Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY C ,o?. K> '? ' JzyA Report No. 5794a-IN STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT INDIA THIRD NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT December 19, 1986 Regional Projects Department South Asia Regional Office This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its rontents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Transcript
Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
C ,o?. K> '? ' JzyA
Report No. 5794a-IN
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
INDIA
THIRD NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT
December 19, 1986
Regional Projects DepartmentSouth Asia Regional Office
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its rontents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS FISCAL YEARUS$ 1 = Rupees (Rs) 13.0 April 1 to March 31
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES1 hectare (ha) = (10.000 m2) = 2.471 acres1 kilogram (kg) = 2.205 pounds1 kilometer (km) = 0.6214 miles1 meter (m) = 3.281 feet1 square kilometer (sq km) = 0.386 square miles
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAAU Assam Agricultural UniversityADA Assistant Director of AgricultureADO Agricultural Development OfficerAEO Agricultural Extension OfficerADO Agricultural Development OfficerCDD Community Development DepartmentDA Director of AgricultureDAO District Agricultural OfficerDDA Deputy Director of AgricultureDEA Department of Economic AffairsDOA Department of AgricultureDOE Directorate of ExtensionFAO/CP Food and Agriculture Organization/Cooperative ProgramGOA Government of AssamGOHP Government of Himachal PradeshGOUP Government of Uttar PradeshGOI Government of IndiaIDA International Development AssociationJDA Joint Director of AgricultureKVK Xrishi Vigyan KendraMOA Ministry of AgricultureM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMT Metric TonNAEP National Agricultural Extension ProjectNARP National Agricultural Research ProjectPCR Project Completion ReportPWD Public Works DepartmentSAU State Agricultural University/UniversitiesSDAEO Subdivisonal Agricultural Extension OfficerSMS Subject Hatter SpecialistSDRs Special Drawing RightsSSP Special SubprojectT&V Training and Visit SystemVEW Village Extension WorkerVLW Village Level Worker
CROPPING SEASONSUttar Pradesh Assam
Kharif - June to September Sali - June to November
Rabi - October to February Boro - November to April
Summer - March to Kay Ahu - March to June
Himachal PradeshKharif - May to SeptemberRabi - October to FebruarySummer - March to May
FOR OFMICL USE ONLY
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
INDIA
THIRD NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT
Table of Contents
Page No.
I. BACKGROUND ................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................ 1Agriculture in India .................................... 1Agricultural Extension in India ......................... 3Experience with Past Lending ............................ 4
Problems ............................................ 5Achievements ........................................ 6Performance of Assam Agricultural Development
Project .......................................... 9Assam Extension Service Development .............. 10Assam Agricultural Research ...................... 11Irrigation Component .................... 12
Performance of National Agricultural ExtensionProject (NAEP I) ..................... 13
The Second National Agricultural ExtensionProject (NAEP II) ..................... 14
Summary of Main Tessons Learned ..................... 14
II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE ........................... 16
Administrative Conslidation and InstitutionalDevelopment ........................................... 16
Quality Improvement ..................................... 17Expansion and Broadening of Extension Coverage .......... 17Strengthening Linkages Between Extension and Research... 17
The report is based on the findings of appraisal missions to India in October1984 and March 1985. Mission members included: Messrs. M. C. Macklin(Agriculturalist. Mission Leader) G. Galgali (New Delhi Office) andK. Sreekantiah (New Delhi Office) who appraised the Himachal Pradesh.Uttar Pradesh, Assam, and special subproject components, and Mr. R. Slade,who appraised the state monitoring and evaluation components.
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performanceof their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
Table of Contents (continuation) Page No.
III. THE PROWJECT .................................................... 18
A. General ............................................. 18
B. The Project Area ................. .................. 18Uttar Pradesh ................................... 18Assam .... a................a.*......a...... *................ 21Himachal Pradesh ................ ................ 22
C. Detailed Features . ................................... 23Additional Staff . . 24
Civil Works . . 25Vehicles and Equipment ........... ............ 25
Training ........................................ 26Incremental Operating Expenses . . 26
Itemized in Annex 8 and available in printed form.
INDIA
THIRD NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT
CREDIT AND PROJECT SUMMARY
Borrower: India, acting by its President.
Beneficiaries: The States of Assam. Himachal Pradesh and UttarPradesh, and the Ministry of Agriculture. Governmentof India (GOI).
Amount: SDR 71.70 million (US$85 million equivalant).
Terms: Standard.
On-Lending Terms: From GOI to the State Governments of Assam, HimachalPradesh and Uttar Pradesh (UP). as part of CentralGovernment assistance to state development projectson terms and conditions applicable at the time. GOIwill bear the foreign exchange risk.
Project Description: The project would (a) introduce the Training andVisit (T&V) system of agricultural extension in theState of Himachal Pradesh and in Eastern UttarPradesh; (b) further strengthen the reorganizedagricultural extension system and the linkagesbetween extension and resarch introduced in theState of Assam under the Assam AgriculturalDevelopment Project (Credit 728-IN of June 30. 1977);and (c) assist in the implementation of specialsubp:ojects on extension related activities at thecentral and state level through the replenishment ofthe Special Subproject Fund established in theMinistry of Agriculture under NAEP I (Credit 1523-INof December 12. 1984).
There are no major project risks. although a number ofadministrative problems that are frequentlyencountered in extension projects, such as pressureon extension staff to perform non-extension dutiesand inadequate linkage betweeen extension and researchmay impede implementation. Such risks would bemitigated under the project because all incrementalextension staff would work exclusively on extensionwithin the Department of Agriculture (DOA) andthrough the establisbment of formal committees linkingresearch and extension institutions. Furthermore, theprovision made for strong monitoring and evaluationunits in each state, the proposed mid-term review andthe important role DOE would play in projectmonitoring and coordination would ensure constantreview of implementation problems that might arise.
- ii -
ESTIMATED COST: 1/USS Million
Local Foreign Total
State SubprojectsIncremental Staff 24.7 - 24.7Civil Works 26.6 1.4 28.0Vehicles and Equipment 4.5 0.9 5.4Incremental Operating Costs 12.2 0.3 12.5Training 3.8 - 3.8
1/ Including taxes and duties of USS1.9 million equivalent and withfigures rounded off.
2/ According to IDA Fiscal Year.
INDIA
THIRD NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT
I. BACKGROUND
Introduction
1.01 The proposed Third National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP III)would be the fifteenth in a series of IDA-assisted projects designed to reor-ganize and strengthen agricultural extension in India. This chapter reviewsthe relevance of such assistance to the Bank's agricultural program in India,experience with some of these projects, main problems encountered duringimplementation. achievements, and lessons learned. The Government of India(GOI) requested IDA to provide assistance for the establishment of professionalextension services in the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh andfollow-up assistance to the State of Assam, which completed its first phaseproject on March 31. 1985. Uttar Praderh, the fifteenth of seventeen majorstates in India 1/ to request IDA assistance for reform of agricultural exten-sion, has only now come forward after several years of discussion with the Bankon its participation. GOI also requested provision of additional funds forspecial subprojects to replenish that fund initially established under theFirst National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP I. Cr. 1523-IN), and whichwill be fully committed by late 1987.
Agriculture in India
1.02 Agriculture is the dcminant sector of the Indian economy and con-tributes about 37% of the gross national product. It engages about two thirdsof the labor force and agricultural production accounts for 24% of thecountry's merchandise exports.
1.03 The Bank's agricultural program in India during the past 15 years hasaimed at assisting India to achieve self-sufficiency in foodgrains and increasefarm incomes in an equitable manner. The Bank is actively involved in some 60agricultural projects representing large investments in infrastructure andexpanded agricultural services. With substantive increases in foodgrains.especially wheat production in recent years. India has attained effectiveself-sufficiency despite an annual population growth rate of 2.2%. although ashortage of edible oils persists. Yield increases of edible oilseeds have notbeen significant and recent increases in production are mainly due to theextension of areas under cultivation. Nevertheless, further efforts to improve
1/ With participation of Himactal Pradesh and the Punjab as a special sub-project under the proposed project all seventeen major states would haveparticipated in IDA-assisted extension project.
,. -
-2-
agricultural productivity are needed to meet future demand increases. The rateof overall crop yield increases has been falling and agriculture has stagnatedin some parts of the country. The projections of demand for foodgrains by theterminal year of the Seventh Five Year Plan (1990) call for annual foodgrainproduction of 168-170 million MT. compared with 1984-85 production of about 150million MT. This represents an annual growth rate of about 2.7Z. compared witha growth rate of 2.5X for the period 1967-68 to 1981-82. A number of factorspoint to the increasing difficulties which India will have to overcome toachieve this ambitious target.
1.04 Almost 90% 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, westernUttar Pradesh, and the delta regions of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Theseare also predominantly irrigated areas. Future yield increases in both wheatand rice, the main sources of past growth. will be more difficult to achievethan past yield increases and are likely to give less impressive results. Inthe past, the increase came mostly from the adoption of high-yielding varietyfertilizer-irrigation technology by farmers who were capable of taking thelimited risks associated with adoption of such new technology. Such areas arenow beginning to experience second generation problems, such as increasing pestand disease problems and micro-nutrient deficiencies. Thus, sustainedincreases in yields in wheat and rice will depend in part on the developmentand adoption of even more sophisticated technology.
1.05 Irrigation 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 operated sys-tems coupled with improved farm management relevant to a particular system.Such techniques can only be generated through appropriate research. The poten-tial for wheat and rice production in the eastern region is large. but hasgenerally lagged through poor farmer servicing and because the specific tech-nology requirements of heterogenous farm systems have not been supported byadequate research. Though there is considerable scope for increasing produc-tion in irrigated areas, most of furure 4-presse in foodgrain production willhave to come from rainfed areas, from oilseeds and pulses. and from sorghum andmillets which are the staple diet of the rural poor. These rainfed areas aremore ecologically diverse and present greater problems, both in developing thetechnology needed for the many agroecological situations and in its transfer tofarmers.
1.06 The above underscores the need for continuing improvements in agricul-tural extension and associated research services in helping India meet futurechallenges facing agriculture. Improving extension services remains one of therelatively low-cost means of increasing agricultural productivity, making moreeffective use of past investments in infrastructure and research, and reachingall farmers. particularly the smaller ones.
-3-
Agricultural Extension in India
1.07 Soon after independence. GOI began sponsoring a number of programsdesigned to meet the need for more effective. country-wide agriculturaldevelopment: the Community Development Program in 1952. National ExtensionService Blocks in 1953. Intensive Agricultural District Program in 1960. Inten-sive Agricultural Area Programs in 1963-64. and the Small and Marginal FarmersDevelopment Program in 1969-70. Despite their proliferation, these programscovered a small proportion of farmers, generally the larger ones. Recognizingthat a different approach was required to achieve a more broadly based increacein agricultural output and in response to changing rural and administrativeconditions, GOI, with IDA assistance, introduced an extension approach tried inseveral countries before India and generally known as the "training and visit"system (T&V). It was first tried in India through pilot projects in the Rajas-than Canal Command Area Development Project (Cr. 502-IN. 1974) and in theChambal Command Area Development Project in Madhya Pradesh (Cr. 562-IN. 1975).It was subsequently adopted in various states commencing in 1977. Themethodology, organization, and components financed under this system aredescribed in Project File Cl item 1. The T&V system aims at increasing farmproductivity and farmers' income by simultaneously addressing constraintsimpeding the transfer of new agricultural technology from research to thefarmer and the feedback from farmers that must orient research and othergovernment organizations to actual farm problems. Some of the changes intro-duced are organizational (single line of control, exclusive responsibility).others are operational (fixed, regular contact between farmers and extensionworkers. coverage, mobility. and housing in the field), and still others relateto the linkage between research and extension (regular meetings and workshopsof extension and research staff, systematic feedback of farmers' problems. andresponses by research).
1.08 Under the system of multi-purpose field workers, which the reformedextens-:on system has replaced, extension personnel were burdened with substan-tial administrative work and such non-extension duties as input delivery andadministration of various subsidized schemes, which tended to dissipate exten-sion efforts in many uncoordinated directions and divert attention and resour-ces from the need to reform the main line extension agency. Staffing wasusually insufficient to adequately cover the farming community. Field workerslacked mobility to reach farmers systematically and regularly, had practicallyno training in relevant technology, and saw limited prospects for advancement.Most extension personnel had low status, low pay, and poor morale. In addi-tion, there was virtually no linkage between extension and research. Withoutthis linkage, it is difficult to justify the considerable investment being madein agricultural research. Improved technology is of ''ttle benefit if itcannot be made available to farmers and, conversely, it is difficult to developuseful research unless there is sound feedback from farm to research--bothroles for extension.
1.09 The Bank's experience over the past ten years with India's considerableeffort to improve agricultural extension and research has confirmed what wasrecognized when the T&V approach was first being introduced on a larger scale:
-4-
in a state, with a well-entrenched bureaucracy, institutionsl change takes timeand causes many sensitive administrative problems that require dynamic andcommitted leadership to resolve expeditiously. The seventeen states. includingthose which under the proposed project would have introduced improved agricul-tural extension with IDA assistance. together will eventually reach about 90%of Indials farm families. In these states, there are to be some 73,500 VillageExtension Workers (VEWs). 8.500 Agricultural Extension Officers (AEOs), 4.000Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs), 1.100 Subdivision Agricultural ExtensionOfficers (SDAEO). 60 Assistant SDAEOs. 410 District Agricultural Officers (DAO)and Assistant DAOs. and 100 Zonal Joint Directors and Additional Directors ofAgriculture (Extension). However. the extension service represents only asmall part of the total civil service in any state (e.g.. in Karnataka onlyabout 1%) but. because of the close and often unique field relationship withfarmers (which represent the vast majority of state's population). agriculturalextension is particularly vulnerable to outside pressures for purelynon-technical reasons. The new system also calls for major attitudinal changeson the part of extension staff, farmers. agricultural researchers and govern-ment officials, both within and outside of DOA. Given these circumstances andas IDA's experience with these projects confirms, firm commitment at governmentlevel and strong departmental management are central to successful agriculturalextension. Staff Appraisal Reports (NAEP I, No. 4983-IN. August 8. 1984. andNAEP II. No. 5254-IN. MatcL 3, 1985) include detailed reviews of the particularproblems and achievements of all individual state projects assisted by IDA.This report will confine itself to a summary of problems and achievements andmake particular review of the performance of the Assam Agricultural Develop-ment Project (Cr. 728-IN), whose second phase is included under the proposedproject, and of the progress so far made under NAEP I (Cr. 1569-IN), whichbecame effective April 12. 1985.
Experience with Past Lending
1.10 Significant prcject implementation experience has been gained in 14Indian states assisted by IDA under 14 credits (totalling $200 million).Whilst the range and sererity of problems encountered and the extent ofachievements have varied considerably between states, four (West Bengal.Cr. 690-IN; Bihar. Cr. 761-IN; Madhya Pradesh Phase II. Cr. 1138-IN; andAndhra Pradesh, Cr. 1129-IN) of the 14 can be classifiea as having performedpoorly and to have severe problems. These are discussed more fully in para1.12. A common feature that deserves to be stressed is that the most sensitiveand intransigent problems have resulted from indifferent management, frequentlyaccompanied by a lack of government commitment. In no case has the validity ofthe central objective "aincreasing agricultural production through introductionof professional extension linked with appropriate research and manpowerdevelopment and designed to reach the mass of small farmers" been questioned.Similarly, the T&V extension methodology has been accepted as an appropriateand workable system by all the participating states, whether or not they haveperformed well.
1.11 Project Completion Reports (PCRs) have been prepared for: RajasthanAgricultural Extension and Research Project (Cr- 137-TN). Orissa Agricultural
-5-
Development Project (Cr. 682-IN), and Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Extension andResearch Project (Cr. 712-IN). for the states of Gujarat. Haryana and Karnatakathat were included under the Composite Agricultural Eztension Project(Cr. 862-IN) and for Assam Agricultural Development Project (Cr. 728-IN).Project Performance Audits have been ccupleted for Rajasthan AgriculturalEztension and Research Project (Cr. 737-IN). Orissa Agricultural DevelopmentProject (Cr. 682-IN). Madhya Pradesh-Extension and Research Project(Cr. 712-IN). Assam Agricultural Development Project (Cr. 728-IN). CompositeAgricultural Eztension Project (Cr. 862-IN). In addition to the above. a greatdeal of data has been generated by state M&E units. The following paragraphssummarize the main findings and some common features of these reports.
Problems
1.12 Problems commonly experienced in agricultural extension projects.especially during the early years of implementation, have included:
(a) Involvement of extension staff in non-extension activities;
(b) Excessive reporting and statistical workload on field staff;
(c) Insufficient location specific research-generated te-hnology. espe-cially for rainfed and tribal areas;
(d) Poor feedback from field to research;
Ce) Weak inter-ministerial and inter-departmental coordination;
Cf) Transportation shortages and restrictions;
(g) Slow start up of M&E;
(h) Late submission of audited financial reports;
(i) Weak technical supervision and shortages of appropriately trainedsubject matter specialists;
(j) Slow provision of housing for field staff; and
(k) Slow use of training funds.
In addition, the expansion of village level non-extension activities, since theintroduction of T&V extension, has been unexpected and under-estimated, leavingPanchayat (local government) staff unable to cope with the increased work loadand aggravating pressures on extension workers to assist in non-extension work.The above problems have been continuously addressed during project supervisionand most have diminished over time. or at least kept to manageable proportions.In the particular cases of the poor performing states (pars 1.10), weak manage-ment--coupled vith a lack of government support in Bihar (Cr. 761-IN) -led toinadequate budgetary provision and a failure to employ critical staff and to
-6-
construct the planned civil works. Similarly. in West Bengal (Cr. 690-IN).persistent administrative. political. and budgetary constraints, worsened bylegal disputes with labor unions over recruitment and staff promotion issues.stifled the implementation efforts of DOA. Nerertheless. it has been observedthat, an those districts of West Bangal where a reasonable extension structurewas put in place, M&E surveys indicated that extension functioned as well and.in some aspects. better than in other states classified as good performers.Both credits 690-IN and 761-IN are expected to close 50Z undisbursed. In thecases of the ongoing problem projects. both Andhra Pradesh (Cr. 1219-IN) andMadhya Pradesh (Cr. 1138-IN) are suffering from similar sets of difficulties:
(a) Inadequate budgetary provisions;
(b) Failure to recruit or transfer staff;
(c) Slow civil works construction;
(d) Poor supervision of field staff;
(e) Lethargic project management; and
(f) Resulting slow rate of credit disbursement.
Achievements
1.13 While considerable scope remains for improving the design and effec-tiveness of the agricultural extension system once the new structure is inplace. the Bank's experience in India to date has been positive overall. Thenew system has now stood the test of nine years of implementation in severalstates; there is growing evidence of its favorable impact; and it has receivedwide support from the farming community and state DOAs. Although achievementshave been mixed, experience with these projects show that there is a lead rolefor a technical extension service, that the system adopted for technologytransfer is fundamentally sound. and that the impact on production. even inthe short term, can be substantial. Many of the changes introduced are nowgenerally recognized as worthwhile:
(a) Fixed visit schedules;
(b) Regular meetings of extension field workers and supervising officersand specialists;
(c) Regular in-service training of extension staff;
(d) Use of extension staff in helping to identify research priorities andin advising research on farmers needs and reactions to research recom-mendations; and
(e) A single line of co mand and exclusive DOA responsibility for theextension service.
-7-
In several states where a strong technical extension service has developed, itis able to identify constraints at the farm level and to exert pressure forimproved performance accountability in its own operations and on other supportservices. In particular. the extension service is not only becoming increas-ingly aware of its own need to improve timeliness and quality of the technologyit transfers to farmers. but is also inducing the research support network toreorient its research priorities. The Project Performance Audit Report for theRajasthan Agricultural Extension and Research Project (Cr. 737-IN) says, "Theproject has demonstrated that the T&V system of agricultural extension is aneffective way of managing a large number of staff to spread innovations and ofproviding disciplined review of technical messages. The project has alsoclearly stimulated a demand for extension services from many farmers, itbrought discipline to the overview and formulation of technical messages and tothe focussing of agricultural research efforts." 1/ PCRs for Madhya Pradesh(Cr. 712-IN). Orissa (Cr. 682-IN), and the Composite Agricultural ExtensionProject (Cr. 862-IN) stress the considerable advances made in institutionaldevelopment of extension services and establishment of links with research.
1.14 The first wave of M&E surveys were designed to measure the estab-lishment and functioning of the newly introduced extension system. This hasbeen achieved in participating states, and greater emphasis is now placed uponassessing the impact of reformed extension on technology adoption and produc-tion. Whilst there is considerable variability between states, statisticallyanalyzed results summarized for seven states 2/ show that 85% of contactfarmers are visited at least once per month by VEW. Whilst some bias in favorof visits to larger farms is indicated, the size of this bias is very small.Yields on farms that rely on the VEW as the main source of technological infor-mation are higher than on farms that rely mainly on other sources of informa-tion. Although the other sources (radio, other farmers, etc.) do not differgreatly from one another in terms of their effect on yields, any source ofinformation appears to be better than receiving no advice at all. Yieldindices for wheat and rice 3/ for farmers receiving VEW advice are 114.5; forfarmers relying mainly on advice from other farmers. 99.1; and for farmersreceiving no advice at all, 86.1; these values suggest a 15-28% yield advantage
1/ Project Performance Audit Report (Cr. 737-IN, November 1984).
2/ G. Feder, R. Slade and A. Sunderam, The Training and Visit Extension Sys-tem: An Analysis of Operations and Effects (Staff Working Paper No. 719,1985).
3/ Index of 100% = state average yields weighted according to irrigated andrainfed conditions and contact and non-contact status.
-8-
from VEW presence. 1/ Other less rigorously analyzed M&E data demonstrate apositive relationship between the frequency of VEW visits and technology adop-tion and yield. In Haryana. 73% of farmers visited once a month applied therecommended basal fertilizer to rice. compared to 33Z for farmers not visited.In Manarashtra, 511 of farmers visited twice a month used the pesticide recom-mended for wheat. as compared to 16% for farmers not visited by VEW. In1983-84, Gujarat surveys indicated that yields of groundnut. millet. and rice.all increased as the frequency of VEW visits increased.
1.15 While the above data provides encouraging indicators of a positiveimpact of T&V extension on agricultural production. extension effect is notseparated from the effects of other influences on production. such as inputuse, soil fertility. input supply problems and prices. etc. Until now. suchdisaggregation has only been achieved under a special study conducted by theWorld Bank in association with the Haryana Agricultural University. Resultsfrom the study 2/ indicate that the T&V extension system was more successful indelivering information to farmers than the traditional system. that it achievedsignificantly higher rates of direct contact with farmers. and that rates ofknowledge diffusion for all wheat practices and for some paddy practices werehigher than comparable rates under the former system. The study showed that,in the case of wheat, a yield increase of about 2X per annum over the firstfour years of the Phase I project, was directly attributable to extension andindependent of the use of farm inputs and other complicating factors. Further-more, the study concluded that the increased incremental wheat output.attributable to extension is. alone, sufficient to generate an internal rate ofreturn in excess of 15% with a high degree of confidence.
1.16 State production statistics also provide positive indicators of theimpact of improved extension on productivity. The Project Performance AuditReport for Rajasthan (Cr. 737-IN) notes that foodgrain production was more orless sustained during the drought years of the project and that there isevidence of a significant lift in crop yields from 1980-81 onwards comparedwith pre-project levels. Crop yields for 1981-82 and 1982-83 were between 7%and 30% higher than for the two years preceding the project (1976-77 and1977-78) even though kharif rainfall in 1981-82 was well below the normalaverage. Fertilizer consumption rose consistently over the life of theproject, despite drought, and more so in the project than in non-project areas,the planted areas under improved high yielding sorghum, millet and wheat alsoincreased markedly. Equally important have been changes in cultural practices.
1/ For the seven states included in the analysis (Assam, Bihar, Gujarat,Haryana. Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu) and after an average ofabout 2.5 years of T&V experience and without accounting for initial dif-ferences or other confounding factors.
2/ G. Feder, L. Lau, and R. Slade. 'The Impact of Agricultural Extension. ACase Study of the Training and Visit System (T&V) in Haryana, India",(Forthcoming Staff Working Paper).
-9-
The introduction of socybean. adoption of ridge and furrow cotton cultivation,and an increase in mustard planting from 70.000 to 350.000 ha are but a few ofsuch changes related to extension reform. 1/ In Karnataka (Cr. 862-IN). cropproduction increased consistently over project life, more significantly therehave been important positive changes in cropping patterns and cultivationpractices which are clearly the consequence of extension advice given tofarmers. Output gains attributable to these changes are, thus, measurableresults of the impact of the reformed extension service. Major examples ofsuch changes in farming practices include:
(a) The emergence of sunflower cultivation on a large scale. with acreageincreasing from 10.000 ha in 1977-78 to 276,000 ha 1983-84;
(b) Rapid spread of safflower cultivation from 163.000 ha in 1982-83 to356.000 ha in 1983-84;
(c) Expansion of high yielding variety paddy cultivation from 2.4 millionha in 1978-79 to 2.85 million ha in 1983-84;
(d) Introduction of high-yielding red gram in the southern districts on83.000 ha in 1983-84;
Ce) Cultivation of gram in tank-irrigated areas which rose from nil in1981-82 to 83.000 ha in 1983-84; and
(f) Growth in overall pulse acreage and yields which caused total produc-tion of pulses to increase from 710,000 MT in 1977-78 to almost 1.3million MT in 1983-84. 2/
1.17 In the case of Gujarat (Cr. 862-IN). 2/ average total foodgrain produc-tion during the project period (1978-79 to 1982-83) increased by about 251as compared to the five-year average of the pre-project period. During thesame period, the average yield of pearl millet increased by 47%. sorghum by25%. wheat by 22%, and pulses by 11%. Significant changes in cropping patternsand cultivation practices, clearly the consequence of extension advice given tofarmers, include the introduction of summer groundnut into new areas with thetotal area planted increasing from 19,600 ha in 1977-78 to 165.000 ha in1982-83. Similarly, the acreage under rape and mustard increased by about63.000 ha and that of castor by about 70.000 ha during the project period.
Performance of Assam Agricultural Development Project
1.18 The Assam Agricultural Development Project (Cr. 728-IN, datedJune 20. 1977, US$8 million) became effective in September 1977 and was
2/ NAEP II Staff Appraisal Report No. 5254-IN. March 1985.
-10-
originally scheduled to close on March 31. 1983. Credit closure was, however.extended until March 31, 1985 (but in fact fully disbursed by January 1985). asproject implementation had been seriously disrupted over a three year period(1980-83) by civil disturbances. Frequent changes in state agriculturalleadership over the period 1978-85 1/ also caused problems of managementcontinuity. Notwithstanding these difficulties, implementation performance hasbeen generally satisfactory with most project objectives achieved. The ProjectPerformance Audit Report of July 1986 concluded that the extension component ofthe project was well formulated and efforts to adhere to institutional objec-tives have been encouraging. especially considering the security conditionsprevailing during much of the project. A follow-up project is required toremedy the shortcomings and build on the achievements of the first phase. Theirrigation component had no real bearing on the main extension component; itwas implemented by a different authority and the project provision involved(less than US$1 million) was too small to influence events and policies. Someof the hydrological investigative objectives of the component were partiallyachieved, but the envisaged expansion of the shallow tubewell program did notoccur, partly due to poor choice of project area. Linkages between the exten-sion service and SAU research hen been established and field trial stationsdeveloped, but research performtnce has to be improved.
1.19 Assam Extension Service Development. Most physical objectives wereachieved and 95% of extension etaff have been employed on time and are in post.This has included a smooth tran;fer of 960 VLW from the Panchayat/CDD and 700VEW from special crop schemes to the new extension service (a process that hasbeen achieved only with much dLfficulty in some other states). Vehicles andequipment have been procured as was planned, although 20% less than anticipatedbicycle and motorcycle purchase loans were made due to unfavorable GOA loanconditions, which did not cover the full cost of vehicle purchase. Afterinitial delays, civil works construction improved (once the DOA engineeringunit took over its management from Public Works Department (PWD)) and 921 ofplanned new construction and house renovations were completed.
1.20 Training programs introduced have undoubtedly resulted in a betterequipped VEW than before. although project training did suffer during theperiod of civil disturbance, when travel and the assembly of training groupswas difficult. The quality of SAU and DOA trainers requires improvement.particularly in communication skills. The limited availability of new, loca-tion specific ciop technology has also tended to make in-service trainingrepetitive and increasingly less interesting to extension staff. Simultaneousefforts to improve planning and coordination of training, to strengthen theuniversity extension/training unit, and the productivity of zonal adaptiveresearch is required to remedy this situation. The Assam Agricultural Develop-ment Project has successfully established the institutional framework of a
1/ During the period the Minister of Agriculture, Secretary of Agricultureand Vice Chancellor of Assam Agricultural University (AAU) each changedfour times and the Agricultural Production Commissioner seven times.
-11-
professional extension service under a single line of command within DOA.Extension priority has so far been given to the transfer of low cost. simple,already proven technology to farmers, particularly in the improvement of cul-tural techniques such as seed treatment. timeliness of sowing. and plantpopulations. Whilst much still remains to be done. even in these basic areas,the extension service has to move into more sophisticated areas of crop hus-bandry. improved fertilizer and water use, plant protection, and morespecialist crops in order to respond to farmer demands and to maintain staffinterest and dynamism. Whilst it is noted in para 1.22 that location specificcrop recommendations are now emerging from research, their late generation anda persistent lack of area and/or seasonal specific technical recommendationsfor several of the many diverse seasonal and geographic situations in Assamremains a challenge to research and a constraint to extension.
1.21 Supervision of VEWs has been less than satisfactory due to:
(a) Diluted management control resulting from large geographic size ofsubdivisions;
(b) A low AEO to VEW staffing ratio exacerbated by 60 vacancies in the KEOgrade; and
(c) A tendency for VEW to get involved in non-extension work, particularlyinput supply problems.
Farmers still regard the VEW as a general advisor and it will take time beforethey get used to the reformed VEW role and until the VEW can work solely onextension. To deny farmers assistance in such non-extension areas as inputsupply at this time would. however, deleteriously affect farmer confidence inVEW.
1.22 Assam Agricultural Research. Although responsibility for fundamentaland applied research was officially transferred to AAU from DOA in 1973. AAUhas not yet taken full responsibility for applied research at agro-ecologicalzone level. DOA has continued to carry much of this burden at it's field trialstations. giving little attention to the designed role of managing on-farmtrials. Initial reasons for slow AAU zonal development were a lack of zonalphysical facilities and staff shortages. The civil works program for researchunder the Assam Agricultural Development Project has been largely accomplishedand. under National Agricultural Research Project (NARP I. Cr. 855-IN, December1978). progress has been made in identification and establisbment of multi-cropzonal research stations. but research staff shortages continue with 40% of AAIJresearch posts unfilled. Progress will, however, continue to be gradual.limited by research officer recruitment rates. Continued support to thedevelopment of AAU adaptive research capacity will be ensured under NARP II.Research facilities are available in all the four main agro-ecological zonesbut certain ecologies. such as flood prone young alluvwium. and the south bankof the Brabmaputra in western Assam. are not covered by existing facilities.Despite delays in AAU zonal research development. the efforts of AAU and DOA attheir respective trial stations have resulted in the generation of some zonal
-12-
recommendations, including the use of bio-fertilizer (azolla algae), introduc-tion of "gram" as a summer "catch" crop. 1/ identification of improved droughttolerant-rice-varieties for-the rainfed autumn crop (ahu) and short durationrice for the flood prone areas. Much remains to be done. however, as improvedrice varieties are lacking for the winter season (sali) and little work hasbeen started on the improvement of cropping patterns and systems.
1.23 Establishment of the M&E unit was delayed and the unit only started tofunction in June 1982. Nine reports have so far been published. A mainshortcoming of M&E under the Assam Agricultural Development Project has beendelayed result analysis and publication of findings. Surveys conducted inAssam have measured the establishment of the reformed extension system anddemonstrated that 90% of contact farmers and 84% of non-contact farmers knowtheir VEW by name but that the regularity and reliability of VEW visits tocontact farmers is less than ideal (50% of contact farmers visited twice amonth, 30% once a month. and 20% not at all. with just 60% of visits made tothe farmer's field). These figures emphasize the need (para 1.21) for moreintensive VEW supervision. Sixty three percent of contact farmers had lessthan 2.0 ha of land and only 11% more than 4.0 ha; this distribution is con-sidered representative of the state. The M&E unit has recently conductedsurveys to measure technology adoption and impact on production. Early resultsare conflicting; some 2/ indicate little difference in techn.ology adoptionbetween contact and non-contact farmers. while others show a positive relation-ship between the frequency of VEW extension visits and crop yields. It wasalso shown that wheat yields of farmers accepting advice from VEW were higher
than those accepting advice from other sources or no advice at all (e.g. 1.000kgs/ha for the no advice situation against 1,400 kgs/ha with VEW advice).Whilst first indications are positive, more work on measurement of productionimpact is requirel.
1.24 Irrigation Component. At an early stage in project implementation, itbecame apparent that the irrigation component did not reflect the priorities ofthe state irrigation authorities. After a quick start, the water-levelmonitoring work was discontinued. Of the intended 15.000 pumps and shallowtubewells, only 4.198 were installed. However, statewide progress in tubewelldevelopment was in general better; it seems that the four project areasselected for irrigation development under the Assam Agricultural DevelopmentProject were less favorably suited and the farmers less prepared to installpumps. than other areas. Credit closure for the irrigation component wasapplied on the due date in March 1983, without the extension granted to theremainder of the project.
1/ November to April season.
2/ From Assam M&E Report. Rabi 1983-84.
-13-
Performance of National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP I)
1.25 NAEP I (Cr. 1523-IN. October 2. 1984. for US$ 39.1 Nillion). the firstof a second phase of extension projects. is designed to provide follow-upsupport to three already participating states but. more importantly, to furtherstrengthen the Department of Extension (DOE) in MOA. a process started withlimited success under the Composite Agricultural Extension Project(Cr. 862-IN). To this end, NAEP I will:
(a) Provide continuing assistance initiated under earlier credits to threestates (Orissa. Madhya Pradesh. and Rajasthan) iu the improvement ofstatewide agricultural extension services; and
(b) Reorganize and strengthen DOE in MOA to allow it to perform its coor-dinating and policy guidance role more effectively in the developmentof agricultural extension throughout India and enable it to assiststates in preparing projects for extension reform.
The project has provided for core staff to the Extension Division of MOA andhas further strengthened existing units of Farm Information. Extension Trainingand Field Extension of the Extension Directorate. Core administrative staffare responsible for administrative, organizational, planning and logisticaspects, as well as for follow-up of visits and correspondence with stategovernments. The Farm Information Unit, in addition to organizing exhibitions,publicity. and preparing pamphlets and periodicals. will provide audio-visualand agricultural comunication support to the states. The Extension TrainingUnit is responsible for extension related training. and the Field ExtensionUnit for state subprojects and for the appraisal, supervision. and monitoringof special subprojects. In addition, the project provides funds for furtherproject preparation and for financing special subprojects prepared by MOA,states, or other agencies designed specifically to strengthen support of exten-sion activities at the central, regional, or state level. NAEP I was declaredeffective April 12. 1985. and project implementation has started in the statesof Orissa and Rajasthan. At central level, all new staff positions providedfor DOE under NAEP I have been sanctioned. The process of recruitment is welladvanced both for NAEP I incremental staff and outstanding staff not yetappointed under the Composite Agricultural Extension Project. Five new JointDirectors of Agriculture (JDAs) have recently been appointed, four DeputyDirectors of Agriculture (DDAs) and two additional JDAs have been selected andshould be posted shortly and two Joint Commissioners are expected to beselected soon. The above would represent a considerable strengthening of DOE.Both the Extension Technical Advisory Committee and the Project Funding Commit-tee responsible for approval of special subprojects (SSP) have been con-stituted. A total of 34 state and two central SSP have already been submittedto DOE. After first screening, 14 state SSP were selected for appraisal, threewere rejected, and 17 returned to the states for further preparation. Fromthese, two state and-two central SSP have already been jointly appraised by theBank/DOE. These are:
-14-
(a) Establishment of a National Center for Agricultural Extension Manage-ment;
(b) Strengthening of Extension Education Institutes-
(c) Strengthening of information support to extension. and extension train-ing in Kerala State Agricultural University; and
(d) Strengthening of fortnightly training and establishment of technologytesting centres in Maharashtra.
It is currently estimated that the special subproject funds under NAEP I(US$8 million equivalent) will be committed to appraised special subprojects bylate 1987.
1.26 The Second National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP II). NAEP II.(Cr. 1569-IN. signed on May 10, 1985 for US$49 million declared effectiveDecember 13. 1985) will provide follow up assistance to the states of Gujarat,Haryana, and Karnataka, and introduce reformed extension in the state of Jammuand Kashmir. Implementation is now underway.
Summary of the Main Lessons Learned
1.27 The problems and achievements of IDA's nine years of experience withextension projects in India are described in paras 1.12 to 1.17. While thisexperience has to date been positive, there are, nevertheless. several clearlessons to be learned from past experiences and which have been taken intoconsideration in the design of the proposed project. These are:
(a) Firm commitment of state governments and strong departmental managementare central to the successful establishment of reformed extension.Without them, it is unlikely that the administrative and budgetaryproblems that inevitably arise during institutional reform., will beeither anticipated and prevented or expeditiously resolved. Extensionreform should not. therefore, be introduced into a situation whereeither commitment or management capacity are obviously inadequate. Inthe same vein, project size and phasing should be related to themanagement capacities of the respective executing agencies.
(b) Establishment of clear lines of responsibility, incorporating an effec-tive single line of administrative and technical command for extensionwithin DOA. has proved necessary for effective management and in orderto minimize administrative disturbances.
(c) Community Development (CDD) or Panchayat Departments Village LevelWorkers (VLW) should only be transferred to a reformed, professionalextension service. if those departments are clearly overstaffed andproviding such transfer is effected on a voluntary basis and isnon-reversible. Depletion of CDD staffs through transfer on reversible
-15-
deputation has contributed to difficulties in previous projects.including:
(i) Pressure on VEW to perform non-extension duties;
(ii) Unplanned return of VEW to CDD causing serious staffing gaps inDOA; and
(iii) Legal disputes between CDD and DOA staff on recruitment andpromotional issues. etc.
(d) Inadequate supervision of village level activities has frequently beena problem and provision of sufficient. trained. and fully mobilemid-level management staff requires particular attention.
(e) M&E units should be established as early as possible to allow base-linedata collection and early identification of implementation constraintsthat require management action.
(f) Delayed generation of appropriate location-specific technical croprecommendations by research is sometimes a problem and priority shouldbe given to the early establishment of extension research links.
(g) Civil works management has normally been most successfully executedwhen carried out directly by an engineering wing within DOA (as inAssam) except in occasional cases where state PWD has proved effectivein managing the typical extension project building program that com-prises a large number of low cost individual units widely dispersed inrural areas.
(h) Strong project support from IDA has been an important factor in pastachievement. Although the various problems. noted in para 1.12 and inthe review of Bank experience (paras 1.19 to 1.27). are being specifi-cally addressed in the ongoing projects, it will take time to resolvethem. Past achievements must not, therefore. mask the vulnerabilitythat persists and the undercurrent of pressure to revert to a moretraditional extension service with multipurpose field workers. Exten-sion reorganization is still institutionally immature in most states,and it is essential that the technical and supervisory support of IDAbe sustained. IDA should continue to aupport efforts both to adapttechnology to the needs of farmers and to improve the transfer of thattechnology to them by assisting state and central efforts through theNARP I, NAEP II. NARP I, NARP II, and NAEP III.
-16-
II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE
2.01 Over the past nine years. the Bank has supported a series of state.composite. and national 1/ extension projects with the objective of increasingagricultural production through the development of professional extensionservices closely linked to appropriate research and manpower development. Theproposed project would continue to support this overall objective. The inclu-sion of Uttar Pradesh. Hijmachal Pradesh and the Punjab (as a special sub-project) under NAEP III would bring to 17 the number of major Indian statesparticipating in IDA-financed agricultural extension projects. Uttar Pradesh.one of the largest and by far the most populous state in India (populationestimated to be over 110 million in 1985). will now participate after a periodof hesitation and following several years of discussion with the Bank which hasconsistently sought its participation in an extension project.
2.02 Experience has shown that. during the first five years of an extensionproject. the administrative framework for reformed extension can be establishedand an information service provided for the transfer of low cost technology.This will be done in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. intro-ducing T&V extension for the first time under this project. While such anadministrative framework for extension has been established in the first phaseof the Assam Agricultural Development Project. training and visit extension isnot established firmly enough in Assam that it could be consideredself-sustaining, and further strengthening and broadening of the extensioneffort is required. The following specific objectives would ue addressed.
2.03 Administrative Consolidation and Institutional Development. While theT&V extension system has already been introduced in Assam. resulting benefitscan be further increased. The project aims to consolidate administrativechanges introduced under the Assam Agricultural Development Project and sustainthe commitment among decision makers and extension staff to a full acceptanceand improved effectiveness of T&V extension. Thus. the project would providean important incentive for ensuring the continuation of extension reform inAssam. The project would also provide continued support to DOE through theprovision of special subproject funds that would replenish the special sub-project fund established under NAEP I. Therefore. incentive would also beprovided for the continued reform and development of DOE as a central exten-sion, coordinating, and technical assistance agency with capacity to prepareand appraise agricultural development projects. In addition. the project wouldintroduce reorganized extension services. related training. and adaptiveresearch to the states of Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. based on theexperiences gained in previous state and composite extension projects in India.
1/ National projects have comprised a mix of first and second phase individualstate subprojects, as well as centrally managed development funds.
-17-
2.04 Quality Improvement. The project would seek to ensure improvements inthe quality of extension services. In addition to training programs requiredto establish reorganized extension in the states of Himachal Pradesh andUttar Pradesh are which is seeking to reform their existing services. specialemphasis would be placed on expanded and improved extension training programsaddressing additional technical subjects, improved extension management, andcommunication skills. Given the specialized nature of such training, mostwould be arranged on a national basis with DOE playing an important role. DOEwould also assist in:
(a) Developing the training capabilities of the states;
(b) Guiding them in extension methodology, improving the roles of SMSs.AEOs. and contact farmers; and
(c) Establishing close permanent links with research.
Special efforts would be made to qualitatively improve extension and trainingmanagement through the provision of more responsive and advanced training inmanagement and communication methodology for supervisory. training, and SMSstaff. The quality of communications with farmers would also be improved bybetter selection and training of contact farmers and increased utilization ofthe mass media to complement T&V extension.
2.05 Expansion and Broadening of Extension Coverage. Greater area coveragewill be achieved by geographic expansion into the states of Uttar Pradesh andHimachal Pradesh. In addition, special subprojects will provide for expansioninto the Punjab and into 11 districts of Bihar. Typically, these first phaseextension interventions would focus on the development of extension servicesconcentrating on the transfer of simple low cost technology for selected majorcrops grown by the mass of small farmers. Such technology is already availablefor major food crops, i.e. wheat and rice (see examples in Project File Cl,Item 10). However, there is a need to address the whole farming system byproviding a wider range of specialist support. for crops already covered, newcrops, and such activities as soil and water management, horticulture, and someaspects of farm forestry. Such a broadening of extension would be emphasizedunder the proposed Assam subproject. Provision would also be made under theUttar Pradesh subproject for early expansion into water management to ensureadequate extension coverage of newly developed irrigated areas.
2.06 Strengthening Linkages Between Extension and Research. Althoughresearch is providing increasingly effective support to extension. much remainsto be done. There is still considerable ambiguity about adaptive research.verification, and field trials, and the division of responsibility for thesebetween research and extension institutions. The division of responsibilitywould be spelled out as part of a memorandum of understanding between eachstate agricultural university (SAD) and state government. Rationalization ofapplied research at the agro-ecological zone level is particularly important inUttar Pradesh and Assama where DOA's are currently carrying out much of thiswork. The agreed organizational goal is that SAU is to be responsible for
-18-
research at central. zonal, and substation levels. while DOA (supported by theproject) would be responsible for refining these recommendations by carryingout field trials (verification and modification) under farmers conditions atdifferent locations. This would be a joint effort by research and extension,with the SMSs at the subdivision/district having full responsibility for thetrials with technical backup from the zonal research station. Theknowledge-practice gap in agricultural technology must be further reduced byrefining technology to suit the farmers' resource, management. and risk situa-tions. The project would also help SAIJ to finance other assistance to exten-sion services. mainly the training of SMS. not covered under NARP.
III. THE PROJECT
A. General
3.01 The six-year project would. as its main goal. provide first time assis-tance to the States of Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, as well as continu-ing assistance to the State of Assam. initiated under an earlier credit (seeparas 1.18 to 1.24) in the improvement and organization of agricultural exten-sion services. In addition, the project would assist in the financing ofspecial subprojects, to be prepared by MOA, states, or other implementingagencies, specifically designed to strengthen support of extension activitiesat central, regional, or state levels.
3.02 While the basic approach to strengthening of agricultural extensionservices is common to all participating states, necessary adjustments have beenmade to take account of differing levels of agricultural development,administrative arrangements. socio-economic conditions. population densities,communications, and progress made under earlier projects. Summary data on thestate subprojects, including the staffing of the agricultural extension serv-ices before and with the proposed project, are given in Annex 1. Detailedproposals. outlining the particular features of each state component, are givenin Project File Cl. Items 5 to 8, and overall project costs in Annex 2.
B. The Project Area
3.03 The three state subprojects of the project. Eastern Uttar Pradesh,Himachal Pradesh and Assam, would involve a total rural population of 69 mil-lion (13% of the national rural population). managing 7.8 million operationalfarm holdings, and cultivating 11 million ha of land (8% of the nationaltotal).
Uttar Pradesh
3.04 Uttar Pradesh, one of the largest states in India, is centrallylocated in the plains of North India. It is bounded by Tibet and Nepal to the
-19-
north. Himachal Pradesh to the northwest, Delhi and Haryana to the west, Rajas-than to the southwest, Madhya Pradesh to the south, and Bihar to the east. Itis the most populous state in India, with a population of 110.8 million (17X ofthe national total), of whom about 96 million or 87Z live in rural areas. Interms of area, it ranks fourth afte: Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra,with an area of 0.3 million km2 , which is 9.2Z of the total area of thecountry. Administratively, the state comprises 12 divisions and 57 districts.10 agro-ecological zones have been identified within the state. Annually, 24.8million ha of land are cultivated at a cropping intensity of 143%. The state'seconomy is dominated by agriculture which generates 60% of the state's income.
3.05 The subproject area would cover the four eastern administrative divi-sions of Uttar Pradesh: Gorakhpur, Varanasi. Faizabad. and Lucknow. comprising21 districts. 85 subdivisions. and 430 blocks. The total population of theproposed subproject area is about 52 million (47% of the states total). of whom46 million or 88Z live in rural areas and are predominantly dependent uponagriculture for th2ir livelihood. Rural population density is high, averaging401 persons per km . In the subproject area, an estimated 5.2 million farmoperational holdings, with an average net farm size of 1.4 ha. cultivate 7.5million ha of land annually. In total, 10.9 million ha are cropped annually.The average annual cropped area per family is 2.1 ha (cropping intensity of146%). The average family size. excluding hired labor. is six persons. Withinthe subproject area, 76% of holdings are of less than 1.0 ha in size. comparedto 69% for Uttar Pradesh as a whole, and contrasting with 31% in neighboringHaryana. The literacy rate is only 27.4%. compared to a national average of36.2Z. The climate of the project area, classified as a sub-tropical monsoontype. has an average annual rainfall varying from 990 mm in Lucknow to 1.274 mmin Gorakphur. Most rain falls in the months of June to October. and tempera-tures are lowest in January (8-90 C) and highest in May (40-420 C).Topographically. the subproject area is flat with elevation between 150 to 300m above sea level. It is drained by three main rivers. all tributaries of theGanges: the Ganga, Ghaghra, and Yamuna. running northeast to southwest. Thebulk of the project area has alluvial soils of variable texture. tending toalkalinity. Generally. such soils are potentially highly productive andrespond well to manuring but. in more arid regions, are prone to problems ofalkalinity. In the soi theast (Mirzapur district). soils are shallow.coarse-textured with low organic matter status and low water retention capacity(Vindhyan soils). Such areas are most suited to the cultivation of millets andshort duration oil seeds. In eastern areas, Deoria and Gorakphur districts.lowland highly calcareous soils (Bhat soils) are most suited to tuber crops andsugarcane cultivation. Four agro-ecological zones have been identified in thesubproject area. 1/ Of the 7.5 million ha of land cultivated in the subprojectarea, some 3.4 million are double cropped. An estimated 3.9 million ha, or52Z of 'he total cultivated area, is irrigated, as compared to 55% for
1/ Fully described in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. ResearchReview Committee for Uttar Pradesh.
-20-
Uttar Pradesn as a whole. While net cultivated land area has not increasedover ten years 2/. the area double cropped has increased by 26Z. This isreflected by a 13Z increase in the area under dry season (Rabi) crop and atripling of catch-cropping in the sammer season. Rice is the dominant wetseason (Kharif) crop, occupying 75% of the area planted to foodgrains. Sor-ghum. maize, and pearl millet are other major cereals, with gram the mostwidely planted pulse. Over 10 years 3/, the area under wet season rice hasincreased by 20X. mainly at the expense of sorghum and millet. Wet seasonpulse planting has increased by about 20Z. with a marked increase in gram, butreduction in kidney bean cropped areas. Over the same period, dry seasoncereal planting has increased by 45Z. with the wheat area expanding by 67Z.from 2.1 to 3.5 million ha. while the barley area has declined. Dry seaP,npulse plantings have declined by 282 and the overall area under oilseedsremained static, despite a significant increase of rape and mustard planting.During the 10 year period since 1971-72, crop yields have increased both in thesubproject area and state as a whole. In the subproject area, rice and wheatyields have increased by 45% and 36%. respectively. The exception is oilseedswhose yields have remained static. Despite significant growth in crop yields(due to irrigation development and the introduction of high yielding
varieties). subproject area yields remain lower than those of the state ofUttar Pradesh, the national average, and the neighboring state of Haryana.
a/ Average of yields for the triennium ending 1982-83.
3.06 Farm inputs and seed distribution is handled by a mix of government,cooperative, and private institutions. assuring an adequate input supplycoverage throughout the state. Within the subproject area, there are an
2/ For the period 1971-72 to 1981-82.
3/ For the period 1971-72 to 1981-82.
N.B. Crop area statistics source: Uttar Pradesh Crop Production Statistics19 81-82. MA.
-21-
eatiuated 10.600 farm input sales points (mainly private retail stores), ofwhich 850 are managed by DOA. In 1983-84. 700,000 nutrient tons of fertilizer(43Z of total state sales), 19.700 tons of seed (35Z of total state sale). and1.200 tons of plant protection chemicals (42Z of total state sales) were soldin the subproject area; of these. 62 of the fertilizer. 442 of the seed, and302 of the plant protection chemicals were supplied through the DOA. Agricul-tural credit is available, mainly through cooperatives. and. to a lesserextent. commercial banks. Improved seed is produced by DOA, Uttar Pradesh SeedCorporation, and the National Seed Corporation. Within the subproject area.there are 73 D0o seed production farms. Agricultural research is the respon-sibility of the SAUs at Kanpur and Faizabad and, to a lesser extent, of theBanaras Hindu University. Until now SAU's have been little involved inresearch at the the agro-ecological zone level. Although some zonal resejirchba been carried out by DOA at four regional research/testing centers situatedat Hardoi, Azmagarh, Varanasi, and Barabanki, linkage between extension anduniversity research has been lacking. Agricultural extension is currently oneof the many responsibilities of CDD; however, little attention is given toextension as the VLWs of CDD are most occupied by administrative work (subsidyadministration. etc.) and other development works (wells. clinics. and roads)funded under the integrated rural development program. Other field staffmployed under the Command Area Development Authority work only at assignedirrigated sites. Apart from junior staff manning DOA farm input stores and alimited number of special crop extension workers, DOA has no staff at subdivi-sional or village level (see Organization Chart No. 27511). Thus, no profes-sionel extension service currently exists in Uttar Pradesh.
Assam
3.07 Assam with a total area of 78.000 km2 and a population of 21 million,is the largest state of the northeastern region, an isolated group of fivestates and two union territories bounded by Bhutan and Tibet/China to thenorth, Burma to the east, and Bangladesh to the south. Assam can most easilybe described as that portion of the Brabmaputra valley within India. Thevalley, about 650 km long from east to west, and 50 to 100 km wide from northto south, has been formed and remains dominated by the Brabmaputra. Each year.with the melting of the sncws from the Himalayas and the torrential monsoonrains (usually over 2,000 am), the river swells to ten times its normal winterflow. Repeated year after year, this process has built up the valley floorvith layers of asni> si8t and gravel until there are now rich alluvial depositscovering 50,000 km . Separated from the Brabmaputra valley by the Mikir andNorth Cachar hills is the gmaller Southern Barak valley (Cachar district). Thesubproject is confined mainly to these two broad alluvial valleys, which comr-prise 14 agricultural districts and 33 subdivisions, contain 972 of its popula-tion. and grow 952 of its annual crops. Rainfall averages 2,252 - per annum,with most areas enjoying a well distributed and reliable rainfall patternspread over a six month monsoon season (May through October). Soils arealluvial and generally highly fertile; however, 102 of the cultivated area ischronically flood prone and a further 32 occasionally flooded. Four main
-22-
agro-acological zones are identified within the project area. 1/ Ninety onepercent of the population (19 m2ilion) live in rural areas. at an averagepopulation density of 250 per km , in an estimated 2 million operational farmholdings that average 1.4 ha in size. Ninety percent of holdings are of lessthan 3 ha. and 60X less than one ha in size. Annually. 2.2 million ha of landare cultivated, of which 0.9 million are double cropped (cropping intensity of133%). and approximately 10% irrigated. The dominant crop is rice. 2.3 millionha being sown annually and occupying 80g of the areas devoted to food grainproduction. The most important commercial crops are tea. oilseeds. jute. andsugarcane. with Assam producing a little over half of India's total productionof tea mainly from hill districts outside the subproject area. Rice productionhas increased only by 10% over the past decade 2/ in contrast to all India.where rice and wheat production have increased by 21% and 60%. respectively.aver the same period. Average rice yields in Assam at 1.075 kgs/ha are 20Xlower than the national average of 1.291 kgs/ha. This is a reflection of a lowfertilizer usage of four kgs of nutrient/ha. compared to 123 kgs/ha in thePunjab. or 52 kgs/ha in Uttar Pradesh; 50% coverage of the rice area with highyielding varieties compared to 93% in Haryana and little irrigation develop-ment; only 10% of the cultivated area is irrigated, compared to nationalaverage of 29%. Given this low production base, the favorable soil andclimatic conditions. and considerable untapped irrigation resources, the poten-tial for increased agricultural production in Assam is high.
3.08 Farm input supplies are presently assured through the AssamAgro-Industries Development Corporation, private retailers. and multipurposecooperative societies which together operate 2.800 retail sales points (2.500private). Existing sales of farm inputs are relatively low (just 12.800 tonsof fertilizer in 1983-84), and the private sector is the main supplier. Asinput demand increases. it is anticipated. as in other states, that the privateretailing sector will develop to meet it. Farm credit is available mainlythrough cooperative banks and, to a lesser extent, through commercial banks.
Himachal Pradesh
3.09 Himachal Pradesh, located in the north-western Himalayan region. covers56.000 km2 and is administratively divided into 12 districts and 69 blocks.Topographically the state is mountainous varying in elevation from 300 to 3.500meters above sea level. Despite the terrain all major centers are linked bybitumized road and, except for some higher areas that are cut off by snow inwinter months. the movement of agricultural inputs and outputs is not a majorconstraint. Farmers tend not to live in villages but in dispersed hamlets of
1/ Fully described in the Indisn Council of Agricultural Research, ResearchReview Committee for Assam Agricultural University.
2/ Comparison of Average Production Statistics of the Triennium Ending 1973-74with the Triennium Ending 1983-84. Source: Area and Production of Prin-ciple Crops, 1981-84. GOI.
-23-
two to three houses. The state is divided into four main agro-ecologicalzones, depending on elevation. varying from sub-tropical to alpine. Precipita-tion varying from 1,000 to 1.500 mm is generally concentrated in the months ofMarch to September with only light occasional rains occurring during the restof the year. However, the high dry temperate zone is virtually without summerrain. but enjoys heavy winter snow. of a total population of 4.5 million. 1/at least 4.1 million or 922 live in rural areas and are primarily dependentupon agriculture or related activities for their livelihood. A prevailingliteracy rate of 42% is above the national average of 36x. Overall populationdensities are relatively low at 80 per km2 but as cultivable land is scarce.populations are concentrated on the agriculturally favorable valley bottoms andsouth facing lower valley slopes. There are an estimated 620,000 holdings withan average holding size of between 0.7 and 1.0 ha. Fifty five percent ofholdings are less than 1.0 ha and 92Z less than 4 ha. It is estimated thatsome 620.000 ha of land are presently cultivated, of which 92.000 ha or 152 areirrigated. Some 73.500 ha. 12% of the total cultivated area, are under per-manent fruit tree crops, particularly apple. Given the scarcity of cultivableland. there is limited scope for expansion in farm size and increased agricul-tural production must come through either crop intensification or diversifica-tion. The irrigation potential of the State is estimated at 190.000 ha, 2/ andeven at full irrigation development some 70% of agricultural land would remainunder rainfed conditions. Most farming is practiced on nar.ow hillside ter-races and mechanization of cultural operations is generally not possible.Except in the northern ,dry temperate" agro-ecological zone, where only ones-mmer irrigated crop from snow melt waters is possible, double or multicrop-ping is practiced in all areas. Under rainfed conditions two crops are nor-mally possible and with supplementary irrigation three to four crops can begrown. The main staple food crops are maize and rice (kharif) and winter wheatand barley (rabi). Cash crops vary according to agro-ecological zone but themain ones are fresh vegetab'les and potatoes and orchard fruits such as apples,stone fruit, citrus. All are intensive, high-input-output crops requiring arelatively sophisticated technological input and efficient farm input andcredit services. Adequate farm input and credit coverage is presently assuredthrough mixed private and government intervention. In contrast, extensionservices are very weak and linkages between the farmer and university-basedresearch lacking.
C. Detailed Features
3.10 The project would assist in the development of six main operationalactivities:
(a) Extension (accounting for 58% of total project costs);
1/ Extrapolated from 1981. 4.2 million population at an annual populationgrowth of 2.12x.
2/ Source: Project for Water Harvesting under dryland farming in HP.
-24-
(b) Training (9Z of total project costs);
(c) Information services (1.32 of total project costs);
(d) Adaptive research (0.2Z of total project costs);
(e) M&E (1.5Z of total project costs); and
(f) Special subproject fund (302 of total project costs).
Extension and training are the main state subproject investment areas, withinformation services playing a supportive role to these two key activities.Adaptive research under the project would support on-farm trials programsmanaged in each state by DOA. Zonal research requirements are covered underongoing and planned NARPs. M&E units would be established (Uttar Pradesh andHimachal Pradesh) and strengthened (Assam), and their work coordinated by DOEof MOA, which would also supply technical assistance support as necessary. Thespecial subproject fund would be available to support the above or ether exten-sion related activities in any state. or at regional or centrally-basedinstitutions. Details for each state subproject and the special subprojectcomponent are given in paras 3.16 to 3.28 and in Annex 5.
3.11 Additional Staff (232 of total project costs) would be required inUttar Pradesh and Hizachal Pradesh for all levels at intensities appropriate tothe particular economic and topographic conditions of those states for theestablishment of professional extension and a H&E unit, and for the strengthen-ing of training and information services. In Assam. additional staff would berequired to meet the needs of increased specialization and broader extensioncoverage; to this end. SItS would be required in disciplines other than thoseneeded for basic agricultural production. Incremental staff would also berequired in Assam for newly created administrative subdivisions and to maintainVEW to farmer ratios in view of population growth (natural and imuigration).Some staff are also required to further strengthen training capacities withinthe state and to improve the analytical and processing capacity of the N&Eunit. Assurances were obtained from each state that all incremental staffpositions would be filled with staff having qualifications and experiencesatisfactoxy to IDA and according to agreed schedules (see Table 3.2. Annex I.and Project File Cl. Items 5. 6 and 7). Further. all states agreed that allextension positions assigned to DOA under this project would be usedexclusively for agricultural extension work under the project and would remainunder the administrative control of DOA. Furthermore, assurances were alsoobtained that project extension staff would not be adversely affected inrespect of their entitlement to emoluments, benefits and promotional prospectsby reason of assignment.
-25-
Table 3.2: INCREMENTAL STAFF REQUIREMENTS BY PRINCIPAL CATEGORIES
a/ Headquarters. Divisional. District, and Subdivisional.h/ SDAEO, AEO. VEW.
3.12 Civil Works (26% of total project costs). Additional offices, espe-cially at subdivisional level, would be provided in Uttar Pradesh and Assam.In all three participating states, additional training facilities and relatedinformation unit buildings would be constructed or. whenever possible, existingstructures improved to cater for VEW/AEO fortnightly training, special subjectcourses and induction and refresher training. etc. Monthly workshop trainingfacilities for SMS training would be provided under NARP II. As provision ofappropriate housing in areas of operation is necessary for effective fieldextension, particularly in areas where accommodation for rent is not available,the project would provide some 3.000 houses for about 35% of Uttar Pradesh. 55%of Himachal Pradesh and 10% of Assam's extension workers. However, all stateswould continue to encourage the use of rented accommodation wherever possible.Details are given in Project File Cl, Items 5 to 8.
3.13 Vehicles and Equipment (5% of total project costs). Vehicles would berequired for incremental supervisory and SMS extension staff, for M&E, trainingand information unit personnel. Extension and M&E field staff would requireloans for purchase of bicvcles, mopeds and motorcycles (which would be of theirown choice). Assurances were obtained that each state would make available:
(a) To all eligible staff in need of loans for the purchase of motorcycles.mopeds. and bicycles, such loans on terms and conditions designed toprovide incentives for the purchase of such motorcycles, mopeds. orbicycles; and
-26-
(b) Such financial incentive, including appropriate travel allowances, inorder to encourage optimum use of the motorcycles. mopeds. and bicyclesto be purchased under the project.
Vehicle requirements are detailed for each state in Project File Cl, Items 5to 8. The project would also provide audiovisual equipment to support exten-sion operations, as well as office furniture and equipment needed for expandedextension activities for training and for effective M&E. Provisions for eachstate are detailed in Project File Cl. Items 5 to 8.
Training
3.14 The project would support a variety of training activities, dependingon the requirements of each state. Programs currently being followed in Assamwould be continued and broadened to include new specializations. New trainingprograms would be developed in Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. All wouldinclude the key training programs for SMS. AEO, and VEWs of monthly workshops,fortnightly training sessions, additional seasonal training programs, andspecial short courses. For more senior staff. in-state training programs wouldbe organized by DOA and SAU. In addition to the further development of exist-ing training activities, specialized training would be progressively introducedin such subjects as horticulture, watershed management, plant protection, soilconservation and farm forestry. Moreover, training in M&E and extensionmanagement, especially for staff at middle and upper administrative levels,would help to improve extension implementation and supervision. Training wouldalso support staff develop,nent through, where appropriate, promotional trainingto obtain undergraduate or post-graduate degrees. Such opportunity for staffupgrading is deemed to be one of the most effective incentives available toextension staff. Apart from additional staff, buildings, vehicles and equip-ment for training, the project would also provide course operating expendi-tures 1/ (4% of project costs).
3.15 Incremental operating exp-nses (12% of total project costs) would beprovided for office and vehicle operation, building maintenance and stafftravel allowances. It has been observed in other states that inadequate fund-ing of operating expenses can seriously impede extension and training effec-tiveness, particularly SMS and senior staff supervision of field activities.In the states of Uttar Pradesh and Assam no restrictions are placed on exten-sion staff field visits or travel, as long as the budgetary provisions areavailable. Descriptions of each state subproject. limited to features ofimportance, are given below. Summary project costs and phasing of expendituresare in Annex 2 and in detailed cost tables in Project File Cl, Items 5 to 8.
1/ Detailed for each course type in Project File Cl. Item 4.
-27-
Uttar Pradesh Subproject
3.16 The subproject would establish a unified and professional extensionservice for Eastern Uttar Pradesh within DOA, having a single line of technicaland administrative command from VEW to the Director of Agriculture (DA) andwith clearly defined job responsibilities established for each staffcategory. 1/ Because of the size of Uttar Pradesh, the large number of farmersinvolved (about 15 million) and the considerable demands that extension reformplaces upon staff recruitment. training and management; such reform would beintroduced in a phased manner. Under the project 21 eastern districts(para 3.05) would be covered. It is anticipated that the introduction ofsimilar extension reform would follow in the remaining 36 districts of WesternUttar Pradesh once established in eastern areas. Ir. the meantime the ongoingCDD extension services would continue to function in the western areas. Thesecond Uttar Pradesh Tubewells Project (Cr. 1332-IN). cofinanced by IFAD undera separate agreement (Ln. 124-IN). provides for agricultural development serv-ices at public tubewell command areas throughout the state. In order to fullyintegrate the extension services in the project area and to avoid duplicationof extension efforts, the subproject would take over the responsibility forextension at tubevell cluster sites. An ADA (Extension). assisted by foursenior SMS 2/ (Training, Information Services, Crop Production and AdaptiveResearch). would be responsible to DA for project execution and for day to daycoordination with other departments, particularly those of horticulture.forestry, community development, and irrigation. Four JDA's assisted by SMSteams at divisional level (with disciplines in agronomy, mechanization, train-ing and special crops) would supervise the work of 21 districts and 85 subdivi-sions. A State Project Coordinating Committee, chaired by the AgriculturalProduction Commissioner, would assure interdepartmental and interministerialcoordination and steer project management on policy issues. SMS teams would beestablished at district and subdivisional levels having expertise in agronomy.plant protection, training, and horticulture. District Horticultural Officers,already available within the Horticultural Department, would serve as districtSMS. Allowance is made at both district and subdivisional levels for SMS(Special Subjects). These posts would be filled only as required, in suchfields as soil and water management, irrigated cropping, etc. The latter wouldbe of particular relevance to areas having tubevell clusters newly developedunder the Second Uttar Pradesh Public Tubewell Project and where a specialextension emphasis on the transition from dry land to irrigated farming couldbe required. To ensure optimal staff utilization, subdivisional level SMSteams have been provided on the basis th&t one team can effectively train 120VEW. Fifty five teams of subdivisional level SHS are thus provided to servethe 85 administrative subdivisions.
1/ Described in "Training & Visit Extension," D. Benor and M. Baxter, WorldBank, 1984. -
2/ One incremental, three existing within DOA.
-28-
3.17 Existing village level workers of CDD would remain with that Depart-ment, which would relinquish its responsibility for agricultural extension toDOA to concentrate upon its other non-extension functions. Eight hundred andninety field staff posts under the Command Area Development Authority wouldbe abolished and the staff transferred after orientation training as VEW ofDOA; 203 existing DOA special crop staff would be available for transfer to thenew extension service as VEW. Under the present organizational arrangements,block level Agricultural Development Officers (ADO) are dependent upon DOA forcareer development and future posting; they execute the technical policies ofDOA, but are administratively responsible to and paid by the Block DevelopmentOfficer of CDD. Plant Protection Officers at block level are administrativelyresponsible to the Block Development Officer but are on the budget of and paidby DOA. Under the proposed project these staff would be transferred to theadministrative and technical control of DOA. as AEO or SMS. The DOA staffcurrently involved in farm input supply would remain in that function to ensurea continuing service. Prior to negotiations. GOUP had issued administrativeorders for:
(a) The abolishment of 890 field posts now under the Command Area Develop-ment Authority and the transfer of staff to DOA to be completed byApril 30. 1987; and
(b) The transfer on a non-reversible basis of 425 ADO from CDD to DOA to becompleted by April 30. 1988.
Of the 890 CADA staff 283 have already been transferred to DOA and a schedulehas been established for the remaining transfer. Given the flat topography.high population density, large village size, and the relative ease of farmaccess, VEW would be deployed at an intensity of one per 1.200 operational farmfamilies. To complement T&V extension. farm information units would be estab-lished at Kannur and Faizabad Agricultural Universities and at the four divi-sional headquarters of DOA. Besides producing audio-visual aides for institu-tional staff training and extension, these units would also produce publicityand training materials for dissemination through press and radio.
3.18 The responsibility for staff training would be shared between SAU'sand DOA, with SAU's having particular responsibility for SMS training atmonthly workshops and for special coursework. The DOA would be responsible forinduction, orientation. most refresher and fortnightly VEW training. Thesenior SMS (Training) at state level would be responsible for the monitoringand coordination of the overall project training program. Memoranda of under-standing, defining the respective roles in training of the SAUs and DOA wereagreed and established prior to negotiations. The SAIU of Faizabad has made itsown arrangements with the Banaras Hindu University for assistance in SMS train-ing in the Mirzapur and Varanasi districts. Eight monthly workshop sites have
-29-
been identified within the project area, 1/ six in the zone covered by FaizabadSAU. and two in the zone of Kanpur SAU. Training and hostel facilities atthese sites would be developed under the proposed NARP II. Agriculturalresearch at central and zonal levels would be the responsibility of the SAUis.Their zonal research capacities would continue to be developed under the ongo-ing NARP I and NARP II, under which seven zonal research sites are plannedwithin the proposed subproject area. DOA is currently operating four regionaladaptive trial centers cum seed farms in eastern Uttar Pradesh; however. DOAmanaged zonal research would be phased out as the SAD zonal research capabilitydevelops. DOA would remain responsible. in coordination with the SAU's, forimplementation of an expanded on-farm trial program.
3.19 A project M&E unit would be established within DOA, headed by JDA anddirectly rcsponsible to DA. In addition, a special study designed to estimateand attribute the impact of the reformed extension system on farm level produc-tivity would be undertaken (executed by the University of Kanpur). The studywill follow closely a methodology developed by Bank staff. 2/ The essence willbe the selection and comparison of two (possibly three) neighboring districtsin Uttar Pradesh, at least one of which will be within the subproject area.The districts will be as agro-climatically and culturally similar as possible.Farm level data will be collected through sample surveys at widely spreadintervals before and during project implementation. Subsequently. econometrictechniques will be used in the analysis to quantitatively estimate. havingcontrolled for other confounding factors, the impact of the new extensionsystem on farm productivity. The study will be supervised by a three mancommittee consisting of the DA, the ADA (Extension). and the JDA (M&E).Details are in Annex 6.
Assam Subproject
3.20 The extension organization, incorporating a single line of commandestablished under the Assam Agricultural Development Project, has worked satis-factorily and would be maintained under the proposed project. At state level.the subproject would, however. further strengthen the office of ADA (Extension)through provision of a senior SNS (Training and Information) to be responsiblefor the coordination and guidance of all extension related DOA and universityexecuted training activities financed under the project. The project's civilworks construction program would be supervised by the civil engineering wing of
l/ Dariaphur KVK, Hardoi DOA farm, Kumarganj Research Station. Bahraich KVK,Gaziaphur Zonal Research Station. Juanpur KVK, Nirzapur Zonal ResearchStation, KVK Basti.
2/ G. Feder, L. Lau, and R. Slade, 'The Impact of Agricultural Extension: ACase Study of the Training and Visit System (T&V) in Haryana. India-. TheWorld Bank ARU Discussion Paper No. 34 ARU, May 1985.
-30-
DOA. 1/ rather than PWD and to accomplish this task four additional civilengineers would be required to strengthen headquarter supervisory capacity.The quality of technical supervision from the zonal level would be improved byprovision of one SMS agronomist attached to each of the five zonal JDA's. OneSMS (farm input supply coordination) would also be provided at each zone toimprove the timeliness and reliability of farm input supply (currently carriedout by multipurpose cooperatives). by ensuring:
(a) Advanced planning of input requirements;
(b) A close liaison between DOA and cooperatives and between DOA and theprivate and para-statal input suppliers; and
(c) Prompt response to supply problems, channelled up from VEW through DOAadministration.
To improve extension management at subdivisional level, some area reorganiza-tion is required to reduce the geographic size of some subdivisions and toadjust SMS/AEO/VEW staffing ratios. Fifteen new sub-divisional units wouldthus be created, bringing their total to 48. Seven additional SMS (Agronomyand Plant Protection) and support staff would be required to facilitate this.The range of subject matter specialists woi'd also be broadened to includehorticulture and soil and water management. initially such staff would onlybe posted to those subdivisions having significant irrigated or horticulturalareas. Because of population growth, some additional VEW and AEO would berequired to maintain the VEW to farmer ratio at 1:800 and, subject to mid-termreview, further staff would be made available to provide a more intensivecoverage in the difficult flood prone or newly irrigated areas, should this befound necessary at that time. The regular training of VEW in all 48 subdivi-sions would be carried out by 35 subdivisional SMS teams at 62 selected fort-nightly training sites. Simple training facilities are required at 34 of thesesites that currently lack suitable buildings. SMS training would be carriedout by scientists of AAU at six monthly workshop sites, whose training andhostel facilities would be provided under the planned NARP II.
3.21 Under the first phase project (Assam Agricultural Development Project).most zonal research was carried out by DOA at adaptive field trial stations.although it had been envisioned that these stations would eventually be trans-ferred to AAU as zonal research stations or sub-stations. Progress of thistransfer has been slow and little has yet been achieved by AAU in the develop-ment of multicrop, system oriented zonal research. Nevertheless, the conceptremains valid and, during the proposed project, the research role of DOA atadaptive trial stations would diminish as AAUE's zonal caDacity develops. TheDOA would concentrate upon and expand its program of on farm trials, whichwould be supported under the proposed project. Identified additional zonal
1/ llader the Assam Agricultural Development Project, civil works originallyentrusted to FWD suffered long delays and had to be taken over by DOA.
-31-
research facilities would be financed under NARP II. Details are in ProjectFile Cl, Item 6.
Himachal Pradesh Subproject
3.22 The proje would establish a reorganize the extension service incor-porating a single line of technical and administrative command from Directorateof Agriculture to VEW, and ensuring integration of horticultural and agricul-tural extension operations. An Additional Director. acting through the DA.would be responsible for project execution to a State Project CoordinatingCommittee chaired by the Agricultural Production Commissioner. 1/ Because ofthe importance of horticulture in Himachal Pradesh, those districtspredominantly iuvolved in horticultural production would be administered by aJoint Director of Horticulture and those predominantly agricultural by a JDA.JDAs, of all districts, will be directly responsible to the Additional Directorextension within the DOA. In the mountainous areas it would not be possible tofollow strictly all extension norms of the T&V methodology as applied in theplain areas of India in particular the number of VEW fortnightly visits tocontact farmers. During pre-project orientation and planning, and in thecourse of implementation, the system would be adapted to take the specialcircumstances into account, probably making greater use of demonstration farmsor plots and traditional farmer meeting points as advisory centers.
3.23 Existing village level workers of CDD would remain within that depart-ment, which would relinquish its responsibility for agricultural extension toDOA to concentrate upon its other non-extension functions. Under the project.158 existing VEW of DOA currently working on special crop projects would betransferred to the extension service and a further 852 recruited. Under thedispersed farm situation and poor road communications within the state, place-ment of field extension staff in their actual area of work is regarded as ofhighest priority. The project would, thus, give priority to provision ofdistrict and field level staff housing anc to field training centers. Sevenhundred and forty one houses for 72% of incremental field staff would be con-structed; improvements would be made to two existing DOA staff training centersat Mashobra and Sundernagar and a new one constructed at Dharmsala; 69 simpleblock level meeting centers for fortnightly staff training and farmer meetingswould be provided, and Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University (HPAU) trainingfacilities would be improved at 4 sites to facilitate SMS training. A H&E Unitwould be established under the project. While for administrative purposesplaced in the DOA, it would report directly to the Project Coordinating Commit-tee and Agricultural Production Commissioner. Dqtails are in Project File Cl.Item 7.
1/ See Organizational Chart No. 26806.
-32-
Special Subprojects (SSP)
3.24 A fund of about US$42 million would be used to finance specialshort-term and discrete subprojects prepared by states. with assistance fromDOE. receiving IDA support for strengthening of agricultural extension or bythe MOA for specific activities designed to f.rther strengthen extensiondevelopment in areas not covered under ongoing or planned state or nationalextension projects. The special subproject provision of the proposed projectwould replenish the SSP fund first established under NAEP I (pars 1.25). butwhich it is expected to be fully committed by late 1987.
3.25 Special subprojects will generally fall under two broad categories:
(a) Those which seek to strengthen or augment a particular aspect of theextension system across states or at the national level; and
(b) Those which are state-specific and whose objectives are to strengthenthe extension system selectively in the state.
3.26 The types of activities to be covered would include:
(a) Strengthening of SAU extension/traiuirg units;
(b) Establishment of management training facilities;
(c) Improvement of the data processing and analytical facilities at stateM&E units;
(d) Strengthening of training institutions to provide nationwide trainingfacilities in specialized areas, such as M&E, management, SMS trainingin specific crops, etc.; and
(e) Improving the utilization of audiovisual aides and the mass media insupport of extension.
It is anticipated that about 30 state 1/ and two centrally sponsored SSPs.costing about US$13 million, would have been appraised by late 1987;US$8 million would be funded under NAEP I, and the remainuer under the proposedproject. Additional special subprojects would also be identified both at stateand central levels.
3.27 Four subprojects are already proposed for inclusir' under NAEP III:
(a) Establishment of 15 national centers of excellence for SMS training, atexisting institutions, in subjects such as extension methodology andcommunication, oilseed production technology, plant protection, etc.;
1/ Details are given at Annex 5.
-33-
(b) Establishment of a M&E Training ;enter as part of the NationalInstitute of Rural Development;
(c) Improvement of the existing extension service in the Punjab throughstrengthening of DOA and university based training and greater andimproved utilization of audio-visual equipment and the mass media inextension support (estimated cost US$8 million). The existing exten-sion service in the Punjab. which has similar characteristics of theT&V system. as well as a strong research and extension linkage, hasproved effective in reaching large numbers of farmers and in transfer-ring improved technology. The level of technology adopted by themajority of the Punjab farmers is high and future yield improvementswould be possible through the adoption of a more advanced technology.Qualitative, and in some cases numerical. strengthening of the fieldlevel extension and supervisory staff would be needed. A mass com-munication support to extension would be developed. Because of therelatively high cost of advanced technology. it would be necessary toestablish a M&E unit for impact analyses and quick feed back fromfarmers on the quality of technical messages, feasibility and accept-ability of the latest research recommendations. Preparation of thisSSP is complete and appraisal will be completed in early 1987; and
(d) Strengthening of the T&V extension services already introduced into16 districts of the State of Bihar (under Cr. 761-IN) and expansion ofimproved extension into a further 11 districts, which would include allthose proposed for inclusion under the IDA-assisted "Bihar PublicTubewells Project". Because of administrative constraints (includingdifficulties of staff recruitment and promotion, civil work site selec-tion, etc.) execution of the first Bihar Agricultural Extension andResearch Project (Cr. 761) proceeded at a much slower pace than wasoriginally anticipated-resulting in considerable savings at creditclosure. These constraints are currently being addressed by theGovernment of Bihar (GOB) and would be resolved prior to special sub-project approval. It is however worthy of note that in those districtsthat were adequately staffed and supported under the first phaseproject T&V extension was effectively established with encouragingresults. Bihar is one of the poorest of Indian states, crop yields arecomparatively low but the potential for agricultural growth is con-siderable. Agricultural Research in Bihar is supported by IDA underthe NARP I and II, and given the agro-ecological diversity of the statethe demands for research are of particular importance. Experience hasshown that the presence of effective extension is critical for thedevelopment of research programs responsive to farmer needs. Rcoalizingthe importance of effective extension in improving agricultural produc-tion of the small farmer GOB has approved the expansion of T&V eyten-sion into the 11 project districts and has submitted through and withthe approval of GOI a proposed project to IDA for inclusion under NAEPIII. Accordingly a US$15.0 million special subproject is included, tofinance a blend of civil works, vehicles, incremental staff, equipment.
-34-
training and operating costs required to strengthen, expand and improveextension quality in the state. This special subproject would bejointly appraised by GOI and IDA by mid-1987.
Given special input supply problems pertaining in the State of Assam. it isalso expected that a request to support improvement of input supply serviceswould be submitted to GOI for support under the SSP fund.
3.28 Under the project, it is estimated that US$34 million would be used tofund state executed SSPs (US$5 millioD for SSPs already identified under NAEP Iand US$29 million for those to be identified under the proposed project) andUS$8 million for centrally-sponsored SSPs.
Most SSPs would be of a ahort-term -ture, small in size (usually not exceedingRs. 5 million), and capable of bein; completed prior to credit closing. Apartfrom the Punjab and Bihar special subprojects (para 3.27 c & d). which becauseof their sizes would be jointly appraised by DOE and IDA. DOE would be respon-sible for subproject appraisal having gained considerable appraisal experienceunder NAEP I, with the guidance of Bank staff of the New Delhi Office. SSPappraisal would follow an agreed format and be subject to the final review andapproval of IDA. After appraisal. subprojects would be submitted for finalsanction to the Project Funding Committee established under NAEP I. Criteriafor participation in a special subproject under NAEP III are:
(a) Identification of a suitable implementing agency;
(b) Preparation of a suitable subproject proposal and its submission to DOEfor appraisal;
-35-
(c) Completion of SSP in time for full disbursement by the closing date ofNAEP III credit, although they may be approved any time during the NAEPIII implementation period; and
(d) Provivion of adequate resources by the implementation agency to imple-ment the subproject.
Mid-Term Review
3.29 It was agreed during negotiations that a mid-term review of overallproject performance, including both state and special subprojects, would becarried out by the GOI and the participating states. and the findings discussedwith IDA by June 30. 1990. Project targets would be reviewed and, if neces-sary. adjustments recommended. Similarly. the need for fund reallocation andproject extension or cancellation would be examined. The review would alsoexamine progress made in the transfer of zonal research responsibilities fromDOAs to SAUs and determine the adequacy of facilities and extension staff(especially SMS of different disciplines) for satisfactory implementation ofthe project and would recomend any necessary adjustments in number and/ordiscipline of staff.
IV. COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCING
A. Cost Estimates
4.01 The total project cost, based on late 1986 prices is US$140.2 million.of which US$5.5 million represent the foreign exchange costs. Detailed costestimates, inclusive of taxes and duties and based on incremental costs ofcarrying out the project over a six year period. are given in Annex 2 andProject File Cl, and summarized in the tables below. The first project yearwould be mainly taken up with preparatory activities: recruitment, procurement,training, and the establishment of a M&E units.
-36-
Table 4.1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS BY SUBPROJECTS a/
(Million)
Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Z TotalRs. USS Base Costs
a/ The above include about US$1.9 million in duties and taxes. Physicalcontingencies of 5% have been applied to civil works, vehicles. equipment.travel expenditures. vehicles operating costs and other operating costs.10% applied to training course and special M&E study costs. Price contin-gencies have been applied for local costs in accordance with Bank estimatesof expected inflation rates in India. 1986-87 at 7.0%. 1987-88 at 7.0%.1988-89 at 7.5%. 1989-90 at 7.72. 1990-91 at 7.6Z and 1991-93 at 4.5x.Price contingencies on foreign foreign costs are estimated at 7.0% in1985-86. at 7.0% for 1986-87. 7.5% for 1987-88 at 7.7% for 1988-89. at 7.6Sfor 1989-90 and at 4.5% for 1990-93.
4.02 Analysis of the recurrent cost implications of the proposed projecton state DOA budgets shows that, at constant 1985-86 prices, the proposedproject would by its sixth year add 7% ( US$6 million) to the totalUttar Pradesh DOA annual budget (US$87 million) and 8% (US$1 million) to thetotal Assam DOA annual budget (US$13 million). The concerned state governmentswould pre-finance all project costs from the outset and their absorption of theadditional recurrent costs. generated by the proposed project by FY91-92. isconsidered manageable.
-38-
B. Financing
4.03 The proposed IDA credit of US$85 million would be on standard terms toGOI and would finance 60X of project costs for agreed project activities. Theproceeds of the IDA credit would be channeled to participating states inaccordance with arrangements applicable at the time of central assistance tostates for development projects. The balance of project financing would comefrom state government sources and GOI. Assurances were received that par-ticipating states and MOA had formally approved their participation in theproposed project and confirmed that adequate funds would be made available tocover the cost of their respective subprojects during the entire projectperiod. Assurances were also obtained that no later than July 15. 1987. andannually thereafter. annual project budgets would be submitted to IDA forreview.
Total a/ 55.2 85.0 140.2Percentage 40.0 60.0 100.0
a! Figures rounded to the nearest US$100,000.
C. Procurement
4.04 Civil works contracts (US$37.0 million including contingencies) forhouses, offices. and training facilities would be small and dispersed, bothgeographically and over time; therefore, they would not be conducive to inter-national competitive bidding. Contracts would be awarded on the basis of localcompetitive bidding in accordance with established state procedures satisfac-tory to IDA. Standard PWD designs and cost estimates are available for mostbuilding categories to be constructed under the project. Local procurementprocedures which do not exclude foreign participation require that bids forgiven works are advertised in the local press and that a minimum of threeconforming bids be received prior to bid evaluation and award. Award is car-ried out by a constituted board of government officials. The civil worksconstruction program would be managed and supervised either by the FWD or thecivil engineering unit of DOA. In most cases, there are numerous qualified
-39-
local contractors to carry out such work. Where contractors are not forthcom-ing, civil works estimated to cost US$25,000 or less may be carried out throughforce account.
4.05 Vehicles of various types (US$4.6 million including contingencies) andequipment (US$2.2 million) required under the project would be purchased insmall quantities over several years and would be widely dispersed throughoutrural areas. As adequate maintenance and availability of spares would be ofparamount importance. locally made vehicles of types already used by governmentdepartments would be purchased. Thus. vehicles and equipment would also beprocured locally by the participating state governments according to existinggovernment procedures satisfactory to IDA. Under these procedures, tenders areadvertised, award is made to the lowest evaluated bidder, and foreign companyparticipation is not excluded.
4.06 Procurement under the special subproject fund would follow the sameprocedures as for the state subproject (paras 4.04 to 4.05).
4.07 All bidding documents and award proposals for contracts for civilworks, vehicles. equipment. and furniture (estimated to cost US$100.000 ormore) would be subject to IDA prior review. Orders for purchase of minorequipment. furniture. and supplies would be bulked wherever possible and pur-chased according to established local competitive bidding procedures, exceptwhere valued at less than US$50,000. when they would be purchased by prudentshopping through normal trade channels. Assurances on procurement proceduresmentioned in paras 4.04 to 4.07 were obtained.
4.08 The balance of project costs (US$54.1 million) for the three statesubprojects would consist of training course and evaluation survey costs(US$5.4 millio)r). incremental salaries (US$32.1 million). and incrementaloperating expenditures for offices, vehicles, and tray' ling allowances(US$16.6 million). All costs are inclusive of contingencies which amount toUS$23.5 million.
a/ Breakdown of expenditure categories and procurement methods are notavailable for this component, but procurement procedures would follow thosedescribed in paras 4.04 to 4.07.
D. Disbursements. Accounts and Audit
4.09 A seven year disbursement period is proposed and an estimated creditdisbursement schedule is given in Annex 3. The proposed disbursement patternis compared with the actual average disbursement profile for the eight statesthat have already completed extension projects and the regional profile for IDAagricultural projects in India. The proposed schedule is in line with theaverage prof-le for completed extension projects (which includes a mix of goodand poor performing projects) but is marginally shorter than the regionalprofile (for details see Annex 3. pages 1 and 2). The proposed profile isconsidered realistic given:
(a) Actual past performance;
-41-
(b) The probable lack of start up delays in the second phase Assam sub-project; and
(c) The fact that Uttar Pradesh has already begun staff training. thatstaff sanction orders are completed. and graduate staff are availablefor recruitment.
4.10 Disbursements would be made as in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: DISBURSEMENTS
Category Percentageof Eligible Expenditures
Civil works 60Vehicles. equipment, furniture and materials 100 (foreign expenditures)
75 (local expenditures)Training course costs, special M&E study
a/ Actual disbursements against this category would be made against adeclining proportion of total eligible staff costs; over the life ofthe project such disbursements would in total be equivalent to 66% ofincremental staff salaries as follows: 100% up to SDR 2.36 million; 80%up to SDR 3.63 mlUlion; 70X up to SDR 4.38 million: 40% up to SDR 2.7million; and at 30X up to SDR 2.11 million. Expressed as a proportionof total eligible staff costs in the states over the life of theproject such disbursements would be equivalent to (13% for UttarPradesh, 58% for Himachal Pradesh and 10% for Assam). Staff eligiblefor disbursement would include incremental extension staff of DOAs,VEW, AEO, SMS. SDAEO. DAO. DDA, JDA, ADA. professional staff of M&EUnits, and DOA informarion units and adaptive research (excludingsupport staff).
b/ Includes office operating costs, vehicle operating costs and stafftravel allowances. Actual disbursement against these categories wouldbe made on a declining basis equivalent to 55% of project incrementaloperating costs as follows: at 1OOZ up to SDR 1.18 million; 75% up toSDR 1.69 million; 50% up to SDR 1.52 million; 40% up to SDR 1.43million; 10X up to SDR 0.505 million.
4.11 All applications prepared by the states and DOE for reimbursement wouldbe channeled through the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) as at present.
-42-
but with copies provided to DOE. Individual expenditures on civil works andequipment and vehicles (exceeding Rs 25.000) would be listed item by item insummary sheets. Where expenditures for training or payments for locallyprocured vehicles and equipment exceed Rs 150.000 or payments under civil workscontracts exceed Rs 30G.000. supporting documents would be submitted to IDA forreview. Disbursements for expenditures below these amounts in the above cases.or for staff costs and operating expenses. would be against certified state-ments of expenditures, the documentation for which would not be submitted toIDA for review. but would be retained by state governments. These documentswould be available for inspection by IDA or DOE/MOA during the course ofproject review missions.
4.12 Retroactive financing of up to US$2 million is recommended for start-upexpenditures in the three participating states incurred after April 1. 1985.particularly for training. establishment of H&E units and early recruitment ofkey staff in Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh.
4.13 Assurances were obtained that separate accounts would be kept of expen-ditures made under the project. All project accounts would be audited annuallyfor each fiscal year. in accordance with sound auditing principles consistentlyapplied. Certified copies of project accounts and financial statements.including a separate opinion as to whether those expenditures withdrawn againstthe credit on the basis of statements of expenditure have been used for thepurpose for which they are provided, would be submitted to IDA within ninemonths after the end of the fiscal year. and audit reports submitted whenfinalized. Such reports and audits would show. inter alia. that the fundswithdrawn had been used for the purpose intended. that goods had been receivedor work performed, and that payments had been made. All reports would besubmitteci by the subproject implementing agencies through DOE to rhe DEA. GOI.for onward transmission to IDA.
V. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
A. General
5.01 Two types of project interventions are included:
(a) State extension subprojects, prepared by the states and appraised byIDA are executed by the respective state governments. As agreed underNAEP II, DOE (MOA) would monitor and coordinate such sub-projects.prepare summary six monthly sub-project progress reports, and providetechnical assistance (especially in the fields of training. extensionmanagement and monitoring and evaluation) as required by participatingstates; and
(b) Special subprojects (funded through a centrally managed fund withinMOA) which would mostly be identified in the course of projectimplementation (NAEP I and the proposed project) and be prepared (riiith
-43-
the assistance of DOE) by state governments or involved central orregional institutions. Appraisal would be carried out by DOE. exceptfor the Punjab and Bihar Special Subprojects, which because of theirsize would be jointly appraised by IDA/DOE. All appraised specialsubprojects would be subject to final review and approval by IDA priorto fund release.
B. Project Management
State Subprojects
5.02 State governments would have overall responsibility for the implementa-tion of their respective subprojects. Each state would be responsible forpreparing semi-annual progress reports in the format approved by IDA. Thestate would forward its reports to MOA/DOE and DEA. MOA/DOE. with IDA par-ticipation as required, would undertake comprehensive semi-annual field reviewsof each state subproject. Assurances were obtained that MOA/DOE would submitto IDA semi-annual state progress reports each June and December. giving asumary for each subproject of activities undertaken during the prior sixmonths (October-March and April-September), details of staffing, physical andfinancial targets achieved, and implementation problems encountered, togetherwith an evaluation of the state reports. States would in addition submitannual monitoring and evaluation reports to IDA through MOA/DOE (para 5.10).Each state would also prepare a completion report for its subproject. BothMOA/DOE and IDA would review subproject progress and completion reports.
5.03 Financial management would follow the general pattern prevailing underongoing IDA credits for state extension projects. Each state would haveresponsibility for ensuring that the financial requirements of its subprojectwas met. MOA/DOE, DEA, and IDA would be responsible for monitoring compliancewith financial reporting requirements undertaken by implementing agencies(para 4.11), as well as for monitoring procurement. DEA and IDA would makeselective reviews of accounting procedures and withdrawal claims.
Special Subprojects
5.04 State governments and central or regional bodies would have respon-sibility for the implementation of special subprojects. Overall coordinationof this component would be assured by DOE. which has been strengthened tofulfill this role with additional staff, office facilities, and vehicles andequipment financed under the Composite Agricultural Extension Project andNAEP I. Special subprojects would be prepared by GOI, states. or designatedimplementing agencies (e.g.. State Agricultural Universities) with DOE assis-tance. The responsibility for appraisal would rest with MOA/DOE under theoverall direction of the Joint Secretary (Extension Commissioner) who wouldnominate the members of each appraisal team, including a member of the Exten-sion Division core team. members of the Extension Training and Field ExtensionUnits of DOE. as well as two or more representatives of other departments of
-44-
MOA (e.g.. Crops Division and Finance Section), the Indian Council of Agricul-tural Research, DOAs of states other than the one proposing the subproject,and/or other specialists necessary for appraisal. IDA would continue toprovide assistance in both the preparation and appraisal of special subprojectsbut--except in the case of the proposed Punjab and Bihar SSP (para 3.27(c),(d)). which would be jointly appraised by IDA and DOE--IDA involvement inSSP appraisal is expected to be minimal given the experience gained by MOA/DOEunder NAEP I. However, prior to special subproject appraisal by MOA/DOE, IDAwould review and comment upon the project submission. Following appraisal DOEwould submit its recommendations to the "Project Funding Committee" (estab-lished under NAEP I and empowered to sanction special subprojects under NAEPs)for sanction. After sanction, the proposed SSP would be submitted to IDA forapproval for financing under NAEP III.
5.05 Under NAEP I. it is required that DOE/MOA be adequately staffed tofulfill the required special subproject preparation. appraisal and coordinatingfunctions. Assurance was obtained that special subproject appraisal wouldfollow the format already agreed with IDA under NAEP I and that special sub-projects would be subject to final review and approval by IDA. Reportingrequirements for special subprojects would be the same as described for statesubprojects at para 5.02. Assurance was also obtained that MOA/DOE wouldprepare one summary completion report for the special subproject component.
C. State Extension Organization
5.06 In the states, the Secretary of Agriculture and DA have overall respon-sibility for implementing statewide extension programs. Within each state, anADA (Extension) is responsible to DA for day-to-day technical and administra-tive management of the extension service, supported by the administrativemachinery of the department. The ADA makes arrangements for recruitment andtraining of extension personnel, budgeting, procurement, disbursement of funds.and preparation of periodic progress reports and is supported, inter alia. by asmall staff of SMSs responsible for improving the technical quality of exten-sion services in their special fields (for the main crops grown throughout thestate, plant protection, adaptive research, training, water and soil manage-ment, etc.). Coordination among extension, research and allied agencies (inputsupply. finance, credit, irrigation and state agricultural university. etc.)would be achieved through the working of several committees at state, zonal anddistrict levels (established under the Assam Agricultural Development Projectin the case of Assam) as well as through informal contacts, exchange of staff,workshops, training courses and collaboration in field testing programs. Eachstate has (Assam) or would establish (Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) astate level Project Coordinating Committee to coordinate implementation of itsextension project, chaired by the Agricultural Production Commissioner orSecretary for Agriculture and with the ADA (Extension) acting as secretary.Its members would include the Vice Chancellor of the SAU. Directors of Agricul-ture and Horticulture, and representatives of other concerned governmentdepartments and agencies. The Committees would meet at least twice a year toreview progress in project implementation, resolve problems. and assure
-45-
inter-departmental cooperation. Assurances were obtained that the states ofUtter Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh would establish such committees no laterthan June 30. 1987. In all participating states. SAUs are charged with theresponsibility for central and zonal agricultural research, but DOAs stillconduct zonal research at adaptive trial stations in Assam and Uttar Pradesh;they would progressively withdraw from this activity. as SAD zonal researchcapacity develops under NARP I and II. to concentrate upon state-wide on-farmtrial programs. Memoranda of understanding between GOUP, GOA and SAUs definingtheir respective responsibilities and linkages in research have been agreed andestablished. The model memorandum used was developed for other states where ithad been tested and found workable. As a new Horticultural University hadrecently been established in the state of Himachal Pradesh. it was agreed thatGOHP would conclude a Memorandum of Understanding with Himachal Pradesh Hor-ticultural University and revise the Memorandum of Understanding with HPAU byMarch 31st 1987.
5.07 The establishment of close links between extension. training, andresearch is essential to the introduction and development of T&V extension.Under the recommended system, SMS (employed by DOA) are expected to spendone-third of their time in liaison with research staff and SAU research staffat zonal stations are also to allocate part of their time to DOA extensionwork. The State Technical or Research Advisory Committee provides a formalmeans for review of university research and field trials. for review ofproposed research programs and for review of extension recommendations fromZonal Research Advisory Committees. The State Technical Committee is chairedby DA and consists of senior officers of the university, concerned governmentdepartments, and other agencies. It meets twice a year to review researchresults and extension recommendations and to formulate an extension workprogram for the next year.
5.08 The key link between the SAD and DOA is the monthly extension andresearch workshop which ensures regular contact between SAU scientists andextension SMS. These are used to train SMS, to review technical recommenda-tions and, on the basis of observations and experience, to adapt them for fieldextension and to suggest modificationc to the farm trial programs for thepre-season zonal workshop's consideration. Pre-season zonal workshops, chairedby the Zonal/Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture or Associate Director ofResearch (SAU), meet before the okharif" and "rabill cropping seasons, at aresearch station. The participants include seientists of the zonal researchstations, divisional JDA, DAOs, zonal and headquarter SMS'L, SAU scientists.and the unit head of the M&E unit. The workshops typically include repre-sentatives from credit, marketing, irrigation, agro-industries and other con-cerned agencies. The participants review and evaluate the farm trials and theM&E unit results, as well as the adoption experience of previous years toformulate the program for the next season, including the program for appliedresearch and location of trials. The workshop also screens the research andfarm trial results for modification of the extension recommendations for thezone. Adoption experience of recommendations from previous seasons and reports
-46-
of the M&E unit would be a major consideration of such discussions. The par-ticipants discuss the implications of extension recommendations. seek coopera-tion among various input supply agencies, and give attention to problems ofcredit, marketing. and input supply. The outcome from these workshops formsthe basis of recommendations placed before the State Technical or ResearchAdvisory Committee (para 5.07).
5.09 Zonal recommendations are reviewed at a special state level workshoparranged by the State Technical or Research Advisory Committee (para 5.08) heldbefore each cropping season. It is presided over by the Vice Chancellor ofthe SAU and attended by appropriate direct,rs and heads of disciplines of theuniversity, associate directors of the regional research stations, DA, ADA.Zonal Joint Directors of Agriculture. and such other officers of DOA as may bedesignated by DA. The workshop reviews the program of research. extensioncooperation and coordination; determines research priorities and applied andadaptive research programs on the basis of the recommendations of the zonalworkshops; and screens the zonal extension recommendations.
D. Monitoring and Evaluation
5.10 Continuous M&E is an integral part of all ongoing IDA-assisted exten-sion projects. However. some participating states in the past were slow toestablish M&E units and begin collection of appropriate data. In recognitionof the shortcomings. between 1981 and 1985. GOI sponsored a series of workshopsand IDA developed an operational manual 1/ to strengthen this work. InUttar Pradesh. special effort would be made to ensure early M&E unit estab-lishment to allow surveys to start in the first year and retroactive financingis recommended f-. this purpose. In addition. a special study. designed toestimate and attribute the impact of reformed extension and agriculturalproductivity, would be conducted in Uttar Pradesh (para 3.19) and the develop-ment of a M&E management training facility provided as a special subproject(para 3.27). Within a state, M&E is usually the responsibility of a JointDirector of Agriculture or Senior Economist (located at headquarters) reportingto DA. He is assisted Dy a small group of staff. ideally including a statis-tician, a sociologist. and an economist. The methodology used should conformto the basic M&E manual designed for T&V extension. To be effective, evidencegenerated bt the cell needs to be brought promptly to the attention of seniorofficers in the state extension system. i.e. the Secretary for Agriculture.the Agricultural Production Commissioner, the DA and the Additional Directors.who must then initiate actions to modify and improve extension operations onthe basis of the newly available information. The cell should be directlyresponsible to an officer senior to the Additional Director responsible forextension. While this arrangement is well understood in India. in many states.
1/ R. H. Slade and G. Feder. "The Monitoring and Evaluation of Training andVisit Extension in India: -A Manual of Instruction". World Bank.October 1981.
-47-
the M&E cell, for all intents and purposes, reports initially to the AdditionalDirector (Extension) which impairs objectivity. M&E cells may also be divertedfrom their primary duty to others such as preparing departmental work plans andbudgets. cr performing other urgent administrative tasks. 1/ In addition. aspecial study designed to estimate _nd attribute the impact of reorganizedextension on agricultural productivity would be conducted in Uttar Pradesh(para. 3.19) and the development of a monitoring and evaluation trainingfacility provided as a special subproject (para. 3.27). Assurances wereobtained that the states would undertake M&E of their respective projects in aform satisfactory to IDA and that summary results would be forwarded throughMOA/DOE to IDA at least once a year.
5.11 The Field Extension Unit of DOE would be responsible for technicalguidance to state M&E units and for collecting and coordinating the M&E reportsfrom all subproject states and forwarding them to IDA at agreed intervals.
VI. BENEFITS AND RISKS
A. Benefits of Improved Extension
6.01 Agricultural extension organized on the basis of regular training andfrequent field visits aims at increasing productivity on farms and the incomeof farmers. While it is difficult to isolate yield increases resulting fromextension from increases resulting from other determinants, both officials andfarmers exposed to the new system agree that it is a definite improvement overearlier systems and is, at least. partially responsible for bringing changes inthe attitude of the farmers toward adopting improved farming methods andincreasing the rate of that adoption. Examples of significant changes tocropping patterns and cultural methods related to the introduction of reformedextension are already noted in para 1.16.
6.02 The benefits of improving the extension service are difficult to quan-tify. For example, neither favorable farmer response to regular contact withextension staff nor the increased ability and self-esteem of extension workersnow permitted to perform chiefly agricultural functions. are easily measured.although both are readily apparent. Furthermore. M&E of agricultural extensionactivities is relatively new and has, in most states, concentrated on assess-ment of extension system establishment and, only recently, on the impact ofimproved extension upon productivity and technology adoption. In addition,regular M&E surveys are not designed to isolate the extension effect on produc-tion from other factors, such as input availability, crop prices, etc. Never-theless, clear and positive trends are emerging from M&E work. These are
1/ G. Feder and R. B. Slade, "Experiences with the Monitoring and Evaluationof Training and Visit Extension in India," World Bank Staff Working PaperNo. 595, May 1983.
-48-
discussed in more detail in paras 1.13 to 1.21 and in PCRs, Project PerformanceAudit Reports, previous Staff Appraisal Reports and individual state M&Ereports. 1/ Positive relationships are indicated between the frequency of VEJfarm visit and crop yield and technology adoption and between the VE1 as asource of technological information and crop yield. In Haryana. crop cuttingresults show that, with similar fertilizer doses, contact farmers obtainedbetter yields in part due to more appropriate combinations, timeliness, and/ormethods of application. Similarly, in the case of non-fertilized plots, con-tact farmers often obtained higher yields, especially in the case of paddy andchickpea. reflecting the impact of extension through the use of low-cost inputsand practices.
6.03 The favorable impact of eztension is also supported by state productionstatistics. which show a steady rise in both yield and total production forwheat. rice. sorghum and millet. and some pulses, and significantly increasedusage of fertilizer and high yielding varieties. 2/ In Madhya Pradesh. forexample, yields increased over four years of project life by 25S for wheat, 31for rice. 201 for maize, and 12Z for grah. In Rajasthan. crop yields in1981-82 were between 71 and 302 higher than pre-project yields of 1976-77.
6.04 In late 1981. the need for an objective empirical assessment of theimpact of the T&V system led to a study being undertaken by the Bank in col-laboration with the Haryana Agricultural University at Hissar. 3/ It wasdesigned to assess the extent to which T&V extension has accelerated the diffu-sion of knowledge about improved farming practices and increased farm produc-tivity. A sample survey of farmers was used to assess the strengths andweaknesses of the T&V syetem relative to the older community development sys-tems of agricultural extension. Results from the study indicate that the T&Vextension system is more successful in delivering information to farmers thanthe traditional system, that it achieves significantly higher rates of directcontact with farmers. and that rates of knowledge diffusion for all wheatpractices and for some paddy practices are higher than comparable rates underthe former system. The study showed, in the case of wheat, a yield increase ofalmost 2% per annum over the first four years of the phase I project, which isdirectly attributable to extension and independent of the increased use ofother farm inputs. Further, there is also no evidence that extension agents'
1/ PCRs for Rajasthan. Orissa, Madhya Pradesh. Assam. Haryana, Karnataka. andGujarat, PPARs for Rajasthan (Cr. 737-IN), Orissa (Cr. 682-IN). MadyhaPradesh (Cr 712-IN), Assam (Cr. 728-IN) and Haryana, Karnataka and Gujarat(Cr. 862-IN). Staff Appraisal Report No. 5254-IN (NAEP II) and StaffAppraisal Report No. 4983-IN (NAEP I). and about 110 individual state M&Epublications.
2/ Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, GOI.
3/ "The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Case Study of the Training andVisit System in Haryana, India.8" World Bank Research Project RPO 572-29.
-49-
visits are biased in favor of the largest or wealthiest farmers as has oftenbeen assumed. It is proposed that a similar study be conducted in the state ofUttar Pradesh under the project (paras 3.19 and 5.10 and Annex 6).
6.05 Of major significance is the clear evidence from states and areas whereimproved agricultural extension is becoming well established that it is exert-ing considerable pressure on other support services (particularly research) toimprove performance in parallel with extension. This development underscoresthe important but frequently overlooked lead effect of a strong extensionservice. Where problems have been identified3 they are in many ways a reflec-ti-.n e' the strengths of the system as well as of its weaknesses. Some ofthese weaknesses. as they impose risks to successful implementation ofNAEP III, are noted below.
B. Risks
6.06 A number of general administrative constraints and policy problems maycontinue to impede development of extension and will require continued atten-tion from GOI and IDA. Late or inadequate budgetary provisions, promoti. n byseniority, frequent transfer. and inappropriate selection criteria for t.ainingare common problems that adversely affect extension. Limited progress has beenmade in these areas, although some success has been achieved in altering otheraspects of administration to the benefit of extension (e.g.. installing of atechnical, single-function extension service, weakening of the "targetapproach" to agricultural development among agricultural and other officers.reduction in paperwork at all levels of the extension system, and greaterdelegation of authority). Possible failure by participating states to continueto finance the additional recurrent costs generated by the proposed projectafter project completion does not constitute a major risk as these costs onlyrepresent 7-8% of total DOA budgets and because DOAs would finance totalproject costs from the outset (para 4.02).
6.07 Extension will always be vulnerable to outside pressures. VEWs arestill seen by many farmers not just as technical officers but also as generalrepresentatives of government to whom all problems should be taken. To denyfarmers their assistance could jeopardize the credibility of the system. Suchpressures will continue until other support services become stronger and areasof responsibility are more clearly understood. Finally. District Deputy Comrmissioners (Collectors) can requisition staff and vehicles from any department.as the need arises. This can be disruptive to extension work since it may tieup staff over critical periods of the farming calendar. Although there isincreasing recognition that the primary function of extension must be technicaland that it cannot substitute for weaknesses in other support services. pres-sure for non-technical involvement of extension staff is likely to continue.This may be offset to some extent. by better planning so that staff involvementin these activities can be concentrated outside the main growing seasons.Learning from rast experience, the proposed project would not involve transferof VLW from CDL or Panchayat Department to DOA, so that these departments wouldretair sufficient village level staff to do their jobs. IDA participation is
-50-
also especially useful in resisting these pressures. No precise period neces-sary for such IDA involvement can be established, but at least five yearsbeyond the implementation period of an initial five year project in any par-ticular state should be expected given the institutional changes required.After this period of additional involvement, state extension services shouldbe in a better position to continue independent of IDA support. particularly ifthe central supporting agency. DOE. has been sufficiently strengthened. asinitiated under Composite Agricultural Extension and NAEP I Projects.
6.08 In some states, execution of civil works programs was frequently slowdue to a lack of coordination between DOA and the constructing agencies. theinability of PWDs to deal with small projects. and the problems in identifyingsuitable contractors and in awarding contracts. It has, therefore, beendecided that in the cases of Uttar Pradesh and Assam the existing civilengineering units of DOAs would be responsible for the management and supervi-sion of their respective construction progrsms.
6.09 A frequent cause of poor field staff supervision is inadequate mobilityof supervisory staff. This risk would be minimized by the provision of ade-quate vehicles. travel allowances, and vehicle operating costs to be financedunder the proposed IDA credit. The loan terms and conditions would be designedto create adequate incentives for staff to purchase motorcycles and bicycles(para 3.13).
6.10 Without an effective two-way communication between research and exten-sion, it is unlikely that the technology needed by farmers to increase produc-tivity would be developed and transferred. To promote such linkage each stateparticipating in the project would obtain before negotiations a writtenmemorandum of understanding between the SAU and DOA spelling out universityresponsibilities for support of the extension services (para. 5.06). Suchformal instruments have been found necessary in the course of implementationexperience. The project would also provide support to SAU for exten-sion-related expenditures. In states (Assam and Uttar Pradesh). where respec-tive DOAs are currently involved in zonal research. precipitous handover ofsuch responsibilities to the SAUs would be avoided, particularly where recruit-ment of university scientists is difficult or progress of zonal research sta-tion development delayed. A gradual handover is envisaged with phasing of SAUstaff recruitment related to likely zonal facility development. To date. theabsence of new technology has not been the major constraint, but as the backlogof research findings becomes more widely adopted, additional adaptive research.field testing and development of new technology will be required. particularlyin the second phase Assam state subproject. While early work may be aimed atzonal and district recommendations, ultimately technology development needs tobe directed more at meeting the location specific needs of farmers in varioussub-agroecological zones and those in more remote and difficult areas. NARP IIwould help strengthen research efforts to provide such technology, and theproposed project would assist in supporting an expanded trial program onfarmers fields designed to tailor agro-ecological zone recommendation tospecific, area, or group needs.
-51-
6.11 An important task for a strengthened DOE and Extension Division in thecentral MOA will be the coordination of extension activities with GOI specialschemes. GOI special schemes at the state level may conflict with extensionprograms and activities. In most states, many subjects of interest to agricul-tural extension services (such as animal husbandry, horticulture, water manage-ment, farm forestry and agricultural credit) are the responsibility oforganizations other than DOA. Reconciliation of extension with continuedsupport for the multi-purpose village worker/community development approach isalso important to the continued success of extension reform. Coordinationwithin states is encouraged by committees at various levels and through thestate Agricultural Production Commissioner and is being further strengthened atthe center through the Technical Advisory Committee established under NAEP I.
6.12 Apart from monitoring and coordinating. reporting upon, and providingtechnical assistance to state subprojects. MOA/DOE would play the major role inappraisal of special subprojects. The capacity of DOE to adequately performthis task has been developed and is being tested under NAEP I. The technicalassistance role presently undertaken by IDA would be progressively handed overto DOE.
Employment and Poverty Impact
6.13 The project's direct impact on employment would be relatively small:
(a) Some 6,200 incremental persons would be employed as a result of theproject, and limited additional employment would created during theperiod of civil works construction.
(b) Far more important will be the project's indirect impact on employmentand income generation throughout rural areas of the participatingstates. The dissemination and adoption of improved agriculturalproduction and farm management techniques will lead to increases inonn-farm productivity and farm output, thereby generating substantialadditional employment and income for farmers. their household members,and agricultural laborers on millions of farms.
In the proposed project area, there are about 7.8 million farms with a averageholding size of 1.4 ha, each supporting five to six family members and addi-tional landless farm laborers. Based on 1981 statistics, 70% of India's laborforce is employed in agriculture, and the average value added per farm familyis US$304. With an average family size of more than five members, this impliesan average income equivalent to about US$60 per person-about half of theincome level judged to be the absolute poverty level in India. Given the landand income pattern of the proposed project area. the project's indirect employ-ment and income effects will predominantly accrue to the rural poor.
Impact on the Environment
6.14 The project is not expected to have any deleterious effects on therural environment.
-52-
VII. AGREEMENTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS REACHED AND RECOMCENDATIONS
7.01 During negotiations, agreements were reached with GOI and the involvedstates on the following:
(a) The states would fill incremental staff positions with staff havingqualifications and experience satisfactory to IDA and according to aspecified schedule (shown in their respective annexes of the projectfile (para 3.11)).
(b) The states agreed that all extension positions assigned to theadministrative control of the DOA under this project would be usedexclusively for agricultural extension work and be retained under theadministrative control of DOA (para 3.11);
(c) The states agreed that extension staff would not be adversely affectedin respect of their entitlement to emoluments, benefits and promotionalprospects by reason of assignment to the project (para 3.11);
(d) The etates would make available:
(i) Loans for the purchase of motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles,such loans would be made available to all eligible staff onterms and conditions designed to provide incentives for thepurchase of such motorcycles, mopeds. or bicycles; and
(ii) Such financial incentive. including appropriate travel allowan-ces, needed to encourage optimum use of the motorcycles.mopeds. and bicycles to be purchased under the project (pars3.13).
(e) The states and GOI. in consultation with IDA. would undertake amid-term review of overall project performance by June 30. 1990 whichwould. inter alis, review the needs for adjustment of proiect targets,fund reallocation, extension or cancellation, progress in tite transferof zonal research responsibilities from DOAs to SADI, and the adequacyof the existing staff. Recommendations would be made on any necessaryadjustments (pars 3.29);
(f) Beginning July 15, 1987 and annually thereafter. the states wouldsubmit to IDA for review their annual project budgets (para 4.03);
(g) Each implementing agency would implement procurement procedures satis-factory to IDA (paras 4.04 to 4.08);
(h) GOI would cause each implementing agency to maintain separate accountsof each subproject and keep records of expenditures (para 4.13);
-53-
Ci) Bach implementing agency would prepare and present to MOA/DOE fort:anuission to IDA administrative and financial data regardingprogress of the project, including procurement of goods and services,civil works, expenditures. audits. and requests for disbursement inaccordance with the schedules agreed (para 4.10 - 4.13);
(j) GO0 agreed that it would submit to IDA semi-annual progress report.each June and December for each state subproject under the credit. in aform acceptable to IDA. The reports would include a sumuary ofactivities undertaken during the prior six months (October-March andApril-September). details of staffing, physical and financial targetsachieved. and implementation problems encountered. Further. each statewould also prepare, for review by DOE/IDA. subproject completionreports (pars 5.02);
(k) 00I agreed that special subproject appraisal would follow a formatagreed with IDA and that special subprojects would be subject to finalrev4i and approval by IDA. In addition GOI agreed that DOE wouldprepare one summazy completion report for the entire special subprojectcomponent (pars 5.05):
(1) The states of Uttar Pradesh and Hiuachal Pradesh would establishproject coordinating committees no later than Juner 30. 1987 to overseeimplementation of their extension project (para 5.06);
(a) The state of Himachal Pradesh would by March 31. 1987 conclude aMemorandum of Understanding with Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Univer-sity (Solan) and revise the Memorandum of Understanding with HimachalPradesh Agricultural University (Palamphur) (para 5.06); and
(n) The states would undertake M&E of their subprojects in accordance withprocedures satisfactory to IDA. and would forward to IDA. throughNOA/DOE. an annual summary of results (pars 5.10).
7.04 To encourage the prompt implementation of the project and in recogni-tion of the early initiatives taken by GOI and the state governments to imple-sent the project. it was agreed that retroactive financing up to a total ofUS$2 million be made available for expenditures incurred after April 1. 1985(pars 4.12).
7.05 With the above assurances, the proposed project would be suitable for acredit of SDRs 71.7 million (US$85 million) to GOI on standard IDA terms.
I/VII
IN�
it
6.
I 1N
I
I tU)
I x
UN zI ~~~~~~~~~~z
4
I
-57- ANNEX 1Page 1 of 2
INDIATHIRD NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT
Summary Data on State Subprojects
Uttar a/ HimachalPradesh Pradesh Assam
Rural Population (N) 46 4 19No. of Agro-ecological Zones 4 4 4 iNo. of Agricultural Districts 21 12 14No. of Extension Subdivisions 85 69 48No. of Blocks 433 - 252Net Cultivated Area (M/Ha) 7.5 0.6 2.7Gross Cultivated Area (M/Ha) 10.9 1.0 3.6No. of Operational Holdings (M) 5.2 0.6 2.0
Landholdings (Z Faruers/Z Area)Small (below 1 ha) 76.2/31.9 54.7/14.2 59.7/19.1Semi-Medium (1-4 ha) 21.1/46.1 37.2/45.5 37.8/56.0Medium (4-10 ha) 2.3/16.7 6.8/24.5 2.4/12.7Large (10 ha and above) 0.3/ 5.3 1.3/15.8 0.1/12.2
Department of Agriculture: Staffing of Extension Services
Uttar a/ HimachalPradesh Pradesh Assam
Headquarters a/Additional Director Existing 0 0 1
Incremental under NAEP- IIT 1 1 0Total 1 1 1
SMS (DDA/JDA) Existing 3 3 2Incremental under NAEP- III 1 6 5 e/Total 4 9 7
Zonal/DivisionalJt Director Existing 0 - 5
Incremental under NAEP- III 4 - 0Total 4 - 5
Deputy Director/SMS Existing 4 - 0Incremental under NAEP- III 16 - 10 f/Total 20 - 10
-58- AM= IPage 2 of 2
Uttar a/ HimachalPradesh Pradesh Assam
DistrictDAO Existing 6 2 14
Incremental under NAEP- III 1S 10 0TotaL 21 12 14
SNS Existing 42 b/ 2 23Incremental under NAEP- III 42 41 5Total 84 43 28
SubdivisionSDAEO Existing 0 - 48
Incremental under NAEP- III 85 - 0Total 85 - 48
SMS Existing 9 c/ - 62Incremental under NAEP- III 211 - 42Total 220 - 104
FieldAEO Existing 425 207 305
Incremental under NAEP- III 123 141 50Total 548 348 355
VEW Existing 203 158 2,444Incremental under NAEP- III 4,095 842 400Total 4,298 1,000 2,844
M&E StaffHQ/Divisional Level Existing 0 1 4
Incremental under NAEP- III 10 4 4Total 10 5 8
Field Level Existing 0 0 31Incremental under NAEP- III 50 26 0Total 50 26 31
Training and InformationHQ/Divisional Level Existing 0 0 0
Incremental under NAEP- III 3 d/ 10 5 h/Total 3 10 5
Training Center Existing - - -Incremental under NAEP- III - - -
Total,
a/ IncLudes only Project Area of UP (Four Eastern Divisions).b/ Includes existing Horticultural and Plant Protection Staff who would serve
as SMS.c/ For 55 teams of 4 SMS per team.d/ Only senior staff included.e/ One senior SMS training, 4 civil engineers.fl One SMS Agronomy, one Farm Input Coordinator SHS, per zone.gl 7 SMS Agronomy/Plant Protection to complete the 35 SMS teams and 35
Horticultural/Special Subject SMS (20 phased in after mid-term review).h/ Farm Information Officers.j/ Excludes hill zone.
- 59 -
ANNE 2Page 1 of 4
INDIANATIONAL AGRICULTURL METENSION PROJECT
(Re. Thousand)
A. Sumary Accounts by Year
soee Cens foreign Exchenp
1. INVESTNT COSTS
A CIVIL OILS - 54.478,0 107.721.0 l1.470.0 ul.Io.o 29.550.0 364,334.0 St 16 .21 7* EOIPNtIT - . 420.2 6 u6.2 5.3 f0. I 1.236.0 s8. 0 22.3U3.5 10* 0 2.228.4C. vEmituES - a.. 40.e iu. in. 0 t. SO. a 1. ToO. a - 48.070.0 20.0 o L614.0
L SPECIAL SIUBPROJECTS - 50. 000.0 50. 000 11 0 o. @00.0 I.000.0 15000. 0 5500. to. o S. 0 27. 500.0L T. 1M5.0 5.705.4 1.65.8 10.397.7 11.521.1 -0.tlr. 43.5S.4 0.0 to
*Afungerents fal the Tnser of SlOl frornCADA & Caovi,unity Delopmunt Deparmen
c Appointment of Key Start-wp Staff Including
--ADA (Exlentlon)
-SPS (raining at t badquarter. Reogona& DstSiCt Levels)
- UME Unit Personner
-Training Coornatars at Unterstes
Initiate Staff Recruient_
Staff Smplc,wment- -- -- -
llWUMNS >
a Orientation Snior Staft (Heoaquarte Dvisiona& D4strlct
b Studv ToLars to Ofew States (Heodquarter.DMibnal Staff) - - - -
c Pr7ese & Iaijct on Trarninkg of !eld Stlt_
d SMS Training - -= = = -=
e Estoishment of Monthlv & F-ortnighttv Training
OTHER
a Liaison with CAR on Snbng & Estoblish rnent of ZonalResearch Sites
b Estatbishrient of M&E Units & Surve Design
c Start or Special Evaluation StuoV in Uttar PtadeFs _
t Execution of MIE SurveVs & Special Studies
Wrl,0d Bar1t-2Th15
I 'ij
*i
\3 -
- 67 - ANNEX 5
Page 1 of 2
INDIATHIRD NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECT
SPECIAL SUBPROJECTSRECEIVED UNDER NAEP I
These 4 proposals are to be jointly appraised by New Delhi Office (World Bank)and DOE by May-end 1985.
State Item Cost(Rs lakhs)
1. Kerala Establishment of central training institute 86.02. Kerala Monthly workshop strengthening 18.03. Maharashtra Training facilities at taluka seed farms 49.04. Maharashtra Installction of computer at headquarters 4.0
Sub-total 157.0
The below 10 subprojects are due to be appraised by DOE by September 1985.
State Item Cost(Rs lakhs)
1. West Bengal Mini-computer for M&E 45.02. Haryana Strengthening of facilities at Institutes 28.0
of Agricultural Technical Training andEducation for SMS Training
3. Orissa Strengthening of training capacity to 26.0Orissa SAU
4. Orissa Strengthening of extension training 25.0capacity at Orissa SAD
5. Orissa Communication support 14.06. Orissa Establishment of exhibition unit 6.07. Orissa Training and demonstration support in 3.0
Tribal Areas8. Maharashtra Establishment of agricultural management
training institute 118.09. Maharashtra Strengthening of monthly workshop and 45.0
research field staff10. Himachal Training in home scale fruit and vegetable
Pradesh preservation 34.0Sub-total Rs 343.0
-68- 6 5
Page 2 of 2
The 17 subproject proposals below have returned to states for revisioifollowing review by DOE and Bank (NDO).
State Item Cost'Rs lakhS)
1. Maharashtra Establishment of technical testing centers 229.02. Maharashtra Creation of additional SMS posts 39.03. Maharashtra Upgrading of SDAO/DSMS posts 13.04. Maharashtra New houses for VEW/AOs 150.05. Maharashtra Training cell, MAU 47.06. West Bengal Strengthening of input planning & monitoring 251.07. West Bengal Strengthening of training cell at state
headquarters 11.08. West Bengal Strengthening of agricultural information unit 99.09. West Bengal Strengthening of 5 agricultural training 256.0
centers (ATC)10 West Bengal Strengthening of 45 sub-divisional 77.0
Agricultural Research Farms (SARES)11. West Bengal Establishment of ATCs at Kalyani 66.012. West Bengal Establishment of ATCs at Kalimpong and 84.0
Kalaiberia13. West Bengal Establishment of 5 New SARFs 26.014. West Bengal Construction of meeting rooms for monthly 110.0
workshops15. Tamil Nadu Provision for training facilities in sub-
centers of TNAU 277.016. Tamil Nadu Trainees Hostel at TNAUJ main campus 10.017. Tamil Nadu Training Unit at TNAU Main Campus 18.0
Sub-total Rs 1.763.0(Estimated after appraisal cost 1.000.0)
1. Central Development of a national institute ofProjects extension management 200.0
2. Central Strengthening of extension educationProject s institutes
Overall TOTAL Rs 1,700.0 a/ (US$13.1 million)
a/ Of this total, special subprojects to the value of about US$5.4 would beproposed for financing under NAEP III.
-69 - AM= 6Page 1 of 3
INDIATHIRD NATIONAL AGRICULIIRAL ZT=NSION PROJECT
Uttar Pradesh: 8 ecial valuation Study
1. The GOUP recognize that the introduction of a reformed extensionsystem in the eastern part of the state provides an opportunity for arigorous evaluation of the effects of T&V eztension that vould separatethe effects of eztension fro other variables. They have taken an inter-est in a recently completed Vorld Bank sponsored research study of exten-sion impact conducted in Hazyana. 1/ Drawing on the methodology developedunder that research the UP SpecialEvaluation Study vill undertake acomparative analysis of the effects of eatension by studying selectedareas within the sub-project and comparing then to areas outside of thesub-project where the eztenion system will, for the next few years.remain unreformed.
2. The evaluation will be based upon the following framework:
Before Project After Project
without The situation before the The situation after theProject project in an area (control) project implementation
identicad to that where the in the control area.project is plamed.
With The situation in the proposed The situation in the projectProject project area before the project area during and
is undertaken. after it has beenimplemented.
3. The principal investigative technique will be farm level samplesurveys. These will be conducted in the areas selected for study startingin the year before the ziting system is reformed and. thereafter, inproject years three and siz. Apart from simple statistical analysis to
1/ The Impact of Agricultural htension: A Case Study of the Training andVisit Method in Hazyana, India. RPO 672-29.
- 70 -ANNEX 6Page 2 of 3
establish the operational efficiency of the two systems under study sub-sequent work will involve econometric analysis to estimate the effects ofextension on productivity when other confounding variables are controlled.
4. The University of Kanpur has provisionally agreed to undertake thestudy and discussions by the mission with the University's Department ofAgricultural Economics have established that they have suitable. andsufficient staff. to undertake and manage the study. The Department lacksadequate computer facilities and this weakness will be overcome by theprovision, through the project, of a suitable micro-computer.
5. Whilst the University will have overall responsibility for the dayto day management of the study, supervision and budgetary control will beprovided by a committee consisting of the D.A., ADA and JDA (Monitoringand Evaluation) from the Department of Agriculture. GOUP. The overallcost of the study, including the provision of the micro-computer. isestimated to be US$ 93,000 (total M&E component cost is US$900.000.excluding contingencies). Additional technical guidance will be providedto the University by IDA during the course of project supervision. Allresults, as they come available. will be provided to GOUP and IDA.
6. GOUP would enter into a formal agreement with the University ofKanpur which will, inter alia. appoint the latter to undertake the study.It has been agreed with GOUP and the University that this agreement shallbe reviewed by IDA prior to signature. It has also been agreed with GOUPand the Univeristy that the latter shall prepare and submit to GWUP adetailed, fully costed and timebound proposal for the execution of thisstudy. This proposal should be submitted by October 31st. 1985 and willinclude sufficient data to justify the selection of the areas to bestudied. 1; Of paramount importance in determining these areas (probablybut not necessarily administrative districts is the need for them to begeographically contiguous).
7. The comparability of the subject areas and the control areas iscrucial. The evaluation framework noted above requires that the two areasbe identical. In practice this is obviously unlikely. but it is. analyti-cally. possible to control for small differences between them. These
1/ This will require a comparison. using existing statistical data of atleast the following elements for all possible control and subject areasfor the past five years. net cropped area by crop. proportion irrigatedby crop. soil types, rainfall, population densFty, ratio of existingextension staff to farmers, number of tubewells, number of tractors.fertilizer consumption by season. miles of metalled road. proportionof population in certain areas and any differences in the operationand efficiency of the canal irrigation system.
- 71 -
ANNEX 6Page 3 of 3
differences must. however, be minimized. By selecting geographicallyneighboring areas physical, climatic and cultural differences between thecontrol and subject areas can be largely eliminated. If, however, as isthe case with extension, the objective is to evaluate the effects onproductivity of institutionally provided knowledge, which once releasedobserves few natural or administrative boundaries, then the contaminationof the control area by the subject area is possible. Minimizing thispossibility -rquires the two areas to be separated by some feature (e.g..a large river) which strongly inhibits such contamination.
8. Once the study areas have been selected random samples of farmerswill be chosen from each area. The sample size in each area will be about300 observations. Once selected the farmers comprising these samples willbe interviewed once a season (immediately after the harvest) during eachof the three survey rounds. Details of sample design and all subsequentanalysis will be based on the Bank study in Haryana and worked out by theUniversity in discussion with GOUP and IDA. 1/
1/ Technical details of the methodology can be found in Feder G., Lau L.J.. and Slade. R. H. "The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A CaseStudy of the Training and Visit System (T&V) in Haryana, India." ARUDiscussion Paper No. 34. May 1985. Forthcoming World Bank StaffWorkiLg Paper.
.rt(I1, \
)\
INDIACrop Calendar
(Illustration of the Conditions in Uttar Pradesh)
SEASON Ktarrf
CROP ,--- 1 I- -- -- -CROP JI| F | M A M A S 0 N 0
,,-~~~ ~~ l - a.._._.I!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mmmn Of e@ I a--@ I Autum. HalvSesI . . I e * @ * * * * "~~~~... _6 I*UU*-*-24s-,@ <K
