Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 5469-IN INDIA STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II Septezgaer 20, 1985 General Agriculture II Division South Asia Projects Department This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Transcript
Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No. 5469-IN
INDIA
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
OF THE
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II
Septezgaer 20, 1985
General Agriculture II DivisionSouth Asia Projects Department
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENTCY EQUIVALENTS
US$ = Rupees (Rs) 12.00
FISCAL YEAR
SAU and GOI, April 1 to March 31
WEIGETS AND MEASURES
Metric System
f
ABBREVIATIONS
AICRP - All India Coordinated Research ProjectDOA - Department of AgricultureGOI - Government of IndiaICAR - Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchISP - Interdisciplinary Scientific PanelMOA - Ministry of AgricultureHARP - National Agricultural Research ProjectPFC - Project Funding CommitteePU - Project UnitSAU - State Agricultural University5MS - Subject Matter Specialist
FlO OMCIAL USE ONLY
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
INDIA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCE PROJECT !T
Table of Contents
Pate No.
Credit and Project Sumuary
I. BMCI GROUND .............. ......... .e................. 1
Agricultural in India ... ................................. . 1Agricultural Research 2...................................... 2
- ICuR .................................................. 2- Agricultural Universities ... a.....a....... 3- ICAR Supported Training ......... g.c.ecgg.e.ccsccc.... 4- Research Development in India .eeee.ecec.eee.........e.e 4
_I. THE FIRST NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT .. * ........ 6
- Objectives 6.semc...eees.c.es.ee..eeeecssece.c.cceeecece 6- Types of Research . .... .. . ... ee. 7- Eligibility of BAUs ..... ...... s e.eg.........ce.e 7- ICAR Project Implementation .......................... 8- Project Cost .........................................cgsemsc.e..c. 8Progress and Achievements ... ........ ..... ................ 9
- Physical Achievements ................ .. see...... 9- Qualitative Achievements s g ccc........sec..... 10- Performance of ICAR ..... cme.eeeeceec..eess.ccssssse.cce 13Lessons Learned .... ................. ...... e.c.. s 14
III. PROJECT RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES ........................... 15
IV. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II .............. .... 16
General Description ................. ccc...... e ,cc 16Detailed Description . e.g.....e.c.m......e.se.c...... 17
- Completion of Subprojectsc.c.mcc.mee.eseeseeccce.mse 17- Research Subprojects ............ eme.eeceeemsesccee 17- Sipplemental Subprojects ....... ccecece.mememseee.gs 17- New Subprojects ........... se... eec... ...ec. 18- Special Research Subprojects e.........m..ee............. 20- Phasing of Research Subprojects .....seemcesce .......... 20- Cost of Research Subprojects ............ eeeo.....esec 20
Thidornuntha anstiddbtibutn and may be u by rcipbats only in dt peformnceof thei offkieWdutb Its contents may not otherwie be dislosd witbout Wodd Dank authorlintn.
-ii-
Table of Contents (continuation) Page No.
- SAU Research Administration ............................ 21- ICAR Administration .................................... 21
V. COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCING ................................ 22
VI. ORGANIZATION AIND MANAGEMENT .. ..................... ....... 27
Project Unit Tasks ............................... 27- Preparation and Appraisal of Subprojects ............... 28- Coordination Arrangements for Irrigation Research ...... 29- Supervision ............................................ 30- Mid-Term Review ...... *.. ................................ 30
Administration of University Research ........ .............. 30Research-Extension Linkages ................................ 31All India Coordinated Research Projects .................... 32
VII. BENEFITS AND RISKS ................. .......................... 33
VIII. AGREEMENTS REACHED ADD RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 37
List of Annexes
1. Terms and Conditions for Administration of NARP II
2. List of State Agricultural Universities in IndiaList of ICAR Research InstitutesAll India Coordinated Research Projects
3. Procedure for Sanctioning SubprojectsSummary of Progress: NARPList of Completed SubprojectsAgroecological Zones
4. Achievements and Particular Problems of State Agricultural Universities
5. Spillover of Subprojects Committed in NARPProject Unit CostsSummary of Project Costs
-i ii-
Table of Contents (continuation)
6. Composition of Interdisciplinary Scientific Panel
7. Cost and Benefits of a new Research Subproject
8. Disbursement Schedule
9. Material Available in Project File
Chart 1 - 27042 University Research Organization
Chart 2 - 27043 ICAR Project Administration
Maps - IBRD 18726R
INDIA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II
CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMARY
Borrower: India, acting by its President.
Beneficiaries: The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) andState Agricultural Universities (SAUs).
Amount: SDR 69.6 million (US$72.1 million equivalent)
Terms: Standard
On-lending From the Government of India (GOI) to ICAR, and from ICAR toTerms: SAUs as a grant. GOI will bear the foreign exchange risk.
Project: The project would strengthen the capability of SAUs to con-duct location-specific research in the main agroecologicalzones in India initiated under the first National Agricul-tural Research Project (NARP) and further extend its scope toinclude the priority research needs of these zones underrainfed and irrigated farming conditions. The project wouldsupport the following activities:
(a) completion of NARP research subprojects; I/
(b) (i) New areas of research such as irrigated farminig,animal drawn farm implements, horticulture and commercialfield crops, agroforestry, and animal nutrition, (ii)development of programs for field testing and refiningresearch results, and (iii) strengthening of trainingfacilities at Regional Research Stations;
(c) Individual research activities on priority topics emerg-ing or identified during project impLementation and notcovered under (b) above;
(d) Strengthening of research administration in two SAUs;and
(e) Continued funding of ICAR's Project Unit establishedunder NARP, including the provision of training forresearch scientists.
1/ Only those subprojects that have not completed five years of operation.
- ii -
Benefits: Major qualitative improvements in research program planningand in the quality of experiments and findings -- par-ticularly as they relate to specific farming situations andto extension activities -- are expected to result from theproject. There is already increasing evidence (under NARPand the Bank-supported extension projects) of gradual, butsignificant improvements in the extent and quality of supportprovided by the research institutions to the reformed exten-sion services. A recent ICAR review has indicated substan-tial improvements in the capacity of Research Stations andscientists to: identify farming situations and constraintsto increasing production, determine research priorities forindividual agricultural sub-zones, improve the quality ofindividual experiments, conduct field testing of on-stationresearch findings, and establish closer linkages and contactswith extension staff and farmers. The review also indicatesthat technology recommendations are increasingly more refinedand appropriate to suit farmers' needs and constraints andthat extension workers are now better equipped than beforewith relevant technical messages and are able to advisefarmers with greater confidence.
The project would also contribute to institution buildingand be instrumental in solidifying the transformation ofIndia's agricultural research system into an efficient andfarmer-responsive research service. It would supportbroadening of the research effort to include all identifiedpriority needs in each agro-ecological zone and strengthenthe research system's capability to provide support toagricultural extension services through the development ofeconomically viable technologies and their adaptation to thediffering resource endowments and risk situations of farmers.In addition, it would bring about significant improvements inthe efficiency of resource utilization in agriculturalresearch, through its emphasis on effective research manage-ment.
Risks: There is the possibility that the research results generatedmay not be adequate to meet farmer needs under actual farmconditions, or that these results may not be satisfactorilytransmitted to farmers. To counter these risks, the projectprovides for regional decentralization; emphasizes researchon location-specific farmer needs, field-testing and adapta-tion, increased cooperation and communication between exten-sion staff and farmers, and the prompt feedback of researchresults. The Bank's support of improved agricultural exten-sion services and promotion of close cooperation betweenagricultural research institutions and State extension serv-ices would help to ensure the early adoption of researchresults by farmers. The administrative and organizational
- 2.11 -
changes initiated under NARP and the careful preparatory workundertaken for this project should be adequate to ensure thatimplementation risks are at a minimum. The decision toimplement the project over a seven-year period reflectsgreater realism concerning the pace of implementation ofagricultural research projects and is aimed at the completionof the project on schedule.
Estimated Cost: 1/
(US$ Million Equivalent)Local Foreign Total
Civil Works 26.58 - 26.58Equipment and Vehicles 12.35 1.37 13.72Incremental Salaries 29.94 - 29.94Incremental Operating Costs 7.44 0.94 8.38
Appraisal Report: No. 5469-IN, dated September 20, 1985.
1/ According to IDA fiscal year.
INDIA
NATIONAL ACRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II
I. BACKCROUND
Introduction
1.01 Since June 1983, Bank staff have been er.gaged in a series of discus-sions with the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR) and his senior colleagues on a follow-up project to consolidate andcomplete the reorganization of the regional research capabilities of StateAgricultural Universities (SAUs) initiated under the National AgriculturaLResearch Project (Cr. 855-IN) and as well as to strengthen, at SAUs, otheraspects of research which would support the priority agricultural researchneeds of the 121 identified agroecological zones to be found throughout 17states of India.
1.02 In February 1984, ICAR prepared a brief outline of the follow-upproject. Following discussions with IDA, a detailed Project PreparationReport was produced in September 1984. This report is based on the findingsof an IDA appraisal mission comprising Messrs. R.V. Ramakrishna, C.J.R.Bridge, J. Kampen, C. Schreiber, A. Appa Rao (IDA) and T.J. Willcocks(Consultant), which visited India in October - November 1984.
Agriculture in India
1.03 Agriculture is the dominant sector of the Indian economy and con-tributes about 402 of CNP. It engages about 70Z of the labor force andprovides the base for about 55% of India's exports.
1.04 The Bank's agricultural program in India during the past 15 yearshas aimed at assisting India to achieve self-sufficiency in foodgrains and toincrease farm incomes in an equitable manner. The Bank is actively involvedin some 60 agricultural projects representing large investments ininfrastruccure and expanded agricultural services. With the remarkableincreases in foodgrain production in recent years, India has attained effec-tive self-sufficiency, despite an annual population growth rate of 2.2X,although a shortage of edible oils persists. Yield increases of edibleoilseeds have not been significant, and recent increases in production aremainly due to the extension of areas under cultivation. Nevertheless, fur-ther efforts to improve agricultural productivity are needed to meet futuredemand increases. The rate of overall crop yield increases has been falling,and agriculture has stagnated in some parts of the country. The projectionsof demand for foodgrains by the terminal year of the Seventh Five Year Plan(1990) call for annual foodgrain production of 168-170 MT, compared with1983/84 production of abouc 150 MT. This represpnts an annual growth rate ofabout 2.7% co-pared with the long-term growth rate of 2.5Z for the period1967/68 to 1981/82. A number of factors point to the increasing difficultywhich India will have to face to achieve this ambitious target.
-2-
1.05 Almost 90X of the increase in foodgrain production in the post GreenRevolution period came from wheat and rice, which together cover only abouthalf the total area under food crops, mainly the relatively better endowed,more homogeneous regions in the States of Punjab, Haryana, western UttarPradesh and the delta regions of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. These arealso predominately irrigated areas. Future yield increases in both wheat andrice, the main sources of past growth, will be more difficult to achieve thanpast yield increases and are likely to give less impressive results. In thepast, the increase was mostly from adopting the high-yieldingseed-fertilizer-irrigation technology by farmers who were capable of takingthe limited risks associated with adoption of such new technology. Suchareas are now beginning to experience second generation problems, such asincreasing pest and disease problems and micro-nutrient deficiencies. Thus,sustained increases in yields in wheat and rice wilL depend in part on thedevelopment and adoption of even more sophisticated technology.
1.06 Trrigation systems now being developed and those most likely to bedeveloped in the future are mainly in the southern regions, where croppingintensities in irrigated areas have been low. Production efficiency in theseareas can be achieved through development of better managed and operatedsystems coupled with farm management techniques appropriate to a particularsystem. Such techniques can only be generated through appropriate researchactions. The potential for wheat and rice production is large in the easternregion. but has generally lagged because of poor farmer servicing andheterogenous farm systems that have not been supported by adequate research.Though there is considerable scope for increasing production in irrigatedareas, most of the future increase in foodgrain production will have to comefrom rainfed areas, from oilseeds and pulses and from sorghum and milletswhich are the staple diet of the rural poor. These regions are more ecologi-cally diverse and present greater problems both in developing the technologyneeded for the many agroecological zones and its transfer to farmers.
1.07 The above underscores the need for continuing improvements inagricultural research and the associated extension services in helping Indiameet the future challenges facing agricultire. Improving these servicesremains one of the relatively low-cost means of increasing agriculturalproductivity, making more effective use of past investments in infrastructureand reaching all farmers, particularly the smaller ones.
Agricultural Research
1.08 Agriculture is constitutionally a state subject in India, and thusagricuLtural research is primarily a state responsibility. State Agricul-tural Universities undertake this function on behalf of the State Governmentand receive the main part of their financial support from the state. mostlyin the form of non-plan grants which in the most important factor in their(SAU) effective functioning. The Indian Council of Agricultural Researchserves as a national coordinating and supporting agency and provides assis-tance to SAUs in performing their duties.
1.09 Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The Indian agric;Ituralresearch system is a cooperative program between the Government of India(GOI) and the individual states. GOI's contribution to the development ofagricultural research and education is funded through ICAR. The latter isnot only active in managing research programs of its own but also serves as
-3-
the apex national coordinating body for research carried out in the differentstates. It functions by:
(a) Providing overall guidance to research and helping in settingpriorities;
(b) Providing financial support for the establishment of newagricultural universities including the setting of appropriateacademic and research standards;
(c) Making available financial and technical support for thedevelopment of education and research at SAUs including develop-ment of regional research capability (Annex 2, Page 1 gives alist of SAUs);
td) Managing and financing 38 centrally controlled agriculturalresearch instituces which were set up to carry out neededindepth research on a wide range of commodities and relatedproduction and problem areas (Annex 2, Page 2 gives details);
(e) Administrating and financing five oroject directorates and about60 national coordinated research schemes on commodities orproblems of widespread interest and concern and which areexecuted through the central research institutes and SAUs orother appropriate state level research agencies including ad hocresearch projects conducted by individual institutions (Annex 2,Pages 3-6 gives details);
(C) Conducting national demonstrations for transfer of improvedtechnology, and funding operational research projects, anational lab-to-land program, and Krishi Vigyan Kendras (farmscience centers) scattered throughout the country; and
(g) Ersuring cooperation with international agricultural researchinstitutes and other international organizations 1/ and bodiesfor exchange of scientific information, genetic material andtechnical know how.
1.10 Agricultural Universities. Responsibility at the state level forresearch and higher education in agr;zulture is, with very few exceptions, 2/vested in SAUs. SAUs have now assumed responsibility for all administration
1/ India has established effective working relationships with internationalagricultural research centers, notably CIMMYT, IRRI, CIP, ICRISAT, andIBPCR, and has utilized genetic material and scientific informationemanating there from, and has made substantial contributions to thesecenters and to the international research community generally in terms ofgenetic material, scientific and technological information, and talent.
2/ State Departments of Agriculture still retain responsibility for researchin West Bengal and some of the smaller states/centrally administeredareas which do not have agricultural universities; for sugarcane andhorticultural research in Uttar Pradesh and for research in certainirrigated command areas of Rajasthan.
-4-
and execution of research at experimental stations within their respectiveareas, many of which were formerly owned and operated by the Department ofAgriculture.
1.11 The agricultural universities of India (23 SAUs in 1 states; andthe Indian Agricultural Research Institute and Indian Veterinary ResearchInstitute which award only postgraduate degrees) have gradually developedover the past 20 years and were established with the objective of creating asystem of scientific education and research which would serve the needs ofthe farming commmunity. While most states have one university (with severalcollege campuses located throughout the state), a few have more than one -Maharashtra (4), Uttar Pradesh (3) and Bihar (2).
1.12 The basic objectives of the agricultural universities were similar tothose established under the United States of America's Land Grant CollegeSystem and several U.S. colleges provided teams of technical advisors toassist in the planning and development of the first SAUs. The development ofSAUs has been very uneven, resulting from differences in political environ-ment, the strength of university leadership, and state government support.Most SAUs have, however, now matured into vigorous institutions capable ofmeeting the needs of their farming communities.
1.13 ICAR Supported Training. The Indian Agricultural Research Institute,supported by ICAR and established in 1905, is the premier institution in thecountry for Ph.D. and postdoctoral training in the agricultural sciences andin carrying out fundamental research. The Central Staff College for Agricul-ture, Hyderabad was established in 1976 to provide research management train-ing to ICAR scientists. The Staff College has been recently renamed theNational Academy of Agricultural Research Management and is now engaged intraining ICAR scientists and has organized workshops and training programsfor SAU scientists on the objectives of the National Agricultural ResearchProject (Cr. 855-IN).
1.14 Research Development in India. ICAR is directly responsible formanaging the Central Institutes of Agricultural Research (38) and the AllIndia Coordinated Research Projects (60). Many of these were started beforethe establishment of SAUs. These institutes and programs are totally andadequately funded by ICAR and have made a significant past contribution tothe generation of agricultural technology throughout India. Prior to theestablishment of SAUs, State Departments of Agriculture were given respon-sibility for agricultural research and this was conducted on a limited numberof agricultural stations and with sparse resources. These stations werelater transferred to SAUs and due to a paucity of funds flowing from thestate government, most research was concentrated at main campus level andvery few outlying stations were strengthened/established to meet locationspecific needs. As such, most of the research support to SAUs was providedthrough the ICAR funded Coordinated Research Projects.
1.15 The output from central, state and international cooperative researchhas, nevertheless, achieved major advances in foodgrain production during thepast twenty years, the most notable achievements being for wheat and ricecrops and where basic genetic materials with high yield potential, shortstature, high tillering capacity, lodging resistance, and fertilizer respon-siveness were imported from abroad--wheat from Mexico and rice through theInternational Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. These initialintroductions were further developed to incorporate desired grain quality,
-5-
broad based resistance to local pathogens and pests, and better adaptation(with appropriate adjustment in cultural practices) to the ecological condi-tions prevailing in the country. Since the early 1960s, wheat production hasincreased 2-1/2 to 3 fold and rice production has gone up by more tnan 50%.Significant, but less spectaculai, were gains made with pearl millet andsorghum. Although earlier mome:fturn in the production of hybrids of pearlmiLlet received a set back due to disease problems, new sources of resistancehave been identified and resistant hybrids and composites made available tofarmers. Suitable sorghum hy:.-:_ds co be grown in the kharif (monsoon) seasonin the Deccan have also been developed. Similar success has been achievedfor the cotton crop.
1.16 The country has the institutional base, a management system, andscientists capable or making substantial progress towards development of theappropriate technology reo 4red to meet the present and future demands ofagriculture. This capability has, however, not developed to a sufficientdegree and much basic research .nfrastructure is still lacking at SAU.Scientists have not made adequate efforts to adapt recommendations to suitthe varying socio-economic conditions of farmers, nor is there a generalrealization that technology which is applicable under one ecological situa-tion may have to be modified substantially to be useful under another, butquite different, set of conditions, especially in a country as large and asecologically eiverse as India. Some important reasons for this are: (i)inadequate past pressure from the extension service and particularly the enduser of technology - the farmers, (ii) limited exposure to field conditionsby researchers resulting in a "top-down" approach to research planning, (iii)inadequate research facilities away from the main SAU campus and the mainagroecological zones, (iv) preoccupation with varietal development resultingin neglect of farming systems research, and (v) absence of any economic orrisk analysis of research results.
Agricultural Extension
1.17 While SAUs have responsibility for research and generation ofappropriate technology, the State Departments of Agriculture are responsiblefor extension. In 1974, GOI, with IDA assistance, introduced a new approachto agricultural extension -- the Training and Visit System (T&V) -- throughtwo pilot projects (Cr. 502-IN and C-. 562-IN) in the states of Rajasthan andMadhya Pradesh. The methodology involved has, subsequently, been introducedin eleven more states. T&V aims at increasing the productivity on farms andincome of farmers by simultaneously addressing constraints to the transfer ofnew agricultural technology from research to the farmer, and to the feedbackfrom the farmer that must orient research and other organizations to actualfarm problems. Some of the changes introduced are organizational(single-line control, excLusive responsibility), others are operational(fixed, regular contact between farmers and extension, coverage, mobility,housing in the field) and still others relate to the linkage between researchand extension (regular meetings and workshops of extension and researchstaff, joint field visits, formation of diagnostic teams,- systematic feedbackof farmers' problems and responses to research). The earlier T&V projects inthe states of West Bengal, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Assamincluded a research component to strengthen SAU research facilities atregional stations. Research funds were provided in the state governmentbudgets and in the absence of a free flow of funds to SAUs in the abovestates, the research programs had minimum impact. In addition, ICAR was notfully involved in these projects. In recognition of the growing demand for
-6-
IDA assistance in reforming statewide agricultural extension systems and aneed to narrow the gap between ongoing research programs and the requirementsof farmers for new technology and information, it was decided that support tostate level agricultural research could be best provided through the mediumo' a national project (National Agricultural Research Project, Credit 855-IN,1978, paras 2.01-2.28) making use of tt.e experience already available withICAR to fund research programs in SAUs. Recently, an IDA assisted NationalAgricultural Extension Project (NAEP) has been approved with the objective of(a) consolidating the improved extension service in Orissa, Madhya Pradeshand Rajasthan which have completed five years of operation; and (b) reor-ganizing and strengthening the Directorate of Extension in the Ministry ofAgriculture (GOI) to perform effectively its coordination and policy guidancerole. Still more recently, NAEP II, covering the states of Karnataka,Gujarat and Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir has been approved, providing assis-tance to states (Karnataka, Gujarat and Haryana) completing five years ofoperating the reformed extension system and introducing the T&V extensionsystem to Jammu and Kashmir.
II. THE FIRST NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT (CR 855-IN)
Objectives
2.01 The National Agricultural Research Project (effective in January1979) had limited objectives and was designed to strengthen the capability ofState Agricultural Universities to conduct zonal research in support ofreformed statewide agricultural extension projects. This was to be broughtabout through improvements to existing university based agricultural researchand concentrated, in particular, on research oriented towards the needs ofmain agroecological zones with special emphasis on foodgrains (cereals andpulses) and oilseeds, especially those grown under rainfed conditions, and tothe integration of cropping patterns and animal husbandry practices. ICARsupported Central Research Institutes and the All India Coordinated ResearchProjects were excluded from the project as ICAR had adequate funds to financetaese programs.
Types of Research
2.02 The following types of research activities have been supported underthe project:
(a) At SAU Campuses. Provision of resources needed to initiate,strengthen, or accelerate basic research by outstanding scien-tists on topics which are crucial to the long term agriculturaldevelopment of the State;
(b) At SAU Main Research Stations. Provision of resources, includ-ing infrastructure, required to (i) strengthen ongoing research,(ii) pursue new applied research aimed at alleviating or remov-ing constraints on the production of commodities for which thestation performs a lead function, (iii) verify research resultsfor other major commodities produced in the station's servicearea, and (iv) identify farming constraints in order to deter-mine the reasons for differing adoption rates by farmers ofrecommendations made by SAU;
-7-
(c) At SAU Research Substations. Provision of resources, includinginfrastructure, required to verify research results for impor-tant crops grown in the substation's service area; and
(d) Ad hoc Research. Provision of funds for individual scientiststo carry out applied research on priority topics emerging orbeing identified during project implementation and not coveredabove.
Eligibility of SAUs
2.03 All SAUs are eligible for support under NARP provided that, to thesatisfaction of PFC, they (a) have complied with GOI/ICAR administrativestandards regarding payment of agreed scales to scientists and generalrecruitment and administrative procedures; (b) produced a background paperproviding an introduction to agriculture in the state; identifying the mainagroecological zones in the area influenced by any one SAU and analyzingtheir agronomic and socio-economic characteristics and research needs;describing the existing organization and management of research; (c) arewilling to recruit adequately experienced staff; (d) have established satis-factory linkages with state extension services; and (e) within one yeariniLiated and participated in a detailed Research Review of the total exist-ing research effort in the state, including identificatic. of future priorityareas and crops, proposals for the total number and location of researchstations, division of labor between SAU and concerned ICAR institutions toavoid duplication of effort, use of staff and resources, establishment ofadequate research-extension linkages, and organization and administration ofresearch.
2.04 To achieve the project objectives one research subproject has beenprepared, appraised and supported for each of the identified agroecologicalzones and designed to strengthen/establish a Regional Research Station (para2.12) and initiate a research program based on priority needs of rainfedagriculture. The average cost of a typical five year research subproject hasbeen about Rs 8.5 M, with the investment distributed as follows: 43Z on civilworks, 18% on equipment and vehicles, 31% on incremental staff and 8Z onoperating costs.
SAU Administrative Subprojects
2.05 The project financed measures needed to strengthen the researchadministration of individual SAU in planning and monitoring the university'stotal research program and provided for the organization of regional, com-modity and discipline oriented training workshops.
Training Subprojects
2.06 Training facilities at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute(IARI), New Delhi have been strengthened so as to increase its capacity toaccept SAU scientists for training. Similarly, the National Academy forAgricultural Research Management (NAARM) has been strengthened (by providingadditional staff and physical facilities) to enable it to train SAU scien-tists in NARP concepts and research methodology.
-8-
ICAR Project Implementation
2.07 A Project Unit (PU) has been established and financed within ICAR toadminister the project. PU is headed by the Deputy Director General (Educa-tion), ICAR who is designated as Project Administrator. The Project Unitarranges for SAU Research Reviews (para 2.03) and appraisal of subprojects,and monitors implementation. Before the project became effective (January29, 1979), ICAR constituted a Project Funding Comnittee (PFC), chaired by theDirector General of ICAR with GOI Agricultural Commissioner (MOA), the Chief(Agriculture) of the National Planning Commission, Vice Chancellors of twoselected SAUs, and the Project Administrator as members. PFC is the overallproject executive authority with powers to admit SAUs to participate in theproject, to approve or reject subprojects and to oversee project execution.An interdisciplinary scientific panel (ISP) of eminent agricultural scien-tists reviews the research projects appraised by PU, makes recommendationsfor modifications and also provides technical advice to PFC.
2.08 Following satisfactory completion by SAU of the background paper andthe Research Review (para 2.03), SAU, with assistance from PU, if required,prepared and submitted subprojects for consideration by PFC. Sanction ofindividual subprojects by PFC (para 2.07) was phased over the five yearimplementation period and according to agreed procedures including an under-taking from state governments tnat they would support the operating costsafter the five year period. Details are at Annex 3, Page 1. IDA supervisionmissions have constantly monitored the present system and have found that theagreed procedures have worked satisfactorily.
2.09 Project Cost. Total project costs of US$54.0 M (Rs 465.0 M) weremade up as follows:
Research Subprojects US$M RPSM
(a) Infrastructure, staff, vehicles 45.0 386.0plant and equipment
(b) Land acquisition, routine 5.0 40.0cultivation and SAU overhead _
Subtotal 50.0 426.0
(c) SAU Research Administration 1.0 10.0
(d) IARI and Staff College Subprojects 2.0 20.0
(e) ICAR Administration 1.0 9.0Total 54.0 465.0
Given that each participating SAU was required to undertake a Research Review(para 2.03) prior to becoming eligible for participation in NARP and whichwas then followed by preparation and acceptance of individual subprojects, itwas rightly assumed that the build up of subprojects would be slow and extendover the five year project period. As a result, the disbursement period ofthe majority of administrative and research subprojects was expected toextend beyond the five year project period, and at appraisal a spillover ofcommitments to the extent of about Rs 318.55 M (US$37.04 M) at Project Clos-ing was estimated.
-9-
Progress and Achievements
Physical Achievements
2.10 The proJect became effective on January 29, 1979 and the CreditClosing Date was initially fixed for September 30, 1983. Progress was veryslow in the first three years and by the end of the first three project years(1980/81), financial commitments (Rs 116 H) and disbursements (Rs 26 M) weremuch below appraisal estimates.
2.11 PU became fully staffed by the end of the third project year bringingabout improved project performance in terms of preparation, appraisal andsanction of subprojects, monitoring of implementation and technical programformulation, and in organization of training workshops for SAU scientists.As a result, in the years 1981/82 and 1982/83, project implementation took aturn for the better, with increased financial commitments (Rs 415 M) anddisbursements (Rs 129 M) by the end of March 1983. In September 1983, it wasrecognized that an additional two years would be required to complete theproject since the time lost in the initial two years could not be regained.The Credit Closing Date was extended by one year, in the first instance, toSeptember 30, 1984. Again, due to further improvement in performance in1983/84 (disbursements in 1983/84 alone amounted to Rs 96 M as against 129 Min first five years - 1979-83) the Credit Closing Date was further extendedby one year to September 30, 1985. As a result of these efforts, ICAR com-mitments, by end of March 31, 1985 (over a period of seven years), will be ofthe order of Rs 733 M (against appraisal target of Rs 744 M) and ICAR disbur-sements by September 30, 1985 at Rs 400 M (against appraisal target ofRs 425 M).
2.12 Of the 23 SAUs in India, 21 SAUs are already eligible for assistanceunder NARP by virtue of preparing Background Papers and Research Reviews ofappropriate quality. These reports have been examined and approved by PFCon the recommendation of the Interdisciplinary Scientific Panel. By the endof March 31, 1985, ICAR would have sanctioned 87 research subprojects. Ofthese, 82 research subprojects have been approved for an equal number ofagroecological zones to strengthen/establish 82 Regional Research Stationsin 15 states (21 SAUs). The remaining five are special (basic research)subprojects located at SAU headquarters. Brief details of physical achieve-ment are given below:
Unit Target Achievements
SAU Background Paper Nos. 15 22State Research Review Nos. 15 16SAU Administrative Subprojects Nos. 15 21ICAR Training Subprojects Nos. 2 2SAU Research Subprojects Nos. 56 87Estimated Total Commitments (ICAR) Rs.M 744 733Estimated Total Disbursements (ICAR) Rs.M 425 400
Further details are at Annex 3, Table 1.
2.13 Of the 21 Administrative, 87 Research and 2 Training Subprojectssanctioned by March 31, 1985, 9 Administrative and 11 Research Subprojectswould have completed five years of operation by September 30, 1985 and the
-10-
residual cost of the remaining 12 Administrative, 76 Research and 2 Trainingsubprojects (which have not completed five years) would be continued asspillover costs and included in the proposed project for the remaining periodof their operation. Completed subprojects are listed at Annex 3, Page 2.
2.14 Progress of civil works was slow in subprojects which were sanctionedin the first three project y...rs primarily due to delays in land acquisition,selection of architects, preparation of design and estimates, and obtainingapproval of ICAR. As SAUe gained experience, formalities were completedquickly and progress has been faster. Quality of construction has generallybeen good. Progress in purchase of equipment has been uneven. In case ofsubprojects located at SAU campus and in places where some storage facilitiesare available, the rate of purchase has been satisfactory. In remote andless developed places there has been delay pending completion of the mainbuildings. Procurement procedures have been satisfactory.
2.15 Master Plans have been prepared at Regional Research Stations forfarm development. Staff recruitment has been satisfactory overall. About1,000 incremental scientist positions have been established and about 70-75%of these positions are filled. Research Program development has been satis-factory and research program formulation (on the basis of revised guidelines)has not waited for the completion of civil works and purchase of equipment,but given the length of time required to test experimental findings over anumber of seasons, the amount of new recommendations reaching farmers issomewhat limited.
2.16 The progress of research subprojects is uneven. SAUs in the statesof Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Kerala, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan haveperformed well; overall improvement is needed in the states of Assam, Bihar,Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh; and subprojects havebeen sanctioned late in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. A brief review sum-marizing the achievements and particular problems of individual SAUs is givenin Annex 4.
Qualitative Achievements
2.17 Research Reviews. At the time of appraisal there were 21 agricul-tural universities in the country. Two more universities have been estab-lished since then - Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, Bihar andSher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Srinagar,Jammu and Kashmir making a total of 23 SAUs. Detailed Research Reviews (para2.03) have been completed for 16 states and approved by PFC. These are ofgood quality and have been prepared by the joint efforts of eminent scien-tists, SAU scientists and officials from State Departments of Agriculture;and are of immense value to researchers and agricultural administrators andhave made a comprehensive assessment of research needs in each state byidentifying the main agroecological regions, the general constraints toincreasing production, yields and vield potential and contain a detailedreview of present research efforts, needs and future priorities. The reportshave also examined the present resources available in each SAU for carryingout research and have, in same cases, suggested pooling of resources to avoidduplication of effort. As a result, excess staff in one zone have beentransferred to other zones and in other cases whole research schemes (ICAR orSAU funded) have been moved to more appropriate locations within the state.
-11-
As part of the Research Reviews, 121 agroecological zones have been iden-tified (list at Annex 3, Pages 3-6) and delineated in 17 states locatedthroughout India (see Map).
2.18 Initially research staff of SAU were not fully conversant withproject objectives, recommendations made in the Research Review and thecontent of subproject appraisal reports. As a result, orientation towardslocation specific multidisciplinary research was lacking. To help overcomethis problem, PU produced printed leaflets explaining project objectives andorganized a series of training workshops at SAUs to explain and discuss theseobjectives and, the need for the research team to develop a multidisciplinaryapproach to the solution of farmers' problems. This has brought about fur-ther improvements.
2.19 Status Reports. Although the Research Review Reports identified thebroad agroecological zones in each state, there is within each zone a numberof sub-zones, each with its own specific crop production problems and oppor-tunities. Realizing the need to develop a more detailed knowledge of thesediscrete farming situations and farmers' practices and constraints to produc-tion in each situation and also to fix priority for research, PU emphasizedthe need for preparation of a Status Report for each zone. The Status Reporthas been prepared by a multidisciplinary group of scientists interacting withfarmers and extension service and includes; (a) a clear identification ofdifferent farming situations (topography, soil types and depths, rainfall,irrigation, etc.); (b) a review in each farming situation of cropping pat-terns, existing yields and yield potential gaps; (c) analysis of availablemeteorological data so as to develop "contingency plans" for cropping indifferent rainfall situations; and (d) identification of production con-straints of farmers and fixing priorities for research.
2.20 PU has drawn up detailed guidelines for preparation of StatusReports. Initially, most Status Reports were mere desk exercises withoutvisits to the field. These reports were rejected by PU and a series oftraining workshops were held to discuss and decide on the methodology forpreparation of good reports. The exercise is continuing and more recentlysome good reports have been prepared. SAU scientists, extension staff andlocal farmers have participated in the preparation of Status Reports. Tofurther improve report clarity, a few selected SAUs, with assistance from PUand the Bank's New Delhi Office, are preparing model Status Reports. Themodel reports will be circulated to all SAUs to enable them to revise theirreports. In the meanwhile, Status Reports already prepared are being used todetermine long and short term research goals and help decide on priorityareas for research, particularly in respect of determining priorities forallocation of resources.
2.21 Research Program Quality. There has been substantial improvementin the quality of research as exemplified by the following. SAU scientistshave made use of the findings of Research Reviews and, more recently, StatusReports in the design of three broad groups of experiments to determine; (a)suitability of present varieties and practices in different farming situa-tions and systematic testing of these findings (mainly discipline orientedexperiments); (b) development of farming systems for identified farmingsituations requiring multidisciplinary experimentation on the interaction ofsoil and water management practices, cropping systems and cultivationmethods; and (c) adjustments to recommended practices, especially fertilizerrecommendations, to suit farmers' resources and skills and to other
-12-
extraneous factors such as vagaries of monsoon rains, reliability of irriga-tion supply, input availability, etc. In planning the actual content ofthese experiments, the scientists have made full use of the followingmechanisms: (a) organization of pre-season zonal workshops in each zone(twice a year) with the participation of scientists, extension staff andfarmers' to review the previous season's research results and field experien-ces and decide on future research proposals and priorities and the programfor field testing; (b) interacting with Subject Matter Specialists during themonthly training workshops for a critical analysis of priorities, details ofexperiments, and their utility and review of results; and (c) joint fieldvisits by Diagnostic teams of research and extension staff for an on the spotdiscussion with farmers to study their field problems and reasons for adop-tion or non-adoption of recommended practices. This constant interactionwith farmers and extension workers has resulted in an overall improvement inthe quality of experiments and the earlier emphasis on varietal improvementalone has given place to experiments which have a bearing on farmers problemsunder different situations and on farming systems research. Some examples ofthis are: development of low cost water harvesting techniques on farmers'fields (Gujarat); adjustment of recommendations for fertilizer use based onfarmers' resource capability (Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu); simpletechniques to overcome poor emergence of Pearl Millet due to soil crustformation (Rajasthan); evolving gal midge resistant rice varieties accom-panied by appropriate cultural practices (Madhya Pradesh); advancing soyabeansowing dates (under rainfed conditions) to ensure double cropping (MadhyaPradesh and Rajasthan); farming systems research (rainfed areas) to develop aseed cum fertilizer drill for proper placement of fertilizer in the wheatcrop (Madhya Pradesh); mixed cropping of sorghum with legumes to overcome theparasitic weed, striga (Karnataka); developing a low cost groundnut sheller(Andhra Pradesh); and minimum tillage in paddy/wheat rotation (Punjab).
2.22 In Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, good Status Reports havebeen prepared and available rainfall data has been analyzed. Making use ofthis data and inter year variations in yields on farmers fields and fromexperimental results recorded at research stations, scientists have developed"'contingency plans" recommending different cropping and input regimes forvarious rainfall situations.
2.23 Agricultural Economics. An agricultural economist has been providedat each regional research station and who is expected to work with otherscientists in the planning and design, and implementation of experiments toenable him to make an economic analysis of the cost and benefit and riskelements of individual experiments. In addition, the economist is expectedto (a) contribute to the constraint analysis of farmers' yields to determinereasons for yield variations, (b) help in formulation of experiments andanalyze results, (c) analyze inter-year variations in experimental results,and (d) study different cropping options open to farmers. In the past,scientists and economists have been unfamiliar with this approach, and it hastaken time to bring them together to discuss plan ing, design and evaluationaspects of experiments. Even then progress is slow and further efforts arebeing made to bring about improvements.
-13-
Training Subprojects
2.24 Two training subprojects at the National Academy for AgriculturalResearch Management (NAARM), Hyderabad and the Indian Agricultural ResearchInstitute, (IARI), Delhi were included under NARP. NAARM subproject wassanctioned in November 1982 and IARI subproject in September 1982. The NAARMsubproject has made good progress and its facilities have been utilized toorganize training workshops for SAU scientists relating to NARP objectives,methodology for Status Report preparation and research program planning andresearch managment. NAARM scientists have participated in the review ofprogress of research work at Regional Research Stations.
Performance of ICAR
2.25 The Director General, ICAR has fully supported the Project Unit inits activities especially in resolving some policy issues with the States ofMaharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. As a result, PU has beeninstrumental in effective implementation of the project.
2.26 Project Unit. The main impact of PU has been the high standards setand achieved in the preparation of Research Reviews and appraisal of researchsubprojects prepared by SAU. This has given a sense of direction to theresearch effort in the states. Other significant achievements of PU aregiven below:
(a) Preparation and implementation of an annual work plan for sub-project appraisal, training programs and monitoring visits tosubprojects;
(b) Preparation of the Project Manual which includes administrativeprocedures, criteria, objectives, Status Report preparation,development of research-extension linkages, technical programformulation, etc.;
Cc) Providing leadership to SAUs in resolving project impLementationproblems relating to civil works, equipment and constructionmaterial, especially cement;
(d) Arranging a coordination mechanism at state level (in stateswith more than one university) to avoid duplication of effort;
(e) Frequent monitoring of subprojects and regularity in submittingto IDA half yearly progress and annual audit reports;
(f) Maintaining close liaison with state governments and the FederalMinistry of Agriculture (GOI) so as to resolve problems arisingat SAU level in an attempt to build strong research extensionlinkages;
(g) Reconciling conflicting view points within ICAR on projectobjectives;
(h) Preparing a detailed review of research subprojects at the endof project year four; and
-14-
(i) Organizing a series of orientation training programs on NARPobjectives, Status Report preparation, and on research programformulation for SAU scientists. PU has also organized a numberof discipline oriented training programs on dryland agricultureand water management.
2.27 Interdisciplinary Scientific Panel. ISP has met as frequently asnecessary to review subproject appraisal reports and has made valuable sug-gestions for improving the quality of research subprojects. This reviewprocess has enabled SAUs/PU to improve the quality of project preparationand its technical content, and the quality of appraisal.
2.28 Project Funding Committee. PFC has been meeting at least thrice ayear for sanction of subprojects and to give necessary directives forimproved performance. The items considered by PFC in its meeting generallyinclude: (a) overall progress of the project and resolving the problemsfaced; (b) follow-up action taken on recommendations of IDA supervisionmissions; (c) evaluation reports prepared by PU for projects completing fouryears of operation; an-d (d) a detailed examination of the recommendations ofISP and PU before sanctioning new subprojects. The performance of PFC hasbeen fully satisfactory.
Lessons Learned
2.29 Though considerable scope remains to further strengthen thecapability of SAUs to conduct location specific and production orientedresearch, the initial efforts towards decentralization of the research efforthave been positive overall. There is growing evidence of th. favorableimpact of decentralized research and it has received considerable supportfrom the State Departments of Agriculture and the farming community alike.Though project achievements among individual SAUs have been mixed, it isevident that many of the changes introduced - establishment of regionalresearch stations in agroecological zones, preparation of Status Reports toidentify farming situations and farmers constraints, research program for-mulation based on actual priorities of each area, and the need to test andrefine research results before recommending them to farmers - are substantialand will continue. Keeping in mind the depth of the past weaknesses inherentin the Indian research system (para 1.16), a seven year period is too short atime in which to bring about a complete change of attitude amongadministrators and scientists alike. Though SAUs and ICAR recognize that thechanges introduced are worthwhile there are several aspects which need con-tinued emphasis so as to ensure their permanent integration into the researchsystem. These are: (a) a need for a fuller understanding of project objec-tives among SAU scientists and need for good Status Reports and furtherimprovements in formulation of better technical programs for research; (b)more involvement of SAU Heads of Departments at headquarters/campus inproject workshops to instill in them the importance of developing researchprograms that suit local needs rather than following a "top down approach";(c) promoting a better appreciation of project objectives throughout ICARitself so that other ICAR funded research and extension activities are betterintegrated with programs existing in the agroecological zones; (d) moreeffective use of agricultural economists in preparation of Status Reports,planning of individual experiments, and to carry out economic analysis ofresearch results; and (e) bringing about a gradual change in the presentincentive system for scientists, i.e., by giving more recognition to findingsolutions to farmers problems.
-15-
III. PROJECT RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES
3.01 With the implementation of the first project, an attempt has beenmade to remove the main deficiencies affecting the relevance and quality ofresearch at SAUs and to direct this to location specific problems in dif-ferent agroecological zones. It has taken some time to develop the necessaryinfrastructure at regional research stations, to recruit and train scientistsand to bring about the necessary administrative and attitudinal change neededamong them to focus on location specific research. In view of the above andthe time required to meaningfully identify various farming situations andcarry out an indepth study of farmers' production constraints in each farmingsituation, little more has been done in the first five year stage ofimplementation at a Regional Research Station, than to establish the basicframework within which a better research program may be developed and bringabout the desired changes in outlook and performance among scientists forimproving the quality of research. The resuLts achieved so far (paras 2.19to 2.22) go to show that research development in SAUs has started moving onthe right lines.
3.02 Consistent with existing national agricultural development objectivesat that time, NARP focused on research related to cereals and oilseedsproduction under rainfed conditions as well as to on-farm soil and watermanagement under non-irrigated conditions. There now is a growing need tobroaden the research in each agroecological zone, especially that associatedwith irrigated farming and with integrated farming systems. At the sametime, the linkages between on-station research and on-farm verification andadaptation need to be further intensified, taking appropriate account of theactual constraints and conditions under which farmers operate.
3.03 Past efforts in irrigation research have been confined to work atresearch stations and related to varietal selection, cropping patterns, cropwater requirements under differing soil conditions, critical stages forapplication of irrigation, and fertilizer needs for different crops. As allthis past work has been done under controlled conditions at research sta-tions, practical application of results obtained under farmers' field andsocio-economic conditions have been limited due to uncertainties of wateravailability, the farmer's financial and other constraints and agronomicreasons. Almost no research work has been done under normal canal operatingconditions (in farmers' fields) and such work is urgently required for moreefficient operating plans. Much work has to be done on simple land shaping,methods of application of water, the types of crops, farming systems, cul-tural practices, and water use techniques so that increased productivity isensured. Another weak area is research into improved animal drawn farmimplements. While past SAU research efforts have clearly demonstrated theability of engineers to develop and produce improved agricultural implements,there is little evidence to show that many of the implements have beenaccepted by farmers. This is the result of agricultural engineers developingequipment without an understanding of the economic, technical, social andmanagement constraints within a given farming system.
3.04 As a result of NARP, the research system in Indian States has reacheda stage when the center of applied research, which was mostly confined toSAU campuses, has shifted to the majority of main agroecological zones withemphasis on location specific research based on rainfed agriculture only andas identifed by farmers, extension workers and research scientists. The
-16-
State Governments have welcomed and fully supported this much needed develop-ment in SAU research. At the same time, there is a firm realization in GOI,ICAR and State Governments that the long term success of the reformed exten-sion system (T&V) in India must depend on the development of suitable tech-nology for each of the main farming systems in each zone and this can only beachieved by providing minimum research coverage in all 121 main agroecologi-cal zones (82 covered in NARP) and by expanding the scope of NARP to coverthe priority research needs of all facets of agricultural production, par-ticularly of irrigated farming, in each zone. Achievements of NARP haveshown that the change of attitude among SAU scientists has yielded goodresults. Thus, the process needs to be consolidated and strengthened and itis logical for IDA to continue to provide support to: (a) complete the physi-cal and institutional infrastructural development to establish/strengthenRegional Research Stations in the main agroecological zones so that locati nspecific problems and priority needs are effectively addressed; (b) expandthe scope of NARP to provide research support for priority areas, especiallyirrigated farming, animaL drawn farm implements, horticulture and commercialfield crops, agro-forestry and animal nutrition; and (c) provide support tothe states agricultural extension services through the development ofeconomically viable technologies and their adaptation to the differingresource endowments and risk situations of farmers.
IV. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II
A. General Description
4.01 The project would intensify and continue the process initiated underNARP (para 2.01) for the strengthening of the capability of SAUs to cunductlocation specific research in the main agroecological zones but extend itsscope, in support of reformed statewide agricultural extension projects, toinclude the priority agricultural research needs of each zone under rainfedand irrigated conditions. The following activities would be supported underthe project:
(s) Completion of unfinished NARP subprojects (those that have notcompleted five years of operation);
(b) Expansion of the scope of NARP to cater to the priority needsof each agroecological zone including (i) new areas of researchsuch as irrigated farming, animal drawn farm implements, hor-ticulture and commercial field crops, agro-forestry, and animalnutrition, (ii) developing programs for field testing and refin-ing of research results, and (iii) strengthening of trainingfacilities at Regional Research Stations for training SubjectMatter Specialists of the Department of Agriculture (DOA);
(c) Provision of funds for individual research activities on prioritytopics emerging or identified during project implementation andnot covered under (b) above;
(d) Strengthening of research administration of two State Agricul-tural Universities; and
(e) Cont nued funding of ICAR Project Unit including provision fortraining of research scientists.
-17-
B. Detailed Description
Completion of Subprojects
4.02 Each SAU subproject sanctioned under NARP is funded by ICAR for aperiod of five years after which all activities are continued with financialsupport from the concerned State Covernments. Subprojects have been sanc-tioned by ICAR throughout the NARP project period (up to March 31, 1985) andmany of them would not have completed five years of operation by the CreditClosing Date (September 30, 1985). Of the 110 subprojects sanctioned (21administrative, 87 research and 2 training subprojects), 20 subprojects (9administrative and 11 research) would have completed five years of operationby the Credit Closing Date and the remaining 90 subprojects (12 administra-tive , 76 research, and 2 training subprojeccs) would be under various stagesof implementation. The project would finance the spillover costs of these 90subprojects until they complete five years of operation. The concerned StateGovernments have funded all subprojects which have already completed fiveyears of operation. A summary of annual And total spillover costs of theincomplete subprojects is given at Annex 5, Table 1. Details of individualsubprojects are in Project File, item 4.
Research Subprojects
4.03 Research Subprojects to be financed under the proposed project wouldbe of three kinds: (a) supplemental subprojects at those Regional ResearchStations (82) already established under NARP and designed to broaden theiractivities/scope, (b) new subprojects to establish 39 more Regional ResearchStations, and (c) special research subprojects.
4.04 Supplemental Subpro.j es. ICAR has identified throughout India, 121agroecological zones in 17 states and under NARP (Cr. 855-IN), RegionalResearch Stations have been established and strengthened, to provide forresearch needs of foodgrains and oilseeds under rainfed conditions, in 82 ofthese agroecological zones. Under the proposed project, research support cothese zones (82) would be broadened where necessary, to meet the priorityagricultural research needs of each zone and would include emphasis on newresearch relating to irrigated farming, animal drawn agricultural implements,horticultural and commercial field crops, agro-forestry and animal nutrition.Special attention would be given to developing a field testing/verificationprogram to serve differing farming situations (otherwise not served by theregional station) in each zone, and facilities for training Subject MatterSpecialists of DOA. Thus, in planning (identification and preparation) forsupplemental assistance, the priority research requirements of the wholeagroecological zone would be taken into consideration instead of a piecemealapproach. Research support would be provided on a selective basis and asdictated by priorities identified. The duration of supplementary subprojectswould be four years and only those SAUs would be provided assistance whofulfill the required eligibility standards and which include: implementationof Research Review Committee recommendations, appointment of an AssociateDirector of Research for each agroecological zone with authority to coor-dinate all research activities in the zone, and preparation of Status Reportswhich have been accepted by ICAR (see Annex 1: Terms and Conditions ofAdministration of NARP II).
-18-
4.05 New Subprojects. By the closing of NARP, 39 of the 121 agroecologi-cal zones would still not be covered by research facilities. Consequently,the project would provide funds to establish 39 Regional Research Stations.As these zones were not covered under NARP, activities supported in each zonewould include priority requirements for crop production research underrainfed and irrigated conditions; development of a testing/verificationprogram to serve the differing farming situations in each zone; andfacilities for training of Subject Matter Specialists of DOA. In identifica-tion and preparation of subprojects, the requirements of the whole zone wouldbe considered and based on the outcome of approved Research Reviews.Research needs of each zone would be determined taking into accountprograms/areas already supported in other zones of the state concerned.
4.06 A brief description of some priority areas of research to be addedunder the project is given below:
4.07 Irrigated Farming. The Project would support the research needs ofirrigated farming, those served by gravity schemes (canals and tanks) andfrom groundwater sources. During the last several years, considerable efforthas gone into the development of suitable technology for irrigated areas.Most of this research has been conducted at SAU research stations -- varietalselection, agronomic practices, recommendations for fertilizer use and cropprotection, wacer requirements and timing of irrigation, scheduling ofirrigation, etc.-- but carried out under strictly controlled conditions.However, the adaptation of recommendations to actual field conditions wit.:all the constraints involved has not been undertaken, e.g., possible waterreleases within the operational regime of the system, canal flows andclosures, and urthermore, recognition of the varying socio-economic condi-tions of farmers is absent; in addition, little effort has gone into develop-ing appropriate cropping systems for the different irrigation systems, espe-cially canals and tanks.
4.08 The Status Reports prepared by regional research stations have nowidentified farming situations, existing and proposed irrigation programs,and farmers' constraints to production under irrigated conditions. Makinguse of these findings, a detailed review would be carried out of researchwork which has already been conducted in -he zone ("on station" and"on-farm") including any relevant research outside the zone. A researchprogram would then be developed and based on these findings and focusing on"on-farm" research needs the program would include: techniques of waterapplication (including on-farm layouts); cropping patterns and agronomicpractices; and solution of other farmer oriented problems identified in theStatus Report. Based on the research program and taking into account exist-ing resources at the research station (staff and equipment), a researchaction plan would be prepared. GuideLines indicating strategy for irrigationresearch have been prepared.
4.09 As much on-farm research is required in irrigated areas, it would benecessary to prepare a priority list of irrigated areas so that subprojectpreparation and implementation in the concerned agroecological zones can betaken up in the first two years. Assurances were obtained at negotiationsthat ICAR would, by January 31, 1986, in consultation with state governmentsand concerned SAUs, prepare and furnish to IDA a list of irrigation projectswhere research subprojects can be initiated on a priority basis during thefirst two years of the project.
-19-
4.10 Agricultural Implements. Research support at each SAU would beprovided within selected zones for the development of manually operated andanimal drawn agricultural .implements to be used under both rainfed andirrigated conditions. Research would be based on a farming systems approach.A small team comprising an agricultural engineer, agricuLtural economist andagronomist would describe the farming and equipment systems followed byfarmers in each farming situation within the agroecological zone, and detailhow these are determined by climatic, soil, agronomic and economic factors.In the case of zones for which Status Reports have been already prepared, anadditional exercise on the above lines would be done. While preparing StatusReports, the agricultural engineer would be associated with other scientiststo study the present situation regarding use of farm implements. On thebasis of data collected and where improved farm implements are thought to beneeded, a series of research options would be developed including a ceilingfor the cost to farmers of any new implement developed so that a relevantresearch program and machinery design requirements could be developed.Simultaneously a survey would be conducted to establish if improved equipmentis already available or in use elsewhere in the state. Care also would betaken to ensure that the investment for any modification to an existingimplement falls within the technical capability of local artisans andmanufacturers.
4.11 The research and development programs of the agricultural engineeringfaculty at SAU headquarters would play a supportive role to field activitiesby: (a) providing technical support, through a small multidisciplinarygroup, to research station staff in field survey and engineering design; (b)maintaining close liaison with the Central Institute of AgriculturalEngineering (CIAE), Bhopal, especially on implement design matters; and (c)arranging for consultations with manufacturers within the state. CIAE wouldhelp explore possibilities of external collaboration, building on the alreadyexisting relation with the British National Institute of AgriculturalEngineering. Guidelines indiLating strategy for implements research haveeen prepared.
4.12 Horticultural and Commerical Field Crops. The project wouldstrengthen research at relevant locations into the development of horticul-tural crops such as soft fruits, tuber crops, and vegetables and commercialfield crops such as sugarcane, cotton, tobacco, etc. SAU would identify alead research station within the state for each crop or number of crops andwhere a multidisciplinary team would be responsible for research activities.Work at other research stations throughout the state would be limited totesring and adaping recommendations to local requirements.
4.13 Agro-forestry. The project would support research to developappropriate strategies and recommendations for small farmers and local com-munities growing wood for domestic consumption and local sale, particularlycommunities farming in hill regions and those owning marginal and submarginalland unsuited to annual cropping. Research work would comprise trialsdesigned for the selection of multipurpose fast growing tree species (par-ticularly leguminous species) to meet the needs for fodder, fruit, fuelwoodand timber. Methods of tree establishment and interaction between trees andagricultural crops would also be studied.
4.14 Animal Nutrition. To supplement the present support to developmentof fo-age crops for livestock feeding which is -rovided by the IndianGrassland Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi and the ICAR sponsored All India
-20-
Coordinated Forage Improvement Program and which is presently implemented bya few selected SAUs, the project would support a program at additional SAUswhich (i) have an ongoing fodder research program; (ii) have animal andlaboratory facilities for nutritional research; and (iii) have the capacityto develop the program on a multidisciplinary basis. The research programwould intensify present efforts into the selection and incorporation offodder crops into the farming system.
4.15 Special Research Subprojects. The project would finance speciatsubprojects, either at SAU campus or in a selected zone for research intopriority problems which are not yet identified. Identification and prepara-tion of such subprojects would be jointly done by ICAR, concerned SAU andDOA.
4.16 Phasing of Research Subprojects. Approval and sanction of researchsubprojects would be completed in the first three project years. Proposedphasing is given below:
Table 4.1: Approval and Sanction of Research Subprojects
4.17 Cost of Research Subprojects. Average unit cost per subproject(excluding contingencies) have been estimated at Rs 3.0 M (four years) for asupplementary subproject; Rs 10.5 M (five years) for a new subproject; andRs 1.65 M (five years) for a special subproject. This is based on experiencegained in NARP in the preparation and appraisal of subprojects and recentappraisal of one supplementary and one new research subproject.
4.18 Subprojects comprise civil works, equipment, incremental staff andother operating costs required for the subproject period. The civil workscomponent for a new research subproject typically would include items such asconstruction of laboratories, office space, farm buildings, staff housing,and on-farm development (fencing, roads, irrigation, land shaping, drainage,etc.). Training facilities would comprise a training hall and dormitorywhere necessary. Housing would be orovided for operational staff who need topermanently reside at the station and for other staff, only if justified bythe outcome of a detailed survey of accommodation available in neighboringtowns, prevailing rents, and commuting requirements. Guidelines for designand planning of civil works have been prepared under NARP and have beenstrictly enforced by ICAR.
4.19 Equipment would comprise basic scientific, training, office and farmequipment items and those costing above Rs 6,000 each would be specified anda lump sum (not to exceed 25 of the cost of basic equipment) provided forsmaller items.
4.20 The full salaries and applicable allowan.es for additionaL scientificand supporting staff required to complete the subproject would be eligible
-21-
for inclusion in project costs. 1/ In the case of annual operating costs, alump sum allowance of Rs 12,000 per scientist would be provided to cover therecurrent costs of vehicles, other travel costs, laboratory and office sup-plies, temporary labor, and inputs re-aired for field experiments and testingin excess of normal cultivation cost3 (which would be met by the university).
SAU Research Administration Subprojects
4.21 Under NARP, subprojects were approved to strengthen SAU researchadministration and of the 23 SAUs in India, administrative subprojects havebeen sanctioned to strenghthen the office of the Director of Research at 21SAUs. These units have been responsible for coordinating the preparation ofresearch subprojects, monitoring project progress, and providing assistancein procurement; and have maintained close liaison with ICAR Project Unit inprogress reporting, provision of expenditure statements and audit reports,and for arranging training programs. Subprojects for the remaining two SAUsin West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir would be financed under the project tostrengthen the office of the Director of Research, and would include:
(a) Incremental staff required to plan and monitor the SAU researchprogram, administer the zonal programs and provide support forsubproject preparation and implementation; including provisionof equipment (office and transport); and operating costs forthese staff;
(b) The costs of organizing zonal, commodity and discipline orientedworkshops for subject matter specialists; and
Cc) The cost of sending staff to advanced centers of research withinIndia for non-degree short-term training.
ICAR Administration
4.23 Under NARP, a Project Unit (para 2.07) has been established in ICARto administer the project and which has done a fully satisfactory job (para2.26). The Deputy Director General (Education) in ICAR was appointed ProjectAdministrator and is heading PU. PU is responsible for appraisal of sub-projects and monitors subproject implementation. PU contains the followingstaff: 2 Assistant Directors General, 1 Deputy Coordinator, 4 Senior Scien-tists, 1 Architect, 1 Executive Engineer, and some support staff. Forappraisal of subprojects and supervision and monitoring of project activitiesthese resources have been supplemented by hiring of consultants drawn fromICAR institutes, SAUs and a panel of eminent scientists. In order to meetthe increased workload resulting from the project, PU would be furtherstrengthened so as to enable appraisal and sanction of new subprojects;monitoring of project implementation and disbursements; and bringing aboutqualitative improvements in research program formulation and implementation.The additional staff required would comprise, one full time Project Director,2 Assistant Directors General, 1 Assistant Architect, 1 Accounts Officer andsome small number of support staff. The project would also provide for the
1/ Existing staff and operating costs would continue to be borne by presentsources.
-22-
cost of consultants to assist in project appraisal and review of implementa-tion.
4.24 Provision would also be made for meeting the costs of orga.nizing 30training workshops for SAU scientists on NARP objectives, Status Reportpreparation, and research program formulation; and 21 discipline orientedcourses for scientists at ICAR Central Institutes and selected SAUs. Selec-tion of topics for discipline oriented courses would be made in consultationwith SAUs. In addition, special courses would be organized at NAARM,Hyderabad on Research Management.
4.25 Details of staff, consultants, equipment and operating costs areprovided at Annex 5, Table 2.
V. COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCING
A. Project Costs
5.01 The total cost (inclusive of contingencies) of the seven year project(1986-1992) is estimated at Rs 1,331.12 M (US$110.93 M) including Rs 36.30 M(US$3.03 M) foreign exchange and about US$0.40 M in taxes and duties.Details are given in Annex 5, Table 3 and summarized below:
Table 5.1: Cost Summary by Components
---- Rs. M - - ------ -------- US$ M------Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total
Total Costs 1,294.82 36.30 1,331.12 107.90 3.03 110.93
5.02 Contingencies. Physical contingencies of 5Z have been applied tofor civil works, equipment and vehicles, and operating costs for subprojectsto be sanctioned during the project period. Price conti.lgencies have beenapplied in accordance with current Bank estimates of expected inflation ratesin India (local prices at 8.5% during 1985/86 to 1990/91 and 6% for 1991/92;and foreign costs at 6.3% in 1985/86; 7.8% in 1986/87; 8.0% during 1987/88 to1989/90; 6.4% in 1990/91; and 5% in 1991/92).
B. Proposed Financing
5.03 Financing of total project costs of Rs 1,331.12 M (US$110.93 M),including contingencies, would be provided as follows:
The proposed IDA credit of US$ 72.1 M would be on lent to GOI on standardterms and conditions and would finance about 65 percent of project costs netof duties and taxes, including all foreign exchange costs. COI would makethe proceeds of IDA cre.dit and its own contribution available to ICAR as abudgetary allocation. ICAR would utilize part of these funds as administra-tive cost of PU and channel the remainder as grants to SAUs for financingapproved subprojects.
5.04 ICAR is required to sanction all subprojects to be financed underthe project by the end of the third project year. It is possible that the
-24-
completion of some subprojects, sanctioned in year three, may extend beyondJune 30, 1993. In order to take care of such eventualities, assurances wereobtained at negotiations that ICAR would (a) by September 30, 1988, sanctionall subprojects to be financed under the project; and (b) ensure that allsubprojects, to be completed after June 30, 1993, are provided with adequatefinancial and other support for the remaining period of their operation.Assurances were also obtained that ICAR (a) would provide promptly, asneeded, the funds, facilities, services and other resources required for theproject, and (b) approve a grant to finance a subproject on terms and condi-tions acceptable to IDA.
5.05 Retroactive financing not exceeding US$ 1.95 million would beprovided from September 30, 1985 until Credit signing in order to enable ICARto meet the cost of spillover subprojects and other project relatedactivities.
C. Procurement
5.G6 Civil Works. All civil works (US$37.88 H including contingencies)would be relatively small and consist of research facilities, housing andfarm development as outlined in para 4.18. These works would be mostlylocated at some distance from major cities and would be small and dispersedboth geographically and over time and, therefore, not be conducive to inter-national competitive bidding (ICB). Consequently, awards for constructionwould be made after local competitive bidding (LCB). The procedures for LCBat each SAU have been reviewed by PFC to ensure that they are satisfactoryand in compliance with IDA guidelines. LCB procedures of two universitieswere reviewed by the appraisal mission and were found satisfactory.
5.07 Equipment and Vehicles. Procurement of equipment and vehicles(US$19.66 M including contingencies) would be undertaken by universities insmall quantities and distributed over time. A diversity of laboratory,office and farm equipment would be required. Orders will, therefore, besmall, and adequate maintenance and availability of spare parts would be ofparamount importance. These items would, thus, not be suitable for ICB, butwould be procured by standard university procedures which comprise LCB, andfor smaller amounts by prudent shopping. PFC has reviewed the procedures ofparticipating SAUs. The procurement procedures of two universities werereviewed by the appraisal mission and were found satisfactory.
5.08 Contract Review. All contracts for civil works, vehicles, equipmentand furniture estimated to cost US$300,000 and more would be reviewed by IDAboth before bids are invited and before contracts are awarded. Orders forpurchase of minor equipment, furniture and supplies would be bulked whereverpossible and purchased according to established local bidding procedures,except where valued at less than US$50,000, when they would be purchased byprudent shopping through normal trade channels.
5.09 Assurances on procurement procedures mentioned above (para 5.06 to5.08) were obtained during negotiations.
5.10 The balance of project costs (US$53.39 M including contingencies)would be incremental staff salaries (US$41.31 M) and operating costs(US$12.08 M).
-25-
5.11 Procurement arrangements are summarized in the table below:
Table 5.4: Procurement Arrangements
Procurement Method TOTALICB LCB OTHER NA COST
Civil Works - 37.88 - - 37.88(24.62) (24.62)
Equipment and Vehicles - 19.66 - - 19.66(12.75) (12.75)
Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the credit
D. Disbursements, Accounts and Audit
5.12 Disbursements under the credit would finance various categories inthe following manner:
SAU Subprojects
(a) Civil Works - 651 of expenditures
(b) Equipment and Vehicles - 100% foreign expenditures,100% of local expenditures(ex-factory), and 61X of itemsprocured locally
(c) Incremental Staff costs - 65% of expenditures
(d) Incremental Operating Costs - 65X of expenditures
ICAR Administrative
(a) Equipment and Vehicles - 100% foreign expenditures,100% of local expenditures(ex-factory), and 61% of itemsprocured locally
(b) Staff costs - 65% of expenditures
(c) Operating Costs - 65% of expenditures
The cost of approved subprojects are financed by ICAR as 100% grant to SAUsfor a period of five years and SAUs do not have to bear any cost during thisperiod. ICAR assures itself that, on completion of five years of operationof each subproject, the State Covernments/SAUs would provide for adequatefinancing of these costs. Consequently, use of a declining scale for IDA
-26-
disbursements against the incremental staff and operating costs has not beenviewed as necessary in assuring adequate continuity in funding. This proce-dure has been working satisfactorily in case of subprojects which have com-pleted five years of operation under NARP, and will be continued under theproposed project.
5.13 According to the Bankwide disbursement profile for IDA assistedagricultural projects, disbursement takes eight years to complete. Theproject is of seven years duration and IDA disbursements would be completedin 7-1/2 years. The reasons for this are: (a) the tempo of ICAR disburse-ments has increased in the last two years and is expected to increase furtherdue to standardization of and familiarization with project procedures; and(b) the requirement that the sanctioning of subprojects be completed in thefirst three project years leaving next four years for SAUs and ICAR to con-centrate wholly on implementation. An estimated disbursement schedule ispresented in Annex 8. The schedule differs from the Bankwide profile for IDAassisted agricultural projects in that the estimated disbursements over thefirst five years (59.6X) would be lower than the profile (65.5Z) for the sameperiod, but thereafter higher disbursements would occur in the sixth andseventh project years compared to the profile. All disbursements areexpected to be made against Statements of Expenditures. Supporting documentswith respect to claims for reimbursement would not be submitted to IDA forreview, but would be maintained by ICAR and SAU and be available for inspec-tion by IDA during project supervision. The Statements of Expenditures andsupporting documents would be included in the periodic audit of ICAR by anindependent auditor.
5.14 Since most SAU have insufficient financial resources of their ownto pre-finance investments under ICAR schemes, ICAR currently (under NARP)advances funds six months ahead of expenditure on the basis of agreed budgetestimates, less amounts unspent and carried forward from the previous sixmonths period and which are verified by a certified statement of expenditure.This same procedur.. :as worked satisfactoriLy in NARP and would continueunder the proposed project and IDA would disburse against actual ICAR disbur-sements to SAUs as summarized at six monthly intervals by ICAR.
5.15 ICAR would be subject to normal government control and auditingprocedures which have been reviewed and are satisfactory. The accountingand audit procedures and standards at each university have been reviewed byPFC as a condition of eligibility for NARP assistance. During negotiations,assurances were obtained that:
(a) ICAR would cause SAU to maintain separate accounts which wouldrecord for each subproject, amounts receivable or received underthe grant and also amounts contributed or agreed to be con-tributed by SAU for a subproject;
(b) ICAR would cause SAU to furnish to ICAR a grant expenditurecerfiticate prepared by independent auditors acceptable to PFC,for each subproject for each financial year as soon as the grantexpenditure cerfiticate is available but not later than ninemonths after the end of the SAU's financial year;
(c) ICAR would maintain separate records and accounts reflectingproject expenditures; and
-27-
(d) ICAR's project accounts would be audited annually for each fiscalyear, in accordance with sound accounting principles, consis-tently applied by independent auditors acceptable to IDA; and
(e) ICAR would furnish to IDA, as soon as available, but in any casenot later than nine months after the end of each such year, ti)certified copies of its financial statements for each year whichhave been audited, and (ii) the audit report of sufficient scopeand detail.
The above procedures have been operating satisfactorily under NARP and cer-tified copies of all ICAR's audited accounts for the period 1978-83 have beensubmitted to IDA.
VI. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
6.01 Overall responsibility for organization and implementation of theproject would lie with ICAR. For this purpose, under NARP, a Project FundingCommittee (PFC) was constituted by ICAR as the executive authority withpowers to admit SAUs to participate in NARP, to approve or reject subprojectsand research reviews, and to supervise the execution of the project. PFC ischaired by the Director General of ICAR and has as members the AgriculturalCommissioner, GOI; the Chief (Agriculture), Planning Commission; two SAU ViceChancellors Cnominated by Minister of Agriculture); and the ProjectAdministrator. An Interdisciplinary Scientific Panel (ISP) of eminent scien-tists in different fields has been set up to review subproject appraisalreports and provide technical advice to PFC. The present membership of thepanel is described in Annex 6. The Deputy Director General (Education) hasbeen appointed as Project Administrator and heads PU which serves as thesecretariat to PFC. Both PFC and ISP have played a key and highly respon-sible role (paras 2.27 and 2.28) in the implementation of NARP and have onlysanctioned subprojects which address relevant and priority areas of researchand which are backed by high quality Research Reviews.
Project Unit Tasks
6.02 The Project Unit has performed satisfactorily (para 2.26) inimplementation of NARP and provided the leadership required for step-by-stepimplementation of all NARP activities. PU would continue to perform thefollowing functions:
(a) Advise on SAU submissions for participation in the proposedproject;
(b) Organize and participate in detailed appraisal of subprojects;
(c) Guide and assist SAUs in preparation of Status Reports;
(d) Assist and monitor subprojects implementation by:
Ci) reviewing seasonal reports on scientific achievementsand, subsequently, scientific completion reportsagainst the research objectives of the subprojects;
(ii) reviewing six-monthly SAU reports on physical imple-mentation in order to prepare a summary report for IDA;
-28-
(iii) reviewing statements of expenditures to ensureauthenticity and eligibility, maintaining record ofaccounts, claiming reimbursement from IDA, processingbudget requests, reviewing annual status of auditedaccounts.
(iv) advising on and supervising construction;
(v) advising on and supervising procurement of equipment;
(vi) organizing training workshops for SAU staff on variousaspects of project implementation (NARP objectives,Status Report Preparation, Role of AgriculturalEconomists, Research Program Formulation, and disciplineoriented training);
(vii) visiting annually all subprojects in each state (weakersubprojects more frequently) and reporting on progressand problems in implementation of the project supportedsubprojects and recommending such remedial actions asmay be needed; and
(e) Provide a secretariat for ISP and PFC.
The Project Unit would prepare an annual work program which would be fur-nished to IDA.
6.03 Preparation and Appraisal of Subprojects. Responsibility for prepar-ing subprojects rests with SAUs and PU would lend all possible assistance toensure adequate and timeLy preparation. Subproject proposals prepared in SAUwould first be cleared by the University Board of Management and endorsed bythe state government (Ministry of Agriculture) before being formally sub-mitted to ICAR. During the first year of project implementation, ICAR wouldfurnish to IDA, before their appraisal, for its review and comment, the firstfour research subprojects - two supplementary and two new - prepared by SAU.Assurances on this were obtained at negotiations.
6.04 Subproject proposals would be appraised by PU making use of theservices of consultants. The appraisal team would undertake an indepthreview of the agriculture of each agroecological zone, and allow for interac-tion with farmers, research and extension staff so as to identify priorityareas for research before arriving at firm conclusions.
6.05 The subproject appraisal report would be initially reviewed by ISP.The decision of ISP would be guided by:
(a) The importance of the proposed subproject for the agriculturaldevelopment of the state;
(b) The research program being responsive to the main objectives ofthe project and giving particular emphasis to the priorityagricultural research needs of the zone;
-29-
(c) The research program being geared to problems of high priority,especially to the needs of the irrigation projects, identified inthe zone;
(d) The research at zonal main stations and substations being ofapplied nature and likely to yield results within a five yearperiod;
(e) The research program being within the capacity of SAU to imple-ment (given past performance and competence of SAU management);
(f) The research being original and not involving unnecessaryduplication of other work (completed, existing or planned);
(g) The arrangements for linkages with ICAR financed National Demon-stration, KVK and Lab to Land activities, and SAU/state govern-ment extension activities (paras 6.16 and 6.17) being adequate;and
(h) The research program has indicated a mechanism for integrationwith current activities in the zone of the All India CoordinatedResearch Projects (paras 6.18 and 6.19).
6.06 Following its review of the proposed subprojects, the recommendationsof ISP would be forwarded to PFC together with a memorandum that would beprepared by the Project Administrator and PU staff. The memorandum wouldsumuarize the findings of ISP, especially on cost estimates and resourcesneeded, the appropriateness of the research program to the state and aims ofSAU and the capacity of SAU to implement the program. In particular, thememorandum would inform PFC of the status of actions agreed to be taken bySAU as a condition of participation in NARP. The Project Administrator wouldalso report to PFC on the degree to which the SAU is implementing recommenda-tions of the Research Review. The above procedures are being followed underNARP and have been satisfactory.
6.07 PFC would either reject, approve or defer a decision on each sub-project. Those in the latter category would be returned to SAU concernedeither for specified amendments or for extensive modification. Close liaisonwould be maintained with IDA, which would receive all relevant documents.Assurances were obtained during negotiations that ICAR would make availableto IDA the agenda and notes prepared for PFC meetings and the proceeding ofsuch meetings along with a copy of ICAR letter sanctioning subprojects.
6.08 Coordination Arrangements for Irrigation Research. Research programformulation and implementation would involve effective cooperation of SAU,Irrigation and Agriculture Departments. To ensure this, ICAR would, by March1986, nominate the Secretary, Department of Irrigation (GOI) or his repre-sentative as a member of PFC; and set up a State Level Committee in a timelymanner, in the concerned state, with the Secretary, Irrigation Department;the Comissioner, Comumand Area Authority; Chief Engineer, Irrigation Depart-ment; Secretary, Department of Agriculture, the Director of Agriculture; andDirector of Research SAU, as members. The Committee would have respon-sibility for: (a) fixing priorities for irrigation projects to be taken-upfor on-farm research, and (b) decide on specific roles of irrigation,agriculture and research staff in planning, preparation and implementation.At the Zonal level, coordination would be ensured through the Zonal Research
-30-
Advisory Committee. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department wouldbe a member of this Committee for helping identification and planning theirrigation research needs and coordinate execution.
6.09 Supervision. Assurances were obtained during negotiations that:
(a) ICAR would furnish to IDA reports on the physical implementationof subprojects an a semi-annual basis;
(b) ICAR would make an annual on-site supervision visit to eachparticipating SAU and all subproject sites; and
(c) ICAR would furnish IDA with the annual work program of theProject Unit.
The above procedures (a to c) are being satisfactorily followed under NARP.
6.10 Mid-Term Review. Given the seven year duration and expanded scopeof the project, and the priority being given to irrigated farming research,assurances were obtained during negotiations that a mid-term review of theproject would be undertaken by a joint team from COI/ICAR/Bank within thefirst quarter, after completion of the third project year to monitor theprogress of the project and provide for mid-course corrections. The mid-termreview would also include the identification of future priorities in agricul-tural research.
Administration of University Research
6.11 Working under the Vice Chancellor, the Director of Research isresponsible for planning, monitoring, and administration of all researchprograms in SAU. The office of the Director of Research has beenstrengthened under NARP (para 2.05) resulting in better planning and monitor-ing of research activities, organization of workshops and training programsand evaluation of the research effort of the university as a whole. SAUwould establish a system of linkages between SAU zonal research stations,other extension related activities of SAU (National Demonstrations, Lab toLand Program and Krishi Vigyam Kendra), and the State Agricultural ExtensionService (paras 6.16 and 6.17).
6.12 At the zonal level, an Associate Director of Research heads theRegional Research Station and directs research effort within eachagroecological zone and works under the Director of Research. The AssociateDirector has been delegated sufficient administrative and financial powersfor effective functioning. He has established good linkages with the StateExtension Service in the zone through the Zonal Research Advisory Committeewhich meets twice a year, the monthly training workshops for SMS, and otherinformal mechanisms. He has also been responsible for preparing the StatusReport for identification of farming situations and improving the existingknowledge of farming constraints under each farming situation; ensuring amultidisciplinary effort to research program formulation; and supervisingand reporting on the research effort in the zone. These arrangements whichhave resulted in improving the quality of research programs and their execu-tion would continue under the project.
6.13 To allow it to compete for and retain competent staff, SAUs haveapplied the pay scales recommended by COI's University Grants Commission.
-31-
Scientific staff are being recruited on an All India basis. Scientific andsenior administrative staff recruited under each subproject are entitled toincentives applicable to state government employees working in dif-ficult/special/remote areas. SAU procedures for audit, accounting have beenreviewed by IDA and PFC to assure standards comparable to those of ICAR. Theabove policy would continue under the project.
6.14 While these arrangements have enabled most SAUs to establish soundprocedures and practices for effective planning, monitoring and evaluation ofresearch programs, some SAUs, however, face constraints to streamlining theworking of their research directorates. These are: (a) conflictingauthority between Campus Dean and Director of Research relating to researchactivities located at the campus (headed by Dean), (b) inadequate participa-tion of university Heads of Departments in research program development andguidance in respect of zonal research priorities, and (c) inability of CropCoordinators to provide effective leadership to regional research stationslocated in zones other than those in which Coordinators have their head-quarters. While (b) and (c) above are being resolved as SAUs gain experiencein implementing the project, early resolution of the problem at (a) above isimportant. Assurances were obtained during negotiations that ICAR wouldcause SAUs to transfer responsiblity for all campus research activities tothe Director of Research of the concerned SAU.
6.15 The Director of Research would be responsible for the compiling ofthe following reports for ICAR:
(a) Seasonal reports on scientific results and extent ofresearch-extension linkages established;
(b) Six-monthly report on physical progress of all NARP subprojectsrecording staffing, works, equipment, and showing expendituresto date and advances requested for the following period;
(c) Audited accounts for all subprojects within nine mon-ais after theend of the financial year; and
(d) A report showing the scientific achievements at the completion ofeach subproject in relation to the research objectives which wereestablished at the outset.
The reporting system is satisfactory under NARP.
Research-Extension Linkages
6.16 Under NARP, research-extension linkages have improved considerablyresulting in enhancing the quality of experiments at Regional Research Sta-tions (para 2.21). This has been possible through: increased interactionamong scientists, extension workers and farmers in the preparation of StatusReports; frequent field visits of Diagnostic teams to interact with farmers;meetings of zonal Research Advisory Committee; organization of monthly train-ing workshops; and other informal contacts. These would be furtherstrengthened under the project.
6.17 A number of extension related activities are being carried out bySAUs. . 1ore important among these are Krishi Vigyan Kendra (farm science
-32-
centers), National Demonstrations, Lab to Land Program and Farmers TrainingCenters. A joint review mission of ICAR, NOA and Bank representatives hasmade the following recomendations on integrating these activities with otherongoing programs:
(a) SAU Directorates of extension should refocus their activities onformal extension training and to the teaching of improved train-ing methods to extension staff, and carry out on farm studies incooperation with DOA;
(b) Integrate the activities of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Lab to LandProgram, and Farmers' Training Centers at the Zonal level sothat they provide necessary support to the extension agency todevelop cooperative organizations, watershed management associa-tions and develop farmers' leadership capabilities; and
(c) Improve on-farm focus of research work by macing a cleardistinction between on-farm research, on-farm trials anddemonstrations.
These recommendations have been accepted by ICAR and MOA and necessaryfollow-up action has been taken recently and guidelines issued to all statesand SAUs for integration of all SAU and ICAR supported extension programswith ongoing extension activities of DOA.
All India Coordinated Research Projects
6.18 ICAR is directly responsible for the administration of the All IndiaCoordinated Research Projects (AICRP). Actual implementation is the respon-sibility of SAUs and each replicate of a project is laid down at a limitednumber of centers in the states. The proposed project provides an oppor-tunity for AICRP to increase the number of replications from a few centers toinclude, where appropriate, the Regional Research Stations located in theidentified agroecological zones. Such an expansion would enable AICRP tobetter address technological constraints identified in the Status Reports.ICAR has already issued a directive widening the coverage of AICRP. Whilesome progress has been achieved following the issue of the directive inten-sive follow up is essential by ICAR, through AICRP Coordinators.
6.19 For effective program formulation of AICRP, a step by step approachwould be followed: (a) scientists working in the zone would propose trialsbased on local needs and problems; (b) these proposals would be discussed andcleared by the Zonal Research Advisory Comittee; and (c) proposals wouldthen be approved by the Crop Leader/Chief Scientist/Director of Research aiLdconcerned departmental heads, before they are forwarded to the Project Coor-dinator ICAR. The research proposals received from SAU would be discussed inthe course of the annual AICRP workshop where they would be refined (ifappropriate) and approved. If discussions indicate the need for conductingadditional experiments which serve national interests, they would also beadded.
-33-
VII. BENEFITS AND RISKS
A. Project Benefits
7.01 Major qualitative improvements in research program planning and inthe quality of experiments and findings -- particularly as they concern theirrelevance to specific farming situations and to extension activities -- areexpected to arise from the project. There already is increasing evidence(under NARP and the Bank-supported extension projects) of gradual, but sig-nificant improvements in the extent and quality of support provided by theresearch institutions to the reformed extension services. A recent ICARreview of the operation of two Regional Research Stations (Tirupati in AndhraPradesh and Bawal in Haryana, both with five years of operation) found sub-stantial improvements in the capacity of the stations and scientists to:identify farming situations and constraints of farmers to increase produc-tion, determine research priorities for individual agricultural sub-zones,improve the quality of individual experiments, conduct field testing ofon-station research findings, and establish closer linkages and contacts withextension staff and farmers. The ICAR review also indicates that technologyrecommendations are increasingly more refined and appropriate to suitfarmers' needs and constraints and that extension workers are now betterequipped than before with relevant technical messages and are able to advisefarmers with greater confidence. Similarly, monitoring and evaluationstudies of IDA-supported agricultural extension projects in India have shownthat: (a) increased fertilizer use by large numbers of farmers is dependentin large measure on the provision of extension recommendations appropriate tofarmers' resources and skills, and (b) the impact of extension is increasedconsiderably through emphasis on low-cost practices and inputs. Both theseaspects have been addressed under NARP and have resulted in the developmentof research programs and technology which emphasize farmers' immediate needs.Some of the technologies and practices developed have already been mentioned(paras. 2.21-2.22).
7.02 There is considerable evidence available showing that investment inagricultural research has potentially very high rates of return.l/ Studiesof returns to agricultural research during the Green Revolution period inIndia have found that, with lags of 5 to 7 years, the rates of return frominvestments in agricultural research have ranged from 35% to as much as 112%in different states. It is, however, exceedingly difficult to attempt aprecise estimation of economic benefits from this type of project -- be it exante or ex post.2/ The technology improvements developed, the rate andextent of their adoption by farmers, and the prod_ctivity and output gainsattributable to their application cannot be predicted with any certainty andare likely to vary among agroecological zones. Moreover, future gains inagricultural productivity and production would be attributable not merely to
1/ See Agricultural Research (IBRD Sector Policy Paper, June 1981), Annex 3,pp. 64-65.
21 For a discussion of the difficulties involved and of various models forex ante estimation of the costs and benefits of agricultural research,see G.E. Schuh & H. Tollini, Costs and Benefits of Agricultural Research:The State of the Arts (World Bank Staff Working Paper Po. 360, Oct.1979).
-34-
the adoption of technological innovations developed and/or adapted to localconditions by the research establishment, but to the combined impact ofvarious supportive services (input supply, extension services, etc.) as wellas to that of the economic environment in general (e.g., rising incomes andability to invest) and of economic policies in particular (e.g., incentivepricing). Lags in farmer adoption of research findings may also be due inlarge measure to failure of other support services to provide the inputs andservices needed by farmers to adopt recommended practices. No attempt hasbeen made, therefore, to quantify the benefits expected from this project.
7.03 It can be shown, however, that even relatively small increases inproductivity attributable to the project itself would be sufficient to gener-ate an economic rate of return (ERR) of 20% or more and, hence, that theproposed investment would be economically well justified. At an opportunitycost of capital of 12.01, the present value of the cost stream in economicterms for the average new research subproject (i.e., SAU Regional ResearchStation), assuming an implementation period of 5 years and recurrent coststhereafter over a project life of 20 years from project completion, is equiv-alent to Rs 9.70 million (in prices of 1984/85). Assuming that full projectbenefits are reached in year 10 (1995/96), and that the benefit stream wouldincrease from 0% in each of the first five years to 10% in the sixth, 25% inthe seventh, 50% in the eight, 75% in the ninth and 100% in the tenth year,the average subproject's full benefits in economic terms would have to amountto only Rs 5.002 million annually (in prices of 1984/85) in order to achievean ERR of 20Z (details at Annex 7). This would correspond co Rs 3.6 perhectare of agricultural land serviced by the average Regional Research Sta-tion (about 1.4 million ha).
7.04 If benefits were to be generated exclusively through productivitygains in wheat cultivation, this would, on average, amount to Rs 26.3 perhectare of land under wheat (190,000 ha) within the (hypothetical) averagestation's service area; if related solely to productivity improvements inrice production, it would be equivalent to Rs 15.2 per hectare of land underrice (330,000 ha) within the average agro-climatic zone. On the basis ofeconomic farmgate prices for major crops prevailing in 1984/85 (e.g., wheatRs 1,896/t; paddy Rs 2,002/t), this would be equivalent to an averageincrease either in average wheat yields of 13.9 kg/ha or in average paddyyields of 7.6 kg/ha -- only 0.77% and 0.38% higher than the presentcountry-wide average yields for wheat (1.81 t/ha) and paddy (1.99 t/ha),respectively. It should be noted, of course, that this calculation is merelyindicative of the potential for realizing very substantial returns from thisproject.
7.05 The project would also contribute to institution building and beinstrumental in solidifying the transformation of India's agriculturalresearch system into an efficient and farmer-responsive research service. Itwould support broadening of the research effort to include all identifiedpriority needs in each agroecological zone and strengthen the research sys-tem's capability to provide support to agricultural extension servicesthrough the development of economically viable technologies and their adapta-tion to the differing resource endowments and risk situations of farmers. Inaddition, it would bring about significant improvements in the efficiency ofresource utilization in agricultural research, through its emphasis on effec-tive research management.
-35-
7.06 Employment and Poverty Impact. The project would have only a com-paratively small direct employment impact, both during construction andduring operation. Far more important will be its indirectly impact onemployment and income generation throughout rural India: through the dis-semination and adoption of improved agricultural production and farm manage-ment techniques, the project will lead to increases in on-farm productivityand farm output, thereby generating substantial additional employment andincome for farmers, their household members and agricultural laborers onmillions of farms of all sizes. 72.6% of India's farmers operate holdings ofless than 2 hectares (1976/77 data), holdings barely large enough to supporta family of five. Based on 1981 statistics, 70% of India's labor force isemployed in agriculture, and the average family size of more than 5 members,this implies an average income equivalent to less than US$ 60 per person -
about half of the income level judged to be absolute poverty level. In fact,about 51% of the entire rural popuLation are estimated to live below theabsolute poverty level. Given these land and income distribution patterns,the project's indirect employment and income effects wilL predominatelyaccrue to the poor.
B. Project Risks
7.07 Irrelevance and/or Non-Adoption of Research Findings. The mostserious risks in any agricultural research project are that research findingsgenerated may be irrelevant to farmers' needs or inapplicable under actualon-farm conditions; that research findings may not, or only inadequately andwith undue delay, be transmitted to farmers and therefore fail to generatethe potential benefits as early and fully as possible; and Oiat changes ineconomic policy may prevent the adoption of technological advances, i.e.,render them economically unviable.
7.08 As has been demonstrated under NARP, the potential risk of inap-propriate research orientation and technology generation is directly amenableto corrective measures under the project. Its major aspects relevant in thiscontext include: regional decentralization; orientation of research towardsclearly identified location-specific farmers' needs, resources and skills,diagnosed by multi-disciplinary teams prior to the formulation of researchprograms; emphasis on field-testing and adaptation; and increased cooperationand communication with extension staff and farmers for intensified feed-backon research results.
7.09 The second potential cause of non-adoption and/or lagging adoptionis already being effectively dealt with through the Bank's long-standing andstrong support for improved agricultural extension services throughout Indiaand for intensive and regular cooperation between the states' extensionservices and the agricultural research institutions. Where they have been infull operation, the reformed extension services, operating on the basis ofthe training & visit system, have proven highly effective in reaching farmersand in spreading improved cultivation practices and technologies, and theBank continues to support extension reform along these lines throughoutIndia.
7.10 The risk of new technologies being rendered unsuitable for farmeradoption by changes in economic policies must be addressed through improvedresearch management -- mainly at the planning stages when economic policyobjectives and parameters need to be taken into account in the formulation ofresearch goals and priorities. The proposed project seeks to bring about
-36-
improved research management at all levels, including greater involvement ofeconomists in research planning, monitoring and evaluation.
7.11 Risks in Implementation. Implementation risks attributable toadministrative and/or organizational changes are minimal. The basic reformsinitiated under NARP, which the proposed project will further support andextend, have been strongly supported and initiated by the agriculturalresearch community as well as by administrators. Budgetary support foragricultural research has been provided on an increasing scale over the pasttwo decades, testimony to the widespread recognition of the substantialbenefits that can be obtained. Staffing problems have eased, as sufficientnumbers of trained scientists leave the universities every year and asimproved service conditions and incentives for work at the SAUs and theirresearch stations have helped attract and retain scientists. The risk ofmajor delays and/or slippages in physical project implementation are alsoconsidered slim, mainly because of the groundwork already laid and theexperience gained under NARP: the institutional framework for projectimplementation is in place and well established; procedures are widelyfamiliar; prohlems encountered during the initial phases of NARP can beexpected to be avoided during this follow-up project; and the decision toimplement the project over a seven-year period reflects greater realismconcerning the feasible pace of implementation.
7.12 State Government Funding. Another potential risk is that of inade-quate recurrent expenditure funding for Regional Research Stations by stategovernments after completion of individual subprojects. In most states, thisrisk is considered minimal, and state governments are fully funding sub-projects completed under NARP. Adherence to the subproject sanctioning andfund release criteria by ICAR will help ensure that subprojects are imple-mented only if continued and fully adequate state funding for follow-upoperation and maintenance expenditures (including, but not only, staffsalaries) can be assured. In any case, to mitigate this risk, written under-takings will be obtained from each of the participating state governmentsconcerning their commitment to provide adequate O&M funding for completedsubprojects.
7.13 Dilution of Research Effort. The risk that the establishment of 121Regional Research Stations in 17 states and the creation of additionalresearch capacity in a variety of additional disciplines may in itself leadto a dilution of the overall agricultural research effort is being addressedunder both NARP and the proposed project through the 'Status Reports' foreach agroecological region: these thorough multi-disciplinary assessments ofeach zone's agronomic potential and constraints and the subsequent determina-tion of research priorities on the basis of this assessment are intended toprovide the information essential to improved research management, includingefficient resource allocation and utilization, within each state and eachzone. ICAR's own coordinating function for SAUs' research efforts and itsdirect responsibility for administering and funding various national researchschemes should help ensure that the available resources are appropriatelydirected at the national research priority objectives.
7.14 A recent review of 128 Bank projects supporting agricultural researchand extension in 10 countries (including 33 projects in India) concluded thatthe more successful research organizations in the countries studied displayeda combination of some of the following characteristics: a strong centralorganization with overall responsibility for most aspects of national
-37-
research and with funding control to back it up; some degree of autonomy fromthe routine bureaucratic structure of the Ministry of Agriculture; goodlinks, despite the autonomous or semi-autonomous status, to the nationalplanners and policy makers; service units either directly part of, or closelyrelated _o, the central research organization, performing important planning,monitoring and evaluation functions; planned decentralization of regionalresearch; and active participation in translating research results intorecommendations communicable to users.l/ Each of these elements is evidentin India's agricultural research system as supported by NARP and will befurther strengthened under the project. The same multi-country review recom-mended that Bank-supported agricultural research projects emphasize: manpowertraining and, in particular, training of research program leaders; develop-ment of the functions of research management and research station management;research on agricultural activities in low-potential areas; research aimed atthe integration of crop and livestock activities and research into farmmanagement; consideration of socio-economic, environmental and politicalfactors in the design of research programs and the evaluation of theirresults.2/ The project is designed to emphasize all of these elements.
7.15 Environmental Impact. The project is not expected to have any nega-tive environmental impact. To the extent that the modernization of Indianagriculture involves increased use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides,the project is expected to help determine application techniques which(a) involve greater efficiency in applications and, thus, relative reductions(compared with likely farmer practices in the absence of sound research andextension guidance) in application doses per unit of land, and (b) providefor increased protection against possible health hazards to users of agricul-tural chemicals and consumers of farm produce. Similarly, the development ofimproved water management techniques is expected to reduce the incidence ofwater-related deseases.
vIII. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.01 At negotiations, assurances were obtained from ICAR that:
(a) ICAR would, by January 31, 1986, in consultation with stategovernments and concerned SAUs, prepare and furnish to IDA a listof irrigation projects where research subprojects can beinitiated on a priority basis during the first two years of theproject (para 4.09);
(b) ICAR would, by September 30, 1988, sanction all subprojects to befinanced under the project (para 5.04);
(c) ICAR would ensure that all subprojects to be completed after June30, 1993, are provided with adequate financial and other supportfor the remaining period of their operation (para 5.04);
1/ Operations Evaluation Department, Strengthening Agricultural Researchand Extension -- The World Bank Experience (IBRD Report No. 4684; 1 Sept.1983), pg. xi, para. 34.
2/ Ibid., pp. xiv-xv, para. 45.
-38-
{d) ICAR would provide promptly, as needed, the funds, facilities,services and other resources required for the project (para5.04);
(e) ICAR would approve a grant to finance a subproject on terms andconditions acceptable to IDA (para 5.04);
(f) ICAR would follow the procurement procedures set out in paras5.06 to 5.08 (para 5.09);
(g) ICAR would cause SAU to maintain separate accounts which wouldrecord for each subproject amounts receivable and received underthe grant and also amounts contributed or agreed to be con-tributed by SAU for a subproject (para 5.15);
(h) ICAR would cause SAU to furnish to ICAR a grant expenditurecertificate prepared by independent auditors acceptable to PFC,for each subproject for each financial year as soon as the grantexpenditure certificate is available but not later than ninemonths after the end of the SAU's financial year (para 5.15);
si) ICA would maintain separate records and accounts reflectingproject expenditures (para 5.15);
S;) ICAR's project accounts would be audited annually for each fiscalyear, in accordance with sound accounting principles, consis-tently applied by independent auditors acceptable to IDA (para5.15);
Ck) ICAR would furnish to IDA, as soon as available, but in any casenot later than nine months after the end of each such year, (i)certified copies of its financial statements for each year whichhave been audited, and (ii) the audit report of sufficient scopeand detail (para 5.15);
(1) ICAR would, during the first year of project implementation,furnish to IDA before their appraisal, for its review and com-ment, the first four research subprojects - two supplementary andtwo new - prepared by SAU (para 6.03);
Cm) ICAR would make available to IDA the agenda and notes preparedfor PFC meetings and the proceedings of such meetings along witha copy of ICAR letter sanctioning subprojects (para 6.07);
tn) ICAR would make an annual on-site supervision visit to eachparticipating SAU and all subproject sites and furnish IDA withthe annual work program of the Project Unit (para 6.09);
(o) ICAR would furnish to IDA reports on the physical implementationof subprojects on a semi-annual basis (para 6.09);
(p) A mid-term review of the project would be undertaken by a jointteam from GOIIICAR/Bank within the first quarter after completionof the third project year to monitor the progress of the projectand provide mid-course corrections (para 6.10); and
-39-
(q) ICAR would cause SAUs to transfer responsibility for all campusresearch activities to the Director of Research of the concernedSAU (para 6.14).
8.02 With the above assurances, the proposed project would be a suitablebasis for an IDA credit of US$72.1 M on standard IDA terms to the Governmentof India.
-40- AM 1
Page 1
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT
Terms and Conditions for Administration of HARP II
1. Eliuibilitv of SAU for Participation
(a) Complied with GOI/ICAR standards regarding salaries, recruit-nent, and administrative procedures;
(b) Possessed, or willing to recruit, adequately experienced staffand are willing to establish adequate mechanisms for researchadministration at headquarters and zones;
(c) Established satisfactory linkages with state extension serv-ices; and
(d) For sanction of supplementary subprojects, SAUs should have:
(i) demonstrated the ability to absorb assistance providedunder NARP as evidenced by strengthening Research Direc-torates to implement and monitor project activities andespecially to planning and execution research programs;
(ii) implemented recommendations of Research Reviev Committeerelating to shifting of research schemes and closure ofredundant research centers leading to efficient resourceutilization;
(iii) appointed an Associated Director of Research for eachRegional Research Station with authority to coordinate allresearch activities in the zone;
(iv) prepared Status Reports of reasonable quality; and
(v) established effective linkages with Department of Agricul-ture extension staff in the region for research programformulation, organizing monthly workshops, and help inplanning and execution of farm trials.
2. Criteria for Approval of Research Subproiects
ISP and PFC decisions would be guided by;
(a) The importance of the proposed subproject for the agriculturaldevelopment of the state;
-41-ANNEX 1Page 2
(b) The research program being responsive to the main objectivesof NARP II and giving particular emphasis to the totalagricultural research needs of the zone;
(c) The research program being geared to problems of highpriority, especially to the needs of irrigation projects,identified in the zone;
(d) The research at zonal main stations and substations being ofapplied nature and likely to yield results within a five yearperiod;
(e) The research program being within the capacity of SAU toimplement (given past performance and competence of SAUmanagement);
Cf) The research being original and not involving unnecessaryduplication of other work (completed, existing or planned);
Cg) The research program has indicated a mechanism for integrationwith current activities in the zone of the All India Coor-dinated Research Projects; and
Ch) The arrangements of linkages with ICAR National Demonstration,KVK, and Lab to Land activities, and state government exten-sion activities being adequate.
3. Eligible Expenditure
NARP II would finance supplementary research subprojects for aperiod of four years and other subprojects for five years, on a grantbasis, the following expenditures under approved subprojects.
(a) Incremental Staff: The full salary and applicable allowancesfor the additional scientific and supporting staff specifiedin the subproject, based on current pay scales. Applicableallowances will include dearness allowance, contributoryprovident fund contributions (subject to the provision ofArticle 11 of "Terms and Conditions Governing Grants-in-Aidfrom the Council") and the housing allowance sanctioned by theSAU for all staff at the relevant duty station. However, nohousing allowance will be financed for such staff if they areprovided with housing by the university.
-42-
AMN 1Page 3
(b) Research Operatins Funds: A lump sum allowance, determined onthe basis of the number of scientific staff required under thissubproject, to be allocated by the officer-in-charge of thesubproject to cover:
- running cost of vehicles used by research staff;
- other travel expenses;
- laboratory and office supplies;
- temporary labor and inputs required for field experi-ments, in excess of "normal" or "commercial" cultivationcosts (see 4(b) below).
This lump sum will normally be applied only to the incrementalscientific staff referred to in (a) above, but in specialcircumstances existing staff may be granted the differencebetween their present allocation and the approved lump sum perscientist.
(c) qujipment: The cost of basic scientific, audio visual, officeand fare equipment (Rs 6,000 and above) on the basis of anapproved list. In addition, a lump sum (not to ezceed 252 ofbasic equipment) may be provided for minor items and forsupplementing the basic equipment. Where only a relativelysmall sum is spent on major items, a comprehensive list of allequipment may be provided. Purchase of items costing over Rs6,000 from the supplementary list will require prior ICARapproval as well as any change in the basic equipment list.
(d) Civil Works: The cost of laboratory and office space andrelated fixtures, training and hostel facilities, housing, andfarm development on the basis of the approved civil worksprogram. Land development may cover minor farm structures,roads, land shaping, fencing, and supplementary irrigationworks in accordance with the long-term needs of the station,which in turn should reflect the needs of the zone. lousingwill be provided for staff who need to live on the station andfor other staff on the basis of an analysis of acco-odationavailable in neighboring towns, rents asked and commutingrequired. If proposed housing exceeds the proportion providedat existing zonal stations, the evidence presented must beconclusive. Housing would be provided in accordance witheither university standards or those of the relevant stategovernment depending on which result in lover costs. The
-43-
ANNEX 1Page 4
design of buildings should be guided by the observation initem 7 of the Project File.
(e) Training: Cost of organizing workshops for extension andresearch staff and for providing nondegree training for SAU'sresearch staff at advanced centers of research in India and atthe National Academy for Agricultural Researcb Management.
4. Cost to be Defrayed by the University
The following costs will be met 100X by the university/state:
(a) Acquisition of additional farm land for research purposes;
(b) Normal or commercial cost of cultivation for the researchfarm, including land preparation, estimated on the basis ofthe expected cropping patte2.n. The univeristy/state will, onthe other hand, retain the gross income from the farm.
Cc) Building maintenance and security, utilities, and similarstation overbead costs.
At the end of the subproject period (4 years for supplementary and5 years for others,) the university/state would also be responsible forthe cost of:
(a) Incremental staff;
(b) Research operating funds;
(c) Maintenance and replacement of equipment (1OZ); and
(d) Maintenance of completed civil works (1-1/2Z).
5. Price Escalation
Resource requirements for each category of expenditure should becalculated on the latest available salary scales, unit costs and catalogueprices, and phased over the life of the project depending on the expectedtiming of construction, recruitment and purchasing. The base cost for anyfinancial year so obtained should be adjusted by using an appropriateprice escalation factor (usually 8.5Z compounded annually). The adjustedcosts for a given period will become the basis for the approved budgetallocation under each head.
-44-
ANNEX 1Page 5
6. AccountinR. Disbursement and Audit
(a) The university vill maintain separate accounts for each sub-project and each head of expenditure (NARP II and university)under the subproject.
(b) For each subproject the university will submit (with itsprogress report; see para 9 belov) to ICAR every six months abudget request including:
(i) the estimated requirements under each of the above headsof expenditure for the succeeding six months;
(ii) a duly authorized certificate of expenditure showingamounts spent to date and available balances under eachhead from previous advances; and
(iii) the addii:ioial advances required.
(c) Savings under one head of expenditure may not be reallocatedto supplement ot1,er heads of expenditures without ICAR's priorapproval.
(d) ICAR may reasonably determine that completion of certaintransactions by the university, such as acquisition of land,be an additional condition of disbursement against civil worksexpenditure.
(e) Independent SAI auditors acceptable to PFC, within nine monthsof the end of the financial year, vill submit to ICAR an auditreport for each subproject (or Grant Utilization Certificate)covering all heads of expenditure (ICAR and universityfinanced) for the preceding financial year. This would be acondition for continued NARP II support of the subproject inquestion. In addition, ICAR reserves the right to carry outan independent audit of subproject accounts and havereasonable access to university property and record s for thispurpose.
(f) The subproject period may, in exceptional cases, be extendedto allov completion of civil works and equipment procurement.Possible savings on scientific staff and operating funds wouldbe cancelled at the end of the project period.
-45-AMNX I1Page 6
7. Procurement
Procurement of civil works and equipment would follow standarduniversity procedures as reviewed and approved by PFC and be subject tothe following:
(a) PU approval of master plan for each research stationsubproject;
(b) The PU architect, SAU scientist concerned and an architectnominated by SAU prepare architectural brief for alllaboratory buildings;
(c) For subprojects where the construction work, excluding hous-ing, is estimated to cost more than Re 600,000 PU approval of:
Mi) the detailed procedures for nomination of SAD architects(including composition of selection coimittee)
(ii) final design drawings and cost estimates;
Ciii) bid evaluation and proposed contract awards; and
(iv) proposed construction supervision arrangement.
Cd) In case of equipment costing more than Rs 50,000, PU approvalof awards to other than the lowest bidder.
8. Recruitment
(a) The university will recruit subproject staff according to itsown procedures which will have been approved by ICAR as acondition of the university's eligibility;
(b) In the case of senior staff, and specifically theofficer-in-charge of a subproject, the SAU would invite anICAR representative to serve on the Selection Committee;
(c) Scientific and senior administrative staff recruited under thesubproject would be required to sign a commitment not to applyfor or accept another position for at least two years, and theuniversity agrees not to transfer staff during the operationof the subproject.
-46-
ANNEX 1Page 7
9. Report Reauirements
The university will submit to ICAR the following progress reports:
(a) A six-monthly progress report, attached to the request forfunds, described in para 6(b), containing details of physicalimplementation, recruitment, etc. to date in accordance withproforma provided in the Project File, item 10.
(b) A seasonal sumnary of research results would be prepared foreach subproject;
(c) A completion report at the end of the project examining, thescientific results obtained in relation to the reseerzh objec-tives that were established at the outset.
The six-monthly reports should normally reach ICAR by March and Septemberof each year, seasonal rsnmnaries of research results by February andAugust and the completion report by twelve months after the approvedclosing date.
10. Remedies of ICAR
The ICAR may, at its discretion and after due notification to theuniversity, discontinue advances under any or all heads of expenditure fora subproject, and if necessary deduct from available balances under othersubprojects financed by it, if it reasonably considers that the univer-sity, in incurring expenditure, has seriously breached the guidelinescontained above. Specific circumstances which could justify such actioninclude failure on the part of the university to submit satisfactoryexpenditure statements or audit certificates, improper procurement prac-tices, failure to obtain ICAR approval for reallocation of funds or chan-ges in specifications, failure to implement the research program, etc.Should such cases come to the notice of ICAR, the university will be givenreasonable opportunity to rectify the situation.
10. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidalaya, Jabalpur (Nadbya Pradesh)11. Konkan Irishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, Ratnagiri (Maharashtra)12. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyspeeth, Raburi (Msharashtra)13. Marathwada Agricultural University, Psrbhani (Maharashtra)14. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Irishinagar, Akola (Naharashtra)15. Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubanerwar (Orissa)16. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (Punjab)17. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur (Rajasthan)18. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coiabatore, (Tamil R.adu)19. Chandra Shekar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur
(Uttar Pradesh)20. G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantuagar (Uttar Pradesh)21. Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology, Faizabad (Uttar Pradesh)22. Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya, Earinghata, Kalyani (West Bengal)23. Sher-e-Kasbmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology (Jamu &
Kathmir)
ANNEX 2Page 2
INDIA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II
List of ICAR Research Institutes
1. Tndian Agricultural Research Institute, Nev Delhi2. Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi3. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, Rajasthan4. Cotton Technological Research Laboratory, Bombay5. Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur6. Jute Agricultural Research Institute, 24 Paraganas West Bengal7. Jute Technological Research Laboratories, Calcutta8. Indian Lac Research Institute, Ranchi, Bihar9. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi10. Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore11. Central Potato Research Institute, Simla12. Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttak, Orissa13. Central Plantation Crop Research Institute, Kasargod, Kerala14. Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow15. Sugar Breeding Institute, Coinbatore, Tauil Nadu16. Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, Trivandrum17. Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry18. National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi19. ICAR Research Complex for North Eastern Hills Region, Shillong20. Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Shala, Almora21. Central Agricultural Research Institute for Andaman & Nicobar, Port Blair22. Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal23. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal24. Central Soil and Water Conservation Research & Training Institute,
Dehradun25. National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur26. Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar27. National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal28. Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore29. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin30. Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Cochin31. Central Sheep and Wood Research Institute, Jaipur32. Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Bombay33. Central Institute for Research on Goats, Mathura34. National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh35. Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar36. Central Institute of Horticulture for Northern Plains, Lucknow37. National Centre for Mushroom Research & Training, Solan38. National Academy for Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad
13. Fruits : Hissar (Haryana)14. Tuber Crops : Muzaffarpur (Bihar)15. Potato : Simla (Himachal Pradesh)16. Vegetables . IARI, New Delhi17. Floriculture : IARI, New Delhi18. Medicinal and aromatic
plants I IARI, New Delhi19. Spices and Cashewnut : Kasargode (Kerala)20. Coconut and Arecanut Kasargode (Kerala)
(iv) Plant Protection Schemes
21. Seed-borne Diseases I IARI, New Delhi22. Nematodes : IARI, New Delhi23. Rodent Control : Jodhpur (Rajasthan)24. Biological Control : Bangalore, (Karnataka)25. White Grub Scheme Parbhani (Maharashtra)26. Honey Bee Research : Pune (Maharashtra)27. Economic Ornithology H Hyderabad (AP)
(v) Soil Science and Water Management
28. Water Management : Karnal (Haryana)29. Management of Salt Soils
and Use of Saline Water Karnal (Haryana)30. Soil Test Crop Response
Correlation Saidabad (Hyderabad)31. Improvement of Soil
Physical Condition ITAhI, New Delhi32. Microbial Decomposition
and Recycling of Farmand City Wastes : Palampur (Himachal Pradesh)
33. Biological Fixation ofNitrogen : IARI, New Delhi
34. Micronutrients of Soilsand Plants : Ludhiana (Punjab)
ANNEX 2Page 5
(vi) Asronomic Research
35. Agronomic Research Project Bangalore (Karnataka)36. Improvement of Diara Land Sabour (Bihar)37. Long-term Fertilizer
Experiments T IARA (Nev Delhi)
(vii) Agricultural Enxineerin2
38. Farm Implements andMachinery Bhopal (MP)
39. Optimization of GroundwaterUtilization IARI, New Delhi
40. Energy Requirements forIntensive AgriculturalProduction Ludhiana (Punjab)
41. Intensive Testing ofPower Tillers Bhopal (MP)
42. Harvest and PostharvestTechnology Bhopal (NP)
43. Agricultural Drainage IARI, New Delbi44. Renewable Energy Sources Bhopal (MP)
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT (Cr. 855-IN)
Procedure Folloved by ICAR for Sanction of Subprojects
Step I: Receipt of subproject proposal from SAU;
Step II: Appraisal by PU appointed team comprising Scientists(consultants), SAU representative, and PU representativeand preparation of detailed appraisal report with yearvise breakdown of cost;
Step III: Scrutiny and review of report by Inter-disciplinaryScientific Panel (ISP);
Step IV: Preliminary scrutiny and review by Finance Department ofICAR;
Step V: Project Funding Committee examines the proposals in thelight of comments by ISP and Finance Department andapproves/rejects the subprojects;
Step VI: Final approval by Finance Department after consideringrecommendations of PFC;
Step VII: Issue of formal sanction letter to SAU and asking fromSAU the State Government's undertaking (in the prescribedformat) to make available funds for payment of salaries,maintenance of civil works and operating costs for thecontinuation of research activities after the initialperiod of five years; and
Step VIII: On receipt of State Government's undertaking and confirma-tion about acquisition of land (if any), ICAR releases 25%of the funds allocated for the first year; thereafter, SAUssubmit a half yearly progress report ending September 30 andMarch 31, each financial year, indicating actual expenditure,balance left over, and requirement of funds for the next sixmonths. Further advances are released by ICAR taking intoaccount the unspent balance and capacity of SAW to spend.
INDIA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT
Summary of Progress
CumulativeAchievements Work Work Program Cumulative
upto Program 1985/86 upto Achievements AppraisalUnit March 31, 1984 1984/85 Sept., 30, 1985 in NARP I Targets
Background Paper Nos 22 - - 22 15
Research Reviev Nos 16 16 15
Administrative Nos 20 1 - 21Subprojects
Research Subprojects Nos 67 20 87 56
Training Subprojects Nos 2 - - 2
ICAR Commitments Rs.M 553 180 - 733 744
ICAR Disbursements Rs.M 222 103 75 400 425
&10
ANNEX 3-55- Page 2
INDLA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT I
List of Completed Proiects
(a) Administrative SubDroiects (9)
1. Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Hyderabad2. Gujarat Agricultural University, Abmedabad3. J.N. Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Jabalpur (HP)4. Kerala Agricultural University5. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (Karnataka)6. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore7. Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar8. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana9. Sukhadia University, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
1. Krishna Godavari Zone - Lam (Guntur)2. North Coastal Zone - Anakapalle3. Southern Zone -Tirupati4. Northern Telengana Zone - Jagtiyal5. Southern Teleugana Zone - Palem6. Scarce Rainfall Zone of Rayalaseema - N- dyal7. High Altitude and Tribal Area - Rast;akuntabavi/Chintapalli
2. ASSAM
1. North Bank Plain Zone - North Lakhimpur2. Upper Brahmaputra Valley Zone - Jorhat3. Central Brabmaputra Valley Zone - Shillongani4. Lower Brabmaputra Valley Zone- Gosaigoan5. Barak Valley Zone - Karimganj6. Hill Zone - Diphu
3. BiHAR
1. North West Alluvial Plains Zone - Pusa2. North East Alluvial Plains Zone - PurnealKathihar3. South Bihar Alluvial Plains Zone - Sabour4. Western Plateau Zone - Chianki5. South Eastern Plateau Zone - Ghatshila
4. GUJARAT
1. South Gujarat Heavy Rainfall Zone, Naveari2. South Gujarat Zone - Bharuch/Surat3. Middle Gujarat Zone - Anand4. North Gujarat Zone - Dantivada5. North West Zone Zone - Bachau6. North Sourashtra Zone - Targhadia7. South Sourashtra Zone - Junagarh8. Bhal and Coastal Area - Arnej
-57- ANNEX 3Page 4
5. HARYANA
1. Eastern Zone - Karnal2. Western Zone - Baval/Hissar
6. HIMACHAL PLADESH
1. Submoutain and low hills subtropical zone - Dhaulakuan2. Hid Hills Subhumid Zone - Bajaura3. High Hills Temperate Wet Zone - Mashobra4. High Hills Temperate Dry Zone - Kukumseri
7. KARNATAKA
1. North East Transition Zone - Bidar2. North East Dry Zone - Raichur3. Northern Dry Zone - Bijapur4. Central Dry Zone - Sirsa5. Eastern Dry Zone - Hebbal (Bangalore)6. Southern Dry Zone - Nagamangala7. Southern Transition Zone - Navile/Shimoga8. Northern Transition Zone - Dharivar9. Hill Zone - Mudigere10. Costal Zone - Brabmavar
8. KERAIA
1. Northern Zone - Pilicode2. Southern Zone - Vellayani3. Central Zone - Pattambi4. High Altitude Zone - Aabalavayal5. Problem Areas Zone - Kuinarakom
9. MADHYA PRADESH
1. Chatisgarh Plains including Balaghat District - Raipur2. Bastar Plateau - Jagdalpur3. North Hill Zone of Chstisgarh - Ambikapur4. Kymore Plateau and Satpura Hills - Jabalpur5. Vindhya Plateau -Sehore6. Central Narsmda Valley Zone - Pawarkhera7. Gird Zone - Morena8. Bundelkhand Zone - Tikaugarh9. Satpura Plateau - Chindwara
10. Malwa Plateau Zone - Indore11. Ni-ar Valley Zone - Khargone12. Jhabua Hills Zone - Jhabua
-58- ANNEX 3Page 5
10. NANARASETRA
1. South Konkan Coastal Zone - Vengurla2. North Konkan Coastal Zone - Karjat3. Western Gbat Zone - Igatpuri4. Subuountain Zone - Kolbapur5. Western Maharashtra Plain Zone - Pune6. Scarcity Zone - Sholapur7. Central Haharashtra Plateau - Aurangabad8. Central Vidharba - Yavatmal9. Eastern Vidharba - Sindhevahi
11. ORISSA
1. North Eastern Plateau Zone2. North Central Plateau Zone - Reonjhar3. North Eastern Coastal Plain Zone - Ranital4. East and South Eastern Coastal Zone - Bhubanesvar5. North Eastern Ghat Zone - G. Udayagiri6. Eastern Ghat Highland Zone - Semiliguda7. South Eastern Chat Zone - Jeypore8. Western Undulating Zone - Bhavanipatna9. West Central Table Low Zone - Chiplima10. Kid-Central Table Land Zone - Mahishpat
12. PUNJAB
1. Submountain Undulating Zone - Kandi2. Undulating Plain Zone - Gurdaspur3. Central Plain Zone - Ludhiana4. Western Plain Zone - Faridkot5. Western Zone - Bhatinda
13. RAJASTHAN
1. Arid Western Plain - Jodhpur (served by CAZRI)2. Irrigated North Western Plain - Sriganganagar3. Transitional Plain of Inland Drainage - Fatehpur (Sikar)4. Transitional Plain of Luni Basin - Sumerpur (Pali)5. Semiarid Eastern Plain Zone - Durgapura (Jaipur)6. Flood Prone Eastern Plain Zone - Navagaon (Alvar)7. Subhumid Southern Plain and Aravalli Hill - Udaipur8. Bumid Southern Plain - Banswara9. Humid South Eastern Plain - Kota
-59- ANEXM 3Page 6
14. TANIL NADU
1. North Eastern Zone - Vridhachalam2. North Western Zone - Paiyur3. Western Zone - Coimbatore4. Cauvery Delta Zone - Aduthurai5. Southern Zone - Aruppukottai6. High Rainfall Zone - Kanyakumari7. High Altitude and Rilly Zone - Thadiankudisai
15. UTTAR PRADESE
1. Hill Zone - Ranichauri2. Bhabar and Tarai Zone - Pantnagar3. Western Plain Zone - Daurala4. Mid Western Plain Zone - Nagina/Sahajahanpur5. South Western Semiarid Zone - Madhuri Ihund6. Central Plain Zone - Kanpur7. Bundelkband Zone - Bh*rari8. North Eastern Plain Zone - Sardarnagar9. Eastern Plain Zone - Kumarganj10. Vindhyan Zone -Nirzapur
16. WEST BENGAL
1. Hilly Zone - Pedong2. Terai Zone - Pundibari3. Old Alluvial Zone - Randia4. New Alluvial Zone - Mohanpur5. Laterite and Red Soil Zone - Jhargram6. Coastal Saline Zone - NMthurapur
17. JAINU AND KASMHIR
1. Subtropical Zone2. Intermediate Zone3. Valley Temperate Zone4. Dry Temperate Zone5. Cold arid Zone
-60- ANNEX 4
Page 1
INDIA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT
Achivements and Particular Problems of State A2ricultural Universities
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh Agriculural University - APAU)
Seven agroecological zones were identified in Andhra Pradesh. Oneadministrative and six research subprojects were approved at an estimatedcost of Rs.55.8 million.
The progress of subprojects is satisfactory. One of the researchsubprojects, Tirupati, completed five years of implementation and an ICARreview of its performance was overall favourable. Progress of civil worksis good except in one subproject, Paleu. Implementation was delayed inone of the subprojects, Jagatial, due to problems relating to landacquisition which are since resolved. Staff vacancies and rapid turnoverplague at least two subprojects -- Jagatial and Palem. Status Reportsvere prepared for most of the zones but only two of these met the requiredstandards. ICAR and the Bank are assisting SAD to prepare a model StatusReport for one zone. Technical program formulation and implementationvastly improved at most regional stations, except Palem where furtherimprovement is needed. Research/extension linkages are increasinglybecoming effective.
The reason6 for slow progress at Jagatial and Palem is due to theirlocation on new sites in rural areas which de not attract civil workscontractors and especially professional staff. IDA supervision missionsand ICAR are persuading SAU to resolve the problems of staff vacancies andturnover by hastening the completion of housing facilities and providingincentives to staff working at unattractive locations.
Assam (Assam Agricultural University - AAU)
Six agroecological zones were identified in Assam. One administra-tive and three researcn subprojects were aanctioned at a total cost ofRs.28 million. Project implementation in Assam is slow and much behindscnedule. The SAU was without a regular Vice Chancellor for over a year.The political turmoil in the state partly contributed to delays. Now,with the return of peace and stability, and the appointment of a ViceChancellor, implementation has improved. Close monitoring by ICAR isrequired to improve project implementation.
-61-
ANNEX 4Page 2
Bihar
Bihar has two universities: (1) Rajendra Agricultural University(RAU), and (2) Birsa Agricultural University (BAU). Six agroecologicalzones were identified in the state. One administrative and one researchsubproject were sanctioned for RAU at a cost of Rs.9.8 million.
The progress of Sabour subproject (RMU), sanctioned in September,1983 is slow due mainly to administrative problems. Civil works arebehind schedule and staff vacancies are high. Technica'l program formula-tion is improving.
Although four subprojects were appraised and processed for BAU,funds are not released pending grant of statutory recognition to SAU bythe University Grants Commission. The issue is being resolved and SAU isexpected to receive funds in early 1985.
Both the SAUs require close monitoring and supervision.
Gujiarat (Guiarat Asricultural University - GAU)
Eight agroecologicai zones were identified, in Gujarat. Oneadministrative and six research subprojects were sanctioned at a cost ofRs.50.5 million.
While implementation of some of the subprojects (e.g., Dantiwada)is brisk, some others are behind schedule. Civil works at Arnej andTarghadia were delayed. Staff vacancies are hige and the turnover rapidat stations located away from the SAU campuses. Status Reports have beenprepared but do not adequately reflect the problems of the area. ICAR andthe Bank (NDO) are s=4isting SAU in preparing a model Status Report forone zone. Techni.-..L programs are increasingly focused on the problems offarmers. Research/extension interaction has improved.
The main problem in Gujarat stems from the administrative structurewhich is yet to adapt itself to N.&'P concept of regionalization ofresearch on zonal basis. The Campus Director (there are four campuses)controls and administers research in his service area with little coor-dination with the Director of Research. IDA supervision missions and ICARhave raised this issue with the Vice Chancellor who has since retired.This issue needs to be pursued by ICAR with the new Vice Chancellor.
-62-
ANNEX 4Page 3
Haryana (Haryana Agricultural University - HAU)
Three agroecological zones were identified in Haryana. Besides oneadministrative and three research subprojects to establish/strengthenregional stations, three special subprojects (basic research) were sanc-tioned as the SAU has a well developed infrastructure at its centralcampus. The total cost of subprojects approved is Rs.26.8 million.
The implementation of subprojects is on schedule and HAU is one ofthe problem-free universities in NARP. Three subprojects completed 5years on December 31, 1983. A team of consultants appointed by ICARreviewed the progress at Bawal Regional Station and the findings arefavorable.
Researchlextension interaction is effective resulting in improvedquality of experiments. There is, however, need to further integrate theKrishi Gyan Kendras (KGK - District Agricultural Extension Centers)operated by HAU with the Research Stations.
Four agroecological zones were identified in Himachal Pradesh.One administrative and two research subprojects were sanctioned at a totalcost of Rs.25.2 million.
The progress of implementation of subprojects is uneven. Civilworks at Bajoura are progressing well. There was delay in laud acquisi-tion for one new station. Staff vacancies are high. Some of the recom-mendations of the Research Review Committee and subproject appraisal teamsrelating to shifting of research activities from one center to anotherare yet to be implemented. Status Reports are yet to be prepared. Techni-cal progran development and implementation require further improvement.Researchlextension interaction requires to be strengthened.
In the absence of a full time Director of Research, research worklacks leadership and monitoring. The concept of regionalization ofresearch has yet to be fully understood and implemented by SAU. SAU willsoon appoint a fulltime Director of Research.
Karnataka (University of Agricultural Sciences - UAS)
Ten agroecological zones were identified in Karnataka. Oneadministrative and six research subprojects were sanctioned at a cost ofRs.40.7 million.
-63-
ANNEX 4Page 4
The progress in some subprojects is slow. Delays in land acquisi-tion, civil works and procurement of equipment are the main bottlenecks.Staff vacancies are high (about 40%). At Bijapur, however, projectimplemenation improved during the past two years. Civil works are mostlycomplete. A good Status Report was prepared. The regional concept hasbeen well understood and implemented. Technical program formulation andimplementation have improved considerably. The Zonal Research AdvisoryCommittee is meeting regularly in all the zones; research and extensionstaff work as a vell knit team.
Besides staffing and land acquisition problems, slow progress inKarnataka is traceable to the delay by the University in implementing thezonal approach due to administrative and personnel problems. A closermonitoring of subprojects by SAX research directorate would also help inimproving the pace and quality of project implementation.
Kerala (Kerala Agricultural University - KAU)
Five agroecological zones were identified in Kerala. Oneadministrative and five research subprojects, and one special researchsubproject for water management were sanctioned at a cost of Rs.43.3million.
The progress of implementation was initially slow. Civil works werebehind schedule due to escalation in costs which necessitated a revisionof cost estimates. Availability of cement (allotted by the Government ofKerala) was another constraint. The pace of progress improved after theresolution of these problems. The progress of the technical component issatisfactory. KAU prepared Status Reports for all the regions and theyare of fairly good quality. Technical programs have become more relevantaddressing the problems faced by farmers.
Initial administrative and oganizational problems having beenresolved, implementation of the project has vastly improved.
Twelve agroecological zones were identified in Madhya Pradesh. Oneadministrative and five research subprojects were sanctioned at a totalcost of Rs.49.9 million.
Progress of civil works, purchase of equipment and filling staffvacancies is slow inspite of intensive monitoring by ICAR and IDA supervi-sion missions. Status Report of accepable quality has been prepared foronly one subproject (Raipur). There has been a perceptible improvement intechnical program development in subprojects which have been staffedadequately. Research/extension linkages are stronger now than before.
-64-
ANNEX 4Page 5
Inadequate monitoring and assistance from the SAU Research Direc-torate and administrative bottlenecks are identified as the principalreasons for slow progress.
Mabarashtra
The state has four universities: (a) Mahatma Phule Krishi VishvaVidyapeeth (MKV); (b) Panjabrao Rrishi Viswavidyapeeth (PKV); (c) KonkanKrishi Vidyapeeth (KKV); and (d) Marathwada Krishi Vidypeeth (MKV). EachSAU is assigned a contiguous area of five to nine districts. The Stategovernment has set up the Maharastra Council of Agricultural Education andResearch and for inter-university coodination and collaboration. TheCouncil is chaired by an eminent agriculturist with the four Vice Chancel-lors, senior staff from four SAUs, and the Secretary Department ofAgriculture, Government of Maharashtra as members.
Nine agroecological zones were identified in the State. Oneadministrative subproject was sanctioned to each SAU to strengthen theresearch directorates, which were not well organized prior to projectimplementation. One research project for each SAU vas sanctioned late in1983. Senior professional staff have been appointed. Problems relatingto land acquisition, staffing and organization which emerged in the ini-tial stages are expected to be resolved soon.
Orissa (Orissa University of Agriculture and Technolofy - OUAT)
Ten agroecological zones were identified in Orissa. Oneadministrative and four research subprojcts were sanctioned at a cost ofRs.29.6 million.
Project progress is improving. Initially some administrativearrangements vhich were prerequisites for release of funds by ICAR werenot fulfilled which are now resolved. Transfer of land from the Depart-ment of Agriculture and acquisition of additional land were delayed; asa result civil works could not be started in time. Staff vacancies arehigh (over 50Z) and procurement of equipment is behind schedule.
Puniab (Puniab Agricultural University - PAU)
Five agroecological zones were identified in Punjab. Oneadministrative, two research, and one basic research subproject weresanctioned at a cost of Rs.19.4 million.
The progress of implementation of the subprojects is good. Civilworks are on schedule. Status Reports are under preparation. Technicalprogram formulation and implementation have improved. There were, however,delays in strengthening research facilities for the two remaining zones,as PAU has yet to locate suitable locations. The university expects tocomplete this task shortly.
-65-
ANNEX 4Page 6
Raiasthan (Mohan Lal Sukhadia University - MLSU)
Nine agroecological zones were identified in Rajasthan. Oneadministrative and six research subprojects were sanctioned at a totalcost of Rs.42.9 million.
Implementation of subprojects is satisfactory except in one of thesubprojects (Fatehpur) where land selection and acquisition problemscaused long delays. A site has finally been acquired for establishing aregional station for this zone. Technical program formulation hasimproved.
A major concern relating to this SAU is the delay in carving out anagricultural university from the existing multifaculty in.titution. ICARis insisting on this and intends making it a condition for further assis-tance.
Tamil Nadu (Tamil Nadu Agricultural University - TNAU)
Seven agroecological zones were identified in Tamil Nadu. Oneadministrative subproject, six research subprojects for estab-lishing/strengthening regional research facilities, and one special sub-project for basic research were sanctioned at a cost of Rs.47.6 million.
Progress of all subprojects except two is satisfactory. Civilworks, although slightly behind schedule, are progressing well. Landacquisition problems delayed implementation of two subprojects. StatusReports were prepared for most of the regions and some are of goodquality. ICAR and EDO are assisting SAU to prepare a model Status Reportfor one zone. Technical program development and implementation is satis-factory. The required level of integration of research facilities andprograms within a zone is yet to be achieved with the result that the headof the regional station is not able to fully discharge the zonal respon-sibilities.
Tamil Nadu has a large research infrastructure at its centralcampus Coimbatore, where research responsibilities have been assigned tothe Departments of Genetics and Breeding, Crop Protection, etc., withsenior Directors of the rank of the Director of Research directing theseunits. These Directors have technical jurisdiction over the regionalstations which makes the task of shaping programs to suit zonal needsdifficult. ICAR is expected to resolve this issue in consultation withthe Vice Chancellor.
-66-
ANNEX 4Page 7
Uttar Pradesh
The state has three Agricultural Universities: (1) Gobind BallabhPant University of Agriculture and Technology (GBPUAT); (2) Narendra DeoUniversity of Agriculture and Technology (NDUAT); and (3) Chandra SekharAzad University of Agriculture and Technology (CSUAT). Each university isassigned a contiguous service area of 15 to 22 districts of the state.
Due to the large size of the state and the multiplicity of univer-sities, the Research Review, which is a prerequisite to sanction of sub-projects, was completed only in 1982. Ten agroecological zones wereidentified in the state. The Research Directorates of the three SAUs werestrengthened through administrative subprojects. One research subprojectwas sanctioned for each SAU and vork has started in one.
The problem in Uttar Pradesh is the lack of suitable agency asexists in Maharashtra to coordinate the activities of the three SAUs.ICAR is persuading the state to establish a Joint Council to bring aboutthe required coordination.
West Bengal (Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalava - BCKVV)
Six agroecological zones vere identified in West Bengal. No sub-project was, however, sanctioned as the state did not fulfill the require-ment of transferring all research responsi1ilities to SAU. The issue hasbeen under prolonged discussions between the State Government and ICARand is expected to be resolved soon.
-67-
Table 1
ATIXOULL AGZICVLUAL iUMRM POJCTZI_
Umillover of Proiect Committed La IWAR(0Illions 13)
letijauted Disabueemmto in NAN? UXSanctioned Diebursemen by Spillower to 1985/86 1D98667 1987186 1988b89 198W/9 Total
Total 2.26 3.58 3.18 3.00 3.11 3.31 3.51 21.95=*n .noun m mm== =mmu .. ==, m m== m
Ln
-69-
Page I
INDIA
NATIONALGARICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT
MffiICAR PROJECT UNIT 3!g}J
1. The Project Unit would administer all phases of the project cycle:(a) assisting SAUs in the preparation of research subproject proposals;(b) presenting appraisal reports to ISP with appropriate recommendationsand suitably modified proposals to PFC; (d) issuing sanctions and organizingdisbursements for approved subprojects; (e) assisting SAUs in projectimplementation (procurement of equipment, civil works and Status Reports);(f) supervising subproject implementation and reporting to GOI/IDA;(g) organizing reviews of ongoing projects to bring about qualitativeimprovements; and (h) preparation of Project Completion Report.
2. The Project Unit's work would be built around four main activities:(a) completion of spillover projects in a satifactory manner; (b) preparationand appraisal of 89 supplementary and 32 new subprojects; (c) providingimplementation assistance in preparation of Status Reports, research programformulation and qualitative improvement, and organizing workshops and specialtraining courses; and (d) project supervision at appropriate intervals (fre-quently, in case of weak subprojects). Project Unit would also have thefollowing responsibilities: (a) administer civil works design standards andrelated provisions; (b) advise and control machinery and equipment procure-ment; (c) maintain project accounts and carry out audits of SAU records; andCd) function as Secretariat of ISP and PFC.
3. To meet the increased workload of assisting SAUs in the preparationto ISP and PFC, PU could be strengthened by adding the positions of a ProjectDirector and two Assistant Directors General. While the ProjectAdministrator would have overall control over the working of PU, the day today functioning of PU would be the responsibility of the Project Directorassisted by the scientists and other technical staff.
4. The specialist support staff to be added to PU would comprisearchitects, engineers and accounts staff to support the increased civil worksprogram and fund disbursement needs. The responsibilities ofarchitects /engineers would include:
(a) Assisting ICAR and SAU in retaining suiable architects;
(b) Help in ?reuaration of architectural brief for all subprojectsinvolving la.oratory buildings;
(c) Reviewing subm'issions from SAU at the following stages:
-70-
ANNEX 5Table 2aPage 2
i. development of Master Plans;ii. design drawings and cost estimates;
iii. list of proposed qualified contractors;iv. tender evaluation and proposed contract award; andv. construction supervision.
{d) Review updated progress schedules at six-monthly intervals; and
(e) Make semiannual physical inspections of civil works in progressand make recommendations for improvement.
5. Consultant support. PU would not, on its own, be able to perform intime its role in preparation, appraisals and implementation assistance. Asin NARP I (but to a greater degree) PU would make use of the services ofconsultants (eminent scientists and research administrators) for subprojectpreparation and appraisal, preparation of Status Reports and for evaluationand implementation assistance. The project support of 210 man-months forconsultant services (60 man-months for subproject appraisal, 90 man-monthsfor evaluation and implementation support, and 60 man-months for asssistancein preparation of Status Reports) will be utilized on the basis of an annualwork plan.
ICA Proiect Wsit: Staff Coat.
(Re 1000)
Unit Ptoiect _ly jCatuaorv Coat Units 9p ii fi 17iiT,a ,arisa,iua 11918/9 ,I19910 1990/91 1992 ToUa1
1/ project Unit staff (rmber. will nae two field trips every motb (24 per year). Coated at Rs 1.500 per personltrLp and roeundd.*t stationary. postage. telephone. etc.'/ Details as given at lt_ 15. Table 4./ Looming 3 1SP meetlegs per year and at Re 1,500 per umber pet wetiLg (for 16 : berr).2/ to 5,000 per Couroe.
-73-
JIMM 5TgkLe -:; bPage 3
NLT12jh CRICULT-URA RHSWh1CH M.B2LI0 t
IC R PROESCT JCIT
Yehicles and Bvijpuent Costs
__ UNMBER R !M(Rs 'O00
Staff Cars 2 200.00
Duplication 1 25.00
Photocopies 1 50.00
Typewriters 4 40.00
Hand Calculators 5 5.00
Air Conditioners 5 75.00
Coolers 5 12.00
Furniture lump sum 100.00
Other Items Ag3QO2
527.50
-74- AM 5
Page 4
NATIOWAL AGRICULTURAL RCSURCH PROJCCT U
Con,scltEat Reuuiremnts and Cocte
1985-86 1-i=-87 1298788 1988189 1989190 1990/91 1991192 Total
1/ 1/2 */h for supplementary (82) and I u/m for new research (39) subprojects: 75 %consultants.2/ 1 u/u for subproject: 75Z consultants.1/ 1 */h for 2/3 of subprojects: 75Z consultants.4; Calculated at; Rs.l50 per day as fee; RJ.50 per day as subsistence or actuals wbichever is higher (Total Rs.6,000 per month).
Travel costs calculated at Rs.3.000 per u/u. Total cost per consultant would be Rs.9.000 per *l.h
-'5- Table 3
4CAIMXRLh NA5QUL-ACRICLEUR XLSLARCH ZROMM 1#: I
rm .IcuSS
Unit Coat Ernendicurea (Ru. pillion)hasbn LZA. I iill.) 15a 6 IlS/ 19I7t LSS 1982902 2990/91 l LI2U2Z Iotc1s
OAr.PPR CT COS TS3 I mN xmI4s tI2 LMS 22fl.3l 296.47 1J&AZ 15190 6LI- LJL,j
Notes: (1) Average unit coats for nev *ubprojecta to be initiated under NARP II bave been established on the beais of detailedappraisals of two individual aubprojecta and of actual expenditues incurred under WARP subprojecta nd suppl-emntaryactivities.
(2) The spill-over funding for uncompleted ARP subprojects representa amounts sanctioned by ICAR in current prices (i.e..including price contingenciea); spill-over funding in constant basu-year prices of 1984/95 hae been eatimated by deflatingthese sanctioned asounta by the domestic inflation indices shown above.
(3) For each of the new research subprojects, special researcb aubprojects nd administrative subprojects. expenditures/diaburoeeenta are estimated to occur over a five-yeer implementation period at the tfi ioein annual rates: 5S. 151, 30S, 30Sand 202. For each of the supplementary research subprojects. expendituree/dietsraement eare estimted to occur over afour-year implementation period at the following annual rates: 10, 25S, 35S. and 301.
-76- ANNEX 6
Page 1
INDIA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II
Composition of the InterdisciDlinary Scientific Panel
1. Dr. N.K. Anant Rao ChairmanRetd. Deputy Director General ICAR
2. Dr. B.G. Bathkal MemberResearch AdvisorMaharashtra Council of AgriculturalEducation and Research
Pune
3. Dr. G.S. Gill MemberAgronomy DivisionPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhiana
4. Dr. N.G.P. Rao MemberVice ChancellorNarathwada Agricultural UniversityParhbani
5. Dr. P.C. Bora MemberDean, AgricultureAssam Agricultural UniversityJorhat
6. Dr. L.N. Mandal MemberProfessor of Soil Science andAgricultural Chemistry
Bidan Chandra Irishi VishwaVidyalayaKalyani
7. Dr. K.V. Rman MemberNational Academy of AgriculturalResearch ManagementHyderabad
8. Dr. R.S. Singh MemberDean, Postgraduate CollegeG.B. Pant University of Agricultureand Technology
Pantuagar
-77-
AMEX 6Page 2
9. Dr. S. Jairaj MemberDirector, Institute of PlantProtection
Tamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoiubatore
10. Dr. T.P. Ojha MerberDirectorCentral Institute of AgriculturalEngineering
Bhopal
11. Dr. P.C.S. Nair MemberDirector of ResearchKerala Agricultural UniversityVellanikkara
12. Dr. R.C. Eirameath MemberAgricultural Economics andStatistics Department
University of Agricultural SciencesDharwar
13. Dr. I.C. Patel MemberDirector of Extension EducationGujarat Agricultural UniversityAlmedabad
14. Dr. D.S. Balaine MemberProfessor of Animal BreedingHaryana Agricultural UniversityHissar
15. Dr. V.R.P. Sinha MemberScientist in ChargeCentral Inland Fisheries ResearchInstitute
Bhubanesvar
16. Dr. B.S. Malik MemberDean, Veterinary CollegeJavaharlal Nehru KrishiVishwa Vidyalaya
Jabalpur
-78-
ANNEX 6Page 3
17. Dr. N.S. Subba Rao MemberHead, Microbiology DivisionIndian Aricultural Research InstituteNew Delhi
18. Deputy Director General (Edu.) Member
19. Deputy Director General (AS) Member
20. Deputy Director General (CS) Member
21. Deputy Director General (S) Member
22. Deputy Director General NARP MemberlSecretary
INDIA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II
COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR AN AVERAGE NARP-II RESEARCH SUBPROJECT(in million Rupees; in prices of 1984/85)
/a Comprises civil works & equipment (501), skilled labor (20Z) and unskilled labor (30%).Lb Comprises skilled labor (60%), unskilled labor (20%) and materials & equipment (20%)./c For conversion factors and economic prices used, see Annex 7, Table 2. X
HJ
Opportunity Cost of Capital (OCC) - 12.0XPresent Value of Economic Costs - Re 9.70 millionPrnsent Value of Economic Benefits - Rs 15.76 millionNtt Present Value of Subproject = Rs 6.06 millionEconomic Rate of Return (ERR) - 20.0%
ANNEX 7-80- Table 2
INDA
NATION&L AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT II
DERIVATION OF ECONOMIC FAIRG&TE PRICES FOR MAJOR CROPS IN 1990(in constant prices of 1984/85)
/a From "Half-Yearly Revision of Commodity Price Forecasts December 1984"(I3D, Economic Analysis and Projections Department; 8 January 1985);commodity prices projected for 1990 in current US Dollars have beendeflated by the MUV Index to obtain price projections in constant pricesof 1984/85:W'heat: Canadian No. 1, Western Red Spring, fob Thunder Bay;Paddy: Rice, Thai, milled, 5% broken, fob Bangkok;Maize: US No. 2, Yellow, fob Gulf ports;Sorghum: US No. 2, Milo Yellow, fob Gulf ports.
Ib With India on the margin of self-sufficiency in foodgrains, it is assumedthat, depending on the size of the annual harvests, exports or importswill occur in the short- and medium-term, and international transportcosts have therefore been omitted.
c Adjusted with Standard Conversion Factor of 0.8.
Note: Based on the economic and financial farmgate prices for wheat andpaddy shown above, a general "Foodgrain Conversion Factor" has beencalculated as the weighted average of the conversion factors forwheat and paddy - the respective weights being the relative shares ofwheat (44Z) and rice (56%) during the period 1981/82-1983/84 in India'scombined output of wheat and rice. Thus:
0.44 x 1896/1900 + 0.56 x 2002/1600 - 1.140
Other Conversion Factors Used in Economic Proiect Cost Estimation:
Standard ConverEion Factor (SCF) - 0.8Conversion Factor for Skilled Labor - 1.0Convermion Factor for Unskilled Labor - 0.667
-81-
RAflQIAL RICUL.AL .RESEACHU.PRQJeCT II
(US$ M)
IDA FiscalYear and PercentageSempeatez Semeater Gwmdative
FY861st 2.02nd 2.0 4.0 5.50
FY871st 3.0 7.02nd 3.0 10.0 13.87
FY881st 4.0 14.02nd 5.0 19.0 26.35
FY891st 5.0 24.02nd 7.0 31.0 42.99
FY90Ist 5.0 36.02nd 7.0 43.0 59.64
FY911st 6.0 49.02nd 7.0 56.0 77.66
FY921st 6.0 62.02nd 7.0 69.0 95.70
FY931st 3.1 72.1 100.00
-82-
AM.9
in,>
HATICN^L AGRIMULEURAL RESARCJ PRAQJC II
MAt,e,,iA I *ai 41le,in, utAe Xrg,ie,ct, X Il
1. ICAR/MOA/IBRD Review of Agricultural Research, Training and Education:Main Findings, Issues and Recommnendations.
2. Strategy for Irrigated Farming Research: Guidelines.
3. Strategy for Agricultural Implements Reaearch: Guidelines.
4. Spillover oE Projects Committed under NARP I.
5. Research Subproject: Central Vidarbha Zone, Yavatmal, Maharashtra.
6. Supplementary Research Subproject: North-Western Zone, Paiyur, TamilNadu.
7. Research Subprojects: Brief Notes on Design and Planning of ResearchStations.
8. &ministration Subproject: Illustrative.
9. Proforma fcr State Goverment and SAU Acceptance of NARP Grant.
10. Proforma for Six-Monthly SAU Report to ICAR on Physical Progress.
11. Proforma for Six-Monthly and Annual ICAR Report to IDA on PhysicalProgress.
12. Research Subprojects: Development of Master Plan for Civil Works.
13. Research Subprojects: Architectural Brief and Room Data Sheet.
14. Preparation and Appraisal of Research Subprojects: Guidelines.
Project Preparation Report : ICAR
-83-
INDIANATIONAL AGRICULJURAL RESEARCH PROJECT 11
Unhersy Rewarch Organbtlon
IDleVonohlad_ l
r~~~~~~~~~~Doc d RI IchEb
ChIefSinti ~a~ fcoin - -- w Function
Chief Sceniw ~ anagemet - ZLra AunZtion
I~~~~~~~~~~pca S--atio-Chi Scientist Dloe __m~g i__ lead h. __nt H__cln
ChWSciwdW R" ~ ~ Ubstatiar. wrioations
ChIefSClI d oeWh _ct -ewW.coon ._- _ - id
ChlefSclbf Pule _ _______ _ow fiWbn
ChW S D*nt wdbfRd- _ __ ___t __on
Ch, Sdd nU br WO_mW L=d Ift
I Sultns I I~~~~~~~ubatorChb cWW dSuld 5-wo_ I d__u__ q
VAm 1 -2704
-84-
INDIANATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROJECT 11
ICAR Project Administratlon
Door Gerwal - Char mRaectn F
Prwuect unt
Scentific Pornel I l Adwnu ll
_ __ __ _____ _ _ JI l .- I
PlqectI Director
I I
I IDeu lI=I DepuityCoordlnotr/I Pro:ect Coordinator I PoetCoordlnator 2 PoetCoordinator 3 Piroec Coordkiaor 4
l Controlle ADG ADG ADG ADG
l l-Arcnt" - Scientit - Scientist - Scendist - Scentist
-Engineer - Suppt Statl - Support Staff - Strt Slat? - Suo StI -up0art Staff
L…
World Blank -27043
_ *z<vrz7Xt1~~~~~~LV -
kIl9Q9mR%DE. C H I N APAKISTAN K$1l>, F\ Iv. C
/-I as DESH )
/1l AR 4 NA A1 / -
vV /BUA NEPAL '.,/N
R A JA T HAN-R R P ESH .
,_t/VI x ( IV li'ANGLADESH
VII
RIqg ) \llt ({X}-X Bay of
11\ \ X Q _1 n >11 < r > . Bengal
;\%< ) 1 AND<s *-9 INDIA
11PRA-ESH' NATIONAL AGRICULTURALRESEARCH PROJECT 11
