Document of The World Bank F}OR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 9574 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT MALAYSIA KEDAH VALLEYS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 2220-MA) MAY 17, 1991 Agriculture Operations Division Country Department II Asia Regional Office This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the perfornance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Name of Currency: Malaysian Ringgit (M$) Appraisal Year Average (1981): US$1.00 = M$ 2.30 Intervening Years Average: US$1.00 = M$ 2.50 Completion Year Average (1989): US$1.00 = M$ 2.70 GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BPM Bank Pertanian Malaysian - Agricultural Bank of Malaysia DID Drainage and Irrigation Department DLM Department of Lands and Mines DOA = Department of Agriculture DOF = Department of Fisheries Dusun Backyard Fruit Orchard EPU Economic Planning Unit (Federal) ERR e Economic Rate of Return FAMA Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority FDC Farmers Development Center FOA Farmers Organization Authority GOM Government of Malaysia LPN Lembaga Padi dan Beras Negara - National Padi and Rice Authority MARDI Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute MLRD G Ministry of Lands and Regional Development MOA = Ministry of Agriculture O&M Operations and Maintenance PCR Project Completion Report PD = Project Director PMU = Project Management Unit PWD Public Works Department RISDA = Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority SAR Staff Appraisal Report Zakat = Tithe FOR OmCIAL USE ONLY THE WORLD BANK Washington. D.C. 2043) U.S.A. Ofie of DirtclW-CA4W& 0Datw^ tvalusat - May 17, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Malaysia Kedah Valleys Agricultural DeveloDment Proleot (Loan 2220-MA) Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled "Project Completion Report on Malaysia Kedah Valleys Agricultural Development Project (Loan 2220-MA)" prepared by the Borrower and the Preface, Basic Data Sheet and Evaluation Summary prepared by the Asia Regional Office. No audit of this project has been made by the Operations Evaluation Department at this time. Attachment This document has a restricted distribution and myse be duscd by without world Bynk ateeormane of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwiebdslodwthuWrdBakuhriti. ioR omcIAL US ONLY PROJCT COMPLETION RPORT EDAR VALLEYS PCZLTU DIVELOItENTP (LOAN 2220-MA) Table of Contents Page No. Preface . . . . . * * * Basic Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i Evaluation Summary. . . ..i I* BACKGROUND Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization and Managemnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE General........ . . . . . 4 Project Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 --II PROJECT RESULT. BENEFIT AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION Smallholder Rubber Development . . . . . . . .10 Irrigation Development ................... 13 Access Road.. . . . . . . . . .15 Dusum Rehabilitation .. . . 16 Fish Pond Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Overall Project Economic Rate of Return . . . . . . . . . . 19 Cost Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19 Other Agricultural Service Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Iv. PERFORMANCE OF TBE BORROWER, THE BANK AND LESSONS LEARNT Performance of the Borrower. . . . ....... . . ...21 Perforaance of the Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Lessons Learnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 21 LIST Or TABLES Table 1: Budget Allocation in Comparison vith SAR Requirement (MS million) ................... . . . . 4 Table 2s Total Project Expenditure (1962 - 1989) . . . . . . . . . S Table 3; Withdrawal of Loan Proceeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 4; Physical Indicators of Project Accomplishment . . . . . . 9 Table St Phasing of Rubber Replanting (ha) Appraisal Vs. PCR . . . 10 Table 6: Rubber Area for Time-Slice Financing of Maintenance (ha) Replanted Between 1977 - 1982 (Appraisal Vs. PC!) . . . 11 Table 7# Sumary of Estimated Rubber Production ('000 ton) . . * . 11 Table 8: Yield of Rubber Per Hectare . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Table 9: Distribution of Income Among Rubber Smallholders 1987 . . 12 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recip;ents only in the performance of tho-' offis'; I dlitiog Itc et* It tl tI y pnt nW rw . m1 h 1r .a'f i WithOut World fl rnistv %w t'It LIST OF TABL26 (contd.) Table 10: Comparison of Price of Rubber Between Appraisal and Completion Report (in 1989 Prices) . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table lls Yield of Paddi (kg/ha) Between Scheme and Non-Scheme Areas 14 Table 12: With Project Padi Cropping Intensity, Yield and Production (Appraisal and PCR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 13: Derivation of Economic Parmgate Price of Padi . . . . . . . 15 Table 14: Household Farm Income 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 15: Dusun Area, Fruit Yields and Production Comparison between SAR and PCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 16: Monthly Family Income for Dusur Farmers. . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 17: Phasing of Freshwater Fishpond Development . . . . . . . . 18 Table 18: Income Structure of Fishpond Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 19: Economic Rate of Return - PCR Compared to SAR . . . . . . . 19 APPENDICES 1 - 89 23-138 ATTACHMENT I - Borrower's Comments 139 MAP - IBRD No. 16423 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT MALAYSIA KEDAH VALLEYS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 2220-MA) PREFACE This Project Completion Report (PCR) reviews implementation of the Kedah Valleys Agricultural Development Project for which Loan 2220-MA in the amount of US$56.9 million was approved on December 16, 1982. The loan closed on schedule on December 31, 1988. Following cancellations on July 24, 1986 and July 28, 1987, of US$12.1 million and US$10.3 million respectively, the remaining loan balance of US$34.5 million was fully disbursed and the last disburcement was on May 31, 1989. The PCR was prepared by the Borrower's Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), the implementing agency for the project, and the Project Management Unit (PHU), and the Preface, Basic Data Sheet and Evaluation Summary were prepared by the Agriculture Operations Division, Country Department II, Asia Regional Office. The Asia Regional Office expresses its appreciation to the MOA and PMU for preparing a comprehensive PCR. - II - POJEfT comlFMiar REPIIRT MALAYSIA - 40S ALESAtlJL Pot4 BSIC DATA SEET KFY PRO IET CATA Appraleal Actual or Actual as i of x- tutilm current latiata _ aamial tatimate !rajm..ct a.flMlt l m IIion) 19.51 ,- 5i 1 r ft ___ _w_____ E 'f T7EflsT¶i-tn 1'ld1 71 ', 0 -J JAata tutiafla aerlormnce ~ ~ ~ _20713 tr Xo-rno l *-rfor_nce9 *r ar di raca * n-fic rig 2i0.300 7-bgM At r eat 20.000 familie COAAULAVE U IOLS8S MM L,. 4 EY EY fl LYM fe e li *ue. teS Im IIIon) 1.5 4.4 14.° 24 4 A___4 _6l _______§ U S s | l l ion} ~~0.8 6 0 e.s 4 4 2- 2 IS nil rei a7d to dw (U#i *aHnwr.'1 UStiS milio o f cm l MStIiN DATA DAte No of Vd Secializtion. Performnee Hiio ltiz %*-r on n 71d retina lb Trend le Driv e .ld *decI,ifietion 06/tiO 2 16 d.. Cral-I _lal lbf11 isa- l1 2 24 01'8_ is d_ O Nis 0rima 2n viain= IS 02/86 2 *b d 1 urri isill 4 CSt8S 2 52 d.l .~~~~~~~~~~~2 sur aln I t2/8 2 lo d - afl PROJTD Total lm T7- ataffue4a l Beorded kw Fiacl Year/Activity =l E E ma EM M7a flu mg IDIaI LEW 18.2 12 2 Let" M0 6.2 62.2 LEW4 5.4 51.4 LOP 1.2 677.9 66W 6.O 10.0 11.1 6.4 S.4 8.9 1.1 48.9 Pal .4 2.3 2.6 8.8 (eatimted) PAD .0 .S .4 1.1 2 . TOTAL 70.4 26.8 10.8 11.8 6O41 4.5 4.8 0.4 2.6 142.2 EumakJ.nl.aneov NaietrM i i Aaricultur-a (MU ~i~iThifma a-tveraGe 19 - W.:-I AR _V , .. m, . U , -, Pal Ba-an arolac Nine a * agriculturists b * egricultural economiast c a financial analyst; d a tree crop apeciallet; * a agricultural engineer; f - Civil engineer. 1 * proble-free or minor problean; 2 a moerate prrleml and * mjor problems. Sc 1 * laproving; 2 * stationary; 8 - deteriorating. a f a financial; f a manegerial T a technical. P political; end 0 other. - iii - PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT MALAYSIA KEDAH VALLEYS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 2220-MA) Evaluation Summary Project Obiectives and Description i. The project aimed to increase agricultural production and incomes of the smallholders in Kedah, which was one of the poorest states in Malaysia, and t- reduce intra-state income disparities. About 20,500 smallholder families, principally rubber and padi farmers, who had the highest incidence of poverty, were to benefit. The project, to be implemented over 1983-87, provided for the replanting and maintenance during immaturity of old rubber areas, construction and improvements of irrigation works and of farm and access roads, development of fruit and fish production, strengthening of farmer training and other agricultural support services including construction of buildings, and consultant services for agricultural studies, design and construction supervision. The project was to be implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) with the assistance of its own and other agencies. Implementation Experience ii. Project implementation was affected by the economic recession in the country in the mid-1980s, which resulted in severe budgetary constraints, and by policy changes at the national level. The budgetary constraint at the very start of the project led to a change in project scope with large decreases in building construction, equipment and vehicle purchases, and access road construction. Orchard rehabilitation and fishpond construction subsidies were also abolished. The irrigation component was scaled down after the aimounce- ment of the Rice Policy in 1986, which introduced the new Granary Area concept, restricting Government investment to the major existing irrigation schemes in the country. At completion, project cost was only about M$ 238.0 million (US$94.3 million) compared to the appraisal estimate of MS 448.5 million (US$195.1 million). The final Bank loan amount disbursed was US$34.5 million, compared to the original US$56.9 million. The loan closed on schedule on December 31, 1988. iii. The performance of executing agencies was mostly satisfactory. The Project Director maintained good relationship with the executing agencies and the State Steering and Project Technical Committees met regularly to deal with various implementation issues. - iv - Results iv. Overall, the project was a success and improved the productivity and incomes of at least 20,000 smallholder families. At project completion in 1988, the achievement of rubber replanting and maintenance, the major component accounting for over 40 percent of project cost, was 31,750 ha, or 12 percent above the appraisal target (28,270 ha). For irrigated padi, the next major component, the achievem'nt was 6,180 ha (main season), or 30 percent below appraisal target (8,850 ha) but 8 percent above the revised target (5,748 ha). Fruit rehabilitation (2,861 ha) exceeded the appraisal and revised target (2,025 ha) b,y 41 percent, but fishpond development (102 ha) fell short of the target (160 ha) by 36 percent. Actess road construction (220 km) was only 59 percent of the appraisal target (370 km) but 100 percent of the revised target. Due to a substantial under-estimation at appraisal, access road costs at completica were 15 percent higher than tho3e at appraisal despite reduction in road length and width. The staff and farmer training comiponent was severely affected by budget cuts and only about 14 percent of the originally allotted amount of US$0.5 million was used. Local consultants ; were satisfactorily utilized for both irrigation and access road design and construction supervision. V. The economic rate of return (ERR) is estimated at 12 percent at ! completion, compared to 14 percent at appraisal. The main reason for the lower ERR at completion is the decline in world commodity prices, particularly for rice. Sustainability vi. The project is largely sustainable since the major component, rubber, is economically and financially viable and has strong institutional support. However, given the projected wnrld rice prices, the irrigated padi component is economically not viable (ERR 2 percent), even though actual yields (3.0-3.1 tons/ha) are close to appraisal estimates and cropping intensity of 180 percent higher than appraisal estimates (160 percent); the financial viability depends on whether the Government will continue to subsidize padi production. The backyard fruit orchard (dusuni) rehabilitation component is only marginally viable (ERR 10 percent), since the survival rate of trees and yields are very low due to low input and management levels. The fishpond component is unlikely to be sustainable (ERR negative) since yields are only a quarter of appraisal estimates and farmgate prices are also lower. The access road component is likely to yield sustained benefits if proper maintenance is continued by the Public Works Department. At project completion, the different im!lementing agencies became responsible for the operation and maintenance of the respective components, but the project office continues to coordinate different activities. It is also noteworthy that project invest-ient costs are likely to be fully recovered over the next 10 years through export duty and replanting and research cesses on incremental rubber production and zakat (tithe) on incremental padi pro..-ction. Findings and Lessons Learned vii. Learning from the slow implementation experience of other 2iulti- component projects in the country, the Project Director (PD) of this project was appointed before appraisal and was in place until project completion. This early appointment and continuity of the PD and continuity of other senior staff greatly facilitated timely and coordinated implementation of project components. viii. The dusun rehabilitation and fishpond components were adversely affected after the withdrawal of orchard rehabilitation and aquaculture subsidies. Farmer interest and yields continue to be very low. The inclusion of subsidized activities under a project needs more careful analysis at appraisal. iX. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which were expected at appraisal to involve benchmark surveys and subsequent periodic surveys and evaluations, were insufficient to help assess project impact on beneficiaries. More effective support is needed from the MOA, which is responsible for M&E of all multi-component agricultural development projects under the MOA. M. Host appraisal agrictiltural targets were met by completion even though project costs were only 53 percent of appraisal estimates. Clearly some facilities, including civil works, vehicles and equipment, were not essential; the need for such facilities should be more critically scrutinized at appraisal. xi. Appropriate frequency and skill mix of Bank supervision missions had a favorable impact on project implementation. _ii. Arrangements for access road maintenance were a subject of considerable controversy during project implementation. These arrangements should have been agreed upon before project commencement. PROJRCT C0HPLETION_ UPOj MIYS KEDAH VALLEYS AGRICULTURA, DpEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 2220-HA) I. BACKGROUND Introduction 1.1 In the seventies the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) had adopted the integrated agricu.tural development approach as the vehicle for promoting growth in rural agriculture. Throughout Malaysia, about 14 Integrated Agricultural Development Projects (IADP) had been initiated, at the average of one project for every state. Somi of these projects were lozally financed, while others were financed by foreign sources. 1.2 In Kedah, the concept of integrated agricultural development had been successfully tested with the implementation of the World Bank-financed Muda Irrigation Proj"ct in 1965. The completion of the Muda Irrigation Project resulted in regional disparities between the coastal Muda areas, which now enjoyed double cropping of rice, and the present project area. In 1978, the Gove;rnment commissioned a study by a team of consultants, Economic Consultants Limited (U.K.) in association with Shankland Cox Partnership (U.K) and other consultants. The study, which was known as the Kedah-Perlis Development study, was to guide the medium and long-term development plans for Kedah and the adjacent state of Perlis. 1.3 The Kedah-Perlis Development study report was submitted in 1978. Based on its recommendation, the Kedah State Economic Planning Unit (SEPU) prepared the project identification brief for the Kedah Valleys Integrated Agricultural Development Project, which was aimed at increasing agricultural production and incomes sL the smallholders outside the Muda area. Various working groups, comprising of state and federal departments, were formed to draw up proposals for the project, and they were coordinated by a Steering Committee, which represented federal and state interest. In 1981, a feasibility study on the "Intensification of Irrigated Agriculture in Kedah and Perlis," which was to become the major input for the irrigation component of the project, was completed by the Jurutera Konsultant (Malaysia) in association with MacDonald and Booker Consulting firms (U.K.). 1.4 The World Bank mission appraised the project between October 1981 and February 1982, and agreed to finance the project through Loan 2220-MA. The loan became effective on April 12, 1983, upon the appointment of the project economist, which was one of the loan conditions. Project Description 1.5 The project would benefit 20,500 smallholder families, through their involvement in one of the following project provisions: (a) Smallholder rubber development, through replanting of about 15,100 ha of old rubber, maintenance up to maturity cc about 13,200 ha of rubber replanted between 1977-82; establishment of 140 ha Rujbber Industry Smallholders Development Authority (RISDA) central nursery; construction and equipping of 240 group processing centers; and the establishment of two RISDA smokehouses. (b) Irrigated development, involving improvement of about 38 existing irrigation schemes serving 8,850 ha of padi lands. (c) Access Road Development, involving construction of 370 km of access roads leading to rubber mini-estates and dusun rehabilitation program. (d) Fruit development, by rehabilitation of about 2,000 ha of orchards of mixed fruit trees through replanting with improved varieties and better tree maintenance technology. Ce) Fisheries development, by constructing and stocking 160 ha of freshwater fish ponds; development of 50 ha of brackish water aquaculture on state ;And; the extension of training facilities and rehabilitation of ponds and hatcheries at the Inland Fisheries Training Center; and the construction of training and laboratory facilities at the Brackish Water Aquaculture Center in the State of Kedah. 1.6 In addition, the project would also construct buildings for the Department of Agriculture (DOA), Farmers Organization Authority (FOA) and Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority (FAMA), purchase equipment and vehicles, provide for staff training locally and abroad, and finance consultant services for detailed design and construction supervision of project works. Studies on aquaculture resources, fruit marketing and pLoduction, RISDA's financial resources and management, and 'dentification of future agricultural development projects for possible Bank financing would also be undertaken. 1.7 The project area was identified as all areas in Kedah outside the Muda Irrigation area. Organization and Management 1.8 The Kedah Valleys MADP organizational structure was set up or the coordinative model where the effectiveness of a Project Director (PD) lies in his ability to motivate the component staff without having full executive control over them. The implementing arms of the project were the existing line agencies who may have their own set of priorities. In the early years there were minor problems of implementation but the PD was able to overcome these problems through the formation of the implementation committee which comprised of all heads of components. The committee met every month to discuss implementation issues and to foster closer understanding among themselves. This arrangement had been quite effective in providing much needed rapport among the implementing agencies, although there were initial problems in coordinating activities, mostly due to funding constraints in - 3 - 1.9 The State Steering Committee of which the PD was a member mPt twice a year to provide policy guidance for project implementation. From time to time policy guidance was also obtained from MOA and other central agencies. The arrangement was satisfactory because the committee comprised of both the state and federal representatives and it was co-chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and the Chief Minister of Kedah. 1.10 The staffing of the Project Management Unit (PMU) was biased in favor of administrative staff while monitoring and evaluation (M&E) was underemphasised. The Deputy Director, who assisted the PD, was in charge of administrative matters while the project economist had to divide his time between M&E work and other secretarial functions. The agricultural officer post was filled only for a short duration after which the post was terminated. As a result of the economic recession, the various posts for enumerators and statisticians were never filled. -4- I IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE General 2.1 The benefit of early appointment of the PD was quite evident at the time of implementation. The PD had been actively involved in project formulation and preparation in the late seventies, and he stayed on throughout project implementation until the tenure of his office expired at the end of 1989. Because of his early appointment, it was possible for him to prepare the ground work well in advance. FeasibilLty studies and building plans were initiated and mostly prepared some two yearc in advance before the loan agreement with the Bank became effective. Series of dialogues with the farmers and landowners had also been held in advance. In most cases, the landowners had consented to irrigation works being done on tEsir land even before the completion of land acquisition procedures. 2.2 During the course of implementation, the project had suffered from some policy changes brought about as a result of changes in the national economic climate. In 1984, the National Agricultural Policy came into effect. which saw a restriction of government investment in padi areas. In 1985, there was a gradual withdrawal of agricultural subsidies which slowed down the implementation of orchard and fishpond development components. Project Finances 2.3 The economic slowdown of 1983 and 1984 had also resulted in budgetary constraints. Yearly allocations were only in the region of about 302 of the total SAR requirement. This situation improved slightly towards the later part of the project oeriod. Table 1: BUDGET ALLOCATION IN COMPARISON WITH SAR REQUIREMENT (MS Million) Budget SAR z Year Allocation a/ Estimate Budget/SAR 1982 4.302 4.284 100.0 1983 22.983 83.680 27.4 1984 31.345 97.345 32.2 1985 57.955 96.121 60.3 1986 59.100 88.017 67.1 1987 36.265 77.023 47.1 1988 35.325 - - 1989 10.566 - Total 257.841 446.470 57 .8 a/ Inclusive of RISDA. 2.4 The US$56.9 million Bank loan financed the foreign exchange component or 292 of the total project cost (US$195.1 million), which included 301 contingencies and a front-end fee of US$0.9 million. From the start of the project, Government of Malaysia (GOM) faced severe budgetary problems due to the economic slowdown. The 1983 and 1984 budget allocations were 272 and 32S respectively of SAR estimates. This led to changes in the project scope which saw major reductions in building construction including Training Centers - 5 - (agriculture and fisheries), smokehouses for rubber processing, service centers and numerous staff houses, and the abolition of aquaculture and orchard subsidies. Following a detailed review of development priorities in the State of Kedah, GOM further decided that 802 of the remaining project cost should go to the economically depressed areas of Sik and Baling. This eliminated all irrigation and most other planned activities for Langkawi Island (except tourism development which was not Bank financed). Increased irrigation and road construction was then planned for Sik and Baling. Most of this irrigation development was of dubious value and it was fortunate that it was mostly cancelled following the announcement of the new Granary concept which restricted irrigated rice growing to the major existing schemes in the country. Because of the major reduction in infrastructure components, except roads, and lack of need for contingency funds, US$12.1 million of the loan amount was cancelled in July, 1986. With further budget cuts under the Fifth Malaysia Plan (1986-1990), GOM decided to complete ongoing contract works only. This resulted in a further cancellation of US$10.3 million. The total loan reduction amounted to about 40Z of the original amount. Project expenditures totalled M$237.9 million or US$94.3 million, which is 53Z of SAR estimates. Actual expenditure is shown in Appendix 4, and is summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2: TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURE (1982 - 1989) (MS million) 1982 1983 1984 1986 1988 1987 1988 1989 Total Rubber Development - 12.16 17.21 16.84 16.68 14.06 19.48 10.81 105.00 Irrigation 1.24 4.69 4.43 7.12 11.81 3.97 2.31 2.31 37.88 Access Road 0.04 0.30 0.26 1.31 10.08 6.72 6.18 4.82 28.70 Orchard 0.13 0.12 0.81 1.24 1.24 0.26 0.19 0.72 4.60 Fisheries - 0.02 0.23 0.88 0.39 0.19 0.40 0.14 1.70 Research 0.02 - - - 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.17 Buildings 0.00 0.08 0.39 0.29 1.04 0.90 0.81 0.03 3.32 Equipment 1.03 0.17 0.09 0.07 1.48 0.86 0.38 0.03 4.08 Consultant - 1.33 2.11 2.76 1.09 10.18 0.63 0.12 18.12 Training - - - - 0.09 0.07 0.05 - 0.21 Land Acquisition 0.18 0.89 1.09 4.31 1.80 2.30 1.99 0.37 12.93 Small projects - - 0.11 1.26 1.11 0.81 0.02 0.06 3.15 Vet. Services 0.48 - - - 0.26 0.22 0.07 0.03 1.04 Administration 0.22 1.84 1.40 1.92 2.48 2.77 2.86 1.79 16.08 Front end Fee - 2.10 - - - - - 2.10 Total 3.32 23.47 27.92 38.44 48.68 4-12 36.07 21.08 237.98 2.5 Disbursement: Initial disbursements were on schedule, but when budget shortfalls took their effect, these lagged substantially. From financial year 1983 to financial year 1989, disbursements of the Bank loan totalled US$34.5 million or 612 of the appraisal estimate. The foreign loan component amounted to 36.62 of the total project cost, which is higher in comparison with SAR estimate of 29Z (see Table 3 and Appendix 4 for details). -6 - Table 3: WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOAN PROCEEDS Category SAR Estimate PCR Actual PCR/SAR US$M z US$M 2 2 Civil works 25.0 43.93 9.19 26.60 36.80 Rubber replanting 18.1 31.81 16.04 46.50 88.60 Equipment and vehicles 6.4 11.24 1.50 4.40 23.40 Consultant and training 5.0 8.78 6.93 20.10 138.60 Front End Fee 0.9 1.58 0.84 2.40 93.33 Unallocated 1.5 2.63 - - - Total 56.9 100.00 34.50 100.00 60.63 First cancellation 1986 12.10 Second cancellation 1987 10.30 2.6 Smallholder Rubber Development: This RISDA executed component proceeded without major budgetary problems and annual targets were exceeded except in 1985. Some 21,624 ha of senile rubber was replanted with improved clones (19,618 ha individual replanting and 2,006 ha mini estate), while some 9,697 ha rubber replanted between 1977-82 had also benefitted under the maintenance scheme. Some 427 ha of oil palm was planted on mostly idle low lying land during the years when the outlook for this crop was favorable. The average annual replanting rate was about 3,604 ha, and the average farm area was about 1.6 ha. The overall SAR target of 15,100 ha was exceeded by 432. Rubber maintenance was provided for some 9,697 ha, which is about 73? of the targeted 13,200 ha. There were some 19,560 farm family beneficiaries, about 13,500 benefitting from new planting and some 6,060 from rubber maintenance grants. The central RISDA nursery was completed, albeit delayed due to initial problem in deciding proper site and late provision of water and electricity. The 140 ha nursery, costing about US$1.1 million, is fully capable of supplying the best available clonal planting material for the entire State of Kedah. Some 144 group processing centers were either rehabilitated or upgraded. However, the proposed smoke houses for rubber sheet were cancelled. 2.7 Irrigation Development: The Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID), assisted by local consultants, executed all civil works for rehabilitation and improvement works, and procured the necessary pumps. Implementation went relatively smooth, despite many program changes due to initial financial constraints and later a change in policy, which eliminated non-granary area irrigation development. There were 9 bid packages ccvering an area of 6,112 ha (69Z of SAR estimate) for a total cost of about US$12.8 million, or about US$2,094/ha. One of the padi schemes, namely Jemerli scheme, covering 550 ha was converted to a drainage scheme for oil palm at a lower cost of US$305/ha. Eleven of the 23 schemes completed were smaller than 100 ha. Average development costs for small schemes (22 averaging 107 ha) was US$2,682/ha, while the larger Pekula scheme with 2,250 ha cost only - 7 - US$1,055/ha, which indicates significant benefits from economies of scale. All irrigation and drainage development by DID included the necessary access and internal scheme roads. 2.8 Access Road Development: The first two road construction contracts were not awarded until early 1985, after the necessary surveys were completed, adequate budget became available, and a consultancy study had confirmed the economic viability of the first five roads longer than 5 km. Contract costs of the first two packages (84.3 km) were considered high at US$75,200/km for roads six meters wide (which was more than three times the SAR estimate). Following a review of standards, the remaining roads were then built to a width of four meters and at the reduced average cost of US$41,600/km, which represented a significant saving without loss of development effectiveness. Unfortunately, the contractor for the final road package experienced financial problems and he could not fully complete works by the project closing date while another proposed package could not be implemented because of unresolved questions of alignment. Overall total construction was 220.5 km (602 of SAR estimates) at an average cost of US$46,840/km. The shortfall was due to changes in development priority. Construction standards were satisfactory although some bridges in Baling district were overdesigned for the limited service area in fairly isolated and hilly terrain. 2.9 Fruit Development: Through a GOM subsidy scheme, implemented by the State Department of Agriculture, smallholder orchards and fruit trees on house lots were to be rehabilitated through selective felling and replanting. By pruning and the use of fertilizer and pesticides, existing trees were to be made more productive. Excellent progress was made in 1983 and 1984 when some 660 ha (based on a certain number of trees for specific fruits) of orchards in 41 villages were covered at an average cost of US$4.0/tree planted or maintained. After the GOM subsidy was terminated in 1985, smallholders were required to purchase seedlings at half price (US$0.40/grafted seedling) with encouraging response from farmers. In 1986 and 1987, project management promoted several small group farming schemes, in which coffee was planted with banana as temporary shade, involving 50 farmers on 44 ha land. The total area planted with improved and rehabilitated fruit trees was about 2,860 ha (SAR target 2,025 ha) with more than 5,000 beneficiaries. Full subsidy was provided for about 1,602 ha and the most popular fruits were: rambutans (392), cempedak (30Z), durians (13Z), citrus (92), mangoes (5Z) and other crops (4Z). 2.10 Fisheries Development: GOM operated a subsidy scheme through the State Department of Fisheries for the construction of new ponds (US$1,215/ha) and operating inputs for the first year. This scheme for individual farmers operated until late 1986. From then on, only subsidized pond development by a group of farmers on an area of at least 1.6 ha remained available. Under the project some 364 new po0ds were constructed (227 in Sik and Baling) with an area coverage of 102.2 ha, which is about 642 of the SAR estimate. Another 531 ponds, mostly in Baling and Sik, were upgraded or rehabilitated. No brackish water ponds were developed under the project, and the proposed aquaculture schemes were not initiated. The Inland Fisheries Training Center at Jitra was rehabilitated, but the proposed Brackish Aquaculture Training Center was dropped. - a8- 2.11 Agricultural Support Services: The project was to provide DOA, FOA, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), and FAMA with substantial facilities, vehicles and equipment. Due to early budgetary constraints, most of the building construction (Agricultural Service Installations) to the estimated value of US$11.5 million, and equipment/vehicle purchases estimated to cost US$6.1 million, were cancelled. Final expenditures for new buildings and staff houses totalled only about US$1.3 million or 112 of the SAR estimate. For equipment and vehicles (exclusive of irrigation pumps) some US$1.62 million, or about 25.7Z of the SAR estimate was used. The proposed 3 Rural Agricultural Training Centers, 2 Crop Production Centers, 4 Extension Sub-Centers, and a Farm Mechanization Training Center, were cancelled. DOA was only provided with some storage and hostel facilities, while two plant nurseries were upgraded. New construction of 12 Farmer Development Centers (FDC) and the rehabilitation of 16 existing FDCs were not implemented and FOA's new buildings were restricted to 4 sub- FDCs and some staff houses. MARDI's research facility in the State was provided with a new store and a drying yard. FAMA constructed an office with farmer marketing stalls in Langkawi Island, while its proposed other facilities were cancelled. A new workshop was built and fully equipped for DID. 2.12 Consultant Services and Studies: DID and Public Works Department (PWD) utilized local consultants for both irrigation and access road design and construction supervision. DID used one firm over a six-year period (involving some retroactive financing) at a total cost of about US$2.51 million, or about 222 above the SAR estimate, while a number of road consultants cost US$1.54 million, for which no provision had been made at appraisal. However, agencies such as RISDA and DOF, did not utilize their budgeted consultancy funds (US$0.65 million). The MOA administered the project-financed studies for the identification and preparation of future agricultural projects for which US$1.95 million was provided. Of the original three identified studies, only the Fruit Marketing and Processing Study was completed. After lengthy discussions, the mandated RISDA Financial Resources and Management Study was cancelled, when Canadian development aid became available for most of the study components. The proposed Kedah State Aquaculture Study was incorporated in a larger ADB-financed Fisheries Study. Other project-financed studies were a feasibility study for the Tumboh Block in Perak State, and the preparation and design studies for a proposed Samarahan project in Sarawak. 2.13 Training: Due to recession in the early years and to conform to national budgetary policies, only 14Z of the allocation for training of staff and farmers was utilized. -9- Table 4: PHYSICAL INDICATORS OF PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENT UNIT SAR PCR PCR as Z of SAR Rubber Development Individual Replanting ha 10,450 19,618 188 Mini Estate Replanting ha 4,650 2,006 43 Oil Palm ha - 427 - Maintenance ha 13,170 9,697 74 Nursery ha 140 140 100 Padi Main season ha 8,850 6,180 70 Off season ha 5,310 4,840 91 Cropping intensity 2 160 180 - Fruits Rehabilitation ha 2,025 2,861 * 141 Fish Freshwater ha 160 102 64 Aquaculture ha 50 - - Access Road Access Road km 370 220 59 * Survival rate was 512 - 10 - III. PROJECT RESULT, BENEFIT AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION Smallholder Rubber Development 3.1 Rubber Replanting: Individual replanting of rubber went on smoothly, and in most cases, exceeded the appraisal target (except in 1985). The overall achievement exceeded the SAR target by 88 percent. Replanting by mini-estate however, was 43 percent below the SAR target. There was no mini- estate replanting in 1983, whereas in 1984 and 1985, mini-estate replanting was only half of the SAR target. 3.2 Rubber to Oilpalm Conversion: A total of 427 ha of old rubber was replanted with oil palm in 1984 and 1985, following the favorable price of the commodity in those years, but when the price dropped in 1986, demand for such conversion also declined (Table 5). Table 5: PHASING OF RUBBER REPLANTING (HA) APPRAISAL VS. PCR 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Total Individual Replanting Appraisal 1,900 2,000 2,150 2,150 2,200 - 10,450 PCR 4,020 3,099 1,183 3,860 4,305 3,151 19,618 Z PCR/SAR 211 155 55 180 196 - 188 Mini-estate Appraisal 850 900 950 950 1,000 - 4,650 PCR - 483 544 - 186 793 2,006 Z PCR/SAR - 54 57 - 19 - 43 Conversion to Oil Palm Appraisal - - - - - PCR - 82 345 - - - 427 -----------------------------------------------------------------------__----_ 3.3 Rubber Maintenance: The actual maintenance scheme for rubber replanted between 1977-1982 was only 9,697 ha, that is, 74Z of the SAR estimate. The maintenance scheme spread over a period of seven years. Haintenance ha for 1985 and 1986 was about the same probably due to the spilt- over payment of the 1985 to the following year (Table 6). Table 6: RUBBER AREA FOR TIME-SLICE FINANCING OF MAINTENANCE COSTS (HA) REPLANTED BETWEEN 1977-1982 (APPRAISAL VS. PCR) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Appraisal 13,170 11,170 9,055 7,125 5,010 - - PCR 9,697 9,473 7,339 7,345 5,593 4,363 741 Z PCR/Appraisal 74 85 81 103 112 - - 3.4 Yield and Production: Rubber matures at the age of seven. In the case of individual replanting, the first rubber tapping year would be 1989, producing an estimated 1,000 ton of rubber or latex. The estimated yield is given in Appendix 14. Total estimated rubber productiov is given in Table 7. Table 7: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RUBBER PRODUCTION ('000 TON) 1983 1987 1992 1997 1999 2002 2007 Total PCR Individual - - 9.0 27.3 30.4 32.4 25.7 397.4 Mini-Estate - - .8 2.6 2.9 3.3 2.3 38.3 Maintenance .06 3.9 13.2 15.9 14.5 9.2 .6 224.0 Total PCR .06 3.9 23.0 45.8 47.8 44.9 28.6 659.7 SAR 5.3 7.7 26.8 40.4 40.7 37.9 32.2 677.7 X PCR/SAR 1 51 86 113 117 118 89 97 3.5 Benefit to Rubber Smallholder: With an average size of holding of 1.6 ha, it is estimated that about 19,840 rubber smallholders had benefitted from the project (12,261 smallholders from individual replanting, 1,253 from mini estate, 6,060 from maintenance scheme and 266 from conversion scheme). It would be inaccurate to evaluate the benefits accrued to each farmer at this point of time because rubber takes 7 years to mature. However, a study undertaken by RISDA in 1987, covering those who had replanted rubber from 1976 to Iq85 in Kedah, could provide a rough indication of the benefits. 3.6 The survey found that the averagt annual yield of rubber was 1.542 ton/ha, which is higher than the appraisal estimate of 1.248 ton/ha (average of the three categories of smallholders: under 1.4 ha, over 1.4 ha, and under mini estate management). Nearly 70 percent of the farmers obtained more than 1.1 ton/ha. However, the study does not categorize smallholders by different replanting activities, such as individual replanting, mini estate and - 12 - maintenance. The study also does not analyse data according to the plant age. Tablc 8: YIELD OF RUBBER PER HECTARE Percent Yield (ton/ha) Smallholders Less than 1.1 26.7 1.1 - 1.5 32.1 1.5 - 2.1 30.9 Above 2.1 10.3 Total 100 Average yield 1.5 ton/ha Source: RISDA Survey in Kedah, 1987 3.7 Income: RISDA survey in 1987 revealed that the average smallholder family income was M$4,008 or M$334 per month. Taking the poverty line of M$300/month (current acceptable poverty line is M$3SO/month), the survey showed that poor families constituted slightly more than 602 of the rubber smallholders. Table 9: DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AMONG RUBBER SMALLHOLDERS, 1987 Percent Income Bracket Smallholders Less than MS200 41.3 201 - 300 18.3 301 - 500 22.1 Above 500 18.3 Total 100 Source: RISDA Survey, 1987 3.8 Rubber Prices: As predicted by the Bank in the SAR, the depressed rubber price in 1982 bounced to a high in 1983 and 1984. However, this was short lived. The price went down to its 1982 level in 1985 and has remained low except for 1988/89 (details are in Appendix 17). - 13 - Table 10: COMPARISON OF PRICE OF RUBBER BETWEEN APPRAISAL AND COMPLETION REPORT (in 1989 Prices) 1985 1990 1995 SAR 186 215 223 RSS1, US c/kg- PCR 129 111 146 SAR 192 213 218 Financial Farmgate----- ---- ---_- ---- Mc/kg PCR 209 229 338 SAR 279 328 342 Economic Farmgate------- ---- ---- - -- Mc/kg PCR 215 223 351 3.9 Economic Rate of Return: As pointed out in the appraisal report, the economic rate of return (ERR) for rubber component is price-sensitive. Low rubber price, now and in the near foreseeable future, leads to a lower rate of return. Individual replanting has an ERR of 112 at completion as compared to 161 in the SAR. Mini-estate replanting produced 92 economic rate of return as compared to 131 in the SAR. The lower rate of return was due to the high development cost of mini estate as compared to individual replanting. As for rubber maintenance, the ERR is 162, which is only one percent below the appraisal. The economic rate of return was relatively high because yield was realized earlier than any other scheme and, therefore, enjoyed the benefit of good rubber prices in the early years. Irrigation Development 3.10 Cropping Intensity: Though the cropping intensity improved dramatically over a very short period of time, the total padi production area covered by the project was only 6,112 ha, about 2,738 ha less than the targeted 8,850 ha at appraisal. The SAR estimated that the cropping intensity would be about 1602 three years after project completion with the yield of 3.2 ton per ha per season. However, the present cropping intensity, which is only one year after project completion, is 1791, with yield of 3.0 ton per ha. 3.11 Yield: A substantial difference in yield per hectare was observed between areas covered by the scheme and the non-scheme area. The yield shown in Table 11 below is in dry weight, after reducing the necessary moisture content and impurities. The Table shows the deteriorating yield of off-season cropping in the non-scheme areas after 1986. Reasons for this are not fully understood but it may be due to the deteriorating structures of the non-scheme areas where improvement is badly needed to bring back production at least to the previous level. - 14 - Table lit YIELD OF PADI (KG/HA) IN SCHEME AND NON-SCHEME AREAS Main Season Off-Season Year Scheme Non-Scheme Scheme Non-Scheme 1982 3,154 1,680 2.122 2,122 1983 2,061 1,567 2,122 2,122 1984 3,032 2,356 2,978 2,812 198: 3,960 2,610 3,390 2,363 1986 3,376 2,760 n.a. n.a. 1987 2,910 2,401 2,076 1,858 1988 2,965 2,641 3,084 1,862 Source: Crop-cutting Survey 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988 of the Department of Statistics. No yield was recorded for the off-season 1986 because of crop failure. 3.12 Production: The projected total padi production in the PCR is 33,000 tons as compared to appraisal estimate of 45,300 tons. Lower production resulted from less acreage covered as compared to appraisal. Table 12: WITH PROJECT PADI CROPPING INTENSITY, YIELD AND PRODUCTION (APPRAISAL AND PCR) Cropped Area Yield Production with project (ha) (ton/ha) (ton) Appraisal PCR Appraisal PCR* Appraisal PCR Hain season 8,850 6,112 3.2 3.0 28,300 18,336 Off-season 5,310 4,840 3.2 3.1 17,000 15,004 Total 14,160 10,952 45,300 33,340 Cropping intensity 160Z 1792 * 1992, that is three years after completion of irrigation facilities. 3.13 Price of Rice: When converted into 1989 constant prices, the price of rice in 1985 was 42Z lower than the projected SAR price. The financial farmgate price is higher than the economic price because of the artificial price paid by the government in terms of padi bonuses. The derivation of farmgate price of padi is given in Appendix 54, and is summarized in Table 13. - 15 - Table 13: DERIVATION OF ECONOMIC FARMGATE PRICE OF PADI (CONSTANT 1989 .RICE) 1985 1990 1995 SAR 517 517 508 Rice Fob Bangkok --- US$/ton PCR 298 239 301 SAR 674 674 662 Padi, financial --- ___ --- --- farmgate M$/ton PCR 635 635 635 SAR 725 725 713 Padi, economic --- --- --- --- farmgate M$/ton PCR 415 370 469 3.14 Farmer's Income: The last survey conducted on padi farmers was in 1984 by the Ministry of Agriculture. Based on three schemes surveyed, that is Bandar Baru, Pulai and Sungai Cepir. it was found that 21.8Z of the farm families lived in extreme poverty, 352 were in the poor category and only 43.1Z were considered not poor. The above categorization is based on EPU's guidelines. 1/ Table 14: HOUSEHOLD FARM INCOME 1984 Bandar Pulai Sg. Cepir Average Baru Excremb poor cM$175 21.3 9.5 34.8 21.8 Poor H$173-M$350 32.5 37.8 34.8 35.0 Not poor >N$350 46.3 52.7 30.4 43.1 Average Inccwe $160 $168.8 $134.4 $154.4 3.15 Economic Rate of RetLurn: Because of low prices, the economic rate of return at completion is low. The estimated ERR in the SAR was lOt. The PCR calculation gave an ERR of only 2.4Z (padi bonuses were not included in the production cost). Access Road 3.16 Benefit: The total length of road constructed was 220.5 km, about 40Z less than the SAR target of 370 km. The real benefits derived from access roads are hard to quantify. In evaluating the economic viability of five roads in Baling, the consultant, R. J. Nairn & Partners, had quantified the following costs and benefits: (1) Road Construction Cost (2) Annual Road Maintenance Cost 1/ See Borrower's comments at Annex 1, para. (III). - 16 - (3) Annual Vehicle Accident Costs (4) Annual Vehicle Operating Costs (5) Annual Passenger Travel Benefits (6) Annual Freight Cost Savings to in Bound Freght (7) Annual Agricultural Producer Surplus Benefits A copy of the consultant report was forwarded for the Bank perusal which finally agreed on the method used. The same benefits were assumed and converted to 1989 prices. 3.17 Costs: The actual costs of construction of all five roads, inclusive of contract cost, minor works to relocate services, survey cost, design cost and land acquisition cost, were in the region of M$7.78 million. Annual maintenance cost was assumed to be about M$5,000/km/year as estimated by the PWD as the amount required for optimum maintenance work. 3.18 Economic Rate of Return: When calculated in 1989 constant prices, the economic rate of return wao 18.92, which is higher than the earlier evaluation of 13.7Z. The improvement of the rate of return was due to reduced construction cost (for details see Appendix 56). Dusun Rehabilitation Program 3.19 Dusun Performance: A survey conducted in 1989 to assess dusun performance found that only 51Z of the seedlings distributed under the old full subsidy format survived. Survival rate among durian trees was the lowest at 32Z followed by cempedak at 47Z, while rambutan was the highest at 56Z. The survey did not find any significant difference in the survival rate for different years when the trees were distributed. The survey also found that the southern areas performed better than the northern areas. 3.20 Yield: At the time of survey, durians were not in production because it takes seven years to mature. Rambutan began to fruit at the age of three, though the yield was far below the potential yield obtained in the observation plots. In the seventh year of growth, the yield obtained was 670 fruits per tree, which is only 242 of the potential yield of 2,800 per tree obtained in the experimental plot. The same was also true for cempedak. In the seventh year, the yield obtained by farmers was 22 fruits/year/tree while the expected yield was 55 fruits/year per tree, that is, about 40Z below the potential yield. Low yield was attributed to poor crop maintenance among farmers. The survey found that although 702 of the farmers planted dusun trees surrounding or nearby their houses, only 32Z were found to have used fertilizer for their plants. The projected production by year 1995 is only 2,860 ton, 652 lower than the SAR target. - 17 - Table 15: DUSUN AREA, FRUIT YIELDS AND PRODUCTION COMPARISON BETWEEN SAR AND PCR Area Yield Rehabilitated (ha) Survived (ha) (ton/ha) Production (ton) SAR PCR SAR PCR SAR PCR SAR PCR …---------_-------------------------------------------------_-------___- 2,025 2,860 2,025 1,430 4.1 2.07 8,300 2,860* …_______-______________________________________________________________ * 1995 3.21 Fruit Prices: The farmgate prices of local fruits were obtained from FAMA's records in Alor Setar. The retailers obtained their supplies direct from farmgate, without having to go through wholesalers. According to FAMA, wholesaler market for local fruit is almost non-existent in the Northern States. The economic farmgate price of local fruit (1989 prices) was M$770/ton, which is about 30Z of the SAR economic price. The price structure of local fruits is given in Appendix 66. 3.22 Benefit to Farmers: About 4,602 farmers had benefitted from full subsidy and about 3,700 farmers from partial subsidy, making a total 8,302 farmers benefitting from dusun rehabilitation scheme. However, since the yield was small, it was not expected to have contributed very much to farmers' income. The survey in 19P9 found that the average income of orchard holders was M$279.10 per month per family. Cnly 20.5Z of them could be considered as not poor, while 55.6Z wsrp poor and 23.92 in the extreme poverty group. Farmers were also found ti be less dependent on farm income. Table 16: WWNTHLY FAMILY INCOME FOR DUSUN FARMERS Category Percent Less than $175 per m:nth 23.9 Between $175 - $350 ,.r month 55.6 Above $350 20.5 Total 100.0 Average $279.10; std error = 9.917. 3.23 Economic rate of return: The PCR economic rate of return was 102, that is, 3Z lower than the SAR estimate. The rate of return is considered favorable despite the low survival rate, yield and farmgate price. What contributed to a favorable rate of return was probably the lower development cost. The expected expenditure was M$2.3 million, whereas the actual expenditure was only M$1.8 million (orchard development only excluding administrative cost and minor works). - 18 - Fish Pond Development 3.24 Phasing of Development: The project managed to construct about 102.27 ha of freshwater ish pond, that is, about 642 of the appraisal target. The number of fishpond constructed in the beginning year was higher than the target, but when the subsidy was withdrawn, the development of fishponds declined. Table 17: PHASING OF FRESHWATER FISHPOND DEVELOPMENT (HA) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Total Appraisal 20 25 30 40 45 - 160 PCR - 32.94 13.64 13.50 18.54 9.03 14.62 102.27 PCR over Appraisal 165 55 45 46 20 - 64 3.25 Yield: An assessment of the fishponds performance was conducted in November 1989. The survey revealed that nearly 20Z of the fishponds produced yields so low that farmers did not record it at all; 33? produced only once, and it was very rarely that a pond could sustain production after the fourth harvest. The yearly production was also low. The average production was only 0.49 ton per hectare, as compared to the targeted 1.96 ton per hectare per year at appraisal. 3.26 Project Beneficiaries: There were 248 farmers involved in the project. However, since the yield was low, the average income derived from the pond was also low. The average gross income from the pond per farmer was M$528.48 per year. The contribution of the project to the total family income was minimal. As of end 1989, the survey indicated that 20.8Z of the project beneficiaries still lived under extreme poverty, while 51.4Z were considered poor. Only 27.8Z were living above the poverty line as shown in Table 18. The average income was M$337.08 per month per family. Table 18: INCOME STRUCTURE OF FISHPOND FARMERS Category Income Brackct Percent Extreme poor <$175 20.8 Poor $175 - $350 51.4 Not poor >$350 27.8 …___________________________________________ --______________________----___ Total 100 Average M$337.08 - 19 - 3.27 Prices The farmgate prices range from as low as $1.63/kg to $3.89 per kg. The highest price was for 'ikan keli' (cat fish) with the average price of $2.31/kg. The economic price for 1989 was $2.32/kg as compared to $3.51/kg at appraisal (1989 prices), which is 342 lower. 3.28 Economic Internal Rate of Returns As the price was lower than expected, and the yield was only one-quarter of that at appraisal, it follows that the economic rate of return would also be very low. The rate of return calculated at PCR was negative (-3.9Z) compared to 12? at appraisal. Overall Project ERR 3.29 Overall Project Rate of Return: The overall economic rate of return was 12? which is only 22 lower than the expected 14? in the SAR. This was probably due to lower development cost resulting from budget cuts and reduced number of vehicles, equipment and buildings. The summary of all economic rates of return is given in Table 19. Table 19: ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN - PCR COMPARED TO SAR SAR PCR Total Project 14 12 Rubber replanting - individual 16 11 Rubber replanting - mini estate 13 9 Rubber maintenance 17 16 Irrigation Scheme 10 2.4 Access Roads 13.7* 18.7 Dusun Rehabilitation 13 10 Fishpond 12 -4 * Economic evaluation of 5 roads in Baling, R. J. Nairn & Partners, 1984. Cost Recovery 3.30 Sources of cost recovery would be the collection of zakat, in case of padi, and the collection of cess and export duty for rubber. Since most padi farmers are Muslim, zakat is obligatory for them amounting to 10? of gross output. Excluding padi bonus, the collection of zakat based on incremental yield would be about M$0.56 million in 1990. 3.31 As for rubber, the replanting cess levied is 10 sen/kg, research cess is 4 sen/kg and export duty varies with the price of export rubber FOB. It was calc!ilated that the export duty would be 24.5 sen/kg in 1988, 13.2 sen per kg in 1989 and 12.2 sen/kg in 1990. Total cost recovery from rubber would be in the region of M$3.6 million in 1990 (1989 prices). The peak collection years would be between 1996 and 1999 when the collection amounts to M$30 million per year, and after that, as rubber yield declines, would drop to M$20 million from the year 2000. The cumulative amount collected would be about H$235 million by the year 2001, which is sufficient to recover all project costs. - 20 - Other Agricultural Service Activities 3.32 Acid Sulfate Soil in Bat, Merbok: Over nearly 20 years, the acid sulfate ridden area in Ban Merbok, covering nearly 200 ha, was left idle because no suitable crop had been found for the area. A permanent observation center was set up in the area to try out several crops. Using mounting system and with heavy application of lime, the soil could be washed off of its acidity and crops such as guava and starfruit were found tO be grown quite satisfactorily in the area. Further research is required to tame the soil for better production. 3.33 Soil Survey: The Soil division of the Agriculture Department completed semi-detailed soil survey for the state of Kedah, covering 244,716.81 ha of land. This task financed by the project has been completed and is now at the stage of mapping, for easy reference in future agricultural projects. 3.34 Research Activities: Also financed by the project were some research activities by MARDI. The research projects include the suitability of pineapple in Bandar Baru, suitability of cocoa as an alternative crop in Langkawi, and also a few trials in Ban Merbok acid sulfate area. Research on pineapple in Bandar Baru had been completed with the conclusion that pineapple is suitable in Bandar Baru for fresh consumption. At the price of 19 sen/fruit, the expected gross income would be M$5,000 per ha and net income of M$837 per ha. As for Langkawi, however, the research concluded that cocoa was not suitable because of severe drought in certain months of the year which prevents proper pod formation. 3.35 Farmers Organization Authority: Two FDCs and two sub-FDCs were constructed for the FOA. As an economic entity, the sub-FDC is considered not viable because of small amount of business turnover. However, as a political entity, the existence of sub-FDC and FDC is considered vital in getting farmers organized and make the government's presence felt. The importance of FOA became evident after the completion of the project because it has the capacity of mobilizing the farmers into using project facilities more efficiently. It has already organized some group farming in the irrigation scheme with encouraging result. 3.36 Marketing Authority (FAMA): Marketing of rubber and padi does not require the involvement of FAMA. However, its role would be crucial in the marketing of fruits and fresh water fish once the components are in production. In several strategic places, FAMA had organized farmers market as an alternative outlet for small farmers to market their produce. FAMA had benefitted from the project through the purchase of three 5-ton trucks. - 21 - IV. PERFORMANCE OF THE BORROWER, THE BANK AND LESSONS LEARNT Performance of the Borrower 4.1 Preparation of ground work by the project office should be considered excellent. Land acquisition, project design and obtaining farmers' consent were done ahead of time. This was made possible because the PD was a state government officer who had excellent access to the state officials and politicians. He was also well supported by the federal agencies. The only hinderance to the project progress was some changes to the national policies, in response to the economic situation. Those changes were unavoidable. 4.2 Data collection was lacking on the side of the borrower. Comparison with other similar projects would be improper because while other projects enjoyed the services of consultants in data collection and monitoring, the Kedah Valleys project was asked to make do with the existing staff. 4.3 Given the circumstances under which it operated, it should be said that the project had performed up to expectation. Most contract works were completed in time, except for one contract package of access road which was delayed for nearly two years. Performance of the Bank 4.4 The Bank supervision mission visited the pro,ect twice a year. The frequency of visit is considered adequate in providing much required guidance and spacious enough to allow freedom in proje,ct implementation. However, the project feels that the mission should stay longer in every visit they make so as to allow sufficient time for project members to interact with the mission. 4.5 The mission's readiness in accepting changes to the project scope is also worth mentioning. In most cases changes were unavoidable in response to the economic situation and the directives from the Steering Committee. During their regular visits, those changes were discussed and in most cases agreed upon by the Bank. 4.6 The mission's promptness in providing written comments in every wrap- up meeting held with the Treasury is very much appreciated. The project, however, feels that after the wrap-up meeting the mission should maintain continuous communication with the central agencies, to ensure that their views are being acted upon. Lessons Learnt 4.7 Cost Revision: Revision of the total project cost should have been carried out every year, or at closer interval so that unnecessary provisions - 22 such as physical contingencies and expected price increases could be deleted early. Early cancellation of the loan amount could have saved unnecessary commitment charges. To avoid significant scaling down of proj6ct components during implementation in time of austerity, projects should not include luxury facilities and equipment, while civil works must be restricted to a minimum. 4.8 Proiect Sustainabilitys Project sustainability is a crucial subject which every agency involved should be made well aware of, even before the commencement of the project. Agencies must commit themselves to the need for maintaining the project once it is handed over to them. The arrangement for the project maintenance should be agreed upon before the project start, and not at the end of the project. This is especially so for irrigation projects and access roads. 4.9 Proiect Time Period: For agricultural projects, a five-year period is considered insufficient to produce a visible or tangible result. Taking into consideration the maturity period of crops involved, the report is of the view that the project should be extended to at least 10 years. 4.10 Appraisal Reportz The appraisal report was comprehensive enough, and it became a guiding document all through the implementation period. However, it appears that the appraisal estimate of crop yield and prices was on the high side. It also appears that the categorization of farmers into models A, B, C, and D was a little unrealistic, and the comparison on the same basis was not possible at the time of project completion. - 23 - APPEND ICES - 25 - F,~~~~~~I C'4 i: :g L; .2 ;@1'.i., D t :.: e . . i n rt;. i I;z q. tr -: b. J1 ' _7-_,_ p E. n4 I. -iC . . r. _ E 1'.E_ - '?E.C' <-6~- 'fLi Vi JiL'1 ( (hectare) 4 -t~~ I J.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 OT' RI, i d .; ... _ . _ .: i= .r i . _ i - ta F',syt.r.L 'n V. ;t ;:. i -, c: ai . . .: . b , .: L ' i , i i- . - i -~~~ ~~CU n, z;i: -,' Ci 6 -'r i ; J. i o uL - U ~~~Y ield of FPu6L, sy A,e rndViviLa 14 Tota'A. Y A;Leld of RubLr at r t..iir; Ye, ar Individual Replanting ('000 Ton') A-18 - 26 - 15 Ecunocnic Benefit of Rubbur, Indi-/idual Replanting (M$ million, IT39 Frics) A- 16 Ecanomic Rate of Return, :ndividual Replanting of RubLer (1986 Constant Prices, A-,1 17 Derivati.n of Economic Priza j+ Rubber aL FarinQate (Conatand 17S9 Frice: A-22 18 Replanting with Rubber by Individti.al Farmeri aind as Simultaneous Replanting (TSS) A-24 17 Derivation OY E:unomic Z,tite.l Cost Mini EitAte Rubber Replanting (M$ nillion, 1969 Constant Prices) A-7 20 A5e c;f Replanted Rubber at Given Y'ear Mini Estat; (hectare) A-28 21 Aceage- oaf Rubber Entitled for Residual Replanting GranL Mini Estt;' RtpIanting (hat A--9 22 Residuiail Replanting Gr^.t PyAblla& After PrOJect Pariod Mini Estate Replarning (M$ million, 1969 p,-iaes. A-3O 23: Financial and E:or.omic Cost of Production Per Hectare for Mini Eztate Replanting (M$/ha, 1989 Prices) A-31 24 Economic cost of Production of Replarited Rubber- at Given Year Mini Estate (M$ million, 1989 constant prices" A- 32 25 Yield of Rubtei- Mini Estate Raplanting A-33 26 Economic Benefit of RULbe:-, Mini Estate Replanting (M$ million, 1989 prices) A-34 Z7 Economic Rate of Return .(1989 Constant Prices) Mini Estate Rfeplaniting of Rubber A-35 28 Replanting with Rubber as Mini Estate (TSB: A-76 29 Derivation of Economic Capital Ccst of Rubber Maintenance For Rubber Rep'.anted Butween 1977 to 1982 (M$m, 1989 constant prices) A-39 30 Distribution a-; Rubber by Age Under Maintenance Program for Rubber Replanted Betweern 1977 - 1982 (hectare) A-40 - 27 - *- 1Eccjnum ic Cc_;t s.f Prod &c:ti,:)r, UJner N1air'nLnanc5 u:g f RoLL:ear Replanted L':W@e?r 1977 - 1982 (t$ mnillion, at '989 ;r.ilial and Econonuii._ C05t of Productionr oF Oil Palmn Per Hectare (M$,ha, 1989 Constant Prices) A-A4? --8 Cost of Production of Oil Palm Trees at Given Year Individual Replanting (M$V000) 39 Yield of Replanted Oil Palm dt Given Year By Age ('000 Ton) A-52 40 Econornic Benefit cf Oil Palrn (1989 Constant Prices) A-53 41 Econuinic Rate Of Return (1989 Constant Prices) Individual Replanting of Oil Palm A-54 42 Derivation of Economic Far;ngate Prices of Paln: Oil Fres! Fruit Bunches (M$/L, at 1989 Pt-ices) A-55 43 Replanting With Oil Palm By Individual Farmert, (M$/'hd) A-57 44 Irrigation Development Financial Capital Cost Brecikdown (Current Prices) (M$ millionr) A-60 4S Irrigation Develcpmnent Derivation of Financial Capital Cost (Constant Prices 1989) (M$ million) A-61 - 28- V'. lI- .g+ti .ii D::vel cyt.;. ol. Cuoi'c (193'9 Cuij an-t FP'i- _:?c .e-& Z .~~ 7 .--L d i C d L-O C 'ti O r. L;1 1 d -L;p.'X; I0rriOf Duyt/1 lo,ij.rent ,e_- '8 bCost of -'roJuctior. Li Pz4di Fri-t Hectare Per 5, (1989 Pr-icc) ,O,--6: 49 E,_unnomic Cost of Opet-;tion arnJ intan; W (112$ .i.lllun, 17EI? Con3t:>-_nn ie) A-' '5f:0 I nt icreanrLal Pnoduclion Cust 51 Tota' Incr --m.enta' Ba,nefit Ir,-i 3tti.n Dtev&.oprment (1789 Constant FricEs) A-6 7 ¶3 E_zonomiz _ 'a tj-;f R&tLUrn ('989 . 'onstar'. .:- 1c.?5) Inter.i-fica'-irn oi I.-i igtOo A.- icult. r-e (E;) 19C9 C;r,Gta-nt Pr-ic es! A-, 65 7DEconomic Farmga,,ta Price of Luc-Al FIruit .U1'5/Lg9 at 173,7 Pr i es) 32 66 Acreage cof Fruitinyg RanMbutArn Trees (Ha, At-ci '7 At.c-eage of Fr-uiting Durian Traez (1Ha) 68 a Acczeage of F,-uitin, C.;n;pecldz Trees (hci' .- 6. Acreage of Fruiti,i Oth,er Trees_ (ha) A-67 Ec inomic Cost of Production of Frui in6 Trees (M$'OO0, at 1989 CJnbtaaot Pric...e) A -.3 71 E:.inutiTJ Rat& of Rotum-, (M1$ wiJ ''ion, at 1989 Conitant -t i Deu) Lusun RthAbilit.t.;L> . Proqrain A- E7 72 Deri'vaticn of Fn.CnaiaI Cpital Cost (CLCrceriL P,-ices) Fi si For-n, Corstructon (M$ million) 9 7.3 Derivcition of FirianciL Cdpital Cost (Constant Prices 1989) Fish Por,i Con.Jtructiorn (M$ inil'ion) A-l 74 Ecznouin _ Capitc'l OosL Fish Po,nd Construction (U1$m, ;?89 cc.iilarit pricea) A-92 75 P-ogress of Fish Pond Construction (ha A-9 76 Yield Producing Pond By Year of Construction (Hactare) A-94 77 Derivation of Economic Farmgate Price of Fish (M$/kg) A-95 7S E_onomic Benefit Fresh Water Fish Pond Construction (M$m, 1989 Prices, A-96 79 Incremental Cost of Production Fisheries Component A-97 8s Cost of Production Per Rectare Fishi Pond Dev2lopinent (M$m, 19S9 prices) A-98 - 30 _ 61 Cc;t oF Maintenance cf FreshwataJl F..-3h Fond Fi5heries Component A-99 52 ELononini. Rate of Return (1989 Constait Pr-ices) Fish Pond Development (M$'000, at 1969 Constant Prices) A-10 83 Dcr-ivation of Overall Project Economic Capital Cost A- 101 84 Economic Rate of Return For- Overall Project Integrated Agricultu-e Development Project A-102 85 Total Incremental Yield of Rutler (ton) A-104 8b E;iporL Duty of Natural Rubber (w.e.f 18th April 1965) A-IOS 87 Export Duty of Natural Rubber By Year M Can/kg (1989 Constant Pr-ices) A-106 66 Expected Cost Recoeery Excluding Padi Bonus (M$ million) A-107 89 Expected Cost Recovery (1$ million) Ai-108 4, ~..... - .-w - 31 - Appendix 1 Page 1 of 2 STATISTICAL ANNEX PhYSICAL INDICATORS OF PROJECT ACCONPLISHMENT BUILDINGS UNIT SAR PCR PCR AS of ESTIMATE ACTUAL SAR % Buildings PD Office 1 0 Quarters class D 1 0 - DID Office 8 1 12.50 Quarters class E 3 - w # 8 * # 17 :1 # 35 Workshop 1 1 100 RISDA Offi ce # 1 1 100 Quarters class F 1 1 100 U 6 6 100 I # 20 20 100 GPC * 240 144 60 Smokehouses # 2 0 DOA Offices # 6 0 - Store/shed/garar # 21 6 28.57 Quarters class 1 # 6 1 16.66 r # 21 1 4.76 G # 10 0 - 11 # 23 6 26.08 Workshop 1 0 - Mobile office # 33 0 Drying floor U 1 0 - RATC U 4 1 25 FOA FDC # 16 2 12.50 Sub-FDC # 12 2 16.66 Quarters class E U 6 1 16.66 F U 51 2 3.92 11 U 12 0 - Workshop U 1 0 Store - - 5 A-1 - 32 - Appendix I Page 2 of 2 STATISTICAL ANNEX PHYSICAL INDICATORS 0F PROJECT ACCOMPLISUNENT BUILDINGS UNIT SAR PCR PCR AS of ESTIMATE ACTUAL SAR % FANA Quarters class E 1 0 Drying floor 1 0 Agric.Market Center 1 1 100 Stall for AMC # 20 0 - MARDI Drying floor 6 1 16.66 DOF Office 1 0 - Quarters class D $ 1 0 2 0 1 0 q # 6 0 11 # 4 0 1* #6 0 llatchery # 1 1 100 Lab.pond 1 1 100 Aquaculture training # 2 0 A-2 - 33 - Appendix 2 PIIYSICAL INDICATORS 0F PROJECT Page 1 of 2 ACCOMPLISHNENT EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES UNIT SAR PCR PCR AS of ESTIMATE ACTUAL SAR % …___ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Equipment and Vehicles ______________________ PD Car * 1 2 200 Utility vehicle 1 4 400 Combi I 0 - DID Car # 1 0 - Utility vehicle 7 3 42.85 Truck 5-ton 1 0 - Truck w/crane # 2 0 - Tractor 35 IIP 1 0 - Power tiller # 2 0 - Water pump (portable) # 30 29 96.66 Pump 10 cusel 30 46 153.33 Current meter # 4 2 50 Plan printing # 1 1 100 Photostat 1 1 100 Stenciling machine # 1 0 - Crane 3 ton # 1 - RISDA Utility vehicle 7 22 6 27.3 Truck 5-ton # 7 4 57.14 Tractor 60 IIP # 9 - Power tiller # 3 - Combi 11 Minibus 1 - Roller 5-ton * 2 - Motor grader # 3 - Water pump (portable) # 355 Weighing flatform # 340 Knapsack sprayer * 670 Power sprayer # 21 Chain saw 638 Bush cutter # 496 DOF Utility vehicle # 3 0 Truck 3-ton # 2 0 Combi # 2 0 Water pump (portable) # 1 - A-3 - 34 - Appendix 2 Page 2 of 2 PUYSICAL INDICATORS OF PROJRCT ACCOMPLISIIMENT EQUIPIENT & VEUICLES UNIT SAR PCR PCR AS of ESTIMATE ACTUAL SAR X Generator 2 - Submersible pump 2 - Refrigerator # 4 - FOA Car 1 0 Utility vehicle * 2 0 Tractor 780 - 6 - DOA Utility vehicle $ 21 8 38.09 Truck 5-ton 4 3 75.00 Truck 35-lIP 6 - - Truck 65-IIP 3 - - Trailer 3-ton # 5 - - Minibus 4 - _ Bus 44-seater 1 - - Water pump (portable) # 15 - - Power sprayer # 75 - - Chain saw 66 - - Pedestrian tractor # 3 - - MARDI Utility vehicles $ 2 3 150 Truck 3-ton $ 2 - - Water pump (portable) * 12 - - Knapsack sprayer 17 - - Motor blower 9 - - Pedestrian tractor # 6 6 100 FAMA Utility vehicle 1 - Truck 3-ton 1 - Truck 5.5 ton # - 3 PWD Utility vehicles - 3 A-4 - 35 - Appendix 3 PROJECT COST COMPARISON BETWEEN SAR ESTIMATE AND ACTUAL PCR _______________________________ COMPONENT SAR PCR (1) PCR/SAR Estimate Actual (X) (US$ million) Rubber development 61.3 41.67 67.98 Irrigation development 22.9 15.04 65.68 Access roads 9.0 11.39 126 Dusun rehabilitation 1.0 1.80 180 Fishponds/aquaculture scheme 1.5 0.68 45.34 Research 0.4 0.063 15.7 Agric. service installation 11.8 1.32 11.19 Equipment and vehicles 6.3 1.62 25.72 Consultant & studies 4.8 7.20 150 Training 0.5 0.07 14 Land acquisition 8.0 5.13 64.13 Engineering & supervision 2.5 - - Incremental admin. costs 7.4 5.99 80.95 Small scale project - 1.25 - Veterinary services - 0.41 - Base Cost 137.4 93.64 68.2 Physical contingencies 10.7 Expected price increases 46.1 - Total Project Cost 194.2 93.64 48.2 Front-end-fee 0.9 .83 100 Total Financing 195.1 94.47 48.4 (1) Conversion rate 1 US$ = M$2.52(average) (2) PCR - 1982 to 1989 A-5 - 36 - KEDAH VALLEYS INTEGRATED AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ACTUAL EXPENDITURE 1982 - 1989 Appendix 4 Page 1 of 2 1982 t 1983 : 1984 1985 --- -- a---------- ------ ----- ---- - :Rubber Developunt . maintenance 0.00 6,454,289.18 6,066,190.28 4,36.3,807.82 Replanting rubber 0.00 0 5,553,564.45 7,542,778.19 6,430,455.54 Replanting oil pall : 0.00 1 0.00 00.00 ° 0.00 Nini estate - rubber : O.O0 0.00 ° 2,614,403.77 1 3,664,185.21 mini estate - oil palm: 0.00 0.00 t 439,426.63 1,112,907.80 :Group Processing Center 0 0.00 141,270.91 0 543,562.90 110,722.50 Nursery , 0.00 1 0.00 | 0.00 ' 156,473.41 :Irrigation Development 1 1,244,000.00 4,658,839.00 1 3,859,122.00 t 4,845,668.00 Additional work a0.00 32,250.00 571,748.13 : 2,272,399.22 a . . . . :Access Road 0.00 1 0.00 | 0.00 , 968,000.00 Additional work t 39,226.90 1 289,275.S7 247,361.96 1 338,295.1S :Orchard Development 1 133,339.30 t 109,799.74 377,285.00 t 334,409.10 Additional vork 0 0.00 12,900.00 ' 228,699.25 908,959.69 :Freshwater Aquaculture a 0.00 1 19,350.00 1 228,699.25 | 221,824.00 Additional work t 0.00 : 0.00 t 0.00 110,912.00 :Research t 20,620.15 : 0.00 | 0.00 : 0.00 :Buildings 9,000.00 56,300.00 1 394,775.00 292,425.66 lEquipsent 6 Vehicles 1 1,033,913.09 | 168,820.00 96,615.40 , 70,897.60 :Consultant & Studies 0.00 1 1,326,027.74 2,112,459.89 1 2,758,537.69 :Training 0 0.00 1 0.00 : 0.00 0 0.00 ,Land Acquisition 1 176,714.48 887,030.00 1,091,662.78 ' 4,306,843.57 ISeall Scale Project , 0.00 ' 0.00 1 114,349.63 1 1,252,627.50 IVeterinary Services 456,942.70 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 llncre. Administrative Cost 222,285.74 1,639,228.18 1,401,717.73 1,917,005.81 lfront-end-fees , 0.00 2,100,000.00 0.00 1 0.00 a - - ------------- a-------------- --------------- ....- -- a .-. I .a . . .---.-.- :TOTAL (M$) 1 3,336,042.36 :23,448,944.77 27,930,857.79 36,437,357.27: 'Exchange Rate t 2.30: 2.34 t 2.42 ' 2.43 -- - - - -- - - -a-- - - -- - - - - - - a-- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - t a . , a a . a.. . . :TOTAL (US$) 1 1,450,453.20 10,020,916.57 11,541,676.77 14,994,797.23: A-6 - - -- -- - - 37 - KEDAH VALLEYS INTEGRATED AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Appendix 4 ACTUAL EXPENDITURE 1982 - 1989 Page 2 of 2 1986 1987 1988 1989 (1) !TOTAL PROJECT COST: IRubber Development - * * : - Maintenance 4,312,648.39 t 3,261,506.76 2,448,144.09 1 402,433.42 27,309,019.94 Replanting rubber 0 9,639,751.28 0 8,621,717.41 14,533,938.18 8,830,000.00 : 61,152,205.05 Replanting oil palm 1 785,693.47 1,135,759.84 1 1,113,068.13 203,072.51 | 3,237,593.95 Mini estate - rubber 0.00 492,606.98 129,226.82 1 810,000.00 : 7,710,422.78 Rini estate - oil pala' 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1,552,334.43 Group Processing Center 442,508.02 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1,238,064.33 :Nursery 501,682.36 : 536,975.83 : 1,241,026.56 360,234.40 : 2,796,392.56 :lrrigation Development 9,747,215.00 1 3,645,235.00 2,229,430.00 2,101,907.50 32,331,416.50 Additional vork 2,066,085.19 329,266.82 : 81,930.10 229,194.00 : 5,582,873.46 a a I ~ ~~~~~ I I !Access Road 9,645,328.11 5,233,465.13 1 5,679,003.96 4,501,269.90 1 26,027,067.10 Additional work 436,807.26 489,245.07 : 503,922.99 315,208.42. : 2,659,343.32 I I I I~~~~~~1 It :Orchard Development : 417,024.55 1 121,299.07 : 161,921.37 624,488.52 2,279,566.65 Additional work 826,434.08 : 131,706.73 32,772.07 91,677.60 : 2,233,149.42 treshwater Aquaculture 259,556.74 1 131,706.73 370,335.00 1 47,570.98 : 1,279,042.70 Additional work 129,778.00 65,853.37 1 32,772.04 91,677.60 : 430,993.01 :Research 49,480.52 35,719 02 18,628.60 35,641.48 1 160,089.77 :8uildings 1,036,592.88 1 903,622.47 1 608,003.96 1 34,315.73 3,335,035.70 Equipoent 6 Vehicles 1 1,458,424.00 854,620.66 1 376,642.96 1 32,000.00 : 4,091,933.71 :Consultant & Studies : 1,094,222.70 10,181,200.52 531,325.19 : 117,264.95 1 18,121,038.68 'Training 95,655.28 70,353.45 : 5,578.20 0.00 : 171,586.93 :Land Acquisition j 1,802,502.13 j 2,304,162.39 i 1,990,073.16 j 368,867.16 j 12,927,855.67 :Small Scale Project J 1,109,873.00 : 613,829.00 1 16,386.02 45,838.80 1 3,152,903.95 :Veterinary Services 255,306.07 219,563.95 1 73,179.60 : 34,219.20 1 1,039,211.52 :Incre. Administrative Cost : 2,475,241.10 ' 2,772,388.69 : 2,855,563.60 : 1,786,181.05 : 15,069,611.90 :Front-end-Pees , O.03 0.00 : 0.00 0.00 2,100,000.00: :TOTAL (M$) : 48,587,810.13 : 42,151,804.89 35,032,872.60 21,063,063.22 , 237,988,753.03 I-- - - - - - - - - - - ---- ---- ---- ---- ------- ------ ---------------.. -- -- -- - ------------------............ . . ..,..I................... lExchange Rate : 2.60 2.49 2.72 : 2.70 1 2.52 -----------I--------------- ,--------------- ,--------------- - --------------- ------------------' :TOTAL (US$) :18,687,619.28 :16,928,435.70 :12,879,732.57: 7,801,134.53 , 94,304,765.85 (1) Individual replanting and mini estate are estimates A-7 - 38 - Appendix 5 LOAN 2220-MA: KEDAII VALLEYS IADP PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT CONVERSION FACTOR TO 1989 CONSTANT PRICES Year Using MUV Index(l)' Using CPI Index(2) 1980 1.32 t 1.35 1981 1.31 1.23 1982 ' 1.33 1.17 .983 t 1.37 1.12 1984 t 1.39 1.08 - ____ -- t 1985 ' 1.38 1.08 1986 ' 1.17 1.07 --------------------------t-------------------- 1987 ' 1.07 1.06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _ 1988 1.00 1.03 - - - - - - - I __________-_________ 1989 : 1.00 1.00 1990 : 0.95 0.95 1995 ' 0.91 ' 0.91 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ 2000 0.63 0.63 (1) MUV - Manufacturing Unit Value Index Source - World Bank, International Economic Department, January 18, 1990. (2) CPI - Consumer Price Index. Source - Department of Statistics, Malaysia. 1989 - based on preliminary CPI figure 1990 - 2000 - estimates. A-8 _ 39 - vD ~ ~~~~~~~~~ I IIII I II i|m.' ~ ON I v 11 IeI I I I I I I I s * I usO%:Gs° I-@i I- - - ----- ---- - I I _ _ o@II *I-ii- If ,, I o _ I IIUlQWWQ0 (' I _I cF I(D 1-W..uO0 I .DI -S 101v"es sY- I_ I ea_ !a. I I ,~~~~~~~ I ^s11iIN I I4O1111111111 iO_ I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I : I I I I I I I | I L 1- ---- --------______--------------- _ fi- ~I0CI O Ii IY I IO^ I NI I ID 31I|5S O (I Is fi^ ^I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III II *! 1,^, 1 a_ J ~I_I , I f I l 1-00vM:M I- ir,I~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I 7~~~~~~~~~~I~ II~~~~~~~~~- 10DI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ir@ I M I I----------- - ----- I II Io 10^ 101 I IC I I Im lI i i i i i i i i i i t I cI I II- III 1I_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ I I I-% M- tN N I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 - Appendix 7 DERIVATION OF ECONOMIC CAPITAL COST INDIVIDUAL RUBBER REPLANTING (1989 PRICES) (M$ MILLION) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 -------------------------------------------------------------------__ Current expenditure 5.55 7.54 6.43 9.64 8.62 14.53 8.83 1989 prices 6.22 8.14 6.94 10.31 9.13 14.97 8.83 Economic price 5.66 7.41 6.32 9.38 8.31 13.62 8.03 Source RISDA. Expenditure until March 1989 was $2.89 million. The $8.83 million was estimated based on residual replanting grant payable for the year. Conversion factor = 0.91, Source: M.D. Veitch, 1986. * in - 41 - Appendix 8 RUDDER REPLANTING GRANT SCIIEDULE OF PAYMENT ------------------------------------------- INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING t t INSTALMENT < 4 IIA > 41IA AVERAGE t _____________________ First 1,581.48 1,235.53 1,408.50 Second 889.58 494.21 691.90 Third 617.76 494.21 555.99 Fourth 617.76 494.21 555.99 Fifth 617.76 370.66 494.21 Sixth 617.76 370.66 494.21 Seventh 494.21 247.10 370.66 Total 5,436.31 3,706.58 4,571.46 Source: RISDA, Alor Setar. A-ll - 42 - Appendix 9 ACREAGE OF RUDDER ENTITLED FOR RESIDUAL REPLANTING GRANT INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING (IIA) …-- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :AGE OF RUDDER 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 I 2 3,151 0 3 4,305 3,151 4 3,860 4,305 3,151 5 1,183 3,860 4,305 3,151 6 3,099 1,183 3,860 4,305 3,151 : : 7 3,099 1,183 3,860 4,305 3,151 A-12 - 43 - Appendix 10 RESIDUAL REPLANTING GRANT PAYABLE AFTER PROJECT PERIOD INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING (M$ million, 1989 prices) t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :AGE OF RUBBER 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 * 1 2 2.18 3 2.39 1.75 4 2.15 2.39 1.75 5 0.58 1.91 2.13 1.56 6 1.53 0.58 1.91 2.13 1.56 7 1.15 0.44 1.43 1.60 1.17 TOTAL 8.83 7.78 6.23 5.12 3.16 1.17 Economic Cost 8.03 7.08 5.67 4.66 2.88 1.06 Conversion factor to economic cost = 0.91. Source M.D. Veitch, 1986. Estimate from replanting grant schedule of payment. A-13 - 44 - Appendix 11 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC PRODUCTION COSTS OF INDTVIDUAL REPLANTING OF RUBBER (M$/ha 1989 PRICES) AGRICULTURAL INPUTS LABOR TOTAL YEAR _ _ -------------------- FINANCIAL ECONOMIC FINANCIAL ECONOMIC FINANCIAL ECONOMIC ----------------------------------------------------------__---------- 7 335.00 305.00 560.00 493.00 895.00 798.00 8 315.00 287.00 715.00 629.00 1,030.00 916.00 9 315.00 287.00 790.00 695.00 1,105.00 982.00 10 315.00 287.00 830.00 730.00 1,145.00 1,017.00 11 315.00 287.00 830.00 730.00 1,145.00 1,017.00 12 315.00 287.00 830.00 730.00 1,145.00 1,017.00 13 280.00 255.00 800.00 704.00 1,080.00 959.00 14 280.00 255.00 800.00 704.00 1,080.00 959.00 15 280.00 255.00 780.00 686.00 1,060.00 941.00 16 280.00 255.00 780.00 686.00 1,060.00 941.00 17 280.00 255.00 730.00 642.00 1,010.00 941.00 18 365.00 332.00 730.00 642.00 1,095.00 974.00 19 365.00 332.00 730.00 642.00 1,095.00 974.00 20 365.00 332.00 730.00 642.00 1,095.00 974.00 21 330.00 300.00 730.00 642.00 1,060.00 942.00 22 330.00 300.00 730.00 642.00 1,060.00 942.00 23 125.00 114.00 670.00 590.00 795.00 704.00 24 125.00 114.00 670.00 590.00 795.00 704.00 25 120.00 109.00 635.00 559.00 755.00 668.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on RISDA FARM Budget. Production cost from year 1 to year 6 had been incorporated into replanting grant. A-14 - 45 - Appendix 12 Page 1 of 2 ECONOMIC COST OF PRODUCTION OF RUBDER AT GIVEN YEAR INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING (Constant 1989 Prices) ($ Millicn) AGE 1989 1990 1991 : 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 2: -. a _ i _ _ _ _ * _ , _ a - a _ 2 4 : - : - : - : - : _ : _ : _ : _ : * 4 - a - a - a - a - _ - _ a - a a 7 3.2 2.4 0.9 3.1 3.4 2.6 - - - a - a 8:- a 3.7 2.9 : 1.0 t 3.6 4.0 : 2.9 ' - : - - a 9 : - a - 4.0 3.0 1 1.1 3.8 ' 4.2 3.0 : - : - 10 a a a a 4.1 : 3.2 1.2 4.0 : 4.4 : 3.2 1 - a 11 : - : - : - a - : 4.1 3.2 1.2 1 4.0 : 4.4 1 3.2 * 12 1 - ' - : - : - 1 1 4.1 3.2 1 1.2 1 4.0 1 4.4 * 13 a - - a - - a - ; 3.9 1 3.0 1.1 1 3.8 a 14 1 - '- a - a a a - a - 3.'3. 11' 14 ~~~~~~ a- aa13.9 13.0 :1.1 15 - a - ' - - - a - ' a - .. 8 3.0: 16 a a - t a a - a - a - 'a. 816 1 - - a a a - a a a a 1 3.8 a 18 - - t . 1 ___ :20 _ _ ____ _ ,__ 217 ' - a _ - , a - , - : - a - . - , - ta :22 - _ * 18 1 - : - 1 - : - a - a - a - , - t - a a 19 1 - - a - a a a _ _ - _ - _ * _ - _ a '235 1 - : - 1-- - I - - ! - - - - :24- - - ----- -a a :25:- - - 1 : 'TOTAL: 3.2 : 6.1 1 7.8 1 11.2 t 15.4 1 18.9 : 19.4 1 19.5 19.5 19.3 Production cost for year 1 to year 6 had been incorporated in the replanting grant. L A- 15 - 46 - Appendix 12 Page 2 of 2 ECONOMIC COST OF PRODUCTION OF RUBBER AT GIVEN YEAR INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING (Constant 1989 Prices) ($ Million) AGE 1999 2000 2001 2002 ' 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 :~~~~ 1 a - - O a - - 2 - I- :- :- : - - - '- t 6- - t - : - : - t - : - : - : 5 0 - - a a - a - a - 0 - a - - 68 - :- - - , - 0- 0 - :- * - 9 5 - ' - - 0~~~- - - - t - - - :8 1 : - : - O - - ' - t - ' - - t - a 11 : _ t - : - ' - - t - - a :10 4. 3. - ; - t -_ - a- a- a - - ,i '4 t 3. 4. , a. - t - a - t - 'a :1:32 t 1. -. t 4. 3. ta - a t - - '6 3.0 t 1.1 t 3.7 a -. : 3.-0 - t - a - '14 t 3.8 4.1 . 3.0 t a 2 . - : - : - a 15 . . 1.1 t 3.7 : 4.0 0 3.0 - : - t 17: 3.8 - ,4. 3.0: 1.1 0 3.78 4.02 3.0 - : -a- a 20 18 - - 4.0 3.0a 1.2a 3.8 4.2 0 3.0 t '19 : - 4.0 - :- . : 3.0 t 1.21 3.8 0 4.2 t . 202 - I- - 4. 1 3.0 t . 3.8 14.21 3.0 2 a 21 0 - t - 1- t - t- t- 02. 22:08t :24:- t- 1t-1t- - I- - 02.9:2.21 a 25 a - t - : - : a : I : I - a - : 2.7 ITOTAL: 19.0 1 18.9 t 18.8 t 18.9 t 18.8 t19.0 t 18.0 117.1 16.5 A-16 - 47 - Appendix 13 YIELD OF RUBBER DY AGE INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING (KG/11A) I . AGE OF YIELD RUBBER 7 12 . 10 t 7 t ~ ~~~ - t 8~~~~~~~ * 9 t 500 ! 10 800 t 17 12l00 t ! 13 t 1300 t 12 .110 . ~~~~~~~~~~~* S 19 1300 i14 1400t ! 20 20 i15 j 1500j i16 1400j 17 12 l00! t 21 tl0 22t90 t 18 2315800 t 24 ! l~~~~ooot t 25j90 t a S . S -------~~------ t---------: Source: R ISDA Farm budget, Kual Lupur. A17 A N ~~------------------------------------------------------------ A0 I I I I I I I I I I 0to UN w t I I I I I I I I I 1Ic 1 to N co t- co co I C I co o0 0) '.4 c F uM ct co t ,4 1 4 4Q0 O ...... ..................I I AtlO ~ ~~~~~~~~ 01 1 1 1 m V v V4 qt w e u I I I I I I I I I I I It I ¢P --- - - - - - - - - I N- - 0) IIIlIIllOX,4tDIIlIIIIlIIIISOI I I Ic I rA co co 0 ,4N 0)0 ICI ,4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c I ¢ W ar o:" o ...... I I - III I OtCq 9-N t-0 1 1,4 Z~~0 * I _* CA . .. ... I .I aw E-11 l C4 O I III I I I I *ac I, I *~ ~~X N ,4N,.4e It-I 0 E-.~-- 0) jI 111 I,,,,,4N4'IIII11111111111o11 4OZ , 1,1 W 1-0 I I 92 0~~~~~~~~~~ ¢0 0) . . I I . I Eeo I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I reI-I --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0> > 1.4 '.4 O-0)C (A co 4 , N_ I uI III I I 0 ____ I I 0 * 1.1~~0V l oI o o9 c 94C4 o"i tD V44 c q o ot-w l"4V4 4 40, 4c4N 4to0-00)0 4 C4 NqCM 4 I 4 ------------- ---- ,4--------------------- C4NN-------4 - 49 - Appendix 14 Page 2 of 2 TOTAL YIELD OF RUBBER AT GIVEN YEAR INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING ('000 TON) AGE 1 1999 t 2000 t 2001 t 2002 : 2003 2004 t 2005 : 2006 2007 t 1 t - : -: - t - a - a - t a - ta a 2 . a 3 - t - t - t - ta a - - a - - t -_ t a t a t - t - a - t - t - I - a * a a - t - t - t - a t - - 7 t - a - t - t - t - a - t - t - t - a 8 a - t a ta - a - 5 - a - - t - a a t - 5 - - a a t a a - a - a a - - - - t - a - - a - - t a 1 t - t - a - t - - t - a a a - a2 t a* a - t - t - t - t - _ t - t a 3 6. a 4. at - t - t a - a - t - t - a 94 : 6. ' 7.-. - : - t a - t - - a 15 tn a . t 6. a a. t 5. a - t - a - a_ t a 19 a - a- t 6. t 5. t 2. t 6. a 7. a 5. t - a 22 t- _ t - t- t5. t 0t15 50 t 123 .9- t - t - : - t - t 5. 4. 1.5 t 4 _ a - t a a - - t - t .I . a 13 t 6. _ 4. - t a - t- a - a a . 17A t 6.6 t 52.1 t 23.0 t 62.4 t 7.1. t 5.25 t 29. t 27. t 5 a t a t t 3 0 *_ a'n*~ ia a i 4 U aa~L . . * a 9 a- a- aaa'5 AS'ia~ 120 3.9 . 50 19:62 . . 22 6.2 4 a52 40 15:6o 14 5a_ a- - :5.: 40: 15 * 2 2.0 a. a. a a :24:15:6-4:3- 1 7 54 8: .70 25 a_ a_ a- a- aa_ a:4.4: :TOTAL :30.4 :32.6 :33.1 :32.4 :31.6 :30.5 :29.7 127.8 :25.7 - so - ECONOMIC BENEFIt OF RUBBER Appendix 15 INDIVIDUAL REFLANTING (M$ MILLION, 1G9G PRICES) YEAR TCTAL ECONwMIC ' DENEFIT tYIELD (TGN) I PRICE (1989) 1 ;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f f :t :__ * 7 I , 05 0- . 7 , 27 . 00 2 . g ' ft . . ', . , 1V.' . C . * 1 :2 6 . l C; s . w3 'Z- . 0 ) 172,226.00 f 9t i 7, 041..iQ) 2,226.00 1 2t0. 13 1 i ' ' U J I 1 9 , ." 11,749.00 1 2,226.00 1 28.33 1 * 1994 ; 17,003.00 1 2,226.00 1 38. 0 z 1595 2 1,750. 0 1 3,510.00 1 74.94 199 2 5,168.00 : 3,510.00 1 882.34 1'7-7 f 2'7,274.00 -p3)510.00 95.73 1998 : 28,671.00 3,510.0 1 100.64 : 1997 i 30,500.0 ( .51 0.00 I. 7. 06 200,0 I 32,5Z 5"t0). oc 2,7779.00 1 9.::. 4. 01I 33,053.C0') 1 ' 7 2002 32,444. 00: } 1 2,777. Cci 9. 16 2(03 31 515.00: 2,779.00 1 t 87.2a0 : 20ft04 1 30,560.00 2,779.00 1 84.93 : 20(-0)5 29,704.00 I1 2,779.00 82.55 1 2006 1 27,882.00) 1 2,779.00 1 77.48 1 2007 1 25,766.00 2,779.01 0 71. a; - - - - - - - - - - - - ft -ft - -- A-2.0 - 51 - Appendix 16 ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN (1989 CONSTANT PRICES) INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING OF RUBBER CAPITAL RESIDUAL PRODUCTION TOTAL BENEFIT NET INCREMENTAL YEAR COST CAPITAL COST COST (MS.) BENEFIT (M$m) (M$m) COST (MSm) (MSm) (MSM) 1982 - - _ _ _ 1983 5.66 - - 5.66 0.00 - 5.66 1984 7.41 - - 7.41 0.00 - 7.41 1985 6.32 - - 6.32 0.00 - 6.32 1986 9.38 - - 9.38 0.00 - 9.38 1987 8.31 - - 8.31 0.00 - 8.31 1988 13.62 - - 13.62 0.00 -13.62 1989 8.03 - 3.20 11.23 2.28 - 8.95 1990 - 7.08 6.10 13.18 7.09 - 6.09 1991 - 5.67 7.80 13.47 13.30 - 0.17 1992 - 4.66 11.20 15.86 20.13 4.27 1993 - 2.88 15.40 18.28 28.38 10.10 1994 - 1.06 18.90 19.96 38.03 18.07 1995 - - 19.40 19.40 74.94 55.54 1996 - - 19.50 19.50 88.34 68.84 1997 - - 19.50 19.50 95.73 76.23 1998 - - 19.30 19.30 100.64 81.34 1999 - - 19.00 19.00 107.06 88.06 2000 - - 18.90 18.90 90.46 71.56 2001 - - 18.80 18.80 91.85 73.05 2002 - - 18.90 18.90 90.16 71.26 2003 - - 18.80 18.80 87.87 69.07 2004 - - 19.00 19.00 84.93 65.93 2005 - - 18.00 18.00 82.55 64.55 2006 - - 17.10 17.10 77.48 60.38 2007 - - 16.50 16.50 71.60 55.10 …----------------------------------------------------------------__----- Net present value at the discount rate of 11 = -MS.83 million Economic rate of return llX A-21 - 52 - Appendix 17 Page I of 2 NALAYSIA LOAU 2220 NA: IEDAD VALLEYS IADP PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT RUDDER REPLANTING COMPONENT ECONONIC PRICE OP RUDDER AT FARNGATE (CONSTANT 1989 PRICES) Conversion Factor 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1. CIP Price, Europe (US c/kg) aj/ 1.00 136.20 173.23 156.31 129.44 112.96 121.18 2. CIF Price, Europe (MS/at) b_/ 1.00 3,059.00 3,974.00 3,700.00 3,084.00 2,890.00 2,983.00 3. Ocean freight and insurance Butterworth to Europe c/ 1.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 4. FOB Price, Butterworth 2,889.00 3,804.00 3,530.00 2,914.00 2,710.00 2,813.00 5. Transport, Factory to Buttervorth 0.19 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 6. Ex-factory, project site 2,862.00 31777.00 3,503.00 2,687.00 2,693.00 2,786.00 7. Processing 0.88 - 150.00 - 150.00 - 150.00 - 150.00 - 150.00 - 150.00 8. Transport from dealers to factory 0.79 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 9. Dealers price 2,685.00 3,600.00 3,326.00 2,510.00 2,516.00 2,609.00 10. Dealers Handling (202) 0.68 448.00 600.00 55.S.S0 418.00 416.00 435.00 2,237.00 3,000.00 2,772.00 2,092.00 2,100.00 2,174.00 11. Transport, farigate to dealers (S/at) 0.79 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 12. Econosic Parngate price of rubber 2,210.00 2,973.00 2,745.00 2,002.00 2,073.00 2,147.00 AJ Source: Vorld Bank, JUn 28, 1989 b_l Sicharge rate: INP c/ Dased on earlier consultant report, brought to 1989 prices Conversion factor: N.D. Veith,1986. A-22 - 53 - Appendix 17 Page 2 of 2 KALAYSIA LOAN 2220 MA: KEDAH VALLEYS IADP PROJBCT COMPLETION REPORT RUDBER RBPLANTING COMPONBNT ECONOMIC PRICE OF RUDDER AT FARNGATI (CONSTANT 1989 PRICES) Conversion Factor 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 1 CIP Price, Burope (US c/kg) a/ 1.00 129.00 109.16 111.12 146.08 136.62 2. CIF Price, Europe (MA/Ot bh/ 1.00 3,519.00 3,132.00 3,078.00 4,619.00 3,742.00 3. Ocean freight and insurance Butterworth to Europe c_/ 1.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 - 170.00 4i POO Price, Buttervorth 3,349.00 2,962.00 2,908.00 4,449.00 3,572.00 5. Transport, Factory to Outtervorth 0.79 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 6. BE-factory, project site 3,322.00 2,935.00 2,881.00 4,422.00 3,545.00 7. Processing 0.88 - 150.00 - 150.00 - 150.00 - 150.00 - 150.00 8. Transport from dealers to factory 0.79 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 9. Dealers price 3,145.00 2,758.00 2,704.00 4,245.00 3,368.00 10. Dealers handling (20a% 0.68 524.00 460.00 461.00 708.00 562.00 2,621.00 2,298.00 2,253.00 3,537.00 2,806.00 11. Transport, faragate to dealers ($/It) 0.79 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 - 27.00 12. Economic Parngate price of rubber 2,594.00 2,271.00 2,226.00 3,510.00 2,779.00 A-/ Source: World Dank, Jun 28, 1989 b_/ Bicharge rate: I[F cj/ Based on earlier consultant report, brought to 1989 prices Conversion factor: M.D. Veith,1986. A 91 - 54 - Appendix 18 Page I of 3 MALAYSIA uISDA PROJECT Far& Budget leplanting Vitb Rubber by Individual Farmers and us Simultaneous Replastiug (TSSS (I $/ha) Total Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I Development Costs Yield kg dry rubber/ha Development Costs Land Clearing 800 - - - - - - - terraces 300 - - - - Planting Katerial 485 55 - - - - - - Subtotal 1,585 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,655 Iniputs Fertilizers 205 235 130 335 195 zoo too 200 Chemicals 50 160 160 110 T0 55 30 25 tools 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 Subtotal 285 425 310 465 285 215 250 245 2,115 Labor (Family) Lining 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Holing 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planting 150 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fertilising 15 25 25 25 25 25 15 15 Veeding & Sanitation 35 130 120 80 50 40 20 15 lntrastructure - 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 Subtotal 400 195 170 125 95 80 50 40 1,180 …-- - - -- - - -- - - - - - Total 2,270 675 480 590 380 355 300 285 5,335 …-- -- - - - - -- - - -. - -- - -. - . - . - . . - . -- . . . - . . - - . . . . - -- - . - . . -- - . -. -. tress/ba 550 550 525 515 505 500 495 490 A-24 - 55 - Appendix 18 rate 2 of 5 ONUlTIN COI TS T01 INDIVIDU4L 1onia3 IRWIIINT 1 (l111 PaUlen Tear I 10 o 1 12 13 11 14 1S 16 11 11 19 Operatiug Costs Imputs F1rtiliur 100 265 265 26 265 265 25 235 235 235 235 205 205 Cteaical. 15 30 30 30 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 Tols 220 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Stimulant - - - - - - - - - 120 120 Subtotal 335 315 315 315 315 315 280 210 230 280 280 365 365 Labor (failvl .. . ..... F.rtiliur 10 IS IS 15 15 15 IS IS 15 15 IS 10 tO *ediml 10 20 20 20 20 20 IS 15 IS 15 IS 10 10 wIr"ntaa t" U15 25 . 5 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 20 IS IS Tppint 525 l60 655 130 T1O 110 T50 T50 130 130 T30 695 it5 Subtotal 560 660 715 T90 IS0 330 800 800 180 180 tOo 130 130 Total 895 915 1,030 1,105 1,145 1,145 1,010 1,080 1,060 1,060 1,060 I,095 1,695 . ....... ............ .......... .................... .. .. .,... ... ............... ........ ..... ...... .. . .......... ............. o. of treal in Tppillg/ha 2180 320 350 390 410 410 400 400 390 390 300 39 310 . ................... .... ..... o...... ... ...... .... ...... .......... 0................ .. ........ ............ ....... ................. ," L 4-25 -56- Appendix 18 Page 3 of 3 OPUIATINO COSts FOR INDIVIDUAL 3U0001 RPLANTIN (11989 PIICBSJ Total year 21 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 29 30 31 32 Operasting Colt Inputs fertiliser 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chemicals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stimulant 120 120 115 II1 110 110 100 100 95 95 135 135 Tools 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Subtotal 330 330 125 125 120 1M0 110 110 105 105 145 145 4,530 Labor (Familyj Pertilizing 15 15 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeding 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 IffrastructuTe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 Tapping 695 695 660 660 625 625 585 585 550 550 505 505 Subtotal 730 730 670 670 635 635 595 595 560 560 515 505 16,830 Total 1,060 1,060 795 795 I55 755 105 105 665 665 660 650 21,360 GRAID TOTAL COST 26,695 No. of Trees in ------ Tapping/ba 380 380 360 360 340 340 320 320 300 300 215 275 280 Source: USDA Farm budget, Kuala Lumpur, 191) 1-26 - 57 - Appendix 19 DERIVATION OF ECONOMIC CAPITAL COST MINI-ESTATE RUBBER REPLANTING (M$ MILLION, 1989 CONSTANT PRICES) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 -------------------------------------------------------------------__- Current expenditure - 2.61 3.66 0.00 0.49 0.13 0.81 1989 prices - 2.82 4.00 0.00 0.52 0.14 0.77 Economic price - 2.57 3.64 0.00 0.47 0.13 0.70 Source : RISDA Conversion factor = 0.91, M.D. Veitch, 1986 0 E7 - -- -- -- -- -- - - -a.-a- - - - -a- - - - -------iK---------------- Il I Ii -I _ I I I * I-I------------------------- o 181 !1 ~~~~~~~~~A , Ba I w I I , 1 88 S , It owl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- -. B I I , 5 l - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -I I It 11111 til 111 WS _- I I I I_ -It R , ------------------------! 181 SBB } -8!- -- 88 8- - 181 88 g88'! I I i I __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -_ I I D ~~~~~~~~~*-- * -B*{o jSj~ 8888- - 59 - Appendix 21 ACREAGE OF RUBBER ENTITLED FOR RESIDUAL REPLANTING GRANT MINI ESTATE REPLANTING (IIA) :AGE OF RUBBER 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 I I 2 793 a a 3 1 : 3 186 793 7 * a a a ta - 186 793 - ~5 544 -186 793 6 483 544 186 793 a a a a a 7 483 544 - 186 793 ' A-29 - 60 - Appendix 22 RESIDUAL REPLANTING GRANT PAYABLE AFTER PROJECT PERIOD MINI ESTATE REPLANTING (M$ million, 1989 prices) 5 t :AGE OF RUBBER 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 * , 5 1 51 2 0.40 5 5 3 0.05 0.22 4 - 0.08 0.35 5 0.20 - 0.05 0.22 6 0.12 0.14 - 0.04 0.20 7 0.12 0.14 - 0.05 0.20 TOTAL 0.77 0.56 0.54 0.26 0.25 0.20 …-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ecorlomic Cost 0.70 0.51 0.49 0.24 0.23 0.18 Conversion factor = .91. M.D. Veitch, 1989. A-30 - 61 - Appendix 23 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC COST OF PRODUCTION PER HECTARE FOR MINI ESTATE REPLANTING (M$/ha 1989 PRICES) AGRICULTURAL INPUTS LABOR TOTAL YEAR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FINANCIAL ECONOMIC FINANCIAL ECONOMIC FINANCIAL ECONOMIC 7 250.00 228.00 50.00 44.00 300.00 272.00 8 480.00 437.00 530.00 466.00 1,010.00 903.00 9 280.00 255.00 620.00 546.00 900.00 801.00 10 275.00 251.00 730.00 642.00 1,005.00 893400 11 275.00 251.00 765.00 673.00 1,040.00 924.00 12 275.00 251.00 765.00 673.00 1,040.00 924.00 13 210.00 191.00 730.00 642.00 940.00 833.00 14 210.00 191.00 730.00 642.00 940.00 833.00 15 210.00 191.00 715.00 629.00 925.00 820.00 16 210.00 191.00 715.00 629.00 925.00 820.00 17 210.00 191.00 715.00 629.00 925.00 820.00 18 350.00 319.00 680.00 598.00 1,030.00 917.00 19 350.00 319.00 680.00 598.00 1,030.00 917.00 20 350.00 319.00 680.00 598.00 1,030.00 917.00 21 345.00 314.00 640.00 563.00 985.00 877.00 22 345.00 314.00 640.00 563.00 985.00 877.00 23 285.00 260.00 600.00 528.00 885.00 788.00 24 285.00 260.00 600.00 528.00 885.00 788.00 25 285.00 260.00 600.00 528.00 885.00 788.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------__----- Production cost from year 1 up till year 6 had been incorporated into capital cost paid under RISDA mini- estate replanting program. A-31 Yl----------------------_-= 8o B_1_ Ico o i io I I 2 I I 8 i 101 °° BNa oI° g T-__ ----------O-O-j-_-----_ ,~~~~~~~~~~~. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -40 00 01 b.~~~~~~~~~ I In 000 I o po o -I sX| . I I I I M o IO 00 0C I N I 00 00 1|tNjw Ig. ~~~g-g 000- |~~~~~ ------------- I| o N. j11 a Ia IO 0aI .0 I. III Il I 1 8 *~~~ I I* I I | , | ~~~-. I oo ap ,, ,-,q ; I I?l oF oo & °t I I : o-- - - - - - - - - - -I WI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- N ~ ~~~~~~ -INI --- 00 00 I - *IIalII *aiit - 63 - Appendix 25 YIELD OF RUBBER MINI ESTATE REPLANTING ------------------------------------------- Age of tree Production a a kg/ha 7 250 8 600 9 950 * 1 0 ' 1100 11 1200 12 1250 13 1450 14 1700 15 1700 16 1650 , 17 1650 18 1750 19 1650 20 1600 21 , 1500 22 ' 1400 23 1500 ,' 24 , 1400 25 1300 -- - - -- - - -- - - - ------------------ Source: RISDA, Farm budget, Kuala Lump'ir. A-33 - 64 - Appendix 26 ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF RUBBER MINI-ESTATE REPLANTING (M$ MILLION, 1989 PRICES) __________________________ YEAR :YIELD (TON) ECONOMIC BENEFIT t t t PRICE (1989) : a -- - -- - :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- 1991 242.00 t 2,226.00 0.54 * 1992 755.00 : 2,226.00 : 1.68 1993 973.00 2,226.00 2.17 : 1994 1,168.00 2,226.00 2.60 : 1995 1,742.00 3,510.00 1 6.11 1996 1 2,229.00 3,510.00 1 7.82 1997 2,557.00 1 3,510.00 t 8.98 t 1998 : 2,790.00 3,510.00 9.79 1999 2,883.00 1 3,510.00 I 10.12 2000 1 3,060.00 t 2,779.00 8.50 2001 3,258.00 1 2,779.00 9.05 2002 3,302.00 2,779.00 9.18 : 2003 : 3,162.00 ' 2,779.00 t 8.79 2004 2,884.00 2,779.00 8.01 : 2005 2,625.00 2,779.00 1 7.29 , 2006 t 2,424.00 t 2,779.00 t 6.74 t 2007 , 2,294.00 2,779.00 t 6.38 A-34 - 65 - Appendix 27 ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN (1989 CONSTANT PRICES) MINI-ESTATE REPLANTING OF RUBBER CAPITAL RESIDUAL PRODUCTION TOTAL BENEFIT NET INCREMENTAL YEAR COST CAPITAL COST COST (M$M) BENEFIT (M$M) (M$m) COST (MSm) (M$m) (M$m) -----------------------------------------------------------------__--- 1982 -- 0.00 - 0.00 1983 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 1984 2.57 - - 2.57 - - 2.57 1985 3.64 - - 3.64 - - 3.64 1986 0.00 - - 0.00 - 0.00 1987 0.47 - - 0.47 - - 0.47 1988 0.13 - - 0.13 - - 0.13 1989 0.00 0.74 - 0.74 - - 0.74 1990 0.00 0.51 0.10 0.61 - - 0.61 1991 - 0.49 0.50 0.99 0.54 - 0.45 1992 - 0.24 0.90 1.14 1.68 0.54 1993 - 0.23 1.40 1.63 2.17 0.54 1994 - 0.18 1.30 1.48 2.60 1.12 1995 - - 1.70 1.70 6.11 4.41 1996 - - 1.70 1.70 7.82 6.12 1997 - - 1.80 1.80 8.98 7.18 1998 - - 1.80 1.80 9.79 7.99 1999 - - 2.10 2.10 10.12 8.02 2000 - - 2.10 2.10 8.50 6.40 2001 - - 2.10 2.10 9.05 6.95 2002 - - 1.80 1.80 9.18 7.38 2003 - - 1.80 1.80 8.79 6.99 2004 - - 1.80 1.80 8.01 6.21 2005 - - 1.80 1.80 7.29 5.49 2006 - - 1.80 1.80 6.74 4.94 2007 - - 1.70 1.70 6.38 4.68 -------------------------------------------------------------------__- Net present value discounted at 9% = - M$1.22M Economic rate of return = 9% -6 - Fag# * a 3 I'Ufs:A R;SDA PRiET Fanm iudgt 41ant.ng With Ruhbbv a Mini-Etat. (TS5) tM Shi) Tata Yaer1 2 3 , 5 6 7 buve lpnt osti Yield kg dr; rubbcr,ha DbelnUt Costs Land CAaering 830 - - - - Agric Rod 45 - - - - Driins 40 - - - - - Terraceu 4C - - - - - - CoiV crop 14 - . _ . _ LinIng.'holain; 165 - - - - - - Nonting 155 15 - - s - Flanting tlateriu 450 45 - subtotal 2,435 60 - - - - - Z,4i5 Firtalizers 380 235 1; 335 195 200 200 Cheaicals 120 190 125 E5 65 35 30 Tooli - 20 20 20 20 20 20 SUtotal 500 445 275 446 2 M5 25C0 2,445 Labor iFaai1t Fcrtilizng 25 45 23 25 25 .5 15 *eding Smnitation 90 15 100 65 40 25 20 1ifristructara - 5 355 30 25 .0 15 Subtoti 115 1235 160 120 90 70 50 84 'ot;: 3,0S5 740 43' 560 37. 25 30 5,780 TressAh 450 450 440 430 420 415 410 A-36 67 - R.'SDA PROJECT Farml 8udgat, Repidnting With ;utber as Mini-Eitite ,8 fai^r 1 IV 1C ll 1 13 14 Id 16 it, is 19 ..I0 4aratini :iosts Der'll.:cr ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ;3 : 3 ' 1 ' '' . 175 1775 205 :'V¢ tGC ineiCcal 34 3G 2 i.C vN w3 i : ' ; .tao;-- C ~~~~~~2^v 20 ,0 20 IS lww i' ;' ei *' :1le 13 Is StiXgt~~~~I.¢t¢ iLbtatil 46^ .a 2 '' 7,J,X -c ., ':J .v :C :;; _. 0,;;^ tV, -C9 _'. LaboGr (Family) Fert'i;i:er IS' )3 .'. :' l5 I9 ;i 'IO; 10 is :5 1' e .dees.ing 2C oC C r 2C 15 15Z 15 Iw1 's: 1G 1G 1. Llir3ctruc.ure 10 ;v lO~~~1 10 iC 5 e 5 e S TaDping 485 S-735 605 7X 72 4 70i; 7GO 6a' 60' 6c 65O oSv rs3Ci Subtotal CTG S^O ',,675 "A 6 5 7 0 715 '15 6'l c8G u a <3 P;".nt al .,G4 9'48G v 7 0 3940 9&O .8C 3Pv, SoC 3SG) 3w It. of Tries :a~~~~ - 68 - Aapend;^ ,8 MALAYSIA R:SA FR.WJET Replantir, 4''t6 RU.iar as Mini-Eatate ;TS8) 1M $/ha) Year 2. 2, 2 4 25, 2v6 7 _ 2 29 3- 3C 1 32 uparatir. I,.HU';~~~~~~~~- ,, FertiliZer 205 Z-5 175 175 1-C 17 I -5 Cherica;; 15 15 ti.;u;a. 6110 110 1O 1 0 1100 9Y 95A 90 90 140 1:30 130 15 1 5 10 1S 10 ;G 1 10 1C 20 20 10 0ubtotal 345 Z5 285 235 25 260 280 1100 IN0 "6 Iv 14". ,44 ' c,6cr lFscly) .-ertiii:1ng i' 15 IC 10 10 IC, 10 :.'ei.ng 1 1:C 15 IS 1: 5 '1 0V If tc :0 In,rari.ucture 5 5 Tapping 61O 61cC 575 57i 5755,4' 54, 5'C 5S I 50' 470 470 L oal 64a; 64Q o 0 oG O 600 565 565 515 515 515 480 480 15,780 ToGtal ;i75 565 83 85 as5 845 845 615 6:5 7 637' 0 i V' r AAND 73TAL MST L7,;q0 'N. oi TreE nr. ---- appin5:ha 340 340 320 320 312 3iO 30 8 260 :5. 260 2.60 Sour:a F.12vA .drm budget, Kuala Lumpw-, :16; A-3a - 69 - Appendix 29 DERIVATION OF ECONOMIC CAPITAL COST OF RUBBER MAINTENANCE FOR RUBBER REPLANTED BETWEEN 1977 TO 1982 (M$ Million, at 1989 constant Prices) 1983 1984 t 1985 : 1986 1987 1988 1989 * * , * . a , , I I~~ . , * I I I I Current Expenditure: 6.45 : 6.07 : 4.36 t 4.31 t 3.26 : 2.45 : 0.40 1989 Prices 7.23 : 6.56 t 4.71 ' 4.62 ' 3.46 : 2.53 : 0.40 a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ . . a .. a a a Economic Price 6.58 t 5.97 4.29 : 4.21 : 3.15 2.31 t 0.37 a~~~~ __ _ a a, _ _ a a _ a______ Source: RISDA. Conversion factor = .91. M.D. Veitch, 1989. - 70 - Appendix 30 DISTRIBUTION OF RUDDER BY AGE UNDER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR RUBBER REPLANTED BETWEEN 1977 - 1982 (BECTAL2) -------------------------------.-----------------------------__------------ fReplanted Age 1983 1984 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year --- --- -- --- --- -- --- --- -- --- --- --- ---------__ - -----------------_ : 1977 1 741 - - - - - - - - 1978 2 3,622 741 - - - - - - - : 1979 3 1,230 3,622 - - - - - - - 1980 4 1,752 1,230 - - - - _ _ _ 1981 5 - 1,752 - - - - - - - 1982 6 2,128 - - - - - - - - 1983 7 224 2,128 - - - - - - - 8 - 224 - - - - - - - 10 - - - - - - - - - 11 - -- - - - - - 12 - - - - - - - - - 13 - - - - - - - - - 14 - - - - - - - 15 - - - - - _ _ _ _ S 16 - - - - - - - - t - 17 - - - _ _ _ _ _ - 18 - - t 19 - - 741 - - - - - - 20 - - - 3:622 741 - 21 - -1,230 3,622 741 - - - - 22 - - 1,752 1,230 3,622 741 - - - 23 - - - 1,752 1,230 3,622 741 , - 24 - - 2,128 - 1,752 1,230 3,622 741 - : 25 - - 224 2,128 1,752 1,107 3,3660 741 1 TOTAL 9,697 9,697 9,697 9,473 7,345 7,345 5,470 4,001 741 Source: RISDA, Alor Setar. Rubber replanted in 1981 was grouped together in 1982. A-40 -71- Appendix 31 Page 1 of 2 ECONOMIC COST OF PRODUCTION UNDER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR RUDDER REPLANTED DETWEEN 1977 - 1982 (M5 million, at 1989 Constant Prices) …-------------…---------------- YEAR 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 7 0.18 1.70 - 1.40 0.98 2.89 0.59 - - - - - - : 8 - 0.21 1.95 - 1.60 1.13 3.32 0.68 - - - - - 9 - - 0.22 2.09 - 1.72 1.21 3.56 0.73 - - - - 10 - - - 0.23 2.16 - 1.78 1.25 3.68 0.75 - - - 11 - - - - 0.23 2.16 - 1.78 1.25 3.68 0.75 - - 12 - - - - - 0.23 2.16 - 1.78 1.25 3.68 0.75 - 13 - - - - - - 0.21 2.04 - 1.68 1.18 3.47 0.71 14 _ _ _ _ _ _ - 0.21 2.04 - 1.68 1.18 3.47 15 - - - - - - - - 0.21 2.00 - 1.65 1.16 16 - - - - - - - - - 0.21 2.00 - 1.65 17 - - - - - - - - - - 0.21 2.00 - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.22 2.07 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.22 20 - - - - - - - t 21 _ _ _ 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - - - - - - 24 - - - - - - - - 25 - - - - - - - TOTAL 0.18 1.91 2.17 3.72 4.97 8.13 9.27 9.52 9.69 9.57 9.50 9.27 9.28 Assuming cost of production as equal to cost of production of rubber under individual replanting. A-41 72 - Appendix 31 Page 2 of 2 ECONOMIC COST OF PRODUCTION UNDER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR RUnDER REPLANTED DETWEEN 1977 - 1982 (M$ million, at 1989 Constant Prices) YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 :7 - - - - : t 8 _ :8 g _ _ _ - - - - t - - :9 - - - - - - - - - - - - :10 :11 t12 _ _ t13 _ 14 0.71 - - - - - - - -- 15 3.41 0.70 - - - - - - -- 16 1.16 3.41 0.70 - - - - - -- 17 1.65 1.16 3.41 0.70 - - - - -- 18 1.71 1.20 3.52 0.72 -- 19 2.07 - 1.71 1.20 3.52 0.72 - 20 0.22 2.07 - 1.71 1.20 3.52 0.72 - -- 21 - 0.21 2.00 - 1.65 1.16 3.41 0.70 -- 22 - - 0.21 2.00 - 1.65 1.16 3.41 0.70 - - - : 23 - - - 0.16 1.50 1.23 1.87 2.55 0.52 - - 24 - - - - 0.16 1.50 - 1.23 0.87 2.55 0.52 - : 25 - - - - - 0.15 1.42 1.23 1.17 2.42 0.49 O : TOTAL 9.22 9.26 9.23 9.29 8.75 8.70 7.94 7.21 5.35 4.24 2.94 0.49 Assuming cost of production as equal to cost of production of rubber under individual replanting. Rubber reading the age of 7 in 1985 was calculated together in 1986. I A A-42 - 73 - Appondix 32 Page I of 2 YIELD OF RUOBBR BY AGB UNDER NAINTBNANCB PROGRAN FOR RUDDER REPLANTED DBETEEN 1927 - 1982 ('000 TON) .---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 YEAR 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a 7 0.06 0.50 - 0.40 0.30 0.90 0.20 - - - - - - 8 - 0.10 1.30 - 1.10 0.70 2.20 0.40 - - - - - 9 - - 0.20 2.00 - 1.70 1.10 3.40 0.70 - - - - 10 - - - 0.30 2.30 - 1.90 1.40 4.00 0.80 - - - 11 - - - - 0.20 2.60 - 2.10 1.40 4.40 0.90 - - 12 - - - - - 0.20 2.70 - 2.20 1.50 4.50 0.90 - 13 - - - - - - 0.30 3.10 - 2.50 1.80 5.30 1.10 14 - - - - - - - 0.40 3.60 - 2.90 2.10 6.10 15 - - - - - - 0.40 3.60 - 2.90 2.10 16 - - - - - - - - 0.40 3.50 - 2.90 17 - - - - - - - - - - 0.40 3.50 - 18 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.40 3.70 19 - - - - - - 0.40 :20 - - -- 21 - - - - :23 - - - - - - - - - a 24 a5 - - - - - t I TOTAL 0.06 0.60 1.50 2.70 3.90 6.10 8.40 10.80 12.30 13.20 14.00 15.10 16.30 …a Yields equal to performance of endividual replanting. Yield of rubber age 7 in 1985 vas grouped together in 1986. A-43 - 74 - Appendix 3t Page 2 of 2 YIELD OF RUDoER BY ACB URDUE NAINTSUANCE PROGRAK FOR KNDER REPLAINTD LSITIBE 191? - 1982 ('000 TOM) .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I YEAR 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2904 2005 2006 2001 1- 1113 - - - l 14 1.30 - - - - 15 6.10 1.30 - - - - - - 16 2.00 5.90 1.20 - - - - - - - - 11 2.90 2.00 5.90 1.20 - - - - - - - I1 - 3.10 2.20 6.30 1.30 - - - - - - - 19 3.50 - 2.90 2.00 5.90 1.20 - - - - - - 20 0.40 3.40 - 2.80 1.90 5.80 1.20 - - - - 21 - 0.20 2.10 - 1.80 1.20 3.60 0.10 - - - 22 - - 0.20 1.90 - 1.60 1.10 3.30 0.10 - - - 23 - - 0.20 1.10 - 1.40 0.90 2.90 0.60 - - 24 - - - - 0.20 2.10 - 1.80 1.20 3.60 0.10 - 25 - - - 0.20 1.90 - 1.50 1.10 3.30 0.60 … … … … … … … … … … … …- TOTAL 16.20 15.90 14.50 14.40 12.80 12.10 9.20 6.10 6.30 5.30 4.00 0.60 Yields equl to performance of endividual repluting A-44 - 75 - Appendix 33 ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM RUBBER MAINTENANCE PR.)GRAM FOR RUBBER REPLANTED BETWEEN 1977 - 1982 (M$ million, at 1989 Constant Prices) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YEAR YIELD (TON) ECONOMIC PRICE BENEFIT (1989) (M$ million) …-- 1983 56.00 2,973.00 0.17 5 1984 666.00 2,'745.00 1.83 1985 1,490.00 2,002.00 2.98 1986 2,706.00 2,073.00 5.60 1987 3,969.00 2,147.00 8.52 1988 6,142.00 2,594.00 15.93 1989 8,439.00 2,271.00 19.16 t 1990 10,808.00 2,226.00 24.06 1991 12,353.00 2,226.00 27.50 3 1992 13,227.00 2,226.00 29.44 1993 14,060.00 2,226.00 31.30 1994 15,150.00 2,226.00 33.72 1995 16,306.00 3,510.00 57.23 1996 16,206.00 3,510.00 56.88 : * 1997 15,961.00 3,510.00 56.02 1998 14,572.00 3,510.00 51.15 1999 14,489.00 3,510.00 50.86 2000 12,919.00 2,779.00 35.90 2001 12,155.00 2,779.00 33.78 2002 9,232.00 2,779.00 25.66 t 2003 6,737.00 2,779.00 18.72 2004 6,372.00 2,779.00 17.71 t 2005 5,322.00 2,779.00 14.79 1 2006 4,001.00 2,779.00 11.12 1 * 2007 667.00 2,779.00 1.85 t A-45 - 76 - Appendix 34 ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN (1989 CONSTANT PRICES) RUBBER MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR RUBBER REPLANTED BETWEEN 1977 - 1982 CAPITAL PRODUCTION TOTAL BENEFIT NET INCREMENTAL YEAR COST COST COST (MSm) BENEFIT (M$m) (MSm) (M$m) (M$m) 1982 - _ _ _ 0.00 1983 6.58 0.18 6.76 0.17 - 6.59 1984 5.97 1.91 7.88 1.83 - 6.05 1985 4.29 2.17 6.46 2.98 - 3.48 1986 4.21 3.72 7.93 5.60 - 2.33 1987 3.15 4.97 8.12 8.52 0.40 1988 2.31 8.13 10.44 15.93 5.49 1989 0.37 9.27 9.64 19.16 9.52 1990 - 9.52 9.52 24.06 14.54 1991 - 9.69 9.69 27.50 17.81 1992 - 9.57 9.57 29.44 19.87 1993 - 9.50 9.50 31.30 21.80 1994 - 9.27 9.27 33.72 24.45 1995 - 9.28 9.28 57.23 47.95 1996 - 9.22 9.22 56.88 47.66 1997 - 9.26 9.26 56.02 46.76 1998 - 9.23 9.23 51.15 41.92 1999 - 9.29 9.29 50.86 41.57 2000 - 8.75 8.75 35.90 27.15 2001 - 8.70 8.70 33.78 25.08 2002 - 7.94 7.94 25.66 17.72 2003 - 7.21 7.21 18.72 11.51 2004 - 5.35 5.35 17.71 12.36 2005 4.24 4.24 14.79 10.55 2006 - 2.94 2.94 11.12 8.18 200'i - 0.49 0.49 1.85 1.36 Net present value discounted at 16% = M$2.35million Economic rate of return = 16% A-46 -77 - Appendix 35 DERMIV,TION OF ECONOMIC CAPITAL COST 'L PALM REPLANTING ILLION, 1989 CONSTANT PRICES) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Current expenditure - 0.44 1.11 0.79 1.14 1.11 0.20 1989 prices - 0.48 1.20 0.85 1.21 1.14 0.20 Econom c price - 0.44 1.09 0.77 1.10 1.04 0.18 Source: RISDA, Alor Setar. Conversion factor 0.91 A-47 - 78 - Appendix 36 AGE OF REPLANTED OIL PALM AT GIVEN YEAR INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING (HECTARE) AGE OF RUDDER:1983:1984 1985 1986 0 1987 1988 1989 0 1990 2007 I : 2 : - :4 t O. :_ : 1 -- 82.0 345.0 -345-0 3 - : - - :82.0 :345.0: 4 - a'82305.45:0:- : 4 : - - - :82.0:345.0: - - - 6 - : - - - ; - - 5 82.0 345.0 - 7 t - - - t - : - : - : - : 82.0- 8 : - - : - : - t 82. : 1 : - 1 0 - : - : - : - : - :- - - O-1 10 1 - - - 5- 5- S- O - S- _ '~~~~~~ S - - - I S - - - '41 - :- : - :- : - : - 0 - : - ' 6 12 : - - : - - : - - I - 147 - : - : - : - 0 - : - 0 - -: - 18t 195 - - : - 20 : - : - : - : - : - - - t 0 - 21:- - t ° 1 22 - : - - ° 203 ' - - - - - :- :- 345*0 - 24 '-:-0 : : 0 0 0 t82.0 - 21 - - ----- - t-- t - O - : --- -- - - t Total :0.0 :82.0 :345.0 :427.0 1427.0 1427.0 :427.0 t427.0 0 :427.0 -----22 --- - : O -- - : - : - : - - : - As acreage under mini-estate management was small, it Was rassumed that all are replanted under individual management. A-48 - 79 - Appendix 37 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC COST OF PRODUCTION OF OIL PALM PER HECTARE (M$/ha, 1989 CONSTANT PRICES) ------------------------------------------------------------__-------- AGRICULTURAL INPUTS LABOR TOTAL YEAR -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- FINANCIAL ECONOMIC FINANCIAL ECONOMIC FINANCIAL ECONOMIC ----------------------------------------------------------__---------- 5 320.00 291.00 140.00 123.00 460.00 414.00 6 395.00 261.00 240.00 553.00 635.00 814.00 7 440.00 261.00 330.00 611.00 770.00 872.00 8 465.00 261.00 350.00 642.00 815.0CQ 903.00 9 465.00 261.00 395.00 642.00 860.00 903.00 10 465.00 261.00 435.00 642.00 900.00 903.00 11 420.00 232.00 475.00 619.00 895.00 851.00 12 420.00 232.00 475.00 619.00 895.00 851.00 13 420.00 232.00 475.00 603.00 895.00 835.00 14 370.00 232.00 465.00 603.00 835.00 835.00 15 370.00 232.00 465.00 603.00 835.00 835.00 16 355.00 302.00 465.00 564.00 820.00 866.00 17 355.00 302.00 440.00 564.00 795.00 866.00 18 355.00 302.00 410.00 564.00 765.00 866.00 19 350.00 273.00 410.00 564.00 760.00 837.00 20 335.00 273.00 390.00 564.00 725.00 837.00 21 335.00 103.00 390.00 519.00 725.00 622.00 22 335.00 103.00 340.00 519.00 675.00 622.00 23 320.00 99.00 340.00 519.00 660.00 618.00 24 15,00 13.00 280.00 246.00 295.00 259.00 25 15.00 13.00 280.00 246.00 295.00 259.00 ---..----------------------------------------------------------__------ Source : RISDA, Farm Budget. Conversion Factors : For Agricultural Input = 0.91 For hired labor = 0.88 Source : M.D. Veitch, 1986. A-49 O N 0) -.--*-- - -- -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- -1 .14 - - I I Xto 1II I I I I.I 0d4 4 0)0 1(0n1 40 04 101 1_e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 a ~ ~~~~~~t co tn I I I 40 c 40 I0 C4 Q0I W4 tO co I I) I 111f 4 I I 0) . . I . OD cn uo0 1In 1 E-N I 1 t U0)eo I *o I V0 10I f :. I I E-. E-. 0 I I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z _-1g 1(01 o ~~~~~~~z4 0) 1Ico *i 40e I I C ~ . COO O IU01 0 . . I . I 044' ~~~~~~~~~~~o0 1coI X I X I i- co *. I In I 0z I I I I It 'II H z' ((0I I O :E: ¢ co I I C: ~ ( O. . . '. 0 o II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I0 I "4 ~ ~~~40q to01 04 "~~~~~~~~~V4 1C41 0~~~~~~~~~~~~ I 0A 0)) 1V)1 0 , 4 t I 0---- I I I io a- o ea > is e |~~~~- I oI 14J1 0C W 01 CO "4 04 ' ( COt-CO(0 0)O"4 C4COU 0 t- 00 ) 0 P4 CM V) Itt I.E-I C: ^ tX ~~~~~~~~~~~~I OI 3,~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~. V- I- P4 I- - . 4V MNNNWN1 < o~ ~~~~--------------------------- wI------ - 81. - Appendix 38 Page 2 of 2 COST OF PRODUCTION OF OIL PALM TREES AT GIVEN YEAR INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING (M$'000) :AGE OF 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 t 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 :RUBBER : I I : t t * 1 1 - a _ t - a - a - a - a - t a 5 .. _ - _ I a at - a - a - t - t - a - 'a a 6 a - a - I a a _ a a a a 75 : _ - _ : _ t - a - a - a - a - a - a a 127 : _ a _ a a I _ a _ a _ t a - a - : a 4 8 28. 1 - a a a - a - a - a - a - a - a 15 1 68.5 t288.1 ta - a - a a a a a a a a 6 9 1019. : - a - a - a -~ al - a' a- '80 -_ : _ : a1. - 2 a a - a - a - a - a - a t 20 : - : - : - a- a - t 68. 28. t - a - a- a : 123 - a - a a a - a - a - a - a 5-7 a23. t 24 13 - a - a - a - a - a - a - a - a - a 21. a 1 5 :68.5288.1 - : _ t - : _ : _ t - -~ a a 16 I - I 10:9. : - : - : I at 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A5 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : 7 : - aaaaaaaa - a 20 268628.: -1 : 17 51.0:21.6298.8- :23 :-- : -- :-- :50.7:1213.2: : 25 aa - a - aaaaaaa Tota: 356.6 1359.1 :369.8 :369.8 :367.4 :357.4 :339.8 :265.6 :265.3 :2,4.4 A- 51 I4-d9 ) 4 . I I Dla - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- 00 - -- ^ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~I* I fi I I I I I I 4 4 I I I a a a 4 I 9 * 4 I I. -In 41 _\ I OO | - ,,, aON a -' !!-- ----------------_-----------, t I 4 IA * : ' 0 'U' : I I t' ^ - li J; I aD Qq I bJ ii',J t4 ,lj§},}§ t .4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 1 7----------- -Q - - - - iDt -ml .8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- . S ;. I ., I . I I a a a 4 1: 1 * * Ia i t a 4 a t 41 o.D. -- -- -- -- -- -a-- - -a - ,,a _ , ai, W 9*a i I~ _:4 I' I ' 5: - ,_____________---------------1 *' .- I -0S - -t 44 !l i ' I; J'iI -4 I,________________~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .4. C - - - - - - I - -- a.* ' a a 41 I 41t ai i !w .~ ; a:- 99 b I I W I v r .. _ . _ - - - - - -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-_-- - - -- - - - - - -- t.4. I 4 9 I I . 9 a * 9 9 I i I I . I ' I; 4 94: ,,____________--__-___-_- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - i C - - i- - -- - - i. 5 ' i 9.|]jw,X, ,wt Qgi I a, ! 4:4.i414a194 4.0 L- I N II I I *%.4 …,_*I -. _. b_____. ;'~~~ .Zi ', I-b*aiiI§i'I§''|§It}§IIi' - 83 - Appendix 40 ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF OIL PALM (1989 CONSTANT PRICES) YEAR TOTAL YIELD ECONOMIC TOTAL BENEFIT (TON) PRICE (1989) ($'000) 1988 164.0 166.0 27.2 1989 ' 1,182.0 145.0 t 171.4 1990 2,891.0 159.0 t 459.5 1991 4,434.0 159.0 : 705.0 1992 5,288.0 159.0 t 841.0 1993 6,142.0 159.0 976.6 1994 6,996.0 159.0 t 1,112.4 1995 7,686.0 147.0 1,129.8 1996 7,686.0 147.0 t 1,129.8 1997 7,604.0 147.0 1,117.8 1998 5 7,259.0 147.0 ' 1,067.1 1999 7,177.0 147.0 1,055.0 2000 t 6,832.0 175.0 t 1,195.6 2001 6,750.0 175.0 1,181.3 2002 6,405.0 175.0 1,120.9 2003 6,323.0 175.0 1,106.5 2004 1 5,978.0 175.0 1,046.1 2005 5,700.0 175.0 1 997.5 2006 5,000.0 175.0 875.0 t 2007 5,000.0 175.0 875.0 , _ _ - - -- - -- -- - - - -- - - - -- - ---- -- - --- -- -- -- -- t TOTAL 112,497.0 3,241.0 18,190.5 A-53 - 84 - Appendix 41 ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN (1989 CONSTANT PRICES) INDIVIDUAL REPLANTING OF OIL PALM …-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CAPITAL PRODUCTION TOTAL BENEFIT NET INCREMENTAL: YEAR COST COST COST (M$m) BENEFIT (M$m) (M$m) (M$m) (M$m) :1982 - ---- 1983 - _ 1984 0.44 - 0.44 - 0.44 1985 1.09 - 1.09 - 1.09 1986 0.77 - 0.77 - 0.77 1987 1.10 - 1.10 - 1.10 1988 1.04 0.03 1.07 0.08 - 1.04 1989 0.18 0.21 0.39 0.07 - 0.32 1990 - 0.35 0.35 0.46 0.11 1991 - 0.37 0.37 0.70 0.33 1992 - 0.39 0.39 0.84 0.45 1993 - 0.39 0.39 0.98 0.59 1994 - 0.38 0.38 1.11 0.73 1995 - 0.36 0.36 1.13 0.77 1996 - 0.36 0.36 1.13 0.77 1997 - 0.36 0.36 1.12 0.76 1998 - 0.36 0.36 1.07 0.71 1999 - 0.36 0.36 1.06 0.70 2000 - 0.37 0.37 1.20 0.83 2001 - 0.37 0.37 i.18 0.81 2002 - 0.37 0.37 1.12 0.75 2003 - 0.36 0.36 1.11 0.75 2004 - 0.34 0.34 1.05 0.71 2005 - 0.26 0.26 0.99 0.73 2006 - 0.26 0.26 0.88 0.62 2007 - 0.23 0.23 0.88 0.65 …-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --_ _ - Net present value at discounted rate of 4% = - M$0.16 million Economic rate of return 4% A-S4 - 85 - Appendix 42 Page 1 of 2 DERIVATION Of ECONOMIC PARWOATE PRICKS of PALK OIL PFISH PRUIT DUNCOES (N$/t AT 1989 PRICKS) Conversion Cost Component factor 1983 1984 1985 1988 198? P1LN OIL CIP Price, Europe a/ 1.00 1,606.00 2,452.00 1,680.00 182.00 914.00 Ocean freight, D'worth to Europe b 1.00 - 165 - 165 - 165 - 165 - 16S POD Price, Duttervorth 1,441.00 ;, A7.00 1,515.00 611.00 149.00 Transport, oil sill to D'vorth c/ 0.19 - 21 - 2? - 27 - 27 - 2? Bi-aill price, project area 1,414.00 2,260.00 1,488.00 590.00 722.00 Processing cost c/ 0,88 - 125 - 125 - 125 - 125 - 125 In-mill price, project area 1,289.00 2,135.00 1,363.00 465.00 591.00 PALM KRNEBLS CIF price, Europe a/ 1.00 1,110.00 l,'?6 00 916.00 432.00 482,00 Ocean freight D'vorth to Europe b/ 1.00 - 165 - 165 - 165 - 165 - 165 PO0 price, Duttervorth 1,005.00 1,611.00 811.00 267.00 317.00 Transport, oil sill to D'vorth e/ 0.79 - 2' - 27 - 27 - 27 - 27 St-mill price, project area 978.00 1,584.00 784.00 240.00 290.00 Dagging c/ 0.78 - 36 - 36 - 36 - 36 - 36 In-mill price, project area 942.00 1,548.00 748,00 204.00 254.00 PRESS FRUIT DUNCOES Palm oil price equivalent f/ - 245.00 406,00 259.00 88.00 113.00 Palm kernel price equivalent q/ - 38.00 62.00 30.00 8.00 10.00 In-mill price, project area 283,00 468.00 289.00 96.00 123.00 Transport, faragate to oil-mill c/ 0.79 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 20 Bconomic price of fresh fruit bunches at faragate 263.00 440.00 269.00 76.00 103.00 ..... ..... ............ a/ source IDBD, Jun 28, 1989 b/ thru (g) SEA Consultant Estimates, brought to 1989 prices conversion factor, isu 1986. A-55 f/ Assuming 19X extraction rate g/ Assuming 4% extraction rate - 86 - Ippendis 42 DRIVATION OP ECONOMIC VAlulAT Page 2 ot 2 PRICES or PALU OIL FREED PRUlt DUNCu1E (#tIt IT 1189 PRICES) Conversion Cost Component Factor 1988 1989 1190 1995 2000 PALK OIL CIF Price, Europe a/ 1.00 1,192.00 1,080.00 1,136.00 1,558.00 1,232.00 Ocean freight, D'vorth to Burope b 1.00 - 165 - 165 - 165 - 165 - 165 FOD Price, Buttervortb 1,021.00 915.00 911.00 1,393.00 1,061.00 Transport, oil sill to D'vortb c/ 0.19 - 2? - 27 - 2? - 2? - 2? h-mill price, project area 1,000.00 888.00 944.00 1,366.00 1,040.00 Processing cost cl 0.88 - 125 - 125 - 125 - 125 -125 In-sill price, project area 815.00 163.00 819.00 1,241.00 915.00 PALK KERNELS C1 price, Europe a/ 1.00 128.00 159.00 813.00 193.00 145.00 Ocean freigbt D'vorth to Earope b/ 1.00 - 165 - 165 - 165 - 165 - 165 FOB price, Duttervorth 563.00 594.00 648.00 828.00 580.00 Transport, oil sill to U'vorth el 0.19 - 27 2? - 2? - 27 - 2? Ex-sill price, project area 536.00 5671.00 621.00 801.00 553.00 Bagging c/ 0.18 - 36 3 36 - 36 - 36 - 36 In-sill price, project area 500.00 531.00 585.00 165.00 511.00 FRESH FRUIT DUNCEBS Pala oil price equivalent t/ - 166.00 144.00 156.00 236.00 114.00 Palm kernel price equivalent q/ - 20.00 21.00 23.00 3S.00 21.00 'a-sill price, project area 186.00 165.00 119.00 161.00 195.00 trarsport, faralate to oil-sill c/ 0.79 - 20 - 20 20 20 - 20 Ecolomic price of fresh fruit bunckes at faragate 186.00 145.00 159.00 141.00 175.00 / soiree IBU, ule 2t, 1919 b/ throu (i SEU Consultant Estimates, brought to 1989 prices converion factor, ISU, 1986 f/ Assuming 19S extraction rate A-56 1/ Assulnl 41 extraction %ate - 87 - Appendix 43 Page 1 of 3 MALAYSIA RISDA PROJECT Farm Budget REPLANTING WITlt OIL PALM BY INDIVIDUAL FARMERS (M $/ha) Total Year 1 2 3 4 Development Costs Yield - ton ffb/ha Development Costs _________________ Land Clearing 800 - - - AgrJc Road 120 - - - Terraces 105 - - - Planting Material 385 80 - - Subtotal 1,410 80 0 0 1,660 Inputs Fertilizers 60 75 155 230 Chemicals 50 160 160 110 Tools 10 10 10 30 Subtotal 120 245 325 370 1,060 Labor (Family) Lining and lloling 90 0 0 0 Planting 75 15 0 0 Fertilizing 10 25 30 30 Weeding 30 110 110 70 Sanitation 0 10 50 10 Infrastructure 20 20 20 20 Subtotal 225 180 210 130 745 …------------------------------------------------.-------------------__--- Total 1,755 505 535 500 3,295 …----..------------------------------------------------------------__------ Palm/ha 148 148 138 130 A-57 - 88 - Appeadii 43 Page 2 of 3 2SPLANTING VITO OIL PALE DY INDIVIDUAL FARUNAS tear 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1I Yield-toa ffb/ha Operating Cost Inputs Fertiliser 270 345 390 420 420 420 375 375 375 350 350 350 335 Chemicals 30 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 25 - - - Tools 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 * Subtotal 320 395 440 465 465 465 420 420 420 310 370 370 355 Labor (Family) Fertiliser 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 Veeding 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 Sanitation 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 i Infrastructure 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 la 10 10 10 Harvesting 60 260 250 265 310 350 395 395 395 315 375 3t5 350 Subtotal 140 240 330 350 395 435 475 475 475 465 465 465 440 : Total 460 635 770 815 860 900 895 895 895 835 835 835 M95 Palm/ha 125 125 125 120 120 120 115 115 115 110 110 1IO 105 Source: UISDA, Firu Dudget, 1989. A-58 - 89 - Appeadit 43 Page 3 of 3 ROPLAtING VITIt OIL PALK Ct INDIVIDUAL FAUltS total Year 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2t 28 29 Operating Cost Yield-ton ffb/ba Inputs Pertilizer 335 330 320 320 320 305 Chemicals - - tools 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Subtotal 355 350 335 335 335 320 15 15 15 15 15 15 1,400 Labor (Failpi Fertiliser 25 25 25 25 25 25 - - Feedikg 20t 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 sanitation 25 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 '1 10 - Infrastructure 10 10 10 10 10 10 - - Darvesting 330 330 310 310 265 265 240 240 220 220 220 220 Subtotal 410 410 390 390 340 340 280 280 240 240 230 220 8,895 Tut4l ids 760 125 125 675 660 295 295 255 255 245 235 16,295 GiANT TOtAL COST 19,590 Palo/ha 105 105 100 100 1OO 95 95 95 85 85 85 85 Source: 31SDl, fare Budget, 1989. A-59 Rppendim 44 LOAN 2220-MR: KEORH VRLLEYS IROP IRRIGRTION DEVELOPMENT FINRNCIRL CRPITRL COST ORERKDOWN (CURRENT PRICES) (M$ MILLION) _.----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------_____________ 1982 1983 1994 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 : TOTRL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Rdmimstrative Cost 0.03 0.26 0.36 0.61 0.81 0.63 0.49 0.00 3.39 : : Land Rcquisition 0.06 0.61 0.70 0.64 0.50 1.08 0.85 0.00 4.44 : : Consultancy Services 0.00 0.91 0.73 1.62 0.43 1.45 0.47 0.00 ' 5.61 : Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.01 Equipments Vehicles 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.31 0.36 0.00 2.34 Irrigation Development 1.24 4.66 3.86 4.85 9.75 3.65 2.23 0.30 ' 30.54 :inor Works 0.00 0.03 0.57 2.27 2.06 0.33 0.08 0.23 : 5.57 --… TOTRL 1.57 6.47 6.22 10.19 14.99 7.45 4.48 0.53 : 51.90 R-60 Appendix 45 LORN 2220-MR: KEORH VALLEYS IROP IRRIGRT ION DEVELOPMENT OERIVATION OF FINRNCIRL CAPITRL COST (CONSTRNT PRICES 1989) (M$ MILLION) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 : TOTRL :Rdimstrative Cost 25% 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.14 0.00 : 0.97 Land Rcquisition 25X 0.03 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.14 0.29 0.23 0.00 ' 1.25 Consultancy Services 0.00 1.02 0.79 1.75 0.46 1.54 0.49 0.00 : 6.05 Equipments Vehicles 100I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.'30 0.26 a Irr-igation a Er elopment 1.45 5.22 4.17 5.24 10.44 3.87 2.30 0.30 : 32.99 : 1005! Minor Works 25X 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.62 0.56 0.10 0.02 0.06 : 1.55 TOTRL 1.50 6.52 5.43 8.02 11.99 6.02 3.23 0.36 : 43.07 R-61 Rppendix 46 U LORN 2220-MR: KEDRH VRLLEYS IRDP IRRIGRTION DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC CRPITAL COST 1s989 CONSTANT PRICES) ____________---------_---------_--- -----------------------------------------------------------T-------s * Conversion Factor 19Q2 1983 1984 1985 1966 1987 1988 1989 : TOTRL ndmimstrative Cost 0.82 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.00 : 0.82 : Land Rcquisition 0.65 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.19 0.15 0.00 : 0.83 : " Consultancy Services 0.78 0.00 0.80 0.62 1.37 0.36 1.21 0.39 0.00 ' 4.75 Equipments Vehicles 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.3 0.05 0.00 : 0.25 Irrigation Development 0.84 1.22 4.39 3.51 4.41 8.77 3.25 1.94 0.26 27.75 Minor Works 0.84 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.52 0.47 0.09 0.02 0.05 : 1.32 TOTAL 1.26 5.40 4.50 6.61 10.04 4.93 2.67 0.31 : 35.72 For conversion factor see, M.D. Veitch, 1986 R-62 App.ndi S 47 PRDI PRODUCTION sUILD-UP IRRIGATI ON OEVELOPMENT --------- ------ _----_-_-- -----_--_--_- ------_--------- -- ----_-_---------------------------------------- :- --- ----- ----:--- ---: :nAIN SEASON: OFF SEASON : rorRt rOTRoL I NCREnENTAL: : : - - -- - - ---- - - - - - - -------------- -------------------------------------- --- - --: PROWUC1 SON RODUCTION:PROOuCTI ON: .YEaR 2uNIENEFirEoDM'ERAGE: sENEFIrED ARER IRVERRGE2 SEASONAL 2UN8ENEFI1ED:2AER.2GE:2ENEFIrED2:AERAGE: SEASONAL : UIrH ijIrnour : ARER YIELD --------2-------- YIELD :PRODUCTION : REA YIELD A AREA : YIELD :PRODUCTION: PROJECI PRoJEcr : : : : GROSS 2 NET : : 2 : : : CHb>) V:cr/ha> : (H. : (Na : ct/h.> : crons, : C") : C*I) : 144) : CT/ha) ( Tons) i CTonsl) i Tons) ' Tons) : : - : - : - :- : ~~~~~~~~~---: ---- -- ------- --- ----- ------ --- - ------ ----- -- - ---- :1982 : 6,112.0 s .z : 0.0 I 0.0 : - : 10,390.0 : 2,444.0 : 2.1 : - : - : 5,132.0 2 15,522.0 : 15,522.0 0.0 21983 : 6,112.0 s 1.6 : 0.0 0.0 - : 9,779.0 : 2,444.0 1.7 : - : - 4,15.0 : 13,934.0 13,934.0 0.0 1984 : 5,267.0 : 2.4 . 845.0 : 837.0 2 3.0 2 15,15.0 2 2,106.0 : 2.8 2 334.0 : 3.0 6,899.0 : 22,050.0 2 21,512.0 : 538.0 :1985 : 3,521.0 : 2.6 : 2,591.0 2,565.0 : 4.0 : 19,414.0 : 1,408.0 2 2.4 2 1,S39.0 3.4: 8,612.0 : 28,026.0 : 21,756.0 : 6,270.0 :1986 : 3,324.0 : 2.8 : 2,780.0 : 2,752.0 : 2.4 : 15,912.0 : 1,329.0 : - : 1,651.0 1 - - : 15,912.0 : 17,114.0 : d1,202.0) *1987 : 2,460.0 : 2.4 : 3,652.0 : 3,615.0 : 2.9 : 16,388.0 2 984.0 : 1.9 : 2,169.0 2 2.1 6,424.0 2 22,812.0 2 19,312.0 3,500.0 :1988 : 118.0 : 2.6 : 5,994.0 5,934.0 : 3.0 : 18,109.0 : 47.0 : 1.9 : 4,74?.0 2 3.1 14,805.0 2 32,914.0 : 20,535.0 1 12,379.0 :1989 : 0.0 : 2.6 : 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.0 : 18,153.0 : 0.0 1 1.9 : 4,40.0 : 3.1 1 15,004.0 : 33,157.0 : 20,535.0 2,622.0 :1990 : 0.0 : 2.7 2 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.0 : 18,153.0 : 0.0 2 1.9 4,840.0 2 3.1 2 15,004.0 33,157.0 2 21,146.0 : 12,011.0 :1991 : 0.0 2 2.7 : 6,112.0 2 6,051.0 : 3.0 : 1,153.0 0.0 : 1.9 2 4,840.0 : 3.1 15,004.0 : 33,157.0 2 21,146.0 2 12,011.0 : :1992 : 0.0 : 2.7 : 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.0 : 18,153.0 2 0.0 1 1.9 2 4,840.0 : 3.1 1S,004.0 33,157.0 : 21,146.0 : 12,011.0 :1993 : 0.0 2 2.7 : 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.0 : 18,153.0 2 0.0 ^ 1.9 2 4,840.0 : 3.1 2 15,004.0 33,157.0 : 21,146.0 : 12,011.0 :1994 : 0.0 2 2.7 : 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.0 : 18,153.0 2 0.0 I 2.9 : 4,040.0 : 3.1 : 15,004.0 : 33,157.0 21,146.0 : 12,011.0 : :195 2 0.0 : 2.8 : 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.1 : 18,758.0 : 0.0 : 2.0 : 4,840.0 : 3.2 2 15,488.0 34,246.0 : 22,002.0 12,244.0 : s1996 2 0.0 : 2.8 : 6,112.0 6,051.0 : 3.1 1 18,758.0 3 0.0 2 2.0 2 4,040.0 2 3.2 : 15,488.0 : 34,246.0 : 22,002.0 2 12,244.0 2 :1997 2 0.0 : 2.8 2 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 2 3.1 2 18,758.0 : 0.0 2 2.0 2 4,040.0 3.2 25,480.0 2 34,246.0 2 22,002.0 12,244.0 : :1998 0.0 o 2.8 0 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 2 3.1 t 18,758.0 : 0.0 2 2.0: 4,840.0 : 3.2 : 15,488.0 : 34,246.0 2 22,002.0 2 12,24".0 2 1999 : 0.0 2 2.8 2 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 2 3.1 ' 18,758.0 2 0.0 2 2.0 : 4,040.0 2 3.2 2 15,488.0 : 34,246.0 2 22,002.0 2 12,244.0 22000 : 0.0 : 2.9 : 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 2 3.2 i 19,363.0 : 0.0 2 2.1 : 4,840.0 : 3.3 i 15,972.0 : 35,335.0 2 22,857.0 : 12,479.0 : :2001 : 0.0 2 2.9 2 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.2 : '9,363.0 2 0.0 2 2.1 s 4,840.0 : 3.3 2 15,972.0 : 35,335.0 2 22,857.0 12,478.0 :2 :2002 2 0.0 2 2.9 2 6,112.0 : 6,0S1.0 : 3.2 : 19,363.0 2 0.0 2 2.1 2 4,840.0 2 3.3 2 15,972.0 2 35,33s.0 2 22,857.0 : 12,478.0 :% :2003 2 0.0 : 2.9 2 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.2 2 19,363.0 2 0.0 2 2.1 2 4,840.0 2 3.3 2 15,972.0 : 35,33s.0 : 22,857.0 2 12,479.0 :2 :2004 2 0.0 : 2.9 2 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.2 : 19,363.0 2 0.0 2 2.1 : 4,040.0 2 3.3 : 15,972.0 2 35,335.0 : 22,857.0 2 12,478.0 : :2005 : 0.0 : 3.0 6,1S2.0 : 6,051.0 : 3.3 2 19,968.0 0.0 2.2 : 4,840.0 2 3.4 2 16,456.0 36,424.0 2 23,712.0 12,712.0 22006 : 0.0 : 3.0 : 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 0 0.0 : 2.2 4,840.0 : 3.4 16,456.0 : 36,424.0 : 23,712.0 12,?12.0 : :2007 : 0.0 : 3.0 : 6,112.0 : 6,051.0 I 3.3 : 19,968.0 2 0.0 : 2.2 : 4,840.0 2 3.4 : 16,456.0 : 36,424.0 : 23,712.0 : 12,712.0 : Not. I Lend acquisition tak*s up 12 of the gross besmfitted aroa Cropping Intensitg 1984 - 1402 1985, 1986, 1987 - 1602 1988 onuard - 180Z Yield etas not recordod for off-s*ason 1986 because of crop failuro a63 - 94 - Appendix 48 COST OF PRODUCTION OF PADI PER HECTARE PER SEASON (1989Prices) Transplanting ' Direct Sowing :Financial:Economic :Financial: Economic Agricultural Inputs * ______ Fertilizer a 112.00 ' - : 112.00 *~~ ~~~ . . . Seed 27.95 25.43 41.35 37.63 *~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a a a. ! Chemical t 52.57 47.84 : 67.07 61.03 ,Labor ' ' i a Land preporation I 208.40 ' 183.39 , 210.00 ' 184.80 * a * a a a Transplanting/Sowing ' 245.45 ' 215.99 31.00 : 27.28 *~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a . Maintenance ' 132.00 116.16 132.00 11.16 Ilarvesting t 250.00 220.00 250.00 : 220.00 ~~~~~~~~.* a . Field Transport t 43.00 ' 37.84 43.00 ' 37.84 Transport to print : 75.00 66.00 ' 75.00 t 66.00 ofsale Other Charges ' : 1,029 t: 762.00 Padi bonus 0.00 : 541.08 541.08 *~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a . a. Land tax 5.00 ' 5.00 ' 5.00 , 5.00 * * * . Total :1,039.37 :1,570.73 , 854.42 1,303.82 SOURCE MARDI SURVEY OUTSIDE MADA, 1988 Fertilizer was given free of charge Padi bonus of $16.00 was given to every 100 kg of padi sold. Assumming the yield of 3 ton pet ha. Labor = 0.88 Tax = 1.0 A-64 - 95 - Au,rdi;;: ix E88OCNOhIC CJ38T JF ERTI AND M' AINTEN:A4NE ($ m l ion, 19C9 C8nstarnt P.rice) Yaar Ad41zic,nal ArozeA 4n)ramental EBru"c'ht Int-o CrD>Xullcitn;.fcBt 19E 1984 '4) 0 1 9 35 5(23 . C.Z 1986 536 . 06 1987 709 , * i 9s3 2:30 .137 1989 239u .161 1 990 2 376 16 It -1991 37Q . ) z7,97.0 5. 0. 'otj;i7 12,712.0 397.0 5. C0 2007 12,712.0 397.0 5.0- --~~~~~~~~~~~'! 20 ... 7 ..... C" 39f. C. 5. -98- EC0Nt' IC RATE OF RETURN (1939 CONSTANT PRICES) INTZNQ3j`FIC2ATION OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE (E.CL;JSIVE cr PFA;'DI 8ONUSE3) CAPITAL INCREM1CNTAL INCNTAL TO . , L TOTAL NET O \ c>ah COST 'COST OF COST CF CCS. F!ENEFI T INCREM1ENTAL 1 SM$mTl.) MAINTENANCE PRODUCTION 3EENrrF; T -------------------.------.---------------.---.----------- - ----------------- 1792 1.26 - - 1 .-2' -t ,Li 1 1983 5. 400 - - S. 4X - (?. 400) 1 ;984 4.500 - - 4, 0.300 (4.200) 1983 6.610 0. O0 0. 520 7.144 'Pi60. . C (4.064) 19. 6 10.040 0.036 0. 530' 1Q.6L 606 (0. 50) (11.106): 1 1987 4.930 0.048 0. 700 E. .67 1 .300 (41 . 378): 1938 2.67o 0.157 2 .10 2.33 4. 40:.' (527. 000) 19S9 0.-10 0. 161 Z. ;. D 4 6.000 - 3.44V . 1990 - C0. 161 2.020 . 2.131 3.400 2. i 5 1791 - ~~~~~~~~0.-161 2.020 2.i, 4. 40CM 2.2:9 1992 - 0.161 Z. 02 0 2.181 4.400 2.21, 'i I 199- - 0.11S4 2.020 24 . 121. 4.400 2.2_19 i 1994 - 0.161 2.020 2.1i1 4.400 2.219 1995 - 0:.f61 2. 020 2.181 , 700 3. i? a 191nS6 - 0. 1.$1 2. 0:20 2.131 S.700 3.519 : 1 1797 _0C. . 61 2. 020 2.132 5. 70c3. 1 1998 - 0.161 2.020 2.1S1 5.700 i .519 199C; - .161 c .020 2.161 i. 370 . 5:D 20,0)c0_ D 0.1 61,, 2.020 Z. 881 5.000 2, . 8a : 2001 - 0.161 2.020 2.12: 5.000 2.619 l 2002 - 0.161 2.020 2.161 ' . 21; a 4 9 2007 - 0.161 2.020 2.18. 5.0G0 - .8'9 I 2004 - 0.161 2.020 2.161 3.000 2.819 1 207 - 0. 161 2. 00 2. 1i 5. 00L0 2.619 2 20D06 - 0.161 2.020 . 1&1 . 000 8 -a19 2007 - 0.161 2. 02 2. 5 2.0 2. 3. '. Nett pi-esent value at disciuntad ratU c: 2<% = M;-&2.734 .millicn Econorni r-ate of return = 2.4' f-68 _99_ EcCINC.~~~:: RA117 ZF !T-%RNi:: (I':? =i;NS-ANT P.':6ES. i-.R.SA7:CNi ZVaELCPMEN JEVL;S:.E ,F FANtD SO115,L-H-E' N.Y mil' . o, at lS5E? :on;'tant pices, W C luZFE I .; @tZ; nE.,:4-: I.-';.EN .. ',I:5s 11 .. 71 NG-, M L , i- MAL 7'7iET Z7 ,FEv.<;'TAL: Y-D.R 11 ;;OE7 WY 6=21 'Jr- ? ds uJ.Z. I >F IT 2'NFr T (SI: r...v_ 0. . 4. E C. __ ~~~~6' . S c ON 69,O 7- -7 - 1. I CA - .4.23741,I ;, jS _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aP. o ,4A-....A. 6.X.:. :193- ; .: .#Ms ,' Nu' ; v v 5td.; . ;,,v c.6i: v.{)',4 G.'C v.S-G ,~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~.i4 a1'.4'4 9¢7 ,,; ;,ss ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ C7,) (I7{ W. ' ... 1;.9,: C.& .:1 V .1 "V r rI. 1 - sv t w{4*u sr s .,Vl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: -1 ..t 77 V, ^ V,,%; T' q.w i li;;- ~~~~~~~~v;e. 164 7'. 7^ ,i. lA.- . i;S;. v. 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6 41v _7AI V-7 l 3.7''; :,- e,;s ^,,lt.s ,;,\.:0 .4tv M :; $!.~Z.X *S :i .'.tl-to * t,%. Itsl. '*5 AWjcl I* c.101 3.lIco-i. fr-eight. airSin:u-n., ii 8%..O0 Or. nos I t.s SIt; (0lOh Lo iJ$.1Soff i35tsSsI0 E- StuI offt(1 (A ..1,1 -S. I tFSr1.? K.pl-A* Ik minpur 0IJ3(0 dl-. Lii) ?,,47. 05 (163.171 fIG St' 00o 1l- I. o1i if.-'j I~ a ,- tIC: eo I.~~ 'i.u 5. Port t.an.ilia-iqz~, trasv:.por-t 'si 0). V9 311.00 -3ij,0h ::0flu 3000 i. 00 ii!,: I lj.b 30.150 31E10tJ 14.1 * t.e :. wholets-tie., F/Lissaptn 1,11-4.-oi.-sjclta pricsa. lu-do I 'aepia 91 J- CI 0..'7.00( j 141 ?17.uri"istIl flu'.f.m 1$-. (bI ulit Iv C.,,(l..13 I Ih'5it OA.tO t1*.Ii * iJor F-r'*tI. el-on. ps 0J.e. t. ~ 0;". * c.(n -vii.lOi *-.Ar,. Con) ract*ri C 51.(Ils lit I'. * ItitJ) * 30.iiff I 5(1. 011 1 -3t11.0) * Ii- sSIs to, Ks.i.a I utopiar 8. S~~~~~~~~~~ m..t. c-c-mill, grc.jc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~,i?. 4 tlil b ? 0" .1.f iI a t, LIit. ciu 7 T. o IO 9. 15.1 1I 1.g costz!: (Slot of- be1 0 (7S !iu ..COo (50. ori) (SAl.) II 50I.1j I10) Si tOfi on (fld..fl I ..'i) .i.tm_5008 KnOi II. Pi 'i 1.- it' still* pt-o js.t ... c1,OF. tor 5 it W. Dini-I ,.'. lIi I .4 3. IAO :L;'.W. COO r.-11:. att) 7-0 1(1 aim 9.10"11 (l 62W. ant *C Ltb I ROI I.I rnrw,a,iir price;G of pathl -it 511.0 on 188. (5.0 -115.00. CIOJJ $52. (00 4 -1. (II1 4.1 -. ion :70.1I10 A .S, -t(I0 rE'.In S.c-In P1-*1 'lrice. Ilrrsgk.,I< -W -I Uoj- t, Jt,lAJN nrati crmi-n lar.sirinii .:S 1)953-ti tanofst-, J 9A.1t flAt to.)fb i.:mw,mc.. tot .-I (-1 rkel.s, D Iv i Icon, Se,pt CrnInW~r piF:8. kCatver-i cd to, *:o..n.:..rt 190(I pri.:&-,3 Sy 9.,inrj Milk) imdwc. I n'-r & - tin.. f-ajctor: r 'InLmicic-il pr, ce *r-oravorcwt) ti, oc-c',s.ms. . pt-ice by ur,inrq Fr~snc.,ncu 1 S- . in.ntg lirsi I gut.ic-Wisat t it, "It no a scsn rPc.o Ogu- a-I i N.-nI'Oj ISO" Vl 1. Iby M.CI.V.-itdJ,, i~t~ j 9b -101 - Appendix 55 DERIVATION OF ECONOMIC CAPITAL COSTS OF FIVE ROAD IN BALING (M$ million) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 2000 Current Price _____________ Construction Cost 0.210 4.030 1.020 0.460 Land Acquisition 1.580 0.480 - - - Maintenance - - - - 0.034 0.180 Constant 1989 Prices ____________________ Construction Cost 0.230 4.310 1.080 0.470 - - Land Acquisition 1.710 0.510 - - - - Maintenance - - - - 0.034 0.180 Economic Price 1989 Construction 0.190 3.620 0.910 0.390 - - Land Acquisition 1.110 0A.30 - - - - Maintenance - - - - 0.029 0.150 Source: PWD, IADP Kedah Valleys Conversion factor: Construction = .84 Land acquisition .65 Maintenance = 84 Conversion Factor: Agricultural input 0.91 Labor = 0.88 A-71 Ap.wcdix 56 Paeg 1 of 2 ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF FIVE ROROS TRKEN TOGETHER IN BRLING CMS Million. 1989 pricos) 1998 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 R6RIC. BENEFIT 0.0000 0.0017 0.0031 0.0032 0.0032 0.0034 0.0034 0.0035 0.0036 o.oo37 PESENGER BENEFIT 0.0000 0.0300 0.4100 0.8000 0.8400 0.9900 0.9400 0.9800 1.0400 1.0800 1.1300 TOTRL BENEFIT 0.0000 0.0300 0.4117 0.8031 0.8432 0.8932 0.9434 0.9834 1.0435 1.0836 1.1337 CONSTRUCTION COST 0.0000 0.1900 3.6200 0.9100 0.3900 - - - - - - 0 L/A COST - 1.1100 0.3300 - - - - - - - MRINTENRNCE COST - - - - - 0.0290 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 RCCIDENT COST - 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 CVEHICLE OPERATION - (O.0O?O)(0.0900)co. 1700 0.1900)(O.2000)CO.2200)(0.2300)(O.2400)(O.2400)(0.2600) COST> TOTAL COST 0.0000 1.2930 3.8700 0.7420 0.2020 (0.1690)(0.0680)(0.0790)CO.0880)(0.080)(0.1080) NET INC. BENEFIT 0.0000 C1.2630)C3.4583) 0.0611 0.6412 1.0622 1.0114 1.0614 1.1315 1.1716 1.2417 NET PRESENT VALUE at discount r-ate of 19% = -MS.Ol million (0.0106) ECONOMIC RRTE OF RETURN = 18.9Z Maintonanece cost of S5,OO0/km is the amount rcquired to properly maintain the road. JKR estimate A-72 Rppo0rdi x 56 Page 2 of 2 ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF FIVE ROADS TRKEN TOGETHER IN BRLING CMS Million. 1989 prices) 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 R6RIC. BENEFIT 0.0038 0.0039 0.0041 0.0042 0.0043 0.0044 0.0045 0.0046 0.0047 0.0048 PESENGER BENEFIT 1.2100 1.2900 1.3800 1.4700 1.5600 1.6400 1.7300 1.8100 1.8900 1.9800 ----------------------------------------------------------------__-----------__------------------- TOTAL BENEFIT 1.2138 1.2939 1.3841 1.4742 1.5643 1.6444 1.7345 1.8146 1.8947 1.9848 ---------------------------------------------------------------__------------__------------------- CONSTRUCTION COST - - - - - - - - - - ° LIf COST - - - - - - - - - - MAINTENANCE COST 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 0.1500 RCCIDENT COST 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 CVEHICLE OPERRTIONC0.2700)(0.2900)(0.3100)(0.3500)CO.3700)C0.3900)(O.4100)CO.4300)rC.4500)CO.4800) COST) TOTAL COST (0.1180)(O.1380>(0.1580)(0.1980)(0.2180)(O.2370)CO.25?O)CO.2??0)(0.29?0)(0.32?0) NET INC. BENEFIT 1.3318 1.4319 1.5421 1.6?22 1.7823 1.8814 1.9915 2.0916 2.1917 2.3118 R-73 -104- Appendix 57 LOAN 2220-MA: KEDAH VALLEYS rADP INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DERIVATION OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN DUSUN REHABILITATION PROGRAM (CURRENT PRICES) (M$ MILLION) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 TOTAL Incremental 0.04 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.10 1.13 Admimistrative Cost 25X Orchard Development 100S 0.13 0.10 0.38 0.33 0.42 0.12 0.16 0.00 1.64 : Minor works 25 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.21 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.59 TOTAL 0.17 0.24 0.60 0.72 0.81 0.35 0.34 0.13 3.36 , = = == = === _= = == a== = ==== == = 3=22== = 2== ~ === 3==_===== A-74 - 105 _ Appendix 58 LOAN 2220-MA: KEDAH VALLEYS IADP INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DERrVATION OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL COST DUSUN REIIABILITATION PROGRAM (CONSTANT PRICES 1989) (M$ MILLION) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 : TOTAL . Incremental 0.05 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.18 0.10 A .1.25 Administrative Cost II Orchard Development 0.16 0.12 0.41 0.36 0.45 0.13 0.17 0.00 1.80 1 Minor Works 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.25 0.23 0.05 0.01 0.03 1 0.66 TOTAL 0.21 0.29 0.66 0.79 0.88 0.39 0.36 0.13 : 3.71 …=-=2======2=-===--===23==-=-==s=33=s==-======:…-===_== Conversion to 1989 prices using CPI A-75 -106- Appendix 59 MALAYSIA LOAN 2220-HA: KEDAii '/ALLEYS IADP INTGRATED ASRICUMLrE DEvsOPM PROJECT ECONMMIC CAPITAL COST DUSU RUEHAILITATION PROGA (1999 CONSTANT PRICS) (MS MILLION) : Cmnversion I I FaCtr 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 TOTAL: I Incremental 0.82 0.05 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.09 1 1.07 A Pdsirstrative Cost l I G Orchard Developmnt 0.91 0.15 0.11 0.38 0.33 0.41 0.12 0.16 - I 1.66 1 I I I 'inor Woks 0.84 - 0.02 0.06 0.21 0.20 0.05 0.01 0.03 1 .58 t : I tITAL 0.20 0.26 0.59 0.69 0.78 0.35 0.32 0.12 1 3.31 1 For conversim factor see N.D. Veitch, 1986. A-76 -107 - Appendix 60 FINANCIAL COST OF PRODUCTION OF LOCAL FRUIT PER HiA PER YEAR 41989 Prices) 1 2 3 4 5-7 8-11 12 above Rambu tan Input 640 207 350 434 450 372 372 Labor 350 272 524 544 524 292 322 Durian Input 130 210 369 505 609 699 806 Labor 355 243 330 379 408 447 447 Cempeda k Input 104 197 290 449 672 590 590 Labor 441 311 456 476 826 826 835 Other Input 291 205 336 463 577 554 589 Labor 403 275 437 466 586 522 535 *Exclusive of seedling and fertilizer in year 1, because these item were provided for under "Dusun Rehabilitation Program" *Labor excludes land preparation because most of dusun replanting was on the existing plot of orhard. Source: Ministry of Agriculture "Asas Daya Maju Tanaman Terpilih' Kuala Lumpur, 1988. - 108 - Apperndix 61 ECONCi,iC COST OF PROZL,'CTION OF LOChL Ff,LIIT PER Hin F ER YEAR (1967 FPrice-) 2 . 4 5-7 C-. 1.2 & ;r ;c Ramb Utan c582 188 319 4075 407 3,27 337 Lab or '1 C1108 2., j7 46 4 4 79 461 257 232: T c,;- al 1890", 427 760 t3 874 870( 596 ',2 DLti- i A,. Input s18 11 336 459 554 62: 9 Labor 12 i4 290 .33 3 59 ? L4RIJ O; *_# 1 _ < z $ Z '7t; nJ ;~ ~ ~ ~~~~-r _^7 9. .7 _1 3 7. Tc,tal 43-i0 40 62 6 ,3 913 J'32 11? Cempeda,.: I -,put 95 179 264 4 0-19 6 .1 7 IL-aboi- 3a G.; 2274 401 4:1 72 72. , Total 453 453 665 8.9 1S3 93 1 -,272 Othe - Input 2 6 5 1£6 .i t0J 6 421 r 25 5 4t J Labor 355 242 .3L 410 551i6 4S 4 :7 1. Total 62,¢i0 429 6c 9 I 1 i.,041 IL 1,OOc Conversion factor "g-icultu a1l iput-- = 0.91 l abor = 0. Z30 Soui-c.e : M.D.Vaitch, 1986. 'A -75 - 109 - Sl Appendix 62 ECONOMIC COST OF HARVESTING PER KG OF LOCAL FRUIT (1989 Prices) Rambutan Durian Cempedak Others Financial 0.08 0.17 0.13 0.13 Economic 0.07 0.15 0.11 0.11 Conversion factor 0.88 Base on Ministry of Agricultural, "The Feasibility Study of Fruit Production and Marketing in Peninsular Malaysia Interim Report 1984. Based on Ministry of Agriculture,"Asas Daya Maju Tanaman Terpilih" Kuala Lumpur 1988. A-79 ,, - 110 - Appendix 63 ECONOMIC COST OF HARVESTING OF LOCAL FRUITS (M$1000, 1989 CONSTANT PRICES) * 4 - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - -I ------------ t YEAR I RAMBUTAN DUR IAN CEMPEDAK OTHERS I TOTAL * 1983 41 - - 1984 £ 4 4 1 1984 1 - - _ _4 1985 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.27 1986 0.26 0.00 0.28 0.69 1 2 23I 1987 1.02 0.00 1.31 2.27 4.60 1988 2.96 0.00 5.14 6.99 15.09 1989 7.88 0.00 12.96 16.04 1 36.88 1 1990 14.89 0.24 26.36 51.26 : 72.75 : 1991 1 34.31 1.14 46.76 )7.36 1 149.57 1 1992 1 47.99 20.09 67.60 96.81 1 232.49 1 1993 ' 48.84 12.59 92.62 123.34 1 277.39 1 1 1994 1 74.88 46.42 116.88 198.23 1 436.41 1 1995 88.04 21.63 139.12 214.74 463.53 1 1996 79.17 60.87 164.53 180.41 484.98 1 1997 1 101.85 44.96 187.42 296.35 630.58 1 1998 143.38 58.54 210.26 357.40 1 769.58 1 1999 0 87.72 60.20 235.65 244.54 1 628.11 1 2000 158.61 46.26 256.78 294.21 755.86 1 2001 132.66 64.14 270.43 294.69 1 761.92 1 2002 77.56 44.41 278.58 294.69 1 695.24 1 2003 77.84 34.66 280.83 2-4.69 : 688.02 1 2004 77.38 29.05 274.14 294.69 1 675.26 1 2005 77.93 316.22 261.06 294.69 1 949.90 I 2006 77.93 52.03 247.24 294.69 1 671.89 1 2007 77.93 46.50 231.76 294.69 0 650.88 1 TOTAL 1 1,491.05 959.95 3,407.71 4,193.72 1 10,052.43 1 A-8O - lii - Appendix 64 TOTAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM VARIOUS FRUIT TREES DUSUN REHABILITATION SCHEMES (M$'000, 1989 CONSTANT PRICES) : I _. _4 :__ :YEAR 1 RAMBUTAN DURIAN CEMPEDAK OTHERS O TOTAL ------ ' -------------------------------------- ---------- 1983 - - - 4 1984 : I 1985 0.3 . 0.0 0.0 3.9 4.2 2 1986 3.3 0.( 1.0 8.5 I 12.8 1987 1 12.7 0.0 12.3 16.7 1 41.7 1968 1 43.2 0.0 42.5 46.9 1 134.6 1989 1 114.8 0.0 107.2 112.3 37-4. : 1990 216.9 0.6 218.2 218.8 1 654.5 1 1991 500.0 2.9 386.9 471.5 1 1,561.:3 1992 699.3 50.9 559.2 677.7 1 1,987.1 1993 711.6 31.9 766.2 863.4 1 2,373.1 4 1994 1,0911 117.6 966.9 1,387.6 3 7,563.2 1 1995 1,282.8 54.8 1,150.9 1,503.2 : 3,991.7 : 1996 1,153.6 154.2 1,361.1 1,262.9 1 3,931.8 : 1997 : 1,484.1 113.9 1,550.5 2,074.5 0 5,223.0 1 1998 : 2,089.3 148.3 1,739.4 2,501.8 6,478.8 0 1999 1 1,278.2 152.5 1,949.5 1,711.8 5,092.0 I 2000 : 2,311.2 117.2 2,124.3 2,059.5 1 6,612.2 0 2001 : 1,933.0 162.5 2,237.2 2,062.8 6,395.5 2002 1,130.2 115.2 2,304.6 2,062.8 5,612.8 2003 1,134.2 87.8 2,318.3 2,062.8 5,603.1 1 2004 1 1,127.6 73.6 2,267.9 2,062.8 5,531.9 I I 2005 1 1,135.6 801.1 2,159.7 2,062.8 1 6,159.2 : 1 2006 1 1913.6 131.8 29045.4 2,062.8 : 5,375.6 1 1 2007 : 1,135.6 117.8 1,917.3 2,062.8 : 5,233.5 1 I TOTAL 1 21,724.2 2,434.6 28,186.5 29,362.6 J 81,707.9 1 A-81 AppendiK 65 ECoNOIC FARNSArE PRICE 0.Q LOCRL FRUITS Ch$Vkg at 1989 pri..s) : : *~~1982:1l983 :1l964 1995 :19@6 :199? : 1988 :3l9S9: 1990 :1g5 : 2000 : : Cur.nt Pric- (4) ; : : : : : .: :R.taiz, flor Setar : : : : : :: 7 ------------ ---------- Ranbutan : 1.67: 2.05 0.97: I.82: 1.7?: 1.84: 1.93: Ourian : 1.52: 1.50 1.29 5.44: 5. 44 1.05 0.75: : : : : : : C1): : ~ ~~~~ ~~~: : : ::: Cenp.dak : 1.63: 2.57: 2.57 2.57 1.46: 2.00: 1.95: es*S . . . . . . . . . Current Price Farrgate: : : : : : : ------------ : : : : : S : : : Ranbutan 1.21 1.38 0.62 1.20 1.12 1.12 1.36 : Durian : 1.02 1.20: 1.041 3.60: 3.60 0.70: 0.50: : Compedak :0.52 0.56_ 1.00: 1.70 0.51: 1.33: 1.20: F:aruate 1989 Prices : : : : : :- …-------- : : : Ranbutan : 1.41: 1.55: 0.67: 1.30 1.20: 1.19: 1.0: :: Durian : 1.19: 1.34: 1.12 3.89: 3.95: 0.74 : 0.52 : : : : Ceuepedak 0.61: 0.63 1.08 1.84: 0.5S: 1.41 1.24: : : : Econonic Farnsgate Price : : : : C19B9 Prices) : : : : : --- - --- --------:::::::::::: Ranobutan : 1.04 1.13 : 0.49 : 0.95 : 0.88 : 0.97 : 1.02 : 1.02 : 1.02 : 1.02 : 1.02 1 Durian 0.87 : 0.98 : 0.82 : 2.84 2.911 0.54 : 0.38 : 0.38 0 0.38 : 0.38 : 0.38 Cenpedak 0.45 0.46 0.79 1.34 0.40 1.03 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Others CRverage 3) 1 0.79 : 0.86 : 0.70 1 1.71 1 1.36 : 0.81 : 0.77 : 0.?? : 0.77 : 0.77 : 0.77 Conversion Factors s 0.73 Notes: 1) estinate as equal to the previous year 2) estinate as equal to 50X of the retail value 3) Econouic prices for 1989 on mord are assumed constant 4) & 5) Source FRhR lor Setar A-8e -113- iR f I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I_ I ko ! C D N OD N !r N C ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ IND I Tn i~~~~~~~~% ,CDrasci ! !, lq iv N r (D N 0% N Ji la~~ ~ ~~~ %a *- - ,. It 11 I I I 1 1 1 , m I Itt I I I I I I I I I I I |i IN In TWO I OD (I LL I¢ 1 1 1 1n 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z I - --------- _--------- -------- 1 S IIIIm'NIIII I I I tX ,i N m X~N,v (CD, 1 I I 1a II l Cl iN i~~~~ in3O i, Xi | I Lo T CD I rm O ft I I~~~~~~ I I S IN laa 11 1 . * I* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I 1( 1 °4 T N ) I 1 $ T I8 InvGX|t 11 m | tgtI!I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1W@ 1- NO T N, . N CD 1o 1x I V I --------- _ -------------- -__ -- - 114 - Appendix: 67 Page 1 of 2 ACREAGE OF FRUITING DURIAN TREES (HA) 1AGE OF TREES 1 1989 1 1990 1 1991 1 1992 5 1993 1994 1 1995 t 1996 1 1997 1 ______ 1____ a - ____ a - ____ a -___-___- a __I_________ 1 1 - J - 1 - I - a - - - I - I _- I - O - - - _ I _ - 17 O.S: 0.8 e 0.2 0.7 O.1 I - - I : 8 : - : ~~1.6 1 0 (.9 02.4 0 .D6 1 2.1 1 0.4 1 - I :9 - - . 3.1 1.7 1 4.7 1 1.2 1 4.0 6.9 -: 10 - -. -:6.2 1 3.5 9.4 02.4 8.2 11.41 I11 - - . - - 7.2 :4.0 11.0 2.9 :9.6 I12 1 I 8.3 4.6 12-.6 : .4 a a13 - 5 - 2 - 14.2 15 o - a - a - a - -I a - -. : X 6 . - : - - - t - - I - - - I * 17 : - : - : 0.6 0.2 0.7- I - - : - - : 1 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 8 1 - 1. 1 0. - 2. - 0: 2. : 0. :1 - I - : 9 l1 - 1 - 1 3. 1 1. 1 4. I 1. 4. - 6. - - 5 a 21 72 1 4. 1 11. 1 2. 1 9. 1 a1 a a _I _ 1 13 1 - - 1 - - I - 1 1 9.I -. 11-4.-2 a a4 a - a 1 5 * - a - - a a - I - a - Ia :~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ a a II a I a : 24~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S8 5 a a a a--- - - - - - a - -- -- - a - -- -a- - - -- -- - a--- a--- Totl a . . . a0511. 25a a a a 1. a 46. a 4 ------------- - -----~~~~~~ ~ -- -- a-- - a--- a-- - a--- - - -- a--- - -- - Covri18 BP o.1y a aM auve a19aa89a - a a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~A a a - 115 - A,pend::: 67 Page 2 of 2 f7REAGE OF FRUITING DURIAN TREEO (HA) IAGE OF TREES I 1998 1999 2000 200k 1 2002 1 2003 I 2006 1 2007 1 1 1 - - 4 - 4 -- 4 - 4 _ 4 4 _ - _ 6, 4 6 - t - 4 - 4 - - I 4 - _ 4 4O 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 _ 4 4 - 12 0.9 1.8 - 4 - I I 13 3.7 12.4 2.11 - I - - II - I - x 14 151S.7 X 4.1 1 13.7 t 2.3 4 - - 1 -15 5.8 15.7 - 1 - 2 * 11 - 1 4- 1 3.7 - i 117 - 10t.3 5.8 15.7 14.1 12.3 I- - 1 IS _ 1 10.3 1 5.8 1 15.7 1 13.7 I_I_ ' 19 1 - : - I - 11 10.3 4 5.8 4.1 1 1 - 4 - 4 2o) i 10).3 115.7 1 2.3 - a 21 11 - X - } - : - - I S.8 I I 13.7- I .3 1220 - 1 10.3 I t 4.1 . 1 . 7 : -2 - 4 - 4 - - - 1 4. 1 1 24 4 - I -4 - 4 - - - I 5.8 1 5.7 1 2537- 1 4 2-1 - - - 5. I ------------- -- - I - ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ - _ Total 48.0 150.1 51.7 1 51.9 1.9 51.9 41.6 A-85 - - - - - - - - - - @e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- * ,t It Nta) ------------------- * -----DSO W 7 | 1 I I CI .t ^ W l WN- OO0@- C ICI I mD < I N I N I Ql C I-I - I '-I tC 5 -- --------_---- ----___________-- I * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *0 I I II _. i 0 I A -4 11 tgo 1 ( NI N { I oI I * I I I I I I I I I I I I I N I I I I I I INN I I I 'DI |D O I N A I mi tII I JI II -N I - - -I IO's I NA~i K 1 I C I D I IN W III I I A.I I i I l wS l H _ l _l~~~N I s I *sIW.ZU10 I %DI ! I I a I I I I I I I I Ia I I I I 7 1 * I I II I 01 I - I *I \O'D.W ! 01 I 57 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~N l D ! I I ------------- --.------ I IIIIIIII I\r @@*II I I I -I Ia-I N O .; t;o A - I D 7____- _------ -- _____---.-- ------- I I - O' I IA 1101~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wn ,. _ I .01f I. I I IIII I I I I I IO I I I I I I I I I 11 ; O0I -I'30'. 10W I Nl '1 I I I I I-I I I D I \DI I-WI N-AN@!H 31N01I3II I I I I1II II JI D 1A0a. 11 1 I.0 -.ti I U1 1 *ONt O I 101 r.\ I I I I IT1 T _________________-- -------- W x~~~~~~-- IA _I I I D W! OINa-.t'W I a-I i - ______ ____-_-*-_------- I -- -- - -- -- - 1 - i I I 9 I . I _ WI -I Ia-IIIIIIIIII @Dtt I I I11 l *I . II * - --14 10 W a- K W0 I -I :I I -0 40 1I Sl17 i _ I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~I I ! W I N- W I -I I I IIIIIIIII0UlD :DIIIIIIII I D 10 - O WONW I Q'I t_I I I I WI N- LW 1- I 10I 3I 1I 11I1I 3 I 34W I.J3m-I I I I I IIIII1 D I *I | N IAI ~N W JI C Il I I I I I * I * *I .. , -9TI-~~~~~~~~~~- I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 117 - X rN N !M i X II IN I I I I I U I N X0CD ID 10i1 1' 1 0 ' I I I I I I Iin I-IN j 1 N %D i I MN t llililillililjNIT I I N IN IN I- I I I I( ' III I I U CloCIN ID I I II tII I U I I N INi I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I 11~ ~ N0 IIIINInI III II-IT 1-1 @_ I I N1 I I 1- ŽV111 I *J I I- - -~ - -I---- ----- I Ln ICDI - 1-r1 I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I Io 1 I I I . . I .1 IA 10 lII0('OVNINlIIIIIlIIIlIIII i0I w I--- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - --- I-~~~~~~~~~I -°l - -- - - ---- I I ,,,I I I W0 I , O -o I I IWI ,. * I 1 I I - -S - - - - - - - - - - - 0 I- - - - I I I N I I o ~~I __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __I I-1 N INi _ I I It W I I I OO ..~ 1I.I : i- I O O LU I-XIe I I .I I U IT I IOI I_ IC o I - - - 1 0' II1 1-1 I II I I I I I I I I I I II I II I I 1-41 n- I I I > I CNV NOONt{I 2 °I-NVJN_----_NNN!4 lW I I I IC') I 01 W I__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ - 118 - Appendix 70 ECONOMIC COST OF PRODUCTION OF FRUITING TREES (M$'000, AT 1989 CONSTANT PRICES) YEAR t RAMBUTAN DURIAN CEMPEDAK OTHERS t TOTAL 1983 38.3 3.9 11.1 14.3 t 67.6 1984 t 53.1 6.2 17.6 21.0 97.9 1985 108.8 15.3 44.8 47.8 216.7 1986 131.8 20.4 66.7 65.0 283.9 1987 149.0 32.0 88.2 88.3 357.5 1988 164.5 36.6 107.5 98.4 407.0 1989 t 171.5 42.8 129.0 113.2 456.5 1990 t 160.4 45.8 140.5 118.6 465.3 1991 131.6 49.2 147.1 119.6 t 447.5 1992 131.6 51.2 153.0 116.6 452.4 1993 t 120.6 51.9 157.3 114.5 444.3 1994 t 118.9 54.5 158.3 114.6 446.3 1995 119.9 55.1 158.4 115.4 448.8 1996 t 121.7 56.8 158.8 117.0 0 454.3 1997 122.8 57.4 159.0 118.2 457.4 1998 t 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 459.6 1999 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 459.6 2000 t 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 459.6 2001 t 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 459.6 2002 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 459.6 t 2003 t 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 459.6 2004 3 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 459.6 2005 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 1 459.6 2006 5 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 t 459.6 2007 6 123.1 58.8 159.0 118.7 459.6 A-88 - 119 - Appendix 71 ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN (M$ million, AT 1989 CONSTANT PRICES) DUSUN REHABILITATION PROGRAM CAPITAL PRODUCTION HARVESTING TOTAL BENEFIT NET INCREMENTAL: YEAR COST COST COST COST (M$m) DENEFIT (M$m) (M$m) (M$m) (M$m) (M$m) 1982 0.20 - 0.20 (0.20) : 1963 0.26 0.07 ( . 3.- (0.373): 1984 o.59 0. 1o 0.69 (0.69) 1985 0.69 0.22 0.00 0.91 (0.91): 1986 0.78 0.20 0.00 1.06 0.02 (1.04): 1987 0.35 0.36 0.0O 0.71 0.04 (0.67)' 1988 ().32 0.41 0.02 0.74 0.13 (0.61): 1989 0.12 0.46 0.04 0.62 0.33 (0.29): 1990 - 0.46 0.07 0.53 0.65 0.12 1991. 0.45 0.15 0.60 1.36 0.76 1992 0.45 0.23 0.68 1.99 1.31 1993 0.44 0.28 0.72 2.37 1.65 1994 - 0.45 0.44 0.89 3.56 2.67 : 1995 - 0.45 0.46 0.91 3.99 3.08 1996 - 0.45 0.48 0.93 3.93 3.00 1997 - o.46 0.63 1.08 5.22 4.14 : 1998 - 0.46 0.77 1.23 6.48 5.25 : 1999 - 0.46 0.63 1.09 5.09 4.00 2000 0.46 0.76 1.22 6.61 5.39 200(l 0 .46 0.76 1.22 6.39 5.17 2002 0.46 0.70 1.16 5.61 4.45 2003 - 0.46 o.69 1.15 5.60 4.43 : 2004 - 0.46 0.68 1.14 5.53 4.39 2005 - 0.46 0.95 1.41 6.16 4.75 : 2006 (.46 0.67 1.13 5.38 4.25 : 2007 - 0.46 0.65 1.11 5.23 4.12 .:-..-.---. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _-.-.--.-.--"-. ._- -_-. …-_---. -----…- Net present value discounted at 10% - M$o.15 million Economic rate of return = 10% - 120 - Appendix 72 LOAN 2220-MA: KEOH VAllEYS IACP INTERATED A8RICULTLRE DEOPNT PROJECT DERIVATION OF FINCIAL CAPITAL CST (CURRENT PRICES) FISH PM CONSTRUCTION (M$ MILLION) I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5 e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 TOTAL I I I I Incremental 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0 0.12 Admimistrative Cost 25% 1 Fish Pond Construction 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.13 0.37 0.02 1.22 1 1100% . I I Minor Works 25X 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.11 E Equipments Vehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 1 X lOX. 1 1 1TOTAL 0.00 0.d3 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.1q 0.42 0.05 1. 46 A-90 - 121 - Appealis 73 LOAI 2220-A: 111A1 lALLITS 1A11 llIISIOAII ACIIICOLtOII OIIULO?IIIt IlOJICt DliiVAtION 01 FillNCIAL CiPlIlL COSt (CONSTANT pilch8 1989) fill poNt COISTt5lC?II (1$ MILLION) I , 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1918 1989 TOTAL lhcremeetal 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 O.OS .01 : 015S A5limistrative Cost Fisk loid Coustrtctica 0.00 0.02 0.25 0.24 .2S 0.14 0.38 0.02: 1.30 liot Works 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 : 0.11 ,Iqipaoets Tehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 TOTAL 0.00 0.04 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.21 044 O.OS: 1.5S7 -- - - - ---- - 122 - Appeadii 74 LOLI 2210-IA: I1Al WILLITS IAlI IITEIRATI CtlICiLTIII IliiLOPilIt PIOJICT ICOISEIC CAPITAL COSt FISI POl3 COiStiUCtIOI (1$ MILLIOI, 1,89 COISTAIT PIICIS) __ _ _ ~ Z I ______ _ _ Factor 1932 1913 1984 19tS 193i 19t7 IltS 1989 TOTAL . ___________* __ S !acrmesetal 0.t2 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.61 0.01 0.04 6.0S 1.1 01S5 i 'dsimimttative Cust fish olad Csastructisa 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.12 0.32 0.62 1.11 litet Dorks O:l 0,00 0.00 0:0 0:12 I 0:02 0:t1 0:.0 0.69 lt l4ietats lekicles 0.94 0.00 0.00 t.00 0.I0 0.00 0.01 .0.0 O t.11 t.0 tOTAL 0.06 0.4 0.22 6.23 0.214 0.19 1.3t 665, 1.3S a -. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::s::::S: A-92 - 123 - Appendlx 75 LOAN 2220-NA: KEDAH VALLEYS IADP PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT FISIIERIES COMPONENT PROGRESS OP FISU POND CONSTRUCTION (IIA) ----------------------------------------------------------__--------------- Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 -------------------------------------------------------------------__------ Uactare 32.94 13.64 13.50 18.54 9.03 14.62 ------------------------------------------------------------------__------- A-93 - 124 - AppandiA 76 LOAN --0-A.'A KEtAH 'v'ALLEYS IA'WP PRfJEC7 COMPLETION REPOR-T FISHERI.E3 ='PONENT YIEF FRO'0N213 POND BY YEAR CT C0NSTRUCTION (iiACT REc; YEar 1983 1954 19 ' 19586 1C.87 1968 1989 YEar oi; FOnji 1963 4.00 21. 00 6.00 1 .'Q0 4.0. 6. 3 6. 30 1984 - I.00 A.10. 8.A S 8.34) 1985 - cc-.i0v0. 00 , C . 9.Cv i.V .196 - - - 1.30 S.0X 11.00 I1.33 19q7 - _ I.v, 6.0% 6.00 1988 - - - - - 5.00 5. 0V MTAL 4.00 22.00 12.00 34.00 30.00 45.0 45.00 Avcrage Yield,'year(kg/ha) 568.8 27.19 40.96 415 .23 458.70 666." 499.5O Total Yield Rk) 2,27, .72 6,34. . 4,87:.52 1,-, 17.82 13,761.Cv C 9,976.75 8.591.0 Note; 1537) to 1,88 - result of iurvey 1989 1989 - estimate A-94 ,, - 125 - Appendix 77 LOIN 2220-Il: KIDAI ItLLIIS fiDP PIOJICT COIPWLTIOI IRPORT P1i8shis COOIPOIIt DIII VAUIS OP eCOIOIIC FAlICATS PRICE Of VSI1 (1$/kg) tear 1983 1984 198S 1986 198? 1988 1989 1990 199S 2000 Fimaucial trice (clitent) 2.83 2.43 2.12 2.14 2.32 2.3S 2.42 - - - fiusacial price (coastast 1989) 3.17 2.62 2.29 2.29 2.46 2.42 2.42 - - - Ecoiomic price 3.04 2.S2 2.20 2.20 2.36 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 Soarce: Pimaucial Price - 1II? strvey 1989. Coeversios to coustast price by tasig CPI itdex Coeversiel factor to Ecosomic price z 0.96 A-9S - 126 - Appendix 78 ECCNOMIlC BENEFIT FRESIi WATER FISH POND CONSTRUCTION (M$, 1989 Frice,) ---------------------------- --- -- - ---.-.-----------------"-.----------- Yield Froducing Yield pa,- Total Economic Total YEAR Pond ha Yieild Pri.e (1939) Denefit (ha) (kg) (kg) per kg (M$'1000) I…………_________________ .________ ._____________ 1982 1983 4 5668 2,272 3.04 6.907 1984 22 275 6,0o . 2.5 1:.246 1965 12 405 4,860 2.20 10.692 : 19l3S 34 415 14,110 2.20 31.042 19837 30 456 1 39740 2.36 32.426 1 983 45 666 299 970 2 . ."2 69. 53X)0 1989 45 70o 3.1,500 2.32 73.080 1 1990 45 700 31,500t 2.32 73.. 0 199 1 45 700 31,500 2.32 73.0s60 1*92 45 700 31,500 2.32 73.030 1 q993 45 700 31 ,500 2.3.2 73.080 1994 45 700 31950'0 2.32 73.080 1995 45 700 31,500 2.32 73.080.3CS O 1997 45 700 31,500 2.32.; 73.060 1 1997 45 700 31,50o 2 . 3z;:2 73. 0E380 1 1999 45 70O 31,500 2.32 .73.080 i 1 999 45 700 31,500 2.32 73.080 2001 45 700 31,500 2.32 73.080 2001 45 700 31,500 2.32 ,73.0e8 2002 45 700 31,500 2.32 73.080 2003D 45 700) ;1 ,500 2.3.2 73z.08 0 2004 45 700 31,500 2.32 7,3/.080 1 2005 45 700 31,500 2.32 73.080 : 1 2006 45 700 31,500f) 2.32 73.0a0 1 2007 43 700 31,5(( 2.32 73.080 Note: 1983 - 1988, Survey 1987 1989 on word, estimates A-96 - 127 - Appendix 79 INCREMENTAL COST OF PRODUCTION FISH1ERIES COMPONENT Yiald Pi-oducing Cost of Production Inzremental Cost! YEAR Fond per ha (1989 prices) Of Production I (ha) M$ M '000 t I-----…-- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 1983 4 760 3.040 t 1984 22 760 16.720 1:85 12 760 .9.120 l 1986 34 760 25.840 1 1987 30 760 22.800 1 1988 45 760 34.2 00 1 1989 45 760 * 34.200 1 190? 45 760 Z4.200 1 1 1991 45 7,0 34.20O 0 1991 45 760 34.200 1993 45 760 34.200 t 1994 43 760 34. 200 : 1995 45 76(0 34.200 ; 1996 45 760 34.200 1 1997 45 760 34.200 1 1998 45 760 34.200 : 1999 45 760 34.200 1 1209 45 760 34.200 1 200f)1 45 760 34. 200 I 2002 45 760 34.200 1 2002 45 760 34.200 : 2004 45 760 34.200 1 2005 45 760 34.200 1 2006 45 760 34.200 2007 45 760 34.200 I… ---------------------- ---------- -- A-97 - 128 - Appendix 8E0 COST OF PRODUCTION FPER HECTARE FISH POND DEVELOPMENT (M$, 1989 Prices) Material C.t Financial Price Fish fry 300.00 Feeding material 236. 0C0 Labor 285.00 TOTAL 821 00 -----------------------------------__------------------ Economic Price Fish fry 28e. f. Feeding material 224.00 Labor 2,971.00 TOTAL 760.00 Source: Kajian Impek Rancangan Subsidi Menternak Ikan, Prime Minister Department, 1981. Conversion factor: Fish fry and feeding material =0.95 Labor =0.88 Sources M.D. Veitch, 1986 A-98 Appendix 81 COST OF "IlNTENhHCE OF FRESHWRTER FISH POND FISHERIES COtPONENT : 9Co1struction: 1998:1989: 19qO: 191:1992: 1993:1994:1995: 1996:193?:1999 i199: eooo: 2001:2002'.2003:2004 '20 2002 : 07: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ ro: 198 : 22 : 12 3: 30 :9 -22-: 12 : -4 30 - 9 22 - 12 3: - 30 - :9 - 2:-2 12 :4 -:-0 :c1 a a 1 a 2 : a 1 . 2 - - - is :Cost of operational:raintnanceisestimated a:a y oars R-99 - 130 - Appendix 82 ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN (1989 CONSTANT PRICES) FISH POND DEVELOPMENT (MS'000, at 1989 Constant Prices) t-… CAPITAL INCREMENTAL INCREMENTAL TOTAL TOTAL NET YEAR COST COST OF COST OF COST BENEFIT INCREMENTAL (M$m) MAINTENANCE PRODUCTION BENEFIT 1982 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1983 40.000 0.000 3.040 43.040 6.907 (36.133): 1984 220.000 0.000 16.720 236.720 15.246 (221.474): t 1985 230.000 0.000 9.120 239.120 10.692 (228.428): 1986 240.000 0.000 25.840 265.840 31.042 (234.798)t 1987 190.000 0.000 22.800 212.800 32.426 (180.374) 1988 380.000 2.000 34.200 416.200 69.530 .(346.670)t 1989 50.000 11.000 34.200 95.200 .73:080 (22.120): 1990 0.000 6.000 34.200 40.200 73.080 32.880 1991 0.000 17.000 34.200 51.200 73.080 21.880 1992 0.000 15.000 34.200 49.200 73.080 23.830 1993 0.000 24.000 34.200 58.200 73.080 14.880 199go4 0.000 11.000 34.200 45.200 73.080 27.880 1995 0.000 6.000 34.200 40.200 73.080 32.880 19lg96 0.000 17.000 34.200 51.200 73.080 21.880 1997 0.000 15.000 34.200 49.200 73.080 23.880 19lo98 0.000 24.000 34.200 58.200 73.080 14.880 1999 0.000 11.000 34.200 45.200 73.080 27.880 2000 0.000 26.000 34.200 40.200 73.080 32.880 2001 0.000 17.000 34.200 51.200 73.080 27.880 2002 0.000 15.000 34.200 49.200 73.080 23.880 2003 0.000 24.000 34.200 58.200 73.080 14.880 20t04 0.000 11.000 34.200 45.200 73.080 27.880 20oo 0.000 6.000 34.200 40.200 73.080 32.880 2006 0.000 17.000 34.200 51.200 73.080 21.880 2007 0.000 15.000 34.200 49.200 73.080 23.800 Net present value discounted at 0% = -M$ 827.24 4A.a4s.oc4 Economic rate of return Nil A-100 -131- Appenrdix< E3 DE-';-IYi,I7.N PiR iJ#.LL EOJEL- E.CONC'11C CAPIT-AL"C'S T I ? n" _ 1. 9 6 .; 1 ? ,S4 1 9 F, '1 17S 9 5 o . _7 7 1 ?. c 7 a S 7- .; T3--al C,:t .34 23.45 97 93: Z6. 44 43. 59 42' Z _5. C3 21. C6 4. 38 19?8i pra:e 7 . . , 2 ' _6 . 306 3.9.36 5!.?9 44.63 36.0 8 4. 16 I E-::Lna;ic . rii Z¢., 4 4 ZZ. I, ,5 4, .34. 6 & 4 4. 7i 5. . -_ i . '5 S. 5 7. Z> . 6 _Ls= Cc.3nversion factor = U.6E; M.D. t&e t_h, 1966 i9F7' onward, inc, mrn':ial ad;.-Tiiiniitrative ccst c:nl1y. *.S-l1..i) ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN FOR OVERRLL PROJECT Appendix 84 INrEGtRTED R0RICULTURE OEVELOPHENT PROJECT Peg. I of 2 * --------I--------------- -- -- --------- ------ ------ - - : YEAMR 1982 1983 1984 1995 1986 1987 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 19" :NET INCREIMTRL 0EENEFIT FROM: 1. Rubber - individual OCC (S.66) (7.41) (6.32) (9.38) (8.31) (13.62) (8.95) (6.09) (0.1?) 4.2? 10.10 18.0? : 2. Rubber - nini estate 0.00 0.00 (2.5?) C3.64) 0.00 (0.47) (0.13) (0.74) (0.61) (O.) 0.54 0.54 1.12 : 3. Iaintentnce 0.00 C6.59) (6.05) (3.48) (2.33) 0.40 5.19 9.52 14.51 1?.81 19.87 21.60 24.45 : 4. Oil Paln 0.00 0.00 (O.44) (1.09) (0.7?) (1.10) (1.04) (0.32) 0.11 0.33 0.45 0.59 .73 : : 5. Irrigation dwvelopnont (1.26) (5.40) (4.50) CI.8?) (13.16) (5.84) (2.08) 1.81 1.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 : 6. ODuun Reh*abilitation (0.20) (0.33) (0.69) (0.91) (1.04) (0.6?) (0.61) (0.29) 0.12 0.76 1.31 1.65 2.6? : : 7. Fishetries 0.00 (0.04) (0.22) (0.23) (0.23) (0.18) (0.35) (0.02) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 : : TOrfL NET INCuE"ETRL BENEFIT (1.46) (18.02) (21.88) (20.54) (26.91) (16.17) (12.34) 1.04 9.74 18.94 27.10 35.33 47.71 ,~~~~~ _________________ _________________----- --- - - --- ------------ - - --- - - - - - --- - -- ECONOMIC CRPITAL C06T 3.44 23.11 26.54 34.64 45.75 39.32 31.75 18.53 3.66 2.50 2.50 2.5b 2.50 :TOTAL NET INCRENENTAL. BENEFIT (4.90) (41.13) C(8.42) (55.18) (72.66) (55.49) (14.09) .17.49) 6.08 16.44 24.60 32.83 4f5.21 Net present valu, at discount rate of 127. - N52.67 villion F Econonic rate of return = 122 R-102 ECONOHIC RRTE OF RETURN FOR OVERRLL PROJECr Rppsrdix 84 INTEGRRTED IWRICULTURE DEVELOP"ENT PROJECT Pag 2 of 2 :YER 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 :NET INCREtIENTRL 9ENEFIr FROH: 1. Rubber - individual 55.54 68.84 76.23 01.31 88.06 71.56 73.05 71.26 69.07 65.93 61.55 60.38 55.10 2. Rubber - nini estate 1.41 6.12 7.18 7.99 8.02 6.10 6.95 7.38 6.93 6.21 5.19 4.94 4.68 3. lNintenance 47.95 47.66 46.76 41.92 41.57 27.15 25.00 17.72 11.51 12.36 10.55 8.18 1.36 A. Oil Pa1i. 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.71 0.70 0.93 0.81 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.73 0.62 0.65 5. Irrigation development 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.14 1.14 1.14 6. Ousun Rehabilitation 3.08 3.00 4.14 5.2S 4.00 5.39 5.17 4.45 4.45 4.39) 4.75 4.25 4.12 7. Fiseries 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 TOTRL NET INCREHENTRI BENEFIT 113.69 120.32 137.00 139.13 144.29 112.54 112.26 102.76 93.96 90.81 87.24 79.53 67.07 -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - --- -- --…- - - - --- ……--- - - - - ------------ - …-…- -- - - ECONOHIC CAPtTAL Cost 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 TorRL NET I"CREIENTRL. BENEFIT 111.19 125.82 134.50 136.63 141.79 110.04 109.76 100.26 91.46 08.31 04.71 77.03 64.57 R-103 - 134 - Appendix 05 TOTAL INCREME:NTAL YIELD OF RUBBER (TON) -----.-.--.-------------------------------------------------------- YEAR INDIVIDUAL MIN E.STATE MA INTENANCE TCTAL 1962 f.) o 0 0 1983 0 0 56 56 1984 c) 666 666 1985 0 0 1,49C) 1,490 1 1986 0 C 2,706 2,706 1 1 1987 0 0 .3,969 3,969 1938 0 u 6,142 6,142 1 1989 1,005 ( 3,439 9,444 1 1990 .3, 187 t Lf*,.(8 1995 1991 5,974 242 14,353 i8,569 1992 9, .4 l 755 1 3, 227 239 02:3 1993 12,749 97-. 14,060 27,7,82 1994 17,0B3 1,168 15,150 33,401 1 1995 2,350 1,742 16,306 20,398 3 1996 25 168 2,229 16,206 4.,603 : l 1 9$'977, 74 , 15,961 45,792 1998 20,671 2,790 14,572 46,033 ' 1999 30 , 5C00 2,88:. 14,469 47,2372 2000Jf} .32,550 3 i, (6( i2,919 438,, 50±9 17 2001 3:3,05 3 3,258 12,155 46,466 1 2 002C 32, 444 3, 302 9,232 44,978 1 2 0( 03 .32,595 3.,162 6,73.7 42,494 1 20)04 30,;s560) 2, 384 6,372 39,616 F ztj2005 29,704 2,625 5,322 37,651 1 2006 27,882 2,424 4,001 34,307 F 20c:(;7 25,9766 2,294 667 28,727 A______ _ _ __ _ _ _ A- 104 -135 - Appendix 86 EXPORT DUTY OF NATURAL RUBBER (w.e.f 18th April 1985) The duty is calculated in sen/kg, to the nearest 1/8 of a sen according to the rates as shown below: On the first 210 sen per kg ... Nil On the next 40 sen per kg ... 10% On the next 50 sen per kg ... 20% On the balance ... 30% Source: Statistics Deparvment A-105 -136 - Appendix 87 EXPORT DUTY NATURAL RUBBER BY YEAR (N Sen/Kg) (1989 Constant Prices) Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 FOB Prices N Sen/kg 205.0 245.0 226.0 187.0 205.0 238.0 335.0 296.0 291.0 445.0 357.0 I 8 * S * S I st 210 N Sen/kg - - - - - - - - - - - £ I Next 40 Sen/kg - 3.5 1.6 - - 2.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 I I Next 50 Sen/kg - - - - - - 10.0 9.2 8.2 10.0 10.0 * I I I On the bWance - - - - - - 10.5 - - 43.5 17.1 * I Total 0.0 3.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 24.5 13.2 12.2 57.5 31.1 --------- Rppondix 88 KEDAH VALLEYS INTEGRATED RGRICULrURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECr EXPECrED COST RECOVERY EXCLUDING PROD BONUS C"S Million) :rncrenntal: Zakat :Cost recoverableInrexntal:C:ollectable :Collect.able :Export:rot-l cost : Tottl :c--nnu1ativ: Year : Yield Of :Receivable: fro" padi : Yi9ld Of : Replanting : Research : Duty : Rocovery : cost : .ost Padi : (ton) : Constant 1989 : Rubber : Coss : Coss : : From rubber:Recovry: Recovery Cton) : : : Cton) :C (120.20>: (0.06): 1,490 0.15 : 0.06: 0.00 : 0.21 0.15 0.60 : :2986: 2.500: 250.00: 0.12 2.706: 0.27 0.11 0.00 0.3s o.5o 1.09 : :2987 12,379: 1,237.90 0.59e: 3,909 0.39 0.16 C0.11 : 0.66 1.24: 2.33 : ,"Be8: 12,622: 1,262.20: O.S9 6,142 0.61 0.25 1.50 2.36 2.95 5.28 : :29e9 12.011: 1,201.10: 0.56: 9,.444: 0.94 0.38 1.25 2.57: 3.13 9.41 : 1990 : 12.011 : 1.201.10: 0.56 2 13.995 1.40 0.56 : 1.71 : 3.67 : 4.23 12.64 : 2991: 12.011: 1,201.10: 0.56: 18.569 1.96 0.74: 2.27 4.87 : 5.43: 19.07: w :1992: 12,011: 1,201.10 0.56 23,023: 2.30C 0.92 2.81 6.03 : 6.59 24.66: : :1 993: 12,011: 1,201.10 0.56: 27,782 2.78 1.11 3.39: 7.28 : 7.94 32.50: :n2994 12,011: 1,201.10 0.56 33,401 3.34: 1.34: 4.07: 9.75 : 9.31 41.81: 1,995: 12,224: 1,222.40 0.57 20,39s: 2.04 0.92 :11.73 C 1.58 : 15.16: 56.97: :29916: 12,224 :1222.40 0.57: 43,603: 4.36: 1.74 :25.07: 31.19 : 31.75: 98.72: :2997: 12,224: 1,222.40 0.57: 45.792 C 4.58 1.83 :26.33 32.74 : 33.31 : 122.03: :299 s: 12,224: 1,222.40: 0.57 46,033: 4.60: 1.94 :26.47: 32.91 : 33.49: 155.52: :1999: 12,224: 1,222.40 0.57: 47,972 4.79: 1.91 :27.53 34.23 : 34.80: 190.32: :2000: 12,479: 1.247.80 : 0.58 C4.529 4.85: 1.94 :15.09 21.89 : 22.47 212.79 : :2001: 12,478 1,247.80 : 0.58: 49,466 C4.95: 1.94 :15.07 21.96: 22.44 235.23 : :2002: 12.478 1,247.0 : 0.58 44.978: 4.50 1.80 :13.99: 20.29 : 20.87 256.10: :2003 : 12,479: 1.247.80 : 0.5: 42.494: 4.25 : 1.70 :13.22: 19.16 : 19.75 275.94: :2004 : 12,478: 1,247.0 : 0.589 39,816: 3.98 : 1.59 :12.38 : 17.96 : 19.54 294.39: :2005: 12.712: 1.271.20 : 0.59: 37.651: 3.77 : 1.51 :11.71 : 16.98 : 17.57 311.96 : :2006 12,712 1,271.20: 0.59: 24,307 2.43 0.97: 7.56: 10.96 : 11.56 323.52: :2007: 12,712: 1,271.20 : 0.59: 28.727C 2.87 1.15 8.9s : 12.96 : 13.55 337.07 : Replanting Coss = 10 son/kg cH S100/ton) Research Coss = 4 son/kg C$40/ton) Financial price of padi = 4S 467.5/ton, excludinL Padi bonus R-107 OppendiM 89 KEDRH VALLEYS INTEGRATED AGRICULTURAL DEVELOP"ENT PROJECT EXPECTED cosr RECOVERY cns ti I I i on) : Incrosqntal: Zakat : Cost recovorerble:Inrenenta : Collectable : Coll4ctabi. SEKport: Total cost : Total : Cunnu1ati~e: :1ear : Yield Of :Receivable: fron padi : Yield Of : Replanting : Research : Outy : Recovery : cost : cost : Padi : Cton) Constant 1989 : Rubber : Coss : Cess : :Fron rubber:Recovory: Recoverg: Cton) : : Cton) : C'S Million): 'S "illio.t: :2983:i s3e8 53.80 0.03: 56i O.01 .00 00 i 0.01 0.04 i.Oqi :2984 : 6,270 : 627.00 : 0.0 : 666 0.07 : 0.03 0.02 : 0.12 : 0.51 : 0.56 :2985 : C1,202): C120.20>: (O.08>: l,490 : 0.15 : 0.06 : 0.00 0.21 : 0.13 : 0.69 :r3s6 : 2,500 : 250.00 : 0.16 : 2,706 : 0.27 : 0.11 : 0.00 .38 : 0.5 : 1.23 :r987 : 12,379 : 1,237.90 : 0.78 : 3.909 0.39 : 0.16 : 0.11 : 0.66 : 1.4 : 2.6? :2988 : 12,622 : 1,262.20 : 0.80 : 6,142 : 0.61 : 0.25 : 1.50 : 2.36 : 3.16 5.83 :298s : 12,011 : 1.201.10 : 0.76 : 9444 : O.94 : 0.38 : 1.25: 2.57 : 3.33 : 9.16 : :2990 : 12.011 : 1,201.10 : 0.76 : 13.995 : 1.40 0.56 : 1.71 : 3.6? : 4.43 13.58 : :2991 : 12,011 : 1,201.10 : 0.76 : 18,569 1.86 0.74 : 2.27 : 4.97 : 5.62 19.21 : :2392 : 12,011 : 1,201.10 : 0.76 : 23,023 : 2.30 : 0.92 : 2.01 : 6.03 : 6.79 : 26.00 :C :2993 : 12,011: 1,201.10 : 0.76 : 27.782 : 2.78 1.11 : 3.39: 7.28 : 8.04: 34.04 : : 299 : 12,011 : 1,201.10 : 0.76 : 33.401 : 3.34 : 1.34 : 90? : 8.75 : 9.51 : 13.55 :2995 : 12,224 : 1,222.40 : 0.77 : 20,398 : 2.04 : 0.92 :11.73 : 14.58 : 15.36 : 58.91 :2996 : 12,224 : 1,222.40 : 0.77 : 43,603 : 4.36 : 1.74 :25.07 : 31.19 : 31.95 : 90.86 :2997 : 12,224 : 1,222.40 : 0.77 : 45,792 : 4.58 : 1.83 :26.33 : 32.74 : 33.51 : 124.37 :2999 : 12,224 : 1,222.40 : 0.77 : 46,033 : 4.60 : 1.84 :26.47 : 32.91 : 33.69 : 159.06 :3s : 12,224 : 1,222.40 : 0.77 : 47,872 : 4.79 : 1.91 :27.53 : 34.23 : 35.00 : 193.06 :3000 : 12,478 : 1.247.00 : 0.79 : 48,529 : 4.85 : 1.94 :15.09 : 21.89 : 22.68 : 215.74 :2001 : 12,478 : 1,247.80 : 0.79 : 4e,466 : 4.85 : 1.9 :15.07 : 21.86 : 22.65 : 238.38 :2002 : 12.478 : 1,247.80 : 0.79 : 44,978 4.50 : 1.80 :13.99 : 20.29 ; 21.07 : 259.46 :a203 : 12,478 : 1,217.80 : 0.79 : 42,494 : 4.25 : 1.70 :13.22 : 19.16 : 19.95 : 279.-41 :2004 : 12,479 : 1,247.90 : 0.79 : 39.816 : 3.98 : 1.59 :12.38 : 17.96 18.75 : 298.16 : :2005 : 12,712 : 1,271.20 : 0.80 : 37,651 : 3.77 : 1.51 :11.71 : 16.98 : 17.78 315.94 : :2006 12,712 1,271.20 : 0.80 : 24,307 : 2.43 : 0.97 : 7.56 : 10.96 : 11.77 327.71 : :2007 : 12,712 : 1,271.20 0.80 : 28,727 : 2.87 : 1.15 : e.93 : 12.96 : 13.76 : 341.47 : Seplanting Cess = 10 snokg C(SlOO1ton> Resoarch Cos" = I sen4kg CS4Oton> Financial price of padi = MS 632.5/ton, inc.Padi bonus A-lo1 - 139 - ATTACHMENT I - Borrower's Comments - A 6)RANG TELP:t J (/TF.f.tCGIAM/,f TARtIKH : 2' Janudry 19'3)1 PlMWCANWrAtt: ItzWUb iz > .vr,1a (tiarai Pentuh & TandAtarqdr mir* LELAS : TELEK( / rA. (I-itatc,?n TeJk Atau Te1eqraml TENPAT : MR . GRAf1AM DONALDSO', CnIEF, INFRASTRUCTURE At.,.) HUMAN RESOLJRCES DIVISION ow"1; r Y vx satnhorrym -r?rAp#prNv WORLD BANK KE ARE PLEASED TO RECEIVE THE KP!)Afi V%?.TF' Ep: T! ')!!PLE¶TIOM -vPORT AND WOtuLrD .TKXF TO CONGRATU14ATE .)mL WEL ' '"T TOGETHER REPORI? HIGH1 l4'1rM 'HP1F MO1d#.iv '.T. A3i'LJCT5 Or IMPLEMENTATION AS WPL,L, AS FV; 117rXo' *, -tt'.LVITS T¶It'5 PA1R. THE CO'MMF'N'SJ I Wr,5eiT.?-.e, j TO * TIIE ORPM OF FArTUAT. CORRPrTIONq FflR THE F(I.ijOWTNCG PG' (1) EVAFLUATIOtl 8SUMMARY, PAGE 1: THRE IRRTrATTP.' " WAS SCALED DOWNI AFTER T4E PEVI Y° - POLICY IN 1986 WHICH TNTRODUCPD THP PRt , RESTRICTING PADDY rRODt'CTITO XO !ON *- AREAS. RATIONALr2ATION AND CROP D:TVAT-: ;f?TON ' !' I. GPAPljALT.Y BF (1NDERTAKPN T' -C.R 1rANARY V 41GCATrD AREAs IN MAL.AYSA. TIT WAS W%T TOR NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY OP 1984 WHTC?H I NWUtCiuCrI THE Ais' .I' cONCEPT. - 140 - I ¶-a'- MiNTIST l.A I) ADOPTED) THE TNTER(*4'PPT) AGRICU 1T' r.PTP!OACH IN 1fIP $T;Vr'NIFf. TN 1;- . rAr r.TED AS IMARIY 1 0`1 '..1"1T T TI l y8 r4l vuM.* ..- tl RV:SUTI rROJECT, t jOT WTql"iz'!" "! ' et E '"PI,!.R N'rz!ION OF TOP 14R1l "OJF'T WHICR WP; iNJ 1965 AND) TIHA WpB,i, PnOV3llf IF; 13.0. MIT THE! WORd) "LATE". S flb ' . LArL..4. R *S 'f'!f.¶ME PPd . A . 1?4: "P CATE(4 ..OA*Th.. *'AR4FRM F NTW;. UtNdE VAPMTNUS POVWtRY CATEiGORI'ES S , . t% ,|Wl W7* UT,w El'< " s;w o si s'TATF EXPLICITLY THR CUT-OFF P0 IN'.' ''M NTOWP POR THE ?(.)OH AND $i j5/1N0 rt. PO FtOR . PL!'ITt MTT TqFr XgURr 86*.; t'' IPI.t.'0.rflON1.v eP Swf? . i7i SPI 414 C r. P "' PTATf nF'YTnRS OP Tre >WV NY. *- '> ''46'.^t^iBIF YOU TAKP iN'9 C0.>12lNoiro' * . . (1 *"* bz ,7z tL.'.. 't g1 &EJ.n J%h 4.XU. aUs. J FROM JPS ALRAYSIA 5. 6.1991 9124 P. I - 141 - ATTACHMENT I - Borrower's Commente - B D I I) UImPARTMEN'r OF IRRIGATION ANI) IRAINh . HiAVI.YA1 JAL.AN RIJI@TAN 13AIAIUDII)) N, 506i2(sKII 1,1^1.^ PUlRln. F A X C O V B.R N t)t I'el: 0.1-. 1)101 I Tol qtlirm: )IRR IU Pax: 60,-2J142RA2 T 0 MR. GAM DOAWDSON, OPERATICN4S EVAUATICN DEPAMRt4Ir, WR ANK. Pax No: -2. - 45 t - t44OR Ue MAY 6, 1991 Total Number of lages Selit: 3 shee( it F R O M IR BARD ALI RA lE, FolE DIRE1CVR GNERAL, OEPARMT OF IRRIGATI0 AND DRAInAv M=AYSIA. s a a g c KEDAH VALLEY$ AGRICMLTUPAL 0-O-MENT P rt (WAN 2220-MA) PROECT CCMPrIaC REPO. Referring to the above we would like to thank you for givng U8 the opportunity to cm,unent on the Project Oamrletion Report.We have studied your report and, focusetng on matters directly under our epartments' role and functions in the project, we generally agree with the contents of the report. *We have however acme minor cosunents and tgesiIos and 2. We regret the delay !grdin our reply ond the Lnoonvenience incurred. (Official 1;tter to follow) J A Y A K A N P n R K 11 I 1) n A T A N N '. N 1 U R N A - 142 - Appendix Kedah Valleys Agricultural Development Project (Loan 2320-NA) Project Completion Report Comeents by the Departmnt of Irrigation and Drainage (DID), Nblayuia------ ---- --- - Tle tollowing are coments and suggestions by DID Malaysia and address only to Issues pertainLng to the role and functions of the Department - 1. The figure used for Lrrigated padi area and padi production area should be 6112 ba. The figure 6180 quoted in par& lv (maln seasou irr'gated padi) and table 4: PHYSICAL INDICATORB OF PROJECT ACCOHPLISIHNENTB; laLn Season Padi at PCR, should be changed accordingly. This vill then be consistent vith figures used ln para 2.7 and 3.10. 2. The following inclusion is suggested as an additional paragraph (xiii) under Item "indings and Lessons Learned" xiLL. Land acquisLtLon Li a time consuming process vhich can cause delays ln project Implementation. In this project, timely completion was oade possible by farmers' cooperation in giving their consent for construction works to proceed on their lands before the administrative process for land aequisitLon and compensation exercise were completed. Most of the contracts were awarded when the land acquisLtion exercise was still at the early stages. FROM iPS MALAYSZa *.1,91 9'25 P. 3 - 143 - 3. In para 2.4, we would like to propose the tollowing ehanges Rephrase "Increased Irrigation and road construction was then planned for Ilk and Baling. Most of this irrigation development was of dubious value and it was fortunate that Is was mostly cancelled ...." To: &Additional irrigation and schemes 45d roads were then identified for implementation for 81k and Baling. However 6 (six) out of the 12 (twelve) Lrrig&tion schemes ldentitfed were later found to be technically non-viable due to water shortage while the other 4 (four) cancelled due to the ch4 ge In the KatLonal Agriculture Polley." 4. It pars 3.11, it Is proposed that the following clause in the last sentnce be deleted t Delete : 'but it may be due to the deteriorating structures of the non- scheme areas where improvement La badly needed to bring back production at least to the previous level." The paragraph now ends with the remaining clause/sentence: "Reasons for this are not fuli understood," kviadp 'I P3Q tOe t6 IBRD ,-t 12^-30 ,'..TKAIAND 0- ''*., '6a, 5 *-, o S tJ X ~~T H A I L A N D PE~i _ o ) T H IL N FiAA pA r ' -l~ 7A x C I ( V 'N - / X R \ x,. AN,fR 9 PULAU LA. iGKAWI o SINGAPO6E MALAYSIA \E-AR KEDAH VALLEYS AGRICULTURAL D A H DEVELOPMENT PROJECT \. ) Proiect Area / * Kompleks Gerokton, (KGT) o KGT Sub-centers (I Extension Sub- centers o Ruro; Agriculturol Training Centers (RATC) T H A I L A N D O Form Mechonicot-ra Tromnmg Center (FMTC) 25 X Crop Production Center S.k) 2( / A Agicurura: Market,ng and Process-nig Center (Kuah) 24 0 C..) Inlond F.sheries Troining Center (Jitra) 23 RISDA Cnr'o Nu.rsery (Sg Petoni) 20 @ Aquaculwurol Troining Center I is % Pad, Schemes GAt PETAN; Roads 0 Rcilways irD S-.'fS r ' AREE State Boundaries -A 6 ( '13 \ B Iu 82.0 83 Internatonal Boundories -/ 63. C) 8'tkliO8'3' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C J j, } \ ~ ~~6 w0 ( S . ;. J 80 G 0 7 ) 20 30 KILOMETER', 3 G r 20 2 } { ( Z t9 r,v.s w. a:^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~263 \ 2 BS ; ,, ,8 230 -. 243 '24 Li in 43 341 F rAp't R A K-, 5i I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 "I . ..