Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 5471-BT

BCTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

April 29, 1985

Eastern and Southern Africa ProjectsSouthern Agriculture Division

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

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Units = Bozswana Pula (BP) and Thebe (t)US$ 1.00 = BP 1.78BP 1.00 = US$ 0.56

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 hectare = 2.47 acres1 kilometer = 0.62 miles1 sq. kilometer = 0.39 sq. miles = 247 acres1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds1 metric ton 2204 pounds1 liter = 1.05 US quarts

ABBREVIATIONS

ACP - African, Caribbean and Pacific (countries)ALDEP - Arable Lands Development ProgramAPRIU - Animal Production Research UnitBLDC - Botswana Livestock Development CorporationBMC - Botswana Meat CommissionDAH - Department of Animal HealthDAR - Department of Agricultural ResearchDFS - Department of Field ServicesDPU - District Planning UnitsEEC - European Economic CommunityFAO/CP - Food and Agricultural Organization Cooperative Program (with

World Bank)FMD - Foot and Mouth DiseaseGDP - Gross Domestic ProductGNP - Gross National ProductGOB - Government of BotswanaIBRD - International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentLAC - Livestock Advisory CentersLUPAG - Land Use Planning Advisory GroupMOA - Ministry of AgricultureMLGL - Ministry of Local Government and LandsNDB - National Development BankNDP - National Development PlanPDSF - Public Debt Service FundPCU - Project Coordination UnitEMTC - Ranch Management Training CenterTGLP - Tribal Grazing Lands Program (policy)UNDP - United National Development Program

Government Fiscal Year

April 1 - March 31

IBRD Fiscal Year

July 1 - June 30

FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK FROJECT

Table of Contents

Page No.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Project .................................... IB. The Economy ....... ............................ 1

C. The Agriculture Sector ........................ 2D. Land Tenure ................................... 8E. Previous Bank Assistance ....................... 11

II. THE PROJECT

A. General Description ........................... 13B. Detailed Features ............................. 16C. Project Costs ................................. 21D. Financing ..................................... 22E. Procurement ................................... 22F. Disbursement .................................. 23G. Accounts and Audit ............................ 24H. Environmental Impact .......................... 24

IlI. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A. Coordination and Management .... ............... 24B. Implementation Schedule ..... ................... 25C. Management and Implementation of Specific ...... 25

Components

IV. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION

A. Financial Analysis .............................. 29B. Government Cash Flow ................ ........... 30C. Economic Analysis ............................... 30

V. ASSURANCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33

COST TABLES

T-1(a) Cost Summary 36T-1(b) Component Summary 37T-1(c) Planning - MLGL 38T-1(d) - District Planning Units 39T-l(e) - Land Boards 40T-1(f) - Strengthening Land Development Div. 41T-1(g) - Strengthening Wildlife Department 42

This Report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission which visitedBotswana in September. The mission was composed of Messrs. R. WallaceMission Leader), Y. Doka 'Agricultural Economist) EAPSA; H. GrussCounsel) LEGEA; T. Attig (Economist), R. Creek (Livestock Specialist), F.

Pullen (Planning and Institutional Specialist) FAO/CP; and J. Carter(Wildlire/Environmental Specialist).

I This document nas a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performan=c of 1their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

- ii -

T-1(h) Trek Routes ............ L...... ........ 43T-1(i). Extension *** ........ *........*........ 44T-1(j) Credit 0 ... ... 00. ..... 0.. 45T-1(k) Coordinator Unit ......................... 46T-1(l) Pricing and Taxation Analysis ............ 47

Production Tables

T-2(a) Ranch Development Costs ............ 48T-2(b) Unit Prices ............ ... .**..O 49T-2(c) Technical Coefficients for a Representative Ranch 50T-2(d) Ranch - Recurrent Costs .................. 51T-2(e) - Meat Grades ..................... 52T-2(f) - Cash Flow Projection ............. 53T-2(g) 1985 & Projected 1990 Average Farm-gate Prices

of Carcass Meat by Grade .............. 54

Financial and Economic Tables

T-3 Export Beef Sales. .................... 55T-4 Schedule of Disbursements ................ 56T-5 Key Indicators ........................... 57T-6 NDB - Cash Flow ......................... 58T-7 Economic Farm Gate Price for Beef ........ 69T-8 Incremental Benefits from Credit Component 60T-9 Incremental Benefits from Trek-route Component 61T-10 Total Incremental Beef Production ......... 62T-11 Government Cish Flow ..................... 63

Annexes

1. The Project Area ......... 642. Consultancy for Wildlife Department ...... 663. Terms of Reference for

A. Project Coordinator 68B. Beef Pricing Specialist ............. 69C. Financial Analyst/Taxation Specialist 70D. Coordinator of Land Use Planning 71E. Land Use Planning Training Officer 72

4. Communal Area Development ................ 745. Annual Project Review .................... 75

Selected Documents and Data Available in the Project File

A. Selected Documents on Agricuilture in Botswana.B. Project Working Papers on the Following:

(i) Land Use Planning(ii) Livestock Production(iii) Trek Routes(iv) Wildlife Develop'ment

Map

Map IBRD 18766 country map with identification of project area andprevious projects developments.

- BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Project

1.01 In February 1983, a mission from the World Bankl/ visitedBotswana to assess the state of the livestock sub-sector and identifyproject interventions suitable for World Bank financing. As a result ofthe mission, it was agreed with Government of Botswana (GOB) thataccelerated development of its laud tenure reform program consistent withthe original policy guidelines (para 1.29-1.34), and increasing abattoircepacity were fundamental to expanding production from the cattleindustry. Using the report's recommendations on a balanced developmentstrategy for the livestock sub-sector, GOB put forward a project proposalfor consideration by the World Bank and this was reviewed by a jointIBRD/FAO(CP) preject preparation mission in June 1984. The Project wasappraised in September 1984.

B. The Economy

1.02 Botswana has a very limited resource base; its main resources aregrazing lands and diamond reserves which have so far been the mainstay ofthe country's economic development. Arable land is abundant relative tothe size of the population but insufficient rainfall is a major constraintto its utilization. Copper and nickel mines have made significantcontributions to employment and incomes but their reserves are likely to bedepleted within two decades. The country is endowed with large coalreserves, but an economic way of exploiting them for export markets is yetto be found.

1.03 At the time of independence in 1966, agriculture, especiallycattle raising, was by and large the main source of income and employment.However, with the mining of diamonds and copper/nickel, which started inthe early 1970's, Botswana's economy has experienced rapid growth and majorstructural changes. Real GDP increased 10 percent a year during the decadeending in 1982 and as a result, per capita GNP rose from US$110 in 1972 toover US$900 by 1982. The economy is dualistic, with a small modern sectorgenerating substantial resources through exports of beef, copper/nickeland, most importantly, diamonds and a large rural sector involved intraditional agriculture and cattle raising. While incomes earned in thetwo sectors differ dramatically, the effects on living standards aresomewhat mitigated by intra-family transfers. The period since the early1970's has also witnessed a rapid build-up of physical and socialinfrastructures, particularly in transportation, health and education.

1.04 Botswana's significant achievements of economic development have,to a large extent, resulted from a sound and effective management of theeconomy by a democratic and responsible Government. The Government hasmade effective use of expatriate technicians for the preparation andimplementation of its development programs, and has welcomed advice fromdonor agencies and other countries.

1/ Livestock Sub-sector Memorandum Report No.4665:BT, dated September1983.

1.05 The Fifth National Development Plan (NDP V 1979/80-1984/85) aimedat shifting the emphasis from investment in infrastructure to increasingemployment and income opportunities in the rural sector. But, the progresstoward Plan targets was hindered by adverse exogenous events: two outbreaksof foot-and-mouth disease in 1978 and 1980 which reduced beef exports, thedepressed state of the world diamond market in 1981/82 and threecountry-wide consecutive years of drought since 1981. The Government,however, has indicated it intends to pursue the current Plan's broad-baseddevelopment strategy through the Sixth Plan to 1989/90.

C. The Agriculture Sector

General

1.06 The importance of the agricultural sector to Botswana's economyis much greater than indicated by its relatively small share (11 percent)of GNP. This is due to its being the main source of livelihood for about85 percent of the population and the second largest foreign exchangeearner, accounting for 18 percent of the total. The major agriculturalactivities are livestock raising and crop farming. More than 80% ofagricultural added value is contributed by the livestock sub-sector.

1.07 Of the approximately 85,000 total farm families in the countryall but about 360 are engaged in farming the country's tribal land of 37million ha. Many of these families grow crops for subsistence as well asholding varying numbers of cattle which are grazed communally. Of the 360commercial farms on freehold land occupying 3% of total land area, approxi-mately 200 specialize in cattle production, while the remainder raise bothcrops and cattle, but on most of these mixed farms, cattle production ispredominant.

1.08 Development Strategy. The Government's aim has been to promotethe maximum sustainable production and income growth from the cattleindustry while assisting crop farmers meet their subsistence foodrequirements. These policies have been backed by two long-term developmentprograms: the Tribal Grazing Lands Program (TGLP) (para 1.31), whichproposes major land tenure reforms; and the Arable Lands DevelopmentProgram (ALDEP), which focusses on the provision of inputs and services tosmall crop farmers. Although both programs have seen some progress, acombination of technical, economic, climatic and political constraints havelimited their impact. Land use planning procedures and land zoning havenot been consistent with the original TGLP concept (para 1.35); nor has theexisting differential grade pricing system for livestock producersattracted the majority of farmers to invest in improved range managementpractices and quality beef production. Serious country-wide droughts inthe four of the last six years have decimated crop production and causedsevere range degradation. The Government has recognized that firm guidancewill be needed for the programs to meet their objectives and has begun tomake political and administrative changes to this end (para 1.36).

1.09 Agricultural Pricing. Producer prices are set on the basis ofborder parity for crop products and export parity for beef and otherlivestock products. As Botswana is a member of the South African CustomsUnion (Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and South Africa) and agricultural

-3-

products (excluding those from livestock) are moved freely across borders,no direct producer or consumer price subsidies are applied to thesecommodities. Approximately 85% of the country's beef production isexported and both producer and cousumer prices reflect the returns fromoverseas sales. The export market comprises sales to the EEC (50%), SouthAfrica (37%) and other African countries (132) (Table T-3). Realisationsfrom the EEC tend on average to be 25-30% higher than other markets and assuch exert the largest effect on farmgate prices. Producers receive aninitial payment at the time of sale and a further payment when export saleshave been finalized. A portion of export realisations is retained by theBotswana Meat Commission and used to support prices in less favourableyears. This procedure was applied in 1978 and 1980 when outbreaks of Footand Mouth Disease restricted access to Botswana's most profitable markets.However, the overall pricing strategy for the livestock sub-sector will beaddressed within the project and in the general economic and sectordiscussions with the Government, with the object of shaping the use ofpricing and taxing structures for encouraging improved range management,high quality beef production, and ensuring the appropriate return fromGovernment contributions to the sub-sector.

1.10 Budget Allocations. Agriculture's share of Government expendi-tures has been about 8% over the last five years. However, over the sameperiod, the total budget expenditure has increased at an annual rate of 22%in real terms, resulting in spending on agriculture rising from P12.4million in 1978/79 to P35.2 million in 1983/84. Major developments havebeen undertaken in research, training, extension and veterinary infra-structure. The Sixth National Development Plan proposes to maintainsimilar levels of investment for agriculture through to 1990, and effortsto improve the effectiveness of investments (e.g. in areas such asresearch) would need to continue.

1.11 Subsidies, Cost Recovery and Taxation. Livestock producersreceive direct support through provision of animal health, extension andresearch services. A trek route system is currently maintained free ofcharge to farmers and marketing infrastructure is provided along the lineof rail for movement of cattle to the main abattoir. National vaccinationcampaigns for Foot and Mouth Disease, Anthrax, Blackleg and Brucellosis arenot charged to individuals, but farmers purchase all other veterinary drugsand requisites either through commercial outlets, or from the veterinaryservice (para 1.13). Income tax is paid on livestock operations by a smallnumber of freehold farmers but lack of cattle ownership data and thepractice of selling cattle through many family members has limited theGovernment's ability to directly tax the vast majority of livestockfarmers. A gross sales tax is applied on beef sales of the Botswana MeatCommission and this tax on BMC yielded P11 million in 1983. AlthoughGovernment expenditure on the livestock industry is difficult to accuratelyquantify, it would appear that the direct revenue received from taxes andcharges for services is close to covering the Government's recurrent costson an annual basis, but does not make a contribution to developmentexpenditures. This issue would be studied in more depth during the courseof project implementation. Due to arable farming's largely subsistencenature, no cost recovery or taxation revenue is effected from itsoperations. Subsidies are given through grants for ox-drawa implements,seed/fertilizer packages, fencing and small dam construction for thewatering of draught animals.

- 4 -

1.12 Government Services. The Ministry of Agriculture provides a widerange of agricultural services through its four major Departments: AnimalHealth, Field Services, Agricultural Research and Cooperative Development.

1.13 The Department of Animal Health's (DAH) activities encompassanimal disease control services, tsetse fly control, livestock advisorycenters, meat inspection at the abattoirs and a hide improvement program.Despite intermittent outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) theveterinary service has been maintained at a high standard and isinternationally regarded as one of the most efficient in the continent.The DAM has a network of Livestock Advisory Centres (LACs) designed toprovide veterinary requisites and other goods for sale to farmers. Therange of goods offered include vaccines, anthelmintics, acaricides, feedsupplements, insecticides and fencing materials.

1.14 The Department of Field Services (DFS) is responsible for allagricultural extension work and is organized into field staff and two majortechnical divisions at headquarters: crop production and animalproduction. In addition the Department has several other services(agricultural information, land development) and maintains a ranchmanagement training center. The main thrust of DFS's livestock extensionprogram is through regional and district extension staff. Within the DFSthe Division of Animal Production comprises nine units, four of which arespecifically concerned with cattle production. The Artificial InseminationService provides high quality beef bull semen for upgrading traditionalcattle. The Bull Subsidy Scheme purchases improved stock and resells themat a lower price to small farmers. The Livestock Marketing Unit promoteslive cattle auction sales and is responsible for maintenance of cattlehandling facilities at railway sidings. The Ranch Extension Unit providesextension advice to TGLP and Freehold Ranchers and acts as a liaisonbetween farmers and the National Development Bank. Little value is gainedby livestock farmers from the general extension service of the DFS, but thespecialised services of the Animal Production Division do assist farmersimprove their husbandry practices and recomiaendations are updated bylivestock research output.

1.15 The Department of Agricultural Research (DAR) is divided intorop and animal Units. The Animal Production Research Unit (APRU) operatessixteen demonstration ranches throughout the country which focus oncarrying capacity, management systems and breed improvement. In addition,work is being carried out to develop range management practices undercommunal grazing pressures and to monitor changes that are taking place inthe country's rangeland resources. Local professional staff are supportedby expatriates from several bilateral agencies, and UNDP/FAO continues toprovide long term project assistance for range ecology investigation.Research recommendations on stocking rates and ranch investments areconsidered valid for commercial ranch development and as such have beenused in Project design.

1.16 A country-wide network of producer cooperative societies functionunder the umbrella of the Botswana Cooperative Union, with technicalsupport and training provided through the Department of CooperativeDevelopment. Livestock marketing societies sell cattle on behalf of theirmembers directly to the Botswana Meat Commission and this activity is

coordinated at the abattoirs by the Union through an accountants unit. TheCooperative movement operates its own banking service (Botswana CooperativeBank), and a range of financial services are offered to both consumer andproducer societies.

1.17 Agricultural Credit. Within the well-established financialsector, the three commercial banks (Barclay's, Standard and Bank of Credit& Commerce) and the National Development Bank are the most significantlenders for agricultural purposes. In addition, the Botswana CooperativeBank channels money to the cooperative societies for on-lending to theirmembers and the Botswana Development Corporation operates several intensivecrop and cattle farming enterprises.

1.18 The commercial banks are widely represented throughout thecountry and provide the usual financing services such as overdraftfacilities, three to five year loans for property development and equipmentfinancing, although the latter is increasingly done via leasing. In termsof size, the commercial banks dominate the financial sector and theyestimate approximately 20% (P32 million in 1983) of their loans, advancesand leasing business are in agricultural operations. Much of this lendingis against the security of freehold farms and their activities are limitedin the traditional sector by lack of pledgible security. However, theleasehold ranches being developed under TGLP can now be offered ascollateral and the commercial banks may need to explore this potentiallending avenue if they intend to expand their agricultural portfolio. Theaverage rate of inflation has been 10% over the last 3 years and commercialbank interest rates have been in the range of 11-15%.

1.19 The National Development Bank (NDB) was established in 1962 topromote Botswana's economic development. For fifteen years NDB operatedout of its office in Gaborone and one branch, and maintained a small loanportfolio of which 80% was invested in agriculture. NDB has recently beenassigned a wider rural development role with expansion of lending foragriculture and small-scale commerce and industry. This thrust wasassisted by the Bank-financed Second Livestock Project, which providedfunds for the establishment of five regional offices and 16 districtoffices. In the three years up to 1982, NDB's loan portfolio grew fromabout US$2.0 million to about US$21 million, of which 60% was inagriculture. The expansion caused severe strains on the Bank's accountingsystem which is now being strengthened through the on-going Bank-financedSecond DFC Project. The proposed reorganization and strengthening ofmanagement and accounting will, in particular, equip NDB for a moreaggressive development-banking role, including credit activities amongsmall traditional farmers. NDB's total loan approvals for the five years1984-88 are expected to amount to US$89.0 million, about 56% of which wouldbe agricultural loans, amounting to US$49.0 million. As of September31,1984, NDB had assets of US$29.2 million, including net fixed assets ofUS$6.2 million. Its capital, totalling US$6.0 million, was restructuredunder the DFC II Project to the satisfaction of the Bank. NDB alsohas embarked on a program to improve debt recovery, as loan arrears of morethan three months totalled US$1.5 million in 1982; and carry out a study toreduce the relatively high cost of administering small agriculturalloans. However, three years of continuous drought extending into the1983/84 cropping season has thwarted these efforts, and the Government has

agreed to make good any irretrievable loan losses arising from NDB'slending to small farmers over the 1981/84 drought period. NDB offers arange of loan opportunities from seasonal finance for crop productionthrough medium term lending for livestock, farm machinery and boreholedrilling to long term loans for farm purchase and development. It hascontinually adjusted its interest rates to reflect both the cost of itsborrowings and loan administration. Currently, agricultural loans carryinterest rates of 16% and 17% for amounts below and above P50,000respectively.

Arable Farming

1.20 Crop production suffers from an extreme scarcity of water. Thelow and erratic rainfall over most of the country has made arableagriculture a high risk enterprise. The majority of farmers have opted fora low cost cropping system that aims (in the best years) at subsistencefood production. There are two main sources of surface water in thecountry: the Limpopo River in the east and the Okavango Delta in thenorthwest. The Limpopo, which also runs through South Africa and irrigatesfarmers fields there, is utilised by about 50 irrigated farms in Botswanaand is close to serving its maximum area. The Okavango Delta on the otherhand is a relatively inaccessible natural swamp, with large quantities ofseasonal water. It is malaria and tsetse infested and almost uninhabited.Also, the soils in the vicinity are not particularly good for crops. Tomove water from this low area to where the population is located in theeast, would require pumping it up and over 500 kms, straight through theKalahari Desert. Assuming it were technically feasible, the cost is likelyto be extremely high in relation to the alternative of importing thequantity of food grain that such water might produce. Groundwater istapped extensively for cattle but because of its depth and fossil origin,the larger quantities required for crop irrigation have been considered toocostly to distributc and likely to endanger depletion of the existingaquifers. However, the Government has recently attached priority to adetailed irrigation assessment of the country and a World Bank supportedstudy, beginning In June 1985, will carry out the technical and economicanalysis of both surface and ground water potential for irrigation.

The Cattle Sub-Sector

1.21 The total herd size stands at about 2.6 million head, with about500,000 cattle on the freehold ranches, and the resaining 2.1 millioncattle held on the tribal lands. Of the freehold herd, about 50% Isconcentrated in the Western Region, another 25X in the Francistown Region,and the balance is distributed among the other regions, except forNgamiland where there are no freehold ranches. The regional distributionof the communally grazed herd has been changing. Until the mid-1960's, themain cattle concentrations were found close to areas which either hadaccess to permanent water or could be serviced with hand dug wells andshallow boreholes. However, with the spread of deep boreholes, previousungrazed areas were opened up for livestock and significant increases incattle populations occurred in regions west of the line of rail. Thelargest concentration of the communally grazed herd is presently found inthe Central Region (36%) followed by the Francistown Region (14%), theGaborone Region 13Z), the Southern Region (13Z), the Maun Region (12%),

- 7 -

and the Western Region (12%). There are about 58,000 livestock holders(67% of total farm families) and 40,000 or 70% of these are consideredcommercially orientated by having 40 or more animals.

1.22 Based on who sells cattle to the abattoir, the offtake among thetwo production systems is estimated at 17Z for the freehold ranches, andabout 6% for the traditional farmers. However, these figures aremisleading since traditional farmers do sell some of their cattle tofreehold ranchers, who in turn, either fatten them or sell them directly tothe abattoir. Nevertheless, if adjustments are made for such directtransfers, the difference in 'Nfftake between the two production systemsremains substantial. The Animal Production Research Unit (APRU) has shownon its own ranches over the last 15 years that commercial offtake rates of17-20% are obtainable from average levels of improved range management.

1.23 Total offtake from the national herd over the last 8 years hasremained relatively constant at about 300,000 head/annum, except in 1978and 1980 when Foot and Mouth Disease outbreaks restricted export slaughtersales. Although during the same period live cattle numbers Increased byabout 3%/annum, the fully utilized abattoir capacity effectively reducedttie national slaughter offtake percentage. The Government is nowaddressing this constraint and plans to build an additional abattoir (para1.26). 85% of slaughter sales are sold for export (para 1.25-1.29) andtheir gross foreign exchange receipts in 1983 totalled BP 119m (US$il3)with BP 63m (US$60m) being paid to producers. Assuming adequate abattoircapacity was available, the Joint Bank/GOB Livestock Sub-sector Study in1983 projected that with little or no increase in the present nationalherd, adoption of improved cattle management practices could lead to totalofftake of 420,000 head/annum with an export value of BP 180 million.

1.24 Cattle Marketing. Three mechanisms exist in Botswana for movingcattle from the production units to abattoirs; these are: trekking, roadand rail. Farmers may use one or a combination of transport options tomove cattle and selection is usually determined by geographical location.If a farmer wishes to sell cattle he has a basic choice between selling toBotswana Meat Commission (BMC) or selling for immediate cash payment. Ifhe wishes to sell to BMC then he will choose becween selling through anagent, the local marketing cooperative or directly to the abattoir. Theopportunity for immediate cash sale is realised through individuals, buyersor butchers, a regular weekly village market day or monthly auction sale,and in some regions, the Botswana Livestock Development Corporation (BLDC)(para 1.40).

Beef Processing and Marketing

1.25 The Botswana Meat Commission (BMC), a parastatal body, isentirely responsible for the export marketing of Botswana beef through itstwo abattoirs at Lobatse and Maun and export slaughterings account for 85%of total cattle offtake. The small proportion of beef marketed fordomestic production (estimated at 50,000 head) is mainly handled by privatebutchers. It is considered that the BMC efficiently operates its abattoirsand maintains a highly effective export marketing service.

-8-

1.26 Over the last ten years BMC's main abattoir at Lobatse has fullyutilized its capacity except In 1978 and 1980 when outbreaks of Foot andMouth Disease restricted slaughterings from large areas of the country. Infact, the Lobatse abattoir's rated capacity of 190,000 head per annLa hasbeen exceeded in 5 of the last 6 years and farmers have consistentlypetitioned the Government to expand slaughter capacity. Some relief wasgained by the commissioning in 1983, of 20,000 head/annum abattoir at Maunbut it has long been apparent that another major abattoir was needed tocope both with immediate farmer demand and the future development potentialof the industry. The Government has approved, In principle, building a newabattoir in Francistown and work on construction could begin in 1986.Provisionally planned for an initial annual slaughter capacity of90-100,000 head/annum, the new abattoir would satisfy the offtake potentialfrom the livestock industry for e further decade. Several donors includingthe African Development Bank and the European Development Fund haveintimated interest in providing concessionary financing for the abattoir.

1.27 The principal export markets have traditionally been to SouthAfrica and the EEC (Table T-3). The close proximity of RSA, with whichthere is a common customs area agreement makes it a natural export market.Moreover it is a market, unlike Europe, which does not impose severerestrictions following outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease. Botswana'saccess to the EEC market is through a beef quota established under the Lomeagreement and involving five African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)countries. In the recently concluded negotiations on the third phase ofthis agreement, Botswana has retained both its share of the quota (18,916tonnes) and the option to take over any other country's unfulfilled shareon a annual basis.

1.28 Projections of future beef production made in 1983 (GOB/BankSub-sector Memorandum) estimated export beef sales would reach a maximumlevel of 42,000 tons by 1998 and thereafter stabilize at that figure,assuming domestic per capita beef consumption remained constant. Theseassumptions would require Botswana to find markets for an additional 12,000tons of beef over the next fifteen years. Prospects for achieving thistarget appear reasonable, provided planned steps to safeguard the country'srangeland, improve the quality of beef production, and expand abattoircapacity are taken. The total ACP exports to the EEC account for under 1Xof EEC consumption, and given Botswana's well established marketinginfrastructure within Europe, it is likely that its export sales to the EECcan be maintained and probably expanded in future years. Similarly, salesto South Africa do not undermine domestic production and the reduction ofthat country's beef herd has created an expanding market for Botswana.Other regional markets such as Angola, Mozambique, Mauritius, etc., havebeen developed, but have proved unreliable due to shortage of foreignexchange and the occasional beef dumping practices of other countries.

D. Land Tenure

1.29 In the past, there were three distinct categories for landtenure in Botswana: state land, tribal land and freehold land. State landswere principally national parks or reserved areas controlled by theGovernment. Tribal lands covered most inhabited areas where traditionallowed the chiefs to allocate to individuals the right to cultivate crops

- 9 -

and graze livestock without permitting fixed tenure of the land. Freeholdland comprised six blocks, covering 33,000 Km2 or 3% of the total landarea, where modern law titles were granted. Over the last fifteen yearssome change has taken place in the state freehold land areas. Significantareas of state land have been gradually incorporated into tribal areas anathe majority of freehold titles changed from non-citizen to citizenownership. However, radical changes have occurred in the control andtenure patterns of tribal land, which covers 65Z of Botswana.

1.30 These changes were initiated in 1968 through the Tribal Land Actwhich established Land Boards throughout the country and gave themauthority to control all land use in tribal lands formerly vested in theChiefs. Presently there are 12 Land Boardz.' for Botswana; in general, landboards include two members appointed by the Minister of Local Governmentand Lands, two district councillors, the chief or tribal authority and anominee of the chief. Land Boards began to function in 1970 but withinthree years it was found necessary to lessen their administrative burden byestablishing subordinate land boards. At present 35 subordinate landboards exist.

1.31 Despite this reorganization in the control of tribal lands,compelling evidence of serious and damaging overgrazing which would, in thelong term, affect the overall viability of the cattle industry and reducerural incomes, led the Government in 1975 to institute a new tenure programfor tribal grazing lands (TGLP)2/. Under this program leasehold rancheswere to be established within the tribal lands, while ensuring that fullyadequate land would be reserved 'around the villages' for communal grazingso that -every tribesman has as much land as he needs to sustain himselfand his family". On the ranches, which would be fenced, exclusive rightsto the use of the land by individuals or groups of individuals formingsyndicates would be recognized (including previously traditional small andmedium scale users of communal lands). Preference would be given to groupsin the allocation of ranches and in the provision of extension services.Areas where land could be divided into ranches and leased to individualswere to be known as -commercial' zones. The areas around the villages wereto be designated as -communal- zones and unallocated land was to be knownas reserve where no immediate development was perwmtted, except wildlifemanagement schemes.

1.32 The responsibility for formulating comprehensive land use plansand the associated land zonings under TGLP was vested in the Land Boards.District Land Use Planning Advisory Groups (LUPAGs) were created to assistLand Boards with this task. LUPAG membership comprised the senior regionalor district officer from the Ministries of Local Government & Lands,Agriculture, Commerce and Industry, and Home Affairs together with a broadrange of technicians from these Ministries. In addition, District Counciland Land Board personnel were included in the LUPAG. At national level, aLand Development Committee was established in MLGL to review land zoningdecisions and the derived land use plans. The Committee was to consultwith other relevant ministries on the likely impact of district proposals,recommend any changes and finally give approval for implementation.

2/ Tribal Grazing Lands Policy Paper - Government Publication, 1975.

- 10 -

1.33 Following the land zoning exercise, Land Boards were to request

the Land Development Division of MOA to carry out demarcation of commercialranches and communal areas. Such areas were then to be advertised throughlocal circulars, newspapers and radio, with a date set for an allocationhearing. Prospective leaseholders or land users were to be asked tosubmit applications or objections and all issues were to be extensivelydiscussed at the allocation meeting. Compensation was not viewed as amajor constraint to the implementation of TGLP as the focus of the programwas aimed at linking existing land users with their specific grazingareas. However, if it became apparent that a land user would be displacedthrough an allocation, the Land Board would compensate such a user with analternative land allocation. The demarcation-adjudication-allocationprocess was democratically designed to ensure all parties involved in TGLPhad equal opportunities to express their opinions, and in practice this hasproved to be the case.

1.34 Policy makers viewed TGLP as a major land reform program whichwould "change the Botswana way of life' and "affect directly orindirectly-virtually every Batswana. Such changes were seen as desirableby the Government. In addition, TGLF was expected to reduce the gapbetween rich and poor which was seen as growing larger under the p'resentsystem in which more and more grazing land would be monopolized by the fewlarge cattle owners who could afford to drill boreholes and establish newcattle holdings. TGLP was seen as a way for the Government to administer amore equitable distribution of the country's land resource by providing theless wealthy, but aspiring farmers, with the opportunity to becomecommercial livestock producers.

1.35 Although adequate land legislation, planning mechanisms and landallocation procedures appeared to be in place at the inception of TGLP, itsachievements to date have not produced a program of providing something forall users of tribal lands; namely, fenced-in ranches for commercialproducers of all sizes, and access to communal land for subsistenceproducers. In practice Land Boards did not have sufficient technicalexpertise to produce land use plans and the LUPAG's were not only weak inprofessional planning capability but also administratively cumbersome. Inthe early enthusiasm to activate TGLP no comprehensive land use plans weredeveloped and little attention was paid to livestock holding data with theresult that subsequent land zonings did not accurately reflect actualfarmer usage. With the fundamental planning base of TGLP lacking, thesubsequent efforts to initiate balanced development interventions along thenational approach of the program proved difficult, Interventions tended tobe marginal. Ironically, the justified preoccupation of both local staffand expatriate specialists to safeguard the rights of the subsistenceproducer resulted in most of the land being left for communal use with theresult that communal areas continued to be farmed by both commerciallivestock holders and subsistence producers. Only limited areas of grazingwere demarcated into commercial ranches, and in some cases publicuncertainty over the intentions of the program and its effects, delayed thedemarcation process. Despite the unsatisfactory progress towards TGLPimplementation, demand from farmers for demarcated ranches has exceededsupply, (partly because some large land owners wanted to establish theirrights to using a larger grazing area but were not necessarily interestedI-n ranch develcpment) with the result that communal areas continued to be

- 11 -

farmed by both commercial livestock holders and subsistence producers oftenwith increased pressure from the commercial farmers. However, until therecent few years, above average rainfall and reasonable grazing conditionsdid not create sufficient pressure from the majority of farmers to findeffective weans to preserve grazing resources or access to them, bynarrowing the number of users allowed on any respective area.

1.36 Since 1980, however, there has been a growing awareness of thelimits of the grazing resource, as the increased national herd andcontinuous droughts have highlighted the need to control livestock numbersand undertake improved range management practices. The farmer electorate,made up of all sizes of cattle holders, has begun to exert pressure ontheir representatives for more action on land matters and this has recentlyresulted in the political and administrative strengthening of the Ministryof Local Government and Lands.

E. Previous Bank Assistance

1.37 The Bank Group has made a credit and a loan for two livestockdevelopment projects. The total costs of these projects was P 16.4 millionCUS$21.9 million) with a Bank Group contribution of US$8.2 million. AProject Completion Report (PCR) and a Performance Audit Report (PPAR) havebeen written on the first livestock project (LPI) and a PCR is presentlybeing written by the Government on the second livestock project (LP2) whichclosed in June 30, 1984.

Livestock Development Project I (Cr. 325-BT)

1.38 The first National Livestock Development Project began in March1973 with support from an IDA credit of US$1.60 million out of a totalproject cost of US$7.8 million. It was implemented in the Western andKorthern State Lands and project activities included: establishment ofleasehold beef ranches and sheep farms, establishment of a parastatal toassist marketing from remote areas and improvement of marketing facilities.

1.39 The Project was completed three years later than expected andcost overruns raised the estimated project cost of US$4.9 to an actualtotal of US$7.8 million. The project completion report and the performanceaudit3J stated it did not succeed in demonstrating the viability of eitherbeef or sheep farms in the Kalahari Desert but did become the catalyst fordeveloping the overall land policy in Botswana. The physical implementa-tion of the project was poor, due in part to the remoteness of the projectsites and the inability of private contractors to effectively operate inthese locations. These problems forced the Government to complete much ofthe infrastructure at a cost that greatly exceeded project estimates.

1.40 The project adopted a 'turn-key approach to establishment of thebeef and sheep farms and although this allowed for design model specifica-tions to be implemented, the final leaseholders treated the farms as'Government units- where they had no vested interest. However, theparastatal formed under the project (Botswana Livestock DevelopmentCorporation) did establish holding grounds and a large fattening ranch thatimproved marketing opportunities for small farmers in remote areas. Prices

3/ Project Performance Audit Report (CR. 325-BT) dated June 22, 1982,No. 3989.

- 12 -

offered to these farmers by other purchasers (traders and agents) roseconsiderably as BLDC maintained a floor price. Although the projectproduced a negative economic rate of return, the Government consideredseveral positive lessons were learnt which have assisted in the long termdevelopment of the livestock sub-sector and the overall land tenure reformprogram.

Livestock Project II (Lu. 1497-BT)

1.41 In 1977 the Government requested further Bank assistance forlivestock development. The project was formulated to assist ranchdevelopment, seek new technologies to benefit small livestock owners,improve marketing of livestock and provide livestock related institutionalstrengthening. Specifically the project included credit support fordevelopment by farmers of about 100 ranches on land designated as

commercial" under TGLP, development of 14 grazing units in areasdesignated as communal land, extension of credit for small communalschemes, support for a new agricultural credit division of the NationalDevelopment Bank (NDB), development of livestock marketing infrastructureincluding trek routes, railway handling facilities and establishment of aranch management training center. In addition, funds were provided for arange of technical services including studies and experimental work,monitoring and evaluation of Project progress and preparation of futureprojects.

1.42 The Project closed in June 1984 after receiving a one yearextension to allow for completion of the ranch development component.Implementation of ranches started in 1980 and, consistent with theappraisal's projections, no significant incremental production increaseshave accrued in the initial years of development. However, after threeyears of consecutive drought the situation on the surrounding communalareas has deteriorated rapidly and the ranches have demonstrated improvedrange conservation and markedly lower mortality rates. Of the othercomponents, the credit, marketing, training and project monitoring andevaluation were successfully completed but little progress was achieved inimplementing the planned interventions for communal areas. Out of the 14proposed communal grazing units, only two were satisfactorily completed andone of them was a control unit operated solely by the Animal ProductionResearch Unit (APRU). No requests were made for credit from the communalareas. The Government is presently preparing a Project Completion Reportbut from the comprehensive monitoring and evaluation reports it wouldappear that the ranch production component has a reasonable chance ofreaching its long term objectives and this should lead to the Projectachieving a satisfactory overall economic rate of return. This is not tosay substantial problems were not encountered in several facets of theproject.

1.43 A primary constraint experienced during initial projectimplementation was the lack of urgency that most livestock producersattached to obtaining control of a specific grazing area. Through theearly years of the project period above average rainfall providedsufficient grazing throughout the tribal lands, and with the exceptionof more forward thinking farmers, there was limited demand for range

- 13 -

improvement packages. Further, some of the commercial ranches which wereuemarcated and made available were actually marginal lands, rather thanareas where boreholes were already operated by commercial producers. As aresult, incremental development costs in such cases proved high, withdrilling and dry-hole costs adding to the burden. The initial intentionhad been to rationalize, and better discipline use of the existing range-land. The slow pace of land demarcation and the inconsistency between theoriginal policy statement on TGLP and the actual zoning of the tribal landsinto commercial, communal and reserve areas also contributed to theProject's difficulties. Coupled with farmer attitudes, difficuities inestablishing any developments in the communal areas reflected the fact thatall sizes of livestock holders still grazed communal land, and as theirobjectives for holding cattle differed widely, little agreement waspossible on a collective basis for management improvements. However, inthe last two years of the Project a combination of severe country-widedroughts and an expanded national cattle herd began to focus farmers'attention on controlled management of the grazing resource. Demand forranches accelerated and criticism of the Government's tardiness inproviding land tenure changes was widely voiced. It became evident thatinitial land zoning of the tribal lands did not truly reflect its actualuse and a more thorough national land use planning exercise would beessential if the disciplined management of grazing resources were toeventuate. In addition, it was judged a more realistic time-frame would beneeded for the full implementation of TGLP, possibly stretching over thenext two decades.

II. THE PROJECT

A. General Description-

Project Rationale and Objectives

2.01 As a major source of foreign exchange, the growth of the cattleindustry is crucial to Botswana's overall development. It also directlyeffects the welfare of a large proportion of the population. Although overthe last 10 years, commercial sales from the cattle industry have expandedto fully utilize the country's abattoir capacity, there is growing evidenceof serious overgrazing and range degradation, which will threaten the longterm viability of the industry. It is apparent that conservation of thegrazing resource can only be achieved if overgrazing on the tribal lands,which presently account for 65% of total land area, can be reversed. Toachieve this, market-oriented producers (whether individuals or groups)will have to be linked with demarcated grazing areas, and free- access toremaining, truly communal areas will have to be limited to and controlledby the remaining subsistence or very small scale producers.

2.02 The Government's Tribal Grazing Lands Program (paras 1.30-1.36),a wide ranging land tenure reform program unique in Africa, was designedfor this primary purpose. If implemented along the guidelines cf theoriginal policy document (para 1.31), TGLP could achieve sustainable outputof fodder from the grazing resource, which in turn would lead to anexpanded level of livestock production. However, it is evident that TGLPneeds to establish a sound planning base before the majority of the

- 14 -

country's farmers can be brought into the program. It will also requirethe strong capability to sort through and settle, in a timely and equitablemanner, what in some cases will be difficult adjudication issues.

2.03 Simultaneously, while land tenure changes are taking place, theGovernment recognises that it will also have to tackle two other importantfacets of livestock development: the need to assure adequate processingcapacity to handle the increased offtake which would come from better rangemanagement, and the need to refine the package of fiscal and pricingincentives and disincentives not only to discourage the overgrazing of therange but also stimulate production of the quality of meat its exportmarkets demand. It will be necessary to increase abattoir capacity. TheGovernment is proposing to build a new abattoir (para 1.26) and hassubmitted to the Bank a timetable for the design, construction andcommissioning of the plant. Trek route development will also need to befurthered. With increased marketing capacity overall, there should be lessholding of cattle beyond their optimal selling rate, less reduction ofweight and quality enroute to the abattoirs and less pressure on grazinglands. However, in the long term, control of the national herd size willrequire careful balancing of marketing capacity with appropriate fiscal,pricing and land use policies. As to fiscal and pricing incentives, theGovernment will be embarking on a review of a variety of means (the pricingstructure for different grades of meat, tax incentives related to improvedrange management, cost recovery for services, and so forth) which, at thesame time, reinforce producer incentives to adopt improved production andconservation methods; assure reasonable recovery by Government of resourcesput into the sub-sector, particularly when commercial benefits to producersare clear; avoid benefitting continvation of unimproved livestockproduction, or allowing this production to enjoy any artificial advantageover the other land uses (cropping, wildlife, etc.).

2.04 To help address the various above needs (except for theabattoir), the Project would strengthen the Government's institutionalcapability to promote, through both program and policy interventions, moreeffective utilization of the rangeland resource and further development ofimproved livestock production systems. Direct output from the Projectwould be: the production of four land-use plans for the Central, Ngamiland,Kweneng and Southern Districts wnich have 70X of the total cattlepopulation and 86% of Botswana's livestock holders; assistance and trainingin the specification and applicatior. of improved methods and procedures forimplementing the land use plans; refinement of the pricing and taxationpolicy package, an implementation plan for the package and training ofBotswana personnel who would initially be part of the working partiesstudying these issues; development of guidelines and plans for managementof communal grazing areas and funding to assist such initiatives; provisionof credit and managerial assistance for developing both individual andgroup commercial ranches; and construction of trek routes.

2.05 About 1,000 farmers will be directly involved in the proposedproduction components but the Project's planning activities have beendesigned to create the basis for the eventual involvement of all 58,000livestock farmers in the Tribal Grazing Lands Program. The project'sconcentration on securing an improved national capacity to manage andexplo:it rationally and equitably its centrally important rangeland resource

- 15 -

is the basis for the broad indirect benefits. While technical assistance,training and administrative development represent a large share of projectactivities and costs, these are in aggregate both appropriate to the natureof the needs and relatively modest in comparison to the economic importanceof the sub-sector and its future sustainability and growth potential. Theyalso reflect the considerable difficulties which can be expected, and thepatience which will be needed in securing for the subsistence producerbetter control over, and development of, the communal resources they dependupon.

2.06 Specifically, the Pr.,ject would include the following components:

1. Land Use Planning and Management

(a) Coordination of Land-Use Planning and TrainingThe Project would provide a technical specialist to help theMinistry of Local Government and Lands centrally coordinateall land-use planning activities and ensure that thedetailed land use plans are consistent with nationalresource management policies. In addition, it would fundthe operation of related training programs and a land useplanning training specialist to help develop the requiredtraining courses for all land use planning cadres.

(b) District Planning Units

The Project would support the establishment of four districtplanning units, which would be responsible for producingdetailed land use plans. Funds would be provided forincremental staff salaries, housing, equipment and vehicles.

Cc) Land Boards

To assist the physical implementation of land use plans, theProject would strengthen four land boards through provisionof support staff, housing and vehicles.

(d) Land Development Division

To increase the professional capability and facilitatereplacement of existing expatriate staff in this technicalsupport unit in the Ministry of Agriculture, both under-graduate and postgraduate training would be provided underthe Project. In addition, a consultancy would be funded toestablish the relevant methodology for rangeland analysisfor the emerging Range Ecology Unit.

Ce) Wildlife Department 0

The Project would assist Government assess the futurestructural, manpower and budget requirements of theDep;:tment of Wildlife and National Parks.

- 16 -

2. Trek Routes

To increase the effectiveness of the main northern andsouthern trek routes, the Project would upgrade existinginfrastructure and provide .a holding ground and new fencedboreholes. In addition, improved supervislon andmaintainance of all trek routes would be supported throughprovision of incremental staff and vehicles.

3. Extension

The Project would provide livestock extension specialists tospecifically assist groups of small farmers. Salaries wouldbe provided for two livestock specialists, a ruralsociologist together with equipment, vehicles and a fund todevelop range improvement infrastructure for groups of smallfarmers.

4. Credit

NDB would receive Project funds on-lent to them by theGovernment to provide credit to medium and larger farmersfor ranch development. The Project would also fund salariesof a modest number of Incremental specialized staff andtransport required to supervise these new credit operations.

5. Project Coordination

A Project Coordination Unit (PCU), responsible for overallimplementation and execution of the Project would beestablished as part of the MOA. The Project would providefor a Project Coordinator, local professional, support staffand transport.

6. Livestock Pricing and Financial Incentive/DisincentiveAnalysis

Two internationally recruited specialists would be providedto help the Ministries of Agriculture and Finance developrecommendations on a livestock pricing and financialincentive/disincentive strategy aimed to help make thatstrategy as consistent as possible with the desired type oflong-term development of the livestock sub-sector; thespecialists would also help the related Ministries establishan institutional capacity for the on-going review of pricesand taxes.

B. Detailed Features

Planning

2.07 Coordination and Training. The need for an action-orientatedrural planning process has been identified as a priority in the next fiveyear national development program (para 2.01). Steps have already been

- 17 -

taken at the political level to support this objective with the appointmentof an Assistant Minister for rural land matters. To assist theGovernment's initiative, the Project would provide a Coordinator of LandUse Planning in the Ministry of Local Government and Lands. The officerwould oversee the activities of the District Planning Units (DPUs) andensure all district plans adequately reflected national planning policies.In addition he would act as secretary to the central Land DevelopmentCommittee (para 1.32) and be responsible for related inter-ministerialliaison. The Project would also provide for a Land Use Planning TrainingOfficer to undertake in-service training of DPU staff and managepost-graduate training activities. In-service training would take place atdistrict level and would be directly linked to on-going planning work.Postgraduate training would be aimed at providing experienced staff withthe necessary academic background to assume senior positions with theplanning and land use cadres of MLGL and the MOA. The Training Officerwould be seconded to the School of Environmental Science at the Universityof Botswana, but would maintain direct and operational linkages with therelevent ministries. The Project would provide for vehicles, training,equipment and employment of two internationally recruited officers, eachfor a period of four years.

2.08 District Planning Units. At present district planning is thecombined responsibility of Land Use Planning Advisory Groups (LUPAGs) andthe Land Boards. The LUPAGs have become large, unwieldy committees with nospecific mandate for production of actual plans, and the Land Board inputhas been limited to local political matters. No comprehensive districtplans have been produced and this deficiency has led to a piece-meal landdevelopment approach. The Project would address this constraint byupgrading the LUPAGs to District Planning Units (DPUs) through theintroduction of a core of professional planners and a reduction in themembership to the key local officials directly involved with districtplanning matters. The Land Boards would contribute to the planning processby membership on the DPUs but primarily function as implementers of landuse plans. The Project would, on a phased basis, set up the reformulatedDPUs in the districts as follows:

Year Districts

1 Central, Ngamiland (2)2 Kweneng, Southern (2)

4

Land use plans would be produced in Central and Ngamiland Districts in Year3 and those for Kweneng and Southern in Year 4. These land use plans wouldcomprise complete district zoning maps with a supporting text of thepreferred areas for (i) commercial and communal livestock production, (ii)arable production, (iii) wildlife management and (iv) industrial andresidential activities. Provision of incremental staff would include ten(10) district physical and spatial planners, eight (8) technical assistantsand eight (8) support staff. The Project would provide for staff salaries,housing, equipment and vehicles.

2.09 Land Boards. The task of land use plan implementation is vestedin the Land Boards and their subordinate units. Implementation, in this

- 18 -

context, will in practice involve physical demarcation of all land areasinto their respective zones, advertising the proposed land uses, invitingapplications for participation in ranches and other developments, andcarrying out the subsequent adjudication processes. The main Land Boardsoperate as administrative centers and generally are adequately equipped tocarry out their duties. However, "on the ground work is delegated to theSubordinate Land Boards and many of these are deficient in technicians,equipment, housing and office facilities. A two year course for trainingland board technical assistants was originated at the PolytechnicInstitute through assistance under the IBRD Urban lI Project and thepresent Project would complement this activity by providing trainingequipment, particular to rural land activities. Other funded expenditurewould include salaries and housing for incremental technical assistants,subordinate land board offices and equipment.

2.10 Land Development Division. Operating within the MOA, theDivision's functions include land use analysis, soil mapping and rangeecology. Its output is available for use in land use planning activities,extension services and by farmers themselves. Detailed soil maps arelinked with crop type recommendations, and livestock carrying capacities.Due to the specialised technical nature of the work, a high level ofexpatriate expertise has been maintained in the Division. Althoughprofessional staff training has already helped bring local staff intoseveral senior positions, there remains a need to increase the academicbackground of existing staff and train new personnel to satisfy theincreased demand for the Division's work. The Project would provide sevenprofessional officers with undergraduate (4) and postgraduate (3) trainingin the land use and range ecology disciplines. A recent analysis of therangeland monitoring techniques has cast serious doubts as to their presenteffectiveness both as a planning tool and guide to livestock producers.The Project would therefore provide funds for a consultancy to establish amethodology that adequately reflects changes in Botswana's rangelandenvironment and terms of reference for the Range Ecology Unit to ensure itsoutput is operationally useful.

2.11 Wildlife Management and Conservation. Although 18% of the totalland area of the country has been set aside for National Parks andReserves, significant migrations of wildlife take place outside theseareas. The progressive fencing of rangeland for commercial and communalland development will undoubtedly hinder such wildlife movements and toassess the likely impact, the Government has commissioned a series ofenvironmental studies. While the final decision on resource allocationbetween agriculture and wildlife will rest with the Government, there is anaccepted need to restructure the Department of Wildlife and National Parks(DWNP) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for more effectiveimplementation of conservation and wildlife management measures. Toaddress this need, the Project would support on-going work aimed atrecommending an appropriate organizational structure with manpower andbudget requirements for the future tasks of DWNP (Annex II).

Trek Routes

2.12 A prerequisite to improving cattle trekking conditions is tosecure constant availability of water and grazing on trek routes.

- 19 -

Officially, the watering facilities on trek routes are for the exclusiveuse of cattle being trekked and local livestock producers do not haveaccess to these facilities. To assist enforcement of this rule, theProject would provide fencing (1 K=2) around existing boreholes on themajor Kalahari and Ngamiland trek routes and an increased level ofsupervision and maintenance of water points. In addition, sixteen newboreholes would be provided at strategic intervals on the Kalahari,Ngamiland and Mokoba trek routes to reduce daily trekking distances and anew holding ground at Kwakwala.

Extension

2.13 Several Government ministries are involved with extension adviceto village communities, but no mechanism exists within the MOA to fosterand develop initiatives on land use management amongst owners of smallnumbers of livestock. To assist the Government with its resourcemanagement strategy under TGLP, the Project would provide additionaldevelopment personnel in the Animal Production Division of the MOA (AnnexIV). They would comprise a rural sociologist and internationally recruitedlivestock development specialists and their task would be to assistindividual community efforts centered on disciplined management of communalgrazing areas (and testing such possible tools as grazing permits, fines,etc.). In this regard the Project staff would work in close liaison withthe District Planning Units and the Land Boards. The Project would providefor staff salaries, equipment, vehicles and a fund to finance rangeimprovement infrastructure.

Credit

2.14 Commercial Ranches. A number of individuals and small groupswill obtain ranches in commercially zoned areas where they already haveownership of a borehole. For these farmers, the Project would make creditavailable to develop water reticulation, erect perimeter and sub-divisionalfences and construct buildings. The credit for these improvements would beprovided in a predetermined package formulated in joint discussions betweenthe farmer, the Ranch Extension Officer and the National Development Bank(NDB). For effective supervision of all ranch loans, the Project wouldstrengthen the existing Agricultural Credit Division of NDB by providingtwo ranch finance officers. Where farmers require additional assistance inestablishing and operating a ranch, a supplemental credit package would beavailable for employment of a ranch manager from the Ranch ManagementTraining Center. It would be required that where commercial ranches aredemarcated in areas without boreholes, leaseholders would not be eligiblefor a fencing/management credit package until they provided a borehole fromtheir own financial resources. This measure is designed to alleviate over-grazing pressures by encouraging farmers to invest a portion of theircattle holding equity in ranch infrastructure. The Project would provide acredit fund for financing about 130 fencing/management packages.On-lending terms to producers would be at 16% interest for amounts underP50,000 and at 17% interest for amounts over P50,000 with repayment over 17years including up to 5 years of grace in which interest accrued on thedrawn down principal would be capitalised annually. These terms compareclosely to terms for other agro-industrial lending and, with currentinflation at 10%, the interest rate is positive in real terms. Agreement

- 20 -

was reached at negotiations that any changes in the sub-lending terms wouldbe made only with prior agreement of the Bank.

2.15 Group Ranch Development. The complete development of a ranchstarting from unwatered, unfenced rangeland would be used in a scheme ofnot less than eight ranches involving groups of farmers. This developmentwould be the culmination of the land use planning process in one of theProject districts and would only be initiated at the request of the landboard. Ranches under the scheme would be made available to syndicates of5-10 members where individual farmers have livestock holdings of up to 100cattle. Financing of ranch infrastructure would be a loan/grant mix madeup of a loan from NDB and a grant from the MOA to cover the cost of aborehole. As a condition of each loan, a trained ranch manager would beemployed on a full time basis. To supply technical support for the scheme,a ranch extension officer would be outposted to the selected area by theMOA.

2.16 Management Support. Absentee ranchers have in the past beensceptical of the benefits from employing qualified ranch management staff,and reluctant to use cash funds for this purpose. In an attempt toovercome the problem, the Project would optionally include the cost oftrained ranch managers as part of the loan packages offered by the NationalDevelopment Bank. The Ranch Management Training Center (RMTC - establishedunder the IBRD 1497-BT Project) has produced approximately 150 managers butthe majority of these are employed elsewhere in the economy. It isconsidered that this manpower resource can be brought back into the sub-sector with guaranteed employment opportunities. To support the concept, astaff of the Animal Production Division of the MOA would take on theresponsibility for placing graduates and giving follow-up advice to ranchmanagers in the field. In addition, ranch managers would benefit frominteraction with the NDB's ranch credit officers.

Project Administration

2.17 The structure of organization and management of previous projectswere generally effective but there were weaknesses in coordination ofproject activities and the accounting mechanisms. To overcome thesedeficiencies a central Project Coordination Unit (PCU) would be establishedas part of the Chief Agricultural Economist's office in the MOA. Thislocation is considered prefereable as coordination will involve fourdepartments within the MOA and three other Ministries. The PCU wouldcomprise a Project Coordinator, Accountant and support staff. The post ofProject Coordinator would be filled by a suitably qualified livestockdevelopment specialist and the Project would provide for salaries,equipment and vehicles.

Livestock Pricing and Financial Incentive/Disincentive Analysis

2.18 Two medium term technical assistance posts would be establishedin the PCU to undertake specific work on beef pricing and financialincentive/disincentives in the sub-sector (Annex III). These specialistswould, in close collaboration with overall Government efforts to reviewtaxation policy as it effects the livestock industry, help design adjust-ments to the meat pricing and taxation package with a view to encourage

- 21 -

improved grazing resource management and increased production of exportquality beef, and help the Ministries of Agriculture and Finance establishan lnstltutional capacity for the on-going review of beef prices andtaxes. Assurances were received that the qualifications, experience, andterms and conditions of employment for both speclalists would be acceptableto IBRD, and their work would be reviewed by the Government and IBRD nolater than December 31, 1987, and thereafter a schedule established for thephased Implementation of the agreed pricing and taxation recommendations.

C. Project Costs

2.19 Total project costs are estimated at BP 31.7 milllon (US$ 17.8million) of which about USS 12.1 million represent the fore:gn exchangecosts. The phasing of detailed costs by component and by category ofexpenditure are in Tables T-1(a)-T-1(1) and are sumarized below:

(F¶* OWla IMP WS : Toa_ *____-_------------- ZFsrim kw

Local Foreign otal Local Forelig Ttotl Eiwchan CatoE.._..__ .. m__U 3._.. _UuUUUUUUU .. 3 _.m.a

A. LAN USE PLANNING O COIIT

NINISMth OF LOCAL OUIE ND LANDS 57.0 1451.6 1*56.6 32.0 815.3 347.6 96 6DISTIRICT P1INIK WIlT 1,327.2 974.5 2,301.7 745.6 547.4 19293.1 42 9LAS 10B 989. '47.7 1,937.1 55.9 52.4 1,03.3 49 0STlENITIIEIS LAW IKIENT DIVISION 34.0 734.5 763.5 1t.1 412.6 431.7 96 3STREIINS IF 11ILD LIFE AHTIHENT STIENGTIENING OF MILDLIFE MPATNIIT 38.7 - 33.7 21.7 - 21.7 - 0

Sub-Total LAID USE PUUIN6 COIPONENT 2,446.4 4.100.2 6,554.6 1.374.4 2,301.0 3m42.4 63 26B. TREI Rn OE CUWENBT 726.1 1,152.2 1,873.3 407.9 647.3 t155.2 61 7C. UYESTOM EZMDICI0N CIJIIIE4T 19W.5 3531.2 5,097.7 330.1 19"3.3 2363.9 6 20D. UTO. K1ELIPCI DNOS - CREDIT SERVICES 2.716.4 7865.5 1051.9 16526.1 49418.8 59944.9 74 41E. POJECT COMRDINTION MIIT 229.3 933.6 1,213.4 129.1 5.4 634.5 21 3F. UIIESTIIDCK MIClII I TAI POLICY STUDIES - 330.0 330.0 - 135.4 183.4 100 1

Total DASINE MSTS 7.685.2 1 ,'75.7 25.660.' 49317. 10,091.7 14.416.2 70 100Plwica1 Caeatinimrn 130.3 183.7 314.0 73.2 103.2 176.4 51 1Price Contitiefiacn 2,429.1 3.306.1 5WV.2 1364.7 1,36.5 34223.1 53 22

Totl PIJEC COMT 10.244.6 21t467.4 319712.1 5.735.4 12,W.4 17U05.8 A3 124

Project Base costs have been estimaCed at June 1985 prices No taxes orduties are levied on project goods, and income taxes are negligible.Physical contingencies have been included at 10% on only civil works,fencing and firebreaks. Total physical contingencies are 1% of rotal basecosts. Price contingencies have been included on the internationalcomponent of vehicles, equipment, other supplies, external trainlng costsand technical assistance at 5% for 1985, 7.5% for 1986 and 8% for1987-1989; on the local component of vehicles, equipment and civil works at12% throughout the project period; and on the local component of staff andtraining costs at 10% throughout the project period. Price contingenciestotal about 26% of Project baseline costs.

- 22 -

D. Financing

2.20 The financing of Project costs, net of taxes and dutiee, would beas follows:

US$ million PercentIBRD 10.7 60GOB 7.0 )Farmer Contribution 0.1 ) 40Total: 17.8 100

The proposed IBRD loan to Government of US$10.7 million (BP19.O a) would befor 19 years including a 4 year grace period. The loan would finance about60% of Project costs or 88% of the total foreign exchange costs ofUS$12.1 m. The Government would provide US$7.0 a or (BP12.5 a) and farmerswould contribute just under US$0.1 million (BPO.2 a) in the form of laborto develop ranch infrastructure.

2.21 Loan funds (BP10.8 a or US$6.1 a) and the Government equitycontribution (BP2.1 m or US$1.2 m) for the NDB credit component would bechannelled to NDB through a subsidiary loan agreement. The terms of thisagreement would maintain NDB's debt/equity as negotiated between IBRD andthe Government under the recent DFC II Project (Lo 2384-BT). All fundslent to NDB would be at the rate charged through the Public Debt ServiceFund (PDSF) to parastatals by the Government (10% in 1985). In order toallocate a proportion of the foreign exchange risk of external projectborrowings to participating parastatals, the Government has in place aformula, which is satisfactory to IBRD. Through this arrangement NDB wouldbe responsible for approximately 9% of the foreign exchange risk of itsborrowings under the Project. conclusion of a subsidiary loan agreementsatisfactory to IBRD is a condition of loan effectiveness.

E. Procurement

2.22 Procurement arrangements are summarized in the followingtable:41

Project Element Procurement Method TotalICB LCB Other Cost-- -USS million

Civil Worksa. Offices, Houses, Trek 2.1 2.1

Route Development (1.5) (1.5)b. Community Grazing 1.8 1.8

Units (1.2) (1.2)Vehicles and Equipment 0.6 0.4 1.0

(0.55) (0.35) (0.9)Ranch Development 7.2 7.2

(4.4) (4.4)Technical Assistance & 3.1 3.1Training (3.1) (3.1)

0.6 2.5 12.1 15.2(0.55) (1.4) (8.7) (10.7)*

* Rounded to 10.7

4/ Unless noted otherwise, all figures in this paragraph includecontingencies.

- 23 -

Figures in parentheses are the respective amounts financed by IBRD.Orders for vehicles, spare parts and equipment (US$0.6 m) would be bulkedas far as possible, and orders of US$200,000 or above would be subject tointernational competitive bidding procedures. The bidding documents wouldindicate that suppliers will maintain or agree to maintain an adequateafter-sales service and inventory of spare parts. Orders for vehicles,spare parts and equipment that cannot be bulked in packages of US$ 200,000would be procured in accordance with existing local procedures (US$0.4 m)subject to IBRD approval of those contracts undertaken through this form ofprocurement. Civil work construction, including housing, offices,boreholes, fencing and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure (US$ 2.1million) would be too small and scattered to attract internationalinterest. Procurement would therefore be by contracts awarded followinglocally advertized bidding subject to the same conditions as for vehicles,spare parts and equipment (although foreign firms would be entitled tocompete). If approved by IBRD, works procurement could be by force accountof the Ministry of Local Government and Lands or of MOA.

F. Disbursements

2.23 The IBRD loan would be disbursed to cover the following:

i) 50% of total expenditures for civil works (includingoffices, houses and trek route development), (US$ O.9m).

(ii) 60% of total expenditures for establishment of communitygrazing units (US$1.2m).

(iii) 100% of foreign expenditures and 90% of local expendituresfor vehicles, spare parts and equipment (US$0. 7 m).

Civ) 60% of amounts disbursed for ranch development sub-loansby NDB (US$3.lm).

(v) 100% of foreign expenditures and 90% of local expenditure fortechnical assistance and training to MLGL and MOA (US$2.7m).

(vi) An unallocated amount of US$2.1m, representing a portionof the contingencies on the above categories andtransferable to them as required.

A schedule showing the estimated disbursements under the project is to befound in Table T-4 and this reflects the standard country disbursementprofile.

2.24 Accounting procedures within the MLGL, MOA and NDB are adequateto support SOE applications, which could be used for categories (i) whereforce account is used, (iii) for local training, (iv) ranch developmentcredit, and for reimbursement under contracts of less than US$10,000 forboth goods and services. Documentation to support the expendituresfinanced on the basis of SOE will not be submitted to IBRD with theborrower withdrawal applications but will be retained by MLGL, MOA and NDBand made available for review by IBRD representatives in the course of

- 24 -

Project Supervision. In addition, such documentation will be subject toannual alvdit by auditors acceptable to IBRD. Disbursement for other itemswould be subject to full contract documentation.

G. Accounts and Audit

2.25 The Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Local Government andLands and NDB would maintain separate re_ords and accounts adequate todocument all Project activities. NDB's accounts are satisfactory, and havebeen satisfactorily audited by suitable auditors in the p.tst. Both MOA andMLGL accounts are satisfactory but their audits by the Government's auditorgenerally have been slow under previous projects. Assurances were obtainedduring negotiations that (i) separate accounts for the Project would bemaintained by MOA, MLGL and NDB, all consistent with accepted accountingpractices; (ii) independent accountants, selected by the Government andacceptable to IBRD, would audit Project accounts annually, including itemsclaimed under statements of expenditure (SOE) and (iii) the Governmentwould make available audited accounts and reports on them within six monthsafter the close of the fiscal year.

H. Environmental Impact

2.26 Poorly managed, over-stocked rangeland already exists in soneareas of Botswana. The Project would form part of the l:ng-term,wide-ranging Government program, aimed at protecting Botswana's naturalresources through specifically establishing a professional spatial/land useplanning capacity in the rural areas and promoting improved rangemanagement techniques. Although the Project's interventions relating tolivestock development are small when compared to the total grazing area,large scaie fencing of rangeland for commercial and communal grazing landdevelopment will undoubtedly further hinder traditional wildlife migrationswhich take place outside the present National parks and reserves. TheGovernment is proposing to formulate a National Conservation Strategy whichwill, amongst other things, review present land allocation between humandevelopment and wildlife- conservation. Although it is unlikely that moreland than the existing 100,000 Km2 (18% of total land area) will beallocated for wildlife, the Project would provide advice to assist theGovernment minimize the impact of the livestock and other developments onwildlife, and expand the contribution that wildlife activities make toemployment and the economy.

III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A. Project Coordination and Management

3.01 A Project Steering Committee, comprising the Permanent Secretary,Ministry of Agriculture (Chairman), the Permanent Secretary, the Ministryof Local Government and Lands, the Director of Economic Affairs, Ministryof Finaice and Development Planning and the General Manager of the NationalDevelopment Bank would be established to assume overall respons4bility forpolicy direction. Each member would act on behalf of the entity Ae or sheoversees. The Committee would meet as often as required, but at leasttwice a year. Overall coordination of project implementation would be

- 25 -

vested in a Project Coordination Unit operating from the PermanentSecretary's office of the MOA. This unit would comprise a ProjectCoordinator and his Deputy, a Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, anaccountant and support staff. The Project Coordinator would act asSecretary to the Steering Committee, ensure that its decisions areimplemented, monitor the provision of funds, prepare periodic reports onProject programs and oversee preparation and audit of accounts. Assuranceswere received at negotiations that the qualifications, experience, andterms and conditions of employment of the Project Coordinator would beagreeable LO IBRD. Conditions of Project effectiveness would be that theSteering Committee has been established, the Project Coordinator recruitedand the PCU Accountant placed in post.

3.02 Each Project component would be implemented by the department oragency normally responsible for such activities. MLGL would be responsiblefor carrying out all work under the spatial/land use planning component.NDB would administer the credit for ranch development in collaboration withthe Ranch Extension Unit. The Department of Animal Health would develop,operate and matntain trek routes. The Animal Production Division would beresponsible for assistance to community grazing groups, related activitiesinvolving livestock extension work in support of TGLP, and direction of theRanch Management Training Center. The Ministry of Commerce and Industrywould undertake the work for restructuring the Department of Wildlife andNational Parks.

3.03 Annual Project Review (Annex V). The Steering Committee would beresponsible for ensuring preparation of an annual report on the Project,covering specific topics relating to implementation experience with theproject and the subjects requiring annual conzxltation with the Bank.Assurances were received at negotiations that the report would be submittedto IBRD by July 3Ist of each year, to be reviewed during supervisionmissions. The annual review is especially important because the Projectinvolves a number of uncertainties, and investment programs should bemodified and adapted during implementation in the light of experience.

B. Implementation Schedule

3.04 All project investments and financing for staffing and operatingcosts would be provided over a five-year period. Details for eachcomponent can be seen in the cost tables (Table T-I(c)- T-1(g)).

C. Management and Implementation of Specific Components

Land Use Planning aid Management

3.05 All land use planning activities urnder the Project wou'ld becomethe responsibility of the Coordinator of Land Use Planning who would belocated at MLGL Headquarters. He would submit regular progress reports tothe Project Coordination Unit. He would establish District Planning Unitsin the four Project Districts (Ngamiland, Central, Kweneng and Southern),and coordinate the preparation of their land use plans ensuring such plansadequately reflect national resource management policy. The position ofthe Land Use Planning Training Officer, created under the Project, would beestablished within MLGL but the officer would be seconded to the School of

- 26 -

Environmental Sciences of the University of Botswana. The Specialistwould, thus, be able to take advantage of the existing educational supportfacilities available on campus and work with the professional planning andgeographical lecturing staff. He would carry out in-service training inthe districts which would be directly linked to on-going planning work, anddesign postgraduate training for staff to assume senior positiors with thevarious departments in the planning cadre. Terms of Reference for both theCoordination and Training Officers are detailed in Annex III and assuranceswere received at negotiations that the qualifications, experience and termsand conditions of employment for both specialists would be agreeable toIBRD. Both specialists would be in post not later than December 31, 1985and local counterparts would assume both positions by the conclusion ofyear 3 of the Project.

3.06 District Planning Units. Within the Project the four existingLand Use Planning Advisory Groups would be upgraded into professionallystaffed District Planning Units (DPUs) by the inclusion of a DistrictPhysical/Spatial Planner and a Land Use Planner. Membership of the DPUwould be confined to the District Officer Development, the District OfficerLands, the two previously mentioned Planners, the Council Planning Officerand the Regional Agricultural Officer representing the Land Board. TwoDPUs would be established in Year 1 of the Project (Ngamiland and Central)and two in Year 2 (Kweneng and Southern). After due consultation with therelevant agencies in the Districts, land use plans would be submitted tothe Coordinator of Land Use Planning in Gaborone for clearance by theNational Land Development Committee. Thereafter DPUs would work closelywith che Land Boards during implementation and be responsible for adaptingplans as new information becomes available. As the structure andresponsibility for land use planning at district level will besubstantially changed, a condition of project effectiveness will be thatthe Permanent Secretary of MLGL issue written instructions designating theresponsibilities of the District Planning Units and the Land Boards.

3.07 The role of Land Boards as originators of land use plans would bepassed over to the District Planning Units and emphasis would be placed onimplementation of plans and administration of land matters. Strengtheningof Land Boards would be primarily through provision of Technical Assistantsfrom the output of the Polytechnic Institute in Gaborone. Twenty sixSubordinate Land Boards would receive staff but these posts require to beplaced on the establishment register. The Government would officiallyestablish these posts in all Subordinate Land Boards by April 1st, 1986.This action would also assist in attracting trainees to the Polytechnic.

3.08 Land Development Division. Immediately after Project start-up, aconsultancy would be undertaken to establish the most relevant methodologyfor reflecting changes in the country's rangeland environment. This workwould then be used as the terms of reference for the Range Ecology Unit inthe MOA. In the first two years of the Project seven divisional staffwould undertake professional training on the land use and range ecologydisciplines. This would comprise postgraduate work for the Senior RangeEcology and two Land Use Officers and undergraduate studies for two rangetechnicians and two assistant land use officers. Assurances were receivedthat the qualifications, experience, terms and conditions of the consultantwould be agreeable to IBRD, and the consultancy be init4 ated not later thanDecember 31, 1985.

- 27 -

3.09 Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Implementation of thework to review the organization structure and operations of DWNP would bethe responsibility of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Thework would recommend: (i) the administrative changes considered necessaryfor the effective fuaction of the department and its most appropriateministerial location; (ii) review proposals for development, research andutilization projects with special reference to Wildlife Management Areadevelopment; and (iii) examine the need for strengthening the WildlifeEducation Unit. Detailed terms of reference are included in Annex II andassurances were received that the work would be initicted not later thanDecember 31, 1985.

Credit

3.10 Commercial Ranch Development. The NDB Agricultural CreditDivision would have overall responsibility for the design and management ofthe credit program for ranch development. Assurances were received thatall borrowers would have obtained leases to land in areas zonedcommercial", with ranches having identifiable and recorded boundaries.

Most applicants would require considerable assistance in preparing ranchdevelopment plans; NDB ranch credit officers would, with the RanchExtension Unit and ranchers, develop plans adapted to the farmer's specificland and cattle herd. Provision of services would be carefully reviewed,and owners of contiguous ranches would be encouraged to cooperate inreducing fencing costs. Loan agreements embodying the ranch developmentplan would be signed, including simple but clear conditions, notably onmaintenance of stock numbers. NDB ranch lending operations would bediscussed during the annual review, including demand for loans, performanceof borrowers, and suitability of ranch models.

3.11 Group Ranching Scheme. The Ranch Extension Unit working incollaboration with a District Planning Unit and a Land Board wouldimplement the scheme of eight contiguous ranches for small livestockfarmers. The scheme would aim to provide ranches with the necessaryinfrastructure for syndicates of 5-10 farmers. To encourage participation,the boreholes would be provided free of charge but 90X of incremental ranchdevelopment costs, including employment of a ranch manager for each ranch,would be financed through a loan from NDB. Syndicates would be expected tocontribute 10% of development costs by provision of labour. To ensureadequate supervision of the scheme and timely operational advice to ranchmanagers, a Ranch Extension Officer would be outposted to the area.

Extension

3.12 Communal Grazing Management. Serious overgrazing of the communalareas has lead to a decline in value of beef product, the quantity of milkand the ability of work oxen to carry out cultivation activities. In anattempt to arrest this trend, the Animal Production Division would fosterand develop community initiatives involving disciplined management ofgrazing resources through personnel provided under the Project. Theseofficers would liaise with all ministries providing extension advice tovillage communities and particularly with District Planning Units and LandBoards. Where cohesive communities require assistance to developmanagement associations and land management infrastructure (e.g. fencing,

- 28 -

firebreaks, etc.), plans and funding would be provided on a grant basis.Assurances were received that the qualifications, experience and terms andconditions of employment of the two internationally recruited livestockspecialists would be agreeable to IBRD. In addition, assurances werereceived at negotiations that the programs in this component would bediscussed during the annual review.

3.13 Ranch Management Training Center. To facilitate the employmentof managers on commercial ranches, assurances were received that the RMTCwould become directly responsible to the Animal Production Division. TheCenter would work closely with the Ranch Extension Unit and NDB andidentify suitable trainees who, when placed in ranches, would be servicedby regular follow-up from the Center's Staff.

Trek Routes

3.14 The Trek Route Service in the Department of Animal Health wouldbe responsible for implementation of all physical infrastructure under theProject. It would organize new borehole drilling and renovation ofexisting units with the Department of Water Affairs, and arrange forconstruction of the holding ground at Kwakwala and fencing in ofboreholes. Day to day maintenance would be carried out on the Ngamilandand Kalahari trek routes by two mobile units. They would travel 4-5 timesa year on each trek route, staying for 1-2 days at each borehole tomaintain equipment and advise pump attendants on maintenance techniques.Responsibility for major repairs would remain with DWA. Assurances werereceived that the issue of a trek route user charge would be examined inthe Project's study of financial incentives/disincentives for the livestockindustry.

Livestock Prices and Financial Incentives/Disincentives

3.15 Two internationally recruited specialists would be attached tothe Project Coordination Unit and using working parties from the Departmentof Planning and Statistics in the MOA and the Taxation Department, contri-bute to broader Government efforts to review and refine beef pricing andtaxation policies. The specialists would help the PCU formulate proposedadjustments to Government beef pricing and taxation strategy. This workwould be submitted to the Steering Committee and by the end of 1987reviewed by the Government and IBRD. The Project Specialists, during theirtenure, would help establish a capacity within the responsible departments,for an on-going review of beef prices and taxation on the livestockindustry.

IV. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION

4.01 Although the rangeland resource has, in the past, yielded asufficient level of beef production to fully utilise the country's abattoircapacity, there is now growing evidence of serious overgrazing and rangedegradation, which will threaten the long term viability of the cattleindustry. The Project aims to support the Government land tenure reformprogram which would link producers to specific grazing areas, and encourage

- 29 -

further development of improved livestock management systems. About 1,000farmers (800 small, 80 medium scale and 130 large producers) would bedirectly involved in the proposed production components but the Project'ssubstantial efforts at building land use planning capacity and mechanismsto introduce improved rangeland management have been designed to create thebasis for the eventual involvement of most of the country's 58,000 live-stock farmers.

A. Financial Analysis

4.02 Quantifiable financial benefits have been projected forrepresentative ranches to be demarcated and established under the Projectbut not attempted for the small farmer communal groups as the existing dataon the latter is insufficient on which to make meaningful judgements.Ranch development during the project period will be limited to 130individual or partnership ranches and 8 syndicate ranches involving groupsof smaller commercial farmers. The majority of farmers who will beinvolved in the production/credit component of the Project have alreadyexpressed interest in adopting improved range management practices and areawaiting a ranch allocation from already demarcated areas.

4.03 Estimated returns to farmers were calculated on a representativeranch model of 6,400 hectares. This model has been based on informationgathered during preparation/appraisal missions and is consistent withresults of existing commercial freehold ranches and the demonstrationranches of the Animal Production Research Unit. The typical investmentcost on a ranch would consist of a 60Km perimeter fence and internal fencesfor rotational grazing; firebreaks along external fencing; facilities suchas buildings, a handling yard and a spray race. In addition to this ranchdevelopment (individual or syndicate), in some cases the producer(s) wouldhave to provide a borehole and its equipment.

4.04 From these investments it will be possible to obtain significantimprovements in performance coefficients (Table T-2(c)). Although thestocking rate would remain constant, improvements in productivity would bereflected in a progressively higher offtake percentage. Of specificimportance, verified by the recorded sales of existing commercial ranchesto the abattoir, would be improvement in the quality of beef offered forsale (Table T-2(d)).

4.05 The impact of ranch investments on productivity is notimmediate and to take account of the lagged response, a grace period of upto five years would be allowed before debt service begins, with interestduring the grace period being capitalized (Table T-2(f)). Although smallincremental benefits accrue in the first two years of development,thereafter a steady stream of incremental cash benefits are realised.After allowing for debt service the return total non-cattle investment is17%. Overall return on total investment including cattle is 7% but theattractiveness of ranching is improved by capital appreciation realisedthrough increase in land values. This factor has been apparent in sales ofexisting commercial ranches and is likely to effect leasehold ranches asthe governing legislation on TGLP ranches allows for them to be bought andsold.

- 30 -

B. Government Cash Flow

4.06 The Project would recover all credit costs of ranch developmentthrough the NDB. When additional slaughtering capacity is made available,increased throughput of animals would provide incremental tax revenues fromBMC. Although the Project would increase the Government expenses onplanning, extension and assistance to subsistence cattle producers, furthercash benefits (not quantified) would be expected to accrue to theGovernment from production responses to these costs. Expatriate technicalassistance, financed under the Project, would be progressively replaced bylocal professional staff over the initial five year period. The GovernmentCash Flow is detailed in Table T-11. The currently estimated net deficit(counting only the direct and readily quantifiable cash flows) peaks ataround BP3.7 million in a few years but, in most years is under P1.7million. It should be noted that these projections do not take intoaccount possible revenue generation which might materialize as a result ofProject-funded study of livestock pricing and taxation policies, or thefact that the Project should help put the sub-sector in a much strongerlong-term position to contribute to public revenue.

C. Economic Analysis

Costs

4.07 The economic costs taken into account in the economic analysis ofthe Project are the capital and recurrent costs of the credit service,extension service, and a portion (50%) of the management unit that wereassumed to be directly relevant to the ranch development and trek routecosts. These costs total 58% of all project costs. Costs of the planningcomponent, part of management unit and livestock pricing and tax policystudies were excluded from this analysis because the benefits from t-.heseactivities would be reflected in production, not quantified here, whichshould materialize from the broad range of improved land use over thelonger term.

4.08 General Assumptions. The following general assumptions were madein calculating the economic return:

(a) All prices are in constant mid 1985 prices.

(b) All costs include appropriate physical contingencies and arenet of identifiable taxes.

(c) Foreign exchange costs have been valued at the official rateof exchange as it is considered to reflect its appropriatevalue.

(A) Labor has been valued at its opportunity cost which, in thecase of unskilled rural labor, has been taken at 50% of thepresent official minimum wage.

- 31 -

Benefits

4.09 Though the land use and conservation benefits over the long termlife of the overall TGLP program and the possible impact of the pilotefforts to improve management of those areas which will remain communal aredafficult to quantify precisely, the magnitude of the importance of thisprogram is clear when one recalls the potential of the livestock subsector(para 1.28), a potential unlikely to be captured without the program. Thisis further illustrated when one considers probable benefits of expecteddirect participants in the TGLP ranch development activities under theproject and of the expected users of improved trek routes. These main,more readily quantifiable benefits which would be realized as a result ofthe Project would be: incremental production and increased quality of beefresulting from ranch development and reduction of animal weight lossresulting through improvement of trek routes. It is expected with theavailability of credit and improved extension service, some 130 individualand partnership ranches would be established in the Project period and apilot scheme of 8 syndicate ranches would attract about eighty smallerlivestock producers. These developments would result in incremental beefproduction and improved quality of beef. It is assumed that marketed beefproduction would be exported, and this has therefore been valued at worldmarket export parity price adjusted to reflect costs of transport andhandling. The expected benefits of incremental production and value ofbeef are presented in Tables T-8.

4.10 Trekking, as a traditional method of moving cattle to a marketpoint, accounts for about 13-15% of all cattle received at BMC. Cattleusing these routes suffer from straying on route, and from weight andgrading losses due to long daily trekking distances. It is currentlyestimated that 9% weight loss occurs using existing treks. The trekkingcomponent is expected to lead to a reduction of losses by 3%. With anaverage of 30,000 head of cattle using these routes annually, about 6 kg(carcass weight) per animal would be saved. The estimated annualincremental benefits and costs are presented in Table T-9.

4.11 Economic analysis on the land use planning component, whichconstitutes a substantial investment of the Project (26%), has not beencarried out. The benefits from this activity are expected to have a wideimpact over a long time frame. However, it is anticipated that the costsof not assisting the planning initiative would result in furtherdegradation of the land and loss to the economy. It is expected, that ifthe present system of communal grazing in which land is treated as freeresource, is not changed, herd productivity would progressively decline.Tnrough the land use planning, it is expected that a process would be putin place that would, in the long run, counteract the productivity loss, andachieve a sustainable carrying capacity on the range resource. Theplanning component, as included in the Project, would be the foundation ofa long term program (20 years), of which the immediate benefits aredifficult to quantify.

4.12 In addition, in-depth analytical work would be undertaken throughthe Project, to imprnve the beef pricing and taxation structure toencourage long-term sustainable quality production from the livestocksub-sector. Assistance would also be provided to the Department of

- 32 -

Wildlife and National Parks to ensure that the Department is adequatelystructured to handle wildlife management ateas and administer the nationalconservation strategy, of which the benefits cannot be easily quantified.

4.13 At full development the quantifiable incremental tonnage of beefproduced annually as a direct result of Project activities would be about2,600 tons. About 2,200 tons would be realised from 138 ranches and 400tons from improvement in final slaughter weights of cattle using trekroutes between the production areas and the abattoirs. Non-quantifiablebenefits can be realistically expected from both the implementation of theProject planning activities and the reshaping of the pricing and taxationpolicies in the sub-sector.

Economic Rate of Return

4.14 Based on the above assumptions and adjustments, the internal,economic rate of return (ERR) to Botswana's economy from the Project, hasbeen calculated over a 30 year period. Separate rates of return have beencalculated for ranch development and trek route improvements. The resultsof these analyses are:

Component ERR%

Ranch Development 15Trek Route Improvement 33Combined 16

Sensitivity Analysis

4.15 A sensitivity analysis has been carried out to examine theeffects of changes in costs and benefits assumptions on the ERR. Theswitching values for the entire Project shows that benefits would have todrop by 27% or costs increase by 37% for the Project to be renderedunacceptable at a 10% discount rate. This might happen if droughtconditions continue to worsen, hampering ranch development; or if acountrywide outbreak of foot and mouth disease would limit meat exports; orif the real cost of construction were to increase dramatically. For theeconomic rate of return calculations, world market prices were used tovalue the beef. Sensitivity tests were made to determine the impact on theProject's economic rate of return of three major risks: that benefits mightlag behind costs, that beef export prices would be substantially lower andranch development costs would be considerably above estimated. Firstly, ifimplementation difficulties caused benefits to lag three years with nochange in costs, the rate of return would only fall to 10%. Thus, theeconomic viability could survive those effects of an adverse administrativeenvironment. Secondly, if the price of beef drops 20% lower thanforecasted, the rate of return would fall to 12%. Thirdly, if for somereason real costs of construction were to increase by 20%, the rate ofreturn would be 12%. Changes in the overall rate of return underalternative assumptions are summarized below:

- 33 -

ERR

Benefits lagged by 3 years 10Costs up by 20% 12Costs up by 50% 9Benefits down by 20% 12Benefits down by 50% 4

Risks

4.16 The Project represents a fundamental part of a Botswana's long-term development program. However, there are certain definite risks. Onthe production side, the continuation of drought, which has adverselyaffected livestock development in Botswana for the last three years, posesthe highest risk, especially with regard to farmers reluctance to borrowfunds for ranch development. However, because of the better managementproposed, the priject ranches would be able to minimize the effect ofdrought. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease could affect benefits bylimiting beef exports.

4.17 There are also significant political and socio-economic risks.Although the Government has expressed firm renewed commitment to the landreform and land use and conservation objectives of TGLP, implementation ofcontrolled grazing and demarcation of rangeland represents a fundamental(though already initiated) change from traditional practices. Inevitably,localized difficulties in reaching fully amicable decisions on means toimplement the land use plans, and demarcate areas controlled for designateduses and users, will come up. However, the Government's politicalcommitment to the program, coupled with the fact that the Project scope andphasing are modestly dimensioned and the fact that the Project itself wouldrepresent a significant strengthening of the Government's ability tomonitor, assess and act to solve problems which may emerge, should helpreduce these risks.

V. ASSURANCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.01 During negotiations, agreement was received on the followingpoints:

(a) a letter would be received from the Government detailing anacceptable proposed timetable for design, construction andcommissioning of a new abattoir (para 2.03);

(b) On-lending terms to livestock producers through NDB would beat 16% interest for amounts under P50,000 and at 17%interest for amounts over P50,000 with repayment over 17years including up to five years grace but these would beregularly reviewed by the Government and IBRD during theProject (para 2.14).

(c) the qualifications, experience and terms and conditions ofemployment of the internationally recruited staff and shortterm consultants would be satisfactory to IBRD (paragraphs2.18, 3.01, 3.05, 3.08, and 3.12);

- 34 -

(d) by December 31st, 1987, the Governmment and IBRD wouldreview the recommendations of the Project's specialists onpricing and taxation in the livestock sub-sector andthereafter agree on a timetable for implementing agreedrecommendations (para 2.18);

(e) (i) separate accounts for the Project would be maintained bythe Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Local Government &Lands and NDB, all consistent with accepted accountingpractices; (ii) independent accountants, selected by theGovernment and acceptable to IBRD, would audit Projectaccounts annually; and (iii) the Government would makeavailable audited accounts and reports on them to IBRDwithin six months after the end of the fiscal year (para2.25);

(f) the Steering Committee of the Project would submit an annualreport on the Project for review with IBRD (para 3.03);

(g) the internationally recruited Coordinator of Land UsePlanning and Land Use Planning Training Specialist would bein post not later than December 31, 1985 (para 3.05);

'h) local counterpart staff to assume the responsibilities ofthe Coordinator of Land Use Planning and the Land UsePlanning Training Specialist would be in place by the end ofthe third year of the Project (para. 3.05);

Ci) the Government would place on the establishment register,technical assistant posts in the Subordinate Land Boards byApril 1, 1986 (para 3.07);

(j) the consultancy for the Range Ecology Unit and work with theDepartment of Wildlife and National Parks would be initiatednot later than December 31, 1985 (para 3.08 and 3.09);

(k) NDB would ensure that borrowers for ranch development wouldhave obtained leases in commcrcial zones (para 3.10);

(1) uptake of development packages for communal land developmentwould be reviewed on an annual basis and if demand exceededfunds allocated under the Project, co.nmercial ranchdevelopment funds would be moved to this component (para3.12);

(m) the direct responsibility for the Ranch Management TrainingCenter be vested in the Animal Production Division of theMOA (para 3.13); and

(n) the Government would review the issue of a trek route chargefor full cost recovery of services, during the Project'sstudy on financial incentives/disincentives (para 3.14);

- 35 -

5.02 Conditions of loan effectiveness would be that:

(a) a subsidiary loan agreement satisfactory to IBRD has beencxecuted between the Government and NDB (para 2.21); and

(b) the Project Steering Committee has been established and, theProject Coordinator recruited and the PCU accountant placedin post (para 3.01);

(c) the Government has issued written instructions through thePermanent Secretary of Ministry of Local Government andLands officially designating the responsibilities of theDistrict Planning Units and Land Boards (para 3.06);

5.03 The proposed Project would be suitable for a Bank loan of US$10.7 million to the Government of Botswana at the standard variableinterest rate/annum for a term of 19 years including a 4 year grace period.

- 36 -

Table T-1(a)

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIUESTOCK RROJEClPROJECT COST SUMARY

(PULA '000 (US% 000) Total…Z------------------------ ---------- --- -------- I Foreign Dl isLocal Foreign Total Local Forelin Totai Exchnge Costs

A. LAND USE PLANNING COMPONENT

NINlSTRM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LADS 57.0 1,451.6 1.50.6 32.0 915.5 847.6 96 6DISTRICT PLANNING UNI1 1.327.2 974.5 2,301.7 745. 547.4 19293.1 42 9LAND fhRDS 989.5 947.7 1937.1 555.9 532.4 1.098.3 49 8STRENGTHENING LAD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 34.0 734.5 768.5 19.1 412.6 431.7 96 3STRENUTIENING OF VILD LIFE DEPARTMENT STRENGTHENING OF UILI)LIFE DFPARATMENT 3B.7 - 38.7 221.7 - 21.7 - 0

5u-Total LAD USE PLAMNING COMONENT .-446.4 4,1O0.2 6.554.6 11374.4 :'30B.0 3.682.4 63 26P. TREK ROUTE CONPNET 726.1 1,152.2 1978.3 407.9 647.3 1055.2 61 7C. LIVESTOCK EXTENSION CONENT 1.566.5 3.53;.2 5-097.7 980.1 lMO83M 2863.9 69 20D. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT VW - CREDIT SERVICES 2,716.4 7.865.5 10.581.9 I1526.1 4.410.8 59944.9 74 41E. PROJECT CORDI:-AFION UNIT 229.8 9 '9.6 l.218.4 129.1 555.4 684.5 el 5F. LIVESTOCK PRICINL I TAX POLICY STUDIES - 330.0 330.0 - 185.4 185.4 100 1

Total BASELINE COSTS 7,685.2 17.975.7 2.5-60. 4,117.5 10,099.7 14,416.2 70 100thnsacal Continumies 130.3 1P3.7 314.9 73.2 103.2 176.4 so IPrice Contingefncis :.429.1 3.308.1 5,737.2 IL364.7 IF58.5 3.223.1 56 22

Total PROJECT CoSTS 10-:44.6 21.467.4 31,712.1 5.755.4 12.060.4 17,815.B 68 124z... :t.ssts *rR. t .. a*sfs .. sz... a.ssss a.wnw... *... sha

April 30. IM9 10:36

NATIONAL LAND WANAGENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECTProJect Coaponents bh Year

Totals Includini Contingencies Totals Includirn ConUti.nicWsIPU.A '000) (USI '000)

......... ............. .......... ................ ------------------------------------------------ .... ......

195 1986 1987 1988 1989 Total 1985 1916 1987 1998 1989 Total=sonzRxxmzxgaoxx gaWzzsasitsU xxxt1n sggem seasn amazons........................... sZ..tal le sans* a. s ses ses .

A, LAND USE PLANNING COGPONENT. .........................

MINISTRY OF LOCAL G60ERNMENT AND LANDS 227.1 407.3 415,6 449.2 287,2 1,786.4 127.6 228,8 233.5 252,3 161.3 1,003,6DISIRICT PLANNING UNIT 78',3 842,0 323.8 374,9 503,2 24831.1 442,3 473,0 191.9 210,6 282.? 1,590.5LAND ORDS 314.4 191,6 939,8 379,8 789.5 2,612.1 176,6 105,9 528,0 213.4 443,5 1,467,5STRENGTHENING LAND PEVELOPMENT DIVISION 221,0 278,8 1.0.4 180,7 39,1 970.1 124,2 156,7 84.5 101.5 22.0 488.8STRENSTHENING OF WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT STRENGTHENING OF WILDLIFE DEPARATIENT 40,6 - - - 40,6 22.8 - - - 22.8

....... ....... ....... ....... .......... ........ ............................................. .......... ................. .......... .............

Sub-Total LAND USE PLANNING COi%ONENT lI590.5 1,716.7 1,929.6 1,384.5 1,619.0 84140.3 893,5 964,5 1P027,9 777,8 909.5 46573,2D. TREK ROUTE COMONENT 909,7 784.9 156,4 173,4 261,1 2,285.5 511.1 4409, 87o9 W.4 146,7 1,284.0C. LIVESTOCK EXTENSION CGWONENT 583,4 249,8 1,820.2 1.787.9 2.054.0 6,495.3 327.7 140,3 1.022.6 1.00,5 1154.0 3.649.0D. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PANK - CREDIT SERVICES 2,021.2 2#159,7 3.348.0 2o589.5 2849,0 12,968,0 1,135,5 l.213.3 1.881.3 1.454,8 1,600.6 7.285,4E. PROJECT COORDINATION UNIT 293.9 250.6 263.1 285,2 370,8 1,463,5 165.1 140,8 14748 160.2 208.3 822.2F. LIVESTOCK PRICING I TAX POLICY STUDIES - 359.5 - - 359.5 - 202.0 - - 202,0

Totl PROJECT COSTS 5,398.6 5452142 7.417s9 6.220,5 7,153,9 31,71721 3.032,9 3s1013g 4o167,4 3.494,6 4019.0 17,815.8 w33::::: 2222323 2233322 22:2213a :232:23 33::3.: 22222 *222 2 22Zls=20-a 2 3rt-v22 3222222

.............................. ....................... .. . ...... ........ ... ............... ......................... .. . ........... ........ ............ .. .... ... .... ..... .

April 30. 1985 10135

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PPOACTLMAN USE ti.NNING O NENT - MINISTRY OF LOCAL 6M. RNNENT AND LNDS

Detailed Cost Table(PULA 000)

Totals Includins ContlintencuesOuantLtv ?se Costs Totals Including Continsenies (US, '000)

.. .. .... .. . .. - - u it - -- - -- - --- -- - -- - -- - -- - - --- --- -- - -- - -- - -- --- - .. . .. . .. . ... .. . ...Unit 195 19P6 1997 1991 1989 Total Cost 19S 19M 1997 1989 1919 Toltl 1915 1996 19P7 1999 1999 Total 1915 199 1997 1989 1989 Total

1, IIMSTIINT COSTS. __- .__ ........

A. TECHNICAL ASSISTACE

COORDINATOR Of LUP MNEAR I I I I - 4 165 1650 1650 165.0 165.0 - 660.0 19.i 179.7 193.7 209.2 - 751.9 91.0 101.0 103.9 117.5 - 4223LAND PLANWIN6 TO MANTEAR - I I I I 4 165 - 165.0 165,0 165.0 1t5.0 660.0 - 9.7 193.7 209.2 225.9 908.6 - 101,0 109.9 117.5 126.? 454.2

Sub-Total tECHNICAL ASSISTANE 165.0 330.0 330,0 330.0 165.0 1,370.0 1It.1 359.5 37i4 419.4 225,9 1.5l603 95,0 202.0 217.6 235.0 126,9 976,6P. VEHICLES I EQUIPMENT

4T STATION WAGON NO I I - - 1 3 20 20.0 20.0 - 20.0 60.0 20,5 21.9 * - 27.7 70.1 I.S 12.3 - - 15.6 39.4EIUIPFENT SET I - - - - 1 27 27,0 - - - - 27.0 27.7 - - 27,7 15.6 - - - - 15.6

Sub-Total VENICLES I EQUIPMENT 47.0 20.0 - -720.0 07.0 49.3 21.9 - -7.7 `?979 27.1 12.3 - - 156 55,0

Total INfESTMENT COSTS 212.0 350.0 330.0 330.0 19P.0 1040740 217.4 381,4 387t4 419I. 253.6 1.59.1 122.1 214.3 217.6 235,0 142.5 931.53111* 2 333 gess3 B3s111 3213m 1113,31 33** 3*113FIR 3333 33233 11333 3333 3*33 3*323 32J 3*33* 3233as3s 33ses 2

11. RECREN/T COSIt.......... ......... ___

A, SALARIES AND ALLIUMC............ ..............

CIVERS MNAR t 2 2 2 2 s 2.5 2.5 5.0 50 se.0 5.0 22.5 2.6 5.9 6.4 7.0 7.7 29.4 2.5 3.2 3.6 3,9 4.3 16.5

Cub-Total SALARIES AD ALLOWANCE 2.5 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 22.5 2.6 5.9 6.4 7.0 7.7 29,4 1.5 3.2 3.6 3,9 4.3 16.53. VEHICLE OERATION I MAINTENAE 10000 KM/TEAR - -44 - - - 484 91 0 FIB O.T 39.6 4,5 9.7 10.5 11.4 12.3 49,5 2.5 5.5 5.9 6.4 6.9 27.C. EWIPENT OPERATION I MAINTENANE SET - 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 10.4 7.6 - 6,9 6.9 6.9 6.9 27.0 - 7.6 9'S 9.0 9.3 34.7 - 4.3 4o6 5.1 5.5 1t,5D, OFFICE EXPENSES 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2,5 12.5 2.6 2.1 3.1 3.4 3.7 15.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.S O,9

Total RECUREI!T COSTS 9,4 23.S 23.1 23.1 23,1 101S6 9.9 25 9 29i2 30.81 33.6 124.2 5.5 14.6 15.9 17,a 13.9 72.

Total 221.4 373.1 353,1 M.l 208.1 1.5016 227,1 407.3 415.6 449.2 297,2 1,76.4 127.6 229.9 2'3.5 252.3 161.311003.6

................................ _ ............................._..........._. _. _................_ ..._ ._............._..._.__............... _ ......._._........-.._ .........___-.--_--_-April 30. 1995 10323 '4

1ATIONlA LAB N MO1T 3 LIVESTOC PO TLId USE PLWINS CtST - 0131R9CT AMIIN Wiml

hzAlled cost TableIPIAA '000

totals Iftluilfi c4diri.uosi

Sumlite In. Cotes Totals Ineludii CoiIIntfldn" IUS1 '000

wit IM InA 1916 13 3 1 Tel Cotl19 191 1917 19 191 Total 195 IM fel 7 1916 19 Isle! 1I I1 7 19? 6 1939 Totlaimsss alias *anx = mss **|wm as$&s n "" &" sons eXXa s sesw atsa as novw osnsw 8="s M244 4 xa en" ~Gete wmsa t "mm %mot s

1. IIIflI COSllTS

A. CIVIL M6S5

NOIE TlK 11 IIo 6 4 - 10 542 M5.2 216.1 - . . 542.0 372.9 271I5 - - 644.4 209.5 152.5 - - - 362.0HIINS LCI NO 4 4 - - - t 24.5 93o "s. - - - 196.0 112.4 122.7 . . . 235.1 6301.9 - - 132.1

5~hT.la1 CIVL IOMS 423.2 314.3 - - - fl3.0 435.3394.2 -- - 179,5 M.6 221.o4 . . 494.3

t. WNIILtES W (uJIMPI

434 Pl-um No 4 4 - - 4 12 1.7 4l.3 6.3 - - 4.13 200.4 63.6 n3. - - 92.5 234.4 3.5 41.1 - 51,9 13i15IOUiPIn SE 2 2 - . . 4 37.4 74.1 74,3 - - - 149.6 76.1 11.9 -. 1. I7 41.1 46o0 - - t9.1AERIA MKTNPMIT 50 KMt KOCK 2 2 2 2 2 10 11.1 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 3ii.0 2.3 24.) 26.2 23.4 3.7 132,4 2. 11.6 14.7 li6f 17,3 74.4

-Total WERIMI AN UIM7 16. . 22.2 22.2 . 441.0 16.2 179.2 26.2 23.4 123.2 52 1.2 94.5 100.7 14.7 16. 69,2 295,!

ToUl IESTIINT COlS 537.047.6 22.2 22.2 39.0 313.0 M53.S 73.4 26.2 20.4 123.2 4047 367.1 3221. 14.7 16,0 69,2 79.2 '0

11. REC T COSTS

A. IMAIE 0 MN LLONEI

nI m933 3m4E( 6 10 10 10 10 46 12. .4 129.0 129.0 129.0 12t30 593.4 Al.3 149.0 163.9 130.3 1".3 m.o 45.7 37 92.1 131.3 111.4 434.1TM n WImI 4 3 I I I 36 4.5 13.0 36,0 36.0 36.0 36.0 12.0 13.9 41.6 45.7 50.1 55.3 211.9 10s 21.4 25.7 23.3 31.1 19t.0N1RUl SR3 wIptm 4 3 8 I 3 36 2.5 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 10.5 23.1 2.,4 21.0 30.7 117,7 5.9 11,0 14.3 15.7 17.3 H6.1

Shu-Tol SAIMLIEI MO 1LlWC1 1.4 135.0 115.0 15.0 135.0 5.4 110.7 213.7 2JS.0 29.5 23.4 I 102.3 62.2 120.0 132.0 141.3 159.3 61933. .L_IN I

mmSE TfE 11 0… N- 0.0 0.0 12.3 12.3 25,7 0.0 0,0 17.1 11.1 35.7 0.0 o0f 9,l 10.5 20.1110UK L09 . . . . . 2.2 2.2 4.4 4.4 13.2 - 2.5 2.7 5.3 6.4 l7.4 1.4 1.5 3.31 3.4 9

-totul UWILMIS AINE2 - 2.3 23 17.2 17.2 3.9 - 2.5 2.0 22. 25.0 51.1 - 1.4 1. 12.t 14,0 2t.3C. t1CLeE P11N MIKTINMCE I000 M IMW 4 3 3 I I 36 4.4 17.6 35.2 355.2 1.2 5.2 153.4 13.3 3Jl. 42,0 45.5 494 Ms3.t 10,2 21.1 23,6 25,6 27o7 IN a-i3. EMIIW PWRTION I MlANT 1 . . . . . 2.4 4.1 4.3 4.1 16.l 2.7 5.9 4,4 7.3 2lst - 1.5 313 3. 1. 12.3 g

E. wlICE t I.S . . . . 4.9 9it . 9.6 9.6 43.2 5.0 10,9 11f9 13.0 1403 531 ".13 I.l 6.7 7.3 got 31.0

Total RE1tB Cu 127.31234,5 236,9 251.3 251.3 1.102,7 133.3 241.6 297.6 34,4 N.0 10426.4 7521 309 167.2 194.6 21335 801.3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 0.. wom mo a.* . *%lu

Total 714.3 713.1 259.1 274.0 340,3 25301.7 727.3 342.0 373.3 37A.3 503,2 ?U31. 442.3 470 13l.9 210. 32.7 11590.5

Aprl 30. 1M 10123

IOTSWANATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK P*OACT

LAND USE FPAINO COWrONENT - LAND BOARDSDoteiit rost Table

(PULA 000)

Totals ha11,i t ContIngenciesfuantitt Base Costs Totals Including Contlnumiet! (OUSI 0001

-..-- ----...---------..------ Lunit ---- u-------------------------------- --------- ~-------------. I-------I- ---------- I--,' -- _I----

Unit I"S 9 1966 3987 1988 1989 Totil Cost 1985 39e6 187 398E 19S8 Total 1985 1985 1987 1988 1919 Total 1985 2986 1987 198 1989 Totll3:3:2:: :X22.3 .*.. 3333 *a 3333 3333 : ::33 : :3 ::: 3333:33:22 ::srs22 3.:-3. 2332s :x312 333 3s2333 33s : 3- 3 33333 23ass 1 3wsa 3333 2532 33333

1. INVESTMENT coSts

A. CIVIL WAtRS

MO\SING LCHJ NO 3 - 13 - - 16 24.5 73.5 - 318.5 - - 192.0 84.3 - 438,6 - - 522-6 47,4 - 246.4 - - 293.7OrFiCEs 60 M2 NO 6 5 5 5 5 26 23.8 142.8 119029.0 119.0 119 . 0 618.8 163.8 147.0 113.9 18,4 195.9 855.8 92.0 83.7 92,1 101o4 111.7 480.8

Sub-Total CIVIL WORKS 264.3 119,0 437.;. 119.0 119.0 1.030.8 248.0 149.0 60204 I3O.4 195.8 1,378.7 139.3 83.7 338.4 101.4 111.7 774,5P. VEHICLES I EOUIPSENT

404 PICT-UP - - 4 - 4 8 1.7 - - 66-8 - 66.8 133.6 - - 78.9 - 92.5 171.4 - - 44.3 - Sl.- 96.3DRAWING EQUIPMENT SET 4 - 10 - 10 24 3.1 12-4 - 31.0 31.0 74.4 12.7 - 36.6 - 42.9 92.3 7,2 - 20.6 - 24.1 51.8SURWY EOUIPMENT SET 4 - 14 - 15 33 3-6 14.4 * 50.4 - 54.0 ItS1s 34.8 - 59.6 - 74.7 149.1 8.3 - 33.5 - 42.0 83.8POLYTECHNIC EOI3E9NT SET I - - - - 1 73.6 23.6 - - - - 23.6 24.2 - - - - 24.2 J334 - - - - 13.6

Sub-Total VEHICLES I EQUIPMENT 50.4 - 138.2 - 150.8 3 0.4 5'-7 - 175,1 - 210.3 137.0 29.3 - 984 - 0181.0 245.

lotal INVESTMENT COSTS 266.7 119,0 585.7 119.0 270-8 13.61.2 299.8 149.0 777.5 280.4 408.9 1815.7 168.4 83.7 436.8 10134 229.7 1.020.0flitS... ..... Z2323- ....3 323 33333 .hE 2f23.2 CPS 33ff31f 232.132 33332 3331 33233PV 33323 33322 C23333Z2-

II. TECUPRENT COSTS

A. SALARIES AND ALLOWANCE. ...............

TAS TS MANVEAR - - 13 13 26 52 4.5 - - 58.5 58.5 117.0 234.0 - - 74.3 81.8 179,9 335.9 - - 41,8 45.9 101.0 388.7ERIVERS GR3 MANTEAR - - 4 4 8 16 2.5 - - 10-0 10.0 20.0 40.0 - 12.7 14,0 30.7 574 7,1 7.9 17.3 32,3

Sub-Total SALARIES AND ALLOWANCE - - 68.5 8.5 137.0 277.0 - - 97.0 9,7 210.6 393.4 - - 48.9 53.8 118.3 221.0P. SUILDING MAINIENANCE -- 1.8 3. 1.8 7.9 134 - 7,0 2.2 2.4 13.5 18.2 - 1.1 1.2 1.4 6.5 10.2C. OFFICE MAINTENANCE - 3.4 3.4 6.1 6.1 19.0 - 3.9 4.2 .3 9.1 25.4 - 2.2 2.4 4.6 5.1 14.30. EOUIPMENT OPERATION I MAINIENANCE

DRAWING EQUIPMENT - 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.6 4.2 - 0.6 0-6 2;1 2.3 5.6 - 0,3 0.3 1.2 1.3 3.2SUEVEY EWJIPMENT - 0.6 0.6 0.6 2,4 4.2 0.7 0.7 0.8 3.5 5.7 - 0.4 0.4 0,4 2.0 3,2POLYIECINIC EQUIPMENT - 0,6 0.6 0.6 2.4 4.2 - 0.7 0,7 0.8 3.5 5.7 - 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.0 3.2VEHICLE OPERATION I MAINTENANKE - - 37.0 12.0 34.0 68.0 - 20.8 22.7 49.' 92.8 1- 11,7 12,7 27.8 522 p

Sub-Total EUIPIENT OPERATION I MAINTENANCE - 1.7 38.7 19. 40.4 80.6 - I.S 2?.9 26.4 58.7 109.9 1.1 12.8 14H 33.0 61.7E. OFFICE EFPENSES 3140 25.0 37,0 49.0 61.0 389.0 14.6 31.8 45.9 66.6 90.7 249.6 8.2 17.9 25.8 37.4 51,0 10.2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.--.-... ..... ..... ..... .... ....... .....- ..... .....-- ..... ...... -- ....... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .......-------- - -- -* -- --- F

Total RECLRMENT COSTS 14.0 34.9 129.4 145.2 252.4 575.9 14.6 39.6 162.3 099.4 380.6 796.4 8-7 22.2 93.2 112.0 213.8 447.4 I......... .2...2 223233333..... .. 3.33,s 32 . , , 3323 .823 23333 33333 322,233 323 * 333C3 .... 3333333333u.#...A..., _

Total 280.7 153.9 715.1 264.2 523.2 I.937.1 314.4 188.6 939.8 3'9.8 789,5 24l2.1 176.6 IO!..S 528.0 213.4 443.5 2,467.5 33232 ...*..33 333 33333 333333; Sa33 32c w233 33m3 3333st 233.2.3 33333 3333 333 33s 3fl X#33 3E32323

bril 30. 3915 10:24

LOIS WAMANATIONAL LMWANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

LAND USE PLANINIG CompoNENT - SIRVNOTHENING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISIONDetaited Cost Tble

(PULA 000)

Totals Including ContinrenciesOu.ntity Base Costs Totals Including Contintencies (US1 '0001

-- ------ ---- ----- t i t ... .. . ... .. . . .. ---- .. . ... ... . -- ------- - ------ ---- ----- --------- *---

Unit I198 1996 198? 198198 Totil Cost 1985 1986 1987 1S98 19 Total 1985 1986 1987 1988 19S9 Total 1985 1986 1997 1998 1989 Totel…:::::::2:: 112: :::= :2*2 S 3t:2 :::*r t: :5:.. nit1. Zssf rose 1s2a 12c: 21223 :2:3r: : :::: :::: *2:1? :::: t ::x ar:: s..t: tsin nan

I. INYESTIENT COSTS

A. TECHNICAL ASSISTAKCE

1, EXPATRAITE CONSULTANTS, .................

CONIMTAKY OM MAMDNA TH 8 - - - - 8 11 88.0 - - - - 98.0 90.2 - - - - 90.2 50.7 - - - - 50.7

Sub-Total EXPATRAITE CONSltlANTS 88.0 - - - - 98.0 90.2 - - - - 90.2 50.7 - - - - 50.7

Sub-Total TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 8E.0 - - - - 8.0 90.- - - 90.2 50.7 - - - - 50.7P. IRAINIHG COURSE YEAR -127.5 255.2 127.6 141.8 29.4 680.5 130.6 271.8 150.4 180.7 39.1 779.9 71.5 156.7 84.5 101.5 22.0 438,2

Total INVCSIIT COSTS 215.5 255.2 127.6 141,8 28.4 768.5 721,0 279.8 150.4 180.7 39.1 870.1 124.2 156.7 84.5 101.5 22.0 488.81:ts: :oa2: a::z ::::: :-: t1:.s =:15: m215s 2Z:.2 au_ss fl: t:uis Iats i:.a: ass.. *:: saw 21:3s

Total 215.5 255.2 127.6 141.8 28,4 768,5 221.0 278.8 150.4 180,7 39.1 870d1 124.2 156.7 94.5 101. . 22.0 489.93222:: :22s ::Ras 1:3as ::S: SS::: 22:22 tsirv seas: 1222 11*25 s: 3-ae *.l:oo 5? 23522 Mar. s: a.::

April 30. 1985 10125

'-

IM. LAN HNANIMMt UN LIEIIOIK ECILAND USE PtOMIIN6 CIFWIT - STUIt1UT)N16 VIUIFE WtPMTIEK

ktIlIW Cuel Tiobl(NU '000)

ir4km of Totls Incil Cantlust '000)

Totals lnrclyrM ContinncivnhwMtIt las. Cosls Totals noeludini Continnnele, (Ull '000) Local

-~~~~~ui -*-- Ull---- ----- --- e- - -------- - ---------------- For. lixel. Puiti aUnit 15 1 117I1 1M Totl Cost IT1 19 17 191 Im 191 9I16 1917 11 19 195o191 9IM 7 1"9 1M M ToUl Exrh. Taxes) Texts Total

I. KIMNI COSTS

As SALARIES An ALLOWaS

POFFt3 IWAYEMA 3 - - - - 3 12. 38 7. -. - 39.7 6 5 . . 40,6 22.3 - - - - 22, - 22.3 22.3

lb-Tot.l SAAIuE AD ILLUAIUS 31.7 - - - - 31.7 40.6 - - - - 40.6 22. - - - - 22. - 228 - 22n

Total ECtlfT CosrTS 36.7 - - - 30.7 40.6 - - - - 40.6 2., - - - - 22.3 - 22,. - 22.S

Total 38. - - - - 30.7 40.6 - - - 40.6 22 - - - - 2?.3 - 22.3 - 22.1

Aril SOp 1185 10126

I-

- 43-Table T-1(h)

myTrn. LIMO 14A633! S LMIWS Ma.t.

oUilad Cost Table

unit ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (it S

tirt i'm I 3191 7 394 1939 TOta Cat 1it 1136 317 188 3ITO Total 19153 1tin 317 9 19 39I" Tsuial 13 191 2I"7 18 19"9 TOta

a. OTAsIsIIII w umN IRI

MICR IUm IU3YI I6 - - - - 1135533.3 - - - - 55.3 62.? - - - - 32.v 3.33 - - - 35.1IFs 1394 5 U 34 - - - - 14 1.2 16.8 - - - - 241.3 19.2 - - - - 29.2 10.8 -- 0.8

f Tl-M Egl A N W3T5.i L UMAX 7.3 1 72.1 112.1 1241 46.1 - - - 46.1

UNWORN Wm mm6 2 3 - - - 5 55.3 310.6 635.9 - - 24.5 2254203.3 - - - 32949 70.71314.2 - - - 28.Uinn lN 4 2 3 - - - 3 55.3 110.6 55.3 - - - 163.9 123.3 6748 - - - 193.5 70.7 3M 1 - - 303.1TM Wmini I0 1 1 - - - 2535.3 35.3 5.5 . . - 116.6 42.9 67.3 - - - 1330A 35.1 3.31 - - 73.4

mu-amy. a 3 3 - - - 6 55.3 365.9 165.' - - - 131.3 13.6 201.3 - - - 393.9 106.01:14.2 - - 220.2

SwI-11tal 3f1ICR 442.4 V44.4 111- 4.0 563.1 542.0 - - 1445.1 224 3343 - - 3.3C. FDIC 31 2W a U sin

staI n s 24 24 - - - 43 1.2281.33.25 - - - 57.6 32.9 35., - - - 68.3 ILI 20.0 - - - 31.mNAtm l4M l Onl 41 Al - - - 12I.2 49.2 49.? - - - 13.4536.1 608 - - - 116.9 312.53432 - - . 6.7. a1111.131 4 .me a 16 36 - - - 32 2.2 19.7 19.2 - - - 33.4 21.9 23.7 - - - 45.6 122.3 J13. - - - 254

bbTSSaw a tin m an 97.2 -97.2 - - - 39. 4 319.9 -13-.1 - - 21. 4. 417.5 - 22.3

Sin K~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ 14 - - - - 14 0,5 7.7 - - -- 7.7 7.9 - - -- 7.9 4.4 - - -- 4.419~~ n 12 - - - - 1o .n6 .1 - - - - 3411.6 - - 342. - - - 2.0

ATli5=IMM 3 3 3- - - - 310.26 4.7 - - - - 8.7 3.4 - 5.3- - -I . - 3.801U3.ML.AfEw" IS 1 - - - 3 47 47.0 - . 47.0 49.2-'32,2.6 - - -774

fl-TOW flU tESTIS flUES ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~62.5- - - -2. 80- -- - -6. 71- -- - - 371.IE. 559381 ff15 N SWIMZlU

I IN MB-P U 3 - - - 3 6 16.6 49.8 - - - 49.3 '9.6 53.3 - - - 43.9 220.2 23.7 - - - 33.' 67.5finrnmr KT 2 - - - - 2 4.2 3.' - - - - 0.4 3.6-- - - - 3 4.3 - 4.3

GF2UUIM UMHMST I - - 23 .- - - -3 2.3 2.9 - - - - 2.19.y 14 - - 1.6

-f-Told 13131 V TUE 21M SONG 4.0 - -4.61 130.3 62.4 - - - 43.9 131.6 33.2 - - - 33.7 73.9

TotA iluinhi CUT 32259. 4W9. 1d'4.6 924.7 362.2 - -63.9 1,ES.3 463.3 372.0 - _- .7 sits

ii. m mu

man U ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 1.5 1 1 I 4.5 2.9 7.0 3.9 3.? 3.9 3.9 17.6 2.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.1 23.1 1.1 2.5 2.2 3.1 1.4 23.8iFW U - 0 II 14 1.4 50 4.46 - L0. 1.3 3.1 3.1 -'.0 - 0.7 1.4 2.6 1.1 5. - 0.4 0.3 .9. 2.0 3.1

Ss-IP"Id RIaM 2s .s a's5 5. 3.0 1.0 , 21.6 2.0 5.2 6.4 7.1 7.1 22.7 1.2 2.9 3.6 4.6 4.4 16.1.3. la flUff U 3 12 16 13 36 be 3.9 n1.: 46.3 C.4 62.6 62.4 245 2 32.7 54.0 79.6 ILl1 '7.3 351.9 23.4 33.3 44.7 49.3 54.3 197.7C. hEl ERsTISal InM mhULm PMI 36 132 272 172. 172 774 0.49 6.9 33.31 13.5 t3.0 13.6 61.' 7.2 15.9 17.7 1'.6 21.7 92.1 4.1 9.0 9.? 12.0 3.7.2 46.13. MN KMl SICE

ESWIM UNES I I 1 2 1 5 25.3 25.3 5. 3 25.1 25.3 25.3 226.5 26. 310.0 33.6 37.7 42.2 170.4 15.1 14.9 23.9 22.2 73.7 95.7ffE1101 OTONIE N INTEAZ Ko 3 3 2 3 3 15 4.3 12.9 22.9 12.? 12.9 12.' 64.5 31.3 14.3 35.5 36.9 23.4 731." 1.5 3.0 3.7 '.5 10.4 44.1OWIn W M- - 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 11.5 7.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 l4AS 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.8 2.0 3.4011 mUIEISI egg 0.5 3. .5 0 .1 0.5 0. 2.5 0.5 0L. 0.6 o.7 0.6 3.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.4 1.3

flt-TotalII iN M SEIC!E 42.0 41.0 411.4 43.4 '1.0 -5.0 43.2 47.6 52.3 33.6 65.1 267.2 24.2 2i.?729P.7 32.9 36.5 139.0

Total iEM muS 31.0 106.3 122.2 222.2 222.2 533.7 g3.0 173.7 256.4 173.4 312.72 22'9.7 47.3 6.3.1 7.1 97,4 103.0 43.90

Tota 836.2 60.7 122.2 122.2 172.0 1.70. '01.7 734.9 256.4 373.4 261.1 2 .5513.1 440.9 37.?97.4 1441.7 3,340.0

April3It. IM1134226

VflCIt4 LA"MW114 N400 MMt LIWITOCK PP9GC?LIWITWAC EVIEN5StO CoMUIK

Ivtaill60 Ca't labia

Toall, Trcludint CantlnoitmlaOuaMlto S~~~~~~~~~~atl costs Total, Includlog CoMlontnctas (US, ooo)

unit 1915t 1916 ot 1930 299 Total Cost 195 91 198 7 " 19119 2930 Total 1915 1916 I'll 203I 1119 Total lot 19J6 191? 191 1919 Tat,I

A. TECHNIICAL ASSISTAICC

1. VTATR TAT! CO&LTA6T

LIWEITO SttC11.11lUl A 8140(0 1 I 2 2 2 8 265 161.0 165.0 330.0 230.0 330.0 1.320.0 269.2 I'9.7 317,4 418.4 451.8 1,606.3 05.0 101.0 217.6 233.0 253.8 902.5

O.-Tb-otal ETPATI2ATE (03512M3 165.0 165.0 330.0 2110.0 330,0 1.320.0 169.1 179.7 3071.0 418.4 451.8 l40.69. 95.0 101.0 217,6 233.0 253.8 902.5

S.k-TaI.l TIfldICAL. ASSISTM(F 165.0 165.0 330.0 330.0 310.0 1,120.0 119.1 179,7 387,41 411.4 451.8 WU.$6 95.0 101.0 217.6 235.0 2533.8 902.3P. CIYIL ktS

WFTIC FOR 8EO No I - - - - I 40 40.0 - - 40.0 41.9 - - 45,9 75*g - - 75,9Pr02C1 AlT 1A0N814 ((NITO Nto I - 1 84 04.0 8 4.0 96.3 - 6.3 344 - . . 54.1NM EFM ED No I - 354 54.0 - 54.0 A1.9 all, -1 343 - 34.8KME AT TRAIltIK CENTER NO I 1 54 54.0 - 4.0 62.9 - - 6.9 34.8 34.1

Wt-oalle CIVIL VMS 232.10 - 232.0 266.0- . 204.0 141.5 .. - 149.3 9C. WT4ICUIS I 103l30w

4 14 PICK - UP 5 - 20 1A,6 83.0 - - 3.0 264.0 83.2 - 124.9 790.1 47.9 - 64,5 112.4

51kb-Total W242C2CS I EqI4hifIT 83.0 - 3.0 164.0 65.2 moll01.9 20. 47.9 - . 64.3 112.4i. $13"I lCd C"I4MTT GRAZING

I. SUIT 016 QUC - 2 4 4 10 246 - 492.9 904,0 984.0 2,440,0 - 38. 4 3.279.4 ,3814.7 3.217,6 . - 332.3 718.3 730.2 31830.1

kb-Total SEP03 FOR C59MTTTY GRTINS - 492.0 9`14.0 #9`4,0 2.410.0 - - 539.4 3,279.4 2,388.7 3.257.6 - 331.1 711.11 7`10.2 1,110.1

Total IW&ST(VNT COSTS 4810.0 163.0 122.0 1.214,0 1,397,0 4,171,0 5120. 119.7 4176,9 1.697,1 1.95' 43.330.? '212.4 101.0 543.1 953.8 l.091.5 2.994,3I i9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s. 22 -! 222l ....... E~*i .... 22 or.i . ..i...f nES. 9 ..i.i wES ..... ..... 1 ES settee 2...... ..... 2S.

it. lIOPITCOT

A* 171(1E 0313*I25 1 MIETNAAK 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 23.9 2.? 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.9 16.3 1.3 1.7 2,3 2.0 2.2 9.23, NILlIEG 113*AI0 I M24TtWCI - 23 1.3 1.3 0.3 5.2 - 1.5 I.6 I,? 1.9 6.' . 0.8 0,9 1.0 Ili 1.7c. arno.uE OM04(1S I M2UlTCMCI 24000TIAR 5 5 5 3 5 23 4.3 21.5 22.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 107.5 n.1 23.7 25.7 27.8 30.2 129,5 1224 13.3 14.4 15.6 16.9 72.78. STAFF SMIElS I ALSOC1

smIK htos wmit I I 2 I I 5 22.9 22,9 12.9 22.9 12.9 12.9 64.3 13.5 14.9 26.4 23.0 19.8 92.7 7,6 6.4 9.2 19.1 11.2 44.5831901 Wm4(0 5 5 5 5 5 25 2.5 12.5 12.5 22.5 12.5 12.5 42.5 21.2 24.4 15.9 27.5 19.2 80.1 7.4 3.1 I,, 9,11 18.1 45,0 C'TTYPIITI MATTEA 2 2 2 2 2 10 3.7 7.4 7,4 7.4 7.4 7.4 37.0 7.8 6.3 9.4 10.3 22.4 47.4 4. . , 53 64 U i `

ltb-Total LIArf "IflT I MLUAIEI 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 164.6 34.4 37.9 41.7 45.8 50.4 210.3 19,3 21.3 23.4 21.3 28. 3 II6.1C. MUVUl RA 11*18 3,3 3.5 607.0 8.0 0.0 434.0 3.7 4.0 771.2 II.? 12.3 #02.4 2,1 2.3 433.3 6.3 6.9 5.?

- - -- -------------..-.- . . . .-----.------------.-.----

Total KV TX WISTS 60.4 62.7 445.2 64.2 64.2 919.7 83.0 70.0 343.3 90.1 ' 1.61,24.2 35.4 3P.3 473.8 50.6 51.4 614.5

glul 30.4 226.7 1,s487.2 1,30.2 1,443.2 107?583.4 249.3 l1420.2 1.7llSt 2.054.0 6,4953 327.7 140.3 1,02.6 1.004.5 I.154.0 3,649.9ail .... .ii .In..n 199212ai:i titnsl.. i a. a: .. E .. ,* mInIS gi ..... itaik::Sn EM. .-t ...int. n...a RSaTi- -ESa

961308. tLAM YSNI7t 81 LIWITOCQ MULCT

Ntail.d Cost tableIthO '000!

Totaelo rclidirs Cwnti6nhn9.JrILtO Iai Costs Totals Il-C3uaOIF1 Contznfoius ('At '000 .

, ,,,, ,, ,,,,, ,,, , *-- Le j t *-- ----- ------ ........ ...... - ....... ....... ......... ..... .... .- _ .-.-..... a.- ... , ,__ ,.,,_ Iwit 31P5 3984 3917 399! 39 Total Cost 3983 390. 31P7 3909 1909 Total 3983 lIt 1397 19K 391 Total 39tt5 198 1911 19183 9 ToltalI

3. 1'ASTPEMT COSTS...............

4. VWECLES I (0JIrMMT... I.................

454 Pick tf L - I 1 3 16.6 16.6 - 16.6 - 11.6 49, 17.0 - 39.6 - 23. 36 9.6 - 1320 12,9 33. 5

Su*-Total HIICLES I EC0IP3E8T l6.6 - 16.6 - 16.6 49,8 13.0 - 3'.6 - 23.0 59. Q. - 3t.0 - 12.9 33.5P. R96H COIEIT FLOPS 1,939.0 13:19.0 2-707.0 31'39.0 13139.0 10.313.0 .13 t6 2.137.4 3213.2 2-53'.2 2,770.9 212714.4 1,114.5 12400.1 118445 11426.t 015556.7 7P142.9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . .............................. ........... ............ - . ........ .. . . .. . . .. . . ........ __ _ , _, , _

Total 3W4SItP4 0S0ThS 1.935,6 13,193. 2.72363 1393.0 10435.6 10.432,8 2,000.9 2.137.' 3-3291 2.533.2 2.793. 12,774.0 1 124.1 3,200. 3M.8 535 1.4245 I.5U9.4 7.176,4...2 ..... 83333 r282--.. mant ... 32:8*82... .... 28..2..223 . 2 .3.... am223 .82*3cam.. 28332.=t-3338 =

i3. KOrCElUT CoSTs...............

A. Sk4ItS I 3WCOS.. ....... ......... ,

R9AH CREDIT OFFICER 9MfAFY I 3 2 2 9 12.9 12.4 12.9 235. 27.8 23n. 103.2 !.5 34.7 32.1 32.3 3?,7 131.9 7., 8,4 13.4 20.3 22.3 7.9....... ...... … ......-....... .......- - .-........ .. ... .. ....... 3....... ...................... _ _.. .... - ... - I

,k-Total SAMIcO I lAES 12.9 12.1 57. 25.8 2$3. 1032. 13.5 34.9 32.9 36.1 34.7 136,9 71, 3,4 13.4 20.3 22.3 76.9 *-T. YEI4CLE IC(1 TIO3 I 4I14TE7CE 4.3 4,3 8.' 8.6 8.6 34.4 4.4 4.7 10.3 11.1 12.1 42.6 2.5 2.1 5.9 5 .3 6.1 23.9 VIC. (1ICEftrC s . . . . 2.3 2.3 .3 2.3 2.3 33. 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.4 14.4 13 15 1.6 13. 1.9 .13

....... ...... . ..... .... ....... ........ ...... ..... ....... ........ ........ ........ . ___....... ....... ..... ... ....... ... ..

Total 1CtJT 'l COStS 39.5 139.5 .54.7 36.7 34.7 14'.l 20.4 .!3 43.9 50.3 55.1 194.9 11.4 12.5 25.9 21.3 31.0 381.02,222 82*3888..... ...23282*3 822 2 2....... ..8..... ... 32 33 ..... ....... 3.. 8 28..83 . 288. .......... ".. 323 8 * 3 2 338 2

Tot7l 395.31 1 3,9 .5 2.760.3 1755,7 1.972.3 150 .f3. 21021.2 2.159,7 3e34l.7 2.34?. 2289.4 12,961.9 1.13535 1.213.3 1,1t1.35 1454.9 I 600. 7M13.4-r.::: zetsa: ::: am ..... ..... I ....... :a-: ::: - r.: ::- wsa -----*z a..... .: cc ... .... ....- mm~cam- macc

............ ............................................................................................................................................................................ ..... ...... . _. _... __.. ___ ______.. - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - _- ___________

ttt 14. 3435 10L2

9-

WA2IW. LAN rMJAS T MD LIVESII P0JECVPflECI CCIRIINAI00 tMIl

ktriled Cr,'. Table1rLILA 'O0)

Totols lncludid Cmtlnsenclithintit. list Cosit T@tels Includinj Cartinncheis (U5$ 0001

tbhit 1295 2966 197 2M 919 Total Cost 1985 24 213, 19 2? IOta! 2915 1284 1397 19 Im Total IMns 1937 2 1 M lotal:aa:aaan:: art ss -s Caen 221:5* :*: tafl tars a::t a::g$ attn sw t Ela 5*1 w:: :S *1' nsa: W nU:w at::sal *5*:. 8:*:-: an: mama guS. aS S._ Saa *saga

1. l'ISTSE)TT COSTS.. ... . . . . .

A. TrcN*rCk 41151SI6KE.... ..... ... .....

1. EAPATAATE CWIStLMZTS... ....... ....... .....

PROJ!CT CO9DII0T I 1 I I I 5 165 145.0 165,0 165.0 165.0 165.0 825.0 269.1 179.7 193.7 209.2 225. 977m7 95.0 91.20 203.3 227.5 226.9 5n4.3

Sb-Totil E£PAIPIATE COOSATAKTi 165.0 265.0 145.0 145.0 245.0 325.0 149.2 17V.7 193.7 2017 225-.9 97.7 95.0 101.0 O1t- 317.5 124.9 549.3

ShdTotal TCCW2I'lL *SSIST32 KE 145.0 165.0 1611.0 23.4 145.0 525-0 169.1 179.7 193.7 209.2 225.9 977.7 95.0202.0 208.1 117.5 126.9 549.1P. KHIUCLES EIIJ2Ptf11

414 0 NV I - - - 2 16.6 14.4 - - 26.6 33.2 17.0 - - - 23.0 40.0 9, -- - 12.9 225SALWA CAD 2 - - - 2 4 23.9 2i7-- - 27.8 55.6 28.5 - - - 38.5 47.0 12.0 - - - 212. 37.7OFICE COUlF Nt I 2 - - - 4 6.9 70.7 6M9 - - - 27.t 2121 7.4 - - - 28.8 21.9 4.2 - - - 24S2

s1l4otal MI4MCSI I EJItMNI0 65. 69 - - 44.4 224.4 6.3 716 - - 2.5 1235.3 37.6 4.2 - - 345 763 _. . .. ___.__. ..... _ .. ______

Total IESTMMT C4STS 230.1 171-9 15.0 145.0 209.4 9412. 234.0 267.3 193.7 209.2 217.4 12113-5 132.6 205.2 203.8 117.5 162-5 25.6 3:8mg Zaw:: sara -nag sss s*as ::: ngma Ywa rssags wtsI an sa asss:In =as: as *SS nt?

II. RECLMKMT cOSTS

A. s5Arr SMiIs ml wiGES

PM ES111S1M 51*ff YEAR I I I I I 5 12,9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 64.5 13.5 14.9 24 18.0 19.3 t2J7 7,6 1.4 9.2 20.2 11.1 445PIUSC352W STAF YETI I I I I 1 5 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 64.5 13.5 14.9 26-4 28.0 29.3 2.7 7.4 34 9.2 10.1 11.1 45TTPISTS S1*f TIM4 2 2 2 2 2 10 3.7 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 37.0 7.3 3.5 94 10.3 11.4 47.4 4.4 4.3 5.3 5.3 4.4 2.,4RIVE STFF TEAi 3 3 3 3 3 25 2.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7-5 7,5 37.5 7.9 0.7 9.5 10.5 11.5 43.1 4.4 4.9 5.4 5.9 4.5 27.EI42CLE[ rAIION I ?A2NCIMGr 5 YEA - - - - - - 1224 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 62.0 12.3 13.7 14.6 26.0 17,4 74.7 7.2 7.7 3.3 9.0 9.3 42n.

WYtiC (MSES 11 TISMNF E - - - --R- 23 2.3 2.3 2. 2.3 21. 2.4 2.6 2.9 131 3.4 14.4 1.3 1.5 2.4 1.1 2.9 31.

Se-Total STY? SlAMIES MAD MKES 55.4 55.4 55,4 55.4 55.4 277.0 57.9 43.3 49.4 7. 33.4 350.0 32.5 35.4 39.0 42.7 46.3 296.4

total KIKEllI COSTS 55.4 55.4 55,4 55,4 55.4 277.0 57.9 63.3 9.4 76.0 03.4 350.0 32.5 35.4 39.9 4.7 46.3 194,6al. Wss, asansa wants gag's- *xass s-- agasogs t mamas 5fl55 Zl m a:m asn S *12

TotR 235.5 227.3 220.4 220.4 244.13 1211.4 293.9 250.1 243. 25.2 37. 1443. 265.2 1403 147.3 240.2 203.3 n2.2nags' .llaa massME m Rusamas assgas: SAINg naa stags anu ann s" aas goal as OEnS maw §*M

M

April 30. I 2150130

TATSIIUIATIOWN LAD WMECENT WO LIWESIOC POECT

LIVESTO PRICING AND TAX P%LICY STUDIESetilled Cost Table

(PtA 1001

Totals Irnludlid Contirdelnn

O1u nlkh PDst Costs Totals Includird Contilrdneles (lI 'O00)-- ~------t----------------- Unit ------ ----------------- - -_ . -- _-_ _

tnit IM35 196 1?97 1IM 1M Total Cost 115 ISU 197 ION 2999 Total IM95 I116 19?7 1918 1m Total 195 191 1987 11 IM Totl::: ::=: 2*: 2::: 3333 :8:2 C:::: :133 2338 33Sw 3233 2333 3382 33133 ESS *333. nEw 3SD * 3223 333 :z2 sasn_ an,a nsa an ur-

1. I;esntTIr COSTS. ....... .

A. TECI(ICL ASSISTACE

1. EXPATRIATE CO'ItLTANTS

FINACIAL ANALYST I TAXATIWl StCIAIST AMETMAR - I - - - 1 165 - 165.0 - - - 165.0 - 179t7 - - - 379,7 - 1010. - - - 101.0DIEEF WETIIf SPECIALIST MYEAR - I - - - 1 165 - 165.0 - - - l56.0 - 179.7 - - - I.7 - 101.0 - - - 101t0

Sut-Total EXATRIATE CONNULTANT - 730.0 - - - 330.0 - 159.5 - - - 359.$ - 202.0 - - - 202.0

Su-Totol TECWICAL ASSISTANCE - 330.0 - - -330.0 -35,5 - - 359.5 - 202,0 - - - 202.0---------- -------- ---- -----.

Total IWJSTMIl COSTS 310.0 -- 0,0 - 359.5 - - -359.5 - 202.0 - - -202.0.. 33 S3ass 3ES3 3S3 ass 3 38 22 :31w 2:2:: :S:: 3AS3 Ease 33g1 3a822 23 22133 V-:ss :322 12=re

Total - 330.0 - - - 330.0 - 359.5 - - - 339.5 - 202.0 - - - 202.0WEE: 33383 3333 3*23 3333 33333 t333 R2E 3333 ESEU 2333 3E32 Easels 333 3333 ::: tr:=

.... ................. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- -- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- -_ - -- - -- - -- - ---

April 30. 191 10131

a-

- 48 -

Table T-2(a)

BOTSWANANATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECTRANCH DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT COSTS (PULA '00)

Items Quantity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL

BoreholeBorehole 1 19.6 19.6Engine and pump 1 set 5.0 5.0Pipes 1 set 2.4 2.4Base pump house 1 1.3 1.3

Sub-total 28.3 28.3

Other water facilitiesReservoir 1 2.5 2.5Water reticulation

Sub-total 2.5 2.5

Firebreaks and fencesFirebreaks 32 km 11.9 11.9Fences (external) 32 km 30.7 30.7Fences (internal) 28 km - 7.6 7.6 15.2

Sub-total 42.6 7.6 7.6 57.8

BuildingsManager's home 1 3.0 3.0Storage 1 2.4 2.4Handling yard 1 1.8 1.8Spray race 1/ 1 0.6 0.6

Sub-total 5.4 2.4 7.8

OtherTools - 0.6 0.6

Total Investment Cost 78.8 10.6 7.6 97.0

*ranch development 50.5 7.6 7.6 68.7

*ranch development with borehole 78.8 10.6 7.6 97.0

1/ P1800. But only 1/3 of ranches would have a race.

- 49 -

Table T-2(b)

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

Unit Prices of Investment Items, Economic Life and Their Maintenanceand Operating Costs

Maintenance and/orUnit Economic Life Unit Prices 2pmati% Costs

(Yers) PuUla1U667unit) wooo/0year)

Firebreaks and Fences

Firebreaks km 50 0.04 0.017Fences for ranches : external km 50 0.9 0.07 1/Fences for ranches : internal km 50 0.5 0.07 TlFences for coamuinity grazing areas km 50 0.5 0.07 T/

Buildings

Manager's house Unit 30 3.0 0.07 1/Storage 15 1.8 -Handling yard - 10 2.4 0.23Spray race - 10 1.8 0.18Dipping facilities 15 5.4 0.54

Water Facilities 2/

Borehole 30 19.6 4.39Engine and pump 8 5.0 - 3/Pipes 5 2.4 - /Base pump house 5 1.3 -Reservoir 20 2.5 0.12

Tools Set 10 0.6 -

1/ Starting in Year 4.2/ On ranches.3/ Maintenance costs are included in the borehole operating cost.

W1SWAMA

NATION?AL. tAND IW4AGDE)ENT AND ,IVESTC,CX PROjECT

Technical Coefficients for a Representative RanchPard Com&os io n -- wimouT FRwJrCr

95V- 1 Mru 2 1. 2 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 13 14 Is 36 37 16 19 20 21 22 23-20

54l1 9 ' a a a a 8 a a a a as a a a I a a a I I a$reeding Cowb I1 36 13 19y g ) 1993 193 192 191 1903 191 193 194 195 195 195 195 196 196 191 196 391 I"9 200 200Calves wvaned 98 92 96 100 102 l00 100 100 100 100 100 102 102 102 102 102 J02 102 102 104 104 104 104 104setters 1-2 yr4r. 42 44 42 43 42 46 45 42 41 4.5 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47

" 2-3 1' 42 41 41 36 3' Al1 42 42 4s 42 42 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43* 3-4 to 39 39 39 37 35 36 36 16 36 35 38 38 IS 36 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39

lales 1-2 years '.2 44 42 A) 45 46 'iS 42 45 45 45 4 45 A 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 Al 472-3 .. 41 4l 39 37 ;8 40 41 41 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 43 42 42 42

- 3.1. 39 39 39 37 32 1b 38 36 38 38 38 38 36 38 36 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39"4-2" 37 37317 37 35 13334 363636 36 36 36323636 36 363436 36 36 6 31 31

* 1-I" 32~~) 35 14 3523433311 3233 )343414 34 3433 33 343414 3434434 34over 6 years la lb 16 1l. lb 16 12 34 32 16 16 16 36 16 16 16 16 16 36 16 16 16 16 36

lulls q 7 d 7 7 6 7 7 2 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Al 6 6 6 6Brandin& Cows Il III18 190 376 162 156 365 316 112 lIb 156 141. 154 362 124 149 142 149 155 155 148 149 153 154V&lva. w.eafied 9d '92 96 96 330 116 312 126 126i 94 116 112 104 112 120 112 110 106 306 112 114 110 310 112WiiCeCI I-i yea,b 45 44 42 43 42 20 24 12 29 59 44 25 54 49 54 57 54 52 51 52 54 54 52 53

" 2-3 "42 41 41 36 40 42 47 S1 49 - - - - - - - … … … … … …- - -

.4 -4 '39 39 39 36 36 36 - - - - - - - - … … … … … … -

PlaIce 1-2 ye.iie 42 44 42 43 45 50 54 52 59 29 44 52 54 49 24 57 54 52 51 52 54 54 52 53N 2-3 11 42 41 39 36 40 41 45 20 46 24 22 42 S1 20 41 51 54 51 49 46 49 SI St 49"3-'. 39 3939 37 363339 43 4646 225443l50 49 454952 494 47 43239 29"4-2" 37 37 3737 32 3436 3841 46 45 14732234 2822 39 1530 5 -- U

-6' 32 3214 323252331921 2222 21 1731510 5 3…--- over 6years Is 36 36 13 30 7 2 - - - - - - - - -…-

PUJRCHIASES Mg1 TUE hEEDING 31150

Witb and Without Project : NitechnicalC.Mifi1clents VITIUT PraoJEC

Dcvelp.enl 3 2 3 4 2 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 34 35 16 31 is 19 20 21 22 23)-30

Calvesuwesned Z 24 20 23 52 5i 52 52 52 53 52 52 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 13Hard smrtaitiy I 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 I I I 1 7 1 7 1 Igull/cow ratio t 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 A A 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 ACoy Inabard 2 as 30Q31 31 31 33 30 03 30 3 30 3030203030230230202023030230 20culttng *ulso I 33 13 13 32 32 32 12 32 32 12 32 32 12 32 12 12 12 132 12 12 12 32 1i laOlIt.sksrate I 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 I I I I 1 7 7 7 7 ITotal Mo0. AnImals 626 620 622 625 626 629 630 633 632 633 635 637 639 640 642 643 645 647 649 630 652 6S4 626 659 '4

TotalAnima limI. 403 399 400 399 397 397 396 394 34 396 394 36 395 395 394 394 394 394 NA9 394 393 39339 33stocking rate IaIAU 36 16 36 36 16 16 36 36 16 16 J6 36 16 16 36 16 36 16 16 16 36 16 36 16

WI1TH MROJECTCalvesweaned 2 54 SSSt 26 676156244 65 6067 .T"''U" U' 75 76701727174 74 72 13 .

Uardwmarlaity I 1 1 4 6 6 6 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 nsull/cow ratio 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 to 4 A 4 4 4Cows inberd I as 2931329 2726 31321222929 2129 3132029 29 3033323133 33 34Culli3alsales 2 13 135 23 21 24 23 22 21 27 32 32 36 37 33 34 34 34 35 34 33 35 34 34 34Olftake rate I I 6 12 12 14 133212 3s 4 Is Is 31 Is 17 37 Is 11 is is 1s 19 to it 19Total No. AnIvAls 626 620 622 1'04 602 602 603 637 5418 542 538 532 2 134 520 5o0944 489 444 484 476 444 443 4657Total Asuau Usits 403 403 411 410 432 4IS 423 439 421 404 401 394. 394 369 210 370 310 369 M6A 360 352 350 344

llto""# raeIahe/Al 16 56361 If 36 36 1 6361616111 1I 6 14517 31 3117 Il 1 is5 1 9 o t

BMSA

HUTICL LAW W AMD LM= Ha=

laommrnt Cost of the Ranch

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 1U 16 17 18 19 2D 21 22 23 24 25-30

Wim FR1bttl ave 1/ 4.8 4,6 4.8 4.4 4.4 4. 4.4 4.7 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3,7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4

1Hintowwr c.si 2 0.6 1.2 1,2 3,5 4.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5,5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5Lmsratg ant of boetvi de 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4Sularii (of the H ) 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

1vm 2.7 2.7 2.7 227 2.7 2.7 2.7 272727 2,7 2.7 27 2,7 2.7 2.7 27 2,7 27 2,7 2.7 2.7 2,7 2.7Isd Pt± 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0,3 0.3 0,3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0,3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

&b-toe 14.5 15. r 13:1 11 7 18.2 19.3 19.3 19-.6 19.2 19.0 19.0 1.0. 19.0 -1i F. 18.9 18 .7 ;1 1Ni;i; W6 6 W.i 8 7.5 8.i5 1X8.

Csttle lpt ,7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2,3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2,3 2.3 2.3 2,3 2,3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2,3 2.3 2.3PAFdw. of Iter 5/ 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9,5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9,5 9,5 9.5 9,5 9.5 9.5 0.5 9.5 9.5law 2.7 2.7 2.7 2,7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2 2,7 2.7 2.7 2,7 2,7 2.7 2.7 2,7 2.7 2.7

al____ T4 -5 'W. 15: M: 4113 1 :3 14.5 14.5 14.5 14. 5 14.5 14. 14.5 14.5 1143 ;935 T9 11 14.5 14.5 1.5 1 714: 14.5

mNL3 ili N;Zopmem - 0.5 0.8 2.7 3.7 4.8 4.8 5.1 4.7 4.5 4,5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4,3 4.2 4,2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9

(hloUi or vydiae)

1/ 1 tit adt an a emz P 7.4 and P 4.3 per hund with wd withmt pcoject.Of tY I coat'

l/ tlt.1 at P 4.440 per yerAt P 0.04/h for a h of 6,40D b.tti ntel P 7,700 yew eqivul*zt to thi 0.M ard capital rewvezy d theim inr at coat c the boreml plus 10 mrgLn to Lh a,.

_

I-

Table T-2(e)

NM LAN M'US AND LrWW P=ecRmn Proiction With aid Withtt ProJect

by Meat Grad

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2) 21 22 23 24 25-30

W1hm PiD=Grnde 2 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.0 1,9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 -Grmde 3 6.7 6.3 6.3 7.0 6.4 6.2 6.4 6.0 5.9 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.0 4,0 4.0Grade 4 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.9 2,3 2,5 2,7 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.4 5.9

Total1 10.6 10.1 10.1 10.8 10.5 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.0 9.8 9.9 10.0 10,0 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.9

wrm ecr 9!r x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.5 1.1 1.5 2,0 2.6Grade I - - 3.8 3.8 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.8 11.0 9.6 10,2 12.1 13.5 14.8 15.5 16.7 16.3 16.1 15.6 14.8Gmade 2 3.2 2.1 4.8 6.1 8.7 8.4 9.3 14.9 14.7 10.4 12.2 13.0 13.3 11.0 11.2 9.5 7.0 6.3 6.0 5.5 4.4 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.7Grade 3 6.7 6.9 8.6 7.3 6.7 6.4 5.3 8.0 6.9 6.7 7.2 5.0 5.3 6.8 6.3 6.7 4.9 4.5 4.8 5.3 4.5 4.0 3.8 4.5 4.7Grade 4 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total* 10.6 9.9 17.6 17.7 20.3 19.4 19.2 27.7 26.9 22.3 25.5 23.1 24.4 28.8 26.1 26.4 24.0 24.3 25.6 26.3 26.1 24.6 24.5 25.6 25.8

94#r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.5 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6Grade 1 - - 3.8 3.8 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.8 11.0 9.6 10.2 12,1 13.5 14,8 15,5 16.7 16.3 16.1 15.6 14.8Grade 2 - (1.0) 2.2 3.6 6.1 6.4 7.4 13.1 13.1 9.8 10,6 11.7 12.0 9.7 9.9 8.6 6.1 5.4 5.1 4.9 3.8 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.7Grde 3 - 0.6 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 (1.1) 2.0 0.9 1.2 1.7 (0.6) - 1.6 1.4 1.8 - (0.1) 0.6 0,7 0.2 (0.6) (0,2) 0.5 0.7Gnrs 4 - 0.2 (0.8) (0.8) (1.1) (1.8) (1.9) (2.3) (2.5) (2.7) (2.8) (3.1) (3.4) (3.4) (3.6) (3.9) (3.9) (4.4) (4.5) (4.3) (4.6) (4.6) (5.2) (5.4) (5.9)

Total - (.2) 7.5 6.9 9.8 9.4 9.0 17.6 16.9 14.7 14.6 13.1 14.4 18.9 17.3 16.7 14.3 14.4 16.0 16.8 16.6 15.1 15.0 15.9 15.9

* Projectioi. do not show the possible icpld: of futuze drughts.

-.'S3

Tale T-2ff)

?ht.icuial L~16 Ht a LIwetock Project

Cih Flie*a(Rminh tIdel)(ALla '00)

Yl Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Yll Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 Y16 Y17 Y18 Y19 Y20 Y21 Y22 Y23 Y24-30

Withut ProjectCash InfkowValue of Producticn 1/ 16.1 16.0 15.6 17.5 17.3 17.0 17.1 16.9 16.8 16.3 16.3 16.4 16.4 16.3 16.1 15.7 15.7 15.4 15.4 15,2 15.1 15,0 15,0 15.0ch OitflowOperatirg Coet 2/ 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14,5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.6 14.6 14.6 14,6 14.6 14.6

Net bxau 1.6 1.5 1.1 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.8 1,8 1,9 1,9 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 ( 0.6)( 0.5)( 0.4)( 0.4) ( 0.4)

With NMoectCash InflowValue of Prauctiwn I/ 15.5 14.9 30.4 31.5 35.9 35.6 35.6 50.5 49,5 43.8 44.3 39.1 45.5 54.2 51.7 49.8 45.8 46.1 49.3 50.7 50.7 41.1 48.3 50.0Credit/cAn Comtrihutin 3/ 78.8 10.7 7.6

Cih 0Xitf l1Iztwebt/ReplaAnt 4/ 78.8 10.6 7.6 5.0 8.1 3.8 6.9 8.1Operating Cost 2/ 14.5 15.0 15.3 17.2 18.2 19.3 19.3 19.6 19.2 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.9 18,9 18,0 18.2 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18,5 18.5 18.4Debt Servic 5 r 10.2 9.2 8.5 7.7 7.0 7,0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

Net Incor i,C0 - 5-xi13,3 17.7 6.1 7.1 22.4 17.6 17.8 10.2 13.1 18.5 2B.4 2.8 2)1.1 13.2 27.5 3.7 32X1 32.1 21.5 29.8 31.6

Net Irental eneflt - - 14.0 10.3 14.9 3.6 4.5 2M.0 15.3 16.0 8,4 11,2 17.6 25.6 2.2 18.9 12.0 26.3 29.9 31.5 31.6 21.1 29.4 31.2

1/ Value of prdxuctlon ocqited fromu tmeg of leat gism (Table T-2(d)) at faregate prics (Table T-2(h).2/ Operatirg cost -ee Table T-2(c).'/ Cmedit - 1009 ranch itmatu wt ot (Table T-2(a)) prvided thraoh cdit to all project mnchl, ex?ptlnW

pilot syndicate rxho whoere 902 of Imwtznt oste provided b credit aid bslm thro am labor contributicm.Equity - all -rcial rar provide an equipped borehole at tWir ct. Pilot ayfnicate ranhes receive subsidy

for e4iipped bothole aost.4/ Repl nt cots - a per sd*uAla in Table T-2(b).5/ Debt Service - Lm at 17S interuet with 5 year period and therefter repaents at qual wLial instafltmn for

12 yearns. D8 pgce period, irtenut acczued n dram dosn pr,incipal smU be anially captaltize. LaenyWitmU figures ae ajustaed to reflect an wal iLnflation tao of 102.

'-

- 54 -

Table T-2(g)

BOTSWANANATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

1985 and Projected 1990 Average Farm-gate Prices of Carcass Meat by Grade

Grade Super 1 2 3 4(.- Pula/ton carcass ............ )

Average Prices at Lobatse abattoir 1/ 2,172 2,007 1,842 1,676 1,473Transport cost of animals to theabattoir 2/ 138 144 150 156 162

Financial prices (1985) 2,034 1,863 1,692 1,520 1,311

Projected 1990 average prices 3/ 2,281 2,031 1,867 1,702 1,495

I/ On the basis of 1983 number of animals slaughtered in the year in each period,i.e. (January/March 30%; April-July 42%, August 10% and September-December 18%.

2/ Estimated at about P65/head. On the basis of the dressing percentage per gradefrom 16Z for Super to 48% for grade 4, the transport cost per ton of carcass wouldvary accordingly from P138 to P102.

3/ Estimated with an increase of 2.2% per annum consistent with World Bank beef priceprojections.

Farmgate prices are the aggregate mix of export prices received from sales to EEC, SouthAfrica, Mozambique, Reunion and other markets. Based on sales over the 1981-1983 period,the individual market share of export sales was respectively EEC 50%, South Africa 37%,other African 13%.

- 55 -

Table T-3

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

Export Beef Sales

Disposal of Beef Carcasses (numbers)

1982 1983

De-boned 223,298 223,779

Carcase Sales 11,860 7,066

Condemned 1,977 3,055

Total: 237,135 233,900

Sales of Boneless Beef (tons)

1982 % of Total 1983 X of Total

Destination:

South Africa 9,634 37 9,797 32

Mozambique 1,967 7 1,153 4

Other African Markets 1,762 7 1,851 7

United Kingdom 10,149 39 11,567 38

Other EEC Markets 1,612 7 4,502 15

Reunion 1,086 3 1,572 4

Other Markets 60 - 30 -

Total: 26,270 100 30,473 100= = =

Source: Botswana Meat Commission Annual Report, 1983

- 56 -

Table T-4

BOTSWANA

NATIONAT,. LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

Estimated Schedule of Disbursements a/

IBRD Quarterly CumulativeFiscal Year Quarter Ending Disbursements Disbursements

(US$ '000) (US$ '000)

1985/86 December 31, 1985 100 100March 31, 1986 300 400June 30, 1986 400 800

1986/87 September 30, 1986 500 1,300December 31, 1986 600 1,900Marcrh 31, 1987 600 2,500June 30, 1987 700 3,200

1987/88 September 30, 1987 700 3,900December 31, 1987 700 4,600March 31, 1988 800 5,400June 30, 1988 800 6,200

1988/89 September 30, 1988 700 6,900December 31, 1988 600 7,500March 31, 1989 600 8,100June 30, 1989 600 8,700

1989/90 September 30, 1989 600 9,300December 31, 1989 600 9,900March 31, 1990 400 10,300June 30, 1990 200 10,500

1990/91 September 30, 1990 200 10,700

a/ This schedule assumes that the credit would become effective in October1985 and close September 1991.

- 57 -

Table T-5

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

Key Indicators

Base Year

Unit 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90

Ranch Development

Commercial Ranches No 26 26 26 26 26Pilot Scheme Ranches No - - 8 - -

Extension

Community Grazing Areas No - - 1 2 2

Completed Construction

Houses - DPUs No 10 8 - - -- Land Boards No 3 - 13- Ranch Extension No 2 - - - -

Offices - Land Boards No 6 5 5 5 5- Range Extension No 2 - - - -

Boreholes - Trek Routes No 8 8- Holding Ground No 1 -

Fencing - Trek Routes Km 81 81- Holding Ground Km 14 -

-58-

Table T-6BOTSWAN&

National Land Management and Livestock Project

hational Development Bank (Cash Flow Projection)(Pula 1000)

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 15 Y6 17 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12Inflow- Loan/Grant from Govt. 1919 1919 2707 1919 1919- Farmer Loan Repay1/ - - - - - 759 1407 2191 2664 3070 3070 3070- Grant to NDB from Govt.2 / 36 19 53 37 71

Sub-Total 1955 1938 2760 1956 1990 759 1407 2191 2664 3070 3070 3D70

Outflow- Loan/Grant to Farmers 1919 1919 2707 1919 1919- Repaymnt to Govt.3/ - - - - - - 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833- Incr.Cost of Agric.

Credit Div. 36 19 53 37 71 53 71 53 71 53 71 53Sub-Total 1955 1938 2760 1956 1990 53 1904 1886 1904 1886 1904 1886

Annual Surplus Deficit - - - - - 706 (497) 305 760 1184 1160 1184

Y13 Y14 Y15 Y16 Y17 Y18 119 Y20 Y21 Y22 Y23 Y24 Y25inflow- Farmer Loan Repayments 3070 3070 3070 3070 3070 2664 2191 1407 579 - - - -

Outflow- Govt. Repayments and Incr.

Cost of Credit Div. 1904 1886 1904 1886 1904 1886 1904 1886 1904 1886 1904 1886 1904

Annual Surplus/Decifit 1166 1184 1166 1184 1166 778 287 (479)(1325)(1886)(1904)(1886)(1904)

I/ Five year grace period on interest and principal with 17% interest capitalised annually on theprincipal sum drawn down, thereafter repayment in 12 equal annual installments. Farmer repaymentsto NDB assumes a 90% recovery rate.

2/ See Table T-1(j).3/ Six year grace period on interest and principal with 10% interest capitalised annually on the

principal sum drawn down, thereafter repayment In 20 equal annual installments.

Tdl T-7

I LAWO aWI AND LIX LT

Farde 7 . PMl for kef

-2q84----- -.-- 19--I9b - -1q66-- -2-- -1'S--- -im--1 - -1990-f.eleet Cb lirt2/ hel g*rc ei2t kelf (e . t2 flag W WIn l2/ esf W m lt2 IJ Wm lit2/t hit 2fef G=m Ni Wre 1C lft Vim lf 0d ftm it af ftr W- %d mre_ it

PM prita C 1/ 3,'02 - 4,455 - 5,3R - 5,282 - 4,995 - 4,473 _ 4,891 Trwwpt irdlizu 20 - W2 - 20 - 2W _0 - 240 - 210 -20

FM Ptite FM on ht1l Idtm 3,202 1,857 4,215 2,411 5,147 2,977 4,947 2,f6l 4,755 2,75D 4,635 2,48l 4,651 2,690

SlUu it g Ofst 1. VYba offll-txh25 40 25 A8 30 48 30 48 3) 48 3D 48 3D As 30

EEort PMty Pgic a Attotr 3,162 1,R32 4,167 2,101 5.99 2,947 4,M9 2,131 4,707 2,72 4,587 2,651 4,603 2,F*)

TSmur frw Pnope to Abhetoir 225 13D 270 156 270 156 270 156 2M If 27n 156 270 156

Am.o Zot e Fa?ate Prim 2,937 1,702 3,897 2,245 4,8 2,791 4,629 2,675 4,437 2,564 4,317 2,49 4,333 2,%A

_ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~I'

I1 WbrlA hirmie ro1ietteno eptM tr1 am bmelm tmf.I1ne an -ver ytet of ML

0r

00

F4.0

m Gal lea IOU mg 1e IM ml ilt 6051 a UJ *lLt t 5a ill PtU 111 1 tt fill WU O6a 9U1- OWl- 1101,1g- Kml* UIiM 63 WVL I VLil

w m o" m on w @ " e" m m o" in i wi >w in lv i us au tuz c wtmi Kul Im wiapu 7fsn

o at 0 m m o CD rn m r m m tta m m m m t t m tt 000 1161 11K t ill ml til l Sal ul IIUAI iNiit 1t IT 1t it t1 it to It to tt It to It it It It 10 to It It it at oill 1i III t6l 1lF if

a a a a a a t a t a co a ts t a co co ai t a In Ilit u0 iK l 1 111m1n11= o 10 0 it 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 t 0 At , a 0 1 0 cc a a tt U wtSA ICK)

on0 Sal am "M Mu UK UKt fU "f Ma1 fiff LIl an "aU au4 mgf 61f Lu gill OUt al 616 1 6 0 0 -a cuimi w11j1M 'Wiun

lot "a VW gSt aUm am Ni Ila 1Uw ca Un zm am LU a16 9W Ilt tlil St I oil LU 6- - 1a nam

9111631 'NW6U1eswtlto fig utt Om f U 9 UK mg IOtStU au NG Om Ml nt mt t fUU S lX UUd cut t 9 1 UUi " 6 ttm tYi -116 -

tIf-IlK Clii me me LW 90 we cm 600 1W 001 UWI 31 LLI1 WI 561 1661 CM 1 ll 61 631 1361 £1 931 UI 6U

W 201*1 inU wiUn

1~irout nosufl are ziiiiim:x inn 0 1iiin

- 61 -

Table T-9

BOTSiA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

INCREMENTAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS

INCREMENTAL BEEF FROM TREK ROUTE COMPONENT

1985 1986 1997 1998 1989 1990-2014

INCREMENTAL BENEFITS

TREK EEF 403 500 480 459 447 446

SUBTOTAL INCREMENTAL BENEFITS 403 500 480 459 447 446

INCREMENTAL COSTS

TREK ROUTE 873 697 127 127 175 241

SUBTOTAL INCRENTAL COSTS 873 697 127 127 175 241

INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS

TOTAL INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS -470 -197 353 332 272 205

February 15, 1985 15:25

o

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ta OH "a Om tJg for tite MIN ctJ fV@ZaA wt "tl =I Ivc sl- ma titC la VMOl 13II:1II *weI1 SUlA

* 14D

Ula la Vma

De s Osid " " " 6 Am in at s Om 111 at anl t DL 11 9= V Ud9J

PCg tw IN IN la its ii 19 I sog in IN log IN st IN got iiint Is lot Iii Ike in a: al usl U v. lm1> o CD tD tD 0 RD tb 0 SD 1D t ID 0 m M m m tO M Id Ki IUI HUI ^1 i til B" miU U U U EUU U U U U U U U U8 U U U U U U U U 1550116K1 113 *I13IU£WZa p tt go n I t It It It It lb it it It it it It it It It ml oi oi k hi lo a a a a a a a a a a a U a CB a a a a a U w U a 111111U U B it 1 1111 M

ttJ111111011

lU poa EN SOt MO DIP lIii Alt I Ul OtL tMt LW Mt t lW t St W Alt NM W I 19 t5 IN C o UL tL wf1 111waU11

m 1 to - L Lt Ott LI 9t StLt n LIE "t LO1 tSoo 6 t1 I t Bt St l b Me 5£ a - iN m09 M M UR M w MMtO tite UR Ilt1 Ul eI ZM ue tll tUR MM ; itX O 1\1M SC1 ig IU ito tU m no1

Out-liOg # au SIN log 1W 1 1UK OM £1 u0 gm 1 SW *l gt iuot Sl WlI ul MI 1 1gal WI I Otl o13l SUE Ml Ml

I:ILMa an wVinz VWs

uS 0 uiLW UI WLu1

1312tOd D1JS1iA dEn MYN am yIoliyi

~* *n ..

-63-

Table T-11BOTSWAN

National Land Hanagmmt and LivestocL Project

Government Cash Flow

n1 Y2 .3 14 15 16 17 ye 19 T0o 11l 112 T13inf of Funds

IBRD oan/Local Funds 5358 5521 7418 6220 7154NDB Loan Repaymnts - - - - - - 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833Tax Revenue from BC a/ - - 64 128 192 256 320 384 448 480 512 512 512

5358 5521 7482 6348 7346 256 2153 2217 2281 2313 2345 2345 2345

Obtflow of FundsInveAstont Costs 4972 4904 5807 5243 5917Recurrent Costs 386 617 1611 977 1237 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238XBRD Repayments - - - - 2776 2776 2776 2776 2776 2776 2776 2776 2776

5358 5521 7418 6220 9930 4014 4014 4014 4014 4014 4014 4014 4014

Net BenefitlDeficit - - 64 128 (2584)(3758)(1861)(1797)(1733)(1701)(1669)(1669)(1669)

Y14 Y15 n16 Y17 118 119 n 20 121 122 123 124 125 126

rnflow of FundsNDS Loan Repay 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833 1833Tax Revenues from BC 512 544 576 608 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 640

2345 2377 2409 2441 2473 2473 2473 2473 2473 2473 2473 2473 640

Outflow of FundsRecurrent Coat 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238IBRD Repayments 2776 2776 2776 2776 2776 2776

4014 4014 4014 4014 4014 4014 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238

Net Benefit/Deficit (1669)(1637)(1605)(1573)(1573)(1573) 1235 1235 1235 1235 1235 1235

a/ Srles tax revenue from incremental beef throughput

- 64 -

ANNEX IPage 1

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

I. THE PROJECT AREA

General

1. The Project area is comprised of four districts (Ngamiland,Central, Kweneng and Southern). They cover an area of about 35 million ha(Maps IBRD 18766) which represents about 60% of the total land area of thecoulntry. Except in the south, the Project area is bordered by Natlonalfrontiers: Namibia in the west and north, and Zimbabwe and South Africa inthe east. The main line of rail and its branches either bisect or lie inclose proximity to three project districts and about 1,100 Km of tarred orgravel road link the whole Project area. Export beef abattoirs are locatedin the south at Lobatse and in the north at Maun. The proposed thirdexport abattoir will be built at Francistown in the Central District.

Physical Environment

2. About 70% of the Project area is covered by Kalahari sands.These sands vary from less than 3 metres to a 100 metres in depth and areoften underlain by a varying thickness of calcrete. In the Limpopocatchment which forms the eastern portion of the Project area, the soilsare sandy loams with small areas of heavier clays in depressions and stonyshallow soils on the hills. Most are hard, clod forming and have anaturally low fertility. Air temperatures in summer are around 23'-28'Cwith an extreme range of about 10°-150 C above or below this average. Inthe winter months day time temperatures range from 15'-20'C but falldramatically at night. No part of the area is free from risk of frost butthose in the north are few and mild. Average rainfall varies from 650mm inthe extreme north, through 400mm in the Limpopo catchment to 250mm in thecentral and southern districts which form the bulk of the Project area.Erratic Rainfall, together with high evaporation and poor soil fertilityand nutrient status, favour a natural grass/scrub cover to the land. Thisis principally exploited by various livestock production systems butsubstantial areas have been set aside as national parks and wildlifemanagement areas where tourist and hunting activities are undertaken.

Farm Families and Cattle Population

3. 85% of the country's farm families (70,200) and those holdingcattle (50,800) reside in the Project area. However, the cattle population(2.1 million) is only about 70% of the national herd and this reflects ahigh concentration of small cattle farmers, particularly in the Kweneng andSouthern districts.

Cattle Marketing & Planning

4. Within the present limitation of abattoir capacity,farmers in thesouthern part of Central, the Kweneng and Southern Districts have little

-65 -

ANNEX IPage 2

difficulty marketing their cattle. All marketing options are availableand movement to the Lobatse abattoir is made relatively easy with theproximity of the railway and major roads. However, in northern part of theProject area logistical problems increase and this is compounded byveterinary restrictions on cattle movement aimed at controlling Foot andMouth Disease (FMD). Despite an efficient veterinary service and a networkof cordon fences there remains an ever present risk of FMD outbreaks eitherfrom cross-border infection or contact with wild buffaloes. This precludesexport beef sales to the EEC from all northern areas and until recently,severely limited slaughter cattle offtake. In 1983 a 20,000 head/annumexport abattoir for non-EEC sales was commissioned in Ngamiland and withthe third export abattoir proposed for Francistown, the northern farmerswill have a similar slaughter access enjoyed by their southerncounterparts.

- 66 -

ANNEX IPage i

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

Assessment of the Future Needs and Development of the Departmentof Wildlife and National Parks

Background

1. DWNP within the .- oistry of Commerce and Industry is responsiblefor the conservation and management of the wildlife resource of Botswana.This includes over a million large mammals. It is also responsible for theconservation and administration of three national parks, five game reservesaud two small wildlife areas, covering in total approximately 18Z ofBotswana and including a wide range of plant communities.

2. In addition, DWNP is responsible for most wildlife mattersoutside the parks and reserves, including t-he determination of annualhunting quotas for the sizeable animal populations in these areas, andadministration of the licensing system. Hunting for subsistence and sport,and use of wildlife products are an important economic activities in thecountry valued at P12.4 million in 1981; a substantial number of ruraldwellers are totally or partially dependent cn wild animals for meat.

3. Dhk-: is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of theFauna Conservation Act; control of tourism in parks and reserves; theimplementation of a wildlife education program; research and monitoring ofthe wild animal populations and their habitats; and participation innational and district planning where relevant to wildlife.

Objectives

4. To analyse the performance of the Department of Wildlife andNational Parks in relation to: the nature of the wildlife resource, thewildlife estate (parks, reserves, sanctuaries), wildlife-related tourism,wildlife research programmes, wildlife legislation, the concept andplanning of wildlife management areas (WMAs) and their proposed functions,wildlife utilization; the land use planning processes, and environmentalprotection in the country.

5. Thereafter recommendations would be made on:

(a) administrative changes considered necessary in the structureand function of the department, both at headquarters anddistrict level; and the most appropriate ministerial locationfor DWNP;

(b) existing proposals for development, research and utilizationprojects with special reference to WMA development,indicating areas of highest priority;

(c) a 'task force" of personnel necessary for implementation ofthe wildlife utilization policy and development of WMAs;

- 67 -

ANNEX IIPage 2

(d) strengthening of the Wildlife Education Unit, particularly inview of the increased need for extension work with theintroduction of the utilization policy and development ofWMAs;

(e) the timetable for the preparation of a comprehensive wildlifemaster plan to define policies, its function and management,for individual plans for parks and reserves; and formanagement plans of each WMA;

(f) the preparation of a tourism master plan for the wildlifeareas and related tourism policies;

(g) budget requirements for the above recommendations.

Outputs

6. A comprehensive report will be produced summarizing the currentsituation of the Department and giving detailed recommendations for futureaction to improve the current situation and prepare for and implementprogrammes for WMAs and wildlife utilization.

Use of Outputs

7. The final report will be used to assess ways of improving thefunctioning of DWNP through restructuring, recruitment of staff, training,development of new units etc. as appropriate.

- 68 -

ANNEX IIIPage 1

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

Draft Terms of Reference for Technical Assistance

A. PROJECT COORDINATOR

Introduction

1. The Third Livestock Development Project will operate during aperiod when considerable changes are foreseen for the livestock industry inBotswana : the opening of a new abattoir will remove marketing constraintsand permit higher offtake rates, and the constraint of land availabilitywill become more severe forcing livestock owners to consider investments inland development instead of cattle numbers. The taxation and pricepolicies pursued by the Government during this period will have importanteffects upon the decisions of livestock owners and the viability of certaintypes of investment or methods of husbandry.

Responsibilities & Duties

2. The Project Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating thework of the Project Coordination Unit to ensure that there is a close linkbetween the progress of TGLP and the development of investment packageswhich will be attractive to livestock farmers. He will work closely withBMC to ensure that the activities on the production side are carefullycoordinated with opportunities on the marketing side. Conversely he willalert BMC of any innovative marketing thrusts that will be required as aresult of technical changes made by producers.

Organization

3. The Project Coordinator will report directly to the Chief Agri-cultural Economist, but he wili inform all relevant Ministries on thesubstantive points arising from implementation of the Project through theSteering Committee.

Qualifications

4. The specialist must be experienced in livestock development andhe should have:

- a primary degree in livestock production

- experience at several levels in a livestock industry(preferably in Africa) including planning, marketing andresearch;

- experience in preparing and presenting policy papers.

- 69 -

ANNEX IIIPage 2

Tenure

5. The Project Coordinator would be initially employed for 3 years,after which the Government would make every effort to localise the positionwith a suitably qualified professional officer.

B. BEEF PRICING SPECIALIST

Introduction

6. The average return to the producer depends upon export marketrealization less processing, marketing, transport costs and taxes leviedcentrally on the livestock industry. Producer prices, paid by BMC .arerelated to the grade of carcase as assessed by the Department of AnimalHealth graders. There is already evidence that the quality and weight ofanimals being submitted to the export abattoirs is declining and if thissituation continues unarrested, it may prove difficult for Botswana toexpand or even to maintain its share in the primary export markets. Thisfactor is closely linked with overgrazing of the rangeland and it isapparent that the present pricing/grading system does not significantlyencourage improved range management practices.

Responsibilities

7. The role of the Beef Pricing Specialist will be to recommend aproducer pricing structure that gives the correct signals to the farmersfor production of quality beef which, in turn, will encourage the develop-ment of sustainable range management practices. In particular thespecialist will:

'C

(a) liaise with BMC to develop a management information systemfor accurate product costing in relation to market returns.

(b) develop a reporting system to analyse cattle supply by areaand seasons, for weight and quality of carcase that wouldassist BMC establish effective seasonal price differentials.

(c) prepare estimates of the effect which grade/pricedifferentials would have on the cash plan projections for thevarious range improvement packages.

(d) detail a producer pricing structure that is consistant withthe Government's long-term development objectives for theindustry, and esttblish a capacity within the Department ofEconomics of the MOA to continuously review beef prices.

(e) train personnel within the Department of Planning andStatistics of the HOA to carry out an on-going review of beefprices and their impact on the production of quality beefproduction.

Organization

8. The Beef Pricing Specialist would report directly to the ProjectCoordinator.

- 70 -

ANNEX IIIPage 3

QualificaLions

9. The specialist must have 'hands on' marketing and pricingexperience in an export orientated beef industry and a primary degree ineconomics.

Tenure

10. The Beef Pricing Specialist would be employed for 1 year.

C. FINANCIAL ANALYST/TAXATION SPECIALIST

Introduction

11. From the available data, it would appear that the livestockindustry directly returns its recurrent costs to the Government butreceives support on development expenditures. As no cattle ownershipstatistics exist in Botswana outside the small number of freehold farmers,revenue generation rrom income tax is difficult. To overcome thissituation, a gross sales tax is applied at the abattoirs and this formspart of the deduction that producers face on marketing their cattle. It isapparent that the present system of taxation on cattle farmers provideslittle incentive for investment in improved range management practices orany disincentive to those who continually -mine" the range through over-grazing. If the range resources of the country are to be developed totheir full sustainable production capacity, it will be necessary toimplement a pricing and financial incentive/disincentive system thatencourages proper resource management from this developing sector of theeconomy.

Responsibilities

12. The Specialist will analyse the present taxation structure as iteffects the livestock industry and recommend a schedule of improvementsthat would give the correct development signals to farmers and result in anincrease in overall revenue to the Government. In addition, the specialistwill establish a capacity and train personnel within the TaxationDepartment for the on-going review of livestock taxation measures and theirrelation to encouraging improved range management and quality beefproduction.

13. In particular the Specialist will:

(a) liaise with the Project's Beef Pricing Specialist onanalysing the impact of pricing changes on farmer incomes;

(b) liaise with the Ranch Extension Unit, the NDB and the AnimalProduction Research Unit on production investmentrequirements;

(c) work with the Department of Taxes in examining potentialimprovements to the present tax collection mechanisms, andestablish a capacity within the Department to reviewlivestock tax policies as they effect production output;

71 -

ANNEX IIIPage 4

(d) examine the feasibility for direct cost recovery fromproducers for the Government's services to the livestockindustry;

(e) bring forward a detailed schedule of recommendations at theconclusion of his tenure.

(f) establish an on-going review process of livestock taxationmeasures within the Taxation Department.

Organization

14. The Special4Jst would report through the Project Coordinator tothe Steering Committee of the Project.

Qualifications

15. The Specialist will have a minimum of four years experience informulating taxation policies, have previously held a senior post in aGovernment taxation department or an agency advising a Government ontaxation matters.

D. COORDINATOR OF LAND USE PLANNING

Introduction

16. The production of professional district land use plans will beessential if the objectives of the Tribal Grazing Lands Program (TGLP) areto be met. The present responsibilities of the Land Use Planning AdvisoryGroups (LUPAGs) and the Land Boards will be rationalized under the Projectwith the formation of District Planning Units (DPUs). The LUPAGs would bedissolved but their core membership and Land Board representation would beincluded in the DPUs together with professionally trained planners.National planning policies would be incorporated into the district planningprocess.

Responsibilities

17. The Coordinator of Land Use Planning will be directly responsiblefor the work of all District Planning Units and their output. Inparticular, the Specialist will:

(a) ensure the input of relevant Ministries, Departments, Unitsand Institutions is adequately incorporated in districtplans;

(b) give guidance to the DPUs on national planning policies;

(c) provide technical supervision of DPU staff;

(d) liaise with the Land Use Planning Training Officer to ensurethat appropriate and effective training is given to all DPUstaff;

- 72 -

ANNEX IIIPage 5

(e) act as Secretary to the National Land Development Committeeand propose Cabinet Information Notes on Land Use Plans;

(f) identify a suitable local candidate for the post ofCoordinator at the end of Year 3 of the Project.

Organization

18. The Coordinator will be directl; responsible to the UnderSecretary (Lands) in the Ministry of Local Government and Lands.

Qualifications

19. The specialist should have previous experience in land useplanning matters and a primary degree in environmental sciences.

Tenure

20. The Coordinator would be employed for 4 years and, in his lastyear, assist a local counterpart assume his responsibilities.

E. LAND USE PLANNING TRAINING OFFICER

Introduction

21. The early enthusiasm of initiating TGLP led to the land useplanning process being vested in groups whose planning background wasprofessionally weak. This lack of professional training has createdinconsistencies in approach to planning issues and is partly responsiblefor the piece-meal development of the land use plans to date. In order tobuild a long term planning capacity within the Government, the Projectwould fund a position for a Land Use Planning Training Officer. He wouldbe located in the Ministry of Local Government and Lands but seconded tothe School of Environmental Sciences at the University of Botswana.

Responsibilities

22. The Land Use Planning Training Officer would be responsible forensuring that an adequate number of graduates are available for theplanning cadres within the country and these graduates have received/continue to receive the relevant training for the job related activities.In particular the Officer would:

(a) plan curricula for new planning graduates in the Departmentof Environmental Science at U of B.

(b) liaise with the Coordinator of Land Use Planning in devisingsuitable training programmes for present District PlanningUnit staff. This would take the form of both in-service andpost-graduate training;

- 73-

ANNEX IIIPage 6

(c) liaise with all relevant Ministries and Departments to ensureadequate participation in DPU training programs;

(d) make recommendations to MLGL and MOA on future manpower needsin their planning cadres;

(e) carry out all necessary in-service training of DP'J staff;

(f) select a local counterpart to assume the officer's role atthe end of the third year of the Project.

Organization

23. The officer would be responsible to the Head of the Department ofEnvironmental Science at the University of Botswana.

Qualifications

24. The officer would have had a minimum of 5 years trainingexperience in a developing country (probably in Africa) and a primarydegree in environmental sc'ences.

Tenure

25. The Officer would be employed for four years.

- 74 -

ANNEX IV

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

Animal Production Division Input for Communal Area Development

1. The Project input of Specialists (para 3.10) will focus specifi-cally on assisting rural communities estahlish disciplined grazing manage-ment practices. The specialists will he directly responsible to the ChiefAnimal Production Officer and through him, report their activities to theProject Coordination Unit.

2. The initial requirement will be to create a working relationshipbetween the District Planning Units and the Land Boards so as an informa-tion base can he developed on potential community grazing areas. Inaddition, the specialists will liaise with field extension officers who arebest placed to note community interest in disciplined grazing management.The Division's SLOCA program will provide a base of progressive farmers andall initiatives will be followed up through field visits. Where interestedcommunities are identified, the technical options developed by the AnimalProduction Research Unit (APRU) can be shaped to fit the individualcircumstance. With the complex and diverse structure of rural communitiesit is unlikely that a single development model will suffice for this work.

3. When the program of development is agreed on with a community,the Prolect will furnish funds on a grant basis and supe.vise implementa-tion. The Division would continually monitor progress and be on hand tooffer both technical and administrative advice to the community.

4. The APD will also monitor the impact of national policies onpricing and taxation as they effect farmers in communal areas, and beresponsible for advising the Government on incentives/disincentivesnecessary to improve the productivity and welfare of small livestockfarmers.

- 75 -

ANNEX V

BOTSWANA

NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

Annual Review of Project Progress

1. The annual Project Report should incorporate the followingmaterial:

(a) Reasonably detailed description of physical and financialresults of previous year's operations.

(b) Summary of principal operating problems arising duringprevious year's operations.

(c) Proposed Project budget for next fiscal year, includingcapital and recurrent expenditures, staffing requirements forinvolved Government agencies, and forecast demand for loansand grants.

2. The following subjects would be discussed between the Governmentand IBRD during the annual review of Project progreds:

(a) Project staffing requirements and related training programs.

(b) NDB ranch lending operations, including progress in theprevious year and proposals for the future program; ranchplans, models, criteria for selection of borrowers, and theloan supervision program would be reviewed.

(c) Progress in implementing the Communal Grazing Unit Programand its demand for grant funds.

(d) (At the end of the third year of the Project) a beef pricingschedule and financial incentive/disincentive packageconsistent with the Government's long-term developmentobjectives for the livestock sub-sector.

(e) Land use plans for the four Project Districts.

(f) Land demarcation progress and the allocation of ranches andcommunity grazing areas.

(g) Wildlife conservation matters.

IBRD 18766

A N G O L A _ _ \t. q;iZ A M B I AP.

BOTSWANA

~~" \ ~~NATIONAL LAND MANAGEMENTr zf OBE \v\] AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

tr *tr~ A. IM. N,W F,11 Pt.M

4 gg< \ Z I M .A .W E - .. t

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 r,-'-- £ ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N" ft.,,.

F ' ., W-__ KGALAGADI X W 1~~~~~~~~~~6A"DI1

L-h A-~ C-. .

IMAD~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~A DI8

C13 "N~~ A l o El Aa,.

t 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?~ MAU IM. Mf

Z . . . . . . . .. ./ r~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -. .ft.am A ~TN7

ir CENTRAli~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.- ¶SA7A

ow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o

Pb,Lelha&0w '~~~~~~~~~~\ZIMBA EWE

SOUTH AFRICA.

- .~~~~~WS = - fl. - . ~~~~~~~~~~~AFRICA -

N -. - US - U * ''.* 0* U fl* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MY 1