Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 12094-IND

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

OCTOBER 19, 1993

MvICR>FOGR:APHIC'S

Report No. 1.i9.IN4 D1 /De : C5-1R

Agriculture Operations DivisionCountry Department IIIEast Asia and Pacific Region

-~1This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. |

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(As of May 1, 1993)

Currency Unit = Rupiah (Rp)

US$1.00 = Rp 2,074

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

The metric system is used throughout the report

GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR

April 1- March 31

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND INDONESIAN TERMINOLOGY

AARD - Agency for Agricultural Research and DevelopmentAFRD - Agency for Forestry Research and DevelopmentAMDAL - Ervironmental Impact AnalysisBANGDA - Directorate General for Regional Development (MOHA)BAPPEDA - Provincial Development Planning AgencyBAPPENAS - National Development Planning AgencyBIMAS - Mass Guideance (Rice Intensification Program)BPKP - Financial and Development Advisory BoardBPN - National Land AgencyBUPATI - District (Kabupaten) ChiefDINAS - Provincial and District Government OfficesGOI - Government of IndonesiaINPRES - Presidential InstructionISS - Information Support SystemKPFS - Kapubaten Level Financial StatementLCO - Local Community OrganizationMIS - Management Information SystemMOA - Ministry of AgricultureMOFr - Ministry of ForestryMORA - Ministry of Home AffairsMOPW - Ministry of Public WorksMTR - Mid-Term-ReviewNPFS - National Project Financial StatementPIL - Preliminary Environmental Impact AssessmentPIMPRO - Pimpinan Proyek (Project leader)PMU - Project Management UnitPOLA RLKT DAS - Watershed Plan (25 years)PPFS - Provincial Level Financial StatementPUOPR - General Planning and Operation of the Central R&R ProgramREPELITA - Indonesia National Five-Year Development Plan

REPPROT - Regional Physical Planning for TransmigrationRIS - Resource Information SystemRLKT - Rehabilitasi Lahan Dan Konservasi Tanah (Land Rehabilitation

and Soil Conservation)RLR - DG of Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation, Ministry of ForestryR&R - Regreening and Reforestation ProgramRTL RLKT Sb-DAS - Watershed Plan (5 years)RTr - Watershed Plan (annual plan)SALT - Sloping Agriculture Land StabilizationSPABP - Local INPRES R&R BudgetSOEs - Statement of ExpendituresTIM PEMBINA - Provincial and District Guidance TeamsTIM PENGARAH - Steering Comrnittee of the Regreening and Reforestation ProgranTIM PENGENDALI - Central Guidance Team of the Regreening and Reforestatdon

ProgramUPM - Sedentary Farming Demonstration Unit (20 ha) of the Regreening

ProgramUPSA - Soil Conservation Demonstration Unit (10 ha) of the Regreening

ProgramUSAID - United States Agency for Inernational Developmert

FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ANDCONSERVATION PROJECT

LOAN AND tojEr SumMARY

Borrower: Republic of Indonesia

Amount: US$56.5 million equivalent

Terms: Standard variable interest rate for a term of 20 years, including 5years of grace.

Project Description: The main goals of the project would be to improve the livingstandards of poor upland farmers by improving and restoring theproductive potential of their resource base and to improve watershedenvironnental quality and protect downstream watershed resources.The project would inter alia support:

(i) Institutional strengthening to improve the National WatershedDevelopment Program (Regreening and Reforestation) guidelinesand policies, overall coordination and operational support;

(ii) Development of the Upper Cimanuk watershed; and

(iii) Investment support for the Regreening and Reforestat1on Program.

The National Instional Strengthening component would provie'.support for improvement of planning, management and naturalresource information systems, the creation of a multi-disciplinaryupland research program and training and extension. The UpperCimanuk Watershed Conservation and Development componentwould stabilize critical areas in the Upper Cimanuk watershed (WestJava) by supporting the introduction of improved farming systemson 15,750 ha of arable land, combined with soil conservationpractices, road upgrading and drainage rehabilitation. The Cimanukcomponent would serve as the initial implementation area for theprocedural changes and technical approaches promoted by the

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performanc iof their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorizatilna.

- i -

project under the niational R&R program. Contingent uponsatisfactory progress in the first two years of the project, the Bank'scontribution to the Investmen Support component would financeinputs for farm system improvements and nursery development forGOI's ongoing R&R program in 39 priority water3heds covering193 Kabupaten across the country.

Benefts: Benefits of the project include increased fann production andimproved productivity in the upland areas, and improvedenvironmental qrality both on-site and downstream as well asimproved development opportunities for local participation, farmemployment and income.

Risks: The main risks would be related to GOI's sustainable efforts inmaking appropriate institutional and policy changes in theRegreen;ng and Reforestation program (R&R). Another risk relatesto the development of productive farming systems for the diverseecological conditions found in the watersheds. Bank support for theR&R progran would only be disbursed following an initial periodof institutio..al improvements in conjunction wiffi project assistancem training, extension and use of technical assistance.

Fstimated Costs La Local Foreig Total=====-=== {US$ million -

Project Components:

National Institutional Strengthening 14.8 7.2 22.0Total Investment Support for Regreening

and Reforesttion 288.8 16.4 305.2Upper Cimamuk Watershed 27.3 3.8 31.1

Total Base Costs 330.9 27.4 358.3

Physical Contingencies 16.7 1.4 18.1Price Contingencies 107.6 3.8 111.4

Total Project Costs

LA Including taxes and duties of about US$14.9 million equivalent.

iii -

Financng Plab: Local Foreign TotalUS$ million

Government 339.8 22.5 362.3Fanmers 69.0 - 69.0IBRD 46.4 10.1 56.5

Tota g ,4SS.2 NA 4

Esdmated Dibursements:

Bank FY FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY200USS million--

Anral 3.8 5.4 12.0 12.4 11.9 11.0Cumulative 3.8 9.2 21.2 33.6 45.5 56.5

Economic Rate of Return: 17% (for Cimanuk Component)

Poverty Category: Program of tageted iterventions. The project would improveliving standards of predominantly poor upland fanners through

elioration of the productive potential of prority wDathds.

MAP: IBRD 24775/6

- iv -

CONTENTS

1 SECTOR AND PROJECTBACKGROUND ...................... 1

A. Introduction ........................................ 1B. The Agricultural Sector ................................. 1C. TheNon-IrrigatedSubsectorand UplandAgricultr ............... 3D. Watershed Management and Conservation Programs and Strategy ..... .. 4

2 BANKINVOLVEMENT ANDLESSONSLEARNED ................ 6

A. Bank Involvement in Watershed Management andCb na¢on ........ 6B. Issues and LessonsLamd ear ........................... 8C. Proposed Strategy and Rationale for Future Bank Involvement ........ 10

3 THIEPROJECT ........... . 11

A. Project Concept and Objecdves .............. I ............ 11B. Deiled Features ......................... ...... .. . 12

4 PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING .............. ........... 18

A. Project Costs ....................................... 18B. Financing ......................................... 19C. Procurement........................................ 20D. Disbursements ...................... . ... 22E. Accounts andAudkt .............. . 24

5 PROJECT ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 26

A. Project Organization and Mangement ....................... 26B. Inplementadon Arngements ............................ 28

This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission to Indonesia in Februa 1993.The mission consisted of Messrs. B. van de Poll, W. Msgrath, A. Sahulat andMs. S. Bettencourt (Bank) and Mr. 1. Dalton (consutant). Assisanc by Mes.W. Luswmbe, R.Crooks, R. Ng, M. Hasan (Bank), a wel as Ms. C. Brown (Bank) andMs. L. Jellinek (consultant) is acknowledged. Peer reiewr wer Mem. R. Grlmshawand T. Wiens. Ms. M. Haug, Director, EA3 and Mr. A. Cole, Chif, EA3AG haveendorsed the project.

6 PROJECr MPACT ..................................... 31

A. Benefits and Justiflcation ............................... 31B. Institutional andEnvironmentalImnpact ....................... 37C. Sustainability and Risks ................................ 38

7 AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. ......... 40

TABLES IN TEXT

2.1 Bank Supported Projects ..................... 74.1 Project Cost Summary ................. .................. 184.2 Project Financin Flan ................................... 194.3 Procurement Plan .................. .................... 216.1 Farm FamilyBenefits ................................... 336.2 SensitivityAnalysis .................. ................... 36

ANNEXES

1. Watershed Management and Regreening and Reforesation Program ..... . 422. UpperCChnanukWaterbed Component ......... .. ............ 483. Infornation Support System and Land Use Planning ..... .. ........ 604. UplandResearch and TechnologyDevelopment .................. 655. Trainn and Extension ................ ................. 696. Techn;cal Assistance ................. .................. 72

7. Pojet Splemetaion SedWule ....................................... 87. Project Li lmnaioSi l.858. Economic Analysis of the Upper Chnanuk Componet ....m.. ........ 909. Project Cost Estimates ................ 11.................. i10. Schedule of Disbursements ................. 11511. ProcurementofMajorGoodsandCivilWorks ................... 11612. ProjectSupervisionPlan .......................... ..... 11913. SelecteddocunentsinProjectile ......................... 120

CHART: Organization of the Regreening and Reforestation Prorm

MAPS: BRD No: 24775/6

1SECTOR AND PROJECT BACKGROUND

A. INTRODUCTION

1.1 While the Government of Indonesia (GOI) has been very successful over thepat decades in reducing poverty, much of this gain has occurred in lowland areas t-hroughlarge investments in irrigated food crops. These have, to a large extent, bypassed thbrainfed upland areas where the incidence of poverty among smallholders remains high.Rising agriculture conversion in the upland areas, due to growing populations, incombination with accelerated timber harvesting and other developments, are increasing soilerosion, loss of productivity of agricultural land and other forms of enviromnental andeconomic degradation.

1.2 GOI has responded to the above challenges through a national programseeking to promote sustainable and replhcable frming and soil conservation systems in 39identified watersheds (63 million ha) which require priority rehabilitation treatent. Theproposed project is designed to support GOI's effort to expand this program and particularlyto strengthen its technological base and insutional capabilities.

B. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Sector Overview

1.3 Agriculture remains a key sector of the Indonesian economy, contributing21 percent of GDP, providing employment to some 55 percent of the labor force, andgenerating 26 percent of non-oil exports. Of some 24.0 million ha under permanentculivation, about 16.0 million ha is under food and tree crops, of which about 5.5 millionha Is irrigated. With the exception of estate crops, nearly all agricultural production isundertaen by 18 million smallholders, a majority of whom farm less than 1 ha. Farmincomes are increasingly supplemented by earnings from off-farm employment, which cancontribute 30 percent or more of net farm incomes. In areas near the larger cities, wherethere are expanding opporunities, especially for the employment of young males, womenare playing an increasingly important role in farming. Rapid urbanization is also inducing,in certain areas of Java, a shift towards less labor-intensIve farning practices.

-2 -

Performance

1.4 The agricultural sector grew at 3.8 percent per annum between 1969-89,compared with a population growth of 2.1 percent. Food crops, which account for60 percent of agricultural GDP, grew at 4.2 percent per annum during the same period.Significant yield increases in maize, cassava and soybean nave been realized, albeit at aslower rate than rice. Rice, the single largest component of the food crops subsector, grewat an even faster rate, 4.8 percent per annum, particularly during the 1979-89 period. Theachievement of self-sufficiency in rice, attained in 1984, was not only efficient, givenIndonesia's comparative advantage in labor-intensive production, but was equally effectivein alleviating poverty, because rice production was the main ea7nomic activity and sourceof income of the rural poor. Most of the growth in agricuLural prcducticn has occurred onirrigated land, which represents only 25 percent of the area under permanent cultivation.In areas where soils are not suitable for rice and other food crop production, tree crops havecontributed to employment and income generation for smallholders. Tree crops areespecially important for small farmers in the outer islands, where they are ideally suited tothe climate and soil conditions. Given the past focus of Government on paddy developmentin the lowlands, rural poverty continues to be most severe in the upiand areas.

Objectives and Future Strategies

1.5 The Govermnent's major objectives for the agricultural sector have includedfood security, low and stable food prices, and the generation of employment and foreignexchange earnings. These have been largely achieved. Over the next 5-year plan period(Repelita VI, 1994/5-1998/99), it is expected that there will be a shift in policy away fronproduction targets and control of marketing towards farm income generation andderegulation. This will foster diversification towards products with high income elasticitiesof demand and higher land-use intensity. There wil' also be a greater focus on thepromotion of sustainable growth that emphasizes both increasea productivity andconservation of the underlying natural resource base.

1.6 A recent Bank report 1/ estimates that as the patterns of demand andstructure of production transform during economic growth, the growth of agricultural GDPis l;lcely to stabilize at around 3 percent. Although agriculture will continue to contract asa proportion of total output as well as total employment, the latter will tend to lag. Moreimportantly, successful agricultral development is needed to generate rural prosperitywhich, in turn, generates off-farm employment. The issue is one of devising approacheswhich do not deplete the fragile resource base and which generate development linkages tolocal economies.

1.7 The sector will thus require greater economic e%fficiency, a less interventionistrole for Government in setting cropping targets, pricing, nuTketing and trade, ar.d instead

/ "Indonesia Agrlcawal Tranfomxion: ChaUenges and C,eponwWas, Septm 1M992,No. 10504-IND.

-3 -

an increasing role for the Government in regulating and managing the environment. Theproposed project fits well with the development strategy of tie sector.

C. THE NON-JIUUGATED SUBSECOR AND UPLAND AGICULTE

1.8 The importance of the non-irrigated production is reflected by the fact that ofthe 42 million ha of agricultural land about 80 percent is still non irrigated contributing toaU tree crop production and providing 50 percent of food crops and most of the country'sfodder. Most of the non irrigated production takes place in upland areas (estimated at about15 to 25 mit1ion ha) and since these areas have largely been bypassed by developmentefforts, they continue to be characterized by high levels of poverty. Of an estimated 18million rural people with hnvomes below the official poverty line some 65 percent or about12 million people live or work in upland areas, with Java displaying the largest concentrationof the poor.

1.9 Because of the steep slopes involved, the problems and constraints of uplandagriculture differ significantly from the lowlands. Ia view of the impact of the intensetropical rains typical of Indonesia, the threat of soil erosion and soil degradation is far moresevere in the upland&l, which is exacerbated by the generally poor, shallow soils, particularlythose of non-volcanic origins. Upland agriculture is dependent on rainfall which restrictscropping options, shortens the safe growing season, particularly in drier areas (e.g., NusaTenggara), and increases risk. Land use consist mainly of forests, shifting cultivation,dryland food crops and tree crop production. Because of the inherent ecological constraintsof these areas, combined with the increasing population which has to subsist on a decliningnaturl resource base, pressure is being placed on both private and public (State Forest)land, leading to an increasing rate of resource degradation, mainly through deforestaion andsoil erosion. Disruption of traditional tenure systems and land speculation has also playeda role.

1.10 As the land pressure has increased in the upland areas, the extent of povertyand environmental degradation has grown and farmers have moved into unsustainablefarming systems. Large numbers of permanent farmers at or below the poverty line can befound in the southern part of Java, Lampung and South Sumatra, South Sulawesi and NusaTengSara, whereas farmers practicing unsustainable shifting cultivation are found in manyareas of Kalimantan and Sumatra. Recognizing the extent of poverty and the impendingenvironment problems of these areas, GOI is placing increased emphasis on promotingsustainable land use patterns. Under the past and current Repelitas, GOI has introducedprograms focussing on structural and vegetative soil and moisture conservation activities, incombination with sustainable food and tree crop and forestry production with the watershedas the basic physical-biological and socio-economic unit for planning and management. Withthe great diversity of ecological situations in the rainfed areas, the main challenge for GOIis to ensure that investment resources are focused on locally suitable, and economicallyviable land uses and farming systems that are derived from a participation decision makingprocess.

- 4-

D. WATzERs MANAGEMENT AND CONSVAON PROGRAM AND STRATEGY

1.11 Watershed management and conservation has been pursued in Indonesia usinga number of mechanisms by several agencies. The most visible, costly and ambitious effortshave been externally funded projects aimed at specific river basins on Java, beginning withthe FAO-funded Upper Solo Project in the early 70s. With some variations, these areaspeciflc projects (e.g., Citanduy River Basin Project (USAID), Yogyakarta RuralDevelopment Project (IDA), see para. 2.3) have been built around an approach developedby the Solo project which involves helping farmers to build bench terraces, the provision ofagro-technology packages of seed and fertilizer, reforestation of government land, andconstruction of structural works such as check dams and gully plugs. These projects havebeen tnanaged by the Ministry of Forestry (MOFr) or by local governments with sometechnical involvement of the Ministries of Agriculture (MOA) and Public Work (MOPW).Provincial and District Governments, including to some extent the Regional Planning Boards(BAPPEDA), have been closely involved in project implementation.

1.12 The main GOI progm In wtrshed management and soil conservation is,howe"er, the National Watershed Development Program in Regreening and Reforestation(R&R), channeling awnualy about US$50 million for watershed activities to localgovernments (Annex 1). This Presidential Instruction Program (INPRES) was started in1976 with the objectives of: (i) controlling erosion and floods; (ii) improving landproductivity and farmer's income; and (iil) increasing people's participation in preservingthe narl resources of land, water and forests. Initially, it was a program consistingmainly of the supply of seedlings for planting on private land (Regreening) and on publicland (Reforestation). The present approach taken by GOI involves demonstrations onfamers' land in soil conservation and technological packages through Soil ConservationDemonstrton Units (UPSA) and Sedentary Farming Demonstration Units for shiftingcultivation reas (UPM), village nurseries to provide tree and tree crop seedlings,constucion of roads, check dams and gully plugs, and reforestation on Goverwnent land.In this INPRES program the central Government regulates funding, directs planning and isresponsible for the overall management of the program, while implementation is theresponsibility of the local government. The Regreening program is carried out at tie district(Kabupaten) level, while the Reforestation program is managed at the provincial level. Overthe last five years the annual budgety outlay for this program has increased six-fold. TheRegreening and Reforestation program covers presently 39 priority watersheds in 193Kabupaten and 26 provinces which have been selected from a total of 81 watershedsidentified at the national level. The priority watersheds, including 104 subwatersheds,comprise a totl area of 63 million ha of which some 13 million ha are critically degradedand In need of rehabilitation.

1.13 At the central level the R&R program is coordinated by a national SteeringComnittee (Tim Pengarah, para. 5.1) made up of eight representative ministries/agencies.Among the central ministries, MuHA is the lead agency; MOFr is responsible for planningand monitoring; BAPPENAS is responsible for the allocation of funds; and MOA and

- -

MOPW provide technical support,l/ while the executive secretary of the conmittee is theChief, Bureau of Spatial Planning and Environment (BAPPENAS). The Steering ConmmitteeIs assisted by a Central Guidance Team with its Secretariat providing the day-to-day datamanagement, including planning, funding and reporting (Chrt 1). Both the Guidance Teamand its Secretariat also draw member re.ifilbiiives from the National Land Agency (BPN),the Bank Rakyat Indonesia, Bank Dagang Negara and Bank Export Import Indonesia. Atthe provincaia 'el the pr,,igam is implemented by a management team (Tim Pembina),including a secretariat, appointed by the governor. The main control for the Reforestationprogram is carried cut by the Head of the Provincial Forest Service. At the district levelthe Regreening program lies with the Bupati with support of a district guidance team (TimPembina) and secretariat. The INPRES program has vested major project responsibility forimplementation to the provincial and district level local governments, but the administrativecontrol of the program is carried out by the Directorate General for Regional l)evelopmentin MOHA (BANGDA) through the regional government agencies. However, it is the centralDirectorate General of Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation of MOFr that has basicallyassumed the development role of this program through its nationwide network of watershedmanagement and soil conservation centers-Balai, Sub Balai and Cabang Rehabilitasi Lahandan Konservasi Tanah (RLKT).

1.14 The issues related to the implementation of the watershed program inIndonesia are discussed in the next chapter. GOI reviews of experience on the R&RINPRES have begun to identify areas in need of strengthening and reform (para. 2.7).These studies have emphasized the need for greater popular participation and a bettermatching of technologies to local conditions, but have not formulated a specific action planfor the strengthening of the program. Due to the fragmentation of plaing andimlemenxation between agencies at both central and local levels, transfer of responsibilityand accountability for program performance has been incomplete. One of the majorchallenges that lie ahead for GOI is to shift ownership of the national watershed and soilconservation program from the center to the provinces and district governments. Theproposed project will meet some of this challenge by working towards a fuller integrationof the R&R program into regional plans, as well as improving the flexibility andresponsiveness of the program guidelines to the local specific conditions and communityneeds.

1 Olher ageocieslminmstries involved m the INPRBS R&R program are Ministy of Fmance, Ministryfor nimt and the Centmal Bimas Contol Agency.

-6-

2BANK INVOLVEMENT AND LESSONS LEARNED

A. BANK INVOLVEMENT IN WATERSHED MANAGIwENT AND CONSERVATION

2.1 The kind of conservation and watershed management projects which the Bankseeks to support are all programs with multi-purpose undertakings such as protection of landand water resources, the enhancement of their productivity, the alleviation of rural povertyand the efficient delivery of government services to remote areas. The Bank has hadsignificant experience with watershed management projects in Asia since 1980. Some of theearlier projects (e.g. Philippines-Central Visayas Regional Project, Ln. 2360-PH),recognized the need to provide for farmer participation and mechanisms of technologytransfer that fell outside of the usual extension channels. These mechanisms included theuse of 'key farmer' approaches, farmer-to-farner training, project-specific publicationspromoting locally adapted technologies, and training aimed at mid-level governmentofficials. Results demonstrated that there is effective demand for conservation technologiesat the farm level which are production oriented and income generating.

2.2 Under the same generation of projects (including also India-IntegratedWatershed Development (Plains) Project, Ln. 3197-IN and Cr. 2131-IN, and India-Itegrated Watershed Development (Hills) Project, Ln. 3175-IN and Cr. 2100-IN), a changeof focus occurred from engineered, structurally-based conservation treatments to morevegetative approaches that placed conservation focus back at the farm level. The logisticsof implementing these activities across dispersed small farms with heterogenous soil andmicro-climadc conditions required a change from traditional extension and centrally-controlled implementation towards more emphasis on farmers' control over the choice oftechnology, and the need to provide farmers with adequate assistance and support. Theselessons, which have been incorporated in the latest generation of Bank financed projects(e.g. Philippines-Environment and Natural Resources Sector Adjustment Program Projects,Ln. 3360-PH, and Cr. 2277-PH), are showing good promise towards establishing betterresource management practices at the community level, and have promoted new directionsfor conservation that are being adopted in projects under preparation, namely in China (RedSoils II Project and Loess Plateau Conservation and Land Development Project).

2.3 Bank's lending to watershed management and soil conservation in Indonesiadates back nearly 15 years ago and has comprised about US$86 million for a total of 5projects (Table 1). Of the these five projects Cr. 946-IND and Ln. 2638-IND were typicalmulti-sectoral ural development projects sWhile the other three were more focussed onwarshed development per se and in promoting sustainable land use systems in uplandareas. The area development projects were part of the Bank's strategy of testing the

-7-

Table 2.1: BANK-SUPPORTED PRoJECTs

OriginalLoan/Credit

Credit/Loan No. Dates Project Amount (US$ M)

Cr. 946 1979-1989 Yogyakarta Rural Development 12.0Ln. 2474 /a 1985- Upland Agriculture and Conservation 11.3Ln. 2638 1986- Nusa Tenggara Agric. Support Serv. 33.0In. 2930 1986- Forestry Institutions and Conservation 34.0,&Lu. 3305 1991- Yogyakarta Upland Area Development 15.5

/a Cofinanced with USAID and closed on September 1993.Lk Wonogiri watershed component comprises about US$14.3 million of Loan amount.

replicability of area-specific approaches prior to investing in more global, nationwideprograms. The three "watershed" projects are all located on Java and their initiatives areaimed at testing and proving the technical and institutional underpinnings in specific uplanddistricts (Kabupaten) to raise farm productivity in combination with soil conservationpractices. The Performance Audit Report (June 15, 1993) evaluated the overall assessmentof the first project (Cr. 946-IND) as unsatisfactory. The project design was found to havebeen overanbitious and the underlying technical assumptions faulty. The main agriculturalinvestment (hill terracing) was considered to be neither replicable nor sustainable. Ln.3305-IND came as a follow-up project to investigate and test alternative conservation andproduction concepts. Despite a slow start-up due to budgetary and contracting delays, theYogyakarta Upland Area project has picked up momentum and is focusing on consolidatingthe management of project implementation at the local and district level.

2.4 Both the Upland Agriculture and Conservation project (Ln. 2474-IND) andthe Wonogiri subproject (Ln. 2930-IND) appear to be generating sustainable site-specificupland farming technologies and demonstrate the importance of linking research, extensionand farmer's knowledge/participation. The nearly completed Upland Agriculture andConservation project has put increasing emphasis on evaluation and impact studies to extractlessons learned and technology inventories for wider dissemination, particularly for projectsin Java. The technological packages developed under the project appear to have beensuccessful in promoting soil conservation. Similarly, the Wonogiri subproject has succeededin curbing the practice of erosive farning systems, improving crop yields and raisingfarmers' income. There are also indications that the improved technologies are beingadopted by farmers outside the project area.a/

2/ FAO CP 1992. -Indonwia. Foresny Institutions and Conseruation Project: Wonogiri WatershedComponent Mid-Term Evaluation . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsInvestment Centre.

- 8 -

2.5 Apart from some work on farming system research and demonstrations withconservation farning systems in the Nusa Tenggara project (Ln. 2638-IND), the bulk of theBank's involvement, as well as GOI and its major donors, has been carried out on Java.Consequently fanming system research and site-specific conservation technologies are laggingbehind for the uplands in the outer islands despite some recent developments in soilconservation, among which the successful programs undertaken by CARE Indonesia inSumbawa and Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara.

2.6 In addition to experiences from the Bank's support for watershed managementand related projects, there are a number of Bank reports which provide guidance on howBank operations should approach some of the challenges of upland agriculture. Thesereports, including (i) Indonesia-Forest Land and Water: Issues in SustainableDevelopment; (ii) Watershed Development in Asia, Strategies and Technologies;(iii) Indonesia-Poverty Assessment and Strategy Report and (iv) Draft, Indonesia-Environment Report, provide useful guidance on rural development approaches as well ason-7farming systems and conservation technologies. community participation and institutionalrequirements.

B. E AND LESSONS LEARNED

2.7 A review of conservation and watershed projects in Indonesia, includingstdies commissioned by GOI,4/ both in area specific projects and in the nationalRegreening and Reforestation program, shows three consistent weaknesses:

(a) the use of poor quality and inappropriate technology;(b) uncoordinated and non-participatory planning; and(c) implementation arrangements that are unaccountable and poorly supervised.

These projects therefore lack efficiency and impact and waste limited resources on analready fragile resource base.

2.8 Technology. While some progress has been made in developing sustainablefarming systems for uplands, land treatments for soil stabilization are generally costly, e.g.,terracing at a cost of about US$900 per ha. In comparison with either the initial or the aftertreatment productivity of most rainfed uplands, which might be in the order of US$600 perha per year, investment costs of these levels are clearly unsustainable and uneconomic.High maintenance requirements of most structural conservation measures, the need forexacdng design and construction, quality and the often excessive labor demands on farmersrun counter to the reality of smallholder agriculture. It appears that in many situations lowcost vegetative soil and moisture conservation practices can be applied, such as the newtechnology of v-ditching and vetiver grass hedges. These practices, in addition to their ownmerits, demonstrate the potental for alternatives to the expensive and restricted practices on

I/ 'AssA awo iplementation on INPRES R&R Replia n-V (progress), and Rep. W (prospects)', byHirry Santoso, Dijen RRL- MOFr, July 1992; and 'Evaluation of INPRES R&R', by Dijen RRL andResarch Institute of Bogor (Inst. of Agric. Science), 1992.

-9-

which most of the conservation efforts in Indonesia have relied. Other experiences havehighlighted the real possibility to generate technology for sustainable upland farming systemdemonstrations and their expansion areas, but these have to be developed through a processof linking research with extension and farmers practices and needs and be based on site-specific conditions. Generally, however, there is a need and scope to more fully integrateperennial tree crops and livestock with food crop production within the farming system.Another area which could be significantly improved is the privately and public operated treeand fruit nurseries as there is not only a need to have more diversity but also to have a muchhigher quality of available seedlings. Lastly, there is considerable scope for introducingvegetative reinforcements to structural investments such as roads and drainage works.

2.9 Planning and Implementation. An important lesson from the waeshed andupland development experience is the compartmentalization of the overall waersheddevelopment process. Much of the budgetary control and the policy guidelines are in thehands of a designated lead agency and/or BAPPENAS at the central level, whereas muchof the physical planning is carried out by the regional office of the central ForestDepartment, leaving implementation mainly to the provincial and district governments andtheir technical offices (Dinas). As a result, planning and implemenion are not linked orpulled together in an overall, long term regional and provincial development strategy andbring in doubt the ownership of the R&R program at the local level. The planning processalso tends to exclude farmers' and other watershed users' consultation and participationthereby reducing the chances for sustainability. One result of the neglect of farmersperspectives is a high element of subsidy which limits the progrm replicability andcompounds problems with technology as discussed above. In addition, none of the programshave an effective resource and management information system in place, so that littleinformation is available to support strategic planning that affects management decisionsconcerning adjustments in annual project operations. Finally, constraints have emerged inte lack of appropriate skills of staff in both planning and implementation of programs witha multi-sectoral development focus.

2.10 Institutions. All watershed or related projects in Indonesia have sufferedfrom lack of coordination and problems of accountability. A range of organizationalarrangements have been tried to implement watershed and conservation programs, but allprojects have struggled with institutional coordination. In general, the Forestry Departmenthas played too dominant a role in setting the technical standards and has not engendered anenvironment which motivates sustained participation by farmers and communities. Whilethis is understandable given the fact that the soil conservation mandate lies with the ForestryDeparunent, it is nevertheless clear that this dominance has relegated the much needed inputof the Agriculture Department in proposing conservation efforts based on benefits to uplandfarmers and comnunity organizations. These institutional problems are present at both thenational and provincial level and result in weak policy development, rigid technicalguidelines, ineffective planning and poor implementation. The conclusion from the Bank'sand other donor involvement in watershed management and soil conservation seens toindicate that institutional strengthening through area-specific projects has not madewidespread impact and that a more sustainable approach could be achieved throughimprovements of the national Regreening and Reforestation Watershed and Soil ConservationProgram. The proposed project would attempt to address this problem.

- 10-

C. ftoPosmD STRATEGY AND RATIONALE FOR FruT BANK INvOLvEmENT

2.11 The key objectives of Bank's country assistance strategy for Indonesia are:D promotion of economic growth with stability; ii) reduction of poverty; and iii) promotionof sound management of natural resources and environment. Agriculture remains centralto the Government's growth and poverty reduction strategy, as poverty is still heavilyconcentrated in agriculture, particularly the uplands and non irrigated areas. Accordingly,investment in agriculture continues to be important to the Bank's assistance strategy inIndonesia, given the sector's role in employment generation, poverty reduction, sustainablenaural resource management and protection of the environment.

2.12 Much of the thrust in slowing down and reversing the ecological degradationof the upland areas is the need to have a poverty-reduction and natural resource managementstrategy which makes use of the critical role that agriculture can play in providing betterincome opporhtnities to the upland farmers. This can be done by offering small farmers thetechnology to expand their productivity and income and introducing farming systems whichpromote non irrigated rice crops, smallholder tree crops and animal production support,combined with low cost vegetative soil and moisture conservation practices and supportedwith appropriate agricultural services in research, extension, credit and marketing. Tosustain these programs it is also inportant that permanent access to land should be facilitatede.g through land titling, to encourage spontaneous investments in sustainable practices.

2.13 Ultimately, as economic development proceeds in Indonesia, upland watershedareas will not be economically or environmentally suited to the types of agriculture nowpracticed. Rising wage rates, opporunities to diversify away from staple crop productionand urban migration will reduce over-use of the resource base and favor the proliferation ofperennial cover. In the short term, however, resource degradation in the uplands couldseverely retard economic and social progress in these areas as well as undermine theenvironmental stability on which downstream areas depend. It is therefore envisaged thatRegreening and Reforestation Programs will be needed over the next 25-30 years to enablethese transitional processes to take hold and to conserve the resource base in the interim.

2.14 The Bank's support to the national Regreening and Reforestation Watershedand Soil Conservation program would help Government's effort in reducing ecologicaldegradation both by improving technical quality and cost effectiveness. Furthermore, theINPRES R&R, as an active instrument in stimulating income-generating activities andcreating employment opportunities in poorer areas would also help to reduce poverty andcontribute to regional development. In supporting this program the Bank would help GOIover the medium term to develop sustainable technologies which can be applied throughoutIndonesia's most critical upland watersheds, including those on the outer islands. It wouldalso help to foster a more coherent institutional watershed management approach throughoutthe country.

- 11 -

3TH PROJECT

A. PRojr CONCEPT A OUJECE

3.1 Project Concept. The proposed project would support implementation ofGOI's Regreening and Reforestation Program by strengthening its technological andinstitutional underpinnings. The primary emphasis would be on the introduction of moreproductive and environmentally benign farming systems to poor farmers in fragile uplandnon-irrigated agro-ecological zones, including the rehabilitation of degraded forest areas inthe same target watersheds. While the initial development focus would take place inCimanuk on West Java (map 24776), the proposed project would cover selected criticalwatersheds throughout the country (map 24775).

3.2 Project Objectives and Description. The main project objectives are to raisethe living standards of poor upland farmers by improving and restoring the productivepotential of their resource base, and to enhance watershed environmental quality and protectdownsteam watershed resources. In support of these objectives the project would includethe following components:

(a) Instituional Strengthening to improve R&R program guidelines and policies,overall coordination and operational support;

(b) Development of a critical watershed in a location-specific area on West Java(Upper Cimanuk); and

(c) Investment Support for INPRES Regreening and Reforestation Program.

3.3 The Nationa Insdthuonal Strengthening component would provide support forimprovement of planning, management and natural resource information systems, thecreation of a multi-disciplinary upland research program, and training and extension. TheUpper C*nanuk Watershed Conservadon and Development component would seek tostabilize critical areas in the Upper Cimanuk watershed (West Java) by supporting theintroduction of improved farming systems on 15,750 ha of arable land, combined with soilconservation practices, road upgrading and drainage rehabilitation. The Cimanuk componentwould serve as the initial implementation area for the procedural changes and tethnicalapproaches promoted by the project under the national R&R program. Contingent uponsatisfactory progress in the first two years of the project (para. 3.18), the Bank'scontribution to the Investment Support component would fnance inputs for farm systemimprovements and nursery development for GOI's ongoing R&R program in 39 prioritywatersheds covering 193 Kabupaten across the country.

- 12 -

B. DErAED FEATES

National Institutional Strengthening - (US$22.0 million or 6 percent of total base costs)

3.4 This component would consist of three subcomponents: Information SupportSystem Development and Land Use Planning; Upland Research and TechnologyDevelopment; and Training and Extension Development. The overall responsibility for thiscomponent would lie with the Central Guidance Team (Tim Pengendali) through itsrespective subcommittees or working groups (paras. 1.13; 5.1-2). GOI confmed atnegotiations that a project manager (PIMPRO) had been appointed to facilitate projectmanagement coordination and process budgetary requirements.

3.5 Information Support System (ISS) - (US$9.7 million). The project willassist in the development of an ISS to strengthen the government's capacity to plan andmanage the R&R program. There are two basic kinds of information required: (i) resource-based data to support strategic planning, project preparation, and day-to-day managementoperations, and (ii) reporting and monitoring iLformation for evaluating the progress andeffectiveness of management activities and for steering decisions about program planning.Since the R&R program is natioi d in scope, information systems would be strengthened atthe center, the provincial and district levels.

3.6 The ISS would comprise two subsystems that would be developed andimplemented separately-a Resource Inforinon System ORIS) and a ManagementInformton System (MIS). The RIS would deal with geographic and physical informationabout the status and condition of resources, together with information about the economicand cultural landscapes. The MIS would deal with information about planning, budgeting,monitoring, and evaluation activities. The project would implement the ISS in two phases.The ISS would be developed first in the Cimanuk watershed in a form compatible withrevised procedures at the provincial and central levels, and would during the second half ofthe project be extended to the entire R&R program.

3.7 Land Use Planning. Support would also be provided to strengthen theexisting land use planning procedures utilized by MOFr in the R&R program and to ensurefuller integration of watershed plans into long term regional development plans. The projectwould review the current watershed planning procedures and specifically review the rolesof the various central government agencies such as MOFr, MOA, BAPPENAS, MOHA,MOPW, BPN, as well as those of the local government agencies. It would also examinethe integration and efficiency of the various planning instruments such as the POLA RLKTDAS (macro plan, 25 years), RTL RLKT Sub-DAS (5 years), the RlT's (annual plans) aswell as the local government plans.5/ The revised planning process would seek deeperinvolvement of BAPPEDA and MOA, greater user participation and fuller recognition ofrealistic area development considerations, including marketing prospects. In this review

Si The POLA plan contains directions on land use, rehbiliation and conservation and specifies the ordeain which ech subwatershed is to be included in the R&R pmgram.

- 13 -

process the project would provide hands-on training to improve the capability of staff at alllevels, and complete relevant plans for a number of priority watersheds. By January 1,1996, in time for the Mid-Term-Review (MTR) the various plans, including the POLA,would have been reviewed with time bound recommendations for improvements in technicaland institutional matters. Assurances to this effect were obtained from GOI at negotiations.The review would specifically address the need for the POLA to be used as an integral partof BAPPEDA's regional plan and ensure that the POLAs, RTLs and RTTs are appropriatelyendorsed by respectively the Governor and Bupati so that central and district agencies arecognizant of conservation needs and priorities in their provincial and district developmentplanning and implementation.

3.8 For the improvement and development of the ISS and land use planning, theproject would provide support for technical assistance, training, workshops, data collection,computer equipment and system software and database development. Systems and trainingwould be provided to planning, monitoring, and evaluation staff at the Sub Balai RLKT,Balai RLKT, Kabupaten and provincial BAPPEDA, as well as central level agencies (MOFr,MOA, MOHA and BAPPENAS). The project would also support data collection activities,including acquiring socio-economic baseline data from both treated and untreated watershedareas and information about land use, farming practices, soils, vegetation, topograplly,sediment loads, etc. This information would be collected from sample surveys of farms andfrom other standard sources such as maps, aerial photography, and satellite imagery.Detailed information on the component is given in Annex 3.

3.9 Upland Research and Technology Development - (US$5.3 million). Toimprove the field level investments of the R&R program, particularly with respect tosustainable farming systems, nursery development and soil and moisture conservation, theproject would under the guidance of the Agency for Agricultural Research and Developr,ient(AARD) and the Agency for Forestry Research and Development (AFRD), institutionalizesupport for a decentralized multidisciplinary program of upland research and developmentof improved planting material. As a first step, the project would review the currenttechnology used by the R&R program in the major agro-ecological zones of the 39watersheds, including the availability of quality planting stock, and make recommendationson what technological packages could initially be applied. These recommendations wouldserve as revised but still tentative guidelines to the district governments on the type ofimproved farm treatments which should be applied. The underlying recommendations of theproject would be, however, to promote farming systems that integrate perennial cash cropsand annual food crops and using vetiver grass and other vegetative hedges to stabilize thelands.

3.10 As a priority, the project would also address deficiencies in seed sourceharvesting and handling, plant propagation and nursery practices and development to ensurethat quality fruit and timber tree species with strong local demand would be available tosupport the program. Based on the review of the baseline information of each of thewatersheds and the research capability in each region, the need for a project farming systemresearch program and supporting nursery developir.ent for each of these zones would bedetermined and relevant research programs would be initiated through contracts with localinstitutions and/or national research centers. In addition to the Cimanuk watershed, five

- 14 -

critical regions outside Java would be targeted as a first priority, including North and SouthSumatra, South and Central Sulawesi, West Kalimantan and East Nusa Tenggara.Assurances to this effect were obtained at negotiations. Nursery improvements would beintroduced in the watershed areas by promoting village and private nursery development withtechnical assistance initially provided under the project. The project would also providestudy tours, publications and dissemination in support of the development of new technicalapproaches to soil conservation. The subcomponent would also include technical assistancefor the development of a strategic plan for soil conservation research by AFRD and for theWatershed Management Technology Centers. By MTR a detailed review would be madeof the upland research program with the view to disseminate to the watersheds any of theresults obtained so far, including nursery development (para. 5.8). A detailed descriptionof the subcomponent is given in Annex 4.

3.11 Training and Extension - (US$6.1 million). To more effectively implementGOI's national soil conservation and R&R program the project would provide a trainingprogram focussing on the fields of ISS, land use and participatory planning, improved site-specific production and marketing and conservation technology. The target groups wouldbe mainly local government staff and extension workers as well as technical staff of lineagencies involved in the implementation of the R&R program, including farmers and womengroups. Most training would comprise on the job training and short term courses, includingworkshops and seminars, but overseas visits would also be promoted, particularly inconjunction with the technology development subcomponent. The four ministries involved(MOHA, MOFr, MOA, MOPW) have sufficient training centers in the country toaccommodate the proposed training activities. The subcomponent is further described inAnnex 5.

Upper Cinanuk Watershed Conservation and Development - (US$31.1 million or9 percent of base costs).

3.12 This component would be carried out in the Upper Cimanuk watershed(eastern part of West Java). Administrative boundaries would be used to facilitate localgovernments' participation in project implementation. The component would be carried outin two districts (Garut and Sumedang) and involve 17 Kecamatan in an area of about110,000 ha. Overall responsibility for the component would fall under the district chiefs(Bupati) of Garut and Sumedang (para. 5.4). Four subcomponents would be implemented:(i) Upland Conservation Management; (ii) Roads and Upland Erosion Control; (iii) UplandSupport Services; and (iv) Project Management and Institutional Strengthening. Thecomponent is described in detail in Annex 2.

3.13 Upland Conservation Management - (US$15.9 million). This subcomponentwould be implemented over an area of 15,750 ha and would benefit some 31,500 uplandfanning families. The proposed on-farm treatments would seek to combine soil andmoisture conservation with short-term income generating goals suitable to the small size ofthe average land holdings (under 0.5 ha per farm family). The range of interventions wouldincorporate elements of Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) by encouraging theplanting of leguminous shrubs, grasses (including vetiver), and tree crops along the bundsof existing terraces, or along contours in unterraced lands. These soil stabilization and

- 15 -

moisture retention treatments would complement mixed farming systems of food crops, fruitand timber trees, and estate crops. The introduction of stall-fed small livestock, such assheep, would also be promoted to provide farmers with an incentive to grow grass for soilstabilization and forage. The treatments would be developed jointly by farmers and projectsupport staff in model micro-watersheds of 5-10 ha each, which would serve as local modelsfor farmers in surrounding expansion areas, the activities of which would commence on thethird year of the project. Farmers would be provided with in-kind grants averaging aboutRp 670,000 per ha for the model micro-watersheds, and Rp 430,000 per ha for theexpansion areas.6/ This would be supplemented by farmer's contributions in labor andother costs.

3.14 To ensure the provision of high quality planting materials, as well as todiminish transportation problems and to disseminate technical expertise in horticultural andnursery practices, the project would also support the development of some 75 village-basednurseries, at an average cost of Rp 7.2 million each. All efforts would be made to ensurethat these nurseries, once established, would constitute the major supplier of seedlings to theon-farm treatments and that the seedlings would be purchased by the project at competitivemarket rates based on pre-determined standards. Two larger sized model nurseries (one perKabupaten) would also be established on the third year of the project, with the objective oftesting the suitability of advanced nursery technology (e.g., the use of overhead irrigationand root trainers) to the local conditions. Given the assurances of the State ForestCorporation (Perum Perhutani) that the extent of degraded State Forest Land is presentlysmall, no reforestation activities on forest land are anticipated. However, the extent offorest degradation and encroachment would be reviewed prior to the MTR, and a decisionwould be reached at MTR on whether to initiate reforestation activities in the watershedduring the later part of project implementation.

3.15 Roads and Upland Erosion Control - (US$5.6 million). This subcomponentwould serve the dual purpose of controlling settlement run-off by stabilizing land andmanaging and diverting settlement drainage, and provide better vehicular access to remoteupland villages through the upgrading of village access roads. About 126 kmn of villageaccess roads presently displaying access constraints would be upgraded under the projectwith the objective of facilitating the transportation of farm products and inputs, as well asimprove access to remote upland areas. The project would, in addition, finance some190 km of roadside drainage control and promote road bank stabilization through vegetativetechniques. The roads would be constructed according to guidelines prepared under theproject. The project would provide assistance in maintaining the upgraded roads for aperiod of three years following the initial works, with the objective of developing localcapacity and ensuring community participation in further maintenance activities. It wasagreed at negotiations that the roads would be constructed following project guidelines(para. 6.15), and that evidence of good maintenance after April 1, 1997 would be acondition for further road disbursement under the loan. The project would also supportveg_tative and structural land stabilization treatments as their need became identified during

61 In base costs. This represents a reduction of over 15 percent of the normal INPRES R&R subsidyfor demplots in such areas.

- 16 -

field observations and reflected in the project management's annual plans. Vegetativetreatments (e.g., vetiver grass) would be strongly promoted, but the project would alsosupport, as needed, the financing of such structural treatments as drop structures, gradeddrains, village soakways, and low-cost gully plugs. These structures would, however, bereinforced with appropriate vegetative measures. Standards for land stabilization treatmentswould be developed under TA assistance.

3.16 Upland Support Services - (US$4.3 million). This subcomponent wouldprovide long-term support to land stabilization and soil and moisture conservation treatmentsby improving planning, extension, and technology development in upland farming systems.The services included are: (i) planning, extension and training, involving farmers, villagegroups, agriculture and forestry extension workers and local government officials. Theselinked activities would focus on improving key areas of deficiency in the R&R program withthe express purpose of improving and institutionalizing participatory planning procedures andinteragency coordination at the lower levels; they would also support the dissemination ofinformation on existing credit schemes and marketing channels; (ii) farming system researchwould involve the development of three research plots located in representative agro-ecological zones, and the establishment of small on-farm technology displays of about 0.1 haeach, which would be developed by farmers in each of the 292 model micro-watersheds ata cost of about Rp 300,000 per unit. Farming systems research in the Upper CimanukWatershed would be closely coordinated with the national upland research developmentsubcomponent (para. 3.9); (iii) granting of an estimated 35,000 land tiles (sertifikat tanah hakmilik) designed both as an incentive for farmers to invest in more sustainable farming practices,and as a reward to farmers who successfully adopted soil and moisture conservationtechnologies. This would be the responsibility of BPN and its local (provincial and district)offices; and (iv) a limited number of vilage grants up to a maximum of Rp 40 million per grant,would be attributed to communities demonstrating considerable initiatives in undertaking soilconservation activities. These could be used to finance such schemes as village clean watersupplies, vocational training centers, the development of agri-businesses, and other villageservices. It was agreed at negotiations that the use of village grants would be subject to thesubmission of specific project proposals and in turn would have to be approved by the Bank.

3.17 Project Management and Institutional Strengthening - (US$5.3 million). TheUpper Cimanuk Watershed component would be administered based on existing stucturarrangements at the provincial and district level, with responsibility for implementation fallingunder the Bupati of Garut and Sumedang (para. 5.4). In addition to strengthening the inter-agency coordination in the implem.-ntation of regreening activities, the subcomponent wouldinclude (i) technical assistance (TA) (para. 4.4 and Annex 6); (Hi) special studies, including abaseline information survey, a study on the role of women in upland farming systems, and a landutdlization survey (Annex 2, para. 20). A qualified NGO, linked with suitable local communityorganizations (LCO) would be subcontracted by the project to serve as a facilitator between localgovernment and upland farming communities in the development of participatory planning andimplementation procedures. Their findings and recommendations on this subject would bereviewed at MTR, and incorporated into the ISS and Land Use Planning component. Finally,(iii) an MIS and RIS System would be established in Cimanuk in coordination with, and underthe responsibility of, the National Information Support System subcomponent (paras. 3.5-6).

- 17 -

Investment Support for Regreening and Reforestation - (US$305.2 million or 85 percent oftotal base costs)

3.18 This component would provide some direct support to the ongoing natior.4dINPRES R&R program. The Bank loan would finance some farm inputs for the improvedfarming systems, promoted under the Regreening Program, namely on UPSA, UPM andcommunity nurseries in the 39 critical watersheds (para. 1.12). Bank support would consist ofpromotion of vegetative conservation measures, introduction of improved seeds and agronomicpractices, and ensuring the availability of high quality timber and fruit tree planting material.To ensure the soundness of the on-farm treatments, particularly in the Outer Islands, the uplandresearch and development subcomponent would review the R&R technical guidelines (para. 3.9).It was agreed during negotiations that as condition of disbursement against financing part of theR&R program, satisfactory evidence would be provided to the Bank that: (i) guidelinessatisfactory to the Bank outlining the revised on-farm treatments for the watersheds participatingIn the R&R program would have been distributed to the implementing agencies; (ii) theinstitutional strengthening component (para. 3.4) would be fully operational and that appropriatereviews of key project activities would have been carried out (see below); and (iii) theavailability of appropriate planting material according to established quality standards, as wellas Its timely distribution, would be guaranteed. To improve the efficiency and the long termstrategy of the R&R program, experiences from the key project's activities relating to ISS, landuse and participatory planning, training and extension and research would be reviewed prior tothe MTR with the view to make appropriate institutional adjustments to the R&R program at thecentral, provincial and district level according to an action plan and time table forimplementation satisfactory to the Bank (para. 5.8). This review would take particularly noteof the experiences obtained from the activities carried out by R&R technical committee andsecretariat t the central level, the Cimanuk component and selected watersheds of the R&Rprogram i.e., the five watersheds listed in para. 3.10.

- 18 -

4PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING

A. PRojEr CosTs

4.1 Total project costs are estimated at US$487.8 million (Rp 1,012 billion) witha foreign exchange component of US$32.6 million (Rp 67.5 billion) or 6.7 percent.Estimaed duties and taxes amount to US$14.9 million and total project costs net of taxesare therefore US$472.9 million. Project costs are summarized in Table 4.1 and detailed in

Table 4.1: PROJECr Cosr SummARY

Local Foreign Total % TotalPoreign Ba

ProjectComponet (USS million) Exchange Cost

A. Nao/ ISt*Wbionl S*reagh1. Project Management 0.3 0.6 0.9 64 02. ISS and Land Use Pnning Subcomponent 5.7 4.0 9.7 41 33. Upland Research and Development

Subcomponent 3.9 1.4 5.3 26 14. Training and tension Subcomponent 4.9 1.2 6.1 20 2

Subtotal National Instiutional Strengthening 14.8 7.2 22.0 33 6

B. inves*Men Suppoetfor RereenlAg and 288.8 16.4 305.2 5 85Rforesaton

C. Upper Cmanak WateiWd1. Upland Conservation Management 15.4 0.6 15.9 3 42. Roads and Upland Esion Control 4.5 1.1 5.6 19 23. Upland Support Services 3.6 0.7 4.3 17 14. Project Management st Institutional

Strengthening 3.8 1.4 5.3 27 1

Subtotal Upper Cimanulc Watenhed 27.3 3.8 31.1 12 9

Total Baseline Costs: 330.9 27.4 3583 8 100

Physical Confingencies 16.7 1.4 18.1 8 SPrice Contingencies 107.6 3.8 111.4 3 31

Totll Project Costs 45.2 32.6 487.8 7 136

Note: Numbers may not add up to the total duoe to rounding.

.19 -

Annex 9. Base costs have been calculated with unit prices prevailing as of February 1993,except for farm inputs which have been costed at and-1992 prices. Costs are based onappraisal estimates as well as preparation documents re-evaluated at appraisal. Physicalcontingencies of S percent have been applied to all expenditure accounts except for livestockand land stabilization treatments, for which a contingency of 10 percent has been allowed.Price contingencies are based on expected increases of 5.5 percent per annum for localcurrency costs and 2.8 percent per anuum for foreign exchange costs throughout the projectperiod. Unit prices have been adjusted for the change in exchange rate occurring betweenappraisal and negotiations. Project costs were derived from detailed cost tables preparedindividually for each project activity. These are available in the project files. Total projectcosts include incremental investment and recurrent expenditures incurred by farmers underthe project. It also includes the total costs of the national R&R program from project year3 onwards, as derived from preliminary Repelita VI estimaes.

B. FNANCING

4.2 Ihe proposed Bank loan of US$56.5 million equivalent would finance31.0 percent of the foreign exchange costs and 10.5 percent of the local currency costs ofthe project. This represents 11.6 percent of total project costs, and 12.0 percent of totalcosts exclusive of taxes and duties (US$14.9 million), and reserved procurement of vehicles,fertilizers, and computer equipment (valued at US$3.7 million, net of taxes). The farmerfimilies' contribution would total US$69.0 million, or 14.1 percent of the total project costs.The Government of Indonesia would finance the remaining project costs, estimated atUS$362.3 million, or 74.3 percent of the total. This includes all taxes and duties, reservedprocurement items, project management costs, and most recurrent costs, as well as thetotality of the national R&R program's budgetary allocations for FY96/97 to FY99/00 otherthan the share of investments on UPSA, UPM and nurseries financed through the loan.Farners contribution has been estimated based on expected contributions and incrementalexpenses incurred during the project, and, with the exception of the Cimanuk component,excludes emne'ditures incurred in expansion areas. The loan would be at the Bank's variableinterest raw for a term of 20 years, including 5 years of grace. The financing plan Issummarized below.

Table 4.2: PROJEcr FNANCING PLAN(US$ million)

001 Bank Fam Families Tota

Amount % Amount Amount % Amount %

Forign 22.5 68.9LI 10.1 31.0 - - 32.6 6.7Local (Exci. Taxes) 324.9 73.8 46.4 10.5 69.0 15.7 440.3 90.3Taxes 14.9 100.0 - - - - 14.9 3.1

Total Projed 362.3 74.3 56.5 11.6 69.0 14.1 487. 100.0

& Includes foreign excban shar of vehiclos, computer equipment, and fiiers, which ase consideredreserved procrement, as wel as foreign exchange component of the R&R prograa, incurrd for the mostpl in sutura and stabliahtion tratm.

- 20 -

C. PROCUREMENT

4.3 The share of farm treatments financed by the loan (US$27.2 milion) wouldconsist of planting mateials for on-farm tatments (UPSA and UPM) and plantingmaterials, labor ad small tools and materials for nurseries Initiated under the R&Rprogram, as well as agricultural inputs (e.g., planting materials, livestock, small farm tools,and non-recurrent labor costs) for the Cimanuk watershed component. Farm treatmentsunder the national R&R program would be scattered over 26 provinces and a large numberof selected watersds spread over more than 190 kabupatens. The size of each inputpackge would be too small (on average less than US$20,000) to attract international or localcompetitive bidders. IThey would, therefore, be procured under local procedures acceptableto the Bank, mosty through direct contracts with qualified suppliers, and, when appropriate,local shopping. Villg access roads, roadside drainage and land stbilization treatmentsunder the Cimanuk component (US$7.5 mion), would be carried out, to the extentpossible, by the district Public Works offices and Sub-Balai RLKT Cimanuk, through forceaccount and with te participation of local communities; Other Civil Works (US$0.3milion) comprising mainly small offices and laboratory facilities would involve small localcontat distributed over scaered areas which would not attract foreign bidders. lheseworks would therefore be procured following local competitive bidding procedures (LCB)acceptable to the Bank; Vehicles (US$0.7 mMion) are considered reserved procurement,and would not be financed by the Loan; Equipment, Mateials and Furnire (USS7.5million) would be procured as follows: equipment related to the ISS system (US$2.8milion) would be procured under inernational competitive bidding (ICB) procedures, exceptfor satllite imagery (US$1.0 million) which can only be obtained from either Spot orLIndst and would be procured by direct contracting. Other equipment and furnitre valuedat US$1.3 million wuld be required in small batches by different agencies, and would beprocured under LCB procehr acoptble to the Bank. For small items that cannot beconveniently packaged under LCB In amounts not exceeding US$20,000 per contract andup to an aggregate of US$50,000, local shopping procedures acceptable to the Bank wouldbe used. Procurement of computers (US$2.5 million) and related equipment (printers andplotters), which can only be procured through specific local suppliers under GOI regulations,would fall under renved pro ment and would not be eligible for Loan financing. Atnegotiaions, GOI agred to procure the vehicles and computer equipment required for theproject in accordance with a schedule agreed with the Bank.

4.4 Training, Research and Development of Extension Materis (US$12.3million) would be carried out by direct contractig, or by force account in the case of smalltraining progms. Consultancy Services, including Stadies (US$10.6 million), would beprocured in accordance with the Bank's Guidelines for Use of Consultants. An under-standing was reached with G0 at negodadons that the project's TA requirements would bebrought under three sepate contas, the first regarding the implementation of the ISSsubcomponent, the second including the TA requirements for the research, and training andextension subcomponents of the National Institutional Strengthening, and the third includingall the technical assistance for the Upper Cimanuk component. The latter should includesubcontracting arrangements with a suitable NGO to implement participatory planningprocedures (par 3.17). All relted docments and evaluation reports would be retained bythe imple units for Inspection on a sampling basis by anmual Bank review missions.

- 21 -

Table 4.3: PROCUREMT PLAN(US$ milllon)

ICU LCB O{her N.B.F. Totel

A. Farm TreatmentsUPSA, UPM and Nurseries - - 111.1 - 111.1(R&R program) (24.!)& (24.19

On-farm Treatments (Cimanuk) - - 5.2 - 5.

Other R&R Expenses - - -.1A 255.3 AT3

Fanmers Contribution - - - 69.0 69.0

Total - - 440.627.2)

B. CivU Works and Laud Stabilization TreatmentsRoads, Drainage, and Land - - 7.5 - 7.5

Stabizlizon Structures (4.5) (4.other Civil Works - 0.3 - - 0.3

(0.2) -

Total 7.8(4.7J

C. Vehile LC , 0.7 0.7

D. Equipment and FurnitreComputers L/ - - - 2.5 2.5

Other Equipment 2.8 1.3 1.0 -. 0- .~~~~~~~~~2.1r 0..q (V.8r -DA.

Total 7.5(L8)

E. Trainig, Research and - - 12.3 - 12.3ExtFesion Mateial Dew. Lk (105) - (a05)

F. Technical Asstance andStudies Li - - 10.6 - 10.6

- ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~(9.1) (9.1g. Vlage Grant - - 04 - 0.4

(0.2) (0.2)

H. Support and Seconded Staff Costs - - 1.9 - 1.901.O)/j(1

L. Misedlaneous /k - - - 6.0 6.0

TOTAL 2 1S0. 3 481n) 1n) 7J-0-.3 (75a)

NOTE: Fus in patenthsis are the respecive amounts financed by IBRD. Numbers may not add up dueto roundin.

NBP - Non-Bank inanced.Ia Excludes ferdlizers which is rserve procurement. Assumes that tems will not excoed US$20 000 at

any one time, and will be purchased through Government procedures acb to the RdMosly through force account. Includes aiho vegcative land stab1= %on tr ='mnes.

To be supplied by borrower, because of te nature of erve procurement.Includes peripherals such au printers and plotters, to be supplied by borrower.Por MIS equipment (except computers which are reserved procurement).Por items of more than 20,0 and less than US$200,000 per contract; excludes computer and

LB tems US$20,000 or 'ess per contract procurment would be through local sho ; i1d alsotLie image rourd through direct conta Excludes computers and

Mostly through icontract. Can also use force account trainnmg requiremtents are emallPoment done according to Bank gudeline for the use of consuants.Excludcintes t- * fpld icemtal salaries.

ZiIncludes land titling, project managmet costs, and O&M expenses.

- 22 -

The balance of project costs (US$8.3 million) would consist of (a) village grants for theCimanuk component (US$0.4 million) and staff honoraria (e.g., travel and per diem) andsupport staff costs (US$1.9 million), where eligible expenditures would be reimbursed bythe loan, and (b) miscellaneous expenses (US$6.0 million), consisting of land titling,project management costs, and operation and maintenance expenses, will be financed fromGovernment sources.

4.5 Review of Procurement. GOI would use and conform to the Bank's StandardBidding Documents for the ICB of Goods, Standard Form of Contract for Consultants, andthe proposed Standard Bidding Documents for the LCB for Civil Works and Goods whichwould facilitate the tender and contract preparation by the various agencies involved. Goodsmanufactured in Indonesia may be given a margin of preference of 15 percent according tothe provisions of the Bank's Procurement Guidelines. All tender documents and contractsfor equipment, including satellite imagery, estimated to cost the equivalent of US$200,000or more, as well as consultant and technical assistance contracts, except those for individualconsultants whose contract would cost US$100,000 or less, would be reviewed by the Bank.The prior review by the Bank would cover about 2.9 percent of project procurement. Thisis relatively low as a large percentage of project procurement relates to farm treatments andother R&R program costs not financed by the loan. All other contracts, including SOEsrelated to farm treatments, would be subject to a post-review by the Bank on a sample basis.This review would concentrate, among others, on the competitiveness of prices paid and onphysical inspection of the inputs provided. At negotiations assurances were obtained thatthese procurement arrangements would be followed. The procurement arrangements aresummarized in Table 4.3, and procurement responsibilities for major goods and civil woricsare outlined in Annex 11.

D. DISBURSEmET

4.6 Disbursements of the Bank loan would be made as follows:

Category Amount Disbursement Rate(US$ million)

Civil Works 4.4 60%

Equipment, furniture and 3.6 100% of foreign expenditures, 100%materials (excl. computer of local expenditures (ex-factoryequipment and vehicles) costs), and 65% of local expendi-

tures for other items procured locally

Agricultura inputs (Cimanuk) 2.9 80%

Village Grants (Cimanuk) 0.2 60%

Training 6.9 100% jg of expenditures for NationalComponent, and 70% of expendi-tures for Cimanuk Component

- 23 -

Seconded Staff costs 1.0 60% /b

Research activities, studies and 11.7 100% Laconsultants' services

Planting materials (R&R 7.1 100%Program)

Nursery establishment and 15.9 20% lsmaintenance inputs (R&Rprogram)

Unallocated 2.8

Total 56.S

La Net of taxes.lb Excludmig regular and incremental staff salaries./c Excluding the cost of fertilizers.

4.7 The project would follow the conditions for disbursement outlined underparas. 3.15, 3.18, 5.3 and 6.15. Disbursements against force account works and equipment,furniture and materials (excluding vehicles), contracts costing less than US$200,000 each,staff expenditures, research and development of extension materials costing less thanUS$100,000 equivalent per contract, and training and expenditures on farm treatments andagricultural inputs (excluding fertilizers) would be disbursed against SOE, under such termsand conditions as the Bank shall specify by notice to the Borrower. In the case of roads,drainage and land stabilization treatments under the Cimanuk component, disbursementswould be made against measurable units of outputs (e.g., km of roads) at agreed rates. Ihiswould be included on the SOE statement. Disbursement for all other expenditures wouldbe fully documented. All bidding documents, evaluation reports and related documentswould be retained by the implementing agencies for possible inspection by Bank reviewmissions, including supporting documentation for SOEs which would not be submitted to theBank. The proceeds of the loan are expected to be disbursed over six years, which is lessthan the disbursement profile for agricultural projects in Indonesia (Annex 10). However,the implementing agencies at the central and district level have shown a much improvedimplementation rate of the R&R progratn during Repelita V. Provided that staffing and TAfor the institutional strengthening component can be mobilized promptly, targets should beachieved in the project period. The project completion date would be March 31, 2000 andthe loan closing date would be September 30, 2000.

4.8 In order to expedite disbursements, a Special Account would be opened bythe Ministry of Finance (DG Budget) in Bank Indonesia or a state commercial bankacceptable to the Bank for the purpose of the project. The Special Account would be usedfor eligible foreign and local currency expenditures. The account would be maintained in

- 24 -

US dollars and an initial deposit of US$3.0 million would be made. At the initiative of theGovermnent, replenishment of the Special Account would be made at a monthly basis orwhen the balance reaches 50 percent of the initial deposit, whichever occurs first.

E. Accouwis Am AuDrr

4.9 Separate detailed accounts would be kept by the head of the central GeneralPlanming Operational Assistance of R&R Assistance and Implementation (PUOPR) (para.5.9) and the provincial and district project and program offices, for each budget under theircharge by project and budget year. Project accounts are subject to two audits by: (a) theInspector General of concerned ministries; and (b) the Financial and DevelopmentSupervisory Board (BPKP). The work of both auditors has been generally found satisfactoryon Bank-assisted projects. Accounting procedures currently in use and institutionalcapabilities are adequate to support SOE applications.

4.10 Assurances were obtained at negotiations that the project records and accounts,including the Special Account, would be audited for each fiscal year and furnished to theBank not later than December 31, after the end of such year. Such audit would also containa separate opinion on the SOEs. In addition, all project-related contracts, documents relatedto the SOEs, and orders and receipts, would be kept for at least one year after the Bank hasreceived the audit report for the fiscal year in which the last withdrawal from the loanaccount was made.

4.11 The following understandings with GOI were obtained at negotiations:

(a) the implementing agencies would establish and maintain adequate and separateaccunts from the beginning of project implementation and such accountswould be maintained in accordance with sound and generally acceptedrecognized accounting principles and practices satisfactory to the Bank, so asto enable these agencies to provide annual financial statements to reflect thefinancial performance and status of project components and expenditures ina format in line with the Bank's Guidelines on Financial Reporting andAuditing of Projects Financed by the World Bank for East Asia and thePacific Region and the South Asia Region;

(b) at the Kabupaten level, the PIMPRO would be responsible for maintainingcomplete and accurate records of all project related expenditures financed byall sources of funds, based on which Kabupaten level project financialstatements (KPFS) would be prepared. On semi-annual basis the 'rmPembina at the provincial level would prepare a consolidated provincial levelproject fnancial statement (PPFS) based on the KPFS;

(c) at the central level, the PIMPRO (para. 3.4) would prepare the projectfnancial statements for the National Institutional Strengthening componentand would be responsible for consolidating semi-amnual PPFS into aconsolidated national level project financial statements (NPFS) and submittingthem annually for consolidated audit purposes to the BPKP Central Office;

-25S

(d) the PIMPRO for the National Institutional Strengthening component wouldalso coordinae the SOEs and special account audit with the DirectorateGeneral of Budget and the BPKP Central Office.

- 26 -

5PROJECT ORGANIZATION,

MANAGEMENT AND IMLEMENTATION

A. PMoJECr ORGANTION AND MANAGEMENT

5.1 National Level Organization and Management. The project would use theorganizional arrangements of the national INPRES Regreening and Reforestation Program(paras. 1.12/3; Chart 1), which currently links central policy and budgeting with localizedimplementtion and planning. The highest decision-making body for the project wouldcontnue to be the inter-ministerial Steerig Committee (Tim Pengarah). The SteeirngCommittee, supported by the Guidance Team (Tim Pengendali) and the Secretariat(para. 1.13), would provide direction to project operations, including overall coordinationand monitoring. It would issue implementation guidelines and act as the approving authorityfor budgets of the amual Regreening and Reforestation programs in the priority watersheds,including Upper Cimanuk. It would also be responsible for approval of contracts relatingto the national institutional strengthening component.

5.2 Specific directions for the institutional develoPment component would beprovided by the Secretariat to the Tim Pengendali. The Secretariat would establish fourspecific subcommittees/working groups to assist in the direction and implementation of(i) ISS and Reporting; (ii) Upland Research and Development; (iii) Training and Extension;and (iv) Planning. Within the structure and guidelines established by the Secretariat, thelead role in the technical coordination and supervision of the implementation and operationof ISS and reporting, upland research and technology development, training and extension,and planning would be the responsibility of MOFR/MOHA, AARD/AFRD, MOHA andMOFR, respectively. The subcommittees would be responsible for contracting theseactivities to government agencies and/or universities, consultants, and NGOs, for sitespecific activities. To ensure adequate control and availability of resources for theseactivities, an understanding was reached at negotiations that the control of expenditures forthe institutional Strengthening component (para. 3.4), including technical assistance, wouldbe carried out through the central Guidance Team and the respective subcommittees in theSecretariat (para. 5.9). Responsibility for budgeting processing and reporting would fallunder the PIMPRO appointed for the National Institutional Strengthening component (para.3.4).

5.3 In recognition of the major role that appropriate land use systems, includingsoil conservation, would play in combatting land degradation and of the need to mobilizeagricultural expertise, GOI should expand the representation and input of MOA in the

- 27 -

Regreening and Reforestation Tim Pengendali and Secretariat. The Tim Pengendali, subjectto approval by the Steering Committee, and in conjunction with the DGs of BANGDA,RLR, BAPPENAS and Bureau of Planning of MOA, should identify appropriaterepresentatives of MOA and would review and revise the terms of reference of the chair-persons (MORA, MOA and MOFR) of the Tim Pengendali Secretariat, including the fourworking gro, ps and their leaders, and the PIMPRO of the PUOPR. It was agreed atnegotiations that this review and the submission of the TORs to the Board would be acondition for loan effectiveness. This review, should, apart from the preparation of termsof reference for the working groups, also identify the appropriate key staff for thesesubcommittees. Appropriate members should be identified and appointments made prior toMarch 31, 1994. The subcommittees or working groups at the Secretariat would be headedby appropriate full time representatives of the lead agencies and given adequate support staff,including technical assistance with outside membership as needed, to provide the specificguidance and direction to the institutional strengthening subcomponents. It was also agreedthat the appointment of the appropriate full time seconded staff for the ISS, land useplanning, upland research and nursery development and training and extensionsubcommittees or working groups would be a condition for disbursement of the institutionalstrengthening component.

5.4 Local Organiization and Management. Implementation of the UpperCimanuk and R&R investment support components of the project would be carried outaccording to GOI's existing organizational and management structure and fundingmechanism of the R&R program. While policy guidance and overall coordination would becarried out through Tim Pengendali (Chart I) actual implementation of the R&R watershedprogram in the various districts would be the responsibility of the Bupati for the Regreeningprogram and the Head of the Provincial Forest Service for Reforestation. Each of theseprograms would be carried out by a project manager (PIMPRO) with support from the inter-agency guidance teams (Tim Pembina) at TK 1 (provincial) and Tk II (district) level(Chart 1). In Upper Cimnanuk, the PIMPRO of each Kabupaten nominated by the respectiveBupati, would be assisted by a small project management unit (PMU), which would operatefrom either the Setwilda or the Bappeda Tk II office. The need and effectiveness of thesePMUs would be reviewed at MTR with the view to make organizational adjustments, ifrequired, to Cimanuk and the R&R program. Technical planning, implementation andsupervision of the Regreening program at the field level would be carried out by staff andextension workers from agriculture, forestry, and public works under the overall guidanceof the project manager (PIMPRO), and in consultation with the farmers and local communityorganizations. In Cimanuk, an NGO would be subcontracted by the project to facilitatefarmers and community involvement in planning and implementation. Specific inter-agencyresponsibilities for implementation of the Cimanuk componient are detailed in Annex 2,Appendix 1.

5.5 Through the Upper Cimanuk component the project would initially attemptto strengthen some of the organizational shortcomings of the R&R program (para. 5.8).First, at the provincial and district level, the watershed development plans (POLA RLKTDAS, RTL RLKT Sub-DAS, and RTI) would be fully integrated with the regional plans ofthe BAPPEDA and would also become a reference point for every agency and land user(para. 3.7). Second, following a successfui impiementation of a prototype of the ISS in

- 28 -

Cimanuk, the ISS program would be expanded to a national coverage, the modalities ofwhich, including an action plan for implementation, would be available at MTR. Third,recommendations would also be completed at MTR to improve the effectiveness of extensionin the R&R program both in terms of a wider extension focus (emphasizing sustainabilityof the entire farming system, including the need for adequate support services) and inenhancing inter-agency contributions and accountability. Lastly, the effectiveness of theexisting provincial and district guidance teams and the role of the PIMPRO in the R&Rprogram would be reviewed not only in Cimanuk but also in the five other selectedwatersheds outside Java targeted under the upland research development subcomponent(para. 3.10). This review would focus on the effectiveness of these bodies in providingplanning and technical advice, procurement reviews and monitoring and evaluation.Consideration in this review would be given to the need to transfer any of these functionsto the BAPPEDA (Tk I&II) and Setwilda Tk II (regime secretariat) and whether the lattershould also take on more responsibility in operational control of the Regreening program.Furthermore the role of the Cabang RLKT, presently operating under the central MOFr,should be reviewed and consideration should be given to decentralize their soil and waterconservation functions, including the placement of the forestry extension workers, to thedistrict governments by creating a Dinas Kehutanan at the Kabupaten level.

B. IMPLEmENTATiON ARRANGEMENTs

5.6 Implementation Schedule. The implementation schedule in Annex 7 showsthe key events of project implementation, while Annex 12 gives an indication of theProject's Supervision requirements. The start-up of the institutional strengtheningcomponent would depend on the timeliness of appointment of staff heading thesubcommittees or technical working groups assisting the Tim Pengendali (para. 5.2) and theadditional direction and support from the technical assistance provided under the project(para. 5.10). The actual operation of this component, including the completion of thereviews outlined in para. 3.18, and the realization of satisfactory progress in makingavailable the appropriate technological treatment menus for the various R&R watershedswould be a condition for Bank disbursement against the R&R program (para. 3.18). Withrespect to the timely start of the implementation of the Upper Cimanuk component,PIMPRO's for the districts of Garut and Sumedang would be appointed immediatelyfollowing Loan negotiations, so that the start-up planning, training, staff secondment andappointment of technical assistance can commence promptly. Implementation of thecomponent would follow immediately after the mobilization of the TA and NGO teams.

5.7 Reporting and Review. An annual work program outlining the proposedactivities and budget for the Institutional Strengthening and Upper Cimanuk componentswould be submitted to the Bank by no later than August 15. The MIS developed under theproject would be reviewed and reporting mechanisms updated through to the national level,as well as to the BAPPEDA offices at district and provincial levels. With respect to theannual R&R INPRES program, GOI would submit by August 15 each year, commencingAugust 15, 1995, a consoliated report of all activities to be funded by the R&R annualbudget in each watershed. Annual progress reports would be submitted to the Bank no laterthan June 30 each year and would draw on information generated by the MIS to elaborate

- 29 -

on the constraints and problem solving aspects of the project. Assurances regarding theabove report and review requirements were obtained from GOI at negotiations.

5.8 A MTR would be carried out by about March 31, 1996 to evaluate the projectexperiences obtained, with the view of making the necessary project adjustments as required.Prior to the MTR, individual reviews would have to be carried out, concerning (i) theinstitutional strengthening component (paras. 3.7; 3.10; 3.18); (ii) the Upper Cimanukcomponent (para. 5.5); and (iii) the central guidelines for R&R investrnent activities (para.5.9). At MTR, these reviews would form the basis for an action plan (including a time tablefor implementation satisfactory to the Bank), for making appropriate technology andinstitutional adjustments to the R&R program, as well as Cimanuk. A project completion report (PCR) would be prepared by the ISS working group in the secretariat on the basisof Bank guidelines within six months of the closing date of the Loan. Assurances regardingthe above MTR and PCR requirements were obtained from GOI at negotiations.

5.9 Funding. The R&R INPRES consists of several budgets tied to fieldactivities, training, planning, staffing and management overheads. For implementation, theannual technical plan (RTT, see Annex 3) of each watershed, which has to be consistent withthe POLA RLKT DAS and 5 year plans (RTL RLKT Sub-DAS), is formulated by the sub-Balai RLKT and approved by the relevant regional planning agencies (BAPPEDA). Thisplan, which depends heavily on restrictive guidelines of the Steering Committee, specifiesthe activities and budget requirements and becomes the guide for watershed managementimplementation. Once the R&R funds are committed and authorized at the central level,funds for Regreening are sent in their entirety to the treasury of the district government,and, in the case of Reforestation, to the treasury of the provincial government. Both fundsare held in transit i.e., need no furtier approval. Funds are disbursed by the Directorateof the Budget, Department of Finance, and channelled through the State Treasury Office andgovernment banks. These mechanisms would be retained by the project. However, allfunding for the institutional strengthening component would be channeled through thePUOPR budget, which is directly controlled by the Tim Pengendali. To encourage moreflexibility and ownership in implementation of the R&R program, efforts would be made tomake the central guidelines for project activities, targets and unit costs less standardized bytaking account of the local specificity of watersheds and by having local governmentsallocate more of their own funds to complement budgetary requirements of the R&Rprogram. These issues would be reviewed before January 1, 1996, so that specificrecommendations for their improvement would be introduced by no later than the MTR.

5.10 Technical Assistance and NGOs. Because of the institutional strengtheningorientation of the project and the urgent need to promote more sustainable and replicableproduction systems, emphasizing soil and moisture conservation technologies in the R&Rprogram, considerable local and foreign technical assistance would be required during theinitial phase of project implementation. Annex 6 includes the details of technical assistanceto be supported under the project. The project would provide 253 staff-months ofinternational consultancy and 382 months of national consultancy (excluding the NGOsubcontract and local secondments). For the strengthening of the overall R&R programmajor areas of technical support would be for ISS development and planning, training andupland farming system development and research. The two management contracts for the

- 30 -

National Institutional Strengthening component (para. 4.4) would be managed by the TimPengendali. Within the TA team, overall coordination responsibility would fall under theWatershed Management Adviser as team leader (Anmex 6). Responsibility for themanagement of the Cimanuk TA contract would be attributed to t}he provincial Bappeda onbehalf of the two district govermnents. For the implementation of the Upper Cimanukwatershed additional assistance would be provided in some critical areas such as communitydevelopment and participation, nursery development and watershed planning andmanagement. Draft TORs for the key consultancies are shown in Annex 6 for the NationalInstitutional Strengthening component, and in an accompanying work paper for the Cimanukcomponent. Assurances vere obtained at negotiations that key consultants as listed in Annex6 would be employed by no later than August 31, 1994. Assurances were also obtained that4aalified NGOs and local community organizations (LCOs) would participate in the R&Rprogram implementation to complement the roles of the extension staff, particularly with theview to mobilize upland community participation in planning and facilitate implementing ofappropriate improvements to their farming systems, including soil and moistureconservation. As a start, a qualified NGO in coordination with LCOs would besubcontracted for the Upper Cimanuk watershed to carry out such a role and theirmobilization would be no later than August 31, 1994.

5.11 Environmental Management. A preliminary environmental impactassessment (PIL) for the Upper Cimanuk component has been prepared in accordance withGOI AMDAL requirements and has been processed by the responsible enviromnentcommittee. The conclusion of the PIL is that the project will have no significant adverseenvironmental impacts. The project includes substantial monitoring and evaluation activitieswhich would provide a means for periodically evaluating the limited environmental risks.One of the main environmental concern is to ensure that a linkage is established between theR&R program and the Director General of Nature Conservation and Forest Protection withinMOFr and to a lesser extent with the Ministry of Environment regarding land usemanagement issues. To this effect, a position for an environmentalist specialist will becreated at the Secretariat (see Annex 6).

- 31 -

6PROJECT IMPACT

A. BENFS AND JUSTlFICATION

6.1 Project benefits relate to increased production, productivity and environmentalquality in the upland areas due to an improved retention of soil nutrients; institutionalstrengthening of the public administration at central, provincial, and district levels dealingwith the R&R program; and development opportunities for local participation, employmentand income. Since regreening activities are carried out in private farmland, the project isexpected to have a significant effect on the income of upland farmers. Technologicalimprovements and related investments in human resource development are expected toincrease the quantity and diversity of agriculture and tree crop production, while enhancingkey environmental aspects such as soil and moisture conservation. The project is alsoexpected to have an effect on slowing down the pace of environmental degradation throughan improved fanning system approach, off-farm land treatments and protection and increaseof production of forests. Improved conservation of watersheds is, moreover, expected tohave important off-site benefits in the form of decreased sedimentation and amelioration ofwater quality of rivers and streams, as well as a decrease in the risks associated withflooding and land slides. The global value of soil conservation treatments is believed to besubstantial, as corroborated by past estimates which have placed the costs of soil erosion atabout US$400 million per annum in Java alone.2/

Benefits to Farmers

6.2 A detailed analysis of farm benefits was performed for the Upper CimanukWatershed component of the project.l/ Benefits to farmers are expected to accrue as aresult of the introduction of new perennial crops and related activities (e.g., livestock);savings in fertilizers' run-off as a result of land stabilization treatments; and increase inyields of existing crops due to improved retention of soil nutrients. Off-farm benefits

I/ Magrath and Areas, 1989 'Land and Water Management in Indonesia-Methodologyfor CalculatingCosts to the Economy of Soil Erosion In Java' in 'Indonesia Forest, Land and Water. Issue inSumainabk Development', World Bank Report 7822-IND.

1/ Details on the derivation of financial and economic benefits of the farm models can be found in aprojecA backgrwund paper, 'E,tbnatlon of Financial and Economic Benfts of the Upper CimanukWatershed Development Project'.

- 32 -

include improved training and extension; improved information on local credit and marketingfacilities; the granting of permanent land titling; and general economic benefits resultingfrom improved vehicular access to upland villages, as well as improved drainage control.The on-farm treatments envisaged under the component are expected to beneflt a total of31,500 farm families in the Cimanuk Watershed alone, or an equivalent population of145,000. The improved roads would benefit a population of nearly 120,000. All 146 targetupland villages would benefit through improved participation in local planning activities,extension services, and training. Moreover, the development of 75 village-based nurserieswould improve farmers' control over seedling quality, diminish transportation problems, andencourage free market pricing of perennial planting materials, currently only available inselected locations.

6.3 To assess the project's on-farm benefits, three indicative farm models weredeveloped taking into account the major agro-ecological zones of the Upper CimanukWatershed. These include: (.) a highly sloped vegetable growing area, characterized bylarge nutrient losses (Zone 1); (ii) a medium to high-sloped area with poorly built or noterraces (Zone 2); and (iii) a moderately sloped area with well built terraces (Zone 3).These zones were estimated to comprise, respectively, 13 percent, 40 percent, and47 percent of the areas requiring treatment in the upper watershed. The farm models werebased on average farm sizes of 0.5 ha.2/ Available family labor was estimated at 45person-days per year, with and without the project. All inputs and outputs were costed atfarmgate prices prevalent as of November 1992. Existing farming practices were assessedbased on field observations and extensive consultation with local extension workers anddistrict officials. The new technologies proposed by the project included a combination offruit trees, small estate crops, multipurpose leguminous trees, and grass, as well as stall-fedlivestock. Similar mixed systems have already been introduced in the District of Garut ona pilot basis, and found to be acceptable to farmers. The amount of the in-kind grantsprovided under the project were estimated based on the investment cost of the newinterventions. Farmers were assumed to contribute with labor and all recurrent costs, inaddition to minor investment items readily available on location (e.g., grass slips). Benefitswere assumed to accrue over a period of 30 years. All benefit derived from other projectactivities (e.g., nurseries, research plots, roads and drainage works), as well as off-farmincome for which information was not available, were excluded. The financial analysis ofthe farm models is shown on Annex 8, Appendix 5.

6.4 Benefits of the new treatments were estimated conservatively, and wereassumed to be mostly derived from the incremental production of new crops and activities.In addition, it was assumed that treatments in the highly sloped Zone 1 would reduce currentlevels of fertilizer input by 10 percent. A conservative 10 percent increase in the yields ofexisting crops was also allowed for Zone 2, owing to the effect of soil stabilization inpreviously unterraced land. The estimated financial rate of return (FRR) of the proposedinterventions to farmers in the model micro-watersheds ranged between 33 percent inZone 1, to 18.5 percent in Zone 3. FRRs for expansion area farmers, who are expected to

21 Accordig to late 1980's project preparation data. The average fiam sizes are believed to be currentlysmaller.

- 33 -

receive smaller grants, ranged between 31 percent in Zone 1 to 17 percent in Zone 3(Table 6.1) Returns to family day of labor increased by 48 percent in Zone 2, to 23 percentin Zone 3 with the introduction of the new technologies. Furthermore, returns to labor day(both hired and non-hired) remained in the range of Rp 3,650 to Rp 5,800, well above theprevailing wage rates for hired labor (about Rp 2,500 a day for male labor). The decreasein the planting intensity of annual crops was found to be largely compensated by theproduction of new perennial crops, and incremental benefits accrued only two years afterthe Introduction of the new technologies. Short-term benefits from the introduction of smallruminants are expected to provide an adequate incentive to grow and maintain fodderproducing perennials, while longer-yielding fruit and estate crops mature. Promotion ofcrop varieties and activities that are well known to the area, but which require somewhatlarge investnent costs, are also believed to minimize the risks of non-adoption by thefarmers.

Table 6.1: UpPER CIMANWU WATERSIEDCOMPONENT-FARM FAMILY BENEFITS

AnnualModel FRR NPV RetuJDS to Family-DaY of Labor

(million Rp) (RW)ioWUithout With ChangeProject Project

Model Micro-Watersheds:

Zone 1t 33.0 2.2 40,759 52,110 +27.8Zone 21 28.3 2.7 25,331 37,553 +48.3Zone 312 18.5 0.8 21,103 25,870 +22.6

Expansion Areas:

zone 1 30.6 2.1 40,759 52,110 +27.8Zone 2 26.6 2.6 25,331 37,553 +48.3Zone 3 17.0 0.7 21,103 25,870 +22.6

I Vegetable growing areaS, bily sloped, with substantial soil loss./b Unterraced Or poorly teraced land, medium to high slope./c Teraed upland (to be preserved).PRR - FiDancial rate of return (to the farm family).

6.5 In the Outer Islands, indicative farm models of soil and water conservationtreatments have demonstrated comparative rates of returns to farmers as the models shownabove.1l/ Compared to Java, soil and water conservation treatments in the relativelydrier Outer Islands should result in higher benefits. The poorer soils, on the other hand,tend to restrict the choices of soil conservation technologies able to provide short-termbenefits to farmers. The project would seek to overcome this constraint by promoting the

10/ Contreras-Henmosilla, 1992. 'Indonesia OUter slands-Soil and Water Conservation Models',project background doment.

- 34 -

introduction of mixed systems, rather than monoculture, and develop site-specific farmresearch systems that would take into account profit maximizing goals.

6.6 Since the inputs would be provided in the form of grants, there would be nocost recovery mechanisms. This is consistent with current practices in soil conservation, andjustifiable from a society's point of view, since the positive impact of improved soilconservation practices would transcend the boundaries of the farm. The grants are furtherjustified as an incentive for farmers to offset the short-term losses that they might incur asa result of the shift toward more perennial land uses, and in view of the small size ofaverage land holdings prevailing in the uplands.

6.7 Marketing. The improved farming systems introduced by the project wouldemphasize multicrop systems as a way to minimize the market risks of monoculture. Theproject would also emphasize the use of local crop varieties to reduce marketing problems.The development of village-based nurseries is, moreover, expected to improve farmers'quality control over the quality of perennial crop seedlings, and hence the resulting products,improving marketing pfospects. Marketing of new crops could become a problem in isolatedupland villages, but investments in upland support services, emphasis on improved marketinginformation, improved research on local-specific crop varieties, and removal of accessconstraints (e.g., trough village road upgrading) are expected to overcome these risks. Inthe Upper Cimanuk watershed, the emergence of the area as a prime vegetable supplier tourban centers as far as Jakarta provides an assurance that marketing channels are wellestablished and that transportation of fresh produce will not be a problem.

Economic Analysis

6.8 A full economic analysis was performed for the Upper Cimanuk Watershedcomponent of the project. Economic costs exclude price contingencies, and all taxes andduties. Economic prices for traded farm outputs and inputs (including most annual cropsand fertilizers) were estimated using export and import parity prices, forecasted in real termsthrough 2005, and assumed constant thereafter (Annex 8, Appendix 2). All other farmproducts were valued at their financial (end-1992) prices. A conversion factor of 0.9 wasused for unskilled farm labor. Other labor inputs were valued at their mark-et rate. Thecosts of roads and drainage works were converted to economic values by a weightedconversion factor of 0.91, taking into consideration the standard shares of materials andlabor utilized (Annex 8). A standard conversion factor of 1.0 was used for the domesticcomponent of all other project costs.

6.9 Benefits were derived for the farm treatments proposed (except nurseries) andfor the roads upgrading subcomponent. The net economic benefits of farm treatments werederived from the three 0.5 ha farm models representing the different agro-ecological zonesof the watershed (para. 6.3), and extrapolated over a total area of 15,750 ha according tothe planned phasing of model micro-watersheds (2,190 ha) and expansion areas (13,560 ha).Economic benefits were assumed to accrue over a period of 30 years. The aggregatedeconomic rate of return (ERR) for farm treatments was 35.2 percent (Annex 8, Appendix 6).

- 35 -

6.10 The project proposes upgrading 126 km of village access roads in the UpperCimanuk Watershed. A full economic analysis was performed on a representative sampleof the targeted road stretches, equivalent to all roads upgraded during the first two years ofthe project (33.6 kIn; Annex 8, Box 1 and Appendix 4). The net benefits were thenextrapolated to the totality of the works. The benefits of road upgrading were computedthrough a population model developed under the Indonesia Rural Roads II Project (Ln. 2881-IND), and currently used by Kabupaten Roads officials for links exhibiting access constraintsand low motorized traffic (Annex 8, Box 1). In order to account for differences in qualitybetween village access roads and district links, which are generally fully sealed, the benefitsper km were reduced by a factor of 30 percent. Benefits were assumed to accrue for aperiod of 10 years following the initial investment under conditions of adequate routine andperiodic maintenance. The costs of the latter were included in the analysis. The resultingERR for the subcomponent was 20.8 percent. The use of a population-based method tocompute road benefits tends to underestimate the real benefits of improving vehicular accessto remote and scarcely populated upland villages, since the per capita benefits in this lattercase are expected to be higher than the regional average for rural roads.

6.11 The final economic analysis took into account all subproject costs, includingresearch, technical assistance and training. In addition, all recurrent costs were assumed tocontinue after the project in support of activities developed in the extension areas, as wellas other regreening activities. Allowances were also made for post-project recurrent costsnecessary to maintain structures built through the project (e.g., land stabilization treatmentsand village funds). Recurrent costs were assumed to decrease gradually, attaining 10 percentof the costs in the last project year 15 years after the start of implementation. The resultingERR for the subproject is 17.3 percent, with a net present value (at 10 percent) of Rp 35.5billion (Table 6.2 and Annex 8, Appendix 6). Real benefits are considered to be somewhatunderestimated. For example, the analysis does not take into consideration the benefits ofstructural and vegetative land stabilization treatments, both in-site and downstream. Amongthose are the benefits of watershed management in flood and land slide control, thenormalization of downstream water flows, and water quality improvements with resultingimpact on downstream fisheries and water use activities. The analysis also omits the long-term benefits of training, research, and technical assistance in area development. The ERRof the subproject without research and technical assistance costs is 20.2 .ircent.

Sensitivity Analysis

6.12 The subproject is reasonably robust to changes in either the cost or benefitstream (Table 6.2). A decrease in benefits of 10 percent and an equivalent rise in projectcosts yields an ERR of 12.0, which is above the Indonesian opportunity cost of capital of10 percent. The switching values for cost overrun and benefit shortfall are, respectively,32.4 and 24.5 percent. The analysis is also relatively robust to project delays and decreasesin adoption rates: a one-year delay in on-farm benefit accrual, for example, yields an ERRof 12.9 percent. Ihe subproject remains economically viable (ERR = 12.3) should half ofthe target farmers revert to their traditional practices 5 years after being introduced to theimproved technologies.

- 36 -

Table 6.2: UPPER CIMANUK WATERSHED CoMPONENT-SENSvITIY ANALYSIS

Scenario Rate of Returm NPV(ftp million)

Base Case 17.3 35,460Base Case without TA, Research Costs 20.2 41,97220% Increase in Project Costs 12.5 13,56220% Shortfall in Project Benefits/a 11.5 6,46910% Increase in Costs & 10% Shortfall in Benefits 12.0 10,015One Year Delay in Benefit Accrual /b 12.9 16,89650% of Panners Revert to Traditional

Technologies within 5 Years of Introducdon 12.3 8,194

Swithing value for Cost Overmn: 32.4 percentSwithing value for Benefit Shortfail: 24.5 percent

/a Incretnental Benefits of Farm Interventions and Road Upgrading Wors./b For farm interventions only. Assumes investment costs are incurred during the expected year of

intervention.

6.13 A sensitivity analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of theproposed farm treatments in terms of their financial viability to the farm families (Annex 8,Appendix 3). The farm models (para. 6.3) are relatively robust to changes in either benefitsor costs of the new crops and activities. All zone models remain viable with a 20 percentincrease in implementation costs, but farmers in Zone 3 no longer benefit from the proposedmodel should the price of new outputs fall short by 20 percent, or if yields fell by 20percent in relation to appraisal estimates. It should be considered, however, that t6assumptons used in te models regarding the yield of new crops and activities wereconservative and are likely to underestimate the real benefits.1l/ For example, decreasesin yields without the project as a result of erosion were not taken into account, even thoughtthey are likely to be non-negligible. All ftree models remain viable under a one year delayin benefit accrual, or if a larger loss in the area allocated to annual crops as a result of theintroduction of new farm activities (e.g., through shading) is assumed. Furthermore, themodels remain viable under the unlikely scenario where soil treatments are assumed to haveno positive impact on the yield of existing crops.

.1/ R results form the Wonogin watershed (Ctald Java), suggest inceases in yields as a result of soilconservation treatments of 30 percent for rice and 90 percent for cassava (FAO-CP, 1992, 'indonesia Foreshynstitutions and Conservation Project-Wonogiri Watershed Component, Mid-Term Evaluation).

- 37 -

B. INSmTUIONAL AND ENVIRONMTAL IMPACr

6.14 Institutional Impact. The project would build on existing organizationalstructures both at the central and provincial levels, to address problems of the nationalwatershed management and conservation program. Full time staff in the Tim Pengendaliwould implement an information support system across participating agencies leading toimproved guidelines for implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and decision making.The changes the project aims to make are consistent with on-going practices, but will addconsiderably to accountability and performance by promoting coordination and mobilizationof awareness, as well as participation. At the provincial and district level the project wouldpromote a move towards a stronger ownership on the part of the local government (Bupatiand agencies) by greater devolution of responsibility for conservation and watershedmanagement from the central government, particularly MOFr, to district and provincialauthorities.

6.15 Environmental Impact. The project is strongly oriented towardsenvironmental improvements. Fundamental to this cause is the need for the project tointroduce, through the Regreening program, more appropriate farming systems and farmingpractices and improvements in treatments for off-farm sedimentation control. Accordingly,the development of technologies concerning on- and off-farm land treatments is one of themain thrust of the project. The project is also focussing through the Reforestation programon the protection and rehabilitation of degraded forest areas. Within the target areas,treatment options under the project would be reviewed from different standpoints, includingsilvi-cultural, socio-economic, soil and moisture conservation concerns. The only negativeimpact envisaged on the physical environment could involve the realignment of villagetracks/roads in fragile upland areas under the Cimanuk watershed component (para. 3.15).However safeguards against this risk would be taken by requiring that the road upgradingworks would conform to the environmental standards specified under the Third KabupatenRoads Project (Ln. 3490-IND), i.e., (i) that no roads be built on sections not previouslyopen to four-wheel drive traffic and those providing access to fragile areas as defined on thebasis of REPPROT maps,;2/ (ii) that the upgraded roads not be located in areasproviding access to conservation or state forest land; and (iii) that the road works bedesigned, implemented and maintained in accordance with agreed environmental codes ofpractice. To ensure (iii) above, the project would require the roads engineer, with assistancefrom the soil and water conservation engineer hired under TA assistance, to complete amanual on roads and drainage design and maintenance suitable to the environmentalconditions of the watershed. At negotiations, it was agreed that the completion of this-anual would be a condition for road disbursement (para. 3.15).

6.16 Impact on Women. The project would have a positive impact on women.With current urbanization trends promoting large seasonal out-migrations of male farmlabor, it appears that women participate more than men in the workload of upland farmingareas and are consequently expected to benefit from the proposed improvements in the

12/ These are maps prepared betweea 1982-1988 for Ihe planning of transmigration projects, and usedto define ftagile areas).

- 38 -

farming systems. The project's promotion towards a gradual shift to an increase in perennialcrops is expected to reduce labor for farm cultivation but increase the workload forprocessing, an activity traditionally performed by women. In an attempt to maximize thepositive impact on women, they would be treated as equa! -artners in the development ofsustainable farming systems under the project. Accordingly, women would receive the sametraining as men, and special efforts would be made to ensure that female-headed householdsare not discriminated against in the provision of project services. In the proposed projectimprovements of village needs' assessment and participatory land use planning activities,greater representation of women is envisaged, particularly through the PKK womenorganizations. Concerted efforts would also be made to remove gender specific barriers inproviding a wider role for women in specialized project activities such as village nursery andextension activities, including their training, as well as in promoting the training of morewomen extension workers. The project would also carry out a perspective study in UpperCimanuk to guide the component in ways to enhance the role of women, particularly relatingto marketing, processing and other specific project activities.

6.17 Impact on Indigenous People. Negative impacts on indigenous people arenot envisaged under the project. Since the project is for most part concerned with improvingsoil conservation practices on farmers' private land (under the Regreening program) nodisplacement impact on contested land is envisaged. In the watershed where indigenouspeople are found to exist, the main problem likely to be encountered is the possiblereluctance of indigenous groups to take advantage of the R&R activities, despite equal accessto the program's benefits. The project would protect the interests of indigenous people byensuring that, in watersheds where they live: (a) indigenous people are involved in planningactivities through a process of informed participation; (b) that research on local farningsystems takes into account indigenous people's cultural, economic, and social conditions; and(c) that regular monitoring and evaluation of indigenous people's participation in projecta( ivities takes place through the proje.t. Assurances to this effect were obtained from GOIat negotiations.

C. SuSrAiNABIL AND RISKS

6.18 Sustainablity. The long-term sustainability of the national watershed and soilconservation program will depend to a large extent on the development of productivefarming systems that appeal to upland farmers in providing short-term benefits as well as thecommitment of local government district staff to the R&R program. In view of the largebacklog in degraded areas in need of treatment, the R&R program will need to bemaintained for perhaps 25 years or more. In addition, however, a centrally fundedconservation program should continue to be required due to the public goods nature ofwatershed management and soil conservation, where optimal management cannot be ensuredby private solutions alone. While the central government has supported the R&R programfor some 18 years, future sustainability will also depend on the willingness of localgovernments to complement funding requirements and making upland farming communitiesmore self supporting in some of the program's activities. At the central level the project'ssustainability will depend on some critical support in farming system research and training,their willingness to make changes in their policies and regulations and remove constraints

- 39 -

to the effectiveness of the field level implementation, including organization andmanagement. The mid-term review will further determine the adjustments, if needed, toensure greater sustainability of the program.

6.19 Risks. The main risks facing the project are related to the willingness ofgovernment in making the appropriate institutional and policy changes reflected inChapter S. Another risk is related to the fine tuning of appropriate upland farming systemsto the many diverse ecological and site-specific field conditions, depending on the criticalcombination of farmer's needs and capabilities, research and extension inputs and people'sparticipation. Given the risks associated with the need for strong government commitmentto strengthening the policy and institutional framework of the R&R program, the project hasbeen designed to take a phased approach to the expansion of World Bank investmentsupport. Bank support for R&R program investments would only be disbursed followingan initial period of institutional investment and a successful MTR. The project's institutionaland technical risks would also be reduced by the project's efforts in training and use oftechnical assistance. The risks would be monitored by allocating double the supervision staffweeks during the first 3 years (including more specific support for farming system and soilconservation, planning and ISS development, and environmental control, Annex 12). Theproject could, in addition, be adjusted particularly once the initial experiences of projectimplementation have been taken into account during the mid-term review.

- 40 -

7AGREEME'NTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 At negotiations, the following assurances were obtained from Government:

(a) The POLA, RTL and RTT plans would be reviewed, prior to the MTR, byJanuary 1, 1996, with time bound recommendations for improvement intechnical and institutional matters (para. 3.7);

(b) nursery development and research activities to be started in Cimanuk and thefive provinces outlined in para. 3.10;

(c) village grants would be subject to submissions of specific proposals subject.to approval by the Bank (para. 3.16).

(d) procurement arrangements would be followed as outlined in paras 4.3/5;

(e) independent audits of project accounts, including the audits of SOEs andspecial account, would be submitted to the Bank within nine months of theclosure of each Government fiscal year (para. 4.10);

(f) reporting and review requirements would be as outlined in para. 5.7;

(g) A MTR of the project would be undertaken by March 31, 1996 as outlinedin para. 5.8, with an action plan and time table satisfactory to the Bank formaking appropriate technological and institutional adjustments to the R&Rprogram, including Cimanuk (paras. 3.7; 3.10; 3.17; 3.18; 5.5; 5.8; 5.9);

(h) key consultants would be employed no later than August 31, 1994 and aqualified NGO linked up with LCOs would assist in community participatoryplanning and implementation (para. 5.10);

(i) the protection of interests of indigenous people in watershed developmentwould be ensured as outlined in para. 6.17.

7.2 At negotiations, the following conditions for Loan disbursements were agreed:

(a) financing of inputs for the R&R program would be subject to: (i) institutionalstrengthening component being fully operational and appropriate reviews ofkey project activities having been carried out; and (ii) guidelines satisfactory

- 41 -

to the Bank outlining the revised on-farm treatments for participating R&Rwatersheds having been distributed to implementing agencies, includingensuring the availability of support of appropriate planting materials(para. 3.18);

(b) disbursement against the institutional strengthening component would besubject to appointment of appropriate full time seconded staff to head the keyworking groups (para. 5.3);

(c) preparation of a rood manual and compliance with the manual guidelines fordesign, location, and evidence of good maintenance would be a condition forroad disbursement under the Cimanuk component (paras. 3.15; 6.15).

7.3 The following would be a condition for loan effectiveness:

A review would be made of the TORs and submitted to theBank, of the staff outlined in para. 5.3 with a view tostrengthen the effectiveness of the Tim Pengendali'sSecretariat.

7.4 With the above agreements ane issurances, the project would be suitable fora Bank Loan of US$56.5 million equivalent with a 20-year maturity at the Bank's variablerate, including a grace period of 5 years. The Borrower would be the Republic ofnkdonesia.

- 42- ANNEX X

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMNT ANCONSERVATION PROJECT

WATESHE MANAGEMENT AND REGREENG AND REFORESTATION PROGRAM

1. Watershed Degradation. Upland and marginal areas in Indonesia constitutea large portion of the watersheds, and are estimated at between 15 and 25 million ha.Apart from being subject to intense tropical rains, many of these areas are rapidly degradingdue to serious soil erosion and moisture loss, due to inappropriate land use i.e. shiftingcultivation, deforestation and unsuitable farming systems. Most upland farmers are poor mayalso own or have access to small parcels of lowland rice field, and can broadly becategorized in three groups:

(a) farmers who practice permanent cultivation on restricted areas of land owingto land shortage;

(b) farmers who practice unsustainable shifting cultivation in forested areas; and(c) farmers who practice permanent or extensive forms of cultivation in semi-arid

areas.

It is difficult to estimate the incidence of poverty among upland farmers, as poverty data inIndonesia do not correspond to land use or farming systems; however, it has been estimatedthat some 10-12 million people are engaged in upland farming with incomes below thepoverty line.

2. The unsustainable agricultural use of these uplands is deteriorating each yeardue to the growing population pressures. While this holds true for the outer islands, it maynot be true for Java as the population pressure appears to be tapering off since the 80's, dueto transmigration, urbanization and industrialization processes. While in Java soil erosionis largely caused by inappropriate farming systems which are market driven (e.g., vegetablesproduction on steep slopes), on the outer islands degradation appears to be caused rather bya combination of shifting cultivation, overlogging and inappropriate cultivation practices.Nevertheless, in most watersheds it is also clear that a large amount of erosion is also causedby mass wasting and stream bank erosion, surface erosion from residential areas and fromroads. Therefore, there is not only a need to arrest erosion in upland farmers fields throughimproved cultivation practices and some structural measures, but also by tackling the otherproblem areas, such as road stabilization. A 1987 Bank study 1/ estimated that the costsof soil erosion amounted to approximately US$400 million per year on Java alone. Thisincluded nearly US$330 million in on-site costs related to lost fertility and productivity, and

1/ Magrath and Arems, 1989, 'and and Water Management in Indonesia. Methodology for calclatingcosts to the Economy of Soil Erosion in Java in 'Indonesia: Forst, Land and Water. Issues inSustainable Developme-. World Bank Report, 7822-IND.

- 43- ANNEX 1

about US$65 million in off site cost such as irrigation system and reservoir sedimentationand increased harbor dredging.

3. Current Watershed Management Approaches. Watershed Management hasbeen pursued in Indonesia using a number of mechanisms by several agencies. The mostvisible, costly and ambitious efforts have been externally funded projects aimed at specificriver basins on Java, beginning with the FAO-funded Upper Solo Project in the early 70's.With some variations, these projects (Citanduy River Basin Project (USAID), YogyakartaRural Development Project (IDA), Upland Agricultural and Conservation Project(IBRD/USAID), Kali Korto (Dutch), Wonogiri Watershed Conservation (IBRD), YogyakartaUpland Project (IBRD)) have been built around an approach developed by the Solo projectwhich involves helping farmers to build bench terraces, provision of an agro-technologypackage of seed and fertilizer, reforestation of government land, and construction ofstructural works such as check dams and gully plugs. These projects have been managedby MOFr (RRL) or the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) (DG of regional Development -BANGDA), with the involvement of the Ministries of Agriculture (MOA) and Public Work(MOPW). Provincial and District Governments, particularly the Regional Planning Boards(BAPPEDA) have been closely involved in project implementation.

4. The Program Bantuan Penghiuan dan Reboisasi, Regreening andReforesttion Program are two of the eight Presidential Instruction (INPRES) regional andrural development assistance programs. This national soil and moisture conservationprogram, which dates back to 1976, assists regional government and communities torehabilitate their degraded natural resources. The objective is to concentrate on a numberof critical watersheds to: (a) control erosion and floods; (b) improve land productivity,thereby also improving farmer's income; and (c) increase people's participation in preservingthe natural resources of land, water and forests. As land use outside the forest landspredominantly involves farming activities, the approach of the regreening programcomponent focusses on improving agricultural land use systems. The activities of theRegreening program are carried out at the district (Kabupaten) level and are primarilydireed to private and communal lands, comprising: (i) demonstration plots (UPSA) of soilconservation and improved land use in farmers' fields (the program core activity);(ii) demonstration plots in shifting cultivation areas (UPM, mainly on outer islands);(iii) village nurseries for fruit/timber trees and grasses; (iv) terrace rehabilitation; (v) checkdams, gully plugs and protection of river banks; and vi) social forestry. The demonstrationplots are carried out on a number of farms (demonstration farns, demplots), before the workis extended to surrounding areas, or 'impact areas'. Except for labor, most cost are borneby the Program. The Reforestation program is intended to restore damaged forests as wellas protect and increase their producdvity. It is directed at the provincial level and is carriedout on protected forest lands, consisting of: a. nursery development; and b. tree planting(2,000/tree/ha) and maintenance. The Regreening and Reforestation program is plannedaccording to directions on land use, rehabilitation and conservation prepared by the RLKT(para. 8). Funds that have been committed for Regreening are sent in its entirety to thetreasury of the district governments, while for the Reforestation they are sent to theprovincial governnent. Funds are disbursed by the Directorate of the Budget, Departnentof Finance, and channelled through the State treasury Office and government banks. Datamaintained by the Regreening program do not provide a clear picture of the share ofspending.

-44- ANNEX 1

5. The Regreening and Reforestation program is a multisectoral programinvolving six central government agencies:

Ministry of Home Affairs - Lead AgencyMinistry of Forestry - Planning and MonitoringMinistry of Finance - Financial controlMinistry of Agriculture - Technical supportMinistry of Public Works - Technical supportNational Development Planning Board (BAPPENAS)

At the central level GOI regulates the funding of this program, including planning directionand general management.

6. At the central level the Program is coordinated by a steering committee (TimPengarah) that meets about 3 to 4 times year and comprise: DG Bangda, Dep. V, VI ofBAPPENAS, DG Foodcrops, DG RLR, Secretary of central BIMAS Control Agency, DGbudgeting, DG water Resources, ASS II of State Ministry for Environment. The steeringcommittee is in charge of formulating policy and the prioritization of the watersheds. Theexecutive secretary of the committee is the Chief, Bureau of Spatial Planning andEnvironment (BAPPENAS). The steering committee is assisted by a Central GuidanceTeam (Tim Pengendali), which provides guidance in implementation, monitors the program,reviews the yearly plans and reviews and evaluate reports and use of funds. It meets aboutsix times year,and includes DG BANGDA (coordinator), and Dep. VI Bappenas (dep.coordinator) which function as liaison with steering committee; Director PPLH (DGBANGDA) and chairman, Secretary DG RLR and vice chairman; Sub director BANGDAand secretary; director for planning and Programming; RLR and secretary; and 21 echelon2 members from concerned DG's and the Bank Rakyat Indonesia, Bank Dagang Negara,Bank Export Import Indonesia and the National Land Agency (BPN). The secretariat of thecentral Guidance Team is involved in day-to-day data management, including funding,reporting and planning and meet every two weeks. It is comprised of: Sub directorBANGDA (chairman), Director of Planning and Programming RLR (vice chairman), and31 members of concerned DG's Agencies and Banks. Detailed Terms of Reference havenot been issued for the individual members of the three committees and the depth ofparticipation of individuals and the agencies they represent varies widely.

7. At the provincial level the program is managed by a provincial managementteam (Tim Pembina Tk.I), appointed by the Governor, with the Head of BAPPEDA,Assistant SEKWILDA and Head of the Environment Bureau as vice chairmen. TheReforestation program is implemented by a team appointed by the governor with the Headof the Provincial Forest Service as supervisor. The Regreening program is implementedunder the control of the Bupati at the district level and guided by a district team (TimPembina Tk.I) appointed by the Bupati, with the SEKWILDA or Head of BAPPEDA Tk.IIas chairman. For the Regreening program it is the Bupati who specifies the activities andfunds per village, which form the basis of the village operational plan. This plan isformulated by the LKMD (village development council) and extension workers, and includesthe plans of farmers' group/regreening participants.

- 45 - ANNEX 1

8. While the program has vested major responsibility for project execution withthe provincial and district level local governments, it is the DG RLR (MOFr) that hasassumed the main development role. RLR is responsible for the planning, guidance andcoordination of implementation, extension and monitoring and evaluation of the program,via its nationwide network of offices for soil and water conservation and land rehabilitationco,sisting of Centers, Subcenters Balai, Sub Balai and Cabang (Rehabilitasi lahan dankonservasi Tahan [RLKTI) at provincial, district and watershed level, respectively.

9. The program covers 39 priority watersheds in 26 provinces and in 193kabupaten which have been selected from a total of 81 identified watersheds nationally. Thepriority watersheds, consisting of 104 sub-watersheds, comprise a total area of 63.1 millionha of which about 13 million ha are critically degraded and in need of rehabilitation(Table 1).

Table 1: IDENTIED CRTCAL LANDs ('000 HA)

Islands Areas outside forest Inside forest Total

Sumatera 2,299 1,406 3,705Java+Bali 1,263 98 1,361Nusa Tenggara 1,152 1,025 2,177Kalimantan 1,165 1,789 2,954Sulawesi 965 1,099 2,064Maluku 330 305 635Irian Jaya 96 187 283Total 7,270 5,909 13,179

10. Central funding of the program has increased annually, and over the last fiveyears the annual allocations to local governments has increased from about US$10 millionin 1988/99 to US$52 in 1992/93 (Table 2).

11. While much has been learned through the INPRES Regreening andReforestation program and the numerous donor assisted projects, Indonesia's work in soilconservation shares many of the same problems identified in other countries in the region(Magrath 119931, Magrath and Doolette [19891). Donor assisted projects, such as the KaliKonto project in East Java, and the UACP are the most well documented projects and inmany ways have been the most successful. However, by virtue of its size and coverage, theINPRES program deserves the most attention from GOI and donors. In one year, INPRESfunding of soil conservation exceeds that of the total costs of all donor assisted soilconservation projects now under implementation and the INPRES program reaches acrossthe country to far more Kabupaten than those which are covered by externally assistedefforts. While the INPRES Program accounts for the largest portion of governments soiland water conservation expenditures in support of soil and water conservation, these efforts,

- 46 - ANNEX 1

unfortunately, are not supported by a coherent institutional framework that provides adequatetechnology accountability and management. Progress in these should thus be a first priorityrequirement.

Table 2: INPRES REGREENING AND REFORESTATION 1988-92(US$000)

Fiscal year Soil Conserv. Reforest. Planning & TotalRegreening training support

1988/89 4,000 3,100 2,400 9,5001989/90 3,965 2,938 2,447 9,3501990191 9,461 5,340 4,138 18,9391991/92 23,382 9,457 7,563 40,4021992/93 31,791 11,621 8,698 52,110

TOTL 72.599 32.456 25.246 130.301

12. Technology. An ongoing research program that provides a continuous flowof new technologies and alternatives to policymakers, planners, extension agents and farmersis essential to the success of GOIs efforts to promote soil conservation and upland resourcedevelopment. Currently, a wide range of government agencies, universities and privategroups, such as the Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (AARD), theAgency for Forestry Research and Development (AFRD), the Department of Soils of theBogor Agricultural Institute (IPB), and CARE Indonesia, are conducting research on soil andmoisture conservation technologies. Examples of the research underway include assessmentof vetiver grass hedges for soil conservation, farming systems research studies in East andCentral Java, and numerous erosion trials across the country.

13. This work has, however, had limited impact on the design and implementationof most investment under the INPRES Penghijuan and Reboisasi. Consequently, the bulkof Regreening expenditures goes to support a limited range of high cost technologiesdeveloped nearly twenty years ago for the special conditions of Central Java. Reasons forthis include the small size of the research effort, the dispersion of responsibility for researchacross numerous agencies, a conventional and fragmented approach to conservation research,limited flow of information on implementation experiences (both problems and successes)to policymakers and planners, and the limited availability of skilled researchers andtechnicians.

14. For example, soil conservation research by AFRD is now conducted by fewerthan a dozen professional scientists (including only one PhD.) and is limited to only 10projects with a total annual investment of only about US$125,000. Similarly, whileincreasing emphasis is being placed on a farming systems approach by AARD, most

-47 - ANNEX 1

agricultural research is conducted with a commodity orientation that provides little focus onsoil and moisture conservation. In addition, because information on the impact andsustainability of Regreening investments is not systematically collected or analyzed, thereis little realization on the part of policymakers of the needed or scope for technologicalchange in the conservation program.

15. Accountability. An enormous amount of effort is expended through theRegreening and Reforestation every year in Indonesia. While the system of planning,budgeting and financing is often unclear, it is clear that GOI attaches considerableimportance to conservation and that annual physical targets are regularly met or exceeded.Guidelines for the evaluation of Bupati, for example, include their effectiveness at managingthe implementation of Regreening in their Kabupaten.

16. Unfortunately, while attention and accountability focus on annual physicaltargets, the sustained impact of expenditure is neglected. For example, it appears that olderdemonstration plots have fallen into disrepair because of lack of maintenance and neglect.In using scarce domestic resources GOI needs to identify ways of shifting the burden ofresponsibility from spending money to meet targets to investing for sustained impact.Problems of accountability are compounded by the vague goals and targets of the R&Rprogramn. In addition, to general goals of assisting local government, R&R has the objectiveof dealing with "critical land." However, since there is no single, or scientifically validdefinition of critical land, it is essentially impossible to gauge progress and thus no agencyor individuals can be held accountable for results.

17. Management. Local government, with technical and fiancial assistance fromthe central government, is responsible for implementation of Regreening and Reforestation.In previous and ongoing Bank conservation projects, and those financed by other donors,a range of organizational arrangements have been tried to link R&R efforts by localgovernment to lead agencies at the central level. The various technical plans prepared byforestry personnel are, in the process of budget formulation and approval, jointly reviewedand, at least in theory, reconciled to prevent overiap and to ensure smooth implementation.In principle, this system should be able to take into account local needs and preferences andthe judgement of technically trained professionals. In reality, constraints on BAPPEDA staffand limited availability of technical skills in local government, results in only cursory reviewof the technical proposals and only marginal ownership of the plans by the agencies intendedto implement. Moreover, in donor assisted projects, the designation of a lead agency at thecentral level has appeared to dilute local responsibility and, in addition, to have createdjealousy and competition among agencies at the central level.

18. At the central level, a capacity to monitor and continuously assess progressand problems in Regreening has yet to be developed. The capacity is there to monitorexpenditure and targets, and special studies are from time to time commissioned to attemptto assess the program (para. 2.7). But, even these ad hoc studies are severely constrainedbecause data are not regularly collected in a form that can identify the actions thatpolicymakers need to take. In terms of day to day management, there is currently no singledata base that can supply decisiomnakers with a consolidated picture of physical andfinancial progress in implementation and which reveals the different problems and successesbeing experienced in different Kabupaten.

- 48 - ANNEX 2

IDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ANDCONSERVATION PROJECT

UPP CIMANUK WATERSmD COMPONENT

1. Implementation Arrangements. The institutional responsibilities for thecomponent are shown schematically in Appendix 1. The Bupati of Garut and Sumedang,assisted by an appointed project manager (PIMPRO), and representatives of district-levelagencies coordinated by the Tim Pembina II, would be responsible for implementation ofthe component. Exceptions to this would be land titling, implemented by BPN at theprovincial and district levels, MIS and RIS, which would be implemented by the respectivesubcommittee at the central level (para. 5.2) and technical assistance, special studies, andNGO contracts, which would be managed by Bappeda TK.I (West Java) on behalf of thetwo Kabupaten (para. 5.10). The scope of project activities planned for each Kabupatenis shown in Appendix 2, and the overall phasing of on- and off-farm interventions isdisplayed in Appendix 3.

2. Selection of Target Villages. The 146 target upland villages would beselected according to the following criteria:

(a) the village land must be located within one or more of the priority agro-ecological zones (areas A, U, and Ut in Appendix 4), have visible landstabilization and soil erosion problems, and be primarily engaged infarming;

(b) the villages should be representative of the respective subdistricts in termsof socio-economic characteristics, land use patterns, and degree of soi!degradation;

(c) consultations on village-level action plans must have taken place with formaland informnal village groups, including farmers' groups and women farmers,to determine the existence of potentially negative environmental and/orsocial impacts, as well as overall willingness to participate in the project.

3. Key Farmer Displays in Model Micro-Watersheds. Key farmer displayplots would be initiated in approximately 292 representative model micro-watersheds(micro-DAS) of 5-10 ha each, at a rate of two micro-DAS per target village phased in overa period of two years. The improved farming system technologies would be developedjointly by farmers and project facilitators. Alternatively, the project could help keyfarmers develop their own plans for micro-watershed management after exposing them tocross visits and study tours to areas where improved farming techtn %gies have beenimplemented successfully. Farmers in model micro-DAS would receive in-kind grantsaveraging about Rp 670,000 per ha, but would be expected to contribute with labor, a

- 49 - ANNEX 2

share of the inputs and recurrent costs. The precise composition of the grant would bedetermined on a case-by-case basis, depending on local demand, the size of the farms, thetype of land tenure. and general socio-economic conditions. Typically, the grant wouldconsist of a mixture of grass and leguminous tree seeds/seedlings, estate and/or tree cropseedlings (includi'ig fruit trees), fertilizers, and/or small ruminant livestock. The projectwould also promote the establishment of revolving funds for livestock, wherebybeneficiaries would be required to provide an offspring for each adult head received underthe grant to a local farmers' group. The revolving funds could subsequently be used toprovide inputs for the expansion areas. The recommended on-farm treatments are asfollows:

(a) Cool Moist Mountain Areas, of deep loam soils, steeply sloped andprimarily used for vegetable cultivation (Area A in Appendix 4):contouring with vetiver and/or other grass, vegetable bed alignment, andridging for maximum drainage;

(b) Unterraced or Poorly Terraced Upland Areas, usually of more than 40percent slope, and currently used for extensive multiple cropping of annuals(Area Ut in Appendix 4): for unterraced land, the recommended treatmentwould be alternating contour hedgerows of vetiver and/or forage grass, andmultipurpose leguminous shrubs, with perennial crops (e.g. fruit and/orestate crops) planted among annuals or among the leguminous shrubhedgerows. This could be associated with stall-fed livestock units (e.g.sheep, goats).

(c) Terraced Uplands/Mxed Gardens, usually with slopes of less than 40percent (Area U in Appendix 4): reinforcement of terraces with vetiverand/or other grass on the terrace riser lips and multipurpose legumninousshrubs on the riser base, with perennial estate/fruit trees planted alongterrace risers, in alternate inter-row spaces, and/or steeper slopes.

4. Additional treatments could include the introduction of improved varietiesof annual crops, as well as mulching and composting. The project could also contemplatesupporting the development of such activities as agro-processing and small-scale fish pondproduction as part of integrated management systems at the micro-watershed level.

5. Expansion Areas. Activities in the expansion areas would be started on thethird year of the project, based on the treatments initiated in the model micro-DAS. It isexpected that a 60-ha expansion area be established around each model micro-DAS overa period of two years, for a total expansion area of 13,560 ha. Farmers in these areaswould be provided with reduced in-kind grants averaging about Rp 430,000 per ha. Inaddition to extension workers, key farmers would be used to expand the improvedtreatments developed in model micro-DAS to expansion and impact areas.

6. Nurseries. The project would finance the establishment of village-basednurseries in about 75 target villages. The nurseries would produce a mixture of covercrops, grasses, leguminous shrub seedlings, tree and estate crop seedlings, and high-yield

- 50 - ANNEX 2

food crop seeds, depending on local conditions and demand. The nurseries would bemanaged either privately or by village groups, and preferably by women. It is anticipatedthat during the initial two years, the project would need to procure certified seedlings fromexisting commercial nurseries for the on-farm treatments. The viability of the newnurseries would be ensured, however, by the provision of quality propagation materialsfrom recognized sources, the establishment of mother trees, and the requirement that, onceestablished, these nurseries become the principal providers of seedlings to the project atcompetitive market prices. The project would cover the initial investment costs ofestablishing the nurseries. In addition, to account for initial losses, the project wouldprovide a reduced in-kind grant in the second year of establishment, in the form ofreplacement planting materials. Farmers would be required to contribute with land, laborand all recurrent costs. Access to a reliable, year-round source of water would be aprecondition for nursery establishment. The costs to the project of installing the nurseriesare estimated at Rp 7.2 million per unit.

7. In project year (PY) 3, the project would also finance the establishment oftwo larger nurseries of 20,000 seedlings average capacity (one per Kabupaten), where theviability of advanced nursery technology such as overhead irrigation, the use of shadenetting, root trainers, and organic pot mixture can be tested. The project would pay thefull costs of establishing and running these nurseries during the remainder of the projectlife, after which they would be sold to suitable private operators. The establishment costof these nurseries is estimated at approximately Rp 150 million each. The installation ofproject nurseries would be closely supervised by a nursery specialist and by six nurseryextension workers contracted by the project.

8. Vldlage Access Roads and Roadside Drainage. The project would financeapproximately 126 km of village access road upgrading. The basic road design proposedis a subbase (Telford) road with 3.5 m width and 1.0 m shoulder, with asphalt penetrationand base of 7.5 cm reserved for the steeper areas of slopes higher than 12 percent.Asphalting is expected to be necessary in 27 percent of the road links. The estimated costis Rp 20.9 million per km for telford and Rp 51.5 million per km for asphalted links,including the costs of roadside vegetative protection. The unit costs are outlined inAppendix 5. In addition to the initial works, the project would pay inc'emental annualroutine maintenance expenditures for a period of three years (estimated at Rp 1.9 millionper km per annum), and, in the third year, a full periodic maintenance (at Rp 8.7 millionper kIn). The project would involve local beneficiary communities as much as possiblein road construction and maintenance works. To this end, cost sharing agreements withbeneficiary villages should be developed for road maintenance.

9. All road upgrading works would be complemented by roadside drainagecontrol. The proposed structures are unlined canals of 0.5 m bed width, 0.7 m top, and0.5 m depth in combination with masonry works for drop structures and linings at highlyeroded locations. Masonry works should be required in 30 percent of the drains.Drainage work requirements are estimated at 1.5 times the length of the road works, or188 km in total, at an expected cost of Rp 10.3 million per kn. Road and drainage workswould be procured, to the extent possible, through force account, by district level Public

-51- ANNEX 2

Works Offices and involve the hiring of unskilled workers from local beneficiarycommunities.

10. In order to be considered for fmancing, village access roads and roadsidedrainage would have to meet the following conditions:

(a) be consistent with the guidelines on design, construction, and locationdeveloped by the soil and water conservation and roads engineers hiredunder TA assistance (para. 6.15). In addition, all proposed roads anddrainage works would need to be approved by the project management units(PMUs) as part of the annual project work plans;

(b) the upgrading works must be based on existing original links, and not beconsidered for fnancing under any other program (e.g. Kabupaten roadsprogram).

(c) the road must constitute the only access to an upland village communitywithin the project area, serve more than 2,000 people, be over 1 kn inlength, and connect to an all-season road.

(d) the road and drainage works must obey the environmental requirementsspecified on para. 6.15.

(e) the road upgrading works must be justified in economic terms.

(f) public consultation must be held with the beneficiary communities to agreeon the design, location and extent of the works.

11. Land Stabilization Treatments. Land stabilization treatments wouldcontrol erosion and sedimentation at source, caused by sediment runoff, gully formation,and land instability. These treatments would be financed through lump sums equivalentto Rp 33.8 million per target village, as their need became identified during field surveysand through conmmnity consultation. Vegetative measures of land stabilization (e.g. theuse of vetiver grass) would be strongly encouraged over structural works. The latter,however, would be considered for financing if sufficient justification can be found withrespect to anticipated benefits and maintenance capacity. Structural treatments couldinclude: (a) graded drains and drop strctres; (b) low-cost gully plugs; (c) earthen pitsoakways filled with boulder and filter materials; (d) above-ground water containers forexcess run-off control; (e) settlement control drains made of unlined trapezoidal channelsand limited masonry lining; and (t) gabion-type streambank stabilization structures.Standards for these treatments would be developed under TA assistance.

12. Similarly to the roads and roadside drainage works, land stabilizationteamnts would require prior approval by the PMUs. The proposed treatments would,to the extent possible, be incorporated into local micro-DAS management plans, and beimplemented through force account with the participation of beneficiary communities.

-52 - ANNEX 2

Land stabilization treatments would be closely monitored by the soil and waterconservation engineer hired under TA assistance.

13. Extension. The current number of extension workers operating in theproject area, 109 agriculture extension workers (PPL),l/ and 60 forestry extensionworkers (PKL), is considered sufficient for project implementation, provided someworkers can be reallocated from their present assignments in irrigated lowlands. All PPLand PKL operating under the project would be provided with incentive paymentsequivalent to Rp 150,000 per month. A total of 48 field motorcycles would also beprocured by the project and distributed to PPL based on need and on past performance,with the objective to improve productivity and visitation rates to isolated uplandcommunities. In addition, six full-time nursery extension workers would be hired for theduration of the project period. The hiring of incremental extension staff could moreoverbe contemplated during project implementation if found to be justified.

14. Trining. Training in MIS and RIS would be arranged through the ISSsubcomponent at the national level. Participatory planning training would be theresponsibility of the NGO subcontracted under technical assistance (para. 5.10). Fundsfor all other training activities would be channeled directly to the two Kabupaten andsubcontracted to qualified institutions. It is expected that, for the most part, training willbe provided by the agricultural in-service training centers of Cihea and Kayuambon, theCilampuyang training center of MOFr, and the regional training center of Public Worksin Bandung. With the exception of farmer and village-level training, training activities areenvisaged to take place during the first four years of the project at a target trainee phasingof 25, 40, 25, and 10 percent, respectively, in PYI through PY4. In addition to trainingtargeted to the project's objectives, the project would also allocate a umpsum equivalentof about Rp 565,000 per target village for taining and information dissemination in creditand marketng. This training would be subcontracted to a local NGO.

1S. Planning. Participatory planning would be assisted by a qualified NGOsubcontracted by the project to serve as a facilitator between farmers and the localgovernment (paras. 3.17, 5.10). Participatory planning would be initiated at the lowestvillage level (dusun) through a consultative process that would result in the preparation ofimplementation plans documenting the major physical features of the target area, theparticipating farmers, the proposed work plans, and budgets. These implementation planswould be integrated into village-level and Kecamatan-level implementation plans to formthe basis of the annual work plans prepared at the district level. The selected NGO, incollaboradon with the project socio-economist, would be responsible for ensuring thatproper consulation of beneficiari takes place on a continuous basis, and that poverty-alleviation concerns are taken into consideration in the selection of farmers' and farmers'grups.

1/ Includes PPL working in estate crops, food crops, and livestock, but excludes those working onfisheries.

- 53 - ANNEX 2

16. Research. Sustainable upland farming systems (SUFS) research would beundertaken at two levels: (i) in small farmer-developed technology displays located ineach model micro-DAS; and (ii) in three 2-ha research sites developed in each of the majoragro-ecological zones (para. 3.16). While the former would be developed concomitantlyto the model micro-DAS and be implemented through the PMUs, the latter would becoordinated with the Upland Research and Development subcommittee at the national level(para. 3.9). SUFS iesearch in the Upper Cimanuk Watershed might include: (a) thetesting of highly profitable, low-cost soil conservation technologies; (b) testing of localvarieties of species for hedgerows; (c) the testing of non-odoriferous varieties of Vetivergrass; (d) commodity tree intercropping, including contour intercropping of commercial-value varieties with soil conservation crops; (e) uses of mulches and composting;(f) development of optimal agroforestry cultivation patterns in terms of density, spacing,shade density, and husbandry; and (g) development of under-storey crops suitable to begrown underneath tree canopies. All funds for research would be channeled directly tothe Kabupatens and subcontracted as needed to qualified research institutions.

17. Land Ttling. Permanent land titling ("sertifikat tanah hak milik") wouldbe granted to approximately 35,000 farmers in the project area, as a reward for theadoption of the improved soil and water conservation technologies. In order to facilitateland surveying and certification, control point and land parcel mapping would be initiatedin large block areas identified by the PMUs as including adjacent plots of farmers whoagree to participate in the project. The issuance of the certificate could then beconditioned to verification of compliance with the adoption of the improved technologies.This approach would avoid surveying of scattered land plots and associated delays inprocessing the titles. Implementation of the land titling subcomponent would be theresponsibility of BPN at the provincial and district levels, and funds would be channeleddirectly to the provincial office. The project would provide, in addition to surveying andmapping costs, for incremental equipment, vehicles, and incremental operational costs, ata total cost of Rp 71,500 per certified parcel. Land titling would be implemented throughforce account and/or external contracting. The expected phasing of land titles is shownon Appendix 3.

18. Village Grants. Village grants would be attributed to communities whichhave demonstrated considerable initiative in adopting soil and water conservationtreatments. The grants would be given in support of: (a) basic needs programs such asclean water, health clinics, or rural electrification schemes; (b) agriculture-based incomegenerating goals, in both production and processing (e.g., development of home industries,provision of field tractors); (c) and provision of technical training and informationdissemination (e.g., through support of village libraries, and vocation and technologycenters). The grants would complement village contributions ('swadaya'), and bechanneled to village funds through the district level Rural Development Agency(BANGDES). The project proposals qualifying for the grants would have to be approvedby the PMUs and by the Bank, based on criteria of merit, long-term benefits, and need(para. 3.16).

19. Technical Assistance. Technical assistance for the component would beincluded under a single consultant contract, with subcontracting arrangements extended to

- 54 - ANNEX 2

a qualified NGO (paras. 3.17; 5.10). The TA contract would be managed by BAPPEDATlk. I (West Java), on behalf of the two district governments. The TA team would behoused at the district level, and preferably in Garut, with responsibilities to assist bothdistrict goverrnents as needed. Consultancy requirements are detailed in Annex 6,Appendix 1. Terms of reference for the major consultancies (including the NGO) areoutlined in an accompanying paper.2/

20. Special Studies. The project would finance a baseline information and aland use survey covering the priority areas of the Upper Cimanuk watershed. Thesesurveys would yield information on the number of farmers, on- and off-farm activities,seasonal farning practices, labor mobility, marketing and processing prospects, existingforms of land utilization, and the extent of human pressure on fragile uplands, namely onState Forest land. In addition, the project would commission a study on the role ofwomen in upland agriculture, aimed at envisaging strategies to enhance women farmers'participation in project implementation. These studies are expected to be completed byJune 1994. Finally, a limited amount of funds would be available for post-projectactivities, feasibility studies, or any other studies found to be necessary duringimplementation. Similarly to the TA, contracting for the special studies would be managedby BAPPEDA Tk. I. Terms of reference for the studies are outlined in an accompanyingpaper._/

21. Funding Mechanisms. Funding channels would follow usual INPRESprocedures. The components' annual plans would be prepared based on the POLA, theRegional Pelita, the POLA RLKT DAS, the RTL RLKT Sub-DAS, the RTT, and thevillage level implementation plans incorported at the Kabupaten level. The annual workplans would be prepared by the PIMPRO at each Kabupaten, with assistance from otherDinas representatives under coordination of Bappeda Tk.II, and presented to the Bupati forapproval. It would then be sent to BAPPEDA Tk. I, discussed with representatives of theSub Balai RLKT Cimanuk and other agencies at the provincial level, and incorporated intothe Regreening INPRES proposed budget for West Java. The proposal would be providedto DG Bangda, DG RRL, BAPPENAS, and DG Budget, and discussed jointly between theSecretariat of the Tim Pengendali and local-level agencies for incorporation into theapproved budget for R&R implementation activities (SPABP).a/ The proposed workplan would also include provisions for land titling prepared by BPN at the district andprovincial levels. The annual work plan would need to be submitted to the Bank forapproval by August 15 each year (para. 5.7). The SPABP would subsequently bepresented to the Governor of West Java for incorporation into the regional budget (APBD)of each Kabupaten. The approved budget would trigger the release of funds from the localtreasury (KPKN) to the PIMPRO at each Kabupaten. Financial auditing would follow theguidelines specified in paras. 4.10-11. The estimated cost of the component can be foundin Annex 9. Detailed cost tables, including allocations of expenditures by implementingagency, can be found in the Project Files.

I -Indonesia NxationalWatershed ManagementandConservationProjea-UpperCimanukWatershed,Tecnical Assiitance Requirementsw, Septemer 1993.

I/ SPABP - Appoval for Project expenditures budget.

-55- ANNEX 2Appendix 1

ALLOCATION OF REsPoNsLTEs FOR IMPLEN NTATIONUPPER CIMANU WATERSUED COMPONENT

Acvities Implementing Agency Assisting Ageocs

Model Micro-DAS Implementation Kabupaten-level Dinas, CabangRLKT, SBRLKT Cianauk,Kecamatan governments

Expansion Areas Inplementation

Village Nurseies Implementation

Road and Drainage Upgrading Bupati Garut and Bupati Sumedang,Implementation through PMUs and appointed

PIMPROs

Structual and Vegetative Land Kabupaten-level Dinas, CabangStabilization Tratments RLKT, SBRLKT Cimanuk,Implementation Kecamatan goverments, Cinanuk

River Basin Project

Planning and Extension Village organizations, KecamatanImplamentation governments, NGO (as facilitator)

Taining Implementation Kabupaten-level Dinas, Cabang!- ___________________ RLKT, SBRLKT Cimanuk

Village Funds Implementation BANGDES

Farmers' Technology Displays (on Kabupaten-level Dinas, Cabangmodel micro-DAS) and SUPS RLKT, SBRLKT Cimanuk,Research Implementation Kecamatan governments, contracted

Research Agencies

SUPS Research, Coordination and AARDIAFPRD, through research PMUs Garut and SumedangGuidance subcomponent

TA, Special Studies, NGO Contract Bappeda Tk. I on behalf of the two PMUs Garut and SumedangManagement La Kabupaten

MISIRIS Implementation MOFr, on behalf of fte two PMUs Garut and SumedangKabupaten, through ISSsubcomponent

Training, Coordination and Guidance MOHA, on behalf of the two PMUs Garut and SumendangKabupaten, through training andextension subcomponent

Land Titling Implementation BPN Tk. I and Tk. II PMUs Garut and Sumedang

Technical Planning SBRLKT Cimanuk, Cabang RLKT PMUs Garut and Sumedang

Coordination of Spatial Planning and Tim Pembina Tk. I and Tk. nGneaml Guidance (Bappeda)

Operational Control and Supervision Setwilda Tk. H

/a Including NGO subcontract for participatory planning and for marketing and credit information dissemination.

- 56 - ANNEX 2Appendix 2

EXPECTED DISTRIBuTIoN OF PRoJEcT AcTivTuSUPPER CIMANU WATERSED COMPONENT

Project Activity PMU Garut PMU Sumedang __Total

Participating Villages 103 43 146

Model Micro-DAS (ha) 1,546 645 2,191

Expansion Areas (ha) 9,570 3,990 13,560

ViUage-Based Nurseries 52 23 75

Kabupaten Nurseries 1 1 2

Vilage Akcess Road 88.6 37 125.6bIprovement (kn)

Roadside Dnaage (in) 132.9 55.5 188.4

Land Stabilization Treatments 4,710 1,974 6,684(Million Rp) la

Land Titles (no.) 24,675 10,325 35,000

On-Farm Technology Displays 206 86 292(in model nico-)AS)

SUFS Research Dependent on optimal location of agroecological zones

Village Funds (Million Rp) La 591 248 839

Inrementa Nursery Extension 4 2 6Workers

Existing Extension Workers 131 38 169(PPLIPKL) I,I

/a Including physical and price contingencies.

Estimated Phasing of Project Activities - Upper Cimanuk Watershed Component

PROJErCT COVERAGE PROJEC YEAR TOTAL

1 2 3 4 S 6

On-Farm Trcatments:1Participating Desa U 8 9 51 51 27 _ 146Model Micro-DAS:

Frstand SecondYearDesaModel Micro-DAS21 8 9 17 - 34TWird Year Desa Model Micro-DAS - - 51 S1 - - 102Fourth Ycar Desa Model Mcro-DAS - - - 51 51 - 102FikthYearDesaModelMkcro-DAS - - - - 27 27 54

Total Model Micro-DAS 8 9 68 102 78 27 292Total Area of Model Micro-DAS(in ha) 3/ 60 68 510 765 585 203 2.191

Expansion AreasExpansion of Frstand Socond Year Micro-DAS (ha) 4/ - - 510 510 - _ 10i20Expansio of Third Year Micro-DAS (ha) - - - 2.040 2,040 - 4,080Expansion of Fourth Year Micro-DAS - - - - 31060 3060 6,120Expansion of Fifth Year Micro-DAS - - - - - 2,340 2,340

Total Exansion Area (ha) - - 510 2,550 5,100 5,400 13,560Total Micro-DAS in Expansion Areas - - 68 340 680 720 11808Total Area Covered (n ha) 60 68 1020 3315 5685 5603 15,751 u

Village-BasedNurseries5/ 4 5 26 26 14 - 75Kabupaten-Level Nurseries - - 2 - - - 2

Off-FPM c1ratm.em3Vik3ge Access Road Improrement (in Kin) - 33.6 31 31 30 - . 12886Roadside lnMage (m K)(e - SOA 46.5 46 5 4S _ 1884Vegetative and Strutural llreatments (milion Rp.) 7/ 321 379 2,258 2,373 685 668 6,684

Other Activities:Imnd Tztles 8/ - 134 151 2,260 7,60 25,095 3 9.000Village Fnuds (Million RpL) 7/ - - 91 284 298 166 839On-Farm Technolog Displays 8 9 68 102 78 27 292Research Plots - - 3 - - - 3

1 - Assumes 103 desa in Garut and 43 desa in Sumedang. One desa per Kabupaten would be targetted in the first and second project year.2t - Assumes that, in each desa, one model micro-DAS is stated every year for a period of two years (i.e. two model micro-DAS per desa). I

TIe second model micro-DAS for PY1 and PY2 desa is a5sumed to start on PY3.3/ - Each model micro-DAS is assumed to be 5- 10 ha, or 7.5 ha on average.4 - Assumes that, from PY 3 on, 30 ha expansion areas are establshd per year around each model micro-DAS after one year, followed by another t

30 ha expansion area in the folowing year (for a total of 60 ha expansion area per model micro-DAS).51- Yte first 9 nurseries are asnumed to become operational between PY I and PY2,sewving on-farm interventiots from PY 3 onwards.61- At 1.5 times the length of the villagc access roads.7/ - locluduin physkil and price contingencies.8/ - Phasing shown pertains to the issuance of the certifcates. Surveying and land parcel mapping would commence at the same time as on-farm treatments.

Upper Cimanuk Watershed: Priority Treatment Kecamatan and Existing Land Use Patterns

Kab. Priority Area I Population No. of No. Farmer Farmland Avg LAW Land Within Land Outside Land Use PatternsKecamatan (ha) 1967 Desa Houscholds (ha) Ownership per State Forest State Forest

Farm House, B U Ut A Af B F

Garut:Bayongbong 7,054 80,986 22 14,115 4,848 0.32 1,505 8,069 724 1,166 715 169 470 0 875BLWmbangan 7,521 51,615 14 7,983 4,834 0Q8 1,524 9593 0 2,445 StS 428 208 88 1.710Cibatu 6,867 70,515 16 8,688 4,975 055 1,043 8,966 0 2,223 273 286 360 50 993Cmawu 4,794 37,111 11 5,661 3,941 0.67 559 6,769 440 821 1225 416 72 0 476asurupan 8,173 79.398 22 11,447 5,167 0.42 3,712 6,385 0 1240 78 50 556 0 2,024KadungowaCibiuk 5,419 80,467 19 8,954 3.483 037 990 6,533 0 797 519 356 432 490 135Katngpawitan S,06S 67,360 20 13,282 3,4S5 025 825 6,D04 0 1,516 134 83 31 330 794Leks 5,029 50468 12 7,143 3,373 045 1423 5,496 0 313 859 491 227 67 L502Mahngbong 8,346 68,802 19 11,072 5,971 052 1,277 11,990 0 1,778 2,976 167 0 0 1,673Samamig 10,975 83,980 27 12.595 6.667 049 4,679 10,114 0 275 2,069 790 684 1,252 2,655Sukaweni 6,026 49,655 13 8,106 4,416 051 1,629 6,837 0 392 973 606 469 0 1,177Wanaraja 7,638 78,182 24 11,040 5343 046 1,798 9,671 0 629 2,043 363 796 69 943

X

Sumedang:

Cadasigamper 4,392 9,950 7 1,927 2,739 1.42 1,959 3,846 0 191 201 902 119 0 1.294DarmanaaCibuge 12,059 59,132 25 IQ930 7,725 024 2,600 14,426 0 2,193 155 1,979 640 388 3,017Wado 10,086 52,072 17 9,871 6,290 .08 1,096 13,670 0 1,138 2,382 1,107 53 126 1,085

Total ProrityAreas 109,444 919,693 268 142,814 73,227 0.49 26,619 128,369 1,164 17,117 15,117 8,193 5,117 2,860 243S3

Souroe Prh t prepration reports.V - Arca given isthatwvithin the Cumnuk WatershedLAn Use Forms:

U - Uplad croppig areas with temuces of moderae quality including ud gardens. Indudes slopes c 40 percent.Ut - Upland cropping areas with teraces of poor qualiqt with slopes c 40 percent.A - Stc.pknd areas outside Sate Forest Landwith sopes 40-60 pfertAt - CultWatedareasui Statt Folest Landwitbslopes mainly> 40pecent.B - Tea EsesB - Seodasygrwtlh and scrand indudiug natutal gassland, mostly loted inide State Foretand. , F - Forst areas (Mof 1982)

cable24

- 59- ANNEX 2Appendix S

Upper Cimanuk Watershed ComponentTechnical Specification of Village Access Roads

Units per KmKab. Garut 3/ Kab. Sumedang 41

Units Qats. Unit Cost Qnts. Unit Cost

Cleaning and Excavation (in-fill) m3 1.400 3,668 1,490 3,905Excavation of Foundation m3 150 3,668 150 3,555Sholder Shaping m2 2,000 570 2,000 558Sub-Base (relford) m3 150 22,248 150 22,715Leveling and Shaping m3 244 22,248 244 22,715Base Class A. t=7.5 cm 1/ m3 266 31,914 263 36,953Asphalt Penetration, t=5 cm 1/ m2 3,500 6,120 3,500 6,427Side Drainage m3 35 55,416 35 65,000Culverts (60 cm diam.) m' 15 102,409 15 82,631Culverts (80cm diam.) m' 5 115,505 5 97,631Culverts (100 cm diam.) m' 3 134,627 3 107,631Culverts (120 cm diam.) m' 1 126,923 1 117,631Roadside Vegetative Protection 2/ units 200 2,500 200 2,500Kilometer Markers markers 1 50,000 1 48,700

Unit Cost per Km (Telford) 20,683,991 21,379,168Unit Cost per Km (Asphalted) 50,577,158 53,573,830

1/ - Only for asphalted links in slopes higher than 12 percent

Road width: 3.5 mShoulder 1 m c:\table25

- 60 - ANNEX 3

iDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ANDCONSERVATION PROJECT

INFORMATION SUPPORT SYSrEM AN LAND USE PLANNNGFOR MANAGING WATERSDS IN INDONESA

Background

1. Critical Watersheds. The government has adopted six general criteria foridentifting and prioritizing critical watershed areas. These include:

(a) Sparse (less than 25%) vegetation cover;(b) An erosion rate in excess of 15 metric tonnes/ha per year;(c) The ratio between maximum and minimum discharge rates greater than 50;(d) Population densities greater than 600/km2 on the island of Java and greater than

150/km2 on the outer islands;(e) The risk potential from flooding and sedimentation to downstream investments,

such as dams, irrigation systems, aquatic industries, etc.; and(f) The existence of large numbers of low income subsistence farmers.

The use of these criteria is an attempt to make the process of identifying critical areas moreobjective; however, a problem remains in that the information required to make thesedeterminations is often unavailable, unreliable, or of poor quality.

2. Watershed Planning. Long, medium, and short term plans are to be preparedfor each critical watershed. The long term plan, POLA RLKT DAS, prepared by theresponsible Balai office (BRLKT), is a 25 year plan that provides guidance on land usageand conservation measures. The POLA prioritizes the Sub-watersheds (Sub-DASs) on thebasis of the extent of critical lands to determine the amount of support sub-DASs shouldreceive under the rehabilitation program. The POLA is meant to be implemented throughoperational programs (RTL RLKT Sub-DAS) designed with a 5 year time horizon. TheRTL RLKT Sub-DAS are formulated by the sub-Balai offices (SBRLKI) and approved bythe district government(s). Each year, the SBRLKT is responsible for preparing an annualtechnical plan (RTT), which should be consistent with the POLA and RTL RLKT. TheRTT is first approved by the district BAPPEDA office and then subnitted to the provinceand ultimately to central government for funding support. After the RTT is approved andfunding is allocated, an operational plan (RO) describes the specific activities and serves asimsiementation directions for carrying out the activities. It identifies funding, unit costs,program management, and reporting requirements.

3. In addition to tle planning activities that are done by the regional and districtoffices of the MOFr (i.e., RLKT and SBRLKT), the provincial and district levelgovernments have Reforestation and Regreening Guidance Teams (Tim Pembina Tk-I and

- 61- ANNEX 3

Tim Pembina Tk-1I, respectively), which are responsible for advising the Governor and theBupati on the coordination, planning, and implementation of regreening and otherconservation activities. These guidance teams are designed to have representation from theBRLKT and the SBRLKT and are supposed to ensure that the POLA, RTL RLKT, RTI,and RO planning mechanisms are coordinated at the local levels.

4. Reviews of the existing planning procedures have identified several problems.First, in many instances there seems to be little relationship between the POLAs and theshort to medium term plans. The latter seem to be developed independently of the broaderplanning perspective. Second, coordination of planning activities between the central MOFrline agencies (BRLKT and SBRLKT) and the provincial and district planning agencies(BAPPEDA) is weak or non-existent so that the watershed plans are not integrated into theprovincial and regional development plans. Third, reporting mechanisms of the impacts ofproject activities are inadequate to allow proper feedback into the planning process.

The Information Support and Land Use Planing Component

5. Information Types. Two basic kinds of information are required for themanagement of watersheds: i) resource-based data to support strategic planning, projectpreparation, and day-to-day management operations, and ii) reporting and monitoring

formaon for evaluating the progress and effectiveness of management activities and forsteering decisions about program planning. Essentially, these two types of basic informationsupport different kinds of decision-making and decision-makers, but together form aninformation element of the overall watershed management process.

6. All information used for watershed management should be treated within thecontext of an overall Informaion Support System (ISS). The Information Support Systemis an organizing strategy or structure for integrating information into planning, operational,and evaluation activities. For operational purposes, however, the design and implementationof capabilities for collecting, managing, and analyzing the two different kinds ofdata-resource data and management information-can be handled as two separatesubcomponents of the larger ISS. These two subcomponents are the Resource InformationSystem (RIS) and the Management Information System (MIS).

7. The RIS deals with geographic and physical information about the status andcondition of resources, together with information about the economic and culturallandscapes. The MS deals with the actual processes involved in managing an activity ora resource (e.g., planning, budgeting, monitoring, and evaluation). The two systems havedifferent data handling requirements.

8. Both, RIS and MIS, may make extensive use of automation; however, they havevery different requirements for computer hardware, software, and data managementprocedures. As subcomponents of the overall ISS, they must be compatible in terms of howdata can be organized, and they must be consistent in how data are categorized. Becauseof the diverse nature of the information and the kinds of analysis performed, the systems areactually collections of "tools", both automated and manual. The paccage of capabilities willinclude functions related to database management, spreadsheets, CPM, graphics, and GIS.

- 62 - ANNEX 3

9. ISS Concept and Rationale. The kinds of decisions and planning activitiesvary, depending on whether they occur at the national, provincial, or local levels. Tbisaffects the requirements for supporting information. At the national and provincial levels,information is used for 'Strategic Planning" and policy analysis. At the local level, the ISSis more 'Operations" based supporting day-to-day management and operating functions ofthe relevant agencies.

10. The implicit hierarchy in the decision-making and operational structure of theRegreening program imposes a corresponding hierarchy on the information requirements.Information must flow easily from one level to another. Reporting guidelines should bedefied by the higher level strategic planners, which, in turn, will establish the criteria forthe collection of information at the field level. Much of the information will be aggregatedas it progressively passes from the field level to the provincial and national levels.

11. A number of different agencies within, as well as between, these levels (e.g.,MOFr, BAPPENAS, BAPPEDA, BRLKT, SBRLKT, etc.) are involved in the flow anddissemination of information. Despite the apparent complexity of the system, the ISS muststrive for simnplicity in order to assure that it can be implemented successfully. This can bestbe done by treating each sub-system-MIS and RIS-separately, yet ensuring compatibilitybetween the way data are represented in each.

12. Strategy. The project will phase the implementation of an Information SupportSystem (RIS and MIS) for watershed management in two parts. The first will be thedevelopment and implementation of a prototype system in Cimanuk, to correspond with theother project activities in this watershed. The second phase will be to expand the ISSfunctions and capabilities to all priority watersheds. This will only be done after a reviewand evaluation of the first phase prototype system, but should be ready by MTR.

13. To the extent possible, lessons learned from and approaches developed by someof the earlier programs (e.g., UACP, Wonogiri, ADB) should be used in establishing theInformation Support System. Clear definitions of reporting requirements within and betweenadministrative levels need to be developed.

14. Component Design. The strengthening of the integrated watershed planningactivities and the development and implementation of the Information Support System willrequire inputs for technical assistance, training, data collection, equipment, and systemsoftware and database development.

(a) Watershed Planning

15. The project will provide technical assistance to review and revise both theexisting planning processes and the technical procedures. A Process Facilitator will beprovided for ten months over a period of three years to help coordinate discussions amongstall agencies in the planning process, and to develop a revised set of guidelines that willimprove planning coordination amongst agencies, such as BRLKT, SBRLKT, BAPPEDA,etc., and integrate better the planning mechanisms such as the POLAs, RTLs, and RTTs.These planning mechanisms will be reviewed and made operationally practical. They will

- 63 - ANNEX 3

be coordinated and integrated into the overall regional plans prepared by local governments,and will ensure local participation in the planning process. The initial review and revisionof the process-oriented, planning guidelines will occur in the first year of the project. Thiswill be followed by iterative reviews of the revised guidelines in the second and third yearto make any necessary subsequent adjustments.

16. A Watershed Planning Adviser will be retained during the first three years ofthe project to assist in identifying and refining appropriate technical approaches andmethodologies for resource-based watershed and area planning. This specialist will helpwith the development of technical specifications for preparing short, medium, and long termplans, and will assist in the development and execution of training programs for multi-sectoral planning teams at the local level. The project will also provide support forworkshops in each of the watersheds to train local level planners in accepted methodologiesand procedures.

(b) Information Support System

17. Phase I development in Cimanuk. An MIS adviser, with resourcemanagement experience, will be retained for two years to assist in the design andimplementation of the information support system in Cimanuk. A full-time counterpart fromthe MOPr should be assigned to assist in the development of capabilities, procedures, andreporting mechanisms.

18. A Resource Information Management adviser will be retained for two years toprepare and develop the natural resource information component of the Information SupportSystem. This specialist will work closely with the MIS specialist to ensure that the RIS iscompatible with and has linkages to the MIS information. A full-time counterpart from theMoFr should be assigned to assist in the development of the resource informationmanagement program.

19. Systems and training will be provided to planning, monitoring, and evaluationstaff at the Sub Balai, Balai, Kabupaten and provincial Bappedas, and national levels (MOFrand BAPPENAS). Resources will also be provided to support data collection activities,which will include acquiring socio-economic baseline data from both treated and untreatedwatershed areas and information about land use, farming practices, soils, vegetation,topography, sediment loads, etc.

20. Training will be provided to technical staff on how to collect, analyze, andinterpret resource-based information and to decision-makers on how to use the informationin the decision-making process. The project will also provide support for expanding andstrengthening the existing MIS at BAPPENAS, and will strengthen the MIS capabilities atMOFr and MOHA, all dealing with the Regreening and Reforestation INPRES activities.These MIS capabilities will be consistent and integrated with the overall ISS program.

21. Phase II Development of Expanded ISS. Following a successfulimplementation of a prototpe of the Information Support Systems (RIS and MIS) inCinamuk, the program would be expanded to a national coverage. In the "expansion" phase,

-64- ANNEX 3

four locally trained MIS/RIS specialists from MOFr will be needed for four years to providetraining and system start-up help. Training of local staff in MIS and RIS procedures, dataanalysis, and the use of spatial data in planning will also be provided. The project will alsoprovide for the collection of additional baseline socio-economic data and for the acquisitionof up-to-date resource infornation.

Implementation

22. Organization and Management. The development and management of theInformation Support System and the strengthening of the watershed planning activities shouldbe under the overall direction of the Tim Pengendali's Secretariat. The Secretariat shouldestablish an Informat on Support System and Reporing, and a Plaung working group orsubcommittee, composed of representatives of relevant agencies (e.g., MOFr, MOHA,BAPPENAS etc.). The working groups should be headed by a full-time seconded staff fromMOFr/MOHA (for the ISS and Reporting Subcommittee) and MOFr (for the PlanningSubcommittee).

23. Within the structure and guidelines established by the Secretariat, the technicalcoordination and supervision of the implementation and operation of the ISS should be theresponsibility of the MOFr and MOIA and, for planning, of the MOFr. Details of the rolesof each agency involved in the ISS and how information will flow should be determined inthe first stages of Phase I, with technical assistance.

24. Monitoring. The implementation of the watershed planning activities and theInformation Support System will be closely monitored so that issues can be quickly identifiedand addressed. A number of reviews and evaluations are built into the overall projectimplementation. For example, the Process Facilitator will review with local planning staffon a yearly basis, in the beginning, how effective the planning process is working. Twoindependent reviews of the ISS are also scheduled-the first after establishing the prototypein Cimanuk, and the second after experience has been gained with the wider implementation.This provides opportunities to identify and correct problems. Most importantly, annualreviews of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the INPRES R&Rinterventions will be conducted to alert decision-makers to potential problems with planningand implementtion activities. All of these reviews and monitoring exercises will bereported to the Tim Pengendali through the Information Support System Subcommittee.Detailed cost tables on the component can be found in the Project Files.

-65- ANNEX 4

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ANDCONSERVATION PROJECT

UPLAND RESEARCII AND TECNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

1. An ongoing research program that provides a continuous flow of newtechnologies and alternatives to policy makers, planners, extension agents and farmers isessential to the success of GOI's efforts to promote soil conservation and upland resourcedevelopment. The technological packages employed by the Regreening and Reforestationprogram (R&R) vere mainly developed in the 1990's with international technical assistance.These packages appiy to the conditions found in Central Java and have not been adapted forconditions in the Outer Islands, elsewhere on Java, nor have they been updated to reflectdevelopments in conservation research in other countries. In addition to research per se,there has been little attention to the development of quality technical packages, especiallywith regard to perennial crops seedlings for distribution in the uplands. Currently, a widerange of government agencies, universities and private groups, such as the Agency forAgricultural Research and Development (AARD), the Agency for Forestry Research andDevelopment (AFRD), the Departnent of Soils of the Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB), andCARE Indonesia, are conducting research on soil and moisture conservation technologies.Examples of the research underway include assessment of Vetiver grass hedges for soilconservation, farming systems research studies in East and Central Java, and numerouserosion trials across the country.

2. This work has, however, had limited impact on the design and implementationof most investment under the INPRES R&R. Reasons for this include the small size of theresearch effort, the dispersion of responsibility for research across numerous agencies, aconventional and fragmented approach to conservation research, limited flow of informationon implementaion experiences (both problems and successes) to policy makers and planners,and the limited availability of skilled researchers and technicians.

3. For example, soil conservation research by AFRD is now conducted by fewerthan a dozen professional scientists (including only one PhD.) and is limited to only 10projects with a total annual investment of only about US$125,000. Similarly, whileincreasing emphasis is being placed on a farming systems approach by AARD, mostagicultural research is conducted with a commodity orientation that provides little focus onsoil snd moisture conservation. In addition, because information on the impact andsustalnability of Regreening investments is not systematically collected or analyzed, thereis little realization on the part of policy makers of the need or scope for technological changein the conservation program.

- 66 - ANNEX 4

4. Together with other measures under the National Institutional StrengtheningComponent (Management Information Systems Development and Training and ExtensionDevelopment), the Upland Research and Technology Development Sub-component will aimto:.

(a) Institutionalize support for a decentralized, multidisciplinary program of uplandresearch;

(b) Integrate, on a continuous basis, new research findings and technicalimprovements into the field level investments of INPRES R&R;

(c) Focus research on implementation problems identified through ongoing andcontinuous assessment of implementation experience. The research programwill encompass work in livestock, shifting cultivation, agroforestry and otherland use systems, and include a bias for vegetative soil and moistureconservation. Emphasis will be placed in conducting research in an inter-disciplinary manner, with input and linkages to agencies such as Agriculture,Forestry and Public Works.

Detailed Description

5. The subcomponent would support (a) an upland research needs assessment,(b) literature reviews on selected conservation topics, (c) study tours of research institutionsabroad, (d) a research grants program, (e) development of improved planting mtenrial,particularly for timber and fruit trees, (f) development of strategic plans for the WatershedManagement 'rechnology Center(s) (WMTC) and the Soil Conservatior. research programof the AFRD, and, (g) dissemination of results through publications, seminars andworkshops. Activities under this subcomponent would be conducted by individuals andgroups of researchers under contract to the Tim Pengendali's secretariat (see Chart 1) andoverseen by the research working group (subcommittee) to be established in the secretariat.

6. The Tim Pengendali would commission assessments of research needed toimprove the performance of INPRES R&R and other upland conservation efforts inIndonesia. As a first priority the following locations would be selected: Upper Cimanuk,North Sumata, South and Central Sulawesi, West Kalimantan and East Nusa Tenggara.Ihis should involve (a) a review of project completion reports and mid-term reviews andother assessments of completed and ongoing watershed projects,l/ assessments of INPRESR&R,21 and (b) field visits to selected project sites focusing specifically on thesustainability, flexibility, and profitability of currently promoted technologies. The reviewsshould assess the source of constraints to successful investment (social, economic, technical).

11 l nluding Kali Konto, Yo rta Rual Development I, Wonon, Upland Agricultre andConservation, Citanduy n, Tree Crops in Cntical Lands.

1 The Evaluation of the INPRES Reforesbtion and Regreeng, coperion between The CentrForest Rehabilitation Project, Directoe of Reforestato and Regreening, Directorate General ofRRL and Reserch Institute of Bogor Institute of Agricultural Science, 1992

- 67 - ANNEX 4

At each site the assessment would consider socio-economic and marketing aspects, effectsof soil and climate on potential crops, propose a range of potential soil and moistureconservation techniques and assess the availability of quality planting material.

7. The technology reviews would identify changes in R&R guidelines that can beproposed for immediate implementation based on existing knowledge and would provideterms of reference for additional research activities to be supported by the research grantsubcomponent. Proposals for changes would be promulgated as interim guidelines pendingresults from the research grant component. Issuance of improved interim guidelines for theon-farm treatments for the watersheds participating in the R&R program would be acondition for disbursement against the R&R program.

8. Development of Improved Planting Material. This activity would addressdeficiencies in seed source harvesting and handling, plant propagation and nursery practicesto ensure that appropriate and farmer demanded fruit, timber and grass (vetiver) species andquality planting stock would be available to support the R&R program. For selectedwatersheds, an assessment of the market demand and site suitability would be conducted todetermine likely requirements for planting material. This would be followed by anassessment of current practices for seed harvesting, handling and plant propagation. Thisassessment would also be used to determine whether appropriate planting material isavailable for distribution to watershed users participating in the R&R program and using therevised on-farm treatments (para. 7). These reviews would be used to prepare manuals forbest nursery practices. Based on initial results, guidelines for plant development would beissued for application throughout the R&R program.

9. Literature reviews. The Tim Pengendali would commission the compilationof bibliographies and literature reviews on the following: a) recent developments invegetative and agronomic approaches to soil conservation, and additional topics identifiedtirough the research needs assessment.

10. Study Tours. The project would support study tours for conservationresearchers. Travel and subsistence costs would be provided for attendance at internationalconferences and short courses. Study tours would be awarded competitively, on the basis ofwritten proposals. Criteria for awards would include the applicant's previous researchaccomplishments, prospects for establishing ongoing collaboration with the hostinstitution(s), and relevance to ongoing research. Recipients would be required to preparedetailed written trip reports and to make oral presentations to seminars convened by theresearch working group of the Secretariat.

11. Research Grants. This activity would account for the largest portion of thecosts of this subcomponent. The component would award where ever possible, on acompetitive basis, upland research grants with priority attached to interdisciplinary researchlinked to field level implementation problems of INPRES R&R. Generally, however, dueto the relative isolation of the research sites, direct contracting and force account would beused. The Tim Pengendali would solicit grant applications from individual researchers,groups of researchers, research agencies and nongovernmental organizations, develop criteriafor awarding grants and supervise the conduct and reporting of results. Criteria to be

- 68 - ANNEX 4

considered in the award of research grants would include feasibility, cost, qualifications ofresearchers, involvement of implementaticn agencies and local government, and relevanceto priorities identified by the research needs assessment and literature reviews.

12. Dissemination. Research results would be annually reviewed and reassessedby the upland research working group in the Secretariat. A major review would take placeat MTR and at Project completion with the view to up-date R&R guidelines for on-farmtreatmerts. The component will disseminate the results of work through publications,workshops and awards. These will be issued and awarded in association with governmentagencies and NGOs. Dissemination efforts will focus on planning staff of the various Balaiand Sub-Balai RLKT, local government planning staff, trainers of PPLs and PLPs, andfarmer's groups.

13. Strategic Planning for WMTC. GOI has established a WMTC in Solo,Central Java, and has plans to establish additional facilities in other agro-ecological zonese.g. Ujung Pandang in Sulawesi. To maximize the contribution of existing and proposedfacilities, this subcomponent would provide a review of the program of the WMTC. Thiswould include assessment of the mission of the WMTC, proposals for technical assistanceinputs, and assessment of possible changes in the organization's structure. Additionally, areview would be conducted of soil conservation research by the AFRD, to identifymechanisms for expanding the size and impact of the research program.

Organization and Management

14. The subcomponent will be coordinated, on behalf of the Tim Pengendali, bythe expanded R&R Secretariat. The Secretariat would appoint a Technology DevelopmentSubcommittee or working group (TDC) consisting of representatives of AARD, AFRD,Universities and NGOs and selected representatives from the private sector, including thefarming community. The TDC will be responsible for advising the Regreening Secretariaton the coordination and implementation of the subcomponent through contractualarrangements with individual researchers, government agencies and NGOs. A ResearchSpecialist seconded from AARD will serve as head to the TDC and will be responsible forday to day management. An Upland Research Adviser will be recruited internationally toprovide long term technical assistance to the TDC and the Research Specialist. Short terminternational technical assistance would also be provided for Strategic Planning and forresearch needs assessment. The TDC will cooperate with NGOs, such as the IndonesianSociety for Soil and Water Conservation and KEPAS, for dissemination of results throughpublications and seminars.

15. The project will provide for salaries for seconded staff, including support staff,research grants, travel, honorariums for committee members, awards for quality research,seminars publications and technical assistance. Project costs are shown schematically inAnnex 9, and in detail in the Project Files.

-69- ANNEX S

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMIENT ANDCONSERVATION PROJECT

TRAIING AD EXTENSION

1. Introduction. The project's training and extension requirements are basedon a training and extension needs survey carried out in January/February 1993.1/ Theobjectives of this sub-component are to strengthen GOI's ability to effectively implement thenational INPRES Regreening and Reforestation program (R&R) by increasing awareness andby irnproving skills and increasing capabilities for planning, promoting project participationand the utilization of improved and site specific farm production and conservationtechnology. The survey is based on information provided by Government officialsrepresenting the INPRES R&R program through meetings and interviews. The training andextension needs are reported in table form, showing project activity, the training area orinformation required, the participating agency, the target groups and the number of traineesand duration of training, including costs. Details are given in the Project File and projectcost tables. Most of these requirements are indicative as they relate to the project activitiesconcerning the institutional strengthening component and those of Cimanuk. The inidaldetails have to be worked out by the Training and extension working group subcommitteein the Tim Pengendali before November 30, 1994 and would be updated by the same groupon an annual basis.

Proposed Project Training and Extension

2. With respect to the Institutional strengthening component, appropriate staffof all provinces and Kabupaten involved in the R&R progrum, including Cimanuk, wouldreceive training in the proposed information support system. While no training is envisagedfor the technology development sub-component, project support would be given for studytours and annual workshops to discuss and disseminate upland technology research results.Short training courses varying in duration between one to three weeks would also be givento Regreening extension staff, BAPPEDA and BANGDES staff, PMU's and key farmersparticipatng in the current R&R program. To improve R&R extension, support would alsobe given to (i) improving extension programs for the general public (e.g. radio and TVprograms); (ii) undertaking special R&R campaigns; (iii) field workshops for farminggroups, NGOs, LKMDs, women group and (iv) study tours for technicians at Kabupatenlevel.

1/ LAs WilelmBso. WNational Wate,hrsed Management and Conservation Projea - Training Needs&Sy Reporat F,ebruay 1993.

- 70 - ANNEX S

3. With respect to the Upper Cimanuk component, one to two week trainingcourses are included for project staff relating to key farmer technology displays, nurserydevelopment, forest land management, structural and vegetative land stabilization treatmentsand road and drainage upgrading. In addition short duration courses are also included forfarmer and PMU staff to cover other special project and extension activities e.g., land titlingand credit information. Support would also be given for development of extension andtraining materials and training for special studies i.e. baseline information survey, role ofwomen, and forest land occupancy survey (Annex 2).

Implementation

4. Overall training and extension direction would be given by the training andextension training working group to be established in the Secretariat of the Tim Pengendali.This subcommittee would be headed by a full time training and extension specialist of theMinistry of Home Affairs (BANGDA). The head of the subcommittee would be assistedby a training needs assessor (short term consultant) and a training and extension adviser(long term). The four participating ministries (Agriculture, Forestry, Home Affairs andPublic works) would carry out the project activities through their already established trainingand extension units. All involved ministries have a nadonal training organization withaffiliates in the provinces in the form of training centers and have extensive experience intrainig and extension preparation and delivery. Their participation in the implementationof the training and extension activities is outlined in Appendix 1.

5. The ministry of Home Affairs would be responsible for the coordination ofal training and extension activities through BANGDA at national level and BAPPEDA atprovincial level. The four ministries involved in the project have sufficient training capacityin their training centers to accommodate the suggested training activities. MOHA hastraining centers in each province and so has MOA. MOFr would use the Forestry Educationand Training Center in Bogor and the Forestry training centers in the provinces. MOPWhas five regional training centers with substantial capacity. For the Upper Cimanukcomponent it is recommended to use the Cilampuyang training center in Garut and theregional traning center of Public Works in Bandung. These centers appear to havesufficient traiinig equipment for the suggested program. Annual budget requirements fortraining and extension would be coordinated by the central secretariat. Estimated costs forthese activities are shown schematically in Annex 9 and further details can be seen in theProject File.

NATIONAL WATERSED MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PRiOJECT

ROIE OF PART1CIPATING MNISRES WITH REGARD TO TRAIIG AND EXENION

________________ Inv~bolve Work Un3aIaf

Sin mbs he M Sub-Bo Dim Pt"g oaff Pi Work iuy ut AT__Cyde_ Nastinl led IProvldaiLewd Natoalod ?mblua P La NlLard Irwna _ Lewd Nated Lew PridalLw

Ientfcto f pueikia . F s. oDik - RPL - Dus Die . r DItKusinlog needs - Sn^B.d - DineB

l-aIFemvco - DBikini. K,ID a

Cubu Puladdt BaIn D&IM Jn.ewceusWg - Dll Tning ter i Bdn Ditu-_ ccu Paais Sol ceckm)- D&ktflB

Mugp- P " hagAir _ .

Tt.ii eznt Puadikt Bn Dikrt Incvei - Dik Dolan DAMsde"elopiosed cmwsPaasza

- Didth_ _ _ _ _ _Mul.

Taindgddcvay Puadikset Tainingoen P B Dikbt Iaerviceftun D n Trdin* llr DiAt NovicC_itees Paagskun in So%l (Cte- zahg

DbtBi ow)Map ..Rq.d

Basnion - ~~~~~~Din. te d Dfine xtff - Di eof Kgsab DaMd4elvay - PPL PPL - JlamPwla_

Moitacinsul Nudiklat - TmnincateA BaDikDst .- IwIco MDat - Tngc Be" DiM . Prook"evadusian - DBr dIff bainbfteo Pga in Solo (dbce- Wa,e- P1) - Diametaff DikistBba d-n) - KgsbIDm* Mr Mug .Regional

- Dkr Zf_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ - - _ _ _ _ _ --

- 72 - ANNEX 6

NDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

ERMS OF REFERENCEWATERSHED MANAGEMET ADVSERUTEAM LEADE N NATIONAL)

Duration: 36 person/months

Role: To manage overall technical assistance for the National InstitutionalStrengthening component, and assist the Secretariat of the Tim Pengendali, aswell as the project manager (PIMPRO) of the National InstitutionalStrengthening component with general project management procedures.

Reports to: Secretariat of Tim Pengendali.

Main Duties: Over the course of four years, the watershed management adviser would:

(a) Coordinate the technical assistance activities under the ISS and Land UsePlanning subcomponents, the Upland Research subcomponent, and the Trainingand Research subcomponent, and, in particular during the first and secondproject years, ensure that these activities are coordinated with those of theUpper Cimanuk component.

(b) To assist the project manager for the National Institutional Strengthening withimplementation arrangements, including institutional coordination, reporting,and monitoring and evaluation.

(c) To assist the four technical subcommittees with institutional coordination,particularly with respect to planning.

(d) To facilitate the implementation of activities under the National lnstitutionalStrengthening component, including, i=tea1a, (i) assisting in the institutionalreview of sectorial agencies planning roles and responsibilities, with a view tostrengthen the role of local government in watershed management planning andimplementation; (iii) assisting the research teams in the identification of suitableimplementation mechanisms for site-specific farming systems research;(iv) assisting in the identification of suitable mechanisms for interagencytraining management; (v) assisting in the preparation of relevant reviews onproject activities prior to mid-term review; and (vi) ensuring generalcoordination between the National Institutional Strengthening component andUpper Cimanuk.

Qualifations: Ph. D. in institutional management or related field, with strong backgroundin watershed management and land use planning. At least 10 years working experience inprogram management in developing countries. Working knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia.

- 73 - ANNEX6

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

MS OF REFERENCERESEARCH AND TECNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ADVISR

Duration: 36 person-months

Role: To facilitate the generation of appropriate technology menus for each majorland capability class in the uplands of each agroecological zone covering thethirty-nine priority watersheds, including the review of current technologymenus and farming systems research capability in each area, the preparationand management of resulting farming systems research contracts, and upgradingof farming systems research capability.

Reports to: Head of Technology Development Subcommittee/Working Group, DirectorsAARD/AFRD

Main Duties: Over a period of four years and working jointly with a locally recruitedTechnology Development Specialist and the designated inter-agency researchadvisory committee involving AARD, AFRD and university groups:

(a) review the current menu of technologies being applied and recommended foreach major land use capability unit in each agroecological zone to determinetheir relevance and appropriateness for inclusion in the Regreening Program,with a focus on the thirty nine priority watersheds, particularly the six withhighest priority;

(b) assess the farming systems research capacity and capability in each agro-ecological zone with a view to identify suitable institutions for conductingnecessary FSR in each area and how these might be strengthened; and

(c) assist in the identification of a priority FSR research program in each region,the most suitable form of implementing it (e.g., by administration or contract),and in managing and supervising the conduct of research including regularmonitoring and evaluation.

Qualifications: A graduate degree in Agronomy, PHD preferred, or other relevant disciplinewith a strong background in upland, rainfed agriculture. At least 10 years experience with atleast 8 years of field experience in agriculture or related natural resource management projects,preferably with team leader or Chief-of-Party experience. Experience with upland farmingsystems and credible knowledge of livestock, feed and forage, horticulture and farm forestry;experience with research and experimental design and statistical analysis including experiencewith integration of soil management and conservation into the farming system.

-74 - ANNEX 6

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

TERMS OF REFERENCETRAING AND EXnSION ADVISER

Duration: 36 person-months.

Rote: To facilitate the conduct of training to build improved capability and capacityin sectoral institutions and local government units to more effectively plan andimplement upland and forest conservation and watershed management.

Reports to: Head, Training and Extension Subcommittee/Working Group, Director-GeneralMOHA.

Main Duties: Over a period of four years and working jointly with a locally and ainternationally recruited Training Needs Assessors and designated trainingadvisory committee .Tom MOFr, MOA and MOHA:

(a) supervise and assist the Training Needs Assessors in a review of existmgtraining programs, materials, facilities, and implementation capacities, and anoverall assessment of training needs based on the review and on the trainingneeds survey report prepared at appraisal;

(b) assist in the preparation of training and extension programs and urricula,including scheduling and costing of these programs, organizing and mobilizinginteragency training management teams, and preparing guidelines on programdesign implementation and assessment;

(c) identify participants for overseas training activities, and key participant groupsfor other training, and assist in training program implementation;

(d) assist the technology development staff in arranging workshops, determiningstrategies for dissemination of research results, and providing training oncommunication skills;

(e) assist counterpart teams in the preparation of extension materials and extensionmodels;

(f) develop and implement a training and extension monitoring and impactevaluation systems to assess the effectiveness of training programs across eachtarget group;

(g) assist in the preparation of annual progress reports.

Qualifircations: At least five (5) years experience in managing large-scale human resourcedevelopment projects in agriculture or rural development. The candidate should also possessappropriate qualifications in agricultural education, training or human resource development,and demonstrate excellent verbal and written communications skills.

-75 - ANNEX 6

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

TEM OF REFERENcEENVIRONMENTAL ADVISE

Duration: 18 person-months.

Role: To ensure that potential impacts of regreening and reforestation activities onNational Forest Estate (both Production and Conservation/Protection Forests)are identified, monitored and, to the extent possible, avoided. These objectiveswould be achieved through investigating and researching any potential sourcesof impact, developing safeguards and strategies for avoiding or minimizingpotential impacts, and incorporating into the national training and extensionprogram study units covering environmental and land use management issuesas required.

Lation: Secretariat of the Tim Pengendali.

Main Duties: The major duties of the environmental specialist would include:

(a) through consultation with relevant government agencies (PHPA, KLH, etc.),Universities, Environmental Study Centers and relevant NGOs, identify thenature and significance of land use management issues arising out of theRegreening and Reforestation programs;

(b) maintain contact with the technical assistance team working on the UpperCimanuk watershed component to monitor their on-going findings and assesstheir relevance to the wider national program;

(c) based on the outcome of (a) and (b), design and implement (e.g., through PSLsor NGOs) pilot monitoring programs in selected 'at risk' Kabupaten to evaluatethe nature and significance of the potential impacts. A series of studies mightbe carried out over the first three years of the project;

(d) liaise with the ISS specialists to identify data bases relevant to the monitoringof environmental effects and, as required, provide advice regardingenvironmental/land use management data tc be gathered as part of the projectmonitoring and evaluation system;

(e) prepare an environmental training unit for inclusion in the training andextension program. The content of the unit would be based on the outcome ofthe other investigations but could include aspects such as: summary ofenvironmental and land use management requirements in Indonesia with

-76- ANNEX6

particular reference to Nature and other Conservation areas; the role ofconservation areas; potental impacts between those areas and the RegreeninBprogram; strategies for avoiding and/or minimizing environmental impacts.

Qualifications and Experienze: A university graduate In Forestry or Agriculture with aminimum of five years experience in land use planning and management withparticuar reference to firest opeatons and conservaion. The peronpreferably should also have some experience in training, extension adcommunications .

-77 - ANNEX 6

ENDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

INFORM TON SUPPORT SERVICES PRoCESS FACILATORTMS OF REFERENCE

Lection: Jakarta, Indonesia

DutXon: 10 months over 3 years

Duties andResponsibilities: The Process Facilitator will report to the DGRRL in MoFr, and to Bangda

in MOHA through the Watershed Planning Adviser and will work closely withBappenas, Min. of Public Works, and local government planning agencies.The Process Facilitator will begin work in the first year of the project to reviewand revise the existing planning process. The Facilitator will follow-up on theprogress of improvements in the planning process by coordinatng reviewdiscussions in the second and third year of the project. 'he Facilitator will beresponsible for:

(a) Organizing and facilitating group meetings of relevant agencies inolved inwatershed planning to review current planning processes and mechanism, suchas POLA RLKT DAS, RTL RLKT Sub-DAS, and RTI.

(b) Clarifying the existing roles of each agency in the planning process andidentifying the relationships between the various planning activities.

(c) Reaching consensus amongst planners concerning weaknesses and botlenecksin the existing process.

(d) Facilitating the development of guidelines for a revised planning proces takinginto consideration the needs of decision-makers for short, medium, and longterm plans, the requirement for interagency planning coordination, andpracticalities.

(e) Developing, with the relevant agencies, an approach for implementng therevised guidelines.

(f) Facilitating a review of the planning process in the second and third year of theproject, and developing strategies for effecing subsequent modifications.

Qualifications: At least five years experience in activities related to orgaizatonmanagement, work programming, process planning, and team building.Experience in working with diverse groups of people to reach consensus andcommon objectives is required. Developing country experience a definite asset.

-78- ANNEX6

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

WAtSHED PLNIG ADVIS.TERM OF REFERENCE

Postion: Watershed Planning Adviser

Locaton: Jakarta, Indonesia

Duration: 30 months over 3 years.

Dutles andReponsblfites: Ihe Waershed Planning Adviser will report to the DGRRL in MoFr, and

will work jointly with the Planning Process Facilitator, the MIS and RISAdvisers, a localy recruited Watershed Planning Specialist, the Chairma ofthe Technical Secretariat, and a designated inter-agency team of planners formMoFr, MoA, MoHA, Min. of Public Works. The Adviser will be responsiblefor:

(a) Reviewing and assessing the appropriateness and effectiveness of existing landuse and resource-based planning techniques and methodologies.

(b) Reviewing the status of existing plans for each of the watersheds, e.g., whichwatersheds have prepared POLA RLKT DAS, RTL RLKT Sub-DAS and RTr.

(c) Assisting in identifying and refining improvements in the resource-basedintegrated watershed and area planning methodologies and procedures.Advising on appropriate technical approaches. Specifically, the land resourcesurvey and multi-factor land use evaluation system used in the Indonesia-NewZealand Land Resources Mapping (NZLRM) Project should be considered.

(d) Assisting in organizing training for multi-sectoral planning teams to conductintegrated area planning at the local, province, and national levels. This willinvolve, inter alia, assisting in the identification, recruitment, and training ofappropriate planners.

(e) Ensuring that integrated watershed management plans are prepared for thethirty nine priority watersheds with particular attention to the eleven toppriority watersheds.

( Reviewing the processes for establishing watershed priorities and for identifyngcritical lands. This should lead to a rationalization of investment priorities.

-79 - ANNEX6

Qualifications: At least ten years experience in both macro and micro level land use andresource-based planning activities with a thorough understanding of soil andwater conservation practices. Must have a working knowledge of land useplanning tools such as satellite remote sensing, aerial photography, geographicinformation systems, and land use modelling. Developing country experiencea definite asset.

- 80 - ANNEX 6

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

MANAGEMENT kaFORMATIoN SYsTEM ADVSREMS OF REFERINCE

Position: Management nformation System Adviser

Locaton: Jakarta and Cimanuk Watershed, Indonesia

Duradon: 24 months over 3 years

Dudes andResponsibilities: The Management Information Adviser will report to the Chairman of the

information Support System steering group under the Regreening Secretariat.The MIS Adviser will work closely with Bappenas, DOPRRL of the Ministry ofForestry, DO Bangda of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Balai and sub Balaioffices responsible for watershed management in Cimainuk, and the Bappedaoffices in the two Kabupaten and province covering the watershed. lhe adviserwill be assisted by at least one counterpart staff from the Ministry of Forestrywith a background in information management for monitoring and evaluation.He/she will be responsible for establishing and supervising the workprogramof the counterpart. The adviser will be responsible for:

(a) Identifying information requirements of the various agencies involved inwatershed management, at the national, provincial, and local levels, forplanning, monitoring, and evaluation. This should take into consideration workand studies that has already been done, for example, the UACP project, ADB'sstudy of Monitoring and Evaluation for the Upper Cimanuk subwat r ed(ADB Loan 762), etc.

(b) Identifying existing sources and availability of information for planning andmonitoring.

(c) Designing an information support system for planning, monitoring, andevaluation. Ihis will have two separate but related components-one, aresource information management system (RIS) to deal with such informationas sofls, slopes, vegetation, land use, etc., and two, an MIS system to collectand report information on Regreening INPRES program activities. This willbe reviewed by the relevant decision-makers.

(d) Designing data collection and information reporting formats.

-81 - ANNEX6

(e) Implementing the systems in the sub Balai, Balai, Bappeda, and MoFr offices.Ihis will involve identifying, procuring, and implementing the appropriatesoftware, hardware, and database management programs.

(f) Developing an improved database management system in the Natural Resourcesand Environment Bureau (NREB) of Bappenas.

(f) Organizing training for decision-uIakers on how to use information producedby the system.

(h) Organizing training for both the RIS and the MIS system operators on how tobuild the databases, access information, use the computer hardware andsoftware, and how to analyze data.

(i) Developing an action plan for extending the capabilities to cover all thewatersheds included in the INPRES programs.

Qusiicatlaons: A background in managment information systems with a particular fious onnatural resources; working knowledge of resource information managementtehnologies such as GIS and remote sensing; at least 10 years experience indeveloping and implemenfing MIS; developing country experience a definiteasset.

- 82 - ANNEX 6

NONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

RESOURCE INFORMATION MANAGEMET ADVISERTERM oF REFERENCE

Position: Resource Information Management Adviser

Loation: Jakarta and Cimanuk Watershed, Indonesia

Duration: 24 months over 3 years

Duties andResponsibilities: The Resource Information Adviser will report to the MIS Adviser, working

with the Information Support System steering group under the RegreeningSecretariat. The RIS adviser will work closely with DGRRL of the Ministryof Forestry, DG Bangda of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Balai and subBalai offices responsible for watershed management in Cimanuk, and theBappeda offices in the two Kabupatens and province covering the watershed.The adviser will be assisted by at least one counterpart staff from the Ministryof Forestry with a background in resource information collection, management,and analysis. He/she will be responsible for establishing and supervising theworkprogram of the counterpart. The adviser will be responsible for assistingthe MIS adviser in:

(a) Identifying resource information requirements of the various agencies involvedin watershed management, at the national, provincial, and local levels, forplanning, monitoring, and evaluation. This should take into consideration workand studies that has already been done, for example, the UACP project, ADB'sstudy of Monitoring and Evaluation for the Upper Cimanuk subwatershed(ADB Loan 762), etc.

(b) Identifying existing sources and availability of information for planning,monitoring, and evaluation.

(c) Designing a set of capabilities and procedures to collect, manage, and analyzeresource-based information to support planning and monitoring. This willinclude such information as soils, slopes, vegetation, land use, etc., The designwill be reviewed by the relevant decision-makers.

(d) Implementing the systems and procedures in the sub Balai, Balai, Bappeda, andMoFr offices. This will involve identifying, procuring, and implementing theappropriate software, hardware, and database management programs.

-83 - ANNEX 6

(e) Providing training for the counterpart staff on the use of resource infonnationmanagement technologies (GIS, remote sensing, etc.) and on data analysis.

(t) Organizing training for decision-makers on how to use information producedby the system.

(g) Organizing training for the RIS system operators on how to access information,build the databases, use the computer hardware and software, and how toanalyze data.

Quaifications: A background in resource information management and the alliedtechnologies, such as GIS, Remote Sensing, Aerial Photography, etc.; at leasta Masters level degree in a natural resources related field; at least 5 yearsexperience in developing and implementing RIS applications; developingcountry experience a definite asset.

-84- ANNEX6Appendix 1

Indonesia: National Watershed Management and Conservation ProjectTechnical Assistance Schedule (in person-months)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total

National Institutional Strenhcoing Component:Watershed Management Advsr (International) 6 12 12 6 0 0 36Environmental Adviser (Local) 6 6 6 0 0 0 1SProgram Evaluator (Local) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Sub-Committee Heads (Local Secondments) 48 48 48 48 48 48 288Sub- Totl (exept secondmnnts) 13 19 19 7 1 1 60

ISS and Planning Sub-Component:ISS System Evaluator (Local) 0 1 0 0 1 0 2Regreening Program Evaluators (Local) 0 1 1 5 10 8 25MIS Adviser (International) 6 12 6 0 0 0 24RIS Adviser (International) 6 12 6 0 0 0 24Watershed Planning Advisr (International) 6 12 12 0 0 0 30ISS Process Facilitator (International) 4 3 3 0 0 0 10MIS/RIS Specialists (Local Secondments) 12 36 48 48 48 48 240Sub-TotallSSand PlaningSub-Compoanent(.cptscondmnts) 22 41 28 .5 11 8 115

Training and Extension Sub-Component:Training Needs Assessor (Local) 6 12 12 0 0 0 30Training Needs Assessor (International) 6 0 0 0 0 0 6Tmraining and Extension Adviser (International) 6 12 12 6 0 0 36Sub- Total Training and Etension Sub-Combponent 18 24 24 6 0 0 72

Upland Reseamh and Development Sub-Component:Research and Technology Development Manager (Local) 6 12 12 12 12 12 66Research and Technology Development Adviser (Intornational) 6 12 12 6 0 0 36Technical Consultancies (International) 1V 3 3 0 0 0 0 6Strategic Planner for WMTC (International) 0 3 0 0 0 0 3Strategic Planner for WMTC (Local) 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

Sub- 7toiRese Rua and DevelopmwntSub-Component .5 33 24 18 12 12 114

Upper Cimanuk Wateuhed ComponentSoil and Water Conservation Engineer (Local) 6 12 6 0 0 0 24NurserySpecialist (Local) 6 12 12 0 0 0 30Training Organizer (Local) 6 12 12 S 3 3 41Upland Farming System Specialist (International) 6 6 6 0 0 0 t8Upland Farming System Specalst (Local) 6 12 12 6 0 0 36Project Management Specialist (International) 6 12 6 0 0 0 24Project Management Specialist (Local) 0 0 6 6 0 0 12lAnd Use Planning Specialist (Local) 6 12 6 0 0 0 24Tree Crops Specialit (Local) 2 2 2 2 0 0 8Agro-Businens and Marketing Specialist (Local) 6 3 3 3 0 0 1SSocio-Economist (Locai) 6 12 3 3 0 0 24Road Engineer (Local) 6 6 3 3 0 0 18Nursery Extension Workers (Local) 36 72 72 72 72 72 396

Under NGO Sub-Contract:Team Leader (Localilnternational) 8 12 12 12 12 12 68Community Resource Specialist (Local) 8 12 12 12 12 12 68GenderlssuesandWIDCoordinator(Local) 8 12 12 12 12 12 68Participatory Training Offieer (Local) 8 6 6 6 0 0 26Project Officers (Local) 16 24 24 24 24 24 136FIeld Officers (Local) 2/ 136 204 204 204 204 204 t,1S6Sub- 7btad Cin;k (exudig NGO and eteownir) 62 101 77 28 3 3 274

Estimated Total Cost: 3/ llUQA 6

V/ - Speificonsultancies to be determined duting imaletentaon.2V -dfield officer trained inpartici ingfor each of the 17 kcmatan.3/ - Costs have been estimated at Rp. Io 0ton4 zerson stanesad Rpw 40A m Elio rs mnth for international cosultacis,including taxes, provision for housing allowance and per-diem Tbese rates do not apply to lb=al secondments, or to onsultancies under the NGO ontract.Estimated total costs include the costs of TA and NGO, as welas speci studis for tbeCi manuk component, and inlude physical and prke contingencies.,aalo.wkl

Indonesia:Naional Watershed Manageent ConservationProject ImplesmentatIon Schedule

. 1993 1994 1 99S { ts9 1997 1 998 1 199 2000- 2ID Nam Duration StartI National Watershed Management and Conservaton Projet 424.4w 2/1/93

2 Bank Projct Processing 60.4w 93 W3 AppaIel aw 2/U934 Nesga t- w 9/14i Ia Bod Ow I'll"3 _ a Lon Effectiveness Ow 3/29/94…-

601 Proect Start-Up Actiit70l2w fell

a S National -nioutn"l Sengteing Coone8.2w nt93 _

9 . oP_e Annual Progam frt FY 8U9S 4w 6ttS/3 _10 tnO PU for 9DP fOw Fl 949 824193 _

I I Dr Ph FY 9496 2w _w4194 .

I2 Prepa Action Pban f FY 94965 4w Vlt94 a13 Review Mmbehip of Tenicad Comrltt+ Sertariat t2w 9t21t93t4 - Review TecwSical SContt 12w 9e21t93 'PiIS Prepar TORs for Mendes Sub e 12w 9121tl93 m Sle Appointmt of Heed of ISS Sub-CoMM by MOFtAlOHA 12w 1124YU a17 Appntent of Hesd of LUP Sub-Cormtltes by MOFr 12w 1t2f194 =to AAppoinme of Hed of Technical Resch De*o. Sub-Comabtte by AARDtAJRU 12w 1126S94 *119 Appointment of Head of Traii and Ex SubC e by MOHA 12w 1128194 _20 Appontme of Sub-Couw Ste S 4w 4/20S941 .a

21 Procrment of Equipmient wnd Vehidel law eS184 mm22 Procurenent of Consutnts for ISS/LUP l9w 412019428 Ptocurewme of C<nsulants for Tenlogy/T&E 19w 4120/9434 Upper Cmanuk Waterhed Comnponent 70.2w 6/15193 _ = = = M==35 Prepare Annwu Program for FY 94/95 4w 6115193 a I36 Prepre DUP for FY 94195 8w 6/24/93 m

37 DIP for fY 94t96 2w 1t4194 -.a t _ __

38 Prpare Action Plan for FY 94/95 4w 2t15194 I

Project: Natonal Watershed Management & Conservation Ptoj Critical Progress SummaryDate: 10/16/93 Noncrftical Milestone * Rolled Up K>

page I

Indonela:Natobna Watwshed Management ConservatonProject Implementation Schedu

1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1996 1999 2000 2CID NaM Duration Strt n i .k11 ii bi al n k

39 AppoIt PIMPRO for PMU Garut 4w 9121193

40 Appoint PMRO for PMU Sumedang 4w 9121193

41 Appoint Countespart Tem In hk. D for PMU Gantt 12w 1128194 _

42 Appoint Cauntepar Team In Tk. n for PMU Sumedang 12w 112M94 -

43 Appoint Provfin Countepart Teams fort BAPPEDA 12w 1128194 _

44 Estblsh PUU Garut and Staffing Sw 4/20/94 j a

45 EstabIh PUU Sumdedg and Staffin Sw 4/20/94 _

46 Conracting Nursy E_tnsion Workes 12w 6116194

47 Ptocurement of Eqipment and VehIles 18w 6/15194 j _

53 Pouremnt of Constants for TA, Special Studfies, end NGO l9w 4120194 _ - -_

59 Proct Implementation 372w 2V2/94

60 i _mmenaIo by Componnts 306w 6/15/94

81 National Institutional Strengthening 303w B115194

62 Annau Prgrwa 301.6w 8115/94

96_ -- P Sub-Component 292w 8/31194 = _

96 Assessnme of ISS Requrnfts 17w 8t31194

97 Procurement of Computer Equipment and Software 13w 12t28t4

98 Procurement of Aerial Phots 13w 12t28t94

99 Start Procurement of Satellt Imagery 275w 12829/4 . _

100 Staff Secondment 6w 1228/94 :

101 Start ield Surves 267w 2/1195 M

102 Start Training 287w 2t1/95 1103 Stat Local PlannIng 267w 2/1195 _

104 Review of Watershed Pans and IntegratIon into Regional Pelita 49w 2V119 _

1O6 Review of Cimanuk ISS 49w 1t23195 - _ _ _ __

106 Review of R&R Inst. Structure in 8 Watersheds and Cimsnuk 13w 10/3195

107 Complete Integration of Watershed Plans Into Regonal Pelita 37.8w 4/12/95 -=108 Comptete Action Plan for ESS at Natinal Level 17w 9t5t95 _

Project: National Watershed Management & Conservation Proj Critical Progress SummaryDate: 1011 5/93 Noncritical milestone * Rolled Up O

Page 2

Indonesla:Natonal Watershed Management ConservatonProject Implementation Schedue

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2CID Name Duration St 1109 Tralning and Extension Sub-Component 292w 8131194 l w 1110 Review Training Requirements 17w 8/31/94 _111 Start Training Program 275w 12/28194112 Rteview Extension Model Develop. Requirements 17w 8/31194 m -

113 Start Extension Model Devel. 275w 12l28194114 Aeview of Traiing and Extension Program 13w 10/3/95115 Annual Review Workshops for Trahing end Extension 208.8w 6/30195 -= __ _ _El"

121 Fnal Review of T&E Sub-Compoment 12w 1/10/00122 Upland Research and Development Sub-Component 291.6w l311t94 _ 123 Review Curent Technology and Fied Work 52w 8/31/94 -I MM

124 Review Planing Stock/Nurseries 62w 8/31/94126 PepratIon of Revised Guidelines for On-Faem Treatmena 17w 8130196 - _ _128 Preparation of Guideiines for Nu y Devel. 17w 8130195 127 DstrIution of Revis Guidees to Kabupaten 4w 12/27/96128 Proposal for Applied Research 17w 8/31/94 lM129 Riew of Proposal by Natinal & Intemational Experts 6w 12/28194 -

130 Procurement of Equpmnent for Research Station 17w V8195 mm131 Procurement of Vehicls for Reseach Stations 17w V8195132 Contractng Procedures for Field Stations t7w V8196 _ 133 Sub-Contracting of Cimanuk Research 17w 2196 f=134 Fleld Assistafts Staffing 17w 28/61135 Start Traning 282w 10/17194 _136 Plaing fr WMTC 26w 6195 _ _

137 Annual Reviews of Programs& Dissemnnantion Workshops 248.4w 6/29/96 __ __ __

144 Upper amanuk Watershed 306w 6115194146 Annual Programs 299.6w 6/11/94 - _178 Implementatin Actvities 295w 8131l94179 Finalize Choice of Target Villages 3w 81319 2

Project: National Watershed Managemenm & Conservation Proj crhicat Progress Sutmay Date: 10116/93 Noncritical Milestoe * Rolled Up O

Page 3

Indonesa:Naafonal Watershed Management ConservationProject ImplementatIon Schedule

1993 1994 1995 1996 1067 1998 1999 2010 Name _u_aDon Stitn tt i2 a t j m j a n180 Complete aasege Study 43w 8131194_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_______ 181 Complete Land Use Study 43w 8131/94

182 Complete Women Farmer Study 22w 8131194183 itate Vilag Level Cansutatlon and Planning 290w 9121194 =a184 organize Vilage Data Iepetio Wo-hop tw 1121/9=18S ae Model Mlcro-DAS 270w 1/30195l84 Initate armer Technogy Displays 270w 1/30195

187 initiate VIllage Nuseries 270', 11301965

188 bIate Lnd StablIzation Treatnenft 270w tt 0 95s189 Initiate Land Mapphng toSp" 270w 113019C -ta190 SubContract NGO for Maketin and Credit I9for=tion 17w 9=21=94191 Stat Mket & Credit Ino DIsmion 270w 1/30/95192 Review Train Nee 1lw 8131194 E193 Review extenuon Neds 17w 8/31/94 .194 bnate TraInnt 274w 1125U9619S hnite extensb n Deve_opmt Activis 274w 1/25196196 Itate SUFS Reerc ActWies 250w 7/59S.197 Prepare Manel on Roda ad DraIns 17.0w V31/94 198 Idenfy Roads for Upgrading 1ww 112196199 Start Road and Draae Upgrading 202w W11S96 I r a200 Sabmit Report an Road Maintenne 62.4w 1231196_203 InItiate cm ata-lebve Nursu 2w 7le8 204 Anualt evIw of Proposla for V Grants 156.4w a29 Star Atution of Vitlge Gnts 20w 4/29/90.210 Start Grant of Land lTes 238w 9/26/95 _211 Rvevew Trament In Model McroDAS 36.1w 4119196212 Iitiate Treatments in Expansion Areas 194w 71l213 RevIew Status of Forest Enoachnment 26w 7419_

Ptoiect: National Watershed Management & Conservation Proj Citical- Progress SummaryDate: 10116193 Noncritical Milestone * Rolled Up O

Page 4

Indonesla:Natlonal Watershed Management ConservafonProject bplementaI Schedule

1993 1094 IS9" 1996 O11 1966 19S9 1 200 20ID Name DuratDon StuAt ,b j102214 Review Tain wingad Extenion law 0lol9215 Ivvestmn Support for Rgeening end Reforettion 247.4w 815/_95

216 Annual Progrte. 247.4w 6/15/ I_241 Dbbusemen for R&R 206w 4/1196

242 Sup_vlslo NW Report 372w 2/2/94

243 P_b ets 325w 3/30/94

244 Accounting 352.8w 3/30/94

245 Audht Opinion Nf MPPS and SOE 352.8w 3/30J94

254 Repting 3t3.4w 6/30194255 Antual Work "rogram 209.2w 8/15194

261 Annual Press Repot 313.4w 6130/94 - -

269 Supeuvison 326.2w 212194 [284 MonItorig and Evalution 364w 3/3094_

285 Mid-Tem Review 18w 3t1/96

2868 Project Competion Ow 3131100287 Projet Close Ow 9/29/00

288 Project Completion Report 0.2w 12t22100 4

Project: National Watershed Management & Conservation Proj Critcal Progress Summery _Date: 10115/93 Noncrtcal Miestone * Rolled Up O

Page 6

-90- ANNEX 8

INDONFSIA

NATIONAL WATERSHIED MANAGEMENT ANDCONSERVATION PROJECT

Economic Analysi of the Upper Cimanuk Water*ed Component

Derivaion of Economic Prices

1. Economic prices for traded farm outputs and inputs (including most ualcrops and fertilizers) were estimatd at their parity values, based on reported border pricesfor the commodities 1/ adjusted to constant 1992 values by the G-5 MUV Index, andforecasted in real terms through 2005. Real prices were assumed constant thereafter. Theeconomic derivation was based on assumptions of continuing self-sufficiency for rice, andimport substitution for soybean, groundnut, TSP, KCL and ZA. Cassava and urea, forwhich Indonesia is a net exporter, were costed at their export parity prices. Maize wascosted at an average of iport and expon parity prices 2/ (Appendix 2). A 40 percertmarkup of output price was assumed for annual crop seeds. All other farm inputs andoutputs, except for labor, were costed at their financial (end-1992) prices (Appendix 1).

2. A conversion factor of 0.9 was used for unskilled farm labor. This takes intoaccount the relatively low opportunity costs of women farmers in the region, who havegenerally less access to off-farm employment than male laborers due to socio-utwralreasons.l/ All other labor .. costed at its market wage. Since most of the unskilledlabor used in road construction is male, for which off-farm labor opportunities exist (e.g.seasonal work in urban areas), unskilled farm labor used in road constuction was costed atits full market wage. Materils, which comprise the remaining 86 percent of the total cost,are subject to a value added tax of 10 percent. Hence, a weighted conversion factor of 0.91was used to value all road works implemented by the project. Land stabilization treatmentsare expected to be implemented by force dccount using a miture of female and male farmlabor. A weighted conversion factor of 0.91 was therefore derived by taking into accountthe proportion of the total cost that is siled labor (7 pi-rcent of costs, valued at full marketwage), unskilled labor (37 percent of the total, subject to a conversion factor of 0.9), andmateris (56 percent, subject to value added taxes of 10 percent). A standard conversion

I/ As reported by the World Bank Revison of Primay Commodity Price Forecass and QuaelyRview of Commodity Makes, February 10, 1993 issue.

Z/ In 1992, Idonea imported 200,000 MT of maize and exported 50,000 MT (USDA, 1992 'IndonalaAwwal Igrlew Siaton Report). Auming impt substitution, th economic price of maimwould be Rp 196,000 per ton inted of Rp 189,000 derived through an averag of ort and impotpaity prices. This would not reult in significant changes in the economic analysis.

I/ Costmg unsklled farm labor at its mket wage does not ca signficant changes in the componet'sERR, do the economic viability of the fam interventios

- 91- ANNEX 8

factor of 1.0 was used for the domestic component of all other project costs, net oftaxes/duties and price contingencies.

Estimation of Road Benerits

3. The project would upgrade an estimated 125.6 km of roads in the districts ofGarut and Sumedang. Road costs were estimated based on the proposed techniWal designsfor the project and their standard costs, as c1etermined by Public Works officials of the twodistricts. Since the proposed design involves asphalting only in areas of slopes higher than12 percent, the costs of standard telford and asplalt penetration roads were estimatedseparately, and a weighted average comouted assuming that 73.3 percent of the roadstretches would be of standard telford type, and only 26.7 percent would require asphalting.Financial construction costs were converted to economic costs by a conversion factor of 0.91(see para. 2 above).

4. Road improvement benefits can be computed through two standard methods,the traffic benefit approach and the population-related method. The latter applies to caseswhere existing traffic is low and access conditions restricted, and is therefore more adequateto estimate the benefits of village access roads. The population method assumptions usedwere derived from methodology developed under the IBRD Rural Roads 2 Project ,4/which is currently standard in West Java for the economic analysis of Kabupaten roads (Box1). Local Public Works officials at the two Kabupaten were asked to prepare standardbenef.t derivations for the roads marked for improve.ment during the frst and second projectyears through the use of standard benefit derivation shtflts (A3) used in Kabupaten roads.

5. The A3 sheets permit only a rapid verification of the viability of the roadstretches, by comparing the present value of the anticipated benefits (net of maintenancecosts) with fte proposed investment costs. In order to compute the economic rate of returnof the investments, the annual benefit stream had to be derived by taking into account thepresent value of the benefit per trip per Km as shown in the A3 sheets, and decomposingit intdo the appropriate undiscounted annual benefits, which are assumed to accrue for aperiod of 10 years. Standard assumptions regarding benefit growth rates were used, takinginto account the length of the constrained segment and the level of access constraint. Forthe sampled roads, these growth rates, which represent growth in development benefits andpopulation increases, range between 4.5 and 5.5 percent a year as follows:

Access constraint 1, all road lengths: 4.5 percent a year;Access constraint 2, length of constrained road < 5 km: 5 percent a year; andAccess constraint 2, length of constrained road 5-15 kIn; 5.5 percent a year.

where access constraint 1 represents roads subject to intermittent closure to 4-wheel drive vehicles in wet season and/or 2-6 weeks a year, and access constraint 2represents permanent closure to 4-wheel drive vehicles during the same period.

4/ PMU ls (July 1992). 'Planning AciWties Under MRD Rural Roads 2 - Background andMedodo loy'.

- 92 - ANNEX 8

6. Because of higher technical standards, the use of Kabupaten road benefitsestimates would tend to overestimate the real benefits of village access roads. An adjustmentfactor of 0.7 was therefore applied to take into consideration the lower expected per tripbenefits. Ihese were then multiplied by the annual per capita trip rate (derived fromstandard A3 sheet assumptions) and the population served by the project, to determine theannual benefits of improving a particular segment of road. Similarly, the use of maintenanceassumptions applicable to Kabupaten roads would tend to overestimate the benefits of villageroads, because high levels of expenditures are assumed in the without project situation, anda high residual value is assigned to maintenance works done under the project. Theseassumptions are ukirealistic for village access roads, which are generally maintained byvillagers under low expenditure communal self-help ('gotong royong'). In the presentestimatiort, assumptions for maintenance expenditures without the project, were based on'poor' (for access constraint 1) or 'bad' (for access constraint 2) quality gravel roads of 3m width, assumed to represent the present condition of the roads. For routine (annual)maintenance, 'without project' expenditures were taken to be Rp 0.5 and 0.9 million per kmIfor, respectively, bad and poor gravel roads. Periodic maintenance was assumed to costRp 4.54 miHlion per km for both types of roads, and occur on years 3 and on years 1 and6, respectively, for bad and poor gravel roads. These costs were taken from IBRD RuralRoads 2 project management estimates for 1992 (PMU Consultants 1992). 'With project'maintenance conditions were derived from the same source, by assuming a weighted averageof routine and periodic maintenance expenditures consistent with the proposed design.1/A residual value of 25 percent of the initial investment and 33 percent of the last periodicmaintenance expenditure was assumed on the last benefit year. Appendix 4 presents anexample of the computations performed on a 3.6 Km road in the project area.

7. The economic analysis was performed on 33.6 km of road, corresponding toseven links expected to be upgraded during the second project 3 ear. The net benefits werethen extrapolated to the totality of the roads (125.6 Iam). The aggregated ERR for thecomponent was 20.8 percent, with a net present value of Rp 1,386 million. The switchingvalues for cost overruns and benefit shortfall were, respectively, 58 and 37 percent. Acommon scenario with road upgrading components is lack of continuity in ni-aintenance.This was tested by assuming that the incremental benefit of road upgrading works wouldphase out 3 years after the last maintenance works supported by the project. Under thisscenario, the majority of the road works are no longer economically viable (aggregated ERRless than 10). This stresses the impoMrnce of ensuring that maintenance activides willcontie once the project funding is phased out (4 years after the initial works), and ensuringa sense of ownership both from local government and from the beneficiary communities.

I/ The PMU Consltants (1992) study indicates maintenance costs for 'good gravel' 3.5 wide road asbeig Rp 2.56 million a year for routine maintenance, and Rp, 8. 12 milon every third year for periodmaitenance. Costs for penmac (improved) 3.5 wide roads are estimated at Rp 1.87 million a yearfor routine maintenance, and Rp 24.3 million every fourth year for periodic maintenance. A weightedaverage of these costs was used, considering 73.3 percent gavel, and 26.7 percent pemac. Periodicmaintenance was assumed to be required every tbird year, as for gravel roads. This yielded routinemaintenance expenditures of Rp 2.4 million, and periodic mainte expenditures of Rp 12.4milon.

- 93 - ANNEX 8

Box 1: TE POPULAnON MODEL OF BENEFIT ESnMAToN FORROADS wrr ACCESS CONSTrANm

The popuation model assumes that, in addition to stad pedi taffic, modaltra,-r trips, and normal and genrated traffic,l/ roads subject to accs constrits exhibit'suppressed trffic', or trips that do not take place due their pro! -bitive costs under the exitg roadconditions. Ievalue ofa suppressed trip is thus a fnction of the probibitivecost wbor the ttrip tesfail to a negligible level minus *!e cost of an improved road trip. Past willingesso-p analyss 21have shown that such prohibitive trip costs ar typically betwee 5 to 7 times those of improved roads.Assming a linar demand curve for trip rates, the value of a suppressed trip (VST can ths beexpressed as:

STV = 1(6 x MOI) - MOT] x .5 x 0.85,

wbere MIOT reprsets the 'with prjct' vehicle operatng cost of motozed traffic per kn, and 0.5and 0.85 are factors _presenting, respectively, the assumed linearity of the demand curve (where STVis computed as consumer surplus), and a lag factor acconting for delays in trips gwth followingroad improvement (PMU Consuats 1992).

Under the medtodology developed under the IBRD Rura Roads 2 Project, andardsamples of vehicle openting costs, passenger time value, and vehicle composition were tn fromrepresenttve vehcle and road conditions in rural Indonesia, and used to estimate the relative per tripbenefits of nomal motorized traffic, genated trffic, modal transfer, and sppr d traffic. Therelative frequency of the different type of trffic were assumed to depend on the level of accesscontait and the length of the constaned road. For aumple, for roads with access consrant levd2 (closed to 4-whed drive vehicles for about 2-6 weeks a year) and with a consained segment of leasithan 5 kim, the per trip benefit for a low income nual region were assumed to be as follows (PMUConsltants 1992):

BPT {[(0.20) x (VMT)] + [(0.30) x (VST)l + [(0.15) x (VGT)] + [(0.35) x (VMoT)J) + [(0.10)x (VBT)J

wbere the fiures in pareDthesis india the aumed composition of the predicted motonzed trips bylevel of access c aint, and:

BPT - Tota incemel benefit per tripVMT - ncmenta value of normal motorized trips following road improvementVST - Value of s tripsVGT - Value of generated tripsVBT - Value of other (non-motorized) trips (e.g. bicycles, etc.)

Standard assumptions regarding the level of access constrint, road roughness, level ofinoome, and road user costs, yield the following BPT:

BPT = {[(0.20) x (44.1)] + ((0.30) x (78.8)] + [(0.15) x (18.7)1 + [(0.35) x (2S.8)]) + [(0.10) x(27.0)] =

47.01 (in Rp/Km)

Rural roads are assumed to have a standard 'life' of approximtey 10 years. In order to deterninethe discounted net benefit stream of a trip on an improved road, an annual growth rate of 4.5 to 5.5percent a year (depending on the level of accs constraint) was assumed. This growth rate takes intocandeatLon not anly popdatio increases, but extenal development benefits that accrue as aconsequenoo of the road improvewrent (e.g. in-migration to the road area).

Contimued

- 94- ANNEY 8

Box 1: THE PoLAToN MODEL OF BENEFT Ef0rMAToN FOR RoAws wrmTAcCESS CONSTRANTS (cont'd)

Applying the annual gwth rate to the benefit per trip, and discounting the benefit stram at10 pct discount rate yields the present value of benefits of one annual trip per km of roadimproved (D). Ihe aggrega benefits for al predicted trips can then be estimdate by multiplying Dby the populaion served by the improved road, and by the avrage annual per capita motori3ed triprato, which is a function of income, regional differences, and the averge distance to smaret and/orextnl centers. Finally, the present vadue of the benefits of rod improvement (PVB) can becalcuatd as follows (PMU Consultants 1992):

PVB = (D x B x P) - M

Where:

D = Net present value of benefits of one annual trip per km;E = Predicted motorized trips per capita with an improved road;P = Ppulation benefitted by the improved road, andM = Net mintenance costs per km.

Under the IBRD Rural Roads Project, PVB can be easily calculated by determining the level of accessconstraint, the length of the constained segment, the populaton served by the prwect, and inputingthis infomation into stndard A3 sheets vhich are currendy of standard use by most Kabupaten PublicWodrs offices in West Java.

11 - The benefits of normal motorized trips unde- improved roads are calculted based on the savingsto vehicle opasting costs (VOC) and passenger time costs. The benefits of generted traffic (i.e. newtaffic following road improvement), are estimated based on 'generation fias' (as a percentage ofexsig taffic) as well as standard VOC reduction estimates for motorized traffic. Modal transferbenefits pertain t) savings in road user costs by transfers from non-motorized traffic (usually pikul,animal dran freight, and pedestrians) to motorized traffic (estimated based on standardpassenger/freight loads). The methodology for estimation of these benefits is descrbed in detail inPMU Consultants (July 1992) ' Plsnning Activities Under IBRD Rural Roads 2 - Bclkground andMethodology'.

- PMU Consltant (July 1990). 'Development Roads Study'.

- 95 - ANNEX 8Appendix I

INDONESIAWATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROJECT

CIMANUK WATERSHED COMPONENTAgricultual Financial and Economic Prices (at 1992 constant valnes)

FARMOATE PRICESOutputInput Unit Ficial Price 11 Economir Price 21 Notes

(Rp.) (Rp.)

Output:Rice Kg 315 303 Basedonborderprie, aumingself-sufficiencyMaize Kg 270 191 Based on average of export and import parity picesGrourdAuts Kg 1,500 472 Based on border price, assuming import substitutionSoybeans Kg 920 495 Based on border price, assuming import substitutionCassava K8 90 49 Based on cport parity preMung Bean Kg 950 950 Based on financial priceTomato Kg 370 370 Based on financial priceCabbage Kg 160 160 BasedonfinancialpricePotatos Kg 280 280 Based on financial priceAvocado Kg 260 260 Based on financial pricePetal Kg 1,000 1,000 Based on financial priceBanana Kg 160 160 Based on financial priceMang Kg 780 780 Based on financial priceMelnjo 8fruit 1,000 1,0o Based on financial pricePepper Kg 800 800 Based on financial pievanill Kg 8,000 8,000 Based on financial priceFuelwood m3 6,000 6,000 Based on financial priceFodder Kg 15 15 Based on financial prioeSheepmanure ton 17,000 17,000 Based on financial prieLambs for breeding head 110,000 110,000 Based on financial price

Planting Material:Dryland Rie Kgseeds 750 424 Based on economi price of outputs + 40%Maize Kg sees 1,000 267 Based on economic price of outputl + 40%6(roundauts Kg eeds 2,000 661 Based on economic price of outputi + 40%Soybeans Kg seeds 1,200 693 Based on economic price of outputs + 40%CassaMa cuttings 20 20 Based on financial priceMungBean Kg seeds 1,200 1,200 Baed on financial priceTomato Kg seeds 180,000 180,000 Based on financl priceCabbage Seedlings 1O 10 Based on financial prcePotatos Kg planting material 1,500 1,500 Based on financial priceAvocado Seedlings 1,100 1,l00 Based on financial pricePetai Seedlings 2,500 2,500 Based on financi priceBanana Suckes 375 375 Based on financial priceMangga Seedlings 2,700 2,700 Based on financial priceMelinjo Seedlings 850 850 Based on financial prioepepper Seedlings 540 540 Based on financial priceVanilla Seedlings 500 S00 Based on financial pricelgumincusbTmes Kg Seeds 3,500 3,500 Based on financial priceGrass Slip 10 10 Based on financialpriceSheepbreeders Head 125,000 125,000 Based on financil price

Fertilizer:Urea Kg 250 353 Based on export parity price1SP Kg 310 513 Based on border price, assuming import substitutionKCL Ktg 350 472 Based on border prie, assuming import subtitutionZA Kg 240 323 Based on border price, asumig import substitutionChiken manure ton 0,O000 50,000 Based on financial price

-96- ANNEX 8Appendix 1

IDONESIAWATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROJECI

CEMfANU WATERSHED COMPONENTAgricultur-al Financial and Economic Prices (at 1992 constant values)

FARMGATE PRICESOutput/Input Unit Financi Price I/ EBonomic Prce 21 Notes

(Rp.) (Rp.)

Pestides:nseciide 1 20,000 20,0 Baed on finanl ceFungcide Kg 10,9C0 10,900 Based on financial price

Laor.Unilled Farm Labor petson-day 2,100 3/ 1,890 Based on opportunltycost of labor 4/Unskilled Farm Labor person-day(veogaeas) 1,7503/ 1,575 Bad on opportunity cost of labor 4

Other h:uIvestock stall unit 75,000 75,000 Based on financial price

vestock medicine unit 1,000,000 1,000000 Based on financial priceTrecropstakes loo 15 15 Base on finanlprice

1/- Financial fum-gate pnres as quoted on Nov. 1992, and assumed constant.21 - Eonomic fm-gmate prxes,when based on border prie deriation, are averaes ftr 1994-2023 peiod rflectingexpected

changes in real prices.3/ - Bmased on differentialwages forwomen and man labor and a 3:2 labor rati.4/ - Etimated at 90 percent of market wags

c:\awkes&wkI

IndonesiaNational Watershed Management and Conservation Project

Cimanuk Component - Calculaflon of Econcmic Prices for Inputs and Outputs

(USS and RpK9 00 per ton)

IMPORT PARITY EXPORT PARITY

Operation Crrency 1994 199f 2000 2005 Operation Currency 194 1995 2000 2005

RiceWhite, miled, 5% broken, POB Bangkok tl = USS 270 276 261 253Quality adjutmet (20.90) _ US$ 243 248 235 228PFr t and iurae 2/ + USS 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7aP Cirebon port 31 = USS 280 285 272 264Domestic value 41 = Rp.'00 573 585 557 542Port handling, storage and lsses 5 + Rp.'000 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0Tnnsport Cirebon prt to local DOLOG storage SI + Rp.'000 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5Garut/Sumedang DOLOO overhead costa 6/ + Rp.'000 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9Ex-DOLOG SumedanglOarut Rp.'000 614 625 597 582Trnsport DOLOO to Garutmedang wholsaler 51 + Rp.000 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

White. 5% broken FOCiberon port 7 8 US% 270 276 261 253Domesttiealue 41 Rp.'00 553.5 566 S35 519Qut Aduent (x 1019) = P.p.o 615 629 595 576Port bhndlng,storage and losses5/ - Rp.'000 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0Exportes main 8/ - Rp'000 15.0 15.3 14.4 14.0Ttrspot GatutlSumeda" to Cibeon puort SI - Rp.'000 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5

Wbolesah at Oat/meda" = Rp.i000 617 628 600 586 Rp.000 563 576 543 525Local wholesalerb margin 91 - Rp.000 43.1 43.8 41.9 40.9 - Rp.000 13.7 14.0 13.2 12.8Transport rie mill to wholsaler 5/ - Rp.000 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 - Rp.'000 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3Ex-mil Project At = Rp'000 568 578 552 53S - Rp.'0M 543 556 523 506At-mill Project Area 10/ Rp.1000 369 376 359 350 = Rp.000 353 361 340 329Mig and ekaning eostsS - Rp.000 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 - RpO000 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9XUDsOocal coltetors margin S/II/ - Rp.000 17.6 17.9 17.1 16.6 - Rp.000 16.7 17.2 16.1 15.5Redrying and sbrinkage at KlUD level 5/121 - Rp.2000 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 - Rp.'000 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4Transport fAt to KUDflocAcollectors I - Rp.'000 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 - Rp.000 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Economic Farmsate Prie (unmilled rice) = Rp.d000 326 332 316 308 Rp.OOO 310 318 298 288

Average Import and Export Parity Prices 131 = Rp.000 318 32S 307 298

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m .11 - World Bank Revision of Primary Commodity Price Forecasts and Quarterly Review of Commodity Market, Dec. 1992. Feb. 10. 1993 (prices adjusted to constant 1992 values by 0 -5 MUV Index).2/ - 1989 consultant's estimates adjmted to 1992 values by a foreign Inflation factor of 1.13.31 - Rie is imported by BULOG and distributed to DOLOGs.4/ - Echanbge rte USS 1.00 - Rp. 2.05051- 1989 consultarnts estimates adjusted to 992 values by a domestic inftlation factor of 1.25. k46 - 0.5% of domestic value + port bandling + transport to DOLOO.7/ - Assumes that export value FOB Cirebon is the same as export value FOB Bangkok.8/- 2.6% of wholesae price + tansport to Cirebon pot.91- 7.5% and 2.5%, respectively, of ex-nill prie + transport to wholesaer for import and export parity cstimations.I01 - Assm 65% conversion Osbab Keuing GiVlg - 0KG (tredy for milling dried paddy) to miUled rice.ItU - 5.4% of armgate pice.121 - 0.85% of btamate price.t1Y - Axsuming rie self-sutfficiecy. c6epriceiwkl

IndonesiaNational Watershed Manageiient and Conservation Project

Cimanuk Component - Calcula on of Economic Prices for Inputs and Outputs

(USS and Rp.'000 per ton)

IMPORT PARITY EXPORT PARITY

Cumency +1-1= 1994 199S 2000 2005 Cuffeny +l-1 1994 1"S 2000 200S

MaizeMaize (US) No 2, Yellow, FOB Gulf Ports a/ US$ - 98 101 t0o 88Qualityadjustment (Z.OS) US$ = 83 86 92 75Freight and insurance 2/ USS + 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9aPiakartaport USS = 117 120 126 109Domestievalue 3t Rp.'000 - 240 245 25S8 223Port handling, storage and losse 4/ Rp.!000 + 21.9 2t.9 21.9 21.9Inporters Margin 51 Rp.000 + 19.7 20.1 21.0 18.4Transport port to akarta wholestr 4/ Rp.'000 + 6.3 6.3 63 6.3Wholesle in Jakrta 6/ Rp.'000 288 294 307 269Jakarta whoesaler margin 7/ Rp!000 - 20.1 20.5 21.4 18STtansport Sumedang/Oasrt wholesaler to Jakarta wholesaler 4/ Rp.'000 - 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5

Maize Yellow POB Cirebon pet 8/ US$ 98 101 10S S8Domestio value 3t Rp.'000 = 200.9 207 221 IS0Quality Adjustment (xt0/8.) kp.'000 236 244 260 212Prime premium for Adsin markets 4/ Rp.'000 + 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 1CPort handling, sotnge and loes 4/ Rp.`000 - 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 00Exporter's margin 9/ Rp.'ooo - 11.3 11.6 12.4 10.2 Transport Garut/Sumedang to Ciberon port 4/ Rp.z000 - 12.5 12.5 i2.5 12.5

Wholesale at Gari/9Sumedang Rp.'OuO = 245 251 263 228 Rp.`000 228 235 251 205tocal wholesaler's margin 101 Rp.'000 - 17.1 17.5 18.3 15.9 Rp.000 - 10.9 li.2 12.0 9.8Transport local collectors to wbolesaler 4/ Rp.'0tO _ 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Rpl000 - 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3LocalcollectortapImts' margIllI Rp.'000 - 11 I1 11 10 Rp.'000 - 10 10 11 9Transport farm to local collectors/agents 4/ Rp.'000 _ 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Rp.O00 - 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

EconomicFarmgatePrice(dried gains) Rp.'000 - 205 210 221 190 Rp.000 195 201 216 tI4

Average Import and Export Parity Prices Rp.'000 = 200 205 218 182

V - World Bank Revision of Primary Commodity Price Forecasts and Quarterly Review of Commodity Markets. Dcc. 1992. Feb. 10, 1993 (prices adjusted to constant 1992 values by C-S MUV Index).2/ - 1989 consultant's estimates adjusted to 1992 values by a loreign inflation factor of 1.13. I3/ - Exchange rate US 1.00 = Rp. 2,0S04/ - Consultant's estimates adjusted to 1992 values by a domestic inflation factor of 1.25.5/ -7.5% of domestic value + port handling.6/ - Assumes that end market for maize is in Jakarta (fced milbs, etc.).7 - 7.5% of wholesale vahle in Goaut/Sumedang + transport to Jakarta wholesaler.8U- Assumes export value FOB Ciberon is the same as export value FOB Gulf port.9/ - 4.7% of wholesale vahl in Gamtt/Sumedang + tranport to Ciberon port.I0/ - 7.5% and 5%, respectively of btrmgate price + transport to local coletors + local coletors margin + transport to wholesaless, for import and export parity value.It/ - S% of farmgate vlue + transport to local coflectorstagents.c: eprid2

IndonesiaNational Watershed Management and Conservation Project

Cimanuk Component - Calculation of Economic Prices for Inputs and Outputs

(US ma" Rp.*0 per son) PMUSSwe RP.WM psua

IMPORT WARIl INWOr?A%IT

Comacy0posatioa 1994 1995 200 2005 C qemy Opesato 1994 199# 200 200

Soybean GroundnutSgobes (US). C PRotterdam US$ 249 249 233 249 Groundo all bulb. CIP Rotsrdam / USS 621 657 S90 449

Taempe-tlruprieedlffental2 USS 237 237 221 237 Domsticvainue3S RPOOO 1.273 1.347 1.210 920

Domestie value 3d RP * 483 48S 4S4 485 Pont bandling ora and bos 41 Rp.9ow I 750 753 75.0 73.

lorthaedgsasbrs adp losban 4/ RP-OW0 + 25.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 lmportees marin il RP.20 + 134S 142.2 125 99.S

TtnmsportJakarta port toJaskta DOLOG ssorage/ Rp.O0 + 6.3 6.3 63 6.3 Ttansport port to Jakarta wlolemler 4/ Rp.'0 + 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Stomp andloss"t akuat DOLOG4/ RP.OO + 9.4 9.4 9A 9.4 Wholesale InJakrra 12/ Rp."o0 - 1.489 1.570 1,419 1.101

Sakaa DOLOGOPvwrbedcoa41 R4fp0 + 27.0 2.0 25.0 25.0 aksana w.olesiermatr&u 131 Vp.-l o 36.3 38.3 34.6 26.9

ft-DoLOralarta Rp.000 - 350.6 330.6 S19.4 530.6 Tansportlocalwbolmberabrto akat boller4 Rp21000 - 22. 22.5 22S 22.5

Tnportlakuta DOLOG to ROPTYLJkaftwholaler 4/ RP-)00 t 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Wholetab at SmedagtGtarut Rp.000 - 1.430 I.09 1.362 102

KOMiakarna vtoluer martn 6/ RkpOO + 27.8 27.8 26.3 27. SumedaglOGamtt wholeaes mar 14/ Rp700 - 34.9 36.8 33.2 25.7

Rx-XOY/wbotleale In lakart7W Rp.`000 584.6 4.6 551.9 384.6 Transport milto Sumedang/zut wholmlemler4, Rp-0 _ 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Transport SumedaGaut wholsatr to Jaarta wholear 4/ Rp000 - 22.5 22.5 22.S 22.3 Be-mill rtFj Area Rp7000 - 1.389 1t466 1.323 1.020

Wholeab at Sumedanggarut RP.OO * 562 562 529 562 SMiled Grouadauts, os-mil project area 1 Vp0 - 639 675 608 469

Smedaug/Gsmtwhatemslrmargln8/ Rp.O 26.8 26.8 23.2 26.8 Net millingand re3nerycosts 161 Rp000 - 0 0 0 O

Transport lotlecaoa/antsto bealwhoia4Fr 4/ RP000 _ 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 Trawport SumedasGants wholeaertomls4/ Rp..000 _ 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Loca1collectore/wpats'marda9/ RPtlOO - 23 23 21 23 SuedangeGanttwhbosaiermar I7/ Rp.O - 21.4 22a 20.4 15.7

Trasptr brm to healco)lectopnat 4V RP.OO _ 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.S Trnport local colectoagests to local wholoeer4 Rp0M - 3 Si Ss i8laicoIecore/agntat marsh 18 RP.00 - 15.4 16.3 14.7 112Transport farm to lcal collctors/eat V4 Rp

0- 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.3

1mmeU_e parma as a *Al (tam quafty) so/ Rp.'0 5o0 soo 470 500 Haoetc fta tste pric (ded stne Bots) 191 Rap.oo - St6 820 557 426

V - WoldBank Revsion of Priry Commodity rIte Forecas and Quartrly Revew of Cmmodity Markets, Dec. 1992. Feb. 10 1993 isue (prim adjusted to constant 1992 values by G-S MUYV tbdet}V/ - lmprtedseahot lempeu . whIchIiebesrerthsanlocal ehefanoftahu' quaty. um e*93*adjustemenftomtauqualiytorempoquaUty.

3 - hEaxen,rate US 1.00 Rp. 2.0S04V - 1989eomulaat's esdmats adjuateds o992 values bya domesad lafatbo faetorof 1.25. 11/ - 10* of domestir wvale4 part handlin. etrage add los,s5s- Soybean Is Impoted by ULOG and dlsrbuted to XOPTi (Iapersi Peugrajn Tempe dan Tahu Indonesia) 12/ - Assumes end market for goundntut oU i In alartna.

ortolocalwaoleslars. 13/ - 2.S*o oftwholeoe price In Sumd*n&siut 4. tsnusport cost to Jtatrta wboesaler.61- 5*otex-DOLOO Jaarta value 4 traspor costs. Inludes alo epente suc aXs wte r*Is. 141 - 2.53 o tex-mlUlprojet ama pic 4+ tr anpo frtam mil to loeal wholesaler.

KOTn membemlbp 6nd and savinge, fees etc. 11/ - Assumes 46* conversion ftom skeld gonudnets to goundust oil.71 - Assumesend market of soybean Iinlasart 161 - Willing astd reifieey osts aue ausuered to t utout with tke vlusOof pouendnut meal foim feed

S - 5*otfe.rmtaprtee .+ocal tcllectors' marT& + .traspot towhotesawl. t for export.91- 45 of S tmrate prim + local citestor' marSts. 17V- 3.3* of rm5ate prIe + transport to local cletors/agcnts + locafotllectorsrarge + tratsportons to

106 - Soyeanconasidered as an importnubstltute. SumedsnGtoarutwhoealer.18/ -2.6* otf fanre prIke 4 trnport to local oollectorstagnts.191 - Grouandut economie value calcuated as an Import substitute.

tecprre.wki

-100 - ANNEX 8Appendix 2

IndonesiaNVational Watershed Management and Conservation Project

Cimanuk Component - Calculation of Economic Prices for Inputs and Outputs

(USS ad Rp.0O per ton)

EXPORT PARITY

Currency Operation 1994 195 2000 2005

Cassava

Cauava Sbth (Tac)Tpioca, FOB Ciebon portl / US$ 188 186 186 186Domicvalue2/ Rp.'O00 = 381 377 377 377Port handling. storage and losses 3/ Rp.M000 - 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9Exporter's margin 4V Rp.T000 - 19.0 18.8 18.8 18.8Transport mill (project area) to Cirebon port 3/ Rp.WC - 125 12.5 12.5 12.5SumedantGarut broker's margin 5/ Rp.W0 - 16.2 16.0 16.0 16.0Ex-mll ProjectArea Rp.000- 311 307 307 307

Cassaws Thbom (Sin$ong)At-mill ProjectArea 6/ Rp.'(XJO 62 61 61 61Net millingeosts 7/ Rp.'000 - 0 0 0 0T1asport local collectoralagents to mill 3/ Rp3aaO - 6.3 6.3 6.3 63Loa collectomsagent's margin 8/ Rp.'OOC - 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9

Economicl frmgate price 9/ Rp.O00 50 49 49 49

I/- Kompas (May 4, July 15, 1988), and consultant estimates. Based on Tapiom- FOB Bangkok prioe, onverted to 1992 constant prices.Assumes that export value FOB CSberon is the same as export value FOB Bangkok.

21 - Exchange rate US$ 1.00 = Rp. 2,050.31 - 1989 consultant's estimate adjusted to 1992 values by a domestic inflation factor of 1.25.4/ - s.6g of ex-mill price + broker's margin + transport to Cirebon porL5/ - 5.2% of ex-mill price.6/ - Assumes 80% losses in conveMion from tapioca to fresh cassava.7/ - Assumed to net out taking into account the value of the wastes to be reprocessed into animal feed and citric acid.8/ - 12% of frmgate price.9/ - Indonesia is a net exporter of cassava.

c\eprice8.wkl

IndonesiaNational Watershed Management and Conservation Project

Cimanuk Component - Calrulation of Economic Prices for Inputs and Outputs

US dRLO0O p-rt-r) (WI 01an p.100pertac)

IMOrPARm IMoRrIARM

Cu g Oq. 1994 1995 200 2005 Cumm OPqM 1994 1S 20mm0 '.

KCL ZA (Am:nonium Sulphate)KCLMP (48-60% 120),DBuktkFOB Vn w US 115 115 114 1U Z r pie Bulk.Far Ea III W 60 60 60 60PF and re US + 339 339 33.9 33.9 be* aa dnum WI + 339 33.9 339 33.9Cwlhbtfpoet WI = 149 149 148 146 CPJabaapost WI = 94 94 94 94Domeatvuoe3/ Rp.O = 30 30 303 299 Domestievalue3l Rp.t= 192 192 192 192Posbandh.stompand loan 4/ Rp.000 + 219 21.9 21.9 21.9 Poshandi. slorand losses 4/ Rp.00 + 21.9 219 219 2L9npoaes ma sl/ Rp100 + 32.7 32.7 32.5 32.1 Inpostees man SI Rp.1000 + 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4

TrupostpactoJkreasda.sI r4/ Rp100 + 6.3 63 63 63 Tsspoutportolakbgasaisol!ler4I Rpl00 + 6.3 63 63 63Strgeadlos4t Rp.J00 + 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Stoaeandloess4/ Rp.100 + 5.6 5A 5.6 5.6labut.uoalersn&n6l Rp.'0 + 27.9 27.9 27.7 27A lak hnolesaler marn 61 Rp.00 + 18.6 1.6 18.6 166Wb Dlesabl akasa Rp.000 = 400 400 397 392 Wholeb Di labna Rp.10D = 266 266 266 266Ts"nt habdatoeudmagaruedsibsaor7l Rp.E00 2: 24.8 24.6 243 Transport laka toSumedaJgaxu* diaxibwor7/ Rp.70D + 16.5 165 165 165St ada gspantwol-es=a* sn l Rp,10O + 21.2 21.2 21.1 2D.8 &uned.ngarantvosleesawar& sl Rp.100 + 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1Whalesatopebet tSuedangjOat Rp.OOO 446 446 443 437 Whole pre at S s Rp. = 297 297 297 297TIa stodW4i RpOOO + 63 63 63 6.3 Toespoettn nGanttola i4/ RpWM1o + 63 63 63 63 Laalregalh?s macjug! RlpJOOO0 + 203 203 202 2D.0 localrtaesa 9/ Rp.tQO + 13 16 136 13.6 °ReP potarea Rp.1OO - 472.2 472.2 4693 463.7 Retal peceatpoct area Rp.-OO = 316.8 316A 3163 316.8Tianapostt,uale:aDtrto6uan4/ Rp.110 + 6.3 63 6.3 63 Tnepontliertofum41 Rp.100 + 63 63 63 63

elrnomic ~nagaepe. 14t Rl47lt8 - J71 478 476 470 Beaati hste pine 12/ 1pO) 323 3 323 323

1VWorld aik 3evic o(Cfmodky Prbe Poeast and Qey Reviewof(Commodtylarkets. Dec.1992. Feb. 10. 1993 issue (prhes adjustdto cnsant 1992 values by G-5 MUV Min ide).2/- 1989 scsu eses adjustedtol992Athusbya oreigbuai ofl.13.31- EBhnge nte US l - Rp. 2.05041- 199csuhan'tesimaeadjsteto 1992valebydomseaic b fs orofl 2$5/- 10% of domesc ae + pot ba oragumnd to61- 73 of domsi value + Fonhaodtang+ imostersinaga + trspoudtouloeater+ toage and lbss71- 62% etwkpricem3ahmta.8/- S%of nate preinJahkaut + trasuspontlakteato etg ldtibutor.91- 4.5% ofwnoso price in and tanspostto nairtaier.101- lntoseslasa ad i m poeterofiCLII/- etiliier Week (UK). Pri aboveis averageofquoata foraed-Mach. 1993. deated to 1992constat price Allehargesto frm-gpte zumndto tecospaabcto those of KCL trd TSP.12t- AJloftie. Zproducedi ldatnesiis for do(ic utitin(PAS A AgmultumalSuatioa Report 1992). ace acts as an iwpt substitute.

epse7.kl t

IndonesiaNational Watershed Management and Conservation Project

Cimanuk Component - Calculation of Economic Prices for Inputs and Outputs

(IM dRp0OBpw t() (d s-d Rpk.!O0put-)

InOPrPAIT 5OMRT?ARrr

C 1-3 Operaim I9 1995 20 200 C qrmy OPOSSU 1q94 1995 2 200

Urea TSPU:ma(46%6 n)wbagp'd.wryo FOBswpe it 10 13 147 163 1S4 TS?(46% P20S .BOdfpBw-Fll Us M 12 133 1M3Pftmiut baAsiimarW2f US$ + 10.4 11.0 1Z 11.5 PFrei a ninsurance 10 WI + 339 33.9 33.9 339CIP b (Jla) poat USS = 149 IS 175 166 ClF3abrta port USS 156 162 167 165r_twed 3l Rpl0O0 = 306 324 359 339 Domestie3f Itp.tX)0 = 320 332 342 338Pos handling. gosp and Ises; 4 Rp.,oo - 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 Pot bhaling.storaeand lms V4 Rp.000 + 21.9 21.9 21.9 2L9Tkoapwt ktcqtoiakartapost4 Rp!060 - 7.5 73 73 7.5 Jnre?s mar IA/ Rp.W0 + 34.1 35. 36.4 36.0Eapost.?smnaruj S lp.lUO - 26.5 282 31.6 29.7 Trsoaoporttolakastaivoesaler4l Rp.tJOO + 63 63 63 6.3Ba- prices (Cikanip.., Wet Java)61 Rp.0C0 = 250.4 2663 29S2 2803 Storage and lowss41 43p.90 + 56 S6 5. 5.6

Tuanspot ftosy(C(kampek) so Srmda3 dsdtiribulor 4 Rp.20 + 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Jakat oaler rmarn 12/ Rp.-WD + 29.1 30.1 30.9 30.6Scmageandlo.41 Rp.900 + 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Wholesalbasin a Rp.UJo = 417 431 443 438SweedmgwuholsasbramarWn7l Rp.m0 + 203 213 23.9 22.6 Transpt Jakara to SumedAG dtdbitbor131 Rp.000 + 17.9 185 19.1 18.8Wholesabat SurnedangfGsrct Rp.!OO 291 3a$ 343 323 SumedangfUlast uoesateks margin 141 Rp!.'00 + 21.7 22.5 231 29Trurapost Sumedangmtsrinntosnrtibr4/ Rp.o + 63 63 63 63 Wholesb price at SumedRag a lp.0 = 456 472 485 480Loss! msikra marvin SI 3Rp!W + 14.9 5.? 17.5 16.5 Transport Swnedang/Osrutto lal rtailer V Rp290 + 63 63 63 63

Prlo at projectc Rp2lOO = 312 310 366 346 Local rtasiler marpln5/ lp!0O + 20. 215 22.1 2L923urspos loca*l re.allcr tor 4 Rp.UOO + 63 63 6.3 63 Rotaprisccatproect ar Rp.900 = 483.2 499.9 513 502

111-13smc 1511111511114, pm. W RPMW 3O9O337O373 352 Trsarrportlocalrsta Lertofa sn4/ Rpp.OO + 63 63 63 63Eoomir farmgt prew 16f Rp.'O0 489 5S6 520 514

1 - Wold Bank Ri of PrimayCommodiy Prie Forast and Qusrery Re o Commodly Marters, Dee. 1992. Feb. 10, 1993 issue (prie adsted to ctant 1992 values by 0-5 MUV mdci).21- 75% oOrBBpre.3t- Ewhe rate USS 1.00= Rp. 2,5 10/- 19S9carubant's esieas adjustedto 1902 vahs byaforci ifip atim fctorof 1.13.41- 199c9onsuknts estimates adjuaedto 1992 valus bys domestc iflan factorof L25. IIt - 10% of domestic vabio + port handling. stage and lsk5 - 106% of donestic vabre + port andrmsg+ transport atoyto porL 12t- 7.3% ofdonestic value + port handling+ imported mang + tUnspos toolesaoer + storageandloma.6/ - A amure markted in Wet Jva i manuaured by PIT Plukd Ku* Ciampek We Java. I3t- 4.3% of vobsble pre in ulabta.71- 75% of as-fa4toyprs pi + tanspot cmsuto local distnitor + agp and losset, 141 - 5% of woea price in JaIta + tranaport Jabrta to local distribuor.81- 5% of vhoprke + trasport to lokl atiter. 151- 4.5% of wholcale prie in GarurSumedagldgand tasport to lcal realer.9 - h aeisseat eof urea. 161 - donesia sanet importerof TSP.c:crh5wkl

bI

-103 - ANNEX 8Appendix 3

INDONESIA: NATIONAL WATERSIED MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROJECF'IMANVJK WATERSHED COMPONENT

Sensitivity Analysis of the Farm Models

Zone I Zone 2 Zone 3

FRR 1/ NPV FRR 1/ NIPV FRR It NPV(Millon Rp.) (Million Rp.) (Milion Rp.)

Base Cuae 2/ 33.0 2.2 28.3 2.7 18.5 0.810 % Decrease in Prices of New Outputs 24.6 1.3 16.4 0.8 2.3 -0.520 % Decrease in Prices of New Outputs 26.4 1.8 22.6 1.8 119 0.210 % Increase in Costs of New Inputs nL n.a. 26.9 2.6 17.1 0.720 % Increase in Costs of New Inputs 29.8 2.1 25.7 2.5 15.8 0.6One Year Delay in Benefit Accrual 2t.5 1.6 18.8 1.8 10.3 0.0410 96 Shortfll in Yields of New Crops/Activities 21.0 1.0 21.7 1.7 10.5 0.0420V Sortfall in Yields of New Crops/Activities 21.0 1.0 14.5 0.6 -3.5 -0.9No Incremental Benedits Besides Producdon of New Crops/Activities 3/ 26.6 1.7 24.4 2.0 NA NALarger Derease in the Area Under Annual Crops 4/ 28.1 1.1 12.0 0.2 111 0.0S

I/ - Fnancial rate of return to the farmer. Farm models take into consideration in-kind grant provided by the project.2/ - Base case for farmers in the model micro-watersheds.3/ - For Zone 1, this scenatio assumes no savings in fertilizer as a result of the prqoject. For zone 3, it assumes no incremental yields in annual crops.4V - Ibis scenario assumes a decrease in area allocated to annuals of 20% for Zone 1 (69% in base case), 40% for Zone 2 (25% in base case),

and 60 % for Zone 3 (30% in base case).

Zone 1 - Vegetable Area Model.Zone 2 - Unterraced or poorly terraced, high sloped areas.Zone 3 - Tetraced uplnds.N/A - Not applicable.n.a. - Not available.

c:\sensit2.wkl

Indonesia - National Watershed Management and Conservation Pr6jectEconomic Analysis of Road Sindang Ratu-Tajuk Wetan (3.6 km) Garut

Maintenance C.stInvestment Without Project 21 With Pcojet 31 Iocrentsetl Residult Benerft Total Net Benefit Total NetLength Cosa Routine Periodic Rootine Periodic Mainteance Value of per Trip Deserit per Be(kmn) per km

Costs lweatnent per Km per e 7J t /It 41 (in Rp.) 5/ 8w

194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 01995 3.6 26.086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 (26.086) (93.908)196 3.6 0 500 0 2.400 0 1.900 0 27.3 93S2 7.482 26.9361"7 3.6 0 500 0 2.400 0 1.900 0 28.6 9,805 7.9DS 28,4581998 16 0 se0 3.700 2.400 t2,400 10.600 0 29.9 10.247 (353) (O71)1999 3.6 0 500 0 2.400 0 1.900 0 31.2 10.708 8,80S 31.7092000 3.6 0 500 0 2.400 0 1,900 0 32.6 11.189 9,2S9 33.4392001 3.6 0 500 0 2.400 12.400 14300 0 34.1 11.693 (2.607) (9385)2002 3.6 0 SOO 0 2.400 0 1.900 0 35.6 12.219 10.319 37.1482003 3.6 0 500 0 Z400 0 1.900 0 37.2 12.769 10.I69 39.1292004 3.6 0 s0o 0 2A00 12,400 14.300 0 38.9 13.343 (957) (3.445) 2005 3.6 0 SO 0 2.400 0 1,900 10,613 40.6 24.557 22.657 8l.565

NPV 47.576IRR 0.2U

Speciflctlou Lenigth of road upgraded 3.6 AmPopulation served by the upsaded road (estimated): 5.816No. of tip per capibt per yean 59. baed on a distance to exteral aevity centen of 3-20 km.Level of cess coastraint: I (Intermitent closure to four wheel drive vehicls in wet seson or 2-6 weeb a year).Initial ivemets are assumed to occur on year 2.

V - Cost of reads are a deterined for the project and sume 73.3% telford (at Rp, 20.7 million per km) and 26.7% of asphalt (at Rp. 50.6 per km).A conversion factor of 0.91 was used to transform financal costs into economic costs.21- Without poject maintenance expenditures are derived from natioawide estimates for bad quality 3 m wide gravel road. EsthiattioD follows PMU Consultants (1992)3 - With project maintenance expenditures are based on PMU Consultants (192) estimnates of standard maintenance expenditures for good gravel and improved pnetration macadam roads of 35 m width.A weighted average of the two types of road maintenance expenditures (0.73 xgood gravel + 0.27x good penmac) was takea to reflec the proposed construcion stdards.4/ - Assumed to be 25 peraent of initial capital costs plus 33 percent of last periodic inaintenaace expenditures.S/ - Incremental benefit per trip per Km is predetermined for the regio, baed on the level of accs constrains. and the length of the constraned segment (3 kin). P

Benefits are adjusted by a factor of 0.7 to allow for lower benefits of son -asphalted stretches.Benefitsa re asumed to grow at a rate of 4.5 percent a year. reflectiag growth in traffic movement due to incieaed development activities. The methodology follows PMU Consultants (1992).6/ - Per trip benefit x yearly per eapita trips x population served by the project + residual valte of initial investmnent and last periodic maintenane. Orowth rte in trips taken reflected in the per trip benefit growt rate.

SowtuSusndArdM3 sheds .edbyKabpaes Publi WorwksDiv forKabuo atenroadacoit-beae0t anab Methodoogydeidfrom PMU Couat (July1992) ?aingArvi UderlBRD RuralRoads2 - Bdkgrondand Mdet .W30*wkt

Ibtilh lwateabd CamcvUon ="d *"a_t Projc - uw* timu recod rawmt"Vetbl 604lde 1 O.6 4

a oe

i6thact ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0ocber-op-¢ero to 2 1 4 5 67t*a °t 6l o1 t7tC

r * nI.260 1711.25 1606.1 V ,17S.6".4m15 .675 K ,6.67.o.1l6.5o76 1.60I i06'ls76 V0 6071 607C 56,17S 7644 11125 0 7 161S 6rotazo s ~~~~~~~~~~19 0.000 21060 000 1 U1k .40 1 U42.100 11 U2.400 21 U2 z00 1 912 *0D 1U02.400 1.0U2 *00 1 U22 400 1 U42.400 1 U42.400 I U22 400 1 U2.400 I S50 OtO 1,960 000 1,U22400 -6Saw - - - . - - - 7 o 20,800 $3 $00 44,000 46,000 446,V00 16.000 .- -1600 -

r0,000- - - - - 6000 2 20.0000 0020,000 2000 20000Sadder - - 000 69000 6900 0 0 ,000 69 000 69 69 000 69. 0 069""ION 07 0 69 001 69 000 - - 6S070-STo. 2.1 61,s2 2s.1ao 26 ao 25,500 #.605,601 25.60 1.0.7 1.40. 1. 1o 4,500 2,5 SOo 21,600 25604 0 25500 -1- 2 .600Live S2,00,00S 1,17, 11.02 0 1.1.0 2. 601,917,6S 00 ,5275 000 27.9 000 16,2 117. S 20 175 -6 2101 t511. 2 0 5 711500-

£300.45 - - . - 1.500 20.600 33,400~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ 447.60 4.00 660 4. -,Fr- 4.69.1.1 - . - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S . - 60.06 160.000 300.00 420.075 62.00 47 6204.7000 420.00 - - 42.400

to 0- - 30,000 69 000 09.000 69.000 69.000 69,000 69.000 69,000 69 000 690000 69.000 69.000 - _ 65.000 -6640p masOn - - 16,150 _6.0 25.10 56,100 N.0 200 2 0 2 2.1* sO St a9 Soo -t500 U.5 50° 26 s00 25,10 5 1.100 - 2600aI" Vat" o fmo. 516 0,s60,s71 000 211s000 2 ,0 S00 216 00 27160 S0 2651 S ,57 s.71 1 0 000 2 0 21600 211000C210 06,0 3 7S 07 0

- - m,no -00 -0 -000 69,-00 -00 -0 -0 000 69,0 69,00- - 6e - - - 0 -06,94pams. - - 161700 21100 21-00 21000 -nI.1 44 21100 61100 211O0 621100 215 0 --_ _ 21- M - -09-106144 - - 161 500 _;i:i _UI7 _~17 -ItI -7l~ _,4,1 _W77 -UT1 _T577 _,1,1 _U 7 _~! _E1 _T 1 _

Gr -U -~tSU 1.000:-3-5-1- - - ta,000 - - 2,000SP0 b.p - 1,100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _Or - - S,SO - - - - - - S. - - - - - - -199 - - 4,610 - - - - - - 3.120 - -O,720 - - - -04L - - 5,250 - - - - - - 4.20D - - 4.200 - - - - -6t0u1a - - 6,000Stell fr lisatoo 75,060

_ r~- -od S -26, 0 - ~ H 27S2 27S2 -3id 1.14.ram. 2.4b0 0.1114 Vp614 055- 9.1 -"table___ ____ __ 117S ,- - - 16 107- - --Or ow1 Unct." 219* d - 304911- - 43 670 4

-t317I

- -

tn_e1o 4*,000 46,000 42,300 42,300 42.300 42.300 42.300 42,300 42,300 42.300 42,300 42,300 42.300 42.300 41.000 4S.000 42.300 -6Coboss* S ding14 200.000 100.000 54.000 ,94000 94,000 94.000 94,000 94N000 940000 040 N 04.0 0 94.00 94,I O94.0 20o,OO0 200.000 94.000 -6Set"* 1tO 5 125.000 121,000 493.000 492.600 493,100 493.10N 493. 00 4931,00 493.00 403.600 493.100 493.100 4.SW. 491,00 525.000 52S.000 493. 00 -61460. - - 12,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5t5 62,100 62.500 So SS0 S,0902 14,200 64.000 53.525 63,621 S13621 13,621 13,621 S,62 S2 3.621 13.022 62.100 62,500 03.620 -214 1Sr 162,710 262.750 2620ns 1242.SS0 23S,493 13.4,40 130,276 13,111t 11.111 615,512 9,12 16.2 136.112 13n,112 162,710 162.750 13.1S12 -312L 1S".soo 115 .00 14S.OS0 11.U243 134,I1S 134,0S0 133,910 133.71 133,770 131,770 13.77,0 133,110 133.770 133,11 117.200 117,100 131.177 61_*65 _Gm.n*5#al 1.300.000 2,100.000 1. 194 70 2.12.100 2.173.0 1,172,100 1.172. S0 1.272,600 1.27,2600 2. 1272,500 1.16 2.000 1.272.100 1 .272.100 1,10.000 1.20.00 1.112.1S0 -10 0214660400' 0.01d) 260,100 210.100 23S1.41 221.660 231,610 220.621 21S0.66 211,616 23S.61* 23.606S 236.640 231.6S8 231.610 231.66$ 2S0.100 260. 000 23S.616 -6 tLk15.145.4. 211.~~~~~~~7S000 311.000 3S2.100 3160.000 06,100 300,1$00 3$6.S00 216,100 31,1400 364.100 36,6.00 320.100 314.1OO 306,000 311.000 310,.00 2SI.00 So134041 6.. .b*.i c i n _______ 30 000 1p 005 31 000 21 000 -3 00-30 000 31 0 3U. 000 _0 M31oeG Y,00 YS t St O 5 00ll-T.ir dSaroh.d topot 2,971.4 02 17Ei1 2,S 7 142 iIN 2'1l, 22.7614450 2,7U,.9702. , 7,4* -150 L2.c Unskilled - Vegetable £5 66 62S 42 60426 910 213 1 003 600 2 000 141 2 0070 000 0o4 2 007 1401 000 00 t 006 420 9 000 20 06 420 A 000 42 9 65 S"6625 1 005 420 02

0400 -t 6¶6111T 3cflin11I ° 7D00014751 0 3'1 t25 3~7U72 -7K19 i 5 4201 3291 67171,76 "S itV ti2K .3U 0r, Et- ft*v2on P-r1rd 3,t71.07 3,0717,071 4,0990,00 3.771.044 3.176.6S0 3,756.4S2 3,78.,013 3,1764,I" 3.7644.49 3.600,744 3,76S.424 3,74,424 3,09,094 3,761,424 3.677,071 3.517,071 3.76S.424 -3L, 1,405e, tr. 0093 po"o 36771.01S 140t00 3,7171,044 3 7160 3 10 402 11 , 013 1 764 29) 3 1764 140 3 80 144 32 14 424 3.76S1.424 30 004 3 161 424 1.761.424 11.07T 3.611,021 76S,4 420.56 12.. 941..e ofnoaa.2 .4-i 0 46 196'16 t-i'f1 FOi11 iti 6

E16 FTI0 r164 6Y6 "I3-96 121 T. u11 T-4r FS2 11V51 irrm11 UT1

SPA * 31.00 3 7F 223 1514 ' OtS9

16 top 29 11451,1 199m

1-1 Vegetable A.*.. s5lmide4. 0.1 1.) 1r 1-0Mda

Ubt'o*" V&tag"W Kb-"g`a*ftt MA CGOOO-s"m PCOJOM - CIPWoWAk Compameatzoob 2 03 W Tom No"&wtoulam maxam

416 AP) I&

U

S34. IS% MASI 304.111 MM 217,"S M214 2SI.614 MM 2".10 M.404 20. III M647 20.01 2460347 M,647 M.Sa 2450.Ul M.S41 260. SO M.Sa 240.541 M.UlP" 211.606 117.60 I",464 102,150 103.614 103,026 203.623 100,792, OSOIS 93, "t ", "S 90,S83 to, sti ". SO3 W. S#3 90,683 90.643 9o.s*3 so."S "I 543 go'ses So.sacoo.mv. 134.740 134,740 121.902 227,727 110.73. 110.027 12#, 606 116,04 110.802 107.612 201.790 103,780 103.700 103,780 103,790 103,7*0 103.140 103.7" 103. no 203.700 103.760 103.720OCOWAMUtb ass.00 sts,000 769.600 749,2so lso.m m,sw TSZ. 400 M. Ill 70S. 37$ 00, 62S GU. 350 6U. 360 "0.350 "S. 360 6U. 3SO Ot. 3SO 660,350 "I, 30 6". 360 "S. 3so 6". 350 6". 3sobatemo 64.0a 64,000 2SC000 266,000 2S6,000 2S6.000 266,000 2%.000 256.000 266.00 266,000 266.000 ZS6,000 2$6,000 2S6.000 2$6,000 2S6.00 2".00 254.000 2s6.000 26COOD M.000U"a 70 ON IS61006 234 M 2u 00 234 006 234 000 234,000 214.00 234. ON 234.000 234.004 2S&.006 234.000 236.000 234.0ft Ild'aft

24:320 36.040 SS:800 69:0*0 64:060 64:040 $0,810 24,320 36.040 WOOD $4,690 54,900 U.*60 68.*80 24, M is. "Oso, 000 100.000 ISO.000 250.000 260.000 250.000 isoloot 2601000 160.000 160,000 iselooo Iso.006 160.006 ISO, 000 160.00 ISO. am107.620 107.620 107.620 107,620 107, S" 107,620 207,620 107.$20 101. SZO 207,S20 107, SU 107.S2* 207,620 107, Sn 101.620 107.620 107. in

4s, 1 6,000 I 6 000 6,000 I 6.000 6 040 6,000 6,000 6,000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.00 6.000 6.006 6.00 6.00 4,000 6.000 6,000Fodder coo 06.000 Os: ooo los'm 0swo 10S:000 los.000 206.600 i0s.000 lob. ON los,oco los,00 105'm 14S.C00 -10s,00 Its,wo i0i'm -m,M 10S.00 1,66.0msso 000 660 000 MO 000 no 000 "O 000 agIn r04100 sso 000 $60 000 $so 000 sikom"rWomoorstow 6ROWW Y.1

W 81 LOX 2,065N 23N.' i 2. 6439i 2, Utli I,FW7 a. SIB.' 2,005 4. MIMor

qw-. US- 09 toodheatt" I'sov, 1. so. q. r" r" T" Ti". r" r" F" T" T*m- T" AM T" X" T" T" rim. r"on-two 0-Fodor. 30,020 S*. M 205,000 106.000 20S.400 106,000 los.000 105.40 ios, 000 los,000 10s,000 106.000 106,000 los.000 106.000 106.000 106.000 ios, 000 los. W* 1". coosb"p adme,-006�104`41 *.-F- U" 4 0" 6s, mi ios, los. 106.0i lot, las. -- I1W , losmi loc los. loc 10S.63i %Os. -TIM los.mi loc los.55i --Idrm0-nm aaaftapts-ftoo "O "O 4.10 '" 's" r 'suo r" r4M. r" Y" FAM i" r" r" r" T" I r" r" rim 17" 17"

lkt Val" Of trod-ti- sTem r!"M d Am 1141,934.97 2,044,9 2.194,73 2.299.11 2, III. I'S 2.328.2 2.320.2 2,326. 2,293.69 2,306.2 2.320.2 2,316, 2,328,2 2,)26,1 2.328.2C"t

selaftsS9. 440It M

= r 24:192 24.1 24.191. 22,400 22,492 22.4 2cc-* W" 20,000 20,00000 00000Legooduct,a tv" Sp*ci*. is 000sb"p broader. cf-I.) M:000ve" 10,400 S as 400ISP 24'ad 1:"6 1:6*6MM 16,114 2,464 2,464

so. 76016.400 6,400 S" I.Id. leaud) $ S2321 423 23

Seek I tft L�toot is:00-- mM - - - _: _*2011 no -- z

owd-votat P-bee" Impt. --------Flood Lobw

Y- Ld- U-U13.4 I" . ..... 00 S

impaoPA- CtmU C".) S"ft 11,400 211400 10,260 t. 9" s. 6" *.420 q'i" .,$so s, 560 #I 2so 7�900 7,"o 71990 7,"o 719" 7."O 7'"o 7. "O 1.980 7 No 7. 9" 7 no"ttze 2.31S 2,376 I'm 2,076 2,026 1. oso ),"o iltso 1. 7?S 1.72S 2, "I %,"3 2'"S 1."� 1. "I 1, da 3.663 1. "S 1. "S 2: ea I."3 1:663C-- 24.260 14, ISO 22 90 2t. 4w 12 360 11 7 11 400 It.100 10, "O 20, ISO O.S75 V,076 9, #76 9, 97S I'm 9, In 9197s 9,175 9.27S 1.97S 9.916 9.976Gro.paw 76, M 76,000 62:400 ", 60 64:600 62:0" 60:000 69,000 PAN $5, 000 a,200 $3,200 63.200 63,200 SS, 200 $3,200 53-.200 $1. 2M $1.200 0.200 S3.200 63.200Too" - - 26,190 2s. too 26,113 26.47 26, *30 26.930 261*30 26, 30 26 930 26 930 26,930 MIX 26,9" 26.930 26.030 26.930271 2S 2" I$: 11 S I I I IUm It'd IS, 26,60 It. 31,3946 3t. 30:95S 30 530 30,0224 34.04' 2 634 29. 24 29: 14 29: 14 zo. ism ".6 2t. is IF at 29 14 IF 1406 406 I S" 36S

1 2*'- IF -S

TSP 23. -0 23,- 30.070 43. -# 42.130 42,172 4I474 42 961 42,3ss da.624 42.0S* 42:050 42:06# 41.2" 41.2" 41.244 0. M 42.04 42.0t 42:00 41:2" 41:246XCL 17, 74S 17, ?405 26.460 36."4 36.404 36, 064 )7: 744 37:359 36.904 37. 300 36, SIM 16,974 36,M 36.0$2 36.062 36,082 34. OU 34.00 3C SU U. 97S 36.061 Jf. 0122A 1.920 11920 7, "O 7, "O 7,666 7,"* 7, "O 7. "O 7.690 I."O 1, "O 7,680 7, 480 7, "O 7,680 ?"No I."o 7 "O 7."o 1.680 7.660 7.6801"-tAoxdo - 16,400 16,406 16,400 16,400 26.400 16,400 19.60 IS.600 19. 600 19,60 16,400 16.400 16,00 19,600 29:40 19.00 It. GM 16,400 26,4001-ti"do Wlid) - 12,421 11,42) 11,423 12,423 11. 42S 21.423 21.772 111772 II'm 11,772 12,4122 12.423 111423 Is."I 11.772 II."2 21.772 21.423 11.421ft.ti.Ld. it, 000 29"wo 17.22 16'640 16'160 IS'"o 16'200 14,760 24,240 13.760 11.300 13,300 13,300 13.30 IS."O 13,300 23,30 23.300 13.300 IS.300 13.300 lI.X*Nadi auw for sheep - 0 O"gwe-ut" *-.h-w levers 184.1 -a -IM --4M -IM -3.YW -"4 -7WE -TRUM0 --&WI -IM --3M -&MI -&A -IMI -I" -I" -- &m-T;Lpm" -3;M2

Si"d LaborF.- Lob., ft.kAll*d ISS al 206 461 326 3*7 r2,97$ S04 266 500 %69 SOI 292 602 O" 407 463 P2 403 412 Of 772 403 412 4*3 412 493 412 413 412 483 422 3025.567 OWN$ 600.'426 fiklf $11:64 614:19 008!42 iWIFS09127 W M 6S7!014 4 UK 20S 4 4 014:14

sob-faft.1 7 rT5rW 742:92 _T537M iimi 10; -TWTH 661.42 -RF-4H t15 W9 $14,193 43 OLUS 406,426 600.42'Mj 1.3iVI 1.4i7d 1. RN IZ 1,61CO 1. W. i3l 1.406.' F '025 2.4004 E;T , M 71 izC"b n" "foxv, nowi*2 UN20 941'429 4 M 1.95. 4 4M -Ffr3-l,8

11401.499

r.Tg,-fff

T:U§-.M

r.IT4-.M

rTITIT"

1,709,157

i. 709, IS1

ITUrM

T.7gF6.

V*- P.Aly Omeatite noo-i" T7nrm T7fyF. is Isomvw .9 wAsome

I.Ooot.. f, ttoft- period $69.627 NO, 627 1.109,620 742.92$ $SO.M $41.#07 $42,604 030,493 #",SS% 92S. 767 014,103 917.S43 N7.S4j s".426 NS,426 1"'426 91S.W9 414.103 017.643 417.543 $01.426 408�asTruator to Nut Petiod 369,627 1 109 §1 _48!L2S % ,201 $41 467 MAN $34 492 30 St 926.31 HI 1.1 .17 641 .37.11 .08 426 800 42S tft 426 016 00 03 $17,543 017,64 $00 02S 000.42 #00.42setateao .9 Vi- Elf ifi'iii -j Pad - CM

ftem".G V41,41i 4 4m tn rwrm r76r 4" a 4" 1.460539 KIW r4min F rTtr 4n rsst55 rrz. ru I, ff r on Y. immT.4wm=Att no""" J81 I06"Iso T.Zgrm Egm RWO RINT. REM" 1710 2 r7m.-M -ITIT-Insm,twas ru n"ly-oft as temea zs�331 rw 31.12 -irm

21ft - 20.3t. WV - 2.733,041.73U U."ets"d - P ly tattooed Wired. wft- ta tAgh vlq*. Ardeows total adec rope to 0.476, oc n pecoftt QC tbb fac. Om. The commaLm; 0.02S ba to ua"c smg cam f tetraft.9 wA "t weed tar �Icistlft.

Tuo up n ups"'m IM

1-1 stoo 2 (0.6 6.1 P.- Pladalth

66116.61 V.1.061.4 669,*.1 ~ C90*waOl 93ts6n 6 W - 0i166*5 c_nt

22 23 24 2" 26 27 28 2 30 t M, M2

9.00 240,597 240.567 240.917 240.197 240,917 240.917 24;0,597 240,567 240,597 391,113 39,153 240,187 -22"a"to 80.583 40. us 00.643 96.193 90,5*2 40.563 90,5U3 40.93 006.6) 117.401 131.84 9OS .o, U -2Scoso"o 103.700 103.7 0 103. 00 103,740 102.70 103.78o 103. 70 101,7*0 103,700 134,746 134,14 103,160 -2SGcowAgo to 491.310 456. 10 4S1.310 "S9.310 4"S.3M 418,210 409,350 46U. 30 09. 310 8S50,40 969.000 459,310 -23Baa... 24,00 264.00 2S4.000 256,000 21,000 25s#.000 254,000 2,000 254.000 64.000 04.000 24,o000 300ran0 234.000 r WC 234 000 234.400 234,o00 234.000 234o000 234,000 234.000 - - 234,000

repp., so~~~~5,300 19.880 18,88 59.n8 59,890 24.320 31.940 58,6880 50 S# - 59,400Ronal.3 *50 1I0.000 1 lS0,OOO 150,000 150,000 1tO1000 5 0,000 110,000 1S0,000 - - 0I.0009.8ll0. .01,2 10 107,120 107, ,20 107.55 0 107,1210 107,530 107,520 0 07.12 0 - - 107.2620rt.1wood 6,000 6.000 6,000 6.000 6.000 60,000 4,000 .o 6000 - - 6.00 -P8406: 101,000 1"01,00 105.100 105.000 101,000 105.000 100,000 101,000 101,4 0,000 -a.ot_.b for btodiag tsosON sotON.O tOS OOO tOS OOO tOS, 0 tOS Goo tS,OO tOSOO " Uo000 sON,O

$0.trl a" Vcdtic 2,ss0,70 2.5i 700 2,U,00 5;7 2,U6.10 2.ss6ti 2,MN 0 F700 2,So °70 176F Mo w609.5s06 s, o o

Shoop _nur Sl 000 St0 000 S0t 000 1 000 50000 0Si 000 S 000 Si 000 St 000 - - %t 000Come nl 01 frdoief 2,631. 2AW 2.63l 7 0 2,415 05 ,z 2,69s7. sz 2,6ii. M0 2.631ti 1. 6" 1, US," 2.ws.w 7 4rr.pa.c 53S000 51000o 51000o 51040o 11000o 11000O t51000 11000O tO1000 - - 11000b0oa-a U".

Fodder 101,000 101.000 101.000 105,000 100.000 M.N 10S,000 10s5.00 1o,o000o 10I.000 -51*9p ... ,* -110 - - - - - - -- -

514-.W tVMU 31800x 19941 308410 19450i 1940 1*04 1 191410 os *410 1445 1140 198410 19100 GO

smt.169148* )2,=.211 2 ,311912132S.2 213U,2i 2,32,250 2 l,S27UW 2,10)21 2,32S2 2,321,2s0 1.3T.0 1,311,21 321. 21 7i

6666 - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

power - 24 19 - -2--v n1.30 - n -o - - - - - - - - - --V.8011. 22. 400Or. 91p6 - 20,000 2,000 - - 20,0003*868.. ?*en 43.0±6 - -- - - - - -Sleep 1968*0 80616) - - - - - - - - - - - - -0*,9 - 3,480 -TS? - 1,0-6t41 - 2.464 - - - - - _ _ _ _ _Prn O n6*ral _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -Im-ts do - 6,400 - - - - - - _ _ _ -ftogi0d tn011d3 - 523 - - - - - - - - - _stall to, Ii-tort

0.tol t_r od__ I d 2 __t __ 20_ 000_ _

sd1 w ta ... moat C.. 140 ----- 0G.= .P..

Mmo 49.dk 0*103 f.edo 7.960 7.950 7,600 7.9n0 7.880 7.010 7.9$0 3.990 It.890 13.490 13.400 1,9800 -30of".. I7 6 63° US 6,61° 3,40S 6'.3 1 661 .00 1,443 1,4 US ,171 2.37s 1, US -20C 66a9.9is 9.911 5,'1 9,971n 9.011 1.171 9.911 5,911 9.1 74.2no -10.210 s0.91 -so00 .. d 3, 5 .200 9 75, 200 12,20013. 200 13200S 5a3.2M 9 3.200 7 3200 76,000 74,000 S13200 -20to:t 26.930 246,30 26S300 26,934 26.936 24,830 24.930 24,93X 24.930 - J 209 -,9M30aa 2.1 4 29.163 2I0,4 M 34 29,62 4 29.034 3 9,13 4 29.134 2.14 ZS. 114 30,400 1S.400 29,510 1o110 41,244 42.059 42,019 43,019I 42,019 41,244 4.4 41,2 004.2 43,244 23.000 23.910 41.206 39tSt 6.062 34.979 36.976 35.976 36 ,9t 360,02 24.042 24,52 36.002 t7. 74S 17,74S0 3.002 103IA 73600 70 60 70 1.4000 t.S00 I.S00 7.400 7t.400 76.00 1.920 1 920 17460 300lna6.0t806 35.491 1,00 is 19.it 000 is,000 19,400 164,00 10.00 1,400 11..400 WO - 165.000 oq1icod8 0SOU11 11.423 1 1,372 11,112 11 772 11.772 11,423 11t421 113.23 11.423 - _ 11.423

,Id. 13"a 3,00 13. 12,300 233,20 U3.00 13,300 300 3, 300 13,300 19,000 19.000 13.200 -30.d0ci0 4ot *tot p 70 400 70 000 10 000 70 000 70 000 70.000 70.000 70 000 70 400 - - 10

llirdt.1 P .... d 2_ero 123SOt2 32771 130;771 1.77130 771 32S012 13I 012 25X2 13V7U 11t7679 11717S 725 012 76

F.- Lotnnt" Ua.17-"'I 4S3.41 4'3.42 43.42 49 2 4 83 4 3 402 42126

t-i4r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" M_21¢1 113,0 nd3 412N 1111zT1 1 1ts.t791 * 10A.61 116 *... V...5g rlli'Q1 25 rtioi'si T1T3. 500 311t7574 Sol!0 tIK 12')5T1102 W 439 TT2 0 2

8666. *06.6tTt,6.r. 0,00 P,.olo 96:568 800.5 9,009 U14,3*3 07,043 817,142 800. 8.2S 0,40 83.2S 10962 20942 8682 11264

nWt 11 nt 6092 M31f !2035 .s775}

nr ptr _9_ *66tt6S1;o.la 1.4 9Kt1.66 1U'1Il TIt13 tU' -7 f 17 S1 -7.SS7 ffl02s - - ,-

1-2 0.4 2 04.5 6.8 .. 08

9.0404 vaumb" &d e "0'000 P- - 1"a`6 C.1t," 3 OA. 290 da.. l0 "g

M 2 36 320.36 20.306 304.331 296.3U2 269.320 20,341 217302 264.39) 236.2*4 24.23 240.266 240.266 246,266 2 S0,266 240,266 240,266 240.266 240.266 240.206 240.26s 240.266Mole. ~~~~~~~~~~1141,46 212.426 312,416 102.042 203.12 1 20.214 91. no 94.10) 01,000 09.132 46,294 03,262 43,602 03,062 83.02 83.042 62.604 "3.4 03.04 03.162 42.162 43.262s 127,004 121,606 1217,6 122,273 138.123 114.090 21,110 204,10 201,347 202.22 90*0 02.742 94,14 20,742 92,742 90 7142 92.12 *92742 96.742 90.71 9.742 99,14240vlwaa. 420,09*2 426.292 422.502 404,322 393.67) 3*2.033 M72.22 361,703 321,113 340,474 2,O 319,12 310,194 319,10 o192 12 3O9, 104 319.196 319.1 9 319.124 319.104 3719.s4 319.197wag9 9440 324.9000 324,200 334,900 304,422 300.233 22.410 204.200 276,162 269,043 229.920 242,104 242.670 243.61S 243.616 243,67S 243,061 242,610 242.672 243.415 243.675 243.619 2413,6144.000 44,000 120.000 12.60 3290.00 129.000 129.006 129,000 1210,00 129,000 329,000 129. 000 129.000 120,000 129,000 122.000 120,000 129.000 124.000 129.000 134.000 324.000%.-WA ".M 64.00 120, ol! - - 3~~~~~~9.000 14,060 131.000 121.000 321,000 311.000 117.00 111,060 117.000 117.000 2111,000 117.000 12-1,040 117,000 U11.000 111,0002o 22,300 11,920 29,440 22,440 22,440 29.400 29,460 12,140 171,20 29,440 29,440 29.400 Ma.t0o 2. 440 o 226 21792004.11.30 - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~22.000 00,000 0.0400 10,000 10.000 11.000 7s,000 72,060 12,000 10,000 19.000 19.000 10.000 13,000 MOOD0 1$,000v P 23.760 23,700 5,100 1,160 53,10 0 ,140 M31,760 23,1060 03,16 13,10 S3.140 12.140M00 23. 17eo 500o 7S 03.100 WM .10 02.100200390d6 . .O 600D,0 6.000 6 ,00 6,000 4.000 6,400 6.00 4,000 0.0 6,000 6.40 640,0 00oo 6.000 4,000 00060 6.000 C.ON l.000 lOSOOladde..4r ,4 0 152,000 106 ,000 10,0000 2l0,SO 300.000 102.000 M09. 000 106.000 102.00 100,0s00 2.0 1000 102.000 100,00 102.00 102.000 10.400 10S.460to2" - -0 004S.1S09 . ."a 000000 SU 00 20S."0 000 0 0 00000 5100 000.400 _00 0eS0 n0 2,06 o0 100 000 ao0 00 20 000a.,1 are_.61.00 T1T300W E37311u 409, 0 S19 ;923422 27132 . Z 3 0 3 I 2 1 £ 2Uig!6i 2s 2O ,0 a39 2fl3tV1U

ODep mooo . . 16.120 22.$ 00 210 21.4 50 22000 so o2, 22000 21 000 012000 ,000 21000 10 2100 21000 0 0 11000 0100ae 201..et twoft m 1.372,I1 373,910 1AN 1.662,23 !071FIU7 r.ul0t 7 V 2 T 1'2 1A l1 I Et I II 327229 Z, 006 3163.1s 6 fl31m2. r;1H1 Yw00 ; 1092,002,1 2U,709.6 2;70239 I7I018i 27097 20I;0 "6IS'*e 1,uigvadde 30.16 01.809 102,000 102.000 300.000 100,000 osoo 102.000 10100 0.000 300,000 200,000 209,000 200.000 200.000 302,000 300,000 202.000 102.000 101.000 100.000

r 2 C 1l X 40 g i7a 40 a,2u"g:o7b r;gffi~~~$7. 106.0i 10.4ia; ,ls.nars M, m,u 11,1s321 x,eu6, -Tag#l t>wswl w 1, Mr,w0 1,16,006 a,7", 15.0N.0i M.Niz* losniX* ,n4 t* 00Rim

rttt i -

t - - *oo . 0630 -- - 002 - - -- 242 - -- -3106 292050 20~~~~~~~~r4400OM 3040 200400l 1274400- 3,0040 3.90.40 1004003 1.0040 109534 26.420a 3009401i1, 6 9401.7 9 ,9.61 94 8 .0,d M10040 1000M. %Si3004001

00 . - - U94 714 - - -. - - - 1 .os - - - - - - -2.0 - - - -90.2820000OtO 20'4- 20.0t0

0000028.6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~00abreak 40alt ?.0.

30.9 .. 2t) - 9.100 - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _-

7 O ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1740 2.7 P-4

9.2.2 - - 2.300s - - - - - - .^ - - - - - .4 ----9.96. - 32,096 -. - - - - - 1,2.09 - - - - - 3 12,09 - - ---= = ftl. - 1.20 . . 1.230* . - - 2.37,9 ..

_42.mt. 6996 -. . 3040 - - -- - - - - - - - - -

90409 bo.961od 00in2 - - * 2200 - - -. - - -n 200 - - - - - - 0.aoe

004cs. .#sg- ., - -.4 - - - - . 6 1-4 - - - - - 3.74 - - - -092 - - 22.160 No 4 - . 93.

YmLob" tor 6 - - 72.O2 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - 4- -- --

r_d0 _ n1e.00 . sco ,--.m

_0...0 . e 00 -a" 9s- 600 S, - 104641000 - - al-

28066228280.4 _ q29 . - - - - . - 01.13 20. 0 o I# 2,f 22 Ie 2 1o 6o0 743 6" ,6. -" n

28-06 641 -o 12.02t 120406012A6 1: 420 1.:S U. 4063 5 .w 7065 .1 191. aa 200a 0Sed J20.00020 lO.TIS 10S 20.00 20.S 000 2, 90 9,12 0;1 0 9,406 2.10 2,910 0,0 0, 0170 .300 ,10 .100 0.0 0 0 20 0.100 . 0 ,20

04.1* 3.206 2,20 .0 3 2'4 2.02 1.91 2,01 2.00 0.000 1,4 2.400 2.44 20 2 ,009 2.690 2.60 3.0 1,6o24 1,0 2.0 1.

qrsed l OPOO11,220 21.240 21.200 16.416 23.004 10.203 3S.020 30.0 " 14.206 13.024 23.392 12.960 32,.00 2.90 1,4 2.94 12.9220 12,2o 22.90 22.4O to U 0M 12,9400r . 32,94 2.040 32.940o 12.312 2931.0 t13464" 12.40 31,014 10.6622 20,364O 20,044 9.720 0,130 0,120 9.722 9.120 .126 9.720 9,12 0 9" . 220 07.20ladder ~~~~~- . 2.,204 32.630 32.990 26.374 26.714 21. 120 21.490 21.063 21.063 21.062 21,062 21.963 21.060 21.062 21.063 271.63 27.443 21.062V-. 21,930 21,939 31. 930 3.93 33 .1IS9 32.734 32.213 32,162 33,236 20.920 30.314 29.029 29,802 29,049 22,260 29.560 2.022 29,029 29.0#21 29.00 29.9SU 29.060M 42 33,1 33,011 42.209 50,219 20,17 42.310 49,104 09,20 07.200 41.492 46.4US 40.000 40.000 40.491 40.491 40,491 45,444 40.900 60.000 45.009 05.490 62.492003. 20,110 231370 31,390 39,322 14.210 30.017 30,030 37,946 37.41$ 31,330 30761 36.24 3,209 3 1.140 3 2.1M3640 36.160 36.200 36.200 M6.202 36,2"S 30. 160 31.16000 3,920~~~~~~~~"n 1.920 3.040 3,040 0,40 3.0 I,0m 2.240 2.00 3.040 3.060 0,40 3.0"0 3,440 3,040 3.940 3,040 3.240 I.060 3.240 3,040 3.400

tr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-0 ': 94st Oa 9 o 27o ': i:Mas7 42 I'm¢ too7 moo5 9. oo 9.80 I'mt5ll5 S X*67as7" . 6

t0 01at 4.d a -t 0.200 S,0 M 200 6,200 S4,200 S 200 2, .0 .o 2,900 o,o0 S.0 .SOO,O 2 9.0s.s 02206 o,on31.on02O (sould) .3 3. 239 3.1 391 0,624 4,655 0,031 2,409 0,390 0,320 9.397 S.319 0.240 4.240 0,066 60.04 0.66 4.260 0.200 9. 240 0.240 0.046 0024002. 29.000 10,0060 2l000 21,00 16.462 24.200 2n0S.2 20, 30* 34.02 14,400 23,040 23.00 13,00 ,00oo 33,500 3350 133,20 23.000 23.00o 22.00o0 ,ls0 1320

Iee 0.14 0090211. 26 230 246 230 414 000 023 163 4 1 6 " 0 04 442 50461 H141004 2320900 524060 SC01400 0322.3 $11 203 122_ 23 92.62 20. 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 249hU204 @040. ~~~3~3~72 691112 771'120 -jitioY 991339 209~~~~~73t 93T312 1W332 U7'141 T0~~~2Ul926 101'22 120022 20t622 29901162 -0tI 02us 0 I S 203 2101

200.0190 "I90... 00.009-073 1'9 6102TSI 92tb O?11T1- 019i'fl -- i T -o u-'t 0'w iiW 'o 'i 076 ~02z

.060-40J 104m on .It0.400. ff"0 1.0020.2 09,10 424.212 424,212 1,030.021 114.226 916,001 044,016 026.729 04-1,449 031.232 M9.3110 010,294 006.602 024,602 000,062 900.003 000.043 061,206 402.928 04.442 004.42 900.093 6000.06Lo" Transfer to909t 2.o14d 424.V 12.030.021 1426 01.0 060.024 40012 .064 3a32 9 330 030200 064 $42 0046042 So OS 000.03 800.0939233 02 044 MO 40 3 004.042 0ZN00 063 00 003 000.0022tOublael hU.de so 60.40.. -. ~Iu 7U 9116 lU252 017 2 7702'2 .6- 459Guillf - -22-

SP I1.6.oe WV v2

.34 .... 3 5 0 0ixi ~ ~ ... 0.. -.... ' ~ ' ~ ___

%A t00000 04200Y. _990900 t090900 00 0.00 Ia 00 10 9000051t of t0 tam.

TOO 049 20 09,230"1 10 3

1-1 0000 3 40.0 000 600440 r hbl

3504.5 VstonS.4d Ib_t#...346 C_ m ,tlr. VCoJmt - C*.us C _aMItIa.. 3 0.1 ha) 1atu Soad.

11 p) is

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~toot Wiat Itth- fDblt

22 23 24 21 .fl 27 29 *0 1* W8b _____t

MD"aim 240.260 240.266 240,266 240,266 240,266 240.266 240,266 240,266 240,266 2,035 3M0.35S 240.266 -2S""to 63. s52 63.5o 63,562 4 3,6* . .62 0 3.562 63.562 0.8632 II.46 121.416 63.5642 -25C....1 51.3742 O1.742 95.742 5. 142 55.742 95,742 50.742 95.742 9,1.42 12736,6 127.656 55.342 -ass5.a. 315.195 319.194 315.194 315.154 3 225.154 315.154 315.154 319.54 3,I .294 425,552 426,552 315.214 -25a"s , 5466 24.635 242.6 6n 24 3,643.631n 43.671 243,5 243.63S 243,611 243.631 324.500 324.500 243,65 -255.5.55 12,000 M2A.0N 22.00 120.000 125,000 225.500 25.000 I2U,000 125.000 64.000 464,00 n1.00 1Oo1 a* 117,000 117.00 117.000 227,000 217,000 27,.000 117,000 117,000 117.000 - - 11,000 -"s 35 .440 .440 2*5,40 2.440 29.440 122160 13520 2.460 29.440 - - 2*,405.11,20 31.000 no .000 31,0o 71,00 3o.050 35.000 n1.oo 7s5ooo 75.000 - n 00V 1125 53.370 $3746 $5.3 760 $3.70 53,760 53,760 3.0760 53.470 53.760 - - 63.760 -

Vv 6.000 61000 SION i.0s. 4,000 I.ON os000 6.I000 h ooo0 6,0001_00. 15s6o0 10S.000 Uo.000 150.000 MAW000 10 50 101,000 105,000 11S.040 10- 000 -Lam Cm bcCO41.9 51.007 51w00 0 00000 _ M000 3*'in 51.000 ".000 -_ Cf _04 was tooduS TNF57W§ 7.1 .646: 310t.0St6w rao 2,546,11 X, & 2,We 0W r7Vmw 1,7s-sl 2, IM, as01.69 20*05 11000 51000 00 51 000 2000 51,00 IS1,000 5I, 1.000 01000

Iv z 1.0 MM160 11.000 1041.000 10W,OO N0S,.DO 1000 r lo0. O 101o000 20S.000a.. -~~~~~~ -~~~~fl -~~~~~ -~~~ -~~~i -~~~~~ -~~~ -~M .......... - -

nice 1V.460 1 in 546 1;7 4 155x 400 154m 4 I001" 400 1400 _,4 , . 1 0 ,

0550 - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1563 Va"Of 1 7N1m 1,nE,1U0 51h7N. 1'001111 0tn n 10 ;2, s4.34%,1 TThh,1 171 75U9 S , 7 9.1S 11

Na., - - - - - - __ __ _ _ - -551o - - _- - _ _ _ _ _ _ __- - -12:- 12.004 _ _ 9.0111 - 12.200 00.5 5225 - *0.000 - - - - - - 20.000 - - 20,0003*5.1.. tos 551. - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So.. - 1.40 - - - - - - - - -15- 52 - - ---- - -. - SMl - ,2.32 - - - - - - - - - - - CN*O5dd 4._O52 - - - - . - - - - - - -146146 t..1262 - 2- .

501 abot 224.90005 - -X44 _ _ 1 .* - - -40 - - - -09 5. -e 60 - -, 1 - - - - - - - E - - 2;0

Ma (44 00903 05.4. * .100 0.0 ,100 5,o o ,100 6,200 *.100 *,00 5155 510 2.00 10,S00 6o.2o00lo -2155,9 165U i,66n 1.6n5 1.6U6 1.66 1.66 1.6n1 1.66 1,65 .210 2.2s0 1.05 -31C..y 10.12 20,121 10,125 101O 20.N12S 10.s2 N 102S ,25 1015 1.121 13t.500 13,500 N 1022S -210055 12.0 23.50 12,g 1.540 22.540 12,540 2.0 12 .540 12 .660 12. 500 13.260 17,250 1 2,g .560 -*1

85.69 S.5 5.3*~;70 5.720 5,320 5.120 5.720 5.720 5,320 .120 5,120 1250 12,55S0 5.720 -211a44.o 23.~~~~;64 23.56 23,563 23.56 23,062 23.562 23,542 27.6 fft .n562 - - 27n6 -Or.25.06 25,525 25026 20,625 *5,5* 25.56 25.565 25,565 29,56 21.1 2552 25.06 20 SttS1 41.451 45.540 4556 41 *.065 45.000 45.492 45.451 45.45 45.45 33.037 33.013 41.45 3Ml. 31.1~~~~~5,60 14.206 36206 36.201 36.205 31.360 31,360 31.360 31.760 23.130 33.130 31.36 e 15* 3,540 3.54 3.540 3.540 3.54 3,54 3.640 3.540 3.64 2.20 1.520 3.640 100166.01014 0.200 5,500 5,50 5.56 5,0 6,200 6.200 6.200 5.200 - - 6.200 -169d14 (sIi) *,Ot4 0,240 6.240 0.240 0.240 5.066 0,006 5.000 0.046 3.23 2.135 0066 157trruc14 13.000 13,50 13.500 13.500 13.500 13.500 23,00 13,000 13.500 1U,000 25,500 13.500 -355.4015 rer 55.6 71.000 300 300 70.000 7000,3000 70.000 ° 70000 3 0.000 _ 30.000

t retlba SS,l.a Soo.0211 1S*525.203 5316,30 5266 4s.j 2203 515ls203 515.203 *56S22 26246 1s20_2051 _e st51 456*02,6 3 oow.o - 50ts 20T62 _ _.7 * ^X

t r SN t6 50.7S .547 9S.U7 = 9706s -;5r-;nw =s 6 -71.97_ 6 9

to...t.o Or.. 52012 9.. 600.003 667.135 602.562 *00,643 506.643 500.003 *00,013*000 6uR^ 21.5*3 434,333 635.232 025.493 S01

t.9 02rf r to 5491n e 1.04 6674535 003 JflOAO 6B 04. 6* 60 00400.00'3tO¢t wO,Ott3 *2 46 4*545 42st 24.272 *24-272 *25.4073SCFt

_ n-A t e. t 2,O12.in01 *so2.w 6U 1 1.5St7 - 25t7 21.11'1 20 _ _ 21 0

1-2 15* S 50.5 ha) 1.61 Moe

kmlom*W- N"nal WIdwshod ManapmwRt and Conowvatbn Prqect - Uppw Chft*rA* W81111"11141d ComponotEawmnic AndyWo

Os of p n 0 2000 2a MD XMS M JUIS 2MS M M M =0 2MI 222 =3 =4 2US Wt =7 Mill M M Mft 30 20 3M 30 US 3M =9

'npa WAR An to" VMS OM M" $WM NUID SAM OM =AS 410,2111 M" M" SMAG M" ntM SXM MO SINHO UW SWO MM MM 51111168 =0 SNLMVKWt tOM MM 3SLM OM MM MO 3311AM ULM ULM 30M 314M MM UX70 OM 321.7%, 3n TX X&M JIO# 3MM MX MM =11111 MM X*M MAN UM OM OMIAM SOJPS WJM OM rAM 4*0 MM MW =X4 74M UIX 73W W.7111 720A 726,314 MX4 70JU WM 134A WAS W.SX 7"4 7^94 IMM 'AILIN NUN, W.3M WA

i t 2 4 4 0 91 0 9 0 0 $ 9 9 9 9 0 9 0 9 9 0 9 9 t 0 9I I I 3 5 6 10 0 so to to to 9 so 0 to to to a 0 to 60 0 to 4 0 to

1711am R, m laty4ftm Al 44 21 21 21 a 74 tl 147 RV to to RV la IN to 'a' R`41 L* "T to RU RV to to IN R"RI to M 473 4Ma a 0 ni IN 94 4" 4M 475 4n Cn 4U 4M 4M M 4n 4n 47S 475 gn M 4U 471 475 47SFFSP.M 0 0 la H? III nS 414 50 IU III US US IRS US M US US US OU US VS US SU US 45 IRS SU US 0 Mffsr� 0 0 0 0 A (m) tis us to no 4w SU m m on an 03 on 7v m m in an m 0 m m m m On

zwk"lima 9 u 14 0 a 16 0 is to p is Is 14 te to 'it 17 to to 14 0 to 111 p to to a 17py2pon T -Mt to a 14 2D n Is n St zt 30 20 21 M n n A 20 3D St III n a n n s 31 0 9 2mMAIM R, 21 311 m so 2moi 10 IN 10 I" 311 211 IM IW 211 XO M XI *6 JIM 29t 20 KO M 301 306 M Jftmran (M. OM 4a M M 00 U34 W CM M W OX 9M IAO 786 LO 90 On 06 974 IM 74 LON w "I 9% on Igorysraw 0 : a OM CM LO Lie Lao to La LM I" &M us tAm M up R" im I tim LIM 1731 Lin LIN LXI I IAN RAW Lu tin am"6111M 0 a a P" 006) as un M Sim txl M% im tAm im W6 tim M 1.111111 UR a UN U16 IAS LM I3111 tAll umo ko im I" UV uu tiu

ZM2:17 34 30 x 3D 35 x 0 M M is M M 9 35 34 34 is P x is 3s so M M it x13 0 v M 41 34 39 v 30 so x 0 M 9 a 39 M 32 0 a 9 9 a n x 40 n n S37

FYI%= 0 R, (,A IN 211 41 M al 10 10 In 91 91 21 OUR IW IK M "S $71, sit M SU M *3 M Pt SU M snrT4F6m O(A. (M at us I'm MO UDS W 034 UN UM IAP LM t" IAX 10 M UM IAR IAN I" OAX IPX 1.006 W6 up Lou oe t.V6 LIXtyshm PAOD) MO LOU 1,5111 UU %M UN UN 3AT UO MO UIS UX 9.30 2" AX7 5.3M MO UN I= I" ZM AX? &M U" UN UX &M U17 In?rydram 0 0 0 0 M" (INS) tm LM 2231 %M UR 2xl 329 us us RAW UN Oft xv up JZS 3zs up Sim UN LM "D xw USS U30 Ust UPO UID Ulo

(a) 79) 3 O un 7A" MM am 14AP lsiv IS" 16" MM lim ISAIR Run OX MM MA30 16pu ISM MP aw U" lixt lus tan tun tun 1=1 14M IIA52 ulsM IUO32) IN nD 40 GM LIN 1.51% M Ug UM UX UM L214 UU UM 229 2" 2W IZ? 2W USI IM IV 2" 2= 2M UN 204 IAI MTOWZONS I 614 VU UN 4.30 4" 4.212 4,05 t7O 4" 00 4.54 4580 4.M 4.0 4.7V 4AU 4M tM 010 4M 4JO 4 739 4.61116 4JW 4" 43116 429 U" LM

Toklz�2 M LM 4X 6JO 7AM M I" trA 9144 006 "M IRAN UW M 41471 OA44 OX6 OX 00 U40 CM Un 2.1" OJM *AM SAI 01M LW &W Lila

ImRzmt amuazm 3 02amz�s 0.01

am

yo"2 RM& 0 (1)W NO &M W US 141) 30 30 %) 76S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 9 0 0 0

Ym3lboh 0 26S 2aM CPSO NSC 70S O 6 6 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

YSN4&0& 11 PT I 0 4 0 a 0 a 0 0 . : 0 0 6 11yousafth a 0 o (T C.) a s (.) I. r., -(3 -0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 a 0 0 6 0 0 0 a

T.idPm& o (OR) (m) (WIR (" 717 736 4n SU 103 sn M 06 im du 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 a 6 0 0 0 4

(a) OM (tm (4^ 0.00 OM up M luo U46 LW 16" KX11 Km tun tM LVn IM " "S K130 IW ISMS WV aW IUD "I Mm LWI IM LUN #SAt MAS

(9) Om M

914 (479) Q ((4961A

I" 11 QA (IMI 0490 0^

PQM on (M0 0 9 0 T PA" OA" PM (Xo (00 (" MO PM CISI) (IX) ON) (131) (131) (131) (131) (LX) (131) (138) (111) (LX) (M) (131) (131) (IU) (131) Qu') ON) tin) (till

(4" (444 coo OM P^ (Mm Pq (Loa) (no) M ON) (M) (399 (" (131) (IN) (M) (Llt) (139) (IN) (13t) (IN) (L31) (IN) (M) (131) (01) (M) 031) (ill) P) 031) (13t) 031) (M)

(401) (11M (I." &" (tt^) M" 22M 1= V= UM t43% IM ISM KM MO LUO AW LMU IUSS ISA13 IS$1111 gUn LSM LUM AM I!L= ISAW OM ISAIZ MM RUN` 1#3111 OM M"

CLMJUN

Wateszhed Managent and Consrvation "aoj.ctIroot Cost SPia_ry

I I Total(ft Millaon) (Us9 '000) poraign Base

Local totelon TLocl L1l Forin Totl S Cost

A.. OatIonaX. MWt1tMtinasL EtrengthenIn COMPauOt1. Project Imtagemnt (ational Level) 650 1,165 1,816 314 562 876 642. ITS/RIS and Planning Sub-Cpo t 11,766 8340 20,106 5,673 4.021 9,694 41 33. Technolog Development Sub-Cobponent 8,041 2.864 10,906 3,877 1,381 5,258 26 14. Training Sub-C lpont 10,177 2.518 12 694 4,907 1,214 6,121 20 2total National Institutional Stegteig Cmpaont 30,634 14,087 45,821 14,770 7.178 21,9(9 33 6

D. I mvstmnt support conponnt s98,98s 34,082 633,037 288.792 16,433 305,225 5 85C. lpper CiEa* Vatebed Compot

1. pnd Cn ti< M nta. SAL

Key Farmer Tchnology Displays 5,682 93 5,775 2,740 4S 2,784 2 18xpenion Areas 24.460 835 25,295 11.794 402 12,196 3 3

htatal SAW 30,e142 927 31,069 14,533 447 14,900 3 4b. Village Nursties 1.734 213 1.947 836 103 939 11 -

Sta ld sevtin magmnt 31,876 1140 33,016 15,369 580 1S,919 3 42. UPa Sadii ntatin Costaol

a. Strusl and Vegtative lad Stabiisatmo StrutuesLand Stabilization 4,191 748 4,939 2,021 361 2,381 1S 1

b. land and Drainage UpgradingRoWd Upgrading 3,587 1,181 4,768 1,730 570 2,299 28 1Roadside Drainage Control 1.643 293 1.936 792 141 933 1SSttta2 Saad and D Vainae gwading 58230 1.474 6.704 2.822 711 1.233 22 1

Subtotal Uplad Sediutation Contrl 9,421 2,223 11,644 4.842 1,072 5,614 19 23. Upland Suppot Servie'

Planning, Bxtansion and Training 4,791 468 8,256 2,310 224 2,531 9 1Farming Syatens Research 465 66 531 224 32 256 12 -Land Titling 1,740 750 2,490 839 361 1,200 30 -Village nd Nealet Funds 442 191 633 213 92 305 30 -

Subtotal Upland Sogert Sevice 7,439 1,472 8,910 3,587 710 4,296 17 14. ProjIet an_ageot and Institutional Strengtbeni

Project Maagement 1,622 568 2,190 782 274 1,056 26 -Technical Assistance 6,061 1,413 7,474 2,922 681 3,603 19 1Special Studies 245 98 94 1,229 le 475 593 80 -

ubtotal Project bu_amet and Ikstitutional Strengthening 7 928 2,965 10,893 3,822 1,430 5,252 27 1Subtotal VWpr Cinu Watershed Coponent 6663 7.799 64,463 27.321 3,76 31.081 12 9

Total BAW COSTs 686,252 86,769 743,021 330,883 27,372 358,255 a 100Pb?sical Contingencies 34,687 2,891 37,577 16,725 1,394 18,118 8 5Price Contingaecies 223.153 7.899 231.043 107.596 3 801 111.399 3 31

total PWO3T COSts 944,092 67,848 1,011,611 48204 32,569 487,773 7 136

Tue Sep 28 13:30:23 1993

1-1 Project Cost Sumary

Inneia aWatershed amag_ellt and Conservation Pro ect

exoesot ost bmaq_

a I Sotal(Rt Iillion) _ U t 000) foreign Sea.

Local oen Tot ord onal tal 1 costs

I. hveett costaA A. 1oultcal . 1qWne

Soes and Planting Material 60,656 - 60,656 29,246 - 29,246 - aLivestock 548 - 5t4 264 - 264 - -Fertilizer /a 1,247 640 2,087 601 405 1,006 40Pesticides 577 103 680 278 49 326 ISFarm tools and £uipmat 217 SS 272 105 26 131 20

ubfttal gAioult el pla 63,245 998 64,242 30,494 481 30,975 2 9S. civil works

Buildings and Structures 775 336 1,111 374 162 536 30Poada and Dtains 2,402 1,181 3.663 1,197 570 1,766 32

Lad Stabilizatioa Tratamts /b 5.6834 1.041 6,875 2,813 502 3,315 IS Isubtotal Civl worm 9,091 2,559- 11,650 4,363 1,234 5,617 22 2C. ehicles /c 365 858 1,223 176 414 S90 70 -D. tl'o

PFrm and Unskilled Labor /d 26 - 20 14 - 14 -Rogular Salaries Is 140 - 140 67 - 67 -Staff Ronoraria 1053 - 1_0C3 50 - S08 -

llbtOtal 1221 - 1,221 589 - 589 - -S. Tralaing (Cimanuk) /t 6,521 1,521 10,041 4,108 133 4,842 1S 1P. Ttainig (Natioal) /g 1,402 250 1.653 676 121 797 1s -G. Extensioa (Cimk) /h 3,000 - 3,000 1,446 - 1,446 - _1. Lamp Sum Contracta/Studies 1 245 984 1,229 118 475 593 s0J. R"earch 4,347 776 5,123 2,096 374 2,470 15 1X. Teciiosi Aadetsmoe

Consulteats Fortign 2,041 0,191 10,232 984 3,949 4,933 80 1Consultant_Local 7.180 - 7 160 3,462 - 3.462 - I

subtotal eatoal ASetstn 9,221 17,411 4.446 3,949 8e395 47 2L. Load Cartification 1,381 465 1,64S 666 224 690 25M. Purnitute ad Bquiamt 822 826 1,648 396 398 794 S0N. Monitoring ad Information System (MIS) 6,109 5,242 11,351 2,945 2,528 5,473 46 20. 32PEg Regreening and Reforeation Investment /I 562,632 34.082 596.714 271.279 16.433 p7,712 6 s0

Sotal t_etet Costs 671.600 56,751 728,315 323,819 27,363 351.182 a 99II. PACUsnt Coasa

A. LaborFa mad Unskilled Labor /k 402 - 402 194 - 194 -Salari /1 378 - 376 162 - 182 - -Ijonortaia 2.536 - 2.S36 1.223 - 1223 - -

Stotal r 3,316 - 3,316 1,599 - ,598 _ S. erioli Sngiep

Sed nd Planting Materials 3,992 - 3,992 1,925 - 1,925 - IFertilisrs 2 1 3 1 1 1 40

Subtotal Agrionltore up1ies 3,993 1 3,994 1,925 1 1.926 7 1C. Lnd Rental 8 - 38 18 - 18 - -D. Building and Structures Maintenance 11 - 11 5 - 5 - -B. Road and Drains Ifaintonance 1,105 - 1,105 533 - 533 - -P. Vehicle Maintenance 1,140 - 1.140 550 - SS0 -0. material' and Furniture Replacement 67 17 83 32 6 40 20 -H. Bquipeet Maintenance 2,262 - 2,262 1,091 - 1.091 - -K. Project mansgemnt Costs 2,719 - 2,719 1.311 - 311

total .amcent Coots 1.652 18 14.670 7,065 9 707 - 2total SP.fli c0523 686,252 56,769 741,021 330,863 27,372 35S.255 6 100

Physical Contingencies 34,687 2,891 37,577 16,725 1,394 18,118 8 5Price Contingencies 223.153 7.889 231,043 107.596 3,804 111,399 3 31

total IIICS cC05 944,092 67,548 1,011,641 455,204 32,569 487,773 7 136

\a Pot Bank financed.\b C? is based on a Cf of 0.9 for unskilled labor (374 of cost), 0.9 for mterials (561 of cost), and 1.0 for skilled labor (74 of cost).

Taxes and FE assum that S0 percent of the costs will be for vegtative treatmnts.\c Assumes vehicles are assembled dometically: vehicles are considered raserved procurement.\d Not taxable.\ Niot. taxable.\f Training is taxod if contracted out.\g Training it. taxd if contracted out.\b Incentive paymnts to xtension workers (taxed at 15) accounted for in honoraria oxpenditure account.\1 Taxed at sam rate as training and TA\1 FB and Taxas *re determined based on breakdan of the program for PY92193.lk Not taxble.

2-1 Project Cost Sumry

indonexia

Watershed auage_ent and Conservation Projecthojeat Comp-to

by Ya

Setals Inoludiag Coe [RD Million) totals Including contin4encies (tS '000)94/95 95/96 _9V97 97/98 98/99 99/00 Total 94)95 95/96 9697 971/98 98/99 99/00 total

A. Natia"l latittiaml Strengthening Ctoent1. arojct Manag_Ment (latiol evtl) 367 654 676 329 1 43 2,110 177 315 326 1 C 20 21 1,0172. IlS/RIB and Planning Su et 1,788 2,144 6,066 7,358 S.544 2,143 25,043 862 1,034 2,925 3,548 2,673 1,034 12,0753. Tecbnology Developmnt Sub-COmponent 661 1,805 1,987 3,117 3,235 3,402 14,208 319 870 958 1,503 1,560 1,640 6,8SI4. Training Sub-bCupcnt 2.772 4.001 :.525 2,552 1,678 1,213 15,741 1,336 1,929 1,700 1.230 809 585 7.590

Ibbota1 ati*DAl ibatitoti.nl Itregtbeal"g coament S,S88 8,604 12,253 13,356 10.498 6,801 57,102 2,694 4.149 S908 6i4i 5.062 3,279 27.532D. lnvestment Suport COmponet - - 182,954 205,488 228,177 2S1,038 867,656 - - 88,213 99,07B 110,018 1212,41 418,349C. tmge Oiaanuh watershed Component

1. q~1aud consevatie Ibnageta. am

Try Farmer Technology Displays 87 0SO 939 1,866 2,432 2,563 8,037 42 72 453 900 1,172 1,236 3,875gpasion Areas - - 823 4,765 11.962 18,521 36,071 - - 397 2,298 5.767 8,930 17.392

Subtotal SI 87 150 1,762 6,632 14,394 21,084 44,108 42 72 850 3,197 6,940 10,166 21,267b. Villag Murseries 33 68 653 S4 6SS 652 2.615 16 33 315 267 316 315 1.261

Subtota Utlnd Coneration managmt 120 218 2,415 7,186 15,049 21,736 46,723 58 10S 1,164 3,165 7,256 10,*80 22,5282. ,plnd Sedimetation Control

a. Strmtuul anAd Vegetativ Land Stabiliztion StatosLand Stebilization 321 379 2,258 2,373 68S 668 6,684 1SS 183 1,089 1,144 330 322 3.223

b. Slod d Drainae UpgadngRoad Upgrading - 1,151 1,193 1,329 1,858 672 6,204 - SSS 575 641 896 324 2,991Roadsid Drainage Control - 645 625 657 669 - 2.596 - 311 302 317 322 - 1252

Subtotal lad and Drainage Upgrading - 1.796 1,819 1,987 2.526 672 8.800 - 866 877 958 1.218 324 *.243Subtotal Upland Sedimetation Control 321 2,175 4,077 4,360 3,212 1,341 15.484 155 1,049 1,966 2,102 1l549 646 7,4663. Ilpad SiweSt Services

Planning, Sxtesion and Training 838 1,061 1,206 1,298 1,235 1,091 6,729 404 S51 582 626 596 526 3,244Farming Systems Rsearcb 3 228 105 124 121 104 684 1 110 51 60 So 50 330Land Titling 111 14 204 498 930 1,561 3,319 54 7 99 240 449 753 1,600Villag and Hamlet unt - - 9 284 298 166 839 - i 13t 143 80 *04

*&total Wood Swport services 9S2 1,302 1,607 2,204 2,584 2,922 11,570 459 628 77S 1,063 1.246 1,409 S,5794. rerjeot Mnageent mod mnstitutonal Strangtbenig

Project Managment 1,225 260 278 287 302 311 2,663 591 125 134 138 146 150 1,281Technical Assistance 1,705 2.486 2,086 1,116 830 871 9,093 822 1.199 1,006 538 400 420 4.384Special Studies -1.349 - - - - - 1.349 650 - - - - - 650

Spitotal Projet amag mt nd Matitutioel Strengthening 27 2.746 2.363 !,0 1,133 1.182 13 105 0 676 546 570 6SO total er Cs_k Wtershed Co_et _ S,671 6.441 10.462 15.152 21.977 9 1 27,180 86,883 2,734 3.106 S.044 7.306 10.596 13.105 41.89i

otal Mm OmS 11,259 15,045 205,669 233,996 260,652 285,020 1,011,641 5.429 7,254 99,165 112,823 125,676 137,425 487,773 W

Tuo Sep 28 13:31123 1993

3-1 Project Components by Year

Watershed Manag_emt and Conservaticn Projectte tm Aomtn by tV

Totals Including ContAoencies (p Mtllion) totals Includ ng Contingancie [USS 000O94N95 95196 96/97 9t/98 98J99 99/00 tol 94/95 95/96 97/98 98/99 99/00 Totl

A. agSqs toum Sq,29Sees end Planting material 46 75 11,918 16,722 241,360 31,T13 84,891 22 36 5,746 8,063 11,745 1S,320 40,932Livstock 18 21 169 268 216 79 771 9 10 62 129 104 38 372Fertilizde /a 7 8 146 541 1,009 1,061 2,773 3 4 71 261 487 512 1,337Ftaticides 5 7 69 192 315 311 899 2 3 33 93 152 IS0 433Tara ools OndA lipnt *2 19 8 111 73 13 347 20 9 43 53 35 6 167? ubtotal icultual SuWlie 117 130 12,391 17,834 25,974 33,238 89,683 56 63 5,974 8599 12,524 16,026 43,241

3. Civil Wokrsuildings oad Structures - 127 323 517 298 166 1,411 - 61 156 249 141 80 690Roads and Drains - 1,151 1,110 1,161 1,176 - 4,598 - 555 535 560 567 - 2,217Land Stabilization Treatmets /b 321 1,024 2.883 3.030 1,354 668 9.281 155 494 1.390 1.461 653 322 4*475

Subtotal Civil Works 321 2 302 4,317 4,708 2,827 834 15,309 155 1,110 2,081 2,270 1,363 402 7.381C. Vehicles Ic 61 235 125 136 11 12 1,382 415 113 61 65 6 6 667fl. Labor

arm and thskillod Abor d 2 2 12 13 7 - 37 1 1 6 6 4 - 18Regular Salaies 0 8 13 61 64 36 - 182 4 6 29 31 18 - s8Staff Nonoraria 109 203 341 357 157 165 1.332 53 g8 164 172 76 80 642a_btotal X.abot 119 218 414 434 201 165 1 551 57 105 199 209 97 80 748

S. Training (Cimanuk) /f 1,937 2,967 2,772 2,138 1,523 1,256 12.593 934 1,430 1,337 1,031 734 605 6,072F. Training (National) /g 92 72 527 790 554 119 2,155 44 35 254 3el 267 57 1,039G. Extenion (Clinauk) b 478 757 640 8a5 776 402 3,887 230 365 308 403 374 194 1.8741. Lump Sum Contracts/Studies Ji 1,349 - - - - - 1,349 650 - - - - - 650J. Research 148 283 378 1,399 2,328 2,447 6,983 72 136 182 674 1,123 1,180 3,367X. teStnca Aesistan e

Consultants Foreign 2,706 4,522 3,528 872 - - 11,628 1,305 2,180 1,701 420 - - 5,607Cousultants Loca1 1,280 2.088 1.916 1.348 1.156 1,169 8.958 617 1,007 924 650 557 564 4,319

Subtotal echtial Asastanoe 3,986 6,611 5,444 2,220 1,156 1,169 20,586 1,922 3,187 2,625 1,070 557 564 9,926L. Land Certification 4 9 aS 344 728 1,341 2,512 2 4 41 166 351 647 1,211M. Purniture and Squipment 367 237 658 370 162 167 1,961 177 114 317 179 78 81 946N. monitoring and Informtion Systm (MIS) SS0 30 3,719 5,5SI 3,589 591 14,030 265 15 1,793 2.676 1.730 285 6,7650. INPRES Regreening and Reforestation Investmnt /J - - 172,176 193.620 215.111 236,653 817.560 - - 83.016 93.356 0n71 114.105 394195S

90tal 2hveeot Coat* 10,329 13,850 203,648 230,381 254,940 278,393 991,540 4,980 6,678 98,191 111,0B0 122,922 134,230 478,0813X. PACUVV=t Coats

A. labor arm and Unakilled Labor /k 5 30 80 124 153 161 553 2 i5 39, 60 74 78 267

Salincas /1 - 15 32 98 170 217 532 - 7 16 47 62 105 257Honoraria 470 512 561 531 556 582 3.211 227 247 270 256 269 280 1.548

ubtota3 labor 475 5S7 673 752 879 960 4,297 229 269 325 363 424 463 2.0723 Agricuture S liae

Sed end Planting materials 21 78 335 945 1,763 2,488 5,650 10 37 162 456 860 1.199 2,721fertilizers - I 1 1 1 1 3 - 0 0 0 0 0 2

Subtotal Agricltue Supplies 21 78 336 946 1,783 2,488 S,651 10 38 162 456 860 1,200 2,726C. Land Rental - 7 10 11 11 12 51 - 3 5 5 5 6 25D. Building and Structures Maintenanc - - 2 4 4 5 15 - - 1 2 2 2 7E. Road and Drains Maintenance - - 83 168 682 672 1,606 - - 40 81 329 324 774F. Vehicle Maintenance 137 210 247 288 306 325 1,512 66 101 119 139 147 157 729G. Materialr and Furniture Replacement - 1 13 25 34 40 113 - 0 6 12 16 19 55B. Equipment Maintenance 29 30 295 725 1,013 1,069 3,161 14 15 142 350 486 515 1,524IK. Project anagement Costs 268 311 361 696 999 1.056 3,692 129 IS0 174 336 482 509 1.780

Sotal Flean t Coats 931 1.195 2,021 3,615 5,712 6,627 20,100 449 576 974 1.743 2?754 3,1 9.692Total VAO3C C0SSS 11,259 15,045 205,669 233,996 260,652 285,020 1,011,641 5,429 7,254 99.165 112,823 125.676 137,425 467,773

,a Ntot Bank financed.lb CF is based on a CY of 0.9 for unwkilled labor (371 of coat), 0.9 for materials (56t of cost), and 1.0 for skilled labor (7t of cost).

Taxes and FE assume that 50 percent of the costs will be for vegetative tratment&.\c Assums vehicles are assesbled doestically, vehicles are consideted reserved procurement.Xd Not taxablo.\0 Not taxable.\f Training is taxed if contracted out.%g Training is taxed if contracted out.lh Incontive payments to extenion workers (taxed at 159) accounted for in honoraria expenditure account.\S. Taxed at san rate as training and TA\) FB and les ate determined based on braakdom of the program for Ff92/93.\k Not taxable.\1 Not taxable.

Tuo Sep 28 13:31:56 1993

4-1 Expenditure Accounts by Years

-115 - ANNEX 10

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

ESIMmTED SCHUE OF DIsuaEmmu

Project DisbursementAmount per Cumulative Disbursement

IBRD Fiscal Year Semester Amount % Profile % LaUS$ million

19942 0 0 0 0

19S1 1.9 1.9 3.4 32 1.9 3.8 6.7 6

19961 2.7 6.5 11.5 142 2.7 9.2 16.3 22

19971 6.0 15.2 26.9 302 6.0 21.2 37.5 38

19981 6.2 27.4 48.5 462 6.2 33.6 59.5 54

19991 6.0 39.6 70.1 582 5.9 45.5 80.5 66

20001 5.5 51.0 90.3 742 5.5 56.5 100.0 82

20011 - - - 90

2 - - - 94

20021 - - - 982 - - - 100

Project Closing Date: September 30, 2000.

li For agriculture projects in Indonesia. The profile for all sectors in Indonesia is twosemesters shorter.

-116- ANNEX 11

INDONESLA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ANDCONSERVATION PROJECT

PROCURMEN OF MAJOR GOODS AND CIVIL WORKS

Total Costa a(p million)Subcomponents Reponsible including contingsnciesand Categories Item Units No. Agency ICB LCB Other NBF

Technoigy DevelopmentFteld Stations Station S AARD/AFRD - 561/a -

Research Equipment Sets S AARD/AFRD - 603& - -

VehiclesFour-wheel drive Units 7 AARDIAFRD - - - 332Motorcycles Units 20 AARDIAFRD - - - 72

1SS and Land Use PlaningMicrocomputers Units 198 MOFr/MOHA - - - 3,077Plotters Units 163 MOFr/MOHA - - - 2,024Digitizers Units 163 MOFr/MOHA 1,619 - - -

Supplies Lump-sum MOPr/MOHA 641 - - -

Softwar Units 498 MOFr/MOHA 3,452 - -

ial Photo Lump-suM MOFr/MOHA - 224 -

satellite Imagery LumP-sum MOPrIMOHA - - 1,989&

Trainn and ExtbakmEquipment for Training Center MOHA - 626/

Upper Cimanuk WatershedKabupaten-level Nurseries:

Nurseay Equipment (Garut) Set 1 PMU Garut - 160Nursey Equipment(Sumedang) Set 1 PMU Sumedang - 160

Village Road & Roadside Drainage:Village Road Upg,rding(Garut) km 88.6 PMU Garut - - 4,33Sd -

ViUlage Road Upgrading(Sumedang) km 37.0 PMU Sumedang - - 1,870L -

RoadsideDrainage (Gart) km 132.9 PMU Garut - - 1,8391d -

Roadsie Dainage(Sumedang) kin 55.5 PMU Sumedang - - 757w -

Land Stabilization Treatments:Land Stab. Treatments(Garut) Lump-sum PMU Garut - - 4,713Ld -

Land Stab. Treatmens(Sumedang) LuMP-SuM PMU Sumedang - - 1,9721d -

-117 - ANNEX 11

Total Costs (Rp miDlion)Suboomponenbt Responsiblo_ including contingc¢esand Categories Item Units No. Agency ICB LC8 Other NBF

Land Tiling:Theodolite & EDM units 2S BPN W.l and Tk.ff - s4 4L - -Microcomputen unis S BPN Tl.1 and 1T.l - - - 46Other Office equipment Lunmum BPN Tk.1 and lkl.l - 58 - -

Motorycles units 10 BPN Tl.l and Tk1.1 - - - 38

SUPS Resarch:Field Offi¢ unis 3 PMU Gamt/Sumedang- 21 - -

Resarch & OfficeEquipment Lump-sum PMU Gamt/Sumedang- 123 - -

Planning, Extension, Tiaining:Field Motorcycles(to PPL Garut) units 37 PMU Ganut - - - 126

Field Motorcycles(to PPL Sumedang) unis 11 PMU Sumedang -- - 37

Upper Cimanuk Watershdrut PMU:

Pour-wheel drive units 2 Garut PMU - - - 89Motorycles unts 4 Ganut PMU - - - 13Computer & peripheals set 3 (arut PMU - - - 29Oer Of fic and FeldEquipment Lumpsum Garut PMU 4OLf -

Sumedang PMU:Pour-wheel drive units 1 Sumedang PMU - - - 45Motorcycles units 2 Sumedang PMU - - - 7Computers & pereals sets 1 Sumedang PMU - - - 12Other Office and FieldEquipment LUMP-sum Sumedang PMU - - 36lf -

Cilumpuyang Trining Center:Microbus units 2 MOPr - - 223Minibus units 2 MOPr - - - 103

SBRLKT Cimanuk:Four-whel drive units 4 SBRLKT Cimanuc - - - 178Computer & perohals sets 2 SBRLKT Cimanuk - - - 20Other Office and FiedEquipnent Lump-sum SBRLKT Cimanuk - 1041g - -

Provincial Commitee:Four-wheel drive units 1 Bappeda lk.1 West Java - - 45Computer units 2 BappedaTk.I - - - 17Other Office and FieldEquipment units 2 Bappeda TI - - 8gL -

-118 - ANNEX 11

Total Costs (Rp million)Subcomponents Responsible includine contingenciesand C.goriea Item Units No. Agenoy ICe LCB Other NBF

NGOs:Four-wheel drive units 1 fBapped. Tk.1 West Java - 45Field motorcycles units 9 Bappeda Tkl - - - 30Computer & periphals ab 2 Bapped. Tk. - - - 21Other Offic and FieldEquipment Lump-sum Bapped. Tlc.I - - 1OLf

La Field stations and researh equipment are expected to involve multiple contrats due to the renoteness of thelocations.

Ib Procured through dircdt i;ontracting *om Spot or Landsat./L Equipment for several training centers is expected to be procured through separate contracts.L Porce account. Includes maintenan¢c costs.to This equipment is expected to be procured at different stages of project implementation, and involve more than

one contract.Lf Local shopping.Lg Involves purchase of theodoLhtes and dravnng tables for technical planning.

-119- ANNEX 12

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

PROJE SUPERVSON PLAN

The Project is planned to be supervised following the schedules shown inAnnex 7. The matrix below indicates the mix of specialties and frequency and durationof missions likely to be needed to ensure adequate project supervision. The footnotessuggest some of the key events requiring particular attention of the supervision missions.

Mission TimeNo. Mo/Yr AE A SC ISS RE LU TR SO Er PA Staff Weeks

lIa 2/94 2 2 2 2 2 5 102^ 4194 1 1 1 3 33!c 8/94 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 7 114e4 1/95 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 8 145La 9/95 2 2 2 3 66e 3/96 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 10 19.7L 11/96 2 2 1 1 4 68/h 4/97 2 2 2 1 4 79Li 12/97 1 1 2 2 4 6

1011 5/98 1 1 1 1 1 5 511/k 11/98 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 1412L1 5/99 1 1 1 1 4 413LM 12/99 2 2 2 2 2 5 1014LA 4/00 2 2 1 2 2 2 6 1115/q 11/00 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 9 17

La Effectiveness condition and start-up.Lb Technical assistance procurement.lb Plan review FY95, operationalizing working groups (research, training, planning, MIS/RIS),

road manual, surveys, Cimanuk, incl. WID.Ld Review inst. strre, ISS, Research proposal, nursery dev., tech. guidelines), training,

model micro DAS in Cimanuk, road manual to be completed./e Planbng/Pola review, review technical guidelines for watersheds R&R.Lf Mid Term Review.Lg Cimanuk: land tiding.a Review road maintenance in Cimanuk, review operations R&R working groups.Li Training and extension review.LI Review Cimanuk./k R_view R&R program./I Review Cimanuk./n Review R&R program.La Completion date./o Project Completion Review.

AE - Agricultual Economist, A - Agriculturist (research in upland fming, farm systems), SC -Soil and Moisture Conservation, ISS - MIS/RIS specialist, RE - Road Engineer, LU - Land UsePlanner, TR - Training speciaList, SO - Sociologist (WID/community dev.), EXT - Extensionspecialist, PA - Public Administration specialist.

- 120 - ANNEX 13

INDONESIA

NATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENTAND CONSERVATION PROJECT

SEIEC DocumES IN RJoEC FIE

Project Preparation Working Document

- Preparation of the Cimanuk Watershed Management and Conservation Project -Draft Final Report Volume 1 and 2, and Appendices, February 1992, by HuntingTechnical Services Limited, UK, in association with PT. Tricon Jaya, Indonesia

- Revised Project Proposal Upper Cimanuk Watershed Management andConservation (component B), September, 1992, by Hunting technical Services Ltd,in association with PT. Tricon Jaya

- Investment Proposal for Watershed Management Technology Centers in Indonesia,May 1991 by Ministry of Forestry of the Government of Indonesia, UNDP andFAO.

- Assistance Inplementation (INPRES) on Regreening and Reforestation: Pelita 11-V (Progress), and Pelita VI (Prospect) by Harry Santoso, July 1992, Directorateof Land Conservation Ditjen RRL, MOFr

- Preparation of the Cimanuk Watershed Management and Conservation Project,Preliminary Environmental Assessment, March 1992, by Hunting TechnicalServices Ltd, in association with PT. Tricon Jaya

- Laporan Kemajuan Pelaksanaan Kegiatan Bantuan Penghijauan dan Reboisasi,Tahun 1992/93, Sekretariat Tim Pengendali

Decree of the Director General of regional Development, no69/KEP/BANGDA/92, about work relation ship and the responsible Agency forthe activities of developing and controlling of Regreening and Reboization Aid

Final report on the evaluation of the INPRES Reforestation and Regreening, 1992,by the Central Forest Rehabilitation Project, Directorate of Reforestation andRegreening, RRL,and Research Institute of Bogor Institute of Agricultural Science

The MIS experience of the UACP, June 1992, by Richard W. Gnagey

Strengthening of National Watershed Management Organization System Study,June 1992, prepared by P.T. Andal Agric Agrikarya Prima for Ministry of HomeAffairs, BANGDA

- 121 - ANNEX 13

Apprasal Documents:

- National Watershed Management and Conservation Project - Training NeedsSurvey Report, February 1993, prepared by Lars Wilhelmsson DHV ConsultantsBV.

- Commity Participation in the Cimanuk Watershed and Lessons for NationalWatershed, January 1993, by Dr. Lea Jellinek

- Agriculture Background and Technology Development for the National WatershedManagement and Conservation Project, January 1993, by John Dalton

- Information Support System Activities, May 1993 by B. WayneLuscombe

- Estimation of Financial and Economic Benefits of the Upper Cimanuk WatershedDevelopment Project, including Farm models

- The Organization of Indonesia's Regreening Program, January 1993, by DwightY. King

- Detailed Cost Tables

Techmical Assistance: Terms of referenceIndonesia Outer Islands - Soil and Water Conservation Models, 1992, by A.Contreras-Hermosilla

Accompanying Documents

Indonesia National Watershed Management and Conservation Project. UpperCimanuk Watershed, Technical Assistance Requirements. September 1993.

I I�I�* I�I�II ' II�I II II II I* I

I II I

1=! 1 II*110

I H* II zI I

* a a

A

____ ii �. Iii.-Iw

I *U1 0E � 3I �0

- I >0

�

* O� 55I:1 0

I 0

* II I

ShWND > ' v R t V , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IBRD24775A,.h ) / LO

INDONESIA*tt ACEI \ > ~~~South ChinaSea J \ HLPNS w NATIONLWATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND rK4,

B s g

RUNE PHIIPPNE CONSERVATION PROJECTYSz | > % wa9 | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LOCATION OF CRITICALWATERSHEDSgse Calebes 5!2 | 39 ~~~~~~~~WATE56hLOlCATONSu m p | r Q t M A L A Y SA

N)N A c A rrAig~~~Mn I "sXXI K>rAN=A l^sl SULAWESIm UT;V >:MATEE);A>eATt P1 h ~~~~~~~26 D.sn

=s5 s1rJ\ NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN

1 2. oos _ A . \ 29. Tl

4 OCs gpk D9. c-50[0 ,> NU5TENGGARVARAT O D g AruhKSeoM_h15 OesCibnduyOssons~~~3

Jaop AE Yn AUT1nU er0IZ,: 35X V w hDalofot = J 7 e b =

M~~hson C 7 N 0 IXPos3/33 TMOAN JAYmop do noe L_S _ _-~~sF P_9r,er~_2.a n~~~~~~~~~h" 15 D- TlmvS C=UAo

411lhewbecitWubMofonyyoenre~ ~ D.K. JAKRT 116 i

.doueAAF5.19

IBRD 24776

10750'E 180

INDONESIANATIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND

CONSERVATION PROJECT T &iuaj

CIMANUK WATERSHED

pRIO ARAS FOR TRtATMENT

- - WA. ARSHED OUNDARY - Codaosngompr

. KECAMATAN(SUB.DITCT) BOUNDAES

KAUBATEN(DISTRICT) BOUNDARIES DOrdbUG /

0 KECAIMTAN CENTERS

3~] KASUPATEN CENTER

ROADS ' L_ L0 3 6 91 12 ' \.''

KIOERS axegka

To Bondwf

K8 A B 3, |

'K A T~~~~~~~~~Moogong.. ooy

'S'S Leles rio'l .s'''" '' '' 0Sfm : GA ..

SMIATE; X M K J Sv

, 4kenjen BoyIues1I/\*okJs wp W .b- JAWA lARAT . /

byTh. BandIs (< AWA TFNGA%

, I- ; ,,,,JAWAAeA JAWA TIMUR

To ,U,Y A OCEAN

\'_J%to * * I = '0'- -- \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JL '' Oojng