Report No. 1540a-PAK AA X Pakistan: Appraisal of the Sali ty Control Zd Reclamation Project (SCARP) VI ILE COp November 10, 1977 Agriculture Division A South Asia Projects Department FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY U Document of the World Bank This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS US$1 = Rs 9.9 Rs 1 = US$0.10 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES English/US Units Metric Units 1 foot (ft) = 30.5 centimeters (cm) 1 yard (yd) = 0.915 meters (m) 1 mile (mi) = 1.609 kilometers (km) 1 canal mile = 1.524 kilometers 1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectare (ha) 1 square mile (sq mi) = 259 ha 3 1 cubic ft (cu ft) = 0.028 clbic meters (m ) 1 cubic yd (cu yd) = 0.765 m3 1 acre-foot (ac-ft) = 1,233 m3 1 cu ft/sec (cusec) = 0.028 m /sec I pound (lb) - 0.454 kilograms (kg) 1 long ton (lg ton) = 1,016 kg (1.016 metric tons) Pakistani Units English Units Metric Units 1 maund (md) = 82.3 lb (.0367 lg ton) = 37.3 kg (.0373 m tons) 26.8 mds = 2,205 lbs - 1.0 m ton 27.2 mds = 1.0 lg ton (2,240 lbs) = 1,016 kg MUR OWnCIAL USE ONLY PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS AkD TCRONYMS USED ABL - Allied Bank Ltd. AO - Agricultural Officer CB - Commercial Bank CCA - Cultivable Commanded Area CIDA - Canadian International Development Agency EADA - Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture GOP - Government of Pakistan GOPunjab - Government of Punjab IBP - Indus Basin Project IRDP - Integrated Rural Development Program GM - General Manager HBL - Habib Bank Ltd. MAF - Million ac-ft MCB - Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. NRP - National Bank of Pakistan, Ltd. O&M - Operation and Maintenance PCC - Project Coordination Committee PLLP - Precision Land Leveling Project PSC - Project Steering Committee SBP - State Bank of Pakistan SCARP - Salinity Control and Reclamation Project UBL - United Bank Limited WAPDA (NZ) - Water and Power Development Authority (Northern Zone) GLOSSARY Brassicas - Oilseed crops of the Brassica family. Xharif - The hot (summer) season (April to September). Patwari - Local official in charge of the watercourses. Markhaz - An administrative entity of the IRDP. Paddy - Threshed unmilled rice. Rabi - The cool (winter) season (October to March). Tehsil - The first subdivision of a District in the Punjab. There are usually three or four tehsils in a District. FISCAL YEAR July 1 to June 30 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Dank authorization. PAKISTAN APPRAISAL OF THE SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Table of Corntents Page No. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................. i - ii I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ II. BACKGROUND .. .................................. ...... 1 The Economy ........ ....... ................... Agriculture and Irrigation in the Indus Basin ....... 2 Project Formulation ................................ . 3 III. THE PROJECT AREA .................... 4 General ......... . ..... ....................... . 4 Climate ........................................................ 4 Population ....................................................... 4 Farm Size and Land Tenure .* ................. 5 Soils and Topography ................................ 5 Salinity and Alkalinity ..... ............. ... 5 Waterlogging and Drainage .......................... 6 Irrigation .......................................... 6 Agricultural Production ..... ............. . 7 Agricultural Supporting Services .... ............ 7 Agricultural Credit ................................ . 7 Primary Processing ...... ....................... ........ 7 Storage .................................. 8 Agricultural Inputs . .... ................... . 8 Transport and Communications ..8..................... 8 IV. THE PROJECT ......................... 8 Project Objectives ............................. . 8 Project Components ....... .......................... . 9 Water Supply, Demand and Quality .................... 14 Implementation Schedule ............. .. .............. 15 Project Costs ................................ ..... 0........... 16 Financing ............... ............................ 19 This report is based on the findings of an Appraisal Mission comprising Messrs. A. Seager, M. Fireman, C. J. Perry (IDA) and W. Backiewicz, J. B. Downs and H. Vieilhescaze (Consultants) who visited Pakistan in October/ November 1976. -2- Table of Contents (cont'd) Page No. Procurement ..................... .................... 19 Disbursements .............. ... .... 20 Accounts and Audit ...... ... ............................ 21 V. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................ . ......... 21 Project Implementation ... & ......................... 21 Agricultural Supporting Services ............ *....... 22 Consultants .............. . ......................... 22 Coordination of Works ... ..................... . . 23 Operation and Maintenance ...................... 23 Cost Recovery .......... . ............................. 24 VI. PRODUCTION, MARKET PROSPECTS, PRICES AND FARM INCOME ....................................... 26 Future Cropping Patterns and Yields ....... .. ........ 26 Market Prospects ...... .................... .... .... 27 Prices ........... 27 Farm Incomes . ............ 28 VII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION .......................... 29 Anticipated Overall Effects ................. . . ....... 29 Production Benefits ............... .. ........ ...... 29 Employment Effects ................................. 29 Income Distribution ................................ 29 Economic Evaluation ................................ 29 Project Risk . ............. ....... ... .0.... ........ . 30 VIII. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... .......... 31 ANNEXES 1. Project Area Climatic Data 2. Soils and Drainage 3. Groundwater: Recharge, Quality and Levels 4. Project Works: A. Canal Remodeling B. Well Field Design, Well Construction and Operating Costs C. Saline Effluent Disposal D. Electricity Distribution Network E. Project Area Operation and Maintenance 5. Land Leveling and Reclamation 6. Agricultural Credit 7. Consulting Services 8. Equipment List 9. Water Demand, Supply and Quality 10. Implementation Schedule 11. Estimated Schedule of Expenditures, Proposed Credit Allocation, and Schedule of Credit Disbursements 12. Organization and Management 13. Agricultural Supporting Services 14. Draft Terms of Reference for Study of Agricultural Pricing and Water Charges 15. Present and Future Cropping Patterns and Production 16. Agricultural Inputs and Crop Budgets 17. Prices, Incomes and Farm Budgets 18. Economic Analysis PAKISTAN APPRAISAL OF THE SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS i. Irrigated agriculture has always dominated the economy of Pakistan. At present, it is practiced on about 30 M ac, accounts for about one-third of the GDP, employs about one-third of the labor force, and contributes over 90% to total agricultural production. In the recent past, production has been significantly boosted by the introduction of high yielding varieties of cereals, mainly wheat and rice, a sizeable increase in fertilizer consumption and a large increase in the number of private tubewells to augment irrigation supplies. However, future progress is hampered by increasing waterlogging and salinization of the soils and by the fact that the existing irrigation canal system cannot divert more of the abundant kharif (summer) river flows. ii. The SCARP VI area comprises the southernmost district of the Punjab province and extends to about 1.5 M ac cultivable commanded area (CCA). Of this, the Government of Pakistan (GOP) is already developing Unit 1, 200,000 ac. The project considered in this report consists of Units II, III, IV, and V, embracing an area of 1.27 M ac. 1/ iii. The proposed project would lower the groundwater table by tubewells, control it at levels which would not impede agricultural development and would prevent soil salinization. In the areas where the groundwater is fresh, it would be used for irrigation. In the saline groundwater areas, the pumped water would be conveyed by drains into evaporation ponds in the Cholistan Desert. The existing canals would be enlarged to use more of the surplus kharif river flows. The electrification network would be expanded to energize about 1,180 public tubewells and five effluent pumping stations. Agricultural credit would be made available to assist farmers in constructing tubewells for rabi (winter) irrigation in Unit III and for land leveling. iv. Total project costs, net of taxes and duties of US$3.6 M, are estimated at US$166.4 M equivalent. These costs include a foreign exchange component of US$46.5 M equivalent. The GOP has tentatively secured a grant of US$15 M equivalent from the UK and a credit of US$8.3 M equivalent from the Federal Republic of Germany. Together with the proposed IDA credit of US$70 M equivalent, the grant and credits would finance all the foreign exchange cost and 39% of the local cost of the project, or 56% of the total project costs. Project implementation would take six years; the first year would be spent mainly on final design, procurement of equipment and prepar- ation of tender documents for civil works. 1/ Throughout this report, the IDA project area is referred to as SCARP VI. - ii - v. The Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), a GOP agency, would be responsible for the construction of the civil works and the procure- ment of equipment, including components for electrification. The Department of Agriculture of the Government of Punjab (GOPunjab) would procure and deploy tractors and scrapers for land leveling and would provide the necessary laboratory and other facilities to advise on soil reclamation. Refinancing of 50% of credits given to farmers by commercial banks for on-farm investments would be made by GOP through the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). A Project Coordination Committee based in the project area and consisting of represen- tatives of all the agencies responsible for various aspects of the project and representatives of the farming community would ensure coordination during project implementation at the project level. A Project Steering Committee in Lahore, with members of secretary rank representing the concerned departments of GOPunjab, would coordinate the work and its related aspects (finance, administration, etc.) at the policy level. vi. A grant from the United Kingdom would finance all earthmoving equip- ment required for canal remodeling, the full foreign exchange cost and a proportion of the local costs of the drainage disposal system in Unit V, and other imported equipment required for project execution. Canal remodeling works which are not suitable for international competitive bidding (ICB) would be awarded after local competitive bidding (LCB). Contracts for electrifica- tion works would be let through by ICB; WAPDA would supply all components which it would procure through a credit from the Federal Republic of Germany. Land leveling and private tubewell corstruction would be carried out by local contractors under contract with the farmers. Construction contracts for tubewells in Units II and V would be awarded after ICB in accordance with Bank Group guidelines. vii. Main project benefits would come about from a 33% increase in annual crop production and a 46% increase in the net value added. Production of grain crops (rice, maize, millets and wheat) would increase from 225,000 tons at present to 519,000 tons at full project development. Seed cotton would increase from 150,000 tons to 260,000 tons. Some 100,000 farming families would benefit -- 60% of whom are farmers with land holdings less than the average of 12.5 ac. The economic rate of return on project invest- ment would be about 19%. viii. The project is suitable for an IDA credit of US$70 M equivalent. The Borrower would be the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. PAKISTAN APPRAISAL OF THE SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI I. INTRODUCTION 1.01 The Government of Pakistan (GOP) has requested a credit of US$70 M equivalent to assist the construction of the Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (SCARP) VI in the southern Punjab. This would be the third credit by IDA to assist GOP's program to control salinity and waterlogging in the Indus Basin. The first project, SCARP Khairpur, was completed in 1971, and has largely fulfilled its expectations. Implementation of Khairpur II, a tile drainage project, has only recently begun and cannot as yet be evaluated. 1.02 The present project was identified in the Bank's Indus Special Study (ISS) Report of 1967. The Feasibility Report of the project was prepared for the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) of GOP by the Consulting Engineering firm of Tipton and Kalmbach of the United States in 1968. In 1975, Sabasun Technical Services, a Pakistani consultant firm, updated the report. The present report is based on the findings of an Appraisal Mission comprising Messrs. A. Seager, M. Fireman and C.J. Perry (IDA) and W. Backiewicz, J.B. Downs and H. Vieilhescaze (Consultants) who visited Pakistan in October/ November 1976. II. BACKGROUND The Economy 2.01 Pakistan covers about 197 M ac of which only about 47 M ac or 24% are cultivable. Of this, about 33 M ac are irrigated, mostly by the Indus River and its tributaries. Population is around 73 M and increasing at about 3% per annum. 2.02 Following a decade during the 1960s of sustained and rapid economic growth, Pakistan's economy stagnated during the early 1970s. This was caused by a variety of factors: in the agricultural sector the impact of the high yielding varieties introduced in the mid-1960s and the rapid growth of invest- ment in private tubewells began to fade; in industry, the disruption of the separation from Bangladesh and the deterioration in terms of trade due pri- marily to increased oil prices were the main causes of reduced growth. As a result, per capita income in 1975 was little different from that in 1970 (Rs 1,435). In 1976, there were signs of revival in economic activity, en- couraged by GOP's action to increase resource mobilization and, in the agri- cultural sector, to improve prices paid to farmers which, by the early 1970s had deteriorated relative to both world prices and the internal price of inputs. The present six-year plan projects substantial annual increases in agricultural production (4.5%), which would make Pakistan self-sufficient in wheat and increase exports of cotton and rice sharply. However, a growth - 2 - rate of 3% to 4% per annum would appear a more realistic projection. The technological base to sustain such a rate has existed since the second half of the 1960s and 3-4% growth could he achieved, given reasonable price incentives for inputs and outputs and improvrements in the agricultural extension service. Agriculture and Irrigation in the Indus Basin 1/ 2.03 As rainfall on the Indtis Basin plains, especially in the south, is inadequate for satisfactory crop growth, irrigation from rivers, using the high monsoonal summer flows, has been a feature of agricultural production since about 2500 B.C. Since the 1870s, barrages have been constructed ena- bling year-round irrigation. The surface system, the largest basin system in the world, was completely controlled by barrages by 1963. The use of ground- water, where suitable, while always an integral feature of the system, has developed very rapidly since the early 1960s. At present, some 160,000 tube- wells are in operation. Storage reservoirs on the Indus at Tarbela (9.-3 M ac-ft capacity) and Chasma (0.9 M ac-ft) and Mangla (5.4 M ac-ft) on the Jhelum, augment winter flows. The area aad production of the major crops, almost entirely a function of water from the rivers, wells and reservoirs, is approximately as follows: Wheat {ice (Milled) Cotton (Seed) Sugarcane Area (M ac) 15.1 3.1 4.6 1.5 Production (M tons) 8.5 2.4 1.9 22.7 Yield (tons/ac) 0.6 0.66 0.45 14.5 Of the major crops, cotton is especially subject to seasonal variations in yield due to floods and insect pests. 2.04 Drainage, a vital adjunct to irrigation, was not provided on any scale until the 1960s and therefore the water table has risen in many areas to levels where it hampers crop pioduction. Also, irrigation water is often thinly spread, allowing salts to tuild up in the crop root zones. Consequently, waterlogging and salinization have impeded production in many areas, as the following figures show: 1/ For a more detailed description see Pakistan Special Agricultural Sector Review (922a-PAK, 1976). -3- Indus Basin Punjab Province M ac % of CCA 2/ M ac % of CCA Ia Waterlogging Severe (wazer table less than 5 ft) 6.5 16.7 2.6 10 Moderate 10.4 26.7 5.2 20 Total Affected 16.9 43.4 7.8 30 Salinity Severe 9.1 23.3 2.6 10 Slight to Moderate 10.4 26.7 7.8 30 Total Affected 19.5 50.0 10.4 40 /a CCA = Culturable Commanded Area. The figures are not cumulative or self exclusive: land may be affected by waterlogging, or salinity, or both. 2.05 The Government's Salinity Control and Reclamation Program (SCARP) was conceived in the late 1950s. Its first project became operational in 1963. To date, more than 8,000 publicly owned tubewells have been installed in both saline and fresh groundwater areas, mainly to lower the water table and, where possible, to enable reclamation and increase irrigation. Private enterprise has installed over 150,000 tubewells in areas where the ground- water is suitable for irrigation. However, in areas where the groundwater is saline, and in fresh groundwater areas where the water table is so high that profitable irrigation cannot take place without first lowering the water table, little or no private groundwater development has taken place. Project Formulation 2.06 In many parts of the SCARP VI area, in both the fresh and saline groundwater zones, the water table is so high that it interferes with profit- able agriculture. Consequently, fresh water tubewell development, while sub- stantial, lags behind that of the rest of the Punjab. In addition to the effects of the high water table, some of the soils have become saline due to deliberate under-irrigation by farmers. Consequently, in 1967 the ISS report had established that remedial action would be necessary to lower the water table, dispose of saline effluent and to provide more irrigation water to leach the salt-affected soils. A project plan was prepared in 1968. In 1973, when the Federal Planning Commission prepared its "Proposals for an Accelerated Program for Salinity and Waterlogging Control", the need for the project was reaffirmed. -4- III. THE PROJECT AREA General 3.01 The SCARP VI area is in the Bahawalpur Division of the Punjab. It covers about 1.7 M ac, of which 1.47 M ac are canal commanded. It is oblong in shape: about 25 mi wide and about 100 mi long. It is bounded by the Cholistan Desert to the east and the Indus River to the west. 3.02 The project area has been divided into five units for development purposes, according to a combination of irrigation regime and the quality of underlying groundwater (Map 12601). Unit I, which has fresh groundwater, is already being developed by WAPDA by installing tubewells which will eventually be operated and maintained by the Irrigation Department; the groundwater will be used conjunctively with canal waters. It comprises about 200,000 ac. The proposed IDA project comprises Units II to V, totalling 1.27 M ac. Of these, Units IV and V (76,000 ac and 464,000 ac, respectively) are mainly perennially irrigated by surface systems and underlain by saline groundwater; Units II and III, 340,000 ac and 390,000 ac respectively, receive non-perennial surface irrigation and are underlain by fresh groundwater, as shown in the table below: Perennially Seasonally Total Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated Groundwater ------------------- ('000 ac CCA) ----------------- Unit II 10 330 340 Fresh Unit III - 390 390 Fresh Unit IV 72 4 76 Saline Unit V 419 45 464 Saline Total 501 769 1,270 Climate 3.03 The climate is arid. Annual rainfall averages under four inches with most occurring in July and August. There are two main seasons: the rabi (winter) and the kharif (sumimer). In the rabi (October-March), humi- dity is low and low temperatures keep monthly pan evaporation below three inches per month (Annex 1). Frost in December and January is not uncommon. Generally, cloud cover is slight. In the kharif (April-September), humidity is higher and temperatures may reach 118°F and rarely drop below 80 0F. Pan evaporation is then up to eight inches per month. Wind velocities are generally low but in the kharif cccasional sand storms occur. Population 3.04 The population of the project area is approximately 1.4 million; 80% live in the rural areas, and the total agricultural labor force is estimated at 300,000. The main towns in the area are Rahimyar Khan (population 74,000), Khanpur (60,000) and Sadiqabad (55,000). -5- Farm Size and Land Tenure 3.05 The distribution of farm sizes within the project area is shown below. Farm Size % of Total % of Total (ac) Farms Area 0 - 2.5 6 1 2.5 - 7.5 21 7 7.5 - 12.5 30 20 12.5 - 25 30 32 25 - 50 10 20 over 50 3 20 Present legislation limits land holdings to 150 ac of irrigated land. Of the total cultivated area of the project, 45% is farmed by the owner and 55% by tenants. However, many farm units, amounting to 25% of the project area, comprise both operator's own land and land rented or leased. The reason is as much an effort to augment farm units as to consolidate them. Consequently, individual landowners may well be lessors and lessees of land. The predominant tenancy arrangement provides that all taxes and water charges are paid by the landowner; seasonal input costs, and the crop, are shared equally between tenant and owner. However, tenants grow fodder entirely for their own use and in return provide work animals for the farm; the landlord provides housing for his tenants and credit for inputs. Soils and Topography 3.06 Soils in the project area are mostly coarse to medium textured, cal- careous and therefore slightly alkaline, low in organic matter and nitrogen, low to moderately low in phosphorous and well supplied with potash. Most of the soils are quite permeable, well aggregated and non-erosive, have moderate water holding capacities and are resistant to alkali hazards. In short, the project area soils are as good and have as high a development potential as any in Pakistan. Except along the edge of the Cholistan Desert where there are sand dunes, the land is relatively flat. Its slopes are of the order of 1 in 5,000, towards the south/southeast along the course of the Indus River and towards the Cholistan Desert. Natural drainageways are ill-defined and in- adequate. Soil salinity and alkali problems, and waterlogging exacerbated by irrigation for the last five decades, now affect a considerable proportion of the project area (Annex 2). Salinity and Alkalinity 3.07 On the basis of a soil survey comprising approximately 11,000 samples, it is evident that approximately 350,000 ac is sufficiently saline to affect crop growth. Some 160,000 ac of this area, also require alkali reclamation. The remainder would require only leaching with about 2 ft - 6 - of water for complete restoration of productivity. The alkali soils would require chemical amendment (up to 5 tons/ac of gypsum), followed by leaching with 2 ft of water to make them economically productive (Annex 2). All recla- mation works would depend on effective control of the water table. Waterlogging and Drainage 3.08 The water table is at c, ft or less under 10% of the project area, and between 5 and 10 ft under a further 50Z - a considerably higher level than in most of the Province. The high water table impairs crop growth and contributes to soil salinization. Irrigation 3.09 For several centuries the project area was irrigated by inundation canals that tapped the high flows of the river during the kharif. Rabi crop- ping was supported either by residual moisture from kharif inundations or by open wells. Most of the 18,000 dug vells date from this period; some 9,000 are still in use. In 1930, the whole project area came under controlled canal irrigation from the Panjnad Barrage, commanded by the Panjnad canal (CCA 1.35 M ac) and the Abbasia canal (CCA 154,000 ac). About one-third of the total area is perennially irrigated. 3.10 The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 between India and Pakistan reserved the total flows of the Indus Basin's three eastern rivers (the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) for India. HistoricaLly, most of the project area's water supply was provided by the Sutlej. Therefore, under the Indus Basin Project (IBP) replacement works, the Taunsa-Paninad Link Canal connecting the Indus and the Jhelum, was constructed. It has a capacity of up to 12,000 cusecs. Since kharif flows in the Indus are sufficient, supplies in the Panjnad River (as the joint Jhelum-Sutlej River is called) can, in most years, be augmented to supply the projected needs of the SCARP 1V area at the Panjnad Barrage. 3.11 Areas with fresh groundwater (Units II and III) were designed for kharif canal irrigation only (non-perennial). The rabi supplies were to come from wells. Between 1932 and 1976, over 5,000 tubewells were installed in the project area, about 4,600 since 1'l65 and 1,300 since 1974. Most tubewells are around 1 cusec capacity. The tubewells in non-perennial areas are mostly used when the canals do not run; the few tubewells in the perennial areas (Units IV & V) are used conjunctively with canal waters. All but about 1% of the tube- wells are privately owned and operated. The dug wells that are still opera- tional are mostly run by Persian uheels. 3.12 The canal system is operated and maintained by the Irrigation De- partment (ID) of the Ministry of Public Works and Irrigation of GOPunjab. Water allocation to individual farmers is supervised by the patwari (an offi- cial of the Irrigation Department) who is supposed to ensure that each farmer takes water for the number of hours to which his landholding and cropping pattern entitle him. There is a water charge for each irrigated acre; the rate varies from crop to crop (para 5.13). Watercourse channels (which carry - 7 - water to the farms from the ID's canals) are maintained collectively by all the landowners served. The standard of maintenance is highly variable and in general less than optimal. Agricultural Production 3.13 The principal cash crops are cotton in the kharif, wheat in the rabi and sugarcane which is perennial, occupying in all some 70% of the total cropped area. Other important crops are rabi and kharif fodder for the work and milch animals (18-19%), rice and millets in the kharif, and pulses and oilseeds in the rabi (7-8%). The balance (3-5%) is taken up by orchards, vegetables and miscellaneous crops. While the cotton and wheat area is showing a slight increase over time in some localities, there is substitution by millets, rice and pulses in areas where waterlogging and salinity are on the increase. Agricultural Supporting Services 3.14 Agricultural Extension is under the control of the Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture (EADA) in Rahimyar Khan, who reports to a Deputy Director (DDA) in Bahawalpur. He has 20 Agricultural Officers (AO) to whom 84 Field Assistants (FAs) report. There are 147 foreman-laborers (beldars) who handle sprayers and pesticides and assist farmers with spraying (mostly cotton and orchards). An agronomist and a plant protection specialist provide technical support to the field staff. A statistical section collects relevant information on production trends and crop yields. 3.15 The extension service suffers from lack of staff housing and trans- port, as well as a shortage of extension materials. Further, it has inadequate research backing. This is to be corrected, however, under an extension and research project for the Punjab, which IDA is currently appraising. 3.16 The Agricultural Engineering Section of the Agriculture Department assists with physical land reclamation through land leveling and gives advice and assistance with private tubewell design and installation. Agricultural Credit 3.17 Short- and medium-term agricultural credit is primarily provided by the 103 branches of the five nationalized commercial banks: the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), Habib Bank Ltd. (HBL), United Bank Ltd. (UBL), Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., (MCB) and Allied Bank Ltd. (ABL). They entered into agricultural lending operations in 1972 under the GOP-sponsored agricultural small loans scheme. Interest rates are 12%. Due to decentralization of sanctioning power, loans are processed fairly quickly. Primary Processing 3.18 Cotton ginning and cottonseed pressing are major industries with sufficient installed capacity in the 29 ginneries and 17 screw-type expeller plants to handle more than the already substantial cotton crop. The cotton ginning industry was nationalized at the beginning of the 1976-77 season. -8- 3.19 Flour and pulse milling and rice husking are small-scale industries, widely scattered in villages and provide for needs of rural populations. The urban centers mainly receive flour and rice from plants outside the project area. Storage 3.20 The project area produces surplus wheat which is procured by the Government, and also small surpluses of other crops in good years. In 1975 and 1976, when production levels were high, storage facilities were inadequate, and the Government had to store in unsuitable buildings and even in the open, under tarpaulins. There is a clear need for additional storage facilities, and requirements are to be the subject of a study funded by the Canadian Interna- tional Development Agency (CIDA). Terms of reference for the study will be jointly defined by CIDA and the Bank Group. Agricultural Inputs 3.21 Fertilizers are in adequate supply and are available from about 100 privately operated sales points within the project area. Pesticides are sold by the agricultural extension services and by dealers appointed by the major pesticide distributors. Commercial seed supplies are of poor quality and farmers tend to keep their own whenever feasible. The IDA-financed seeds project (Cr. 620-PAK) is expected to provide certified cotton, wheat and rice seeds for sale within the next few years. Transport and Communications 3.22 Road and rail communica:ions in the project area are adequate. The double track Karachi-Khanewal-Lahore railway line traverses its full length. A branch line from Khanpur extends to Chachran, on the Indus. Sections of the Karachi-Peshawar national higlhway and other major metaled roads, all in good repair, total about 400 m:. The extensive unmetaled village road network is constantly being upgracled. Agricultural commodities are moved to the primary and secondary markets by road, in trucks, oxcarts or on camels. Exports to other parts of Pakistan, mainly of wheat and ginned cotton, go by rail. IV. THE PROJECT Project Objectives 4.01 The project works and supporting services would: (a) lower and control the groundwater table at levels which would facilitate agricultural development and would prevent soil salinization; -9- (b) provide increased surface water deliveries, mainly in the kharif when there is surplus water in the rivers, to give adequate supplies for good irrigation management practices and higher cropping intensity; (c) provide safe disposal of saline groundwater; (d) provide additional rabi irrigation to non-perennial areas by increased exploitation of fresh groundwater in the public and private sectors; and (e) level and reclaim land which is saline and uncultivated. Project Components 4.02 Unit I is already being developed by WAPDA. In Units II to V, the project would have the following major components: In all Units: (a) the irrigation canals would be remodeled and new water- courses constructed, to convey the increased supplies needed for more intensive and adequate kharif irrigation; (b) equipment, technical assistance and credit would be made available to farmers for coarse and fine land leveling, estimated to be required on about 100,000 ac; (c) gypsum would be provided to enable the reclamation of approxi- mately 40,000 ac of alkaline land; In addition, the following would be carried out in individual Units: (d) in Unit II, (seasonally irrigated, fresh groundwater): (i) the construction of about 800 public tubewells, ranging in size from 2 to 3 cusecs, with a total capacity of about 2,000 cusecs for rabi irrigation and conjunctive use with the canals in kharif to control the water table; (ii) the construction of 135 public tubewells of 3 cusec capacity and appurtenant works to enable surplus water to be discharged into canals for use downstream. (e) in Unit III (seasonally irrigated, fresh groundwater), pro- vision of credit and technical advice to farmers for the installation of about 2,300 private tubewells (1/2 - 1-1/2 cusec) for rabi irrigation; (f) in Unit IV, where the groundwater is saline but is at a safe depth for the time being, only the works shown under (a) (b) and (c), above, are required. - 10 - (g) in Unit V (perennially irrigated, saline groundwater): (i) construction of 2'O public tubewells of 3 cusec capacity to drain about 300,000 ac and to stabilize the groundwater level at an average of about 7-8 ft (the remaining 163,000 ac of Unit V have lower groundwater levels at present); (ii) construction of a drainage disposal system for the saline effluent which would be taken into five eva- poration ponds to be built in the Cholistan Desert; (h) construction of an electrification network to energize all public tubewells in Units II and V and five pumping stations on the drainage system in the Cholistan Desert; Provisions would also be made for: (i) increasing the availabiLity of credit through the nationalized commercial banks for private tubewells and land leveling; (j) engaging consultants to assist WAPDA in the final design and in the supervision of construction of the project, to prepare operating manuals and o'>ganize the monitoring of project benefits; (k) procuring vehicles and i!quipment necessary for project execution aitd subsequent management; communications and mini-computer equipment for improved operation of the exist- ing and proposed irrigaiion and drainage works in the whole Panjnad Barrage command: (1) providing equipment and vehicles for an existing soils laboratory enabling it to expand its activities to advise on, and monitor the progress of, saline and alkali soil reclamation; (m) procuring surveying instruments as an aid to the systematic planning and execution cf land leveling; and (n) consultant services to assist WAPDA in the final design of new projects, including those identified under the ongoing preparation of a Revised Action Plan, which is financed by UNDP, and for which the Bank is the executing agency. 4.03 Details of the groundwater situation are described in Annex 3. The major project civil works are described in Annex 4 and summarized below. 4.04 Canal remodeling, including the construction of new watercourses, will be necessary to provide additional water in the kharif, first for recla- mation of saline and alkali land bi leaching and later to meet the needs of - ii - expected higher kharif cropping intensities. The new and remodeled watercourses would be built to the same standard as required under GOPunjab's On-Farm Development Project currently being undertaken jointly with USAID. Water made available at peak irrigation requirement would be increased from the present 1 cusec per 100-130 ac irrigated to about 1 cusec per 75 ac. Allowing for the anticipated pumping regime of the Unit II tubewells, the peak flow in the Panjnad and Abbasia canals would have to be increased to 13,000 cusecs and to 1,250 cusecs respectively. These higher flows would require that the branch canals, distributaries, minors and structures be enlarged and some additional parallel minors constructed. Watercourses which are at present carrying in excess of 1-1/2 cusecs would not be enlarged since water management becomes increasingly difficult and inefficient at higher delivery rates. Instead, additional watercourses would be built. 4.05 Land Levelirg would be carried out by contractors and farmers on approximately 100,000 ac which is now saline and therefore out of cultivation. This land would need leveling before it could be effectively leached and, subsequently, cropped. Leveling to the standards of the ongoing Precision Land Leveling Project (PLLP) is estimated to cost about Rs 1,000 per ac. The task would be aided by the provision of suitable agricultural tractors and scrapers and by training and equipping staff in the Agricultural Engineering Section to help farmers organize the work efficiently and on a technically sound basis (para 4.17 and Annex 5). Credit would be made available to support this work (para 4.14). 4.06 Land Reclamation using gypsum to combat alkalinity would be needed on about 160,000 ac. Such work would only be effective after the drainage, provided under the project, is installed. Consequently, it is expected that during the implementation time of this project only about 40,000 ac would be ready for reclamation by these means. Properly prepared for marketing and distributed in bulk, the gypsum should cost about Rs 200 per ton at retail sales points; about 5 tons per ac would be required. This technique has not been previously used in Pakistan and much work is required to develop ways of efficiently working gypsum deposits, preparing the material in a form suitable for farm use and establishing suitable means of transport and dis- tribution. Given the need for development work and the possibility of initially high costs, the gypsum required during project implementation would be a project cost. Agreement was reached during negotiations with GOPunjab that: (i) by June 30, 1978, it would have prepared and discussed with IDA plans, and a related implementation schedule, to ensure supplies of gypsum to project area farmers, and (ii) annually, during the project implementation period, it would discuss with IDA the price to be paid by farmers for gypsum and any subsidy to be granted to its users. 4.07 In Unit II fresh groundwater development would be in the public sector. This is justified and necessary because a major source of high grotndwater levels is excessive leakage from the major canals passing through the area (estimated to be about 365,000 ac-ft/yr at present). Canal lining would be difficult and expensive since the main canals are perennial and - 12 - would have to be by-passed during lining. The recharge to the aquifer in the area under full project development is expected to be around 965,000 ac-ft per annum, which would be developed approximately as follows: Tubewell Capacity (cusecs) No. Irrigation ( 2.0 286 wells ( 2.5 160 ( 3.0 350 Export wells 3.0 135 Total - 931 The water from the irrigation wells would be discharged directly into the watercourses and would be used vainly in the rabi when surface supplies are not available. The annual utilization factor would be about 47% or 4,150 hours per well. The 135 export tubewells of 3 cusec capacity would pump exclusively to lift water into the canal system, to be conveyed to Unit V. These wells would operate at 70% utilization or about 6,150 hours a year. 4.08 In Unit III, the groundwater would be developed in the private sector. The groundwater level in this Unit is stable under the present canal regime and operating pattern of the approximately 2,000 private tubewells already in the area, which abstract an estimated 200,000 ac-ft per annum. At full project development, a further 440,000 a2-ft per annum would be abstracted, mainly during the rabi, by more intense operation of the existing wells and installa- tion of about 2,270 additional private wells. The increased abstraction would be made possible primarily by the increased recharge during kharif following canal remodeling. Prizate rather than public development is appro- priate in Unit III because it is technically feasible, many farmers can afford it, and scarce public funds are more beneficially allocated to Units II, IV, and V where development Ls only feasible in the public sector. In Unit III, private development is already substantial and conditions are favorable for further progress, given adequate technical and financial support which would be provided under the project (para 4.14). 4.09 In Unit IV, the groundwater is now at a safe depth. The available groundwater models show that the Unit is receiving most of its inflows from Unit I, where the water table at present is very high. When development of this Unit is completed in 1978 and the water table appropriately lowered (para 3.02) the models show that the underground inflow to most of Unit IV will cease. Thus, the drainable surplus will disappear by the underground flow into the Cholistan Desert (Annex 3). Therefore, works under the present project would be confined to those described under paras 4.04 to 4.06. 4.10 Saline Water Drainage in Unit V would be effected by about 250 tubewells of 3 cusec capacity. To remove the drainable surplus and stabilize the water table, an annual pumpage of 380,000 ac-ft would be required, giving - 13 - a well operating factor of about 70% or 6,150 hours per annum. To maximize water table control, the wells would be placed on a triangular grid as far as possible, each draining approximately 1,200 ac. The pumps, motors and the screens would be of materials that withstand the chemical action of saline water. 4.11 Saline Effluent Disposal would be through drainage canals into five evaporation ponds in the Cholistan Desert. Annual evaporation is expected to be about 80" as against 100" of fresh water. The amount to be evaporated would be about 380,000 ac-ft (para 4.10). Therefore, the total area of the ponds would be about 57,000 ac. 4.12 Pumping stations would be provided to lift the water from the drain- age canals into the evaporating ponds. Each station would have four 24-inch axial flow pumps of 38 cusec capacity, having a 10-ft lifting head; one pump would serve as a standby. 4.13 Electrification would be provided to all tubewells in Units II and V and to the five effluent pumping stations. Works required would include the erection of approximately 1,120 mi of 11 kV, 55 mi of 66 kV and 24 mi of 132 kV lines and six grid stations. The network lines constructed for electrifying tubewells and pumping stations would also contribute to the ongoing village electrification program. No specific provision would be made for electrifica- tion of private tubewells in Unit III, most of which would be powered by diesel engines, though an estimated 10% would have access to existing electricity supplies. Provision of electricity to the many small, private tubewells would be expensive, involving a very dense distribution network. 4.14 Credit would be provided to farmers under the project to support land leveling (para 4.05) and private tubewell development (para 4.08). In each case, farmers would provide at least 25% of the investment from their own resources and be eligible for a six-year loan at 12% to cover the remainder from participating commercial banks (CBs). The CBs would, in turn, be able to refinance half of their advances from the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). The GOP would provide funds to SBP from the proposed credit to cover SBP's refinanc- ing. The SBP would charge CBs 6%, and GOP would charge SBP 5%. These interest rate spreads are satisfactory (Annex 6). 4.15 The GOP at present provides a grant of Rs 8,000 to farmers installing a private tubewell. The grant is restricted to farmers (or groups of farmers) owning at least 25 ac of land. This discriminates against smaller farmers and discourages the use of small 1/4 to 1/2 cusec tubewells which have been suc- cessful under similar conditions in other countries. While a subsidy for tubewells does not appear necessary on financial grounds and would be reviewed (para 5.16) under the project, a first step would be to remove the existing discrimination. Accordingly, assurances have been obtained from GOP that insofar as GOP continued to subsidize the investment costs of private tube- wells, grants would be made available to project area farmers irrespective of the size of landholdings. 4.16 Consultants would be engaged to advise and assist WAPDA in prepar- ing the final design of the project, to prepare procurement and contract - 14 - documents as well as to supervise construction. They would also develop the computer model to optimize operation of the entire Panjnad Barrage irrigation system. An estimated 310 man-morths of consultants would be required for this over a six-year period, at an estimated total cos-, including overheads, travel, and reimbursable expenses of US$9,600 per man-month (Annex 7). In addition, finance would be providad under the project to assist WAPDA in the final design of other projects. Following the completion of the ongoing Master Planning Project financed by UNDP in 1978, and meanwhile based on existing plans for high priority orojects, these services would be used to ensure a pipeline of well preparel projects consistent with an integrated overall development plan. 4.17 Vehicles would be proviled to the executing agency -- WAPDA -- to be passed on to the operating ageicy when WAPDA withdraws one year after project completion. Specialized !quipment would include a mini-computer which would program the operation of tht whole canal system, including pumpage in Unit II, to control the groundwatetr. The soils laboratory at Bahawalpur would require additional equipment and :ransport to be effective in the soils recla- mation program. The agricultural engineering section would be provided with 40 tractors of 65-75 hp, with sui::ably scaled scrapers and chisel plows for fine land leveling and deep ripping of areas where a hard pan prevents root penetration and drainage. Survey equipment, for use by the agricultural engineer and his staff to mark oul. fields for fine leveling, would be provided (Annex 8). The project would als( finance the purchase and installation of two center-pivot sprinkler system .-, estimated to cost Rs 1.1 M, for trials in the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan. The units would be installed on land where the topography is rlIling so that land leveling for surface irrigation is prohibitively expenmiive, and high value crops would be grown on a trial basis by the Provincial Departments of Agriculture. 4.18 The Agricultural Extension service would be improved under a sepa- rate project for strengthening agricultural extension and research in Punjab which is now under appraisal (pare 3.15). 4.19 Grain Storage facilities for wheat procured by the Government are inadequate and need augmenting (para 3.20). However, a solution can best be found within an all-Pakistan framEwork. The Canadian International Develop- ment Agency (CIDA) are shortly commencing a study of the situation. Terms of reference have been discussed with IDA; the study itself is expected to be completed in 1978. Assurances hiave been obtained from GOP that by June 30, 1979 an all-Pakistan plan on how GOP proposes to improve grain storage prob- lems, including proposals satisfactory to IDA for storing grain produced in the project area, would be presented to IDA, and by July 1, 1980, it would commence implementation of such a elan in the SCARP VI area. Water Supply, Demand and Quality 4.20 Present irrigation supplies are not sufficient for the existing cropping patterns adopted by farme-s (Annex 9). The consequent under- irrigation contributes in part to :he low yields and the salinization of soils. In the future, kharif wtter requirements under the project would - 15 - be higher than at present; the remodeling of the canal system would enable them to be met from surplus river flows. Future rabi water requirements of the design cropping pattern for the perennial areas will in part have to be met from storage. In an average year about 355,000 ac-ft would be required to supplement historic, post-IBP rabi flows at the Panjnad Barrage. Assur- ances have been obtained from GOPunjab that they would provide the future water requirements of Units IV and V. 4.21 The design and operating plan of the Panjnad Barrage system calls for closure of the non-perennial canals (in Units II and III) from November to March, inclusive. During the past few years. however, the canals have been allowed to run until late November and some-Lia - again in January. This was possible because in recent years there were more than average flows in the rivers. However, in average years there is no such excess during the rabi season. Extending the period of surface irrigation in Unit III has two effects: firstly, existing private tubewells need to pump less, while recharge to the aquifer is increased - thus increasing the likelihood of waterlogging, and secondly the incentive to install more private tubewells is reduced. Since there are other canal commands where the extra deliveries could be equally productive, including ones where there is no scope for pri- vate groundwater development, it would be desirable to maximize the incenti.er for private development and control of the groundwater in Unit III by enforc- ing the traditional canal closure date of October 31. Accordingly, assurances have been obtained from GOPunjab that, by October 31, 1980, no surface water would be provided to Unit III from about October 31 to about March 31. 4.22 The quality of the river water is good and with proper irrigation practices no ill ef ei.ts to the soil should result. The groundwater in Units II and III is also of good quality and suitable for irrigation. Implementation Schedule 4.23 The overall expected implementation period of the project would be six years. The first year would be spent mainly in final design, procurement of equipment and vehicles, preparation of tender documents for civil works and in promotional efforts for the private tubewell program in Unit III. The major physical works would start in the second year and be completed by the end of the sixth year (Annex 10). 4.24 Comprehensive schedules for construction, implementation and budget requirements are to be prepared annually by all concerned agencies for review and coordination by WAPDA (NZ). Assurances have been obtained from GOP and WAPDA that adequate and timely funds would be provided for project implementa- tion, according to estimates prepared by General Manager WAPDA (NZ). Assurances have also been obtained from WAPDA that the annual implementation schedule, together with budgetary estimates for the coming financial year, would be submitted to IDA by March 31st of each year of implementation. - 16 - Project Costs 4.25 Total project costs would be about US$170.0 M equivalent (including taxes and duties of US$3.6 M) of which the foreign exchange component would be US$46.5 M or 27% of the total. Tubewell costs are based on recent experience in Pakistan. The cost of canal remodeling, the excavation of drains and the construction of the evaporation ponds are based on the preliminary designs and estimates, and on the costs of similar work recently carried out in Pakistan. Consultant costs are based on US$9,600 per man-month including local and foreign travel, recruitment and housing costs. An overall physical contingency of 12% is included; canal remodeling and drainage disposal works carry 15% physical contingency. Price escalation has been calculated according to Bank projections for inflation of 9%/yr up to 1980 and 8%/yr thereafter for local costs, and 8%, 7.5% and 7% for 1978, 1979 and 1980-83, respectively for foreign costs. Taking account of the schedule of expenditure, overall price escalation would be 36%. A summary of cost estimates is given below, and details are shown in Annex 11. O&M costs, which would be financed by WAPDA during project con- struction, are estimated at US$11.9 M equivalent, including price escalation. - 17 - Rs Million US$ Million % Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Total I. Land Acquisition 19.9 - 19.9 2.0 - 2.0 2 II. Civil Works Canal Remodeling 166.5 13.5 180.0 16.8 1.4 18.2 16 Unit II Tubewells ard Drains 77.4 48.3 125.7 7.8 4.9 12.7 11 Unit V Tubewells 22.5 36.5 59.0 2.3 3.7 6.0 5 Electrification Works 164.6 9.3 173.9 16.6 0.9 17.5 15 Drainage Works 139.4 27.2 166.6 14.1 2.7 16.8 15 Subtotal 570.4 134.8 705.2 57.6 13.6 71.2 62 III. On-Farm Investments Unit III Tubewells 41.4 19.0 60.4 4.2 1.9 6.1 5 Land Leveling 85.0 15.0 100.0 8.6 1.5 10.1 9 Gypsum 36.0 4.0 40.0 3.6 0.4 4.0 4 Subtotal 162.4 38.0 200.4 16.4 3.8 20.2 18 IV. Equipment and Vehicles Canal Remodeling Equipment 12.5 32.0 44.5 1.3 3.2 4.5 4 Electrical Components 24.4 62.3 86.7 2.5 6.3 8.8 8 Transport, Leveling Equipment, Computer/ Communications, 4.9 17.2 22.1 0.5 1.7 2.2 2 Spares & Miscel- laneous --- - Subtotal 41.8 111.5 153.3 4.2 11.3 15.5 14 V. Consultants 5.0 46.8 51.8 0.5 4.7 5.2 5 Base Cost 799.5 331.1 1,130.6 80.8 33.4 114.2 100 VI. Physical Con- tingency 103.9 36.1 140.0 10.5 3.6 14.1 VII. Expected Price Increases 319.0 93.2 412.2 32.2 9.5 41.7 TOTAL 1,222.4 460.4 1,682.8 123.5 46.5 170.0 O&M During Construction 96.2 21.4 117.6 9.7 2.2 11.9 Summary of Proposed Financing (RsM) Category Total IDA UK KFW GOP CB Farmers Land Acquisition 27.7 27.7 Civil Works 984.9 445.5 74.2 465.2 On Farm Investments 287.9 103.9 56.3 76.4 51.2 Equipment and Vehicles 183.0 54.5 78.2 50.3 Consultants 59.3 59.3 Base Cost Including Price Escalation 1,542.8 608.8 128.7 78.2 599.5 76.4 51.2 Physical Contingency i4u.u 84.2 19.8 4.0 19.2 7.6 5.2 Total (RsM) 1,682.8 693.0 148.5 82.2 618.7 84.0 56.4 US$M 170.0 70.0 15.0 8.3 62.5 8.5 5.7_ Percentage Distribution 100 41 9 5 37 5 3 - 19 - Financing 4.26 The proposed IDA credit of US$70 M together with a credit under terms similar to IDA's, of DM 20 M (US$8.3 M equivalent) from the Federal Republic of Germany through the Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau (KfW) and a grant of US$15 H equivalent from the United Kingdom, would finance 56% of total project costs, excluding taxes and duties, and cover the full foreign exchange costs of the project and approximately 39% of the local costs (page 17 and Annex 11). Other funds required for the project would be provided by GOP, as a loan to GOPunjab (US$62.5 M equivalent); commercial banks (US$8.5 M equivalent), and farmers' own resources (US$5.7 M equivalent). The fulfill- ment by the Borrower, GOPunjab and WAPDA of all conditions of effectiveness of the grant from the UK and the credit from West Germany would be a condition of credit effectiveness. Procurement 4.27 Project components to be financed by IDA include canal remodeling, Unit II and Unit V tubewells, electrification works, on-farm development, the provision of gypsum for land reclamation, and consultant services. Canal remodeling (costing an estimated US$28.2 M equivalent including contingencies) would be scattered over a large area and would have to be phased with seasonal agricultural activities and could not be so contractually packaged as to be likely to be attractive to international contractors. Work scheduling would depend on agricultural seasons; consequently, this component is not suitable for international competitive bidding (ICB). Therefore, contracts would be let through local competitive bidding (LCB). Tubewell construction in Units II and V, estimated to cost the equivalent of US$17.8 M and US$9.4 M respec- tively, would be through ICB in which Pakistani firms would have a 7-1/2% preference. Similar procedures would be used for construction of the elec- trification system (costing US$26.8 M equivalent). Consultants (costing US$6.4 M equivalent) would be selected in line with IDA guidelines (para 5.08). Gypsum (US$6.6 M) would be obtained through LCB from suitable local contractors (likely to be fertilizer manufacturers and/or distributors) who would supply it according to prescribed specifications, in bulk, at the dealers' sales point. 4.28 The KfW would finance the foreign exchange cost of imported and locally manufactured electrification components (estimated to cost US$11.8 M equivalent) procured through its own international competitive bidding pro- cedures. These components would be supplied to the contractors constructing the electrification system. 4.29 The UK grant would finance equipment needed for canal remodeling and other construction purposes (US$7.8 M equivalent). Such equipment would be procured from UK suppliers. The UK would also finance the foreign exchange components and part of the local costs of the drainage disposal system and evaporating ponds (US$27.8 M equivalent) with procurement according to its own procedures. - 20 - 4.30 On-farm investments by farmers (US$24.5 M equivalent) comprise private tubewells in Unit III ancL land leveling. Farmers would have freedom of choice in procuring the goods and services involved. 4.31 Land required for the project (US$2.9 M equivalent) would be pro- cured by GOPunjab for WAPDA. Disbursements 4.32 Disbursements of the proposed IDA and KfW credits and UK grant would be made as follows: IDA Credit (a) 50% of net credits to farmers made by participating com- mercial banks for on-farm investments including private tubewells and land leveling; (b) 100% of expenditures for approved consultant services; (c) 100% of foreign expenditures for directly imported goods, or 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory) for goods manufactured locally, or 50% of expenditures for other goods procured locally; (d) 100% of the foreign expenditures and 50% of the local expenditures on canal remodeling, Unit II and Unit V tubewells, and electrification works. KfW (Germany) Credit (e) 100% of the foreign exchange cost of imported and domestically manufactured electrical components and equipment; United Kingdom Grant (f) 100% of the foreign exc!iange costs of the canal re- modeling equipment; (g) 100% of the foreign exchange cost of the drainage works and 30% of the local costs. (h) 100% of the foreign exchange cost of transport, leveling equipment, mini-compute:. 4.33 Some US$10.9 M equivalent (12%) of the credits and grant would be unallocated and reserved for contingencies. Disbursements against credits extended to farmers for on-farm investments would be made against certified statements of expenditure submitted by GOP and based on the documentation which would be held by GOP for review by Supervision Missions. All other disbursements would be made against full documentation. It is expected - 21 - that disbursements would be completed by June 30, 1984, six months after project completion. A schedule of estimated disbursements and proposed credit allocation is given in Annex 11. Any amounts not used by the project would be cancelled unless, subject to IDA concurrence, other suitable project related expenditures are identified. Accounts and Audit 4.34 Project accounts would be maintained separately, and in a readily identifiable form. This would enable them to be audited separately from WAPDA's overall accounts by an independent external auditor thereby ensuring their timely availability. Accordingly, assurances have been obtained from GOP that: (i) separate accounts would be established and maintained for project expenditures by the Project Director; (ii) these accounts would be audited annually by an independent auditor acceptable to IDA; (iii) accounts of loans by the CBs to farmers under this project would be recorded separately and audited annually and consolidated by SBP, and (iv) copies of all the project accounts and SBP consolidated accounts for project related items would be sent to IDA not later than six months after the end of each financial year. V. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT Project Implementation 5.01 Civil Works. In this project, as in all other SCARPs, WAPDA would be the agency responsible for project civil works, including canal remodeling (where necessary, including water courses), public tubewells, electrification, drains, pumping stations and evaporation ponds. WAPDA would be responsible also for the procurement of equipment and vehicles required under the project. The General Manager (GM) of WAPDA Northern Zone (NZ) would have overall responsibility for the final design and construction of the civil works. The Director (Planning), WAPDA (NZ), in Lahore, under the GM (NZ), would carry out the final design. A project construction unit (also under GM (NZ)), headed by a Project Director would be established and made responsible for the construction. The Unit, based in Rahimyar Khan, would have four divisions-- Irrigation, Drainage, Mechanical and Electrical, and Agriculture and Monitoring (Annex 12). 5.02 On-Farm Investments comprise private tubewells in Unit III, land leveling on about 100,000 ac and soil amelioration with gypsum on about 40,000 ac. Private tubewells would be installed by several contractors, in- cluding the Agricultural Engineering Section of the Agricultural Department which operates in Rahimyar Khan and the nearby Bahawalpur, Multan and Sukkur Districts. These contractors have capabilities to sink between 800 and 1,000 wells a year. - 22 - 5.03 Land leveling would be planned and supervised by trained surveyors from the Agricultural Engineering Section, who would mark out the fields and check the completed work. The surveyors would be trained by PLLP to the same standard of proficiency as their own staff. An assurance has been obtained from GOPunjab that it would provice the necessary training to, and approve the post of, at least six additional surveyors in the Agricultural Engineering Section by December 31, 1978, to enable them to plan and supervise precision land leveling in the SCARP VI area. 5.04 The actual leveling would be carried out either by the Department of Agriculture or by private contractors according to farmer choice. Assur- ances have been obtained from GOPunjab that the Department of Agriculture bulldozer strength in the Rahimyar Khan District would be maintained at least at the present level of 25 operating units while the demand for their services exists, and the tractors provided to the Department under the project would at all times give priority to land leveling work. 5.05 After leveling and bunding, an estimated 160,000 ac would require reclamation with gypsum. However, it is estimated that only about 40,000 ac would be reclaimed during the project implementation period of six years. Gypsum requirements would be determined by the soils laboratory in Bahawalpur, which is attached to the Agricultural Research Station. The laboratory would be expanded under the project to do the required analyses (Annex 2). Staff attached to it would identify the problem in the field and provide the neces- sary advice. An assurance has beea obtained from GOPunjab that the soils laboratory at Bahawalpur would be expanded and staffed to provide adequate technical support for the soil reclamation works to be carried out both during the project implementation period mnd thereafter, until all necessary reclama- tion works have been completed in the project area. Agricultural Supporting Services 5.06 Agricultural extension would be the responsibility of the Punjab Department of Agriculture. An IDA project to improve extension services is currently being appraised, and wiould include the SCARP VI area. 5.07 Fertilizer production, oni stream or planned, is adequate for the whole of Pakistan until the late 1980s. The present distribution system and its planned expansion is also adequate to meet increased demands. Suffi- cient quantities of high quality seeds will soon become available under an ongoing IDA project (Cr. 620-PAK). Because of the increased area under cotton, and the increase in demand resulting from an improved extension service, pest control activities would have to be stepped up considerably (Annex 13). Assurances have been obtained from GOPunjab that it would ensure the supply of suitable pesticides and sprayers to meet the increasing demands of project area farmers. Consultants 5.08 WAPDA would appoint consultants to help with the final design of the project as well as to supervise corLstruction. The consulting group would - 23 - include specialists in irrigation, drainage, land reclamation, agriculture power, geo-hydrology and tubewell development. Up to six man-months would be devoted to assist GOPunjab with a study directed towards devising a system of water charges more appropriate to present and future needs than that used at present (para 5.16). The estimated requirement for consultants required for SCARP VI would be 310 man-months (Annex 7). The consultants working directly on the project would have the full-time support of WAPDA and Irrigation Department staff, including that of WAPDA's power wing. They would prepare operating and maintenance manuals for the project works including specifica- tion of maintenance standards and allowable deterioration for public tubewells. In particular, they would define precisely the degree of deterioration per- missible in any well before rebuilding or replacement becomes necessary. The appointment of the consultants required for final design of SCARP VI would be a condition of credit effectiveness. Coordination of Works 5.09 As is the normal practice for the implementation of projects in Pakistan, and in order to synchronize the efforts of all concerned, two coor- dinating committees would be created: a Project Coordination Committee (PCC) based in the project area in Rahimyar Khan and a Project Steering Committee (PSC) in Lahore. The PCC would be chaired by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur with the Project Director appointed as Vice Chairman. Its members would include but not be confined to Director (Planning) of WAPDA (NZ), the Deputy Commissioner of the Rahimyar Khan District, Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department in charge of the Panjnad Barrage and Command, Deputy Director of Agriculture of Rahimyar Khan District, the District Superintending Engineer of WAPDA's Power Wing, representatives of the CBs giving credit to farmers in the project area, and representatives of the farming community in the area. It would meet regularly and deal with problems and difficulties arising from project coordination and implementation. 5.10 The PSC would be chaired by GOPunjab's Additional Chief Secretary of Planning and Development. Its members would be the Secretary of Agricul- ture (GOPunjab), Secretary of Irrigation (GOPunjab), Commissioner of Bahawalpur Division, WAPDA General Manager (NZ), and WAPDA General Manager - Power Wing. Both the PCC and PSC would have the power to coopt additional members as appropriate. The establishment of the PCC and PSC would be a condition of credit effectiveness. Operation and Maintenance 5.11 WAPDA would be responsible for operating project works for at least one year after completion of all components and for attending to all problems arising during this period. After the trial year, and if overall project performance is satisfactory, the project would be transferred to the Punjab Irrigation Department. Total project operating and maintenance costs, includ- ing replacements are estimated to cost an average of about Rs 70 M/yr at - 24 - present prices (Annex 4). Assurances have been obtained from WAPDA and GOPunjab that they would make adequate and timely budgetary provisions to cover these costs and provide adequate staff levels to satisfactorily operate and maintain the project facilities. 5.12 For accurate assessment of project benefits, cropping and produc- tion data are required regularly. At present, the Department of Agriculture collects crop area and yield data on a sample basis; the Revenue and Irriga- tion Departments compile information on total cropped areas, but not yield. Private tubewell development is at present recorded by the Department of Agriculture. Under the project, such information would be collated by WAPDA's Central Monitoring Organization (CMO) which would then be in a position to fill any perceived gaps in data gathering. Assurances have been obtained from WAPDA that CMO would conduct a benchmark survey and update it every two years, to record changes in crop productioa brought about by the project. Cost Recovery 5.13 Direct recovery of con3truction and operating and maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage projects in Pakistan is partially effected through Provincial water charges. In Punjab, water charges vary between crops, and a farmer's liability is calculated as the area he has under each crop multiplied by the respective rate for the crop. Though rates vary substantially, (e.g. fodder rate = Rs 6.40/ac, orchard rate = Rs 33.60/ac), in all cases charges form an insignificant proportion of the value of crops per acre, and hence have virtually no effect on the mix of crops that is grown. 5.14 According to budget statistics, water charges form only about 2.5% of the national tax income, but provide about 30% of tax revenues directly collected by the Provincial gove^-nments. Expenditures on O&M alone account for about 40% of direct Provincial revenues, and need to be increased if satisfactory standards of maintenance are to be achieved. Consequently, present water charges are inadequate to cover O&M costs, let alone the recovery of construction costs. 5.15 There is a pressing need to increase national tax income in Pak- istan, not only to meet irrigation and drainage system costs but to better maintain and to improve the whole spectrum of Government infrastructure and services. Farm budget analyses and estimates of the value of water to farmers made in the appraisal of this project indicate that substantially increased water charges or increased taxat:ion could be borne by project beneficiaries. However, the appropriate level and structure of water charges cannot be treated satisfactorily on a project specific basis, since the irrigation and drainage system in the Province is highly integrated and interdependent between areas. In addition, issues of equity arise between farmers having different quality land, farmers situated in different canal commands and the location of land on the watercourse (land near the "head" of the watercourse receives much better supplies than that near the "tail"). Also, any examina- tion of water charges must take Lnto account other agricultural taxes. 25 - These include, for example, a system of taxing agricultural products which now contributes Rs 2.7 billion/year, or between 15 and 20% of total national revenues from tax. About half as much again is paid indirectly by farmers in the form of a transfer to wheat consumers due to wheat procurement prices that are kept artificially low. In the project area, for example, export taxes alone on the incremental production of cotton generated by investments in SCARP VI would amount to Rs 74 million annually which would more than cover project O&M costs. In devising means to increase revenues from agriculture, particular attention would need to be given to maintaining incentives to farmers and introducing a progressive tax structure. 5.16 During negotiations, terms of reference for a study (Annex 14) were discussed, and agreement was reached on its timing and scope. The principal elements in the review would be: Part I - Operation and maintenance of the Provincial irrigation and drainage system - the costs of effective O&M and the extent to which these should be met by irrigation water users through direct water charges; - Public savings - the extent to which Government should cap- ture part of the increases in net benefits generated by new investments in irrigation for funding future investment in agriculture and elsewhere and to what extent this should be through direct water charges; Part II - Level of overall agricultural taxation - the appropriate- ness of this level and its structure in relation to in- come distribution and the appropriateness of the share contributed by direct water charges. Without prejudging the results of the study, an increase in water charges would appear feasible and desirable; it could be made progressive and thus would have a positive effect on income distribution, would be preferable to an increase in taxes on output from the economic efficiency viewpoint, and would accrue directly to GOPunjab. If this conclusion were supported, the study should recommend: - differentials between different farm sizes, types of irrigation, farm locations on the watercourse and between SCARP and non-SCARP areas; - systems of imposition and collection of water charges. Assurances were obtained from GOP that it would carry out a study, under terms of reference satisfactory to IDA, on the structure and level of - 26 - agricultural pricing and taxatior with particular reference to water charges; the study would be furnished to IDA for discussion by September 30, 1979. Assurances were obtained from GOE'unjab that, after consultation with GOP and IDA, it would introduce revisions to the structure and level of water charges, taking into account the conclusions of the study, by July 1, 1980. Unless, based on the recommendations of the study, GOP, GOPunjab and IDA otherwise agree, Punjab would, not later than July 1, 1980, July 1, 1985 and July 1, 1990 raise the level of water charges in Punjab in three stages so that by July 1, 1990, either (i) water charges in Punjab are sufficient to recover the full cost of O&M plus a reasonable proportion of the capital cost of the Province's irrigtion and drainage facilities, or (ii) water charges in the Project area are sufficient to recover the full cost of O&M plus a reasonable proportion of the capital costs of the project area's irrigation and drainage facilities. Assurances were further obtained from GOPunjab that water charges in each Unit of the project would, within one year after completion of works in that Unit, be raised to the maximum permissible rate under prevailing legislation. If project area water charges are increased to cover project O&M, direct project rent recovery from water charges would amount to about 23%, and indirect recovery, principally from the tax on cotton, would amount to a further 34% (Annex 17). VI. PRODUCTION, MARKET PROSPECTS, PRICES AND FARM INCOME Future Cropping Patterns and Yields 6.01 Project works would ena,le higher cropping intensities to be achieved mainly in cotton, wheat, sugarcane and orchards. It is estimated that with the project overall cropping intensities would rise, in Units II and III, from the present 99% and 101% to 135% and 126%, respectively, and in Units IV and V from 99% and 107% to 125% and 128%. In the perennial units (IV and V), the balance between Iharif and rabi cropping intensities would be approximately maintained. In che non-perennial Units (II and III), where subtantial rabi supplies would be available for the first time, the propor- tion of rabi crops in the total cropped area would increase. 6.02 Without the project, berause of the rising water table and soil salinization, there would be an i:crease in the kharif rice acreage in Units II and V and a more than correspoading decrease in the cotton area, because of the higher irrigation requireme3nts of rice. In the rabi, wheat would de- crease, and pulses and oilseeds, both of which can tolerate a higher water table, would increase. Land use of areas remaining in cultivation would be intensified to compensate for land that would have to be abandoned. Even- tually, however, waterlogging and salinity would reach such levels that by about 1990 it would no longer be possible to maintain present crop acreages. 6.03 The figures below show i:he expected aggregate trend in yields and crop areas. Full details of expected yields, inputs and cropping patterns by project Unit are given in AnneLes 15 and 16. - 27 - ------------ Future (1990)---------- Present Without Project With Project AREA YIELD AREA YIELD AREA YIELD ('000 ac) (t/ac) ('000 ac) (t/ac) ('000 ac) (t/ac) Rice 35.8 0.8 68.6 0.8 57.0 1.0 Cotton 371.9 0.4 305.7 0.6 401.5 0.6 Maize 17.3 0.4 17.3 0.4 29.6 0.7 Millets 59.3 0.3 81.0 0.3 77.5 0.3 Kharif fodder 83.7 10.8 83.7 12.1 78.3 15.0 Wheat 324.9 0.5 284.7 0.7 465.2 0.9 Rabi pulses 12.6 0.2 44.9 0.2 32.1 0.3 Oilseed 67.4 0.2 75.3 0.2 103.2 0.3 Rabi fodder 129.6 10.0 129.6 12.5 103.2 15.0 Sugar cane 70.4 13.6 70.4 16.0 93.8 18.6 Other Perennials 25.4 1.6 25.4 1.8 47.2 2.0 Market Prospects 6.04 The market for the crops produced in the area is reliable and well developed. The area is well served by local roads and is on the main Karachi-Lahore railroad (para 3.22). In good crop years, large quantities of wheat are shipped to deficit areas in Pakistan, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. Two sugar mills are at present operating in the area. They, and the overall high demand for gur, ensure a ready market for sugarcane. Adequate local facilities exist to process the expected in- crease in cotton production which is in demand for both domestic and export use. Prices 6.05 Prices used in the economic analysis for internationally traded crops and inputs are primarily based on Bank projections for world market prices for 1985. Adjustments have been made to allow for transport and pro- cessing costs, and to reflect the historic differences between world prices and prices paid or received by Pakistan. These differences arise from qual- ity differences and international transport costs. For non-traded commodi- ties, economic prices are based on prevailing and projected financial prices, adjusted by the average ratio of financial to economic prices for traded agricultural commodities. All economic prices are computed using an exchange rate of US$1=Rs 9.9 (Annex 17). 6.06 Financial prices are based on prevailing market prices adjusted for transport costs to farm gate prices. The comprehensive structure of Govern- ment controls, taxes and subsidies results in substantial differences between financial and economic prices. In recent years, these differences have been reduced due to increased domestic prices and decreased world price. Future financial prices are projected on the assumption that the present ratios will persist. Linear Programming analysis indicates that water availability is the main - 28 - constraint on present production, and, given increased supplies, prevailing financial prices provide adequate incentives to increase production. Farm Incomes 6.07 Estimated net farm incomes for owner-operated farms from crops, in- cluding wage income from off-farm work in agriculture and assuming the exist- ing levels of water rates are raised to recover O&M costs, are shown below: Net Farm Income by Farm Size (Rs) …---- 5 ac ---- 12.5 ac ---- ---- 25 ac ----- P W i' P W W P W W Unit II 2,800 2,725 6,720 6,895 7,738 16,925 12,085 14,305 30,610 Unit III 2,900 3,175 6,395 7,095 9,095 15,085 11,875 16,005 27,085 Units IV & V 2,970 3,065 6,545 7,305 8,315 15,815 12,600 13,750 28,260 P = Present, W Future without project (1990), W = Future with project (1990) 6.08 Most sharecropped farms are in the 7.5-12.5 ac class. Farm income in cash for such farms is rather less than half that for an owner operated farm. However, tenants receive free housing, fodder for their animals and often some basic food ration. 6.09 Off-farm employment as hired labor in agriculture contributes one-third of total income for 5 ac farms. Data were not available to esti- mate other income to farm households which, allowing for income from live- stock, is probably substantial. 6.10 With the project, farm incomes are expected to double. For the small farms (5 ac), off-farm employment would provide a higher absolute in- come but a smaller proportion of total income (about one quarter) than at present. Tenants' income would increase slightly more in relative terms, because any increases in water charges would be borne by the landlords. 6.11 Without the project, overall farm incomes would rise only slightly, but the increased supply of labor due to population growth would result in reduced demands for hired labor, increased competition for available employ- ment and hence a reduction in income from this source to the smaller farmers. - 29 - VII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION Anticipated Overall Effects 7.01 The land resources in the SCARP VI area are underutilized due to deteriorating soil conditions and inadequate irrigation supplies. The project would relieve these deficiencies, which in turn would substantially increase agricultural production and increase employment opportunities in agriculture and related processing industries. Production Benefits 7.02 The estimated incremental production increases at full project development, ten years after project completion, would amount annually to 230,000 tons of foodgrains, 87,000 tons of seed cotton and 12,000 tons of oil- seeds. After deducting the increased costs of production and inputs, the net contribution to the economy would be Rs 460 million per year. Employment Effects 7.03 Increased demand for labor would result primarily from increased cropping intensities and higher labor inputs per croped acre. The labor demand would increase from the present 31 M man-days per year to 50 M man-days at full project development. Secondary effects in the agricultural processing industries due to increased production, and in other industries due to higher farm incomes, would also be substantial. The main supply of labor for this increased demand would come from the smaller farms. Income Distribution 7.04 The main determinant of income distribution would be, as at present, the distribution of land ownership, which is skewed in favor of larger hold- ings (40% of the land area is owned by 13% of the farmers). An inadequate agricultural environment is the main constraint on all farmers in the area, however, and it is impracticable to release this constraint selectively. Thus the main justification for this project is the effect on overall agri- cultural production. The smaller and poorer farmers in the project area would also benefit due to the sharp increase in employment opportunities for which they would be the main source of labor. In the case of sharecroppers, any increase in water rates would be borne by the landlords, so that tenants would share in the benefits of the project but not in the costs. Economic Evaluation 7.05 The project has been evaluated as a complete package and by individ- ual Units (Annex 18). The analysis by Unit is only indicative for two main reasons. Firstly, there are interdependencies between Units (e.g. drainage water from Unit II provides irrigation for Unit V; lowering the water table in - 30 - Unit I also helps maintain the witer balance in Unit IV), and secondly, there are economies of scale in canal remodeling, so that once remodeling is under- taken the marginal cost of providling a further increment of capacity is much less than the average cost. 7.06 Attributing costs on a pro rata basis of the area served by each category of expenditures gives rates of return as follows: Unit II 19% Unit III 25% Unit IV 30% Unit V 13% Total Project 19% Application of gypsum to reclaim alkali-affected land, which would be under- taken on a pilot scale in the project, has not been evaluated and its benefits are not taken into account in the above. The primary reason for this compo- nent is to test and develop the techniques which should have wide applicabil- ity in the country as a whole. The main effect of this project component would be on individual farms that have substantial alkali problems. At the project level, the area of land involved is small (about 3% of the project area), and thus is insignificant in the overall economics. Project Risk 7.07 The project would entail no special risks other than those normally associated with irrigation projects. Projected yields are conservative and benefits depend mainly on increases in cropped area. Linear programming analysis shows that water availability is the primary present constraint on cropped area, and the project wou:Ld substantially relieve this constraint. The rate of return of the project under various adverse assumptions is shown below: (a) Benefit realization delayed two years: 15% (b) Cost increase of 20% 16% (c) Benefit decrease of 20% 16% (d) Combination of (b) and (c) 12% An IDA agricultural extension project is under appraisal for SCARP VI and other areas in Punjab. This extension project would improve farm practices and increase the use of farm inputs. Consequently, it should improve upon the yields estimated for this project (Annex 15). - 31 - VIII. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.01 Assurances have been obtained from GOP that: (a) insofar as GOP continued to subsidize the investment costs of private tubewells, grants would be made available to project area farmers irrespective of the size of landhold- ings (para 4.15); (b) by June 30, 1979 GOP will submit to IDA an all-Pakistan plan for improving grain storage, including proposals satisfactory to IDA for storing grain produced in the project area; and by July 1, 1980 it would commence implementation of such plan with respect to the SCARP VI area (para 4.19); and (c) it would carry out a study, under terms of reference satisfactory to IDA, on the structure and level of agri- cultural pricing and taxation with particular reference to water charges; the study would be furnished to IDA for discussion by September 30, 1979 (para 5.16). 8.02 Assurances have been obtained from GOP and WAPDA that: (a) adequate and timely funds would be provided for project implementation, according to estimates prepared by General Manager, WAPDA (NZ) (para 4.24); and (b) (i) separate accounts would be established and maintained for project expenditures by the Project Director; (ii) these accounts would be audited annually by an independent auditor acceptable to IDA; (iii) accounts of loans by the commercial banks to farmers under this project would be recorded separately and audited annually and consolidated by SBP, and (iv) copies of the project accounts and SBP consolidated accounts for project related items would be sent to IDA not later than six months after the end of each financial year (para 4.34); 8.03 Assurances have been obtained from WAPDA that: (a) WAPDA's General Manager (NZ) would prepare an annual Project Implementation Plan together with budgetary estimates for the following fiscal year to be furnished to the Association for review not later than March 31st of each year of implementa- tion (para 4.24); (b) they would make adequate and timely budgetary provisions and provide adequate staff satisfactorily to operate and maintain - 32 - the projects facilities during construction and for the first year of operations (rara 5.11); and (c) WAPDA's Central Monitoring Organization would conduct a benchmark survey and update it every two years to record changes in crop production brought about by the project (para 5.12). 8.04 Assurances have been obtained from GOPunjab that: (a) (i) by June 30, 1978, it would have prepared and discussed with IDA plans, and a related implementation schedule, to ensure supplies of gypsum to project area farmers, and (ii) annually during the project implementation period, it would discuss with IDA the price to be paid by farmers for gypsum and any subsidy to be granted to its users (para 4.06); (b) it would provide the future water requirements of Units IV and V (para 4.20); (c) by October 31, 1980, no sur:Eace water would be provided to Unit III from about October 31 to about March 31 (para 4.21); (d) it would provide the necessary training to, and approve the post of, at least six surveyors in the Agricultural Engineer- ing Section by December 31, 1978, to enable them to plan and supervise precision land leveling in the SCARP VI area (para 5.03); (e) the Department of Agriculture bulldozer strength in Rahimyar Khan District would be maintained at least at the present level of 25 operating units while the demand for their services exists and the tractors provided to the Department under the project would at all times give priority to land leveling work (para 5.04); (f) the soils laboratory at Bahawalpur would be expanded and staffed to provide adequate technical support for the soil reclamation works to be carried out both during the project implementation period and thereafter, until all necessary reclamation works have been completed in the project area (para 5.05); (g) it would ensure the supply of suitable pesticides and sprayers to meet the increasing demands of project area farmers (para 5.07); - 33 - (h) they would make adequate and timely budgetary provisions and would provide adequate staff satisfactorily to operate and maintain the projects facilities after their transfer from WAPDA (para 5.11); (i) after consultation with GOP and IDA, it would introduce revisions to the structure and level of water charges, taking into account the conclusions of the study referred to in para 8.01(c) by July 1, 1980. Unless, based on the conclusions and recommendations of the study, the Borrower, Punjab and IDA shall otherwise agree, Punjab would, not later than July 1, 1980, July 1, 1985 and July 1, 1990 raise water charges in three stages so that by July 1, 1990 either: (i) water charges in Punjab are sufficient to recover all operating and maintenance costs plus a reasonable proportion of investment costs of drainage and irrigation facilities in the Province, or (ii) water charges in the SCARP VI area are sufficient to recover all operating and maintenance costs plus a reasonable proportion of the capital costs of irrigation and drainage facilities located in the Project area (para 5.16); and (j) water charges in each Unit of the project would within one year after completion of works in that Unit, be raised to the maximum permissible rate under prevailing legislation (para 5.16). 8.05 Conditions of credit effectiveness would be that: (a) all conditions applicable to GOP, GOPunjab and WAPDA for the effectiveness of the grant from the UK and the credit from the Federal Republic of Germany had been fulfilled (para 4.26); (b) consultants for the final design of SCARP VI had been appointed under terms and conditions acceptable to IDA (para 5.08); and (c) the Project Coordination Committee and the Project Steering Committee had been established (para 5.10). 8.06 With the above assurances received, and the conditions of effective- ness met, the project is suitable for an IDA credit of US$70 M. The Borrower would be the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. November 10, 1977 ANNEX 1 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Project Area Climatic Data 1. Temperature (0F)-oaRahimyar Khan 5. Sunshine (hours) - in Sukkur Airstrip, 1927-74 1927-74 Mean maximum 108 - in June Maximum 10.5 - in May Mean minimum 40 - in Januar-y Minimum 8.6 - in December Annual mean 78 Mean 9.4 Extreme ranges 120 - in June 25 - in January 6. Rainfall (inches)- on Rahimyar Khan Airstrip and Panjnad 2. Relative Humidity (%)-in Sukkur, Barrage - 1937-74 1897-1964 Maximum 77 - in August Average 3.9 Minimum 54 - in April Median Maximum .92 - in July Mean 65 Median No. of Months at Less 3. Dewpoint (OF) - in Sukkur, than 0.1' 8 1897-1964 July 85 7. Wind Speed (miles per day) - January 45 Bahawalpur, 1927-74 4. Cloud Cover (in tenth) - in Sukkur Maximum 156 - on June 1960-65 Minimum 45 - in November Maximum 2.1 - in July Mean 73 Minimum .2 - in Januarr 1/ Mean 1.3 8. Pan Evaporation (mm)- - Bahawalpur, 1927-74 Jan 76 Jul 209 Feb 98 Aug 191 Mar 137 Sep 170 Apr 182 Oct 138 May 218 Nov 96 June 225 Dec 70 Total 1,810 1/ Observations from U.S. Weather Eureau Class A pan. 34 ANNEX 2 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Soils and Drainage A. Soils Surveys and Classification 1. The soils of the project area were surveyed on a semi-detailed scale and sampled for analysis on a one-mile grid in the mid-1960s by the former Water and Soil Investigation Division (WASID) of WAPDA. In accord- ance with the contemporary requirements for project planning, the soils were grouped into five mapping units, according to texture between a depth of about 6 to 72 inches. These five groups were designed primarily to delineate presumed differences in drainability, considered to be the most important soil-related constraint that would prevent the attainment of full crop pro- duction potential. The grouping did not endeavor to portray existing or future problem areas. Fortunately, areas showing soil problems were closely approximated by parts of the culturable area designated as salt-affected (saline and/or alkali) or waterlogged, or both. Special checks and field inspections by the appraisal mission indicate that the original WASID data provide a good indication of the extent of adverse soil conditions. Whereas the WASID soil classification system was not according to present standards, sufficient data were available to enable a reasonable assessment of the more important soil constraints. Soil Characteristics 2. The soils of the project area were formed almost entirely from relatively homogeneous alluvium deposited by the Indus River system. Floods, winds, changes in the course of rivers and moving sand dunes have created mixed patterns of deposition, but relatively few significantly different types of soils have been formed. The principal soil forming factors: rain- fall, wind, temperature, relief, erosion, vegetation, time and man's activi- ties, have modified the original alluvium only slightly; the soils are immature and lack well-defined profile characteristics. 3. In general, the soils are mostly coarse to medium in texture; light to dark brown in color, slightly to moderately calcareous and therefore moderately alkaline in reaction; low in organic matter and nitrogen, low to moderately low in phosphorus and well supplied with potash. The clay com- plexes consist mainly of illitic and amorphous materials; cation exchange and water retention capacities are moderate; infiltration and permeability rates are moderate to high; and the soils are well drained where outlets exist and could be easily drained by providing appropriate facilities. 35 ANNEX 2 Page 2 They are well aggregated and easily cultivated. Calcium sulphate (gypsum) occurs in large areas; the resistance to alkali hazards is high, and most of the salt-affected lands are relatively easy to reclaim. 4. More specifically, about a third of the soils are very coarse to slightly coarse (dune sands to sandy loams). The coarse soils are permeable, easily drained, easily cultivated, less fertile and have relatively low water-retention capacities; therefore, they are best suited for producing deeper rooted crops or crops with moderate to low water requirements. About a sixth of the soils are fairly fine-textured (clay loans and silty clay loams) with high water-retention capacities and relatively high inherent fertility; however, they are somewhat difficult to cultivate, have relatively low infiltration and permeability rates and restricted internal drainage. As a result, a high percentage of these soils are salt-affected (saline and/or alkali) and waterlogged. They can be successfully farmed by following careful soil and water management practices, and are best suited for rice, wheat, cotton and fodder crops. About 50% of the project area has medium textured soils (loams and silt loamns) with moderate infiltration and permeability rates, generally favorable internal drainage characteristics and moderately high moisture-retention capacities. They are suitable for most crops but are subject to salinity hazards where the drainage facilities are not adequate. Soil Constraints 5. The significant soil-related constraints are therefore fertility, texture, drainage, salinity and alkali. (a) Fertility is seldom listed as a soil constraint since, almost without exception, crops must be fertilized regardless of inherent soil fertility. Because most of the project soils a-re relatively coarse and have been subjected to flooding and high temperatures, they are deficient in organ:Lc matter and in nitrogen, quite low in phosphorus, probably relatively low in other essential elements such as sulphur and zinc but ade- quately supplied with potash. (b) Soil texture is a constraint wherever sands and loamy sands, which comprise about 18% of the project soils, are found. These soils have low water holding capacity. Except where water supplies are plentiful or the ground- water level is high, coarse soils are best suited for deep rooted and drought resistant crops. High crop yields require careful water management, frequent irrigation, particularly in warm weather, and frequent fertilizer applications. Severe salinity problems do not occur because of their high infiltration rates. Most of the severe salinity is associated with medium and fine textures. In the project area, only 0.03% 36 ANNEX 2 Page 3 of the soils are clays; these have associated infiltra- tion and permeability problems and are at present salt- affected. (c) Drainage. Plant growth and therefore crop yields are depressed where the groundwater table impinges on the root zone. Soil saturation impairs the circulation of air, prevents nitrification and the decay of organic matter, damage structure and tilth, hinders cultivation, cools the soil and thereby delays seed germination. Most importantly, a high watertable impedes or even prevents leaching and accelerates the upward movement of soluble salts and their accumulation in the root zone. This contributes to, or can even cause, salinity and alkali problems. (d) Salinity and alkali. Primarily inadequate subsurface drainage and, to some extent, insufficient and incor- rectly administered irrigation have resulted in the development of saline and alkali soil conditions. Laboratory data collected by WASID in the course of its survey of the area (para 1), the local "Thur Girdawari" of the Irrigation Department 1/ and a check made by the Consultant provide information on the extent of salinity and alkali in the project area. These basic concepts are discussed in some detail below. Before discussing these values and their present and potential impact on crop production, it is useful to define the terms: saline and alkali soils. Salinity and Alkali Soil Conditions - definitions and criteria 6. Saline soils are defined as those that contain sufficient soluble salts in the root zone to suppress the growth of most crop plants. A saline soil, according to the U.S. Salinity Laboratory and most other authorities, has a saturation extract conductivity (ECe) of 4 millimhos per cm or more and an exchangeable sodium-percentage (ESP) of less than 15. Alkali soils contain sufficient exchangeable sodium -- by common definition 15% or more - seriously to impair the physical properties of the soil, especially the permeability of air and water -- and therefore interferes with the development of most crops. Alkali soils are commonly highly alkaline in reaction (pH of soil paste is 8.5 or more) but they do not contain harmful amounts of salts. Saline-alkali soils contain excessive quantities of soluble salts and ex- changeable sodium as defined above, but are not necessarily highly alkaline. It is important to note that critical salinity levels have been determined 1/ A survey based on visual evidence, conducted last in 1972/73, concluded that 18.2% of the land in SCARP VI was "Thur", i.e., salt-affected. 37 ANNEX 2 Page 4 under conditions where crop variety, seed quality, insect, disease and weed control were not limiting crop growth, and, in particular, soil and water management and fertilization was also optimized. Little reliable information is available on the precise relationships between different salinity levels and associated crop yields when aay of the foregoing factors are sub-optimal, which is the usual state of affairs in the less highly developed agricultural communities, including Pakistan. Nevertheless it is certain that, because of the lower level of inputs and management practices in the agriculturally still developing countries, the deleterious effects of given levels of salinity on current crop yields, when compared with unaffected areas, are not nearly as great as indicated in salt tolera-ace tables which were compiled, usually, under highly developed farming conditions. Similarly, as regards critical alkali levels, soils with ESP values at or slightly above 15 may not have deteriorated sufficiently to affect crops if the soil is coarse textured or well aggregated, if the clays are illitic, amorphous or kaolinitic in char- acter, or if the high sodium soil layer is at some depth in the profite (generally more than three feet). 7. Since field trips and an aerial survey of the project area appeared to have borne out the foregoing observations, the WASID data were reviewed and reclassified according to standards considered more appropriate under the prevailing farming conditions in the area. Table 1 shows the results of the comparison. As expected, the more realistic use of an ECe value of about five for the coarser soils and six for the finer, to delineate salinity, indicated that only 25% to 30% of the soils were sufficiently saline to affect crop growth and therefore :In need of reclamation. Furthermore, con- sideration of the role of the predominant clay complex (illitic and amorphous), depth to the "alkali layer", texture and/or soil permeability, and in parti- cular, the presence of an appreciable amount of gypsum in or above soil layers containing excess exchangeable sodlium, resulted in the conclusion that only 10% of these soils (instead of 42%) are "truly alkali". During the data review, another 6% or 7% was placed in a questionable group either because of marginal exchangeable sodium percentages, permeability or gypsum content; *it is assumed that about half of these would eventually require reclamation. It is therefore concluded that about 13% of the project area (165,000 ac) would require alkali reclamation for satisfactory crop growth. Since most of the "probably alkali" soils are also saline (i.e., most of the problem soils are saline-alkali), not more than about 25% of the project soils would require either leaching to remove excess salinity, or a chemical amendment, such as gypsum, coupled with leaching, to remove excess exchangeable sodium. Ob- viously reclamation is possible orLly if drainage facilities are adequate. B. Drainage 8. In most of the project area, the relief is flat, natural drainage- ways ill-defined and inadequate. Under present water distribution and manage- ment practices, drainage problems exist where the water table lies within five feet of land surface, and problems may develop where the water table is within 10 ft. In both cases, in addition to the direct effects on crop 38 ANNEX 2 Page 5 growth, upward movement of groundwater by capillarity contributes appreciably to existing or potential salinity problems. The areas with a water table within five feet of the surface require drainage to sustain or improve pres- ent productivity and as a prerequisite to efficient use of the additional irrigation supplies that would be made available by the project. Control of subsurface drainage does not necessarily require lowering and maintaining the water table at depths of 10 ft or more. With adequate water applica- tions to ensure leaching of salts from the root zone and a pattern of groundwater use or disposal that provides for elimination of a portion of the leachate, successful irrigation can be practiced when the water table is at a depth of five feet or less. 9. Approximately 60% of the project area had the water table at less than 10 ft in 1960 and 1974 when it was surveyed (and presumably also in 1977), but only about 10% at five feet or less. Thus, under present condi- tions, groundwater levels appear to be more or less at equilibrium. Conclusions and Recommendations 10. Soil Survey and Classification. Although the land classification system used in the project area was deficient by modern standards, the intensity of the soil inspections, the accuracy of the group separations, reasonable characterization of the more important soil constraints (texture, drainage, salinity and alkali) and the amount of supporting laboratory data provide an adequate basis for project implementation purposes. Since soil surveys have not been in sufficient detail to provide the information needed for reclamation of saline and alkali soils, this study and farmer recommenda- tions arising therefrom will be provided under the project. 11. Salinity and Alkali. As indicated (para 7), about 25% of the proj- ect area (approximately 320,000 ac) require reclamation to permit profitable crop production. About half of these soils require only leaching to remove excess salinity; half would require the addition of gypsum, coupled with leaching to remove excess exchangeable sodium (i.e., alkali). The gypsum requirement will average about five tons 1/ per acre, and the water required for leaching of saline and/or alkali soils will average about two acre-feet. Both kinds of problem soils should first be leveled and bunded. Gypsum should be incorporated into the soils as deeply as possible (6 to 12 inches or more) and the field then leached until a minimum of two feet of water has passed through. The saline areas require leaching only. Crops can be grown during the leaching process in both cases but the fertilizer requirements will be higher than normal, particularly after leaching, and it may be necessary to apply zinc (usually as zinc sulphate) at a rate of 40 pounds per acre to the alkali soils to obtain reasonably good crop growth. 1/ This refers to 100% pure and not to "mine-run", gypsum, which usually contains a high proportion of worthless material. The gypsum should be pulverized so that about 80% will pass a 40 mesh sieve. 39 ANNEX 2 Page 6 12. The only requirements for reclamation are: (1) willingness on the part of the farmer to make the attempt; (2) availability of water for leaching, and, (3) an adequate drainage system so that the saline effluent can be dis- posed. Thus, most of the strict:ly saline soils could be reclaimed two or three years after suitable drainage facilities have been provided. However, alkali reclamation is much more costly and slower. Suitably prepared gypsum, and competent advice must be readily available to the farmers. Considering all factors, it is estimated that not over 40,000 of the estimated 160,000 ac of alkali soils in the project area will be reclaimed during the project construction period. 13. The reclamation of alkali soils would have to be monitored and its progress controlled by a soils laboratory equipped for the task. Such a lab- oratory would also check leaching requirements and monitor the betterment process, on saline soils. The soils laboratory now in Bahawalpur (Annex 13) would have to be supplied with suitable additional equipment to fulfill this task. Such equipment would include conductivity bridges, pH meters, a flame photometer, shakers and sieves; also soil sampling tools and equipment to test soil permeability. Estimated costs are given in Annex 6, "Survey and Laboratory Equipment." 14. Drainage. Provision for drainage will restore waterlogged land to full productivity, permit the application of full irrigation supplies to land that is now under-irrigated because of drainage problems and allow the recla- mation of a large acreage of severely salt-affected land. It is estimated that about 100,000 ac of land are now waterlogged, an equal or larger area cannot be more intensively cropped because of incipient waterlogging, and perhaps another 200,000 ac could be reclaimed and made available for profit- able cropping by provision for adequate drainage facilities. November 1977 40 ANNEX 2 Table 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Saline and Alkali Soils (by subdivision and by ground water classification) 2/ 4/ 1/ Apparently Probably Trulv Subdivision Classification Profiles Saline Alkali Alkali AlkLi; (No.) (Z M% (% (% Malkani Non-saline 274 40 36 14 10 Rukanpur Non-saline 219 38 42 16 12 Ahmadpur Lamma Non-saline 145 44 41 14 10 Bhong Non-saline 183 45 44 16 13 Pacca Laran Saline 262 51 48 16 12 Allahabad Non-saline 257 51 46 18 12 Khanpur Saline 296 49 36 7 4 Kot Samaba Saline 282 51 44 13 11 Rahimyar Khan Saline 210 60 47 5 3 Project Total and Averages 2,130 48 42 13 10 1/ ECe = 4 mmhos or more. (About 30% salty enough to affect crop growth.) 2/ SAR = 13 or more, or ESP = 15 or more. 3/ SAR = 30 or more within' root zone (3 ft or less), little or no gypsum present and soil permeability low. 4/ Truly alkali plus half the profiles with SAR between 20 and 30, containing no gypsum. 41 ANNEX 3 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Groundwater: Recharge, Quality and Levels A. Present Situation 1. The Aquifer. The pro-ject area is on an alluvial complex of recent age, deposited by the ancestral rivers of the Indus drainage system. The alluvium consists predominantly of coarse clastic sediments and is saturated with water, often to within a few feet of the ground surface, thus consti- tuting an extensive aquifer. 2. The thickness of the alluvium is not known accurately, but it is thought to exceed 1,500 ft in places and is known to be more than 400 ft everywhere in the project area. The bulk of the alluvium consists of fairly well sorted fine to medium sand. Silty sands and silts are common; clays are generally rare. Layers of gravel-like carbonate concentrations (kankar) of irregular size are found scattered in the subsoil. 3. The nature and properties of the alluvium have been studied by means of approximately 100 boreholes and test wells, including pumping tests and piezometers associatecl with some of them. The distribution of the various lithologies is not uniform. Clays and silts are common at shallow depths, particularly in the southeast of the area, where the upper- most deposits may be related to the smaller old Hakra River, rather than one of the major tributaries of the Indus system. Nevertheless, even in that area, sands predominate below seme 50 ft depth. 4. The hydraulic properties of the aquifer are available from the nine pumping tests carried out by WASID (Table 1). Results show that the calcu- lated transmission and storage parameters of the aquifer fall within a satis- factory and narrow range. Vertical permeabilities of the water table zone are high, despite the occurrence of clay and kankar layers. 5. Groundwater Quality distribution in the area (as in the rest of the Indus alluvial system) is complex. In broad terms, there is a wide trough of fresh water parallel to the river, a transitional belt, 4 km wide, running more or less along the main railway line, and a saline water zone to the southwest, towards the Cholistar Desert. In terms of the development units, Units II and III are underlain mainly by fresh groundwater and Units IV and V by saline groundwater. There is considerable variation in groundwater quality for all areas: patches of poor quality water occur in fresh ground- water areas and some water of reasonable quality is found in the saline zone. 42 ANNEX 3 Page 2 Table 2 shows this variation clearly. The overall quality of fresh ground- water in Units II and III, particularly as regards conjunctive use with the very high quality river supplies, is satisfactory; however, in Units IV and V the water quality is generally not suitable for irrigation. 6. Groundwater Levels in the project area have been monitored since 1928 (i.e. four years before the Panjnad Headworks were constructed), using a network of 155 shallow observation wells. Some of them have been installed only recently and a few are not functioning properly, nevertheless the data give a fairly clear idea of changes in the water table since the introduc- tion of controlled irrigation. The Panjnad Main Line now runs along a topo- graphic high, which was previously used by a series of inundation channels. The leakage had produced a high water table in a portion of the area long before 1932. Further to the southeast, in the present perennial area, where the inundation supplies were much smaller and less reliable, the water table was much lower. The whole system was probably in equilibrium, with the main outflow being subsurface drainage towards the southeast. The construction of the Panjnad Headworks and its associated canal system resulted in water table rise until a new equilibrium was achieved by subsurface outflows towards the Cholistan Desert or the adjacent Gudu Command, evaporation and evapo- transpiration from the higher water tables and by groundwater abstractions from open wells and tubewells. 7. In almost all areas, the water table appears once again to be in balance, and has not changed significantly since about 1960. The main outflow is thought to be evaporation or evapotranspiration from the water table except in Unit III, where, on average, the water table is deeper than 10 ft below ground level, and the recharge from drainable surplus is balanced mainly by well abstractions and subsurface outflow. The position of the water table and its variation in recent years is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. The water- logging problem is not severe under the present irrigation regime. Overall, 14% of the total Abbasia and Panjnad Command has the water table within five feet of the ground surface. In about half the total area the water table is between five and ten feet and in the rest deeper than 10 ft. With reason- able agricultural management, water tables more than five feet in depth should have little or no adverse effect on field crop production (Annex 2). Groundwater Balance 8. Subsurface inflow was computed using the Darcy equation with the following parameters: Average lateral permeability = 0.0015 ft/sec Effective aquifer thickness = 400 ft Aquifer width = 12.3 mile4 Average hydraulic gradient = 4.5 x 10 An estimate based on these figures is an inflow of 12,700 ac-ft per annum. This contribution is mainly down valley, via Unit I. In terms of the project area of this appraisal the gains are in Units II and IV. It is considered that 43 ANNEX 3 Page 3 this subsurface inflow will be reduced to negligible proportion by the im- plementation of a tubewell pumping scheme at present under construction in Unit I. 9. Seepage from Rivers. Total seepage from the rivers to the aquifers of the Northern Indus Plains has been estimated at about 2.0 MAF per annum. This is assumed to be constant per unit length of river bank and would there- fore give the following recharge to the project area: Unit II 0.0417 MAF/annum Unit III 0.0493 MAF/annum Unit IV 0 Unit V 0 10. Seepage from Canals. The conveyance losses have been estimated as follows for main canals and branches: QA = 0.0133xLxQ 0.5625 Where QA = losses in a reach in cusecs Q = discharge in the reach in cusecs L = length of the reach in thousands of feet Of these losses, 10% are taken as evaporation and 90% as seepage losses, i.e. aquifer replenishment. Ia distributaries including minors, the total losses are taken as 15% of supplies at head, of which 80% is seepage. 11. The total losses from canals and distributaries come to about 35% of diversions at the Panjnad Headworks, about 15% of which is lost to the system by evaporation and non-beneficial evapotranspiration. Thus, recharge to the aquifer is about 30% of headworks diversions. 12. The areawise distriblition of this recharge is not uniform as more main and branch canals pass through Units I and II than elsewhere. Using available data, the recharge i3 distributed as follows: (Unit I is included for completeness): Unit I 21% of the total Unit II 31% of the total Unit III 20% of the total Unit IV 5% of the total Unit V 23% of the total 13. Losses from Watercou:rses and Irrigated Fields. The losses from watercourses are taken as 10% of the deliveries at the watercourse head, half of which is assumed to reach the water table and half is wasted by evaporation. Deep percolation from irrigated fields is taken as 20% of supplies delivered at the heads of watercourses, a figure supported by all available reports. Thus, the total losses from watercourses and irrigated 44 ANNEX 3 Page 4 fields are estimated to be 30% of deliveries at watercourses head. The contribution to recharge from these sources is taken as 25% of deliveries at watercourse head, which is equivalent to 16.25% of diversions at the Panjnad Headworks for water from that source. 14. Rainfall Percolation, based on the annual median value of rainfall of two inches, is distributed as follows: Unit II 0.0240 MAF Unit III 0.0282 MAF Unit IV 0.0039 MAF Unit V 0.0252 MAF 15. Subsurface Outflow was computed as for the inflow, using the follow- ing parameters: aquifer width 11.8 miles average hydraulic gradient 5.2x10 and permeability and effective aquifer depth as before. The calculated out- flow is 14,000 AF per annum. 16. Abstractions by Wells: The present estimated groundwater abstrac- tions by tubewells and open wells are as follows: 1974-75 Type of Wells/Unit II III IV V Total -------------------ac -ft -------------------…---- Open Wells 90,002 65,385 48 9,242 164,677 Public Tubewells 35,843 6,990 - - 42,833 Private Tubewells 142,018 195,577 3,348 41,415 382,358 Total 267,863 267,952 3,496 50,657 589,868 It is estimated that of the total of approximately 0.6 MAF of pumpage, some 25% or 0.15 MAF per annum is returned to the aquifer as seepage. 17. Evaporation and Evapotranspiration from the groundwater table are taken as the major outflow components of the balance equation. However, as they cannot be measured and are difficult to estimate, they generally are calculated by difference. Evaporative losses included are either evaporated directly from the water table or transpired by vegetation with roots near the water table. Of these, direct evaporation is the major component. 18. Because of differences in depth to water table and variation in soil types, evaporation losses can be estimated only roughly. However, the estimates obtained by difference must be checked to make sure that they are reasonable. Table 5 gives a groundwater balance with such estimates of water table evapora- tion. Converting these figures to depth of water evaporated and percentage of potential "open water" evaporation gives the following (Unit I is included for comparison): 45 ANNEX 3 Page 5 Estimai:ed Annual Percentage of Open Unit Evaporation (feet) Water Evaporation /a I 1.22 20 II 0.99 16 III 0.62 10 IV 1.15 19 V 0.83 14 /a Open water evaporation is taken as 6 feet. The highest evaporation is in Unit I where the water table is nearest to the surface, and lowest evaporation is in Unit III where the water table is deepest. The calculated evaporative losses in Units III, IV and V are probably high because the method ignores subsurface drainage which may be considerable in these cases. Ir Unit IV in particular, there is a steep water table gradient towards the Cholistan Desert, and subsurface outflow is probably responsible for the relatively large calculated evaporative loss. In Unit III also, there miight be a significant amount of subsurface outflow to the southwest, towards Gudu Command. B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The General Setting 19. The proposed developments would control the water table in areas which need subsurface drainage now or in the near future, and exploit the groundwater resource for additional irrigation supplies, where the quality is satisfactory. The estimated groundwater recharge by Unit at full develop- ment is expected to be as follows: Unit Unit Unit Unit Project Source of Recharge II III IV V Area -------- - -MAF -- -- Seepage from Rivers 0.042 0.049 - - 0.091 Seepage from Canals 0.506 0.327 0.082 0.376 1.291 Seepage from Watercourses and Irrigated Fields 0.154 0.213 0.071 0.385 0.782 Percolation from Rainfall ).024 0.028 0.004 0.025 0.081 Total 0.726 0.617 0.157 0.786 2,245 The figures show inflows from surface sources only and do not include any recirculation components from irrigation with groundwater. Also the subsur- face inflows and outflows to eachl unit are ignored. 46 ANNEX 3 Page 6 Unit-Wise Development Criteria 20. Unit II is a fresh groundwater area and some parts of it suffer from waterlogging. Recently, some 44,000 acres of the commanded area had the water table at less than five feet from ground level. Much of the severe waterlogging occurs close to Panjnad Main Line and other major canals. In addition to the subsurface drainage problems, part of the area (close to the main Panjnad-Khanpur Road) is a topographic low, which is subject to frequent flooding by spill water from the river, canals and rainstorms. 21. Because the canals conveying supplies to Units III and V pass through Unit II and have high seepage losses, the drainable surplus is particularly high. Since groundwater levels are mostly above the canal bottoms, seepage would increase if lowered. Calculations have shown that if all the kharif irrigation requirements were supplied from surface sources, the drainable surplus would be greater than the rabi water demand for the design inten- sities and it would be necessary to export groundwater from the area to maintain a satisfactory groundwater level. 22. Because of the complex interrelationships between groundwater irri- gation and drainage in this Unit, it is proposed that development be based on public tubewells. Most of these would pump directly into watercourses for local use. Some would intercept seepage from the major sources of waterlog- ging and dispose of it into a convenient canal for export. A few of the wells might have to serve both purposes; if so they would be provided with a dual disposal system. 23. The groundwater balance would be maintained as shown: Inflows (MAF per annum) 1. Seepage from Rivers 0.042 2. Seepage from Canals 0.552 /a 3. Seepage from Watercourses and Irrigated Fields 0.154 4. Percolation from Rainfall 0.024 5. Return Flow from Well Irrigation 0.193 Total 0.965 Outflows (MAF per annum) 1. Abstraction by Public Wells for Export 0.204 2. Abstraction by Public Wells for Local Irrigation 0.691 3. Abstraction by Private Wells 0.070 /b Total 0.965 /a This figure includes an estimated increase in canal seepage caused by installation of wells along leaky canals. /b It is assumed that the output from existing private wells will reduce to about half of its present value. 47 ANNEX 3 Page 7 24. The peak demand for the tubewell water for local irrigation is estimated at about 2,000 cusecs constant flow in October and early November. Assuming, pro rata that about 9% of this will be supplied by private wells, tubewells are required to produce 1,820 cusecs. The highest operating factor that could be maintained for about 45 days is considered to be 90%. Thus, the installed capacity requirerment for the public wells is at least 2,022 cusecs, distributed as follows to suit the pattern of watercourse locations and sizes: Capacity No. (cusecs) 2.0 286 2.5 160 3.0 350 The overall annual operating factor of these wells on the basis of the irri- gation demand for tubewell water is 0.48 or about 4,150 hours per year. 25. Additional capacity will be required to cope with the more serious cases of canal seepage; the grcundwater would be exported via the irrigation canal system. Some 400 cusecs of pumpage capacity would be required, involv- ing 135 tubewells of three cusec capacity each, pumping about 70% of the time. 26. Unit III is a fresh groundwater area which does not need subsurface drainage. Data for depth to water table show that none of the area has the water table at five feet or less and in only 12% of the area is the water table less than 10 feet from the ground surface. Furthermore, it appears that groundwater levels are stable under existing conditions, due probably to sub- surface outflow rather than evaporation. Even with increased canal supplies, a rapid rise in water tables to dangerous levels is unlikely as at the proposed cropping intensities (at full development) the drainable surplus would be balanced by rabi irrigation demand. Thus, the area seems ideal for private well development. The local farmers appear to have recognized this and there are substantially more private tubewells in Unit III than any other part of the project area. 27. The water balance at full development is estimated below: 48 ANNEX 3 Page 8 Inflows (MAF per annum) 1. Seepage from Rivers 0.049 2. Seepage from Canals 0.327 3. Seepage from Watercourses and Irrigated Fields 0.213 4. Percolation from Rainfall 0.028 5. Return Flow Well Irrigation 0.147 Total 0.764 Outflows (MAF per annum) 1. Abstractions by Existing Private Tubewells 0.362 2. Abstractions by Future Private Tubewells 0.275 Total 0.637 As can be seen, there is an apparent imbalance of 0.127 MAF per annum, with the calculated drainable surplus exceeding the proposed pumpage. However, a difference of this magnitude is most unlikely to lead to a rise in water ta!)1- as the calculated undrained surplus under existing conditions is considerably larger than this, and yet the water table appears to be stable and at accept- able depths. 28. Under the project, tubewell operation in the kharif would virtually cease as the present irrigation deficit would be met by increased canal sup- plies; thereafter wells will be used almost entirely for rabi irrigation. 29. Estimated pumpage of existing wells in the future is based on their installed capacity, but with demands calculated on the basis of a cropping pattern compatible with the planned development. The estimated peak demand is some 3,300 cusecs constant flow in late October. Assuming that private wells would be operated at a high operating factor (say, 18 hours/day or 0.75) for a short time (15 days), overall annual operating factors would be about 20%. 30. The installed capacity of existing wells is estimated to be 2,500 cusecs. Therefore, an additional capacity of about 1,900 cusecs is required to meet the peak demand. For the purpose of cost estimates, tubewells to be installed are assumed to be as follows: 49 ANNEX 3 Page 9 No. of Rated Operating Tubewells Capacity Factor % 1,000 0.5 20 1,000 1.0 20 267 1.5 20 31. Unit IV is a small saLine groundwater area, located on the edge of Unit I, next to the desert fringe. It has some waterlogging problems along its boundary with Unit I, but the water table falls off very rapidly towards the desert where there is obviously considerable drainage by subsurface out- flow. The waterlogging problem at the boundary with Unit I will be greatly improved by the tubewell drainage system that is presently being constructed. Therefore, no drainage works fo:r Unit IV are proposed. There are a few pri- vate wells in the area, probablv producing water of marginal quality. These should continue to operate. The groundwater balance under full development is given below: Inflows (MAF per annum) 1. Seepage from Canals 0.082 2. Seepage from Watercourses and Irrigated Fields 0.071 3. Percolation from Rainfall 0.004 Total 0.157 Outflows (MAF per annum) 1. Abstraction by Wells 0.003 2. Evaporation and Su.bsurface Outflow 0.154 Total 0.157 Unit V is a saline groundwater area, though some moderate and good quality water may be found at its south-eastern boundary and in small, isolated pockets elsewhere. The topographic low, mentioned under Unit II, stretches into Unit V to the southeast of Rahimyar Khan and Sadiqabad. On account of this, part of the area suffers from severe waterlogging with some 82,000 acres having the water table at less than 5 feet from ground surface and is subject to periodic flooding by river or canal overspill and rainstorm water. Also, data show that in June 1974, 712 of the area had the water table at between 5 and 10 feet from ground level. Thus, part of the area needs subsurface drainage now. Furthermore, since it is proposed to increase canal supplies, the waterlogging problem would increase unless preventive measures are taken. It is estimated that some 300,OCO acres (about 52% of the CCA) should be pro- vided with drainage wells. 50 ANNEX 3 Page 10 32. The upper parts of the aquifer in Unit V contain a high proportion of clayey material, which in this area would not impede drainage by tubewells, since the material is permeable (Annex 2, and Table 1). This conclusion is supported by the absence of perched water tables in the area. 33. The drainage requirement for the 300,000 acres would be met by 250 drainage wells, each of 3 cusec capacity operating at a factor of 0.7 (or 6,132 hours per year), installed on (or as near as practicable to) a triangular grid. To be left out of this drainage scheme is the desert fringe, which ap- parently is drained to some extent by subsurface outflow towards the desert, and the area adjacent to the Gudu Command where the water table is reasonably deep. The groundwater balance in the area under full development conditions is shown below. Inflows (MAF per annum) 1. Seepage from Canals 0.376 2. Seepage from Watercourses and Irrigated Fields 0.385 3. Percolation from Rainfall 0.025 4. Seepage from Disposal Drains /a 0.038 Total 0.824 Outflows (MAF per annum) 1. Abstractions by Private Wells 0.051 2. Pumpage by Public Drainage Wells 0.380 3. Evaporation and Subsurface Outflow 0.393 Total 0.824 /a Seepage from drains is estimated as 10% of their flow. November 1977 51 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Results of Pumping Tests in the Project Area Lateral Vertical Specific Permeability Permeability Yield of Depth Length Depth of Discharge Duration Maximum Specific of the Screened of Water- Water Table Well of Well of Screen Water Table Rate of Test Drawdown Capacity Interval Table Zone Zone No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (cusecs) (hours) (ft) (cusec/ft) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (fraction) Wi 205 120 14.40 3.1 96 15.70 0.20 0.0022 0.00016 0.16 W2 215 130 7.62 3.0 110 14.62 0.21 0.0021 0.00011 0.07 W3 200 120 8.90 3.5 96 18.80 0.19 0.0017 0 00n1n 0iiP W4 215 130 6.50 2.7 96 15.16 0.18 0.0013 0.00057 0.06 W5 215 128 8.25 2.5 91 14.00 0.18 0.0019 0.00011 0.10 W6 205 125 7.37 2.5 96 21.27 0.12 0.0013 0.00010 0.16 W7 208 120 9.65 3.0 96 16.50 0.18 0.0021 0.00012 _ W8 220 135 7.47 2.7 96 14.16 0.19 0.0018 0.00013 W9 210 125 8.60 2.4 102 14.40 0.17 0.0016 0.00017 - Average - - - - - - 0.18 0.0018 0.00018 0.12 H B Source: Sabasun Technical Services (1976) X > H L U, PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Groundwater Quality (Tubewell Water) Quality / Area UNIT II UNIT III UNIT IV UNIT V EC x 106 No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent No. f Percent @ 25°C SAR Wells of Wells Wells of Wells Wells of Wells Wells of Wells < 1400 <10* 633 93.8 436 96.0 4 12.1 152 52.8 1400 -2500 ?15 34 5.0 12 2.7 9 27.3 70 24.3 2500 -3200 '20 4 0.6 2 0.4 6 18.2 34 11.8 p3200 -25 4 0.6 4 0.9 14 42.4 32 11.1 Totals 675 100.0 454 100.0 33 100.0 288 100.0 *Most of the SAR values are less than 5. Source: Sabasun Technical Services (1976) rI-tTX PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Water Table Depth Distribution (June 1974) Area Within Depth Range Specified Unit GCA 5 feet 5-10 feet 10-15 feet 15 feet (000's 000's % of 000's % of 000's % of 000's % of acres) acres GCA acres GCA acres GCA acres GCA I 216 102 47 111 52 3 1 0 0 II 374 44 12 250 67 80 21 0 0 III 426 0 0 50 12 261 61 115 27 IV 95 13 V J i) 47 55 17 20 V 575 82 14 409 71 81 14 3 1 Total 1,676 236 14 833 50 472 28 135 8 Source: Sabasun Technical Services (1976) rb> PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Water Table Depth Variation Area Within Depth Range Specified Date 5 Feet 5 to 10 Feet 10 to 15 Feet 15 Feet 000's Acres % of GCA 000's Acres % of GCA 000's Acres % of GCA 000's Acres % of GCA June 1943 34 2 226 14 426 25 990 59 June 1947 26 2 279 16 482 29 889 53 June 1955 121 7 820 49 568 34 167 10 June 1960 211 12 899 54 499 30 67 4 June 1970 496 30 845 50 316 19 19 1 June 1973 188 11 947 57 491 29 50 3 Oct. 1973 582 35 704 42 349 21 41 2 June 1974 236 14 833 50 472 28 135 8 Source: Sabasun Technical Services (1976) F3 t> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 , ANNEX 3 Table 5 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP VI) Groundwater Balance - Existing Situation (Average Year) Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Project Inflows* I II III IV V Area - - - MAF/annum Seepage from rivers 0.013 0.042 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.104 Seepage from canals 0.247 0.365 0.235 0.059 0.270 1.176 Seepage from watercourses and irrigated fields 0.083 0.141 0.158 0.036 0.219 0.637 Returu flow from well irrigation 0.030 0.067 0.067 0.001 0.013 0.178 Percolation from rainfall 0.013 0.024 0.028 0.004 0.025 0.094 Total Inflows 0.386 0.639 0.537 0.100 0.527 2.189 Outflows* Abstraction by wells 0.120 0.268 0.268 0.003 0.051 0.710 Evaporative losses (calculated by difference) 0.266 0.371 0.269 0.097 0.476 1.479 Total Outflows 0.386 0.639 0.537 0.100 0.527 2.189 * Sub-surface inflow and outflow are i,gnored. Source: WAPDA (1976)and Mission Estimat:es (1976) 56 ANNEX 4 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Project Works A. Canal Remodeling Design Criteria 1. Annex 9 develops the water requirements at the barrage for each of the project units. Units II, III and V get their surface supplies via the Panjnad Canal; Unit IV from the Abbasia Canal. Unit I, which is part of the SCARP VI area but not of the project under consideration, derives its surface supplies from both main canals. The pumpage generated within that unit is all reused, therefore its water requirement is only of concern for canal remodeling insofar as it makes demands on the main canals. 2. Table 1 converts the diversion requirements shown in Annex 9 into flow figures required to provide the water. The flow figures required for Unit I have been taken from the appropriate planning report as approved by GOP for execution. No allowance has been made for future requirements of an extension project approved under the name Abbasia Flood Channel (AFC) Proj- ect because the original design of the Abbasia Canal and its headworks made allowances for the expected need of the AFC area. 3. Table 2 compares the salient features of the proposed requirements of the canals with those of the original design and the present operating conditions. It shows that while the maximum discharge in the Panjnad main canal has to be increased by 38Z and that of the Abbasia by 18%, the ratio between maximum and minimum discharge would actually narrow considerably, thereby easing operating problems. Since the Panjnad main canal serves seasonal and perennial areas, a further narrowing of the discharge ratio is not practicable. Remodeling Design and Works 4. In designing the remodeled system, note will have to be taken of the fact that many of the original design cross sections have changed, partly through siltation and partly through scouring brought about by excessive dis- charges being forced into some of the canals. Consequently, a detailed survey of all main and branch canals would be required before the final quantities of earthwork to be carried out can be accurately established. Sample designs, based on actual surveys, have been made; the extent of the necessary works, which may require minor adjustment in the light of the eventually adopted design cropping pattern (Annex 15) are listed below: 57 ANNEX 4 Page 2 5. Intake Structures. The intake capacity of both the main canal gates at the headworks is adequate to accevt the required discharges. 6. The Paninad Canal Command. (a) The Panjnad main canal would have to be strengthened and the freeboard increased for safety. (b) The Minchin branch canal wll continue at its present dis- charge rate but with a rediced command area. Some of its right bank distributaries 41ll receive water from two new feeder canals. Their comb.ned length would be about 30 mi (32 canal miles of 5000 ft . (c) The Rahimyar Khan Branch wuuld be similarly remodelled with two new feeders on its right bank. Their combined length would be about 24 miles (2; canal miles). (d) The Sadiq Branch would be supported by one parallel canal which would originate from the same regulator as the Sadiq Branch. It would be 48 miles long (51 canal mi). (e) The Dallas branch, which al present provides most of the water to Unit III will require minor modification and strengthening; the structuies would appear to be adequate. 7. Sections that would, after remodelling, have still to convey more water than at present would be able to do so after deepening and the strength- ening of their banks. The structures would be able to pass the additional dis- charge with only minor modifications. 8. The Abbasia Command. The capacity of the top reach of the canal, which is perennial, would have to be augmented by a parallel canal, about 25 mi (26.5 canal mi) long. The rest of the system would be remodelled, as re- quired by deepening and strengthening the canals; the structures are adequate. 9. In summary, the following works require to be done on the canal system: Additional Deepening and Strengthening Parallel Canals Major Canals m/c.m. m/c.m. Panjnad Command 102/107 215/227 Abbasia Command 25/26.5 16.5/17.4 Note: m = mile (5,280 ft) c.m. = canal mile (5,000 ft) 58 ANNEX 4 Page 3 10. The total length of subordinate canals, with a carrying capacity between 800 cusecs and 10 cusecs, averaging about 180 cusecs, is about 1,240 mi. Based on sample surveys, it is estimated that about half the total length would require some remodelling, the other half, once restored to its design dimensions and strength, would require no additional work. New Watercourse Commands 11. To enable the more efficient utilization of the additional water, it would not be prudent to increase the flow of any existing watercourse channel above 1.5 cusecs. Therefore, new modules would have to be built and new watercourse commands established; these would not exceed the area that, at peak discharge, requires more than 1 cusec. It is estimated that up to 1,500 new modules would have to be built, about 1,000 of the old modules altered and about 1,100 miles of new watercourse channels constructed. Irrigation System Operation 12. The Problem. Under project conditions, operation of the irrigation system will become more complex than before, because instead of the kharif irrigation supplies coming only from diversions, large amounts will come from groundwater abstraction within the project area (Annex 9). Therefore, opera- tions will be a combination of barrage diversions, fresh groundwater use with- in Unit II and export of fresh groundwater to Unit V. A small "desk top" type digital computer by the Panjnad Barrage would be necessary to coordinate operations. 13. Computer Operations. The computer would be used to: (a) predict demand at the Barrage; and (b) provide operating instructions for surface and groundwater irrigation supplies. Input data to the computer which would be run each day would consist of constant and varying inputs. Constant inputs would be: (a) losses expressed as percentage of discharges; (b) irrigation control structure characteristics and maximum discharge capacity; (c) individual canal conveyance capacities and maximum allow- able flow ratios to maintain regime; (d) recharge expressed as percentages of canal flows and field losses; (e) depth to groundwater limitations; (f) tubewell pump characteristics and limitations. 59 ANNEX 4 Page 4 Variable inputs would consist cf: (a) rainfall in past 24 hours by canal command; (b) crops being grown by minor canal command; (c) canal discharges measured in the past 24 hours. 14. Computer Outputs. The computer would print out the following: (a) demand at barrage; (b) discharges required in main, branch, distributary and minor canals; (c) gate openings required at all major irrigation control structures; (d) escape operation; (e) FGW well operation (watercourse wells); (f) FGW well operation (export wells); (g) SGW well operation; aad (h) evaporation pond pump settings. Cost Estimates 15. Investment Costs. De: ived largely from sample surveys of relatively short canal sections, and from i:he extent of anticipated work outlined in paras 6-10 above, it is estimated that the total cost of canal remodelling, inclusive of constructing the modules and the new watercourse channels, would be Rs 180 X, including an indirect foreign exchange component for fuel, oil and lubricants, of Rs 13.5 M. P'rovision is also made for purchase of remodel- ing equipment estimated to cost Rs 40 M (foreign exchange component Rs 32 M). The computer would cost about Rs 200,000, all of it in foreign exchange. 16. Operation and Maintenance. Despite the remodelling, it is not ex- pected that the 0 and M costs oif the remodelled canal system will be signifi- cantly higher than at present. More efficient system operation would reduce maintenance costs per mile of canal, besides markedly contributing to in- creasing irrigation efficiencies. Consequently, it is assumed that 0 and M costs of the remodelled system will be the same per acre CCA as at present, i.e. Rs 20, or Rs 25.4 M per annum for the project area. Construction Methods 17. Since much of the remcdelling would be done while the canals are flowing, the most suitable machine would be a dragline. The construction of parallel canals and the remodelling of seasonal branches would be done by scrapers, bulldozers or hand labor assisted by donkeys. 60 ANNEX 4 Page 5 18. Canal remodelling should be scheduled to fit in with the requirements of the Irrigation Department and the farmers which are subject to variation at short notice, and also involves question of access and the disposal of spoil. These complications preclude the use of international contractors, and remodel- ling works would therefore be carried out after local competitive bidding. 19. The successful bidders might need to augment their fleet of equip- ment by importing new machinery or spares. In anticipation of this, the local and foreign cost estimates are as follows: 20. Cost Summary Local Foreign Total - -- M. Rs. Canal Remodelling 174.5 45.5 220.0 Computer and Communication Equipment - 10.0 1.0 Total 201.2 58.6 259.8 B. Well Field Design, Well Construction and Operating Costs Introduction 21. Under the project there would be four types of tubewells: in Unit V, 3 cusec wells pumping water that would be taken to evaporation ponds; in Unit II, 3 cusec wells pumping water into the irrigation canals; also in Unit II, wells of 2 to 3 cusec discharge, pumping into water courses and in Unit III, wells of 1/2 to 1-1/2 cusec discharge, pumping into field channels for use by the well owner or owner group. The Drainage Wells 22. The aim of the salt water tubewells is to reduce and maintain the watertable at a maximum possible elevation consistent with not impeding crop yields or imposing the use of special farming techniques (Annex 2). Such uniformity is best achieved by a well-field layout as nearly as possible on a triangular grid system. Therefore, consistent with topography and the lay- out of the drainage disposal network, there would be one well per 1,200 ac 61 ANNEX 4 Page 6 of CCA, i.e., the approximate distance between the wells would be 2 mi. Totall number of wells would be 25:). 23. Casings and well screen!3 would -be made of fiberglass, which would resist corrosion and incrustation. The turbine pumps and drive shaft would be of material that would resist iorrosion, such as stainless steel. Unit cost of the components is given ii Table 3. The cost of one well, inclusive of civil works for connecting to the main disposal system, would be Rs 208,000 (Table 4). Total cost of this coaponent would be Rs 52 million, inclusive of foreign exchange of Rs 36 million, Fresh Water Export Wells 24. In Unit II, 135 3 cusec wells would be required to export water which would be surplus to irrigat::.on requirements. These wells would be situated in depressions where the groundwater levels at present are high and are likely always to be so and along the main canals from which there is un- avoidable heavy seepage to the war:ertable. The wells would return water into the major canals for export into unit V, where it would be used for irrigation. The wells would be operating throughout the year. 25, Design of these wells would be the same as that of the drainage wells: casings and screens would be of fiberglass, the pumps would be turbine pumps. However, the material of vhich the pumps and drive shafts would be made need not be corrosion resistcnt, which reduces the overall cost of the wells to Rs 141,000, inclusive of the disposal works (Table 5). Cost of this component would be Rs 19 million, inclusive of a foreign exchange component of Rs 7.9 million. The Irrigation Wells 26. Rabi crop water requirenents (Annex 9) make it necessary to install a pumping capacity of approximately 2,100 cusecs. A preliminary assessment of tubewell numbers and sites concluded that their distribution as to size would be as follows: No. Capacity Operation (hr/year) 286 2.( ) 4,150 100 2.' ) 350 3.C ) (48%) 27. These wells would be at or very near the module and discharge directly into the watercourse. Water distribution would be in the same manner, and ac- cording to the same rotation (warabundi) as for surface flows. The exact number in each size class would therefore depend on the final number of watercourses in the Unit after remodelling, and on the size distribution of the watercourse modules. The wells would be used also in the kharif, conjunctively with the 62 ANNEX 4 Page 7 canals, to provide peak crop water requirements that are beyond the capacities of the canals to deliver. 28. Tubewell design, as before, would be of the submersible turbine type, using the same materials and specifications as described for the sweet- water export wells (para 25). The expected cost of each kind is given in Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8. This component of the project would cost Rs 124.2 million, with a foreign exchange component of Rs 49.1 million. Summary of Project Well Costs 29. The following list summarizes expected expenditure on publicly operated tubewells, inclusive of channelling the water into the trunk dis- posal system, but excluding electrification: Local Costs Foreign Exchange Total Drainage Wells 15.5 36.5 52.0 Fresh-water Export Wells 11.1 7.9 19.0 Irrigation Wells 57.3 40.4 97.7 Total 84.9 84.8 168.7 Private Tubewells 30. In Unit III, the groundwater would be exploited by private enter- prise, sinking wells to irrigate either individual holdings or the farms and fields of farmers who jointly install and operate a well. Since surface water supplies would be augmented through canal remodelling to supply the needs of the design cropping pattern, it is unlikely that these private wells would be used to any extent during the kharif. The ones to be installed under the project, together with the already installed capacity of 2,500 cusecs, would meet the requirements of the design cropping pattern for the rabi. The new wells, like the existing ones, are likely to be installed along the field channels or the main watercourse channel but would serve an area smaller than a complete watercourse command. 31. The private wells would be on the surface or in a pit not exceeding 7-8 ft in depth. Screens and casings would be of PVC, coir or brass, depend- ing on water quality. The pumps would be centrifugal, non-submersible and be driven either by an electric motor, or more likely, at least initially, by a diesel engine. Cost estimates are given in Tables 8 to 16. In all cases, it was assumed that the power unit is commensurate with the load imposed on it. At present, the engines or motors are grossly oversized, leading to unwarrantably high capital and, in case of diesel engines, operating costs. 32. The numbers likely to be installed will depend on the kind and number of farmers deciding to make the investment and any estimation is likely to be highly tentative. However, to arrive at an approximate figure, the following assumptions were made: 63 ANNEX 4 Page 8 Capacity No. Kind Cusecs Local Cost Foreign Exchange Total (Rs Million) 900 Diesel 0.5 14.2 6.4 20.6 100 Electric /a 0.5 1.7 1.0 2.7 900 Diesel /a 1.0 17.5 7.8 25.3 100 Electric 1.0 2.0 1.1 3.1 240 Diesel 1.5 5.4 2.4 7.8 27 Electric /a 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.9 2,267 - 41.4 19.0 60.4 /a Including Rs 10,000 per well connection charge; half local costs, half F.E. Operation and Maintenance Costs 33. Unit II. The economic price of electricity which would cover the full operational cost of the supply system is estimated at Rs 0.30 per kWh. On the basis of the estimated operating factors, and assuming that operating costs other than fuel amount to Rs 5,000 per year, the annual cost of oper- ating wells in Unit II amounts to Rs 23.37 M. Spare parts and major over- hauls are assumed to cost the equivalent of half the pump and motor every ten years, (Rs 28.31 M total), and complete replacement would be required every 20 years. Annual annual O&M cost thus amounts to Rs 33.2 M. 34. Unit III. Annual operating costs for private wells have been cal- culated assuming a seven-year Life for the well and a ten-year life for the engine. The economic cost of diesel fuel is assumed to be Rs 6.50, and maintenance costs are taken as Rs 1,500 per annum for diesel wells and Rs 750 per annum for electric. At fuLl development, assuming the well size distri- bution shown in para 32, annua:L O&M costs amount to Rs 8.9 M. 35. The older, less efficient wells which are expected to pump more water in rabi - primarily due to earlier closure of the canals - will require additional O&M expenditures amounting to a maximum of Rs 7.2 M, which would decline to Rs 2.2 M per annum as these are replaced by newer, more efficient wells. 36. Unit V. Fuel, operal:ing and maintenance costs of the drainage wells in Unit V are expected to cost Rs 6.67 M per annum. It is expected that the corrosive operating ernvironment will necessitate major overhauls, costing Rs 6.02 million every five years and complete replacement will be required every 20 years. 64 ANNEX 4 Page 9 C. Saline Effluent Disposal The Problem and Development Alternatives 37. Saline effluent from the tubewells in Unit V could be discharged into the irrigation network or into the Indus, or taken completely out of the system, thereby establishing a net export of salts. 38. Available information would suggest that for several years effluent salinities would be considerably in excess of what can safely be put back into the irrigation system, even under the best conceivable water and soil manage- ment. Disposal into the river during the rabi would increase the overall salinity of irrigation water so much that downstream farmers would have a legitimate complaint. Therefore, the best way of disposal appears to be to take the effluent altogether out of the irrigated area. 39. The Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD) which would discharge into the sea and would collect runoff from freak storms and saline effluent from the whole Indus Left Bank area in the Sind, is at present under construction. Plans are to extend it, eventually, to the boundary of the project area. Therefore, the LBOD could eventually be used to convey the saline effluent into the sea and thereby ensure that more salt leaves the project area than would enter it. 40. The LBOD, a very costly project, however, is unlikely to reach the northern Sind in less than two or three decades, and therefore an interim method of saline water disposal is required. The best alternative appears to be the construction of a series of evaporation ponds in the Cholistan Desert, adjoining the project area. The ponds would be outside areas at present en- visaged for irrigation, such as the Abbasia Flood Channel area and the pro- posed extension of the command of the Kandera distributary. Drain Design and Construction 41. To avoid excessive seepage and consequent recycling by the drainage wells, water levels in drains would be kept below ground level wherever pos- sible. While high-level drains would give command of the evaporation ponds, such a design would result in considerable seepage and damage to adjoining agricultural land if the canals were unlined, or, alternatively, it would be necessary to line on a large scale. In any case, some stretches would have to be lined, e.g. in sandy soils or where the drains cross depressions and would therefore have command of the surrounding land, but as the land slopes to the southeast, such stretches are likely to be short. The drains would empty into five evaporation ponds by means of low-lift pumping stations. When the LBOD reaches the project area, the drains would bypass the pumping stations and be directly connected to it. 65 ANNEX 4 Page 10 The Evaporation Ponds 42. It is expected that five evaporation ponds will have to be con- structed. The ponds would be formed by closing the gaps between the sand dunes with earth fill. The fill would be taken from nearby clay pans to minimize seepage losses. The ponds would have interconnecting overflow spillways; the lowermost pond would discharge into the Thar Desert. The surface area of the ponds was calculated from the amount of drainage effluent that they would receive and the likely rate of evaporation. Annex 3 shows the drainable surplus to be about 380,000 ac-ft. Evaporation of fresh water in the desert near SCARP VI has been recorded to be 100" per annum. It is estimated that the saturated brine which will eventually fill the ponds would evaporate at the rate of 80" per annum. Therefore, the ponds have to be of minimum surface area of 380,000: 6.67 = 57,000 ac; a safety margin is provided by seepage from the ponds. Operation and Maintenance Problems 43. Drifting Sands. Examination of aerial photographs taken in 1953 and 1976 show very little wind-induced movement of the dunes. This is corroborated by the low recorded annual wind velocities. However, small sand drifts are to be found across infrequently used tracks, and quite vio- lent, albeit short duration, saaldstorms do occur. Thus, drifting sand is likely to encroach into draiais (as it does into some irrigation canals and watercourses) and would have to be cleaned out periodically as part of the maintenance operation. Some sand would no doubt blow into the ponds, but this is not likely to be a serious hazard. 44. Sediment picked up from the drains would also contribute to the filling of the ponds, but owing to the flat gradients, minimal amounts are expected to reach the ponds froti this source. 45. Salt deposits would crystallize through evaporation. Some of this salt will undoubtedly be commercially exploited, as is done with similar deposits and effervescences elsewhere in the irrigated area. However, the ponds size given in para 42 would be large enough to accommodate all deposits for more than 100 years, and the LBOD will reach the project area long before then. 46. Aquatic Vegetation will not grow in the ponds after a few years because of the extremely high salinity of any standing water. However, based on experience in the nearby SCARP Khairpur project, some of the drain sections, where the water contains less than 4,000 ppm of dissolved solids, may be affected by aquatic weeds. Control would be partly by manual labor, partly by establishing an operating regime that would enable sections of the drains to dry out completely for a few weeks, which would kill most vegetation and allow the comparatively cheap removal of the desiccated remains. 66 ANNEX 4 Page 11 Design and Costs of the System 47. The drainage canals. There would be five main drains leading into the desert, distributed so that each would have a discharge of 100-110 cusecs. The total length of drains, including main and branch lines, but excluding the short channels that would connect individual wells to the system, would be about 530 miles. The cost, based on current contract rates, is estimated at Rs 159.6 M, with a foreign exchange component of Rs 20.6 M. 48. The pumping stations would each consist of four axial flow low lift pumps of 24" diameter each capable of pumping 38 cusecs through a lift of 10 feet. This would include one standby pump at each station. Costs are estimated as follows: F.E. Local Total ------- (Rs '000)- -- 20 pumps, CIF 5,380 5,380 freight and handling 323 20 343 civil works on pump stations 58 422 480 spares for pumps (15Z) 807 3 810 Total 6,568 445 7,013 49. Total cost of the saline effluent disposal system would therefore be as follows: F.E. Local Total --__--- (Rs M) ------- Surface drains and ponds 20.6 139.0 159.6 Pumping Stations 6.6 .4 7.0 Total 27.2 139.4 166.6 Additional Investigations Required 50. While the system layout and design studies carried out to date are sufficient to estimate costs, detailed survey work will be required to locate precisely the ponds and the main, subsidiary and branch drains on the ground. 67 ANNEX 4 Page 12 Detailed design of the drains would be done in conjunction with the design of the drainage well field and would take into consideration the demands made on it if, after an estimated 10 to 15 years, drainage wells would have to be installed in the remaining 150.,000 ac of Unit V. The gathering and collating of all necessary information would be one of the Consultants' major tasks (Annex 7). Surface Drainage 51. It should be noted that the drainage system described is for subsoil drainage only. The project area is however subject to occasional surface flooding from above-normal rainifall, and from the failure of river protection works. Surface drainage could be accommodated by using small local drainage systems to collect water which could be pumped into a canal. Operation and Maintenance Costsi 52. Pump Replacement Costs. The pumps are expected to require major overhaul every five years and complete replacement every 20 years. The five- yearly replacements are estimated to amount to 12.5% of the capital cost of the pumps. Hence, replacement costs would be as follows (in Rs '000): Year 5 - 672 Year 10 - 672 Year 15 - 672 Year 20 - 5,723 Year 25 - 672 Year 30 - 672 53. Energy Costs. Overall pump efficiency would be 65%. With an aver- age estimated lift of 10 ft the energy required would be as follows: 52 ft x 62.4 lbs x 10 ft x 1 sec x 0.746 kw x 365 days x 74 s ft3 550 ft lb hp hp year - 3,892,446 kWh/year. The cost of electricity per kWh has been taken as Rs 0.3 per kWh. The cost of pumping into evaporation ponds will therefore be about Rs 1.2 M/yr. 54. Other 0 & M Costs are those associated with staffing, transport, housing and repair facilities, and include routine maintenance of the drainage system. The estimated costs are tabulated below. 68 ANNEX 4 Page 13 Foreign Local Exchange Component Total -------------Rs '000----- Pump station staffing - 255 255 Other staff - 43 54 Transportation 13 97 110 Drain maintenance 27 187 214 Total 40 593 633 55. Total 0 & M Costs. Overall operation and maintenance costs for effluent disposal are as follows: Foreign Local Year Exchange Component Total ------------------(Rs '000)--------------- 1to 4 40 1,761 1,801 5 712 1,761 2,473 6 to 9 40 1,761 1,801 10 712 1,761 2,473 11 to 14 40 1,761 1,801 15 712 1,761 2,473 16 to 19 40 1,761 1,801 20 5,420 1,761 7,181 21 to 24 40 1,761 1,801 25 712 1,761 2,473 D. Electricity Distribution Network The Present Situation 56. The project area is flanked by two large power stations, one in Multan and another at Gudu with a generating capacity of 260 and 430 MW, respectively. Both feed into the 132 kV national grid line, which passes through the area. There is at present insufficient capacity to abstract power due to the limited distribution network. Network density is greater north and west of the railway line, in Units II and III, than to the south and east, in Units IV and V. However, nowhere is extent and capacity of the distribution network adequate to meet the demands that will be imposed by the project. 69 ANNEX 4 Page 14 Project Works and Costs 57. Under the project, additional power consumption would be around 23 MW, the provision of which should present no problem from the national grid, which is soon to receive substantial additional supplies from the Tarbela generators. Power lines would have to be provided to Units II and V for the public tubewells and the effluent pumping stations. No works demanding electric power are contemplated in Unit IV and it is not proposed to provide any additional infrastructure in Unit III. Private wells, in that Unit, if electrified, would be energized under WAPDA's ongoing expansion program. 58. Table 16 outlines the works necessary to energize all publicly operated wells. There is a physical contingency element in the extent of the 11 KV lines, as the exact location of the wells and the pumping stations, and consequently, the exact length of the line leading to them, will only be known after detailed design. However, the bill of quantities and the costs are unlikely to differ subatantially from the estimates. 59. The table estimates total project electrification costs to be Rs 249 M. While the whole of this sum would have to be committed by GOP, the project is only to be chargeil with 60% of it, the rest being attributable to rural electrification. 60. Pakistan has a well developed heavy electrical industry; neverthe- less some components, essential Eor complete network construction, are not manufactured locally. However, all raw materials are imported. Consequently, the foreign exchange component oE electrification costs inclusive of engineer- ing and construction would be about 30%, free of all duties and taxes. Project Execution 61. All materials, with the exception of 11 kV poles, would be procured by WAPDA through international competitive bidding, in which Pakistani firms would have a 15% advantage, or one equal to duties and taxes, whichever is lower. Installation would be contracted through local competitive bidding, in which foreign-based firms may participate. It would be of utmost importance to ensure that the electrification works are completed at the same time as the installation of tubevells and putmping stations. The bill of quantities on which ICB would be invited would be drawn up with the assistance of the Consultants and WAPDA's power wing. 70 ANNEX 4 Page 15 Cost Summary Rs M 62. Electrification of SCARP VI Wells: (60%) 149,129 Rural Electrification: (40%) 99,420 Total Electrification: (100%) 248,549 Of Which: Foreign Exchange Costs (30%) 74,564 E. Project Area Operation and Maintenance Costs 63. Estimated Operation and Maintenance costs for each project com- ponent are given in the relevant sections above, and summarized below: Existing Surface Irrigation System (para 16) Annual Operation, Maintenance: Rs 25.4 M/yr Unit II (para 33) Annual Operation : Rs 23.4 M/yr Spares, overhaul (at 10 years) : Rs 28.3 M Complete Replacement (at 20 years): Rs 116.7 M Unit III (para 34) Annual Operation: a) New uells Rs 8.9 M/yr b) Maximum incremental operation of existing wells Rs 7.2 M/yr Pump and well replacement (each 7 years): Rs 26.3 M Engine replacement (each 10 years) : Rs 34.3 M Unit V (para 36) Annual Operation : Rs 6.7 M /yr Pump replacement, overhaul (each 5 years): Rs 6.0 M Complete replacement (each 20 years) : Rs 52.0 M Drainage Works (para 55) Annual Operation : Rs 1.8 M/yr Pump replacement, overhaul (each 5 years): Rs 0.7 M Complete Replacement (each 20 years) : Rs 5.7 M 64. The resulting schedule of O&M expenditures, excluding private tubewell, averages about Rs 70 M/yr after full development (Table 16). The schedule for tubewell overhaul and replacement includes allowance for the initial pattern of installation. November 1977 71 ANNEX 4 Table 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Required Flow Rates in Main Canals (cusecs) Panjnad Canal Abbasia Canal Units II, III, Unit I Total Unit IV Unit I Total & V April 8 4,903 656 5,559 297 196 493 May 9 5,148 716 5,864 287 214 501 10 4,639 716 5,355 287 214 501 June 11 12,977 1,114 1,411 650 333 983 12 10,733 1,114 11,847 713 333 1,046 July 13 11,326 1,213 12,539 803 362 1,165 14 10,819 1,213 12,032 745 362 1,107 Aug 15 11,484 1,114 12,598 803 333 1,136 16 11,303 1,114 12,417 865 333 1,198 Sept 17 12,223 1,034 13,257 950 309 1,259 18 12,080 1,034 13,114 950 309 1,259 Oct 19 12,755 755 13,530 977 232 1,209 Mean Kharif 10,033 984 11,017 694 294 988 Oct 20 5,271 775 6,046 977 232 1,209 Nov 21 4,080 158 4,238 713 47 760 22 2,180 158 2,338 353 47 400 Dec 23 1,532 318 1,850 287 95 382 24 1,539 318 1,857 287 95 382 Jan 1 1,771 358 2,129 342 107 449 2 1,994 358 2,352 342 107 449 Feb 3 2,529 438 2,967 446 131 577 4 3,225 438 3,663 571 131 702 Mar 5 3,548 278 3,826 629 83 712 6 3,890 278 4,168 690 83 773 Apr 7 2,593 656 3,249 417 196 613 Mean rabi 2,846 378 3,224 505 113 618 Mean Annual 6,440 681 7,120 600 2n4 803 72 ANNEX 4 Table 2 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Salient Features of Present and Proposed Canal Regimes Panjnad Abbas. ia Present Future Present Future ( cusecs) Maximum Kharif Flows: Design 9,567 - 1,064 - Actual Operation 10,484 13,530 1,064 1,259 Minimum in Rabi 1,065. 1,850 151 382 Kharif Mean 7,506 11,017 753 988 Rabi Mean 2,235 3,224 296 618 Maximum Over Minimum Discharge 9.8 to 1 7.3 to 1 7 to 1 3.3 to 1 m >1 wN)4- ANNEX 4 Table 3 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI UNIT COSTS PUBLIC WELL CONSTRUCTION Costs Item Description Unit No LC % FE % Total (RS) 1 Drill 22" or 24" dia hole l.ft 70.0 30.0 75.00 2 Supply & install 14" dia steel casing l.ft 40.00 60.0 225.00 3 " " " 12" " " " iL 4u.u 60.0 200.00 4 " " " 10" " GRP " l.ft 10.0 90.0 135.00 5 " " " 8" " " l.ft 10.0 90.0 115.00 6 " " it 10" " " screen l.ft 10.0 90.0 147.00 7 " " " 8" " " screen l.ft 10.0 90.0 127.00 8 " " " gravel shrouding l.ft 100.0 0.0 30.00 9 Supply & install pump & motor Sum 60.0 40.0 37,000 & l0,OOOQ 10 " " " " " " " Sum 15.0 85.0 74,000 & 20,OOOQ 11 Develop & Test Sum 60.0 40.0 3,000.00 12 Pump house & discharge box Sum 100.0 7,500.00 13 Operators house Sum 100.0 4,000.00 14 Distribution works Sum 100.0 2,000.00 15 Land Sum 100.0 500.00 ANNEX 4 PAKISTAN Table 4 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI COSTS OF PUBLIC TUBEWELL CONSTRUCTION 3 CUSECS WELL, SALINE GROUNDWATER Item Quantity Unit Total Local Foreign Cost Cost Currency Exchange (RS) (RS) (RS) (RS) Drilling 215 75 16,125 11,287 4,838 Pump Casing 75 225 16,875 6,750 10,125 Blank Casing 20 115 2,300 230 2,070 Screen 120 128 15.24- 1.524 13,716 Gravel 215 30 6,450 6,450 Pump & Motor 1 134,000 134,000 20,100 113,900 Development & Test 1 3,000 3,000 1,800 1,200 Pump House etc. 1 7,500 7,500 7,500 Operators House 1 4,000 4,000 4,000 Disposal Works 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 Land 1 500 500 500 Total 207,990 62,141 145,849 Duty & Sales Tax 68,188 68,188 On Imports Grand Total 276,178 130,329 145,849 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are at the rates of 20% of foreign exchange component on fibre glass items and 50% of foreign exchange component on other items 75 ANNEX 4 Table 5 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI COSTS OF PUBLIC TUBEWELL CONSTRUCTION 3 CUSECS W:ELL, FRESH GROUNDWATER Item Quantity Unit Total Local Foreign Cost Cost Currency Exchange (RS) (RS) (RS) (RS) Drilling 215 75 16,125 11,287 4,838 Pump Casing 75 225 16,875 6,750 10,125 Blank Casing 20 115 2,300 230 2,070 Screen 120 127 15,240 1,524 13,716 Gravel 215 30 6,450 6,450 Pump & Motor 1 67,000 67,000 40,200 26,800 Development & Test 1 3,000 3,000 1,800 1,200 Pump House etc 1 7,500 7,500 7,500 Operators House 1 4,000 4,000 4,000 Distribution Works 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 Land 1 500 500 500 Total 140,990 82,241 58,749 Duty & Sales Tax 24,998 24,998 On Imports Grand Total 165,988 107,239 58,749 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are at the rates of 20% foreign exchange component on fibre glass items and 50% of foreign exchange component on other items. 76 ANNEX 4 PAKISTAN Table 6 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI COSTS OF PUBLIC TUBEWELL CONSTRUCTION 2 CUSECS WELL, FRESH GROUNDWATER Item Quantity Unit Total Local Foreign Cost Cost Currency Exchange (RS) (RS) (RS) (RS) Drilling 185 75 13,875 3,721 4,163 Pump Casing 65 225 14,625 5,850 8,775 Blank Casing 20 115 2,300 230 2,070 Screen 100 127 12,700 1,270 11,430 Gravel 185 30 5,550 5,550 Pump & Motor 1 57,000 57,000 34,200 22,800 Development & Test 1 3,000 3,000 1,800 1,200 Pump House etc 1 7,500 7,500 7,500 Operators House 1 4,000 4,000 4,000 Distribution Works 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 Land 1 500 500 500 Total 123,050 72,612 50,438 Duty & Sales Tax 21,169 21,169 On Imports Grand Total 144,219 93,781 50,438 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are at tEle rates of 20% of foreign exchange component on fibre glass items and 50% of foreign exchange component on other items. 77 ANNEX 4 Table 7 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI COSTS OF PUBLIC TUBEWELL CONSTRUCTION 2.5 CUSECS WELL, FRESH GROUNDWATER Item Quantity Unit Total Local Foreign Cost Cost Currency Exchange (RS) (RS) (RS) (RS) Drilling 200 75 15,000 10,500 4,500 Pump Casing 70 225 15,750 6,300 9,450 Blank Casing 20 115 2,300 230 2,070 Screen 110 127 13,970 1,397 12,573 Gravel 200 30 6,000 6,000 Pump & Motor 1 62,000 62,000 37,200 24,800 Development & Test 1 3,000 3,000 1,800 1,200 Pump House etc 1 7,500 7,500 7,500 Operators House 1 4,000 4,000 4,000 Distribution Works 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 Land 1 500 500 500 Total 143,020 77,427 54,593 Duty & Sales Tax 22,904 22,904 On Imports Grand Total 154,924 100,331 54,593 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are at the rates of 20% of foreign exchange component on fibre glass items and 50% of foreign exchange components on other items 78 ANNEX 4 Table 8 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Unit Costs Private Well Construction Item Costs No. Description UTnit LC x FE % Total (Rs) 1 Drill 8" dia. hole l.ft 90.0 10.0 50.00 2 Supply & install 8" casing l.ft 50.0 50.0 70.00 3 Supply & install 6" casing l.ft 50.0 50.0 55.00 4 Supply & install 8" coil screen l.ft 60.0 40.0 25.00 5 Supply & install 6" coil screen l.ft 60.0 40.0 20.00 6 Supply & install 8" PVC screen l.ft 60.0 40.0 74.00 7 Supply & install 6" PVC screen l.ft 60.0 40.0 42.00 8 Supply & install 8" brass screen l.ft 60.0 40.0 180.00 9 Supply & install 6" brass screen l.ft 60.0 40.0 125.00 10 Develop & test sum 70.0 30.0 2,000.00 11 Miscellaneous sum 80.0 20.0 4,000.00 12 Supply & install pump & motor (electric) sum 70.0 30.0 4,000 + 2,500 Q 13 Sulpply & install pump & motor (diesel) sum 70.0 30.0 10,000 + 4,500 Q 14 Land sum 100.0 - 500.00 15 Supply & place gravel shrouding (if required) l.ft 100.0 - 20.00 79 ANNEX 4 Table 9 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL ANI) RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Costs of Private Tubewell Construction 0.5 Cusecs Well, PVC Screen, Electric Motor Unit Total Local Foreign Item Quantity Cost Cost Currency Exchange (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) Drilling 80 50 4,000 3,600 400 Blank Casing 30 55 1,650 825 825 Screen 50 42 2,100 1,260 840 Pump & Motor 1 5,250 5,250 3,675 1,575 Development & Test 1 2,000 2,000 1,400 600 Miscellaneous 1 4,000 4,000 3,200 800 Land 1 500 500 500 - Total 19,500 14,460 5,040 Duty & Sales Tax on Imports 2,520 2,520 - Total without Tax & Duty 16,980 11,940 5,040 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are taken as 50% of the foreign exchange costs. on ANNEX 4 Table 10 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARF) VI Costs of Private Tubewell Construction 0.5 Cusecs Well, PVC Screen, Diesel Engine Unit Total Local Foreign Item Quantity Cost Cost Currency Exchange (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) Drilling 80 50 4,000 3,600 400 Blank Casing 30 55 1,650 825 825 Screen 50 42 2,100 1,260 840 Pump & Motor 1 12,250 12,250 8,575 3,675 Development & Test 1 2,000 2,000 1,400 600 Miscellaneous 1 4,000 4,000 3,200 800 Land 1 500 500 500 - Total 26,500 19,360 7,140 Duty & Sales Tax on Imports 3,570 3,570 - Total without Tax & Duty 22,930 15,790 7,140 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are taken as 50% of the foreign exchange costs. 81 ANNEX 4 Table 11 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Costs of Private Tubewell Construction 1 Cusec Well, PVC Screen, Electric Motor Unit Total Local Foreign Item Quantity Cost Cost Currency Exchange (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) Drilling 120 50 6,000 5,400 600 Blank Casing 30 55 1,650 825 825 Screen 90 42 3,780 2,268 1,512 Pump & Motor 1 6,500 6,500 4,550 1,950 Development & Test 1 2,000 2,000 1,400 600 Miscellaneous 1 4,000 4,000 3,200 800 Land 1 500 500 500 - Total 24,430 18,143 6,287 Duty & Sales Tax on Imports 3,144 3,144 - Total without Tax & Duty 21,286 14,999 6,287 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are taken as 50% of foreign exchange costs. 82 ANNEX 4 Table 12 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Costs of Private Tubewell Construction 1 Cusec Well, PVC Screen, Diesel Engine Unit Total Local Foreign Item Quantity Cost Cost Currency Exchange (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) Drilling 120 50 6,000 5,400 600 Blank Casing 30 55 1,650 825 825 Screen 90 42 3,780 2,268 1,512 Pump & Motor 1 14,500 14,500 10,150 4,350 Development & Test 1 2,000 2,000 1,400 600 Miscellaneous 1 4,000 4,000 3,200 800 Land 1 500 500 500 - Total 32,430 23,743 8,687 Duty & Sales Tax on Imports 4,344 4,344 - Total without Tax & Duty 28,086 19,399 8,687 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are taken as 50% of foreign exchange costs. 83 ANNEX 4 Table 13 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Costs of Private Tubewell Construction 1.5 Cusecs Well, PVC Screen, Electric Motor Unit Total Local Foreign Item Quantity Cost Cost Currency Exchange (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) Drilling 150 50 7,500 6,750 750 Blank Casing 40 55 2,200 1,100 1,100 Screen 110 42 4,620 2,772 1,848 Pump & Motor 1 7,750 7,750 5,425 2,325 Development & Test 1 2,000 2,000 1,400 600 Miscellaneous 1 4,000 4,000 3,200 800 Land 1 500 500 500 - 28,570 21,147 7,423 Duty & Sales Tax on Imports 3,712 3,712 - Total without Tax & Duty 24,858 17,435 7,423 Note: Duty and sales tax on :Lmports are taken as 50Z of foreign exchange costs. 84 ANNEX 4 Table 14 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Costs of Private Tubewell Construction 1.5 Cusecs Well, PVC Screen, Diesel Engine Unit Total Local Foreign Item Quantity Cost Cost Currency Exchange (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) Drilling 150 50 7,500 6,750 750 Blank Casing 40 55 2,200 1,100 1,100 Screen 110 42 4,620 2,772 1,848 Pump & Motor 1 16,750 16,750 11,725 5,025 Development & Test 1 2,000 2,000 1,400 600 Miscellaneous 1 4,000 4,000 3,200 800 Land 1 500 500 500 - Total 37,570 27,447 10,123 Duty & Sales Tax on Imports 5,062 5,062 Total without Tax & Duty 32,508 22,385 10,123 Note: Duty and sales tax on imports are taken as 50% of foreign exchange costs. 85 ANNEX 4 Table 15 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONT}OL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Electrification Costs ('000 Rs) Item No Item Unit II Unit V Total 1. Preliminary and General 684 150 834 2. Civil Works: (i) residences & quarters for linesman and other staff. 6,384 1,804 8,188 (ii) offices and stores 1,710 528 3,241 3. Equipment and materials including erection. (a) Distribution lines (798+159) miles of 11 kv line using ACSR Dog including pole mounted sub-station on single structure and L.T. service cable up to tubewell and meter. 111,700 22,200 133,900 ((b) (114+42) miles of 11 kv liea using ACSR Rabbit including pole mounted suh- station on single structure and L.T. service cable up to tubevell and meter 14,250 5,225 19,475 (c) (4+10) Nos. capacitor setE of 300 KVAR each. 24 60 84 4. Grid Stations (a) Data Shah 4,100 4,100 (b) Khan Bela 4,100 4,100 (c) Tillu Goth 4.100 4,100 (d) Jajja Abbasia (i) 7,000 7,000 (ii) 3,500 3,500 (e) Gulmerg 5,000 5,000 (f) Chachran 100 100 (g) Rahim Yar Khan (extension) 50 50 (h) Khanpur (extension) 2,000 as,950 5. Transmission Lines (a) (42.9+12) miles of 66 kv transmission line using ACSR Dog from Jajja-Abbasia to Khan Bela, Jajja-Abbasia to Palashah, Sadiqabad to Jamaldinwali., Sadiqabad. to Kasmani and Sadiqabad to Tillu Goth 25,800 7,200 33,000 (b) (13.2+10.0) miles of 132 kv transmission lines using ACSR LYNX from Khanpur to Jajja-Abbasia and Rahiayar Khan to Gulmerg 11,880 9,000 20,880 TOTAL 193,282 55,267 248,549 86 PARISTAN ANU4 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP VI) Table 16 Operating, Maintenance and Replacement Costs Rs Million YR Unit 1 Unit III 3 UIt V D1ainage 3otau' A-l/ R2/ 2~~~/ 17 2 Proj ec t Puli Secto ;-' 1 1 26.4 2 6 3 34.4 31.4 3 12 7 444 3714 4 20 12 44.4 37.4 5 ~~23.4 13 57.4 45.4 6 of 14 3.4 66.2 52.2 7 15 6.7 1.8 72.3 57.3 8 16.1 1it73.4 57.3 9 ' 14.5 t' 71.8 57.3 10 13.0 it70.3 57.3 11 12.0 5.7 " 3 78.0 60.3 12 11.1 5.7 3 .7 77.8 61.0 13 14.t 5.7 88.2 71.4 14 14.1 12.6 95.1 71.4 15 12.6 5 81.0 57.3 16 6.9 3 78.3 60.3 17 6.9 3 .7 78.3 60.3 18 " " 12.6 " 81.0 57.3 19 5.7 74.1 57.3 20 " 5.7 74.1 57.3 21 "" 5 .7 " 3 77.1 60.3 22 ' " 5.7 " 3 ' .7 77.8 61.0 23 58.3 " 6.9 "133.6 115.6 24 58.4 ' 1 6.9 " 133.7 115.7 25 12.6 "81.0 57.3 26 " " 12.6 " 29 " 110.0 86.3 27 "12.6 29 "5.7 115.7 92.0 28 " 5.7 74.1 57.3 29 " 5.7 74.1 57,3 30 U 68.4 5. 1/ A - Annual fuel and operating costs -R Replacements and major overhauls 3/ - -DIncluding D&M of existing system (Rs 25.4 M/yr) -/ Excluding Unit III private tubevella ANNEX 5 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Land Leveling and Reclamation Introduction 1. Basin irrigation has been traditional in Pakistan since prehistoric times. The fact that land to le so irrigated has to be leveled, preferably to a zero slope, is well recogrized. Therefore, individual irrigation units are regularly leveled as part cf land preparation for all the major crops. 2. When new land is brought into cultivation, either to increase the irrigated area, or replace salinized land, a great deal of time and effort is spent on levelling. 3. Under project conditions, with increasing water supplies, it will be possible to bring into cultivation land defined as "culturable waste" (irrigable land, not cultivated for the last three years or more) as well as "current fallow" (land cultivated within the last three years). Further, to increase irrigation efficiencies and to enable farmers to irrigate more land with their share of river or well water without deliberately underirrigating and thereby causing salinization, fine leveling must be speeded up. Physical Land Reclamation 4. For the last 20 years or more, land potentially commandable by surface irrigation but not cultivated for a long time, if ever, was being roughly leveled by bulldozers, to be finished off by the farmers' own efforts and equipment (para 6). For this purpose, the Agricultural Engineering Divi- sion maintains a fleet of 30 crawler tractors with bulldozer blades. As many of them are old, the average number that are operational at any one time is reported to be around 25. They work for cash, at a subsidized rate. (Rs 85/hr for the larger tractors and Rs 55/hr for the smaller ones, instead of a more realistic figure, inclusive of overheads, of around double). There is only limited borrowing from the banks by the farmers for this purpose. The waiting list for tractor services is about six months. 5. It is doubtful whether the most efficient method, even for coarse leveling, is with bulldozers onLy. In other countries a combination of bulldozers and scrapers is used, but this has never taken on in Pakistan. However, as the farmers usually aim to create relatively small irrigation units (typically one acre fields, divided into four sections) the scrapers, while more efficient than bulldozers, have a relatively small advantage, 88 ANNEX 5 Page 2 further reduced by the experience of using bulldozers. It is planned to augment the bulldozer fleet from the 400 units shortly to be imported under bilateral aid. This will reduce considerably the present six-months from request of services to execution. Further, under the project, credit would be readily available to pay for tractor hire (Annex 6) and therefore it is expected that coarse land leveling will proceed at a rate corresponding to the need to bring fallow land and culturable waste into cultivation in line with increasing water supplies. Fine Leveling 6. Fine leveling of fields already in cultivation, or following physical reclamation, is traditionally done with ox-drawn scraperboards. A relatively recent introduction is an ingenious local adaptation of the multipurpose blade, hitched behind 35-40 hp agricultural tractors, origi- nally designed for grading. Both methods are used as a routine land prep- aration measure for wheat, cotton and sugarcane. The land is ploughed and then the soil moved from spots judged, or remembered from previous cropping, to be high, into similarly identified low spots. Land leveling for rice is either done in a similar way or after flooding, using a heavy timber baulk as a float. If leveling is done on dry land, the accuracy of the work is not known until the fields are irrigated. Any unevenness then identified is usually remedied in a subsequent year, because there is neither time, nor water, to let the land dry, re-level and flood it again prior to planting. 7. A task increasingly undertaken for greater working efficiency, usually with agricultural tractors but sometimes also with oxen, is to enlarge the small irrigation units. Land Development Under the Project 8. The benefits of leveling. Culturable waste cannot be irrigated unless leveled; additional water would be made available under the project to expand the cropped area and therefore the development of culturable waste is essential. Experience in completed projects shows that if the farmers are assured of water for reclamation and subsequent cropping, they will readily undertake the task; it was noted that even with slowly increasing water supplies demand for bulldozer-type leveling is far in excess of capacity. Therefore, there would appear to be little doubt that even an augmented bulldozer fleet would be fully committed for several years to come. 9. Fine leveling shows less spectacular benefits, but they are nonetheless readily demonstrable. The following table shows some of the results obtained by the USAID -sponsored Precision Land Leveling Project (PLLP) in the Sind, on wheat in the 1975-76 season. 89 ANNEX 5 Page 3 Leveled Areas Changes in Date Volume of Cut- Comparable Yields Acres Crop Leveled m /acre Sites md/ac 7.5 Wheat Mar. '75 127 Wheat +6.5 4.5 Wheat Feb. '75 192 Wheat +9.0 12.5 Wheat Sept. '75 321 Wheat +6.4 PLLP report that their measurements of water required to irrigate leveled vs. unleveled fields were incomplete but are satisfied that water savings are substantial. Their contention of yield increase and water saving is corrob- orated, as noted, by fine levelLng being part of farming tradition. There- fore, there is a strong case to speed up the operation and put it on a more scientific basis. Using the technology developed by PLLP, it is proposed to supply 40 65-75 hp four-whee.L tractors, with scrapers and chisel plows. These units would be able to speed up the work of the bulldozers and so com- plete the leveling process more rapidly. The result would be a reduction in the time required to reach full production on newly reclaimed land. This would be particularly important where leaching is required, with or without the application of gypsum (Annex 2 and para 13). The same units would of course be available to farmers who have no need for bulldozers and only require hired equipment for enlarging and/or fine leveling their fields. 10. In addition to the mechanical equipment, it is proposed to augment the staff of the agricultural engineer with trained surveyors who would mark out the fields before work star1s and check the completed job. This would benefit the farmers in two ways; (a) before hiring equipmentt or engaging contractors, they would have a more exact idea of the task involved, through being advised of the quantities of earth to be moved and have a definite plan according to which to move the earth, inntead of eye estimates and recol- lections of past unevenness; (b) on completing the job, the surveyors would check its accuracy; there would be no need for trial flooding, and therefore it would be possible to correct mistakes without delay. Annex 6 shows the local investment costs in equipment and additional transport needs for land leveling and reclamation. 11. Further, it is proposed to provide US$3.8 m as part of the medium- term agricultural credit component (Annex 6) to enable farmers to borrow from the commercial banks (CBs) for land leveling. It is expected that some 100,000 ac of culturable waste and fallow land would be leveled during the life of the project; costs aLre estimated to be around Rs 1,000 per ac. 90 ANNEX 5 Page 4 The farmer, from his own resources -- or by the use of his own equipment and labor -- would provide the equivalent of 25% of the cost. Half of the re- mainder would be provided by the CBs' own resources. 12. The assumption in deriving the credit requirements was that all farmers will borrow 75% of the costs of leveling not cultivated lands. While it is expected that the simpler and streamlined formalities of obtain- ing credit under the project would encourage more applicants than in the past, and that their number would be further enhanced when it becomes known that the waiting time is less than six months, the sum indicated might still not be fully used for financing the leveling of fallow and culturable waste. It is expected however that any unutilized balance would be taken up by farmers wanting to rent the wheel tractors and equipment for fine leveling land already in cultivation and by others who have soils which would benefit from periodic deep chisel plowing. 13. Soil Amendments. As noted in Annex 2, some 12%-13% of the proj- ect area, or about 160,000 ac, would require the application of up to five tons of gypsum to restore the potential productivity of the soil. However, the benefits would only be temporary if the gypsum were to be incorporated in the soil before the water table is established at a safe depth and there is enough irrigation water available to irrigate the reclaimed lands at least once a year. Consequently, it is expected that significant demands for gypsum would not arise until the third or fourth year after the begin- ning of the project. Therefore, the area that would in fact receive it before the project is completed is unlikely to exceed 40,000 ac. It is esti- mated that five tons per ac would be required which, with appropriate pro- cessing, would cost Rs 200 per ton at the sales point. Consequently, the gypsum to be applied would cost Rs 40 M. As the technique, at least on such a scale, is new to Pakistan, the supply of gypsum at the sales point would be a project component. The farmer, however, would be expected to use his own transport and labor to collect and spread it, according to the technical advice given by staff of the Bahawalpur soils laboratory (Annex 13). November 1977 91 ANNEX 6 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL. AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Agricultural Credit The Present Situation 1. Background. Institutional lending for seasonal inputs and invest- ments on the farm was, until thIe end of 1972, the responsibility of the cooperative banks and the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP). Both were experiencing difficulties due to scarce resources, unsound credit policy and poor administration. This latter led to poor loan recoveries, a deteriorating financial position and general slowing down in operations as preoccupation with these issues developed. Recent GOP action, including the establishment of a Federal Bank for Cooperatives, has improved the situation somewhat, and these institutions should provide 50% of lending to the sector during the 1976-81 plan period (Table 1). 2. Commercial Bank Involvement in Agricultural Credit. In parallel with GOP efforts to improve the operations of the cooperative and ADBP agen- cies, the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) drew up a scheme in November 1972 to involve commercial banks in short and medium term agricultural credit. Des- pite the new demands for expertise which this made on the commercial banks, they have vigorously expanded operations in the sector. Total disbursements rose from Rs 69 million in 1972/73 to Rs 710 million in 1975/76 - 17% over the target. Lending data for the five scheduled banks involved (National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), Habib Bank Ltd (HBL), United Bank Ltd (UBL), Muslim Com- mercial Bank (MCB) and Allied Bank Limited (ABL) are shown in Tables 2 and 3. 3. The commercial banks will be used as the credit channel for IDA funds provided for farm level investments in the tubewells, land levelling and soil improvement under the present project. 4. Commercial Bank Activities in the Project Area. In Rahimyar Khan District, agricultural credit disbursements for 1975/76 represented about 12% of loans of all kinds for NBP, MICB and ABL and 46% and 69%, respectively, for HB and UBL (Table 4). 5. While about 60% of MCB and ABL agricultural loans are development oriented, the other banks mostly finance inputs, mainly fertilizers. Among development loans, borrowing for tubewells (maintenance, replacement, or new installation) predominates although tractors and bullocks represent a signi- ficant proportion. Loans for land levelling are negligible. Production loans (below Rs 2,000) go mainly to small-size farmers while loans for expensive equipment or machinery (from Rs 5,000 to Rs 25,000 and above (Table 5)) go to the big landowners. 92 ANNEX 6 Page 2 6. Distribution and Staffing of Branches. The commercial banks have markedly increased the number of their branch offices in the rural areas. At present, they have 5,668 branches and offices of which 2,044 are in rural areas, and 103 in the project area. In addition to its own commercial branches, NBP has an independent network of 64 Basic Credit Units (BCU) dealing exclusively with supervised agricultural credits. These BCUs are mainly grouped around Lahore (Punjab), and Peshawar (NWFP). The headquarters of the Agricultural Project Department, which operates the BCUs, are in Lahore. 7. As the banks got more deeply involved in lending for agriculture, they augmented their staff with agricultural graduates, trained specially in the agricultural credit business. There are 11 such officers in the project area. 8. Terms and Conditions of Lending. The banks pay the supplier of inputs, the contractor who carried out the works or the dealer who supplied the equipment. The borrower must contribute from 10% to 25% of the invest- ment. The amount lent must be less than 80% of the value of the land securing the loan. This value is determined from the Passbook on the basis of 60 times the number of produce index units (PIU) published under the authority of the Land Commission for the province. 9. Production loans usually have to be repaid at the end of the crop season; at most, they can be extended for 12 months. Development loans (tube- well, tractors, land-leveling, on-farm permanent improvements) have to be re- paid within five years. Such repayments are made through semi-annual or an- nual installments. The rate of interest is 12% for short- and medium-term loans, i.e. 3% above the SBP discounting rate (9%). All banks are charging a 1% to 3% penalty for late repayment. 10. Loans are secured by two guarantors (up to Rs 2,000) or by mortgage on land under the passbook system. This was established under the Loans for Agricultural Purposes Rules 1973. Banks may also take a lien on growing crops or on equipment financed by the credit granted. For crops and machinery, this document is a simple agreement signed by the lending bank and the loanee, in which, inter alia, the borrower binds himself not to dispose of the item hypothecated without the consent of the bank. For tubewells, the borrower also binds himself not to transport the pumping equipment elsewhere. 11. The sanctioning of agricultural loans has been accelerated through decentralization of responsibility. Most production loans (inputs) up to Rs 5,000, are within the sanctioning power of local branch managers. Devel- opment loans, ranging from Rs 2,000 to Rs 5,000 for land leveling and bullocks and to Rs 25,000 (tubewells) are within the sanctioning power of the local or Zonal Branch Manager. Loans between Rs 5,000 and Rs 10,000, Rs 25,000 (MCB) or Rs 50,000 (UBL) are approved by the Zonal or Regional Branch Manager. The Karachi Head Office has to approve loans in excess of these amounts. Com- pletion of the lending procedure seldom exceeds ten days. Loans for tractors, the procurement of which sometimes requires lengthy formalities, and since the cost exceeds Rs 50,000, have to be approved by the Bank's Head Office. The full procedure in some cases requires more than one month. 93 ANNEX 6 Page 3 12. Evidence of short- or medium-term loans is the Demand Promissory Note (DPN) signed by the borrower and, where required, by guarantors; the loan agreement between the bank and the borrower, or if required, the deed of hypothecation. 13. Loan Recovery. The maturity date of loans or installments coincides with the harvest of kharif and rabi crops financed. A notice is sent or delivered to the borrower one month before the stipulated expiration date. In case of default, after due warning the Revenue Department recovers under powers vested in it by the law on agricultural credit. 14. The Banks' records are not kept in a manner that enables an easy determination of the loan recovery rate. In Rahimyar Khan District, it would, however, appear from commercial branches' statements that the rate of collection for short-term loans range from 70% (UBL) to 83% (NBP). For the NBP's supervised Agricultural Credit Program (not yet extended to the project area), the rate of recovery for production loans as of October 31, 1976 was 98% for loans disbursed up to 1973, between 92% and 94% for loans disbursed from 1974 to 1975 and 72% for loans disbursed during the winter (rabi) 1975/76. For medium-term loans, the rate given by NBP Headquarters was 85%. Losses and bad debts arising out of agricultural lending are 50% underwritten by SBP. However, the procedures at present set out for such claims are so involved and time consuming that no bank has yet availed it- self of this facility. Financial Position of the Commercial Banks 15. Table 6 shows that the five nationalized banks are in a satisfactory financial position. They have substantial liquid assets despite significant investments in Government securities, trustee securities, and debentures guaranteed by the Government. PIofits are increasing. 16. Commercial banks are subject to annual SBP administrative, technical and financial inspection. In adcLition, their monthly and quarterly returns are submitted to the Control Division of SBP, and each bank is audited by a firm of auditors of international, standards. II. Commercial Banks as IDA Credit Participating Agencies 17. Operating Procedures. Each participating CB would have a "SCARP VI Agricultural Credit" account opened in SBP books. The IDA credit proceeds re- lated to SCARP VI Agriculture Credit components (tubewells, land-leveling, soil improvement) would be transferred from the GOP account to the "SCARP VI Project" account in SBP books and, from this latter account, passed on to the credit of the participating bank "SCARP VI Agricultural Credit" account as reimburse- ment of loans pre-financed. 94 ANNEX 6 Page 4 18. ITstaliments of mediidi- :e;rm loans collected by the bank would be transfe-red to a "SCARP VI Agrieultltral Credit Revolving Account" opened in SBP books, and usec for financing new loans along with IDA and bank comple- mentar-- sh3res as necessary. The participating banks' share would be 50% of loans ie'quired, after using the balance of the revolving account. They would bear the full credit risk. Such significant bank involvement in financing would be an assurance that applicants' repayment capacity would be carefully appraised and loan recovery actively pursued. 19. Interest Rates. The GOP would charge SBP an interest of 5%, repre- senting the service charge paid to IDA. The SBP would charge commercial banks 6%. This corresponds to the average cost of resources of commercial banks. 20. Project Agricultural Credit Components. The project would provide credit facilities to farmers for: (a) installation of tubewells in fresh groundwater areas (Unit III); and (b) for land leveling. Credit would be for medium-term (3-5 years). 21. The Project Director would administer the project account opened in SBP books and, with SBP assistance, would keep permanent control of the "SCARP VI Agricultural Credit" account opened for each participating bank (through which IDA credit share in medium-term loans would pass). He would also keep control of "SCARP VI Agricultural Credit Revolving Accounts" to ensure that this account is adequately used by banks. 22. All documents justifying the bank's application for IDA disbursement with or without utilization of the revolving account would be scrutinized by the Project Director. Accredited representatives of the commercial banks, who would be members of the Project Coordinating Committee, would assist the Project Director in credit supervision. 23. Terms and Conditions of Loans. The first installment would fall due at the end of the next rabi season when loans are disbursed during the kharif period, or the end of the next kharif season when loans are disbursed during the rabi period. 24. An interest of 12% per annum would be charged. A penalty of 2% would be levied when installments are paid more than two months after the date on which they are due. No loan would be made to tenants or sharecroppers except where the landowner guarantees the loan, jointly and separately. In such particular case, landowner and sharecroppers would also share equally in the repayment of loan installments. 25. For tubewells, prospective borrowers would have to justify, through a certificate from an accredited laboratory, that the water is fit for irri- gation and that the pumping output meets the irrigation requirements of the cultivated area and planned cropping intensity. To comply with the latter criteria, small land owners would be encouraged to form groups covering the 95 ANNEX 6 Page 5 optimum acreage. Group members would be jointly and severally responsible for the repayment of the loan and a charge would be taken on the land owned by each. An agreement would be signed by all group participants stipulating: (a) the joint liability in the loan repayment; (b) the rules for contributing to operation and maintenance expenditures; (c) on what basis each nember would share in the repayment of annual loan installments; (d) the members' turn aid timing in water use; and (e) on what basis and bI whom, the association would be administered; (f) in case of liquidation, what would be the members' share in the outstaading debt. 26. For land leveling, no down payment would be required from appli- cants who own less than 12 ac and only 10% from farmers who own 12 to 25 ac. Loans for land leveling to small farmers (less than 12 ac) would be charged 10% interest per annum instead of 12%. The substantial spread between the IDA service charge (0.75%) and the interest paid by the ultimate borrower (12%) would easily absorb the bonus of 2% granted to small farmers. This would be in accordance with reocommendations of the Bankers Conference (Novem- ber 1976) that small farmers ihould pay a lower interest than big farmers. The disbursement of loans wou>d be subject to a certificate from the Agri- cultural Engineering Departmenit certifying that leveling has been completed to the specified standard. 27. Lending Procedure. Participating banks would continue following the present lending procedure.. However, the loan application form would be standardized and would state mhe farm plan and the farm budget before and after investment. An estimate of equipment or works to be financed would be attached to the application a3ong with a recommendation from a technical supporting department. The loan appraisal would focus more on the need for investment and the applicant's repayment capacity based on the farm plan and farm budget than on formal securities. 28. Payment for goods or services would be made directly to the supplier or the contractor after the branch manager has been given: (a) a detailed statement showing the final cost of works or equipment and the down-payments made by the farmer; (b) a rec.ipt signed by the latter and the branch agri- cultural credit officer certifying that tubewell installation has been com- pleted satisfactorily; and (c) for land leveling, the document referred to in para 26. 29. Payment for works such as well digging, masonry or land leveling and partial disbursements, when claimed by contractors, would be made 96 ANNEX 6 Page 6 according to the progress of the works and upon recommendation of the branch field officer who supervises the work. The final disbursement, however, would require the documents mentioned in para 28 (b) and (c). 30. Technical Staffing. There are not enough agricultural credit tech- nicians to cope adequately with the increase in lending volume expected under the project. Habib Bank and Muslim Commercial Bank have about one specialist for five branches; the others have only one in the district and ABL has none (Table 4). For ABL, the general controller in the Regional Office in Bahawal- pur supervises the branch managers in the project area when dealing with agri- cultural credit applications. 31. Records. Participating banks would have to keep separate accounts for loans made under the SCARP VI Project Agricultural Credit. These would be kept in such a manner that a clear picture could be had at all times of overdues, interest payments and principal sums recovered. 32. The banks' charts of account would be reviewed so as to open for each branch in the project area a medium-term loan account subdivided into three principal accounts: "Loans not yet due", "Loans overdue", and "Loans under legal action". Each of these three principal accounts would be sub- divided into two sub-accounts; "Tubewell" and "Land leveling." These sub- accounts when related to the principal account "Loans not yet due" would be subdivided into "Loans 1978" account, "Loans 1979" account, "Loans 1980". Sub-accounts related to the principal account "Loans overdue" and "Loans under legal action" would be subdivided into "Installments 1979" account, "Install- ments 1980" account, etc. Credit Requirement and Financing 33. Credits would be provided for financing for up to five years (a) the procurement and installation of 1,000-1/2 cusec, 1,000 1 cusec and 287 1-1/2 cusec tubewells in the freshwater areas; and (b) the leveling of about 100,000 ac. 34. The tubewells are estimated to cost Rs 60.4 M. Land leveling cost per acre is estimated at Rs 1,000, or a total cost of Rs 100 M. The total would thus be about Rs 160.4 M plus contingencies. 35. This component of the project has been estimated at the most pes- simistic assumption on repayments, i.e. that none of the farmer repayment installments will be available for relending. On this assumption, the pro- ject would have to finance Rs 82.5 M. However, it will be readily apparent to the project auditors from the required records (para 31) how repayments become available. There would therefore be a clear record whether the lending rates can be increased or whether funds from the farmer credit category would be available for reallocation to other project components. November 1977 97 ANNEX 6 Table 1 PA.KISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Five Year Plan 1976 - 1981 Agriculture Sector Financing To-tal Financing Annual Fo'- the 5 years financing Investmen:. Seasonal Investment Seasonal Credit Credit Total Credit Credit Total --------------------…(Rs Million)---------------- ADBP 2,300 1,500 3,800 460 300 760 Cooperatives - 2,000 2,000 - 400 400 Govt Taccavi Loans - 100 100 - 20 20 Commercial Banks 500 4,870 5,370 100 974 1,074 Total 2,800 8,470 11,270 560 1,694 2,254 98 ALNNtX 6 Tahlc 2 ,"mVUSTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECI.MATION PROJECT (SCAXP) _VI Performance of NNationalized Commercial Banks Under State Bank of Pakistan Agricultural Credit Schenme 197i;i 6 (Rs'000) Dishursements Development Total tor Developmenti Input Credits Credit Total Disbursement Credit as X of (Pb Diab '2 As % of Total Agric. Target JD.e~e2 Target men s~14 Target n ' Total Targtet Crdit_Disburskemenl, 1 2 1 3 4 3 5 National Bank of Pakistan 136,800 232,989 170 22,400 22,776 102 159,20C 255,'f; 160 9 Habib Bank Ltd. 163,300 182,409 112 26,700 17,830 67 190,000 710,2-'. 105 9 United Bank Ltd. 122,700 99,767 81 20,000 42,993 215 142,700 142,760 100 30 Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. 62,600 63,577 102 10,200 13,534 133 72,800 77,111 LOt 18 Allied Bank Ltd. 34,600 23,577 68 5,700 10,157 178 40,300 33,734i _' 29 Total 520,000 602,319 116 85,000 107,290 126 605,000 709,609 i11 15 %O (1) The total target is fixed by State Bank of Pakistan in accordance with the agricultural o,bjectives of the . 'IO ongoing plan for the year considered. The target is alloted to Commercial Banks accoriing to their financing potential. The target achievement is compulsory. Any Commercial Bank which does nor £ulf ill its obligation, is penalized. An amDunt of its liquidities equal to the target shortage is blocked In a special account in State Bank books until the target is completed. (2) Net increase in outstanding balance. ANNEX 6 Table 3 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI NATIONALIZED COMMERCIAL BANKS INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURAL CREDIT 1975/76 (Rs '000) Agricultural Outstanding Balance Agricultural Total of which Credit Techn. of Total Credits Outstanding Balance of Credit Branches Rural BCU Staff in (all kind) as at Agricultural Credits as % of Branches (1) HO Branches June 30, 1976 as at June 30, 1976 Totnl rr4-Af* Input Devel. Total Loans Loan: National Bank of Pakistan 1,403 604 64 3 105 5,594,000 210,300 25,000 235,300 4.2 Habib Bank Ltd. 1,389 740 - 10 150 6,507,700 109,500 39,000 148,500 2.3 United Bank Ltd. 1,300 1,000 - 8 52 4,618,000 140,500 78,100 218,600 4.7 Muslim Commercial Bank 1,061 400 - - 12 2,311,100 47,500 34,100 81,600 3.5 Allied Bank of Pakistan 515 200 - 6 40 1,583,300 33,300 14,100 47,400 3.0 5,668 2,944 64 27 359 (1) Basic Credit Unit exclusively dealing with Agricultural Credit. w s 0 0 Table 4 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI COMMERCIAL BANKS INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT AREA - RAHIMYAR KHAN DISTRICT 1975/76 Total of which No. Staff Specialized in of Branches (1) Agricultural Disbursements or Offices Credit Commercial % Agriculture % Total …---------------------(Rs million)------------------------ NBP 20 205 1 73.6 87 10.3 13 83.9 HB 18 90 6 16.7 54 13.9 46 30.6 UBL 26 125 1 11.0 31 24.9 69 35.9 MCB 30 128 3 11.8 88 1.6 12 13.4 ABL 9 32 - 25.2 88 3.5 12 28.7 103 580 11 (1) Exclusive of non-clerical staff. C)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I-"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANIEX 6 Table 5 PAKISTAN SALINIrTY CONTROL AND RECLAI4ATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI C0HMERCIAL BANKS LENDING OPERATIONS IN RANDIfAR KNAN DISTRICT 1975/76 Loans Disbursed Disbursed Loans Broken Dovn by Size Amount Less Than Rs 1,000 to Rs 2,000 to Rs 5,000 to Above No. Rs '000 % Rs 1.000 Rs 2.000 Rs 5.000 Rs 25.000 Rs 25,00 National Bank of Pakistan Production Loans Fertilizers 1,700 9,372 91 7,312 732 353 975 - Pesticides - - - - - - - Seeds 54 340 3 - 82 258 1,754 9,-712 94 7,312 814 611 975 - Development Loans Tubewells 2 15 " - - - 15 Land LevellinR - - - - Others (1) 35 578 6 - 178 _ 400 37 593 6 - -178 15 400 Total 1,791 10.305 100 7.312 814 789 990 400 Nabib Bank Ltd. Production Loans Fertilizers 816 2,000 29 400 650 250 700 - Pesticides - - - - Seeds 890 2.800 40 280 660 1.120 _J740 1,706 4,800 69 680 1,310 1,370 1,440 - Developisent Loans Tubewells 60 1,380 20 - - - 1,380 Land Levelling - - - Others (1) 17 780 11 _ - - - 780 77 2.160 31 1.380 780 Total 1.783 6.960 100 680 1.310 1,370 2.820 780 United bank Ltd. Production Loans Fertilizers 3,510 7,756 50 - 2,365 1,616 2,670 1,105 Pesticides 136 680 4 - 40 486 154 - Seeds 317 1.665 11 - 515 106 160 884 3,963 10,101 65 - 2,920 2,208 2,984 1,989 DevelIopmen t Loans Tubevells 128 2,780 18 - - - 2,030 750 Land Levelling - - - - Others (1) 188 2,640 17 - 605 1.285 750 316 5,420 35 - - 605 3.315 1.500 Total 4,279 15.521 100 - 2.920 2,813 6.299 3.489 14uslis Cose,ercial Bank Production Loans Fertilizers 78 376 37 18 42 140 176 - Pesticides - - Seeds 5 35 3 _ - 15 20 83 411 40 18 42 155 196 - Development Loans Tubewells 32 624 60 - - _ 478 146 Land Levelling 1 4 4 Others - 33 628 60 - 448 4 Total 116 1.039 10O 18 42 159 674 146 Allied Bank of Pakistan__ Production Loans Fertilizers 399 757 62 43 330 337 47 - Pesticides 22 35 3 - 19 16 - Seeds 46 50 4 23 27 - 467 842 69 66 376 353 47 - Development Loans Tubewells 10 120 10 - - - 120 Land Levelling 5 16 1 - - 16 - - Others (1) 21 242 20 - _ 62 - 180 36 378 31 - - 78 - 180 Total 503 1.220 100 66 376 431 167 180 (1) Mainly tractors and bullocks. Table 6 PAKISITANO Conaet I-Blac Sheet 1973 to 1975 for the Fice Nolioo..liaed Coe-rcll Oanke (Rs -ilion) National Bek Bobib leek united flank Bloslis Coesorie1 Allied leek National Bak Habib flak United Meak Muslim Cos-rtl1 Allied Bleek of Peklet- Liedld Limited leek LIited a'LmldI fPksa iie iie ln ieid a) Limte bi 19317 9517 9417 9317 9312 941975 17 194 971973 1974 1975 1973 1I974 1975 1973 1974 1975 1973 1974 1975 1973 1974 1975 A I S E T I S Ceeb 530 795 1)17 620 753 937 647 641 972 239 351 672 1951 293 364 paid dp Capite1 Ii 30 30 93 95 95 68 38 39 32 27 27 13 11 fiS Banka 769 1171 1207 732 792 1231 262 268 188 46 91 194 34 12 11 R...oC . .Q_ 4 = 31 Jfiu US U1 -Al _a _u zA. .38 __, 2 . 13 Mony 01 Call 111 130 161 201 250 292 135 120 130 51 57 61 28 20 36 631 438 LS 855 446 46 357 480 076 52 5 7 10 25 16 Correct Aeceonte 2296 3219 4025 2473 3052 3377 1623 1800 3257 585 879 1124 365 557 692 1929 404 3 Z20 198125841266 389 236 36 437 939 39 33 31 DePosits Fined 2001 2081 2933 2321 2121 5899 2321 2339 3462 318 696 893 258 496 764 Ioetnt(1) 14-41 1414 1966 107 1914 0106 1440 1363 15330 561 t34 837 132 292 403 Savina 1391 1771 2193 2786 3420l 4325 1924 2235 2391 85 1131 1500 330 407 510 Ad-eo.e (2) 5690 7071 9143 7380 8593 11081 5868 6393 8010 17468 2506 3517 953 1660 1988 Ovedrafts 2785 4087 3054 3404 5445 6544 3139 5828 5108 1138 2034 2329 653 1022 1389 B-resing* 7 5319 8 1 $552 4 7 1 1 4 2 4 3 fills Dti Bills Paytbls k Other Llebillti.s 414 541 581 276 459 478 112 131 151 37 158 118 43 70 61 onoatod 376 1144 313 601 767 lout 57 535 559 49 68 106 28 57 121 C._A_ .42 1139 3937 4734 692I 2619 78 22 2. 0 3141 5321 3069 4003 6212 7622 3713 4363 5666 1207 2102 2433 681 1079 1110 P-efit and Lose Acoont - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1-.aianoB/F 1 2 - 16 2 3 - - - - I -. Ceetra Anoonte 4227 6141 3794 3350 5074 5407 3041 2618 2811 1226 1698 1777 252 2354 202 Pnofit for Ike Yeo 41 74 93 114 211 253 41 65 81 9 L8 32 6 11 13 Vimed A eets (Ndat) 73 111 123 106 124 139 09 94 102 31 39 32 14 13 20 42 76 95 150 213 256 41 85 81 9 29 52 6 12 15 Othee Asse.ts 102 136 141 145 204 161 161 081 232 49 125 156 30 112 181 Approptrl-eoe (3) 40 76 94 128 21O 255 41 65 81 8 2 32 5 12 15 Alsseebed BltI-6 C/F 2 - 1 2 3 1 - - - - - 1 - - Beebe - - - ~~~~~- 2 - - - -6- - 3 - Tt1-ili.194146106U9 53 83491 02 27 3653 2619 0220 T-1 A...t. 10915 15426 15076 11696 15531 18Tota1L34illtts 1014 1426850760697 53311815 9718100231247633665033621 13957952280 (1) l6ostly Coveenet and other Itosteesaoie (2) Net of bad debts for heich provistes seetefattar to the kAditota 5b9m best made. (3) loclodto poiso fortesit a) ..sbsoobad tke Prnier Bask Ltd. ,) tR ..e Iro. f bo th ergiog of: ; otaai Bank Lad. 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-hOtbd flak Ltd. -Lhtiar Bank Ltd. - Pk Ba_k Ltd- ANNEX 7 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Consulting Services General 1. The WAPDA (NZ), who would be the executing agency for SCARP VI, would be assisted by a consulting firm (hereinafter referred to as Consul- tants) in the detailed planning, design and execution of the project. However, to provide the maximtm amount of training and continuity, the Consultants would be principally advisors. 2. The Consultants wou]d advise and supervise the work of WAPDA person- nel, be it planning, design or field supervision of construction work. The WAPDA staff may be, and for mzitters connected with the surface irrigation system preferably should be, cn secondment from the Irrigation Department, so as to ensure maximum contirnuity after WAPDA withdraws from the project. 3. Consultant services woulcl, in addition, be provided to support prepara- tion of high priority projects identified under the Indus Basin Planning project. The objectives of the Planning Project include identification, in the form of a Revised Action Plan of high priority projects for early implementation. Such projects are in various stages of preparation, and most need further work to fintlize preliminary designs so that appraisal can take place, and for revisions in design to incorporate necessary changes identified during the planning exercise. Services Required 4. For the detailed design of SCARP VI, it is expected that the total cumulative time for which expertise and skills not available within Government services would be required is a total of about 310 man-months. This would be divided as follows: (a) Civil Engineer/Team Leader: He would have overall responsibility for the working of the group. He should have extensive experience in irrigation and drainage works construction, and in managing and executing large projects. He would be required for 72 vronths. 104 ANNEX 7 Page 2 (b) Irrigation Engineer: He would be responsible for the design of the remodelled canal system and the design and construction of the new watercourses. The selection, design and implementation of works in the pilot areas for matters other than land leveling would be his responsibility. His services would be required for 60 months. (c) Geohydrologist/Groundwater Engineer: His first task would be to set up a groundwater model (in which he would be assisted by a Computer Programmer, see below) to test the characteristics of the aquifer against past records and predict its behavior under proj- ect conditions. He would identify and develop the neces- sary inputs for the Tyson-Weber polygonal model, and establish whether and when, under full implementation water regime, and drainage works would have to be extended to the remaining 250,000 ac of Unit IV and V. He would advise on the design and layout of the tubewell field and the details of the wells under the different conditions. His services would be required for 48 months. (d) Drainage Engineer: He would assist with the design of the saline effluent disposal system, the pumping stations and the evaporation ponds. His first tasks would be to oversee the surveys necessary and to accurately locate them. It is expected that his service would be required for 24 months. (e) Economist/Agricultural Economist: He would set up studies to ascertain the present status of the business of representative sample farmers and continue to monitor and update their progress as the project advances. He would maintain contact with all sections of the Department of Agriculture who are in- volved in the implementation of the project. He would assist in the training of the staff of the CBs in appraising loans to farmers for tubewells, leveling and gypsum. He would assist CMO to organize annual and sea- sonal data collection to enable project benefit monitor- ing to be done effectively. His services would be required for 24 months. 105 ANNEX 7 Page 3 (f) Agriculturist: He would work with the extension and research services to develop suitable cropping patterns applicable under project conditions and also to determine the cultural pratices, including selection of varieties, fertilizer and pesticide application, desirable degree and kind of farm mechanization that would optimize production and farm profits. His servLces would be required for a total of 24 months divided into two or three periods, during which changes in soil and water relations would become manifest and enable him to adjust his recommen- dations accordingly. 5. In addition to the discLplines mentioned above, all of which would be required either continuously or in two or three relatively long periods, there would be a need for short-term visits to keep a watching brief, and provide guidance, for other disciplines. Foreseeably, such would be the services of a soil scientist and alkali reclamation specialist, hydrologist, electrical engineer specializing Ln transmission lines, switchgear and trans- formers, and a computer programmer. It is estimated that for these disciplines an aggregate of 24 man-months be required. There should be a contingency allocation for a further 24 man-months, making a total consultant time of 310 man-months. Consultants' Work Program for SCAILP VI Detailed Design 6. The Consultant would inn.tially work within WAPDA's Project Planning Directorate in Lahore. The engineers who will eventually be assigned to the Project Director, SCARP VI for overseeing project construction would also work with the Project Planning Directorate and transfer to the field before actual work starts. The Consultants would similarly transfer their operation to the project area as the design work is completed. About 1-1/2 years after arrival practically all the work would be on site. 7. The preparation of Operation Manuals for each of the project com- ponents would be a major part of the Consultants' work. Consultant Allocation for Preparation of Subsequent High Priority Projects 8. The final list of projects to be prepared for early implementation will depend on the recommendations of the UNDP Revised Action Program, ex- pected in late 1978. 106 ANNEX 7 Page 4 Costs 9. It is expected that the consulting firm for detailed design of SCARP VI would be internationally recruited. Therefore, inclusive of company overheads and supervision, it is expected that costs would be about US$7,000 per man-month at present prices. Air travel, local housing and mobilization costs are extra. The budget is expected to be as follows: US$ '000 Mobilization costs 4 310 man-months @ 7,000 2,170 Air travel for full-time staff and 90 families 20 x $4,500 Air travel, visiting staff 45 Housing, full-time staff 120 Offices 15 Housing & hotel accommodation, visiting staff 78 Local transport costs and allowances 100 Urban transport 20 Office equipment (other than transport) 200 Supporting staff (clerical & administrative) 120 Furnishings etc. 20 Total 2,982 10. To enable final preparation of high priority projects, expendi- tures of up to US$2 M would be financed by IDA to support necessary con- sultant activities. November 1977 107 ANNEX 8 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Equipment List Unit Costs US$ Rs Local F.E. Total No. (CIF) (ex works)… Rs '000-- Transport for I:rrigation and Drainage Works construction and O&M Motorcars 10 6,000 - 30 594 624 Pickups (2 x 2) 20 4,000 - 40 792 832 Power Wagons (4 x 4) 10 8,000 - 40 792 832 4WD Cross-Country Vehicles 50 7,000 - 173 3,465 3,638 Motorcycles 100 500 - 25 495 520 Subtotal - - - 308 6,138 6,446 Land Leveling and Reclamation Tractors 70 hp 40 10,500 - 208 4,158 4,366 Chisel Plows 40 - 32,000 320 960 1,280 Scrapers 40 - 16,000 160 480 640 Survey and Laboratory Equipment Lump sum 20 180 200 4 WD Cross-Country Vehicles 10 7,000 35 693 728 Subtotal - - - 743 6.471 7.214 Comuter and Communications Equipment & Sprinklers Lump sum 10 190 200 Miscellaneous and Contingency 600 400 1,000 Spares 139 3.001 3.140 Total 1,800 16,200 18,000 108 ANNEX 9 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Water Demand, Supply and Quality Water Demand 1. Crop water requirements of the design cropping pattern have been calculated using the modified Penman approach. U.S. Weather Bureau Class A pan evaporation figures were extrapolated from nearby weather stations and half-monthly crop factors were developed from the appropriate curves. The requirements were calculated inclusive of water requirements for land pre- paration and, where appropriate, due allowance was made for soil moisture depletion. Table 1 shows the spread of planting times and the K-curves used; Table 2 gives the K-curves, Table 3 (16 pages) the crop water requirements. 1/ Table 4 is a summary of Table 3; Table 5 shows the cropping patterns adopted for the development units; Table 6, 7, 8 and 9 water requirements for the separate units and Table 10 the total project water requirements. Crop water requirements are calculated in milimeters and the totals are expressed in million cubic meters. It will be noted that no allowance was made for rainfall, which is very low on the average (Annex 1) and also there may be several consecutive years without rain. 2. All figures in the foregoing tables refer to consumptive use requirements, without any allowance for conveyance or percolation losses. These have been determined as follows (Annex 3): Watercourse channel losses: 10% of deliveries at module. Infiltration losses in the field: 20% of deliveries at module. 3. To arrive at requirements at the barrage, it was assumed that losses between barrage and watercourse head amount to 35% (Annex 3). There- fore, water use efficiency between barrage diversion and consumptive use is 45.5%. Table 11 shows water requirements per planning unit, at watercourse head and also at diversion; for easier comparison with published data, they are converted to acre-feet. 4. Requirements shown at the barrage in Table 11 take into account the pumpage of fresh water in Units II and III. Unit III pumpage is con- fined to the rabi and is assumed to cover the needs of the crops. In Unit II however, 135 wells of three cusec capacity and 70% annual utiliza- tion are assumed to be pumping about 17,000 ac-ft per month, for export to Unit V. 1/ The crop calendars after which Table 3 was drawn up are shown in Annex 15. 109 ANNEX 9 Page 2 5. Diversions necessary for the kharif requirements of Unit II are partly met in months of peak demand by using the irrigation wells in that unit (Annex 3) to supplement surface supplies. Through an iterative process of calculation, it was found that the combined monthly flow rate of the wells, as shown in Table 12, would maintain the water balance in Unit II in the kharif by deducting pumpage by the irrigation wells from requirements at the module and allowing, as before, a 65% delivery efficiency for the balance between barrage and module. There are no diversion requirements in the rabi, since in Unit II all water would comne from the irrigation wells within the unit. 6. In Unit V, diversion requirements were calculated based on require- ments at the module, less that portion of the 17,000 ac-ft monthly export pumpage from Unit II arriving at the modules, which is assumed to be 75% of the pumpage or say 12,800 ac-ft per month. The final column of Table 11 shows the half-monthly requirements, in acre-feet, at the barrage. Water Supply 7. Table 13 shows montiLy availabilities at the Panjnad Barrage, com- pares them with surface water demand as shown by monthly diversion require- ments and shows monthly and total deficiencies. Availabilities at the barrage are the mean historic post--IBP flows. 8. Supplies available Erom pumpage of groundwater, and suitable for irrigation, are shown in detail in Annex 3, as are recharge and groundwater balance calculations. In Unit II, in addition of the kharif supplies used to supplement surface flows, and the year-round supplies provided for use elsewhere by the drainage wel.Ls, the irrigation wells are designed to meet full water requirements at the module for the rabi. In Unit III the same assumption is made, although actual pumpage may be slightly lower than shown, since, unlike in Unit II, the privately owned tubewells are likely to be nearer the fields they are expected to serve and therefore actual conveyance losses -- and possibly even f:Leld losses, due to more efficient control and utilization -- may well be lower. Water Quality 9. The quality of river water has been studied over many years and found to be very high (Table L4). No risk of damage to the soil exists, given minimum standards of irrigation techniques and at least one heavy irri- gation each year. 10. Groundwater quality in the project area has also been extensively studied, and it has been concluded that, as a general rule, wells in Unit II and III are likely to yield waiter suitable for irrigation. Table 15 gives the analysis from a total of 1,129 wells and concludes that, according to the criteria explained in Annex 2, and in view of the fact that excellent 110 ANNEX 9 Page 3 river water is available in the kharif with which to leach any accumulation of salts almost every year, at least 95% of the wells yield water suitable for irrigation without mixing. November 1977 :11 ANNEX 9 Table 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Planting and Irrigation Data COOP PFIOO FRACTION PLANTED GPDWTNG K-CUPVE FIRST IN EACH PLANTIN(G SEASCh TC RF PLANTED 1 2 3 4 (PEQI0DS) APPLIED RICE 12 0.25 .50 .25 .00 8 1 COTTON 12 0.50 .25 .25 .00 11 4 tAIZE KF-AR 15 0.25 .50 .25 .00 8 12 MILLETS 12 0.50 .50 .00 .00 7 2 FOD KHAR 7 0.2 *25 .25 .?5 A 5 WHEAT 1 20 1.00 .00 .00 .00 11 13 WHEAT 2 21 1.00 .00 .00 .00 13 14 WHEAT 3 22 1.00 .00 .00 .00 10 14 WHEAT 4 23 1.00 .00 .CO .00 9 15 PULSE RABI 19 0.25 .50 .2 5 .00 7 7 OIL5EED 18 0.12 .12 .60 .16 7 3 FOD PABI 19 0.25 .50 .25 .00 14 9 SUGAR CANE 6 0.17 .33 .33 .17 20 10 RATOON 2 0.17 .33 .33 .17 20 10 OTHER PER 5 1.CQ .00 .00 .00 24 11 * 1a ANNEX 9 Table 2 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Factors Used Over Growing Period K-CURVES CURVE 0% 10% 203 302 40% 50% 60g 70% 80% 90% 100S 1 0.9 0.85 0.95 1.03 1.17 1.34 1.36 1.28 1.12 0.96 0.84 2 0.2 0.36 0.44 0.51 0.59 0.79 0.81 0.66 0.54 0.47 0.43 3 0.3 0.40 0.50 0.58 C.95 1.05 1.15 1.18 1.05 0.85 0.50 4 0.2 0.35 0.55 0.65 0.75 1.05 1.13 1.17 0.97 0.81 0.42 5 0.0 0.35 0.39 0.50 0.65 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.83 6 3.3 0.38 0.55 0.65 0.80 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.80 0.70 0.60 7 0.3 0.38 0.42 0.47 0.54 0.72 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.68 0.52 8 3.3 0.25 0.34 0.62 0.90 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 0.68 0.40 9 0.3 0.35 0.63 0.67 0.73 0.84 0.96 1.04 1.06 0.83 0.68 10 0.5 0.90 1.24 1.30 1.35 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.10 0.90 0.70 11 0.7 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.85 1.00 0.80 0.70 12 0.4 0.31 0.40 0.52 0.68 1.05 1.05 0.79 0.71 0.67 0.63 13 0.3 0.44 0.58 0.68 0.80 0.90 1.05 1.15 1.20 1.05 0.65 14 0.3 0.44 0.56 0.71 0.84 0.98 1.11 1.20 1.19 1.02 0.65 15 0.3 0.49 0.62 0.77 0.91 1.05 1.17 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.65 .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Table 3 Page I PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Water Requi-rements Rice JAN FES PAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 it 12 13 14 i5 16 1? 18 19 23 21 22 23 24 EST FAIN 0 .0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ETO 36. 40). 45. 53. 63. 7'.. 86. S6. 106. 112. 113. 112. 1 07. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 14. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CRtOP FACT 0.00 0.03 0.0C 0. 00 0.03 0.30 0.o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .22 0.67 0.95 1.07 1.22 1. 31 1. 26 1. 10 0.73 0.23 0. 00 0.00 0.00 CONS LISF 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 24. 71. 97. 105. 1 14. 115. 103. 81. 47. 12. 0. 0. 0. LANDPPFP 0. 3). 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 25. 50. 25. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. PERC 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 10. 35. 45. 45. 45. 45. 45. 35. 25. 0. 0. 0. 0. RESMOIST 0. 3. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0ll 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. -30. -12. 0. 0. 0. GROSS RFQ 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. '25. 84. '1 31. 142. 150. 159. 160. 148. 116. 42.' 0. 0. 0 . 0. EFF PAIN 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. a0. 0 . 0 . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 . 0 . 0. NET REQ 0. 0. 0. 0 . 0. 0. 0. I 0. 0. 0.- 25. 84. 131. 12. 150 5.160.18 16. 42. . 0. 0. 0. AT FIELD IRQ. QEQ 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 25. 84. 131. 142. 150. 159. 160. 148. 116. 42. 0. 0. 0. 0. AT TUPR!CUT FIELD F~F9 ****T TCTALS (MM) CONS USE * 768. EFF PAIN = 0. IRR4 PEO = 1156. TablIe 3 Page 2 PAKI STAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLANATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop WaertRequirements Cotton JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OC T NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST PAIN 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ETO 36. 40. 45. 53. 63. 74. 86. 96. 106. 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.28 0.46 0.58 0.70 0.89 1.02 1.12 1.08 0.98 0.77 0.37 0.15 CONS USE 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 15. 30. 47. 57. 65. 78. 83. 83. 69. 52. 33. 13. 5. LANDPREP 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 50. 25. ZS. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. RESMWIST 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. -33. -13. -5. … _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GRCSS REQ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. J. O. 50. 40. 55. 47. 57. 65. 78. 83. 83. 69. 52. 0. 0. 0. EFF RAIN 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CFF RAIN °~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;- -* -* °- °-- °- °- -* °- °- °- °- ° NET QEQ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 50. 40. 55. 47. 57. 65. 78. 83. 83. 69. 52. 0. 0. 0. AT FIELO IRP. PEO 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 50. 40. 55. 47. 57. 65. 78. 83. 83. 69. 52. 0. 0. 0. AT TURNOUT FIELD EFF ****? TOTALS (MM$ CCNS USE z 631. EFF RAIN - 0. TRR QFO = 680. P e ANNEX 9 PAKI STAN Table 3 Page 3 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECIAMATTON PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Water Reguirements Maize JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST RAIN 3. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ETO 36. 40. 4'i. 53. 63. 74. 86. 96. 136. 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 8R. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 3.0 0.)3 0.30 0.00 0.03 J.00 3.30 0.00 3.03 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.09 0.27 0.42 0.57 0.81 3.94 0.85 0.72 0.50 0.16 CONS tSE 0. 3. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 3. ). 0. O. 8. 25. 37. 47. 59. 60. 45. 31. 18. 4. LANOPQFP C. 0. O. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 3. 0. 20. 43. 20. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. GROSS PEC 0. U. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 20. 48. 45. 37. 47. 59. 60. 45. 31. 18. 6. EFF PAIN 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. - - 0o o . . . 0. . u. u. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET QEQ 0. 3. 3. 0. O. 0. O. O. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 20. 48. 45. 37. 47. 59. 60. 45. 31. 18. 6. AT FIELf' IRR. REO 0. 3. 0. 0. 3. 0. 3. 0. 0. O. 0. 3. 0. 2a. 48. 45. 37. 47. 59. 63. 45. 31. 18. 6. AT T(JRNOUT FIELD EFF ****X TCTALS (Mtm CONS USE - 336. 5FF RAIN - 0. IPQR RE = 416. o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P wWl I-. Ii..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pP I-..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L)% ANNEX 9 Table 3 PAY[S AN Page 4 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLANATTON PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Water Requirements Milleta JAN FEB MAP APR MA Y JUN JUL AUG SE P OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 21 22 23 24 EST RAIN 0. 0. J. 0. 0. 0. o.o 0. 0. 0. 0.O, ETO 36. 43. 45. 53. 63. 74. 8e. S6. IU6. 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.38 0.50 0.67 0.77 0.65 0.51 0.23 0.o0 0.00 0.00 0.oo 0.00 CONS USE 0. 3. J. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 18. 41. 51. 66. 72. 57. 41. 17. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. LANDPPEP 0. 0. 3. o. 3. a. 0. 0. 3. 0. 40. 40. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. …__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GROSS REQ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 40. 58. 41. 51. 66. 72. 57. 41. 17. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. EFF RAIN 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. o. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET REQ 3. o. o. 0. 0. o. 0. 0. D. 8. 40. 58. 41. 51. 66. 72. 57. 41. 17. o. 0. 0. 0. 0. AT FtELn IPR. PEO 0. 0. J. 0. 3. 3. 0. 0. 0. 3. 40. 58. 41. 51. 66. 72. 57. 41. 17. J. 0. 0. 0. 0. AT TURNOUT FIELC EFF *.**t TOTALS (MM) CONS USE - 363. EFF RAIN s 0. IRR REQ * 44?. ItdH 0QSiOX 0ID I-. ANNEX 9 TIIable_3 Page S PAKI STAN SALINITY CONTROL AN]D RECLAIATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Water Requiirements FOD KUAR JAN FEB MAP APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SeP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 21 22 23 24 EST RAIN 0. 0. O. 0. J. 0. 0. U. ;3. 0. O. O. ETO 36. 43. 45. 53. 63. 74. e6. se. lJ. 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.00 0.00 O.OC 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.05 0.15 04.J8 0'.5 0.57 0.69 0.77 0.81 0.64 0.42 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CONS USE 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5. 15. 33. 50. 64. 77. 82. 83. 63. 39. 18. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. LANOPREP 3. 3. 3. 0. 3. 20. 20. 20. 23. 0. 0. J. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. GRCSS REO 0. o. J. 0. 3. 20. 25. 3'. 50. 50. 64. 77. 82. 83. 63. 39. 18. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. EfF RA1N 0. 3. 2. 0. 3. 0. 0. O. J. 0. 3. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET REO 3. 3. 0. 0. 0. 20. 25. 3;. 50. 5. 64. 77. 82. 83. 63. 39. 18. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. AT FIELD IRR. PEO 0. 3. O. 0. 3. 23. 25. 3'5. 50. 50. 64. 77. 82. 83. 63. 39. 18. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. AT TURNOUT FIELD EFF ****? TOTALS [MM) CONS USF = 526. EFF PAIN . 0. IRR RQF = 636. OQ c (U tp m s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ X ANNEx 9 PAKISTAN Table 3 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAHATION PROJECT (SCARP! Vl Crop Water Requirements Wheat I JAN FEB MAF APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST RAIN 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. ETO 36. 40. 45. 53. 63. 74. t6. 96. 136. 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.90 1.34 1.13 1.19 I.IJ C.83 O.OC 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.49 0.61 0.70 0.81 CONS USF 32. 41. 51. 63. 70. 62. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 25. 26. 26. 25. 27. LANDPREP 0. J. 0. 0. J. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. O. J. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 83. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. GROSS REO 32. 41. 51. 63. 7C. 62. U. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 25. 26. 26. 25. 27. EFF RAIN 0. . 0. 0. 3. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET pEQ 32. 41. 51. 63. 70. 62. 3. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 80. 25. 26. 26. 25. 27. AT FIELf3 IRP. DEG 32. 41. 51. 63. 70. 62. a. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 25. 26. 26. 25. 27. AT TURNOUT FIFLO EFF ****T TOTALS (mm) CONS USE - 449. EFF QAIN 0. IRR RFO = 529. OQ 9 (D~ *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ANNEX 9 PAYKISTAN Table 3 SALINITY CONTROI AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Page 7 Crop Water Requirements Wheat 2 JAN F- B MAP APR MAY J U.N JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST PAIN 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. ETO 36. 40. 45. 53. 63. 74. ee. S6. 106. 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. .43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.91 1.05 1.16 1.23 1.11 0.84 O.CC 0.00 3.30 3.30 3.33 0.33 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.50 0.63 0.78 CONS USF 33. 42. 52. 63. 70. 62. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 21. 22. 23. 26. LANDPREP 0. 3. ). 0. O. 3. 0. 3. 0. J. 0. . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 0. 0. 0. .0. GROSS REQ 33. 42. 52. 63. 70. 62. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 21. 22. 23. 26. EFF 4A!N 0. 3. O. 0. '3. C. 3. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. O-. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0Q NET REQ 33. 42. 57. 63. 70. 6Z. 0. 3. 3. J. 30. . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8J. 21. 22. 23. 26. AT FIELO IQR. P'Q 33. 42. 52. 63. 70. 62. 0. 0. 0. O. O 0.. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 21. 22. 23. 26- AT TUPNOUT FIELD EFF ****I TOTALS (M4M) CONS USF a 413. EFF 0AIN = 0. 1QR Q=Q 493. C). mQO 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JL)" ANNEX 9 PAKISTAN Table 3 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Page 8 Crop Water Requirements Wheat 3 JAN FF6 MAR AP MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lo 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST RAIN 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. U. O* 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. ETC 36. 40. 45. 53. 63. 74. 66. 9s. 106. 11. 113. 112. 137. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.78 0.91 1.05 1.16 1.20 1.11 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 3.JO 0-00 3-.0 0.03 0-00 0-03 0-00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.50 0.64 CCNS USF 28. 36. 47. 61. 76. 82. 72. J. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0- 17. 18. 21. LANDPREP 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 0. 0. 0. GROSS RFQ 28. 'h6. 47. 61. 76. 82. 72. 0. 3. 3. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80- 17. 18. 21. EFF RAIN 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. J. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - - - - -- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ NET REQ 28. 30. 47. 61. 76. 82. 72. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0- 0. 0. 0- 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 17. 18. 21. AT FIELD IRR. REO 28. 36. 41. 61. 76. 82. 72. 0. 0. 0. 0. -. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 80. 17. 18. 21. AT TURNCUT FIELD FFF **** t TGTALS (1M1 CONS USE = 458. EFF PAIN = 0. IRP PEQ = 538. p i I'D £tAnA 9 Table 3 PAKI STAN Page 9 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLIANTION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Water Requirements Wheat 4 JAN FEB MAP APR MAY JUN JUL AUJG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 ? > 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST RAIN 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. J. 0. 0. 0. 0. ETO 36. 4). 45. 53. 63. 74. 86. se. 1)6. 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.74 0.89 1.05 1. 17 1.20 1.12 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.J0 0.00 0.00 ).00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0U 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.58 COlNS USE 26. 36. 48. 62. 76. 83. 72. 0. . 3. 0 . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. a. 0. 0. 0. 15. 19. LANDPPFP 0. J. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 80. 0. 0. GROSS PEO 26. R6. 48. 62. 76. 8'. 72. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 15. 19. EFF RAIN 0. J. 0. a. O . O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 NEit Eiu zb. jo. 4'i. o2. lb. 03. [z. u. U. C. u. u. U. u. u. u. u. u. u. u. u. Du. i5. 9,. AT FI ELD IRP. PEO 26. 36. 48. 62. 76. 83. 72. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 80. 15. 19. AT TURNOUT FIELIn EFF w***2 TOTALS (MM) CnNS USE - 438. EFF RAIN = 0. IRP REQO 518. oQ W %4W z ANNEX 9 ,Table 3 PAKISTAN I Page 1O SALINITY CONTROL AND RECIAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Water Requirements pulse Rabi JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST RAIN O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. ETO 3h. 4J. 45. 53. 63. 74. 8e. 56. 1.6. 112. 113. 112. 1J7. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.79 0.53 0.16 C.O0 0.01 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. )0 0.00 0.09 0.29 0.43 0.54 0.69 0.80 CONS US; 28. 21. 7. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7. 18. 23. 23. 25. 27. GROSS REQ 28. 21. 7. 0. 0. 0. O. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7. 18. 23. 23. 25. 27. EFFRAIN 0. 0 . 0. 0. J. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET PFQ 28. 21. 7. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7. 18. 23. 23. 25. 27. AT FIELD IRR. REQ 28. 21. 7. O. 0. 0. O. O. O. 0. .0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7. 18. 23. 23. 25. 27. AT TUONOUT FIELD EFF **** TCTALS (MM) CONS USF = 17'. EFF RAIN = 0. IRR REO a 179. 0 Om~ ANNEX 9 PAKI STAN Table 3 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMTION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Pg . Crop Water Requirements Oilseed JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST PAIN 3. . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.0.. E Tf 36. 4 3. 4 5. 53. 63. 74. 86. 9f. 106. 112. 113. 112. 107. 132. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROlP F-ACT 0.92 0.62 3.12 0.00 0.00 :).)) 0.00 0.00 0.0) 0.03 0.00 0-.)0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00O ). 00 0.04 0.11, 0.38 0.59 0.82 1.02 1.08 CONS USE 33 . 25. 5. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 . 0. 0. 0 . 0. 0. 0. 0. (0. 3. 4. 8. 24. 31. 36. 37. 36. LANnPRFP 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 10. 10. 50. 13. 0. 0. 0. 0. - - - - - - _- - - _. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GROSS REG 33. 25. 5 . 0. 3. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 10. 14. 58. 34. 31. 36. 37. 36. el!F rRR A0. 3. 0 u. U. 4C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.' 0. 0. 0. 0. NET R~~~Q 33. 25. 5. 0.- 0. 0 0. .- 00. -- 0. 0 . 0. 0 . 0 0 4 8 4 1 6 7 6 AT FIELD VWP. PEG 3?. 25. 5. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3). 0. a. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0.- 10. 14. 58. 34. 31. .36. 37. 36. AT TUPMOUT FIELD EFF IF*a** TCTAkLS (MM) CONS USF a 239. EFF RAIN 2 0. IRA QEQ a 319. OQ O (m PA), [ STAN ANNEX 9 Table 3 SALINTTY CONTROL AND1 RECLAMATTON PROJECT (SCARP) VT Page 12 Crop Water Requiirements FOD Rabi JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST PAIN 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ETO2 36. 43. 45. 53. 63. 7'i. 86. '6. 106. 112. 113. 112. 1 07. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.71 3.a0 0.88 0.96 1.32 1.03 O.SE 0.86 0.58 0.18 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.41 0.54 0.64 0.69 CCNS USE 26. 32. 43.9 51. 64. 77. 84. 83. 61. 23. 0. 13. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6. 16. 21. 23. 23. 23. LANrPRFP 0. J. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3). 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 20. 40. 20. 0. 0. 0. 0. GROSS PEQ 26. 32. 40. 51. 64. 77. 84. 83. 61. 20. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 20. 46. 36. 21. 23. 23. 23. EFF PAIN 0. 1. J. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NE ~T R EQ 26-. -32. 40-. -51.- 64-. 771. -84-. -83. -6 1. 20-. 0. 0-. -0. 0.- 0. 0.- 0. -20.- 46-. -36.- 21-. -23. 2 3-. 23. AT FIELD IRR. RFO 26. 32. 40. 51. 64. 17. 84. 83 . 61. 20. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 20. 46. 36. 21. 23. 23. 23. AT TOPNJO'T FIELn FrF ****T TCTALS (MM) CONS USF = 652. EFF RAIN - 0. IPR REQ = 732. I-.c ANNEX 9 Table 3 PAt STAN page 13 SALINITY CONlTRhOL AND RECIAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Water Requirements Sug4rcans - Plant Crop JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 IL 12 13 14 15 1b 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EST PAIN 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. a. 0. 0. 0. ETC 38. 40. 45. 53. 63. 7.- et. 56. 1 08- 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82- 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 3.98 0.69 0.39 0.13 0.00 3.10 0.3? 0.62 0.88 1..05 1.18 1.26 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.35 1.34 1.32 1.30 1.27 1.23 1.17 1.09 1.00 CONS USF 32. 27. 18. 7. 0. 7. 28. 60. 94. 118- 134. 140. 138. 135. 131- 126. 118. 108. 96. 81. 65. 51. 39- 34- LANDPFEP 0. O. J. 17. 33. 33. 17. 0. 0. 0. 3. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. GROSS PEO 32. 27. 18. 24. 33. 40. 45. 60. 94. 118. 134. 140. 138. 135. 131. 126. 118- 108. 96. 81. 65. 51. 39. 34. 0C. . . 3. i. u. G. u. U. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET REO 32. 27. 18. 24. 33. 43. 45. 60. 94. Ii8. 134. 140. 138. 135. 131. 126_ 118. 108. 96. 81. 65. 51. 39. 34. AT FIELD IRR. REQ 32. 77. 18. 24. 33. 40. 45. 60. 94. 118- 134. 140. 138. 135- 131- 126. 118- 108. 96. 81. 65. 51. 39. 34. AT TUPNOUT FIELO FFF **x*T TOTALS (mm) CONS USE a 1786. EFF PAIN * O. IRP QEO = 1886. 014 IAi@iD I'AKLSTAN Table 3 Pa-ge 14 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAIATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI P 1 Crop Water Requirements - SuAarcaaa - iatoon Crop JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUf, SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2 3 4 5 A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 21 22 23 24 EST RAIN 0. 0. .0. 0. 0. Oo 0. 0. 0. J. 0. ETO 36. 40. 45. 53. 63. 74. 8e. S6. 106. 112. 113. 112. 107. 102. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.03 0.10 0.33 3.62 0.89 1.05 1.18 1.26 1.33 1.32 1.34 1.35 1.34 1.32 1.30 1.27 1.23 1.17 1.09 1.00 0.90 0.69 0.39 0.13 CONS USE 0. 4. 15. 33. 56. 7S. 101. 121. 138. 148. 152. 150. 143. 135. 127. 119. 108. 95. 80. 64. 47. 30. 14. 4. GROSS REQ 0. 4. 15. 33. 56. 78. 101. 121. 138. 148. 152. 150. 143. 135. 127. 119. 108. 95. 80. 64. 47. 30. 14. 4. EFF RAIN 0. 3). 0. 0. C. . C. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. EFF~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IAI 0- O- 3- °- O-- i; NET -FQ 0. 4. 15. 33. 56. 78. 101. 121. 138. 148. 152. 150. 143. 135. 17 108. 95. 80. 64. 47. 30. 14. 4. AT FIELD IRP. REQ 0. 4. 15. 33. 56. 78. 101. 121. 138. 148. 152. 150. 143. 135. 127. 119. 108. 95. 80. 64. 47. 30. 14. 4. AT TUPriOuT FIELD EFF **** TCTALS (MM) CONS USF = 1963. EFF RAIN = 0. IRR REG = 1961. ID t0 A 2 L. tDa ANMEX 9 PAVI STAN Table 3 SALINITTY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PFiOJECT (SCARP) VIPae1 Crop Water Requiremnents Other Perennial Crops JARJ FEB MAP APR M4AY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 23 21 22 23 24 EST PAIN 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ETC 36. 43. 45. 53. 63. 14. 8f. 9 6. 1 06. 1 12 . 1 13. 112. 107. 132. 98. 93. 88. 82. 74. 64. 53. 43. 36. 34. CROP FACT 0.89 0.81 0.16 0.72 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.11 0.79 0.80 0.80 3.80 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.89 0.96 0.98 CONS USE 32. 32. 35. 38. 45. 54. 64. 74. 84. 89. 91. 89. 85. 82. 78S. 75. 71. 66. 60. 53. 45. 39. 35. 33. … GRCSS REQ 32. 32. 35. 38. 45. 54. 64. 74. 84. 89. 91. 89. 85. 82. 78. 75. 71. 66. 60. 53. 45. 39. 35. 33. EFF RAIN 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.n ~ .. I0. 0. 3. 3. 0. G. 0 NET REQ 32. 32. 35. 38 45. 54. 6 4. -74. 84. 89. 91. 89. 5. 82. 78. 75. 7. 66. 60. 53. 45. 39. 3 5. 33. AT FIELO IPP. REQ 32. 32 . 3 5. 38. 4 5. 54. 6 4. 14. 84. 89. 91. 89. 85. 82. 78. 75 . 71. 66. 60. 53. 45. 39. 35. 33. AT TUPNCt-IT FIELD FFF ****I TOTALS (¶Mm) CONS USF = 1450. EFF RAIN = 0. [RR PEQ0 = 1 450. 00"' ANNEX 9 PAK S TA N Table 4 SALINITY CON'lROL END RECIJIA'TION PROJECT (SCARP) VII SUMHMAhY TAi3L r IQRRIGAT19F1k PEOUIREME1 TS AT TtJr NOUT J AN- FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AIJO SFP ncT NnV DEC TOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 21 22 23 24 RICF J. . 1). J. . O. O . O. O. O. 2 5. 84. 1 31. 14Z-. 1 50. 159. 160. 148. 1 16. 42. O. O. Q. . 1156- CCtTON 0. J. D. O. O. O. J. O. O. 8. 50. 43. 55. 4 7. 57. 65. 7 8. 83- 8 3- 69- 52- O- O. O. 6BO. MAI ZE KHAR 0. O. O. J. ). . O. O. J. J . D. O. O. 20- 48. 45. 37. 47- 59- 60. 45. 31- 18. 6- 416. MILLFTS o. a. o. U. c. o. o. a. a. o. 40. saB. 41. 51. 66. 72. 57- 41. 17. 3. O- O- O. O. 443. FOD KHAR 0. 0. . J. O. 23. 2;. 35. 5C- 53. 64. 77. 82- 83. 63- 39- 18 Id O. O. O. O. O- O- O. 606. WliEAT I 32. 41. 51. 63. 7C. 6?. O. O. O. 3. O. O. O. O. O. O). O. O- 83. 25. 26. 26- 25. 27- 529. WHEAT 2 3 3. 42. 52 . 63 . 7J. (62. O. O. O. 0. . C. O. O. O. 3. 3. O. O. 80. 21. 22. 23. 26. 493. WHEAT 3 28B. 36. 47. 61. 76. 82. 72. 0. C. O. O. O. O- O- O. O. J. O. O. O- 80. 17- 18. 21. 538. WHEAT 4 26. 36. 43. 62. 76. R13. 72. O. O. O. O, O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O- O. 80. 15. 19. 518. PULSF PABI 28. 21. 7- O- O. d. O. d. d. O. O. 8. O- O- O. O- J. O- 7. 18. 23. 23. 25. 27. 179. 01ILsFFn 3 3. 25. 5. 0 . 3 . O. C. O. O . O . O. O- O- O- O. O- 10. 14. 58. 34. 31. 36. 37. 36. 319. FOD PABI 2h~. 3 2. 40. 51. 64. 77. 84 . 8'. 61. 2 0. aO. O. O. O. O . O. O. 20. 46- 36. 21. 23. 23. 23- 732- SUJGAR CAI-IF 3 2. 27. 18. 24. 3 3. 4,). 45. 60. 94. 118. 134. 143. 138. 135. 131- 126. 118. 108. 96. 81. 65". 51. 39. 34- 1886. RATonN O3. 4. 15. 3'. 56. 78 . 101. 121. 1I8. 148. 152. 150. 143. 135. 127. 119. 108. 95. 80. 64. 47. 30. 14- 4- 1963- OTHFQ PE-, 32. 32. 35. 38. 45. 5 4. 64. 74. 84. 89. 91- 89. 8 5. 82. 78. 75. 71. 66. 60. 53- 45. 39. 35- 33- 1450. cl!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m > ANNEX 9 Table 5 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Cropping Patterns Rice Cotton Maize Millets Kh Fod Wheat Pulses Oilseeds Fodder Cane Others Unit 2 7 35 3 8 5 35 4 8 10 5 5 Unit 3 5 30 1 5 5 40 2 6 8 10 2 Unit 4 6 35 2 4 6 37 2 8 7 7 2 Unit 5 2 30 3 6 8 3i 10 7 7 4 nDX Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ANNEX 9 PAKISTAN Table 6 SALINITY CONThOL. AND RECLANATION PROJEcr_ cscKP %qr -wATEb i-EUjfkNEhTS Ay CANAL H::AD - Unit NO 2 137 560. HAI (NIL M31 JaN tFR M4AR APR mAY JUN JUJL Au(- SEP OCT NL)v DEC TOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.) 21 22 23 24 RAI N . . 0. 0. 3. 0. J.3 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. R TCE 0.0 0.0 0.o0.3. 0.') 0.0 C. C 0. J 0.0 0.0 2.4 8. 1 12.6 13. 6 14.4 15. 3 1 5.4 14. 2 11 .2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 1 11. 3 COTTON 3.0 0.0 '3.0 0.3J 0. 3 0..) 0. 0 0.3 0.0 3.0 24.1 19.2 26. 3 22 .7 21.6 31. 5 3 7.6 40.0 39.8 33. 3 24.9 0. 2 0.1I 0.0 32 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 G.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.5 1.8 1.3 0.6 0. 2 17.2 MILLFTS 3.0 0.0 O0.3 0.) 0.0 0.)- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.) 4.4 6.3 4.5 5.6 7.3 7.9 6.3 4.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.7 FOP KHAR 0.0 0.0 0.3 C. Z 0.0 1.4 1.7 2.4 3.4 3.4 4.4 5.3 5.7 5.7 4.3 2.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 WHEAT 1 1.8 2.3 2.A 3.5 3 .9 3.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 29.1 WHEAT 2 7.6 9.7 12.2 14.8 16.4 14.5 C.C 0.0 0.0 O.C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 4.8 5.1 5.4 6.1 115.3 WHEAT 3 3.4 4. 5 5.9 7. 6 9. 4 10.2 b. .4 0.0 03.0 0..)J 3. a3.0 J.3C 3.0 0.0 0). 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 2.1 2.2 2.6 66.7 WHEAT 4 2.2 2.9 3.9 5.! 6.3 6.9 6.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.6 1.3 1.6 42.7 PULSF PAP! 1.6 1.2 0.4 0. ) 3.0- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0 . ) 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 9.9 OILSEED .6 2.7 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5 6.4 3.8 3.4 3.9 4.1 4.0 35.1' FOD kAdi 3.6 4.4 5.5 7.0 8.9 10.6 11.6 11.4 8.4 2.8 3.0 0.0 3.3t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 6.3 5.0 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 100.7 SUGAP CANF 1.1 0.9 0.'.~ 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.6 2. 1 3.2 4.1 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.7 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.2 .64. 9 RAT CON 0.3 ). I13. 5 1.1 1.9 2. 7 3.5 4.2 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.2 1.6 1.0 0.5 0.1. 67.5 CTHEP PE~; 'y 2.2 2.4 '.6 ?.I 3.7 4.4 5.1 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.2 3.7 3.1 2.1 2.4 2.3 99.7 CTAL 27. 31. 35. 43 51. 55 13. 25. 26. 2. 51. 55. 65. 63 70 7. 76. 76 8.7.5.3.2.24. 1178. CANAL EfFFIrJNCy P**7 |ANNEX 9 Table 7 PAKTSTAN SALTNITY CONTROL ANID RECLIAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VT WATEI ReiQllKEMErTS AT CANAL HEAO - Uiht NO 3 4 15729J.HAIA ItAI L I 1 JAN FfB MAO APF MAY J UN JUtL AUG SEP OCT NOY DEC TOT 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 a S i J t1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RATN 0. O- 3- °- .0 .0 0 .0 . 0 R ICE O.O O.0 O.O O.O J.O O.O O.O o.a o.o o.o z.0 6.6 13.3 Itl.l 11.8 1Z. 5 12 . 6 1.6 9.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 90.9 CCT T--1N 0.0 0.3 3.30 .3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 .1 0.0 23-4.6 18.9 25.8 2 2.2 2 7. 0 30.8 36.9 39. 2 39. 0 32. 7 24.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 320.1 MAFIZE KFAP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.f) 0.0 0.) 0.0 0 . 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.J 0.3 0.8 0.7 3.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 6.' M ILLrTS -0 0 0 . n -' - 0 -' > '. ". . ° .0 3 . 1 4., . 2 4. 3 . 25. o 4.> o . 13 0.0 O.J 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8 FOP KHAR 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.9 2 .7 3.s9 3.9 5.1 6.1 6.5 6.5 4.9 3.1 1-4 O.O O-O O-O O-O O-O O.O O-O 47.7 2.0 2.6 3.2 4.0 4.4 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0).0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1. 7 33.3 WHE-AT 2 10.3 13.1 16.4 ?0. 0 22.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.O0 0.0 0.0 25.2 6.5 6.8 7.2 8.2 1SS.I WHFAT 3 4.4 5.7 7.4 9.7 11.9 I2.', 11.3 0 . 0.0 O .o 0-0 0-0 3.0 0-0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 12.6 2.7 2.8 3.4 84.7 0FFAT 4 .s 3 .4 4.5 5.9 7.2 7.8 e.e a.o O.Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 1.4 1.e 48.9 PULSE RABI 0.9 0 .7 0.2 J.O 0.0 O.j 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 o.a 5.6 OILSFen 3.1 2. 3 0.5 0.0 C.0 C.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0J 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 5.5 3.2 2.9 3.4 3.5 3.4 30.1 FOE' PAR! 3.? 4.0 S.0 6.4 8.1 9.7 10.6 10.4 7 .7 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J.0 2.S 5.8 4.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 92.1 SUGAP CANE '). 5 .2. 1.4 1.9 2.6 3.2 3 .6 4 .7 7 .4 9.3 lO.S i1.a 10.9 10.6 10.3 9.9 9.3 B.5 7.5 6.4 5.1 4.0 3.1 2.6 148.3 A T wwf 3.) 3.3 1.2 2.6h 4.4 6.2 eq. J s.5 IJ.e 11.6 11.9 11.8 11.2 10.6 10.0 9. ' 8.5 7.5 6.3 5.0 3.7 2.4 1.1 0.3 154.4 OTl4FQ P sr 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.-3 2.ti 2.8 2.9 2.8 2 .7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 t.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 45.e1 TO^A ;33 3s. 41. s2. t2. 6E. 44. 3C. 32. 3 J. 59. h2i:-8. 2. 341i. 68. 72. 4 7 77. 83 S 2 4 6. 26. 1299. rArlAl F FF Ir ! FPICY *vwt .E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- @10 ANNEX 9 Table 8 PLI I STAN SALINTTY CONITROL AND RECLIAATION PROJECT (SCARH VI hATFR PFOUIREMENTS AT CANAL HEAD - Unit NO 4 30835.HA) IMIL M31 JAN Fr8 M AR APS MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC TOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RAIN' 3. 0. 3. O. O. D. 0. 0. 3. 0. O. 0. 0. RICE 0.0 0. a3.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.6 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z1.4 COTTON O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 4.3 5.9 5.1 6.2 7.1 8.4 9.0 8.9 7.5 5.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 73.3 MAIZ_ KH-AR 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.J 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 J.: 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.6 M ILL ETS 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.7 J.5 3.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.5 3.2 0.0 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 FOPt '-HAR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 C.5 0.6 0.s C.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 WHEA T I 3.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 O.d 0.0 0.0 0.) 3.3 0.3 O 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 6.5 WI4dAT 2 1.q 2.4 '.1 3.7 4.1 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 28.9 4IF AT 3 o.e l.o 1.3 1.7 ?.1 2.? 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 3.0 J.3 0.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 14.9 WHEA4T 4 3.4 0.5 0.7 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.1 C.J C.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.3 8.0 PUL SE R AFA1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 3.3 0.0 3.0 3.0 J.0 J.0 0.0 0.0 J.0 0.0 3.0 0.1 3.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 CIL SFEn 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.0 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.2 0.3 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 7.9 FOnr ARI 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.S 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0-5 0.5 15.8 SUGAP CA'"r 0.3 ).3 0.' 0.3 J.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 20.4 RATrCN 0.0 0.0 0.? 0.4 C.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 21.2 OTHEP Prp '0.2 3.2 '3.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.'4 C.' 0.5 0.6 3.6 0.6 ).5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 8.9 T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ -_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ __-T - - - - - TCTIA s. -.. 7. '7 . iI. 12. 1. '. 5. 5. 11. 12. 14. 13. 14. 15. 16. 16. 17. 17. 12. 6. S. 5. 248. CA'JAl -Fr IC TrCy *-- (D 00 LD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 - ANNEX 9 Table 9 PAK I S AN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAtATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI whTEF PEQUIREMENTS AT CANAL HEAD - Unit NO 5 t 187450.HAI IMIL M31 J A\4 FFB MAR APP MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 19 '3 21 22 23 24 RAIN 0. O. 0. 0. 0. U. 0. 0. 0. O. 3. 0. 0. P ICF 0.0 o. 0.o0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. 0 (.0 U.C 0.0 0.9 3.2 4.9 5.3 5.6 5.9 6.0 5.5 4.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.3 COTTON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 28.1 22.5 33.7 26.5 32,2 36. 8 43.9 46.7 46.5 38.9 29.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 382.2 MAIZF KHAR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.3 3.4 2.5 1.8 1.0 0.3 23.4 MILL ETS 3.0 3.0 0.) 0.0 0.0 3.) 0.0 0.C 0.0 0.0 4 4'i 7.7 1.; 5. xJ..j U.u 0.0 U.0 49.8 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.; G.0 3.)0 3.7 5.2 7.5 7.5 9.6 11.5 12.4 12.5 9.4 5.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.9 WHEAT I 2.4 3.1 3. 8 4. 7 S.2 4.h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 39.7 WHEAT 2 13.4 13.2 16.7 ?0.2 22.3 IS.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. t) .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 6.5 6.9 7.3 8.3 157.2 WHEAT 3 4.7 6.1 8.) 10.4 12.8 1?.P 12.1 C.C 0.0 0.0 J.0 0.0 J.) 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 2.9 3.0 3.6 90.8 WI-EAT 4 3.0 4.0 5.3 7.0 8.5 9.4 E.1 0.0 O.C Q.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '-.0 1.7 2.2 58.2 PULSE RA8PI 1.1 0.8 3.3 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.J 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 6.7 OILSFrn 6.2 4.6 1.0 u.0 0.0 C.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.6 10.8 6.4 5.8 6.7 6.9 6.8 59.7 FOD PABI 3.5 4.2 5.2 6. 7 8.4 10.1 11.0 10.- 8.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 6.0 4.7 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.0 96.0 SUGAR CANE ?.1 1.P 1.? 1.6 '.1 2.6 .3 3 .9 6.1 7.7 8.8 9.2 9.1 8.8 8.6 8.2 7.7 7.1 6.3 5.3 4.2 3.3 2.6 2.2 123.8 Q aTn'5N D.0 0.3 1.) 2.2 3.7 5.1 L.6 6.C 9.0 S.7 10.0 9.8 9.4 8.9 8.4 7.8 7.1 6.2 5.3 4.2 3.1 2.0 0.9 0.3 128.8 OTHER Pr. 2.4 2.4 z.6 2.9 3.4 4.1 4.P c.E e.3 6.7 6.8 6.7 h.4 6.1 5.9 5.6 1.3 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.5 108.7 TCTAL '6. 4D. 45. 't. h7. 7 . 49. 34. '7. '4. 6S. 69. 77. 75. 80. 81. 83. 83. 95. 97. 74. 42. 32. 32. 1459. (ANAL EFrIlrNIY *..Y nix La @ \0 ANNEX 9 PANISTAN Table 10 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI TOTAL PROJECT WATER REQUIREMENTS AT CANAL HEAD (tIL M31 JAN FFB MAR APP MAY JU,IA JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC TOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 21 22 23 24 RAIN 0. .. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. ). 0. 0. R ICf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.G 0.0 0.0 5.8 19.4 30.3 32.7 34.5 36.6 37.0 34.1 26.8 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 266.9 CCTT N 3.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 O.' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.2 64.9 88.7 76.4 92.9106.1126.8134.7134.2112.4 83.8 0.8 0.4 0.01103.4 MAIZE KI-AR . 3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Z.0 0.3 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 2.4 5.8 5.4 4.4 5.6 7.1 7.1 5.3 3.7 2.2 0.7 49.6 MILLETS 0.3 3.3 0.0 3.0 J.0 0.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 18.0 12.8 16.1 20.7 22.5 18.0 13.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 138.8 FOO KHAR 3.0 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.0 6.3 7.8 10.9 15.7 15.8 20.3 24.3 26.0 26.2 19.8 12.4 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.4 WFEAT 1 6.6 8.5 J1.5 12.9 14.4 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 16.4 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.6 108.6 wAEAT 2 30.2 3e.5 48.4 58.8 64.8 57.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.1 19.0 20.1 21.2 24.1 456.5 WiEAT 3 13.3 17.3 22.6 2q.3 36.2 39.2 34.2 C.C C.J 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.2 8.1 8.6 10.2 257.1 WHEAT 4 8.1 10.8 14.5 19.0 23.1 25.3 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ).O 0.0 0.0 24.4 4.7 5.9 157.8 PULSE RABI 3.7 2.7 0.9 0.0 '.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.5 23.3 OILSEFn 13.7 10.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 5.7 24.1 14.3 12.9 14.9 15.4 15.2 132.7 FOn RA91 11.0 13.3 16.6 21.2 26.8 31.9 35.0 34.' 25.5 e.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 19.1 15.0 8.9 9.7 9.6 9.6 304.6 SUGAP CANF 6.1 5.2 3.4 4.5 6.3 7.7 8.6 11.4 17.8 22.3 25.3 26.6 26.2 25.6 24.9 23.8 22.4 20.4 18.1 15.4 12.3 9.6 7.5 6.4 357.3 PATrON 0.0 3.7 2.8 6.3 13.6 14.8 19.2 23.3 26.1 28.0 28.7 28.4 27.0 25.6 24.1 22.5 20.5 18.0 15.2 12.1 9.0 5.7 2.7 0.8 371.8 CTHEP PER 5. P S.P 6.3 L. 8 1.2 9.i 11.7 1?.5 15.3 16.2 16.4 16.2 15.5 14.8 14.2 13.6 12.9 12.0 10.9 9.7 8.1 7.0 6.3 5.9 263.0 TCTAL ')8. 113. 12R. 159. 1S3. 235. 138. 93. 103. Sl. 190. 198. 226. 220. 237. 243. 252. 252. 278. 277. 206. 112. 87. 88. 4183. tn C)0 ANIE 9 Table 11 PAKISTAN SAiLINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJEGT (SCARP) VI W4ter Requirements per Planning Unit (000 ac-ft) Unit II - Ugit III Unit IV Unit V Total Project 4/ 1/3/ 4/ 2/ 4/ 4/ 3/ 4/ At Module At Diversion At Module At Diversion At Modulrsion At Msion At Module At Divermion At Module At Diversion April 8 28.9 44.5 34.7 53.4 5.8 8.9 39.4 51.2 105 8 156 0 May 9 30.1 46.3 37.0 56.9 5.8 8.9 42.8 56.4 115 7 168 5 10 25.5 39.2 34.7 53.4 5.8 8.9 39.4 51.2 105 4 152.7 Junie 11 59.0 90.8 68.3 105.1 12.7 19.5 79.9 113.5 219 9 408 8 12 63.7 98.0 71,8 110.5 13.9 21.4 79.9 113.5 229 3 343.4 July 13 75.3 96.9 82.2 126.5 16.2 24.9 89.1 127.7 262.8 376.0 14 72.9 90.2 78.7 121.1 15.0 23.1 86.8 124.1 253.4 358.5 August 15 81.0 94.6 83.4 128.3 16.2 24.9 92.6 133.1 273.2 380.9 16 84.5 83.6 85.7 131.9 17.4 26.8 93.8 134.9 281.4 377.2 September 17 88.0 90.4 89.1 137.1 18.5 28.5 96.1 138.4 291.7 395.2 18 88.0 86.9 89.1 137.1 18.5 28.5 96.1 138.4 291.7 390.9 October 19 96.1 87.8 96.1 147.8 19.7 30.3 110.0 159.8 321.9 425.7 - shar-l /Y.uU 949./ o)0.8 i,309., 165.5 254.6 945.9 1,342.2 2,752.2 3,935.8 October 20 90.3 - 98.4 - 19.7 30.3 112.3 163.4 320.7 193.7 November 21 66.0 - 71.8 - 13.9 21.4 85.7 122.4 237.4 143.8 22 35.9 - 39.4 - 6.9 10.6 48.6 65.4 130.8 76.0 December 23 27.8 - 30.1 - 5.8 8.9 37.0 47.5 100.7 56.4 24 27.8 - 30.1 - 5.8 8.9 37.1 47.7 100.8 56.6 January 1 31.3 - 34.7 - 6.9 10.6 41.8 54.9 114.7 65.5 2 35.9 - 40.5 - 6.9 10.6 46.3 61.8 129.6 72.4 February 3 40.5 - 47.5 - 8.1 12.5 52.1 70.8 148.2 83.3 4 49.8 - 60.2 - 10.4 16.0 64.8 90.3 185.2 106.3 March 5 59.0 - 71.8 - 12.7 19.5 77.6 110.0 221.1 129.5 6 63.7 - 76.4 - 13.9 21.4 84.5 120.6 238.5 142.0 April 7 44.0 - 50.9 . 8.1 12.5 56.7 77.8 159.7 90.3 Total Rabi 572.0 NIL 651.8 NIL 119.1 183.2 744.5 1,032.6 2,087.4 1,215.8 Total 1,362.0 949.2 1,502.6 1,309.1 284.6 437.80 1,690.4 2,374.8 4,839 5,151.6 Allowing for pumpage by irrigation wells in unit, and conveyance losses between barrage and module . (65% efficiency) 2/ No surface supplies provided in rabi. Allowing for water exports from Unit II. (757. efficiency) Based on crop vater requirements and allowing for watercourse and field losses. (70% efficiency) ANNEX 9 Table 12 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Fresh Groundwater Use in Unit II (000 ac-ft) Month unit II In Unit Export to Unit V April 8 2B5 May 9 285 10 285 Jun 11 285 12 285 Jul 13 966 285 14 1,000 285 Aug 15 1,000 285 16 1,450 285 Sep 17 1,501 285 18 1,618 285 Oct 19 2,000 285 Average Kharif * 1,362 285 Oct 20 2,000 285 Nov 21 2,000 285 22. 1,089 285 Dec 23 933 285 24 933 285 Jan 1 1,050 285 2 1,166 285 Feb 3 1,361 285 4 1,622 285 Mar 5 1,906 285 6 1,000 285 Apr 7 1,000 285 Average rabi 1,338 285 *For periods of pumping 137 ANNEX 9 Table 13 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP)'VI Water Balance at Paninad Barrage Supply Demand Deficit ---------------000 ac-ft----------- Jan 234.0 137.9 - Feb 136.6 189.6 53.0 Mar 101.9 271.5 169.6 Apr 248.8 248.3 May 480.8 321.2 Jun 1,500.0 752.2 Jul 4,202.0 734.5 Aug 7,945.4 758.1 Sep 3,901.2 785.3 Oct 507.9 619.4 111.5 Nov 199.5 219.8 20.3 Dec 146.4 113.0 Total 19,604.5 5,151.6 354.4 139 table 14 PAKI STAN SALINITY CONT)ZIROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Analysis of Canal Water Samples .~~~~~~~~ Ca+ Na Co, HCO C1 SO Total Total ECxl 0 pH SAR lig m3 Cations Salts at 250C meq/1 Anions ppm. Panjnad Barrage 2.06 0.26 - 1.65 0.41. 0.26 2.32 145 226 7.7 0.25 CI ANNEX 9 Table 15 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Groundwater Quality Quality/Area UNIT II UNIT III EC x 106 No. of Percent No. of Percent @ 25 C SAR Wells of Wells Wells of Wells <1400 410 633 93.8 436 96.0 1400 -2500 >15 34 5.0 12 2.7 2500 -3200 >20 4 0.6 2 0.4 >3200 >25 4 0.6 4 0.9 Total 675 100.0 454 100.0 *Most of the SAR values are less than 5. I>! ANNEX 10 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE SUBJECT 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 PROJECT PLAN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS _ _ - I _ _ - I _ _ - - - _ FGW WELLS UNIT II FGW WELLS UNIT III SGW WELLS UNIT V ELECTRIFICATION DRAINS/EVAP. PONDS - REMODELING CANALS UNIT ll UNIT III UNIT IV UNIT V World Bank-17205 N)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a- 0 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL & RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Estimated Schedule of Expenditures ( R. Million) Total 1978 1979 1980 _ _ 1981 1982 19b3 _ Local Foresgn Local Foreign Local Foreign Local F Local Foreign Local Foreign Local Foreign I. Land Acquisition 19.9 - 0.4 - 4.5 - 4.5 - 4 5 - 4 5 - 1 5 - Physical Contingency 2.0 - - - 0.4 - 0.4 - 0 5 - 0.5 - 0 2 - Expected Price Increases 7.8 - - - 0.9 - 4 - 1.9 - 2 5 - 1.1 - Subtotal 29.7 - 0.4 - 5.8 - 6.3 - 6 9 - 7 5 - 2,8 - II. Civil Works Canal Remodelling 166.5 13.5 8.0 1.0 35.8 2.6 35.8 2.8 35 8 2 8 35 8 2 8 15-3 1.3 Unit II Tubewells & Drains 7K.4 48.3 5.2 3.3 29.7 18.0 29.7 18 0 12.8 9.0 - - - - Unit V Tubewells 22.5 36.5 - - - - - - 5 9 9.1 10.7 18 3 5.9 9.1 Electrification Works 164.6 9.3 6.6 1.3 39.5 2.0 39.5 2.0 39.5 2.0 39.5 2 0 - - Drainage Works 139.4 27.2 - - 23.3 5.8 46 4 5.8 46 4 12 4 23 3 3.2 Subtotal 570.4 134.8 19.8 5.6 105.0 22.8 128.3 28.6 140.5 28.7 131.4 35.5 44 5 13.6 Physical Contingency 83.2 20.2 2.8 0.8 15.2 3.4 18.6 4.3 20.8 4 3 19.4 5 3 6 4 2.0 Expected Price Increases 230.7 49.0 1.9 0.5 22.0 4.2 40.0 8.0 62.1 11.0 74 4 17 1 30 3 8.2 Subtotal 884.3 204.0 24.5 7.0 142.2 30.4 187.0 40.9 223.3 44 0 226.2 57.9 82.1 23 8 III. On-Farm Investments Unit III Tubewells 41.4 19,0 3.9 1.5 7.5 3.5 7.5 3.5 7.5 3.5 7.5 3 5 7 5 3.5 Land Levelling 85.0 15.0 - - 17.0 3.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 3 0 17.0 3 0 Gypsum 36.0 4.0 - - - - - - 12.0 1.3 12.0 1.4 12 0 1 3 Subtotal 162.4 38.0 3.9 1.5 24.5 6.5 24.5 6 5 36 5 7.8 36.5 7 9 36 5 7 8 Physical Contingency 16.2 3.8 0.4 0.1 2.4 0.7 2.4 0.7 3.6 0 8 3.6 0.8 3 6 018 Expected Price Increases 73.7 13.8 0.5 0.2 5.3 1.1 7.5 1,7 15.6 2.9 20.1 3.5 24.9 4.3 Subtotal 252.3 55.6 4.8 1.8 32.2 8.3 34.4 8.9 55 7 11.5 602 122 650 129 IV. Equipment & Vehicles Canal Remodelling Equipment 12.5 32.0 12.5 32.0 - - - - - - - - - - Electrical Components 24.4 62.3 0.4 4.3 6.0 14.5 3 0 14 5 e'.o 14 5 6.0 14.5 - - Transport, Levelling eqpt., Computer/Communications, Spares & Miscellaneous 4.9 17.2 1.5 5.2 2.0 7.8 1.4 4.2 - - - - - - Subtotal 41.8 111.5 14,4 41.5 8.0 21 3 7.4 18.7 6.0 14 5 6.0 145 - Physical Contingency 2.0 9.4 0.8 3.6 0.3 2.5 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.4 0 3 1.4 - Expected Price Increases 5.6 24.1 0.8 3.6 0.8 3.8 1.0 4 8 1 3 5.2 1 7 6.7 - _ Subtotal 49.4 145.0 !{7O 48.7 9.1 27.6 8.7 25.0 7.6 21.1 8 0 226 - - V. Consultants 5.0 44..8 1.5 17.9 1.5 17.9 0.8 4 0 0,4 3 0 0.4 2.0 0 4 2 0 Contingency 0.5 2.7 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.8 0,1 0.4 - 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.2 Expected Price Increases 1.2 6.3 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.3 1.1 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.9 0 2 1 1 Subtotal 6.7 55.8 1.7 19.4 2.0 20.1 1.2 5.5 0 6 4.4 0.6 3.1 0.6 3 3 TOTAL 1,222.4 460.4 47.4 76.9 191.3 86.4 237.6 80.3 294.1 81.0 302.5 95.8 149.5 40.0 7 Note Assumed annual rates of inflation are: Local . Foreign_ 1978 9 8 1979 9 7.5 1980 orwards 8 7 ANNEX 11 Table 2 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Proposed Credit Allocation Amount Allocated % of Expenditure To Be (US $ M Equivalent) Financed Category Total IDA UK KFW IDA UK KFW Civil Works Canal Remodelling ) Unit II Tubewells & Drains ) 45.0 100% of foreign Unit V Tubewells ) 50% of local costs Electrification Works o Drainage Works 7.5 100% of foreign, 30% of local costs On-Farm Investments Unit III Tubewells ) 50% ) 8.5 of advances Land Levelling ) by Banks Gypsum 2.0 50% of local costs Equipment and Vehicles Canal Remodelling Equipment 3.5 100% of foreign costs Electrical Components 7.9 100% of foreign costs Transport, Levelling ) Eqpt., Computer 2.0 100% of Communications, Spares foreign costs and Misc. ) Consultants 6.0 100% Unallocated 8.5 2.0 0.4 TOTAL 70.0 15.0 8.3 144 ANNEX 11 Table 3 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Schedule of Credit Disbursements (US$M Equivalent) IDA Fiscal Year Accumulated and Semester Disbursements Disbursements 1978 1st .5 .5 2nd 1.5 2.0 1979 1st 5.0 7.0 2nd 5.5 12.5 1980 1st 6.5 19.0 2nd 6.5 25.5 1981 Ist 8.0 33.5 2nd 8.0 41.5 1982 1st 8.5 50.0 2nd 5.0 55.0 1983 1st 5.0 60.0 2nd 5.0 65.0 1984 1st 5.0 70.0 145 ANNEX 12 Page I PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RFC M^ATT)N PROJECT (SCARP) VI Organization and Management General 1. The proposed organization chart at the project level is shown in Figure 1. The officer in charg.Ž would be the Project Director, who would be of Chief Engineer rank. He would control five technical sections, each headed by an officer of Superintending Engineer rank or equivalent. The sections, and their subdivisions, would b] as follows: (a) Irrigation: with sub3ections in charge of canal remodel- ing and new watercourse design, the siting and design of tubewells in Unit II; design of tubewells in Unit V, de- sign and advice to farmers on private wells in Unit III. (b) Drainage: with subse:tions in charge of siting of saline drainage wells and ap urtenant works to connect them with the trunk drainage sy ;tem; design and construction super- vision of the evapora-ion ponds and pumping stations; (c) Electrification: witl subsections for the power lines; and substations and connections of all public wells and pumping stations. Tho section would also assist with electrification of groups of private wells in Unit III. (d) Mechanical: concerne&i with maintenance and all repair work of public well equipment and the pumping stations; the maintenance of al: project vehicles and to ensure proper inventory control and ordering of spare parts. (e) Agriculture and Monit(ring would be headed by an agri- cultural economist wilh subsections to provide WAPDA's Central Monitoring Orianization with data to report on progress. He and his staff would maintain liaison with agricultural extensioiT and research, and the agricultural engineering service oT' progress with land leveling, applications for and :nstallation of private wells and progress on advising larmers how to exploit project benefits; with the paiticipating CBs on how loan appli- cations for wells are encouraged, processed and the work executed. 146 ANNEX 12 Page 2 The electrification subdivision would report to the Superintending Engineer, Power Wing, WAPDA, based in Rahimyar Khan but would be expected to maintain close liaison with the Project Director on the phasing and progress of his work. The Implementation Period 2. During project implementation, the PD and all his staff would be WAPDA officials, even though, for the sake of continuity, it would be bene- ficial if many could be seconded from GOPunjab line departments and continue in their post after GOPunjab takes over the project. The PD, a substantive Chief Engineer, would report to the General Manager, Northern Zone, and would also have frequent technical contacts with the Project Director (Planning). The Post-Implementation Period 3. After project completion and at least one year's successful opera- tion, the operation of the project, in accordance with accepted GOP procedures, would be handed over to GOPunjab's Irrigation Department. The PD would then be an Additional Chief Engineer, reporting to the Secretary for Irrigation GOPunjab through the Chief Engineer, Bahawalpur Irrigation Circle. The Agri- cultural Officer would be seconded from the Department of Agriculture. Matters pertaining to the supply and distribution of electric power to project units would become the routine duty of WAPDA's organization based in Rahimyar Khan (Figure 2). The Project Committees 4. There would be two coordinating committees: a Project Coordination Committee in Rahimyar Khan, and a Project Steering Committee in Lahore. (a) The Project Coordination Committee would be headed by the Deputy Commissioner of the district and the PD would be its executive officer. Members would be the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, the Director of Agriculture, and the district Superintending Engineer for WAPDA's power wing. The farming community would be represented by one or two leading farmers from each of the project units. The Unit III representative would be selected from tubewell owners. The CBs, participating in the credit scheme for wells, land leveling and reclamation, would also be represented. The committee would have powers to co-opt anybody who they consider would help their deliberations. They would meet, during project implementation, at least six times a year, to be advised of progress and to be able to offer advice on overcoming problems other than technical in nature. After the project is completed, fewer meetings may suffice. 147 ANNEX 12 Page 3 (b) The Project Steering Committee would be chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary, Planning and Development. Members would be the Secretary for Agriculture, Secretary for Irrigation and the Divisional Commissioner for Bahawalpur Division. GOP would be represented by WAPDA's GM (NZ) and the GM Power Wing. The CBs would be represented by one or more of the General Managers of the participating commercial banks. All rmembers may be accompanied by their field officers and the Committee as such may co- opt additional members. November 1977 148 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Organization Chart; - Project Implementation GENERAL MANAGER - | STEERING__ (NZ) 1 COMMITTEE p FINANCE PROJECT - - …- - - - P AND PROJECTOR ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR _~~ WAP DA POWER WING AGRICULTURE IRRIGATION DRAINAGE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL WORKSHOPS MONITORING %D World Bank-17246 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Organization Chart; - Post-Implementation | SECRETARY FOR IRRIGATION l | STEERING G.O. PUNJAB _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ COMMITTEE l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION l BAHAWALPUR l l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lFHUJLL. I rriu.itiu DIRECTOR COMMITTEE I WAPDA POWER WING AGR ICULTURE MECHANICAL ADEETIA IRRIGATION DRAINAGE WORKSHOPS A ELECT MONITORING World Bank-17245 0 ANNEX 13 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Agricultural Supporting Services A. Extension I. The Present Situation Organization 1. The agricultural extension service is built up according to adminis- trative boundaries, the same as other departments. One Field Assistant (FA) is posted to each Union Council, - the smallest administrative unit of the 1960s, now existing mainly as units of internal security and agricultural de- velopment. There are 84 Union Councils in the canal irrigated parts of Rahimyar Khan district. 2. The Union Councils are grouped into four tehsils, with 18 to 24 Union Councils in each. At each tehsil headquarters there are four Agricul- tural Officers (AO) who report to the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture (EADA) stationed in Rahimyar Khan. 3. The EADA is assisted by technical and administrative staff officers. His Assistant Plant Protection Officer (APPO) acts as a Subject Matter Specialist, is actively involved in training programs for the AOs and FAs and controls, through them, 147 special skilled laborers (beldars) attached to the FAs. The beldars administer the pesticide stores, do minor repair and maintenance work on the sprayers, demonstrate the use of equipment and pesti- cides and supervise spraying operations by the farmers. There is an AO (Technical) who is an agronomist and supports the tehsil AOs on all agronomic matters relating to the more common crops. 4. The Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO) is responsible for compil- ing, bi-annually, the crop and other statistics for the district. Aided by four statistical investigators in the tehsils and 19 reporting FAs, he collects crop information three times a season, and other data, like the number of tubewells and tractors and implements annually. Crop information is recorded in statistically selected sample villages. 5. The EADA also administers a Cotton Maximization Scheme, under which a fifth AO is posted to each tehsil. The job descriptions for special cotton staff and the regular extension staff are the same. They are placed so as to enable the geographic area of each staff member to be made smaller, thereby aiming at increasing their effectiveness. 151 ANNEX 13 Page 2 6. The Agricultural EngLneering Unit is a service organization provid- ing facilities and equipment for coarse land leveling with bulldozers (Annex 5), and for drilling tubewells. It administers the tubewell subsidy scheme in consultation with the Deputy Commissioner, the District and the Tehsil Councils. Staff consists of bulldozer drivers and mechanics, supervisory staff for the land leveling work and supervisors who train workers operating the tubewell drilling rigs (foc which labor is provided by the farmers). The organization sells well casings and, occasionally, engines. 7. Market Control. The main markets are managed by an Assistant Director (Economics and Marketing). His staff record movement of goods through the markets and publisi every week the prices of the major traded commodities. 8. The EADA reports to a Deputy Director of Agriculture (DDA) in Bahawalpur, who is in charge of the entire division. The Agricultural Engi- neer reports to a Deputy Director of Agricultural Engineering, the Assistant Director (Economics and Marketing) to a DDA (Economics and Marketing) both in Bahawalpur. The Deputy Directors report to their respective Directors of Agriculture (DA) (Extension) and DA (Economics and Marketing) based in Lahore, and the Director of Agricultural Engineering in Lyallpur. This latter also directs the Precision Land Leveling Project (PLLP) (Annex 5). 9. The three Directors and two others, in charge of disciplines not affecting the project area, report to the Director-General (DG) of Agriculture in Lahore who is the technical and administrative head of all agricultural activities except research (Figure 1). 10. The Integrated Rural Development Project (IRDP) was started in 1972. Its basic concept is to post technicians of several disciplines into marakhaz (the plural of markhaz, a rural development unit) where, under the guidance of the markhaz office they would concentrate on such tasks that are an agreed priority, at any given time. The markhaz area is usually about half a tehsil and corresponds to the boundaries of the Union Councils it includes. The project is headed by a Director, based in Lahore. In Rahimyar Khan district, only one Union Council is invclved. They have their own agricultural exten- sion staff. A graduate carries out the functions of the FA. However, other activities prevent full-time effort on agricultural extension. As for his opposite numbers in the regular extension service, his principal contact with farmers is through some appropriate ramification of plant protection: either supervising spraying or arranging for it to be done. The regular Extension Service also maintain their normal establishment in the area. Working Conditions and Methods 11. The FAs are expectecL to reside in the villages within the Union Council of their posting. No Government quarters are provided, and no housing allowance is payable. Rented accommodation is not easily available 152 ANNEX 13 Page 3 in the villages and therefore most of the FAs reside, rent free, in quarters provided by the large landlords of the area. This tends to limit their field of activities as the landlords who house them expect to have first call on their services. Similar arrangements are made for the beldars and some of the AOs, 12. Transport facilities are inadequate. The FAs are given a traveling and a daily allowance which is meant to cover the upkeep of bicycles and out- of-pocket expenses. AOs share 4 WD vehicles which are approaching the end of their useful life and are in short supply. The EADA's office is also short of transport. Staff are therefore forced to travel by public conveyance or hired horse-drawn traps. 13. The extension staff's main effort is plant protection. Records show that during the kharif two-thirds, and during the rabi one-third of the FAs -- and, at all times, all of the beldars -- time is spent either in iden- tifying pest problems, actually spraying or being present in the field where spraying is taking place. The Department's guidelines do not readily allow the use of their sprayers, and the pesticides they sell, without close con- trol aimed to avoid accidental poisoning. Thus, time not actually spent on spraying tends to be spent in awaiting requests, and therefore other extension activities receive even less attention from the FAs than their time alloca- tion would suggest. Consequently, farmer contacts for purposes other than plant protection are mainly with the AOs who consequently have some 60-70,000 ac, comprising over 5,000 farms, to service: a virtually impossible task even if transport were unrestricted. Staff Training 14. The AO's, from whose ranks EADAs and above are eventually selected, are trained in Agricultural Universities, the oldest of which is in Lyallpur in the central Punjab. There is a FA training establishment in Rahimyar Khan designed to meet the needs of the southern Punjab. It runs a two-year course; entry qualifications are "matriculate" standard, attainable after a total of 12 years' schooling. 15. In-service training courses are run twice a year, before each of the main crop seasons. They are run separately for Divisional, District and Tehsil staff. The divisional seminars are conducted by staff from the Punjab Agricultural Research Station and the Agricultural University of Lyallpur. The district-level training is done by divisional staff with some outside assistance; tehsil-level training is conducted by district and divisional staff only. Leading farmers are invited to participate in district and tehsil training courses. 153 ANNEX 13 Page 4 Present Plans to Strengthen the Service 16. Plans ready for implementation consist of the following measures: - double the number of FAs. to have two in each Union Council; - put an EADA in charge of the tehsils and a DDA in charge of the district; - post a DA (Extension) to Multan, to take charge of Bahawalpur and Multan Divisions (instead of one DA for the whole Punjab); - provide loans for the AOs to purchase motorcycles and make budgetary provisions to Enable the payment of an equitable allowance for their use; With extra FAs, the FA-farmer ratio would be about 1:1,200. 17. Notable deficiencies of the plan are: - no provision for rural housing, either for construction or the payment of a housing allowance to meet the cost of rented accommodation; - no provision of specialist staff at tehsil level and the introduction of other disciplines, especially water manage- ment; - no change of working methods, either to designate staff solely for plant protection operations or to develop a closer management system 'hat would enable better train- ing of farmers in the use of pesticides. II. Agricultural Extension Under the Project 18. While a strengthened and closely controlled and supervised agricul- tural extension service is a vital prerequisite to attaining full production potential from the project works, it:s establishment and support is not a project component. A province-wide extension and research project is sched- uled for appraisal by IDA in 1977 which would include Rahimyar Khan district. B. Research Agricultural Research Institutes 19. Agricultural Research in the Punjab is controlled by a Director- General for Agriculture (Research). The Directors of the major institutes report to him. Of these, the Punjab Agricultural Research Institute (PARI) 154 ANNEX 13 Page 5 does most of the work relevant to the project area. The basic investigations on wheat, sugarcane, pulses, and for the time being also oilseeds, is centered there. Maize, sorghum and pearl millet research is done in Yusufwala, in Sahiwal district. A specialist station dealing with oil crops is shortly to take over the Khanpur research station, in the project area. Adaptive research (investigations into the local suitability of the crop varieties released by PARI) is done in Bahawalpur, which does a certain amount of varietal selection work of its own. More adaptive research is needed on problems specific to the project area, such as the overlap in the wheat/cotton seasons (Annex 14, para 13). 20. The Bahawalpur station has sections for cereals, cotton, tobacco and sugarcane; for plant pathology, and enthomology; and for horticulture, dealing mainly with mangoes and citrus, the region's principal fruit crops. The achievements, recent past and imminent future varietal releases are discussed under the separate crops (Annex 14). A soils chemistry section conducts fertility trials on the station and in farmers' fields. They have an analytical laboratory that undertakes the testing of farmers' soil samples and advises on fertilizer rates. 21. A notable advance will be the launching of the oil crops research station. In the past, trials have been conducted in Rahimyar Khan district on sunflowers which were agronomically promising, but the project was sus- pended before marketing and processing problems could be overcome. It would appear that not only the traditional Brassica oilseeds, but also sunflowers, safflower and groundnuts could become important crops in the area, alleviat- ing the country's vegetable oil shortage and better utilizing land and water under project conditions. C. Credit The Present Situation 22. Prior to 1973, short, medium and long-term institutional agricul- tural credits were the sole responsibility of the cooperative banks and, mostly the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP). Inadequate organization, scarce resources, and questionable lending policies have caused ADBP to concentrate on arrears recovery and not on expanding lending. Steps to remedy these weaknesses are under way. Since 1973, the five nationalized commercial banks (CBs) i.e. National Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (NBP), Habib Bank Ltd. (HBL), United Bank Ltd. (UBL), Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., (MCB) and Allied Bank Ltd. (ABL) have been actively engaged in agricultural finance (about 50% of all institutional credit) under the agricultural small loans scheme drawn up by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). 155 ANNEX 13 Page 6 23. The CBs have 103 branches in the Project area. They report, through their zonal or principal office in Rahimyar Khan or Bahawalpur, to their Head Office in Karachi where a special department deals with agricultural lending policy and statistics. Bank branches are sufficiently staffed for commercial lending business, but for agricuLtural credit operations they do not have sufficient staff. 24. The CBs now provide short-term facilities for purchasing production inputs, particularly fertilizers and medium-term loans (three to five years) primarily for tractors, tubewell3, bullocks and, in a small way only, for land leveling. The rate of interest for all loans is 12% p.a. Lending concepts and procedures are satisfactory, and the rate of recovery acceptable. The banks are controlled by SBP and aiudited by firms operating to international standards. II. Development Under the Project 25. Under the project, banks would make medium-term loans for installa- tion of private tubewells, land leveling and procurement of gypsum for land reclamation. Technical departmer,t and laboratories would assist bank branches in the evaluation of loan applications (Annex 6). The CBs would be expected to strengthen their technical staff to cope efficiently with the expanding credit activity. HBL and MCB branches already have, respectively, six and three trained agricultural credit. officers (ACO); the others have none or one only. The requirement would be at least one ACO for each of the four (tehsils) of the district. November 1977 156 ANNEX 13 Figure 1 Director-General of Agriculture (Field) DA (Extension) D. Agri. Eng. DA (Econ & Mar) Director of Director of Barani Soil Conservation (dryland) agriculture DDA Bahawalpur Division EADA Rahim Yar Khan District Five AOs in each of four tehsils (20) Field Assistants (84) Beldars (147) LO Ln~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANNEX 14 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Draft Terms of Reference for Study of Agricultural Pricing and Water Charges Introduction 1. The study will be the responsiblity of the Government of Pakistan and will be carried out by a Government study group with the assistance of consultants, under the general guidance of a Coordinating Committee headed by the Secretary, Federal Planning Division. The Committee will include the Federal Secretaries of Finance, Agriculture, and Water and Power; the Additional Chief Secretaries, Planning and Development, of the four provinces; and a representative of the Master Planning Division, WAPDA. 2. The study will comprise two parts; (i) a study of water charges; and (ii) a study of the general level and structure of agricultural pricing and taxation, including water charges. A draft of Part I of the Study (water charges) will be completed by June 1978, and a draft of the whole Study by December 1978. Background notes for the study are attached. Part I of Study 3. The purpose of Part I of the study will be to make recommendations on the appropriate level, structure and design of water charges, taking into account the current and capital cost of providing water to the farmers, the effect of water charges on farmer incentives, the encouragement of efficient water use, income distribution and general revenue considerations. 4. In reaching its recommendations, the study should review: (1) The current systems of #ater charges, their history and objectives; (2) The role and contribution of water charges to the provincial and federal budgets in relation to: (a) the level and adequacy of expenditure3 on O&M of irrigation and drainage works; (b) expenditures on capital investments in irrigation and drainage development; (c) other expenditures and subsi- dies to the agriculturaL sector; and (d) other taxes on agriculture; (3) The effectiveness of waLer charges in encouraging the 158 efficient use of water by the farmer; ANNEX 14 Page 2 (4) The effect of water charges on the incentives to farmers to increase crop production; (5) The income distribution impact of water charges as they affect farmers with different size holdings and in dif- ferent positions on the watercourse, and under different tenurial arrangements. 5. Taking into account 1-5 above, the study will evaluate: (a) the economic functions of water rates as: (i) an allocative device in ensuring efficient water use and optimal cropping patterns, (ii) a benefit tax on the increased income/land values of farmers receiving water, and (iii) a source of revenue; (b) alternative systems (including relative collection costs) of imposing water charges which will fulfill the functions listed in (a) above; (c) appropriate principles for determining water charges, including the desirabiity and feasibility of differentials between crops, seasons, SCARP and non-SCARP areas, farm size, farm locations, water delivery costs, etc; and (d) appropriate methods of linking water charges (or their proposed replacement) to inflation and, as necessary, to the increased budgetary expenditures resulting from new projects, including the interval at which such ad- justments should be made. Part II of the Study 6. The purpose of Part II of the Study will be to recommend an optimal level and structure of agricultural pricing and taxation, including water charges, consistent with the Government's revenue needs, adequate incentives to farmers, efficiency in resource allocation, and equity and progressivity in the system. The study should indicate the relative role of different instruments, including water charges, in achieving these various objectives. The findings and recommendations of Part I of the study should be taken into account in framing recommendations under Part II. 7. The study should review: (1) The current system of taxes, subsidies and pricing policies in agriculture (such as export and excise duties, water charges, agricultural income tax, procurement and price- setting policies, input subsidies, etc.) their history and objectives; 159 ANNEX 14 Page 3 (2) The impact of existing taxation and pricing policies in relation to: (M) the structure of input and output prices facing farmers and returns from agriculture; (ii) allocation of resources between crops within the agriculture sector and between agriculture and other sectors; (iii) resource transfers - transferring resources from agriculture to the Government, and from producers to consumers; and (iv) the incidence of existing taxes and pricing on agriculture, their equity and progressivity and effects on income dlstribution. (3) Alternative revenue and expenditure tools to attain given objectives (e.g., removing subsidies on inputs and controls on output prices to enable domestic prices to reflect world prices more closely in order to improve resource allocation, taking into account dometstic production costs, desirable income levels and con8uwers' purchasing power; ways of making the agricultural income tax more progressive by linking it to size of holdings/productivity of land; the appropriate relationships between alternative instruments, in particular the extent to which water charges can supplement other taxes, etc.). 8. In light of items 1-3 above, the study should evaluate: (i) the optimal level and structure of overall agricultural pricing and taxation that is desirable taking into account the need for raising Government revenues, equitable income distribution, maintaining incentives to farmers and improved resource allocation, and (ii) the reliance which should be placed on alternative pric- ing and taxation instruments, including the role of water charges in suth a package, taking into account changes in input and output prices and taxes resulting from a revised structure of taxation. 160 ANNEX 14 Page 4 BACKGROUND NOTES Part I of Study 9. Water charges in Pakistan are imposed under the Canal and Drainage Act of 1873, as amended. They are assessed and collected by the Provincial Irrigation Departments and form a direct means of charging the beneficiaries of the irrigation and drainage works for services and facilities provided by the Federal and Provincial Governments. The revenue raised accrues directly to the Provincial Governments, and is an important component (about 30%) of direct tax revenue to the provinces. 10. The Canal and Drainage Act is an authorization to collect water charges, but the system of collection and level of charges is a Provincial matter and is not uniform throughout the country. 11. Water charges have two distinct functions: (i) as a source of direct general revenue to the Government to support its expenditures on the services it provides in both the agricultural and other sectors; and (ii) as an allocative device to ensure that the services pro- vided are efficiently utilized. 12. These factors are embodied in existing legislation which refers to the right of the Government to recover the costs of services provided, to differentiate between charges on various crops on the basis of their value and the amount of water needed to grow them and to tax the actual or potential rent accruing to landowners and farmers due to the higher value of irrigated land. 13. Water charges in Punjab are currently levied on the basis of area cropped and crops grown. Per acre water charge rates vary between crops from Rs 6.40 for fodder to Rs 33.60 for orchards. Except under special circum- stances, water deliveries are fixed on the basis of area: thus (legal) pay- ments do not affect the volume of water delivered, although those receiving more water will, if their cropping intensity is higher, pay more. 14. In Sind, water charges are combined with other land taxes, and are related to the assessed productivity of the land. Again, no link exists between price and quantity. 15. Water charges on assessed land values and crop areas as a direct source of revenue are at present significant from the Provincial point of view (constituting about 30% of direct revenues) but relatively unimportant on a national scale. Provincial recoveries, however, are less than expen- ditures on operating and maintaining the system--and these expenditures 161 ANNEX 14 Page 5 are already inadequate--and thus col.tribute nothing to the substantial past and ongoing capital expenditures on infrastructure. In addition, the severe budgetary pressures facing Pakistan require rapid and sub- stantial mobilization of resources. 16. Water charges as an allocative device appear at present to be completely ineffective. The quantity of water received is not depen- dent on the (legal) payments made, and thus the price at the margin is zero. The marginal value, on the other hand, is often very high. The apparent wastage and inefficient management of water appears in part to stem from inadequate farmer-knowledge of the relevant techniques. If water charges are to be effective as an allocative device, they would apparently require: (a) very substEntial increases to bring them to a level at which farmers are aware of the cost of using water; (b) improve- ments in delivery of water to make it demand oriented and to ensure reliable and timely delivery of water, and (c) educating farmers in the techniques of good water management. In the longer run, such changes would have profoundly beneficial effects. 17. As a tax on beneficiaries, water charges are at present low. While the value of water at critical periods may exceed Rs 200/ac-ft, the average cost to the farmer is less than 10% of this. While average and marginal costs are not strictly comparable, it is clear that the benefits of irrigation are substantially in excess of the price paid by the farmers. The value of these benefits might be measured by the relative values of irrigated and unirrigated land. Part II of Study 18. The level and structure of water charges in Pakistan cannot be determined independently of agricultural pricing policy and other taxes and levies on agriculture. There are several such taxes and levies in existence at present, e.g., export duties, excise duties, an agricultural income tax, as well as indirect taxing of agriculture through Government monopoly trad- ing, lower than world-market prices for agricultural products, etc. 19. In determining an appropriate level and structure of agricultural pricing and taxation, general economic and social considerations must be taken into account. There is a pressing need in Pakistan to raise additional domestic resources for financing development programs in agriculture and other sectors. At the same time, in devising means of raising additional revenues, due regard must be given to equiity and progressivity of the system to bring about a better distribution of income as well as the provision of adequate incentives to farmers. The level of taxation of agriculture in relation to other sectors of the economy and its effects on incentives and resource allocation within the agricuilture sector and between sectors must be considered. The existence of a complex system of agricultural taxes, input subsidies, Government monopoly trading and price-setting arrangements complicates such an evaluation. t62 ANNEX 14 Page 6 20. A recent World Bank study indicates that subsidies to farmers are equal to about one fourth of the taxes paid by them, and that in addition much "taxation" takes place via price distortions (lower than world market prices), resulting in adverse terms of trade to agriculture vis-a-vis manu- facturing. Whether such taxes and price distortions place too heavy a burden on agriculture, whether more incentives in favor of agriculture are desirable, and what changes are required in the mix of existing levies on agriculture, needs to be explored. November 1977 163 ANNEX 15 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Present and Future C:opping Patterns and Production Present Production 1. The present and future cropping patterns are shown in Table 1; crop areas, yields and production iTi Tables 2 and 3. The ratio of kharif to rabi crops at present is as follows: Units II III IV V Seascnal Perennial canal waters Kharif/rabi 1.2 to 1 1.3 to 1 1 to 1.15 1 to 1.18 Thus, at present there is a slight edge of kharif over rabi crops in the seasonally canal irrigated areas and the reverse in the perennial areas, although far less than anticipated in the original designs. 2. The tables also show that an average of 64% of all cropped land is in wheat, cotton and sugarcane. They account for practically all the disposable income of the farmer. 3. The present overall cropping pattern, and particularly the total area of fodder crops, has been remarkably constant for several years, indicating that fodder production is in balance with the requirements of the work and milch animals in the area. Work aninal numbers relate more to the number of farming families than to the work output expected from them: all but culti- vators having very small holdings ow:1 one pair of oxen, notwithstanding the fact that one pair can readily cope with the work requirements of 15-20 acres. Ownership of oxen is necessary to enible potential sharecroppers to obtain land (sharecroppers not owning work animals are only rarely accepted by land- owners) and for small landowners and leaseholders to participate in the tra- ditional system whereby a number of ox teams move from farm to farm, in turn to plow, level and plant the lands of the participants. Therefore, the present fodder production maintains more working animals than the cropping pattern requires, even though it may not be sufficient to provide all the extra food demanded if the animals haive to work longer hours and have less time to forage in stubble-fields. 164 ANEX 15 Page 2 Future Piodjtction Without the ProAect 4. Tables 1 and 2 also show the situ!tion expected around 1990 if proj- ect works are not implemented. In Uni,cs II and V, the area of the major cash crops would diminish owing to increasing waterlogging and/or salinization, and the area of the crops gi-ing a lower per acre return, but also having a greater tolerance to adverse conditions (pulses, millets rice) would ill- crease. Overall, yields on the remaining land are not D-fected to improve in Units II and V, but would rise in Units III and Y1, cwing to generally improving techniques. Future With the Project 5. The expected cropping pattern. Under project conditions water sup- plies would be increased, waterlogging and salinization controlled, thereby making extra land available for cultivation and enabling overall higher cropping intensities. The ratio of cash to fodder crops would improve in favor of the cash crops. The area under fodder crops would remain r.uch as at present, and may even decrease slightly in areas where cash crops with a substantial component of usable by-products (sugarcane tops, wheat straw) would increase. Such extra fodder would be sufficient to provide the rations needed for the longer and harder work required from the oxen. Table 1 shows the expected cropping pattern in percentages of the CCA and Figures 1 to 4 demonstrates graphically how the crops fit into the agricultural year. 6. In Unit III, the main increase in cropping intensities would occur in the rabi, when evapo-transpiration is lower and therefore the crops pro- duced per hour of well operation are of higher value. There would be an increase in the wheat, oilseed and sugarcane area. In the other units where the kharif canal deliveries would be increased, the present ratio of kharif and rabi crops would substantially remain, although, as noted, the area of fodder would decline. 7. The expected production. Although the agricultural extension ser- vice would be upgraded either under an IDA project at present being prepared or otherwise, and to standards acceptable to IDA, this factor has not been taken into consideration in estimating future yields and production. Crop yields under project conditions were estimated to increase mainly because of more irrigation water and better drainage, and only marginally as a result of a better agricultural extension service. 8. Wheat. Since the large-scale introduction of the high-yielding dwarf varieties in the mid-1960s, there have been several new releases of reselected seed stocks, varieties since developed and also fresh importations from Mexico. As at present, there is no organized seed trade and varietal 165 ANNEX 15 Page 3 maintenance program, there is large-scale mixing of varieties, not only of the dwarfs but also of the earlier, high baking quality but lower yielding ones with the dwarfs; samples examined in the market and in Government stores have confirmed this. With the deve:opment envisaged under the IDA-sponsored seeds project (620-PAK), it is expected that pure and reliable planting mater- ial will be available in quantities commensurate with increasing demands. 9. There is a sufficient diversity of varieties to meet conditions likely to be encountered in the pro4ect area. The main criterion is time of planting, which can start on kharif fallows in late October and must necessarily continue, after cotton, into the second half of December. Plantings after the beginning of December tend to give lower yields than November plantings; the difference is diminished, but not overcome, by selecting suitable varieties. The reason for the yield reduction is that rising temperatures bring about ripening by around mid-April, irrespective of planting time and the yield is related to the growing period. Therefore, only the more sophisticated farmers will plant wheat late and balance poten- tially lower yields with increased revenue due to higher cropping intensities. 10. Rust resistance in Pakistan, as elsewhere, is a dynamic process and requires constant breeding and reselection to keep ahead of the mutants of rust. This aspect of wheat breeding is well under control. 11. Yields vary greatly. Many of the better farmers report averages over 35 md/ac (1.3 tons/ac), while the average reported yield is 14.5 md/ac (0.5 tons/ac). Many authorities consider this an under-reporting and estimate irrigated dwarf wheat yields at 20 md/ac (0.7 tons/ac). Projecting yields by around 1990 to average 24 md/ac (0.9 tons/ac) would therefore appear feasible, given the currently planned seed development program and without a sub- stantially improved extension service. 12. Cotton is the major kharif crop and the district has for long been one of the foremost cotton-growing areas of the north Indus plain. The dis- trict is designated an American (hir3utum) cotton area. All the varieties are of medium staple length, the original variety release descriptions vary- ing between 15/16" and 1-1/16". Still the most prominent is the reselection and updating of the old 13/26, under the name of Bahawalpur Selection or BS1. The last picking of this variety is Ln mid-December, making it almost impos- sible to follow with wheat (para 9). Emphasis is on varieties that finish their growing cycle earlier and are also less branching and bushy than BLI. Such a selection is 149 F. AC 147, an older, medium-duration variety is also grown, although according to the cot-on zoning regulations, it should be grown only in Multan district. 13. The principal agronomic andl genetic problem with cotton is that all the germplasm in the present varieties is to some extent heat sensitive and the plants do not flower until temperatures drop from their July-August peaks of around 120 F. Therefore, planting before mid-June does not bring about 166 ANNEX 15 Page 4 earlier flowering; the prolonged flowering period inherent in the varieties makes at least three pickings economical, thereby delaying the time the crop can be uprooted. Consequently, until a new series of varieties are developed and released, cotton after wheat enables maximum yields to be obtained from both crops, but if wheat is to be planted after cotton, then either cotton yields suffer through a lost picking or wheat yields are reduced by late planting. 14. Cotton suffers mainly from jassids, mites and, above all, the pink bollworm. Pest control is inadequate, mainly because there are not enough sprayers and routinely used spares, such as washers and nozzles. Therefore, yields are a function of the more or less uncontrolled trends of the insect cycles and are further held down by inadequate plant populations, due partly to low seed rates compounded by the use of bollworm-infested planting mater- ial. The yield range is between 10 and 15 md/ac (0.4 to 0.6 tons/ac) but the potential is around 25-30 md/ac (0.9-1.1 tons/ac) with the existing varieties and good, well known agronomic practices. Therefore, expected average yields of around 18 md/ac (0.7 tons/ac) by about 1990 would appear reasonable. 15. Sugarcane is of increasing importance. There are two sugarmills in the district and there is a flourishing jaggery (gur) industry. The crop grows well and varieties that can tolerate the low December-January temperatures have been evolved. With proper fertilization and pest control, two ratoon crops are feasible but usually the combined effect of root borers and potash deficiency induces farmers to take only one ratoon. The crop is planted in March-April. The sugarmills open in November and first crush the ratoon crop; plant crops are normally harvested from January onwards. 16. As fertile seeds are not produced in the area, all breeding work is done in a high-elevation station in the Himalayan foothills. But field trials and adaptive research is carried out in Bahawalpur and also on the sugarmill farms in the project area. The COL 54 is a popular, older variety; BL4 and BL90 are more recent, somewhat higher yielding selections. 17. Yields vary greatly. Crops, estimated to produce between 200 and 1,000 md/ac (7.4 to 37 tons/ac) were seen in adjoining fields. Average yields are reported to be about 375 md/ac (14 tons/ac) but there is no obvious rea- son why an average of 510 md/ac (19 tons/ac) should not be readily attainable with the project. 18. The principal pests affecting the crop are stem and root borers, both relatively easy to control. The sugarmills assist the extension service actively in promoting spraying and the application of granular pesticides. 19. Rice is an important crop only in the southwestern corner of the project area, although small pockets, mostly for domestic consumption are grown everywhere. The variety grown commercially is IR6, a high-yielding dwarf. For domestic use, a Basmati (scented) variety is popular, the project area being the southern limit of its ecological range. Average yields of 167 ANNEX 15 Page 5 IR6 were reported at around 20 md/ac (0.7 tons/ac) but yields in excess of this were frequent. Under project conditions, an average of 27 md/ac (1.0 tons/ac) should be readily attainable. 20. The crop is attacked by stem borers. Zinc deficiency, increasingly identified, is however easily controllable. 21. Sorghum and pearl millet (jowar and bajra) are minor grain crops and are principally planted for fodder, i.e. more closely than desirable for maximum grain yield. Almost no varieties of higher yielding grain types have been released and there is no hybrid seed development program. Grain yields are only about 7-8 md/ac (0.25-0.3 tons/ac) and unlikely to increase until there is a new approach to a grain variety or hybrid produc- tion program. As apart from rice, millets are the only possible food crops in the kharif, and before controlled barrage irrigation were of major impor- tance, it does not seem unlikely that a fresh look at agricultural develop- ment, especially if combined with a livestock and feed industry, will put new emphasis on millet production. In this case, new genetic material is available to bring about a rapid increase in yields. 22. Maize is not at present an important crop. Several earlier attempts to popularize it in the southern Pinjab produced only short-lived results. When wheat is plentiful, maize is of smaller dietary importance even than the millets and is mainly used green as a vegetable. Hybrids and synthetic varieties that would boost yields have been developed and are in limited use, but being a minor crop, receive less than optimum attention and the potential is only rarely realized. Under project conditions, the estimated yield would be 20 md/ac (0.74 tons/ac) for the few farmers who would grow the crop commercially. 23. Pulse crops of importance are the chickpea in the rabi and the cluster bean (guara) in the kharif, although the latter is in the project area more frequently as a fodder c:_op. Chickpea yields are low, the atten- tion paid to the crop minimal and yields are likely to advance only slowly from their present low level of 6 mld/ac (0.22 tons/ac). 24. The rabi fodder crop is t:he Egyptian clover (berseem) and, to a lesser extent, lucerne. The varieties available are good and the expected yield of 410 md/ac (15 tons/ac) is easily attainable. 25. Orchard crops in the area are mango and citrus. There are some excellent grafted mango varieties t:hat yield well. Orchards are usually sold to contractors who harvest ana, market the crop; prices attained are around Rs 3,000 to 5,000/ha. CitrtLs orchards fetch around 1,000 to 3,000/ha depending on kind and productivity. 26. With the expected improvement in the extension service, yields would, overall, increase considerably above the levels assumed for the economic analysis of this project. The expected yields, with an improved extension service in addition to the project works, would be as follows: 168 ANNEX 15 Page 6 ton/ac md/ac ton/ac md/ac rice 1.5 40 wheat 1.3 35 cotton .9 25 rabi pulses .3 9 maize 1.7 45 oil seeds .7 20 millets .6 15 rabi fodder 22.0 605 kharif fodder 22.0 605 sugarcane 26.0 705 other perennials /a 2.4 66 /a Aggregated average yields. These yields are of the order at present obtained by the better farmers. November 1977 169 ANNEX 15 PAKISTAN Table I SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Present & Future Cropping Patterns (%) Unit II Unit III Unit IV Uhit V Project Area P 1 w P w w p W w p w W Unit size (,000 ac) - 338 ----- 388 --- 76 ----- 468 1,270 ----- Rice 3 10 7 9 9 5 2 2 6 1 3 2 3 7 4 Cotton 34 20 35 20 20 30 25 25 35 26 22 30 31 21 32 Maize 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 Millets 7 12 8 9 9 5 3 3 4 3 4 6 5 8 6 Fodder 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 6 9 9 8 6 7 6 Total kharif .u 46 44 44 46 38 38 53 41 40 49 46 44 50 Wheat 24 19 35 20 20 40 28 28 37 31 26 35 26 21 37 Pulses 1 5 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 5 2 1 5 3 Oilseeds 2 3 8 2 2 6 8 8 8 10 11 10 5 6 8 Fodder 14 14 10 10 10 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 10 10 8 Total rabi 41 41 57 33 33 56 45 45 54 50 50 54 42 42 56 Sugarcane 2 2 5 10 10 10 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 7 Orchards & misc. 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 Total perennial 4 4 10 12 12 12 8 8 9 8 8 11 8 8 11 Total intensity (counting peren- nials twice) 99 97 135 101 101 126 99 99 125 107 106 125 104 102 128 0~~ - DF31 D C> ANNEX 15 PAKISTAN Table 2 SALINITY CONTROL & RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Present & Future Crop Areas, Yields & Production (area in ha; yields in tons/ha; production ,000 tons) Unit II (137,580 ha) Unit III (157,790 ha) P W W P w W Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod (Th.ha) (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th.ha) (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th.ha) (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th.haj (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th.ha) (Tfha) (Th t) (Th.ha) (Tlha) (Th.t) Rice 4.1 1.9 7.8 13.7 1.9 26.0 9.6 2.5 24.0 7.9 1.9 14.9 7.9 2.2 17.3 7.9 2.5 19 6 Cotton 46.6 1.0 46.6 27.4 1.4 38.4 48.0 1.6 76.7 47.1 1.0 47.1 47.1 1.4 65.9 47.1 1.6 75.4 Maize 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4 4.1 1.8 7.4 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 Millets 9.6 0.7 6.2 16.4 0.7 10.7 11.0 0.8 8.8 7.9 0.7 5.1 7.9 0.8 6.3 7.9 0.8 6.3 Rhar FOD 6.9 26.0 178.1 6.9 28.0 191.8 6.9 37.0 253.5 7.9 28.0 219.8 7.9 34.0 266.9 7.9 37 0 290.5 Wheat 32.9 1.2 37.8 26.0 1.5 39.0 48.0 2.2 105.5 31.4 1.2 36.1 31.4 1.5 47.1 62.8 2 2 138.2 Rabi Pulses 1.4 0.6 0.8 6.9 0.6 4.1 5.5 0.7 3.8 1.6 0.6 0.9 1.6 0.6 0 9 3.1 0.7 2.2 Oilseed 2.7 0.5 1.4 4.1 0.5 2.1 11.0 0.7 8.1 3.1 0.5 1.6 3.1 0.6 1.9 9.4 0.7 7.0 Rabi FOD 19.2 25.0 479.5 19.2 29.0 556.2 13.7 37.0 506.9 15.7 25.0 392.5 15.7 34.0 533.8 12 6 37.0 464.7 Sugarcane 2.7 33.0 90.4 2.7 35.0 95.9 6.9 46.0 315.1 12.6 33.0 414.5 12.6 40.0 502.4 15.7 46.0 722 2 Other Perennial 2.7 4.0 11.0 2.7 4.0 11.0 6.9 5.0 34.3 3,1 4.0 12.6 3.1 4.0 12.6 3.1 5.0 15 7 Total cropped 130.2 - - 127.4 - - 176.6 - - 139.9 - - 139 9 - - 179.1 - - Unit IV (30,835 ha) Unit V (187.450 ha) __ P W w P W W Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod (Th.ha) (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th.ha) (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th.ha) (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th.ha) (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th ha) (T/ha) (Th.t) (Th.ha) (T/ha) (Th t) Rice 0.6 1.9 1.2 0.6 2.2 1.4 1.9 2.5 4.7 1.9 1.9 3.6 5.7 1.9 10.8 3.8 2.5 9.5 Cotton 7.8 1.0 7.8 7.8 1.4 10.9 10.9 1.6 17.4 49.1 1.0 49.1 41.6 1.4 58.2 56.7 1.6 90.7 Maize 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.6 1.8 1.1 3.8 1.0 3.8 3.8 1.0 3.8 5.7 1.8 10.2 Millets 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.0 5.7 0.7 3.7 7.6 0.7 4.9 11.3 0.8 9.1 Khar FOD 2.2 28.0 60.8 2,2 34.0 73.8 1.9 37.0 68,8 17.0 26.0 442.3 17.0 28.0 476.3 15.1 37.0 559.4 Wheat 8.7 1.5 13.0 8.7 2.0 17.4 11.5 2.2 25.2 58.6 1.5 87.9 49.1 2.0 98.3 66 2 2.2 145.5 Rabi Pulses 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.9 0.6 1.1 9.5 0.6 5.7 3.8 0.7 2.6 Oilseed 2.5 0.5 1.2 2.5 0.6 1.5 2.5 0.7 1.8 18.9 0.5 9.5 20.8 0.6 12.5 18.9 0.7 14.0 Rabi FOD 2.5 25.0 62.0 2.5 30.0 74.4 2.2 37.0 80.3 15.1 25.0 378.0 15.1 30.0 453.6 13.2 37.0 489.5 Sugarcane 1.9 34.5 64.2 1.9 40.0 74.4 2.2 46.0 99.8 11.3 34.5 391.2 11.3 40.0 453.6 13.2 46.0 608.6 Other Perennial 0.6 4.0 2.5 0.6 5.0 3.1 1.6 5.0 7.8 3.8 4.0 15.1 3.8 5.0 18.9 7.6 5 0 37.8 Total cropped 28.3 - - 28.3 - - 37.1 - - 187.1 - - 185.3 - - 215.5 - - 9 Legend P - present situation, W - future without the project, W = future with project ANNEX 15 Table 3 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Crop Area, Yield, and Production - Total Project CROP PRESENT FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod Area Yield Prod ('000 Ha) (T/Ha) ('000 T) ('000 Ha) (T/Ha) ('000 T) ('000 Ha) (T/Ha) ('000 T) Rice 14.5 1.9 27.5 27.8 2.0 55.4 23.1 2.5 57.7 Cotton 150.6 1.0 150.6 123.8 1.4 173.4 162.6 1.6 260.2 Maize 7.0 1.0 7.0 7.0 1.1 7.6 12.0 1.8 21.5 Millets 24.0 0.7 15.6 32.8 n=7 22.6 31.4 0.8 25.1 Khar Fod 33.9 26.6 900.9 33.9 29.8 1008.8 31.7 37.0 1172.2 Wheat 131.6 1.3 174.8 115.3 1.8 201.8 188.4 2.2 414.4 Rabi Puls 5.1 0.6 3.1 18.2 0.6 10.9 13.0 0.7 9.1 Oilseed 27.3 0.5 13.6 30.5 0.6 17.9 41.8 0.7 30.9 Rabi Fod 52.5 25.0 1312.0 52.5 30.8 1618.0 41.7 37.0 1541.4 Sugar Cane 28.5 33.7 960.3 28.5 39.5 1126.3 38.0 46.0 1745.7 0th Peren 10.3 4.0 41.1 10.3 4.4 45.5 19.1 5.0 95.5 TOTAL 485.3 - - 480.6 - - 602.8 - - 10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ANNEX 15 PAKISTAN Fig. 1 SALINITY CONTROL MAD RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI CROPPING PATTERN UNIT II M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M Sugarcane & Orchards 10% 90 80 Whea 17% 2/// 80~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 *70 /, /R .Fodde r 1 %///X 60 50 MilLets 8% heat 10% 4 30 Cotton 35% 20 Rice 7% M A J S 0 N b J 'F M A M . 4 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Fig. 2 Fig. 2 CROPPING PATTERN UNIT III 100 I J J A N D M A Sugarcane S Orchards 12% 90 80. 5a. 5% 7 / / / / / ~~~~~Wheat 10X/// 70- 60- -Fodder 5 407 Maize 1% 30 Cotton 30% 20 10- / ~~Rice 5%_ ,, lAM M J J A S O N D J F M A M ANNEX 15 PAll UTAN Fig. 3 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAVATTON PROJECT (SCARP) VI CROPPING PATTERNj UNiT IV M J J ~~A S O N D J F M A M 100 Sugarcane Orchards 9% 9o 70 ////// R. Fodder 7% . 60 v0 i lse e ds 8 ° / 50 49 39 20 ', 35% 10 JN Rice 6%, heat 7% M J J A S 0 N D J F M A m I-. ANNEX 15 PAKISTAN Fig. 4 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI CROPPING PATTERN UNIT V 100 M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M Sugarcane & Orchards 11% 90 80 /'/' ' /////////// / ' 80 / / "Weat 23% 70 60 Fode 7% O seeds 10X 50 MiLLets 6%////////// 30 20 Cotton 30% 10 WO N= -4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~A s 0 ANNEX 16 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Agricultural Inputs and Crop Budgets Agricultural Data 1. Tables 1 to 4 show the agricultural, data on yields, cropping patterns and fertilizer requirements for the project Units in the present, future with- out and future with project situations. Tables 5 to 12 show crop enterprise budgets for these projections, based on financial and economic prices developed in Annex 16. 2. Tables 13 to 16 show the labor and draft power requirements for each crop by month (per ha). In Units II and V, future without project labor and draft power requirements (per crop, per ha) are expected to be the same as at present. 3. Total project labor and draft power requirements are shown in Tables 17 and 18, and the estimated economic cost of labor in Table 19. 4. The economic value of production for each Unit and the project as a whole is shown in Tables 20-24. Table 25 shows the estimated economic value of production if the extension project is introduced. November 1977 177 ANNEX 1 6 Table 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AnD RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI AGRICULTURAL DATA: UlIlT II(137000.00 HECTARE) RICE COTTON MAIZE MILLETS KHAR FOD WHEAT RABI PUL OILSEED RABI FOD SUGAR CA OTH PERE PRESENT CROP PAT X 3.0 34.0 1.0 7.0 5.0 24.0 1.0 2.0 14.0 2.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 1.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 26.0 1.2 0.6 0.5 25.0 33.0 4.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 5500.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 33.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 PHOSPHATE 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 POTASSIUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CROP PAT % 10.0 20.0 1.0 12.0 5.0 19.0 5.0 3.0 14.0 2.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 28.0 1.5 0.6 0.5 29.0 35.0 4.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 5500.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 33.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 PHOSPHATE 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 POTASSIUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER FUTURE WITH PROJECT CROP PAT % 7.0 35.0 3.0 8.0 5.0 35.0 4.0 8.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 YIELD (T/HA) 2.5 1.6 1.8 0.8 37.0 2.2 0.7 0.7 37.0 46.0 5.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 6400.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 50.0 55.0 50.0 20.0 30.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 10.0 110.0 30.0 PHOSPHATE 10.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 55.0 10.0 POTASSIUM 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 10.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.O 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER OD.. ~~~~~~~~ cr fi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-0 ANX16 PAKIStAN ~~~~~~~Table 2 PAKISTAN F l- SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI AGRICULTURAL DATA: UNIT III(157000.00 HECTARE) RICE COTTON MAIZE MILLETS KHAR FOD WHEAT RABI PUL OILSEED RABI FOD SUGAR CA OTH PERE PRESENT CROP PAT % 5.0 30.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 8.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 1.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 28.0 1.2 0.6 0.5 25.0 33.0 4.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 5500.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 33.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 PHOSPHATE 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 POTASSIUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CROP PAT % 5.0 30.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 8.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 2.2 1.4 1.3 0.8 34.0 1.5 0.6 0.6 34.0 40.0 4.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 6400.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 40.0 50.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.0 0.0 PHOSPHATE 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 POIASSIUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON o.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER FUTURE WITH PROJECT CROP PAT % 5.0 30.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 40.0 2.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 2.5 1.6 1.8 0.8 37.0 2.2 0.7 0.7 37.0 46.0 5.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 6400.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 50.0 55.0 50.0 20.0 30.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 10.0 110.0 30.0 PHOSPHATE 10.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 55.0 10.0 POTASSIUM 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 10.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.- 30.0 OTHER O, vD N) X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ANNEX 16 Table 3 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI AGRICULTURAL DATA: UNIT IV ( 31000.00 HECTARE) RICE COTTON MAIZE MILLETS KHAR FOD WHEAT RABI PUL OILSEED RABI FOD SUGAR CA OTH PERE PRESENT CROP PAT % 2.0 25.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 28.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 1.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 28.0 1.5 0.6 0.5 25.0 34.5 4.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 5500.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 33.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 PHOSPHATE 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 POTASSIUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CROP PAT % 2.0 25.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 28.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 2.2 1.4 1.3 0.8 34.0 2.0 0.6 0.6 30.0 40.0 5.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 6400.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 40.0 55.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.0 0.0 PHOSPHATE 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 POTASSIUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER FUTURE WITH PROJECT CROP PAT % 6.0 35.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 37.0 2.0 S.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 YIELD (T/HA) 2.5 1.6 1.8 0.8 37.0 2.2 0.7 0.7 37.0 46.0 5.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 6400.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 50.0 55.0 50.0 20.0 30.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 10.0 110.0 30.0 PHOSPHATE 10.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 55.0 10.0 POTASSIUM 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 10.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER OD ( ANNEX 16 Table 4 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI AGRICULTURAL DATA: UNIT V (189000.00 HECTARE) RICE COTTON MAIZE MILLETS KHAR FOD WHEAT RABI PUL OILSEED RABI FOD SUGAR CA OTH PERE PRESENT CROP PAT % 1.0 26.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 31.0 1.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 1.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 26.0 1.5 0.6 0.5 25.0 34.5 4.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 5500.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 33.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0-. PHOSPHATE 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 POTASSIUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CROP PAT % 3.0 22.0 2.0 4.0 9.0 26.0 5.0 11.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 YIELD (T/HA) 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 28.0 2.0 0.6 0.6 30.0 40.0 5.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 5500.0 C.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 33.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.0 0.0 PHOSPHATE 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 POTASSIUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER FUTURE WITH PROJECT CROP PAT % 2.0 30.0 3.0 6.0 8.0 35.0 2.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 YIELD (T/HA) 2.5 1.6 1.8 0.8 37.0 2.2 0.7 0.7 37.0 46.0 5.0 SEED REQ (KG/HA) 22.0 17.0 29.0 9.0 11.0 77.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 6400.0 0.0 FERT REQ (KG/HA) NITROGEN 50.0 55.0 50.0 20.0 30.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 10.0 110.0 30.0 PHOSPHATE 10.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 55.0 10.0 POTASSIUM 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 10.0 PESTICIDE (KG/HA) ENDRIN 1.4 2.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 METHYL P 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIMECRON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 DIAZINON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 OTHER - - I X ANNEX 16 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI FINANCIAL CROP BUDGET - UNIT II (PER HECTARE) GROSS --------INPUT COSTS------- COST NET LABOR ANIMAAL CROP YIELD PRICE VALUE SEED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE OTHER TOTAL VALUE REQ REQ (T/HA) ( RS) P RS) RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) (DAYS) (DAYS) PRESENT RICE 1.9 970.0 1843.0 33.0 105.6 16.6 0.0 155.2 1687.8 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.0 3200.0 3200.0 59.5 196.4 66.2 0.0 322,1 2877.9 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1330.0 1330.0 40.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.6 1289.4 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 3750.0 2437.5 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 2424.9 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 26.0 27.0 702.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 642.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.2 1195.0 1374.2 92.4 148.4 0.0 0.0 240.8 1133.4 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1470.0 882.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 873.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.5 2560.0 1280.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1274.7 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 25.0 27.0 675.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 664.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 33.0 145.0 4785.0 825.0 160.0 0.0 _ 3C^^ ^ 3,.u '4.0 nTH PFPeN 048UU. O.0 0.0 255.4 0.0 255.4 4544.6 300.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT RICE 1.9 1375.0 2612.5 44.0 123.8 16.6 0.0 184.4 2428.1 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.4 3010.0 4214.0 59.5 228.8 66.2 0.0 354.4 3859.6 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1490.0 1490.0 63.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.8 1426.2 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 2600.0 1690.0 18.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 18.0 1672.0 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 28.0 27.0 756.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 696.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.5 1335.0 2002.5 138.6 210.0 0.0 0.0 348.6 1653.9 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1470.0 882.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 873.0 22.0 5,0 OILSEED 0.5 2520.0 1260.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 1253.8 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 29.0 27.0 783.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 772.2 42.0 11.0 S'JGAR CANE 35.0 225.0 7875.0 990.0 187.5 0.0 0.0 i177.5 6697.5 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1200.0 4800.0 0.0 0.0 255.4 0.0 255.4 4S44.6 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RICE 2.5 1375.0 3437.5 44.0 241.5 16.6 0.0 302.1 3135.4 86.0 33.0 COTTON 1.6 3010.0 4816.0 59.5 266.3 66.2 0.0 391.9 4424.1 121.0 33.0 MAIZE 1.8 1490.0 2682.0 63.8 241.5 24.9 0.0 330.2 2351.8 68.0 22.0 MILLETS 0.8 2600.0 2080.0 18.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 93.0 1987.0 33.0 14.0 KHAR FOo 37.0 27.0 999.0 59.4 1t2.5 0.0 0.0 171,9 827.1 16.0 10.0 WHEAT 2.2 1335.0 2937.0 138.6 371.3 0.0 0.0 509.9 2427.1 56.0 31.0 RABI PULSE 0.7 1470.0 1029.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1020.0 25.0 10.0 OILSEEO 0.7 2520.0 1864.8 6.2 93.8 68.3 0.0 168.3 1696.5 30.0 19.0 RABI FOo 37.0 27.0 999.0 10.8 127.5 0.0 0.0 138.3 860.7 52.0 14.0 SUGAR CANE 46.0 225.0 10350.0 1152.0 613.5 0.0 0.0 1765.5 8584.5 161.0 59.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1200.0 6000.0 0.0 154.5 255.4 0.0 409.9 5590.1 300.0 12.0 co (n ANNEX 16 Table 6 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI ECONOMIC CROP BUD"G - UNT II (PIR HECTARE) GROSS ---- ---INPUT COSTS - COli NET LABOR ANIMAL CROP YIELD PRICE VALUE SEED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE OTHER TOTAL VALUE REQ REQ (T/HA) RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) C RS) (DAYS) (DAYS) PRESENT RICE 1.9 1125.0 2137.5 29.7 108.9 18.2 0.0 156.8 1980.7 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.0 4810.0 4810.0 85.0 202.1 72.6 0.0 359.7 4450.3 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1510.0 1510.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.3 1460.7 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 4660.0 3029.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 3012.4 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 26.0 35.0 910.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 850.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.2 1530.0 1759.5 138.6 152.b 0.0 0.0 291.2 1468.3 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1760.0 1056.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1047.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.5 1919.0 959.5 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 952.2 24.0 10.0 RABI FO0 25.0 35.0 875.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 964.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 33.0 145.0 4785.0 979.0 165.0 0.0 0.0 1144.0 3641.0 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1500.0 6000.0 0.0 0.0 282.0 0.0 282.0 5718.0 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT RICE 1.9 1590.0 3021.0 50.6 130.4 18.2 0.0 199.1 2821.9 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.4 4525.0 6335.0 85.0 242.4 79.6 0.0 400.0 5935.0 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1690.0 1690.0 69.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.6 1620.4 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 3195.0 2076.8 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 2057.0 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 28.0 35.0 980.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 920.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.5 1710.0 2565.0 169.4 222.6 0.0 0.0 392.0 2173.0 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1760.0 1056.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1047.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.5 2520.0 1260.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 1250.6 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 29.0 35.0 1015.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 1004.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 35.0 225.0 7875.0 1045.0 197.5 0.0 0.0 1242.5 6632.5 137.0 41.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1500.0 6000.0 0.0 0.0 282.0 0.0 282.0 5718.0 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RICE 2.5 1590.0 3975.0 50.6 257.0 18.2 0.0 325.8 3649.2 86.0 33.0 COTTON 1.6 4525.0 7240.0 85.0 284.3 72.6 0.0 441.8 6798.2 121.0 33.0 MAIZE 1.8 1690.0 3042.0 69.6 257.0 27.3 0.0 353.9 2688.1 68.0 22.0 MILLETS 0.8 3195.0 2556.0 19.8 79.0 0.0 0.0 98.8 2457.2 33.0 14.0 KHAR FOD 37.0 35.0 1295.0 59.4 118.5 0.0 0.0 177.9 1117.1 16.0 10.0 WHEAT 2.2 1710.0 3762.0 169.4 396.8 0.0 0.0 566.2 3195.8 56.0 31.0 RABI PULSE 0.7 1760.0 1232.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1223.0 25.0 10.0 OILSEED 0.7 2520.0 1864.8 9.4 98.8 75.3 0.0 183.4 1661.4 30.0 19.0 RABI FOD 37.0 35.0 1295.0 10.8 140.0 0.0 0.0 150.8 1144.2 52.0 14.0 SUGAR CANE 46.0 225.0 10350.0 1216.0 657.8 0.0 0.0 1873.8 8476.3 161.0 59.0 H OTH PEREN 5.0 1500.0 7500.0 0.0 165.0 282.0 0.0 447.0 7053.0 300.0 12.0 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0O I-'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I, ANNEX 16 Table 7 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI FINANCIAL CROP BUDGET - UNIT III (PER HECTARE) GROSS ---------INPUT COSTS- --- COST NET LABOR ANIMAL CROP YIELD PRICE VALUE SEED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE OTHER TOTAL VALUE REQ REQ (T/HA) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) (DAYS) (DAYS) PRESENT RICE 1.9 970.0 1843.0 33.0 105.6 16.6 0.0 155.2 1687.8 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.0 3200.0 3200.0 59.5 196.4 66.2 0.0 322.1 2877.9 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1330.0 1330.0 40.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.6 1289.4 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 3750.0 2437.5 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 2424.9 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 28.0 27.0 756.0 59.4 0.0 0.o 0.0 59.4 696.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.2 1195.0 1374.2 92.4 148.4 0.0 0.0 240.8 1133.4 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1470.0 882.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 873.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.5 2560.0 1280.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1274.7 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 25.0 27.0 675.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 664.2 42.0 47.0 SUGAR CANE 33.0 145.0 4785.0 825.0 160.0 0.0 0.0 985.0 3800.0 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1200.0 4800.0 0.0 0.0 255.4 0.0 255.4 4r44.4 6 300 0 12-0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT RICE 2.2 1375.0 3025.0 44.0 150.0 13.1 0.0 207.1 2817.9 69.0 26.0 COTTON 1.4 3010.0 4214.0 59.5 210.0 33.2 0.0 302.7 3911.3 96.0 27.0 MAIZE 1.3 1490.0 1937.0 63.8 112.5 0.0 0.0 176.3 1760.7 55.0 13.0 MILLETS 0.8 2600.0 2080.0 18.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 93.0 1987.0 27.0 9.0 KHAR FOD 34.0 27.0 918.0 59.4 75.0 0.0 0.0 134.4 783.6 10.0 7.0 WHEAT 1.5 1335.0 2002.5 138.6 210.0 0.0 0.0 348.6 1653.9 48.0 26.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1470.0 882.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 873.0 22.0 g.0 OILSEED 0.6 2520.0 1512.0 6.2 0.0 68.3 0.0 74.5 1437.5 26.0 15.0 RABI FOD 34.0 27.0 918.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 907.2 45.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 40.0 225.0 9000.0 1152.0 577.5 0.0 0.0 1729.5 7270.5 82.0 52.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1200.0 4800.0 0.0 0.0 255.4 0.0 255.4 4544.6 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RICE 2.5 1375.0 3437.5 44.0 241.5 16.6 0.0 302.1 3135.4 86.0 33.0 COTTON 1.6 3010.0 4816.0 59.5 266.3 66.2 0.0 391.9 4424.1 121.0 33.0 MAIZE 1.8 1490.0 2682.0 63.8 241.5 24.9 0.0 330.2 2351.8 68.0 22.0 MILLETS 0.8 2600.0 20Bo.0 18.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 93.0 1987.0 33.0 14.0 KHAR FOD 37.0 27.0 999.0 59.4 112.5 0.0 0.0 171.9 827.1 16.0 10.0 WHEAT 2.2 1335.0 2937.0 13B.6 371.3 0.0 0.0 509.9 2427.1 56.0 31.0 RABI PULSE 0.7 1470.0 1029.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1020.0 25.0 10.0 OILSEED 0.7 2520.0 1864.8 6.2 93.8 68.3 0.0 168.3 1696.5 30.0 19.0 RABI FOD 37.0 27.0 999.0 10.8 127.5 0.0 0.0 138.3 860.7 52.0 14.0 SUGAR CANE 46.0 225.0 10350.0 1152.0 613.5 13.1 0.0 1778.6 8571.4 161.0 59.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1200.0 6000.0 0.0 154.5 255.4 0.0 409.9 5590.1 300.0 12.0 -PI m~ ANNEX 16 Table 8 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI ECONOMIC CROP BUGET.- IV"T III (PER HECTARE) GROSS ---INPUT COSTS-- - _ COST MIT LABOR ANIMAL CROP YIELD PRICE VALUE SEED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE OTHER TOTAL VALUE REO REQ (T/HA) ( RSI ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) (DAYS) (DAYS) PRESENT RICE 1.9 1125.0 2137.5 29.7 108.9 18.2 0.0 156.8 1900.7 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.0 4810.0 4810.0 85.0 202.1 72.6 0.0 359.7 4450.3 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1510.0 1510.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.3 1460.7 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 4660.0 3029.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 3012.4 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 28.0 35.0 980.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 920.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.2 1530.0 1759.5 138.6 152.6 0.0 0.0 291.2 1469.3 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1760.0 1056.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1047.0 22.0 S.0 OILSEED 0.5 1919.0 959.5 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 952.2 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 25.0 35.0 875.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 864.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 33.0 145.0 4785.0 979.0 165.0 0.0 0.0 1144.0 3641.0 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1500.0 6000.0 0.0 0.0 282.0 0.0 282.0 5718.0 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT RICE 2.2 1590.0 3498.0 50.6 158.0 14.3 0.0 222.9 3275.1 69.0 26.0 COTTON 1.4 4525.0 6335.0 85.0 222.6 36.4 0.0 344.0 5991.0 56.0 27.0 MAIZE 1.3 1690.0 2197.0 69.6 118.5 0.0 0.0 188.1 2008.9 55.0 13.0 MILLETS 0.8 3195.0 2556.0 19.8 79.0 0.0 0.0 98.8 2457.2 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 34.0 35.0 1190.0 59.4 79.0 0.0 0.0 138.4 1051.6 10.0 7.0 WHEAT 1.5 1710.0 2565.0 169.4 222.6 0.0 0.0 392.0 2173.0 48.0 26.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1760.0 1056.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1047.0 22.0 9.0 OILSEED 0.6 2520.0 1512.0 9.4 0.0 75.3 0.0 84.7 1427.3 26.0 15.0 RABI FOD 34.0 35.0 1190.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 1179.2 45.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 40.0 225.0 9000.0 1216.0 618.8 0.0 0.0 1834.8 7165.3 82.0 52.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1500.0 6000.0 0.0 0.0 282.0 0.0 282.0 5718.0 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RICE 2.5 1590.0 3975.0 50.5 257.0 18.2 0.0 325.8 3649.2 86.0 33.0 COTTON 1.6 4525.0 7240.0 85.0 284.3 72.6 0.0 441.8 6798.2 121.0 33.0 MAIZE 1.8 1690.0 3042.0 69.6 257.0 27.3 0.0 353.9 2688.1 68.0 22.0 MILLETS 0.8 3195.0 2556.0 19.8 79.0 0C0 0.0 98.8 2457.2 33.0 14.0 KHAR FOD 37.0 35.0 1295.0 59.4 118.5 0.0 0.0 177.9 1117.1 16.0 10.0 WHEAT 2.2 1710.0 3762.0 169.4 396.B 0.0 0.0 566.2 3195.8 56.0 31.0 RABI PULSE 0.7 1760.0 1232.0 9.0 0.0 0°0 0.0 9.0 1223.0 25.0 10.0 OILSEED 0.7 2520.0 1864.8 9.4 98.8 75.3 0.0 183.4 1681.4 30.0 19.0 RABI FOO 37.0 35.0 1295.0 10.8 140.0 0.0 0.0 150.8 1144.2 52.0 14.0 SUGAR CANE 46.0 225.0 10350.0 1216.0 657.8 14.3 0.0 1888.1 8462.0 161.0 59.0 - OTH PEREN 5.0 1500.0 7500.0 0.0 165.0 282.0 0.0 447.0 7053.0 300.0 12.0 cc ANNEX 16 Table 9 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECTS (SCARF) VI FINANCIAL CROP BUDGET - UWIT IV (PER HECTARE) GROSS ---INPUT COSTS---- -- --- COST NET LABOR ANIMAL CROP YIELD PRICE VALUE SEED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE OTHER TOTAL VALUE REQ REQ (T/HA) ( RS) RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) RS) (DAYS) (DAYS) PRESENT RICE 1.9 970.0 1843.0 33.0 105.6 16.6 0.0 155.2 1687.8 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.0 3200.0 3200.0 59.5 196.4 66.2 0.0 322.1 2877.9 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1330.0 1330.0 40.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.6 1289.4 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 3750.0 2437.5 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 2424.9 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 28.0 27.0 756.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 696.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT t.5 1195.0 1792.5 92.4 180.4 0.0 0.0 272.8 1519.7 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1470.0 882.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 873.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.5 2560.0 1280.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1274.7 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 25.0 27.0 675.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 664.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 34.5 145.0 5002.5 825.0 160.0 0.0 0.0 985.0 4017.5 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1200.0 4800.0 0.0 0.0 255.4 0.0 255.4 4544.6 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT RICE 2.2 1375.0 3025.0 44.0 150.0 13.1 0.0 207.1 2817.9 69.0 26.0 COTTON 1.4 3010.0 4214.0 59.5 228.8 33.2 0.0 321.5 3892.5 96.0 27.0 MAIZE 1.3 1490.0 1937.0 63.8 112.5 0.0 0.0 176.3 1760.7 55.0 13.0 MILLETS 0.8 2600.0 2080.0 18.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 93.0 1987.0 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 34.0 27.0 918.0 59.4 75.0 0.0 0.0 134.4 783.6 10.0 7.0 WHEAT 2.0 1335.0 2670.0 138.6 251.3 0.0 0.0 389.9 2280.2 48.0 26.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1470.0 882.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 873.0 22.0 9.0 OILSEED 0.6 2520.0 1512.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 1505.8 26.0 15.0 RABI FOD 30.0 27.0 810.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 799.2 45.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 40.0 225.0 9000.0 1152.0 577.5 0.0 0.0 1729.5 7270.5 82.0 52.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1200.0 6000.0 0.0 0.0 255.4 0.0 255.4 5744.6 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RICE 2.5 1375.0 3437.5 44.0 241.5 16.6 0.0 302.1 3135.4 86.0 33.0 COTTON 1.6 3010.0 4816.0 59.5 266.3 66.2 0.0 391.9 4424.1 121.0 33.0 MAIZE 1.8 1490.0 2682.0 63.8 241.5 24.9 0.0 330.2 2351.8 68.0 22.0 MILLETS 0.8 2600.0 2080.0 18.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 93.0 1987.0 33.0 14.0 KHAR FOD 37.0 27.0 999.0 59.4 112.5 0.0 0.0 171.9 827.1 16.0 10.0 WHEAT 2.2 1335.0 2937.0 138.6 371.3 0.0 0.0 509.9 2427.1 56.0 31.0 RABI PULSE 0.7 1470.0 1029.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1020.0 25.0 10.0 OILSEED 0.7 2520.0 1864.8 6.2 93.8 68.3 0.0 168.3 1696.5 30.0 19.0 RABI FOD 37.0 27.0 999.0 10.8 127.5 0.0 0.0 138.3 860.7 52.0 14.0 SUGAR CANE 46.0 225.0 10350.0 1152.0 613.5 13.1 0.0 1778.6 8571.4 161.0 59.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1200.0 6000.0 0.0 154.5 255.4 0.0 409.9 5590.1 300.0 12.0 0' ar %0 (7 ANNEX 16 Table i0 PAKISTAN F- - SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI ECONOMIC CROP BUDGET - UNIT IV (PER HECTARE) GROSS ----- INPUT COSTS-------- C-ST NET LABOR ANIMAL CROP YIELD PRICE VALUE SEED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE OTHER 'A, VALUE REQ REQ (T/HA) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) (DAYS) (DAYS) PRESENT RICE 1.9 1125.0 2137.5 29.7 108.9 18.2 0.0 156.8 1980.7 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.0 4810.0 4810.0 85.0 202.1 72.6 0.0 359.7 4450.3 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1510.0 1510.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.3 1460.7 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 4660.0 3029.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 3012.4 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 28.0 35.0 980.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 920.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.5 1530.0 2295.0 138.6 185.6 0.0 0.0 324.2 1970.8 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1760.0 1056.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1047.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.5 1919.0 959.5 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 952.2 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 25.0 35.0 875.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 864.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 34.5 145.0 5002.5 979.0 165.0 0.0 0.0 1144.0 3858.5 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1500.0 6000.0 0.0 0.0 282.0 0.0 282.0 5718.0 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT RICE 2.2 1590.0 3498.0 50.6 158.0 14.3 0.0 222.9 3275.1 69.0 26.0 COTTON 1.4 4525.0 6335.0 85.0 242.4 36.4 0.0 363.8 5971.2 96.0 27.0 MAIZE 1.3 1690.0 2197.0 69.6 118.5 0.0 0.0 188.1 2008.9 55.0 13.0 MILLETS 0.8 3195.0 2556.0 19.8 79.0 0.0 0.0 98.8 2457.2 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 34.0 35.0 1190.0 59.4 79.0 0.0 0.0 138.4 1051.6 10.0 7.0 WHEAT 2.0 1710.0 3420.0 169.4 267.5 0.0 0.0 436.9 2983.1 48.0 26.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1760.0 1056.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1047.0 22.0 9.0 OILSEED 0.6 2520.0 1512.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 1502.6 26.0 15.0 RABI FOO 30.0 35.0 1050.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 1039.2 45.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 40.0 225.0 9000.0 1216.0 618.8 0.0 0.0 1834.8 7165.3 82.0 52.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1500.0 7500.0 0.0 0.0 282.0 0.0 282.0 7218.0 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RICE 2.5 1590.0 3975.0 50.6 257.0 18.2 0.0 325.8 3649.2 86.0 33.0 COTTON 1.6 4525.0 7240.0 85.0 284.3 72.6 0.0 441.8 6798.2 121.0 33.0 MAIZE 1.8 1690.0 3042.0 69.6 257.0 27.3 0.0 353.9 2688.1 68.0 22.0 MILLETS 0.8 3195.0 2556.0 19.8 79.0 0.0 0.0 98.8 2457.2 33.0 14.0 KHAR FOD 37.0 35.0 1295.0 59.4 118.5 0.0 0.0 177.9 1117.1 16.0 10.0 WHEAT 2.2 1710.0 3762.0 169.4 396.8 0.0 0.0 566.2 3195.8 56.0 31.0 RABI PULSE 0.7 1760.0 1232.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1223.0 25.0 10.0 OILSEED 0.7 2520.0 1864.8 9.4 98.8 75.3 0.0 183.4 1681.4 30.0 19.0 RABI FOD 37.0 35.0 1295.0 10.8 140.0 0.0 0.0 150.8 1144.2 52.0 14.0 SUGAR CANE 46.0 225.0 10350.0 1216.0 657.8 14.3 0.0 1888.1 8462.0 161.0 59.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1500.0 7500.0 0.0 165.0 282.0 0.0 447.0 7053.0 300.0 12.0 H 3 I-'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c OD (DH ANNEX 16 Table 11 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI FINANCIAL COOP BUOGT - UNIT V (PER HECTARE) GROSS ----INPUT COSTS--- --- COST NET LABOR ANIMAL CROP YIELD PRICE VALUE SEED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE OTHER TOTAL VALUE REQ REQ (T/HA) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) (DAYS) (DAYS) PRESENT RICE 1.9 970.0 1843.0 33.0 105.6 16.6 0.0 155.2 1687.8 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.0 3200.0 3200.0 59.5 196.4 66.2 0.0 322.1 2877.9 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1330.0 1330.0 40.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.6 1289.4 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 3750.0 2437.5 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 2424.9 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 26.0 27.0 702.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 642.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.5 1195.0 1792.5 92.4 180.4 0.0 0.0 272.8 1519.7 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1470.0 882.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 873.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.5 2560.0 1280.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1274.7 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 25.0 27.0 675.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 664.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 34.5 145.0 5002.5 825.0 160.0 0.0 n o 9RS-n 'n7 5 137-0 47.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1200.0 4800.0 0.0 0.0 255.4 0.0 255.4 4544.6 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT RICE 1.9 1375.0 2612.5 44.0 123.8 16.6 0.0 184.4 2428.1 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.4 3010.0 4214.0 59.5 228.8 66.2 0.0 354.4 3859.6 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1490.0 1490.0 63.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.8 1426.2 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 2600.0 1690.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 1672.0 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 28.0 27.0 756.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 696.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 2.0 1335.0 2670.0 138.6 251.3 0.0 0.0 389.9 2280.2 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1470.0 882.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 873.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.6 2520.0 1512.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 1505.8 24.0 10.0 RABI FQD 30.0 27.0 810.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 799.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 40.0 225.0 9000.0 990.0 577.5 0.0 0.0 1567.5 7432.5 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1200.0 6000.0 0.0 0.0 255.4 0.0 255.4 5744.6 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RICE 2.5 1375.0 3437.5 44.0 241.5 16.6 0.0 302.1 3135.4 86.0 33.0 COTTON 1.6 3010.0 4816.0 59.5 266.3 66.2 0.0 391.9 4424.1 121.0 33.0 MAIZE 1.8 1490.0 2682.0 63.8 241.5 24.9 0.0 330.2 2351.8 68.0 22.0 MILLETS 0.8 2600.0 2080.0 18.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 93.0 1987.0 33.0 14.0 KHAR FOD 37.0 27.0 999.0 59.4 112.5 0.0 0.0 171.9 827.1 16.0 10.0 WHEAT 2.2 1335.0 2937.0 138.6 371.3 0.0 0.0 509.9 2427.1 56.0 31.0 RABI PULSE 0.7 1470.0 1029.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1020.0 25.0 10.0 OILSEED 0.7 2520.0 1864.8 6.2 93.8 68.3 0.0 168.3 1696.5 30.0 19.0 RABI FOD 37.0 27.0 999.0 10.8 127.5 0.0 0.0 138.3 860.7 52.0 14.0 SUGAR CANE 46.0 225.0 10350.0 1152.0 613.5 0.0 0.0 1765.5 8584.5 161.0 59.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1200.0 6000.0 0.0 154.5 255.4 0.0 409.9 5590.1 300.0 12.0 Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ z PAKISTAN ANNEX 16 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Table 12 ECONOMIC CROP BUDGET - UNIT V (PER HECTARE) GROSS ---------INPUT COSTS-- --- COST NfT LABOR ANIMAL CROP YIELD, PRICE VALUE SEED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE OTHER TOTAL VALUE REQ REQ (T/HA) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) ( RS) (DAYS) (DAYS) PRESENT RICE 1.9 1125.0 2137.5 29.7 10.9 18.2 0.0 156.8 1980.7 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.0 4810.0 4810.0 85.0 202.1 72.6 0.0 359.7 4450.3 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1510.0 1510.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.3 1460.7 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 4660.0 3029.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 3012.4 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 26.0 35.0 910.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 850.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 1.5 1530.0 2295.0 138.6 185.6 0.0 0.0 324.2 1970.8 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1760.0 1056.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1047.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.5 1919.0 959.5 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 952.2 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 25.0 35.0 875.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 864.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 34.5 145.0 5002.5 979.0 165.0 0.0 0.0 1144.0 3858.5 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 4.0 1500.0 6000.0 0.0 0.0 282.0 0.0 282.0 5718.0 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT RICE 1.9 1590.0 3021.0 50.6 130.4 18.2 0.0 199.1 2821.8 65.0 22.0 COTTON 1.4 4525.0 6335.0 85.0 242,4 72.6 0.0 400.0 5935.0 89.0 25.0 MAIZE 1.0 1690.0 1690.0 69.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.6 1620.4 47.0 10.0 MILLETS 0.7 3195.0 2076.8 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 2057.0 27.0 8.0 KHAR FOD 28.0 35.0 980.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 920.6 10.0 6.0 WHEAT 2.0 1710.0 3420.0 169.4 267.5 0.0 0.0 436.9 2983.1 43.0 24.0 RABI PULSE 0.6 1760.0 1056.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1047.0 22.0 5.0 OILSEED 0.6 2520.0 1512.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 1502.6 24.0 10.0 RABI FOD 30.0 35.0 1050.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 1039.2 42.0 11.0 SUGAR CANE 40.0 225.0 9000.0 1045.0 618.8 0.0 0.0 1663.8 7336.3 137.0 47.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1500.0 7500.0 0.0 0.0 282.0 0.0 282.0 7218.0 300.0 12.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT RICE 2.5 1590.0 3975.0 50.6 257.0 18.2 0.0 325.8 3649.2 86.0 33.0 COTTON 1.6 4525.0 7240.0 85.0 284.3 72.6 0.0 441.8 6798.2 121.0 33.0 MAIZE 1.8 1690.0 3042.0 69.6 257.0 27.3 0.0 353.9 2688.1 66.0 22.0 MILLETS 0.8 3195.0 2556.0 19.8 79.0 0.0 0.0 98.8 2457.2 33.0 14.0 KHAR FOD 37.0 35.0 1295.0 59.4 118.5 0.0 0.0 177.9 1117.1 16.0 10.0 WHEAT 2.2 1710.0 3762.0 169.4 396.8 0.0 0.0 566.2 3195.8 56.0 31.0 RABI PULSE 0.7 1760.0 1232.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1223.0 25.0 10.0 OILSEED 0.7 2520.0 1864.8 9.4 98.8 75.3 0.0 183.4 1681.4 30.0 19.0 RABI FOD 37.0 35.0 1295.0 10.8 140.0 0.0 0.0 150.8 1144.2 52.0 14.0 SUGAR CANE 46.0 225.0 10350.0 1216.0 657.8 0.0 0.0 1873.8 8476.3 161.0 59.0 OTH PEREN 5.0 1500.0 7500.0 0.0 165.0 282.0 0.0 447.0 7053.0 300.0 12.0 _ 0o ANNEX 16 Table 13 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AMD RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI LABOR REQUIREMENT - UNIT II & V MAN-DAYS PER HECTARE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOT RICE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 18.0 16.0 65.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 18.0 16.0 65.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 25.0 25.0 86.0 COTTON P 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 13.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 10.0 30.0 12.0 89.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 13.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 10.0 30.0 12.0 89.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 13.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 13.0 38.0 23.0 121.0 MAIZE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 3.0 10.0 15.0 47.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 3.0 10.0 15.0 47.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 68.0 MILLETS P 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 13.0 1.0 27.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 13.0 1.0 27.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 15.0 3.0 33.0 KHAR FOD P 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.O 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 16.0 WHEAT P 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 43.0 FWO 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 43.0 FW 1.0 1.0 1.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 10.0 5.0 56.0 RABI PUL P 1.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 22.0 FWO 1.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 22.0 FW 1.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 25.0 OILSEED P 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 24.0 FWO 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 24.0 FW 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 30.0 RA8I FOD P 10.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 O.C 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 42.0 FWO 10.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 42.0 FW 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 52.0 SUGAR CA P 28.0 28.0 25.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 23.0 25.0 137.0 FWO 28.0 28.0 25.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 23.0 25.0 137.0 FW 28.0 28.0 29.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 27.0 28.0 161.0 OTH PERE P 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 300.0 FWO 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 300.0 FW 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 300.0 TOTAL P 70.0 70.0 72.0 57.0 56.0 48.0 48.0 43.0 42.0 58.0 139.0 103.0 806.0 TOTAL FWO 70.0 70.0 72.0 57.0 56.0 48.0 48.0 43.0 42.0 58.0 139.0 103.0 806.0 TOTAL FW 71.0 74.0 80.0 70.0 61.0 54.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 65.0 167.0 144.0 948.0 ,. tD-. 0 116 PAKISTAN Table 14 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI ANIMAL REQUIREMENT - UNITS II & V JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOT RICE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 22.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 3.0 8.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 22.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 33.0 COTTON P 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 15.0 3.0 o.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 25.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 15.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 25.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 18.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 33.0 MAIZE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 22.0 MILLETS P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 Fw 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 14.0 KHAR FOD P 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 6,0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 FW 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 WHEAT P 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 24.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 24.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 31.0 RABI PUL P 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 FW 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 OILSEED P 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FWO 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FW 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 19.0 RABI FOD P 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 11.0 FWO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 11.0 FW 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 14.0 SUGAR CA P 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 47.0 FWO 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 47.0 FW 8.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 59.0 OTH PERE P 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 FWO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 FW 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 TOTAL P 10.0 11.0 10.0 18.0 26.0 17.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 29.0 16.0 180.0 TOTAL FWO 10.0 11.0 10.0 18.0 26.0 17.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 29.0 16.0 180.0 TOTAL FW 11.0 14.0 16.0 22.0 40.0 23.0 16.0 13.0 12.0 27.0 40.0 23.0 257.0 I-. ANNEX 16 Table 15 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARF) VI LABOR REQUIREMENT - UNITS III AND IV MAN-DAYS PER HECTARE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOT RICE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 18.0 16.0 65.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 5.0 3.o 20.0 18.0 69.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 25.0 25.0 86.0 COTTON P 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 13.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 10.0 30.0 12.0 89.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 13.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 11.0 30.0 18.0 96.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 13.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 13.0 38.0 23.o 121.0 MAIZE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.o 3.0 8.0 8.0 3.0 10.0 15.0 47.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 10.0 3.0 13.0 18.0 55.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 68.0 MILLETS P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.o 13.0 1.0 27.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 13.0 1.0 27.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 15.0 3.0 33.0 KHAQ FCD P 0.0 0.. 0.0 2.u 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0, 10.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 16.0 WHEAT P 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.o 10.0 3.0 43.0 FWO 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 5.0 48.0 FW 1.0 1.0 1.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 10.0 5.0 56.0 RABI PUL P 1.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 22.0 FWO 1.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 22.0 FW 1.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 25.0 OILSEED P 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 24.0 FWO 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 26.0 FW 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 30.0 RA8I FOD P 10.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 42.0 FWO 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 45.0 FW 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 52.0 SUGAR CA P 28.0 28.0 25.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 23.0 25.0 137.0 FWDeO 8.o 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 25.0 28.0 82.0 FW 28.0 28.0 29.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 27.0 28.0 161.0 OTH PERE P 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.o 25.0 25.0 300.0 FWO 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 300.0 FW 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 300.0 TOTAL P 70.0 70.0 72.0 57.0 56.0 48.0 48.0 43.0 42.0 58.0 139.0 103.0 806.0 TOTAL FWO 50.0 51.0 56.0 57.0 57.0 48.0 48.0 43.0 45.0 59.0 146.0 120.0 780.0 TOTAL FW 71.0 74.0 80.0 70.0 61.0 54.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 65.0 167.0 144.0 948.0 'Ccl 1-H ANNEX 16 Table 16 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI ANIMAL REQUIREMENT - UNITS III AND IV JAN FEB MAR APR M1AY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC roT RICE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 22.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 26.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 33.0 COTTON P 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 15.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 25.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 27.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 18.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 33.0 MAIZE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.O 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 13.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 22., MILLETS P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 14.0 KHAR FOD P 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 FW 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 WHEAT P 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 24.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 26.0 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 1O.O 0.0 31.0 RABI PUL P 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 FW 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 CILSEED P 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 FWO 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 4.o 3.0 0.0 15.0 FW 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 19.0 RASI FOD P 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 11.0 FWO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 11.0 FW 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 14.0 SUGAR CA P 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 47.0 FWO 8.0 10.0 8.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 9.0 52.0 FW 8.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 3.0 3.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 59.0 OTH PERE P 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 FWO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 FW 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 TOTAL P 10.0 11.0 10.0 18.0 26.0 17.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 20.0 29.0 16.0 180.0 TOTAL FWO 10.0 13.0 11.0 18.0 28.0 21.0 9.0 11.0 10.0 23.0 35.0 17.0 206.0 TOTAL FW 11.0 14.0 16.0 22.0 40.0 23.0 16.0 13.0 12.0 27.0 40.0 23.0 257.0 H 3 a .3 ANNEX 16 Table 17 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI LABOR REQUIREMENT - TOTAL PROJECT AREA (1000 MAN-DAY) OAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOT RICE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 144.7 144.7 43.4 72.4 43.4 260.5 231.5 940.6 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 278.4 278.4 83.5 139.2 83.5 518.1 462.4 1843.5 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 230.8 230.8 115.4 184.6 69.2 577.0 577.0 1984.9 COTTON P 0.0 0.0 0.0 451.7 1957.4 1204.6 752.9 752.9 451.7 1505.7 4517.1 1806.8 13400.7 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 371.5 1609.8 990.6 619.2 619.2 371.5 1293.2 3714.9 1815.1 11404.8 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 487.8 2113.8 1626.0 1300.8 1300.8 813.0 2113.8 6178.8 3739.8 19674.6 MAIZE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 56.2 56.2 21.1 70.3 105.5 330.4 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 56.2 60.0 21.1 75.9 111.1 345.4 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.9 119.7 119.7 59.9 179.6 299.3 814.0 MILLETS P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.1 72.1 96.2 24.0 0.0 48.1 312.5 24.0 649.1 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.3 98.3 131.1 32.8 0.0 65.6 426.1 32.8 885.1 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.2 94.2 125.6 31.4 31.4 94.2 470.9 94.2- 1035.9 KHAR FOD P 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.8 Q a 57.0 . SS. 5 J32j.Y .9 33.9 0.0 338.8 Fwu U.0 0.0 0.0 67.8 33.9 67.8 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 0.0 338.8 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.4 31.7 95.0 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.4 0.0 506.9 WHEAT P 131.6 131.6 131.6 1315.5 1841.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 394.6 1315.5 394.6 5656.7 FWO 115.3 115.3 115.3 1232.7 1653.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 345.8 1152.5 425.9 5156.2 FW 188.4 188.4 188.4 3390.7 3390.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 376.7 1883.7 941.9 10548.7 RABI PUL P 5.1 15.4 41.1 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 15.4 5.1 113.1 Fwo 18.2 54.5 145.4 54.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.5 54.5 18.2 400.0 FW 13.0 52.1 117.2 52.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.1 39.1 13.0 325.5 OILSEED P 136.3 136.3 136.3 81.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.8 81.8 0.0 654.2 FWO 152.6 152.6 152.6 91.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0o0 5.6 91.6 91.6 5.6 743.7 FW 250.6 250.6 250.6 125.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.8 167.0 125.3 41.8 1252.8 RABI FOD P 524.8 419.8 419.8 419.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 157.4 262.4 2204.2 FWO 524.8 438.0 438.0 438.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 157.4 262.4 2258.7 FW 416.6 416.6 416.6 416.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 166.6 333.3 2166.3 SUGAR CA P 798.0 798.0 712.5 85.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 142.5 655.5 712.5 3904.5 FWO 509.6 509.6 467.4 42.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 142.5 684.3 755.8 3111.5 FW 1062.6 1062.6 1100.6 189.8 38.0 113.9 113.9 113.9 38.0 189.8 1024.7 1062.6 6110.0 OTH PERE P 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 3084.0 FWO 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.0 257.o 3084.0 FW 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 5730.0 TOTAL P 1852.8 1758.1 1698.3 2694.5 4162.1 1746.1 1305.7 1167.4 871.2 2543.5 7676.9 3799.5 31276.2 TOTAL FWO 1577.5 1527.0 1575.7 2555.3 3652.6 1692.1 1340.6 1082.6 867.2 2388.6 7166.3 4146.2 29571.7 TOTAL FW 2408.7 2447.7 2550.8 5203.0 6145.8 2637.4 2347.8 2222.0 1769.3 3650.5 11186.4 7580.2 50149.5 I.-.1 CDX ANNEX 16 Table 18 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI ANIMAL REQUIREMENT - TOTAL PROJECT AREA (1000 PAIR-DAYS) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOT RICE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.4 115.8 43.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.4 72.4 318.3 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.5 239.7 83.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.5 139.2 646.4 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.4 230.8 69.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.4 230.8 761.6 COTTON P 0.0 0.0 0.0 752.9 2258.6 451.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.6 150.6 3764.3 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 619.2 1857.5 481.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 123.8 123.8 3205.5 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 1300.8 2926.8 813.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 162.6 162.6 5365.8 MAIZE P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 35.2 7.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 70.3 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 40.8 7.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 75.9 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.8 119.7 23.9 0.0 23.9 0.0 263.3 MILLETS P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.1 24.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 72.1 0.0 192.3 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.3 32.8 0.0 0.0 32.8 98.3 0.0 262.2 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.4 94.2 94.2 62.8 0.0 0.0 31.4 125.6 0.0 439.5 KHAR FOD P 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 0.0 33.9 33.9 0.0 0.0 203.3 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 10.0 33.9 33.9 0.0 0.0 213.3 FW 0.0 0.0 31.7 31.7 63.4 31.7 63.4 31.7 31.7 31.7 0.0 0.0 316.8 WHEAT P 0.0 0.0 0.0 394.6 657.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1052.4 1052.4 0.0 3157.2 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 345.8 576.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 922.0 1002.2 0.0 2846.2 FW 0.0 0.0 0.0 565.1 1507.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1883.7 1883.7 0.0 5839.5 RABI PUL P 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 15.4 0.0 0.0 25.7 FWO 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 58.3 0.0 0.0 98.4 FW 0.0 0.0 13.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.1 65.1 0.0 0.0 130.2 OILSL-O P 0.0 27.3 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 81.8 81.8 27.3 0.0 272.6 FWO 0.0 30.5 5.6 30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.5 97.2 97.2 41.8 0.0 333.3 FW 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.8 208.8 208.8 167.0 0.0 793.4 RABI FOD P 52.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 157.4 157.4 52.5 577.3 FWO 52.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 157.4 157.4 52.5 577.3 FW 41.7 83.3 83.3 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 166.6 125.0 41.7 583.2 SUGAR CA P 2.'8.0 228.0 228.0 142.5 28.5 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 228.0 228.0 1339.5 FWO 22b 0 256.8 228.0 142.5 57.3 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22B.0 242.4 1411.6 FW 303.- 379.5 379.5 189.8 113.9 113.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 379.5 379.5 2239.1 OTH PERE P 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 123.4 FWO 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 123.4 FW 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 229.2 TOTAL P 290.8 318.0 290.8 1419.0 3032.4 712.3 132.7 72.7 138.1 1375.2 1748.5 513.7 10044.1 TOTAL FWO 290.8 350.1 296.4 1252.7 2618.7 891.9 181.5 91.6 170.3 1311.9 1769.3 568.2 9793.4 TOTAL FW 406.t 523.7 568.4 2234.3 4839.6 1302.6 310.2 212.2 322.6 2406.4 3001.8 833.7 16961.6 t-n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I..'S U1 00 H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Od ANNEX 16 PAKISTAN Table 19 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI ECONOMIC COST OF LABOR .-........................................................................................ I........................................ PRESENT FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT DEMAND M COST TOT COST DEMAND M COST TOT COST DEMAND M COST TOT COST (1000 DAYS) ( RS) (1000 RS) (1000 DAYS) ( RS) (1000 RS) (1000 DAYS) ( RS) (1000 RS) ..................................................... ............................................................................. JAN 1852.79 6.85 10980.37 1577.46 6.58 9131.48 2408.65 7.41 14944.05 FEB 1758.11 6.76 10336.03 1527.04 6.53 8801.12 2447.71 7.45 15234.19 MAR 1698.31 6.70 9933.68 1575.74 6.58 9120.19 2550.76 7.55 16006.99 APR 2694.51 7,69 17102.74 2555-27 7.56 16041.05 5203.03 10.20 39550.91 MAY 4162.11 9.16 29472.13 3652.59 8.65 24933.67 6145.76 11.15 49613.98 JUN 1746.14 6.75 10255.20 1692.14 6.69 9892.38 2637.36 7.64 16664.63 JUL 1305.68 6.31 7380.80 1340.64 6.34 7601.86 2347.78 7.35 144Q4 Qh Aur 1167.42 O. 65,8.-S i082.D/ b.08 5998.83 2222.00 7.22 13578.64 SEP 871.18 5.87 4735.38 867.19 5.87 4711.96 1769.30 6.77 10411.71 OCT 2543.51 7.54 15952.27 2388.55 7.39 14795.34 3650.51 8.65 24915.66 NOV 7676.90 12.00 67622.80 7166.30 12.00 61495.60 11186.39 12.00 109736.68 DEC 3799.54 8.80 26215.95 4146.18 9.15 29326.30 7580.23 12.00 66462.76 . .. ..... ..... ..... ............ ............. ..... ....... ...... .... .. ...... ............ ................. . ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... TOTAL LABOR DEMAND: 31276.20 29571.67 50149.48 (1000 DAYS) TOTAL LABOR COST : 216505.88 201849.78 391615.15 11000 RS) ECONOMIC WAGE RATE : 6.92 6.83 7.81 ( RS) .................................................................................................................................. INCREMENTAL LABOR DEMAND: 20577.81 (1000 DAYS) INCREMENTAL LABOR COST : 189765.37 (1000 RS) ...... ............. . . . ... . '.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. (D X ol ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~x ANNEX 16 PAKISTAN Table 20 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI CROP AREA, YIELD, PRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF PRODUCTION - UNTIT II CROP PRESENT FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT AREA YIELD PROD CROSS VALADD NET AREA YIELD PROD GRCSS VALADD NET AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL PS)---- (TH.HA) (T,HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- RICE 4.1 1.9 7.8 8.8 8.1 5.1 13.7 1.9 26.0 41.4 38.7 28.5 9.6 2.5 24.0 38.1 35.0 24.0 COTTON 46.6 1.0 46.6 224.0 207.3 162.6 27.4 1.4 38.4 173.6 162.6 136.7 48.0 1.6 76.7 347.2 326.0 257.6 MAIZE 1.4 1.0 1.4 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4 2.3 2.2 1.6 4.1 1.8 7.4 12.5 11.0 7.6 MILLETS 9.6 0.7 6.2 29.0 28.9 26.0 13.4 0.7 10.7 34.1 33.8 29.0 11.0 0.8 8.8 28.0 26.9 21.9 KHAR FOD 6.9 26.0 176.1 6.2 5.8 4.8 6.9 28.0 191.8 6.7 6.3 5.3 6.9 37.0 253.5 8.9 7.7 5.8 WHEAT 32.9 1.2 37.8 57.9 43.3 27.7 26.0 1.5 39.0 66.8 56.6 40.5 48.0 2.2 105.5 180.4 153.2 110.6 RABI PULS 1.4 0.6 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.1 6.9 0.6 4.1 7.2 7.2 5.7 5.5 0.7 3.8 6.8 6.7 4.8 OILSEED 2.7 0.5 1.4 2.6 2.6 1.8 4.1 D.5 2.1 5.2 5.1 3.9 11.0 0.7 8.1 20.4 18.4 12.8 RABI FOD 19.2 25.0 479.5 16.8 16.6 8.1 19.2 29.0 556.2 19.5 19.3 10.9 13.7 37.0 506.9 17.7 15.7 7.3 SUGAR CAN 2.7 33.0 90.4 13.1 10.0 5.6 2.7 35.0 95.9 21.6 18.2 13.9 6.9 4S.0 315.1 70.9 58.1 43.6 OTH PEREN 2.7 4.0 11.0 16.4 15.7 9.5 2.7 4.0 11.0 16.4 15.7 9.6 6.9 5.0 34.3 51.4 48.3 31.1 CROP INT 95.0 93.0 125.0 TOTAL 861.0 378.4 346.7 253.7 976.5 394.8 365.6 285.6 1344.0 782.3 707.0 527.1 o0! ANNEX 16 Table 21 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI CROP AREA, YIELD, PRODUCTION AND tECONOMIC VALUE OF PRODUCTION - UNIT III CROP PRESENT FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT AREA YIELD P7--.D GRCO- 'AL-D0 NET AREA YIELD PR9OD G-PSS VALADD NET AREA Y:ELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET (TH. HA) ( T/HA) ( 7._T) --M RS)---- (TH,.HA) (T,HiA) (TH.T) ---- (MlIL RS) ---- (TH.HA) kT/HA) (TH.T) ---- (MIL RS) ---- RICE 7.9 1.9 14.9 16.8 15.5 9.6 7.9 2.2 17.3 27.5 25.7 19.3 7.9 2.5 19.6 31.2 28.6 19.6 COTTON 47.1 1.0 47.1 226.6 209.6 164.4 47.1 1.4 65.9 298.4 282.2 234.1 47.1 1.6 75.4 341.0 320.2 253.1 MAIZE 1.6 1.0 1.6 2.4 2.3 i.6 1.6 1.3 2.0 3.4 3.2 2.3 1.6 1.8 2.8 4.8 4.2 2.9 MILLETS 7.9 0.7 5.1 23.8 23.6 21.3 7.9 O.B 6.3 20.1 19.3 17.0 7.9 0.8 6.3 20.1 19.3 15.7 KHAR FOD 7.9 28.0 219.8 7.7 7.2 6.0 7.9 34.0 255 9 9.3 8.3 7.0 7.9 37.0 290.5 10.2 8.8 6.6 WHEAT 31.4 1.2 36.1 55.2 46.1 26. 4 31.4 1.5 47.1 80.5 68.2 46.9 62.8 2.2 138.2 236.3 200.7 144.9 RABI PULS 1.6 0.6 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.6 0.6 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.2 3.1 0.7 2.2 3.9 3.8 2.8 OILSEED 3.1 0.5 1.6 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.1 0.6 1.9 4.7 4.5 3.3 9.4 0.7 7.0 17.6 15.8 11.0 RABI FOD 15.7 25.0 392.5 13.7 13.6 6.6 15.7 34.0 533.8 18.7 18.5 11.4 12.6 37.0 464.7 16.3 14.4 6.7 SUGAR CAN 12.6 33.0 414.5 60.1 45.7 25.7 12.6 40.0 502.4 113.0 90.0 74.1 15.7 46.0 722.2 162.5 132.9 99.6 OTH PEREN 3.1 4.0 12.6 18.8 18.0 10.9 3.1 4.0 12.6 18.8 18.0 11.0 3.1 5.0 15.7 23.5 22.1 14.2 CROP INT 89.0 89.0 114.0 TOTAL 1146.6 429.8 3e6.3 276.0 1457.1 596.2 539.4 427.6 1744.5 867.2 770.9 577.2 coS - o " t. t(D1O A EX 16 PAKISTAN Table 2e SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI CROP AREA, YIELD, PRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF PRODUCTION - UNIT IV CROP PRESENT FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT …-- - -- - -- - - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - --- -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - AREA YIELD PRoD GROSS VALADD NET AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- RICE 0.6 1.9 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.6 2.2 1.4 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.9 2.5 4.7 7.4 6.8 4.6 COTTON 7.8 1.0 7-8 37.3 34.5 27.1 7.8 1.4 10.9 49.1 46.3 38.4 10.9 1.6 17.4 78.6 73.8 58.3 MAIZE 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.B ?.t t.9 1.7 1.1 MILLETS 0.9 0.7 0.6 2.8 2.8 2. E 0.9 0.8 0.7 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.2 0.8 1.0 3.2 3.0 2.5 KHAR FOD 2.2 28.0 60.8 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.2 34.0 73.8 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.9 37.0 68.8 2.4 2.1 1.6 WHEAT 8.7 1.5 13.0 19.9 17.1 11.7 8.7 2.0 17.4 29.7 25.9 20.0 11.5 2.2 25.2 43.2 36.7 26.5 RABI PULS 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.8 D.8 0.5 OILSEED 2.5 0.5 1.2 2.4 2.4 1.6 2.5 0.6 1.5 3.7 3.7 2.8 2.5 0.7 1.8 4.6 4.2 2.9 RABI FOD 2.5 25.0 62.0 2.2 2.1 1.0 2.5 30.0 74.4 2.6 2.6 1.4 2.2 37.0 80.3 2.8 2.5 1.2 SUGAR CAN 1.9 34.5 64.2 9.3 7.2 4.2 1.9 40.0 74.4 16.7 13.3 11.0 2.2 46.0 99.8 22.5 18.4 13.8 OTH PEREN 0.6 4.0 2.5 3.7 3.5 2.2 0.6 5.0 3.1 4.7 4.5 3.1 1.6 5.0 7.8 11.6 10.9 7.0 CROP INT 91.0 91.0 119.0 TOTAL 213.7 8t.8 73.6 53.3 258.1 114.7 103.8 82.8 308.3 178.8 160.7 120.0 (UIX £ M H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n. £ xv a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANNEX 16 PAKISTAN Table 23 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI CROP AREA, YIELD, PRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF PRODUCTION - AREA V CROP PRESENT FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT …__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _…__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -…_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- (TH.HA) (T/'HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- (TH.HA) (r/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- RICE 1.9 1.9 3.6 4,0 3.7 2.3 5.7 1 .S 10.8 17.1 16.0 11.8 3.8 2.5 9.5 15.0 13.8 9.4 COTTON 49.1 1.0 49.1 236.4 218.7 171.6 41.6 1.4 58.2 263.4 246.8 207.5 56.7 1.6 90.7 410.5 385.5 304.7 MAIZE 3.8 1.0 3.8 5.7 5.5 3.8 3.8 1.0 3.8 6.4 6.1 4.4 5.7 1.8 10.2 17.2 15.2 10.4 MILLET$ 5.7 0.7 3.7 17.2 17.1 15.4 7.6 0.7 4.9 15.7 15.6 13.3 11.3 0.8 9.1 29.0 27.9 22.6 KHAR FOD 17.0 26.0 442.3 15.5 14.5 11.9 17.0 28.0 476.3 16.7 15.7 13.1 15.1 37.0 559.4 19.6 16.9 12.8 WHEAT 58.6 1.5 87.9 134.5 115.5 78.7 49.1 2.0 98.3 168.1 146.6 116.2 66.2 2.2 145.5 248.9 211.4 152.6 RABI PULS 1.9 0.6 1.1 2.0 2.0 1.6 9.5 0.6 5.7 10.0 9.9 7.8 3.8 0.7 2.6 4.7 4.6 3.3 OILSEED 18.9 0.5 9.5 18.1 18.0 12.3 20.8 0.6 12.5 31.4 31.2 25.0 18.9 0.7 14.0 35.2 31.8 22.1 RABI FOD 15.1 25.0 378.0 13.2 13.1 6.4 15.1 30.0 453.6 15.9 15.7 9.1 13.2 37.0 489.5 17.1 15.1 7.1 SUGAR CAN 11.3 34.5 391.2 56.7 43.8 25.7 11.3 40.0 453.6 102.1 83.2 65.4 13.2 46.0 608.6 136.9 112.1 84.2 OTH PEREN 3.8 4.0 15.1 22.7 21.6 13.1 3.8 5.0 18.9 28.4 27.3 18.9 7.6 5.0 37.8 56.7 53.3 34.3 CROP TMT 09.^ qu.u 114.0 TOTAL 1385.3 526.0 473.4 342.7 1596.5 675.1 614.0 492.7 1976.9 990.9 887.7 663.6 0 cl Wa.' ANNEX 16 Table 24 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI CROP AREA, YIELD, PRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF PRODUCTION - TOTAL PROJECT CROP PRESENT FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT AREA YIELD PnOD GRCSS VA.,JDD NET ArEA YIELD PROD CROSS VALADD NET A9EA YT-LD PROD GROSS VALADD NET (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.l) ---?lL RS) ---- (TH.',A) (TI/HA) (TH.T) ---- (MI1L RS) ---- (TH.H~A) (T/HA) (Th.T) ---- (MIL RS)---- RICE 14.5 1.9 27.5 30.9 28.7 17.8 27.8 2.0 55.4 88.1 82.4 61.1 23.1 2.5 57.7 91.7 84.2 57.6 COTTON 150.6 1.0 150.6 724.2 670.1 525.7 123.8 1.4 173.4 784.5 737.9 616.7 162.6 1.6 260.2 1177.2 1105.4 873.7 MAIZE 7.0 1.0 7.0 10.6 10.3 7.0 7.0 1.1 7.6 12.8 12.1 8.7 12.0 1.8 21.5 36.4 32.2 22.0 MILLETS 24.0 0.7 15.6 72.8 72.4 65.3 32.8 0.7 22.6 72.3 70.9 61.4 31.4 0.8 25.1 80.2 77.1 62.6 KHAR FOD 33.9 26.6 900.9 31.5 29.5 24.4 33.9 29.8 10C8.8 35.3 32.5 27.3 31.7 37.0 1172.2 41.0 35.4 26.8 WHEAT 131.6 1.3 174.8 267.5 227.0 144.5 115.3 1.6 201.8 345.1 297.3 223.6 188.4 2.2 414.4 708.6 602.0 434.7 RABI PULS 5.1 0.6 3.1 5.4 5.4 4.2 18.2 0.6 10.9 19.2 19.0 15.0 13.0 0.7 9.1 16.0 15.9 11.5 OILSEED 27.3 0.5 13.6 26.2 26.0 17.7 30.5 0.6 17.9 45.1 44.6 35.0 41.8 0.7 30.9 77.9 70.2 48.9 RABI FOD 52.5 25.0 1312.0 45.9 45.4 22.2 52.5 30.8 1618.0 56.6 56.1 32.8 41.7 37.0 1541.4 53.9 47.7 22.3 SUGAR CAN 28.5 33.7 960.3 139.2 106.6 61.2 28.5 39.5 1126.3 253.4 204.7 164.4 38.0 46.0 1745.7 392.8 321.4 241.1 0TH PEREN 10.3 4.0 41.1 61.7 58.8 35.7 10.3 4.4 45.5 68.3 65.4 42.7 19.1 5.0 95.5 143.3 134.7 86.6 CROP INT 94.4 93.5 117.2 TOTAL 3606.6 1416.0 1280.0 925.7 4288.2 1780.7 1622. 1288.7 5373.7 2819.2 2526..t1887.9 n3 k N31I- 0 ANNEX 16 Table 25 PAKISTAN SAI,ThITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI CRCP AREA, YIELD, PRODUCTION AND ECCNOMIC VALUE OF PRODUCTION - TOTAL PROJECTi/ CROP PRESENT FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT FUTURE WITH PROJECT …-- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - --…-- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ___ AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET AREA YIELD PROD GROSS VALADD NET (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- (TH.HA) (T/HA) (TH.T) ----(MIL RS)---- RICE 14.5 1.9 27.5 30.9 28.7 17.8 27.8 2.0 55.4 88.1 82.4 61.1 23.1 3.6 83.1 132.1 110.0 83.4 COTTON 150.6 1.0 150.6 724.2 670.1 525.7 123.8 1.4 173.4 784.5 737.9 616.7 162.6 2.3 374.0 1692.3 1542.31310.6 MAIZE 7.0 1.0 7.0 10.6 10.3 7.0 7.0 1.1 7.6 12.8 12.1 8.7 12.0 4.1 49.1 82.9 68.7 58.5 MILLETS 24.0 0.7 15.6 72.8 72.4 65.3 32.8 0.7 22.6 72.3 70.9 61.4 31.4 1.4 43.9 140.4 124.8 110.3 KHAR FOD 33.9 26.6 900.9 31.5 29.5 24.4 33.9 29.8 1008.8 35.3 32.5 27.3 31.7 55.0 1742.4 61.0 49.4 40.8 WHEAT 131.6 1.3 174.8 267.5 227.0 144.5 115.3 1.8 201.8 345.1 297.3 223.6 188.4 2.8 527.4 901.9 737.3 570.0 RABI PULS 5.1 0.6 3.1 5.4 5.4 4.2 18.2 0.6 10.9 19.2 19.0 15.o 13.0 0.8 10.4 18.3 18.2 13.8 OILSEED 27.3 0.5 13.6 26.2 26.0 17.7 30.5 0.6 17.9 45.1 44.6 35.0 41.8 1.8 75.2 189.4 167.7 146.4 RABI FOD 52.5 25.o 1312.0 45.9 45.4 22.2 52.5 30.8 1618.0 56.6 56.1 32.8 41.7 55.0 2291.3 80.2 67.6 42.2 SUGAR CAN 28.5 33.7 960.3 139.2 106.6 61.2 28.5 39.5 1126.3 253.4 204.7 164.4 38.0 64.0 2428.8 546.5 444.2 363.9 OTH PEREN 10.3 4.0 41.1 61.7 58.8 35.7 10.3 4.4 45.5 68.3 65.4 42.7 19.1 6.0 114.6 171.9 153.9 105.8 CROP INT 94.4 93.5 117 2 TOTAL 360e e 120e. 0 '2DVO3 ,2,.7 4288.2 1780.7 1622. 1288.7 7740.2 4016.9 3484. 2845.7 1/ Including extension | 114 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uo ANNEX 17 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Prices. Incomes and Farm Budgets Economic Prices 1. The prices used in the economic analysis are based primarily on world market prices, but adjustments have been made to reflect: (a) historical relationships between world prices and actual cif or fob prices for Pakistan; (b) transport and processing costs. For crops which are not traded, economic prices are based on local financial prices adjusted by the ratio of economic prices to financial prices for traded crops. Derivation of prices is described below. Cotton 2. The economic price for cotton is based on the three main products derived from seed cotton, namely lint, oil and cake. Processing ratios for current technology in Pakistan are approximtely: Lint 33 Oil 7 Cake 55 Waste 5 Exports of cotton lint from Pakistan have historically fetched only 72% of average world prices. On this basis, the 1976 price is Rs 12,770/ton (58U/lb), compared to an average world price of 80/lb. The estimated economic price for cotton seed oil allowing for transportation cost is Rs 5,780/ton and the price of cake is Rs 1,340/ton. The economic price for cotton seed (excluding domestic transportation handling and processing costs) is thus Rs 5,355/ton. Costs of domestic transportation are estimated at Rs 100/ton of seed cotton. Processing costs are estimated to be Rs 380/ton of seed cotton for ginning and baling, and Rs 100/ton of seed (Rs 65/ton of seed cotton) for subsequent processing into oil and cake. The present net economic price of cotton is therefore Rs 4,810/ton. The 1985 prices based on Bank projections (adjusted for quality and international transport) for lint, cotton seed oil and cake are Rs 10,200, Rs 5,024 and Rs 2,460/ton, respectively. With similar assumptions to those described above concerning processing ratios and costs, the future economic price of seed cotton is calculated to be Rs 4,525/ton. 203 ANNEX 17 Page 2 Wheat 3. Wheat is currently imported into Pakistan. The cif cost of wheat (excluding PL 480) has historica:Lly averaged 95% of world prices, thus the present (1976) border price is Rs 1,390/ton. The project is situated in a surplus area which exports wheat elsewhere in Pakistan. The pattern of internal movements is such that production of more wheat in the project area will save the transport costs from Karachi to Rahimyar Khan of the imported alternative. These costs, based on rail freight charges are estimated at Rs 50/ton. Farm-to-market transport costs are Rs 30/ton. Thus, the economic price of wheat is estimated at Rs 1,410/ton. In the future, Pakistan should become self sufficient in wheat, and thus the 1985 price is estimated as above, except that the freight costs from Karachi are excluded, giving a price of Rs 1,590/ton. Rice 4. Coarse rice exports frcm Pakistan have historically fetched only 68% of average world prices -- reflecting transport costs and quality dif- ferences. Based on 1976 prices, the fob price for rice is therefore Rs 1,740/ton. Transport costs from Rahimyar Khan to the port are estimated at Rs 50/ton of rice, and farm-to-market transport costs average Rs 30/ton of paddy. Milling costs are estimated at Rs 50/ton of rice. Assuming a milling ratio of three units of paddy to two units of rice, gives a present economic price of paddy of Rs 1,055/ton. The 1985 price on similar assumptions is estimated at Rs 1,520/ton. Oilseeds 5. Prices paid by Pakistan for imports of brassica oilseeds have his- torically averaged 92% of world prices. Assuming transport and handling costs for imports of Rs 50/ton and transport costs of Rs 30/ton for local produce (based on commission charged by handling agents), the economic price of oilseed is estimated at Rs 1,920/ton at present, and Rs 2,520/ton in 1985. Maize and Millets 6. These crops are neither imported nor exported, and internally are wheat-substitutes. The types of grain produced are not strictly comparable with the World-traded types, being local varieties suited to local tastes. This is reflected in the domestic price structure, with maize and millets having the same (and occasionally higher) prices than wheat. To allow for this, the economic price of these grains is set equal to that of wheat. Sugarcane 7. Sugar is no longer imported into Pakistan. The economic price of cane based on the world price, an assumed extraction ratio of 9% and transport handling and milling costs of Rs L,620/ton of sugar (Rs 145/ton of cane) is estimated at Rs 140/ton at present, and Rs 220/ton in 1985. 204 ANNEX 17 Page 3 Fodder 8. Given the heavy dependence on animal draft power and the prevalence of milk animals, fodder is an important and valuable crop -- indeed, around towns it is an important cash crop. In addition to crops grown specifically for fodder, several other crops also produce significant quantities of fodder material. All fodder produce is valued at market prices, plus a 30% premium to reflect the difference between prevailing market prices for crops and world prices in general. Vegetables, Orchards, etc. 9. A large variety of crops fall into this category, and estimated values have been used for the analysis. Financial Prices 10. Financial prices are based on recent market prices in the project area, adjusted for transport costs to farmgate prices. Future Prices 11. The present disparities between financial and economic prices are expected to continue except in the case of oilseeds, where domestic prices have recently increased rapidly to levels above world averages, but are expected to stabilize in the future near to the economic price. For the major crops, this is a conservative assumption for the purposes of computing future farm incomes, since the internal prices of some crops have recently been allowed to move closer to economic prices. However, further increases would reduce income to GOP, especially from the taxes on cotton and rice, and would probably necessitate a balancing increase in some other agricultural tax. Prices used in the analysis are shown in Table 1. Incomes 12. Representative farm budgets for 5, 12.5 and 25 ac farms are shown in Table 3 for present, future-without and future-with-project situations. These are based on the cropping patterns shown in Table 2, and the crop budgets developed in Annex 15. 13. Income from off-farm work has been computed by calculating the available labor per 100 ha CCA in each farm size category (based on census data on household sizes and farm size distribution), assuming a maximum of 25 man-days/month/worker are available. 205 ANNEX 17 Page 4 Farm Size Group Available Labor ac man-day/month (excluding temporary) 0 - 2.5 53.5 2.5 - 5.0 93.0 5.0 - 7.5 135.0 7.5 - 12.5 333.0 12.5 - 25.0 407.0 25.0 - 51).0 164.0 50.0 -150.0 67.0 150+ 6.0 14. Based on present labor demand estimates, the surplus/deficit of labor by farm size and month (per 100 ha CCA) can be calculated -- for example, in May, the labor requirement for 12.5 -- 25 ac farms is 450 man- days per 100 ha CCA (labor required is 15 days/ha, and this farm category covers 30% of CCA, i.e. 30 ha). Availability of labor on this category is 407 man-days, therefore, there is a hiring requirement of 43 man-days. This calculation, repeated for each farm size shows: (1) The total hiring requirEment for the larger farms; (2) The labor surplus from the smaller farms. On the basis of the actual financial wage rate by month, the total payment to hired workers is calculated (hiring requirement x wage rate). Dividing this value by the available surplus labor gives the "probable" income of an available worker, which can then be distributed back over the labor surplus farms, pro-rated by their surplus availability, to get an estimate of farm income from hiring out labor by farm size per 100 ha CCA. 15. To convert this to income per farm, the number of farms (in each size class) per 100 ha CCA is computed, and hence the income per farm can be found. Results for present and future-with-project (assuming a 30% increase in work- force) are shown in Table 4. 16. Without the project, the labor force would increase much more rapidly than demand, with the resuLt that less hired labor would be required, and there would be more competitio-a for available employment. The result is very sensitive to the assumptionis made about migration to the urban areas, and it has therefore been assumed in the farm budgets that both the income to and expenditures on hired labor would fall by 20% without the project. 17. The farm budgets for Uni-: III show estimated income and costs if the farmer purchases water from a private tubewell. To estimate the rate of return on a private tubewell, cr-op budgets and cropping patterns were projected for a farm having no access to tubewell water and a farm with a 206 ANNEX 17 Page 5 tubewell (Table 5). The incremental value of production is Rs 350 per ac, and incremental water requirement is 14" at the crop (20" at the well). The average value of rabi water is therefore estimated at Rs 300 per ac-ft at the crop, or Rs 200 per ac-ft at the well. In economic prices, cor- responding values are Rs 400 per ac-ft at the crop, Rs 280 at the well. The rate of return on a tubewell depends on the size of the holding. Since water is sold for approximately Rs 100 per ac-ft, but is worth double this on the land, the income to the owner depends on the relative amounts sold and used on the land. 18. The cost to the farmer of a I cusec diesel tubewell is Rs 32,000. Of this, he pays Rs 8,000 down, and loan repayments of Rs 6,700 per year for 5 years, plus annual O&M cost of Rs 6,600. 19. The well is expected to need replacement after seven years, when the pump and motor will have a residual value of about Rs 4,000. Costs can therefore be summarized as follows: Year Capital & Repayment /a O&M Total 0 8,000 6,600 14,600 1 6,700 6,600 13,300 2 6,700 6,600 13,300 3 6,700 6,600 13,300 4 6,700 6,600 13,300 5 6,700 6,600 13,300 6 6,600 6,600 7 6,600 6,600 8 (4,000) 6,600 2,600 /a Excluding any subsidies. The well is expected to pump about 150 ac-ft per year. Per acre requirements (at the well) are 1.7 ac-ft in rabi. As estimated above, the owner receives an extra Rs 200 for each ac-ft (at the well) used on his own land and Rs 100 per ac-ft for water he sells. Income for various farm sizes is estimated below: 10 ac 25 ac 50 ac Own use (ac-ft) 17 43 85 value (Rs) 3,400 8,600 17,000 Sales (ac-ft) 133 107 65 value (Rs) 13,300 10,700 6,500 Total Income (Rs) 17,400 19,300 23,500 The estimated benefit and cost streams are shown below: 207 ANNEX 17 Page 6 Year Costs (Rs) Benefit (Rs) 10 ac 25 ac 50 ac 0 14,600 1 13,300 13,600 13,800 14,000 2 13,300 14,000 14,400 15,000 3 13,300 14,600 15,000 16,000 4 13,300 15,300 16,000 18,000 5 13,300 16,400 16,500 20,500 6 6,600 17,000 18,500 22,000 7 6,600 17,400 19,300 23,500 8 (4,000) Rate of Return 17% 23% 29% Cost Recovery 20. Water charges in Punjab at present vary from crop to crop. Rates for the main crops are: crop Rs/ac Cotton 16.8 Wheat 10.4 Rice 14.4 Sugarcane 31.2 21. On the basis of present water rates and cropping patterns, col- lections average Rs 6/ac in the non-perennial Units (II and III) and Rs 12/ac in perennial units (total recoveries: Rs 10.9 M/yr). 22. The expected schedule of expenditures for operation, maintenance and replacements of the project workcs are described in Annex 4. At full development, the direct 0 & M costs amount to Rs 31 M/yr (excluding Unit III private tubewells) (in addition to O) & M expenditures on the existing works amounting to Rs 25 M/yr). The discounted (at 10%) net present cost of the total expenditures amounts to Rs 965 M, excluding the cost of the Drainage Works (see para 25). 23. Recoveries from beneficiaries are expected to remain at the present levels until one year after the completion of project works, thus the annuity required to recover full investment and 0 & M costs at 10% discount rate is calculated assuming recoveries to run from Year Seven to Year 30, and amounts to approximately Rs 215 M/yr including Rs 25 M/yr to operate the existing system. 24. It is proposed that a stucLy of water charges and other agricultural taxes will be carried out. As a minimum, however, it is expected that water rates in the province will be approximately doubled. Since SCARP areas 208 ANNEX 17 Page 7 traditionally pay double the rates in non-SCARP areas, per acre recoveries (allowing for increased cropping intensity) in the project area would increase fivefold, and average Rs 62/ac in all Units except Unit III where they would be Rs 31/ac. Total recoveries would thus amount to Rs 67 M/yr in the SCARP VI area, which would cover about 31% of the annualized total project costs, including all 0 & M costs. Province-wide, however, revenues would produce a substantial surplus (estimated at present prices to be 30% of current invest- ment levels) over and above 0 & M costs. 25. As has been the practice in previous SCARP projects, the recovery of the capital cost of the drainage works would be spread over the entire irrigated area of Punjab. Full cost recovery, at 10% interest over 30 years, would amount to about Rs 1/ac CCA/yr. 26. A large portion of the capital costs of the proposed irrigation works would be automatically recovered under the existing taxes on agricul- tural production. Most important of these in the SCARP VI area is the 25% ad valorem tax on exported cotton (which accounts for about 75% of all cotton production). The incremental income from the project beneficiaries to the Government from this tax is estimated at Rs 74 M per year. 27. Additional revenue would also come from the excise tax on sugar and the implicit tax on rice exports. The tax on sugar is primarily a tax on consumers since it is used to maintain the price of sugar above the world price (while the price of cane is slightly below the world price), and is to some extent avoided by processing the cane into gur at the farm level. The tax on rice has only a limited effect in this area, where relatively little is grown. Thus, the income to Government from the tax on cotton alone is used as a conservative estimate of the total incremental income from taxation. 28. The estimated revenue of Rs 74 M per annum would be sufficient to repay a further 34% of the irrigation investment, operation and maintenance expenditures in the proposed project over 30 years at 10% interest. Project Rent 29. Table 3 shows project rent by farm size and project Unit after due allowance for the riskiness of crop production, the cost of family labor and a management fee to the farm operator. The rent recovery is calculated on the basis of incremental water charges divided by the project rent. In the case of Unit II, where private tubewells would be replaced by public tubewells, the without-project payment for purchases of private tubewell water is treated as an input cost. In Unit III where, under the project, private tubewells would increase in number, the incremental cost of purchasing water from these wells is included as part of the rent recovery. 30. Recovery of rent varies from Unit to Unit, and increases substantially with farm size. Average recoveries amount to about 23%. 209 November 1977 ANNEX 17 Table PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Prices Used in Economics and Financial Analysis Present Future (1985) Financial Economic Financial Economic ---------------------(Rs/Ton)…-------------… -- Cotton 3,2C0 4,810 3,010 4,525 Wheat Grain 1,100 1,410 1,240 1,590 Fodder 95 120 95 120 1,195 1,530 1,335 1,710 Rice Grain 92) 1,055 1,325 1,520 Fodder 5) 70 50 70 97') 1,125 1,375 1,590 Maize Grain 1,25() 1,410 1,410 1,590 Fodder 8t) 100 80 100 1,330 1,510 1,490 1,690 Millets Grain 1,250 1,410 1,410 1,590 Fodder 2,500C 3,250 1,190 1,605 3,75C 4,660 2,600 3,195 Sugarcane Cane 14C 140 220 220 Fodder 'tops' 5 5 5 5 145 145 225 225 Oilseeds 2,560 1,920 2,520 2,520 Fertilizer Nitrogen 3,200 3,300 3,750 3,950 Phosphate 2,720 2,750 3,000 3,350 Potassium 1,185 1,250 1,200 1,300 Pesticides Endrin 11,870 13,000 11,870 13,000 Methyl P. 20,600 22,620 20,600 22,620 Dinecron 48,800 53,760 48,000 53,760 Diazinon 8,512 9,400 8,512 9,400 210 PAKIISTAN ANNEX 17 TO-ble 2 (% CCA) Unit II Unit III U/nit IV Unit V 5 Cc 15 1/2 an 25 a. 5 ae 12 1/1 e 25 z 5 a 12 1/2 C 25 Cc9a 12 1/2 a 25 a Ero 17 w P I 14 F 12 1 Fr W F PS 14 P1 If F 1 1 W P 4 w4 P w w4 P 14 w4 F 14 54 pI Ri.. 4 12 4 3 10 7 2 9 3 6 13 14 2 9 3 5 9 3 2 2 4 2 2 6 5 1 7 1 3 0. 1 5 2 1 3 1 Cotto 36114239 34 20 35 33 21 33 32 1633 30120 3014 616 20 28 26 4025 25 35 23 23 33 29 24 36 26 22 30 24 17 28 olaise - - - I 1 3 2 2 5 - - - I 1. 1 2 2 2 - - - 1 1 2 2 2 3 - - - 2 3 3 5 4 4 ISillate 6 14 6 7 12 14 iSO 7 6213 6 5 9 5 4 9 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 2 2 2 5 6 5 3 4 6 1 3 7 f.dder 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 6 6 5 5 5 3 4 4 3 9 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 2 -12 __0 9 9 1 6 7 6 Total kharif 5415546144654 50 47 504644 4643 4242 4345~35736365334340 464455 414649 353446 Whea 27 16 37 24 19 35 23 17 32 21 16 42 20 13 40 29 23 30 304 314 40 29 29 37 26 26 34 33 2 5 40 31 2 6 35 28 22 34 Poises 1 7 4 1 5 4 i 4 4 3 6 3 1 5 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 2 1 2 1 4 1 Oilezeda 1 2 7 2 3 14 3 3 9 1 2 6 2 3 6 2 4 7 7 7 9 0 14 6 9 9 10 9 9 10 I0 15 10 1012 16 Fodder 5336312 12 12 9 12212 8a 11 11 1110 6 6 0 01_1 7 77_6 _ 9- 10_ _iO 14 - 0_ 7 -6 6 -6- Totalre?bf 4443 6041 4157 3636353 3634 63 35228 52 49 49 61454554 4343 51 53 5i 63 5039 54- 45 44 51 Sogarocam I 1 3 2 2 5 2 2 6 6 7 8 7 10 10 7 11 11 5 5 6 4 6 7 7 7 8 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 6 8 Omhrheds& Misn. 1 i 2 2_ 2 5 3 3 7 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 3 i 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2- _2_1 2 2 4 3L 3 Total Pw.-aial 2 2 5 4 4 10 5 5 13 7 8 9 1 2 2 16 4 4 6 6 7 8 6 9 10 10 11 6 6 -L 7 14 9 0 1 Total fotoneity 192 97 139 99 97 135 95 92 133 100 97 128 99 101 126 92 98 122 104 104 132 99 99 125 97 97 123 III 107 i31 107 106 125 100 96 119 (-ssUig peenastins) PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Farm Budgets (Rs) 5 ac 12.5 ac 25 ac P 4/ W 4/ W4/PWWPWW UNIT II Gross Income from Crops 4,170 4,180 8,410 10,185 10,960 21,830 20,100 22,000 43,750 Net Wage Income (expenditure) 1,300 1,100 1,660 300 240 600 (1,000) (900) (2.100) Total Farm Income 5,470 5,280 10,070 10,485 11,200 22,430 19,100 22,000 41,650 Operating Costs: Seasonal Inputs- 460 370 1,040 1,100 1,050 2,730 2,050 2,050 5,490 Bullock Maintenance 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Water Charges 35 35 210 90 90 775 165 165 1,550 Purchases of Water 170 150 - 400 355 - 800 680 - Total Costs 2.669 25;9 ,950 3,590 3,495 5,,,C 7,015 6,895 ll,U4U Net Value of Production 2,805 2,725 6,720 6,895 8,235 16,925 12,085 15,105 30,610 Subsistence Food Require- ments 2/ 1,800 2,340 2,340 2,100 2,730 2,730 2,400 3,120 Net Income 1,005 385 4,380 4,795 5,505 14,195 9,685 11,985 27,490 Project Rent Farm Income 3/ 4,444 8,388 9,528 18,064 17,420 32,900 Cost of Inputs (excluding surface water) 2,520 3,040 3,405 4,730 6,750 9,490 Cost of Family Labor at Market Prices 4/ 1,100 2,400 2,900 6,000 5,l0O 9,900 Net Value of Production 820 2,848 3,123 7,334 6,270 13,510 Project Rent 2,024 4,211 7,240 Increased Watercharges at % of Rent 9% 16% 19% ________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OQ Cy 1/ Including interest on seasonal loan at 12% D 2/ Estimated at Rs 300 per capita, assuming 30% increase in household size in future cases. N, 3/ Deducting 20% of Gross Crop value for risk (10%) and Management Fee (10%) 1-4 4/ P=Present, W = Future Without Project, W = Future With Project PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Farm Budgets (Rs) 5 ac 12.5 ac 25 ac UNIT III Gross Income from Crops 4,204 4,880 8,340 10,585 13,125 20,605 20,250 26,100 40,860 Net Wage Income (expdnditure) 1,300 1,100 1,660 300 240 600 (1,000) (900) (2,100) Farm Income 5,504 5,980 10,000 10,885 13,365 21,205 19,250 25,200 38,760 Seasonal Inputs-/ 506 620 1,200 1,276 1,815 3,080 2,320 3,370 5,610 Bullock Maintenance 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Water Charges 35 35 150 90 90 400 175 175 800 Purchases of Water 170 150 255 425 375 640 850 750 1,275 Total Costs 2,711 2,805 3,605 3,791 4,280 6,120 7,345 8,295 11,685 Net Value of Production 2,893 2,175 6,395 7,094 9,095 15,085 11,875 15,905 27,085 Subsistence Food Require- ments 2/ 1,800 2,340 2,340 2,100 2,730 2,730 2,400 3,120 3,120 Net Income 1,093 835 3,055 4,994 6,365 12,355 9,475 12,785 23,965 Project Rent Farm Income-/ 5,004 8,332 10,740 17,129 20,160 31,010 Cost of Inputs (excluding surface water) 2,620 3,200 3,815 5,080 7,370 9,610 Cost of Family Labor at Market Prices 1,100 2,400 2,900 6,000 5,100 9,900 Net Value of Production 1,284 2,732 4,025 6,049 7,690 11,500 Project Rent 1,448 2,024 3,810 Incremental charges at % of Rent 15% 28% 30% 1/ Including interest on seasonal loan at 12% w 2/ Estimated at Rs 300 per capita, assuming 30% increase in household size in future cases. 3/ Deducting 20% of Gross Crop value for risk (10%) and Management Fee (10%) PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Farm Budgets (Rs) 5 ac 12.5 ac 25 ac P w P W P W W UNITS IV AND V Gross Income fromC Crops 4,250 4,535 8,685 10,430 11,900 20,850 20,420 24,380 41,660 Net Wage Income (expenditure) 1,300 1,200 1,660 300 270 600 (1,000) (900) (2,100) Total Farm Income 5,550 5,735 10,345 10,730 12,170 21,450 19,420 23,480 39,560 Seasonal Inputs-/ 520 610 1,170 1,275 1,705 2,860 2,520 3,430 5,750 Bullock Maintenance 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 4000 n ,00no Water Charges 60 60 3O0 15U 150 775 300 300 1,550 Total Costs 2,580 2,670 3,480 3,425 3,855 5,635 6,820 7,730 11,300 Net Value of Production 2,970 3,065 6,545 7,305 8,315 15,815 12,600 15,750 28,260 Subsistence Food Require ments 2/ 1,800 2,340 2,340 2,100 2,730 2,730 2,400 3,120 3,120 Net Income 1,170 725 4,205 5,205 5,585 12,085 10,200 12,630 25,140 Project Rent Farm Income/ 4,828 8,288 9,790 17,280 18,604 31,228 Cost of Inputs (excluding surface water) 2,610 3,170 3,705 4,860 7,430 9,750 Cost of Family Labor at Market Prices 1,100 2,400 2,900 6,000 5,100 9,900 Net Value of Production 1,118 2,718 3,185 6,420 6,074 11,578 Project Rent 1,600 3,235 5,504 Increased Waterchages as % of Rent 16% 19% 23% 1/Including interest on seasonal loan at 12% 2/ Estimated at Rs 300 per capita, assuming 30% increase in household size in future cases. 3/ Deducting 20% of Gross Crop value for risk (10%) and Management Fee (10%) ANNEX 17 PAKISTAN Table 4 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP)VI Hired Labor Income and Expenditure by Farm Size Present Size Average Area/ Ratio to Income/ Farm Class Size 100 ha CCA Farm Size 100 ha CCA Income (ha) 0 - 1 .5 1 2 1297 648.5 1 - 3 2 7 3.5 4442 1269 3 -10 5 52 10 3515 351 10 - 20 15 20 1.3 -3138 -2413 over 20 50 20 .4 -8666 -21665 Future with Project 0 - 1 .5 1 2 2555 1277 1 - 3 2 7 3.5 5811 1660 3 - 10 5 52 10 1068 107 10 - 20 15 20 1.3 -8096 -6227 over 20 50 20 .4 -16937 -42342 215 ANNEX 17 Table 5 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Yields and Cropping Patterns With and t'ithout a Tubewell With Wells Without Wells Tons/ha % Tons/ha % Rice 2.5 5 2.5 5 Cotton 1.6 30 1.3 30 Maize 1.8 1 1.5 1 Millets 0.8 5 0.8 10 Khar. fodder 37.0 5 37.0 8 Wheat 2.2 40 1.2 10 Rabi .6ulses 0.7 2 0.5 10 Oilseeds 0.7 6 0.5 7 Rabi fodder 37.0 8 - - Sugarcane 46.0 10 23.0 6 Other perennials 5.0 2 3.0 2 Total - 126 - 97 * Cane,perennials counted twice. > . m 2H1 216 ANNEX 18 Page 1 PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Economic Analysis 1. Based on the economic prices derived in Annex 16, the rate of return of the project has been calculated under the following assumptions: (a) Benefits. Only the direct economic incremental value of production is included in the rate of return. Other effects are discussed below (para 11). (b) Crop production values are based on the yields and input levels set out in Annex 14. (c) Labor costs are assumed to vary according to demand, with a minimum price set at Rs 5/day (compared to the financial minimum of Rs 8/day) and a maximum price set at Rs 12/day (financial equivalent Rs 18 day) (see Annex 15, Table 19). The average price, weighted by month to take account of variations in demand, is Rs 6.92 at present and Rs 7.81 with the project (Annex 15, Table 23). Construction labor has been valued at market prices. (d) An exchange rate equal to the official rate of exchange. 2. Also included in costs is the opportunity cost of the increased diversions from storage which the project area would receive, estimated on the basis of the analysis in Annex 16. This analysis shows that the average economic value of water at the crop is Rs 400 per ac-ft on otherwise unirrigated land. In estimating the opportunity cost of increased storage diversions, 75% of this figure has been used since: (a) use of the water on already irrigated land will have a lower marginal value; (b) the figure of Rs 400 makes no allowance for incremental investments or O&M expenditures which would be needed to use the water elsewhere. 3. The value of the extra diversions is thus computed as: Diversion (AF) x Delivery Efficiency x 300 Rs/AF or 355,000 x .45 x 300 = Rs 47.9 M per year. 217 ANNEX 18 Page 2 4. Development Phasing. Berefits directly attributable to project works will be realized rapidly. Yield increases would result primarily from the elimination of underirrigating, and increases in cropping intensity would also occur relatively quickly due to the extra water supplies available. The build-up of projected benefits is also related to the project implemen- tation schedule for each Unit. 5. Unit II canal remodeling, which would provide the main source of benefits in kharif would be completed in Year Four, while tubewell instal- lation (which provides most of the rabi benefits) would be spread over Years Two, Three and Four. While benefits from canal remodeling accrue only after the works are completed, the tubeweLls provide partial benefits during the installation period. Kharif and rabi benefits are therefore considered separately. Without the project, i: is assumed that production would rise steadily and slowly to the values shown over a period of 15 years. With the project, it is assumed that, after mn area receives improved kharif or rabi water supplies, production in that season reaches 90% of future with project levels after six years, and thereafter improves slowly to the full with project level of production. Table I shows the incremental benefits which would result from the project on the above assumption. It should be noted that rabi benefits are prorated to begin accruing in Years Three, Four and Five to reflect the phasing of tubewell installations, while kharif benefits for the whole Unit begin in Year Five, as shown below. Year Value of Production (Rs M) Year W/O Project With Project Increment 1 253.7 253.7 0 2 256.0 256.0 0 3 258.2 260.6 /a 2.4 4 260.5 271.8 11.3 5 262.8 290.7 /b 27.9 6 265.0 312.9 47.9 7 267.3 343.9 76.6 8 269.5 390.4 126.9 9 271.8 439.9 168.1 10 274.1 471.9 197.8 11 276.3 488.5 212.2 12 278.6 496.2 217.6 13 280.0 503.9 223.9 14 281.7 511.5 229.8 15 283.6 519.4 235.8 16-30 285.6 527.1 241.5 /a Build up of rabi benefits from first tubewell installations begin. /b Build up of kharif benefits due to completed canal remodeling begins. 218 ANNEX 18 Page 3 6. Unit III. The analysis of Unit III is very similar to the above, since project implementation follows the same pattern and benefits again depend on canal remodeling in kharif and tubewell installation in rabi, which in this case begin immediately. Projected build-up of benefits is shown below. Value of Production (Rs M) Year W/O Project With Project Increment 1 276.0 276.0 0.0 2 286.8 288.1 1.3 3 297.6 303.2 5.6 4 308.3 318.9 /a 10.6 5 319.1 347.8 28.7 6 329.8 377.2 47.4 7 340.6 409.1 68.5 8 351.4 438.8 87.4 9 362.1 463.9 102.8 10 372.9 485.3 112.4 11 383.6 503.0 119.4 12 394.4 520.2 125.8 13 405.2 537.6 132.4 14 415.9 552.3 136.7 15 422.6 570.0 147.4 16-30 427.6 577.2 149.6 /a Build up of kharif benefits due to completed canal remodeling begins. 7. Unit IV and V. Analysis of these Units is simpler, since project benefits in both seasons stem primarily from improved canal supplies. In Unit IV, infrastructural improvements would be completed during Year Six, and the resulting benefits are projected below. 219 ANNEX 18 Page 4 Unit IV Value of Production (Rs M) Year W/0 Project With Project Increment 1 53.3 53.3 - 2 55.4 55.4 - 3 57.5 57.5 - 4 59.6 59.6 - 5 61.7 61.7 - 6 63.8 67.2 3.4 7 65.9 74.8 8.9 8 68.0 82.6 14.6 9 70.1 92.7 22.6 10 72.2 97.6 25.4 11 74.3 102.2 27.9 12 76.4 106.6 30.2 13 78.5 110.9 32.4 14 80.6 115.1 34.5 15 81.8 117.8 36.0 16-30 82.8 120.0 37.2 Unit T Value of Production (Rs M) Year W/O Project With Project Increment 1 342.7 342.7 - 2 353.4 353.4 - 3 364.0 364.0 - 4 374.7 374.7 - 5 385.3 385.3 - 6 396.0 396.0 - 7 406.6 422.4 15.8 8 417.3 460.1 42.8 9 427.9 497.7 69.8 10 438.6 558.1 119.6 11 449.2 595.8 146.6 12 459.8 616.4 156.6 13 470.5 631.7 161.2 14 481.1 646.0 164.9 15 486.8 654.7 167.9 16-30 492.7 663.6 170.9 8. Economic Rate of Return. Based on the incremental investment, operating and maintenance costs an.1 the above projeted benefits, which are summarized in Table 1. The economLc rate of return of the project is esti- mated to be 19% over a 30 year perLod. 220 ANNEX 18 Page 5 9. Sensitivity Analysis. The sensitivity of the rate of return to alternative assumptions is as follows: (a) Project investments made according to schedule, but benefits delayed by 2 years: rate of return 15%. (b) All costs increased by 20%: rate of return 16%. (c) All benefit decreased by 20%: rate of return 16%. (d) Combination of b and c: rate of return 12%. (e) Extension project introduced in project area: rate of return in excess of 30%. Public versus Private Development of Unit III 10. It would be possible to develop Unit III by public sector tubewells. Assuming good maintenance and management, agricultural benefits would be the same as projected for the private development case. Investment costs, however, would be higher by approximately Rs 170 million, and, despite a saving of about Rs 10 M per year in O&M, the overall project rate of return would fall to 17%. Project Benefits not Included in Economic Analysis 11. The foregoing analysis is based only on investment costs and incre- mental production. Additional benefits include: (a) Increases in economic activity and employment in agricultural processing industries. (b) Increases in other forms of employment due to increased farm incomes in the area. November 1977 221 ANNEX 18 Table I PAKISTAN SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJECT (SCARP) VI Estimated Cost and Benefit Streams Rs M Incremental Value of Capital Operation, Maintenance Increased Rabi Incremental Year Investment and Replacements Water Supplies Benefits 1978 94.1 - - 1979 193.3 1.0 1.3 1980 217.3 9.0 - 8.0 1981 242.0 19.0 14.8 21.9 1982 241.3 32.0 25.6 56.6 1983 116.3 36.4 35.8 98.7 1984 40.8 47.9 169.8 1985 46.9 47.9 271.7 1986 28.0 47.9 363.3 1987 46.4 47.9 455.1 1988 44.9 47.9 506.0 1989 52.6 47.9 530.2 1990 52.4 47.9 549.9 1991 62.8 47.9 565.6 1992 69.7 47.9 587.1 1993 55.6 47.9 599.2 1994 52.9 47.9 599.2 1995 52.9 47.9 599.2 1996 55.6 47.9 599.2 1997 413.7 47.9 599.2 1998 48.7 47.9 599.2 1999-8 51.7 47.9 599.2 2000 52.4 47.9 599.2 2001 108.2 47.9 599.2 2002 108.3 47.9 599.2 2003 55.6 47.9 599.2 2004 84.6 47.9 599.2 2005 90.3 47.9 599.2 2006 48;7 47.9 599.2 2007 48.7 47.9 599.2 2008 43.0 47.9 599.2 222 C H I P--cr 7 d I N OP,,r1t0 ; PANJNAD,-A, -22 PAKI5TAN o9Il 2O6 SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAM\ATION >* hbd/ DETAILED PROJECT LOCATION gt _ N D A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Projec Area --- lnp and Uni Boundartes lJbnro< _- WT4t r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mo,n Canals, Branches and Disjributaries / r r*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ptn|ns .v.Fera n gram tna Chalistan De2sert 25~' I-I I sn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~2- PAKIST0AN A. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~r- I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~BRD-12600 PAK IS TAN I SRt ach17 RAN / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SALINITY CONTROL AND RECLAMATION PROJC SARPM) B- GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION U 55 R cc/cRc -.--.--.-Macr canals IRAN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5IA 5 ~~~~~~~AFGHANISTAN --P: seccs D>5 ". fl~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Barroga I odwoDs A T,b.~~~ci rcr R N ac/Ohs/A ---- Mar roacs cocrsNcrr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hk 5 Rarlroacs y'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p~ F tANIS A~~ ON 5 .-.. ~~~~~ rr ,KAl BUrdrL .--rerBra0orars' 4~ N a N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . Sc --A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I N DI A RL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C fHcIo NA / . N B Bad.AY %y cars >~ K ---------N>- 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~ ~ r ~c I' - ccocns Kor -IT -;S Tn Ito >7/csc 0,L lo - - hs00, 5AN I LES I N D I A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~