ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK PCR: INO 21147

-

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

ON THE

NUSA TENGGARA AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(Loan Nos. 952[SF]/953-INO)

IN

INDONESIA

January 1997

4.. . .-. . Mt ift ff ft

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTSCurrency Unit--Rupiah (Rp)

Currency Unit

At Appraisal

At PCR(October 1988)

(October 1996)Rpl.00

$0000583

$0. 000424$1.00

Rpl 715

Rp2,360

The exchange rate of the rupiah is allowed to float under the management of Bank Indonesia. Inthis Report, an exchange rate of $1.00 = Rp2,360 has been used.

ABBREVIATIONS

ADFARBAPPEDABAPPENASDCCDGFCH:DGPARADGRDDGRLRDGTDGWRDDISPENDAEAEIRRENTEOMHLDI DC1SFLDLRMMSFOCRO&MPBBPCMPCRPMEP1KPRASPTGAPWRSR&USCCSSDRTDUWNTWOCWUA

Asian Development FundAppraisal ReportProvincial Development Planning AgencyNational Development Planning AgencyDirect Construction CostDirectorate General of Food Crops and HorticultureDirectorate General of Public Administration and Regional AutonomyDirectorate General of Regional DevelopmentDirectorate General of Reforestation and Land RehabilitationDirectorate General of TaxDirectorate General of Water Resources DevelopmentRegional Revenue Office/Dinas Pendapatan DaerahExecuting AgencyEconomic Internal Rate of ReturnEast Nusa TenggaraEfficient Operation and MaintenanceHigh Level DiversionInterest During ConstructionIrrigation Service FeeLand DevelopmentLoan Review MissionMain Seed FarmOrdinary Capital ResourcesOperation and MaintenanceLand and Building Tax IPajak Bumi dan Ban gunanProject Compietion MissionProject Completion ReportProject Monitoring and EvaluationSmall Irrigation Scheme/Proyek Irigasi KecilProvincial Agricultural ServicesWater User Training Program/Proyek Tata Guna AirProvincial Water Resources Services (replaced PRIS)Rehabilitation & UpgradingSeed Control and Certification ServiceSpecial Drawing RightsTertiary Demonstration UnitWest Nusa TenggaraWater Operations CenterWater User Association

NOTES

(i) The fiscal year (FY) of the Government ends on 31 March(ii) In this Report, $" refers to US dollars.

CONTENTS

Page

BASIC DATA

MAPS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1

EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION

1

A. Project Components 1B. Implementation Arrangements 6C. Project Costs 7D. Project Schedule 8E. Engagement of Consultants and Procurement

8

of Goods and ServicesF. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 9G. Conditions and Covenants 10H. Disbursements 10I. Environmental Impact

10

J. Performance of the Borrower and Executing Agencies 11K. Performance of the Bank

12

Ill. EVALUATION OF INITIAL PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS

12

A. Financial Impact

12B. Economic Performance

12

C. Attainment of Benefits

14

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14

A. Conclusions 14B. Recommendations 16

APPENDIXES

19

II'

BASIC DATAA. Loan Identification

1. Country

Indonesia2. Loan Number

952(SF)/953-1 NO3. Project Title

Nusa Tenggara Agriculture Development Project4. Borrower

Republic of Indonesia5. Executing Agencies

Directorate General of Water Resources DevelopmentDirectorate General of Public Administration and

Regional AutonomyDirectorate General of Food Crops and HorticultureDirectorate General of Reforestation and Land RehabilitationDirectorate General of TaxDirectorate General of Regional Development

ADF OCR6

Amount of Loan SDR18,465,000 $94,000,000Actual SDR18,188,411 $84,539,189

7. PCR Number 410

B. Loan Data

1. Appraisal- Date Started 19 Sep 1988- Date Completed 6 Oct 1988

2

Loan Negotiations- Date Started 24 Nov 1988- Date Completed 26 Nov 1988

3

Date of Board Approval 7 Feb 1989

4

Date of Loan Agreement 1 Mar 1989

5

Date of Loan Effectiveness- In Loan Agreement 1 Jun 1989- Actual 26 May 1989- Number of Extensions None

6. Closing Date- In Loan Agreement 30 Sep 1994- Actual 30 Sep 1995- Number of Extensions One

1ff7. Terms of Loans ADF

- Service Charge 1 percent- Interest Rate- Maturity 35 years- Grace Period 10 years- Commitment Charge

8. Disbursementsa. Dates Initial Disbursement

26 May 1989Effective Date26 May 1989

OCR

Pool-based variable lending25 years5 years0.75 percent per annum

Final Disbursement

Time Interval10 May 1996

7 yearsOriginal Closing Date Time Interval

30 Sep 1994

5 years, 4 monthsb. Amounts

Cateoory Ojipinal Allocation Last Revised Allocation Net Disbursed Amount Undisbursed Balancea b SDR $ SDR $ SDR $ SDR $

Loan 952(SF)-INO01 8,214,000 11494019 10015,000 14,014,195 9,905,169 13,852,889 109,831 161,306

II. 02 8,125,000 11,421,078 7,645,000 10,746356 7,501,679 10,535,863 143,321 210,493III. 03 665,000 972,400 665,000 972,400 647,222 944,337 17,778 28,063IV. 04 140,000 184,364 140,000 164,364 111,557 142,590 28,443 41,774V. 05 1,321,000 1,845,454 0 0 0 0 0 0

99 C 22784 -22,784

Subtotal 18,465,000 25,917,315 18,465,000 25,917,315 18,188,411 25,475,679 276,588 441,636Loan 953-INOl.A. O1A 17,478,000 19,816,564 19,458,395 358,169IC. O1B 566,000 360,000 239,396 120,604ID. O1C 859,000 717,840 656,770 61,070IF. 010 180,000 186,000 143,872 42,128l.A. 02A 1,673,000 956,000 794,873 161,127lB. 02B 206,000 123,370 103,147 20,223IC. 02C 888,000 1,094,000 980,876 113,124lID. 02D 275,000 404,300 334,349 69,951lIE. 02E 282,000 282,000 764,404 -482,404IF. 02F 244,000 280,000 272,242 7,758lilA. 03A 2,562,000 4,067,515 4,064,640 2,875I1LB. 038 168,000 434,880 406,005 28,875IlI.C. 03C 336,000 336,000 237,734 98,266111.0. 030 420,000 316,240 311,867 4,373UI.E. 03E 140,000 231,000 212,767 18,233llI.F. 03F 252,000 252,000 196,872 55,128IV. 04A 76,000 76,000 48,000 28,000V.a.A. 05,4 22,066,000 20,635,885 20,129,572 506,313V.a.C. 05B 1,125,000 974,000 647,256 326,744V.a.D. 05C 5,566,000 4,655,260 2,900,654 1754,606V.a.F. 050 351,000 351,000 215,808 135,192V.b.A. 05E 190,000 969,870 379,651 590,219V.b.C. 05F 73,000 73,000 78,170 -5,170V.b.D. 05G 27,000 27,000 26,904 96V.b.F. 05H 95,000 95,000 10,397 64,603V.c.A. 051 3,859,000 5,029,824 5,010,239 19,585V.c.B. 05J 91,000 311,684 299,546 12,138V.c.C. 05K 1,010,000 1,316,000 1,283,306 32,694V.c.D. 05L 224,000 342,000 328,283 13,717V.c.E. 05M 229,000 391,000 390,448 552V.c.F. 05N 70,000 70,000 63,948 6,052V.d.A. 050 659,000 785,200 726,354 58,847V.d.C. OSP 2,096,000 1,946,000 0 1,946,000V.d.D. 05Q 186,000 316,220 2,044,510 -1,728,290V.d.E. 05R 48,000 48,000 85,372 -37,372V.d.F. 05S 669,000 669,000 44,868 624,133V.e.A. 05T 173,000 36,331 325,434 -289,103V.e.E. 05U 6,483,000 6,316,000 4,599,877 1,716,124VI. 05V 1,240,000 1,171,726 968,640 203,086V.g. 05W 170,000 170,000 53,745 116,256VI. 06A 14,700,000 14,700,000 14,700,000 0VII. 07A 5,995,000 2,666,291 0 2,666,291

Subtotal 94,000,000 94,000,000 84,539,189 9,460,811Total 119917.315 119,917,315 110.014,868 9.902,447

SDR - Special Drawing Rights.a

Per Loan Agreement.Per Loan Ledger.Renrsnt yrhRrtr,p rt difcrprr rticp 1 by r.fp,,ri if ,m,,r$

Appraisal Estimate

Actual

61.3

56.6

87.5

80.8

148.8

137.4

ActualForeign Local Total %

56.6 51.1 107.7 78.0

14.8 10.5 25.3 8.0

41.8 40.6 82.4 60.0

0 29.7 29.7 22.0

56.6 808 137.4 100.0

Oct 1989

Sep 1989Sep 1990

Aug 1992Apr 1990

Jul 1991Apr 1990

Mar 1991Apr 1990

Feb 1992Jan 1990

Mar 1991

iv

ADF

OCR Government10.5

40.6

29.7

13%

50%

37%

8%

30%

22%

9. Local Costs (Bank Financed)- Amounts ($ million)- Percentage of Local Costs- Percentage of Total Costs

C. Project Data

1. Project Cost ($ million)

(a) Foreign Cost(b) Local Cost(c) Total Cost

2. Financing Plan ($ million)

Appraisal EstimateForeign Local Total %

(a) Bank Financing 57.7 119.9-ADF 14.0 11.0 25.0 17.0- OCR 47.3 46.7 94.0 63.0

(b) Government Financing 0 29.8 29.9 20.0Total 61.3 87.5 148.8 100.0

3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ '000)

Appraisal Estimate ActualForeign Local Total Foreign Local Total

(a) Irrigation Development(b) Irrigation Service Fee(c) Agriculture Development(d) Soil and Water Conservation(e) Land Tax Improvement(f) Strengthening of BAPPEDA(g) Taxes and Duties(h) Interest During Construction(i) Refinancing of TA

Total

39,754438

2,1071,883

525803

015,600

19061,300

56,448145

6,1956,3497,0681,295

10,00000

87,500

96,202583

8,3028,2327,5932,098

10,00015600

190148. 800

38,219509

1,4581,303

977613

013,341

14356,563

56,022324

5,0973,5275,155

7499,976

00

80,849

94,241833

6,5554,8306,1331,3629,976

13,341143

137,412

4. Project ScheduleAppraisal Estimate

Actual(a) Date of Fielding Consultants

- Irrigation Development- Irrigation Service Fee- Agriculture Development- Soil and Water Conservation- Land Tax Improvement- Strengthening of BAPPEDA

Jun 1994

Sep 1995Jun 1994

Jun 1995Sep 1993

Sep 1995Sep 1994

Sep 1994Oct 1992

Nov 1993

May 1989

Jun 1989Jul 1991

Mar 1992Oct 1989

Apr 1992Apr 1990

May 1990Oct 1989

Apr 1991Mar 1991

Apr 1993

D. Data on Bank Missions

Name of Mission

Inception MissionReview MissionSpecial Loan AdministrationReview MissionMidterm Review Mission

Review Mission

Review MissionReview Mission

Review Mission

Project Completion Mission2

Date

25 May-31 May 19883 Sep-il Sep 199027 Jan-2 Feb 199123 Sep-2 Oct 19911 Dec-9 Dec 1992

30 Sep-8 Oct 1993

1 Nov-10 Nov 199326 Sep-7 Oct 1994

29 Jun-9 Jul 1995

7 Oct-9 Oct 1996

23 Oct-i Nov 1996

9 Oct-23 Oct 199630 Sep-15 Nov 1996

Total

No. ofPersons

11312

1

12

1

1

1

11

V

(b) Civil Works Contract- First Award- Irrigation Development- Agnculture Development- Soil and Water Conservation- Land Tax Improvement- Strengthening of BAPPEDA

Completion of Work- Irrigation Development- Agriculture Development- Soil and Water Conservation- Land Tax Improvement- Strengthening of BAPPEDA

(c) Start of Operations- Irrigation Development- Rehabilitation and Upgrading- Operation and Maintenance- Agriculture Development- Land Tax Improvement- Irrigation Service Fee

Oct 1989

Sep 1990Oct 1989

Aug 1992Apr 1990

Mar 1992Apr 1990

Sep 1992Apr 1990

Jun 1991

No. of Per-son-days

79181018

9

1124

11

3

10

1543

188

Specialization ofMembers1

Sr. Project EngineerProject EngineerTechnical AssistantsProject EngineerProject Engineer CL),Technical AssistantStaff Consultant/Design

Construction SpecialistProject EngineerProject Engineer (L),Project OfficerProject Engineer

Project ImplementationOfficer (L)

Project ImplementationOfficer CL)

Project OfficerStaff Consultant'

Agricultural Economist

L Mission Leader.2

This report was prepared by a Bank Mission comprising W.H Menninger, Project Implementation Officer, IRM (Mission Leader), PP. Wardani(Project Officer, IRM), and Robin Erickson (Agriculture Economist/Staff Consuttant) The Mission carried out the field work from 30 Septemberto3l October 1996.

CERAM

0Ambon

KEPUI.AUANARU

C09)r')r')CoaI 130000E1 10°00E

1 0°00N

110°00E 130°00E

INDONESIANUSA TENGGARA AGRICULTURAL

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(as completed) 100001N I

Banda Aceh

Medan 0 100 200 300 400 500

0 --

/__Kilometers

SUMATRA /"PULAUNIAS -

7—Manado

j1---.-'-r- 0

o o ,------ )HALMAHERA

0 - Pekanbaru KALIMANTANPadang Pontianak Samarinda SULAWESI

0Jambi BANGKA --

- 0Poso

PUI.AU SI8ERUT 0ralangkaraya0Bengkuiu -

Banjarniasin KendariTanjungkarang 0 BURU

0

JUa arta Ujung Pandang

: JAVAMADURA

Bandung Semarang0-- 0 Surabaya

Mu SUUBAWA FLORESYogyakarta Mataram

Denpasar / 0

/ 0 Duli

WEST NUSA / KupangTENGGARA C)

Project Area EAST NUSA- I fl C,,.-+I.#. ._I n-.-,...-. .;.. TENGGARA

(JI C IzaI II Ik1uancahILu flIO IJflI I IC9 IJII 9rehabilitated under Loan 1241-INO: Flores EmergencyReconstruction Project)

National Capital

0 City/Town

Provincial Boundary

- - - -. International Boundary

(Boundaries not necessarily authoritative)

10000,s

00 I

0 Biak

Jayapura 0

IRIANJAYA

(

1 0°00S

Appraisal As BuiltArea (ha) Area (ha)

4,150 4,149

1,210 1,270

3.500 3,500

2,270 2,285

1,200 1,260

4,650 4,530

2,960 1,886

1,400 1,453

0 1,135

21,340 21,468

280 339

320 278

590 634

400 346

1,590 1,597

22,930 23,0651 16°15'E

Pengga Dame

Selong

116°15'E

'ProposedSesaotCanal DivecsonkMataram

Mantang

Pengga

IN DON ES IAWEST NUSA TENGGARA

PROJECT LOCATION(as completed)

1 16°15'E

Other Irrigation Schemes

10. Pawang Kates11.IrengDaya

13. Mamben/ EAST

'f- . LOMBOK

12. Datar

- 8°30'S

L d MB OK

13

OMB0K,'Mataram

WEST

LOMBOK /

LOCATION MAP1 16°15E

8°45S

Name of Subproject

Pengga-relatedIrrigation Schemes

1 Pengga2. Parung3. Jurang Batu4. Tibunangka5. Renggung6. Mujur I & II7. Katon8. Rutus

Additional Scheme9. Kulem

Subtotal

Other Irrigation Schemes10. Pawang Kates11. IrengDaya12. Datar

0

13. MambenP0,

Subtotaltoto

TotalI

• t Parung

JucanoKaton

1 TibunartgkaRujurI

Kutem

Project Area - Proposed Canal

Other Existing Irrigation Scheme High Level Diversion

0 Distict/Village River

Road - District Boundary

Dam/Weir (Boundaries not necessarily authoritative)

lu

r')

8°45'S

4012345 10

—Kilometers

PA NTA A

Atambua

TIMEATAMBUA"

KomodoMA NGA PAl

®

FLORES TIMUR

SOLOR

KUPANG©

TlR TENGAH

SELATAN10°00S -

Kupang

TIMOR

ROTE

0)

(A)1 24°00E

124°00'E

- 8°0OS

120°00E

IN DON ES IAEAST NUSA TENGGARA

PROJECT LOCATION(as completed)

1-UA 5E.4

8°00'S -1

- 10000,S

N)9)N)

N)N)

I

SUM BA

0 50 100— — -

Kilometers

1992 Earthquake-affected Area

® Project Irrigation Scheme

0 District/Town

Road

River

Kabupaten Boundary

(Boundaries not necessarily authoritative)

1 20°00E

Appraisal As BuiltName of Subproject Area (ha) Area (ha)

1. Lembor 6000 4,4872. WaeBobo 150 1253. Wae Cess 502 5024. Kajum Bawa 40 495 Maa Bawa 50 296. Mautenda IV 413 07. Magepanda 803 08. Pruda 220 09. Kolesia 127 0

10. Melolo 698 69811. Mataiyang 1,173 1,21612. Kakaha 509 50913. Kambaniru 1,680 1,24014. Koritepe 343 35915. Ponu 323 38116. Haekto 400 38817. Loli 37 3718. Oeloan 202 7619. Peto 70 75

Total 13,740 10,171

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1 The main objectives of the Project were to optimize the utilization and performance ofexisting irrigation schemes in West and East Nusa Tenggara provinces (WNT and ENT) toincrease benefits through improved irrigation facilities, more efficient operation and maintenance(O&M), improved agriculture extension services, and direct involvement of the farmers. Thefocus was on development in the eastern provinces, the driest region in Indonesia. The fifthFive-year Development Plan (Repelita v/i 989/90-1993/94) emphasized consolidating andstabilizing the gains realized from past irrigation investments and expanding diversified cropproduction, creating rural employment opportunities, and achieving balanced regionaldevelopment with an increased effort on diversifying the agricultural base.

2. The Project included (i) irrigation develppment through rehabilitation and upgrading(R&U) of existing irrigation schemes on about 36,670 hectares (ha), introduction of efficientoperation and maintenance (EOM) on about 36,670 ha, handing over of about 4,290 ha ofsmall irrigation schemes to the water user associations (WUAs), and institutional strengthening;(ii) introduction of irrigation service fee (1SF) on about 32,380 ha; (iii) agricultural developmentincluding land development on about 2,300 ha, establishing 13 tertiary demonstration units(TDUs), installation of four agroclimatic stations, improvement of seed production, andinstitutional strengthening; (iv) soil and water conservation on about 1 0,000 ha; (v) land taximprovement on about 210,000 ha; and (vi) strengthening of planning and coordination atprovincial- and district-level development planning agencies (BAPPEDAs) 2

II. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION

A. Project Components

1. Irrigation Development

a. Rehabilitation and Upgrading of Existing Irrigation Schemes3

3. In WNT, existing small- to medium-scale irrigation schemes on 23,065 ha, or about 101percent of the appraisal target, were rehabilitated and upgraded. The major R&U work wascarried out on (i) Pengga dam, (ii) Keru and Sesaot diversion canals including extension of theJangkok-Babak high level diversion (HLD) canal, (iii) Jurang Sate main canal (remodeling), (iv)Jurang Batu and Katon main canals, (v) Renggung HLD canal including extension, and (vi) themain and tertiary systems of nine irrigation schemes.

4. In ENT, rehabilitation and upgrading were carried out on 10,171 ha, or 74 percent of theappraisal target. In December 1992, an earthquake and tidal wave hit the north coast of Floresand caused extensive damage in the districts of Ngada, Ende, Sikka, and east Flores. The

The eligible area for EOM should have been only 32,380 ha because the small irrigation schemes, less than500 ha, would not qualify for EOM funds.

2The strengthening of BAPPEDA in WNT was not in the original Project design, but was added later duringimplementation of the works.Rehabilitation also included small irrigation schemes less than 500 ha.

2

earthquake nearly destroyed Mautenda IV, Magepanda, Pruda, and Kolesia irrigation schemes(1,563 ha), which were under construction. 1 The shortfall in meeting the target was due mainlyto (i) the nonfeasible schemes of Wae Bangka, Wae Sele, Wae Lombur, Wae Kanta 1, WaeKanta 2, and Wae Cewo; and (ii) loss of four schemes because of the earthquake. Duringconstruction of the Kambaniru barrage, several construction problems were noted. The Bankhad determined that the stilling basin needed to be redesigned; otherwise, the structure was indanger of failure. The completed R&U schemes for WNT and ENT are shown in Appendix 1.

b. Efficient Operation and Maintenance (EOM)2

5. The appraisal estimated that 36,670 ha would enter the EOM program. 3 Most of theirrigation schemes were not completed until the later part of the Project and therefore only a fewProject schemes entered the program. Because EOM is a nationwide policy, Bank funds wereused for both irrigation schemes rehabilitated under the Project and other schemes that met theminimum criteria. Under the Project, Bank-financed program covered 48,133 ha, or 149 percentof the revised appraisal target (32,380 ha). The Government will introduce new fundingprocedures for EOM beginning in 1997 whereby the Central Government will give the provincesblock grants amounting to Rp35,000/ha. 4 Details of the EOM program are shown in Appendix2.

c. Water Operations Center in WNT

6. The Provincial Water Resources Services (PWRS) established a Water Operations Center(WOC) in WNT in 1991. The computer model is extremely important for water operations insouthern Lombok, but requires wider acceptance by the local government. Once the model isaccepted as reliable and incorporated into the decision-making process, the numerous systemswill operate more efficiently. At present, the line of instruction is ineffective because it involvestwo different government agencies: PWRS and the local government.

d. Water User Associations

7. In WNT, 185 WUAs have been established in the Project irrigation schemes; 61 of themhave received training and 65 have attained legal status. In ENT, 25 WUAs have beenestablished; all have been formally registered, but none have attained legal status. The WUAswere reported as functional; however, it is obvious that they need strengthening particularly inmanagement and financial matters. Direct participation of the WUAs is required for EOM. Thestatus of the WUAs is summarized in Appendix 3.

The Government is rehabilitating the damaged irrigation schemes under the Bank financed Loan 1241(SF)-NO: F/ores Emergency Reconstruction Project, for SDR1 8,428,000, approved on 1 July 1993.

2EOM is defined as providing the correct volume of water to meet the crop water requirements and provideadequate level of maintenance.

This was incorrect because the area for EOM should not have included the small irrigation schemes under500 ha. The target should have been 32,380 ha or the same amount that was to enter the 1SF program ifevery scheme had been completed as planned and eligible to enter the program.Information provided by the National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) in December 1996.

3

e. Handing Over of Small Irrigation Schemes to WUAs

8. In WNT, 963 ha or 96 percent of the appraisal target of 1,000 ha was handed over to theWUAs. In ENT, 1131 ha or 34 percent of the target of 3,290 ha was handed over. The overallachievement was 49 percent of the original target. Because of the Flores earthquake and amajor flood in west Timor, four schemes (concerning about 1,1 03 ha) were taken out. of theprogram. With this deletion, the achievement was 66 percent of the revised target of 3,187 ha.PWRS .-ENT is less familiar with the program than PWRS-WNT. Many of the WUAs in ENT arenot ready to accept responsibility for O&M. Details of the program are shown in Appendix 4.

f. Institutional Strengthening

9. Comprehensive training plans were prepared by PWRS of both provinces. The plansincluded training in planning, O&M, and constrUction. Training used modules that had beendeveloped by Directorate General of Water Resources (DGWRD) over several years. Trainingand O&M equipment, vehicles, and materials were also provided to PWRS. WUAs were trainedthrough the water users training program. Staff increases at both provinces were substantial,with an overall 23 percent increase in engineers and 77 percent increase in non-engineeringpositions. This should make a substantial difference in the overall management andadministration of irrigation in the future. Details on training and staffing are shown in Appendix5.

g. Status of 1987 O&M Policies

10. In 1987, the Government issued an O&M policy statement covering six policies: (I)funding of O&M based on actual needs, (ii) cost recovery through introduction of a new land taxsystem, (iii) 1SF, (iv) institutional strengthening of government agencies and WUAs, (v) improvedsystem for O&M budgeting and programming, and (vi) more rationalization of irrigationinvestments. The six policies are expected to be introduced nationwide over a period of 15years. Appendix 6 shows the status of the policies with respect to the Project and nationwide.

2. Irrigation Service Fee

11. At appraisal, the plan was to introduce 1SF in a target area of 32,380 ha; however, theactual area was 24,739 ha or 76 percent of the target. With 1SF contributions of aboutRpl 4,000-1 6,000 in WNT and Rpl 0,000-1 8,000 in ENT, the collection rates were below targets.In WNT, the collection rates were about 75 percent in 1994 and 76 percent in 1995. In ENT,rates declined 69 percent to 42 percent during the same period because of the very lowachievements of certain subprojects. 1SF revenue plus the funds provided by the localgovernment were insufficient to meet the O&M requirements estimated at Rp50,000/ha. O&Mfunds provided by the local government in ENT were only sufficient to cover salaries ofmaintenance staff. The details of 1SF collection rates are shown in Appendix 7.

4

3. Agricultural Development

a. Land Development

12. At appraisal, land development (LD) was to be carried out by Directorate General of FoodCrops and Horticulture (DGFCH) on about 2,300 ha, During implementation, it was completedon 5,472 ha or approximately 238 percent of the target. It was anticipated that LD would becarried out using the prefinancing/credit arrangements that were being introduced under anotherBank-financed project in Bengkulu and Lampung. 2 The arrangements were unsuccessful andso the Government decided it would be solely responsible for LD using government resources.In 1993, it decided that LD would be carried out by DGWRD instead of by DGFCH. Under theProject, however, both Executing Agencies carried out LD. 3 Appendix 8 shows the extent of LD.

b. Tertiary Demonstration Units

13. In accordance with the appraisal, seven TDUs were constructed in ENT and six in WNT(see Appendix 9). TDUs were to (i) demonstrate improved rice and secondary crop production,improved on-farm water management, adaptive research and trials; and (ii) provide trainingcenters for farmers and government officials working and living in or near the tertiary systems.All 13 TDUs were constructed to standard plans within selected Project irrigation schemes. TDUswere also intended to be a source of agricultural extension information to farmers outside theTDU boundaries. Rice yields reportedly climbed from about 1 .5-3.5 tons (t) per ha to 5-8 t perha at demonstrations in ENT, and from 4-6 t per ha to 6-8 t per ha at demonstrations in WNT.While there is always a gap between demonstrations and average farmer results, the yieldsindicate that production could increase with good cultivation practices and sufficient irrigationsupplies. Four TDUs in ENT are nonfunctional at present primarily because they wereconstructed before the irrigation systems were completed and staff are no longer available.

c. Agroclimatic Stations in ENT

14. In accordance with the appraisal, four agroclimatic stations to be operated by the districtagricultural services were constructed in ENT. The four stations are in a state of disrepair andmost of the observation equipment is either broken or non-functional. In addition, no permanentobserver has been posted at any of the stations. Nevertheless, the agriculture extension agentsare attempting to collect data even though they have no training for the purpose or a clearunderstanding of the instruments as no operating manuals are available at the stations. Theagroclimatic stations are currently serving no purpose as a result of improper timing ofconstruction, lack of security for the facilities, and lack of permanent staff (see Appendix 9).

1Land development is the conversion of slightly forested or nonproductive grasslands into rice fields. Thefarmers &so participate as laborers to the primary contractors in forming of bunds and terraces.

2Loan 818-INO: Irrigation Command Area Development Project (ICAD), for $28.8 million, approved on 11December 1986.

The Bank financed only LD carried out by DGFCH.

5

d. Improvement of Seed Production

15. Under the Project, two existing seed farms in WNT and two Seed Control and CertificationServices (SCCS) in ENT were to be rehabilitated. TDUs were to be contracted to grow certifiedseed. In WNT, the facilities were constructed; however, they are underutilized for lack ofequipment and staff. In ENT, seed facilities in Kupang and east Sumba are also underutilizedbecause of budget and staff constraints. At the SCCS in Kupang. two buildings wererehabilitated; however, one is used partly for office space while the other building is vacant.None of the TDUs had participated in seed production because farmers were not interested andno program had been developed by the Provincial Agricultural Services (PRAS). Details on theseed centers are shown in Appendix 10.

e. Institutional Strengthening

16. Institutional strengthening was carried out at the PRAS through training and provision ofequipment and vehicles. Training was for WUAs (especially in TDU areas), and field extensionand seed services staff. As reported, 122 classes were held for 2,594 trainees (see Appendix11). In addition, six overseas programs with 16 participants were carried out in Thailand, USA,Philippines, and Australia.

4. Soil and Water Conservation

17. In WNT, agroforestry was carried out on 2,782 ha with the planting of fruit trees.Reforestation was carried out on 5,200 ha; survival rate was 80 percent. Most of the works ongully control, check dams, waterways, drainage, forest roads, and workshops wereaccomplished. About 58 percent of the planned agroforestry in ENT was accomplished,although survival rates estimated at about 50 percent were low. Reforestation was accomplishedon only 230 ha because of limited staff and other upper watershed programs in ENT. Most ofthe works on nurseries, demonstration plots, and gully control were also accomplished in ENT(see Appendix 12).

5. Land Tax Improvement

18. The Project supported the improvement of the new land taxation system throughimproved mapping and land value reassessment. At appraisal, about 180,000 ha was to bereassessed in WNT and 30,000 ha in ENT. The activities included aerial photography andphotomapping, village mapping, identification of landholdings, classification of landholdingsbased on market value, and registration. The actual area mapped and reclassified was 163,100ha in WNT and 141,480 ha in ENT, or 145 percent of the appraisal target. About 17,590 ha of22,930 ha of the irrigation subprojects in central and east Lombok, WNT, was included in theprogram. In ENT, 13,200 ha of the 13,740 ha of the irrigation subprojects was included. Detailson the system are summarized in Table 1.

6

Table 1: Implementation of the Land Tax Component

Province

West Nusa Tenggara

East Nusa Tenggara

Total

Appraisal Actual(ha) (ha)

180.000 163100

30000 141480

210000 304580

Irrigation Tax CollectionSubprojects Before After

Included Project Project(ha) 1992 1994

(S) (5)

17,590 176,060 283,456 61

13,200

82,550 102,609 42

30790

256,610 386,065 49

6. Strengthening of Planning and Coordination at Provincial and District Levels

19. The Project had originally included the strengthening of planning and coordination (andmonitoring) only in ENT. In July 1991, acting on the Government's request, the Bank agreed toinclude WNT. The activities comprised additional staff, and provision of office equipment,transportation facilities, and training. As a result of the Project, (I) project coordinationguidelines, five-year physical and financial plans of ENT, and schematic maps and diagrams for19 irrigation systems in ENT were produced; (ii) annual progress reports and project completionreports in the Indonesian language for both provinces were prepared; (iii) regular meetings tomonitor Project implementation were held, particularly in WNT; (iv) office equipment wasprocured, (v) ten office buildings in ENT and one office building in WNT were constructed; and(vi) government staff in both provinces received training.

B. Implementation Arrangements

20. The six Executing Agencies (EAs) for the Project were (I) the Directorate General of WaterResources Development (DGWRD) for irrigation development, (ii) the Directorate General ofPublic Administration and Regional Autonomy (DGPARA) for 1SF, (iii) the Directorate General ofFood Crops Horticulture for agriculture development, 1 (iv) the Directorate General ofReforestation and Land Rehabilitation (DGRLR) for soil and water conservation, (v) theDirectorate General of Taxation (DGT) for land tax improvement, and (vi) the Directorate Generalof Regional Development (DGRD) for strengthening of planning and coordination at provincialand district levels. BAPPENAS monitored and coordinated the activities of participating agenciesand financing. Coordination was one of the major weaknesses of the Project as most of the EAsacted on a sector basis and BAPPENAS did not hold sufficient meetings to resolve the variousissues. At each PWRS, a Project Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (PME) was established tocollect regular data on crop production,etc. and continues to provide PWRS with informationregarding yields and problems relating to each scheme.

The Directorate General of Food Crops Agriculture (DGFCA) was changed to DGFCH in 1993.

7

C. Project Costs

1. Project Cost

21. At appraisal the total cost of the Project was estimated at $148.8 million, of which about$61 .3 million (41 .2 percent) represented the foreign exchange costs (including $15.6 million forinterest during construction [IDC] and service charges during construction) and $87.5 million(58.8 percent) represented the local currency costs, including taxes and duties. The actualexpenditures in current prices amounted to $139.7 million, or 93.9 percent of the appraisalestimate. Of this, $58.9 million (42.2 percent) represents the foreign exchange costs (including$13.3 million of IDC and service charges) and $80.8 million (57.8 percent) represents the localcurrency costs. The Project costs as appraised and as actually incurred are shown in Table 2.Details are shown in Appendix 13.

Table 2: Project Cost, Appraised and Actual($ '000 in Current Prices)

Item

1. Irrigation Development2. Irrigation Service Fee3. Agriculture Development4. Soil and Water Conservation5. Land Tax Improvement6. Strengthening of BAPPEDA7. Taxes and Duties8. Interest During Construction9. Refinancing of TA

Total

AppraisalEstimate

96,202583

8,3028,2327,5932,098

10,00015,600

190148.800

Actual

94,241833

6,5554,8306,1331,3629,976

15,644143

139,715

Underrun

Percent

1,961

97.9

(250)

142.0

1 .747

78.9

3,402

58.7

1,460

80.8

736

64.9

24

99.7

(44)

100.3

47

75.2

9,085

93.9

2. Financing

22. The Bank approved blended Loans 1 to finance $1 19.0 million equivalent or 80 percentof the total Project cost, of which $25.0 million equivalent or SDR1 8,465,000 came from theBank's ADF and $94.0 million from the Bank's OCR (see Table 3). The balance of $29.8 million(20 percent of the Project cost) was to be provided by the Government. During implementation,disbursements from the Bank amounted to $1 10.0 million, while the Government financed $29.7million equivalent in local costs. Overall, the Bank financed 79 percent of the actual Projectcosts and the Government provided 21 percent (see Appendix 13). The increase in Governmentfinancing was partly due to the higher cost of land acquisition and resettlement ($5.7 millionactual versus $2.9 million anticipated at appraisal) for Pengga dam and irrigation systems.

Asian Development Fund (ADF) and Ordinary Capital Resources (OCR).

8

Table 3: Financing of the Project(S million)

Appraisal

Actual

Source Foreign Local

Foreign LocalExchange Cost Total %

Exchange Cost Total %

Bank 61.3 57.5 119.9 80 58.9 51.1 110.0 79ADF 14.0 11.0 25.0 17 14.9 10.5 25.5 18OCR 47.3 46.7 94.0 63 43.9 40.6 84.5 61

Governt 0.0 29.8 29.9 20 0.0 29.7 29.7 21Total 61.3 87.5 148.8 100 58.9 80.8 139.7 100ADF - Asian Development Fund, OCR - Ordinary Capital Resources

D. Project Schedule

23. It was envisaged that implementation would require about five years from FYi 989/90 toFY1993/94. The loan was declared effective on 26 May 1989 with the original loan closing dateof 30 September 1994. The Project required a one-year extension up to 30 September 1995 toallow for completion of the civil works for the irrigation schemes in ENT and soil and waterconservation activities. Appraisal targets and approximate periods are shown in Appendix 14.

E. Engagement of Consultants and Procurement of Goods and Services

1. Consultants

24. Consultants were recruited in accordance with the Bank's Guidelines on the Use ofConsultants. International consulting firms, in association with domestic consulting firms, wereengaged to advise, assist, and provide transfer of knowledge to the EAs and their respectiveprovincial agencies. At Project completion, a total of 1,577 person-months had been usedcompared with 1,080 person-months envisioned at appraisal thus 37 percent increase requiredan additional $3.44 million. Table 4 gives the summary of consulting services for eachcomponent.

Table 4: Consulting Servicesa for Project Implementation(person-months)

Component Appraisal Actual

D Total

D Total

A. Irrigation Development1. WNT 145 284 429 192 475 6672. ENT 38 182 220 80 293 373

B. Irrigation Service Fee 12 10 22 24 54 78C. AgriculturalDevelopment 24 264 288 24 292 316D. Soil and Water Conservation 30 24 54 32 31 63E. Land Tax Improvement 10 39 49 11 39 50F. Strengthening of BAPPEDA .j ...Q Q ........Q _Q

Total 277 803 1,080 393 1,184 1,577- international, D - domestic.

9

2. Civil Works and Equipment

25. Except for the contract for Pengga dam, the civil works contracts for the irrigationdevelopment were awarded through local competitive bidding in accordance with the Bank'sGuidelines for Procurement. The civil work contracts for land development carried out by DGFCHand DGWRD were awarded on the basis of Government procedures.

26. All the equipment and vehicles were procured on the basis of international shopping inaccordance with the Bank's Guidelines for Procurement. Minor office, training, and farmequipment were procured through local competitive bidding or direct purchase in accordancewith Government procedures acceptable to the Bank.

F. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers

Consultants

27. The consultants for the irrigation development component performed satisfactorily.Domestic consultants were engaged before the start of the Project to conduct surveys andinvestigations, and to design the small- to medium-scale irrigation schemes. Many of thedesigns needed substantial revisions during implementation. The Pengga dam in WNT wasdesigned by the Project consultants who also supervised construction. The consultants for the1SF component performed satisfactorily. The methodology for 1SF had been successfullyachieved under pilot projects financed by both the World Bank and the Bank; therefore,introduction was expected to be relatively straightforward. Implementation of 1SF should havebeen primarily the responsibility of the district-level agencies. However, the EA relied extensivelyon the consultants to implement the program. The consultants for the agricultural developmentcomponent performed satisfactorily, although the timing of the services was not coordinated wellwith the irrigation component and therefore many of the expectations were not achieved or wereaccomplished too early. This is basically a problem of poor interagency coordination and theprimary goal of each agency was to meet targets, both physical and financial, without muchconcern for sustainability. The consultants for the soil and water conservation, land tax, andinstitutional strengthening components performed satisfactorily.

2. Contractors and Suppliers

28. The performance of the civil works contractors was generally satisfactory, although thequality of works was poor in the placement of some canal embankments and minor structures,and foundation settlement was noted in some buildings. Civil works are superior in WNTbecause of the availability of building materials and quality of staff. The works in ENT werelocated in isolated areas and quality of work was lower.

29. However, the quality of work on the Kambaniru barrage and irrigation system isconsidered excellent, although expensive, and is a good example of what can be achieved withproper supervision and management in remote areas. The performance of the suppliers ofequipment and materials, and vehicles was satisfactory.

10

G. Conditions and Covenants

30. The Government has complied with most of the loan covenants (see Appendix 15), buthad difficulties with those re'ating to (I) submission of audited financial reports, (ii) providingadequate staff, (iii) introduction of EOM upon completion of irrigation schemes, (iv) handing overof small irrigation schemes. (v) increases of O&M funding on all irrigation schemes where EOMhad been introduced, and (vi) formation and strengthening of WUAs. Three of the six EAs hadprepared completion reports that assisted in the preparation of the Project Completion Report(PCR).

H. Disbursements

31. The actual disbursements of both loans were made over a period of seven years (May1989 to May 1996) compared with five years and four months envisaged at appraisal. The longerdisbursement period was caused by the delay in the completion of R&U, primarily in ENT.Disbursements from the Bank's ADF and OCR loans amounted to SDR18.2 million or $25.5million equivalent and $84.5 million, respectively. The value of the ADF loan had increased from$25.0 million at appraisal to $25.9 million at the time of the PCR. The unused balance of aboutSDR276,588 or $0.4 million equivalent of the ADF loan and $9.5 million of the OCR loan werecancelled in April 1996 and May 1996, respectively. The annual disbursement of the two loansis shown in Appendix 16.

I. Environmental Impact

32. The Project had a major positive impact on securing water supplies to remote areas inextremely water deficit regions. Irrigated agriculture, the only viable means of agricultureproduction in those areas, was enhanced and households obtained water for domestic purposes.The Melolo scheme in east Sumba, ENT, may have a water quality problem that should beevaluated by local officials, as several farmers in the area complained of skin eruptions (similarto boils and rashes) from the irrigation water. The construction of the Pengga dam resulted inthe resettlement of about 1,250 people. The Project had a positive impact on the Penggaresettlers as they were given land that was served by a new dam and irrigation facilities inSumbawa. The Kambaniru villagers (about 200 people) were only moved to higher groundabove the high water level of the impoundment and therefore were not negatively affected.

33. The soil and water conservation interventions had a positive impact on partial reductionof soil erosion in the upper watersheds; however, the program in ENT was not totallyimplemented because other provincial upper watershed programs were ongoing and the localgovernment staff did not give sufficient attention to the Project. Upper watersheds have beendamaged by overgrazing of cattle and slash-and-burn agriculture practices that increase erosionrates. Sedimentation was observed behind the Melo!o weir and downstream of the Kambanirubarrage. The rivers in Flores are heavily laden with silt because of the high-intensity rainfall inthe mountains above the irrigation systems. The water that flows into the Pengga dam is alsoheavily laden with sediment. The Government should give priority to these watersheds as theyare heavily degraded and Project interventions had minimal effect in improving the situation.

11

J. Performance of the Borrower and Executing Agencies

1. Interagency Coordination by BAPPENAS

34. BAPPENAS was expected to hold quarterly meetings, but it seldom did. Wrap-upmeetings were held at DGWRD. Many of the problems experienced during implementation couldhave been resolved if BAPPENAS had taken a more active role in the Project. The 1987 O&Mpolicies needed direction and the provincial agencies required precise instructions onimplementation. As BAPPENAS was the head of steering committees at the time, it could havebeen more instrumental in guiding the Project.

2. Irrigation Development

35. DGWRD, through the PWRS in WNT and ENT, carried out the physical works on irrigationschemes. However, it did not adequately guide PWRS on the 1987 O&M policies and theirimplementation. In addition, the participatory role of the farmers was less than that required tosecure a sense of ownership. The number of WUAs established was less than expected andweaknesses are apparent. The performance of the EA is, however, considered satisfactory asthe irrigation facilities are nearly complete and the farmers' livelihoods have improvedsignificantly.

3. Irrigation Service Fee

36. DGPARA, assisted by the local provincial offices (BAPPEDAs, PWRS, and DISPENDA),was unable to meet its targets. The primary reason is that it did not provide sufficient funds,equipment, or training to the provincial- and district-level staff. Most of the work was carried outby consultants with lack of enthusiasm and support from the EA. The performance of theprovincial agencies was satisfactory; however, the performance of the EA is considered less thansatisfactory.

4. Agriculture Development

37. DGFCH, assisted by Project Management Units established at the PRAS in bothprovinces, provided ineffective guidance and support. Even though the civil works on the seedfarms and TDUs were accomplished and equipment/materials procured, the facilities aregenerally in a state of disrepair and qualified staff are not available. The EA should have takena more active role with the PRAS during implementation, particularly in timing of the variousactivities. The performance of the EA is considered less than satisfactory, and the performanceof the provincial and district agricultural agencies in ENT is considered unsatisfactory as mostof the facilities are nonfunctional and need extensive repair work.

5. Soil and Water Conservation

38. DGRLR, assisted by the Sub-Center for Land Rehabilitation and Soil Conservation(SLRSC) in each province, had prepared a detailed program for implementation in both WNT andENT. Results were less than expected in ENT primarily because other government watershedprograms were given higher priority. Shortage of funds and staff, as well as other provincialpriorities, prevented the targets in ENT from being achieved. The performance of the EA andthe district agencies, is, however, considered satisfactory.

12

6. Land Tax Improvement

39. DGT, assisted by the land and building tax inspection offices at both provinces, hadexceeded the targets. The performance of the EA is considered fully satisfactory.

7. Strengthening of the BAPPEDAs

40. DGRD, assisted by BAPPEDAs at each province, had prepared appropriate programs forimplementation. The activities were implemented successfully. Guidance of the agriculture andsoil and water conservation programs and implementation of the 1987 O&M policies could havebeen more effective, particularly in resolving the issue of conflicting watershed programs in ENT.The performance of the EA is, however, considered satisfactory.

K. Performance of the Bank

41. Administration of the Project was delegated to the Indonesian Resident Mission (IRM) atthe outset. This provided an excellent opportunity to discuss major issues with the EAs. TheBank had requested BAPPENAS to hold regular meetings; however, these did not take place.The Bank fielded eight Loan Review Missions (LRM) totaling 120 person-days. The LRM alertedthe EAs to problems and made sound recommendations. The Bank was instrumental inidentifying design and construction problems at the Kambaniru barrage.

42. However, the Bank should have taken more corrective action on the agriculture, and soiland water conservation programs, and insisted on appropriate implementation of the 1987 O&Mpolicies. Improper timing of various activities and inadequate funding were identified by LRM,however, the EAs generally failed to take appropriate actions. Follow-up on the distribution ofequipment and materials to the TDUs in ENT should have been done by Bank staff. Overall, theBank's performance is considered satisfactory.

Ill. EVALUATION OF INITIAL PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS

A. Financial Impact

43. The financial impact is expected to range from Rp430,000 a year ($1 85) for a small farmof 0.35 ha to Rp980,000 a year ($422) for a larger farm of 0.80 ha. 1 Many of the beneficariesare currently subsistence farmers. As lower level of income, the marginal propensity to consumeis higher. While having some implication for 1SF collection, the increased income should, ingeneral, be sufficient to pay the Rp35,000-40,000 per ha needed for 1SF.

B. Economic Performance

44. Economic analysis was undertaken for sample subproject sites. The sample represents93 percent of the irrigation construction costs for the entire Project. The construction costs for

The appraisal had estimated the individual farmers incremental financial income at $140 in western WNT,$260 in eastern WNT, and $390 in ENT.

67.9 1,635 12.814.0

0.30.4

30.77.21.8

14.20.3

982917

2,0491,2492,0008.960

563

16.218.19.6

16.710.0

5.020.4

16.716.715.616.214.412.7

19.5

Pengga (South Lombok) RelatedOther Small Schemes (Lombok)1. Ireng Daya2. Mamben

B. ENT1. Lembor2. Melolo3. Kambaniru4. Ponu

131.0%

108.60.0

124.0115.6142.3131.1

0.0

13

the irrigation schemes ranged from a low of $464 per ha to a high of $8,980 per ha, with Projectaverage of $1,707 per ha.

45. Only the direct benefits of the increased agricultural production were considered in theeconomic analysis. There are numerous nonquantified benefits as well. Institutional strengtheningof EAs and WUAs is one of the main improvements. The local domestic water supply has beenenhanced and secondary business activity is developing as a result of crop intensification andproduction increases. Direct benefits comprise the economic incremental value of cropproduction, averaging Rp930,000 ($410) per ha per year at full development. The phase-in of fullbenefits is projected to take place over a five-year period in WNT and a ten-year period in ENT.

46. The economic internal rates of returns (EIRRs) were computed directly for sampleprojects. The largest portion of the investment, the Pengga-related schemes in WNT, had areturn slightly lower than the appraisal estimate, artly because of cost increases. The largestvariance from appraisal is at Kambaniru in ENT where the EIRR is estimated at 5 percentcompared with 12.7 percent at appraisal (see Table 5). The subproject experienced costincreases and delays in completion. The cost for Kambaniru was $8.980 per ha, significantlyabove the Project average.

Table 5: Subproject Economic Internal Rates of Returns (EIRRs)Subproject DCC Final! Direct

Component Original Construction

% of Contractc Cost! ha EIRRd (%)Area Irrigation Scheme DCCb (%) (S/ha) AR PCRA. WNT 69.3 130.4% 1589 14.5 12.9

5. Mataiyang 0.7 122.7 464 16.0 16.2C. West and East Nusa Tenggara 100.0 128.3 1,707 14.9 11 .9

See Appendix 17 for detailed methodology and assumptions. Individual schemes listed in this table werevisited and EIRRs computed. Visited sites for the sample constitute 93% of the total project in terms of directconstruction costs (DCC).Irrigation system DCC. Not including construction supervision, administration, and other associated costs.Irrigation consultants' final completion reports.AR - Appraisal Report, PCR - Project Completion Report.

47. The variance between AR and PCR estimates for other sample subprojects is not large.For the overall project rate of return, the appraisal estimated a 14.9 percent EIRR. The PCRshows i1 .9 percent, with WNT at 12.9 percent performing better than ENT at 9.8 percent. Thereturns in both provinces are significantly weighted by the high cost of Pengga dam andKambaniru barrage. ENT carries the additional burden of the costs of the four earthquake-affected schemes on Flores without any benefits. When the supporting component costs are

14

apportioned to the irrigation schemes, the overall project EIRR drops to 10.3 percent. Detailsof the economic analysis are shown in Appendix 17.

C. Attainment of Benefits

48. With the completion of the Project, 33,236 ha was provided with rehabilitated irrigationworks. In addition, a complementary program of institutional strengthening and training wascompleted.

49. Reported crop yields in the irrigation areas are at higher levels than those expected atappraisal. Future rice yields at full development are estimated at 5.2 t per ha for WNT and 4.5t per ha for ENT. These levels are moderately higher than those projected at appraisal. Cropyields and cropping intensities with and without the Project are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Crop Yields and Cropping Intensities8Yield (t/ha)

AR PCRCrop / Location Without With Without WithRice WNT 3.5 5 3.6 5.2Rice ENT

Soybean WNTMaize WNTMaize WNT and ENT

WNT and ENT

2.8 4.4

0.7 1.2

0.9 3.4

0.8 1.5

3.6 4.5

0.8 1.2

2.3 3.5

2.3 3.5

Cropping Intensity (%)153 194 186 248

a To more closely approximate the actual condition observed in the field.the PCR economic evaluation combines both rainfed and irrigated crops,as appropriate, and other crops widely cultivated.

50. In addition to increasing crop yields, improved irrigation extended dry season cropping.The future with-project cropping intensity is projected at 248 percent compared with the futurewithout project cropping intensity of 186 percent. Both are slightly higher than those reportedat appraisal, with the gain now at 60 percent compared with the appraisal estimates of 40percent. The combined effect of higher yields and extended cropping area is projected toincrease annual production of rice by 125,000 t and that of secondary crops by 38,000 t at fulldevelopment.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusions

51. The Bank had adopted an appropriate strategy in supporting integrated irrigationdevelopment in two of the poorest provinces in Indonesia, both of which have extremely water-deficit areas where irrigation is essential for crop production. The Project fully supported theGovernment's aim to improve economic conditions in disadvantaged regions in easternIndonesia.

15

52. The Project has an overall rating of generally satisfactory based on an assessment ofcompletion of facilities, functionality of the systems, costs, EIRRs, and positive impact on thelivelihood of farmers. The increase in crop yields and cropping intensities were higher than theappraisal targets even though the agricultural component had performed poorly. Farmers areself-motivated and generally knowledgeable about the cultivation of rice and non-rice cropswithout the need for intensive extension services. The Project provided a secure water supplyfor agriculture as well as for domestic purposes. The EIRR for the sample schemes ranged from5.0 to 20.4 percent, with an average of 11.9 percent for the total Project compared with 14.9percent at appraisal. The financial return for farmers is expected to increase annual disposableincome (household income minus essential expenses) per family from previously subsistencelevels. The Project has increased annual incomes from farming by about Rp430,000 ($185) toRp980,000 ($422), or about 250 percent of previous income.

53. The Project was successful in improving the land taxation system that has increased thegeneral revenues of the two provinces, strengthened the provincial development planningagencies so as to aid them in planning and managing the various activities in the provinces anddistricts, and improved the capability of the irrigation and agricultural services and water usersassociations (WUAs) through human resources development/training programs and provisionof equipment and materials.

54. The Project was successful in the introduction of EOM in 48,132 ha, or 149 percent of theappraisal target. Unfortunately, most of the EOM work financed by the Bank had beendetermined by the irrigation staff rather than by a joint walk-through with WUAs. As a result alarger proportion of EOM funds was used for canal lining rather than for structures, embankmentrepairs, or drainage that could have been identified by the farmers.

55. In general, the quality of construction of the irrigation works on the main systems is good.The quality of work on the Pengga dam and on Kambaniru barrage is considered excellent andprovides a good example of the quality of workmanship attainable with good management andsupervision.

56. The WOO successfully demonstrated that computer modeling is essential for propermanagement and control of water in southern Lombok. The western part of Lombok has excesswater, whereas the central and eastern parts of Lombok are water-deficit areas. PWRS shouldincorporate the results of the WOO into the local government's decision making to improve watermanagement.

57. The Project concept was better understood and easier to implement in WNT. All WNTirrigation schemes were on the island of Lombok, which is accessible, and were relatively lessexpensive to construct because the supplies and materials were available at the sites or innearby Java, In ENT, the remote locations of the irrigation schemes made all aspects of theproject cycle difficult. Nevertheless, the farmers on Rote and Sumba are perhaps the mostenthusiastic and deserving of irrigation systems. On both these small islands, water availabilityin the rivers is high even during the dry season, but will require substantial investment to deliverthe excess water to irrigable areas.

58. The agriculture development component was generally unsuccessful as it failed to havemuch impact primarily because the provincial agencies did not provide adequate funding orsupport for the activities and many of the physical facilities, particularly in ENT, are non-functional

16

and sorely need repair. The inclusion of agriculture subcomponents in irrigation projects needsto be reviewed by the Bank and the Government as the investments made in the past arenonsustainable.

59. The introduction of 1SF is considered partially successful. The area covered representsonly 76 percent of the appraisal target. The collection for the provinces from 1994 to 1995shows a relatively high rate of about 75 percent in WNT and 69-42 percent in ENT. The 1996collections were less as a result of lower collection rates at newly introduced subprojects.Collections are expected to increase because of the improved willingness of the farmers toparticipate in the program in central Lombok where water supplies are now sufficient.

60. With respect to improving seed production, there appears to be a severe shortage of staff,skills, and laboratory equipment to utilize the facilities at this time. In east Sumba, the agricultureoffice expressed difficulty in engaging qualified staff to operate the Main Seed Farm (MSF)facility. Currently, the facility is occupied by personnel working on honorarium (extremely limitedfunds), so that farming becomes their main activity. Challenges include (i) limited staff; (ii)limited farmer appreciation of the value of high-quality seed, with consequent low demand; (iii)the wide geographic spread of ENT; (iv) difficult access and limited communication affectingSCCS ability in seed certification and labeling; and (v) limited budgets and facilities forproduction and distribution of seed at the central and main seed farms. Farmers generally donot view seeds, or other inputs, as a constraint to production They stated that inputs could beobtained through the agricultural cooperative system or private distributors, although someplanning, in terms of ordering in advance, is necessary.

B. Recommendations

1. Project-related

61. The Bank should continue to finance water resources investments in the water-deficitregions of eastern Indonesia. 1 In particular, the Bank should target the more remote areas onthe islands of Rote, west Timor, and Sumba in ENT where farmers are active, own the land, andare interested in irrigated agriculture. In WNT, the Bank should review the possibility ofadditional water resources investments in southern Lombok. However, improper operations maylimit delivery of water supplies and further expansion unless the diversions from west Lombok(wet area) to east Lombok (dry area) can be assured. Therefore, it is important that the WOCbe incorporated in the decision-making process for operations. PWRS is currently havingdiscussions with the local government to finalize allocations for the numerous schemes servedfrom the HLD canal. As the irrigation schemes depend on sharing of water supplies from severalrivers at 14 major diversion structures, it is imperative for the PWRS and the local governmentto use the services of the WOC. Because there are plans for expansion in southern Lombok,it will be essential to use the computer model for regulating diversion requirements. Feasibilitystudies financed by the Bank have demonstrated that sufficient water is available for thenumerous schemes if crop diversification is introduced.

The Bank wilt finance TA 2580-INO: Integrated River Basin Development in ENT and Maluku beginning in1997 and is presently preparing feasibility studies and final designs for two dams in WNT under the Bank-financed Loan 1 296-INO: Second Integrated Irrigation Sector Project (lISP-li), for $100.0 million, approvedon 20 January 1994.

17

62. The PCM has requested PWRS to immediately repair damaged Project facilities on theirrigation schemes. Some of the major repairs required are in DI. Melolo, east Sumba, whereabout 172 ha at the end of the system is not served because of a 20-meter breach in the maincanal. Other systems in ENT that need immediate repair include Haekto, Kakaha, Kambanirudistribution, Kanta-1, and Wae Rahu canals in Lembor. In addition, PWRS was requested toenter the completed schemes into the EOM program as soon as possible. The Bank willcontinue to monitor the overall program, including funding arrangements made by theGovernment in the future.

63. PWRS-ENT should evaluate the potential of transbasin diversions and extension of theservice area at the Kambaniru scheme because the base flow during the peak dry season ishigh. Several areas downstream of the Kambaniru scheme could be served if water could bedelivered at an economically viable cost. PWRS should prepare a study on alternative schemesfor DGWRDto consider.

64. PWRS and the local government in WNT and ENT should take immediate action toestablish the appropriate number of WUAs in all of the completed schemes (about 75 ha each)and to legalize them in accordance with the procedures under Loan No. 1296-INO: SecondIrrigation Sector Project (lISP-Il). PWRS and the local government should also take immediateaction to hand over all the small irrigation schemes to the WUAs.

65. An intensified agricultural program is needed in new irrigation areas, especially in ENT.Officials and participants repeatedly told the Project Completion Mission (PCM) that the programwas too short-lived to have a sustained impact. Many of the appropriate agricultural packages,such as synchronized cropping pattern to disrupt pest infestation, can take years to establishin new irrigation areas. Moreover, the success of any agricultural component is oftenconstrained by delays in irrigation works.

66. The concept of the TDU needs to be reviewed by the Bank and the Government as mostof the facilities are nonfunctional and need repair. The training and research equipment andmaterials for TDUs in ENT were supplied and delivered to the PRAS, but have remained inwarehouses and have not reached the TDUs. Without this equipment and materials, TDUscannot be expected to promote improved agriculture extension services.

67. PRAS in ENT and WNT should immediately deliver the training equipment and materialsto the TDUs and seed production facilities if those facilities are to function as planned. Inaddition, the PRAS in ENT should recondition the agroclimatic stations and repair or replace thelost or damaged observation equipment as soon as possible to make them operational.Permanent observers should be assigned to the four stations.

68. The Ministry of Forestry should review the upper watershed needs in WNT and ENT asmany of them are highly degraded. A critical watershed project is appropriate to give priorityrather than trying to incorporate it as a minor component in an irrigation project.

69. DGWRD and DGPARA should take immediate action to address all of the 1987 O&Mpolicies in ENT and WNT as there seems to be a general lack of understanding by the provincialagencies of their responsibilities as well as lack of enthusiasm from the provincial staffparticularly for 1SF, EOM, and small irrigation schemes programs in ENT.

18

70. The Project Performance Audit Report (PPAR) should be carried out at the end of 1999.

2. General

71. The Government and the Bank should review the relativity of agricultural support inirrigation projects. Previous experience suggests that the Bank needs to clearly identify andselect more appropriate subcomponents. Although most of the agriculture-related physicalfacilities have been constructed, they are generally nonoperational and nonsustainable, and oftenhave limited use even during implementation. The investments do not provide a realistic meansto improve agriculture extension services or increase crop production. The Government shoulddetermine better ways to strengthen agriculture extension services.

72. The PCM suggests that agriculture programs be implemented when irrigation works areabout to be completed rather than attempt a fully integrated approach. Key agricultural supportfacilities, such as seed centers, should be centrally located and accessible. Where water is thelimiting factor, the Bank should continue assistance to diversified cropping.

73. Farmer participation needs to be fully incorporated into all phases of the project cycle.Farming is a business, whether for subsistence or profit, and participation is essential forsustainable irrigation operations. Water theft and farmer modification of canal structures areoften the result of nonparticipation.

74. The Government should review the water user training program given the relatively poorperformance and rate of progress exhibited in WUA development to date. The reassessmentshould decide whether or not the irrigation services agencies are the most appropriate agenciesto be involved in on-farm activities or whether the agricultural services agencies, which deal withfarmers on a regular/routine basis, should be given the overall mandate.

75. If upper watershed programs are included in irrigation projects, they need to bestrengthened to assure that the interventions are appropriate and effective in controlling soilerosion. However, previous experience has shown that the soil conservation interventions couldbe more effectively addressed if they were carried out under a stand-alone critical watershedsproject district-wide, where it will receive adequate attention.

19

APPENDIXES

Number Title Page

1

Rehabilitation and Upgrading Subprojects

20

2

Efficient Operation and Maintenance Subprojects

21

3

Water User Associations (WUAs)

22

4

Small Irrigation Schemes

23

5

Institutional Strengthening of Provincial Water Resources Services (PWRS)

24

and Water User Associations (WUAs)

6

Status of 1987 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Policies

25

7

Irrigation Service Fee (1SF)

26

8

Land Development

28

9

Tertiary Demonstration Units (TDU) and Agroclimatic Stations

29

10

Improvement of Seed Production

30

11

Institutional Strengthening of the Provincial Agricultural Services

31

12

Soil and Water Conservation Areas 32

13

Project Cost and Financing 33

14

Implementation Schedule 36

15

Status of Compliance with Loan Covenants 38

16

Annual Disbursement Schedule by Category

40

17

Economic Analysis

41

20

Appendix 1

REHABILITATION AND UPGRADING SUBPROJECTS

Appraisal Area As-built

Name of Subproject District (ha) Area (ha)

A. West Nusa Tenggara1. Pengga2. Parung3. Jurang Batu4. Tibunangka5. Renggung6. Mujur I & II7. Katon8. Rutus

9. Kulema

10. Pawang Kates11. Ireng Daya12. Datar13. Mamben

Subtotal

West LombokWest LombokCentral LombokCentral LombokCentral LombokCentral LombokCentral LombokCentral Lombok

Central LombokWest LombokWest LombokWest LombokEast Lombok

4,150

4,149

1,210

1,270

3 500

3,500

2,270

2,285

1,200

1,260

4,650

4,530

2,960

1,886

1,400

1,453

0

1,135

280

339

320

278

590

634

400

346

22,930

23,065

B. East Nusa Tenggara1. Lembor Manggarai 6,000 4,487

2.WaeBobo Manggarai 150 125

3. Wae Cess Ill Manggarai 502 502

4. Kajum Bawa Ngada 40 49

5. Maa Bawa Ngada 50 29

6. Mautenda lVb Ende 413 0

7. Magepandab Sikka 803 0

8. Prudab Skka 220 0

9. Kolesiab Sikka 127 0

10. Melolo Sumba Timur 698 69811. Mataiyang Sumba Timur 1,173 1,216

12. Kakaha Sumba Timur 509 509

13. Kambaniru SumbaTimur 1,680 1,240

14. Koritepe Sumba Timur 243 359

15. Ponu 1.1. Utara 323 381

16. Haekto T.T. Utara 400 388

17. Loli T.T. Selatan 37 37

18. Oeloan T.T. Utara 202 76

19. Peto Kupang 70 75

Subtotal 13,740 10,171

Grand Total 36,670 33,236

aAdditiona subproject.

b Damaged by earthquake in December 1992.

B. Existing Schemes (constructed by others)10 Jurang Sate Hulu Central Lombok 4476 4476

Ii. Jurang Sate H/jr Central Lombok 6551 6551

12 Botuai Central Lombok 3064 3064

0 20.963 57269

174 . 298r83.653 85.904- 12.155 28800

64 184 46.622 40.201

21

Appendix 2

EFFICIENT OPERA11ON AND MAINTENANCE SUBPROJECT(Year Entered Program and Attocatlon Of Funds)

EOM 1989190 1910191 1991192 1992/93 1993194 1994/95 199519€Name of Subpro)ect Dlstflct As Bultt Program GOt GOt (30!) GOt) 001/ 001/ 001/

(ha) (ha) - . ADE ADB AOB ADB ADS

(9) (9) (9) ($1 CS) (5) (5)WEST NUSA TENGGARA PROVINCEA. R&U Schemes

Pengga West Lonlbok 4149 - - . - .2 Parung Central Lonbok 1270 1270 26510 5.788 -

0 231553 Jurang Batu Central Lombok 3500 . . - -4 Ttbunangka Central Lombok 2285 2285 44.055

05 Renggung Central Lombok 1260 1200 30.026

87,5376 Mutur lAIr Central Lombok 4530 4500 29.632

444417 Katon Central Lombok 1886 1886 0

8 Rulus Central Lombok 1453 1453 44.578

9 Kulern Central Lombok 1135 1135 43.4260

46.67431,116

74,52349.66233,67122,471

19.853 28480

15.853 7.12013 Kalimantong West Lonlbotc 1500 1500 5.863 13.014 26,620 38.788

23.453 19.520 21.527 969114 Katua Sakolo, Rahatoyu West Sumbawa 2036 2036 7 976 14,844 27.187

31,904 21.265 6.93415 Baka WestSun,bawa 1689 1689 6,356 11,766 26440 32.084

25434 17.644 13.814 8.02116 Gebong Datar West Lombok 2774 2774 0 7.150 20,655 20 147

33.488 37.239 41 009 26,80817 La)U. Sambana West Suntbawa 1050 1050 5768 11.547 18782

23.070 12.289 15,87018 Parade Central Lombok 1040 1040 ________ ________ _________ 22.746 ___________

Subtotal (IM-4T) 45,648 37,909 271 .970 422.988 485.205 839.391 158.305

EAST NUSA TENGGARA PROVINCEA. R1.0 Schemes

1 lei'nbor Manggarai 4.487 3.893 0 19.573

85.887 154 7092 Wee Cess II Manggarai 502 502 11 066

03 Magepanida Spkka 803 803 0 2,141

18.140 8.5634 Me/ole East Sumba 698 548 0 16,542

16 752 74 1665 Mataiyang East Sumba 1216 1216 0 16,266

28 152 65.0626 Kakaha East Sumba 509 509 71 034

264 1377 Kainbannu East Sumba 1240 - . - - - - - -

B. Existing Schemes (constructed by others)8 Petawang East Sumba 551 551 0 7 670

13.224 306809 Wanga East Sumba 583 580 0 8 139

14.052 3255810 Waikelo sawah East Sumba 913 913 0 12470

21.912 4988011 Tanah Raing East Sumba 706 706 0 9,805

_______ ________ _________ 10.944 39.220Subtotal lENT) -. 12.208 10.224 11.066 209.063 882.615Total C.M4T&ENT) 57856 48.133 507337 1.257.517 1.923.535Appraisal (WNT&ENT) 35,670

GOl - Govemmenl of Indonesia, ADB-AsI4n Development bank

Includes Jurarig Sale Hulu

Damaged in 1992 earthquake Rehabilitated under Bank-tnanced Loan 1241(SF)-INO Flores Emergency Reconstruction Project for SDR18.428,000 approved on 1 July 1993

WATER USER ASSOCIATION? (WUAs)

WNTWUAs District Court WIJA

Legal Registration TrainingNo. Irrigation Scheme no. no. No Yes

1. Pengga 21 16 20 12. Jurang Batu 19 10 12 73. Jurang Sate Hulti 34 0 24 104, Jurang Sate Hilir 29 0 17 125 Parung 12 7 4 86 Renggung 10 6 6 47 Mujurl 3 2 1 28 Mujurll 17 9 15 29.Parado 8 0 8 0

10 Ruius 8 4 2 611 Tibunangka 4 4 2 212.Kulem 5 1 5 013 Katon 6 5 3 314 Ireng Daya 1 0 0 115. PawangKates 1 0 1 016.Mamben 1 1 1 017 Datar 6 0 3 3

Total 185 65 124 61Source WNT PWRS. PCM. 1996

ENTWater User Associations ADIART

Estimated Existtng District Court WUA

Need no. Farmers Legal Registration TrainingNo. Irrigation Scheme no. no.

1. Kajum Bawa & Mae Bawa 2 1 35 not yet yes2 Wae Cess ill & Wee Bobo 2 1 175 not yet yes3. Koritepe 3 1 150 not yet yes4 Lombur-Wae Cewo 3 1 200 not yet yes5 Lembor - Wae Kanta 1&2 4 2 425 not yet yes6. Lembur 2 1 220 not yet yes7. Lembor - Wae Sele 2 1 300 not yet yes8. Mautenda IV 2 1 206 not yet yes9. Kolesia 1 1 63 not yet yes

10 Melolo 3 1 349 not yet yes11 Oeloan 1 1 35 not yet yes12 Haekto 2 I 266 not yet yes13 Lot 1 1 24 not yet yes14 Peto 1 1 30 not yet yes15 Kambaniru 6 5 750 not yet yes16. Magepanda 4 I 553 not yet yes17 Pruda 3 1 90 not yet yes18. Ponu 3 1 215 not yet yes19. Kakaha 3 1 339 not yet yes20. Mataiyang 4 1 586 not yet yes

Total 52 25 6011 0 25Source PWRS. ENT, 11/96

All of the WIJAs that are formally registered are considered by the Provincial Water Resources Services (PWRS) to be functionalalthough all have various weaknesses in particular management and administration skills.PWRS and Provincial Agriculture Services (PRAS) will address the needs of the WIJAs through ongoing provincial programs.Constitution and By-laws/Anggaran Dasar/Anggaran Rumah Tengqa

VVCD

0>(()

339278346963

A. West Nusa Tenggara1. Pawang Kates2 Ireng Daya3. Mamben

Subtotal

- PTGA 1992- PTGA 1991

1996 PTGA 1992

23 Appendix 4

SMALL IRRIGATION SCHEMES

As-built WUAs Year Training Date ofSubproject Area (ha) (no.) Legalized Receiveda Hand-over

B. East Nusa Tenggara1.WaeBobo 125 1 1993 PTGA 19952. Kajum Bawa 49 1 1993 PTGA 19953. Maa Bawa 29 1 1993 PTGA 1995

4. Mautenda lVb 0 1 1995 PTGA5. Prudab 0 1 1995 PTGA6 Kolesa' 0 1 1993 PTGA7. Koritepe 359 1 - PTGA 19958. Ponu 381 1 1994 PTGA 19959. Haektoc 388 1 1994 PTGA10. Lou 37 1 1994 PTGA 199511. Oeloan 76 1 1994 PTGA 199512. Peto 75 1 1994 PTGA 1995

Subtotal 1,519

Total 2,482Appraisal Target 4,290

a PTGA - Water User Training Program.

Damaged by 1992 earthquake.

Damaged by flood.

24 Appendix 5

INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING OF PROVINCIAL WATER RESOURCES SERVICES (PWRS)AND WATER USER ASSOCIATIONS (WUAs)

I. Training Group Type of TrainingaTrainees (no.)A. WNT1. Irrigation Services 2-14 days course! 494

On-the-job training2. WUAs Workshop/In-field demo 2,390

B.ENT981. Irrigation Services

3,6802. WUAsC. Total WNT/ENT

5921 Government- 6,0702.WUAs -

II. Staff Increases Start of Project - 1989 Completion of Project % ChangeA. WNT1. Engineers 133 942. Non-Engineers 243Subtotal 309 337B. ENT1. Engineers 33 1102. Non-Engineers 44 i.4Subtotal 77 256 232

C. WNT/ENT1. Engineers 166 204 232. Non-Engineers 2ZQ0. Total WNT/ENT 386 593 54

a Training courses include

A. Provincial Water Resources Services

1. Planning and Design

2. Construction Supervision

3 Training of inspectors

4. lrngatIon Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

5 Water Operation Center (WOC) in WNT

B. Water User Associations and Irrigation Committees

1. Water Management

2. Training of Instructors

3. O&M of Action Groups

Provincial Officials (Group Al)

District Level Officials (Group A2)

Subdistrict Level Offcials (Group Bi)

Village Officials, PPL, Juru, Women Representatives (Group B2)

Water User Leaders and Key Farmers (Group C)

Follow-up Activities by Bl ,B2, and C Groups (KTL)

Establishment of WUAs (PP. P3A)

32,380 ha

48,132 ha (149%)

3,187 ha

2,094 ha (66%)

210,000 ha

304.580 ha (145%)

32,380 ha

24,739 ha (76%)

Both Provinces Ongoing activity. Training and the provisionof equipment and materials. WUAs trainedunder Water User Training Program. Manyneeds to be established and legalized.WUAs are willing to pay 1SF if service isprovided.

25

Appendix 6

STATUS OF 1987 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) POLICIES

Target as of Actual as ofPolicy No. 31 Dec 1995 31 Dec 1995

1 O&M based on Actual Needs Both Provinces Seldom achieved as provinces areprovided a fixed annual budget for O&Mbased on the area of coverage.

Effective O&MSmall Irrigation Schemes (P1K)

2. Land and Building Tax (PBB)

3. Irrigation Service Fee (1SF)

4. Institutional Strengthening

5. Improved System forBudgeting and Programmingfor O&M

Both Provinces Ongoing. No apparent improvement asthe provinces are provided with a fixedO&M budget and farmers are payinga fixed amount for 1SF (Rp16,000-1 8,000/ha)per year and the funds are deposfteddirectly into the district treasury. In 1997,the Central Government will give blockgrants of Rp 35,000/ha to the provinces.

6. Rationalization of Irrigation Both Provinces Rehabilitation and upgrading of existingInvestments schemes, turnover of small schemes,

and improvement of water managementon a river basin concept.

NationwideTarget as of

Activity 31 Dec 1995 Actual as of 31 Dec 1995(ha) (ha)

1. EOM 2,258,343 2.014.1682. PBB na na3. 1SF 879,236 370,9604. P1K 606,902 236,631na - not available.

Source DGWRD

7.673.195 65,993.31537,230,480 30.297,14550,442,715 35,696,170

87,673,1 95 65,993,315

32,.84QZ96 22..904d9.427,685,457 19,901,413

895,895 684,131

4,258,944 2,318,650

1,060,594 554,195

33,900,890 23,458,389

725024

9

40

0)

20241215

18

>

CD

0

>(

CoCD

IRRIGATION SERVICE FEE (1SF)

Table 1: Irrigation Service Fee (1SF) Collection

Name Area (ha) FY 1993/94 Collected in 1994 FY 1994/95 Collected in 1995 FY 1995/96 Collected in 1996

of Subproject Appraisal Gross! ISFa Target° Collection ¼ Targetb Collection ¼ Targetb Collectionc %

Irrigated (Rp) (Rp) Collection (Rp) (Rp) Collection (Rp) (Rp) Collection

A. West Nusa Tenggara

WsitgrnbJ _L543 .._229 36,784.000 16.582,74.9 2Z04 8.795.559

Gebong 1,940 1,802 28,832,000 13,879,669 48 14,417,288 6,827,009 47

Datar 603 497 7,952,000 2,703,080 34 7,957,760 1,968,550 25

Central LombokBatujaiJurang Sate HuluJurang Sate HilirRenggung

Total in 1994

Total in 1995

Total in 1996

Total Province

B. East Nusa TenggaraLembor

Lembor IWae LomburWae SeleWae Cewo

Wae Cess Ill

Total in 1994Total in 1995 and 1996

Total Province

15.694 - 10,784

3,330 2,334

4,096 3,095

6,551 4,256

1,717 1,099

5,429

7,728

13,083

21,930 18,237 13,083

6.000 2,4221385269365403

502 296

2,3532,718

10,450 6,502 2,718

8t.932.200 73.367.42981

35,443,960 36,115,94771

46,488,240 37,251,482

75

118,716,200 89,950,178

.35,822O4QjZ,457,31772 27,150,480 15,544,60776 933,000 587,700

4,007,880 125,10054 3,730,680 1,199,91052 6,002,302 60,000

6941,824,342 17,517,317

161 154J95 65.137.569102 35,012,730 25,080,20080 46,423,440 23.320,174

63,839,475 15,263,69516,478,550 1,473,500

76

184,129,243 73,933,128

40,153,S60 7,603,047

57 30469,320 6,147,193

63 1,182,840 287,700

3 3,772,800 450,500

32 4728,600 717,654

1 3,001,151 0

42 43,154,711 7,603,047

Grand Total 32,380 24,739 15,801

a Planted/Harvested area.b Derived from 1SF contribution times planted/harvested area.

Covers target and collection up to the time or Project Completion Mission which is for one harvest only. The targets and collection in FY1993/94 and 1Y1994/95 are for two harvests

Table 2: Operation and Maintenance of Selected Subprojects

_________ FY 1994/1995 FY 1995/1996.

Name of Irrigated O&Ma ISFb Local O&Ma ISFb LocalSubproject Area (ha) Requirement Collection Govt. Source Shortage - Requirement Collection Govt. Source Shortage

(Rp) (Rp) (Rp) Rp (Rp) (Rp) (Rp) Rp

WNT

West Lombok 2,543

Gebong 1,940Datar 603

Central Lombok i,426 37iL3OQ,000 65993i5 305,306,685 82

Batujai 3,330 166,500,000 30,297,145 - 136,202,855Jurang Sate Hut 4,096 204,800,000 35,696,170 - 169,103,830

ENT

Lembor 5,000 C 200,000,000 22,904,149 30,000,000 147,095,851 74Wae Cess III 502 30,000,000 554.195 10,000,000 19,445,805 65

127,1 50,Q00 1 6,582,749 52,845,278 57,721973

45

97,000,000 13,879,669 40,313,341 42,806,99030,150,000 2,703,080 12,531937 14,914,983

37 t300000 73,367,429 52,845278 245,087,293

66

166,500,000 36,115,947 40,313,341 90,070,712204,800,000 37,251482 12,531,937 155,016,581

250,000,000 17,457,317 67OO000 165,542,683 6640,000,000 60,000 15,000,000 24,940,000 62

NJ

Average about Rp50,000fhab Collected under previous fiscal year.

As built rounded up.

CD

Q.

><

0

(D

CD

NJ

28 Appendix 8

LAND DEVELOPMENT a

Location District Area (ha)

I. Directorate General of Food Crops and Horticulture

A. West Nusa Tenggara1. Pengga West Lombok 137

B. East Nusa Tenggara1. Wae Lombur Manggarai 74

2. Wae Sele Manggarai 723. Wae Cess lit Manggarai 314. Mautenda IV Ende 5325. Magepanda Sikka 2806. Melolo Sumba Timur 4007. Haekto Timor Timur Utara 488. Ponu Timor Timur Utara 549. Pruda Sikka 17010. Mataiyang Sumba Timur 4611.Kakaha SumbaTimur 13712. Lou Timor Timur Selatan 7913. Koritepe Sumba Barat 190

Subtotal 2,119Total 2,256

II. Directorate General of Water Resources Development

A. West Nusa Tenggara1.Pengga WestLombok 140

B. East Nusa Tenggara1. Lembor Kanta 1 &2 Manggarai 2942. Melolo Sumba Timur 1863. Kambaniru Sumba Timur 1 2404. Matalyang Sumba Timur 1 2165. Koritepe Sumba Barat 140

Subtotal 3,076Total 3,216Grand Total 5,472

a Bank financed land development only under Directorate General of Food Crop and Horticulture

29 Appendix 9

TERTIARY DEMONSTRATION UNITS (TDU) AND AGROCLIMATIC STATIONS

FarmerIrrigation Village TDU Area WUAs Groups Farmers AgroclimaticScheme (ha) (no.) (no.) (no.) Station

A.WNT

1. Datar. W. Lombok TelagaWaru 160.50 2 3 250 -

2 Pengga. W. Lombok Jembatan Kembar 95.50 1 2 397 -

3. Mujur, C. Lombok Mujur 64 1 1 296 -

4. Parung, C. Lombok Pengadang 79.5 2 2 359 -

5. Renggung, C. Lombok Dasan Baru 42.5 1 1 287 -

6. Rutus, E. Lombok Suradadi 93.5 1 2 346 -

B. ENT

1. Lembor, Manggarai(Wae Kanta) Tangge 63 1 3 65 1

2. Mautenda IV, Ende Ranakolo 63 1 8 103 1

3. Kolesia, Sikka Magepanda 42 1 5 130 -

4. Peto, Kupang (Rote) Maubesi 70 1 2 70 1

5. Ponu, North Central Timor Ponu 49 1 6 197 -

6. Melolo, E. Sumba Mutunggeding 83 1 3 132 1

7. Koritepe, W. Sumba Wae Kerau 42 1 4 33 -

Total 947.5 15 42 2,665 4

170 m2

100500 m2

100400 m

100

231 m2

10067 m2

100400 m2

100

150 m2

100

90 m2

10090 m2

4090 m2

40

425 ni

100425 rn 40

250 m2

100300 m2

100140 m2

1003,500 m 100

70 m2

100

50 m2

100

Appendix 10

IMPROVEMENT OF SEED PRODUCTION a

Activity Facility CompletedConstructed!Rehabilitated

A. WNT

1. CSF Panirijauan, W. Lomboka. Dormitory rehabilitationb. Office rehabilitationc. Seed store rehabilitation

2. CSF Puyung, E. Lomboka. Office rehabilitationb. Drying floor rehabilitationc. Fencing

3. MSF Pegondang, Lomboka. Seed store rehabilitationb. Office rehabilitationc. Drying floor rehabilitation

600 m2

100170 m2

100254 m2

100

4. MSF Kumbung, Lomboka. Seed store rehabilitation

305 m2

100b. Drying floor rehabilitation

300 m2

100

B. ENT

SCCSITask Force X:a. Rehabilitation of training roomb. Rehabilitation of laboratory:

i. Province (Kupang)ii. Ende Districtiii. East Sumba District

c. Fencing:i. Province (Kupang)ii. East Sumba District

2. MSF Lewa, East Sumbaa. Office rehabilitationb. Warehouse rehabilitationc. Drying floor rehabilitationd. Fencinge. Chief house rehabilitationf. Staff house rehabilitation

3. MSF Lembor, Manggaraia. Office rehabilitation 110 m2100b. Drying floor rehabilitation 240 m2100

CSF- central Seed Farm MSF- Main Seed Farm

a Rehabilitation of Seed Control and Certification Service (SCCS) Centers

3

officials Thailandofficials USA

2

officials Philippines2

officials Thailand2

officials Australia2

officials Australia11

2

officials Australia3

officials Thailand5

16

31

Appendix 11

INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING OF THE PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Classes Trainees TraineeTraining Type (no.) (no.) Type Place

A. Local TrainingWNTAgricultural Training Methodology 1 30 officialsOn-Farm Water Management 7 150 officials and farmersIrrigated Crop Production 9 204 officials and farmersSeed Production 2 40 officialsBalanced Fertilization 3 60 officialsManaged Cropping Pattern 2 40 officialsPie-harvest and Postharvest Practices 2 40 officialsLand Development 1 30 officialsComputer 1 20 officialsProject Management 1 10 officials

Subtotal 29 624

ENTAgricultural Training MethodologySeed ProductionBalanced FertilizationManaged Cropping PatternComputerLand DevelopmentAgroclimatologyPre-harvest and Postharvest PracticesOn-farm Water ManagementIrrigated Crop ProductionLand DevelopmentIrrigated Crop ProductionTechnical Training for TDUOrganizational Training for TDUWater and Cropping Pattern ManagementProject Workshop

SubtotalLocal Training Total

B. Overseas TrainingWNTIrrigation Water ManagementPlanning of Extension and Agriculture ExtensionAgroclimatologyPaddy Land FormationSeed Processing TechnologyExtension Communication

Subtotal

ENTSeed Processing TechnologyIrrigation Water Management

SubtotalOverseas Training Total

TDU - Tertiary Demonstration Unit

1

30

officials

3

60

officials

7

180

officials

6

120

officials

20

officials

30

officials

30

officials

3

60

officials

11

220

officials

4

80

officials

28

560

farmers

3

60

farmers

7

140

officials

7

140

officials

8

160

officials

2

80

officials

93

1,970

122

2,594

32 Appendix 12

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION AREAS

Completed Works a

Agroforestry b1

Province! Appraisal Reforestation cOthers

District Subwatershed Target A D Total B C E F

(ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) no. (km) no.

A. WNT

1. Central Lombok Sangkok-Babak 1,737 3,900 44 11 34 7

2. West LombokSubtotal

B. ENT

1. South East Timor

North East Timor

(Timor Island)

Dodokan

Fatoe

Bonoe

1,045

7,000 2,782

500

1,300 16 9 28 8

5,200 7,982

- 7 12 - -

2. Ende Lowolake 200 - 3

(Flores Island)

3. E. Sumba Kambaneroe 800 230 6

(Sumba Island) ________________

Subtotal 3,000 1,500 230 1,730

Total . 10,000 4,282 5,430 9712a A - Planting of fruit trees and firewood species. B - Guillies worth stone piling for control of water flow,

C - Gully check dams constructed, D - Planting of forest tree species. E - Construction of forest road,

F - Workshop for forest ranger (office/quarter).b In village areas.

In forest areas.

859 4.049 4,908 657 2901 3,557

275 52 327 334 27 361

420 171 591 312 326 640

0 133 133 0 85 85

0 232 232 0 186 186

329 1,712 2,041 ____________________________

1,883 6.349 8,232 1.303 3,527 4.630 56.7

0 4,654 4,65.4

282 31 313

140 175 315

0 38 38

0 213 213

103 1,957 2060

525 7068 7593

0 4,600 4,600

764 0 764

213 390 603

0 45 450 120 120

977 5155 6133 808

180 270

244 101

252 52

o 476

0 63

127 331

803 1.295

10,000

15,600

450 144 216 360

345 272 10 283

304 197 64 261

478 0 325 325

63 0 134 134

458

2098 613 749 1,362

10,000 8.976 9.976

15.600 15,644 15,544

649

99 8

100.3

33 Appendix 13, page 1

PROJECT COST AND FINANCINGTable 1: Project Cost by Component

(S 000)

Item Appraisal Actual Actual vs.______________________ ______________________ Appraisal

For.ign Local Total Foreign Local Total

A. Irrigation Development (DGWRD)1 Civil Works 29 ji0 3.11

a Dam and Appurtenances 10.894 7,064 17.958 10.705 6,753 17458b Rehabilitation and Upgrading 17,243 23,808 41 .051 22,147 31,509 53,655

c Building and Offices 462 699 1.161 459 677 11362 Equipment 1.673 337 2010 795 380 1 175

3 Consulting Services 2,562 2,854 5416 4065 5010 90754 Training 76 478 554 48 726 7745 Survey and Investigation 0 132 132 0 0 06 Inoremental O&M Cost 0 1.260 1,260 0 1 498 1 4987 Land Acquisition 0 2.985 2.985 0 5,687 5 6878 Land Development 0 0 0 0 212 2129PBME 0 0 0 0 54 5410 Administralion 0 2,903 2.903 0 3,515 3,51511. Contingencies 6.844 13,928 20,772 __________________________

Total (A) 39754 56,448 96,202 38.219 56022 94.241 980

B. Irrigation Service Fee (DGPARA)1 Equipment arid Materials 206 24 230 103 0 1032 Consulting Services 168 70 238 406 300 7063 Adminislration 0 19 19 24 244 Contingencies 64 32 96 ______________________________

Totat(B) 438 145 583 509 324 633 1429

C. Agricultural Development (DGFCH)1 Civil Works 566 1,902 2 468 239 1 480 1,7202 Equipment 688 157 1.045 981 78 1.0593 Consulting Services 336 724 1,060 238 1.283 1.5214 Training/Demonstrations 0 1.517 1.517 0 2,045 2,0455. A&riinistration 0 244 244 0 211 2116 Contingencies 317 1,651 1,968 ____________________________

Total (C) 2,107 6,195 8,302 1.468 5,097 6.555 790

0. Soil and Water Conservation (DGRLR)1 Civ,IWorks2 Equipment3. Consulting Services4. Training -5 Administration6 Contingencies

Total (D)

E. Land Tax Improvement (DGTax)1 Survey arid Mapping2. Equipment3 Consulting Services4 Training5 Administration6 Contingencies

Total (6)

F. Strengthening of BAPPEDA (DGRD)

1 Civil Works (Office Buildings)2. Equipment3 Consulting Services4 Training5. Administration6 Contingencies

Total (F)

G. Taxes and Duties

H. Interest and Service Charge DuringConstruction

I. RefinancingofTA 190 190 143 143 75.0

Total 61,300 87,500 144,800 58,866 80,849 139,715 93.9

DGVVRD-Directorate General of Water Resources Development, DGPARA-Direclorate General of Public Administration and Regional AutonomyDGFCH- Directorate General of Food Crops and Horticulture, DGRLR-Directorale General for Reforestation and Land RehabilitationDGTax- Directorate General of Tax, DGRD-Directorate General of Regional Development TA.Teciln,cal Assistance

34 Appendix 13, page 2

Table 2: Project Cost by Province

West Nusa T.nggara East Nusa Ienggara

($00) ($000)tern Appraisal Actual Appraisa' Actual

Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Tota Foreign Loca Tota Foreign Local Total

A rngation Development (DGWRD)1 Civil Works Z1Z Zilti 429Q Zi2 P2 iQ.3 1L252 B,i1 , 22282

a Dam and Appurtenances 10.694 7.064 17,958 10.705 6 753 17.456 0 C' 0 0 0 0

b Rehabditatton and Upgrading 10.533 13.743 24,276 13.403 18,391 31,793 6710 10065 16775 8745 13.118 21,863Building and OffIces 270 404 674 287 430 717 192 295 487 172 247 420

2 Equipment 956 160 1116 89 285 3 717 177 894 705 94 8003 Consulting Services 2.030 1,924 3,954 2,917 2,909 5.82€ 532 93.3 1462 1147 2.101 3,2494 Training 54 299 353 48 458 506 22 179 201 0 269 2695 Survey and Investigation 0 9 9 0 0 C. 0 123 123 0 0 06. naement,aI OSM Cost 0 887 887 1115 1,115 0 373 373 0 384 3847 Land Anguisition 0 2,843 2,843 5,198 5.198 0 142 142 0 490 4908 Land Development 0 0 0 65 65 0 0 0 0 147 1479. PBME 0 0 0 54 54 0 0 0 0 0 010 Administration 0 2.082 2.082 2,095 2,095 0 821 821 0 1.420 1,42011 Contingencies 5.160 9,512 14.672 _____________________ 1684 4416 6 100 _____________________

Total (A) 29,897 38.927 68,824 27,449 37.752 65.201 9,857 17521 27,378 10.770 18,270 29.040

B mgation Service Fee (DGPARAI1 EquiprnentandMatenals 103 12 115 52 0 52 103 12 115 52 0 522 Consulting Services 126 47 173 305 201 508 42 23 65 102 98 2003 Administration 0 12 12 15 15 0 7 7 0 9 94 Contingencies 40 21 61 ___________________ 24 11 35 ____________________

Total (8) 269 92 361 356 216 573 169 53 222 153 107 260

C Agncultural Development IDGFCH)

I Civil Works 138 313 451 58 244 302 428 1,589 2,017 181 1237 1.4182. Equipment 352 79 431 389 39 428 536 78 614 592 39 6313. Consulting Services 168 305 473 119 541 659 168 419 587 119 743 8624. TrairvngfDemonstrations 0 657 657 885 885 0 860 860 0 1,159 1,1595 Aoministration 0 81 81 70 70 0 163 163 0 141 1416 Contingencies iio 517 627 ____________________ 207 1 134 1 341 ____________________

Total (C) 768 1,952 2,720 566 1,779 2,345 1.339 4.243 5.582 892 3,318 4.210

D Soil and Water Conservation (DGRLR)1 Civil Works 545 2,842 3,387 417 2,036 2.453 314 1,207 1.521 240 865 1.1052. Equipment 179 20 199 218 10 228 96 32 128 117 17 1333 Consulting Services 84 18 102 62 35 97 336 153 489 249 29.4 5434 Irainlng 0 59 59 38 38 0 74 74 0 48 486 Admiriistrarjon ' 0 146 146 117 117 0 86 86 0 69 696 Contingencies 177 1,138 1,315 ____________________ 152 574 726 ____________________

Total CD) 985 4.223 5.208 697 2236 2.932 898 2 126 3024 606 1.291 1 898

E Land Tax Improvement CDGT)1 Survey and Mapping 0 4.005 4.005 3,958 3,958 0 649 6.49 0 641 6412 Equtprntent 192 21 213 520 0 520 90 10 100 244 0 2443 ConsultingServtces 112 136 248 170 303 474 28 39 67 43 87 1304 Training o 23 23 27 27 0 15 15 0 18 185 Administration o 180 180 102 102 0 33 33 0 19 196. Contingencies 53 1.630 1.683 _____________________ 50 327 377 _____________________

Total (E) 357 5,995 6.352 691 4.391 5,081 168 1 073 1.241 287 765 1.051

F Strmngtherang 01 BAPPEDA (QGRD)

1 Civil Works (Office Buildings) 0 0 0 11 17 28 180 270 450 133 199 3312 Equipment o 0 0 57 0 57 244 101 3.45 216 10 2263 Consulting Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 52 304 197 64 2614 Training 0 0 0 209 209 0 478 478 0 117 1175 Administration o 0 0 45 45 0 63 63 0 89 896 Contingencies a 0 0 _____________________ 127 331 458 _____________________

Total (F) 0 0 0 58 270 338 803 1.295 2.098 545 479 1,024

G 'Taxes and Duties 6.585 6,585 6.739 6739 3415 3415 3.237 3,237

f-I Interest and Service Charge 10,400 10.400 10.430 10430 5.200 5.200 5,215 5,215Dunng Constnjction

Refinancing oCTA 190 190 143 143

Total 42,676 57,774 100,450 40,256 53,383 93,638 18,624 28,726 48,350 13,396 32,682 46,077

DGWRD-Oirectorate General of Water Reoources Development, DGPARA-Directorate General of Public Administration and Regional AutonomyDGFCH- Directorate General of Food Crops and Horticulture, DGRLR-Directorate General tor Reforestation and Land RehabilitationDGTax- Directorate General of Tax, DGRD-Direcforate General of Regional Development, TA-Technical Assistance

35 Appendix 13, page 3

Table 3: Actual Project Financing(S 000)

Item Total Cost B a ri Ic Government

ADFOCR _______________________

Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Taxes Total

A Irrigation Development (DGWRD)

1 Civil Works ZZ2P 13853 i9 j,98 Q 2Z L225 t5.496

a Dam and Appurtenances 10705 8,498 19,204 9,645 6,033 15.678 1,061 719 1,780 0 1.746 1.746

o Rehabilitation and Upgrading 22.147 36.874 59,021 3,999 4,199 6,198 18 148 19.037 37,185 8.273 5,366 13,639

c Building sf0 Offices 459 791 1,250 209 304 513 250 374 624 0 114 114

2 Equipment 795 497 1,292 795 380 1,175 0 117 117

3 Consulting Services 4.065 5,918 9,982 4.065 5,010 9.075 0 907 907

4 Training 48 726 774 48 726 774 0 0 0

5 Survey and Investigation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 incremental O&M Cost 0 1,648 1,648 969 969 530 150 680

7 LanO Acquisition 0 5,687 5,687 0 5,687 0 5,687

S LanD Development 0 212 212 0 212 0 212

9 PBME 0 59 59 54 54 0 5 5

1 0 Aqmin,stration 0 3.515 3.515 . ________________________ 3,515 0 3,515

Total (A) 38.219 64,427 102.646 13,853 10,536 24.389 24,366 27,268 51,634 0 18.218 8.405 26,623

B Irrigation Service Fe. (DGPARA)1 Equipment and Materials 103 10 113 103 103 0 10 10

2 Consulting Services 406 370 776 406 300 706 0 71 71

3 AdminiStration 0 24 24 24 0 24

Total (B) 509 405 914 509 300 809 0 24 81 105

C Agncultural Development (DGFCH)1. Civil Works

a Office buildings, TDUs, RECs 239 736 975 239 647 887 0 89 89

b. Land Development 0 833 833 833 0 833

2. Equipment 981 184 1,165 981 78 1.059 0 106 106

3. Consulting Services 238 1.435 1,673 238 1.283 1.521 0 152 152

4 Tratning/Demontrations 0 2,045 2.045 2,045 2,045 0 0 0

5 Administration 0 211 211 ________________________ 211 0 211

Total (C) 1,458 5,443 6,901 1.458 4,053 5,511 0 1,043 347 1,390

0 Soil and Water Conservation (DGRLR)1. Civil Works 657 3,256 3,913 657 2.901 3,557 0 356 356

2. Equipment 334 63 397 334 27 361 0 36 36

3 Consulting Services 312 392 704 312 328 640 0 64 64

4 Training 0 . 85 85 85 85 0 0 0

5. Administration 0 186 186 186 0 186

Total (0) 1.303 3,983 5.286 1.303 3,341 4,644 0 186 456 642

E. Land Tax Improvement (DGTaX)1 Survey and Mapping 0 5.060 5.060

2 Equ,oment 764 76 841

3 Consulting Services 213 451 664

4 Training 45 45

5 Administration . 0 120 120

Total (E) 977 5,752 6,729

F. Strengthening of BAPPEDA (DGRD)1 Civil Works (Office Buildings)2 Equipment

3 Consulting Services

4 Training5. Administration -

Total (F)

G Interest and Service Charge

During Construction

H Refinancing of TA

Total

4.600 4.600 0 460 460

764 764 0 76 76

213 390 603 0 60 60

45 45 0 0 0

120 0 120

977 5.035 6.012 0 120 597 717

0 36 36

0 28 28

0 26 26

0 0 0

134 0 134

0 134 90 224

0 19,725 9,976 29,701

144 252 396 144 216 360

272 39 311 272 10 283

197 90 287 197 64 261

0 325 325 325 325

0 134 134 ______________________

613 839 1,452 613 616 1,229

15,644 0 15,644 944 944 14,700 14.700

143 0 143 143 143

58.866 80,849 139.715 14,940 10,536 25,476 43,926 40,613 84,539

Actual financing (percent) 18 61 21

Planned Financing (percent) 17 63 20

DGWRD-Directorate General of Water Resources Development, DGPARA-Directorate General of Public Administration and Regional Autonomy

OGFCH Directorate General of Food Crops and Horticulture, DGRLR-Directorate General for Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation

OGTax- Directorate General of Tax, DGRD-Directorate General of Regional Development, TA .Technical Assistance

36 Appendix 14, page 1

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULEWEST NUSA TENGGARA

Activity - Year 1f Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7

1989/9011990/91 1991192 1992/93 1993/94 1994195 1995/96

1. Construction Pengga Dam & Appurtenances

2. Rehabilitation and Upgradinga. Pengga Irrigation Scheme

b. Keru and Sesaot Diversion

C. Jurang Sate Main Canal Remodelling

d. Jurang Batu Scheme

e Tibunangka and Rutus Schems

f. Parung Irrigation Scheme

g. Renggung lmgation Scheme

h. Mujur I & II

i. Katon Scheme

j. Pawang Kates. Ireng Daya, Datarand Mamben Schemes

k. Tertiaries

3. Efficient Operation and Maintenance

4. Hand-over of Small Schemes to Water UserAssociations

5. Institutional Strengthening

IIrrigation Service Fee (DGPARA)

Agricultural Development (DGFCH)1. Land Development

2. Tertiary Demonstration Units

3. Improvement of Seed Production

4. institutional Strengthening

Soil and Water Conservation (DGRLR)1. Inventory and Investigation

2. Implementation and Demonstration

Land Tax Improvement (DGT)1. Survey and Mapping

2. Reclassification/Reassessment

I I Iof Bappeda (DGRD)• Appraisal

ActualPreparatory

37 Appendix 14, page 2

EAST NUSA TENGGARA

Appratsal

Actual________

Precaratory hiltli

38

Appendix 15, page 1

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOAN COVENANTS

Reference to LoanDocuments Special Covenant Status of Compliance

Operations

Article IV DGWRD, DGPARA, DGFCH, DGRLR, Partially complied with. DGWRDSection 4.06 (b) DGT and DGRD to furnish audited accounts submitted accounts.

not later than nine (9) months after each DGFCH, DGRLR, and DGTrelated fiscal year submitted the accounts in Bahasa

Indonesian. Not complied with byDGPARA and DGRD.

Article IV DGWRD, DGPARA, DGFCH, DGRLR, DGT Partially complied with.Section 4.07 (b) and DGRD to furnish Quarterly Progress DGWRD and DGFCH submitted

Reports. reports.

Article IV DGWRD, DGPARA, DGFCH, DGRLR, DGT DGFCH complied. ConsultantsSection 4.07 (C) and DGRD to furnish a Project Completion prepared completion reports for

Report 3 months after completion of the DGWRD, DGFCH and DGRLR. NotProject. complied with by DGT, DGPARA,

and DGRD.

Schedule 5 Establishment of a Project Guidance Unit Complied with.para. 3 within DGWRD, DGFCH and DGRLR within

3 months from loan effectivity.

Schedule 5 Coordination and monitoring of Project Partially complied with. BAPPENASpara. 4 Implementation by BAPPENAS at the did not hold regular meetings.

National Level and BAPPEDA at the However, BAPPEDA held occasionalprovincial and district level on a quarterly coordination meetings at thebasis. provincial level, usually during Loan

Review Missions.

Schedule 5 Each concerned provincial agency to Complied with.para. 6 designate a Project Manager.

Schedule 5 Reassignment and/or recruitment of Partially complied with.para. 7 additional staff, as required, in each

concerned provincial, district and subdistrictagency.

Schedule 5 Establishment of a Water Operation Center Complied with. However, WOC ispara. 13 in West Nusa Tenggara PWRS 2 years from only semi-operational as results and

effective date (May 1991). instructions are not used by fieldstaff

Schedule 5 Introduction of 1SF in the Project Area. Complied with.para. 14

Schedule 5 Establishment of a Project Management Unit Complied with.para. 16 by the PRAS in each concerned province.

Schedule 5para. 31

Schedule 5para. 34

Schedule 5para. 35

Complied with. DGWRD, DGFCH,DGRLR and DGRD prepared CTPs.

Partially complied with.

Partially complied with.

Complied with. Function should bereassessed by PWRS.

Complied with. December 1990.

39

Appendix 15, page 2

Reference toLoan Documents Covenant Status of ComplianceSpecial Operation

Schedule 5 Improve revenue performance of PBB Compiled with.para. 24 through introduction of revised PBB rates.

Schedule 5 Availability of credit for land development, as Not applicable. Credit schemepara. 29 required, at the start of each fiscal year. cancelled. GOI financed land

development through DGWRD.Loan financed land developmentthrough DGFCH.

Schedule 5para. 37

Schedule 5para. 39

Schedule 5para. 40

Schedule 5para. 42

Schedule 5para. 43

Schedule 5para. 44

Schedule 5para. 45

Schedule 6para. 51(b)

Formulation of a comprehensive trainingprogram within one year of Loan effectivityi.e. May 1990.

Introduction of efficient O&M (EOM) uponcompletion of irrigation schemes.

Handing over of irrigation schemes withareas less than 500 ha to WUAs uponcompletion of irrigation-related civil works.

Simplify and rationalize procedures forfunding irrigation O&M.

Establishment of Action Groups by thePRAS by 30 June 1989.

Establishment or reactivation of DistrictIrrigation Committees prior to 31 March 89

Establishment of Special Account.

Establishment of viable WUAs.

Establishment of a Project Monitoring andEvaluation Unit in each province.

Provisional Impact evaluation study forselected irrigation scheme prior to PCRreport.

Ongoing program.

Complied with, but not active.

Partially complied with.

Complied with.

Not complied with.

Increase in level of O&M funding on all Partially complied with.irrigation schemes where efficient O&M hasbeen introduced.

6t7,648 886,522 1.823.012 2,468,653 4,084,260 5,708,521 2,640,t92 3,701.898

607,409 888,890

650.967 934.348 l,220,48t 1.653.566 2.708.264 3.786,828 t.89t,t92 2.652.008

917,430 1,338,38113.492 18,383 55,769 79,158 124,773 176.772

175,002 251,652

111,557 142,590

111,557 142,590 1,268,615 1.820.870 3,057,045 4,140.602 6,848,293 9.574.505 4.656,157 6,530,678 1,699,841 2,478,923

714,989

35.005

21.146 190,372

31.561

39.856 129,049

178.882

86.863 839.386 739.402

'67,151

70.64548,000

758.980

137,093

to, 1306.832

8.408 t6,29t

87.408 1,2e3,598 919,653

243.242113.230

23,27745,95491.280

16 .059

48175 225.938 686,194

222.446 4.234.654 3.456.949

2.018,515

250,3t411.401

154 .659145,443

2,77284,470

837,91260.926

168,092138,298t20,326

17 .093

2,119.440

25,788

2,20510,397

953,165Il .205

126.299273,579

479110,500157,700

9.084

326. 52226.862

1.163.234

9. 332 .678

9.68t .388

5.11 256,68491,04752,370

142.657

129.384

503,499160.27869,642

106,42054 .592

10 .4 58,950

28.96885.026

723.91178.896

751 .02988.754

101,0251.345

411.875365.925

27,26844.868

148,869

787 .60 1266.989

1.927.074

27.351,446

3.926.156187,988259,27587,188

233,17029.348

384.956

133.3548.890

722,963153600

37,849109.134

3.691.264508,211920,290130,78284,17563.348

673,286186,842180,4 57

15,84438.84793.473

353.45029.058

132,468

3.311.412312. 77 1

3.3023.499.667

20.504 798

3,115,34751,428

357,3780

8,82410,028

261.04320,001

498.8940

334,61531,201

00000

3.100.938139.045

1,814,3030

2 59, 5567,990

00

369.21816,803

108,578000

64 .5521,076.155

29.0460

18.9540

174,342362 .0 18

50.4437 149,718

19436220

19.458,395239.398656.770143,872794 .873103,147980,876334.349764,404272,242

4,064,640406.005237,734311,867212.767196,87248,000

20,129,57 2647,256

2,900.65421 5.808379,851

78.17026,90410.397

5,010,239299,546

1,283,306328,283390,44863.948

726,3542.044.510

85,37244.868

325 .4340

4,599.877968.840

53 .74514 700,000

114539,191

0

-o(D

0

0)

ANNUAL DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE BY CATEGORY

Category FYl989190- FY1990191 FY1991/92 FY1992/93 FY1993194

SDR $ SDR $ SOR S SOR $ SDR $

FYI 994195

SDR $

Asian Development Funds:

Loan 952(SF)-INO

01 CivilWorks(ParlA)02 Loc. Exp. Civil Works (Part A)03 Service Charge04 Refinancing TA05 Unallocated99 Exch rate difference of Imprest Adv.

Total 952(SF).lNO

Ordinary CapItal Resources:Loan 953-tNO

OIA Civil Wofks - Part AOtB Civ,lWorks-PartCO1C Civil Works - Part 1)

010 CivilWorlrs-PartF02A Equip. Vehicles & Mats. Part A02B Equip, Vehicles & Mats. Part B02C Equip, Vehicles & Mats Part C020 Equip. Vehicles & Mats. Part D02E Equip, Vehicles & Mats. Part E02F Equip, Vehicles & Mats Part F03A Consulting Services - Part A036 Consulting Services- Part B03C Consulting Services - Part C031) Consulting Services - Part 003E Consulting Services - Part E03F Consulting Services - Part F04 Training - Part A05A LC Erip - Civit Works (Part A)059 LC Exp - Civil Works (Part C)OSC IC Fxp - Civil Works (Part C)050 LC Exp - Civil Works (Part F)05E IC Exp - Eqpt.. Materials (Part A)(1SF IC Exp - Eqpt. Materials (Pail C)05G LC Exp - Eqpt Materials (Part D)05H IC Eap - Eqpt., Materials (Part F)(151 IC Fxp . Consulting Services (Part A)OSJ LC Exp - Consulting Services (Part B)05K IC Exp. - Consulting Services (Part C)OSL LC Esp. - Consulting Services (Part 0)05M LC Exp. - Consulting Services (Part E)05N LC Esp. - Consulting Services (Part F)050 LC Ixp. - Tmg & Demonstration (Pert A)OSP IC Esp - Tmg & Demonstration (Part C)050 IC Exp - Tmg & Demonstration (Part 0)OSR IC Exp - 1mg & Demonstration (Part E)OSS IC Exp - 1mg & Demonstration (Part F)OST IC Exp - Survey Invest. A Mop (Part A)05U IC Exp. - Survey Invest. & Map (Part E)05V IC Exp - Incremental 0 & M (Part A)05W IC Exp - PBME Related Expense06 Inlerest During Construction

Total 953-INO

FY1995196 Total

Son $ SOR $

132,588 198,405 9,905,169 13,852.889

113.345 170.134 7,501,879 10,535.863

278.186 418.372 647,222 944,337

0 0 111,557 142,590

0 0 0 0

22,784 0 22.784 0

5.46,903 787,511 18,188,411 25,475,679

41 Appendix 17, page 1

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. Attainment of Benefits

1 With the completion of the Project, an area of 33,236 ha in East Nusa Tenggara (ENT)and West Nusa Tenggara (WNT) has been provided with rehabilitated or new irrigation works.Both the quantity and efficiency of water supply in the irrigation areas have improved. Besidesto better meeting crop water requirements, a more stable water supply translates into greaterconfidence on the part of the farmer, and a greater willingness to intensify cultivation practices.

2. Yield results in the irrigation areas have reportedly been higher than those expected inthe appraisal report (AR). The Project agricultuial consultants and the Ministry of Agricultureconsistently record average rice yields of up to 8 tons per hectare (t per ha) in the TertiaryDemonstration Units (TDU). The Project Completion Mission (PCM) allows that there may besome bias in TDU results toward more accessible areas and more progressive farmers.

3. The PCM estimated future rice yields at levels os 5.2 t per ha for WNT and 4.5 t per hafor ENT at full development. These levels are moderately higher than the 5 t and 4.4 t projectedin the AR.

4. In addition to increasing crop yields, improved irrigation has extended the dry seasoncropping areas. This has been verified in both provinces during the PCM, which was conductedat the peak of the dry season. The PCM was repeatedly surprised to see the extent of areascropped in the second dry season. Extensive interviews with field irrigation personnel, review oftheir historical cropping records, review of the provincial water balance studies, and irrigationarea visits were contributing factors in evaluating cropping intensity. Future cropping intensitywith the Project is projected as 248 percent compared with a without-Project cropping intensityof 186 percent. Both figures are higher than those reported in the appraisal, with theincremental gain now placed at 60 percent in PCM as opposed to the 40 percent at appraisal.

5. While the PCM incremental cropping intensity is slightly higher than that at appraisal,both the area cropped and the water balance studies indicate an even greater croppingintensity attainable. But for evaluation purposes, the PCM took a conservative approach tomake allowances for social and operational factors. Both crop yields and cropping intensitiesshould receive a close look during later reviews to assess if the higher levels are indeedpossible and sustainable.

6. The PCM predicts that the combined effect of boosted yields and extended crop areawill result in increased annual production of 125,000 t of rice and 38,000 t of secondary crops atfull development.

B. Economic Analysis

7. Economic analysis was undertaken on a sample of subproject sites that were visited toverify conditions. In WNT, all components of the Pengga-related irrigation systems were visitedas well as two of the four WNT small schemes, Mamben and Ireng Daya. This sample captured99 percent of the construction costs in the province.

42 Appendix 17, page 2

8. Five irrigation projects in ENT including the Lembor schemes, Melolo, Mataiyang.Kambaniru, and Ponu were visited. This sample accounts for about 79 percent of theconstruction costs for ENT.

1. Project Costs

9. Direct construction costs (DCC) for the Project irrigation projects are shown in Table 1.The WNT and ENT components account for 69 and 31 percent of the irrigation constructioncosts. The construction costs for the irrigation schemes ranged from a low of $464 per ha to ahigh of $8,980 per ha, with an average of about $1,707 per ha. The increase from the originalirrigation construction contracts to final contract costs was 28 percent, reflecting additionalworks and escalation (delay).

10. The Project financial costs have been converted to constant end-of-project, economicprices by (i) netting out taxes and interest payments, (ii) applying a 0.9 conversion factor tofinancial costs (except skilled services), and iii) bringing costs forward to a constant end-of-project price year (1995) by applying differential rates for local and foreign cost components.For the domestic cost component, the Biro Pusat Statistik (BPS) inflation index is employed,and for the foreign cost component, the IBRD MUV index is used. For currency conversions, anend-of-project exchange rate of Rp2,280=$1 is used.

11. The economic cost of the Project comprises the civil works, supervisory consultingservices, land development, land acquisition, and administration costs. Much of the projectperformance is contingent upon future operation and maintenance (O&M). Current levels ofO&M are reported to be about Rp20,000 per ha; Rp35,000-40,000 per ha is estimated byofficials as the appropriate figure. Irrigation service fees (1SF) will help support these budgetlevels. For the economic analysis, Rp40,000 per ha was used.

12. Related to the assumption of realized O&M in the future, the projected life is 30 years forthe rehabilitated and upgraded subprojects, and 40 years for the new works at Pengga andKambaniru.

13. The Appraisal Report's economic analysis was undertaken by allocating supportingcomponent base costs, adding 10 percent physical contingency, and multiplying this subtotal by0.8 economic conversion factor (p. 49, Appraisal Report). To provide a comparable basis, thePCM economic analysis is also using a scenario for allocating components cost to thesubprojects.

2. Benefit Stream

14. Only the direct benefit of the incremental value of agricultural production was used in thePCM economic analysis. There are numerous nonquantified benefits as well. Institutionalstrengthening of EAs and farmer groups is probably one of the main improvements that haveoccurred under the Project. Local domestic water supply has been enhanced. Secondarybusiness support and activity are occurring as a result of intensification and productionincreases.

15. For the direct benefits, financial crop budgets were formulated for the irrigated areasusing data and information provided by the Project consultants, the Project Monitoring and

43 Appendix 17, page 3

Evaluation (PME) offices at the Provincial Water Resources Services (PWRS), the ProvincialAgriculture Services (PRAS), and the PCM field interviews with farmers. Financial crop budgetswere converted to economic crop budgets. Commodity prices for tradable items are derivedfrom international markets using the August 1996 IBRD commodity price data. A constant end-of-project 1995 price basis is used consistent with valuation of Project costs, while thecommodity price year is 2005, to better match the flow of benefits during the projected life. Bothpaid and unpaid labor are valued in the economic crop budgets, but at levels of 80 percent thefinancial wage to account for unemployment and underemployment of labor in rural areas.

16. Individual commodities such as rice, maize, and groundnuts are valued at an average ofimport and export parity bases. Soybean is valued as an import substitute. Fertilizer urea isvalued at export parity, while triple superphosphte and potassium chloride fertilizers are valuedat import parity (see Table 2). For other inputs, financial market prices are assumed.

17. The economic value of crop production is derived from yields and areas cultivated in thefuture with and without the Project. The benefit stream attributable to the Project is thedifference between the values in the future with- and without-Project scenarios, also accountingfor any production loss caused by Project works (see Table 3).

18. The phase-in of full benefits is projected to take place over a five-year in WNT and aten-year period in ENT. This was the assumption in the appraisal, and the field visits of thePCM support this. The exception is the irrigation schemes of Lembor in ENT (west Flores),where rainfall is abundant and a tradition of intensified rice culture exists. A five-year phase-inwas used for this site.

19. In discussions with the WNT Water Operations Center personnel and field irrigationsystem operators, it was determined that the area directly benefiting from the Project irrigationimprovements under the Pengga-related schemes in WNT is greater than just the rehabilitationand upgrading (R&U) subproject areas. Jurang Sate Hulu and Hilir, not included asrehabilitation and upgrading (R&U) subprojects, still benefit significantly from the increased flowand distribution efficiency from diversion canal improvements and the freeing of water fordistribution by the construction of Pengga dam. The area and intensity improvements in JurangSate Hulu and Hilir have thus been included in the benefit analysis. The provincial irrigationservice also identified a number of smaller schemes (Iwan, Racem, Taipetuk, Muncan,Gerintuk, Bilakere and Rutus P.26 C) benefiting from improvements to the diversion canals andproximity to larger beneficiary schemes. These systems account for over 3,000 ha, but have notbeen included because (i) the schemes have been beneficiaries of improvements funded byother sources, and (ii) the degree to which they have benefited has not been adequatelyassessed at this time.

3. Economic Internal Rates of Return (EIRR)

20. The EIRRs for sample projects surveyed by the PCM are computed directly and shownin Table 4. The largest portion of the investment, the Pengga-related schemes in WNT, has areturn slightly lower than the appraisal estimate, partly because of cost increases.

21. The largest variance from the appraisal is shown by the Kambaniru scheme in ENT. ThePCM EIRR is estimated at 5 percent while the appraisal estimated 12.7 percent. The Projectexperienced cost increases and delays in completion. The subproject cost of $8,980 per ha is

44 Appendix 17, page 4

significantly above the overall Project average of $1,707 per ha. The return is low when viewedin a static sense, but there may be other dimensions to the subproject. The minimum flow forthe water supply is reported as 7 cubic meters per second, while the irrigation area is currentlyonly 1,240 ha. There is a significant surplus of water available for diversion to other potentialagricultural areas. This is apparently being considered by PWRS-ENT.

22. For the other sample subprojects, the variance is not large. Schemes with lower costper hectare naturally provided the best returns.

23. For the overall Project EIRR, the appraisal estimated isl4.9 percent. The PCM EIRRfor the irrigation projects is 11.9 percent, with WNT at 12.9 percent performing better than ENTat 9.8 percent. The returns in both provinces are significantly weighted by the returns of thePengga-related schemes and Kambaniru.

24. Lastly, when supporting project component costs are apportioned to the irrigationschemes, the Project EIRR is 10.3 percent.

4. Financial Impact

25. In Table 5, the financial impact of the Project on two sample farm sizes is depicted. Tocapture much of the range of outcomes, a small farm with 0.35 ha lowland and a larger farmwith 0.80 ha lowland were used. Incremental annual income from irrigation improvementsamounts to about Rp430.000 ($185) for the small farm and Rp980,000 ($422) for the largerfarm.

26. At lower levels of income, the marginal propensity to consume is higher. While havingsome implication for 1SF collection, the increased income should, in general, be sufficient to paythe Rp35,000-40,000 per ha for 1SF. Currently, the plan is to phase in 1SF increases over time,with the present level of about Rp16,000-1 8,000 generally targeted for collection.

165,597

272.965

296 801

317 .393

1 052.756

54176,001

53713.602

121.550

719 953

609.094

1,249 2.630

156'

1.628 3428

1,848 3890

2000 4,209

93'

865 1 820

415 873

939 1.977

475 1,000

4-47,799

885,995

1.266100

891.500

230,952

1 477 383

406.107

5.605 836 23 3 4 487

672.525 2.8 413

234,688 1 127

1,395,691 5.8 698

65725 03 76

160,985 07 388

34,757. 0 1 37

35612 01 75

7116139

4,019,537

45

Appendix 17, page 5

Table 1: DIRECT COSTS and PROJECT EIRRS

•/0

OCC Provincial

Financial lrflgated tmgated

Totals DCC Area DCC DCC° EIRR

Irrigation Woflis (8) t%$) toe) (SINs) (Rp 900INa) (%)

A. West Nusa TenggaraPengga-related Irrigation Systems

1 Pengga Cars 19.203.762

2 Perrgga 1mg systems 8462,764 __________

Pengga Subtotal 27.666 547 571 4 149 6668 14 037

3 Keru & Sesaot DiverSions 1.421 978 2 6

4 1-ILD Ext Canal 1.487 107 27

5 Jurangsate MC Remodeling 2,214,461 4 -- --- -

6 Parung 538 422 1 00 1 ,27C 424 892

Jurang Balu I 3,716 110

8 Jurang Balu II 2 394.791 __________

Jurang Batu Subtotal 6110.901 11 3 3.500 1,746 3675

91 4,53C 1084 2261

27 1,260 1154 2430

46 2286 1085 2,284

34 1886 991 2085

19 1.135 903 1901

E L45 3L3,4P Z822

98 1 32 5020 1635 34.41 124

03 339 488 1028

05 278 982 2.067 155

05 634 468 985

3-46 917 i5 1741

1 9 1,59' 659 1 388 16.5°

100 34,092 1 589 3,345 12 5b

991 33119 1622 3414 125'

05 78 1,558 3.280

3 627 1,148 2417

25 359 1,697 3571

9 Mujur III 4.909,559

10 Reoggung 1.454478

11 Tibunangka 2478,991

12 Katon 1 868298

13 Kulem 1.024.763

14 Rutus 1 947740

Pengga.related Irrigation Systems 53 123,244

West Nusa Tenggara Small Schemes

16 Pawang ,(ates

16 lrertg Daya

17 Qatar

18 Mamben __________

West Nusa Tenggara Small Sctremes Subtotal

West Nusa Teoggara Total

WTB Econ AnalSubsample

all SUDprOjeCts except Pawang Kates and Qatar)

B. East Nusa Tenggara

I Kajum bawa & Maa Bawa

2 Wae Cess Ill S Wae Bobo

3 Kontepe

4 Lombur-Wae Cewo

5 Lembor - Wae Raflo 3A

6 Lembor - Wee Kanta 1

7 Lembor - Wae Kanla 2

8 Lembor'

9 Lembor - Wae Sale

10 LembOr - Wae Nakeng

Lemoor Subtotal

11 Mautendal't

12 Kolesra

13 MetOlo

14 Oeloan

15 t-laekto

16 Loll

17 Pets

18 Kambaniru weir

19 Kambanlru sYstems

Kambaniru Subtotal 11135676 463 1,240 8,980 18 904 45'

20 Magepanoa 632 802 2 6 803 788 1 659

21 Pruda° 264,217 11 220 1,201 2528

22 POnx 214480 09 381 563 1185 193'

23 Kakana 1 581,064 66 509 3106 6539

24 Malaiyarlg 23 L2J.E 454 5 15.2'

East Nusa Terrggara Total 24.048.761 100 11734 2.049 4314 93'

East Nusa Tenggara wto Earthouake Dmgd. Sites 22.244.529 92 10.171 2187 4604 10'

ENT Econ AnalSampie 18.915.789 79 8,022 2358 4964 93

)Lernbor, MeIolo Kambanuru Ponu and Matalyang)

ENT Non-sampled. Non-earthquake Sites 3.328 740 14 2 149 1,549 3,261 13.2

ENT Eartflouake Damaaed Sites 1 804 232 8 1 563 1154 2430

Kotesia, Magepanda and

C. WNT and

78,224 761

45826 1.707 3593 11

Sites Total

41141 1,765 3716 11

lrngarxn system Drool Conslrucftnn Cost. DCCI orcluorng controol rae Not ,Ctdng Consiro per'o-s,onadm,sur.rrcoaflu Other tSOoCialCd 00515

Convened ci mo-protect overage eechaflge rate 2 105

Inbiudes harold,IrroludtngJurerg Sore l'iulu anti -itt,' 11,037 00 0(50 dIrectly Oftecied bit P iOtoct 000rks

Horns 1992 earth0005e severely damaged subpto(ect Ides

F,.ldo,srandassesstnenl Included in sample 8190 analysts

Protected from small schema sample sites yr ireng Day. and MaTetren

VQNT 8100 protected Pengge-telared systems £199 end protected Ooerall Small Scheme EIRR

ENT E1RR pro(eCled from wergflied average of sampo-c.iculeled EthOs end non-e.merie projected EARs Nor-sample EAR estimation erplained beio (note 101

Non . sarnpie £199 estimated baseo or OCCIO. 000 one cast, flows of sample sins Lembel end Mdcc These fern letU ties ate seer as the

clnseslrelar,OCC to the non-sample sees in terms of sac cropping pattern and costs The wetgntrng of the cash flown ,e hane y on the tel.ttOttsniP

011051 tt hour r ye group Of ursettnpied sres to 111w host per no for the Lemhcl and UelOiO sees

WhIT end hilT Etch both up using .ernples (93% or DCC, arc prnlect,nrs tnt rcrsa'rrrleoar,d eennuoase sIts 7% ,' Otciec, DCC,

46 Appendix 17, page 6

Table 2: Economic Prices for Fertilize?IMPORT PARITY EXPORT PARITY

Unit +1- 1995 2000 2005 Unit +/- 1995 2000 2005

UREA

Urea FOB Europe S/MT 212 156 150

reight & Insurance Premium to Asia 10% + 21 16 15

FOB Price ax-factory Indonesia S/MT 233 171 165

FOB Pnce ex-factory Indonesia Rp/Kg 532 390 376

Handling/Transport to V'Jholesaler Rp/Kg + 40 40 40

Wholesale Price Rp/Kg 572 430 416

Storage & Wholesaler Margin RpIKg + 15 15 15

Transportto Farm RpIKg + 15 15 15

Economic Farm-gate prices Rp/Kg 602 460 446

TSPBulk TSP FOB Florida S/MT 150 136 126

Freight & Insurance Premium S/MT 40 40 40

Price ex-warehouse Indonesia CIF S/MT 190 176 166

Price ex-warehouse Indonesia CIF Rp/Kg 433 402 378

Handling/Transport to Wholesaler Rp/Kg + 40 40 40

Wholesale Price Rp/Kg 473 442 418

Storage & Wholesaler Margin Rp/Kg + 15 15 15

Transport to farm Rp/Kg + 15 15 15

Economic Farm-gate prices RpIKg 503 472 448

KCLBulk KCL. POB Vancouver S/MT 118 113 109

Freight & Insurance Premium 45 45 45

Price ex-warehouse Indonesia CIF S/MT 163 158 154

Price ex-warehouse Indonesia CIF Rp/Kg 372 361 351

Handling/Transport to Wholesaler + 40 15 15

Wholesale Pnce 412 376 366 -

Storage & Wholesaler Margin + 15 15 15

Transport from farm + 15 15 15

Economic Farm-gate Price Rp/Kg 442 406 396

All prices are in constant 1995 levels, calculated using the August 1996 update of the World Bank Commodity Prices and Forecast.Exchange rate 1995, Rupiah to the USS = 2280

47 Appendix 17, page 7

Table 3: ECONOMIC VALUE OF ANNUAL INCREMENTAL PRODUCTiON - SAMPLE SITES(1995 Constant Price, IBRD Price Year 2005)

Crop Area Production Unit Value/ha Total CropScheme Rice Other Rice Other Rice Other Value

Scheme Area (ha) (ha) (t) (t) (Rp 000) (Rp 000) (Rp M)A. West Nusa TenggarabPenaga-Related Systems

1 Pengga future w/o 4.845 4.199 17443 4,079 454 185 2.976

3,589 ha future w/ 5,384 4.307 27.994 7.429 930 543 7.342

2 Baturiti future w/o 756 431 2,722 419 454 185 423

560 ha future w/ 960 552 4,992 952 930 543 1,1923. Parung futurewlo 1,270 635 4.572 617 454 185 694

1.270 ha future w/ 1.570 1,375 7.065 2,372 677 543 1,8094. Jurarig Batu future w/o 3,500 1,050 9,100 770 210 185 929

3.500 ha future Wi 3,800 4,950 17,100 8.539 677 543 5,2585 Tibunangka future w/o 2.285 914 8.226 ' 888 454 185 1,206

2.285 ha future w/ 2,285 3,199 10,283 5,518 677 543 3,2836. Renggung futurew/o 1,827 882 6,577 857 454 185 993

1.260 ha future w/ 2,394 1.071 10,773 1,847 677 543 2,2027. Mujur I futurew/o 2.082 455 7.494 442 454 185 1.029

1,301 ha futurew/ 2,342 455 10,538 785 677 543 1,8328. Mujurll futurew/o 4,521 1,453 16.274 1,066 454 185 2.321

3.229 ha future W/ 5,812 1,001 26.155 1.727 677 543 4.4789. Katon future w/o 1,886 943 6,790 916 454 185 1,031

1,886 ha future W/ 1.886 2.829 8.487 4.880 677 543 2,81210 Kulem futurew/o 1,142 571 4111 555 454 185 624

1,142 ha future w/ 1,142 1,485 5.139 2.561 677 543 1,57911. Rufus future w/o 1,453 872 5,231 847 454 185 821

1.453 ha future wI 2,180 1,453 9.808 2,506 677 543 2,26412. Jurang Sate Hulu future w/o 7,385 2,686 26.567 1.969 454 185 3.849

4.476 ha future W/ 8.281 4.028 37.263 6,949 677 543 7.79113. Jurang Satu Hilir future wlo 9.171 2.948 33,017 2.864 454 185 4,709

6.551 ha future w/ 10,482 5,568 47.167 9.605 677 543 10,117

S.Lombok Related Totals future wlo 42,123 18,039 148,143 16.268 - -- 21,605

32,502 ha future W/ 48,516 32,273 222.763 55,672 - -- 51,957Increments 6,393 14,234 74.620 39.363 30,353

Other Small Schemes (L pmok - Sample1 Ireng Daya futurew/o 500 267 1.801 259 454 185 277

278 ha future wi 542 250 2.819 432 677 398 4672. Mamberi futurew/o 554 415 1.993 501 715 417 569

346 ha future w/ 588 415 3,059 716 930 687 832Other S.S. Smpl. Totals future w/o 1,054 682 3.794 761 - -- 846

624 ha future w/ 1,130 665 5,878 1.148 -- -- 1,299Increments 76 - 17 2.083 387 453

B. East Nusa Tenggarab1. Ponu future w/o 525 185 1 890 180 454 185 273

381 ha futurew/ 610 267 2743 460 677 398 5192 Melolo future w/o 600 280 2 160 272 454 185 324

698 ha future W/ 1.318 220 5932 379 677 398 9803. Maitaiyartg future w/o 1.060 321 3815 312 45.4 185 540

1.216 ha future Wi 1.398 122 6 293 210 677 398 9954. Kambartiruc future w/o' 100 995 260 729 210 23 44

1.240 ha future w/ 3.140 250 14130 431 677 398 2,2255. Lembor future w/o 8,785 867 31 626 842 454 185 4.148

4.487 ha future W/ 11,666 112 52498 194 677 398 7.942SampleTotal futurew/o 11,070 2,647 39,750 2.335 -- -- 5,329

8.022 ha futurewI 16,132 970 81,596 1,674 -- -- 12,661Increments 7 063 -1 677 41 845 - 661 7,332

Pengga/Baturtti/Mamben rice yields are estimated at 5.21./ha post profect; other sites at 4 51./haWNT future with-project secondary crops valued at 95% irrigated palawija and 5% hi-value crops (Mamben exception - see below).ENT 1 uture with-project secondary crops include maize, soybean and groundnut

Mamben w/o returns estimated at 70% of general w/ project returns due the reported abundance of available water prior to the project. Projecthas increased efficiencies in water distribution, and hi-value cropping is estimated at 10% of secondary crops in the future with-Project.Kambaniru pre-pro/ect yields are rainfed

Table & SAMPLE SUBPROJECT EIRR CALCULATIONS

________________________ (EcQNSMl COSTS iN CONSTANT EOP t995 Pp 561500)

PRO VINCE ICoatComponent 990 1991 1892 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005'

A. Welt Null T.n8gana -Pengga (SouhLombo)Re!tedS0heme9

I lrngahOo System Development Costs -7509 -28 275 -47 542 -47 335 -21 616 0

2 Incremental O&M Costs -130 -260 -390 .520 -650 -650 -650 .650 -650 -650 -650

3 Incremental Agnicottunat Produclon .394 5677 11.747 17,818 23 688 29 859 29959 29 859 29 959 29.959 29959 29,959

4 V4tage Innuodatton Loss -450 •450

5 Energy 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194

Net Revenue .7509 -29,275 -47542 -47,785 -22490 5,741 11.681 17.622 23 582 29.503 29.503 29,503 29,503 29.503 29503 29 503

Pp 3 4 Million/ha Fncl Direct Csnstr. Colt

EIRR . 124% _______________________________________________________Other Sma6Sc1590e_7(!.6)

A ireng DayeI P60 and Related Cosls - 159 -710 0 0 0 0

2 Incremental 068.! Costs -I -2 -3 -4 -8 -6 -8 -6 -6 -6 -6 -8 -6 -6

3. lncrernsenlatAgnicutturst Production 38 76 114 152 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190

NntRevenoe -159 -710 37 14 III 148 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 lAS 185

Pp 2.1 Million/ha Fact Direct Constr Cost

EIRR 155%________________ ______________________________________________________________B Ma,nbeo

I P60 and Related Costs 0 - 615 - 363 0 0 0

2 Incremental O&M Costs -t -3 -4 -6 -7 -1 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 .7 -7

3 Incremental Agricultural Prodtmt,on 53 105 158 210 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263

Net Revenue -615 -363 51 102 154 205 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256

Pp I 9 Mtttioo9ta Foci Direct Constr CostEIRR 17.4%

Total tar West Nun Tenggara SampleNet Revenue -7.668 -29.601 -47,868 47,660 -22,247 6,042 12071 18.062 24003 29943 29.943 29,943 29.943 29.943 29943 29.943

Pp 3 4 Million/ba Foci Direct Conslr CostEIRR: 12.5%

B. East P4usa T.nggsraA Lembor

I R&U and Related Costs 0 - 906 3247 -6 337 -4 817 0

2 iocremenialO&M Costs -18 -36 -54 -72 -90 -90 .90 -90 -90 -90 -90

3 Incremental Agricultural Producl,on 799 1,517 2.276 3,035 3.794 3.794 3.794 3794 3,794 3794 3.794

Nd Recenun 0 -906 -3.247 -6,337 .4,817 741 1.482 2,222 2,963 3.704 3,704 3,704 3.704 3,704 3,704 3,704

Pp 2 6 Million/ha FocI Dyed Constr Cost

EIRR156% ________________________________________________________________________ b

B 564010I P60 sod Related Costs 0 0 - I 430 - I 500 - 827 0

2 Incremental OSM Cost, -3 -6 -8 -II -14 -14 -I4 -14 -14 -14 -14

3 Incremental Agricultural Productton . 66 131 197 282 328 393 459 525 590 656 656

Net Revenue 0 0 .1.430 -1,500 -927 63 126 188 251 314 379 445 Stt 576 642 642

Pp 4 2 U/boo/he Foci Direct Coststr Cost

EIRR93% ________________________________ ________ __________________________________________C tKambanrn,

I tmgatron System Development Costs 0 0 .4007 -9458 . 9460 -6408

2 Incremental 08M Costs -5 -tO -IS -20 -25 -25 -25 -25 -25 25

3 Incremental AgnlCuhureI Produchon 218 436 654 873 1.091 1,309 1527 1,745 1863 2181

NetPevenoe 0 0 -4,007 -8.459 -9.460 .8,408 213 426 840 853 1,066 1,284 1,502 1,720 1,938 2,157

Pp 189 Million/ha Fndl Direct Constr CostEIRR 4 5%

13 PonuI 960 and Relaled Costs 0 0 0 - 255 - 316 0

2 Incremental OSM Costs -2 -3 -5 -6 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -6

3 IncvementalAgncultural Production 25 49 74 99 123 148 172 197 222 248 248

Nel Revenue 0 0 0 -255 -316 23 48 68 92 116 140 165 169 214 239 239

Pp I 2 Million/ha Fnci Direct Constr CostRR193% ____________________________________________________________________

E MalaiyangI P60 and Peteted Costs 0 0 0 - 458 -1 026 0 __

2 Incremental OSM Cosls -5 -10 -IS .19 -24 -24 -24 -24 -24 -24 -24

3 Incremental Agricultural Production 45 91 136 192 227 273 318 364 409 455 455

Net Re,enue 0 0 0 -459 . 1026 dl 81 122 162 203 249 294 339 365 430 430 -o

Pp I 0 Million/Ira Foci Direct Constr Cost 0 -906 -8685 -18,009 -16 547 -8408

E98R152% ________-___________________ CD

Total br East Nusa Tenggara SimpleNd Revenue 0 .906 -9605 -16009 .19,547 . 5540 1,948 3078 4 109 5 lOg5538 5,892 5,245 6599 6953 7 171

Pp 5 0 MillIon/ito Foci Direct Cotrslr CostImP 93%

C Total to, Wesi and East Noss Tenggare SAmplesNet Peven,e .7668 .30556 -56,553 -65669 38.194 502 14.010 21091 28 '2 35133 39401 35835 36 189 38543 38897 37 I tO

P7 36 Mill,ontl,o Fnci D,recl Ceosli CoolElI/P 110', __________

275,275 703,585 629,200 1,608,194

120,900 120,900 80,600 80,600

31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000

350,000 210,000

777,175 1,065,485

1,160,000 1,160,000

6,600 9,900

1,166,600 1,169,900

245,000 175,000

985,800 1,894,794

1,160,000 1,160,000

11,600 17,400

1,171,600 1,177,400

49

Appendix 17, page 9

Table 5: Sample Farm Income AnalysisSmaller Farm aLarger Farma

future future

without with without withItem and Unit project project project projectFarm Size (ha) Q .t.i.

lowland, irrigated 0.35 0.35 0.8 0.8dry land, rainfed 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26yard/tree crops 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1

IncomeNet Agricultural Incomeb (Rp)

lowland, irrigatedc

dry land, rainfed

yard/tree cropsMiscellaneousIncomed (Rp)

Total Income (Rp)

ExpenseHousehold Expensese (Rp)Land Tax (PBB)

Total Expenses (Rp)

Net Household Income

389,425

(104,415)

185,800) 717,394

Net Household Income ($US

(168

(80) 309

a Smaller farm seen as more typical of West Nusa Tenggara, while larger farm more

typical of East Nusa Tenggarab Without-project farm intensity: 185% on lowland and 150% on dryland.

With-project farm intensity: 249% on lowland and 150% on dryland.C Incremental income: small farm lowland Rp703,585 - Rp275,275 Rp430,000 (rounded up);

larger farm lowland Rpl 608,194 - Rp629,200 = Rp 980,000 (rounded up).d Small farm without and with: 100 days labor at Rp 3,500/day. Larger farm without

and with: 70 and 50 days at Rp 3,500/day. Surplus labor drop assumed with-project.

Poverty level of $US 100/capita/year assumed. Average family size: 5.

Exchange rate Rp/1 US$: 2320