Document ofThe World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: 22886

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT(IDA-25100)

ONA

CREDIT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 39.5 million (US$ 54,7 million equivalent)

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF

INDIA

FOR A

UTTAR PRADESH SODIC LANDS RECLAMATION PROJECT

09/28/2001

Rural Development Sector UnitSouth Asia Region

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of theirofficial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective)

Currency Unit = INR1 1NR = US$ 0.022US$ 1 = INR 29 (1993)

= INR 46 (2001)FISCAL YEAR

April 1 March 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CAG Comptroller and Auditor GeneralCAS Country Assistance Strategy (GOIIWB)CCL Cash Credit LimitDOA Department of AgricultureERR Economic Rate of ReturnFAO/CP World Bank/ FAO Cooperative ProgramFRR Financial Rate of ReturnGOUP Government of Uttar PradeshID Irrigation DepartmentIIM Indian Institute of ManagementLCB Local Competitive BiddingMIS Management Information SystemMK Mitra Kisan (progressive male farmer)MMK Mahila Mitra Kisan (progressive female farmer)MOA Ministry of AgricultureMSHG Men Self Help GroupMTR Mid Term ReviewNCB National Competitive BiddingNGO Non-Government Organization0cc Opportunity Cost of CapitalQAE Quality at Entry (World Bank measure)RSAC Remote Sensing Applications CenterSAR Staff Appraisal ReportSHG Self Help GroupSIC Site Implementation CommitteeSIP Site Implementation PlanUPBSN Uttar Pradesh Bhoomi Sudhar Nigam (Land Development Corporation)WSHG Women Self Help GroupWUG Water User Group

Vice President: M. NishirnizuCountry Manager/Director: E. Lim

Sector Manager/Director: R. AliTask Team Leader/Task Manager: G.Pathmanathan/M. Balasubramanian

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

INDIAUTTAR PRADESH SODIC LANDS RECLAMATION PROJECT

(IDA 25100)

CONTENTS

Page No.1. Project Data 12. Principal Performance Ratings 13. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 24. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 35. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 86. Sustainability 107. Bank and Borrower Performance 128. Lessons Learned 139. Partner Comments 1410. Additional Information 14Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 15Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 18Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 20Annex 4. Bank Inputs 22Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 24Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 25Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 26Annex 8. Borrower's Evaluation 27

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in theperformance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed withoutWorld Bank authorization.

Project ID: P00996 1 Project Name: UP SODIC LANDS RECLATeam Leader: M. Balasubramanian TL Unit: SASRD

ICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: September 28, 2001

1. Project Data

Name: UP SODIC LANDS RECLA L/C/TFNumber: IDA-25100Countiy/Department: INDIA Region: South Asia Regional

OfficeSector/subsector: AY - Other Agriculture; VM - Natural Resources

Management

KEY DATESOriginal Revised/Actual

PCD: 07/13/1990 Effective: 09/22/1993 08/04/1993Appraisal: 12/29/1992 MTR: 04/01/1997 04/17/1997Approval: 06/10/1993 Closing. 03/31/2001 03/31/2001

Borrower/lImplementing Agency: Govenmment of India/Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudar Nigam (UPBSN); Govenmmentof India/Uttar Pradesh State

Other Partners: None

STAFF Current At AppraisalVice President: M. Nishimizu A. KaraosmanogluCountry Manager: Edwin Lim H. VerginSector Manager. R. Ali J. WijnandTeam Leader at ICR: M. BalasubramanianICR Primary Author: M. Nightingale (FAO/CP)

2. Principal Performance Ratings

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=HighlyUnlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible)

Outcome: S

Sustainability: L

Institutional Development Impact: SU

Bank Performance: S

Borrower Performance. S

QAG (if available) ICRQuality at Entry: S

Project at Risk at Any Time: NoNote: The project was reviewed bi QAG in 1997 and 1999 and pr(?ject supervision was rated asIIighlSatisf ctory.

3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry

3.1 Original Objective:3.1.1. The Uttar Pradesh Sodic Lands Reclamation Project (Sodic I) had three objectives: (i) todevelop models for environmental protection and improved agricultural production through large-scalereclamation of sodic lands; (ii) to strengthen local institutions to manage such schemes; and (iii) tocontribute to poverty alleviation of the families concerned. There was no revision to these objectives.

3.2 Revised Objective:None

3.3 Original Components:3.3.1. The project was planned as a flexible operation that supported alternative approaches forensuring a comprehensive approach to rehabilitating sodic lands, ensuring sustainable agriculturalproduction and promoting environmental protection. Actions were targeted on the below poverty line(BPL) group of the rural population in the ten districts of Uttar Pradesh, worst affected by sodic lands.Planned investments were focused on four main components:

(i) Land reclamation, involved designing, rehabilitating and remodeling the drainage network,constructing shallow wells and installing pump sets for irrigation to leach salts and support cropgrowth, land levelling and bunding, and providing gypsum to reduce soil alkalinity. Environmentalprotection was germane to these developments.

(ii) Institutional development, involved strengthening Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudar Nigam (UPBSN -UP Land Development Corporation) and enabling it to provide comprehensive coordination for projectactivities, business management and reporting, supporting NGOs to assist in mobilizing and organizingthe communities in the project area, and remote sensing and site planning activities.

(iii) Agricultural development and technology dissemination, aimed at fostering adoption ofrecommended reclamation, agricultural, horticultural and farm management practices by beneficiaries,and providing extension support involving motivational campaigns, production of publicity materialsand use of mass communication techniques.

(iv) Reclamation technology development and special studies included adaptive research forimproving crop production technologies and diversifying farming systems, and special technical andsocioeconomic studies.

3.4 Revised Components:3.4.1. Following good progress in physical achievements in the opening years of the project, itwas agreed at the mid-term review (MTR) to extend the targets for project coverage by over50%, from 45,000 to 68,800 ha for land reclamation, drainage and cultivation. This impliedincreasing the number of target beneficiaries to include a population of more than 1 millionpeople.

3.5 Quality at Entry:3.5.1. Quality at entry is satisfactory. The preparation process was thorough and comprehensive.First, an intensive discussion process between GOUP and IDA, extending from 1989 to 1993, ensuredgood project design and strong ownership by GOUP. Second, there was effective liaison between the

- 2 -

UP Department of Agriculture (DOA - which took the lead in project preparation) and the IrrigationDepartment (ID). Third, the lessons learned from previous (non-holistic) efforts at sodic landsreclamation were well reflected. Also, pilot actions implemented in the project area during thepreparation process made a positive contribution to project design. Fourth, the project designintroduced the concept of government partnership with NGOs and active community participation.Fifth, the project preparatory efforts involved baseline socioeconomic survey. Sixth, there wascontinuity in task management by IDA which resulted in better coordination of special studies thatunderpinned project and good understanding and rapport with the implementing agency. The projectobjectives strongly supported four of the development priorities specified in the then current CAS(Report No. 17241-IN 12/19/97): human development and poverty alleviation, sociological andenvironmental concerns, and promoting private sector and financial initiatives.

4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs

4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective:4.1 1 Outcome of objectives is assessed as satisfactory. Project actions successfully developedprocedures for carrying out large-scale reclamation of sodic lands. In particular, it developed effectivemodels for poverty alleviation, notably for landless people, environmental protection and improvedagricultural production. The overall outcome in financial and economic terms has exceededexpectations and the environmental impact (para 6.1.7) is positive. As a result, it was decided by theBank to expand the scope of these works and to initiate a bigger follow-up project (UP Sodic Landsreclamation Project 11- Cr. 3152-IN) that commenced in 1999. Furthermore, farmers in adjoining areasare clearly benefiting from project drainage works. Added to this, (a) The Ministry of Agriculture(MOA) of the Government of India is extending this approach to other states affected by sodic lands forwhich officers from GOI have already been trained by UPBSN; (b) The government of Uttar Pradeshhas issued a Government Order stating that the methodology and approach followed by this projectshould be followed in the projects of similar nature; and (c) a bankable model scheme for 'Usar' (sodic)reclamation (based on the model developed by UPBSN) has been sanctioned by National Bank for ruralDevelopment (NABARD) with 100% re-finance.

4.1.2 Institutional development objectives for project management were exceeded. Assigning a publiccorporation (UPBSN) to manage the project and the central involvement of committed NGOs from theoutset were the main reasons in the project's success. The strengthened UPBSN is now operatingprojects funded by IFAD and the Bank, UNDP supported 'Women in Agriculture' besides the Bankfunded UPSLRP II. The capacity of the Remote Sensing Application Center (RSAC) in identificationand selection of suitable reclamation sites and environmental monitoring has improved considerably.The RSAC is performing these tasks on a much larger scale under UPSLRP-II and other state andCentral government funded projects. The project was successful in strengthening the capacity of twointermediary NGOs to provide grassroots NGO services for community mobilization, motivation andawareness campaigns on a larger scale. In addition, for NGO personnel, the interaction andcoordination with various government departments has expanded and strengthened their humanresources to meet the growing demand for trained and committed field workers in various governmentsponsored participatory projects. The responsibilities of farmers' groups for project developmentactions and field organizations were significantly expanded relative to appraisal plans; this contributedsignificantly to the project's success. The Water Users' Groups (WUGs) and the Site ImplementationCommittees (SICs) formed at the village level have taken a key role in planning, implementing andreviewing of project activities with the assistance of NGOs. SICs, formed at village level for projectexecution, have become permanent entities in the village. Some of these groups (720) evolved into

- 3 -

farmers' clubs that provide broader technical support to sustain agriculture production.

4.1.3 The project outcome on poverty alleviation has been exemplary, both in raising living standardsand for social developments. The positive impact of project intervention on household poverty includesrise in local wage employment, household income, consumption, savings and household assets andwealth and fall in open unemployment, disguised unemployment, labor migration from 85 to 50 mandays/year (refer para 4.2.7). Guided by NGOs, women created more than 2000 WSHGs that leamedto address members' problems and created savings and credit operations linked to commercial banks.The project initiated capacity building and enabled the women to have access to information and credit;a measure towards gender equity.

4.1.4 The project may have had some impact on the regional rural economy indirectly. Evidence ofthis include; (i) increased weekly frequency of market days. The number of sellers and buyers andvolume of transaction in these markets has also increased; (ii) increased savings in the local rural banksand repayment of loans has improved; (iii) increase in new micro-processing units (oil and flour); (iv)new service outlets such as - barbers, laundry and transport; (v) increase in the number of input supplycenters; (vi) school enrolment and new schools established have also increased; and (vii) newsingle-doctor health centers have been established and number of patients visiting formal health centershas increased.

4.2 Outputs by components:4.2.1 Outputs by components are all assessed as satisfactory. Detailed assessment of theindividual physical, socioeconomic and institutional impact of different components relative to SARtargets are detailed in Annex I and summarized below.

4.2.2 Land reclamation (through provision of an effective drainage network: on-farm development:application of chemical amendment: irrigation development: and support for food and horticultural treecrops production: Satisfactory. Fanner-organized Water Users' Groups (WUGs) carried out on-farmdevelopment works (i.e. boring shallow tubewells and installing pumpsets, constructing field and linkdrains and irrigation channels) and applying gypsum. As a result, 68,414 ha of sodic lands (152 % ofSAR target) were reclaimed. About 36,000 ha (C class barren land) area brought under green cover forthe first time. About 2,460 km of main drains (132 % of SAR target) were rehabilitated with extendedinfluence within the catchment area of 400,000 ha. Some 2,500 km of link drains, connectingfarm-drains with main drains, were constructed/rehabilitated. In total, 10,930 new borings were drilled,developed and made functional, resulting in generation of additional irrigation potential of 47,422 ha.All of these are well above appraisal target (Annex 1).

4.2.3 Successful land reclamation has resulted in: increase in cropping intensity from 61 to 222%;attainment of stabilized paddy and wheat yields of 3.0 and 2.7 t/ha respectively; an incremental paddyand wheat production of 1.54 and 1.56 million tons respectively; and establishment of inter-horticulturesystem in 5,240 ha.

4.2.4 In some areas soil reclamation work proceeded ahead of rehabilitation of main drains due tobelated mobilization by ID. However, prompted by agreements reached during the MTR in 1997, theID assigned dedicated divisions to be responsible for coordinating engineering developments. Outputfrom this component was, to a large extent responsible for the project's comprehensive and positiveenvironmental impacts.

4.2.5 Institutional development through strengthening of village level institutions (WUG.SIC,SHG)

-4 -

UPBSN, RSAC and participating NGOs: Satisfactory. The evolving participatory managementapproaches resulted in the development of 1,003 Site Implementation Committees (SICs) andapproximately 16,000 WUGs at village level. These groups took charge, respectively, of physicalplanning and development, and of irrigation management. Some 720 of these groups are evolving intofarmers' clubs capable of providing a range of technical support to sustain agriculture production andlong-term socioeconomic development for the communities. Village communities nominated 1,677animators and 2,736 Mitra Kisan/Mahila Mitra Kisan (progressive men/women farmers - equallydivided) as representatives for technical training. The most remarkable impact was the effect of theproject in women's emancipation. Guided by the NGOs, women created 2,166 Self-Help Groups(WSHGs) that learned to address members' problems and created savings and credit operations linkedto commercial banks. Some of the funds in WSHG are being on-lent to men. In addition, some 3,156men's self-help groups (MSHG) were formed. Health and education standards have also improvedsignificantly. Not only this project provided food security to this most vulnerable group of people butalso social status and acceptance in the village community.

4.2.6 The UPBSN was transformed into a mature support organization. The UPBSN has developedprofessional capability in various areas like land reclamation, participatory management, womenempowerment, human resource development and technology dissemination. Now, it has well-establishedstate and district project offices with its own building, MIS and communication facilities. It maintaineda proactive approach to project developments in the ten districts involved and effectively coordinatedthe support of associated organizations. Because of the complex nature of overall project operations,this required a full-time team with high commitment to project developments and problem solving. Thiswas achieved through dynamic leadership, precision in planning, strong motivational and supervisorystrategies and, most notably, in fostering strong participatory management by beneficiaries.

The RSAC has been strengthened in terms of capacity for identification and selection of suitablereclamation sites; capability for planning, monitoring and evaluating environmental parametersincluding soil and ground water; spatial analysis capacity (including substantial remote sensing andGIS capacity; and improved professional expertise through national and intemational technicalassistance and training.

Two NGOs, recruited at the project outset, effectively supported project implementation by developingskills for mobilizing community groups, establishing grassroots institutions, fostering participatoryapproaches and methodologies, and coordinating savings and credit operations. The beneficiary andstaff training programs contributed significantly to the successful institutional development.

Monitoring of project developments was contracted to the Indian Institute of Management (IIM)Lucknow, which performed well in verifying data from UPBSN progress reports and carrying outindependent evaluation and studies. This provided timely information to management for strengtheningproject operations and guiding development planning. Supervisory committees established at village,district and state levels were effective in supporting UPBSN management and remedying constraints.Village committees played a key role in mobilizing farmers, supporting farmers' groups and problemsolving.

4.2.7 Socioeconomic impact was satisfactory. The project significantly contributed to povertyalleviation. About 95% of land owners in sodic areas are small and marginal farmers, with an averageholding of 0.4 ha. More than 50 % project beneficiaries were originally landless laborers andshare-croppers and migration of males to urban centers for work was obligatory in order to maintainfamilies. Compared to the 80,000 target at appraisal, there were 159,000 direct beneficiaries under the

- 5 -

project, representing some 130,000 families and more than 1 million people. About 62,800 familieswere provided with formal usufruct rights to land. Of these, 22,260 (35%) were previously landlesslaborers. The incidence of labor migration declined from 85 to 50 days/man/year across all families. Atthe same time, real labor wage rates increased from Rs.16 to 19 and Rs.12 to 14 per day, respectivelyfor men and women. There was a fall in disguised unemployment from 43 to 16 percent. Thesechanges triggered significant increases in family incomes and it is estimated that average householdincomes have increased from Rs. 10,500 to Rs.19,500. Within this, incomes of previously landlessfamilies and women increased by 102%, from Rs 6,565 to Rs. 13,270. In per capita terms, averageincomes increased by 87 % from Rs. 1250 to Rs. 2335. It is estimated that average incomes increasedby 109% for families that were previously marginal farmers, 90% for small-scale farmers and 59% forlarge-scale farmers. Family savings typically increased from Rs. 30 to 3,000 and household wealthfrom Rs.191,000 to 280,000.

4.2.8 Credit Operations. Starting in 1995, farmers were able to obtain credit from a range ofcommercial banks operating in the project area. This mostly involved long-term credit for purchasing4.650 irrigation pumps and 18,200 short-term crop production loans. Very effective mechanisms wereintroduced by the NGOs for training and supporting farmers' groups in preparing applications andmaintaining records, and fostering women's self-help groups for savings activities. The total value ofloans disbursed during project implementation was Rs. 16 million (US$4.2 million), mostly forequipment and inputs, and it is reported that nearly 100% of loans are repaid on time. The WSHGshave accumulated savings of Rs. 15.45 million (US$410,000) that are being used for community-relateddevelopment activities and production and consumption loans for both women and men farmers. Someof the MSHGs were granted credit rights, but their savings and loan operations were less than those ofthe WSHGs.

4.2.9 Agricultural development and technology dissemination: Satisfactory. The development ofan effective reclamation model in the pre-project pilot helped to accelerate project implementation andthis, linked with social mobilization efforts, directly influenced poverty alleviation. Of the 68,414 ha ofreclaimed land, some 63,170 ha are being cropped and the cropping intensity increased and, within twoyears of reclamation works, yields of rice and wheat reached (and in some cases exceeded) levelsanticipated for year 4 (SAR). Cropping intensities increased from zero in C Class and 100% in BClass land and peaked at 250 and 270%, respectively, before leveling off at 215 and 220%. Overallyields achieved to date, of 3 tons/ha and 2.6 tons, respectively for paddy and wheat, exceeded SARtargets but are yet to attain the proven potential on more progressive farms in non-sodic areas. Farmerson C Class land did not adopt the original design of the horticulture component, involvingcommunity-based planting of 3,000 ha of salt tolerant fruit/fuel tree and fodder species (due to high pHlevels at community land and inherent management problem arising from lack of individual ownership).Therefore, this sub-component was modified and orchard development was redesigned on individualbases and now covers some 5,240 ha.

4.2.10 Reclamation Technology Development and Special Studies: Satisfactory. The appliedresearch program for technology development was undertaken by two state agriculture universities andcovered five main categories (alternative approaches to soil amelioration, cropping systems for alkalinesoils, horticulture and perennial tree crop systems, aromatic grasses, and community-based fuel andfodder production). Outputs include development of cropping system options for different reclamationsituations, the reduction of reclamnation cost using sugar factory by-products, and the identification ofsodic tolerant fruit and vegetable species/varieties. Implementation of this component suffered fromdelays and poor monitoring, and outputs were less than originally anticipated. Remedies to improve therelevance, ownership and timeliness of research through application of competitive contracts have been

- 6 -

introduced under Sodic II.

4.2.11 The land planning and soil-monitoring component resulted in an exceptionallywell-documented tracking of qualitative changes in soil properties from the outset. The RemoteSensing Application Center (RSAC), mapped 69,000 ha of the project area and has become ahighly competent and professional institution. It also carried out special studies.

4.2.12 Studies. Seven special studies were completed, of which assessment of the efficiencyof shallow tubewells and a comprehensive investigation of the UP drainage systems were themost far reaching. Recommendations from these studies were incorporated into the design,construction and maintenance of drains, and project field organization. However, there wasdelay in initiating the Drainage Study. Other studies focused on soil related issues (extent cfsalt affected lands in Uttar Pradesh and associated soil/water properties, monitoringsustainability of project reclamation, and pre/post-project crop yields for different seasons,participatory management, horticulture,and savings and credit). Furthermore, those studiesprovided valuable input for the design of Uttar Pradesh Sodic Lands Reclamation II Project(UPSLRP II) (Cr. 3152) and a proposed Uttar Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project.

4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate of r eturn:4.3.1 Economic Rate of Return. Based on incremental costs and benefits over the project life, it isestimated that the ERR for the project is 28% with NPV at Rs. 1,125 million (Opportunity Cost ofCapital 12%). This does not take into account incremental revenues from the relatively small areas ofhorticulture crops, where details are unclear but appear to be attractive. Nor does it account forsocioeconomic benefits from improved education, health and family income. The SAR estimated thatthe project would yield an overall Economic Rate of Return (ERR) of 23% with NPV at Rs. 1,058million (OCC 12%).

4.3.2 The higher ERR relative to the SAR was partly influenced by the expanded area ofreclaimed land and the accelerated rate of development. The estimate assumes that: (i) themaintenance of drains and provision of extension services will continue and be strengthened: (ii)farmers will continue to develop technical and managerial skills; and (iii) yield levels will remainstatic, with cropping intensity constant at 200%. Switching values (@12% OCC) indicate thatoutputs of paddy and wheat would each need to decline by 12% (200% cropping) for the NPVto be zero.

4.3.3 The actual ERR, at 28%, exceeds the SAR estimate. However, in addition to wheatand paddy production, the latter included estimates of benefits from horticultural production aswell as income from livestock and off-farm employment. Estimates of actual achievements havedisregarded socioeconomic or environmental benefits. Similarly, no estimate has been made ofthe secondary benefits accruing to farmers whose land is adjacent to the project area and isbenefiting from drainage works carried out under the project, approximately about 400,000 haof land. Taking into account these supplementary sources of benefit would raise the ERRsignificantly.

4.3.4 The actual Net Present Value of the project, based on paddy and wheat output isRs1,125 million, assuming an OCC of 12%, which is similar to the SAR estimate. Nearly halfof the project area was barren (C Class land) prior to project activities and even at the modestoutput levels attained, the incremental yields are high. The opportunity cost of the lands was

- 7 -

low prior to project actions and, if taken into account, would impact the ERR significantly.

4.4 Financial rate of return:Farm Income Analysis: At appraisal, it was estimated that at full development the incrementalreturns to small-scale beneficiaries with average holdings of 0.4ha from wheat and paddyproduction at 200% cropping intensity would range from Rs.2,770 for B Class land (previously100% cropping) to Rs.2,913 for C Class land (previously uncultivated). Models of actualachievements for these two categories of land estimate actual returns of Rs.3,658 and Rs.4,004,respectively. In many cases, this income is supplemented by eamings from livestock, casuallabor or off-farm activities. Estimates of horticulture production (totally incremental) indicateactual returns of Rs.27,780 for a 0.4 ha farm, higher than appraisal estimates of Rs.17,480.However, farmers have been reluctant to adopt horticultural production on a larger scale, due touncertainties of new technologies and market outlets. In this context, as a result of farmers'concern over market accessibility, UPBSN was able to mobilize funds for constructing someaccess roads in the project area. Significant provisions for constructing access road have beenincluded in UPSLRP II. Any effort to diversify away from wheat and rice are likely to facethese problems and, therefore, more detailed studies are needed into potentials for commoditiesand markets.

4.5 Institutional development impact:4.5.1 The project made a radical departure from the previous sodic lands reclamationprojects when it invested substantially in participatory processes and community mobilizationand organization before and during implementation. This has enabled the physical targets ofland reclamation to be scaled up substantially. The major scaling of physical targets has beenmade possible due to increased community participation. The project has been able to convertinvestments in social capital formation into investments by commnunity in asset improvement.The value of community's investments is likely to grow further after the sodic soils arereclaimed. Also the investments in community and common interest groups is likely to increasetheir access to resources, skill and credit in the region as land reclamation is just one step inpoverty reduction.

4.5.2 The second aspect is the ability of UPBSN to transform its role from a landreclamation organization to a rural development organization. A large section of the UPBSNemployees have acquired new skills (including participatory, facilitation, local organizationdevelopment) and undergone behavioral change critical for institutional change. This hasenabled them to use a new set of institutional processes which actively build on participation,local organization development and flexible management for new activities. This would have animpact beyond the target area. The project has also developed a good approach towardspartnership between a public institution and NGOs and had developed processes for using theirinputs in a synergistic manner and significantly contributed towards building capacity of NGOsto work in development programs.

5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome

5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implementing agency:Willingness of communities to participate in project activities and additionally Bank performance duringpreparation and supervision was supportive of the implementing agency.

5.2 Factors generally subject to government control:

- 8 -

The decisions by GOUP to assign project management to UPBSN and to appoint a proactivemanager who remained in post for four years were key to the timely and successfulimplementation.The GOUP gave strong support to project operations, by ensuring timely budget contributionsand extending the assignment of DOA staff to project activities.The ID was slow to initiate rehabilitation of main drains. This reflected weak "ownership"resulting from inadequate involvement as a partner in project development, lack of incentivesand frequent staff changes. This was rectified in 1997 and dedicated drainage were establishedand attached to UPBSN.

5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control:- The UPBSN's approach to project implementation was flexible and the decentralized

management philosophy fostered excellent teamwork and commitment from project staff andbeneficiaries.

- The implementing agency has prepared and initiated a transition strategy emphasizing oncontinuity of extension services, technical support, maintenance of infrastructure, access tocredit and other relevant linkages.

5.4 Costs andfinancing:5.4.1 The total cost of the project is estimated at Rs. 4,011.8 million (US$103.7 million) and

expenditures were completed as scheduled in the SAR. The comparison -of actual projectexpenditures with SAR estimates is as follows:

Component Appraisal Estimates Actual Expenditures

US$ %age US$ %agemillion million

Land Reclamation 64.8 81 66.9 65

Institution Development 7.1 9 10.8 10

Agricultural Development 4.7 6 23.4 23

Reclamation Technology Research & 3.6 4 2.6 2Studies I I

Total l 80.2 100 103.7 100

The total costs were 30 percent higher than appraisal estimates (in US$ terms), reflecting thefact that the area of land reclaimed was 52 percent higher and the numbers of beneficiaries wasnearly double the SAR prediction. In addition, the percentage of total costs actually devoted toland reclamation was lower than budgeted in the SAR (65% versus 81%) and actual agriculturaldevelopment costs were higher (23% versus 6%). The increase can be attributed to shifting ofsecond year crop production cost from land reclamation component to agricultural developmentcomponent which has been entirely the farmers'contribution to the project. This increasedcontribution reflects the value of the program to beneficiaries and a large unmet demand.

-9-

5.4.2 Estimates of the actual financing of the project activities compared with predictions madein the PAD are estimated as follows:

Financing Source Appraisal Estimate Actual Expenditures

US$ million Percentage US$ million Percentage

Beneficiaries 12.0 15 37.1 36

Government of UP 13.5 17 11.9 11

IDA 54.7 68 54.7 53

Totals 80.2 100 103.7 100

Due to increased numbers, the beneficiaries' contribution to project financing (principally in kind)increased from 15% estimated at appraisal to 36%. Financing by GOUP was lower than predicted atappraisal (11% versus 17%), due largely to economies in local expenditures, while IDA's contributionremained constant.

5.4.3 Financial Management, Procurement and Covenants. UPBSN established amanagement information system (MIS) for the project. Accounting procedures were fully automatedand well managed, a fact that has been confirmed in satisfactory annual audit reports. The MIS datawas effectively utilized for management analysis. There is no history of SOE suspension on account ofdelays in submission of audit reports. The total audit disallowances up to 1999-2000 (Rs 57.112million) were resolved due to persistent follow up by the project with the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral (CAG). Procurements under the project were generally managed in accordance with the CreditAgreement. Inadequate familiarity with Bank procurement procedures resulted in slow disbursement ofIDA funds in the initial years but accelerated after 1995 when staff were made fully conversant withBank procedures through procurement workshops. The Credit was fully disbursed by March 31, 2001,as stipulated in the Credit Agreement. Covenants included in the Credit and Project Agreements werefully complied with.

6. Sustainability

6.1 Rationale for sustainability rating:6.1.1 Overall project benefits are likely to be sustained. Interest and commitment of all stakeholdersincluding Government, NGOs, farmers, and other stakeholders to continue project-initiated activitiesare high. The incentive of farmers to continue cultivation in reclaimed land on optimum performancelevel is particularly high, as the reclaimed lands provide them with a steady source of income; net returnto family labor is substantial; and there are positive environmental benefits. The skills and capacitiesdeveloped within UPBSN, RSAC, NGOs and farmers will remain as a continuing asset, and theparticipatory approach followed in the project is likely to be sustained. Local level farmers' institutionsevolved through the project actions are taking up the responsibility of management of developments

Detailed assessment of sustainability of different aspects is given below.

6.1.2 Infrastructure Sustainability: Adequate measures have been taken for sustainability of physicalstructures (infrastructure base) such as bore and pump set and drainage network. Bore and pump set isnow defacto owned by an individual farmer who would maintain its operational functionality through

- 10-

apportioning some part of income generated through supplying water, to fellow farmers, demand forwhich will continue to remain, as revealed by continuous cropping (five years after reclamation) in 94% of the area. Farmers are most likely to maintain field and link drains as they have fully evolvedsuitable collaborative mechanisms (i.e. through seasonal contribution to SIC Maintenance Fun'd). Thisfact is endorsed by the good track record of link drain maintenance in the earlier reclaimed areas.Village level institutions i.e. SICs are likely to put adequate pressure, through collaborative action, onthe Irrigation Department for regular maintenance of main drains. Based on Drainage MaintenancePolicy introduced by the GOUP in, the ID has prepared a Drainage Maintenance Plan for six years till2005-06 and the first installment for the task has already been released and utilized. However, it is to beensured that the drainage maintenance plan does not get diluted.

6.1.3 Technical Sustainability: a) the project used well-proven reclamation processes developed bythe Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI), Kamal, (Haryana, India); b) farmers haveadequately internalized the essential post-reclamation management practices such as reduced tillage,light and frequent irrigation, continuous cropping and use of balanced dozes of fertilizers and organicmanure; c) independent monitoring studies have established that there is continuous improvement in thequality of reclaimed soil; d) the project has incorporated in-built measures/arrangements for provisionof, on continuous basis, technical support to the farmers, e.g. identification and training and skillup-gradation of MK/MMK, formation of Farmers Clubs covering about one-third area, and theirlinkage with Universities and line departments; and e) the DOA will continue to provide its technicalservices to farmers as usual. However, the changes in public extension system recently introduced bythe GOUP will necessitate re-training of panchayat level multipurpose workers

6.1.4 Social sustainability: Assessment is based on the following a) intensive participatory approachresulted in involvement of the target community in each stage of project implementation which hasresulted into community empowerment; b) a special component for women development wasimplemented in form of MSHG/WSHG; c) the project has contributed significantly in thesocioeconomic uplifiment of people of disadvantaged and marginalized sections including land titling;and d) the project has benefited even nonparticipant farmers (by virtue of proximity of their land toimproved drainage network and credit support from MSHGs/WSHGs).

6.1.5 Financial Sustainability: This assessment is based on; a) improved credit availability througheffective linkage with banks; b) creation of alternative credit structure in form of WSHGs/MSHGs; c)continued farmers' interest and incentive in continuous cropping as net return to family labor issubstantial; d) maintenance responsibility of bore and pump-set lying with the owner; e) maintenance oflink drains by collaborative arrangements; and f) commitment on part of GOUP to arrange funds formain drain maintenance.

6.1.6. However, there are a few threats to long term sustainability which have to be carefully attendedto/monitored. These are; a) Re-sodification could be triggered if routine maintenance of drains isneglected; and b) continued and improved development in the reclaimed lands will be affected iftechnical guidance is not forthcoming to the farmers due to recent changes created by the transfer ofextension agents from the DOA to panchayats. In order to assure the maintenance of main drains,GOUP has introduced a scheme whereby, from 2001, funds are provided specifically for this purpose,with 25% coming from the annual operating budget of ID and 75% being provided through districtpanchayats. Technical support to farmers are to be ensured by making effective use of farmers' school(fanner to farmer extension) and retraining of extension agents attached to Panchayat. These two areasare being followed up by the Government.

- 11 -

6.1.7 Environmental Impact: The environmental impact of project activities has been satisfactory.An environmental management plan was prepared by the RSAC. The quality of ground water, surfacewater and soils, as well as trends in bio-diversity were monitored and evaluated from 1995, and RSACcompiled data and prepared reports. A positive impact on air and soil quality was noticed. There is nonegative impact on ground water quality. By developing procedures for helping rural communities toreclaim sodic lands, project actions have demonstrated the means for transforming barren land intofarrns. As a result, a large part of the population has moved above the poverty line and raised levels ofincome and social development significantly. At the same time, the incidence of ailments caused byinadequate quantities and poor quality of food has declined, as have respiratory diseases caused byair-borne saline soil particles.

6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations:6.2.1 The borrower has prepared a credible plan of transitional arrangements to regular operationsand developed an exit policy based on sustainability study conducted in 20 % villages. This includes:(a) recording infrastructure such as link drains, foot bridges, culverts and double-cropped area intorevenue ledgers; (b) retaining NGOs in the project area for one more year to ensure continuity ofsupport services for building alliances, networks, and linkages and for strengthening participatingprocesses; (c) promoting farmers' clubs to provide agricultural extension services; and (d) use of MitraKisan (farmer's friend) of project area, as the identified Mitra Kisan of the DOA for extension work.However, re-training of panchayat level multipurpose workers and identified Kisan Mitras onagriculture extension and providing specialized technical guidance to farmers through subject matterspecialists should be provided by DOA. Provision has been made by GOUP to co-opt members of theWUGs into the water committee of the Gram Sabha (local government at the village level). This willensure close links of the WUGs and SICs with local government.

7. Bank and Borrower Performance

Bank7.1 Lending:7.1.1 Lending. The Bank's performance during the preparatory and appraisal stages wassatisfactory. Project preparation reflected intensive discussions as well as detailed sociological andtechnical studies extending over three years. This ensured strong ownership both by GOUP and theintended beneficiaries. Reference to past experience in sodic land reclamation and the fielding of a pilotoperation helped to crystallize organization and management details in the SAR.

7.2 Supervision:7.2.1 Supervision. The performance in project supervision is assessed as satisfactory.Seventeen formal review missions were carried out in conjunction with government authorities, UPBSNand associated organizations. The fact that a single Task Team Leader was assigned from the localoffice throughout the implementation encouraged smooth coordination. The skills mix in the missionswas appropriate and the flexibility in problem solving contributed significantly to the project outcome.Project staff were encouraged to visit Bank's Delhi office to follow up on implementation issues. Theproject performance indicators were developed in consultation with UPBSN and IIM Lucknow with alog frame matrix and updated regularly.

- 12-

7.3 Overall Bank performance:7.3.1 Overall Bank Performance. The Banks overall performance was satisfactory. TheBank provided valuable support to the project development. The project objectives were well focussedas preparation and implementation procedures were generally good. Appropriate actions at MTRextended the targets for project coverage by over 50%. Procurement workshops conducted resulted inspeedy and complete disbursement of the IDA Credit.

Borrower7.4 Preparation:7.4.1 Preparation. The Borrower's performance during the preparatory and appraisal stageswas satisfactory. The project benefited from constructive involvement by GOUP from the outset. TheDOA took a strong lead in identification and preparation work, ensuring regular liaison with the Banktask team leader and support for specialist studies. The GOUP's decision to involve UPBSN was takenat an early stage, which pernitted the organization to be effective in the pilot developments (financedretroactively under the project), the lessons from which improved the precision of the SAR proposals.More attention should have been given to identifying the potentials and obstacles for diversifiedagricultural production in sodic lands.

7.5 Government implementation performance:7.5.1 Government Implementation Performance is assessed as satisfactory. The decision byGOUP to appoint a dynamic general manager to head UPBSN and to leave him in post for four yearswas a major reason for the successful implementation, flexible management and timely completion ofthe project. The choice of contractors for specialist project activities was also well made. The projectbenefited from timely and adequate provision of counterpart budget funds throughout implementation.

7.6 Implementing Agency:7.6.1 Implementation Agencies Performance is assessed as highly satisfactory. The initiativetaken by UPBSN in exploiting the project's in-built flexibility allowed for changes in approach thatenhanced project results. The UPBSN produced detailed, timely progress reports that were the basis forIIM's analyses. Contracts with RSAC and IIM were well coordinated and executed. Compliance withlegal covenants were timely and precise and the audit reports were all satisfactory. The decision toallow UPBSN to manage the project was appropriate as being a corporation it had a greater degree offlexibility than a government department and was able to successfully develop participatory models forland reclamation. More attention could have been given to involve ID for timely sequencing of drainagerehabilitation and reclamation works in the initial years of the project implementation.

7.7 Overall Borrower performance:7.7.1 Overall Borrower Performance. The Borrower's performance for the project as a whole wassatisfactory.

8. Lessons Learned

8.1 The Sodic I project provides seven main lessons:

* Project success is founded on a preparatory process that directly involves line departments andintended beneficiaries, allows ample time for preparatory studies, assimilates experience from

- 13-

similar operations, carries out pilot operations and allows for flexible implementation.* Establishing a logical sequence of development activities is a key ingredient to success; in this case,

the establishing of property rights and land titling provided the basis for assuring beneficiaries'involvement. Then, creating organizations of poor people followed by mechanisms for resolvingtechnical problems and provisions of associated resources.

* Mobilization and involvement of communities in project implementation is essential. An importantingredient for motivating beneficiaries was that they were able to obtain returns in a short periodby participating in the project.

* Well-selected NGOs recruited at the outset of the project can play a key role in the formation,training and support of farmers' groups.

* A joint partnership with all organizations that have key roles in project implementation is criticalfor project success. It helps to ensure that they are fully supportive from the outset and completetheir functions in a timely manner.

* A public corporation or society has greater flexibility in project implementation than linedepartment.

* A dynamic leadership at the start of the project is more likely to ensure complete and timelyimplementation.

* Continuity in the World Bank task team leadership and assignment of a specialist from the localoffice enhances coordination and helps to ensure speedy problem solving and smoothimplementation.

3 Well-structured and good quality external monitoring and evaluation of project activities combinedwith willingness by project management to adjust the weaknesses and adopt appropriate remediesquickly can be instrumental to project success. These included concurrent monitoring, monthlysocio-economic and baseline mid term final post and pre-reclamation yield impact studies werecarried out.

9. Partner Comments

(a) Borrower/implementing agency:The borrower has submitted comments on this and have basically highlighted the fact that some ofthe ratings should be upgraded. All other comments have been incorporated.

(b) Cofinanciers:

(c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector):

10. Additional Information

See Annex 7

- 14 -

Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix

Key Performance IndicatorsParticulars Unit Target Target Actual Percentage

SAR MTR Actual toSAR

OVERALL PROGRESS OF PREPARATORYACTIVITIES, AREA SELECTION, LEACHING &CROP COVER ._.._..

Villages mapped by RSAC No. 1003 1003 957 95Area mapped by RSAC Ha 45000 68800 65008 145Villages selected by UPBSN for reclamation No. 1003 1003 1003 100Area taken by UPBSN for reclamation Ha 45000 68800 68800 153Area treated Ha 45000 68800 68414 152Area treated as percent of area selected % 100 100 99.44 99Area selection for Crop production Ha 39000 61900 63170 162Area selected & treated for crop production as % of % 87 90 92 106total area selected & treatedArea selection for Inter-horticulture Ha 6000 6900 5244 87Area selected & treated for inter-horticulture as % of % 13 10 8 62total area selected & treatedTreated area under crop cover - Kharif Ha 39000 63170 61165 157Treated area under crop cover - Rabi Ha 39000 63170 60795 159Treated area under Inter-Horticulture Ha 6000 6900 5244 87Conversion from C-Class to A-class Ha 20000 36026 36026 180Conversion from B-Class to A-class Ha 19000 19577 19577 103ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT WORKPreparation of new field bunds (On C class fields) Ha 20000 36026 36026 180Rehabilitation of field bunds (On B+ and B class lands) Ha 25000 32388 32388 130Ploughing & land levelling Ha 45000 68414 68414 152DRAINAGE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENTNew Main Drains Km 566 - -

Remodelling/rehabilitation of Main Drain Km 2346 2346 2463 105Link Drain construction Km 1300 3340 2508 193Area covered by Link Drains Ha 45000 68414 51515 114Field Drain construction Km 3900 6841 5570 143Area served by Field Drain as % of area treated % 100 100 81 81IRRIGATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT _ _Already-existing borings associated with project No. 2307 5019 5019 218New borings drilled & developed No. 8140 10930 10930 134Installation of pumpset on already-existing borings No. - 124 124Installation of pumpset on newly-drilled & developed No. 8140 10930 10930 134boringsTotal borings equipped with pumpset No. 10447 15949 15949 153Area served by functional borings Ha 45000 68414 68414 152Area served by new borings Ha 32560 43720 46890 144Area served by new borings as % of treated area 9 72.35 64 69 95Generation of additional irrigation potential Ha 32560 44216 47422 146Construction/rehabilitation of irrigation channel Km 3900 6841 5516 141Paddy YieldOverall QtVHa - - 30 -

B+ class lands QtVHa - 32 -

B class lands QtVHa 25 25 31 124C class lands Qt/Ha 21 21 29 138Particulars Unit Target Target Actual Percentage

- 15 -

SAR MTR Actual toSAR

Wheat YieldOverall QtlHa NS 26B+ class lands QtfHa NS - 29 -

B class lands Qt/Ha 18 18 26 144C class lands Qt/Ha 13 13 25 192

LAND ALLOTMENT __l_l

New Allotment & PossessionArea Ha NS - 9479 -

Farmers benefited No. NS - 22258Average area Ha/farmer NS - 0.43Possession on Old allotmentArea Ha NS - 15887Farmers benefited No. NS - 40536Average area Ha/farmer NS - 0.39 -

LOCAL LEVEL INSTITUTIONSSite Implementation Committees organized No. 1003 1003 1003 100Opening of SIC maintenance account No. 1003 1003 1003 100Cumulative amount deposited in SIC account Rs in lacs NS - 17.28 -

Amount utilized for infrastructure maintenance Rs in lacs NS 9.12Percentage utilization of SIC fund % NS - 53 -

Water Users' groups formed No. 10447 15949 15949 153Men SHG formed No. NS - 3156 -

Savings in Men SHG Rs in lacs NS - 50.18Inter-loaning in MSHG Rs in lacs NS - 28.84Inter-loaning as % of savings in MSHG % NS - 57Men SHG granted CCL No. NS - 1324Men SHG granted CCL as % of total saving groups % NS - 42Amount of CCL granted to MSHG Rs in lacs NS - 129.37Women SHG formed No. NS - 2166Savings in Women SHG Rs in lacs NS - 154.54Inter-loaning in WSHG Rs in lacs NS - 476.54Inter-loaning as % of savings in MSHG % NS - 308Women SHG granted CCL No. NS - 1618Women SHG granted CCL as % of total saving groups % NS - 75Amount of CCL granted to WSHG Rs in lacs NS - 358.45Crop loans disbursed to farmers No. NS - 16152Amount of crop loan disbursed Rs in lacs NS - 841.94Pumpset loans loans disbursed to farmers No. NS - 2028Amount of Pumpset loans disbursed Rs in lacs NS - 209.73Mitra Kisan selected and trained No. NS - 1368Mahila Mitra Kisan selected and trained No. NS - 1368Animators selected and trained No. NS - 1677Training programs for UPBSN staff No. NS - 368Exposure visits for UPBSN staff No. NS - 101Training programs for NGO staff No. NS - 191Exposure visits for NGO staff No. NS - 56Training for staff of line departments No. NS - 54Exposure visits for staff of line departments No. NS - 75Training programs for MK/MMKIMT No. NS - 80Training for Core Team members No. NS - 479Training for Animators No. NS - 88Field days No. NS - 90NS - Not Specified.

- 16 -

IMPACT INDICATORS

Particulars Unit Pre-interve Post-intervention Change Percentagention Change

Value of C-class Rs. in 30 125 95 31.57barren land thousandsDisguised % 43 16 -27 159.25unemploymentLocal wage Man-days 80 130 50 160enployment to yearlaborersLabor migration Man-days/ 85 50 -35 242.85

yearLocal real wage Rs./day 16 19 3 533.33rate _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Annual income of Rs. 10,478 19,550 9,072 115.49beneficiary familiesAnnual household Rs. 10,507 16,610 6,103 172.16consumptionAnnual Household Rs. -30 2,939 2,969 1.01savingsHousehold assets & Rs. in 191.28 279.10 87.82 217.80wealth thousandsBeneficiary familie % | 80 55 -25 320below poverty line I l

- 17 -

Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing

Table 2a: Project Costs by components (in million Rs. and US$ million equivalent)

Si. Project Component SAR Estimate MTR Estimate Actual-Estimatel/ % of SAR % of MTRNo.

Rs. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. US$I Institutional 255.43 7.05 338.31 9.34 419.42 10.84 164.20 153.81 123.98 116.13

Development

U Land Reclamation 2548.74 64.80 2761.05 70.20 2588.12 66.91 101.55 103.26 93.74 95.32By Project 2253.72 57.30 2226.67 56.61 2021.47 52.26 89.69 91.21 90.78 92.32By Beneficiaries 295.0 7.50 534.38 13.59 566,65 14.65 192.07 195.33 106.04 107.84

11 Agriculture 198.21 4.70 786.03 18.64 905.43 23.41 456.80 498.06 115.19 125.61Development &Extension Support

By Project 8.2C 0.20 28.161 0.69 35.34 0.91 430.98 456.84 125.50 133.03By Beneficiaries 190.01 4.50 757.87 17.95 870.09 22.50 457.92 499.89 114.81 125.33

IV Reclamation & 134.80 3.60 66.17 1.77 98.78 2.55 73.28 70.94 149.28 144.52TechnologyResearch

Total By Project 2652.15 68.15 2659.31 68.40 2575.01 66.57 97.09 97.69 96.83 97.32Total By 485.03 12.00 1292.25 31.53 1436.74 37.15 296.22 309.54 111.18 117.79Beneficiaries _

GRAND TOTAL 3137.18 80.15 3951.56 99.94 4011.75 103.72 127.88 129.41 101.52 103.78The figures of actual-estimate include actual expenditure up to February 2001 plus estimate of final expenditures through March 2001that will be disbursed by IDA by 31st July 2001.

Table 2b: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (US$ Million)

US$ Milon) Procurement Method - Latest Estimates 1/_ ______ jICB LCB Others NBF Total ICB NCB Other NBF Total1. Land 1.38 1.38acquisition2. Civil works 11.23 5.35 16.58

(9.98) (4.78) (14.76) (12.59)3. Commodities 18.27 4.82 1.0 3.29 26.48 67.86

(15.27) (3.36) (0.8) (19.44) 21.36 4.22 8.28 34.00 (16.06)4. Materials & 0.54 3.40 8.08 9.78 21.80Equipment (0.48) (2.89) (6.1) (9.37) (10.75)5. Vehicles 0.79 0.79

(0.61) (0.61) (0.50)6. Consultants, 4.69 4.69 0.28 0.06 0.75 - 1.09Contracts (4.27) (4.27) (4.57)

and Training I_I__7. Incremental 8.35 8.35 0.22 0.38 - 34.17 34.77staffand (6.15) (6.15) (10.20)

operating cost sTOTAL: 18.82 18.54 28.38 14.46 80.2 103.72

(15.75) (16.14) (22.81) (54.7) (54.67).__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _2 /

- 18 -

I/ Brackets denote IDA financing.2/ Final disbursements to 31/7/2001 estimated.

Table 2c: Project Financing by Component (in US$ million equivalent)

Sl.No. Component Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Estimate Percentage of AppraisalBank Govt. Co- Bank Govt. Co- Bank Govt. Co-

financer financer financerI Institutional

Development _ _

I In US$ million 5.70 1.35 0.00 7.95 2.89 0.00 139.47 214.07 0.00=__ In Rs. million 206.51 48.92 0.00 307.51 111.91 0.00 148.91 228.76 0.00

11 Land Reclamation____ In US$ million 46.00 11.30 7.50 43.46 8.81 14.65 94.48 77.96 195.33____ In Rs. million 1809.24 444.48 295.02 1681.08 340.39 566.65 92.92 76.58 192.07

111 Agri. Devp. &_ Extion Support _

In US$ million 0.20 0.00 4.50 0.78 0.13 22.50 390.00 0.00 500.00In Rs. million 8.21 0.00 190.01 30.30 5.04 870.09 369.51 0.00 457.92

IV Technology Devp.& Spi. StudiesIn US$ million 2.80 0.80 0.00 2.48 0.07 0.00 88.57 8.75 0.00In Rs. million 104.8 29.95 0.00 96.07 2. 71 0.00 91.63 9.05 0.00

TOTAL (In US$ 54.70 13.45 12.00 54.67 11.90 37.15 99.95 88.48 309.58

TOTAL (in Rs 2128.80 523.35 485.03 2114.96 460.05 1436.74 99.35 87.90 296.22______ million) 19-

-19 -

Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits

1. The economic viability is reassessed by calculating the economic rate of return (ERR) usingupdated prices, actual project costs, and latest information on crop production. Most of the incrementalproject benefits are accrued from increased wheat/paddy yields and higher cropping intensity. IncrementalO&M costs are estimated at 5% of the total investment for land reclamation component. Costs in currentprice are converted to 2001 prices by applying the Consumer Price Index to the local costs and the MUVIndex to the foreign costs. The foreign exchange component is estimated at 15% of the total. The projectinvestment costs in constant financial prices are converted into economic prices by applying the StandardConversion Factor (SCF) of 0.9 to local costs. The ERR analysis has been calculated for the project as awhole over a 20-year project life.

Estimated Economic Rates of Return and Net Present Values

Measure SAR Estimate Actual EstimateBase Case 23 28Net Present Value Rs.1,058 million Rs.1,125 millionSwitching Values at 12% OCC 32% 16% reduction in both paddy and wheat yields

total benefits _

2. Parity prices are used for major traded commodities (wheat and paddy) and the non-traded itemsadjusted by a SCF of 0.9 for project benefit estimation. Based on incremental costs and benefits over theproject life, it is estimated that the ERR for the project is 28% with NPV at Rs.1,125 million (OCC 12%).This does not take into account incremental revenues from the relatively small areas of horticulture crops,where details are unclear but appear to be attractive. Nor does it account for socio-economic benefits fromimproved education, health and family income. The SAR estimated that the project would yield an overallEconomic Rate of Return (ERR) of 23% with NPV at Rs.1,058 million (OCC 12%).

3. The higher ERR relative to the SAR was partly influenced by the expanded area of reclaimed landand the accelerated rate of developments. However, the estimates assume that: (i) weaknesses relating tomaintenance of drains and provision of extension services will be overcome: (ii) farmers will continue todevelop technical and managerial skills; and (iii) yield levels will remain static, with cropping intensityconstant at 200%. Switching values (@12% OCC) indicate that outputs of paddy and wheat would eachneed to decline by 12% (200% cropping) in order for the NPV to be zero. This situation could be triggeredif routine maintenance of drains is neglected - leading to resodification. By contrast, if maintenance isdone and proactive technical advisory services are assured farmers would achieve higher yields, therebylifting the level of ERR.

4. The actual ERR, at 28%, exceeds the SAR estimate. However, in addition to wheat and paddyproduction, the latter included estimates of benefits from horticultural production as well as income fromlivestock and off-farm employment, neither of which was analyzed during project implementation.Estimates of actual achievements have disregarded socio-economic or environmental benefits. Similarly,no estimate has been made of the secondary benefits accruing to farners whose land adjoins the projectarea and is benefiting from drainage works carried out under the project. Taking into account thesesupplementary sources of benefit would raise the ERR significantly.

5. The actual Net Present Value of the project, based on paddy and wheat output is Rsl,125 million,assuming an OCC of 12%, which is similar to the SAR estimate. Nearly half of the project area was

- 20 -

barren (C Class land) prior to project activities and even at the modest output levels attained, theincremental yields are high. The opportunity cost of the lands was low prior to project actions and, if takeninto account, would impact the ERR significantly.

Risks and Sensitivity

6. It is assessed that the sustainability of project achievements is at risk on two fronts.- Firstly, failure to maintain the main drains, especially on C Class lands, and to ensure continuouscrop cover by reducing summer fallow and improving soil organic matter status in such areas, are likely toput the reclaimed lands at risk. Provision was made under the project for maintenance of civil works.However, because of delays in rehabilitating main drains and lack of O&M planning by the ID, these fundswere not disbursed. In order to assure the maintenance of main drains, GOUP is introducing a schemewhereby, from 2001, funds will be provided specifically for this purpose, with 25% coming from theannual operating budget of ID and 75% being provided through district panchayats. However, it isimportant to ensure that these funds will be available and applied to maintenance works and efforts underSodic II should help to ensure that an O&M culture for drainage is instilled in ID staff.- Second, it is paramount that the vacuum created by the transfer of extension agents to districtpanchayats be rectified in order to ensure that technical guidance will be available to farmers and thecontinued development of project farmers. In some of the more progressive villages, farmers groups aredeveloping fanners clubs/field schools, assigning farmers as subject matter specialists and forging directlinks with universities and other organizations in order to obtain technical advice and problem solving.However, it is estimated that 724 of the total 1,003 villages reached directly by the project (72%) are stillin a formative stage. To some extent, village organizations (MK/MMK) are making the link; however, itis essential that actions under Sodic II for strengthening these activities be also assured for the Sodic Ivillages.

7. A sensitivity test has been carried out to measure the impact if the situation of neglect andinadequate back-up services, as indicated above, were to occur. From the base case above, a switchingvalues test (at 12% OCC) indicates that the return would be reduced to zero with 12% reduction in outputof both wheat and rice. Such a drop could result from resodification of the farmland. This indicates that,at existing modest yield levels, the project developments would be sensitive to the risks outlined above andemphasizes the need for mitigating actions to ensure continued economic growth in the project area.

8. To a some extent, this situation should be avoidable through assistance from the follow-up project(Sodic II) and other ongoing projects that are being assisted by the World Bank, including: Uttar PradeshDiversified Agricultural Support Project (UPDASP - Cr. 3106/Ln. 4356-IN) and the NationalAgricultural Technology Project (NATP - Cr. 3048/Ln. 4296-IN). However, there are few funds includedunder these projects specifically for maintaining support services in Sodic I areas and it is essential thatarrangements be made, from fiscal or project resources to ensure that these risks are mitigated.

- 21 -

Annex 4. Bank Inputs

(a) Missions:Stage of Project Cycle No. of Persons and Specialty Performance Rating

(e.g. 2 Economists, I FMS, etc.) Implementation DevelopmentMonth/Year Count Specialty Progress Objective

Identification/Preparation11/89-8/91

Appraisal/Negotiation9/91-6/92 5 Agronomist (1);

Irrigation/Drainage Engineer(2); Economist (1);Sociologist (1)

01-05/1993 5 Agronomist (2);Irrigation/Drainage Engineer (1);Economist (1); Sociologist (1)

SupervisionSupervision I - 4 Agronomist (2); S S09/1993 Procurement Splst (1);

Financial Analyst (1)Supervision II - 1 Agronomist S S12/1993Supervision III- 4 Agronomist (1); Procurement S S01/1994 Splst (I); Irrigation/Drainage

Engineer (1); Financial Analyst(1)

Supervision IV - 5 Agronomist (1); Sociologist (1); S S08/1994 Procurement Splst (1);

Irrigation/Drainage Engineer (1);Financial Analyst (1)

Supervision V - 3 Agronomist (1); S S04/1995 Irrigation/Drainage Engineer (1);

Financial Analyst (1)Supervision VI - 3 Agronomist (1); S S12/1995 Irrigation/Drainage Engineer (1);

Financial Analyst (1)Supervision VII - 5 Agronomist (1); Sociologist (1); S S06/1996 Procurement Splst (1);

Irrigation/Drainage Engineer (1);Financial Analyst (1)

Supervision VIII - 4 Agronomist (1); Procurement S S06/1996 Splst (1); Irrigation/Drainage

Engineer (1); Financial Analyst(1)

Supervision IX 6 Agronomist (2); Procurement S S(MTR) - 04/1997 Splst (1); Irrigation/Drainage

Engineer (1); Financial Analyst(1); Environmental Splst (1)

Supervision X - 4 Agronomist (1); Water Res. Splst S S10/1997 (1); Irrigation/Drainage Engineer

- 22 -

(1); Financial Analyst (1)Supervision XI - 3 Agronomist (1); Irrigation S S04/1998 /Drainage Engineer (1);

Financial Analyst (1)Supervision XII - 4 Agronomist (1); Irrigation S S09/1998 /Drainage Engineer (2);

Sociologist (1)Supervision XIII - 3 Agronomist (1); Irrigation S S05-1999 /Drainage Engineer (1);

Sociologist (1)Supervision XIV - 7 Agronomist (1); S S11/1999 1/ Irrigation/Drainage Engineer (1);

Sociologist (1); ProcurementSplst (1); Financial Analyst (1);Env. Splst (1); Economist (1)

Supervision XV - 5 Agronomist (1); S S05/2000 Irrigation/Drainage Engineer (1);

Sociologist (1); ProcurementSplst (1); Env. Splst (1)

Supervision XVI - 5 Agronomist (1); S S11/2000 Irrigation/Drainage Engineer (1);

Sociologist (1); Env. Splst (I);Economist (1)

ICRICR - 05/2001 5 Agronomist (1); S S

Irrigation/DrainageEngineer (1); Sociologist(1); Fin. Analyst (1);Economist (1)

1/ Joint with preparation for UP Sodic 11

(b) Staff:

Stage of Project Cycle Actual/Latest Estimate

No. Staff weeks US$ ('000)Identification/Preparation 30 105Appraisal/Negotiation 70 245Supervision 98 340ICR 18 80Total 216 770

(Identification and preparation activities extended over three years. Staff weeks involved are estimated and include specialist consultant studies. Unit

costs are also estimates).

- 23 -

Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components

(H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA=Not Applicable)

RatingO Macro policies O H O SU O M ON * NAEl Sector Policies OH OSUOM ON O NAO Physical O H *SUOM O N O NA

Financial O H OSUOM O N O NA[I Institutional Development O H * SU O M O N 0 NA

LO Environmental O H *SUOM O N O NA

Social[Q Poverty Reduction O H * SU O M O N O NAOI Gender O H *SUOM O N O NAQ Other (Please specify) O H OSUOM O N O NA

O Private sector development 0 H 0 SU O M 0 N 0 NAO Public sector management 0 H * SU O M 0 N 0 NAO Other (Please specify) O H OSUOM O N O NA(Assessments based on actual achievements relative to staff appraisal report.)

- 24 -

Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory)

6.1 Bank performance Rating

O Lending OHS OS OU OHUO Supervision OHS OS OU OHUO Overall O HS * S O U O HU

6.2 Borrowerperformance Rating

O Preparation O HS * S O U O HUO Government implementation performance 0 HS 0 S 0 U 0 HUO Implementation agency performance O HS O S O U O HUOl Overall OHS OS O U O HU

- 25 -

Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents

* Pre-Appraisal Preparation Report (Netherlands).* DOA Revised Project Document( 6/92).* Staff Appraisal Report (5/93).* Efficiency of Shallow Tubewells Study, finalized May 1998, WAPCOS (Water Power Cons.

Services (India) Ltd.).* Participatory Management Evaluation, TARU, ND (95/6) + MDP, Lucknow (98/9), 1995.* Horticulture, Bio-fencing Forestry on Sodic Lands and Participation of SMG (13 districts). Dr. 1.S.

Singh Narinder Dev. University of Agricultural Technology (1997).* Special Study on Drainage (10 districts); Mott MacDonald + Eurotech Services, Ltd. February

1998.* Taru Leading Edge, NG 0(5/98), Social Assessment.* Sustainability Monitoring Report, (20% villages from each year), UPBSN Internal Team, 98/9 and

99/00.* MDP Cons. (Private) Ltd. Lucknow Evaluation of Beneficiary Participation, 7/99.* UPBSN Workshop Report: Institutionalization of Approach and Methodology of Micro-Planning

for Villages (SIP/PRO), 01/2001.* Assessment of Impact of Sodic I on Migratory Trends (4 villages) IIM, 1999.* Group Savings and Credit Management.* ICR each district (including assessment, future strategy, management, targets, innovations, etc.),

UPBSN District Managers (2/2001).

Organization Report TitleUP Bhumi Sudhar Nigam (UPBSN) Project Completion Report

(3/2001):Volume I: The Project (Overview)Volume II: CompliancesVolume IIIA: Physical AchievementsVolume IIB: Institutional and FinancialAchievementsVolume IV: Human CapitalVolume V: Technology Developmentand Special Studies

UP Council of Agricultural Research: Adaptive Research - Phase I(1994/5-1999/2000) September 2000

Agricultural Management Centre, Indian Institute of Project Completion Analysis (3/2001):Management: Part I: An Overview

Part II: Project ImplementationMonitoringPart III: Agricultural &Socio-Economic Impact Assessment.

Remote Sensing Applications Centre, Uttar Pradesh UP Sodic Lands Reclamation Project,Phase I (Report of Achievements),March 2001

- 26 -

Additional Annex 8. Borrower's Evaluation

Sector Context

Uttar Pradesh with annual production of 41.7 million tons of food grains from 17.5 million hectarescultivated land contributes significantly to the national food security. The state has potential not only tofeed its teeming millions but also to meet future food requirement of the country provided 3.87 millionhectares of potentially cultivable area, which is lying unutilized due to various problems like soil andwind erosion, water logging, sodicity, ravines and gullies etc. is managed properly and brought backunder normal cultivation. Reclamation of sodic lands had been a major step in this direction.Beginning in year 1945, UP executed several State and Central Government sponsored schemes toreclaim sodic lands and brought more than 1.57 lakh hectares sodic land under cultivation till the year1992. After that, the 'UP Bhumi Sudhar Nigam' a UP Government undertaking, took up the challengeof reclaiming sodic lands and launched, with financial assistance from the World Bank, 'UP SodicLands Reclamation Project' (UPSLRP) in year 1993 in the ten sodicity-infested districts of UttarPradesh with initial reclamation targets of 45,000 hectares with a total project cost of US$ 80.2 millionand project period extending up to March, 2001.

Project implementation has now been completed. With meticulous planning, systematic managementand effective beneficiary participation, it was possible to reclaim more than 68,400 hectares of sodicland against the original SAR target of 45,000 hectares within the same timeframe and withoutadditional funding from World Bank.

As part of the ICR, borrower's views on the irnplementation of UPSLRP, fulfillment of projectobjectives, assessment of implementation design, arrangements, borrowers performance with emphasison lessons learnt and performance of borrower are being presented in this chapter:

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

* Develop concomitant models for environmental protection and improved agriculture productionthrough large-scale reclamation of sodic lands;

* Strengthen local Institutions, enabling effective management of such programs with strongbeneficiary participation and NGO support;

* Contribute towards poverty alleviation of families managing sodic soils.

An examination of project outputs, outcomes and impacts clearly indicates that the project has achievedits developmental objectives.

Obiective- 1Develop concomitant model for environmental protection and improved agriculture productionthrough large-scale reclamation of sodic lands.

* Participatory model of land reclamation developed under this project has been adopted in GOI's andGOUP's other schemes of similar nature.

* Already formed the basis for much larger World Bank funded "UP Sodic Land Reclamation IIProject".

* 68,414 ha sodic area reclaimed out of which 36,026 ha barren area brought under green cover for thefirst time.

- 27 -

* 2,463 km main drains remodeled and made functional. Project area is now free from impeded drainage,water logging and sodicity.

* C-class area (barren sodic area) brought under 215 % cropping intensity, B-class (mono-cropped sodicarea) under 219 % cropping intensity.

* 47,422 ha additional area brought under assured irrigation for the first time.* 5,244 ha area brought under Inter-horticulture after reclamation.* The recommended production systems based on food and horticultural tree crops on reclaimed lands

are being adapted by farmers.* Regular crop production with improved yields (Paddy 30 qtlha & wheat 26 qt/ha).* New crop models/ refined technologies developed through adaptive research.* No adverse impact on ground and surface water based on monitoring by RSAC (Remote Sensing

Application Center).* Positive impact on Micro flora and fauna in reclaimed lands.

Obiective-2Strengthen local institutions, enabling effective management of such programs with strongbeneficiary participation and NGO support.

Key implementing institutions i.e. UP Bhumi Sudhar Nigam (UPBSN), Remote Sensing ApplicationCenter (RSAC) and NGOs involved in the program have grown in strength and are now capable ofshouldering much bigger responsibilities.

UPBSN:* Strengthened UPBSN already implementing much larger World Bank funded UPSLRP II, IFAD and

World Bank funded Swa-Shakti and UNDP supported Women in Agriculture Projects.3 Evolution of project management system where by UPBSN could manage all the activities with 42 of

its regular staff along with more than 600 staff taken either on deputation or on contract.3 Effective information, educations and communication system developed.* Development of need based literature on reclamation,, cropping, horticulture, participatory

management and other related subjects, separately for farmers, NGOs and project functionaries.* Well defined computerized Management Information System (MIS) operationlized at all levels.* Professionalism in core sectors like land reclamation participatory management, women empowerment,

human resource development and technology dissemination developed.* As envisaged, for effective implementation, monitoring and better coordination with other agencies

project management system developed. "State Steering Committee" under the chairmanship of ChiefSecretary, and "Board of Management" under the chairmanship of Agriculture ProductionCommissioner (APC) at the state level, District Implementation and Coordination Committee (DICC)at district level, Site Implementation Committee (SIC) at village level have been made functional andutilized effectively for monitoring and policy decisions.

Remote Sensin2 Application Center (RSAC):* Capacity developed for selection of suitable reclamation sites.* Capable of planning, monitoring and evaluating environmental parameters including soils and ground

water.* Installation of well equipped GIS workstation for planning and decision making at project level.* Skill up-gradation through International and National technical assistance and training on GIS, image

processing and remote sensing and ground water monitoring.

NGOs:

- 28 -

* NGOs' capability strengthened to ensure their contribution towards Agriculture DevelopmentalActivities.

* Community mobilization and Institutional building skills at the grass root level developed.* New participatory approaches and methodologies have been followed for capacity building of

community and field staff.* NGOs with UPSLRP's experience already engaged in other important projects like UPDASP,

SWA-SHSKTI etc.

Local Institutions:* Farmers based 1,003 Site Implementation Comnmittees (SICs) at village level, 15,949 WUGs at field

level made functional for planning, management, monitoring & evaluation during reclamation andmaintenance thereafter.

* Women organized 2166 Self Help Groups (SHGs), mobilizing Rs. 15.45 millions as saving with aturnover ratio of 2.32:1.00 with Rs 19.43 million utilized by way of credit from banks.

* Community assets such as drains etc. maintained through mobilization of community funds. In total,1003 maintenance accounts operative with Rs. 9.12 lakh utilized out of Rs. 17.28 deposited for thispurpose.

Obiective-3Contribute towards poverty alleviation of families managing sodic soils.* Out of total 1.55 lakh beneficiaries covered in UPSLRP 27.4 percent belonged to Scheduled Caste and

42.67% to Other Backward Castes. Out of the total beneficiaries, 91.17% categorized as marginal landholders, small land holders or land allottees.

* 22,258 Landless farmers allotted and given possession of 9479 ha community land.* 40536 old-allottees provided possession on 15887 hectares allotted to them in past years.* Increased crop production of Rs 30,000 ha/year from reclaimed lands.* Farm income increased by 188 %.* Proportion of Below Poverty Line (BPL) families declined from 80% to 56%.* Enhancement in wage rates and local employment resulting in substantial reduction in migration.* Three fold increase in value of reclaimed land.

IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN

a) Flexibility:UPSLRP was designed and developed on experiences gained through execution of several projectsoperated earlier, with an aim to develop a replicable model. Thus project design allowed changes basedon implementation experiences and farmers participation. Looking at the flexible nature of the project,decision was taken to implement this project through UP Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, a Government ownedcorporation, which by its very nature, could easily amend and innovate implementation procedures,according to the need of the project. Expectedly, several changes were introduced duringimplementation. Noticeable among them are:

* Cost sharing by participating farmers; With effective beneficiary participation farmer's share wasraised from originally planned 16% to 33% resulting in coverage of more than 23,000 ha additionalsodic area under land reclamation without any additional cost.

* Involvement of other agencies in execution; Involvement of other agencies like UP Housing Board orUP Tubewell Corporation along with main executing agency helped in the speedy completion of maindrain targets.

* Privatization of Services; Due to flexible nature of the project, land reclamation works could be

- 29 -

contracted out to individuals/agencies with staff deputed from several departments. Similarly task ofsoil sampling, office maintenance, security and horticultural nurseries were privatized to suitableagencies which helped in timely completion of assigned works and also relieved the organization fromthe liability of creation of surplus staff.

* Quality Control through external agencies; Checking of cost estimates, quality & quantity ofremodeling works of main drains and quality control of inputs with the help of external agencies, inaddition to already envisaged external M & E, helped in improving quality, timely completion andreduction in cost.

* Inclusion of double cropped sodic area; About 11,550 ha of double-cropped sodic area (B+) withlow yields could be made productive (15 qt/ha increase in yield in case of paddy and 9 qt/ha incase ofwheat).

b) Environmental Issues* Adherence to selection criteria for reclamation sites mentioned in SAR i.e. ground water table below

two meters, availability of good quality water for leaching purposes and nearness to the main drainhelped in sustainable reclamation of large patches without any adverse impact on the environment.

* Reclamation technology adopted in the project had no adverse impact on the surface and ground water.Reduction in soil pH had a positive impact on biological activities of the soil.

c) Implementation ArrangementsSAR mentioned three main risks to the project. These were: a) effective coordination of variousreclamation activities; b) ability to form farmers groups for participation in project activities; andc) ability offarmers to effectively adopt the full package.

To minimize these risks certain committees and actions and suggestions were built in the SAR. Basedon these guidelines UPBSN developed an innovative project management system which not only helpedin reducing above risks but also laid the foundation on which a replicable model could be developed andmuch bigger second project could be taken up from World Bank even before the completion of firstproject. Some of the noticeable features are being mentioned below.

* Regular monitoring and effective coordination through "State Steering Committee", Board ofManagement, District Coordination Committee (DCC) and Site Implementation Committee (SIC).

e For effective monitoring and facilitation at field level utilization of senior level managers as ZonalOfficers.

* Development of quarterly and annual activity schedule separately for each category staff and regularfollow up of all the activities on activity schedule.

* Involvement of NGOs in motivation, awareness campaigns, group formation, women empowerment,sustainable cropping and exit from the area.

* After intensive awareness, motivation and training, mandatory utilization of Farmer's organizationslike SICs, Core team of group leaders, Mitra Kisan & Mahila Mitra Kisan, WUGs & SHGs inplanning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of project activities on various easy-to-operateprinted registers maintained by the farmers themselves.

* Formation of village specific "Site Implementation Plans" (SIP) by the beneficiaries themselves usinginnovative techniques and methodologies.

* Provision of payments for all the works only through 'WUG' bank accounts and its verification invillage SIC meetings.

* Maintenance of WUG registers by group leaders with all input distribution lists pasted in it anddistribution of inputs by group members themselves in open SIC meetings on fixed date and place.

* Execution of all works through WUG, its payments through WUG accounts and entry of all payments

- 30 -

in WUG registers to ensure transparency. Placement of system which ensures transparency andaccountability at the level of project functionaries, NGOs and beneficiary farmers.

* Based on field experiences, development of literature for farmers, project staff and NGOs on technicaland participatory aspects of the project. Development of training & visit schedule for effective anduniform monitoring of each and every area.

* Utilization of local folk, AIR and Doordarshan for dissemination of the technology.* Preparation of Annual Action Plans and Procurement Plans & accordingly implementing activities.* Phasing of entire selected area into different project units, sub-units & circles and placement of staff &

NGO workers from day one till the end of the project.* Help of external agencies like Indian Institute of Management (IIM) for socioeconomic impact

assessment and implementation monitoring and RSAC for durability study and monitoring of impact onsoil, ground & surface water and biodiversity.

- 31 -

d) Implementation Methodology

|Asset Mdneai c

| Cropping & Horticulture Sustainability of Outputs

_ 4 Gypsum Distrn. & Leaching|_Credit

X _ / _ | ~~~~~~~~BornDg & Pumpsaelt- Ipt Iputs

v: ReviewbyCreTea On-fam Development _ *- Technology

O CJ SIP Formation > IGA

Plan Map in SIC Z

Soil Testing ~ Income GeneratingC.Soil TeTringn Activities; . Training K

_ \\\\ | Classification of Lands

0~~~~~~~~~~~x. \' | ~~~~~~~WUG/WSHG/Core Team |n

_ \^ | ~~~~~~~~~Selection of MKIM4MK|

_ \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~Formation ofSI I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

LAwareness Campaign |Beneficiy Select,on

Site Selection by-R ]

For reclamation activities, a broad outline was provided in SAR, which was based on standardreclamation technology practiced by (Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI), Karnal. Thoughthe basic package remained same in the implementation approach of UPSLRP, systematic steps weredeveloped in order to ensure timely completion of all the project activities with full participation offarmers. Steps are shown in the following schematic diagram.

BORROWER'S PERFORMANCE

Land Allotment:One of the significant achievements of UPSLRP had been in the area of land allotment and possessionthereon. In total, 22,258 landless farmers were allotted and given possession of 9479 ha communityland and 40536 old-allottees were provided possession on 15887 hectares land allotted to them in pastyears

Development of Irrieation and drainaLe facility and land reclamation:As compared to MTR targets of 68,800 hectares, 68,414 hectares of sodic lands have been reclaimedbenefiting about 1.55 lakh farming families. A total area of 63170 hectares was brought under cropcover and 5244 hectares under inter-horticulture. Under minor irrigation component an additional areaof 47422 hectares has been brought under assured irrigation as 10,930 now boring were drilled &developed against the MTR target of 9,261 borings in the project area. Reclaimed areas have been

- 32 -

provided with functional drainage network. A total of 2,463 kilometers of main drains were remodeledas against the MTR targets of 2,346 kilometers.

ParticiRation of Beneficiary Farmers:Success of UPSLRP is considerably attributable to the active participation of beneficiary-families inthe planning, implementation and monitoring of project activities. Each of 1,003 villages is served by aSIC, responsible for task mentioned above. SIC always served as the decision making body. Entirearea is served by 15949 WUGs 1003 Core teams of beneficiary farmers consisting of Mitra Kisan,Mahila Mitra Kisan and group leaders were formed and utilized for monitoring and reviewing theprogress of the project in SIC meetings

Human Resource Development:One of the major factors for farmer's active participation in technology dissemination activities,collective decision making, training of other farmers and most importantly developing leadershipqualities in marginal and small farmers has been the systematic development and utilization of humanresource at village level. More than 14,000 farmers/group leaders were trained in the form of MitraKisan, Mahila Mitra Kisan, Group Leaders, Health Animators (Dai etc.), Boring and PumpsetMechanic and were effectively utilized. Further strengthening of their skill and networking has formedthe basis for development of "Farmer to Farmer" system of extension methodology in the state.

Exit Policy:UPSLRP has developed a policy, aimed at further helping to consolidate the gains achieved duringimplementation even after the withdrawal of the project staff/NGO from the area. Implementation ofexit policy is in progress at present. The main theme of the policy revolves around the sustainabilityaspect of land reclamation which includes continuous existence of drainage network, patch treatment ifrequired, arrangement of credit and agriculture inputs, and access to information regarding newtechnology, networking of trained farmers and development of fanner based technology disseminationcenters.

Coordination:An efficient and effective coordination across line agencies can be cited as one of the majorachievements of the project as it was perceived to be one of the three risks envisaged in SAR. Itsimpact can be gauged from the high figure of land allotment and possession in the project by RevenueDepartment. Similarly, the banks operating in the area equally own all the SHGs, as 75 % eligiblegroups are linked with banks. Though Irrigation department and research agencies could not bemobilized in the initial stages for various reasons.

Women Emnowerment:Major out come of the project has been the empowerment of women which was never foreseen in theproject at the time of appraisal. More than 36000 women from beneficiaries families got together tofrom around 2000 Women Self Help Groups (WSHG). This has brought a perceptible change not onlyin the economic status of the women involved but has empowered them to the extent that they are ableto move out of their houses, take decisions at house hold level and play important role in thedevelopmental activities of the village.

Publication of Relevant Literature:During the initial years of implementation it was experienced that proper literature was not available whichcould benefit the farners to gain better knowledge towards reclamation activities and participatorybehaviors which play key roles to improve the quality of reclamation. Although it was not envisaged in the

- 33 -

original task to develop such literature but considering its essentiality, UPBSN decided to develop in-houseliterature on different topics and issues related to reclamation and participation approach. These literatureswere prepared in the language of farmers (Hindi), so that fanners could easily understand, grasp and adoptthe techniques for their betterment. Different kinds of literature, separately for farmers, UPBSN staff andNGOs were prepared. Flipcharts, impact points, technical bulletins bimonthly magazine "Bhu-Mitra" andscores of other publications are some of important literature developed by UPBSN.

Adaptive Research:This component was conceived to transfer field worthy technologies from research institutions to farmersfield and to modify them as per the need of the community. Experiments conducted on food cropping,horticulture, aromatic and medicinal grasses, fuel and fodder and on some exploratory topics led to theadoption of several recommendations in the package of practices given by agriculture and horticulturedepartments of the state. Some of the noticeable recommnendations are: (a) application of Gypsum ( 25%Gypsum + 10 ton pressmud as soil amendment. (b) Mulching of basin of fruit tress with FYM and ricestraw and also with sugarcane trash improved the growth of Aonla & Guava.

Financial Progress:In the financial management aspects, the major achievement was to arrange timely cash flow fromGovernment of UP through Budgetary allocation in advance for the financial year. The UPBSN hasdeveloped a computerized financial management system to record all transactions. The UPBSN hasadopted uniform policy for accounting in all field units by developing a manual. Entire amount in the creditof 54.7 million was disbursed by December 2000.

PERFORMANCE OF THE WORLD BANK

Success of UP Sodic Lands Reclamation Project can be attributed to the teamwork of its partners, i.e.,farmers, NGOs, World Bank and Implementing Agencies (UPBSN and other Line Agencies).Theoretically, World Bank is connoted as donor/funding agency but in practical terms it has played muchwider role not only in preparation phase but also in planning, executions and subsequent post-reclamationphases of the project. Though it is difficult to separate the respective contribution of different actors in thesuccess of the project, following are indicative of excellent performance of the World Bank team:

(1) Regular Review Mission:Every six months, there had been a review mission consisting of experts from related fields whichrigorously reviewed every minute detail of each component, visited fields and summarized their findings inform of mutually agreed time bound action points. This has helped not only in speedy completion of workbut also in removing several weaknesses of the project.

(2) Continuation of Same Team:One of the major factors for effective guidance, supervision and monitoring has been the continuation ofsame team members especially in core areas. Task Leader remained unchanged for the entire project period.This has helped in evolution of the implementation methodology and action matrix.

(3) Role of a Facilitator:Though these missions have been called supervision mission, but mission members always played role offacilitators in developing many concepts such as:Development of PRA based Site Implementation Plan (SIP) by the beneficiaries themselves.Exit policy from reclaimed areas.Maintenance of drains through drainage days.

- 34 -

Non-formal methods of extension.

(4) Encouraging Attitude:It could be possible for implementing agency to innovate, design and take important decision due toencouraging and appreciative attitude of the World Bank.

(5) Timely Sanctions:Timely sanctions in almost every component helped in timely completion of all the project activities.

(6) Learning /Sharing Sessions:At the end of each review mission, every team member used to organize learning sessions in whichexperiences were shared and documented.

(7) Exposure of the organization:Performance of UPBSN has been highlighted by World Bank Officials at number of occasion and onseveral national and international platforms.

LESSONS LEARNT

1. Continuity of Managing Director of substantial period and his teams has been the most importantfactor behind the success of the project.

2. Participation of beneficiary farmers in project planning, implementation and monitoring ensurestransparency, accountability, reduction in cost and management of post reclamation activities.

3. Groups formed through allurement are not sustainable.4. Partnership of Government and NGO in the implementation yields better results.5. Flexible approach of the project led to the successful development of replicable model.6. Farmer-led extension approaches is the most effective method of disseminating knowledge to other

farmers provided farmers trainers are regularly and adequately exposed to new technologies.7. Human Resource Development of project functionaries as well as beneficiary farmers is a key to

success of this project.8. Comprehensive campaign using electronic and other traditional media proved very effective in

educating communities.9. Exchange visits, exposure visits and study trips greatly help in motivating and enhancing knowledge of

all the stakeholders involved.10. Functional drainage network and continuous crop cover are crucial for sustainable reclamation.11. Horticulture development in reclaimed soils having pH more than 9.5 is not sustainable.12. Empowerment of women provides stability to the implementation. Women's saving and credit groups

provided an alternative credit structure and promoted agricultural investment as well as incomegenerating activities.

13. External monitoring and evaluation helped in maintaining quality and timely completion of projectactivities.

14. Open and transparent work environment always result into qualitative and quantitative outputs.

FUTURE STRATEGY OF CORPORATION:

With successful implementation of "UP Sodic Lands Reclamation Project " it has been possible to developa model which is environment friendly and replicable. Government of India and Government of UP havealready started adopting this model in their regular schemes. At present, UPBSN has been activity

- 35 -

concentrating on consolidating the gains. Sustainability of out puts achieved in last eight years occupies thecentral stage in the activities of UPBSN. Intensive efforts are being made to link farmer groups who havetaken responsibility of the transferring technology to the fellow farmers, with KVKs, block and districtlevel functionaries of the department. Since there were changes in field staffing of the Department ofAgriculture of GoUP for agricultural extension, Exit Policy has been accorded the highest priority. Banksare already linked with SHGs. Now major area of operation in future would be the convergence of otherprogrammers in these villages.

For sustainability of the organization, a corporate plan has been prepared. This plan includes futurestrategy and details about the core sectors in which UPBSN plans to participate. In addition to sodic landsreclamation, some of the key areas are watershed development consultancy in human resource developmentand participatory management. UPBSN is already in the process of submitting a proposal for watersheddevelopment for ravine reclamation.

- 36 -