detailed economic and financial analysis

Resilient Community Development Project (RRP MYA 51242)

Detailed Economic and Financial Analysis October 2019

MYA: Resilient Community Development Project

http://www.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/?id=51242-002-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A. INTRODUCTION 1

B. RATIONALE 1

C. OVERVIEW 2

D. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF REPRESENTATIVE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE 3

E. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ILLUSTRATIVE LIVELIHOOD INVESTMENTS 13

F. PROJECT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 29

G. ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF TABLES 37

1

A. Introduction 1. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) Resilient Community Development Project (RCDP) would be a seven-year investment project that aims to improve the living conditions of selected communities and strengthen their resilience against climate and disaster risks. The project would provide community infrastructure and livelihood financing to poor and vulnerable communities to address their most pressing needs viewed through climate and disaster risk and market opportunity lenses. It would also invest in building capacities of government agencies and communities in resilient community development and disaster risk management. The RCDP design includes a total of 17 vulnerable townships, which include about 800 village tracts, 2,940 villages and 1.8 million rural residents 2. Economic analysis is undertaken at the subproject level and overall project level.1 At the overall level a simulation approach is adopted that captures the inherent uncertainty in community-based development planning, institutional coordination, construction delivery.2 In addition, the simulation methodology allows the incorporation of the benefits of resilient engineering design in the face of losses imposed by random climatic events.3 The benefit stream is developed from the incremental net benefit streams of illustrative road, water supply and water management subprojects

3. Financial and sustainability analysis is conducted to determine the financial viability of the project outputs. The focus of this analysis is the ability of the climate resilient community infrastructure and livelihood models to sustainable generate positive net benefits. The ongoing operation and maintenance requirements and financing are detailed in each of the community infrastructure subprojects. All infrastructure models developed compare “with” and “without” project scenarios and include provisions for full operational costs and suitable replacements as necessary. Livelihood models examine the introduction of new technologies to existing practices as well as demonstrating new enterprises for potential investment. In both cases full investment, financing and operations costs are included.

B. Rationale 4. The potential for agricultural development in Myanmar is considerable, and the sector also offers the country’s most significant opportunity for achieving inclusive economic growth. Myanmar has over 20 million hectares (ha) of arable land, of which only 13.3 million ha (67%) was cultivated in 2015, of which 2.1 million ha was irrigated in the main monsoon season. The remaining 11.2 million ha was rainfed. Rice is the main crop. Others include pulses, oilseeds, maize, cotton, rubber, sugarcane, tropical fruits, and vegetables. Livestock production is also an important smallholder activity. The potential for further developing the value chain for these products is significant. 5. Myanmar ranks among the highest in the 2017 global climate risk index.4 Almost the entire country faces persistent weather-related problems. The coastal and delta regions are at high risk of cyclones, storm surges and tsunamis. The dry zone is at risk of droughts and fire. Most of the country experiences frequent flooding and landslides during the rainy season. The 2015 floods

1 While an economic internal rate of return (EIRR) is computed for the overall project, this is at the government’s

request and is not an ADB requirement. 2 An application of the risk analysis techniques described in: ADB. 2015. Economic analysis of climate proofing

investment projects. Manila; and ADB. 2017. Guidelines for the economic analysis of projects. Manila. 3 The underlying probability of events was assessed by the consultants. 4 Germanwatch. 2017. Global Climate Risk Index, 2017. Bonn.

2

and landslides severely affected 12 of the 17 states of Myanmar and displaced 1.6 million individuals. Total losses were estimated at $1.5 billion or 3% of gross domestic product. Thirty-seven percent of the damage was attributed to the agricultural sector. Climate conditions are projected to dramatically change in the foreseeable future with changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea levels. Disasters pose significant threats to development outcomes. They often result in loss of the sole source of income of the poor, especially when livelihoods are largely weather-dependent as in Myanmar. The 2015 floods destroyed more than half a million ha of rice fields and killed more than a quarter of a million livestock. Recovery from this disaster has been very slow, underlying the need for improved resilience.5 C. Overview 6. The economic and financial analysis (EFA) analysis of the RCDP comprises three elements. The first is an examination of the economic justification of representative infrastructure projects envisaged in Output 1: Climate and disaster-resilient community infrastructure developed. To this end economic analysis of an individual representative rural road, a rural water supply and a primary school subproject are presented. 7. This approach is consistent with ADB’s approach for community-based development (CBD) projects. In each case, the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) together with the related sensitivity analysis are presented. The three components of this analysis are summarized in Table 1 and presented in Section D.

Table 1: Infrastructure Subproject Economic Analysis

Description Benefit Costs Indicator

Representative road subprojects a lowland and an upland road

Economic value of travel time savings Economic cost of the subproject,

including the investment, operations and maintenance over the asset’s lifetime as well as the subproject’s share of the project management and capacity building costs

EIRR Representative village water supply subproject

Economic value of the non- and incremental water

Representative village primary school subproject

Economic value of incremental wage increase for school graduates

8. The second element of the analysis examines the representative livelihood activities resulting from investments in Output 2: Resilient livelihoods for poor men and women in project areas developed. Each livelihood concept is analyzed from a household or group perspective in financial terms. The objective is to demonstrate the financial viability of potential livelihood activities. Particular focus is placed on understanding the returns to household labor. To this end the estimated return per family day of labor is derived together with the ratio of that amount to the minimum daily wage. Fourteen livelihood activities have been developed covering a range of production and processing models across the township clusters (see Table 2). This analysis is presented in Section E.

5 The representative models developed to illustrate the type of costs and benefits arising from such community

investments. The costs and benefits combine Enhancing Rural Livelihoods and Incomes Project (ERLIP) and NCCP experiences to date together with RCDP team estimates. Further details on the costs of community infrastructure can be found in the community infrastructure supporting documentation.

3

Table 2: Illustrative Livelihood Models

Type of Livelihood Model Model Name

Agriculture / Livestock Production Models

Monsoon Rice / Cow Pea Household Enterprise

Elephant Foot Yam (EFY) Household Enterprise

Cardamom Household Enterprise

Chili Household Enterprise

Fruit Tree Nursery Group Enterprise

Cashew Group Enterprise

Piglet Raising Household Enterprise

Wild Fish Raising Household Enterprise

Terrace Fish Raising Household Enterprise

Terrace Group Model Enterprise Model

Sloping Agricultural Land Technology Household Model

Processing Models

EFY Solar Drying Group Enterprise

Coffee Parchment Group Enterprise

Green Tea Group Enterprise

Ice Production Group Enterprise

9. The third element of the EFA takes the form of an overall RCDP cost benefit analysis. This analysis uses the outputs of the infrastructure subproject and the livelihood analysis (outlined above) to establish an overall RCDP EIRR. To account for considerable range of outcomes resulting from the CBD approach both in terms of the number and the timing of the infrastructure subprojects and livelihood activities over 17 townships, a simulation approach is developed. This approach allows for the presentation of the range of possible outcomes and the determination of the probability of any particular EIRR result can be estimated. This analysis is presented in Section F. D. Economic Analysis of Representative Community Infrastructure

10. Road Subprojects. The section presents an economic cost benefit analysis (CBA) of representative community road subprojects to demonstrate that subprojects of this type are rational economic investments. The representative road subproject models are based on field experiences to date. For the purpose of this appraisal two representative models have been developed: a lowland model reflecting delta and coastal circumstances; and, an upland model that represents the hill regions. Table 3 presents the key subproject characteristics representative of both types.

11. Costs. The cost components included in the CBA consist of the following elements: (i) Investment costs – estimated at MK18.9 million and MK38.0 million for the lowland

and upland road models in economic terms respectively converted using the breakdown and parameters as shown below.

4

Lowland Model Upland Model

Financial prices MK20,422,800 MK41,075,000

Taxes 6% CF -

Local 48% CF 1.00

Foreign 16% SERF 1.03 converts to converts to

Unskilled 20% SWRF 0.90

Skilled 10% CF 1.00

Economic values MK18,887,005 MK37,986,160

CF = community facilitator, SERF = shadow exchange rate factor, SWRF = shadow wage rate factor

(ii) Annual operations and maintenance costs – estimated at 2.5% of the economic investment cost per year or MK0.5 million and MK0.9 million for the lowland and upland roads respectively;

(iii) Post-RCDP Annual Subproject Operation and Maintenance (O&M) – as above for the annual O&M for the remainder of the 20-year analysis period; and

(iv) Share of the RCDP project management and capacity building costs – estimated at MK8.9 million per subproject.6

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Illustrative Road Subprojects

Unit Lowland Model Upland Model

Characteristics

Road type Village Link Village to Road

Project type (construct/rehab) Construct Construct

Surface type Earth Road Gravel

Width m 3.6 2.5

Length m 1,220 2,000

Surface area m2 4,392 5,000

Population

Villages reached no. 1 2

Household (HH) per village no. 85 66

Households no. 85 132

Persons per HH no. 4.2 5.9

Population no. 357 779

Investment cost (financial)

Cost per square meter $ 3.00 5.30

Cost of road $ 13,176 26,500

Cost of road MK 20,422,800 41,075,000

Cost per HH reached $ 155 201

Cost per HH reached MK 240,268 311,174

Recurrent cost (financial)

Recurrent cost – annual rate % 2.5% 2.5%

6 (Project management costs ($31 million) + Capacity building costs ($11 million) / (2,942 villages * 2.5 subprojects

per village) = USD 5,710 per subproject or ~ MK 8.9 million @ MK1,550/$1.

5

Recurrent cost per annum MK 510,570 1,026,875

Note: Based on potential Kun Taung Village subproject lowland / Lan Zong to Tan Ton Proposed subproject upland. Refer to Community Infrastructure Sub-Manual (project and community) for further cost information.

Source Consultant estimates.

12. Benefits. The benefit streams resulting from the construction of road subprojects are based on travel time savings. Table 4 presents the derivation of time savings. It is assumed that, on average, each trip by villagers will cover 60% of the road length, which translates to a travel distance of 732 meter per trip for the lowland road, and 1.2 kilometer per trip for the upland road. Without the projects, it takes about 0.15 hour per trip for the lowland road, and 0.24 hour per trip for the upland road. With the project, travel time would reduce to 0.04and 0.09 hour per trip, respectively. The time savings is are 0.105 hour per trip for the lowland road and 0.147 hour per trip for the upland road. 13. It is assumed that each villager will make 0.5 trip per day, or 183 trips per year. The lowland road subproject areas have a population of 357 individuals, and the upland road subproject areas has a population of 779 individuals (Table 4). This translates to 78,183 and 170,557 person-trips per year, respectively.

14. The total time savings is 8,240 hours per year for the lowland road, and 25,133 hours per year for the upland road. The travel time saving is then evaluated at the economic value of the minimal wage of MK4,800 per day, which is MK4,320 per day or MK540 per hour. The total savings in economic value are MK4.45 million and MK13.57 million, respectively.

Table 4: Time Savings Benefit of Illustrative Road Subprojects

Unit

Lowland Model Upland Model Without With Incremental Without With Incremental

Travel distance (A) % of road length 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% meters/trip 732.0 732.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 Travel mode Walk Bicycle Walk Bicycle Travel speed (B) miles/hour 3.1 11.0 3.1 8.0 meter/hour 4,988 17,699 4,988 12,872 Travel time (C=A/B) hour/trip 0.15 0.04 0.105 0.24 0.09 0.147

Trips per person per person/day 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 per person/year 219 219 219 219 Total trips trips/year 78,183 78,183 170,557 170,557 Total travel time hours/year 11,474 32,334 8,240 41,033 15,900 25,133 MK equivalent million MK/year 6.20 1.75 4.45 22.16 8.59 13.57

15. Results A summary of the economic cashflows and key indicators,7 together with the sensitivity analysis for the illustrative lowland and upland road subprojects are provided below in Table 5 and 6. Extracts of the Lowland and Upland Road Subproject CBA models showing the discounted cashflows are included in Table 5. The EIRR for the lowland and upland road subproject models at 12.7% and 23.9% respectively are above the hurdle rate of 9%. The economic net present value (ENPV) at the 9% discount rate for the lowland and upland road

7 Economic net present value (ENPV), economic internal rate of return (EIRR) and benefit cost ratio (BCR).

6

subproject models at MK3.68 and MK32.62 million respectively are above zero. Thus, both metrics indicate viable economic investments. 16. Further, the sensitivity analysis reveals robust subprojects. The switching values for benefits is minus 37.9%, while that for costs is 27.5% in the case of the lowland road subproject. While in the upland road subproject, the switching values for benefits is minus 109.2%, while that for costs is 52.2%. Table 5: Economic Resource Flow Statement – Representative Village Road Subprojects

(MK million)

Project Years (PY) (Selected)

Lowland Model Upland Model

Total incremental

benefit

Total incremental

costs Net benefit

Total incremental

benefit

Total incremental

costs Net benefit

PY 1 0.00 2738 -27.38 0.00 46.06 -46.06

PY 2 4.45 0.51 3.94 13.57 1.03 12.54

PY 3 4.45 0.51 3.94 13.57 1.03 12.54

PY 4 4.45 0.51 3.94 13.57 1.03 12.54

PY 5 4.45 0.51 3.94 13.57 1.03 12.54

PY 10 4.45 0.51 3.94 13.57 1.03 12.54

PY 15 4.45 0.51 3.94 13.57 1.03 12.54

PY 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.57 1.03 12.54

ENPV @ 9% MK million 3.02 MK million 47.35

$ 1,949 $ 30,548 EIRR % 11.1% % 26.2% BCR ratio 1.72 ratio 2.71

Source: Consultant’s estimates.

Table 6: Sensitivity Analysis: Representative Village Road Subprojects

Scenario

EIRR %

Lowland Upland

Base Case 11.1% 26.2%

∆% to Base Case

Incremental Costs Benefit

delayed by

10% 9.3% 23.5%

20% 7.8% 21.1%

-10% 8.9% 22.9%

-20% 6.6% 19.6%

Switching Value – benefitsa -71.6% -170.9%

Switching Value – costs 41.7% 63.1%

7

EIRR = economic internal rate of return a Percentage change in cost and/or benefit streams to obtain an ENPV of $0, i.e., economic viability threshold.

17. Water Supply Subproject.8 This section presents the economic analysis of a representative village water supply subproject, typical of the type that may be identified through the community-based planning process. The existing situation is characterized by a tankered supply providing a village of 100 households (around 500 persons) with water at rate of about 10 liters per person per day. The current annual demand in the existing situation is around 3,650,000 liters per annum. One water tanker has capacity of 1,500 gallons (6,820 liters) and costs MK20,000. The effective price for tankered water to the villagers is MK2.9 per liter. 18. Economic costs. The cost of a water supply to the village is estimated at MK35 million for a gravity system, including headworks, holding tank, reticulation and standpipes. The cost components included in the CBA consist of the following elements:

(i) Investment costs – estimated at MK31 million in economic terms converted using

the breakdown and parameters as shown below.

Financial prices MK 35,000,000

Taxes 8% CF -

Local 40% CF 1.00

Foreign 22% SERF 1.03 converts to


Skilled 10% CF 1.00

Economic values MK 31,731,000


(ii) Annual operations and maintenance costs – estimated at the Department of Rural

Development design standard of 5% of the economic investment cost per year or MK1.55 million;

(iii) Post-RCDP annual subproject O&M – as above for the annual O&M for the remainder of the 20-year analysis period; and

(iv) Share of the RCDP project management and capacity building costs – estimated

at MK9.5 million per subproject (footnote 5).

19. Economic benefits. The water supply system would replace the tanker supply. Given the designed capacity of the supply, it is envisaged that the per capita consumption would increase to around 50 litres per capita per day. A breakdown of the water demand before and after the subproject together with the approach for economic valuation is provided Table .

8 Based on ERLIP field data.

8

Table 7: Representative Village Water Subproject Demand Analysis

Liters per year Notes

Before Subproject

Estimated consumption 3,650,000 Assumes 20 liters per person per day

After Subproject

Non-incremental water 3,650,000 Valued at the avoided cost of supplying this amount at the tanker price of MK 2.93/liter

Incremental water 5,475,000 Valued a willingness to pay for additional supplies a proxy for which is the financial tariff

Total water demand 9,125,000

Source: Field observations and Consultant’s estimate.

20. Results. A summary of the economic cashflows and key indicators, together with the sensitivity analysis for the illustrative water subproject are provided below. An extract of the water subproject CBA model showing the discounted cashflow model is included in Table A2. The EIRR at 23.9% is well above the hurdle rate of 9%. The ENPV at the 9% discount rate is MK59.29 million. Both indicators thus indicating a viable economic investment. 21. Further, the sensitivity analysis reveals a robust project that remains viable in all but the most adverse benefit and cost combinations. The switching value for benefits is minus 51.6%, while that for costs is 106.7%.

Table 8: Representative Village Water Supply Subproject Cashflow and Indicators

Project Years (Selected)

MK Million

Total incremental benefit

Total incremental costs

Net Benefit

PY 1 - 40.53 (40.53)

PY 2 5.32 1.55 3.77

PY 3 5.68 1.55 4.13

PY 4 6.39 1.55 4.84

PY 5 7.10 1.55 5.55

PY 10 7.10 1.55 5.55

PY 15 7.10 1.55 5.55

PY 20 7.10 1.55 5.55

ENPV @ 9% MK million 9.93

$ 6,405

EIRR % 11.8

BCR ratio 1.18

Source: Consultant’s estimates

9

Table 9: Sensitivity Analysis – Representative Water Supply Subproject

Scenario EIRR %

Base Case 11.8%

∆% to Base Case

Project Costs Incr’l Benefit Benefit

delayed by

+ 10% 10.1%

+ 20% 8.7% - 10% 10.0%

- 20% 8.0%

+ 10% - 10% 8.4%

+ 20% - 20% 5.2%

Base Case Base Case

1 year 10.1%

2 years 8.9%

3 years 7.9%

Switching Value – benefitsa (15.2%)

Switching Value – costs 17.9% a Percent change in cost and/or benefit streams to obtain an ENPV of $0, i.e., economic viability

threshold.

22. Primary School Subproject. This section presents the economic analysis of a representative school subproject, typical of the type that may be identified through the community-based planning process. The existing situation is characterized by a village of approximately 100 households with inadequate school infrastructure which is impeding movement of children onto and completing secondary education and hence waged labor. 23. Economic costs. The economic cost of two classrooms is estimated at MK22.6 million. The cost components included in the CBA consist of the following elements:

(i) Investment costs – classrooms estimated at MK22.62 million in economic terms

converted using the breakdown and parameters as shown below:

Two classrooms

Financial prices MK25,000,000

Taxes 6% CF -

Local 48% CF 1.00

Foreign 16% SERF 1.03 converts to


Skilled 10% CF 1.00

Economic values MK23,120,000


(ii) Annual operations and maintenance costs – estimated at MK0.6 million;

(iii) Post-RCDP annual subproject O&M – as above for the annual O&M for the remainder of the 20-year analysis period; and

(iv) Share of the RCDP project management and capacity building costs – estimated at MK8.9 million per subproject (footnote 5).

10

24. Economic benefits. The economic benefit stream is based on the following assumptions. In any one year around 100 children within the village are of primary school age. With the additional classrooms enrollment will increase from 80 to 90% and the drop-out rate will decline from 30% to 20%. In the without-project scenario, each year 10 students (20*(80%-30%)) will graduate. In the with-project scenario, 14 students (20*(90%-20%)) will graduate. The incremental number of graduates is four students per year. 25. It is assumed that in the with-project scenario the annual cohort of graduating students will be able to achieve unskilled wage employment and due to the completion of primary school education they will attract a 15% increment on the basic wage (assumed at MK4,800 per day).9 Assuming 25 workday per month over 12 months, the 15% increment would translate to about an increment of MK216,000 ($140) per year. This incremental income is expected to materialize 8 years later, after the graduates enter the work force. 26. With or without the project, children carry out household chores and basis farm production activities. Those that are not enrolled in primary school have yet reached working age, and are not expected to earn income, nor to provide substantial labor inputs that can increase farm productivity and income significantly. Conversely, the opportunity cost of education for those who are enrolled in close to nil. 27. For each year cohort there are four incremental graduates, which translates to MK864,000 million ($560) per annum over their work life. Assuming an average work life of 46 years, the total incremental (undiscounted) incremental income is MK39.7 million (0.86*45). This stream is discounted to derive its present value at the start of the work life, which is about MK9.42 million. It is assumed that there will be 15 of such year cohort, corresponding to the economic life of the subproject. The resulting benefit cashflow is depicted in Table A3Table A3 which provides extracts of the school subproject discounted cashflow model. 28. Results. A summary of the economic cashflows and key indicators, together with the sensitivity analysis for the illustrative school subproject are provided below. An extract of the Terrace subproject CBA model showing the discounted cashflow model is included in Table A3. The EIRR of return at 23% is well above the hurdle rate of 9%. The ENPV at the 9% discount rate is MK72.26 million. Both indicators indicating a viable economic investment.

9 This is consistent with the approach adopted in ADB. 2016. Report and Recommendation of the President to the

Board of Directors: Proposed Loan to the Republic of the Union of Myanmar for Equipping Youth for Employment Project. Manila. where indicative estimates for returns by level of education completed were derived. www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/48431-003-efa.pdf

http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/48431-003-efa.pdf

11

Table 10: Representative Primary School Subproject Cashflow and Indicators

Project Years (Selected)

MK Million

Total incremental benefit

Total incremental costs

Net Benefit

PY 1 - 31.50 (31.50)

PY 2 - 0.60 1.04

PY 3 - 0.60 2.68

PY 4 - 0.60 4.31

PY 5 - 0.60 5.95

PY 10 9.42 0.60 14.14

PY 15 9.42 0.60 22.33

PY 20 9.42 0.60 28.88


ENPV @ 9% $ 5,284

EIRR % 11.0%

BCR ratio 3.20 x

BCR = benefit cost ratio, EIRR = economic internal rate of return, ENPV = economic net present value, MK = Myanmar Kyat, PY = project year.

Table 11: Sensitivity Analysis – Representative Primary School Subproject

Scenario EIRR %

Base Case 11.0%

∆% to Base Case

Project Costs Incremental Benefit Benefit

delayed by

+ 10% 10.0%

+ 20% 9.2% - 10% 9.9%

- 20% 8.8%

+ 10% - 10% 9.0%

+ 20% - 20% 7.0%

Base Case Base Case

1 year 10.0%

2 years 9.2%

3 years 8.5%

Switching Value - benefitsa (18.1%)

Switching Value - costs 22.1% a Percent change in cost and/or benefit streams to obtain an ENPV of USD 0, i.e., economic

viability threshold.

29. Further, the sensitivity analysis reveals a robust project that remains viable in all adverse benefit and cost combinations assessed. The switching value for benefits is minus 66%, while that for costs is 195%. 30. Summary of Results from Representative Infrastructure Analysis. The section above presents the economic analysis of a representative rural road, a village water supply and a primary

12

school investment. A summary of the results is presented below table. In each case the benefits are sufficient to substantially outweigh the investment costs, the operations and maintenance costs of a 20-year operations period, and the subproject’s share of the RDCP project management and capacity building costs.

Table 22: Summary of Results Representative Subproject Economic Analysis

Sub-Project Parameter Unit Value

Road – Lowland


$ million 0.012

EIRR % 15.2%

BCR ratio 3.36

Road - Upland


$ million 0.060

EIRR % 21.9%

BCR ratio 6.07

Water supply


$ million 0.038

EIRR % 23.9%

BCR ratio 2.07

School


$ million 0.047

EIRR % 23.0%

BCR ratio 7.10

BCR = benefit cost ratio, EIRR = economic internal rate of return, ENPV = economic net present value, MK = Myanmar Kyat.

31. Sustainability Analysis of the Representative Infrastructure Projects. O&M of completed subprojects is essential to continue the life of the infrastructure subprojects so that the community obtains the maximum benefit from the investment. Poorly maintained infrastructure poses safety risks for the community particularly during extreme weather events (wind, rain, flooding) and increases the probability of accelerated damage to the infrastructure. The details of the O&M planning and training arrangements are provided in the Resilient Community Infrastructure Sub-Manual. This manual sets out:

(i) The roles and responsibilities for main government and community stakeholders including Township DRD, village project support O&M committee, the community and technical facilitators;

(ii) The processes for planning and implementing operations and maintenance activities. This includes: (a) The calculation of the estimated costs and the allocation of the

responsibilities between the village and the DRD; (b) The annual plan for the collection user/beneficiary contributions. This

includes the identification of the names of the voluntary contributors, the form of contribution (cash or kind) and the timing of the contribution;

(c) The O&M monthly schedule – work items by responsibility by month; and

13

(d) The six-monthly O&M status report indicating the status of the work items in the last six months.

(iii) The required routine inspections and maintenance (both periodic and emergency); and

(iv) The periodic and emergency maintenance schedules.

32. The three representative models presented above include provisions for annual operation and maintenance in the subproject cashflows to ensure the sustainable operation of the asset. Further, each model demonstrates a revenue surplus sufficient to facilitate the community to address O&M obligations planned in the manner described above. E. Financial Analysis Illustrative Livelihood Investments 33. Overview. This section presents the production and activity models representing livelihood opportunities at both individual household and group level in the RCDP area. A brief outline of the models developed is provided below. Further, descriptions of these commodities can be found in the RCDP cluster agriculture market and labor opportunities report. 34. The beneficiary communities are in remote and poor areas. The residents cannot access affordable credits, or unaware of market potentials, or lack of information or technical skills to launch livelihood activities on their own. The project will provide block grants to beneficiary communities to finance livelihood activities of their choosing (subject to basic market and demand assessment which is one of the block grant application procedures). Where necessary capacity building to encourage livelihood groups formation, and extension service will be provided. 35. This set of analysis are predominantly financial analysis to demonstrate the financial viability of a range of livelihood subprojects proposed by the communities. Supplementary economic analysis were also conducted. In several cases, the EIRRs are very high due to very low level of income in the present, which is likely to persist and is taken as the without project (WOP) scenario. Despite the high EIRRs, it was decided these livelihood models to be retained in the analysis to document the financial viability of a broader range of livelihood models proposed and considered by the communities.

Table 33: Overview of the Livelihood Models

Category Description Location Type

Production Monsoon rice and cow pea

Ayeyarwady Region, Tanintharyi Region, Northern Sagaing Region

Household

Elephant foot yam Chin State, Naga Self-Administered Zone (SAZ) Household

Cardamom Naga SAZ, Chin State Household

Chili Naga SAZ, Chin State Household

Fruit tree (avocado) nursery

Chin State Group

Cashew nut Tanintharyi Region Group

SALT model Naga SAZ, Chin State Household

Terrace model Naga SAZ, Chin State Group

Livestock Piglet raising Tanintharyi Region, Ayeyarwady Region, Chin State, Northern Sagaing Region including Naga SAZ

Household

14

Category Description Location Type

Wild fish farming Ayeyarwady Region, Tanintharyi Region Household

Terrace fish farming Naga SAZ, Chin State Household

Processing Elephant foot yam drying

Chin State, Naga SAZ Group

Coffee parchment processing

Chin State Group

Green tea processing Chin State, Naga SAZ Group

Ice production Ayeyarwady Region, Tanintharyi Region Group

36. Common assumptions. The assumptions listed in below table are common to all the household and group livelihood physical and financial models.

Table 14: Common Assumptions for Livelihood Modelling

Parameter Description

RCDP Grant Included where investment is required up to a maximum of $250 per household.

Seasonal credit All models assume variable input for the year are financed through short term borrowing. Interest is assumed at 1% per month for the estimated duration from the start of the season to harvest.

Long term credit Where additional financing beyond that which is provided by the grant is required the balance is borrowed over three years at 12% per annum interest rate.

Taxes No taxes included.

Minimum daily wage Assumed at MK 4,800.

Labor requirements and availability

Labor requirements (by gender and month) for each activity are estimated and compared to the household or group labor available. Where additional labor is required it is assumed that labor would be hired at market rates. An example of how labor is specified at the gross margin level is provided in Table A6. The household or the group labor availability is estimated. Households are assumed to have 1.5 male and 1.5 female able-bodied persons available for 25 days per month giving around 38-man days and 38-woman days of labor per month.

Land requirements and availability

Many new activities (mostly primary processing) do not require much space. Land is not a major input for these activities – all but one livelihood activities require less than 0.1 ha. Lastly, two of the project’s regions are scarcely populated, and land is not intensely farmed. Land in general is not a constraint. In projects area where land may be constrained, the proposed livelihood will simply not be adopted unless the beneficiaries find it advantageous to convert land use. What little land is required, most activity sites can be established in marginal land with little existing farm activities.

37. Monsoon rice and cow pea double cropping livelihood model. The key characteristics of this livelihood model are presented in Table . The model illustrates the impact the introduction of more intensive monsoon rice cultivation and the introduction of a second crop of cow peas immediately after the harvest of the monsoon rice. The cow peas are grown on the residual moisture. On the 4-ha example developed, the WOP scenario produces 12.8 tons of monsoon rice, while the with project (WP) scenario produces 15.48 tons and 2.9 tons of rice and cow peas respectively. The rice production increase is due to improved seed and greater fertilizer use together with improved practices.

15

Table 15: Monsoon Rice / Cow Pea Household Livelihood Model

Description: Conversion of tradition monsoon rice to improved monsoon rice and cow pea to take advantage of the residual soil moisture. This model is illustrated on a typical monsoon rice plot of 4 ha.

Region(s) Ayeyarwaddy, Tanintharyi and Sagaing

Livelihood type: Four-hectare enterprise at household level

Key assumptions: Unit Without With a

Monsoon rice (traditional) yield kg/ha 3,200 -

Monsoon rice (improved) yield kg/ha - 3,870

Cow pea yield kg/ha - 770

Financial results (4 ha enterprise):

Farm Family Benefits After Financing MK million/year 2.48 4.46

$/year 1,599 2,880

Returns per Family-Day of Labor MK/person/day 8,983 11,272

$/person/day 5.80 7.27

Ratio to Minimum Daily Wage (MK4,800) Ratio to MDW 1.87 2.35

EIRR 202.6%

a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology)


38. The annual farm family benefits after financing at full development increases from MK2.48 million to MK4.46 million, an increase of MK1.98 million or 80%. In United States (US) dollars terms, this increment is equivalent to $1,280 per household per year. The returns per family-day of labor increase from MK8,983 per person day to MK11,272 per person day, an increase of MK2,290 per person day or 25%. In US dollars terms, the returns per family-day of labor increase from $5.8 per person day to $7.27 per person day, an increase of $1.48 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage increases from 1.87 to 2.35. 39. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the 4-ha enterprise are provided in Table A7and Table A8, respectively. 40. Elephant foot yam household livelihood model. This tropical, forest-dwelling, winter herbaceous perennial root crop is native to Chin State and grown as a cash crop for export to Asian markets. The livelihood model developed illustrates how household traditional practice can be improved through fencing and better cultivation (planting and mulching) techniques. The key characteristics of this livelihood model are presented below.

Table 16: Elephant Foot Yam Household Livelihood Model

Description: Improved production of fresh EFY through protection from animals (fencing), improvement planting and cultivation practices.

Region(s) Chin and Naga SAZ

Livelihood type: Household EFY enterprise

Key assumptions: Unit Without Witha

Fresh EFY for seed kg/ha 1,000 1,000

16

Fresh EFY kg/ha 4,456 8,094

Traditional dried EFY kg/ha 740 1,342

Financial results (4 ha enterprise):


$/year 936 1,663


$/person/day 10.76 13.63

Ratio to Minimum Daily Wage (MK4,800) Ratio to MDW 3.47 4.40

EIRR Not applicable

SAZ = self-administered zone. a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology)


41. The annual farm family benefit after financing increases from MK1.45 million to MK2.58 million, an increase of MK1.13 million or 78%. In US dollar terms, this increment is equivalent to $727 per household per year. The returns per family-day of labor increase from MK16,671 per person day to MK21,131 per person day, an increase of MK4,459 per person day or 27%. In US dollar terms, the returns per family-day of labor increase from $11 per person day to $14 per person day, an increase of $3 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage increases from 3.5 WOP to 4.4 WP. 42. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A9 and Table A10, respectively. The results indicate that this is a worthwhile livelihood to pursue. 43. Cardamom Household Livelihood Model. This livelihood model compares the establishment of cardamom under conventional and improved practices. In addition to modelling the impact of introducing mulching, fertilizer (compost and manure) application and pest control practices (bio-pesticide), the new approach also increases the area from 0.1 to 0.4 ha. With the improved practices yields are estimated to increase by around 50%. A summary of the key characteristics of this livelihood model is presented below.

17

Table 17: Cardamom Household Livelihood Model

Description: Compares a conventional approach to the establishment of cardamom with an improved approach.

Region(s) Naga SAZ, Chin

Livelihood type: Household enterprise


Cardamom (dried) yield kg/ha 124 189

Financial results:

Farm Family Benefits After Financing MK mill/year 0.11 0.68

$/year 71 437


$/person/day 14.48 16.55

Ratio to Minimum Daily Wage (MK 4,800) Ratio to MDW 4.68 5.34

EIRR 37.9%

SAZ = self-administered zone. a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology) Source: Consultant’s estimates

44. The farm family benefits after financing increases from MK0.11 million to MK0.68 million. In US dollar terms, this increment is equivalent to $366 per household per year. The returns per family-day of labor increase from MK22,447 per person day to MK25,649 per person day, an increase of MK3,201 per person day or 14%. In US dollar terms, the returns per family-day of labor increase from $14 per person day to $17 per person day, an increase of $2 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage increases from 4.68 WOP to 5.34 WP. The results indicate that this is a worthwhile livelihood to pursue. 45. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A11 and A12, respectively. 46. Chili Household Livelihood Model. The chili household enterprise demonstrates the profitability of growing local chili varieties (e.g. Shwe Hlan Bo) following the rice crop in the NSAZ and Chin State. While chilis are currently grown in household garden plots this model examines the returns to a larger scale of chili production (0.05 ha) as well as the impact of fertilizers and proper plant protection practices. A summary of the key characteristics of this livelihood model is presented below.

18

Table 48: Chili Household Livelihood Model

Description: Examines the profitability of chili production for local and export market at household level.

Region(s) Naga SAZ, Chin State



Chili (dried) yield kg/ha - 900

Financial results: -

Farm Family Benefits After Financing MK mill/year - 0.66

$/year - 423

Returns per Family-Day of Labor MK/person/day - 64938

$/person/day - 41.90

Ratio to Minimum Daily Wage (MK 4,800) Ratio to MDW - 13.53

EIRR Not applicable

SAZ = self-administered zone. a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology) Source: Consultant’s estimates

47. The annual farm family benefits after financing at full development are estimated at MK0.66 million per year. In US dollar terms, this is equivalent to $423 per household per year. The returns per family-day of labor are projected at MK64,938 per person day In US dollar terms, the returns per family-day of labor equate to $41.9 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage is projected at 13.5. 48. The results indicate that this livelihood model has considerable potential to supplement household incomes in the NSAZ and Chin State. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A13 and Table A14, respectively. 49. Fruit Tree Nursery Group Livelihood Model. This livelihood model examines the profitability of a group establishing an avocado seedling nursery. This model would be suited for a women’s group. The assumption is that the group would comprise women from five households. It is assumed that one female from each of the households in the group could devote time to the enterprise. At full production the nursery is estimated to produce 20,000 grafted avocado seedlings annually. A summary of the key characteristics of this livelihood model is presented below.

Table 19: Fruit Tree Nursery Group Livelihood Model

Description: 5 households form a group to establish and operate a nursery to produce grafted avocado seedlings

Region(s) Chin State

Livelihood type: Group enterprise


Projected sales at full development Seedlings/year - 20,000

Financial results:

Group Benefits After Financing MK million/year - 3.05

$/year - 1,968

Returns per Day of Labor MK/person/day - 7,821

$/person/day - 5.05


EIRR 17.4% a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology) Source: Consultant’s estimates.

19

50. The annual group benefits after financing at full development are estimated at MK3.05 million per year. This is equivalent to $1,968 per group per year. The returns per day of labor are projected at MK7,821 per person day. In US dollar terms, the returns per day of labor equate to $5 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage is projected at 1.63. 51. The results indicate that this is a worthwhile livelihood model to pursue. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A15 and Table A16, respectively. 52. Cashew Nut Group Livelihood Model. This model compares an existing approach to the management established cashews to more intensely managed method and conversion to certified organic cashews. It is proposed that a group of four households with 0.25 ha each of established cashews form a group and share the cost of the organic certification. The new technology includes better use of organic fertilizer and bio-pesticide. A summary of the key characteristics of this livelihood model is presented below.

Table 20: Cashew Group Livelihood Model

Description: 4 households for a group to convert their existing cashew plantations to certified organic production

Region(s) Tanintharyi Region

Livelihood type: Group enterprise (4 households x 0.25 ha)


Cashew (raw nut) kg/ha 724 1,010

Cashew kernel - Grade A kg/ha 274 -

Cashew kernel - Grade B kg/ha 117 -

Cashew kernel (organic) - Grade A kg/ha - 382

Cashew kernel (organic) - Grade B kg/ha - 164

Financial results:

Group Benefits After Financing MK mill/year 1.76 3.52

$/year 1137 2274

Returns per Day of Labor MK/person/day 36723 45185

$/person/day 23.69 29.15


EIRR 19.4% a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology) Source: Consultant’s estimates.

53. The annual group benefit after financing increases from MK1.76 million to MK3.52 million, an increase of MK1.76 million or 100%. This increment is equivalent to $1,137 for the group per year. The returns per day of labor increase from MK36,723 per person day to MK45,185 per person day, an increase of MK8,462 per person day or 23%. In US dollar terms, the returns per group day of labor increase from $24 per person day to $29 per person day, an increase of $5 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage increases from 7.7 WOP to 9.4 WP. 54. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A17 and Table A18, respectively. 55. SALT Household Livelihood Model. This model analyses the introduction of sloping agricultural land technology which substantially changes the production system through the establishment of vetiver grass hedgerows. In the “With” RDCP scenario improved upland rice is relay cropped with Naga chili. Separately, elephant foot yam is grown beneath avocado trees. It

20

is assumed a household will convert to the SALT approach on their famed area of 1 ha. The new technology includes better use of organic fertilizer and bio-pesticide. A summary of the key characteristics of this livelihood model is presented in Table 21 below.

Table 21: SALT Household Livelihood Model

Description: Examines the profitability of adopting sloping area land technology in the upland areas at household level.

Region(s) Naga SAZ, Chin State

Livelihood type: Household


Traditional upland rice kg/ha 1,290 -

Improved upland rice kg/ha - 2,580

Naga chilli kg/ha - 1,000

Avocado (after 4 years) number/ha - 18,000

Elephant foot yam (dried) kg/ha 1,010 1,342

Financial results:

HH Benefits After Financing MK million/year 0.54 1.29

$/year 350 833




EIRR 13.2%

a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology) Source: Consultant’s estimates.

56. The annual farm family benefit after financing increases from MK0.54 million to MK1.34 million, an increase of MK1.29 million or 138%. This increment is equivalent to $483 for the group per year. The returns per day of labor increase from MK12,044 per person day to MK14,674 per person day, an increase of MK3,340 per person day or 28%. In US dollar terms, the returns per group day of labor increase from $7.8 per person day to $9.5 per person day, an increase of approximately $2 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage increases from 2.5 WOP to 3.1 WP. 57. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A19 and Table A20, respectively. 58. Terracing Group Livelihood Model. This model examines the viability of converting upland slopes with traditional upland rice crop to terraced plots where improved upland rice is cultivated followed by a crop of Naga chillis on the residual moisture. The setting for this model is Naga SAZ where a group of eight households farming around 4 ha applies for a RCDP grant to terrace their farming area. Terrace construction is assumed to require around 370-man days per hectare. The labor is costed at the local rate of MK6,000 per day. Terracing 4 ha therefore represents an investment of MK8.89 million ($5,740). Annual terrace maintenance is assumed at 37-man days per ha per year. A summary of the key characteristics of this livelihood model is presented in Table 51 below.

21

Table 51: Terrace Group Livelihood Model

Description: Examines the profitability of establishing in the upland terraces group level.

Region(s) Naga SAZ

Livelihood type: Household


Traditional upland rice kg/ha 1,290 -

Improved upland rice kg/ha - 2,580

Naga chilli kg/ha - 1,000

Avocado (after 4 years) number/ha - 18,000

Elephant foot yam (dried) kg/ha 1,010 1,342

Financial results:

Group Benefits After Financing MK million/year 1.34 6.03

$/year 866 3893


$/person/day 6.56 10.35


EIRR 22.9% a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology) Source: Consultant’s estimates

59. The annual group benefit after financing increases from MK1.34 million to MK6.03 million, an increase of MK4.69 million or 350%. This increment is equivalent to $3,027 for the group per year. The returns per day of labor increase from MK10,169 per person day to MK16,048 per person day, an increase of MK5,879 per person day or 58%. In US dollar terms, the returns per group day of labor increase from $7 per person day to $10 per person day, an increase of $4 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage increases from 2.1 WOP to 3.3 WP. 60. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A19 and Table A20, respectively. 61. Piglet Raising Household Livelihood Model. The activity model assesses the viability of household piglet raising. Piglets are purchased at 45 days old for MK40,000/piglet, fattened on broken rice and rice bran for seven months and sold for MK250,000 each. Piglets are vaccinated monthly. The model assumes each house will establish a proper shelter to be financed by the RCDP livelihood grant. A summary of the key characteristics of this livelihood model is presented below.

Table 62: Piglet Raising Household Livelihood Model

Description: Improved household piglet production

Region(s) All township clusters

Livelihood type: Group enterprise


Piglets sold kgs - 342

Financial results:

Farm Family Benefits After Financing MK million/year - 0.27

$/year - 173

Returns per Day of Labor MK/person/day - 11153

22

Description: Improved household piglet production

$/person/day - 7.20

Ratio to Minimum Daily Wage (MK4,800) Ratio to MDW - 2.32

EIRR 19.7%


62. The annual farm family benefits after financing are estimated at MK0.27 million per year, equivalent to $173 per household per year. The returns per family-day of labor are projected at MK11,153 per person day In US dollar terms, the returns per family-day of labor equate to $7.20 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage is projected at 2.32. 63. Given proper attention is paid to animal health and husbandry this is a profitably household enterprise. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A23 and Table A24. 64. Wild Fish Farming Household Livelihood Model. This enterprise examines the profitability of farming wild fish in ponds/drainage areas adjacent to rice field in the Ayeyarwaddy and Tanintharyi Regions. A depression is expanded to form a pond and wild fish feed in the pond with animal feeds (rice bran/peanut cake/fish paste). Other costs include labor to remove unwanted trees, feed and harvest the fish. Seasonal credit is assumed to meet the feed costs. A pond of ~0.08 ha would yield around 300 kg of fish annually. Valued at MK1,875/kg, this generates revenue of MK560,000 per year. The key characteristics of this model are shown below.

Table 23: Wild Fish Raising Household Livelihood Model

Description: Farming wild fish in ponds adjacent to rice growing areas

Region(s) Ayeyarwaddy and Tanintharyi Regions.



Wild fish sold kgs - 300

Financial results:


$/year - 308




EIRR Not applicable


65. The annual farm family benefits after financing are estimated at MK0.48 million per year. This is equivalent to $308 per household per year. The returns per day of labor are projected at MK31,825 per person day. In US dollar terms, the returns per family-day of labor equate to $20.53 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage is projected at 6.63.

23

This analysis indicates that where possible this livelihood activity should be pursued as the returns to labor are well above the minimum daily wage. 66. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A25 and Table A26, respectively. 67. Terrace Fish Farming Household Livelihood Model. This enterprise examines the profitability of farming tilapia in fish ponds adjacent to terraced rice field in the NSAZ and Chin State. A fish pond is excavated and stocked with Tilapia fingerlings. Seasonal credit over 5 months is assumed to meet the fingerling and feed costs. A pond of ~0.1 ha would yield around 1,000 kg of fish annually. Valued at MK2,000/kg, this generates revenue of MK2 million per year. The key characteristics of this model are shown below.

Table 24: Terrace Fish Raising Household Livelihood Model

Description: Farming Tilapia fish in ponds adjacent to rice in the terraced areas

Region(s) NSAZ and Chin State



Terrace raised fish (tilapia) sold kg - 1,000

Financial results:


$/year - 731




EIRR 10.0%


68. The annual farm family benefits after financing are estimated at MK1.13 million per year. This is equivalent to $731 per household per year. The returns per day of labor are projected at MK15,957 per person day. In US dollar terms, the returns per family-day of labor equate to $10.29 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage is projected at 3.3. This analysis indicates that this model is worthy of consideration as a livelihood activity for the households in the NSAZ and Chin State with terraced rice operations. 69. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A27 and Table A28, respectively. 70. Elephant Foot Yam Drying Group Livelihood Model. This model compares a traditional approach to the production and drying of elephant foot yam (EFY) and an improved approach that involves, fencing, improved practices and the use of a cutter and solar drier. The WP investment costs are financed partly through RCDP livelihood financing and part through a long-term loan. For the purposes of the modelling four households each with 1 ha of EFY form a group. The key characteristics of this model are shown below table.

24

Table 25: Elephant Foot Yam Solar Drying Group Livelihood Model

Description: A comparison of tradition and improved methods of productions and drying of EFY


Livelihood type: Group enterprise – 4 households with 1 ha EFY/HH


Fresh EFY kg/year 17,824 32,376

Fresh EFY for seed kg/year 4,000 4,000

Traditional dried EFY kg/year 2,960 -

Solar dried EFY kg/year - 5,368

Financial results:


$/year 9357 19953


$/person/day 10.68 16.74


EIRR 128.5%


71. The annual group benefits after financing increase from MK14.50 million to MK30.93 million, an increase of MK16.42 million or 113%. In US dollar terms, this increment is equivalent to $10,596 per group per year. The returns per day of labor increase from MK16,557 per person day to MK25,946 per person day, an increase of MK9,388 per person day or 57%. In US dollar terms the returns per group day of labor increase from $11 per person day to $17 per person day, an increase of $6 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage increases from 3.5 WOP to 5.4 WP. 72. The modelling illustrated the advantages of moving to improved practices and drying techniques. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A29 and Table A30, respectively. 73. Coffee Parchment Processing Group Livelihood Model. This model examines the returns for a group of 10 households establishing a coffee parchment processing enterprise. The processing unit is financed through the RCDP livelihood investment and the purchase of red coffee berries for processing financed through seasonal credit. Each household provides labor for the processing. The key characteristics of this model are shown below.

25

Table 76: Coffee Parchment Group Livelihood Model

Description: Establishment of a coffee parchment processing group


Livelihood type: Group enterprise – 10 households


Dried coffee parchment kg - 3,000

Financial results:


$/year - 1,775




EIRR 10.0%


74. The annual group benefits after financing are estimated at MK2.75 million. This is equivalent to $1,775 per group per year. The returns per day of labor are projected at MK18,340 per person day. In US dollar terms, the returns per day of labor equate to $11.83 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage is projected at 3.8. 75. The modelling illustrated the advantages of establishing a coffee parchment processing facility. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A31 and Table A32, respectively. 76. Green Tea Processing Group Livelihood Model. This model examines the returns for a group of 10 households establishing a green tea processing enterprise. The processing unit and building are financed through the RCDP livelihood investment and a long term long. The purchase of fresh tea for processing financed through seasonal credit. Each household provides labor for the processing. The key characteristics of this model are shown in Table.

Table 27: Green Tea Group Livelihood Model

Description: Establishment of a green tea processing group

Region(s) Chin State and Naga SAZ



Green tea kg - 5,000

Financial results:

Group Benefits After Financing MK million /year - 8.54

$/year - 5,510


$/person/day - 5.74


EIRR 12.6%

26


77. The annual group benefits after financing are estimated at MK8.54 million. This is equivalent to $5,510 per group per year. The returns per day of labor are projected at MK8,896 per person day. In US dollar terms, the returns per day of labor equate to $5.74 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage is projected at 1.85. 78. The modelling illustrates the potential for establishing a green tea processing facility. The high level of labor required keeps the returns to labor low. Despite this, the returns to labor day are approximately double the minimum wage. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A33 and Table A34, respectively. 79. Ice Production Group Livelihood Model. This model examines the returns to a group of six household establishing a small-scale ice making plant to service the needs of the fishing industries in the Ayeyawaddy and Tanintharyi Regions. The ice processing plant could produce 500 kg per 8 working hours. It is assumed that 1,000 kg could be produced per day in two 8-hour shifts, thus producing around 300 tons per year. The investment costs comprise the plant (MK8 million) and the water supply (MK1 million). These are financed through the RCDP Livelihood investment and a medium-term bank loan. The key characteristics of the model are provided below.

Table 28: Ice Production Group Livelihood Model

Description: Establishment of a small-scale ice production plant.

Region(s) Ayeyawaddy and Tanintharyi Regions



Output: Bulk ice kg/year - 300,000

Financial results:


$/year - 7,607


$/person/day - 6.34


EIRR 31.7%


80. The group benefits after financing are estimated at MK11.79 million per year. This is equivalent to $7,607 per group per year. The returns per day of labor are projected at MK9,826 per person day. In US dollar terms, the returns per day of labor equate to $6.34 per person day. The ratio of the returns to labor to the minimum daily wage is projected at 2.1. 81. The modelling illustrates the potential for establishing a small-scale ice production facility. The high level of labor required means the returns to labor is only twice the minimum wage. A detailed production and inputs schedule, as well as the financial budget for the enterprise, are provided in Table A35 and Table A36, respectively.

27

82. Livelihood model sustainability All models presented demonstrate sufficient returns to cover ongoing operation and maintenance. In all cases the returns to a person labor day is greater than the minimum daily wage. 83. Summary of Livelihood Model Financial Results The table below summarizes the results of the financial analysis of the representative livelihood investments. The results are presented are the returns at full development. All of the models assessed indicated the potential for good returns after financing costs and full operation and maintenance. 84. Economic analysis is also made for livelihood models based on appropriate conversion factors. See Annex Table 10 for financial and economic prices of inputs and outputs used in the analysis. Economic resource flows for each of the livelihood models are given in Annex Tables A37 to A51. All models presented demonstrate positive economic net resource flow showing that these livelihood activities are economically plausible uses of resources. Table 29: Livelihood Models Financial Results

Livelihood Enterprise

Parameter Unit Without Witha

Monsoon Rice and Cow Pea Household Enterprise


$/year 1,599 2,880



Ratio to Minimum Daily Wage Ratio to MDW 1.87 2.35

Elephant Foot Yam Household Enterprise


$/year 936 1,663


$/person/day 10.76 13.63


Cardamom Household Enterprise


$/year 71 437


$/person/day 14.48 16.55


Chili Household Enterprise


$/year - 423



Ratio to Minimum Daily Wage Ratio to MDW - 13.53

Fruit Tree Nursery Group Enterprise


$/year - 1,968

Returns per Family-Day of Labor MK/person/day - 7,821

$/person/day - 5.05

28




Cashew Group Enterprise


$/year 1137 2274

Returns per Family-Day of Labor MK/person/day 36723 45185

$/person/day 23.69 29.15


SALT Household Enterprise


$/year 350 833




Terrace Group Enterprise


$/year 866 3893


$/person/day 6.56 10.35


Piglet Raising Household Enterprise

Farm Family Benefits After Financing MK milion/year - 0.27

$year - 173


$/person/day - 7.20


Wild Fish Raising Household Enterprise


$/year - 308




Terrace Fish Raising Household Enterprise


$/year - 731




EFY Solar Drying Group Enterprise


$/year 9357 19953


$/person/day 10.68 16.74


29



Coffee Parchment Group Enterprise


$/year - 1,775




Green Tea Group Enterprise


$/year - 5,510


$/person/day - 5.74


Ice Production Group Enterprise


$/year - 7,607


$/person/day - 6.34


a At full development – Without = Without project (or existing technology), With = With project (new technology)

F. Project Economic Analysis 85. Objective. This section presents an economic analysis of the overall RCDP investment.10 The development of a cost benefit analysis at this level is a challenge in that the number, timing and type of investments, both in infrastructure subprojects and livelihood activities, resulting from the community-based development process across 17 townships is unknown. Any representation that fixes the number and type of infrastructure subprojects and livelihood activities would only provide one of a multitude of possible outcomes. 86. This analysis therefore adopts a stochastic approach in which some randomness governs key input variables. A risk-based simulation model is built where each iteration of the model produces a unique result for the decision metrics.11 The metrics to appraise investment viability are the ENPV at 9% discount rate and the EIRR. The simulation comprises multiple iterations (typically several thousand) of the model in which random variables describing key aspects of the model are repeatedly sampled.12 The outputs of the model (ENPV and EIRR) form a dataset that is used to describe the risk and uncertainty inherent in the potential RCDP outcomes.13 The tool for the development of the RCDP simulation model is the discounted cashflow. The following sections set out the assumptions and structure of the incremental benefit and cost streams.

10 While an EIRR is computed for the overall project, this is at the government’s request and is not an ADB requirement. 11 The modelling employs Microsoft Office 365 Excel running on Windows 10 with @Risk 7.5 Add-in from Palisade Inc. 12 In order to ensure replicability of results, a fixed initial seed is used which ensures exactly the same sequence of

random numbers will be repeated each time the simulation runs. This implies that the results will be reproducible from run to run and ensures changes in the outputs are solely due to changes in input variables.

13 This approach also known as Monte Carlo simulation is an application of the risk analysis techniques described in economic analysis of climate proofing investment projects and guidelines for the economic analysis of projects of ADB (footnote 2).

30

87. Incremental Benefit Stream. The benefit stream comprises the net benefit flows from:

(i) The representative community infrastructure models described above namely:14 (a) Roads subproject model (b) Water supply subproject model (c) School subproject model

(ii) The likely returns from investment in livelihood activities.

88. In each of the infrastructure subproject models the investment and operation costs were converted to economic values by the removal of taxes and duties and the adjustment of local/ foreign components and skilled/unskilled labor the appropriate conversion factors. 89. The formulation of the road infrastructure subproject net benefit stream in economic terms is illustrated in Error! Reference source not found.. The road subproject sub-model is presented in the green shaded boxes (refer to Section D for description). The output of this sub-model is input for the RCDP CBA model. The logic of the development of the roads subproject net benefit simulation is shown description on the right-hand side of Error! Reference source not found..

Figure 1: Derivation of a Road Subproject Net Benefit Cashflow

Source: Consultant

14 It is acknowledged that a range of other potential infrastructure is possible but for the purposes of modelling these

three representative models are used. For the purposes of this model the lowland version of the road subproject is used.

31

90. The initial task is to define a simulation model for the timing and number of the potential roads subprojects. This is achieved through the stochastic Roads Subproject Number and Timing Module (see Error! Reference source not found. the upper of the two yellow squares). The overall budget for the community infrastructure component is divided among the three representative subprojects. Dividing the $107 million Output 1 budget equally between the subproject types produces a notional budget allocation of around MK55,000 million ($36,000) for each subproject type. The equivalent number of projects for this notional budget allocation is generated by dividing the allocation by a typical sub-project investment amount.15 The individual subproject investment amounts assumed, and the resulting expected number of subprojects are shown in Table below. This table indicates that the RCDP CBA model should include 2,180 (rounded) roads subprojects, 2,730 water supply subprojects and 2,250 school subprojects. 91. The implementation of these subprojects and the consequent introduction into the discounted cashflow of the corresponding economic incremental benefit cashflow, is controlled by a risk-based process. Implementation is assumed to take place from project year (PY) 2 to PY6. To emulate the uncertainty inherent in the community driven planning and execution, the annual number of subprojects from PY2 to PY6 is described by a probability distribution. In any iteration of the model, the number of subproject is determined by sampling from this distribution in the time period concerned. The distribution is specific for the subproject type and project year concerned. In order to reflect the distribution of the 2,180 road subprojects target over the 5-year implementation period, it is assumed that a maximum of 436 road subprojects can be implemented per year.

Table 30: Assumed investment costs and number of Subprojects

Subproject Unit Cost (MK million) Number of Subprojects *

Roads 25 2,180

Water supply 20 2,730

Schools 25 2,250

* = rounded Source: Consultant’s estimates.

92. The distribution requires the specification of the minimum (Min), the most-likely (ML) and the maximum (Max) values that are feasible in that year.16 The distribution, used in the cell instead of a fixed value, takes the form as shown in Figure below. The values for the Min, ML and Max variables can be set independently for each year to emulate changing circumstances. For example, the Min may start low as the CBD and RCDP processes become established but may increase as experience and capacity increases. Similarly, the ML value may move from a mid-range position ((Min + Max)/2) to be biased towards the upper side of the distribution. The Max value may increase as experience grows but then peaks at some value as delivery capacity is limited.

15 The typical subproject investment amounts were estimated by the consultants in conjunction with DRD. 16 The Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) distribution is a special case of the Beta General

distribution. It is similar to a triangular distribution in that it has the same set of easily understandable parameters, but it is often preferred to the triangular distribution because of its curved density.

32

Figure 2: Identification of the Annual Number of Subprojects

Example of a probability distribution used to derive the number of subprojects for a particular year. A value will be return between the minimum and maximum range according to the shape of the distribution. This distribution and the associated stochastic sampling are used in place of a single variable in the spreadsheet cell. While a range of uncertainty exists the most likely value is towards the maximum value.

Distribution input parameters: Minimum Most-Likely Maximum

Number of subprojects in that year 349 427 436

Source: Consultants estimates

93. An example of the settings for these variables over the course of the RCDP implementation period is shown in the Table 81 below. For one iteration of the model, the distributions described above, produce random values within the bounds of the parameters set. Table A52 is an extract of the RCDP CBA model and indicates how the distributions combine to develop a recruitment of road subprojects that depicts one iteration of the model.

Table 81: Distribution Input and Output Example

Parameter Number of Subprojects

PY 1 PY 2 PY 3 PY 4 PY 5 PY 6 PY 7 PY 8

Inputs Min - 349 371 392 414 436 - -

ML - 427 430 432 435 436 - -

Max - 436 436 436 436 436 - -

Example of sampled output - 428 424 424 421 436 - -


94. The total net benefit cash flow for the roads subprojects for any particular iteration of the model is a function of: (i) the timing and number of road subprojects; and, (ii) a typical road subproject incremental net cash flow as illustrated in Table A52. For example, a road subproject identified for implementation in PY 5, will result in a typical road subproject 20-year net benefit cash flow entering the analysis commencing in PY 5. Similarly, 200 subprojects in PY5 would initiate 200 cashflows in that year. This process is further illustrated in Table A53, an extract from the CBA that indicates how the identification of the subprojects for implement are converted to a cashflows.

33

95. The same method is used for the other two representative infrastructure models water supply and schools. 96. Incorporating climate resilient engineering. The modelling assumes that over the course of the project implementation period, the allocated budget will be invested, and that around the targeted number of subprojects will be implemented. The subprojects, however, are the subject to climate events that can result in the deterioration or even the total loss of the asset. This analysis takes these potential impacts into account by incorporating a loss factor to adjust the incremental net benefit cashflow. This stage is indicated in Error! Reference source not found. element titled Climate Risk Adjustment Module (the lower of the two yellow shaded boxes). The adjustment takes the form of a loss or reduction of benefits and is a function of the chance that an event will occur, and the type of resulting impact. 97. Chance of a climate event. For each year following the recruitment of subproject into the analysis, the chance of a climate event is modelled using a discrete distribution.17 In Figure 2, an outcome of zero or “no event” has a probability of occurrence of 87.5%, while an outcome of 1 or “an event” has the probability of 12.5%. The latter figure is based on vulnerability assessment and other literature that leads to the conclusion that climate events occur, on average, every 8 years. A return period of 8 years equates to a probability of 12.5% in any one year.18 In each iteration of the model, this distribution is sampled every year following the introduction of a subproject. To simplify the modelling of an event, signified by the return of a “1” occurs, that event is assessed in the manner described below and any other subsequent events are ignored

Figure 2: Discrete Distribution – Climate Event Occurrence

98. Consequences of a climatic event. Given that a climate event occurs, the consequence is determined through a further discrete distribution using three outcomes: (i) no consequence with a conditional probability of occurrence of 60% in any one year; (ii) significant loss (40%) with a conditional probability of 30% in any one year; and (iii) total loss (100%) with a conditional

17 The discrete distribution in @Risk takes the form: RiskDiscrete ({X1, X2,...,Xn},{p1,p2,...,pn}). This specifies a general

discrete distribution with n possible outcomes. Each possible outcome has a value X and a probability weight p that specifies the outcome's likelihood of occurrence.

18 Return period - The inverse of probability (generally expressed in %), gives the estimated time interval between events of a similar size or intensity.

34

probability of 10% in any one year. This distribution is illustrated in Figure 3 below. If a significant or total loss occurs, then the incremental net benefit stream is discounted by 40% and 100%, respectively. This reduction remains in place for the remainder of the analysis period as no further investment funds under the RDCP or other programs are assumed to be available.

Figure 3: Discrete Distribution – Type of Climate Consequence

99. The integration of the climatic event adjustments and the net benefit cashflows is illustrated in Table A54. In this way, risk adjusted incremental benefits are defined for the each of the infrastructure subprojects. The sum of the three subprojects forms the project infrastructure incremental net benefit stream. 100. Livelihood benefits. Incremental benefits from livelihood investment are modeled by assuming a rate of return on the invested amount. In a manner similar to the infrastructure subproject the annual livelihood investments are randomly allocated across PY2 to PY6. This produces an annual invested amount for each of the implementation years. A probability distribution is employed to randomly select a rate of return within the range 0% to 15% per annum. This approximation is considered sufficient to incorporate a benefit from livelihood investment in the face of major uncertainties and resource constraints. The livelihood benefit is also subject to an adjustment to account for adverse climatic events (as described above for the subprojects). 101. Incremental project costs. Each of the representative subproject models (described in Section D above) includes the full investment, life time operations and maintenance and share of the RCDP project management and capacity building costs. Given that the number of projects included in the analysis is the same as the basis of the pro rata Output 1 and Output 2 costs it is assumed that those project costs are already included. The only costs to include in this CBA are the Output 2 Livelihood investment costs. It should be noted that the economic analysis of the individual subprojects included a conversion of financial to economic costs with the removal taxes, duties and price contingencies. All tradable content, non-tradable content and unskilled labor are converted to economic values using appropriate conversion factors as outlined below.

35

102. General assumptions. The economic cost benefit analysis has been conducted using the ADB’s guidelines and methods.19 The major assumptions of the analysis are:

(i) The project life is taken to be 25 years, including a 7-year implementation period with the subproject and livelihood investments occurring in the 5 years from PY2 to PY6.20

(ii) The economic costs and benefits are valuated in Myanmar Kyat using domestic price level numeraire. The exchange rate is MK1,550 per $1.

(iii) The economic costs and benefits for non-tradable agricultural inputs and outputs are derived by excluding taxes and duties. The economic prices of subproject investment and O&M costs are estimated by first removing taxes, and then adjusting the tradable content by the shadow exchange rate factor (SERF) of 1.03, and the unskilled labor content by the opportunity cost of surplus labor (OCSL) of 0.8. No adjustment is required for the non-tradable content.

(iv) The social discount rate is 9%.

103. Results. The Monte Carlo simulation model described above allows for the generation of multiple iterations, each one creating a unique net incremental benefit stream and set of key indicators. A set of statistics is generated for selected outputs (ENPV, EIRR, BCR) and can provide insights into the attractiveness of the project as well as the inherent risks. The range of values for the key indicators is shown in Table 2. With the EIRR > than the 9% target rate, ENPV > zero and the BCR > 1, at the median result a viable investment is indicated. The EIRR for the median result is 17.8% while the ENPV is estimated at MK247,884 million ($160 million). The median result BCR indicates that for every MK1 million invested, around MK8 million is returned. 104. The table also indicates that the minimum EIRR of 10,000 iterations was 8.9% or fractionally below the cut off rate. all indicators at the median as well as the maximum and minimum values meet the test for a viable investment.

Table 32: Economic Analysis – Key Indicators

Category EIRR ENPV MK mill BCR

Minimum 8.9% (1,412) 0.96 x

Maximum 19.7% 327,295 10.38 x

Median a 17.8% 247,884 8.03 x

a 50% percentile Source: Consultant Based on 10,000 iterations

105. The range of EIRR results based on 10,000 iterations of the model is displayed in probability distribution below (see Figure 4).21 The minimum, median (50th percentile) and maximum EIRR results are shown together with the 90% confidence interval. The modelling indicates that there is 90% confidence that the EIRR of the project would lie between 15 and 18.6%.

19 ADB. 2002. ERD Technical Note No. 2 Integrating Risk into ADB’s Economic Analysis of Projects. Manila; and, ADB.

2017. Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Projects. Manila. 20 A simplification for modelling purposes. 21 The probability function or probability density function is the proper statistical term for a frequency distribution

constructed from an infinitely large set of values where the class size is infinitesimally small.

36

Figure 4: Probability Distribution EIRR Results

106. The above results expressed as a cumulative distribution is shown in Figure 5. This figure can be used to determine the probability of an event occurring. The graph indicates that there is a 60% chance that the EIRR will be greater than 18%. The worst-case scenarios are just above the discount rate at 9% while the highest outcome is around double the discount rate.

Figure 5: Cumulative Distribution EIRR Results

37

G. Annex 1: Summary of Tables

Table A1: Economic Resource Flow Statement for Lowland Road Subproject ..........................39 Table A2: Economic Resource Flow Statement for Village Water Supply Subproject ................41 Table A3: Economic Resource Flow Statement for Primary School Subproject.........................42 Table A4: Financial and Economic Prices .................................................................................43 Table A5: Border Parity Price Calculation .................................................................................47 Table A6: Example of Labor Specification .................................................................................48 Table A7: Monsoon Rice and Cow Pea Enterprise (4 ha) – Production and Inputs ...................49 Table A8: Monsoon Rice and Cow Pea (4 ha) – Financial Budget ............................................50 Table A9: Elephant Foot Yam Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs ..........................51 Table A10: Elephant Foot Yam Household Enterprise – Financial Budget ................................52 Table A11: Cardamom Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs .....................................53 Table A12: Cardamom Household Enterprise – Financial Budget .............................................54 Table A13: Chili Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs ...............................................55 Table A14: Chili Household Enterprise – Financial Budget .......................................................56 Table A15: Fruit Tree Nursery Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs .................................57 Table A16: Fruit Tree Nursery Group Enterprise – Financial Budget .........................................58 Table A17: Cashew Nut Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs ..........................................59 Table A18: Cashew Nut Group Enterprise – Financial Budget ..................................................60 Table A19: SALT Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs .............................................61 Table A20: SALT Household Enterprise – Financial Budget......................................................62 Table A21: Terrace Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs .................................................63 Table A22: Terrace Group Enterprise – Financial Budget .........................................................64 Table A23: Piglet Raising Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs .................................65 Table A24: Piglet Raising Household Enterprise – Financial Budget .........................................66 Table A25: Wild Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs ..........................67 Table A26: Wild Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Financial Budget ..................................67 Table A27: Terrace Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs .....................68 Table A28: Terrace Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Financial Budget .............................69 Table A29: Elephant Foot Yam Drying Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs ....................70 Table A30: Elephant Foot Yam Drying Group Enterprise – Financial Budget ............................71 Table A31: Coffee Parchment Processing Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs ...............72 Table A32: Coffee Parchment Processing Group Enterprise – Financial Budget .......................73 Table A33: Green Tea Processing Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs ..........................74 Table A34: Green tea Processing Group Enterprise – Financial Budget ...................................75 Table A35: Ice Production Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs .......................................76 Table A36: Ice Production Group Enterprise – Financial Budget ...............................................77 Table A37: Monsoon Rice and Cow Pea (4 ha) – Economic Resource Flow Statement ............78 Table A38: Elephant Foot Yam Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement .79 Table A39: Cardamom Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement ..............80 Table A40: Chili Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement .........................81 Table A41: Fruit Tree Nursery Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement ..........82 Table A42: Cashew Nut Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement ...................83 Table A43: SALT Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement .......................84 Table A44: Terrace Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement ..........................85 Table A45: Piglet Raising Household Enterprise – ....................................................................86 Table A46: Wild Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Economic Resource ............................87 Table A47: Terrace Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Economic .......................................88

38

Table A48: Elephant Foot Yam Drying Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement ...............................................................................................................................89

Table A49: Coffee Parchment Processing Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement ...............................................................................................................90

Table A50: Green tea Processing Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement ....91 Table A51: Ice Production Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement ...............92 Table A52: RCDP CBA Model Extract Showing Recruitment of Road Subprojects ...................93 Table A53: RCDP Model Extract Showing Subproject Cashflow Formulation ...........................94 Table A54: RCDP Model Extract Showing Incorporation of Climatic Event Adjustment .............95

Annex 1 39

Table A1: Economic Resource Flow Statement for Lowland Road Subproject

ECONOMIC RESOURCE FLOW STATEMENT - LOWLAND ROAD SUBPROJECT

Project Year YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR 10 YR 15

Sensitivity factor

Time saving benefit #

Investment cost #

O&M cost #

Flags

Project life flag 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Construction period flag 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operation period flag 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Time saving benefit mil MMK 0.00 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45

Investment cost mil MMK 18.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Prorated project management costmil MMK 8.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

O&M cost mil MMK 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51

Total cost mil MMK 27.38 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51

Net economic resource flow mil MMK -27.38 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94

ENPV mil MMK 3.02

EIRR % 11.1%

BCR ratio 1.72

40 Annex 1

Table A2: Economic Resource Flow Statement for Upland Road Subproject

ECONOMIC RESOURCE FLOW STATEMENT - UPLAND ROAD SUBPROJECT

Project Year YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR 10 YR 15

Sensitivity factor

Time saving benefit #

Investment cost #

O&M cost #

Flags

Investment cost (financial) flag 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Cost per square meter flag 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost of road flag 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Time saving benefit mil MMK 0.00 13.57 13.57 13.57 13.57 13.57 13.57

Investment cost mil MMK 37.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Prorated project management costmil MMK 8.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

O&M cost mil MMK 0.00 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03

Total cost mil MMK 46.06 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03

Net economic resource flow mil MMK -46.06 12.54 12.54 12.54 12.54 12.54 12.54

ENPV mil MMK 47.35

EIRR % 26.2%

BCR ratio 2.71

Annex 1 41

Table A2: Economic Resource Flow Statement for Village Water Supply Subproject

Extracted WS CBA v6 15Oct18.xlsx

MYA Resilient Communities Development Project

Water Supply Sub-Project CBA

Period Start 01-Jan-19 01-Jan-20 01-Jan-21 01-Jan-22 01-Jan-23 01-Jan-24 01-Jan-25 01-Jan-26 01-Jan-27 01-Jan-28 01-Jan-29

Period End 31-Dec-18 31-Dec-19 31-Dec-20 31-Dec-21 31-Dec-22 31-Dec-23 31-Dec-24 31-Dec-25 31-Dec-26 31-Dec-27 31-Dec-28 31-Dec-29

Construction 1 - - - - - - - - - -

Operation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

CountersCalendar year # 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Days in period # 365 366 365 365 365 366 365 365 365 366 365

Year number # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Project period flag [1,0] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Analysis period flag [1,0] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Incremental costsWater supply investment MMK mill 31.03 31.03 - - - - - - - - - -

Water supply O&M MMK mill 10.86 - 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 - - -

Post RCDP water supply O&M MMK mill 26.38 - - - - - - - - 1.55 1.55 1.55

Share of project management and training MMK mill 9.50 9.50 - - - - - - - - - -

Spare MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total incremental project costs MMK mill 77.77 40.53 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55

Incremental benefitsPhasing of incremental benefits % - 75% 80% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Incremental benefits

Benefit 1: Value of avoided tanker costs MMK mill 128.33 - 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35

Benefit 2: Value of incremental water supplied MMK mill 42.00 - 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75

Spare MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Spare MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phased incremental benefits

Benefit 1: Value of avoided tanker costs MMK mill 125.39 - 4.01 4.28 4.81 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35

Benefit 2: Value of incremental water supplied MMK mill 41.04 - 1.31 1.40 1.58 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75

Spare MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Spare MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total incremental project benefits MMK mill 166.43 - 5.32 5.68 6.39 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10

Net benefitsTotal incremental net benefits MMK mill 88.66 (40.53) 3.77 4.13 4.84 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55

IndicatorsEconomic net present value @ 9% MMK mill 9.93

Economic internal rate of return % 11.8%

Benefit cost ratio ratio 1.2 x

NPV @ 9% - benefits MMK mill 65.52

NPV @ 9% - costs MMK mill 55.59

Switching value: Benefits % (15.2%)

Switching values: Costs % 17.9%

42 Annex 1

Table A3: Economic Resource Flow Statement for Primary School Subproject

Extracted from School SP CBA v1 11Dec18.xlsx


Representative Primary School Sub-Project Model

Period Start 01-Jan-19 01-Jan-20 01-Jan-21 01-Jan-22 01-Jan-23 01-Jan-24 01-Jan-25 01-Jan-26 01-Jan-27 01-Jan-28 01-Jan-29 01-Jan-30 01-Jan-31 01-Jan-32 01-Jan-33 01-Jan-34 01-Jan-35 01-Jan-36 01-Jan-37 01-Jan-38 01-Jan-39 01-Jan-40 01-Jan-41

Period End 31-Dec-18 31-Dec-19 31-Dec-20 31-Dec-21 31-Dec-22 31-Dec-23 31-Dec-24 31-Dec-25 31-Dec-26 31-Dec-27 31-Dec-28 31-Dec-29 31-Dec-30 31-Dec-31 31-Dec-32 31-Dec-33 31-Dec-34 31-Dec-35 31-Dec-36 31-Dec-37 31-Dec-38 31-Dec-39 31-Dec-40 31-Dec-41

Construction 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Operation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Counters

Incremental CostsRCDP school investment (rounded) MMK mill 22.60 22.60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RCDP school O&M (rounded) MMK mill 4.20 - 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Post RCCDP school O&M (rounded) MMK mill 8.40 - - - - - - - - 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 -

Share of project management and cap buildingMMK mill 8.90 8.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Spare MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total incremental project costs MMK mill 44.10 31.50 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 -

Incremental BenefitsIncremental economic benefits by graduating cohorts

Cohort 1 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 2 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 3 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 4 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 5 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 6 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 7 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 8 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - - -

Cohort 9 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - - -

Cohort 10 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - - -

Cohort 11 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - - -

Cohort 12 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - - -

Cohort 13 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - - -

Cohort 14 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 - -

Cohort 15 MMK mill 9.42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.42 -

Cohort 16 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 17 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 18 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 19 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cohort 20 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total incremental economic benefits MMK mill 141.27 - - - - - - - 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 -

Net Incremental BenefitsNet Incremental Benefits MMK mill 97.17 (31.50) (0.60) (0.60) (0.60) (0.60) (0.60) (0.60) 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 -

IndicatorsEconomic net present value @ 9% MMK mill 8.19

Economic internal rate of return % 11.0%

Benefit cost ratio ratio 3.2 x

ENPV @ 9% - benefits MMK mill 45.26

ENPV @ 9% - costs MMK mill 37.08

Switching value: Benefits % (18.1%)

Switching values: Costs % 22.1%

Annex 1 43

Table A4: Financial and Economic Prices

Items Unit Financial

price Economic

price CF

Outputs Plantation crops

Dried betel nut kg 2,450 2,450 1.00

Dried betel nut - organic kg 3,675 3,675 1.00

Cashew kernel - Grade A kg 5,000 5,000 1.00

Cashew kernel organic - Grade A kg 7,500 7,500 1.00

Cashew kernel - Grade B kg 3,500 3,500 1.00

Cashew kernel organic - Grade B kg 5,250 5,250 1.00

Perennial crops Dried cardamom kg 9,166 9,166 1.00

Annual crops Monsoon rice - high yield variety kg 279 288 1.03

Monsoon rice - local variety kg 279 288 1.03

Cow pea kg 977 977 1.00

Green gram kg 1,000 1,000 1.00

Upland rice - traditional (dryland) kg 279 288 1.03

Upland rice - improved (dryland) kg 279 288 1.03

Lowland rice (wet land - cold tolerant) kg 279 288 1.03

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) kg 15,000 15,000 1.00

Pig raising Fattened pigs kg 3,680 3,680 1.00

Aquaculture Fish (wild) kg 1,875 1,875 1.00

Fish (Tilapia) kg 2,000 2,000 1.00

Elephant foot yam Traditional dried EFY kg 4,900 4,900 1.00

Solar dried EFY kg 5,900 5,900 1.00

Fruit tree nursery Avocado seedlings (grafted) seedling 200 200 1.00

Processing Green tea kg 5,000 5,000 1.00

Coffee beans (dried parchment) kg 8,500 8,500 1.00

Rice bran kg 176 176 1.00

Rice broken kg 354 354 1.00

Ice making Ice kg 44 44 1.00

Inputs Seeds

EFY seed kg 5,000 5,000 1.00

Monsoon rice seed - traditional kg 279 288 1.03

Monsoon rice seed - improved kg 479 479 1.00

Upland rice (dryland) seed - traditional kg 279 288 1.03

Upland rice (dryland) seed - improved kg 430 430 1.00

Lowland rice (wetland) seed kg 430 430 1.00

Cow pea seed - traditional kg 1,000 1,000 1.00

Cow pea seed - improved kg 1,200 1,200 1.00

44 Annex 1


price Economic

price CF

Green gram seed kg 1,200 1,200 1.00

Avocado root stock seedlings kg 1,500 1,500 1.00

Avocado scion kg 10 10 1.00

Mango seed kg 100 100 1.00

Cardamom seedlings each 40 40 1.00

Chilli seed kg 700,000 700,000 1.00

Fertilizer Urea kg 500 515 1.03

NPK kg 500 515 1.03

Triple superphosphate kg 500 515 1.03

Organic fertilizer kg 30 30 1.00

Compost kg 30 30 1.00

Potash kg 440 453 1.03

Manure kg 30 30 1.00

Muriate of potash kg 56 58 1.03

Agro-chemicals Pesticide ltr 7,500 7,725 1.03

Herbicide ltr 14,000 14,420 1.03

Fungicide ltr 10,000 10,300 1.03

Bio-pesticide ltr 6,000 6,180 1.03

Bio-fungicide ltr 6,000 6,180 1.03

Draught hire Draught land preparation acre 30,000 30,000 1.00

Mechnization hire Mechanized land preparation acre 35,000 35,000 1.00

Mechanized harvesting acre 50,000 50,000 1.00

Hired labor

Hired labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

Hired labor - Coastal person

day 7,000 6,300 0.90

Hired labor - Brush cutter person

day 15,000 13,500 0.90

Piglet raising Piglet vaccination per piglet 5,000 5,000 1.00

Piglet purchase each 45,000 45,000 1.00

Piglet transport piglet 5,000 5,000 1.00

Piglet food - traditional per piglet 50,000 50,000 1.00

Piglet food - improved per piglet 96,000 96,000 1.00

Piglet shelter lump sum 50,000 50,000 1.00

Investments - Livelihoods Fencing ha 55,575 55,575 1.00

Vetiver grass hedgerow lump sum 405,000 405,000 1.00

Nursery equipment lump sum 50,000 51,500 1.03

Green tea equipment lump sum 9,000,000 9,270,000 1.03

Annex 1 45


price Economic

price CF

Coffee processing production unit lump sum 3,750,000 3,862,500 1.03

Building lump sum 11,000,000 11,000,000 1.00

EFY cutter lump sum 500,000 515,000 1.03

EFY solar drying equipment lump sum 9,500,000 9,785,000 1.03

Ice production equipment lump sum 8,000,000 8,240,000 1.03

Ice making water supply lump sum 1,000,000 1,000,000 1.00

Nursery inputs Nursery seedling bags each 10 10 1.00

Posts (3m) each 5,000 5,000 1.00

Bamboo for roof each 1,000 1,000 1.00

Bamboo for seedbed each 1,000 1,000 1.00

Nursery shade net roll 60,000 60,000 1.00

Aquaculture inputs

Wild fish food lump sum 81,000 81,000 1.00

Fingerlings (tilapia) each 15 15 1.00

Fish feed bag 23,000 23,000 1.00

Bamboo and net for trap lump sum 14,000 14,000 1.00

Other Fresh tea kg 500 500 1.00

Red coffee berries kg 1,472 1,472 1.00

Fresh EFY kg 407 407 1.00

Fresh fish kg 3,000 3,000 1.00

Bags each 200 200 1.00

Organic certification - cashew lump sum 4,200,000 4,200,000 1.00

Bags (cashew) each 200 200 1.00

Energy Electricity kWh 50 50 1.00

Electricity - ice production hours 262 262 1.00

Gas expenses unit 1 1 1.00

Labor Female labor

January female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

February female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

March female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

April female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

May female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

46 Annex 1


price Economic

price CF

June female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

July female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

August female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

September female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

October female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

November female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

December female labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

Male labor

January male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

February male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

March male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

April male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

May male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

June male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

July male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

August male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

September male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

October male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

November male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

December male labor person

day 5,000 4,500 0.90

Annex 1 47

Table A5: Border Parity Price Calculation

Commodity Rice

Parity Import

Source Thailand

Quality of Marker Product 5% broken

FOB Bangkok (Thai 5% broken, constant 2019 prices)/a USD/ton Adjustment 422.0

Quality differential USD/ton -30% -126.6

Equivalent value of Myanmarese Product USD/ton 295.4

Freight and insurance cost to Myanmarese port USD/ton 25 25.0

C.i.f value at Myanmarese port USD/ton 320.4

Financial CF for NT Economic

Value at Myanmarese port ($ 1 = MMK 1,550) MMK/ton 496,620 511,519

Port handling charges MMK/ton 5% 24,831 1.00 24,831

Internal handling/transport charges MMK/ton 10,000 10,000 1.00 10,000

Value at wholesale market MMK/ton 531,451 546,350

Transport costs: miller to wholesale market MMK/ton 10,000 10,000 1.00 10,000

Dealer handling & processing costs MMK/ton 20,000 20,000 1.00 20,000

Value at local market/mill MMK/ton 501,451 516,350

Value at local market/mill MKK/kg 501.5 516.3

Conversion to paddy (60% recovery) MKK/ton 60% 300,871 309,810

Milling charges MKK/ton 2,000 2,000 1.00 2,000

Handling and transport (farm to mill) MKK/ton 20,000 20,000 1.00 20,000

Farmgate price of paddy MKK/ton 278,871 287,810

Farmgate price of paddy MMK/kg 278.9 287.8

a/ Price data derived from World Bank Commodities Price Forecast, released October 29, 2018

48 Annex 1

Table A6: Example of Labor Specification

Myanmar

Resilient Communities Development Project

Monsoon Rice Crop Model

YIELDS AND INPUTS Existing New

(Per hectare) /a Technology Technology

Unit 1 to 25 1 to 25

Main Production

Monsoon rice - local variety kg 3,200 -

Monsoon rice - high yield variety kg - 3,870

Operating

Inputs

Monsoon rice seed - traditional kg 77 -

Monsoon rice seed - improved kg - 77

Urea kg 96 124

Triple superphosphate kg - 62

NPK kg 27 -

Potash kg - 31

Pesticide ltr 3 6

Organic fertiliser kg - 2,470

Fungicide ltr 2 2

Labor

Land preparation - Jul male person day 12 12

Sowing - Jul male person day 5 5

Water management - Aug male person day 1 1

Water management - Sep male person day 1 1

Water management - Oct male person day 1 1

Crop management - Jul male person day 2 2

Crop management - Aug male person day 3 3

Crop management - Sep male person day 3 3

Crop management - Oct male person day 3 3

Crop management - Jul female person day 2 2

Crop management - Aug female person day 4 4

Crop management - Sep female person day 4 4

Crop management - Oct female person day 4 4

Harvest - Nov female person day 10 10

Harvest - Nov female person day 15 15

Post harvest - Dec female person day 20 20

Post harvest - Dec male person day 5 5

_________________________________

\a Freshwater - Ayeyarwady

Annex 1 49

Table A7: Monsoon Rice and Cow Pea Enterprise (4 ha) – Production and Inputs

w/o project w/ project

Items Unit 1 to 25 1 to 25

Main production

Monsoon rice - local variety kg 12,800 0

Monsoon rice - high yield variety kg 0 15,480

Cow pea kg 0 2,904

Operating

Purchased inputs

Monsoon rice seed - traditional kg 308 0

Monsoon rice seed - improved kg 0 308

Cow pea seed - improved kg 0 240

Urea kg 384 496

NPK kg 108 104

Triple superphosphate kg 0 248

Organic fertilizer kg 0 12,844

Potash kg 0 124

Pesticide ltr 10 30

Fungicide ltr 8 8

Labor 0 0

February female labor person day 0 100

March female labor person day 0 40

July female labor person day 8 8

August female labor person day 16 16

September female labor person day 16 16

October female labor person day 16 16

November female labor person day 60 60

December female labor person day 80 80

January male labor person day 0 8

February male labor person day 0 20

March male labor person day 0 8

July male labor person day 76 76

August male labor person day 16 16

September male labor person day 16 16

October male labor person day 16 16

November male labor person day 40 48

December male labor person day 20 28

50 Annex 1

Table A8: Monsoon Rice and Cow Pea (4 ha) – Financial Budget


Main production Unit price per 1 to 25 1 to 25

Monsoon rice - local variety 279 kg 3,570 0

Monsoon rice - high yield variety 279 kg 0 4,317

Cow pea 977 kg 0 2,837

Sub-total main production 3,570 7,154

Operating

Purchased inputs

Monsoon rice seed - traditional 279 kg 86 0

Monsoon rice seed - improved 479 kg 0 148

Cow pea seed - improved 1,200 kg 0 288

Urea 500 kg 192 248

NPK 500 kg 54 52

Triple superphosphate 500 kg 0 124

Organic fertilizer 30 kg 0 385

Potash 440 kg 0 55

Pesticide 7,500 ltr 75 225

Fungicide 10,000 ltr 80 80

Sub-total purchased inputs 487 1,604

Hired labor

February female labor 5,000 person day 0 310

March female labor 5,000 person day 0 10

July female labor 5,000 person day 0 0

August female labor 5,000 person day 0 0

September female labor 5,000 person day 0 0

October female labor 5,000 person day 0 0

November female labor 5,000 person day 110 110

December female labor 5,000 person day 210 210

January male labor 5,000 person day 0 0

February male labor 5,000 person day 0 0

March male labor 5,000 person day 0 0

July male labor 5,000 person day 190 190

August male labor 5,000 person day 0 0

September male labor 5,000 person day 0 0

October male labor 5,000 person day 0 0

November male labor 5,000 person day 10 50

December male labor 5,000 person day 0 0

Sub-total hired labor 520 880

Sub-total production cost 1,007 2,484

Outflows 1,007 2,484

Cash flow before financing 2,563 4,670

Financial inflows

Disbursements on short term loan 1,007 2,484

Financial outflows

Short term principal 1,007 2,484

Short term interest 83 206

Sub-total financial outflows 1,090 2,690

Net financing -83 -206

Cash flow after financing 2,479 4,464

Farm Family benefits after financing 2,479 4,464

Returns per family-day of labor 9.0 11.3

Annex 1 51

Table A9: Elephant Foot Yam Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs

w/o project

Items Unit 1 to 25 1 2 to 25

Main production

Fresh EFY kg 1,782 3,238 3,238

Fresh EFY for seed kg 400 400 400

Traditional dired EFY kg 296 537 537

Investment

Fencing ha 0.0 0.4 0.0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Compost kg 0 988 988

Bio-pesticide ltr 0 3 3

Labor

January female labor person day 10 16 16

February female labor person day 8 10 10

March female labor person day 8 10 10

May female labor person day 10 18 18

July female labor person day 6 6 6

August female labor person day 0 6 6

September female labor person day 4 4 4

December female labor person day 10 10 10

January male labor person day 4 6 6

May male labor person day 6 10 10

July male labor person day 4 4 4

August male labor person day 0 4 4

September male labor person day 4 4 4

December male labor person day 13 14 14

w/ project

52 Annex 1

Table A10: Elephant Foot Yam Household Enterprise – Financial Budget

w/o project

Unit price per 1 to 25 1 2 to 25

Main production

Traditional dried EFY 4,900 kg 1,450 2,631 2,631

Investment

Fencing 55,575 ha 0 22 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Compost 30 kg 0 30 30

Bio-pesticide 6,000 ltr 0 18 18

Sub-total operating costs 0 48 48

Total production costs 0 70 48

Outflows 0 70 48

Cash flow before financing 1,450 2,561 2,584

Financial inflows

Disbursement on short term loan 0 48 48

RCDP livelihood grant 0 22 0

Financial outflows

Short term principal 0 48 48

Short term interest 0 6 6

Sub-total financial outflows 0 53 53

Net financing 0 17 -6

Cash flow after financing 1,450 2,578 2,578

Farm Family benefits after financing 1,450 2,578 2,578

Returns per family-day of labor 16.7 21.1 21.1

w/ project

Annex 1 53

Table A11: Cardamom Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs

Items Unit 1 2 to 4 5 to 25 1 2 to 4 5 to 25

Main production

Dried cardamon kg 0 0 12 0 0 76

Operating

Purchased inputs

Cardamom seedlings each 740.0 0.0 0.0 2,960.0 0.0 0.0

Compost kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Manure kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 240.0 240.0 240.0

Bio-pesticide ltr 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2

Labor

January female labor person day 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.4

February female labor person day 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.0

March female labor person day 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.0

April female labor person day 0.6 0.0 0.3 9.6 0.0 2.0

May female labor person day 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0

July female labor person day 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.2

August female labor person day 0.3 0.3 0.6 2.4 2.4 3.6

September female labor person day 0.3 0.3 0.7 2.4 2.4 4.0

October female labor person day 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.8

November female labor person day 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.8

December female labor person day 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.4

April male labor person day 0.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0

July male labor person day 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2


54 Annex 1

Table A12: Cardamom Household Enterprise – Financial Budget

Unit price per 1 2 to 4 5 to 25 1 2 to 4 5 to 25

Main production

Dried cardamom 9,166 kg 0.0 0.0 110.0 0.0 0.0 696.6

Operating

Purchased inputs

Cardamom seedlings 40 each 29.6 0.0 0.0 118.4 0.0 0.0

Compost 30 kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Manure 30 kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2 7.2

Bio-pesticide 6,000 ltr 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2 7.2

Sub-total operating costs 29.6 0.0 0.0 135.8 17.4 17.4

Sub-total production costs 29.6 0.0 0.0 135.8 17.4 17.4

Outflows 29.6 0.0 0.0 135.8 17.4 17.4

Cash flow before financing -29.6 0.0 110.0 -135.8 -17.4 679.2

Financial inflows

Disbursement on short term loan 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.8 17.4 17.4

Financial outflows

Short term principal 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.8 17.4 17.4

Short term interest 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 2.1 2.1

Sub-total financial outflows 0.0 0.0 0.0 152.1 19.5 19.5

Net financing 0.0 0.0 0.0 -16.3 -2.1 -2.1

Cash flow after financing -29.6 0.0 110.0 -152.1 -19.5 677.1

Farm Family benefits after financing -29.6 0.0 110.0 -152.1 -19.5 677.1

Returns per family-day of labor -12.3 0.0 22.4 -6.7 -2.7 25.6


Annex 1 55

Table A13: Chili Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs

w/ project

Items Unit 1 to 25

Main production

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) kg 45.0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Chilli seed kg 0.0125

Urea kg 5.0

Triple superphosphate kg 2.5

Compost kg 50.0

Muriate of potash kg 2.5

Bio-pesticide ltr 0.15

Bio-fungicide ltr 0.15

Bags each 11.3

Labor

January female labor person day 0.6

February female labor person day 0.6

March female labor person day 2.5

April female labor person day 3.8

November female labor person day 0.8

December female labor person day 0.3

January male labor person day 0.2

February male labor person day 0.2

November male labor person day 1.0

December male labor person day 0.1

56 Annex 1

Table A14: Chili Household Enterprise – Financial Budget

w/ project

Unit price per 1 to 25

Main production

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) 15,000 kg 675.0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Chilli seed 700,000 kg 8.8

Urea 500 kg 2.5

Triple superphosphate 500 kg 1.3

Compost 30 kg 1.5

Muriate of potash 56 kg 0.1

Bio-pesticide 6,000 ltr 0.9

Bio-fungicide 6,000 ltr 0.9

Bags 200 each 2.3

Sub-total operating costs 18.2

Sub-total production costs 18.2

Outflows 18.2

Cash flow before financing 656.8

Financial inflows

Disbursements on short term loan 18.2

Financial outflows

Short term principal 18.2

Short term interest 0.9

Sub-total financial outflows 19.1

Net financing -0.9

Cash flow after financing 655.9

Farm Family benefits after financing 655.9

Returns per family-day of labor 64.9

Annex 1 57

Table A15: Fruit Tree Nursery Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs

Items Unit 1 2 3 4 to 25

Main production

Avocado seedlings (grafted) seedling 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Investment

Nursery tools and equipment set 1 0 0 0

Posts (3m) each 100 0 0 0

Bamboo for roof each 500 0 0 0

Bamboo for seedbed each 200 0 0 0

Nursery shade net roll 5 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Avocado root stock seedlings kg 55 110 165 220

Avocado scion kg 5,500 11,000 16,500 22,000

Compost kg 250 500 750 1,000

Manure kg 250 500 750 1,000

Bio-pesticide ltr 3 3 3 3

Nursery seedling bags each 5,500 11,000 16,500 22,000

Labor

January female labor person day 30 30 30 30

February female labor person day 30 30 30 30

March female labor person day 60 60 60 60

April female labor person day 30 30 30 30

May female labor person day 30 30 30 30

June female labor person day 30 30 30 30

July female labor person day 30 30 30 30

August female labor person day 30 30 30 30

September female labor person day 30 30 30 30

October female labor person day 30 30 30 30

November female labor person day 30 30 30 30

December female labor person day 30 30 30 30

w/ project

58 Annex 1

Table A16: Fruit Tree Nursery Group Enterprise – Financial Budget

Unit price per 1 2 3 4 to 25

Main production

Avocado seedlings (grafted) 200 seedling 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Investment

Nursery equipment 50,000 lump sum 50 0 0 0

Posts (3m) 5,000 each 500 0 0 0

Bamboo for roof 1,000 each 500 0 0 0

Bamboo for seedbed 1,000 each 200 0 0 0

Nursery shade net 60,000 roll 300 0 0 0

Sub-total investment costs 1,550 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Avocado root stock seedlings 1,500 kg 83 165 248 330

Avocado scion 10 kg 55 110 165 220

Compost 30 kg 8 15 23 30

Manure 30 kg 8 15 23 30

Bio-pesticide 6,000 ltr 18 18 18 18

Nursery seedling bags 10 each 55 110 165 220

Sub-total operating costs 226 433 641 848

Sub-total production costs 1,776 433 641 848

Outflows 1,776 433 641 848

Cash flow before financing -776 1,567 2,360 3,152

Financial inflows

Disbursements on short term loan 226 433 641 848

RCDP Grant (USD250 per 5 HH) 1,938

Financial outflows

Short term principal 226 433 641 848

Short term interest 27 52 77 102

Sub-total financial outflows 253 485 717 950

Net financing 1,910 -52 -77 -102

Cash flow after financing 1,135 1,515 2,283 3,050

Farm Family benefits after financing 1,135 1,515 2,283 3,050

Returns per family-day of labor 2.9 3.9 5.9 7.8

w/ project

Annex 1 59

Table A17: Cashew Nut Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs

w/o project


Main production

Cashew (raw nut) kg 724 1,010 1,010

Cashew kernel - Grade A kg 274 0 0

Cashew kernel (organic) - Grade A kg 0 382 382

Cashew kernel - Grade B kg 117 0 0

Cashew kernel (organic) - Grade B kg 0 164 164

Investment

Organic certification -cashew lumpsum 0 1 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Organic fertilizer kg 500 4,000 4,000


Labor




April female labor person day 1 6 6

June female labor person day 5 5 5



October female labor person day 1 6 6


w/ project

60 Annex 1

Table A18: Cashew Nut Group Enterprise – Financial Budget

w/o project


Main production

Cashew kernel - Grade A 5,000 kg 1,370 0 0

Cashew kernel organic - Grade A 7,500 kg 0 2,865 2,865

Cashew kernel - Grade B 3,500 kg 410 0 0

Cashew kernel organic - Grade B 5,250 kg 0 861 861

Sub-total main production 1,780 3,726 3,726

Production cost

Investment

Organic certification - cashew 4,200,000 lump sum 0 4,200 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Organic fertilizer 30 kg 15 120 120


Sub-total operating costs 15 180 180

Sub-total production costs 15 4,380 180

Outflows 15 4,380 180

Cash flow before financing 1,765 -654 3,546

Financial inflows

Disbursements on short term loan 15 180 180

Contribution from own savings 0 2,700 0

RCDP Grant (USD250 per 4 HH) 1,550

Sub-total financial inflows 15 4,430 180

Financial outflows

Short term principal 15 180 180

Short term interest 2 22 22

Sub-total financial outflows 17 202 202

Net financing -2 4,228 -22

Cash flow after financing 1,763 3,574 3,524

Contribution from own savings 0 -2,700 0

Farm Family benefits after financing 1,763 874 3,524

Returns per family-day of labor 36.7 11.2 45.2

w/ project

Annex 1 61

Table A19: SALT Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs

w/o project

Items Unit 1 to 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 TO 25

Main production

Upland rice - traditional (dryland) kg 258 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland rice - improved (dryland) kg 0 516 516 516 516 516 516

Chilli (Shwe Hian Bo) kg 0 0 20 30 40 50 50

Fresh EFY kg 891 1,619 1,619 1,619 1,619 1,619 1,619

Fresh EFY for seed kg 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Traditional dried EFY kg 202 268 268 268 268 268 268

Avocado seedling 0 0 0 0 0 450 900

Investment

Vetiver grass hedgerow lump sum 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

EFY seed kg 100 200 200 200 200 200 200

Upland rice (dryland) seed - traditional kg 16 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland rice (dryland) seed - improved kg 0 16 16 16 16 16 16

Avocado seedling kg 0 13 0 0 0 0 0

Chilli seed kg 0 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125

Urea kg 0 5 5 5 5 5 5

Triple superphosphate kg 0 3 3 3 3 3 3

Compost kg 0 764 764 764 764 764 764

Muriate of potash kg 0 3 3 3 3 3 3

Bio-pesticide ltr 0 3 3 3 3 3 3

Bio-fungicide ltr 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Bags each 0 11 11 11 11 11 11

Labor

January female labor person day 5 8 8 8 8 8 8

February female labor person day 4 5 5 5 5 5 6

March female labor person day 5 7 7 7 8 8 8

April female labor person day 0 2 2 2 4 4 4

May female labor person day 6 10 10 10 10 10 10

June female labor person day 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

July female labor person day 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

August female labor person day 0 4 4 4 4 4 4

September female labor person day 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

October female labor person day 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

November female labor person day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

December female labor person day 5 8 8 8 8 9 9

January male labor person day 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

February male labor person day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

March male labor person day 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

April male labor person day 0 2 2 2 2 2 2

May male labor person day 3 5 5 5 5 5 5

June male labor person day 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

July male labor person day 2 4 4 4 4 4 4

August male labor person day 0 2 2 2 2 2 2

September male labor person day 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

October male labor person day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

November male labor person day 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

December male labor person day 5 9 9 9 9 9 9

w/ project

62 Annex 1

Table A20: SALT Household Enterprise – Financial Budget

w/o project

Unit price per 1 to 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 TO 25

Main production

Upland rice - traditional (dryland) 279 kg 72 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland rice - improved (dryland) 279 kg 0 144 144 144 144 144 144

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) 15,000 kg 0 0 300 450 600 750 750

Traditional dried EFY 4,900 kg 990 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313

Avocado seedlings (grafted) 200 seedling 0 0 0 0 0 90 180

Sub-total main production 1,062 1,457 1,757 1,907 2,057 2,297 2,387

Investment

Vetiver grass hedgerow 405,000 lump sum 0 405 0 0 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

EFY seed 5,000 kg 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Upland rice (dryland) seed - traditional 279 kg 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland rice (dryland) seed - improved 430 kg 0 7 7 7 7 7 7

Avocado root stock seedlings 1,500 kg 0 20 0 0 0 0 0

Chilli seed 700,000 kg 0 9 9 9 9 9 9

Urea 500 kg 0 3 3 3 3 3 3

Triple superphosphate 500 kg 0 2 2 2 2 2 2

Compost 30 kg 0 23 23 23 23 23 23

Muriate of potash 56 kg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bio-pesticide 6,000 ltr 0 18 18 18 18 18 18

Bio-fungicide 6,000 ltr 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bags 200 each 0 2 2 2 2 2 2

Sub-total operating costs 504 1,083 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064

Sub-total production costs 504 1,488 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064

Outflows 504 1,488 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064

Cash flow before financing 557 -31 694 844 994 1,234 1,324

Financial inflows

Disbursements on short term loan 504 1,083 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064

Contribution from own savings 0 383 0 0 0 0 0

RCDP Grant (USD250 per 4 HH) 0 22 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total financial inflows 504 1,488 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064

Financial outflows

Short term principal 504 1,083 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064

Short term interest 15 33 32 32 32 32 32

Sub-total financial outflows 520 1,116 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096

Net financing -15 372 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32

Cash flow after financing 542 341 661 811 961 1,201 1,291

Contribution from own savings 0 -383 0 0 0 0 0

Farm Family benefits after financing 542 -42 661 811 961 1,201 1,291

Returns per family-day of labor 12.0 -0.5 8.0 9.8 11.2 13.8 14.7

w/ project

Annex 1 63

Table A21: Terrace Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs

w/o project

Items Unit 1 to 25 1 2 3 TO 25

Main production

Upland rice - traditional (dryland) kg 5,160 0 0 0

Upland rice - improved (dryland) kg 0 10,320 10,320 10,320

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) kg 0 128 192 256

Investment

Terrace construction person day 0 1,482 0 0

Terrace maintenance person day 0 0 37 37

Operating

Purchased inputs

Upland rice (dryland) seed - traditional kg 320 0 0 0

Upland rice (dryland) seed - improved kg 0 320 320 320

Chilli seed kg 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08

Urea kg 0 32 32 32

Triple superphosphate kg 0 16 16 16

Compost kg 0 2,720 2,720 2,720

Muriate of potash kg 0 16 16 16

Bio-pesticide ltr 0 21 21 21

Bio-fungicide ltr 0 1 1 1

Bags each 0 72 72 72

Labor

January female labor person day 0 4 4 4

February female labor person day 0 4 4 4

March female labor person day 12 28 28 28

April female labor person day 0 24 24 24

May female labor person day 20 20 20 20

June female labor person day 8 12 12 12

July female labor person day 8 12 12 12

August female labor person day 8 12 12 12

September female labor person day 8 12 12 12

October female labor person day 8 12 12 12

November female labor person day 0 5 5 5

December female labor person day 32 66 66 66

January male labor person day 0 1 1 1

February male labor person day 0 1 1 1

March male labor person day 12 12 12 12

April male labor person day 0 40 40 40

June male labor person day 0 24 24 24

July male labor person day 0 40 40 40

August male labor person day 0 4 4 4

October male labor person day 0 4 4 4

November male labor person day 0 6 6 6

December male labor person day 16 33 33 33

w/ project

64 Annex 1

Table A22: Terrace Group Enterprise – Financial Budget

w/o project

Unit price per 1 to 25 1 2 3 4 5 to 24 25

Main production

Upland rice - traditional (dryland) 279 kg 1,439 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland rice - improved (dryland) 279 kg 0 2,878 2,878 2,878 2,878 2,878 2,878

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) 15,000 kg 0 1,920 2,880 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840


Investment

Terrace construction 5,000 person day 0 7,410 0 0 0 0 0

Terrace maintenance 5,000 person day 0 0 185 185 185 185 185

Sub-total investment costs 0 7,410 185 185 185 185 185

Operating

Purchased inputs



Chilli seed 700,000 kg 0 56 56 56 56 56 56

Urea 500 kg 0 16 16 16 16 16 16


Compost 30 kg 0 82 82 82 82 82 82




Bags 200 each 0 14 14 14 14 14 14

Sub-total operating costs 89 446 446 446 446 446 446

Sub-total production costs 89 7,856 631 631 631 631 631

Outflows 89 7,856 631 631 631 631 631

Cash flow before financing 1,350 -3,059 5,126 6,086 6,086 6,086 6,086

Financial inflows

Disbursements on long term loan 0 4,310 0 0 0 0 0

Disbursements on short term loan 89 446 631 631 631 631 631

RCDP Grant (USD250 per 8 HH) 3100

Sub-total financial inflows 89 7856 631 631 631 631 631

Financial outflows

Long term principal 0 0 1,277 1,431 1,602 0 0

Short term principal 89 446 631 631 631 631 631

Long term interest 0 0 517 364 192 0 0


Sub-total financial outflows 97 483 2,478 2,478 2,478 684 684

Net financing -7 7,373 -1,847 -1,847 -1,847 -52 -52

Cash flow after financing 1,342 4,314 3,280 4,240 4,240 6,034 6,034

Farm Family benefits after financing 1,342 4,314 3,280 4,240 4,240 6,034 6,034

Returns per family-day of labor 10.2 11.5 8.7 11.3 11.3 16.0 16.0

w/ project

Annex 1 65

Table A23: Piglet Raising Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs

Items Unit 1 2 TO 25

Main production

Fattened pigs kg 342 342

Investment

Piglet shelter lumpsum 1 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Piglet vaccination per piglet 6 6

Piglet purchase each 6 6

Piglet transport piglet 6 6

Piglet food - improved per piglet 6 6

Labor

January female labor person day 3 3


March female labor person day 3 3

April female labor person day 3 3

May female labor person day 3 3

June female labor person day 3 3



w/ project

66 Annex 1

Table A24: Piglet Raising Household Enterprise – Financial Budget

Items Unit price per 1 2 TO 25

Main production

Fattened pigs 3,680 kg 1,259 1,259

Investment

Piglet shelter 50,000 lump sum 50 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Piglet vaccination 5,000 per piglet 30 30

Piglet purchase 45,000 each 270 270

Piglet transport 5,000 piglet 30 30

Piglet food - improved 96,000 per piglet 576 576

Sub-total operating costs 906 906

Total production costs 956 906

Outflows 956 906

Cash flow before financing 303 353

Financial inflows

Disbursement on short term loan 906 906

RCDP livelihood grant 50 0

Financial outflows

Short term principal 906 906


Sub-total financial outflows 991 991

Net financing -35 -85

Cash flow after financing 268 268

Farm Family benefits after financing 268 268


w/ project

Annex 1 67

Table A25: Wild Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs

Table A26: Wild Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Financial Budget


Main production

Fish (wild) kg 300 300

Operating

Purchased inputs

Wild fish food lump sum 1 1

Bamboo and net for trap lump sum 1 0

Labor






May male labor person day 30 0

June male labor person day 12 7


w/ project


Main production

Fish (wild) 1,875 kg 563 563

Operating

Purchased inputs

Wild fish food 81,000 lump sum 81 81

Bamboo and net for trap 14,000 lump sum 14 0

Sub-total production costs 95 81

Outflows 95 81

Cash flow before financing 468 482

Financial inflows

Disbursement on short term loan 95 81

Financial outflows

Short term principal 95 81


Sub-total financial outflows 100 85

Net financing -5 -4

Cash flow after financing 463 477

Farm Family benefits after financing 463 477


w/ project

68 Annex 1

Table A27: Terrace Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Production and Inputs


Main production

Fish (Tilapia) kg 1,000 1,000

Investment


Operating

Purchased inputs

Fingerlings (tilapia) each 5,000 5,000

Fish feed bag 30 30

Labor







w/ project

Annex 1 69

Table A28: Terrace Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Financial Budget

Items Unit price per 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to 25

Main production

Fish (Tilapia) 2,000 kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Investment

May male labor 5,000 person day 3,350 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Fingerlings (tilapia) 15 each 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Fish feed 23,000 bag 690 690 690 690 690 690 690

Sub-total purchased inputs 765 765 765 765 765 765 765

Hired labor

June male labor 5,000 person day 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Sub-total operating costs 825 825 825 825 825 825 825

Total production costs 4,175 825 825 825 825 825 825

Outflows 4,175 825 825 825 825 825 825

Cash flow before financing -2,175 1,175 1,175 1,175 1,175 1,175 1,175

Financial inflows

Disbursement on long term loan 2,959

Disbursement on short term loan 825 825 825 825 825 825 825


RCDP grant (USD250 per 1 HH) 388

Sub-total financial inflows 4,175 825 825 825 825 825 825

Financial outflows

Long term principal 0 466 522 584 654 733 0


Short term principal 825 825 825 825 825 825 825


Sub-total financial outflows 867 1,688 1,688 1,688 1,688 1,688 867

Net financing 3,308 -863 -863 -863 -863 -863 -42

Cash flow after financing 1,133 312 312 312 312 312 1,133

Contribution from own savings -4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Farm Family benefits after financing 1,129 312 312 312 312 312 1,133


w/ project

70 Annex 1

Table A29: Elephant Foot Yam Drying Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs

w/o project


Main production

Fresh EFY kg 17,824 32,376 32,376

Fresh EFY for seed kg 4,000 4,000 4,000

Traditional dried EFY kg 2,960 0 0

Solar dried EFY kg 0 5,368 5,368

Investment

Fencing ha 0 4 0

EFY cutter lumpsum 0 1 0

EFY solar drying equipment lumpsum 0 1 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Compost kg 0 9,880 9,880


Labor




May female labor person day 104 184 184


August female labor person day 0 60 60



January male labor person day 36 64 64

May male labor person day 64 104 104

July male labor person day 40 40 40

August male labor person day 0 40 40

September male labor person day 40 40 40

December male labor person day 132 140 140

w/ project

Annex 1 71

Table A30: Elephant Foot Yam Drying Group Enterprise – Financial Budget

w/o project

Items Unit price per 1 to 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to 25

Main production

Traditional dried EFY 4,900 kg 14,504 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Solar dried EFY 5,900 kg 0 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671

Sub-total main production 14,504 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671

Investment

Fencing 55,575 ha 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 0

EFY cutter 500,000 lump sum 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0

EFY solar drying equipment 9,500,000 lump sum 0 9,500 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total investment costs 0 10,222 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Compost 30 kg 0 296 296 296 296 296 296 296

Bio-pesticide 6,000 ltr 0 168 168 168 168 168 168 168

Hired labor

January female labor 5,000 person day 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

May female labor 5,000 person day 0 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

Sub-total operating costs 0 664 664 664 664 664 664 664

Total production costs 0 10,887 664 664 664 664 664 664

Outflows 0 10,887 664 664 664 664 664 664

Cash flow before financing 14,504 20,785 31,007 31,007 31,007 31,007 31,007 31,007

Financial inflows


Disbursement on short term loan 0 664 664 664 664 664 664 664

Contribution from own savings 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0


Sub-total financial inflows 0 10,887 664 664 664 664 664 664

Financial outflows

Long term principal 0 0 1,360 1,523 1,706 1,911 2,140 0

Long term interest 0 0 1,037 874 691 486 257 0

Short term principal 0 664 664 664 664 664 664 664

Short term interest 0 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

Sub-total financial outflows 0 744 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 744

Net financing 0 10,143 -2,476 -2,476 -2,476 -2,476 -2,476 -80

Cash flow after financing 14,504 30,927 28,530 28,530 28,530 28,530 28,530 30,927

Contribution from own savings 0 -33 0 0 0 0 0 0

Farm Family benefits after financing 14,504 30,894 28,530 28,530 28,530 28,530 28,530 30,927

Returns per family-day of labor 16.6 26 24 24 24 24 24 25.9

w/ project

72 Annex 1

Table A31: Coffee Parchment Processing Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs


Main production

Coffee beans (dried parchment) kg 1,500 3,000

Investment

Coffee processing production unit lump sum 1 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Red coffee berries kg 7,500 15,000

Labor

January female labor person day 18 35


December female labor person day 18 35




w/ project

Annex 1 73

Table A32: Coffee Parchment Processing Group Enterprise – Financial Budget


Main production

Coffee beans (dried parchment) 8,500 kg 12,750 25,500

Investment

Coffee processing production unit 3,750,000 lump sum 3,750 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Red coffee berries 1,472 kg 11,040 22,080


Outflows 14,790 22,080

Cash flow before financing -2,040 3,420

Financial inflows

Disbursement on short term loan 11,040 22,080

RCDP grant 3,750 0

Financial outflows

Short term principal 11,040 22,080


Sub-total financial outflows 11,375 22,749

Net financing 3,415 -669

Cash flow after financing 1,375 2,751

Farm Family benefits after financing 1,375 2,751


w/ project

74 Annex 1

Table A33: Green Tea Processing Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs


Main production

Green tea kg 0 5,000

Investment

Green tea equipment lump sum 1 0

Building lump sum 1 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Fresh tea kg 0 30,000

Gas expenses unit 0 200,000

Labor

April female labor person day 60 60

May female labor person day 60 60

June female labor person day 60 60






April male labor person day 60 60








w/ project

Annex 1 75

Table A34: Green tea Processing Group Enterprise – Financial Budget


Main production

Green tea 5,000 kg 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Investment

Green tea equipment 9,000,000 lump sum 9,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Building 11,000,000 lump sum 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total investment costs 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Fresh tea 500 kg 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Gas expenses 1 unit 0 200 200 200 200 200 200

Sub-total operating costs 0 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200

Total production costs 20,000 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200

Outflows 20,000 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200


Financial inflows


Disbursement on short term loan 0 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200


Sub-total financial inflows 20,000 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200

Financial outflows

Long term principal 0 2,538 2,843 3,184 3,566 3,994 0

Long term interest 0 1,935 1,630 1,289 907 479 0


Short term interest 0 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259


Net financing 20,000 -5,733 -5,733 -5,733 -5,733 -5,733 -1,259

Cash flow after financing 0 4,067 4,067 4,067 4,067 4,067 8,541

Farm Family benefits after financing 0 4,067 4,067 4,067 4,067 4,067 8,541


w/ project

76 Annex 1

Table A35: Ice Production Group Enterprise – Production and Inputs


Main production

Ice kg 150,000 300,000

Investment

Ice production equipment lump sum 1 0

Ice making water supply lump sum 1 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Electricity - ice production hours 2,400 4,800

Labor



March male labor person day 50 100

April male labor person day 50 100









w/ project

Annex 1 77

Table A36: Ice Production Group Enterprise – Financial Budget


Main production

Ice 44 kg 6,600 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200

Investment

Ice production equipment 8,000,000 lump sum 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ice making water supply 1,000,000 lump sum 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0


Operating

Purchased inputs

Electricity - ice production 262 hours 629 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258

Total production costs 9,629 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258

Outflows 9,629 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258


Financial inflows


Disbursement on short term loan 0 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258


RCDP grant (USD250 per 6 HH) 2,325

Sub-total financial inflows 9,629 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258

Financial outflows

Long term principal 0 1,051 1,177 1,318 1,476 1,653 0





Net financing 9,629 -2,003 -2,003 -2,003 -2,003 -2,003 -151

Cash flow after financing 6,600 9,940 9,940 9,940 9,940 9,940 11,791

Contribution from own savings -629 0 0 0 0 0 0

Farm Family benefits after financing 5,971 9,940 9,940 9,940 9,940 9,940 11,791


w/ project

78 Annex 1

Table A37: Monsoon Rice and Cow Pea (4 ha) – Economic Resource Flow Statement


Main production Unit price per 1 to 25 1 to 25

Monsoon rice - local variety 288 kg 3,684 0

Monsoon rice - high yield variety 288 kg 0 4,455

Cow pea 977 kg 0 2,837

Sub-total main production 3,684 7,293

Operating

Purchased inputs

Monsoon rice seed - traditional 288 kg 89 0

Monsoon rice seed - improved 479 kg 0 148

Cow pea seed - improved 1,200 kg 0 288

Urea 515 kg 198 255

NPK 515 kg 56 54

Triple superphosphate 515 kg 0 128

Organic fertilizer 30 kg 0 385

Potash 453 kg 0 56

Pesticide 7,725 ltr 77 232

Fungicide 10,300 ltr 82 82

Sub-total purchased inputs 502 1,628

Labor





September female labor 4,500 person day 72 72

October female labor 4,500 person day 72 72

November female labor 4,500 person day 270 270




March male labor 4,500 person day 0 36

July male labor 4,500 person day 342 342

August male labor 4,500 person day 72 72

September male labor 4,500 person day 72 72

October male labor 4,500 person day 72 72

November male labor 4,500 person day 180 216


Sub-total labor 1,710 2,574


Outflows 2,212 4,202

Net resource flow 1,472 3,091

Annex 1 79

Table A38: Elephant Foot Yam Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement

w/o project


Main production

Traditional dried EFY 4,900 kg 1,450 2,631 2,631

Investment

Fencing 55,575 ha 0 22 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Compost 30 kg 0 30 30


Sub-total purchased inputs 0 48 48

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 45 72 72

February female labor 4,500 person day 36 45 45

March female labor 4,500 person day 36 45 45

May female labor 4,500 person day 45 81 81

July female labor 4,500 person day 27 27 27

August female labor 4,500 person day 0 27 27

September female labor 4,500 person day 18 18 18

December female labor 4,500 person day 45 45 45

January male labor 4,500 person day 18 27 27

May male labor 4,500 person day 27 45 45

July male labor 4,500 person day 18 18 18

August male labor 4,500 person day 0 18 18

September male labor 4,500 person day 18 18 18

December male labor 4,500 person day 58.5 63 63

Sub-total labor 391.5 549 549

Sub-total production cost 392 619 597

Outflows 392 619 597

w/ project

80 Annex 1

Table A39: Cardamom Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement

Unit price per 1 2 to 4 5 to 25 1 2 to 4 5 to 25

Main production

Dried cardamom 9,166 kg 0.0 0.0 110.0 0.0 0.0 696.6

Operating

Purchased inputs

Cardamom seedlings 40 each 29.6 0.0 0.0 118.4 0.0 0.0

Compost 30 kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Manure 30 kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2 7.2

Bio-pesticide 6,180 ltr 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.4 7.4

Sub-total purchased inputs 29.6 0.0 0.0 136.0 17.6 17.6

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 0 0 1.8 0 0 10.8

February female labor 4,500 person day 0 0 1.8 0 0 9

March female labor 4,500 person day 0 0 1.8 0 0 9

April female labor 4,500 person day 2.7 0 1.35 43.2 0 9

May female labor 4,500 person day 1.35 0 0 5.4 0 0

July female labor 4,500 person day 1.35 1.35 1.35 5.4 5.4 5.4

August female labor 4,500 person day 1.35 1.35 2.7 10.8 10.8 16.2

September female labor 4,500 person day 1.35 1.35 3.15 10.8 10.8 18

October female labor 4,500 person day 0 0 3.15 0 0 12.6

November female labor 4,500 person day 0 0 3.15 0 0 12.6

December female labor 4,500 person day 0 0 1.8 0 0 10.8

April male labor 4,500 person day 2.7 0 0 21.6 0 0

July male labor 4,500 person day 0 0 0 5.4 5.4 5.4

Sub-total labor 10.8 4.05 22.05 102.6 32.4 118.8

Sub-total production cost 40.4 4.1 22.1 238.6 50.0 136.4

Outflows 40.4 4.1 22.1 238.6 50.0 136.4

Net resource flow -40.4 -4.1 87.9 -238.6 -50.0 560.2


Annex 1 81

Table A40: Chili Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement

w/ project

Unit price per 1 to 25

Main production

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) 15,000 kg 675.0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Chilli seed 700,000 kg 8.8

Urea 515 kg 2.6

Triple superphosphate 515 kg 1.3

Compost 30 kg 1.5

Muriate of potash 58 kg 0.1

Bio-pesticide 6,180 ltr 0.9

Bio-fungicide 6,180 ltr 0.9

Bags 200 each 2.3

Sub-total purchased inputs 18.4

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 2.7

February female labor 4,500 person day 2.7

March female labor 4,500 person day 11.25

April female labor 4,500 person day 17.1

November female labor 4,500 person day 3.6

December female labor 4,500 person day 1.35

January male labor 4,500 person day 0.9

February male labor 4,500 person day 0.9

November male labor 4,500 person day 4.5

December male labor 4,500 person day 0.45

Sub-total labor 45.45

Sub-total production cost 63.8

Outflows 63.8

Net resource flow 611.2

82 Annex 1

Table A41: Fruit Tree Nursery Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement

Unit price per 1 2 3 4 to 25

Main production

Avocado seedlings (grafted) 200 seedling 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Investment

Nursery equipment 51,500 lump sum 52 0 0 0

Posts (3m) 5,000 each 500 0 0 0

Bamboo for roof 1,000 each 500 0 0 0

Bamboo for seedbed 1,000 each 200 0 0 0

Nursery shade net 60,000 roll 300 0 0 0

Sub-total investment costs 1,552 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Avocado root stock seedlings 1,500 kg 83 165 248 330

Avocado scion 10 kg 55 110 165 220

Compost 30 kg 8 15 23 30

Manure 30 kg 8 15 23 30

Bio-pesticide 6,180 ltr 19 19 19 19

Nursery seedling bags 10 each 55 110 165 220

Sub-total purchased inputs 226 434 641 849

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

February female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

March female labor 4,500 person day 288 288 288 288

April female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

May female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

June female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

July female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

August female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

September female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

October female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

November female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

December female labor 4,500 person day 144 144 144 144

Sub-total labor 1,872 1,872 1,872 1,872

Sub-total production cost 3,650 2,306 2,513 2,721

Outflows 3,650 2,306 2,513 2,721

Net resource flow -2,650 -306 487 1,279

w/ project

Annex 1 83

Table A42: Cashew Nut Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement

w/o project


Main production

Cashew kernel - Grade A 5,000 kg 1,370 0 0

Cashew kernel organic - Grade A 7,500 kg 0 2,865 2,865

Cashew kernel - Grade B 3,500 kg 410 0 0

Cashew kernel organic - Grade B 5,250 kg 0 861 861

Sub-total main production 1,780 3,726 3,726

Production cost

Investment

Organic certification - cashew 4,200,000 lump sum 0 4,200 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Organic fertilizer 30 kg 15 120 120


Sub-total purchased inputs 15 182 182

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 54 81 81

February female labor 4,500 person day 27 40.5 40.5

March female labor 4,500 person day 22.5 22.5 22.5

April female labor 4,500 person day 4.5 27 27

June female labor 4,500 person day 22.5 22.5 22.5

July female labor 4,500 person day 4.5 27 27

September female labor 4,500 person day 22.5 22.5 22.5

October female labor 4,500 person day 4.5 27 27

December female labor 4,500 person day 54 81 81

Sub-total labor 216 351 351

Sub-total production cost 231 4,733 533

Outflows 231 4,733 533

Net resource flow 1,549 -1,007 3,193

w/ project

84 Annex 1

Table A43: SALT Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement

w/o project

Unit price per 1 to 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 TO 25

Main production

Upland rice - traditional (dryland) 288 kg 74 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland rice - improved (dryland) 288 kg 0 149 149 149 149 149 149

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) 15,000 kg 0 0 300 450 600 750 750

Traditional dried EFY 4,900 kg 990 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313

Avocado seedlings (grafted) 200 seedling 0 0 0 0 0 90 180


Investment

Vetiver grass hedgerow 405,000 lump sum 0 405 0 0 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

EFY seed 5,000 kg 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000



Avocado root stock seedlings 1,500 kg 0 20 0 0 0 0 0

Chilli seed 700,000 kg 0 9 9 9 9 9 9

Urea 515 kg 0 3 3 3 3 3 3


Compost 30 kg 0 23 23 23 23 23 23




Bags 200 each 0 2 2 2 2 2 2

Sub-total purchased inputs 505 1,084 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 22.5 36 36 36 36 36 36

February female labor 4,500 person day 18 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 27

March female labor 4,500 person day 22.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 36 36 36

April female labor 4,500 person day 0 9 9 9 18 18 18

May female labor 4,500 person day 27 45 45 45 45 45 45

June female labor 4,500 person day 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

July female labor 4,500 person day 13.5 18 18 18 18 18 18

August female labor 4,500 person day 0 18 18 18 18 18 18

September female labor 4,500 person day 9 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5

October female labor 4,500 person day 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

November female labor 4,500 person day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

December female labor 4,500 person day 22.5 36 36 36 36 40.5 40.5

January male labor 4,500 person day 9 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5

February male labor 4,500 person day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

March male labor 4,500 person day 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

April male labor 4,500 person day 0 9 9 9 9 9 9

May male labor 4,500 person day 13.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5

June male labor 4,500 person day 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

July male labor 4,500 person day 9 18 18 18 18 18 18

August male labor 4,500 person day 0 9 9 9 9 9 9

September male labor 4,500 person day 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

October male labor 4,500 person day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

November male labor 4,500 person day 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

December male labor 4,500 person day 22.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5

Sub-total labor 203 374 374 374 387 392 396

Sub-total production cost 707 1,862 1,438 1,438 1,451 1,456 1,460

Outflows 707 1,862 1,438 1,438 1,451 1,456 1,460

Net resource flow 357 -400 324 474 611 846 932

w/ project

Annex 1 85

Table A44: Terrace Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement

w/o project

Unit price per 1 to 25 1 2 3 4 5 to 24 25

Main production

Upland rice - traditional (dryland) 288 kg 1,485 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland rice - improved (dryland) 288 kg 0 2,970 2,970 2,970 2,970 2,970 2,970

Chilli (Shwe Hlan Bo) 15,000 kg 0 1,920 2,880 3,840 3,840 3,840 3,840


Investment

Terrace construction 4,500 person day 0 6,669 0 0 0 0 0

Terrace maintenance 4,500 person day 0 0 167 167 167 167 167

Sub-total investment costs 0 6,669 167 167 167 167 167

Operating

Purchased inputs



Chilli seed 700,000 kg 0 56 56 56 56 56 56

Urea 515 kg 0 16 16 16 16 16 16


Compost 30 kg 0 82 82 82 82 82 82




Bags 200 each 0 14 14 14 14 14 14


Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 0 18 18 18 18 18 18

February female labor 4,500 person day 0 18 18 18 18 18 18

March female labor 4,500 person day 54 126 126 126 126 126 126



June female labor 4,500 person day 36 54 54 54 54 54 54

July female labor 4,500 person day 36 54 54 54 54 54 54


September female labor 4,500 person day 36 54 54 54 54 54 54

October female labor 4,500 person day 36 54 54 54 54 54 54

November female labor 4,500 person day 0 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5

December female labor 4,500 person day 144 297 297 297 297 297 297

January male labor 4,500 person day 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

February male labor 4,500 person day 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

March male labor 4,500 person day 54 54 54 54 54 54 54






November male labor 4,500 person day 0 27 27 27 27 27 27

December male labor 4,500 person day 72 148.5 148.5 148.5 148.5 148.5 148.5

Sub-total labor 594 1692 1692 1692 1692 1692 1692

Sub-total production cost 686 8,812 2,310 2,310 2,310 2,310 2,310

Outflows 686 8,812 2,310 2,310 2,310 2,310 2,310

Net resource flow 799 -3,922 3,540 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500

w/ project

86 Annex 1

Table A45: Piglet Raising Household Enterprise –

Economic Resource Flow Statement

w/ project


Main production

Fattened pigs 3,680 kg 1,259 1,259

Investment

Piglet shelter 50,000 lump sum 50 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Piglet vaccination 5,000 per piglet 30 30

Piglet purchase 45,000 each 270 270

Piglet transport 5,000 piglet 30 30

Piglet food - improved 96,000 per piglet 576 576

Sub-total purchased inputs 906 906

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 14 14



April female labor 4,500 person day 14 14

May female labor 4,500 person day 14 14

June female labor 4,500 person day 14 14



Sub-total labor 108 108

Sub-total production cost 1064 1014

Outflows 1064 1014

Net resource flow 195 245

Annex 1 87

Table A46: Wild Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Economic Resource

Flow Statement

w/ project


Main production

Fish (wild) 1875 kg 563 563

Operating

Purchased inputs

Wild fish food 81000 lump sum 81 81

Bamboo and net for trap 14000 lump sum 14 0

Sub-total purchased inputs 95 81

Labor

July female labor 4500 person day 4.5 4.5

August female labor 4500 person day 4.5 4.5

September female labor 4500 person day 4.5 4.5

October female labor 4500 person day 4.5 4.5

November female labor 4500 person day 4.5 4.5

May male labor 4500 person day 135.0 0.0

June male labor 4500 person day 54.0 31.5

December male labor 4500 person day 13.5 13.5


Sub-total production cost 320 149

Outflows 320 149

Net resource flow 243 414

88 Annex 1

Table A47: Terrace Fish Farming Household Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement


Main production

Fish (Tilapia) 2,000 kg 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Investment

May male labor 4,500 person day 3,015 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Fingerlings (tilapia) 15 each 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Fish feed 23,000 bag 690 690 690 690 690 690 690


Labor







Sub-total labor 374 374 374 374 374 374 374

Sub-total production cost 4154 1139 1139 1139 1139 1139 1139

Outflows 4154 1139 1139 1139 1139 1139 1139

Net resource flow -2154 862 862 862 862 862 862

w/ project

Annex 1 89

Table A48: Elephant Foot Yam Drying Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement

w/o project

Items Unit price per 1 to 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to 25

Main production

Traditional dried EFY 4,900 kg 14,504 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Solar dried EFY 5,900 kg 0 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671

Sub-total main production 14,504 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671 31,671

Investment

Fencing 55,575 ha 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 0

EFY cutter 515,000 lump sum 0 515 0 0 0 0 0 0

EFY solar drying equipment 9,785,000 lump sum 0 9,785 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total investment costs 0 10,522 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Compost 30 kg 0 296 296 296 296 296 296 296

Bio-pesticide 6,180 ltr 0 173 173 173 173 173 173 173

Sub-total purchased inputs 0 469 469 469 469 469 469 469

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 450 720 720 720 720 720 720 720

February female labor 4,500 person day 360 450 450 450 450 450 450 450

March female labor 4,500 person day 360 450 450 450 450 450 450 450

May female labor 4,500 person day 468 828 828 828 828 828 828 828

July female labor 4,500 person day 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270

August female labor 4,500 person day 0 270 270 270 270 270 270 270

September female labor 4,500 person day 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

December female labor 4,500 person day 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450

January male labor 4,500 person day 162 288 288 288 288 288 288 288

May male labor 4,500 person day 288 468 468 468 468 468 468 468

July male labor 4,500 person day 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

August male labor 4,500 person day 0 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

September male labor 4,500 person day 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

December male labor 4,500 person day 594 630 630 630 630 630 630 630

Sub-total labor 3,942 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544

Sub-total production cost 3,942 16,536 6,013 6,013 6,013 6,013 6,013 6,013

Outflows 3,942 16,536 6,013 6,013 6,013 6,013 6,013 6,013

Net resource flow 10,562 15,135 25,658 25,658 25,658 25,658 25,658 25,658

w/ project

90 Annex 1

Table A49: Coffee Parchment Processing Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement


Main production

Coffee beans (dried parchment) 8,500 kg 12,750 25,500

Investment

Coffee processing production unit 3,862,500 lump sum 3,863 0

Operating

Purchased inputs

Red coffee berries 1,472 kg 11,040 22,080

Labor

January female labor 4,500 person day 81 158








Outflows 15,254 22,755

Net resource flow -2,504 2,745

w/ project

Annex 1 91

Table A50: Green tea Processing Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement


Main production

Green tea 5,000 kg 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Investment

Green tea equipment 9,270,000 lump sum 9,270 0 0 0 0 0 0

Building 11,000,000 lump sum 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0


Operating

Purchased inputs

Fresh tea 500 kg 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Gas expenses 1 unit 0 200 200 200 200 200 200

Sub-total purchased inputs 0 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200

Labor



June female labor 4,500 person day 270 270 270 270 270 270 270





November female labor 4,500 person day 270 270 270 270 270 270 270


May male labor 4,500 person day 270 270 270 270 270 270 270







Sub-total labor 4,320 4,320 4,320 4,320 4,320 4,320 4,320

Sub-total production cost 24,590 19,520 19,520 19,520 19,520 19,520 19,520

Outflows 24,590 19,520 19,520 19,520 19,520 19,520 19,520

Net resource flow -24,590 5,480 5,480 5,480 5,480 5,480 5,480

w/ project

92 Annex 1

Table A51: Ice Production Group Enterprise – Economic Resource Flow Statement


Main production

Ice 44 kg 6,600 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200

Investment

Ice production equipment 8,240,000 lump sum 8,240 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ice making water supply 1,000,000 lump sum 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0


Operating

Purchased inputs

Electricity - ice production 262 hours 629 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258 1,258

Labor

January male labor 4,500 person day 225 450 450 450 450 450 450

February male labor 4,500 person day 225 450 450 450 450 450 450

March male labor 4,500 person day 225 450 450 450 450 450 450


May male labor 4,500 person day 225 450 450 450 450 450 450







December male labor 4,500 person day 225 450 450 450 450 450 450

Sub-total labor 2,700 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400

Sub-total production cost 12,569 6,658 6,658 6,658 6,658 6,658 6,658

Outflows 12,569 6,658 6,658 6,658 6,658 6,658 6,658

Net resource flow -5,969 6,542 6,542 6,542 6,542 6,542 6,542

w/ project

Annex 1 93

Table A52: RCDP CBA Model Extract Showing Recruitment of Road Subprojects

Source Consultant’s RCDP CBA Monte Carlo Model Notes: Light blue cells indicate location of @Risk distributions

Discounted Cash FlowMYA Resilient Communities Development Project

Project CBA

Period Start 1-Jan-19 1-Jan-20 1-Jan-21 1-Jan-22 1-Jan-23 1-Jan-24 1-Jan-25 1-Jan-26

Period End 31-Dec-18 31-Dec-19 31-Dec-20 31-Dec-21 31-Dec-22 31-Dec-23 31-Dec-24 31-Dec-25 31-Dec-26

Project startup 1 - - - - - - -

Project rollout - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Remaining analysis period - - - - - - - -

Community infrastructure

Road SPsControls (set in Inputs):

Target number of Road Sub-Projects # 2,180

Distribution parameters:

Min # - 349 371 392 414 436 - -

Most L # - 427 430 432 435 436 - -

Max # - 436 436 436 436 436 - -

Remaining # 69 2,180 2,180 1,770 1,345 933 505 69 69

Target achieved % 97%

Sub-project recruitment

Incremental sub-projects

1 Roads PY1 # - -

2 Roads PY2 # 410 410

3 Roads PY3 # 425 425

4 Roads PY4 # 412 412

5 Roads PY5 # 428 428

6 Roads PY6 # 436 436

7 Roads PY7 # - -

8 Roads PY8 # - -

1 Sub-total Roads # 2,111 - 410 425 412 428 436 - -

Cumulative # - 410 835 1,247 1,675 2,111 2,111 2,111

94 Annex 1

Table A53: RCDP Model Extract Showing Subproject Cashflow Formulation

Discounted Cash Flow


Project CBA

Period Start 1-Jan-19 1-Jan-20 1-Jan-21 1-Jan-22 1-Jan-23 1-Jan-24 1-Jan-25 1-Jan-26

Period End 31-Dec-18 31-Dec-19 31-Dec-20 31-Dec-21 31-Dec-22 31-Dec-23 31-Dec-24 31-Dec-25 31-Dec-26

Project startup 1 - - - - - - -

Project rollout - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Remaining analysis period - - - - - - - -





Min # - 349 371 392 414 436 - -

Most L # - 427 430 432 435 436 - -

Max # - 436 436 436 436 436 - -

Remaining # 69 2,180 2,180 1,770 1,345 933 505 69 69




1 Roads PY1 # - -

2 Roads PY2 # 410 410

3 Roads PY3 # 425 425

4 Roads PY4 # 412 412

5 Roads PY5 # 428 428

6 Roads PY6 # 436 436

7 Roads PY7 # - -

8 Roads PY8 # - -

1 Sub-total Roads # 2,111 - 410 425 412 428 436 - -

Cumulative # - 410 835 1,247 1,675 2,111 2,111 2,111

Cumulative sub-projects

Opening balance # - - 410 835 1,247 1,675 2,111 2,111

Roads PY1 # - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY2 # 410 - 410 - - - - - -

Roads PY3 # 425 - - 425 - - - - -

Roads PY4 # 412 - - - 412 - - - -

Roads PY5 # 428 - - - - 428 - - -

Roads PY6 # 436 - - - - - 436 - -

Roads PY7 # - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY8 # - - - - - - - - -

Closing balance # - - 410 835 1,247 1,675 2,111 2,111 2,111

Cohort year - flag

Roads PY1 [1,0] - - - - - - - -

Roads PY2 [1,0] - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Roads PY3 [1,0] - - 1 1 1 1 1 1

Roads PY4 [1,0] - - - 1 1 1 1 1

Roads PY5 [1,0] - - - - 1 1 1 1

Roads PY6 [1,0] - - - - - 1 1 1

Roads PY7 [1,0] - - - - - - - -

Roads PY8 [1,0] - - - - - - - -

Cohort year - number sequence

Roads PY1 # - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY2 # - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Roads PY3 # - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6

Roads PY4 # - - - - 1 2 3 4 5

Roads PY5 # - - - - - 1 2 3 4

Roads PY6 # - - - - - - 1 2 3

Roads PY7 # - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY8 # - - - - - - - - -

Subproject incr benefits phasing - One sub-project

Roads PY1 MMK mill - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY2 MMK mill 126.98 - (29.22) (8.49) 7.49 7.49 7.49 7.49 7.49

Roads PY3 MMK mill 119.49 - - (29.22) (8.49) 7.49 7.49 7.49 7.49

Roads PY4 MMK mill 112.00 - - - (29.22) (8.49) 7.49 7.49 7.49

Roads PY5 MMK mill 104.52 - - - - (29.22) (8.49) 7.49 7.49

Roads PY6 MMK mill 97.03 - - - - - (29.22) (8.49) 7.49

Roads PY7 MMK mill - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY8 MMK mill - - - - - - - - -

Sub-total Roads MMK mill 560.02 - (29) (38) (30) (23) (15) 21 37

Subproject incr benefits phasing - All sub-projects

Roads PY1 MMK mill - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY2 MMK mill 52,102 - (11,992) (3,485) 3,072 3,072 3,072 3,072 3,072

Roads PY3 MMK mill 50,782 - - (12,420) (3,609) 3,182 3,182 3,182 3,182

Roads PY4 MMK mill 46,135 - - - (12,038) (3,498) 3,084 3,084 3,084

Roads PY5 MMK mill 44,710 - - - - (12,501) (3,633) 3,202 3,202

Roads PY6 MMK mill 42,306 - - - - - (12,742) (3,703) 3,264

Roads PY7 MMK mill - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY8 MMK mill - - - - - - - - -

Sub-total Roads MMK mill 236,034 - (11,992) (15,905) (12,575) (9,746) (7,038) 8,836 15,803

Annex 1 95

Table A54: RCDP Model Extract Showing Incorporation of Climatic Event Adjustment

–

Discounted Cash FlowMYA Resilient Communities Development Project

Project CBA

Period Start 1-Jan-19 1-Jan-20 1-Jan-21 1-Jan-22 1-Jan-23 1-Jan-24 1-Jan-25 1-Jan-26 1-Jan-27 1-Jan-28 1-Jan-29

Period End 31-Dec-18 31-Dec-19 31-Dec-20 31-Dec-21 31-Dec-22 31-Dec-23 31-Dec-24 31-Dec-25 31-Dec-26 31-Dec-27 31-Dec-28 31-Dec-29

Project startup 1 - - - - - - - - - -

Project rollout - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - -

Remaining analysis period - - - - - - - - 1 1 1





Min # - 349 371 392 414 436 - - - - -

Most L # - 427 430 432 435 436 - - - - -

Max # - 436 436 436 436 436 - - - - -

Remaining # 38 2,180 2,180 1,745 1,333 900 474 38 38 38 38 38




1 Roads PY1 # - -

2 Roads PY2 # 435 435

3 Roads PY3 # 412 412

4 Roads PY4 # 433 433

5 Roads PY5 # 425 425

6 Roads PY6 # 436 436

7 Roads PY7 # - -

8 Roads PY8 # - -

1 Sub-total Roads # 2,142 - 435 412 433 425 436 - - - - -

Cumulative # - 435 847 1,280 1,706 2,142 2,142 2,142 - - -

Subproject incr benefits phasing - All sub-projects

Roads PY1 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY2 MMK mill 55,253 - (12,717) (3,696) 3,257 3,257 3,257 3,257 3,257 3,257 3,257 3,257

Roads PY3 MMK mill 49,220 - - (12,038) (3,498) 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084

Roads PY4 MMK mill 48,536 - - - (12,664) (3,680) 3,244 3,244 3,244 3,244 3,244 3,244

Roads PY5 MMK mill 44,465 - - - - (12,433) (3,613) 3,185 3,185 3,185 3,185 3,185

Roads PY6 MMK mill 42,306 - - - - - (12,742) (3,703) 3,264 3,264 3,264 3,264

Roads PY7 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY8 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sub-total Roads MMK mill 239,779 - (12,717) (15,734) (12,905) (9,772) (6,770) 9,067 16,034 16,034 16,034 16,034

Summary of impacts

1 Roads PY1 % - 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%

2 Roads PY2 % - - 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%

3 Roads PY3 % - - - - - - - - - - -

4 Roads PY4 % - - - - - - - - 40% 40% 40%

5 Roads PY5 % - - - - - - - - - - -

6 Roads PY6 % - - - - - - - - - - -

7 Roads PY7 % - - - - - - - 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 Roads PY8 % - - - - - - - - - - 40%

Risk adjusted benefits

Roads PY1 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY2 MMK mill 28,065 - (12,717) (2,217) 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,954

Roads PY3 MMK mill 49,220 - - (12,038) (3,498) 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084 3,084

Roads PY4 MMK mill 26,477 - - - (12,664) (3,680) 3,244 3,244 3,244 1,946 1,946 1,946

Roads PY5 MMK mill 44,465 - - - - (12,433) (3,613) 3,185 3,185 3,185 3,185 3,185

Roads PY6 MMK mill 26,639 - - - - - (12,742) (3,703) 3,264 3,264 3,264 3,264

Roads PY7 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

Roads PY8 MMK mill - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 Total Roads SP Risk Adjusted MMK mill 174,865 - (12,717) (14,255) (14,208) (11,075) (8,073) 7,764 14,731 13,433 13,433 13,433