benefits From Livestock (Rangeland) Yearly Net Revenue of Production From Livestock Livestock (Cattle, Sheep, Goat and Poultry) in Million Rs. Year Financial Value Economic Value of NRP of NRP 1 2.6 2.3 2 3.8 3.4 3 4.5 4.1 4 5.4 4.9 5 6.5 5.9 6 7.8 7.0 Gender Economic and Financial Activity Benefits From Health "With Project" (Benefits) In Million Rs. Analysis Financial Economic According to Women Labor Wage Rates 3.8 2.63 Women Economic Activity in Poultry, 0.4 0.34 Tailoring and Embroidery Sector Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Financial Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) FIRR 26.00% Economic Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) EIRR 25.41% A-4

Appendix II: Pashta Khan & Garambowad Sub-project

Table II.1: Proposed gross irrigation requirements - Pashta Khan & Garambowad sub-project Conveyance efficiency 82% Field efficiency 80% Irrigation efficiency 65% Command Area - 833 ha Rabi Crops Cotton Fodder Maize Kh. veg Pulses Rice Onion Barley Wheat Melon Total veg. Month % 3 22 2 29 13 2 10 8 16 8 8 120 Area (ha) 27 186 16 239 106 14 80 66 133 66 66 1,000 Apr 0 20 2 20 0 0 9 6 14 11 0 83 May 2 29 3 38 0 3 21 11 8 13 0 128 Jun 7 39 4 70 0 4 20 18 0 13 0 175 July 7 41 1 59 0 3 13 3 0 11 0 140 August 3 44 0 40 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 99 September 2 39 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 43 October 1 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 34 November 0 13 0 0 12 0 0 0 10 0 5 40 December 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 9 0 3 21 January 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 4 17 February 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 5 26 March 0 8 0 0 0 0 4 1 13 8 0 35 Maximum Demand (Hectare-Meter) 841 Annual Demand (MCM) 8 Maximum Demand (Cumec) 0.67 A-5

Table II.2: Agriculture with and without project - Pashta Khan & Garambowad sub-project Crop Cotton Fodder Maize Kh. Veg Pulses Rice Onion Barley Wheat Melon Cabbage Total

Area (Ha) 14 98 11 108 45 8 32 30 51 28 30 456

Cropping 2 12 1 13 5 1 4 4 6 3 4 55 intensities (%)

Yield (Kg/Ha) 1750 17500 1050 9650 600 3680 12400 2200 1975 6900 12400

Without Project Production 25 1715 12 1042 27 29 397 66 101 193 372 (Tons)

Area (Ha) 27 186 16 239 106 14 80 66 133 66 66 1,000

Cropping 3 22 2 29 13 2 10 8 16 8 8 120 intensities (%)

Yield (Kg/Ha) 2800 27200 1313 18500 1105 5530 18000 4850 3650 13000 17800

With Project Production 76 5059 21 4422 117 77 1440 320 485 858 1175 (Tons)

Table II.3: Economic and financial analysis - Pashta Khan & Garambowad sub-project Benefits From Farming Million Rs. Scenario Conditions Area (ha) GVP Farm Cost NVP Without Project 456 94.66 22.08 72.58 Main Crops - Financial Prices With Project 1000 367.8 51.4 316.4 Without Project 456 83.89 22.08 61.81 Main Crops - Economic Prices With Project 1000 323.0 51.5 271.5 Khushkaba Farming - Financial With Project 50 8.67 0.68 7.99 Prices Khushkaba Farming - Economic With Project 50 6.9 0.7 6.2 Prices Watershed & Rangeland Farming - With Project 6 0.27 0.04 0.23 Financial Prices Watershed & Rangeland Farming - With Project 6 0.25 0.04 0.22 Economic Prices Benefits From Livestock (Rangeland) Yearly Net Revenue of Production From Livestock Livestock (Cattle, Sheep, Goat and Poultry) in Million Rs. Year Financial Value Economic Value of NRP of NRP 1 1.6 1.4 2 4.1 3.6 3 4.9 4.4 4 5.8 5.3 5 7.0 6.3 6 8.4 7.6 Gender Economic and Financial Activity Benefits From Health "With Project" (Benefits) In Million Rs. Analysis Financial Economic According to Women Labor Wage 3.8 2.63 Rates Women Economic Activity in Poultry, Tailoring and Embroidery 0.5 0.4 Sector Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Financial Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) FIRR 24.26% Economic Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) EIRR 22.63%

A-7

Appendix III: Karkh River Development Sub-Project

Table III.1: Proposed gross irrigation requirements - Karkh river core Sub-project Conveyance efficiency 82% Field efficiency 80% Irrigation efficiency 65% Command Area - 2250 ha Crops Cotton Fodder Kh. veg Pulses Onion Barley Wheat Melon Citrus Rabi veg Total Month % 10 7 15 4 5 2 50 2 14 11 120 Area (ha) 225 157 338 90 113 45 1125 45 315 247 2,700 Apr 0 17 28 0 13 4 121 8 15 0 206 May 15 25 53 0 29 8 71 9 23 0 233 Jun 62 33 98 0 28 12 0 9 21 0 244 July 56 35 84 0 18 2 0 8 19 0 221 August 25 37 56 0 0 0 0 7 19 0 144 September 20 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 68 October 12 19 0 1 0 0 81 0 10 0 123 November 0 11 0 10 0 0 86 0 6 19 131 December 0 3 0 5 0 0 73 0 2 11 95 January 0 3 0 1 0 0 78 0 2 15 98 February 0 3 0 0 0 0 104 4 4 20 134 March 0 7 0 0 6 1 112 6 7 0 137 Maximum Demand (Hectare-Meter) 1,854 Annual Demand (MCM) 18.5 Maximum Demand (Cumec) 0.93

A-8

Table III.2: Agriculture with and without project - Karkh river core Sub-project

Crop -Veg

Total

Citrus

Onion

Wheat

Barley

Cotton

Pulses

Melons

Fodders

Cabbage

Area (ha) 113 270 157 68 90 45 787 [45 202 225 2000 Cropping intensity 5.0 12.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 35.0 2.0 9.0 10.0 89 (%)

Project Yield (Kg/Ha) 1750 9650 17500 13200 600 6900 1975 2200 6000 12400 Without Production (Tons) 198 2606 2748 898 54 311 1554 99 1212 2790

Area (Ha) 225 338 157 113 90 45 1125 45 315 247 2700 Cropping intensities 10.0 15.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 50.0 2.0 14.0 11.0 120 (%) Yield (Kg/ha) 2800 18500 27200 16500 1105 13000 3650 4850 13500 17800

With Project Production (Tons) 630 6253 4270 1865 99 585 4106 218 4253 4397

Table III.3: Economic and financial analysis - Karkh river development sub-project Benefits From Farming Million Rs. Scenario Conditions Area (ha) Farm GVP NVP Cost Without Project 2000 395 114 281 Main Crops - Financial Prices With Project 2700 693.9 138.9 555.0 Without Project 2000 351.84 113.40 238.43 Main Crops - Economic Prices With Project 2700 614.3 138.3 476.0 Khushkaba Farming - Financial Prices With Project 75 9.62 0.99 8.63 Khushkaba Farming - Economic Prices With Project 75 7.9 0.9 7.0 Watershed & Rangeland Farming - With Project 210 9.4 1.4 8.0 Financial Prices Watershed & Rangeland Farming - With Project 210 8.7 1.3 7.4 Economic Prices Benefits From Livestock (Rangeland) Yearly Net Revenue of Production From Livestock Livestock (Cattle, Sheep, Goat and Poultry) in Million Rs. Year Financial Economic Value of NRP Value of NRP 1 1.0 0.9 2 4.9 4.4 3 5.9 5.3 4 7.1 6.4 5 8.5 7.6 6 10.2 9.2 Gender Economic and Financial Activity Benefits From Health "With Project" (Benefits) In Million Rs. Analysis Financial Economic According to Women Labor Wage 1.6 1.12 Rates Women Economic Activity in Poultry, 0.4 0.34 Tailoring and Embroidery Sector Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Financial Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) FIRR 16.56% Economic Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) EIRR 15.46% A-10

Appendix IV: Kharzan Hatachi Infiltration Gallery Sub-project

Table IV.1: Proposed gross irrigation requirements - Kharzan Hatachi core sub-project Conveyance efficiency 82% Field efficiency 80% Irrigation efficiency 65% Command Area 681 ha Crops Fodder Kh. Veg. Pulses Rice Wheat Melon Rabi veg. Total Month % 31 32 19 1 27 6 4 120 Area (ha) 210 216 129 7 186 40 29 817 Apr 23 18 0 0 20 7 0 68 May 33 34 0 2 12 8 0 88 Jun 44 63 0 2 0 8 0 117 July 47 54 0 2 0 7 0 109 August 50 36 0 1 0 6 0 93 September 44 0 0 1 0 0 0 44 October 25 0 1 0 13 0 0 40 November 14 0 14 0 14 0 2 45 December 4 0 8 0 12 0 1 25 January 4 0 1 0 13 0 2 19 February 4 0 0 0 17 3 2 27 March 9 0 0 0 19 5 0 32 Annual Demand (Hectare-Meter) 707 Annual Demand (MCM) 7 Annual Demand (Cumec) 0.44

A-11

Table IV.2: Agriculture with and without project - Kharzan Hatachi sub-project Crop Rice Kh-Veg Fodders Pulses Melons Wheat Cabbage Total Area (ha) 6 152 147 91 28 130 20 575 Cropping intensities (%) 0.88 22.32 21.59 13.36 4.11 19.09 2.94 84 Yield (Kg/Ha) 3680 9650 17500 600 6900 1975 12400

Project Without Production (Tons) 22 1467 2573 55 193 257 248 Area (Ha) 7 216 210 129 40 186 29 817 Cropping intensities (%) 1.03 31.72 30.84 18.94 5.87 27.31 4.26 120

With Yield (Kg/ha) 5530 18500 27200 1105 13000 3650 17800

Project Production (Tons) 39 3996 5712 143 520 679 516

Table IV.3: Economic and financial analysis - Kharzan Hatachi core sub-project Benefits From Farming Million Rs. Scenario Conditions Area (ha) GVP Farm Cost NVP Without Project 575 111.41 13.91 97.50 Main Crops - Financial Prices With Project 817 278.9 25.3 253.6 Without Project 575 101.71 13.91 87.80 Main Crops - Economic Prices With Project 817 253.9 25.3 228.7 Khushkaba Farming - Financial Prices With Project 378 63.75 4.12 59.63 Khushkaba Farming - Economic Prices With Project 378 52.3 4.1 48.2 Watershed - Financial Prices With Project 85 4.6 0.4 4.2 Watershed - Economic Prices With Project 85 3.4 0.4 3.0 Benefits From Livestock (Rangeland) Yearly Net Revenue of Production From Livestock Livestock (Cattle, Sheep, Goat and Poultry) in Million Rs. Year Financial Economic Value of NRP Value of NRP 1 1.0 0.9 2 4.9 4.4 3 5.9 5.3 4 7.1 6.4 5 8.5 7.6 6 10.2 9.2 Gender Economic and Financial Activity Benefits From Health "With Project" (Benefits) In Million Rs. Analysis Financial Economic According to Women Labor Wage 1.6 1.12 Rates Women Economic Activity in Poultry, 0.4 0.34 Tailoring and Embroidery Sector Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Financial Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) FIRR 16.61% Economic Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) EIRR 16.43% A-13

Appendix V: Manyalo, Raiko and Rind Ali Perennial Irrigation Sub-project

Table V.1: Proposed gross irrigation requirements - Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali sub-project Command Area - Conveyance efficiency 82% Field efficiency 80% Irrigation efficiency 65% 678 ha Crops Fodder Maize Kh. veg Onion Barley Wheat Melon Rabi veg. Total Months % 20 9 33 12 11 16 5 15 120 Area (ha) 136 63 222 79 74 106 32 102 814 April 15 7 19 9 7 11 5 0 73 May 21 11 35 21 12 7 6 0 113 Jun 28 18 65 20 20 0 6 0 157 July 30 5 55 12 4 0 5 0 112 August 32 0 37 0 0 0 5 0 74 September 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 October 16 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 24 November 9 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 25 December 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 14 January 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 6 16 February 3 0 0 0 0 10 3 8 23 March 6 0 0 4 1 10 4 0 26 Maximum Demand (Hectare-Meter) 685 Annual Demand (MCM) 7 Maximum Demand (Cumec) 0.60

A-14

Table V.2: Agriculture with and without project - Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali sub-project

Crop Fodder Kh.Veg Onion Barley Wheat Melon Cabbage Total Maize Citrus Area (Ha) 52 24 85 30 28 40 12 4 39 314 Cropping intensities (%) 8 4 13 4 4 6 2 0.5 6 46 Yield (Kg/Ha) 17500 1050 9650 12400 2200 1975 6900 6000 12400

Project Without Production (Tons) 910 25 820 372 62 79 83 24 484

Area (Ha) 136 63 222 79 74 106 32 0 102 814 Cropping intensities (%) 20 9 33 12 11 16 5 0 15 120

With Yield (Kg/Ha) 27200 1313 18500 18000 4850 3650 13000 13500 17800

Project Production (Tons) 3699 83 4107 1422 359 387 416 0 1816

Table V.3: Economic and financial analysis - Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali sub-project Benefits From Farming Million Rs. Scenario Conditions Area (ha) GVP Farm Cost NVP Without Project 314 44.87 16.56 28.31 Main Crops - Financial Prices With Project 814 234.1 50.0 184.1 Without Project 314 41.66 16.56 25.10 Main Crops - Economic Prices With Project 814 217.7 49.5 168.2 Khushkaba Farming - Financial Prices With Project 425 68.90 5.61 63.29 Khushkaba Farming - Economic Prices With Project 425 58.8 5.6 53.2 Watershed & Rangeland Farming - With Project 13 0.53 0.08 0.45 Financial Prices Watershed & Rangeland Farming - With Project 13 0.5 0.1 0.4 Economic Prices Benefits From Livestock (Rangeland) Yearly Net Revenue of Production From Livestock Livestock (Cattle, Sheep, Goat and Poultry) in Million Rs. Year Financial Economic Value of NRP Value of NRP 1 0.7 0.6 2 4.8 4.4 3 5.8 5.2 4 7.0 6.3 5 8.4 7.5 6 10.0 9.0 Gender Economic and Financial Activity Benefits From Health "With Project" (Benefits) In Million Rs. Analysis Financial Economic According to Women Labor Wage 1.1 0.79 Rates Women Economic Activity in Poultry, 0.3 0.29 Tailoring and Embroidery Sector Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Financial Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) FIRR 16.79% Economic Internal Rate of Return (Base Model) EIRR 16.12%

A-16

Appendix–VI: Watershed Management and Command Area Development Interventions at Sub-projects of Mula River Basin

Churri sub-project - cost summary for watershed management works

No. Watershed Management Interventions Quantity Unit Rate Amount (PKR) Development of earthen micro-

1 catchments (eyebrow terraces) 8 Hectares 280,000 – 35,000 Contract to VWC Digging of pit, addition of compost, termite treatment and plantation of trees 2 5 Hectares 140,000 (timber/forest/arid fruits) – Contract to 28,000 VWC Seeding of native grasses Contract to 3 – 0.5 Hectares 3,200 1,600 VWC

Loose stone and Gabion Structures for

4 Critical Locations small check Number - – 20,000 structures – Contract to VWC Water Storage Ponds for Establishing

5 the Plantation and recharge to 0 Number - 150,000 groundwater – Contract to VWC Total Cost of Watershed Management Interventions 421,600

A-17

Command area development works in the Perennial Irrigation Command Area of Churri sub-project N Command Area Development o Quantity Unit Rate Amount (million Rs.) Interventions . Construction of lined watercourses along 1 Meter 3,100 13.69 with associated structures 4,415 Provision of Laser leveler complete units (Laser transmitter, receiver, scrapper, soil 1,000,0 2 digging implement, etc.) to local tractor Number 3.00 3 00 rentals at 25% cost sharing by the rental services and 75% by project Provision of bed former, shaper and planter and reversible moldboard ploughs to the 3 Number 250,000 0.75 local tractor rentals at 25% cost-sharing by 3 rental service and 75% by project Kaccha tracks for farm to nearby shingle 4 Meter 250 0.63 road – Contract to FOs 2,500 Rough and/or Laser land Levelling support 5 Hectares 12,500 10.00 to the command area 800 Total Cost of Command Area Development (million Rs.) 28.06

Pashta Khan & Garambowad sub-project - cost summary for watershed management works

Watershed Management Amount No. Quantity Unit Rate Interventions (PKR) Development of earthen

1 micro-catchments (eyebrow 6 Hectares 35,000 210,000 terraces) – Contract to VWC Digging of pit, addition of compost, termite treatment

2 and plantation of trees 5 Hectares 28,000 140,000 (timber/forest/arid fruits) – Contract to VWC Seeding of native grasses 3 – 3 Hectares Contract to VWC 3,200 8,000

Loose stone and Gabion Structures for Critical 4 0 Number Locations – small check 20,000 - structures – Contract to VWC Water Storage Ponds for

Establishing the Plantation 5 1 Number 150,00 and recharge to groundwater 150,000 0 – Contract to VWC

Total Cost of Watershed Management Interventions 508,000

Command area development works in command area of Pashta Khan & Garambowad sub-project N Command Area Quantity Unit Rate Amount (million Rs.) o. Development Interventions Construction of lined

1 watercourses along with Meter 3,100 17.58 5,672 associated structures A-18

Provision of Laser leveler complete units (Laser transmitter, receiver, scrapper, soil digging 2 Number 1,000,000 12.00 implement, etc.) to local 12 tractor rentals at 25% cost sharing by the rental services and 75% by project Provision of bed former, shaper and planter and reversible moldboard

3 ploughs to the local tractor Number 250,000 3.00 12 rentals at 25% cost-sharing by rental service and 75% by project Kaccha tracks for farm to

4 nearby shingle road Meter 250 1.13 – 4,500 Contract to FOs Rough and/or Laser land

5 Levelling support to the Hectares 12,500 10.41 833 command area Total Cost of Command Area Development (million Rs.) 44.12

Karkh Valley River core sub-project - Cost summary for watershed management works

No. Watershed Management Interventions Quantity Unit Rate Amount (PKR)

Development of earthen micro-catchments 1 210 Hectares 7,350,000 (eyebrow terraces) – Contract to VWC 35,000 Digging of pit, addition of compost, termite treatment and plantation of trees 2 210 Hectares 5,880,000 (timber/forest/arid fruits) – Contract to 28,000 VWC Seeding of native grasses Contract to 3 – 210 Hectares 672,000 VWC 3,200 Loose stone and Gabion Structures for

4 Critical Locations small check structures 100 Number 2,000,000 – 20,000 – Contract to VWC Water Storage Ponds for Establishing the

5 Plantation and recharge to groundwater 12 Number 1,800,000 – 150,000 Contract to VWC Total Cost of Watershed Management Interventions 17,702,000

Command area development works in command area of Karkh River core sub-project

Command Area Development Amount No. Quantity Unit Rate Interventions (million Rs.) Construction of lined watercourses along with 1 33,750 Meter 3,100 105 associated structures Provision of Laser leveler complete units (Laser transmitter, receiver, scrapper, soil 3 digging implement, etc.) to local tractor rentals 5 Number 1,250,000 6.3 at 25% cost sharing by the rental services and 75% by project

Provision of bed former, shaper and planter and reversible moldboard ploughs to the local 4 5 Number 750,000 3.75 tractor rentals at 25% cost-sharing by rental service and 75% by project Kaccha tracks for farm to nearby shingle road 6 33,800 Meter 250 8.45 – Contract to FOs A-19

Rough and/or Laser land Levelling support to 7 2,250 Hectares 12,500 28.13 the command area 5 151.20

Kharzan Hatachi core sub-project - cost summary for watershed management works

No. Watershed Management Interventions Quantity Unit Rate Amount (PKR) Development of earthen micro-

1 catchments (eyebrow terraces) 85 Hectares 2,975,000 – 35,000 Contract to VWC Digging of pit, addition of compost, termite treatment and plantation of trees 2 85 Hectares 2,380,000 (timber/forest/arid fruits) – Contract to 28,000 VWC Seeding of native grasses Contract to 3 – 85 Hectares 272,000 VWC 3,200

Loose stone and Gabion Structures for

4 Critical Locations small check 50 Number 1,000,000 – 20,000 structures – Contract to VWC Water Storage Ponds for Establishing

5 the Plantation and recharge to 4 Number 600,000 150,000 groundwater – Contract to VWC Total Cost of Watershed Management Interventions 7,227,000

Command area development works in command area of Kharzan Hatachi core sub- project Command Area Development No. Quantity Unit Rate Amount (million Rs.) Interventions Construction of lined watercourses along 1 Meter 3,100 38.38 with associated structures 12,380 Provision of Laser leveler complete units (Laser transmitter, receiver, scrapper, soil

2 digging implement, etc.) to local tractor Number 1,000,000 2.00 2 rentals at 25% cost sharing by the rental services and 75% by project

Provision of bed former, shaper and planter and reversible moldboard ploughs to the 3 Number 250,000 0.50 local tractor rentals at 25% cost-sharing by 2 rental service and 75% by project Kaccha tracks for farm to nearby shingle 4 Meter 250 2.33 road – Contract to FOs 9,300 Rough and/or Laser land Levelling support 5 Hectares 12,500 7.74 to the command area 619 Total Cost of Command Area Development (million Rs.) 50.94

Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali sub-project - cost summary for watershed management works

No. Watershed Management Interventions Quantity Unit Rate Amount (PKR) Development of earthen micro-

1 catchments (eyebrow terraces) 13 Hectares 455,000 – 35,000 Contract to VWC 2 Digging of pit, addition of compost, 7 Hectares 196,000 A-20

termite treatment and plantation of trees 28,000 (timber/forest/arid fruits) – Contract to VWC Seeding of native grasses Contract to 3 – 2 Hectares 6,400 VWC 3,200

Loose stone and Gabion Structures for

4 Critical Locations small check 0 Number - – 20,000 structures – Contract to VWC

Water Storage Ponds for Establishing

5 the Plantation and recharge to Number - 150,000 groundwater – Contract to VWC Total Cost of Watershed Management Interventions 657,400

Command area development works in command area of Manyalo, Raiko & Rind Ali sub- project

Command Area Development No. Quantity Unit Rate Amount (million Rs.) Interventions Construction of lined watercourses along 1 Meter 3,100 16.34 with associated structures 5,270 Provision of Laser leveler complete units (Laser transmitter, receiver, scrapper, soil

2 digging implement, etc.) to local tractor Number 1,000,000 12.00 12 rentals at 25% cost sharing by the rental services and 75% by project

Provision of bed former, shaper and planter and reversible moldboard ploughs to the 3 Number 250,000 3.00 local tractor rentals at 25% cost-sharing by 12 rental service and 75% by project Kaccha tracks for farm to nearby shingle 4 Meter 250 0.87 road – Contract to FOs 3,485 Rough and/or Laser land Levelling support 5 Hectares 12,500 8.48 to the command area 678 Total Cost of Command Area Development (million Rs.) 40.68 A-21

Appendix VI: Economic Benefit Stream and Analysis Churri sub-project – Financial analysis Project Cost Benefits Net Year Sub-project Perennial Benefits Existing Khushkaba Development O&M Total Watershed Command Total (M.Rs) Benefits Farming Cost Area

1 159.8 0.0 159.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -159.8

2 159.8 0.0 159.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -159.8

3 3.2 3.2 3.8 1.3 0.00 11.0 8.5 5.3

4 3.2 3.2 3.8 5.6 0.02 25.3 27.2 24.0

5 3.2 3.2 3.8 11.8 0.06 43.3 51.3 48.1

6 3.2 3.2 3.8 20.2 0.11 78.4 94.9 91.7

7 3.2 3.2 3.8 32.8 0.25 125.1 154.3 151.1

8 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

9 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

10 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

11 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

12 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

13 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

14 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

15 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

16 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

17 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

18 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

19 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

20 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

21 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3

22 3.2 3.2 3.8 47.5 0.30 158.6 202.5 199.3 FIRR 26.00%

A-22

Churri sub-project – Economic analysis

Project Cost Benefits Net Year Sub-project Perennial Benefits Existing Khushkaba Development O&M Total Watershed Command Total (M.Rs) Benefits Farming Cost Area

1 151.8 0.0 151.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -151.8

2 151.8 0.0 151.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -151.8

3 3.0 3.0 3.9 1.2 0.0 10.4 7.6 4.6

4 3.0 3.0 3.9 5.2 0.01 24.5 25.8 22.7

5 3.0 3.0 3.9 10.8 0.04 42.1 49.0 46.0

6 3.0 3.0 3.9 18.7 0.1 74.1 89.0 86.0

7 3.0 3.0 3.9 30.6 0.2 118.1 145.1 142.0

8 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

9 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

10 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

11 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

12 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

13 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

14 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

15 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

16 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

17 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

18 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

19 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

20 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

21 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

22 3.0 3.0 3.9 44.6 0.3 141.8 182.7 179.7

EIRR 25.41%

A-23

Pashta Khan sub-project – Financial analysis

Project Cost Benefits Net Year Benefits Sub-project Existing Command (M.Rs) Development O&M Total Khushkaba Watershed Total Benefits Area Cost

1 243.5 0.0 243.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -243.5

2 243.5 0.0 243.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -243.5

3 4.9 4.9 71.4 94.4 0.1 0.0 23.1 18.2

4 4.9 4.9 71.4 126.1 0.6 0.0 55.2 50.3

5 4.9 4.9 71.4 160.2 1.0 0.0 89.9 85.0

6 4.9 4.9 71.4 208.1 2.0 0.1 138.8 133.9

7 4.9 4.9 71.4 288.6 3.6 0.2 221.0 216.1

8 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

9 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

10 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

11 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

12 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

13 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

14 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

15 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

16 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

17 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

18 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

19 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

20 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

21 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1

22 4.9 4.9 71.4 313.8 5.4 0.2 247.9 243.1 FIRR 24.26%

A-24

Pashta Khan sub-project – Economic analysis

Project Cost Benefits

Net Year Benefits Sub-project Existing Command (M.Rs) Development O&M Total Khushkaba Watershed Total Benefits Area Cost

1 231.3 0.0 231.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -231.3

2 231.3 0.0 231.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -231.3

3 4.6 4.6 60.7 80.5 0.0 0.0 19.9 15.2

4 4.6 4.6 60.7 108.4 0.4 0.0 48.1 43.5

5 4.6 4.6 60.7 137.6 0.9 0.0 77.9 73.2

6 4.6 4.6 60.7 178.9 1.7 0.1 120.0 115.4

7 4.6 4.6 60.7 247.7 3.2 0.2 190.3 185.7

8 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

9 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

10 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

11 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

12 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

13 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

14 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

15 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

16 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

17 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

18 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

19 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

20 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

21 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

22 4.6 4.6 60.7 269.0 4.2 0.2 212.6 208.0

EIRR 22.63%

A-25

Karkh River core sub-project – Financial analysis

Project Cost Benefits Net Year Benefits Sub-project Perennial Existing (M.Rs) Development O&M Total Command Watershed Khushkaba Total Benefits Cost Area

1 370.3 0.0 370.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -370.3

2 370.3 0.0 370.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -370.3

3 7.4 7.4 281.5 258.8 0.06 0.07 (22.5) (29.9)

4 7.4 7.4 281.5 338.9 0.33 0.69 58.4 51.0

5 7.4 7.4 281.5 401.2 1.07 1.03 121.8 114.4

6 7.4 7.4 281.5 450.2 2.96 1.82 173.4 166.0

7 7.4 7.4 281.5 541.8 5.73 4.25 270.3 262.9

8 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

9 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

10 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

11 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

12 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

13 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

14 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

15 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

16 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

17 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

18 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

19 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

20 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

21 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1

22 7.4 7.4 281.5 786.3 7.99 8.63 521.5 514.1 FIRR 25.65%

A-26

Karkh River core sub-project – Economic analysis

Project Cost Benefits

Net Year Benefits Sub-project Perennial Existing (M.Rs) Development O&M Total Command Watershed Khushkaba Total Benefits Cost Area

1 351.8 0.0 351.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -351.8

2 351.8 0.0 351.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -351.8

3 7.0 7.0 238.4 216.1 0.1 0.1 (22.2) (29.2)

4 7.0 7.0 238.4 289.3 0.3 0.6 51.8 44.8

5 7.0 7.0 238.4 342.5 1.0 0.9 106.0 98.9

6 7.0 7.0 238.4 383.6 2.8 1.7 149.6 142.5

7 7.0 7.0 238.4 466.7 5.3 3.9 237.4 230.4

8 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

9 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

10 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

11 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

12 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

13 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

14 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

15 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

16 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

17 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

18 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

19 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

20 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

21 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

22 7.0 7.0 238.4 680.7 7.4 7.0 456.7 449.7

EIRR 24.39%

A-27

Kharzan Hatachi core sub-project – Financial analysis

Project Cost Benefits Net Year Benefits Sub-project Existing Command Khushkaba (M.Rs) Development O&M Total Watershed Total Benefits Area Area Cost

1 330.5 0.0 330.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -330.5

2 330.5 0.0 330.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -330.5

3 6.6 6.6 97.5 98.1 4.8 0.21 5.6 (1.0)

4 6.6 6.6 97.5 121.4 13.7 0.57 38.2 31.6

5 6.6 6.6 97.5 144.7 19.2 1.19 67.5 60.9

6 6.6 6.6 97.5 170.3 29.6 1.93 104.3 97.7

7 6.6 6.6 97.5 197.7 44.8 3.58 148.6 142.0

8 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

9 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

10 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

11 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

12 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

13 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

14 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

15 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

16 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

17 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

18 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

19 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

20 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

21 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4

22 6.6 6.6 97.5 253.6 59.6 4.24 220.0 213.4 FIRR 16.61%

A-28

Kharzan Hatachi core sub-project – Economic analysis

Project Cost Benefits

Net Year Benefits Sub-project Existing Command Khushkaba (M.Rs) Development O&M Total Watershed Total Benefits Area Area Cost

1 314.0 0.0 314.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -314.0 2 314.0 0.0 314.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -314.0 3 6.3 6.3 87.8 102.6 3.2 0.06 18.1 11.8 4 6.3 6.3 87.8 123.7 10.0 0.2 46.2 39.9 5 6.3 6.3 87.8 145.4 14.6 0.5 72.8 66.5 6 6.3 6.3 87.8 169.3 23.1 1.0 105.6 99.3 7 6.3 6.3 87.8 204.1 36.1 2.5 154.9 148.6 8 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 9 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 10 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 11 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 12 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 13 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8

14 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 15 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 16 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 17 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 18 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 19 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 20 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 21 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 22 6.3 6.3 87.8 228.7 48.2 3.0 192.1 185.8 EIRR 16.43%

A-29

Manyalo Raiko Rand Ali sub-project – Financial analysis

Project Cost Benefits Net Year Benefits Sub-project Perennial Existing (M.Rs) Development O&M Total Khushkaba Watershed Command Total Benefits Cost Area

1 345.2 0.0 345.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -345.2

2 345.2 0.0 345.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -345.2

3 6.9 6.9 28.3 1.7 (0.0) 43.8 17.1 10.2

4 6.9 6.9 28.3 8.2 0.01 64.0 43.8 36.9

5 6.9 6.9 28.3 14.5 0.05 89.4 75.7 68.7

6 6.9 6.9 28.3 25.9 0.10 127.4 125.1 118.2

7 6.9 6.9 28.3 42.4 0.38 165.8 180.3 173.4

8 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

9 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

10 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

11 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

12 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

13 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

14 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

15 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

16 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

17 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

18 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

19 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

20 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

21 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7

22 6.9 6.9 28.3 63.3 0.45 184.1 219.6 212.7 FIRR 16.79%

A-30

Manyalo Raiko Rand Ali sub-project – Economic analysis

Project Cost Benefits

Net Year Benefits Sub-project Perennial Existing (M.Rs) Development O&M Total Khushkaba Watershed Command Total Benefits Cost Area

1 328.0 0.0 328.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -328.0

2 328.0 0.0 328.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -328.0

3 6.6 6.6 25.1 1.5 (0.0) 39.7 16.1 9.5

4 6.6 6.6 25.1 7.5 0.0 58.1 40.5 34.0

5 6.6 6.6 25.1 13.4 0.0 81.3 69.6 63.1

6 6.6 6.6 25.1 24.0 0.1 116.2 115.2 108.6

7 6.6 6.6 25.1 39.7 0.4 151.8 166.8 160.2

8 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

9 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

10 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

11 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

12 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

13 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

14 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

15 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

16 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

17 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

18 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

19 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

20 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

21 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

22 0.0 6.6 6.6 25.1 53.2 0.4 168.2 196.8 190.2

EIRR 16.12%