Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 15083

PROJECT COMPLETION NOTE

SOMALIA

FARAHAANE IRRIGATION REHABILITATION PROJECT(CR.2063-SO)

OCTOBER 26, 1995

Agriculture and Environment Operations DivisionEastern Africa DepartmentAfrica Regional Office

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY AND EOUIVALENT UNITS

At Appraisal: Official Exchange Rate US$1.00 = 250 Somali Shillings (SoSh)SoShl.00 = US$0.004

At ICR stage: US$1.00 (October 1993) = So. Sh.3,286.8

Abbreviations and Acronyms

EEC European Economic CommunityFAO/CP Food and Agriculture Organization/Cooperative ProgramIDA International Development AssociationICB International Competitive BiddingIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentKFW Kreditanstalt fur WiederaufbauLCB Local Competitive BiddingPPF Project Preparation FacilitySWMP Shebelli Water Management ProjectUSAID United States Agency for International Development

Calendar

Fiscal Year January I - December 31Cropping Year April - June (Gu Season)

October - December (Der Season)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

PROJECT COMPLETION NOTE

SOMALIA

FARAHAANE IRRIGATION REHABILITATION PROJECT

(CR. 2063-SO)

CONTENTS

Summary ......................... . I

Background .2

Project Objectives/Description .2Project Implementation .3Conclusions and Lessons Learned .3PART II STATISTICAL ANNEX. 4

APPENDICES:

MAPS

This document has a rcstricted distribution and may be used by recipicnts only in the performance of their ofricialduties. Its contents may not othernvise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

PROJECT COMPLETION NOTE

SOMALIA

FARAHAANE IRRIGATION REHABILITATION PROJECT(CR 2063-SO)

Summary

1 This is a Project Completion Note for the Somalia Farahaane IrrigationRehabilitation Project (Cr. 2063-SO). The project was approved by the Board onSeptember 12, 1989 for SDR21.2 million (US$28.5 million equivalent) and becameeffective on March 20, 1990. Due to the instability within the country and the collapse ofthe Government in December 1990, all operations and disbursements in Somalia weresuspended as of March 15, 1991. On July 26, 1995 IDA canceled the undisbursed balancein the amount of SDRI 9.7 million (US$23.3 million equivalent). This report was preparedby Donna Criddle, Africa Agriculture & Environment Operations Division (AF2AE) andreviewed by Sushma Ganguly, Division Chief, AF2AE and Surendra Agarwal, AF2DR. Itis based on materials in the project files and discussions with Messrs. Akthar Elahi andJames Coates, who were involved with preparing the project. Due to the absence ofGovernment in Somalia there is no input from the borrower. The project is not rated.

Background

2. Somalia is dependent on irrigated agriculture for about 70 percent of all cropproduction due to harsh, semi-arid climate conditions. One-third of the land underirrigation is in the Shebelli valley, where infrastructure is a combination of ineffectivetraditional irrigation systems and an outdated poorly maintained network, resulting inwater shortages and inefficiency in water management. Increasing the efficiency of poorlymanaged irrigation schemes in the area of the Shebelli river and rehabilitation ofinoperative irrigation infrastructure (rather than new schemes) were identified as the mostcost effective ways of increasing agricultural output and farmers' incomes. The projectconcept was identified by a joint FAO/CP/IDA mission and the Government in September1983. The purpose was to rehabilitate the Shebelli valley's irrigation facilities. Anextensive feasibility study of the Genale project area, involving aerial survey andtopographical mapping and a soil classification survey, was financed under a ProjectPreparation Facility (PPF), approved in August 1984 for US$1.0 million. This PPF wasapproved for what was initially called the Genale Irrigation Rehabilitation Project locatedin the lower Shebelli plain. This later developed into two smaller projects: the FarahaaneIrrigation Rehabilitation Scheme (IDA) and the Shalambood Irrigation RehabilitationScheme (USAID). The Government began project preparation of the Genale areanetwork containing the Qoryooley and Falkeerow barrages in September 1985 with theassistance of consultants and staff of FAO/CP. After the IDA/1FAD preappraisal missionof November 1986, a supplemental PPF advance was approved in October 1987 for

-2-

US$500,000 to prepare detailed designs and preparation of bidding documents. Alldisbursements, amounting to less than US$2.0 million, for this project were made underthe PPF before the collapse of the Government.

Project Objectives/Description

3. The aim of the Farahaane project was to increase the production of food and cashcrops of 5,600 smallholder farms through better irrigation management, improvedinfrastructure, efficient water use and adaptive research. The design was in accordancewith the Government's development and food production strategy. It included (i)rehabilitation of the Qoryooley and Falkeerow barrages and existing canals; (ii)rehabilitation of and/or construction of an irrigation and drainage network, with drainagepumping stations at the Farahaane irrigation site; (iii) coral stone surfacing of roads thatconnected various villages in the project area; (iv) construction of a field office,workshop/stores and staff housing in the Farahaane area; (v) procurement of survey andmaintenance equipment, plant protection equipment and vehicles; (vi) provision of landsurveys and registration of land titles; (vii) supply of drugs and chemicals for malaria and aschistosomiasis control program in selective project areas; (viii) provision of safe drinkingwater and development of various women's activities related to home improvement andincome generation; (ix) provision of a drainage master plan and studies related to watermanagement, users and associations, water user charges and operation and monitoringactivities.

Project Implementation

4. Although there were only two conditions for effectiveness--appointment of aproject manager and opening of the project account--due to country instability, the projectdid not become effective until March 20, 1990, six months after signing the credit.Terrorist activities and insecurity accelerated shortly after project effectiveness and thecollapse of the Government in December 1990, precluded further implementationactivities. Only two supervision mnissions could be completed before the project wasinterrupted by the continuing civil strife. The only disbursements made were forprocurement financed under the PPF and for establishing the special account in June 1990.

5. The first supervision mission of November 1989 discussed start-up activities withthe new project management unit, including reviewing the steps needed to make the crediteffective and a review of the progress on tender documents for the InternationalCompetitive Bidding (ICB) of civil works for irrigation and drainage works and LocalCompetitive Bidding (LCB) for buildings and roads. The contract for consultants tosupervise overall construction of the project had been evaluated and was undernegotiation. LCB procedures for construction of headquarters buildings and officefumniture were well advanced. Recommendation for award of the civil works tender,which was the largest single construction contract and the backbone of the project, wasreviewed by the Bank in November 1990, but the contract could not be awarded due tothe deterioration of security.

-3-

6. A follow-up mission visited the area in November-December 1990 as part of theSomali Country Implementation Review The Bank had been reviewing the deterioratingsecurity situation for several months to decide on the advisability of undertaking majorcivil works while general breakdown of law and order progressed toward Jowhar inMiddle Shebelli. The mission recommended that the bid validity period be extended toFebruary 1991 on the major civil works contract in order to reassess whether the securitysituation would improve sufficiently to award the contract and begin construction. TheUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID) terminated funding of theirneighboring Shebelli Water Management Project (SWMP) in Shalambood in late 1989which was a parallel initiative with important implications on land tenure (through theirwork already achieved in land titling), storage facilities and water legislation. In order tofill the gap, USAID arranged for short-term consultancy assignments to address watercharges and land tenure issues, as no other funding was available. However, armedconflict never subsided and all procurement efforts were allowed to lapse.

Conclusions and Lessons Learned

7. This project differs from others, in that the preparation activities included a reviewof the irrigation subsector, which would normally have been carried out under separatesector work or preinvestment studies. The thoroughness of identifying the mostadvantageous site and planning the various inter-related elements for each componentwere the forerunner of the methods now encouraged by the Bank to achieve quality atentry of projects into the portfolio. Also, the focus and conditionality on management ofthe whole river basin, rather than just the project, is a precursor to the current emphasis onbasin-based intervention in water management, including irrigation.

8. Several possible irrigation rehabilitation projects were under consideration by theBank in the Juba and Shebelli valleys at that time, which finally developed into theFarahaane Scheme as other donors supported other projects. All Bank staff inputs are,however, attributed to this project. Thus, the elapsed time from identification of what hadfirst been referred to as the Genale Rehabilitation Project (Farahaane and Shalamboodsubprojects) in September 1983 to appraisal in September 1988 (and Board in September1989) appear unusually long and staff intensive. Some slippages, however, directly relatedto this project were due to (1) complex components across several sectors, (2)coordination of various donors in the Shebelli Basin, (3) slow follow-up on decisions to bemade by the Government and Bank, (4) misunderstandings and incomplete work on thepart of the subcontractors hired by the consulting firm carrying out the basic feasibilitystudy, upon which appraisal depended, (4) the need for further aerial photos, (5) the needfor a water balance study to settle the Riparian issue with Ethiopia where the ShebelliRiver originated, and (6) difficulty in hiring a River Basin Engineering Advisor prior toappraisal.

9. The issue of Riparian rights was first recognized as early as January 1983 whenEthiopia was constructing a major reservoir and power plant (Melka Wakana)on theShebelli River with Soviet assistance. There is no international agreement on water rightsbetween Somalia and Ethiopia on the use of the Shebelli River. The aim of the Bank's

-4-

proposed project was to increase water use efficiency through rehabilitation which wouldnot require additional abstraction of water from the Shebelli River. At an early stage inthe project preparation process the Bank's view was that there was no requirement toinform Ethiopia's officials nor seek their consent for construction of this project because itwas a rehabilitation project and it was unlikely that Ethiopia would use the water from theShebelli to the detriment of the project within its economic life. The status showed thatthe Melka Wakana hydro-project constructed in Ethiopia on the upper banks of theShebelli River would not reduce water availability and would serve to even the flow. InJanuary 1987 it was again determined that, based on Bank guidelines in force at the time,no notification to Ethiopia by Somalia was needed because the Farahaane RehabilitationProject, being a rehabilitation project, would not alter the quality or quantity of waterflows nor would it be adversely affected by water uses of the other riparian, Ethiopia.

10. Unusually strong efforts were made by IDA to coordinate preparation activitieswith other ongoing initiatives in the area, namely (i) IDA's interest in Kreditanstalt furWiederaufbau (KFW) involvement with the Jowhar Sugar Rehabilitation project and off-stream reservoir at Duduble and coordination with their irrigation study to avoidduplication of work; (ii) African Development Bank's (AfDB's) and USAID's projects,(iii) follow up on aerial mapping already completed for potential use in this project, and(iv) an effort to possibly combine photography with the Shebelli and North WestAgriculture schemes. However, the need to collaborate with other projects in the areawas pursued and the issue of Riparian rights, that continued to resurface at variousintervals, may have caused a slow down in maintaining project momentum.

11. As a lesson learned from the Bay Region Extension and Central Rangelandsproject where cofinancing was not obtained until after appraisal, cofinancing efforts wereexplored during the identification mission of September 1983 so that all donors could beinvolved in project design and preparation. The mission explored USAID funding andpossible interest by EEC, the Italian Government and at the Consultative Group meeting.However, instability and civil strife prevented any further interest by donors.

12. A better grasp of procurement requirements by the Government could haveprevented misunderstanding and overcome the slowness in completing the tenderingprocess. For instance, the Government's evaluation on awarding the contract forconsultants to carry out the Feasibility Study of 1984, financed under the PPF was faultyin that both the technical and financial proposals were opened at the same time and awarddecision was based on highly subjective criteria rather than an adequate weighting system.Non-compliance with bid opening procedures ultimately led to retendering. The entiretendering process took 1 year and 4 months. Due to the implementing agency'sunfamiliarity with evaluation procedures for prequalifications of contractors and jointventures for the major civil works contract, interested bidders were notified of awardbefore review and clearance from the Bank.

13. The project was innovative in attempting to rehabilitate, rather than completelyrestructure, an irrigated area. It was focusing on Government's efforts on smallholderfood-crop development, while prior irrigation development had been in the hands of large-

-5-

scale banana growers. It sought to improve management of the river basin in aparticipatory approach so that water could be apportioned to all users. These lessons willhave to be learned again by the successor Somali Government.

-6-

Table 1: Related Loans and Credits

Cr :4i -Purpoe -;X -- i;metsTld'e A~Prove

623-SO Drought Rehabilitation 1976 Completed Dflliculties were encountered with staffing, poorProgram performance of consultants and procurement of

machinery

635-SO N.W Region Agriculture 1976 Completed At completion, the buwding component (the mainDevelopment activity dealing with soil conservation and moisture

retention) benefited a larger number of farmers thanestimated at appraisal.

972-SO Bay Region Agriculture 1979 Completed This was a first phase of a long-term developmentDevelopment program to provide infrastructure, institutional

strengthening, an information base and to provide fundsfor the second phase.

A020-SO Agriculture Sector 1986 Completed Impact of project on economy was weakened byAdjustment Ciovernment's inability to adhere to macroeconomic

program.

1538-SO N.W. Region Agriculture 19X5 Completed Project expanded soil and water conservation works toinclude terracing and contour hedging as well asbunding.

1774-SO Semi-Mechanized Rainfed 1987 Suspended &Agriculture Balance

Canceled

-7-

Table 2: Project Timetable

Steps in Project Cycle Date Planned Date Revised Dateftviwd RevisedIDate Actual DateTime Table1/31/84

Identification August 1983 August 1983(Genale Area)

Preparation Sept-Oct Sept. 1983 to1983 to June September1985 1988

Appraisal June 3, 1985 June 1987 June 18, 1988 Aug-Sept Sept. 13,1988 1988

Negotiations Jan. 23, 1989

Board Presentation March 24, December July 1989 Sept. 12,1986 1987 1989

Signing September September28, 1989 28, 1989

Effectiveness December 28, March 28, March 20,1989 1990 1990

Project Completion December 31, Suspended in1995 March 1991

Credit Closing June 30, 1996 June 30, 1996

Table 3: Credit Disbursements: Cumulative Estimated and Actual

(US$ millions)

: v . FY" : FYS11. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, - .............. ~~~~~~. ... ...iPv9e FY91. t"T1 .FY94 Y-$

Appraisal Estimate 1.50 3.00 8.50 16.00 22.70 27.0 28.50

Actual 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99

Actual as % of Est. 132% 66% 23% 12% 8% 7% 7%

Date of Final Disbursement: June 7, 1990

-8-

Table 4: Allocation of Proceeds

OriginalAllocation Actual

Category SDR DisbursementsEquivalent

1 Civil Works:

(a) Under Parts Al, A2, A3 8,700,000

(b) Other 1,560,000

2 Vehicles, Equipment & 1,980,000Materials

3 Agricultural Inputs 630,000

4 Consultants' Services & 4,760,000Training

5 Operating Costs 1,150,000

6 Refunding of PPF Advance 1,120,000 1,143,746

7 Unallocated 1,300,000

Special Account 381,741

Canceled 19,674.513

TOTAL 21,200,000 21,200,000

Table 5 Bank Resources: Staff Inputs

State of Project Cycle Planned Revsed Actual i Actual CostS.W. S.W. t S.W. i; S.W. .ISS OtN l

Preparation 93.9 193.4

Appraisal to Negotiations 18.4 43.2

Negotiations to Board 8.3 21.6

Supervision 14.7 47.6

Completion 11.0 2.5 5.0

Total N.A. 137.8. 292.9

I/ Data unavailable2/ Including planned input from FAO/CP of 7.0 s.w. which was not utili7ed

-9-

Table 6: Bank Resources: Missions

M. 7.

Prwppma.iul|5I21Appiulal~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~: \::i :1ESW .. ; T :::: :ii

AWSmh 1.: I' ' $ 18dhrc'ugb Baud x

Snpsn'iuon \" I "'i 2 6U F -

11 ~ ~~ u F aid

C tnnplrttw

1/ A = Agriculturist, AG = Agronomist, D Drainage Advisor, E = Economist, EG Engineer,FA= Financial Analyst, IE = Irrigation Engineer, LT = Land Tenure Specialist, = ResidentMission

2/ HS = No Significant Problems, S = Moderate Problems, no deviation from appraisal, U = MajorProblems being addressed, HU = Major Problems not adequately addressed

3/ F = Funding, P = Procurement

rEOPLE'S D[MOCRATICI

YEMFN ARAB REPUBlIC OF

SOMALIA REI'UBI IC' YFMIFN

FARAHAANE IRRIGATIONREHABILITATION PROJECT

SHEBELLI RIVER BASIN

r. *h-W", *-"1h.^.R1 Al- .0~...... DII

ABABA .I

Ol *-ClDX§tS- I / MOAOIHU JI I \

_ 1 wss ++*srtss | \ 1 \ V f1 ....................... 1 ' _ _ ....... \ _T _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .......

frS,\ '_~+, ' i\({/f_f \ <e \ m f ' _ K X \ v / ) \ -0'1 IN

< a 0 , 0 gS I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Af)I

,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~_______ I .I 1,.

'"-0, ~'' ~ Qoryooley I/

,,x.,,.4.,rh nr5". /v,s.4 O.,, n lasira ., -S-f .b

>n rhes ns p shs nnt sn/e on thr L -ss ~~~~~~~~ ~~A.dqlgooy ETHIOP}IA MOGADISH~U EH pS .. 7l re, ZA h a Xg O I.hA S.0} If. An.z - H

1 // U\/| X}7, -aywarow /'* MOCADISHU

9 --- _ / >~~~/ KfN rn YA /nhn

Falkeerow 40. 50_

FAAAANE

Cabdi I

| / SISABarrage n

4 ~ ~~~~~ /"_ 0 rve od

Project Area

-J Fl~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Project Headquarters< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PROPOSED:

< / | MMain canals

|Q/ / \ - - Existing main canalto be rehabilitatedSecondary canalsMain drain

ISAB CANAL Secondary drains

m - 1 2 3 Gravel roads

Mad_ulow Z~, Drainage pumping station

KILOMETERS Existing canals for rehabilitation

S 0 M A L I A_ Barrages to be rehabilitatedjeerow EXISTING:

FARAHAANE IRRIGATICN - eae ridREH-ABILITATION PROJECT Earth roads

IRRIGATION SCHEME -6 Main canalsTowns

0 1 2 3 Rivers

KILOMETERS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~international boundaries0 Si~~~~~~~~~~~~~KLMTR

IMAGING

Report No: 15083

Type: PCN