Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE OJ LY Repor No. 7832 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT MALAYSIA MUDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1717-MA) JUNE 23, 1989 This document has a reticted dls_lbdom and may be used by t o I db pen of their ouchd duies. Its contents may not otews be dlosed WoM Bak LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AC - Asbestos Cement AO - Agriculture Officer MAO - Assistant Agriculture Officer AT - Agricultural Technician BPM - Bank Pertanian Malaysia CCS - Crop Cutting Survey CHO - Constant Head Office DAO - District Agricultural Officer DID - Drainage and Irrigation Department DOA - Department of Agriculture ERR - Economic Rate of Return FDC - Farmer Development Centre FIT - Farm Irrigation Turnout FOA - Farmers' Organization Authority FSL - Full Supply Level 0GM - Government of Malaysia GP - Glass Reinforced Polyester IBRD - International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IPM - Integrated Pest Management ISA - Irrigation Service Area ISU - Irrigation Service Unit iWN - Integrated Weed Management LPN - Lembaga Padi Dan Beras Negara (National Padi & Rice Board) LYT - Local Verification Trials MADA - Muda Agricultural Development Authority MARDI - Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute MOA - Ministry of Agriculture NPV - Net Present Value OED - Operations Evaluation Department (World Bank) PCR - Project Completion Report RETDC - Regional Extension and Training Development Centre SAP - Structural Adjustment Program SAR - Staff Appraisal Report SMS - Subject Matter Specialist SRR - Social Rate of Return T&V - Training and Visit YOR omcuL use ssY TlE WORLD BANK Washungton. D.C. 20433 U.S.A. (i o ctw4-mns June 23, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report - Malaysia MUDA II Irrigation Project (Loan 1717-MA) Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled "Project Completion Report - Malaysia MUDA II Irrigation Project (Loan 1717-MA)" prepared by Government with an overview by the Asia Regional Office. Further evaluation of this project by the Operations Evaluation Department has not been made. Attachment Ths document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the perfomance of their official duties Its contents may not otherwise be disclsed without World Bank auomUo. FOR OFFICIUL USE ONLY MALAYSIA MUDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1717-MA) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Pagce No. PREFACE.* ..........*...............*.*.....i BASIC DATA SHEET ........... ...............*..**... ...**.**..* ii EVALUATION SUMMARY ............................. *................ **... iv OAVERVILeW ... ................ ................................. 1 A. Project Background * ........ ...... ...... ... . 1 B. Project Implementation and Impact ........................ 5 C. Implementation Issues and Lessons Learned ................ 13 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT ...... ............................. 17 I. INTRODUCTION ..... .... 19 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ... ............... 19 III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ............................ . ..... . 21 IV. PROJECT EVALUATION ... ...... * ......... 32 V. ECONOMIC EVALUATION . 49 VI. PERFORMANCE OF THE AID AGENCY ............ ...... 56 ANNEXES ATTACHMENT: Borrower Comments This document has a restricted distibution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authotization. MALAYSIA MUDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1717-MA) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PREFACE This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the M%da 1I Irrigation Project in Malaysia, for which Loan 1717-MA in the amount of US$31.0 million was approved on June 5, 1979. The original Loan Closing Date of December 31, 1984 was extended three times to December 31, 1987. US$1.4 million of the loan amount was cancelled on June 16, 1986, and a final US$90,000 was cancelled at the time of the last disbursement on August 4, 1988. The PCR was preparp.d by Government with an overview by the Asia Regional Office. It is based, inter alia, on the Staff Appraisal Report; the Loan and Project Agreements; supervision reports, correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower and internal Bank memoranda. The PCR was read by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED). The draft PCR was sent to the Borrower for comments and they are attached to the Report (Attachment I). - ii - PROACT COw15to mi MAYSIA: HUD tt t RSZAtO MOJICT (Loa 1117f1tA) 8482 OATA SISXT 1Y PROJEC? DATA Appre"al Actul r octual an S ot e*etatton curret *ett_t auraial eatimagg Project concs (US$ mllion) 69.0 94.61 137.0 LCO/Crodit amunt (US$ llion) 31.0 29.31 95.2 Dato ard aproval 06-05-79 r Date atfacttivees 094749 Date phylcal copoeata completed Dec. 83 Dec. 90 - - Clontin date Dce. 84 DeC. 87 £cemmc rato of return (2) 18.0 5.0 27.7 Yteniatl rate of return (2) - - Agroneie pctorfenco mediocre Number of diret beaficiariea (fa& fta_u g) 16 000 ia tertieries 13,100 82.0 60,000 ra1 M.d" 50.300 84.0 CUTIVW DISSURSES --0so ysi m2 nT83 FY84 PYOS M FY87 FM8 Appraisal eatinsto (US$ tiliton) 1.5 6.0 13.2 21.8 29.8 31.0 - - Actual (US$ alion) 1.57 2.97 7.49 12.29 15.27 19.87 2:.40 27.62 29.51 Actual s Z of estiate 105 50 57 56 51 64 82 93 95 Dsto of finl dieburmenet August 4. 1988 Principal repaid -MIOM DATA Deto No. of Men-daY* SpeCiaUatiou Pertfor _Rc Type of Miaon (po/ur) persons tn field rnr ejaeto4 /b ratins /c tra. /d probl_e /h tdontltication/ 04/77 2 10 Se, I Preaation 11/77 3 12 Ee, Aar. I preppurical 03/78 3 15 ge. 4gr, I (Agric. aesects) 0/7S 1 7 Ag Apraiaal (Other aapecto) 11/78 4 28 2Ee. It Agr Subtotal 72 Supervision 1 09/79 5 10 21, t, Ze. Aar I - - Supervisioa 2 11/80 4 20 21, Agr, gc 2 2 0 SOrvion 3 03/82 2 10 F, I I I Seprielon 4 10/82 3 26 1. get 4Al 1 I r Superviaion 5 11/83 3 26 t. 2Agr 1 I p superviaon 6 02/85 1 7 Ar 2 1 Superviion 7 02186 1 7 Agr 2 2 Suparviuon a 11/86 1 6 Agr 2 3 Supervinon 9 07/87 1 4 Agw 2 3 Suparvtiion 10 Subtotal 114 Total 16 0i CRJZT a torronr Govrnt of w In n ia"S I) EKut2'~Si"' -amend ULU vise Yr at bomwr Cz1tn" I" 1N of currenc I abbreviation) loara, 4ellaro (El2 , PPraieaer eraan 0Ts".0 - $.21 Ott"a yearn avara&n U81.00 w U.5 I "ii ear average 1.00 *_____ FO11ev-u projects Nam ud" til prouned. but band on Inade te MS aet d ith. Loan/credit numbet -!g.; -= rotvrcode wth 6/,erItn _nmn (US$ mion) - Utta Br4 Approval DelaYed natlY du to GOt budget contrinta atd bigh cil vorkacoate it ealy proct yeans. r - agriculturist; E - rural enginer; gc - econmicet; 1 ittrration enginer; IF fianial analyst. 1 * probl-free or mnor problem; 2 * modera proo,em; me 3 - ejor Problem. I improving; 2 * *tatiury; 3 - detrirating. F - financial; IH * _egeratl; T * tehnic:L P * polItical; a 0 a other (land acquisition). -iii Dri ATA Smin fcma'n Em Er an Ef ES En E& Prea,rel .4 lu.6 4.1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. n"fle - - X8.8 - - - - - - - - - 812.2 N.gs*Ie*iao - - 11. - - - _ _ - -. - - 1.7 su-wvi4.I - - .4 11.0 I.? 8.4 10.4 10.4 4.6 6.1 4.6 8.1 64.4 Cl - - .9 - .2 - - - - - - - 1.0 Total .4 16.6 80.2 11.0 *.9 6.6 10.4 0.4 4. 6.1 4.0 8.1 u3.4 - iv - MALAYSIA MUDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1717-MA) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Evaluation Summary Introduction 1. %iis project was a follow-up to the Muda Irrigation Project (Loan 434-MA), for whilch a loan of US$45.0 million was made in Nosember 1965, and which successfully developed two storage dams and the main and secondary canal system for 97,000 ha of irrigated padi land, at a cost of US$840/ha. Following completion of the first project in December 1973, the cropping intensity at Muda had increased from 1002 to a high 197S, although production constraints remained important (timing of cultural operations, harvest and transport difficulties due to inadequate drainage, and insufficient water at critical times), due to inadequate on-farm development with field-to-field flooding. Obiectives 2. After a lengthy period of pilot studies, the Muda II project was appraised in late 1978. It aimed to increase padi production in support of the Malaysian Government's objectives of raisivo farm incomes and lowering rice Import requirements. The project was to r 7ide tertiary canals, drains and access roads to serve about 252 of the Muds uommand area, selected on the basis of need for additional and timely water supplies and manageme.t improvements. Some system improvements to the remainder of the Muda area were included; the executing agency was to be provided with facilities, equipment and staff training, and agricultural services were to be strengthened. Implementation Experience 3. Substantial changes in Malaysia's economic situation in the years after project appraisal led to the Government taking corrective measures which resulted in substantial implementation delays and redu.ced benefits. In the prosperous early project years, there were excessive construction cost increases which necessitated rebidding for many contracts. Budget shortfalL in the following austerity years 1982-84 halted the award of new contracts and in later years implementation was slow because relatively inexperienced and financially weak contractors were able to obtain contracts in an extremely competitive environment which had attracted many new contractors to the sector. Serious delays in land acquisitions resulted from unrealistic assumptions concerning complex and time-consuming procedures. Finally, there was not always full farmer cooperation because of the changing socio-political situation In the area. Tertiary development costs alone averaged US$2,930/ha, almost double the appraisal estimate. Results 4. Padi production fluctuated with the availability of water supplies and climatic conditious, but received its biggest boost beginning in 1979 from the Government policy to make free fertilizer available. In early years padi yields suffered from pests and diseases, and in later years from weed competition due mostly to a change from transplanting to direct seeding, which was adopted almoat universally for the off-season crop. Cultural practices changed in response to labor shortages, which spurred a complete mechanization of all land preparation and harvest operations. Farmers maximized incomes rather than padi yields, since official subsidies (free fertilizers and a padi delivery bonus), intended as income improvement incentives, did not lead to increased productivity. Incremental cropping intensity (starting from an already high base) was not adequately accompanied by yield Increases, with t!4 result that production stagnated. Modest project benefits are tbus attributable mainly to substantial production increases on the previously non-irrigated land only. Tertiary development did not-lead to water savings. The ERR, based on slightly optimistic, although possible, future yield assumptions is now re- estimated at 52. The failure to organize active water management associations (with some exceptions) is primarily due to the individualistic nature of the Muda farmers, with differing political views and socio- economic aspirations. Low labor availability and high cost during crop establishment, and fertilizer applications usually limited to the amount provided under the subsidy scheme, have contributed to achieving yields lower than possible under the satisfactory water management conditions achieved. Pest management is exemplary and a much reeded weed management/eontrol program Is being developed. Sustainabilitv 5. Prospects for sustainability will depend on the overall rate of growth in the economv and opportunities for outside employment. Meanwhile the project autbority has an excellent record of operation and maintenance, cost recovery at project completion was about 2.5 times current O&M costs. Findings 6. The main lessons emerging from Implementing this project are that: - vi - (C) adequate time must be allowed to acquire land in an area where a large number of small plots, often with multiple ownership, need to be obtained. Land acquisition should be well advanced before such a loan becomes effective; (it) it is essential that in a non-homogeneous farming community the sociological and political characteristics and aspirations of beneficiaries be carefully assessed for their impact on project interventions. Farmers through their coumanity leade.s must make inputs to final designs if scheme improvements are to be well acceptedg (Uii) irrigation designs based on aetial photography must be supplemented by detailed ground surveys for accuracy La an area with fairly flat plain soils; (iv) when direct seeding of padi is introduced, different water managemeut, land preparation and cultural practices (in particular weed controllprevention) must be adapted quickly to avoid a production decline; and (v) cost1y Government subsidies do not necessarily result in higher yie4 ..-t the Impact of subsidy interventions must therefore be thoru:j,ly assessed. MALAYSIA MUDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1717-HA) Project Completion Retort I. OVERVIEW 1. This Overview is based on the PCR for the Muda II Irrigation Project (Loan 1717-MA), prepared by the Muda Agricultural Development Authority (MADA) in the Government of Malaysia's (GOM) Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). The PCR provides a well prepared and detailed review of project implementation, achievements, challenges and problems experienced during project execution. The Overview agrees with the major findings of the PCR, taking particular account of the changing socio-economic climate in Malaysia in the late 1970s to mid-1980s, which had a profound effect on project costs, construction time, crop production methodology, crop yields and economic viability. These rapid changes in the overall socio-economic situation in the Muda area could not have been foreseen at appraisal. 2. The Overview is organized in three sections. bection A on project background covers project identification, preparation and appraisal, and is based on the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) and information in Bank files. Section B on project implementation and impact is based on the SAR and PCR and summarizes the execution and achievements of the major project components. Section C covers implementation issues and lessons learned, and is based on documents and information available from the Bank's project files. The Over- view complements and, in some areas, elaborates on parts of the PCR. A. Project Background 3. At the time of appraisal, it was the official policy of Malaysia to raise farm income and lower rice imports at minimum cost to the Government, by increasing yields per unit area. Since proper water management is it prerequisite to high yields, emphasis was given to improving existang irrigation and drainage facilities in single and double-cropped areas. The 98,000 ha Muda irrigation scheme, Malaysia's main rice region, at that time already contributed 54Z of national output and further investment allowing increased production per unit area was therefore seen as an attractive propo- sition. 4. Muda I Proiect. A previous Bank-financed project (Loan 434-MA) had made double-cropping of padi possible in the Muda area through the construction of two storage dams with a connecting tunnel and headworks diverting water into a north and south canal. Water is distributed from these main canals to padi fields by a system of downslope laterals and cross-slope distributors, which allow a ditch-to-drain distance of about 2 km. Major works were completed in 1970, and by 1974 double-cropping of padi was practiced in about 972 of the 98,000 ha Muda area in most seasons. Pad! yields increased from 2.4 tlha to about 3.8 t/ha. per crop. In the 1966-74 period, padi production increased from 283,000 to 679,000 tons. Loan 434-MA thus transformed the poor, backward, traditional Muda Dadi area into one of the more prosperous and efficient rice areas in the developing world. Developments and achievements are outlined in Project Completion Report (PCR; No. 795MA, and indirect benefits are analyzed in a 1979 Word Bank mimeo, *Measuring the Indirect Effects of an Agricultural Investment Project on its Surrounding Region' by C. Bell and P. Hazell. Overall project investments were 'JS$98.0 million or about US$1,000Jha. The economic rate of return (ERR) was calculated at 182. Although the relative distribution of income within the region had not improved, farm incomes approximately doubled (in real tetms) between 1965-74 and property values increased substantially. 5. Identification and Preparation of Muda II. In the interim betwe-en the completion of the first Muda project and 1977, MADA developed some 14 pilot double-cropping demonstration areas, including a number of field tertiary development scheues which clearly showe the benefits of providing farmlots with direct access to irrigation and drainage facilities and roads. The most significant issue for Bank financing of a second phise project for tertiary development was cost recovery. Actual O&M costs in 1974 were M$ 24/acre, while the water charge was only M$ 8.40/acre and the quit rent for Class I padi land was M$ 3/acre. Under the Loan Agreement for the first Muda project in 1975, the government had begun to implement a schedule that would Increase water charges to M$ l5lscre by 1979 in all Muda districts (still only 622 of estimated O&M costs). However, when the Bank agreed to consider the religious tithe (the Zakat, equal to 82 of gross padi income and levied on the vast majority of Muslim farmers) as a tax, the main obstacle to Bank support for a Muda I1 project was removed. 6. In February 1977 the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) submitted to the Bank the Muda II Feasibility Report on Tertiary Irrigation Facilities, prepared by MADA and MOA's Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID). A March/April 1977 Bank mission reviewed proposals with relevant Malaysian authorities. The mission visited the Muda area during the longest drought period on record (48 years), which clearly underscored the inadequacy of irrigation water supplies. Since it was clear that there was not enough storage to supply the whole Muda area with adequate water for double cropping of padi in all seasons, the mission recommended that MADA then prepare an additional report that: (a) re-estimated water supply and demand for the proposed project; (b) related agricultural production and economic analysis to water availability; (c) identified a first phase component that concentrated on those areas which had most serious water constrairts and control problems, including some 23,000 ha that did not receive an assured supply and some 1,000 ha which never had received dry season irrigation; and (d) reviewed the necessity and feasibility of additional storage reservoirs and other alternatives. 7. A pre-appraisal mission which visited Malaysia in March 1978 paid particular attention to issues of water adequacy. A detailed analysis was made of the situation that would prevail if the tertiary facilities proposed under the second phase project, on about one-quarter of the area, were extended to the entire Muda area. The study concluded that the proposed tertiary development program, with some re-circulation of drainage water by pumping, would result in substantial water savings which could be used to incresse the overall long-run cropping intensity from about 1752 to about 1852. 8. Appraisal and Negotiations of MUDA II. Agricultural aspects of the project were appraised in August 1978, followed by a full appraisal mission in OctoberlNovember 1978. There were extensive discussions on the use of appro- priate early maturing HYV varieties to achieve double cropping comfortably within the available irrigation seasons, the availability of adequate exten- sion workers, the need for substantial soil surveys, the effect of drought periods on acid-sulphate soils, the need for a large program of fertilizer experiments, and farmer participation in credit programs. Civil Works aspects specifically reviewed were: type of conveyance, land acquisition scheduling, contracting methods, etc. 9. The main objective of the project was to raise the productivity and incomes of about 16,000 smallholder padi-farming families on some 25,00'. ha of land in those parts of the Muda irrigation area which were least adequately served by existing irrigation, drainage and road facilities. Canal densities would be increased from 10 mlha to 20-35 mlha, ditch-drain distance would be reduced from 2,000 m to 250 m, and 802 of all farmlots would have direct access to ditches, drains and roads. These tertiary development works were to be carried out on 37 blocks, selected on merit from the 110 Huda irrigation blocks. Each of these 700-900 ha irrigation blocks was to be divided into four to six Irrigation Service Areas (ISA). to be served by one tertiary canal. Each ISA was to be further split up into Irrigation Service Units (ISU) of 15-25 ha, whereby each would follow a uniform cropping schedule allowing staggered cropping schedules over a two month period. In addition to the tertiary development areas, another 60,000 farming families would benefit from the general improvement of facilities and from improved agricultural support services throughout the Muda area. Several major outfall drains and natural channels, serving the entire Muda area, would be improved, and three new tidal gates, two water control structures, and one escape structure would be provided. Some 6 km of eroded coastal bund would be rehabilitated and faced with rock to prevent erosion and salt water inundation. 10. Under the first project, in 1970 MADA had been given the r-sponsibility for general management, engineering operation and maintenance, agricultural extension, agribusiness, monitoring and evaluation, and agro- economic studies and projects within the Muda area. This effective arrangement was to continue. However, the design, tendering and construction supervision for irrigation, drainage, roads and coastal protection works would be the responsibility of DID. A DID Project Director would be responsible for a project office in Alor Setar and four branch offices, one in each of the MADA districts. MADA would handle the design, contracting and construction of offices, workshops, seedstores, staff quarters and pilot projects. MADA would - 4 - further uparade the existing water control system and be responsible for operating and maintaining the completed systems. 11. MADA's Agricultural Division was to be responsible for strengthening agricultural support services throughout the Muda command area (i.e., not only the project's tertiary development area). The four district Agricultural Officers (DAO) were to coordinate all services (extension, credit, input supplies and marketing) provided through 6-8 Farmer Development Centers (FDC) in each district. The DAOs would be responsible to the head of MADA's Agricultural Division and would be assisted by Deputies for Extension, Training and Development, and Agribusiness and Cooperatives. Each FDC was to be managed by an Agricultural Assistant, who would supervise two Agricultural Technicians (AT) for exter '-n, two ATs for credit, and one AT each for organization and cooperat. a, agribasiness, and accovnting. Each extenion AT was to cover about 800 farm families through a T&V system of extension, adapted to local conditions. At district level there were to be Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) for rice agronomy, crop production, extension methodology and home economics (farm family development) to train and support extension ATs. Additional technical support was to be provided by the State Department of Agriculture's Soil and Analytical, Crop Protection and Crop Production units, while Malaysia's Agricultural Research and Devei.opment Institute (MARDI) was to provide research backing and the Bank Pertanian Malaysia (BPM) was to provide institutional credit through the FDC's, which served as local credit centers. 12. Some 702 of project costs would be for tertiary development, to increase cropping intensity, yields and thus production on some 24,100 ha net farmed by some 16,000 families. The remaining 22? of investments would benefit all other Muda farmers on some 72,000 ha of land through general Improvements to irrigation, drainage, coastal land protection, and improved agricultural support services. Project costs, including studies, training and consultancies totaled M$152.4 million or US$69.0 million equivalent. Inclusive of contingencies, tertiary development costs were expected to cost US$1,531/ha. 13. Appraisal issues were resolved as follows: (a) retroactive financing was agreed to cover costs associated with the construction of sample areas, for which detailed designs had been completed during feasibility and executed from April 1978 to project effectiveness, and amounting to US$2.8 m; (b) LCB procedures, satisfactory to the Bank, were agreed to for construction of 37 irrigation blocks to be tendered individually to allow construction during one season; and (c) water charges would be levied as agreed for previous Bank-financed irrigation schemes in Malaysia, taking into account the incentives to farmers, the capacity of farmers to pay, and the other charges and taxes paid by farmers (inclusive of Zakat). 14. Coments on the SAR and President's Report were mostly related to inclusion of the proposed sections on Social Rate of Return (SRR) and Regional - 5 - Impact Analysis. It was finally ruled that the SRR section would stand, but that the Regional Impact Analysis would be deleted. In view of the threat posed to the project by a possible disease and pest attack, there would also be a clause in the Loan Agreement requiring the Government to submit a proposal for crop protection by December 31, 1979, and implementation of the agreed action program was to start by June 30, 1980. 15. Negotiations started April 5, 1979. The Malaysian delegation requested, and the Bank agreed, to additional Bank financing for a comprehen- sive groundwater study and for an integrated rural development feasibility study for Pergau-Galas river areas in the state of Kelantan. These studies increased the Loan amount to US$29 million, equivalent to the project's foreign exchange component, or 452 of total project costs. It was further agreed that Bank prior review of civil works would be limited to contracts costing US$1.5 million or more, and that the maximum value for the equipment and vehicles to be procured under local procedures be raised from US$20,000 to US$35,000 for individual items and from US$500,000 to US$1.2 million in the aggregate. B. Proiect Implementation and Impact 16. Proiect Duration. It was envisaged that project works would be completed by December 31, 1983, but this schedule proved overly optimistic. To begin with, there were significant delays in land acquisition: some 13,633 individual lots, often with multiple ownership, were needed, and the acquisi- tion process required 13 distinctly separate processes with frequent delaying court actions. To its credit MADA managed to obtain substantial increases in Land Office staff and established an imprest account of M$ 250,000 for immed- iate settlement with landowners. Ultimately, it took more than two years to acquire 80? of the lots, necessary for contractors to start working. The consultative process with farmers in order to agree on alignments, and the time frame of tertiary unit construction, also took longer than expected. This in turn delayed the start of construction, in particular in early years when designs based on maps from aerial photographs were not sufficiently accurate. In the early-1980s, there were few bidders for contracts above M$ 2.0 million due to a boom in the construction industry. Costs escalated above those provided in the budget and therefore many contracts had to be re- bid. In 1983, because of fiscal problems MADA was instructed to withhold tendering for 19 blocks. This alone caused at least a two-year delay in construction. In later years, many contracts, although awarded following open competitive bidding procedures, were awarded to firms with insufficient financial and technical capability, which resulted in further delays. At the end of 1987, construction had been completed on 30 of the 38 tertiary blocks; all remaining work is expected to be completed in 1990, some seven years later than the appraisal forecast. It was originally envisaged that actual construction of each tertiary block could be done in the range of one to 2-1/2 years. Many blocks took, 3-4 years to complete, although the average time was about 2.2 years. There were three extensions of Project Closing Date, until December 31, 1987. 17. Project Cost and Financing. The project was estimated to cost M$ 152.4 million, or US$69.0 million equivalent, with a 452 foreign exchange component. The Bank loan of US$31.0 million was to finance the foreign - 6 - exchange component. All local costs were to be provided by GOM through annual budget allocations, with MADA receiving grant funds by GOX for carrying out its part of the project. 18. Estimated cost at completion (based on already approved 5th Plan budget allocations for 1989 and 1990) is M$ 225.93 million or US$94.61 million equivalent. Cost overruns are 48.22 in M$ terms and 37.12 in USS terms. This reflects the deterioration in the exchange rate. Actual disbursements were US$29.51 million or 31.22 of total project costs in USS terms. The Bank's share in project financing was thus significantly below original intentions. Under the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) for Malaysia the disbursement rate for civil works was increased from 5OS to 60 in May 1984 and this rate was maintained to the end of the project. Nonetheless, GOM could not utilize the full loan amount and requested cancellation of US$1.4 million in June 1986, to which the Bank agreed. Another small cancellation was made on expir- ation of the extended Closing Date. After the 1981-84 austerity years, budget allocatiocs were adequate for the annual work programs and sufficient alloca- tions have been made to complete remaining works for the tertiary systems and roads. Costs for tertiary civil works, engineering supervision and planning, and land acquisition costs averaged M$ 7,230/ha or about US$2,930 equiva- lentlha (almost double that originally envisaged). Proiect Implementation 19. Tertiary Works. During the first few years the designs for tertiary development were based on maps prepared from aerial photographs. These were found to be not sufficiently accurate and farmers demanded corrections on completion of some lines. MADA then instituted an excellent sensitization program, whereby farmers were extensively consulted on alignments, land acqui- sition and construction timing. These consultations took from three to six months. Once designs were prepared based on grid surveys, most alignments followed lot boundaries (not straight lines as first proposed), and farmers were consulted, progress improved and owners cooperated, with some exceptions. 20. For ease of water management, each irrigation block is subdivided into 4-6 Irrigation Service Areas (ISA). The original plan then allowed for further subdivision into eight Irrigation Service Units (ISU), but due to objections from farmers the number of ISU's was reduced to six for each ISA (farmers would have preferred four ISU's per ISA so that there would be only four water supply schedules with seven days for each ISU during pre-satura- tion). In many cases the ISU's were provided with a 1.2 m high perimeter bund. As planned, about 80 of farm lots will have direct access to a ter- tiary canal, drain and farm road and, where topography requires it, permanent pumping stations have been installed. In view of frequent water shortages in the Muda scheme, drain water is recycled through pumping stations. Tertiary canal embankments carried originally either a 2 m laterite path or a 3 m wide farm road. However, due to the introduction of large combine harvesters, and constant farmer requests, all roads constructed after 1983 were 12 ft (3.66 m) wide. 21. Tertiary canals consist of 5 cm pre-cast concrete panels which are joined by cement mortar and are constructed into introduced earth fill. After some settling time, laterite roads are constructed alongside the tertiary canals, which have locally designed farm turnouts (asbestos cement pipes with a flap gate which incorporate a small swivel gate for periods of low water demand). Each turnout serves two adjacent farm lots. The installed system has been found satisfactory by both farmers and system operators. 22. Minor Works, Drains and Coastal Protection. Apart from 30 tertiary irrigation blocks, the project also provided for remedial works on some 2,500 ha of land outside these blocks. This was more than double that originally envisaged. Some major outfall drains and natural channels were improved where necessary, while some improvements to the south Muda drainage were deleted pending further studies. Coastal protection rock bunds increased from the original 5 km to 8.46 km due to additional erosion. 23. Buildings. A new, rather palatial MADA Headquarters building was completed in early 1986 after a three year delay and at high cost (M$ 9.1 million). This well-located and constructed building replaces an old MADA complex which was taken over by the Kedah Department of Agriculture. Other buildings constructed were a DID project office, 155 staff quarters, 27 seed stores, (one at each FDC), while the central workshop was enlarged. 24. A New Water Management and Control Center allows automatic recording of rainfall in telemetry rainfall stations, and water levels from automatic recorders in the dams, rivers and main canals. A main-frame computer was installed to assist in analyzing water supply data and for use with engineering, agricultural, administration and planning aspects. 25. Equipment. Procurement of heavy hydraulic equipment for system maintenance, of vehicles for operational staff and agricultural, extension and workshop equipment was successfully completed mostly in early project years. 26. Pilot Proiect Studies. Some 11 separate studies were conducted, many on three sites to evaluate water scheduling, water use efficiency, water management, and to develop appropriate strategies for tertiary unit operation and maintenance, to develop agricultural, and farm management practices, appropriate for tertiary systems. The effectiveness of formation and manage- ment of water user organizations was studied, as well as the effectiveness of the infrastructure intensification. In particular, the organization of water user groups has proved difficult and agronomic practices are changing with the introduction of different methods of crop establishment which also affect water use. Many of the studies are therefore not conclusive under conditions of constant change. Agricultural Support Services 27. MADA's Agricultural Division is responsible for extension services erd for planning and supervising training programs for farmers and agricul- tural field staff. Four district offices supervise a total of 27 FDCs. There is specialization at all levels (division, district and FDC). Each FDC covers 2,000 to 3,000 farm families, and is base for a Farmer Association. Under the Project the number of extension staff doubled to an extension ratio of one Agricultural Technician (AT) to about 1,000 farm families, and an attempt was made to adopt the TV system of extension with a fortnightly schedule of visits to farmer groups was attempted. However, because of the AT - 8 - attachment to FDC's, which have also commercial functions, farmers having different political affiliations, and a linear settlement pattern with many farmers not living near their fields (non-resident), it proved impossible to adhere to regularly scheduled visits to farmer groups. Also, MADA consid- ered that a campaign style of extension for a monocrop area was more effec- tive. Although staff, and in particular senior extension and training staff are extremely knowledgeable about padi growing, it has not been possible to transmit many of the available worthwhile extension messages to the farming community. The main reasons include frequent water shortages, uneven cropping patterns and methods of crop establishment, labor shortages, not always timely availability of tractors and harvesters, non-residency of farmers, and often the unavailability of experienced AT's due to a high turnover. 28. MADA, DOA and MARDI carried out a large number of demonstration plots and trials each season, mainly on farmer fields. Despite an extensive rice breeding program, there is not yet a 110-120 day variety available, which would allow farmers more time between crops for sanitation and land preparation purposes. Yield constraining fac.Lors are: a wide-distance transplanting resulting in insufficient panicles per unit area, uneven crop stands and often a very high incidence of weed (mostly grass) competition. Labor shortages cause the wide distances between plants in transplanted rice. Weed competition can be dealt with by means of cultural practices and herbicide application, but unfortunately this is not always done, mainly because of insufficient farmer knowledge, combined with the high cost of chemicals. 29. Under the project an excellent integrated pest management (IPM) program has been established by MADA jointly with DOA and MARDI. Severe yield losses due to pest attacks in 1979 and 1981-83 have not occurred since that time, mostly due to the success of the IPM program. Also, MADA has already field tested and is presently establishing an integrated weed management (IWM) program. 30. The seed production program through DOA produces about 500 tons of certified seed each season, which is adequate given the volume of supplies from private growers. Over 702 of the Muda area is planted with high yielding MARDI varieties. 31. Since 1979 free fertilizers have been made available by GOM, and distributed to farmers by FDC's. With this subsidy the need for credit decreased dramatically. Credit for land preparation, harvesting and other inputs (herbicides, pesticides) is available from BPM and the FDC's, but only 302 of farmers avail themselves of instliutional credit. Repayments are satisfactory at about 90X. Operation and Maintenance 32. Overall system maintenance has been highly satisfactory through a mixture of machine and hand clearing operations, with the latter mostly done on contract by groups of poor farmers and tenants. Original plans called for MADA to operate and maintain the main secondary irrigation and drainage system, inclusive of structures, pump houses, etc., while farmer groups would operate field inlets and outlets and clear channels and drains in tertiary systems. However, due to the noncohesiveness, (political, social) of many farmers participating in ISU's, together with poor leadership, multiple ownership of lots and uneven pa'terns of crop establishment, the latter strategy met with limited success. In early 1988 some 76 ISA groups were functioning (less than half in the 30 completed blocks). MADA hopes that its group-farming schemes, which do operate successfully in some ISU's, will spread in the future. Project Benefits 33. Water-use Efficiency. Although the irrigation canal density increased from 11 m/ha to 34 m/ha, and almost all land areas can now be effectively pre-saturated within the expected seven days, there is presently little evidence of improved water use efficiency. In 1985 it was reported from observations in a few blocks that before tertiary development an efficiency of 44-50 was obtained, while with tertiary development this was in the range of 43-502, (see also: "Water Balance in Tertiary Development Area with Low and Flat Paddy Land' by Kitamura in Irrigation Engineering and Rural Planning, No. 13, 1988). Low efficiencies are considered to be mostly due to poor farmer discipline (leaving gates open and non-attendance to bund breakages) and uneven cropping patterns (not all farmers plant or sow crops on the same schedule or using the same method). With an increase in dry land preparation, it is likely that efficiencies will improve (Annex 3, Table 3). However, on-mud seeding with pregerminated seed will require at least one extra drainage of all surface water, requiring more water and substantially greatfr drainage efficiencies (no evidence presented). 34. Crop Production. At appraisal it was assumed that the whole tertiary area of some 24,200 ha would be completed and in production by 1985, which implied achievements of about 3,500 halyear. In the event, actual achievements average only about 2,100 ha/year (Annex 2, Table 3), although the area covered with tertiary development will have increased to about 25,000 ha due to the inclusion of one additional block. 35. Cropping Intensity (c.i.). In the proposed tertiary development areas the average c.i. was 176? through 1983 (this is less than that achieved under the first project due to drought years), when little of the newly developed area had been taken in use. With tertiary development the c.i. has averaged about 1992 during 1985-87, with an average of some 10,000 ha not yet benefitting from improved (tertiary) facilities. It is expected that the c.i. will be about 2002 when all works are completed by end-1990. The c.i. achieved and projected is thus higher than the appraisal projection of 1932. It is significant that in recent drought years farmers have been able to produce crops by switching to dry land preparation and direct seeding while relying on rainfall to establish the crop. An area of about 3,500 ha was provided with new irrigation facilities (high fringe areas), which is 3.5 times as much as expected at appraisal. 36. Crop Yields. At appraisal pre-project yields were estimated for nonacid antd acid sulphate soils, with the latter occurring on about 27? of the Muda area and yielding some 202 less. Padi yields were expected to increase from 3.5 to 4.2 t/ha on non-acid sulphate soils in the wet season, while the higher dry season yields were to increase from 3.8 to 4.6 t/ha. The acid - 10 - sulphate soils were expected to increase similarly, but from a lower base of 2.9 tlha to 3.5 and 3.6 t/ha for the wet and dry season respectively. Due to prudent water management combined with lime applications these soils have improved substantially over the years and MADA has now discontinued recording separate statistics for the two soil types. 37. Padi yields increased immediately following introduction of the fertilizer subsidy in 1979, since almost all farmers were eligible, and most already used high N- responsive varieties. Thus, yields throughout Muda exceeded 4.0 t/ha in 1980, when none of the tertiary blocks had been completed. Although these early yield increases were not initially sustained due to pests and virus diseases carried by insects, from 1984 onwards they again exceeded 4.0 t/ha (except for the drought season in the first half of 1987). 38. That overall Muda scheme yields are still not up to their full potential is due to a number of factors. There has been a major switch to direct seeding due to acute labor shortages. Farmers have become very conscious of production costs and found quickly that direct seeding could provide a reasonable plantstand at very low cost, often by only rotavating and fertilizing (with only application costs) the volunteer seeds from the previous crop. However, this often resulted in very weedy crops because farmers were either insufficiently knowledgeable In dealing with weeds or were not willing to purchase herbicides. Due to labor shortages and high costs, transplanted padi is spaced too widely to produce high yields even when adequate fertilizer is applied. Overall padi yields fluctuate seasonably but are now lower in the dry season than in the wet season, which is contrary to their potential and earlier experiences. Traditionally, dry season yields are highest due to higher radiation levels during the growing season and somewhat lower night temperatures. Present lower dry season yields are due to poor plantstands for both transplanted and direct seeding padi and large areas with grass weeds which compete for nutrients and space. 39. Special surveys conducted in non-tertiary and tertiary blocks initially indicated that there was no yield advantage from tertiary develop- ment. However, in more recent years there are indications that tertiary development has provided a slight yield advantage, although average yields of 3.6 to 3.8 tlha remain well below the potential witnessed in 1985-87 (P. 32 of PCR). Despite disappointing yields in recent years, direct seeding with full mechanization has reduced crop production costs substantially, and therefore farmers are achieving reasonable incomes at lower production levels. Unless there are substantial incentives for maximizing production, farmers will continue to focus on income maximization in a situation in which substantial subsidies are available and they can dispose o5 any quality of produce without excessive penalties. Farm Size, Land Tenure and Labor Utilization 40. A distinct change in farm management arrangements is now occurring in the Muda area. The average size of operating units has increased from 1.38 ha in 1981 to 1.91 ha in 1986. Farms smaller than 3 relongs (0.86 ha) have declined from 33.6Z in 1981 to 14.5Z in 1986, while farms over 6 relongs (1.72 ha) increased from 26Z to 48.4Z with half of the latter now in excess of 2.5 - 11 - ha. Availability of off-farm work and an almost complete mechanization of both land preparation and harvest operations are the causes of these changes, which are expected to continue. Although machinery owners are leasing increasing amounts of land from small farmers, ownership per se is changing very little: most owners continue to hold on to their holdings and there are few sales. 41. Due to the decline in isplanted area, labor requirements decreased from 253 to 215 hours/ha betweeis .."81 and 1986. In 1986 blocks with tertiary development realized a labor saving of 28 hours/ha, compared with non-improved blocks, due mostly to improved access. However, direct seeding had the greatest impact on labor use. On average, transplanted rice required twice as much labor as direct seeded padi '273 hrs/ha against 136.4 hrs/ha), which is a highly significant labor saving in an area with acute shortages, in particular at times of crop establishment and harvest. Due to fully mechanized land preparation and harvest operations, labor requirements are now less than half that assumed at appraisal. In particular harvest and transport labor needs have substantially diminished due to tertiary development (7.4 hrs/ha with and 19.8 hrs/ha without) mostly due to farm road construction. Crop and Farm Budgets 42. Muda evaluation surveys (Annex 5, tables 1 to 4) indicate that production costs of direct seeded padi averaged M$l,2241ha, for all farm sizes which compares with M$1,564/ha for transplanted padi. Tertiary development reduced production costs by about M$100/ha when averaged over both methods of establishment. The greatest cost savings were for the combination direct seeding and tertiary development, at M1l,218/ha, while transplanted padi in non-tertiary development areas cost MS1,658/ha. Differences in production costs per ha due to farm size tended to be lower for the larger farms, not varying more than M8130/ha. 43. Farm incomes (before taxes) from padi alone were not substantially different between blocks with and without tertiary development. Direct seeding increased incomes by M$490/ha, and the largest farms had considerably greater padi incomes perlha than did smaller farms. The net benefits from padi alone averaged M$2,904; 3,543; 3,744; and 3,828 for farms of 0.6, 1.3, 2.2 and 3.5 ha in size respectively, indicating economics of scale are available. Gradually increasing farm sizes also indicate that farmers are aware of this situation. Economic Rate of Return 44. At appratsal the ERR was calculated at 182. In preparing the PCR, project management re-calculated the ERR at 62. In this Overview the Bank has further revised the ERR to 52, by assuming a more realistic yield of 4.3 tons/ha at full development and taking into account a recent revision in long- term forecast price for rice.1 The dramatic reduction in the ERR is due partly to construction and supervision cost increases, delayed scheme implementation (thus delayed benefits), lower than expected yields because of changed socio- 1! IBRD, *Price Prospects for Major Primary Commodities Report No. 814/88, November 1988. - 12 - economic conditions in the Muda area, and lower rice prices. However, the major contributing factor to lower ERR was the provision by Government of free fertilizers to farmers beginning in 1979, which resulted in significantly higher paddy yields in the without project' situation. The appraisal estimate was based on constant but lower yields in the "without project' situ- ation, because the fertilizer subsidy was not foreseen. Indeed, if a fertilizer subsidy had not been introduced, the ERR on this project would be about 11-122. Although the farming community appreciated the new roads which have improved access to farms and significantly reduced transportation costs, they experienced few incremental benefits from tertiary development. In the circumstances, GOYM decided not to proceed immediately with tertiary development in the remaining 75Z of the Muda area, as was originally intended, and a proposed water supply augmentatWon program was temporary dropped. O&M and Cost Recovery 45. MADA has an excellent record of operation and maintenance of systems and it is not expected that GOM allocations will be reduced in the near future for the country's main granary area. O&M costs are presently M$107/ha; farmers pay irrigation charges of M$37.O5Iha annually, with shortfalls being made up by the State and Federal governments. However, all Muslim farmers (the vast ma4ority of MADA farmers), do pay a religious tax (zakat) in addition to the water charge and the land tax. Based on actual farm budgets, overall taxes average M$265.42 ha, which is about 2.5 times present O&M costs. The tax ranges from M$204/ha for a 0.6 ha farm to more than M$280/ha for farms larger than 2.2 ha. Management Performance 46. Overall project management was excellent throughout the project implementafion period, under extremely difficult conditions. One of the greatest achievements was the introduction of a well organized and accepted farmer sensitization program which prevented many corrective actions in system lay-out. Accounts were prepared in a timely manner, but audits were usually submitted 6-12 months late mostly due to questions on accounting details by the Audit Department. Government budget allocations were insufficient in the early 1980s due to a boom in the construction industry, which led to excessively high costs, and to GOM's reduction of development expenditures in austerity years. Also, incremental engineering and support staff were generally appointed late and the required staff numbers were never obtained. Finally, the turnover rate for both engineering and extension personnel was high due to favorable outside employment opportunities. Bank Performance 47. Project preparation and appraisal were generally thorough and addressed all the necessary important issues, bearing in mind that this was a follow-up project. There was an exhaustive review of water availability and organizational aspects, and management of agricultural support services received adequate attention. The time required for land acquisition and construction of tertiary works was, however, severely under-estimated and experience with other irrigation projects in Malaysia should have been a guide. It was not possible to foresee the substantial cost escalations and - 13 - the high degree of competitiveness for civil works. Nor could the provision of free fertilizers and the padi bonus (which led to padi yield increases to almost post-project appraisal levels before any tertiary blocks had been completed) or the rapid switch to direct seeding technologies have been foreseen. 48. Bank supervision during early years was infrequent, probably because MADA was considered an experienced and well-managed implementing agency. These early missions were multidisciplinary, in contrast to one-man missions by an agronomist since 1984, by which time most engineering design work had been completed. C. Implementation Issues and Lessons Learned 49. The impact of this project must be evaluated against a background of rapidly changing socio-economic conditions in general and the Government's rice subsidy policies in particular. So. Economic Setting. When the project was appraised in 1979, GOM placed high priorit-y on retaining and settling farmers on padi land, and industrial- ization was still quite limited. Farm labor wages averaged M$7.0 day and it was GOM's policy to achieve 702 self-sufficiency in rice, mainly through investments in rehabilitation, tertiary development of existing schemeq (Krian-Sungei Manik, North Kelantan, NW Selangor and Small Scale Schemes), and the development of new schemes (Trans Perak, Rompin Endau). Following the 1979-80 oil price rise, GOI embarked on an ambitious industrialization program, which resulted in a real construction boom that almost doubled civil works contract prices. Rural labor was attracted by the higher wages and often improved living conditions in the larger population centers. The immed- iate results were high bids for civil works in the Muda area, which often had to be rejected in 1981-82 due to insuffic4ent budget llocations. By 1982 Malaysia was faced with a public sector deficit of 192 of GNP and a deficit on the current account of the balance of payments of 14X. With increased external borrowing and debt, and due to depressed commodity prices, slow trade growth and high interest rates, GOM initiated austerity measures that included severe cuts in MADA's development budget and postponement of contract awards that could not be made in 1982 and 1983. By 1984 additional contracting was allowed and many new contractors had established themselves, encouraged by incentives under the New Eco-amic Policy. Contract prices came dowu despite rural wages having risen to M$15.Olday. However, many contractors proved not to be tecnnically and financially capable of executing tertiary development contracts (which have an inherent risk element due to delays in land acquisi- tion). 51. Rice Production Policies. In 1979, in response to farmer demands for improved incomes from padi growing (rural poverty alleviation), GOM introduced a fertilizer subsidy scheme which provided 300 kglha of free fertilizers to almost every padi grower.2 Additionally, GOM introduced in 1980 a bonus payment of M$165/ton for clean, dry padi over the set base procurement price of M1463/ton. These prices are still valid today. Given these incentives, 2/ For a fuller discussion of grain sector policies, sees IBRD, ' Review of the Rice Industry", Report No. 7395-MA, December 1988. - 14 - Muds padi farmers were willing to grow the crop and there has never been idle padi land, as has so frequently occurred in other areas of the country. However, due to the pull of labor away from the farm, real labor shortages occurred. Wages more than doubled to about M$15 per day in 1985 and farmers tried to compensate for this by mechanizing operations, attracting cheaper Thai labor, and changing to less labor-intensive cultural practices. This resulted in almost 100? mechanized land preparation and harvest operations, not by small 2 wheel tractors and small harvesters, but by using contract operations with 4 wheel tractors with rotavators and combine harvesters with 12-14 ft. cutting width. Transplanted rice yields have declined because high labor costs resulted in excessively wide plant spacings. In an effort to eliminate most labor, direct seeding practices on-mud and preferably into dry soil (when weather conditions allowed this) were quickly adopted. In 1987, some 87? of all padi grown was direct sown when averaged for both seasons over the whole Muda area. However, yields were often depressed due to the poor and patchy plantstands achieved (mainly because of inadequate land leveling and drainage) and heavy grass weed infestations. Farmers were more interested in maximizing profits than in maximizing yields and therefore padi yields hovered in the last few seasons around the yields which were already achieved because of the availability of free fertilizers in 1979 and early 1980's. Lessons Learned 52. Tertiary irrigation development in smallholder areas require: (a) excellent farmer/landowner cooperation in planning developments. This takes time to cultivate (in Muda from 3-6 months to organize farmers), and requires a special group of staff with sensitivity to the varying socio-economic, political and religious attitudes within the commiuity (there are st'll some areas at Muda for which farmers have not agreed to cooperate); (b) the existence of accurate ground profile maps, since it was found that aerial survey maps were inaccurate and additional grid surveys at 100 feet intervals were required, which caused delays in preparing lay-out designs; (c) early land acquisition. In this case the acquisition of about 1,300 ha in 13,633 lots, in an area with values rising from M$3,000Iacre in 1978 to M$10,000acre in 1987 and mostly with multiple ownership, required a decade. It was learned that it takes two years to acquire 80S of lots in an average tertiary block; after nine years only 87S of all needed lots have been acquired; and (d) experienced and financially strong contractors. who are able to deal with setbacks due to inclement weather, poor farmer cooperation (sometimes farmers have to be paid to allow early access to the land) and rising costs (many contracts took more than two years - 4 crop seasons - for areas of 300 to 900 ha). The above requirements were seriously underestimated at appraisal by both GOK and the Bank appraisal team, and therefore only 30 of the 38 tertiary irrigation blocks were completed by the Loan closing in late-1987 after 8 years of project implementation. - 15 - 53. Farmers in Muda were mostly interested in new, wide farm roads to allow easy access to farmlots by tractors and equipment (particularly combine harvesters and trucks for rapid transport of harvested wet padi). To allow for a high degree of mechanization, road designs therefore must be adapted to the equipment used. In this case, roads were widened to 12 feet (3.66 m), and there are many requests for further upgrading to 14 feet (4.3 m). This upgrading exercise required additional time and funds (also for more land acquisition). 54. Muda is not a homogenous community and it has proven very difficult to organize farmers into group farming units and to get them to adhere to water scheduling. Hence, the Irrigation Service Area and Irrigation Service Unit concepts were singularly unsuccessful. Irrigation scheduling became further difficult to implement when three methods of crop establishment were introduced (transplanting, direct seeding pre-germinated seeds on mud, and seeding into dry soil), each with varying water requirements and timing of deliveries. This has apparently resulted in low water use efficiencies (needs further verification). Thus far, tertiary irrigation development has led to neither substantial irrigation water savings nor higher padi yields. HADA's Group Farming efforts appear most successfull in achieving uniform crop schedules and improved water use efficiency. 55. When alternative and attractive employment opportunities became available a shortage of farm labor developed, which led to direct seeding of padi and lower plant densities in transplanted padi. Farmers, all with access to free fertilizer and a padi bcaus on delivery, opted for income maximization rather than high padi yields. In the extreme this led to establishment of weedy crops in the dry season from volunteer (from the previous crop) seed, with uneven plant stands that were well fertilized and which cost the farmer nothing but one rotavation, a little water management, fertilizer application time, and harvest/transport costs. Yields were low but incomes per unit area and effort were reasonable, mostly because of the available government subsidies. 56. Increased disbursements for civil works (from 401 to 502 of costs) under SAP only partly assistqd GOM at the time of the budget crisis, because GOM had halted new contracts sad therefore little disbursement was taking place in the crisis years. Fortunately, the increased disbursement percentage remained valid to the extended project completion date; otherwise additional loan fund cancellation would have been necessary. 57. The T&V extension methodology, although well suited to the mono- culture of padi, was greatly modified. One of the main reasons was that FDC's also eugage in trading and other semi-commercial activities, for which extension workers were required in busy times of the year. Extension/demonstration activities should be completely divorced from commercial activities if a systematic regular time and location bound extension service is to function properly. Additionally, there was high turnover of staff due to attractive employment opportunities for agricultural staff, mainly on private tree crop estates. Staff training was of a high standard, but there were too few well managed demonstration plots, in particular for methods of crop establishment, weed control, plant density and - 16 - nutrient requirements. A very commendable research effort was mounted by MADA agricultural staff to fill gaps in MAP.IDs research program. 58. A well functioning Integrated Pest Management program was introduced, due to the excellent cooperation between MADA and other MOA cgencies. This has greatly reduced pest damage, which was prevalent in early project years. Buoyed by this success an Integrated Weeds Management program is presently intrcduced with the assistance of multi-media strategic extension campaigns. - 1? - GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTUE MUDA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MADA) MUDA I IRGATION PROJECT (Worid Bank Loan No. 1717-MA) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT 0ECEMBER 188 - 19 - MALAYSIA MUDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN NO. 1717-MA) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. INTRODUCTION 1L1 In 1966, the Muda Irrigation Scheme was implemented in the 96,000 hectare Muda area, a coastal plain which straddle the 2 states of Kedah and Perlis in ht north-west part of Peninsular Malaysia. This project received IBRD financing totalling US$45 million and was successful in introducing a second crop of rice in the project area. As a result, cropping intensity increased sharply to 176Z. Within a few years of project implementation however, the project staff was able to identify the shortcomings of the project. The main realization was that the infrastructure was inadequate to bring out the full production potential in t.he area. Subsequent to this, a new project, called the Muda II project, was formulated and an IBRD loan of US$31 million was secured to finance the foreign exchange component of the project. The objectives of this project are to overcome the supply and drainage problems of high and low grounds within t'ie pr(ject area as well as to bring about productivity and Production inc reases through better water management. II. PR03ECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 The project is envisaged to be the first phase of tertiary development in the Muda ptoject area and it covers 38 irrigation blocks distributed over the entire Muda area or an equivalent 25Z of total area. It is aimed at intensifying the level of infrastructure by the construction of tertiary canals, drains and farm roads to serve the 26,300 hectares covered by the project. A total of 16,000 farmers operated padi farms within the project area. The project include the following: a. Construction of tertiary irrigation and drainage channels, and associated structures. b. Construction of farm roads along tertiary canals and - 20 - *ra inai e c-h:annels, with associated bridges and culverts where requ ireid. c Construction and improvement to maior drains and coastal bunds. d. CGons5t- uctijonr of miscellaneous structures on ptrinmary canal s anrd major drains, including escape struc-:tltures, water level coritrol s:ttuctures and t.idal gate c-ontrol structures. e. Upgrading of .ihe water control communif-.ations: system. f. Construction of a project headquartetrs office. g. Construction of district agricultural and operation and maintenance offic-es, and quarters for staff. h Expansion of existing workshop facilities anri procurement of workshop equipmerit. i.. Construction of a seed store for each of the 27 Farm Development Centre-s (FDCs) in the Muda area. j. Establishment of a system of staggered c:ropping scheduAles within blocks and sub-blocks for agricultural and water conrser vat ion purposes. k. Introduction of a sound extension methodology, an inctrease in extension staff, and the use of continuous staff training and regular farm visits. 1. Extensiorn of farm credit. and improvement of input supply and marketing facilities. m. A training programme. n- A monitor-ing anri evaluation, system. o. Pilot project studies. p. Procurement of vehicles and equipment for construction, supervision, operation andi maintenance of irrigatior works, agricultural support services, and studies. q. Groundwater studies and Pergau-Galas Integrated Rutral Development Study. This component was included in the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) but was for the purpose of studies in Kelaantan and do not form part of the Mud,=.a II Project. Henc-e this Project Completion Report (PCR) dues not cover this component. - 21 - IIPOJECT IMPLEMENTATION 3.1. Project preparation for the Muda II development works started as early as in 1977 with funds from the Federal Government of Malaysia, and when the final loan documents for IBRD financing was signed in 1979, retroactive financing from April 1, 1978 was allowed. 3.2. To facilitate smooth implementation, the planning arnd design, survey, and construction of the tertiary irrigation and drainage systems, the coastal pr-otection works, the major drainage improvement works, and the construction of miscellaneous structures on primary canals and major drains, including escape structures, water level control structures and tidal control gate structures, which formed the bulk of the infrastructure development works, were delegated to the Federal Drainage and Irrigation Department (D.I.D.) which set up a separate project office in Alor Setar. The other development works, namely the agricultural extension services, the pilot project studies, improvement to the water control system, construction of the Muda Agricultural Development Authority (MADA) headquarters, the district offices and the seed stores, expansion to the MADA workshop, establishment of staggered schedules and the monitoring and evaluation of the prcoject, were carried out by MADA. All aspects of the project, including initial identification of the project, preparation of the Feasibility Report, the detailed planning and design of the project and project implementation, were undertaken by local staff. No foreign consultants were involved in any manner. The General Manager of MADA was appointed the overall Project Coordinator, and a special Steering Committee set up at ministrial level, chaired by the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Agriculture. TERTIARY DEYELOPMENT 3.3 The development of tertiary development facilities in the Muda II project was undertaken on an irrigation block basis, i-e. each irrigation block, averaging 700 hectares in size, is taken as a single unit for design and planning purposes. Originally totalling 37 in number, the irrigation blocks was increased to 38 with the inclusion of irrigation block SCLBD 3 and the expansion of another block (SCRBD Sb) in 1983. It was possible to include these areas, which had urgent problems, because of a saving in project costs due to low tender prices at that time. 3.4 These irrigation blocks were selected based on the intensity of irrigation and drainage problems experienced, and as a consequence, the project area was scattered throughout the Muda area. 3.5 Construction of the tertiary facilities meant an - 22 - intensification of the canal/drain/farm road density from 10 - 11 metres per hectare before development to a new density of 30 35 metres per hectare after development. 3.6 Each of the irrigation blocks were subdivided into four to six Irrigation Service Areas (ISAs) for ease of water management. Each of these ISAs have an independent water sourc:e through a tertiary canal and access to independent tertiary drains. In turn, each of the ISAs is subdivided into Irrigation Service Units (ISUs), each unit averaging 25 hectares. Each ISU within each ISA will be irrigated in turn and a maximum of 7 days is allowed for each ISU to be irrigated before the next ISU receives presaturation water. In this manner, it was planned that labour and machine usage could be maximised in each ISA. Originally, the number of ISUs in each ISA was set at 8, but this was subsequently reduced to 6 upon receipt of numerous objections and appeals from the farmers. Each ISU is separated by physical boundaries, and where necessary, a perimeter bund of 1.2 metre top width is constructed. 3.7 Tertiary line alignments follow lot bounderies as much as possible, to enable equitable distribution of land acquired from farmers and to prevent gross disfiguration of farm lots. This practice may compromise the best alignments, but it helped to ensure farmer acceptance of the project. 3.8 With this intensity of infrastructure, about 80% of farm lots will have direct access to a tertiary canal, drain and farm road. The irrigation run from a tertiary canal to a tertiary drain is from 300 to 500 mietres. Most of the land is served by gravity irrigation, but areas of high topography are served by the installation of permanent pump stations. Where possible, a policy of recycling of water from drainage points is adopted, to increase water utilisation in view of the water shortages often fac.ed by the region. 3.9 Turnouts from the existing secondary canals to the tertiary canals, as well as all offtakes from tertiary canals in excess of 0.85 cubic metres per second, are of the Constant Head Orifice (C.H.O.) type. Ancilliary structures such as drops and checks with crossings, end control structures and bridges are provided.. All tertiary canal embankments would carry either a 2 metre wide laterite path or a 3 metre wide farm road. 3.10 Where conditions permit, and in a few cases, part of the secondary canal is converted to function as a tertiary canal where farm irrigation turnouts are constructed to allow direct tapping to serve the service unit. This has the desired effect of minimising land acquisition, but this practice is only allowed for the downstream stretch of the secondery canal so as not to jeapordize the attainment of a stable Full Supply Level (FSL) in the distributive - s - 23 - 3.11 The tertiary drainage system is designed on the basis of evacuating 0.35 cubic metres per square kilometre. Farm drainage outlet pipes and control structures are provided to control anid restrict flow, as needed, for agricultural purposes and to prevent flooding in the lower reaches of the Muda area. All tertiary drains will eventually have a 3 metre farm road along one bank. 3.12 As on the end of 1987, construction of 30 of the 38 blocks have been completed. Most of the remaining works are under construction and all tenders for the remaining works are expected to be awarded by mid 1989. Construction would require a further one and a half years to complete. 3.13 As on 31st December 1987, 472 kilometres of tertiary canals, 20 kilometres of structural canalets, 430 CHO offtakes, 827 check crossings, 8 irrigation end controls, 5,141 farm irrigation turnouts, 2 pump houses and 37 secondary canal crossings have been completed. Also completed were 381 kilometres of tertiary drains, 707 intermediate drainage controls, 268 drainage end controls and 4,310 farm drainage outlets. 510 kilometres of farm roads and 155 kilometres of ISU perimeter bunds have also been completed. 3.14 Originally, all the planning was based on aerial survey maps at 122 metres (400 feet) intervals. However during the implementation stage of the first 17 blocks, it was observed that there were discrepancies between the aerial survey and the actual ground profile. It was found that the aerial survey was not very accurate and also could not pick up variations in ground levels that occured between survey points. As a result of this, detailed grid surveys had to be carried out for these blocks and on-course modifications were made. For all subsequent blocks, planning was based on grid surveys carried out on the blocks at 30.5 metres (100) feet intervals. 3.15 The tertiary canals are mainly concrete lined with 5 centimetre thick pre-cast panels. This was decided upon after a comparative study was conducted together with earthern, Glass Reinforced Polyester (GRP) and other types of canal alternatives, taking into consideration the costs of land acquisition, construction and subsequent maintenance. A typical tertiary canal has a 0.9 metre (3 feet) bund on one side and a 3.7 metre (12 feet) farm road on the other side. The conc:rete slabs are joined by cement mortar with an inside slope of 1:1 and outside slope of 1.5:1. 3.16 All the tertiary drains are excavated earth sections where the excavated spoil is placed on either side of the drain. The bund thenr formed will be a minimum of 0.9 metre (3 feet) top width and 0.6 metre (2 feet) high above ground level and the remaining spoil will be spread out on one of the sides which will form the base for a 3.7 metre (12 feet) laterite farm road to be constructed later after consolidation occurs. To date some of these laterite farm roads have been constructed along the drains. 3.17 The farm roads as originally envisaged during project 2 24 - formulat.ion was only 3.05 metres (10 feet.) in widt.h. This was tecause it was anticipated that small farm machinery, including harvesters was to be predominant in the area. However, this assumptionr was found to be wrong, and large conventional combine harvesters with 3.35 metres (11 feet) axle width began to be the main type of harvesters working in the area. As a consequence, there were constant requests front the farmers to widen the farm roads to accomodate these machines. A decision was then made to widen all subsequent farm roads to 3.66 metres (12 feet) width. 3.18 The farm irrigation turnouts (FITs) adopted in the project was specially developed by engineers in MADA and the Muda II Project Office. It is of the flap-valve type (see Figure 3). Basically the general layout consists of a flap gate at the entrance of the pipes and a box incorporating a broad crested weir at the outlet. The pipe used is Asbestos Cement (AC) type and buried under the bund and thus the pipe length varies with the width of the bund. The invert level of the pipe is set at 7.6 centimetres (3 inches) above the canal bed and laid at a gentle slope of 1:500 minimum. The entrance of the pipe is cut flush with the side slab recess at a slope of 1:1 and is laid perpendicular to the flow direction of the distribution channel. The arrangement as such is designed for free full-pipe flow and for this to occur, the upstream water level must always be well above the top of the opening. The setting as such can concurrently draw a fair share of silt carried by the distribution channel. The AC pipes have a minimum cover over top of pipe between 450 millimetres to 750 millimetres depending on the traffic loading and bedding material. The AC pipes, depencing on the design discharge and the available operational head, is being installed with two sizes i.e. 20.3 centimetres (8 inches) diameter and 15.2 centimetres (6 inches) diameter . 3.19 The flap valve assembly consists of two flap gates, i.e. the main one of dimension 215 millimetres x 290 millimetres and overlaid by a smaller gate of size 100 millimetres x 100 millimetres. These flaps are fabrigated with 6 millimetres thick mild steel plate and to ensure water-tightness in rnon-discharging period, the g.tes are fitted with 12 millimetres thick rubber seals on the underside. The main flap gate is opened making use of the full diameter of the pipe during the presaturation supply and during the supplementary supply when a smaller discharge is required, the main flap gate is then closed while the smaller flap is swivelled back in the direction of the flow. The assembly is connected to the mild steel collar of the pipe by a mild steel connecting piece thus the movement of the main flap is restricted only upwards towards the side slab. 3.20 As the FIT is located between two adjacent cadastral lots, the outlet acts as a bifurcation by providing two weirs at the side. This weir can be categorised as a broad-crested weir of length 0.3 metre (1 foot) and the crest is constructed flush with the adjacent field level. In operation the crest level however can be increased by slotting dropboards, thus enabling the irrigator to regulate the required discharge. The two flap gates are designed for a step-down in discharge from the presaturation module of 208.5 hectares per -25 - cubic metre per second per hectare (14.58 acres per cubic foot per second) and throttled to 1,144 hectares per cubic metre per second (0o acres per cubic foot per second) during supplementary period. 3.21 In summary, work on tertiary development in the 32 irrigation blocks would consist of the following components on project completion: Tertiary canals 599 kilometres Tertiary drains 518 kilometres Farm roads 1,013 kilometres ISUJ Physical Boundaries 170 kilometres C.H.0- Offtakes 4513 numbers Irrigation Checks/Crossings 947 numbers Farm Irrigation Turnouts (FITs) 6,254 numbers Drainage End Control/Crossings 1,104 numbers Drainage Outlets (DOs) 5,172 numbers INTEGRATED PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION MODEL 3.22 This model (see Figure 2) was developed as a master framework for coordinating the efforts of various parties involved in the project, i.e. MADA, DID Muda II Project Office, Land Office and the farmers. The salient features of this model is the consultations with farmers and the irrigation field staff, whose intimate knowledge of the actual field conditions can be harnessed. It is hoped that by involving the farmers at the onset of project planning, it would foster also a sense of belonging and responsibility towards the project and enhance project acceptance. 3.23 This model starts with the preparation of the preliminary layout plan by the Project Office. Copies of these layout plans are then sent to MADA where the following take place: 1. Comments are elicted from the MADA District Offices and the field staff on the suitability of the layout plans and to any constraints they may feel could occur during the operation and maintenance of the irrigation block. 2. MADA organises a series of meetings with the farmers concerned where these layout plans are presented and discussed. These meetings are led by the extension staff, and the design engineers and the operation and maintenance staff are present to clarify the project further. These farmers' comments and suggestions are noted and further investigated by the Project Office for possible incorporation into the plans. 3.24 With the feedback from these two sources, adjustments, if possible, are made on the layout and then detailed design would proceed. The process of land acquisition is then activated. It is - 26 - notedi here that the land acquisition process is greatly facilitated by this and objections or challenges to land acquisition; by farmers have 3greatly been reduced. 3.25 Although this process of consultation arnd interaction take anything from 3 to 6 months and the final plannirng and design has to be put on hold while awaiting the comments, it is generally felt that the process is useful. On many occassions when farmers have objected to the alignments of the canals or drains on the basis of ground topography, detailed grid surveys undertaken to ascertain their validity have indicated that their claims are justified and thus helped to improve the alignments. This is especially seen in the earlier blocks where aerial survey maps were used as the basis for planning. MINOR WORKS 3.26 A series of small, scattered canal and drainage systems and farm road improvements were provided to solve small localised problems. These minor works are located at high priority areas which necessitated immediate remedial action but which do not fall within any of the 38 irrigation blocks. Originally estimated at 1,200 hectares at project appraisal time, this was Lncreased, through the course of project implementation, to 2,523 hectares as more areas were identified. MAJOR DRAINS 3.27 In addition to the tertiary drain construction, the major outfall drains and natural channels were improved where they were found to be inadequate. Construction included widening, deepening and occasional bund strengthening along rivers and drains to increase their capacity. Under this component, the Sungei Kubang Rotan drainage improvement, which was originally planned, was deleted because of the presence of many squatter houses along the entire stretch. Instead, regular maintenance would be carried out to improve the drainage flow. Another deletion was the drainage improvements to the Southern Canal Escape. This was because the entire drainage system of South Muda had to bp considered and it warranted a separate study. BUILDINGS 3.28 Prominent among the buildings component was the new MADA headquarters. Built to integrate MADA's administrative headquarters with the Divisions of Agriculture and Engineering which have been housed separately in the past in temporary office buildings, the new headquarters is a 3-storey building covering a total floor space of - 27 - 8,400 square metres and is located near the Tidal Barrage on the outskirts of Alor Setar- Delayed for several years, it was completed in January l986.. 3-29 A new tnemporary office building was also constructed to house the DID staff implementing the project. This project office was located about 8 kilometres Grom the MADA headquarters and was completed at the start of the project in 1980. In addition, two of the four MADA District Offices wer-e provided with new buildings to house the operation anid maintenance staff in permanent and enlarged offices, each totalling 893 square met.res in office space. They were completed in 1982. Quarters for staff totalling 155 (duwn from the original 160) for field staff were also built. 3.30 To cater for the expansion in the seed distribution programme, each FDC was also provided with new seed stores of 156 square metres each, which will be used for short-term storage of the certified seeds used in the expanded Seed Exchange Programme. All these seed stores have been completed by 1981. 3.31 The existing workshop at. Jitra was enlarged and improved. This involved the construction of a new work bay and the purchase of new equipment to enhance the role of the workshop in the maintenance of all MADA machinery, in particular the water pumps (both mobile and permanent) and the departmental vehicles. All works have been completed in 1983 with the exception of the Pump Test Bay which has been deleted. COASTAL PROTECTION WORKS 3.32 This involved the construction of stretches of rock bund along the coast between Kuala Perlis and Kuala Sanglang which have been experiencing serious wave erosion and as a consequence, the coastal bunds have been repeatedly breached resulting in damage to the padi fields by sea water. The stretch to be rehabilitated,was estimated to be 5 kilometres at project appraisal time. However further erosion to new stretches caused this figure to be revised to 6.3 kilometres in 1980 and to 8.46 kilometres in 1985. This component was completed in 1986. The rock bund as constructed has been successful in maintaining a stable coastline and protecting the padi land from being affected by sea water. WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEM 3.33 A new water management and control communication system was established to replace the old land-based system which has proven to be difficult, unreliable and expensive to maintain. The new system is based on a VHF system and allows automatic recording of rainfall plus radio and microprocessor for storage and transmission. Under the Muda II project, 20 of the 56 rainfall stations were replaced - 28 - with this new system. In addition, 5 of the 12 stations in the river/dam system were replaced with telemetry rainfall stations plus an automatic water level recorder. Out of these 5, 1 is located in the Pedu Dam and the other 4 in the river system below the dam. With a master controller- installed in the base station (MADA Headquarters), all these remote stationis could be activated to rYetrieve data, thus helping to enhance the watert management system in the project area. 3-34 A new mainrframe %c.omputer system was installed in the new MADA Headquarters to improve the water mcanagement system as well as to assist other engineering, agricultural, administration and planning r equirements. LAND ACQUISITION 3.35 The acquisition of land for the project falls under the responsibility of the Kedah and Perlis state Departments of Land and Mines, and is outsic- the executive control of the Project Office. However, at the beginning of the project, assurances were received that the staff of these departments would be increased and set aside to handle land acquisition for the project. It is estimated that for the tertiary system, acquisition papers had to be prepared for 13,633 cadestral lots in the 12 states. As on August 1988, 11,902 lots or 87X of the lots have been acquired. The total area acquired for the construction of the system is 1,300 hectares- MISCELLANEOUS WORKS 3.36 This category includes the construction of 2 new tidal gates, and 1 new water control structure with crossings on the primary canal system. All works have beern completed. EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES 3.37 The purchase of equipment and vehicles formed part of the Muda II project to improve the capability of the Project Office to supervise construction and MADA to operate and maintain the project. These items include heavy hydraulic equipment for desilting and other maintenance works, workshop equipment, transport vehicles, office, agricultural, and extension equipment. All these have been purchased. PILOT PROJECT STUDIES 3.39 A programme for pilot project studies forms an important - 29 - tcomponent of t.he project anid separate fund4s as well as staffing were provided for. These studies were conduuted on Muda II sites to evaluate the new systems with a view to develop appropriate approaches for development- They wer-e to provide the basis for any on-course corrections and also to enable appropriat.e strategies to be adopted for future projects. ,.359 The objectives of the pilot project studies are as follows: i. To evaluate the Muda II system with a view to make recommendations on water scheduling, water use efficiency and water management. ii. To dievelop appropriate strategies for the tertiary unit operation and maintenance with a view to farmers' participation. iii. To develop appropriate agricultural, cultural and farm management practices in conformity with the physical system. iv. To study the problems associated with the effectiveness of the formation and management of the water-user organisation in the system. v. To study the costs and impact of further inten-ification of the physical system. vi. To provide demonstration models on the effectiveness and benefits of infrastructure intensification and organised field participation. 3.40 To fulfil these objectives, studies were conducted by the team over 3 sites, though not concurrently, that is, at ARBD 2, ACLBD Ob, and CCRBD 3el. In all, 11 separate studies were conducted and is still being pursued in these sites. 3.41 So far the pilot project studies have provided valuable feedback on the scheduling and acceptability of the proposed 6 week schedule. It has thrown some light on the water use efficiency of the system, and it has provided some indication of the acceptability of farmer operation and maintenance of the facilities. On the water management and agronomic level, however, studies are still on-going to come up with recommendations in line with new agronomic practices. Attempts to organise workable water-user groups within the pilot project areas has met with difficulties. AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT SERVICES 3.42 A reorganisation of the MADA agricultttral services was carried out in conjunction and in preparation of the project. Of clear relevance was the establishment of a separate Extension and - 30 - Training section under the Division of Agriculture in MADA. It is headed by a Senior Agriculture Officer who is responsible for coordinating the extension activities as well as the planning and .supervision of the training programme of both farmers and agriculture field staff. He is supported by Subject Matter Specialists for rice agronomy, crop protection, extension, farm famiiy development, and tr-aining. 3.43 At the District level, the extension framework is also strengthened by a team of extension staff responsible for field demonstration, agric-ultural development, farm family development and crop protectiorn. Irn the FDCs, the local extension staff was doubled with the staff-farmer ratio being increased to 1:1000. With this increased staff, a modified Training and Visit (T & V) system was i.ntroduced to enhance the extension services. TRAINING 3.44 A training component was incorporated into the project both for staff as well as farmers. The overseas staff training was not fully utilised though a few officers were sent for specialised training. This is partly because the Authority could avail itself to training opportunities offered by the Federal Governmunt. 3.45 Local training on project orientation for all the key staff and at all levels were conducted to familiarise them with the Muda II concepts and operational procedure. Emphasis is on tertiary water management and maintenance, crop establishment, scheduling, pest and disease control, and extension principles and approaches. Resource personnel from the Department of Agriculture (DOA), the Malaysian Agriculture Research And Development Institute (MARDI) and Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (UPM), were invited to collaborate in the training programme. Training facilities from the Regional Extension And Training Development Centre (RETDC), DOA, and the DID Water Management Training Centre at Kota Bharu, Kelantan are also utilised in the training programme. A training programme was also instituted to train farmers. Under this programme, potential farm leaders within the Muda II blocks were brought to training centres and trained in the Muda II concepts and the roles expected to be played by the farmers. DISBURSEMENTS 3.46 The rate of disbursements are as shown in Annex 2, Table 5. The disbursement period was extended to financial year 1988 from the original dateline of 1985 due to project delays and the extension of the project to 1990. Of the original loan amount of US$31 million, a sum of US$1.4 million was cancelled in May 1986 and the loan sum reduced to US$29.6 million. This was because, even with the extended loan period, it would not have been possible to draw upon the full - 31 - original loan amount. As a further measure at that time to ensure t.he maximum disbursements could be made, the Bank also agreed to .incr ease the di.sbursement percentages of each category. 3.47 The slow rate of disbursements could be traced to the following main reasons: i. Budget shortfalls, especially in the earlier years- ii. Slow progress of contract works. iii. Delays in awarding contracts due to excessively high tender bids. As at mid-1988, total disbursements is completed and total percentage of disbursements is 99-6Z. ACCOUNTS AND AUDITS 3.48 A requirement spelt out in the SAR is that all audited accounts, together with the Auditors' comments, would be sent to the Bank within 9 months of the close of each financial year. The project management has difficulties in complying with this requirement. As at the PCR, the accounts up to 1986 have been submitted to the Bank, while those for 1987 are presently with the Audit Department of the Government of Malaysia. The problem of late submission was particularly severe during the early years of the Project. 3.49 Several reasons are cited for these delays: i. Three payment centres, viz. Federal Accountant Gilneral's Office in Kuala Lumpur, State Accountant General's Office in Alor Setar, and MADA were involved. Delays in collation of documents and insufficiency of some were experienced. ii No special staff could be assigned by the Audit Department for Project accounts, and neither could priority for Project accounts be expected in the workload of the Department. iii. The workload of the Audit Department was also greatly increased by Government's requirement for all Statutory Bodies to submit audited accounts by June 30 of each year for the previous year's accounts. 3.50 Faster preparation of audits and submission to the Bank could perhaps have been achieved if private auditors were appointed, subject to the approval of the Auditor General. This would however involve considerable budgetary provisions, not easily forthcoming since 1982. - 32 - IV. PROJECT EVALUATION COST OVERRUNS 4-1 The project faced substantial cost overruns. At appraisal time in 1979, the project bore a cost estimate of M$152_4 million and physical implementation was targetted for- a 5 year period 1979 - 1983. By the end of 1980, the cost overruns were apparent. These were due essentially to price escalations over appraisal estimates for civil works, buildings, land and equipment, changes in design of the MADA headquarters, a salary revision for government staff, and an omission at appraisal time of the administrative and agriculture staff costs. This had the effect of pushing the total project cost estimate up to M$229.98 million. In 1983 however, the prices reversed and it was possible to show some savings in the .:ivil works programme. At this time also, it was agreed that this savings could be utilised to expand the scope of works to include three urgent items, i.e. a. the expansion of the coastal protection works by an additional 3.46 kilometres which was undergoing serious coastal erosion, b. the addition of another block (SCLBD 3) which was facing serious water supply problems, and c. the addition of 587 hectares as an extension of block SCRBD 5b. 4.2 The latest estimate show that the total project cost at completion time will be M$225_93 million, an overall increase of 48% over the original cost (refer to Annex 1, Table 3). a. Civil Works 4.3 This component showed the largest absolute price increase. It was noted that price estimates at the start of the project were realistic but they were overtaken by developments in the construction industry of which inflation was a contributing factor. Major price increases were experienced in early 1980 as the prices of cement, mild steel bars, diesel, laterite, aggregates, sand, and labour increased. These increases were however slightly reversed later in 1983 which brought some savings. 4.4 Other factors were also important in causing these price escalations. One major factor was the lack of competition in the local construction industry, in particular in relation to tertiary system development, evidenced by the very few tender bids received (averaging 3) for contracts above M$2 million in the early 80's. - 33 - This was compounded by arn excess demand situation in the construction industry then, which was facing a construction boom. Tertiary system development, with its dispersed nature of works and the involvement of so many farmers, was relatively unattr.¢tive, compared to less scattered constructiorn jobs elsewhere. This trend was however only temporary as in the mid 1980's the economy took a dive and the recession caused the government to cut tback drastically on public expenditure. 4.5 Secortdly, uncertainty over the complete possession of site at the time of tendering, especially for lines involving large number of farmers, have led many contractors to bid higher in an attempt to hedge against delays. 4.6 Thirdly, in the early 1980's there was an element of uncertainty over material prices and their availability which led contractors to raise prices. b. Buildings 4.7 The increased costs apply to all buildings except the temporary Project Office which was completed early. The increased cost in the MADA headquarters represent the largest increase, from the original M$2.91 million to M$10.7 million. The revised cost is due to the following: a. increase in floor area from 4,900 square metres to 8,400 square metres to accomodate additional staff and to provide for additional functions. b. increase in cost of civil works (from M$430.00 per square metre to M$807.00 per square metre), building services and furniture. For the MADA district offices, prices increased from M$0.799 million to M$1.5 million due to the following: a. price escalation for all civil works. b. increase in floor area of 14% to cater for additional staff. c. provision of additional facilities to comply with regulations, e.g. fire fighting facilities, electrical sub-stations, and security lighting. The cost of the workshop was revised from M$2.02 million to M$4.3 million due to: a. increase in cost of construction. b. increase in workshop area by approximately 12x. - 34 - c. increase in cost of supplying workshop equipment by 60%. d. necessity to comply with existing Electrical and Fire Department regulations. Similarly, the quarters for staff also showed an increase in prices, due to the price escalations in the building industry at that time. c. Land Acquisition 4.8 Land acquisition costs rose substantially trom the original estimate of M$6.9 million to M$31.0 million. Although the area to be acquired rose slightly by 13% due to the decision to extend the width of the farm roads, the major factor was the increased acquisition compensation rate from about $3,000 to $10,000 per acre, due to rising land costs. d. Engineering and Supervision 4.9 This item showed a big increase from M$5.8m. to a final figure of M$35.76 million at project completion. This is due to the following reasons: a. inclusion of administrative and agricultural staff salaries which was approved at appraisal time but were omitted from the original project cost. b. extension of salary payments for an additional 7 years owing to project delays. c. adjustment of salaries and all related allowances in accordance witr the Government saiary revisions in 1980 which was not envisaged at project appraisal time. e. Summary 4.10 In retrospect, much of the price increases were unavoidable and clearly beyond the control of the project management. For contract works, care was exercised in awarding tenders and in many cases during the early 1980's, tenders were rejected because the bids received were too high. This had the disadvantage however, of contributing to project delays as the entire tendering process need to be repeated. 4.11 It is also recorded here that even though the project experienced cost overruns, the loan amount from IBRD remained unchanged, i.e. at US$31 million or 45% (revised later to M$29_6 million or 43%) of the original project cost. The difference was borne by the Federal Government of Malaysia. - 35 - PROJECT DELAYS 4.12 The planned implementation period as outlined in the Appraisal Report was 5 years, from 1979 to 1983. However, due to various factors, this was extended twice, once to 1987 and finally to 1990. This represented a total delay of 7 years, in spite that planning and design and also physical works actually started in 1977 with in-house staff from both DID and MADA. 4.13 An examination of the physical progress show that the main delays are in the construction of the tertiary system which form the core of the project. It is due to be completed only in 1990. Figure I shows the progress of each tertiary irrigation block construction compared to SAR estimates. The buildings component was slightly delayed, in particular the MADA headquarters, which experienced delays in the planning stage (the tender could only be called in 1982), and later in the construction stage (the contract had to be determined and recalled in 1985). It was completed in January 1986, a delay of 3 years. Even up to today, outstanding claims and payments are still pending. For the quarters component, most of them were completed on time with the exception of about 25% of the quarters which involved 2 contracts which was completed in 1984-1985. They could not be awarded earlier due to land acquisition delays. Six more units of quarters in the Muda Dam were only completed in 1987 due to contractual problems. 4.14 The minor works and the coastal protection works faced no delays but were extended due to increased scope of works, decided upon in late 1983. a. Planning Stage Of The Tertiary System 4.15 For the proper design of an irrigation system, past operational data of the existing infrastructure is very important. In the past it was found that a lot of time was required to collect and collate data on FSL discharges and water levels in drains and to obtain plans showing problem areas, water patterr, and details of existing structures. Due to the fluctuations in the water levels in the major irrigation and drainage systems, a lot of care had to be exercised in deciding the levels to be established in the individual irrigation blocks. The Project Office had to supplement these records with their own field investigations and all these take some time before the actual design can start. 4.16 After the preliminary plan for a particular irrigation block is completed, it is distributed to the field staff for their comments. At the same time local meetings (kursus teempatan), are arranged with the farmers to obtain their reactions. This process of obtaining comments take 3 to 6 months. 4.17 Bated on the feedback from these sources, it is necessary to carry out field verifications for every area where a change in - 36 - alignment has been proposed to assess its validity. This process requires additional time which was not envisaged during project appraisal- 4.18 In three areas, the farmers initially rejected the project, (that is, the Kedah sides of ALBD 4, ALBD 6 and ALBD 7). Consequently, MADA decided to withdraw the project from these areas. However, a few years later, these farmers, upon seeing the advantages of the facilities in neighbouring blocks, appealed for the project to be reinstated. Hence, project implementation for these 3 areas were delayed for- 6 years. b. Staff 4.19 The Muda II Project Office experienced a very high turnover of engineering staff (see Figures 4 and 5). As an example, from the initial planning to the final tendering of an irrigation block, 3 to 6 different engineers were involved due to this high turnover. For an engineer to take over the design from another engineer, a few months is required to familiarise himself with the block. This has upset the planning and design programme many times. This is also true for the supporting staff levels. c. Surveys 4;20 Another cause of delay is the inadequacy of using the aerial survey plans of about 122 metres (400 feet) grid intervals. This resulted in a need to carry out detailed ground grid surveys at 30.5 metres (100 feet) intervals to provide more accurate survey data for the planning and diesign of the project. These detailed ground grid surveys were not envisaged in the original schedule. d. Land Acquisition 4.21 The process of land acquisition is long and tedious. A total of 13 separate and distinct processes had to be undertaken before a land lot is available for use by the government agency. However as often happens, many of the steps have to be repeated because fartmers dJo not turn up at meetings and on many occasions disputes occur which led to court action. As 13,633 land lots ar-e involved in the Muda II project, strengthening of the staff at the Land Offices was vital, and they would exclusively be delegated to the Muda II project land acquisition- 4.22 To facilitate the land acquisition process, an imprest * au-count of M$250,000 was created in the Land Office whereby the Land Officer can make on-the-spot payments to settle land acquisition. The normal procedure would be to prepare vouchers after negotiations and to forward them to the State Accountant General's office for preparation of cheques. Another step taken to help speed up this land acquisition process was to have regular meetings with the land - 37 - office staff to coordinate the land acquisition activities. 4.23 In spite of these, delays in land acquisition remained the major factor for project delays. Annex 2, Table 2 gives the progress of the land acquisition by tertiary irrigation block. During the initial stages of construction in 1977 and 1978, most of the contract works were delayed for periods ranging from 3 to 15 months. The land lots could not be acquired in time and stoppage of work resulted. The experience is that it takes more than 2 years to achieve a position of 80% of lots acquired in an irrigation block. 4.24 In an attempt to speed up the implementation process, it is the usual practice that tenders for physical works would be awarded when a substantial proportion of the land has been acquired, in this case 80%, with the hope that the rest would be settled within the construction period. In all cases, this did not happen, and it took long periods of negotiations with the farmers whose land have not yet been acquired before they could allOw the work to continue while awaiting the finalisation of the land acquisition process. 4.25 Incomplete records at the Land Office sometimes contribute to this situation as many of the owners are deceased and it takes time and effort to trace their- beneficiaries. Sometimes, the owner is only identified when he physically obstructs the contractor from entering his lot. It only requires one unacquired land lot to stall the work on an entire tertiary line. In block ALBD 7 (Kedah), about 70% of the works were suspended after a delay of 3 years. Of late, work on a line in CCRBD 1 had to be stopped for more than a year because of land acquisition problems. In most cases, a single cadestral lot is owned by several owners and this further complicates the acquisition process. 4.26 Besides causing delays to the project, this also has contributed to cost overruns as contractors have to hedge against such problems and also allocate certain sums of money to compensate farmers for early intrusions in;.o their land. e. Construction 4.27 In spite of the farmer involvement in the planning process through the ktArsus tempatan, problems crop up during the construction stage. These take the form of objections to the layout of the alignment of the channels, requests for additional facilities, as well as complaints about the alterations to the traditional irrigation flows during construction time. All these had to be attended to and the construction engineer has to spend time and effort to verify these complaints. Sometimes it is even necessary to stop work on the line concerned until the problem has been resolved. It is imperative to note that most of these complainants are farmers who had not attended nor participated in the sensitisation programme of the kursus tempatan. 4.28 Objections to the alignments were most common during the - 38 - construction of the earlier blocks when the aerial survey plans were used for planning. In SCRBD 5b1, this caused a 6 month delay as an overall review of the design of the entire tertiary system was necessary. 4.29 The delays were often compounded if the problems caused the contractor to miss the period of December to February which is the fallow period as well as the dry period and is therefore the ideal time for construction. At other times when the ground is wet and when the land is already planted with padi, progress would be slower. f. Financial Allocation. 4.30 Although the project is partly IBRD - financed, all initial expenditure had to be allocated through the normal government financing process, and disbursements from IBRD follow after the expenditure is completed. In addition, IBRD financed only 45% of the original cost or only 33Z of the final project cost. The Malaysian Government has a good record of financial allocations for projects, but was however forced to cut back on earlier agreed aliocations in the period 1983-1987 due to the recession. It has also issued instructions at times to withhold tendering for similar reasons. This caused much uncertainty in the Project Office and upset many of the planned schedules. g. Summary. 4.31 In summary, it is seen that many of the causes of delays were beyond the control of the project management. These delays occur even in spite of the many measures taken by project management to overcome them. Some of these measures were even unique to the project, in particular, the kurssus tempatan teams used in the sensitisation process. The imprest account has also helped to facilitate the land acquisition process. Delays would have been worse if project management has not been sensitive to project delays and not taken these measures. WATER DELIVERY AND SCHEDULING 4.32 One primary objective of the Muda II project was to provide irrigation water to the high ground areas which has experienced problems in obtaining irrigation water before. Other- areas which are low lying could also be effectively drained and thus allow better water management to be practiced. This is to be achieved by a system of tertiary canals and drains branching out from the existing secondary systems and which will greatly intensity the level of infrastructure in the irrigation block. To supply the irrigation water to the plots., the concept of scheduled water supply was adopted. Under this concept, each irrigation block is divided - 39 - into 4 to 6 Irrigation Service Areas (ISAs) served by an independent: tertiary system. Each ISA will again be divided into Irrigation Service Units (ISUs). In the early irrigation blocks, 8 ISUs per ISA were planned, repre,enting 8 schedules per ISA, each schedult corresponding to a week. This was further reduced to 6 weekl- schedules tjr 6 ISUs after the first few ISAs constructed drew too many objections from the farmers because of the long waiting time for the farmers at the tail end of the schedule. 4.33 This objective of distribution has been achieved to a l.arge extent by the project through the provision of a more intensive network of irrigation facilities from 11 metres per hectare to 34 metres per hectare. 4.34 There are cases of small pockets of land having difficulties despite the project. These were identified during commissioning of the blocks and are to be solved by land levelling, construction of quarternary canals or local pumping. 4.35 The pre-project cropping intensity of the Muda area was 176% (1977-1983), as seen in Annex 2, Table 1. Since the start of the project this cropping intensity has increased. In the years 1984-1987, the 'without project' areas reported a cropping intensity of 191%, while the 'with project' areas showed a marked rise of cropping intensit/ to 199%. This is indicative that most of the problem areas wi hin the Muda II blocks have been solved. For the 'without projec-' areas, the rise in cropping intensity can be accounted for I ' the adoption of direct seeding practices which enabled the farmers to double crop even in times of severe water shortages. 4.36 During commissioning and subsequent monitoring, it is noted that the delivery of irrigation water has.been satisfactory and very little complaints on this subject was received. On field distribution, it was observed that generally, the tertiary system is able to supply presaturation water to the tertiary areas as designed for. However, the actual period may vary due to the following factors: a. antecedent conditions, b. practice of mixed planting i.e. direct seeding and transplanting, and c. late harvesting of the preceding crop. For example, in 1985, observations of 3 completed irrigation blocks show that on the average, an ISU was presaturated in 3 days and an ISA in 17 days, with the help of wet antecedent conditions. 4.37 Many of the localised topographical problems arose because planning of the earlier blocks were based on aerial survey levels. Detailed grid level surveys reveal that the actual ground levels within an ISA could vary so much that the existing Full Supply Level - 40 - (FSL) in the secondary canals may not be able to command the entire area. Sensitivity analysis of non-irrigatable areas against the FSL was carried out. If it is small, they were left alone for the time being for later action. Otherwise, the possibility of raising the FSL was considered. 4.38 The geographical dispersal of the Mtuda II blocks have complicated the management of water delivery. Many of them have to shar-e the service of a secondary canal and invariably all have to depend on the primary conveyance system. As the non-Muda II blocks have to follow a difforent cropping schedule which is planned on a 2-week staggering of 4 schedules using the entire irrigation block as the smallest unit, in contr-ast with the Muda II blocks of 1-week scheduling of 6 schedules within an irrigation block, this poses many difficult problems for water management, especially that of building up FSL in the secondary system. 4.39 The most serious problem facing the introduction of scheduling of planting through the ISUs is the limited acceptability of this concept by the farmers. Objections are mainly raised by farmers at the tail end of the schedules. As stated earlier, these objections forced the implementors to revise the original schedules and reduce its number of schedules to 6 schedules totalling 6 weeks. Even this concession has not been totally acceptable, and farmers are asking for a further reduction to 4 schedules. Although the tertiary system was designed for certain flexibility in operation, there exists a technical constraint to the time period an ISA could be presaturated. This constraint is the carrving capacity of the existing primary and secondary canal systems. 4.40 The practice of dJirect seeding further complicates the schedules. By this practice, especially the practice of direct seeding in conjunction with dry ploughing, farmers refuse to allow irrigation water into their fields before sowing and then, water is let in slowly corresponding to the crop height. Putting in water too much or too early would drown the seedlings. In wet bed direct seeding, water is let in to facilitate wet rotovation after which it is drained off completely to enable pregerminated seeds to be sown. Water is brought in later in accordance with the plant height. These practices clearly contradict the traditional water demands of transplanting where water is let in well in advance up to a standing layer of 10 to 15 centimetres, and transplanting of seedlings being carried out later. As such, in ISUs of mixed planting, it is very difficult to agree on a schedule of water delivery. 4.41 Farmers generally have indicated their desire to plant simultaneously rather than stagger their planting according to the schedules. They have often adopted an attitude of twait and see' and do not want to take the initiative to be the first to plant. They do this partly out of the fear of pest attacks on their crop, especially rodent attacks, which is an endemic problem. This attitude still prevailed in the Muda II areas. In ISUs where the water-user groups are well organised, consensus on scheduling is easier to reach, resulting in a better adherance to schedules. On the other hand, - 41 - ISUs with higher percentages of non-resident farmers, weak leadership and socio-politic:al problems, find difficulty in schedule adherance- Therefore, it will take time to inculcate in farmers arn attitude of rigid scheduled planting. FARM ROADS 4.42 Farm roatis is the most appreciated feature of the project, and the one which brings immediate bernefit to the fatrmer. It has helped to facilitate access to the farms and also provided a social function of connectiing many of the settlements with the secondary farm roads. It has enabled farm inputs to be transported quickly and efficiently, and at the same time enabled farm produce to be brought out quickly. This is especially useful in the wet harvest where timeliness of transportation of output is important. On the other hand, farm machinery has also benefitted by making farms more accessible. Requests have also been received to upgrade the standard of these farm roads and to further widen it to 4.3 metres (14 feet). WATER-USER GROUPS 4.43 Closely related to the difficulty to adhere to the 6-weekly schedules is the problem of establishing strong water-user groups. The objective is to organise all farmers within each ISU into an ISU Work Group while each leader of the ISUs within an ISA would group together to form an ISA Committee, which will function to regulate the schedules and coordinate machinery and labour usage within the ISA. They will also operate and maintain all the minor field structures and therefore regulate water supply. The process of organising these groups take from 9 to 18 months. They include the listing of the farmers, identification of the farmer leaders, briefing and sensitising on the role of these groups, and calling for meetings to elect their leaders. By the end of 1987, 76 ISA groups in 17 irrigation blocks have been established. Due to the efforts and support of the extension staff, the water-user groups have met with some success. However, those that are less successful have the following problems: i. lack of congruence between field neighbourhood and village neighbourhood. ii. lack of strong leaders. iii. a large percentage of farmers (30%) reside outside the irrigation block. iv. political and social conflicts among the farmers. v. multi-ownership of land lots in different ISUs and ISAs. - 42 -. 4.44 To help instill in farmers the concept of group cooperation in field activities, including water delivery and scheduling, group farming or projek berk&lompok are organised in blocks without tertiary facilities to serve as fore-runners to the organisation of the ISAs. These projects are fairly successful but then they have so far been organised only in areas where strong leadership have been identified and where farmers have given prior consent. to the project. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.45 It was originally planned that the operation and regular clearing of the channels in the tertiary system be carried out by the farmers. Each ISA/ISU leader would initiate and supervise all its activities and to operate all tertiary irrigation and drainage gates according to instructions from MADA. It was felt that such simple structures could be passed over to them to operate, which would inculcate a sense of belonging and responsibility to the project as well as help reduce the operating expenditure of the project. It was proposed that the operation of CHOs and check structures will remain the duty of MADA staff, while the farmers take over the operation of FTTs and DOs. This has met with only limited success. 4.46 To encourage farmer involvement of future projects, operation and maintenance of tertiary facilities could be made a pre-condition of project implementation. Alternatively, some form of monetary incentives could be considered. WATER MANAGEMENT AND EFFICIENCY 4.47 The tertiary system as provided has enabled better on-farm management practices to be adopted. It has made possible direct access to FITs and DOs for 80Z of the cadestral lots. With these facilities, it is easier to obtain irrigation water and to drain away excess water. With proper use, it would therefore be possible to increase water use efficiency. But at present this is not yet forthccming and in general, the objective of water savings are not yet r-ealized. 4.48 On the other hand, there are farmers taking the initiative to level their land or construct their own dual purpose channels within their plots to aid in-field distribution of water. The construction of the physical boundary (ISU perimeter bunds) have also been found to be effective in helping control field water distribution. 4.49 Evaluation of water use efficiency need a longer duration to carry out. Efforts are being taken to cortinuously monitor the efficiency of the system. Preliminary results of studies undertake -43 - in the pilot project are however show that with good water control, it is -possible to obtain savings in water utilisation, especially in cases of dry ploughing in coniunction with direct seeding (see Annex 3, Table 3). CHANGES IN AGRONOMIC PRACTICES 4.50 Since the time of planning of the Muda II project, there have been several major changes in the farm cultural and agronomic practices, namely dry ploughing, direct seeding and mechanized harvesting, that have a significant impact on the project. 4.51 The increasing popularity of dry ploughing is one of the major changes. This is chiefly due to the shift from wet seed bed direct seeding method to dry seed bed and volunteer seedling methods. MADA's recommendation to the farmers tn rotovate the fields immediately after harvesting for the i*. rpose of viral-source eradication also con iibuted to the increasing percentage of dry ploughing. Dry ploughing is mainly carried out by tractors of 60 to 70 horse power capacity. By practicing dry ploughing, land preparation within the same ISU can be completed faster. Also, since the fields being ploughed are dry, there is no problem of bogging down of machinery in the field and it does not aggravate the deterioration of soil bearing capacity as in wet rotovation. 4.52 The rapid adoption of dry ploughing together with direc,: seeding and volunteer seedling was prompted by the experience of an acute shortage of farm labour (cooperative exchange of labour or derau has also almost disappeared in practice) in the early 1980s which caused many to seek labour saving methods of planting. In doing so, they found also substantial savings in production costs could be realized. Its rapid adoption was also aided by the water shortage situation in the reservoirs. In the off season 1987, when no irrigation water was released until June, a de±ay of 3 months, the entire crop was established through direct sowing with the help of rainfall. This crop would not have been possible without direct seedling. 4.53 Despite the problems of weeds in direct seeding fields, the unstable nature of its yields, and the need for good water control, direct seeding has evolved into a popular technique of production of padi. In the off season of 1987, 91Z of the total planted area was established by direct sowing. It is attractive because of its convenience, its saving of labour and its savings in costs. Its work cycle and water demands are however different from the traditional transplanting and thus poses serious problems on water supply. This is especially so for an ISU with a mixed crop, meaning conflicting demands for water especially in the early stages of padi growth, where a transplanting crop demands a standing layer well in advance whereas direct sowing requires water to be let into the plot progressively in accordance with the plant height. - 44 - 4.54 Another major change is the introduction of large combine harvesters in the area. When the projeut was planned, it was envisaged that small Japanese-type combine harvesters would be the main type of harvesters. This was proved wrong by the entry of large western--type combines with up to 3.65 metres (12 feet) axle width. They now harvest more than 9S5 of the crop and the small Japanese-type is not used at all in the area. The early irrigation blocks only allowed a farm road width of 3.05 metres (10 feet) which is not sufficiently wide for the movement of these combines. Naturally a review of the farm roads was conducted with the result that the width was subsequertly increased to 3.66 metres (12 feet). EXTENSION AND TRAINING 4.55 With increased extension staff, br-inging the s.taff-farmer ratio to 1:1000, a modified Training and Visit (T & V) System was adopted to enhance the extension services. This T & V system was adapted to the agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions in Muda. Nevertheless, the basic tenets of the T & V system are retained in the implementation of agricultural extension, i.e. single line of command, concentration of efforts, time-bound work, continuous training, field oriented activities and close linkage with research were used as guidelines. 4.56 At the locality level, an additional Agriculture Technician (A.T.) has been assigned to take charge of the extensiotn work. The extension service is under a single line of technical and administrative command. All extension A.T.s are responsible to the .locality Assistant Agriculture Officer (A.A-0.), who in turn is answerable to the District Agriculture Officer (A.0.). The District A.0. is responsible for the operation of the extension activities in the respective districts. 4.57 As far as possible, regular time-bound work is conducted by the A.T. extension to meet and educate the farmers, helping them to make the best use of their resources within their command. However, farm visits are not carried out rigidly on a fortnight basis. Generally speaking, the A-T. extension on the average is able to meet the farmers 6 to 0 times in a season. 4.58 Regular and continuous training of the extension staff is carried out every month at the district level to enhance their technical and operational capacity. On top of that, frequent technical seminars and workshops are organised for them. They are equipped with an extension manual on tertiary development, with complete recommendations on agronomy, crop protection and irrigation management. These manuals are updated from time to time. Monthly extension bulletins are issued. Demonstration plots are also organised and have been established in 50% of the commissioned ISAs in full cooperation with progressive farmers. 4.59 In the implementation of the T & V system in the Muda II - 4S blocks, several problems have surfaced and posed as hinderances to the extension workers: a. In many of the Muda II blocks, settlement pattern is in the form of scattered or linear settlement pattern. Marny farmers are operating on several parcels of land in different blocks. Formation of functional work groups is hence faced with marny difficulties. bt Organisation of work groups for the maintenance of the tertiary system has not met with much success due to the individualistic attitude of farmers. However, in areas where group spirit is strong, maintenance works are carried out by farmers satisfactorily, e.g. in ALBD 4. c. Strong local leadership in some of the Muda II blocks is lacking- Farmers are overdependent on the extension staff in organising activities for them. d. Differences in political affiliation tend to segregate the farmers within the same block. e. Fortnightly visits to the ISA cannot be strictly adhered to because not all the extension staff can be freed from other urgent jobs. For example, the extension staff has to take care of crop pr-otection in the locality, organise supply of farm inputs, and assist in the implementation of the fertiliser subsidy scheme. Moreover, rice is being planted as a monocrop in the Muda area, and thus visits based on farm activities is found to be more appropriate than visits based on rigid time schedules. f. Many of the extension staff are new, and as such, do not feel confident enough to execute their duties. CROP PROTECTION 4.60 As expected, the implementation of rice double cropping has resulted in an increase of the cropping intensity, modifications in the field microclimate, and change; in the species dominance of rice pests. Since the late 1970s, several epidemics have occurred in the Muda area, for instance, the infestations of white-backed plant hoppers (Sogatella furcifera) in 1979, the Tungro virus disease (vectored by the green leaf hopper Nephotettix virescens) in 1981 - 1983, the brown plant hopper 'Ni1aparvata lIugeris) in 1983 and rodent attacks (Rattus argentiventer) in 1984. 4.61 However, these pest occurrences have decreased thereafter due to the implementation of an integrated pest management (IPM) programme in the Muda area. The 3 agencies involved in crop protection activities, namely, MARDI, DOA and MADA are constantly in - 46 - close coordination. Monthly crop protection committee meetings are held in Alor Setar to assess the pest situation. These meetings also serve as a forum where researchers from MARDI present their research findings on the screening of new agrochemicals and results of resistent rice variety development. The DOA Crop Protection Branch informs the committee members on their pest forecasting and field surveillance results 4.62 Upon receiving the warning from the field surveillance staff that pest populations have escalated beyong the action thresholds, MADA is responsible for the organisation of farmers to carry out ti'mely application of pesticides on a group basis. In order to strengthen the crop protection services at the farms, MADA has taken positive steps in the formation of crop protection brigades among farmers at the locality level to ensure pr,per handling of pesticide application equipment. 4.63 From 1980 onwards, the practice of direct seeding has been gaining momentum as a result of which the spectrum of weed species have also changed remarkably. Broad leaves and sedges which were dominant under transplanted conditions have given way to the grassy weeds such as Echinochloa crusgalli and Leptochloa chinensis. In the off season of 1987, when most of the Muda farmers practiced dry seeding and volunteer seedling culture, 77% and 46% of the farmers interviewed during field investigations reported the incidence of barnyard grass (Echinochloa species) and Leptochloa chinensis infestation respectively. Presently, MADA has formulated the guidelines for an integrated weed management (IWM) programme under direct seeding culture. This has been successfully tested in the field. Multi-media strategic extension campaigns on IWM have been planned for its large-scale launching in the Muda area. SEED PRODUCTION 4.64 The DOA Crop Production Branch in Telok Chengai is currently producing 500 metric tons of certified seeds per season. Resides the Government Seed Farm which it manages, several selected seed grower schemes are also established under DOA/MADA collaboration. Presently, the quantity of seeds produced is adequate to meet the requirements in MADA because at the locality level, many enterprisin.0 farmers are also selling seeds to their neighbours. The Regional Seed Assessment Committee with representatives from MARDI, DOA, LPN, FOA, and MADA meet regularly to discuss the varieties that should be recommended and multiplied. Currently, more than 70% of the Muda area is planted with high yielding MARDI varieties. 4.65 The seed distribution process is smoothly carried out. This is facilitated by the establishment of 27 seed stores which served as temporary storage and distribution centres at the FDCs. - 47 *- RESEARCH 4.66 For the continuous refinement of the location-specific extension recommendations, close liaison is established between MADA and the Rice Research Division of MARDI through regular meetings, conducted quarterly. Major topics discussed in these meetings include the progress of research activities on varietal development, fertiliser studies, crop establishment methods, water management, farm mechanization and crop protection approaches. Local verification trials (LVTs) conducted jointly by MARDI and MADA on new varieties were carried out seasonally in the Muda area. It is noteworthy that the LVTs have facilitated the large scale adoption of MARDI varieties over the entire Muda area. AGRICULTURAL CREDIT 4.67 One of the services provided by the Farmers' Organisation is credit facilities for padi production. This is to ensure that besides timely and adequate water supply, farmers should have other essential inputs such as fertilisers, agrochemicals, and cash advances for land preparation and transplanting expenses. 4.68 The credit scheme is financed by the Agricultural Bank of Malaysia since its inception. Most of the farmers (80x) were using these facilities through the FDCs. However, when the Government of Malaysia started the fertiliser subsidy scheme in the off season of 1979, the percentage of farmers depending on production credit has dropped tremendously to 30%Z This is because the credit scheme now only covers land preparation, transplanting expenses and pesticides. Fertilisers are obtained through the fertiliser subsidy scheme or through their own efforts or also through the Farmers' Organisation's own credit programme. 4.69 Since the off season 1980, the credit scheme is handled directly by the Agricultural Bank itself. As a result of the tertiary system development, most of the Muda farmers involved are more stabilised in their production and are able to meet the repayment schedules of the credit institution. The recovery rate is very promising, at 90%. COST RECOVERY / 7r As spelt out in the SAR, no special taxation of project ficieries to recover project costs was envisaged, in view of the low level of incomes of padi farmers in the project area as well as the fact that farmers already pay zakat, a religious obligation, payment of which is proportional to incomes. The project management notes that regular zakat payments continue to be made by farmers, who are almost all Muislims, and they would make a substantial contribution to cost recovery. - 48 - 4.71 Irrigation rates have remained constant and also continue to be collected by the State Governments of Kedah and Perlis. These collections are passed on to MADA as contributions to the operation and maintenance of the project. Considerations on increasing these rates have been discussed from time to time and also exchange of views with the state governments taken place. No decisions have been made to date. It is noted however that the operation and maintenance of the project is not constrained by both the level of zakat payments or collection of irrigation rates. All the operation and maintenance expenditure requirements are provided through Federal and State grants to MADA. - 49 - V. ECONOMIC EVALUATION CROP YIELDS 5.1 At project appraisal time, it was assumed that pre-project yields are at a stable level and would remain at 2.9 - 3.5 tons per hectare for the main season and 2.9 - 3.8 tons per hectare for the dry or off season, depending on the soil types; the lower extreme of the range representing the acid sulphate soils and the upper extreme the first class soils. Post-project yields were assumed to increase to 3.5 - 4.2 tons per hectare for the main season and 3.6 - 4.6 tons per hectare for the off season. Yield Assumptions At Appraisal Pre & Future Future with Without Project Project Main Season 2.9 - 3.5 t/ha 3.5 - 4.2 t/ha Off Season 2.9 - 3.8 t/ha 3.6 - 4.6 t/ha 5.2 In 1979, the Government of Malaysia introduced a fertiliser subsidy programme in which all farmers are eligible for free fertilisers to a maximum farm holding of 2.4 hectares (6 acres). This measure has effectively increased yields as the level of fertiliser utilisation rose up. The average yields in Muda in 1980 was already 4.0 tons per hectare which is higher than the pre-project estimates made at appraisal time. In addition, yield analysis also showed that the yield differentials between soil types and between seasons are no longer significant as assumed in the SAR. 5.3 By the off season 1982, yields began dropping, due mainly to pest and diseases like the brown and white-back hoppers and tungro. Water stress was also serious during the last few years and has effectively reduced yields further. A summary of the yields in Muda II and non-Muda II irrigation blocks are presented below, and a full table given in Annex 3, Table 1. - 50 - Padi Yields In Project Area ___________________________ (Tons per hectare) Period Non-Muda II Muda II Irrigation Blocks Irrigation Blocks 1980 - 1984 3.27 3.22 1985 - 1987 3.55 3.76 Source: Muda II Evaluation Survey 5.4 In the early years of project implementation there was no differentiation in yields between the Muda II irrigation blocks and non-Muda II irrigation blocks obtained from a special evaluation survey. This is dut? to the slow progress of the project implementation and only a small number of blocks were completed then (see Annex 3, Table 1). Since 1985 however, slight differentials began to appear, although they are marginal and not significant. This was supported by a further analysis of a different survey data, the Crop Cutting Survey, where the yields from completed Muda II areas were separated out. The results are seen below. Comparison Of Yields From C.C.S. Survey --------------..------------------------ (Tons per hectare) Non-Muda II Muda II Off Season 1985 3.56 3.75 Main Season 1985 3.94 4.19 Off Season 1986 3.41 3.30 Main Season 1986 4.29 4.59 Off Season 1987 2.53 2.87 5.5 It is reasoned that farmers in Muda take a longer time to adapt to the facilities and potential offered by the new infrastructure and have generally considered it as a convenience project. It is not unreasonable to assume that yields in the Muda II areas will rise further in the long run as more and more farmers avail themselves to the facilities and the potential of the facilities is realized. This may take much longer- than the Appraisal Report envisaged. - 51 - FARM MANAGEMENT 5.6 Average farm sizes in the sample blocks have increased over the past 5 years and in 1986 average farm size was 1.91 hectares, an increase over the average of 1.38 hectares in 1981. This reflects the consolidation of farms into larger holdings to take advantage of the increased viability of padi farming (with fertiliser and price subsidies and cost-saving techniques of production). This is shown in the farm size distribution of farms as seen below: Farm Size Distribution ______________________ (X) 1981 1986 < 3 relongs (<0-86 hectares) 33.6 14.5 3 - 5.9 relongs (0.86 - 1.71 ha.) 40.5 37.0 6 - 8.9 relongs (1.72 - 2.57 ha-) 14.8 24.4 9 relongs & above (2.58 ha. & above) 11.2 24.0 Source: Muda II Evaluation Survey 5.7 The land tenure status in 1986 obtained from the same survey is reflected below. Pure owner operators make up 41% of the total farmers while pure tenants make up an almost equal proportion (392). The rest are mixed tenancy. Land Tenure In 1986 Owner Operators 41X Tenant Operators 39% Owner-Tenant Operat.ors 19% Othters 1% Source: Muda II Evaluation Survey 5.8 The pattern of labour utilisation have undergone some changes, as shown below. it reveals a reduction of labour usage from a pre-project average of 253 man-hours per hectare to 215 man-hours per hectare in 1986. This reduction is attributed to the upsurge of practice of direct seeding which brings with it the advantage of labour savings. - 52 - Total Labour Utilisation Per Hectare ------------------------------------ (man-hours) Muda II Blocks Non-Muda II Blocks Overall 1/81 - 2/82 254 252 253 2/06 203 231 215 Source: Muda II Evaluation Survey Secondly, it shows a difference in labour utilisation between the 2 areas. The following table gives the breakdown of labour utilisation into its activities. It shows generally a reduction of labour usage in all activities except for land preparation and sowing for direct seeding in Muda II areas. This indicates that some labour savings can be attributed to the project through the improved access brought about by the provision of the increased network of farm roads. Comparison of Labour Utilisation 1986 ------------------------------------- (man-hours per hectare) Muda II Non-Muda II I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ___._ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 Direct l Transp- X Direct l Transp- t 1 Sowing X lanting X Sowing 1 lanting 5 1 _ I_____,___ II______l 5Seed Preparation & Nursery 4.9 ; 14.3 5.3 I 18.5 lLand Preparation 24.4 ' 1800 , 23.6 19.2 1 5Transplanting/sowing I 51.9 5 156.5 5 35.3 181.4 IPadi Management 5 48.7 5 49.9 58.4 54.5 ,Harvesting I 4.3 : 4.8 10.7 17.9 5Post Harvest Works I 2.6 4.0 2.9 0.0 Total 1 136.7 5 247.5 1 136.2 1 299.6 1 Source: Muda II Evaluation Survey 5.9 There has been no significant differences in cost of production between the Muda II and non-Muda II areas. The table below which shows total cash cost of production per hectare from 1981 - 53 - to 19886 only indicate an increase in costs from an average of $730 per hec:tare in Mujda II areas and $776 in non--Muda II areas (for years 1981 to 1982) to $853 and $839 per hectare respectively irn 1986. Cash Cost Of Production Per Hectare Muda II Areas Non-Muda II Areas Average J./81 $713 ) $741 ) $727 ) 2/81 $706 ) $867 ) $825 ) 1/82 $731 ) $738 $731. ) $776 $731 ) $755 2/82 $720 ) $759 ) $738 ) 2/816 $853 $839 $846f Source: Muda II Evaluation Survey Detailed comparisons of the cost components in 1986 also are non-conclusive although there is reason to support that some savings in in-field transport is forthc:omirng with the increased network of roads- Comparison Of Expenditure 1986 ($/Hectare) Muda IT Areas Non-Muda II Areas I a I I a~~~~~~~~~~- -- - - -- - - - -- - -I Direct iTransp-lAveragelDirect ITransp-IAveragel ISowing Ilantingl ISowing llantingl 1 ------------------ t -------l-- --- -- --l-- ----x …a~~ ~ ~~~ ~ a * . .. . a Fertiliser I 2.30 t 1.53 1 1,84 1 2.23 1 5.15 1 3.93 1 I Insecticide 4.90 1 4.11 t 4.45 5.19 748 6 .54 1 , Weedicides 15.03 1 4.91 1 q.40 15.l0 5.080 9.60 I I Other Inputs 0 25.33 0 24.0 o 24.60 1 29.37 1 19.38 1 23.59 1 land Preparation ,132.59 SI5'-:O 10147.66 :163.f18 1145.95 1153.26 1 I Transpl-/Sowing I 38,25 0202.70 135.34 1 17.26 1197.20 1121-49 1 I Har-vesting I 245.06 2S4.8P 1 2sl . .22 1255.05 1257.59 1256.96. 1 a Other Labour , 14.20 2 11.69 1 12.70 1 17.75 t 11.17 13.95 I I Transport , 111.36 .103.E1 :106.66 :11e.95 1 123.09 1.21.38 1 a Taxes 1163.87 0153.94 :157.64 1132.48 1121.00 1126.36 1 …..... .… a ._ __ . I Total 1754.57 :919.03 in5Sl.51 1758.06 1893.97 1837.06 1 Source: Muda IT Evaluation Sur vey - 54 - ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN 5.10 At the time of project appraisal in 1979, calculatio.is showed that the Muda II project will yield an economic rate of return of 18%. A recalculation of the viability of the project. nowi using actual expenditure and actual yield performances to dat.e, arnd revised estimates of future expenditure and crop yields, show that the economic rate of return is now 6%. The Net Present Value (NPV), discounted at the accounting rate of 8%, is negative, M$-24-2 million. The reasons for such a low economic rate of return, was discussed earlier, the maiti reasons being cost. overruns, project. extension, and low yields. Another major reason for this is 'he low world prices of rice which is contrary to SAR predictions. The assumptions used in the calculation of the economic rate of return are discussed below: a) Costs 5.11 The total financial costs were taken into account until 1987, after which estimates were made of the amount needed to complete the project in 1990. This is arn extension over 7 years beyond the appraisal estimate for project:t completion. Total financial costs show a cost overrun of M$73.5 million, However, following the appraisal report procedure, not all the financial expenditure were included in the calculation of the economic rate of return. These costs were also conver-ted to economic costs. 5.12 In summary, the t-conomic cost of the project comprise the entire expenditure on tertiary facilities, 25% of expernditure on buildings, equipment, coastal protectior, works, and miscellaneous works, and 63% of expenditure on majior drainage improve.ments. The entire cost of engineering and supervision wer-e also allocated to the project cost. The entire cost of pilot projec-ts arnd studies, technical services, trainingo and monitoring and evaluation, were excluded from the calculations. The financial land acquisitior cost.s were also excluded, sirice the project area was also reduced by t.he corresporndin,g area used up for infrastruture. The tot.al economiu costs so derived amount to M$131.47 million at 1987 prices. A nominal salvage value of 25% of project cost was assumed after 30 years. 5.13 Operation and maintenance cost of the project was calculated at M$107 per hectare, a two-fold increase over the appraisal estimate of M$54 per hectare. This figure includes total operation cost of the tertiary facilities, including operation of the Farm Irrigation Turnouts (FITs) and 1yrainage Outlets (DOs). It also includes the cost of regular clearing of the tertiary canals, drains, ISU boundaries, maintaining ring bunds around the DOs, and the cost of maintenance of all the tertiary structures and farm roads. 5.14 The incremental cost of producing padi. was also calculated using the basis in Annex 4, Table 7. Compared to appraisal time, it - 55 - shows a drop in production costs, due mainly to the savings attributed to direct seedirng. Comparisons of costs in the 'with' situation and the 'without' situation show further savings in labour usage. This is due to the improved access to the farms brought about by the farm road network. With other inputs being the same, this has resulted in a savings in cost of production when comparinrg the two situotions. These costs are also r-educed to economic costs for calculating the viability of the project. b. Benefits. 5.15 The benefits were calculated based on the increased production of padi with the project compared to a 'without' situation. As stated earlier, yield targets have not been achieved yet and yield differentials between the two situations have not been substantial. Yield expectations in the Muda II areas are however assumed to rise gradually from 1988 to stabilise in the main season at 4.6 tons per hectare in year 13 (1991), while non-Muda II areas is expected to register a yield of 4.1 tons per hectare in the same year. The increased output also came from increased cropping intensity, with an increase from 176% to 199% after project completion. 5-16 Rice prices which were used to value this output were based on World Bank projections and converted to 1987 prices. Prices had shown a declining trend in the last few years and is projected to remain low in both the short and long run. As such, the value of the benefits show a much lower figure than expected at appraisal time. c. Prices. 5.17 The conver-sion of financial prices to economic prices have mainly followed the faetors used during appraisal- In all cases, the conversion factor have been less than unity. The prices used in the calculations have been adjusted to 1987 prices, the guiding factor used being the Consumer Price Index for the country. - 56 - VI, PERFORMANCE OF THE AID AGENCY 6.1 Throughout its cornstruc tion period the project benefitted. from the Bank's supervi.sion missions. During the earlier years of the projec:t., parti.cularly prior t.o 19k?.14, missiorns were typically multi-dj.scipli.rnary in t.ompositior, and t.hese were indeed useful t.o project implementtors owing to the wider variety of issues, engineering agronomy and economics that needed attention. Project staff benefitted from the fruitful discussions wit.h Bank officials on these topics 6-.2 Particularly from 1985 onwards, virtually all mission-s were undertaken alone by Mr. E. Boerema, a capable and knowledgeable agronomist, with a sound work;ing knowledge of the engineering elements of the project. ..i.3 It is not c:onsidered that a lhigher and closer level of supervision would have helped in resolving the major problems of the project, viz. implementation delays owing to budgetary stiortages, land acquisi.tion delays and slow contractor performance, or to the i.ssue of c:ost overruns. 6..4 Overall however, the supervision agronomist's close association with the project, and his deep knowledge of it, helped to underscore and add emphasi.s to the impot-tance of the non-engineering elements of the project for the successful attainment of project goals. - 57 - VII. LESSONS l EARNT " _ t ri{ t o''l i5 X;pe-rz t i t 'J-- 'iit Ii d itvrt-it that al Appt htiL.CI I i-ee wa': * ~\I't ir t - \ ifm i Emtf l i.'TI i h t - a .Ji l - vl t,n t s.lt y f, tt mim t p, it I i. a i t p i rin i:n ' -t 'iria j('1 t.).'- ri : in h- vot . i iri Arlo nd ni irlttenilrai c i ' t fjp if t0lompl ot c- eA t i at y .'i*stv em. . TI ii -. ht.^. b'ri pat I Iy duje I 1. o tho high degroe of ind ilvi dtiat 1 i-m amu-n.r,j M_cI;ci ra,iiit- -'. in m;itt tir. - perita i ri ing to pt oduc: t ion * i4; w 1{ 1 .ti;. i o-',t-' r,,; I I ha tl: I ityp.:a ll 'y ov(et hi-t if the Fatt mcr-:r ai,t fr riol i eSi doit i it Ihi V-h t i i V d sC thi uIiA, IE tt or O tt I OYI Ftt;t1A tAI el iy'.-I - Fxperienc-e elsewhR e -tr- ri Mai:. l y' i a ha,v; sh-own hi-it wherevet ' ;- l I u i-i t iot)n problems have J mpl:9d i:nfit-st*r,tR: .itw, i nit ri o i oruai corrtlractot ot rinv.rit< ably terndi to Itw,-i l: L.U G,overrnii t I. o .solve*I I nrid a'cqu i';iJtimti ptLtbl:'o- ..nd sbm.i. t large C(Mrt.tr ii IC IttA v lsi 1w; F.ut d1t.¢Y* - - I~~~~ ~ ~ 0~~~ 4~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 x -41~~~~~~4 U) : - 60 - Annex I Table I MALAYSIA LOAN Nil. 1717-MA: HUDA TT IRRIGATIOIN PROJECT PROJECT COHPLETION REPORT PHYSICAL TARGETe AND ACTUAL PROGRESS PHYSICAl TARGET i ACTUAI. r t ~~~~~~~~- - -- - - - -- - - - ----------- -- - ----- - - - - -- - - - - t ITfY UNIT I APPRAT- iVFYISED REVISFD 198? 1990* SAL 19800 1985 AT PCR tt----------t------. ------,t------------ I------------- ------------~~~~~~~ 'LAND ACOUISITION r a. ! 34 1054 1292 ? 1057 , 1300 !TERTIARY IRRIGATION: t -oncrete lined canals Ks. , 390 1 390 , 608 , 458 565 1 -earthe!n canals I Ks. 45 45 12 10 10 0 1 -pipelines I K2. 23 , 23 6 4 a 4 , -structurdl canalets , Km. 45 45 27 20 20 , -CHO offtake I No. 1 384 ,' 384 ,' 549 1 430 458 , -check crossing No. 528 528 973 827 947 I -irrigation end controls INo. 42 423 14 8 8 I -farm turnouts No. 4704 1 4704 I 6836 5141 1 6354 a 1 -pulp houses .No. I 54 ' 54 28 2 20 a I -medium traffic bridges No. 1 36 3 ;6 0 4 I- 1 a 1 -secondary canal crossing I No. 1 144 ' 144 I 74 1 37 ' 39 a I -primary and secondary I , a I 1 a a 1 canal isprovenent I L.S. 1 41.003 1 4.0021 $9.07m $3.2'm I 45.711 0 'TERTIARY DRAINAGE I a I a a 1 -drains 1 Kr. 1 490 1 490 1 562 1 38 1 518 a I -intermediate controls 0 No. 1 635 1 635 1 822 1 707 1 800 a I -drainage end controls 0 No. 1 234 ' 234 1 322 1 268 1 304 1 1 -fars drainage outlets I No. , 4100 1 4100 1 5582 1 4310 1 5172 1 !FARN ROADS Km. 1 985 1 985 1 985 1 510 1 1013 a lasu PERI,HETER PUNDS I VK. 1 196 ' 198 1 180 155 170 1 'DRAINAGE IMPROVENENTS ' L.S. 1 t4.00r ' S5.70m ' $1.81m $0.59m ' $0.65m !NINOR DISPERSED VORKS I L.S. I $3.20m I $3.20m , 55.35m ,5.05a 1 $6.00m a ,COASTAL PROTECTION VORKS , Km. 1 6.0 1 6.3 I 8.3 1 8.46 1 8.46 a IISCELLANEOUS WORKS , L.S. 1 51.30r 1 '1.30. , 40.60m I S0.60m I0.609 1 ,O & N AND CONSTRUCTION Ia a a , Ia IEQUIP,ENT L.S. $6.70r , S5.72m , $8.05m 4 t8.24m 1 S8.24i a 'BUILDINGS I L.S. , $10.90m I S24.48m 1 S24.22m 1 424.623 1 $25.02m 1 J 19fO figures are anticipated figures MALAYSIA LOAN I717-MA: JOD IIRRIGATION PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PYSCAL. IMPLERENTATI&I PROGRESS 1 ~~~~~~ACTUAL CUMULATIVE PROGRESS ANTICIPATED ITEM UNIT: -----------……--- --- --------- - - - --- ----- ----------- 1 1~~~~~~~~~1979 1s1980 1t1981 H 982 1 1983 11984is195le1986:ol1987 1988 1198911998? …- a -…--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- …----- LANDW ACQUISITION MIa. 174 1315 .1 584 765 1840 1949 11000 11018 11057 1120 11200 11300 :TERTIARY IRRIGATION:a I a a a a a a a a 1-concrete lineA canals 13. 1 20 1 34 1 70 1135 1 206 1258 1348 1 403 1 458 1 510 1 537 1565 s -earthern canals lEa. 3 3 1 3: 31 lo011l01 to0110i10 i1o1 1-pipelines IK. a 1 31 41 41 4 1 41 41 41 41 1-structural cantalets its..l - 1- 14. 5 5 161161 19 1219 20 12012 20 1 1-CHOOfftake 'No. 1 35 1 51 1 99 175 12391312 1 365 1 409 1430 1440 14581!458 1 l-checkctrossing N1o. 1 40 1 55 11101208 13031453 1590 1606 1827 1905 1 944 1947 1 1irrigation end controls NO.i 81i 81 81 81i 81 81i 8 1i 81i8! A 8 8 1a I-farm turnouts INo. 60 1 75 1 45 11249 1 2138 12706 1 4032 1 4541 :5141 15818 1 5980 16254 1 1-puaphouses lII~:o. 1 - 1 - a -1 - a a -pulp houses i ~ a - 21i21i21I ~112 20 1 l-udius traffic bridgeslMo.1 - - - - - -1 1 l 11 11 11 l-secondary canal crossings No. 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 12 1 12 1 13 1 26 1 33 1 37 139 1 39 1 39 1 a-primary and secondary 1 i Icanal isprovemen ILS.180.22. 18S0.35s S 8.6e 181.34. 181.60s 181.86m 182.27m 182.33s 183.25# 184.61. 185.391 1$5.71. 1 ITERTIARY DRAINAGE: a a a a a a a a a a a a a 1-drains le.. 241 321 7511601 212 12681332135613811441147315181 isnterIediate drainage I I I I a a a a a a Icontrols NO.1 441 5211101225130114081 525 163517071758178018001 1-drainage end centrols :o.1 181 401 541 88 127 159 196 234 268 279 298 3o4: I-fare drainage outlets :No. 1 70 1100 1576 11264 11884 12699 13430 13960 14310 14756 15033 151721 IFARN ROAD lEa.133 47 79 165 221 282 372 439 510 565 e30 10131 IISU PERIMETER BUNDS Ire. It - 13.85 1 24 1 58 1 81 1 107 1: 107 :1 138 1: 155 1: 160 :1 170 :1 170 :1 IDRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 1L.S.1, - 180.22. 1 $0.3. 180.31. 180.31. 180.31s 180.31. 180.41. 180.59s 10.65a 180.65. 1*0.65s It 'INIOR DISPERED WORKS 1L.S.182.34. 18S2.67. 1 2.8u 182.82. 182.82. I182.89a 184.07. 184.69. 185.05. 185.09. 35.050 16.00. 1 'COASTAL PROTECTION WORKS 11.. 1 1.15 1 5.601 6.30 1, 6.30 1, 6.30 1 6.30 '1 6.30 I 8.46 It 8.46 I 8.46 1 8.46 1 8.46 '1 IMSEANUSORS 1..0.518.510.018.018.818.018.010.010.018.018.010.D I l0&M AND CONSTRUCTION a a a a a a a a a a a a a a IEQUIPENT 1L.S.180.52s 318133. 12.95. 132.99a 185.20. 186.33. 18S7.0. 17.80. 388.24s 188.12. 188.12. 188.24. IDUILDINGS 1L.S.1$0.80s 182.669 185.78. 189.39S' 112.51.1818.37.8t2l.62.1824.31.I824.62.1825.02.8$25.02a,125.0o2, MALAYSIA LOAN NO. 1717:NA - HUDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT PROJECT COHPLETION REPORT FINANCIAL IIIPLEHENTATION PROGRESS ! RFVISEfl RCVISfD EXPENDITURE (M$ HI.llON CUNUIATTV{E ,APPRAISALIESTIMATE 1ESTINATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------,' CATEGORY 1ESTIMATF 1 1980 , 1985 ' ACTUAl ANTrCTPATFD I - ,-, * t_______________________________________---_---------_------------!- ' , fMSs,l . H M5~~(s,) (KSR,) 11979 119s80 ,l1E. ',1982 1 983 ,' l04 I IQ5 ', l6 ! ti;7 ,tP0''8 , '3,84 1990 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_______ * t itt t I I t ' ' i : : ! : t ,CIVIL NORKS 'ta1O-Far Irrigation , ' , ' S1oek Deve1opment ,' 68.80 8' .66 113.00 111.46114.02,19.85131.60, 43.09: S5.801 70.13i' 81.6 4 .15! n4.j'!l4.0)1!!.e I ,(b)General Irrigation System Improvement 1 9.20 1 12.50 t 10.00 1.11; 5.131 6.09! 6.351 7.061 7.061 7.21! 8."! 8.56! Q2 9.921 9.41! i'~~~~~~~~~~ ,-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -1------------- ----- --- - - - --- - -- ------ -- -- ----- ------ - -- ----------- ---------- ----------- --! Sub-Total 1 78.00 1 101.16 1 123.00 112.57!19.15!25.94!37.951 50.15i 62.261 'v.341 90.Ol1 e i .'11l04.85'1l2.'121.2!,' ! i~~~~~~~------------'--------------------------------------------- IBUILDINGS 1 10.90 1 24.48 1 24.22 1 0.80 2.b61 5.781 Q.,9. 12.511 18.37? 21.621 24.31, 24.A2,' 25.02. 25.02' !EOUIPHENT 1 6.60 1 5.72 1 8.05 1 0.521 2.171 2.931 2.9q! 5.201 6.331 7.001 7.RC! 8.241 8.241 8.241 R.W NAND ACOUISITION 1 6.90 1 20.09 1 28.00 1 2.40' 5.141 9.57112.77I 15.001 18.241 19.751 21.831 24.471 24.831 26.83! 31.001, !ENGINCERING & SUPERVISION 1 5.80 1 24.70 1 31.57 t 1.46h 3.891 8.31112.391 16.581 21.031 23.101 25.86; 28.601 31.26: 33.q1 35.7611 IPILOr-PROJECTS & STUDIES 1 4.40 1 4.40 1 0.66 1 0.011 0.221 0.331 0.44, 0.53, 0.601 0.731 0.731 0.731 0.73! 0.731 0.731 JTECHNICAL SERVICES, TRAINING,; 1 , , 1 1 I , , I I , t tMONITORINS AND EVALUATION ' 2.20 ' 2.96 , 2.77 ' 0.01' 0.07' 0.11, 0.22' 2.231' 2.48', 2.53,1 2.53' 2.65, 2.651 2.651 2.65, Base Cost Estimate 1 114.90 1 185.71 1 218.27 ,17.77,'33.30i52.97',76.15,112.20,129.91,152.07,'173.07,186.11,197.42t2l0.221224.61I !PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES , 11.70 1 11.20 1 5.37 1 -, -, -, -, - - - - - - - I 1.3?t IPRICE INCREASES I25.50 133.071 -'-I-1-'- I -1 I - - I - - I - -, I I…, * TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 1 152.40 1229.98 1 223.64 !17.77?',3.301S2.97176.151102.201129.911152.07117'3.071186.111197.421?10.221225.93_ I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I I I I I I t 1 t I I I I I ID I - 63 - Annex I Tab.?le{ 4 17 - MAMA AY'IA I.OAN NA 1Z27 MA:IJ A Ti TRPIG:ATTON PROJrTCT PROJF(C`T PrrMPLF-TTi-N RF PORT COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL ANNUAL PROJECT EXPENDITURE YEAR F-ST:MATF AT ACTIAI EXCHANGE- APPRAiTSlI RATE *: Olss (r)is$) US $1 -M$ ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I 1'979 Is4 :> : :q.15 2.18 I '7g.>.o ' I l ,<; ' 7 1f. 1 2.17 - 7 Vl01 28] ,1 0 4 I. 55 2.30 1a92 19.4 2.,95 1983 r 1 . I'D 11.23 2.32 1 94 111.4 2.34 1 9PI 4 2. 4 I 19 6 I I11 ' 1 9n 7 1 : 5 17 2.52 19i0-0 t t e:4-40 2.57 4 . 9IF r 2. 57 I 1990 6.11 2-57 , I I ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~I ' I Total 69. 0 4. f; lI S I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I * Exch;7inge rates taken ft om National Bank Annual Rtepo.rts up to 1.9:;7. 198 -1990 rates artet predictinns -64.- Annex 1 T8t.de 5 MALAQYSIA LOAN NO. 1717--MA: MlJDA II RIGATION PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION PROJECT. COMPARISON BETWEEN SAR ESTIMATES AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IACTUAL EXPFNDITURE I I SAR O1---------- … COST l ESTIMATEII TO I OVERRUN l PROJECT COMPONENT I 1987 I COMPLFTEI PROJECT*! (M$m) I(M$sm) (M$m) l () I - -- - - - - - - ---- - -.-.--- ----- I . I I I I 11- CTVIL WORKS: I I l I a)Orn-farm Irrigation Block Development l f0,80 I 00.15 I 112.29 ; f-3.?i 1 l b)Genieral Irrigation System Improvementl 9.20 | .56 1 8F92 --3.04 ; -- - . . I, . I -.l . .... . . I 5 7.00 9A.71 1 121.21 1 55.40 I 1 1. I I I 12. BUIL..DINGS 10.90 24.f2 1 25.02 129.54 1 13. EQUIPMENT 0 6 fi.0 1 9.24 1 8.24 1 24.0R5 1 14. LAND ACOIUISITION 1 6.90 1 24.47 1 31.00 1 349.20 1 15. ENGINEERING & SUPERVISION 1 5.80 1 28.69 1 35.7f6 1 516.55 1 16. PILOT PROJECT & STUDIES I 4.40 1 0.73 1 0.73 1 -*0341 1 17. TECHNICAL STUDIES, TRAINING, 1 1 I I 1 MONITORING & EVALUATION 1 2.20 1 2.65 1 2.65 1 20.45 1 t ..................~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -- : _ . * . . . ... I- . -- . . I .t TOTAL BASE COST 1 114.00 I 186.11 1 224..61 1 95.65 1 I I I I S I 10. PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES I 11.70 1 - 5 1.32 1 00.7?1 19. PRICE INCREASES' 25.90 I - I - I I , , _. .__........I.... ... _........,............... .. TOTAL PROJFCT COSTS I 152.4n 1 106..1 1 225.93 1 4A.2S 1 *Estimates to complete the project in 19R90 - 65 - Figure 1 MALAYSA LOAN 1717- MA' MUQA 8 RRIAION REPORT PROJECT COMPLETON REPORT NWMSON Of INPWENWN SOEOIE - TERiY SYSEm _. SYSTEM T N 11 t1 I 979 IO 19 1 16 1M 199 9 I CtRBO 9. _ t49S h) l (495 I. 2 SCR8DiSb _ _ _ _ __ _ (who)~ - 2 SUIIO Sb plum 2 - (206 ha) IN- _ 2 SRU Sb 77_ _ t- - - - - F- -__ 3 ALSO7 Phase? 1218h1) on 4 ACR0D 5. (710h) _ 3 ALSO?7 ( ttt,o)xb - - - _ - - - - S SCRBD5Sbi 6 ALMD6 (6M1 ha) 6 ALSD 6 % Ptim*2 - T > -i-- , 8 C 247 ha) 7 ALSOD 1363 ha) * -- a CCRBO I Plume 1 *= , I- _ (477 ha) 8 CCRt0 I X § I I I Phase lb1 | 296 ha)* LEGEND APPRAISAL ArTUAL LAND ACQUISMON LAJU1 ACUISIIMON PLANNING AND DESIGN PLANNIG D DESIN I_mnmi TENDTRING TENOERING CONSTRUCION CONSTRUCTION wqmm OIIF nnmWO SwoEOUES - nm ysm 66 - *L. SE - 07- m1 M I I - -m mm 2 _Ct222) _- I .-. . _ 9 ALD09b (435 1.) ___ n D130W1d&1g _ _ CU61 a) u ~ ~ -nh _ -.|. - _ - (79 be I 14 CR5O 36 b_ (813h1.) _ _ - _-.. 14 SCLIO 2 17 CCRSO 14b It58bl) _ _ _ '.. IS ScRDO4 U SCRUO4) 19 SCRBO 2 ____, -. 6 i j__ 20 LOBO 2 LEGEND APPRAISAL ACTUAL - LAND _ L ACOUS LAM ACQTON E PLANNING AND OESIGN PLANG AND OESN TO1hh_ TEND G CMNSTRUCtIN _ CONSTRtON - -it z - 7 - - 67 - ji SYSTEi 11 197e 9 196 16 132 - -8 -M -0 - - - "t- _____,_ 1__3 ... __6 .9516 9 99i 21 CQOO 2a (1 M3 X- -lw -q . - m_*__ 23 LOW 6 C 547 ha) 24 RtCO 2b - _- - 2z scesnI _i (CRD0 6 2 ARS_ 4 Pmsh __= I 29 ALSO 4 phase 2 251 be) 30 CR80u _ 3b 31 LBR S7 C S9S ha) 32 AC L.4C C345 ho) 33 CCR9D 9a C(340 ha) 34 CCR89 _14. PhaseI ___I . 3_9_h_- LEGEND APPRAISAL ACTUAL LAND ACUOfCISITN _ LANO ACQWISIlIN PLANNING AND DESGN PANNG AND OESN _03 TNDERNG _ TENOERING tWIcTRuCTION CONSTRUCTION -68 SYSTEM 1977 978 19 1980 I6 192 1983 1984 1985 198 1987 1988 1969 990 O. ( ___-_____-- - G --59 34 CCR8O14c 150% Phtase 2 (l57 ha) m 9 U: 35 ARBO c (46 ha)- -* - 36 ACLBO 4b . I - j 75% _ 270 ha ) - - 37 CCLBO1 ._ 77n = _ (134h) _ - m - 38 5(1.._3 ___ 46% Secondary - 38 SCLBO 3 _99t ha) 6% LEGEND APPRAISAL ACTUAL LAND ACQUISMON LAND ACQUISMON PLANNIKG AND DESIGN PMM ANNIN6 AND DESI1N T TENDERIN tENERIN6 r J ,CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION - ulDUg ll 9 ~~~ ~~sum iiml0 nuSl O) 131AOM 1 r3 gMom w mml-i >- - i xftlW - *.f i Ift a I .Al - nf* - L _m- 1 tDl 1 >~~~~~~~~~~~~I Ser e 1VA gm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ gm Si t ^ . - ~~~~~~69- rN PRECAST COC REZTED SLAs LUIo SETT CULN LONGITUDINAL SECTION MILD SIOL SFAICER Psm- C. NO. A 6 ~~~~~SMALL FLAP GAIE (SUPPLEWMEAR I5RRSWM' 1211U105lA415S STE LF O AND NUT t2mM. STAINLESS STEL BOLT C1 *.mCAST h-TSITU SLAB Own e tH. CONNErCTING ICOM//82 12mm TN. RUDBER SEAL, * i , COUPLlNG OR EQUIVALENT ttmm STAJNESSSU TEEL - - -- ___- \\ \L BOLT A' NUT FA GT TDIS SURFACE INLOT I AND PLAINS INIS 195AC. PIPE U.A.C PR i.T DUCT OR EQIVALEN4T CCE IE A PRECAST CONCRETE INLET 60mm" THICK PECASTIUNII UNI CONCRETE LS.A ---------4 DETAILS OF INLET ISOMETRIC VIEW OF INLEI (DIMETNSIONS (N NW4 DETAILS OF 60 FARM IRRIGATION TURNOUT (F. . T.) FOR CONCRETE LINED CANAL _ 71 - Annex 2 Table I MALAYSIA LOAN NO. 17171-A: HIUDA3I IRTIGATION PROJECT PROJECT COLPIETION REPORT CROPPED AREA AND CROPPED INTENSITY (Nec tares) RUDA It AREAS NON-,'JDA II AREAS I TOTAL 5 O SEASON , DIRECT O TRANSP- I TOTAL I DIRECT I TRANSP- I TOTAL I DIRECT 5 TRANSP- I TOTAL 1t |SOWING LANTING 0 AREA I SOWING , LANTING 1 ARFA I SOVING 1 LANTING 5 AREA O O PLANTED I 5 PLANTED I PLANTED O 1----------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------- I I ~~~~~~~~ I tIIs I I I I I I I I I t I t I t t I I t t I t I Off Season 1977 1 - - - - - 9 8655 1 88664 1 Main Season 1977 1 - 5 - - I t 9598 958$98 Off Season 1978 0 - - - - - - - - MHain Season l97 1 - 1 - 5 I O 85 95813 95898 0 I Off Season 1979 1 - 32 1 88632 88664 0 5 Nain Season 1979 - - - - - - 101 1 95717 1 958q8 I Off Season 1980 - - - - 662 1 88840 1 89502 1 Hain Season98 I - - - - - - 858 1 95040 1 958981 Off SeasonI9 18 - - I - 4126 1 06118 1 90244 ' main Season 1981 I - - - - , - - 64is186865 1 93280 1 I Off Season l982 1 - 7 - I - I - I - I6-8 I Hain Season 1982 1 - - - - - - 22100 1 73151 : 95251 I Off Season 1983 1 - - - - -- 34300 ' 54889 5 89189Q 1 1 Main Season 1983 1 - 5 - t _ - 1 - 5 - 1 27099 1 49451 0 75549 ' Off Season 1984 0 1123 5 3706 0 4829 1 4277 , 3452 1 722J9 O 44400 0 30658 1 83058 ' Iain Sedson 1984 . 1177 , 36449 4826 5 22714 0 67930 1 90644 , 23891 5 7157Q 1 95470 5 O Off Season 1905. 3507 1 5910 1 9417 ' 24576 56693 1 P1269 I 28083 0 62603 1 90686 1 , Hain Season 1985 1 3340 1 60'0 1 94'0 1 599S5 5 26323 1 $6298 1 63315 5 32393 1 95708 1 Off Season 1986 5 7262 , 4233 11495 52140 0 27331 1 7q471 I 59402 1 31564 1 90966 5 Hain Season 1986 5 5905 5 5577 11482 41q44 , 42568 0 A4512 1 47840 1 40145 1 959Q4 1 Off Season 1987 1 11203 1 !00 I 12113 76719 I 801 77520 ' R7922 1 1711 1 89633 1 Hain Season 1q87 I 7880 ,' 5306 0 1316 54870 1 28066 1 82q36 1 62750 1 33372 1 %122 5 Cropping Intensity 1977 - 1983 - 176% Cropping Intensity Non-Huda II Areas 1904 - 1Q87 191% Cropping Intensity Huda rI Areas 1984 -14S7: 199% - 72 - Annex 2 MAI .AYSIA OANA NO. Z717--MA: MIJDA IT IRRIGATION PROJECT PRROJCT COMPLE ITION REP(RT LAND ACQUIS1TION PROGRESS FOR TERTIARY SYSTEM (As At Auoustt 192S) , lIR,R.T I TERTIARY , NO. OF! DATE OF PRfGRESS (%) BLOCKI SYSTEM LOT35 SUBMTSsION NO. 5TO LAND OrFICFI FORM 'G' FORM K' 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -1-- 5--- ---- 1-- _ __,- ___ 1 !CCRB,r 9 71,1 17 I .9 74 5 6. 5 S I -Jf; 5 . 1SRPRBD 5,b 5261. , 30.07.77 1 011 :i.7 1 2 1SCRBD Sb t(Sq. Daun) 271. 27 .10 :5 5. 2 I 5 4 1 3 lALRD 7 (Kediah) tf. ,' ?4 0777 90n 74.7 1 3 IAIL,D 7 (Perlis) 245 1 24-07.77 . 6.7 5 967 i 4 1ACRBD 5 3 24 .01 .7 I :.6 70.5 t 5 ISCRBD SBI 429 02.073_77 1 93.7 1 09._7 6 f. IALFRD 6 (Perlis--Ph.ll) .255 I 27.02.00 9. no. is 2~~~~~~~5.10.R01- I@ AL.R f (Pertl i-, -Phl *), 2- ,75lX ::1 A,- l(16 . FLI I --4 1 73. 7 9 'AI B 7354 0-6D .B.79 5. , 3 10 11.B1 81 v , -- -i 2r r- i ,. -- 1 76.3 ]. I ,ARBD 1 l3 1601 . 7: O in00. 0 10o.o 112 !LFRRBD 7 451 0,'30.101 ,? I 9.6 f 5 13 'ACLBD P,O13 (PhaF1a:se 1.) 2 1'6 I 20- 0?9 92. 91. 7 173 Ar'L RD Or (Ph-e 2) 4 1 0n.:1. -1 o tn i .2 7.21? 1 14 1OO'RBD 7F1 & 3F2 10.073t 7f- 966 95.73 t 15 tCoRBDI IO,C2A It'l.4 ..0 7 91.5 09.0 17 l CrRID 14'? rp 2 .04.37 IOWO 100.0 i lf t St%9*8Dr 4 {f>,\s i f l 4 i 15 04 7~, I-. ot '--i fi inn-n5 7 1 F ISCRBD 4 (5) 414 15_07.79 {6 t_5- 7 1R 1SCRBRD 4 (I fl 54/4 30,0) 4.1003 35. I 83.3 1 19 IS-RRD 2 (S) 2 21.0f7-00 i 92.- 0 91 . f6- 1 19 SrRBD (UJ) 154. ( tz 1 ef- o- 4 1 7.3- 20 ILBRBD 21 20.07.81 389 .9 0-9.~9 21 1CCL-BD 2A 90 21.02.t2 I 90.4 837.3 22 ISCRBD 53 435 I5 7507.79 93.3 t 92.0 1 23 IL-RRBD 6 359 t n7.06-.P 0 90.0 89.1 (Con td. 7 _ 73 - 24 NMCD 'P ,125'. , ' ,) 03' 72.97 96.5 96 .1 8 ; h>E .15-t^.;' '.11 . ' 55'. , 55 . t -2fi l SrnRr.S 1 (Pha -zw 1) 5,7f 1 I-) 1 0 . 3 81 f 72.2 . 26. IS>>CRRD I (2 . , .2) 9 n-l -. .34 74.2 73.0 27 CC'RBD 6 (phasf I) I t . 2, 1 7 ..2 7.9 8 37.9 27 ICCRBD 6 (Ph s.e 2) 1'?S 07.04 04 i 6t 6. 9 65.7 2 1 ARBD 4 1 25 . 1 2 - 01 .1 G33 9 32.8 29 1ALPD 4 (Perlis) - 3.1_5 10.03- 7 J 98.4 9J . 1 I 29 1ALRD 4 (Kedatb) 1 205 1 in 03.78 ' 9. 87.3 30 5 CCRI) D 9B 113 30n.05.S1 J:.5 , 7£.S 31 ,lIBRBD 7 3£6. , 14 .12.F-80 94.0 92.4 32 1ACLRD 4C 172 J 19..12..l 92.4 90.7 1 1 33 JCCRBD 9A I1797 I 29 1I.I 13A , 76e0 73.2 1 34 1CCRBP 14C (Phase 1) 1 l3n0 I 05.07.? J 95.0 95.0 34 !CCRBP 14C (Phas:.> 2), 4,0 1 23.06-81 I 50.0 50.0 35 1ARBD 1C '325-.s 1 21.02.82 89I 8 I 6.5 36i IACIt-D 4J I1: 18.11.81 70.4 71-9 37 tCCLBD 1 (Phase 1) ' 427 16J3.00.2 J 5.7 82.7 I 37 ICCILD I (Phase 2) 119 2P.02.03 5I .83:D3 5,SS.S I 33 !SCLBD 3 490n 24-0605 i 90.0 1 70.n0 '~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _ -. .- _ _ _ _ _ .- . , ..--.-. .-_. - … TOTAL 11i633 ' 07.3 83.: .~~~~; = . = __= 7= _= =.=_ I ... . ............... = == ::_ = z == ==_=_=_===__======, _ ==_ .= Note: Fot m 'G' -denotes stage where the rate- of compensation has been agreed. Form 'K' -d denotes stage where the comperisation is paid and the Land acquisition process is completec. - 74 - Table 3 MA .AYfUA lOAN 1NOl0.. h 1717 MA. MIJDA II IRRIGATTON PRLOJECT PRO.TFf'T COfMPIF TT(') REPORT RATE OF PHYSICAL PROGRESS 7 .. , 7 . _- .7 . r . 7 .. .._......., . ....._......... - ............ _...... G RO LAN!) 1FT ARr- A CI.JMlJI.ATIVF YEAR AREA Al'O(IJTRE>D CI'CMPL FTED AREA O' -IMPI FTFD (ha) 0 t4a) (Ha) (h (a) I ___ _ I 1981 1' 130 64 1236 1236 I I , 8 O V14SD2 1933) qI 837 3073 1 903 2944. 146 21302 5875 1 13S:4 3335 165 3170 9045 1985 1276 137 2A31 11676 190 , 376 0 186 3574 1 502S t, I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I e I987 2 t 1.62 0 lia 101360 19F13F0*I 3232 160 3072 21440 1Ip,f4: }30 41 7c9, 22229 1.9II90.: 2879- 143 2736. 24965 I-------I -3---- ---- ------------ - ---------I TOTAL 26.26s5 1300 24965 * Projpcted for- years 19813 - 1990 -75 - AnneQX 2 Table- 4 !l'Aftl H(3. '1'3- MIA: MIMTA IT TP.fiTGAT1ON PROJECrT PRA-017 rfl OMPL.FTT ON. RFPCiRT HYDRO)LOGICAL-DATA 1270 1988 IKr-'.rVcIR~ I 'TAI T9"TAL- TOTAL TOTAL l:'Tf"Af-l- Al-1,NI JIA, ANNU-.AL ANN!i [AL ANNU-Al. YE-AR, ON1 !ATI1F AlI t RESERVOTR 1UNCONTROLL EDt WATER 1 1,;l.. FF.- I,NFLOW FLcW SUPPLITED (ti I. CIAOif u (Mil . r'ubtic I (Mil. Cubic (Mi.l. Cu-bics M~~~tre~~~- ~ () Metres) Metres) metres) - ......~~. …… -*. -- - - - - - 1 1970 660.95. 25.1 0 P1114.-0o N..A 291L64 19771 12:32.41 2471.00 570.4A 4. A 206.47 1972 t'122.2.51 2293.10 7/---2.OR I N..A S5-540 I 1 .1173) 12754.-19 22-35.70" 1033..44 N.A 598.39 I 1974 12? 52 72 - A0527.It N-A I0.1 1 1975 028t l, 1 . V4 2102.50 8tI356:. 35 ' 1035.10 583.63 I ' 1 976 1 )-48.M I 2249.0n 8-25.0(5 790.18 954.62 I .1977 741..-1 .1 t~ 3. -1 -0 5 40.05 386.69 1061.55 1. 17f, 11f' Q I9-77.10 't 509.21. 414.087 93.11 I 1 ; I-,'t 782,". It 761?3 .3O5 I 599.11 692. 48I 755.58 I 1901-0 It el52 -7.7 21 7.7.-00 702. 48 577.3S 61 5.52 39198 1 It 501.00 1429-50 710.17 350.81 1027.26 190-2 . 140-04 24617.40 874.51 837.13 468.62 191D:3 I 594 _71" 23:07..40 918.68R 779.14 8 44.810.I I 19P04 ' 011107.04 1595.30 774.71. 549.03 848.20 f 319-45 ' 734.2 ? 2066. -30 1 729.54 629.90 869.19 I 1 Q816 It1 fli '3 /1 200,5.0 en 533.-833 835.73 720.75 1 1987 It 3147.8- 1023.8 014.0Cl1 915.90 1422.23 3 £"leItJ 74'+J .. N.A It 4-A N-A N.A I N.A- Da~t1i Not Available - 76 - Annex 2 T,.ibl MAI AY-TA T A LOAN NO. .1 1' MA: WtllIDA T I PFRTGAT rTl- PPRO-._.:T l-pRIV;rV-T _r;nML Fi FTrTON IKrFt IF LOAN DISBURSEMENT Anticipatedi (SAR) Arid Actual Schedule Of Disbursements IRRi.) F--T.<.t'AI F'A AF Af.'f ! AlFT, FT)T<"PURU FMT-FNT IJ) $ Ll - ,TON I a.rAND :FM- r--_ I APPRATC,Al PF*.2,f-l ! 35no I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~I si ~ ~~~~~ I It26-7 F Y N. ,i I lst: 2I.. ..4 i :n ' I . I I ~ .'iP4 9 I i?....)I9 4 I ii t I I : m(I n I Irs- I Ianslld i , 44 t ~~~~~~~~~~I I t j ,FY 04 j I.9,, ttn s.-r I In- i Intu fi.:ts' - 7fe& t t i I 5 sI I i 2:.I, I :?nd. i ')'-t Co t 2 I I tst ,1 0 _ _. r .0... .. .. liI^I o ner. ft trI Itrf I\Jtt il- it}ful¢ioen 41.''J1t MUDA II RIATION PRO.'CT PROECT OFFICE STAFF TURNOVER -TEENIOAN & DA ME POSTS APPROVED 80- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~POST RLLED /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 60 / .R, I ! I ~~~~~~SAF II S.f,TURNDVER M TRANSFERRE 14 C3 TRANSFERRE OMT on~~8 79 sae 3 84 as t16 8 B YEAR CIDA IRRKIGON PROJET PROECTI EE SAFF TUROVER - ENGINEERS 30 _~PS 1RIEDD 79 8. as e8t 82 63 v 65 a6 11 88 YEAR - 79 - Annex 3 Table I MA! AY!73A T. AN 17-17-MA: MIJDA TT TRRTGATIY)N PROJECT PR,(ITFr,T !2-)MPI FTTO'N RFi-P:RT COMPARISON OF NET YEILDS NOM OF MlIDA TT NON-MUIDA II SiEASON COMPLETED IRRTtATIN I IRRIGATION I Ml JDA TT BLOCKS I I t Bl .l-C.KS I ( t.3onss/ha) ' (tons/ha) I * I Off Season 1981 3.6 3.7 Main Season 1981 -- 3.7 4.1 Off Season 1982 1 2.9 i27 Ma-in Season 8 3 3.5 3-6 Off Season l98S3 ' 45i 2-3 , 2.5 Mairn Season 1983 1 ; 3.1 3.2 Off Season 1184 I.1 ' -.0 2.8 It Main Season 19R4 . 1. 1 I 3 . 3.7 off Soa.onr! 19P.5 17 1 :S It 3.4 Main Season `941.15 1.9 3.9 3.6 O Off Season 1986 It 23 3,4 3.3 I Main Season 1986 26 4.1 3.9 Sourcet Mijda Fvaliiat-or- SurveyI . i Soul.rCe?: Mijda I11 Eva lat. ior- Survay. - 80 - Ar ir,x x MAIA YSTA LfOAIN Nr;. .1717- MA: MJV'A I'T TREIVGATTON PROJFCT PROJECT Cr'MPILETTOh REPORT COMPARISON OF LAROUR UTILISATION PER HECTARE 1986 MUDA TI INON-MUDA 111 IIRRT(;ATTOlN' IRRTGATION 1 AVFRAGE I BLOCKS BLOCKS I ~I O I (w -n--hour-s) I (man-hout-f-) I(man-hours) I I _… I l I O _ _ 11. Seed Pr-eparation & Nu,rsery 10.6 13.1 11.7 ,2 Lan.i Preparation 20-. I 21L1 20.0 , S3. Transplanting/Seeding 113.9 119.7 116.5 , I a ,aII I ,4. Padi Management 49.4 56-2 52.3 1 * , , I I .S. Harvesting 4,7 .14.9 9.1 16. Post-Harvest Work 3.1 59 4.5 I I I ' ,, I 1 ____.…_ I ____.__ .__ I _____ I I~~ I I ' Total 203.2 I 230.9 214.5 I I I I ,'o Sourc;e: Muda II Evaluation Sulrvey Annex 3 Table 3 MALAXYI1A LOAN NO_ 1717-MA: MUDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT COMPAgATIVE STUDY OF WATER UTILISATIN OR DIFFERENT PLANTING CULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MUDA II IRRIGATION BLOCK (CCRBD 3E1&3E2) I I I 5 I WATER SUPPLY (mm) ISU INO. OFi AREA CULTURAL 5-- NO- DAYS 5PRACTICE IPRESATURATIONISUPPLEMENTARYI TOTAL (Ha.) I PERIOD O PERIOD i … - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - --- - -- - - - --- - - - - 11 - - ---- - - ---- - a Al 1 167 t 29 I Trans- 1 239.6 1 1287.5 1527.1 I I I I ~~~~p'lanting I I ~~It ItIlI -------- ---- i ---------1--------------1-- - I ~ ~ ~~~ I':I DtrY II I IFS/F6 I 131 150 !Ploughing i 145-6 I iiin.9 1256.51 t : : t t)~~~1 irect 1 1 7 ' ~~~~~I Seeding I It It 11 I I ~~Dry ItI It I E3 I132 11 16 ',PJnughing 4 1143.5 112A5,71 I O 5 I~~~~~ Diretct 5 I , I ~~~~~1S5eeding 111I iDesigned 1 15.7 ITrans- 0 2Ri-n 1 2f;t, 1$4h I i I I ~~~plantingI I :~~~~~~=': i77:=7 7 Source: Mada IT Pilot Pr ject Stadies rCRRD 3el &3e2 - 82 - Annex 4 Table I MA.AYSIA LOAN NO. 1717-NA: *tDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT PROJECT CONPLETION REPORT CALCULATION OF OPERATION AND AIMT NCE CT OF A 1000 HECTARE IIIA I} IRRIGATION BLOCK ACTIVITY RATE CYCLE/ COST I I (ifs) FREQUENCY/YEAR (M$ 1 i i…* ,1. Clearing and desilting of tertiary canals I , I . 25 kh. I $lbO/ko/cycle I 3 1 12,000 1 12. Clearing of tertiary drains 22.5 km. I $180/k/cycle I 4 '6,?o0 ,3. Clearing of ISU boundaries 18.5 km. $ S60/ku/cycle 1 3 3.330 ,4. Maintaining ring bunds at drainage outlets I a I 245 numbers 12/no./tiae , 2 980 S. Laterite surfacing of tertiary farm roads I 47.5 h.* $4000/kn s once every 38,000 16. Repairing pot holes on tertiary farm roads 1 5 years I 47.5 km. $170/km ' annually 1 8,075 1 ,7. Repaiting ISU boundaries 18.5 km. $ISO/ko annually ! 3,700 1 I8. Desilting of tertiary 4rains 22.5 km. I $265/km O once every S years , 1,193 1 O9. Topping up of bunds - im. $ P601/km once every 5 years O 1,800 1 110. Repairing irrigation and drainage structures . Ia 84 numbers I $20/no. annually 1 1,680 11l. Repairing farm irrigation turnouts and farm ' a a drainage structures 500 numbers I 6/no, annually 3,000 112. Operation of farm irrigation turnouts and a a I drainage outlets (2 casudls for 6 months per 7,660 1 a year per 600 hectares) I a a £~~ . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I , :Total cost of operation and maintenance per 1000 ha. $ S97,618 0 a a I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a a a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 83 Annex 4 Table 2 HALAYSIA LOAN N0. 1717-TA: NDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT PRMJECT COMPLETION REPORT FIMANMJAL CAPITAL OT BREAiMN (n43) YEAR ITEN -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I TOTAL ' 1 ' 2 t 3 1 4 7S 6 1 7 1 8 7 9 : 10* H 11t 1 12* 7 I . . I _ .. I _ , --- 7 7 - ' - - ---- I 3. ' £ - 1. Civil Yorks '11.46 7 2.46 15.84 111.74 112.20 112.71 714.33 111.51 h10.00 74.30 1 8.10 1 9.74 7114.34 72. Coastal Protection 10.5 I 3.80 10.87 1 0.25 , - 7 0.15 1 1.06 1 - I0.197 - - 7 6.8? I I I I I I O 067~ 73. Miscellaneous works I .S6 10.11 ''-I-I-'7-'-I-7-I-I06 7 4. Najor Drainage - 0.21 10.08 1 0.02 1 - - - 0.10 1 .18 1 0.17 1 - - I 0.761 J5. Equipuent ' .52 1.65 0.76 I 0.06 12.21 11.13 1 0.67 0.00 I 0.32 ? - 7 - 1- 8.1?' I. Buildings 0.80 1.86 3.12 I 3.6 1 3.12 '5.86 1 3.25 7 2.69 ' 0.71 - - - I25.02 I i Land Acquisition 2.40 2.74 4.43 t 3.20 12.23 3.24 : 1.51 t 2.08 1 2.00 ! 1.00 7 2.00 t 4.17 5 31.00 t P. Engineering & Supervision! 1.46 t 2.43 4.42 1 4.08 t4.19 4.45 , 2.07 1 2.76 12.70 ' 2.70 t 2.70 1 1.80 t 35.76 7 H 9. Pilot Project & Studies 0.01 t0.241 10.11 10.11 0.4 tO.07 0.13 0.73 110. Technical Services, t Ttaining i !onitoring I I t I I t I I t t t & Evdluation t0.01 t 0.06 10.04; 0.11 12.01 '0.25 1 0.05 - 1'.01 - '- - I 2.61i t~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ . I I , ; 7 I I I I t , 7 I I I t I I I I i : I t I ! * Total 117.77 115.53 ,19.67 123.18 126.05 727.71 122.16 121.00 115.99 , 8.36 :12.80 115.71 1225.93 1 * Anticipated. - 84 - ALAYSIxA LOAN NO. 1717-NA: UDA II IRRIBION PIOJECT PROJECT CONPLETION REPORT DERIVATION OF PROJECT FIMM(CIAL COST --------:::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: : YEAR I ITEM -- ---- ------- -------------OTA O I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 . '1. Civil Morks (1ion) 111.46 12.46 I5.84 :11.74 112.20 112.71 114.33 111.51 .10.00 14.30 1 8.10 1 9.74 :114.39 i * * * * . . . . . a a a . 12. Coastal Protection (251) I0.14 10.95 IC.22 10.06 1 - - 0.04 10.27 - 1 0.05 1 - - 1 1.73 1 t a 1 t I t a a t a a I a I a 13. Hiscellaneous orks (252) 10.14 10.031 - - - I---17 - I .1 14. Hajor Drainage (632) 1 - .0.13 .0.05 I0.011 - - - 0.06 0.11 10.11 1 - 3 0.47 1 i5. Equipent (25Z) 10.13 0.41 10.W 10.02 10.55 0.28 10.17 10.20 10.08 1 - 1 2.03, B. Iuildings (252) 1 0.20 0.471 0.78 0.90 1 0.78 11.471 0.81 10.671 0.18 1 - I - ' - I 6.26 1 17. Engineering I 11.46 2.43 4.42 1 4.08 1 4.19 14.45 12.07 12.76 12.70 .2.70 1 2.70 1 1.80 . 35.76 1 1 Supervision (100) 1 a a a a a a a a a a a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~--- ---------- -----……………----- 5 ' ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~It It I1I I I I I 1 1 1 ' I ', I Total 115.35 1 6.88 111.50 116.81 117.72 118.91 117.42 115.47 113.07 7.16 110.80 111.54 1160.81 1 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a t a a a a a a a a a a a a a a - 85 - Annex 4 Tabl.e 4 MAI.AYSIA LoAN NOC3 117 MA: MLJDA II IRRTGATION PROJECT PROJFr-T COMPLETION REPORT PROJECT FINANCIAL CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE COST CAPITAL. COST IOFFRATTON AND5 YEAR MAINTENANCE COST (Ms,n) (M$m) I t 2 1.1.50 I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I ? I A F t) I I I tAJ l f. F l '0n. 12 1 5 17 _.72 I_ 0 I(.C0 SO1 I 7 It It'.)C : .7 f 17.I42 1 14 £ -- | 1 ' s _ 4 7 .1.14 in '; 5 1..i 7 _4 I I .I ¶ A2 . I 14 ' - I ..-44 I ,' t r) . f) li _. ,)., 4 as I 77 I' 7: 7 7 : 7 _12 .. ..._._... ._._..... .. _ ._== __......... _____2.17 ___=. =_. =. .WAAYSIA LO'AN NO, 171741A: HIIDA II IRRIGATION PROJECT FROJECT COtiPL[TION REPORT PADI PRODUCTION BUILD-UP 1 M~~~~~~~~AIN SFAS~N WF SEASON I TOMA TC-TAL ------------ ------------------------------------------ PRO!)UCTTI'HPRODUCTION', IYFARIUNBENIFITTEOIAVERAGFIBrNirITTrD APFAIAVERAGFI sFAVMALA HIllPFNIFITTFD,AvrRAGF!8FNIFTTTE0MAVFRAGEI SWAONAt WIT4 WVTWOIJTiHIMCRFIEHTA AREA YE -YIELC 1FRODUCTON! AREA YIELD AREA ' YrELD 1PRODUCTIAN! PROJECT PROJECT PRODUCTIONI * 2 '~~~~~~~~~~~C ' ?~~~~~~~'T 7~~~~~ 7 (Hal I I /6 -44 (A I I..d To.p ! r12i- Is To 1…(Tns I I I I~~~~7 j I J 1; I15 IS 4 1 24,VS 1 3.6 121,00 1 ld,36 7.5 I1 94,i! 1," 12 1,224 2.9 154,777 1148.9" i 148,449 528 51 23,0312 1 . 2 ! 3,2331' 3, 3.1 R1 A,223 17,504 2.5 11 5,042 -2.3 SO ,757 133 ),06 !153,9,51 35 6 20,Q91 f 3.7 /4,18! 5,117S 3.9 9%,V! 15,264 V. 516; 3.0 160,187 1 115$,823) 1153071 3S,) ? 8 13,981 3. q h12,2P4 lll,t76 4.1 102 1lOI 1 , i2,2U .3. I 11,559 3.4 74,346, 17t6,764 16F,05 8,459 9 10,221 3.8 i1,04 135011%9 If 2.5 115,0998 2.0 63,204 I63,O44 14Q,710 17,7334 t'10 6,941 t'7.9 1'19,324 N18,10 ' 4.2) 104,!57 1 5,275 3.5 1 18,84 3.i8 P7,562 191078 1?2,247 19,481 11 7, 70" 1.' 12,55A 171,40 1 1fl9,102 2,S10 7. 21,226 4110,5 Mh O,62) 7,1 27,?1 3 12 2,879 4.1 1237386 122,220 4.~~ i13~7~ 1 2,!~u 3.9 22,00'7 4.4 105,364 219,421 185,534 33,8R 13 -- 126,265 124,963 1 4.6 1 114,75? - - 1 4,3 4. 10846 2,5 1,54 38,037 1 Note: Lanid acquisition 5% Ctopping intensity without project IY6 Cropping intensity with project 1Q9% Ij -87 - Annte)x 4 MALAYSJA ~Table 6 I OAN 1NO. 1.71U'MA: MIIDA TT TRRTGATTON PROJECT PROXECT C.OMPI FTTON FrrORT CROP PRODUCTIONt COSTS APPRATSAL ---" - 1 - - - . ..- ~~ESTTMATE WITHOUT WITH I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ItI 1L.ABOUR TNPUTS) (mnan--hours/ha) ItI tI Land Prepar atiorn anid Nursery 93 1 - 1 3 1 ..3 £ Transplantin,g/Sotwin,g I e- I1A 11,17 113.9 C rcop Mainitenance/Tranispn't 126.7 I 56..-? 49.4 Harvesting 1 39. 3 20P I 0. -0 I 4 1,31n 2,30.~~~~~~~~ _ I- I IAGRICUL.TURAL INPUTFS (kq/ha) AmmonitiAM Phosphate 1? Compound (N-P-r) '1 I IQ37 i 3 I . Jra 12 10 1 O Insecticides 0e- 10 10 Seeds 55-0. 1501 CrONTRACT TNEt)T'UT, ($/ha) PlOuAghingj I21 I200 20 0 Hat vesting (combin,eA f1 I- 210 210 Prices (s/kg) Ammonium Phospk:ite CofnPO.Ind (N.P.K -0~ :-310 Urea .-- .,:; In e~t. j. r idr I 70 Seeds. 1 . n00 Seed rate- 25 kg/ha for tracv-pl.dnt Ing -0.0 kg/ha for- ditrect soDwing Appraisal 63% har-vestin-g by combine -100% transplanting - ~PCR 100% har-vesting by combine -40% tr-ansplanting + 60% dlirect sowing - 88 - Artr;ex 4 Tablt 7 MAL AYSIA LOAN NO. 1717-MA:, IJDA IT ThRIGATICIA PRfJFC,'T PROJECT CtMPL ETIlN RiPO)RT FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC PRODUCTION COSTS .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~n .. 7 7. 7 : F'NANCIAL I ECONOMIC 'LABOU.R INPUTS: A-p p t a i¢. l. 10 -Xn 20 I 7I20. 7 1 =---- ----- ..…--P1'R Wit t-i-tt P- - - .j .. t 1-. -30-- 45 -.' 90 PCGR With Prrj-iscXc I 202-60 , 3C13.90 0 I~~~ . lAGRICUITURAT INP: TS: Appr asi m-:-zi..-I 3 7201 i 11490 PCR Without Prnjo.-ct ,' 0-50 3 54 75 7 PCrR Wi,th Ptoject 1 - s020 154 0 370 I I . I I'ANCTRA..T INPT:: AppTa\iPi , 1.4 -ll l 172 - 1 PC5R Witht,ut Project 41n-no n.5 4n, PCR Wi t-th Projt 417.-o ,;5. 30 ~CTOTRAL: NPT:App1-)ra is,-a7I?7 1fl4. I 9fO7O i--- -.- r-o'rv Wi thoiut ,.P1.) -30 4104 PC(R With Pro je-ot , 7- 2-10 7-. 47 I.. rtC.jCZ ..i7-534 Note: fConvic-tr'.icRm Fac:tot ff*E- osjr i l.Atut ,ti i rnpu-, t - .. Clornvors&icor fact.or fto lab3out . I '. Convet-sion factor fot -ornt:ract. input. - 0.7.? - 89 A,rfl~'-l 4 MALAY`JA L f AIA I 1 7' MAh- - MIA. I T T RRIGAFTCIA PROJE:CT F1ThTC IY; ;T1! _nf .r1 tl lf- r oiffr;-r INCREMENTAL PRODUCTION COST APr!TT(llAL ARFAIOMST SAVTNGSIPRODIICTTON I TOTAt 1YEARIBENrFITTEl', Rriij;tJiT Y:Nr FROM 1 COST FOR 'INCREMENTAL. . ARfA PFODUClTIOHN l;F!!TFTTTrTD INCRWMFNTALIPRODUCTION AREA AR ARA COST I (H) (H'a) (M$m) (M$m) (M$m) . .. . .. . - I J4 't 2,46-:0 236 ' , 0.103 5 0 17p, 0 n075 Z .5 : -X711 r>s 0 - 2t 0- O41 0O1845 6 5 1l,6i91 1 141 5 0.-43 , 0 352 It ',7 5 1 :0, 000 1,2, 1 0-5 72. 5 .1.. .Ql 21. 0 542 ,' 8 5t 23,215 t ,2?4' n 7g .ff o o 9- I -30 1 34 II 2, e-:105 1 27, 2 1,39 0-914 I j 0 5I 3Ff15f> I 3 ,I 5 1.535 1 26 i 1101 i 1 13 4 2,666E 5 4,084 I 1.792.' . 3.077 1 1.205 7 -12 I 44,236 . 4 2:;s I I I5s I 7.I. 190 1 332 13 , 4a a' I0 4.754 2-0n7 | 3 5£.2 1.495 5 .~.,115 ~ S:35 5 5 5 :. .I = = = = :. :===_=..=.. :==_.. :=: -90 - AeI 4 MALAYSIA LOAMNO. 71717: NM 11 IRRIGATION REPORT fROECT COIPLETI1l REPORT E[ONOMIC RICE PRICE StRUCE (rQtat IW8 Prime) 11980 1 II 1 1982 1 1983 0 1984 . 1985 1 M 9 19 1 1988 19891990 1 1995 200 1 Export price Thai St broken, f.o.b. O I 1 I a I O a I I : a a 5Bangkok (SUS per ton) 499 552 1340 1330 305 0 259 1212 1210 I216 1229 1248 0 254 1259 I 06rade differential (less OS0) 1 .449 1 497 306 1 297 1 275 1 233 1191 '189 1194 1206 1223 1 229 1233 1 1Price of rice, c.i.f. Penang (USS/ton)O 47 1 527 I 336 1 327 1 30 1 263 1221 1219 1224 1236 1253 1 259 1263 1 :Price of rice, c.i.f. Penang (N9$/ton) 1 1198 1 1318 5 840 1 818 1 763 1 658 1 553 10 548 560 1590 1 633 1 648 1 658 1 'Port handling charges 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 0 14 1 14 1 14 1 Otransport charges to Alot Setar 1 23 1 23 r 23 1 23 1 23 1 23 I 23 1 23 1 231 23 23 1 23 1 23 1 illbolesale price, Alor Setar 1 1215 1 1355 0 877 1 855 1 800 1 695 1 590 1 585 1597 1 627 1 670 1 685 1 695 1 Otransport, aill to Alor Setar 1 61 61 6 1 6 06 6 1 6 0 6 16 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 !Ex-sill price of rice 1 1229 1 1349 1 8 1 1 849 1 794 1 689 1584 :579 1591 1621 164 1 679 1689 0 OPadi equivalent 7 991 87 566 1 552 1 516 448 1380 1376 1384 1404 1 32 441 1448 1 llNilling cost 501 50 501 50150 50 1 50s S0 .50 1 50 s 501 50 'Fare-gate price of padi 1 7491 827 516 1502 466 1 398 1330 :326 1334 134 382 391 1398 1 a~~~~~~~~~~~ . a a a a * . a a a . . a a a a a a a a a a a a a a I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 91 - Atririvx 4 TdLbIe £10 MAt AYSrA LirAH NiO- 17!7-MA: M!!JDA II TRRh,ATIO!] PR')JEr'T PRc 1ECT r(IMPL PETTON REPotRT INCREMENTAL PROJECT BENEFITS TINCREMFNTAL I PADIT VAI ,.lE OF I iNCR:FMFNTAL ' INCRFMETNTAL YEAR : PRODUCTION PRICE ',INCRfEMtMNTAL PRoDUCTION PROJFCT PRODUCTION COST : BENEF1.S i t(Tons) '(M$/ton) I (M$m) I (M$m) (M$m) 3.. . . . . I 1 !, II 1 1. It3 It It ItI ., 4 t, 528 051 t 0.272 0 .n175 n 0.197 5 35 502 5 0.018 , 0.184 *-0.166 I. 6 ' 3,75P 46f. It 1.748 0.52 1 1.396 I 7 866: 398 5 - 450 0. 542 I 2..908 I II p ~~~~~ ~ II I : 8 , 9. ,4,59 330 2-791 0 .700 1 2.ng I It 1 13,334 1 326' 1 4.347 0.914 t 3. 4 33 10 It 19,48.1 334 6 .507 1 1.101 5.406 1 11 27,713 354 9.8-810 1.285 P...525 12 1 33i.87 1 382 12.945 1.332 1 11.613 1 113-16 3 3,038 ': 382 14.531 1.495 13.036 : l17-21 : 38,0308: 1 391 It 14.fs'/3 1.495 13.378 22-35 l 318,038 l 398 1,. i39 1 1 495 13.644 t 3 t 3 3 3 1 _3= = = = = _ , _ _ 3 _ = = _ = _ = _ = = _ _ _ _ = _ = _ -92 Aru,m-" 4 Tabie I1I AIN AY'- '- e- L OAN H-' .I l-, MA: N"I DA, TT 'nRTGAT tIVt PrzJFrCT FR\tJle(T !-~w~ TTr f311 RFr'ti:-vT CONVERSION FACTORS TO 1987-PRICES YFAR r-ACTOR a 9a II I I~~~~~~~~~I07 a19U0 I I I~~~~~~~I 2 a1982 71 -93 - Annex 4 Tablt- 12 I OAN Nl 1717--MA: .MLJI)A II IRRIGNT TON PRCOJECT PPtf)JF'IT C.(') f'F-VTON ~R-F',r, ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS (1907 Constant Prices) CAP-ITAI. M [ TOjTAl TOTAI. NET IYEAR MOST (-CC"-T PRi'.JCT 1T?CRUMFNTAL 1 INCREMENTAL- k,CST 3JTNFF'TTS BENEFITS I(M$m)' (M$m) (MUr)(i) (M$rn (M$m) 1 I 1/4.47 I14.4t7 --14.47 2 6. -7'7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~-6..77 3 10.45 It1O.45 -1.4 4 '1 4.45 0.11. 1 14.56 It 0.2n -14.36 5 14.64 0..?? t 14.91. -0.17 -15.08 6 I14.974 fl049 154 1.40 -14.03 7 13.71 It 0..2? 14.43 11 2.91 It --31.%2 I 8 12.07- 0.93 103.63 I1 2.09 -11.54 9 10.06 11 1.21 11.27 13 3.43 It --7.04 10 It 5.51 1.43 6.94 It 5.41 It -1.53 I It 5.51 t' 1.67 It 7.11 ,53- 1.35 I 1 2 3.1139 1.73 i0t .211.61 0..99 I 115-16 -1.95 1 .95 13.04 1L-09 117-21 't1.95 11 1.95 i 13.38 1 11.69 I 122-34 -- 1.95 11 1.95 1 13.64 It 11.69 35 1 -32.07 1.95- 1 -30.92 13.64 It 44..56 Ecoyr.omic Rate of Return = 6% Net Present Valuje -.--M$24-2mn Conversion factor For constructiorn -7. ). 77 Conversion factor- for gover-ment arid services 0.80 -.94 - Annex .E Tarble 1 OI4A P'1- 171 -_MA jjF!PJT 7 _7r )ATT RFPt-O)RT lt[Z- -1 --k * 0J I E -A& ANNUAL (2 SEASONS) CROP IBUDGET FOR MUDA II AREAS TRANPLANTIN6 CRO7P 19866 *~~~~ ~~ I I I : : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I a a j hd 3 f-, . ' .3 ha I ''2 .? h 3.5 ha ,PRODUCTTON COSTS: Land Preparation 1 99. .R7 ' 419-02 , 728:77 0 1038.71 Chemical & Other Inpuits 5 P. 1 1 20 032 134 -.2 ' 220.46 1 i Transplanting/Sowing , 224.-10i 514.0 , 960..41 i 1340n04 'larvestirig 277.26 1 642.20 1 1110.39 1834.80 other L-abour Charges 1 14-7 36.25 I 5148 73_11 t 5 Transport ' 125.75 1 2q7.65 1 453.78 t 705.95 1 1Total. Production Crosts 1, 99-43 17-:3;39 3439.65 1 5213.07 1 i 11 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I11 ,CASH INFl OWS: l Padi Income 2334.94 6' 297.0 t 11234.77 t 19045.16 t Labour In,come 42.. 13 - - - O Other Agriculture- Income 1t65.46 4.16 0. 91 30.94 1 ____ ~ I -_ l_ _ __ __ ___ __ __ !Total Cash Income t 2542..53 1 6301.24 11235.681 18076.10 ' tTAXES . 119-92 4 3166 739.65 971.72 I I .I £ I tTotal Net Income t 1523.18 t 4136.194 t 7056.38 11891.34 , s;our-ce Muida II Evaltuation Survey. - 95 - Anlnex 5 Table 2 MAl. AYSIA OA_N NQ. .1 17 M7A: MIIDA TI IRRTGA(IfN f rtOJECT PROJECUT CnOLPLFTTON PFPORT ANNUAL (2 SEASONS? CROP BUDGET FOR UNIMPROVED AREAS TRANSPLANTING CROP 1 94pj , ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I - I I 0. 6 h. 1.3 ha 1 2.2 ha 1 3.5 ha _________ I , ____ ___ _ _ __ I _ _ PRODUCTION COSTS: L-and Pre-paration 216.32 41711 626.89 ' 1038.71 1 I Chemical & Other Inputs 1 46.27 1 76.39 142.63 327.40 1 X Transplanting/Sowing 1 261.42 , 481.02 1014.95 1340.04 5 H Harvesting I 526-82 1 657.94 11 116.07 1834.80 I Other Labour Charges , 19.54 i 28.39 1 36.77 1 73.81 1 Transport 120.7Y I 269.03 1 608.36 5 705.95 1 .Total Production Costs 1191.69 1929.70 1 3615.67 I 5320.71 t ,' I I 5 5 C OASH INFLOWS: It I I I I t II--- - -- - - - - - I 5 Padi Incoame I2675.19 I 520-.86 111420.87 518851.96 I t Labour Income 19.86 i 37.88 64.19 1 OI Other Agriculture Incom* - 14.19 1 109.20 185-07 295.45 5 I I S I 5 ITotal Cash Income t2709.24 6 6075.96 I11678.13 119147.45 I ',TAXES-. 1 36.80 5 322.37 5 88.13 : 794.87 1 I I . I S I I a I S I 5Total Net Income 1380.75 5 3823.81 5 7474.33 :13031.87 t i l --_- |___ a … … _____ a Source Muda IT Evaluation Study. 96 - -A.MAY9TA .. _IN NO 1717`-MIA: _MIDA TT TIRPRI TIGT tON PrpL-T P kl1JECT COtMPiIT.Tou rp,ff7 f-T ANNUAL (2 SEASONS) CROP BUDGET FOR MUDA II AREAS DIRECT SFEDING CPOP 1 986 !~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ :. I I 0-,; _.~ t * - h,--i - a - t ' -.5 hfi tPRODUJCTION COSTS I Land Preparation 2,-1 f 52 233 F0 -.. f 6'i_74 t IChemical & Other Tnputs It .74 2?4..?l ,337'0 352_25, TransplIantinng/Sowing - 21 1.5.i.si 7 t 350.54 'li sar-vest >tri n g 203.93 te 56. t9 1021.90 1707-39s I Otht?r Labour Chat get3' l. .0-40 36.36,7n f e-04 95_49 Tt anspor t 16n - 44 2, 9SS /5565.57 7'3 66 I I I - - - -. -. I -. I -. ._ _ _ . _ .__ I .Tital Prodluction Cof.-.ts '2f2 362.1-14 2 8f'7.i49 300S.07 * 1 1 I I !CASH INFl-OWS: t * . _~~~~~~~ ~~~~ . , I I .............. 20.2 75 ' .z.75 .f-754.§ :17605..6... ,' 176,05 46 L abtour Incottmf! : 211.11 t 25.40 - - fither Agricultur I ncme -- - - ' S4_77 I I _ __ _ __ _ ._ I __ .__. _. . _ . I ..._.__. . ... MTtitail Cash Tncome 204l.(. 6flt.09 ; 11054.45 1 17090.23 i I I I I I ,TAXES 5 111.31 382.93 650.33 1240.90 1 I . .____._I1I Tota l Net Incom*. . 2013..31 4776 .0f2 7S40-.63 12741.26 ~-.....e ,,,,___, ___,_,, Evalua........ tion Sf ~ -~~ ~ Q -~~~~--~~ tUd- - ! ¢Sourfe :Muda II Evaluat.ion Study l s -t-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iDX Annex . Table 4 LOAN N.. -1717-MA: MU,I I1 IRI IN O PROJCtT-COMPLETION REPORT A4NUAL (2 SEASON) CROP BUDGET FOR UNIMPROVED AREga DIRECT S6EED iG R 1996 * _- * _ _ _ _ * *__* - .__a__ a a I I O : : 0.6 ha 1 1.73 ha I 2.2 ha : 3.5 ha II I = ______ I… _ _ .-_. ._ _..____ --._-_.-.- __ --.-- - PRODUCTION COSTS: , Land Preparation 1 232.11 1 473.61 558.11 1 1204.6O : I Chemical & Other Inputs 1 68.46 125.93 1 266.72 I 344.21 Transplanting/Sowing - I._ I8 62.20 1 20A.82 i Harvesting : 279.63 1 rS.56.76 1 1165.55 ' 1768.54 1 Other Labour Charges I 20.66 1 45.02 1 49-44 f162.24 1 Transport 103.52 1 312.78 1 495.45 e76-.72 : .Total Production Costs : 704-38 1 -390 1 2597.97 1 45e-3.13 1 IrASH INFlOWS:I a a~~ ~ I : I 1 Padii Income : 2651.15 fi361.72 11741.25 10086.00 L;abour Income 40. 12 1 21.42 Othet Agricultture Income - 140,39 2.44 : * : I I : 'Total Cash Income 2691.27 652,3.53 11741.25 180:.R.52 : : a : a I I ITAXrS 121.4fl l O. 7n7 5;;38. 65 1 93S.59 :------ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~I : a : a Total Net Income I 1065 41 4519.26 8604.65 1 12,56.n I Iource : M:da .I Evalution"udy: : Souirc^e Mudaie TJ Fvaluat-ion 7Stilfdy PS I of 6 A fl. JABATAN PARIT DAN TALl AIR. MALAYSIA. )fltJIWAMA (Drebtagm e ad Im ongad p.Dqms. Maltui). CollfT I OR J_ KEMENTERIAN PERTANAN. (Minisnv of Airk t}).T JALAN SULTAN SALAHUDDIN, Tdkmaw: 0291c 50626 KUALA LUMPUR. , r* onuc MALAYSIA TAX N0: 603-2914292 Ril. Tam: (Your Rep. WtA 3t 2M-477-6391 Rai. Kamsi (13)dla.PPT.689/S/2 OrOa Re% Jld.2 Mr. Grahm Dbnaldson. Trikh: April 1989 (2uiet, Dae Agriculture, Infrastructure and lusmn Resources Division. Operations Evaluation Department, The World Bauk, 1818 B Street N.V. Vashington D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Dear Mr. Donaldso, le: MALAYSiA - Muds II Irrigation Project (Loan 17171-W) Project Completion Report Reference is made to your letter dated Febroary 13, 1989 inviting comnts on the Project Completion -Report (PCR) on the Muda n Irrigation Project (loan 1717-N). I have had the opportunity to see MAM's comnts on it atd am in full agreement that the Report is overall a fair, balanced lvaluation and accurate docunmnt except for a few ambigtities in the Evaluation Sums" Ma Saary, which, if left uncorrected, could cast a different cornotation bee revIsd to the umaning of what WaS intended, or detract from the accuray of the statments made. The first correction necessary is to the statemnt . and in later years implementation was slo' because the New Econmic Policy allowad mny inexperienced and financially wek contractors to be awarded contracts" on line 4 pars 3 page (ii). The New Economic Evaluaton Policy cannot be faulted for the financial problems thmst upon the Sua_ contractors. This was in fact a consequence of the recession whereby amended any had the security backing of banks and financial institutions sudAenly withdrawn from them. These contractors had significantly underpriced in order to win their contracts in extremely competitive bidding, which in tur had arisen from too rM contractors chasing too few works. Such absence of sufficient contracts had also forced contractors to venture into fields they were not entirely familiar with (e.g. traditional PWD contractors taking on DID works), thus accounting for the introduction of tbe inexperience factor. 2/.. ATT"ACUIR? I Page 2 of 6 _ 99 _ Another correction of fact that has to be =sda appears on lines :1-13, par& 1, page 12 vhere it is stated that "GM and the Bank decided not to proceed with tertiary d.velopeent in the lr. eI reusining 75Z of the Muda area, as was originally intended, and revised a proposed water supply aupuntation program was dropped". As far as I am aware, these projects have only been deferred for the present, not cancelled as implied. Finally, I wish to fully endorse your observation on Bank Performance as appearing on lines 5-7, para 47 page 12, where it was pointed out that time required for land acquisition was severely under-estimated. In future, it is hoped that full cognizance is riven to this need for more time and the perioa of implementation for such projects be extended to seven or eight years itstead of the usual five, Please accept my apologies for the slight delay in submission of the above comments. This letter is being faxed to you first, followed by the original under normal cover. ,est regards, Yours sincerely, . R. DA. WECH) Director General Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia -100- acw(r I ap3 of .~ ~ ~~~zs Mr rn= "MOM VS234 ' t t .W A U 0 060-03 *2554a64 ' p~~~tciie avio* CO htt t. bs 0"W~~~~~ot: 1.4.1989 Pagof (Wm Cable mu use Only) 208 IMuM PR# OANARl ONA AM= H= A0RZCU7AE NIATUCiR AMD HMIAt4 RESciRCES tiXV.S30Z4 OPSRA?ZO rEVAWAT= DEPAWUIINT9 U~~~~~RW~~A DANK.stSo CoWA N D.C.. USA FMx tun:00 202 477-6391 St 1t OM CO: _M mM - s REYRLWIER OF ktS1UARSii 1989 ON 1 'wJtT CMMPZETION MPECzR2 tUDA fl IRRIGATUCM PROJECT (LN 1717-HA). I AN PLASD TO 515MT HEREWZ?) CO91E-TS FA TM OVEPMENT 0 MALAIA FOR YOUR COMIDERATION. 2. MM DUAR'HfT OF IRRIGATION WILL BS * SMI-TTI . THEI IM)WM?S DIRIXLY TO TM S |m lahIK NJIB HUSAIN I xl 4Vxs4 MM=_ C DIVISION, FLrLRAL TR.AS |. wzamr NsNM-. d246U0 iQhLuns 22UO .U. 2. MlUIDE D: sIYi - 101 - fta 4 O VAX - OJCpaojac CWIoLMTIoN RApCT . (pKsq Ott IUD4I I IlAVIAtI PROJ3CT (LN NO. 1717-MA). OUR COMMENTS ON THE 9CR An$ AS FOLLTOS s - THU GOVMIWMMNHT OF9 MAYSIA tONm) im PaiNCiPLE 'AWSEs WfLM TO CONTEW*S OF THE MAIN REPORT AS IT BASICALLY REPRESBUTS WHKT THE NADA MANAGEMENT HAS REPORTED UPON IN Evaluation ITS PCR WHIC'H WAS XUBMIlTTED Tl THS WORUw MAIUU. TH MAlIN bas been PEEORT SEEMS TCo BE FAIRLY BALANCSO 14 ITS VIRWS AND IT revised CONTAINS BOTPH CRITICISMS AS WELL AS COhPLINEMTS TO TUE PROJECT. WE FIND THillS ALANCE IS ASENRT PROM TlR EVALUATION SUMMW4ARY WHICH SEEMS To BE UWIDUBLY NEGATIVE AND CRIKtICV . A VKbUN RMAiNt UNLY THkr 9VAb0&kiUt bUNAY WOUWLD BE GIVER THE WRONG PICTURE OF TIlE PRQJ'C PERFORMANCE AS MENTIONED IN THE MAIN REPORT. IN CERAIN INSTANCES ALO. 'THE bUMNAR1iEO SENTENCES HAS FALLL0 TO RETAIN THU ORlGINAL4 ARGUNEN1J AS SET FORTH 1N THE M4iAN REPORT AND HAS AT'rAINE) A DIFF&iENT CONNOTATION. NVALUATION SUMRY 1. PAGE (ii), PARA 3, 4RD LINE . ....... MM ECONOMIC OLICY ALLOWD M ZWRRIWCID AM PINANCIALLY WEAK CONttACTORS TtL RH AWARDED VOWRACWY. Evaluation THIS SUMMARY IS KI*LWjKADING ANU PAINTS A DIFFERENT PICTURE Sumnary PROM PAt Ii 3 PAM )U. Aa4L CONTMRACTS UiVEY4 UNIJER THE aaended PROJECT WAS SUBJECT TO OPEN BIDDING AND WAS PULFY COMPETlTIVV. I1 -S i VIGVURNMENY PROCEDURE (ANB QNb WHICH THB WORLD BANK ItISISTS WE FOLLOW) , THAT THE LOWEST AND MOST REASONABSL SLUDEk BH AWARDE)D THE CONWPRACT, UN4EiSS IT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY PROVEN THAT THE CONTRACTOR I: NOT - 102 ATTACHEN I Page 5 of 6 PAGE (Ii), PARA 4. RRD LlNE PltOX -W'rTOM. 5*.4.SIVCE oUpTCrAL SUBSIDIEs (pta VEILISMS MO A PAD! DElIVERy eoNuS) WWH A DIISINCWIVE TO RA SING AS STATED IM PAGE 13' OF THtE MAt REPORT, TUE QOV8RNM8NT SUBSIDY SCHEMES 'WERE ItTRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO FARMER Evaluation BMANt)S FOR 1MPROVSv INCOMWS. tT IS AN INCOME Suiiary revise IMPROVEMEN': SCHEOM &ND NOT AIMED AT RAISING PRODUCTIVITY P1R SE. IT It NOT CORRECT TO TI&tJ UP 'THB SUBS;iDIES NOW WITH PRODUCTIVITY, ALTHOUGH THE REPORT AGREES THA'I YIELDS DID INCREASE tMN19DLATSLX Y0QILLWINLi TH IS l1t&ROUIJV$TON O)f THE FERTILISE:R SiUfBSiaY. OVEIRVIEw PIAGE I, PABtA It, YTl'. iLtllX rt1tsv wer-. -'0413LAU YEAS MANY CONTRACTS WMRE AUDD TO FlRlS WINTf INSUFFICLWT IFINANCIAL MD TCHNICAL CAPACITY, WHICH RfEiLTED tN PURTUiE DELAYS'. AS POINTED OUT EARLISR, TH8RE WAS J40O DELIBERATE INTENT 'To Pars. 16 AWARD (CONTRACTS TO SUCH eONTItACTURS, AS THE S£NTSNCE revised WOULD IMPLY . ALL CONTRACTS WERE GIVEN OUT IN OPEN COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND GOVERNMENT iPROCEDURES SPECIFY TUE AWARD TO THE SOWEST TdN*DERI, UNLESS OBJECTIVELY PROVEN THAT HE IS INCAPABLE OF UNDERTAKING THE JOB. 4. PAGE 7, PARA 26, 6TH LINE FROM OTTOM. *IST STUDIES ARR CNTINUING, SVERA6L WIMS JUAINE T8MICAL ABSISTANCEs Changed THE PILOT PROJECT STUDIES SET UP UNDER THE HUDA II PROJECT pars. 26 Is CONWUCTLY COMPLETELY BY PROJECT STAFp. THERE IS A SEPARATE PILOT PROJECT STUDY UNDERTAKEN BY THE JAPANESE TARC RESEARCHERS WITH MACA SUPPORT WHICH WAS STARTED BFOMR THE MUDA II PROutCT BEGAN. JAPANESE TECHNICAL ASRSIPANCR tS NtO TNVOT.VEO fN THR MIJDA Tr PTLOT PROJECT STUDIES. t3$UIIE8 _A,03 _ATTACH I Page 6 Of 5. PAGE 12, PARA 44, SRD) At.4L LstUN tI'vrrJ. *ty TUB CIRCUN8?AMSF V*QN MND TH EB DEC nAD NM TO PROCEED WITH TERTIARY DELOPMENT IN TEN REMAIING 75% 01 ToU MUDA AA AS WM ORIGINALLY INTENDED, AND A PROPOSED Reflected in WATER SUPPILY U.GMMAIMN PROGRAMR WAS DROPPUD para. 44 TERTIARY 1PV9LOFMENT Z: THE BIMArNTAG 75% OF THE MUDA AREA* AND THE3 IiATER SUPPLY AUGtUENTArION PROGRAMME, WAS NOT PUT 'P AS A PROJiCt' PROPOSAL fBY t4ADA/U1D TO THE GOM, AIDTHOUUH P"1'IV v^iSCUlSIOdS wdiE HELD) INJTERNALLY kZE6ARDING THE VIA81- ~TY OF T'HlI PROJECT. THSEB PROJECTS lAVE NOT BEEN DROPPED, AND rHsY mAY as PURSUED LATER ON WITH GON IN ANOTHER FORK OR WHEN CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT. 6. PAGE l , PARA 46, 6T ALINE . 'SUBMITTED C-12 KONTHS DUE TO DELAYS IN TUE AUDI? DEPARTMBWT Changed THESE 'DELAYS' ARE DUE MOSTLY 'tl) *riMB rAKEN TO QUERY para. 46 DETAILS OP 'PRE ACCOUNTS AND UOES NOT REFLECT THE LACK OF ACTION OR DELAY IN TAKING ACTION BY THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT. BEST REGARDS. (NDOD. RWSLI B. H.?. HUSSEIN) SECUlARY) t FINANCE DIVISIO0i c f 0)0-944-