World Bank Document · entrusted responsibility for monitoring and evaluating project benefits, is still completing the Souss, Ghiss and Chichaoua economic and social baseline surveys

Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 14676

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MOROCCO

SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT

(LOAN 2253-MOR)

JUNE 26, 1995

Agriculture Operations Division

Maghreb and Iran DepartmentMiddle East and North Africa Regional Office

This document has a restricted distribution and mav be used bv recipients only in the performance of

their 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

KINGDOM OF MOROCCO

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT(Loan 2253-MOR)

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit = Dirham (DH)

Appraisal Year Average: US$ 1 = DH 6.00

Implementation Years Average: US$ 1 = DH 8.72

Completion Average: US$ 1 = DH 9.5

WEIGHT S AND MEASURES

Metric System

ABBREVIATIONS

ASAP Agricultural Sector Adjustment ProgrammeAUEA Water Users' AssociationCMU Central Management UnitCNCA National Agricultural Credit BankDER Directorate of Rural EquipmentDPA Provincial Directorate of AgricultureDPAE Directorate of Planning and Economic AffairsERR Economic Rate of ReturnFAO/CP Food and Agricultural Organization/World Bank-Cooperative ProgrammeIMF International Monetary FundLPEE Laboratoire public des etudes et essaisMARA Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian ReformO & M Operation and MaintenanceONE National Electricity AuthorityORMVASM Regional Office for Agricultural Development for Souss-MassaPAGI Large-Scale Irrigation Improvement ProjectPCC Project Coordination CommitteePCR Project Completion ReportPRV Research and Extension ProjectSAP Special Action ProgrammeSAR Staff Appraisal ReportSMSI Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation

FISCAL YEAR OF BORROWER

January I - December 31

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTHE WORLD BANK

Washington, D.C. 20433U.S.A.

ice of Director-Generalperations Evaluation June 26, 1995

MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on MoroccoSmall and Medium-scale Irrigation Project (Loan 2253-MOR)

Attached is the Project Completion Report (PCR) on the Morocco Small and Medium-scaleIrrigation project (Loan 2253-MOR). Parts I and III were prepared by the FAO/CP for the MiddleEast and North Africa Regional Office. Part 11 was prepared by the Borrower.

Part of a national shift in emphasis from large-scale irrigation, the project aimed to up-gradeor create five irrigation perimeters which differed greatly in size and other characteristics. Formingusers' associations and turning over operation and maintenance (O&M) to them was a key objective.

Budget constraints hampered implementation. Four sub-projects commanding 13,420 ha werecompleted about three years later than projected. The quality of civil works was adequate.

The project outcome is rated as satisfactory. Farmers are making good use of irrigation,intensifying cropping even more than projected at appraisal. However, benefit estimates are not basedon monitoring and evaluation, which never got started because baseline studies were not completed.Operation and maintenance arrangements are adequate. Therefore, sustainability is rated as likelydespite inadequate water supply or declining aquifers on some sub-projects. Much progress has beenmade in creating and solidifying irrigators' groups. Therefore, institutional development is rated assubstantial.

The PCR presents a fair and complete assessment of the project and its expected impact.

An audit is planned.

Attachment

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


KINGDOM OF MOROCCO


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ................................. i

EVALUATION SUMMARY ..................... , ii

PART I: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTIVE .... ........ 1

1. Project Identity . .......................................... 1

2. Background ............................................. 1Economic Context . ....................................... 1Policy Context .......................................... 2Macro-Economic Situation During Project Implementation ............... 2

3. Project Objectives and Description ............................... 2

4. Project Design and Organization ...................... 4

5. Project Implementation . ....................................... 5General .............................................. 5Main Components . ....................................... 6Monitoring and Evaluation ........... ....................... 7Studies, Technical Assistance and Training ........................ 7Management ........................................... 8Rislcs ............................................ 8Project Cost ........................................... 8

6. Project Results . ........................................... 9Water Availability . ...................................... 9Support Services ........................................ 10Agricultural Development ................................... 11Water Users' Associations .................................. 11Economic Returns . ....................................... 12

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


KINGDOM OF MOROCCO

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT(LOAN 2253-MOR)

PREFACE

This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Small and Medium-ScaleIrrigation Project in Morocco for which the Loan 2253-MOR in the amount of US$ 42.0 millionwas approved in March 1983. The loan was closed on December 31, 1992, three years behindschedule. A sum of US$ 11.2 million was cancelled.

This PCR (Parts I and III) was prepared by staff of the FAO/World BankCooperative Programme (FAO/CP), who visited Morocco from October 17 to 31, 1993. Part IIwas prepared by the Borrower.

The report is based, inter alia, on information gathered by the FAO/CP team andthe project staff and through discussions with officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and theMinistry of Public Works (Hydraulics Department), Bank staff associated with the Project, theStaff Appraisal Report, the Loan Agreement, the Preparation Report, Supervision Reports,correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower and internal Bank memoranda.

- ii -

PROJECT COM1PLETION REPORT

KINGDOM OF MOROCCO


EVALUATION SUMMARY

Background, Objectives and Design

The Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation (SMSI) project was conceived at a timewhen the Government had decided to increase the share allocated to agriculture in the publicinvestment programme, and within that sector, specifically to the rainfed areas and SMSIschemes, in order to remedy its disappointing performance. The increased emphasis on SMSIalso reflected the recognition that this sub-sector, in contrast to large-scale irrigation, had beenrelatively neglected in the past and offered an opportunity for substantial increases in agriculturalproduction. The project was implemented during a period of severe financial crisis, at whichtime public investments were drastically cut, thus affecting most projects, including the SMSIproject.

The central objective of the SMSI project was to establish a systematic approach tothe development of the sub-sector through (i) the creation of a viable legal framework; (ii) thedesign and implementation of workable arrangements for farmers' responsibility in operation,maintenance and cost recovery of the irrigation systems; (iii) the building up of SMSI experiencein the Provincial Directorates of Agriculture (DPA). This approach was to be established throughthe construction of the Jemaa Sahim and Middle Sebou schemes, the rehabilitation of the Souss,Ghiss and Chichaoua schemes, and the preparation of a second-stage project.

The project was well designed as the systematic approach adopted laid thefoundation for long-term development of the sub-sector. The Second SMSI project, appraisedin May 1987, is now being implemented.

Project Implementation

The project became effective in January 1984 and the closing date, initially plannedfor end December 1989, was delayed by three years to end December 1992. Due to the difficultbudgetary situation faced by the country at that time, progress was initially slow, in spite offrequent and regular World Bank Supervision Mission interventions. The Loan agreement wasamended twice, the first time in 1985 under the Special Action Programme (SAP), whichincreased the disbursement rate for civil works from 40 to 60%, and the second in 1987, when

- iii -

the Middle Sebou sub-project and an amount of US$ 8 million from the loan were cancelled.The project cost was originally estimated at around DH 325 million (US$ 57.5 million), nottaking into account the Middle Sebou sub-project. The actual cost is estimated at around DH 448million (US$ 53.8 million) or in DH and US$ terms, 138% and 94% respectively of theestimate. The large difference between the DH and US$ rates results from the significantappreciation of the US$ versus the DH during proiect implementation. Actual disbursementstotalled US$ 30.8 million or 91% of the loan amount as amended in 1987 (US$ 34 million).

Broadly speaking, the physical targets planned for the irrigation infrastructure weremet and even exceeded, but with a delay varying from two to four years. Irrigation developmentwithin the four schemes totalled 13,426 ha instead of the 12,880 ha planned at appraisal. Thehigh standard of construction can be largely attributed to the quality and continuity of the projectmanagement (CMU, ORMVASM and DPAs). The construction and equipment programme tosupport the introduction of improved technical packages was partially cancelled, in order to usethe limited budget available to complete the irrigation infrastructure. Support activities werenevertheless frequently financed by other projects. Data on on-farm investments areunfortunately not available as the monitoring and evaluation system was weak and did not recordthem. Local technicians have nevertheless noticed that some farmers have purchased motorizedas well as animal traction equipment and upgraded cattle, have established orchards, etc.

Project Results

Following project implementation, water availability to farms increased, butreliability varies from one sub-project to another, depending on water sources. The Jemaa Sahimscheme has a guaranteed water source of 300 1/sec which would meet water requirements in thepeak demand month. Rehabilitation of the three traditional schemes has reduced losses andincreased availability by at least the appraisal estimates of 25 to 45 %. Water resources providedby the tubewells and wells constructed by the project would approximately cover the projecteddemand of the Souss scheme for the near future. Long-term water availability for the schemeis an important issue discussed in para. 7.2. Water resources for the Ghiss scheme duringperiods of peak demand are likely to amount to only about 50 to 60% of the appraisal estimate.Land use and cropping intensity will therefore have to be adjusted accordingly. Water availablein the Chichaoua scheme is more than adequate to irrigate the equipped area. However, waterresources misused in the upstream areas could be reallocated for further extension of the schemeif a water rights rental market were to be established.

The Directorate of Planning and Economic Affairs (DPAE), which had beenentrusted responsibility for monitoring and evaluating project benefits, is still completing theSouss, Ghiss and Chichaoua economic and social baseline surveys. Notwithstanding the almosttotal absence of reliable data on project impact, a rough estimate of the "present" and "at fulldevelopment" agricultural production has been made in collaboration with DPAs andORMVASM staff. The actual cropping patterns show clearly that, as soon as water is available,farmers react quickly to market opportunities. Farmers give preference to citrus, olives,

- iv -

sugarbeet, grain legumes and alfalfa, for which the returns are high. Yields are promising andit is anticipated that, at full development stage, they are likely to exceed the planned appraisallevels. Total expected production could therefore exceed the appraisal estimate. The estimatedactual Economic Rate of Return (ERR) is nevertheless slightly lower (13.5% instead of 15%)than envisaged at appraisal due to (i) the very low viability of the Ghiss sub-project (4%)because of overestimated water resources and (ii) the marginal ERR of the Jemaa Sahim sub-project (9%) with high per ha investment costs and some delays in completion and intense useof the irrigation infrastructure.

The constitution of Water Users' Associations (AUEA) in all four sub-projects canbe considered as one of the most important accomplishments of the project, in spite of the delaysexperienced, due essentially to numerous administrative and legal hurdles. Creation of "de facto"associations prior to promulgation of the law, has allowed the project, since the early stage ofoperation of the schemes, to gradually entrust the operation and maintenance responsibility tothe water users. Nevertheless, in spite of all the achievements, much remains to be done toarrive at full responsibility of AUEA for operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems.It is not yet clear whether the farmers of the Souss and Jemaa Sahim schemes will be able to paythe full 0 & M cost plus an adequate allowance for depreciation of the pumping stations.

Project Sustainability

Both the rehabilitated traditional schemes and the new one are expected to becorrectly operated and maintained by the AUEA as farmers appreciate the value of irrigationwater and have already agreed to contribute substantially, although not fully, to the operationand maintenance cost. It will, however, be necessary to fix, as soon as possible, in agreementwith the AUEAs in each of the four schemes, the water charges in Ghiss and Chichaoua at alevel that could cover 0 & M cost and a fair percentage of the irrigation infrastructureinvestment cost, including in Souss and Jemaa Sahim adequate allowances for depreciation.

The sustainability of groundwater resources in the Souss valley will depend on fullimplementation of the 1981 decree for control of private pumping in the Souss aquifer.However, even with strict control of private pumping, there would be a continuous drawdownof the water table due to the annual deficit of the Souss aquifer. Water resource availability forthe Souss scheme would nevertheless not be an issue for its sustainability but pumping costswould increase continuously.

Lessons Learned

The experience with this project shows that:

(i) the establishment of AUEA seems to be a correct approach to the problemof operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes;

(ii) AUEA should be established in time for the beneficiaries to be able toinfluence the final design of the rehabilitation works;

(iii) the agreements between AUEA and the Government specifying the rightsand duties of both parties should be signed before the rehabilitation worksare completed;

(iv) flexibility is an important factor in the design of SMSI projects;

(v) a well designed and staffed monitoring unit is instrumental in implementinga decentralized project;

(vi) continuity of capable project management at both central and regional levelsis a crucial factor for project success;

(vii) in support services, necessary efforts should be dedicated to efficient useof water at farm level;

(viii) to overcome the rigid traditional water rights for optimal water resourcesallocation, SMSI projects should encourage the development of a waterrights rental market;

(ix) SMSI projects should exploit the considerable amount of hydrological andgeohydrological data of the Hydraulic Administration for assessment andplanning of water resources available for irrigation schemes;

(x) More effort is required to convince Authorities in gathering adequate socio-economic data in order to monitor and evaluate project benefits.


KINGDOM OF MOROCCO

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT(LOAN 2253-MOR)

PART I: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTIVE

1. Project Identity

Project Name Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project

Credit No. . Loan 2253-MOR

RVP Unit MENA Region

Country : Morocco

Sector Agriculture

Sub-sector . Irrigation

2. Background

Economilc Context

2.1 The Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation (SMSI) project was conceived in the late1970s, at a time when the relative importance of agriculture in the Moroccan economy in termsof production, export and employment had declined while other sectors had grown more rapidly.The value of agricultural output had increased at an average annual rate of 2.4% (in constantprices) during the preceding fifteen years, a lower rate than in the other sectors of the economyand less than the growth of demand for agricultural products, which led to a rapid increase inimports. The average growth of agricultural imports during the period 1978-1980 was 20% (invalue), while agricultural exports expanded at 15% per annum. The agricultural trade balancetherefore deteriorated, with the ratio of exports to imports having declined from about 130% atthe beginning of the 1970s to 70% in 1980.

-2 -

Policy Context

2.2 To counteract the disappointing performance of the agricultural sector, theGovernment decided to include a remedial strategy in the 1981-1985 Development Plan, themain points of which were, inter alia: (i) to increase the share devoted to agriculture in thepublic investment programme; (ii) to increase public investment in the rainfed sector and insmall and medium irrigation schemes; (iii) to establish a price policy that would ensure equitablereturns to the farmer and stimulate import substitution for the basic foodstuffs; (iv) to expandthe role and lending programme of the National Agricultural Credit Bank (CNCA). That strategywas in line with the Bank's recommendations for the sector. Also, the increased emphasis onsmall and medium-scale irrigation reflected the general recognition that this subsector had beenrelatively neglected in the past and offered an opportunity for substantial increases in agriculturalproduction. Annual investments in SMSI were projected to increase fivefold under the Plan.

Macro-Economic Situation During Project Implementation

2.3 The project was declared effective in January 1984, at a time when the country wasin the midst of a severe financial crisis. Beginning in early 1983, Morocco's financial situationdeteriorated rapidly and net foreign assets declined sharply, prompting the Government toimpose emergency restrictions and massively curtail public expenditure. A set of extensivestabilization and adjustment policies were drawn up by the Government and supported by aseries of three IMF standby arrangements and World Bank structural adjustment loans.Substantial improvements were achieved through these operations, but at the expense of a drasticreduction in public investment, thus affecting most projects, including World Bank-supportedprojects like the SMSI project.

3. Project Objectives and Description

3.1 The central objective of the SMSI was to establish a systematic approach to thedevelopment of the neglected sub-sector of the small and medium-scale irrigation schemes.Morocco has considerable potential for increasing agricultural diversification, yields, productionand income on lands that could aggregate to several thousand hectares through the rehabilitationof degraded SMSI schemes and the creation of new ones. These schemes are widely distributedthroughout the country and exploitation of their potential could help meet food deficits in varioushighly-populated urban areas as well as improve the standard of living of small farmers inpoverty stricken rural areas.

3.2 The systematic approach implied (i) the creation of a viable legal framework, (ii)the design and implementation of workable arrangements for farmers' responsibility in operation,maintenance and cost recovery of the irrigation systems, and (iii) the building up of SMSIexperience in the Provincial Directorates of Agriculture (DPA) of the Ministry of Agricultureand Agrarian Reform (MARA). This approach was to be established through the developmentof five specific SMSI schemes and the preparation of a second-stage project.

- 3 -

3.3 At appraisal, the project consisted of the following main components:

(i) * Irrigation infrastructure for (a) the rehabilitation of three traditionalschemes (Souss, Chichaoua and Ghiss) and (b) the establishment oftwo new schemes (Middle Sebou and Jemaa Sahim).

* Souss. The deteriorated traditional earth channel ("seguias") networkof the scheme, which is constituted of 12 sectors totalling 9,650 ha,would be replaced by about 125 km of concrete primary andsecondary canals, following the same layout of the traditionalnetwork. Existing concrete-line canals would also be rehabilitated.The scheme's water resources, which relied entirely on streamresurgences now dried up, would be provided by 13 wells and about60 tubewells through 25 pumping stations. The installation of about53 km of power supply lines and the improvement of about 60 km ofunsurfaced roads would complete the infrastructure.

* Chichaoua. The rehabilitation of this spring-fed scheme of 1,900 hawould include the lining of 57 km of deteriorated primary andsecondary canals, the construction of two syphons, a drainage networkand erosion control works. About 56 km of unsurfaced roads wouldalso be rehabilitated.

* Ghiss. The rehabilitation of this river-fed traditional scheme wouldinclude: the construction of about 52 km of concrete-lined canals toreplace the deteriorated network on the existing 780 ha and to servean extension of 140 ha, a total of 920 ha; the construction of a newdiversion weir on the Ghiss river and a conveyance canal of 4 km;subsurface drainage on 400 ha of heavy soils; a collector to divertexcess rainwater and drainage water to the Mediterranean; floodprotection dikes and an interconnector canal to divert excess water ofthe Ghiss river into the Nekor irrigation scheme.

* Jemaa Sahim. This new sprinkler-irrigation scheme of 410 ha, to besupplied by the existing Safi canal, would be equipped with apumping station with a rated capacity of 400 I/s, about 14 km ofunderground pipes and mobile sprinklers.

* Middle Sebou. This new gravity scheme of 4,870 ha would beconstituted of 28 sectors to be supplied by 5 first-stage and 6 second-stage pumping stations lifting water from the Sebou river, with anaggregate flow of about 6,000 1/s.

(ii) Support activities. The concerned Regional Office for AgriculturalDevelopment for Souss-Massa (ORMVASM) in charge of the Souss

scheme, the DPAs of Marrakech, Al Hoceima, Safi and Fes in chargeof the Chichaoua, Ghiss, Jemaa Sahim and Middle Sebou schemesrespectively, and to the Central Management Unit (CMU) would bestrengthened and equipped. This would include the construction andequipping of staff houses, centres for livestock development, artificialinsemination, milk collection, extension work, and livestock breeding,as well as equipment and vehicles. Technical assistance would alsobe provided to support the irrigation infrastructure implementation andon-farm development. It would consist of short-term and long-termconsultant services in equipment procurement, constructionsupervision and farm mechanization. Overseas and local training,supplementary implementation studies and initial operating costswould also be provided.

(iii) On-farm development. Crop and livestock development investmentsand short-term inputs would be financed by credit.

4. Project Design and Organization

4.1 The substantial changes in irrigation development policy introduced by theGovernment under the 1981-1985 Development Plan have provided the basis for the projectdesign. Government objectives have shifted from the considerable support to the large-scaleirrigation sector during the seventies, to emphasis on the development of small and medium-scaleirrigation schemes for their lower costs per hectare and more rapid build-up of benefits,increased recovery of operation/maintenance and investment costs from farmers, and reductionof social and regional income disparities through investment and employment creation indepressed areas. The project was well designed as it has contributed substantially to theimplementation of this policy. The systematic approach adopted by the project, which involveda legal framework for the creation of water user associations responsible for operation andmaintenance of networks and for cost recovery, and the building up of SMSI experience inMARA, has laid the foundation for long-term development of the sub-sector. A follow-upoperation, the Second SMSI project, appraised by the Bank in May 1987, is now beingimplemented.

4.2 The irrigation infrastructure, the main project component, was composed of fivesub-components corresponding to as many SMSI schemes, located in various socially andenvironmentally diverse regions of the country. The component diversification enabled theproject to capitalize experience in SMSI and its flexibility allowed necessary adjustments. Dueto budget constraints (para 5.1), the new and modem scheme of Middle Sebou was cancelledat the early stage of the project without altering the project central objective. Based on existingengineering studies, the irrigation infrastructures of the four remaining schemes are welldesigned. In the Souss, the capacities of a number of new tubewells had been a matter ofconcern as they fell short of expected yields. The ORMVASM, with adequate assistance fromthe Regional Directorate of Hydraulics, has efficiently solved this groundwater exploitation

problem. However, water resources' evaluation in the Ghiss river, carried out during preparationand at appraisal, and based on very short hydrological records, was over-optimistic for the lowflow season.

4.3 Responsibility for project implementation was entrusted to the Directorate of RuralEquipment (DER) under the overall coordination of a Project Coordination Committee (PCC),which included representatives of the main directorates, ministries and agencies involved.Monitoring, coordination and reporting of project activities was to be provided by the CMUestablished within DER's Division of Rural Development, and evaluation by MARA'sDirectorate of Planning and Economic Affairs (DPAE). Day-to-day implementation of irrigationinfrastructure and support activities was entrusted to the construction divisions of ORMVASMand the DPAs. The project organization was well designed and has fulfilled its role.

5. Project Implementation

General

5.1 The project was approved in March 1983 and signed in June 1983, but did notbecome effective until January 1984. The closing date, initially planned for endDecember 1989", was delayed by three years to end December 1992. Due to the difficultbudgetary situation faced by the country at that time, progress was initially very slow, in spiteof frequent and insistent World Bank Supervision Mission requests. During the first four years(1983-1987) of the project, total expenditures amounted to less than 20% of total project costs.In March 1985, under the Special Action Programme (SAP), the project implementation schedulewas modified and the disbursement rate for civil works was increased from 40 to 60%. A secondamendment to the Loan Agreement, signed in 1987, stipulated: (a) to restructure the project bycancelling the Middle Sebou sub-project and by extending the total length of irrigation canalsto be rehabilitated in the Souss perimeter from 125 to 300 km; (b) to extend the applicability ofthe disbursement percentage increase under the SAP to the project closing date, and (c) to cancelan amount of US$ 8 million from the loan. Furthermore, an agreement was reached between theGovernment and the World Bank on financing procedures (special account and direct payment)that would enable speeding up of implementation of the project components. The rates ofdisbursement increased substantially from 1988, and in a five-year period about 80% of the totalproject cost was disbursed. In spite of the three-year extension of the project, however, and themore efficient financing procedures introduced in 1987, an additional US$ 3.2 million wascancelled at the closure of the project.

Main Components

5.2 Irrigation. Implementation of the irrigation infrastructure was hampered by thelong and slow bidding and contract award procedures, resulting mainly from the above-

" The Staff Appraisal Report Cost Tables present a five-year schedule (1983-1987) whereas the Schedule ofDisbursements starts from FY 1984 and ends in FY 1989.

mentioned country budget situation. The Souss scheme rehabilitation, which was initiated in1983 as planned, was suspended in 1984 and 1985 due to budget restrictions. It wassubsequently further delayed by the poor performance of a tubewell contractor, thus stallingimplementation of the pumping stations. Meanwhile, construction of the distribution systems wasproceeding satisfactorily. One of the principal sectors of the scheme, with an area of 3,550 ha,was first irrigated in July 1991. The entire scheme, including the additional 135 km of roads,was completed in mid 1993 instead of end 1987 as planned. The Chichaoua, Jemaa Sahim andGhiss schemes were planned to be initiated in 1983 and completed by the end of 1987. Theywere practically completed and operational in September 1989, June 1990 and May 1991,respectively. However, some minor works on bank protection at Chichaoua and supplementaryprotection of the head canal and diversion structure in the Ghiss were achieved only in 1992.

5.3 Broadly speaking, the planned physical targets were met or even exceeded (Table4). Hence, total irrigated area amounted to 13,426 ha compared with 17,800 ha as planned atappraisal. This was mainly due to the exclusion of the Middle Sebou scheme (4,865 ha). A fewother discrepancies have occurred, such as in the "road improvement" component in the Sousssub-project (192 km instead of 60 km) and in the Chichaoua sub-project (21 km instead of 56km); in the "primary canal" of the Ghiss sub-project (8.6 km instead of 7.8 km) and in the"power supply line" in the Jemaa Sahim sub-project (0.23 km instead of 3 km). The mainreasons for these, according to the Project Management, is that a few estimates made duringpreparation had to be corrected during implementation on the basis of the detailed design billsof quantities. Other reasons may also be given, such as the amendment to the Loan Agreementin which the length of the irrigation canals of the Souss scheme was increased from 125 to300 km, and also created the need for an increased length of roads to maintain the primarycanals or the construction after appraisal of a new power line to supply a village close to thepumping stations of the Jemaa Sahim scheme.

5.4 Support activities. Notwithstanding the budgetary and administrative difficulties,the early implementation of support activities to strengthen the CMU, the ORMVASM and theDPAs has enabled a high standard of construction of the irrigation infrastructure to be secured.An important factor contributing to the success of the project has been a general continuity instaffing at the CMU as well as at the ORMVASM and DPAs till the project completion. A fewkey problems in civil construction were actually solved with the help of Bank supervisionmissions. Support activities for introduction of on-farm investments, cropping patterns andirrigation techniques were provided late. The programme was partially cancelled in order to usethe limited budget resources available to complete the irrigation infrastructure. Hence, in theSouss scheme, the planned houses, offices and other buildings have not been constructed.However, support activities have benefited from facilities financed by other projects (Large ScaleIrrigation and Research and Extension Projects, etc.).

5.5 On-farm development. On-farm investments were delayed consequent to the delaysin completing the irrigation infrastructures. At appraisal, it had been planned that they wouldinclude: animal traction equipment, orchards, purchase of in-calf heifers and construction ofstables for a total cost of US$ 1.2 million, to be financed through credit or by self-financing.Local technicians have noted that some farmers have purchased motorized as well as animal

- 7 -

traction equipment and upgraded cattle, have constructed stables and have established orchards;they are nevertheless unable to quantify these investments. The project monitoring and evaluationsystem has not recorded the on-farm investments and as the National Agricultural Credit Bank(CNCA) accounts do not permit to distinguish the loans attributed to farmers cropping withinthe four schemes, there are no data available as far as on-farm development is concerned.

Monitoring and Evaluation

5.6 Day-to-day monitoring, coordination and reporting of project activity as well asevaluation of project implementation, agricultural production, and cost recovery was planned tobe done by the CMU which had been established within DER. It was also planned to entrust tothe Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of DPAE the responsibility for implementing an economicand social baseline survey of the sub-project areas and for monitoring and evaluating projectbenefits. CMU performed very well; it monitored project activities, supervised DPA's andORMVASM's implementation works and prepared quarterly reports on time. Nevertheless, dataon agricultural production were not collected by DPAs and ORMVASM because agriculturaldevelopment started only recently and first priority was not given to that task. The monitoringand evaluation of the project benefits, entrusted to DPAE, is up to now unsatisfactory. Theeconomic and social baseline surveys in the Ghiss and Chichaoua schemes, started in 1987, arereportedly to be finalized soon. The Souss baseline survey, initiated in 1991-1992, should becompleted in the following months. DPAE is presently in the process of defining a monitoringand evaluation methodology. It has also recently been strengthened in order to be able toevaluate the benefits of agricultural projects. It should nevertheless be questioned whetherDPAE, even with strengthened resources, will ever be in a position to evaluate the benefits ofa large number of projects implemented simultaneously.

Studies, Technical Assistance and Training

5.7 The Service for General Studies attached to DER carried out the second-stage SMSIproject preparation in close collaboration with the FAO/CP. The preparation did not require anyassistance of a consultant in rural engineering although 4 man-months had been planned for thatpurpose in SMSI 1; the Laboratoire public des etudes et essais (LPEE) was nevertheless grantedcontracts for supervising geotechnical works as well as the first tranche of works for SMSI-II(para 5.8).

5.8 Technical assistance was planned to consist of 12 m/m of short-term experts (5 m/min electro-mechanical engineering, 3 m/m in farm machinery and 4 m/m for the above-mentionedconsultant in rural engineering) and 48 m/m of long-term experts (24 m/m in civil engineering,12 m/m in electro-mechanical engineering and 12 mlm in agricultural extension), not taking intoaccount Middle Sebou requirements. However, the project was implemented without anyintervention of consultants. Main reasons seem to be that (i) alternative solutions were identifiedby the project management: tender documents for Jemaa Sahim and Souss were prepared by thelocal consulting firms in charge of preparing detailed designs; use of LPEE for the control ofcomplex works; use of ORMVASM expertise to control complex electro-mechanical works anduse of the facilities provided under the World Bank financed Research and Extension project to

- 8 -

strengthen the extension services; (ii) the project management did not give high priority to therecruitment of consultants; (iii) local procedures for the recruitment of consultants arecumbersome. It should nevertheless be noted that the contribution of specialists in farmmechanization and in extension would have been useful to better serve the farmers. Thatcomment is also valid as far as the training of the extensionists is concerned. The SAR hadplanned to send four extension trainers overseas for a three-month training period, but this wassubstituted by a local one week refresher course.

Management

5.9 The project was implemented, as foreseen at appraisal, under the general authorityof the Directorate of Rural Equipment. The ORMVASM and the DPAs of Al Hoceima,Marrakech and Safi were the respective implementing agencies for the Souss, Ghiss, Chichaouaand Jemaa Sahim sub-projects. The Project Coordination Committee established in 1983 metonly once, owing to the fact that since the project design was simple, the management did notencounter national coordination problems which would have required the meeting of the PCC.On the other hand, the Regional Sub-project Coordination Committees, also established in 1983,met regularly once or twice a year and were instrumental in solving coordination problems.

Risks

5.10 The SAR identified two of the main risks which could affect a successful outcomeof project implementation: (i) the formation of Water Users' Associations (AUEA) and theirmanagement; (ii) a possible shortfall in Government budgetary financing, which could delayimplementation and adversely affect costs and benefits. In actual fact, the project implementationwas severely constrained by the lack of financing in spite of the frequent interventions of theWorld Bank. Due to the fact that on average, schemes were put into operation with a delay ofthree years and that the project started by establishing "de facto" associations, the very longdelay in revising the 1924 ASAP Law regarding AUEA has been less detrimental than it couldhave been. On the other hand, the SAR did not mention water availability as a possibleconstraint when in fact there is a risk that there may not be enough water for the Ghiss schemeand, later, for the Souss one.

Project Cost

5.11 The project cost was originally estimated at around DH 325 million(US$ 57.5 milion), not taking into account the Middle Sebou sub-project cancelled in 1987. Theactual cost is estimated at around DH 448 million (US$ 53.8 million) or in DH and US$ terms,138% and 94% of the estimate respectively. The large difference between the DH and US$ ratesresulted from the significant appreciation of the US$ versus the Dirham during projectimplementation (DH 6.00 per US$ at appraisal and on average DH 8.8 per US$ atimplementation). Taking into account that many support activities in the Souss and Ghiss sub-projects were not financed by the project, that on-farm investments were not recorded and thatthe total length of irrigation canals to be rehabilitated under the Souss sub-project was increased

- 9 -

from 125 to 300 km, it can be concluded that total project costs are close to the appraisalestimates. Hence, actual unit costs per ha expressed in 1993 constant prices, including supportcosts, vary from US$ 3,054 for the Chichaoua sub-project to US$ 8,707 for the Jemaa Sahimsub-project. At appraisal, they had been estimated to vary from US$ 2,420 to 8,530.

6. Project Results

Water Availability

6.1 Water availability to farms following the project implementation varies from onesub-project to another, depending on the water sources. The water balance in the four schemesis presented in Table 6.A. The new and modem Jemaa Sahim scheme, with an irrigation areaof 443 ha (planned area: 410 ha), has an exceptionally guaranteed water source as it can drawa maximum permanent flow of 300 1/s from the existing Safi canal, which is an extension of theDoukkala canal and the source of municipal and industrial supply of the city of Safi. The fixedmaximum water allocation provides an average excess of about 50% but just meets waterrequirements in the peak demand month (July). Water transfer from the canal to the sprinkler-irrigation scheme is provided by a pumping station with a rated capacity of 400 l/s (4 pumps of100 l/s). During peak demand season, the scheme is operating at about 90% of its capacity. Thiscould be considered as a good performance for a new scheme where farmers have not yetacquired long experience in irrigation.

6.2 For the three traditional schemes (Souss, Chichaoua and Ghiss) rehabilitated by theproject, the common feature in water availability is a considerable reduction of water lossesalong the irrigation networks. The corresponding gain in water availability would be equal toor higher than 25% to 45% as estimated at appraisal. The Chichaoua scheme, which is fed byseveral permanent springs surging from the northern piedmont of the Atlas Mountains, has hadadequate water supply, even during the severe droughts of 1991-92 and 1992-93. Resulting fromthe important reduction of water losses in the distribution networks, water available at the plotshas increased substantially over the whole scheme and farmers are requesting an extension ofthe rehabilitation works to downstream areas. However, the study in irrigation techniques,carried out by DER's Service for Irrigation Research", has shown that water distribution whichis still applying the strict traditional water rights, is far from optimum: as water losses in thedistribution network have been reduced, downstream plots are now adequately supplied butupstream plots are still being oversupplied. It seems that water resources misused in theupstream areas could be reallocated for further extension of the scheme, but it is well-known thatit would be difficult to change traditional water rights. A more efficient water allocation systemfor better use of water resources would need the development of a water rights rental market.

6.3 The Souss scheme used to be irrigated by the diversion of stream resurgences. Priorto project implementation, much of the area was under rainfed cultivation as resurgences have

DER. Service des Experimentations d'hydraulique agricole. Amdlioration des techniques d'irrigation dans lesperimatres PMH. Rapport de synthese et programme d'action. Septembre 1991.

- 10 -

gradually disappeared, following continuous drawdown of the valley water table. Waterresources provided by the 76 tubewells and wells constructed by the project would fully coverthe projected water demands of the 12 sectors of the scheme, with a total irrigated area of10,160 ha (planned area: 9,650 ha), except for one sector where the slight water shortage couldbe managed by increasing pumping time to about 22 hours/day during peak demand season. Theimportant issue of long-term water availability for the scheme through pumping from theoverexploited Souss aquifer is discussed under Project Sustainability (para 7.2).

6.4 Water resources for the Ghiss scheme would be provided by a weir diverting theGhiss river flow. At appraisal, the average river flow available for water supply of the schemeduring the critical month of summer irrigation (July) was estimated at 350 l/s, resulting in anaverage deficit of about 50 1/s in relation to water demand, which was considered manageable.This estimation was based on a very short (8 years) hydrological record of a station which waslater considered unreliable and consequently abandoned in 1973. According to the hydrologicalsimulations of Ghiss river carried out recently by the Directorate of Water Resources in theframework of the preparation of the Regional Water Master Plan", available flow for summerirrigation diversion would amount, on average, to about 50% to 60% of flow estimated atappraisal. Projected land use and cropping intensity in the Ghiss scheme would have to beadjusted accordingly. According to the same hydrological simulation, the planned transfer ofwater resources from the Ghiss river to the Nekor scheme would only be feasible, on average,once every two years.

Support Services

6.5 Support activities were designed for servicing the two other main components ofthe project, irrigation infrastructure construction and on-farm development. As such, supportservices have essentially fulfilled their role. Notwithstanding the already mentioned budgetaryand administrative constraints, the CMU, ORMVASM and DPAs have carried out the necessaryengineering studies and detailed designs of civil works and efficiently managed 117 contracts forcivil works construction, equipment procurement and services. Supervision was also satisfactoryas the irrigation infrastructure can be qualified as of high standard. The damages to theinfrastructure resulting from the heavy floods of 1989 at the Ghiss and Chichaoua schemes havebeen repaired adequately.

6.6 Extension Centres were established or strengthened in each of the schemes andfarmers have reported that the number of extensionists is adequate. On the other hand, improvedirrigation techniques and improved small-scale farm machinery and equipment are not yetavailable for dissemination due to the cancellation of or delay in carrying out the plannedstudies.

" According to the simulation results, out of every 10-year period, the discharge of Chiss river in July wouldbe nil for 3 years, less or equal to 200 I/s for 2 years and higher than 400 I/s for 5 years. Ministare destravaux publics, de la formation professionnelle et de la formation des cadres. Administration de l'hydraulique.Plan directeur de l'am6nagement des bassins Loukkos, Tangerois et Cotiers mediterraneens. Analyse des6coulements de l'oued Rhiss. Juin 1993.

Agricultural Development

6.7 The actual cropping patterns show clearly that farmers react quickly to marketopportunities as soon as water is available. Farmers then give preference to citrus, olives,sugarbeet, alfalfa, vegetables and grain legumes, the returns of which are quite attractive.Farmers' interest in orchards is well known, but the SAR planned cropping pattern hadnevertheless not anticipated the importance of the new orchards which would be established. Upto the present, farmers have already planted 1,640 ha of new orchards and soon they envisageplanting another 600 ha. The area planted to alfalfa should also exceed the SAR planned figure,as well as those of sugarbeet and grain legumes. On the other hand, cereals, maize and winterforage are likely to be less cropped than envisaged at appraisal (Table 6.B). Furthermore, onthe basis of present yields, there is clear evidence that appraisal yield estimates are conservativeand will probably be exceeded at full development. As a result of the revised cropping patternsand yields, production of citrus, sugarbeet, olives and alfalfa is likely to considerably exceed theSAR estimates. On the other hand, maize and winter forage production may be lower thananticipated.

Water Users' Associations

6.8 The constitution of Water Users' Associations in all four sub-project areas and asspecified at appraisal, could be considered as one of the most important accomplishments of theproject, in spite of the delays, due essentially to numerous administrative and legal hurdles.Moreover, creation of defacto associations, prior to the promulgation of the law in December1990 and publication of the application decree in May 1992, has allowed the project, since theearly stage of operation of the schemes, to gradually entrust responsibility for their operation andmaintenance to the water users. In the Souss, 21 associations with a total of 5,504 members havebeen created, covering the 21 irrigation sectors of the scheme. In Chichaoua, 13 associationswith 1642 members have taken over the responsibility of operation and maintenance of therehabilitated scheme. The new Jemaa Sahim scheme, which has a unique water source, thepumping station supplying the whole sprinkler system, has only one association grouping allfarmers of the scheme. In the Ghiss scheme, due the severe drought of two successive yearsfollowing the rehabilitation completion, farmers have not yet benefited from the projected waterresource improvement, mainly for summer irrigation; two out of three associations have beenformally created. All associations are being converted to a de jure basis and agreements betweenthe administration and the associations are being drawn up following the new legislation.

6.9 In the Souss and Jemaa Sahim schemes, which are supplied by pumping, theassociations signed contracts with ONE for the power supply to the pumping stations. Funds forpayment of operation expenses have been set up at Chichaoua, Jemaa Sahim and the Ghiss. Inthe Souss, farmers pay the AUEA in advance for water at about 0.30 DH/m3 (sufficient to coverthe costs of energy and direct operating expenses). In spite of all the achievements, muchremains to be done to arrive at full responsibility of the water users' associations for operationand maintenance of the irrigation systems. This is particularly so for the two pumping schemes

-12 -

where the equipment is relatively sophisticated. The administration will need to continue toprovide technical supervision for some time while the AUEA build experience and train theirown personnel.

6.10 In spite of the fact that DER staff are still convinced that farmers should pay thetotal amount of the operation and maintenance costs and a fair percentage of the investment costsof the irrigation infrastructure, their present position is quite pragmatic and flexible. Eachscheme has been studied separately and specific solutions proposed. In the case of Chichaouaand Ghiss, the farmers' participation in investment costs has been set at 10% and recoveryshould not be a problem. However, to help provide for the longer-term heavier maintenanceitems, MARA is discussing with the Ministry of Finance the possibility of this participationbeing retained rather than disappearing into the state treasury. On the other hand, the pumpingstations of the Souss and Jemaa Sahim schemes will have to be replaced regularly and it is notyet clear whether the farmers will accept or, indeed, be able to pay in full the 0 & M cost plusan adequate allowance for depreciation. In these two cases, MARA's view is that the farmersshould not be asked to reimburse the state, but instead they should build up a revolving fund tocover the eventual cost of pump replacement. The DPA and ORMVASM are advising theAUEAs to gradually increase charges for this purpose.

Economic Returns

6.11 Although project impact data were not collected by the DPAE and the CMU, themission working with DPA and ORMVASM staff was able to roughly estimate the "present" and'at full development" agricultural production (Annex 2). Nevertheless, data were not detailedenough to make reasonable estimates of the "Without" and "With Project" situations of somefarm models. Global data related to the entirety of each of the four schemes were utilized topresent the "without project", "actual" and "at full development" situations. As the baselinesurveys of the four schemes have not yet been completed (para 5.6) the SAR data were used toestimate the "Without Project" situation.

6.12 The estimated actual Economic Rate of Return (ERR) is slightly lower (13.5%instead of 15%) than anticipated at appraisal (Part III, Table 6.C). This results from the fact thatthe viability of the Ghiss sub-project is very low (4%) due to the limited water resources andthat the ERR of the Jemaa Sahim sub-project is marginal (9%) due to the high per ha investmentcosts and to some delays in completion and intensive use of the irrigation infrastructure.

7. Project Sustainability

7.1 With the exception of the Ghiss scheme, the principal components of the project,which are the irrigation schemes, are likely to maintain an acceptable level of benefitsthroughout their economic life. Both the rehabilitated traditional schemes and the new one areexpected to be correctly operated and maintained as farmers appreciate the value of irrigationwater and are contributing substantially to the operation and maintenance costs. It will

- 13 -

nevertheless be necessary to fix, as soon as possible, in agreement with the AUEAs in each ofthe four schemes, the water charges at a level which would cover the total amount of the 0 &M costs including in Jemaa Sahim and Souss adequate allowances for depreciation plus, ifpossible, a reasonable percentage of the investment costs of the irrigation infrastructure.

7.2 In relation to the groundwater resources sustainability in the Souss valley on whichwould depend the sustainability of the Souss scheme, assurances were obtained for an actionprogramme to implement the 1981 decree for control of private pumping in the Souss aquifer.The water balance of the Souss aquifer can be summarized as follows"'. The total non-renewable reserve of the aquifer is estimated at 40,000 million m3 . Between 1969 and 1991,there was an overexploitation of about 2,500 million m3 (average: 110 million m3/year) from thisreserve, resulting in a total drawdown of the water table of 10 to 35 m in the central part andof 5 to 10 m in other areas. Current annual drawdown varies from 0.5 to 2 m around theTaroudant area and from 1 to 3 m in the Guerdane area. However, downstream of the Aoulouzdam and in the surface water irrigation scheme of Issen, recharge water and return flow haveincreased the water table by 0.5 to 1.5 m annually. Even with the strict control of privatepumping, it is estimated that there would be an extension of private irrigation of about 250ha/year. This extension would correspond to an additional, albeit marginal, stress on the aquiferof about 2 million m3/year. Water requirements of the Souss scheme rehabilitated by the projectwould amount to a net withdrawal of 70 million m3/year (Table 6.A), which corresponds, forthe whole project life, to about 2,000 million m3 or 5 % of the total aquifer reserve. As the Soussaquifer would have an annual deficit of about 100 to 200 million m3, depending on rainfall, therewould be a continuous drawdown of the water table. Water resources availability for the Soussscheme would not be an issue for its sustainability but pumping costs would increasecontinuously and would have to be taken into account.

8. Bank Performance

8.1 Bank performance in preparation and appraisal was satisfactory, taking into accountthat this project was the first Bank investment in the SMSI sub-sector. Nevertheless the mainrisks could have been more accurately assessed (para 5.10). Supervision missions visited theproject frequently and regularly (on average every six months) with good staff continuity. Theywere well staffed from the technical standpoint and were able to make significant contributionsto the implementation of the project: design of the repairs to the damaged works in Chichaouaand Ghiss following the severe flood of 1989, water resources analysis of the Souss aquifer,investment costs recovery analysis, etc. Furthermore, the supervision missions acquired a goodunderstanding of the project's implementation problems and assisted in overcoming some of themost salient implementation constraints, particularly the lack of financing. This was highlyappreciated by project staff.

" Ministere des Travaux publics de la formation professionnelle et de la formation des cadres. Administrationde l'hydraulique. Direction de la rdgion hydraulique du Souss-Massa et Draa/Agadir. Etat d'etiage de la nappedu Souss. Juin 1993.

- 14 -

8.2 The Bank proved responsive and flexible in restructuring the project scope in thelight of the budgetary constraints and in undertaking a Special Action Programme. A total ofUS$ 11.2 million was cancelled from the original loan and the project was extended by threeyears. On the other hand, the Bank should perhaps have insisted more on the hiring ofconsultants and on the undertaking of the baseline surveys and the evaluation of the projectbenefits.

9. Borrower's Performance

9.1 It should be pointed out that MARA pursued the project's objectives with as muchresolution as the Bank. A competent staff was assigned to the project during the wholeimplementation period both at central and regional levels. Competence and continuity of projectmanagement certainly made a significant contribution to the project's success.

9.2 On the other side, Government did not provide adequate funding for the project,thus inducing considerable delays in project implementation. The practice of allocating a certainbudget amount but without committing the required funds to the project every year to coverexpenditures also had a negative impact on project implementation as it led in many instancesto the slowing down or abandonment of project works by the contractors. However, these factsshould be seen in the light of the general, severe public finance situation of Morocco in thoseyears. Other weaknesses on the part of the borrower relate to its reluctance to mobilizeinternational consultants that could have strengthened the support services to farmers, and toDPAE delays in implementing the baseline surveys and in evaluating project benefits.

10. Lessons Learned

10.1 Experience with this project shows that:

(i) the establishment of Water Users' Associations (AUEA) seems to bea correct approach to the problem of operation and maintenance ofirrigation schemes;

(ii) AUEA should be established at a time when the beneficiaries couldinfluence the final design of the rehabilitation works;

(iii) the agreements between AUEA and the Government specifying therights and duties of both parties should be signed before therehabilitation works are started;

(iv) flexibility is an important factor in the design of SMSI projects;

(v) a well designed and staffed monitoring unit is instrumental inimplementing a decentralized project;

- 15 -

(vi) continuity of capable project management at both central and regionallevels is a crucial factor in project success;

(vii) in support services, necessary efforts should be dedicated to efficientuse of water at farm level;

(viii) to overcome the rigid traditional water rights for optimal waterresources allocation, SMSI projects should encourage the developmentof a water rights rental market;

(ix) Future SMSI projects should exploit the considerable amount ofhydrological and geohydrological data of the Hydraulic Administrationfor assessment and planning of water resources available for irrigationschemes.

11. Project Relationships

11.1 The relationship between the Bank and the Moroccan authorities was excellentduring the whole project. The recommendations made by the frequent supervision missions weregenerally considered useful and followed by concrete actions.

12. Consulting Services

12.1 Detailed designs for irrigation infrastructure and related works were completedsatisfactorily by local consulting firms without any assistance from international consultants. Infact, none of the 99 man-months designated for short-term and long-term specialists was used(paras 5.7 and 5.8). Moreover, the preparation of the SMSI Second Phase project was carriedout by the DER "Service des etudes generales" with the assistance of FAO/CP (Part III, Table6.D).

13. Project Documentation and Data

13.1 The Preparation Report and the SAR proved to be useful during projectimplementation. The involvement of DER staff in project preparation and appraisal greatlycontributed to the understanding of the loan agreement and the appraisal document.

13.2 From 1984 to 1992, the CMU prepared quarterly progress reports following astandard presentation agreed with the Bank. The CMU collected basic data for the lastsupervision mission to help in preparation of the Project Completion Report. However, DPAEdid not collect or process data which would have permitted the preparation of a project impactanalysis and no information was available on the credit component implemented by CNCA.

- 16 -


KINGDOM OF MOROCCO

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT

LOAN 2253-MOR

PART II: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE(Translated from the Original French Version)

(a) Verification of the data in Parts I and III:

As a whole, the data in Parts I and III are consistent with the data available to the IrrigationDevelopment Department, with the exception of the figures on p.6, para.5.3., regarding the areacovered by the Middle Sebou subproject (4,865 ha instead of 410 ha) and the total length of theprimary canals (G and D + 1) for the Ghiss subproject (8.6 km instead of 13.4 km). These changeshave been made in the text.

(b) Comments on Part I:

p.6. para. 5.4:

* -lWith regard to the irrigation technique improvement component, the research anddemonstration studies began in October 1989, well before the completion of the improvementworks at the Chichaoua perimeter.

.7. para. 5.6 Monitoring and evaluation:

At the time of the project preparation, a monitoring and evaluation system for this type ofproject had not been designed causing the delays experienced in the monitoring and evaluation ofproject benefits, despite the efforts made by DPAE to conduct reference surveys on the Ghiss,Chichaoua and Jemaa Shim [sic] schemes.

Finally, with a view to monitoring and evaluating this type of project, before project startupan appropriate system must be devised with sufficient funding and, if necessary, the pertinenttechnical assistance.

p2.7. para, 5.7:

- Five contracts were awarded to LPEE, of which three for the supervision ofgeotechnical works at the sites of water deviation works at Chichaoua and the first tranche ofworks for the SMSI-II project.

- 17 -

R.10. para. 6.:

- The number of contracts managed was 117 for the various components of the project.

p. 13. para.7. 1 [French Versionl:

- At present, the users of irrigation at the four schemes are shouldering the entiremaintenance and operating cost. Beneficiary contribution of a minimum of 10% of theinvestment cost is now being discussed with the Ghiss and Chichaoua irrigation associations.With regard to the replacement of the electromechanical equipment at Souss and JamaaSahim, responsibility for amortization costs for the equipment is now being studied on thebasis of the farmers' reimbursement capacity.

.p15. Rara. 10.1 (iii) [French versionl:

- The agreements to be concluded with the water user associations must be finalizedbefore the start of competitive bidding for the rehabilitation works.p.15. para.10.1 (ix):

- The irrigation improvement studies for the SMSI-I schemes include all hydrologicaland geohydrological data available at the regional level.

(c) Performance of the Bank during project implementation:

During implementation of the Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project, Bank performancewas satisfactory. In point of fact, recognizing the difficulties of implementing such a project, theBank agreed to restructure and extend the project by three years.

The Bank played an active role in eliminating several constraints during projectimplementation, as evidenced by the large number of missions it sent. The major constraint that wasresolved was that of budget reduction and the establishment of a working capital fund within the7rdsorerie G{nerale du Royaume.

(d) Performance of the Borrower during project implementation: The Government of Moroccodid its utmost to carry out the project successfully and considers that project implementation wassatisfactory overall.

The Government placed great importance on carrying out the project activities, given theproject's importance to the development of small and medium-scale irrigated farming.

The efforts made by the Government of Morocco can be summarized as follows:

- mobilization of the maximum of available funds, despite the budget restrictionsadopted by the State during the period of project implementation;

- 18 -

- allocation of competent high-level staff with the personnel necessary for projectexecution;

- organization of project management at the central and regional levels;

- establishment of a coordination structure (committees) composed of the variousproject players and beneficiaries (provencial committee and national committee);

- promulgation of regulatory texts governing the organization of farmers on the variousirrigated schemes into water users' associations, to take on responsibility for maintenance andoperating cost with a certain level of participation in investment cost.

(e) Relations between the Bank and Borrower:

Under the Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project, relations between the Government ofMorocco and the Bank were excellent at various levels, which facilitated implementation of theproject in question.

- 19 -

PROJECT COMPLMION REPORT

KINGDOM OF MOROCCO

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT

LOAN 2253-MOR

PART III: STATISTICAL INFORMATION

Table 1. Related Bank Loans

Loan Number and Title Year of Purpose Original StatusApproval Loan Amount

(USS million)- Loan 2253-MOR 1983 Support the development of the 42.0 Closed

Small and Medium Scale neglected Small and Medium Scale DecemberIrrigation Project I Irrigation Sub-sector through the 1992

creation or rehabilitation of fiveschemes and the preparation of asecond-stage project

- Loan 2590-MOR 1985 Support the first phase of 100.0 ClosedAgricultural Sector implementation of the Government's. June 1987Adjustment Loan programme of adjustment in the

agricultural sector. The principalobjectives of the programme were toimprove the growth rate inagriculture within the overallconstraints in public resources

- Loan 2656-MOR 1986 Support and complement the reform 46.0 ClosedLarge Scale Irrigation package agreed upon under the First June 1993Improvement Project Agricultural Sector Adjustment Loan

with regard to the irrigation sub-sector through the rehabilitation ofabout 150,000 ha, the improvementof operation and maintenanceloperations and the setting up of anefficient management informationsystem

- Loan 2885-MOR 1988 Support the second phase of 225.0 ClosedSecond Agricultural Sector implementation of the Government's April 1992Adjustment Loan medium-term agricultural sector

adjustment programme within theframework of a generalmacroeconomic restructuringprogramme. The essential objectiveswere to foster efficient agriculturalgrowth and to contribute to thereduction of budgetary and currentaccount deficits to manageable levels

- Loan 2954-MOR 1988 Finance a part of the Government's 23.0 On-goingSecond Small and Medium public investment programme inScale Irrigation Project small and medium scale irrigation

during the 1988-92 Plan through therenovation of about 120 traditionalirrigation schemes and the equipmentof seven spate irrigation repairbrigades to operate in poverty areasin selected Southem Provinces

- Loan 3088-MOR 1989 Financing of activities of CNCA 190.0 ClosedSeventh Agricultural from 1990 to 1993 DecemberCredit Project 1993

- 20 -

Table 2. Project Timetable

Itemn Date Planned Date Revised Actual Date

- Reconnaissance - - April 1980

- Identification - - November 1980

- First Preparation Mission - - January 1981

- Final Preparation Mission - - February 1982

- Appraisal May 1982 - May 1982

- Loan Negotiations January 1983 - January 1983

- Board Approval March 1983 - March 1983

- Loan Signature June 1983 - June 1983

- Loan Effectiveness - January 1984

- Loan Closing December 1989 - December 1992

- 21 -

Table 3. Loan Disbursements

A. Cumulative Estimated Adjusted and Actual Disbursements

IBRD Fiscal Year Appraisal Adjusted Actual | % of Appraisal % of AdjustedSemester Ending Estimate Estimate" Estimate Estimate

FY 1984

December 1983 0.3 - - - -

June 1984 2.8 0.4 0.36 13 90

FY 1985

December 1984 4.3 0.4 0.43 10 108

June 1985 6.7 0.9 0.87 13 97

FY 1986

December 1985 10.5 1.2 1.17 11 98

June 1986 16.1 1.5 1.50 9 100

FY 1987

December 1986 22.3 1.8 1.80 8 100

June 1987 27.5 2.9 2.91 11 100

FY 1988

December 1987 32.2 5.7 5.63 17 99

June 1988 36.1 8.0 6.64 18 83

FY 1989

December 1988 39.5 12.0 8.07 20 67

June 1989 42.0 15.5 12.10 29 78

FY 1990

December 1989 - 22.0 15.30 36 70

June 1990 - 24.0 16.71 40 70

FY 1991

December 1990 - 30.0 19.49 46 65

June 1991 - 34.0 22.29 53 66

FY 1992

December 1991 - - 23.83 57 70

June 1992 - - 27.80 66 82

FY 1993

December 1992 - - 29.70 71 87

June 1993 - - 30.81 73 91

" As of December 1987 after cancellation of US$ 8 million.

- 22 -

Table 3. Loan Disbursements

B. Planned and Actual Disbursements by Category

Category Planned" Revised' Actual' Actual as a %l l I of Revised

. ........... (US$ million) .

1. Civil Works 26.0 20.0 24.7 124

2. Equipment 5.6 5.6 1.6 29

3. Civil Works and Equipment 4.2 4.2 3.2 76for Power Supply

4. Consultants and Training 1.2 1.2 0.9 75

5. Fee 0.3 0.3 0.3 100

6. Unallocated 4.7 2.7 - -

7. Fund - - 0.1 -

Total 42.0 34.0 30.8 91

" Loan Agreement of June 1983.2/ Amendment to the Loan Agreement approved in June 1987.31 Last disbursement made in May 1993 at which time the loan account was closed and the remaining balance

of US$ 3.2 million was cancelled.

- 23 -

Table 4. Project Implementation Ratio

(Key indicators)

Component Ulit Planned SAR Actual Ratio Actual/PlannedI I (or Revised) (%)

A. Irrigation Infrastructure(a) Souss Sub-project- Rehabilitation Area ha 9,650 10,163 105- Tubewells & Wells U 73 75 103- Pumping Stations U 25 25 100- Canal Network km 300 261 87- Power Supply Line km 53 45 85- Road Improvement km 60 192 320(b) Ghiss Sub-project- Rehabilitation Area ha 920 920 100- Diversion Weir U 1 1 100- Conveyance Canal km 4 4.2 105- Primary Canal km 7.8 13.4 171- Secondary & Tertiary Canals km 39.6 48 121- Soil Drainage Network km 400 386 96- Excess Rainwater Drainage km 17 18 106(c) Cbichaoua Sub-project- Rehabilitation Area ha 1,900 1,900 100- Irrigation Network km 57 43 75- Syphons m 450 660 146- Road Improvement km 56 21 37- River Intake U - 3(d) Jemaa Sahim Sub-project- New Area Implemented ha 410 443 108- Pumping Station U 1 1 100- Underground Pipe km 14 16 114- Power Supply Line km 3 0.23 7- Drainage Network km - 20.8B. Support Activities"- House, Offices U 125 17 14- Milk Collection Centres U 7 3 43- Livestock Centres U 7 4 57- Breeding Stations U 11 1 9- Artificial Insemination Centres U I 1 100- Breeding Animals U 22 2 9- Vehicles U 36 25 69- Motorcycles U 72 8 11- Technical Assistance m/m 60 -

- Overseas Training rn/m 35 -

- Local Training m/m 80 30 37

Excluding the Middle Sebou Sub-Project.

Table 5. Project Costs and Financing

A. Project Costs

Breakdown of project costs by Loan Categories (n million DH)

Categories 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 TOTAL SAR*

SOUSS SUB-PROJECTIrrigation Infrastructure 10.0 3.8 1.6 2.1 9.8 70.5 65.0 842 51.4 14.8 313.1 176.1Support costs 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.9 47.4On-farm Investments 4.1

Sub-total 10.1 4.3 1.6 2.2 10.6 71.0 65.4 84.7 51.9 152 317.0 227.6

GHISS SUB-PROJECTIrrigation Infrastructure 0.0 0.0 16.4 10.2 17.4 4.6 4.3 1.6 1.1 0.9 56.6 34.8Support costs 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.8 6.1On-farm Investments 0.6 I

Sub-total 0.0 0.0 17.5 10.8 17.8 5.0 4.6 1.6 12 1.0 59.4 41.5

CHICHAOUA SUB-PROJECTIrrigation Infrastructure 0.0 3.2 2.1 7.0 11.0 8.1 2.4 0.7 1.8 0.0 362 19.4Support costs 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 02 5.8 5.9On-farm Investments 1.3

Sub-total 0.0 4.3 3.4 7.9 11.8 8.6 2.4 1.1 2.4 02 42.0 26.6

JEMAA SAHIM SUB-PROJECTIrrigation Infrastructure 0.0 0.2 4.6 6.7 4.3 3.0 12 02 0.3 2.3 22.8 13.8Support costs 0.0 0.6 12 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.2 02 0.5 0.9 5.6 5.5On-farm Investments 0.7

Sub-total 0.0 0.8 5.8 6.9 4.7 3.3 2.4 0.4 0.9 32 28.4 20.0

CENTRAL MANAGEMENT UNIT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 02 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 9.0

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 10.1 9.5 28.3 27.9 45.1 88.1 75.2 87.9 56.3 19.6 447.8 324.7

* Including physical and price contingencies

- 25 -

Table 5. Project Costs and Financing

B. Project Financing

T Planned | Actual

. (US$ million).

IBRD 42.0 30.8

Govermment" 56.4 23.0

CNCA 1.0 N.A.

Beneficiaries 2.2 N.A.

Total 101.6 53.8

Estimated as balance of total project cost minus IBRD's contribution.

- 26 -

Table 6. Project Results

A. Water Balance

T Water Demand Water Resources

Ghiss (Irrigated Area: 920 ha)

Critical Month (July)

- Net at Plot 260 I/s

- Gross at Headworks " 400 I/s 220 I/s "

Annual

- Gross at Headworks 8,700 m3 /ha

- Total for Scheme 8 mill. m3 60 mill. m3 2'

Chichaoua (irrigated Area: I,900 ha)


- Net Demand at Plot 565 I/s v

- Gross Demand at Headworks 940 I/s 1,100 I/s

Annual

- Gross at Headworks 10,350 m3fha 3

- Total for Scheme 19.7 mill. m3 35 mill. m3

Jemaa Sahim (Irrigated Area: 440 ha)


- Net at Plot 200 I/s 4

- Gross at Pumping Station 4/ 300 I/s ' 300 I/s

Annual

- Gross at Pumping Station 9,560 m3/ha

- Total for Scheme 4.2 mnill. m3 7.9 mill. m3

Souss (Irrigated Area: 10,160 ha)


- Net at Plot 2,410 I/s 4'

- Gross at Pumping Station 4/ 4,810 I/s ' 4,570 I/s

Annual

- Gross at Pumping Station 9,480 m3/ha

- Total for Scheme 96.3 mill. mn3 67.4 mill. m3n"

" Assuming field efficiency of 75%, conveyance efficiency of 85%.2 On average, according to hydrological simulation.3 Assuming field efficiency of 75%, conveyance efficiency of 80%.41 Assuming 20-hour irrigation/pumping.5' Assuming field efficiency of 85%, conveyance efficiency of 90%.6/ Assuming field efficiency of 75%, conveyance efficiency of 80%.7' Net extraction from Souss aquifer.


B. Cropping Pattern, Yields and Production

Appraisal Estimate Mission Estimates Full Devlopment as a % ofWith Project Appraisal Estimate

Selected Crops Before Project With Project Actual Situation Full Development Ajrea I Yields I Production

Area |Yields |Production Area |Yidds | rdcin Area |Yields |Production Area |Yields |Production ........-- -. (%) . ..-..-..-..-(ha) (tons/ha) ('000 tons) (ha) (tons/ha) ('000 tons) (ha) (tons/ha) ('000 tons) (ha) (tons/ha) ('000 tons) l

Cereals 4,550 1.0 4.6 3,800 2.9 11.0 2,350 2.5 5.9 3,170 3.2 10.1 83 110 92

Grain Legumes (Green) 40 4.0 0.2 230 13.0 3.0 270 5.0 1.4 430 7.0 3.0 187 54 100

Winter Vegetables 330 15.0 5.0 1,070 26.0 27.8 560 25.0 14.0 970 30.0 29.1 91 115 105

Sugarbeet - - - 60 45.0 2.7 180 52.0 9.4 200 50.0 10.0 333 111 370

Winter Forage (000 UF) 220 3.0 660.0 1,490 3.9 5,770.0 110 5.0 550.0 950 5.0 4,750.0 64 128 82

Maize 870 1.5 1.3 2,370 3.3 7.8 1,170 2.7 3.2 790 3.5 2.8 33 106 36

Summer Vegetables 440 15.0 6.6 1,635 28.0 45.8 610 20.0 12.2 1,400 30.0 42.0 86 107 92

Alfalfa (000 UF) 610 5.0 3,050.0 1,155 8.2 9,460.0 830 6.5 5,395.0 2,330 8.0 18,640.0 202 98 197 <

Olives 3,360 1.5 5.0 3,365 2.7 9.1 4,130 2.0 8.3 4,550 4.0 18.2 135 148 200 I

Citrus 90 15.0 1.4 90 22.0 2.0 900 20.0 18.0 1,000 35.0 35.0 1,111 159 1,750

Other Fruits 130 4.0 0.5 165 18.0 3.0 190 6.0 1.1 270 10.0 2.7 164 150 90

Other Crops - - - 275 - - - - - - - - - - -

Total Area Cropped 10,640 - - 15,705 - - 11,300 - - 16,060

Total Project Area 13,426 - - 12,880 - - 13,426 - - 13,426

Harvest Intensity 84 - - 131 - - 90 - - 137

- 28 -


C. Economnic Impact"

Economic Rate of Return | SAR Estimate PCR Estimate

(%) .

Souss Sub-project 17.3 14.4

Ghiss Sub-project 15.3 3.8

Chichaoua Sub-project 16.7 20.8

Jemaa Sahim Sub-project 14.5 9.1

Whole Project 15.02 13.5

D. Studies

Studies Status Com ents

Detailed design for some irrigation infrastructures Done Local Consulting Firms

Preparation of a second-stage SMSI Project Done DER with the assistance of FAO/CP

Use of Small-scale Farm Machinery and Equipment - Consultant never recruited

" See Annex 2 for assumptions.

2/ The actual ERR is higher than 15.0% as that rate includes the Middle Sebou Sub-project, cancelled in 1987,the rate of which was only 12.9%.

- 29 -

Table 7. Status of Covenants

| Loan StatusOriginal Revised IAgreement Status Date Date Description of Covenants Cormnents

Section

3.01 (a) OK - - CNCA shall make agricultural credit availableto farmers.

3.02 (a) OK - - Employment of consultants.3.04 (a) OK - - Maintain MARA's unit for irrigated crops in

DPV.3.04 (b) OK - - Construct field offices at Chichaoua.3.04 (c) Rev. - - Establishment of an Irrigation Operations Not applicable since corresponding

Division in DPA of Fes. sub-project has been cancelled.3.06 (c) OK - Preparation of quarterly reports.3.06 (d) OK - - Preparation of an economic and social baseline Surveys completed; results not yet

survey. available.3.07 (a) OK - - Regulate pumping of groundwater in Souss ORMVSM maintains monitoring

valley following decree No. 2.79.606 of unit.9/9/81.

3.07 (b) OK - - Provide the Bank with information on pumping -

regulation of the Souss aquifer.3.08 OK - Control diversion of water from Ghiss River.3.09 OK 06130/85 - Establishment of water users' association in Defacto acsociation was converted t

Jemaa Sahim. de jure status in December 1992.3.10 OK 12/31/85 - Establishment of legal framework for water Law signed 12/90 and published in

associations. official bulletin January 1991.Application decree published 05/92.

3.10 OK - - Ensure conformity of water users' associationswith said legal framework.

4.02 (a) OK - - Ensure that annual budget resources allocatedto each department.

4.02 (b) OK - - Furnish to Bank annual budgets of projectactivities as included in Loi de Finance orProgr. d'emploi.

4.03 (b) OK - - Send Bank audit reports.4.04 OK - - Ensure adequate 0 & M.4.05 OK - - Establish water charges to recover all 0 & M Formulae agreed at negotiations

costs and a reasonable proportion of SMSI-I1. DER to negotiate level withinvestment costs. associations.

Sch.1-4 (b) OK - - Establishment of water users' association and 8 dejure and 6 defacto associationsof variable plan for use of water of Tajoujet exist.canal in Chichaoua.

Sch.1-4 (c) OK - Establishment of water users' associations in 2 de jure and I defacto associationsGhiss. exist.

Table 8. Use of Bank Resources

A. Staff Inputs (Staff Weeks)

To FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Total

Preparation and Pre- 101.5 - - - - - - - - - - - 101.5Appraisal

Appraisal 37.4 47.7 - - - - - - - - - 85.1Negotiations - 4.8 - - - - - - - - - 4.8

Sub-total 138.9 52.5 - - - - - - - - - - 191.4

Supervision - 4.7 6.0 2.4 7.7 8.8 8.4 8.0 9.6 7.3 9.2 2.3 74.4

PCR - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.2 13.2

Total 138.9 57.2 6.0 2.4 7.7 8.8 8.4 8.0 9.6 7.3 9.2 2.3 13.2 279.0 W

- 31 -

Table 8. Use of Bank Resources

B. Missions

Stage of Project Cycle Month/Year No. of | Days in | Specialization PerformancePersons Field Represented" Rating Status2'

Preparation and Pre- 02/1982 9 N.A. 2 1, A, 4 E, LAppraisal3 '

Appraisal 06/1982 6 N.A. 1, A, 2 E, S, H

Supervision 1 09/1983 2 8 1, E 1/F

Supervision 2 02/1984 2 10 2 1 1/M

Supervision 3 10/1984 1 5 I 2/F

Supervision 4 02/1986 2 3 I, H 3/F

Supervision 5 08/1986 1 16 1 2/F, M

Supervision 6 12/1986 3 12 2 1, E 2/F, M

Supervision 7 11/1987 3 5 2 I, A 2/F, M

Supervision 8 04/1988 1 11 I 2/F, M

Supervision 9 09/1988 2 8 I, A 2/F, M

Supervision 10 04/1989 2 15 1, A 2/F, M




Supervision 14 06/1991 2 12 A, E 2/F, M

Supervision 15 12/1991 2 12 A, I 2/F, M

Supervision 16 05/1992 2 12 A, I 2/F, M

Supervision 17 03/1993 2 N.A. A, I 2/F, M

Completion 09/1993 2 10 E, I

I: Irrigation Engineer; A: Agronimist; E: Economist; L: Livestock Specialist; S: Sociologist; H:Hydrogeologist.

v 1: Problem free or Minor Problems; 2: Moderate Problems; 3: Major Problems; F: Financial; M:Managerial; T: Technical.31 Project preparation was largely undertaken by Moroccan staff with the assistance of three FAO/CP bus-stopping missions, for which manpower details are not available. The FAO/CP final preparation mission was thenorganized

- 32 -

Part El1: Annex 1: Note on Detailed Project Costs

Detailed project costs of the Souss, Ghiss, Chichaoua and Jemaa Sahim sub-projects, incurrent terms, are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Table 5 details for each ofthe four sub-projects, in constant 1993 DH, the Investment Costs, the Operation Costs and theMaintenance Costs. Incremental operating costs of the extension services are listed in Table 6.

MOROCCO: Siii3l Nix] Mediutim-Scalc Irrigatioi lrujecl(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report

Pnrt III: Aninex 1: Note ont tetailed Project Costs

Table 1. Detailed Project Costs - Snuss Sub-Project (Current 1)11)

19841 1985 16 9877 1988| 1989| 190 19 19921 1993 TOTALIRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE14sondagesl&19forages 7988648 3109499 1009795 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12107941SpultsreglondAhmar 563714 433280 264826 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12618207puitsregionAhmar 816517 6921 257925 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 1081363Crousoment de 40 forages 0 0 2042154 5347193 0 0 0 0 0 7389347Creusement de 23 forages 0 0 0 2263082 11806823 0 0 0 0 14069906Reseau dirrig. sect.D9 0 0 0 0 25236984 14590161 15661464 4004728 0 59493337Reseau dirrig. sectAval 0 0 0 0 23855287 20459521 2712481 506071 928712 48462072

Genie civil stat. pomp. secteur 09 0 0 0 0 5979066 6452579 1043763 0 0 13475407

Reseau dirrigation secteurs Amont 0 0 0 0 0 9042531 24475723 7970359 1701165 43189778Geniecivildessecteurs Amont 0 0 0 0 0 4100337 1469332 606922 0 6176591Genia cMl des secteurs Aval 0 0 0 0 0 0 5903442 9634510 2307832 17845784Reseau rouler (80<m) 0 0 0 0 0 0 7799618 2199512 0 9999130Reseau routier (135Km) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12609500 2988736 15598236Complement reseau dirrigation D9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 801125 156875 9580002 forages d'exploitatlon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1200000 1200000Curage et develop. 8 IBrages 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 999650 999650 W

Control travaux Cabo) 600000 500000 700000 80000 1880000 W

Equip. electromeca. secteur D9 0 0 0 0 0 9264988 4751908 975294 0 14992191Equip. electromeca. secteurAval 0 0 0 0 0 0 11417651 9247877 1222370 21887898Equip. electromeca. secteurAmont 0 0 0 0 0 0 6510572 469676 0 6980248Electrif. stat. pomp. 0 0 0 1996122 2994183 0 1952709 618243 2008973 9570230CouvwerLe aerlome 90000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90000Levee prolas en long 132690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132690Etude de lequipement 274326 0 23266 60018 156017 47083 38996 0 0 0 599708Additd levee profils en long 122903 132284 19208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 274395Carte occupat. sdls par satallte 140965 0 0 0 0 0 0 346246 0 487211Etude artrages prise pour segulas 0 0 0 0 245520 220038 0 124633 0 590191Etude equipement 2eme tranche 0 0 0 0 342166 208238 0 538278 1184917 2273599

Total lrrigation Infrastructure 9988798 3822949 1575019 2102172 9762415 70507112 64977390 84198662 51352974 14779231 313066722

SUPPOllT COSTSFourniturede3RLet2R9TC 239145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 239145Fourniture de 2 Land Rover 189315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189315

Fourniture de 8 v6hicules legers 0 0 0 553216 0 0 0 0 0 553216Salalres & Deplacem. 75000 49000 49000 110000 219000 434000 446000 473000 482000 458000 2795000O & M Vohicules 10000 10000 10000 200W 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 10000 160000

Total Support costs 85000 487460 59000 130000 792216 454000 466000 493000 50200 4680D0 3936676

ON-FARM INVESTMENTS N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. NA. NA. NA.

TOTAL SOUSS 10073798 4310410 1634019 2232172 10554631 70961112 65443390 84691662 51854974 15247231 317003399

MOROCCO: Stinll ailtl Mediu,m-Scik trrigilinii Prnjclc(Loin 225.1-MOR) - Project Completion Report

Part III: Auiiex 1: Note ott D)etailed Project Costs

Table 2. Detailced lroiect Costs - Chtiss Sul)-Project (Current Dil)

1986 1987 1988 1989T 19901 1991 | 19921 19931 TOTALIRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTUREConduitesG & D+l 8128768 1729246 1179373 42856 11080243Barrage derivation sur Ghiss 2648162 147546 247974 3043682Protection eaux sauvages 2071104 2021275 510760 1007649 2092720 7703508Reseau irrigation 2440782 3248627 4439092 366652 493392 10988545Conduite tete morte 2421360 9647618 681233 1002434 13752645Drains aspirateurs 314852 220435 40814 576101Reseau de pistes 645244 139335 61955 846534Drainage profond 1106016 2243943 217076 3567035Protection conduite tete morte 342160 989256 97103 8674 1437193Reparaton conduite tete morte 1094416 828830 1923246Recalibrage oued Ghiss 498257 498257Controle geotechn. 1128758 1128758Remise etat reseau drainage 55500 55500 u

Total Irrigat Infrastr. 16417574 10213298 17445685 4634755 4266730 1592929 1094416 935860 56601247

SUPPORT COSTSConstruction 4 bureaux 156329 31894 11767 199990Construction 4 logements 737976 19013 55546 812535Vehicules 250050 26731 22868 299649Materiel veterinaire 109992 109992AEP batiments 14803 14803Electrificat batiments 28678 28678Suivi 144600 289200 289200 289200 289200 1301400

Total Support costs 1038905 590157 327698 355549 289200 0 109992 55546 2767047

ON-FARM INVESTMENTS N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

TOTALGH_SSSUBPROJECT _ 17456479 _10803455 17773383 4990304 4555930 1592929 120440_8 991406 59368294

MOROCCO; Snuill mid Mediumi-Scalc lrrigalinii Itnjce1(Loan 2253-MOR) - Projecl Crmpictioii Rerort

Part III: Annex 1: Note on D)etailed lroject Costs

Tnble 3. Detailed Project Costs - Cliicinoua Sub-ProJect (Current 1)11)

1 19851 19861 19871 19881 19891 1990o 1991 | 19921 19931 TOTALIRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTUREOiuvrges Iradtissemenl 399942 107221 166734 0 0 0 0 0 0 673897Stablisation berges 1150617 345948 1820208 712084 0 0 0 0 0 4028857PRehablitat. reseau 1500614 646553 134618 0 756570 191963 0 0 0 3230318

Betcnnage resetu 551013 1928629 3849555 1967311 0 161082 0 0 5457590Assinissement agricde 0 0 100680 170601 0 0 0 0 271281Plstes 0 141298 772407 622953 0 0 1716554 0 3253212Siphon Bou Anneflir 0 279185 6000 108002 0 0 0 0 3931873 Barrages prise 0 2479642 5529210 4123500 724906 0 0 0 12857258

Siiron 1ranchiss. 0 0 0 0 939546 0 0 0 939546Trav. compl. barrages price 0 0 0 0 528058 0 0 0 528058

Stablisal. berges 0 0 0 0 0 459075 0 0 459075Couvertiure aerienne 131096 124200 0 0 347675 0 103897 0 0 706870Eludes geotedmn. 317235 0 32829 0 0 0 0 0 350064

Conlrde travaux 0 0 0 0 16703 0 60448 0 77151

Tola Irrigat. Infrastr. 318271 2092170 6950314 11002765 8096612 2401176 724054 1777002 0 36226364

SUPPORT COSTSConstduct. batiments 583144 1024192 657095 228756 0 0 0 0 158822 2632009AEP puits) 0 0 16170 7400 0 0 0 0 23570

AEP batiments 0 0 88372 9819 0 0 0 0 98191AEP brrtncements 0 0 19778 0 0 0 0 0 19778Amenagemrmts divers 0 0 0 0 0 4500 0 0 4500

Postb transformateur 0 0 116931 27964 0 0 0 0 144895Modopomnpe AEP 0 0 0 24000 0 0 0 0 24000

Vehiwles 214668 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 214668Veilcules 102700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102700Motocydettes 0 0 0 49760 0 0 0 0 49760

Bacs refrigerants 0 0 0 0 0 126500 0 0 126500Materiel velerinaire 0 0 0 0 0 8877 117941 0 126818

Materiel audiovis. 0 0 0 0 0 9880 131270 0 141150Materid agricole 0 0 0 0 0 24611 326985 0 351596Fcumiiture bureau 0 0 0 0 0 226813 17072 0 243885

Fcumiture bureau 0 0 0 0 0 0 15000 0 15000Fcrlukre bureau 0 0 0 0 0 0 15880 0 15880

Bectrifical. batiments 0 0 0 81790 0 0 0 0 81790Secitificat. batiments 0 0 34401 0 0 0 0 0 34401

Suivi 264200 273900 273900 273900 273900

Totdl Sipport costs 1144712 1298092 930995 778308 474633 0 401181 624148 158822 5810891

ON-FARM INVESTMENTS NA. N.A. N.A. N.A. NA. NA. N.A. NA. N.A. N.A.

TOTALCHICHAOUA 4326983 3390262 7881309 11781073 8571245 2401176 1125235 2401150 158822 42037255

MOROCCO: Small anti Medium-Scale Irrigatkin Prljecl(LAoan 2251-MOR) - Prijcc Cnmpiletion Report

I'art III: Autitex 1: Note on D)efniledl I'roject Costs

Table 4. I)etliled Prolcct Costs - Jemotn Snitint Suib-Project (Current Di)

19198|186 987 19881 1989 01992____L_ L__. _.......... ... - ---- I .. .__. ..... .._---1IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE 1985 __5~~9_-91193 :TO:TAL

Pisles & colatures 1834573 1681406 0 406311 100014 0 0 4022304Genie civil stat. pomp. 0 138831 604157 761436 0 0 0 405841 1910265Canalisat. bomnes 0 3605671 2845990 558072 298429 0 0 585858 7894020Barodage porte 0 0 0 0 29648 0 0 29648Conduites 0 0 0 0 0 0 322120 74438 396558Electritic. stat. pomp. 416932 0 0 0 0 0 0 515927 932859Controle tIrav. 0 42269 0 13552 0 0 0 55821Mater. elec. stat. pomp. 232658 697975 1255245 831532 125256 555339 0 0 558000 4256005Crepines 0 0 0 0 0 9980 0 9980Electropomp. 0 0 0 0 0 29512 0 29512Mater. mobileltrig. 1612146 0 0 1091055 217904 151385 0 148152 3220642Divergert lrdg. 0 0 23616 0 0 0 0 23616

Total irrigat. Infastr. 232658 4561626 6723422 4305295 2955682 1201334 190877 322120 2288216 22781230

SUPPORT COSTS LConstr. agence 396800 1006481 0 0 0 170958 0 0 1574240Infirmerie veter. 0 0 106720 0 70963 0 0 177683Centre intercoop. 0 0 151440 100349 193279 0 24572 469640Centre colecte lalt 0 0 0 39780 0 27134 27001 93915AEP batiments 0 0 0 0 0 0 198440 125560 324000Station monte 0 0 0 0 0 0 111361 88212 199573Mob4ier bureau 0 0 0 69700 0 0 0 69700Vehicules 103929 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103929Vehicules 0 0 0 0 2474 0 0 2474Vehicules 59003 0 0 0 0 0 0 59003Genheurs 0 0 0 0 0 29800 0 29800Equip. coil. bfet 0 0 0 0 168615 0 0 55385 224000Audiovisuel 0 0 0 0 73810 0 69119 47071 190000Equip. centre elev. 0 0 0 0 0 73198 12277 85475Machine elec. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12500 12500Photocop. 0 0 0 0 0 58000 0 58000Ordinateur 0 0 0 0 0 0 90499 10055 100554Electrific. batim. 0 0 0 0 400001 0 0 559999 960000Architect. bat. 0 0 0 9980 0 0 0 9980Suivi 107800 172800 172800 172800 172800 81400 880400

Total supp. costs 608529 1238284 172800 430960 392609 1161500 188132 545769 886282 5624866

ON-FARM INVESTMENTS N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

TOTAL JEMAA SAHIM 841187 579990 6896222 4736?55 3348291 2362834 379009 867889 3174498 28406096

MOROCCO: Smiiall anid Mcdliin-Scalc Irrigatioii lronject(Loanr 2253MOh1R) - Project CompIcliom Report

Palt III: Anniex 1: Nole onii Deailed Project Cosls

'I'Tble 5. Iives(nielit am(i Operatlion & Malagehllent Cos(s (Consltant 1993 DII)

1904 1905 1908 1907 1900 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1990 1999 2000 20012020

SOlSS SJB -PFlOJECTA. INVESTMENrIlrIgaon (lrrdgr) 6584 2498 873 1061 4591 33405 29123 36962 21592 6133

rTigaton (local) 9982 3524 1316 1690 7457 51019 44892 54365 31548 0646Suppfrtlcr eig.t) 56 318 33 66 373 215 209 216 211 194Support (local) 85 449 49 105 605 334 322 310 306 274

8. OPERATION Ml\lTENARNCEOpoalcon 15850 15650 15850 15050 15050 18730 10730 20955blnltmance 340 600 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 5084

TOTAE 16708 6789 2271 2921 13026 05773 74546 91062 53999 15927 17000 17000 17000 17000 17000 19800 19000 26039

a0-Iss sJB-PnwEcTA- INVESTMENT

IrTigalion (krdgn) 0 0 9096 5155 0205 2196 1912 699 460 300InlgaUon (local 0 0 13720 8211 13326 3408 2948 1029 672 547

Supporl (rc-elgrl) 0 0 578 290 154 168 130 0 46 23SupPJn (local) 0 0 068 474 250 261 200 0 00 32 U.

B. OPERATION MtA NTENANCEOperalcnlbinlenanco 430 860 1730 1730 1730 1730 1730 4690 2028

TOTlt 0 0 24260 14139 21936 6032 5190 1720 1246 1421 860 1730 1730 1730 1730 1730 4690 2026

C-lC.AOLJAs SJ-PInOJECTA. INVESTMENT

rrlgalon lcrdgn) 0 2079 1159 3500 5175 3836 1076 318 747 0lrrlgaton (ocal) 0 2933 1748 5588 8405 5951 1659 468 1092 0

SuppcTt (Urrelgri) 0 748 719 470 366 225 0 176 262 66Suppcrt(local) 0 1055 1085 748 595 349 0 259 383 93

'B. OPERATION MAINTENANCEOpration

ainlrenance 170 340 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 699

TOT& 0 6815 4712 10314 14540 10360 2905 1560 3175 849 090 690 690 690 690 690 690 699

JEMM SAHIM SUB -PROJECTAk INVESTMENT

lrrigaIon (creign) 0 152 2527 3394 2025 1400 538 04 135 950in-IgaUon (local) 0 214 3012 5405 3209 2172 030 123 198 1339

Supporl (icrolgn) 0 398 606 87 203 106 521 83 229 360Support (local) 0 * 561 1035 139 329 289 802 121 335 510

'B. OPEnlATION MAlNTENANCEOpcralon 785 705 705 705 705 785 705 705 785 785 705Malntenance 230 460 930 930 930 930 930 930 930 4790 1636

TOftt 0 1325 0060 9025 5045 4047 2691 1426 2143 4890 1715 1715 1715 1715 1715 1715 5575 2421

- 38 -

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report

Part [I: Annex 1: Note on Detailed Project Costs

Table 6. Incremental Operating Costs of the Extension Services"

Scheme DHlYear

Souss -

Ghiss 42,000

Chichaoua 89,000

Jemaa Sahim 45,000

Source: Mission estimates on the basis of data presented by ORMVASM and DPA staff.

" Including salaries of additional staff, operating costs of vehicles, etc.

- 39 -

Part III: Annex 2: Note on Economnic Analysis

1. MARA's Directorate of Planning and Economic Affairs (DPAE) was in chargeof defining the "Without Project situation", by conducting four baseline surveys, and ofregularly evaluating project benefits. However, at the time of the mission's visit DPAE hadnot yet processed the baseline survey data nor had it started collecting data to evaluate projectbenefits. The mission was therefore obliged to roughly estimate the "present" and "at fulldevelopment" agricultural production on the basis of limited data collected by DPA andORMVASM staff and, principally, their broad knowledge of the project area.

2. Main assumptions underlying the PCR estimates of the Economic Rate of Returnsare:

(i) Land use "before" and "during the project" presented in Tables 1, 2, 3and 4 respectively for the Souss, Ghiss, Chichaoua and Jemaa Sahimschemes.

(ii) Economic prices and costs listed in Table 5. These prices are mainlytaken from the SAR of the Second Large-Scale Irrigation ImprovementProject (March 1993).

(iii) With and without project, Per Ha Economic Returns for SelectedCommodities (Table 6). Technical parameters of the "With" and"Without Project" situations have been taken from the Preparation(FAO/CP) and SAR Reports. Due to the limited accuracy of the dataused to estimate the economic benefits of the project, it has beenvoluntarily decided not to have specific per ha budgets for each of theschemes, but rather to have "National/Ha budgets" only.

(iv) Per Ha Economic Returns Progression for Selected Commodities(Table 7). Annual increases have been arbitrarily fixed at 20%, 30%,30% and 20% respectively of the difference between "Fulldevelopment" and "Without project" net returns in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and4th years of the project. It is indeed assumed that full development willbe reached in 4 years because the present situation shows that manyfarmers have, since water is available, started intensifying theirproduction.

(v) Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11 present the economic benefits resulting from therehabilitation or construction of the Souss, Ghiss, Chichaoua and JemaaSahim schemes respectively. Economic benefits are calculated byaggregating Land Use (Tables I to 4) and Per Ha Economic ReturnsProgression (Table 7).

(vi) The "Without Project" situation, taken from the SAR as more precisedata are not yet available, has been considered constant during the wholeproject life.

- 40 -

(vii) Tables 12 to 16 present the flows of economic costs and benefits in 1993constant DH for each of the four schemes and for the whole project:

- investment costs; the data detailed in Annex 1, Table 5 are adjustedby the Standard Conversion Factor (SCF); the life of the irrigationrehabilitation and new construction works is assumed to be 30 yearsnot taking into account the construction period;

- operating costs; they include the Operation Costs of the pumpingstations (Annex 1, Table 5) and the Incremental Operating Costs ofthe Extension Services (Annex 1, Table 6), adjusted by the SCF;

- maintenance costs; the data presented in Annex 1, Table 5 areadjusted by the SCF;

- incremental net economic benefits (Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11).

3. Main assumptions underlying the SAR economic analysis are:

- project life: 35 years;

- irrigation is assumed to start in the year following the completion of allconstruction or rehabilitation works;

- full farmer participation in irrigation is projected for year 11 and fulldevelopment for year 21;

- period from start-up of irrigation to full development is five years orless for crops;

- economic prices were derived from the Bank's projections of worldmarket prices; non-traded inputs and outputs have been valued at theirmarket and farTngate prices, adjusted by the appropriate conversionfactor;

investment and operating costs have been valued at economic prices.

- 41 -

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Complenon Report

Part m: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis

Table 1. Land Use - Souss Scheme"'

BeforeProject2/ 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997-2020

(3/4/ (4/ (E/ (6/ (6/ (6/

Cereals 2940 820 1050 300 1000 1500 2000Grahi Legumes 0 0 0 0 0 0Winter Vegetables 0 160 180 200 300 400 500

'Jhter Forage 0 0 0 200 300 400 500

Sub-total 2940 980 1230 700 1600 2300 3000

Maize 280 300 400 400 400 450 500

Summer Vegetables 260 350 390 520 650 800 1000

Sub-total 540 650 790 920 1050 1250 1500

Alfalfa 440 320 840 1280 1500 1800 2000

Olhres 2810 3150 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000Citrus 90 880 920 1000 1000 1000 1000Other Frubts 0 0 0 50 50 50 50

Sub-total 3340 4350 5760 6330 6550 6850 7050

TOTAL 6820 5980 7780 7950 9200 10400 11550

ikrigable Area 10163 10163 10163 10163 10163 10163 10163

HlarvestIntersity (6/ 71 62 85 91 105 120 133

1 / Irtrastructire completed, scheme by scheme from July 1992 to mid 1993.2/ Staff Appraisal Report data.3/1992: Cropping season 1991-1992.4/ ORMVASM's dataS Mission estimates based on discussions with ORMYASM's staff6/ Afalt area Is courted twice to account for multiple cuts.

- 42 -

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irnigaion Project(Loan 22S3-MOR) - Project Compleion Report


Table 2. Land Use - Ghiss Schemeu

Before With ProjetProject 2/ 1992 1983 1994 1995 1996 1997- 202

(3/4/ (4/ (5/ (51 (5/ (5/6/

( Ha .....

Cereds 450 440 440 440 420 410 400Grain Legumes 20 0 0 0 40 60 80Winter Vegetables 200 220 1IO 20 200 200 20

WinterForage 120 100 120 120 110 110 100

Sub-total 790 760 720 7e0 770 780 780

Maize 70 30 10 30 30 30 30


Sub-total 140 60 30 70 80 90 110

Alfalfa 130 140 60 100 110 120 130

Olives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Fruits (N-A) - 50 60 70 80 90 90

Sub-total 130 190 120 170 190 210 220

TOTAL 1060 1010 870 1000 1040 1030 1110

Irigated Area 920 920 920 920 920 920 920

HarvestIntensity (71 129 125 102 120 125 130 135

1/ Infrmstructure was completed in May 1991. but due to the low rainfallthere was almost no water durng 1992 and 1993 summers; the 1994cropping season Is therefore the first one during which the newinfrastructure will probably be properly used.

2/Staff Appraisl Repoit data.3/ 1992: Cropping season 1991-1992.4/ OPA's data.S/ Mission stimates based on discussions with OPAs staff.6/ Due to limited water availabilty in July. August and September

appraised total area of summer cropi has been reduced from 400 Ha. to 240 Ha.7/ AlfaIta area is counted twice to account for multiple cuts.

- 43 -


Part HI: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis

Table 3. Land Use - Chichaoua Scheme"

BeforeProject 2/ 1990 1991 1992 1993-2020

(3/4/ (41 (41 (5/

Cereals 950 900 850 750 700Grain Legumes 0 0 100 200 300WVinter Vegetables 130 150 150 200 200

Winter Forage 100 150 200 300 350

Sub-total 1180 1200 1300 1450 1550

Maize 520 600 700 750 800

Summer Vegetables 110 130 150 170 190

Sub-total 630 730 850 920 990

Alfalfa 40 60 90 120 150

Olives (6/ 550 550 550 550 550

Other Fruits 130 130 130 130 130

Sub-total 720 740 770 800 830

TOTAL 2530 2670 2920 3170 3370

Irrigable Area 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Harvest Intensity (7/ 135 144 158 173 185

1 / Infrastructure completed in September 1989.2/ Staff Appraisal Report data.3/ 1990: Cropping season 1989 -1990.4/ Mission e4ttrtes- based on discussions with DPA's staff.5/ DPA's data and Mission Estimates.6/ Olive trees intercropped with winter and summer crops.7/ Alfalfa area is counted twice to accountfor multiple cuts.

- 44 -

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Compiedon Report

Part ImI: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis

Table 4. Land Use - Jemaa Sahim Scheme"

BeforeProject2/ 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995- 2020

(3/4/ (4/ (4/5/ (6/ (6/( . Ha .)

Cereals 210 220 180 130 100 70Grain Legumes. 20 130 30 50 50 50Winter Vegetables 0 30 20 30 50 70Sugarbeet 0 0 170 190 200 200Winter Forage 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total 230 380 400 400 400 390

Maize 0 110 110 50 70 70

Summer Vegetables 0 20 90 50 100 130

Sub-total 0 130 200 100 170 200

Alfalfa 0 10 10 10 30 s0

OlIves 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Fruits 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total 0 10 10 10 30 50

TOTAL 230 520 610 510 6S0 640

Irrigated Area 443 443 443 443 443 443

HarvestIntensity (7/ 52 120 140 117 142 156

1/ Infrastructure completed in June 1990.2/ Staff Appraisal Report data.3/ 1991: Cropping season 1990-1991.4/ DPA's data.5/ Reduclon in harvest intensity due to power cuts.61 Mission estmates based on discusslons with DPA's staff.7/ Afalfa area is counted twice to account for multiple cuts.

- 45 -


Part mII: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis

Table 5. Economic Prices"

DH per Ton

Selected Commodities

Cereals 2,200

Maize 1,600

Sugarbeet 330

Green Legumes 2,000

Winter Vegetables 1,600

Summer Vegetables 1,300

Forage (per 1,000 FU) 2,000

Citrus 1,300

Olives 3,100

Other Fruits 2,500

Conversion Factor for Selected Inputs

Seeds 1.0

Manure 1.0

Fertilizers 0.8

Chemicals 1.0

Mechanization 0.9

Labour 0.8

Standard Conversion Factor:

Investment Costs and Operation and Maintenance Costs 0.9

Source: Kingdom of Morocco: Staff Appraisal Report of the Second Large-Scale IrrigationImprovement Project - World Bank, March 1993 and Mission Estimates.

" 1993 Prices.

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scate Irrigat/on Project(Loan 2253-HOR) - Project Completion Report

Part III: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis

Table 6. With and Without Project Per Ha. Economic Returns for Selected Conmodities"

Cereals Maize Sugarbeet Green Legumes Winter Summer Alfalfa Bersim Citrus Olives Other FruitsI I I ~~~~~~Vegetables IVegetablesI|

Without With |Without With Without With Withoutl With WithoutlWith WithoutW With Witho ith Without With Withoutl With Withoutl With Without With................................. ... . (DH per ha) ....... ..............................

roductionosts" v

peeds 350 350 180 180 - 1,200 375 600 5,700 7,600 400 600 - 500 700 - -

anure - - - - - - 2,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 - - - - - 600 - 400 - -

Fertilizers 160 800 240 800 - 2,400 - 800 320 2,400 320 2,400 . 320 640 . 640 2,000 4,000 - 640 400 800hemicats - 300 - 300 - 260 - 400 250 3,600 500 3,000 - 200 - - 1,300 2,600 - 500 500 1,000echanization 252 756 252 756 - 630 315 630 1,386 2,268 1,575 3,150 378 630 378 630 1,386 2,835 315 630 378 756 >abour 600 800 800 960 - 4,000 800 1,600 3,200 4,800 2,800 4,400 2,000 3,200 1,600 2,000 3,400 6,800 2,000 3,200 2,400 4,000oontingencies 138 304 148 304 860 350 600 1,484 2,662 955 1,750 272 470 252 400 804 1,685 235 540 372 754

First Esta- - - - - - - - - - - 1,340 1,340 - - 2,000 2,000 400 400 2,000 2,000t ishment"

Total 1.500 3.310 1.620 3.300 - 9.350 3.840 6,630 16.340 29.330 10,550 19.300 4.310 6.480 2.730 4.370 10,890 20.520 2.950 6.310 6.050 10,310ross Vatuef Product."

ain Product 2,200 7,040 2,400 5,600 - 16,500 8,000 14,000 24,000 48,000 19,500 39,000 10,000 16,000 6,000 10,000 19,500 45,500 4,650 12,400 10,000 25,000y-Product 750 1,310 900 1,310 - 1,500 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 2.950 8.350 3.300 6.910 - 18.000 8.000 14.000 24,000 48.000 19.500 39.000 10.000 16,000 6.000 10.000 19.500 45.500 4.650 12.400 10.000 25,000alance 1,450 5,040 1,680 3,610 - 8,650 4,160 7,370 7,660 18,670 8,950 19,700 5,690 9,520 3,270 5,630 8,610 24,980 1,700 6,090 3,950 14,690

" At full development.

21 Economic prices are listed in Table 5.

3/ Waler costs have not been included to avoid double counting as operation and maintenance costs of the irrigation infrastructures have already been taken into account." On the basis of 5 years for alfalfa, 25 years for citrus and 30 years for olive trees.

- 47 -

MOROCCO: Small and Nfedium-Scale [rrigaton Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report


Table 7. Per Ha. Economic Returns Progression for Selected Commodities,

Without Project years 2JProject 1 2 3 4-30

. DH per Ha ....... . ..

Cereals 1450 2170 3250 4320 5040Maize 1680 2070 2650 3220 3610Sugarbeet - 4330 6490 7790 8650Legumes 4160 4800 5770 6730 7370Winter vegetables 7660 9860 13170 16470 18670Summer vegetables 8950 11100 14330 17550 19700Alfalfa 5690 6460 7610 8750 9520Winter forage 3270 3740 4450 5160 5630Citrus 8610 11880 16800 21710 24980Olives 1700 2580 3895 5210 6090Other fruits 3950 6100 9320 12540 14690

Source: Tables 5 and 6 and mission estimates.

1/ Annual increases are arbitrarily fixedat 20%, 30%, 30% and 20% respectively of the differencebetween "Full Development" and "Without Project'net returns, in the 1 st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of the project.

2/ Project starts in the cropping season which followsthe completion of the irrigation infrastructure(Chichaoua: 1990; Jemaa Sahim: 1991; Souss and Ghiss: 1992).

- 48 -

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigadon Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report

Part m31: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis

Table 8. Total Economic Benefits - Souss Scheme

WithoutProject 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997-

( 1993 Constant 'OOODH ................. ) 2020

Cereals 4263 1779 3413 1296 5040 7560 10080Grain Legumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Winter Vegetables 0 1578 2371 3294 5601 7468 9335

Winter Forage 0 0 0 1032 1689 2252 2815

Sub-total 4263 3357 5783 5622 12330 17280 22230

Maize 470 621 1060 1288 1444 1625 1805


Sub-total 2797 4506 6649 10414 14249 17385 21505

Alfalfa ?504 2067 6392 11200 14280 17136 19040

Olives 4777 8127 15580 20840 24360 24360 24360Citrus 775 10454 15456 21710 24980 24980 24980other Fruits 0 0 0 627 735 735 735

Sub-total 8056 20649 37428 54377 64355 67211 69115

TOTAL 15116 28512 49860 70413 90934 101875 112850

Total incremental 13396 34744 55297 75818 86759 97734

Source: Tables 1 and 7

- 49 -

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Repon


Table 9. Total Economic Benefits - Ghiss Scheme

WithoutProject 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997-2020

. 1993 Constant'OOODH .................)

Cereals 653 955 1430 1901 2117 2066 2018Grain Le§umes 83 0 0 0 295 442 590Winter Vegetables 1532 2169 2107 3294 3734 3734 3734Sugarbeet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Winter Forage 392 374 534 619 619 619 583

Sub-total 2660 3498 4071 5814 6765 6862 6903

Maize 118 62 27 97 108 108 108

Summer Vegetables 627 333 287 702 985 1182 1 576

Sub-total 744 395 313 799 1093 12iO 1684

Alfalfa 740 904 457 875 1047 1142 1238

Orlves 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Fruis 0 305 559 878 1175 1322 1322

Sub-total 740 1209 1016 1753 2222 2465 2560

TOTAL 4144 5103 5400 8365 1W081 10617 11147

Total incremental 959 1256 4222 5937 6473 7003

Source: Tables2and7

- 50 -

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Compledon Report

Part DI: Annex 2: Note on Economic Analysis

Table 10. Total Economic Benefits - Chichaoua Scheme

WithoutProject 1990 1991 1992 1993-2020

(. 1993 Constant'OOODH ........... )

Cereals 1378 1953 2763 3240 3528Grain Legumes 0 0 577 1346 2211Winter Vegetables 996 1479 1976 3294 3734

'inter Forage 327 561 890 1548 1971

Sub-total 2700 3993 6205 9428 11444

Maize 874 1242 1855 2415 2888

Summer Vegetables 985 1443 2150 2984 3743

Sub-total 1858 2685 4005 5399 6631

Alfalfa 228 388 685 1050 1428

Olives 935 1419 2142 2866 3350

Other Fruits 514 793 1212 1630 1910

Sub -total 1676 2600 4039 5546 6687

TOTAL 6235 9278 14248 20372 24762

Total incremental 3043 8014 14138 18527

Source: Tables 3 and 7.

- 51 -

MOROCCO: Small and Medium-Scale lrilgation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Repon


Table 11. Total Economic Benedits - Jenma Sahim Scheme

WlthoutProject 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995- 2020

(. 19 93 Constant 'OOOO H .................)

Cereals 305 477 585 562 504 353Grain Legumes 83 624 173 337 369 369Winter Vegetables 0 296 263 494 934 1307Sugarbeet 0 0 1103 1480 1730 1730Winter Forage 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total 388 1397 2125 2872 3536 3758

Maize 0 228 292 161 253 253

Summer Vegetables 0 222 1290 878 1970 2561

Sub-total 0 450 1581 1039 2223 2814

Alfafa 0 65 76 88 286 476

Olives 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Fruits 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total 0 65 76 88 286 476

TOTAL 388 1912 3782 3998 6044 7048

Total Incremental 1524 3394 3611 5657 6660

Source: Tables 4 and 7.

MOROCCO: Smaltl and Medium-Senle Irrfgation Project(Loan 2253-1OR) - Project Completion Report


Table 12. Cash Flow for Economic Rate of Return - Souss Sub-Project (Constant 1993 000 DiH)

1964 19065 196 1967 1908 1989 10 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199 1997 199 1999 200 2001-2020

lnvesmentQosh (1/ 15035 611o 2044 2829 11723 77196 67091 62676 48293 13722 0OperabigCost (2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7133 9273 9908 11412 14265 14285 14285 14285 14285 16l89MaltrenmrceCosts (3( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308 612 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 4576

Total Eewnomlc Cos 15035 6110 2044 2829 11723 77190 67091 62678 55732 23807 11021 12447 15300 15309 15309 15300 153M0 23436

hcrem.n et Economic Beinens (41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13390 34744 55297 75816 86759 97734 97734 97734 97734 97734

alice ebr OboDunt -15035 -8110 -2044 -2829 -11723 -77199 -07091 -62870 -42338 11137 44278 83371 71459 82434 62434 62434 52434 74296

ERR 14.38%

I/ Source Annex 1, Table 5. edlusled by hie SCF.21 Opralhg cosb hekde operatbin eost of ihe puup&g

statons (Mnex 1.Table 5)and iehehemenlelopeuathnwsbof Iheexte sbn sersces (Annex 1. Table 60, sdusted by ihe SCF.

31 Srce knex 1. Table .esdlsted by th SCF.4I Sourcw Table 6.

MOROCCO: Smatl and Medium-Scale Irrigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report


Table 13. Cash Flow for Economic Rate of Return - Ghiss Sub-Project (Constant 1993 000 DH)

1964 1965 1986 1987 1989 19ag 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1990 1997 1998 1899 2000 20u1-2020

InvestmentQsts (11 0 0 21834 12125 19742 5429 4871 1555 1121 092 0Opematlngtsbl2/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3M 39 38 38 38 38 38 38 38MalntnanceCosts (3/ 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 387 774 1557 1557 1557 ¶557 1557 4221 1823

TotalEwonDmic ¶sts 0 0 21834 12725 19742 5429 4671 1559 1121 1317 812 1595 1595 1595 1595 1595 4259 1881

Inremental NletEconomkBenellnb (41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 959 125G 4222 5937 6473 7003 7003 7003 7003 7003

BalancelorDiscount 0 0 -21834 -12725 -19742 -5429 -4671 -1555 -162 -61 3410 4342 4879 5408 5408 5406 2744 5142

EPFt 384%

1/ Souroe: Amex 1. Table s,er usled by the SCF.2/ lncrenentaloperatlg cmts of the exlensbn services

prnex 1 Table 6). afsted by tIhe SCF.3Y Sance: A--ex 1, Table b. acluilei by tIhe SCF.41 Sounrc: Table 9

(41

MOROCCO: Small and Mediun-Scale Irrigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report


Table 14. Cash Flow for Economic Rate of Return - Chichaoua Sub-Project (Constant 1993 000 DII)

19114 1965 1996 1967 1996 1969 I 90 1991 1992 1913 1994 1Q95 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 20011-

202

lnvestmentCosb (if 0 6134 424t 92fl3 13006 9324 2462 10o9 2237 143 0OperatingCosb (21 0 0 0 0 0 0 oO 60 e0 0o 6o so n0 80 80 s0 so o0MartentnceCosts (3Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 306 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 629

Total Economic CosIs 0 6134 4241 9283 13086 9324 2695 1484 2938 044 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 709

Increm.NetEconomic Benelis (4l 0 0 0 0 0 0 3043 6014 14139 18527 16527 R6s27 16527 16527 19527 16s27 18527 16527

Balancebrflbcount 0 -6134 -4241 -9263 -13060 -9324 346 (530 11200 17603 17626 17626 17626 17629 17626 17626 17626 17616

ESR 20.n3%

(_n

1/ Source Annex 1, Table 5, dusled by tie SCF.2V hcrernwetal operithg costs of tie extensxn servicesI

(Annex 1 Table 6), adjusled by tIe SCF.31 Source Annex 1, TableS. adlusted by tie SCF.41 Scurce Tabla Io

MOROCCO: Small anrld Mediunm-Scate Irrigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Completion Report


Table 15. Cash Flow for Economic Rate of Return - Jemaa Saiuim Sub-Project (Constant 1993 '000 Dil)

1984 10os 1998 1007 ono 9 191 1030 1901 1092 1003 1094 1095 1900 1997 I0D8 1090 2000 2001-2020

InvestmentCbsts (t/ 0 1193 7254 8123 5261 3642 2422 370 80m 2858 0

Operating (bsb (21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 079 570 676 747 747 747 747 747 747 747

Maln5tnanceCosb (3/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 414 037 037 837 537 637 837 837 4311 1472

TotalEmnommc sts 0 1193 7254 8123 5261 3642 2422 1183 1096 4265 1513 1504 1584 1584 1584 1584 5058 2219

lnaermentalNelEconornmeenel.is (4/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1524 3394 3611 5057 0660 6660 G6e8 6660 0660 660 6660Ul

BslanceforDiscounl 0 -1193 -7254 -8123 -5261 -3642 -2422 341 1498 -654 4144 5078 5070 5078 5078 5078 1802 4441

ER11 9 12%

1/ Sou,ce: Annex I Tdabe 5e4 usld by SCf.21 Opr. atkaoss hchde eperal-r coss of lteepLxrpk

statrm (Atnn I. Table t d fie haemertalop ;xhgcosbof heriesrservices pex I. lable 6). ed)oed by Ire SCF.

3t SoLjcce tmrex I* Table 5. aijurlad by tihe SCF.

4t SoLuice. Tame ii.

MOROCCO: Small and Hediun-Scale Irrigation Project(Loan 2253-MOR) - Project Conpletion Report

Part III: Allnex 2: Note on Fconomic Analysis

Table 16. Cash Flow for Economic Rate of Return - Whole Project (Constant 1993 000 Dil)

1904 195 1906 197 90n 1900 I6w liw ID91 1992 1993 1994 1095 l9G9 1997 Io9 19o9 20U0 2001-

s____l___N_____;-o________i___---___ 2020

- C7ICiGAOUA 0 6134 4241 9203 13006 9324 2462 1096 2237 143 0- souss 15035 6110 2044 2629 lI123 77196 67091 82918 49293 13722 0-JEMAASA1iIM 0 1193 7254 9123 5251 3642 2422 370 we9 20s5 0- GlIOSS 0 0 21834 12125 19742 5429 4671 1555 1121 802 0

Sub-blal 15035 13437 35373 32700 49012 05991 7G464 95609 52459 17915 0

- CII(CAWOUA 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o0 00 eo 0o e0 0o ao e0 0 GO e0- souss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7133 9273 9966 11412 14295 14265 14265 14265 14205 19600 U,-JEMAASAII9M a 0 a 0 0 0 0 606 976 570 076 747 747 747 747 747 747 747- GIIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 3a 39 36 36 36 38 36 38

Sub-btlW 0 0 0 0 0 0 e0 r66 7909 0061 10700 12277 15130 15130 15130 15130 15130 19725

MBUILtNwIESQCLQS- CiuCIAOUA 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 306 621 621 e21 621 921 621 e2t 621 621 029- Souss 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 30M 612 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 1035 4576-JEiAASAMOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 414 837 637 037 837 937 837 931 4311 1472

- GIIESS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 774 1557 1557 1557 1557 1557 4221 1923

Sub-bLtI 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 513 1341 2457 3267 40.0 4050 4050 4050 4050 10196 65sc

_I llnAL IAANAGEwNI UNII 0 0 0 120 220 220 440 loo 0

TOTALCosb 15035 13437 35373 32660 50032 96011 77319 o00o 61699 30033 14047 16327 19100 19190 i191o 19190 25318 2022S

tlLQE LLeilAt ECOOMUft2ECfJ1-C74XCEAOUI 0 0 0 0O 0 0 1043 I1X14 14136 1n92r 10527 10527 19527 19927 16257 18527 10527 19527- s0ouss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133:9 34744 55207 75619 90/59 97734 87734 07734 07734 97134- J EMAA SAI IIM 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 1524 3304 3011 5057 o61o 66lo0 6000 CGO 60000 066O 6GCO- GICI1SS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .99 1271 4212 5937 6473 1093 7003 7073 70W3 7M3

ToI.l1l '411. 0 6 0 0 0 0 37)43 o5sn 31967 961.10 03703 10G942 116419 121924 129924 120924 129924 129924

UALLAtCf.fC1nDltCSQtiL -15035 -13437 -35373 -3ZO0 - nn32 -69611 -74770 -774r0 -20602 70105 011690 90615 69239 110744 110744 110744 104001 101099

Enn 1348l

ouwce lablm 12. 13, 14 a.d Is

,12 ,10 1 4 2'

-36' TANGER @

MOROCCO TETOUAN

SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT NORTH ALHOCEIMA NADOR

PROJET DE DEVELOPPMENT DE LA PETITE ET LARACHE@ WES T @CHAOEN ( GHISS1

MOYENNE HYDRAUUUQUE AGRICOLEOUEZZANE OUJDA)

LOCATIONOF SUBPROJECTS O O .LOCALISATION DES SOUS PROJETS MIDDLE TACUNAT/SIDI BOU TONT

KENITRA KACEM STAZA 3

A SUBPROJECT LOCATIONS (n.4A 0@ES 1

.A

* SUBPROJECT CANCELED (n. I )MOHAMJIEDIA MEKNRS 0 SEFROU

-34'-34 ~~~~~~~~~~~RIVERS CASABLANCA@,FAE@ S

ELEVATIONS ABOVE 1,000 METERS . @FRANE0 '

BERRECHIOD ___ ALROU@ PROVINCE CAPITALS ELJADIDA@ B I I®j NATIONAL CAPITAL SETTAT@ OUED ',

REGION BOUNDARIES @ *ZEM !------'-KHOURIBGA ,

- - INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

*- INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE -KASBATADLA" , - ISAF JEMAA

S A JIM BENI MELLAL 32- - -EL KELAA -DES -)

32, 0 35 50 75 MOAlesDSR N @ ,SERRACHIDIA\ _ -32~~~~~ O 5 53 7 OMII 1' - K. #

0 25 50 75 00 K,ls @ -. , JCI-IvHAOU MARRAKECH ---

CHIO-AOLIA

OUARZAZATE . ---

TAROUDANNIA

AGADIR SOUss 30

TIZNIT APIRO M

The onaisCANARY r' -rafioOf sho a,-on she pat of The 2

3(W{Spain) Wj,d Bk G-Way jdg-e as tlegal statu l any

< -25 errr, r ay-

VA 2' to' 6' 2, CD'

IM AG I 1C G

Repc,rt No: 14676;Type: PCR

Documents

World Bank Document · entrusted responsibility for monitoring and evaluating project benefits, is still completing the Souss, Ghiss and Chichaoua economic and social baseline surveys