world bank document · part i: project ... this document has a restricted distribution and may be...

Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 15977

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT

BANGLADESH

THIRD FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE PROJECT(Cr. 1591-BD)

September 4, 1996

Agriculture and Natural ResourcesOperations DivisionCountry Department ISouth Asia Region

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

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94

USSI.OO equivalent in Takas 29.20 30.68 31.34 32.00 33.42 35.58 37.77 39.26 39.89

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Metric System

FISCAL YEAR OF BORROWER

July I - June 30

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BWDB Bangladesh Water Development BoardDAE Department of Agricultural ExtensionDOF Department of FisheriesFCD Flood Control and DrainageFCD III Third Flood Control and Drainage ProjectFCD IV Fourth Flood Control and Drainage ProjectGOB Government of BangladeshICR Implementation Completion ReportPMU Project Management UnitSAR Staff Appraisal ReportUNDP United Nations Development ProgramWB World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


BANGLADESH

THIRD FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE PROJECT

Table of Contents

PagePREFACE ..............

EVALUATION SUMARY .. ii

PART I: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT . .I

A. STATEMENT/EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES ..... I

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES .

C. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROJECT .3Factors Not Generally Subject to Govermnent Control .3Factors Generally Subject to Govermnent Control .3Factors Generally Subject to Implementing Agency Control ....................................... 5

D. PROJECT SUSTAINABLITY .6

E. BANK PERFORMANCE .6

F. BORROWER PERFORMANCE .7

G. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME .8

H. FUTURE OPERATIONS .8

I. KEY LESSONS LEARNED ........................ 9

PART II: STATISTICAL ANNEXES

I . Summary of Assessments .102. Related Bank Loans/Credits .123. Project Timetable 134. Loan/Credit Disbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual .135. Key Indicators for Project Implementation 14

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the perfonmance of theirofficial duties. Its contenls may not othenise be disclosed wiLhout World Bank authorization.

6. Key Indicators for Project Operation ................................... 177. Studies Included in Project ................................... 178A. Project Costs .................................... 188B. Project Financing .................................... 189. Economic Costs and Benefits ................................... 1910. Status of Legal Covenants S ................................... 2011. Compliance with Operational Manual Statements ............ ....................... 2212. Bank Resources: Staff Inputs ................................... 2213. Bank Resources: Missions ................................... 23

APPENDICES

1. Aide Memoire2. Economic Rate of Return and Net Present Value3. Agriculture Tables

MAP #: IBRD 18549


BANGLADESH


(Credit 1591-BD)

Preface

1. This is the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for the Third Flood Control and DrainageProject (FCD-III) in Bangladesh. for which Cr. 159 1-BD in the amount of SDR 50.1 million (US$48.0million equivalent at that time) was approved on May 7. 1985 and made effective on November 19. 1985.

2. The Credit was closed with one year delay on June 30, 1994. On August 17, 1993 an amountof SDR 3.0 million out of the Credit was cancelled, while at the final disbursement date of July 14, 1994,the remainder outstanding balance of SDR 3.97 million was also cancelled. Co-financing for the projectwas provided for technical assistance and training by UNDP and the Government of the Republic of SouthKorea.

3. This draft ICR was prepared by a missionI from the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programmewhich visited Bangladesh from March 14 to March 30, 1995. 2 It is based on material in the project files atthe Bank office in Dhaka. The Borrower contributed to the preparation of the draft ICR by providingrequired data and participating in finalizing the Aide-Memoire.

ISee Appendix I for Aide-Memnoire.

2 Mr. Dirk J. Lens (Project Analyst/Mission Leader) and Volker Branscheid (Land and Water DevelopmentEngineer).


BANGLADESH


(Credit 1591-BD)

Evaluation Summary

Introduction

1. The Third Flood Control and Drainage Project (FCD-III) was designed and implemented aspart of the Government of Bangladesh's (GOB) policy to promote full use of the productive potential of thecountry's scarce land resources by controlling floods, improving drainage and increasing access toirrigation. The project was similar in objectives and design to several then on-going projects, including twosupported by other IDA credits (Cr. 864-BD for FCD-I and Cr. 1184-BD for FCD-1I) A feasibility study,financed by IDA's fourth technical assistance credit (Cr. 1124-BD) and prepared by the Bangladesh WaterDevelopment Board (BWDB) wvith the assistance of the Netherlands Development Consultants(NEDECO), and a review of the two aforementioned IDA projects, had been the basis for the Bank'sappraisal.

Project Objectives

2. Project objectives were to protect human life, crops and property from floods and to improvethe physical environment for better agricultural practices in three sub-project areas (Gumti, Naogaon andMadhumati-Nabaganga) covering a total net command or agricultural area of 104,500 ha. Furtherenvisaged were establishment of new surface-water irrigation facilities and irrigation improvement for anoverall area of 14.350 ha in Gumti. Finally, the project was to strengthen BWDB implementation capacity.To achieve these objectives the project included: (i) construction and rehabilitation of embankments, water

control structures, drainage channels and irrigation facilities, and upgrading of roads; (ii) support toBWDB to improve the planning, design, and monitoring of FCD projects, and to improve land acquisitionand operation and maintenance of works, and (iii) the preparation of programs for development ofagriculture and fisheries within the entire project area.

3. During implementation some infrastructure works that were initially envisaged under the SARwere either modified or eliminated. Some of these changes led to cost increases and others to costreductions. A significant cost increase occurred due to the heightening of several embankments by onemeter as a result of a redefinition of the design flood criteria following the catastrophic floods of 1987 and1988. Omissions/modifications that led to cost reductions include elimination of construction of theKalikapur sub-polder (about 650 ha) from the Naogaon sub-project, and the reduction of the irrigation anddrainage sub-components of the Gumti sub-project.

4. Although special loan covenants to promote project objectives were included in the DCA, theireffectiveness has been mixed. The covenant (DCA Section 3.03) to accelerate land acquisition was onlypartly complied with and did not have the expected results. The design of agricultural and fisheries

iiidevelopment programs to be prepared under the project (DCA, Schedule 4, para 5) for the precedingproject (FCD II - Cr. 1184-BD) and this project have been completed. A follow-up action plan has beenproposed, which is being revised and will be shortly ready for implementation.

Implementation and Results

5. The project has achieved most of its flood control objectives. While some project componentsfor irrigation and drainage were dropped as uneconomic, the components completed are expected to achievemost of their agricultural objectives within the next three years. However, increased costs, a lengthenedconstruction period and unfavorable impact on fisheries have reduced estimated economic returns tomarginal levels, and poor O&M raises severe risks to sustainability. The technical assistance component,which was mainly financed by UNDP, was implemented satisfactorily but it's lasting effect is doubtful,particularly for the operation and maintenance component. The strengthening of BWDB has been acontinuing process which was also supported by the two preceding IDA projects (Cr. 864-BD and Cr. 1184-BD) as well as by the immediately succeeding project in the same sector, namely, the Fourth Flood Controland Drainage Project (FCD IV) or Cr.1784-BD (see Part 11, Table 2). Despite continued support toBWDB for more than two decades, the results of water sector projects have been mixed. Construction wascompleted for most projects by Credit closing but arrangements for operation and maintenance areinadequate up to now.

6. The main unfavorable impact of FCD-III concerns the project's likely adverse effect on floodplain fisheries. A fish culture program in the polder's ponds is being implemented to mitigate floodplainfisheries losses. However, while fish culture may compensate for reduced floodplain fish catch, it wouldnot fully compensate for either the income loss of inland fishermen (who belong to the lowest socialstratum) or the loss of fish bio-diversity. Consequently, GOB should actively pursue and ensure that therecommendations emanating from the project-supported agricultural and fisheries development programs(para 4) and any further follow-up recommendations to redress this issue that are available are fullyimplemented as part of post-project operations plan. IDA has indicated willingness in principle to considerfinancing under the ongoing Systems Rehabilitation Project (SRP - Cr. 2099-BD) of any mitigationmeasures that can be completed before the December 30, 1997 SRP Closing Date. Thereafter, mitigatingmeasures are being considered under a proposed Water Sector Rehabilitation Project under preparation.

7. Maintenance of the structures is the responsibility of BWDB but is at present hardly beingdone. Similarly, no routine maintenance work has been carried out on the embankment and theembanmanent roads. O&M initially fell behind schedule due to delays in completion of project works.However, inadequate efforts were made to prepare O&M systems to be operational as works werecompleted. Presently, there appears to be no O&M system in place even though an O&M Manual wasdeveloped under the SRP in 1993. This manual defines BWDB's role and requires beneficiary participationand is to be used as a guideline for the maintenance of the polder embankments and related structures.Prior to the field visit of the ICR mission, BWDB prepared and submitted O&M plans for all the three sub-projects based on the SRP O&M Manual. Implementation of these O&M plans is now the highest priority.(The likelihood of adequate maintenance of a portion of the project is increased in this case by the

subsequent pavement of roads on top of about 50% of the embankmnents.)

8. The SAR estimated total project cost at US$65 million. At project completion, actual totalcost was US$81.2 million. However, favorable movements in SDR/US$ and US$/Taka exchange rates

ivduring project implementation period and supplementary GOB financing permitted funding of increasedcost despite the fact that some SDR 7 million out of the IDA Credit have been canceled.

9. Of the seven years originally planned for project implementation, four were intended for theconstruction of the infrastructure and three for O&M of the works. Unfortunately, the construction phasewas spread over the entire eight years and not even O&M of completed works was initiated., a key elementfor assuring project sustainability. The main reason for this delay has been problems in land acquisitionwhich is the responsibility of the Borrower. Mainly as a consequence of these delays and the changes indesign (see paras 10 & II below), the ERR of all three sub-projects is lower than estimated at appraisal,i.e. Gumti - about 14%; Naogaon - about 11% and Madhumati-Nabaganga - about 11%.

10. Embankment heights and hence costs for the Gumti I and Naogoan polders were increasedbecause of changes in the design flood levels. At appraisal, the Gumti I sub-project flood embankmentswere designed on a single project basis to the BWDB standard which specified protection against floodingup to the one-in-20 year flood level. However, it was recognized during appraisal that multiple polderprojects within the same river basin would cause design flood levels to increase for the same flood returnperiod. Accordingly, the appraisal for FCD Ill project in July 1984, included technical assistance for abasin-wide study to determine the new flood level. The Gumti 11 study was completed before the actualconstruction of the embankments of Gumti I and recommended that the original embankment height forGumti I be increased by about one meter, as a result of which the cost also increased.

IL. At the same time, and independently of the entire Gumti exercise, BWDB changed its designcriterion from a "one-in-20 year flood event" to "the highest flood level ever" in view of the unprecedentedhigh water levels in rivers during the 1987 and 1988 floods. By pure coincidence, this level was aboutequal to the redefined embankments height of Gumti I already estimated by the Gumti 1I Basin study andthus did not really affect the Gumti I polder. In contrast, the new BWDB criterion did affect the Naogaonpolder which had to be increased by one meter. while the Madhumati-Nabaganga polder was not at allaffected since the new and old BWDB criterion led to the same flood level for this particular polder.

12. Three deficiencies are noted in IDA handling of the above issues during appraisal andimplementation:

(i) As the appraisal team was apparently fully aware of the fact that Gumti II wasunder serious consideration (the study of the Gumti Basin needed for the appraisalof Gumti 1I was part of the FCD III project), the embankment height required toacconimodate Gumti 11 should have been determined and applied at appraisal andthe costs concerned included in its estimate of project cost and its economnicanalysis:

(ii) BWDB's decision to change its design criterion from a "one-in-20 year floodevent" to "the highest flood level ever" should have been recognised as a seriouspolicy issue, affecting not only this project but all past and future flood controlprojects, and the effects of this decision should have been the subject of thorougheconomic analysis and policy discussion; and

V(iii) when BWDB or its consultants had recalculated the ERR on the basis of the

increased costs due to the heightening of the embankments. the Bank should haveconsidered the increased heights on the basis of its oWnl review rather than justaccepting the BWDB's consultants' recalculation.

13. Another, more general, appraisal deficiency concerned the fact that although appraisal hadclaimed that measures would be introduced to minimize the increased flood hazard resulting from thepossible shifts in floods through the intervention of the project, nothing was actually done. Similarly.relying on a study during implementation to design fisheries mitigation measures reflects what by today'sstandards would be considered inadequate preparation.

14. The estimated economic rates of return of 11-14% for the three sub-projects could be regardedas marginally satisfactory. However, the key to achieving these rates of return is progress in carrying outplanned measures to ensure project sustainability (i.e., to ensure adequate execution of the O&M programrecently designed by BWDB) and to mitigate fisheries losses. Given the disappointing performance ofcurrent efforts to improve O&M under the ongoling SRP, the estimated outcome, considering the risks ofinadequate O&M performance, is rated as unisatisfactory. However. good performance on O&M andfisheries mitigation measures could raise the final outcome to a satisfactory level.

15. Borrower perfonrance is also regarded as unsatisfactory. Works that were intended to becompleted in four years took eight y'ears to complete. O&M of completed works had not been initiated byproject completion, and work required for sustainability is only now being started. IDA performance mustalso be regarded as unsatisfactorv. The project as designed at appraisal included some components whichhad to be dropped later as uneconomic. The appraisal mission took inadequate notice of: (i) project effectson fisheries; (ii) project effects on those living outside the benefited area who are affected by higher floodlevels due to the project embankments; or (iii) the possibility of future projects under active considerationaffecting the design requirements. Supervision. while generally quite good, even meticulous, wasinadequate in handling the issues of proposed chaniges in embankment heights and overall design standards(see para 12), i.e., the thvo decisions that were policy-related.

Summary of Findings, Future Operations, and Key Lessons Learned

16. Despite being identified as a possible risk, the difficulties with land acquisition were significantlyunderestimated. This has been the principal obstacle to timely project implementation and contributed to thereduction in the ERRs.

17. The BWDB's Operation Wing will be responsible for O&M of the infrastructure and thus forproject sustainabilitv. It is BWDB's intentioni to involve the polder beneficiaries in O&M. The limitedfunds which are available are largely used for setting up BWDB's Operation Wing and little is left fordoing the actual maintenance wvork. BWDB has recently prepared O&M plans to deal Xvith these issues.and implementation of these plans must be undertaken with highiest priority.

18. Key lessons learned are that: (i) Board presentation prior to detailed enginieerinig investigationi anddesign increases the risk of need to modify project componients and of pre-constructioni delays. (ii) market studieson land values ought to be undertaken before credit negotiation or credit effectiveness to ensure that landacquisition compensations offered are fair; (iii) to facilitate and arrive at a sound embanikimienit design a study of theoverall river basin development, rather than of merely the project area located within the river basin, should be

vi

carried out; (iv) environmental issues (particularly fisheries and flood externalities) should be addressed well inadvance of project appraisal: (v) adequate and timely O&M plans and availability of funds for post-projectsustainability should be ensured by the Borrower in close participation with the beneficiaries, (vi) publicconsultation should take place to incorporate local knowledge and ensure acceptability of proposed designs; and(vii) consideration of any proposals for major changes in design standards should be based upon recalculation bythe Bank of the expected ERRs.

M: FCD31CR\BGD-3EVA.SMP9/4i 1996 01:40 PM


BANGLADESH

THIRD FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE PROTECT(Credit 1591-BD)

PART 1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT

A. STATEMENT/EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES

1. The main objectives of the project were: (a) to protect against crop losses, loss of life andproperty damage due to floods; (b) to improve the physical environment to allow farmers to adoptimproved agricultural practices; and (c) to strengthen the Bangladesh Water Development Board(BWDB). The project consisted of three sub-projects (Gumti Phase 1, Naogaon Polder I andMadhumati-Nabaganga) which were designed to provide flood control and drainage (FCD) to104,500 ha and irrigation for 14,350 ha. About 115,000 farm families or about 670,000 people wereexpected to benefit. The project interventions included: (i) the construction and rehabilitation ofembanknents, water control structures, drainage channels and irrigation facilities and the upgrading ofroads; (ii) support to BWDB to improve the planning, design, and monitoring of FCD projects, and toimprove land acquisitions and operation and maintenance procedures; and (iii) the preparation ofprograms for further development of agriculture and fisheries within the project area.

2. The SAR Nvas based on a feasibility report commissioned by BWDB and prepared byintemational consultants (NEDECO). The final design of project facilities was completed by BWDBduring implementation with the help of technical assistance (local and intemational) provided under theproject. Due to appraisal prior to completion of final designs, some items originally included in the SARwere later dropped or modified (see paras 10). Two changes in the design criteria for embankmentheight were adopted during project implementation and they significantly increased civil works costs intwo of the three polders. However, the resulting increase in costs of the project were partly compensatedby the elimination or modification of other items under the project (see para 8).

3. The overall objectives of the project were sound and clearly defined. They were in linewith GOB's policy of promoting full use of the productive potential of the country's scarce landresources by controlling floods, improving drainage and increasing access to irrigation. While theSAR recognized that the project would adversely affect floodplain fisheries and increase floodingin adjacent areas, to date no effective mitigation or compensation plans have been implemented byGOB. IDA has indicated willingness in principle to consider financing under the ongoing BWDBSystem Rehabilitation Project (SRP--Cr.2099-BD) of any mitigation measures that can becompleted before the December 30, 1997 SRP Closing Date. Thereafter mitigating measures arebeing considered under a proposed Water Sector Rehabilitation Project under preparation.

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES

4. The majority of the project's flood control objectives have been achieved. While only 30% ofthe irrigation component and 40% of the drainage was completed, for the components completed theprojected agricultural benefits are expected to be achieved. The polders have been established and

2

agriacultal production has increased wihout any further project intervetion. Yields are substantiallyhigher than in adjacent areas outside the project Most farmers living in the project polders have beenable to cultivate their land without fear of floods, which has led to the inroduction of higher value crops,even though the polders have been operating for only a year. It is expected that the polders should reachfull agriculhural production levels projected respectively for irrigated and non-irrigated portions of thepolders over the next three years. However, increased costs, a lengtned construction peirod andunfavorable impacts on fisheries have reduced estimated economic returns to marginal levels. PoorO&M raises severe risks to sustainability.

5. The technical assistance component, which was mainly financed by UNDP, has beenimplemented satisfactorily (see para 29). Some 595 staff' have been trained during the project.The close working relationship of the Task Manager at the Bank's office in Dhaka with the ProjectManagement Unit (PMU) has been beneficial to BWDB in terms of prioritizing of problems andissues, and problem solving. Despite all these effort and despite the successful training, the lastingeffect of the technical assistance component on BWDB performance has been limited.

6. The Economic Rate of Return (ERR) and the Net Present Value (NPV - opportunity cost ofcapital 12%) has been estimated for all three sub-projects. The presently estimated ERRs (which rangefrom about 11% to 14%) are significantly lower than those estimated at appraisal (which ranged from16% to 28%), as are the newly estimated NPVs. Main reasons for the less than expected performance ineconomic terms are: (i) the higher than expected investment cost - all expressed in 1994 Taka (in the caseof Gumti and Naogaon it nearly doubled, while it increased by about 40% in the Madhumati-Nabagangasub-project) and (ii) the more than doubling of the investment period (for Gumti about four years and forthe other two sub-projects five years each). The Naogaon sub-project economic performance sufferedthe most. Its ERR dropped from an expected 28% to an actual 11% and its NPV from an anticipatedTk 468 million to minus TIk 37.2 million. The main reason for its poorer economic performance was theserious delay in benefits and the much higher fish production loss it had to suffer in comparison with thetwo other sub-projects and which was not taken into account in the SAR (see Pant I, Table 9 andAppendix 2).

7. Although the project has satisfactorily achieved most of the flood protection objectives of theproject (the exception being protection of Naogoan town, see para 12), it has had an adverse impact onthe environment and the livelihood of the floodplain fishermen. Polder construction has impeded the freemovement of several fish species to their spawning grounds and jeopardised the existence of thesespecies. Floodplain fishenmen are experiencing reduced catches and now need to obtain permission forfishing the areas within the project's polders which were formerly an open access common propertyresource. An attempt is being made to compensate for the decrease in fish catch through promotingculture fisheries, but this would neither benefit the floodplain fishermen, nor help mitigate theenvironmental concerns about diminution of fish species. In this situation, GOB should actively pursuethe recmmendations of the agricultral and fisheries development studies financed under the project(par 23) and ensure that they are fully implemnted as part of post-project operations plan. As far ascan be deemined, there has been no attempt to mitigate or compensate for increased flood hazardoutside and upstream of the polders. It is extremely important that people disbenefited by the project areadequately compensated to avoid group action to (a) restore fisheries losses and (b) attempt to alleviateincreased flooding through breaching of the projects' embankments.

i Trainer, executive development, training policy and strategy, and O&M courses.

3

C. MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROJECT

Factors Not Generally Subject to Government Control

8. During implementation four project components originally envisaged were omitted orchanged for reasons beyond Government control: (i) omission of the Kalikapur sub-polder (about

2 . 3650 ha) in the Naogaon subproject, (ii) reduced irrigation in the Gumti sub-project; (iii) reduceddrainage canals from 821 km to 316 kin; and (iv) reduced length of new embankinents from 212kmto 129km.

9. The changes to project design were caused by the fact that IDA went ahead with appraisalon the basis of preparatory work carried out by consultants without prior detailed engineeringinvestigation and design. Subsequent detailed design showed that the Gumti irrigation componentand Kalikapur sub-polder were not economic. It is not clear from the information available if thereduction in the drainage component was the result of a rational reappraisal of drainage needs orwas a response to reduce overall project cost overrun caused by greatly increased embankmentcosts. However, GOB should be given credit for canceling the SAR project components whichwere subsequently found to be uneconomic.

Factors Generally Subject to Government Control

10. Five problems should be highlighted: (i) land acquisition; (ii) omission of about one kmlength of embankment that left the town of Naogaon prone to floods in a one in five year event(instead of one in 20); (iii) an increase of the embankment height by about one meter in the Gumtiand Naogaon sub-projects; (iv) fisheries losses; and (v) increased flood risk of adjacent areas asresult of the project.

ll. The land acquisition for construction of the embankments and drainage channels wasrather cumbersome, not only due to resistance of the local population but also due to obstacles atlocal political and ministerial levels. The local resistance reflects in part inadequate compensationlevels and procedures. As a consequence of delays in land acquisition, completion of constructionwas delayed by four years4 and the O&M, envisaged by the SAR to be undertaken over the lastthree years of the project, had barely commenced at project closure. Unfortunately, the lack ofO&M on civil works completed earlier in the project is already apparent and their sustainabilityalready in doubt (para 24).

12. The omission of a length of embankment at Naogoan was due to the insistence ofinhabitants in the town not to construct the embankments within the town itself and is indicative ofinadequate public consultation during project design. This omission will not affect the Naogaonpolder which is partially-protected against floods by a highway east of the town and constructed atthe same level as the embankment. However, this highway can only provide full protection once itscross-drainage culverts are gated. As far as the ICR mission could determine, GOB is not takingany steps to provide alternative flood protection to Naogaon town.

2 Dropped due to high cost per ha.

3 Only 3.700 ha have been covered rather than 14.350 ha anticipated at appraisal due to a 10-fold costincrease for the envisaged pumping system.

4Three for Gumiti.

4

13. Embankment heights and hence costs for the Gumti I and Naogoan polders were increasedbecause of changes in the design flood levels. At appraisal, the Gumti I sub-project floodembankrnents were designed on a single project basis to the BWDB standard which specifiesprotection against flooding up to the one-in-20 year flood level. However, it was recognizedduring appraisal that multiple polder projects within the same river basin would cause design floodlevels to increase for the same flood return period. Accordingly, the appraisal for FCD III projectin July 1984, included technical assistance for a basin-wide study to determine the new flood level.The Gumti II study was completed before the actual construction of the embankments of Gumti Iand recommended that the original embankment height for Gumti I be increased by about onemeter, as a result of which the cost also increased.

14. At the same time. and independently of the entire Gumti exercise, BWDB changed itsdesign criterion from a "one-in-20 year flood event" to "the highest flood level ever" in view of theunprecedented high water levels in rivers during the 1987 and 1988 floods. By pure coincidence,this level was about equal to the redefined embankments height of Gumti I already estimated by theGumti II Basin study and thus did not really affect the Gumti I polder. In contrast, the new BWDBcriterion did affect the Naogaon polder which had to be increased by one meter, while theMadhumati-Nabaganga polder was not at all effected since the new and old BWDB criterion led tothe same flood level for this particular polder.

15. The project's possible effect on nigration of certain fish species was recognized atappraisal, but little action was proposed other than studies on how to minimize this effect. No suchstudy was included in the final project design and, even if it had been, it would have been of littleuse, since such studies should be carried out prior to project implementation. The only studycarried out concerned the preparation of plans to harvest the residual fisheries potential afterproject completion. Government and the appraisal mission must have been aware of the project'spossible adverse effects on the flood plain fisheries (in terms of the environment and of thefishermen's catch) and should have taken a strong stand on this and insisted that the study becarried out prior to project design. Indications are that about 7.000 fisherman5 have been deprivedof catch in the order of several thousands of tons per year.

16. It was recognized during appraisal that the project could shift floods to other areas not yetprotected from flooding. While GOB took no action to identif, or mitigate these impacts resultingfrom the project. it was clearly recognized in the parallel basin-wide planning activities for Gumtiphase II that additional polders in the same region would raise flood water levels by up to a meterbecause of backwater effects. Similarly, regional planing carried out under the FAP in 1990-92for the north west region clearly highlighted the drainage congestion in the Atrai river caused bythe Naogoan polder which causes external flooding earlier and delays upstream drainage.

17. Government has recently recognized in their Bangladesh Water and Flood ManagementStrategy (September 1995). the complexity of water resources planning. the critical importance ofbeneficiary participation in project design and O&M. and the need for a more completeunderstanding of the flood plain ecology - including fisheries - before embarking on new rural floodcontrol and drainage projects. The Strategy contains a plan for action over the period 1995-2000and it is anticipated that Government will address the issues related to flood design criteria,externalities of polder-type projects (including fisheries), and improved national land acquisitionprocedures under this plan. Building on the experiences of this and other polder projects, and thework of FAP. Government has introduced significantly improved procedures for land acquisition,

Para 12 of the Agriculture and Fisheries Study prepared by the project.

5

compensation and resettlement procedures into two new IDA-funded projects (River BankProtection Project (Cr. 2791 BD), and Coastal Embankment Rehabilitation Project (Cr. 2783- BD).

Factors Generally Subject to Implementing Agency Control

18. Day-to-day management by the PMU was satisfactory considering the need to superviseand coordinate numerous small contractors dispersed over the three subprojects6 throughoutBangladesh. It also dealt successfully with ICB procedures under which the contract for theimportant Gotia Beel embankment of the Naogaon subproject was awarded and the construction ofwhich has been rated as highly satisfactory. Noteworthy also has been PMU's positive approachin dealing with land acquisition where it occurred, which avoided extensive resettlement common inother similar projects in Bangladesh. It largely avoided acquisition of homesteads, gardens, pondsetc. in the subproject areas except in Gumti, and prevented any beneficiary becoming landless.This was possible because of the isolation of the PMU from BWDB at large.

19. The flood protection aspects of the project are of particular relevance in the Gumtisubproject where more than 400,000 persons are at risk of inundation if the previous highest floodlevel is exceeded. In such a case, breaching of embankments would be at an unpredictable locationwith tremendous force. Flood warning systems and fuse plugs should have been installed to floodthe polder in a more controlled manner. At the time. these concepts were not known in Bangladeshand the first pilot project testing such concepts has only started recently. It is not too late to do thisretroactively.

20. BWDB advocated a change in flood level protection after appraisal which affected theGurnti and Naogaon sub-projects in that their embankment levels and hence their costs had to beincreased (see paras 13). The costs of these increases were covered through cost-effectivealterations and omissions in the final designs (para 8).

21. The increase in embankment heights of the Gumti and the Naogaon sub-projects wouldincrease the flood levels in the adjacent polders since their embankments were constructed on a onein five year confined basis. This would increase the risk of farmers of the adjacent poldersbreaching the project embankments in the belief that the flood level in their own polders wouldsignificantly decrease. With better public relations and information dissemination by BWDB theserisks could be substantially reduced.

22. The recommendation made during appraisal to forfeit cropping of river beds on publicly-owned lands could not be fully implemented. The ICR mission observed that much of the river bedis in fact cropped, giving rise to higher floods than anticipated.

23. The studies on agriculture and fisheries in the completed polders were done generallysatisfactorily except that: (i) no comparative analysis was made on fishery production with theearlier Base Line Study, and (ii) evaluation of project works was deficient - due to inconsistenciesin data presentation. The collaborative action plan had been prepared but was flawed and is nowbeing revised.

6 In addition. PMU also looked after FCD-IV

6

D. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

24. Project sustainability depends upon the ability of BWDB's Operational Wing to effectivelymaintain the works. Experience with the existing 40 polders throughout the country is notencouraging, partially due to lack of O&M funds. Beneficiaries' participation in maintenance is notyet common and embankment cuts are done occasionally by the public for various motivesincluding flood release by outsiders,7 drainage by insiders and for irrigation and fisheries.Moreover, due to the late completion of civil works, operations began only recently and anappropriate O&M system has not yet been introduced. First deteriorations are visible on structuresand embankments, brick roads are undulating and eroding due to heavy traffic and bricks arepilfered. Unless adequate funding of O&M is ensured and the benefiting public is involved inmaintenance of at least the embankments and the drainage channels (as is customary in othercountries), through, for instance Water Management Associations, sustainability would beuncertain. BWDB has recentiv prepared O&M plans to deal with these issues, and successfulimplementation of these plans is required for project sustainability.

E. IDA PERFORMANCE

25. IDA appraised the project based on preliminary designs and cost estimates which resultedin considerable changes of items and components during implementation when detailed design wascarried out (see para 2). During appraisal insufficient attention has beeni given to reachingagreement on overall design criteria. including those related to flood by-passes or controlledflooding and mitigation against the loss of fisheries, although the severity of the 1987 and 1988floods could not have been foreseen. These led to the change of the design criteria for the levels ofthe embankments.

26. Three deficiencies are noted in IDA handling of embankment height issues (para 13 & 14)during appraisal and during implementation:

a) As the appraisal team was apparently fully aware of the fact that Gumti 11 was underserious consideration at the time (the study of the Gumti Basni needed for theappraisal of Gumti 11 Nvas part of the FCD III project), the embankment heightrequired to accommodate Gumti II should have been determined and applied byappraisal and the costs concerned included in its estimate of project cost and itseconomic analysis:

b) BYWDB's decision to change its design criterion to "the highest flood level ever"should have been recognized as a serious issue, affecting not only this project but allpast and future flood control projects, and the effect of this decision should have beenthe subject of thorough economic analysis and policy discussion; anid

c) When BWDB or its consultants had recalculated the ERR on the basis of theincreased costs due to the heightening of the embankments, the Bank should have

As adjacent polders would flood first, their inhabitants would in all likelihood breach the higherembankments of the project. as they would be fallaciously convinced that such action would release theflood waters in their own polders.

7

considered the increased height on the basis of its own review rather than justaccepting the BWDB's consultants' recalculation.

27. Appraisal also ignored two possible environmental consequences that the project couldbring about, i.e. possible hindrance to the migration of certain species of fish in the project areaand possible shift of floods to areas not yet protected from floods. SAR claimed to introducemeasures in the project design to minimize any negative impact on natural fisheries. No suchmeasures, other than operational (opening and closing of gates at critical periods of fish migration),were listed in the SAR or implemented by the project.8 Likewise, SAR claimed that a study wasbeing carried out to measure the impact of the project polders on the adjacent areas and thatsufficient flexibility had been built into the project design to allow the undertaking of correctiveaction in light of new information. No evidence of such studies could be found by the ICRmission; also no funds had been allocated for any of these actions under this project.

28. IDA assigned a Task Manager from its Resident Mission in Dhaka which allowed closeand continuous supervision and frequent contact with the PMU. Ten supervision missions werefielded and the problems of implementation were clearly spelled out. Particularly the landacquisition problem was highlighted by all missions. Reporting was done in great detail and israted as highly satisfactory. However, supervision was inadequate in handling the issues ofproposed changes in embankment heights and overall design standards (para 26), i.e., the twodecisions that were policy related.

29. Although the IDA was not responsible for technical assistance and training, it should bementioned that it was successfully completed, even though with some delay. UNDP conducted anevaluation of this component (for which it was mainly responsible), the outcome of which had beenrated satisfactory. The technical assistance funded by the Government of the Republic of SouthKorea, which was mainly concerned with the design aspects, has also been satisfactory.

F. BORROWER PERFORMANCE

30. The detailed designs of civil works have been prepared quite satisfactorily by the Borrowerand its consultants with the exception of the flood protection aspects (see para 19). The Borrowerestablished a competent PMU and effectively used its BWDB field offices for implementation ofcivil works.

31. Nevertheless, some of the works have still not been completed for a variety of reasons.These include: (i) one km of embankment in the town of Naogaon (resisted by the popu!ation); and(ii) 14 irrigation inlet gates in the Madhumati-Nabaganga sub-project (not placed). In addition,some work in the Madhumati-Nabaganga sub-project needs to be redone, such as misfitted gates,loose gate lifting devices or a low road crossing. Of the three sub-projects, the works performed inthe Gumti sub-project have been considered the most satisfactory.

32. The operation of polder regulators is either done by farmers' representatives or by BWDBstaff on the instructions of farmers' committees. BWDB staff participates in the committee

The project financed agriculture and fishery studies did look into the adverse effects of the project onthe flood plain fishery. As anticipated these studies were completed only in August 1994 and thus iomeasures as yet have been taken to mitigate the adverse effects of the polders on flood plain fisheries.

8

meetings and advises as necessary. Maintenance of structures is the responsibility of BWDB eventhough this so far has been hardly done. Similarly, no routine maintenance work has been carriedout on the embankment and the embankment roads. At the initial stage of the project, O&M wasdelayed due to the continuous lag in land acquisition, which delayed construction and maintenance.O&M plans for the project works have been recently prepared by BWDB with the help of anoverall O&M Manual which was developed in 1993 under the Flood Action Plan. This manualstipulates BWDB's involvement and has emphasized beneficiary participation. (The likelihood ofadequate maintenance for a portion of the project is increased in this case by the subsequentpavement of roads on top of about 50% of the embankments.)

33. All nine studies to be prepared under the project have been completed largely satisfactorily(see Part II, Table 7). On the basis of the Agricultural and Fisheries Studies, a collaborative actionplan was prepared by BWDB, the Department of Agriculture Extension (DAE), and theDepartment of Fisheries (DOF). This plan was found unsatisfactory, since the Engineering andDevelopment Program had been based on inadequate data regarding the amount and condition ofthe project's civil works. A revision is under way.

34. BWDB is now implementing the recommendations that have been made by the InstitutionalCapability Study financed under the Credit which made specific suggestions to strengthen itsinstitutional capacities in planning, construction, operation and maintenance. It was understoodthat so far, funding does not appear to be a problem.

G. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME

35. Certain embankments were increased above SAR design level; irrigation facilities over10,000 ha were not constructed due to the excessive cost involved; and one km length ofembankment was deleted because of disagreements among the beneficiaries, which left theNaogaon town prone to floods once every five years, as before, instead of the once in 20 yearsintended. On the other hand, the embankments have been constructed and farmers in the poldershave increased cropping intensity and are cultivating high-yielding and high value crops. ERRs of11-14% for the three sub-projects could be regarded as marginally satisfactory. However, the keyto achieving these rates of return is progress in carrying out planned measures to ensure projectsustainability (i.e. to ensure implementation of the recently designed O&M program) and tomitigate fisheries losses. Given the disappointing performance of current efforts to improve O&Munder the ongoing Systems Rehabilitation Project (Credit 2099-BD), the likely outcome,considering the risks of inadequate O&M performance, must be downgraded to unsatisfactory.However, good performance on O&M and fisheries mitigation could raise the final outcome to asatisfactory level.

H. FUTURE OPERATIONS

36. BWDB's Operation Wing will be responsible for O&M of the project in future. Somefunds are available but these are largely used for establishment (salaries, etc.) and little is left foractual work. The on-going program of farmers participation (Structure Committees) in operatingsmall structures should be expanded to also include the larger structures. Full participation ofbeneficiaries in maintenance and vigilance of the embankments and the brick roads - as practiced inother countries - is essential to render the investment sustainable. Some thought should be given toactually handing over ownership of part of the infrastructure for maintenance and operation by the

9

beneficiaries. Measures have been taken to continue support by IDA of the implementation ofoperation and maintenance arrangements under ongoing projects (SRP) and improving O&Msystems is intended to be the focus of a proposed future Water Sector Rehabilitation project whichwould also include mitigation measures for past investments

I. KEY LESSONS LEARNED

37. Key lessons learned under this project are:

a) Board presentation prior to detailed engineering investigation and design increases therisk of need to modify project components and of pre-construction delays;

b) people's participation at project formulation and detailed design stages is necessary toavoid unacceptable project elements and enhance effectiveness of planning forimplementation and O&M;

c) a study of the overall river basin development and its effects on hydrology, includingflood levels and frequency, rather than merely of the project area within that riverbasin, should be carried out to facilitate and arrive at a sound design for flood control,drainage and irrigation works,

d) land acquisition compensations should be based on land value market studies and theland acquisition system itself ought to be carefully planned and the bureaucraticprocess streamlined before project negotiations or credit effectiveness;

e) FCD projects need to be carefully planned taking due note of possible environmentalconsequences (such as reduced fish production and higher flood water elsewhere) andbe designed to include specific measures to mitigate them and also should take intoaccount in project evaluation the economical losses that may occur;

f) timely preparation of an appropriate O&M plan and adequate funding for itsimplementation are essential to ensure sustainability of project-supported investments.

g) monitoring and evaluating must be broader than just measuring project impact onproject farmers and should include project and control studies to assess the impact ofthe project on other project affected people (PAPs), particularly those whoselivelihood is affected by externalities of the project (e.g. fishermen); and

h) consideration of any proposals for major changes in design standards should be basedupon recalculation by the Bank of the expected ERRs.

M:\FCD3ICR\TXTFCDIC.DOC9/4/1996

BANGLADESH


PART II

STATISTICAL ANNEXES

10


BANGLADESH

THIRD FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE PROJECT(Credit 1591-BD)

PART II: STATISTICAL ANNE=S

Table 1: Summary of Asueumenbt

A. Achievement of obiectives Substantial Parial NeJlipble Not Aoflicable

Macro policies 9 3 9 [3

Sector policies [] ED [D [Financial objectives [Ii ED FI Institutional development F ] ED EDPhysical objectives El [Z] [I]Poverty reduction [| F| El Gender issues El F El Other social objectives E] ED EI]Environmental objectives [] El ZI ElPublic sector management EII EI] [Fi ]Private sector development ED El ElOther (specify) ED Fn El m

B. Proiect sustainability Likelv Unlikelv Uncertain

CG L E~~~~~

11

HizehlvC. IDA performance satisfactory Satisfactv Deficien

Identification 1/ "9 E9 r9Preparation assistance [I [D EDn

Appraisal ED EDF 2v

Supervision [] [D E] 3

HiEhivD. Borrower performance satisfactorv Satisfactorv Deficient

Preparation 9 E [9

Implemcntation [IE [ ECovenant compliance E] [ E

Operation (if applicable) [] K ]

E. Assessment of outcome satisfactorv Satisfactorv Unsatisfactor unsati

I Not applicable, the project was prepared by NEDECO and BWDB.

v/ Appraisal was based on insufficient design details and ignored the possible adverse environmental effects of thepolders.

v/ Downgraded primarily due to inadequacies in handling issues of proposed changes in embankment heights andoverall design standards.

4 This could be upgraded to satisfactory if the recently prepared O&M plans are effectively implemented,fisheries losses are fully mitigated, and measures taken to protect outsiders against increased flood risks.

12

Table 2: Related EDA Credits

Loancredit tide Purpose Yea of appqval St-m

Preeding ePweda'

1. Chanpur Irrigption I To increase yields and cropping 1972 ClbadProject (Cr.340-BD) insenity and sengthn the

agriculural support prog

2. Danirge & Flood Control To provide flood protection to 1978 ClosedProject (Cr. 64-BD) 268,000 acres and inmroved

extension service.

3. Small Scale Drinage & To provide flood protection and 1979 CloedFlood Control Projea irrigation schemes in about one(Cr.955-BD) nillion acre of which 0.35 million

will be inigated

4. Drainage & Flood To develop flood control and 1981 ClosedControl 1 Project drainage structures for about(Cr. 1 184-BD) 200,000 acres of land in thfree low

lying acres.

5. BWDB Snuall Schemes To raise crop production and farm 1985 ClosedProject (Cr. 1467-BD) incomes through improvements in

the water regime.

6. Flood Rehabilitation To rehabilitate the damaged 19S5 ClosedProject (Cr. 15S7-BD) facilities due to the flood of

October'84, May'85 Cyclone andJune'85 Cyclone.

FoLouieng operaouns

1. Fourth Flood Control & To protect cropped areas, people 1927 ClosedDrainge Project and property from floods and(Cr. 1784-BD) strengthen BWDB.

2. Small Scale Flood Control To provide for an incremental 1988 ClosedDrainage and Irrigation I production of paddy, wheal, juteProject (Cr. 1870-BD) etc. through flood protection and

irrigation from minor facilities.The project would also strengthenBWDB.

3. Second Flood Rehabilitation To rehabilitate or replace priority 1982 ClosedProject (Cr. 1876-BD) elements of flood-damaged

infrstructure and equipment infive sub-sectors: flood control,drainage and irrigation; mainroads, local roads; priorityeducation; and inland wawertraunport

4. Third Flood Rehabilitation To restore priority infrastructure 1989 ClosdProject (Cr.2048-BD) damaged by flooding.

5. BWDB Systems To protect and increae 1990 O0-goingRehabilitation Project agricultural production through(Cr.2099-BD) rehabilitation and improved

opemtion and maintenance.

13

Table 3: Project Timetable

Steps in project cycle Date plnned Date acual/latest estimate

Identification _ January 1980

Preparation __ January 1984

Appraisal July 1984

Negotiations March 18, 1985 March 18, 1985

Board presentation May 1985 May 7, 1985

Signing May 22, 1985

Effectiveness November 19, 1985

Project completion December 31, 1992 December 31, 1993

Credit closing June 30, 1993 June 30, 1994

" BWDB and The Netherlands Development Consultants.

Table 4: Loan/Credit Disbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual(USS thousands)

FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94

Appraisal cimnae 200 3,500 14,500 26,500 38,500 43,500 45,700 48,000 48,000

Acb*al 3,520 4,360 9,000 15,450 22,430 32,800 44,280 53,700 57,750 &

Actualas%ofestimate 1,760% 125% 62% 58% 58% 75% 97% 112% 120%Y

Date of funl disbunarnent July 14, 1994

' On August 17, 1993 SDR3.0 million was cancelled and on July 14, 1994 the balance of SDR 3.97 million was also cancelled.

v' The prcentiles after 1990 are rather misleading since the SDR value vis-a-vis the USS increased.

14

Table 5: Key Indicators for Project IiupIu.u.maion

Sub-Project Naie: Gumi Phaset-IProject Arac 37,340 ha

Protected Area: 29,500 ha

I. Key implementation Esidmated Actualindicators in SAR

SAR" P.P. Revised I

1. Land AcquisitionStructures (ha) 6 6 6Embankment (ha) 402 402 402"Canals (ha) 42 2/

Total (ha) 778 450 408 408"

2. Flood Embankment 75New (km) 106 75 67 75Resectioning (km) 35 67 67

213. Drainage Canal (BWDB) (km) - 142 121 21

FFW Draunage Program (km) 121

4. Hydraulic Structures 4 4Drainage Regulator (no.) 2 S 23' 4Intake Sluice (no.) S0 3 184 2LLP Inlets (no.) 184 184

5. River Train/Protect. 100,000 39,916Rivetment (m2) 50,000 39,916

6. Road WorksResectioning (km) 41 40 31.6Improvement (kn) 14 38 15 31.6Bridges/Culverts (no.) 27 15

540 5407. Buildings (m2) 540 540

II. Modified indicators

1. PreconstructionSoil Investigation (no.) 14 14 14Design (no.) 73 73 73Contract Award (no.) 705 705 705

cont'd/.....

Project Proforrna (P.P.) was based on the final design of the sub-project and the SAR was based on originalfeasibility study. Some work-loads of drainage excavation were transferred to Food for Work Program.

2' No land required since canal already existed and work concerned only re-excavation.

31 BWDB decided to delete one since it would adversely effect Gumti Phase II.

15

Sub-Project Name: Naopon Polder-IProject Ares: 46,100 ha

Protected Area: 37,000 ha

1. Key implementation indicators Estimated Actualin SAR l

SAR1' P.t." Revised

1. Land AcquisitionStructures (ha) 23.81 23.81 23.81Embankment (ha) . 321.70 321.70 320.01Canals (ha) 198.49 198.49 199.87Total (ha) 619 544.00 544.00 543.69

2. Embankment 32.31New (kmn) 6 34.26 32.31 32.31Resectioning (km) 84 34.00 34.00

35.003. Drainage Canal (km) 299 163.00 35.00 35

FFW Program (km) 163.00 14.45

4. Structures 4Drainage Regulator (no.) 6 5 4 4Flushing Sluice (no.) 5 141 5 5LLP Inlets (no.) 200 4 141 141Cross Regulator (no.) 170 2 4 4Water Control Structure (no.) 18 2 2

S. Protection Works 7,510Brick Matress (cum) 15,600 64,629 7,510 7,510Brick Matress (Beel) (m2) 72,000 64,629 64,629

61.216. Road Works (km) 22 8 67.21 67.21

Bridges (no.) 24 8 82471

7. Buildings (m:) 540 995 995


1. PreconstructionSoil Investigation (no.) - 17 17 17Design (no.) 197 197 197Contract Award (no.) 650 627 627

cont'd/....

" Project Proforma (P.P.) based on the fnal design of the sub-project and the SAR was based on originalfeasibility study. Some work-loads of drainage excavation were transferred to Food for Work Program.

16

Sub-Project Nme: Madhumati-NabapaProject Area: 45,000 ha

Procted Area: 38,000 ha

I. Key implementation indicatorsin SAR Estimated Actual

SARt p.P. I/ Revised

1. Land AcquisitionStructures (ha) 21.47 21.47 21.47Embankment (ha) 369.00 369.00 369.00Canals (ha) 358.87 339.95 338.95Total (ha) 776 750.87 729.42 729.42

2. Flood EmbankmentNew (km) 100 22.1 22.0 22.00Resectioning (kcm) 55 135.32 125.85 125.85FFW Program - - 9.47 9.47

3. Drainage Canal (km) 317 204 141 135.82FFW Program (km) - - 63 16.07

4. Hydraulic StructuresDrainage Regulator (no.) 7 7 7 7Flushing Sluice (no.) 11 15 15 15.00LLP Inlets (no.) 80 70 70 70.00Cross Regulator (no.) 190 49 49 49.00

5. Road Works (1m) 101.5 164.42 164.42 164.42Bridges & Culverts (no.) 98 63.00 64.00 64.00

6. Buildings (m2) 540 1,337 1,244 1,244


1. PreconstructionSoil Investigation (no.) - 43 43Design (no.) 181 181Contract Award (no.) 763 763

Project Proforma (P.P.) based on the funl design of the sub-project and the SAR was based on originalfeasibility study. Some work-loads of drainage excavation were transferred to Food for Work Program

17

Table 6: Key Indicators for Project Operation

NVot applicable for this project

Table 7: Studies Included in Project

Purpoe as definedStudy at appraisal Status [npactof smdy

1. Consuhancy for Design and Design of FCD II civil works, Completed Impoved infrasruct.Cosutruction Monitoring construction monitoring and

preparation of O&M mnnual.

2. Hydrological and To develop a simulation model to Completed Facilited preparation ofMorphological StUdy of i) Gumti predict a proper qualitative follow-tap projecLriver basin; ii) Airsi river bain of the hydulic nd morphological

changes in the river basins associatedwith a variety of alterativedevelopment

3. Hydrological Study of Gorsi- To develop a proper dats bae for Completed Soundly dmigod sub-projectMadhunmti river, detailed design of the project work.

4. Groundwater Study of To determine reliable yields from the As decided in the inter-Madhunati-Nabapan Sub- potential aquifers and to indicate ministerial meeting held onProject possible number and distribution of March 12, 1989 the study wa

tubewells. suspended.

5. Aerial Photography of the To deternine major drainage chamel Completed Facilitated preparaion ofproject areasof all the three sub- patterrs, to asesn present land use and follow-up project.projects and also the area of to prepare contour maps for irrigationGumti Phas-II. in Gumti Phase-fl.

6. Agriculture and Fisheries To serve as basis for modelling the Comnpleted. No impact yetDevelopment (coven the three neeessary complementary resourceasub-projects of FCD-III project). and services to make optimal use of

the newly improved productionenvironment.

7. Study of BWDB's Institutional To review the past studies, ayse Completed. Study recmmetions underCapability. diagnostically and prepare implementation.

recommendations for desirbleimprovements along with a timetableand procedure for implementing suchrecommendationsr

S. Bench Mark Survey and To ases socio-ago-sconomic Completed.Evaluation Studies, conditions before the implementation

of the project.

9. Feasibility Study of Gumti Flood Control, Drainage and Study completed and final No impact yetPhase 1I Project Irrigation to an ares of 140,000 ha report received.

bounded by Meghna, Titas and Gumntirivers.

18

Table 8A: Project Costs

Appraisal estimate ActualAatest esfimateItern

Tk million US$ million Tk million USS million

1. Land Acquisition 223.6 8.6 569.9 16.41

2. Civil Works 904.8 34.8 1,699.5 47.73

3 .Equipment 75.4 2.9 10.9 0.33

4. Survey & Investigation 114.4 4.4 119.5 3.56

5. Studies 49.4 1.9 61.7 1.81

6. Engineering & Administration 122.2 4.7 233.6 6.59

7. Technical Assistance & Training 104.0 4.0 135.7 4.34

8. Operation & Maintenance 96.2 3.7 17.6 0.46

TOTAL 1,690.0 65.0 2,848.3 81.23

Table 8B: Project Financing

Appraisal estmate ActualAatest estimateSource

Tk million US$ million Tk million US$ million

IDA 1,248.0 48.0 2,060.5 57.75

UNDP 85.8 3.3 113.4 3.57

Republic of South Korea 18.2 0.7 22.2 0.70

Domestic contribution 338.0 13.0 652.2 19.21

TOTAL 1,690.0 65.0 2,848.3 81.23

19

Table 9: Economic Costs and Benefits"

Appraisal Estimate ICR Estimate

Assumptions:-Project period 30 years 30 Years-Labour cost 70% of financial wages 70% of financial wages

- Standard Conversion Factor 0.80 0.90- Cost of capital 12% 12%

Completion of projectembankments:- Gumti June 1990 June 1993- Naogaon June 1990 June 1994- Madhumnati-Nabaganga June 1990 June 1994

ERR- Gumti 22 14.1- Naogaon 28 13.4- Madihumati-Nabaganga 16 11.6

NPV (in Tk million)2/- Gumti 286 144.5- Naogaon 468 87.1- Madhumati-Nabaganga 78 -14.4

Farm Family per Crop Income3/- Gunti- without project Tk 1,710 Tk 1,961- with project Tk 2,;80 Tk 2,502

- Naogaon-without project Tk 1,880 Tk 2,868- with project Tk 2,980 Tk 3,484

- Madhumati-Nabaganga-without project Tk 1,070 Tk 2,285- with project Tk 1,420 Tk 2,791

11 See Appendix 1.

C1 Opportunity cost of capital 12% in SAR as well as ICR.

/ For ICR estimate, see Appendix 3, Tables 2, and 8.

20

Table 10: Status of Legal Covenants

Original RevisedCovenant Present fulfilment fulfilment Description of

Agreement Section type status date date covenant Comments

DCA 3.03 5 CP Timely acquisition of Part (a) as well as partlands: (a) BWDB to (b) were sometimessubmit to Deputy complied with.Commnissioners plans Nevertheless, delays inat least 9 months land acquisition were abefore land is needed major impedirnent tofor construction, (b) timelyBWDB to provide implementation..funds, vehicles,survey equipment andstaff necessary forprocessing andapproval.

DCA 4.01 (b) I C Furnish audit report(ii) and and a separate(c) (iv) opinion on

expenditures, on SOEnot later than 9months after the endof the Financial Year.

DCA Sch.4 5 CP - PMU to organize BWDB has formedPara. 2 quarterly meetings structure committees to

with farmers and operate structures andlocal bodies and meetings are arrangedinform GOB and the from time to time.Association of resultsof such meetings.

DCA Sch.4 5 CP December 31, June 30, Study to identify ways Study completed andPara. 4 1986 1990 to improve BWDB's phased implementation

motivation in of recommendations isplanning, design and progressing.construction andfurnish findings andrecommendations toIDA.

DCA Sch.4 9 CD July 31, July 31, Prepare and fuinishto The studyhas beenPara. 5 1987 1990 IDA for its comments completed for Cr.1184-

programs for BD areas and reportagriculture and has been accepted byfisheries on: (a) areas BWDB. Consultantscovered under the submitted draft finalDrainage and Flood report for similarControl Project Cr. studies in areas underI 184-BD; (b) areas this project.under this project.

21

DCA Sch. 4 12 CD June 30, Marrh 31, Complete the Study has beenPara. 6 1987 1990 Feasibility Study of completed. Final report

Gumti Phase IL received in September1993.

DCA Sch. 4 12 CD June 30, Dec. 7, Institutional Study of Study now completed.Para. 7 1986 1987 BWDB Recommendations are

untder implementation.

DCA Sch. 4 5 C - - Discontinue leasing However, private landsPara. 8 of public lands in are being cultivated.

river beds for jutecultivation.

DCA Sch. 4 9 C - - lnclusionofPara. 9 compaction stndards

and certification byBWDB staff thatstandards weremaintained beforefinal pavments aredone.

Covenant Type

I. Accounts/audit2. Financial performance/generate revenue from beneficiaries3. Flow and utilization of project funds4. Counterpart funding5. Management aspects of the project for executing agency6. Environmental covenants7. Lnvoluntary resettlement8. Indigenous people9. Monitoring review and reporting10. Project implementation not covered by categories 1-911. Sectoral or cross-sectoral budgetary or other resource allocation12. Sectoral or cross-sectoral policy/regulatory/institutional action13. Other

Status

C = Covenant complied withCD = Complied with after delayNC = Not complied withCP = Complied with partially

22

Table 11: Compliance with Operational Manual Statements

No significant lack of compliance with any applicable Bank operational rnanual/statement (O/D or OP/BP) wasnoticed.

Table 12: IDA Resources: Staff Inputs

Planned ActualStage of

project cycle __ll

Weeks USS Weeks USS

Prior to appraisal (LENP) - 32.5 88,600

Appraisal until negotiation - 55.6 158,400(LENA)

Negotiations through 5.3 14,900Board approval (LENN) l

Supervision (SPN) - 202.2 452,700

Completion (ICR) 13 2/ 37,600 13.0 3/ 37,600 3_

TOTAL 308.6 3/ 752,200 3/

' Source: IDA annual reports on project detail by staff member. (Report: 00SR47).E Eight of which contributed by FAO/CP.

3/ Tentative estimate.

Table 13: IDA Resources: Missions

Performance rating iMontWV Number Days in Specialized Overall Development Compliance Project Available Types

Mission Type year of field staff skills Status Objectives with Manage- Funds of problemspersons 1/ represented 2V Covenants ment

Identification 41 January 1980 .-

Preparation/Pre-Appraisal 4/ January 1984

Appraisal April 1985 EC, IE (2)

Supervision 1 October 1986 2 n.a. EC, IE (2) 2 1 3 2 2 F Supervision 2 October 1987 3 21 EC, IE (2) 2 1 2 2 3

Supervision 3 July 1989 2 25 IE 3 2 2 3 3Supervision 4 December 1989 -

71

Supervision 5 April 1990 3 18 IE (2) DO 3 2 2 2 3Supervision 6 April 1991 3 9 IE (2), DO 3 2 2 2 3Supervision 7 March 1992 4 n a. IE (3), DO 2 2 2 2 1Supervision 8 December 1992 3 n.a. IE (2), DO 2 2 2 2 1Supervision 9 May 1993 5 n a. IE (4), DO 2 2 2 2 1Supervision 10 January 1994 3 n.a. IE (2), DO 2 2 2 2 1Supervision 11 June 1994 3 na. IE (2), DO 91 W 9' 9

Completion March 1995 2 171 IE, EC IO0 10o 101 101 IO/

From supervision aide-memoires.2/ EC = Economist; iE = Irrigation Engineer; FA = Financial Analyst; 2 = Engineer; A Agriculturist: H Hydrologist; DO = Disbursement Officer.X These ratings were obtained from the Forms 590 concerned. 1 = Problem free or minor problems: 2 = Moderate problems; 3 = Major problems.4/ 8y private consultants.u Supervision mission of October 1986 referred to earlier supervision mission, but no works of this could be found.6/ Funds given for land acquisition to BWDB, but BWDB had not released the totality of funds to the Deputy Commissioner.7/ From the record it is gathered that a supervision mission was undertaken in December 1989, but the report could not be traced.&' Mission time shortened due to political uncertainties and security problems.9' F590 was not obtained.l01 See Table 1."'f Includes FCD IV ICR.

BANGLADESH


APPENDIX 1

AIDE MEMOIRE


BANGLADESH

THIRD FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE PROJECT (FCD-III)(CREDIT 1591-BD)

AIDE-MEMOIRE (MARCH 30, 1995)

Appendix I

Introduction

1. The Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Mission' from the FAO World BankCooperative Programme (FAO/CP) comprising Messrs. D.J. Lens (Project Analyst/Mission Leader)and V. Branscheid (Land and Water Development Engineer) visited Bangladesh from March 14 toMarch 30, 19952 to: (i) assess the project implementation and operation performance, including theoperational plan if prepared; (ii) solicit the Borrower's views in the same; and (iii) advise and supportthe Borrower in the preparation of its own contribution to the ICR.

2. Upon its arrival in Dhaka the mission held meetings with officials from the ProjectManagement Unit (PMU) of the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB), the World BankProject Task Manager and the FAO Country Representative. Subsequently it undertook field visits toall project sites where it met and discussed project implementation with BWDB field staff andrepresentatives of the agricultural extension services, and held interviews with project farmers.

3. The Aide-Memoire reflects the findings of the mission which was reviewed and agreedupon first with the Project Task Manager and the PMU, and subsequently with all institutions involvedin the project at a wrap-up meeting held on March 30, 1995 and chaired by the Secretary, Ministry ofWater Resources. The Aide-Memoire covers: (i) the project's implementation performance andreasons for its drawbacks; (ii) the status of the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan; and (iii) the

In Dhaka the mission recruited the services of Dr. Tajul Islam (Agronornist)under separate Terms of Reference through the FAO Representative's office to undertakea rapid assessment of the agricultural situation in the project area.

2 During this period the ICR mission also covered FCD-IV for which a separateAide-Memoire has been prepared.

25Lnpementation Conpletion Report

BANGLADESH: Third Flood Cowtol and Drainage Project(Cr.1591.BD)

Appendix 1: Aide Memoire

necessary actions to be taken to maintain the project's established infrastructure and to complete theGovernment's contribution to the ICR

4. The mission wishes to thank the staff of PMU, BWDB and the Ministry of WaterResources for the assistance, cooperation and courtesy they extended to the mission and would like toexpress its appreciation on the frankness with which they discussed and reviewed the implementationissues.

Objectives, Area, Components and Cost of FCD-m

5. The principle objectives of the project were to (i) protect crops, human life and propertyagainst floods; (ii) enhance agricultural potential; and (iii) strengthen BWDB. The project comprised128,440 ha3 of flood protection and drainage in three sub-project areas, i.e. Gumti, Naogaon Polderand Madhumati-Nabaganga and 14,350 ha irrigation improvement in the Gumti sub-project area.Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) components included: land acquisition (13% of project cost); civil works(54%); studies (3%); technical assistance and training (6%); operation and maintenance (O&M - 6%);and others (18% - covering equipment, surveys and investigations, and engineering andadministration). Total project cost was estimated at US$65 million of which 28% was foreignexchange. The project was to be funded over a seven year period by IDA (74% of project cost), theGovernment of Bangladesh (GOB - 20%), UNDP (5%) and Korea (1%). The two latter were tofinance the technical assistance and the training component.

Implementation of FCD-IE

Land Acquisition

6. Despite the special arrangements incorporated into the project design to minimize the riskof delays in land acquisition, slow land acquisition had been a problem all along from project outset toproject closure. It resulted in a delay of project effectiveness' as well as in an extended projectconstruction phase (from three to eight years) causing the envisaged O&M component to be seriouslysqueezed and the overall project to be extended from seven to eight years.

3 Net command or agricultural area 104,500 ha.

4 "The land required for construction during the first year of the project had to be acquiredby the Borrower" was a condition of effectiveness and could not be met on time.

26Implementation Completion Report

BANGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Drainage Project(Cr. 159 I-BD)

Appe,idix 1: Aide Memoire

7. Despite the many assurances given by GOB during project implementation that thecontinuously reset land acquisition targets would be met, land acquisition remained a drag on projectexecution. At the extended project closing date of June 30, 1994, about 97% of the SAR target areahad been acquired, while according to the SAR implementation schedule, all land acquisition was to becompleted by the end of 1987. However, the mission feels that the SAR implementation schedulecould be regarded as unrealistically tight and the conditions set forward by the Bank to ensure smoothland acquisition as too meek, considering the fact that land acquisition is a difficult activity to undertakeanywhere. Nevertheless an overrun of about six years is quite excessive and hence an unsatisfactoryrating would not appear incorrect for the implementation of the land acquisition component In thiscontext it is recommended that the experience obtained under this project should be used to bringabout a possibly more appropriate land acquisition system.

Civil Works

8. Much of the construction of civil works has been completed as envisaged in the SAR withthe particular exceptions of (i) the irrigation component in the Gumti sub-project which was to improveand provide irrigation facilities on 14,350 ha, of which only 3,700 ha were improved;5 and (ii) thedrainage canals which were reduced from 821 km to 316 km due to detailed/revised designs andincomplete works.

9. Much of the civil works implemented were rated "good" or "fair" by the Agriculture andFisheries Development Studies financed under the project, although, a significant portion was alsorated as "poor" and considered not functioning as designed. This includes 17 km of embankkments, sixirrigation inlets and eight km of road improvements. The mission had not been able to verify thisduring its field visits, but understood that some of these works had been improved as recommended bythe same studies. Nevertheless the mission noticed that in the Naogaon sub-project the embankmentroad brick lining was incomplete (4.6 kin) and about one km of embankment was missing which couldbe harmiful for the town of Naogaon in case of flood. The latter is mainly due to the town's resistanceto the construction of the embankment within its perimeters. Apart from these two issues the works inNaogaon have been carried out satisfactorily. In regard to the Madhumati-Nabaganga sub-project thecivil works there could be considered satisfactory provided the still not rectified defects (14 irrigationinlet gates were not installed, two gates were misfitted and other items were defect) are being put inplace. Finally, the civil works in the Gumti sub-project area have been considered generallysatisfactory.

5 No irrigation facilities were provided on the remainder as the pump originally envisaged tobe included was considered not economically viable during detailed design and dropped fromthe project.


BANGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Drainage Project(Cr. 1591-3BD)


10. In this respect the mission is also concerned about flood hazards when the design flood of"once in a 20 year period" will occur. In such a case the breaking of embankment would be at anunpredictable location and with a tremendous force. Flood warning systems should be installed andpossibly spillways be designed to flood the polders in a more controlled manner.

Studies

11. All 12 studies to be prepared under the project have been completed and either acceptedby or submitted to BWDB. On the basis of the Agricultural and Fisheries Studies a collaborative planof actions was to be put forward by BWDB, the Department of Agriculture and Extension (DAE), andthe Department of Fisheries (DOF). These plans have been submitted and include a construction andengineering development program that proposes to rectify the infrastructural shortcomings of theproject plus those items which are rated as "fair" in para 8. In respect of the agricultural developmentproposals made by the study, the ICR mission queries whether expensive additional plans are justifiedto increase the agricultural production within the polders, since it noted that the polder farmers havealready started to exploit the enhanced agricultural potential brought about by the project.Government should therefore carefully evaluate the actions proposed and verify the expected economicimpact of the agricultural development proposals suggested by the study.

12. BWDB is now implementing the recommendations that have been made by the BWDB'sInstitutional Capability Study which made specific suggestions to strengthen its institutional capacitiesin planning, construction, operation and maintenance. So far, funding for these changes do not appearto be a problem, although the additional activities for which BWDB will become responsible mayrequire additional funds.

13. The Gumti-II feasibility study has been carried out and further action on this is awaiteddepending on the collaborative action plan (para I 1) and BWDB's reforms outcome (para 12).

Technical Assistance and Training

14. All activities under this component have been successfully completed, although with somedelay. UNDP has conducted an evaluation of this component (for which it was mainly responsible) theoutcome of which has been rated satisfactory. The technical assistance provided by Korea which wasmainly concerned with the design aspects has also been satisfactory.

28Implementation Comnpition Report

BANGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Drainage Project(Cr. 1591-BD)


Operation and Maintenance

15. The operation of polder regulators is either done by farmers' representatives or by BWDBstaff on the instructions of farmers' committees. BWDB staff participates on the committee's meetingand advises as necessary. Maintenance of the structures is supposed to be carried out by BWDB eventhough this is hardly done. Similarly no routine maintenance work has been carried out of theembankment and particularly not of the embankment roads. At the initial stage of the project, O&Mfell behind due to the continuous lag in land acquisition, which delayed construction and thusmaintenance. Presently there appears to be no O&M system to be installed even though an O&MManual was developed under the Flood Action Plan in 1993. This manual requires BWDB'sinvolvement as well as beneficiary participation and is to be used as a guideline for the maintenance ofthe polder embankments and related structures. So far, no O&M plan for any of the three sub-projectshas been submitted to the ICR mission. It was agreed that the O&M plan for each of the three sub-projects would be prepared along the lines of the above mentioned and by BWDB approved O&MManual and be sent to the Bank together with the Government's contribution to the ICR.

16. Once the O&M plans would be completed sufficient funds would also need to beallocated by the Government to ensure sustainability of the project. Otherwise the benefits to bederived from the investments would be foregone in a relatively short period.

Government Contribution to the ICR

17. The Government's contribution to the ICR is still in preparation and could not beprovided to the ICR mission, although all data required were made readily available to the mission.The ICR mission explained that its draft report will be submitted to the Government for review andthat the Government's contribution to the ICR should then be completed and sent to the Bank togetherwith their comments on the draft ICR. It was agreed that the World Bank Operational Manualguideline for ICR preparation be followed for the preparation of the Government's contribution to theICR.

Conclusions

18. The overall assessment of project implementation can be rated satisfactory once the stillpending and urgently required completion and rectification of the project infrastructure have beencarried out. Nevertheless project beneficiaries have clearly expressed great satisfaction on theenhanced agricultural potential that has been brought about by the project. It appears that manyfarmers are now encouraged to grow at least two crops per year and use high yielding varietieswhenever they can.

29Implementation CoMpletion Report

BANGLADESH: Third Flood Codrol and Drainage Project(Cr. 1591-BD)


19. So far, the principal and most important dissonant on FCD-UL concerns the project'spossible adverse effect on flood land fisheries in the project area. An attempt to neutralize this is nowbeing made by a fish culture program in the polders' ponds. This may indeed countervail eventually thepossible reduction in flood land fish catch, but would not compensate the inland fishermen6 whoalready belong to the socially lowest population stratum in Bangladesh. The introduction of fishculture would neither remove the environmental concerns that have been expressed in respect of thefish species disappearance, claimed to be possibly due to the water flow obstruction caused by theembankments. This matter should be looked into in depth as soon as possible to avoid a continuousdebate on the subject and thereby delaying any further development action in these areas. If theclaimed allegation would be true, other "polder" concepts would need to be studied and introduced tomitigate the adverse effects of the embankments on the flood land fisheries stocks.

20. In brief, the project implementation performance and probably also its outcome can berated as satisfactory on a sustained basis, once the required rectifications are carried out and the O&Msystem introduced and properly funded.

6 The ICR mission observed many fisherman during its visits despite the allegation made thatthe project would have had an adverse effect on the flood land fishermen.

BANGLADESH


APPENDIX 2

ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN AND NET PRESENT VALUE


BANGLADESH

THIRD FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE PROJECT (FCD-III)(CREDIT 1591-BD)

ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN ANDNET PRESENT VALUE

Appendix 2

Assumptions

1. Project Life: Thirty years, with full development reached in project year 13 (FY98).

2. Prices: Farmgate prices for traded goods are all expressed at international 1994 prices (World BankConmnodity Outlook), while non-traded goods are based on financial prices. These, as well as other domesticprices are translated into border prices using a standard conversion rate (SCR) of 0.9.

3. Project Benefits: The project benefits observed (so far two years for Gumti and one year for the othersub-projects - since the project embankments have been completed respectively in FY94 and FY95) are notconclusive in quantitative terms, but would result from an expected reduction of crop losses, and changing riskperception of farmers leading to higher value cropping pattern, yield increases, and an increase in croppingintensity due to a diminished flood risk brought about by the project. No benefits are assumed before theembankaments have been completed, which is the reason for the empty spaces in Tables 1, 2 and 3 for theproduction in the with-and-without-project situation until the time that the embankments are completed (the with-and-without-project situation is considered the same during that period).

4. The annual losses in fish production (Tk 11.5 million in Gumti; Tk 53.7 million in Naogaon; andTk 19.8 million in Madhumati-Nabaganga),' due to the project, have also been taken into account. Theselosses would be compensated over a five-year period after completion of the embankrnents by fishproduction through fish culture, which is now being practised by an increasing number of farmers in thepolders.

5. The estimated with-project benefits so far, have been significantly lower2 than the with-projectbenefits estimated in the SAR, but judging from observations elsewhere in similar projects are expected toincrease at their full development level within three years with the same rate as estimated in the SAR, i.e.for Gumti 25%; for Naogaon 36%; and for Madhumati-Nabaganga 18%. The without-project benefits

Source: Agriculture and Fisheries Development Studies prepared under the project. These werementioned but not taken into account in the SAR.

2 See Appendix 3 for estimates which are based on a survey conducted by a local consultant and theagricultural studies prepared under the project.


BANGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Drainage Project(Cr. 1591.BD)

Appendix 2: Economic Rate of Return and Net Present Value

have been estimated on the basis of the yields (which are relatively higher than those estimated in the SAR)and cropping patterns in the adjacent areas to the polders and have been assumed to remain stable.

6. As in the SAR, the project benefits do not include an assessment of the potential impact of floodswith a recurrent period of over 20 years on the project area in the without-project situation, because thestatistical basis is too poor to estimate any potential damages.

7. Project Cost: The project costs, including O&M until completion of embankments - andexcluding land acquisition, expressed in current Takas have been converted in constant 1994 Takas byapplying the Bangladesh annual consumer index of the International Financial Statistics (IMF monthlybulletin); the foreign cost component was relatively small. The costs then were adjusted by the SCF inborder prices and form the basis for estimating the ERR. The O&M costs, which have been separatelycalculated after completion of the embankments and assumed to be equal to the BWDB projected amountsrequired, have also been adjusted by the SCF and taken into account in the estimation of the ERR.

The Economic Rate of Return (ERR) and the Net Present Value (NPV)

8. The ERRs and the NPVs (opportunity cost of capital = 12%) in Tk million (Tk M) of the threesub-projects have been estimated on the above basis and are as follows:

Gumti 9 Naogaon i' Madhumati-Nabaganga

ERR - ICR 14.1 13.4 11.6

:ERR - SAR 22.0 28.0 16.0

NPV - ICR (-Ik M) 144.5 87.1 -14.4

NPV - SAR (Tk M) 286.0 468.0 78.0

' See Tables 1, 4. 5 and 6.w See Tables 2, 4. 7 and 8.

_SeeTables3,4,9andIO.

9. There are two main reasons for the less than expected performance in economic terms of theproject. Firstly, the higher than expected investment cost (land acquisition and civil works), whichincreased from Tk 1,128 to Tk 2,269 million (all expressed in 1994 Tk). Secondly, the more than doublingof the investment period due-to the delay in land acquisition - for Gumti about four years and for the othertwo sub-projects five years each - during which no benefits (delayed production improvement) could beobtained, since the embankments were not yet completed.


BANGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Drainage Project(Cr. 1591-BD)

Appendix 2: Economic Rate of Retum and Net Present Value

10. The Naogaon sub-project was most affected in economic terms. This should have been expected in viewof the fact that: (i) the SAR's sensitivity analyses for that sub-project showed that the ERR would decrease from28% to 18% if the project cost would increase by 100%; (ii) the serious delay in the completion of theembankments; and (iii) the loss in fish production (which was much larger than in the other two sub-projects andwas not taken into account in the SAR).

Sheetl

Implementation Completion ReportBANGLADESH: Fourth Flood Control and Drainage Project

(CR. 1784-BD)Appendix 2: Economic Rate of Return and Net Present Value

Table 1. Economic Benefits and Costs (Tk million)Sub-Project GUMPTI

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000-14With ProjectAgricultural Production Benefits 1041.9 1128.7 1215.5 1302.3 1302.3 1302.3 1302.3 1302.3On-Farm Cost 366.7 397.3 427.9 458.5 458.5 458.5 458.5 458.5Floodplain Capture Fisheries Losses 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.5 7.5 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5Project Culture Fisheries Gains 0.0 0.5 2.5 5.5 7.5 9.5 11.5 11.5

Benefits -0.5 -1.00 -1.5 -2.0 -3.0 -5.5 -7.5 -9.5 663.7 720.4 778.6 837.8 839.8 841.8 843.8 843.8

Without ProjectAgricultural Production Benefits 875.6 875.6 875.6 875.6 875.6 875.6 875.6 875.6On-Farm Cost 338.2 338.2 338.2 338.2 338.2 338.2 338.2 338.2

Benerits 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 537.4 537.4 537.4 537.4 537.4 537.4 537.4 537.4

Benefits with Project -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -3.0 -5.5 -7.5 -9.5 126.3 183.0 241.2 300.4 302.4 304.4 306.4 306.4

Investment Costs 25.7 86.4 149.7 130.7 150.4 176.8 262.8 106.4 21.1O&M Costs 17.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7

Total Project Costs 25.7 86.4 149.7 130.7 150.4 176.8 262.8 106.4 38.4 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7

Net Project Benefits -26.2 -87.4 -151.2 -132.7 -153.4 -182.3 -270.3 -115.9 87.9 166.3 224.5 283.7 285.7 287.7 289.7 289.7

ERR 13.8%

NPV, Tk million 126.8

Page 1

!neeti

Implementation Completion ReportBANGLADESH: Fourth Flood Control and Drainage Project


Table 2. Economic Benefits and Costs (Tk milion)Sub-Project NAOGAON

1985 1986 1987 1988 1969 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000-14With ProjectAgricukural Producion Benefis 978.6 1096.0 1213.4 1330.8 1330.8 1330.8 1330.6On-Farm Cost 416.5 466.5 516.5 566.5 566.5 566.5 566.5Flodplain Captum Fishers Loses 7.5 15.0 22.0 29.0 36.0 43.0 50.0 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7Projeet Cultre Fsheales Gains 10.7 20.5 32.2 43.0 53.7 53.7

Benes 0.0 -7.50 -15.0 *22.0 -29.0 -36.0 *43.0 -50.0 -53.7 508.4 586.5 663.7 742.8 753.6 764.3 764.3

Wlihout Pr*cetAgculw Production kneEfi 849.6 849.6 849.6 849.6 849.6 849.6 849.6On-eFm Cast 397.0 397.0 397.0 397.0 397.0 397.0 397.0

Benens 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 452.6 452.6 452.6 452.6 452.6 452.6 452.6

Benefits with Proet 0.0 -7.5 -15.0 -22.0 -29.0 -36.0 -43.0 -50.0 -53.7 55.8 133.9 211.1 290.2 301.0 311.7 311.7

Invesivws Costs 6.5 60.1 122.7 93.9 147.1 163.8 165.9 141.8 71.4 29.7OW Cosis 22.6 22.6 22.8 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6

Total ProjectCosts 6.5 60.1 122.7 93.9 147.1 163.8 165.9 141.8 71.4 52.3 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6

NetProjectBinefts -6.5 -67.6 -137.7 -115.9 -176.1 -199.8 -208.9 -191.8 -125.1 3.5 111.3 188.5 267.6 278.4 289.1 289.1

ERR 11.5%

NPV. Tk mIlbon -37.2

Page 1

Sheetl

Implementation Completion ReportBANGLADESH: Founh Flood Control and Drainage Project


Table 3. Economic Benefits and Costs (Tk million)Sub-Project MADHUMATI

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000-14

With ProjectAgricultural Production Benefits 923.0 978.4 1033.8 1089.2 1089.2 1089.2 1089.2

On-Farm Cost 378.7 401.4 424.1 446.8 446.8 446.8 446.8

Floodplain Capture Fisheries Losses 2.2 4.4 6.6 8.8 11.0 15.0 17.5 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8

Project Culture Fisheries Gains 3.6 7.0 10.7 14.0 19.8 19.8Benefits 0.0 0.00 -2.2 -4.4 -6.6 -8.8 -11.0 -15.0 -17.5 524.5 560.8 596.9 633.3 636.6 642.4 642.4

Without ProjectAgricultural Production Benefits 793.4 793.4 793.4 793.4 793.4 793.4 793.4On-Farm Cost - 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.5

Benefits 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 491.9 491.9 491.9 491.9 491.9 491.9 491.9

Benefits with Project 0.0 0.0 -2.2 4.4 -6.6 -8.8 -11.0 -15.0 -17.5 32.6 68.9 105.0 141.4 144.7 150.5 150.5

Investmnent Costs 7.1 51.5 43.5 73.3 51.7 81.1 81.4 117.5 124.7 8.5O&M Costs 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7

Total Project Costs 7.1 51.5 43.5 73.3 51.7 81.1 81.4 117.5 124.7 17.2 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7

Net Project Benefits -7.1 -51.5 45.7 -77.7 -58.3 -89.9 -92.4 -132.5 -142.2 15.4 60.2 96.3 132.7 136.0 141.8 141.8

ERR 10.7%

NPV, Tk million -46.9

Page 1

36

BANGLADESH: Tid Fboed Ce md Drsiam ?tje(Or.1591-11D)

Appnix 2: Eismaoc R3 f J3un dANf Pr Vain

Table 4. Economic Prices (Taka) I/

Crop-yearUnit 93194

OutputsPaddy ton 5,114Wheat ton 8,699Pulses ton 7.200Oil Seed ton 14,501Vegetables ton 3,600Potatoes ton 3.600Tomatoes ;on 3,500Jute "on 8,837Sugarcane ton 1.400Spices ton 12.000

InputsProduction costs

Production costs Taka Value BasisFertilizers

Ure2 kg/ha 4.i2TSP kg/ha 10.07MP kg/ha 9.13

OtherHired-Animal traction ad 36

LaborLabour , d 35

1t For Financial prices see Appendix 3: Tables 3. 6 and 9.

37

BANGLADESH: Tbid Flood Caol and Dmmp Pject(Cr.1591-BD)

App2iix2: Ecoic Rme of Rwn md Net Prs Vabhe

Table 5. Production Volume and Cost (Units)(Sub-project GUMTI)

Crop-yearWithoutProject With Project Increments

Unit

Main ProductionPaddy ton 89.352.5 108,992.0 19,639.5Wheat ton 6.876.0 8,400.0 1,524.0Pulses ton 1,180.0 876.0 -304.0Oil Seed ton 1,672.3 1,607.2 -65.1Vegetables ton 27,360.0 34.200.0 6,840.0Potatoes ton 47,312.5 54,612.5 7,300.0Jute ton 773.3 773.3 -

Spices ton 4,203.8 4.502.0 398.3Operating

Production costs 'OOOTaka 338,231.0 366,684.0 28,453.0

38-z ~ Co-kd RDp*BANGLADESH: T1d Fbod Caol md D,aae Project

(Cr.1591-BD)Appomdix 2: Eaaau c RAafRAum d No Pfaun Value

Table 6. Economic Budget (Taka million)(Sub-project GUiTMI)

Crop-yearWithout WithProject Project Increments

Main ProductionPaddy 456.9 557.4 100.4Wheat 59.8 73.1 13.3Pulses 8.5 6.3 -2.2Oil Seed 24.3 23.3 -0.9Vegetables 98.5 123.1 24.6Potatces 170.3 196.6 26.3Jute 6.8 5.8 -

Soices 50.4 55.2 4.8Sub-total Main Production 875.6 1,041.9 166.2Production Cost

Production costs 338.2 366.7 28.5OUTFLOWS 338.2 366.7 28.5

Cash Flow 537.4 675.2 137.8

39hzpkan"aZoa Competor Rqpoi

BANGLADESH: Tlhird Flood Contol and Dinage PrRjeCt(Cr.1591-BD)

Appnix 2: Eoonomic Rae of Retu and Net Praent Value

Table 7. Production Volume and Cost (Units)(Sub-project NAOGAON)

Crop-yearWithout

Project With Project IncrementsUnit

Main Production

Paddy ton 137,065.2 156,133.6 19,068.4Wheat ton 3,856.0 6,678.0 2,822.0Oil Seed ton 340.0 202.5 -137.5Vegetables ton 3,687.4 4800.0 1,112.6Potatoes ton 10,450.0 12,600.0 2,150.0Jute ton 861.9 508.2 -353.7Sugarcane ton 26,075.0 25,326.0 -749.0Spices ton 1,265.0 1.380.0 115.0

Operating

Production costs '0OOTaka 397,005.4 415,638.6 18,533.2

40L Qutia Coina. Repot

BANGLADESH: Third Flood Coatol and Draiag Projea(Cr.1591-BD)

Apendix 2: Eoooowic R*e of Rnmm and Net PrcEa VaLue

Table S. Economic Budcet (Taka million)(Sub-project NAOGAON)

Crop-year

Without With

Project Project Increments

Main Production

Paddy 701.0 798.5 97.5

Wheat 33.5 58.1 24.5

Oil Seed 4 9 2.9 -2.0

Vegetables 13.3 17.3 4.0

Potatoes 37.5 45.4 7.7

Jute 7.5 4.5 -3.1

Sugarcane a6.5 35.5 -1.0

Spices 15.2 16.5 1.4Sub-total Main Production 849.5 978.5 129.0

Production Cost

Production costs 397.0 415.5 18.5OUTFLOVIS 397.0 415.5 18.6

Cash Flow 452.5 563.0 110.4

41Impiania Cqapion R4p-t

BANGLADESH: Third Flood Cotrol and Draizp Prjed(Or.1591-BD)

Appendix 2: EcoFc Rate of Return and Net Prcna Value

Table 9. Production Volume and Cost (Units)(Sub-project MADHUMATI-NABAGANGA)

Crop-yearWithoutProject With Project Increments

Unit

Main ProductionPaddy ton 76.900.9 97,908.0 21,007.1Wheat ton 5.872.5 7,505.5 1.633.0Pulses ton 3,430.0 2.730.0 -700.0Oil Seed ton 2,286.0 1.866.0 -420.0Vegetables ton 10,035.0 14,465.0 4,430.0Potatoes ton 25,498.0 33.816.0 8,318.0Jute ton 7,752.0 8,236.5 484.5Sugarcane ton 5,440.0 5,950.0 510.0Spices ton 7,260.0 4.615.0 -2.645.0

Operating .Production costs 'OOOTaka 301,543.8 378,728.3 77,184.5

42kapia-Wi- Coat- R4pn

BANGLADESH: Third Food Caoluro and Druina Project(Cr.1591-BD)

Appendix 2: Eonamc R af Rtum and Nc Presew Value

Table 10. Economic Budget (Taka million)(Sub-project MAD1lATII-,ABAGANGA)

Crop-yearWittiout WithProject Project Increments

Main ProductionPaddy 393.3 500.7 107.4Wheat 51.1 65.3 14.2Puises 24.7 19.7 -5.0Oil Seed 33.1 27.1 -6.1Vegetables 36.1 52.1 15.9Potatoes 91.8 121.7 29.9Jute 68.5 72.8 4.3Sugarcane 7.6 8.3 0.7Spices 87.1 55.4 -31.7

Sub-total Main Production 793.4 923.0 129.7Production Cost

Production costs 301.5 378.7 77.2OUTFLOWS 301.5 378.7 77.2

Cash Flow 491.8 544.3 52.5

BANGLADESH


APPENDIX 3

AGRICULTURE TABLES


3A,SGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Drainage Project(Cr. 1591-BD)

Appendix 3: Agriculcure Tables

Table 1. Estimated Cropped Area.and Yield of Crops Grown in theGumti Sub-Project (1993-94)

Crops Area (ha) Yield (/h3a)

WOSAR WOICX I WSA2 I wIcaX I OSA X W%oK I WSAf WICX

RiceB. Aus(LV) 2,000 1.625 1,200 627 1.35 1.50 1.90 1.60

T. Aus (LV) 7,900 435 -- 1,800 435 1.70 2.50 2.40 2.50

T. Aus (HYV) 4,000 3.i95 4.200 3.195 2.90 2.50 3.80 3.10

B. Aman (LV) 3.700 3,000 2.$00 3.173 1.90 1.70 2.20 2.0

T. Aman (LV) 9,000 j.873 4.500 4.721 2.22 2.00 2.45 2.20

T.Aman (HYV) 6.000 6.000 11.000 6.413 2.70 2.30 3.00 3.20

Aus-Aman (LV) 7,500 7,500 [ 5.700 4'732 2.10 2.00 2.30 2.10

Boro (HYV) 3.200 9.105 12.000 13.105 3.20 3.10 4.40 3.30

Vhetnt 6,000 3.820 7.000 4,200 2.00 1.30 2.40 2.00

Jute 2,300 407 2.S00 407 1.60 1.90 f 1.30 1.90

Potato 0 3.735 0 4.3 69 0 12.50| 0 12.5

Pulses 0 1.47z5 01 1.095| 0 0.80 0 O.80

Oilsee Is 0 2.339 0 2.009 0 0.70 0 0.80

Spices 0 335 0 885 0 4.75 [ 0 5.20

Vegetables 0 2.280 0 2,230 0 12.00 0 IS.0

Total Cropped 52.100 51,649 53,000 5l.649TAreaICultivable Land 29.500 26.547 2S,700 26.139

Cropping Intensity 1.77 1.95 1.30 1.93 |

Source: Agriculture and Fisheries Development Studies of BWDB and adjusted by the ICR Mission atlerdiscussion wvith DAE and the tarmers.Estimated from 1993-94 data of DAE.Estimated from the average vield of the Daudkandi. NMluradnagar. Debidwar and Burichang Thanas of tEle Comilladistrict.

Adjusted yield from Agriculture & Fisheries Studies of BWDB. 1994 and ICR Mlission discussion with ranrmrsand DAE otTicials. .

Note: WO - Without-Project SituationW With-Project Situation

Iiliuiptecntation Conmpletion ReportBANGLADESII: Third ftood Control and Drainage Project

(Cr. 1591 -uD)Appendix 3: Agricutture Tables

Table 2. rai'm BOt,ciket - I Ila Model FarmSub-Pr'oject: GUHTI

Crops I Aus T.Aus T.Aus 11 Aus- E.Amnan T.Aman T.Amati Oaro Wneal Pulses 0- Jute Potato Spces Vegel- TotalVariate /a LV LV HYV Ainlui LV LV NtYV IYV seeds attes

Peiceitago Vo icn 3.14 0.54 6.17 14.4u 5.-/9 11.35 11.59 17.50 7.38 2.a5 4.G1 0.79 7.31 1.71 4.40 103WICI1 1.21 0.01 G.19 9.16 6.15 9.1-1 1242 2537 0.13 2.12 3.0W 0.79 8.46 1.71 4.47 too

NIXI hla WOICOn 0.01 0.016 0.120 o.;e:3 0.113 0221 0.Z2G 0.313 0.144 0.OGG 0.030 0.015 0.143 0.033 0.0c6 1.95WICFt 0.oo4 0.017 0.122 0.101 0.122 0.101 0.245 0.501 0.181 0.012 0.077 0.016 0.1G7 0.034 0.0r7 1.9D

Procin. Cosl. 1k/LiLaUOot WOICR 13.t 36 325 513 179 4tt2 559 BO0 191 31 DI 44 3u6 70 21D3 4117

WICRI 51 36 33) 329) ID2 393 607 3183 217 28 69 44 451 71 288 . 4278LluIlock WOICn 32 9 66 12) 41 OG 134 1a9 69 11 30 a 82 14 52 953

W ICR 13 9 67 83 44 Ui7 124 277 77 8 26 9 98 15 52 905Seed WOCIcn 61 18 41 29/ 124 66 81 123 117 33 54 3 3508 33 86 2703

WICA 24 1/ 49 190 134 54 B8 13 2tl 25 46 4 D1139 34 87 2900LUera WOICRA 0 6 103 0 0 o0 363 370 112 0 65 5 154 7 02 1171

WICll 0 8 103 0 0 87 177 130 125 0. 55 5 181 7 84 957TSP WO Icn 0 0 63 0 0 53 90 247 75 0 58 4 1G0 9 55 813

W ICR 0 0 64 0 0 43 98 361 84 0 49 4 187 9 56 9SStP WO ICA 0 0 9 0 0 15 32 103 20 0 Sa 1 60 4 i8 283

W ICA 0 0 37 0 0 13 34 158 22 0 13 1 70 4 38 351Pesticide W ICR 0 15 0 0 0 28 60 7 0 4 2 38 0 21 174

W ICR 0 0 15 0 0. 0 31 88 a 0 4 2 42 0 22 211llrlatlton WOICR 0 0 4131 0 0 0 901 1372 2D8 0 0 0 215 14 258 3002

W ICfl 0 0 409 0 0 0 9e1 2005 321 0 0 0 334 25 2G2 4418Misc Ic WOICn1 12 4 5s 49 38a 44 304 173 50 4 36 4 144 8 45 731

W ICf3 5 4 60 32 19 36 133 231 56 3 14 4 168 9 46 797

Total Wo ICA 23G 70 1367 91313 352 873 207G 3450 3933 OG 324 70 21U73 15. 903 34627wicn 92 71 1394 G33 379 712 2253 4619 3120 65 277 71 3369 174 914 35042

Prodci:ogi WO ICR 92 41 337 565 392 443 633 1053 250 44 63 29 1712 15 1031 6733(Ko) W ICII 3B3 42 379 300 243 397 705 1905 321 34 G6 30 20t39 176 1308 8109

Gross VdIuc WOICn 643 267 2359 3955 1335 3100 4.330 744.3 2072 GG7 1038 233 7129 1930 4122 40G92(ttK) WICrI 260 291 2G52 2/; 1 1702 2753 5-19G 13336 2571 503 9D1 237 8357 2113 Sz34 49105

Net IICOL,s t 1k j

wo Icn 407 217 t192 2913 9DI3 2z27 2354 3902 IOG9 U51 Gat 163 4255 1741 3222 2G065w IcR 176 220 1459 21)ta 31323 2039 3243 U717 1451 4311 707 1G5 4 09 1939 4319 13243

tecl uicoriiejFariii I 3onitn (Avtrace stie 0.45 na)

WO IC 1e3 9D3 536 1335 447 1002 1059 1797 481 261 30a 73 1315 703 1450 11729wICn 79. 99 G5G 913 535 931 1459 3013 653 397 31a 74 2245 873 1914 34959

Per CapIpta l(couiu tMfI famlilly (Avafaije size SLOUI)

wo Cn 31 36 90 22Z 75 I13 377 300 D0 44 5l 12 320 131 242 1961W ICI1 13 17 110 153 130 156 244 65 1393 33 53 12 375 146 325 2502

la WO cn = EsllinaledOnacual Wil3iou3-roItml Siluatlol rnid: W Icn ESLiil3ilcd ticluial WIlI-Plro1eL5 Silutdiorl./I) t.athu. sLu. lur3A . Itser ,IIIIiZSaS pcsIlACks itwl ultiI1 I I, SIcuS ( lUil .1).

III 0Ct, litJ*i,Ot NllAo I ,iCou3

45

[mplementwion Compledon ReportBANGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Dminagc Projecc

(Cr. 1591-BD)Appendix 3: Agdcuimr4 Tables

Table 3. Summary of the Financial Price(Sub-project: GUMTI - Phase I)

I:, ,, i, I'rirr 1:'Va riah Wes Unit SAR. lf9Nl-%f5 ICR. I9'J4-95

Outfnut:

Ricc Kg l.;tl

Paddy Kg. '1 7.011Ricc Scrnw Kg .l.i

Wheatc Kg4-(1 .S 1(%Vhcat SLraW KL ,t.l)

Pu Ii;s K 1 5.nOil Sced '9g. I 6. I 1V:eee ,ble iKg. 4.1i11

'VaLerMcioo Ki.51(OiUiVU Kg. .011

Garlic .<g . ij.0t

PvtitCut Kg. 4.110

utrilvg: l Kg. .4,

Tomrato ,9g. J l)oiJ uLc K Kg-

Inouc

Labotur D y 211 (0i Simo0

Builuck Pair/day .o (11 411.1111

Irr ic:16olil 11:14sca:.1,,11 -10.X500]{.00

Frrtili7erU rca Kg 4.3( 6.

TSP Kg. 4.13 Kt.MIIIM1P Kg. 2.24 711UCowd:iIg Kg. 1).15 IJ.511PC.YtjCjdC.l Kg. 27nlu (1(1 (1.R

Set:de:

Au. (LYV) Kg. 4.11 1(1.110AUS (HY V) Kg. 5 1(1 1.' un

Ainan(LYV) Kg. 4.D0 il. I IOAinaum(HYV) Kg. 4-u1Burk(HYV) .g. 5 4t1 [!.(It3B. AinaLi K 1g. IIIA 1 I

PuiLsces Kg. 20.00Oikeud.s K g. 'X1

Chdilli Kg. .i25.11

Garlic Kg. 4M .001PeCtualml Kg. 1131

Pt)(aW ~~~~~~~~K 11.111

WTLfnav .Y1lo g. *'O 1 0(Zs-](TkuMriam K,--. I11(11.11COWheat Kg. 10.t

/a AvcraL:c Ai:iu:ul Pric,

46lmplemenmwion Compiction Report

BANGLADESH: Third Flood Conrol and Drainage Project(Cr. 1591-BD)

Appendix 3: Agriculture Tables

Table 4. Estimated Cropped Area and Yield of Crops Grown in theNaogaon Polder 1 Sub-Project (1993-94)

Crops Area (ha) Yield (ttha)

WOSAR WO'CR WSAR | WICR: W°SAR W1 ICR WSAR WICR

Rice: ,2 .011 12 .B. Aus (LV) 9,700 4,824 10,500 3,024 1.00 1.1 1.20 i.3

T. Aus (HYV) 400 4,686 800 3,186 2.90 1.8 3.80 3.0

B.Aman (L) 2.150 276 Il:550 276 1.20 1.4 1.40 1.5

T.Aman (L) 18,000 6,890 11,500 5.890 1.30 1.8 1.50 2.0

T.Aman (H) 1.100 7,836 7,500 10.836 3.20 3.0 3.50 3.4

Boro 17,000 22.902 18.000 23.402 3.20 3.8 4.40 4.0

Wheat 1.700 2,410 2,500 3,710 2.00 1.6 2.20 1.8

Jute | 1,650 663 1,650 363 1.30 1.3 1.40 1.4

Potato 0 950 0 J ,0j 11.0 0 12.0

Oilseeds 0 425 0 225 0 0.5 0 | 0.9

Spices 0 230 0 230 0 5.5 0 6.0

Vegetables 0 358 0 400 0 10.3 0 | 12.0

Sugarcane 0 745 0 603 0 35.0 0 | 42.0

Total Cropped 5 i,700 53,195 54,000 53.195Area

Cultivable Land 36,900 31,091 36,300 30.550

Cropping 1.40 1.71 1.49 1.74Intensity _ _

Source: Agriculture and Fisheries Development Studies of BWDB and adjusted by the ICR Missionafter discussion with DAE and the farmers.Estimated from 1993-94 of DAE.Estimated from the average yield of >Naogaon Sadar, M,lohadebpur, Manda & Raninagar rhanas.Adjusted yield from Agriculture & Fisheries Studies of BWDB, 1994 and ICR Mission discussion withfarmers and DAE officials.

Note: WO = Without-Project SituationW = With-Project Situation

I iqIctiitc t itorn Coipl o(t i on RepovtBAIIGLAOESI1f Ihird I lood Contitl u iivJ Drainajae l'roject

(Cr.1591-BID)AppeLliA :1 Age-iculttuw labLcs

Table 5. Farm 0udqlet * I Ila Hodel FarmSub-Project: NAOGAON POLDER I

CQopsJ D.Aus T.Ais D.Amail T.Amagn T.AtIvin Dtro Wlital Oll- .bla Potalo Spices Veagel- sua - TowlValilabI /n LV IIW LV LV IIW IIW seedis 5bl0 coane

Iciceo,it.g wo lcn 9.07 e.01 0.52 12.95 14.73 43.05 4.53 0.0o 1.25 1.79 0.43 0.87 1.40 100W ICR 5.C0 5.99 0.52 11.07 20.37 43.99 6.97 0.42 0.60 1.97 0.43 0.77 1.15 100

Area Ila WOCf 0.155 0.151 0.009 0.222 0.252 0.737 0.07a 0.014 0.021 0.031 0.007 0.012 0.024 1.711w Ieft 0.099 0.tO4 0.00o 0. tu:I 0.355 0.76C 0.121 0.007 0.012 0.034 o.ooa o.0013 0.020 1.741

Pliodut. CosL I'kc/bLAboL* WO ICII 321 309 12 492 e3s 2160 119 10 59 93 17 37 93 4450

W icn 205 269 12 42tl 899 2252 InC a 33 104 17 42 78 453ILjuilock wo ICn 2 83 3 lo 127 407 37 4 12 II 4 7 14 904

W IcR 52 sa 3 93 17Ji 423 50 2 7 20 4 a 12 910Scud WO ICII 132 54 a 119 127 203 124 3 5 319 7 12 120 1202

WICII 04 38 0 7? 179 294 194 4 3 359 a 13 99 1359Ica woilen 33 113 0 47 219 791 70 8 II 30 2 1 25 1302

W Icn 21 78 0 40 309 827 109 3 a 34 2 13 21 1403*SP WO ICri 19 90 0 0 131 56G 47 4 a Ia 2 a to 929

W ICII 12 03 0 0 114 o13 73 2 3 21 2 7 13 993Ml' WO Icn 5 42 0 0 82 232 10 1 4 20 1 2 6 397

W ICII 3 29 0 0 07 241 20 1 2 29 1 2 5 426Pesitcicie vU Icn 0 19 0 0 32 129 4 1 3 a 0 3 0 197

witn 0 13 0 0 44 134 a a I 9 0 3 4 215IHlhnllon WOICIl 0 52a 0 0 802 2578 1S5 0 0 48 0 23 24 4236

W ICII 0 365 0 0 1241 2GoI 243 0 0 52 0 28 20 4020Mic Ic WOICII 31 69 1 39 117 378 30 2 5 29 2 5 10 724

W Icn 20 48 t 34 104 393 47 1 3 33 2 a 13 765

Totul . WO ICII C23 1308 23 772 23J5 7557 601 37 104 587 34 1o0 314 14480WICIt 397 980 23 612 3207 7059 042 23 so 660 35 120 203 15298

Procsltlorl woIcn 171 414 12 309 756 2799 124 1I 28 330 d1 119 839 6048#<(() W ICA 129 313 14 424 120G 3064 219 7 17 4 12 45 144 700 0782

GlossValuoWOICII 1024 2487 75 2393 4537 16795 992 175 222 1344 488 474 1000 32013(Ik) W ICII 772 1077 at 2545 7230 15305 1749 loo 133 1650 542 578 947 31599

Nttklcouuc, lIdAia /d

wo ICn 401 109 52 1021 2201 923a 391 3a 18la 758 454 389 092 17532W ICII 375 917 5a 1073 3949 10520 807 03 75 990 507 450 065 21301

Nol kccou,w/Fauni lIoIdng (Averna sle 0.88 In)

Wo Ieln 353 087 45 1427 1937 0129 344 122 104 007 400 324 609 15428wicn 330 807 51 104a 3475 9203 710 73 66 871 448 401 603 18745

Ilur CuplU tiu:cosu bulljtA nillty (Avrueo slkc 5.3d)

Wo IlCI 68 180 a 205 380 1511 84 23 19 124 74 so 113 2800wicn 61 150 9 300 646 1722 132 14 12 102 S3 75 112 3484

At WO ICfl a EsIkIsI ed idadwWIdmuA l-rclact Shudlu aoload W lCfl - Eaki,n loucila aLU Will -Pico)uc SlIwlou t0Ab LabUour. buSodcK seeds, 1eUtlUt1er. ieshickJes suxh olluIi prIces (See Table SI.IC IncIIHLks cost of lam IIplemnenM . litareUtl of aops toCll ec.id C,oss Value vwUs Total Coml

48

Implemen=ion Completion ReportBANGLADESH: Third Flood Conmrol and Drainage Projecct

(Cr.1591-BD)AppendLi 3: Agriculcure Tables

Table 6. Summary of the Financial Price

(Sub-project: NAOGAON Poider 1)

Ii ziafl1cial I'vicc /.I

Variables Unit SAR. 1984-85 ICR. 1993-94

Outout:Paddy Kg. 4.i() 7.(0W\Vhet Kv. 11 t(0U

Pulscs K= 15.(1Oil Seed K 16.00()

VLgetahIe Kg.

WaccrMcILuI I - S.l)Ociiil Ki. . -L.(1.

Garlic Kg. - 'U.0Pocaco KE. - 4(U)B.ric! ,;l . .9x. - 4.0(1(

Toinarn .9g - 4.(1()Jule ;9K 4.SOt 3. M(

Sugarcanc K. *. .(MInut:Lahour Day 5(. S(1.0U(Bulklck Pair/d:y M(1.(1 4(((Irricatiol h:l/sc:c..nii 25(1(1(1 3200(1(1

FertilizerUJr_a .Ks2 6.00(,(.t

TSP Kg. 4 1; S. (MNIP Ke. i.24 7.(0Cowdunig Kg. . 0. iS .(1P-sticidcs Kg. 27i (1(1 25(l.(X)7SeedAus (LYV) Ke. '(.00 I1(10Aus (HYV) KL2. 5.4(0 12.UUAniaii(LYV) K9. 4M(1 I10. 0

.kiiiall(HYV) K,g. 5.4(1 I '.(1MBoru(HYV) K'-. 51 1'2.0(1B. Amilant KA 4.1(11 1(,((Pulscs K u - 20.0(1Oilsc:ds K2. - 25.(1(Chiilli Kg..I)J((

Oicii:i K19. 25(0.(0(Garlic K:.. 4(1.(l(1YV2cahl- K2. - ;()().(H()

Po(ato K II .00Wa[cr Mcloii Kg. --(1(((Tonato KL. - I()(i(.()Wheat Ku l((()Suurcaitc cut-ings set - (1.5()

/a Avcra!c Annlual Pricr

49Implementaion Completion Report

BANGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Drinage Project(Cr. 591-BD)

Appendix 3: Agriculture Tables

Table 7. Estimated Cropped Area and Yield of Crops Grown in theMadhumati-Nabaganga Sub-Project (1993-94)

Crops Area (ha) Yield (ttha)

WOSAR_J WOICK I A W,s x WOICR2 WVsAR x VIcA

Rice:B. Aus (LV) g,500 9.872 11.600 3.872 1.00 1.3 1.20 1.5

T. Aus (HYV) 0 155 0 1.555 0 3.0 0 3.5

B. Aman (LV) 10,j00 6.513 3,000 5,513. 1.20 1.5 1.45 1.6

T. Aman (LV) 900 1.559 3.900 1.5S9 1.30 1.7 1.60 1.8

T. Aman (HYV) 0 6.320 3.600 8,320 0 3.0 3.70 3.5

Aus-Aman (LV) 12,000 5,235 4,600 5.235 1.60 2.0 1.30 2.1

Boro (HYV) 0 6.215 0 7.215 0 ;., 0 3.3

Wheat 3.000 3.915 3.500 4.415 1.10 1.5 1.30 1.7

Jute 3.500 4.345 3.500 4.345 1.20 1.6 1.35 1.7

Potato 0 2.;13 0 2,313 0 11.0 0 12.0

Pulses i,500 4.900 | 9.000 3.900 0.40 0.7 0.50 0.7

Oilseeds 7.000 3.3 10 3.000 3.110 0.40 0.6 0.50 0.6

Spices 0 1.210 0 710 0 6.0 0 6.5

Vegetables 0 1.115 0 1.31S 0 9.0 0 11.0

Sugarcane 0 170 0 170 0 32.0 0 35.0

Total Cropped 53a900 583152 55,700 59,552Area

Cultivable Land 38.000 35,10S 37.200 34,379

Cropping 1.42 1.66 1.50 1.73Intensity

Source: Agriculture and Fisheries Development Studies of BWD8 and adjusted by the ICR Pission afterdiscussion wvith DAE and the farmers.Estimated from 1993-94 data of DAE.Estimated from the average yield of the Mlagora. Nlohammadpur & Lohagara Thanas.Adjusted yield from Agriculture & Fisheries Studies of BWDB, 1994 and 1CR Mlission discussion %vith (armersand DAE officials.

Note: WVO = WiEhout-Project SituationW - Wi[h-Project Situation

Ileietictit fit" on Coosl llet Ion RceportIIAIIGLADESII: thirdl flood Control anrd Drainiage Project

(Cr. 1591 110)Appedlcix 3: Agricutture tables

Table 0. Farm Budget - I Ila Hodel FarlmSub-I'toject: HAKiWIUIATI *NI3AoAWlGA

Cropis / (SAU.l tAus nI. Ais - (I.Amia T.Alian T.Aman Uoro W"ltat Pulses 011- .ila Paloto Sptces Vagot- sugar- TotalVaniible la LV IIW A'iun LV LV IIW IIW seeds elbles aclla

Plwculm gu WO ICII 10.90 0.27 9.00 11.20 2.z8 10.07 10.9 8.73 8.43 a.55 8.33 3.09 2.00 1.02 0.20 tooW (CIA 14.00 2.01 0.79 O.2u 2.62 13.97 12.12 7.4 1 6.55 5.22 8.14 4.73 1.19 2.31 0.30 tOO

Nea, nia WO Icn 0.20 I 0.004 0. 49 0. D10 0.044 0. tao o. It7 0. 112 0.140 0.109 0.130 0.0oa 0.034 0.032 0.005 1.85aw ICII 0.250 0.045 o. 152 0.1G0 0.0-15 0.242 0.210 0.128 0.113 0.090 0.141 O.0O2 0.021 0.035 0.005 1.732

I',ollol. Cost 'I 3St

t aboLt WO ICII 589 11 2012 217 oil 529 520 107 90 124 393 193 72 205 19 3458WIcn 523 113 20a 241 too 0 12 617 193 78 103 402 240 43 120 19 3791

aOllocId WO ICl 304 8 1ol 200 53 22/ 212 120 112 87 149 92 4D 44 a 1822WIcil 279 57 104 113 54 305 252 139 91 72 152 115 29 54 a 1942

Suod WO ICII 201 2 157 204 13 Gs5 4 145 04 05 31 728 34 32 24 1921wICII 258 l8 1G0 178 14 87 70 107 60 54 32 002 21 38 25 2095

Uca WO :Cn 25 4 27 0 13 1314 190 74 0 52 92 so 7 23 5 701wIeCL 23 41 27 0 14 247 233 85 0 43 93 74 4 20 5 917

ISP WC) ICrl 0 2 0 0 7 130 ISO 49 0 i3 8s 63 1o 25 2 544wICiI 0 iti a 0 7 114 2815 57 0 38 G8 79 a 18 2 049

hill Wo ICi 0 0.9 0 0 0 G3 12 10 0 15 29 1I . 3 4 0 212W ICI a o 2.5 a 0 0 85 73 la 0 13 30 23 2 5 0 258

lesitcitte woien o I o o o 2J tl a o ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~5 17 17 o a I iob t-nPlesticide v ,crt 0 I 0 0 0 23 32 8 0 5 7 1 C81 l)UW Cit 0 8 0 0 0 30 37 a 0 5 la 20 0 20 I 132 °

dIiipil2ioi WOICII 0 15 0 0 0 830 120 223 0 0 0 29 0 84 5 1056WICI 0 158 0 0 0 o D47 735 257 0 a 0 t23 0 77 5 2201

Msc /c WOIeln 12 2 33 30 20 97 90 42 25 21 41 07 9 to 3 552wICn 57 22 34 31 10 131 Ito 40 12 17 42 03 8 19 3 331

Tot)! Wo Idc t242 43 e1s 710 195 1947 1959 042 307 412 a 8o 1335 las 311 05 11038WICII 1140 442 073 121 199 2021 2323 909 250 344 t35 1058 tII 374 68 12022

ProlWdlol) WOIC)l 3C0 13 290 278 75 540 G20 107 90 05 221 720 207 280 255 41150<0) WfCIl 30t 15a :120 2 57 02 847 797 210 79 54 240 924 134 421 173 5151

Gloss Valtu WO lCfI 2193 70 1709 2O70 453 3240 3711 1330 1405 1042 17G0 2905 2481 1143 200 25470(1k) w iCil 2323 . 950 2919 . 15t9 490 5002 47s5 2747 1191 G0 1917 3934 lOll 1383 208 30240

Net ltcafllc. 1/tkl /Il

WOICItI 052 34 1130 951 258 1293 1758 497 i8SO 020 949 1570 2297 It33 121 14432w ICII 2203 500 1245 92t 291 2415 2462 777 042 525 1081 2277 1500 1309 141 17824

Nel kicoeio/Vaimi. I luldiiig (Avrul U skI 0.o09 lu)

WO Icn 847 32 loo2 840 230 1151 565 442 1031 SO 844 1397 2044 741 208 12244WICII 1053 452 110 a 17t 259 2194 2191 G92 830 467 902 2026 2335 1105 W28 ISGDS

l1ei Ca2,iti hikcoiu tLiiii kittily (Avem I12 sko 5.02)

wo 25I 0S 5 a 179 15 l 41 205 278 79 103 100 150 249 304 132 10 2285wicn 107 00 19? 14s 4G 390 390 123 149 83 171 301 230 207 22 * 2701

Al WO ICII - EstinolaodatdiaWlitloul-flic(t clSiluatlulnaLIdWICn f EsIltutledoccil Wili-l'rolacl SlUallonlb Labowt Uudocl. scecuS leriiters. puslicldes ald output Lricc. (See Table 0j.IC Includats cost ol lartin lnplenerits. liuerest ol aopis loan cic.Id GrossValue muinus Total Cost

51

InMplemenmtion Complenon ReportBANGLADESH: Third Flood Control and Drainage Project

(Cr. 159 I-BD)Appendix 3: Agriculae Tables

Table 9. Summary of the Financial Price(Sub-project: MADIUMATI-NABANGA)

Financial 1>ricc a

Variablcs Unit SAR, 1984-85 ICR, 1993-94

Out:Paddy Kg. 4.31) 6.0()Wheat I;g. 4.011) SM.)

Pulses Kg. - 15.04)

Oil Seed Ka. - 16.00

Vegetable K.g 4.0)

Water-Melon Kg. - 5.00

OnlionI Kg. . X .111)

Garlic Kg 20.00

Potato Kg. - 4.4)

Bringal Kug. 4.00

Tomato Kg. - 4.0(1

Jute Kg. 4.80 X.0IH

Sugarcane kg 1.20

InputLabour Da;y 12.0 511.)1

Bullock Ptir/:lay 301).10 4(.1).

Irrigation haI.L/:e;csi - 35011.01)

FcrtilizerUrea Kv. 4 6.1f(iTSP Kig. 4.13 &00L IP Kg. 3.24 7.001)

Cowdung Kg. 0l30 1-.3)

Pesticides Kg. M701M(1 250) .1)1

Sced:Aus (LYV) Kg. 4.t)1) 1I.01

Aus (HYV) Kug. 5.41 12.1)l

Aniani(LYV) Kg. 4.1)) lt)UU

Aninan(HYV) K1. ;.40) 12.10

Boro(HYV) Kg. 5.4t) 1I2.0H

B. Aman Kg. 4.01) 111.11(

Pulses Kg. 2-U.0)

Oilseeds Kg. 25.0Chilli K.g lI) 0)()

Onion Kg. - 2511.1111

Garlic K4g..1Veoct;lible K; 3()(1()

Potato I;g. I 1 1.UO

Wate -I lo K. C1011 M MToni.lto I; (1))1)0)M

Wheat Kvg. I It) (H)

Sugarcane cuttinus Ne *t5)

/a Averagc Anntal P',ice

/ t V \ de- BANGLADESH

,IN D I A THIRD FLOOD CONTROL ANDj(\',<f-0 '-- DRAINAGE PROJECT

g T 0h) >XCI/) ( t tZomor - x \-'<v\99 1 {_t ~(D GUMTI PHASE I25 X1 2 6 u\ a ( I; &v @ NAOGAON POLDERI

D W X W i MADHUMATI -NABAGANGA

'K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'.) & . A 9 t\ '< aX .. N f i009A

J S/ W , N1

RAJSHAH A

'N>DIA <' KIILLNA~ Mi,,

This map has been prepared bY : 5T I 1' I I 11

tot the convenmence ol the L. '\ >J r readers and is exclusively o, the internal use ol The World Bank < *

_,,. andlthe tnternaltiona FinanceI '' ; . 1 r * ! J y2Corporation The denominations J,' used and the boundaries shown t 0n this map do not rrrPly. on the ., part ol The World Bank arid the ( nk.ernrelionaal Finance Corporation.5srnV judg7ment on the legal status o/ any territory or arny _ _R oads endorsemnent or accePtance ol -'-.--. Railways ouch boundaries District Boundaries

-*-International Boundaries CaBrl J

ID IA lr BURMA)

BANGLADESH I .

na 5 0 20 30 00 Sn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '

In _

B D I A KALJTh map h t..

d t

_ a.T Nfr Br f Btnhe c,e,,eceof\tt_

rin raf,on deom,ln

in M a o to nronth

an0 mdgmeat on the legal_stabs

ivl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nentoa Boundaries,,,

-------

world bank document · part i: project ... this document has a restricted distribution and may be...

Documents