Dotmt of

The World Bank

FOt OMCIAL USE ONLY

MlGRPOF'IC$ 1;COPY

Report l0. iO211-H&I Typet (PCR)SAP.H19NT0,/ X31680 / T9032/ OEDIAl Ripm o. 10211

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWI

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRM, PEISE IV PROJECT(CREDIT 1343-M1)

DECEMBER 31, 1991

Agriculture Operations DivisionSouthern Africa DepartmentAfrica Regional Office

This document has a restricted distribution and may be ased bv necipients only in the performance oftheit official duties. Its contentss may not otherwise be disclosed witbout World Bank authoriation,

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

CURRENCYEOIALENTS

Fiscal Yar U Malawi Kwach (MK)

1982/83 1.0 1.091983/84 1.0 1.231984/85 1.0 1.491985/86 1.0 1.761986/87 1.0 1.951987/88 1.0 2.301988/89 1.0 2.611989/90 1.0 2.701990/91 1.0 2.55

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

I hectare (ha) = 10,000 square meters

Metric System

GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR

April I to March 31

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADD Agricultural Development DivisionADMARC Agricultural Development and Marketing CorporationCADO Chief Agricultural Development Officer (MOA)CARO Chief Agricultural Research Officer (MOA)CTO Chief Technical OfficerCVO Chief Veterinary Officer (MOA)DH Dedza Hills (RDP)DLVW Department of Lands, Valuation and WaterDS Deputy SecretaryDTC Day Training CenterEPA Extension Planning Area (part of an RDP)ERR Economic Rate of ReturnFAO/CP FAO.'World Bank Cooperative ProgramFC Farm ClubHa HectareICB International Competitive BiddingIDA International Development AgencyLADD Lilongwe Agricultural Development DivisionLH Land HusbandryLHA Land Husbandry AssistantL-NE LOlongwe Northeast (RDP)MOA Ministry of AgricultureMOWS Ministry of Works and SuppliesNARP National Agricultural Research ProjectNEAPS National Extension and Agricultural Planning Support ProjectNRDP National Rural Development ProgramPCR Project Completion ReportPM Program Manager (Head of an ADD)PPAR Project Performance Audit ReportRDP Rural Development Project (part of an ADD)RTC Residential Training CenterSACA Smallholder Agricultural Credit AdministrationSAR Staff Appraisal ReportSDR Special Drawing RightsSTO Senior Technical OfficerTO Technical OfficerVA Veterinary AssistantWD Water Department (MOWS)WP Water Point

THE WORLD BANK FOR OMCIAL USE ONLYWashington, D.C. 20433

U.S.A.

06Ze ni N*C!(-.*W1OpsfAtWm Evakatitm

December 31, 1991

MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Malawi - National RuralDeveloiment Program. Phase IV Proiect (Credit 1343-MAI)

Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled "Project

Completion Report on Malawi - National Rural Development Program, Phase IV

Project (Credit 1343-MAI)" prepared by the Africa Regional Office. No audit of

this project has been made by the Operations Evaluation Department at this time.

Attachment

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only In the performanceof their oMcial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorizstion.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYPROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWI

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP). PHASE IV PROJECT(CREDIT 1343-MAI)

Table of ContentsPage No.

Preface ............................. iEvaluation Summary ............................. iii

PART I PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTIVE

1. Project Identity ............................. 12. Background ............................. 1

The Agricultural Sector ................................ 1The Agricultural Development Strategy ............................ 2

3. Project Objectives and Description ............................. 24. Project Design and Organization ............................... 2

5. Project Implementation ...................................... 4Extension Services. 5Training. 6Research. 6Horticulture ............................................. 6Land Husbandry .......................................... 7Veterinary Services and Livestock Production ......................... 7Credit. 8Markets. 9Water Supplies. 9Project Administration .10Procurement .10

6. Project Results and Inpact ............. ............... 10Crop Production ............................ 11Credit .............................. 13Livestock Development .......... .................. 13Social Services ............................ 13Environment ............................ 13Strengthening Project Administration ............................ 13Financial and Economic Returns .............................. 14

7. Project Sustainability ............................ 15Funding by Governmant ........... ................. 15Crop Production ............................ 15Livestock Production ............................ 15

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.

Cr e di t ................................................ 15Maintenance of Buildings .................................... 16Maintenance of Water Supplies ................................ 16

8. IDA Performance ........................................ 16Lessons Learnt . ......................................... 17

9. Borrower Performance ..................................... 17Lessons Learnt . ......................................... 18

PART 11 PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE ....... 19

PART III STATISTICAL INFORMATION

Table 1 - Related Bank Loans and/or Credits ............................ 21Table 2 - Project Summary ...................... ................ 22Table 3 - Project Cost and Phasing . .................................. 23Table 3A- Project Financing . ...................................... 24Table 3B- Total Project Cost and Financing ............................. 25Table 4 - Estimated and Actual IDA Credit Disbursements ................... 26Table 5 - Key Implementation Indicators - Dedza Hills RDP .................. 28Table 5A- Key Implementation Indicators - Lilongwe NE RDP ................. 29Table 6 - Project Results ......................................... 30Table 7 - Status of Covenants . ..................................... 32Table 8 - Use of Bank Resources . .................................. 33

ANNEX 1: Tables I to 29

MAPS: IBRD 16547IBRD 16548IBRD 16549

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWI

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP). PHASE IV PROJECT(CREDIT 1343-MAI)

PREFACE

This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the National Rural Development Program(NRDP) Phase IV Project in Malawi, for which Credit 1343-MAI in the amount of SDR 9.80 million(USD 10.6 million equivalent) was approved on 20 May 1983.* The Project was closed on 30 April1991, some two years and seven months behind schedule. Disbursements from the Credit totalled SDR8.84 million (USD 11 million equivalent). At the time of the last disbursement on 20 September 1991,an amount equal to SDR 0.96 million (USD 1.3 million equivalent) remained undisbursed; this balancewas cancelled as of 20 September 1991.

Parts I and III were prepared by the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Program (FAO/CP) forthe Agriculture Operations Division of the Southern Africa Department of the Africa Regional Office.The Bank sent the Borrower Parts I and III with the request to prepare Part II. No comments werereceived.

Preparation of this PCR was started during a visit by a team from FAO/CP inFebruary/March 1991 and is based, inter alia, on information gathered in Malawi, discussions withProject staff and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Works and Supplies, Bank staffassociated with the Project, the Staff Appraisal Report, the Development Credit Agreement, supervisionreports, correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower and internal Bank memoranda.

* A recent Project Performance Audit Report (PPAR) by OED (Report No. 9750, dated June 28, 1991)includes a cluster of four NRDP projects of which this Phase IV Project was one. This PCRprovides more detailed project-specific data that usefully supplements the Audit Report.

- iii

PROJECT COMPLETION REPQRT

MALAWI

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT(CREDIT 1343-MAI)

EVALUATION SUMMARY

Background. Obiectives. Design

Tne NKational Rural Development Program (NRDP) Phase IV Project was the eleventh BankGroup assisted rural development project in Malawi and was located in two of the Rural DevelopmentProjects (RDPs) which form part of the Lilongwe Agricultural Development Division (LADD). The mainobjectives of NRDP are to raise agricultural production, incomes and the standard of living in thesmailholder sector. Following the recommendations of an NRDP Review Mission mounted by the Bankin 1981, the Project was designed to be less complex than previous projects by keeping the main emphasison production-related agricultural activities. The Project included components to strengthen and support:the extension services responsible for crop production; horticulture; training; adaptive research; thewomen's program; land husbandry; and livestock production; and made provision for improved creditand marketing facilities. Though most non-production oriented components such as roads, health andforestry were deliberately omitted, a large water supplies component was included to help alleviate theunsatisfactory water supply conditions prevailing in many parts of the Project area. Provision was alsomade to strengthen the management capacity of LADD, including special support for the monitoring andevaluation unit. A further provision was made to carry out a livestock policy and program review todetermine production constraints in the livestock sector.

Implementation

The Project faced several major constraints which impeded implementation. The moresignificant of these were:

(a) There were severe shortages of qualified personnel to fill key positions, especiallyin the earlier years, and even when posted, frequent transfers of staff causedconsiderable disruption;

(b) Procurement under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) procedures wasunsatisfactory and seriously delayed the delivery of essential transport;

(c) There were considerable delays in the building construction program resulting from.nadequacies in the preparation and processing of tender documents, the latepayment of contractors, and shortages of materials;

(d) There were serious shortfalls and delays in the release of counterpart funi^% which,during the last two years of implementation, seriously impaired the mobility andeffectiveness of staff; and

- iv -

(e) There was inadequate provision for resolving inter-departmental and inter-ministerial (lifferences.

Resutia

Despite the many constraints, implementation was generally successful insofar as operationsunder the direct control of Project management were concerned. The various extension services weresatisfactorily strengthened, livestock facilities installed, input stores and markets established, an effectivemechanism for the issue and recovery of seasonal credit established, and protected water suppliesprovided for around 180,000 people. Despite these achievements, the increase in agricultural productiondid little more than keep pace with the increase in population. While it is probable that climaticconditions, input supply and marketing problems, and sampling errors may have contributed to lowproduction data, there were other important factors which had a major bearing on production. Thesewere:

(a) For the greater part of the implementation period almost two-thirds of smallholdersremained outside the ambit of the extension and credit services and thereforecontributed little to increased production;

(b) Actual yields of hybrid maize varieties (produced mainly for sale) were less thanpredicted mainly because management priority was given to local varieties, grownfor food;

(c) Land expected to be released through increased production from higher yieldingvarieties of maize was not forthcoming and this, in turn, prevented the anticipateddevelopment of cash crops.

Over the last two years there has been a marked increase in the area of hybrid maize, estimated to coverabout 23% of the total maize area in the 1990/91 crop season. Further increases are expecteo,' as a resultof the introduction of new varieties in 1991/92. Due to its reoent occurrence, however, it is too earlyto estimate the trend accurately and what role the extension services played to bring it about.

Sustainability

The services/investments supported under the Project are considered essential for sustainableagricultural growth. The greatest threat to sustainability is posed by inadequate funding under therecurrent account which, over the last three years of Project implementation, has shown imbalance infavor of personal emoluments, with relatively low provision for the operational effectiveness of thepersonnel concerned. While funding constraints are often encountered in countries having per capita GDPas low as Malawi's, this has adversely affected the mobility of the extension services from LADD levelthrough to the field-level workers. Newly introduced extension systems, which show promise of reachingeven some of the smaller farmers, are threatened because the intensive supervision and additional trainingessential for successful establishment have been restricted. The introduction and development ofpromising new varieties of hybrid maize during the 1991/92 season is at risk. Shortages of transportthreaten credit recoveries since large amounts of cash accrue in field stations, where securityarrangements are often inadequate. IDA has started to address this problem by providing operating fundsthrough the Agricultural Extension and Planning Support Project and funding operating costs for

- v -

extension is an Important issue being addressed during preparation of the proposed Agricultural ServicesProjxt.

A further threat to sustainability rests in the depletion of the credit revolving fund whichis administered by the Smallholder Agricultural Credit Administration (SACA) and which services creditrequirements including those in the Project area. This fund has been depleted largely because of fallingrecovery rates and increases in fertilizer prices over the past two years, and SACA estimates that theupward trend in issues of seasonal credit will not be sustainable in :991/92 without the substantialinjection of additional resources into the fund.

Findings and Lessons Learnt

The Bank is fully awarm of the imperfections in the design of the Project and, in particular,of the need for the extension services to reach and influence a greater proportion of the smaller andpoorer farmers, and for the introduction of a more acceptable (flint) hybrid va.iety of maize.Considerable progress has already been made in both respects through the complementary --- a:rch andextension projects currently being assisted by IDA. NRDP IV is one of the !ast of the rural developmentprojects to be funded by IDA since most parts of Malawi are already covered by NRDP projects.Sectoral projects that have in recent years taken the place of area-based projects can address problems(such as research to improve technology) that the earlier projects did not cover, whiile continuing tosupport NRDP services on a national basis. A further factor which will influence future policy (both ofthe Government of Malawi and IDA) and future project design, is the need for resources to pay increasedrecurrent expenditure inherited from NRDP projects.

PROJECT C:OMPEINPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PRQGRAM (NRDP). PHASE IV PROJECT

(CREDIT 1343-MAD

PART I: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTIVE

1. Eroect Identju

Project Name:National Rural Development Program (NRDP) Phase IV ProjectCredit No.: 1343-MAIRVP Unit:AF6AGCountry: MalawiSector:Agriculture

2. Background

2.1 The Project was prepared by the Planning Division of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)and submitted in February 1982 for consideration by the Bank. It was appraised by the Bank inApril/May 1982. The IDA credit was successfully negotiated and the Credit Agreemen; signed on May20, 1983, and became effective on August 22, 1983.

2.2 The Project was scheduled to extend over five years, starting in 1983/84, and expected tocost SDR 11.56 million of which IDA would provide SDR 9.80 million by way of credit, and theGovernment of Malawi would locally fund the remaining SDR 1.76 million. The Project was extendedthree times beyond the original closing date of 30 September 1988 to September 1989, September 1990and finally to 30 April 1991, mainly to permit disbursement undeir the delayed water supply component;to utilize a portion of unexpeiued funds remaining under the credit for other expenditures associated withthe Project and approved by IDA to fill construction and equipment gaps overlooked at appraisal; andto support a newly introduced pilot operation to improve extension work.

The Agricultural Sector

2.3 As is the case in Malawi today, at the time of Pr(,ject formulation, agriculture dominatedthe country's economy. It contributed 40% of GDP, 89% of export earnings, and 45% of wageemployment. Export earnings during 1981 included the sale of tobacco (48%), followed by sugar (26%),tea (12%) and grouadnuts (4%). Maize was not regarded as an export crop because of Government'sestablished policy of maize self-sufficiency and retention of strategic reserves.

2.4 Though agricultural production derived from both the smallholder and estate sectors, andthe former accounted for 81% of all production, production was largely geared towards meeting thecountry's food staple requirements (predominantly maize but including groundnuts, cassava, sweetpotatoes, beans and rice). Within the smallholder sector, average farm holdings amounted to about 1.7ha per farm family but holding sizes were skewed and about 70% of the holdings were in fact below 1.0ha. In order to meet basic family food requirements, the overriding emphasis of the vast majority ofthese relatively small farmers was of necessity to concentrate on the production of food staples.

-2 -

3he_Ag i!turl Development Strategy

2.S '_ ament's strategy was a continuance of long-standing efforts designed to achieve andmaintain self-t.-...ciency in food staples, increases in livestock production in order to minimize dairyimports, increases in agricultural exports, and improvement in rural incomes. In view of increasing landpressures in many dreas, resulting from an average annual increase in the population of over 3.0%, themajor thrust of Govermnent's policy was towards a sustained rise in productivity from existing cultivableareas, and increased emphasis on soil conservation and afforestation in order to restore soil fertility. Theproposed Project was to be part of the ongoing National Rural Development Program (NRDP) with theoverall objectives of: raising smaliholder production to meet domestic needs and provide exports; assuringsmallholder access to inputs and services; preserving Malawi's natural resources; and providing basicsocial service infrastructure.

3. Project Objectives and Description

3.1 The Project, which constituted the fourth phase of NRDP, aimed at increasing agriculturalproductivity and improving rural living standards in the Dedza Hills (DH) and Lilongwe Northeart (L-NE) districts, drawing on the experience gained from previous rural development projects in Maiawi,while incorporating a number of NRDP Review recomnnendations. The Project was expected to increaseDedza/Lilongwe Northeast maize production by 10%; tobacco, 50%; groundnuts, 3%; and intoducewheat as a new crop. Specifically, the Project over a five-year period, included components to:

(a) improve and expand district-level extension and training programs;

(b) strengthen district-level research and horticulture activities;

(c) support land husbandry including agroforestry;

(d) construct three new diptanks and seven slaughter facilities, improve seven existinglivestock dips and establish an animal drug bank;

(e) expand smallholder credit and build marketing facilities;

(f) provide potable water supplies; and

(g) strengthen Project management and evaluation capacities.

4. proiect Design and Organization

4.1 The Project was effectively designed to support the strengthening of key agriculturalservices. Following the recommendations of an NRDP Review mission mounted by the Bank in 1981,the Project was designed to be less complex than previous rural development projects, with the mainemphasis on production-related agricultural activities. Though water supplies were still included as animportant component, roads, forestry and health were excluded, and the proposed farmer:extension agentratio of 1:800 reflected the unsustainability of that of 1:350 adopted under the NRDP III Project.Nevertheless, the main Project objective still remained the same as that which the Bank had beenadvocating for well over a decade - to reduce the areas under food crops (predominantly local maize) bythe introduction of higher yielding packages (mainly hybrid maize) thereby releasing land for the

production of cash crops. Agricultural production would also be increased through the strengthening ofthe support services and provision of seasonal and medium-term credit. Provision was also made to carryout a livestock policy and program review to determine livestock production constraints.

4.2 MOA had overall responsibility for implementation through the direction of a DeputySecretary (DS) in the role of NRDP Coordinator, with the Program Manager (PM) of LilongweAgricultural Development Division (LADD) reporting directly to him. The PM would have day-to-dayoperational responsibility for the Project, to be supported by existing and additional technical officers bothat LADD headquarters and in the two RDPs (Lilongwe North East and Dedza Hills), which formed theProject area. The staff at RDP level were to be headed by Project Officers, though lines of responsibilityin respect of technical matters were to be to specialist staff in the technical departments or ministries.In this respect, the Chief Agricultural Development Officer (CADO), Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO)and Chief Agricultural Research Officer (CARO) would respectively retain technical lines ofresponsibility for agricultural extension, livestock and veterinary services, and agricultural researchthough the Project's administrative linkage would be with the DS. The Project was to have workingrelationships with other technical departments and ministries such as the Departnent of Lands, Valuationand Water (DLVW) in respect of the water supply con)ponent, and Ministry of Works and Supplies(MOWS) in respect of the building construction program. To assist in the implementation of the buildingprogram, 3 firm of consultant architects was to be appointed to coordinate and manage the civil works.

4.3 rn retrospect, there were various shortcomings in design, notably:

(a) The statistical data available at the time of project formulation were inadequateand/or unreliable particularly in respect of agricultural production, with the resultthat many targets were either unrealistically low or highly optimnistic. Data ontrends in the uptake of improved crop varieties and the uptake of credit were eitherunreliable or, more probably, discounted.

(b) It was assumed that the extension service coverage would include the majority ofsmallholders, yet no measures were introduced to vary the established practice ofchanneling extension support to the relatively better-off Farm Club members(which effectively debarred the smaller farmers from access to seasonal credit forcrop production).

(c) L1 Husbandry Assistants and Farm Home Assistants were posted to ExtensionPlaiading Area (EPA) Centers but only provided with bicycles to cover operationalareas with radii of about 20 km.

(d) Though NRDP IV was largely production oriented in comparison to previousNRDP projects, the Project would still result in substantially increased recurrentexpenditure on completion, and while there was full awareness of the mountingdifficulty on the part of Government in meeting the recurrent commitment alreadyaccruing in respect of previous NRDP projects, the magnitude of this was still notfully appreciated and the sustainability of the Project was not fully addressed.

(e) There was inadequate specific provision for resolving inter-departmental and inter-ministerial issues which arise during the impletnentation of integrated ruraldevelopment projects. For example, the inadequate communications between

Project management and the Water Department of MOWS that caused delay inimplementing the water component could have been avoided had there been asuitable forum for Project coordination.

(f) Implementation targets were overly optimistic. For instance, it was unrealistic toexpect much development activity during year one of the Project, yet physicalobjectives were set for this period, which were virtually unachievable.

5. Proj Implementation

5.1 The Project faced several major constraints which impeded the rate of implementation and,though most of these were particularly damaging during the earlier stages, several persisted throughoutmuch of the implementation period. The more significant problems were:

(a) Shortages of adequately trained staff particularly at LADD management level;

(b) Frequent changes in the staffing of key posts;

(c) Serious delays in the procurement of essential transport;

(d) Inadequ!ate provision for the maintenance and repair of Project transport in general,and motorcycles in particular;

(e) Delays in the tendering and award of building construction contracts; cumbersomelines of responsibility for timely payment of contractors' accounts; and periodicshortages of building materials;

(f) Inadequate knowledge of IDA disbursement and reimbursement procedures andreporting formats, which differ substantially from standard Government practices;

(g) Inadequate and unpredictable funding by Government;

(h) Initial unsatisfactory liaison between LADD and the Water Department (WD) ofMOWS which delayed borehole construction; and

(i) The effective lack of a Project Steering Committee which should have served asa forum for resolving inter-departmental and inter-ministerial differences.

5.2 Project costs were close to those estimated at appraisal. Overruns in the water suppliesprogram were due to the expanded program and construction delays. Overruns experienced for the creditcomponent and IDA financed operating costs were due to extension of the Project period. The notableunderexpenditure by Government is described in par& 7.1 Project investments were all completed beforethe original Closing Date, except those for water supplies. The latter program was slow to get off theground and required two additional years to complete. During this time, the equipment/vehicleprocurement and construction programs were expanded to fill gaps overlooked at appraisal. The key SARtargets and the extent to which they were achieved are set out in Part HI, Tables 5 and 5A. Theimplementation of individual components is discussed below.

-5-

Extension Services

5.3 During the first two years of implementation almost all of the crop extension effort waschanneled through the well established Farm Club (FC) network which, as today, represented virtuallythe only access to seasonal credit for small to average smallholders. Because the vast majority of smallfarmers tended not to join the FCs, and were more or less precluded from appropriate extension adviceand support, Government introduced the "block approach" under which every smallholder was includedin an extension area, and extension was effected through group demonstrations within the blocks eventhough the FCs still continued to function in parallel. By 1987, with support from the IDA-supportedNational Extension and Agricultural Planning Support Project (NEAPS), an extension pilot scheme wasintroduced in Mzuzu ADD and later expanded to include parts of other ADDs including some EPAs inL-NE and DH RDPs. In view of the apparent success of this approach it was further extended to coverall EPAs in the Project area by the start of the 1989/90 season. Under the system, in addition to thenormal block extension activities, a network of small, on-farm demonstration plots are established,extension workers' programs are more tightly structured, and regular staff training is intensified.Despite some operational problems there are indications that, in general, both the extension staff andfarmers concerned support the new approach, which goes some way to widening the coverage of theextension service to poorer farmers who previously perceived little relevance in its messages.

5.4 It is unfortunate that the extension service was not able to effect this change in emphasis inapproach until the Project was nearing the end of its implementation period. Though the proposedextension worker: farm family ratios of about 1:800 were achieved in both RDPs and the service wassatisfactorily reorganized, from about 1988 onwards the crop extension service suffered increasingly fromshortages of transport at all levels and from severe limitations on the funds provided for transportoperation. Because the new extension approach initially entails more intensive support and supervisionthan the standard block approach, the situation is a cause for considerable concern. Some of the technicalspecialists and supervisory staff at both LADD and RDP levels have been office-bound at times and aresometimes obliged to share transport for field travel. "

5.5 All of the proposed building works under the extension component were completed thoughmost were well behind schedule. Some of the standard staff housing designs were replaced by low-costdesigns in order to restrict expenditure. There were long delays in the provision of the electric powersupply to the L-NE headquarters complex and, as of March 1991, the supply had still not been connectedbecause meters remained to be fitted. In addition, the telephone connection to this headquarters, thoughcompleted, is unreliable. Incremental staff were recruited as planned and transferred to the recurrentbudget by 1989/90. This included support for the Women's Program, but the effectiveness of the FarmHome Assistants has been limited since they operate from EPA Centers using bicycles only and, undernormal circumstances, have restricted impact outside operational radii of about five or six kilometers fromEPA headquarters. (Most EPAs have a radius of about 20 km.)

" Supplementary operating funds are to be provided from the ongoing Agricultural Extension andPlanning Support Project in the first place and from the proposed Agricultural Services Project later,until the Government's capacity to fund the services improves.

6-

Training

5.6 The proposed construction of Day Training Centers (DTCs) was duly effected (under theextension component), and proposed improvements to the Residential Training Centers (RTCs) in bothL-NE and DH RDPs were undertaken satisfactorily but, as with most of the Project's buildingconstruction program, completion of these works was well behind schedule. Until 1987, throughput offarmers and staff at the RTCs was reasonably satisfactory apart from disruptions to courses caused bythe dry-season failure of water supplies at Dedza RTC (not rectified until 1989). After 1987, breakdownsof the ageing personnel carriers, provided under the training component, affected the throughput at theRTCs in both RDPs. This also restricted training of extension staff under th. pilot-scheme extensionsystem. Just over 12,700 farmers and staff were trained at DH RTC between 1983 and 1990 (25% werewomen) and 8,125 at L-NE RTC (33% women). Attendance at the DH DTCs over the same period wasalmost 23,500 (of whom 28% were women) and that for L-NE DTCs was 26,825 (33% women)respectively. The DTCs were used mainly for training farmers. Course content appeared to besatisfactory in both the RTCs and DTCs and included agriculture, the women's program, primary healthcare, leadership, administration, credit and marketing, and evaluation procedures.

Research

5.7 Research diagnostic surveys were conducted as proposed and established a basis for annuaiadaptive research trials programs in both RDPs. The programs were established after close liaisonbetween the RDPs, LADD management, and staff of Chitedze Research Station's Commodity ResearchTeams. Though only one Field Assistant (Research) was posted at each RDP, most trials appeared tobe well conducted and generally reflected practical problems being encountered by farmers and extensionstaff. Whereas it was expected that Dedza Hills RDP would concentrate on horticultural trials, apart fromseveral trials on Irish potatoes, the main emphasis was on wheat, maize and maize/legume mixtures.Trials on soyabean helped to pioneer the successful establishment of this crop, which now appears to havegood potential in many parts of the Project area.

5.8 The additional Senior Technical Officer (STO) and Technical Officer (TO) were notrecruited since these were provided by the Chief Agricultural Research Officer under funding from othersources. By 1988/89 transport problems were affecting the mobility of LADD and RDP adaptiveresearch personnel. Despite this, the research component appears to have contributed significantly toimprovements in crop technology in both RDPs.

Horticultur

5.9 There was little activity under the horticultural component until 1984/85 in DH RDP and1986/87 in L-NE RDP but progress since then has been good. The main focus of attention has been theproduction of fruit-tree seedlings - mainly of tropical species at L-NE and temperate species at DH RDP -and the demonstration of improved cultural practices for both fruit and vegetables at RTCs and DTCs.

The DH RDP nursery distributed over 3,470 improved seedlings between 1984/85 and 1990/91, and L-NE over 9,950 between 1987/88 and 1990/91. Vegetable production (tomatoes, onions, cabbages, greensand Irish potatoes) in DH RDP has increased from around 570 ha in 1984/85 to 7160 ha in 1990/91,benefiting an estimated 10,000 growers.

-7-

Land Husbandiy (LH)

5.10 Because of staffing constraints, the posts of Chief Technical Officer (LH) and SeniorTechnical Officer (LH) were never filled. The DH RDP Land Husbandry Section is headed by aTechnical Officer (LH) who is supported by four LHAs - one per EPA. In L-NE a Technical Officer(LH) was appointed together with five Land Husbandry Assistants (LHAs) - one per EPA. Because theLHAs were only provided with bicycles much of their effectiveness has been restricted because oflogistical constraints. This effectively ruled out the introduction of a long-term plan to control thedegradation of the highly erodible and ecologically fragile areas along the hills and escarpments, whichcame under increasing pressure throughout the implementation period. Planning has, of necessity, beenon an ad hoc basis and has been largely based on an extensive campaign of pegging contour markerridges, and encouraging farmers to plant live buffer-strips along the contours, mainly in conjunction withcrop extension workers and through the training centers. Catchment conservation took place in severalareas and farmers were encouraged to use compost and FYM. In retrospect, the component sufferedfrom under funding in relation to its imporiance, particularly in view of the relentless increase in the ruralpopulation which is forcing farmers iJlto areas which should not be cultivated in the absence ofappropriate soil conservation measures; and from inadequate pressure from the national level to date, tomobilize the commitment and resources for a major soil conservation effort that is needed to protect theendangered Dedza Hills area.

Veterinary Services and Livestock Production

5.11 Stallfeeding progra . Whereas the supply of stallfeeders in DH RDPs exceeded the SARtarget (target 750 - actual 755) there was a considerable shortfall in supply in L-NE RDP (target 1,500 -actual 966). Most of the stock was supplied from Dzalanyama Cattle Ranch, and the remainder came

from local cattle markets, other farmers and Likadzi Breeding Station but this proved to be inadequatesince demand far exceeded supply in both RDPs. Transport of stock was often a problem since the onusfor providing this rested almost exclusively with LADD, which experienced periodic breakdowns of itscattle transporters. The program was popular because, apart from the profitability relative to the shortfattening period (normally 4 -5 months), stalifeeding is normally a dry season operation when there isspare labor as well as a supply of crop residues. (See Part III Annex I Table 7 - Stallfeeder Model.)

5.12 Daiy cattlg. As in the case of stallfeeders, the supply of dairy cattle was inadequate to meetdemand. Only 102 pairs of half-bred dairy cows were provided in L-NE RDP against a target of 525(no provision was made for DH RDP). Milk production was often adversely affected by the reluctanceof farmers to relinquish adequate areas of cultivable land for the production of essential forage/foddercrops even though planting material of Napier and seed of Rhodes grass were generally available. Theprogram also suffered because of breakdowns of cooling equipment at the collection centers, shortagesof suitable feeding concentrates, and the losses incurred from East Coast Fever in the early years ofimplementation (until the successful introduction of a vaccine). Lack of experience in the managementof improved stock resulted in low average annual yields (about 1800 lit, s). The cost to farmers ofimproved dairy animals (normally Malawi Zebu x Friesian) was, and continues to be, subsidized almostto the extent of 50%, even though the enterprise is still profitable at unsubsidized rates. (See Part ImAnnex I Table 8 - Dairy Cow Model.) There still remains considerable scope for increased milkproduction in the Lilongwe catchment area which has an annual shortfall in the supply of fresh milk(about 20% in 1987/88) which is made up by imported skimmed milk powder.

-8 -

5.13 Drugs and vaccines. Though animal drugs and vaccines were provided under the Projectthe drugs revolving fund failed to operate effectively because of lax control and accounting proceduresand the consequent shortfall in revenue necessary to effect the replacement of supplies. Theunsatisfactory situation was exacerbated through the inability of Veterinary Assistants (VAs) to issuereceipts to farmers for drugs provided. Furthermore, drugs were often held until well beyond expirydates.

5.14 Diptanks. slaughter slabs and poultry houses. These structures were constructed as proposedusing LADD building construction teams operating under force account, and have been operatedeffectively. The proposed additional VAs, dip attendants and laborers were recruited and have since beentransferred to the recurrent budget. Low-cost staff housing was also constructed under force account.

5.15 National livestock development study. Considerable divergence of opinion on the need forthe proposed National Livestock Development Study and difficulties in agreeing on Terms of Referencedelayed the execution of the study, and the final report was not issued until August 1988. The total costwas US$ 194,224. It remains to be seen how much this study will contribute to improvements in thelivestock sector.

5.16 Transport. From 1989 onwards, the transport situation was becoming critical in terms ofboth vehicles and operating funds. For example, as of March 1991, six senior members of staff ofLADD's Veterinary Division reportedly had only one vehicle between them, and the 14 Al Techniciansand Dairy Assistants were reliant upon highly unreliable motorcycles.

5.17 Seasonal credit. The Project was successful in establishing an efficient organization for theissue and recovery of seasonal credit. The only data available from LADD, however, are in respect ofissues of credit which include some which were funded from sources in addition to the Project and it isnot possible to isolate the amounts and cost of the various inputs attributable solely to the Project. Thishas resulted from the operation of the National Credit Fund which is controlled by the SmallholderAgricultural Credit Administration (SACA) and which forms a pool for all sources of credit. Becauseof this, some RDPs may have their credit funds supplemented by others having funds surplus to theirrequirements. SACA asserts that the Project area (and L-NE RDP in particular) was in fact assisted inthis way, but it has not been possible to ascertain the extent to which this has occurred. The followinginformation should be regarded with this situation in mind.

5.18 In L-NE RDP the number of recipients of seasonal credit packages rose from 9,120 in1983/84 to 16,500 in 1990/91. Issues of fertilizers sold under credit rose from 485 tons to just over3,000 tons in the same period, and inputs of hybrid maize seed from 36 tons to 158 tons. In DH RDP,seasonal credit recipients rose from 2,590 in 1983/84 to 7,870 in 1990/91 (but reached 11,000 in1989/90). Fertilizer inputs rose from 680 tons to 1,800, and hybrid maize seed from 21 tons to 83 tonsover the same period. Recovery rates were exceptionally good between 1983/84 and 1987/88 (being ator near 100% in most seasons) but, in common with the national trend, rates began to fall in the 1988/89and 1989/90 seasons. During 1989/90 the recovery rates had fallen to 85.1 % in L-NE RDP and 87.6%in DH RDP. This increase in default was largely attributable to depressed yields caused by adverseweather conditions, increases in the costs of inputs (fertilizers in particular) and the raising of the creditcharge from 10% to 12½h%. The minimum hectarage for most seasonal credit packages was 0.4 ha upto the 1988/89 season. Thereafter packages for 0.2 ha were introduced to meet the needs of smaller

-9 -

tarmers. LADD offered 299 seasonal credit packages during the 1990/91 cropping season, many ofwhich were in respect of the reduced hectarage, together with a wide range of single item packages ofseeds, fertilizers and pesticides, again packaged in quantities to suit the smaller farmers. Details ofseasonal credit issues are provided in Part III Annex I, Tables 26 and 27.

5.19 Medium-term credit. The medium-term credit subcomponent was not successful, withconsiderably less than anticipated issues and generally unsatisfactory recovery rates. General farmingloans over the implementation period only amounted to 69 ox-carts, 7 ox-implements and 331 handsprayers. Recovery of loans in respect of these items was always unsatisfactory, this being attributableto the one-off nature of such loans when the denial of further credit does not pose an imminent threat asin the case of seasonal credit. In addition, medium-term loans are normally to individuals and thus socialpressures to repay do not apply. The recovery of medium-term loans for dairy animals was moresuccessful because repayments were deducted by the chairmen of dairy groups from receipts from milksales. DH RDP had a better record of repayment than L-NE and ach-eved over 91% in 1986/87.Recoveries fell sharply thereafter, however, to reach 54% in 1989/90. L-NE recoveries rever exceeded55.2%, and fell to 34.4% in 1989/90. Details of medium-term credit are provided in Part III Annex I,Tables 28 and 29.

Markets

5.20 The four permanent input stores were constructed under the supervision of the AgriculturalDevelopment and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC), using ADMARC's standard design. Constructionwas well behind schedule and structural faults occurred but these were not serious and were subsequentlycorrected. ADMARC has assumed control over the staffing and operation of the stores.

Water Supplies

5.21 Funds were provided for 880 water points (WPs) in L-NE and 600 WPs in DH RDP (aborehole represents two WPs and a dug well one WP). The program was implemented through the WaterDepartment (WD) of MOWS. Implementation was considerably delayed and Project extensions wereprimarily requested to allow completion of this important program. Initial delays were caused by WDstaffing problems; liaison difficulties between WD and LADD; materials shortages and some difficultiesin sorting out and monitoring the flow of funds for the program. After a liaison committee wasestablished and met regularly and return of WD staff from training, implementation went smoothly. WithProject extensions, 1810 water points were provided, exceeding the target of 1480 water points. Ofthese, 342 boreholes (684 water points) were constructed in Dedza Hills by three different contractors,while 1126 water points (481 new boreholes, 43 rehabilitated boreholes and 78 shallow wells) wereconstructed in Lilongwe N.E. by WD, by force account.

5.22 It is probable that this component is the one above all others which the vast majority of therural population in the Project area would have accorded top priority prior to implementation.

- 10 -

Project Administration

5.23 The Monitoring and Evaluatio.. unit was duly established and LADD was fortunate in thequality of its staffing even though this changed fairly frequently. The output and quality of a wide rangeof surveys and management information has been, and continues to be, commendable. Field enumeratorsoperated in both RDPs as proposed. All equipment and transport was procured as proposed but delaysin the replacement of vehicles caused logistical problems from about 1988 onwards. An effectivecomputer system was established under the control of the unit but, as of March 1991, this had not beenlinked to the systems in MOA or the other ADDs. In addition to its support for LADD operations, theunit is involved in national statistical data collection, After initial problems a format was established tomeet the Credit Agreement reporting requirements. These reports differ from those required by MOA,and their use was more or less restricted to IDA and supervision missions. Despite intermittentdivergences and anomalies, reporting has been above the standard of most other ADDs.

S.24 LADD management assumed tighter control over the two RDPs than was envisaged atappraisal, and the RDP managements were restricted largely to implementation of day-to-day operations.LADD controlled most of the civil works and major procurement while the RDPs implemented the fieldcomponents. This was probably inevitable in view of the structure of MOA but LADD's obligation tomanage RDPs under both development and recurrent budgets posed difficulties which compoundedadministrative problems. Annual work plans were evolved during implementation but there remainedroom for considerable improvement in these since little reference appeared to be made to them once theyhacs served their primary purpose of supporting annual budget requests.

Prcurement

5.25 Inadequacies in the procurement of goods under International Competitive Bidding (ICB)procedures contributed towards delays in the implementation of almost every component. Despiteassistance provided by the Bank to establish a centralized procurement unit within MOA, constant changesin the staffing of this unit resulted in repeated irregularities which were unacceptable under the terms ofIDA's procurement procedures and which resulted in long delays in the preparation of tender documents,the analysis of bids, and award of contracts. It is indicative of the malaise which continues to afflictMOA ICB procurement that the final NRDP IV tender for the replacement of vehicles (No. 3234) wasissued in September 1989 but, as of March 1991, delivery had still not been completed.

6. Project Results and ImDact

6.1 Despite managerial, operational and financial problems and the attendant delays imposedby these, implementation was generally successful insofar as operations under the direct control of Projectmanagement were concerned. Project results and impact, however, were adversely affected because ofconditions, policies and decisions largely outside the control of management. It was expected that themajor impact would derive from substantially increased crop and livestock production. This did nottranspire within the timeframe predicted, but there was a considerable increase in the area planted tohybrid maize in 1990/91, and further increases are likely. On the other hand, the Project hassignificantly improved the organization and potential of the agricultural extension services, which are nowcapable of timely delivery of new messages/technologies; established a successful system for the issueand recovery of seasonal credit; improved the administrative capacity at LADD and RDP levels; andprovided vastly improved water supplies for much of the rural community in the Project area.

- 11 -

Crop Production

6.2 Before considering crop production, it should be appreciated that the vast majority ofholdings in the Project area are below 2.G ha in area - 95% in DH and 92% in L-NE - 66% of holdingsin DH are below 1.0 ha with a mean holding size of 0.57 ha - and 61% of L-NE holdings are below 1.0ha, again with a mean holding size of 0.57 ha. It is also important to understand the implications of thesupply of staple food (predominantly maize) on many households. The precarious situation in respectof food security can be illustrated by quoting from LADD's Food Security and Nutrition MonitoringSurvey of 1990:

"By December 1990, 86% of households (within LADD) had no staple foodleft. The hardest hit RDPs are Lilongwe East (91 %) and Dedza Hills (88%)"

This statement does not imply that households without supplies of staple food are necessarily starvingsince most have alternative means of procuring food. The main method of doing so, however, is to selllabor under a system known as "ganyu" and, unfortunately, this mostly takes place at times when laborshould be applied to the production of the household's own crops. The extent of this reliance on othersources of income can be judged from the following comment from the same survey:

'48% of households simply do not have enough cash to buy staple food"

The widespread obligation on many smallholders is to sell their labor at critical periods during thegrowing season, and the consistently low yields brought about by continuous cropping in the absence oforganic and/or inorganic inputs has edged the majority of such farmers into a hazardous situation whichpermits little scope or incentive for manoeuvre or speculation in efforts to extricate themselves. Themajority of such smallholders are subject to considerable constraints on their agricultural options andpractices which, in turn, prejudice their relationships with the extension and credit services, and have adirect bearing on their productivity.

6.3 Though the extension service was effectively strengthened under the Project, up to 1988 itstill continued to work mainly with the larger farmers, and few of the smallest farmers sought extensionadvice since the extension messages were perceived by them to be irrelevant to their subsistence systems.Apart from their lack of exposure to extension advice, they were largely ineligible for seasonal credit,either through their inability to satisfy credit criteria (the 0.4 ha minimum hectarage requirement for mostcrop packages prevailed until 1988/89) or the justified fear of not being able to service loans. Thiscombination of factors has resulted in most of the smallest farmers contributing little or nothing towardsincreased crop production.

6.4 A further factor which affected production was the management system of hybrid maizeadopted by many farmers. Though the issues of improved seed exceeded SAR estimates, and therecommended packages of seed and fertilizers were issued under seasonal credit, a sizeable proportionof the fertilizer was diverted to local maize which has considerably less response than hybrid maize. Thenet result was that the fertilizers were less effective than they would have been if applied to the hybridsat the full rates. In addition, frequently, priority of planting is given to local maize (as the preferredstaple food) and the consequent delay in planting hybrids depresses their yields. Because of these factors,the average yields of hybrids were short of SAR predictions. The expected uptake of composite maizefailed to materialize and production was negligible throughout implementation. Hybrids have beengenerally regarded as cash crops and mainly produced on holdings large enough to permit production of

- 12 -

maize in addition to the essential area of preferred local maize. It is interesting that farmers wouldsacrifice hybrid yields to ensure food security. Unsatisfactory pounding qualities; poor palatability;susceptibility of the growing crop to insect attack; and poor storage qualities are the commonly citedreasons for rejection of the available hybrids for food production by many farmers.

6.5 Cropping trends during implementation were probably influenced more by pricing policies,the vagaries of the weather, the availability of inputs, and marketing conditions than by the interventionof the Project. The 66% increase in maize prices in 1987/88 resulted in a predictable and substantialincrease in maize production but simultaneously reduced production of other crops - particularlygroundnuts. ADMARC's deteriorating financial situation from the mid-1980s onwards created marketingproblems for smallholders and influenced cropping trends because late payments for produce restrictedthe uptake of inputs in the following season. Late arrival or inadequate supplies of fertilizers and seedsfrequently obliged farmers to switch out of hybrid maize and groundnuts into alternative crops.Production in 1986/87 and 1988/89 was adversely affected by poor rains. Yields tended to be extremelyvariable over the implementrcion period and there was no discernable upward trend in these. Indeed,most yields in 1988/89 and 1989/90 were considerably less than those of 1984/85 and 1985/86.

6.6 It is difficult to quantify crop production because some of the available data appear to besuspect. For example, production trends in DH RDP do not reflect the increases necessary to supporta population which is estimated to have increased by about 25% since 1983/84. Despite this, there areindications that cropping trends were beginning to change during 1989/90 and 1990/91. Extension staffreported that timely availability of seed and fertilizers had resulted in considerable increase in the areaplanted to hybrid maize though this trend could have been influenced to some extent by the seriousshortage of groundnut seed and poor yields of groundnuts during 1988/89 and 1989/90. There has alsobeen a marked increase in the production of soya bean since its introduction (1987/88 in L-NE and1989/90 in DH RDP). Production of Northern Division Dark Fire-cured Tobacco was controlled undera quota system and the Project's influence was restricted more to improving quality though it is difficultto assess the Project's impact in this respect.

6.7 In respect of the Project's main objective of increased crop production, the situation can besummarized as follows:

(a) For most of the implementation period almost two-thirds of farmers remainedoutside the ambit of the extension and credit services and therefore contributedlittle to increased crop production;

(b) Yields of hybrid varieties were less than predicted, therefore the land expected tobe released through increased production of higher yielding varieties of maize wasnot forthcoming and this, in turn, prevented the development of cash crops; and

(c) A major increase in the adoption of hybrid maize varieties appears to haveoccurred towards the end of the Project which is likely to be reinforced by theintroduction of new varieties and this could result in realization of Projectexpectations although later than anticipated.

Details of crop areas and incremental crop production are provided in Part Im Annex I Tables 14 and 15respectively.

- 13 -

6.8 The difficulties of assessing the extent and effectiveness of the Project's credit componenthave been raised in para 5.17 above. In the absence of a breakdown of the credit issues (by fundingsource) it has not been possible to determine the impact of the component with any degree of accuracy.The Project, however, most certainly strengthened the capacity of the credit services to issue and recovercredit, and contributed significantly to the substaptial increase in seasonal credit issues in particular.

Livestock Development

6.9 The Project's impact on livestock production was constrained through the short supply ofboth stallfeeders and dairy animals. While the impact on animal health resulting from improved dippingfacilities and an improved supply of livestock drugs is not quantifiable it must be significant. Estimatesof incremental livestock production are given in Annex 1, Table 16.

Social Services

6.10 Whereas it is not possible to quantify the impact of the water supplies component, there canbe little doubt that, in the eyes of many living in the Project area, this was by far the most importantcontribution to an enhanced quality of life. Some 1,810 water points were provided or rehabilitated bythe time the Project closed in April 1991 (330 above the SAR target). On the assumption that each waterpoint has a design capacity to serve 125 people, and the capacity is utilized only to the extent of 80%,it is probable that about 180,000 people out of a total population of just under 500,000 (36%) have beenprovided with clean and reasonably accessible drinking water. Though relevant data on health are notavailable, there can be little doubt that the incidence of water-borne diseases must be less prevalent.

6.11 The extensive civil works programs in the Project area contributed significantly to r-aralemployment while these were being implemented. On the conservative assumption that 5% of the totalcost of the building construction and water supplies components were attributable to locally employedlabor, this still amounts to some MK 550,000.

Environment

6.12 The most important ecological effect within the Project area has been the markedly increasedencroachment into areas of steep slopes and friable soils, brought about by the rapidly increasing ruralpopulation, and degradation of soils in the extensive areas where continuous cropping is practiced. Theland husbandry component was not adequately supported nationally or furnded to tackle this rapidlydeteriorating situation and though considerable areas were provided with contour marker ridges and bufferstrips, these were not provided on a sufficient scale in those areas at greatest risk, which, in any case,require more sophisticated conservation measures.

Strengthening Project Administration

6.13 Strengthening of the LADD and RDP administrations has resulted in an increased capacityto meet changing needs in the future. An effective monitoring and evaluation system has been establishedwhich, if used to full advantage, should serve as a useful aid to management, and provide a sound basisfor future planning and policy decisions.

- 14 -

Financial and Economic Returns

6.14 To facilitate comparison with SAR estimates, financial returns are presented in terms of netreturn per ha and income per day for both the without and with Project situations. The results of thisanalysis are summarized in Part III, Table 6, and are given in detail in Annex 1, Tables 1 to 13.

6.15 The Economic Rate of Return (ERR) to project investment was estimated at appraisal to be17%. The primary benefits of the project included increased crop and livestock production deriving fromexpanded and improved extension, land husbandry, training, credit, marketing activities and improvedanimal disease control. For the purpose of estimating the ERR of the Project, ex post, no changes in thetotal cropped area liave been considered in the with Project situation, although data provided by LADDindicate that, in both Dedza Hills and Lilongwe NE, there was a considerable increase in the totalcuiltivated area between 1982/83 and 1990/91. On the assumption that such changes would have occurredeven in the absence of the Project, only actual changes in the cropping pattern (Annex 1, Table 14) andreal increases in yields deriving directly from Project-related activities, have been taken into account inestimating the total Project incremental production (Annex 1, Tables 15 and 16). On the basis of theabove main considerations and other assumptions as detailed in Annex 1, Tables 17 to 24, the overallERR of the Project has been reassessed at 12.3% (Annex 1, Table 25).

6.16 The difficulties of collecting accurate data to quantify the benefits of this type of project arewell known.' Consequently the results are subject to a wide margin of error. Evaluation of this Projectis particularly difficult, because production changes expected for the major commodities are too small tomeasure, and even with an accurate database, would be within the sampling error of the necessaryobservations; in addition, the impact of exogenous factors such as weather conditions or of price or policychanges cannot be separated from the impact of Project investments. For these reasons, ERR estimatesare not a good guide to the success of this Project. While the realization of the production impact hasbeen slower than anticipated, the Project did put in place an advisory service, an effective credit systemand marketing (both input and output) facilities that are well poised to serve the farming community andhelp to improve farming technology. The rapid expansion of fertilizer use and the successful switch tohigh nutrient content fertilizers (to reduce high transport costs) are important achievements. In addition,in the last Project year, there has been a marked expansion of hybrid maize production which nowaccounts for about 23% of the maize area nationally. There are good reasons to believe that the increaseis a part of a trend but it would be difficult to quantify the contribution of the extension servicesaccurately.

V The difficulties of re-estimating ERRs ex post for the series of NRDP projects are summarized ina recent OED Audit Report - PPAR, Malawi NRDP projects, Report No. 9750, dated June 28,1991, Annex 1. The Annex reviews the series of attempts that have been made, ex ante and ex post,to estimate the ERRs for the various phases of the program.

7. Project Sustainability

Funding by GovernMent

7.1 While implementation of most of the Project components was generally successful, thesustainability of many of these components is open to considerable doubt unless funding by Governmentimproves substantially or further support from donors is forthcoming. Government's contribution towardsthe financing of the Project was recorded as 1.5% instead of the proposed 15% (see Part III Table 3A),but this may be an underestimate. All staff salaries and wages were paid by Government and thisexpenditure may not have been fully recorded in the Project accounts. Nevertheless, indications werealready becoming apparent during the latter stages of implementation of the Project that inadequate localfunding was adversely affecting several of the Project's components. In particular, shortfalls in theprovision for vehicle operation increasingly affected field activities of the extension services (notably cropand livestock extension, land husbandry, training and the women's progranr.) during 1989/90 and1990/91. This is discussed in Section 5 - Project Implementation. In addition to inadequate provisionfor transport operation, it is doubtful if, given the country's financial constraints, Government will beable to sustain in the near future, the level of transport provided under the Project without extemalassistance. Even though some procurement of transport was still outstanding as of early March 1991,this will merely postpone the onset of the problem of replacement. In view of this situation, unless thereis support from external sources, it appears likely that there will have to be cutbacks in the levels ofextension support provided for smallholders in the Project area in the foreseeable future. 3

Crop Production

7.2 It is probable that the new generation of hybrid maize varieties (MH17 and MH18 andothers in the pipelinie) produced through commendable efforts by the Chitedze Research Station withassistance under the National Agricultural Research Project, will begin to replace part of the local maizecrop with effect from 1991/92 onwards. The rate of change will depend on several factors including theextent to which the extension service will be able to demonstrate and promote the varieties (bearing inmind the logistical constraints outlined above); acceptance of the varieties by the majority of farmers asreplacements for local maize; and the ability of the National Seed Company to meet demand.

Livestock ProdE[ go

7.3 There is unlikely to be an increase in the availability of stallfeeders and dairy animals in theforeseeable future. In fact, there could be even fewer animals available as competition from other areasincreases. The availability of seasonal and medium-term credit will also have a considerable bearing onproduction.

7.4 Though the credit component resulted in the establishment of an effective mechanism forthe issue and recovery of seasonal credit, falling recovery rates (although they are still very high byinternational standards) and increases in fertilizer prices in recent years have seriously depleted the

3 As indicated with regard to para. 5.3, IDA plans to support the operating costs of improving extensionoperations, including the replacement or repair of defective vehicles and equipment.

- 16 -

national revolving credit fund controlled by the Smallholder Agricultutal Credit Administration (SACA).SACA indicated in early March 1991 that it will be unable to maintain the 1990/91 levels of seasonalcredit without a substantial injection of funds to replenish the fund, and estimates that an additional MK41.7 million will be required prior to the 1991/92 cropping season to sustain the upward trend in the issueof seasonal credit. SACA's additional requirements for the period 1991 to 1996 are estimated at MK75.0 million, excluding any provision for inflation. There is little need to stress the implications of thissituation on future production, which is receiving the attention of the project preparation team for theforthcoming Agricultural Services Project, that would have a major credit component.

Maintenance of Buildings

7.5 While the 1990/91 provision for maintenance of buildings in the Project area appeared tobe adequate (MK 280,700) this was not released to the RDPs until early March 1991, almost at the endof the fiscal year. In order not to lose the provision, Project Officers will be obliged to convert it i.tomaterials since there is inadequate time left in which to employ labor to implement the maintenanceprogram. However, the LADD construction unit that built most of the minor structures, including lowcost housing, is in place to utilize the maintenance materials.

Maintenance of Water Supplies

7.6 The WD estimated the 1990/91 average cost of borehole maintenance to be MK 500 perannum/per borehole. Provision for maintenance during that year amounted to MK 381 per borehole,representing a shortfall of about 23%. The appointment of "village caretakers" to undertake simplepreventative maintenance is being promoted by the WD in both RDPs and, when this system becomesfully operational, there should be some reduction in maintenance costs on Government's account sincedte village caretakers' wages are to be met by local contribution. However, there is still likely to be anappreciable shortfall in maintenance funds, which will become greater with the passage of time, as thepumps and casings deteriorate and need to be renovated or replaced. It is, therefore, fortunate that asthe District Roads Improvement and Maintenance Program did for road construction and maintenance,a rural water supplies organization with IDA support, will become responsible for improving themaintenance of rural water supplies.

8. IDA Performance

8.1 Details of staff inputs by the Bank during appraisal, negotiation-and supervision, and dataon supervision missions are provided in Part III Table 8.

8.2 Tne Project was supervised as one of a group of inter-related agricultural projects supportedby IDA, and benefitted from the interaction between several of these projects. This applied especiallyin the respect of the National Agricultural Research Project (NARP) and National Extension and PlanningSupport Project (NEAPS) which had been established in part to address two of the major problemsrecognized by the Bank as serious constraints in the implementation of NRDP projects - i.e. the lack ofan acceptable flint hybrid maize variety, and the inability of the extension service to influence the poorestfarmers. As a result, during the last two years of the Project, implementation focused on participatingin the program to improve agricultural extension that had been initiated under the NEAPS project.

8.3 With the benefit of hindsight it is clear that there were some deficiencies in the Project'sdesign - these are listed in Section 4 (Project Design and Organization). Despite this, the Bank's

- 17 -

performance in the supervision of the Project was of a generally high standard, and the input of missionsand the Bank's Resident Mission (which was established at about the half-way stage of implementation)proved to be an effective adjunct to Project management, and contributed significantly to the successfulachievement of the majority of objectives. The sanctioning of three extensions to the Project's closingdate enabled the Project to exceed the original objectives of the water supplies component, as well asintroduce improved extension methods.

Lessons Le

8.4 The Bank is aware of the imperfections in the design of the Project and there is no need tolabor this point further. NRDP IV is one of the last of the rural development projects to be assisted byIDA, since virtually all parts of Malawi have been covered by NRDP projects. In the recent past, lendingemphasis has switched to sectoral projects, which can solve problems that could not be solved by area-based projects (such as introduction of new technology), and can provide support to NRDP throughoutMalawi at the same time. A further important consideration which will influence future policy (of bothGovernment and IDA) and donor support, is the burden of increased recurrent expenditure, inherited byGovernment on the completion of integrated rural development projects. Steps to provide IDA financefor incremental operating costs have been initiated under the NEAPS project and are an importantconsideration for the preparation of the forthcoming Agricultural Services Project.

9. BoroerPdmn

9.1 There were some areas in which the Borrower found it difficult to provide adequate supportto the Project, which affected the rate of development. These have been discussed elsewhere in thisreport but can be summarized as follows:

(a) Funding of Government's contribution amounted to only 1.5% of the total costsinstead of the 15% required under the Credit Agreement ". This situation stillprevails and threatens to affect the sustainability of several of the key components;

(b) Postings to several key management positions were delayed and there werefrequent transfers of staff particularly within LADD's management;

(c) Procurement of items under ICB procedures was unsatisfactory and delayed thedelivery of essential transport; and

(d) There was inadequate provision for resolving inter-departmental and inter-ministerial differences because the Steering Committee responsible for this rarelymet.

9.2 Final disbursements amounted to about 90% of the total Credit. Details of estimated andactual disbursements are shown in Part Im Table 4. As can be seen, disbursements always lagged behind

4 As indicated in para 7.1, Goverment contribution may have been higher, but may not have been fullyrecorded in the Project accounts. However, it is true that without donor support for operating costs,the services will deteriorate.

- 18-

SAR estimates, largely because of delays under the civil works programs and procurement of vehicles,and partly because of devaluation of the Malawi Kwacha.

9.3 Compliance with the legal covenants of the Credit Agreement is shown in Part III Table7. The submission of audited Annual Accounts and Statements of Expenditure was invariably delayedbeyond the stipulated six-month grace period but the standard of accounting was generally satisfactory.

Lesons Lnt

9.4 It is doubtful if the Borrower will be able to resolve the budgetary problems threatening thesustainability of the Project in the short term. These are far reaching and affect virtually all departmentsof all ministries, and call for support from donors. It is, however, hoped that staffing constraints willmoderate gradually as staff return from training. The inefficient procurement of items under ICBprocedures has affected almost all of MOA's donor-assisted projects and the need to resolve the chronicproblems p!aguing the Procurement Unit is imperative. MOA has sent several officers for specialistoverseas training on procurement, but these officers have invariably been transferred to other dutiesshortly after their return. A further important lesson to be learnt is the need for regular meetings of theSteering Committee(s) responsible for development projects of this nature. These should be heldquarterly, be supported by formal agendas, and should be formally minuted. Most of the problems anddelays surrounding the implementation of the water supplies component could have been avoided withfirm intervention by the Steering Committee.

- 19 -

PApRT u: PRJCT gEyIE FROM TEOOWER'S PERSpT1E

The comments from Government on the contents of this PCR have not yet been received.

- 21 -

PART III: STATISTICAL INFORMATION

Table 1 - Related Bank Loans and/or Credits

Loan/Credit Title Purpose Calendar Year Status Commentsof Approval

(1) National Rural Very similar 1981 Closing date Third IDA project toDevelopment components to NRDP September 1986 support ruralProgram Phase IlI [V. Main objectives to extended to development in Karonga(Credit 1183-MAI) increase agricultural September 1988. Agricultural Division

production, income and (ADD) in Northwelfare of the Malawi.smallholder sector. Italso included forestry.

(2) Smallholder Fertilizer Improve fertilizer 1983 Closed 31 March Ensured fertilizerProject (Credit 1352- procurement and 1988. supplies for the projectMAI) distribution. area, following a period

when supplies wereerratic.

(3) National Agricultural Improving national 1985 Under StrengtheningResearch Project research policy. imnplementation. agricultural research(Credit 1549-MAI) should accelerate

finding technology thatwould enable theservices instaUed by theproject to help farmersincrease production andraise their income.

(4) Agricultural Extension Improving extension 1985 Under This project shouldand Planning Support work nationally. (December) implemnentation. improve theProject effectiveness of the(Credit 1626-MAI) extension service

established by theNRDP III and IVprojects.

- 22 -

Table 2 - Project Summary

A. Proiect Identity

Country: Republic of Malawi

Sector: Agriculture

Project Name: National Rural Development Program(NRDP) Phase IV Project

IDA Credit Number: 1343-MAI

Credit Amount SDR 9.8 million (USS 10.6 million)

Local Counterpart Funding: SDR 1.76 million (USS 1.9 million)

B. ProEict Timetable

Date Planned Revised Date Actual Date

Preparation February 1982 February 1982

Appraisal April/May 1982 April/May 1982

Board Approval April 5, 1983

Loan/Credit Sigqature May 20, 1983

Loan/Credit Effeetiveness August 22, 1983 August 22, 1983

Loan/Credit Closing September 30, 1988 September 30, 1989 April 30, 1991September 30, 1990

Loan/Credit Completion March 1989 March 1991 October 1991

SAR Issued in March 17,1983

C. Exchanue Rate Movements

(USS 1.00)

At Appraisal (May 1982) MK 1.07

First IDA Disbursement (March MK 1.231984)

Final IDA Disbursement (Sept. MK 2.75I991)

Table 3 - Project Cost nd Phasing

- SAR Esti ate-

Coanpotews 1983/84 1984/85 1985186 1986/87 1967/88 19S8189 1989190 1990191 ToWa b of Base

ExtensionServices 796 748 339 174 161 - - - 2,218 22Training 233 106 83 84 85 - - - 591 6Reerch 137 70 75 61 57 - - - 400 4Horticulture 25 9 8 9 7 - - - 5S 1Lnd Husbandry 119 211 78 59 59 - - - 526 5Ivetock and Veterinay Servics 221 192 104 90 84 - - - 691 7Credit Supervision 57 79 17 19 17 - - - 189 2Credt Fund ISO 187 272 198 149 - - - 956 10Marketing 171 174 7 7 7 - - - 366 4Water Supply 85 433 457 364 380 - - - 1,719 17Moitoting and Evaluation 72 60 28 28 28 - - - 216 2Projwct Headquatcs 594 355 167 174 168 - - - 1,458 ISLADD Hedquarker 290 140 37 30 30 - - - 527 5

Toal Base Cods: 2,950 2,754 1,672 1,297 1,232 - - - 9,915 100CoSingencies 383 748 616 721 997 - - - 3,465 35

Tota Coot SAR: 3,333 3,512 2,288 2,018 2,229 - - - 13,380 135

Toa Cost Actu: 478 1,414 3,268 2,079 2,245 3,544 6,889 4,127 24,044

" Curmnt MK (see Table 3B).

Table 3A - Project Fmancing

Planned Fmal as a % ofCredit Agreement Fmal Planned

(SDR '000) (SDR '000) % %

A. IDA Expenditure Category

1. Civil works (cxci. Part J) 2,700 1,799 67

2. (a) Civil works (under Part J) 1,920 2,206 115(b) Vehicles, spare parts, equipment (Pat J) 75 209 279(c) Opeating costs (Part J) 120 6 5

3. Vehicles, sparm pats, equipment (cxcl. Part J) 760 460 61

4. Consutnt's services 220 146 66

5. Incr. seaonal credit and increm. medium-tern credit 1,140 1,662 146

6. Agriral inputs 460 36 8

7. Incram. operating costs 1,480 2,316 156

8. Unallocated 925

Total Extenal 9,800 85 8,840 98.5 90

B. GOM Contribution 1,760 15 130 11 1.5 7

TOWal 1,560 100 8,970 100 78

1/ May be an underestimate because salaries and wages of Project staff may not have been entered into Project accounts.

Table 3B - Total Project Cost and Financinge(MK'OOO)

1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 TotalCategory A. IDA

1 297.7 - 1,088.5 655.2 - 495.8 468.0 315.6 3,320.82a - 125.2 109.0 400.0 904.2 1,721.0 2,382.2 2,143.8 7,785.42b 218.4 - - - - 218.42c 8.5 0.9 - - - - 9.43 - - 33.9 112.1 241.8 247.0 62.6 572.8 1,270.24 * - - - 265.0 247.0 - - 512.05 - 200.0 930.9 10.7 7.6 11.8 2,644.2 - 3,805.26 64.6 753.5 20.8 - 2.9 - - - 841.87 108.7 - 956.9 796.0 796.2 759.5 1,325.3 1,054.7 5,797.3Total: 471.0 1,305.6 3,140.9 1,974.0 2,217.7 3,482.1 6,882.3 4,086.9 23,560.5

8. GOVERWrENT CONTRIBUTION

1 0.2 - 120.9 72.8 - 7.0 - 200.92. -2b - 24.3 - 19.4 - - - - 43.72c - - -- - - -3 - - 3.8 12.5 26.9 27.4 7.0 40.3 117.94 - - - - - 27.4 - - 27.456 7.2 83.7 2.3 0.3 - - 93.57Total: 7.4 108.0 127.0 104.7 27.2 61.8 7.0 40.3 483.4

C. TOTAL PROJECT COST

1 297.9 - 1,209.4 728.0 - 502.8 468.0 315.6 3,521.72a - 125.2 109.0 400.0 904.2 1,721.0 2,382.2 2,143.8 7,785.42b - 242.7 - 19.4 - - - 262.12c - 8.5 0.9 - - - - - 9.43 - - 37.7 124.6 268.7 274.4 69.6 613.1 1,388.14 - - - - 265.0 274.4 - - 539.45 - 200.0 930.9 10.7 7.6 11.8 2,644.2 - 3,805.26 71.8 837.2 23.1 - 3.2 - - - 935.37 108.7 - 956.9 796.0 796.2 759.5 1,325.3 1,054.7 5,797.3Total: 478.4 1,413.6 3,267.9 2,078.7 2,244.9 3,543.9 6,889.3 4,127.2 24,043.9

Source: LAD - Finamcial Controller.

" The accounts for the Project are based on disbursement categories rather than Project components.

Page ITable 4 - Estimated and Actual IDA Credit Disbursements

SAR Estimate Actual

IDA Quater Ending Quarter Cumulative Quadtr Cumulative % Actual as % ofFisl Year Disbursement Disbursement Disbursement Disbursement Disbursed Estimates

------------------- (SDR'000) ---------------- ---- (%) --------

1982/83 June 30 185 185

1983184 Sepember 30 185 370

December 31 370 740

March 31 555 1,295 175 175 1.8 14

June 30 647 1,942 8 183 1.9 9

1984185 September 30 647 2,589 - 183 1.9 7

December31 647 3,?36 509 692 7.1 21

March 31 647 3,883 79 771 7.9 20

June 30 555 4,438 263 1,034 10.5 23

1985/86 September30 555 4,993 383 1,417 14.5 28

December31 555 5,548 504 1,921 19.6 35

March 31 462 6,010 66 1,987 20.3 33

June 30 462 6,472 467 2,454 25.0 38

1986/87 September 30 462 6,934 308 2,762 28.2 40

December 31 462 7,396 305 3,067 31.3 41

March 31 370 7,766 21 3,088 31.5 40

June 30 370 8,136 345 3,433 35.0 42

Pagc 2Table 4 - Edimat and Actual IDA Crodit Disbursemets

SAR Estimate Actual

IDA Quarter Ending Quafter Cumulative Quarter Cumulative % Disburwd Actual as S ofFal Year Disbuemnwa Disbuwement Disburwement Disbursement Fsimates

- (SDR'000) ----------------- -------- ( )-------

1987/88 September 30 370 8,506 460 3,893 39.6 46December31 277 8,783 181 4,074 41.6 46Mach 31 277 9,060 172 4,246 43.3 47June 30 277 9,337 - 4,246 43.3 45

1988/89 September 30 185 9,522 168 4,414 45.0 46December31 185 9,707 254 4,668 47.6 48March 31 93 9,800 223 4,891 49.9 50June 30 - 9,800 389 5,280 53.9 54

1989/90 September 30 - 9,800 206 5,486 56.0 56 s

December 31 - 9,800 380 5,866 59.9 60March 31 - 9,800 262 6,128 62.5 63lune 30 - 9,800 1,053 7,181 73.3 73

1990/91 September 30 - 9,800 383 7,56A 77.2 77December 31 - 9,800 133 7,697 78.5 79Mach 31 - 9,800 344 8,041 82.1 82June 30 - 9,800 211 8,252 84.2 84

1991/92 September 30 - 9,800 588 8,840 90.2 90

- 28 -

Table S - Key Implementation Indicators - l'idza Hills RDP

Unit SAR Eatimate Actual Variance1. Credit (Seasonal Items)

Maize seed mt 270 150 -120Groundnut seed mt 27 n.aWheat seed mt 9Bean seed mt 108 -

CAN fertilizer mt 1,306 n "20:20:0 fertilizer mt 2,087 n.eDipterex insecticide packets 214,800 1,698 -213,102Feeder cattle No. 750 755 + SValue of sasonal credit MK'000 1,567 1,631 +64Value of medium-term credit MiK'000 55 58 + 3

2. Incremental Credit AreaImproved nuize ha 8,590 3,750 -4,840Inproved maize/beans ha 2,150 n.aGroundnuts ha 352 n.ePotatoes ha 300 n.aWheat ha 300

3. Civil Works ConsuctedStaff houses No. 126 101 -25Offices m' 352 n.aTraining centre (mcl. offices) No. - I renovated + I

ADMARC input shed No. 2 2Livesockdips - new No. 0 3 + 3Livestock dips - renovated No. 9 9Slaughter slabs No. 2 3 + IPoultry distribution houses No. 3 6 + 3Water points No. 600 684 +284Water supply, maintenance stores m' 55 55

" Including 2,495 tons of Ure, 2,816 tons of CAN and 32 tons of S/A (not all applicable to the project).2i Including 2,799 tons of 20:20:0 and 1,209 tons of DAP (no; all applicable to the project).

- 29 -

Table 5A - Key Implementation Indicators - Lilongwe NE RDP

Unit SAR Estimate Actual Variance

1. Credit (Seasonal Items)Maize seed mt 184 225 +41Groundnut seed mt 180 n.aCAN fertilizer mt 1,214 n.a20:20:0 fertilizer mt 1,786 n.aDipterex insecticide packets 148,320 -Daconil fungicide ha 165 120 -45Tobacco nursery inputs ha 1,200 1,300 +100Feeder cattle No. 1,500 966 -534Dairy cows 2-cow units 525 102 -423Value of seasonal credit MK'000 1,482 3,006 + 1,524Value of medium-term credit MK'000 172 190 + 18

2. Incremental Credit AreaImproved maize ha 7,416 5,625 -1,791Groundnuts, ha 2,250 n.aTobacco ha 1,200 1,200 +100

3. Civil Works ConstructedStaff houses No. 120 120Offices m2 345 n.aTraining centre (incl. offices) No. - 1 renovated + 1ADMARC input shed No. 2 2Livestock dips - new No. 3 3

Livestock dips - renovated No. 18 14 - 4Slaughter slabs No. S SPoultry distribution houses No. 3 3Water points No. 880 1,126 +246Water supply, maintenance stores m2 70 70

" Including 5,931 tons of CAN plus 3,501 tons of Urea and 97 tons of S/A (not an applicable to the project).2/ Compound fedilizer: 23:21:0+4 (4,640 tons) and DAP 1,883 tons (not all applicable to the prject).

-30 Page I

Table 6 - Project Results

A. Direct Benefits

SAR Actual

1. Incremental Production (MT)

Maize local 628 2,360

Maize improved 12,106 4,800

Groundnuts 141 210

Beans 199 1,430

Soya beans - 425

Potatoes (including vegetables) 515 5,030

Tobacco 207 161

Wheat 80

Meat n.a 406

Milk (I'000) 600 367

2. Yields (kg/ha)

Maize local (Dedza Hills) 1,200 900

Maize local (Lilongwe NE) 1,500 1,300

Maize hybrid (Dedza Hills) 3,000 2,500

Maize hybrid (Liongwe NE) 3,400 2,700

Groundnuts 480 400

Tobacco 450 423

Beans and/or soya beans 400 250

Potatoes 6,000 4,500

B. Economic Imoact

Economic Rate of Return: 17% 12.3%

Underlying Assumptions:

Benefits Crop and livestock product Crop and livestock product

Crop Prices Import/export parity prices Import/export parity pricesat farm gate for all the cropsexcluding potatoes and vegetables forwhich local farmgate prices have been used.

Livestock Production For milk and meat import Sameparity prices at farm gate

Fertilizer Import parity prices at Samefarm gate

Family Labor One-half minimum wage 40% of minimum wage = (MK 1/day)

Shadow Exchange Rate Equal to official exchange rate Same

- 31 - Page 2

Table 6 - Project Results

C. Financial Impact

Net Return Purchase (MK) Without Project Appraisal Estimate PCR Estimate

Local maize (Dedza Hills) 232.5 314.5 262.5

Local maize (LUongwe NE) 340.5 404.5 382.5

Hybrid maize (Dedza Hills) - 491.6 318.0

Hybrid maize (Lilongwe NE) - 611.6 378.0

Groundnuts 212.0 381.0 301.0

Tobacco 505.4 992.4 1,010.4

Beans and/or soya beans 93.7 281.2 168.7

Net Return Per Manday (MK)

Local maize (Dedza Hills) 1.9 2.4 2.6

Local maize (Lilongwe NE) 3.4 3.9 3.5

Hybrid maize (Dedza Hills) - 3.0 2.8

Hybrid maize (Lilongwe NE) - 4.2 3.3

Groundnuts 1.13 1.94 1.67

Tobacco 1.44 2.68 2.73

Beans and/or soya beans 1,56 3.12 2.11

Dairy fanners 2.6 n.a 3.9

- 32 -

Table 7 - tas ovenan

Credit Agreement Contents StatusSection

3.02 Employ consultant for livestock study. Complied with

3.03 Maintain position of NRDP coordinator at deputy nccretary Complied withlevel.

3.04 (a) To help maintain farmer to field assistant ratios of about 750:1 Complied withand other sta.ing levels the borrower will transfer staff to theproject area and furnish a schedule specifying the position bySeptember 30, 1983.

3.04 (b) Ensure funding from the revenue account for staff transferred as Complied witha result of Section 3.04 (a) above.

3.05 (a) Provide work plan for extension and research work, to IDA for Work plans prepared regularlyreview. but usually submitted for

review late,

3.05 (b) Each work plan to set out the proposals for the work, in details Complied withsatisfactory to IDA.

3.06 Lending terms Complied with

3.07 (a) Insurance of imported good in transit. Complied with

3.07 (b) Goods and services financed by the credit to be used only for Complied withproject purposes.

3.08 (a) Borrower to provide plans specifications reports, procurement Complied withand contract documents.

3.08 (b i) Borrower to maintain records to monitor progress (including Reporting system has beencosts and benefits and to identify goods and services financed by good but benefits evaluationthe project. has not been covered.

3.08 (b ii) Enable IDA representative to visit all parts of the project area. Complied with

3.08 (b iii) rFurnish the Association with information as reasonably Complied withrequested.

3.08 (c) Enable the Association to publish details of any contracts Complied withawarded.

3.08 (d) Borrower to prepare PCR. Part n of the PCR is underpreparation by GOM.

Page 1

Table 8 - Use of EBank Resources

A. Staff Input (staff weeks)l/

19822 118t984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 TotalPreparation 14.9 - - - - - - - - - 14.9

Appraisal 41.1 16.0 - - - - - - - 57.1

Negotiation - 4.0 - - - - - - - - 4.0 1

Supervision - 0.5 9.4 10.3 13.8 11.5 8.2 4.1 6.5 6.2 70.5 L

PCR - - - - - - - - 10.5 10.5

Toal 56.0 20.5 9.4 10.3 13.8 11.5 8.2 4.1 6.5 16.7 157.0

1/ These data are more recent updates than the data shown in the July 25, 1991 Project Performance Audit Report (Report No.9750).

Page 2Table 8 - Use of Bank Resources

Bl. Minion Data

Stae of Pnrc*t Cycle Sct by; DaMe of Repw No. of Peoon' Period in te FielW Rating Trcad w Type of Probkms

Appras IDA March 1933 5 April/May 1982 - -Supeviaon I IDA December 1933 1 (A) October 1933 (5) 2 2 MFSupervisioan IDA Angus 19S4 3 (A,A,E) July 1984 (10) 2 2 MTSupuvision 3 IDA July 1935 3 (A,A,E) June 19SS (9) 2 2 MTSupezvim 4 IDA September1935 2(A,E) OctoberI985(5) 2 2 MTSupervision5 1DA April 1986 1 (A) March 1986 (N/A) 2 2 MTSupe*iaion 6 IDA November 1986 1 (A) September/October 19S6 (5) 2 2 MFSpevim? IDA May 1987 I (A) Marh 1987(8) - 2 2 MTSuperviaoc a IDA Deccmber 1937 6 (N/A)" October/November 1937 (25) 2 2Supervisio9 IDA June 193S 4 (A,A,A,E)a' May/June 19S8 (24) 2 2Sevison 10 IDA Jamay 1939 4 (A,A,A,E)M October/Noveiber 19SS (30) 2 2Superviion II IDA July 1939 4 (A,A,A,E) February/March 1939 (30) 2 2Supervision 12 IDA Febmary 1990 3 (A,A,A)" November/December 1939 (25) 2 2Supervision 13 IDA August 1990 2 (A,A) July 1990 (N/A) 2 2PCR FAO/CP March 1991 2 (E,A) February 1991 (18)

a Ik brskseclirbn: A Agriut H; E E iI barkast Nuamer ddays.

' I - prmn foer 2 - moere prmbk; 3 = maor peble.P - F_ww; It - Muanaerali; T -Technical; P Political; 0 = Other.

' Miim suprviuim for NRDP il, NRDP IV, Reacr, euiasio. ptoject Al the sae time.

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM £NRDP) PHASE IV. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 1: Crop Budget - Lilongwe NE-RDPI Ha Maize

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~va w t* wr Pt :1

SA SAt - Aa SA ActuaWl&o.qw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yidm (klh) 3,160 I,S 1.3Q0 3,400 2.700 2,600 Not UsnNice (MKIka) 0300 030 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.3Q0Grt_aaa Omi 341 450 390 3,Q00 *10 o730

B. Vui"a co" O)

SIedt" . 7.5 7.5 7.5 -40 40 22Peutilizet' * 36.0 - 302t 344 260''Dipz - - 21 - 21Cmdit - 45.4 48.0 37.9

Tol Coda: 7.5 45.S 7.5 406.4 432 340.9C. awsMra 340.5 404.5 3n2.5 611.6 373 439.1

Labor(mUlday) IQ0 305 110 145 3IS 130D. 1m OIKdy) 3.4 3.9 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.4

Acual yields are based on averages for the period 1983-84 to 1989-90 as provided by LADD.tLoal maize: 25 kg at MK 0.3/kg; hybrid MH12: 20 kg at MK 2.0/kg.Prices of feftilizers: CAN at MK 42/50 kg bag; 20:20:0 at MK 44/50 kg bag; Sulphate of Ammonia at MK 38/50 kg bag.

4 50 kg of Sulphate of ammonia." 200 kg of 20:20:0 plus 150 kg of CAN.4 200 kg of CAN plus 200 kg of 20:20:0.

100 kg of CAN plus 200 kg of 20:20:0.4 Interest at 12.5%.

PROJECT COMPLEION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 2: Crop Budget - liloprwe NE-RDP ad Dcdza Hills RDPI Ha Grondaua (Chaiom)

Without Pojc*t With PrMoct

No Spraying with Daconil Sprmyed with Daconil

SAR SAR Actual SAR Acual

A. Outu

Yield (kg&a) 300 480 400 800 Not UscdPrie (Jkg) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

GM"u Revete (K) 300 480 400 800 wB. Variabk Cod* ( K

Sed 88 88 88 88

Devil siy - - 210

1 Co tof qrsycr - 60CM"dit - 11 11 45

Toal Cods: 88 99 99 403

C. Om"l4argi/aX 212 381 301 397I.abor (md/day) 187 196 180 218

D. _om (MKIdaI) 1.13 1.94 1.67 1.82

" Actual yields are based on averages for the period 1983-84 to 1989-90 as provided by LADD.21 80 kg/ha at MK 1. I/kg.31 Interest at 12.5%.

- 37 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVPLOPMENT PROGRM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MA

ANNEX 1: Table 3: Crop Budget - Lilongwe NE-RDPI Ha Tobacco

SAR | SMA| Actual

A. Output

Yield (kg/ha)" 350 450 423

Price (MK/kg) 2 1.9 3 3

Gross Revenue 665 1,350 1,269

B. Variable Costs

Seed

Nursery 13.9 13.9 13.9

Fertilizer 128 304 216

Credit " 17.7 39.7 28.7

Total: 159.6 357.6 258.6

C. Gross Margin 505.4 992.4 1,010.4

Labour (md) 350 370 370

D. Income (MK/md) 1.44 2.68 2.73

Actual yields are based on average for tbo period 1983/84-1989/90 as provided by LADD.Higher prices for the with project situadon are due to better quality and grading.7.4 packets/ha of Daconil at MK 0.92/packet, plus 7.4 packetsha of Dithane at MK 0.96/packet.With Project: 100 kg of CAN at MK 42/50 kg bag, plus 50 kg of 20:20:0 at MK 44/50 kg bagWith Project SAR: 100 kg of CAN plus 250 kg of 20:20:0With Project Actual: 100 kg of CAN plus 150 kg of 20:20:0ittes at 12.5%.

- 38 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 4: Crop Budget - RDP and DHRDPI Ha Beans (Intercropped with Maize)

Without Project With Project

SAR SAR Actual

A. Output

Yield (kg/ha) 150 400 250

Price (MKIkg) 0.75 0.75 0.75

Gross Revenue 112.5 300.0 187.5

B. Variable Costs

Seed" 18.8 18.8 18.8

Fertilizer

Credit

Total: 18.8 18.8 18.8

C. Gross Margin 93.7 281.2 168.7

Labor (md) 60 90 80

D. Income (MK/md) 1.56 3.12 2.11

At 25 kg/ha at MK 0.75/kg.

PROJECT COMPIllN RISPRT

MALAWNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MRn e.PHASE iv CREDIT 1343-MA

ANNEX 1: Table 5: Crop Budget - Dedza Hills RDPI Ha Maize

WV*ma Pijec WI* Pediee(Lacal Maize) - a8 - ) ''(H*uid) - (Cwuyi)

sAl SAR Actual SAR Actua SAR ActuaA. Om"

ree (4A) sU3 1.200 900 3.0O0 2.500 2.250 Not Uatdrie (MIka 030 030 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300

Gn_ Sever (M) 20 360 270 900 750 675S. Vaab emu Om

Seed' 7.5 7.5 7.5 40 40 22- _ . - 38.0 - 302' 344' 260'

- =_ - -- 211 - 214S.4 4320 37 9

7.5 45.5 7.3 40 .4 432 340.9232.5 314.5 262.5 491.6 313 334.1

120 130 1O0 165 113 150.9 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.8 2.2

Actual yields are based on averages for Ihe period 1983-44 to 1989-90 as provided by LADD.Local maize: 25 kg at MK 0.3/kg; hybrid MH12: 20 kg at MK 2.01kg.Prices of fertilizers: CAN at MK 42/50 kg bag; 20:20:0 at MK 44/50 kg bag; Sulphate of Ammonia at MK 38/50 kg bag.50 kg of Sulphae of ammonia.

' 200 kg of 20:20:0 plus 150 kg of CAN.200 kg of CAN plus 200 kg of 20:20:0.

100 kg of CAN plus 200 kg of 20:20:0.s Interest at 12.5%.

- 40 -

PROJECT CQMPLETION REPORT

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 6: Crop Budget - Dedza Hills RDPI Ha Potatoes

Without Project With Project

SAR SAP Actual

A. Output

Yield (tllha) 3.400 6,000 4,500

Price (MK/kg) 0.50 0.5 0.5

Grou Revenue 1,700 3.000 2,250

S. Variable Costs

Seed " 500 770 770

Ferdlizer" 38 176 176

Dithane- 66 66

Credit - 126.5 126.5

TotaL' 538 1,138.5 1,138.5

C. Gou Margin 1.162 . 1,861.5 1,111.5

Labor (md) 275 336 260

D. Income (MK/md) 4.23 5.54 4.28

1,000 kg/ha, retained seed without project, purchased seed with project.2z 50 kg of Sulphate of ammonia for without project, and 200 kg of 20:20:0 for with project. Prices:

sulphate of ammonia at MK 38/50 kg, and 20:20:0 at M1 44/50 kg bag.2 kg/ha at MK 33/kg.Interest at 12.5%.

- 41 -

PROJECT CQMPLEIN REPOFRa

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELQPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 7: Stallfueder Model -Gross Revenue for Finishod Steer Sold at Cold Stomg

A. ASsumP1o1S:

Grade of steer at fimis Chois.Liveweight at star (kg) 275Liveweight at rfish (kg) 422Cold dressed weight at fiush (kg) 228

Price (MX/kg cw) 4.5

- GrI s Value of Mat Prodtica (MK) 1,026.

C. Vaale Cost (MK!:Pwrhs of feeder steer 440.0Handln charg 70.4Salt 1 . 36.0Feed "' 81.6

Credit' SS1

Tookb 683.0

D. Gros Ro u (MKX) 343.0

AT MK L6/kg 1w.2l At 16% of *a l of pwd eedsO .31 9 kg d sa at MI 44/k4

680 kg4 Mad at MI 0.12/kgShoreter loa for the pwchm of seu, interes 12a5%.

- 42 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 8: Dairy Cow Program -Two Cow Unit: Estimated Gross Revenue

A. Invustmen Costs

I In-af heifers (two animals UA bred)" 860

Spray pump 420

Milk chums 120

Total: 1,400

B. Opeating Cost

Maize bran 128.4

Daiy ation N 43.0

Sak 60.0

Dmpg 160.0

Rhodes gusa sed 72.5

Manure (fahm produce) -

Labor (I pemant labourer) 180.0

Casual labor 100.0

Annual foe to building group and CREMPA 5.0

Contribution 12.0

Total. 961.5

C. Gtou Valu of P _oduoa:

Milk: 1,800 Wacow/yer at MK 0.54/liL 1,944.0

MewaL Sthed (275 kg lw at MK 1.5/k gw) 440.0

Total: 2,3U4.0

At MIK 430/hd - subsidized price - act&al price is M} 800/hd., 1,070 k at M 0.12/ks.

8 Two bagp at MK 21.48/bag.4' lhre, bapg at M} 20.0/bag.

Includign 4 InjdtIon treaumm deworming and 4 lit. of supona acaicide at MK 40Ai.MAt MX 15/month.

71 Medium-term loan to cover invetment costs, interest at 12.5%. Capital recovery factor over 5 yearapplied.

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE W. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 9: Typical Farm BudgetLilongwe NE (Maize Farmer)

Wdbo Prjct fwdh P IC--p crw mmO,. Labu G m Iom C C muCop N h) |IL_ G M hho

_____________ I (.01 I~~1K) I}4 1 4d) ._____I l(n) I(MK) l (MK/.d

Local Maize 0.9 90 306.5 3.4 Local Maize 0.6 66 229.5 3.5Phu,a (0.9)' 54 U4.3 1.6 Pula (0.6) 4U 101.2 2.1Ial Maize 0.2 20 68.1 3.4 HybrW Maize 0.4 46 151.2 3.3Gmndm 0.2S 46.8 53.0 1.5 Grosadmat 0.3 54 90.3 1.7Oshen' t0.15 9 14.1 1.6 Ohbcu 0.2 16 33.7 2.1

1.30 219.S 526.0 2.4 ToWl: I S0 230 60S.9 2.63 ine' 105.2 121.2

Based on I ha crop budgets as given in Tables I to 6.lntercropped with local maize.

" Includes soya beans, sweet potatoes, vegetables, cassava: based on I ha bean budget as given in Table 4.4 Family size of 5.

PROJECT COMPLETION REORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP} PHASE [M. CREDT 1343-MM

ANNEX 1: Table 10: Typical Farm BudgetLilongwe NE (Tobacco Farmer)

________________ Wi*bosas Project __________ Walh Prcjccm

Crp Cp A () bo GroMrg lacom Crrp Crop A a) Labo Grlu Margin Inan oc

(rnd) IMK) (MX/ind) (mdj (MK) (MKIuW)

Lcla 1.2 120 40S.6 3.4 Local Maize 1.0 110 382.5 3 5

Pulses (1.2)> 72 112.4 1.6 Pulses (1.0)" 60 93.7 1.6

loclMaize 0.35 35 119.2 3.4 HybridMaize 0.4 46 151.2 3.3

Tobacco 0.35 122.S 176.9 1.4 Tobacco 0.4 148 404 2 2.7

Grour 0.35 65.5 74.2 1.1 GCoundauu 0.4 72 120.4 1.7

Okhen " 0.25 15:0 23.4 1.6 OLhers 0.3 24 50.6 2.1

ToW: 2.50 430.0 914.7 2.1 Total: 2.50 460 1.208.6 2.6

Per Capita Jcoome * 132.9 2N0.

U Based on I ha crop budgets as given in Tables I to 6.2' Intercropped with local maize.I Includes soyabeans, sweet potatoes, vegetables, cassava: based on the bean I ha budget as given in Table 4.l Family size of 5.

PROJECT COMPLLTON REPORT

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PtOGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 11: Typical Farm BudgetLilongive NE (Tobacco/Dairy Farmer)

Wdhout Pjecl Web Pwj.cl

Csop Cop Area (ha) Labor GoMx Marsin i|coen Crop Crqp JAm (he) Lab"r GhM p IncmeI (mzd) OAK) I ( aUd) ( PA (K) (mdJ)

A. Ciopa'

Laci Maize 0.7 70 238.4 3.4 Locl Maize 0.5 S5 191.3 3 5Pulac (0.7)' 42 65.6 1.6 Pulcs ().5)2 40 U4.4 2.1Local Maize 0.2 20 68.1 3.4 Hybrid Maize 0.4 46 151.2 3.3Guoundma 0.15 26 31.J 1.1 Groundnar 0.2 36 60.2 1.7Tobacco 0.25 t7.5 126.4 1.4 Tobacco 0.4 148 404.2 2.7Psture" 1.20 , - Inpr. Pasure 1.0 - - .

Total: 2.50 247.5 530.3 2.1 Totl: 2.50 325 391.3 2.7B. Uvesock - 365 94S 2.6 365 1,422.5 3 9

Total: 612.5 1,478.3 2.4 Touta: 690 2.313.3 3.4Per Capita Iancone 295.7 462.3

" Based on I ha crop budgets as given in Tables I to 6.Intercropped with local maize.

' I Inimprisved palsture.

* ltjais.a.u N1.eper/KlUiues gr.us. Relative pr4iduction costs and bene-its included in the dairy model as presented in Table 8.' lndy %1si, of 5.

PROJECT COMPLETlON REPORT

MALAMNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDPI PHASE IV. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 12: Typical Farm BudgetDedza Hills - EPA 5 and 6

Crop Ctrp Area Labor |G naM ua Income Crep Crop Co e ) bo Q., Mar& I..na) I (md O (O/md) v (old) (MK) MKand

Local Maize 0.9 108 2093 1.9 Local Maize 0.6 60 IS7.? 2.6

Pulses v(0.9)t 54 U4.3 1.6 rulses (0 6)v 4S 101.2 2.1

L4aCl Maize 0.2 24 46.5 1.9 Hybrid Maize 045 50.9 143.1 2.R

Grundauta 0.2 37.4 42.4 1.1 Pulns (0.45) - 36 75.9 2.1

Poaoes' 0.1 27.S 116.2 4.2 Soyabeaa 0.10 6 16.9 2.1

.Grundmus 0.10 la 30.1 1.7

Potatoes 0.15 39 166.7 4.3

Toal: 1.4 250.9 498.7 2.0 Total: 1.4 259.9 691.4 2.7

Per Capita Incoae 99.7 138.3

" Based on I ha crop budgets as given in Tables I to 6.2! Intercropped with local maize.

Intercropped with hybrid maize.4 Includes vegetables." Same as beans.

Family size of 5.

PROJECT COMPLEnTON REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURLAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDPU PFH ASE IV. CREDrr 1343-MAM

ANNEX 1: Table 13: Typical Farm Budget"Dedza Hills - EPA 7 and 8

_ iP .ith Prjc

Crp Crp AM LArW GFr o MaqOn ome Crqp Crop Ame (ha) Labor Gnrs Mafi, neorne_b_) JOLLdL (M14, Cud) . (m Im

ocal Maize 0.S 96 186 1.9 Local Maize 0.56 56.0 147.0 2.6Pulses (0.3)' 48 75 1.6 Puaea (0.56)21 44.J 94.5 2.1Local Meize 0.2 24 46.5 1.9 Hybrid Maize 0.40 45.2 127.2 2.3Potatoes 0.2 55 232.4 4.2 Pulses (0.40) 32.0 67.5 2.1

Po.atoes" 0.24 62.4 266.8 4.3Tota: 1.20 223 539.9 2.4 Total: 1.20 240.4 703.0 2.9

Per Capita Incone 108 140.6

" Based on I ha crop budgEts as given in Tables I to 6.' Intercropped with local maize.

Includes vegetables." Intercropped with hybrid maize.

Family size of 5.

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALALNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE W. CREDIT 1343-MA!

ANNEX 1: Table 14: Total Project Cfop Afea v

Cropl Writheit 1peject Wlb Project lacremeutalMD Hills | Llksbwe NE. | ltal Dedt Hills Lib"gewe NE i Totll_

Maize local 34,000 30,200 64.200 30,600 28,500 59,100 (5,100)Maize hybrid 900 2,000 2,900 1,500 2,900 4,400 1,500 00Beans 10,000 1,300 11,300 11,000 1,500 12,500 1,200Groundnuts 1,700 1.600 3,300 1,500 1.500 3,000 (300)Potatoes 1,300 - 1,300 2,100 - 2,100 800Soya beans - - - 1,200 500 1,700 1,700Tobacco - 1100 1,100 - 1,300 1,30C 200

Totak 47,900 36,200 84,100 47,900 36,200 84,100 -

t Dsba rhe wihoulsiuaionderied rom LADD'sprogessfePOs 1990 br bothDedua HisandtIongweNd For thepurposeo eslimatinglheincremenlkproduction derived kom pw>jectrelated activities. Oe same aopped aea wr the with project situaion has been maintamed but actual changes mn Ihe aopping pattern have been introduced

- 49 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE tV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Tabl IS: Total loIncrmmdl Crop Production 11

Without Projlct With Project

Yildd Productdo Yield Productioa lcremental(ton/ba) I (too) (toe/ha) I (too) (ton)

A. Dedan Hils

Maize local 0.8 27,200 0.9 27,540 340

Maize hybrid 2.2 1,980 2.5 3,750 1,770

Bcans 0.15 1,500 0.25 2,750 I,250

Groundauts 0.3 510 0.4 600 90

Potatoes 3.4 4,420 4.S 9,450 5,030

Soya beaus 0.25 300 300

Tobacco .

B. LJougwo NEMaize local 1.16 35,130 1.3 37,050 2,020

Maize hybrid 2.4 4,800 2W7 7,830 3,030

Beans 0.15 195 025 375 180

Groundauts 0.3 480 0.4 600 120

Potatoes .

Soya beans 0.25 125 125

Tobacco 0.35 385 0.42 546 161

" Yield 'ampdon daWd h.v 1 ha ap budes (Table 1 to 6) Cropped ae um in Tble 14.

- 50 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE rV PROJECT, CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Tabk 16: Total Incremental Elvestock Productlon

Producwoo/Ulit No. ot UnitsI Tota Production

A. Stfadleedr_ _

Meat 228 kg 1,721 392 tons

B. Dah7 Catte 2/

Milk 3,600 Ut. 102 367,200 lit.

Meat 138 kg 102 14 tons

Bad o the ualfd modbl m m iA Tab 7.Vd B a th dairycau co mod Iasm in Ta* &

- 51 -

PROJECr COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEEX 1: Table 17: Financial bnd Economic Prices

Unit Financial (NM) Economic (MUX)

A. Crops"

Maize ton 300 656

Groundnuts ton 1,000 826

Tobacco ton 1,900 (without project) 4,848

Tobacco ton 3.000 (with prject) 4,848

Beans ton 750 1,192

Soya bea ton 750 1,192

Pottoes ton 500 S00

B. Livestck Product"

Meat kg/lw 1.6 3.7

Milk lit. 0.54 0.80

" Economic pric of crops as tha ued in Malawi NRDP m PCR (May 1990).

u Deailed calculation of economic pice of mam and milk le given in Table 18 and 19 spectively.

- 52 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINABONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT, CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 1S: Ecooomic Price of Meat

(1995 - USS/ton)

1. Projected price in 85 constant terms 1,790

2. Price in 1990 constant terms 2,634

3. Cif Blantyre 2,719

(1995.MK/ton)

4. Cif Blantyre (MK/ton) 3/ 6,933

S. Handli changes (10%) 693

6. Transport to market '-_

7. Price at market 7,682

S. Conversion factor 0.48

9. Price (Iw) 3,687

10. Tramport (arm whoesal_at

11. Farm gte prce (MK/toU) 3,715

12. Fans gae prce (MX/kg 1w) 3.7

13. Farm SW pnM f&ad (MX/ 1w) 1.6

14. Cowvenia aca 2.3

/ Wol Da k pic p*ow anuuy 1991MUV L4717 appleUS U I - MXz2S

4' 400 km rnu trip at MX 0.14/t im

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Q4RDP) PHASE W. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX l: Table 19: Economic Price ol Milk

tNo. Fat Dried Milk Butter Fat RRecoasiluted Milk.................................................. 199S...................

1. EEC - Fob price (1985 constant price) USS/lon 6912. New Zealand - Fob price (19S5 constant price) USS/ton 1,8803. Fob prices in 1990 terms v 1,017 2,7674. Cif price Lilongwe (USS/ton) 1,167 2,917s. cir price Lilongwe (MK/lon) 2v 2,976 7,4386. Handling changes (12%) 3S7 VI7. Price ex port 3 333 ,331S. Transport to dairy pbant (3%) 100 2509. Price ex dairy plant of elements 3,433 8,58110. Cost of non fat dried milk (9.5%) 326I i. Cost of butter fat (3.5%) S3

Sub-total: 62612. Cost or reconstitution (5%) 3113. Preference bonus for fresh milk (10%) 6314. Conversion kg/litre (5%) -1

Prce of Milk Ex Dairy rbodt (MK/1,000 I) 751iS. Cost at milk collection centre (7%) 51

Total Production Cost (MK! ,O00 1) 804Total Productioe Cost (MK/I Economic) 0.80

16. Financial Farm Gate Price 0.5417. Conversion Faclor 1.48

" MUV of 147t1s Fppied21 USS I - MK255

PROJECT COMPLETlON REPORT

NATIONAL RURAL DELOpm PROGRAM (NRDPp PfAsE . CREDIT 1343-MU

ANNEX 1: Table 20: Estimated Production Cost in Economic Tenns(With Project)

A. Crops - I I ' IMaize Local Maize Hybrid Pulses Tobacco Groundnuts Potatoes

Seed 7.5 40.0 18.8 - 88.0 770.0Feililizer - 330.0 - 211.0 - 172.0Chenicals - - - - - 66.0Labor (family) 110.0 115.0 80.0 370.0 180.0 260.0Other (nursery cost) - - 13.9 - -

Total: 117.5 485.0 98.8 594.9 268.0 1,268.0

B. Livestock Production (MKlUnit) '

StaUfeeder unit 728

Dairy 2 cow unit 1,126

llawd 4in I fa cntp budgets as given in Tables I to 6.I n ro-ir, .4 icnala,cr arc Ibsiac used in the M,lawi NRDP Ill. PCR (May 1990). Family labour costed at MK l1nd.

*Iaesd .m the ondcks as given an Tables 7 end 8; family labour costed at MK I/md.

- 55 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAMInATONAL RURAL DeVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE tV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANEX 1: Table 21: Project lncrementlal Operatiog Costs (Eeonomic)

Without Project Wltb ProjectA. Crops Cost/ha it Total Cost/ba t Total Increimental

(NiK) (NItKW0) (NIK) ( llK'OOO) (NIK'OOO)Dedza 11111l* Maize local 105 3,570 118 3,611 41

* Maize hybrid 400 360 485 728 368

*Beans 99 990 99 1,089 99

- Groundouts 275 468 268 402 (66)

* Potatoes 813 1,057 1,268 2,663 1,606

* Soya beans 99 119 119

* Tobacco *

Sub-total 6,445 8,612 2,167

Ulongws NE

* Maize local los 3,171 118 3,363 192* Maize hybrid 400 800 485 1,407 607

*Beam 99 129 99 149 20

* Gtoundnuus 275 440 268 402 (38)

*Potatoes '

•Soya beans . 99 S0 50* Tobacco 492 541 595 774 233

Sub-lotak S,081 6,145 1,064

TOTAL CROPS: 11,526 14,757 3,231

Incrementll(MK'000)

B. Uveatock rodi lo31

Stalifeeder uwk (1.721 uIti) 1,253Dair, 2 cow u.k (102 unh) 115

Subl" 136

TOTAL PROJECr 4,599

st DetlA are givem b Table I to 6.

Details ae gien bm Table 20.

- 56 -

PROJECT COMPLETI ,ON UPORT

MALAYNAONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PRORAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MS

ANWEX 1: Table 22: loIuatos/Defiaton 1983/84.1990/91

Consume PrksI Flnancial Coususoer loflator, Delatonl Indexx | Year I Price I dox

Year (1983lOO)

1983 75.2

1984 90.5 1983/84 79.0 2.92 1.00

1985 100.0 1984/85 92.9 2.48 1.18

1986 114.0 1985/86 103.5 2.23 1.31

1987 142.8 1986/87 121.2 1.90 1.53

1988 191.1 1987/88 154.9 1.49 1.96

1989 215.0 1988/89 197.1 1.17 2.49

1990 234.0 1989/90 2193 1.05 2.78

1991 221.03' 1990/91 2308 1.00 2.92

*t SOWwu bIm ioa.uL Fbmaa Sa hd (3M?: March 1991).V From AprdI 1. March 3L3 Bqim.i.t 1991 * (miasma adt"a).

PROJECT COMPLEMION REPORT

!ATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMERT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV. CREDrr 1343MAI

ANNEX 1: Tabl 23: Total Project Cost by Compost(Cusrmo MK'WO v

(Pg I)

C_mpoes 19/3/14 1394/35 1935/6 1986/17 1917/811 193/3 3939/90 19 901 Total

1. Extension S6.6 181.6 96.0 132.3 203.4 62.3 41.4 72.7 £511.2. Training 40.4 62.7 156.0 99.4 $39.1 74.6 171.5 197.5 1,341.23. Research 0.2 0.1 6.0 31.6 22.0 3.3 4.3 - 68.04. Horticulture - - 2.2 2.0 2.6 1.9 0.7 9.45. Land husbandry - 9.3 29.5 33.6 17.4 2.9 9.9 - 102.66. Livestock - 305.1 61.3 122.0 339:0 263.6 13.9 15.7 921.37. Credit and marketint - 202.0 934.2 10.7 7.6 33.3 2,651.1 - 3,817.4S. Mon. and evaluation 2.6 14.0 10.3 33.6 2S.0 21.1 7.1 14.2 128.49. Programme HQs LADlD 372.6 712.9 1.162.4 1,055.1 932.6 1,641.2 3,168.9 2,225.3 11,977.210. Soseboks - 125.2 109.0 553.4 151.0 1.460.2 320.5 1.601.t 4,326.1

Total: 478.4 1,413.6 3,267.9 2,078.7 2,244.9 3,543.9 6,389.3 4,327.2 24,043.9

V As gwu in PM . Ta 3.

Smrre: Figures preoeid by Flsacila Coutretler, LADD.

PROJECT COMPLETON REPORT

MALAWNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDPF PHASE Iv. CREDrr 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 23: Total Project Cost by Compomeul(Constsant £ 99091 Prices) V

(MK'000)

(rage 2)

Co_pients 3983/34 1934/15 "985/6 1986/37 1937J/3 1933/f 219/0 "991 To;aI

1. Extension 165.3 450.4 214.1 251.4 310.5 73.5 43.5 72.7 1,551.42. Training 111.0 155.4 347.9 188.9 803.3 97.3 130.1 197.5 2,078.4 003. Resarch 0.6 0.2 13.4 60.0 32.8 4.4 4.5 - 315.94. Horticulture - 4.9 3.8 3.9 2.2 0.1 - 5.5S. Land husbandry - 23.1 65.8 - 63.8 25.9 3.4 10.4 - 192.46. Livestock 262.4 137.8 231.8 505.1 308.4 14.6 15.7 1,415.87. Credit and aurketing - 501.0 2,083.2 20.3 11.3 13.8 2.783.7 - 5,413.34. Mon. and evaluation 7.5 34.7 24.1 63.8 37.2 24.7 7.4 14.2 213.69. Programme HQs LADD 1,105.s 1,768.0 4,153.1 2,004.7 1,389.9 1,920.2 3,327.4 2,225.3 17,894.110. boreholes 310.5 243.1 1,061.0 225.0 1,708.4 461.5 1,601.8 6,011.3

Total: 1,396.9 3,505.7 7,2S7.4 3,949.5 3,344.9 4.146.3 7,233.8 4,127.2 34,9917

' O h mren ie a hAnne I1, TabGe 21.

- 39 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT, CREDIT 1343-MAI

.ANNEX 1: Table 24: Total Project locremtenta Gross Value of Production at Full Development(in Economic Terms)

Price f _nat locremental Gross(MK/too) Prod0tou 21 Value of Production

(toes) (MI4'000+ A. Crops

Maize 656 7,160 4,697

Beans 1,192 1,430 1,705

Groundtuts 826 210 173

Tobacco - 4,848 161 781

Soya beans 1,192 42S 507

Potatoes 3 / 500 5,030 2,515

. Sub4osls 10,378

-a u tok ProducUo.Meat 3.7 (MKikg 1w) 405 1,502

MiLk 0.8 (MK/lie) 367,200 (lt) 294

Sub.tota. 1,796

TOTAL 12,174

As Om in Table 17.2' Deai an pme in Table 1 fo crop pducaio and in Ta 16 t1 r liwok productn3/ Icludes otder vegetabke, tomatoes, ono casva and swlt po _o

- 60 -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRA (NRDP) PHAE IV PROJECT CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 25: Estimated Project Economic Rate of Retum

Years Investment Costs" Incremental Incremental Gross BalanceOperating Costs Benefits I

-- . ------ (MK'000)--------------------

1 1,398 460 1,217 (641)2 3,506 690 1,826 (2,370)

3 7,287 920 2,434 (5,773)4 3,950 1,150 3,043 (2,057)5 3,345 1,380 3,651 (1,496)

6 4,146 1,610 4,260 (1,074)

7 7,234 1,840 4,868 (4,206)

8 4,127 2,300 6,085 (342)9 1,967 2,760 7,302 2,575

10 1,967 3,220 8,519 3,332

11 1,967 3,680 9,736 4,089

12 1,967 4,140 10,953 4,846

13-20 1,967 4,599 12,174 5,608

Economic Rate of Retum: 12.3%

U Ais Om i Tab 23.

A gives in Table 21: FuU dkealpms at Year 13 (1995/96).As Om in Tabl 24: FuU delopmt a Yew 13.Exiratd aiia openting cos baud on LADD 199191 pnovision.

PROJECT COMPCJTIN REPORT

NATONAL PYUR DVFELOPMENT P0GRAM NRMPHASEW.CREDMTI34-MA1

ANNEX 1: Table 26: Seasonal CrediS Uptake - Dedza hillIs RDP1983/64 - 1990/91 (M. Tons) It

: .: S : : : : NWrl ~~~~~~~~~~*u . : : a :...~aIIl :~e IOau :

: ~V,5V~VIS 4 : : tile: : ,: anil ELM I LU4 IIEI Valve I:23.21.4#45: W I SIA U Ure: CAN I SEES 1 6Jluts Deans: lSacShetsl: FUNKS I FUNlEK INK)

k talt 1 330.75 S 349.751 21.31 i 18.91 : 310 1: 2593: 217,121.10 ;

: 134115: t t : 101.40 : 2 1.w : : 430.0 : 1S.50 : 0.45 : : g : VIA : we : 241,t2.00::ktal 1 335.50 : : : 121.2 : 20.51 : 12.8 : 132: 74: 3021 1 31j,719.00:

:1I IU : nteulet : 415. 0 : : : 528.75 : 3I.13 : .7& : : 945 N: : Ni : S0.9££.7:k :ktoal I 301.10 : 1 373.70 : 14.1£ : 40.71 :: 550 I 1 : 3390 : 341,202.00 :

a. :

1911311 :1 taret: 3 3.0 1 42.00 : I t..00 441.00 : 21.7 : 5.00 3.00 : : f15 N1A 421,100.00k: al : 311.B5 1 3.10 : 7.60 4 2.Y5 359.15 : 7.314: 1.316 1 50: II:: 4141 401,799.49:

a. . .... .

:1i"7E0 t .arget 370.00 42.00 : 49.00) 1441.0 : 21.0 : 50.0: 3.00 : : A : N/ 1 : 440,059.00a : ktval: 1 244.75 : ;SI.tu : 7.15 : 451.1S 1 311.51 : 9. J : 11.321 : usa : is5 : 6421 : 700,05.76:. . . . .

:193813U ITiget : 31U.50 362.59 1 i2.50 : 188.70 1 488.70 1 31.10 : 123.0: : 0.i: 11"20 : N/A S i/A : 973,170.40ktal : 371.&U :195.65 : : 530.11 : 249.65 : 19.i : 40.31 : : 176 : 117 1 9152 : 992,Y44.25

1:1919": Target : 400.00 : 400.00 W. : 6.0t! I: 111.00 34.71 : 51.40 1 l7.34 : 110 221 1 7631 1,893,221.40:iujl : 305.05 : 43.56 ; .o :lnlO.a18: I157.65 1. t.95 : : 1.02 : 149: ,77: 11001 1,671,672.60

: :

:199019111: :::::Actual: 593.50 169.13 :454.75 1 eB.11 1 02.75: 11.07 tB0.607 1197 1 06 1 .9: I.01,4190.&5

Incluadng hnds koin omsowes Ksditwo to theprovision made undir lheprojeclt Acitualligures for project support crealit activities were not avi114)le.

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINAMONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV, CREDIT 1343-MAI

ANNEX 1: Table 27: Seasonal Credit Uptake - LIIogiwe East RDP1W3/U4 - 19"/Ol (M. Tons) v

: : : I : : : Hyhrid : : : : : lo 2: : 1 22.20.U: : : : Ih Ii2e: : : lacanil CIUI!S HEIIIERS Vile :2 2 123.21.0#45: W 2 S/A Ur:ta CAII : SEE0 : 6Iuts learns MiSacketsl: FUDElS I fMlED : IHl2 ::s:5::2 :smzsatSsStasaazzaaau:sa::a22a::…:::::::::::::::=:::::::::: -:::=

I kfual I 311.0 : 1.05: : 95.452 36.112 155.1;: : 4192 252: 91242 554,ou.h:: :

:191/1 S: argt: 25.W I : 111.01: : 564.0') 20.40: 93. 002 1i13 1 %/A NI/A: 417,524.00:u:klul: IS04.1 : : 12.5 : : 110.15: 25.48: 03.6:: Iles i 340: 11l35: q,151.23:

: *

i: ,;as,11: largt : 1411.1O: : : :175J.84: 92.51: 130.u8 : 118 : VIA : IAu 1,547,021.C :1: 3 ktul 2 1".10 : I : 029.05 52.10 2 15.52: : 1914 : 324 : 9313 907,211.50 :

' 193UI9 : tuaret 1 1324."0 14?.20: : 114.00 : 1565.80: 125.55 : 247.00 : 2519 N/A 1 N;A 2 1,652,21l.?O :2 k atul 2 411.00 : 13.03 2 61.10: 12 1.28e: 04.90 2 25.21 1 tG9.88 9I2' 270 7 19511 714,912.80

MIN I ptarg 1124.15 2 1.20 1 O4. 0 1165.10 2 64.91 : 241.00 :V : A : NIA 1,406,044.00I kttlaI 2 320.1 2 269.30 t4422 ! 414.7 ! 40.09: 234.80 t 80N 411 : 1199 : 1,214,990.35

1: 1019 2 farget 2 561.30 2 561.30 1 55.94 : 914.10 2 94.1 2 103.20: 131.51: : 1?2 1 NI/A: IIIA: 1,985,340.30 1! ktual 2 451.20 2 501. 4 2 : 917.64 : 511.80 : 26.8?12 222.30 2 : 26 : 481: 15211 1 1,955,154.40

: :

: 19910 2 Target : 1126.64 MM50.0 9:51.on: 9*4.10 110.00: 327.51 3 I12u 503 fl 2 1982J 3,115,916.001ActUal 1 516.28 452.50! 9"0.91 262.80 1'2.19 4.10 l ed : 390: 12591 2,133,69-2.ML

I9r0191 latlet 2 :Actual 2 595.90 574. 10 2 29i.l13: 641.21 158.21 31.96 1 t 1 474 : I501 3,562,590.41

V tnctudughndslromsourceskintdnto theprovWson mdeunderIheproleci. Actualliguires for project support credlit activities weic nll av3Sti)ible.

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWINATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDP) PHASE IV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MAI

UI 1: 1* at; .isl*_1.iu 4iea* - _att altos OM

twtr t t9ESJX l~~~~~~~~toll 11wit tSImI = _. _. ttt§t_______________________________ lti. l m t e l w Atwtm ! t a l_wt iActual, t e l.m,/t i w

faeuarIst 11. 34 as 5 2? 24 20 10 54 so rPIm*a U.. 3 12 10 4 to 1 10 I is ZAuWin us. I it 10 4 la S IB 2Cultisators o..Isr"k chains te. 21 1S 4 2 8 O

wbard aroe 3o& 20 40Sole wrfae a.. 51 i 1 40 28 40 20 so 2z 30 It 61 6 so 20

umK "n pirs & 17 4 66 3 3 11Dairyc t.. 10 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2a O 20 2 2Daily Wapieu POP so. I_____ to 4 10t I - - -tstsine Zw: U.2 7.tO 43020.1I 34.596.O0 44.67l.70 S5.109.10 1340 12 144.2452 U. .. 1 . So*Uml 4p*t : 3.91, S 0. V7.054.14 26e042.40 I .5S5.43 14. I. 24 2.689.00 .160. 0

S t _ * IiS

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

MALAWNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (NRDPI PHASE IV PROJECT. CREDIT 1343-MAI

I 1: IfM*D: Ilte29mierr _iInt4 1 - Li& Eert t

-a - MM ii - -stu - "tp"I/oMf

It_ lttu 1 t ActueA l It Actuti lte iActual larvaetlt |ctual t Taret AtV

F Wt mlo. e. 90 47 25 65 65 25 20 1IPtes4e se. 3 is 20 2U 35 is 5 5licowr so. 2 Is 20 2U 35 35 5 5Cultivteors Me. I? 4-

Ireak chains go. 20 34 34 5gabed wire flts 140 70SDID oprors Ml. 20 14 40 80 44 95 13 115 43 115 19 S0 8 5obbeet borrow lo.work amen Patir 1 33 1 s 5Dairyco" so. 70 52 70 4 70 r 0 70 37 70 8 70 2f 70 10Dairy &proingPAe me. 14 3 3S a 3s 12 10f *t iV_e1 War 14.960.01 27,207.10 118655.00 80,529.70 1a2,3a6.93 191,l87.38 s9,3 .70 69,352.20ctmA tda: MO27M6 8,241.91 1,S556.00 32,277.S 14,794.50 13,558.50 5,492.00 25,925.00

Stace: LAM t-1iu

IBRD1654732- 34s MALAWI AUGUST 19M2

:~ ( Xj>L>< ,>NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTINROP IV]

-IoLILONGWE NORTH EAST/DEOZA HILLS PROJECTLILONGWE NORTH EAST AND DEDZA HILLS le-PROJECT AREA (NROP IV)

BOUNDARIESOF AGRICULTURALOEVELOPMENT DIVISIONS

I 3! < < ' t < t } 7 * ADD HEADQUARTERS

\K Ro1 rGA ICChRI\ T EXISTING MAJORAG ICULTREPROJECTAREAS

IDA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCEva s g p _ Of.lo f~.ea .z/ / DTHER AGENCIES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

1IAIN9ROADS?-E-.-D+---1,RAII WAYS)-,-Y�----~ RIVERS

IL R-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~INITE RNATIONIAL BU1NDARIESP ORTS

\ n \ \ (/XIRIJUVU KuASITLJIi

z A M. B I A-12- '/ A ? 'f1

) -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.'-..

< ) ; j C~~~~~~~HIZUMULy

ISAN

. LONGWE h,ooko M O Z A M B I Q U E

J'M '', NkhotO

/ gZ, ( j 9 1 !L > X t zS l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V VlC.bro

r >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. k1. 5

,11 10 Z A Ul 0 I 40 RD 40 10 l_ 14 1 i L

, C Z A M BIE I E.> /2FoB

i ,,. .~~~--,,L, .D> 7

[ 2nV5JA-+ ~ ~ 0 2 40) 60 I'l 100% tl

>)rH ^F-rfA / 't N 0 20 40 60 dO14 1600 _3

IBRD 16549

MALAWI 34430' AUGUST 1982

ZAIRE TAINIZANI1Ar_ ZAIRE XANzAN,A NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENTr. g >> \ PROJECT IV (NRDPIV)

ANGOLA 1 ? DEDZA HILLS SUB-PROJECT AREA\.:J t1MkAWI R -13°45s 13-45'

ZAMBIA K¶4: * ongweI -i.g e- Sub-project area boundary

k J .< . / +os v ~~~~~E PA bc zndariesINAAIV Project Leeadquarters

NAMIBIA' \. .ZIM8BWE OC EA [AA EPA centers!BOTSWANA> ® Marketing centers

34011 1 Slaughter slabsThis map has been prepared by the 3415 A Poultry distribution housesWorld Bank's staff exclusively for (the convenience of the readers of [ /__the report to which it is attached. M rThe denominations used and the _ Main roadsboundaries shown on this mapdo not imply, on the part of the )Minor roadsWorld Bonk and its affiliates, any

judgment on the legal status of / \ '- Riversany territory or any endorsement " / aor acceptance of such boundaries. Railway

.-. -International boundaries

z ~~~/ IN\140 00 EPA 6 ToC hpok Lt 1400A

/ N/ (g '^t yoni / / \ 0/44 AIAlW

EPA5 I (l,/ -

t A l /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'1 - 1>1

ME '''I\ r;J i c , J\t

int'h - w f peZ

Kile om 5 10(\2tCr/

l _._ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~M O Z A M BlIQ o \kNeheu ro 8/ok

IBRD 16533-45 'roKostvgv 34.00 AUGUST 19

MMALAWI/ ( -. ^. ,2 NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IV (NRDP IV)

{_--t 8 -:l1 9 LILONGWE NORTH EAST SUB-PROJECT AREA

Chonde )[ So,;,13'4S5) 1 3v .H < < \ z-4

N 4%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ au Th gS a/ 2,SEPA~~~~~~~ 23 < > < iOtio

~~\-~~' IornbDzud 2 .' bona

EPA 2.14-00 Lil ileo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1.

E M kkhuzak

photo'

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' IS

,/~ ---Su6-project area boundory o hi is 1aa ZAMBIA

n h-- E PA boundaries h o hi a {|zdProject headquorters i o t p of the .

F13 EPA centers @Dip tanks a ,tsO atdeay fioDe/ e

1on15' 0 ~~Slaughter slobs L Kilometers o s to ,5 14 IS'

d Poultry distribution houses e sn Mle s O 5 I10(n Marketing centers a

Nation capital\Main roads <<345

-0 acetnefscudMinor roads / ZAIRE

Rivers . BrANA >.Swamps S. t__

._ .International boundaries Wotrld Bank's stadff ePxclusrievely yfor JN°A -1 !t{W

_ ho convenience of the readers of * ZAMBIA ilnr.ne ,epott to wehicht is atta7ched A, Se^u~The denom,netions used and the I of sp

boundanies shown on th, s map ) J do not imply on the pantof the _ *>~

Jufdgment nk tnhe legal status of F&, IAN 8Aw °s

any lerrntory or anyendorsement NAMIBIAi \1 CF A XN

-14-30' 334'o/acceptence ofsuchbo7undaf1e**ot _BOSAN i-v