Completion Report

Project Number: 38417-022 Grant Number: 0219 June 2020

Nepal: Community Irrigation Project

This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB’s Access to Information Policy.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency unit – Nepalese rupee/s (NRe/NRs)

At Appraisal At Project Completion 28 May 2010 15 July 2018

NRe1.00 = $0.01 $0.01 $1.00 = NRs74.98 NRs109.55

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank

CIP – Community Irrigation Project

CSO – civil society organization

DADO – District Agriculture Development Office

DCO – district coordination office

DDC – district development committee

DICC – district implementation coordination committee

DMF – design and monitoring framework

DOLIDAR – Department of Local Infrastructure Development and

Agricultural Roads

DTO – district technical office

EARF – environmental assessment and review framework

EIA – environmental impact assessment

EIRR – economic internal rate of return

EOCC – economic opportunity cost of capital

EMP – environmental management plan

FAC – feasibility approval committee

FAR – feasibility assessment report

FFS – farmer field school

FMIS – farmer-managed irrigation systems

GAP – gender action plan

GDP – gross domestic product

GESI – gender equality and social inclusion

GESI-AP – gender equality and social inclusion action plan

GON – Government of Nepal

ha – hectare

IEE – initial environmental examination

ISF – irrigation service fee

LDO – local development officer

M&E – monitoring and evaluation

MFI – microfinance institution

MIS – management information system

MOLD – Ministry of Local Development

NCB – national competitive bidding

NGO – nongovernment organization

NPC – National Planning Commission

O&M – operation and maintenance

PAM – project administration manual

PCU – project coordination unit

PIU – project implementation unit

PMISC – Project Management and Implementation Support

Consultant

REA – rapid environmental assessment

RMDC – Rural Microfinance Development Center

STW – shallow tube well

t – metric ton

VBFT – village-based field team

VDC – village development committee

WUA – water users’ association

NOTES

(i) The fiscal year (FY) of the Government of Nepal ends on 16 July. “FY” before a calendar year denotes the year in which the fiscal year ends, e.g., FY2019 ends on 16 July 2019.

(ii) In this report, “$” refers to United States Dollars.

Vice-President Shixin Chen, Vice-President (Operations 1) Director General Kenichi Yokoyama, South Asia Regional Department (SARD)

Director Mukhtor Khamudkhanov, Nepal Resident Mission (NRM), SARD Team leader

Deepak Bahadur Singh, Senior Environment Officer, NRM, SARD

Team members

Sunila Ghimire, Project Analyst, NRM, SARD Deewas Khadka, Associate Financial Management Officer, NRM, SARD Arjun Neupane, Finance Control Officer, NRM, SARD Sangita Rai, Operations Assistant, NRM, SARD Suman Subba, Senior Social Development Officer (Gender), NRM, SARD

Laxmi Prasad Subedi, Senior Social Development Officer (Safeguards), NRM, SARD

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

CONTENTS

Page

BASIC DATA i

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

II. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 1

A. Project Design and Formulation 1 B. Project Outputs 3 C. Project Costs and Financing 5 D. Disbursements 5 E. Project Schedule 6 F. Implementation Arrangements 6 G. Technical Assistance 7 H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 7 I. Gender Equity 8 J. Safeguards 8 K. Monitoring and Reporting 9

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 9

A. Relevance 9 B. Effectiveness 10 C. Efficiency 11 D. Sustainability 12 E. Development Impact 12 F. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 13 G. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 14 H. Overall Assessment 14

IV. ISSUES, LESSONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14

A. Issues and Lessons 14 B. Recommendations 15

APPENDIXES 1. Design and Monitoring Framework 16 2. Project Cost at Appraisal and Actual 20 3. Project Cost by Financier 21 4. Disbursement of ADB Grant Proceeds 23 5. Contract Awards of ADB Grant Proceeds 24 6. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Action Plan: Implementation and

Achievements 25 7. Safeguards Performance Assessment 36 8. Status of Compliance with Grant Covenants 42 9. Economic Analysis 48 10. List of Completed Irrigation Subprojects 63

BASIC DATA A. Grant Identification

1. Country Nepal 2. Grant number and financing

source 0219-NEP (COL)

3. Project title Community Irrigation Project 4. Borrower Government of Nepal 5. Executing agency Ministry of Local Development through

Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads

6. Amount of grant $26.4 million 7. Financing modality Project grant

B. Grant Data

1. Appraisal – Date started – Date completed

17 May 2010 28 May 2010

2. Grant negotiations – Date started – Date completed

11 August 2010 29 August 2010

3. Date of Board approval 27 September 2010 4. Date of grant agreement 8 February 2011 5. Date of grant effectiveness – In grant agreement – Actual – Number of extensions

09 May 2011 05 May 2011 NA

6. Project completion date – Appraisal – Actual

28 February 2017 15 January 2018

7. Grant closing date – In grant agreement – Actual – Number of extensions

31 August 2017 15 July 2018 1

8. Financial closing date – Actual

13 March 2019

9. Terms of grant – Interest rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace period (number of years)

NA NA NA

10. Terms of relending (if any) – Interest rate

NA

– Maturity (number of years) NA – Grace period (number of years) – Second-step borrower

NA NA

ii

11. Disbursements

a. Dates

Initial Disbursement 27 October 2011

Final Disbursement 07 February 2019

Time Interval 87.45 months

Effective Date 05 May 2011

Actual Closing Date 13 March 2019

Time Interval 94.32 months

b. Amount ($)

Category

Original Allocation

(1)

Increased during

Implementation (2)

Canceled during

Implementation (3)

Last Revised

Allocation (4=1+2–3)

Amount Disbursed

(5)

Undis-bursed Balance (6 = 4–5)

Civil Works 14,850,000 2,117,250 400,000 16,567,250

15,494,155 1,073,095

O&M Fund 790,000 (488,000) … 302,000

171,926 130,074

Vehicles 140,000 (19,500) … 120,500

120,094 406

Training 3,550,000 78,632 800,000 2,828,632

2,691,292 137,340

Consultant and NGO Services

5,020,000 (538,382) 400,000 4,081,618 4,011,713 69,905

Project Management Cost

… 900,000 400,000 500,000

490,803 9,197

Unallocated 2,050,000 (2,050,000) … … … … Total 26,400,000 … 2,000,000 24,400,000 22,979,984 1,420,016

“…” = no data available

C. Project Data

1. Project cost ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign exchange cost 8.00 0.32

Local currency cost 28.79 31.06 Total 36.79 31.38

2. Financing plan ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Implementation cost Borrower financed 6.60 6.29 ADB financed 26.40 22.98 Other external financing (Beneficiaries) 3.80 2.11 Total implementation cost 36.79 31.38

Interest during construction costs Borrower financed … … ADB financed … … Other external financing … … Total interest during construction cost … …

“...”= no data available

iii

3. Cost breakdown by project component ($ million)

Component Appraisal Estimate Actual

Investment Costs A. Civil Works Civil Works A—Surface Schemes 17.47 21.35 Civil Works A—STW 4.58 0.00

Subtotal Civil Works 22.05 21.35 B. Civil Works–STW–Beneficiaries 2.05 0.00 C. O&M Contingency Fund 0.87 0.17 D. Vehicles 0.41 0.34 E. Training Microfinance 0.57 0.26 Agriculture 2.03 1.41

Other Trainings 1.11 1.02 Subtotal Training 3.71 2.69

F. Consulting and NGO Services 6.02 4.61 G. Consulting Services-Unallocated 0.11 0.00 H. Project Management-Incremental Cost 1.56 2.21

Total Project Costs 36.79 31.38

4. Project schedule

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual

Output 1. WUAs efficiently manage improved irrigation infrastructure

1.1 Batch 1 Subprojects Jan 2012–Apr 2013 1.1.1 Completion of engineering designs (Mar–Aug 2012)

Q1–Q3 2012

Q1–Q3 2013 1.1.2 Civil works contract 1.1.3 Date of award 1.1.4 Completion of work (Nov 2012–15 Apr 2013) Q2 2013 Q4 2014 1.2 Batch 2 Subprojects Jan 2013–Apr 2014 1.2.1 Completion of engineering designs (Mar–Aug 2013)

Q1–Q3 2013

Q3 2013–Q1 2014 1.2.2 Civil works contract

1.2.3 Date of award 1.2.4 Completion of work (Nov 2013–15 Apr 2014) Q2 2014 Q4 2015 1.3 Batch 3 Subprojects Jan 2014–Apr 2015 1.3.1 Completion of engineering designs (Mar–Aug 2014) Q1–Q3 2014

Q2–Q4 2014 1.3.2 Civil works contract 1.3.2 Date of award 1.3.4 Completion of work (Nov 2014–15 Apr 2015) Q2 2015 Q3 2016 1.4 Batch 4 Subproject Jan 2015–Apr 2016 1.4.1 Completion of engineering designs (Mar–Apr 2015)

Q1–Q2 2015

Q2–Q4 2015 1.4.2 Civil works contract 1.4.3 Date of award 1.4.4 Completion of work (Nov 2015–Apr 2016) Q2 2016 Q2 2018 Output 2. Participating farmers apply improved agriculture practices and have access to micro finance

2.1 Short-duration courses and demonstrations on irrigated crop husbandry practices

Mar 2013–Jul 2017 Mar 2014–Jun 2018

2.2 Establishment of farmer field schools on each subproject on cereal and high-value crops

Mar 2012–Jul 2017 Mar 2014–Jun 2018

2.3 Training of Trainers (district level) for cereal crop seed selection, vegetables seedling production, nursery management, off-season vegetable production, soil management, and weed and pest control (2012–2013)

Mar 2012–Jul 2017 Mar 2014–Jun 2018

2.4 Capacity building of local MFIs to service farmers with input loans (January 2012–December 2015)

Mar 2012–Jul 2015 Mar 2014–Jun 2017

2.5 Provision of matching grants to WUAs that deposit their first annual non-recurrent maintenance fund contribution in their account at a local MFI

Apr 2013–Feb 2017 Apr 2015–Jun 2018

iv

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual

Output 3. Government capacity to plan and coordinate small-scale irrigation projects is enhanced

3.1 Orientation and refresher training for DTO and CIP engineers on appropriate small irrigation infrastructure design

Jan 2012 and Dec 2013

Jan 2013–Dec 2016

3.2 Training for district agriculture development officers on working in partnership

Feb 2012 and Dec 2013

May–Sep 2014

3.3 District rapid assessments for irrigation potential in ilakas (areas) categorized as disadvantaged

Nov 2011 Jan–Oct 2013 and May–Dec 2015

3.4 Mentoring of District Development Council to reach consensus on targeted project implementation areas

Dec 2011 Dec 2012–Feb 2014 and

May–Dec 2015 3.5 Project information dissemination in targeted implementation area wards

Annually Dec 2011–2014

Apr 2012–Dec 2013 and

May 2015–May 2016 3.6 Mentoring of village leaders and ward citizens groups to nominate subprojects that meet selection criteria

Jan–Feb 2012 to 2015 Apr 2012–Dec 2013 and

May 2015–June 2016 3.7 Mentoring and support—institutional, technical, and agricultural—of WUAs

Jan 2012–Jul 2017 Apr 2013–Apr 2018

Management Activities

1. Appointment of project coordinator (by mid-August 2010)

mid-August 2010 Feb 2012

2. Recruitment of individual procurement consultant (September 2010)

Sep 2010 Sep 2010

3. Recruitment of project implementation consultants (by June 2011)

May 2011 Jun 2012

4. Project start 16 Jul 2011 Jul 2012 5. Orientation training for DTO and PCU engineers on

appropriate small irrigation infrastructure design Dec 2011 Jan 2013

6. Training for DADOs Feb 2012 Jun 2014 and Mar 2016

5. Project performance report ratings

Implementation Period Single Project Rating

From 1 Apr 2011 to 30 Sep 2011 Actual Problem From 1 Oct 2011 to 31 Dec 2011 Potential Problem From 1 Jan 2012 to 30 Sep 2012 Potential Problem From 1 Apr 2012 to 30 Jun 2012 Potential Problem From 1 Oct 2012 to 31 Dec 2012 On Track From 1 Jan 2013 to 31 Dec 2013 Potential Problem From 1 Jan 2014 to 31 Dec 2014 On Track From 1 Jan 2015 to 31 Dec 2015 On Track From 1 Jan 2016 to 31 Dec 2016 On Track From 1 Jan 2017 to 31 Dec 2017 On Track From 1 Jan 2018 to 31 Jul 2018 On Track

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

Name of Mission Date No. of

Persons No. of

Person-Days Specialization of Members

Appraisal Mission 17–28 May 2010 13 12 a, b, c, d/h, e, f, g, h, i, j

Fact Finding Mission 5 –14 Jul 2010 3 10 d/h, k/j, l/j, Grant Negotiation Mission 11–29 Aug 2010 d/h, e, f Grant Administration Mission 21–22 Feb 2012 1 2 d/h Administration Mission 5–11 May 2012 1 3 d/h Grant Inception Mission 6–18 Oct 2012 2 12 d/h, e, i, Grant Review Mission 5 Dec 2012 1 1 d/h Project Review Mission 13–25 Mar 2013 5 13 c/f, d/h, e, g/j, m

v

Name of Mission Date No. of

Persons No. of

Person-Days Specialization of Members

Project Review Mission 12–27 Dec 2013 4 16 (7) c/f, e, g/j, m Midterm Review Mission 17 Feb –20 Mar

2014 5 32 (6) c/f, e, g/j, h, m

Project Review Mission 20 Aug–14 Sep 2014

4 26 (6) c/f, f, g/j, m

Project Review Mission 6–23 Mar 2015 4 15 (6) c, f, g/j, m Project Review Mission 1–11 Dec 2015 3 11 (5) c, g/j, m Project Review Mission 22 Apr–11 May

2016 4 20 (7) b, c, g/j, m

Project Review Mission 16 Sep–6 Oct 2016 5 21 (8) c, f, g/j, m Special Project Administration Mission 16–28 Feb 2017 1 13 (6) c/f Project Review Mission 22 May–9 Jun 2017 2 19 (9) c/f, m Project Review Mission 29 Oct–13 Nov

2017 2 16 (7) c/f, m

Project Review Mission 16 Mar–3 Apr 2018 3 19 (10) c/f, g/j, m Project Review Mission 6–13 Jul 2018 2 6 (3) c/f, m

Project Completion Review Mission 9 Dec 2019–5 Jan 2020

4 30 c/f, e, g/j, m

a = counsel, b = procurement consultant or specialist, c = Nepal Resident Mission (NRM) counterpart or NRM project officer, d = project officer, e = social development specialist or officer , f = environment specialist or environment officer, NRM, g = gender specialist or officer, h = water resources management specialist, i = director, j = consultants, k = development communications specialist, l = climate change specialist, m = program or project analyst.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Agriculture is the mainstay of Nepal’s economy, accounting for about 27% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and providing livelihood support to about two-thirds of the population.1 Despite its importance, agriculture is largely rain-fed, depending on the monsoon for irrigation. According to the Irrigation Master Plan, 2019 (draft)2 of the Government of Nepal (GON), only 1.45 million hectares (ha) of the country’s 3.56 million ha of cultivated land is irrigated. Furthermore, only 39% of the irrigated land has year-round irrigation. Insufficient year-round irrigation has been a major constraint to achieving higher cropping intensity and yield. In addition, the concentration of poverty in rain-fed agricultural areas compared to irrigated areas shows that access to irrigation water mitigates poverty. Investments in small irrigation systems have proven to be more effective for improving livelihoods of poor and marginalized farmers than investments in larger irrigation systems.3 Recognizing the importance of investing in small irrigation, the government formulated its Irrigation Policy, 2003 and Local Infrastructure Development Policy, 2004, which aimed to support small-scale farmer-managed irrigation systems, targeting poor, small, and marginal farmers, and in doing so, increase rural employment, income, food security, and poverty reduction. 2. At the request of the government, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved a special operations grant of $26.4 million on 27 September 2010 for the Community Irrigation Project (CIP).4 The project aimed to support new construction and rehabilitation of small-scale farmer-managed irrigation systems—i.e., those with command areas smaller than 200 ha in the Terai and 25 ha in the hills and mountains—in 12 districts in Nepal.5

3. The project’s expected impact was to increase agricultural income of rural poor and socially disadvantaged groups. The impact targets were to (i) increase agricultural GDP from NRs366,744 million (2009 baseline) to NRs797,563 million (by 2017) and (ii) expand the area under year-round irrigated from 41% (in 2009) to 64% (by 2017). The expected project outcome was intensification and diversification of agricultural practices toward higher value crops by the poor, women, and other disadvantaged groups in the target communities. The project aimed to increase crop yields by at least 15% and winter vegetable production by 8% within 5 years of subproject construction. The project had three outputs: (i) the water users’ associations (WUAs) efficiently manage improved irrigation infrastructure, (ii) participating farmers apply improved agricultural practices and have access to microfinance, and (iii) the government enhances its capacity to plan and implement small-scale irrigation systems.6

II. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION A. Project Design and Formulation 4. The project design was rated relevant at appraisal and at completion as it was (i) aligned with the country context, (ii) consistent with the government’s policies and development priorities, and (iii) directly supportive of the poverty reduction strategy outlined in the tenth to fourteenth periodic plans, all of which aimed to improve living standards of poor

1 GON, National Planning Commission (NPC). 2019. Approach Paper to the Fifteenth Plan. Kathmandu. 2 GON, Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation. 2019. Irrigation Master Plan (Draft). Kathmandu. 3 International Water Management Institute. 2007. Pro-poor Intervention Strategies in Irrigated Agriculture:

Lessons from the Asian Experience. Colombo, Sri Lanka (International Water Management Institute Water Policy Briefing 28).

4 ADB. 2010. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila.

5 The 12 project districts are Kapilbvastu, Dang, Kailali, and Kanchanpur in southern alluvial plains of the Terai; Pyuthan, Salyan, Rukum, Rolpa, Doti, and Bajhang in the middle hills; and Jumla and Mugu in the northern mountains.

6 ADB. 2010. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila.

2

and disadvantaged people to attain inclusive socioeconomic development and food security.7 All the policies and plans focus on increased agricultural production and commercialization, access to market, and water resource management. The need for achieving economic growth with social inclusion became even more relevant after the end of the decade-long armed conflict in 2006. Hence, at a time of political transition, the project aimed to support economic development of poor and vulnerable farmers in the countryside, who were heavily affected by the conflict and whose development was critical for the success of the peace process. Given this situation, the project adopted grant modality of financing, which was appropriate as it did not require the country to make financial commitments for an uncertain future (para. 48). 5. The first post-conflict three-year interim plan, 2007–2010 emphasized the role of year-round irrigation through participatory and inclusive management for poverty reduction (footnote 7). The Nepal Agricultural Extension Strategy, 2007 envisaged public sector extension services working closely with community-based organizations.8 The project design was consistent with the Local Self-Governance Act, 1999, the Irrigation Policy, 2003, and the Local Infrastructure Development Policy, 2004, which emphasized development of small-scale irrigation infrastructure jointly with WUAs and aimed for efficient planning and management of improved irrigation infrastructures, which also continued in the new Irrigation Policy, 2013. The GON in 2019 prioritized promotion of users’ ownership for sustainable operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation systems, which will ensure the relevance of the project after completion (footnote 1). The project used a sector approach to (i) initiate selected subprojects, with farmers identifying additional subprojects during implementation; (ii) apply lessons learned from earlier subprojects; and (iii) rationally phase project implementation. The design and monitoring framework (DMF) was aligned with the project objectives, with some issues in targeting that surfaced during implementation (para. 8). 6. The project cycle was highly consultative and ensured meaningful participation. The project was designed in consultation with the civil society organization (CSO), development partners, and farmers (footnote 6). The Finnish Consulting Group assisted in the preparation of the project (para. 20).9 The project design aligned with ADB’s Strategy 2020 with an agenda of inclusive economic and environmentally sustainable growth; it also aligned with Strategy 2030, focusing on enhancing agricultural productivity and attaining food security, reducing remaining poverty, and accelerating progress in gender equality, particularly because of the ongoing feminization of agriculture in Nepal’s rural areas.10 The project was part of ADB’s country partnership strategy for Nepal,11 which targeted inclusive socioeconomic growth, borrower’s capacity building and improved governance. As designed, the project supported ADB’s water operational plan, which aims to improve water use efficiencies by fostering conservation of water and increasing system efficiencies.12 The project design also supported ADB’s multisector approach with the aim of improving water productivity, agricultural practices, and farmers’ access to microfinance.13 7. The District Development Council selected the subproject clusters within the project districts based on socially excluded and disadvantaged group mappings supplemented by stunting and income poverty incidence. The local bodies, ward citizen’s groups, and farmers’ groups collaborated with the project in the selection and design of subprojects through detailed

7 GON, NPC. 2002. Tenth Five Year Plan, 2002–2007. Kathmandu; GON, NPC. Three Year Interim Plan, 2007–

2010. Kathmandu; GON, NPC Twelfth Three Year Plan, 2011–2013. Kathmandu; GON, NPC. Thirteenth Plan, 2014–2016. Kathmandu; and GON, NPC. Fourteenth Plan, 2017–2019. Kathmandu.

8 GON. 2007. Nepal Agricultural Extension Strategy, 2007. Kathmandu. 9 ADB. 2010. Nepal: Community Irrigation Project. Consultant’s report. Manila (TA 7229-NEP). 10 ADB. 2008. Strategy 2020: The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank, 2008–2020.

Manila; and ADB. 2018. Strategy 2030: Achieving a Prosperous, Inclusive, Resilient, and Sustainable Asia and the Pacific. Manila.

11 ADB. 2010. Nepal Country Partnership Strategy, 2010–2012. Manila. 12 ADB. 2011. Water Operational Plan, 2011–2020. Manila. 13 ADB. 2009. Operational Plan for Sustainable Food Security. Manila.

3

discussions at open meetings and primary surveys of irrigation systems. This ensured local stakeholders’ ownership of the project and supported project relevance. 8. A few design-stage assumptions needed readjustment during implementation. The project had envisaged subprojects with an average command area of 180 ha in the Terai, however, the subprojects demanded by farmers were only 64 ha, on average, requiring additional subprojects to cover the targeted irrigated area. The original plan to install shallow tube wells (STWs) for groundwater irrigation in 4,000 ha of the Terai had to be changed because the farmers did not want to bear the full cost of STW installation when, in another program in a neighboring area, the government fully subsidized the STWs, contradicting its policy of not subsidizing capital costs for STW installation. Thus, the government and ADB approved to replace STW to surface water irrigation on 25 September 2014. The change required 214 additional surface irrigation subprojects. An inconsistency in the national database regarding the year-round irrigation area caused the project to set an ambitious target of achieving 64% year-round irrigation of the irrigated area by 2017, from 41% in 2009.14 The inconsistency was raised in the Food and Agriculture Organization in its Irrigation Yearbook 2011 recorded only 29% of the irrigated area had year-round irrigation in 2010. The GON’s Fifteenth National Plan Approach Paper confirmed the year-round irrigated area being 41% in 2018 (footnote 1). B. Project Outputs 9. Output 1: improved irrigation infrastructure. The project achieved all targets under this output except for the installation of STWs, which was replaced by surface irrigation (paras. 8 and 33). The implementing agency actively consulted with the farmers about their priority subprojects after informing them about the project through the media (notices in ward offices, newspapers, and FM radio); village meetings; ward and citizen groups consultation; and farmers’ assembly. Their concerns were implemented on a selective basis after field verification and the feasibility reports were approved by the Feasibility Approval Committee (FAC). Altogether, 456 subprojects—198 new and 258 rehabilitation—were implemented through community contracts and national contractors (para. 23). The project had a target to extend improved irrigation to 17,000 ha of command area (achieved 16,936 ha) covering 13,000 ha in the Terai (achieved 11,333 ha), 3,000 ha in the hills (achieved 3,654 ha), and 1,000 ha in the mountains (achieved 1,949 ha). 10. Farmers were consulted and mobilized to establish WUAs in selected subprojects by preparing a constitution, registering with the government, and electing an executive committee. Of the 4,401 members in 456 WUAs, 1,709 (39%) were women, 984 (22%) were indigenous peoples (Janajati), and 607 (14%) were Dalits (caste group historically marginalized based on untouchability). Of the 1,722 leadership positions (chair, deputy-chair, secretary, and treasurer), 580 (34%) were held by women and 550 (32%) by disadvantaged groups—160 (9%) Dalit and 390 (23%) Janajati. Those elected chair included 16 women, 25 Dalits, and 94 Janajati. The project was successful in propelling women and disadvantaged groups into leadership positions, particularly in Nepal’s male-dominated rural society. The women members were involved in subproject identification, construction, and O&M. 11. The project supported capacity building of WUAs in office management; account keeping; construction quality control; micro-irrigation; system O&M; and improved farming through hands-on on-field training, and exposure visits. The WUAs were involved in the planning and design of irrigation systems and 89% of WUAs were active in the system O&M. The project oriented farmers on the importance of collecting the annual irrigation service fees (ISF) to fund the system O&M. By project completion, more than 95% of WUAs were collecting ISF. Of these, 71% were raising more than 2% of the construction cost (target 65%). Farmers

14 GON, Water and Energy Commission. 2005. National Water Policy. Kathmandu.

4

also contributed ISF in kind and labor, as per the need. The project prepared a micro-irrigation manual for water conservation; implemented four subprojects as demonstration schemes in Salyan, Pyuthan, Rukum, and Rolpa districts; and trained the project staff and farmers. ADB’s project completion report mission confirmed that WUAs were actively managing equitable water distribution, structures were in good condition, systems were operating well, damages were repaired promptly, and farmers were adding additional irrigation areas through their own resources and also with the support of the local governments. 12. Output 2: improved agriculture practices and access to microfinance. All targets under this output were achieved. The benefit survey (which included 10% of the total irrigated area) indicates that crop yields for male and female farmers increased by 20%–25%, exceeding the project target of 15% and 75% of farmers met the project target of an increase in cropping intensity. Crop yield increased by 74% for rice, 488% for wheat, 25% for maize, and 45% for vegetables (para. 34).15 Village-based field teams (VBFTs) of the project management and implementation support consultant (PMISC) formed agriculture groups of farmers, including women groups. The project provided (i) a wide range of training to farmers and women groups in agri-extension services (inputs, crop diversification, seed multiplication, crop husbandry, and pest management); (ii) farmer field schools (FFS); and (iii) skill-based training to women. The FFS benefited 7,120 farmers, including 5,214 women (73%). The training of trainers’ program benefited 898 farmers (356 women) in 456 subprojects.

13. The Rural Microfinance Development Center (RMDC) supported the microfinance component, which aimed to (i) strengthen capacity of local microfinance institutions (MFIs) in the project area, (ii) provide wholesale loan support to MFIs, and (iii) improve farmers’ access to microcredit services. The RMDC identified 279 MFIs, selecting 66 as partners, and organized 192 interaction programs to facilitate links between MFIs and farmers. It consulted with 9,774 farmers from 415 of the 456 subprojects. The RMDC organized (i) 50 capacity building exposure visits for participants from 175 MFIs to the demonstration sites within the country, (ii) 16 interaction programs for 466 officials from 246 MFIs, (iii) on-site microfinance training for 51 participants of 14 MFIs, and (iv) credit appraisal training for 20 participants from 7 MFIs. Through the trained MFIs, the RMDC conducted farmers’ training needs assessment in 69 subprojects involving 3,198 participants. Following the success of these trainings, the MFIs provided agriculture and income generation trainings to 3,495 WUA members from nine districts, which included training on seasonal and off-seasonal vegetable farming, agri-business promotion, and entrepreneurship development. The original target of 75% women participation in MFI groups was reduced to 50%.16 The MFIs gave priority to women and disadvantaged-group participation in the trainings. Hence, of the 3,495 trainees, 3,149 (90%) were women, 578 (17%) were Dalits, and 954 (27%) were Janajati.17 Farmers were encouraged to form cooperatives and participate in microfinance activities. As a result, 55 MFIs incorporated 13,403 beneficiary farmers—1,649 (12%) men and 11,754 (88%) women—of 278 subprojects as shareholders. Of the 11,754 women members of MFIs, 5,373 (46%) accessed loans for improved agriculture. The RMDC disbursed NRs805.39 million to 66 partner MFIs, which then disbursed NRs209.85 million to 4,314 CIP farmers as microcredit. 14. Output 3: Enhanced government capacity to plan and coordinate small-scale irrigation projects. All targets under this output were achieved. The project provided trainings, study tours, academic support, and on-the-job training by the PMISC experts, which supported capacity building of the executing and implementing agencies in planning and

15 Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019. Completion Report of Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu. 16 The original target of 75% of women farmers joining MFI groups was reduced to 50% and the target of 50%

having access to microfinance was reduced to 40% by the midterm review mission. The change was made because of low women participation in WUAs (39%) and the microfinance program (about 30%–50%) (ADB. 2014. Aide-Mémoire. Midterm Review Mission, 8 April 2014. Manila.) and approved through a minor change in scope on 25 September 2014.

17 RMDC. 2019. Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project’s Microfinance Component. Kathmandu.

5

implementing small-scale irrigation projects. Active participation of the implementing agencies in the selection, preparation, and construction of subprojects enhanced their knowledge in small-scale irrigation development. Subproject selection by the DDCs, the district technical offices (DTOs) and district representatives followed agreed process and criteria. The capacity building of the government staff also resulted in effective coordination and timely decision-making in implementing work. About 80% of the trained staff expressed appreciation of the qualitative aspects of the training, including the participatory approach and the distinctive gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) focus. The 12 CIP engineers, including four women engineers (against a target of three), were engaged in approving the design of small-scale irrigation infrastructure and in the supervision of construction. They were also supported by the PMISC in design, procurement, contract administration, financial management, and overall quality control of work. Altogether, 471 participants (399—local development officers, DTO chiefs, executing agency staff and CIP engineers), and 72 sub-engineers and accountants of the DDCs and DTOs benefited from the capacity development training. 15. Of the 471 participants, 32% were women, 27% were Janajati, and 8% were Dalit. Sessions on the GESI Action Plan (GESI-AP) were incorporated in project organized trainings for all CIP engineers, district coordinators, and VBFTs of the project districts. Overseas training provided to 16 technical staff (all men) of executing and implementing agencies in Indonesia and Malaysia and 31 staff (all men) in the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam widened their knowledge of small-scale irrigation technologies followed in other countries. The project supported three Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DOLIDAR) staff in pursuing a master’s degree in civil engineering. The capacity of staff and farmers was strengthened by using the DOLIDAR’s manual for small-scale irrigation development,18 its manual and demonstration schemes for micro-irrigation technologies, and through the training provided to 10,318 staff and farmers. The GESI and social mobilization training was provided to 100% of the local development officers, the DTO chief, and the CIP engineers of the project districts against the target of 80%. The project linked the farmers with the district level government agencies in agriculture and irrigation, which supported in a coordinated and effective irrigated agriculture development at local levels (Appendix 1). C. Project Costs and Financing 16. The total project cost at appraisal was $36.79 million, comprising 72% ($26.40 million) from ADB, 18% ($6.60 million) from the government, and a 10% ($3.80 million) beneficiary contribution. The GON and ADB revised the total project cost to $34.00 million on 9 July 2015 following the cancelation of a $2.00 million ADB grant and transfer to the 2015 post-earthquake emergency relief fund. The revised cost sharing included an ADB grant of $24.40 million, $6.20 million from the government, and a beneficiary contribution of $3.40 million. The actual project cost at completion was $31.38 million, comprising $22.98 million (73%) from ADB, $6.29 million (20%) from the government, and a $2.11 million (7%) beneficiary contribution. The beneficiary contribution was mostly in labor, which constituted 6%–7.5% of the total cost (6% in the Terai and mountains, and 7.5% in the hills). The grant was reallocated on 1 December 2017 to maximize irrigation area coverage and strengthen farmers’ capacity (Appendix 2 and Appendix 3). D. Disbursements 17. The project achieved a cumulative contract award and disbursement of $31.38 million each. About $1.42 million of the ADB grant remained unutilized at project completion because of savings in the international consultant’s inputs, low bidding by the PMISC, and unused contingencies (Appendix 4). Although ADB grant disbursement projections at the time of

18 Department of Local Infrastructure and Agricultural Roads, Swiss Development Cooperation. 2014. Design

Manual for Small Scale Irrigation Schemes. Kathmandu.

6

project effectiveness were realistic, actual disbursement was slow in the first three years of project implementation because of a delay in PMISC selection for the preparation of subprojects and a lack of farmers’ demand for STW (paras. 8 and 33). The executing agency was more comfortable with the reimbursement process than replenishment and used the statement of expenditure procedure for disbursements. E. Project Schedule 18. The project was completed on 15 January 2018, almost a year after the expected completion at appraisal (28 February 2017). The project envisaged a 6.25-year implementation period from 5 May 2011 (grant effectiveness) to 31 August 2017 (original grant closing date). The project period was extended by 10.5 months until 15 July 2018.19 The extension was approved to cover the initial delays in the recruitment of the PMISC, which resulted from the executing agency’s slow selection process and other external factors such as the 2015 earthquake, Terai unrest, lack of STW demand, and preparation of 214 new surface irrigation subprojects to replace the groundwater irrigation. The extension was approved through a minor change in scope on 14 November 2016. The project financially closed on 13 March 2019, 8 months after the grant closure. F. Implementation Arrangements 19. The Ministry of Local Development (MOLD), through the DOLIDAR, was the executing agency. The DTOs of the 12 project-related district development committees (DDCs) were the implementing agencies responsible for irrigation infrastructure, institutionalization, and capacity building of farmers. The RMDC was the implementing agency for implementing the microfinance services in the subproject areas through local MFIs. A project steering committee20 provided policy-level guidance and a technical working group chaired by the director general of DOLIDAR guided on technical matters. A district implementation coordination committee (DICC) was established in each district which facilitated in project implementation. The DICC was chaired by the DDC chief and had representatives from the District Agriculture Office, District Women Development Office, CSOs—the National Federation of Irrigation Water User’s Association, Nepal and the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities, and one representative from the participating MFIs. The DOLIDAR established a project coordination unit (PCU) with its class II officer as project coordinator, and project implementation units (PIUs) headed by DTO chief and supported by CIP engineer. The PMISC provided technical and management support to the PCU and district coordination office (DCO) of PMISC supported the PIU. A FAC coordinated by the DTO chief and having members from the Irrigation Development Division Office, the District Agriculture Development Office, and the District Forest Office, technically reviewed and approved subproject feasibility assessment reports (FARs). The subproject costs were channeled through the district development fund of DDC to the operating accounts of the DTOs. The DTOs submitted expenditure details to PCU for disbursement. The implementation arrangement remained as designed at appraisal and harmonized well with the overall project scope.

19 ADB. (South Asia Department). 2014. Mid Term Review Mission to Nepal: Community Irrigation Project. Back-

to-office report. 27 March (internal). 20 The steering committee: the secretary MOLD (chair), director general DOLIDAR (member secretary). The

members: deputy director general, DOLIDAR, representative of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Irrigation, the Ministry of Finance, and the National Planning Commission. The MOLD was renamed by the government on 8 May 2012 as the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development. The changed name was updated in the project implementation arrangement through a minor change in scope on 21 February 2014. After the federalization, the name of the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development was changed to the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, and the name of DOLIDAR was changed to the Department of Local Infrastructure. Responsibility for implementing small-scale local infrastructure was also assigned to the local governments. These changes upon federalization occurred after the project completion.

7

G. Technical Assistance 20. A project preparatory technical assistance consultant (para. 6) supported project preparation from August 2009 to April 2010. The consultant explored the options for small-scale irrigation implementation and management mechanisms through a participatory approach, capitalizing on the existing traditional knowledge of agriculture and irrigation. Both groundwater and surface water irrigation systems were proposed, utilizing ponds, lifts, and micro-irrigation for efficient water management. The project linked the water accessibility with improved agriculture and microcredits supporting livelihood improvements of the poor and vulnerable farmers. The technical assistance team proposed tangible project targets, taking institutional capacity, social and environmental safeguards, GESI, and the project costing and financial plan into consideration. However, anticipation of the lack of farmer interest in STWs (para. 8) and a realistic estimation of crop-specific yields (paras. 12 and 34) in the project design could have increased project implementation efficiency and achievements.

H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 21. Consultant. The performance of the PMISC is rated satisfactory. The PCU selected PMISC following ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants (2010, as amended from time to time) using quality and cost-based selection. The PMISC consisted of a joint venture of two national consulting firms and two nongovernment organizations.21 They served from 21 June 2012 to 15 January 2018. The PMISC comprised a central technical management team supporting the PCU and a district field team in the DCOs supporting the PIU. The project’s district team comprised 12 district coordinators (sociologists), 6 field design engineers, and 2 irrigation agronomists. A VBFT of the PMISC comprising a social mobilizer, agriculture technician, and sub-engineer in each district supported the WUAs in institutional operation and agricultural activities. The PMISC had regular staff turnover in the DCOs, mainly because of the remoteness of work areas and the reportedly low rates of financial compensation, which affected the pace of work from time to time. The PMISC provided 6,671 person-months of consultants’ services, including 1,350 person-months input from key professional staff (original estimation 1,058 person-months). The inputs of subprofessional staff increased by 65% because of the addition of a second VBFT in each district to serve the extended project area. 22. A procurement consultant engaged for 4 person-months on an intermittent basis supported the PCU in procuring work and services. A monitoring specialist engaged for 12 person-months on an intermittent basis helped the PCU to establish a project management information system, a project schedule, an impact monitoring and evaluation system, and reporting formats. The cost of consulting services totaled $4.64 million—$1.06 million (19%) less than the estimated $5.70 million during project appraisal.

23. Contractor and suppliers. The performance of the WUAs, contractors, and suppliers at project completion is rated satisfactory. The subprojects were constructed under community contracts in the hill (212) and mountain (95) districts, and 149 subprojects in the Terai were constructed through a combination of national contractor (75 contracts) and community contracts (456). The project procured seven pick-ups, forty-four motorcycles, computers, printers, and photocopiers for project use following ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (2010, as amended from time to time). No major issues were encountered in procuring suppliers, who delivered construction materials (iron bars, cement, gabion wire, and construction tools) to the WUAs for construction. Despite the 2015 earthquake, shortage of construction materials, and Terai unrest, all civil work contracts were completed, and project outputs and outcomes were delivered within the stipulated schedule and cost. The contract packages were realistically

21 The consultant firms were Consolidated Management Services Nepal P. Ltd. and the Sustainable Infrastructure

Development Foundation. The NGOs were the Karnali Integrated Rural Development and Research Center and the Social Empowerment and Building Accessibility Center, Nepal.

8

designed and did not incur significant variations. No issues were recorded during procurement, contract award, and management (Appendix 5).

I. Gender Equity 24. The project was categorized gender equity as a theme (GEN). It supported the political and economic empowerment of women, the poor, and excluded groups through their inclusion in WUA governance structure, capacity building in construction, and O&M of irrigation systems, and linking them to microfinance for savings and credit mobilization. The activities and specific targets of the project DMF and GESI-AP were found to maximize the benefits for the poor, women, and disadvantaged farmers through improved access to irrigation, microfinance, and improved agriculture. The GESI-AP included 10 activities with 10 quantitative targets (including the gender-related targets of the DMF) that ensured women, the poor, and disadvantaged farmers benefit from the project outputs. They included (i) 33% participation of women and proportionate representation of diverse caste and ethnicity in project consultations, (ii) at least 33% women representation in WUAs, (iii) capacity development of women elected in WUA leadership, (iv) training of farmers through the FFS program with 50% women participants, and (v) at least 50% women farmers joining microfinance groups with 40% accessing services through loans or savings. The GESI-AP also included specific targets, such as training and mainstreaming GESI sensitivity in DOLIDAR, to develop capacity of the government in planning and coordinating small-scale irrigations. The capacity building activities and employment opportunities were designed to contribute to women’s economic empowerment, gender equality in human development, decision-making, and leadership (Appendix 6). J. Safeguards 25. Environment. The safeguards performance of the project was rated satisfactory. The project was categorized B for environment at appraisal and remained B at completion. The project prepared an initial environmental examination and an environmental assessment and review framework. The framework provided guidance on preparing the initial environmental examination for subprojects irrigating areas of more than 200 ha. All subprojects were screened as environment category C based on the significance of impacts, and due diligence reports were prepared.

26. The subprojects had minimal environmental impacts because of the small size of the structures, the use of flexible construction materials (e.g., box of galvanized steel wires, earthen canals, dry walls) and the mostly labor-based construction. The impacts related to dust, sedimentation, drainage, spoil disposal, and safety were negligible, and any minor impacts were duly mitigated. Excavators were used in the headworks in the Terai, however, the work was minor and localized. Drinking water and toilets were provided in the labor camps. The supply of personal protective equipment (e.g., hard hats, masks, and jackets) in the Terai subprojects was not sufficient. A first aid box was kept on-site, workers were insured, and no serious injuries were recorded. An environment specialist working intermittently conducted environmental monitoring. A grievance redress mechanism was operational in all subprojects (Appendix 7). 27. Involuntary resettlement. The project was categorized as C for involuntary resettlement at appraisal and remained C at completion. The project’s resettlement framework was duly followed, and no involuntary resettlement impact was recorded. A due diligence report was included in the FAR of each subproject. Of the 456 subprojects, 190 were rehabilitated without the need for additional land and 266 were constructed using land either in, or within a meter of, an existing canal that was donated voluntarily by farmers following the project’s eligibility criteria for donation. The project established an effective grievance redress mechanism and no unresolved grievances remained at project completion (Appendix 7).

9

28. Indigenous people. The project at appraisal was categorized B for indigenous people and remained B at completion. Given the large beneficiary indigenous population in the subprojects area, elements of the indigenous people plan were embedded into the project design. The project adopted both mainstreaming and targeted approaches for equitable distribution of project benefits and opportunities to indigenous communities. The project complied with the provisions of the indigenous peoples planning framework. A due diligence report was prepared for each subproject and incorporated in their FARs. None of the subprojects caused adverse impact to indigenous people. Rather, positive impacts were recorded because of water availability and the resulting increase in agricultural yield, which augmented farmer income and improved the livelihood of the indigenous people (Appendix 7).

29. Engagement of civil society organizations. The CSO engagement and collaboration is rated high and meaningful in the project. The participation of CSOs in subproject selection and design helped build shared interest and ownership. Their involvement in implementation promoted good governance while their input into system O&M ensured accountability. The project benefited from engagement with the CSOs by learning about their views and experiences (paras. 7 and 19, and Appendix 7). K. Monitoring and Reporting 30. The conditions for the grant effectiveness was met by declaring the project effective on 86th day of the grant signing (less than 90 days). The executing agency complied with all 26 grant covenants, including four on financial management, four on social and environmental safeguards, and eighteen related to other issues. The covenants were realistic, and none were modified, suspended, or waived. ADB monitored and updated the compliance status of the covenants through project review missions and the client’s periodic reports (Appendix 8). 31. The executing agency implemented the project with due diligence and efficiency, in conformity with sound administrative, financial, engineering, social, and environmental practices. It provided adequate oversight, coordination, and financial support for project implementation. The project performance indicators were aligned with the DMF targets and monitored against the baseline information recorded in the FARs. The achievements were recorded through regular field monitoring and project impact monitoring surveys and reported through periodic progress reports (trimester, annual, and project completion reports). The farmers’ construction monitoring committee supervised work quality and reported to the PMISC through the project management information system. The PCU used this information to prepare consolidated project progress reports, which it submitted to ADB. ADB externally monitored the project progress during the project review missions. The project performance in the thematic areas (safeguards and GESI-AP) were satisfactorily monitored and reported through trimester, semiannual, annual, and project completion reports.

32. The RMDC, through their field monitors, supervised and reported the performance and progress of the partner MFIs in (i) mobilizing farmers to form cooperatives and (ii) providing microcredit. The executing agency and the RMDC submitted audited financial statements on time. Apart from a slight $25 difference, the disbursement figures in the final audited project financial statements of both the executing agency and the RMDC reconciled with ADB records for the annual and cumulative amounts up to the grant closing date.

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE A. Relevance 33. The project was assessed relevant at appraisal, implementation, and completion. It aligned with the policies, strategies, and development priorities of the government and ADB (paras. 5 and 6). Higher poverty incidence in non-irrigated areas suggests irrigation

10

contributes to poverty reduction and therefore the investment in the project was relevant. The project components were designed with the overall goal of poverty reduction through inclusive development. Involvement of WUAs in planning, implementation, and monitoring of subprojects proved to be effective in reflecting community needs and priorities, developing capacity, and building local ownership for sustainable O&M of the irrigation systems. The DMF had strong, logical links and almost all the targets were realistic, appropriate, and measurable except for the STWs. It was assumed that the government would apply a “no subsidy" policy for STWs consistently across projects. However, this did not materialize (para. 8). The government’s procurement and financial management capacity was enhanced through training and experience gained from implementation of the project, which will be beneficial in its overall future operation. The GESI-AP design was based on the results of the social and poverty assessment. The project did not overlap with other development partners’ initiatives as it was planned in coordination with them and government agencies working in the small-scale irrigation. The project was the first larger intervention in small-scale irrigation development in Nepal, and the government and other agencies confirmed its relevance by replicating its participatory approach when implementing small-scale irrigation systems benefiting the poor, women, and vulnerable farmers.22 The results of micro-irrigation for water conservation and cash crop cultivation attracted farmers’ attention with neighboring villages starting to replicate the technology. The project was successful in reaching the targeted communities in the Terai, hills, and mountains. The direct benefits of small-scale irrigation have encouraged local bodies to support in expansion of similar systems, which confirms the high relevance of the project. B. Effectiveness 34. The project was assessed effective in achieving the intended outcome and outputs. It exceeded in three, and achieved one of the five DMF outcome performance indicators.23 Farmers, including women and disadvantaged groups, of the target communities diversified their farming practices toward higher value crops upon access to irrigation and started producing wheat and vegetables besides the summer paddy. This contributed to increasing cropping intensity from 129% to 166% and average crop yield by 20%–25%, exceeding the project target of 15% (para. 12). Farmers started cultivating cash crops, increasing winter vegetable production by 20% for men and women farmers (the target was 8%). The winter vegetable cultivation area in the Terai declined by 1%, but significantly increased in the hills (45%) and mountains (67%) (footnote 15). The project achieved the target of irrigating a 17,000 ha area by covering 16,936 ha (footnote 15). 35. Annual production increased to 10,341 metric tons (t) (74% of the target) for rice; 8,303 t (488% of the target) for wheat; 1,911 t (25% of the target) for maize; and 13,054 t (45% of the target) for vegetables. The shortfall in rice, maize and vegetable production targets could be attributed to the farmers’ preference for cultivating wheat, which requires less labor and can be stored for longer periods. The project contributed to an increase in annual cereal production (rice, wheat, and maize) of 20,555 t (89%) against the project target of 23,200 t, which significantly improved the food security of marginal farmers. The targets per product at appraisal could have been set more realistically by better considering the farmers’ crop preferences. The project contributed to a 92%–155% increase in the annual agricultural income of small and marginal farmers against the project target of 72%–124% over the baseline income of NRs34,000 in 2010.24

22 The Government of Switzerland is supporting Nepal in implementing a Small Irrigation Programme in nine

districts. The programme had a target to develop or improve irrigation facilities in an area of about 15,000 ha through a community-driven process targeting the poor, women, and other disadvantaged groups.

23 The project partially achieved the indicator on annual production per crop (para. 35). 24 ADB. 2018. Aide-Mémoire. Project Review Mission. Manila.

11

36. The project was successful in achieving the 11 DMF output indicators, exceeding the targets in five of them. It successfully completed all activities and achieved the quantitative target of the GESI-AP (Appendix 6). The project contributed to gender equality in human development by ensuring participation of women and disadvantaged groups in project consultations and trainings. The project team conducted 283 technical and management trainings for WUAs, with 36% women participation. Of the 28,837 participants in the FFS and agriculture trainings, 74% were women. The project also contributed to women’s economic empowerment by providing livelihood opportunities through access to microcredit and savings. Of the 11,754 (67%) women MFI members from beneficiary households, 5,373 (45.7%) accessed microfinance to fund improved agricultural practices. The high interest rates limited women farmers’ enthusiasm for accessing these loans. To facilitate gender equality in decision-making and leadership, four women engineers were mobilized, exceeding the three that the project guaranteed. The WUA constitution before registration mandated 33% women representation and meaningful participation of disadvantaged groups. Of the 4,401 members of the 456 WUAs, 39% were women, 14% Dalits, and 22% Janajati. The WUA executive committees had 580 women in leadership positions, representing 34% of all the WUA leaders. Given the achievements, the implementation of the GESI-AP is assessed as effective. 37. The project satisfactorily complied with environmental and social safeguards. The improved agriculture contributed to environmental sustainability through water conservation, soil loss minimization, and controlled use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The project did not require land acquisition. The subprojects were implemented where vulnerable and disadvantaged groups were present, most of whom were indigenous people who benefited from the increase in farm employment and income. The project ensured a high and meaningful civil society engagement at all stages of the subproject implementation (paras. 6, 7, and 9). C. Efficiency

38. The project was efficient in achieving its outcome and outputs. At project completion, the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) for the overall project was estimated at 19% for the base case based on pooled data of the seven surveyed subprojects. This is higher than the economic opportunity cost of capital (EOCC) (12%). Three sensitivity test scenarios were considered: a 10% increase in O&M cost, a 10% decrease in benefits, and a combined case of a 10% increase in O&M cost and a 10% decrease in benefits. The estimated aggregate EIRR under all three sensitivity tests is significantly higher than the EOCC, indicating economic viability under adverse conditions. Comparison of the aggregate EIRR of the overall project, including in different sensitivity scenarios, could not be performed as these were not estimated at appraisal.

39. The seven ISPs assessed at project completion demonstrated good economic viability with EIRRs ranging from 15.79% to 24.94%.25 Comparison with 3 sample subprojects at appraisal shows that the EIRR at project completion is slightly higher than the estimates for 2 subprojects and slightly lower for 1. The higher EIRRs resulted from the larger command area, relatively lower investment cost per ha, and a significant increase in the cultivation of maize, potato, and vegetables, whereas the lower EIRR resulted from the additional investment required to protect intake structure. The sensitivity tests for each subproject resulted in the EIRR being significantly higher than the EOCC. The results of sensitivity tests at appraisal and at completion for the 3 subprojects were consistent. The overall result of economic analysis (Appendix 9) indicates that the project was efficient, with prudent design and implementation. The project’s process efficiency further contributes to this rating given the minimal delay in project implementation (para. 18) and cost underrun (para. 16).

25 The seven selected subprojects were representative of the type of system (gravity, tank, lift), geographical

distribution, and size of command area, and included all three of the sample subprojects (Ghya Kholsi, Kothibandh, and Janakalyan) analyzed during project appraisal.

12

D. Sustainability 40. The project outcomes are likely sustainable after project completion. The project supported farmers to operate professionally as an institution for sustainable system management through the formation of government registered WUAs. The farmers were trained in office management, water distribution, improved farming, and construction of work. The learnings from training and subproject implementation established their skills to undertake future repair and maintenance of the system by themselves using their own resources generated through ISF collection (para. 11). About 89% of WUAs were found to be actively engaged in registration renewal and the election of executive committees and 95% of WUAs raised ISF. This activity, along with the good condition and smooth operation of subproject structures and incremental improvements in agricultural productivity and income, is considered as evidence for long-term sustainable operation of the systems. The project team noted that the farmers, after receiving demonstration training, expanded the use of micro-irrigation technology for water conservation. Similarly, the project’s contribution to the political and economic empowerment of women and disadvantaged groups has created sustainable development benefits for women farmers.26 41. The project did not have a separate component for policy reform, although it indirectly contributed to the preparation of the Agriculture Development Strategy, 2015–2035, the Fifteenth National Plan Approach Paper, 2019; the Irrigation Policy, 2013; and the draft Irrigation Master Plan, 2019. All these strategic documents have emphasized inclusive social development, community empowerment, and improved irrigated agriculture. Many WUA members and farmers were elected in local bodies responsible for implementing community infrastructure under federalization. The learnings from the project have helped them in planning and decision-making in local infrastructure development. Understanding the importance of irrigation to the local economy, the local bodies have started supporting in system maintenance, agriculture inputs, and extension. The local body of Pyuthan has initiated construction of a cold- storage because irrigation has increased production of cash crops. These actions indicate ownership by the local bodies, which ensures long-term sustainability. E. Development Impact 42. The project’s development impact is assessed satisfactory. The population living below the poverty line in Nepal has decreased from 30.9% in 2004 to 18.7% in 2018. The Fifteenth National Plan estimated that poverty levels reduced to 17.0% by 2019, reflecting the project’s contributions. The project contributed to (i) achieving year-round irrigation in 41.0% of the irrigated area in 2018, (ii) increasing gender equality, (iii) engaging CSOs in project implementation, (iv) supporting the poor in savings and credit, (v) ensuring food security, and (vi) creating 349,835 person-days of work.27 All these contributed toward ADB’s operational priorities under the Strategy 2030 Corporate Results Framework. 28, 29

43. The project enhanced the DOLIDAR’s capacity for planning and executing multi-component projects. The DTOs and DDCs gained experience from the project implementation and strengthened their technical and managerial capacities in executing small-scale irrigation systems. Many of the WUA members who received training were elected as local representatives and are utilizing their learnings in planning and implementing small-scale

26 Although the indicators qualify the project to be most likely sustainable, the rating has been downgraded to likely

sustainable because of the risks associated with the farmers’ ability to continue electing active WUAs and raising sufficient ISF to support sustainable operation of the systems.

27 Discrepancies in the baseline data are discussed in para. 8. 28 ADB. 2019. ADB Corporate Results Framework, 2019-2024: Policy Paper. Manila. 29 The project specifically contributed to results framework indicator 1.3 (204,104 poor and vulnerable people with

improved standards of living) and target indicator 1.3.1 (456 irrigation systems constructed or rehabilitated).

13

irrigation. Since learning the importance of microcredit, farmers in several subprojects have begun forming saving and credit cooperatives. 44. The project’s economic impacts are mostly in terms of increased agricultural production and higher agricultural incomes of rural poor and disadvantaged groups. The farmers have started a gradual shift toward high-value crop cultivation. This has led to construction of collection centers and cold-storage facilities to support trading of local products for onward sale to markets at higher levels of the commodity value chain. The product collection carried out by local traders is increasingly visible in roadhead markets such as Kalagad in Doti district, which serves farmers of the Talamathiajit irrigation system, and Jumri Bazar in Pyuthan, which serves farmers of the Ghya–Kholsi pond irrigation system. The agriculture input dealers in improved seed and fertilizer are enjoying increased demand for inputs as the irrigation systems have encouraged farmers to adopt improved agricultural practices. The agriculture GDP of Nepal was NRs779,347 million in FY2016, representing 97.7% of the project target (Appendix 1).30 45. The demand for farm labor has increased but not sufficiently to absorb the large underemployed population within the command areas, as the landholding sizes are small, averaging 0.43 ha. Hence, the project had an impact, albeit limited, on reducing the outmigration of youth.31 The project has directly benefited 204,104 people in 34,961 households. With the increasing income, an increased demand in the local economy is expected for goods and services supplied by small retail shops, tea shops, and farm tools and repair centers. The commercial activities in market centers along the roadheads close to the subprojects are increasing. In the long term, developmental impact will depend on other complementary factors such as road connectivity and access to bigger markets. These facilities in combination with increased farm productivity will have positive development impacts and strengthen the local economy of poor farmers.

46. The project’s key focus was poverty reduction, social inclusion, and gender development through improved irrigated agriculture. The project was environmentally sustainable and caused no adverse impacts; it provided positive benefits to poor, vulnerable, women, and indigenous groups. Their institutionalization and capacity building in improved agricultural practices have empowered them to pursue higher socioeconomic gains. F. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 47. The performance of the borrower and the executing agency was satisfactory. The government demonstrated full ownership of the project and gave it high priority throughout its implementation. The executing agency timely established the PCU, which gradually improved in project management. The PCU and PIUs gradually gained strengths in safeguards compliance, the GESI-AP, and coordinating agriculture and microfinance activities. The pace of project implementation increased after the initial delays because of delays in selection of the PMISC. The PCU performed well in coordinating with the 12 DCOs; maintaining the quality of procurement and contract administration; following the grant covenants; complying with safeguards and fiduciary requirements, and timely submission of annual financial audit reports. The PCU facilitated and actively participated in all project review missions of ADB. The PCU ensured that counterpart funds were made available to the project on time, which supported efficient project execution. The project emphasized on capacity development, which enabled DDC and DTO staff to acquire capacity in the design and implementation of small-scale irrigation projects. They developed a good understanding of improved agriculture, micro-irrigation, and microfinance activities, and submitted all routine and periodic reports on time. The project financially closed within the extended project period without pending issues.

30 GON, Central Bureau of Statistics. 2018. National Income Accounts of Nepal 2018/19. Nepal. 31 GON, DOLIDAR. 2018. Benefit Monitoring Report of Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu.

14

G. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 48. ADB’s performance was satisfactory in project design and implementation. The bank responded effectively to the needs of the borrower and demonstrated leadership in decision-making while supporting the executing agency in replacing STWs with surface water irrigation, expanding the project area to accommodate the increased number of subprojects, mobilizing additional VBFTs, reallocating funds, and extending the project period. ADB’s prudent support was crucial in exceeding most of the project targets and utilizing 94.2% of the grant. ADB coordinated closely with the executing and implementing agencies through review missions and progress review meetings, processed procurement and disbursement requests promptly, and provided orientation to the government staff in procurement, contract administration, financial management, safeguards, and GESI, which enhanced their capacity to improve the quality of delivery. ADB supported the project in implementing micro-irrigation demonstration systems. ADB’s close supervision and coordination contributed to the timely completion of the project following the successful achievement of the project outcome and output targets. H. Overall Assessment 49. In terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability, the project is rated successful. The project was rated relevant from design to completion because it addressed the government’s development priorities, was consistent with ADB’s policies and strategies, and was implemented largely as planned. The design of the project, using a sector approach, was appropriate (para. 5). The project was effective in delivering the targeted outputs and outcomes. The project targets were achieved despite the constraints faced during implementation as a result of various internal and external factors (para. 18). The project implementation was flexible, adjusting to the changed context, and was completed within the stipulated timeframe. Financial management was prudent, and the audit reports were submitted on time. The project is rated efficient in terms of economic efficiency of the subprojects. Sustainability of the project outcome is likely with the formation of WUAs and the farmers’ strong commitment to improved O&M, which is linked with their food security and livelihood. Sustainability is also ensured with the local bodies supporting sustenance of local infrastructure and agriculture development through technical and financial means and replicating the project design in future community infrastructure.

Overall Ratings Criteria Rating Relevance Relevant Effectiveness Effective Efficiency Efficient Sustainability Likely sustainable Overall Assessment Successful Development impact Satisfactory Borrower and executing agency Satisfactory Performance of Asian Development Bank Satisfactory

Source: Asian Development Bank.

IV. ISSUES, LESSONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Issues and Lessons 50. Project design. The project design assumed that the government would apply its “no subsidy" policy for STWs in future projects. However, it fully subsidized farmers to install STWs in a government-funded project (para. 33). As a result, surface irrigation had to replace groundwater irrigation in the CIP because of the lack of farmer demand for STW. Early identification of such risks is important for successful implementation of projects. Also, project targets should be fixed following a precise assessment. This could have avoided unrealistic

15

targets being set, the result of which was that the target for annual wheat production was exceeded by 488% while the target for maize was only 25% achieved and the target for vegetables was 45% achieved. 51. Interagency coordination. Interagency coordination for efficient project implementation remains a challenge in Nepal. For example, the Nepal Electricity Authority was slow in providing power for lift irrigation systems, which delayed their commissioning until project completion, affecting the post-project activities. However, the project received timely support from the members of the FAC and the DICC. Establishing an efficient institutional network for sharing information, fostering inter-governmental cooperation, and enabling the central government to provide technical support to the provincial and local bodies will be necessary under the new federal system for successful implementation of projects. 52. Collection of irrigation service fees. The fragile geology of Nepal makes local infrastructure vulnerable to seasonal damage caused by floods and landslides. Collection of ISF by farmers is important to keep funds ready for emergency repairs. Farmers traditionally contributed in cash, kind, and labor for system maintenance. Any new system for raising ISF should harmonize with traditional practice. This and incentives to increase farmers’ willingness to pay ISF will help to sustain the system. 53. Use of microfinance. The MFIs did not generate enthusiasm in farmers because of the higher interest rates and the insufficient effort put in to convincing them of the benefits of microfinance. Farmers, particularly women farmers, found it more convenient to access loans through the community-based saving and credit schemes, which offered low interest rates. 54. Women’s participation and benefit. Challenges in GESI-AP implementation included (i) building women farmers’ confidence to participate in leadership roles in the WUAs, (ii) synchronizing the accessing of loans with the completion of agricultural training and irrigation improvement works to link women farmers with markets to sell their products. B. Recommendations 55. Build capacity of the local government. The local bodies are responsible for implementing community infrastructure, including small-scale irrigation systems. However, they lack planning and implementing capacity. Building their knowledge and capacity is therefore crucial for proper decision-making in implementing local development works. 56. Establish market links. Farmers cultivate cash crops only when their product finds an easy market. Hence, future projects related to agriculture development should prioritize establishing collection centers and market links for local products. 57. Promote small-scale FMIS. Implement follow-on project on small-scale FMIS utilizing the acquired knowledge from CIP for betterment of poor, marginal and disadvantaged farmers.

58. Adopt coordinated measures for women farmers’ greater participation in and benefit from irrigation projects. Promote literacy and leadership training for women farmers; synchronize project activities such as training, release of loans, and completion of support infrastructures such as irrigation; define provision for women’s participation in all activities, including international exposure visits; provide low-interest loans for poor women farmers; and support the establishment of market links for women farmers. 59. Timing of the project performance evaluation report. Preparation of the project performance evaluation report is suggested for the early 2022.

16 Appendix 1

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Design Summary Performance Indicators and

Targets Project Achievements

Impact Agricultural income of rural poor and socially excluded groups is increased.

Agriculture GDP increased to NRs797,563 million by 2017 (2009 baseline: NRs366,744 million) Area under year-round irrigation increased from current 41% to 64% in 2017

Central Bureau of Statistics, Nepal published National Income Accounts of Nepal 2018/19, which mentions Agriculture GDP of Nepal was NRs779,347 million in FY 2016/17 representing 97.7% of the expected Agriculture GDP in 2017. Some inconsistency in year-round (YR) irrigation of the total irrigated area in national database led the project aiming an impact of 64% YR irrigation area by 2017 from 41% in 2009, as planned in the National Water Plan 2005. Whereas, FAO Irrigation Yearbook 2011 suggested only 29% YR irrigation in 2010. The inconsistency was not realized until the 15th Plan Approach Paper of the Government 2019 reported 41% YR irrigation in 2018. The Nepal Agriculture Development Strategy 2015 aims 60% YR irrigation by 2025, which is also supported by ADB funded Irrigation Master Plan 2019 (Draft), and records 39% irrigated area having YR irrigation by 2019.

Outcome Poor, women, and other disadvantaged farmers in target communities

intensify and diversify their agricultural practices toward higher value crops.

Crop yields increase by at least 15% within five years of subproject construction for female and male farmers. Winter vegetable production increases by 8% for female and male farmers. Improved irrigation coverage of at least 17,000 ha.

Exceeded. Crop yields increased by minimum 20% based on the PBME survey carried out in 47 sample ISPs covering 1,554 ha area (10% of the total command area). In 456 subprojects- 98,907 female and 105,197 male farmers of 34,909 households benefited from increment in crop yield (Government PCR). Considering Nepal’s population ratio 49.6% men and 50.4% women, crop yields increase for female and male farmers will be nearly same. Exceeded. The Winter vegetable production increased by 20% for 98,907 female and 105,197 male farmers in 34,909 households (Government PCR). Considering Nepal’s population ratio of 49.6% men and 50.4% women, vegetable production increase for female and male farmers will be nearly same. Achieved. The project improved irrigation coverage in 16,936 ha (99.62% of target).

Appendix 1 17

Design Summary Performance Indicators and

Targets Project Achievements

Annual rice, wheat, maize, and vegetable production increases by at least 14,000 ton, 1,700 ton, 7,500 ton, and 29,000 ton. Annual incomes of small and marginal farmers increase by 72-124% (early 2010 baseline: NRs34,000)

Partly Achieved (for individual crop but achieved in overall production). Annual rice, wheat, maize, and vegetable production increased as follows: Rice-10,341 ton (74% of target) Wheat -8,303 ton (488% of target) Maize- 1,911 ton (25% of target) Vegetable-13,054 ton (45% of target) Decrease in maize and vegetable target was due to farmers preference to cultivate wheat, which requires less labor when young HH members have left for foreign job, not perishable like vegetable, and do not search for market. Target achieved in average, because of very high achievement in Wheat production. Rice -26%, Maize –75%, Veg -55%, total -156%. Wheat plus is 488%. Achieved. Annual incomes of the small and marginal farmers per HH increased by 75% to 96%.

Outputs 1. WUAs efficiently manage improved irrigation infrastructures

WUAs in subprojects have at least one-third female and proportional representation of disadvantaged groups in membership and leadership.

Exceeded. 456 WUAs formed and registered with total membership of 4,401 incl. 1,709 (39%) women (more than 33% target). Representatives from Dalits is 607 (14%) and Janajati is 984 (22%). WUA executive committee leadership position have 580 women (34% of 1,722). Representatives of disadvantaged groups in WUA executive committee leadership is 550 [Dalit 160 (9%); Janajati: 390 (23%)].

WUAs demonstrate their ability to plan, implement, and operate and maintain irrigation infrastructure.

Achieved. 456 WUAs prepared their constitution, got registered with government and elected their executive committee. They actively participated in office management, leadership and financial management training from the project. Their construction monitoring committee in all 456 subprojects took basic construction quality control training, and undertook active work supervision, as intended. The WUAs also took orientation on micro-finance, use of micro-irrigation technology to conserve water. They were also provided system operation, water management, improved agriculture, and lead farmer training. WUAs were closely involved by the Implementing Agencies while planning and design of their

18 Appendix 1

Design Summary Performance Indicators and

Targets Project Achievements

irrigation system construction/rehabilitation. They signed community contract in all 456 subprojects and the farmers constructed the systems. About 89% WUAs were found active in system O&M and 95% WUA were raising ISF.

WUAs prepare and implement plans for equitable and efficient water distribution.

Achieved. All the 456 WUAs were given training by the project on water management and use of micro-irrigation for optimized use of water through water conservation technology. Accordingly, WUAs prepared plans and are following its implementation. Their rich experience on traditional system management well supplemented in adopting improved management procedure as institutionalized by the project.

At least 65% of WUAs continue to collect 2%-5% of construction cost annually for major repairs.

Exceeded. Above 95% WUAs are collecting ISF to run their system, of which 71% are raising more than 2% of the construction cost of the system.

2. Participating farmers apply improved agriculture practices and have access to micro-finance.

75% of surveyed farmers achieve their targets in cropping intensity and yields (baseline reported in subproject feasibility reports). At least 50% of female farmers join MFI groups, at least 40% of whom access loans and savings (refer footnote 14).

Achieved. 75% of farmers surveyed in 47 subprojects achieved their targets in cropping intensity and yields (PBME survey) with respect to the baseline information given in FAR. Exceeded. The project identified 34,961 beneficiary HHs. Each HH is represented by one (HH member) in the microfinance institution (MFI). Of a total 17,480 women beneficiary farmers from 34,961 HHs, 11,754 (67%) women joined MFIs. At least 5,373 (45.7%) of them accessed loans from the MFIs.

3. Government capacity to plan and coordinate small-scale irrigation projects is enhanced.

District and village leaders select subprojects on schedule and in accordance with Project criteria. CIP engineers (at least 3 women) in 12 districts approve appropriate designs for small irrigation infrastructure and effectively supervise construction. District Government officials effectively coordinate subproject activities.

Achieved. The DICC representatives including LDO, DTO and district level representatives selected subprojects following agreed process and criterion. The selected subprojects were also discussed with village development committees and their relevant wards. Exceeded. The project mobilized 4 women engineers (in Pyuthan, Doti, Dang, and Kailali districts) among the 12 CIP engineers recruited in the project districts. They were engaged in approving designs for small irrigation infrastructure and supervision of construction. Achieved. The project strengthened the coordination and management capacity of the central and district government officials in technical and thematic areas. Entire subproject selection, planning,

Appendix 1 19

Design Summary Performance Indicators and

Targets Project Achievements

Subproject communities have access to village- based institutional, technical and agricultural support for 2 years after scheme selection. 80% of LDOs, DTO chiefs, and district irrigation engineers see benefits of participatory approach (with gender and disadvantaged group focus).

design and implementation process progressed smoothly as planned, and the district level DDC, DTO and project appraisal committee officials effectively coordinated the subprojects’ activities and supported in timely approvals and decision-making. Achieved. Subproject farmers were provided institutional, basic technical and agriculture support through district-based institutions as well as district coordination office and VBFT staff of CIP. The support was initiated immediately after selection and design of subproject. In addition, the local government and provinces under the federal system have started to provide direct financial (cash or budgetary support) and technical support (agriculture, tunnel for vegetables, improved seed and fertilizers, construction of agriculture research center and cold storage etc.) to sustain the benefits of having irrigation water and achievements demonstrated by the CIP subprojects. Exceeded. GESI and social mobilization training was provided to 100% LDOs, DTO chief, and CIP Engineers of the project districts. Capacity development trainings on planning, execution and management of small scale irrigation development through community participation were conducted in different locations, with 471 participants [321 (68%) men and 150 (32%) women], [127 (27%) Janajati, 36 (8%) Dalits, and 308 (65%) other groups]. Participants comprised 399 (85%) LDOs, DTO Chiefs, DOLIDAR Engineers and CIP Engineers; and 72 (15%) sub-engineers and accountants of DDC and DTO. A total of 377 (80%) of trained staff expressed appreciation of the qualitative aspects of the training, including its participatory approach and the distinctive GESI focus. Lack of a viable baseline at project onset constrained the conduct of a pre- and post-project analysis of the benefits.

Source: Asian Development Bank.

20 Appendix 2

PROJECT COST AT APPRAISAL AND ACTUAL

Appraisal Estimate

($ Million) Actual

($ Million)

Item Foreign

Exchange Local

Currency Total Cost Foreign

Exchange Local

Currency Total Cost

Investments Costs 1. Civil Works

a. Civil Works A-Surface Schemes 3.85 11.56 15.41 0.00 21.36 21.36

b. Civil Works A-STW 2.20 1.83 4.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal Civil Works 6.05 13.39 19.44 0.00 21.36 21.36

2. Civil Works–STW–Beneficiaries 0.45 1.35 1.81 0.00 0.00 0 3. O&M Contingency Fund 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.17 0.17 4. Vehicle 0.13 0.25 0.38 0.00 0.34 0.34 5. Training

a. Micro Finance 0.01 0.52 0.53 0.00 0.26 0.26 b. Agriculture 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 1.41 1.41

Other Trainings 0 1.04 1.04 0.10 0.92 1.02 Subtotal Trainings 0.01 3.43 3.44 0.10 2.59 2.69

6. Consulting/ NGO Services 0.45 5.14 5.59 0.22 4.38 4.60 7. Consulting Services-Unallocated 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 8. Project Management-

Incremental Cost 0.00 1.51 1.51 0.00 2.21 2.21

Total Baseline Costs 7.09 25.96 33.04 0.32 31.06 31.38 Physical Contingencies 0.67 1.94 2.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 Price Contingencies 0.24 0.89 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Project Costs 8.00 28.79 36.79 0.32 31.06 31.38 Note: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Appendix 3 21

PROJECT COST BY FINANCIER

Table A3.1: Project Cost at Appraisal by Financier ($ Million)

Expenditure Accounts by Financers Government

Bank Beneficiaries

Total Cost

Amount % of Cost Category Amount

% of Cost Category Amount

% of Cost Category Amount

% of Cost Category

Item

Investment Costs

1. Civil works

a. Civil Works A-Surface Schemes 3.05 17.50 12.68 72.60 1.74 10.00 17.47 47.49 b. Civil Works A-STW 0.92 20.00 3.66 80.00 0.00 0.00 4.58 12.45

Subtotal Civil works 3.97 18.00 16.34 74.10 1.74 7.90 22.05 59.93 2. Civil Works–STW–Beneficiaries 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.05 100.00 2.05 5.57

3. O&M Contingency Fund 0.00 0.00 0.87 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 2.36 4. Vehicle 0.27 65.00 0.14 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 1.11 5. Training

a. Micro Finance 0.00 0.00 0.57 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 1.55 b. Agriculture 0.00 0.00 2.03 100.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 5.52 c. Other Trainings 0.00 0.00 1.11 100.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 3.02

Subtotal Training 0.00 0.00 3.71 100.00 0.00 0.00 3.71 10.08 6. Consulting/ NGO Services 0.79 13.10 5.23 86.90 0.00 0.00 6.02 16.36

7. Consulting Services-Unallocated 0.01 13.00 0.10 87.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.30 8. Project Management-Incremental Cost 1.56 100.00 - - 0.00 - 1.56 4.24 Total Project Costs 6.60 17.90 26.40 71.70 3.80 10.30 36.79 100.00

Note: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. Source: Asian Development Bank.

22 Appendix 3

Table A3.2: Project Cost at Completion by Financier ($ million)

Government

Bank Beneficiaries

Total Cost

Amount % of Cost Category Amount

% of Cost Category Amount

% of Cost Category Amount

% of Cost Category

Item Investment Costs 1. Civil Works

a. Civil Works A-Surface Schemes 3.74 17.50 15.50 72.60 2.11 9.90 21.35 68.03 b. Civil Works A-STW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal civil works 3.74 17.50 15.50 72.60 2.11 9.90 21.35 68.00 2. Civil Works–STW–Beneficiaries 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. O&M Contingency Fund 0.00 0.00 0.17 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.54 4. Vehicle 0.22 65.00 0.12 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 1.09 5. Training

a. Micro Finance 0.00 0.00 0.26 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.83 b. Agriculture 0.00 0.00 1.41 100.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 4.49 c. Other Trainings 0.00 0.00 1.02 100.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 3.25

Subtotal Trainings 0.00 0.00 2.69 100.00 0.00 0.00 2.69 8.57 6. Consulting/ NGO Services 0.60 13.10 4.01 86.90 0.00 0.00 4.61 14.70

7. Consulting Services-Unallocated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8. Project Management-Incremental Cost 1.72 77.80 0.49 22.20 0.00 0.00 2.21 7.04

Total Project Costs 6.29 20.00 22.98 73.24 2.11 6.70 31.38 100.00 Note: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. Source: Asian Development Bank

Appendix 4 23

DISBURSEMENT OF ADB GRANT PROCEEDS

Table 4.1: Annual and Cumulative Disbursement of ADB Grant Proceeds ($ million)

Annual Disbursement Cumulative Disbursement

Year Amount

($ million) % of Total Amount

($ million) % of Total 2011 1.27 6% 1.27 6% 2012 0.41 2% 1.69 7% 2013 1.00 4% 2.69 12% 2014 3.75 16% 6.44 28% 2015 4.15 18% 10.59 46% 2016 4.47 19% 15.05 65% 2017 6.14 27% 21.19 92% 2018 1.77 8% 22.96 100% 2019 0.02 0% 22.98 100% Total 22.98 100% 22.98 100%

Note: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. ADB = Asian Development Bank. a Includes disbursements to advance accounts. Source: Asian Development Bank.

Figure 4.1: Projection and Cumulative Disbursement of ADB Grant Proceeds

($ million)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cum

ula

tive D

isburs

em

ent ($

mill

ion)

Year

Projection and Cumulative Disbursement of ADB Grant Proceeds ($ million)

CumulativeProjection

CumulativeActual

24 Appendix 5

CONTRACT AWARDS OF ADB GRANT PROCEEDS

Table 5.1: Annual and Cumulative Contract Awards of ADB Grant Proceeds ($ million)

Annual Contract Awards Cumulative Contract Awards

Year Amount

($ million) % of Total Amount

($ million) % of Total

2011 0.01 … 0.01 …

2012 3.71 16% 3.72 16%

2013 2.14 9% 5.86 25%

2014 4.42 19% 10.28 45%

2015 2.30 10% 12.58 55%

2016 6.82 30% 19.41 84%

2017 3.06 13% 22.47 98%

2018 0.51 2% 22.98 100%

2019 …. … 22.98 100%

Total 22.98 100% 22.98 100% Note: Numbers may not sum precisely because of rounding. ADB = Asian Development Bank. Source: Asian Development Bank.

Figure 5.1: Projection and Cumulative Contract Awards of ADB Grant Proceeds

($ million)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cum

ula

tive C

ontr

act

Aw

ard

s (

$

mill

ion)

Year

Projection and Cumulative Contract Awards of ADB Grant Proceeds

($ million)

Projection Actual

Appendix 6 25

GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION ACTION PLAN: IMPLEMENTATION AND ACHIEVEMENTS

A. Introduction 1. The Community Irrigation Project (CIP) was designed to improve small-scale irrigation systems through a community-driven process targeting the poor, women and the disadvantaged groups.1 2. The project selected 12 districts based on high poverty, food insecurity and irrigation potential.2 It focused on strengthening water user associations (WUAs) for participatory planning and management of irrigation systems, improving farmers’ agricultural practices and access to microfinance, and enhancing the government’s capacity to plan and coordinate small-scale irrigation projects. The expected outcome was the intensification and diversification of agricultural practices toward higher value crops of poor, women and other disadvantaged farmers in target communities.

3. The project considered social and geographic inclusion as key issues. It was designed to increase access to irrigation of extremely and moderately poor farm households (HHs) who lived and cultivated in rain-fed land in water scarce regions, steep slopes away from fertile and water rich valleys in hills, and on the fringes of irrigation systems in the plains. Selection criteria were designed to identify locations with poor and disadvantaged social groups settlements. It worked in 12 of the 35 poorest districts with marginal farmers holding land less than 0.5 hectare (ha) or with less than 1 ha in poor areas as main beneficiaries. Strengthening WUAs included ensuring representation of all stakeholders including women and disadvantaged groups within command area and improving their ability to manage their irrigation systems to ensure equitable, adequate and efficient distribution of water. The project contributed directly to ADB’s country partnership strategy outcomes by supporting: (i) increased agricultural income and employment opportunities with emphasis on poor and socially excluded groups; (ii) diversified and commercialized agricultural production; (iii) improved access to agricultural inputs; and (iv) social, political, and economic empowerment of women and other socially excluded groups. Project design was in line with the government’s poverty reduction strategy as outlined in the 10th five-year plan and three-year interim plan and budget for fiscal year 2010. 4. CIP was categorized gender equity theme (GEN). It supported the political and economic empowerment of women, poor and excluded groups through their inclusion in WUA governance structure; capacity building in the implementation, operation and maintenance of irrigation systems; and linking them to micro-finance for savings and credit mobilization. The project was designed to improve food security by improving farm income and food availability through irrigated agriculture and vegetable farming. B. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Issues

5. Poverty incidence is varied across geographical regions, rural and urban locations, and identities (gender, caste and ethnicity) with higher poverty in rural areas, mid- and far-western regions, and among the landless and marginal farmers with small or medium landholdings. Poverty of farmer HHs is mainly due to poor quality of land and lower access to agricultural inputs (e.g. irrigation systems, chemical fertilizers, high-yielding seed varieties and credit). The National Living Standard Survey (NLSS) II estimated poverty incidence of HHs

1 Small irrigation systems are defined as systems having less than 25 hectares of irrigation area in the hills and mountains and

less than 200 hectares in the Terai plains. 2 Project implementation districts area were Kanchanpur, Kailali, Dang, Kapilvastu, Salyan, Doti, Rukum, Rolpa, Pyuthan,

Bajhang, Jumla, and Mugu.

26 Appendix 6

owning one hectare or less, comprising two-thirds of rural HHs, at 50%.3 The gender equality and social inclusion issues, identified through the socioeconomic and poverty assessment during project preparation included:

(i) Socially excluded groups (women, Dalits, indigenous people, Muslims, and other minorities) were under-represented in decision making on irrigation systems, which affected their lives and livelihoods and constrained them from benefiting equally from agriculture;

(ii) Women’s workloads were increased with agricultural intensification and male labor migration;

(iii) Women were less engaged in new development opportunities due to gender discrimination and lack of education and awareness; and

(iv) Traditional role of women in irrigations systems and their weaker position in communities made them less influential in WUA decision making.

C. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Features

6. To address these issues, the project design and monitoring framework (DMF) and gender equality and social inclusion action plan (GESI-AP) incorporated performance indicators and targets that ensured women, poor and disadvantaged farmers benefit from the project outputs. They included (i) 33% participation of women and proportionate representation of diverse caste/ethnicity in project consultations; (ii) at least 33% women representation in WUAs; (iii) capacity development of women elected in WUA leadership structures; (iv) training of farmers through FFS program with 50% women participants; and (v) at least 75% women farmers join microfinance groups with 50% accessing services through loans or savings which was revised to at least 50% women to join microfinance groups of whom 40% access loans and savings during MTR mission finding these targets high considering women participation.4 GESI-AP also included specific targets to develop the capacity of the government in planning and coordinating small scale irrigations, which included training in GESI sensitivity and mainstreaming in the Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DOLIDAR). D. Implementation, Monitoring and Reporting Arrangements

7. A Project Coordination Unit (PCU) was established in DOLIDAR for the implementation of irrigation sub projects and monitoring of day-to-day implementation of project activities, including GESI-AP. A GESI Unit within DOLIDAR coordinated and supported the PCU Social Development Specialist (SDS) for GESI related works. The CIP engineers in 12 districts (of whom 3 are women) supported the District Technical Office through assessing irrigation potential in the poorer Village Development Committees (VDCs), approving appropriate designs and supervising the construction of small irrigation infrastructures. The VBFT included 12 GESI-trained district coordinators as leaders of the teams. Each VBFT included one local woman as social mobilizer or as junior technical assistant. Rural Microfinance Development Center (RMDC), the micro finance Implementing Agency of the project, was responsible for the formation and capacity development of women's credit and savings groups. Gender specialist with relevant sectoral experience was included in consultants pool for overall support. An M&E specialist in the PIU monitored GESI targets of the GESI-AP with periodic analysis of GESI achievements. Specialized high-level input was given by project benefit monitoring and evaluation (PMBE) specialist (who also supported as gender specialist) of the

3 ADB. 2010. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Grant to the Government of

Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Summary Poverty Reduction and Social Strategy (accessible from the list of linked documents in Appendix 2). Manila.

4 The Mid Term Review mission was conducted from 17 February to 20 March 2014 (MTR Aide Memoire dated 8 April 2014).

Appendix 6 27

project management and implementation support consultant (PMISC) pool of on-call consultant experts to ensure GESI-responsiveness of project activities and analysis.

E. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Achievements

8. All 10 activities of the GESI-AP were completed and all 10 combined quantitative gender-related targets in the GESI-AP and DMF were achieved. Hence, the overall implementation of the GESI-AP is rated successful. The following is a summary of the practical and strategic gender benefits of these achievements:

Women’s economic empowerment: - Capacity development in agriculture skills increased women’s production of crops and

vegetables.5 The increased production raised women’s income. - Of the microfinance institutions (MFIs) members from beneficiary HHs, 11,754 (67%)

were women, of whom 45.7% accessed loans from the MFIs to enhance their agricultural livelihoods.

Gender equality in human development:

- Project ensured representation of women and disadvantaged groups in project consultations. Of the total 75,948 consulted, 31,479 (41%) were women, 9394 (12%) Dalits, 19,975 (26%) Janajatis.

- In 283 trainings organized for technical, leadership and management, 5,482 elected members of WUA participated of whom 1,960 were women.6

- FFS and agriculture skills trainings were organized, in which 21,407 (74%) women of the total 28,837 participated.

- Women and disadvantaged groups’ participation in project activities enhanced their skills to support their livelihoods. The knowledge and skills gained from agricultural trainings helped them learn vegetable farming and other income generative activities. Capacity building trainings implemented by RMDC helped women and disadvantaged groups to learn about micro finance and access loans to adopt improved farming practices. As WUA members, they were aware of WUA formation process and actively engaged in implementation of irrigation subprojects. WUA members were also involved in construction work monitoring and regular O&M and other water management improvement works.

Gender equality in decision making and leadership:

- Four women engineers (33% of 12 CIP Engineer positions) were hired as District Technical Office irrigation engineers.

- The registered 456 WUAs had a total of 4,401 members including 1,709 (39%) women, 607(14%) Dalits and 984 (22%) Janajatis. In the WUA executive committees, which served as the leaders of WUAs, 580 (34% of 1,722) were women. Representatives of disadvantaged groups in WUA executive committees totaled 550, of whom 160 (9% of 1,722) were Dalits and 390 (23%) were Janajatis.

5 The results of the PBME survey carried out in 47 sample irrigation subprojects covering 1,554 ha area show that

crop yields increased by 20 to 25% increment and winter vegetable production increased by 20% (DMF outcome achievements).

6 Project records show that the 283 trainings had 5,482 participants, including 1,960 (36%) women. This number is higher than the total number of members of WUAs because some members attended some trainings more than once.

28 Appendix 6

F. Challenges

9. While the overall GESI-AP implementation was satisfactory, a range of challenges were encountered during project implementation, some of them were addressed by the project Implementing Agency.7 These include:

- Women’s meaningful participation in WUA leadership and decision making. As many women were illiterate and from remote districts, it took longer than expected for them to know the project and get involved.

- Sequencing of project activities. Poor women and disadvantaged farmers found the scheduling of irrigation improvement works, agricultural trainings, and provision of loans not synchronized. In some instances, agricultural trainings were conducted, and loans accessed before they received water from irrigation scheme. Thus, many used the accessed loans from MFIs for livestock and poultry farming and bee keeping and not for vegetable farming, which requires irrigation.8

- Marketing of fresh produce. While women farmers were able to produce more yields after applying lessons learned from trainings on off seasonal high value crops and vegetables, marketing of fresh produce was a continuous challenge.

- High interest rates. Many women farmers did not tap the micro finance schemes of MFIs to access loans and generate savings because of high interest rate.

10. The project implementing agency during review missions discussed these challenges and coordinated with project teams to encourage women and disadvantaged groups participation in project activities. WUAs were given leadership trainings to overcome these challenges. Also, RMDC conducted trainings to strengthen capacity of participating MFIs to improve farmers’ access to micro-credit. Likewise, microfinance schemes focused on women for improved access to loans and savings.

7 These challenges were discussed in focus groups with beneficiaries and consultations were done with project

team during PCR mission fielded in December 2019. 8 There were some cases where the farmer took loan from the MFI for vegetable farming, but system improvement

activities were not completed as scheduled. Unavailability of irrigation water made her to utilize the loan in other activities.

Appendix 6 29

Table 1. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Achievements Matrix Activities and Targets Achievements Assessment

Output 1: Water User Associations (WUAs) Efficiently Manage Improved Irrigation Infrastructure Activity 1. Socio-economic survey of each subproject area includes variables such as income level, education, land ownership, economic activity household (HH) heads disaggregated by gender.

All subproject data is disaggregated by gender and social groups.

Baseline HH survey with information on the different socio-economic variables collected from the HHs of all 456 irrigation subprojects (ISPs). Sub project socio-economic data, disaggregated by sex and social groups, uploaded in the MIS system (mis-cip.aviyaan.com).

Completed

Target 1. Project consultation and participation plan prepared and disseminated to districts to enhance participation of women at all project stages.

At least 33% women beneficiary participation and proportionate participation of diverse caste and ethnic groups in all major consultations.

Project consultation and participation plan, which ensured participation of 33% women and proportionate number of caste and ethnic groups in all major consultations, prepared and disseminated in 12 districts.1

75,948 were consulted including 31,479 (41%) women. Caste and ethnic representation comprised 9,394 (12%) Dalits, 19,975 (26%) Janajatis, and 46,567 (61%) from other groups.

Target 1 achieved

Activity 2. WUAs formed and registered with women’s participation. Target 2. WUA executive committees have at least 33% women.

456 Water Users Associations (WUA) formed and registered with total membership of 4,401 including 1,709 (39%) women, 607(14%) Dalits and 984 (22%) Janajati.2

WUA executive committee leadership position have 580 women (34% of 1,722).3 Representatives of disadvantaged groups in WUA executive committee leadership is 550 [Dalit 160([9%); Janajati: 390 (23%)].

Completed

Target 2 achieved

Aligned with DMF Output 1a. WUAs in subprojects have at least one-third female and proportional representation of disadvantaged groups in membership and leadership. Target 3. WUA technical and leadership training conducted for WUA committee members. All elected female WUA committee members

are trained.

283 trainings on technical, leadership and management conducted for all 4,401 members of WUAs, including all 1,709 women occupying leadership positions and members of WUA executive committees.4

Target 3 achieved

1 Number of women participants in C&P activities in each district: Kapilvastu: 4,095 (36%) of total 11,404; Dang: 1,476 (34%) of total 4,353; Kailali: 1,671 (34%) of total 4,851,

Kanchanpur: 863(60%) of total 1,429; Pyuthan: 3,179 (56%) of total 5,715; Rolpa: 4,971 (41%) of total 12,045; Rukum: 3,186 (42%) of total 7,618; Salyan: 2,828 (43%) of total 6,589; Doti; 2,292 (34%) of total 6,703; Jumla: 2,396 (46%) of total 5,186; Mugu: 692(68%) of total 1,013; and Bajhang: 3,830(42%) of total 9,042.

2 Number of women in formed and registered WUA in each district: Kapilvastu: 119 (38%) of 314; Dang: 103 (36%) of 283; Kailali: 206 (38%) of 539; Kanchanpur: 125 (39%) of 324; Doti: 112 (36%) of 314; Rukum: 155 (45%) of 348; Rolpa: 247 (42%) of 590; Pyuthan: 137 (43%) of 315; Salyan:163 (38%) 434; Jumla: 98 (37%) of 263; Mugu: 99 (33%) of 299; and Bajhang: 145 (38%) of 378.

3 WUA Executive Committee leadership positions (chairpersons, vice-chairpersons, secretaries, and treasurers): Total number of occupants of leadership positions: 1,722; Total number of women occupying leadership positions: 580 (34%); 16 Chairpersons, 117 vice chairpersons, 140 secretaries and 307 treasurers; Total number of representatives of disadvantaged groups in WUA executive committee leadership: 550 (Dalit: 160 [9%]; Janajati: 390 [23%]).

4 The original targets were 75% women farmers join MFI groups, at least 50% of whom access loans and savings. These targets were found to be high considering women participation, thus were reduced to 50% women farmers joining MFI groups of whom 40% access loans and savings during the MTR mission, conducted from 17 February to 20 March 2014 (MTR Aide Memoire dated 8 April 2014).

30 Appendix 6

Activities and Targets Achievements Assessment Activity 3. WUA Constitution prepared. WUA Constitution provides for 33% female

representation and guidelines for meaningful participation.

Preparation of the WUA Constitution is the primary requirement of all ISPs for registration.

WUA Constitution 2070 provides for minimum 33% female representation in the executive committee (Chapter 5, Article 6 Sub-article 1), and election of 15% representation of Dalit and Janajati (Chapter 5, Article 6, Sub-article 2). This requirement was maintained in all the ISPs at implementation.

Completed

Output 2: Farmers apply improved agricultural practices and have access to micro finance Target 4. FFS and short agriculture skills training conducted with reference to women's existing skill level and constraints on time. Female farmer groups formed.

At least 50% of total trained farmers are women.

Farmer field schools (FFSs) organized in 286 ISPs in which 7,120 farmers, [5,214 (73%) women and 1,906 (27%) men], participated. Representatives from castes and ethnic groups were 1,125 (16%) Dalits, 1,356 (19%) Janajati, and 4,639 (65%) from other groups. Of 286 FFS groups, 49 (17%) were women-only-groups with a total of 1,204 members.

834 skills training on improved agriculture technology for farmers conducted in all 12 CIP districts with 21,717 participants, of whom 16,193 (74.6%) were women. Caste and ethnic representations comprised 14% Dalits, 22% Janajatis, and 64% from other groups.

Target 4 achieved

Target 5. Microfinance program introduced to subproject areas to enhance agricultural livelihoods.

50% of female subproject beneficiaries join the microfinance program.

The project identified 34,961 beneficiary HHs. Each HH was represented by one (HH member) in the microfinance institution (MFI). Of a total 17,480 women beneficiary farmers from 34,961 HHs, 11,754 (67%) women joined MFIs. At least 5,373 (45.7%) of them accessed loans and savings from the MFIs.

Target 5 achieved

Aligned with DMF Output 2b. At least 50% of female farmers join MFI groups, at least 40% of whom access loans and savings (revised in MTR5).

Target 6. Microfinance schemes operational and providing production and equipment loans and savings plans. 40% of female MFI members use micro finance to enhance agricultural livelihood.

All 5,373 (100%) women who accessed loans (from 66 MFIs) utilized the loan to enhance agricultural livelihood such as for off-season and seasonal vegetable farming (e.g., poultry, vegetable farming, mushroom farming etc.).

Target 6 achieved

Activity 4. Female farmers improve crop intensity and crop yield. 15% increase in crop yields over 5 years.

Performance based monitoring and evaluation (PBME) survey carried out in 47% sample ISPs covering 1,554 ha area (10% of total command area) showed crop yields increased by 20 to 25% over 5 years for both men and women farmers.

In focus group discussions, 85 women farmers of three ISPs from three districts—representing 20 (35%) women from Bajhang (mountain), 36

Completed

5 Footnote 4.

Appendix 6 31

Activities and Targets Achievements Assessment (64%) women from Rukum (hill), and 29 (28%) women from Kapilbastu (Terai)—shared that they experienced an increment in the yield of paddy, wheat and maize.

Output 3. Government Capacity to Plan and Coordinate Small Scale Irrigation Projects is Enhanced Activity 5. This gender equality and social inclusion action plan (GAP) to be disseminated to subproject level through effective mainstreaming of GAP activities. Effective implementation of all GAP activities in

each sub-project.

Session on the GESI-AP was incorporated in project-organized training for all district coordinators (DCs), Community Irrigation Project (CIP) engineers and village-based field teams (VBFTs) of 12 districts (see Activity 9 and Target 10). Project management and implementation support consultant (PMISC) visited field regularly to orient the district team—DCs and VBFTs—and monitor GAP activities. GESI Unit in DOLIDAR supported the District Technical Offices in providing gender inputs.

Completed

Activity 6. Active coordination and support to DOLIDAR’s Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Unit. GESI Unit provided gender inputs to District

Technical Offices (DTOs) and coordinated with project coordinating unit (PCU) social development specialist.

Coordination and support were extended GESI Unit in DOLIDAR to PCU SDS, including: Provision of reference materials particularly the GESI-AP achievements

of other projects (e.g., DRILP and DRILP AF) under DOLIDAR. PMISC reviewed key project documents and prepared a manual for

Social Mobilizers and VBFTs. CIP/PMISC provided a resource person to organize gender and

development related trainings at the district levels.

Completed

Activity 7. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

specialist hired:

One gender-trained and experienced M&E based in PCU to lead on all social safeguards and development issues.

An M&E specialist (trained in gender and development) was engaged to monitor all social safeguards and development activities, and update progress of projects in districts and central level.

Completed

Target 7. District Coordinators (DCs) skilled in social development (including gender and development) and social safeguards hired. 12 gender trained and experienced DCs to lead

VBFT on all social safeguards and development

issue.

12 gender-trained and experienced DCs (all men) led the VBFTs (also gender-trained) and supported and coordinated all social safeguards and development issues.

Target 7 achieved

Target 8. Women from ethnic and caste groups reflecting stakeholder profile are recruited to the VBFT. At least one of the 3-person VBFT is a local

woman.

One member (a social mobilizer or junior technical assistant) of the VBFT in each district was a local woman. Of the total 72 VBFT members, 28 (30%) were (local) women.

Target 9 achieved

Activity 8. PBME management information system (MIS) established in PCU.

MIS established and operational. All baseline survey data (disaggregated by sex, caste, and ethnicity)— including data on WUA committee members, participants of the consultation and participation activities and

Completed

32 Appendix 6

Activities and Targets Achievements Assessment

Project collects all data disaggregated by sex, caste and ethnicity and reports reflect these data.

laborers— were integrated in the MIS and can be accessed at web page: cip-mis.aviyaan.com.

The uploaded socio-economic data were used in the preparation of the baseline report, Batch 1 and Batch 2.

Target 9. Improve DOLIDAR's gender balance and provide good technical role models to women in project areas. DTO irrigation (CIP) engineers are new district

level positions under this project. DOLIDAR will hire 3 female engineers (12 positions).

The project mobilized four women engineers (in Pyuthan, Doti, Dang, and Kailali districts) among the 12 CIP engineers recruited in the project districts. They were engaged in approving designs for small irrigation infrastructure and supervision of construction.

Target 10 achieved

Aligned with DMF Output 3.3b.CIP engineers (at least 3 women) in 12 districts approve appropriate designs for small irrigation infrastructure and effectively supervise construction. Activity 9. Specific and high-level technical assistance on how to enhance gender outcomes in small irrigation projects is available on call. Gender specialist with relevant sectoral

experience included in the consultant's pool of on-call experts.

All DCs received training on gender and development. A PBME Specialist in the PMISC was included in the pool of on-call

consultant experts to support as gender specialist.

Completed

Activity 10. DMF Output 3.4 (Not in the GESI-AP). Subproject communities have access to village- based institutional, technical and agricultural support for 2 years after scheme selection.

Subproject farmers were provided institutional, basic technical and agriculture support through district-based institutions as well as district coordination office and VBFT staff of CIP. The support was initiated immediately after selection and design of subproject and continued for two years for all subproject. In addition, the local government and provinces under the federal system have started to provide direct financial (cash or budgetary support) and technical support (agriculture, tunnel for vegetables, improved seed and fertilizers, construction of agriculture research center and cold storage etc.) to sustain the benefits of having irrigation water and achievements demonstrated by the CIP subprojects.

Completed

Target 10. DMF Output 3.5. (Not in the GESI-AP) 80% of local development officers (LDOS), DTO chiefs, and CIP engineers see benefits of participatory approach (with gender disadvantaged group focus).

GESI and social mobilization training provided to 100% of (eligible) LDOs, DTO) chiefs, and CIP Engineers. Capacity development trainings on planning, execution and management were conducted in different locations, with 471 participants: 321 (68%) men and 150 (32%) women; 127 (27%) Janajati, 36 (8%) Dalits, 308 (65%) Other groups.

Participants comprised 399 (85%) LDOs, DTO Chiefs, DOLIDAR Engineers and CIP Engineers; and 72 (15%) sub-engineers and accountants of DDC and DTO. 377 (80%) of trained staff expressed

Target 10 achieved

Appendix 6 33

Activities and Targets Achievements Assessment appreciation of the qualitative aspects of the training, including its participatory approach and the distinctive GESI focus.

Lack of a viable baseline at project onset constrained the conduct of a pre and post-project analysis of the benefits.

Overall GESI-AP Assessment: Successful6 DMF = design and monitoring framework, DOLIDAR= Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads, DTO=District Technical Office, GAP = gender action plan, ISP = irrigation subproject, JTA = Junior Technical Assistant, LDOs = Local Development Officers, M&E = monitoring and evaluation, MFI = microfinance institution, MIS = management information system, PBME = project benefit monitoring and evaluation, PCU = project coordination unit, PMISC = project management and implementation support consultant, VBFT= village-based field teams, WUA = water users’ association.

6 100% of 10 activities completed and 100% of 10 quantitative targets achieved.

34 Appendix 6

G. Evidence of Project Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Results 11. Testimonials of women beneficiaries from poor and disadvantaged groups showed strategic gender benefits in three areas: economic empowerment, and gender equality in human development, and gender equality in decision making and leadership.

Women’s economic empowerment Irrigation system provide opportunity to grow winter vegetable "I have been engaged in vegetable cultivation for 15 years. My cultivation practices switched to high value vegetable production after I attended the 2-day vegetable cultivation training of CIP. I also took part in the agricultural training given by CIP through the Farmer Field School (FFS). With the support of the CIP agriculture team, we formed the Lalupate Fresh Vegetable Cultivators’ Group, which is now operating a community-based credit and savings program to support wheat and vegetable farming by the members. Last year, I sold cucumber worth NRs100,000, cauliflower for NRs18,000, cabbage for NRs28,000, and wheat for NRs8,000 cultivated in 0.1 hectare of land. My farm is located in highland terrace that used to be unirrigated. Improved irrigation system after CIP implementation made it possible to grow vegetables and wheat even during winter.” Tani Ghatri Magar, woman farmer, Member of WUA, Ghyakholshi Irrigation Project, Pyuthan District.

Gender equality in human development and decision making Increased confidence after becoming WUA executive committee member “When WUA was being formed, I was nominated as a treasurer. My husband was not happy in the beginning with me taking this role and I was not confident too. Once in the WUA, I got opportunities to learn from various trainings on leadership development, microfinance, FFS and agriculture skills training. Now I play important role in WUA and I feel empowered. My husband is supportive now as he sees my work contributing to larger good. There are two most important changes in me after CIP that I want to highlight. Taking responsibilities as a treasurer, I have developed decision making skills and helped me become experienced in managing finance. FFS and agriculture skills trainings were very helpful in learning new farming ways. I learned some simple techniques in making farm beds that have enhanced production of different crops and preparation of organic pesticides. Now with improved irrigation and new learnings, my family cultivates three crops a year and also produce more.” Uma KC, 59 years old woman farmer, Treasurer of WUA, Rat Tari Irrigation Project, Pyuthan District.

Gender equality in decision making and leadership Project experience and learning helped in career Getting selected by CIP as a woman engineer through competition was achievement for me, so I took this challenge of leaving my hometown and living alone for work in a faraway place for the first time. I was provided with a quarter to live by the District Development Office (DDC). It was bit difficult in the beginning because many people assumed that I, being a woman, could not do field works or other difficult job. But I proved them wrong. I used to work under a divisional engineer who over time completely depended on my work. His trust and my hard work enhanced my performance and confidence level. Also, I received 11 trainings related to irrigation design, contract management, MIS and procurement. Adding to all these, I received GESI related orientations and trainings. While capacity development supported by the project sharpened my skills, nearly four-years’ experience of implementing irrigation projects as a woman engineer enriched my ability. The project not only improved my professional life but also helped me to become financially independent. Working in CIP has supported me in choosing and enhancing my career path. After completion of CIP, I received a Masters’ degree in Engineering and have started my own consulting firm. My firm prepares designs for irrigation, water supply, and building constructions. My experience and learning from the project are the greatest achievements for me.” Samikchhya Adhikari, 28 years old, married, CIP Engineer, Kailali District.

H. Conclusion and Lessons 12. The project’s GESI objectives, with specific targets in the DMF and GESI-AP, were designed to align with the government’s poverty reduction strategy as outlined in the tenth

Appendix 6 35

five-year plan and three-year interim plan and budget for fiscal year 2010. The project consultations and capacity development activities included significant representation of women and disadvantaged groups which contributed to GESI in human development. With improved irrigation systems and knowledge on agriculture skills and access to microfinance, women and representatives of disadvantaged groups supported other women and poor families to engage in income generating activities. Also, representation of women in executive committees and leadership positions enhanced women’s leadership qualities and decision making in the family and community. Overall GESI-AP implementation was successful. However, the challenges highlighted in the para. 8 accentuate the need to improve coordination for greater GESI results. Possibility for market linkage and lower interest rates also needs to be explored for sustainability of agricultural livelihoods of poor, women and disadvantaged farmers to ensure their economic empowerment.

36 Appendix 7

SAFEGUARDS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

A. Introduction

1. The scope of the infrastructure development/ improvement under community irrigation project (CIP) was focused on rehabilitation and construction of farmers managed irrigation system (FMIS). The subprojects were implemented following the farmers demand for water through improved or new small-scale irrigation infrastructure. The subprojects include both surface irrigation and non-conventional schemes like pond, lift, sprinklers, etc. Altogether 456 subprojects were implemented, of which 198 were new schemes and 258 were rehabilitation of existing systems. The infrastructures built under the projects were with small and simple in size and structures. The constructed infrastructures were low risk type activities with minor and localized or no impacts on the both natural and social environment. The safeguard impacts of each subprojects were screened through subproject screening checklist prepared for all three safeguard requirements (environment, involuntary resettlement, and indigenous people). The results of screening were documented as required. Due diligence report for each requirement were included in subproject’s feasibility assessment report (FAR). 2. Considering the special features of CIP such as many subprojects spread over wider geographic area with unknown precise locations at the time of project design, the project prepared frameworks for environment, involuntary resettlement and indigenous people. These frameworks illustrated the content and the processes of subproject screening, potential impact assessment and designing mitigation measures for adverse impacts and enhancement measure for positive impacts in the case of indigenous people. Embracing these principles, the subproject design assured that all infrastructure improvement activities financed under CIP were designed in accordance with the ADB safeguard policy statement as well as applicable national laws of the country. B. Environment

3. Almost all the CIP schemes belonged to category “C” for environment according to ADB Safeguard Policy Statement, 2009 since the irrigation subprojects supported were small in size with mostly of rehabilitation type and using flexible structures and local materials. The GON’s Environmental Protection Rule (EPR), 1997 (amendment 2007) stipulates that an IEE is necessary for a new irrigation system covering more than 200 – 2000 hectares in the Terai; 25–500 hectares in the hills; and 25–200 hectares in the sloping terraces and mountainous regions. IEE is exempted for rehabilitation of irrigation systems.

4. All 456 subprojects financed under CIP had been screened applying pre-structured Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) checklist. All subprojects were category C and required to prepare Environmental Due Diligence Report (EDDR) as a part of Feasibility Assessment Report (FAR). During the construction and rehabilitation of the irrigation subprojects, periodic environmental monitoring was carried out to ensure the compliance of mitigation measures proposed in subproject environment management plan. The periodic compliance monitoring highlighted the riverbank erosion and flood control, landslides along the canal, labor camp management, safety measures for workers, natural resource protection, and training to enhance the positive impacts. These were the key issues addressed/monitored under the environment management plan.1

5. The periodic monitoring focused on assessing the compliance on arrangement of safety materials such as boots, respiratory masks, hand gloves, helmets, jackets with reflector, arrangement of first aid kits in the working areas and camp site, and sprinkling of water for checking dust. In addition, the proper storage of construction material, labor camp

1 ADB. 2017. CIP: Annual Environmental Compliance Monitoring Report, December 2017. Kathmandu.

Appendix 7 37

management, proper restoration of working sites after completion of specific work, disposal of excess excavated materials, safety and protection of adjacent properties, plantation around intake site and along the canal, grievance redress mechanism, and protection of natural resources like forest, springs, ponds etc. were also monitored. C. Involuntary Resettlement

6. The project was categorized as category ‘C’ for involuntary resettlement in accordance with ADB's Safeguard Policy Statement, 2009. The due diligence study of three sample subprojects at appraisal showed that the ensuing subprojects will be small, community-led, mostly focused on rehabilitation and/or repair of existing irrigation system and rehabilitation works limited within existing footprints. Any subprojects requiring new land expected that the farmers voluntarily donate small strips of their land for the scheme improvement. The subproject selection criteria were designed accordingly. Following the provisions of resettlement framework all 456 subprojects were screened against the subproject selection criteria as defined in the framework to ensure selection criteria have been met.

7. The project category for involuntary resettlement remained ‘C’ at completion. The impact assessment was carefully done during screening of each subproject and strictly followed selection criteria to avoid subprojects having involuntary resettlement impact. The screening of each subproject showed that none of the subprojects resulted involuntary resettlement impact. In case of new land requirement, the subproject design was finalized exploring alternatives to ensure voluntary donation is limited within 5% of productive assets, and there is no physical displacement or both. A resettlement due diligence report for each subproject was prepared and incorporated into each subproject feasibility assessment report. From subproject selection to implementation continuous consultation was carried out by the project with affected persons as well as beneficiaries for better access to benefit generated by the subproject. The due diligence study reported that there was no involuntary resettlement as majority of the subproject implemented using existing scheme footprint and new land required in some instances was obtained through voluntary donation. D. Indigenous People

8. The project was categorized as category ‘B’ for indigenous people at appraisal in accordance with SPS 2009. There was no adverse impact expected due to project implementation. The impacts on indigenous people were expected positive due to benefit from their access to irrigation, increased agricultural yields, improved food security and capacity building activities of the project. An indigenous people planning frameworks was prepared to guide preparation of the subprojects to ensure equitable distribution of benefits and to promote development of indigenous people and ethnic minorities along with other disadvantaged groups. At implementation impact on indigenous people was assessed applying a standard checklist in all 456 subprojects. The assessment confirmed that none of the subproject had adverse impact to indigenous people. However, positive impacts were recorded due to improvements in irrigation infrastructure and facilities that resulted to increase in agricultural yield and thereby augment farm level income of indigenous people.

9. A due diligence report for each subproject was prepared and incorporated into subproject feasibility assessment report. Considering beneficiary indigenous population in the subprojects the elements of indigenous people plan were embedded into the project design. The project adopted both mainstreaming and targeted approaches to equitable distribution of project benefits and opportunities to indigenous communities. Mainstreaming approach included the ensured participation and proportionate representation of indigenous and vulnerable communities in various user groups and committees created by the project during implementation which resulted 23% members of water users’ association are from indigenous

38 Appendix 7

people which is slightly higher than the percentage of indigenous beneficiaries households (22%) in the project area. Around 23% of participation of indigenous people in consultation and participation activities became instrumental in reflecting their needs, priorities, interests and perspectives in subproject design and implementation. The concern of indigenous people was integrated into project cycle from design, implementation, operation and monitoring.

10. Targeted approach included indigenous people’s priority over i) employment generated by the project, ii) participation in skill training, iii) participation in agriculture extension program, and iv) participation in microfinance support extension program. Out of total employment (349,835 person days) generated by the project, the share of indigenous peoples was around 27%. Similarly, indigenous peoples constituted 21% of the total participants of livelihood enhancement skills training programs. The RMDC supported microfinance component aimed to improve farmers’ access to microcredit services. Participation of indigenous people constituted 22% of the total (2,158 of 9,774) participants of WUA interaction programs whereas 36% (1,139 of 3,198) took part in need assessment exercise. 29% (1,693 of 5,837) of loan supported beneficiaries were indigenous people. RMDC also provided agricultural and income generation focused training such as seasonal and off-season vegetable production, agri-business promotion and entrepreneurship development to WUA members of which 27% (954 of 3,495) were indigenous peoples.2 Access to credit enabled farmers to adopt improved farming practices including cultivation of high value crops such as green vegetables.

11. The project also supported awareness and capacity building program to provide knowledge on challenges of traditional Agri practice, associated risk due to commercialization of agribusiness through farmer’s school. Indigenous people through WUA training also learned management skill of irrigation infrastructure for equitable and efficient water distribution, office management, accounts keeping, leadership, and adoption of improved agricultural practices. The activity and program were part of the project design and contributed to bridge the differential knowledge gap of mainstream population and indigenous people. In addition, these activities contributed to ensure equitable distribution of project benefit to indigenous people. E. Consultation and Participation (C&P)

12. The consultation and participation plan aimed to enhance local ownership and inclusion of all stakeholders in participation and benefit sharing. The plan followed participatory methods in all decisions that were made at different stages of project implementation such as selection of Ilakas and subprojects, system design, O&M, financial contributions, mode and management of construction, participation and representation of disadvantaged people in WUA. The weaker sections of community were provided special coaching and measures taken for their participation. The activities under consultation and participation plan were integrated in overall community mobilization and implementation plan of the subprojects. 13. CIP being a community led project the beneficiary communities took part in forming an inclusive user's organization responsible to drive the system improvements activities. To ensure the involvement of all village/stakeholders including disadvantaged groups, a VDC-level planning exercise was undertaken in which the poorest wards were selected based on the pre-developed criteria. Field workers consulted the community, assessed the stakeholders/subgroups having different interests and disadvantages (e.g. tail enders, Dalits, women, branch canal users). These subgroups were separately consulted on benefits, participation, design and livelihood needs, constraints and opportunities at different stages of project implementation. The preliminary design of system and accompanying activities resulting from consultation processes were discussed with the whole community. The consultation and participation plan and gender action plan guided how to include and support

2 PCR-CIP-Micro finance training component.

Appendix 7 39

disadvantaged groups for their participation in planning, implementing, training and agricultural improvement activities.

F. Grievance Redress Mechanism

14. The project had established two tier grievance redress mechanism. District Implementation and Coordination Committee was assigned with the role of Grievance Redress Committee at district level. At the subproject level, Water Users’ Association (WUA) assumed the role of grievance redress sub-committee. The main objective of grievance redress mechanism was to receive complaints from project beneficiaries including affected persons and facilitate resolution of those grievances. All districts authorities responsible for project implementation including WUAs were oriented on process and procedures of the grievance redress mechanism. A total of 59 grievances were registered from appraisal to completion of the project. All grievances were settled following procedures set out in the grievance redress mechanism. Most of the grievances were related to conflict on water sources, labor contribution, compensation of the crops, missing canal lining, and repair of damages to intake structures by flood. Out of the 59 grievances, 52 were settled from the grievance redress sub-committee, whereas 7 grievances were resolved at grievance redress committee. G. Safeguard Monitoring 15. The District Coordination Office undertook close safeguard monitoring using standard monitoring mechanism and checklists. The farmers were oriented on adopting environment friendly system implementation and operation. The field monitoring data were compiled and reported in trimester project reports and annual compliance monitoring report for environment and social safeguards (indigenous people). Report for resettlement was not needed being category C. However, status on social safeguard was confirmed in trimester and annual reports. The safeguard semiannual monitoring report submission was delayed in initial stage of project implementation, but it was substantially improved in later part and submitted on time. ADB provided consultant support to prepare the semiannual monitoring report in the beginning and Project Coordination Unit (PCU) supported by Project Implementation and Support Consultants (PMISC) took full responsibility later. The safeguard annual monitoring reports were disclosed. H. Performance and Evaluation in Relation to Safeguards

16. The overall safeguard impact assessment, planning and implementation was satisfactory.

17. Relevance: The safeguard initiatives adopted by the project were rated as relevant as they assured that the project activities financed under CIP were fully designed, implemented and achieved in accordance with the ADB safeguard policy statement as well as applicable national laws of the country. The safeguard categorization of the project was relevant. The categorization remained unchanged at completion. A very clear guidelines on screening, both positive and negative impact assessment with mitigation measure, strategy to optimize the project benefit to poorest segments of society contributed to the government policy of sustainable development without any adverse impacts on both social and natural environment.

18. Effectiveness: The overall safeguard activates to enhance the benefits are rated as effective. All 456 subprojects financed under the project was screened using prescribed process applicable to the three safeguard requirements. The findings from screening were utilized to prepare environmental due diligence report for each subproject as a part of the FAR. The system of periodic monitoring of the compliance of mitigation measures proposed in

40 Appendix 7

subproject specific environmental management plan was influential in ensuring that all activities were properly followed. This indicated the effectiveness of the project selection, REA exercise as well as the consultation & participation activities carried at the various stages of project implementation. Out of the 456 ISPs implemented under CIP, none of the schemes were delayed or interrupted due to the issue of land acquisition and resettlement. The early assessment of safeguard impact, document prepared during FAR and safeguard activities embedded in the project design contributed to achieve project output and outcome as well as accelerated project implementation.

19. Efficiency: Multi stakeholder involvement from very beginning of project screening down to the monitoring of safeguard activities increased process efficiency of the project. 20. Sustainability: The project related activates to enhance the system efficiency are expected to contribute in sustainable operation and maintenance of subprojects. Duly registered WUAs were formed in all the 456 subprojects coupled with the range of capacity building support activities that enabled them to undertake operation and maintenance and water management functions of the improved systems. The impact study carried at the end of the project revealed that 89% of WUAs were active and capable of managing their system, which supports for sustainability of the system.

21. The recurrent O&M of improved system has been continued by WUAs. The traditional and indigenous practices of canal operation in the past were mainly limited to mobilization of beneficiary households (HH) for recurrent maintenance twice a year and cash collection to meet the requirement in case of emergency. In order to enforce the traditional rules, specific institutional arrangements are placed such as " Mahatawa"3 who is responsible to estimate the resource need for particular work and mobilize for canal operation in Parseni Taal ISP whereas similar role has been assumed by "Aguwa"4 in Jeetpur ISP of Dang. Similarly need based collective action are effectively being practiced in Tallo Bhandari Gaun ISP and Mauribagar ISPs of Bajhang including Bijayapur-Raniphant ISP of Kailali. In Tallo Bhandari Gaun and Mauribagar ISPs of Bajhang, the farmers pay irrigation service fee in food grain to " Kulalo"5 for taking care of the canal as remuneration for its operation. A Kulalo gets around 8-10 quintal food grain/year collected from user. These practices combined with CIP established improved system of regular cash collection as the service fee for water utilization guarantees the sustainable operation and maintenance of the irrigation subprojects. In addition to the recurrent O&M requirements, the local governments were found to be supporting the WUAs in maintaining canals or extending the irrigation area. They provided financial supports if damages to the system were beyond the capacity of local farmers to fix. The Mauribagar ISP of Bajhang received NRs100,000 for repairing the damage caused by a landslide by last monsson. Nayagaun lift type subproject and Dhanari Timile subproject with micro-irrigation demonstration schemes in Pyuthan District; and Satmule Rajupata subproject with micro-irrigation demonstration scheme in Rolpa District received support from local body and non-government organizations in maintenance of the system damaged during monsoon, expansion of the irrigation area, and support in agriculture inputs and plastic tunnel for vegetable farming. Pyuthan municipality has established an agriculture nursery in the command area of Nayagaun subproject at a cost of $25,000 to maximize benefits from the availability of water. The municipality and the concerned Province have started to construct a cold store in the command are of the system at a cost of $135,000. All these developments assure sustainable functioning of the systems.

3 Mahatwa is an elected/selected chief of a village for the period of one year in Tharu community. The role

of Mahatawa is to work for the welfare of the village. He directs and mobilize the villagers to repair canals or streets and any public community property when needed. His responsibility includes to oversees and manages the cultural traditions of the villages. He also has an authority of punishing those who do not follow his order or who go against the welfare of the village.

4 Similar position and responsibility as that of the Mahatwa. 5 Kulalo is a local term used for canal caretaker in Bajhang districts.

Appendix 7 41

22. The system improvement intervention especially the “modernization of infrastructure” such as use of poly pipes and concrete lining in the seepage area, and permanent to semi-permanent diversion in the intake decreases the O&M requirement as well as maximizing diversion of available water in the rivers. The improved structures stabilize landslides and balanced use of fertilizers protects soil structure. All these reduce the recurrent O&M cost by more than half and supports for sustainability of environment. The Talamathiajit subproject of Doti is running at a minimal O&M cost, and the Tallo Bhandari Kulo subproject of Bajhang requires farmers to contribute only 1 person/HH/Year compared to 4 to 5 person/HH/year required before the system improvement. This will help to sustain the operation of the canal despite of unavailability of working hands due to out-migration of youth which is common in the area project area.

I. Lessons on Social Development and Environmental Safeguard

23. Farmers need to collect irrigations service fee in cash and deposit in their account to keep ready for emergency repair and maintenance. Although, the traditional system of farmers contribution in labor or kind for canal maintenance cannot be ignored, which worked in the past. Farmers were used to with the traditional system, hence they still prefer that mechanism. However, in improved system the earthen structures are mostly replaced with concrete lining which may not be maintained with traditional mode of resource mobilization and need sufficient cash to keep the system operational. Hence, the system of irrigation service fee collection could consider both cash and kind provision, as appropriate. Timely repair and maintenance of the system is equally important to prevent environmental damage caused by slides and soil erosion if the damages are not repaired in time. 24. Environmental impacts were minimal given the small size of work using local material and flexible structures constructed through manual labor. However, minimal level of knowledge on adopting safety during construction should be provided to the farmers constructing system under community contract. The support and assurance of environment friendly practices could be provided by keeping provision of a few fresh graduates as environmental monitors in the scope of consultant services 25. In rural areas, the women farmers are mostly linked with community-based saving & credit schemes 6 being operated by the groups of local women. The monthly collection of these groups lies between NRs50-450 per household. The interest rate charged for loan are much less than the rates charged by MFIs. Easy lending process, enough resource to meet the need of member farmers, more confidence in the deposits and collateral free credit are some of the reasons due to which the farmers prefer to receive loan form local community-based saving & credit schemes than from the MFIs with tedious process for approval and high interest rate. Easy availability of loan is crucial for timely supply of agriculture inputs that is vital to sustain livelihood of the poor and vulnerable small farmers.

26. The agriculture loan provided through the local MFI was coupled with technical assistance through VBFT on improved agriculture and environment friendly farming practices, which was appreciated by the farmers. After the demobilization of VBFT after project completion, the Mahila Samudayik Laghu Bitta Bittiya Sanstha Ltd. of Dang themselves recruited agriculture technician and continued providing technical knowledge together with credit to their members. Such successful practices need to be documented and replicated in other systems.

6 The women farmer of Ghya Kholsi subproject, Pyuthan are associated with Mother Group, Mero Bank, and

Lalupate Tajaa Tarkari Utpadak Krashak Samuha. The member of Jeetpur Samjhana Mahila Samudhaya were linked with 5 community-based saving and credit schemes.

42 Appendix 8

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT COVENANTS

Covenant

Reference in Grant

Agreement Status of Compliance

Particular Covenants Implementation Arrangements: The Recipient shall designate its MLD as the Project Executing Agency with overall responsibility for the carrying out of the Project. The Recipient and the Project Executing Agency shall ensure that the Project is implemented in accordance with the detailed arrangements set forth in the PAM. Any subsequent change to the PAM shall become effective only after approval of such change by the Recipient and ADB. In the event of any discrepancy between the PAM and the Grant Agreement, the provisions of the Grant Agreement shall prevail. The various components of the Project shall be implemented by the following Implementing Agencies: Part A: DOLIDAR, DDCs; Part B: DOLIDAR, DDCs, RMDC; Part C: DOLIDAR, DDCs; Part D: DOLIDAR, DDCs.

Schedule 4, para. 1

Complied. The Ministry of Local Development (later renamed as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Local Development) remained the Executing Agency through the Department of Local Infrastructure and Agricultural Rods (DOLIDAR) as envisaged in PAM. District Technical Office of the District Development Committee (DTO/DDC); and the Rural Microfinance Development Center (RMDC) remained Implementing Agency throughout the project till completion as envisaged in PAM. Minor change in scope regarding readjustment in the type and volume of work was done through approval by the Recipient and ADB.

Particular Covenants: (a) The Recipient shall (i) maintain, or cause to be maintained, separate accounts for the Project; (ii) have such accounts and related financial statements audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing standards consistently applied, by independent auditors whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are acceptable to ADB; (iii) furnish to ADB, as soon as available but in any event not later than nine (9) months after the end of each related fiscal year, certified copies of such audited accounts and financial statements and the report of the auditors relating thereto (including the auditors' opinion on the use of the Grant proceeds and compliance with the financial covenants of this Grant Agreement as well as on the use of the procedures for imprest account and statement of expenditures), all in the English language; and (iv) furnish to ADB such other information concerning such accounts and financial statements and the audit thereof as ADB shall from time to time reasonably request. b) The recipient shall enable ADB, upon ADB’s request, to discuss the Recipient’s financial statement for the Project and its financial affairs related to the Project from time to time with the auditors appointed by the recipient pursuant to subparagraph (a) hereabove, and shall authorize

Article IV, Section 4.03

(a) Complied. Separate books of account (Financial statements) were maintained by the Executing Agency as well as RMDC. These financial statements were audited annually by the SAI for DOLIDAR and the chartered accountants for RMDC and were submitted within the covenanted time frame to ADB. Specific audit opinions on utilization of funds, use of SOE procedures and advance account procedures were provided by the auditors. (b) Complied. The overall financial management of the project with funds utilization and timely audits were reviewed during project review missions, discussed during regular project progress meetings

Appendix 8 43

Covenant

Reference in Grant

Agreement Status of Compliance

and require any representative of such auditors to participate in any such discussions requested by ADB, provided that any such discussion shall be conducted only in the presence of an authorized officer of the Recipient unless the Recipient shall otherwise agree.

with the Executing and Implementing Agencies.

Establishment of Imprest Account: Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the Recipient shall require DOLIDAR to establish immediately after the Effective Date, an imprest account at the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB). The imprest account shall be established, managed, replenished and liquidated in accordance with the Loan Disbursement Handbook and detailed arrangements agreed upon between the Recipient and ADB. The currency of the imprest account shall be the Dollar. RMDC shall establish a separate imprest account at the NRB. The ceiling for the imprest accounts shall not exceed the lower of (i) the estimated expenditure to be financed from the imprest account for the first 6 months of Project implementation, or (ii) the equivalent of 10% of the Grant amount.

Schedule 2, para. 5

Complied. Both DOLIDAR and RMDC had established separate imprest account at the Nepal Rastra Bank (the Central Bank of Nepal) in US Dollar. Total imprest amount was $1.27 million. Advance account initial balance under DOLIDAR: $1,154,937.00 + Advance account initial balance under RMDC: $115,063.00 = $1,270,000.00

Effectiveness: The following is specified as an additional condition to the effectiveness of this Grant Agreement for the purposes of Section 9.01(e) of the Grant Regulations: the Subsidiary Grant Agreement, in form and substance satisfactory to ADB, shall have been duly executed and delivered on behalf of the Recipient and RMDC and shall have become fully effective and binding upon the parties in accordance with its terms, subject only to the effectiveness of this Grant Agreement.

Article V, 5.01

Complied. Subsidiary Grant Agreement was signed between the recipient and RMDC and was effectively complied during project design, implementation and grant closing by both the contracting parties.

The following is specified as an additional matter, for the purposes of Section 9.02(c) of the Grant Regulations, to be included in the opinion or opinions to be furnished to ADB: that the Subsidiary Grant Agreement has been duly authorized or ratified by, and executed and delivered on behalf of, the Recipient and RMDC and is legally binding upon the Recipient and RMDC in accordance with its terms.

Article V, 5.02

Complied. The Subsidiary Grant Agreement was duly signed between the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and RMDC, which guided implementation of the RMDC component under the Grant. RMDC timely completed their scope of work in accordance with the agreement.

A date ninety (90) days after the date of this Grant Agreement is specified for the effectiveness of the Grant Agreement for the purposes of Section 9.04 of the Grant Regulations.

Article V, 5.03

Complied. The grant became effective in 86th day of the grant agreement.

Imprest Account and Statement of Expenditures: a) Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the Recipient shall require DOLIDAR to establish immediately after the Effective Date, an imprest account at the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB). The

Schedule 2, Para. 5

Complied. a) Imprest account was established following ADB’s Loan Disbursement Handbook for both DOLIDAR and RMDC components of the Grant separately in the

44 Appendix 8

Covenant

Reference in Grant

Agreement Status of Compliance

imprest account shall be established, managed, replenished and liquidated in accordance with the Loan Disbursement Handbook and detailed arrangements agreed upon between the Recipient and ADB. The currency of the imprest account shall be the Dollar. RMDC shall establish a separate imprest account at the NRB. The ceiling for the imprest accounts shall not exceed the lower of (i) the estimated expenditure to be financed from the imprest account for the first six (6) months of Project implementation, or (ii) the equivalent of 10% of the Grant amount. (b) The statement of expenditures procedure may be used for reimbursement of eligible expenditures and to liquidate advances provided into the imprest account, in accordance with Loan Disbursement Handbook and detailed arrangements agreed upon between the Recipient and ADB. Any individual payment to be reimbursed shall not exceed the equivalent of $100,000.

Nepal Rastra Bank (the Central Bank of Nepal) in US dollar. The initial advance for both DOLIDAR and RMDC amounts to $1.27 million b) The statement of expenditure procedure was used for the individual expenditure not exceeding $100,000. Withdrawals were submitted in accordance with the Loan Disbursement Handbook.

Retroactive Financing: Withdrawals from the Grant Account may be made for reimbursement of eligible expenditures incurred under the Project before the Effective Date, but not earlier than twelve (12) months before the date of this Grant Agreement in connection with Consulting Services, subject to a maximum amount equivalent to 20% of the Grant amount.

Schedule 2, para. 6

Complied. No retroactive financing was needed in the project.

Schedule 4: Execution of Project and Other Matters

Implementation Arrangements: The Recipient shall designate its MLD as the Project Executing Agency with overall responsibility for the carrying out of the Project. The Recipient and the Project Executing Agency shall ensure that the Project is implemented in accordance with the detailed arrangements set forth in the PAM. Any subsequent change to the PAM shall become effective only after approval of such change by the Recipient and ADB. In the event of any discrepancy between the PAM and this Grant Agreement, the provisions of this Grant Agreement shall prevail. The various Components of the Project shall be implemented by the following Implementing Agencies: Part A: DOLIDAR, DDCs Part B: DOLIDAR, DDCs, RMDC Part C: DOLIDAR, DDCs Part D: DOLIDAR, DDCs

Schedule 4, para. 1

Complied. Minor change in scope was duly approved by ADB and the Grant Recipient. A revision in the PAM was done after the Midterm Review of the project and approved by both ADB and the Recipient. There was no discrepancy between PAM and the Grant Agreement.

Environment: The Recipient, Project Executing Agency and the Implementing Agencies shall ensure that the Project, including all sub-projects to be financed under it, shall be carried out in compliance with ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement

Schedule 4, para. 2

Complied. The project carried out environmental due diligence for all subprojects. No subproject required environmental impact assessment or initial environmental

Appendix 8 45

Covenant

Reference in Grant

Agreement Status of Compliance

(2009) and in accordance with the environment assessment and review framework (EARF) prepared for the Project and the requirements under the EARF including, where applicable, an initial environment examination (IEE) and environmental management plan (EMP) or a due diligence report for each subproject. No subproject requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA) shall be funded under the Project.

examination given the size and nature of the subproject work.

Resettlement: The Recipient, Project Executing Agency and the Implementing Agencies shall ensure that the Project, including all sub-projects to be financed under it, shall be carried out in compliance with the Safeguard Policy Statement and in accordance with the resettlement framework (RF) prepared for the Project. Any subproject requiring involuntary land acquisition shall be dropped.

Schedule 4, para. 3

Complied. The resettlement framework and SPS duly followed while designing and implementing 456 subprojects. All subprojects confirmed that there was no involuntary resettlement impact.

Indigenous Peoples: The Recipient, Project Executing Agency and the Implementing Agencies shall ensure that the Project, including all sub-projects to be financed under it, shall be carried out in compliance with the Safeguard Policy Statement and in accordance with the indigenous peoples planning framework (IPPF) prepared for the Project.

Schedule 4, para. 4

Complied. The project duly followed the provisions of ADB Safeguard Policy Statement 2009, and IPPF while designing and implementing subprojects. Project imparted positive impact to IP such as 23% members of WUA, 27% of employee in project generated employment, 28% participants in skill training, and 27% establishing agro-based enterprise were indigenous people.

Gender: The Recipient, Project Executing Agency and the Implementing Agencies shall effectively implement the gender action plan prepared for the Project.

Schedule 4, para. 5

Complied. The Project complied with all the gender action plan targets and exceeded some targets.

Anticorruption: The Recipient, Project Executing Agency and the Implementing Agencies shall comply with and shall cause the Project Executing Agencies and Implementing Agencies to comply with the Anticorruption Policy, and cooperate fully with any investigation by ADB and extend all necessary assistance, including providing access to all relevant books and records for the satisfactory completion of such investigation.

Schedule 4, para. 6

Complied. To the best of ADB knowledge throughout the project implementation. Recipient, Project Executing Agency and the Implementing Agencies complied with the ADB’s Anticorruption Policy. No anticorruption investigation was needed. The Executing and Implementing Agencies readily provided access to all relevant books and records, whenever needed by ADB.

The Recipient, Project Executing Agency and the Implementing Agencies shall ensure that the anticorruption provisions acceptable to ADB are included in all bidding documents and contracts, including provisions specifying the right of ADB to audit and examine the records and accounts of the

Schedule 4, para. 7

Complied.

46 Appendix 8

Covenant

Reference in Grant

Agreement Status of Compliance

Executing and Implementing Agencies and all contractors, suppliers, consultants, and other service providers as they relate to the Project. Except as ADB may otherwise agree, and except as set forth in the Procurement Plan, the Recipient shall apply QCBS for selecting and engaging consulting services.

Schedule 3, para. 7

Complied.

Subproject Selection: Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the subprojects under the Project shall be selected and approved in accordance with the criteria and procedures outlined in the PAM.

Schedule 4, para. 8

Complied. All subprojects were selected based on the project selection criteria and procedures outlined in the PAM.

Others: The Recipient shall by 15 September 2011 have recruited and posted a qualified irrigation engineer at the District Technical Office (DTO) of each of the twelve (12) Project districts who will serve as district irrigation engineers and head the DTO units for irrigation and other infrastructure. At least three (3) of these twelve (12) CIP engineers shall, to the extent possible, be female engineers.

Schedule 4, para. 9

Complied. District Irrigation Engineers (CIP Engineers) were appointed through outsourcing in each of the 12 project districts, of which 4 were female engineers.

Others: The Recipient shall ensure that DOLIDAR will, for the duration of the Project, have a designated engineer working on a fulltime basis at the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) as the procurement specialist assisting and monitoring the procurement activities of the DDC.

Schedule 4, para. 10

Complied.

Others: The Recipient shall ensure that the Project coordinator shall be a Class II officer of the Recipient and shall be designated to work for the Project on a full-time basis. The Recipient shall ensure that transfers of Project staff are minimized to the extent possible.

Schedule 4, para. 11

Complied. The government assigned a Class II Officer as Project Coordinator throughout the project implementation. There was no frequent transfer of the key government staff assigned for the project during project implementation. The project had 3 project directors during the project period (essentially 2 project directors throughout the project, and a project director was assigned to complete the project closing upon retirement of the project director about 2 months before project completion). The project accountant was changed only once. Only a few CIP engineers were changed during the project period.

Others: The Recipient shall ensure that within one (1) year from the Effective Date, a project performance monitoring system is established in the PCU.

Schedule 4, para. 12

Complied. Project performance monitoring system was established timely and was updated time to time and remained functional throughout the project.

Appendix 8 47

Covenant

Reference in Grant

Agreement Status of Compliance

O&M: The Recipient shall ensure that rules and regulations for the operation and maintenance of the Project facilities are developed including, among others, provisions for establishment and use of a contingency fund to finance repairs and replacement works.

Schedule 4, para. 13

Complied. Guidelines on O&M and water management prepared by the project. The project trained the farmers on O&M of the systems and encouraged beneficiaries to establish account with regular irrigation service fund collection for future repair and maintenance of the system.

Staffing: The Recipient shall ensure that each DTO deputes at least one (1) sub engineer and one (1) assistant sub engineer to work on a full-time basis on the subprojects under the Project.

Schedule 4, para. 14

Complied. One engineers and one sub engineers were deputed in each 12 project districts.

The Recipient and ADB shall ensure that, prior to the commencement of any procurement activity under national competitive bidding, the Recipient's national competitive bidding procedures are consistent with the Procurement Guidelines. Any modifications or clarifications to such procedures agreed between the Recipient and ADB shall be set out in the Procurement Plan. Any subsequent change to the agreed modifications and clarifications shall become effective only after approval of such change by the Recipient and ADB.

Schedule 3, para. 5

Complied. The National Competitive Bidding (NCB) process was followed by the project which also ensured due consistency with the national competitive bidding procedure.

Industrial or Intellectual Property Rights: (a) The recipient shall ensure that all goods and works procured (including without limitation all computer hardware, software and systems, whether separately procured or incorporated within other goods and services procured) do not violate or infringe any industrial property or intellectual property right or claim of any third party. (b) The Recipient shall ensure that all contracts for the procurement of Goods and Works contain appropriate representations, warranties, and if appropriate, indemnities from the supplier.

Schedule 3, para. 8

Complied.

(a) Recipient shall exercise its rights under the Subsidiary Grant Agreement in such a manner as to project the interests of the Recipient and ADB and to accomplish the purpose of the Grant. (b) No rights or obligations under the Subsidiary Grant Agreement shall be assigned, amended, or waived without the prior concurrence of ADB.

Article IV, 4.04

(a) Complied. (b) Complied. Executing Agency and RMDC sought ADB’s prior concurrence on all matters as required by PAM.

48 Appendix 9

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. Approach and Methodology

1. Methodology

1. The economic analysis basically follows the methodology adopted at project appraisal. The analysis has been carried out in accordance with the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects1 and Guidelines for the Evaluation of Public Sector Operations,2 which involves estimation of future flow of incremental net benefits resulting from investments in irrigation subprojects (ISP). The net incremental crop production has been derived by comparing production between “with project” (after completion of new or rehabilitated ISPs) and “without project” situations. Expenditures on construction, and operation and maintenance of ISPs have been taken as economic costs. Incremental net cash flows (total crop benefits less total costs) have been estimated for the life of ISPs. The “without project“ crop production has been estimated based on data from published reports, and field surveys of sample ISPs conducted for the project completion report (PCR). Cropping patterns, cropping intensities and crop yields estimated for “with project” situation are based on data collected from field survey of sample ISPs and supplemented by information from project progress reports, and published documents from various sources.

2. The efficiency indicator examines how the resources have been used to achieve the expected outcomes over the project life for which economic and financial analysis tools have been applied. However, as the project is of nonrevenue generating nature, with major share of the investment is incurred by the government and ADB, financial internal rate of return (FIRR) has not been estimated.

3. The economic analysis is based on estimated flow of incremental net benefits over the economic life of the selected ISPs. Quantification of project benefits is based on current updated data from field surveys. The economic analysis covers estimation of (i) economic internal rate of return (EIRR), (ii) economic net present value (ENPV), (iii) and benefit-cost ratio. Sensitivity tests have been conducted taking into account the anticipated changes in costs and benefits in future. Sensitivity analysis on costs increase was limited to operation and maintenance (O&M) costs as the data on investment costs was taken on actual basis. 4. Three surface ISPs and a typical shallow tube well cluster ISP were selected for economic analysis as representative subprojects at project appraisal. Economic analysis was carried out only at ISP level, and EIRR was not estimated for the overall project. The economic analysis carried out for PCR includes estimates of EIRRs at ISP level, which are then compared with the appraisal results. An aggregated estimation has been carried out using the pooled data of the representative sample ISPs for EIRR estimation of the overall project. It is assumed that the EIRR estimated at the aggregate level using this method provides an approximation of EIRR for the overall project.

2. Prices and Costs

5. The costs include the direct investment costs of the ISPs based on actual expenditures. Design, supervision and other indirect costs are not included in the analysis. The benefits streams were generated with estimated changes in crop yields and cropping intensities in “with project” situation compared to the “without project” situation based on available data and verified from field surveys.

1 ADB. 2017. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of the Project. Manila. 2 ADB. 2016. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Public Sector Operations. Manila.

Appendix 9 49

6. The irrigation infrastructure O&M costs have been estimated at 2.5% of investment cost for Terai ISPs having headwork and 2% for without headwork (inundation canal); and 3% - 4% for hill surface and piped ISPs. For lift ISP (Janakalyan), O&M cost has been estimated based on annual electricity consumption (58,785 kwh); annual maintenance of pump and pump house; salary of operator and guard; and regular canal maintenance cost at 1.5% of the investment cost.

7. World market prices of the internationally traded goods such as rice, wheat and maize as major outputs and chemical fertilizers (urea, DAP and Potash) as major inputs have been collected and adjusted for transit and other costs to derive the farm gate prices. The World Bank published data of the traded outputs and inputs were used at constant 2018/19 prices.

8. Financial prices are converted into economic prices by applying a standard conversion factor (SCF) of 0.91 as used in the project design of community irrigation project, which is consistent with the rate applied in other projects in Nepal.

9. A shadow wage rate factor (SWRF) of 0.85 has been applied to wage rates of unskilled labor to reflect the labor market situation.

10. A discount rate of 12% has been used as the economic opportunity cost of capital (EOCC) to derive the economic net present value (ENPV) and benefit-cost ratio. The EOCC is also used as the hurdle rate for the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) to assess economic viability.

11. The economic analysis is based on a project life of 20 years.

3. Crop Budgets and Benefits

12. The economic analysis included quantifiable benefits of ISPs in terms of net incremental income from crops that has resulted in from higher crop yields realized by farmers through access to irrigation, higher cropping intensities and increased area under crops, particularly for wheat and winter vegetables during dry season.

13. Detailed crop budgets have been prepared by using data from various sources such as publications of the Department of Agriculture, ISP feasibility reports, project benefit monitoring and evaluation, and data collected from farmer groups during the PCR field visits using checklists and structured questionnaires.

B. Sample Subprojects and Quantification of Benefits

14. Seven ISPs have been selected from six districts to represent the type of investments under the project. The selected districts are Kapilbastu, Dang, Kailali in the Tarai and Pyuthan, Doti, and Bajhang in the hills. All except one (Janakalyan lift ISP in Terai) are gravity flow systems. Two of the selected ISPs are new and the remaining five are rehabilitated. The selected subprojects are representative of geographical regions and cover systems with 10 to 138 hectares (ha) net command area. Three of the ISPs selected for economic analysis of the PCR (Kothibandh and Janakalyan ISPs from Kapilbastu and Ghya Kholsi ISP from Pyuthan) were also included for economic analysis at project appraisal. Key features of sample ISPs studied at PCR are in Table A 9.1 and explained in subsequent paragraphs.

50 Appendix 9

Table A 9.1: Characteristics of the Sample Irrigation Subprojects S.N. Irrigation

Subproject (ISP)

Districts Geog. Area

Type of ISP

ISP Category

Command Area (ha)

Project Cost (NRs’000)

1 Ghaya Kholsi Pyuthan Hill Gravity (Piped)

New 16.00 2,166.2

2 Talamathiajit Doti Hill Surface Rehab 17.96 1,985.5

3 Mauribagar Bajhang Hill Surface Rehab 10.00 2,217.0

4 Parseni Tal Dang Terai Inundation (Gravity)

Rehab 42.00 4,930.5

5 Kothibandh Kapilbastu Terai Surface with HW

Rehab 138.00 11,391.5

6 Jankalyan Kapilbastu Terai Lift New 102.00 13,483.5

7 Vijayanagar-Ranifata

Kailali Terai Surface with HW

Rehab 81.35 16,957.8

ADB = Asian Development Bank; Geog = geographical; HW = headworks; ISP = irrigation subproject; NRs= Nepalese Rupees; Rehab = rehabilitation Source: Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019. Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu.

1. Ghaya Kholsi ISP, Pyuthan

15. Ghaya Kholsi ISP is a tank irrigation system located in Majhkot rural municipality of Pyuthan district. Ghaya Kholsi stream is perennial source of water for the ISP. Spring water sources feed water to the stream during dry season and irrigate 16 ha land. The ISP’s command area is in two parts and hence two separate reservoirs have been constructed to maintain proportionate delivery of water. Beneficiaries irrigate their lands using hosepipe.

16. The ISP represents upland farming system where over 90% of the households have less than 0.5 ha cultivated land. As the command area lacked irrigation facility of any sort prior to the ISP, only rain-fed crops were grown there. With access to irrigation, farmers have begun to grow vegetables and potato for market. The cropping intensity has increased to 218.8% compared to 185.6% in “without project” situation. The “with project” cropping intensity is higher than the appraisal estimate of 208% mainly due to large expansion of summer and winter vegetable production for market.

2. Tala Mathiajit ISP, Doti

17. Tala Mathiajit ISP is located at Mudegaun rural municipality of Doti district. Perennial water of about 30 liter/second is diverted from Kalagad Khola to the intake of the ISP, which is well protected and stabilized. Part of the canal is covered and lined to protect from landslides and erosion. The ISP’s net command area is 17.96 ha, and its cropping intensity for “with project” situation is estimated 253.9% compared to 189.3% for “without project” situation.

3. Mauribagar ISP, Bajhang

18. Mauribagar ISP is located at the Chaudhari rural municipality of Bajhang district. Tarugad Khola stream is perennial source of water for the ISP. Its main canal discharges 30 liter/second of water and irrigates 10 ha net command area. The ISP’s existing intake has been improved with protection work and construction of escape structure. Part of the main canal has been protected with gabion works and piped system used for protection from floods. The ISP’s cropping intensity has increased to 250% in the “with project” situation, much higher than the 160% cropping intensity estimated at “without project” situation. Extensive cultivation of off-seasonal vegetables in the

Appendix 9 51

command area for market is the main reason for a significant increase in copping intensity after rehabilitation of the ISP.

4. Parseni Tal ISP, Dang

19. Parseni Taal ISP is located in Dhikpur rural municipality of Dang district, which is irrigating 42 ha of net command area. Water is collected to a tank form spring sources and conveyed through canal discharging 100 liter/second. Structures have been constructed to protect water sources and prevent intake. Canal is open and plastic lined in required sections. Cropping intensity has increased to 226.2% in “with project” situation from 172.6% in “without project” situation.

5. Kothi Band ISP, Kapilvastu

20. Kothi Badh ISP is located in Patna rural municipality of Kapilvastu district. Kothi River is perennial source of water to the ISP. Farmers had been irrigating land for decades by diverting water from the river constructing temporary dams. The ISP has now been rehabilitated by canal lining, protecting embankment with gabion weir and constructing gated regulators in main canal. Seven branch canals are off taking water from right and left sides of the main canal and delivering 350 liter/second irrigating to 138 ha net command area. Cropping intensity has increased to 194.9% in “with project” situation from 180.4% in “without project” situation, which is higher than 171% estimated at appraisal.

6. Janakalyan ISP, Kapilvastu

21. Janakalayan lift ISP is located in Buddhi rural municipality of Kapilvastu district. Gugrung Khola is source of water for the ISP, lifted by using 7.5 horsepower electric pumps at two stages. The ISP irrigates 102 ha net command area by discharging 150 liters water/second. A spare pump is kept as back up to maintain the discharge. However, this ISP needs additional investment to sustainably convey water to the pump station. Cropping intensity in “with project” situation is estimated 204.9% compared to 179.4% in “without project” situation. The cropping intensities estimated at PCR are almost similar to the 207% and 178% intensities estimated at appraisal for “with project” and “without project” situations, respectively. Vijaynagar Raniphata ISP, Kailali

22. Vijayanagar ISP is located in Chaumala rural municipality of Kailali district. This is a new ISP for which Banbehada and Raniphata streams feed water to irrigate 81.35 ha out of which 65.35 ha (120 liters water/second discharge) is irrigated in Vijayanagar, and 15.5 ha (15 liters water/second) in Raniphata. Structures are constructed to stabilize the intake site, prevent soil erosion, divert required flow to a permanent stone masonry side intake, and ensure proportionate water delivery to the command area sites. The cropping intensity estimated for “with project” situation is 179.6% compared to 146.4% in the “without project” situation. C. Economic Analysis of Sample ISPs

23. The estimated EIRRs range between 15.8% (Mauribagar ISP) and 24.9% (Ghya Kholsi ISP). The sensitivity analysis shows that the estimated EIRRs are robust despite 10% increase in O&M costs and 10% reduction in incremental benefits. Even in the combined case of increased O&M costs

52 Appendix 9

and decreased benefits, all subprojects’ EIRRs remain above 12%.3 The results are summarized in Table A 9.2, with details for the base case scenarios for each subproject presented in Tables A 9.5 to A 9.11.

Table A 9.2: Summary of Results of Economic Analysis of Sample ISPs ISPs EIRR ENPV B-C Ratio

Ghya Kholsi ISP

Base Case 24.94% 1,351,599 1.74

Increase in O&M costs by 10% 24.64% 1,318,581 1.71

Decrease in benefits by 10% 22.19% 1,070,468 1.59 Increase in O&M costs by 10% and decrease in benefits by 10% 21.76% 1,001,644 1.54

Talamathiajit ISP Base Case 16.46% 488,144 1.27

Increase in O&M costs by 10% 16.05% 443,393 1.24

Decrease in benefits by 10% 14.46% 261,583 1.15

Increase in O&M costs by 10% and decrease in benefits by 10% 14.12% 224,315 1.12

Mauribagar ISP Base Case 15.79% 442,535 1.20

Increase in O&M costs by 10% 15.29% 371,929 1.17

Decrease in benefits by 10% 13.57% 179,387 1.08

Increase in O&M costs by 10% and decrease in benefits by 10% 13.22% 139,316 1.06

Parseni Tal ISP Base Case 18.60% 1,803,822 1.45

Increase in O&M costs by 10% 18.14% 1,693,548 1.41

Decrease in benefits by 10% 16.61% 1,226,130 1.31 Increase in O&M costs by 10% and decrease in benefits by 10% 16.44% 1,178,980 1.29

Kothibandh ISP Base Case 24.82% 7,943,821 1.80

Increase in O&M costs by 10% 24.59% 7,791,230 1.77

Decrease in benefits by 10% 22.12% 6,158,126 1.62 Increase in O&M costs by 10% and decrease in benefits by 10% 21.89% 6,005,535 1.60

Janakalyan ISP Base Case 15.89% 2,805,864 1.23

Increase in O&M costs by 10% 15.27% 2,378,165 1.19

Decrease in benefits by 10% 13.87% 1,312,675 1.11 Increase in O&M costs by 10% and decrease in benefits by 10% 13.52% 1,056,322 1.09

Vijayanagar-Ranifata ISP Base Case 17.14% 2,324,065 1.30

Increase in O&M costs by 10% 16.89% 2,203,940 1.28

3 Sensitivity tests results of three ISPs studied at PCR and appraisal are consistent (Tables A 9.2 and Table A 9.3).

Appendix 9 53

ISPs EIRR ENPV B-C Ratio

Decrease in benefits by 10% 14.95% 1,305,091 1.17 Increase in O&M costs by 10% and decrease in benefits by 10% 14.68% 1,184,966 1.15

B-C = benefit-cost; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; ENPV=economic net present value; ISP = irrigation subproject; O&M = operation and maintenance Source: Project Completion Review Mission (May 2019 to December 2019) estimates.

24. EIRRs were estimated at appraisal for three of seven ISPs selected for PCR. The estimates are fairly close except for Kothiabandh ISP. The higher EIRR of 24.82% for Kothiabandh ISP at PCR compared to its appraisal estimate of 19.10% is due to its large net command area, relatively lower investment cost/ha and significant increase in cultivation of spring maize and winter vegetables for market. The higher EIRR of 24.94% for Gaya Kholsi ISP at PCR compared to the appraisal estimate is also due to expanded cultivation of winter vegetables and potato for market. However, the estimated EIRR of Janakalyan ISP is lower than the appraisal estimate. As stated earlier, Janakalyan ISP is facing technical problems at its intake, which needs additional investment for efficient water distribution. Comparative results are provided in Table A 9.3.

Table A 9.3: EIRR Estimates at Project Appraisal and PCR of Selected ISPs

ISP Appraisal PCR

Ghya Kholsi 20.40% 24.94%

Kothibandh 19.10% 24.82%

Janakalyan 17.70% 15.89% EIRR = economic internal rate of return; ISP = irrigation subprojects; PCR = project completion report or review Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; PCR Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

D. Economic Analysis with Pooled Data

25. Aggregate EIRR for the overall project is estimated at 19.12% for the base case on the basis of pooled data of the seven surveyed ISPs. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated to be 1.43. The estimated aggregate EIRRs corresponding to the base case and under sensitivity tests are higher than 12%, which is an indication that the project provides reasonable rate of return on investment. As the seven surveyed ISPs represent different geographical locations (hills and Terai) and types of schemes (surface, lift and tank irrigation systems), the estimated EIRR can be a good approximation for the project’s overall internal rate of return. Summary of the results is presented in Table A 9.4 with the details for the base case scenario given in Table A 9.12.

54 Appendix 9

Table A 9.4: Estimated EIRR Using Pooled Data

Average EIRR NPV B-C Ratio

Base case 19.12% 15,029,404 1.43

Increase in O&M costs by 10% 18.85% 14,423,900 1.41

Decrease in benefits by 10% 16.87% 10,042,497 1.29

Increase in O&M costs by 10% and decrease in benefits by 10%

16.59% 9,436,992 1.27

B-C = benefit-cost; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; NPV = net present value; O&M = operation and maintenance Source: Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

Appendix 9 55

Table A 9.5: Economic Analysis of Ghya Kholsi Subproject (All values are expressed in terms of economic prices in NRs’000)

FY Invest-

ment O&M Cost

Total Cost

Total Crop

Benefit

Net Cash Flow

Discounted Cost

Discounted Benefit

Discounted Net Benefit

a B c= (a +b) d e= (d-c) f g h= (g-f)

2014/15 147.86 0.00 147.86 0.00 -147.86 132.02 0.00 -132.02

2015/16 1,700.43 0.00 1700.43 0.00 -

1700.43 1355.57 0.00 -1355.57

2016/17 0.00 55.45 55.45 520.38 464.94 39.47 370.40 330.93

2017/18 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.68 478.23 35.24 339.16 303.93

2018/19 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 31.46 302.95 271.48

2019/20 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 28.09 270.49 242.39

2020/21 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 25.08 241.51 216.42

2021/22 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 22.39 215.63 193.24

2022/23 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 20.00 192.53 172.53

2023/24 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 17.85 171.90 154.05

2024/25 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 15.94 153.48 137.54

2025/26 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 14.23 137.04 122.80

2026/27 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 12.71 122.35 109.65

2027/28 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 11.35 109.25 97.90

2028/29 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 10.13 97.54 87.41

2029/30 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 9.04 87.09 78.04

2030/31 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 8.08 77.76 69.68

2031/32 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 7.21 69.43 62.22

2032/33 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 6.44 61.99 55.55

2033/34 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 5.75 55.35 49.60

2034/35 0.00 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 5.13 49.42 44.28

2035/36 55.45 55.45 533.89 478.44 4.58 44.12 39.54

Total 1848.29 1108.98 2957.27 10664.14 7706.87 1817.77 3169.37 1351.60

ENPV 1351.60

BCR 1.74

EIRR 24.94% BCR = benefit cost ratio; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; FY = fiscal year; ISP = irrigation subprojects; NRs = Nepalese Rupees; O&M = operation and maintenance Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019 (January). Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu; Asian Development Bank records; Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

56 Appendix 9

Table A 9.6: Economic Analysis of Talamathiajit Subproject

(All values are expressed in terms of economic prices in NRs’000)

FY Invest-ment

O&M Cost

Total Cost

Total Crop Benefit

Net Cash Flow

Discounted Cost

Discounted Benefit

Discounted Net Benefit

a b c=(a+b) d e=(d-c) f g h=(g-f)

2012/13 175.24 0.00 175.24 0.00 -175.24 156.47 0.00 -156.47

2013/14 1472.03 0.00 1,472.03 0.00 -1472.03 1173.49 0.00 -1173.49

2014/15 105.14 0.00 105.14 0.00 -105.14 74.84 0.00 -74.84

2015/16 0.00 70.10 70.10 425.42 355.32 44.55 270.36 225.81

2016/17 0.00 70.10 70.10 390.65 320.56 39.77 221.67 181.89

2017/18 0.00 70.10 70.10 446.33 376.23 35.51 226.12 190.61

2018/19 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 31.71 194.06 162.36

2019/20 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 28.31 173.27 144.96

2020/21 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 25.28 154.71 129.43

2021/22 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 22.57 138.13 115.56

2022/23 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 20.15 123.33 103.18

2023/24 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 17.99 110.12 92.13

2024/25 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 16.06 98.32 82.25

2025/26 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 14.34 87.78 73.44

2026/27 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 12.81 78.38 65.57

2027/28 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 11.43 69.98 58.55

2028/29 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 10.21 62.48 52.27

2029/30 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 9.12 55.79 46.67

2030/31 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 8.14 49.81 41.67

2031/32 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 7.27 44.47 37.21

2032/33 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 6.49 39.71 33.22

2033/34 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 5.79 35.45 29.66

2034/35 0.00 70.10 70.10 429.01 358.92 5.17 31.66 26.48

Total 1752.41 1401.93 3154.34 8555.63 5401.29 1777.47 2265.61 488.14

ENPV 488.14

BCR 1.27

EIRR 16.46% BCR = benefit cost ratio; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; FY = fiscal year; ISP = irrigation subprojects; NRs = Nepalese Rupees; O&M = operation and maintenance Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019 (January). Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu; Asian Development Bank records; Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

Appendix 9 57

Table A 9.7: Economic Analysis of Mauribagar Subproject

(All values are expressed in terms of economic prices in NRs’000)

FY Investment O&M Cost

Total Cost

Total Crop

Benefit

Net Cash Flow

Discounted Cost

Discounted Benefit

Discounted Net Benefit

a b c=(a+b) d e=(d-c) f g h=(g-f)

2014/15 2,002.81 - 2,002.81 - (2,002.81) 1,788.23 - (1,788.23)

2015/16 - 60.08 60.08 387.35 327.27 47.90 308.79 260.90

2016/17 - 60.08 60.08 368.19 308.11 42.77 262.07 219.30

2017/18 - 60.08 60.08 423.16 363.08 38.18 268.93 230.74

2018/19 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 34.09 224.69 190.60

2019/20 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 30.44 200.62 170.18

2020/21 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 27.18 179.12 151.94

2021/22 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 24.27 159.93 135.66

2022/23 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 21.67 142.80 121.13

2023/24 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 19.35 127.50 108.15

2024/25 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 17.27 113.84 96.56

2025/26 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 15.42 101.64 86.22

2026/27 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 13.77 90.75 76.98

2027/28 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 12.29 81.03 68.73

2028/29 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 10.98 72.34 61.37

2029/30 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 9.80 64.59 54.79

2030/31 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 8.75 57.67 48.92

2031/32 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 7.81 51.49 43.68

2032/33 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 6.98 45.98 39.00

2033/34 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 6.23 41.05 34.82

2034/35 - 60.08 60.08 395.98 335.90 5.56 36.65 31.09

Total 2,002.81 1,201.69 3,204.50 7,910.40 4,705.90 2,188.94 2,631.47 442.53 ENPV 442.53

BCR 1.20

EIRR 15.79%

BCR = benefit cost ratio; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; FY = fiscal year; ISP = irrigation subprojects; NRs= Nepalese Rupees; O&M = operation and maintenance Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019 (January). Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu; Asian Development Bank records; Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

58 Appendix 9

Table A 9.8: Economic Analysis of Parseni Tal Subproject

(All values are expressed in terms of economic prices in NRs’000)

FY Invest-ment

O&M Cost Total Cost

Total Crop Benefit

Net Cash Flow

Discounted Cost

Discounted

Benefit

Discounted Net

Benefit

a b c=(a+b) d e=(d-c) f g h=(g-f)

2014/15 443.42 0.00 443.42 0.00 -443.42 395.91 0.00 -395.91

2015/16 3103.95 0.00 3103.95 0.00 -3103.95 2474.45 0.00 -2474.45

2016/17 886.84 0.00 886.84 0.00 -886.84 631.24 0.00 -631.24

2017/18 0.00 88.68 88.68 1104.12 1015.44 56.36 701.69 645.33

2018/19 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 50.32 615.20 564.88

2019/20 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 44.93 549.29 504.36

2020/21 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 40.12 490.44 450.32

2021/22 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 35.82 437.89 402.07

2022/23 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 31.98 390.97 358.99

2023/24 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 28.55 349.08 320.53

2024/25 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 25.49 311.68 286.19

2025/26 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 22.76 278.29 255.52

2026/27 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 20.32 248.47 228.15

2027/28 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 18.15 221.85 203.70

2028/29 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 16.20 198.08 181.88

2029/30 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 14.47 176.86 162.39

2030/31 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 12.92 157.91 144.99

2031/32 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 11.53 140.99 129.46

2032/33 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 10.30 125.88 115.59

2033/34 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 9.19 112.40 103.20

2034/35 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 8.21 100.35 92.14

2035/36 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 7.33 89.60 82.27

2036/37 0.00 88.68 88.68 1084.20 995.52 6.54 80.00 73.46

Total 4434.22 1773.69 6207.90 21703.93 15496.03 3973.10 5776.92 1803.82

ENPV 1803.82

BCR 1.45

EIRR 18.60% BCR = benefit cost ratio; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; FY = fiscal year; ISP = irrigation subprojects; NRs = Nepalese Rupees; O&M = operation and maintenance Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019 (January). Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu; Asian Development Bank records; Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

Appendix 9 59

Table A 9.9: Economic Analysis of Kothibandh Subproject

(All values are expressed in terms of economic prices in NRs’000)

FY Invest-ment

O&M Cost

Total Cost Total Crop Benefit

Net Cash Flow

Discounted Cost

Discounted

Benefit

Discounted Net Benefit

a b c=(a+b) d e=(d-c) f g h=(g-f)

2013/14 2255.07 0.00 2255.07 0.00 -2255.07 2013.46 0.00 -2013.46

2014/15 7995.25 0.00 7995.25 0.00 -7995.25 6373.76 0.00 -6373.76

2015/16 0.00 256.26 256.26 3033.70 2777.44 182.40 2159.33 1976.93

2016/17 0.00 256.26 256.26 2506.63 2250.37 162.86 1593.01 1430.15

2017/18 0.00 256.26 256.26 3144.99 2888.73 145.41 1784.55 1639.14

2018/19 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 129.83 1545.03 1415.20

2019/20 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 115.92 1379.49 1263.57

2020/21 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 103.50 1231.69 1128.19

2021/22 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 92.41 1099.72 1007.31

2022/23 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 82.51 981.90 899.39

2023/24 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 73.67 876.69 803.02

2024/25 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 65.78 782.76 716.99

2025/26 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 58.73 698.89 640.17

2026/27 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 52.44 624.01 571.58

2027/28 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 46.82 557.15 510.34

2028/29 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 41.80 497.46 455.66

2029/30 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 37.32 444.16 406.84

2030-31 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 33.32 396.57 363.25

2031/32 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 29.75 354.08 324.33

2032/33 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 26.57 316.14 289.58

2033/34 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 23.72 282.27 258.55

2034/35 0.00 256.26 256.26 3049.62 2793.36 21.18 252.03 230.85

Total 10250.32 5125.16 15375.48 60528.85 45153.37 9913.13 17856.95 7943.82

ENPV 7943.82

BCR 1.80

EIRR 24.82% BCR = benefit cost ratio; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; FY = fiscal year; ISP = irrigation subprojects; NRs = Nepalese Rupees; O&M = operation and maintenance Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019 (January). Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu; Asian Development Bank records; Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

60 Appendix 9

Table A 9.10: Economic Analysis of Janakalyan Subproject

(All values are expressed in terms of economic prices in NRs’000)

FY Investme-nt

O&M Cost

Total Cost

Total Crop Benefit

Net Cash Flow

Discoun-ted Cost

Discount-ed Benefit

Discoun-ted Net Benefit

a b c=(a+b) d e=(d-c) f g h=(g-f)

2013/14 1805.47 0.00 1805.47 0.00 -1805.47 1612.03 0.00 -1612.03

2014/15 7823.70 0.00 7823.70 0.00 -7823.70 6237.00 0.00 -6237.00

2015/16 2407.29 0.00 2407.29 0.00 -2407.29 1713.46 0.00 -1713.46

2016/17 0.00 482.18 482.18 2943.67 2461.49 306.43 1870.75 1564.32

2017/18 0.00 482.18 482.18 2779.85 2297.67 273.60 1577.36 1303.76

2018/19 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 244.29 1414.32 1170.04

2019/20 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 218.11 1262.79 1044.68

2020/21 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 194.74 1127.49 932.75

2021/22 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 173.88 1006.69 832.81

2022/23 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 155.25 898.83 743.58

2023/24 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 138.61 802.52 663.91

2024/25 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 123.76 716.54 592.78

2025/26 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 110.50 639.77 529.27

2026/27 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 98.66 571.22 472.56

2027/28 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 88.09 510.02 421.93

2028/29 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 78.65 455.37 376.72

2029/30 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 70.23 406.58 336.36

2030/31 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 62.70 363.02 300.32

2031/32 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 55.98 324.13 268.14

2032/33 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 49.99 289.40 239.41

2033/34 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 44.63 258.39 213.76

2034/35 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 39.85 230.71 190.86

2035/36 0.00 482.18 482.18 2791.62 2309.45 35.58 205.99 170.41

Total 12036.46 9643.51 21679.97 55972.73 34292.76 12126.03 14931.89 2805.86

ENPV 2805.86

BCR 1.23

EIRR 15.89% BCR = benefit cost ratio; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; FY = fiscal year; ISP = irrigation subprojects; NRs = Nepalese Rupees; O&M = operation and maintenance Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019 (January). Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu; Asian Development Bank records; Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

Appendix 9 61

Table A 9.11: Economic Analysis of Vijayanagar-Raniphata Subproject

(All values are expressed in terms of economic prices in NRs’000)

FY Investment

O&M Cost

Total Cost

Total Crop

Benefit

Net Cash Flow

Discounted Cost

Discounted Benefit

Discounted Net Benefit

a b c= (a+ b) d e=(d-c) F g h= (g-f)

2013/14 2420.81 0.00 2420.81 0.00 -2420.81 2161.44 0.00 -2161.44

2014/15 5648.55 0.00 5648.55 0.00 -5648.55 4502.99 0.00 -4502.99

2015/16 0.00 201.73 201.73 1743.65 1541.92 143.59 1241.10 1097.51

2016/17 0.00 201.73 201.73 1894.96 1693.23 128.21 1204.28 1076.08

2017/18 0.00 201.73 201.73 1749.56 1547.83 114.47 992.75 878.28

2018/19 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 102.20 846.70 744.50

2019/20 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 91.25 755.99 664.73

2020/21 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 81.48 674.99 593.51

2021/22 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 72.75 602.67 529.92

2022/23 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 64.95 538.10 473.14

2023/24 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 57.99 480.44 422.45

2024/25 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 51.78 428.97 377.19

2025/26 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 46.23 383.01 336.77

2026/27 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 41.28 341.97 300.69

2027/28 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 36.86 305.33 268.47

2028/29 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 32.91 272.62 239.71

2029/30 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 29.38 243.41 214.03

2030/31 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 26.23 217.33 191.09

2031/32 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 23.42 194.04 170.62

2032/33 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 20.91 173.25 152.34

2033/34 0.00 201.73 201.73 1671.25 1469.51 18.67 154.69 136.02

2034/35 0.00 201.73 201.73 1,671.25 1,469.51 16.67 138.12 121.44

Total 8,069.36 4,034.68 12,104.05 33,799.34 21,695.30 7,865.67 10,189.74 2,324.06

ENPV 2324.06

BCR 1.30

EIRR 17.14% BCR = benefit cost ratio; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; FY = fiscal year; ISP = irrigation subprojects; NRs = Nepalese rupee; O&M = operation and maintenance Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019 (January). Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu; Asian Development Bank records; Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

62 Appendix 9

Table A 9.12: Economic Analysis at Aggregate Level (Pooled Data) (All values are expressed in terms of economic prices in NRs’000)

Fiscal Year

Total Invest-ment Cost

O&M Cost

Total Cost

Total Crop Benefit

Net Cash Flow

Discounted Cost

Discounted Benefit

Discounted Net Benefit

2012/13 175 0 175 0 -175 156 0 -156

2013/14 7953 0 7953 0 -7953 6340 0 -6340

2014/15 24167 0 24167 0 -24167 17201 0 -17201

2015/16 7212 588 7800 5590 -2210 4957 3553 -1404

2016/17 887 1126 2013 8624 6612 1142 4894 3752

2017/18 1214 1214 10182 8967 615 5158 4543

2018/19 1214 1214 9956 8741 549 4503 3954

2019/20 1214 1214 9956 8741 491 4021 3530

2020/21 1214 1214 9956 8741 438 3590 3152

2021/22 1214 1214 9956 8741 391 3205 2814

2022/23 1214 1214 9956 8741 349 2862 2513

2023/24 1214 1214 9956 8741 312 2555 2244

2024/25 1214 1214 9956 8741 278 2282 2003

2025/26 1214 1214 9956 8741 249 2037 1789

2026/27 1214 1214 9956 8741 222 1819 1597

2027/28 1214 1214 9956 8741 198 1624 1426

2028/29 1214 1214 9956 8741 177 1450 1273

2029/30 1214 1214 9956 8741 158 1295 1137

2030/31 1214 1214 9956 8741 141 1156 1015

2031/32 1214 1214 9956 8741 126 1032 906

2032/33 1214 1214 9956 8741 112 921 809

2033/34 1214 1214 9956 8741 100 823 722

2034/35 1214 1214 9956 8741 90 735 645

2035/36 626 626 4410 3783 41 291 249

203637 89 89 1084 996 5 64 59

Total 40,394 24,290 64,684 199,135 134,452 34,840 49,869 15,029

NPV 15029

EIRR 19.12%

BCR 1.43 BCR = benefit cost ratio; EIRR = economic internal rate of return; FY = fiscal year; ISP = irrigation subprojects; NRs = Nepalese rupee; O&M = operation and maintenance Sources: ADB. 2010 (September). Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors for the Proposed Grant to Nepal for the Community Irrigation Project. Manila; Department of Local Infrastructure. 2019 (January). Completion Report of the Community Irrigation Project. Kathmandu; Asian Development Bank records; Project Completion Review Mission (27 May 2019 to 23 December 2019) estimates

Appendix 10 63

LIST OF COMPLETED IRRIGATION SUBPROJECTS

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

Kapilbastu

1 1 Kothibandh ISP 138 Rehab 811,225.00 12,141,932.48 743,689.73 10,647,878.77

2 2 Jankalyan Lift ISP 102 New 763,706.60 13,532,885.76 775,266.95 12,708,264.57

3 3 Gangatahawa ISP 66.8 Rehab 471,894.50 6,692,163.67 471,894.50 6,692,163.67

4 4 Beti Khola ISP 108 Rehab 758,421.00 14,397,906.78 758,421.00 13,113,832.70

5 5 Sapahi Bandh ISP 147.3 Rehab 902,174.00 13,273,731.04 902,174.00 11,673,350.18

6 6 Jaypur Bandh ISP 56.2 Rehab 497,490.00 7,272,904.00 99,498.00 821,427.07

7 7 Surjabaliya ISP 113 Rehab 1,299,552.00 19,164,551.00 129,955.20 1,241,000

8 8 Birpur Bandh ISP 66.6 Rehab 817,112.90 12,562,207.00 817,112.90 12,562,207.00

9 9 Horila Bandh ISP 200 Rehab 1,488,385.00 18,863,360.00 1,488,385.00 18,863,360.00

10 10 Due Muhane Kulo ISP 58 Rehab 660,218.10 9,457,826.00 660,218.10 9,457,826.00

11 11 Samayathan Taal ISP 66 Rehab 529,996.80 7,614,686.20 529,996.80 7,614,686.20

12 12 Sirkha Bandh ISP 198 Rehab 2,308,592.00 32,361,939.20 2,308,592.00 32,361,939.20

13 13 Mahendra Kot ISP 46 Rehab 4,17,488.93 7,339,728 417,488.93 7,339,728

14 14 Pratappur ISP 66 Rehab 326,072.3 5,807,760.1 326,072.3 5,807,760.1

15 15 Khairahawa Bandh ISP 199.75 New 1,663,840.00 24,830,175.00 1,663,840.00 24,830,175.00

16 16 Kajarari Bandh ISP 66.3 Rehab 603,837.50 8,335,904.00 603,837.50 8,335,904.00

17 17 Sukulekothi ISP 164 New 1,694,332.00 22,702,982.30 1,694,332.00 22,702,982.30

18 18 Basudawa ISP 46 New 1,055,266.00 16,210,692.80 1,055,266.00 16,210,692.80

19 19 Pichurakhi ISP 42 New 616,469.80 9,325,358.00 616,469.80 9,325,358.00

20 20 Kundre Khola ISP 120 New 492,282.10 7,151,710.00 492,282.10 7,151,710.00

21 21 Dhanchaura Taal & Ghorahi Bandh ISP

146 Rehab 1,697,750.00 25,164,226.70 1,697,750.00 25,164,226.70

22 22 Bharat Ghat ISP 145 New 1,606,157.28 23,849,631.38 1,606,157.28 23,849,631.38

23 23 Ratanpur ISP 140 New 1,508,429.95 22,500,130 1,508,429.95 22,500130.00

24 24 Abhiraw Lift ISP 75 New 208,965.00 10,158,856.51 104,482.00 4432071.00

25 25 Pandedhi Lift ISP 88 New 218,030.00 9,834,451.59 109,015.00 7889892.00

26 26 Janachetana Lift ISP 75 New 208,945.00 9,669,968.79 104,450.00 4485370.00

27 27 Mahuwa Lift ISP 174 New 352,136.00 14,050,897.99 176,068.00 8202944.00

28 28 Gudrung Rangai Lift ISP 83 New 218,030.0 9,225,002.81 209,015.00 9716048.00

29 29 Jamun Bagiya Lift ISP 66.38 New 218,030.00 12,070,346.54 209,015.00 6789415.00

Dang

28 1 Ghatte Khola ISP 152.6 Rehab 1,013,683.60 14,316,025.14 1,008,000.08 14,313,710.16

64 Appendix 10

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

29 2 Hanumaanpur ISP 86.02 Rehab 529,952.16 8,400,560.60 529,952.16 8,400,560.60

30 3 Matheuri ISP 40.5 Rehab 316,182.48 4,240,180.00 316,182.48 4,240,180.00

31 4 Lamitara ISP 53 Rehab 535,196.90 6,887,988.11 535,196.90 6,887,988.11

32 5 Jungkholi Tulsigunj ISP 49.4 Rehab 365,767.00 4,763,497.09 358,921.05 4,763,519.20

33 6 Budkulo ISP 110 Rehab 879,225.10 13,417,196.42 877,535.21 13,409,004.77

34 7 Bukakhola ISP 51.46 Rehab 394,675.03 5,374,289.83 387,702.03 5,194,473.02

35 8 Badahara ISP 98 New 1,103,669.00 16,833,996.82 1,104,473.30 16,815,254.36

36 9 Jeetpur ISP 47.8 New 580,680.40 9,776,342.41 580,883.40 9,776,342.41

37 10 Ratanpur ISP 199.75 Rehab 1,532,752.00 16,558,640.54 1,532,752.00 16,558,997.47

38 11 Parseni Taal ISP 42.00 Rehab 300,969.50 4,629,556.60 4,629,560.00 300,970.00

39 12 Thute Tari ISP 61 New 730,480.60 10,054,044.68 730,480.60 10,054,044.68

40 13 Machaute kulo ISP 100 New 1,484,887.00 17,949,691.00 1,484,887.00 17,949,691.00

41 14 Sauri Lift Irrigation Sub-Project

75.8 New 887,075.00 11,320,854.80 887,075.00 11,320,854.80

42 15 Wuyinariya Irrigation Sub-Project

103 New 729,718.30 7,732,569.60 729,718.30 7,732,569.60

43 16 Uttar Aamrai Irrigation Sub-Project

76 New 559,338.80 6,808,475.20 559,338.80 6,808,475.20

44 17 Balapur,Bengwa Sota Irrigation Sub-Project 50 New 156,725.50 5,440,163.40 156,725.50 5,440,163.40

45 18 Bogati Kulo ISP 103 New 409,653.50 9,124,666.70 409,653.50 9,124,666.70

46 19 Balim Irrigation ISP 177 New 1,465,242.00 18,993,702.00 1,465,242.00 18,993,702.00

47 20 BulBula Sota Lift ISP 51 New 335,730.30 6,492,713.70 335,730.30 6,492,713.70

48 21 Kalimati Kulo/Balichhopa ISP

44 New 424,141.60 6,858,234.80 424,141.60 6,858,234.80

49 22 Ganari ISP 41 New 529,188.40 6,891,394.74 529,188.40 6,891,394.74

50 23 Bhamki Lift Sichai Yojana 64 New 601,621.90 8,482,485.00 601,621.90 8,482,485.00

51 24 Manikapur Kulo ISP 145 New 1,121,422.00 14,551,875.20 1,121,422.00 14,551,875.20

52 25 Goyalaghari, Malpani ISP 198 New 1,370,520.00 10,973,727.40 1,370,520.00 10,973,727.40

53 26 Bastikhola ISP 199 New 1,485,276.00 18,459,596.60 1,485,276.00 18,459,596.60

54 27 Chiregad Khadakpur Kulo ISP

54 New 431,005.70 5,800,665.00 431,005.70 5,800,665.00

55 28 Daunne Khola ISP 43 New 414,265.20 5,485,814.10 414,265.20 5,485,814.10

56 29 Amuwa Khola ISP 115 New 362,052.40 9,985,209.00 362,052.40 9,985,209.00

57 30 Dongpur Lift ISP 40 New 424,888.20 7,875,799.90 224950.00 6582367.00

58 31 Larina ISP 74 New 637,443.00 8,126,407.60 375620.00 6882375.00

Kailali

Appendix 10 65

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

59 1 Charidanda ISP 46.8 New 421,188.00 6,858,485.07 495,555.13 3,472,308.64

60 2 Khairala Khola ISP 24.5 Rehab 220,340.50 2,898,298.00 220,340.50 2,898,298.00

61 3 Salley Khola ISP 14.7 Rehab 135,253.80 1,892,232.00 135,253.80 1,892,232.00

62 4 Vijayanagar Ranifata ISP 81.35 Rehab 816,554.00 10,722,381.00 816,554.00 8,070,625.59

63 5 Patali Khola ISP 23.24 New 229,567.50 2,992,136.00 229,567.50 2,989,944.26

64 6 Jetha Khola ISP 10.2 Rehab 80,250.01 928,820.80 80,250.01 912,753.04

65 7 Samudaek ISP 22.4 New 225,205.00 3,183,891.00 225,205.00 3,180,258.18

66 8 Piyale Khola ISP 24.55 New 219,141.80 2,899,704.00 219,141.80 2,898,232.02

67 9 Kuliwan Kafalgaira ISP 25 New 227,699.60 2,901,665.00 227,699.60 2,901,487.01

68 10 Ghatekhola Patreeni ISP 25 New 255,147.00 3,114,680.00 255,147.00 3,120,584.19

69 11 Thuligad Sera ISP 15.5 New 155,412.10 2,074,445.00 155,412.10 2,067,433.17

70 12 BelJhari ISP 14.58 Rehab 134,463.10 1,697,925.23 134,463.10 1,695,007.01

71 13 Sanajiling  ISP 10.19 New 127,694.20 1,636,248.00 127,694.20 1,637,195.06

72 14 Baddi Kulo ISP 53.93 Rehab 379,573.60 4,988,180.00 379,573.60 4,979,347.13

73 15 Kamalanadi Dadiya ISP 23.63 New 249,623.90 3,357,738.48 261,660.31 3,352,116.62

74 16 Chakkale Pani ISP 14.77 New 169,222.50 2,260,593.00 169,222.50 2,273,719.09

75 17 Sursuraiya ISP 49 new 695,569.00 8,721,774.00 695,569.00 8,721,774.00

76 18 Pandon ISP 21 New 398,451.20 6,127,133.77 398,451.20 6,127,133.77

77 19 Vudka Khola ISP 25 New 387,351.20 4,773,454.99 387,351.20 4,792,637.59

78 20 Okhaldunga ISP 25 New 400,654.80 4,985,940.41 400,654.80 4,969,434.55

79 21 Khar khola ISP 19 New 317,803.40 4,203,837.00 317,803.40 4,253,525.51

80 22 Jadyapani ISP 25 New 150,892.90 2,001,762.00 150,892.90 1,170,783.55

81 23 Juryapani ISP 40 New 225,531.10 2,906,079.00 225,531.10 2,896,971.64

82 24 Mathillo Kulo ISP 25 New 192873.30 2578759.00 192873.30 2578759.00

83 25 Talsaini ISP 25 New 283616.00 3497798.00 283616.00 3497798.00

84 26 Ampani ISP 25 New 266,931.30 3,498,503.00 266,931.30 3,498,503.00

85 27 Barpani Badikathai ISP 25 New 303,091.80 3,277,410.00 303,091.80 3,277,410.00

86 28 Singasaini Jaryapani ISP 16 New 139,264.00 1,626,006.00 139,264.00 1,626,006.00

87 29 Tallo Kulo ISP 25 New 187,284.90 2,484,253.00 187,284.90 2,484,253.00

88 30 Madhe Bagrawa ISP 25 New 198,106.60 2,626,459.00 198,106.60 2,626,459.00

89 31 Barpani-2 ISP 75 New 670,060.60 10,122,524.00 670,060.60 10,122,524.00

90 32 Kachali ISP 25 New 170,016.30 2,250,149.00 170,016.30 2,250,149.00

91 33 Patreni ISP 40 New 255,147.70 3,774,748.00 255,147.70 3,774,748.00

92 34 Amfata ISP 63.47 Rehab 782,852.00 9,367,944.20 782,852.00 9,367,944.20

66 Appendix 10

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

93 35 Dharpadayara Dharapani & Uttiseni ISP

25 New 259,097.90 3,375,064.00 259,097.90 3,375,064.00

94 36 Dharapani Gajani ISP 17 New 189,898.20 2,497,639.00 189,898.20 2,497,639.00

95 37 Kulibadh ISP 55.25 New 742,346.40 10,307,752.10 742,346.40 10,307,752.10

96 38 Barkha Kataini ISP 80 New 514,932.40 1,022,248.00 514,932.40 1,022,248.00

97 39 Badhya Khola ISP 25 New 219,354.80 2,942,134.00 219,354.80 2,942,134.00

98 40 Basanta ISP 199 New 15122894 1,137,208.00 15122894 1,137,208.00

99 41 Tengana Khola ISP 46 New 9027439.4 565,264.30 9,027,439.4 565,264.30

100 42 Taranager ISP 68 New 8,745,125 520,548.80 8,745,125 520,548.80

101 43 Jarahibadh ISP 158.15 New 22,146,328 1,637,327.00 22,146,328 1,637,327.00

102 44 Kandra ISP 195 New 22,017,009.7 1,604,783.00 22,017,009.7 1,604,783.00

103 45 Gumatadi ISP 25 New 1,124,332 84,989.99 1,124,332 84,989.99

104 46 Jarjariya ISP 195 New 23,373,100 1,638,119.00 23,373,100 1,638,119.00

105 47 Batiyani ISP 109 New 15,670,239 13,406,248.00 975,310.30 13,406,248.00

106 48 Tengana Khola ISP 46 New 9,027,439.4 565,264.30 113,052.86 4,435,528.00

107 49 Vadaile Khola 84 New 13,736,707.1 908,338.90 181,667.78 7,133,584.00

108 50 Mohana Lift ISP 77 New 10,713,778 843,593.50 337,437.40 6,487063.00

109 51 Vulvuliya ISP 127 New 18,962,261 1,214,243.00 364,272.90 12,245,916.00

110 52 Machali Khola ISP 47 Rehab 9,202,206.7 620,638.80 620,638.80 6,487,063.00

111 53 Junali Lift ISP 114 New 10,594,188 684,752.70 273,901.08 3,292,744.00

112 54 Ruenikot ISP 23 New 5,009,498 307,595.50 30,759.55 2,533,057.00

113 55 Namuna Lift ISP 77 New 14,905,689 765,212.80 229,563.84 9,740,479.00

114 56 Tiule Khola ISP 68 New 712,552.60 12,092,021 213,765.78 4,052,443.00

115 57 Badki Kulo ISP 94 New 715368.40 10,939,562.00 213,765.78 7,314,276.00

Kanchanpur

116 1 Jhaule ISP 96.5 New 895,697.60 11,023,766.81 828,728.58 10,610,571.47

117 2 Bachhela ISP 134.3 Rehab 549,617.30 9,074,691.01 549,617.30 9,074,691.01

118 3 Jadepani ISP 50 New 468,629.00 7,049,484.63 468,629.00 7,049,484.63

119 4 Jarahi ISP 50 Rehab 270,456.54 3,490,332.00 270,456.54 3,490,332.00

120 5 Tultule ISP 62 Rehab 265,521.36 4,033,863.38 297,383.92 4,033,863.38

121 6 Beldandi ISP 67 Rehab 595,290.33 6,103,862.10 595,290.33 6,103,862.10

122 7 Sidhanath ISP 41 Rehab 684,674.60 6,466,541.00 684,674.60 6,466,541.00

123 8 Baijnath ISP 59 Rehab 679,550.40 6,921,343.00 679,550.40 6,921,343.00

Appendix 10 67

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

124 9 Purbi Rautel ISP 40 Rehab 417,331.30 3,130,445.00 417,331.30 3,130,445.00

125 10 Tumadi Khola ISP 40 New 161,305.70 3,279,219.10 161,305.70 3,279,219.10

126 11 West Rautela ISP 58 Rehab 360,750.10 5,228,305.90 360,750.10 5,228,305.90

127 12 Sisne Irrigation Sub-Project

94 New 1,419,488.00 14052561 1,419,488.00 14052561

128 13 Jhale Khola ISP 40 New 43,102.98 4243671.8 43,102.98 4243671.8

129 14 Sidhanath ISP 50 New 144,338.20 3912246.7 144,338.20 3,912,246.7

130 15 Khanyakhola ISP 63 New 686,918.60 4176812 686,918.60 4,176,812

131 16 Lalpaniya ISP 41 New 43,102.98 4,771,786.8 43,102.98 39,85,872.00

132 17 Doda ISP 78 New 43,102.98 7,269,623.6 43,102.98 54,79,702.00

133 18 Aam Ghat ISP 76 New 43,102.98 4,915,874.6 43,102.98 55,32,974.00

134 19 Bagun Khaola ISP 87 New 43,102.98 5,871,570.8 43,102.98 2,479,871

135 20 Chishapani ISP 41 New 43,102.98 4,582,868.6 43,102.98 3,733,906

136 21 Dhungadi ISP 40 New 57,831.26 492,461.3 46,265.01 395,326

137 22 Ghatal ISP 40 New 43,102.98 3,731,077.8 43,102.98 1,781,016

138 23 Band Khola ISP 40 New 43,102.98 4,269,395.6 43,102.98 870,003

139 24 Shankarpur ISP 41 New 43,102.98 4,660,451.8 43,102.98 2,151,634

140 25 Banhara ISP 64 New 43,102.98 7,724,855.6 43,102.98 1,216,650

141 26 Pathriya ISP 50 New 43,102.98 4,397,043.8 43,102.98 2,040,513

142 27 Sundariphata ISP 123 New 43,102.98 10,860,821.6 43,102.98 4,630,953

143 28 Odali Khola ISP 40 New 43,102.98 4,180,050.6 43,102.98 3,411,457

144 29 Kunjgalli Lift ISP 59.5 New 961,536.74 7,247,904.31 609,719.17 7,364,976.00

145 30 Banhara katan Lift ISP 63.75 New 967,709.17 7,943,316.05 709,534.98 6,767,273.00

146 31 Jaya Guru Baba ISP 61 New 521,466.00 5,838,565.60 43,102.98 5,532,974.00

147 32 Jhale Khola ISP 50 New 520,704.80 424,3671.80 43,102.98 4,153,670.00

Pyuthan

148 1 Ghaya Kholsi Tank ISP 16 New 175,321.20 2,666,607.00 175,136.41 1,991,038.49

149 2 Bhitrikhola ISP 16 Rehab 115,794.99 1,379,050.65 123,782.95 1,371,063.19

150 3 Pangbang ISP 20.7 Rehab 161,013.30 1,835,219.00 161,013.30 1,835,219.00

151 4 Dhodkhola Salghari ISP 15 Rehab 110,411.80 1,348,787.00 110,411.80 1,349,320.04

152 5 Kalleri ISP 12.44 New 120,358.40 1,550,649.70 120,358.40 1,582,888.24

153 6 Takura Daderi ISP 25 Rehab 152,129.60 1,778,555.00 156,873.00 1,776,401.85

154 7 Taharkulo ISP 14.4 Rehab 128,481.80 1,488,992.00 128,937.10 1,489,406.40

155 8 Dhanare Timile ISP 22 New 133,593.70 2,339,389.90 133,593.70 2,342,391.00

156 9 Marsiwang ISP 22.37 Rehab 211,669.20 2,270,537.00 287,896.49 2,267,608.01

68 Appendix 10

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

157 10 Simle ISP 25 Rehab 195,884.70 507,269.10 195,884.70 507,269.10

158 11 Hiring khola ISP 20.57 New 344,793.60 1,147,260.00 344,793.60 1,147,260.00

159 12 Dhanda Kulo Jamle Pokhari ISP

25 Rehab 217,396.00 2,888,262.00 217,396.00 2,888,261.22

160 13 NosKhola Sallerikharka ISP

14 Rehab 104,479.10 1,388,069.00 104,477.32 1,389,325.48

161 14 Paiyo Khola Gaikharka ISP

13 Rehab 110,205.70 1,464,162.00 110,393.03 1,468,353.60

162 15 Mau Kulo ISP 25 Rehab 166,107.40 2,206,855.00 166,107.40 2,208,775.01

163 16 Syani Lekh ISP 10 Rehab 80,156.94 1,064,942.00 80,116.34 1,060,939.31

164 17 Kath Khola ISP 22 Rehab 1,20,869.00 16,05,820.00 1,20,869.00 16,05,820.00

165 18 Gaukhola ISP 24 Rehab 1,69,955.70 22,57,983.00 1,69,955.70 22,57,983.00

166 19 Raj Kulo ISP 10 Rehab 2,02,675.00 26,92,721.00 2,02,675.00 26,92,721.00

167 20 Gajeni Nayagau ISP 11 Rehab 79,534.98 1,056,657.00 79,534.98 1,056,657.00

168 21 Haruwa Khola Pipalbot ISP

15 Rehab 203,030.50 2,980,125.00 203,030.50 2,980,125.00

169 22 Kadheni Kulo ISP 22 New 171,897.00 2283775 128922.75 1712831.25

170 23 Baichaur ISP 11 New 110,087.00 1462585.6 55043.5 731292.80

171 24 Nayagau Phant Lift ISP 23.66 New 260,336.20 2560300.3 208268.96 2048240.24

172 25 Rapti Darvan Lift ISP 12.31 New 161,866.70 1912527 129493.36 1,530,021.60

173 26 Dhandra Lift ISP 25 New 277,330.20 1908186 221864.16 1,526,548.80

174 27 Raima Khola ISP 18 New 136,998.70 1923887 89049.155 1,250,526.55

175 28 Rat Tari ISP 17 New 166,766.50 2215612 166,766.50 2,215,612.00

176 29 Gaumukhi ISP 18 New 215,101.20 2857773 215,101.20 2,857,773.00

177 30 Kimichaur Domai Dhanwang ISP 14.71 New 197,973.80 1,959,566.1 158,379.04 1,567,652.88

178 31 Rapti Rawal Lift ISP 24.98 New 535,445.30 2,388,022 455,128.505 2,029,818.70

179 32 Dharampani Jarepokhari ISP

25 New 429,379.70 2,417,993 429,379.70 2,417,993.00

180 33 Agara ISP 19 Rehab 138,994.10 1,846,635 138,994.10 1,846,635.00

181 34 Sijari Bharke ISP 22 New 203,030.50 9,880,125 203,030.50 9,880,125.00

182 35 Dadagaon Lift ISP 24.98 New 592,590.00 2,904,309 479,997.9 2,352,490.29

Rolpa

183 1 Dhare Khola ISP 10.5 Rehab 100,326.30 2,135,682.30 100,326.30 1,889,239.40

184 2 Dhorbang Khola ISP 10 Rehab 82,531.88 974,059.70 69,719.17 798,433.26

185 3 Machhi Khola ISP 10 Rehab 69,719.17 977,495.40 82,531.88 801,210.47

186 4 Plaseni ISP 14.79 Rehab 127,714.60 1,925,844.40 158,430.60 2,601,283.61

187 5 Chipledunga Tallo Gaun ISP

13.29 Rehab 190,481.30 2,314,542.20 190,481.30 2,314,542.20

188 6 Jhenam Khola ISP 25 Rehab 206,945.50 2,134,322.00 206,646.55 2,550,863.69

Appendix 10 69

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

189 7 Chandan Khola ISP 12.8 Rehab 124,979.41 1,670,514.19 128,601.94 1,716,361.41

190 8 Anglisa and Tusara Khola ISP

20 New 190,661.50 5,261,044.12 191,972.69 7,998,351.60

191 9 Kit Khola Simgitha ISP 25 New 306,106.50 3,539,384.16 315,808.02 5,019,203.66

192 10 Khara Khola ISP 25 Rehab 173,817.10 2,730,669.41 219,207.69 2,947,008.78

193 11 Kharakhola ISP 25 Rehab 187,520.71 2,234,023.53 188,454.79 2,226,152.34

194 12 Kilachaur Domai ISP 25 Rehab 240,068.10 3,523,532.32 536,195.56 3,562,623.43

195 13 Odar Khola ISP 11.69 New 144,358.10 3,164,776.64 144,707.12 5,567,684.86

196 14 Satule Rajupat Chutara ISP

18.7 New 186,502.00 3,032,547.73 191,284.99 3,806,950.37

197 15 Seware Bagar ISP 18.5 New 240,153.90 3,743,236.23 241,871.78 3,748,207.86

198 16 Pharsa Chaur ISP 25 Rehab 246,856.80 2,850,312.00 246,856.80 2,823,579.95

199 17 Dahare Khola ISP 23 Rehab 205,986.70 2,759,106.94 132,962.02 3,012,361.22

201 18 Mulbang ISP 22 New 180,466.60 2,199,011.60 180,466.60 2,187,213.41

202 19 Korchu Bang Khola ISP 25 New 255,107.60 2,994,286.00 255,107.60 2,989,345.16

203 20 Phalate Khola ISP 23 New 216,740.70 2,717,342.00 216,740.70 2,713,639.73

204 21 Galang khola Hile ISP 24 New 259,707.60 3,439,555.00 259,707.60 3,421,599.80

205 22 Mahendri ISP 22 New 229,492.60 2,748,953.80 229,492.60 2,748,933.51

206 23 Kalang Khola ISP 22 Rehab 175,464.10 2,060,519.00 194,940.64 2,288,919.58

207 24 Jagati Pokhara ISP 20 New 257,176.30 3,059,012.00 257,176.30 3,054,833.97

208 25 Lele Bang ISP 10 Rehab 116,401.50 1,407,306.00 116,247.52 1,537,694.00

209 26 Dharma Khola Majuwa ISP

25 Rehab 284,262.00 3,573,538.00 433,992.40 6,276,142.07

210 27 Jabal Khola ISP 25 Rehab 272,749.70 2,935,826.00 352,738.15 3,796,951.47

211 28 Rammi Khola ISP 16 Rehab 125,370.20 1,474,823.70 125,588.19 1,470,911.22

212 29 Mash Khola ISP 14 Rehab 130,968.80 2,042,373.50 130,596.19 2,035,239.52

213 30 Ghattabot Chhpaneta ISP 15 Rehab 140,269.90 1,853,877.50 140,269.90 1,851,630.50

214 31 Chepte Dunga ISP 22 Rehab 247,072.20 3,246,743.00 247,986.59 3,248,052.38

215 32 Khani Khola ISP 21 New 200,444.60 1,181,543.20 200,444.60 1,176,888.68

216 33 Jhalapa Pantibang ISP 18 Rehab 175,012.00 1,239,293.00 175,662.91 1,235,328.10

217 34 Sirjanshil ISP 12 Rehab 198,089.80 1,023,899.00 199,051.07 1,011,947.19

218 35 Ajambari ISP 25 Rehab 174,116.70 1,118,009.00 174,907.49 1,119,425.76

219 36 Thuli Gar ISP 10 New 121,996.90 1,557,228.00 122,537.24 233,584.20

220 37 Panighat Karbane Khola ISP

20 Rehab 173,591.10 2,066,211.00 173,971.04 2,062,422.37

221 38 Pani Ghat Khola ISP 20 New 168,524.90 2,127,606.00 169,014.56 2,123,442.00

222 39 Kigabagr ISP 12 Rehab 1,13,311.50 14,17,389 1,13,311.50 14,17,389

223 40 Kalijang Gunam ISP 25 Rehab 2,40,290.30 30,14,682.00 2,40,290.30 30,14,682.00

70 Appendix 10

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

224 41 Kharibot Khola ISP 13 New 1,10,258.30 21,06,364.00 1,10,258.30 21,06,364.00

225 42 Jhajar Khola ISP 25 Rehab 2,80,421.30 34,01,419.00 2,80,421.30 34,01,419.00

226 43 Jang Khola ISP 25 Rehab 209759.30 2700037.00 209759.30 2700037.00

227 44 Chakari Khola ISP 25 Rehab 259,819.90 3,171,783.00 259,819.90 3,171,783.00

228 45 Kale Khola ISP 21 Rehab 230,313.20 2,713,721.00 230,313.20 2,713,721.00

229 46 Khanne Khola ISP 20 Rehab 189,356.30 1,294,380.00 189,356.30 1,294,380.00

230 47 Padhera Khola ISP 17 Rehab 248,828.40 2,814,532.00 248,828.40 2,814,532.00

231 48 Thulo Khola ISP 25 Rehab 181,929.80 957,966.90 181,929.80 957,966.90

232 49 Hanker Kot ISP 25 Rehab 248,057.00 2,956,605.00 248,057.00 2,956,605.00

233 50 Karyasang ISP 25 Rehab 272,946.00 3,514,755.00 272,946.00 3,514,755.00

234 51 Khari Bot ISP 13 Rehab 110,258.30 851,977.30 110,258.30 851,977.30

235 52 Lakuri Bang Dali Bang ISP

25 Rehab 326,754.70 1,617,560.00 326,754.70 1,617,560.00

236 53 Siruwali ISP 19 New 278,390.90 3,361,922.00 278,390.90 3,361,922.00

237 54 Latibang ISP 10 New 262,943.00 1,722,149.00 262,943.00 1,722,149.00

Salyan

238 1 Ghodamare ISP 16.4 Rehab 98,520.02 1,289,214.00 98,520.02 1,278,546.00

239 2 Shanka Pipal-Lamajyula ISP

19 Rehab 114,276.00 1,702,096.60 114,276.00 1,401,771.95

240 3 Luham Khola ISP 24 Rehab 161,458.80 2,116,582.00 161,458.80 1,869,767.19

241 4 Mul Kulo ISP 10.2 Rehab 68,079.00 894,852.30 68,079.00 825,189.00

242 5 Bansh Tari ISP 10 Rehab 66,830.00 891,938.70 66,847.19 836,163.00

243 6 Danda Barne ISP 12.9 Rehab 87,068.11 1,131,358.00 87,068.11 1,127,928.00

244 7 Dhaireni ISP 10 Rehab 68,079.15 855,230.00 68,079.15 856,901.00

245 8 Lakuri ISP 13.14 New 127,448.00 1,885,261.00 128,370.37 1,734,911.00

246 9 Jugepani ISP 18.56 New 188,585.00 2,538,013.00 817,004.09 2,204,904.00

247 10 Garijyula Ripayal ISP 13.5 Rehab 106,401.10 1,241,089.00 106,401.10 1,239,352.00

248 11 karangedhunga ISP 7.31 Rehab 58,223.71 733,491.30 58,223.71 714,046.00

249 12 Rithabot ISP 13.95 Rehab 142,935.00 1,776,948.00 142,935.00 1,758,596.00

250 13 Mach Kulo ISP 13.95 Rehab 127,195.50 1,667,751.00 127,195.50 1,642,540.00

251 14 Jitathan ISP 16.4 Rehab 143,309.80 1,755,710.00 143,309.80 1,736,326.80

252 15 Lankini ISP 11.77 Rehab 115,698.10 1,482,032.00 115,698.10 1,479,753.00

253 16 Kumle Bagar-Ameliya Jyula ISP

25 Rehab 186,177.10 2,433,113.50 295,654.19 2,110,183.00

254 17 Chhahare ISP 10 Rehab 90,877.87 1,442,755.20 90,877.87 1,315,225.93

255 18 Kaina-Bagar ISP 11 Rehab 200,790.00 944,375.10 200,790.00 1 1,006,880

256 19 Saure Khola ISP 20 New 147,273.90 1,956,909.80 147,273.90 1,810,264.41

257 20 Bagarkhet-Jhole ISP 10 New 94,600.00 950,098.10 94,600.00 1,170,123.48

Appendix 10 71

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

258 21 Pipal Aali ISP 10 New 64,324.53 1,101,071.90 64,324.53 1,013,955.00

259 22 Marm Khola ISP 10 Rehab 70,721.76 973,088.10 70,721.76 974,380.00

260 23 Bheri Khola ISP 21 New 178,274.10 2,632,689.00 178,274.10 2,677,040.04

261 24 Thula Khola Chaur ISP 16 New 116,648.00 1,681,730.00 116,648.00 1,552,564.00

262 25 Daha Khola ISP 24.8 Rehab 154,518.00 2,194,380.40 154,518.00 2,025,743.88

263 26 Kholai Kharka ISP 11.37 Rehab 75,200.46 1,021,535.90 75,200.46 989,518.00

264 27 Nyayikhark ISP 20 Rehab 146,784.00 1,980,915.20 146,784.00 2,483,873.00

265 28 Myanmya ISP 15.28 Rehab 175,161.10 2,193,520.40 175,161.10 2,182,237.92

266 29 Bagyakhet Syanipipal ISP 14 New 108,368.10 1,429,304.70 108,368.10 1,292,162.00

267 30 Balle Mahale Jyula ISP 10 New 63,967.64 976,945.50 63,967.64 897,271.00

268 31 Kalle Thapachaur ISP 12 New 94,449.01 1,208,092.20 94,449.00 1,352,969.26

269 32 Rekhmatillo Phadke ISP 12 Rehab 1,14337.00 1,633,386.33 1,10,216.00 1,620,824.82

270 33 Bhakkanemul ISP 11 New 208,888.00 2,956,072.90 208,888.00 2,951,781.37

271 34 Puraisoti Baluwa ISP 10 Rehab 306,531.70 941,390.19 306,531.70 1,528,151.53

272 35 Manika Dhunga ISP 10 Rehab 90,312.34 1,195,283.40 90,312.34 1,647,762.06

273 36 Chaite Khola Dalagaira ISP

10 Rehab 87,628.08 1,252,420.60 87,628.08 1,250,034.08

274 37 Sulimara ISP 12.5 Rehab 96,541.64 1,306,530.00 96,541.64 1,789,465.07

275 38 Tatke Krishi ISP 25 Rehab 194,537.60 2,737,797.00 194,537.60 2,733,709.60

276 39 Tallotadke Jiula Kotbara Khola ISP

11 Rehab 80,195.88 1,266,550.00 80,195.88 1,248,894.81

277 40 Thula Dhunga ISP 10 Rehab 72,846.65 1,016,470.00 72,846.65 1,016,351.08

278 41 Khara Khola Tatke Jiula ISP

24 Rehab 168,702.50 2,360,840.00 168,702.50 2,694,043.86

279 42 Magar Khola ISP 10 Rehab 278,768.50 3,469,437.90 278,768.50 3,458,380.89

Rukum

280 1 Dhav ISP 10.2 Rehab 61,437.11 941,473.32 61,437.11 941,002.32

281 2 Syala ISP 21.14 New 217,173.70 3,093,408.00 217,173.70 3,069,367.77

282 3 Gija Khare Khet ISP 10.5 Rehab 196,907.10 1,177,426.44 82,464.47 1,177,426.44

283 4 Holi ISP 24.87 Rehab 82,464.46 2,562,290.00 916,907.06 2,558,562.18

284 5 Gara ISP 10.3 Rehab 73,595.09 1,072,388.00 73,595.09 1,072,409.80

285 6 Jhinchaur ISP 10.2 Rehab 82,535.09 1,221,041.99 82,535.09 1,155,911.20

286 7 Jalighad ISP 10 New 107,087.50 1,399,141.00 107,087.50 1,399,680.33

287 8 Rewang and Triveni ISP 18.47 New 215,534.30 3,257,555.50 247,864.45 3,257,408.88

288 9 Garkhani ISP 10 New 124,372.20 1,550,629.00 140,590.35 1,622,213.09

289 10 Kuchaye Khola ISP 12.36 New 155,862.20 2,025,599.00 155,895.70 2,002,361.63

290 11 Ruma Khola ISP 11.97 New 133,841.10 1,803,974.00 209,246.63 1,919,485.07

291 12 Chinkhet ISP 13.92 Rehab 143,630.50 2,017,458.97 151,253.17 2,008,769.87

72 Appendix 10

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

292 13 Chhahara ISP 14.69 Rehab 129,293.80 1,624,125.00 129,293.80 1,615,958.20

293 14 Ghattekhola ISP 10.4 New 137,278.40 1,950,441.68 159,691.20 1,958,100.34

294 15 Rere Khola ISP 25 Rehab 272,252.70 3,354,522.00 272,252.70 3,350,078.00

295 16 Ghareli ISP 10.7 Rehab 125,412.80 1,605,924.00 125,412.80 1,599,908.00

296 17 Khoriya ISP 20.39 New 208,576.30 2,444,454.00 208,576.30 2,441,450.23

297 18 Jukane,Badhakhet Serakhet ISP

12.4 Rehab 114,433.00 1,423,449.00 114,433.00 1,422,048.08

298 19 Sidur ISP 10 Rehab 99,309.25 1,287,679.44 99,309.25 1,290,881.45

299 20 Syanduk ISP 10.23 New 117,667.20 1,441,732.00 182,384.16 2,301,775.48

300 21 Lisane ISP 16 Rehab 188,872.40 2,273,522.00 188,872.40 2,273,517.68

301 22 Jari Khola ISP 25 New 314,824.10 3,993,189.00 314,824.10 3,988,250.58

302 23 Daha Khola ISP 25 Rehab 274,886.40 3,358,602.00 274,886.40 3,358,681.16

303 24 Laurikatina ISP 17.12 Rehab 188,444.00 2,352,689.00 188,444.00 2,347,403.85

304 25 Pedi ISP 15.56 Rehab 180,404.00 2,393,493.00 180,404.00 2,386,989.50

305 26 Okhardhara Dinrabang ISP 15.3 Rehab 173,060.40 2,273,457.00 173,060.40 2,267,232.00

306 27 Kafalbang Dandagaun ISP

23.2 Rehab 277,659.80 3,530,165.00 277,659.80 3,548,038.51

307 28 Baluwachaur ISP 10 Rehab 109,629.00 1,598,539.99 206,102.52 1,848,539.97

308 29 Haans Khola ISP 13 Rehab 137,948.20 1,742,857.00 262,101.58 299,999.94

309 30 Bannechaur ISP 12 Rehab 159,405.70 1,934,009.51 159,405.70 1,934,009.51

310 31 Sim Khola ISP 12 Rehab 123,497.30 1,746,591.00 123,497.30 1,746,591.00

311 32 Thulimul ISP 20 Rehab 177,483.70 2,941,693.37 177,483.70 2,941,693.37

312 33 Dharapani ISP 12 New 137,018.00 1,933,446.00 137,018.00 1,933,446.00

313 34 Bheri Khola ISP 21.36 Rehab 225,650.70 2,898,999.00 225,650.70 2,898,999.00

314 35 Raja Pani ISP 25 New 328,796.30 4,305,985.00 328,796.30 4,305,985.00

315 36 Barala Khola ISP 20 Rehab 230,571.00 3,333,462.75 230,571.00 3,333,462.75

316 37 Betikhola Kalleri ISP 15 Rehab 188,892.70 2,522,594.00 188,892.70 2,522,594.00

317 38 Pipalneta Dhirenichaur ISP

11 Rehab 144,622.40 1,895,490.00 144,622.40 1,895,490.00

318 39 Betukhola ISP 25 Rehab 271,561.30 3,872,605.45 271,561.30 3,872,605.45

319 40 Dangdunge Jyamidada Kunawang ISP

19.46 Rehab 199,628.60 2,831,052.00 199,628.60 2,831,052.00

320 41 Pachhibang ISP 11 New 133,051.00 1,853,192.00 133,051.00 1,853,192.00

321 42 Panakhola ISP 14 Rehab 177,257.50 2,245,555.00 177,257.50 2,245,555.00

322 43 Bheri Kharka ISP 16 Rehab 215,362.30 2,608,722.00 215,362.30 2,608,722.00

323 44 Balle Khola ISP 22 New 234,414.00 3,948,784.00 234,414.00 3,948,784.00

Appendix 10 73

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

324 45 Jumlabang ISP 11 New 174,179.10 2,288,840.00 174,179.10 2,288,840.00 Doti

325 1 Thula Khola Haswani ISP 13.98 Rehab 92,183.83 1,100,402.00 116,056.42 1,093,852.65

326 2 Katauje ISP 18.36 Rehab 182,126.00 2,113,910.00 182,126.00 2,177,773.50

327 3 Kanibudhi Matikorne ISP 12.75 Rehab 84,170.42 805,547.40 84,170.42 993,720.11

328 4 Dodarka Khola ISP 19.14 Rehab 205,824.00 1,887,440.00 205,824.00 2,330,173.08

329 5 Veramuni ISP 24.91 Rehab 163,197.00 1,576,354.00 163,197.00 1,945,325.43

330 6 Varan ISP 19.15 Rehab 117,808.00 1,154,136.00 117,808.00 1,424,610.15

331 7 Kalimul Parikhet ISP 10.2 Rehab 70,192.00 689,301.90 70,192.00 850,990.01

332 8 Ghattekhola ISP 19.74 Rehab 139,829.10 2,246,042.00 139,829.10 2,246,042.00

333 9 Halude ISP 25 New 271,262.30 4,188,744.00 346,267.56 4,188,744.00

334 10 Dhamitado Canal ISP 13.4 New 148,690.40 2,125,311.00 148,690.40 2,125,311.00

335 11 Dogade Vidana ISP 10 Rehab 72,848.00 1,070,148.00 72,848.00 1,070,148.00

336 12 Talamathiajit ISP 17.96 Rehab 121,929.90 1,863,607.00 121,929.90 1,863,607.00

337 13 Gomat ISP 10.71 Rehab 101,098.00 1,510,549.00 101,097.72 1,504,953.68

338 14 Dangakhet ISP 16.5 New 190,508.80 2,992,640.00 191,042.18 2,984,965.79

340 15 Gadakot ISP 12.64 New 156,500.20 2,441,270.00 226,925.09 2,436,768.59

341 16 Panikholapang ISP 10.3 Rehab 80,542.63 1,280,469.00 82,160.70 1,274,606.76

342 17 Ruwagard ISP 17.25 Rehab 204,159.20 3,477,450.00 373,611.24 3,487,030.76

343 18 Dhampi Pokhari ISP 25 Rehab 236,500.20 4,116,014.00 469,099.19 4,104,323.82

344 19 Badikhana Odar ISP 22.4 Rehab 332,930.10 5,039,769.00 333,167.50 5,062,168.00

345 20 Simkunjyad ISP 10 Rehab 271,262.30 2,370,119.00 270,787.28 2,365,432.56

346 21 Barade Pokhari ISP 22 Rehab 180,191.10 2,655,351.00 331,537.63 2,649,711.51

347 22 Jadekhola Pokhari ISP 25 Rehab 199,196.40 3,038,981.00 365,611.58 3,059,114.67

348 23 Jhadikhet Challekhad ISP 25 New 202,030.10 2,651,658.00 404,060.20 2,651,658.00

349 24 Daugad Sichai Kulo ISP 22 New 184,823.50 2,439,828.00 369,647.00 2,451,862.45

350 25 Gadirukhi ISP 25 New 82,927.36 1,096,629.00 165,854.72 1,099,235.77

351 26 Pang Sichai Kulo ISP 16 Rehab 121,134.70 1,599,726.00 242,269.40 1,595,778.00

352 27 Rajpani Sichai Kulo ISP 12 New 124,185.00 1,766,505.00 124,184.20 1,767,837.63

353 28 Serikhet Samudayik ISP 23 New 169,655.70 2,242,294.00 339,311.40 2,243,835.24

354 29 Kola ISP 13 Rehab 110,744.10 1,464,997.00 221,488.20 1,471,997.69

355 30 Kittelote Pond ISP 15 New 180398.40 2310329.00 180398.40 2310329.00

356 31 Kumara Khet ISP 18 New 239,940.60 3,159,877.00 239,940.60 3,159,877.00

357 32 Thala ISP 24 New 246,258.40 2,335,600.00 246,258.40 2,335,600.00

358 33 Gallakhet ISP 20 New 160,893.70 2,132,391.00 160,893.70 2,132,391.00

359 34 Selline Sabkhola ISP 16 New 211,842.20 2,773,660.00 211,842.20 2,773,660.00

360 35 Pipalkatne ISP 17 New 212,371.20 2,806,606.00 329,175.36 1,543,633

361 36 Nabad Khet Silingibaag Sano ISP

19 New 141,025.90 1,844,046.00 141,025.90 1,844,046.00

Jumla

74 Appendix 10

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

362 1 Baluwa Bata Luma ISP 22.18 Rehab 195,960.61 3,324,897.25 195,960.61 2,362,123.01

363 2 Mahadeba ISP-B 22.03 Rehab 217,965.38 2,678,593.40 198,830.38 2,428,891.52

364 3 Mahari ISP 19.42 Rehab 192,289.70 2,295,604.00 173,154.76 2,124,329.78

365 4 Bhitra Khola ISP 24.99 Rehab 229,548.48 2,757,525.00 212,613.01 2,574,410.26

366 5 Kota_Jaitipur ISP 20.79 Rehab 152,972.81 2,361,709.00 305,945.62 3,806,382.08

367 6 Kalapani ISP 23.94 Rehab 223,138.88 3,054,767.00 206,203.06 4,808,567.49

368 7 Khadgara ISP 25 Rehab 199,029.36 2,833,737.00 397,580.38 4,720,496.63

369 8 Kaima ISP 25 Rehab 196,421.81 2,490,460.00 600,695.73 5,367,033.77

370 9 Mahadeba ISP -A 13.53 Rehab 121,542.98 1,642,247.10 243,166.50 2,664,551.03

371 10 Kharmata ISP 10 Rehab 83,023.81 1,346,236.40 166,047.62 2,331,737.15

372 11 Gautambada Harijyulo ISP

25 Rehab 225,820.40 3,307,119.00 450,641.01 5,211,291.99

373 12 Kothari ISP 10 Rehab 123,101.48 1,047,334.30 246,501.69 2,113,134.30

374 13 Rami Jyiulo Mulkulo ISP 15.27 New 277,453.16 3,903,883.03 554,043.84 6,158,431.54

375 14 Kirmichaur ISP 17.85 Rehab 201,727.24 3,226,061.00 403,293.24 4,996,994.56

376 15 Ghattakhola ISP 16.41 Rehab 194,596.48 2,444,963.26 389,771.16 4,442,048.44

377 16 Bhitra Khola ISP 18 New 215,606.30 2,236,480.00 215,606.30 2,236,480.00

378 17 Balichura ISP 19 New 254,972.00 2,645,994.00 254,972.00 2,645,994.00

379 18 Lachundandi ISP 25 New 251,965.00 2,598,124.00 251,965.00 2,598,124.00

380 19 Bagdula ISP 22 New 265,338.00 2,191,539.00 265,338.00 2,191,539.00

381 20 Serikulo ISP 16 New 161,695.00 2,081,437.00 161,695.00 2,081,437.00

382 21 Lidala Simjyula ISP 17 Rehab 158,309.00 1,563,850.00 158,309.00 1,563,850.00

383 22 Simkadne ISP 19 Rehab 233,861.20 2,191,007.00 233,861.20 2,191,007.00

384 23 Khotadi ISP 20 Rehab 152,757.00 195,0829.00 152,757.00 195,0829.00

385 24 Kangada ISP 13.12 New 242,045.30 1,491,237.00 242,045.30 1,491,237.00

386 25 Gothi ISP 11 New 198,633.50 1,473,111.00 198,633.50 1,473,111.00

387 26 Aideri ISP 25 New 261,608.00 2,856,754.00 261,608.00 2,856,754.00

388 27 Paribenna ISP 19 New 214,566.40 1,402,427.00 214,566.40 1,402,427.00

Mugu

389 1 Pahad Khope to Rishi Jyiula ISP

18.08 Rehab 173,094.00 4,465,074.00 173,094.00 4,090,452.80

390 2 Tali Ghuira Dhara ISP 13.6 Rehab 135,483.00 4,398,959.00 155,483.00 3,053,517.19

391 3 Rum Khola Jyiula Lampati ISP

24.65 Rehab 274,238.30 5,593,789.53 264,250.98 5,593,789.53

392 4 Mulbad Ghataa ISP 24.82 Rehab 302,509.60 5,580,026.51 352,973.01 5,580,026.51

393 5 Ghiapani Dandakhet Dhaudha ISP

10 New 120,148.20 2,519,848.51 120,148.20 2,519,848.51

394 6 Jiuli Ghatta Dekhi Kheteni ISP

25 New 378,031.10 7,424,613.35 472,538.88 7,424,613.35

Appendix 10 75

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

395 7 Dandakhola Talijiula ISP 25 New 334,297.60 4,771,673.00 334,297.60 4,485,373

396 8 Ghothi Khola Kathanechhada Dorso Ritharukha ISP

25 New 329,567.10 5,367,433.59 329,567.10 5,367,433.59

397 9 Paneri ISP 19 Rehab 672,965.30 5,950,400.91 874,824.59 5,950,400.91

398 10 Kumaghoth Bhitrakhola Nugrepatal Khadeni ISP.

25 Rehab 414,977.30 5,567,477.56 414,977.30 5,567,477.56

399 11 Bitrakhola Libru Tali Libru ISP

21.38 New 364,318.40 5,536,475.10 473,613.92 5,536,475.10

400 12 Adargad Bhujanthali ISP 17 New 237,153.30 4,514,969.00 237,153.30 4,514,969.00

401 13 Baddha ISP 25 New 668,817.30 5,419,037.00 668,817.30 5,419,037.00

402 14 Ratapanigilla ISP 19 New 218,615.80 5,620,724.80 218,615.80 5,414,726

403 15 Kachhe Jyiula ISP 17 New 410,496.30 5,864,234.00 410,496.30 5,864,234.00

404 16 Dahi ISP 25 New 243,024.30 5,546,298.00 243,024.30 5,546,298.00

405 17 Chfilly Chhada to Kalchedulla ISP

17 New 187,174.40 4,512,216.00 187,174.40 4,512,216.00

406 18 Kalai Kalikot ISP 11 New 122,598.30 2,236,036.00 122,598.30 2,236,036.00

407 19 Khutka Sain Bata Gauda ISP 25 New 292,210.00 5,785,164.00 292,210.00 5,785,164.00

408 20 Tandawada Dekhi Radikhelna ISP

17 New 381,898.30 5,457,691.00 381,898.30 5,457,691.00

409 21 Tarupadalla Dekhi Gaipulla ISP

25 New 280,477.10 5,109,936.00 280,477.10 5,109,936.00

410 22 Siddhikhola ISP 19 New 207782.10 2966784.00 207782.10 2966784.00

411 23 Mauri Pola Dekhi LumsaISP

10 New 521,962.30 2,402,610.00 521,962.30 2,402,610.00

412 24 Sirma Sunni ISP 25 New 369,675.80 4,912,658.00 369,675.80 4,912,658.00

413 25 Librukhola Dekhi Lueyata Chepade Rainchaura ISP

20.6 New 284,608.80 4,363,938.55 284,608.80 4,363,938.55

414 26 Chhatanne Dekhi Taja ISP

25 New 296,672.10 3,851,420.00 385,673.73 5,528,055

415 27 Sirma Sunni ISP 25 New 369,675.80 4,912,658.00 443,610.96 6,594,097

416 28 Mauripola ISP 10 New 2,402,610.00 521,962.30 2,402,610.00 521,962.30

Bajhang

417 1 Thali Jyiulo ISP 15.41 Rehab 90,559.33 2,092,100.60 90,559.33 1,930,634.43

418 2 Chhinigad B ISP 17.14 Rehab 142,678.70 2,281,991.00 142,678.70 2,176,064.63

419 3 Sirpi Khola Ghatte Khola ISP

10.77 Rehab 101,697.70 1,656,289.00 101,697.70 1,463,236.05

420 4 Gahute Khet ISP 10.2 Rehab 64,313.99 1,041,870.00 64,313.99 913,076.11

421 5 Narsi Kulo ISP 14.5 Rehab 97,415.45 2,070,874.60 97,415.45 1,896,583.02

422 6 Tallo Bhandari Gaon ISP 11.9 Rehab 77,587.22 1,892,743.60 77,587.22 1,891,557.68

423 7 Deu Bhuwa ISP 14.02 Rehab 93,084.25 2,125,310.86 93,084.25 2,118,783.90

424 8 Majhkulo ISP 12.63 Rehab 92,494.82 2,071,985.90 92,494.82 2,074,426.47

425 9 Riu Khet ISP 11.6 New 116,921.40 2,482,717.80 116,921.40 2,492,389.94

76 Appendix 10

S.N. Project

S.N. Irrigation Subproject

(ISP)

Command Area

ISP Category

Contract Agreement Amount Expenditure

WUA Contribution

NCB+WUA Payable WUA

Contribution NCB+WUA

Payable ha

Rehab/ New

Total Total

426 10 Nuwa Kulo ISP 15.3 Rehab 105,978.70 1,694,443.00 105,978.70 1,695,322.25

427 11 Bauligad ISP 18.31 New 193,245.50 3,023,684.00 193,071.58 3,033,000.82

428 12 Kauli Khola ISP 10.25 New 107,418.60 2,264,885.70 110,931.53 2,260,304.31

429 13 Selakhet ISP 12.32 Rehab 84,706.47 1,979,970.80 84,706.47 1,808,903.80

430 14 Khagada ISP 20.6 Rehab 141,839.70 2,830,358.60 141,839.70 2,830,549.54

431 15 Kharabagar ISP 10 Rehab 81,753.19 1,084,126.00 81,753.19 1,084,126.00

432 16 Damdur Jiulo ISP 25 Rehab 200,813.10 3,565,657.00 200,813.10 3,550,325.89

433 17 Pari Bagad ISP 10 Rehab 105,898.50 1,570,704.00 186,381.36 1,570,571.67

434 18 Joginaula Khaulena ISP 25 Rehab 227,933.60 3,772,944.00 227,933.60 3,770,297.58

435 19 Ruinabagar Sainlabagar Bhopur ISP

25 Rehab 276,009.40 2,924,501.00 276,009.40 2,924,501.00

436 20 Suilkhola Lakdekhola ISP 21 Rehab 198,185.00 3,144,999.00 198,185.00 3,149,418.98

437 21 Anna Bhagada ISP 10.38 Rehab 132,993.60 1,748,566.00 132,993.60 1,748,566.00

438 22 Jaksupa ISP 10.97 Rehab 110,140.10 1,456,854.00 110,140.10 1,456,854.00

439 23 Parikhet ISP 19 200,552.00 2,919,259.56 200,552.00 2,918,679.45

440 24 Badkulo ISP 25 Rehab 284,090.90 3,543,437.00 284,090.90 3,543,437.00

441 25 Sainad ISP 25 Rehab 252,831.80 3,335,449.00 252,831.80 3,335,449.00

442 26 Batulikhola 14.8 Rehab 224,148.80 2,965,687.00 224,148.80 2,965,687.00

443 27 Jassayakat 25 Rehab 273,250.90 3,285,458.00 273,250.90 3,285,458.00

444 28 Chhinikhet ISP 12 Rehab 143,065.60 1,855,087.00 143,065.60 1,855,087.00

445 29 Mauribagar ISP 10 Rehab 158,036.00 2,058,919.00 158,036.00 2,058,919.00

446 30 Bhedaduna Dumra ISP 22 Rehab 175,700.10 3,214,739.27 175,700.10 3,214,739.27

447 31 Tamtani ISP 13 Rehab 147,675.40 2,714,250.12 147,675.40 2,714,250.12

448 32 Girpubaikatte ISP 17 Rehab 207,880.30 3,901,478.36 207,880.30 3,901,478.36

449 33 Tallochuwaban ISP 24 Rehab 262,033.00 4,988,122.20 262,033.00 4,988,122.20

450 34 Kanda ISP 20 Rehab 203,619.10 3,873,455.97 203,619.10 3,873,455.97

451 35 Dharchadiarsyadi ISP 11 Rehab 127,974.80 1,719,736.34 127,974.80 1,719,736.34

452 36 Maubheri ISP 22 Rehab 184,064.90 3,480,078.80 184,064.90 3,480,078.80

453 37 Bhadikhet ISP 17 Rehab 254,543.70 3,009,018.65 254,543.70 3,009,018.65

454 38 Naini ISP 23 Rehab 197,437.30 2,869,547.38 197,437.30 3,442,493

455 39 Sepata ISP 12 Rehab 139,035.30 1,831,020.21 139,035.30 1,831,020.21

456 40 Rekhadi ISP 22 New 216219.60 2,846,743.52 172,975.00 3,304,230.00

ISP = irrigation subproject Source: CIP Project Completion Report 2019, DOLIDAR