Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFMCIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 8520

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

NIGERIA

EKITI-AKOKO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(LOAN 1854-UNI)

APRIL 16, 1990

Agriculture Operations DivisionWestern Africa DepartmentAfrica Regional Office

This documet bas a resicted distibudon and may be used by recipients only In the performance oftbeir offial dties ts contents may not otherwise be dbdosed withot Wod Ban authorizatio

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ABBREVIATIONS

ADP Agricultural Development ProjectAPMEU Agricultural Projects Monitoring and Evaluation UnitEAADP Ekiti-Akoko Agricultural Development ProjectERR Economic Rate of ReturnFACU Federal Agricultural Coordinating UnitIBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentLGA Local Government AuthorityMSADP III Multi-State Agricultural Development Project IIIODSC Ondo State GovernmentPCR Project Completion ReportSAR Staff Appraisal ReportTHU Tractor Hire Unit

Fox OFFICILUSE ONLYTHE WORLD BANK

Washington. nC. 20433U.S.A.

Oke of O.wc-GswaiOpstatawm Evwahutw

April 16, 1990

M8MORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: Project Completion Report Overview - Nigeria Ekiti-AkokoAgricultural Development Proiect (Loan 1854-UNI)

Attached, for information, i8 a copy of the Overview prepared bythe Africa Regional Office of the report entitled "Project CompletionReport Overview - Nigeria Ekiti-Akoko Agricultural Development Project(Loan 1854-UNI)". The PCR, prepared by the Borrower, is too large forgeneral circulation but can be obtained from OED files on request. Anaudit of this project is currently being finalized by the OperationsEvaluation Department.

Attachment

Ths document has a rstriced distibution and may be used by recipients only in the perfomance |of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclsed without World Dank authorization.

FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

NIGERIA

EKITI-AIKOKO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(LOAN 1854-UNI)

Table of Contents

Pane No.

Preface .......................................................... iBasic Data Sheet ......... ... ... .... . ................... i-iiEvaluation Summary ..................................................... iv-vi

OVERVIEW OF THE BORROWER'S PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT ............ ... 1

A. General ........................................................... 1B. Sources of Project Benefits .................... . ............. . 2C. Extension ..................................................... 3D. Commercial Services ...... ................ ....... ... ... ....... 3E. Bank Performance .............. ................................ 4F. Long-Term Sustainability ....... .................... ......... ....... 4G. Key Lessons .......................... ........ ................... . 4H. Ta.'ole 1: Physical Targets and Achievements ............... .... 6

NOTEs The Borrower's PCR was prepared by their Agricultural ProjectsMonitoring and Evaluation Unit but is too large for generalcirculation. It can be obtained from OED files on request.

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

- i -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

NIGERIAEKITI-AKOKO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(LOAN 1854-UNI)

Preface

The Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Ekiti-AkokoAgricultural Development Project was prepared by the Agricultural ProjectsMonitoring, and Evaluation Unit of the Federal Government of Nigeria. Itcovers the Loan 1854-UNI for which an amount of US$32.5 million wasapproved on May 27, 1980. The Loan was to close on September 30, 1985.The Federal Government of Nigeria applied to the Bank for the extension ofthe Loan Closing Date by two years and the Bank had agreed to an extensionon condition that the project filled in the positions for key senior staffand instituted a redesigned work program. Non-compliance of theseconditions led the Bank to close the Loan on March 31, 1986 and cancel theundisbursed loan amount of US$18.07 million.

The PCR consists of three volumes which are bulky for generaldistribution. The Overview provides an outline of its mainfindings and also includes a brief description of the Bank's thinking aboutthe project performance because of which the Bank refused to extend theLoan Closing Date. A copy of the PCR is available for reference with OED.The PCR provides a detailed analysis of each of the project components andcompares performance with the expectations of the appraisal report(No. 2514-UNI).

The IBRD Overview of the PCR was prepared by the Africa RegionalOffice to draw out the main issues deriving from this project which haveimplications for the ongoing agricultural lending program in Nigeria.

A copy of the draft overview was sent to the Borrower onFebruary 16, 1990 for comments but none were received.

- ii -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

NIGERIAEKITI-AXOKO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(LOAN 1854-UNI)

Basic Data Sheet

KEY PROJECT DATAAppraisal Actual or ActualEstimate Estimated as Z of

Project Cost (USS Million) 80.50 45.07 56.0Project Cost (N Million) 48.18 33.40 69.3Loan Amount (US$ Million) 32.5 14.4 44.3Economic Rate of Return Z 19.6 n.a. n.a.Number of Direct Beneficiaries 70,000 24,000 34.0

CUMULATIVE DISBURSEMENTSFY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86

Appraisal Estimate (US$ Million) 9.5 14.2 19.2 26.5 32.5 32.5Actual (US$ Million) 0 0.9 6.1 11.7 13.0 14.4Actual as I of Estimate 0 6.3 31.8 44.2 40.0 44.3Date of Final Disbursement March 31. 1986

original Plan Actual

Identification Date 10/10176Negotiation Date 11/14179Date of Boazd Approval 0527180 05/27/80Date of Effectiveness 03/16181 11/23/81Closing Date 09/30185 03131/86

STAFF INPUTS (Staff Weeks)

FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 TOTAL

Preappraisal 1/ 28.1 - - 28.1Appraisal - 64.4 - - - - - _ - 64.4Negotiations - - 3.9 - - - - - - 3*9Supervision - - 1.1 1.8 10.8 8.0 6.8 4.8 5.9 39.2

Total 28.1 64.4 5.0 1.8 10.8 8.0 6.8 4.8 5.9 135.6

l/These are estimates. Actual data are not available.

- iii-

MISSION DATATypes of

Date No. of Man-days Specializations Performance Trend ProblemsMissicn (molvr) Persel in Field Represented al Rating bl c/ di

Identification 10/77 4 96 a, b, o - , _Preparation n.a. - - -

Appraisal 11/78 4 110 a, b, d, O - - -Supervision 1 05/80 1 1 b 1 2 n.a.Supervision 2 09180 1 1 b 1 2 n.a.Supervision 3 12/80 1 1 b 1 2 n.a.Supervision 4 02/81 2 4 b, c 1 1 n.a.Supervision 5 06(81 1 1 b 2 1 0Supervision 6 12/81 2 4 b, c 1 1 -Supervision 7 05/82 2 4 a, c 2 3 F, 0Supervision 8 10/82 2 4 a, c 3 3 F, MSupervision 9 05/83 1 7 a 3 1 F, 0Supervieion 10 7-8/83 1 7 a 3 2 F, 0Supervision 11 03/84 1 5 b 3 2 F, M, TSupervision 12 08/84 1 5 a 3 2 F. M, TSupervision 13 09/85 1 5 b 3 e/ - MSupervision 14 02/86 1 3 b 3 e/ - M

OTHER PROJECT DATA

Borrower - Federal Republic of Nigeria

Executing Agency - Ekiti-Akoko Project Management Unitunder Ondo State Ministry of Agricultureand Rural Development

Follow-on Project - Multi-State Agricultural DevelopmentProject (MSADP-III/Ln. 7373-UNI, US$75.0 mn,April 17, 1989)

Fiscal Year of Borrower - April-March

CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES

Name of Currency (Abbreviations) - Naira (N)Appraisal Year Average - US$1.00 - NO.60Intervening Years Average - US$1.00 m NO.67Completion Year Average (Year 1986) - US$1.00 - N1.35

a/ a = Agriculture; b = Agricultural Economist; c - Financial Analyst;d - Irrigation Engineer; 0 Other

bI 1 - problem free or minor problems; 2 - moderate problems; 3 - major problemsc/ 1 - improving; 2 - stationaryd/ F - Financial; M - Management; T = Technical; 0 - Othere/ New Form 590 in use that shows rating for overall status (Year 1985)

- iv -

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

NIGERIAEK7TI-ANOKO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(LOAN 1854-UNI)

Evaluation Summarv

Introduction

1. This is the ninth of a series of agricultural developmentprojects which the Bank has supported in Nigeria as a part of its overallstrategy for development in the rural sector. Similar to other ADPs inNigeria, the project included agricultural services, input supplies andrural infrastructure components.

Obiectives

2. The project consisted of the following activitiea: (a) crop andlivestock development by introduction of a basic package of farm inputs,improved practices and extension for smallholders on 29 0ao ha, an advancedpackage on 11,500 ha for progressive individual and group farmers; small-scale poultry production; and farm credit; (b) supporting infrastructure byconstructing and maintaining 500 kms roads, 35 small-earth dams, 30 farmservice centers and 1000 ha land clearing; (c) establishment of a projectheadquarter; and (d) provision of facilities for training both agriculturalfield staff and senior specialists.

Implementation Experience

3. Right from the beginning the project faced problems on thefollowing fronts which were the main reasons for its poor performance:(a) staffing problems related to high turnover and a general shortage ofsenior staff; and (b) a low commitment to the project shown by the OndoState Government (ODSG) by poor and irregular funding. While there is somedoubt on the quality of staff of the expatriate firm managing the project,the initial decision of ODSG to fill 7 out of 14 posts, agreed forinternational recruitment with local unqualified Nigerians, did affect theproject adversely. Program Manager made serious but unsuccessful effortsto secure the financial commitment from ODSG.

4. After the contract with the expatriate firm expired in August1981, the Nigerian counterparts, who were not effectively trained by the

- v -

expatriate firm, started acting in various capacities of the key positionslike Program Manager. Commercial MSanager, etc. The Bank had repeatedlyurged ODSG to fill up these positions with qualified people. As thissituation continued, the Bank gave November 11, 1985, that is one yearafter the expatriate firm had left the project, as the deadline for fillingthe key posts. Submission of a revised work program proposal to the Bank,reflecting rephasing/recosting agreed with Bank staff, was anothercondition for the extension of the Loan closing date beyond September 30,1985. The failure of the State Government to meet these conditions and itscontinued unsatisfactory financial commitment to the project led the WorldBank to withdraw funding of the project from March 31, 1986 with theundisbursed amount of US$18.07 million being cancelled.

5. The total cost of the project was USS 45.07 million against theappraisal estimate of US$80.5 million. Against the loan amount of US$32.5million only US$14.4 mil'ion were disbursed. The Federal Governmentprovided N 11.8 million out of N 12.08 million expected contribution, thatis about 97.6? of the expected contribution. In contrast to this the StateGovernment contributed only N 6.4 million out of N 16.7 million expected,that is only about 382 of the amount included in the SAR. The actualreceipt of quarterly allocation by the project was delayed constantly.Both capital and recurrent expenditures were 68.22Z and 76.3Z of the amountexpected in the SAR.

6. The agricultural and commercial services did not perform asexpected. The extension and research component had poor impact on farmingpractices. The achievements of the livestock component were very muchbelow SAR targets. The project employed few extension agents and hence theextension worker:farmer ratio was much lower than targeted by the SAR.Extension activity related to agroforestry and livestock was grosslyinadequate. On the impact side the information is sketchy and the datashow that somewhere in the range of 10 to 28Z of farmers adopted improvedpractices. Several research trials were conducted during the life-span ofthe project but they were mostly located on station and the absence of on-farm adaptive research, mainly because of poor quality research staff,created a wide gap between research and extension. The project achievedonly 21? and 13 of the SAR targets for fertilizer and improved seedsbecause of the limited demand. The outgrower program was started but wasdiscontinued within a year on the ground that outgrowers were inefficient.One season was too short to expect both the farmers and the project to havemastered the art of contract seed growing. The drought of 1983 alsoaffected the program. Thus overall, in spite of one of the biggest seedprocessing plants in the country and well-staffed unit, performance of theseed production program was poor. Similar to the seed processing plant,several capital investments in the livestock component, for example, thehatchery and feedmill, were grossly under-utilized and a countrywide feedcrisis in 1983 was the major reason sighted. Only the agro-forestrycomponent of the agricultural services, which was not considered in the SARbut was later added in the project, performed satisfactorily. The reasonsfor this were not given in the PCR.

7. On the infrastructural side the project was not very successfulas it achieved 52? of its target in road construction and improvements, but

- vi -

its water development program of constructing 35 small earth dams forpotable water did not take off at all. A lack of periodic maintenance ofroads resulted in excessive damage to the roads by erosion, High staffturnover and the uncooperative attitude of the LGAs towards the joint roadmaintenance program hindered the achievements. The Land Use Planningsubcomponent started in 1983 but was later abandoned due to poor staffing,funding and lack of equipments. Tractor hire proved popular in the projectbut its economic viability was questionable. The SAR had envisaged adecline in the activity of the tractor hire unit (THU) during the projectlife and an increased focus on assisting private operations. However, theproject tried to do exactly the opposite by doubling the size of THU.

Results

8. Little information is available to assess the impact of projectat farm level. Given the poor performance of research, extension and seedservices, it is doubtful whether any significant results were achieved interms of the SAR targets. The main benefit of the project lies with theincreased sale of fertilizers, development of infrastructure and trainingof staff (Table 1). The PCR estimates ERR from the project 13Z butcautions that the estimate does not truly reflect achievements of theproject, mainly because the growth in production achieved during theproject period could have been achieved without the project.

Sustainability

9. The PCR does not discuss much on the issues related tosustainability except in relation to the seed production program where thePCR comments that involvement of outgrowers would have ensuredsustainability of the program. The subsequent agricultural developmentprojects in Nigeria have, however, explicitly tackled the issue ofsustainability of project investments and institutions (Overview para 14).

Findinys and Lessons

10 The performance of the expatriate firm on which the managementof the project was entrusted, suggests that such a decision to hand overthe project should not be repeated.

11. The project had no mid-term review which could have helped inimproving the project performance and the counterpart funding from thestate government.

12. Vacant key positions should be filled with qualified candidateswithout delay.

13. To attain self-sufficiency in seed production, the outgrowerscheme in the seed multiplication program should be encouraged. This wouldinvolve farmers and hence it would be sustainable.

14. The linkage between extension and research should bestrengthened through the on-farm adaptive research program.

- vii -

15. Lack of adequate data hindered a thorough assessment of projectperformance.

16. An incorporation of agro-forestry into the extension programwould make agro-forestry more effective.

17. The state governments should demonstrate adequate commitment tothe project by giving prompt attention to matters affecting the project,and providing sufficient and timely financial support.

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

NiGERIAEKITI-AKOKO AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(LOAN 1854-UNI)

Bank Overview of the Ekiti-Akoko Agricultural Development ProiectComoletion Report which was Preopred by the

Nigerian Federal Ministry of Agriculture

A. GENERAL

1, The Completion Report was prepared by the Federal Government'sAgricultural Projects Monitoring, and Evaluation Unit (APMEU). The reportconsists of a main volume and two additional volumes covering variousaspects of the project. The main report provides a good overall coverageof the project, is well structured, compares achievements in each sectionwith the expectations of the staff appraisal report and related deviations,and offers an analysis of constraints and lessons learned for each majorcomponent. The annexes were prepared by a wide range of staff from APMEUand the Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit (FACU) and, as would beexpected under those circumstances, are of varying quality. Because thePCR provides an adequate coverage of project performance, this overviewwill focus on those issues which impinge upon future agricultural projectsin Nigeria. These include sector development objectives and policy contentwhen the project was prepared, sources of project benefits, commercialservices, Bank performance, long-term sustainability, and lessons learned.The PCR does not mention an important fact that the project had drawn only44.32 of the Bank loan and did not complete its life. Benefits of theproject will have to be evaluated against this background.

2. This is the ninth agricultural development project in Nigeriafor which completion reports have been prepared. In line with itspredecessors (Gombe, Gusau, Funtua, Lafia, Ayangba and 8ida), the projectwas expected to have a broad impact on the production of all the cropsgrown in the project area by using a combination of technical initiativesto bring about a doubling of most crop yields. In the event the projectfollowed the pattern of the earlier projects and its impact was mainlythrough its engineering and fertilizer distribution activities, resultingin little general change in farming practices or production by the majorityof farming families in the project area.

- 2 -

3. At the time of the implementation of the project theGovernment's main short term development objective was to improve internalprice stability in basic food crops and to ensure adequate food supplies tothe rapidly expanding urban centers. Beyond this aim of assured foodsupplies, Government's longer term objectives were to create a prosperouoand efficient agro-based industries that could reduce population drift tourban centers, and to revive the role of Nigeria as an agriculturalexporter.

4. The framework for economic policy was set out in the Third Five-Year Plan (1975-80). Although there was no well defined agriculturaldevelopment strategy, the Government was keenly aware of the need toimprove performance of the sector, and to use oil revenues, a depletingasset, to expand and diversify the economy in which agriculture continuesto be the dominant sector. The program included irrigation, disseminationof modern farming techniques to smallholders, improved inputs distributionand marketing services and support for various integrated developmentprojects. The next Four-Year Development Plan (1981-85), under preparationthen, was expected to have the same basic focus.

B. SOURCES OF PROJECT BENEFITS

5. The benefits from the project were mostly expected to derivefrom major increases in yield from five crops, namely, yam, cassava, rice,maize and cowpeas, and poultry. Two of these crops, yam and cassava, wereto provide about 682 of the total project benefits. The yield increaseswere expected to result from the use. of improved seeds, higher plantpopulations, the use of insecticides, fungicides and fertilizer, improvedland preparation, etc. The SAR attributed the major project benefit toincreased yam production (452 in year 5). Yield per ha were expected torise from 6.5 to 11 tons through the use of improved planting material andthe application of 200 kg of fertilizer. No improved planting material foryam growers had been released during the period of project implementation.

6. The second major crop, due to be promoted under the project, wascassava (232 of benefits in year 5). In this case the incrementalproduction of two tons per ha from the use of new planting material and 100kg of fertilizer was reasonable. The new cassava varieties from IITA wereavailable. The rate of their uptake, however, did not keep up with SARestimates. Only 500 ha of new cassava were planted in the fourth year asopposed to the SAR target of 7000 ha.

7. Poultry production (eggs and meat) was planned as a majorproject activity responsible for 13Z of benefits in year 5. By the year 3,one hundred units were expected to be established with a doubling ef thisnumber by year 5. By the end of the second year of the project (1983) 88units had been established but the acute food shortage and resulting feedshortage of 1984 had led to the slaughter of many of these flocks.

8. Maiz-, rice and cowpeas were to contribute to the remainingproject benefits. However, poor quality seeds was a major constraint ongrowth of their production.

C. EXTENSION

9. The SAR anticipated that extension staff would be increased tothe point where 70,000 farmers would be covered on a ratio of 1 worker to400/600 farmers. Actual extension workerafarmer ratio was much lower thantargeted by the SAR. Demonstrations were based on sole cropping while thefarmers practiced mixed cropping. This problem was confounded by the factthat the ADP did not develop a sound two-way linkage with researchinstitutes or universities. Several trials were conducted during the life-span of the project in collaboration with research institutes anduniversities. Often the results of these trials were never sent back tothe project. Moreover, the project did not establish an advisory committeeprovided in the SAR for coordination of research and extension. Thusexpected benefits to the extension system of the ADP hardly materialized.Unification of extension would have helped the livestock component but itsextension activity was separated from the extension service for cropproduction and it was also grossly inadequate.

10. Extension messages were confined to the use of fertilizer,planting material and limited application of herbicide. The minimumtillage techniques which were expected to form the basis for the advancedpackage were not effectively demonstrated in the area.

D. COMMERCIAL SERVICES

11. The original financing for "Farm Inputs' distribution by theIBRD Loan was drastically reduced and amended because the quantities offarm inputs marketed declined considerably. The section related to thecredit services imposed a heavy drain on project resources. Performance ofthe tractor hire service was similar and it was nowhere near covering itscosts. The SAR envisaged a decline in the activity of the tractor hireunit during the project life and an increased focus on assisting privateoperators. In reality this did not happen. In case of seeds, particularlyfor rice and maize, it was not possible to assess the farmer demand becausethe seeds supplied by the project were sold at well below normal marketrates for foodgrain.

12. This experience with regard to input sales, tractor hire, seedproduction and credit services tallies with experience in the other ADPsand suggests that the government intervention in these activities should bereconsidered.

E. BANK PERFORMANCE

13. In all, nine supervision missions had visited the project in amatter of four years after its effectiveness and thus the project wasadequately supervised. The Bank had continuously persuaded ODSG to meetits share of funding to the project but had by and large failed. Unlikethe PCR, the supervision missions did not find anythiag wrong in terms ofthe quality of the expatriate firm managing the project. The exercise of

the recosting of the project done by FACU was reviewed by the Bank inNovember 1985, that is, shortly before the cancellation of the Loan. Thereview pointed out several lacunas in the technical messages propagated bythe project and thus indirectly raised questions about technical viabilityof the project assumed by the SAR.

F. LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY

14. The Bank has appraised a Multi-State Agricultural DevelopmentProject (MSADP-II) which includes Ondo State and therefore the activitiesundertaken in the project under review can be continued in future. MSADI-III is designed explicitly to take care of the issue of sustainabilitywhich is discussed at length in the next section on key lessons. Thefollowing components of MSADP-III correct for weaknesses in the design ofEkiti-Akoko ADP: (i) unification of extension; (ii) inclusion of tree-crops; (iii) on-farm adaptive research program and its link withagricultural research institutes; (iv) introduction of now availableimproved technologies related to yam and cassava; (v) 752 of seedproduction by contract growers; (vi) exclusive iocus on rehabilitation andmaintenance of roads; etc. The national credit system is being developedby Government in order to handle shortfall in the supply of credit tofarmers.

G. KEY LESSONS

15. (a) A close supervision of the project management is necessary forsuccessful implementation of the project, particularly in termsof the counterpart staff when expatriate staff is managing keypositions;

(b) technical packages included in the project need to be based onproven technologies acceptable to farmers, and an appropriateon-farm research program is needed to test improvements inaccepted practices;

(c) closer linkages are needed between national research institutesand extension services so that their programs respond toproblems experienced at farm level;

(d) extension services need to be unified to ensure a single sourceof technical advice and streamlined to reduce overlap andinefficiency;

(e) ADPs should be viewed in the wider context of state agriculturalexpenditure programs and policies;

(f) there is need to privatize activities such as seed productionthrough outgtower program, input distribution at retail level,road construction by contract, etc.; and such privatizationshould be experimented on a long term basis; and

- 5 -

(g) there is a greater need for flexibility of program design andimplementation.

- 6 -

Table 1

PHYSICAL TARGETS AND ACUIBVEH NTS

SAR ProjectItem Target Achievements

1. Commercial Servicesa. Farmer Service Centerst

Large 5 5Small 25 24Stores 2 0

b. Supply of improved large quantity little achievedbreeds of chicks

c. Marketing of labor US$7.5 mn US$1.5 mnsaving farm equipments

2. Extensiona. No. of farmers adopting 65,000 21,600

basic service packageb. Extension: farmer ratio 1:4001600 1s1100

3. Seedsa. Seed processing plant 1 1b. Quantity of seeds to be 1,500 287

processed per yearc. Seed testing laboratory 1 1

4. Adaptive Researcha. Adaptive research facilities n.a. n.a.b. Soil testing laboratory 1 1

5. Agro-Forestrya. Fruit trees and ornamentals nil large quantity

6. Livestocka. Number of farmers to bia 200 200

trainedb. 2000 bird breeding unit 1 1c. Hatcheries 3 3d. Feed mill 1 1e. Veterinary service unit 1 1

7. Enxineering: Roadsa. Feeder roads (kms) 125 65b. Farm roads 375 194

8. Entineerinx: Buildintsa. Staff houses 90 0b. Workshops 2 0c. Offices 104 0

Table 1PHYSICAL ACHIEVEHETS (cont.)

SAR ProjectItem Tarset Achievements

9. Ensineering: Water DeveloDmenta. Number of dams 35 0

10 Land Use Planninea. Conservation layouts (kms) n.a. 30

11. WorkshoDsa. Central workshop 1 1b. Zonal workshops 2 2

12. Airicultural Entineerinaa. Hinimum tillage (ha.) 11,500 0b. No. of tractors 50 50c. Number of farmers 5,000 5,000

using Advanced Servicepackage

d. Land clearing (ha.) 1,000 659

13. Traininaa. Several in-house training n.a. n.a.

programsb. Establishment of library 1 1

14. Plannins. Monitoring and Evaluation n.a. n.a.