Completion Report

Project Number: 37056-013 Loan Number: 2159 August 2015

India: Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB’s Public Communications Policy 2011.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency unit – Rupee(s) (Re/Rs)

At Appraisal At Project Completion (4 February 2005) (29 November 2014)

Rs 1.00 = $0.0231 $0.0161

$1.00 = Rs43.29 Rs62.261

ABBREVIATIONS ADB – Asian Development Bank CIDP – Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project DOA – Department of Agriculture (of Chhattisgarh State Government) EIRR – economic internal rate of return ha – hectare IIP – intensive intervention program NGO – nongovernment organization O&M – operation and maintenance PIM – participatory irrigation management PIMU – Participatory Irrigation Management Unit (in Water Resources

Department of Chhattisgarh State Government) PMU – project management unit PPTA – project preparatory technical assistance R&U – rehabilitation and upgrading SDU – social development unit (in Water Resources Department of

Chhattisgarh State Government) TA – technical assistance WRD – Water Resources Department WUA – water users association

NOTES

In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.

Vice-President W. Zhang, Operations 1 Director General H. Kim, South Asia Department (SARD) Director T. Kho, India Resident Mission, SARD Team leaders L. Sondjaja, Deputy Country Director, SARD

R. Naduvinamani, Project Analyst, SARD Team members B. Reddy Bathula, Principal Portfolio Management Specialist, SARD

A. Cauchois, Senior Water Resources Specialist, SARD P. Khan, Associate Social Development Officer (Gender), SARD

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

CONTENTS Page

BASIC DATA i

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 2

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 2

B. Project Outputs 2

C. Project Costs 8

D. Disbursements 8

E. Project Schedule 8

F. Implementation Arrangements 9

G. Conditions and Covenants 9

H. Related Technical Assistance 10

I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 10

J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 11

K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 12

L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 12

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 12

A. Relevance 12

B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 13

C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 13

D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 13

E. Impact 13

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14

A. Overall Assessment 14

B. Lessons 15

C. Recommendations 15

APPENDIXES 1. Project Framework 16 2. Implementation of Gender Mainstreaming Activities and Results 19 3. Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation 26 4. Intensive Intervention Program: Key Features 44 5. Project Costs 47 6. Disbursements under Loan 2159-IND and TA 4573-IND 50 7. Status of Compliance with Loan Covenants 53 8. Consulting Services: Proposed and Actual 60 9. Contracts Awarded under Loan 2159-IND 63 10. Economic Analysis 65 11. Environmental Impacts 82

i

BASIC DATA

A. Loan Identification

1. Country 2. Loan number 3. Project title 4. Borrower 5. Executing agency 6. Amount of loan 7. Project completion report number

India 2159 Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project Government of India Water Resources Department Chhattisgarh State Government $46,108,000 PCR: IND 1526

B. Loan Data 1. Appraisal (pre-appraisal mission) – Date started – Date completed 2. Loan negotiations – Date started – Date completed 3. Date of Board approval 4. Date of loan agreement 5. Date of loan effectiveness – In loan agreement – Actual – Number of extensions 6. Closing date – In loan agreement – Actual – Number of extensions 7. Terms of loan – Interest rate – Commitment fee – Maturity (number of years) – Grace period (number of years) 8. Terms of relending (if any)

8 September 2004 24 September 2004 4 December 2004 8 December 2004 29 March 2005 20 March 2006 18 June 2006 30 June 2006 0 31 March 2013 31 March 2013 0 prevailing London interbank offer rate plus 0.60% 0.75% on undisbursed balances 25 7 None

9. Disbursements a. Dates

Initial Disbursement

27 April 2007

Final Disbursement

22 August 2013

Time Interval

6 years, 4 months

Effective Date

30 June 2006

Original Closing Date

31 March 2013

Time Interval

6 years, 9 months

ii

b. Amount inclusive of taxes ($)

Cat. No. Category Original Allocation

a Amount Disbursed

b

1 Civil Works a Irrigation rehabilitation 32,563,000 23,435,199 b Training centers 438,000 1,182,462 Subtotal 33,001,000 24,617,661

2 Vehicles and Equipment a Vehicles and motorcycles 629,000 95,079 b Equipment and furniture 1,870,000 1,136,386 Subtotal 2,499,000 1,231,465

3 Consulting services 3,063,000 3,209,243 4 WUA support and facilities 890,000 2,533,432 5 Training, workshops, and study tours 1,327,000 14,163 6 Surveys, studies, and awareness campaign 1,271,000 83,383 7 Diversified cropping program 1,164,000 0 8 Supervision and implementation a Infrastructure maintenance 803,000 0 b Overheads and operational cost 1,438,000 754,580 Subtotal 9,956,000 6,594,801

9 Unallocated 652,000

Total 46,108,000 32,443,927 WUA = water users association. a Based on the loan agreement, dated 20 March 2006.

b An amount of $13,664,073 remained undisbursed and was cancelled upon loan closing.

10. Local costs (financed) - Amount inclusive of taxes ($) Cat. No. Category Contracts

Amount Disbursed

1 Civil Works a Irrigation rehabilitation 20,073,037 18,363,401 b Training centers 972,779 818,740 Subtotal 21,045,816 19,182,141

2 Vehicles and Equipment a Vehicles and motorcycles 95,079 95,079 b Equipment and furniture 1,105,992 1,023,475 Subtotal 1,201,071 1,118,554

3 Consulting services 1,969,405 1,835,892 4 WUA support and facilities 3,840,013 2,437,140 5 Training, workshops, and study tours 0 0 6 Surveys, studies, and awareness campaign 81,967 71,644 7 Diversified cropping program 0 0 8 Supervision and implementation a Infrastructure maintenance 0 0 b Overheads and operational cost 846,107 751,540 Subtotal 6,737,492 5,096,216

9 Unallocated 0 0

Total 28,984,379 25,396,911 Percentage of local cost financing utilization 76.53 67.05

WUA = water users association. Source: ADB’s Loan Financial Information System

iii

C. Project Data

1. Project cost ($’000) Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign exchange cost 15,938 1,701 Local currency cost 50,670 41,292 Total 66,608 42,993

2. Financing plan ($’000)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual Implementation costs Borrower financed 19,900 10,515 ADB financed 46,108 32,444 Beneficiary financed 600 33 Total 66,608 42,993

Interest during implementation Borrower financed 6,929 801 ADB financed Beneficiary financed Total 6,929 801

Commitment charges Borrower financed 777 1,113 ADB financed Beneficiary financed Total 777 1,113

ADB = Asian Development Bank.

3. Cost breakdown by project component ($’000)

Component Appraisal Estimate Actuala

1. WRD Strengthening and Project Management 4,200 4,071 2. Participatory Irrigation Management 3,900 3,323 3. Rehabilitation and Upgrading Irrigation 45,800 30,808 4. Agricultural Support 1,700 2,876 Contingencies 3,302 Interest during implementation 6,929 801 Commitment charge 777 1,113 Total 66,608 42,993

WRD = Water Resources Department.

Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.

a Actual costs are total costs including contingencies.

iv

4. Project schedule

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual Date of contract with consulting firm August 2005 6 November 2006 Completion of engineering designs Q2 2005 to Q2 2010 Q1 2007 to Q4 2009 Civil works contract First procurement 19 November 2007 Completion of work May 2012 Equipment and supplies First procurement 20 September 2006 Last procurement 6 October 2012 Completion of equipment installation March 2013 Q = quarter.

5. Project performance report ratings

Implementation Period

Ratings Development

Objectives Implementation

Progress From 2005 to 2010 Satisfactory From January 2011 to December 2011 Potential problem From January 2012 to March 2013 Satisfactory

v

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions Name of Mission

Date

No. of Persons

No. of Person-Days

Specialization of Members

PPTA fact-finding 11–30 Jul 2003 5 100 a, i PPTA review 19–23 Jan 2004 1 5 a PPTA review 5–12 May 2004 1 8 a Special project administration 6–13 Jun 2005 3 24 a, c, j TA 4573 inception 28 Nov–8 Dec 2005 1 11 a TA review 23–30 Jan 2006 1 8 a Loan consultation 14–19 Sep 2006 2 12 a, c

Loan inception 13–24 Nov 2006 4 36 a, b, c,

d Loan consultation 5–13 Feb 2007 2 18 a, c Loan and TA review 21–28 Aug 2007 2 16 a, c Loan and TA review 3–12 Dec 2007 2 20 a, e Loan and TA review 29 May–3 Jun 2008 2 12 a, b Loan and TA special administration 23–29 Sep 2008 2 14 a, c Special loan administration 27–28 Feb 2009 3 6 g, k, c, h

Loan and TA administration 9–15 Jul 2009 2 14 a, d

Loan midterm review 27 Jan–8 Feb 2010 3 39 a, b, j

Loan and TA special administration 14–16 Jun 2010 2 6 a, f

Loan and TA special project administration 28–31 Aug 2010 2 8

a, f

Loan and TA review 27 Jan–4 Feb 2011 2 18 a, c Loan and TA special project administration 2–4 Jun 2011 2 6 a, c Loan and TA review 18–21 Oct 2011 2 8 c, e Loan and TA review 19–24 Mar 2012 2 12 c, e Loan and TA special project administration 6–9 Aug 2012 4 16 c, e Project completion review 26–29 Nov 2014 2 6 c, j PPTA = project preparatory technical assistance, TA = technical assistance. a = water resources/senior water resources specialist, b = assistant project analyst, c = national officer, d = director, south asia agriculture natural resources and social services division, e = associate project analyst, f = PAU head, g = deputy director general, SARD, h = officials of department of economic affairs, government of India, i = senior social development specialist, j = staff consultant, k=senior transport specialist.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Chhattisgarh, a new state created in 2000 by separation from Madhya Pradesh, was one of India’s most underdeveloped and food-insecure states at the time of project preparation in 2004. Poverty was widespread and concentrated in rural areas, where 80% of the state’s population lived. According to the Report and Recommendation of the President for the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project (CIDP), an estimated 43% of people lived below the poverty line.1 The incidence of poverty was greater, at 57%, among scheduled tribes and castes which accounted for 45% of the state’s population. Rural poverty resulted largely from the generally low level of productivity in agriculture, which was the major source of income for small farmers and agricultural laborers. Average per capita income was $274 but its distribution highly skewed such that 60% of farm households were earning less than $150 per year.

2. Agriculture accounted for 33% of the state’s gross domestic product and 86% of employment during 2004–2005. It was dominated by rice production, which accounted for around three-quarters (4.0 million) of the total cultivated area of 4.8 million hectares (ha). Only 23% of rice was grown under irrigation. As a whole, irrigation covered 1.3 million ha, of which major (greater than 10,000 ha), medium (2,000 to 10,000 ha), and small (less than 2,000 ha) systems accounted for 43%, 20%, and 37%, respectively. Irrigation efficiency was low and utilization well below potential. The areas actually irrigated ranged from below 50% on minor schemes to 75% for major schemes and a third of minor schemes had less than 30% utilization. Average cropping intensity including both irrigated and rainfed areas was 120% and average yield of irrigated paddy was 2.5 tons per ha. This compares unfavorably with, for instance, Punjab, where cropping intensity was 180% and paddy yield 4.0 tons per ha. The low level of productivity in irrigated agriculture resulted from low irrigation efficiency. Although investment into irrigation was a key strategy of the Chhattisgarh State Government at the time to address food security and poverty issues, improving the efficiency of irrigation infrastructure was constrained by institutional issues. The Water Resources Department (WRD) had a staff of more than 3,500 (many of whom had transferred from the former Madhya Pradesh government), but skill levels were in need of improvement. It also lacked sufficient funds for effective inspection and maintenance. Water management procedures were outdated or nonexistent. There was little farmer participation in scheme management and operation and maintenance (O&M) as water users associations (WUAs) lacked funding or requisite skills. WRD typically collected only 20%–25% of irrigation service fees and around 80% of its O&M budget was spent on establishment costs.

3. The project was designed to improve irrigation delivery, enhance agricultural practices, and strengthen water resources management to increase agriculture productivity and incomes. The project impact (goal at appraisal) was to improve rural livelihoods and reduce poverty. The outcome (purpose at appraisal) was to (i) attain more effective management, development, and O&M of irrigation systems by WRD and WUAs for improved irrigation service delivery; and (ii) improve agricultural practices for increased yields and expand the area of dry season and more diversified cropping. The project comprised four outputs (components at appraisal): (i) strengthening WRD, consisting of institutional reforms and capacity development; (ii) strengthening the institutional framework and capacity development for WUAs while supporting participatory irrigation management (PIM); (iii) rehabilitating and upgrading irrigation systems; and (iv) encouraging and enabling farmers to improve their farming systems.

1 ADB. 2005. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan and Technical

Assistance Grant to India for the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project. Manila.

2

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation

4. At the time of project design, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) country strategy and program was the first to include operations in agriculture and rural development as the most important feature to mainstream poverty reduction.2 The strategy also sought to focus on key states that had poverty higher than average, that were new or important for regional cooperation, and that had strong commitment to reform. Chhattisgarh satisfied each of these criteria. The project design was also consistent with ADB’s Water Policy of improving governance, building capacity in water sector institutions, water conservation, and improving irrigation system efficiency. Similarly, the Indian government’s Tenth Five-Year Plan focused on promoting equitable growth through sustainable agriculture and rural development.3 At state level, Chhattisgarh’s own development plans sought to increase the primary sector’s contribution to the state’s economy by 50% over the following 10 years. The objective and approach adopted in formulating the CIDP were firmly in line with the objectives and strategies of both state and national governments and ADB.

5. The project was designed with project preparatory technical assistance (PPTA).4 The PPTA terms of reference focused on technical studies (including problem diagnosis) and institutional analysis to prepare a sector investment project for improving irrigation and agricultural production in Chhattisgarh. The performance of the PPTA consultants was rated satisfactory by ADB. During appraisal in September 2004, it was decided that because a cohesive sector framework and the required institutional capacity were not yet in place, the project should be processed as a project loan with a sector-type approach for irrigation scheme rehabilitation and upgrading (R&U) only. Moreover, it was decided that the project would include significant capacity development and institutional strengthening.

B. Project Outputs

6. Outputs discussed are those defined in the project framework of the report and recommendation of the President. That framework and achievements against targets at project completion are in Appendix 1.

1. Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Development for the Water Resources Department

7. In addition to general strengthening of WRD, the project proposed to establish four new operational units within WRD: (i) a central PIM unit (PIMU) and regional PIMUs to mobilize and train WUAs, (ii) a design unit (and survey team) for design activities and scheme rehabilitation under the project, (iii) a social development unit (SDU) with responsibility for social and environmental issues as well as economic analysis of schemes to be rehabilitated under the project, and (iv) a dam safety unit. It was also proposed to establish four training centers collocated with regional PIMUs for building capacity of WRD, WUA, and farmers.

2 ADB. 2003. Country Strategy and Program: India, 2003–2006. Manila

3 Planning Commission, Government of India. 2002. Tenth Five-Year Plan, 2002–2007. New Delhi.

4 ADB. 2002. Technical Assistance (Financed by the Government of the United Kingdom) to India for Preparing the

Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Sector Project. Manila (approved on 13 November 2003 for $900,000 and completed in September 2004).

3

8. In partial compliance with the loan agreement (Schedule 6, para. 4), WRD established at central level the dam safety, PIM, and social development units in July 2006 but no design unit. The responsibility for scheme designs was assigned to project consultants (Package C, para. 29).5 Both the PIMU in particular and the SDU were central to the introduction of PIM and establishment of WUAs in project-supported schemes and, over the longer term, throughout Chhattisgarh. From the outset, however, the central PIMU was not adequately staffed and staff either was not appropriately qualified or undertook activities not related to PIM. The tasks of the SDU were taken over by project consultants. In spite of repeated requests by ADB project review missions, WRD did not effectively address these concerns. At the time of the project completion review, neither the PIMU nor SDU were functioning effectively. The PIM strategy proposed by project consultants and effective staffing of the PIMU had not been approved by the state government. The final report of the consultants engaged under the associated technical assistance (TA 4573, see para. 28 herein)6 suggested that a lack of commitment was the main constraint to effective implementation of PIM under the project.7 However, individual field officers of WRD, sometimes in conjunction with Department of Agriculture (DOA) staff, are reportedly continuing to disseminate the PIM and improved agricultural practices messages. In addition, WUA federations are taking up with the state government such general concerns relating to PIM and WUA activities as input supply, output marketing, scheme O&M, and replication of PIM to other areas.

9. Project design included the establishment of four training centers: one central facility in Raipur, the state capital, and three regional centers in Ambikapur, Bilaspur, and Jagdalpur. Due to security issues in the south of Chhattisgarh, the Jagdalpur center was dropped from the project. The remaining three were constructed though not equipped to the extent envisaged by project design. All three centers were fully operational by the end of January 2012. Each center was headed by a regular WRD executive engineer rather than a training or capacity development specialist and staffing by WRD was limited. However, the centers were used by project consultants and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) to deliver training during project implementation. Following project closure, no further training was delivered.

10. Based on a needs assessment by project implementation consultants, a capacity development program for WRD was developed and, by project closure, 2,064 WRD staff had been trained in PIM, water management, ADB project procedures, and other subjects. The project design included a variety of workshops and study tours for the state government to be exposed to PIM, water management, etc. From 1 to 10 May 2007, an international study tour was organized to the International Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Management in Australia. A second tour to Spain was proposed and approved by ADB but did not take place. Eight WRD staff did, however, attend general water management workshops and in-field knowledge sharing in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh organized by ADB and financed by the Multi-Donor Trust Fund8 Water Financing Partnership Facility for a variety of participants including

5 Small field-level units were established and continue to operate.

6 ADB. 2013. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation in Chhattisgarh—Final Report.

Consultants’ report. Manila (TA 4573-IND). 7 Toward better understanding the context, it can be said that, as designed, CIDP represented a relatively small part

of WRD responsibilities and accounted for around 15% of the total area irrigated in Chhattisgarh. Whereas during preparation there had been significant support for the project at WRD Secretary level, personnel changes occurring shortly after project start-up undermined the commitment within WRD at senior management level. There was also a general lack of ownership at the field level.

8 Financing partners included the governments of Australia, Austria, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. Administration

was provided by ADB.

4

staff from projects in other states in India and from Bangladesh. In general, the state government was reluctant to finance staff training and study tours from loan proceeds.

2. Improved Institutional Framework and Capacity Development for Water Users Associations

11. In addition to proposed institutional changes within WRD, a key aspect of the institutional reforms for improved irrigation management supported under the project was support for preparing a new Participatory Irrigation Management Act. This was undertaken by consultants contracted under TA 4573. The state government approved the new PIM Act in March 2006. Key aspects of the PIM Act included delegation of scheme O&M to WUAs, allowing WUAs to retain a share of water charges collected from farmers to finance O&M, and empowerment of women. Under the system prevailing at project start-up, water charges were collected by the local government administration in collaboration with WRD.9 The state government was then supposed to return to WUAs 25% of the water charges collected. In practice, the full amount due was rarely, if ever, returned. TA 4573 consultants proposed to increase a WUA’s share of water charges to 85% and for that share to be retained by the WUA. The state government did not agree to the 85% share but did agree to increase it to 50%. The increase was approved by the state government and published in the official Gazette on 3 August 2012. However, the proposal for WUAs to retain their share of water charges at source was not adopted.

12. Revisions to the PIM Act were also proposed in respect of WUA capacity building to facilitate WUA elections. WUA elections scheduled for June 2005 under PIM Act provisions in force prior to project implementation were postponed to allow for the proposed amendments to the PIM Act. Elections were held in February 2007. They were the first WUA elections in India in which places on the WUA management committee were reserved for women and less well represented and socially excluded communities (Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and “Other Backward Classes”) in accordance with the PIM Act. Information covering elections at 1,320 WUAs indicate that women’s representation among WUA presidents and WUA committee members was 1.8% and 34.1%, respectively (para. 15). The next elections were scheduled for February 2012 but they were postponed.10 They were rescheduled for February 2015. The elections did not take place, however, and no new date has been proposed. As such, WUA management committees, which under the PIM Act have a tenure of 5 years plus a possible extension of 3 years, no longer have authority. As the competent authority, WRD will take responsibility for WUA management until elections take place.

13. The principal focus of WUA capacity building was the WUA Capacity Development Program designed for delivery through the regional training centers by the PIMUs using village meeting facilities with the support of an NGO contracted under the project (NGO Package A, para. 28). WUA mobilization and capacity building was supported by the capacity development NGO. A total of 191 WUAs were provided training in WUA roles and responsibilities and management, PIM, water management, agriculture practices, and the like. It was proposed to provide the remaining 1,133 non-CIDP WUAs (of Chhattisgarh’s total of 1,324 WUAs) with more general training. A total of 1,061 WUAs received training, which included aspects of the PIM

9 Although WRD assesses water charges payable by individual farmers, collection is the responsibility of the patwari,

a local government official not employed by WRD. Funds collected are transferred to the state exchequer. WRD has no involvement in repaying the share of water charges to WUAs.

10 Support for promotion of women and a pre-election awareness campaign for the 2012 elections was provided through a grant of $150,000 under the ADB-financed TA 6143 (REG): Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, approved on 28 November 2003 for $1.5 million from the Gender and Development Cooperation Fund.

5

Act, PIM principles, and financial management.11 The project also provided support for WUA capacity building through one-off grants to be administered by WRD to assist in WUA establishment, obtaining basic equipment, etc. All WUAs that had received support under the WUA Capacity Development Program were eligible for a grant of Rs45,000 ($850) for CIDP WUAs and Rs22,500 ($425) for other WUAs. By project completion, 359 grants totaling Rs8.91 million ($169,230) had been provided. Grants to CIDP WUAs numbered 86 with a total value of Rs2.77 million ($52,610). This represents 45.0% of the 191 eligible CIDP WUAs. There were 273 grants to non-CIDP WUAs totaling Rs6.14 million ($116,620) and representing 31.4% of the 870 eligible non-CIDP WUAs and 24.1% of the total of 1,133 non-CIDP WUAs in the state.12

14. During implementation, with support of the agricultural support services NGO Package B, several WUAs successfully engaged in collective purchase of inputs and marketing of outputs, resulting in reduced costs and increased income. Eight WUAs were supported in their establishment and legal registration (as shareholding limited companies) of four producer firms to formalize procurement and marketing activities. The four continued in operation at the time of the project completion review. WUAs were also supported to engage in seed production by registered participating farmers to address the limited availability of quality seed in Chhattisgarh. Starting in 2010, this WUA-managed seed production covered 98 ha. By the 2012 kharif season,13 it covered 3,623 ha and involved 2,418 farmers in 76 WUAs across 43 schemes.

15. Broader dissemination of project messages was conducted through an education, information, and awareness-building campaign prepared by TA 4573 and delivered at field level by NGO Package C. Dissemination materials included newsletters; WUA pocket diary and year planner; posters; a comic-book explanation of the PIM Act; crop and water management information; and a documentary film on the likes of farmer capacity building, WUA leadership, and conflict management. The NGO was also tasked with creating awareness of the WUA elections scheduled for February 2013, although these were finally postponed. The education, information, and awareness-building program was delivered statewide, not only in CIDP WUAs, and it played an important role in supporting the creation of WUA federations. These federations represent WUAs from all irrigated areas of Chhattisgarh and continue to lobby government on behalf of farmers’ interests, in particular with respect to spreading the PIM lessons of the CIDP.

16. A special feature of the project design was improving women’s access to and participation in irrigation and water management activities by removing institutional, social, and cultural barriers to women’s empowerment. It was proposed that the revised PIM Act would designate households as members of WUAs, so that both women and men could attend meetings, vote, and stand for election. Women would be represented on WUA management committees and all subcommittees, with a target representation of 30% on all committees. The PIM Act was enacted as proposed, ensuring gender equity in governance and decision-making processes and greater empowerment of women in WUA affairs. Women committee members accounted for 34.1% (2,598) of the total committee membership of 7,622, and 24 WUAs out of the total 1,324 (1.8%) elected women presidents in the 2007 elections. Appendix 2 provides a detailed analysis of achievements in respect of gender. It was intended at the project level that initially 10% of PIMU trainers would be women, rising to 20% by year 3. At project completion, 13% of trainers were women.

11

Around 100 WUAs in the south of Chhattisgarh could not be covered due to security concerns. 12

These figures derive from WRD’s project completion report submitted in September 2013. 13

Kharif is the wet (monsoon) season, usually extending from June to October. Approximately 90% of Chhattisgarh’s rainfall occurs from mid-June to the end of September.

6

3. Rehabilitation and Upgrading of Existing Irrigation Schemes Leading to Improved Performance

17. The project was designed to rehabilitate 20 medium and 200 minor irrigation schemes, averaging 5,000 ha and 500 ha, respectively, and thus take in around 200,000 ha. That total is equivalent to 15% of the overall irrigated area in Chhattisgarh. The R&U scheme was intended to be a collaborative effort among the PIMU, SDU, WUAs, and WRD field staff, with the PIMU playing a coordination role. The first year of the program was intended (among other things) to operationalize the PIMU and SDU, mobilize and build the capacity of WUAs (through the WUA Capacity Development Program), establish scheme selection criteria, and select and prepare designs for pilot schemes. R&U of the remaining schemes was to take place over 6 years. It became clear at an early stage in implementation that the proposed R&U process faced problems due to (i) institutional issues related to the design unit, PIMU, and SDU (among others); (ii) inappropriate scheme selection criteria with respect to WUA capacity and involvement; and (iii) insufficient water in many schemes to achieve the required rabi season cropping of at least 30% of the command area.14 These issues were addressed by relaxing the selection criteria and delegating scheme R&U designs and feasibility studies to project consultants (under Package C, para. 29).

18. Initial progress was slow due to strict contractor eligibility criteria. These were subsequently relaxed by removing the requirement for contractors to have irrigation civil works experience. In addition, the bidding period was shortened. By the midterm review in 2010, contracts had been awarded to rehabilitate 148 schemes covering 177,130 ha and 47 schemes covering 28,372 ha (16.0%) were reported to be completed. The quality of construction was in a number of cases inconsistent and poor.15 It also appeared that contractors focused on larger-scale works and neglected smaller ones, which were in fact critical for effective water management. It was agreed at midterm review that no new schemes beyond the 148 already agreed would be included until proposed corrective measures had been adequately costed and the issues at all completed schemes resolved. The midterm review also required an increase in the number of scheme inspections. Construction quality improved thereafter. The final number of schemes covered was 144, covering 173,984 ha, comprising 23 medium schemes (108,563 ha) and 121 minor schemes (65,421 ha). Details of the R&U work completed are in Appendix 3.

19. It was originally planned to construct field channels covering 100,000 ha (i.e., half the area to be rehabilitated and upgraded). This proposal was based on a cost of Rs2,000 per ha, of which beneficiaries were to contribute 10%. However, the rate paid for field channel development under the command area development and water management program of the government was Rs12,000 to Rs 15,000 per ha. The state government revised the rate for the project to Rs10,000 per ha in October 2010. As a result, the area to be covered was subsequently reduced to 20,000 ha. It was also agreed that the beneficiary contribution would be made in-kind as labor. In spite of these revisions, the development of field channels was well below the revised target due to (i) delay in starting the activity, which depended upon substantial R&U works having been completed; (ii) initial reluctance by some WRD field officers; (iii) shortage of support staff to complete surveys and prepare estimates; and (iv) reluctance of some farmers to voluntarily provide land. By project completion, field channels covering 5,300 ha in 19 schemes had been constructed. Details of field channel construction by scheme are in

14

Rabi is the dry season, usually running from December to March. 15

Of the nine subprojects visited by the midterm review mission that were reported to be completed, none were found compliant with their design and appraisal reports. In one case, the scheme was reported to be completed and the contract closed while works appeared to be unfinished.

7

Appendix 3. The construction of field channels contributed to significant improvement in water management by delivering water directly to individual farmers’ fields.

4. Improved Capacity and Willingness of Farmers to Engage in Rabi Cropping and Diversified Farming in Irrigation Systems

20. As designed, the project was to deliver farm-level support through the PIMU structure, with a full-time DOA deputy director seconded to each regional PIMU to be supported by two irrigated agriculture specialists under the agricultural support services NGO Package B. It was intended that these PIMU staff would work with WUAs and farmers on a long-term basis to improve agricultural practices and develop input and output marketing strategies through links with private sector enterprises and related agriculture service providers. This mechanism was expected to result in higher yields, increased cropping intensity, crop diversification, and improved farm incomes. The associated TA 4573 was to provide support to this process.

21. Intensive intervention program (IIP). TA 4573 adopted a holistic approach to the delivery of water management (referred to as “Managing Kharif for Rabi” to increase water availability in the rabi season) and agriculture support services to WUAs and farmers through year-round hand-holding and WUA collective action. Details of the IIP approach and results are in Appendix 4. The IIP was piloted during 2007 in seven schemes covering 11,000 ha. This was extended during implementation until the IIP encompassed 78 schemes covering 115,871 ha, equal to 66.6% of the total area of 173,984 ha covered under the project. By project completion, average kharif paddy yield was recorded at 5.91 tons per ha, an increase of 211% over the pre-project figure of 2.8 tons per ha and 180% higher than the project target of 3.30 tons per ha.16 Kharif season cropping intensity in areas covered by the IIP was 100%, thus exceeding the project target of 90%. The IIP also introduced the system of rice intensification on a pilot basis in 2010 and achieved dramatic results with paddy yields up to 11.3 tons per ha (achieved by one farmer and measured by crop cutting). The impact of the IIP was also observed in rabi season cropping. Cropping intensity increased from 6% in the 2007–2008 rabi season to 53% in the 2012–2013 season. That compares with a project target of 40%. In addition to the increased rabi season area, cropping was diversified with the introduction of maize, wheat, sunflower, groundnuts, pulses, green gram, and mustard. Yields achieved for these crops in project areas were generally above state averages and resulted in marketable surpluses.

22. Non-IIP intervention. There were 66 schemes covering 58,113 ha wherein the IIP was not implemented. In these schemes, the project supported enhancement of WUA and farmer knowledge on PIM and the PIM Act, as well as the water management and agricultural practices promoted through the IIP. Farmers and WUA representatives participated in project training and undertook exposure visits to IIP schemes to learn how to implement IIP approaches, but they did not enjoy the same degree of hand-holding. This task was entrusted to the agricultural support services NGO Package B under the supervision of TA 4573 consultants. As the project focused on achieving success in IIP schemes, achievements in non-IIP schemes were not adequately assessed quantitatively. Nevertheless, participants and stakeholders indicated that cropping intensity, yields, and crop diversification have improved or are expected to improve compared with the situation prior to project implementation.

16

Based on a sample of 1,071 (25 square meter) crop cuts undertaken across 50 schemes covering 101,312 ha at the end of the 2012 kharif season and certified by DOA, WRD, and WUAs.

8

C. Project Costs

23. At appraisal the cost of the project was estimated at $66.6 million, of which ADB was to finance $46.1 million (69%), the government $19.9 million (30%), and beneficiaries $0.6 million (1%). Actual project cost was $43.0 million, 65% of that estimated. ADB financed $32.4 million (75.5%) and the government financed $10.5 million (24.5%), comprising $8.6 million for direct project activities and $1.9 million in interest and commitment charges during implementation. The contribution of beneficiaries, which was provided in kind in the form of land and labor for field channel construction, was estimated at $33,240, equal to 0.1% of total project costs.17 As a result of the slow project start-up and increased role foreseen for project consultants and NGOs, the allocation of project funds by expenditure category was revised in December 2006. Overall, actual project cost, excluding finance charges, was 69.8% of estimated cost. Estimated and actual project cost and variances are detailed in Appendix 5.

D. Disbursements

24. Total loan disbursement was $32,443,927, equivalent to 70% of the loan’s $46,108,000. At loan closing, $13.66 million remained undisbursed and was cancelled. Appendix 6 provides a breakdown of annual disbursements by expenditure category and actual disbursements against loan agreement amounts. The first disbursement was on 27 April 2007 and the final disbursement on 22 August 2013. At WRD’s request, neither an imprest account nor second-generation imprest account was established as required by the loan agreement (Schedule 3, para. 7). In spite of the noted implementation delays, the schedule of actual disbursements closely reflected that projected at appraisal. The associated TA 4573 was approved on 29 March 2005 in an amount of $1,900,000 from the Government of the United Kingdom. Following a number of supplementary approvals and partial cancellations between October 2008 and February 2012, the final TA amount was $2,700,000. Of this, $2,150,000 was provided by the Government of the United Kingdom and $550,000 was from the Water Financing Partnership Facility multi-donor trust fund. The first disbursement was on 5 December 2005 and the final disbursement on 24 March 2014. The TA contract was financially concluded on 1 April 2014. Disbursement under the TA totaled $2,641,442, equivalent to 97.8% of total funding available.

E. Project Schedule

25. The project was designed to be implemented over 7 years from 2005 to 2012. The loan was approved on 29 March 2005 and the loan agreement signed on 20 March 2006. The loan was declared effective on 30 June 2006, 12 days later than anticipated in the loan agreement and 90 days after the date of that agreement. The loan was closed as scheduled on 31 March 2013. The period between loan effectiveness and closing was 6 years, 9 months. Delay of about 14 months in achieving loan effectiveness following approval was mainly due to delay in fulfilling conditions of loan effectiveness (e.g., staffing of the project management unit, designating counterpart staff for new WRD units, completing inventory of tank irrigation schemes). Mobilization of Package B consultants under TA 4573 on 28 November 2005, however, meant that much preparatory work had been undertaken by the time the loan became effective.

17

On the basis of a 10% contribution to the cost of field channel construction estimated from the value of contracts awarded to WUAs for this purpose.

9

F. Implementation Arrangements

26. WRD was designated as the project’s executing agency. The government was required to establish a project steering committee before loan effectiveness to provide policy guidance and coordination. The steering committee was to be chaired by the Chief Secretary of the state government. The state government decided that the steering committee established for the PPTA would continue to provide overall policy guidance and review of project progress. As the steering committee was comprised entirely of secretary-level officials, it was difficult to arrange steering committee meetings. A Project Technical Coordination Committee was established in March 2007 to provide regular technical coordination and supervision. That committee comprised high-level, line agency staff and was chaired by the Secretary of WRD. In addition, a working group headed by the Secretary of WRD and including other WRD officers and the TA 4573 team leader was constituted to provide more frequent guidance to the project.18 A project management unit (PMU) was to be established within WRD and be managed by a project director reporting to the Secretary WRD through the Engineer-in-Chief. The PMU was established in July 2006, although the first project director had been provisionally in place since September 2004, during project preparation. At the outset, the PMU had limited staff and comprised only engineering expertise. None of the staff required in nonengineering disciplines were posted.19 By September 2006, only 7 of the 57 PMU posts had been filled. PMU staffing levels, high staff turnover, and lack of recruitment of nonengineering staff remained an issue throughout implementation. Critically, there were 10 separate project directors during the project period.20 The project directors appointed were often at lower levels of the WRD hierarchy. Scheme R&U was undertaken through existing WRD zone and division staff under the direction of a chief engineer. The project director, therefore, had no authority over these staff, resulting, for instance, in delayed decision making and underachievement in certain project activities, such as field channel development. Much of the work of the PMU, and especially nonengineering activities, was undertaken by consultants. The extent to which PMU and WRD field staff took account of the consultants’ proposals varied. During the project implementation period, WRD’s workload was also significantly increased as a result of government programs.

G. Conditions and Covenants

27. Covenants were largely complied with. Out of 36 covenants, 24 were complied with in full, 9 complied with in part, and 3 not complied with. None of those complied with in part or not at all are considered to have been unreasonable or beyond the state government’s capacity to comply. No covenants were modified. Appendix 7 details compliance with each loan covenant. The three covenants not complied with were the following:

(i) Schedule 6, para. 2 (b) – women trainers comprised only 13% of all trainers rather than the 20% stipulated in the covenant.

(ii) Schedule 6, para. 5 (b) – while the PIM Act allows for the transfer of water fees collected from farmers to WUAs (up to 50% of sums collected), the proposal to allow WUAs to retain fees at source was not approved. Critically, according to PMU management, the state government has never transferred any water fees collected back to WUAs. These issues have implications for

18

The project steering committee met only twice in conjunction with the Project Technical Coordination Committee. The working group met several times to review and/or revise proposals for the PIM Act and address WUA issues.

19 Four deputy-director level staff members from DOA were initially seconded to the PMU but were largely redundant and returned to DOA shortly after project start-up.

20 The longest serving project director was the one in the post at project start-up, who remained for 2 years. The shortest period served was 2 months.

10

the long-term sustainability of irrigation schemes rehabilitated under the project.

(iii) Schedule 6, para. 7 – the state government has not reviewed irrigation water charges. This, too, has a potential effect on irrigation scheme sustainability in that charges do not adequately reflect actual O&M costs.

H. Related Technical Assistance

28. Technical assistance (TA 4573) associated with the loan was designed to support preparation and implementation of the PIM Act, provide WUA capacity building, improve agricultural practices, and support monitoring and evaluation.21 The TA period was 7 years. Consultants (Package B) under the TA were contracted through international competitive bidding on 22 November 2005 and the team leader mobilized on 28 November 2005. At appraisal, it was proposed to engage 59 person-months of international and 164 person-months of national consultant inputs. Total TA cost was estimated at $2.375 million. The contract with Package B consultants included 59 person-months of international and 148 person-months of national consultant inputs and total TA cost of $1.723 million. Actual consultant inputs were 73 person-months of international and 300 person-months of national. The TA contributed significantly to establishing the PIM Act, although the state government did not adopt all provisions proposed by the consultants. During the process, the TA also provided capacity building to WRD’s PIMU staff. The TA with NGO support contributed significantly in the areas of WUA capacity building and agricultural support services (paras. 18–20), and it was instrumental in increasing cropping intensity and yield, improving agricultural and water management practices, crop diversification, etc. Greater success was constrained, however, by the limitations of WRD’s PIMU and SDU and difficulties in contracting NGOs and retaining NGO staff.

I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement

29. At appraisal it was proposed to provide a total of 382 person-months of consulting services (92 person-months international and 290 person-months national) via two contracts: Package A for general project management and Package C for WRD strengthening and feasibility studies and designs for irrigation scheme R&U. By project completion, 71 person-months of international and 450 person-months of national inputs had been utilized. Appendix 8 provides a breakdown of proposed and actual inputs of consulting services under the project. As requested by WRD, ADB assisted in recruiting Package A consultants. Consultants were selected in July 2006 and mobilized in October 2006. Although advance action for recruiting Package C consultants was approved by ADB at appraisal, the limited experience of WRD in consultant recruitment resulted in the process taking 14 months to complete. The contract for Package C consultants was signed in July 2006 and the team leader mobilized on 8 September 2006. The recruitment of consultants followed ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants. Package A and C consultants were both recruited through quality- and cost-based selection.

30. In accordance with project design, three NGOs were contracted to support implementation in PIM and WUA capacity building (NGO Package A), agricultural support services (NGO Package B), and education and awareness building (NGO Package C). NGOs were contracted using local competitive bidding. A single contract for NGO Packages A and B was awarded in November 2007, but, due to poor performance of the NGO and concerns over its financial management, the contract was terminated in August 2008. Separate contracts were

21

TA 4573 was part of Government of the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development cluster TA, CTA 003-IND: Advanced Project Preparedness for Poverty Reduction.

11

then awarded for NGO Packages A and B. Agreements were signed in March 2010 and both teams fielded in May 2010. The contract for NGO Package C was awarded in November 2007 and the team fielded in December 2007. NGO Package A and B contracts were closed in March 2013 and the NGO Package C contract in November 2012. Total disbursement under the three NGO packages was $1.76 million.

31. The project awarded 319 civil works contracts in respect of irrigation scheme rehabilitation. Of these, 167 contracts were awarded through the direct contracting method to WUAs for constructing field channels (61 contracts) and undertaking priority R&U works (106 contracts). The remaining 152 civil works contracts were awarded using national competitive bidding or shopping methods. A further 6 civil works contracts were awarded using national competitive bidding for construction of training centers. Equipment supply contracts were awarded under shopping or national competitive bidding procedures. Twenty-five contracts were awarded for vehicles and equipment. Other expenditure categories with significant procurement included 3 consulting services contracts; 30 contracts under WUA support and facilities (including 22 contracts covering grants to WUAs); and 6 contracts for training, studies, and surveys. Appendix 9 details contracts by expenditure category and reviews the procurement.

J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers

32. Given the constraints faced with respect to establishing and staffing the PMU and new implementation units in WRD and the variable levels of commitment by WRD staff to the principles and concepts promoted under the project, project consultants were not adequately supported and were required to take on much greater responsibility for implementation than expected. This was particularly the case with respect to R&U design and supervision (para. 17). The working relationship between consultants and PMU staff was, however, generally satisfactory. The performance of consultants is rated satisfactory.

33. NGOs, which were responsible for a significant capacity building effort under the project, faced similar difficulties (e.g., lack of commitment, inexperience of working with NGOs) in working with WRD staff at field level. In addition, NGOs faced a number of other issues, including problems in recruiting and retaining staff, lack of funds to prefinance project activities, delays in receipt of payments from WRD, and failure to obtain tax exemption as nonprofit organizations. In spite of this and given the achievements in WUA capacity building, the performance of NGOs is rated satisfactory.

34. The quality of civil works undertaken by contractors was generally low (para. 17), especially in the early stages of implementation. The tendering process was generally slow (9 months on average) and difficult, in part because contractors did not understand the process. The situation improved following (i) relaxation of contractor eligibility criteria, (ii) adoption of greater responsibility for construction management and supervision by Package C consultants, and (iii) improved interaction of the consultants’ procurement specialist and local WRD executive engineers. Nevertheless, the overall performance of contractors is rated less than satisfactory.22 With respect to equipment procurement, the tendering process was generally slow but no issues with respect to supply were raised during implementation. The performance of suppliers is rated satisfactory.

22

However, no assessment was made during implementation of the works carried out under WUA contracts, nor was it possible to do so during the project completion review.

12

K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency

35. As the borrower, the Government of India had limited direct involvement in project implementation. That was the responsibility of WRD as the executing agency. The Government of India’s Department of Economic Affairs nevertheless undertook periodic monitoring of project activities, including contract award and disbursement through tripartite portfolio review meetings with ADB and WRD. In addition, a joint secretary and director of the Department of Economic Affairs visited the project area together with ADB staff in February 2009 to expedite project implementation. The borrower’s performance is considered satisfactory. At state level, the state government was supportive of the PIM Act, although it disagreed with key recommendations of TA 4573 consultants, namely the share of water charges to be returned to WUAs and that water charges should be retained at source by WUAs. To date, even the agreed share of water charges collected from farmers has not been returned to their WUAs. The effectiveness of WRD was mixed and depended to an extent upon the personal commitment of senior WRD staff and the project director. Frequent changes of project director also adversely affected project implementation. At the outset, WRD failed adequately to staff the PMU with disciplines other than engineering. It also failed to establish or effectively implement key support units proposed in the project design. This, too, undermined project implementation, especially in social and agricultural activities, and it placed an increased burden on project consultants. Overall, the performance of WRD is rated less than satisfactory.

L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank

36. ADB supervised the project extensively over several years, with PPTA and loan fact-finding missions in July 2003 and May 2004, respectively. The loan inception mission was fielded in November 2006. The midterm review mission took place in February 2010, and the project completion review mission in November 2014. Responsibility for administration of the loan was delegated to the India Resident Mission in September 2011. From the time of the PPTA until project close, four ADB project officers were responsible for the project. ADB assigned staff with in-depth technical expertise in water resources management and strong country experience, which ensured effective project supervision. WRD expressed no concerns with respect to any dealings with ADB and was appreciative of the proactive support it received. Overall, ADB’s performance is rated satisfactory.

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE

A. Relevance

37. At the time of appraisal, the project was relevant to government and ADB goals and strategies in the agriculture sector. It remains relevant in terms of ADB’s country partnership strategy23 and the Indian government’s Twelfth Five-Year Plan.24 The assessment of problems and opportunities undertaken during project preparation led to a project design providing significant potential for improvements in farm household income and, therefore, poverty reduction. Concerns exist, however, as to the adequacy of the assessment at appraisal of the commitment of the state government and WRD to the PIM principle promoted by the project (para. 35). These concerns were addressed during implementation by giving consultants and NGOs a greater role in scheme PIM development, R&U design and supervision, and capacity building for WUAs and farmers. Overall, the project is rated relevant.

23

ADB. 2013. Country Partnership Strategy: India, 2013–2017. Manila. 24

Planning Commission, Government of India. 2013. Twelfth Five-Year Plan, 2012–2017. New Delhi.

13

B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome

38. The attainment of project outcomes reflected the intensity of support provided under the project. In IIP schemes, irrigation management and the participation of WUAs in scheme O&M improved significantly (Appendix 3). There was also improvement in agricultural practices, with an increase in kharif season paddy yields (from 2.4 to 5.9 tons per ha) and cropping intensity (100% compared with a target of 90%). In the rabi season, there were gains in cropping intensity (to 53% compared with a target of 40%), crop diversification, and crop yields (para. 21). The supply of water to downstream farmers in rehabilitated schemes also improved. Results in non-IIP schemes are not documented, but consultation with stakeholders indicated increases in cropping intensity, yields, and crop diversification compared with the situation before project implementation. On the institutional level, the project brought improvement in the overall legislative and institutional framework for implementation of PIM and improved capacity and willingness among farmers to collaborate through WUAs, adopt improved agricultural practices, and intensify and diversify agriculture. Overall, based on the success of the IIP, the project was effective in achieving the outcome.

C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs

39. At appraisal, economic analysis of the project indicated it to be viable, with an economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of 22.1%. Reestimation of the EIRR (Appendix 10) indicates the project was economically viable, with an EIRR of 23.8%. With respect to efficiency of process, results are variable. There were implementation delays at the start of the project that led, in part, to a lower level of irrigation scheme rehabilitation than projected. WRD is considered to have been less than efficient, largely because proposed institutional strengthening of WRD was not implemented. This contrasts with the level of efficiency displayed by ADB, which closely supervised the project from preparation and throughout implementation and sought to ensure that the project was implemented as designed. Overall, and in spite of the highly efficient rating based on the reestimated EIRR, given implementation problems the project is rated efficient.

D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability

40. A special feature of the project defined in the report and recommendation of the President was sustainability, which would be ensured by the effective participation of WUAs in scheme R&U and especially O&M. The failure of the state government to share with WUAs water charges collected for scheme O&M and the fact that management of minor schemes was not transferred to WUAs raise concerns over project sustainability. In schemes where the IIP was implemented, improvements in yields and cropping intensity suggest that farmers may be willing to continue in utilizing improved crop practices and maintain field-level scheme infrastructure in spite of limited or nonexistent support from local DOA and WRD offices and the lack of funds due from water charges collected. Sustainability will nevertheless depend upon the transfer of water charges to WUA and support from DOA and WRD, particularly in respect of extension support for improved agricultural and water management practices and periodic scheme maintenance, respectively. In non-IIP schemes, the project aimed to develop a sense of ownership among farmers but they did not receive the same level of intensive support and benefits as did IIP schemes. As such, the project overall is rated less than likely sustainable.

E. Impact

41. Overall, the project impact is rated significant. It has clearly demonstrated that an effective PIM strategy resulting in greater WUA and farmer ownership and participation in irrigation management can contribute to increased crop yields, cropping intensity, and crop

14

diversification. Project interventions have supported improvement in water availability at field level, implementation of improved agricultural and water management practices, raising of awareness throughout the state regarding the rights and responsibilities of WUAs, and, in some cases, boosting the capacity of WUAs to undertake collective action for input and output services. These factors have had a significant impact by increasing farm incomes of almost 135,000 farm households under the IIP and a further 65,000 households in non-IIP schemes, thereby reducing poverty. A farm income analysis at project completion review suggests that average farm income in 2014 prices has increased from Rs27,415 before the project to Rs65,806 after the project, a gain of 140%. The national poverty line income in mid-2013 was Rs48,960. Chhattisgarh has, in recent years, had a poverty incidence greater than the national average and a poverty line income below the national average. The increase in farm income resulting from the project’s IIP activities has made a significant contribution to raising the household income of the average farm in relation to the poverty line level of income. The significant increase in crop yields, especially of rice, the staple food of project area households, has enhanced household food security. Crop diversification has not only expanded the range of marketable outputs, it has also contributed to a broader diet and enhanced nutritional status.

42. Gender impact. The project made significant improvements in boosting the participation of women in irrigation management. The new PIM Act makes women eligible both for WUA membership as members of farm households as well as for election to WUA governing bodies and committees. More needs to be done in practice to ensure that women participate effectively, inasmuch as their representation as WUA committee members, and especially presidents, was limited (para. 12). An opportunity exists to expand women’s participation with the next WUA elections, although these have yet to be scheduled.

43. Impact on indigenous peoples. The project was expected to have no significant adverse impacts on indigenous peoples because project interventions were limited to R&U for minor and medium irrigation schemes. At the institutional level, through the new PIM Act, the project laid the groundwork for improvements in the participation of minority and disadvantaged groups in irrigation scheme management by facilitating their representation in WUA management bodies. An opportunity exists to further promote this principle and to realize increased participation through the next WUA elections.

44. Environmental impact. Limited environmental monitoring was undertaken during project implementation. A post-project socioeconomic survey that included an assessment of environmental impacts nevertheless indicates that negligible or very limited negative environmental impacts resulted from project implementation. 25 Environmental impacts were found to be positive. Details are in Appendix 11.

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Overall Assessment

45. Based on assessment of the project as relevant, effective, efficient, and less than likely sustainable, the project overall is rated successful. It was implemented largely as designed and achieved most of the outcome and output indicators, with the exception of full institutionalization of the PIMU and SDU in WRD. Such problems as weak capacity of WRD and WUAs and the engineering focus of WRD officers were addressed through capacity building of both WRD staff

25

ADB. 2014. TA-8191 REG: Enhancing Gender Equality Results in South Asia Developing Member Countries (Phase 2) (Subproject 3). Manila.

15

and WUAs in such areas as PIM and improved agricultural and water management practices, especially through the IIP. This resulted in higher cropping intensity and increased crop yields, farmers’ incomes, and food security.

B. Lessons

46. Major lessons from the project are as follow: (i) where principles and approaches proposed under a project are innovative in the context of the prevailing institutional framework, capacity building of implementing agencies should be undertaken in advance to ensure ownership of those principles and the capacity to implement projects dependent upon them; (ii) effective ADB supervision can help to overcome limitations in implementing institutions’ capacity; (iii) project preparation should consider the capacity of local civil works contractors and ensure that eligibility criteria for bidding are not so prescriptive that they preclude participation by all but large contractors who may not be interested in smaller-scale works; and (iv) some form of incentive may be necessary to attract staff to project management units and new units or sections within executing agencies specifically established for project activities.

C. Recommendations

1. Project Related

47. ADB should continue to collaborate or maintain dialogue with the state government to (i) continue WRD reorganization and refocusing of its activities to make it a more service-oriented institution, (ii) pursue the PIM approach and the agricultural practices introduced under the project with a view to replication throughout the state, (iii) ensure that WUAs receive the allotted share of water charges collected, (iv) monitor the result of the WUA elections when they take place and assess the extent to which women and minority groups account for WUA president and committee positions, and (v) undertake a survey of both IIP and non-IIP schemes in 3–5 years to compare their relative performance and potential sustainability. It is specifically recommended that the project approaches in PIM and the IIP should be replicated throughout India, both in schemes of all sizes and, if necessary, in individual sections of larger schemes.

48. Timing of the project performance evaluation report. The report should be prepared within the next 12 months.

2. General

49. General recommendations are as follow: (i) to avoid delays in project start-up and make implementation more effective, project preparation should assess the capacity of PMUs that are likely to be responsible for project implementation; (ii) project preparation should not only design project monitoring and evaluation systems but should, where possible, support the proposed executing and/or implementing agency to establish the system so that it is operational from project start-up; and (iii) where there is a long delay between project preparation (and cost estimation), the scale of costs should be reviewed to take account of cost escalation that may reduce the scale of project activities.

16 Appendix 1

PROJECT FRAMEWORK

Design Summary Targets Specified at

Appraisal Actual Achievementa

Impact (Goal at appraisal) Improve rural livelihoods and reduce rural poverty

Increased household income, food security, and well-being for farmers and farm laborers in irrigated systems Decreased incidence of rural poverty in villages near irrigation systems

Income on an average farm of 1.7 hectares (ha) has increased (in 2014 prices) from Rs27,415 to Rs65,806, a gain of 140%. Farm income from crop cultivation alone after the project exceeds the national average household poverty line of Rs48,960 (mid-2013), which has generally been significantly above that of Chhattisgarh. The project has therefore helped to lift almost 135,000 farm households above the Chhattisgarh poverty threshold. A further 65,000 households benefited from project support in schemes not included under the intensive intervention program (IIP).

Outcome (Purpose at appraisal) 1. Attain more effective management, development, and operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation systems by Water Resources Department (WRD) and water users associations (WUAs) for improved irrigation service delivery 2. Improve agricultural practices for increased yields and expand area of rabi (dry season) and more diversified cropping

Improved quality of operation and maintenance (O&M) in irrigation systems (downstream users with reliable water supply in kharif season) 2 years after rehabilitation and upgrading (R&U) Better performance of new irrigation systems (at least 90% kharif and 40% rabi cropping intensity) 2 years after R&U Higher yields (at least 3.3 tons of rice) and cropping intensity (130%) in irrigation systems 3 years after R&U More diversified and rabi crops produced (40% rabi intensity and decrease in rice growth in kharif) 3 years after R&U.

O&M improved, especially in IIP schemes. Farmers at the tail ends of schemes are receiving reliable water supply in the kharif season. Refer to Appendix 3 for details. During 2012–2013 in IIP schemes, cropping intensities of 100% and 53% were achieved in the kharif and rabi seasons, respectively. During 2012–2013 in IIP schemes, increased yields of both kharif crops (rice from 2.4 tons per ha to 5.9 tons per ha) and rabi crops (e.g., wheat from 1.1 tons per ha to 1.4 tons per ha) made a significant contribution to farm household food security. Total cropping intensity of 153% was achieved during 2012–2013. During the 2012–2013 rabi season, cropping intensity of 53% was achieved and the cultivated area of non-rice crops across a sample of

Appendix 1 17

Design Summary Targets Specified at

Appraisal Actual Achievementa

50 schemes was 50,639 ha, equal to a cropping intensity of 51.8%. Crops introduced include maize, wheat, sunflower, groundnuts, pulses, green gram, and mustard.

Outputs 1. Institutional strengthening and capacity development for WRD 2. Improved institutional framework and capacity development for WUAs

WRD with improved functions for units for participatory irrigation management (PIM), social development, design, and dam safety by year 3 Capacity building ongoing for WRD and improved management information system, information technology, and other resources for effective management by year 2 New framework for PIM with greater WUA authority and WRD accountability by year 2 Capacity development program for WUAs established and WUAs enrolled by year 2 Higher resources flowing to WUAs (and WRD) for irrigation O&M by year 3

The PIM, social development, and dam safety units were set up in July 2006. No design unit was established. At the time of the project completion review, the PIM and social development units were not functioning effectively. There appears to be little prospect that they will become operational. The Dam Safety Unit was operating as a regulatory body for dam safety throughout the state. WRD capacity building was undertaken under the project, with 2,064 WRD staff receiving training in PIM, water management, ADB project procedures, and other areas. The project supplied computers and peripherals to subdivision level. The management information system developed under the project is being used by WRD throughout the state. The new PIM Act was enacted in March 2006. WUA capacity development was undertaken by nongovernment organizations engaged under the project. All WUAs in the state were provided basic training in the PIM Act, duties and responsibilities of WUA, and other subjects while WUAs under the project were given more detailed training in various aspects of irrigation management and agricultural practices. Under the new PIM Act, WUAs’ share in irrigation water charges collected increased from 25% to 50%. To date, however, no water charges collected have been returned to WUAs by the state government. There appears to be

18 Appendix 1

Design Summary Targets Specified at

Appraisal Actual Achievementa

3. R&U of existing irrigation schemes leading to improved performance 4. Improved capacity and willingness of farmers to engage in rabi cropping and diversified farming in irrigation systems

R&U of minor and medium schemes covering over 200,000 ha with increased cropping intensity by end of project

little prospect of this changing in the near future. R&U of 144 schemes covering 173,984 ha (23 medium schemes covering 108,563 ha and 121 minor schemes covering 65,421 ha) were completed under the project. During the 2012–2013 rabi season, cropping intensity of 53% was achieved and the cultivated area of non-rice crops across a sample of 50 schemes was 50,639 ha, equal to a cropping intensity of 51.8%. Crops introduced include maize, wheat, sunflower, groundnuts, pulses, green gram, and mustard.

a At physical project closing unless otherwise stated. Data are derived from the database and/or progress reports of

the project management unit.

Appendix 2 19

IMPLEMENTATION OF GENDER MAINSTREAMING ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS

The project framework did not include any gender-specific targets nor was a gender action plan prepared because it was not a requirement at the time of project preparation. The activities and targets listed under each output in the following are derived from the main text of the project report and recommendation of the President (para. 36).1 Activities with Target/Indicators Achievements/Results Output 1. Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Development for Water Resources Department Gender-sensitive training courses in place for Water Resources Department (WRD)

a

Training of trainers modules developed.b

District level workshops also raised gender equality issues at district and state federation levels along with the issue of low representation of women in water users associations (WUAs) despite the fact that 80% of agricultural work was done by women. Training manuals developed

c

Gender-Related and Other Topics Included in Training:

• State policy for women in Chhattisgarh • Participatory irrigation management (PIM) concepts • PIM Act 2006—empowerment of women in WUAs • Women’s self-help groups • Empowerment of elected women representatives for local

bodies • Women’s participation in PIM • Leadership traits of women • National and state level policies on gender equality and

women’s empowerment • Water rights of vulnerable groups and women • Change in working relationships among engineers and women

members of WUAs • Comparative gender analysis and monitoring

At least 20% women contracted by PIM Unit by year 3

• Out of the total 65 people in the project management unit, including the PIM Unit, 4 (6.2%) were women.

• The Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project (CIDP) partnered with a nongovernment organization (NGO) for technical assistance to augment capacity of the project management unit through senior community organizers and community organizers who worked closely with WUA members on CIDP interventions. The NGO was responsible for recruiting one senior community organizer per district for coordination and PIM (a total of 12), community organizers (about 125 at the peak, but on average between 80 and 90) for WUA mobilization for agriculture and water management in the intensive intervention program (110), following experiential methods (“learning by doing”).

At least 20% women trainers contracted by PIM Unit by year 3

• Women accounted for 13% of all trainers up to 2013 • Training was delivered using a cascading approach whereby

specialists trained senior community organizers and community organizers who trained farmers in farmer field schools. In total, 142 specialists, senior community organizers, and community

1 ADB. 2005. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan and Technical

Assistance Grant to India for the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project. Manila.

20 Appendix 2

Activities with Target/Indicators Achievements/Results organizers were mobilized during implementation, of which 18 (12.7%) were women

Output 2. Improved Institutional Framework and Capacity Development for Water Users Associations Participatory irrigation management policies and legislation in place to ensure: (i) Membership of the WUA will be on a household basis so that both men and women will be members and have the right to attend meetings and cast votes. (ii) All women who are part of a household that is a WUA member will be able to stand for election (not just women who are property owners with a title) and hold office on the WUA management committee and any subcommittee.

A key aspect of the institutional reforms for improved irrigation management supported under the project was support for the preparation of a new Participatory Irrigation Management Act. This was undertaken by consultants contracted under TA 4573. Chhattisgarh State Government approved the new PIM Act in March 2006. Key aspects of the PIM Act included delegation of scheme operation and maintenance (O&M) to WUAs, allowing WUAs to retain a share of water charges collected from farmers to finance O&M, and empowerment of women.

d

The PIM Act was published on 24 May 2006 in the official Gazette of the State.

The key gender-related features of the Act are the following: • extension of WUA membership to “spouses” to ensure nearly

50% women’s representation in WUAs • reserved places on WUA managing bodies for women and

underprivileged, including scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes

Major legal provisions in the PIM Act include the following: • Membership in the WUA is on a household basis so that both

men and women are members and are eligible to attend meetings and cast votes.

• All adult women who are part of a household that is a WUA member are eligible to stand for election and hold office in the WUA (not just women who are property owners with a title).

• Subcommittees of WUAs have 33% women members.

After the 2007 elections, there were a total of 1,320 WUAs with 7,622 committee members. Of these members, 2,598 were women (34.1%). Women’s representation among WUA presidents is 1.8%.

WUA elections (Target: 30% women’s representation)

e

WUA elections were due in 2012 but were postponed until 2013. They were again postponed to be held after panchayat (local self-governance bodies) elections. No date has been scheduled for elections to take place. According to the project management unit (Quarterly Progress Report, January–March 2013), a budget has been allocated for conducting elections

Women representation in each WUA management committee (Target: at least 2 women)

Clause 20, Item 4 of the PIM Rules and Regulations states that while the convener of any subcommittee “shall be a member of the Management committee other than the President,” members could be selected from the general body. Special provisions are made to ensure women’s participation under the following sections of Clause 4:

• (b) In the case of the Project Committee not more than five members shall be selected for each subcommittee from the general body of the Project Committee in that project and at least two members among these shall be women

• (c) In the case of the Distributary Committee not more than five members shall be selected for each subcommittee from the general body of the Distributary Committee and at least two members among these shall be women

Appendix 2 21

Activities with Target/Indicators Achievements/Results

• (d) In the case of the Water Users Association, not more than five members shall be drawn from the general body of the Water Users Association and at least two members among these shall be women

CIDP supported WUAs in intensive intervention program (IIP) schemes to ensure women’s participation in WUA activities and that WUAs are responsible for O&M. The WUA management committees within the command areas of selected schemes were involved in planning for efficient use of water for irrigation. They were also involved in allocation, distribution, and on-farm water management activities, as well as collective action. As of March 2013, management committees in the main CIDP areas were composed of 434 men and 199 women (31.4%)

f

Women’s representation on WUA subcommittees

g

In accordance with the PIM Act, the following subcommittees were formed:

• Finance and Resource Subcommittee • Works Subcommittee • Water Management Subcommittee • Training and Capacity Building Subcommittee • Social Audit and Monitoring and Evaluation Subcommittee • Dispute Resolution Subcommittee

Each subcommittee consists of a convener and five other members, with each such member being nominated from a different territorial constituency and having a reputation for honesty, integrity, and understanding or experience in the specified field. The subcommittees must have a minimum of one-third women members from the concerned farmers’ organization. The WUAs in IIP schemes were supported by CIDP, which ensured that each WUA (110 WUAs in 78 IIP schemes) formed the six subcommittees with at least two women members

WUA gender subcommittee formed in each WUA with the following mandate: (i) address the needs of women title holders and WUA members, as well as women farm laborers in the irrigation system; (ii) develop and protect the use of and access to irrigation water for alternative purposes such as home gardens, livestock, washing, and other domestic uses; and (iii) create capacity development and livelihood programs specially targeting women.

No separate gender subcommittee was formed. The PIM Act was the guiding framework and gender subcommittees were not part of that framework.

h Gender concerns were addressed as cross-cutting issues.

Women participated in the six specified subcommittees by • acting as an interface between farmers and main system

management; • ensuring water distribution to head, middle, and tail users in

the scheme; • engaging in operation and maintenance; • collecting water charges and other user charges or special

charges that the WUAs levied; • resolving local disputes among members; • designing and constructing field channels; and • participating in all training programs, meetings, and

interventions. WUA meetings (Target: at least 30% women)

i

During the project period there were in total 48,808 WUA meetings, including general body and management committee meetings. The total number of participants was 458,702, of which 366,962 were men and 91,740 women (20.0%).

WUA training (Target: at least 50% women)

j

Participation in Training and Workshops:

• 3-day residential training at district level covering four WUAs—30 participants, 3 women (10%)

22 Appendix 2

Activities with Target/Indicators Achievements/Results

• 3-day residential workshop at training center with representatives of five WUAs—36 participants, 3 women (8.3%)

• 12 1-day workshops at WUA cluster level covering 20 WUAs—645 participants, 80 women (12.4%)

• nine training courses at cluster level covering 490 WUAs—1,070 participants, 4 women (0.3%)

• five 3-day residential training courses at district level covering 35 WUAs—159 participants, 29 women (18.2%)

• 3-day residential workshop at training center covering 16 WUAs—77 participants, 9 women (11%)

• 62 1-day workshops at cluster level covering 184 WUAs—2,433 participants, 240 women (9.8%)

• two 3-day workshops at training center covering 34 WUAs—251 participants, 51 women (20.3%)

• 12 1-day workshops at cluster level covering 13 WUAs—529 participants, 65 women (12.3%)

• 99 1-day workshops covering 1,061 WUAs—2,943 participants, 314 women (10.7%)

• 58 1-day cluster level training sessions covering 673 WUAs—2,599 participants, 206 women (8%)

• 44 residential training courses in non-CIDP areas covering 44 WUAs—1,601 participants, 32 women (2%)

• International Women’s Day (7–8 March 2011), women’s participation in a PIM workshop organized to celebrate International Women’s Day at the Raipur regional training center and to promote the interests of women and to ensure gender equality in governance and decision-making processes

• International Women’s Day (18–19 March 2012), actively celebrated in 10 districts of Chhattisgarh

• Workshop with media at state and regional level with 20 participants from print media and 5 from electronic media

• 4 zone-level workshops organized for inter-department convergence at:

o Bastar and Kanker, 5 August 2011 (143 participants) o Bilaspur, Chapma, Janjgir, Kardha, and Raigarh, 9 August

2011 (123 participants) o Korba and Surguja, 19 August 2011 (151 participants) o Durg, Raipur Mahasamund, and Rajnandagaon, 26

August 2011 (187 participants) • Scheme-level orientation held with WUA and WRD aiming to

promote better coordination among farmers and WUAs • Scheme-level orientation held to share published materials with

target audience and to obtain feedback. These were organized in 19 districts between 2011 and 2012 to share published material with target audience and obtain feedback which was used in forthcoming publications.

• Regional workshops with NGOs on participatory irrigation management at:

o Bilaspur, 28 November 2008 o Ambikapur, 29 November 2008 o Raipur, 2 December 2008

• Two exposure visits: 9–11 March 2010 and 2–3 May 2012 • District-level workshops in 25 locations to develop strategy for a

Appendix 2 23

Activities with Target/Indicators Achievements/Results campaign to encourage leadership among women members in WUAs leading to formation of a district-level federation. District-level federation has now been organized as state-level federation.

• State-level workshop on 28–29 August 2012 in the presence of Chief Minister, Chhattisgarh

• 5-day training on environmental issues of irrigation systems for WUAs organized on 20–24 July 2014 attended by 283 Gram Panchayat members, WUA elected members, and farmers

• Ten training programs of varying durations were organized on themes such as PIM, quality control, gender mainstreaming, gender issues in leadership, O&M, dam safety, and environmental impact analysis with a total of 2,317 participants.

Pro-women Learning Material Designed and Disseminatedk

Education, information, and awareness building to communicate internally and externally across all stakeholders to foster institutional and social change while enabling women to

• have a voice in their communities and governance which promotes political empowerment;

• significantly increase their voice and overcome inequalities in and barriers to political participation;

• empower themselves politically, raise awareness, develop networks;

• use innovative agriculture practices; • introduce advocacy measures for policymakers to address

women’s perspectives and concerns leading to more gender-equitable policy.

• Learning and dissemination material developed to demonstrate

importance of women’s participation and accepted leadership • Comic-book material with icon “Muniya” used in project activities.

Mascot “Muniya” (an educated girl) included in learning materials used to explain the PIM Act and importance and efforts to transform stereotypical notions about women and men and the divisions between them

• Pre-election awareness campaign aimed at improving farmers’ (particularly women’s) knowledge and ability to implement PIM Act elections held in 2007 and proposed to be held during 2012–2013. The campaign covered voters in general and women in particular in 4,000 villages.

• 1,320 WUAs made aware of PIM Act 2006 and its benefits through the pre-election awareness campaign in 2007. Through posters, hoardings, cover page of audio-aids with “Pulashan Devi” and “Muniya,” CIDP encouraged a positive portrayal of women and addressed historical inequalities between women and men in the area of political leadership.

• Advocacy program and communication in non-CIDP areas • Quarterly newsletter – “Kisan Sangwari” (Farmers’ Group)

developed and distributed from 2007 to 2012 • Special Hindi newsletter – “Krishakon ka samuhik prayas”

(farmers’ collective action) developed and distributed from January to March 2012

• Pamphlets and handbills, annual planner, poster, and pocket diaries developed as education, information, and awareness-building material

24 Appendix 2

Activities with Target/Indicators Achievements/Results

• Planner “Jal Upyogita Sansthaka Barshik ” (water users’ group annual planner) highlighting activities of participatory irrigation with color codes disseminated

• Four awareness mobile kiosks (vehicular)“Matdata Jagrukta Rath” (voter awareness kiosk) equipped with audio-visual aids deployed at strategic locations (e.g., farmers’ markets) for encouraging leadership among women and people’s participation in WUAs

• Documentary shows organized in 40 government grain purchasing centers and cooperative banks to raise awareness on PIM among illiterate and semi-literate farmers (both men and women) to increase productivity of irrigated agriculture with participation of women

• WUA elections through street plays, rallies, and group meetings with messages on political participation of women

• Audio and video jingles disseminated on radio and television through government and private channels

Others Core labor standards Through the bid documents and civil works contracts, WRD ensured

that contractors • complied with all applicable labor laws and followed legally

mandated provisions on health, sanitation, and appropriate working conditions under the law;

• did not employ child labor; • provided equal opportunities for women; • provided equal pay for work of equal value to men and women

laborers; and • ensured monitoring of compliance with regulatory provisions

on core labor standards and provided for termination of any contract in case of noncompliance.

Special Gender Sensitive Clauses in PIM Act

The PIM Act 2006 includes special clauses to promote women’s participation in PIM. According to the Act, the president or a male member of a management committee becomes disqualified to continue in office if he remains absent from three consecutive meetings without reasonable cause. However this disqualification does not apply in the case of women who are in an advanced stage of pregnancy and for a period of 3 months after delivery. Also, under the PIM Rules and Regulations, the divisional election authority may grant special facilities to women.

Federation of Water Users Association

Farmers’ organizations in Chhattisgarh have federated and formed a state-level farmers’ federation. WRD, with the support of CIDP, assisted in establishing the WUA federation at state level and at district level in 25 districts. Women are represented in WUA federations.

a Not indicated among gender strategies in the summary poverty reduction and social strategy. Gender output

corresponds with instruction that, “The consultants will create capacity development curricula in consultation with WRD” in para. 21 of the report and recommendation of the President (WRD Capacity Development).

b (1) Water management—a compilation of subjects for training; (2) Chhattisgarh farmers’ role in the Participatory

Irrigation Management (PIM) Act 2006 (key features); (3) Farmers organizations—roles and responsibilities; (4) Resource mobilization and financial management; (5) Operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation systems by farmers organizations; (6) Crop water requirements and irrigation practices for rabi crops; (7) Crop water requirements and irrigation practices for paddy (kharif) crops; (8) Environmental aspects relevant to O&M of irrigation systems.

Appendix 2 25

c (1) Participatory irrigation management; (2) Quality control and construction management; (3) Irrigation

management; (4) Irrigation systems—procedures (with sub-manuals); (5) Procurement procedures; (6) Participatory rapid diagnostic appraisal; (7) Functionary manual for WRD (training institutes).

d From main text of the project completion review, Part II. Evaluation of Design and Implementation. para. 10

(Improved institutional framework and capacity development for WUAs). e Target is indicated in para. 15 in the main text of the project completion review: women should be represented on

WUA management committees and all subcommittees, with a target representation of 30% on all committees. f CIDP Gender Case Study (draft April 2015). Table on CIDP Gender-Related Activities and Achievements.

g Summary poverty reduction and social strategy indicated that “In addition to the gender subcommittee, women will

have at least 33% target representation on the other subcommittees that will be formed in every WUA including (i) the water allocation and distribution committee, (ii) the dispute resolution committee, and (iii) and the financial audit committee.”

h CIDP Gender Case Study (draft April 2015). Table on CIDP Gender-Related Activities and Achievements.

i Indicator or target not in summary poverty reduction and social strategy. j Indicated in summary poverty reduction and social strategy as follows: “For general training offered to all WUA

members 50% of the slots will initially be reserved for women WUA members.” k Not included in summary poverty reduction and social strategy. Activity corresponds with report and

recommendation of the President, para. 23 (Strengthening the Institutional Framework and WUA Mobilization): “The Project will contract a nongovernment organization (NGO) to conduct an awareness campaign about revised PIM policies, basic WUA organization, and the planned WUA elections to start the WUA development process.”

26 Appendix 3

IRRIGATION SCHEME REHABILITATION

A. Scheme Rehabilitation and Upgrading

1. The Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project (CIDP) was designed to rehabilitate 20 medium and 200 minor irrigation schemes covering around 200,000 hectares (ha). Minor schemes are defined as having less than 2,000 ha, medium schemes as between 2,000 and 10,000 ha, and large schemes as over 10,000 ha. At the time of project preparation, irrigated agriculture covered a total area of 1.3 million ha, of which 0.8 million ha were in completed schemes and 0.3 million ha were in schemes under development. Medium and minor schemes accounted for 37% and 20% of the total area, respectively.

2. Each scheme was to be rehabilitated in two stages. Stage 1 comprised (i) scheme assessment and determining design options involving the Participatory Irrigation Management Unit, design unit, Water Resources Department (WRD) field staff, water users associations (WUAs), and farmers; (ii) preparation of designs and tender documents; and (iii) scheme rehabilitation and upgrading (R&U) by contractors supervised and certified on completion by WUAs. Stage 2 involved the construction of field channels contracted to WUAs and on-farm water management, for which WUAs would be responsible while supported by the Participatory Irrigation Management Unit. The project was to finance materials for and supervision of the development of field channels with WUAs (farmers) providing land (on a voluntary basis) and labor with a nominal value of 10% of the total cost of the work.

3. Designs for 175 schemes covering 208,327 ha were completed by December 2009. Feasibility reports were prepared for 159 schemes covering 182,100 ha by June 2010. Of the 148 schemes selected, 4 schemes were subsequently dropped, resulting in a final R&U of 144 schemes covering 173,984 ha, comprising 23 medium schemes (108,563 ha) and 121 minor schemes (65,421 ha). The schemes dropped comprised 3 schemes (1 medium and 2 minor) that were taken up under another Government of India program. The area of the fourth scheme was taken over for development of the new state capital Naya Raipur.

4. Irrigation scheme R&U also included a program open to WUAs in all medium and minor schemes (not only those targeted for full R&U) for priority repairs where tank sluice gates were not functioning. It was proposed to cover around 500 schemes under this program. The program was, however, dropped during implementation. Out of 319 proposals received by the project management unit by March 2008, fewer than 50% of gates at the proposed sites could be included into the project because either they were not tank systems or the schemes proposed had been abandoned. Moreover, none of the proposals for repair or replacement had been put forward by WUAs or other farmers’ organizations. It was decided during the June 2008 ADB mission to consider only gates that met the project criteria. Some of these were taken up as a part of the broader R&U scheme.

5. Details of project-financed rehabilitation works are in Tables A3.1 and A3.2.

6. Improvements in scheme operation and maintenance (O&M) are discussed in Section B following Tables A3.1 and A3.2.

Appendix 3 27

Table A3.1: Irrigation Schemes Rehabilitated (Areas and Cost)

Scheme Name

Designed Area (hectares)

Total Cost ($ million)

Cost per Hectare

($)a Kharif Rabi Total

Medium Schemes

1 Shyam Ghungutta Tank 7,650 6,600 14,250 0.962 126

2 Gej Tank 2,720 1,696 4,416 0.378 139

3 Jhumka Tank 1,801 1,801 3,602 0.478 265

4 Piparia Tank 6,073 1,350 7,423 0.367 60

5 Surhi Tank 6,393 400 6,793 0.604 94

6 Jhiram Diversion 2,666 500 3,166 0.421 158

7 Khamharpakut Tank 3,441 1,250 4,691 0.691 201

8 Ibb Diversion 3,235 1,015 4,250 0.340 105

9 Paralkot Tank 9,717 4,858 14,575 2.035 209

10 Dudhawa Sarona Tank 2,875 0 2,875 0.429 149

11 Balar Tank 4,000 0 4,000 1.013 253

12 Chhirpani Tank 7,000 2,100 9,100 0.123 18

13 Saroda Tank 7,355 0 7,355 0.544 74

14 Ghongha Tank 8,343 2,000 10,343 1.640 197

15 Keshwa Tank 2,700 100 2,800 0.674 250

16 Kedar Tank 4,249 500 4,749 0.716 169

17 Kinkari Tank 4,248 500 4,748 0.703 166

18 Kumhari Tank 2,632 140 2,772 0.619 235

19 Khapri Tank 4,215 800 5,015 0.817 194

20 Gondli Tank 6,000 750 6,750 1.286 214

21 Matiamoti Tank 5,000 1,400 6,400 0.939 188

22 Kunwarpur Tank 4,250 0 4,250 0.180 42

23 Banki Tank 2,000 1,250 3,250 0.554 277

Total Medium Schemes 108,563 29,010 137,573 16.512 152

Minor Schemes

1 Ghungutta Tank 680 350 1,030 0.140 205

2 Amhar Tank 802 140 942 0.142 177

3 Charpara Tank 547 165 712 0.085 155

4 Banjaridand Tank 202 115 317 0.026 131

5 Bardar Tank 324 252 576 0.031 97

6 Gadbadi Tank 200 80 280 0.032 158

7 Gobri Tank 671 65 736 0.120 178

8 Silphoda Tank 405 90 495 0.070 174

9 Morga Tank 290 130 420 0.038 131

10 Jhura Tank 269 53 322 0.059 220

11 Charbhata Tank 415 35 450 0.112 269

12 Maniyari Tank 380 25 405 0.096 252

13 Khudmudi Tank 526 40 566 0.183 347

14 Kohkajhori Tank 251 30 281 0.055 218

15 Suktara Tank 279 20 299 … …

16 Kutelikala Tank 225 0 225 0.049 219

17 Akarjan Diversion 1,012 0 1,012 0.133 131

18 Tumidih Tank 648 130 778 0.060 92

28 Appendix 3

Scheme Name

Designed Area (hectares)

Total Cost ($ million)

Cost per Hectare

($)a Kharif Rabi Total

19 Chhotegumda Tank 308 30 338 0.035 113

20 Sisringa Tank 210 85 295 0.049 236

21 Katharapali Tank 243 48 291 0.006 23

22 Kotrimal Tank 338 60 398 0.060 177

23 Kharkhara Tank 1,093 290 1,383 0.194 178

24 Kotrinalla Tank 1,336 220 1,556 0.173 130

25 Adpathar Tank 1,210 130 1,340 0.355 294

26 Chhatarpur Tank 346 100 446 0.103 299

27 Bhaira Tank 526 75 601 0.054 103

28 Gunderdehi Tank 836 0 836 0.085 101

29 Kothigaon Tank 405 85 490 0.078 193

30 Kosmi Tank 212 0 212 0.011 53

31 Maroda Tank 324 0 324 0.051 156

32 Budgahan Tank 283 45 328 0.058 204

33 Shanicharadih Tank 607 180 787 0.089 146

34 Maini Diversion 1,741 321 2,062 0.270 155

35 Pakhanjore Tank 235 120 355 0.147 624

36 Markatola Tank 263 35 298 0.070 267

37 Risewada Tank 637 0 637 0.235 369

38 Golajhar Tank 373 50 423 0.078 209

39 Amaruwa Tank 364 40 404 0.062 171

40 Dhaurabhata Tank 405 10 415 0.076 188

41 Taulidih Tank 1,012 105 1,117 0.217 215

42 Sukhanalla Tank 607 0 607 0.073 120

43 Bilanala Diversion 808 0 808 0.010 12

44 Baherakhar Tank 486 486 972 0.155 319

45 Kranti Tank 1,012 10 1,022 0.169 167

46 Chilphi Tank 213 15 228 0.042 196

47 Ramtala Tank 223 20 243 0.040 177

48 Neota02 Tank 465 120 585 0.117 252

49 Banskot Tank 324 40 364 0.169 522

50 Kerakachhar Tank 243 40 283 0.050 205

51 Baridih Tank 206 40 246 0.029 139

52 Amakoni Tank 590 25 615 0.190 322

53 Deogaon Tank 1,886 120 2,006 0.527 280

54 Sirko Tank 1,134 160 1,294 0.240 212

55 Kapsakhuta Tank 1,053 215 1,268 0.251 238

56 Lamkeni Tank 518 40 558 0.144 279

57 Dabpali Tank 425 60 485 0.127 298

58 Kotripani Tank 867 75 942 0.171 197

59 Ghorghati Tank 809 200 1,009 0.292 361

60 Pilwapali Tank 293 40 333 0.044 151

61 Singhora Tank 744 45 789 0.044 59

62 Hanumandih Tank 793 90 883 0.073 92

63 Surangi Diversion 593 0 593 0.076 129

64 Sawantpur Tank 729 115 844 0.112 154

Appendix 3 29

Scheme Name

Designed Area (hectares)

Total Cost ($ million)

Cost per Hectare

($)a Kharif Rabi Total

65 Amachuwa Tank 506 90 596 0.066 130

66 Kekrar Tank 417 45 462 0.086 205

67 Dhanras Tank 528 145 673 0.064 121

68 Tingipur Tank 336 10 346 0.061 180

69 Gabda Tank 212 20 232 0.048 226

70 Fulwari Tank 840 50 890 0.113 134

71 Lotan Nalla Tank 344 40 384 0.063 183

72 Shivsagar Tank 374 0 374 0.052 139

73 Aghariya Tank 420 0 420 0.056 133

74 Darki Tank 450 40 490 0.140 310

75 Jhingo Tank 344 70 414 … …

76 Bilaspur Tank 783 140 923 0.193 247

77 Koknitarai Tank 526 190 716 0.081 154

78 Putka Tank 1,700 250 1,950 0.190 111

79 Chhuwaripali Tank 335 0 335 0.030 89

80 Katangi Tank 254 50 304 0.042 166

81 Kosrangi Tank 1,214 225 1,439 0.269 222

82 Khairadatan Tank 462 140 602 0.060 129

83 Kurud Tank 1,489 370 1,859 0.235 158

84 Manpur Tank 760 20 780 0.109 143

85 Deoridih Tank 364 30 394 0.030 82

86 Uparwaha Tank 425 90 515 0.161 378

87 Pendalkuhi Tank 460 60 520 0.101 220

88 Khurshipar Tank 405 30 435 0.068 168

89 Botepar Tank 259 35 294 0.041 159

90 Hardua Tank 344 20 364 0.042 121

91 Jagannathpur Tank 321 225 546 0.087 273

92 Ajab Nagar Tank 514 26 540 0.029 57

93 Kaushalpur Tank 200 20 220 0.009 46

94 Gangoti Tank 270 40 310 … …

95 Brijeshwar Sagar Tank 340 55 395 0.033 98

96 Lanjit Tank 240 40 280 0.039 163

97 Dumariya Tank 239 0 239 0.032 134

98 Kurridih Tank 340 0 340 0.028 82

99 Raima Tank 200 100 300 0.019 93

100 Pondiguma Tank 643 140 783 0.157 244

101 Bherwa Tank 486 125 611 0.128 263

102 Pondisarwani Tank 474 135 609 0.091 192

103 Kopra Tank 1,215 110 1,325 0.244 201

104 Kharkhara Diversion 1,965 0 1,965 0.290 148

105 Ganiyari Tank 348 25 373 0.087 249

106 Belodi Tank 300 25 325 0.107 356

107 Birejhar Tank 247 10 257 0.049 199

108 Akoli Tank 485 140 625 0.084 172

109 New Rounda Tank 264 20 284 0.044 166

110 Saja Tank 402 0 402 0.089 220

30 Appendix 3

Scheme Name

Designed Area (hectares)

Total Cost ($ million)

Cost per Hectare

($)a Kharif Rabi Total

111 Chikhli Tank 279 75 354 0.048 170

112 Lorenalla Diversion 1,014 50 1,064 0.116 114

113 Dhangaon Tank 409 52 461 0.047 116

114 Parsadih Tank 283 20 303 0.081 285

115 Dandgaon Tank 385 200 585 0.098 254

116 Narkalo Tank 636 215 851 0.078 123

117 Ghoghra Tank 485 140 625 0.064 131

118 Bankipur Tank 461 125 586 0.031 66

119 Khaliba Tank 486 75 561 0.033 68

120 Burungpal Tank 243 45 288 0.066 273

121 Bhansagar Tank 242 40 282 0.067 276

Total Minor Schemes 65,421 10,138 75,559 11.903 182

Total All Schemes 173,984 39,148 213,132 28.415 163 a. Cost per hectare is the total cost divided by the kharif season area, rounded to whole numbers. Source: Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department. 2013. Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project Project Completion Report. Raipur.

Appendix 3 31

Table A3.2: Irrigation Schemes Rehabilitated (Works Completed)

Scheme Name

Completed Rehabilitation and Upgrading Works

Canal Lining

Regulating Structures Conveyance

Field Channels

(ha)

System Canals Tertiary Outlets Structures

(km) (m3) New

Repaired/ Replaced New

Repaired /Replaced New

Repaired/ Replaced

Medium Schemes

1 Shyam Ghungutta Tank

3 2,346 0 0 55 35 20 0 -

2 Gej Tank 11 3,323 0 0 70 0 25 0 234

3 Jhumka Tank 21 4,955 6 0 48 0 10 28 175

4 Piparia Tank 2 2,075 0 0 56 0 7 0 678

5 Surhi Tank 6 2,511 1 0 75 0 4 0 -

6 Jhiram Diversion 4 2,808 1 0 20 0 8 0 -

7 Khamharpakut Tank

8 5,762 2 0 60 58 23 61 -

8 Ibb Diversion 6 1,804 5 0 3 102 13 42 -

9 Paralkot Tank 12 11,210 1 7 33 0 45 29 -

10 Dudhawa Sarona Tank

3 3,526 0 4 20 10 2 4 -

11 Balar Tank 10 1,853 7 0 75 4 25 13 712

12 Chhirpani Tank 0 0 1 0 35 0 7 0 -

13 Saroda Tank 5 4,548 0 0 16 0 0 0 -

14 Ghongha Tank 13 12,294 0 1 12 0 0 0 87

15 Keshwa Tank 2 3,348 1 12 13 70 3 17 371

16 Kedar Tank 13 3,784 2 0 145 0 12 3 201

17 Kinkari Tank 15 7,346 3 0 140 0 12 1 431

18 Kumhari Tank 3 1,554 5 0 16 40 5 37 -

19 Khapri Tank 11 10,065 0 0 22 110 0 23 -

20 Gondli Tank 13 6,600 12 0 204 0 54 41 -

21 Matiamoti Tank 35 4,777 4 0 18 149 14 0 -

22 Kunwarpur Tank 1 896 7 0 72 18 8 29 94

23 Banki Tank 7 3,911 4 1 54 12 15 12 -

Total Medium Schemes 202 101,296 62 25 1,262 608 312 340 2,983

32 Appendix 3

Scheme Name

Completed Rehabilitation and Upgrading Works

Canal Lining

Regulating Structures Conveyance

Field Channels

(ha)

System Canals Tertiary Outlets Structures

(km) (m3) New

Repaired/ Replaced New

Repaired /Replaced New

Repaired/ Replaced

Minor Schemes

1 Ghungutta Tank 3 885 3 0 60 0 0 27 -

2 Amhar Tank 3 685 0 0 70 0 6 0 -

3 Charpara Tank 2 381 2 0 40 0 10 25 -

4 Banjaridand Tank 2 487 2 0 0 0 2 0 -

5 Bardar Tank 1 158 0 0 0 0 2 7 -

6 Gadbadi Tank 0 0 0 0 10 0 5 34 -

7 Gobri Tank 4 1,878 1 0 25 8 10 0 45

8 Silphoda Tank 3 730 0 0 12 8 5 7 -

9 Morga Tank 1 75 0 0 12 2 2 0 -

10 Jhura Tank 4 799 0 0 12 0 4 0 -

11 Charbhata Tank 0 0 4 0 17 0 10 6 -

12 Maniyari Tank 1 328 2 18 0 0 6 0 -

13 Khudmudi Tank 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 -

14 Kohkajhori Tank 0 0 0 0 12 0 5 13 -

15 Suktara Tank 1 357 0 0 11 0 7 3 -

16 Kutelikala Tank 2 726 0 0 16 0 1 0 -

17 Akarjan Diversion 4 1,451 4 0 21 29 3 1 -

18 Tumidih Tank 1 120 0 0 25 7 7 4 -

19 Chhotegumda Tank

0 120 1 0 10 5 3 0 -

20 Sisringa Tank 0 0 1 0 19 0 3 0 -

21 Katharapali Tank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

22 Kotrimal Tank 0 205 0 0 15 0 6 0 -

23 Kharkhara Tank 1 360 2 0 50 0 7 0 -

24 Kotrinalla Tank 1 123 8 0 50 0 5 16 -

25 Adpathar Tank 0 90 9 0 30 25 37 27 -

26 Chhatarpur Tank 1 125 1 0 3 10 4 16 -

27 Bhaira Tank 0 165 0 0 20 6 9 13 -

28 Gunderdehi Tank 1 337 3 0 21 9 10 19 -

29 Kothigaon Tank 2 730 0 0 0 17 6 8 -

Appendix 3 33

Scheme Name

Completed Rehabilitation and Upgrading Works

Canal Lining

Regulating Structures Conveyance

Field Channels

(ha)

System Canals Tertiary Outlets Structures

(km) (m3) New

Repaired/ Replaced New

Repaired /Replaced New

Repaired/ Replaced

30 Kosmi Tank 0 0 2 0 0 10 1 0 -

31 Maroda Tank 2 411 0 0 12 0 2 0 -

32 Budgahan Tank 1 180 1 0 27 0 9 1 -

33 Shanicharadih Tank

2 298 2 0 17 13 4 0 41

34 Maini Diversion 4 1,944 3 0 6 87 10 0 -

35 Pakhanjore Tank 0 0 0 0 37 0 8 8 -

36 Markatola Tank 1 120 1 3 19 0 0 0 56

37 Risewada Tank 3 1,100 0 0 24 0 2 9 -

38 Golajhar Tank 2 298 1 0 0 20 3 28 -

39 Amaruwa Tank 2 398 0 0 2 17 4 19 70

40 Dhaurabhata Tank 2 401 2 0 8 0 1 0 -

41 Taulidih Tank 3 412 0 0 50 0 20 3 600

42 Sukhanalla Tank 2 575 0 0 30 0 4 2 -

43 Bilanala Diversion 0 21 0 0 0 0 8 0 -

44 Baherakhar Tank 9 4,568 5 0 30 0 16 0 -

45 Kranti Tank 1 380 0 0 32 0 3 24 -

46 Chilphi Tank 1 310 0 0 24 0 0 5 -

47 Ramtala Tank 1 330 2 0 24 0 0 5 -

48 Neota02 Tank 4 902 0 0 0 0 0 20 -

49 Banskot Tank 0 0 3 0 20 0 5 4 -

50 Kerakachhar Tank 1 123 0 0 17 0 1 4 -

51 Baridih Tank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

52 Amakoni Tank 0 0 0 0 25 0 8 24 -

53 Deogaon Tank 5 4,427 3 0 50 0 2 7 32

54 Sirko Tank 2 275 0 0 52 0 3 17 -

55 Kapsakhuta Tank 1 228 2 0 51 0 6 65 -

56 Lamkeni Tank 1 293 0 0 25 0 4 15 176

57 Dabpali Tank 1 294 1 0 26 0 3 15 -

58 Kotripani Tank 2 328 0 0 41 0 5 37 -

59 Ghorghati Tank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

34 Appendix 3

Scheme Name

Completed Rehabilitation and Upgrading Works

Canal Lining

Regulating Structures Conveyance

Field Channels

(ha)

System Canals Tertiary Outlets Structures

(km) (m3) New

Repaired/ Replaced New

Repaired /Replaced New

Repaired/ Replaced

60 Pilwapali Tank 0 190 0 0 0 10 0 6 -

61 Singhora Tank 2 728 0 0 0 0 3 0 -

62 Hanumandih Tank 2 600 0 0 4 36 2 22 -

63 Surangi Diversion 1 439 0 0 0 25 3 22 -

64 Sawantpur Tank 1 230 0 0 22 0 3 18 -

65 Amachuwa Tank 0 90 2 0 31 0 6 0 -

66 Kekrar Tank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

67 Dhanras Tank 1 322 0 0 25 0 1 8 -

68 Tingipur Tank 1 320 0 0 13 0 0 8 -

69 Gabda Tank 1 194 0 0 20 0 2 0 -

70 Fulwari Tank 1 280 0 0 34 0 5 0 -

71 Lotan Nalla Tank 1 441 0 0 0 0 3 7 -

72 Shivsagar Tank 1 425 0 0 15 0 6 0 -

73 Aghariya Tank 1 330 0 0 22 0 11 13 -

74 Darki Tank 3 378 0 6 30 0 9 0 -

75 Jhingo Tank 0 19 0 0 15 0 0 0 -

76 Bilaspur Tank 6 1,987 0 0 15 20 10 0 160

77 Koknitarai Tank 1 322 2 0 0 25 3 12 -

78 Putka Tank 8 1,225 0 0 50 0 0 0 378

79 Chhuwaripali Tank 0 99 0 0 7 13 3 0 -

80 Katangi Tank 0 25 0 0 4 8 3 0 -

81 Kosrangi Tank 3 430 1 0 20 0 9 9 -

82 Khairadatan Tank 1 203 0 0 6 14 0 8 -

83 Kurud Tank 3 825 0 4 31 20 7 16 761

84 Manpur Tank 1 298 0 2 20 6 6 18 -

85 Deoridih Tank 0 0 0 0 18 0 10 0 -

86 Uparwaha Tank 1 … 1 0 31 8 17 2 -

87 Pendalkuhi Tank 1 331 3 0 11 0 1 11 -

88 Khurshipar Tank 2 551 1 0 15 5 1 17 -

89 Botepar Tank 0 90 1 0 11 0 3 11 -

90 Hardua Tank 0 59 3 0 15 0 3 10 -

Appendix 3 35

Scheme Name

Completed Rehabilitation and Upgrading Works

Canal Lining

Regulating Structures Conveyance

Field Channels

(ha)

System Canals Tertiary Outlets Structures

(km) (m3) New

Repaired/ Replaced New

Repaired /Replaced New

Repaired/ Replaced

91 Jagannathpur Tank

0 0 0 0 23 0 4 8 -

92 Ajab Nagar Tank 2 726 0 0 12 13 ? ? -

93 Kaushalpur Tank 0 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 -

94 Gangoti Tank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

95 Brijeshwar Sagar Tank

2 774 0 0 12 5 1 1 -

96 Lanjit Tank 1 192 0 0 10 2 1 0 -

97 Dumariya Tank 1 171 0 0 0 0 4 8 -

98 Kurridih Tank 0 0 0 0 5 12 3 0 -

99 Raima Tank 1 200 0 0 11 0 5 0 -

100 Pondiguma Tank 1 694 1 0 36 0 3 0 -

101 Bherwa Tank 2 401 1 0 21 0 4 13 -

102 Pondisarwani Tank

1 301 2 0 30 0 0 3 -

103 Kopra Tank 5 1,174 1 0 24 16 5 0 -

104 Kharkhara Diversion

7 3,021 1 0 40 58 1 6 -

105 Ganiyari Tank 1 66 6 0 16 0 5 0 -

106 Belodi Tank 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 -

107 Birejhar Tank 0 85 0 0 2 8 10 0 -

108 Akoli Tank 1 185 1 0 0 0 4 18 -

109 New Rounda Tank 0 35 2 0 9 4 3 0 -

110 Saja Tank 0 33 0 0 10 10 4 0 -

111 Chikhli Tank 1 155 2 0 10 0 1 0 -

112 Lorenalla Diversion

0 239 0 0 14 0 7 0 -

113 Dhangaon Tank 0 165 0 0 20 0 12 0 -

114 Parsadih Tank 1 307 2 0 17 0 3 0 -

115 Dandgaon Tank 1 331 2 0 17 0 3 0 -

116 Narkalo Tank 0 95 4 0 17 15 11 13 -

117 Ghoghra Tank 1 356 3 0 27 0 7 1 -

36 Appendix 3

Scheme Name

Completed Rehabilitation and Upgrading Works

Canal Lining

Regulating Structures Conveyance

Field Channels

(ha)

System Canals Tertiary Outlets Structures

(km) (m3) New

Repaired/ Replaced New

Repaired /Replaced New

Repaired/ Replaced

118 Bankipur Tank 0 260 1 0 12 10 1 24 -

119 Khaliba Tank 1 233 0 0 11 13 4 0 -

120 Burungpal Tank 1 162 0 0 20 0 0 0 -

121 Bhansagar Tank 1 125 2 0 24 0 4 0 -

Total Minor Schemes 166 51,857 116 33 2,187 630 548 851 2,318

Total All Schemes 368 153,153 178 58 3,449 1,238 860 1,191 5,300 ha = hectare, km = kilometer, m

3 = cubic meter.

Source: Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department. 2013. Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project Project Completion Report. Raipur.

Appendix 3 37

B. Post-project Operation and Maintenance

7. The following factors contributed to O&M improvements: (i) rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure; (ii) participatory irrigation management with the active involvement of WUAs and

strengthened partnership with WRD; and (iii) introduction of improved agricultural water management strategies, especially the

novel strategy known as “Managing Kharif for Rabi,” which shortens the kharif season cultivation, utilizing rainfall while saving reservoir water for rabi season (follow-up) crops.

1. WUA Involvement in O&M

8. WUAs are involved in allocation, distribution, and on-farm management, including to match water with complementary inputs. WUAs and chak (village) committees undertook more responsibility in managing water within WUAs and chaks, respectively. Chak leaders and WUA management committees joined together in preparing and executing WUA-managed water distribution plans system-wide. Even though the official control of sluice gates by WUAs in minor systems is about 20%–23%a large number of WUAs have de facto control.

9. WUAs are actively involved in maintenance, as well. According to the technical assistance consultant’s final report, WUAs checked whether there are any “essential minor repairs” needing to be done prior to rabi. WUAs were motivated to select appropriate, low-cost repairs with locally available material, such as sand bag weirs. WUAs and chak groups identified locations for the sand bag weirs in order to facilitate diversified rabi cropping and increased rabi cropping intensity.1

2. Managing Kharif for Rabi

10. The CIDP strategy known as “Managing Kharif for Rabi” is a novel concept.2 This aimed at year-round water management instead of being just seasonally focused. Planting varieties of unified maturities (4 to 4.5 months), organizing “nurseries in advance” for advancing the kharif season, and organizing farmers to plant within a period of 7–10 days are examples of changes that helped reduce staggered cultivation, shortened kharif, utilized rainfall, and saved reservoir water for rabi (follow-up) crops. The average length of kharif was reduced from about 6–7 to 5–5.5 months even before the end of CIDP. Farmers were motivated to start the follow-up crop with residual moisture, thereby saving water and further increasing rabi area and productivity.

3. Improved Water Use Efficiency Due to O&M

11. By the end of 2012, in the intensive intervention area (100,000 ha), many WUAs were planning for the entire year and not just for one season. Through WUA- and chak-

1 ADB. 2013. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation in Chhattisgarh—Final Report.

Consultants’ report. Manila (TA 4573-IND, p. 6). 2 Most of the irrigation systems, notably the minors and diversion systems in Chhattisgarh had been designed for

supplementary irrigation in kharif season. Kharif rainfall has not been utilized effectively. Especially in minor and medium systems, much of the reservoir water is used for kharif season. Therefore, rabi cropping intensity was low.

38 Appendix 3

managed collective action, farmers were motivated to utilize rainfall to the maximum extent possible. Analysis clearly showed that the efforts to save water in the reservoirs at the end of kharif by utilizing rainfall effectively and controlling sluices were significantly successful, although there remained scope for further improvement (Figures A3.1 and A3.2).

Figure A3.1: Water Consumed at Source during Kharif Season in 2012 (Sample of 50 Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project Systems)

mcm = million cubic meters.

Source: Technical Assistance Consultants Report. 2103. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation Management in Chhattisgarh Final Report. TA 4573-IND.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Total

designed

capacity

(mcm)

Total capacity

of all

reservoirs

before

kharif 2012

(mcm)

Total water

consumed in

paddy irrigation

during Kharif

2012

(mcm)

862.14786.91

145.13

Total

designed

capacity

(mcm)

Total

capacity

of all

reservoirs

before

kharif 2012

(mcm)

Total water

consumed in

paddy

irrigation

during Kharif

2012

(mcm)

Appendix 3 39

Figure A3.2: Water Consumed during Kharif and Capacity Remaining at End of Kharif Season in 2012 at Reservoirs of Intensive Intervention Program

Irrigation Systems

Source: Technical Assistance Consultants Report. 2103. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation Management in Chhattisgarh Final Report. TA 4573-IND.

Table A3.3: Other Indicators of Improved Operation and Maintenance Due to Improved Water Supply and WUA Participation

Indicator Percentage Checking tank water level by WUA and community organizer in minor systems 100 Sluice gate control in minor systems by WUA as percent of total minor systems for 2012 23 Sluice gate control in minor systems jointly by WUA and WRD as percent of total minor systems for 2012 73

Irrigation distribution managed jointly by WRD and WUA in medium systems as percent of total medium systems for 2012 100 Rabi 2012–2013 as a percent of total command area 53 2012–2013 as % of Post R&U Designed Rabi Area 161

R&U = rehabilitation and upgrading, WRD = Water Resources Department, WUA = water users association. Source: Technical Assistance Consultants Report. 2103. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation Management in Chhattisgarh Final Report. TA 4573-IND.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total water consumed in paddy

irrigation during Kharif 2012

as a % of total designed capacity

Total capacity of all reservoirs

remained after Kharif 2012

as a % of total designed capacity

17%

67%

40 Appendix 3

Figure A3.3: Cumulative Water Use Efficiency during Kharif Season in 2012 with Better Water Management

ha = hectare. Source: Technical Assistance Consultants Report. 2103. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation Management in Chhattisgarh Final Report. TA 4573-IND.

12. The overall water management strategy of utilizing kharif rainfall and saving water for rabi as well as initiating rabi crops utilizing the soil moisture available after kharif harvest helped to increase rabi cropping intensity (Figures A3.4, A3.5, and A3.6).

2817

1892

1570

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Recommended as per

apparaisal report Cum/ha

(50 Systems)

Water used in kharif 2011

Cum /Ha.

(36 Systems*)

Water used in kharif 2012)

cum/ Ha

(50 Systems)

Recommended

as per

apparaisal

report Cum/ha

(50 Systems)

Water used in

kharif 2011

Cum /Ha.

(36 Systems*)

Water used in

kharif 2012)

cum/ Ha

(50 Systems)

Appendix 3 41

Figure A3.4: Sources of Irrigation, Rabi Season 2012–2013 (%)

Source: Technical Assistance Consultants Report. 2103. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation Management in Chhattisgarh Final Report. TA 4573-IND.

By Residual

Moisture

36%

By Tank

Water

27%

By Other

Sources

37%

42 Appendix 3

Figure A3.5: Rabi Area Cultivated Using Tank Water and Conjunctive Use (Residual Moisture and/or Wells), 2007–2008 to 2012–2013

(% of total command area)

Source: Technical Assistance Consultants Report. 2103. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation Management in Chhattisgarh Final Report. TA 4573-IND.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

6%10%

17%

25%

40%

53%

Cu

ltiv

ate

d R

ab

i a

rea

as

a p

erc

en

t

of

tota

l C

om

ma

nd

are

a →

Year →

Appendix 3 43

Figure A3.6: Rabi Area Cultivated by Tank Water and Conjunctive Use (Residual Moisture and/or Wells)

(% of designed rabi area after rehabilitation)

Source: Technical Assistance Consultants Report. 2103. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation Management in Chhattisgarh Final Report. TA 4573-IND.

4. Conclusion

13. Operation and maintenance has improved significantly due to the CIDP. In addition, the program demonstrated a novel strategy for improving water use efficiency in irrigation systems. Rehabilitation and upgrading of irrigation infrastructure, introduction of improved agricultural water management (especially the so-called “Managing Kharif for Rabi”), and participatory irrigation management were the significant contributing factors. Within four crop seasons (2010 kharif, 2010–2011 rabi, 2012 kharif, and 2013 rabi), the 100,000 ha under the intensive intervention program demonstrated a significant improvement in water use efficiency: 200% increase over the expected rabi cropping extent while maintaining 100% kharif cropping intensity. The sustainability of the O&M achievement will depend, however, on continued support to WUAs and WRD. The momentum created needs to be maintained. Partnership between WRD and WUAs needs further improvement, and WRD needs more time to completely hand over the O&M responsibility to WUAs in minor projects and for effective shared management in the medium systems.

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

25%

56%

105%

108%

161%

210%

Cu

ltiv

ate

d R

ab

i a

rea

as

a p

erc

en

t o

f

Ra

bi

de

sig

ne

d a

rea

aft

er

R&

U

Year →

44 Appendix 4

INTENSIVE INTERVENTION PROGRAM: KEY FEATURES

A. Approach

1. The focus of the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project (CIDP) was to enhance year-round irrigation efficiency and crop production in selected irrigation schemes. This was achieved through intensive hand-holding of farmers to improve water management and agricultural practices. The intensive intervention program (IIP) was implemented collaboratively between the Water Resources Department (WRD) and consultants and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) contracted under the project. The key features of the IIP were

(i) a strategy known as “Managing Kharif for Rabi,” an approach which entailed shortening the duration of kharif crops (predominantly rice) and maximizing the use of rainfall through storage for year-round water management;

(ii) harvesting kharif rice early (end of October or latest mid-November) and cultivating rabi crops using water saved in tanks and/or reservoirs;

(iii) matching water usage more closely with complementary inputs, thereby improving water productivity; and

(iv) organizing collective input and output marketing while promoting crop diversification in the rabi season.

2. Figure A4 illustrates the process of matching kharif paddy (rice) cultivation to rainfall, a

key feature of the “Managing Kharif for Rabi” strategy.

Figure A4: Matching Kharif Paddy Cultivation to Monthly Rainfall

3. If all farmers in an irrigation scheme plant 4-month (or at least 4- to 4.5 month) high yielding varieties by mid-June (or at least by the end of June), they can maximize the use of rainfall and save tank and/or reservoir water for rabi cropping (then combining it with residual soil moisture from kharif season rainfall and irrigation). For this to be successful, all farmers must have access to appropriate seed varieties as well as all

11.2 13.9 13.9 8.6 14.4

179.7

358.7 347.9

192.7

49.4

8.2 6.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Ra

infa

ll i

n m

m

Months

Harvest

Tillering

Seedling

FloweringPanicle

Initiation

Appendix 4 45

other inputs and services on a timely basis. This requires collective action, which is promoted under CIDP’s IIP by water users associations (WUAs). WUAs undergo significant capacity building implemented by project consultants and NGOs (subject matter specialists, senior community organizers, and community organizers). Following completion of this capacity building, WUAs support farmers to (i) manage water year-round (in most minor schemes this is entirely the

responsibility of the WUA, while in medium schemes responsibility is shared with WRD);

(ii) construct field channels collectively; (iii) organize seed production and attain self-sufficiency in seeds; (iv) organize group and “advanced” nurseries to minimize staggered cultivation; (v) organize input supply and output marketing for members; (vi) promote and/or support the adoption of improved agricultural practices (This

includes on-farm water management, soil testing and fertilizer management, seed testing, weed control, and pest and disease control (including identification of major pests and diseases and integrated pest management), and safe application of chemicals.); and

(vii) promote the system of rice intensification (SRI), which saves water and time.

4. Important institutional aspects of the IIP approach include the following: (i) Experiential capacity building. Instead of relying on formal classroom-type

training, WUAs develop their capacity through experiential methods (learning by doing). Formal training of WUAs is restricted (e.g., to financial management, accounting, and bookkeeping). At the farmer level, chak (village)-based farmers’ field schools comprise the major method of providing agricultural extension.

(ii) Irrigation system-wide improvements through participatory methods. Interventions focus on all farmers and the total area of an irrigation scheme with the aim of improving production and cropping intensity across the scheme rather than for selected individuals or a few demonstration sites. WUA-managed collective action and an integrated approach are helpful in achieving system-wide improvements.

(iii) Integrated approaches. Water management is not separated from agriculture. Agriculture support is not confined to knowledge building through demonstrations and formal training of selected farmers. The goal is to develop multifunctional WUAs which manage water and agriculture services, including input supply and output marketing through collective action.

(iv) Multilayered technical assistance. Project consultants are responsible for developing the IIP strategy and implementation program and directing the activities of NGOs, but on a collaborative basis. Participatory planning, target-setting, and performance assessment provide opportunity to learn from each other and, at the same time, create a healthy competition among field staff. NGO support generally comprises two senior community organizers for a cluster of 7–12 WUAs. One senior community organizer has organization and coordination skills and the other has water management and agriculture extension experience. Working under the senior community organizer are community organizers who are usually generalists. One community organizer serves about 1,000 farmers.

(v) Collaboration with government departments. WUAs are linked with the programs of the Department of Agriculture (e.g., for seed production of wheat and black gram). The department provides assurance that it will buy back the output under the seed production programs.

46 Appendix 4

B. Overview of Results

5. The IIP was to be implemented through collaboration between WRD’s Participatory Irrigation Management Unit, its social development unit, local WRD offices, WUAs, project consultants, and an NGO providing senior community organizers and community organizers for WUA mobilization and dissemination of the IIP approach. Constraints on the effectiveness of the Participatory Irrigation Management and social development units meant that project consultants became almost solely responsible for the IIP. The NGO also faced problems in recruiting and retaining senior community organizers and community organizers throughout implementation. This negatively impacted IIP implementation, although the situation improved after WRD agreed to pay senior community organizers and community organizers directly. Where it was effective, the results of the IIP are impressive. The IIP was piloted in 7 schemes during 2007 covering 11,000 hectares (ha). This was extended through implementation until the IIP encompassed 78 schemes covering 115,871 ha, equal to 66.6% of the total 173,984 ha under the project. The final number of WUAs involved in the IIP was 110, equal to 58% of the 191 WUAs under the project. An immediate impact was recorded in the 7 pilot schemes, with a 29% increase in kharif season paddy yield to 3.62 tons per ha compared with the pre-project level of 2.80 tons per ha. By project completion, average kharif paddy yield was recorded at 5.91 tons per ha. Kharif season cropping intensity in areas covered by the IIP was 100%. The IIP introduced SRI in 2010. By the 2012 kharif season, SRI had been implemented over 4,285 ha by 5,378 farmers. Although only covering around 4% of the IIP area, achievements under SRI are significant, with one SRI farmer reporting a yield of almost 11.3 tons per ha.

6. The impact of the IIP was also felt in rabi season cropping. Cropping intensity increased from 6% in the 2007–2008 rabi season (based on data for a sample of five schemes cultivating 598 ha) to 52% in the 2012–2013 season (based on data for a sample of 50 schemes cultivating 52,836 ha). It is not possible to determine the relative effects of varying sources of water for rabi season cropping, which include increased irrigation as a result of water savings, residual soil moisture, and irrigation from surface water or groundwater through tube wells. However, the contribution of scheme irrigation and residual moisture resulting directly from project-financed scheme rehabilitation and upgrading and the IIP is considered to be significant. Details of rabi season design area by scheme are in Appendix 3. Even as rabi season area was increased, cropping was diversified with the introduction of crops including maize, wheat, sunflower, groundnuts, pulses, green gram, and mustard. Yields achieved were generally above state averages and resulted in marketable surpluses. In the 2011–2012 rabi season, 59 WUAs across 33 schemes organized the marketing of 2,640 tons of rabi crops, including wheat, gram, mustard, green gram, maize, and groundnuts.

7. Other notable achievements under the IIP include the following: (i) Self-sufficiency in seed production. In 2012, 2,418 farmers were engaged in seed

production covering an area of 3,623 ha. (ii) Based on the experience of WUA-managed input supply and output marketing,

four producer companies were formed to provide commercial input–output marketing and agro-processing through partnerships with government agencies and the private sector. At the time of the project’s close, two companies continued to operate without project support.

Appendix 5 47

PROJECT COSTS

Table A5.1: Costs by Component or Output Estimated at Appraisal and Actual Costs Incurred ($ million)

Appraisal Estimatea Actual Cost

a

Financing Total Cost

Financing Total Cost Item

ADB Loan

Govern-ment

Benefi-ciaries

ADB Loan

Govern-ment

Benefi-ciaries

WRD Strengthening and Project Management 3.407 1.140 4.546 3.183 0.888 4.071 Participatory Irrigation Management 3.861 0.477 4.338 3.293 0.030 3.323 Rehabilitation and Upgrading Irrigation 37.166 10.370 0.583 48.119 23.435 7.340 0.033 30.808 Agricultural Support 1.675 0.226 1.901 2.533 0.343 2.876

Total Project Cost 46.108 12.213 0.583 58.905 32.444 8.601 0.033 41.078 Interest during implementation 6.929 6.929 0.801 0.801 Commitment charges 0.777 0.777 1.113 1.113

Total Cost Financed 46.108 19.918 0.583 66.610 32.444 10.515 0.033 42.993 (%) 69.2 29.9 0.9 100.0 75.5 24.5 0.1 100.0 ADB = Asian Development Bank, WRD = Water Resources Department. Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding. a Figures are total costs, including contingencies. Costs are allocated to components or outputs on the basis of expenditure categories most appropriate for each

component or output inasmuch as cost data are recorded on the basis of expenditure categories only, not of components or outputs. Sources: Appraisal estimates are from ADB. 2005. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan and Technical Assistance Grant to India for the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project. Manila. Actual costs are from ADB Loan Financial Information Systems and project management unit estimates.

48 Appendix 5

Table A5.2: Costs by Category Estimated at Appraisal and Actual Costs Incurred ($ million)

Appraisal Estimatea Actual Cost

a

Financingb

Total Cost

Financing Total Cost Expenditure Category

c

ADB Loan

Govern-ment

Benefi-ciaries

ADB Loan

Govern-ment

d

Benefi-ciaries

1. Civil works a. Irrigation rehabilitation 32.563 9.202 0.583 42.384 23.435 7.340 0.033 30.808 b. Training centers 0.437 0.126 0.563 1.162 0.370 1.553 Subtotal 33.001 9.328 0.583 42.912 24.618 7.710 0.033 32.361 2. Vehicles and equipment a. Vehicles and motorcycles 0.661 0.073 0.734 0.095 0.095 b. Equipment and furniture 1.963 0.207 2.170 1.136 1.136 Subtotal 2.624 0.280 2.904 1.231 0.009 1.240 3. Consulting services 3.063 3.063 3.209 0.030 3.239 4. WUA support and facilities

e 0.961 0.011 0.972 2.533 0.343 2.876

5. Training, workshops, and study tours 1.460 0.002 1.462 0.014 0.014 6. Surveys, studies, and awareness campaign 1.398 1.398 0.083 0.083 7. Diversified cropping program

f 1.280 0.142 1.422

8. Land acquisition and resettlement compensation 0.684 0.684 9. WRD staff support 0.428 0.428 10. Supervision and implementation a. Infrastructure maintenance 0.883 0.379 1.262 b. Overheads and operational cost 1.438 0.959 2.397 0.755 0.509 1.264 Subtotal 2.321 1.338 3.659 0.755 0.509 1.264

Total Project Cost 46.108 12.213 0.583 58.905 32.444 8.601 0.033 41.078

Contingencies

Interest during implementation 6.929 6.929 0.801 0.801

Commitment charges 0.777 0.777 1.113 1.113

Total Costs Financed 46.108 19.918 0.583 66.610 32.444 10.515 0.033 42.993 (%) 69.2 29.9 0.9 100.0 75.5 24.5 0.1 100.0 ADB = Asian Development Bank. WUA = Water users association. a Figures are total costs including contingencies.

b Figures for financing at appraisal (in italics) are derived from a supplementary appendix to the report and recommendation of the President (RRP). The total

therein do not agree exactly with those in the main text of the RRP. The figures above are derived from the main text of the RRP. As such, the sum of individual

Appendix 5 49

financing amounts may not equal figures in the Total Cost column. c Expenditure categories specified in the loan agreement, except for Land acquisition and resettlement compensation and WRD staff support.

d The project management unit does disaggregate costs for all categories. Government costs for subcategories are allocated to categories as estimated at

appraisal. Figures are, therefore, indicative. e Referred to as “NGO Packages” in cost estimates at appraisal.

f Included under WUA support and facilities in actual costs. Sources: Asian Development Bank Loan Financial Information System; Executing Agency Project Completion Report.

Significant variations (actual cost as a percentage of estimated cost) by category were as follows: (i) irrigation rehabilitation (76%); (ii) vehicles and equipment (46%); (iii) consulting services (110%); (iv) NGO packages (referred to as WUA support and facilities in the loan agreement) (331%); (v) training, workshops, and study tours (1%); and (vi) surveys, studies, and awareness campaign (6%).

The underspending on irrigation rehabilitation resulted from a combination of factors, including (i) difficulty in finding subprojects that met rehabilitation criteria, (ii) problems in the procurement of civil works (see main text para. 18), and (iii) slow progress in initial scheme rehabilitation works. The particularly low levels for vehicles and equipment; training, workshops, and study tours; and surveys, studies, and awareness campaign derive in part from a reluctance on the part of the Chhattisgarh State Government to finance training. In addition, some training expenditures and studies and awareness campaign expenditures were allocated to NGO packages by the project management unit in recording project expenditures.

50 Appendix 6

DISBURSEMENTS UNDER LOAN 2159-IND AND TA 4573-IND ($)

Table A6.1: Annual Disbursements under Loan 2159-IND

Expenditure Categorya 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Loan Agree-ment

Total ÷

LA

1. Civil works a. Irrigation

rehabilitation 2,126,579 6,648,689 9,066,510 3,694,092 1,481,423 417,907 24,435,199 32,563,000 72.0

b. Training centers 387,240 419,192 207,744 84,369 83,918 1,182,462

Subtotal 2,513,819 7.067,881 9,274,253 3,778,460 1,565,340 417,907 24,617661 33,001,000 74.6

2. Vehicles and equipment a. Vehicles and

motorcycles 95,079 95,079 629,000 15.1 b. Equipment and

furniture 345,097 24,819 84,116 138,903 151,372 109,740 282,339 1,136,386 1,870,000 60.8

Subtotal 440,176 24,819 84,116 138,903 151,372 109,740 282,339 1,231,465 2,499,000 49.3

3. Consulting services 893,238 945,910 675,945 322,145 206,727 112,495 52,783 3,209,243 3,063,000 104.8 4. WUA support and

facilitiesb 129,341 155,735 370,143 675,097 745,250 457,866 2,533,432 890,000 284.7

5. Training, workshops, and study tours 14,163 14,163 1,327,000 1.1

6. Surveys, studies, and awareness campaign 36,557 17,824 29,002 83,383 1,271,000 6.6

7 Diversified cropping program 1,164,000 0.0

8. Supervision and implementation

a. Infrastructure maintenance

b. Overheads and operational cost 72,722 106,727 22,903 1,761 284,097 161,742 104,629 754,580 1,438,000 52.5

Subtotal 106,727 22,903 1,761 284,097 161,742 104,629 754,580 1,438,000 33.7

9. Unallocated 652,000 0.0 Total Funds

Disbursed 1,406,136 3,757,173 8,038,567 10,136,208 5,095,753 2,694,567 1,315,524 32,443,927 46,108,000 70.4

Cumulative disbursements 1,406,136 5,163,309 13,201,876 23,338,083 28,433,836 31,128,403 32,443,927 Cumulative disbursements (%) 4.3 15.9 40.7 71.9 87.6 95.9 100.0 Cumulative disbursements against loan amount (%) 3.0 11.2 28.6 50.6 61.7 67.5 70.4

Appendix 6 51

LA = Loan agreement. WUA = Water users association. Notes: 1. Figures may not sum due to rounding. 2. Total disbursement shown differs from the total disbursement under contract data (Appendix 9) due to rounding. Disbursements reported here are recorded to two decimal places, while disbursements recorded against contracts are entered into the system in units (rounded to the nearest dollar). a Expenditure categories specified in the loan agreement.

b Referred to as "NGO Packages" in cost estimates at appraisal.

Source: Asian Development Bank Loan Financial Information System.

52 Appendix 6

Table A6.2: TA 4573-IND Financing ($)

Source Date Approved Original Amount Cancellation or

Supplementary Amount Total Revised Amount United Kingdom Government 29 March 2005 1,900,000 1,900,000 United Kingdom Government 27 October 2008 (550,000) (550,000) United Kingdom Government 3 February 2010 700,000 700,000 United Kingdom Government 20 February 2012 100,000 100,000 Subtotal 1,900,000 250,000 2,150,000

WFPF 27 October 2008 550,000 550,000 WFPF 7 August 2009 550,000 550,000 WFPF 3 February 2010 (700,000) (700,000) WFPF 10 August 2010 150,000 150,000 Subtotal 550,000 0 550,000 Total 2,450,000 250,000 2,700,000

WFPF = Water Financing Partnership Facility (Multi-Donor Trust Fund) administered by Asian Development Bank. Source: ADB Loan Financial Information System.

Table A6.3: Annual Disbursements under TA 4573-IND

Year Disbursement

($)

2005 244,872.00

2006 434,022.60

2007 245,682.08

2008 429,067.62

2009 328,478.13

2010 198,455.00

2011 127,864.77

2012 90,941.79

2013 537,507.40

2014 4,550.42

Total 2,641,441.81

Source: Asian Development Bank Grant Financial Information System.

Appendix 7 53

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOAN COVENANTS

Covenant

Reference in Loan

Agreement Status of Compliance The Borrower shall cause CG to carry out the Project with due diligence and efficiency and in conformity with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental, social, agricultural, and irrigation development practices.

Section 4.01 (a)

Complied with.

The Borrower shall establish an Imprest Account at the Reserve Bank of India. The initial amount to be deposited into the Imprest Account shall not exceed $2,300,000 that is 5% of the Loan amount. Thereafter, the total imprest at any time in the Imprest Account shall not exceed the estimated expenditures for next three months or 5% of the Loan amount whichever is lower.

Schedule 3, para. 7 (a)

Water Resources Department (WRD) informed Asian Development Bank (ADB) on 3 August 2006 that it did not require the imprest account. As a result, no imprest account was established.

CG shall establish a Second-Generation Imprest Account (in a current account) in a commercial bank acceptable to ADB for purposes of meeting Project expenditures. The Borrower shall cause CG to transfer the amounts received by it in the Imprest Account to the Second-Generation Imprest Account for meeting eligible expenditures in accordance with the provisions of the Loan Agreement. The initial amount to be deposited into the Second-Generation Imprest Account shall not exceed $2,300,000. Thereafter the total amount at any time in the Second-Generation Imprest Account shall not exceed the estimated expenditures for the next three months or 5% of the Loan amount, whichever is lower.

Schedule 3, para. 7 (b)

WRD informed ADB on 3 August 2006 that second-generation imprest accounts would be established as necessary. As a result, no second-generation imprest accounts were established.

All land acquisition and/or resettlement compensation payments as may be required under related land acquisition or resettlement plans as applicable; and all measures required to be taken with regard to indigenous peoples under related indigenous peoples development plan as applicable, are completed for the relevant Subproject in accordance with the provisions of this Loan Agreement.

Schedule 4, para. 11 (a)

Complied with. No land acquisition was required.

In case of Subprojects that entail land acquisition and/or resettlement, CG shall have prepared relevant RP, disclosed them to affected persons, submitted the same to ADB and obtained its approval.

Schedule 4, para. 11 (b)

Complied with. None of the subprojects entailed land acquisition, involved any resettlement, or impacted any indigenous people. As such, a resettlement plan and indigenous people’s development plan were not required.

The draft of Amended PIM Act, shall have been submitted to the State Legislative Assembly for consideration; provided that this clause shall be applicable only to those Subprojects that are not Pilot-subprojects.

Schedule 4, para. 11 (c)

Complied with. The PIM Act was approved by the State Legislative Assembly in March 2006. PIM rules and

54 Appendix 7

Covenant

Reference in Loan

Agreement Status of Compliance regulations were approved in December 2006.

CG through WRD shall be responsible for overall execution of the Project. The Borrower shall cause CG to allow sufficient administrative and financial authority to WRD for the expeditious implementation, procurement and disbursements under the Project.

Schedule 6, para. 1

Complied with.

CG shall provide counterpart staff (including incremental staff as required and the provision of full time Deputy Director from the Department of Agriculture (DA) in CG, to work in each PIM Unit to assist in implementing Component D), land office space and facilities, funds, resources as well as other costs associated with land acquisition and compensation, implementation and monitoring the resettlement, environment and indigenous people’s covenants.

Schedule 6, para. 2 (a)

Partially complied with. Counterpart staff were made available by WRD. The Department of Agriculture (DOA) made available three officers to WRD during the first 2 years of project implementation. Those officers subsequently opted to return to DOA.

CG will ensure that women representation of trainers (consultants/NGOs) in the PIM Unit is not less than 20%

Schedule 6, para. 2 (b)

Not complied with. Women trainers comprised 13% of the total number of trainers engaged by NGOs in 2012.

CG shall ensure that Project beneficiaries (such as farmers and other community members benefiting from the Project) shall provide their contribution to the Project in accordance with the financing plan for the Project as set out in the RRP, though in-kind labor, right-of-way for field channels in the R&U schemes as required.

Schedule 6, para. 3

Complied with. Beneficiaries contributed to field channel construction by providing land voluntarily and labor for earthworks.

CG shall establish the PMU within 1 month of Effective Date.

Schedule 6, para. 4 (a) (i)

Complied with. The project management unit (PMU) was established in July 2006.

CG shall establish new units in WRD as follows - the PIM Unit within 1 month, the Design Unit and Social Development Unit within 4 months, and Dam Safety Unit within 12 months, respectively of the Effective Date.

Schedule 6, para. 4 (a) (ii)

Partially complied with. The Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) Unit was established in July 2006. Staffing of the PIM was initially slow. By project close, 1 PIM expert, 1 senior engineer and 5 assistant engineers were working in the PIM Unit. The Design Unit was not established. The contract of the project implementation consultants was modified in order to assume that responsibility. Small field-level design units were established and strengthened.

Appendix 7 55

Covenant

Reference in Loan

Agreement Status of Compliance They continue to operate after project closing. The social development unit was partially established in July 2006. Three specialists for the unit were recruited in June 2007. The tasks of the economist, sociologist, and environmentalist were taken over by the project implementation consultants. The social development unit was revived on 9 August 2012 with the assignment of 1 executive engineer and 2 assistant engineers. The Dam Safety Unit was established in July 2006. From 4 December 2007, it started to function as a regulatory body, authorized to manage safety of dams in the whole of Chhattisgarh.

CG shall establish the PTCC within 3 months of Effective Date.

Schedule 6, para. 4 (a) (iii)

Complied. The Project Technical Coordination Committee (PTCC) was established on 14 March 2007 (by Memo No/653).

CG through WRD shall provide temporary facilities and office space in the four locations designated for regional trainings centers and regional PIM units.

Schedule 6, para. 4 (b)

Partially complied with. Facilities and office space were made available. Training centers were established at Ambikapur, Bilaspur, and Raipur. The fourth training center at Jagdalpur was not established due to security concerns in the area.

CG shall take all steps necessary for early consideration and enactment of the Amended PIM Act by the State Legislative Assembly. CG shall likewise prepare the rules and regulations under the Amended PIM Act, not later than 6 months of its enactment and enforce the same in the subsequent financial year ending 31 March.

Schedule 6, para. 5 (a)

Complied with. The PIM Act was approved in March 2006. The PIM rules and regulations were approved in December 2006.

Among other provisions, the Amended PIM Act shall include the following: (i) transfer of O&M responsibilities to WUAs, (ii) timely provision to WUAs (at least on a seasonal basis) of adequate portion of water tax for O&M, (iii) representation of at least one WUA per irrigation system for all systems above 200 hectares (for those below 200 ha where

Schedule 6, para. 5 (b)

Not complied with. The second amendment to the PIM Act was finalized under TA 4573. Chhattisgarh State Government agreed to increase the WUA share of irrigation fees

56 Appendix 7

Covenant

Reference in Loan

Agreement Status of Compliance practicable); (iv) restructuring of the offices, terms, and subcommittees of the WUAs; (v) adoption of measures to ensure women's participation and effective contribution to the structures and processes adopted under the Amended PIM Act, as provided in "Gender Development" under section D Appendix 2 to the RRP; and (vi) maintenance of proper accounts and independent audit thereof.

collected from 25% to 50%, but it did not agree with retention at source. This was published in the Gazette of 3 August 2012. Although the Act provides for provision of funds raised from water charges to WUAs, in practice, according to PMU management, no such transfers have ever been made.

CG shall ensure that the Amended PIM Act is drafted and validated through an iterative and consultative process with all relevant institutional and individual stakeholders. The WRD with the assistance of NGOs and WUAs, shall undertake mobilization and awareness campaigns on the provisions of Amended PIM, basic WUA organizations and WUA elections to facilitate WUA development process.

Schedule 6, para. 6

Complied with. Nongovernment organizations (NGOs) conducted mobilization and awareness campaigns during project implementation.

CG shall review current rates for water tax and make appropriate adjustments based on the needs for O&M and cost share of water tax between WRD and WUAs. This review shall be in consonance with Borrower's policies on cost recovery and rationalized rates for irrigation service fees.

Schedule 6, para. 7

Not complied with. Water charges for industrial use were revised with effect from May 2010. Water charges for irrigation use had not been revised by the time of the project completion review.

CG shall undertake a review of existing WRD planning and development practice so that new irrigation investment is targeted at tank schemes with potential of 1000 ha and above, with a capability of at least 40% cropping intensity in the Rabi season based on 75% dependable rainfall.

Schedule 6, para. 8

Partially complied with. Guidelines for planning and development of minor schemes were reviewed. The conclusion was that strict guidelines for tank schemes are not practicable due to varying and changing local demands (e.g. for drinking water).

CG through WRD shall follow the selection criteria and implementation procedures for the Subprojects as set forth in Appendix 5 to the RRP. Any deviation to the selection criteria shall need prior approval of ADB.

Schedule 6, para. 9 (a)

Complied with.

CG through WRD shall ensure that agreed staff (of design, PIM and Social Development Units) required for Subproject selection and implementation are in place before commencing works under any Subproject. The PIM Unit shall ensure competency of WUAs to assume O&M responsibilities in a system where R&U activities will take place.

Schedule 6, para. 9 (b)

Partially complied with. Recruitment was constrained by availability of qualified staff.

CG shall ensure through WRD that all Subprojects involving minor irrigation systems shall be approved for implementation not later than 1 year before

Schedule 6, para. 9 (c)

Complied with.

Appendix 7 57

Covenant

Reference in Loan

Agreement Status of Compliance Project completion date, and all Subprojects involving medium irrigation systems shall be approved for implementation 2 years before Project Completion. The first 5 Subprojects to be selected in each of the WRD Chief Engineers’ zones shall need prior approval of ADB. Subsequent approvals of Subprojects shall be by the PMU.

Schedule 6, para. 9 (d)

Complied with.

To be eligible, the emergency sluice repair under the R&U Schemes shall (i) not require major civil works repair, (ii) be economically justified, and (iii) have a canal system where the command area is able to benefit from the water supplied. For the purposes of undertaking the emergency sluice repair under the R&U Schemes, the CG through WRD shall create a team of concerned executive engineer and WUA, to execute or contract the needed repairs. The relevant WUA shall determine the needed repairs, develop an O&M plan, and endorse the final repair works.

Schedule 6, para. 10

Partially complied with. It was proposed to cover around 500 schemes under the sluice gate repair program, but that program was dropped during implementation. Out of 319 proposals received by the project management unit by March 2008, fewer than 50% of gates at the proposed sites could be included into the project because either they were not tank systems or the schemes proposed had been abandoned. Moreover, none of the proposals for repair and/or replacement had been put forward by WUAs or other farmers’ organizations. It was decided during the June 2008 ADB mission to consider only gates that met the project criteria. Some of these were taken up as a part of broader R&U schemes.

CG through the WRD and WUAs shall ensure that the Project and in particular the selection, designs (including detailed design), construction, supervision, implementation and monitoring of the R&U Schemes and Subprojects are undertaken in accordance with ADB's Involuntary Resettlement Policy, Indigenous Peoples Policy and Environment Policy, as also enumerated under the respective frameworks for involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples and environment (including the environment monitoring plan.) CG through WRD shall also ensure that relevant RP, IPDP are prepared, ensure adequate budget and incorporation and implementation of all mitigation and monitoring requirements specified in the related IEE and environment monitoring plan in the design (including detailed designs), construction, monitoring and implementation of the civil works contracts under R&U Schemes and Subprojects.

Schedule 6, para. 13 (a)

Complied with. None of the subprojects entailed land acquisition, involved any resettlement, or impacted any indigenous people. As such, a resettlement plan and indigenous people’s development plan were not required.

CG through the WRD shall ensure an extensive process for community participation to promote (i)

Schedule 6, para. 13 (b)

Complied with.

58 Appendix 7

Covenant

Reference in Loan

Agreement Status of Compliance acceptance of the Project through effective WUA and community participation (in particular women) in R&U activities and Subprojects selection, design (including detailed designs), construction, and operational monitoring of the R&U subprojects, and (ii) adequate public and stakeholder information and consultant in complying with ADB's safeguard policies specified in clause (a) of this paragraph. CG shall ensure that various units of WRD as identified under the Subprojects selection criteria, assisted by consultants, NGOs, WRD field staff and WUAs shall address social, resettlement, indigenous peoples', environment and economic analyses as required for the R&U Schemes. CG shall establish the State level Committee on Indigenous Peoples Development for Subprojects.

Schedule 6, para. 13 (c)

Complied with.

WRD shall ensure through specific provisions in the bid documents and civil works contracts under the Project that the civil works contractors shall (i) comply with all applicable labor laws and in particular follow legally mandated provisions on health, sanitation and appropriate working conditions under the laws, (ii) not employ child labor, (iii) provide equal opportunities for women, and provide equal pay for equal work for men and women, and (iv) execute activities necessary for compliance with the environment monitoring plan

Schedule 6, para. 14 (a)

Complied with.

WRD shall ensure monitoring of compliance of provisions of clause 14 (a) and provide termination of any contract in case of non-compliance.

Schedule 6, para. 14 (b)

Complied with.

CG shall ensure implementation of the measures included in “Gender Development’ under section D of Appendix 2 to the RRP, to maximize impacts on women, under the Project.

Schedule 6, para. 15

Partially complied with. Women’s participation is stipulated in the new PIM Act. NGOs undertook awareness campaigns among WUA members, highlighting the role of women in particular in respect of electing women to WUA decision-making bodies.

Within 4 months of Effective Date, CG through the PMU, shall establish a Project Performance Monitoring System. This shall be developed and implemented in accordance with monitoring and evaluation parameters as required by ADB. CG through the PMU shall collect baseline information as part of Subprojects' feasibility assessment and conduct annual surveys thereafter.

Schedule 6, para. 16

Complied with. The project performance monitoring system was established in April 2009, 34 months after loan effectiveness.

CG through the PMU shall prepare monthly financial statements and quarterly progress reports on the progress of the project including the Subprojects, in such form and detail as required. The PMU shall also

Schedule 6, para. 17 (a)

Partially complied with. Quarterly reports were submitted on a regular basis, but no annual

Appendix 7 59

Covenant

Reference in Loan

Agreement Status of Compliance be responsible for preparing a comprehensive progress report of the project on an annual basis.

reports were prepared.

CG shall submit to the Borrower and ADB, the Project performance reports on a quarterly basis within 1 month of the end of each quarter. The reports shall summarize the information in the detailed reports provided under clause (a) of this paragraph, including basic data, utilization of funds, achievement of immediate development objectives, compliance with Loan covenants, implementation progress, safeguard compliances, and any major issues and problems. The report shall also include a baseline for performance monitoring as established in accordance with the Project Performance Monitoring System in paragraph 16 of this Schedule.

Schedule 6, para. 17 (b)

Partially complied with. Quarterly reports were submitted regularly but did not contain detailed performance monitoring information.

In addition to regular semiannual reviews by ADB, there shall be a midterm review of the Project by December 2008, to be conducted by ADB, the Borrower, and CG. The review shall identify any problems or weaknesses in implementation arrangements (including in particular of the Subprojects). ADB, the Borrower, and CG shall agree on any changes needed, (including adjustment to the number of Subprojects during semi-annual reviews), to ensure optimal Subproject preparation and their implementation and performance in accordance with the requirements of this Loan Agreement and to achieve the Project objectives. 2 months prior to the midterm review CG through the Borrower, shall submit to ADB a detailed progress report on Project implementation.

Schedule 6, para. 18

Complied with. The midterm review took place from 27 January to 8 February 2010. A report on project implementation was submitted in January 2010.

CG shall follow procedures acceptable to ADB in the selection and recruitment of NGOs under the Project.

Schedule 6, para. 19 (a)

Complied with.

CG will facilitate ADB in administering the Technical Assistance referred to in recital C of this Loan Agreement, for procurement and use of consulting services under Component B for WUA strengthening and Agricultural Support services respectively.

Schedule 6, para. 19 (b)

Complied with.

By not later than 31 December 2006, CG shall prepare a complete inventory of all minor irrigation schemes, using the "Pre-planning: Rapid Assessment Data Sheet for Completed Minor and Medium Schemes" as already provided by ADB to Chhattisgarh.

Schedule 6, para. 20

Complied with.

CG shall maintain separate accounts for the Project and Subprojects

PA, Section 2.09

Complied with.

CG = Chhattisgarh State Government, NGO = nongovernment organization, PIM = participatory irrigation management, R&U = rehabilitation and upgrading, RRP = report and recommendation of the President, TA = technical assistance, WUA = water users association, PA = project agreement.

60 Appendix 8

CONSULTING SERVICES: PROPOSED AND ACTUAL

1. At appraisal it was proposed to provide a total of 382 person-months of consulting services (92 person-months of international and 290 person-months of national inputs) via two contracts: Package A for general project management, and Package C for Water Resources Department (WRD) strengthening and feasibility studies and designs for irrigation scheme rehabilitation and upgrading. As designed, Package A comprised 16 person-months for an international project management specialist and 42 person-months for a national project management specialist. In accordance with a request from WRD, ADB recruited the project management consultants under Package A. Consultants were selected in July 2006 and mobilized in October 2006. The distribution between international and national consultants was revised twice during implementation, resulting in a total of 13.86 person-months international and 67.92 person-months national inputs. By project close, 13.26 person-months international and 67.69 person-months national inputs had been utilized, equating to 95.7% and 99.7%, respectively, of the revised allocation. At appraisal, Package C comprised 76 person-months international and 248 person-months national inputs for a range of expertise. Although advance action for the recruitment of Package C consultants was approved by ADB at appraisal, the limited experience of WRD in contracting consulting services resulted in the recruitment process taking 14 months to complete. However, given the amount of time between appraisal and project start-up, the delay did not materially affect implementation. The contract for Package C consultants was signed in July 2006 and the team leader mobilized on 8 September 2006, a little over 2 months after loan effectiveness. Several revisions to the allocation of person-months between and within international and national consulting services were made during implementation. This resulted in a reduction in international person-months to 60.10 and an increase in national person-months to 383.69. At project close, 57.62 person-months international and 381.95 person-months national had been utilized, amounting to 95.9% and 99.5%, respectively, of the revised amounts.

2. Table A8.1 summarizes proposed versus actual consulting service inputs. Table A8.2 provides a breakdown of consulting services by expertise and the reallocation of person-months following each of the three variation orders

Appendix 8 61

Table A8.1: Summary of Proposed and Actual Inputs of Consulting Services (person-months)

Proposeda Actual

Expertise Intl Natl Total Intl Natl Total Package A

b

Project management specialist 16.00 42.00 58.00 13.26 67.69 80.95 Package C

c

Technical team leader 36.00 36.00 32.48 32.48 Deputy team leader 42.00 42.00 43.29 43.29 Irrigation design specialist 16.00 54.00 70.00 12.30 57.32 69.62 Hydrologist 4.00 12.00 16.00 3.97 30.90 34.87 Dam engineer/Geotechnical specialist 4.00 20.00 24.00 1.07 28.28 29.35 Construction management/Quality control specialist 30.00 30.00 66.36 66.36 Economist 4.00 20.00 24.00 1.00 16.00 17.00 Environmental impact assessment specialist 4.00 18.00 22.00 1.03 31.77 32.80 Capacity development specialist 8.00 12.00 20.00 5.77 25.83 31.60 Social assessment/Vulnerable persons specialist 16.00 16.00 37.50 37.50 Accounting/Procurement specialist 24.00 24.00 44.70 44.70 Subtotal Package C 76.00 248.00 324.00 57.62 381.95 439.57 Total Packages A and C 92.00 290.00 382.00 70.88 449.64 520.52 Intl = international, Natl = national. a As indicated in Appendix 10 of the report and recommendation of the President.

b Package A = General project management.

c Package C = Participatory irrigation management and agriculture services.

Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

62 Appendix 8

Table 8.2: Proposed and Actual Inputs of Consulting Services Following Revisions during Implementation

(person-months)

Revisions by

Variation Order (VO)

Package/Expertise Pro-

posed VO 1 VO 2 VO 3 Revised Actual

Use Used (%)

Package Aa

Intl Project management specialist 16.00 (2.14) 0.00 0.00 13.86 13.26 95.7

Natl Project management specialist 42.00 16.15 9.77 0.00 67.92 67.69 99.7 Total Package A 58.00 14.01 9.77 0.00 81.78 80.95 99.0

Package C

b

International

Technical team leader 36.00 (2.00) (0.50) 1.00 34.50 32.48 94.1

Irrigation design specialist 16.00 0.00 (3.70) (0.04) 12.26 12.30 100.3

Hydrologist 4.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 4.47 3.97 88.8

Dam engineer/Geotechnical specialist 4.00 (1.00) (2.00) 1.00 1.07 107.0

Economist 4.00 0.00 (2.00) 2.00 1.00 50.0 Environmental impact assessment specialist 4.00 (1.00) (2.00) 1.00 1.03 103.0

Capacity development specialist 8.00 0.00 (2.20) (0.03) 5.77 5.77 100.0

Subtotal International 76.00 (4.00) (11.93) 0.93 61.00 57.62 94.5

National

Deputy team leader 42.00 0.00 0.00 2.69 44.69 43.29 96.9

Irrigation design specialist (1) 54.00 (28.00) 4.07 (0.17) 29.90 29.90 100.0

Irrigation design specialist (2) 0.00 16.00 12.00 (0.58) 27.42 27.42 100.0

Hydrologist 12.00 0.00 8.53 (1.63) 18.90 30.90 163.5

Dam engineer/Geotechnical specialist 20.00 0.00 9.27 (0.99) 28.28 28.28 100.0 Construction management/Quality control specialist (1) 30.00 0.00 3.90 23.50 57.40 57.76 100.6 Construction management/Quality control specialist (2) 0.00 9.00 9.00 8.60 95.6

Economist 20.00 0.00 (5.77) (1.23) 13.00 16.00 123.1 Environmental impact assessment specialist 18.00 0.00 5.61 3.16 26.77 31.77 118.7

Capacity development specialist 12.00 6.00 8.29 (0.46) 25.83 25.83 100.0 Social assessment/Vulnerable persons specialist 16.00 5.00 12.14 4.36 37.50 37.50 100.0

Accounting/Procurement specialist 24.00 0.00 6.03 14.97 45.00 44.70 99.3 Subtotal National 248.00 (1.00) 64.07 52.62 363.69 381.95 105.0 Total Package C 324.00 (5.00) 52.14 53.55 424.69 439.57 103.5 Total Packages A and C 382.00 9.01 61.91 53.55 506.47 520.52 102.8 Intl = international, Natl = national. a Package A = General project management.

b Package C = Participatory irrigation management and agriculture services.

Source: Asian Development Bank and Project Management Unit estimates.

Appendix 9 63

CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER LOAN 2159-IND

A. Contract Awards

1. The following table provides details of contracts awarded under Loan 2159-IND.

Table A2: Contracts Awarded under Loan 2159-IND

Expenditure Categorya

Number of Contracts Value ($)

Contracts with Zero

Disbursement 1. Civil Works 1a. Irrigation rehabilitation R&U contractors 152 22,682,904 3 R&U (WUAs) 106 412,010 28 Field channels (WUAs) 61 332,401 9 Subtotal (R&U) 319 23,427,315 40 Topographic surveys 3 7,893 Subtotal (1a) 322 23,435,208 40 1b. Training centers 6 1,182,462

Subtotal (1) 328 24,617,670 40 2. Vehicles and Equipment 2a. Vehicles and motorcycles 1 95,079 2b. Equipment and furniture 24 1,136,388 2 Subtotal (2) 25 1,231,467 2 3. Consulting Services 3 3,209,243 1 4. WUA Support and Facilities

b

NGO and other contracts 8 2,424,688 WUA grants 22 108,744 1 Subtotal (4) 30 2,533,432 1 5. Training, Workshops, and Study Tours 1 14,163 6. Surveys, Studies, and Awareness Campaign 2 83,384 7. Diversified Cropping Program 0 0 8. Supervision and Implementation 8a. Infrastructure maintenance 0 0 8b. Overheads and operational cost 2 754,580 Subtotal (8) 2 754,580 Total 391 32,443,938 44 NGO = nongovernment organization, R&U = rehabilitation and upgrading, WUA = water users association. Notes: 1. Figures may not sum due to rounding. 2. Total disbursement shown against contracts differs from the total disbursement (Appendix 6) due to rounding. Disbursements are recorded to two decimal places, while disbursements recorded against contracts are entered into the system in units (rounded to the nearest dollar). a Expenditure categories and numbering as specified in the loan agreement.

b This category also includes expenditure under Diversified Cropping Program, which was recorded under

Category 4 (referred to as “NGO Packages” by the project management unit) when making withdrawal applications.

Source: Asian Development Bank Loan Financial Information System.

64 Appendix 9

B. Review of Procurement

2. Civil works, vehicles, and equipment were to be procured following Asian Development Bank (ADB) guidelines by international competitive bidding if the cost exceeded $3,000,000, otherwise by national competitive bidding. In practice, all procurement was in packages sufficiently small to allow national competitive bidding procedures or direct purchase (in the case of vehicles and equipment in packages of less than $100,000).

3. For civil works, the tendering process was slower than expected during the project’s initial phase. It had been initially assumed that the tender process would require approximately 6 months, but it actually took between 9 and 12 months. Delays in tendering were considered to be beyond the power of the project management unit or Water Resources Department. For instance, (i) contractors failed to fully understand ADB’s procurement guidelines, which differed from the state procurement rules with which contractors were familiar; (ii) contractors were slow to respond on contract issues; and (iii) tendering was suspended during election campaigns. The ADB mission of May–June 2008 therefore recommended that the design process be expedited so there would be more time available for the tendering process. This resulted in an improvement in the speed of design, and thus tendering could start earlier than originally planned. The ADB mission of July 2009 also urged the project management unit to try to improve the response from contractors. Improvements introduced by the Package C consultants’ procurement specialist included the following: (i) experience required from the potential bidders was broadened to that with civil works in general and not only irrigation civil works; (ii) contractors’ technical personnel should not only be degree holders but also have experience in irrigation; and (iii) some technical selection criteria were eliminated, such as experience in hard rock excavation when the works concerned did not require such experience. In addition, the procurement specialist was more proactive in following up progress with Water Resources Department executive engineers. Thereafter, the rate of contract awards substantially improved. In December 2009, the number of awarded contracts (137) exceeded the planned number (122).

4. Much of the rehabilitation and upgrading (R&U) work was for small repair works scattered over large areas. Much of it was also labor intensive, thus requiring more time than works carried out by machine. Therefore, larger, more efficient contractors were not interested in the R&U works. Contractors that were engaged often failed to complete minor works. The nature of R&U work was such that no field construction work could be performed from July to December (i.e., from the start of the monsoon to the end of harvesting). It is during this time that tendering should be undertaken in order to maximize the time available for contractors to have access and to undertake work.

5. With respect to vehicles and equipment, this item must be entered into the state budget and approved by the state assembly. That body meets only three times a year, and this resulted in delays in procuring these items.

Appendix 10 65

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

1. Economic analysis has been undertaken to reassess the viability of the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project upon completion and to draw a comparison with the estimate made at appraisal. Viability is assessed on the basis of comparing with- and without-project costs and benefits. In the absence of an effective project performance monitoring system, with-project data have been derived from focus group discussions (FGDs) involving farmers and water users association (WUA) representatives undertaken during the project completion review as well as estimates from the final report of TA 4573.1 Data for without-project estimates of crop yields, cropping patterns, etc. have been derived from the analysis undertaken at appraisal2 supplemented by estimates made at the state level by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India.3

B. Project Completion Review Methodology

2. The economic analysis compares incremental costs and benefits resulting from investment into scheme rehabilitation and upgrading (R&U) to derive an economic internal rate of return (EIRR) for the project. Crop budgets have been prepared to estimate with-project (after R&U) and without-project crop gross margins per hectare (ha). 4 Crop budgets have been estimated from data on physical inputs and outputs, prevailing financial prices (at end-2014), and related variables derived from FGDs. FGDs were also used to obtain estimates of farm-level cropping intensity and cropping patterns in the with-project scenario. Financial crop budgets have been converted to economic values to determine with- and without-project economic crop gross margins per ha. Economic gross margins per ha have been applied to the with- and without-project cropping patterns for the project area as a whole (on the basis of crops cultivated and the area under each crop) to derive with- and without-project total gross margins. Net incremental benefits have been derived by subtracting total without-project gross margins from total with-project gross margins. Net incremental benefits and incremental investment and operation and maintenance costs of the project in economic terms have been combined to derive a cash flow from which the EIRR is estimated.

1 The scope of the project completion review precluded a detailed farm survey. The data obtained through FGDs

undertaken at five schemes have, however, been supplemented by information obtained from a household survey at eight schemes undertaken for a separate socioeconomic assessment of the project during November–December 2014 (ADB. 2014. TA-8191 REG: Enhancing Gender Equality Results in South Asia Developing Member Countries [Phase 2] [Subproject 3]. Manila.). FGD data were supplemented by estimates from the final report of TA 4573 (ADB, 2013. Water Users Association Empowerment for Improved Irrigation Management in Chhattisgarh. Technical Assistance Consultants Final Report. Manila). Nonetheless, all estimates are considered to be indicative and may not be statistically rigorous. Given the constraints of time and resources facing the completion review, these data represent the best available alternative to a full farm survey.

2 Given the lapse of time between pre-project crop seasons and the completion review, without-project crop and

farm data that might be obtained from FGDs were considered to be less reliable than those available from appraisal documents and government sources. For the project-wide cropping pattern, appraisal estimates for the project area as a whole have been used. Appraisal estimates are derived from the final report of the project preparation technical assistance (ADB. 2003. Preparation of the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project, TA4216-IND. Manila [approved November 2003 in the amount of $900,000]).

3 Directorate of Economics and Statistics. 2015. Cost of Cultivation/Production & Related Data.

http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Cost_of_Cultivation.htm. Data are provided for a selection of crops and years between 2004 and 2012.

4 Crop budgets are presented in supplementary tables at the end of this appendix.

66 Appendix 10

3. The project provided two levels of support at rehabilitated irrigation schemes. The intensive intervention program (IIP) provided comprehensive training and advice on irrigation management, crop cultivation, marketing, etc. This resulted in significant gains in crop yields and cropping intensity and greater crop diversification. The IIP was piloted in 7 schemes in 2007 covering 11,000 ha. This was extended during implementation until the IIP covered 78 schemes encompassing 115,871 ha. This coverage was equal to 66.6% of the total area of 173,984 ha within the 144 schemes under the project. In non-IIP schemes, support was less intense and the results achieved correspondingly less significant. The economic analysis uses the phasing of the development of IIP areas over the project period in the economic cash flow and relevant economic gross margins for crops cultivated in IIP schemes. Project documents provide little information in relation to the benefits achieved on non-IIP schemes. It was also not possible to undertake FGDs at non-IIP schemes during the project completion review. As such, it has not been possible to quantify the benefits of increased yields, cropping intensity, and crop diversification that have occurred in these areas. They are therefore entirely omitted from the estimate of project benefits. Given that non-IIP areas represent a significant proportion of the entire area rehabilitated and that some yield benefits will have resulted from project-financed training and replication of improved practices by farmers in non-IIP schemes, the EIRR of the project can be considered as conservative.

4. The economic analysis assumes that in the without-project situation there would have been a continuation of the situation prevailing before the project in which irrigation was not fully effective. The assumption that the pre-project situation reflects the future, without-project situation underestimates potential incremental benefits insofar as in recent years there has been a decline in the area irrigated. This may be expected to continue, but the rate of future decline is difficult to predict. As such, it has been assumed to be constant in the analysis, thus resulting in a more conservative EIRR. During the first year of the project (2007) no R&U activity was undertaken. With-project total gross margins for this year are therefore assumed to be the same as without-project gross margins.

5. The specific parameters of the methodology include the following: (i) Use of the domestic price numeraire (based on domestic currency at the

domestic price level). (ii) Constant end-2014 prices with the Indian rupee (Re) as the unit of account. (iii) A standard conversion factor of 0.90, and a corresponding shadow exchange

rate factor of 1.11. (iv) A shadow wage rate factor for unskilled labor of 0.75, reflecting the level of

unemployment and underemployment in the project area. (v) The economic opportunity cost of capital against which economic viability is

judged is assumed to be 12%. (vi) Thirty years of cash flows are assumed in determining the EIRR. (vii) Financial investment and operation and maintenance cost estimates have been

disaggregated into foreign and domestic costs and tax and duty components. Economic costs have been estimated by (a) valuing foreign costs by multiplying their financial cost by the shadow exchange rate factor to convert them into the domestic price level, (b) assuming the economic value of domestic cost components is equal to their financial cost, and (c) eliminating taxes and duties as transfer payments.

(viii) The economic prices of tradable outputs (rice, wheat, and maize) and inputs (fertilizers) are based on export and import parity prices estimated on the basis of

Appendix 10 67

prevailing World Bank commodity price forecasts.5 All other project outputs and inputs are assumed to be nontraded and their economic values equal to their financial market prices.

C. Benefit Estimates

6. Three main sources of benefit are considered in the analysis: increase in cropping intensity in both kharif and rabi seasons,6 increase in crop yields in both kharif and rabi seasons, and crop diversification in the rabi season achieved as a result of irrigation scheme R&U. Crop diversification in the kharif season is also possible, but there was little evidence of it in FGDs. Farmers prefer to continue in cultivating rice both for reasons of household food security and guaranteed market opportunities through government procurement. This has not been factored into the analysis.

1. Cropping Intensity and Cropping Pattern

7. A key benefit of the project was expansion in the area that could be irrigated following scheme R&U. Estimates used in the economic analysis at appraisal were based on R&U of around 200,000 ha, of which only 40% was actually irrigated. At that time, only 10% of the area was cultivated during the rabi season. Since the with-project area covered by IIP schemes used in with-project estimates was 115,871 ha, the without-project area has been reduced pro rata to reach this total area in both scenarios. On this basis, rabi season crops (wheat, oilseeds, pulses, and vegetables) are assumed to have covered 11,587 ha, making a total area for both seasons of 127,458 ha. That is equal to a cropping intensity of 110% (both irrigated and rainfed). This is detailed in Table A10.1. The cultivable command area following R&U and the area irrigated in the kharif season in IIP schemes following R&U was 115,871 ha. The final report of TA 4573 indicates that based on an analysis of cropping patterns for a sample of 50 schemes in the 2012–2013 rabi season (the final season before project close) the total area cultivated was 53,388 ha. The report also indicates, however, that cultivation of this area was dependent upon three sources of water: residual moisture, tank water, and other sources (including groundwater). Although the availability of residual moisture and groundwater may have increased as a result of improved irrigation management following scheme R&U and the IIP, it is not possible to estimate what impact this may have had in terms of crop yields and cropping patterns. Only those areas irrigated in the rabi season attributed to tank water (which results from both increased storage capacity and improved water saving technologies and practices) have therefore been included into the economic analysis. This area was 12,928 ha, equal to 24.2% of the total area cultivated in the rabi season in the sample of 50 schemes and 12.8% of the total command area of the 50 schemes (101,312 ha). Assuming the same percentage across the whole of the project area of 115,871 ha, this comes to an estimated rabi season area of 14,786 ha.

8. FGDs indicate that there is virtually no diversification in the kharif season away from the cultivation of rice, which is the staple food of farm households in the project area. The 2012–2013 analysis of 50 schemes indicated that of the total area of 53,388 ha cultivated in the rabi season, 50,639 ha (95%) was in non-rice crops, and 2,749 ha in rice. FGDs also suggested limited diversification in the rabi season at schemes visited during the project completion review

5 World Bank. 2014. Commodity Price Forecasts October 2014. (Pink Sheets). Washington, DC. Parity price

estimates are presented in supplementary tables at the end of this appendix. 6 The kharif (monsoon) season generally runs from July to October and the rabi (dry) season from November to

March.

68 Appendix 10

both before and after scheme R&U, compared with the larger number of rabi season crops reported at appraisal and expected following scheme R&U. For the purpose of the economic analysis, three crops (wheat, maize, and groundnuts) as reported during FGDs have been used as a proxy for rabi season cropping in both without- and with-project scenarios (Table A10.1).

Table A10.1: Without and With-Project Cropping Patterns

Season and Crop Without Project With-Project (IIP Areas) Kharif

Rice (irrigated) 46,348 115,871 Rice (rainfed) 69,523

Total (kharif) 115,871 115,871 Rabi

Wheat 7,242 1,848 Maize 4,345 9,241 Groundnut 0 3,697

Total (rabi) 11,587 14,786 Total (kharif plus rabi) 127,458 130,657

Cropping intensity (%) 110 113 IIP = intensive intervention program. Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding. Sources: Appraisal estimates, project completion review farmer focus group discussions, and TA 4573 consultant reports.

2. Crop Yields

9. The IIP had a significant impact on crop yields, particularly of rice. It was piloted during 2007 in 7 schemes covering 11,000 ha and expanded to 25 schemes and 25,000 ha in 2008. Already in the first year there was a 30% increase in the yield of rice from the project baseline estimate of 2.80 tons per ha to 3.62 tons per ha. In 2008 and 2009, rice yields in the 25 pilot schemes were reported at 4.01 tons per ha and 5.00 tons per ha, respectively. By the final kharif season of the project period, rice yield had reached 5.91 tons per ha based on the TA 4573 sample of 50 schemes covering 101,312 ha.7 Yields for each of the crops cultivated in both without- and with-project scenarios are in Table A10.2.

10. The with-project yield estimates are based on yields achieved after completion of the IIP in each scheme. It is assumed for purposes of the economic analysis that these yields are attained 1 year after completing scheme R&U. This may overestimate the speed of yield build-up compared with that reported by TA 4573. With no indication as to the level of cropping that took place during scheme R&U, however, the economic analysis assumes there are no benefits during the period of R&U, and that compensates for the faster rate of yield build-up assumed.

7 Yield estimates were based on a sample of 1,071 (25 square meter) crop cuts undertaken across 50 schemes

covering 101,312 ha at the end of the 2012 kharif season and certified by the Water Resources Department, and water users’ associations.

Appendix 10 69

Table A10.2: Without and With-Project Crop Yields

Crop Without-Project With-Project (IIP Areas) Rice (kharif) 2.43 5.91 Rice (rabi) 1.80 n/a Wheat 1.06 1.36 Maize 1.01 4.63 Groundnut n/a 1.73 IIP = intensive intervention program, n/a = not applicable (not cultivated in the respective scenario). Sources: Appraisal estimates, project completion review farmer focus group discussions, and TA 4573 consultant reports.

11. The IIP also introduced the system of rice intensification (SRI) over a limited area but with significant success. SRI was introduced during 2010 in 11 schemes covering 29 ha and 52 farmers in 11 WUAs. By the 2012 kharif season, SRI had been implemented on more than 4,285 ha by 5,378 farmers in 82 WUAs across 49 schemes. TA 4573 consultants report that SRI yield reached 11.28 tons per ha in 2011. Since the coverage of SRI under the project was only 3.7% of the total area encompassed by the IIP, the benefits of SRI have not been included into the economic analysis. The scope for a widespread improvement in yields through expansion of SRI is nevertheless clear.

D. Cost Estimates

12. The estimate of actual project investment costs is derived from annual disbursements recorded in the ADB Loan Financial Information System, estimates of government expenditures provided by the project management unit (PMU), and an estimate of the costs financed by farmers (through WUAs) for the construction of field channels. Both Loan Financial Information System and PMU sources provide cost figures according to expenditure categories (e.g., civil works, equipment, research extension contracts, training). Annual costs have been updated to obtain constant end-2014 values using the implicit Indian gross domestic product deflator.8

13. Irrigation scheme operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were estimated at appraisal to average Rs638 per ha, based on prevailing Water Resources Department estimates for administration and O&M costs. On the basis of estimated capital costs, incremental O&M costs were equal to 6% of R&U investment costs. The prevailing (2014) water charges levied by the Water Resources Department range from Rs200 per ha to Rs741 per ha for kharif crops and from Rs200 per ha to Rs494 per ha for rabi crops. Based on the estimated project cropping pattern in Table A10.1, annual water charges amount to around Rs24 million, equal to approximately $400,000. This equates to around 1.3% of the total cost of scheme R&U under the project and is significantly below the level considered necessary to adequately maintain irrigation infrastructure. To achieve effective scheme maintenance, there is a need to increase the current level of water charges which have been in effect since June 1999. For the purpose of the project completion review economic analysis, incremental O&M charges have been assumed at the rate of 5% of the cumulative cost of R&U investment, which amounts to $30.81 million. Annual incremental O&M costs are, therefore, assumed to be $1.16 million. On the assumptions that this level of expenditure is maintained and that no catastrophic events occur, it has been assumed that no major periodic civil works will be required.

8 ADB. 2014. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2014. Manila. India country tables.

70 Appendix 10

14. Because PMU data do not provide actual government-financed costs on an annual basis, the phasing of total project costs is assumed to reflect that of ADB disbursements under each expenditure category. Inasmuch as ADB financing accounts for 79% of total project costs overall, this is not considered significantly to distort the phasing of actual project costs. In the case of irrigation scheme R&U, which accounts for 75% of total project costs and of which ADB financing accounts for 76%, the phasing of costs is expected to have been similar for all sources of funds.

E. Economic Analysis

15. The economic analysis indicates that the project is viable, with an EIRR of 23.8%.9 This is similar to the appraisal estimate of 22.1%. In spite of rehabilitating a smaller area than projected at appraisal (200,000 ha compared with 115,871 ha under the IIP used in the analysis), the EIRR reflects the fact that actual project cost was significantly lower than the estimated cost (at $42.99 million and $66.61 million, respectively). It also reflects the considerable increase in rice yield achieved as a result of the IIP.

16. Sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to assess the impact on project viability of possible adverse movements in key variables used and assumptions made in the analysis. Details of the analysis are in Table A10.3.

Table A10.3: Results of Economic and Sensitivity Analyses

Item Switching Value

a EIRR (%)

Base Case 23.8 Changes in Benefits and Costs

Benefits (net incremental benefits) 81 12.0 Investment costs 560 12.0 Operation and maintenance costs 1,743 12.0

Reduced international price of riceb 21.7

Reduced Project Life (cash flow period) 25 years 23.7 20 years 23.1

One-year delay in attainment of improved yieldsc 18.0

EIRR = economic internal rate of return. a Switching values indicate the percentage by which the variable can change before the EIRR is reduced to the level

of the economic opportunity cost of capital (12%) and at which the economic net present value equals zero. b Based on the long-term (2025) international price of rice of $380 per ton rather than the 2014 figure of $425 per ton

used in the analysis. c Assumes that full yield increase is achieved 2 years after completion of scheme R&U and no benefits accrue

during the period of R&U. Source: Project completion review estimates.

17. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the project is robust with respect to adverse changes in benefits and costs. Benefits related to crop areas, yields, or prices could fall by 81% before the EIRR fell to 12%, the economic opportunity cost of capital. Project benefits are heavily dependent on the cultivation of rice, but it would still require a drop of around 53% in net incremental benefits derived from rice cultivation to reduce the EIRR to 12%. Such a fall is considered unlikely to result from a decline in yields unless there is significant deterioration in

9 The economic cash flows are shown in Table A10.5 at the end of the appendix.

Appendix 10 71

scheme infrastructure and/or farmers slowly revert to traditional cultivation methods and abandon practices adopted under the IIP. There is, however, some concern relating to long-term decline in the international price of rice, as reported in World Bank commodity price projections (footnote 5). Using the long-term (2025) projected international price of rice of $380 per ton rather than the 2014 price of $425 per ton nevertheless only reduces the EIRR to 21.7%.

18. Adverse movements in investment and O&M costs have a negligible effect on the project EIRR. If, for instance, as a result of inadequate scheme maintenance, benefits were to accrue over a reduced period rather than the 30 years assumed, the EIRR would decline to 23.7% for a 25-year period and 23.1% for a 20-year period. This assumes there would be no benefit at all beyond these periods whereas some benefits are expected to continue to accrue, albeit from possibly reduced crop yields, cultivated areas, etc. If the attainment of increased crop yields was delayed by a year (full crop yields being reached 2 years after R&U), the EIRR would remain above the economic opportunity cost of capital at 18.0%. The economic model assumes, however, that during this additional period of delay, no benefits would accrue from crop cultivation. This is somewhat unrealistic, as some cultivation is expected to have taken place during the R&U period.

F. Farm Income Analysis

19. A farm income analysis has been undertaken for a hypothetical 1.7 ha farm, which was estimated at appraisal to be the average farm size across the project area. The cropping pattern assumed for the project area as a whole has been applied to this farm size together with financial crop gross margins to estimate without- and with-project total gross margins and incremental net farm income. Details are in Table A10.4.

72 Appendix 10

Table A10.4: Farm Income Analysis for an Average 1.7 ha Farm

Without Project With Project

Area (ha)

Margin (Rs per ha)

Net Income

(Rs) Area (ha)

Margin (Rs per ha)

Net Income

(Rs)

Income from Crops (gross)

Rice-kharif(rainfed) 0.68 13,919.20 9,465.06 Rice-kharif(irrigated-supplementary) 1.02 18,722.00 19,096.44 1.70 36,829.00 62,609.30

Wheat-rabi 0.11 (5,446.00) (578.68) 0.03 (3,421.00) (92.77)

Maize-rabi 0.06 (8,929.00) (569.20) 0.14 20,420.00 2,768.60

Groundnut-rabi 0.05 9,601.00 520.69

Total 1.87

27,413.62 1.92

65,805.83

Other Indicators Value Value Value Value

Cropping Intensity (%) 110 113

Net Farm Income (Rs) 27,413.62 65,805.83

Net Farm Income (Rs per ha) 16,125.66 38,709.31

Net Farm Income ($) 442.16 1,061.38

Net Farm Income ($ per ha) 260.09 624.34

Labor (days) 114 416

Family labor (%) 50 20 Net Farm Income (Rs per family labor day) 480.94 774.19 Net Farm Income ($ per family labor day) 7.76 12.49 Source: Project completion review estimates.

20. Farm income rose significantly as a result of the average farm’s adopting IIP practices—from an estimated Rs27,415 ($440) to Rs65,806 ($1,061). This 140% increase significantly exceeds the 60% gain expected at appraisal. The with-project requirement for labor is estimated to be significantly higher than that in the without-project scenario. Given the availability of family labor, the contribution of family labor to the total supply of labor is expected to fall from an estimated 50% in the without-project scenario to 20% in the with-project scenario, equivalent to 57 days and 83 days respectively. As a result, net farm income per family labor-day increased from Rs481 ($7.76) to Rs774 ($12.49).

According to the Planning Commission of India, the poverty line income for a family of five in mid-2013 was Rs4,080 per month or Rs48,960 per year.10 Planning Commission data for 2011–201211 indicate that the average rural poverty line per capita income in Chhattisgarh was below the national average, at Rs738 compared with Rs816, respectively. The poverty count was a significantly higher 44.6% compared with the national average of 25.7%. The farm income analysis shows that the with-project net income from crop cultivation of Rs65,806 has made a major contribution to the income of an average farm in relation to the poverty line level of income. Combined with other non-crop and off-farm income, incremental crop cultivation income from project-financed capacity building through the IIP will have contributed significantly to reducing poverty in the project area. 10

Planning Commission quoted in the Economic Times of India: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-24/news/40771743_1_poverty-line-tendulkar-methodology-poverty-rates.

11 Planning Commission quoted in Reserve Bank of India publication:

http://rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?Id=15952.

Appendix 10 73

Table A10.5: Project Economic Cash Flows ($ million)

Item 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2026 2036

Incremental Crop Gross Margins

Crop

Rice - kharif (rainfed) 0.00 (12.60) (12.60) (12.60) (12.60) (12.60) (12.60) (12.60) (12.60) (12.60) (12.60) (12.60)

Rice - kharif (irrigated - supplementary) 0.00 (25.11) (23.92) 2.85 9.98 29.02 60.54 60.54 60.54 60.54 60.54 60.54

Wheat - rabi 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.48 0.47 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

Maize - rabi 0.00 0.91 0.91 1.04 1.08 1.17 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33

Groundnut - rabi 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.22 0.35 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55

Total 0.00 (36.29) (35.09) (8.05) (0.84) 18.38 50.22 50.22 50.22 50.22 50.22 50.22

Costs

Investment

1. Civil Works

a. Irrigation rehabilitation 0.00 1.84 6.10 9.06 4.01 1.72 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

b. Training centers 0.00 0.33 0.38 0.21 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal 0.00 2.17 6.48 9.27 4.10 1.82 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2. Vehicles and Equipment

a. Vehicles and motorcycles 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

b. Equipment and furniture 0.21 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal 0.27 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Consulting services 0.65 0.75 0.53 0.27 0.19 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. WUA support and facilities 0.00 0.10 0.12 0.32 0.63 0.75 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5. Training, workshops and study tours 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6. Surveys, studies and awareness campaign 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7. Diversified cropping program 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8. Supervision and Implementation

a. Infrastructure maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

b. Overheads and operational cost 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.39 0.24 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.39 0.24 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9. Financing charges 0.00 0.11 0.38 0.56 0.25 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Investment Cost 32.79 0.99 3.29 7.62 10.55 5.69 3.12 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Annual operation and maintenance

Irrigation schemes at 5.0% of cumulative investment cost 0.00 0.09 0.40 0.85 1.05 1.14 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16

Training centers at 2.5% of cumulative investment cost 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

0.00 0.10 0.41 0.87 1.08 1.16 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19

Total 0.99 3.39 8.04 11.43 6.76 4.28 2.72 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19

Net Cash Flow (0.99) (39.68) (43.13) (19.48) (7.61) 14.10 47.50 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03 49.03

EIRR (%) - 20 years 23.1

EIRR (%) - 25 years 23.7

EIRR (%) - 30 years 23.8

74 Appendix 10

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

Unit Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs) Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

OutputsMain product: Rice - kharif (rainfed) ton 1.80 13,600.00 24,480.00 14,806.18 26,651.12 13,600.00 - 14,806.18 - Byproduct: 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 -

Total income 24,480.00 26,651.12 - -

InputsRice - kharif (rainfed) seed kg 160.00 20.00 3,200.00 20.00 3,200.00 20.00 - 20.00 -

Urea kg 20.00 7.00 140.00 18.58 371.68 7.00 - 18.58 - DAP kg 12.00 22.40 268.80 38.95 467.45 22.40 - 38.95 - MP kg 1.00 17.00 17.00 24.57 24.57 17.00 - 24.57 - Farmyard manure ton 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 - Plant protection sum 270.00 1.00 270.00 1.00 270.00 1.00 - 1.00 - Mechanical power ha - 5,187.00 - 5,187.00 - 5,187.00 - 5,187.00 - Animal power ha 1.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 - 865.00 - Irrigation charges ha 230.00 - 230.00 - 230.00 - 230.00 - Labor day 48.00 100.00 4,800.00 75.00 3,600.00 100.00 - 75.00 -

Other sum 1.00 - - 1.00 - -

Total expenditure 10,560.80 9,798.70 - -

Gross Margin (Rs per ha) 13,919.20 16,852.42 - -

Gross Margin (US$ per ha) 224.50 271.81 - -

Notes:

No cost is imputed for family labor.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A1: IIP Areas. Crop Budget for Rice - kharif (rainfed) (1 ha)

Without Project With Project

Financial Economic Financial Economic

Appendix 10 75

Unit Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs) Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

OutputsMain product: Rice - kharif (irrigated - supplementary) ton 2.43 13,600.00 33,048.00 14,806.18 35,979.01 5.91 13,600.00 80,376.00 14,806.18 87,504.50Byproduct: 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 -

Total income 33,048.00 35,979.01 80,376.00 87,504.50

InputsRice - kharif (irrigated - supplementary) seed kg 160.00 20.00 3,200.00 20.00 3,200.00 110.00 20.00 2,200.00 20.00 2,200.00Urea kg 50.00 7.00 350.00 18.58 929.20 145.00 7.00 1,015.00 18.58 2,694.67DAP kg 20.00 22.40 448.00 38.95 779.08 125.00 22.40 2,800.00 38.95 4,869.27MP kg 10.00 17.00 170.00 24.57 245.69 50.00 17.00 850.00 24.57 1,228.44Farmyard manure ton 2.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00

Plant protection sum 163.00 1.00 163.00 1.00 163.00 5,400.00 1.00 5,400.00 1.00 5,400.00Mechanical power ha 5,187.00 - 5,187.00 - 1.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00Animal power ha 1.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 1.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00Irrigation charges ha 1.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 1.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00Labor day 69.00 100.00 6,900.00 75.00 5,175.00 240.00 100.00 24,000.00 75.00 18,000.00Other sum 1.00 - - 1.00 - -

Total expenditure 14,326.00 13,586.97 43,547.00 41,674.38

Gross Margin (Rs per ha) 18,722.00 22,392.04 36,829.00 45,830.12

Gross Margin (US$ per ha) 301.97 361.16 594.02 739.20

Notes:

No cost is imputed for family labor.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A2: IIP Areas. Crop Budget for Rice - kharif (irrigated - supplementary) (1 ha)

Without Project With Project

Financial Economic Financial Economic

76 Appendix 10

Unit Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs) Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)Outputs

Main product: Wheat - rabi ton 1.06 16,000.00 16,976.00 16,560.40 17,570.59 1.36 16,000.00 21,760.00 16,560.40 22,522.15Byproduct: 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 -

Total income 16,976.00 17,570.59 21,760.00 22,522.15

InputsWheat - rabi seed kg 160.00 50.00 8,000.00 50.00 8,000.00 145.00 50.00 7,250.00 50.00 7,250.00Urea kg 40.00 7.00 280.00 18.58 743.36 125.00 7.00 875.00 18.58 2,322.99

DAP kg 25.00 22.40 560.00 38.95 973.85 60.00 22.40 1,344.00 38.95 2,337.25MP kg 15.00 17.00 255.00 24.57 368.53 35.00 17.00 595.00 24.57 859.91Farmyard manure ton 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 - Plant protection sum 245.00 1.00 245.00 1.00 245.00 3,700.00 1.00 3,700.00 1.00 3,700.00

Mechanical power ha 1.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 1.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00Animal power ha 1.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 - 865.00 - Irrigation charges ha 1.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 1.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00Labor day 58.00 100.00 5,800.00 75.00 4,350.00 60.00 100.00 6,000.00 75.00 4,500.00Other sum 1.00 - - 1.00 - -

Total expenditure 22,422.00 21,962.74 25,181.00 26,387.15

Gross Margin (Rs per ha) (5,446.00) (4,392.16) (3,421.00) (3,865.00)

Gross Margin (US$ per ha) (87.84) (70.84) (55.18) (62.34)Notes:

No cost is imputed for family labor.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A3: IIP Areas. Crop Budget for Wheat - rabi (1 ha)

Without Project With ProjectFinancial Economic Financial Economic

Appendix 10 77

Unit Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs) Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)Outputs

Main product: Maize - rabi ton 1.01 15,000.00 15,090.00 10,598.36 10,661.95 4.63 15,000.00 69,450.00 10,598.36 49,070.41Byproduct: 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 -

Total income 15,090.00 10,661.95 69,450.00 49,070.41

InputsMaize - rabi seed kg 30.00 250.00 7,500.00 250.00 7,500.00 20.00 250.00 5,000.00 250.00 5,000.00Urea kg 50.00 7.00 350.00 18.58 929.20 250.00 7.00 1,750.00 18.58 4,645.98

DAP kg 35.00 22.40 784.00 38.95 1,363.40 120.00 22.40 2,688.00 38.95 4,674.50MP kg 20.00 17.00 340.00 24.57 491.38 40.00 17.00 680.00 24.57 982.76Farmyard manure ton 1.60 1,000.00 1,600.00 1,000.00 1,600.00 4.94 1,000.00 4,940.00 1,000.00 4,940.00Plant protection sum 163.00 1.00 163.00 1.00 163.00 16,055.00 1.00 16,055.00 1.00 16,055.00

Mechanical power ha 1.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 1.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00Animal power ha 1.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 - 865.00 - Irrigation charges ha 1.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 1.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00Labor day 70.00 100.00 7,000.00 75.00 5,250.00 60.00 100.00 6,000.00 75.00 4,500.00Other sum 1.00 - - 6,500.00 1.00 6,500.00 -

Total expenditure 24,019.00 23,578.97 49,030.00 46,215.24

Gross Margin (Rs per ha) (8,929.00) (12,917.02) 20,420.00 2,855.17

Gross Margin (US$ per ha) (144.02) (208.34) 329.35 46.05Notes:

No cost is imputed for family labor.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Without Project With ProjectFinancial Economic Financial Economic

Table A10.A4: IIP Areas. Crop Budget for Maize - rabi (1 ha)

78 Appendix 10

Unit Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs) Quantity

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)

Price per

Unit

(Rs)

Income &

Expenditure

(Rs)Outputs

Main product: Groundnut - rabi ton 32,000.00 - 32,000.00 - 1.73 32,000.00 55,328.00 32,000.00 55,328.00Byproduct: 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 -

Total income - - 55,328.00 55,328.00

InputsGroundnut - rabi seed kg 75.00 - 75.00 - 125.00 75.00 9,375.00 75.00 9,375.00Urea kg 7.00 - 18.58 - 60.00 7.00 420.00 18.58 1,115.04

DAP kg 22.40 - 38.95 - 150.00 22.40 3,360.00 38.95 5,843.13MP kg 17.00 - 24.57 - 50.00 17.00 850.00 24.57 1,228.44Farmyard manure ton 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 - 8.00 1,000.00 8,000.00 1,000.00 8,000.00Plant protection sum 1.00 - 1.00 - 4,940.00 1.00 4,940.00 1.00 4,940.00

Mechanical power ha 5,187.00 - 5,187.00 - 1.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00 5,187.00Animal power ha 865.00 - 865.00 - 1.00 865.00 865.00 865.00 865.00Irrigation charges ha 230.00 - 230.00 - 1.00 230.00 230.00 230.00 230.00Labor day 100.00 - 75.00 - 125.00 100.00 12,500.00 75.00 9,375.00Other sum 1.00 - - 1.00 - -

Total expenditure - - 45,727.00 46,158.60

Gross Margin (Rs per ha) - - 9,601.00 9,169.40

Gross Margin (US$ per ha) - - 154.85 147.89Notes:

No cost is imputed for family labor.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Without Project With ProjectFinancial Economic Financial Economic

Table A10.A5: IIP Areas. Crop Budget for Groundnut - rabi (1 ha)

Appendix 10 79

Item % Unit Price

FOB, port of origin a $/ton 425.00

Less: Freight & insurance to India border $/ton (20.00)

FOB, India border $/ton 405.00

Adjusted border price (adjusted by SERF) 1.11 $/ton 450.00

Border price, India border Rs/ton 27,900.00

Less: Quality adjustment for local product (10%) 10.0 Rs/ton (2,790.00)

Border price, India border, local equivalent Rs/ton 25,110.00

Less: Handling charges and storage costs at border, India border (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton (1,255.50)

Less: Transport, loading, unloading and insurance costs to mill/wholesale market (1%) 1.0 Rs/ton (251.10)

Equivalent price at mill/wholesale market Rs/ton 23,603.40

Milling/processing conversion rate - (65%) 65.0 Rs/ton 15,342.21

Less: Farm to market transport and handling b Rs/ton (300.00)

Less: Farm storage, losses and related costs (1%) 1.0 Rs/ton (236.03)

Plus: Value of byproduct (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton 740.31

Export parity farm gate price Rs/ton 14,806.18

Notes:

b. Average distance of 100 km at Rs3.00/ton/km.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A6: Export Parity Price - Rice

a. Rice (Thailand), 5% broken, white rice (WR), , f.o.b. Bangkok. Source: World Bank. October 2014. Commodity Price Data (Pink Sheet) .

Item % Unit Price

FOB, port of origin a $/ton 283.00

Less: Freight & insurance to India border $/ton (20.00)

FOB, India border $/ton 263.00

Adjusted border price (adjusted by SERF) 1.11 $/ton 292.22

Border price, India border Rs/ton 18,117.78

Less: Quality adjustment for local product (0%) - Rs/ton -

Border price, India border, local equivalent Rs/ton 18,117.78

Less: Handling charges and storage costs at border, India border (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton (905.89)

Less: Transport, loading, unloading and insurance costs to mill/wholesale market (1%) 1.0 Rs/ton (181.18)

Equivalent price at mill/wholesale market Rs/ton 17,030.71

Milling/processing conversion rate - (100%) 100.0 Rs/ton 17,030.71

Less: Farm to market transport and handling b Rs/ton (300.00)

Less: Farm storage, losses and related costs (1%) 1.0 Rs/ton (170.31)

Plus: Value of byproduct (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton 828.02

Export parity farm gate price Rs/ton 16,560.40

Notes:

b. Average distance of 100 km at Rs3.00/ton/km.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A7: Export Parity Price - Wheat

a. Wheat (US), no. 1, hard red winter, ordinary protein, export price delivered at the US Gulf port. Source: World Bank. October 2014. Commodity Price

Data (Pink Sheet).

80 Appendix 10

Item % Unit Price

FOB, port of origin a $/ton 190.00

Less: Freight & insurance to India border $/ton (20.00)

FOB, India border $/ton 170.00

Adjusted border price (adjusted by SERF) 1.11 $/ton 188.89

Border price, India border Rs/ton 11,711.11

Less: Quality adjustment for local product (0%) - Rs/ton -

Border price, India border, local equivalent Rs/ton 11,711.11

Less: Handling charges and storage costs at border, India border (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton (585.56)

Less: Transport, loading, unloading and insurance costs to mill/wholesale market (1%) 1.0 Rs/ton (117.11)

Equivalent price at mill/wholesale market Rs/ton 11,008.44

Milling/processing conversion rate - (100%) 100.0 Rs/ton 11,008.44

Less: Farm to market transport and handling b Rs/ton (300.00)

Less: Farm storage, losses and related costs (1%) 1.0 Rs/ton (110.08)

Plus: Value of byproduct (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton 529.92

Export parity farm gate price Rs/ton 10,598.36

Notes:

b. Average distance of 100 km at Rs3.00/ton/km.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A8: Export Parity Price - Maize

a. Maize (US), no. 2, yellow, f.o.b. US Gulf ports. Source: World Bank. October 2014. Commodity Price Data (Pink Sheet).

Item % Unit Price

FOB, port of origin a $/ton 318.00

Less: Freight & insurance to India border $/ton (20.00)

FOB, India border $/ton 298.00

Adjusted border price (adjusted by SERF) 1.11 $/ton 331.11

Border price, India border Rs/ton 20,528.89

Less: Quality adjustment for local product (0%) - Rs/ton -

Border price, India border, local equivalent Rs/ton 20,528.89

Less: Handling charges and storage costs at border, India border (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton (1,026.44)

Less: Transport, loading, unloading and insurance costs to mill/wholesale market (3.5%) 3.5 Rs/ton (718.51)

Equivalent price at mill/wholesale market Rs/ton 18,783.93

Conversion rate (100%) 100.0 Rs/ton 18,783.93

Less: Farm to market transport and handling b Rs/ton (200.00)

Less: Farm storage, losses and related costs (0%) - Rs/ton -

Export parity farm gate price Rs/ton 18,583.93

Notes:

a. Urea, (Black Sea), bulk, spot, f.o.b. Black Sea. Source: World Bank. October 2014. Commodity Price Data (Pink Sheet).

b. Average distance of 100 km at Rs2.00/ton/km.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A9: Export Parity Price - Urea (N 46%)

Appendix 10 81

Item Unit Price

FOB, port of origin a $/ton 295.00

Add: Freight & insurance to India border $/ton 20.00

CIF, India border $/ton 315.00

Adjusted border price (adjusted by SERF) 1.11 $/ton 350.00

Border price, India border Rs/ton 21,700.00

Plus: Handling charges and storage costs at border, India border (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton 1,085.00

Plus: Transport, loading, unloading and insurance costs to market/dealers (2.5%) 2.5 Rs/ton 542.50

Equivalent price delivered to market/dealers Rs/ton 23,327.50

Plus: Dealer costs, handling and margin (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton 1,166.38

Dealer price Rs/ton 24,493.88

Farm to market transport and handling b Rs/ton 75.00

Import parity farm gate price Rs/ton 24,568.88

Notes:

b. Average distance of 25 km at Rs3.00/ton/km.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A10: Import Parity Price - Muriate of potash (MP)

a. Potassium chloride (muriate of potash), standard grade, spot, f.o.b. Vancouver. Source: World Bank. October 2014. Commodity Price Data (Pink

Sheet).

Item Unit Price

FOB, port of origin a $/ton 480.00

Add: Freight & insurance to India border $/ton 20.00

CIF, India border $/ton 500.00

Adjusted border price (adjusted by SERF) 1.11 $/ton 555.56

Border price, India border Rs/ton 34,444.44

Plus: Handling charges and storage costs at border, India border (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton 1,722.22

Plus: Transport, loading, unloading and insurance costs to market/dealers (2.5%) 2.5 Rs/ton 861.11

Equivalent price delivered to market/dealers Rs/ton 37,027.78

Plus: Dealer costs, handling and margin (5%) 5.0 Rs/ton 1,851.39

Dealer price Rs/ton 38,879.17

Farm to market transport and handling b Rs/ton 75.00

Import parity farm gate price Rs/ton 38,954.17

Notes:

a. DAP (diammonium phosphate), standard size, bulk, spot, f.o.b. US Gulf. Source: World Bank. October 2014. Commodity Price Data (Pink Sheet).

b. Average distance of 25 km at Rs3.00/ton/km.

Source: Project completion review estimates

Table A10.A11: Import Parity Price - Diammonium phosphate (DAP)

82 Appendix 11

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. The environmental impacts of the Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project have been assessed on the basis of farmer group discussions (FGDs) in a sample of project schemes as part of a socioeconomic survey of project participants undertaken during November–December 2014.1 Table A11.1 summarizes the results of FGDs in relation to key environmental issues.

Table A11.1: Assessment of Environmental Impacts

Issue Outcome of Focus Group Discussions Changes in scheme hydraulic regime In all sample schemes, water users associations

manage the use and release of water based on the needs of farmers and ensure that farmers at the tail end of schemes receive water for irrigation. This has reduced conflict because the supply of water is based on farmers’ needs. It was reported that in the event of any conflict arising the situation is resolved by mutual agreement. Farmer group discussion (FGD) participants reported that in non-project schemes, stealing of water by breaking of outlets is a problem.

Soil erosion Soil erosion was not reported as a significant problem in any sample scheme except at Khapri, where some soil erosion near the canal was reported. Increased sedimentation was also reported in Khapri by the president of the water users association. The need for desilting was raised by the association.

Loss of nutrients FGDs at six schemes reported that prior to the project continuous flow of water through fields affected soil health and resulted in a loss of nutrients. Following the construction of field channels the flow of water was regulated and nutrient loss reduced.

Fertilizer and chemical use FGDs indicated that before the project farmers applied fertilizers and chemicals without testing soil conditions. Soil testing was introduced under the project, and since that time the use of fertilizers and chemicals corresponds more appropriately to actual needs.

Loss of natural, cultural, and social resources No natural, cultural, or social resources were reported by FGDs to be irreversibly or irretrievably lost as a result of the project.

Noise levels The level of noise during construction activity was reported to be insignificant relative to the perceived benefits of scheme rehabilitation activities.

2. Responses on environmental issues received at sample schemes and villages are summarized in Table A11.2.

1 ADB. 2014. TA-8191 REG: Enhancing Gender Equality Results in South Asia Developing Member Countries

(Phase 2) (Subproject 3). Manila.

Appendix 11 83

Table A11.2: Focus Group Responses on Environmental Issues during the Project

Implementation

Schemea

Sample Village

Change in Hydraulic Regime

Soil Erosion/ Loss of

Nutrients

Appropriate Use of

Fertilizer

Loss of Natural,

Cultural, or Social

Resources

Rise in Noise Levels during Construction

Keshwanala Boriyajhir Yes No Yes No No Ganiyari Ganiyari Yes No Yes No No Amakoni Amakoni Yes No Yes No No Khapri Anda Yes No response Yes No No response Neota Neota Yes No Yes No No response Hatod Balar Yes No Yes No No response Gondli

a Dudhali Yes No response No No No response

Pairi Pairi No No No No No a All schemes were included under the intensive intervention program with the exception of Gondli, which was not an

intensive intervention program scheme, and Pairi, which was not covered by the project.