Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No. 4058-PE
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
November 17, 1982
Latin America and the CaribbeanRegional Projects DepartmentAgriculture 4
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
US$1 = Peruvian Soles S/. 550S/. 1,000 US$1.82
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
1 hectare (ha) = 10,000 m2 = 2.47 acres
1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds1 metric ton (m ton) 1,000 kg = 0.98 long ton
ABBREVIATIONS
BAP Peruvian Agricultural BankCGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural ResearchCIAT International Center for Tropical AgricultureCIPA Agricultural and Livestock Investigation and Extension CenterDCCN Directorate of Campesino and Native CommunitiesDS Directorate of Services (TD)DWE Directorate of Works and Equipment (TD)ECASA National Rice Marketing EnterpriseED Executive Directorate of the ProjectENCI National Enterprise for Marketing InputsHCBM Huallaga Central - Bajo Mayo ProjectIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentINAF National Institute for Expansion of Agricultural DevelopmentINFOR National Forestry InstituteINIPA National Institute for Agricultural Research and ExtensionMAG Ministry of AgricultureMTC Ministry of Transport and CommunicationsOAAM Alto Mayo Aguaruna OrganizationOGCAR General Office of Cadastral and Rural Affairs (MAG)ONERN Office for Evaluation of Natural ResourcesSENAMA National Agricultural Machinery Service (INIPA)SMS Subject Matter Specialist in Extension Service (INIPA)TD Technical Directorate of Project
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Table of Contents
Page No.
I. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR .......................................... 1
General ........................................................ 1Resource Base ............. ..................................... 1Government Policies. 2Previous World Bank Participation. 2
II. THE PROJECT AREA. 3
Location and Access. 3Regional Context. 3Resource Base ............... 4Settlement. 5Present Agricultural Situation. 7Infrastructure. 8Institutions and Agricultural Services ......................... 10
III. THE PROJECT .13
A. Introduction .13B. Brief Description .14C. Detailed Features .15
Farm Development and Credit .15Irrigation .15Land Clearing Equipment .17Access Roads .17Extension and Research .19Storage .20Fisheries .21Forestry .21Health .21Education .22Project Technical Directorate .22Studies .23Technical Assistance .24Local Mapping and Titling .25National Mapping .25Native Communities .26
D. Project Costs .27E. Project Financing .29F. Procurement .30G. Disbursements .31
This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission which visited Peruin March 1982. The mission comprised Messrs. M. Wilson and J.E. Fernandez ofthe Bank, and M. Raczynski, J.E. Coaldrake and S. Romanoff (Consultants).
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of_their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
IV. CRGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT . ............................ 32
Executive Directorate ..... . . ... ....... 32Technical Directorate .............. 0 ................ , , ,, , 33Credit .... 34Access Roads ....... .... , 34Operation and Maintenance ...... . 34Agreements with I mplementing Agencies .......................... 34Accounts and Auditing .. .................................,.,. 35Monitoring and Evaluation ................... . . .... ... 36Project Reporting . . . ............ 36
V. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ... ................. 37
Land Use and Cropping Patterns ....................... 37Yields and Production ...... ............. 38Labor Demand ........................ 39Marketing and Prices rs............ 40
VI. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION .40
General.. ....... .40
Cost Recovery and Fiscal Impact .. 41Economic Rate of Return Estimate .... 41Sensitivity Analysis ... .42
Project Risk. ....... . .42
Environmental Impact .... 43
VII. SUMMARY OF AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION ... 43
ANNEX 1: Selected Documents and Data Available in Project File .. 46
ANNEX 2: Key Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation . .47
TABLES
1 - Irrigation Component: Metereological and River andCanal Data (2 pages) ..............................
2 - Irrigation Component: Cost Summary, InvestmentSchedule, Schedule for Incorporation of Land intoIrrigation (2 pages)................................
3 - Irrigation Component: Yuracyacu System...............4 - Irrigation Component: Irrigation District............5 - Land Clearing Equipment: SENAMA......................6 - Access Roads: Estimated Costs of Road Improvements
(3 pages)...........................................7 - Access Roads: Proposed Road Standards................8 - Extension: Civil Works Investments*..................9 - Extension: Equipment, Vehicles and Operating Costs...10 - Extension: Staff Requirements........................
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
TABLES
11 - Research : Civil Works Investments...................12 - Research : Vehicles, Equipment and Machinery.........13 - Research : Operating Costs ..........................14 - Research : Staffing..................................
15 - Storage ...........................................
16 - Fisheries Component...................................
17 - Forestry Component....................................
18 - Health Component (2 pages)............................19 - Education Component...................................
20 - Project Technical Directorate: Investments...........21 - Project Technical Directorate: Staffing..............22 - Project Technical Directorate: Incremental
Operating Costs.....................................23 - Technical Assistance, Studies, Training...............24 - Local Mapping and Titling Component...................25 - National Mapping Component............................26 - Project Component Costs by Time.......................27 - Summary Project Account by Component..................28 - Summary Project Account by Time.......................29 - Disbursement Schedule.................................
30 - Implementation Schedule...............................
31 - Model 1: 10-ha Irrigated, Farm Budget................32 - Model 1: 10-ha Irrigated, Yields, Production &
Production Value....................................33 - Model 1: 10-ha Irrigated, Operating Expenditures.....34 - Model 2: 20-ha Irrigated, Farm Budget................35 - Model 2: 20-ha Irrigated, Cropping Pattern, Yields,
Production & Production Value.......................36 - Model 2: 20-ha Irrigated, Operating Expenditures.....37 - Model 3: 20-ha Rainfed, Farm Budget..................38 - Model 3: 20-ha Rainfed, Cropping Pattern, Yields,
Production & Production Value.......................39 - Model 3: 20-ha Rainfed, Operating Expenditures.......40 - Model 4: 40-ha Dual Purpose Livestock Farm...........41 - Prices: Financial and Economic.......................42 - Economic Analysis: Rate of Return and Sensitivity
Analysis (2 pages)..................................
CHARTS
1 - Irrigation District
2 - Technical Directorate Irrigation Group3 - Project Organization
MAP
IBRD 16496 - Peru: Alto Mayo Rural Development Project
I. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
General
1.01 The performance of the agricultural sector in Peru in the 1970s waspoor. At a time when the population was increasing at 2.8% p.a. (4.1% inurban areas), the value of total agricultural production rose at only 0.7%per annum compared to 2.5% p.a. between 1950 and 1970, and in real termsactually declined by 0.6% p.a. in the decade of the 1970s. In the sameperiod, the volume of food imports increased by over 20%, and today agricul-ture constitutes 11% of GDP compared to 15% in 1970. Employment in thesector currently stands at about 41% of the labor force, despite significantemigration from depressed rural areas (especially in the Sierra) to urbanareas where employment opportunities are also inadequate.
1.02 The generally poor performance of the agricultural sector can beattributed largely to a sweeping land reform and considerable Governmentintervention following the military takeover in 1968, 1/ compounded by theeffects of a three-year drought between 1978 and 1980. With the return of aconstitutional Government in 1980, high priority has again been given toagricultural diversification and to increasing agricultural production andpolicies designed to achieve these goals have already been put into effect.
Resource Base
1.03 Peru's agricultural resource base is limited compared to otherLatin American countries. Of the total geographic area of about 1.3 millionkm2 (128.5 million ha), only about 3.0 million ha are currently in agricul-tural use, of which about 1.2 million ha are under irrigation and 1.8 millionha rainfed. Of the balance, about 22.0 million ha are natural grassland.There are three well defined topographic and climatic zones - the Costa, theSierra and the Selva.
1.04 The Costa, coastal zone in the west of Peru, is a narrow 3,000 kmlong belt of flat desert plains, sand dunes and dry, heavily eroded Andeanfoothills. Approximately 50% of the population live on this 13 million ha(about 10% of the total area) and agriculture is limited to highly productiveirrigated coastal valleys. The climate is ideal for a wide range of cropssuch as sugar, rice, cotton, corn, potatoes, citrus, olives and grapes.However, most of the existing irrigation systems are old, inefficient andpoorly drained, and land loss to waterlogging is serious. AlthoughGovernment is taking steps to rehabilitate and renovate existing systems,this is a slow and costly process.
1/ A detailed discussion of Agrarian Reform and Institutional Aspects ofAgricultural Production in Peru is presented in "An Economic Review ofthe Agricultural Sector in Peru", Bank Report No. 3550-PE, datedJune 30, 1981 (green cover).
- 2 -
1.05 The Sierra, Andean Highlands zone, covers about 27% of the totalland area (33 million ha) and has about 44% of the population. It consistsof steep mountains reaching over 5,000 meters above sea level and highvalleys located between the mountains. Although over half of Peru's cultiv-ated areas are in the Sierra (about 2.3 million ha), this represents onlyabout 7% of the Sierra's total area. About half the remaining area (14.3million ha) is used for grazing or natural pastures on steep slopes at highaltitude. Annual cropping predominates and is limited to one short croppingseason from about November to March. While there is little scope for bring-ing new land into production, there is some potential for improving produc-tivity through extension, research and use of production inputs. However,recent trends indicate considerable migration of the farming population fromthe area to both the coastal towns and to the Selva.
1.06 The Selva, the tropical forest zone east of the Andes mountainscovers about 63% of the total land area (about 81 million ha) but accountsfor only 10% of the total population. It comprises two sub-zones: theeastern slopes of the Andes at medium altitude - the Ceja de Selva; and theAmazon jungle - the Selva Baja (Lower Selva). Although most soils in theLower Selva are classified as marginal and suitable only for grazing andforestry, soils in the Ceja de Selva are generally of better quality and areconcentrated primarily in four river valleys. With the construction of aTrans-Andean Highway System and oil exploration, the Selva has been gainingin economic importance over the last decade, and the related migration ofexperienced, commercially motivated farmers from the Sierra to the Ceja deSelva, in particular has provided considerable impetus to agricultural devel-opment. This dynamic development has led to the conclusion that the Ceja deSelva is likely to be an important new agricultural frontier with potentialto help meet the rapidly rising food needs of the large urban populationsalong the coast.
Government Policies
1.07 The previous Government had a policy of intervention in the agri-cultural sector, the present Government does not. Consequently, interventionin agricultural marketing processes, price controls and consumer subsidieshave been substantially reduced, and a more balanced allocation of develop-ment resources throughout the country is in the process of being made. Thegreater role foreseen for the private sector would have a particularly strongeffect on the Ceja de Selva region. Government has also adopted a Sneralpolicy to improve agricultural supporting services throughout the country toencourage farmers to produce efficiently; during the agrarian reform period,research services were allowed to languish and extension virtually dis-appeared. Government's 1981-82 National Plan for Development, in definingobjectives and actions to be implemented on a short-term basis for stabiliz-ing the national economy, calls for increased development of rural andregional projects in frontier areas and the Ceja de Selva. The proposedproject, which is located in the Ceja de Selva, therefore, responds to one ofGovernment's important development priorities.
Previous World Bank Participation
1.08 The Bank has made 12 agricultural loans to Peru. Five of them, inthe period 1954-73, totalling US$55.0 million, were for agricultural credit
- 3 -
and were channeled through the Peruvian Agricultural Bank (BAP) (105-PE,162-PE, 257-PE, 415-PE and 933-PE). In general, BAP performance has beenacceptable and disbursements on the last loan (933-PE) have been completed.Two otber loans (67-PE of 1952 and 98-PE of 1954), totalling US$3 million,were for farm machinery imports. Loans 114-PE of 1955 and 418-PE of 1965,totalling US$24.5 million, financed irrigation works and land settlement inthe San Lorenzo area within the Chira-Piura basins. Owing to managerialproblems, inadequate counterpart funding and shortage of water, the second ofthese loans encountered considerable difficulties and took 11 years todisburse but, nevertheless achieved its basic goals and produced importantbenefits (Project Performance Audit Report, SECM-48 of January 1978 andImpact Evaluation Report of October 1981). A third irrigation project (Loan1403-PE) of US$25 million approved in 1977 financed the rehabilitation ofdrainage and irrigation systems in six valleys in the southern part of theCoastal Zone. Another irrigation rehabilitation project in the Lower Piuraarea in the northern part of the Coastal Zone was approved in 1980. Both ofthe latter have experienced early management problems but implementation isprogressing satisfactorily. The most recent loans approved by the Bank wrefor an integrated rural development project in the Sierra (Puno RuralDevelopment), which had experienced administrative start-up problems butwhich are now being remedied, and a National Agricultural Research andExtension Project, which was signed on September 13, 1982.
II. THE PROJECT AREA
Location and Access
2.01 The Alto (Upper) Mayo Valley, situated in San Martin departnent, ofwhich Moyobamba is the capital, runs in a northwest-southeastern directionand is the last valley on the foothills of the Andes before entering thelower Amazon basin (Map IBRD 16496). The area proposed for development underthe project, is located at about 800-900 m above sea level in the provincesof Moyobamba and Rioja. Access is mainly by road from Olmos (about 600 km tothe west) and from Tarapoto about 100 km to the east. Construction of theroad began in the 1960's and was completed in the early 1970's.
Regional Context
2.02 San Martin is a Department in the Ceja de Selva region, which hasexperienced rapid agricultural development in the last 30 years. Prior to1950, agricultural production was primarily for local consumption, however,construction of an airport at Tarapoto, in 1950, allowed produce to be flownto Lima at which time settlement began in the Huallaga Central and Lower Mayovalleys based on coffee and cotton production. In the late 1970's thesevalleys were the target of an agricultural development project financed bythe US Agency for International Development, the experiences of which wretaken into account in the preparation of the current project. The Alto MayoValley in the northeast of the Department remained isolated until the early1970s when construction began in the area on the "Marginal de la Selva"highway. With the knowledge that a road to the coast was under construction,settlers spontaneously migrated into Alto Mayo beginning in 1973, reaching apeak in 1976 and 1977. They came from the Departments of Amazonas, Cajamarca
- 4 -
and Piura, and many were rice farmers who already had experience in irriga-tion. As a result, they developed the easily divertible streams (particu-larly the Yuracyacu, a small tributary of the River Mayo), and on landadjacent to flat fertile areas, they dug canals and also cleared forest forrainfed crops (rice, maize, foodcrops) under shifting cultivation. Incontrast to the established agricultural population, the newcomers werecommercially motivated.
2.03 Government encouraged this settlement and land was made availablefree. A rudimentary extension service was started in 1973, an agency of theAgrarian Bank was opened in Rioja in 1975, and in 1977, the NationalAgricultural Machinery Service (SENAMA) began to provide services in landclearing and levelling. Government also encouraged rice production in theCeja de Selva by paying higher farmgate prices than in the Costa, and eightof the nine Aguaruna native (indian) communities in the valley were giveninalienable titles to prevent invasion by new settlers. The Alto MayoIrrigation District, with headquarters in Rioja, was created in 1973, and in1978, under the Government's decentralization program, regional headquartersof all ministries were located in Moyobamba.
2.04 It is now recognized by farmers and authorities alike that afterthis pioneering decade of the 1970s, the current need in Alto Mayo is forconsolidation". Basic infrastructure is still inadequate (particularlyfeeder roads and irrigation systems), agricultural supporting services(research, extension, credit) need improvement, only a fraction of farmershave titles to their land, living conditions are primitive, disease is rifeand educational facilities are inadequate. Also, action is needed to allownative communities to participate in the local economy. Although productionwould likely continue to increase for a time under its own momentum, evenwithout new investments, longer term progress is likely to be affected byproduction reversals expected to result from permanent damage to the fragileagroclimatic environment. If unchecked, shifting cultivation would progres-sively incorporate poorer and poorer land as is observed in many tropicalcountries.
Resource Base
2.05 Topography and Soils. The Alto Mayo basin lies between two rangesof hills (northeast and southwest), and of its 770,000 ha, 74% (570,000 ha)has slopes in excess of 25%, while only 15.5% (120,000 ha approximately) areless than 5% slope. Most of these bottom lands, which constitute the projectarea, lie on the right bank of the river Mayo. The alluvial bottom landsoils reflect their origin in the acid sandstones of the northeast range andcharacteristically vary from shallow to medium depth, moderate to poorpermeability, moderate to poor fertility with acid to very acid pH. There isalso an impermeable clay layer below the surface which is high in aluminum.Studies on potential land use capabilities (discussed in detail in a consul-tant paper on file) indicate the following classification of soils in thearea:
-5-
Suitability Class Area %
Cropping II, III 57,000 47Permanent Pastures,some Forestry V 43,000 36
Forestry VII 7,000 6Protection/Preserve VIII 13,000 11
Total 120,000 100
2.06 Climate. The climate may be classified as "semi-humidsubtropical". Temperature and humidity vary little throughout the year (22°C- Table 1) however, nightime temperatures can drop below 15°C in any nDnth,which is critical for the rice crop, especially during flowering. Rain fallsin all months of the year and totals between 1,200 and 1,700 mm, with adistinct reduction during May through August and peaks between October andMarch, and potential evapotranspiration varies little throughout the year(100 mm/month). Although rainfall is sufficient in quantity and timing forsatisfactory rainfed cropping, analysis of monthly rainfall shows that preci-pitation is less than optimum for rice-needs in half the months of the maingrowing season for rice (October to May). This is one reason why new farmersin Alto Mayo have, wherever possible and at their own cost, adopted supple-mentary irrigation for rice.
2.07 Water Resources. The numerous small, right-bank tributaries of theMayo which cross the project area, drain the northwest side of the valley andbring adequate quantities of water (Table 1). Water is also of high qualityas the high calcium content of these streams which originate in the lime-stones of the northwestern hills is of potential benefit to the acid soils ofthe area. Although these small rivers are minor tributaries of the Amazonand would therefore constitute international waters, withdrawals for irriga-tion purposes are so minute relative to the total Amazon flow that inter-natonal water rights issues are not expected.
2.08 Forestry. Data on forestry resources are scarce in the Alto MayoForestry District. However, FAO and the Office for Evaluation of NaturalResources (ONERN) have carried out reconnaissance surveys on 770,000 ha inthe Alto Mayo basin which have classified 77% of the area as forest land andconcluded that most of the latter should remain as forest for conservationreasons and only about 90,000 ha should be considered as exploitable.Neither local data on yields nor forest inventories are available, however,the Moyobamba Forestry District estimates that extraction of controlledtimber (for the main species including tornillo (Cedre linga catenafornis)cedro (Cedrela sp) and moenas (Nectandra sp)) rose from about 1,000 mi5 in1976 to about 36,000 m3 in 1980. Extraction is simple. There are about26 fixed sawmills set-up along the roadside, six portable sawmills, and a fewextractors using only chainsaws. As of 1981, 60 extraction permits had beenallocated in the high forest and 25 in the agriculture areas. At presentfelling is selective in the high mountains; however, population pressuresmake it urgent to enforce existing laws to ensure that classic erosionproblems do not develop. Support of enforcement agencies is proposed underthe project (para 3.26).
Settlement
2.09 Population and Migration. Preliminary results of the June 1981census indicate that the total population of Moyobamba and Rioja provinces isabout 73,000 (50,000 involved in agriculture), a 135% increase over the 1972
- 6 -
census figure of 31,000. Although Government estimates that most of theagricultural land in the area is already claimed, arriving families are stillable to find land in adjacent parcels or through subdivision of existinglots. Settlers have also begun to occupy land outside the project area alongthe left bank of the Mayo. Arriving settlers often work as laborers forabout a year until they find land suitable to their needs, and there is alsoseasonal migration during periods of land preparation, transplanting andharvesting of rice. The latter workers from the Andean highlands or theCosta are often relatives of already established settlers who come to helptheir families during peak seasons. Although data on incone levels arescarce, current estimates indicate values in excess of subsistence needs.
2.10 Land Titling and Tenure. All virgin land in the Selva belongs tothe State, however, settlers may acquire it through direct purchase from theState or through free allotments. At present, Government estimates that allavailable land outside native communities (para 2.11) is privately held.Although data for the project area is poor, it is estimated that about halfof the presently held private land in the provinces of Moyobamba and Riojahas been acquired through direct purchase. The balance has been alloted toassociations, including native communities on both banks of the river and aproduction cooperative at Segunda Jerusalem, which is presently being sub-divided and distributed among its members. As of 1981, about 1,500 (18%) ofthe estimated 8,500 farm families (excluding native communities) held titleto their land and an additional 2,800 (33%) have "certificates of owner-ship". The latter were created for credit purposes, and only certify thatthe farmer cultivates a number of hectares but this area does not necessarilycoincide with the total surface claimed. Approximately 4,200 families (49%)have neither title nor certificates of ownership. Data on the average farmsize are also scarce, however a partial survey carried out during projectpreparation estimated that about 85% of settler holdings were 20 ha or less,and about 60% of the total settler area was estimated to consist of indivi-dual holdings less than 20 ha and about 30% between 20-50 ha.
2.11 Native Communities. Nine Aguaruna tribal communities live in theAlto Mayo basin, eight of which hold legal titles to their land and the titleof the remaining community (San Rafael) is being processed. The communitiescomprise about 180 families, or 1,450 people, on about 60,000 ha of land ofwhich about 17,000 ha are considered suitable for some type of agriculturalproduction. The livelihood of the tribal population is based on farming atotal of about 500 ha planted with bananas, yuca, rice and maize, and onhunting, fishing and gathering of nuts and fruits in the forest. Although,according to Peruvian legislation, the land declared as native communitycannot be sold, expropriated or mortgaged, the increasing settlement in thearea has resulted in growing pressure on tribal land. The large area perfamily is being partially remedied by regular if limited migration ofAguaruna from the Alto Maranon area to the north. The latter are accepted bythe local groups as equal members of their communities. Most of the groupslack technical and financial support for their cropping plans and basicservices in health and education to improve their living conditions. Diseaseand malnutrition is common. The agency responsible for Aguaruna activitiesin MAG is the Directorate of Campesino and Native Communities (DCCN), how-ever, the communities themselves have an independent organization -- the AltoMayo Aguaruna Organization (OAAM). A detailed study of the Aguaruna in theproject area is on file (Annex 1).
-7-
Present Agricultural Situation
2.12 Land Use. The dynamic increase in agricultural development in thelast decade has mainly taken place on the alluvial soils of the valley bottomwhere settlers have cleared the forest and developed irrigated rice. Inparallel, dryland agriculture has increased the cultivated area on the peri-phery of the valley with rainfed rice and maize as the principal cash crops.Forest land has been cleared by hand, bullocks and also bulldozers. Thelatter has, in some instances, caused damage by compaction and by exposingthe infertile subsoil horizons. Based on the farm survey carried out duringproject preparation, actual land use in the approximately 120,000 ha projectarea is approximately 16% crops (20,000 ha) mainly rice, maize, beans, yucaand plantain, 5% grazing (6,000 ha), 10% fallow (12,000 ha) and about 69%forest, reserve, flooded land or unproductive area (82,000 ha). Typically,each settler is still in the process of developing his holdings. The mostprogressive settlers irrigate rice under good land preparation techniques,appropriate cultural practices with token use inputs (fertilizer and plantprotection chemicals). Dryland farms are less developed with annual cropsrotated with bush fallow and the use of inputs is limited. Livestock fanmingis based on unimproved pastures on lands unsuitable for annual crops, andthere are about 700 pairs of draft oxen and about 2,000 head of cattle keptprimarily for beef production. Although mechanization is in its infancy, itis developing rapidly; however, most operations are still performed by handlabour or animal traction.
2.13 Labor. Most farms are family-labor oriented, however, hired laboris used during peak seasons (transplanting and harvesting) and for forestclearance. Given the present status of land development, labor availabilityis considered adequate with seasonal immigration but future expansion of theagricultural area is likely to require labor-saving technology as proposedunder the project's credit activities.
2.14 Crop Calendars, Yields and Production. The key crop in the area,rice, is either directly sown for rainfed production or transplanted forirrigation. Rice is mainly grown between November to June/July, and otherfood crops between July/August and February. Current local rice varietiestypically have long growth periods of up to seven months and an average yieldof about 3.5 t/ha. Rainfed rice and maize yields are estimated at about 1.7t/ha, cassava at 6.0 t/ha and plantain at 8.0 t/ha in the first few yearsimmediately following land clearing. In 1981, total crop production in theAlto Mayo valley was estimated at about 50,000 tons, of which rice totalledabout 30,000, and maize, beans, and plantain about 20,000 tons.
2.15 Fisheries. Although there have been successful attempts by farmersin the past to construct and operate simple earth fishponds to improve theirdiet, such programs failed when the supply of fingerlings stopped. TheRegional Office of the Ministry of Fisheries operated a fish station atMashuyacu near Rioja, until it was destroyed by floods in 1979, and sincethen the Ministry has lacked funds for reconstruction.
2.16 Irrigation. The expansion of supplementary irrigation for rice hasbeen the single most significant agricultural feature in Alto Mayo in recentyears. Development has taken place entirely by private initiative withoutpublic irnvestment or technical assistance, although the Ministry of
-* 8 -
Agriculture (MAG) has, through the establishment of the Alto Mayo IrrigationDistrict, assisted in the formation and registration of irrigator commissions(comisiones de regantes). Irrigation district figures indicate that between1977 to 1981, the number of irrigators rose from 208 to 896 and the areairrigated rose from about 860 ha to about 5,200 ha.
2.17 The canal network is primitive and lacks control structures, andabout 70% are natural drains or creeks. Brushwood and/or stone structuresdivert the water into the irrigation canals and most distribution networkslack drop structures and suitable canal offtakes. The relatively flat topo-graphy has so far kept erosion to a minimum, but the risks will increase asmore difficult areas are incorporated. In the absence of control structures,water runs continuously in the canals and discharges depend on the riverflow. Regular high floods often destroy the diversion structures and/ordamage the canal network as excess water enters the system causing floodingof agricultural land and sedimentation in canals. Conversely, during lowriver flows, farmers have difficulty distributing water rationally.
2.18 Rainfed rice yields of 1.7 tons/ha can be roughly doubled afteradoption of irrigation, mainly because: (a) evapotranspiration requirementsare assured during dry spells; (b) weed growth is reduced; (c) high calciumcontent waters applied to acid soils have a pH neutralizing effect; and (d)irrigation water protects the crop against low nightime temperatures duringflowering. The prevailing custom is to fill and drain rice basins up tothree or four times during the first 40 days of plant growth, even if rain-fall meets evapotranspiration needs.
2.19 Although there is currently no water charge, operators run andmaintain their own networks and contribute labor for canal clearing orstructure rehabilitation; they also contribute towards financing of works. Atpresent, there are 13 officially recognized irrigation commissions in theproject area, of which 12 have been legalized (received their personajuridica). The highest authority of a commission, the Assembly, comprisesall irrigators on a particular canal, who elect a six member ExecutiveDirectorate: President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and two"Vocales", who each serve for a period of two years. The Alto Mayo commis-sions have financial resources from initial fees, interest on capital, loans,legal donations and contributions of beneficiaries for the construction ofcivil works. Several commissions keep saving accounts with local banks, andall hold regular duly recorded meetings and maintain accounts.
Infrastructure
2e20 Roads. Peru's Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) isnominally responsible for planning, design, construction and maintenance ofall roads in the country, however, it is a weak institution which focuses itsresources on expanding and improving the main road network and some of themore heavily used departmental roads. Even the main road network itself isinadequately maintained and minor roads and tracks receive only sporadicemergency maintenance from MTC departmental work forces. By default, respon-sibility for minor road improvement and/or maintenance in the project areahas passed to local authorities. The District centers and outlying farmcommunities are served by a largely unplanned network of minor roads andtracks of heterogenous quality, and although traffic volumes are low (less
- 9 -
than 20 vpd), the poor quality access adversely affects all services and farmactivities. The SAR for Peru's Eighth Highway Project (Loan 2091-PE)describes MTC's capacity constraints and proposed improvement measures indetail.
2.21 Marketing, Prices and Storage Facilities. The two main cropsproduced in the project area, rice and maize, are marketed through Governmentmarketing organizations. The National Rice Marketing Enterprise (ECASA),which currently has a monopoly on rice marketing and distribution, is asubsidiary of the National Enterprise for Marketing of Inputs (ENCI) whichmarkets maize and fertilizers. However, marketing activities in Peru arepresently in a state of transition, since the Government's new policies callfor a larger private sector participation. ECASA buys directly from farmers,but contracts rice milling with private entrepreneurs who have ample ricestorage and milling capacity (para 5.08).
2.22 At appraisal Government had a policy of fixing prices for rice,maize, and fertilizer products and effectively enforcing them. Prices forrice to consumers and producers were set by ECASA and maize and fertilizersby ENCG. Both institutions controlled the marketing channel and import-export operations,including storage facilities and transportation. However,both ENCI and ECASA are running high financial deficits in their operationsdue to the large subsidies involved in the setting of prices. As a result,GOP plans to eventually phase out operations of both institutions, permittingthe marketing operations to be performed completely by private entities andallowing prices to be determined according to the forces of supply anddemand. Since appraisal Government has moved to implement this program byliberalizing the market for fertilizer and inputs (Supreme Decree DS 072-82MAG, dated June 25, 1982).
2.23 ENCI formerly bought all maize produced in the project area anddistributed fertilizer and maize seed either directly to farmers or throughtwo authorized agents in Rioja and Nueva Cajamarca. Although input suppliesto the region are reliable, ENCI lacks warehouses and its present storagecapacity amounts to only 500 tons in Nueva Cajamarca and 600 tons inMoyobamba, with an additional 2,000 ton under construction at NuevaCajamarca. Other agricultural products - bananas, cassava and beans - aresold freely in the market place as are meat and milk.
2.24 Social Infrastructure. Living conditions in the project area arepoor. Although more than 70% of the population own their homes, these areprimitive wood and mud structures, often with palm leaf roofing, which lackfloors, ceilings, windows and protection against insects, rodents and otheranimals. Dysentery, parasitosis, gastro-intestinal and respiratory diseasesare common, and disease prevention and control programs suffer from inade-quate infrastructure. Domestic water supply systems are often inadequateand/or contaminated, and a lack of latrines has added to the spread ofparasitism in the area. Two 27 bed hospitals, one in Moyobamba and one inRioja serve the project area and an ongoing expansion of the Moyobambahospital would raise the total area capacity to about 77 beds. Of the 11health posts in the project area only four are considered sanitary, three areunfinished and the remainder are primitive structures without floors,furnishings or basic services. All lack sufficient basic equipment.
- 10 -
2.25 Education facilities are also substandard and inadequate for thedemands of a rapidly growing population. Of about 162 classrooms, 101 areunfinished or require complete rehabilitation, and 61 are considered unsafeand only fit to be demolished. Although the goal is to provide primaryeducation to all, and all children are expected to attend, it is estimatedthat only about 30% of the present adult population has finished primaryschool, 40% has incomplete primary education and the balance have never goneto school. Data on 35 communities (excluding the nine native communities) inthe project area indicate that between 1980 and 1981 alone, the number ofpupils attending primary school rose by 18% (4,720 to 5,600). To handle thisworkload there were approximately 132 teachers in these communities in 1981.According to Ministry of Education regional data, an additional 54 teacherswould be required to meet even present needs . Fortunately, beginning in1982, the output of teachers from three new regional training institutes(Normals) at Moyobamba, Tarapoto and Chachapoyas is expected to reach about310 per annum and therefore Ministry officials in the region do not antici-pate teacher shortfalls during the implementation period, which is expectedto begin in 1983.
Institutions and Agricultural Services 2/
2.26 The new organic law of the agricultural sector issued on January18, 1981, is causing major changes in the regional organization of the agri-cultural sector. In the project zone the new Agrarian Regional DirectorateXIII: San Martin of the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) has its headquartersin Moyobamba. Its operational units comprise the Alto Mayo Forestry,Agricultural and Irrigation Districts with headquarters in Moyobamba, orRioja, and all lack adequate technical staff, offices, equipment and funds tosatisfactorily perform their tasks.
2.27 The Forestry District personnel are responsible for controlling andupholding laws, and approving extraction contracts. In technical affairs,the Forestry Institute (INFOR) provides support, and the Forestry Police, anarm of the Civil Guard, supervises extraction and transport of timber alongthe main highway.
2.28 The National Institute for Agricultural Research and Promotion(INIPA) is a semi-autonomous institution established in January 1981 to over-see agricultural research, extension, farm mechanization and rural marketingdevelopment. This unique role of coordinating research and extension in oneagency will be of particular benefit to the project. Administratively, INIPAdivides Peru into 20 Agricultural and Livestock Investigation and ExtensionCenters (CIPA). The project area is within CIPA-X, and there is a researchcenter near Tarapoto, which currently services the needs of Alto Mayo,although the ecological conditions in the two areas are quite different. Asubsidiary field demonstration unit was recently set up in Alto Mayo at Riojaand rice variety trials have begun. Extension services are, provided by INIPA
2/ For a detailed review of Institutional Aspects of AgriculturalProduction in Peru, the reader is referred to Bank Reports No. 3550-PE(An Economic Review of the Agricultural Sector in Peru) dated June 1981and 3789-PE (The Peru Agricultural Research and Extension Project) datedApril 12, 1982.
- 11 -
provided by INIPA through its three agencies at Moyobamba, Rioja and NuevaCajamarca, each of which are divided into extension sections. Althoughrecent small-scale building construction and provision of a limited number ofmotorcycles have increased the effectiveness of agency chiefs, additionalqualified staff, facilities and support services are still needed. INIPA'sAgricultural Machinery Service (SENAMA) also operates a sub-center andworkshop at Rioja from which it rents machinery for land clearing, destump-ing, levelling and road making. However, because of SENAMA's poor perfor-mance in minimizing destructive practices during its operations, an agreementwas reached in October 1982 between INIPA and HCBM which transferred respon-sibility for operating SENAMA equipment in the Huallaga Central and LowerHuallaga areas of San Martin Province to HCBM.
2.29 The Agrarian Bank (BAP) is a Government-owned institution with 18branch offices, 54 agencies and 34 field offices nationwide. BAP providesapproximately 85% of the institutional credit to the agriculture sector; 10%is provided by commercial banks and the rest comes from other developmentbanks and direct Government allocations. BAP's main source of short-termresources is the Peruvian Central Bank (BCR) through its discountfacilities. The limited amount of long-term loans has generally been madewith support from external sources such as World Bank or Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank (IDB) loans. Summary financial statements for BAP atDecember 31, 1980 and 1981 are as follows:
Balance Sheet
1980 1981Audited Unaudited
Assets -- I-lion Sojes)---
Cash and bank deposits 2,854 10,907Loan portfolio including interestand commissions 119,678 238,141
Investments 5,519 5,637Other assets 1,147 6,381
Representing 129,198 261,066
Liabilities
Deposits, savings and payables 23,202 42,024Central and other banks 58,718 100,595Other liabilities 13,541 13,709
95,461 156,328
Equity 33,757 104,738
129,198 261,066
The above reflects a doubling in the loan portfolio between 1980 and 1981(15% in real terms), financed mainly by additional equity and Central Bankfinancing. Currently, the Central Bank rediscounts about 30% of the totalannual lending at an interest rate of 29% to BAP compared to 46% when itrediscounts to private and mixed banks. Increased lending at favorablerediscount rates resulted in a 1981 profit of S/. 9,900 million (adjustedestimate) compared to S/. 152 million in 1980. After discounting for
- 12 -
inflation (70% in 1981), BAP's increase in total assets in real terms over1980 values was about 17% in 1981. However this followed a period of declinein real terms between 1975 and 1979.
2.30 A comparison of inflation rates in Peru compared to BAP averageon-lending rates to farmers for 1979, 1980, and 1981, respectively, indicatesthe following: inflation - 67.7%, 59.2%, 70.0%; and on-lending rates -31.5%, 31.5%, 49.5%. Inflation rates for 1982, 1983 and 1984 are estimatedat 65%, 55% and 50%, respectively, and BAP's current (1982) averageon-lending rate is 49.5%. Between 1978 (i.e., completion of the Bank-supported fifth credit loan to Peru) and mid-1982, the Bank tried unsuccess-fully to convince BAP to modify its subsidized interest rate policies.During this period, we were unable to finance either a new credit project orcredit components within rural development projects in Peru. However, veryrecent discussions have begun to bear fruit with BAP agreeing to implement aphased removal of subsidies by mid-1983. This schedule, however, still doesnot allow the Bank to commit funds to agricultural credit activities at thistime. The Bank has, nevertheless, indicated a willingness to considerreentering credit financing when it sent an appraisal mission to Peru for apossible Agricultural Credit VI project in October 1982. A Bank commitmentto such a project would depend on BAP satisfactorily completing its programon interest rates. Consequently, since present policies are still not fullyacceptable to the Bank, we would not participate in credit activities underthe Alto Mayo Project.
2.31 BAP maintains an agency in Rioja and is currently the only sourcefor long and short term agricultural credit in the project area. Althoughprivate banks have offices in the area ( Banco de Credito, Banco Industrialand Banco Amazonico), they have not yet participated in agriculturalfinancing. Over the 1980/81 year, BAP made 2,398 loans (US$2.7 millionequivalent), of which 2,306 were short-term (US$2.6 million equivalent),practically all for rice production (US$2.4 million equivalent). The balanceof 92 medium-term loans (SI. 0.1 million) were mainly for land clearing andlevelling of rice areas. This relatively small number of medium-term loansreflects a shortage of funds, not a lack of demand. Provision of creditwould be a prime objective of the project. BAP's Rioja office has an overallcredit recovery rate of about 95% which reflects the dependable nature ofrice production in the area. By Government decree, Alto Mayo, at appraisal,received subsidized credit (32.5% interest) since it is considered a newdevelopment area. Although proposals under review would raise absoluteinterest rates, it is expected that preferential rates would still be appliedto the project area. Preferential lending is being considered for low incomeproducers but high income producers would be required to meet the commercialcost of funds. Most farmers in the project area would probably qualify forpreferred lending rates.
2.32 The Alto Mayo Irrigation District technical staff (Chart 1)comprise a district chief, and various agricultural technicians in charge ofthe different sectors of the district. However, since the area has onlyrecently been developed and since staffing, offices and equipment arelimited, Irrigation District personnel restrict their activities to theorganization of farmers into committees and commissions. Irrigatorspresently operate in large part under their own guidelines.
- 13 -
2.33 The Executive Directorate (ED) of the Huallaga Central - Bajo MayoProject (HCBM) is an important rural development agency in the region withheadquarters in Tarapoto about 180 km east of the project area (para 2.02).HCBM is responsible for the USAID-supported Huallaga Central Project, whichis a Special Project in the Prime Minister's Office. As a result of thelatter linkage, the ED enjoys financial autonomy, independence fromGovernment pay scales, and freedom to follow special procedures for procure-ment of civil works, goods and services. It operates the Huallaga Centralproject mainly through signed agreements (convenios) with participatingpublic and private sector agencies to whom it channels project funds from theCentral Bank, Ministry of Finance or from international financing agencies.The Alto Mayo project would be implemented in a similar manner. Considerableexperience has been gained in recent years with this integrated rural devel-opment project in the Ceja de Selva, and in June 1981 the ED set up aregional office, with a Technical Directorate and skeleton staff, in AltoMayo. The latter group assisted in all facets of project preparation.
III. THE PROJECT
A. Introduction
3.01 The Government of Peru has requested Bank assistance in financingan area development project in the Alto Mayo Valley of northeastern Peru.The project was prepared by the ED of the Huallaga Central-Bajo Mayo projectin conjunction with an FAO/IBRD CP mission which visited Peru in September1981 (Report No. 4/82 PER II, dated 29 January 1982). The project would usean integrated approach to the solution of production problems and theprovision of social services to the population living in the area.Implementation of an agriculture development program, reinforcement andfurther construction of basic infrastructure, and provision of basiceducation and health services are expected to increase agriculture productionand productivity and raise the health and education status and the standardof living of area families. This approach is justified for this project,considering the pioneer stage of development in the area and the weakness ofGovernment services in the zone.
3.02 The main project objectives are:
(a) to support Government's policy to increase agricultural productionin the Ceja de Selva by consolidating existing settlement in areasof proven agricultural potential in the Alto Mayo Valley;
(b) to provide infrastructure and technical and social services inthe form of a system which can be replicated elsewhere in the Cejade Selva;
(c) to coordinate area development in order to enhance and to preventexcessive deterioration of the physical environment;
(d) to minimize the detrimental impact of recent settlement on nativetribal communities, and thereby improve their chances of survivingalongside the local culture; and
- 14 -
(e) to make use of, and improve coordination between, existing institu-'tions to promote development within the area.
B. Brief Description
3.03 The project, which would be a prototype for development of the Cejade Selva, covers an area of about 120,000 ha and would benefit a total ofabout 12,800 families (8,700 of whom would be farmer settlers and Aguarunanatives). It involves:
Key Activities:
(a) short and medium term credit to cover on-farm development, purchaseof farm machinery, equipment, construction of small on-farmirrigation structures, and operating expenditures;
(b) construction of a small diversion structure and main canal todominate about 1,500 ha in the Yurongos scheme;
(c) supply of land clearing equipment for rental;
(d) access road improvement and construction over about 181 km (86 kmnew, and 95 km improved), acquisition of maintenance tools andequipment, and training of district and project road maintenancestaff; and
(e) establishment of an applied research capability and astrengthened extension service in the area;
Essential Complementary Activities:
(f) storage construction for maize seed and fertilizers;
(g) repair of an existing, and construction of a new, fisheriesfacility to produce fingerlings for farm fishponds;
(h) strengthening of forestry authorities to enforce protectionlegislation, to carry out basic inventories of forest resources,and to monitor changes in these over the project implementationperiod;
(i) improvement of health and education infrastructure through aprogram of construction/renovation of primary schools andestablishment of a primary health care system;
(j) studies to monitor the project's impact on tribal groups, toprepare a follow-up project, and to monitor environmental changes;
(k) training and short-term technical assistance in specialized fields;
(1) local mapping and land titling over the entire 120,000 ha area,involving about 8,500 settler holdings and nine native communities;and
- 15 -
(m) national mapping to prepare a new map of the country based onsatellite imagery.
3.04 The project would be implemented over five years and would beadministered by HCBM's Executive Directorate in Tarapoto (with a liaisonoffice in Lima) and its Technical Directorate for Alto Mayo in Moyobamba.Project activities would be managed mainly through implementation agreementswith various governmental and private agencies, which would be strengthenedfor purposes of the project.
C. Detailed Features
Farm Development and Credit
3.05 The project would provide agricultural credit to about 3,900farmers (46% of the total) in order to assist them to gradually incorporatemore land on their individual holdings into agriculture. Credit is an impor-tant project activity and would be provided for small-scale irrigationnetwork construction, land clearing and levelling, on-farm development,procurement of tractors, farm machinery and equipment, pasture establish-ment and purchase of cattle and draft animals. Long-term credit would bebased on farm investment plans elaborated with the assistance of TD and INIPAextension credit personnel (para 4.04). Short-term credit for on-farmoperating expenditures such as purchase of seeds, fertilizers, chemicals,machinery rental and labor remuneration would be assigned on the basis of afinancial analysis prepared by BAP staff and estimates of specific needs byfarm type (model) are discussed in Section V.
3.06 Long-term financial resource requirements are estimated at aboutUS$23.0 million equivalent, and short-term requirements at US$8.0 millionequivalent over the project period. Under the project, cofinancing from theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) would meet about 70%of long-term and 30% of short-term needs. Assurances were obtained at nego-tiations that credit would be disbursed only against farm plans prepared byBAP in cooperation with farmers and TD and extension personnel. All subloansproposed for financing under the project would be forwarded by BAP to the EDfor review, and all processing of such subloans for reimbursement under theIFAD loan would be carried out by the ED. Administration of the creditcomponent would also be subject to the policy initiatives generated as aresult of the Bank's ongoing dialogue with Government on the proposedAgricultural Credit VI Project.
Irrigation
3.07 Two types of investment would be supported: small projectsfinanced through credit to individual farmers or groups but without publicinvestment, mainly along the Yuracyacu River (7,000 ha) but also along othersmall rivers (2,500 ha); and the Yorongos scheme (1,500 ha), which wouldrequire some public support in the construction of headworks and a maincanal.
- 16 -
3.08 The Yuracyacu and other small-scale systems would improve existingsmall-scale irrigation on about 5,000 ha and increase the irrigated area on afurther 4,500 ha, mainly by increasing the area irrigated on farms whichalready irrigate. Hydrologic regimes are considered sufficient (Tabl1 1),sample designs were reviewed at appraisal, and a program of work for thefirst year of the project has been prepared. The types of works to beinstalled would be river offtakes, sand excluders, diversion and measurementstructures, and lateral head regulators. All would be of simple design,making use of local materials to the extent possible, (especially hard-woods). Structures would be designed for a flow of 1.5 liters per second perha, which would permit flexibility in operation. Detailed costs for small-scale irrigation improvement and expansion are given in Tables 2 and 3.
3.09 The Yorongos Scheme would require construction of headworks and amain canal to deliver water from the Tonchima river (Map) to several creeksin order to irrigate about 1,500 ha, of which about 230 ha would benefit fromimprovement to areas which are currently irrigated in a simple wqay.Government proposes to construct the headworks and main canal with publicfunds, and diversion and distribution systems from creeks would be carriedout by farmers, financed through credit. The Technical DirectorateIrrigation Group (para 4.02 and Chart 2) has prepared a satisfactory, prelim-inary feasibility study and designs covering all works, including those to becarried out through credit, which indicates that the Yurongos scheme isviable on its own merits (IRR above 20%). The Irrigation Group estimate thebase cost of the scheme at about US$1.5 million; however, it is felt thatadditional detailed study of river flows and further evaluation of designparameters would be useful before tenders for the canal are prepared. Thisadditional time, no more than two years, may result in a cheaper solution.Details are given in Table 2.
3.10 Assurances were obtained at negotiations that (a) Government wouldseek to recover the full investment cost through water charges over the lifeof the Yurongos investment under prevailing interest rates; (b) farmers wouldbe required to cover 100% of operation and maintenance costs; and (c) finaldesigns on the Yurongos canal and draft tenders would be prepared for Bankreview by September 30, 1984. The ED presented a draft proposal to theBank at negotiations on how Government proposes to levy charges to coveroperation and maintenance and repayment of investment costs on the Yurongosscheme (this would be updated to take into account farmers contributionsbased on their schedule of repayment for long-term credit before the canalsystem becomes operational as discussed in para 6.02). An assurance wasobtained at negotiations that these charges would be implemented within threemonths of completion of the works.
3.11 Irrigation improvement and extension schemes to be financed byagricultural credit would be identified by irrigators' commissions and theAlto Mayo Irrigation District. Surveys, preliminary designs, and cost estim-ates have already been prepared by the TD Irrigation Group. Each loanrequest would be supported by a project report for the financing agency andfinancial assistance would be required only for structures; the farmers them-selves, or their own hired staff, would do the earthworks for canal construc-tion or rectification. The overall objective of the irrigation program wouldbe to irrigate about 11,000 ha of land by full development in year 5, ofwhich about 5,770 ha would be new areas and 5,230 ha improved (Table 2). The
- 17 -
project would strengthen the Irrigation District in its new organization(Chart 1) and would provide additional staffing, office space, vehicles andequipment, and operation and maintenance costs (Table 4).
3.12 Important functions of the TD Irrigation Group would be to super-vise all irrigation-related activites and to work closely with the districtin training staff. In addition, although monitoring of river flows under theproject would be the responsibility of the Irrigation District, the TDIrrigation Group would be responsible for constructing and equipping thestations and would supervise the collection and evaluation of the data.
Land Clearing Equipment
3.13 The project would purchase 10 crawler tractors, with associatedequipment and spares for hire to farmers by the Executive Directorate atstandard rental charges which would aim to cover all costs (Table 5). Todate there has beet no private sector interest in establishing contractingservices for land clearing, and since the ED is now responsible for operatingSENAMA equipment elsewhere in San Martin province (para 3.28), projectefforts will be focussed on the Technical Directorate. Upon completion ofthe project, this equipment would be handed over to SENAMA or the relevantpublic sector agency. Experience with the limited number of heavy equip-ment operated until recently by SENAMA, has been mixed and the potential riskof mixing lower soil horizons with sometimes shallow top soil layerswould, therefore, be addressed under the project. Although erosion problemsin the relatively flat valley bottomlands are not considered to be serious,there is a potential for damage outside the project area as trees are felledon the steeper slopes. Consequently, project procured equipment wouldinclude shear blades and root-rakes as well as spare parts but would notinclude standard bulldozer blades which, if used for levelling, as is commonat present, could exacerbate the problem of removing top soil horizons oncertain plots. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that: (a) a consul-tant would be hired to train operators in the use of project procured equip-ment especially the above attachements which are not currently available inthe area; (b) bulldozer blades would not be used for land levelling; and(c) the Executive Directorate would obtain full cost recovery on its rentaloperations.
Access Roads
3.14 The objectives of the access road component are to: provide yearround road access to district centers, main farm communities, and selectedriver landings; progressively improve road access to farms; and establishimproved access road maintenance, organization and management. Details ofinvestments are given in Tables 6 and 7, and summarized below:
(a) improve about 95 km of existing access roads and construct86 km of new access road sections (including alignmentimprovements);
(b) construct three river bank boat landings;
(c) provide consultant services for detailed engineering andsupervision of construction;
- 18 -
(d) purchase road maintenance tools and equipment;
(e) construct and outfit a small, equipment repair workshop;
(f) train district and project road maintenance staff; and
(g) start the operation of a maintenance support unit.
3.15 Road improvement and construction standards are shown in Table 7and road locations appear on the map. Boat landings would consist ofconcrete paved ramps, between high and low water levels, with small, cable-attached, floating, unloading platforms. Detailed engineering of road works,being prepared by consultants engaged under the PPF, were substantiallycompleted by negotiations. Road maintenance tools and light equipment wouldbe suitable for predominantly manual road maintenance by the communities andfarmers, and for occasional mechanized help from the maintenance support unitwith a small equipment pool and workshop (para 3.16). During negotiations,assurances were obtained relating to the satisfactory maintenance of theseaccess roads. In this context it was agreed that the annual program andminimum budget levels for maintenance would be forwarded to the Bank forreview. Training would be provided in programming, and execution andmanagement of appropriate manual maintenance for access roads with lowtraffic volumes. Most of the project's road sections would be contractedin years 1 and 2 (151 km: 88%), the grouping of which was confirmed atnegotiations. The balance of 12%, which are located in areas of as yetunconfirmed development potential, would be contracted in year 4, andassurances were obtained at negotiations that Government would present to theBank for review by June 30, 1985, an analysis of benefits to supportconstruction in these areas. The latter roads would be subject to the sameevaluation criteria as the original 88%.
3.16 Maintenance of roads to be improved under the project would be theresponsibility of participating municipalities or districts, with guidance,training and assistance provided under the project (para 4.05 and Annex 1).Nominated district personnel would receive training and would be providedappropriate tools and light manual equipment. Transport vehicles andmechanized assistance would be provided by the support unit as required byDistrict work programs, which would periodically be reviewed and agreed withproject maintenance staff. The project maintenance equipment pool wouldprovide gravel in stockpiles and occasional reshaping or blading ofsurfaces. The Districts would be required to pay, in accordance with aschedule of charges, at least a part of the operating and maintenance costsof the equipment used for maintenance. The workshop financed under theproject, would be centrally located near Rioja, and would support mainte-nance, operation and minor repair of community and project pool vehicles andequipment. The maintenance support unit with its equipment and workshopwould eventually be transferred to an appropriate local authority. Duringnegotiations, assurances were obtained that not later than June 30, 1985, aprogram for the transfer would be presented to the Bank for comments and thatthe transfer, per se, would take effect no later than January 1, 1986.
- 19 -
Extension and Research
3.17 The project would build upon the capabilities of INIPA in itsunique position of coordinator for both extension and research activities inPeru. Project support would follow the guidelines set out in the Bank-assisted Peru Agricultural Research and Extension Project.
3.18 Extension: The Training and Visit (T&V) System of extension wouldbe implemented in the project area by INIPA's CIPA-X regional headquarters inTarapoto. This system would involve regular visits at fortnightly intervalsby extension workers ("sectoristas") to selected contact farmers. Thesectoristas would be supported in their work by extension supervisors andextension subject matter specialists (SMS), agroeconomists and credit promo-tion officers. These supporting staff would be the personnel used in fort-nightly in-service training sessions and would maintain close liaison withthe research personnel, who would also be involved in the training sessions.Training would be an integral part of INIPA's strategy to integrate researchwith extension. INIPA would also draw on resources of other Governmentinstitution projects to avail itself of specialized expertise in training ofits extension staff. 3/ The number of SMSs would be raised from four to 11,and the number of extension workers would be raised from 11 to 35.
3.19 The project would therefore provide direct financial support to thedevelopment of the extension program through:
(a) the construction of a zonal headquarters at Rioja (610 m2), threeagency complexes at Nueva Cajamarca, Rioja and Moyobamba(1,170 m2), and four sector/extension centers at Yuracyacu,Soritor, San Fernando and San Juan (400 m2), all of which wouldhave associated housing facilities (Table 8);
(b) the purchase of 6, four-wheel drive vehicles, 18 motorcycles,3 motorboats, and office and field equipment for the facilitiesoutlined above in (a) (Table 9);
(c) incremental salaries (8 professional, 24 technical, and 8 clericaland lower level staff) and operating costs of the program (Table10); and
(d) the cost of in-service training programs, short courses andexternal training (Table 23).
3.20 Research: Under the project, a crop research station would beconstructed at a site near Rioja. The research program would concentrate on(a) breeding for short maturity rice varieties, resistance to Pyriculariaoryzae, and Zogatoces orizcola, and tolerance to low temperatures; (b) riceproduction techniques including broadcasting vs. transplanting under irriga-tion, plant protection, and land preparation; (c) crop mechanizationpractices - two-wheel IRRI-type tractors would be tested for applicability in
3/ A more detailed discussion of the T&V system is given in the "Peru -Agricultural Research and Extension Project," - Report No. 3789-PE,dated April 12, 1982.
- 20 -
the area; (d) rice seed multiplication; (e) testing of available hybrid germ-plasm for maize; (f) replication of crop management practices on maizealready obtained by the National University La Molina in recent studies else-where in Peru; and (g) double cropping and crop rotation.
3.21 Livestock research under the project would be supported by estab-lishing a livestock substation at Calzada (near Moyobamba) to carry outapplied research under actual grazing conditions. One major thrust of thelivestock program would be an attempt to test livestock/pasture systems forthe "Shapumbales" (very acid soils), which are estimated to cover about20,000 to 25,000 ha in the valley and which, on preliminary examination,appear to offer potential for extensive livestock production systems.
3.22 In order to achieve the crop and livestock research objectives, theproject would finance investment and incremental operating costs on the tworesearch stations (Rioja and Calzada) as follows:
(a) construction of office, laboratory, storage and accommodationsat Rioja (1,965 m2) and Caizada (970 m 2) (Table 11);
(b) purchase of additional land at Rioja (40 ha), if the site whichhas tentatively been identified proves unsuitable (Table 11);
(c) purchase of scientific, agricultural and technical equipment forboth centers (Table 12);
(d) purchase of 7 four-wheel drive pickups, one passenger vehicle,and 9 motorcycles (Table 12);
(e) provision of incremental salaries and travelling costs (9 profes-sional staff, 10 technicians, 11 clerical staff and drivers, and 15laborers, excluding seasonal needs) and operation and maintenanceof incremental investments (Tables 12, 13 and 14); and
(f) provision of in-service and external training and education ofstaff (6 man years of overseas MS fellowships, 9 man years oflocal MS fellowships, 60 man months of short-term overseas train-ing, and 60 man months of attendance at scientific meetings)(Table 23).
3.23 Assurances were obtained at negotiations that, prior to awardingthe contract for construction of the crop research center, the Bank would beconsulted on site selection.
Storage
3.24 In order to meet storage needs for maize seed and fertilizers inthe area, the ED would construct under contract a total storage capacity ofabout 3,000 tons at sites to be determined at the local level. Thesefacilities would be handed over to the relevant public sector agencies uponcompletion. Construction of the first stores is under way. Details aregiven in Table 15.
- 21 -
Fisheries
3.25 The project's fisheries component aims to improve the proteincontent of the local diet and diversify agricultural production into farmfish ponds by financing the construction of two Ministry of Fisheriesstations: Marona (7.5 km from Moyobamba) and Mashuyacu (8 km from Rioja).Preliminary layouts of the respective facilities have already been com-pleted. Species to be grown are already found in the zone; however, exten-sion support would be provided by three incremental technicians financedunder the project and located at the stations. The Marona station, which wasestablished in 1980 but not fully developed for lack of funding, wouldproduce about 100,000 fingerlings and 5,000 kg of fish per year. AtMashuyacu, which was originally developed in 1966 but destroyed by floods in1979 when a dyke failed, the objective would be to produce about 60,000fingerlings and about 3,000 kg of fish per year. An assurance was obtainedat negotiations that sale prices of fingerlings would ensure full costrecovery of the production costs. Total project investments in fisheries aredetailed in Table 16.
Forestry
3.26 Extraction of forest resources in Peru is well covered by severallaws. Project support would therefore be aimed at strengthening ForestryDistrict and Forestry Police effectiveness to enforce this legislation and toprovide technical services. Detailed investments are given in Table 17, andsummarized below:
(a) construction of offices for the Forestry District at Rioja, NuevaCajamarca, and Moyobamba (200 m2 total) and for the Forestry Policecontrol points at Aguas Verdes and Pacayzapa (80 m2 total);
(b) purchase of 4 four-wheel drive vehicles, 21 motorcycles, 3 motorboats and 22 basic equipment sets for district and police staff;
(c) provision of incremental staffing of Regional Directorate andDistrict offices (2 professionals, 9 technicians, 6 clerical andother staff), and operation and maintenance of the investments; and
(d) carrying out of an inventory of forestry and fauna resourceswith the Agrarian Region XIII including actual and potential woodproduction and associated costs in the valley; preparation of anextension program with pilot scale testing of forest managementplans; and implementation of a public awareness program to educatethe local population on the need to conserve and protect forestryresources.
Health
3.27 The project would support the expansion of Government's primaryhealth care program in the project area since the proposed Bank-assistedPrimary Health Care Project focuses outside the project area. Designs offacilities to be constructed would be similar to those financed under thelatter project. The primary health care proposed under the project utilizescommunity volunteers and field nursing auxiliaries who operate from a health
- 22 -
post under the direction of a nurse. The nurse would plan, organize andsupervise the activities of the team; give demonstration on hygiene andsanitary improvement; train health staff; and monitor health progress in thecommunity. She would also refer cases to health centers, which would bestaffed with physicians, nurses and auxiliaries and would provide ambulatoryand hospital care. Difficult cases or cases requiring long stays would bereferred to hospitals in Moyobamba or Rioja. Details of investments andlocations of health centers and health posts are given in Table 18 andsummarized below:
(a) construction of 4 health centers and associated housing at NuevaCajamarca, Jepelacio, Yuracyacu and Soritor (740 m2 each);
(b) construction or completion of 11 health posts and housing(125 m2 each);
(c) construction or improvement of water supply to 20 communities;
(d) construction of about 3,000 latrines;
(e) purchase of 2 ambulances (for Yurongos and Nueva Cajamarca) andequipment for 4 health centers and all 15 health posts;
(f) training for all project area field nursing auxiliaries and alsocommunity volunteers located in the native communities (120 staffin total).
Preparation of designs of facilities, identification of locations, andprocedures for contracting of construction are well advanced on thiscomponent.
Education
3.28 Project support to primary education, outlined in Table 19, issummarized below:
(a) construction and/or completion of school buildings and housingfor teachers in a total of about 44 communities (9 of which are intribal areas). Classrooms are designed at about 45 m2 for every35 pupils and individual family housing is included to stimulatestaff to live permanently in the rural communities. Designs havebeen prepared and are under review by the Bank; and
(b) equipment and teaching materials (including bilingual materialsfor native communities) for each of the 44 schools.
Project Technical Directorate (TD)
3.29 The TD, which already has a skeleton staff under short-termcontract in Moyobamba to oversee day-to-day running of the project, wouldreceive the following specific support:
(a) construction of offices (700 m2 total), housing and dormitories(1,000 m2 total) at Moyobamba and a field office in Nueva Cajamarca(Table 20);
- 23 -
(b) purchase of 13 vehicles, 7 motorcycles, and technical and officesupplies and equipment (Table 20); and
(c) contracting of additional staff (21 professionals, 25 technicians,8 clerical and 12 support staff), and operation and maintenancefunds for investments (Tables 21 and 22).
Studies
3.30 Since the Alto Mayo Project is the first stage in a developmentprocess for the Alto Mayo Valley and is part of Government's long-termstrategy for the Ceja de Selva, it is important to continue to study impor-tant aspects of this development. The project therefore proposes to carryout the following studies, primarily through experienced entities, inaccordance with the schedules shown in Table 23:
(a) a forestry and fauna inventory study (by MAG Directorate ofForestry and Fauna) on about 90,000 ha which have been identifiedfrom FAO/ONERN studies as being suitable for commercial forestry;
(b) a semi-detailed soil survey and land classification (by ONERN)of about 60,000 ha (35,000 ha inside the project area on the rightbank and 25,000 ha outside the project area on the left bank of theMayo River) on a scale of 1:25,000;
(c) studies to monitor river flows (by the TD Irrigation Group) wouldbe part of the regular activities of the TD under whom rivergauging stations would be constructed. These stations would,however, be handed over to the Irrigation District for operation.This process would be especially important in determining the finaldesign of the main structures on the Yurongos canal scheme (para3 .09);
(d) a study on reclamation of the approximately 25,000 ha of acidsoils - Shapumbales (by INIPA and TD) which would concentrateon: (i) commercial-scale testing of reclamation practices suchas application of limestone, rock phosphate and micro elements(e.g. Bo, Mg); (ii) evaluating the effect of irrigation water fromarea rivers which already exhibit high pH; and (iii) the role ofpasture in the reclamation process;
(e) two socioeconomic studies on the development of native communitiesin the area (by DCCN in the Ministry of Agriculture), outlines ofwhich are on the project file (Annex 1); and
(f) a feasibility study on a second phase project (consultants).Preliminary studies of possible components for a second-phaseproject would be carried out by TD staff, assisted by consul-tants. It is proposed that these preliminary studies would bereviewed by a Bank identification mission (in year 4 of theproject), which would define, with the project authority, theelements of the second-phase project. The latter mission wouldalso prepare terms of reference for a feasibility study to beprepared by consultants during year 4.
- 24 -
Assurances were obtained at negotiations that terms of reference for each ofthese studies would be satisfactory to the Bank.
Technical Assistance
3.31 In view of the many components in, and the prototype nature of, theproject, technical assistance would be needed to ensure effective implementa-tion. Therefore the project would provide 55 man-months of consultantexpatriate support, details of which are given in Table 23 and summarizedbelow:
(a) Technical services (16 man-months total). Support would berequired on an as-needed basis on technical issues and aspectsof crop and livestock production. The project expects that thisassistance would be provided by international research institutesin the Consultative Group for International Agriculture (CGIAR)system, especially the International Center for TropicalAgriculture (CIAT);
(b) Soil Conservation/Management (6-man-months total). Support wouldbe required over a 3-year period to advise INIPA and ED staff onaspects of soil conservation and management in the project area;
(c) Land Clearing Techniques (2 man-months total). Support would berequired to train and advise operators on the use of land clearingequipment on the soil types found in the project area;
(d) Monitoring and Evaluation (8 man-months total). A consultantwould be required to set up, supervise and evaluate a monitoringand evaluation system, with follow-up to prepare data for theconsultant study on a Phase II project;
(e) Appropriate Technology (6 man-months total) support to advisenative communities on available appropriate technology and toassist in its procurement and demonstration;
(f) Agronomist (8 man-months). Support would be required for workexclusively with native communities and relevant extensionpersonnel on how best to improve native community agriculturalpractices; and
(g) Social Scientist (9 man-months). Support would be required toadvise the Executive Directorate over a 3-year period on theproject's impact on native communities and settler families. Inthe latter case the consultant would also assist informulating a program to establish watershed committees whichit is proposed could monitor felling of trees in the watersheds oftheir irrigation areas.
3.32 The project also envisages about 7.0 manyears of local consultant
support. This includes a total of 6 man-months over the five-year projectperiod to evaluate health delivery systems to the native communities; andabout 6.5 manyears of local roads contract specialists (2) to work in the TDRoads Unit on the organization and management of minor road maintenance. The
- 25 -
latter specialists would be responsible for setting up training programs,operating the equipment pool and its workshop, and providing technical assis-tance and supervision to the districts in their road maintenance work.Assurances were obtained at negotiations that all consultants would operateunder terms of reference satisfactory to the Bank (drafts in Annex 1) andthat selection of individuals would be subject to prior approval by theBank.
Local Mapping and Titling
3.33 In MAG, the General Office of Cadastral and Rural Affairs (OGCAR),is responsible for identifying farm boundaries and carrying out cadastralsurveys and the Agrarian Reform Office awards and adjudicates titles. Bothagencies retain regional offices in Agrarian Region XIII and both operateunder a wide range of legislation listed in the project file (Annex 1).
3.34 Local Mapping. The project would prepare topographic maps forabout 100,000 ha of the project area at a scale of 1:10,000. These mapswould be most useful for agricultural development especially in the irriga-tion areas where contour lines would be outlined at 1-meter intervals, whilethe balance of the area would have 5-meter intervals. Aerial photography insupport of this exercise is being carried out under the direction of OGCARand financed under a PPF advance. After these maps are produced, OGCAR wouldcarry out additional aerial photography over the entire 770,000-ha Alto MayoValley to produce 1:30,000 scale maps. The latter would update informationon the general ecosystem and would provide basic information for cadastral,land preparation, land protection and conservation work for follow-up invest-ments. In addition to this support, the project would also assist in devel-oping satellite remote sensing capability in OGCAR, specifically to monitordevelopments in the Alto Mayo Valley and San Martin Province in general.Since OGCAR staff would be contracted to carry out these activities, theproject would finance the incremental staffing costs associated with thelocal mapping component, as shown in Table 24.
3.35 Titling. The project would support a program to provide titles toabout 95% of the settlers in the project area (i.e., approximately an addi-tional 6,000 families) and all nine native communities. This would result inthe number of titles for settler holdings being increased from current levelsof about 1,500 up to about 8,100, in addition to providing title to the lastof nine native communities (San Rafael) and officially registering all nine.This action would not only ensure legal security to the title holders and, inthe case of settler areas,mitigate against excessive fragmentation of hold-ings into small, uneconomic farm units, but it would also facilitate theprocess of obtaining long-term credit. Although farmers can obtain creditwith certificates of possession, land titles, which legally define bound-aries, make it easier to substantiate farm plans used in credit applica-tions. Project titling support would therefore take the form of incrementaloperating expenditures for the Agrarian Reform Department of MAG, includingstaffing, as shown in Table 24.
National Mapping
3.36 Peru has poor map coverage: resource maps are limited, and basictopographic maps, at scales useful for planning, engineering or developmentpurpuses, cover only the western third of the country. The vast majority of
- 26 -
the remainder of the country has map coverage at a scale of 1:1 million whichis only suitable for general orientation. About 36% of the country has topo-graphic maps at scales of 1:100,000, 2% at 1:200,000 and only 14 map sheetshave been produced at the 1:250,000 scale. The remainder of the country,which includes much of the Sierra and most of the Selva Region, is coveredonly by unrectified aerialphoto mosaics or planimetric maps (27%), by prelim-inary surveys (8%) referred to as "levantamientos irregular o expeditivo," byside-looking aerial radar imagery (12%) (SLAR), or by small scale maps(15%). None of these products provide contour lines, spot heights or eleva-tions nor are they based on sound horizontal geodetic controls. Furthermore,since photo mosaics are film products they are relatively costly, arefrequently subject to security controls and are not always readily avail-able. Conversion of such data to map form (litographic products) wouldpermit more effective regional planning and project development. Conse-quently, the project would purchase 73 computer compatible tapes, derivedfrom NASA high density tapes, to cover the entire country. These tapes wouldbe converted to photographic images, onto which roads, railroads, dams, andmajor town names would be superimposed. These photomap copies, oncecorrected, would be color separated, annotated with the geographic gridinformation (latitude-longitude) and would be presented in a 1:250,000 scalemap format. A total of approximately 80 individual map sheets would be madeof Peru in addition to a four-sheet map of the whole country at the 1:1 mil-lion scale. All reproduction materials and tapes would be shipped to ONERNfor final full production runs and distribution. The ED would coordinatethis component through an agreement with ONERN. The Bank's senior resourceplanning adviser would also provide technical assistance to the ED andONERN. Details are given in Table 25.
Native Communities
3.37 Measures aimed at safeguarding the nine native communities in theproject area and specific assistance provided to ensure their participationin the local economy have not been treated as a separate activity under theproject but have instead been included as part of the relevant projectcomponents. Key support activities are summarized below:
(a) construction of primary schools in each of the nine communitiesand provision of bilingual teaching materials (Table 19);
(b) construction of three health posts at Bajo Naranjillo, Shimpiyacuand El Dorado communities to service the nine groups. In addition,the project would support a vaccination program, construction ofhousehold water supplies, and monitoring of water quality in theareas (Table 18);
(c) provision of bilingual extension support (one agriculturalist, twotechnicians) exclusively for the communities to be stationed atNueva Cajamarca (Table 10);
(d) construction of an urban marketing center and office (Casa Nativa)in Moyobamba, plus an office for OAAM in the Bajo Naranjillocommunity (Table 20);
(e) purchase of small implements and appropriate technology foragricultural and domestic use in the communities (Table 20);
- 27 -
(f) provision of land titling support to ensure that the last untitledcommunity receives title and to officially register all ninecommunities' titles and install boundary markers;
(g) provision of training of village-level health workers and tech-nical training of community members in carpentry and similartechnical skills (Table 23);
(h) provision of technical assistance in small-scale fish pond farming(Table 16), appropriate technology, agronomy, social science andhealth (Table 23);
(i) monitoring and evaluation of the project's impact on the communi-ties, which would involve direct participation of the tribal groupsthemselves; and
(j) studies by DCCN on land titling processes and general tribaldevelopment (Table 23).
3.38 Coordination of native community support activities would be thedirect responsibility of the Technical Director, who would employ a socialscientist in the monitoring cell of the Technical Directorate (TD) to coor-dinate the various activities impacting on the native communities (para4.08).
D. Project Costs
3.39 Total project costs, including contingencies, are estimated atabout US$83.5 million as summarized below. Base costs refer to October 1982values, physical contingencies are estimated at 15% for on-site work andconstruction in the civil works program, 10% on incremental operating costsother than salaries and wages, and 5% on equipment and transportation. A 20%physical contingency has been applied to the Yorongos irrigation proposalsince it is still at a feasibility stage of preparation. Although Peru hasand continues to, experience very high domestic rates of inflation, it uses asystem of regular adjustment in its exchange rates relative to hardcurrencies which approximately covers the differential between domestic andinternational inflation. Therefore price contingencies in the project costsare calculated on US dollar base values and are estimated at 8%, 8%, 7.5%,7.0%, 6% and 6% for 1982 through 1987, respectively, which projects theannual percentage increase in US$ terms expected to occur based on pastexperience in the region. Since the Ceja de Selva and hence the projectarea, are considered development areas, they are exempted from taxes underGovernment Law No. 15600 (1975) and Decree No. 22179 (1982), therefore notaxes or duties are expected on project investments. A total of 11.6manyears of consultancy support would be provided at a cost of US$10,000 perman-month for expatriates (4.6 manyears) and US$2,000 per man-month forlocals (7.0 manyears). Detailed project cost statements, including creditsubtotals for irrigation activities, are presented in Tables 26-28.
FEPU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTFPROJECT COST SUMMARY
,SOL '000) (US$ '000) % of---------------------- --------------------------- Foreign % of Total
Local Foreisri Total Local Foreisn Total Exchanre Base Costs
A. CREDIT
LONG TERM 4W731t303.1 5y203,212.5 9i934y515,6 8602.4 9i460.4 18,062.8 52 .4 28.9SHORT TERM 2,384,074.0 1g021,746.0 3Y405Y820.0 4?334.7 1,857.7 6,192.4 30.0 9 q L
Sub-Total CREDIT 7115f377,1 6,224f958.5 13Y340,335.6 129?37.0 11,318.1 24,255 .2 46.7 38.e5. IRRIGATION 544,024.0 357,816.0 9O0Y840.0 989.1 650.6 1Y639.7 39,7 2,8C. LAND CLEARING EQUIPMENT 1011000,0 909,000.0 1,010,000.0 183.6 1,652.7 1838,4 90.0 2.°
P. ACCESS ROADS 4t?82y775,0 3,6550975.0 8,638,750.0 9,059.6 6Y647,2 15,706.8 42.3 25.1E. EXTENSION & RESEARCH 7980,738.6 17191i442,4 37172181.0 3,601.3 2,166.3 5,767.6 37.6 9.2F. STORAGE 108T0000. 72,000.0 180,000.0 196.4 130.? 327.3 40.C 0.5U, F-ISHERIES & FORESTRY 414,374.0 382,476,0 796b850.0 753,4 69514 1,448,5 48.0 2.3H. HEALTH & EDUCATION 1,211,070.0 1,316y13040 2,527Y200.0 2y201.9 2,393.0 4,594.9 52.1 7I3 oo1. PROJECT ORGANIZATION 1Y1440460,0 4 232I10.0 1y567?570.0 2,080.8 769.3 2,850.1 27.0 4.6 1J. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE? TRAINING I STUDIES 161,380,0 5750920,0 737y300.0 293.4 1047.1 1,340,5 78,1 2.1,. LOCAL MAPPING & TITLING 951,144.0 290O056.0 1,241,200.0 1,729.4 527.4 2,256.7 23.4 3.6L NAIIDONAL MAPPING 30Q844.0 277,596.0 308,440.0 56.1 504.7 560-0 9Q.0 0.9
Total BASELINE COSTS 180745Y186.7 156r76,479.? 34,421.666.8 349082.2 28,502.7 62P584.8 45.5 100.0Ph,sieal Continlencies 17824f146.2 1,390,001.7 3,214,147.8 3Y316.6 2r527.3 5y843.9 43.2 9.3
Price Continrericies 4,873,144.3 3P632,733.4 SY305,577.7 80496.6 6,605.0 15,101.6 43.7 24.1
Total PROJECT COSTS 25,242,477.1 20y699.214.9 45,?41,692.1 45,895.4 37,634.? 83y530.3 45.1 13.5
Front End Fee - 243r375.0 243,375.0 - 442.5 442.5 100Q0 0.7
Total FINANCING REQUIRED 25,2424477.1 20,9427589.9 46Y1855067.1 45,895,4 38,077.4 83,972,8 45.3 134. 2
November 15, 1982 16:37
- 29 -
E. Project Financing
3.40 The proposed Bank loan would meet about 60% of total costs ofnon-credit components. This would cover 100% of foreign exchange (US$21.9million) and about 28% of local costs (US$7.6 million) in non-creditactivities. A project preparation facility (PPF) totalling US$0.5 millionhas already been approved and would be refinanced from the loan aftereffectiveness. A front-end fee of about US$450,000 would be capitalized andincluded in the loan. The project would be cofinanced with the InternationalFund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) which would contribute SDR 17.9million (about US$19.0 million equivalent): US$18.6 million equivalent tocredit activities and US$0.4 million equivalent for monitoring and evaluationactivities. A breakdown of financing is shown below:
Financing PlanUS$ million
WorldGovernment Farmers Bank IFAD Total
Credit:Long-term 6.6 2.5 - 16.2 25.3Short-term 5.6 0.9 - 2.4 8.9Subtotal (credit) 12.2 3.4 - 18.6 34.2
Irrigation 1.3 - 0.7 - 2.0
Land Clearing Equipment - - 2.3 - 2.3
Access Roads 4.4 - 16.3 - 20.7
Research and Extension 4.7 - 2.6 - 7.3
Storage 0.2 - 0.2 - 0.4
Fisheries and Forestry 1.2 - 0.6 - 1.8
Health and Education 2.6 - 3.4 - 6.0
Project Organization 2.7 - 0.8 0.2 3.7
Technical Assistance,Training, Studies - - 1.4 0.2 1.6
Local Mapping and Titling 2.2 - 0.6 - 2.8
National Mapping 0.1 - 0.6 - 0.7
Front-end Fee - - 0.5 - 0.5
Total 31.6 3.4 30.0 19.0 84.0
- 30 -
F. Procurement
Civil Works
3.41 Construction contracts for access roads totalling about US$12.0million would be procured by international competitive bidding (ICB).Roadworks would be awarded in four small contracts (averaging about US$3.0million each) to permit smaller firms, to whom the project roads might bemore interesting, to compete. Larger qualified firms would be eligible formore than one contract.
3.42 Construction of the main canal for the Yorongos Irrigation Schemeis estimated to cost about US$1.5 million equivalent; consequently, detaileddesign and all procureaent documentation would be subject to prior review bythe Bank. However, since Peru has experienced contractors capable ofhandling such works, local competitive bidding (LCB) procedures, satisfactoryto the Bank, would be acceptable.
3.43 The balance of civil works contracts for offices, housing, researchstations, primary school and health care facilities, and small-scale irriga-tion works are not of a scale which is liable to interest foreign contrac-tors; therefore, LCB procedures, satisfactory to the Bank, would be accept-able. Civil works may also be executed by use of force account by theBorrower provided, however, that in respect of civil works estimated to beequivalent to or greater than US$200,000 equivalent, the Borrower shall seekprior approval by the Bank before executing such work by force account.Contracts for the construction of the Rioja research station, and anycombined packages of works in excess of US$500,000 would be subject to theBank's prior review of procurement documentation. Health facilities,schools, office buildings, water supply facilities and other works would bedesigned by the TD in consultation with the local representatives of theMinistries of Health and Education. The ED would organize bidding and wouldsupervise the construction of the works. In some instances, facilities wouldbe partially constructed by villagers' voluntary labor under the supervisionof the ED.
Goods
3.44 Equipment and workshop tools related to the access road componentwould be procured by locally advertised competitive bidding which is appro-priate for the small volume of goods involved. Major suppliers of equipmenthave established agencies in Lima and all would be required to have equip-ment, repair and spare parts supply services available in or near the projectarea. Farm machinery equipment provided under the credit component would beprocured by farmers through normal commercial channels. Procurement of landclearing equipment totalling about US$1.8 million would be carried out byinternational competitive bidding procedures acceptable to the Bank.Procurement of vehicles and motorcycles would be carried out by LCB proced-ures satisfactory to the Bank. Domestic and regional preferences, acceptableto the Bank, would apply to the procurement of goods under the project.Furniture and supplies, and scientific and technical equipment would begrouped; orders under US$50,000 would be by prudent shopping procedures inaccordance with local regulations acceptable to the Bank, and packages overUS$50,000 would be subject to LCB. The total value of scientific and
- 31 -
and technical equipment as well as furniture and supplies procured throughdirect negotiations is not expected to exceed US$200,000 during the projectperiod.
Services
3.45 Consultants and expatriate assistance would be hired on the basisof qualifications and experience relevant to job descriptions and in accord-ance with Bank guidelines dated August 1981. Scholarships extending for oneacademic year or more and external travel associated with technical trainingfinanced under the loan would need the prior approval of the Bank. Assur-ances were obtained at negotiations that the provisions of this and thepreceding paragraphs on procurement would be followed.
G. Disbursements
3.46 The project would be implemented over five years and disbursementsunder the Bank loan would extend over six years (Table 29). The disbursementschedule has a higher rate of disbursement, especially in early years,compared to historical profiles for agriculture and rural developmentprojects in the region. The proposed rate is justified because of:(a) HCBM's experience in coordinating a similar project in the region;(b) advances made in preparing designs for access roads and small-scaleirrigation schemes, and the initiation of land titling activities, allfinanced under the PPF advance; and (c) strong Government commitment asevidence in the fact that the project has special status in the Office of thePresident of the Council of Ministers. Disbursements would be fullydocumented and categorized as follows:
Category Item Amount(US$ million)
I Civil Works:85% of total expenditures 18.6
II Vehicles and Equipment: 4.8(a) Directly imported
100% of foreign expenditures(b) Imported and procured locally,
90% of local expenditures
III Cartography and Aerial Photography:100% of total expenditures 1.2
IV Technical assistance, consultants,training and studies:100% of total expenditures (excluding
monitoring and evaluation) 1.4
V Project Preparation Facility:refinancing amounts due 0.5
VI Front-end Fee 0.4
VII Initial Deposit Special Account 1.0
VIII Unallocated 2.1
Total 30.0
- 32 -
Bank loan funds would be channelled through the Ministry of Economy andCommerce directly to the ED, which would be responsible for reviewing allbudgetary requests for counterpart financing. Retroactive financing of up toUS$0.9 million (about 3% of the loan amount) is recommended for costsincurred after appraisal (March 1, 1982) for: construction of a TDheadquarters; irrigation studies; land clearing equipment (maximum of twounits); storage facilities; national mapping; and goods for extension and TDcomponents.
Working Fund
3.47 In order to ensure timely payments to small contractors under thecivil works component, it is proposed to establish a Working Fund with aSpecial Account being opened in Banco de la Nacion. The funds available inthe Special Account would be used exclusively to reimburse the borrower forthe Bank's share of local expenditures under the access roads civil workscomponent thus alleviating delays due to governmental budget constraints.The initial deposit made by the Bank. into the Special Account would beestimated to cover the Bank's share of three months expenditures for accessroads civil works. This amount was agreed upon during negotiations. Theborrower would claim reimbursement of the Bank's share of expenditures fromthe Special Account upon presentation of fully documentated withdrawalapplications, which in turn would be forwarded to the Bank, by theparticipant bank, for replenishment into the Special Account. The procedurefor recovery of the initial deposit would commence once the withdrawn balancein Category I (Civil Works) reaches twice the amount of the initial depositat which time subsequent amounts claimed would be reduced. The Bank wouldrequire a monthly statement of the Special Account which would reflecttransactions during the previous month. Similar facilities are included inthe Bank's Eighth Highway Project (Loan No. 2091-PE).
IV. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Executive Directorate (ED)
4.01 The Alto Mayo Special Project organization has already been set upunder the existing Executive Directorate of Huallaga Central and Bajo MayoProject (HCBM) in the Office of the President of the Council of Ministers bySupreme Decree No. 031-81-PCM dated July 21, 1981. Chart 3 outlines theproject organization. HCBM would retain authority for both the HuallagaCentral and Alto Mayo projects but would delegate day-to-day operation of theproject to the Technical Director Alto Mayo located in the project area atMoyobamba. The HCBM Executive Director's functions with respect to Alto Mayowould therefore be to:
(a) ensure that planning, programming, and implementation conformedto the loan agreements with the Bank and IFAD;
(b) ensure that all resources necessary to carry out the project wereavailable in a timely manner;
(c) sign agreements with the participating agencies (para 4.07); and
- 33 -
(d) approve plans and programs of its Technical Directorate, andapprove and sign contracts required for project execution(para 4.02).
To ensure effective coordination of the project with the participatingagencies, an assurance was obtained at negotiations that the ED wouldcontinue to maintain a liaison office in Lima.
Technical Directorate (TD)
4.02 The Technical Director Alto Mayo, who is already in place, would beresponsible for the efficient implementation of the project, on behalf of theED to which he would report directly. The Technical Director would head foursections: Works and Equipment (DWE), Services (DS), Administration, andPlanning and Evaluation. In addition, he would be responsible for coordin-ating aspects relating to the native communities. Specific responsibilitiesfor the key sections of the TD shown in Chart 3 are summarized below:
(a) the Directorate of Works and Equipment (DWE) would be responsiblefor: technical supervision, control and coordination of all civilworks under the project (including land clearing) and procurement ofequipment; preparation, review and making recommendations to the EDon award of contracts for civil works and equipment; training inroad maintenance and provision of road maintenance assistance by theproject; coordination of irrigation activities; and preparation ofprogress reports on works for which it is responsible;
(b) the Directorate of Services (DS) would be responsible for: prepara-tion of the agricultural credit agreement and its specific require-ments with the financing institutions (para 4.04); supervision ofthe credit, agricultural machinery use, marketing, extension andresearch, land titling, local mapping, and evaluation of naturalresources components with the respective implementing agencies; andpreparation of progress reports on the above components, includingqualitative as well as quantitative analysis;
(c) the Sub-Directorate of Planning and Evaluation would: aggregate andupdate the Integrated Development Plan for Alto Mayo; program worksand activities to be developed under the Project; modify plans andprograms as evaluation deems necessary; evaluate project impact andmake appropriate recommendations; prepare draft terms of referencefor studies; evaluate additional subprojects and requests for incor-poration in a follow-up project; and propose technical assistance onas-needed basis and assist participating agencies in the selectionof candidates for training courses; and
(d) the Sub-Directorate of Administration would be responsible forbudgeting, accounting, personnel, supplies, and supportservices;
4.03 Although difficulties often occur in attracting qualified personnelto field assignments, the project considers that the state of development offacilities in tne towns of Moyobamba and Rioja, plus the housing and trans-portation being financed under the project, should provide the necessary
- 34 -
incentive to work in the area. The key staff positions in the TechnicalDirectorate and INIPA have already been filled by personnel on short-termcontract. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that, in the eventGovernment removes the Executive Director or the Technical Director fromtheir respective positions, the Bank would be afforded the right to reviewthe qualifications of any replacements who may be proposed for thesepositions.
Credit
4.04 Assurances were obtained at negotiations that a credit subcommitteewould be formed within six months of the first disbursement of the IFADloan with the objective of regularly analyzing (at least at quarterlyintervals) the supply, demand and delivery aspects of credit and productioninputs. Representatives of the Agrarian Bank (BAP), the CIPA director,credit specialists of the ED and INIPA's extension service, and beneficiaryfarmers would participate in the subcommittee. BAP credit staff would worktogether with TD and extension staff to prepare development plans, especiallyfor irrigation purposes to ensure soundness of criteria and financial viabil-ity. The internationally-recruited credit coordinator under the Extensionand Research Project would be consulted on organization of the credit assis-tance program for Alto Mayo. Signing of a Subsidiary Agreement with BAP,including supporting approval of credit by-laws, would be a condition of Bankloan effectiveness and IFAD loan effectiveness. Signing of the IFAD loanagreement per se, would also be a condition of loan effectiveness.
Access Roads
4.05 The ED has entered into tripartite agreements, satisfactory to theBank, with district mayors and provincial sub-prefects, concerning districtresponsibilities for executing road maintenance (October 1982). Assuranceswere obtained during negotiations that these would be enforced. The DWE inthe Technical Directorate would be responsible for management of contractedservices, and with the latter support would manage and supervise civil worksconstruction by contractors. Technical approvals and assistance in roadmatters would be provided by MTC's departmental engineer, who would beassisted by a contracted engineer (6 man-months) financed under the project(para 3.32).
Operation and Maintenance
4.06 Responsibility for operation and maintenance of works constructedby the ED under the project is summarized as follows: (a) irrigation worksby farmers themselves either through their own labor (small scale schemes) orthrough payments to the Irrigation District (Yurongos scheme) (para 3.10);(b) access roads initially by a project-financed maintenance support unitwhich would be handed over to local authorities no later than January 1, 1986(para 3.16); and buildings, offices, housing, etc., by the respectiveagencies benefitting from these structures - ED (para 3.29), INIPA (paras3.19 and 3.22), Agrarian Region XIII (para 3.26), ENCI (para 3.24), and theregional offices of the Ministries of Fisheries (para 3.25), Health (para3.27), and Education (para 3.28).
Agreements With Implementing Agencies
4.07 Although HCBM is fully responsible for all aspects of projectimplementation, in order to facilitate internal coordination of the project,it would enter into agreements with public and private institutions in a
- 35 -
manner similar to that currently practiced under the Huallaga CentralProject. Specific agreements include:
(a) Farm Development Credit: with BAP. This would be covered under a
Subsidiary Agreement to the IFAD loan agreement (paras 3.05 and4.04);
(b) Access Roads: with MTC to provide technical assistance inselection of consultants, evaluation of bids, and review ofdetailed engineering (Annex 1);
(c) Irrigation District: with Agrarian Region XIII to strengthen andimprove the Alto Mayo Irrigation District (para 3.11);
(d) Agricultural Research and Extension: with INIPA (paras 3.13,3.17);
(e) Local Mapping and Land Titling: with OGCAR for mapping andcadastral survey and with Region Agraria XIII for land titlingthrough its Agrarian Reform office (paras 3.34 and 3.35);
(f) National Mapping: with ONERN (para 3.36);
(g) Forestry District: with the Region Agraria XIII to strengthen theForestry District (para 3.26); and
(h) Studies: with ONERN, the Directorate of Compesino and NativeCommunities (DCCN) in MAG, and contracts with consulting firms fora second-phase project feasibility study (para 3.30).
The only agreements which would be required to be finalized under conditionsof the Bank loan are the following: with INIPA and ONERN by June 30, 1983;and with BAP as a condition of effectiveness. Assurances were obtained onthe above at negotiations, at which time draft documents were reviewed.Furthermore, assurances were obtained that the Bank would be consulted on anychanges in the positions of Executive or Technical Director.
Accounts and Auditing
4.08 HCBM has its own internal audit and the TD has its own budgeting,accounting and auditing facilities. INIPA and BAP also have internal audit,budgeting and accounting facilities, and would prepare separate accounts forthe project. Consequently, in addition to the two sets of accounts to beprepared by INIPA and BAP, the HCBM would prepare separate project accountsfor Alto Mayo operations for each of the following components: access roads,storage, local mapping and titling, forestry, fisheries, technical assis-tance, and training and studies. Assurances were obtained at negotiationsthat an external audit satisfactory to the Bank would be carried out, andthat certified copies of externally audited accounts would be forwarded tothe Bank within six months of the close of each financial year. The SpecialAccount (para 3.47) would be audited each fiscal year by independent auditorsacceptable to the Bank and a report of such audit would be furnished to theBank not later than six months after the end of each such year.
- 36 -
Monitoring and Evaluation
4.09 A monitoring unit would be set up in the TD Directorate forPlanning and Evaluation, assisted by a consultant and INIPA, to monitorexecution of project components, agricultural development activities,improvements in living conditions, and physical and environmental changes.This unit would be staffed by at least four professionals with agronomic,economic, sociological and statistical orientations who would collect andanalyze information and alert management to problems as they may emerge, andprovide a basis for the annual planning exercise. Initial indicators andtime-phased targets established prior to project execution would provide abenchmark for comparisons to targets adjusted during every annual planningexercise and to actual results. Implementation information would be providedto the ED by the executing agencies on a quarterly basis and annual reportswould be submitted, through the HCBM to the Prime Minister's office and tothe financing institutions. The reports, which would be consolidated on amicrocomputer to be provided under the project, would provide a comparison ofnumerical targets with actual performance (in terms of key actions completedand costs). In addition, information on the impact of project would besupplemented by field supervision and interviews. Assurances were obtainedat negotiations that the ED would establish this monitoring unit no laterthan six months after signing the IFAD loan agreement. An outline of keyindicators to be monitored is given in Annex 2.
4410 Project evaluation activities would involve periodic in-depthattempts to assess the effect project financed services and infrastructuredevelopment are having on the natural environment and on the incomes andwelfare of those families the project is supposed to assist. Overall evalu-ation work would focus on: a mid-term review of program execution as ofMarch 31, 1986 (to be completed by June 30, 1986); and a completion report,giving an interim assessment of project impact which would be provided to theBank within six months of the final completion date of the project. Anassurance on the latter was obtained at negotiations. INIPA would be respon-sible for evaluating both the research and extension functions being devel-oped under the Alto Mayo project, which would include feedback to SMS staffon pests, diseases and other production constraints. A monitoring and evalu-ation unit has been established in the Department of Planning of INIPA, whichwould be directly involved in, and would coordinate all monitoring activitiesof, INIPA with regard to the project. The ED would also be responsible forad-hoc special studies, to be commissioned during program execution, whichwould investigate particular issues which arise during implementation. It isexpected that some aspects of the evaluation activities would be contractedto local agencies with adequate research capacity.
Project Reporting
4.11 An assurance was obtained at negotiations that the ED would prepareand send detailed annual reports on project progress to the Bank within threemonths of the completion of the period under review.
- 37 -
V. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Land Use and Cropping Patterns
5.01 Agricultural development under the project would primarily resultfrom expansion of the irrigated and rainfed area and by improvements inproductivity on areas which are currently under cultivation. New areas wouldbecome available through continued forest clearance on existing holdings andby the permanent cultivation of areas which are currently under bush fallow.No fundamental change in cropping pattern or intensity is assumed during theproject development period as no changes are likely until the area actuallyfarmed on individual holdings is fully utilized. However, in the longerterm, the area offers considerable scope for double cropping. Development isenvisaged to take place on the better soils (Classes II and III) in the flatbottom lands of the project area since the techniques and economics ofutilizing the problem areas (acid soils and inundated areas) are not yetproven. However, development of the latter areas, would be important fieldsfor study under the research component of the project.
5.02 The estimated project impact on land usage is outlined below:
WithoutProject With Project Change- - - - - - - - (ha)…
Irrigated Rice- Levelled 3,850 11,000 + 7,150- Unlevelled 2,950 - - 2,950Subtotal 6,800 11,000 + 4,200
Rainfed Crops- Rice 5,800 17,000 +11,200- Maize/Beans 5,100 8,000 2,900- Plantain/Cassava 2,300 3,900 + 1,600Subtotal 13,200 28,900 +15,700
Pasture- Improved 1,400 8,700 + 7,300- Natural 4,600 3,100 - 1,500Subtotal 6,000 11,800 + 5,800
Total Crops and Pasture 26,000 51,700 +25,700Fallow 12,600 4,000 - 8,600Forest and Other 81,400 64,300 -17,100
Total Area 120,000 120,000 -
- 38 -
The net increase in agricultural area (crop plus pasture) is thus expected toapproximately double, to about 51,700 ha, with the fully levelled irrigatedrice areas and rainfed rice areas increasing by about 190%. The latterreflects the expected continued dominance of rice in the cropping system.
5.03 The principal improvements to agricultural practices expected to beintroduced by the extension, research, and credit programs are: reduction inthe period of sowing of irrigated rice by development and use of improvedvarieties (long-term goal) and mechanization for land preparation andharvesting (short-term goal); improvement in nursery techniques to allowrice to be transplanted within 25 to 30 days after germination; improvedirrigation water control through provision of control structures and improvedland preparation; reduction in shifting cultivation; improved plant protec-tion; use of certified seed of improved varieties; regular replanting ofplantain areas; and establishment of cultivated pastures.
Yields and Production
5.04 Yields. Average yields are expected to improve to levels alreadybeing achieved by better farmers in the area as follous:
Without WithProject Project Increase- - - - - - -(t/ha)- - - - - - - -
Levelled irrigated rice 3.5 4.2 0.7Rainfed rice 1.7 2.5 0.8Maize 1.7 2.1 0.4Beans (in association with maize) 0.2 0.5 0.3Gassava 6.0 8.0 2.0Plantain 8.0 12.0 4.0Livestock - carrying capacity in
animal units/ha 0.8 1.9 1.1- milk yield (1/lactation) 840 1,750 910
5.05 Incremental Production. Based on farm model analysis, productionis expected to increase gradually; however, at full development (year 10), itis estimated as follows:
Without Project With Project Increase- - - ('000 tons) - - - - - - - -
Rice 35.0 90.0 55.0Maize and beans 6.5 10.4 3.9Cassava and plantain 23.7 34.6 10.9Beef 0.1 0.6 0.5Milk 1.3 8.9 7.6
Total 66.6 144.5 77.9
- 39 -
Incremental production estimates assume that the present situation reflectsthe future without project case and that there would be no change to the netvalue of production over the project development period if project invest-ments were not made. The justification for this position is that althoughthe area under crop is likely to expand somewhat, even if project investmentsare not made, the following serious constraints would tend to reduce produc-tion per hectare, namely: (i) the inability to effectively market productsdue to poor feeder roads, hence raising post harvest losses; (ii) withouttechnical assistance on land clearing, levelling, and sound soil conservationand fertilization programs, average yields per hectare are likely to declineover time; and (iii) without long-term credit, which at present is virtuallyunavailable to farmers, investments in necessary on-farm development, andmachinery and equipment purchase would be greatly curtailed, thereby furtherslowing the intensification process.
5.06 As shown below, incomes of project beneficiaries are consideredsufficient to provide an incentive to farmers to participate in the on-farmdevelopment works and other project programs. Results are based on farmmodels shown in Tables 31 to 40, which are considered representative, bearingin mind that the actual investment mix may vary.
Full Development Farm Family Income
Farm Size Incomeand Type Without Project With Project
… - - - - - - (US$) …
10 ha irrigated 3,180 5,30020 ha irrigated 6,100 11,300
20 ha rainfed 870 4,90040 ha livestock 1,500 6,500
Labor Demand
5.07 The project is designed to reduce the demand for manpower duringpeak periods by increasing the use of machinery and equipment (most notably,small 25 to 35 hp tractors). However, because of the expanding area undercultivation, labor requirements are still expected to rise and all crop-basedfarms (Tables 31 to 39) are expected to need hired labor. At full develop-ment, operations are expected to need a total of about 3.6 million mandays oflabor (approximately double current levels of about 1.8 million man-days) ofwhich about 0.7 million man-days (19%) is expected to be hired, and thebalance of 2.9 million man-days (81%) would be family labor. This reflectsan increment in hired labor demand of about 0.6 milIlion man-days, which,based on the present status of labor supply in the area, is likely to be metby underemployed persons in the valley, continued use of the seasonal andsemi-permanent immigrant workforce, and by continued immigration into thearea.
- 40 -
Marketing and Prices
5.08 The largest individual increase in crop production would be forrice, at about 55,000 tons per year (about 37,000 tons milled), which repre-sents only about 12% of 1981 imports of rice and, hence, there should be noproblem of marketing the production in Peru. Private enterprise hasvigorously responded to recent increases in rice production in the valleyeven though processing quotas are assigned by ECASA. At present there arenine mills (eight private) with a total processing capacity of 23 tons/hourand storage capacity of 35,000 tons. Two more private mills are underconstruction which will raise the storage capacity to about 60,000 tons.This capacity is considered adequate for future project needs. The rela-tively small quantitative individual increases in output of other crops andlivestock products are expected to be readily absorbed by the increasingpopulation and rising living standards in the Alto Mayo valley.
5.09 Prices of inputs and farmgate prices of crop and livestock productsused in the farm budgets are those prevailing in the project area (Table41). At appraisal farmgate prices in the project area were about 8% abovecoastal prices (US$315 vs US$291 per ton paddy equivalent). However, theseare still below equivalent international farmgate prices (US$338 per tonpaddy equivalent). In the event that Government (ECASA) should phase out itsprice fixing operations in the marketing of rice, selva farmgate prices wouldtend to rise in an attempt to approach international farmgate prices.
VI. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION
General
6.01 The main agricultural development investments would benefit about8,500 farm families in the area through provision of essential credit andsuch support services as extension, research, input storage and land titles.In the process, the area under crops and pasture would be expanded from about26,000 ha to about 52,000 ha, and production of crop and livestock productswould be raised from about 67,000 tons to about 145,000 tons. Production ofrice alone would be increased by about 55,000 tons, which represents aforeign exchange savings of about US$9.1 million annually. The project wouldalso provide about 12,800 families with urgently needed access roads andsocial services which, due to the recent rapid development of the area, aregrossly inadequate. Furthermore, about 60% of families benefitting from theproject currently have an average income below the absolute poverty level.Indirect benefits of improved management and technical support in forestryand soil conservation would help mitigate against the frequently disastrousdepletion of the environment which is often associated with development ofnew agricultural areas in the tropics. Specific project support to nativeIndian communities would ensure their participation in investment decisionswhich impact upon them, and thereby would attempt to gradually increase theirparticipation in the local economy. The project concept of building uponexisting institutional capability is expected to have considerable long-termimpact, since it is seen as a prototype for future development of the Ceja deSelva. Furthermore, the project's Executive Director is also the Chairman ofthe San Martin Development Corporation which is responsible for long-termplanning and development of the entire province.
- 41 -
Cost Recovery and Fiscal Impact
6.02 Under the Peruvian Water Law (Decree 17752), irrigators should paywater charges (based on volume) to finance operation and maintenance and areasonable part of investment costs of irrigation networks. Furthermore, theLaw for Agriculture Promotion and Development (Decreto Legislativo 2) indi-cates that collected funds should be administered by Councils of Users (para2.19) under Irrigation District supervision (para 2.31). The use of thesefunds is limited to operation and maintenance, improvement of the irrigationnetworks and to conservation. Under the project, costs of small-scaleirrigation projects on the Yuracyacu system would be recovered through credit(para 3.05). On the Yurongos scheme, which would require small-scale publicinvestment for headworks and a main canal, assurances were obtained atnegotiations that Government's objective would be to recover about 100% ofinvestment costs, and 100% of operation and maintenance costs (para 3.09).Based on farm models, it is estimated that Yurongos irrigation investmentscould be recovered in about 20 years, at positive interest rates, with athree-year grace period. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that astudy to determine the extent of water charges, which was prepared for reviewat negotiations, would be updated upon completion of the Yurongos scheme(para 3.10).
6.03 The impact of the project on Government's finances would belimited. During the project period, the average yearly contribution would beUS$4.3 million including contingencies or 0.1% of the 1981 Central Governmentexpenditures. After project completion, recurrent Government expenditureswould not pose a serious burden since they would amount to about US$0.7 mil-lion. Government revenues from the project would be very small since thearea has been declared by law to be tax exempt for a time which exceeds theimplementation period.
Economic Rate of Return Estimate
6.04 The economic rate of return has been estimated at about 18%(Table 42) and is based only on quantifiable benefits from crop and livestockproduction. Other secondary benefits were not included. The followingassumptions were used in the analysis: (a) the progressive development ofthe various crops followed projections in the respective farm models andinvestment plans; (b) prices for traded commodities were calculated accordingto Bank projections for 1982 in constant prices and adjusted for handling,processing and transportation costs to reach an average farmgate price; forother products, prevailing farmgate prices were used (Table 41); productioncosts associated with labor were adjusted to opportunity cost estimates;family labor was considered to be 90% of the unskilled market price; hiredunskilled labor was estimated at 70% of its market price; subsidies forfertilizer were eliminated; and other production costs were priced at localmarket conditions on the grounds that this best reflects opportunity costs,given the market structure and current Government prices; (c) the period ofanalysis was 20 years; (d) the exchange rate used was Soles 550 = US$1.0which was assumed to reflect its shadow price; and (e) calculation of theeconomic rate of return includes costs of civil works, buildings and relatedinfrastructure required for project implementation. Also included are costsof the technical assistance program, research, consultant services, training,
- 42 -
the necessary machinery and equipment for civil works and the maintenanceprogram for roads and irrigation systems and physical contingencies. Bene-fits have been calculated on about 89% of project cost items. Componentswith intangible benefits such as health, education, studies on a second phaseof the project, and national mapping were not included in the economiccalculation; however, a least cost approach was applied to these as well asall other components. Likewise, no benefits have been assumed from thefisheries activities since sales from the stations are expected to coverproduction costs. No incremental production is expected to result fromproject investments in forestry nor from trees removed on the flat farmlandsduring land clearing since the species remaining in these areas are low gradeand uneconomic to transport for processing. Separate economic analyses werecarried out on the Yurongos irrigation scheme (rate of returr above 20%,reference para 3.09) and for four subregions in the access roads component(Annex 1). In the latter case, all road sectors produced a rate of returnestimate above the opportunity cost of capital and the average rate was about20%.
Sensitivity Analysis
6.05 A sensitivity analysis to test the impact of changes in costs,benefits, prices or other factors was also made (Table 45). Switching valuestests indicate that the rate of return is not particularly sensitive tochanges in costs for research and extension, roads and project administra-tion. Project benefits could be reduced by 48% and the economic rate ofreturn would still remain above 12% (the opportunity cost of capital inPeru). The rate of return is more sensitive to rice price and yield changes,but prices would have to decrease by about 26% and yields by about 27% tolower the economic rate of return to 12%. The main factors which could delayproject benefits -- adverse weather and institutional problems -- would notinfluence any specific parameters in isolation (individual crop yields orarea cultivated) but would have a general impact on all crop benefits; thus aswitching value test on the assumption of delays in reaching full agricul-tural development was performed. This indicated that a delay in benefits ofabout three or four years would be required to cause the ERR to drop to 12%.The latter assumes that cost outlays would occur as planned.
Project Risk
6.06 Government commitment to development of the Ceja de Selva, andHCBM's experience in implementing the Huallaga Central Project suggests thatthe chances for project success are good. The Alto Mayo Valley is alreadysettled; it has a good agroclimate and its population is enterprising. Apartfrom the inherent institutional risks in coordinating an integrated projectof this type, the main problems which might occur are (a) adverse effect onthe environment from frontier development, and (b) frictions between thesettler population and native communities caused by increased arrivals of newsettlers. The project includes sufficient components to minimise these risksand the design is flexible enough that if changes are needed during implemen-tation, these can be accommodated within the Technical Directorate. Projecthousing and transportation support is also provided to ensure that qualifiedmanpower will continue to be attracted to the project area.
- 43 -
Environmental Impact
6.07 Agricultural development efforts in frontier areas like Alto Mayoalways risk affecting the environment adversely. In the present case, theproject strives to minimize adverse effects by concentrating agriculturaldevelopment in ecologically stable areas where experience and agriculturalinformation is available and avoiding ecologically fragile areas. Farmdevelopment would aim to minimize destructive practices, particularly inforest clearing and agricultural techniques. The project would alsostrengthen the forestry district and the forest police, enabling them toenforce prevailing legislation on timber extraction and reforestation.Deforestation and erosion would be further monitored through aerial photo-graphy and satellite imagery. An effective agricultural extension servicewould inform farmers on the rational use of fertilizers, plant protectionchemicals and herbicides, stressing safety in application and handling. Thiswould minimize contamination of natural water resources and construction ofdomestic water supply systems and wells would improve sanitary conditionsthereby helping to prevent uncontrolled spread of disease. A more detaileddiscussion of enviromental impact is presented in a working paper in theproject file (Annex 1).
VII. SUMMARY OF AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION
7.01 During negotiations, assurances were obtained that:
(a) credit would be disbursed only against farm plans prepared by theparticipating banks in cooperation with farmers and extensionpersonnel (para 3.06); and that a credit subcommittee would beestablished, within six months of the first disbursement under theIFAD loan, which would meet at least quarterly to discuss theallocation of financial resources and related issues (4.04);
(b) on the Yurongos scheme: Government would recover 100% of operationand maintenance costs from irrigators and seek to recover the fullinvestment costs; the ED would update its proposal presented atnegotiations on water levies/charges in the light of conditionsprevailing in the area after construction is complete, and wouldimplement these within three months of completion of the scheme;and final designs of the canal would be prepared for Bank review bySeptember 30, 1984 (para 3.10);
(c) ED would hire a consultant to train drivers on how to operateproject-procured land clearing equipment; would not use bulldozerblades on project-procured land clearing equipment; and wouldobtain full cost recovery on its operations (para 3.13);
- 44 -
(d) for access roads: the maintenance support unit's annual programand minimum budget levels would be presented in advance to theBank, and Government would carry out an analysis on the final20 km of roads by June 30, 1985 (para 3.15); not later thanJune 30, 1985 a program to transfer the maintenance unit's equip-ment and workshop would be presented to the Bank for review withactual transfer occurring no later than January 1, 1986(para 3.16); and tripartite agreements on maintenance would beenforced (para 4.05);
(e) INIPA would consult the Bank on the site selection for the cropresearch station before awarding the construction contract(para 3.23);
(f) the Ministry of Fisheries would set prices of fingerlings at sucha level to fully recover production costs (para 3.25);
(g) all terms of reference for studies would be cleared by the Bank(para 3.30);
(h) all consultants financed under the project would be selected andwould operate under terms and conditions, and terms of reference,satisfactory to the Bank (para 3.32);
(i) ED would abide by the procurement provisions for civil works,goods, and services (para 3.41 to 3.45);
(j) a special account would be set up, according to procedures satis-factory to the Bank, to speed up payment to civil works contractors(para 3.47);
(k) the ED would maintain a liaison office in Lima (para 4.01) and thatthe Bank would be consulted on any changes in the positions ofExecutive Director and Technical Director (para 4.07);
(1) ED would enter into satisfactory contractual agreements with INIPAand ONERN by June 30, 1983 (para 4.07);
(m) certified copies of audited accounts would be sent to the Bankwithin six months of the end of each fiscal year (para 4.08); and
(n) the ED would provide the Bank with: (i) a draft completion reportwithin six months of the project closing date (para 4.10), and (ii)annual reports within three months of the end of the fiscal year(para 4.11).
7.02 The conditions of loan effectiveness would be that: BAP hadentered into a satisfactory subsidiary loan agreement, with approved by-laws,covering the IFAD-supported credit component of the project; and that theIFAD loan agreement had been signed (para 4.04).
- 45 -
7.03 With the above assurances and conditions, the project would besuitable for a Bank loan of US$30.0 million, of which about US$443,000 is acapitalized front-end fee.
November 17, 1982
- 46 -
ANNE X 1
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Supporting Documents in Project File
1. FAO/World Bank CP Preparation Report No. 4/82 PERII dated 29 January,1982 (2 volumes) - includes list of laws impacting on the project.
2. Preliminary Feasibility Study on Yurongos Irrigation Scheme - "Proyectode Irrigacion Yurongos" - 3 volumes, by Proyecto Especial Alto Mayodated Moyobamba, May 1982.
3. Technical Report: "Soil, Conservation and Environmental Impact" byJ.E. Coaldrake, June 1982 (consultant to appraisal).
4. Technical Report: "Aguaruna Tribal Communities in Alto Mayo" byS. Romanoff, June 1982 (consultant to appraisal).
5. Staff Working Paper: "Access Roads Component," July 1982.
Aettea n 2111m
ALTO bAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENTPROJECT
Key todc Cotrs for KDi rotxn and iEIval;noO I!
Totroiret UbJetoinee Key QOerteedy Ircdiostor fodlraoetnefot OrtofM te,lostiocts
- levotoce loog-ierocoredit - RostYr of boon eppitostione - U=ti rest datetipoff - Rosero of boons hsdeaoOt) cFtooil ntepepsetiotooscto
- lsyrooo loco ;rooesolog - breskdoet of toorteere - Tesnnd foo oredieprovedorec - Mactinge of Credit tol2ttre
- Ereted frolgcted eoe - Rstebr te fevedled - Titer flf Vear- Rostber ftc Irrircted - Yield Ui rriRef ion- tticsobarRlan for esosi-socie -iStetiR of forTonoe
Leed Clf0
fiyg
-Mtistele deirlsteteltcond -tostbeoofreoieleord -dareereerYrsoneettoltkdeoneoleertoo prooredorer - teeter of ptree of seohiocoy -Rostber of sperroteteoeteitot
ore reitig oe doseo- ToclioRn toorsee rEfeped
ivooto itodf
- icrooot Rtltty ofsaotes -ficrofroed. PrYpertleoYsof ioipsi rtadreRds -ciih eoeioeer fog deeigos teicork Reihg scintosired
- isprote toed soiooeoeooe ooepletad - techl ferser teteflffed if reedsveptbititt if tie coofoipelitlec -ci wit spreceseot tonsorctiti too s0oved otdeo yrojeoi
iriticird -ote oitsl -eeelthet eteces proolded-ci rier onsrootiro tosrieted - Ucicffy of oied Mafoteteooc erofoe
- Es oF reed etfhchrseicled trooodedsallu oaiteiacte oerrtces -tAveraRe iesftt ot eelected rocds
- toiret sooth - EcLoteoeco ooetlks
- I 'st ee 'ItY
- CeoirdtoCl- 050 ee
- Prlreetoe of Octec grettos, - MActiee of local olfltee - Prodoofteity feotic for oropsIt order to erneofeeorew oreretfeeci MYneber fersere ederefeg orecrrioottorelireohefioec - Meeter of fcrs teoel cert- teoteiotes
-torocceae tee of sodero ftptLe etuteesfeoxteeieofcc - 00cc oleoted to o00p-teefat rarcete to obtici oredit -Roster of greotp esseteed - ScelfefotloT etch exteralot- forodUoo fsprooed fete scteageecc - tCrotoMh RtOrcusse
- itorrece ctfioiee coa=d dotreerh - Iodfotdoclly - Persers inesotefetteroerif eateoiot coerivce - Roster or roref orsfrt te log eceicted
- Roilcete ferRets noouse gRnotes oseqeste yrirosedt - lee of sodeto n lpoccod escTointioos to solve deoclon- -et vith onescsero - Perotiirsatiot of cicee tosent pritfea of to_snttit - ectt oofy eoekfoM ospita cc yodototove ro
-Roeterferseeeret-rdd n- SeoefsI ergroopSfor oCet- Ctiset gotti soetloga coooyeretie oTSoOiRP peojefte
- tester desoeetration pfoee - Aoeepteooe hispeon of toorftico.heihedooeofootrsielta
- Efteosfon tosporenti st/fsrr
- Adcpisileottloo ostittietes - yEiesoeteiterleYtteiittiot -neleosnoo ofrerpertseotsto eedssod tofefoct Ion YeotolYdts - Roster ttoroctvtioes plots of aseef fersere
to reRNlo - Roster -hersisene - Ratetatt serolose oteftsnoe td ice- teoestlgtetepoteenttalteeworepe fofo£teted of rececrot reeoles
.dr ... letles- toetioded - Ueeiifr if Teceerti tetfactoertkee- Teoteeo teotoiqoec to rercit - tester prof eesiooe stICfd
csnetoatble leongterfotieNPti- Ctontreotedtlon if region - Roster fteld fey, teld
Ittot Rotpyi
- tkprooe ontees ef ccil farcrrs -Rester cqll Cabrers osfIf -isee o Ch fe In - ffbitffe of soder-
- f..r...e.staeilfff of hlghte - tu-ryeror p es if ItotI-Recifty ple-t Ig -Ateril,I Rqoft- - rbser if foptt sotefy stores tosriieed tiesloel forofe fn tafIerprtijot Iref
be ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~h.t ll.d
- feprios tte otnesrge oi yreneo- -aostber or hssfii yesisfoesfth - Peotft1ee ft errs of toftonetoe ofttce ftesfttc enofes ecenre - Iteirfi post/renters
- isErone ete inyIctr if end - frtfeited - Roster of *edlsfa ontsoteertloeaceooeetooeursigee hesltt _-nonstrooeed - rrseeoouyeordYqpllryiofeererolston
servlees~~~~ to Coll ose - btes if stoces to sereloces-tiNetr ofthssfoopsosi teed- -UQsistYoPssdloslettsrtdsNes
aces Erefeed - eisQlit, of -ttsendstre.fetoe
- etoeRer oP fsslfes retsoed-P-rseV*eeo Of hesitttsttsed.otato r'etttrotisntef m ty - iosoltE suortoe for fissti pestteclh
0poet otetndntis
Corel octor tjnppjy
-tetpcndeteitehllftp of toed -toenbrec ter-eopplr sycocaR - Chenge IntIodeottiof ettet-brotnqutlity drfnkior ester to - lootet eela desgnerd Olnaseo... 1liurooeltotsauleeo- ntlattr ...... . Ch- m,ei ofd -- fdtleeieo itf free
-Rg dooelooIndeooeoCsofeate- -rosplotttedd fotinotloRnd odtfoisrstte-torte dlteaecetn rorlretooee -nduser of asctes oreretere -feb iporio o drlnki Irerl pioterlrie-rdeed-mitttd Vttfi f...c
- Roxstr of rseœemseroesliefo -lnvetsge oSf leratesroetite aeotnteeate to teet -oner5Rooeosf/ienrftielrf- etid - Olti, of 4,toteocore
- srinceths - Conopnittotypirt forefetes-oetago-oeetteifloter,- Uttttft of estnoeonone
- t-oniireopyoet for ID ree
- Intorese rotsrofearnreYtfcol - N0
er of sotools/ofes5roeise -rop-ontOoote for stodeotsaetrltoitiit oenetroortd - AoaIptenee end ore of neio irrvo-les
- Is prooo the toelttin efrors i - Roster of efotonts In aenoet - Oualteef ofCieooOetretologitrisetoosdeveifen - rotiroisiftloesittp -VCCCntoCO if irrened teacohere
- Cesootq ClysoVfotscptoli IT MAlOnTitI, of ectiif
- .r.e..et end foci dty uetfeteti-n
- tooatose the nortoes pre joon -fTlee Retween end of ret ortloR - Atoeroof releocoote ttselfneattofactivittes p~~~entodernd fasocoot of Year-
0oortetiryreptrfs
- totes trootess oftereroeto, nerlO neferi - Yf feitoseners if TO teoconoee fnirtweeno agentfee sod hetweon -tester if TD steff Cleft ilelte Identiftyfor end stoftetg yrihlessloosi, eotresnd fodeoell1stels tneoostszonth, foertet - Unciteref qoerCreryrryetteerad
-roreieretotnttroetd for tip ontonnRseevloetienrttorttOnotOittetOlutRtti - Unifier of reicntenehfr tetoero PT
- Title itt ot tolIUIOR - Roe er tillee ceroiffld - Tegree of treReteenttlo of hlty- toserO of ire Iteolved
1/ teefe fdcatore eo.l Ietoole on ocCure consenicy md irstoos err yVitr Io Atner I. Cehet ctyoponeor notlisted eotid te sotleot to orifeole to te deoneytop ty nth rerpeotfee
9trvcies envotted in isnIeseitteeoo
tFhttLoovoFtoevofooibt dtoO.r .. Lo<l 'tore ndNtitoO otooooCVofrttt.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Irrigation Componlent: Meteorological Data
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June JUIY A. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. AnnualTepEerature i n C (1964-79) I/
Maximum Average 27.1 27.2 97.2 27.5 27.6 27.4 27.1 27.4 27.6 27.9 27.8 27.3 27.4
Average 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.7 22.6 22.1 21.6 22.4 22.4 22.8 22.9 2Z2.9 22.5
Minimum Average 17-9 18.2 18.2 17.9 17.5 16.7 15.9 i6.2 16.8 17.7 18.0 18.0 17.4
Frequency of LowTemperatures 2/ 4/12 3/14 3/13 4/13 4/13 6/12 11/13 12/13 8/12 6/12 2 13 2/12
Relative Humidity
Monthly Average 87 87 87 87 86 86 86 84 85 85 86 86 86
Evapotranspiration (mm) /
E,T.O. Daily 3/ 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 l
Average monthly and Annual Precipitation (mm)
Moyobemba 140 107 153 131 88 74 59 59 111 131 120 106 1.279Jopolacio 141 126 203 154 97 91 75 87 133 160 137 121 1 525Soritor 158 150 209 181 145 94 75 98 118 172 166 177 I1 743Rioja 4/ 140 144 175 160 120 82 82 77 116 165 '54 122 1.537Yuracyacu (64-76) 112 86 127 135 96 81 67 66 80 126 85 93 1,149Naranjillo (75-79) i14 86 177 142 114 86 87 92 106 151 178 120 1,453
Monthly and General Probabilij_ty(m)
Rioja 4/ 2 0/ 188 209 223 214 163 119 109 H1I 169 220 204 155 170550% 140 143 175 159 120 82 82 77 116 165 !54 122 1,5318 07 92 78 126 105 77 45 55 43 84 Ill 105 90 1,358
Days With Precipitation: Monthly and Annual Average
Rioja 14.1 13.? 15.5 14.8 11.5 9.5 10.0 10.8 12.6 13.9 12.5 12.9 151.3
1/ 3ioja2/ Number of months of the 1964-77 period in which the absolute minimum dropped belovw 15 C (e.g. 4 events in 12 etc.)3/ Calculated by Blaney-Criddle method - FAO Handbood 24.4/ Without July to December, 1974 values which appear unreliable.
June 7, 1982 9
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Irrigation Component: Average Monthly River and Canal Flows
1980 1981
Extremes--
Oct. Nov. Dcc. Jan. Feb. Mar. Agr. Maiy June July Aug. Set Oct. Nov. Dec. Peak Low
A. Rivers
Maranjo 29.0 37.0 44.0 17.5 32.3 10.8 15.2 13.7 37.6 32.5 23.9 99.9 7.3
_ _ _. - (6) (7) (10) (10) (14) (12) (10) (9) (6) (8) (1) _ _
Tumbano _ _ _ 2.0 2.2 4.0 5.2 3.7 4.9 2.5 3.2 2.1 5.1 7.2 4.2 17.4 -
_ _ - (3) (7) (12) (13) (10) (15) (12) (9) (8) (7) (8) (1) _ _
lalanjillo - _ 25.0 26.0 27.0 40.0 26.1 47.2 17.8 18.9 13.7 18.9 16.6 11.6 105.1 7.4
_ _ ~ - (12) (12) (15) (12) (15) (16) (58) (50) (9) (8) (10) (1) _ _
Soritor 12.6 7.2 10.2 8.6 13.2 13.7 12.4 9.7 15.0 7.2 8.5 10.3 11.4 11.4 15.3 32.9 3.2
(6) (2) (4;) (11) (13) (17) (13) (14) (16) (18) (10) (8) (7) (9) (1)__
Yuracyacu 3.8 18.2 27.3 20.0 14.7 16.2 16.2 12.9 14.8 5.5 5.4 4.2 8.3 7.1 13,1 40.0 2.2
(6) (4) (2) (14) (22) (26) (20) (23) (24) (19) (19) (26) (25) (25) (3) - -
Negro 23.9 12.1 13.0 11.0 15.4 20.0 20.0 20.8 18.1 15.5 17.4 16.3 16.3 18.3 19.4 28.3 7.9
(1) (1) (2) (8) (10) (20) (17) (14) (20) (19) (12) (12) (8) (11) (3) - -
Roimero - - - 4.4 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.7 10.5 1.5
_ - - (7) (11) (17) (30) (16) (17) (20) (12) (8) (12) (11) (12) - -
Uquihua - 2.0 - 2.1 1.7 7.0 7.0 7.8 6.5 3.0 1.5 1.4 3.5 2.2 2.5 20.2 0.6
- (6) - (6) (6) (20) (16) (11) (15) (19) (12) (12) (6) (18) (1) - -
Tonchima 89.0 51.0 38.0 23.0 102.0 103.0 79.0 57.2 82.6 40.6 44.7 45.4 38.1 136.5 44.4 430.9 14.4
(3) (1) (3) (9) (12) (20) (14) (12) (20) (19) (13) (12) (6) (7) (1) - -
Indoche - - - - - - - 17.7 12.6 7.0 5.3 8.4 7.7 17.8 12.4 57.4 2.0
(6) (11) (14) (13) (18) (4) (8) (1) _
B. Canals
La Union - - - 0.40 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.36 0.27 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.29 0.26 0.54 -
M-chc - - (16) (22) (26) (20) (23) (24) (24) (19) (26) (25) (25) (3) - ±MichucoMichuco - 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.92 0.97 0.79 0.61 0.46 0.80 0.68 1.43 -e
- (1) (1) (18) (14) (17) (19) (23) (24) (24) (19) (24) (21) (25) (3) _ -
1/ Peak and Lowest evcr recorded.
Jitne 7, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Irrigation Component: Cost Summary and Investment Schedule-
1 2 3 4 5 Total Financing
21 -------------------- (Soles million) --------------------I. Irrigation Schemes-
a. YuracyacuCivil Works Structures 46.0 46.0 46.0 47.0 - 185.0 Credit to commissionsLabor for canal alignment 31.0 31.0 31.0 32.0 - 125.0 Farmer contribution
Subtotal 77.0 77.0 77.0 79.0 - 310.0b. Expansion of Other Small Schemes
Civil Works Structures - 10.0 30.0 40.0 20.0 100.0 Credit to commissions
Labor for canal alignment - 8.0 22.0 30.0 15.0 75.0 Farmers contribution
Subtotal - 18.0 52.0 70.0 35.0 175.0
c. YorongosHeadwork and main canal - - - 637.9 - 637.9 Government financing - recovery through
water charges: 100 -/. over project life(20 years) at prevailing interest.
Civil works and structures - - - 56.6 56.6 113.2 Credit to commissions
Labor for canal alignment - - - 28.8 28.8 57.6 Farmers contribution
Subtotal - - - 723.3 85.4 808.7
Total Civil Works 46.0 56.0 76.0 781.5 76.6 1,036.1
Total Labor Canal Alignment 31.0 39.0 53.0 90.8 43.8 257.6
Total Cost 77.0 95.0 129.0 872.3 120.4 1,293.7
II. Irrigation District-/
Incremental Staffing 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 200.0 Public financingCivil Works 11.2 4.2 - - - 15.4
Vehicles and Equipment 102.5 - - - - 102.5 " "
Operation and Maintenance Cost 20.5 21.1 21.3 21.3 21.3 105.5 C"
Subtotal 174.2 65.3 61.3 61.3 61.3 423.4
III. TD Irrigation Group-/Incremental Staffing 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 35.0
Equipment 19.0 - - - - 19.0Operation and Maintenance 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 19.0
Subtotal 29.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 73.0
D River Gauging Station
Civil Works 7.3 3.8 - - - 11.1Equipment 10.1 6.1 - - - 16.2
Maintenance 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.7
Subtotal 17.7 10.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 30.0 w saq
l/ Physical Contingencies applied to Yurongos scheme: 20%.
2/ Operation and maintenance cost of irrigation schemes about 57. annually of cost starting upon completion of construction.
3/ See Table 4.4/ 1 hydraulic engineer, 1 topographer, 2 drivers, 2 sets of draining equipment, 3 sets of topographic equipment.
- 51 - Table 2
Page 2 of 2
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Schedule of Incorporating Land into Irrigation
Year
1 2 3 4 5 Total
… - - - - - (hectares) - - …
Small Scale Projects Through Credit
Yuracyacu
Improvement 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 - 4,000
New 800 800 800 800 - 3,000
Other Areas
New in native communities - - - 200 200
Other new - 200 300 400 400 1,300
Other improved - 100 300 400 200 1,000
Yorongos Scheme
Areas improved - - - 230 - 230
New areas - - 500 770 1,270
Sub-totals Improved Areas 1,000 1,100 1,300 1,630 200 5,230
New Areas 800 1,000 1,100 1,500 1,370 5,770
Total 1,800 2,100 2,400 3,130 1,570 11,000
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Irrigation Component: Yuracyacu Scheme Investments
Canals of Commissions
Alto Plan- Planta- Conste- Canaan
Union Galindona Michuco tano Yacu noyacu lacion -Morito Ucrania Huaro Total
I. StructuresHead works 33.1 7.7 33.1 7.7 7.7 12.0 7,7 15.0 7.7Measurement Structure 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 0.5 -Bridges - - 6.3 - - - -
Division Structures 3.0 3.0 5.6 - - - - - -
Culverts 0.2 - 1.7 - 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3
Lateral headcontrolers - gates 1.1 0.5 5.0 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 1.0
Sub-total 38.4 11.7 52.8 8.7 8.9 13.9 8.5 16.2 9.0Physical Contingencies
3.8 1.2 5.3 .9 .9 1.4 .9 1.6 .9
Sub-total 42.2 12.9 58.1 9.6 9.8 15.3 9.4 17.8 9.9 185.0
II. Earthwork'-/ 7.7 - 80.9 - 10 5 - 1.5 13.4 - 114.0
Total
299.0
1/ Only for canal improvement. This work would be carried out by farmers own labor and would not constitute credit. Assumes only50% of all inprovements would actually be made. I!
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Irrigation Component: Irrigation District Costs
(Million Soles)
1/ - - - - - - - - - Year - - __ __ _ _ _ _Activity - Units Unit Cost 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Incremental Staff CostsDirector 1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Agriculturalist 2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2Civil engineer 1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2Tecnicians 7 2.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Other specialists 7 1.1 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7Chaufers 3 1.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3Secretaries 3 1.2 3.6 3.6 3..6 3.6 3.6
Subtotal 40.0 4c.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 200.0Offices 2/ 2
Rioja loom2 0.07 7,0 _ -N. Cajamarca 60m 0.07 4.2 - - _ _m2Moyobamba 60m 0.07 - 4.2 - _ _
Subtotal 11.2 4.2 15.4Vehicles
Pickup 3 10.0 30.0 - _ _Motorcycles (2) 3/ 7 1.0 7.0 - - _ _Boat 1 4.5 4.5 _-__-
Subtotal 41.5 41.5Equipment
Office 3 10.0 30.0 - - - -Topographic 3 5.0 15.0 - - - -Technical 5 1.2 6.0 - - - -Measuring equipment 2 5.0 10.0 - - - -
Subtotal 61.0 - - - - 61.0
Total 44.2 40.0 40.0 40.0 317,
Operation and Maintenance Costs
20%7 vehicles/equipment 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.55% infrastructure - o.6 0.8 o.8 o.8
Subtotal 20.5 21.1 21.3 21.3 21.3 105.5
Grand total 423.4
1/ Values in parentheses reflect existing situation.2/ Rioja office shared with Extension service.3/ Rented from Technical Directorate.
- 54 - Tale 5
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOP1MENT PROJECT
Land Clearing Equipment: SENAMA
Equipment # UnitType Units Cost 1 2 3 4 5 Total
- - - - - - - - (Soles million) - - - - - - - - - - -
Crawler Tractor- 10 62 310(5) 186(3) 124(2) - - 620
Root Rake 10 6 30(5) 18(3) 12(2) - - 60
Shear Blade2/ 10 6 30(5) 18(3) 12(2) - - 60
Spares, Tools, 3Miscellaneous- 40 50 60 60 60 270
Base Cost 410 272 208 60 60 1,010Physical Contingencies 21 14 10 3 3 51
Total Cost 431 286 218 63 63 1,061
1/ Equivalent to D5B with guards for cab, radiator and hydraulic cylinders2/ Equivalent to type KGB blade31 Includes maintenance grinders for blades tractor spares and tools and spares for blades.
-55 - Table 6Page 1 of 3
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Access Roads: Estimated Costs of Improvements~~~~ ~(IJSS '000)
DescriptionLength (km) Road Cost
Contract Group I Improved New Total Type (US$'000)
1. Marginal-Perlamayo 1.0 6.3 7.3 I 6052. Marginal-Boca Soritor 9.0 - 9.0 I 585
3. San Fernando-Yuracyacul/ 3.5 1.5 5.0 I 5104. Marginal-Florida 1.2 2.8 4.0 I 320
5. Nueva Cajamarca-Ucrania 4.0 - 4.0 I 200
Sub Total 18.7 10.6 29.3 2,220
Contract Group 2
6. Marginal-Road 7 (belkw) 2.0 3.8 5.8 I 4657. Marginal-Yuracyacu 10.0 - 10.0 I/Il 550
8. Marginal-Posic 3.6 - 3.6 II 145
9. Posic-Rio MNegro - 7.4 7.4 I 59010. Rioja bypass - 1.8 1.8 I 7511. Rio4a-Nueva Tabalosos 10.0 8.7 18.7 I/I 1,105
Sub Total 25.6 21.7 47.3 2.930
Contract Group 3
12. Marginal-Riego Tangumi-Rio Mayo 5.0 9.0 14.0 I 865
13. Yantalo-Huascayacu - 9.0 9.0 I 450
14. 1joyobairba-Yantalo2/ 5.0 1.0 6.0 I 83015. Pto. Tahuisco-Mioyobamba 0.2 3.8 4.0 I 280
Sub Total 10.2 22.8 33.0 2,425
Contract Group 4
16. Road 17 (below) - Habana 1.4 - 1.4 II 90
17. Calzada-N. Esperanca 20.2 - 20.2 I/III 1,175
18. Moyebamba-N. San Miguel3/ 18.5 9.5 28.0 I/II _1940
Sub Total 40.1 9.5 49.6 3,205
Total 4 Groups 94.6 64.6 159.2 10,780
Eventual Gtoup
19. Marginal km 477-4 km south - 4.0 4.0 I 280
20. Habana-5 km west - 6.1 6.1 I 420
21. Road 1.7-Rio Indoche - 4.4 4.4 I 345
22. Calzada-Jct. Road 13 (above) - 7.5 7.5 I 565Sub Total - 22.0 22.0 1,610
Total All Groups 94.6 86.6 181.2 12,390e-=a3 ====C e=====t:z3
11 llc1u es T20 m bridge; 2/ Includes 40 m bridge; 3/ Includes 2 - 15 m brfdges.
November 10, 1982
- 56 -Table 6Page 2 oF-
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Access Roads: Tentative Equipment List
(US$)
EstimatedA. Maintenance Support Unit Cost (Us$)
1 - Motorgrader 80,0001 - Tractor dozer (D-4) 80,0002 - Wheel Tractors with loading buckets 60,0003 - Dump Trucks (4 cu.m) 90,0001 - Vibratory Roller (towed) 15,0001 - Steel Wheel Roller (towed) 10,0001 - Lubrication Trailer 15,0005 - 4 wheel drive pick-up trucks 50,000
Spare Parts " 60,000
Total 460,000
B. District Workforces (4 groups)
4 - Utility (tool) Trailers 16,0004 - Pedestrian Vibratory Rollers 24,0004 - Water Tank Trailers 20,0004 - Water Pumps (2-inch) 6,0004 - Motorcycles 6,00012 - Wheelbarrows 2,00012 - Sets Tools (shovels, picks, bars, rakes, etc.) 6,000
80,000Parts and Miscellaneous 10,000
Total 90,000
Total A + B 550,000
- 57 - Table 6
Page 3 of 3
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Access Roads: Maintenance Workshop Requirements(US$)
'Workshop Characteristics
Yard Area 100 m x 50 m (Fenced) 5 s°° °m 2
Shop Size 6 bays of 3 m x 7 m 126 m2I-bay used for office and parts storage 20 m2
1/2 bay used for tool storage 10 m2
Hard Stand 20 m x 8 m 160 m2
Fuel Storage Tank 500 gal
Estimated cost $ 100,000
Workshop Equipment and Tools
Mobile Air compressor 125 cfmMobile Welding Unit 200 amp
.Hydraulic Press 40 ton2-Trolley Jacks4-Bottle JacksVicesHand Electric Drill (1/2 inch)Hand Tools Estimated cost $ 50,000
Table 7- 58-
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Access Road: Proposed Standards
Road Types-/
I II III
Alignment Criteria
(a) Horizontal: Min. Curve follow followRadius = 12 m existing existing
alignment alignment(b) Vertical Grade to be 0.5 m higher than normal water level or
0.3 m higher than maximum water level, whichever controls.Road Width (m)
Surface 4.5 5.0 5.5Shoulders none none 0.75
Cross-Slope (%) 4% 4% surface 4%shoulder 10%
14.axiinum Grade (>2
Flat terrain 6% follow followRolling terrain 7% existing existingBroken terrain 8% grade grade
3/Stream CrossinSs-L Pipe culverts Pipe culverts Pipe culverts
Paved fords Paved fords Paved fordsSmall bridges Small bridges Small bridges
River Crossins 1-lane bridge 1-lane bridge I-lane bridge
Tl/Type I applies to new construction and existing road platform '-4.5 m wide;Type IT for existing road platforms 5.5 m to 6.0 m wide; Type III for exist-ing platform .b 8.0 m wide.
2/ Minimum grade 0.5%.
3/ Small bridges (L e- 10 m) only where depth of water makes paved fords im-practical.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Extension: Civil Works Investments
UnitUnit Cost 1 2 Total
(m2) (Soles '000)…
a. Zonal Center (Rioja)
Office Complex 200 75 15,000 - 15,000
Workshop 50 75 1,875 1,875 3,750
Housing Complex 280 100 18,000 10,000 28,000
Garage/Store 80 75 3,000 3,000 6,000
b. Extension Agencies (3)1/
Office Complex 80 75 9,000 9,000 18,000
Housing Complex 80 100 12,000 12,000 24,000
Garage 30 75 3,250 3,500 6,750
Stores 200 75 22,500 22,500 45,000
2/c. Extension Centers (4)
Entire Complex 100 75 15,000 15,000 30,000
Total Civil Works 99,625 76,875 176,500
1/ Nuevo Cajamarca, Rioja, Moyobamba. Possible savings in construction at Rioja due to construction
of zonal center.2/ Yuracyacu, Soritor, San Fernando and San Juan.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Extension: Equipment and Operating Costs
UnitUnits Cost 1 2 3 4 5 Total
(Soles '000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a. Vehicles!'
4WD Pick-up/Jeep 6 8,000 24,000 (3) 24,000 (3) - - - 48,000Motorcycles (125 cc) 18 1,000 10,000 (10) 8,000 (10) - - 18,000Motor boat 3 4,500 9,000 (2) 4,500 (1) - 13,500
Subtotal 43,000 36,500 - - - 79,500
b. Furniture and Equipment
0\
Office 8 2,000 8,000 8,000 - - - 16,000Field/Training 8 2,500 10,000 10,000 - _ 20,000
Miscellaneous2/ 8 1,000 4,000 4,000 - - - 8,000
Subtotal 22,000 22,000 - - - 44,000
c. Operating Costs
Civil Works 5% of investment 5,700 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 46,500Vehicles 20% of investment 7,200 13,800 13,800 13,800 13,800 62,400Office Materials 8 250/yr. 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 9,000
Subtotal 13,900 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 117,900
Total Costs 78,900 84,500 26,000 26,000 26,000 241,400
1/ Specific vehicles for native community work include are LWD pickup, two motorcycles and two boats.2/ In addition, based on consultant's recommendation, equipment would also be provided to the native communities from the budget of the
Technical Directorate as shown in Table
PERU
AlTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPPMENT PROJECT
Extension: Staff Requirements
------------------------ Year…------- --- - ----------------------------
No. Unit 1 2 3 4 5 TotalExisting Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost Cost
Zonal Headquarters - - - - -- - - - -rillion Soles) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Director 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 5.0 25.0Subject Matter Specialists 4 4.2 111/ 46.2 11 46.2 11 46.2 11 46.2 11 46.2 231.0Administrator - 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.1 15.5Livestock Tecnician 2 2.4 2 4.8 2 4.8 2 4.8 2 4.8 2 4.8 24.0
Secretary - 1.2 2 2.4 2 2.4 2 2.4 2 2.4 2 2,4 12.0Driver - 1.1 2 2.2 2 2.2 2 2.2 2 2.2 2 2.2 11.0Janitor 1 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.9 4.5
Extension Agencies
1. Moyobamba:
Agronomist 1 4.4 1 4.4 1 4.4 1 4.4 1 4.4 1 4.4 22 0Tecnician 5 2.4 8 19.2 8 19.2 9 21.6 13 31.2 13 31.2 122 4Secretary - 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 6.0Driver 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1,1 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 5.5
Agronomist 1 4.4 1 4.4 1 4.4 1 4.4 1 4.4 1 4.4 22.0Tecnician 3 2.4 6 14.4 6 14.4 7 16.8 10 24.0 10 24.0 93.6
Asst. Administrator 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 6.5Secretary 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 6.0Driver I 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 5.5
Guard 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 4.0
2/3. Nuevo Cajamarca -
Agronomist 1 4.4 2 8.8 2 8.8 2 8.8 2 8.8 2 8.8 44.0Tecnician 1 2.4 10 24,0 10 24.0 10 24.0 10 24.0 10 24.0 120.0Secretary - 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 6 3Driver - 1. 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.1 5.5
Total - total staff cost 148.8 148.8 153.6 170.4 170.4 79 .3
- incremental staff cost 106.3 106,3 111.1 127.9 127.9 579.5
Plus 10% Viaticos (on total) 14.9 14.9 15.4 17.0 17.0 79.2
Total Incremental Cost 121.2 121.2 126.5 144.9 144.9 658.7
1/ Includes are SMS in each of the following activities: soils, livestock, irrigation and drainage, mechanization,rice, maize, nursery and fruit crops, and sociology, in addition to a group of three individuals working
as a credit committee.2/ Includes two bilingual tecnicos and one agronomist to work exclusively with native communities.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Research: Civil Works Investment
#I UnitUnits Cost 1 2 Total
- (Soles '000) - … - - - -
a. Crop Station (Site to be selected)
Administration 160m 2 75 8,000 4,000 12,000
Library 75m2 75 3,000 2,625 5,625Technical Complex 35°m2 75 16,250 10,000 26,250Laboratories 200m 100 12,000 8,000 20,000
Service Complex: 2Stores 250m2 75 12,000 6,750 18,750Machinery Shed 200m2 75 9,000 6,000 15,000
Garage 80m2 75 4,000 2,000 6,000Security and Support 180m 75 8,000 5,500 13,500
Housing Complex: 2
Director 120m12 100 6,000 3,000 9,000Other 200m 100 14,000 6,000 20,000Cafeteria/Kitchen 150m 75 7,000 4,250 11,250
Water, Sewer 1 3,800 3,800 - 3,800
Miscellaneous:Experimental Areas 3 40,000(total)23,000 17,000 40,000
Internal Roads 12,000 7,000 5,000 12,000Land Purchase 40 ha 1,500 60,000 - 60,000
Subtotal 193,050 80,125 273,175Physical Contingencies (15%) 28,950 12,025 40,975
Total (Crop Station) 222,000 92,150 314,150
b. Livestock Unit (Calzada)
Office/Technical Complex 250 75 12,000 6,750 18,750Livestock Buildings/Stores 400 50 12,000 8,000 20,000Housing - Director 120 100 12,000 - 12,000
Miscellaneous 200 50 6,000 4,000 10,000
Subtotal 42,000 18,750 60,750Phvslcal. Continvenciea (15x) 630 2 8009 0
Total (Livestock Station) 48,300 21,550 69,850
Total (Research) 235,050 98,875 333,925
- 63 - Table 12
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Research: Veli- es, Equipment and Machinery
UnitUnits Cost 1 2 Total
- - - (Soles '000) - - - - - - -
a. Crop Station
Vehicles
Pick up 4WD 5 8,000 24,000(3) 16,000(2) 40,000Carry all/Suburban 1 14,000 14,000 - 14,000Motorcvcles (125 cc) 9 1,000 6.000(6) 3,000(3) 9.000
Subtotal (Vehicles) 44,000 19,000 63,000
Farm Machine7
Crain drier 1 17,000 17,000 - 17,000Grain cleaner 1 12,700 12,700 - 12,700Thresher 1 9,000 9,000 - 9,000Cultivator 1 5,000 5,000 - 5,000Tractor 4WD (25-35hp) 2 10,500 21,000 - 21,000Sprayers 5 1,700 8,500 - 8,500Discs 2 1,500 3,000 - 3,000Weigh Scales Set 3,000 3,000 - 3,000Electrical Equipment (20kw) 1 10,200 10,200 - 10,200Pump (5") 1 8,000 8,000 - 8,000Trailer (2 ton) 1 1,400 1,400 - 1,400Miscellaneous 1/ 1 5,000 5,000 - 5,000
Subtotal (Farm machinery) 103,800 - 103,800
Furniture and Equipment
Office Set 23,000 14,000 9,000 23,000Laboratory Set 41,000 30,000 11,000 41,000Publication/Mass Media Set 17,000 13,000 4,000 17,000
Subtotal (Furniture/Equipment) 57,000 24,000 81,000
Subtotal (Crop Station)-Base Costs 204,800 43,000 247,800Physical Contingency (5E) 10,200 2,200 12,400
Total Costs 215,000 45,200 260,200
b. Livestock Station (Calzada)
Vehicles - Pick up (2WD) 2 8,000 8,000(1) 8,000(1) 16,000Electrical Equipment (5kw) Set 4,000 4,000 - 4,000Office Furniture/Equipment Set 10,000 5,000 5,000 10,000Laboratory Equipment Set 10,000 5,000 5,000 10,000Field Trails 2/ 30 6,000 90,000(15) 90,000(15) 180,000Scale 1 10,000 - 10,000 10,000Miscellaneous 1 3,000 3,000 _ 3,000
Subtotal (Livestock)-Base Costs 115,000 118,000 233,000Physical Contingency (5%) 5,800 5,900 11,700
Total Costs 120,800 123,900 244,700
Total Research 319,800 161,000 480,800
1/ Includes two-wheel drive tractors (IRRI-type) for testing.2/ Testing of dual purpose cattle production scheme on 30 x 40 ha farms. Initial
investment includes: 10 cows or in-calf heiges (3 Zebu x Swiss), one bull,improvement of pasture throughout, but intensively on a 5 ha block, 0.5 km newfencing, construction of a cattle shed, and veterinary and milking equipment.
3/ Includes funds for metereological equipment for SENAMA I to be located on thetwo centers.
PERU
PJ.TO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPENT PRO.IECT
Research: Oper n Costs (Excld Salaries and Wages)
… Year…- - - - - - - - - - Ye.,
i 2 3 4 5 Total… - - ~ ~ ~- - -(Sules '000) _--
Operating Coats (Exc1clud Saines & Wagss)
1. 0114 of vehicles euipent machnry(52% of investment)
- Crop Station 43,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 251,000- Livestock Station 5,250 11,150 11,150 11,150 11,150 49,850
Subtotal 48,250 63,150 63,150 63,150 63,150 300,850
2. Office Materials and Supplies
- Crop Station 2.500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 12,500- Livestock Station 1,000 _ .ooo 1,000 1,ooo 1,ooo 5,000
Subtotal 3,500 3,500 3,500 3.500 3,500 17,500
3. Buildine Maintenansce (5% ofinvestment)
- Crop Station 11,100 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 73,900- Livestock Station 2,400 3,500 3.500 3.500 3.500 16,400
Subtotal 13,500 19,200 .19,200 19,200 19,200 90,300
4. Laboratorv Material s
- Crop Station 4,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 27,000- Livestock Station 1_500 2 000 2.000 2.000 . 9500
Subtotal 5,500 7,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 36,500
5 LibrarY Pblications andS_tbscriptions
- Crop Station 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000- Livestock Station 300 300 300 300 300 1,500
Subtotal 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 6,500
6 Field and Promotional l_M&rjaLs*
Crop Station 4,500 6,500 7,500 8.500 8,500 35,500- Livestock Station 1,500 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 11,000
Subtotal 6,000 8,500 10,000 11,000 11,000 46,500
7. Miscellaneoos_
- Crop Station 5,000 6,700 6,800 6,900 6.900 32,300- Livestock Station 800 1,500 _ _1,600 1,600 1_,00 00
Subtotal 5,800 8,200 8,400 8,500 8,500 39,400
Total Costs
- Crop Station 71,100 89,400 91,500 92,600 92,600 437,200- Livestock Station 12,/50 21,450 22,050 22,050 72,050 100,350
Subcoial 8,w0 l[0,850 113,550 I14,650 i14,650 537,550
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAI, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Research - Staff eiuirements-/
Year
No. Unit 1 2 3 4 5Position _xisting Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost Total Cost
- - - - - - - - (Million Soles) - --
Director 1 5.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 50.0Agronomist 2 4.2 8 33.6 8 33.6 8 33.6 8 33.6 8 33.6 168.0Veterinarian 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 21.0Animal Scientist - 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 21.0Livestock Technicians 2/ 1 2.4 6 14.4 8 19.2 8 19.2 8 19.2 8 19.2 91.2Laboratory Technicians - 2.4 - - 3 7.2 3 7.2 3 7.2 3 7.2 28.8Laborers - Permanent 2 1.1 12 11.0 17 16.5 17 16.5 17 16.5 17 16.5 77.0
- Seasonal - 0.7 10 7.0 10 7.0 10 7.0 10 7.0 10 7.0 35.0Drivers/Tractor Operators - 1.1 1 1.1 4 4.4 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 22.0Administrator - 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.1 15.5Assistant - 1.3 2 2.6 2 2.6 2 2.6 2 2.6 2 2.6 13.0Secretaries - 1.2 4 4.8 4 4.8 4 4.8 4 4.8 4 4.8 24.0Mechanic - 2.4 1 2.4 1 2.4 1 2.4 1 2.4 1 2.4 12.0
Total - total staff cost 98.4 119.2 120.3 120.3 120.3 578.5
- incremental staff cost 87.7 108.5 109.6 109.6 109.6 525.0
Plus 10% Viaticos (on total) 9.8 11.9 12.0 12.0 12.1 57.8
Total Incremental Cost 97.5 120.4 121.6 121.6 121.7 582.8
1/ Includes staff at Crop and Livestock Stations. Livestock staff comprise - Director (1), Veterinarian (1), Animal Scientist (1), Livestock aTechnicians (8), Laboratory technician (1), permanent laborers (3), driver (1), assistant administrator (1), ecretary (1).
2/ Peruvian delegation to negotiations noted that number of livestock technicians should be raised by furhter six. This increase would haveto be substantiated/confirmed in the final budget requests submitted by INIPA.
November 17, 1982
- 66 - Table 15
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Storage -/
Proposed Unit YearLocation Unit Cost 1 2 Total
(tons) ------------(Soles '000)------------
Rioja 1,500 60 90,000 - 90,000
Moyobamba 1,500 60 - 90,000
Total 3,000 90,000 90,000 180,000
1/ Construction concept involves 500 ton modules to facilitate future expansion.Stores to be used primarily for maize and fertilizers. which will bekept in separate modules.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Fisheries Component
… - - - - - - - - - …Year - - - - -Unit
Units Cost 1 2 3 4 5 Total- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Soles '000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A. Investments
1. Civil Works(a) Marona Station
- Fencing 1,800 1,800 - - - - 1,800- Roads 4,000 4,000 - - - - 4,000- Service Infrastructure 1/ 120m
275 9,000 - - - - 9,000
- Fish Tanks 10 850 8,500 - - - - 8,500- Collector canal/secondary
drains 730.2
6,000 4,400 - - - - 4,400- Water Supply 4,800 4,800 - - - - 4,800- Development of Rice Fisheries
area 5Om2
75 3,750 - - - - 3,750Subtotal 36,150 - - - - 36.150(b) Mashuyacu 2/
- Improvement of Access Road 3,600 - 3,600 - - - 3,600- Service Infrastructure 3/ 1OOmZ 75 - 7,500 - - - 7,500- Fish Tanks 6 850 - 5,100 - - - 5,100- Rehabilitation of dyke 13,500 - 13,500 - - - 13,500
Subtotal - 29,700 - - - 29,700
Total Civil Works 36,150 29,700 - - - 65,850
2. Vehicles and Equipment(a) Marona
- Office and Laboratory Equipment 7,500 7,500 - - - - 7,500- Carryall 4WD 1 14,000 14,000 - - - - 14,000- Feed Plant 1 5,500 5,500 - - - - 5,500- Electrical Equipment lOkw 6,000 6,000 - - - - 6,000- Tools and Miscellaneous Set 2,500 2,500 - - - - 2,500
Subtotal 35,500 - - - - 35,500(b) Mashuyacu
- Office and Laboratory Equipment 3,000 - 3,000 - - - 3,000- Electrical Equipment 2kw 2,000 - 2,000 - - - 2,000- Pick-up 4WD 1 8,000 - 8,000 - - - 8,000- Tools and Miscellaneous Set 2,500 - 2,500 - - - 2,500
Subtotal - 15,500 - - - 15,500
Total Vehicles and Equipment 35,500 15,500 - - - 51,000
B. Incremental Operating Expenses
1. Incremental Staff 4/ H- Technician - Morona 2 2,400 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 24,000
- Mashuyacu 1 2,400 - 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 9,600Subtotal 4,800 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 33,6002. Operation and Maintenance
- Civil Works 5% of investment 2,100 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 17,300- Vehicles 20% of investment 1, 600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 8,000Subtotal 3,700 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 25,300
Total Operating Expenses 8,500 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 58,900
1/ Office, laboratory, guard post, insulation tanks and aquaria.2/ Site selection to be reviewed by civil enigineer.3/ Office, laboratory, and store.4/ Staff to provide technical assistance for farm pond scheme, as well as work on the stations.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Forestry Component
… --- --- Yea… Unit
Units Cost 1 2 3 4 5 Total('000) - - -…(Soles million) - -=
A. Investments
1. Civil Works(a) Foresry District
- Main Office (Rioja) 802
75 6.0 - - 6.0- Office Nuevo Cajamarca 6Dm
275 - 4.5 - - 4.5
- Office Moyobamba 60m2
75 - 4.5 - - 4.5(b) Forestry Police Controls
- Aguas Verdes 40m2
75 3.0 - - - - 3.0- Pacayzapa 40m
275 3.0 - - 3.0
Subtotal (Civil Works) 12.0 9.0 - - - 21.0
2. Vehicles and Equipment(a) Regional Directorate
- Carryall 4WD 1 14.0 14.0 - - - - 14.0- Motorcycles (125cc) 3 1.0 2.0 1.0 - - - 3.0
(b) Forestry District- Carryall 4WD 1 14.0 14.0 - - - - 14.0- Pick-up 1 8.0 8.0 _- - 8.0- Motorboat 1 4.5 4.5 - - - - 4.5- Motorcycle (125cc) 10 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 - 10.0- Basic Equipment Set 10 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 - 10.0
(c) Forestry Police- Carryall 4WD I 14.0 14.0 - - - - 14.0- Motorboat 2 4.5 9.0 - - - - 9.0- Motorcycle (125cc) 8 1.0 8.0 - - - - 8.0- Basic Equipment Set 12 0.5 6.0 - - - - 6.0
Subtotal (Vehicles and Equipment) 89.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 - 100.5
Total Investments 101.5 12.0 4.0 4.0 - 121.5
B. Incremental Operating Expenses
1. Incremental Staffing(a) Regional Directorate
- Forestry Engineer 1 4.2 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 21.0- Forestry Technician 1 2.4 _ 2.4(1) 2.4(1) 2.4(1) 2.4(1) 9.6- Secretary 1 1.2 1.2(1) 1.2(1) 1.2(1) 1.2(1) 1.2(1) 6.0
(b) Forestry District- Forestry Engineer 1 4.2 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 4.2(1) 21.0- Forestry Technician 8 2.4 7.2(3) 9.6(4) 14.4(6) 19.2(8) 19.2(8) 69.6- Secretary 3 1.2 1.2(1) 3.6(2) 3.6(2) 3.6(2) 3.6(2) 15.6- Driver I 1.1 1.1(1) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 9.9- Peons 1 1.0 1.0(1) 4.0(4) 6.0(6) 8.0(8) 8.0(8) 27.0
Subtotal (Staffing) 20.1 31.4 38.2 45.0 45.0 179.7
2. Operation and MaintenanceCivil Works 5% of investment 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 4.0Vehicles and Equipment 20% of investment 17.9 18.5 19.3 20.1 20.1 95.9
Subtotal 18.5 19.3 20.1 21.0 21.0 -99.9
Total Operating Expenditures 38.6 50.7 58.3 66.0 66.0 279.6
C. Studies and Promotions (INFOR/District Personnel
Inventory; Wood Production Survey; ExtensionProgram: Pilot Fnrest Management Plans; PublicAwareness Program (para 3.26d) 37.0 37.0 64.0 64.0 10.0 212.0
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Health Component: Investments 1/
- -Year r- - - - - - - -Unit
Units Cost 1 2 3 4 Total- - - - - - - - - - - - - (Soles million) - - - - - - - -… - -…
Primary Health_Care Support
1. Civil Works- Health Centers 2/ lx
7 40Om2 0.090m2 133.2(2) h6.6(1) 66.6(1) - 266.4
- Health Posts- New - - in towns 3/ 7xl
25m2 0.07
5/m2 28.2(3) 9.4(1) - 28.2(3) 65.8
- - in tribal areas 4/ 2xl25m2 0.050/1m2 6.3(1) - 6.3(1) - 12.6- Completion - in towns 5/ 1 1.8 1.8(1) - - - 1.8
- in tribal areas 5/ 1 1.5 1.5(1) - - 1.5- Water and Sanitation - H. Center 4 3.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 - 12.0
- H. Posts ll 1.8 9.0 3.6 t.8 5.4 19.8- Rural Water Systems
- Conduction - new 6/ 7 36.1 72.2(2) 108.3 72.2(2) - 252.7- improved 7/ 5 19.2 38.4(2) 19.2(1) 19.2(1) 19.2(1) 96.0
- manual pump 8/ 65 0.4 5.6(14) 7.2(18) 7.6(19) 5.6(14) 26.0- Letrines 3,000 0.01 7.5(750) 7.5(750) 7.5(750) 7.5(750) 30.0Total (Civil Works) 309.i 224.8 184.2 65.9 784.6
2. Equipment and Vehicles
- Ambulance 9/ 2 15.0 15.0(1) 15.0(1) -- -3 0.0- lealth Center
- Electrical Unit 1/ 4 5.5 11.0(2) 5.5(1) 5.5(1) - 22.0- Furnitrure/Equipment 1/ 4 57.0 114.0 57.0 57.0 - 228.0 o'- Radios (2-way) 4 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 - 4.0
- Health Posts- Electrical Equipment 1/ 10/ 15 1.4 14.0(10) 1.4(1) 1.4(1) 4.2(3) 21.0- Furniture/Equipment 1/ 10/ 15 6.8 68.0 6.8 6.8 20.4 102.0- Radios 15 1.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 15.0- Miscellaneous in tribal areas 11/ - - 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0
Total (Equipment and Vehicles) 238.0 91.7 76.7 35.6 442.0
3. Grand Total (Health) 12/ 547,7 316.5 260.9 101.5 1,226.6
1/ Units based on proposed Bank-assisted First Health Project for Peru, appraisal report under preparation. HealthCenter equivalent to Type "B" (includes surgical facilities).
2/ Year I - Nuevo Cajamarca and JIepelacio; Year 2 - Yuracyacu; Year 3 - Soritor. Each unit includes living accomodations fordoctor and two staff (lOOm
2). Costs per m2 higher than health posts constructed with local materials since certain areas
will be constructed with improved materials.3/ Year I - Yantalo, Yurongos, Posic; Year 2 - Tambo; Year 3 - San Fernando, San Juan, San Marcos.
Each unit includes 25m2 for living quarters.4/ Year I - Shimpiyacu; Year 3 - El Dorado.5/ Atunplayo (town), Bajo Naranjillo tribal community.6/ Year 1 - San Marcos, San Ferniando; Year 2 - Yantalo, Rabana, La Union; Year 3 - Yurongos, Tehuantinsuyo. Total cost of seven
units = S/. 252.52 million, ranging between S/. 27.1 million - S/. 43.5 million depending on extent and type of works required.Details in project file. Investments for native communittes included in budget of Technical Directorate (Table 20).
7/ Year I - Nuevo Cajamarca, Posic; Year 2 - Soritor; Year 3 - Yuracyacu; Year 4 - Calzada, Unit costs vary between S/. 13.6 million- S/. 27.6 million (project file).
8/ List of 20 communities (13 townships, 7 tribal areas) in project file. Additional support to tribalareas described in para 3.37.
9/ Yurongos and Nuevo Cajamarca.10/ All (15) health posts in area to be equipped.1i/ Vaccination program for tribal communities Soles 4.0 million per year for five years.12/ Excluding training shown in Table 23.
0 to 0
-.0. toj to to otooc -. oOtooooto0o1 OoOototoOtoO to toototoOto tototototooto to tototototo to Ototo 0001000 totoooOtoOoOO)to to
'0totootototo'0toto.-'o'0.-.to'Otoototototototoototototototototototototoototototoo oto.ooooto.4'ototototototoototo.Otototototototototototototototototototototototototo 0 00 to
I to Oto ootototototototototototototototo to to to tototototototototototototototototototo to to to toOto 0
tIll to tototo 00 oto 01100 B�
to toto .400 to to Ototo tototo-Oto to .to 040 to 0 OtoIto to II 0 000
to1 I Ototototo titottttlt too tittiti tootot I- Ittltitotl 00.0 I totoototot Iltottiti 041 tIll Ototot Ito itlilitotl to toOCtItoto-toto 00 to to to to to to to to to 0 0.000
0 to to 01 toO4 0 00 toto 00 to to to 0 tototo to Oto toto toO to .001000010. . . . . . . ooOoOtoto
0 "40 LtIttItot4ttttotllttt to--I titolit totottotot toOl III Ito itiltltot'OtIttotttIII tototol Iltotli tototto'Ot Itotol tilt- to 00 toto .00 0 to to to tooto to totototototo to to
0-' 0 to to0 0 0-.ttoto 00
0 000 t 00
0 Otoo'�M
to toto oto to to to to 00 to to 0 to 0 000
o o00o�t.
to to 0 00 0.0'-
0 -� 0 2,> 0 1 .zS 1 ASZJS22 0 0 � t tot
0000*0
.4 01 oototototoooo'0 too otootototototoOtotoooO.Otoootototototototootototo0ltototototototototototo0tto 000 otoot
000,0 Ototo
OF-to 0 Oto 0'
.0 ,t 00 00000
0 0 0 000 0 00
0 top top to 0 0 toj B 0 '��t�t0
o0
0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 to 0 0 0 -0 0. 0 OOOOOtoO4to0 0 0 0 0 0 to to to 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to 0 0 000000to0 0 -I 0 0 0 4 tototoo.� 0 to 0 0 to 0 0 0 It toto toto to. 0 0�toto0'to00�toto
0 0000 0 otoVtoolotlto.to[oo 0 0 to 00 00 00 tol.. to� 010 0 I000�I b0to0OC toto�-.-, to� to�t.t 00 0 '� 0 0000 to001ootoltoVtoltoto 0 010
to' 0 000 "0 000 0 000 000 10 000000 0 1000.ooo.o-.Otoo 0000000 ooootoo 0 00 000000000 0 OtoOo toO 0000000 0000toto 0 0 0000
00 00 0001,0 0 OOototOOOOtoO 0000..000000.000..'00.00 0 '00 00 001000 0 I'OtotocoOOotoO 00 to 00000 0001000 � 0 �toto0 to 0 0to00 Ototo 00 00 Ototo 00000000000 0 ooototo0o 0 0 to oto 0 000 0000 �" 0 � to 0 to 0 too 00.000 1000000toO:j � � 0.0.0 C-tO 00 -00,0000.00 000000000 0 00 00.0 0'00 00 to0000000 000000000000 000- 0 00 00 000
.0 000to'000000 000 1000o0000 000.0000000 to OtototodO 0 .00.000.000000000 00000000000000.00 0001 Oootooo 000000000000000000000 OtootoOotoOootoOto 00000000000to0000 000 000000000000 OOOtoOOoO00
000000000000000-4toOOO to 0 oOto 00000
000.000.4.I0.tototo'0Ototo 0100 toO',totottototototo 00 .
tot- 0000000 0O0.0.to .000,4.400000000000 0 000000000
to to 'I
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Education Technical Data
No. of Project ProjectSchools New Facilities _ Students
New or Actual 1986 New Total EnrollmentExisting 1/ Re_nostruction Classrooms 2/ Other 3/ Enrollment 4/ Estimate Places in Shifting 5/
Schucshuyacu 1 (4) 1 - 3 185 518 333 398Jepelacio 1 (6) 1 2 - 380 508 128 390Marona 1 (2) - 3 3 150 421 271 323Yantalo 1 (4) - 2 4 271 522 251 402Calzada 1 (7) - 2 2 510 618 108 47 5Habana 6/ 1 (5) - 3 3 320 505 185 388Soritor 4 (25) - 5 5 1,036 1,458 422 1,122Nueva Esperanza 6/ 1 (2) 1 - 2 147 260 113 200San Marcos 6/ 1 (3) 1 _ 1 145 302 157 232Nuevo Tabalosos 1 (2) 1 - 1 79 239 160 184Yorongos 1 (6) - 3 2 261 461 200 355Posic 1 (3) 1 - - 124 189 65 145Flor del Valle 1 (1) - 2 3 46 153 107 118Tambo 6/ 1 (3) 1 - 1 160 320 160 246El Porvenir 1 (4) - 3 2 152 363 211 279Segunda Jerusalem 1 (7) - 3 2 313 379 66 292Azunguillo 1 (4) - 1 2 128 225 97 173Sinamal I (1) - 3 1 48 72 24 55Valle Grande 1 (4) - 2 2 135 302 167 232 -Yuracyacu 1 (8) - 5 2 525 818 293 629Ucrania 1 (2) 1 - 2 131 430 299 330Florida 1 (2) - 2 3 35 45 10 35Nuevo Cajamarca 1 (11) 2 - - 1,000 2,099 1,099 1,614Plantanoyacu 1 (1) 1 - 2 53 195 142 150Patria Nueva 1 (1) - 2 2 50 99 49 76San Fernando 1 (7) 1 4 2 550 1,845 1,295 1,420Tahuantinsuyo 1 (3) 1 - 2 180 445 265 342Perla Mayo 1 (2) 1 - 2 62 201 139 155Santa Clara I (1) _ 2 2 38 51 13 39Palestina 1 (1) - 2 3 72 147 75 113Leticia 1 (1) - 2 3 39 43 4 33La Union 1 (7) - 1 2 280 421 141 324Perla de Daguas 1 (1) - 2 3 60 185 125 142San Juan 1 (6) 1 - 2 294 439 149 338BaJo Naranjillo 7/ 1 (1) - 2 3 60 60 - 60Shampuyacu 7/ - (1) 1 - 2 30 30 - 30Alto Mayo 7/ - (1) 1 - 2 35 35 _ 35Alto Naranjillo 7/ - (1) 1 - 2 25 25 _ 25Shimpiyacu 7/ - (I) 1 - 2 33 33 - 33San Rafael 7/ - (1) 1 - 2 26 26 - 26Morroyacu 7/ - (1) 1 - 2 33 33 - 33huascayacu 7/ -(I) 1 - 2 30 30 - 30El Dorado 7/ 1 - 2 30 30 - 30
Total 38 23 58 90 8,261 15,580 7,319 12,051
1/ Existing facilities in some instances will be replaced. Values in parenthesis reflect classrooms in use, some of which would be replaced.2/ Ratio I classroom: 35/40 pupils. Classrooms in addition to complete new school model (6-8 classrooms).3/ Housing, kitchens, multi-purpose rooms, letrines, office.4/ 1982 Estimate of Regional Office of Ministry of Education.5/ Assume 30% double shifting except on native communities.6/ Data on enrollment estimated in part.7! Native communities.
Source: Ministry of Education, Moyobamba and TD, March 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Unittlnit Cost 1 2 3 4 5 Total
… - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Soles '000) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. Civil Works
Office Complex- Moyobamba 50Dm
275 37,500 - - 37,500
- Nuevo Cajamarca 200m275 - 15,000 - - 153500Housing 7xl00m 2
100 70,000 - - - - 70,000Dormitories 3xl00m 2
75 15,000 7,500 - - - 22.500Miscellaneous!2 5% 6,250 1,250 - - - 7,500Tribal Community Support-- Casa Nativa 200m 2
50 5,000 5,000 - - - 10,000- OAAM Office- Miscellaneous 3,000
lOOm2
30 250 500 500 500 500 2.2502 Subtotal 134,000 32,250 500 500 500 167,750
2. Vehicles and Equipment
Pick-up 4WD 5 8,000 16,000 16,000 8,000 - - 40,000Carry all 4WD 3 14,000 14,000 28,000 - - 42,000Jeep 4WD 5 7,000 14,000 14,000 7,000 - - 35,000Motorcycles (1
25cc) 3/ 7 1,000 2,000 3,000 2,000 - - 7.000
Electrical Equipment-3/ 5kw 4,000 3,000 1,000 - 7- 4000Office Equipment 2 15,000 5,000 - - 20,000Miscellaneous 41 5% 3,200 3,400 900 - -Tribal Community Support-/ 9 10,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 90.000Subtotal - L_ - 800 1,0 8009,085,200 88,400 35,900 18,000 18,000 245,500
Total Cost 219,200 120,650 36,400 18,500 18,500 413,250
Interior roads, garages, stores, etc., at Moyobamba and Nuevo Cajamarca (5% of base excl. native communities).2/ Coordinated, and contracts awarded, by Technical Directorate. Casa Nativa ini Moyobamba for storage and office ,iear market
and river. OMM office for administration and coordination, located in Bajo Naranjillo. Miscellaneous includes footpathimprovements (five communities) etc.
3/ Year I Moyobamba, Year 2 Nuev,, Cajamarca.4/ For example, micro-computer hardware and software materials for project monitoring.5/ List of support equipment needed by tribal commtnities would be drawn up by them in consultation with extension personnelandi consultant sociologist. Preliminary estimiates include wells/roof tanks, maize depralners (9), rice ventilators, (9),solar driers (3), fish pond materials (9), platnting tools, basic tools (nmactietes, axes, etc.) low cost transport equipme( t
well digging equipment, carpentry tools (9), motor boats (3), and possibly a truck (however, not before Year 3).
July 19, 1982
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 C 0 0: -Ao
n. oc - Cot p>B H** A ro > ,
o~~~~~~~~~ r
N, C _WNNW WNW W-~ W:_VL r H> ~ ~ 2 0 t{ . 0 - 0. N W CK r~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r2
s A D < C o W > C O C OQgc zCaOo c+wO OOC° o O . n~Oo^ C I0 0 _ r oc
-~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [ I C
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r ... ooc rc,o ~ ~
I - <
Co ~~~~~0 C 00010cm 0001001cC 0cc OCO-...O V.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| l
cc '0cc 00000 COCOOcO~ ~ ~~~~n I
c~ ~ ~ ~~o 0- 0000 00I00 0 000 coo
O "10 C wW l b W 1.W z w A U In c O . - C-c' 0 -c W- c o N -> C0
_I _00cO I - _'
' w .w.- .NWVWWAVNWC Y l Y
C I N r o C> -. ..c 000 ' 0 NWWO>>
O 1QO0 °CO0 000O -OCVO COcQO \ OOC 000 001 O OO OO COOOC OcO Oc°OC GO°
0…- '0.''0-~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ cL -cc -
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Pro-ject Technical Directorate: Incremental Operating Costs
1 2 3 4 5 Total- (Soles '000) - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. Salaries and Wages 1/ 190,080 190,080 190,080 190,080 190,080 950,400
2. Operation and Maintenance- Buildings 2/ 6,700 8,300 8,300 8,400 8,400 40,100- Equipment and Vehicles 3/ 13,900 30,520 37.700 41,300 61,400 184,820- Miscellaneous 4/ 6,000 6 6,0 00 6,00 6.000 6,000 30,000Subtotal 26,600 44,820 52,000 55,700 75,800 254,920
Total Incremental Operating Cost 216,680 234,900 242,080 245,780 265,880 1,205,320
1/ Reference Table21 5% of investment cost in Table3/ 20% of investment cost in Table4/ To cover costs of soil/water analyses incurred in water quality monitoring study. Incremental costs
associated with native community program (e.g. legal defence fund, etc.).
HA
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL _EVELOPMENT PROJECT
Technical Assistance, Studies, Training
Unit 1 2 3 4 5 TotalItem Unit Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost
… - - - - - - -…(Soles million) - - - - - - - - -
1. Consultants i/
a. oreign- Agronomist (NC) mm 5.5 3 16.5 2 11.0 1 5.5 1 5.5 1 5.5 8 44.0- Appropriate Technology (NC) me 5.5 3 16.5 1 5.5 1 5.5 1 5.5 - _ 6 33.0- Social Scientist (NC) 2/ ne 5.5 4 22.0 2 11.0 1 5.5 1 5.5 1 5.5 9 49.5- Specialist Services 3/
- Crops mm 5.5 3 16.5 3 16.5 2 11.0 2 11.0 2 11.0 12 66.0- Livestock en 5.5 1 5.5 1 5.5 1 5.5 1 5.5 - - 4 22.0
- Soil Conser-ation/ManagereDt on 5.5 2 11.0 2 11.0 1 5.5 1 5.5 - - 6 33.0- Land Clearing Techniques mm 5.5 1 5.5 1 5.5 - -… … … _ 2 11.0- Monitoring and Evaluation em 5.5 2 11.0 1 5.5 2 11.0 1 5.5 2 11.0 8 44.0
L. local- Health Delivery Systees (NC) em 1.1 2 __2.2 1 1.1 1 1.1 1 _1.1 1 _1.1 6 6.6
Subtotal (Consultanuts) 106.7 72.6 50.6 45.1 34.1 309.1
2. Studies
- Semi-detailed Soil Study (ONERN) 4/ 35.0 35.0 - - - 70.0
- Monitoring and Evaluation of Water Quality 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 15.0- Native Con.unity Actions
- Land Titling (DCCN) 10.0 - - - - 10.0- N.C. Development (DCCN) 20.0 10.0 - - - 30.0
- Preparation of Second Phase Project 5/ - - 1 - 110.0Subtotal (Studies) 68.0 48.0 3.0 113.0 3.0 235.0
3. Training
a. Technical Services 6/- Overseas Fellowships MSc nyr 5.5 - - 2 11.0 2 11.0 2 11.0 - - 6 33.0
- Local Fellowships MSc nyr 0.7 - - - - 3 2.1 3 2.1 3 2.1 9 6.3- Short Term Training Overseas mn 0.4 12 4.8 12 4.8 12 4.8 12 4.8 12 4.8 60 24.0
- Scientific Meetings - 0.17 12 2.0 12 2.0 12 2.0 12 2.0 12 2.0 60 10.0- In-Service Training Programs 7/ courses 0.45 24 10.8 24 10.8 24 10.8 24 10.8 24 10.8 120 54.0- Short Term Training (local) 2.8. 8 8 2.88 2 2.8 14.0Subtotal 20.4 31.4 33.5 33.5 22.5 141.3
b. Technical Directorate- Short Tern Training (Local) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0- Technical On-The-Job Training
for Farmers and NstiveCommunities 8/ cour=es 0.5 i0 5.0 10 5.0 l0 5.0 10 5.0 10 5.0 50 25.0
Subtotal 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7 35.0
c. Native Community Health Post Personnel 9/- Nurse courses 2.1 1 2.1 1 2.1 … … … … … …2 4.2- Auxiliary 10/ courses 3.7 1 3.7 2 7.4 2 7.4 - - - - 5 18.5- Vigia courses 0.2 3 0.6 3 0.6 3 0.6 3 0.6 3 0.6 15 3.0Subtotal 6.4 fo.l 8.0 0.6 0.6 25.7
Subtotal (Training) 33.8 48.5 48.5 41.1 30.1 202.0
Total Base Cost 208.5 169.1 102.1 199.2 62.2 746.1
I/ Adminstered directly by Technical Director. (NC) indicates pri-arily in support of native communities.2/ 7mm on native community activities, 2 oanmonth on settler issues especially estoblishment of Watershed Committees.3/ Short-term visits 2-3 seeks nf specialists, most likely from CIAT, etc.
'4/ Scale 1:25,000 of approximately 100,000 ha.5/ Depending on Government priorities and project progress, conaultants could be hired to prepare a feasibility study for a Phase II project.6/ Extension and Research, INIPA. Library services shown in Table 11.
7/ On T&V system.8/ Practical courses on carpentry, welding, well digging, tractor maintenance etc. Courses usually given in field in Mopobambh training center.9/ Nurse initial course (#32) 4 weeks; Auxiliary initial course (#225) 5 weeks: Vigia - 3 days.10/ Training courses for auxiliaries at all 15 posts (60 staff) covered under the project, not only native communities.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Local Mapping and Titling Component
Pre Project 1 2 3 4 Total- - - - - - - - - 7- - - - - - - (Soles miillion)----------
A. Local Mapping (OGCR)
1. Preparation Using PPF (Case A) Funds I/
- Ground Control 15.8 - - - - 15.8- Aerotriangulation 3.9 - - - - 3.9
- Restitution 19.4 - - - - 19.4
- Preparation of Maps 15.2 - - - - 15.2- Miscellaneous 5.2 - - - - 5.2
Subtotal 59.5 -- - 59.5
2. Preparation Using PPF (Case B) Funds 2/- Aerial Photography, 1982 41.3 - - - - 41.3
Subtotal (Pre Project) 100.8 - - - - 100.8
3. Aerial Photography of Entire Valley 3/ - 146.3 - - 146.3
4. Remote Sensing 4/- Equipment - 40.0 - - 40.0
- Materials - 3.3 - - 3.3
- Training - 5.5 5.5 - 11.0
Subtotal (Remote Sensing) - 48.8 5.5 - 54.3
5. Salaries and Wages 5/ 52.8 52.8 52.8 158.4
Subtotal (Local Mapping) - Base 100.8 52.8 247.9 58.3 _ 459.8- Physical Contingency 5.0 2.6 12.4 2.9 - 22.9
Subtotal (A) 105.8 55.4 260.3 61.Z - 482.7
B. Titling
Incremental Operating Expenses 6/- Base 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 384.0- Physical Contingency 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 _ 4.8 19.2
Subtotal (B) 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 403.2
C. rotal Local Mappingand Titlin 100.8 148.8 343.9 154.3 96.0 843.8
1/ PPF "Case A" advance (total US$0.5 million) of US$130,000 approved May 1981 to cover preparation of 60 topographic maps
of project area at scale of 1:10,000 based on 1978 aerial photography.2/ "Case B" advance dated June 1982, includes US$75,000 to cover aerial photography of May/June 1982 of 40,000 ha of potential
irrigable rice area. Object to update 1978 existing aerial photography.3/ 1984 aerial photography of 770,000 ha Alto Mayo Valley to result in maps of 1:30,000 to allow an update of the general
ecosystem and for cadastral and land protection and conservation work.4/ To develop capacity within OGCR to use and interpret satellite imaginery to monitor developments In the Dept. of
San Martin and the Alto Mayo Valley, in particular. Costs include: equipment (S/. 39.6 million) for analysis,interpretation and processing; materials (S/. 6.0 million); and training (S/. 11.0 million).
5/ 0GCR staff would be contracted to implement the local mapping activities. Cost includes (Soles 17.6 million,remuneraciones; Soles 16.7 million, bienes; Soles 16.4 million, servicios; Soles 2.1 million transferencias corrientes).
6/ Reforma Agraria staff costs (Soles 61.5 million, remuneraciones; Soles 9.3 million, bienes; Soles 16.8 million,servicios; Soles 8.6 million, transferencias corrientes). Aim to produce approximately 2,400 titles per year.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
National Mapping
-- Year -
1 2 Total… - - - - (US$ °°°)
I. Detailed Map Series - 80 Sheets (1:250,000 Scale)
a. Computer Tape Processing Costs- Satellite tapes of Southern Peru (40 tapes x $1,300) 50.0 3.2 53.2- Satellite tapes of Northern Peru (41 tapes x $1,300) 40.0 1.5 54.5- Photomap renditioning of Southern Peru 55.0 1.9 56.9- Photomap renditioning of Northern Peru 36.4 30.0 66.4Subtotal 181.4 49.6 231.0
b. Map Compilation and Publication Costs- Cost of negative and positives - 2x80 sheets x $100 each 12.0 4.0 16.0- Water-cote color proofs (80 copies) 1.0 5.0 6.0- Laser scanner color separations (utilizing Prolith G) 8.0 70.0 78.0- Printing costs (1000 copies each) 7.0 30.0 37.0Subtotal 137.0 - 137.0
Total A (Detailed Map Series) 368.0 - 368.0
II. General Map Series - 4 Sheets (1:1 million Scale)
a. Map Compilation and Publication Costs- Photomap at 1:1 M scale in 4 sheets 10.0 21.4 31.4- Photomap reprint in four sheets 0.4 1.0 1.4- Cost of negatives reductions and reproductions 3.0 2.0 5.0- Compilation and scribbing 7.0 8.0 15.0- Water-cote color proofs 4 sheets 2 copies each = 8x250 ea 0.5 1.5 2.0- Laser scanner color separations (utilizing Prolith C) 3.0 3.0 6.0- Printing costs (5000 copies each of four sheets) 5.0 15.0 20.0- Sepia half-tone rendition/printing (4000 copies ea x 4) 1.0 3.0 4.0
Subtotal 29.9 54.9 84.8
2. Cartographic Supervision - Compilation, Printing & Shipping- Collation, shipping, insurance and supplies to IGN 4.o 12.0 16.0- For 1982 May-December (8 months x 4000) 32.0 - 32.0- For 1983 January-December (12 months x 4000) - 48.0 48.0- Consultant Supervision (4 trips) for compilation 6.0 6.0 12.0
Subtotal 42.0 66.0 108.0
Total B (General Map Services) 71.9 120.9 192.8
Total 281.3 279.5 560.8
June 10, 1981
rPERUALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PRnJECT
Project Componrent by TimeSOL '000)
Base Costs Tota1
1 2 3 4 5 SOL (USt '000)
A. CREDIT
LONG TERM F 1333,700.4 2,05'9130.3 2,li 17568.4 2,175Y668.4 2l19O,348.1 9,934,'515i 18,062.8SHORT TERM 319,450.0 612,691.0 751,299.0 8583000Q0 864,38a00 3,4050820.0 67l9214
Sub-Total CREDIIT 1,653,150.4 2Y671,821.3 2,926Y967.4 30,33,668.4 3,054i728.1 13Y3407335.6 24r2'55_B. IRRIGATION 594,7.720,0 307,120.0 - - 9017840.0 1639.-C. LAND CLEARING EQUIPMENT 410,000.0 272,000.0 20g8000,0 60r000.0 600O. 0 1,010000.0 17336.4D. ACCESS ROADS 3,228,250.0 3,6222000.0 418,000.0 605,0000 765r500.0 8,63837'50.0 1'5706.8
E. EXTENSION 'a RESEARCH 1,070,925.0 823,706.0 430,150,0 423,650.0 423s750.0 3,172181.0 5r7 6 7._F. STORAGE 9V0000.0 90,000.0 - - - 180,000.0 327i3x
G. FISHERIES '2 FORESTRY 258r850.0 159,100.0 140,1500.0 148,200,0 90,2000 796.,850.0 1448.3H. HEALTH I EDUCATION 918,200.0 697,900.0 '.23s700.0 287,400.0 - 2,527,200.0 4,594.9I. PROJECT ORGANIZATION 414,180.0 344,250.0 272s480.0 258,280.0 278380.0 1,567,Y570.0 ,850.1
J. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING & STUDIES 206v740.0 167,340.0 100,340.0 1?7,440.0 65y440.0 737,300.0 1,340.5K. LOCAL MAPPING I TITLING 297,600.0 343,9000. 349,400.0 154,300.0 96,000.0 1,241,2000 2,1256.7L. NATIONAL MAPPING 308v440.0 - - - - 308,440.0 560.8
Total BASELINE COSTS 9,451,055.4 9,499,137.3 5,469,537.4 5,167,938.4 4,833,998.1 34,421,666.6 62,584.8Physical Contirinencies 925Y678.1 993,795.1 448,320,7 427r560.8 418Y793.0 3,214,147.8 5,843.9
Price Contirinencies 5t8,836,7 1,568,693.4 1,496,951.8 2,082e955.4 ?.)..8,440.5 SY305v877.7 15.101.6
Total PROJECT COSTS 10,895t570.1 12,061,l65.9 7i414Y809.9 7,678,454.5 7,891f231.7 45,941,692.1 83,530.3
Foreigra Exchar,se 5,227i651.8 5,651,299.6 3,229,327.9 3,279,021.3 3,311,914.3 20,699,214.9 37.634.9
November 15, 1982 16:37
PERUALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTSusmara Account b9 Pro-ject Cooponent
(SOL Millioni)
TECHNICAL PhysicalCREDIT LAND ASSISTANCE, LOCAL Contingencies------------------- CLEARING EXTENSION 0 FISHERIES I HEALTH I PROJECT TRAINING I MAPPINGI NATIONAL
LONG TERM SHORT TERM IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT ACCESS ROADS RESEARCH STORAGE FORESTRY EDUCATION ORGANIZATION STUDIES TIT'LING MAPPING Total Z Aso'snt
I. INVESTMENT COSTS
CIVIL WORKS 2,484.9 - 517.0 - 7,250.0 510.4 180.0 06.9 1,916,7 167.0 - - - 13,113.7 15.2 1,992.3VEHICLES, MACHINERY I EQUIPMENT 4,626.9 - 97.2 1,010,0 - 501.1 - 151.5 610.5 224.5 - 54.3 - 7,356.0 5.0 367.0CARTOGRAPHY & AIR PHOTOGRAPHY - - - - -- --- - 247.1 300.4 555.5 10.0 55.6FURNITURE- - - - - 81,0 - - -- 1.0 0.0 0.0FOREIGN SCHOLARSHIPS - - - - -- --- 33.0 - - 33.0 0.0 0.0STUDIES 0 TRAINING - - - - -- - 212.0 -- 395.2 - - 607.2 0.0 0.0FOREIGN CONSULTANTS - - - - -- -- - - 302.5 - - 302.5 0.0 0.0LOCAL CONSULTANTS - - - - 772.7 - ---- 6.6 - - 779,4 0.0 0,0ON-FARM LOCAL INPUTS 2,022.0 - - - - - - - 2,022.0 10.0 202.3
Total INVESTMENT COSTS 9,934.5 - 614.2 1,010.0 8,022.0 1Yl72.5 180.0 450.4 2,527.2 392.3 737,3 301.4 300.4 25,651.0 10.5 2,697.9Physical Contingencies 006.4 - 107.7 50,5 1,007.5 105.6 27.0 20.6 311.0 36.4 - 27.4 30.0 2,697.9 0.0 0,0Price Coritingerncies 3,009.2 - 72.0 174.6 1,525.4 121.3 20.6 73.9 468.4 56.7 167.1 30.7 17.0 5,824.9 9.2 535.2
Total INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES 13,910.1 - 793.9 1,235.1 10,635.6 1,399.4 227.6 544.9 3P313.6 405.3 904.4 367.5 356.2 34,173.0 9.5 3,233.1
Foreiqn Exchange 71063.1 - 373,7 1,111.6 4,341.6 892.0 91.1 356.4 1,692.4 333.4 704.0 330.8 320.6 17,731.3 0.0 1,412.0
II. RECURRENT COSTS
SALARIES - - 100.0 - 1317.0 - 213.3 - 950.4 - 939.8 - 3,600.5 0.0 1.0MAINTENANCE I REPAIRS - 3,405.1 99.6 - 616.0 682.6 - 133.2 - 224.9 -- - 5,162.2 10.0 516.2
Total RECURRENT COSTS - 3,405.8 207.6 - 616.0 1,999.7 - 346.5 - 1Y175.3 - 939.0 - 80770.7 5.9 516.2Physical Continigencies - 340.6 10.0 - 61.6 68.3 13.3 - 22.5 - 516.2 0.0 0.0Price Contingencies - lP156.3 14.9 - 86.7 562.7 - 104.3 - 331.5 - 224.7 - 2t481,0 5.7 142.6
Total INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES - 4,902.7 312.4 - 764.3 2,630.6 - 464.1 - 1529.3 lt1164.5 -11,767.9 5.6 658.8
ForeiMn Exchange - 1470.8 73.0 - 458.6 604.7 - 117.5 - 220.0 - 23.3 2,967.9 0.0 261.6
Total BASELINE COSTS 9,934.5 3,405.0 901.8 1,010,0 8,638.8 3,172.2 100.0 796.9 2,527.2 1P567.6 737.3 1,241.2 308.4 34,421.7 9.3 3,214.1 Physical Contirigencies 006.4 340.6 117.6 50.5 1,149.1 173.9 27.0 33.9 318.0 58.9 - 27.4 30.0 3,214.1 0.0 0.0Price CoritinOencies 3,089.2 1,156.3 06.9 174.6 lf612,0 684.0 20.6 170.2 460.4 308.1 167.1 263.5 17.0 0,305.9 0.2 677.0
-- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- ---- - -- - ----- -- --- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -r'Total PROJECT COSTS 13,910.1 4,902.7 1,106.4 1,235.1 11,399.9 4,030.0 227.6 1,009.0 3,313.6 2F014.6 904.4 1,532.1 356.2 45,941.7 8.5 3,091.9
Forejigr Exchangae 7,183.1 1,470.0 446.7 1,111.6 4,000.2 1,497.4 91.1 473,9 1,692.4 553.4 704.0 354.1 320.6 20,699.2 8.1 1,674.4
November 15, 1982 16:37
PERUALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Sumeary Account bv Time
BaseCosts +Price
Cont. onBase Costs Base
(SOL Million) Costs Foreign ExcharigeUnit Cost No. of ------------------------------------------------- (US ----------------
Unit (SOL '000) Units 1 2 3 4 5 Total Million) X Amournt
1. INVESTMENT COSTS
CIVIL WORKS No. 60-361.78 24,983 4Y309.9 4,670.6 1,471.0 1,360.5 1,301.7 13,113.7 28.3 40.0 5i245.5VEHICLES, MACHINERY I EQUIPMENT No. 70-62,000 5,332 1,824.4 1,S35.2 1,407.8 1,170.1 1,118.4 7t356.0 16.5 90.0 6,620.4CARTOGRAPHY & AIR PHOTOGRAPHY No. - 409.2 146.3 - - - 555.5 1.1 90.0 500.0FURNITURE No. - 57.0 24.0 - - - 81.0 0.2 35.0 28.4FOREIGN SCHOLARSHIPS No. 5,500 6 - 11.0 11.0 11.0 - 33.0 0.1 100.0 33.0STUDIES I TRAINING No. 170-3,700 321 137.0 120.7 102.7 205.3 41.3 607.2 1.4 60.0 364.3FOREIGN CONSULTANTS No. 5,500 55 104.5 71.5 49.5 44.0 33.0 302.5 0.7 100.0 302.5LOCAL CONSULTANTS No. 1.100 6 428.5 243.1 12.1 50.6 45.1 779.4 1.6 50.0 389.7ON-FARM LOCAL INPUTS No. 60-1.000 5,084 548.1 560.4 571.4 571.4 571.4 2Y822.8 6.5 1.6 45.1
Total INVESTMENT COSTS 7,818.7 7,682.8 3,625.6 3.413.0 3.110.9 25i651.0 56.3 52.7 13.528.7Physical Contingencies - 846.1 875.6 348.2 319.7 308.3 2.697.9 - 43.8 1l182.4Price Contingencies - 433.2 1 279.5 1,005.2 1.389.5 1.717.4 57824.9 - 51.8 3,020.1
Total INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES 9,098.0 9.837.9 4,979.0 5.122.3 5,136.6 34,173.8 56.3 51.9 17,731.3 °= == == = == = == = ==== = -= == == == == = == == == = == = == == = == = == == = == = === = == = == = === = I
Foreign Exchan4e - 4,769.1 4.972.7 2.690.8 2,672.3 2v626.4 17.731.3 - 0.0 0.0
II. RECURRENT COSTS
SALARIES 800-50ooo 300 836.3 634.8 842.6 676.6 618.3 3,608.5 B.2 2.0 72.2MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS - 796.1 1,181.6 1,001.3 1,078.4 1,104.8 5,162.2 12.0 40.2 2,075.6
Total RECURRENT COSTS 1,632.4 1,816.3 1,843.9 1,754.9 1,723.1 8,770.7 20.2 24.5 2,147.7Physical Continsencies - 79.6 118.2 100.1 107.8 110.5 516.2 - 40.2 207.6Price Cortinsencies - 85.6 289.2 491.8 693.4 921.0 2,481.0 - 24.7 612.6
Total INCLUDIING CONTINGENCIES 1,797.6 2,223.7 2,435.8 2,556.2 2,754.6 11,767.9 20.2 25.2 2,967.9
Foreign Excharile - 458.6 678.6 538.5 606.7 685.5 2,967.9 - 0.0 0.0
Total BASELINE COSTS 9,451.1 9,499.1 5,469.5 5,167.9 4,834.0 34,421.7 76.5 45.5 15,676.5Physical Contingericies - 925.7 793.8 448.3 427.6 418.8 3,214.1 - 43.2 1,390.0Price Contingencies - 518.8 1,568.7 1,497.0 2,083.0 2,638.4 8,305.9 - 43.7 3,632.7
Total PROJECT COSTS 10,895.6 12,061.6 7,414.8 7,678.5 7,891,2 45,941.7 76.5 45.1 20,699.2
Foreigri Exchange - 5,227.7 5,651.3 3,229.3 3,279.0 3,311.9 20,699.2 - 0.0 0.0
Noveeber 15, 1982 16:37
- 81 -
Table 29
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Disbursement Schedule
Quarterly CumulativeProject Year Amount Total
- - - … - - (US$ million)
1983 March 31 1.0 1.0June 30 1.0 2.0September 30 1.1 3.1December 31 1.1 4.2
1984 March 31 1.4 5.6June 30 1.8 7.4September 30 2.2 9.6December 31 2.6 12.2
1985 March 31 2.3 14.5June 30 1.7 16.2September 30 1.5 17.7December 31 1.4 19.1
1986 March 31 1.1 20.2June 30 1.0 21.2September 30 1.0 22.2December 31 1.0 23.2
1987 March 31 1.0 24.2June 30 1.0 25.2September 30 0.9 26.1December 31 0.9 27.0
1988 March 31 0.8 27.8June 30 0.8 28.6September 30 0.7 29.3December 31 0.7 30.0
November 17, 1982
- 82 - Table 30
PERU
ALTO MlAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Implementation Schedule
Year
1 2 4 5 5
1. Crganization and Mana.ement_
Finalize Implementation Agreements
2, Credit
Meetings of Credit Committees - r
3. Irrigatior Atnivities
- Small Scale Co-struotion (Tables 2 and 3)- Y_rongos - Update Feasibility Study
- Bank Reiew- rloat lenders for Read-orks- Award Contract- Co.struction (Table 2) -
- Ti Proposal on Water Charges
4. Lad Clearing Equipment (Table 5)
- ICB- telivery
Consultant Training
5. Access Roads - (Anne I - Wdrking Paper)
6. Extension - (Table 8)
Constraction: - Zeal Center (I)xtnension Agencies (3)
- Eniemelen Center= (4)
i Research - (Table 11)
Site Selecti-n for Crop StationC.o-tr-otion - Two Station=
8. Storage (Table 15)
Construction - Rioj.- M.yobemb.
9. Fish-ries (Table 16)
Con=sltant Study of Mashuyaca SiteCon=truction - Marona
- Mashuyacu
1D. Forestry (Table 17)
Cosntruction of District - Main Office- Regional (2)
11. fealth (Table 2S)
Con-truction - Health Centers 6 2 I _ _ _ _ _- health Posts 6 I-t-1-t-3
12. Educatian (Table 19)
Construction of Primary Schools
13. Technical Directorate (Table 20)
Con=truction -. My0bamba Comple.- NReve Cejasaro- Complex
14. Technical Assi=tance (Table 23)
15. Studies (Table 23)
16. Training (Table 23)
17. Local Mapping (Table 24)
Aerial Photography (770,000 ha) I
is. Titling (Table 24)
19. Rational Mapping (Table 25)
July 20, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PEOJECT
Model 1: 10 ha Irrigated, Farm Budget Analysis(S.1P000)
W/O PROJ. - 2 3 4 5 6 7 19
GROSS VALUE OF PRODUCT.
RICE 2595.00 3390.80 4091.45 4385.55 4498.0C 4610.45 4722.90 4722.90 4722.90O1HER 464.00 502.83 537.15 583.83 621.80 664.13 686.25 686.25 686.25SAlVAGE VALUE 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 308.55 0.00
GROSS VALUE (000' SOLES) 3059.00 3893.63 .1628.60 4969.38 5119.80 5274.58 5409.15 5717.70 5409.15INVESTMENTS
TRACTOR 0.00 1925.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1925.00 0.00IRRIGATION 0.00 210.00 210.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00LAND DEVELOP. 0.00 361.78 180.89 180.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00HORSE 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00IMPLEMENTS 0.00 132.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132.00 0.00
TOTAL INVESTMENT 0.00 2698.78 390.89 180.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 2127.00 0.00OPERATION COSTS
AGRICULTURE 1305.58 1972.90 2182.42 2251.77 2251.77 2251.77 2251.77 2251.77 2251.77 wRECOVERY COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 242.25 242.25 242.25 242.25 242.25 1
- - - - -- - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPERATIONAL COSTS 1305.58 1972.90 2182.42 2251.77 2494.02 2494.02 2494.02 2494.02 2494.02
TOTAL OUTLFOW 1305.58 4671.68 2573.31 2432.66 2494.02 2494.02 2494.02 4621.02 2494.02BENEFITS BEFORE FINANC.
TOTAL 1753.42 -778.06 2055.29 2535.72 2625.78 2780.56 2915.13 1096.68 2915.13INCREMENTAL 0.00 -2531.48 301.87 783.30 872.36 1027.14 1161.71 -656.74 1161.71
FINANCING
LOAN RECEIPTS
LONG TERM 0.00 2428.90 351.08 162.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00SHORT TERM 0.00 662.00 210.00 70.00 242.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LOAN PAYMENTS
LONG TERM 0.00 546.50 521.61 382.52 300.68 245.81 t97.41 182.57 0.00SHORT TERM 0.00 959.90 94.50 336.00 210.00 350.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
NET FINANCING 1/ 0.00 1584.50 -55.03 -485.72 -268.68 -596.71 -197.41 -i82.57 0.00NET BENEFIT AFTER FINANC
TOTAL 1753.42 806.44 2000.26 2051.00 2357.11 2183.85 2717.72 914.12 2915.13FAMILY LABOR INCOMF 1083.16 1269.13 1372.44 1395.27 1395.27 1395.27 1395.27 1395.27 1395.27ON FARM CONSUMP. 464.00 502.83 537.15 537.15 537.15 537.15 537.15 537.15 537 15CASH FLOW 2372.58 1572.74 2835.55 2909.12 3215.23 3041.97 3575.84 1772.24 3773.25 Ht
/ Adjusted for inflation. Interest on Loan 45%.
June 8, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Model 1: 10 ha Irrigated, Cropping Pattern, Yields, Production and Production Value
WIO PROJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19
A CROPPING PATTERN (ha)
RICE IRRIG. LEVELLED 3.00 4.00 5.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50RICE IRRIG. UNLEVELLED 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE RAINFED 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MAIZE 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75BEANS 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75BANANA 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50CASSAVA 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50FALLOW 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50FOREST 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
HECTARES 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
B YIELDS (ton/ha)
RICE IRR. LEVELLED 3.50 3.70 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.20 4.20RICE IRR. UNLEVELLED 2.80 3.00 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00RICE RAINFED 1.70 1.80 2.10 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50MAIZE 1.70 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.10 2.10 2.10BEANS 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.50BANANA 8.00 8.50 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00CASSAVA 6.00 6.40 6.80 7.40 7.60 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
C TOTAL PRODUCT (ton)
RICE IRRIG.LEVELLED 10.50 14.80 20.90 25.35 26.00 26.65 27.30 27.30 27.30RICE IRRIG.UNLEVELLED 2.80 3.00 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE RAINFED 1.70 1.80 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MAIZE 1.27 1.35 1.39 1.43 1.46 1.50 1.58 1.58 1.58BEANS 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.26 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.38 0.38BANANA 4.00 4.25 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6. 00 6.00 6.00CASSAVA 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.70 3.80 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
TOTAL PRODUCTION 23.43 28.59 33.16 35.74 37.06 38.49 39.25 39.25 39.25
D VALUE OF PRODUCT
RICE IRRIG. LEVELLED 1816.50 2560.40 3615.70 4385.55 4498.00 4610.45 4722.90 4722.90 4722.90RICE IRRIG. UNLEVELLED 484.40 519.00 294.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE RAINFED 294.10 311.40 181.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00
MAIZE 153-00 162.00 166.50 171.00 175.50 180.00 189.00 189.00 189.00BEANS 52.50 65.63 78.75 91.88 105.00 118.13 131.25 131.25 131.25BANANA 128.00 136.00 144.00 160.00 176.00 192.00 192.00 192.00 192.00 aCASSAVA 130.50 139.20 147.90 160.95 165.30 174.00 174.00 174.00 174.00 a
GRoSS VALUE (000' Soles) 3059.00 3893.63 4628.60 4969.38 5119.80 5274.58 5409.15 5409.15 5409.15 0
June 8, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Model 1: 10 ha Irrigated, Operating Expenditures(sr 'OO)-
W/O PROJ. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19
A. SEEDS
RICE RAINFED 10.88 10.88 5.44 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE IRRIGATED LEVEL. 32.63 75.40 103.68 122.53 122.53 122.53 122.53 122.53 122 53RICE IRRIGATED UNLEVEL. 10.88 18.85 9.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MAIZE 1.92 4.89 4.89 4.89 4.89 4.89 4.89 4.89 4.89BEANS 4.35 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53CASSAVA 0 00 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Subtotal 60.65 119.87 133.28 137.27 137.27 137.27 137.27 137.27 137.27B. FERTILIZERS
RICE RAINFED 0.00 21 03 10.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0 00RICE IRRIGATED LEVEL. 31.97 84.10 115.64 136.66 136.66 136.66 136.66 136.66 136.66RICE IRRIGATED UNLEVFL. 10.66 21.03 10.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00MAIZE 0.00 15.77 15.77 15 77 15.77 15 77 15.77 15.77 15.77BEANS 0.00 15.77 15.77 15 .77 15.77 15.77 15.77 15 77 15.77BANANA 3.26 7.25 7.25 7.25 7 25 7.25 7.25 7 25 7.25CASSAVA 0.00 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 OD
Subtotal 45.89 166.93 177 .44 177 .44 77 44 177 44 177.44 177 .44 177.44C. INSECTICIDES
RICE RAINFED 1.19 13.20 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE IRRIGATED 19.58 69.02 94.90 112.16 112.16 112.16 112.16 112.16 112.16RICE IRRIGAT.UNLEVELLED 10 88 18.85 9.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00MAIZE 0.00 12.51 12.51 12.51 12.51 12.51 12.51 12.51 12.51BEANS 0.00 12.51 12.51 12.51 12.51 12 51 12.51 12.51 12 51BANANA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 31.64 126.08 135.94 137.17 137.17 137 17 137.17 137.17 137.17D. HIRED LABOR
RICE PAINFED 0.58 40.89 20.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE IRRIGATED l.EVELLED 82.65 248.99 342.36 404.61 404.61 404.61 404.61 404 61 404.61RICE IRRIGATED UNLEVELLE 1.02 1.02 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 00
Subtotal 84.25 290.90 363.32 404.61 404.61 404.61 404.61 404.61 404 61E. FAMILY LABOR
RICE RAINFED 143.56 132.68 66.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE IRRIGATED LEVELLED 482.85 643.80 885.23 1046.18 1046. 18 1046.18 1046. 18 1046.18 1046.18RICE IRRIGATED UNLEVELLE 143.56 143.56 71.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00MAIZE 104.40 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.67BEANS 27.19 51.11 51.11 51.11 51.11 51.11 51.11 51.11 51.11 BANANA 104.40 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.67 107.657 107.67CASSAVA 77 .21i 82.65 82.65 82.65 82.65 82.65 82.65 82.65 82 65 E
F.RECDvSubtota 1083.16 1269.13 1372.44 1395.27 1395.27 1395.27 1395.27 1395.27 1395.27 1,
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 242.25 242.25 242.25 242.25 242.25
TOTAL OPERAT.(OOO'Soles) 1305.58 1972.90 . 2182.42 2251. 77 2494.02 2494.02 2494.02 2494.02 2494,02
June 8, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT POJUECT
Model 2: 20 ha Irrigated, Farm Budget Analysis(S./'000)
W/O PROJ. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19
GROSS VALUE OF PRODUCT.
RICE 5190.00 6781.60 8477,00 9342.00 9688.00 9930.20 10172.40 10172.40 10172.40OTHER 532.50 578.70 618.90 993.35 1045.90 1111 50 1141.00 1141.00 1141-00
SALVAGE VALUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0o00 609.24 0.00
TOTAL INFLOW 5722.50 7360.30 9095.90 10335.35 10733.90 11041.70 11313.40 11922.64 11313,40INVESTMENTS
TRACTOR 0.00 1925.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1925.00 0.00
IRRIGATION 0.00 210.00 210.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00LAND DEVELOP. 0.00 361.78 180.89 180.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 X
HORSE 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00
IMPLEMENTS 0.00 132.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132.00 0.00 I
TOTAL INVESTMENT 0.00 5625.16 1085.34 160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4061.50 0.00OPERATION COSTS
AGRICULTURE 2354.32 3618.58 4179.23 4478.51 4632.58 4632.58 4632.58 4632.58 4632.58RECOVERY COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 484.50 484.50 484.50 484.50 484.50
OPERATIONAL COSTS 2354.32 3618.58 4179.23 4478.51 5117.08 5117.08 5117.08 5117.08 5117.08
TOTAL OUTLFOW 2354.32 9243.74 5264.57 4638.51 5117.08 5117.08 5117.08 9178.58 5117.08BENEFITS BEFORE FINANC.
TOTAL 3368.18 -1883.44 3831.33 5696.84 5616.82 5924.62 6196.32 2744.06 6196.32INCREMENTAL 0.00 -5251.62 463.14 2328.66 2248.64 2556.44 2828.14 -624.12 2828.14
FINANCING
LOAN RECEIPTS
LONG TERM 0.00 5062.64 976.81 144.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SHORT TERM 0.00 1264.00 560.00 359.00 639.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LOAN PAYMENTS
LONG TERM 0.00 421.15 1358.62 998.31 772.00 632-57 487.47 450.82 0-00SHORT TERM 0.00 1959.20 308.00 1065.50 907.90 990.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
- - - _NET FINANCING- 0.00 3946.29 -129.81 -1560.81 -1040.90 -1623.02 -487.47 -450.82 0.00
NET BENEFIT AFTER FINANC
TOTAL 3368.18 2062.85 3701.52 4136.03 4575.92 4301.61 5708.85 2293.24 6196.32FAMILY LABOR INCOME 1922.72 2260.93 2582.83 2804.68 2839.47 2839.47 2839.47 2839.47 2839.47 n
ON FARM CONSUMP. 532.00 57a.00 578.00 578.00 578.00 578,00 578.00 578.00 578.00CASH FLOW 4758.90 3745.78 5706.35 6362.71 6837.39 6563.08 7970.32 4554.72 8457-80 L
V Adiusted for inflation. Interest on Loan 55%.
June 8, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJFCT
Model 2: 20 ha Irrigated Cropping Pattern, Yields, Production and Production Value
W/O PROJ. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 19
A CROPPING PATTERN (ha)
RICE IRRIG. LEVELLED 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00
RICE IRRIG. UNLEVELLED 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00
RICE RAINFED 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00
MAIZE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
BEANS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
BANANA 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0-50 0 50
CASSAVA 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
FALLOW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FOREST 6.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
HECTARES 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 0
B YIELDS (ton/ha) I
RICE IRR. LEVELLED 3.50 3.70 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.20 4.20
RICE IRR. UNLEVELLED 2.80 3.00 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
RICE RAINFED 1.70 1.80 2.10 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
MAIZE 1.70 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.10 2.10 2.10
BEANS 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.50
BANANA 8.00 8.50 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
CASSAVA 6.00 6.40 6.80 7.40 7.60 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
C TOTAL PRODUCT (ton)
RICE IRRIG.LEVELLED 21.00 29.60 3R.00 46.80 56.00 57.40 58.80 58.80 58.80
RICE IRRIG.UNLEVELLED 5.60 6.00 6.80 7.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RICE RAINFED 3.40 3.60 4.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MAIZE 1.70 1.80 .85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.10 2.10 2.10
BEANS 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.50
BANANA 4.00 4.25 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
CASSAVA 3.00 3.20 3.40 11.10 11.40 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
TOTAL PRODUCTION 38.90 48.70 59.05 72.35 75.25 77.85 79.40 79.40 79.40
D VALUE OF PRODUCTION
RICE IRRIG. LEVELLED 3633.00 5120.80 6574.00 8096.40 9688.00 9930.20 10172.40 10172.40 10172.40
RICE IRRIG. UNLEVELLED 968.80 1038.00 1176.40 1245.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RICE RAINFED 588.20 622.80 726.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MAIZE 204.00 216.00 222.00 228.00 234.00 240.00 252.00 252.00 252.00 t
BEANS 70.00 87.50 105.00 122.50 140.00 157.50 t75.00 175.00 175.00 o
BANANA 128.00 136.00 144.00 160.00 176.00 192.00 192.00 192.00 192.00 ¢
CASSAVA 130.50 139.20 147.90 482.85 495.90 522.00 522.00 522.00 522.00
GROSS VALUE (000' Soles) 5722.50 7360.30 9095.90 10335.35 10733.90 11041.70 11313.40 11313.40 11313.40
June 8, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Model 2: 20 ha Irrigated Operating Expenditures(S. /'OO0)
W/O PROJ. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 19
A. SEEDS
RICE RAINFED 2i.75 21-75 21.75 0.00 0.00 0-00 0-00 0.00 0-00RICE IRRIGATED LEVEL. 65.25 150.80 188.50 226.20 263.90 263.90 263.90 263.90 263.90RICE IRRIGATED UNLEVEL. 21.75 37.70 37.70 37.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MAIZE 2.56 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53 6.53BEANS 5.80 8.70 8.70 8.70 8.70 8.70 8.70 8.70 8.70CASSAVA 0.00 3.33 3.33 9.98 9-98 9.98 9.98 9.98 9.98
Subtotal 111.31 236.78 274.48 297.08 297.08 297.08 297.08 297.08 297.08S. FERTILIZERS
RICE RAINFED 0.00 42.05 42.05 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE IRRIGATED LEVEL. 63.94 168.20 210.25 252.30 294.35 294.35 294.35 294.35 294.35RICE IRRIGATED UNLEVEL. 21.31 42.05 42.05 42.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MAIZE 0.00 21.03 21.03 21.03 21.03 21.03 21.03 21.03 21.03BEANS 0.00 2i.03 21.03 21.03 21.03 2i.03 21.03 21.03 21.03BANANA 3.26 7.25 7.25 7.25 7.25 7.25 7.25 7.25 7 _25 CASSAVA 0.00 1.99 1.99 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98
Subtotal 88.52 303.59 345.64 349.63 .349.63 349.63 349.63 349.63 349.63C. INSECTICIDES
RICE RAINFED 2.38 26.39 26.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00RICE IRRIGATED 39.15 138.04 172.55 207.06 241.57 24i.57 241.57 241.57 241.57RICE IRRIGAT-LINLEVELLED 21.75 37.70 37.70 37.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MAIZE 0.00 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68BEANS 0.00 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68 16.68BANANA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 63.28 235.48 269.99 278.11 274.92 274.92 274.92 274.92 274.92D. HIRED LABOR
RICE RAINFED 1.16 81.78 81.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.00RICE IRRIGATED LEVELLED 165.30 497.98 622.483 746.98 871.47 871.47 871.47 871.47 871.47RICE IRRIGATED UNLEVELLE 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 168.49 581.79 706.29 749.01 871.47 871.47 871.47 871.47 871.47E. FAMILY LABOR
RICE RAINFED 287.11 265.35 265.35 000C 0.00I 0.00 0.00 0.0.0 0.0.0RICE IRRIGATED LEVELLED 965.70 1287.60 1609.50 1931.40 2253.30 2253.30 2253.30 2253.30 2253.30RICE IRRIGATED UNLEVELLE 287.11 287.11 287.11 287.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0,.00MAIZE 139.20 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56BEANS 27. 19 51 .11 51. II 51. II 5i1. I SI.1 I1S. II 51.1 IIS. 11BANANA 139.20 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56 143.56CASSAVA 77.21 82.65 82.65 247.95 247.95 247.95 247.95 247.95 247.95
------ I------------------------------------------------Subtotal 1922.72 2260.93 2582.83 2804.68 2839.47 2839.47 2639.47 2839.47 2639.47
F. PECOVFRY COSTS l
Suobtotal 0.00 0.00 . 0.0D 0.0`0 484.50 484.50 484.50 484.50 484.50 E
TOTAL OPERAT.(OOO'Soles) 2354.32 3618.58 4179.23 4478.51 5117.08 5117.08 5117.08 5117.08 5117.08 an
Jto ,1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Model 3: 20 ha Rainfed, Farm Budget Analysis(S./oo I I Yw
W/O PROJ. t 2 - 3 4 5 6 7 19
GROSS VALUE OF PRODUCT.
RICE 735.25 1245.60 1816.50 2785.30 3114.00 3243.75 3243.75 3243.75 3243.75OTHER 535.00 581.90 622.80 672.40 798.10 844.88 881.75 881.75 881.75SALVAGE VALUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.24 0.00
TOTAL INFLOW 1270.25 1827.50 2439.30 3457.70 3912.10 4088.63 4125.50 4227.74 4125.50INVESTMENTS
TRACTOR 0.00 550.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 550.00 0.00ANIMALS 0.00 680.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00LAND DEVELOP. 0.00 175.00 117.00 300.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00IMPLEMENTS 0.00 131.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 131.63 0.00
TOTAL INVESTMENT 0.00 1536.63 117.00 300.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 681.63 0.00OPERATION COSTS .0
AGRICULTURE 831.68 1428.32 1646.98 2084.30 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06
OPERATIONAL COSTS 831.68 1428.32 1646.98 2084.30 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06
TOTAL OUTLFOW 831.68 2964.95 1763.98 2384.30 2438.06 2288.06 2288.06 2969.69 2288.06BENEFITS BEFORE FINANC.
TOTAL 438.57 -1137.45 675.32 1073.40 1474.04 1800.56 1837.44 1258.05 1837.44INCREMENTAL 0.00 -1576.01 236.76 634.84 1035.47 1362.00 1398.87 819.48 1398.87
FINANCING
LOAN RECEIPTS
LONG TERM 0.00 1382.97 105.30 270.00 135.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SHORT TERM 0.00 218.00 437.00 203.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LOAN PAYMENTS
LONG TERM 0.00 646.03 325.06 244.14 193.49 177.57 126.97 117.43 0.00SHORT TERM 0.00 98.10 512.75 725.00 294.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-/----_-_-_-_NEI FINANCING_/ 0.00 856.84 -295.51 -496.14 -352.84 -177.57 -126.97 -117.43 0.00
NET BENEFIT AFTER FINANC_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
TOTAL 438.57 -280.61 379.81 577.26 1121.19 1622.99 1710.47 1140.62 1837.44
FAMILY LABOR INCOME 791.7i 983.11 1115.79 1381.14 1519.25 1519.25 1519.25 1519.25 1519.25ON FARM CONSUMP. 535.00 581.00 622.00 622.00 622.00 622.00 622l.00 622.00 622.00CASH FLOW 695.28 121.50 873.59 1336.40 2018.44 2520.24 2607.72 2037.87 2734.69
1/ Adjusted for inflation. Interest on Loan 45%.
June 8, 1982
PLE RU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROOECT
Model 3: 20 ha Rainfed Cropping Pattern, Yields, Production and Production Value
W/O PROO - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19
A CROPPING PATTERN (ha)
RICE RAINFED 2.50 4.00 5.00 7.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50MAIZE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1-25 1.25 1.25 1.25BEANS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1,25 1.25 1.25 1.25CASSAVA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00FALLOW 5.00 3.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00FOREST 6.50 6.50 6 50 5.00 4,00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00PASTURES 3.00 3-00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
HECIARES 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
B YIELDS (ton/ha)
RICE RAINFED 1.70 1.80 2.10 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50MAIZE 1.70 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.10 2.10 2.10BEANS 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.50CASSAVA 6.00 6.40 6.80 7.40 7.60 8,00 8.00 8.00 8.00
C TOTAL PRODUCT (ton)
RICE RAINFED 4.25 7.20 10.50 16.10 18.00 18.75 18.75 18.75 18,75MAIZE 1.70 1.80 1.85 1.90 2.44 2.50 2.63 2.63 2.63BEANS 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.50 0.56 0.63 0.63 0.63CASSAVA 6.00 6.40 6.80 7.40 7.60 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
TOTAL PRODUCTION 12.15 15.65 19.45 25.75 28.54 29.81 30.00 30.00 30.00
0 VALUE OF PRODUCTION
RICE RAINFED 735.25 1245.60 1816.50 2785.30 3114.00 3243.75 3243.75 3243.75 3243.75MAIZE 204.00 216.00 222~.00 228.00 292.50 300.00 315.00 315.00 315.00BEANS 70.00 87.50 105.00 122.50 179.00 196.88 218.75 218.75 218.75CASSAVA 261.00 278.40 295.80 321.90 330.60 348.00 348.00 348.00 348.00 I
GROSS VALUE (000' Soles) 1270.25 1827.50 2439.30 3457.70 3912.10 4088.63 4125.50 4125.50 4125.50 j
June 8, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Model 3: 20 ha Rainfed O0erating Expenditures(S./'000)
W/O PROU. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19
A. SEEDS
RICE RAINFED 27.19 43.50 54.38 76.13 81.56 81.56 81.56 81.56 81.56MAIZE 2.56 6.53 6.53 6.53 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.16BEANS 5.80 8.70 8.70 8.70 10.88 10.88 10.88 10.88 10.88CASSAVA 0.00 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66
… … _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - --…- - - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal 35.55 65.38 76.26 98.01 107.25 107.25 107.25 107.25 107.25B. FERTILIZERS
RICE RAINFED 0.00 84.10 105.13 147.18 157.69 157.69 157.69 157.69 157.69MAIZE 0.00 21.03 21.03 21.03 26.28 26.28 26.28 26.28 26.28BEANS 0.00 21.03 21.03 21.03 26.28 26.28 26.28 26.28 26.28CASSAVA 0.00 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 1
Subtotal 0.00 130.14 151.16 193.21 214.24 214.24 214.24 214.24 214.24 '
C. INSEC71CIDESl
RICE RAINFED 2.97 52.78 65.97 92.37 98.96 98.996 98.96 98.96 98.96MAIZE 0.00 16.68 16.68 16.68 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84BEANS 0.00 16.68 16.68 16.68 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84 20.84
.._ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal 2. 97 86.13 99.33 125.72 140.65 140.65 140.65 140.65 140.65D. HIRED LABOR
RICE RAINFED 1.45 163.56 204.45 286.23 306.68 306.68 306.68 306.68 306.68
Subtotal 1.45 163.56 204.45 286.23 306.68 306.68 306.68 306.68 306.68E. FAMILY LABOR
RICE RAINFED 358.89 530.70 663.38 928.73 995.06 995.06 995.06 995.06 995.06MAIZE 139.20 143.56 143.56 143.56 179.44 179.44 179.44 179.44 179.44BEANS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CASSAVA 154.43 165.30 165.30 165.30 165.30 165.30 165.30 165.30 165.30_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- -- -_ _.3
Subtotal 791.71 983.11 1115.79 1381.14 1519.25 1519.25 1519.25 1519.25 1519.25 m
0
TOTAL OPERAT.(OOO'Soles) 831 68 Z 1428.32 1646.98 2084.30 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06 2288.06
June 8, 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Model 4: 40 ha Dual Purpose Livestock
- - - - - - - - - - - - Year - - -No. of Unit
Units Units Cost 1 2 3 4 5 Total- - - - - - - - (Soles '000) - - - - - - - -
1. Investments
Pasture Establishment ha(impr.) 15 90 1,350 - _ - - 1,350Buildings shed/corral 1 1,000 1,000 - - - - 1,000Fencing km 0.5 370 185 - - - - 185Equipment set 1 500 500 - - - - 500Miscellaneous 200 200 - - - - 200Breeding Stock - (ZebuxB.Swiss) In-calf heifers 12 300 3,000 600 - - - 3,600
bull 1 400 400 - - - 400Subtotal (Investments) 6,635 66010 - - - 7,235
Year 6
2. Operating Costs
Pasture maintenance ha 15 25 375 375 375 375 375Medicine, Vaccine, etc. AU 13-29 6 78 96 120 138 174Insurance 3% of value in cow equivalents 117 144 180 207 261Maintenance of Investments 3% of value of bldgs.,fenc.,equip. 51 51 51 51 51Concentrate Feed - mineral block AU 13-29 3 39 48 60 69 87
- rice bran 3 kg/cow lactation day(S/.40 per kg) 252 264 249 288 392Bull Replacement - _ _ _ 400Labor - All family manyears 2 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
Subtotal Operating Costs (excluding labor) 912 978 1,035 1,128 1,740
3. Sales
Cull Cows head -1123 1/kg carcass - 200 200 400 600Cull Bull head ---- 1 1/kg carcass - - - - 220Steers head 54467 1/kg carcass 750 600 600 900 1,050Milk liter 0.3 2,530 3 4,174 5,184 _,925
Subtotal (Sales) 3,270 4,430 4,974 4,484 10,795
4. Coefficients
Herd Size - head 20 23 28 33 42- animal units 13 16 20 23 29- cows in milk 10 11 11 12 17
Weaning % 90 65 70 75 75Cow Cull Rate Z - 5 10 15 15Lactation - length days 210 220 230 240 250
- yield I/day 4 5 5.5 6.0 7.0Mortality % (cows/heifers/steers) 3 2 2 2 2
July 23, 1982
- 93 - Table 41
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
r :e E : 7 ~~~~1/Prices: Financial'Atd'Economic-
Soles '000 Per Metric Ton
Financial Economic PricesPrices (S/. '000)
1982 1983 1985 1990 1995
Rice 173 188.7 203.8 256.2 256.2 251.1
Maize 120 81.4 83.1 93.5 95.7 95.7
Beans 350 350 350 350 350 350
Banana 32 32 32 32 32 32
Cassava 43.5 43.5 43.5 43.5 43.5 43.5
Beef 1300' 1362 1327.6 1327.9 1328.3 1381
1! All prices in 1982 constant prices.
August 26, 1982
F'ERU
iLTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INCREMENTAL ECONOMIC ANAiLYSIS
(PERU *'000 SOLES)
2 3 4 5 8 20
FROJECT BENEFITS 1/
AGGREGAI'ED INC. EENEF. -2742645.27 -3044494.55 -2539311.04 -- 7'66671.29 1327138.94 6258522.16 7958228.45 105255131.88
FROJECT COSTS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,,
IRRIGATION 594720.00 307120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESEARCH g EXTENSION 1070925.00 823706.00 130150.00 123650.00 280000.00 115000.00 1-5000.00 0.00
ROADS 3228250.00 3622000.00 ISOOO.00 605000.00 765500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ROADS MAINTENANCE 220000.00 352000.00 22000.00 11000.00 11000.00 11000.00 11000.00 11000.00
ST'ORAGE 90000.00 50000.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 0.00
L-AND CLEARING 410000.00 272000.00 208000.00 60000.00 60000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MAPPING & TITLING 297600.00 343900.00 349400.00 154300.00 96000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FORESTRY & FISHERIES 258850.00 159100.00 140500.00 148200.00 90200.00 0.00 0.00 0.010
FROJECT ADMINISTRATION 414180.00 344250.00 272480.00 258280.00 278380.00 195000.00 195000.00 0.00
TECHNICAL ASSIST.&TRAIN. 206740.00 167340.00 100340.00 87440.00 65440.00 35000.00 35000.00 0.00
Sub~tot31 6791265.00 6481416.00 1511080.00 1748080.00 1646730.00 386210.00 386210.00 11000.00
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES 910029.51 868509.74 260104.72 234242.72 220661.82 51752.14 51752.14 1474.00
TOTAL COSTS 77.01294.51 734992J.-74 2201184.72 1982322.72 1867391.82 437962.14 437962.14 12474.00
NET PROJECT BENEF.
NET -10443939.78-10394420.29 -4790495.76 -2748994.01 -540252.88 5820560.02 7520266.31 10512657.88'tD 7-
NET PRESENT VAI JE AT 12.0% = 11072724.
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN 17.5%
1' Ire1u'A des or-fifT irives tmpri,ts (credit) t OIM oots of i rri3at iori
Table 42Page 2 of 2
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Sensitivity Test
ERR Present ValueChanges in Values of Parameter % (000' Soles)
Most possible outcome 17.5 11,072,724
Production logged one year 16.1
Production logged two years 14.5
Production logged three years 13.0
Benefits down by 20% 16.0
Irrigation costs increased by 35% 16.9
Total costs increased by 50% 13.5
OpportunitySwitching Value Cost of Capital
Benefits reduced by 46.5% 12%
Research & Extension costs increasedby 490% 12%
Roads investment increased by 353% 12%
Project administration costs increasedby 796% 12%
Economic prices for rice reducedby 25.8% 12%
Productivity of rice reduced by 27.6% 12%
November 18. 1982
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Irrigation District
Chief I/
(Rioja)
Monitoring/Studies SecretaryHead, 2 technicians
Rioja
Regional Read I/ Regional Head l/
M4oyobamba Nuevo Cajamarca
Secretary ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Secretary
Sector Chief 2/ Sector Chief 2/ Sector Chief 2/ Sector Chief 2/ Sector Chief 2/Moyobamba Nuevo Cajamarca Ucrania Yuracyacu Rioja
Soritor, Ocheque, Michuco, Polopunta, Alto Plantanoyacu, Huara, Rioja,Indane, Banos, Rio Sonitor/San Ucrania Azungillo, Constelacion, Yurangos,Marona and future Juan, Naranjal/Porvenir, Bajo Plantanoyacu, Posic,district on right Las Union, Bajo Galindona, Molino Rio Negrobank of Rio Mayo Naranjillo Valle Grandeand other newareas.
I/ Ing. Agricola.2/ Tecnico Agricola.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Technical Directorate Irrigation Group
Technical Administrator I/Rioja
Secretary
Chief: Sector 1 21 Chief: Sector 2 3/ Chief: Sector 3 3/ Chief: Sector 4 4/
Agricultural Activities Civil Works Activities Civil Works Activities Agricultural Activities
- Rioja - Michuco - Alto Plantanoyacu - Huaro- Yorongos Tahuantisuyo - Ucrania, Azunguillo - Constelacion- Soritor San Fernando - Naranjal, Porvenir - Bajo Plantanoyacu,
Taime - Galindona CuchiyacuPatria Nueva - San Juan, Alta Soritor - MolinoRio Seco - Valle Grande - Antamplaya (margen
- Polunpunta izuierda Rio Mayo)- La Union
1/ Ing. Agricola.2/ Tecnico Agropecuario.3/ Obrero Especializado.
PERU
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Project Organization
Executive Director
Huallaga Central-Mayo
Internal echnical Director
Audit Alto Mayo
SubDirector SubDirector
OD
Administration Planning & Evaluation
Unit Chief: Unit Chief: Unit Chief:
Accounts and Supply and Personnel
Budget Support Services
Director of Works Director of Services
Su rector Work; [ ybDirector Serv
Unit Chief: Unit Chief: Unit Chief: Unit Chief: Unit Chief: Unit Chief:
Infrastructure Roads Irrigation Extension & Mapping Agricultural
Research Titling Equipment
Novembhr 17. 1982
ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
H4II H U14 CF
[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -H
H,11 J F PE ACI~~~~~~~~~ H FI0P
-3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~.
4 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4'A'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ E ,~
P,. ~ ~ ~ Jb,P. PYpCYC
5,Pd ,p,P,,,,,
["414- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
