report no. 661a-se appraisal of sine saloum within...
TRANSCRIPT
1 RET lRReport No. 661a-SE RETUORN T
Appraisal of Sine Saloum WITHIN
Agricultural Development Project ONEWESC
SenegalMay 5, 1975 FILE COPYWestem Africa Regional Office
Not for Public Use
Document of the International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentInternational Development Association
This report was prepared for official use only by the Bank Group. It may notbe published, quoted or cited without Bank Croup authoriation. The Bank Croup doesnot accept responsibility tor the accuracy or completeness of the report.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
US$ 1 CFAF 225CFAF 1 = US$0.004CFAF 1 million US$4,4144
WEIGHTS AND M'EASURES
1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds1 metric ton (ton) = 2,204.6 pounds1 square
kilometer (km2) = 0.386 square miles
ABBREVIATIONS
BNDS = National Development Bank (Banque Nationale deDeveloppement du Sénégal)
CCCE = Caisse Centrale de Cooperative Economique (France)
CETAD = Training Center for Agricultural Development Techniques
FED = European Development Fund
FAC = Fonds d'Aide et Cooperation (France)
IRAT = Institut de Recherches Agronomiques Tropicales
ONCAD = Office for Cooperative and Development Assistance(Office National de Cooperation et d'Assistance pourle Developpement)
PA = Agricultural Credit and Extension Program (ProgrammeAgricole)
SATEC = Societe d'Aide Technique et de Cooperation (France)
SODEFITEX = Cotton Development Agency (Societe pour le Developpementdes Fibres Textiles)
SODEVA = Agricultural Development Agency (Societe de Developpementet de Vulgarisation Agricole)
USAID = United States Agency for International Development
FISCAL YEAR
Government - July l-June 30
SODEVA - April 1 - March 31
SENEGAL
APPRAISAL OF
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................... . ......... i - iv
I. INTRODUCTION .1.. ..... . 1
II. BACKGROUND .... 1
A. General 1.......B. Rural Sector ..... 2
C. Agricultural Development Strategy. 5D. SODEVA and the Pilot Project .5
III. THE PROJECT ............. ... 7
A. Project Area 7...B. Project Description ... 8C. Detailed Features ... ... .. . .8
D. Organization and Management .. il
IV. COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS .. . 13
A. Cost Estimates . .13
B. Proposed Financing ... 15C. Credit Arrangements . .. 16D. Procurement ...... . .17
E. Disbursement ... 17F. Accounts and Audit ... 18
V. YIELDS AND OUTPUT, MARKETS, FARMERS' BENEFITS ANDGOVERNMENT REVENUES .18
A. Yields and Output .18B. Markets and Prices .19C. Farmers' Benefits .20D. Government Revenues .21
This report is based on the findings of a joint Bank Group/CCCE appraisalmission composed of Messrs. A. Cole, J. Brown, J. Pelissier, and J. Tillier(Bank), and J. Cantournet (CCCE) that visited Senegal in July 1974.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page No.
VI. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION ....................... 21
VII. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION .. ........... 23
ANNEXES
1. Progress of Agricultural Projects2. ONCAD3. Technical Aspects of Crop Production
Table - Crop Yield Development
4. SODEVA
Table 1 - Budget for Fiscal Year 1974-75Table 2 - Sources of FinanceTable 3 - Audited Balance SheetChart (9264), Project Organization
5. Pilot Project6. Land Tenure and Social Structure7. Technical Aspects of Animal Production
Table 1 - Feed Supplement, Composition, and RequirementsTable 2 - Feed Supplement CostsTable 3 - Development of Livestock Numbers and Milk ProductionTable 4 - Farm Benefits and Costs
8. Credit and Cooperatives in Senegal9. Reporting Requirements
Table 1 - Administrative SectionTable 2 - Quarterly Project Disbursement SummaryTable 3 - Quarterly Project Expenditure SummaryTable 4 - Preliminary Work ProgramTable 5 - Implementation of ProjectTable 6 - Final Results
10. Draft Terms of Reference for a Cereal Marketing Study11. Terms of Reference for Expatriate Staff12. Project Costs
Table 1 - Summary of Project CostsTable 2 - ConstructionTable 3 - Vehicles and FurnitureTable 4 - EquipmentTable 5 - Personnel Costs (Expatriates)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Table 6 - Personnel Costs for Senegalese StaffTable 7 - Personnel Unit CostsTable 8 - Operating CostsTable 9 - Tree Nurseries, Livestock and TrainingTable 10 - Incremental Seasonal Inputs and Farm Implements
13. Disbursements
Table 1 - Disbursements of the IDA Credit and the Bank and CCCE Loans
Table 2 - Semi-Annual Disbursements of the IDA Credit and the BankLoan
14. Crop Production
Table 1 - Zone 1Table 2 - Zone 2Table 3 - Total Production and Average Yields
15. Markets and Prices
Table 1 - Price and Marketing Structure for MaizeTable 2 - Price and Marketing Structure for Millet and SorghumTable 3 - Price and Marketing Structure for GroundnutsTable 4 - Price and Marketing Structure for Cotton
16. Farm Budgets
Table 1 - Farm Plan - 20 haTable 2 - Cash Flow - 20 haTable 3 - Farm Plan - 13 haTable 4 - Cash Flow - 13 ha
Table 5 - Farm Plan - 7 haTable 6 - Cash Flow - 7 haTable 7 - Summary of Results
17. Government Cash Flow18. Economic Rate of Return
Table 1 - Economic Rate of Return CalculationTable 2 - Sensitivity Analysis
CHART (9237) - Farm Input Purchases for the Groundnut BasinCHART (9238) - Production of Groundnuts and Millet in the Groundnut BasinCHART (9239) - Rainfall and Yields of Groundnuts and Millet in the Groundnut
Basin
MAP (11251) - Project Area
SENEGAL
APPRAISAL OF SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Background
i. The Government of Senegal has requested the Bank Group and theFrench Caisse Centrale de Cooperation Economique (CCCE) to help finance anagricultural development project in one of Senegal's most heavily populatedregions. The objectives would be to increase and diversify agriculturalproduction and thus raise the incomes of about 34,000 farm families. Theproject is based on improved farming practices tested successfully by apilot project financed by CCCE and Government. It was identified by an RMWAmission in April 1973, and prepared by the Agricultural Development Authorityfor the central regions of Senegal (Societe de Developpement et de Vulgarisa-tion Agricole - SODEVA), with funds provided under the second agriculturalcredit project financed by IDA. The project would further Government'snational agiçicultural credit and extension program (Programme Agricole) thathas formed the basis of its agricultural development strategy since theearly 1960's. This program has been financed in part by two IDA creditsapproved in 1968 and 1973.
The Project
ii. The project area would be the region of Sine Saloum, in the southof Senegal's Groundnut Basin. It has a rural population of some 700,000,equivalent to about 20% of the country's total, and accounts for about 50%of Senegalts groundnut and 30% of its cereal production. Per capita farmincomes including subsistence range from US$60 to US$150.
iii. The proposed project would carry agricultural development in SineSaloum beyond the plateau reached by Programme Agricole. Increases in outputof groundnuts, cereals, and livestock would be achieved by training some34,000 farmers in the improved farming practices tested by the pilot project.The proposed project would be carried out by SODEVA over the five-year period1975/76 to 1979/80 and would involve:
(a) strengthening SODEVA by providing it with buildings,equipment and staff;
(b) constructing and renovating training facilities, andproviding courses for extension workers;
(c) demonstrating and disseminating improved husbandrytechniques for cereals, groundnuts and cotton;
- ii -
(d) introducing improved animal husbandry practices fordraft oxen, beef cattle, and breeding cows; constructingand operating an animal feed plant;
(e) supplying implements and seasonal inputs and providingmedium-term and seasonal credit;
(f) establishing a tree nursery and distributing treesfor windbreaks and future fuel supplies and demonstratingsoil conservation techniques;
(g) monitoring and evaluating the results of project activities;and
(h) hiring consultants to review grain marketing policies,procedures and facilities.
iv. Project Execution. Government has designated SODEVA as the regionaldevelopment agency for the Groundnut Basin, where it has been responsible forextension services under Programme Agricole and for carrying out the SineSaloum Pilot Project. SODEVA is well managed and effective and would beresponsible for implementing the proposed project. It would provide extensionservices and coordinate with other agencies in supplying inputs and creditto the farmers. Since extension service support for Programme Agricolewould be phased out in Sine Saloum, the proposed project would occupy all ofSODEVA's extension effort and thus would finance all of SODEVA's staff,operating, building, and equipment costs in Sine Saloum for the five-yearproject period.
v. Seasonal Inputs, Farm Implements and Credit - Seasonal inputsand implements would be supplied by ONCAD, against orders from cooperatives.Since there have been delays in ordering and delivering farm inputs, SODEVA'sfield staff would prepare lists of goods required by farmers, to help thecooperatives and ONCAD in placing orders and planning deliveries. TheNational Development Bank (Banque Nationale de Developpement du Senegal- BNDS) would channel credit to project farmers using in part the roll-overfund created by the two IDA credits and funds borrowed on favorable termsfrom the Central Bank. Farmers would purchase seed, fertilizers and pesti-cide with short-term credit, and implements on medium-term credit. To coverthe increased credit requirements of the project, the present limits imposedby BNDS on borrowing by cooperatives may need to be liftèd or arrangementsmade to increase the guarantee funds of cooperatives. This issue would bemonitored carefully during project implementation.
Cost Estimates and Financial Arrangements
vi. The estimated cost of the project is US$30.9 million, includingtaxes and duties (US$2.9 million). The foreign exchange component would beabout US$3.9 million or 13 percent of total cost. Physical contingenciesand expected price increases would amount to 30 percent of base cost estimates,which are at mid-1975 prices.
- iii -
vii. The Bank would make a loan of US$7.0 million for a term of 20 years,including a five-year grace period, and IDA a credit of US$7 million on standardterms. Additional financing of US$8.9 million would be provided by the CCCE.The proposed Bank loan and IDA credit would cover the foreign exchange costs(US$3.9 million) and US$10.1 million (42%) of the local costs for a total of50% of project costs, net of taxes and duties (US$28 million). The CCE loanwould be for a term of 20 years, including a five-year grace period, withinterest at an annual rate of 3.5%.
viii. Since SODEVA would not have its own revenues and would carryout the project on Government's behalf, the IDA credit and the Bank and CCCEloans (US$22.9 million) plus Government's contribution to SODEVA's costs ofUS$4.2 million would be passed on to SODEVA as grants. In addition, Govern-ment would provide SODEVA with CFAF 200 million (US$889,000), equivalent toabout three months of its expenditures, as working capital for the project.
ix. Incremental farm inputs would be financed jointly by Governmentand BNDS. Government's contribution would be US$2.1 million and would be inthe form of subsidies for fertilizers and insecticides. BNDS would financeshort- and medium-term credit totalling US$1.8 million.
Procurement
x. Vehicles, equipment and civil works expenditures would total aboutUS$2.15 million. Contracts for buildings, equipment and vehicles for morethan US$50,000, aggregating about US$400,000, would be awarded on the basisof international competitive bidding in accordance with the Bank Group'sguidelines for procurement. Locally manufactured goods would be allowed apreferance of 15% or the level of applicable import duty, whichever is lover,when comparing domestic with foreign bids. Contracts for less than US$50,000,totalling US$1.6 million, including the bulk of civil works contracts whichare small and widely scattered, would be awarded on the basis of competitivebidding advertised locally and in accordance with local procedures, which aresatisfactory to the Bank Group. The remaining equipment purchases, in amountsless than US$10,000 and totalling US$150,000, would include office and housefurnishings and equipment for agricultural demonstrations and would be pur-chased chiefly from local sources. Consultant services, totaling aboutUS$200,000, would be obtained according to the Bank Group's normal procedures.The balance of projects costs would be for personnel and management, US$24.9million, and for farm inputs, US$3.69 million, and would be unsuitable forcompetitive bidding.
Disbursements
xi. The proceeds of the IDA credit and the Bank loan would be disbursedto cover 60% of:
(a) the costs for project buildings, vehicles, equipment and furnishings--US$1.0 million;
- iv -
(b) the salaries of staff employed under contract by SODEVA andallowances for all project staff--US$7.5 million; and
(c) SODEVA's other project operating costs--US$2.0 million.
The IDA credit and the Bank loan would be disbursed pari passu with the CCCEloan in the ratio 60:40 so that the credit and the two loans would togethercover 100% of the costs of the above items. The balance of the IDA creditand the Bank loan would cover 100% of the foreign exchange costs of the con-sultants (US$160,000), and a contingency reserve of US$3.3 million.
Benefits and Justification
xii. The project's direct benefits would be the increased output ofgroundnuts, cereals, cotton, and livestock products that it would generate.At full development in PY5, the net value in 1974 terimis of this incrementalproduction would be about US$8.5 million, representing also a contribution ofabout US$7.5 million to Senegal's net foreign exchange earnings.
xiii. The economic rate of return of the project would be 25% over 10years. Benefit decreases or cost increases of 25% would lower the rate ofreturn to 12% and 13% respectively. The project is expected, therefore, tohave a satisfactory rate of return.
xiv. About 80% of beneficiaries would have pre-project per capita incomesbetween US$60 and US$90; under the project incomes would be increased byabout 35%, bringing the average up to about US$115 per capita.
xv. In addition to the directly quantifiable benefits derived from in-creased production, the project would help reduce the threat of soil erosion,and the resulting lonR term losses in productive capacity, which accompaniesincreasing population pressure. It would demonstrate efficient farming tech-niques that could be adopted by many of Senegal's farmers to increase theirincomes and would create a nucleus of some 34 ,000 farmers who could be expectedto expand the application of these techiiques on their own farms and serve asan example for other farmers. It would also help develop in SODEVA an ex-perienced extension service capable of expanding the scope of the proposedproject to include even more farmers, or of carrying out future developmentprojects in Sine Saloum or other regions.
Recommendation
xvi. With the assurances and conditions set out in Chapter VII, theproject is suitable for a Bank loan of US$7.0 million, and an IDA credit ofUS$7.0 million.
INTRODUCTION
1.01 The Goverument of Senegal has asked the Bank Group and CaisseCentrale de Cooperation Economique (CCCE) of France to help finance an agri-cultural project in Sine Saloum, one of Senegal's most heavily populatedregions. The objectives would be to increase and diversify agricultural pro-duction and, thereby, raise the incomes of some 34,000 farm families.
1.02 The proposed project is based on a pilot scheme financed jointlyby Government and CCCE since 1971. It was identified for possible Bank Groupfinancing by a RMWA mission in April 1973, and prepared by a Governnentagency, the Agricultural Development Authority for the central regions ofthe country (Societe de Developpement et de Vulgarisation Agricole - SODEVA),under the Second Agricultural Credit Project financed by IDA.
1.03 This report is based on the findings of a Bank Group appraisalmission, comprising Messrs. A. Cole, J. Brown, J. Pelissier, and J. Tillier,that visited Senegal in July 1974. Mr. J. Cantournet appraised the projectat the same time for CCCE.
1.04 The Bank Group has made one loan and six credits for agriculturaldevelopment in Senegal: an agricultural credit program financed by Loan584-SE (US$3.5 million) and Credit 140-SE (US$6.0 million) in 1969, and byCredit 404-SE (US$8.2 million) in 1973; rice development in Casamance by252-SE (US$3.7 million) in 1971; resettlement in Eastern Senegal by 254-SE(US$1.3 million in 1971); rice development in the Senegal River delta by350-SE (US$4.5 million) in 1973, and drought relief by 446-SE (US$3.0 million)in 1973. With the exception of the first agricultural credit project, andnotvithstanding frequent delays in Government's project funding, the projectshave been completed or are progressing satisfactorily (Annex 1). In the caseof the first agricultural credit project, demand for farm implements developedmore slowly than foreseen because of droughts and a sharp reduction in theproducer price for groundnuts; since disbursements would have been delayedbeyond a reasonable period, Loan 584-SE was cancelled in 1971. After demandfor implements resumed, IDA provided a second tranche for Government's farmcredit program in 1973 (Credit 404-SE); and disbursements of the latest IDAcredit are now expected to be made faster than estimated at appraisal. Thetwo agricultural credits also provided for technical assistance for the re-organization of ONCAD; this activity has been unsuccessful and Governmentand IDA are examining steps to remedy the situation.
II. BACKGROUND
A. General
2.01 Senegal is located mostly within the Sudano-lahelian zone on thecoast of West Africa and has a land area of 196,700 km . Population is about4.2 million and is growing annually at about 2.2%. Urban areas account for
- 2 -
about 25% of total population, the largest being around the capital, Dakar(pop. 0.6 million). Per capita GNP in 1974 was estimated at US$310 (BankAtlas method) while rural per capita incomes average about half that amount.
2.02 In 1972, the economy came under severe strain as a result of theworst series of droughts in this century. In 1973 there was another thoughless severe drought, and by the end of the year total reserves had reached anall time low of minus US$31 million; the real standard of living in ruralareas had declined to early 1960 levels; and Government's financial situationhad become very precarious. Faced with this situation, Government resortedto heavier external borrowing and assistance to avoid a slowdown in itsinvestment program. During 1974, the economic situation improved markedlyas a result of sharp price increases for groundnuts and rock phosphate. Inaddition, satisfactory rainfall in 1974 improved crop production, and Governmenttook steps to improve its financial situation by reducing substantially thelevel of subsidies on food for consumers (para 2.12).
B. Rural Sector
2.03 Despite relatively poor soils and erratic rainfall, the agri-cultural sector is central to Senegal's economy. It accounts for about 35%of GDP, up to 70% of Senegal's exports, and 70% of all employment. Moreover,as Senegal has few known economic alternatives, agriculture will continue tobe the largest source of employment for the foreseeable future.
2.04 There are several important sectoral characteristics: small-scalefarms account for 95% of all production; groundnuts account for almost 70%of agricultural exports; 60% of rural population is concentrated within about100 miles of Dakar in the Groundnut Basin; and large areas in the north andeast of the country are suitable only for livestock production under extensivegrazing. There are thus significant variations in the distribution of popu-lation, but with smaller differences in cropping patterns.
2.05 Government's efforts to develop agriculture have been directed to(a) increasing groundnut and millet production, especially in the GroundnutBasin, and (b) diversifying production by promoting rice and cotton in Casamanceand Eastern Senegal, and developing the irrigation potential of the Senegalriver.
Programme Agricole
2.06 A central feature of Government's rural development strategy hasbeen "Programme Agricole" (PA), which has been supported by Credits 140 SEand 404 S}-. Starting in the early 1960s, it aimed at increasing the pro-duction of millet and groundnuts by making animal- drawn implements, fertilizersand improved seeds available to farmers on credit, providing extension servicesto promote the correct use of these inputs, and by developing cooperatives to
facilitate the distribution of inputs and crop marketing. The main organi-zations involved in PA are the National Office of Cooperatives and DevelopmentAssistance (ONCAD, Annex 2) and the cooperatives, which ONCAD supervises andassists.
2.07 In addition to supporting the cooperatives, ONCAD procures and dis-tributes farm inputs, administers the associated subsidies, and maintains anddistributes the stock of groundnut seeds. It is also responsible for market-ing groundnuts, domestic cereals and imported rice. Because of its role ingroundnut marketing, ONCAD is the agency primarily responsible for the recoveryof credit under PA. Finance for this credit is provided by National DevelopmentBank of Senegal (BNDS), which also provides short-term financing of thegroundnut purchases and input inventories of ONCAD, short- and medium-termcredits to cooperatives and loans to individual farmers. The amounts lentto cooperatives are governed by the past volume of groundnuts marketed.
2.08 Cooperatives (Annex 8) form the basic structure in Government's planfor organizing the rural sector. Senegal has about 2,200 cooperatives, some500 of which are in Sine Saloum; the average cooperative has about 120 members.In exchange for a membership fee of CFAF 1,000, the member is entitled tocredit for fertilizer, insecticides and agricultural implements distributedunder PA. In addition to serving as a channel for collectively guaranteedcredit, the cooperatives serve as the focal point for the distribution ofseeds and for the marketing of the output of members and non-members alike.In order to enable the cooperatives to be more self-sufficient, ONCAD plansto reorganize the cooperatives into basic units or unions that will marketat least 1,500 tons of groundnuts per year, the minimum it considers necessaryto pay for the full-time cooperative manager.
2.09 PA's goals were ambitious and its targets included rapid increasesin cultivated areas as well as yield increases. During the early 1960'sgroundnut and millet production reached record levels, at least in part dueto the promotion of fertilizers and animal traction under PA. In the lasthalf of the 1960's, however, yields and production of these crops declinedsharply with the onset of the droughts. In the 1970's production has fluctuatedwith rainfall (Charts 9238 and 9239), but even in good rainfall years outputhas not exceeded the record levels of the mid-1960's. This leveling off,together with the fact that some 80% of the farmers in the Groundnut Basinnow participate in PA, suggests that the Program may have reached the limitsof its development potential.
Regional Development Agencies
2.10 Semi-autonomous development agencies, organized on either regionalor product lines and reporting to the Ministry of Rural Development, havebegun to supplant the Ministry in the provision of extension services tofarmers (although the latter still maintains direct responsibility for extensionin part of Casamance and for small scale vegetable projects, generally nearDakar). SODEVA (para 2.17) has been given overall responsibility for extensionin the Groundnut Basin and has been primarily concerned with the introduction
- 4 -
of improved farming techniques under Programme Agricole in which it has beenquite successful. SAED is responsible for rice development in the SenegalRiver Delta, and may become the Regional Development Agency for the wholevalley, while SODEFITEX is responsible for cotton production, mainly in EasternSenegal. In addition to providing technical extension services, these twoagencies are responsible for distributing inputs procured by ONCAD to thefarmers and for the commercialization and processing of farm output. A fourthagency, the Societe des Terres Neuves (STN), is responsible for settlementprojects, primarily in Eastern Senegal. The activities of these agencieshave shown that new techniques can be effectively introduced when PA issupported by projects comprising close extension supervision.
Financing Agricultural Development
2.11 A key problem in development activities lies in assuring adequatefinancing. The regional development agencies have no revenues to finance theirextension activities and must rely on Government support, either directly fromthe budget or from external donors. ONCAD is theoretically self-financing,with its marketing activities paid for out of the differential between theprice paid to producers for groundnuts and that received from the oil millsand the cost of input distribution included in the price paid by farmers forthe inputs. However, the lack of appropriate procedures to provide funds tocover the costs of subsidies on farm inputs and consumer purchases of cerealshas contributed to ONCAD's current severe financial difficulties.
Subsidies
2.12 Until recently, subsidies for imported foodstuffs have discouragedlocal production and caused serious financial problems. Recognizing theharmful effects of these policies, Government in November 1974 eliminatedthe subsidy for imported rice, which had reached a value of about CFAF 7.5billion per year, and reduced the subsidies on sugar and vegetable oil. Atthe same time, producer prices for groundnuts were raised by 40% and forcotton by 37% to reflect more closely their world market value. Fertilizersare still subsidized, however, while ONCAD has been selling farm implementsbelow cost. In addition to contributing to the financial problems of ONCAD,this policy encourages the uneconomic use of inputs.
2.13 In spite of rising costs for farm implements, the prices paid bythe farmer have been frozen at 1973 levels, resulting in ONCAD losses of aboutCFAF 150 million in 1974. Given the recent increases in producer prices, thefarmer should be able to pay full cost for the implements. Government hasraised the prices charged to farmers by 15% for the 1975 campaign and duringnegotiations an assurance was obtained that Government would continue to followa policy of progressive adoption of prices reflecting the full cost of imple-ments.
2.14 Credit 404-SE provides for annual consultations between IDA andGovernment on the level of fertilizer subsidies. The goal of these consulta-tions was to be the progressive reduction in the level of the subsidy. However,
- 5 -
the maintenance of a constant price to farmers in light of higher world market
prices has led to an increase in the subsidy which covered about 80% of costsand amounted, in total, to about CFAF 2 billion in 1974. The first of theconsultations was held during the negotiations for the proposed project andGovernment informed the Bank Group that the price paid by farmers was raisedfrom CFAF 12/kg to CFAF 16/kg for the 1975 campaign (increases in cost, how-ever, kept the subsidy at about the same percentage). An assurance was ob-tained that Government would follow a policy of progressive adoption of pricesreflecting the full cost of fertilizers and that consultations would be held
between the Government and the Bank Group in October/November of each year todiscuss prices to be set for the following campaign.
C. Agricultural Development Strategy
2.15 Because of the heavy concentration of population in the GroundnutBasin, the improvement of productivity for groundnuts and cereals in thatregion is the only practical short-term means for improving the livelihoodof most of the rural population. However, the agricultural potential of theGroundnut Basin is severely limited by its unreliable rainfall, and Govern-ment's plans to develop irrigation in the Senegal River Region, and agri-culture in the higher rainfall areas of Eastern Senegal and Casamance aresound and would give the country some measure of protection against the mostsevere effects of droughts.
2.16 In recognition of the success of projects to diversify and intensifyproduction in specific geographical areas, Government has designated SODEVAas the regional development agency with primary responsibility for planningand implementing agricultural development projects in the Groundnut Basin,and intends to establish similar development agencies for each of the country'sregions. This strategy is sound because PA is not designed to provide theintensive supervision required to move farmers to new levels of productivity,and because these semi-autonomous development agencies have managerial andadministrative advantages over Government departments. These agencies arenot revenue earning, however, and Government has so far relied heavily onexternal assistance to cover their costs. Exclusive reliance on external
finance would be imprudent. Government should therefore plan the budgetarymeasures (including the review of subsidies) necessary to assure adequatefinancial support for these agencies.
D. SODEVA and the Pilot Project
2.17 SODEVA (Annex 4) was established in 1968 by Government and Societed'Aide Technique et de Cooperation (SATEC) of France as an agricultural devel-opment agency to take over and expand the activities of SATEC in the regionsof Sine Saloum, Thies and Diourbel that comprise most of Senegal's GroundnutBasin (Map). SODEVA operates as an arm of Government, has no revenue earning
- 6 -
activities, and is financed in part from the budget of the Ministry of RuralDevelopment, but mostly through external aid agreements (Annex 4, Table 1).Its staff includes civil servants seconded from and paid by the Ministry ofRural Development, personnel employed under direct contract, and expatriatestaff provided by SATEC. SODEVA is well-managed and effective. In additionto providing basic extension services under Programme Agricole to all farmersin the Groundnut Basin, an important activity since 1971 has been a pilotproject in Southern Sine Saloum (para 2.18). This project, financed in partby CCCE, is the basis for the project proposed in this report and for a similarproject to the north of Sine Saloum (Thies and Diourbel) for which Governmenthas received assistance from USAID.
2.18 The pilot project (Annex 5) was designed to test the applicabilityof research results that have shown that further improvements above the levelsreachecl under Programme Agricole could be achieved with more intensive farmingpractices. The new technology involves (a) stump and root removal to completeland clearing; (b) the use of oxen for plowing; (c) comprehensive use offertilizers for cereals and other crops; (d) the introduction of sorghum,maize, cotton, and livestock on a larger scale in the farming system; and(e) the correct timing for farming operations. The introduction of this tech-nology required the concentration of extension services on a relatively smallnumber of farmers for a limited period of time.
2.19 Progress was slower than expected because many farmers were reluctantto or did not understand the need to clear fields of stumps and roots, a pre-requisite for effective plowing. However, the rate of clearing increased whenuprooting was made a precondition for receiving free phosphate and the fullsupport of SODEVA's extension staff. Late delivery of farm inputs by ONCADalso proved a problem and SODEVA's field staff had to intervene to assuresupplies. The first meaningful results (based on a partial sample of some1,700 farms) available are for the 1973/74 crop year and show the followingyields:
Groundnut Millet Sorghum Maize
Under Pilot ProjectRecommendations 1,260 1,010 780 1,960
Under NormalRecommendations of P.A. 940 760 560
Although limited, these results indicate that the improved farming techniquesrecommended and SODEVA's extension methods are sound for application in alarger project.
- 7 -
III. THE PROJECT
A. Project Area
3.01 The project area covers the administrative region of Sine Saloumthat comprises the southern part of the Groundnut Basin (Map). The regionhas six districts, with a commercial center at Kaolack, the largest town(pop. 100,000).
3.02 The climate is characterized by a dry season of eight to nine monthsand a rainy season of some three to four months, with generally 40 to 60 daysof rain. To the north, the rainfall averages 600-800 mm and to the south800-1,000 mm. Average monthly temperatures range between 25° and 30°C.
3.03 Three soil types prevail. In the north, the soils are sandy,permeable, and easy to work when wet; they are well suited to groundnut andmillet and are heavily cropped. In the northwest they have a high claycontent and are difficult to work and are best suited to sorghum, and whererainfall is sufficient, to maize and cotton. In the south and east, thesoils have a variable clay content and are reasonably easy to work when moist;they are suitable for groundnuts, millet, sorghum, maize and cotton. Thetraditional rotation consists of one or two years of groundnuts, followed bymillet; after three or more years of cropping, the land reverts to a bushfallow for one to several years. But fallow is being drastically reduced,thus increasing the danger of soil erosion, in the heavily populated north-western section of the project area.
3.04 The area's agriculture accounts for 40-60% of Senegal's groundnutsand 33% of its millet production. Livestock consist of about 470,000 cattle,460,000 sheep and goats, and 8,000 pigs. The cattle are mostly N'dama, atrypano-tolerant breed, in the south, and zebus in the north.
3.05 The rural infrastructure consists of a road network comprising some450 km of main roads and about 1,500 km of secondary roads that are passablethroughout the year. The area is also served by a port on the Saloum Riverat Kaolack and by the Dakar-Bamako railroad. Village water supplies generallydepend on wells, and Governnent has initiated a program for well improvementsupported by the European Development Fund (FED).
3.06 Total population of the Sine Saloum Region is about 8002000, of whomabout 90% live in rural areas. Population density averages 34/km and rangesfrom about 9/km2 in the east to 85/km2 in the northwest, and the area's 70,000farms range in size between 6 ha and 20 ha, and average about 11 ha. Familiesvary from individual households with about 6 members to compounds with severalhouseholds totaling 20 to 30 members. Traditionally, agricultural landbelonged to the family and cultivation rights were allocated to individualfarmers by family chiefs. This system is changing and, under a law passed in1972, all agricultural land is in the national domain, with individual rights
-8-
allocated by rural community leaders and reinforced by law (Annex 6). Althoughno serious land tenure problems are foreseen for the project, SODEVA's studygroup would be asked to monitor the transition from one system of allocationto the other during project implementation.
B. Project Description
3.07 The proposed project would carry agricultural development in SineSaloum beyond the plateau reached by Programme Agricole (para 2.09). Increasesin output of groundnuts, cereals, and livestock would be achieved by trainingsome 34,000 farmers in the improved farming practices tested by the pilotproject i(para 2.18). The proposed project would be carried out by SODEVAover the five-year period 1975/76 to 1979/80 and would involve:
(a) strengthening SODEVA by providing it with buildings,equipment and staff;
(b) constructing and renovating training facilities, andproviding courses for extension workers;
(c) demonstrating and disseminating improved husbandrytechniques for cereals, groundnuts and cotton;
(d) introducing improved animal husbandry practices fordraft oxen, beef cattle, and breeding cows; constructingand operating an animal feed plant;
(e) supplying implements and seasonal inputs and providingmedium-term and seasonal credit;
(f) establishing a tree nursery and distributing treesfor windbreaks and future fuel supplies and demonstratingsoil conservation techniques;
(g) monitoring and evaluating the results of projectactivities; and
(h) hiring consultants to review grain marketing policies,procedures and facilities.
C. Detailed Features
3.08 Strengthening SODEVA - The project would finance the constructionof an office block, garage, and central store for the project's headquartersin Kaolack. The project would also finance construction and equipment for
- 9 -
five district offices, 28 subdistrict offices and stores, four senior and 34
junior staff housing units, and one central and three field staff training
and meeting facilities. Four existing training centers would be renovated
and SODEVA would be equipped with 25 pickup and heavier trucks.
3.09 Since PA is now firmly established in Sine Saloum (para 2.09),
SODEVA's extension efforts in its support would be phased out. The proposed
project would therefore occupy all of SODEVA's farm level staff for Sine
Saloum which, including the pilot project, currently comprises some 370 field
extension workers. By project year (PY)3, this level would be increased to
500, giving an overall ratio of one field worker to about 150 farms for the
project area. During the same period, middle level technical staff, including
animal husbandry assistants, would be increased from 115 to about 170, and
senior staff would remain at about 20.
3.10 Training - The 55 new middle level staff would be recruited from the
Ministry of Rural Development's training schools, and about 130 literate
farmers would be selected as new field extension workers. All new middle
level and field staff would undergo six months of further training for the
project at the Training Center for Agricultural Development Techniques (OETAD)
at Thies. CETAD, which is operated by SODEVA with a budget from the Ministry
of Rural Development, is well run and its graduates are proving to be effective
field workers. Classes would be followed by practical sessions, including a
training assignment with an experienced field officer.
3.11 Improved Farm Practices - Under the project, SODEVA's extension
workers would encourage farmers to clear their fields, plow their land every
three to four years, and begin the basic crop rotation with a cereal crop,
preferably maize or sorghum. Seed varieties and fertilizer rates would be
those recommended by Senegal's research organizations (Annex 3). Fertilizer
economics are being studied by a SODEVA team financed under Credit 404-SE,
and assurances were obtained that SODEVA would consult the Bank Group on the
study findings with a view to agreement on recommended changes for the project.
Project staff and cooperating research institutes would also: (a) test new
varieties of groundnuts, sorghum and maize; (b) investigate the possibility
of plowing during the dry season and assess prospects for minimum tillage;
and (c) develop soil conservation practices.
3.12 Farmers satisfactorily using the crop management practices and
basic inputs provided under PA (Annex 3), owning and training a pair ofdraft oxen, and clearing at least 1 ha of all roots and stumps would receive
the concentrated support of SODEVA's field staff who would make farm visits
about twice a month and would hold regular group meetings. By PY 5 the
project's staff would supervise closely about half of farmers in the project
area and production practices would be intensified on about 1/5 of the
cultivated land.
3.13 Improved Animal Husbandry Practices (Annex 7) - To develop ox-
traction, SODEVA has promoted stall feeding of crop residues, and many farmers
have expanded into beef fattening as an extra source of income. By PY 5,
- 10 -
farmers would be helped to fatten 16,000 cattle annually. Mature oxen, threeyears and over, would be kept in stalls for 150 to 180 days and would gainabout 75 kg. Also, SODEVA would cooperate with the Ministry of Rural Devel-opment's Veterinary Department to reduce calf mortality and raise the calvingrate by improved feeding and health care. Since the development of stallfeeding would expand the demand for water, the project would finance 22 setsof ox-drawn water lifting equipment for demonstrations in the project area.To meet the requirements for feed supplements, the project would also financethe construction of a small animal feed mixing plant at Kaolack to be ownedand operated by SODEVA. The mill would produce about 6 tons/day of feedconcentrates and minerals, which SODEVA would distribute and sell at cost toproject farmers.
3.14 Seasonal Inputs and Implements - Seasonal inputs for cereals andgroundnuts and all implements would be supplied by ONCAD, on the basis oforders from cooperatives. Tle Cotton Development Agency (Societe pour leDeveloppenent des Fibres Textiles - SODEFITEX, para 2.10) would supply farmerswith seasonal inputs for cotton. Since deliveries from ONCAD have often beenlate, SODEVA's field staff would prepare lists of goods required by farmers.These lists would provide a basis for cooperatives and ONCAD to make ordersand plan deliveries, and would be part of a joint effort by the two agencies(para 3.23). Since maintenance and repairs of farm equipment have proveddifficult, SODEVA would purchase 16 welding sets to start a training programfor blacksmiths.
3.15 Soil Conservation and Tree Planting Program - As a result of stumpremoval and plowing, the soil would lose its natural cover of trees and bushes,and the danger of erosion would be increased. To minimize this danger, andto protect against erosion which would arise from the reduction of fallow dueto population pressures in the northwestern part of the project area, SODEVAwould introduce a program of soil conservation, involving contour plowing andstrip cropping, and promote the planting of trees for windbreaks and fuelthrough the free distribution of planting materials.
3.16 Project Monitoring and Evaluation - Initially, much of the recordkeeping would be done by extension staff, but farmers would be taught to keeptheir own records, and SODEVA's main objective would be to evaluate resultsfrom a 1% sample of project farmers. An important task of the evaluationunit would be to accurately sample crop yields in the project area and toestablish a base line for the situation without the project. An assurancewas obtained that SODEVA would provide the Bank Group with a detailed evalua-tion report on the project's progress within six months of the end of eachcropping season. Requirements for this report and for semi-annual progressreports are detailed in Annex 9. SODEVA would employ consultants for a totalof about 9 man-months spread over the five years of the project, to helpdesign the evaluation system and to analyse the data. An assurance vas ob-t :ne that the consultants' experience, qualifications and terms of referencewould be acceptable to the Bank Group.
- il -
3.17 Cereal Marketing Study - The project would finance a study by con-sultants to examine marketing arrangements for domestic cereals and to recom-mend any needed changes. Since subsidies for imported rice were abolished inNovember 1974, the prospects for increased sales of locally grown cerealshave improved and it will be necessary to examine marketing, storage, andprocessing facilities and determine their capacity to handle an increaseddomestic crop. Government's present position is that ONCAD should have amonopoly on marketing domestic cereals. However, in order to ensure adequatemarketing facilities, Goverument agreed during negotiations to take allnecessary steps to utilize as and when needed all available marketing channels.Governaent al8o agreed to discuss vith the Bank Group the implications ofthe stud; for the marketing system as the findings become available. Theconsultant team would be employed by the Ministry of Planning and vould com-prise a marketing specialist, a grain storage/processing specialist, and aneconomist. The study would require a total of 9 man-months, and an assurancevas obtained that the qualifications, experience, and terms of reference forthe consultants would be acceptable to the Bank Group. Draft terms of refer-ence are in Annex 10.
D. Organization and Management
3.18 Project Management (Annex 4, chart) - SODEVA's regional director forSine Saloum would be the Project Manager. A technical director in charge ofall field operations would be deputy project manager and would have an or-ganizational specialist as his principal assistant. There vould be threetechnical divisions reporting directly to the technical director: crophusbandry, animal husbandry and training; credit would be the responsibilityof the administrative officer. The technical divisions would be assisted byspecialists in farm machinery, seed production and forestry. A civil engineervould supervise the project's building program, and an internal auditor wouldinspect project accounts.
3.19 Field Organization - The project area would be divided into sixdistricts. Each district vould have an operational chief, reporting to thetechnical director, supported by representatives of the technical divisions.The districts would be broken down into a total of 17 sub-districts and 78rural community offices. The farm level extension officers would be in groupsof six and would report to an extension agent in the rural community office.
3.20 Staffing - The project manager and 190 of the senior and middlelevel technical staff (para 3.09), including counterparts for expatriates,would be seconded to SODEVA by Government and would be mostly from the Minis-try of Rural Development; of these about 140 are already in post or underrecruitment. SODEVA would employ about 30 senior and middle level staff oncontract for accounts, stores, and the credit division.
- 12 -
3.21 Senegalization - Since 1968, SODEVA has made considerable progressin recruiting and training Senegalese staff, and has recently appointedSenegalese staff to all senior district positions in the project area. How-ever, six senior positions at the regional level remain to be filled. Atpresent, five of these positions are occupied by expatriates provided underan agreement with SATEC, which would be expected to continue to supply theexpatriates required for the project. All expatriate staff would traincounterparts as part of their assignment. Project costs make provisions forthe appointment of the expatriate technical director for three years, withone additional year as an advisor to a Senegalese technical director. Theorganizational specialist, to assist in planning and evaluation, would beappointed for three years, and the administrative officer for two years. Theexpatriate chiefs of the crop husbandry, animal husbandry and training divi-sions would be appointed for the first two years, with full executive res-ponsibi:Lities for their divisions, and would remain as advisors to theirSenegalese replacements for one additional year. While it is expected thatSenegalization of all project positions would be completed by PY 4, there isalready competition for good managers in the public and private sectors and ashortage of qualified managers with agricultural experience and it may takelonger than 4 years to complete the Senegalization of all project positions.SODEVA's managerial performance would be monitored closely during projectexecution to ensure that its record of good administration would continue. Termscf reference for the expatriate staff are in Annex 11.
3.22 During negotiations, assurances were obtained that Governmentvould: (a) provide SODEVA with suitable qualified senior and mi-ddle levelstaff and (b) allow SODEVA the opportunity to refuse and return Governmentstaff it considers unsuitable for the project. Assurances were also obtainedthat SODEVA's appointments to the positions of project manager, technicaldirector, administrative officer and his deputy for credit, organizationalspecialist and the chiefs of the crop, animal husbandry and training divisionsduring PY 1 and PY 5 would be of persons with qualifications, experience,terms of reference, and conditions of service acceptable to the Bank Group.
3.23 Coordination with Other Agencies - SODEVA would work closely withcooperatives in the project area, with the Ministry of Rural Development'sAgricultural and Veterinary Departments and their associated agricultural andveterinary research organizations on crop and animal husbandry investigations,and with SODEFITEX for cotton production. SODEVA has already establishedeffective working relations with these departments and agencies and no formalagreements would be required. With regard to input supplies, Governmenthas agreed to cause ONCAD to appoint a senior manager to be responsible fordeliveries to the project area.
- 13 -
IV. COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
A. Cost Estimates
4.01 Project cost estimates are based on mid-1975 prices. A physicalcontingency of 10% is allowed on all costs except personnel and consultants.A total price contingency of 26% is included to cover expected price increaseson local and foreign cost items, including physical contingencies. Costsinclude direct taxes and import duties amounting to US$2.9 million or 9% oftotal costs. The total expected cost of the project is US$30.9 million witha foreign exchange component of US$3.9 million or 13%. The following tablesummarizes project costs; further details are in Annex 12.
-14-
SUNMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Foreign(CFAF Million) (US$ '000)
A. SODEVA
I. Fixed InvestmentBuildings and Infrastructure 93.1 77.2 170.3 414 343 757 45Vehicles 19.8 24.3 44.1 88 108 196 55Equipment and Furniture 78.8 74.3 153.1 350 330 680 49
Subtotal 191.7 175.8 367.5 852 781 1,633 43
II. Personnel CostsEpatriate 93.4 140.2 233.6 415 623 1,038 60Contracted Senegalese Staff 1,795.2 - 1,795.2 7,979 - 7,979 -
Civil Servants 1,566.6 - 1.566.6 6,963 - 6.963 -
Subtotal 3,455.2 140.2 3,595.4 15,357 623 15,980 j
III. Operating CostAdministration 420.5 46.7 467.2 1,869 207 2,076 10Maintenance 92.7 39.8 132.5 412 177 589 30Tree Nurseries, Training & Demonstrations 77.7 5.3 83.0 345 24 369 6Trials and Evaluation 50.4 12.6 63.0 224 56 280 20
Subtotal 641.3 104.4 745.7 2,850 464 3,3114 14
TOTAL SODEVA 4,288.2 420.4 4,708.6 19,059 1,868 20,927 9
B. CONSULTANTS
Cereal Marketing and Storage Study - 18.0 18.0 - 80 80 100Project Evaluation - 18.0 18.0 - 80 80 100
Subtotal - 36.0 36.0 - 160 160 100
C. INCRENETAL FARM INPUTS
Rock Phosphate 235.0 - 235.0 1,044 - 1,044 -
Fertilizers 67.5 101.3 168.8 300 450 750 60Inplements 90.1 90.1 180.2 401 401 802 50Seeds and Insecticides 21.8 10,0 31.8 97 44 141 32
Subtotal 414.4 201.4 615.8 1,842 895 2,737 33
Base Cost Estimate 4,702.6 657.8 5,360.4 20,901 2,923 23,824 12
Physical Contingencies 124.7 48.2 172.9 554 214 768 28
Expected Price Increases 1,256.5 173.9 1,430.4 5,584 773 6,357 12
TOTAL PROJECT COST 6,083.8 879.9 6,963.7 27,039 3,910 30,949 13
- 15 -
B. Proposed Financing
4.02 The project financing plan, which was discussed during appraisalwith Government and CCCE, is summarized below:
- ---- …- US$ Million ------- --IDA/
Government IBRD CCCE BNDS Total
A. SODEVA
I. Fixed Investment - 0.98 0.65 - 1.63
II. Personnel Costs
Civil servants' salaries 3.41 - - - 3.41Other personnel costs - 7.54 5.03 - 12.57
II. Operating Costs - 1.99 1.33 3.32
Total SODEVA 3.41 10.51 7.01 20.93
B. Consultants - 0.16 - - 0.16
C. Incremental Farm Inputs
Rock phosphate 1.04 - - - 1.04Fertilizers 0.38 - - 0.37 0.75Implements - - - 0.80 0.80Seeds/insecticides 0.04 - - 0.10 0.14
D. Contingencies 1.42 3.33 1.88 0.50 7.13
Total 6.29 14.00 8.89 1.77 30.95
Percentage 20 45 29 6 100
4.03 The Bank would make a loan of US$7.0 million for a term of 20 years,including a five-year grace period, and IDA a credit of US$7 million onstandard terms. Additional financing of US$8.,9 million would be provided bythe CCCE. The proposed Bank loan and IDA credit would cover the foreignexchange costs (US$3.9 million) and US$10.1 million (42%) of the local costsfor a total of 50% of project costs, net of taxes and duties (US$28 million).The CCCE loan would be for a term of 20 years, including a five-year graceperiod, with interest at an annual rate of 3.5%. A condition of effectivenessof the Bank loan and IDA credit would be that the CCCE loan had been declaredeffective.
- 16 -
4.04 Since SODEVA would not have its own revenues and vould carry outthe project on Government's behalf, the Bank and CCCE loans and the IDAcredit (US$22.9 million) plus Government's contribution to SODEVA's costs ofUS$4.2 million would be passed on as grants. In addition, Government wouldprovide SODEVA with an interest-free loan of CFAF 200 million (US$889,000);equivalent to about three months of its expenditures, as working capital forthe project. Conditions of effectiveness would be that Government and SODEVAhad entered into an agreement satisfactory to the Bank Group under whichSODEVA is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the project andthat SODEVA had received the loan of CFAF 200 million.
4.05 Over recent years SODEVA has been successful in obtaining foreignassistance and, as a consequence, Government financing for its budget declinedfrom 43% to 30% between 1973 and 1974 (Annex 4). However, most of the externalassistance has been for relatively short periods, two to four years, and itscontinuation is uncertain. If SODEVA is to extend its activities beyond thefive-year period of the proposed project -- in order to increase output fromproject farms beyond the levels achieved by this project and to assist addi-tional farmers -- it would need an assured source of financing. Assuming itsactivities to continue at the level reached by the end of the project, theamounts required would be on the order of CFAF 850 million (US$3.8 million)in 1975 terms or CFAF 1.2 billion (US$5.3 million) in 1980 prices. An assur-ance was obtained from Government that by PY3 it would review with the BankGroup, in the light of plans for SODEVA's future operations, the finance thatwould be required for this purpose and the means of providing it, includingregular Government budgetary support as may be necessary (para 2.17).
4.06 Incremental farm inputs would be financed as follows: Governnentwould contribute US$2.1 million in the form of subsidies for fertilizers andinsecticides; and BNDS would finance short- and medium-term credit totallingUS$1.8 million.
C. Credit Arrangements
4.07 Credit to farmers would be channelled through cooperatives. Theamount of credit available to each cooperative is limited by its averagelevel of marketed groundnuts. As the number of project participants increases,their incremental credit requirements may, in the short run, exceed theceilings set for individual cooperatives. An assurance was obtained that,should BNDS's limits on cooperative indebtedness prevent BNDS from providingfinancial assistance to any cooperative under the Project, the Governmentwould review these conditions with the Bank Group and make arrangements toensure adequate financing of the cooperative concerned.
4.08 BNDS would finance the credit to farmers, using in part the roll-over fund created by Credits 140-SE and 404-SE and funds borrowed on favor-able terms from the Central Bank of the West African Monetary Union (currently
- 17 -
5.5%). Medium-term loans (five years), and short-term loans vould financeall costs, respectively, of implements for animal traction and of seasonalinputs. Under the terms of Credit 404-SE, the loans would bearinterest at 2.0% above the Central Bank rate. The effective interest ratefor seasonal loans would be on the order of 12% to 16% since the nominalrate is charged on an annual basis while the loans must actually be repaidwithin six to nine months. An assurance was obtained from Government thatit would cause BNDS to provide sufficient funds and to lend them to projectfarmers on these terms and conditions.
D. Procurement
4.09 Vehicles, equipment and civil works expenditures vould total aboutUS$2.15 million. Contracts for buildings, equipment and vehicles for morethan US$50,000, aggregating about US$400,000, would be awarded on the basisof international competitive bidding in accordance with the Bank Group'sguidelines for procurement. Locally manufactured goods vould be allowed apreference of 15% or the level of applicable import duty, whichever is lover,when comparing domestic with foreign bids. Contracts for less than US$50,000,totalling US$1.6 million, including the bulk of civil works contracts whichare small and widely scattered, would be awarded on the basis of competitivebidding advertised locally and in accordance with local procedures, which aresatisfactory to the Bank Group. The remaining equipment purchases, in amountsless than US$10,000 and totalling US$150,000, would include office and housefurnishings and equipment for agricultural demonstrations and vould be pur-chased chiefly from local sources. Consultant services, totalling aboutUS$200,000, would be obtained according to the Bank Group's normal procedures.The balance of projects costs would be for personnel and management, US$24.9million, and for farm inputs, US$3.69 million, and would be unsuîtable forcompetitive bidding.
E. Disbursements
4.10 The proceeds of the IDA credit and the Bank loan would be disbursedto cover 60% of:
(a) the costs for project buildings, vehicles, equipment andfurnishings--US$1.0 million;
(b) the salaries of project staff employed under contract bySODEVA and allowances for all project staff--US$7.5 million;and
(c) SODEVA's other project operating costs--US$2.0 million.
- 18 -
The IDA credit and the Bank loan would be disbursed pari passu with the CCCEloan in the ratio 60:40 so that the credit and the two loans would togethercover 100% of the costs of the above items. The balance of the !DA creditand the Bank loan would cover 100% of the foreign eychange costs of theconsultants (US$160,000), and a contingency reserve of US$3.3 million. Dis-bursements would be against contracts and certified statements of expendituresprepared by SODEVA and would include a charge for SODEVA's Dakar headquarterscalculated as 10% of all project personnel and other operating costs. It wouldbe a condition of disbursement against this item that SODEVA's annual headquartersexpenditures and financing arrangements would be acceptable to the Bank Group,and an assurance was obtained that SODEVA would submit its headquarters budgetto the B`ank Group, at least three months prior to the beginning of the finan-cial year. Any funds remaining undisbursed upon completion of the projectwould be cancelled. Government's contribution to project costs would be inthe form of civil servants' salaries paid directly from the central budget,and subsidies for farm inputs. Details of disbursements are in Annex 13.
F. Accounts and Audit
4.11 SODEVA would keep records consistent with sound accounting prac-tices and adequate to reflect is operations and financial conditions andwould employ independent auditors. Assurances were obtained that:
(a) SODEVA would appoint auditors with qualifications andexperience acceptable to the Bank Group;
(b) SODEVA would maintain separate accounts for the project;and
(c) copies of SODEVA's accounts and the auditors' reports thereonwould be submitted to the Bank Group within six months of theend of the financial year; the auditor's report would be ofsuch scope and in such detail as the Bank Group may reasonablyhave requested.
V. YIELDS AND OUTPUT, MARKETS, FARMERS' BENEFITSAND GOVERNMENT REVENUES
A. Yields and Output
5.01 Cos. Farmers in the two project zones (para 3.02) are expectedto develop their crop yields and production as follows:
- 19 -
Crop Yield (kg/ha) Production ('000 tons)South North Annual Incremental
PYO PY5 PYO PY5 PY5
Groundnuts 900 1,100 700 1,000 27Cotton 800 1,200 - - 1Maize - 2,400 - - 15S*rghum 850 1,700 700 1,300 9Millet 900 1,000 700 900 7
It is expected that, without the project, yields would not exceed those forPYO (para 2.09). Estimates of incremental production are based, therefore,on yield improvements between PYO and PY5, and on the phasing outlined inAnnex 14. Yield and output estimates also allow for a drought every fourthyear.
5.02 Livestock - Under the project, growth rates for stall fattenedcattle would be about 500 grams/day, compared to an average of about 150grams/day under traditional grazing methods. Calves weaned and reared onthe project would have a mortality rate of about 20% compared to about 35%outside the project, and breeding coews would produce about 350 liters of milkper annum, some 200 liters more than the present average for the project area,and their calving rate would increase from 60% to 80%. The project's annualincremental output by PY 5 would be 1,500 tons of beef, 6,000 calves, and1,600 tons of milk (Annex 7).
B. Markets and Prices
5.03 Cereals - Most of the 400,000 to 500,000 tons of domesticallyproduced cereals are for subsistence consumption. Urban requirements aremet largely from rice and wheat imports of between 300,000 and 400,000 tonsannually. Local production has been encouraged by the withdrawal of theconsumer subsidy for imported cereals (para 2.12), which has greatly improvedthe prospects for marketing surpluses. The official farmgate price for milletand sorghum is CFAF 30/kg and for maize CFAF 35/kg. These prices are aboutCFAF 5/kg below their current economîc value based on import substitution.However, project financial calculations have been based conservatively on1980 farmgate prices of CFAF 28/kg for millet and sorghum and CFAF 30/kg formaize. Further details on the cereal market are in Annex 15.
5.04 Groundnuts - ONCAD has a marketing monopoly for groundnuts, whichit buys through cooperatives and sells to domestic processors. After proces-sing, all the groundnut cake and 80% of the groundnut oil is exported. Overthe last 10 years, the crop has fluctuated between about 500,000 and 1 milliontons. Marketing arrangements are satisfactory, and world market prospectsare fair, despite expected declines in prices over the next three years, fromabout US$580/ton to about US$300/ton (in 1974 terms). The current farmgate
- 20 -
price is CFAF 41.5/kg. At this level, and after taking account of productioncosts and subsidies, the amount retained by the stabilization Fund representsabout 1/3 of the farmers net income from groundnuts. However, in line with thesharp decline expected in world market prices, it is expected that farmgateprices will have to decline in real terms to about CFAF 27/kg by 1980; thisprice would continue to provide adequate incentives to project farmers andhas been used for the project's financial projections (Annex 15, Table 3).
5.05 Cotton - SODEFITEX has a marketing monopoly for cotton and allproject output would have a ready local or export market. During the boomin commodity prîces, world market prices for cotton fiber reached USi83.6/lband seed about US$160/ton. In response to the improved prices, Governmentraised the official farmgate price for seed cotton from CFAF 30/kg in 1973to CFAF 46.5/kg in 1974. Even so, the effective tax rate on farmers is about45%. However, by 1977, world prices for fiber and seed are expected to fallin 1974 terms to US,52/lb and US$140/ton respectively. As a result, it isexpected that Government revenues will be allowed to fall in an effort tomaintain the producer price in real terms at its current level, and to keepthe taxation rates on cotton and groundnuts at similar levels. Project finan-cial projections have been based, therefore, on a farmgate price continuingat CFAF 46.5/kg.
5.06 Livestock Products - Meat consumption in Senegal is about 76,000tons, of which some 20% is made up of imported cattle, sheep, and goats fromMauritania. Prospects for increasing output of livestock over at least thenext five years are poor, because of the losses in breeding herds during therecent droughts. These have already been reflected in Dakar cattle pricesthat have increased since 1970 from about CFAF 100/kg liveweight to aboutCFAF 145/kg liveweight. The farmgate prices used for beef cattle and milkfor the project's economic and financial analysis are the current market pricesand are equivalent, in 1974 terms, to CFAF 100/kg liveweight for beef cattle,CFAF 12,000 for a two-year old calf and CFAF 25/liter for milk.
5.07 Current official prices for cotton, groundnuts and cereals providesufficient incentives to farmers. Adequate incentives would continue to berequired for the project and, therefore, official farmgate prices would needto be monitored carefully. During negotiations, assurances were obtainedthat Government would follow a policy of fixing the prices of groundnuts andof cotton at levels advantageous to the growers, that it would promptly informthe Bank Group of any decision to establish subsidies on imported cereals, andthat it would consult annually with the Bank and the Association on the pricesto be paid to producers for groundnuts, cotton, and cereals.
C. Farmers' Benefits
5.08 Project farmers would obtain substantially increased incomes. Becauseof the larger farm size and a more rellable rainfall, incomes are expected to
- 23 -
VII. AGREENEENTS REACHED AND RECOOENDATION
7.01 During negotiations, assurances were obtained that SODEVA would:
(a) consult with the Bank Group on the fertilizer study findings andtheit implications on the project (para. 3.11);
(b) provide the Bank Group with a detailed evaluation report on theproject's progress within six months of the end of each croppingseason; and it would employ consultants with experience, quali-fications and terms of reference acceptable to the Bank to designthe evaulation system and analyze the data (para. 3.16);
(c) appoint to the positions of project manager, technical director,administrative officer and his deputy for credit organizationalspecialist, and the chiefs of the crop husbandry, animal husbandryand training divisions during PY 1 to PY 5, persons with quali-fications, experience, terms of reference, and conditions of serviceacceptable to the Bank Group (para. 3.22);
(d) submit its headquarters budget to the Bank Group at least threemonths prior to the beginning of the financial year (para 4.10);and
(e) appoint auditors acceptable to the Bank Group; it would maintainseparate accounts for the project and copies of the accounts andauditors' reports thereon would be submitted to the Bank Groupwithin six months of the end of the financial year; the auditor'sreport would be of such scope and in such detail as the Bank Groupmay reasonably have requested (para. 4.11).
7.02 During negotiations, assurances were obtained that Governmentwould:
(a) follow a policy of progressive adoption of prices reflectingthe full costs of implements and fertilizers and consultannually with the Bank Group on prices to be set for the nextcampaign (para. 2.13-2.14);
(b) exploy consultants for the cereal marketing study with qualifications,experience and terms of reference acceptable to Government and theBank Group (para. 3.17);
(c) review the results of the cereal marketing and storage study withBank Croup (para. 3.17);
- 24 -
(d) provide suitable qualified senior and middle level staff to SODEVA;SODEVA would have an opportunity to refuse and return Governmentstaff it considers unsuitable (para. 3.22);
(e) cause ONCAD to appoint a senior manager to be responsible fordeliveries of inputs to the project area (para. 3.23);
(f) review, with the Bank Croup, arrangements for providing regularGovernment financial support for SODEVA to maintain and/or expandi,ts activities (para. 4.05);
(g) review BNDS' limits on cooperative indebtedness and make arrange-ments for adequate financing of project cooperatives should theselimits prove to be an obstacle to project implementation (para. 4.07);
(h) c:ause BNDS to lend to project farmers on terms and conditionsagreed under Credit 404-SE (para. 4.08); and
(i) promptly inform the Bank Group of any decision to establishsubsidies on the retail price of imported cereals and consultannually with the Bank Group on the prices paid to producers forgroundnuts, cotton, and cereals (para. 5.07).
7.03 Conditions of effectiveness would be that:
(a) t;he loan agreement between Government and CCCE had become effective(para. 4.03); and
(b) Government and SODEVA had entered into an agreement to carry outt'ie project and Government had provided SODEVA with CFAF 200million (US$889,000) as working capital for the project.
7.04 A condition of disbursement against expenditures for SODEVA's Dakarheadquarters would be that SODEVA's annual headquarters expenditures andfinancing arrangements would be acceptable to the Bank Group (para. 4.10).
7.05 I.'ith the above assurances and conditions, the proposed project issuitable for a Bank loan of US$7.0 million and an IDA credit of US$7.0ndillion.
ANNEX 1Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUI AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROGRESS OF AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS
FINANCED BY THE BANK
A. Loan 584 SE - Agricultural Credit, US$3.5 million eauivalent(Feb. 10, 1969); Credit 140 SE - Agricultural Credit, US$6.0 millionequivalent (Feb. 10, 1969).
The project consists of improving groundnut and millet productionin the Groundnut Basin area, by financing farm implements and by strengthen-ing the National Development Bank of Senegal (BNDS), the Agricultural Develop-ment Authority for the Groundnut Basin (SODEVA), and the Office of Coopera-tives and Development Assistance (ONCAD). The loan and credit became effec-tive on June 25, 1969. The loan portion of the project was cancelled in 1971,when demand for farm implements declined sharply because of drought and re-duced producer prices for groundnuts. Disbursements of the IDA Credit forfarm implements should be completed in 1975, 2 years behind appraisal esti-mates. The performance of BNDS and SODEVA has improved during the project;the management of ONCAD has been weak, but assistance is continuing underthe second agricultural credit project.
B. Credit 404 SE - Second Agricultural Credit,US$8.2 million equivalent (June 25, 1973).
The project comprises a countrywide extension of Government's farmcredit program that was supported by Credit 140 SE. The Second Credit makesprovision for medium-term credit through BNDS for the purchase by farmers ofdraft animals and animal-drawn implements, continuing technical assistance toONCAD and SODEVA, and research and training programs. The credit becameeffective on October 30, 1973. Groundnut production is rising again afterthe disastrous drought of 1972/73, as is the output of food crops. The useof animal traction is spreading and the demand for medium-term credit islikely to be above appraisal estimates. ONCAD is being reorganized followingserious cost control and financial difficulties. ONCAD's difficulties havearisen from over-staffing and weak management, Government's inadequate pro-cedures to finance subsidies for farm inputs, and the failure on the part ofONCAD to stress the seriousness of its financial problems. Government hasrecently reviewed ONCAD's accounts. It is aware of the gravity of the sit-uation and is working out measures with IDA to place ONCAD on a sound finan-cial footing; principal among these, will be improvements in management andt'e establishment of appropriate financing procedures to cover the cost ofsubsidies. The abolition of the subsidy on imported rice in November 1974should also reduce the burden on ONCAD's finances.
tiNEX
rage 2
C. Credit 252 SE - Casamance Rice. US$3.7 million equivalent (June 18, 1974).
Good management and adequate rainfalls ensured good crops forgroundnut and rice, which are well above appraisal estimates. The number offarziers participating is expanding at a faster pace than anticipated and theirresponse is good. Housing and offices were conmîssioned early in 1975, threemonths behind schedule. Road improvement program is in progress, but mostof the improvement of bottomland for rice cultivation probably will not beimplemented, because of lack of funds and of technîcal expertise. The proiecthas incurred some cost overruns, mainly because extension staff were increasedto cope with good farmers' response, and because of salary increases. Inaddition, changes in the US$ exchange rate would cause a loss equivalent toUS$900,000. As a result, the project would be short of funds at the end of1975, instead of 1976. Governnent intends to ask the BANK/IDA to finance anew project in the same area starting early CY 1976. Terms of reference forthe preparation of this second project have been proposed to Governnment.RNWA would coordinate that preparation, and appraisal is tentatively scheduledfor July, 1975.
D. Credit 254 SE - Terres Neuves Resettlement,US$1.3 million ecquivalent (June 18, 1974).
The project's settlement program was completed in 1974 as antici-pated at appraisal. Adequate and evenly distributed rainfall ensured goodcrops last season. The project has been successful in providing higherincomes than expected for settlers and has attracted more active people thananticipated in 1974. STN has taken over project management from the manage-ment agency agreed upon at appraisal. This change, together with personnelshifts, have caused managerial and administrative problems that are not yetsolved. The project's accounts have been audited recently. Government'scontribution has been paid in full, and the previous financial difficultiesencountered by the project are now overcome.
E. Credit 350 SE - River PoldersUS$4.5 million (January 9, 1973)
The project, as appraised, comprised expanding irrigated rice cul-tivation in the Senegal River Delta by constructing a fully controlled irri-gation system at Dagana to increase the irrigated area by 2,730 ha, and byimproving polder flood irrigation in Debi and Lampsar. The credit becameeffective on June 8, 1973. Progress on the Dagana polder is satisfactory,and the total area to be irrigated and double-cropped has been increasedfrom 2,730 ha to 3,200 ha. At Government's request, the Debi and Lampsarpolder components are being reformulated within the broader framework ofintegrated development of the Senegal River Basin and have been deletedfrom the ongoing project. An engineering credit for the Debi and Lampsarpolder development was approved in April, 1975. The total cost of theexpanded Dagana component, however, has increased overall project costs from
ANNEX 1Page 3
US$7.4 to US$9.3 million because of the increased area irrigated and generalinflation since appraisal. The rate of return for this component, nevertheless,remains satisfactory and IDA agreed on October 18, 1974 to reallocate savingsfrom the Debi and Lampsar components to help cover cost increases for theDagana polder.
F. Credit 446 SE - Drought Relief Fund,US$3.0 million equivalent (December 7, 1973)
This two-year project is part of an IDA credit to six West Africancountries severely affected by drought. In the Senegal project, individualsubprojects are funded through a Drought Relief Fund account at BNDS; theyinclude support for well repair brigades, veterinary services, fire-brigades,firebreaks, pump rehabilitation, and funding for a coordinating committeesecretariat. The credit became effective on February 5, 1974. The projectis being implemented satisfactorily.
ANNEX 2Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE NATIONAL OFFICE FOR COOPERATIVES A1iDDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ONCAD)
Background
1. The Office National de Cooperation et d'Assistance pour laDeveloppement (ONCAD) was established in 1966 to take over assistance tocooperatives from regional farmers' organizations, the Centres Regionauxd'Assistance au Developpement (CRAD), which had been inefficient. In addi-tion, in 1967/68 ONCAD was given responsibility for the procurement of farminputs to cooperatives and the monopoly for purchasing groundnuts collectedby cooperatives and selling them to the Office de Commercialisation Agricoledu Senegal (OCAS), which was responsible for groundnut exports or deliveryto local oil mills and for rice imports and commercialization in Senegal.In 1971 the Government decided to have all commercial groundnuts processedin local oil mills and, in November 1971, it dissolved OCAS and transferredits assets and its responsibilities for rice import and marketing to ONCAD.
Objectives and Organization
2. ONCAD is a public corporation supervised by the Ministries ofRural Development and Finance. It is governed by a Board of Directors with19 members including representatives of the President of the Republic, ofthe Ministries of Commerce, Rural Development and Finance; of the Governorsof the seven regions; and four representatives of cooperatives. Its DirectorGeneral is appointed by decree of the President of the Republic and theMinister of Rural Development.
ONCAD's objectives are presently: (a) to assist and supervisecooperatives and pre-cooperatives, (b) to commercialize groundnuts and basicagricultural products, (c) to supervise rice imports, storage and distribu-tion, (d) to transport and commercialize agricultural products collected bycooperatives and agricultural development agencies, (e) to procure and deliverto cooperatives fertilizers, farm implements and oxen, and (f) to handle,store and distribute groundnut seeds to farmers.
ONCADReognization under the First and Second Agricultural Credit Projects
3. When the First Agricultural Credit Project was appraised, it appearedthat ONCAD. which was overstaffed and inefficiently run, should be reorganized.Consequently, funds were provided under Credits 140-SE to help pay for theservices of consultants to study and make recommendations on management andstaff structure, training, accounting, transportation of groundnuts and inputs,and management of the groundnut seed stockpile.
ANNEX 2Page 2
4. ONCAD's ability to carry out its functions has generally improved.It is now able to handle groundnut marketing, pay farmers on time, and re-cover credit adequately, although it still has difficulties in organizingthe delivery of inputs to farmers. However, the more specific objectivesof the reorganization have not been achieved: ONCAD continues to be over-staffed (more than 2,000 permanent staff); operating costs are high; accountingprocedures recommended by the consultants have not been implemented; andaccounts are incorrect and issued only after unacceptable delays. MoreoverONCAD?s resources have been run down to the point that it is presently verymuch dependent on the Central Bank's continued support. Recovery of outstand-ing claims against Government of CFAF 5.8 billion would reduce the currentfinancial gap to an amount between CFAF 1.7 billion and CFAF 2.5 billion,depending on the status of certain receivables and inventory losses.
5. In effect the financial situation at ONCAD is the direct result ofGovernment's price policy for cereals and fertilizers, which up to recentlywere sold below their market value. The Stabilization Fund and Governmentare supposed to reimburse ONCAD for the differences in prices and subsidies,but they are slow to do so, while ONCAD has to pay immediately a levy ongroundnuts to the Fund. As a result, ONCAD had to bear high overdraft charges(CFAF 1.2 billion, i.e. US$5.0 million), which in strict sense should havebeen borne, that is paid, by the Stabilization Fund.
6. Credit 140-SE did not provide for an audit of ONCAD's accounts, anddelays in implementing this requirement under Credit 404-SE meant that themagnitude of the problem was not revealed until mid-1974 when the Controller'sCommittee of the Supreme Court began to audit the 1971-72 accounts. Althoughthe consultants could have been expected to provide some warning of thedeteriorating financial situation, they never had executive power to enforcetheir recommendations on accounting procedures which went largely ignoredby ONCAD's management.
7. Following the preliminary conclusions of the audit of ONCAD'saccount and the recommendations of the most recent IDA Supervision mission,the Government has taken a series of encouraging steps towards improvingONCAD's managerial and financial position:
(a) As of November 1, 1974, the Government announced newconsumer and farmgate prices for the principalagricultural commodities, substantially in line withthe level of world market prices. In particular, ithas fixed the consumer price of rice at CFAF 10Q/kg(compared with CFAF 52/kg previously), therebyeliminating the consumer subsidy on rice. Thismeasure, which is in line with IDA's view, is a majorand most encouraging step towards eliminating one ofthe important causes of ONCAD's financial difficultiessince it should now require much less overdrafts anddepend much less on timely payments of subsidies byGovernment;
.A.NNLX 2Page 3
(b) ONCAD has appointed a new chief accountant and hashired an expatriate chartered accountant to reviewaccounting procedures which have been considerablvstreamlined; and
(c) more flexibility has been introduced in ONCAD'sremiuneration system to put it in line with thatof private enterprises, which should help in therecruitment and retention of competent local staff.
8. IDA has confirmed its support of Government's action, especiallythe new agricultural commodity pricing which IDA has urged be extended tofertilizers and farm implements. IDA has also urged Governnent to promptlyclarify ONCAD's financial situation, particularly as regards the settlingof accounts due.
ANNEX 3Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF CROP PRODUCTION
A. Background
1. The agricultural economy of Sine Saloum is dominated by milletand sorghum for subsistence, and groundnuts as a cash crop; because of theirrelative drought tolerance, these crops are well adapted to the local ecol-ogy. The south of the project area (Zone 1) has good scope for diversifica-tion into cotton, rice, maize and tobacco.
2. Traditionally, groundnuts ahd millet were grown with hand toolsand without fertilizer. Yields averaged 800 kg/ha for unshelled groundnut,and 400 kg/ha for millet. The most important early development was theimprovement of groundnut seed (variety 28-206). In the early 1960's, thiswas followed by a Government supported program to increase agriculturalproductivity. This program, known as Programme Agricole (PA), has evolvedinto a comprehensive system of farm support services.
3. heminimumacka! promoted under FA was derived from the resultsof agricultural research. The main components of the package are:
(a) Improved seeds: Seed of the improved groundnutvarieties is multiplied by the Ministry of RuralDevelopment and distributed by ONCAD. Farmersapply fungicide to it after shelling and sow atthe rate of 100 kg/ha.
(b) DrawnImlements: Farmers obtain creditfor seeders and hoes drawn by donkeys, horses oroxen. This equipment enables farmers to improveyields because of timely seeding and hoeing;extend the area under cropping; and reduce laborpeaks during the critical period of seeding andfirst weeding.
(c) Fertilization: The soils of Senegal are deficientin phosphorus; they become deficient in potassiumafter several years of cropping; and they lacknitrogen for non-legume crops. The extensionservices have been promoting the use of fertilizeras recommended by the Institute of Tropical Agri-cultural Research (Institut de Recherche AgronomiqueTropicales - IRAT), to correct basic soil deficien-cies and improve yields. These recommendations call
ANNEX 3Page 2
for the application of 150 kg/hia of mixed fertilizers
(6-20-10 for groundnuts, 14-7-7 for millet and sor-ghum).
4. PA has been successful in terrs of its adoption by farmers.
SODEVA estimates that some 80% of farmers in the Groundnut Basin have
benefited from the program; ONCAD now distributes about 100,000 tons of
groundnut seed a year; and Senegal has also made more progress in draft
animal cultivation than any other West African country. While fertilizer
use has expanded, consumption fluctuates in response to both droughts and
price changes (Graph 9237). Under PA, however, fertilizer recommendationshave not taken sufficient account of the low response of groundnuts, parti-
cularly in drier areas, and with recent price increases, existing recommen-
dations are not sufficiently flexible to take account of adjustments re-quired by price fluctuations and droughts.
5. The impact of PA on cron yields and production is more difficultto assess. Craphs 9238 and 9239 show the production and yields of groundnut
and cereals (millet and sorghum) in the Groundnut Basin from the inceptionof PA to date. Groundnut yields and production increased from 1960 to 1965,when average yields reached 900 - 1,000 kg/ha. This increase can be credited
in part to PA, and in part to the gradual southward shift of cultivation inthe Groundnut Basin to higher rainfall areas. Ilowever, yields and produc-tion dropped, concurrently with fertilizer use, with the onset of droughtsand a reduction in groundnut prices. Subsequently, groundnut yields havefluctuated with rainfall (Graph 9239), and the droughts and price reductionshave blunted the earlier impact of PA. Recent studies suggest that ground-nut yields may be declining irrespective of fluctuations of weather and in-
put use. If this is true, the explanation is not clear. Two possible causes
are: (a) soil depletion under increasing population pressure; and/or (b) thefailure of farmers to fully apply all the recorurendations of PA. Contraryto groundnut yields, however, millet and sorghum yields (Graph 9239) showa slight gradual increase, possibly reflecting an increase in fertilizer
use and improved technology.
6. This evidence suggests that productivity under PA may have reached a
ceiling for groundnuts, and may soon reach a ceiling for cereals. Increasesin productivity require further advances in farm management and technology.The need for such advances is particularly pressing in the northwest of the
Sine Saloum, where population pressure has led to a decrease in fallow, andto a deterioration of farm revenues that are already among the lowest of the
country. The elements of new farm recommendations have been successfullytested by SODEVA, especially in the pilot project (Annex 5).
B. The New Package
7. Ihe proposed package has two main components: plowing, and a more
comprenensive fertilization program. It requires a major investment in draft
ANNEX 3Page 3
animals, implements, and stump removal. Farmers adopting this new packagealso have to follow the basic recommendations of the minimum package of PA.
Plowing
8. The sandy and sandy loam soils of the Sudanian zone are character-ized by poor tilth, as they harden during the dry season (the small clayfraction acts as cement). As a result, crops develop a shallow root systemwhen grown with superficial land preparation, and they are poorly equippedto withstand drought. Moreover, the poor tilth of the soil limits itscapacity for storing available water, and IRAT has shown that plowing doesincrease yields by encouraging a deeper root system and promoting betterutilization of rainfall. The following average yields were achieved with plow-ing (for farmers that follow the minimum package) in research plots set upon farmers' fields:
Increased GrossCrop and Zone No Plowing Plowing Revenue CPAF/ha /1
----------kg/ha---------
Maize Z1 (South) 1,200 2,500 45,500
Millet Z1 1,200 1,500 10,000Z2 (North) 900 1,200 10,200
Sorghum Z1 1,500 1,800 10,200Z2 1,300 1,500 6,800
Groundnut Z1 1,600 1,700 4.500Z2 1,150 1,250 4,500
/1 Based on 1975 economic-farmgate prices (Annex 15, Table 1-3).
9. The major obstacle to the adoption of plowing is the presence ofstumps. The number of stumps, bushes and small trees ranges from practicallynil, in certain areas of northwest of Sine Saloum, to an average of 3,000/ha in the south. Besides preventing correct plowing, the stumps slow downthe work of animal-drawn implements for seeding and weeding, cause morefrequent breakdowns, and encourage pest infestations by providing sheltersfor parasites. Stump removal is thus a prerequisite to the adoption of thenew package. It requires 50 to 100 mandays/ha and the cost is CFAF 3,000 -6,000 if supplemental labor has to be hired. The land tenure implicationsof stump removal are discussed in Annex 6.
10. Because the soil hardens during the dry season, plowing is pos-sible only at the end of the cropping season immediately after harvest, or
ANNEX 3Page 4
after the first rains before seeding at the beginning of the cropping sea-son. Plowing is recommended once every three or four years, as the resi-dual effects are felt for several years. It is best to plow ahead of agrain crop, because grain gives a better response to plowing than ground-nuts. It is possible that several plowing cycles might change the soilstructure sufficiently to make it possible to plow during the dry season.Prospects for dry season plowing would be investigated in cooperation withIRAT as part of the project. Recent developments in Nigeria under comparableecological conditions suggest that minimum tillage could give similar yieldsas plowing but at lower cost. Under the project, SODEVA would investigateminimum tillage, as an economical alternative to plowing, in liaison withIRAT.
Fertilization
11. Fertilizer recommendations under PA require adjustments to optimizereturns. IRAT has found that the main soil deficiency, which is phosphorus,can be minimized by a basic application of 400 kg/ha of rock phosphate beforethe first plowing of fields after stump clearing. This application of lowcost, unprocessed phosphate which is produced in the country, supplemnentedby regular applications of soluble phosphate in the regular fertilizer, assurescorrection of the deficiency. It rernains to be determined whether regularapplications of phosphate in fertilizer will always be necessary, at leastat current levels. The maintenance fertilization program recommended by IRATis as follows (with the compound fertilizer applied at seeding, and urea sidedressed at the early stages of growth).
Crop and Zone New Package Minimum Package- ---------- kg/ha ----------------
Maize Z1 (South) 300 kg 8-18-27+200 kg urea
Sorghum Z1 150 kg 10-21-21 150 kg 14-7-7+100 kg urea
z2 (North) 100 kg 10-21-21 150 kg 14-7-7+50 kg urea
Millet Z1 150 kg 14-7-7
Z2 100 kg 10-21-21 150 kg 14-7-7+50 kg urea
Cotton Z1 150 kg 8-18-29+50 kg urea
Groundnut Z1, Z2 100 kg 8-18-27 150 kg 6-20-10, then150 kg 8-18-27
ANNEX 3Page 5
12. Fertilizer recommendations for groundnuts have undergone a suc-cession of adjustments. In 1973 they called for the application of 150kg/ha of 6-20-10 under the minimum package, and 150 kg/ha of 8-18-17 underthe new package. In early 1974, the Ministry of Rural Development decidedto switch to a uniform recommendation of 150 kg/ha 8-18--27 for both packages.In the light of recent results obtained by IRAT, SODEVA is reducing the fer-tilizer application on groundnuts from 150 kg/ha to 100 kg/ha of 8-18-27.The main difference between the former minimum package (150 kg/ha of 6-20-10)and the present intensification program (100 kg/ha of 8-18-27) in terms ofnutrients (in kg/ha of N-P2 O5-K20) for groundnuts is:
- former minimum package ....... 9-30-15 1/
- present intensification ...... 8-18-27
The change is insignificant for nitrogen; the phosphorus rate is decreased,but phosphorus requirements of groundnuts are low and the soil receives acorrective dose of rock phosphate; the rate for potassium, to which ground-nut is most responsive, is increased substantially. The new package thusbetter reflects the fertilizer requirements of groundnuts. In the case ofgrain crops, the new package emphasizes nitrogen, which also better re-flects the fertilizer requirements of these crops. The programn also givesmore flexibility: it makes allowance for the drier environment of the north(Zone 2) and enables farmers to cut down on urea applications if the earlyseason rains fail.
13. Data from experiments on farmers' fields indicate the followingaverage yields brought about by different rates of fertilization (for plowedcrops with improved practices):
Crop and Zone Light Fertilization Intensive Fertilization(Minimum package) (New Package)
kg/ha kg/ha
Maize Z1 2,500 2/ 4,000
Millet Z1 1,500 1,800Z2 1,200 1,600
Sorghum Z1 1,800 2,500Z2 1,500 2,000
Groundnut Z1 1,700 3/ 1,800 4/Z2 1,250 3/ 1,400 4/
1/ Arrived at, for example, for nitrogen: 6% x 150 kg = 9 kg.2/ 200 kg/ha 14-7-7 plus 50 kg/ha Urea.3/ 120 kg/ha 6-20-10.4/ 150 kg/ha 8-18-27.
ANNEX 3Page 6
The yield increases brought about by the switch from light to intensivefertilization give`the following marginal cost benefit ratios:
1975 Prices 1980 Prices
Economic Farm Gate Economic Farm Gate
lIaize Z1 3.1 10.7 3.8 10.7
Millet Z2 11.1 - /1 74.5 /1 - /1
Sorghum Z1 4.0 - /1 5.8 10.0Z2 14.2 - /1 93.0 /1 - /1
/1 Decrease or no increase in fertilizer cost.
Groundnuts are not included, as the new fertilizer recommendation wouldrepresent a reduction in cost. These benefits suggest that the new fer-tilization program would be highly profitable.
14. Present fertilizer recommendations satisfy fertility requirementsbut may not maximize economic returns, and this aspect of the recommendationneeds substantial review. In Zone 2 of the project area, which has low andirregular rainfall, fertilization may not always be economical. In Zone 1,the recommended rates of 8-18-27 and urea on maize may not optimize returnsand there is a need for a fertilizer program for this purpose, taking accountof fertilizer and crop prices, and crop responses as affected by rainfallprobabilities. This will be the subject of a study to be carried out bySODEVA and financed by IDA under credit 404-SE. While the fertilizer pro-gram formulated for the Sine Saloum project is reasonable, SODEVA wouldadjust its recommendations in the light of the findings of this study.
Rotations
15. Farmers in the project area usually grow about 1.5 ha of ground-nuts for every hectare of millet (or sorghum). This means that in many in-stances groundnuts follow groundnuts in the rotation. Under the program,this ratio would be reduced gradually to about 1:1, as experience has shownthat the most desirable rotation is grain-groundnuts-grain-groundnuts, withplowing and rock phosphate application before the first grain crop. Cottonwould substitute for groundnuts on part of the fields in Zone 1, and therotation would be flexible, for farmers to take advantage of crop pricefluctuations with the exception that groundnuts would not be grown for morethan two years in succession because of the risks of soil erosion and pestattacks. The main rotations would be:
(a) South (Zone 1) - maize-groundnut or cotton-sorghum-groundnut; and
(b) North (Zone 2) - sorghum-groundnut-millet-groundnut
ANNEX 3Page 7
Soil Conservation
16. Stump removal and plowing would increase the danger of soil erosionafter groundnuts are harvested, as the soil would lose its natural cover oftrees and bushes. To protect the soil against water erosion, which would becomea problem on sloping land because of the high-intensity rains that fall beforethe new crops develop sufficiently to cover the soil, SODEVA would promotestrip cropping and contour plowing. Farmers on sloping land would be requiredto alternate their crops on strips that would not exceed 30 meters in widthand to plow following master contour lines constructed with the assistanceof SODEVA at 60 meter intervals, using the standard plow.
17. To compensate for the increased possibilities of wind erosion, theproject would finance a tree planting program. SODEVA would encourage farmersto plant neem, eucalyptus, and acacia trees as windbreaks and for fuel andforage. As an initial step, SODEVA would have its own tree nursery, but itwould at the same time encourage farmers to establish their own small nurseries.The target would be to provide about 90 trees for each hectare of cleared land.Since the program would depend on the full cooperation of farmers in the pro-ject area, planting material would be provided free of charge.
C. Farm Development
18. For farmers implementing fully the recommendations of ProgrammeAgricole, the switch from the minimum package to higher levels to technologywould be made in two stages:
a. farmers would introduce ox-traction for seeding and weedingand use an intermediate level of fertilization for millet(150 kg/ha of 14-7-7); land thus cultivated would be classifiedas "Semi-intensified" fields
b. after about three years at the "semi-intensified" stage,farmers would move to the higher levels of technology in'"intensified" field by removing stumps, plowing, applyingrock phosphate, increasing fertilization, and by introducingmaize, sorghum, and cotton in crop rotations.
Annex 14 gives targets for the number of farmers supervis~ed and the areasat the various stages of development.
D. Crop Recommendations for Intensified Fields
Groundnuts
19. The recommended variety would be 28 - 206, which is late maturing(120 days), and best adapted to Zone 1. For Zone 2, 28-206 would be usedonly until IRAT completes development of a shorter cycle variety (105 days).During the recent droughts, farmers preferred the variety 55-237 (90 days),
ANNEX 3Page 8
which gives greater assurance of a crop under marginal rainfall, However,as this variety sprouts if the raîn continues after maturity, SODEVA wouldnot recommend its use for the project.
20. Soil Preparation and Fertilization. The fields would receive 100kg/ha of 8-18-27 before land preparation. Land preparation would consist ofcross hoeing before the start of the rainy season.
21. Seed Preparation and Seeding. Seeds would be shelled and sortedby hand, and treated with an insecticide-fungicide mixture (Thiram and DDT)at the rate of 200 grams/100 kg of seed. The seed would be planted withinthree days following the first rain (20 mm minimum), 3 to 5 cm deep, in rows60 cm apart, with a seeder equipped vith dises with 24 or 30 notches.
22. Weeding and Harvesting. The first hoeing would be made some 10days after seeding, the second about 15 days later. Further weedings wouldbe according to need. The crop would be lifted 115-125 days after seeding,by a hoe or an animal-drawn lifter, and allowed to dry by turning the plantupside down. The dry crop (after 3-4 days) would be stacked in the field,to be threshed by hand in December-January.
Millet
23. Pearl millet would be grown in rotation before groundnuts, or con-tinuously in fields fertilized with cattle droppings. This short cycle crop(90-100 days) is well adapted to the short rainy season in Zone 2. Farmersin Zone 1 would grow grain crops with longer cycles and higher productionpotentials. An improved variety, Souna 2, was recently released by IRAT,and would be used for the project.
24. Soil Preparation and Fertilization. Soil preparation would consistof cross cultivation with a hoe, or, preferably plowing in Zone 2. Ferti-lizer recommendations would call for:
- 150 kg/ha of 14-7-7 in semi-intensification; and
- 100 kg/ha of 10-21-21 and 50 kg/ha of urea inintensification in Zone 2.
The mixed fertilizer would be broadcast before soil preparation; urea would beside-dressed at the time of thinning.
25. Seeding. The seed would be treated with the same fungicide-insecti-cide mixture used for groundnuts at the rate of one matchbox full for 3--4kg of seed. Seeding would take place in June, before the start of the rains,at the rate of 3 - 5 kg/ha, in rows 0.9 m apart, and spacing of 0.9 m on therow. This would be done by seeder equipped with a 4 hole disc, and placingthe seed 4 - 5 cm deep.
26. Thinning aad Weeding. Some 6 to 20 days after emergerce, thieseedings would be thinned down to three per clump (farmers rarely fol[ow thisrecommendation, lor fear that drought or pest damage will reduce the stands).The first weeding would be needed at about the samne time, and the secondwould follow after 15 days. Further weedings would &eoend on need.
27. Harvesting. The panicles would be harvested by hand at full matur-ity, at least 90 days after seeding. Intensified plots could be plowedimmediately after harvesting, when the soil is moist.
28. White-grain sorghum has a 90-100 day cycle. IRAT has developed theimproved varieties labeled CE - 90 for Zone 2 and 51 - 60 for Zone 1. Thiscrop is well adapted to the more humid Southern part of Sine Saloum (minimumrainfall of 800 mm) and would be promoted by the project. In cooperationwith IRAT, SODEVA would pursue adaptation trials of slhort stem varieties.Sorghum would follow groundnuts and would be followed by groundnuts in therotation.
29. Soil Preparation and Fertilization. Soil preparation would besimilar to that required for millet, but it could be done after the firstrains, and in this case the field could be plowed.
Recommended fertilization would be:
- Zone 2: 150 kg/ha 10-21-21 and 100 kg/ha of urea
- Zone 1: 100 kg/ha 10-21-21 and 50 kg/ha of urea
30. Seeding. Sorghum seed would be treated with the same fungicide (atthe same rate) as millet seed. Seeding would be done between June 15 andJuly 15, 2 or 3 cm deep, with spacing of 0.9 and 0.45 cm (8 hole plate), cor-responding to 5 to 7 kg/ha of seed.
31. Thinning, Weeding, Harvesting. Same as for millet, but later in theseason. Because of later harvesting, post harvest plowing may not be possible.
Maize
32. The high yielding hybrid BDS 1, a double hybrid with white graindeveloped by IRAT, has a 90 cycle and a yield potential of 5 tons/ha. Thishybrid would play an important role in the intensified rotation of Zone 1(minimum rainfall of 800-850 mm), where the crop would be grown. SODEVAwould pursue variety trials, in cooperation with IRAT. One of the objectivesof the maize research program would be to develop hybrids that would bemore widely accepted for local consumption. Maize would be grown at thebeginning of the rotation, before groundnuts, preferably on plowed land.
ANNEX 3Page 10
33. Land Preparation. Maize responds well to plowing, which can be
done at the end of the previous cropping season, or just before seeding.
The plowed land would be smoothed by hoeing.
34. Seeding. The seed would be treated with the same fungicide-insect-
icide mixture as millet and sorghum; it would be planted between June 20 and
July 5, with 0.90 x 0.25 cm in spacing (16 hole plate), giving a rate of 20
kg/ha wïth three seeds per hole; depth is 3 to 4 cm.
35. Thinning, Weeding, Fertilization, Harvesting. Some 10 days after
seeding the stand would be thinned down to one plant per clump; the field
would be hoed immediately afterwards, and furrowed 20 to 30 days after seed-
ing. Hatrvesting would begin 75 days after seeding for urgent food needs,
and the main harvest begins 90 days after seeding. The ears would be stored
with the husk after treatment with 300 grams of DDT per 100 kg of crop.
Cotton
36. SODEFITEX has been promoting BSA 592, a medium staple variety,
which requires at least 120 days to mature and a minimum of 900 mm of rain-
fall. Cotton gives a high response to plowing. For this reason it is best
grown after a short cycle cereal, allowing plowing after harvesting, before
the soil hardens. The preferred place in the rotation is after maize.
37. Soil Preparation and Fertilization. The fields would be prepared
by hoeing, to complete plowing or in lieu of plowing. Cotton would receive
150 kg/ha of 8-18-27 broadcast before soil preparation, and 50 kg/ha of urea
side-dressed one month after seeding.
38. Seeding. SODEFITEX supplies seed already treated with 500 grams/
grammoram per 100 kg. Cotton would be seeded after the first heavy rain, at
the end of June or the beginning of July. Seeding would be 2 - 3 cm deep,
in rows 0.90 m apart, with spacing of 0.20 m on the row and 6-8 seeds per
hole (40 kg/ha of seed). Farmers still practice hand seeding, but an animal
drawn seeder is being developed.
39. Thinning, Cultivation and Pest Control. The first hoeing is needed
10 to 15 days after seeding, then the crop would be thinned down to one plant
per clump, three weeks after seeding. The second hoeing would be done two
weeks aft:er the first. The field would be furrowed 35 days after seeding.
Insecticide (preprothion) would be sprayed about six times, the first about
six weeks after seeding, and the others at two week intervals.
40. Harvesting. Picking would start 120 days after seeding; several
pickings are needed, in order to select only the fully open capsules. After
the last picking the stems would be pulled and burned to control pests.
ANNEX 3Page 11
E. Expected Yields
41. Considering the data developed by research tests on farmers' fields,and by the pilot project, the expected yields under normal rainfall broughtabout by the improved technology are summarized in Table 1 (the incidence ofdrought on production is taken into account in the calculation of the farmbudgets; it is estimated that a drought would occur every four years andwould reduce yields by 60%).
F. Demonstrations
42. A key factor in the adoption of the new package is the training ofdraft oxen and training in the use of a plow. For this purpose each extensionfield worker would operate a demonstration center to show farmers how to traina pair of oxen, to plow, and to handle and care for ox-drawn implements. Thecenter would also be a gathering place where other farmers would be shown thetechnique of training oxen and of plowing. The demonstration centers would berotated so as to reach a maximum number of farmers. Once a farmer has adoptedthe new package, his fields would become demonstration fields for other farmersof the village.
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Crop Yield Development _/
Minimum Years of Involvement in the Program 2/Development Package
Crop Stage Yield 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Zone 1
Maize 3 - 1,800 2,200 2,500 2,70.0 2,700 - - -
Millet 850 - - - - - - - -1 - 1,000 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 - - -
2 - - - - 1,300 1,500 1,500 1,700 1,700
Sorghum 1 900 - - - - - - - -2 - 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 2,000 - -
Groundnut 900 - - - - - _ _1 - 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,300 - - -
2 - - - - 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,500 1,600
Cotton 1 800 - - - - -- - -2 - 1,000 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,300
Zone 2
Millet 700 - - - - - - - -1 - 700 700 800 800 900 - - -2 - - - - 1,000 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300
Sorghum 700 - - - - - - -1 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,100 - - -2 _- - - 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 >
Groundnut 700 - - - - - _ x1 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,100 - - - - w2 _- - - 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,200 1,300
1/ Yield development takes account of the probability of droughts occuring every fourth year that would result in a 60%reduction in increments. Average yields have, therefore, been estimated at 15% below those expected in years of normalrainfall.
2/ It is estimated that on average farmers would move to Step 2 after three years at Stepl.
ANNEX 4Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUI AGRICULTURAL DEVLLOPM'ENT PROJECT
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE GROUNDNUT BASIN
Societe de Developpement et de Vulgarisation Agricole (SODEVA)
Background
1. SODEVA was created in 1968 to take over the extension services ofSATEC, a French consulting firm, in Senegal's Groundnut Basin. Government hasmade SODEVA the regional agricultural development authority for the GroundnutBasin, covering the regions of Sine Saloum, Thies and Diourbel. SODEVA hasconcentrated on:
i. improving agricultural production at the farm level;
ii. increasing the yields of groundnuts, Senegal's main cash crop;
iii. promoting maize, millet, and sorghum cultivation to overcomethe country's cereal deficit, and
iv. integrating livestock development with smallholder crop production.
Or~ani zation
2. SODEVA is a "societe d'economie mixte,"' a joint venture in which Gov-ernment owns 90% and SATEC 10% of the capital. The Director General, SODEVA'ssenior executive, is appointed by a Board of 11 directors representing Govern-ment i4inistries, ONCAD, BNDS and SATEC. The chairman of the Board is theDirector of the Cabinet in the Ministry of Planning and Cooperation. SODEVAis responsiLle to the Ministry of Rural Development through the office of theDirector of Agricultural Production.
3. SODEVA's headquarters, in Dakar, is divided into two divisions:management, which oversees general administration and reports to Government,and technical which is responsible for supervising ongoing field operationsand for planning new activities. The planning and developtnent unit, in thetechnical division, is preparing to study fertilizer recommendations forSenegal, and is responsible for evaluating the impact of PA and SODEVA'sother field operations. SODEVA also has a training section that provides15 to 120-day staff courses on field activities. Financial accounts are keptin Dakar for all SODEVA operations. These accounts are audited by a Govern-ment commission.
4. Most of SODEVA's 1,100 personnel, of whom 13 are expatriate, areattached to three regional field offices at Kaolack (Sine Saloum), Thies and
ANNEX 4Page 2
Diourbel, which have direct responsibility for implementing projects. Eachfield office is headed by a delegate with an administrative and technical stafffor the region. Day-to-day activities are directed by operations chiefs, whocoordinate all field activities, at the district level.
5. SODEVA recruits its personnel from three sources. Staff above thelevel of field extension workers are usually seconded to SODEVA from Government'scivil service. Field workers are recruited on the basis of regional examin-ations, and the majority have at least primary school education. Most ex-patriates are provided by SATEC under a technical assistance agreement withSODEVA.
Operations
6. In addition to providing agricultural extension throughout theGroundnu2t Basin and to implementing a pilot intensification project in SineSaloum financed by CCCE (Annex 5), SODEVA is also responsible for coordinating:(i) a project directed by the Research Institute for Oil Crops (Institut deRecherche des Huile et Oleagineaux - IRHO) to increase the output of ediblegroundnuts to 28,200 tons by 1975; (ii) a cotton program implemented bySODEFITEX to increase the cotton acreage in Sine Saloum to 6,500 ha; and aprogram to disseminate high yielding seed varieties. USAID has been askedto provide US$4 million for an agricultural intensification program to beimplemented by SODEVA in the districts of Thies, Bambey and Diourbel; thisproject will comprise strengthening of extension services, a limited construc-tion program, equipment for training and demonstrations, an applied researchunit, and credit for on-farm storage facilities. SODEVA is also responsiblenationally for implementing a project supported by finance from Iran todevelop audio-visual facilities in rural areas.
7. SODEVA coordinates its activities with other organizations activein agriculture, including: ONCAD; BNDS; the cooperatives, Government Minis-tries dealing with crop production, livestock, and rural infrastructure; andprivate and semipublic organizations that supply agricultural equipment andfertilizers.
SODEVA's Role as a Model Regional Development Agency
8. Government's agricultural development policy includes both functionalorganizations providing services on a national level and geographical agencieswhich concentrate on regional development. National organizations includeBNDS fo-r credit; ONCAD for cooperatives, marketing and farm inputs; andSODIFITEX for cotton development. SODEVA is the largest regional developmentagency and Government is using it as a model for similar organizations forother regions of the country. While extension services are often performeddirectly by Government Ministries in other countries, the establishment andstrengthening of regional development agencies in Senegal has its own merits.However, the permanent effectiveness of semi-autonomous regional agencieswill depend on reliable financial support from Government.
ANNEX 4Page 3
9. Management - The expansion of SODEVA's activities, particularly
as a result of the projects proposed for assistance by the Bank/CCCE, USAID
and Iran, will place a burden on the management capability of SODEVA, es-
pecially SODEVA's headquarters. While Government is confident that it can
provide sufficient field personnel and headquarters staff for the proposed
project, it must be recognized there is already in Senegal competition for
good managers in Government and in private industry; and there is also a lack
of qualified managers with agricultural experience. SODEVA's managerial per-
formance should be closely monitored during project execution to ensure that
the past record of good administration continues.
Coordntionof_npu
10. SODEVA's intensification and diversification schemes depend on the
timely provision of seed, fertilizer, 'implements and credit. In the past,one or more of these critical inputs has sometimes been unavailable. For
example, due to lack of ONCAD transportation, seeds and fertilizer sometimesarrive too late for planting. SODEVA, therefore, has an important coor-
dinating role: aggregating the needs of individual farmers and workingwith ONCAD to deal with bulk suppliers such as Societe IndustrielleSenegalaise de Constructions Mechaniques et de Mlateriels Agricoles (SISCOMA)for implements, and Societe Industrielle d'Engrais du Senegal (SIES) for
fertilizers, and with cooperatives to ensure that farmers receive theirrequirements.
Financing
11. Working Capital - SODEVA has suffered in the past from shortagesof working capital, particularly to prefinance expenditures that are reimbursedeither by external development institutions like the Bank, or by Government.To finance its operations, SODEVA has increased the length of its accounts
payable to an average of six months while some accounts are a year and a halfoverdue. In addition, SODEVA has borrowed short-term money from banks at
high interest rates. The substantial increase in SODEVA's operations overthe next few years will only exacerbate its financial problems. Governmentis increasing SODEVA's capital from US$40,000 to US$400,000, the estimatedminimum amount required to provide working capital for an annual budget of
US$4.0 million (Table 1). This capital increase will provide only temporary
relief for SODEVA's problem since the approved 1974/75 budget is US$4.1million and will rise to at least US$8.0 million within the next two years.
To ensure the effective itnplementation of the project proposed in this re-
port, SODEVA will need additional long-term financing for working capitalof about CFAF 200 million (US$889,000).
12. Long-Tern - The percentage of SODEVA's activities financed by the
national budget declined fron 43% in 1973/74 to 30% in 1974/75 (Table 2).
SODEVA's ability to attract external assistance is a compliment to its past
ANNEX 4Page 4
record of effective project implenentation. liowever, much of the externalassistance has been for relatively short-periods--two to four years--and itscontinuation is never certain. In the long run, SODEVA needs a permanentlysound financial base. This could be provided by finance for five-yearplanning periods from regular budgetary allocations or by a levy on groundnutproduction in the area where SODLVA does extension work. In view of thefluctuations in the groundnut crop, a levy on production would need to besupported by Governrment or the crop stabilization fund in low crop years.
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SODEVA
Budget for Fiscal Year 1974-75 1/
(CFAF '000)
No. of National CCCE IBRD/IDA Iran FAC EDF National BudgetPersonnel Budget Sine Saloum Agricultural Audio-Visual Louga Seed Sefa Commercial
Senegalese Foreign Contribution Pilot Project Credit II Program Project Project Proiect Operations Total
I. Investment Costs
Equipment 15,931 18,690 49,130 56,720 3,902 - - - 144,373Construction - 24,100 - 27,404 - - - 51,504
Sub-total 15,931 42,790 49,130 84,124 3,902 195,877
II. Personnel Costs
National Civil Servants 184 105,583 40,025 6,202 7,229 13,101 9,660 322 - 182,122other Administrative Staff 125 36,328 15,219 - 3,282 4,225 - 410 - 59,464Field Staff 763 80.213 65,698 5.795 891 25.845 41.249 854 - 220,545
Sub-total 222,124 120,942 11,997 11,402 43,171 50,909 1,586 462,131
III. Operating Costs
Raw Materials 1,858 8,895 1,000 - 200 - - 21,959 33,912Taxes and Duties 228 391 - 76 58 - - - 753Rent, Insurance and other
Services 26,880 29,158 31,385 9,522 4,753 - 150 - 101,848Technical Assistance 13 36,002 77,415 11,550 - 10,488 - - - 135,455Transport and Travel 2,932 3,120 - - 50 390 - - 6,492Training 5,066 1,679 - - 383 928 - - 8,056Office Expenses 15,363 9,916 1,250 1,537 1,900 - 50 - 30,016Bank Interest 5,875 - - - 50 - - 2,122 8,047External Fiianoing forNational Budget -(38,747) 27,224 - - 5,819 5,544 160 - -Unallocated _ 1- - 1,380 - - - - - 11,380
Sub-total 1.072 13 55,457 157,798 56,565 11,135 23,701 6,862 360 24,081 335,9591,085
IV. Total Costs 293.512 321,530 117,692 106,661 70.774 57.771 1.946 24.081 993_9X7
VI Income Sources 293,512 321,530 117,692 106,661 70,774 57,771 1,946 27,498 997,384
VI. Net Income - - - - - - - 3,417 3,417
1/ April 1, 1974, through March 31, 1974
ANNEX 4Table 2
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SODEVA
Sources of Finance(CFAF Millions)
1973/74 1974/75Actual Projected
National Budget 297.4 (42.7%) 296 (29.8%)
FAC 69.4 (10%) 70 (7.1%)
FED 45.4 (6.5%) 58 (5.8%)
CCCE 285.0 (40.8%) 321 (32.3%)
IDA 117 (11.8%)
Iran 107 (10.8%)
Bank Credits 24 (2.4%)
TOTAL 697.2 (100%) 993 (100%)
Annex 4Table 3
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPNENT PROJECT
SODEVA
Audited Balance Sheet
6/30/1972 3/31/1973 3/31/1974(CFAF Million)
ASSTS
Fixed Assets
Buildings - 0.4 11.6Office equipmnent 2.5 7.0 111Housing 2.6 4.7 4.1Vehicles 2.14 8.5 7.4Agricultural equipment 8.3 4.6 3.6Anirals l. 0.8 0.7Construction in progress 0.4 1.9 3.3
Total 17.3 27.9 41.8
Inventories 6.3 13.9 12.7
Net Current Assets
Currert receivableCash 16.5 21.6 66.0Deposits 0.4 0.5 0.6
Accounts ReceivableMaterial 174.9 209.0 124,1Personnel 4.8 29.4 31.4Farmers 0.2 8.5 9.5Other 2.1 1.2 1.6
-198.9 270.2 -233.2Less current liabilities
Accounts payable 142.6 135.0 91.3Bank loans _ 37.6 17.9Suppliers credit 23.1. 52.5 36.5Pre-payrients _ 19.5 54.2Personnel 14.1 11.6 11.8Equipment subsidies 17.3 26.0 38.5Other 1.6 1.9 2.9
Total (198.7) (284.1) (253.1)
Net current assets 0.2 (13.9) (19,9)
Total Net Assets 23.8 27.9 34.6
Capital and Reserves
Capital stock 10.0 100 100General Reserve 1.0 10 10Provision for general rules 2.1 2.1, 6.6Provision for material 6.9 8.6 10.0Provision for bad debts 0.8 2.2 1.9Profit from FY72 3.0 3.0 3.0Profit fron FY73 - 0.7 0.7Profit from. FY74 _ 1.4
Total 23.8 27.9 34.6
SENEGALSINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SODEVAPROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART
GEOGRAPHIC AREAOF RESPONSIBILITY PERSONNEL
PROJECT MANAGER ADIITAINSEALT|
REGION TECHNICAL DIRECTOR(PROJECT AREA)
I TRAINING I AGRONOMY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY CREDITSTORES PLANNING & EVALUATION
| DIVISION CHIEF I I DIVISION CHIEF I I DIVISION CHIEF DIVISION CHIEF SPECIALIST
...... |...
DISTRICT TRAINING ASSISTANT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY STORES
i!DEPARTMENT) | ASSISTANT OPERATIONAL CHIEF ........ ASSISTANT ASTANT
I AG E NTS
SUB-DISTRICT("ARRONDISSEMENT") OPERATIONAL ASSISTANT
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY| r FIELD ~~AGENT
RURAL ....................................... ON AGENTCOMMUNITY I . I
I FIELD EXTENSION WORKER ...VIL LAG0EII
World Bank-9264
ANNEX 5Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPIENT PROJECT
PILOT PROJECT
Background
1. Under Programme Agricole (PA), moderate amounts of fertilizer,improved seeds, and animal-drawn hoes and seeders have been supplied tofarmers on credit, together with limited agricultural extension support pro-vided by SATEC until 1968 and thereafter by SODEVA. Research has shownthat further improvements in agricultural technology are possible by plow-ing and by a more comprehensive use of fertilizer, particularly in SineSaloum, where the risks of drought are less than in the northern parts ofthe Groundnut Basin. A widespread and successful application of thesemeasures depends, however, on strengthening farm support services. Withthese considerations in mind, SODEVA launched a pilot project in 1971 thatinvolves intensive farmer supervision, coordination of agricultural supportservices, the expansion of ox-plowing, heavier fertilization rates forcereals, increased cropping of maize, sorghum and cotton, and the integrationof livestock with crop farming. Detailed technical recommendations forthis project are described in Annex 3.
2. The project is being carried out in the three southern districtsof Sine Saloum: Nioro, Foundiougne and Kaffrine. Initially, it was plannedthat the project should cover a five-year period and benefit 25,000 farmersin these districts. Eowever, following successful implementation during thepast two years, Government decided to expand the project after 1975, tocover the whole of the Sine Saloum Region.
Organization
3. The pilot project is being implemented by SODEVA's regional admin-istration for Sine Saloum. While the project comes under the regionaldirector, his deputy is in charge of day-to--day operations. The project isadministered through three district and 18 sub-district offices, and SODEVA'sextension staff are supervising closely some 9,500 farms (1974 figures).SODEVA lias established ox-training centers for project farmers, and theMinistry of Rural Development provides animal health services. Projectprogress is evaluated each year by a team of 13 evaluation officers.
Results
4. Crop Yields: The following yields were achieved in 1973/74:
:'iNEX 5l'age 2
Groundnut Millet Maize Sorghum--- kg/ha ------------------
Under nonnalrecommendations of PA 940 760 - 560
Under new -recommendations testedby the Pilot Project 1,260 1,010 1,960 780
The yields for groundnuts and millet were computed from records kept by ex-tension agents for some 1,700 project farms, each of which had one plot grownunder pilot project recommendations and a second following the recommendationsof Programme Agricole. Results for maize and sorghum, which were grown on amuch smaller scale, were computed from detailed measurements made on the entireoperations of a sample of 60 farms. Sorghum yields were low because of a pre-mature end of the rains, but other crop yields were satisfactory. Theresults show that plowing and higher levels of fertilization under goodmanagement can result in substantial yield increases, even in a somewhatunfavorable cropping season.
5. Crop Production : The project's production goals for groundnutsand millet were surpassed, but the early end of the rains prevented a goodsorghum harvest. Fewer farmers grew maize than had been projected becauseof an initial reluctance to clear fields of stumps and roots. Additional cropproduction attributable to the pilot project is calculated from the yieldincreases obtained by project farmers over yields they would have achievedwithout the project and is estimated as follows:
Crop Target Actual Production (1973) Actual as % of Target(tons) (tons)
Groundnuts 8,800 15,000 170
Millet 2,820 5,000 177
Maize 1,382 700 51
6. Animal Production: Farmers were prepared to buy young animalsfor ox-traction without requiring credit. Thirty-five percent of farmerstrained oxen themselves, and by the end of 1973, 6,000 pairs of oxen hadbeen trained, some 124% of the project's target. It was also found thatdraft animals gain an additional 60 to 80 kg a year when they are kept inenclosures and fed groundnut hay and other crop residues. These animalsare in high demand for traction and command good prices for beef. As aconsequence, farmers are keeping oxen for beef fattening as well as fortraction. In order to meet the growing demand for young animals, SODEVAhas started a feeding program for calves and breeding cows among farmersto reduce calf mortality and raise calving rates.
ANNEX 5Page 3
Problems Encountered
7. The main obstacle to the prompt adoption of improved croppingwas stump removal. A substantial number of farmers who had enlisted in theprogram failed to destump their fields, and thus plowing was difficult andonly partially effective. To correct the situation, SODEVA now insists ondestumping as a prerequisite to receiving free rock phosphate and to receiv-ing the support of its staff to intensify production techniques.
8. As a second problem, in some cases the higher credit requirementsof project farmers were not at first approved by cooperatives because someloan committees were reluctant to assume liability for the debts of individualfarmers requesting higher than average loans. Following the intervention ofSODEVA's staff, loan requirements were approved by cooperatives and SODEVAexpects this to be a short-term problem that will be resolved as familiaritywith the project increases (Annex 8).
9. As the third problem, project farriers encountered difficulties inobtaining prompt delivery of implements and fertilizers required in excess ofsupplies normally provided under the PA program. SODEVA's staff now prepareslists for the materials required and coordinates their delivery with ONCADand cooperatives.
Implications for the Proposed Project
10. The pilot project has demonstrated that stump removal is the mainbottleneck to intensification. It confirmed the need for a high ratio of ex-tension workers to farmers at this stage of development, and highlighted theneed to improve arrangements for input supplies. It has demonstrated thatfarmers could achieve reasonably high yields by following the recommendationsgiven by the extension staff, and that the improvements in livestock husbandryhave been well received by farmers.
ANNEX 6Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
LAND TENURE AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE
Land lenure
1. Much of the population of the Groundnut Basin is of recent and mixedorigin, the result of large migrations from other regions in Senegal and fromMali and Upper Volta between 1890 and 1930. The division of land is based oninalienable and irrevocable user rights which families descended from the firstoccupants are acknowledged to possess. The "lamanes" are the descendents ofheads of familles who first burned off the forest and are accordingly theguardians and administrators of the land. However, the farmers whose peroga-tives are the closest to property rights are the inheritors of the "axe right"granted to those who first cleared the land of trees and bush. Farmers withaxe rights cannot sell their land but often lend surplus land at nominal rentto families with spare labor or to young men.
2. Government is attempting to play a larger role in land use. The lawon national property of June 17, 1964, makes the State the successor to allancient rights and the sole owner of the land. Under this law, land is, inprinciple, allocated to the members of rural communities with the power toallocate being transferred from the families to an elected rural council ,Law 7202 of February 1, 1972, provides for the division of each district intorural communities; this reform of administrative units has started in SineSaloum and is to be completed throughout the country by 1979.
3. A certain amount of uncertainty now exists as to land use rightsarising from Government's intervention, and many farmers have ceased lendingland outside their immediate family. However, while this uncertainty overland tenure is having some adverse effects on the redistribution of land thathas previously been lent, it is not expected to be a major constraint for theproject. Under the project, farmers with surplus land would be assisted toexploit it more fully through increasing animal traction, and those with landconstraints would be helped to farm more intensively. The uncertainty may,however, explain part of the reluctance to destump fully (Annex 5), as farmerswho have borrowed land have no long term user rights. Nevertheless, sinceonly about 10% of land is borrowed, this problem should not seriously impedethe stump removal program.
Social and Economic Relations
4. The basic social unit in the project area is the compound where thecompournd chief, the oldest active male, lives with his wives and children.Relatives and seasonal workers are attached to the compound. Married younger
ANNEX 6Page 2
brothers of the compound chief form separate households within the compound,eating separately and farming as a semi-independent unit; younger brothersmay also form separate compounds. By administrative definition, a family headbecomes a compound chief when his name is entered on the tax list and he ceasesto pay taxes through an elder brother. The basic economic unit is, however,in most cases the household rather than the compound, although there is atendency to consider household heads as compound heads. Seasonal workers aremostly young male relations (sourgas) and sometimes outsiders (navetanes)whose main interests are accumulating money to establish their own householdsand earning a living.
5. The compound chief is responsible for providing food and shelter forall members, owns livestock and implements, and allocates land within thecompound, some 40-60% of which he farmis himself. The chief is usually theonly member of the compound registered in the cooperative and the ONCAD col-lection point (secco); it is he who has access to credit for seeds, fertilizerand implements. In return for guaranteeing the subsistence of the compound --the chief is usually the sole cereal producer -- all members of the compoundperform services for the chief. For the women, this work is mainly of adomestic nature, plus agricultural chores such as sowing, winnowing andshelling groundnuts after the harvest. Male relatives, as well as seasonalworkers, after helping to plant the chief's field, work about four morningsper week for the chief during the rest of the season. On some farms justbeginning intensive agriculture, a new pattern of work is emerging under whichthe men work continuously together under the chief as a coordinated work teamthat makes full use of animal traction. The work relationship is flexible,depending very much on personal relationships that vary from compound tocompound.
6. All members of the compound over the age of about 15 have individualfields which they cultivate with the assistance of others. Since the compoundchief grows sufficient food to support the compound, the individual memberscan concentrate on and are motivated to cultivate cash crops: women to purchasespices, clothes and household goods, and men to earn money for marriage andto carry their families over until the next year. Since most benefits forintensification are from cereals, not traditionally a cash crop, improvedmarkets for cereals is critical to promote cereal production among farmmembers other than the chief.
7. The compound chief receives the majority of direct benefits fromdevelopment schemes; surveys have shown that the level of mechanization onthe chiefs' fields is usually twice that of other members of the compound.In addition, the chief, through his membership in the cooperative obtainsand distributes agricultural implements and fertilizers. Equipment is usedcommunally by the compound after the chief's fields have been finished, andincreasingly, because of animal traction, men are plowing and planting notonly their own fields but those of women. The amount of fertilizer and pesti-cide used on individual's fields depends very much on the chief's willingnessto extend credit to his own compound members. Moreover, as the provider of
ANNEX 6Page 3
food and lodging, his requirements for these materials are paramount. How-ever, there is considerable evidence that the direct and indirect benefits oEintensification are, in fact, shared by the compound. Implements are used bymany members; food supplies are more certain, a-id since more food is grownwith Less labor-intensive farming on the chief's plot, individual members ofthe compound can spend less time working for the chief and more time on theirown fields increasing their personal revenue. The economic relationships ofcompound members strikes a reasonable balance between individual self-interestand communal insurance, in the form of obligations to and from the compoundchief, and against harvest failures.
Conclusion
8. Although no serious land tenure problems are foreseen for the pro-ject, SODEVA's study group would Be asked to monitor the transltion from onesystem of allocation to the other during project implementation. Also, whileworking through family heads, the benefits of the project would be distributedto famnily members and their associated workers (sourgas and navetanes).
ANNEX 7Page 1
SENEG.AL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
Traditional Grazing
1. Most of the farmers in the project area own beef cattle, sheepand goats. Cattle herds comprise between 10 and 60 head; they are keptas reserve capital, and as a source of milk for family consumption. Theygraze crop residues during the dry season, and fallow fields or uncul-tivated areas during the cropping season. In addition, migratory cattleherds from the dry north of Senegal graze residues from cultivated fieldsof the Groundnut Basin during the dry season. In the northwest, wherealmost all the available land is cropped, local cattle graze on cropresidues, mainly groundnut hay and millet stalks during the dry season,and with the exception of milking females and calves, are moved to theSine Saloum delta area during the wet season. Under this system the cattlemake small weight gains -- 30 to 60 kg liveweight/year; the calving rate isabout 60%, calf mortality 25%, and milk production about 150 liters/year.Practically all animals are regularly immunized against rinderpest, pleuro-pneumonia, anthrax and blackleg by Government's veterinary services. However,internal parasites (helminthiasis and coccidiosis) are widespread and contri-bute to low calf weaning rates.
Development of Mixed Farmin
2. The traditional open grazing system is undergoing a radical changewith the introduction of animal traction and improved animal care underwhich animals are kept in shelters and fed crop residues, especiallygroundnut hay. This change results in an improved utilization efficiencyfor the crop residues when compared to the traditional nomadic grazingsystem. The net result is an increase in the carrying capacity of theland and crops.
3. A stall fed animal requires a mixed ration of about 3 tons/yearof groundnut hay and 1.5 tons/year of sorghum/millet stalks, or about 3.5 tons/year of groundnut hay alone. The current practice of farmers is to feedgroundnut hay mostly by itself. The production of groundnuts under theproject (assuming the same yield for dry hay as for unshelled seed for thetypical 13-hectares farm described in Annex 16) would enable the averagefarmer to feed the following animal units on groundnut hay alone:
Y O Y 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5
South 1.5 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.8
North 0.9 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
ANNEX 7Page 2
With the inclusion of sorghum/miilet stalks in the ration, the carryinrcapacity would be increased by 25 percent.
4. Draft Oxen. Draft oxen are now fed mainly with groundnut hay (10-12 kg/ day) and under the project SODEVA would encourage farmers to make moreuse of sorghum/millet stalks, and thus save groundnut hay to stall fattensteers. A daily ration of 8 kg of groundnut hay, 4 kg of cereal straw and50 grams of mineral supplement would allow mature oxen to work and gain60 - 100 kg liveweight/year.
5. Cattle Fattening. Cattle would be fattened under a system thatwould include: (a) simple stables; (b) basic supplements of groundnut hayand millet/sorghum stalks at the saire rates as for draft oxen; (c) feedingtroughs; (d) drugs for internal parasites; and (e) mineral supplements (50grams/day). A three-year old animal weighing 175 kg would be expected togain 500 grams/day, or 75 kg for a 150-day period of feeding, some 50 kgnx)re than under open grazing (Table 3).
6. Calf Rearing. Under the project's calf weaning program, calveswould receive a treatment for internal parasites, and a daily ration for100 days of 100 grams of feed concentrate rich in protein and minerals.Under this regime, about 85% of the calves would survive one year. Duringthe second year and half of the third year (up to the marketable stage)the calves would receive 20 grams/day of mineral supplement. They wouldalso receive a deworming treatment during each of the 2nd and 3rd yearsand under the project about 80% of the calves would survive to threeyears of age, compared to about 60% without the project. This calf rear-ing operation would help to satisfy the rapidly increasing demand for draftanimals and feeder steers. Details are in Table 3.
7. Improved Feeding of Dairy Cows. Dairy cows normally produce about150 liters of milk over about 100 days, and give birth to two calves in aboutthree years (birth rate of 60%). The causes of the low calving rate wouldbe investigated by the SODEVA's animal husbandry specialist, together withveterinarians from the Ministry of Rural Development with a view to recommend-ing measures to improve the rate. Nevertheless, with drugs to control internalparasites, supplementary feeding of 200 grams/day of concentrate for 200 days,and feeding of groundnut hay and millet bran, cows would produce an additional200 liters of milk per year, and the calving rate is expected to improve byabout 30% to one calf about every 15 months (birth rate of 80%).
8. Traction Cows. Small farms that can only feed a few animals woulduse cows for traction. There cows would receive the same drug treatments andfeed supplements as draft oxen, plus an additional mineral supplement of 50gramis/day to improve the calving rate.
9, Sheep, Goats and Pigs. In addition to improved care for cattle,SODEVA would demonstrate improved production methods for sheep and goatsincluding control of internal parasites, and supplementary feeding with
ANNEX 7Page 3
groundnut hay. In cooperation with animal husbandry research services, SODEVAwould introduce rams of the improved "Djalonke" breed to upgrade the sheeppopulation in selected villages, and the results of the crosses would be keptunder close observation. Traditionally Serere farmers in the northwest ofthe project area raise pigs on millet bran, and kitchen residues. Under theproject, SODEVA would supervise pig husbandry demonstrations including dewormingand feeding of concentrates and minerals. Since SODEVA's major activity inlivestock would be with cattle, and would be linked to demonstrations forother animals, no benefits are assumned in project calculations for increasesin sheep, goat and pig production that could arise from the demonstrations.
Animal feed mill mixinÉ_plant
10. To meet the requirements for feed supplements (minerals and con-centrate), SODEVA would build and operate a mixing plant at Kaolack. Detailson ingredients, and requirements of the project are shown in Table 1, andTable 2 gives a breakdown of tule costs of the mixing plant. The plant wouldproduce about 2,000 tons per year by 1979.
Development of livestock production costs and benefits
11. Table 3 gives the numbers of animals that would be reached by theproject, and the expected increases in production that would result. Thecorresponding farm costs and benefits are shown in Table 4.
Annex 7Table l
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF ANIML PRODUCTION
Feed Supplement Composition
and Requirements of the Project
Unit Cost Mineral i/ - Concentrate -
CFAF Composition - Cost/ - Composition - Cost -
kg % CFAF 100/kg % CFAF 100/kg
A. Ingredients and Cost
Salt 6 35 210 9 54Bone meal 20 45 900 il 220Groundnut cake 40 - _ 75 3,000
Fish meal 10 20 200 5 50Others - - 400 _ 100
Packing - - 600 - 600
Total 100 2,310 100 4,024
Total per 100 kg 2,310 4,024
B. Feed Requirements for the Projiect 2/
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Concentrate ~~~-------------------------- tons --_-_--__________________Concentra te…ts
Calves 76.6 89.9 154 214.2 325.4
Mineral
Câlves 30.3 45.6 75.9 120.6Dairy cows 150 225 300 350 400Draft cows 3.6 6.3 9 11.7 14.4Draft oxen 560 690 820 960 1,080Beef fattening 48 73.5 99.3 114.9 139
Total Minerals 761.6 1,025.1 1,273.9 1,512.5 1,754.0
Total Feed Requirements
Per year 833.2 1 ,114,0 1,_427.9 1 ,726.7 2,079.4
Per day 2.7 3.6 4.6 5.5 6.7
1/ The mineral supplement contains also a protein concentrate (fish meal)2/ Based on animal numbers and feed requirements in tables 3 and 4.
Annex 7Table 2
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOP]SENT PROJ3CT
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
Feed Supplement Costs
(CFAF '000)
1975-1976 1976-1977 1977-197 1978-1979 1979-1980
Cost of Ingredients
Minerals 1/ 3,053 3,613 6,197 i,619 13,094Concentrate 2/ 17,592 26,68U0 29,512 34,93, 40,517
qperating Costs
Labor 3/ 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 3,500ElectrJcity 4/ 600 825 1,050 1,275 1,575Plant Maintenance 5/ 750 koo 900 1,000 1,200Plant Depreciation 5/ 1,000 1,G00 1,000 1,OOG 1,000Transport 7/ 800 11,00 1>400 1,700 2,000
Sub-total 26,325 36,618 43,059 51,532 62,FE6
Contingencies 20% 5,265 7,323 8,611 1536 12,577
Total Cost 31,590 43,941 51,670 61,`3' 75,463
Revenues fron Sales
Concentrate (CFAF 50/kg) 3,830 4,490 7,700 10,710 16,270Mineral (CFAF 40/kg) 30,464 41,004 51,96 500 70,160
Total 34,294 45,494 58,796 71,210 86,430
Surplus 2,704 1,553 7,126 9,372 10,967
l/ CFAF 23.10/kg (Table l)9/ CP^.-0.2)/kq (Table 1)
3/ 2.5 man-days/ton plus CFAF 1,000 for suDervision4/ CFAF- OO/ton
154 initially, increasing to 25% of ecuipment cost by 1979-'0Over 5 years
7/ CFAF 1,000/ton
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM ACRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION
Development of Livestock Numbers, and Milk Production
----------------------- --------------------Project Years--------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82
I. Calves
Calves participating in project 6,000 6,000 12,000 18,000 30,000 30,000 30,0003,900 3,900 7,800 11 700 19,500
Calves weaned with project (one-year old) 1/ 5,100 5,100 10,200 15,300 25,500 25,500 25,500Incremental calves (2-year old)
due to projeet 900 900 1,800 2,700 4,500
Il. Dairv Cows
Cows participating in project 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,000 8,000 8,000 8,000Calves born 2/ 2,400 3,600 4,800 5,600 6,400 6,400 6,400Incremental two-year old calves
reared under the pçoject 2/ 600 900 1,200 1,400 1,600
Incremental milk production (Tons) 3/ 600 900 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,600 1,600
Im. Draft Cows
Cows participating in project 200 350 500 650 800 1,000 1,000Calves born 2/ 160 280 400 520 640 800 800Incremental two-year old calves
reared under the project 2/ 40 70 100 230 160
IV. Draft Oxen and Ox Fattening
Pairs of draft oxen 14,000 17,250 20,500 24,000 27,000 30,000 30,000Pairs under training 5,220 5,990 6,820 6,810 6,680 9,440 9,440Culled fattened draft oxen 4/ 1,160 2,370 3,380 4,290 15,430 16,340 19,500
1/ Calf survival rates:Without Project With Project Increment
after one year 75% 85%after two years 65% 80% 15%
Incremental weight gain due to project 25 kg per 2-year old animal
2/ Survival rates of calves born from dairy cows and draft cows as % of breeding cows.Without Project With Proiect Increment
calves born 60% 80%survivina after 45% 63%ane year4563
surviving aftertwo years 42% 62% 20%
Incremental weight gain due to project = 25 kg per 2-year old animal
3/ Incremental production of 200 liters per year
4/ uraft oxen replaced every 4 years;22% of oxen under training rejected.
Anses 7Table 4
SENEGAL
0168E SALO11M AGRICULTUREAL DEVELoPMeNT PR0JECT
TECHNICAL ASPECTS Or ANIMAL PRODUCTION
Fare Benafitr a-d Cneta
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
INCREMENTAL BENEFITS 1/
Additional rainas reared by projeot (1,540) (1,870) (3,100) (4,230) (6,260)
at CFAF 12,000 18,480 22,440 37,200 50,760 75,120
Incrasantal valaht gain ondes atall feeding
Ctaia- - 25 kg pea asisal150 dayo) (5,180) (5,840) (10,400) (14,760) (23,020)or CFAF 100/kg 2/ 12,950 14,600 26,000 26,900 57,550
oxer - 50 kg par anla1(150 daye) (5,320) (8,170) (11,460) (12,770) (15,438) (16,340) (19,500)at CFAF 100/kg 26,600 40,850 57,300 63,850 77,150 81,700 97,500
Milk
000 litera (600) (900) (1,200) (1,400) (1,600) (1,600) (1,600)at CFAP 25/liter 15 000 22.500 30.000 353000 40.000 40,000 40 000
Total Benefits 41,600 63,350 118,730 135,890 180,350 209,360 270,170
INCREMENTAL COSTS 3/
Clveas 4/
Year nld - CFAF 1,050 6,300 6,300 12,600 18,900 31,500 31,500 31,500Tvn-yeas nId - CFAF 870 4,437 4,437 8,874 13,311 22,185 22,185Threa-ear nld - CFAF 510 2,448 2,448 4,896 7,344 12,240
Snb-total 6,300 10,737 19,485 30,222 49,707 61,029 65,925
1airv nova CFAF 2,100 pe,rtear 5/ 6,300 9,450 12,600 14,700 16,800 16,800 16,800
Calvea CFAF 1,050 - y-ar 0 2,520 3,780 5,040 5,880 6,720 6,720 6,720870 - y-ar 1 1,644 2,466 3,289 3,837 4,385 4,385310 - year 2 949 1,423 1,897 2,213 2,550
lob-total 8,820 14,874 21,055 25,292 29,254 30,118 30,455
Oraft noe CFAF 820 per ye- 6/ 164 287 410 533 656 820 820
Year ld calvrs - CFAF 1,050 168 294 420 546 672 840 840Tvn-ya.a nId salves - CFAF 870 110 192 274 356 438 548Thsee-year nId calvea - CFAF 510 63 111 158 205 253
Sob-total 332 691 1,083 1,464 1,842 2,303 2,461
Draft oses 7/
Oses at v-rk - CFA 900 pas year 25,200 31,050 36,900 43,200 48,600 54,000 54,000Os fattening - CFAF 360 pas y-enr 1,915 2,941 4,125 4,597 5,555 5,882 5,882
Slb-total 27,115 33,991 41,025 47,797 54,155 59,882 59,882
Total Cnet 42,567 60,293 82,650 104,775 134,958 153,332 158,723
1/ Fros Tabla 1
3talve v.osd gain 50 kg /150 daye with the prtjent, ard 25 kg vithout; osen wpuld gais 75 kg/150 dayo vith the projeot, nad 25 kg/15 dayo withont.!/ Dit conte in-loda CPM 100 - i50/yens for raterisnry drogo.4/ Caf fend reqsinante
Yees O 100 graes/day .n.enetrate for 180 days = 18 kg.sit cnet CPMAF 50Total ceot CFAF 90050 e r aimerai 365 =18 n 40 ,,n n" 72050 n n "180 n = 9 40 ",,n 360
5/ Dairy nOvePr year: 250 " '" ' 200 " = 50 "" " " 40 " " 2,000
6/ Draft soya
P- Year, 100 " " 200 " =18 " O r" . 40 " " 7207/ Draft oen4
P-ryeas IOO " n n" 200 n =20 "" " 40 n n n 800On fatteningPr ya-a 50 n n 1800 = 9 n 40 n 360
ANNEX 8Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPIENT PROJECT
CREDIT AND COOPERATIVES IN SENEGAL
1. The basic structure in Government's plan for organizing the ruralsector is the cooperative systen. Senegal has about 2,200 cooperatives, ofwhich about 77% are connected directly with groundnuts. Groundnut coopera-tives have about 200,000 members, but the number of farmers who use collec-tion points and, directly or through relatives, the other services of thecooperatives, has been estimated at about 1.2 million.
2. The philosophy of the cooperative movement, expressed by Governmentshortly after independence, is "to set up a mode of organization which makesit possible to preserve the old community values and promote modern develop-ment". 1/ First priority was to replace the trader-based system and thus haltthe "usurious" indebtedness of farmers. Since 1967/68, groundnuts have beenmarketed through the cooperatives at official Government prices; and in thelast 13 years. Programme Agricole (PA) has provided CFAF 11.7 billion (US$49million) in credit to cooperative members.
3. The average cooperative has about 120 members and markets about 400tons oi groundnuts annually. Each cooperative member, usually the chief ofa compound, pays CFAF 1,000 as a membership fee and is entitled to obtaincredit for fertilizer, insecticide and agricultural implements.
4. The membership votes for a board of directors, and one third of thedirectors are replaced each year; the chairman of the cooperative is appointedby the directors. ONCAD supervises and provides technical assistance to co-operatives through its Directorate of Cooperation, and BNDS finances theircredit requirements. A cooperative's borrowing limit set by BNDS is either10 times its membership fees or, since this amount rapidly becomes insuf-ficient, about 75% of the average value of marketed groundnut production overthe past three years, less outstanding medium and short-term debt. Credit isformally backed by the joint and several guarantee of all members, and inmonetary terms bv the membership fees and groundnut production bonuses paidto cooperatives: these funds, now amounting to about CFAF 1.8 billion (US$7.5million), are held in blocked accounts in BNDS.
5. This collective form of credit has been oriented toward the minimumcredit needs of large numbers of farmers, and thus neglects farmers who re-quire above-average credit for fertilizer and implements. In fact, even under
1/ Government Instruction Circular No. 032/PC of May 21, 1962.
ANNEX 8Page 2
the pilot intensification project (Annex 5), project farmers beginning inten-sification occasionally had difficulty in securing credit because of the un-familiarity of cooperative credit committees with the project and their re-luctance to increase the cooperatives' debt load. Credit for progressivefarmers under the herein appraised project could be assured in the futureby using funds now held for the cooperatives in the BNDS as a guarantee forthe CFAF 54.3 million additional credit which the proposed project wouldinvolve.
6. In the pilot project, SODEVA's field staff aggregate the require-ments for fertilizer and implements for farmers and provide lists to ONCAD,which distributes inputs on faith that retroactive approval for the creditfrom individual cooperatives will be forthcoming. In the future, SODEVAintends to deal directly with cooperatives to ascertain credit requirements.Procurement and credit specialists would be employed by SODEVA to (i) workwit}l cooperatives and ONCAD, (ii) prepare lists of seasonal inputs and im-plements for which credit is needed, (iii) arrange for increases in co-operative guarantee funds, and (iv) coordinate the distribution of inputs.
7. ONCAD is planning to reorganize cooperatives into units that willmarket at least 1,500 tons of groundnuts per year, the minimum it considersnecessary to pay for a permanent cooperative manager. This reorganizationrepresents a major change for the cooperative movement and may not be sup-ported by farmers. It should tnerefore be closely followed during projectimplementation.
A?NEX 9
S EILGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAI DEVELOPIAENT PROJECT
REPORTING REQUIRENENTS
1. SODEVA would be required to supply detailed quarterly reports. Underthe pilot project SODEVA prepared periodic reports for CCCE. The reports wereof two types: (a) a progress report on the implementation of the program inSeptember, and a final report on the cropping season in March; and (b) atentative program of the coming season in December, and a final program inJune. The same schedule and similar forms as suggested by CCCE would bekept for the project. In addition all reports would include an administrativesection. The suggested formats of reports are shown in Tables 1 to ,'. Theseformats would be discussed with SODEIVA in the course of the first supervisionmission.
ANNEX 9Table 1
S ENE GAL
SINE SALOUI AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPOENT PROJECT
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Format for Progress Report. Administrative Section
(This section to be added to both of the reports to oe prepared each
year)
1. General
1.01 Summary of project actions, highlighting progress made in imple-
mentation, e.g. number of farmers engaged in program, crop and animal pro-
duction, staffing.
1.02 Sunmary of important factors (if any) affecting the progress of
the project: weather, government policy decisions, etc. Identify bottle-
necks.
1.03 Summary of disbursements of loan
Estinated Disburse- Disbursements Total % of total
Total Disburse- meents Re- Received Disburse- Disbur-
Loan ment for quested for from Bank ment from sement
Current_year this Period this Period Bank to date
(By Category)
The quarterly breakdown for the above should be at Table 2, and actual ex-
penditures at Table 3.
2. Action taken or required
2.01 Summarv of governnent action required or taken to overcome major
problems as indicated in Section 1.
2.02 Summary of requests to Bank and response by Bank or action required
or taken.
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Quarterly Project Disbursement SumearY
US$ 000
Project YearColendar Year
Fiscal Year
Deisbursemu t - Actual Disbursements - AccomulatedTotal Total Bank bfrome _9 Total to Loan Percentage
Cost Estimate Loan Disbursement Previous Year Ist Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Date Balance Disbursed
Catregory.
D W~50
SENEGAL.
S INE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Quarterly Pro1ect Expenditure Su inary
CFAF'000
Project YearCalendar Year_
Fiscal Year_____
Cost up to Fiscal Year 197 Fiscal Year 197_ Accumulated
Total Estlmated End of Revised Cost Estimates Actual Expenditures Totals to
Cost Over Project Previous Year lst Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter Last Quarter lst Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter Last Quarter Date Balance
Category
Annex 9Table 4
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUIM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Fornat for Progress Report - Preliminary _Tork Program
Preliminary work program - 19 Cropping Season
(to be subriitted in December)
Extension Field 2nd Step Farmers 3rd Step FarmersWorkers
Pre sent/Planned Present/Planned Presert/Planred
(ry operation and district)
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Format for Progress Report - Implementation of Project
Final Work t>rogram - 19 Cropping Season
(to be submitted not later than September lst)
A. Extension personnel and farmers
Extension Fieldworkers 1st Step Farnrers 2nd S&ep Farmers 3rd Ste Farmers
Present Planned Present Planned Present Planned Present Planned
(by operation and by district)
If the figures differ significantly for those forecast in December, explain the reason.
B. Crops, ha
Total AresGroundnuts Millet aSize Semi-intensified Intensified
(by operation and by district)
C. Animals, heads HJko
Calf feeding Beef fattening Breeding cow feeding
(by operation and by district)
D. Inputs (tons and units)Pr3evious Season This S 3ason
Fertili7zers and pesticides
Rock pnosphate
Groundnuts Fertilizer
I1il: t Fertilizer
Maize Fertilizer
Sorghum Fertilizer
Urea
DDT
Fungicide
Implerients
Plows
Hoes
Seeders
C arts
Draft Animals
Steersa
Hei fers r
Feed Concentrates
Mineral
Herbivon
SENEGAL
SINE SALRT4 AGRICULITURAL DEVELOP}=T PROJECT
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Forniat for Progress Report - Final Results
Annual Report on Results - 19 Cropping Season
(to be submitted no later than April l)
A. Extension personnel and farmers - Sar.e format as in Table 4.
A. Crop production
Groundnut IvIillet Sorghum Maize -Cotton
ha yield production ha ield production oduction production ha hield production ha vield proojctiof
(by operation and by distiict)
B. Animal Production (heads)
Calf feeding Beef fattening Breeding cow feeding cx,
(hy onerntion and by district)
ANNEX 9Table 6Page 2
C. Characteristics of Season: Rainfall, incidence of pests.
D. Production Costs and Returns: Give details on cost of inputsand farm gate price of products.
E. Training Program: Number of traininig sessions by category.Evaluation of the impact of the program.
F. Status and results of project monitoring program.
G. Status and results of studies.
fi. Project Organization and Management: Brief report on projectmanagement, detailing any problems.
1. Project buildings.
J. Vehicles and Equipment: An inventory of project vehicles and equip-ment should give relevant data on delivery dates, and state of repair.
ANNEX 10Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Draft Terms of Reference for a
Cereal Mlarketing and Storage Study
The purpose of the study would be to determine the policies, pro-cedures, and investments required to promote local cereal production to helpSenegal grow more of its cereal requirements. The study would involve ananalysis of the present cereal production and marketing situation, medium-term consumption and production projections, and proposals for marketingprocedures, price policies, investments, and qualified personnel.
1. Analysis of-present situation:
(a) Production trends by crops and geographical areas.
(b) Consumption trends.
(c) Trading pattern for domestic cereals.
(d) Trading pattern for imports.
(e) The trading systens and impacts of Governmentregulations.
(f) Analysis of marketing constraints for domesticproduction.
(g) Inventory and condition of storage facilities.
2. Demand and upply Proections:
(a) Estimated demand for cereals by crop and origin includingdemand for animal food and processing.
(b) Estimated domestic supply projections by crop and originof supply.
(c) Estimated need for imports.
(d) Market constraints on substituting imports by localproducts, including inter alia consumer taste preferencesand processing convenience.
ANNEX 1 0Page 2
3. Marketing Procedures and :tora e:
(a) Recommendations for improving the marketing system.
(b) The role of private traders in marketing, storageand processing for domestic and imported cereals.
(c) The responsibility of Goverriment and state controlledinstitutions in future market, storage, and processingoperations.
(d) Need for improved storage facilities including typesand location.
(e) Links with marketing arrangements for oLher crops.
(f) Links with credit supply for cereal production.
(g) Need for and means of enforcing grading systems andother market controls.
(h) Means for collecting and disseminating marketinginformation.
4. Price Policies:
(a) Consumer price policies for imported cereals.
(b) Price policies for domestic cereals.
(c) Impact of price policy variants on s pply anddemand projections.
(d) Need for and means of maintaining a price stabiliza-tion fund.
(e) Need for and means for maintaining a strategic reserveof cereals to cover emergencies.
5. Investment Proposals
(a) Based on the institutional arrangements proposed in 3, thesupply and demand projections and the evaluation of exist-ing facilities, determine (i) the financial requirementsfor stocks, facilities, equipment, and qualified personnelrequired by the public sector over the next five years;(ii) the need and means for providing credit to privatetraders, millers, and processors to finance stocks, equip-ment and facilities; and (iii) the needs, means and costsfor improving on-farm storage.
ANNEX 10Page 3
6. SODEVA would employ consultants to carry out the study during thefirst project year. A short list of consultant firms would be invited tosubmit proposals for the study based on the above draft terms of reference.The study team would include an economist, storage/processing specialist,and a marketing specialist. Field work and report writing would be com-pleted within a total of nine man months.
ANNEX 11Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EXPATRIATE STAFF
Technical Director
1. The Technical Director would report to the Project Manager, and
would be deputy project manager. He would be responsible in particular
for:
(a) planning the project's program of work;
(b) reviewing and establishing all technical recom-mendations for project activities;
(c) coordinating activities of the technical divisions;
(d) coordinating day-to-day activities with other Governmentagencies operating in the project area;
(e) supervising all senior technical personnel; and
(f) training a successor.
He would be appointed for a four-year term. During the first three years,
he would have executive responsibility and in the fourth year, he would act
as an advisor to a Senegalese replacement. He would have a degree in
agriculture or equivalent scientifîc qualification and have experience in
West African agriculture, preferably for five years in a senior supervisory
position in a Government extension service or equivalent.
Organizational Specialist
2. The Organizational Specialist would report to the Techniral Director.
He would be responsible for:
(a) evaluating the effectiveness of the project extension
program;
(b) supervising a survey team to obtain results from asample of project farms;
(c) recommending changes in technical recommendationsbased on the experience gained in project implemen-tation;
ANNEX 11Page 2
(d) assisting the technical director in making a workprogram for each cropping season;
(e) assessing the cost effectiveness of the project atthe farm and national levels; and
(f) making an assessment of the impact of the project on
production.
He would be appointed for a period of three years. During the first two
years, he would have executive responsibility, and in the third year, he
would be an advisor to his Senegalese replacement. He should have a degree
in economics, preferably with an additional qualification in statistics.
He should also have experience of supervising farm surveys.
Animal Husb_nayj Div _ion Chief
3. The Animal Husbandry Division Chief would report to the Technical
Director. He would be responsible for:
(a) implementing all animal production aspects of the project;
(b) providing technical supervision and training for fieldstaff in animal production;
(c) with the Planning and Evaluation Specialist andDistrict Chiefs, preparing annual work programs;
(d) with the Planning Officer, reviewing technical rec-ommendations for animal production;
(e) coordinating project annual husbandry investigationswith the Ministry of Rural Development's VeterinaryDepartment, and Research Institutes in Senegal,
(f) supervising the project's livestock marketing facil-ities; and
(g) providing technical supervision for the animal feed mill.
He would be appointed for three years and would have executive responsibility
for two years, during which he would train a Senegalese replacement. lie would
be an advisor to his replacement in the third year. He should have a degreein animal husbandry or equivalent science, and should have experience in ani-
mal production in West Africa, of which about five years should be in a sup-
ervisory position, preferably with a Government extension service or its
equivalent.
ANNEX 11Page 3
Crop _usbandry Division Chief
4. The Crop Husbandry Division Chief would report to the TechnicalDirector. Re would be responsible for:
(a) implementing crop production aspects of the project;
(b) assuring the technical supervision and training forfield staff in agronomy;
(c) preparing annual work programs for each districtwith the planning specialist and district operationalchiefs;
(d) reviewing technical recommendations with the planningofficer;
(e) coordinating project trials with the Ministry of RuralDevelopment's Agricultural Department and associatedresearch organizations; and
(f) assisting the planning and evaluation specialist withthe evaluation of project results.
H1e would be appointed for three years and would have executive responsibilityfor two years during which he would train a Senegalese replaceinent. He wouldbe an advisor to his replacement during the third year. He should have adegree in agronomy or equivalent science, and experience in West Africanagriculture, preferably with five years in a supervisory position in aGovernient extension service or equivalent.
Train& Division Chief
5. The Training Division Chief would report to the Technical Director.He would be responsible for:
(a) courses for new project staff;
(b) supervising in-service training;
(c) coordinating training activities with CETADand the Ministry of Education;
(d) recruiting staff with technical division chiefsand district operations chiefs; and
(e) assuring technical supervision of district trainingassistants.
ANNEX 11Page 4
He would be appointed for three years. During tlhe first two years, he wouldhave executive responsibility and would train a Senegalese counterpart. Dur-ing the third year, lie would be an advisor to his replacement. He would havean appropriate basic degree preferably with an additional qualification ineducation. He should have experience in West African agriculture, preferablyincluding a supervisory position in a training school.
Administration and Accounts Specialist
5. The Administration and Accounts Specialist would report to theProject Manager, and would liaise with the administration department inSODEVA's Dakar headquarters. He would be responsible for:
(a) supervising all project financial and staff adminis-tration;
(b) preparing annual budgets;
(c) preparing quarterly cash flow projections;
(d) checking accounts maintained at Dakar andpreparing final accounts;
(e) preparing reimbursement claims for the Bank loan;
(f) maintaining disbursement records;
(g) overseeing stores and credit activities; and
(h) supervising project procurement including thepreparation of lists of farnm inputs required byproject farms from ONCAD, and coordinating ordersand deliveries with ONCAD.
he would be appointed for three years. During the first two years, hewould have executive responsibility and would train a Senegalese counter-part. lie would be an advisor to his replacement in the third year. Hewould have an appropriate accounting qualification and would preferablyhave five years experience in a senior supervisory position in Africa.
SENSGAL Annex 12Table 1
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAI. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROJECT COSTS 1/
Suna,ry
CFAF '000
Taxes Foreign Exchange
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 Total 7. Total % Total
A. SODRVA
1. Capital Costs
Permanent Buildings 128,300 22,200 - - _ 150,500 25 376,000 50 75,250Temporary Buildings 2,800 8,500 8,500 - _ 19,800 - - 10 1,980Vehicles 17,800 - 2,800 23,500 - 44,100 40 17,640 55 24,260Equipment 62,300 37,700 24,400 3,900 2,900 131,200 20 26,240 50 65,600Furniture 16 ,00 3,200 2,001,900 il 3,290 408,0
Sub-total 227,900 71,600 37,700 27,400 2,900 367,500 23 84,770 48 175,850
II Personnel Costs
Civil Servants 263,630 303,450 333,165 333,165 333,165 1,566,575 10 156,658 - -Contracted Senegalese Staff 300,140 350,020 383,335 381,685 379,985 1,795,165 5 89,760 - -Expatriaten 81,680 72.430 62,500 17 000 - 233 610 20 46 720 60 140,166
Sub-total 645,450 725,900 779,000 731,850 713,150 3,595,350 8 293,138 4 140,166
1II. Oper.ting Conts
Head Office 71,400 80,100 85,000 80,300 77,800 394,600 10 39,460 10 39,460Regional Office 20,300 17,100 14,000 11,000 10,200 72,600 10 7,260 10 7,260Tree Nurseries - 280 2,000 4,000 4,400 10,680 - - - -
Training 5,350 5,350 5,350 5.350 5,350 26,750 - 20 5,350Demonstration 7,300 12,900 8,200 11,500 5,700 45,600Msintenance 22,600 26,900 28,800 27,100 27,100 132,500 10 13,250 30 39,750Planning and Evaluation 13,000 12.50D 12,500 12,500 12.500 63.000 - 20 12,600
Sub-total 139,950 155,130 155,850 151,750 143,050 745,730 8 59,970 14 104,420
Total SODEVA 1,013 300 952,630 972,550 911,000 859.100 4,708,580 9 437,878 9 420,436
B. Consultants
Cereal Marketing and Storage - 18,000 - - - 18,000 - - 100 18,000Pr-jert Evaluation 5.000 3 500 3,500 3,000 3,000 18.000 - - 100 18.000
Sub-total 5.000 21,500 3,500 3,000 3,000 36,000 - - 100 36,000
C. Incre,ental Fara Inputs
Rock Phosphate 29,600 38,600 46,700 55,800 64,300 23,500 5 11,750 - -Other Fertilizers 38,100 11,400 34,700 38,200 46,400 168,800 5 8,440 60 101,280Equipaent 64,200 11,900 21,200 51,000 31,900 180,200 20 36,040 50 90,100Seeds 3,850 1,250 3,480 4,040 4,860 17,480 - - - -Inecticide 2.250 550 4.050 3,280 4.190 14.320 10 1,432 70 10,024
Sub-total 138,000 63,700 110,130 152,320 151,650 615,800 9 57,662 33 201,404
Total 1,156,300 1.03_7830 1086180 1066.320 1.013.750 55360,380 9 495.540 12 657 840
D. Contingencies
Physical 50,590 29,040 30,370 33,150 29,760 172,910 12 20,240 28 48,170
Price /2
(a) Buildings 11,540 7,800 3,540 - - 22,880 22 5,052 45 10,376(b) Other 63.760 171,700 287,100 395,810 489,200 1,407,570 9 124.913 12 163,522
Sub-total 75,300 179,500 290,640 395,810 489,200 1,430,450 129,965 12 173,898
Total Preject Cost 1,282,190 1,247,580 1,407,190 1,495,280 1,532,710 6,963,740 9 645,745 13 879,908
1/ Mid 1975 prices. Figures .,ave-beeo upda~cd frm base tables, which are mid 1974, byadding 17.7% to the cost's of buildings and 13.4% to all other costs, except personnelcosta for nhicih base tables already reflect 1975 prices.
2/ Price contingencies ansume inflation rates of 16% in 1975, 14% in 1976 and 12% in 1977 forbuildings,and 12% in 1975 107. in 1976 and 87. in succeeding years on all other costs.
Anr,ex 12Table 2
`-e'GAI,
SALuUIP AGRICULtULJ7AL DI,V2LOPmZNT PRCJïCT
?ROJECT COST
Construction Cost
CFAF
I . C0N ShEUCTION
(a) Kaolack
- Office BuildinLg 660 m2 19,800,000- Garage 4o m2 800,000- Store 150 Ir.2 3,°°°e°°°- Animal Feed ',iTll 100 m2 2,000,000
H.ousing
I-Iroject IM1an1ager 120 m2 14,200,000- Operation Chief 100 m 2 3,500,000- Guest House 50 m 2 1,750,000
- Site Preparation lO,OO0 2,000,000- Parking 2 240,000- Fencing 3140 mn 2,380,000
Total Kaolack 39,670,000
(b) District (1)
- Office 115 rm2 3,450,000- Store, Garage 80 rn2 1,820,000- Housing 100 m2 3,500,000- Site Preparation &
Fencing 1,000,000
Total Distr,ict (1) _977000
Total Districts (4) h8, 8o,o0o
(c) Sub-districts
- Store-Offices (1) 45 m 2 1,350,000
Total 3ub-districts (28) 37g800,000
Total a, b and c 126,320,000
- Architect Fees 2% 2,480,000
Total 2,1480,000
. _orctru ,l n 128,300,000
-j>'-, 109,900,000
1976-77 18e900,000
ANNEX 12Table 3
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PiOJECT COST
Vehicles and Furniture
Unit 1/ 1975-76 1977-78 1978-79 TOTALCost
(CFAF 000)T, VEH-ICLES
HeadquartersTrucks 3.5 ton 2,511,000 (2) 5,022 (3) 7,533 (5) 12,555Pickup 1,183,500 (2) 2,367 (2) 2,367 (4) 4,734
districts-TSCffiiér (7) 8,285 (7) 8,285 (14) 16,570
Trucks 3.5 ton 1,133,500 (1) 2,511 (1) 2,511 (2) 5,022
15,674 2,511 20,696 38,881
II. FURNITUREeadquartersHousine (2) 2,170 2,170Office Equipment h,810 4,810
as triot.sOffice Equipment 7,749 2,799 1,800 12,348
14,729 2 799 100 19,32E
1/ ail taxes included
ANNEX12Table 4
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMRENT PROJECT
PROJECT COST
Equipment
(CFAFt 000)
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 Total
a) Livestock
- Feed Mill Equil>ment 5,000 5,000- Feed Mill Materials 5,000 5,000 10,000- Livestock Assistants
Equipment 2,400 600 2,400 950 6,36:- Demonstration Wells 4,400 8,400 4,000 r _'
- Farm DemonstrationEquipment 2,020 700 1,400 4,190
- Livestock Marketing 3,000 3,000
b) Storage Equipment 4,900 4,900 9,80C
c) Welding Equipnient 9,600 8,400 8,400 26,400
d) Training Centers 8,180 8,180
e) Animal Husbandry andAgronomy Trial Equipment 5,100 100 2,500 2,600 10,300
f) Evaluation 5,300 5,300
g) Forest Nursery Pumps 5,200 5,200 _ `
_____i __33 200 21,500 3 10 2,600 115,660
SENEGAI
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROJECT COST
Personnel Cost (Expatriate)(CFAF' 000)
Unit Salary 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78- 1978-79 1979-80and
Travel Expenses 1/ --------(UNIT) AND COST CFAF'000-------------------------(1975-1976)
Technical Director 17,000 17,000 (1) 17,000 (1) 17,000 (1) 17,000 (1)
Agronomist 12,500 12,500 (1) 12,500 (1) 12,500 (1) -
Other Specialist 2/ 9,920 39,680 (4) 39,680 (4) 29,760 (3) -
Farm Machinery Consultant 13,000 6,500 (i) 3,250 (i) 3,250 (i) -
Storage Specialist 6,000
TOTAL 81,680 72,430 62,510 17,000
1/ Travel expenses amount to CFAF1,218,500 for in-country travel, and SFAF 6h5,hhO for theannual leave.
2/ Animal husbandry, training, administration, planning.
CD
SRNEGAL Annex 12
Table 6SIN8E SALOM AGRICULTUBAL DEVELDPMEIT PROJECT
PROJEIT COST
Personnel boCts for Senegalese Staff
1/-Unit C-st --------
Salaries Allon...es Toti1 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 Total…………--------------------- - --- CFAF 000…-- - - - -
S. Civil Servants
Pro-eot Director 1,760 2,149 3,909 (1) 3,909 (1) 3,909 (1) 3,909 (1) 3,909 3,909 19,545
Regional Office Staff 1,760 2,031 3,791 - - - - - -
Senegalese Counterparts - - - (5) 18,955 (5) 18,955 (5) 18,955 (5) 18,955 (5) 18,955 94,775Agronnisnt _ - - (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 18,955Veterinarina - - - (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 (1) 3.791 (1) 3,791 18,955Acouantant _ _ - (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 (1) 3,791 18,955Senior Assistants 1,100 1,152 2,252 (11) 24,772 (12) 27,024 (11) 24,772 (11) 24,772 (11) 24,772 126,112
Distriot Staff 1,100 1,152 2,252 - - - - - -
District Chiefs and Deputies - - - (12) 27,024 (12) 27,024 (12) 27,024 (12) 27,024 (12) 27,024 135,120Ainal Eusbandry Officers - - (6) 13,512 (6) 13,512 (6) 13,512 (6) 13,512 (6) 13,512 67,560Trsining Officers - - - (7) 15,764 (7) 15,764 (7) 15,764 (7) 15,764 (7) 15,764 78,820Adninistrative Offi-ers - - - (6) 13,512 (6) 13,512 (6) 13,512 (6) 13,512 (6) 13,512 67,560Exteosion 8ervinea - - - (22) 49,544 (22) 49,544 (22) 49,544 (22) 49,544 (22) 49,544 247,720
Field Staff
Agricultural Entena1 on Agents 655 465 1,120 (40) 44,800 (60) 67,200 (78) 87,360 (78) 87,360 (78) 87,360 374,080Ani=al Rnsbandry Assistants 655 1,031 1,686 (26) 40,464 (33) 55,638 (40) 67,440 (40) 67,440 (40) 67,440 298,422
Costs
Financed by the Governrent 2/ - - - 128,160 148,255 163,530 163,530 163,530 767,005Finan-ed by SODEVA 3/ ---- 135,467 155,200 169,635 169,635 169,635 799,574
0,b-total - - - 263,629 303,455 333,165 333,165 333,165 1,566,579
II. Contracted Personnel
Regional Office Staff
Administrative Officar 2,040 1,929 3,969 - - (1) 3,969 (1) 3,969 (1) 3,969 11,907Proonresset Officer 2,040 1,929 3,969 (1) 3,969 (2) 7,938 (1) 3,969 (1) 3,969 (1) 3,969 23,814Credit Officer 2,040 1,929 3,969 (1) 3,969 (1) 3,969 (1) 3,969 (1) 3,969 (1) 3,969 19,845Accoantants and Adninistrative Staff 843 289 1,132 (4) 4,528 (4) 4,528 (4) 4,528 (4) 4,528 (4) 4,528 22,640Accountants and Adrinistrative Staff 702 258 960 (13) 12,480 (13) 12,480 (13) 12,480 (13) 12,480 (13) 12,480 62,400Prororeaeat Clark 402 162 564 (1) 564 (1) 564 (1) 564 (1) 564 (1) 564 2,820Drivera 350 236 586 (8) 4,688 (8) 4,688 (8) 4,688 (8) 4,688 (8) 4,688 23,440Clerks 316 135 451 (7) 3,157 (7) 3,157 (7) 3,157 (7) 3,157 (7) 3,157 15,785Statistical Assistant 420 247 667 (13) 8,671 (13) 8,671 (13) 8,671 (13) 8,671 (13) 8,671 43,355Social Assistant 1,100 1,152 2,252 (1) 2,252 (1) 2,252 (1) 2,252 (1) 2,252 (1) 2,252 11,260loiae Efonanios 302 170 472 (2) 944 (2) 944 (2) 944 (2) 944 (2) 944 4,720Store - abarers 307 102 409 (2) 818 (2) 818 (2) 818 (2) 818 (2) 818 4,090
Diotrict Staff
Secretary 702 258 960 (7) 6,720 (14) 13,440 (14) 13,440 (14) 13,440 (14) 13,440 60,480Storekeepers 402 162 564 (30) 16,920 (44) 24,816 (44) 24,816 (44) 24,916 (44) 24,816 116,184Statistical Assistant 420 247 667 (25) 16,675 (25) 16,675 (25) 16,675 (25) 16,675 (25) 16,675 83,375Drivers 350 236 586 (6) 3,516 (6) 3,516 (6) 3,516 (6) 3,516 (6) 3,516 17,580liessengers 316 135 451 (6) 2,706 (6) 2,706 (6) 2,706 (6) 2,706 (6) 2,706 13,530
Field Extension Workera 302 170 472 (369) 174.168 (439) 207,208 (500) 236,000 (500) 236.000 (500) 236,000 1,089,376
Sub-total 266.745 318,370
347,162 347.162 347,162 1,626.601
Total 530.374 621_825 680,327 680.327 680,327 3,193.180
1/ Details in Table 7.2/ Bosie salaries paid dirent fra,s Govermsent budget.3/ Allavances paid by SODEVA.
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROJECT COST
Personnel - Unit Cost Breakdown
-------------Allowances------------- ------------Social Costs------------ AnnualSalaries Bonus Total Transport Housing Air Travel Social Security Medical Expenses Total Cost
CFAF '000
I. Expatriates
Technical Director - 15,136 1,218 - 646 - - 17,000Agronomist - 10,636 1,218 - 646 - - 12,500
Other Specialists - 8,056 1,218 - 646 - - 9,920Farm Equipment Specialist - - 11,136 1,218 - 646 - - 13,000
Il. Civil Servants
Project Director 1,760 730 2,490 1,154 240 - - 25 3,909
Regional Office Staff 1,760 677 2,437 1,089 240 - - 25 3,791
District Staff 1,100 66 1,166 956 120 - - 10 2,252
Animal Husbandry Assistants 655 57 712 916 48 - - 10 1,686
Agricultural Extension Agents 655 57 712 350 48 - - 10 1,120
III. Contracted Staff
Administrative Officer 2,040 170 2,210 1,089 240 - 405 25 3,969
Accountants 843 85 928 30 - - 170 4 1,132
Typist - Secretary 702 81 783 30 - - 143 4 960 z D
Drivers 350 41 391 120 - - 71 4 586 O'D
Clerks 316 36 352 30 - - 65 4 451 e x
Statistical Assistant 420 48 468 110 - - 85 4 667 -'
Storekeeper 402 46 448 30 - - 82 4 564
Field Extension Workers 302 33 335 70 - - 63 4 472
Annex 12
Table 8
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROJECT COST
Operating Costs(CFAF'000)
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 Total
Dakar
Head Office 1/ 71,400 80,100 85,000 80,300 77,800 396,400
Sine Saloum
Rent 2/ 8,900 6,100 3,300 700 - 19,000Stationary 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 14,000Communications 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 6,000Administrative Cost 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000
17,900 15,100 12,300 9,700 9,000 64,000
MaintenanceBuildings 3/ - 3,300 4,290 4,290 4,290 16,170Vehicles 15,175 15,650 16,350 14,850 14,850 76,875Equipment 4 760 4,760 4,760 4,760 4,760 23,800
19';935 23,710 25,400 23,900 23,900 116,845
Planning, Evaluation and TrialsTrials:
-Operating Cost 6,200 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700 29,000Evaluation:
-Computer line 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 12,500-Stationary 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 7,000-Operating Cost 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 7,000
11,500 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 55,500
1/ 10% of project salaries and operating costs, from table 1.
2/ For expatriates and Kaolack offices in 1975-76 and 6 months in 1976-77.3/ 3% of investment.
ANNEX 12
SENEGAL Table 9
SINE SALOUlM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROJECT COST
Tree Nurseries, Livestock and Training(CFAF 000)
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 TOTAL
A. TREE NURSERIES
InfrastructureNursery Site Preparation 5,000 5,000 L0,000Fencing 1,000 1,000 2,000Stores 1,200 1.200 2,400
Subtotal 7,200 7,200 L4,400Equipment
Pumping Equipment 5,000 5,000 L0,000Tools 200 200 400
VehicleTrucks 3 .5 tons 2,511 2,511 5,022
Personnel 2,390 4,770 4,770 4,i,70 16,700
Operating CGst
Seeds, Bags, Fertilizers 250 500 500 500 1,750Transport cost __1,300 3.000 3,400 7, 700
250 1,800 3,500 3,900 9,450TOTAL L5,040 21,481 10,781 8,670 '5,972
B. LIVESTOCK
Demonstration (animal food) 4,799 9,419 4,799 9,419 4,799 23,235
Training Center 1,300 1,183 916 735 247 4,381
Drugs 325 800 1,499 - - _2,424Subtotal 6,424 11,402 7,214 10,154 5,046 40,240
TOTAL 6,424 11,402 7,214 10,154 5,046 40240
C. TRAINING
InfrastructureNew District Centers (3) 1,560 1,560Existing District Center (4) 600 600Regional Center (1) 220 220
Subtotal 2,380 2,380
Equipment and FarnitureNew Centers 4,800 1,800Existing Centers 2,720 2,720Regional Centar 660 660
Subtotal 8,180 3,180
Salaries and AllowancesExtension staff 12,770 7,421 7,891 5,826 5,826 39,734Farmers 16,304 17,525 19,218 19,609 17,904 9(0,560Labor 4.322 44 4322 4.322 -
Subtoaal 33,396 29,268 31,431 29,757 28,052 15 ,904
Operating CostsMaintenance District Centers 3,605 3,605 3,605 3,605 3,605 18,025Maintenance Regional 315 315 315 315 315 1,575Audio Visual,Aid 800 800 800 800 800 4,000
Subtotal 4,720 4,720 4,720 4,720 4,720 23,600
TOTAL 48,676 33,983 36,151 34,471 3g,772 186,064
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROJECT COST
Incremental Seasonal Inputs and Farm Implements
Unit
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-89 1979-80 Total Cost 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 Total
------------------------- (Tons)---- ----------------------------- CFAF ---------------------------- CFAF '000------------------------------
I. Rock Phosphate 2,120 2,960 3,780 4,600 5,400 18,860 26.076 34.040 41 202 49.220 56.700 207.238
II. Fertilizers
8-18-27 200 342 576 850 1,170 3,138 43,000 8,420 13,954 24,422 34,000 46,683 127,479
10-21-21 25 49 89 144 214 521 44,000 1,072 2,038 3,640 5,846 8,646 21.242
urea 425 734 1,242 1.845 2.554 6.800 57,700 24,098 27.672 46.202 68.080 93.476 259.528
Sub-total 650 1,125 1,907 2,839 3,938 10,459 33,590 43,664 74,264 107,926 148,805 408,249
Incremental Requirement 650 475 782 932 1,099 33,590 10.074 30,600 33,662 40.879 148,805
III. Farm Implements (UthIts)
Hoes 1,200 1,480 1,600 1,435 1,435 7,150 11,800 14,160 17,464 18,880 16,933 16,933 84,370
Plow plus implement frame 300 370 400 410 410 1,890 40,600 12,180 15,022 16,240 16,646 16,646 76,734
Plow - - - 205 205 410 174,500 - - - 35,773 35,772 71,545
Carts 300 370 400 410 410 1,890 26,000 7,800 9,620 10,400 10,660 10,660 49,140
Silos 100 200 300 400 500 1,500 45,000 4,500 9,000 13,500 18,000 22,500 67,500
Maize cribs 900 800 1,340 1,640 2,820 7,500 20,000 18,000 16.000 26.800 32,800 56,400 150.000
Sub-total 56,640 67,106 85,820 130,812 158,911 499,289
Incremental Requirement 96-640 10 466 1R 714 44 q97 27 n9O SR 911
IV. Seeds (Tons)
Maize 37 46 77 113 156 429 75,000 2,775 3,450 5,775 8,475 11,700 32,175
Sorghum 9 15 25 37 50 136 60,000 540 900 1,500 2,220 3,000 8,160
Millet 1 2 4 6 10 23 70,000 70 140 280 420 700 1.610
Sub-total 3,385 4,490 7,555 11,115 15,400 41,945
Incremental Requirement 3,385 1.105 3.065 3.560 4,285 15.400
V. Insecticide (Kg)
DDT 8,000 14,000 24,000 36,000 51,000 133,000 200 1,600 2,800 4,800 7,200 10,200 26,600
Fungicide 707 1,240 2,277 3,178 4,438 11,840 550 388 682 1.252 1,747 2 441 6.510
Sub-total 1,988 3,482 6,052 8,947 12,641 33,110
Incremnetal Requirement 1.988 1,494 2.570 2.895 3.694 12,641 -
Annex 13SENEGAL Table 1
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 Total-------- -----------------------------(CFAF million)----------------------------------------------A. IBRD/IDA
(a) Commitments
Fixed Assets 136.7 43.0 22.6 16.5 1.7 _ 220.5Personnel Costs 310.4 346.5 369.3 341.0 329.8 - 1,697.0Operating cost 84.0 93.1 93.5 91.0 85.8 - 447.4Consultants 5.0 21.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 - 36.0Contingencies 62.5 109.9 154.8 193.1 228.8 - 749.1
Total 598.6 614.0 643.7 644.6 649.1 - 3,150.0
(b) Disbursement
Annual 299.3 606.3 628.8 644.2 646.8 324.6 3,150.0Cumulative 299.3 905.6 1,534.4 2,178.6 2,825.4 3,150.0 -B. CCCE
(a) Commitments
Fixed Assets 91.2 28.6 15.1 10.9 1.2 - 147.0Personnel Cost 206.9 231.1 246.2 227.3 219.8 - 1,131.3Operating Cost 56.0 62.1 62.3 60.7 57.2 - 298.3Contingencies 35.4 60.7 87.9 109.6 129.8 - 423.4
Total 389.5 382.5 411.5 408.5 408.0 2,000.0(b) Disbursement
Annual 194.7 386.0 397.0 410.0 408.3 204.0 2,000.0Cumulative 194.7 580.7 977.7 1,387.7 1,796.0 2,000.0
Annex 13Table 2
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE
Semi-annual Disbursements of the IDA Credit and the Bank Loan
Bank FI Period EndinR Disbursement Cumulative
-~~~US$-
IDA Bank IDA Bank
76 June 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 -
77 Dec. 1,350,000 - 2,650,000 -
iune 1,350,000 - 4,000,000 -
78 Dec. 1,400,000 - 5,400,000 -
June 1,400,000 - 6,800,000 -
79 Dec. 200,000 1,250,000 7,000,000 1,250,000
June - 1,450,000 7,000,000 2,700,000
80 Dec. 1,450,000 7,000,000 4,150,000
June - 1,450,000 7,000,000 5,600,000
81 Dec. 1,400,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
SENEGAL
S=B SALCOUN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMPNIT PROrECT
CROP PRODUCTION
Zone 1 (South)_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pY.
Py 1 PY2 ?13 PY5 6-101975:76 1976-77 1977-78 197B79 1979-hO 19570T5
Number of farm.ers supervised l8-50o 21,600 2h,000 26,000
AREAS - ha
Total semi-intensified (SI) 1/ 60,600 71,L90 81,495 86,4185 89v9F5intensified (I) 2/ 5j310 9120 15,360 22,600 31,20',
Groundriuts SI 40,h00 47,660 54,330 57,660 59,990Groundnuts I 2,210 3,800 6,4oo 9,450 13,000Millet SI 20,200 23,5830 27,165 28,82$ 29,995Sorghum I 1,330 2,280 3,840 5,670 7,800IMIaize I 1,330 2,280 3,840 5,670 7,800Cotton I 440 760 1,280 1,890 2,600
PRODUCTIX (tons)Incremental Production---
Groundnuts SI 2,178 85219 9,944 12,083 13,724Groundnuts I 954 2,735 4,724 7,335 10,379Millet SI 930 3.,426 4,396 5,100 5,695Sorghun I 798 2,278 3,976 6,îh2 8,846Maize I 1,672 4,336 7,682 11,784 16,776Cotton I 108 288 538 5h9 1,247
1/ Land prepared by hoeing with oxen on which ail basic recommendations of PA that are described inAnnex 3 are followed.
2/ Ox-plowed land fron which stunpps and roots have been removed that has received 400 kg/ha of rockphosphate, and for which cereals receive the comprehensive fertilizers described in Annex 3.
3/ Incremental production as result of previous yearts extension work,°ase(o on yields under average rainfall; econo idc and financ~ < c cluations include or<V LQr1 for
dronivih+ reducing -rieid increment- by 60y everr four yrears.
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICUTUJRAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CROP PRODUCTION
Zone 2 (North)Ff
Py 1 PY 2 PY 3 PY 4 PY 5 6-101975-76 1976:77 1977-78 197-79 1979-0 190-85
N.umber of farmers supervised 2,750 3,250 4,000 5,390 6,300
AREAS - ha
Total semi-intensified (SI) 1/ 7,095 ioe485 135800 16,980 18,990" intensified (I) 2/ 1,000 1,9401 2,540 4h 8,540
Groundnuts SI 4,730 6,990 9,260 11,320 12,660"r I 500 970 1,770 2,870 4,270
Millet SI 2,365 3,495 4,630 5,660 6,330"l I 250 485 885 1,435 2,135
Sorghum I 250 485 885 1,435 2,135
31PRODUCTICN (tons) - Incremental Procdctiof
Groundnuts SI 998 1,832 2,996 3,778 4,531ni I 258 686 13305 2,112 3,124
Millet SI 160 236 509 799 1,015Il I 95 263 526 760 1,295
Sorghum I 167 454 873 1,425 2,147
1/ Land prepared by hoeing with oxen on which all basic recomendations of PA that are described in F Annex 3 are followed. (D X
2/ Ox-plowed land frcm which stwmps and roots have been remaoved, that has received 400 kg/ha of PO
rock,phosphate and for which cereals receive the comprehensive fertilizers described in Annex 3.3/ Incremental production as result of previous yearls extension work,
based on y-elds under avnrage rainfal1; econoiec and financial calculations include provision for adrought reducing yield increments by 60» every four years.
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICUITURAL IEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CIROP PRODUCTION
Total Production and Average Yields
pSPY 1 PY 2 PY 3 PY 4 PY 5 6-io
19 75W76 1976-77 1977:78 19757w9 197750 1____9_
PRODUCTION (tons)
Millet 19,000 24,226 30,875 30,899 38.,080 41,220Cotton 352 716 1,312 2,,050 2,929 4.,003Groundnuts 421010 56e27L 75,850 89,301 102,850 116,862Maize 2,660 4,694 8,128 12,938 18,7L44 25,800Sorg1n 1,372 3,357 6,808 10,957 16,082 22,428
YIELDS ton/ha
Millet 0.83 0.87 0.94 0.97 0.99 1,01Cotton 0.80 0.94 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.16Groundnuts o088 0.95 1.06 1.10 l.1L 1.18Maize 2.00 2.06 2.12 2.28 2.40 2.49Sorghum 0.87 1.21 1.44 1654' 1.62 1.68
ANNEX 15Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MARKETS AND PRICES
Livestock
1. Current Market Situation - Meat consumption in 1973 totaled about76,000 tons comprising 41,000 tons of beef from doimestic cattle, 11,000 tonsof beef f rom cattle imported from Mauritania, 14,000 tons of meat from sheepand goats, and 10,000 tons of pork. Per capita consumption of meat was about20 kg of which beef accounted for 13 kg. Following the recent droughts beefprices have risen sharply, and the national herd has been reduced by deathsand an increased offtake. Liveweight cattle prices in Dakar that were CFAF100-130/kg in 1970 are now CFAF 130-170/kg, and the total number of cattleslaughtered rose from about 142,000 in 1970 to 180,000 in 1973. Between1972 and 1973, the average carcass weight of animals slaughtered in Dakardeclined from about 160 kg to 120 kg and thus, despite increased slaughter,meat supplies have remained relatively stable. These developments illus-trate the short-term impact of the drought on the meat supply situation andthe longer term need to rebuild the national herd for future supplies ofbeef. In addition, recent beef price increases have led to substitutionof fish for meat; it is estimated that coastal people now eat 80-90 kg offish annually, and the fish consumption in Dakar alone has risen from48,000 tons in 1970 to 62,000 tons in 1973.
2. Future Trend for Beef - The main factors that will determine futuredemand for beef will be population growth and the relative price of beefamong other sources of protein. Assuming that the present relatively highprices for beef are maintained while the national herd is restocked, demandfor beef will probably grow in line with annual population growth of 2.2%.Consequently, an additional 6,000 tons of beef will be required by 1980to maintain consumption at present levels.
3. The immediate constraints on the market will be restrictions ondomestic supplies and imports. Mauritania, which has consistently suppliedabout 20% of Senegal's beef requirements, has been severely hit by the recentdroughts; and given the general shortage of livestock in West Africa, it isunlikely that beef supplies will rise above the present level for the fore-seeable future, and if anything may decline. Medium-term prospects forincreasing domestic production rest largely on Government's plans for thehigher potential grazing areas of Eastern Senegal and Casamance and on in-creasing output from the predominantly arable areas of the country throughmixed farming as proposed for the project described in this report. Thecombined incremental production from these two activities is expected toreach about 4,000 tons between 1980 and 1985, and this production could beabsorbed easily on the domes tic market even if prices remain at their pre-sent levels.
ANNEX 15Page 2
4. Erices - In view of the supply restrictions, it is assumed forproject appraisal purposes that liveweight prices on the Dakar and Kaolackmarkets will average about CFAF 145/kg. After taking account of marketingcosts, the farmgate price for beef cattle in Sine Saloum will average CFAF100/kg liveweight. Two-year-old cattle suitable either for training asoxen or for fattening are expected to maintain their current market valueof CFAF 12,000, and milk prices are expected to be maintained at about CFAF25/liter, the present market price.
5. Marketing - The livestock trade is controlled by private whole-sale dealers who purchase through middlemen. Transactions are frequent andcostly. In an effort to increase the bargaining power of producers and re-duce intermiediaries, the project would establish selling points in each ofthe six project districts, with weighing scales controlled by project staff.Farmers would be encouraged to bring their animals to these points, wherethey would be able to sell direct to wholesale dealers and thus bypass thesmall bush traders.
Cereals
6. Cereal marketing in Senegal is more concerned with distributing im-ports than with trade in local production. In normal years, over one thirdof Senegal's cereal requirements are imported, averaging some 315,000 tonsper year. In 1972, the height of the drought, 400,000 tons were imported.On average, imports include about 190,000 tons of rice, 100,000 tons ofwheat, and 25,000 tons of maize.
7. Millet and sorghum comprise the most important domestic cereals,with combined production of just under 500,000 tons per year. Most is pro-duced for subsistence consumption; only 30,000 tons were purchased by ONCADin 1973/74. Maize production is about 30,000 tons per year, of which some12,000 tons were purchased by ONCAD in 1973/74. ONCAD's producer price formillet and sorghum, which had been considered too low to encourage produc-tion of a marketable surplus, was recently raised from CFAF 25/kg to CFAF30/kg, while that of maize was set at CFAF 35/kg. With world market pricesfor these commodities doubling between 1972 and 1974, the new producerprices are about CFAF 5/kg below their economic value based on import sub-stitution, and about equal in 1974 terms to the corresponding prices projectedfor 1980 (Tables 1 and 2). There is a possibility for some substitution ofmillet for wheat in bread (up to 25% of the flour). The main prospect, how-ever, lies in its substitution for urban consumption of rice, two thirds ofwhich must be imported. There is a strong preference for rice in Senegalbecause of taste and because it is easy to prepare, in contrast to millet.In addition consumption of imports by the urban population has been en-couraged by recent consumer price subsidies. Prior to 1972, the wholesalecost of imported rice was about CFAF 29/kg while that of domestic rice wasCFAF 39.51kg. To encourage local production, domestic rice was subsidizedfrom taxes on imported rice and both were sold at a wholesale price ofCFAF 37/kg, which was about half the price of processed millet couscous.
ANNEX 15Page 3
However, the world market price of rice tripled between 1972 and 1974 and,although some decline is expected, it should remain considerably higherthan the 1972 level for the rest of the decade. With this increase, the whole-sale price of rice was raised to CFAF 58/kg, which meant the previous tax onimported rice was replaced by a subsidy equivalent to about half the wholesalecost. At these prices, rice was cheaper than processed millet couscous, andthere was no incentive to substitute the domestic produce for the importedgrain. Recognizing the severe strain imposed on its finances and the adverseconditions it imposed for the domestic market, Government withdrew the subsidyin November, 1974, and announced that prices would follow the world market infuture. This decision should bring the multiple benefits of (i) reducingimports and the burden on the Government budget, (îi) enabling domestic riceproduction to become more attractive, and (iii) allowing millet to become morecompetitive for a share of the urban cereal market.
Export Crops
8. Groundnut marketing is a Government monopoly. The marketing agency,ONCAD, buys groundnuts from the cooperatives at a fixed price, provides hand-ling and transport services, and sells the groundnuts to oil millers at aprice based on the world market price. The total marketed production, rang-ing from 500,000 to 1 million tons per year, is processed locally; and vir-tually all of the groundnut cake and about 80% of the oil is exported. Oilis sold on the domestic market at a subsidized price of CFAF 200, comparedto a total wholesale cost of about CFAF 300.
9. The price of shelled groundnuts, which fluctuated around US$190/tonthrough the 1960's, reached US$610/ton in April-May of 1974. As a result ofthe world price trend, ONCAD's selling price to oil millers increased fromCFAF 34/kg in 1971/72 to CFAF 80/kg in 1973/74. Only a fraction of the recentincreases was at first passed to farmers, as the producer prices for unshelledgroundnuts were increased from CFAF 23.1/kg in 1971/72 to only CFAF 29.5/kgin 1973/74. But Government has now raised the price for the 1974 crop to CFAF41.5/kg. The world market price for groundnuts in constant terms is expectedto decline through 1980 to the extent that, if the producer price is maintainedat CFAF 41.5/kg in 1974 terms, no transfers would be made to the price stabil-ization fund, but to the contrary, this fund may be required to support thefarmgate price. To maintain positive and adequate balances--for pricestabilization and revenues for Government sufficient to cover the costs onbehalf of groundnut farmers--the producer price may have to be lowered toabout CFAF 27/kg in 1974 terms (Table 3). This price has been used in allfinancial analysis in this report. 1
10. Cotton marketing and ginning is the exclusive monopoly of SODEFITEX.About 55% of the cotton fiber is exported, with the rest sold to localtextile factories; this proportion is likely to change as production in-creases faster than local demand. All seed not required for planting issold to oil mills, and most of the oil is exported.
ANNEX 15Page 4
11. World market prices for medium staple cotton have almost doubledin the last two years, rising from about US$0.38/lb in 1972 to US$0.70/lbin 1974. The proportion of the proceeds of sales transfered to the stabili-zation fund increased from about 25% of the selling price in 1972/73 to 60%for the 1973/74 campaign. Coupled with a 40% increase in production,stabilization fund revenues increased from CFAF 300 million to about CFAF 2billion over the same period. Governnent has increased the net producerprice for seed cotton by 55%, from CFAF 30/kg in 1973/74 to CFAF 46.5/kgfor the 1974 crop, and with the expected decline in world market prices thestabilization fund revenues will fall substantially. But even so, it shouldbe possible to retain a farmgate price of CFAF 46.5/kg in 1974 terms, andleave adequate revenues for Government (Table 4). Therefore, this,pricehas been used for the projects financial calculations.
Annex 15Tab'e 1
S3NEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJ3CT
I1ARIETS AND PRICES
Price and Marketing Structure for Maize
(in 1974 terms)
1975 1930 1975 1980
US$ CEAF
(1) Average World Market Price 1/
M4aize per ton (FOB Gulf IM'exico) 125 93 30,000 22,320
(2) Per Netric Ton of' Maize in Senegal
Freight, Insurance and Port Charges - 10,450 10,450CIF Senegal value of one ton of naize 4o,450 32,770
(3) Transportation within Senegal 2,400 2,400
(4) Econcmic Farmgate Value 2/ 38,o50 30,370'
1/ Corrverted at the exchange rate of US$1 - CFAF 240 , which prevailed at the- time price projections were made.2/ The official price to the farmer set by Governnent is CEAF 30,000/ton.
hnnex 15Table 2
SEIEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL JEVELOPNENT PROJECT
ll&RKETS AMD PRICES
Priice and MIarke:ing Structure for Millet and Sorg'num(in 1974 terms)
1975 1980 1975 1980
US$ CFAF
(1) Average ,Nlorld IMarket 1/
IUllet/Sorghum per ton (FCOB Gulf Maxicu) 115 82 27,600 19,680
(2) Per Metric Ton of i4illet/Sorghnin in Senegal
Freight, Insurance and Port Charges 10,450 10,450CIF Senegal value of one ton MEllet/Sorghum 38,050 30,130
(3) Transportation within Sene,gal 2,400 2,400
(4) Econoeiic FarmZate Value 2/ 35,650 27e730'
l/ Con-rerted at the exchange rate of US$1 = CFAF 240, which prevailed at thetime price projections were made.
2/ Official price to the farmers set by Governnent is CFAF 30,000/ton.
ANNE_X 15Table 3
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MARKETS AND PRICES
Price and Marketing Structure for Groundnuts
(in 1974 terms)
1975 1980 1975 1980
US$ CFA?
(1) Average World Market Price 1/
- Groundnuts per ton (CIF Europe) 346 267 83,040 64,o80
(2) Per Metric Tons of Groundnuts in Senegal
- Equivalent unshelled basis (70 percent) 58,128 44,856- Freight Insurance 8 670 8,670- Export Price FOB Dakar unshelled 5 36,186
(3) ONCAD expenses (transportation & handling) 2/ 4 300 h4,300
(4) Eccnomic Farmgate value 45,l58 3l,886
- To the Stabilization Fund 8,108 4,886- To the Farmer 3/ 37,050 27,000
1/ Converted at the exchange rate of US$ = CFAF 240, which prevailed at thetime price projections were made.
2/ Incremental cost of which: - transport cost ..... CFAF 3,000/ton- storage ............ OFAF 500/ton- fixed cost ......... CFAlF 800/ton
3/ Official price was CFAF 4l.5/kg for the 1974 crop and is expected to bemaintained in current terms through 1979.
ANNEX 15Table 4
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPIMENT PROJECT
MARKETS AND PRICES
Price and Marketing Structure for Cotton
(in 1974 terms)
1975 1980 1975 1980
TJs$ CFAF(1) Average World Market Price -/
- Lint per ton (CIF Liverpool) 1,323 1,146 317,520 275,04(- Cotton seed per ton (CIF Europe) 134 140 32,160 33,600
(2) Per Metric Ton of Seed Cotton in Senegal
- 36.8 percent of the CIF Liverpoolvalue of one ton of lint 116,847 101,215
- 60 percent of the CIF Europe valueof one ton of cotton seed 19,296 20,160
136.,143 121,375- Marketing, Freight and Insurance
(Lint and oil) 12,121 12,121- FOB Senegal value of one ton seed cotton 124h022 109,254
2/ 3/(3) Ginning, Transportation and Productio. Costs 38,601 38,601
(4) Econonic Farmgate value 85,421 70,653
- To the Stabilization Fund 39,421 .3- To the Farmer 46 ,5oo h6;5O6
1/ Converted at the exchange rate of US$1 = CFAF 240, which prevailed at thetime price projections were made.
2/ Ginning costs =CFAF 11,200/ton of seed cotton
3/ Farm inputs, about CFhF 16.225 per ton of cotton -re Dai dby SODEFITEX and the farmer receives the net producer price ofGFAF 46,5090/ton of cotton.
OINt SA2.OUM AGOICIJLTUIRAL PROIECT
P.AR0 BUDGET
Pari Plan - Moici No I 20 ha - Oaa i
Year Tsa OBefa.e traient Year i Year 2 Yu- 3 TYc 4 YrSTaac A en ea
Parie Oevtp-. PA 2_ 2 2 22
Total Laad 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Pattas, ~~~~~~~~~~6' ~~~3 3 3 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0
NON INTENSIIFID ~ ' T-'
Millet 5 a .85 z4.25 3 a .85 2.55 3 a .85 o 2.55 3 n.085 a 2.55 3 a .85 2.55 3 a .85 2.55 3 a .05z 2.55 3 a .85 2.55 3 t .5 -2.55%
Gr-adcut 10 e .9 9.0 8.5 n .9 *5.05 0.29 a .9 a 5.83 0.0 c .9 a 5.40 0.0 a .9z 5.40 8.0 a .9 c5.40 0.0 a .9- 5.40 6.0 n .89 5.40 6.0 z.9 z.4
SEMI-INlTENSIFIED-
Millet 2.5 a 1
.0 2.5 2.5 o 1.1 *2.75 2.5 01.1 a2.25 2. 5 n 1.1 2.75 2.0 01.1: 2.2 1.8 n 1.1 :1.98 1.6 a 1.2 1.92 1.4 1.2 a18.6a
Oreodndatu 5.0 a 1.2 :6.0 5.25 n 1.2 6 .30 5.5 c1.3 z7.15 4.4 a 1.3 5.72 4.0 a 1.3 :5.20 3.6 n 1.3: 4.68 3.2 a 1.3 :4.16 2.8 1 LA 3.92
INTENOIPIED
Millet - -- -- --
Oe-udnta 0.7 a 1.5 :1.05 1.15 a 1.5 z1.73 1.6 a 1.6: 2.56 2.2 n 1.6 a3.52 2.3 z1.7 e3.91
S.rghuin 0.5 a 1.6 0.80 0.75 a 1.7 1.28 1.0 n 1.8 1.80 1.2 n 2.0c 2.40 1.4 t 2.2o 3.08
ceins 0.5 a 2.0 :1.0 0.75 n 2.4 e1.00 1.0 e 2.8 2.80 1.2 n 3.0 z3.60 1.4 z 3.0 a .20
Catten 0.2x.1.0: 0.20 0.35 n 1.1 0.39 0.5 n 1.2: 0.60 0.6 a 1.3 z0.78 0.7 a l~4 -0-90
Total Production (lace)
Millet 4.25 5.05 5.30 5.30 5.30 4.75 4.53 4.47 4.23
Groaduvts 9.0 11.85 11.93 12.55 12.17 12,33 12.64 13.08 13.23
Maise 1.00 1.80 2.80 3.60 4.20
S-rghco 0.80 1.28 1.80 2.40 3.00
ctatio 0.20 0.39 0.60 0.78 0.98
V/ PA tercet that folos PAn~ ninica package. Otage 1: faraera uha have aqair.d apair cf anen -nd wbar inpcovig their eanogaoan tachctquea oader FA. Stage 2: farc-r mh are fall1wing the.o package
ne part ai th.ir tond (stunp renava, application ai conk phosphate. plavicg, noce ccnpr-hne.ivc ertlzt
2/ tod le hectares n yiedlis lulan/ha squale prodoction in tan.-
A = area; T = yisld; P = productionF/iPlda cf:ia) tercets r uho ia11o FA and-i ara .ecaccgnd ta f.11cm it cac c1sely lapoorto for tlop 1;(h) forcer ha hav ra..chel stop I or step 2 but still fnllaa PA an part cf their tend.
F/ielis af forcer (a) ah. have nova ta oetp I by hetternaaema pcacticeu nu rcccrasced ceint FA a.d hav acquitsd c pair ai u.e.. .ued for.. sdiing d hceiag;(h) vba hov ca-d ta step 2 but spply theno
package au aaa..ther part of their 1e..dP/Fatice cf the.lnd uh.ra lar-rra uho have cacahai atnp 2 apply the practices ci the uta pockage.
Y/ icli.. ccpcted fran table ta A.can 3.
SLNE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PPO_ECT
FARM BIJDGET 0/
Coa- Flon - n4oMde t - 20 ha - Zone
Cear OBefote Nabolet Seat 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Yean 5 Yenr 6 Year 7 Yea- 8
CFAFUnit Peice
A. VaiLe cf Prfdantian CFAE /kg
Millet 28 119,000 141,400 148,400 148,400 148,400 133,000 126,840 125,160 118,440GC.andnais 27 243,000 319,950 322,110 338,850 328,590 332,910 341,280 353,160 357,210Mdcc 30 - - - - 30,000 54,000 84,000 108,000 126,000Sarghum 2R - - - - 22,400 35,840 50,400 67,200 86,240Cotta, 46.5 - - - - 9,300 18,135 27,900 36,270 45,5702.Rnneiack 12,000 12,000 12,000 60.000 12,000 60,000 12,000
TOTAL 374,000 473,350 470,510 499,250 598,690 573,885 642,420 749,790 745,460
Net oE Drooght Effect 317,900 402,348 399,934 424,363 508,887 487,802 546,057 637,322 633,641UCit Cnet
B. Poad-tonia Caste 3/ Raie CFAF/kg
Seed. - Millet 4kgp/h 28 560 616 616 616 582 560 538 516 492Groandn-ts 100 kg/h. 33.75 33,750 38,813 38,813 38,813 37,463 37,632 37,800 38,475 37,463Maiaa 20 kg/ha 30 - - - - 300 450 600 720 840Saihoa 7 kg/ht 28 - - - - 98 147 196 235 274
Peeticodes eaed tretment 200 gm/100 kg nand 0.385 - - - - 1,078 1,083 1,089 1,108 1,081Maire teed teeatment 300 gm/100 kg need 0.18 - - - - 12 17 23 28 32Maite DDT 250 ga/100 kg neap 0.135 - - - - 338 608 945 1,215 1,418Fertili.er
Millet h- latintfied 14.7.7 40 kg/h,a 24 4,800 2,880 2,800 2,800 2,8B0 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,880Millet - Seni intenaified 14.7.7 150 kg/ha 24 - 9,000 9,000 9,000 7,920 7,200 6,480 5,760 5,040Millet aorghum - 1ntensifieù 00.21.21 130 kg/hn 24 - _ - - 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,320 5,040Groundnats - Non intennified 6.18.27 40 kg/ha 24 9,600 6,240 6,000 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760 5,760CIe..daaie - Seni & 8tensif. 0.18.27 100 kg/h. 24 _ 12,000 12,600 13,200 12 240 12,360 12,400 19,340 12,240Meite - Tat-naifitd 8.16.27 300 kg/ha 24 - - - - 3,600 5,400 7,200 86640 10,080Maiee - annaeI ified 7raa 200 kg/ha 24 -- - 2,400 3,600 4,800 5,760 6,720Sargham - Intensified UCea 100 kg/ha 24 _ _ - _ 1,200 1,000 2,400 2,880 3,360
HRnd taals 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,00 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000Maintenance an nnptaoeeeatcf farm eqopeLmen 4/ 6,740 8,750 11,570 11,570 16,240 16,240 16,240 16.240 17,600
Liveetaek - 33.000 3.000 3.300 33.000 3.000 36 000 36 056 6,000
TOTAL 57,450 113,299 86,479 86,839 128,911 103,437 141,031 147.897 118,320
C. Net Saita ofPduction Befone Fenilo Cansumptino + Ste 260,450 289,049 313,453 337,524 379,976 384,365 405,026 489,425 515,321
D. Patitîn Canneemttan +T=ent
Millet 210 kg/pocern 70,560 70,560 70,560 70,560 70,560 70,560 70,560 70,560 70,560Gon..dnuts 15 kg/pereon 6,300 6,3 0 0 6,9 6.300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300Tanes 590 CFAFtactive 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.509 3.000 3,500 3.500 3.50
TOTAL 80,360 80,360 80,360 80,360 80,360 80,360 80,360 80,360 80,360
E. Net Cash tentme Befal e Debt Servioc 180,090 208,689 233,095 257,164 299,616 304,005 324,666 409,065 434,961
F. Debt eO-vice5/
On-Cant - - 13,000 7,800 7,800Flaw attakheI ant too hnl b- - - - - 21,820 l03700 13,700Unoe attachmnent anA tnan ban - - - _ _ _ _ 6.060
TOTAL - - 13,000 7,B0O 29,620 13,700 13,700 6,060 -
C. Net Cash lncome Aftle Debt Servics 180,090 208,689 220,095 249,364 269,996 290,305 310,966 403,005 434,961
tl. Sotenennat Net Cash Incone (a) Feetilie.e taot (a CFAF 24/kg 4' - 28,599 40,005 69,274 89,906 110,215 130,876 222,915 254,871(b) feltili,ee nost @ 0740 12/kg 6U/ - 36,459 48,045 77,494 101,606 123,065 144,476 241,395 273,231(o) Oentilien cost @ CFAP 36/kg 6/ - 20,739 31,965 61,054 78,206 96,565 115,276 204,435 236,511
1/ 2hie faon nagal tn ah' soonhyee Oint taload han 12 pe,on, (cqtnotcn to 2 vorklng adolta), 7 ratte, In boet, 3 anedeen, 3 haes nd ooc horen tant.3/ A daroght eveey fooelh; Ttar 4, simual:td -y tpcetaetb the -1-no of nodutno hy 15 porcent anoatty.3/ Coeeoon0 notnctnlded becauae peodonnien nosts anc huit ita Onen gate peine.4/ 104 cf p _eotastnast.5/ Ineludea 20'h da= payment.6/ Tht fate gate peina of CFAF12/kg -epre,entt the turaen peine; CFAF 24 a-odnts tn 2/3 of tht nepected 001 coct, end CFAY 36 tn tht fuli lost.
ONNECAL
lIME SATOUM AGRIoeflTURAL DEVE10L001EN PROflct
FASSM BUDGEIT
Fara Plan - Modal No. 2 -13 ha - Zon 1.
Pa- D lop e- oetPrIlen Tao 1 Year 2 Y-a 3 Test 4 Test 5 Y.ar 6 Tsar 7 Test 8
Otace - ~~PA 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
TOTAL LAND ha 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
FALIDW ha 2 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4
2! A Y P A y P A T P A T P A T P A T P A y P A Y- y P A y P
NN0-nflTSI8IPIED 3
Millet 4 K 0.85 . 3.40 2 K 5.83= 1.70 2 K 0.85 = 1.70 2 K 0.85 = 1.70 1.6 K 0.83 = 1.38 1.6 K 0.85 = 1.36 1.6 K 0.85 = 1.36 1.6 K 0.85 - 1.36 1.8 K 0.85 -1.36
Groondnots 7 K 0.9 - 6.30 4 K 0.9 - 3.60 3.75X 0.9 - 3.38 3.5K 0.9 - 3.15 3.2 K 0.9 = 2.88 3.2 K 0.9 = 2.88 3.2 K 0.9 - 2.88 3.2 K 0.9 = 2.88 3.2 K 0.9- 2.88
Sn4I-I8TUSIEKD
Millet 21 Xt.0 ~2.0 2KX1.1 = 2.2 2KX1.1 = 2.2 1.8KX1.1 = 1.98 1.6KX1.1 - 1.76 1.4KX1.1 = 1.54 1.15XK1.2 = 1.38 0.9KX1.2 -1.08
Groundauts 4KX 1.2 = 4.8 4.25 K 1.2 = 5.1 4.5K 1.3 = 3.83 2.6 K 1.3- 4.68 3.2 K 1.3-= 4.16 2.8 K 1.3 = 3.64 2.33K 1.3 = 3.06 1.9 K 1.4= 2.66
INITENSIFPKO 1
mai» --- --- --- --- 0.45X 2.0= 0.9 0.7 K 2.4 - 1.68 0.8 K 2.8 = 2.24 1.0 K 3.0 - 3.0 1.25K 3.0- 3.75
S-tghcn --- --- 945Y 3,6 = 0 77 0.6 K 3.7 = 1.02 0.8 K 1.8 = 1.44 1.1KX 2.0 = 2.2 1.25K 2.2= 2.75
Crood.ote - --- --- --- 0.75K 1.5 = 1.13 1.0 K 1.5 = 1.5 1.55 K 1.6 - 2.16 1.65 K 1.6 - 2.64 2.0 K 1.7- 3.4
Cottn --- --- --. -- 045K 1.0 - 0.15 0.2KX 1.1 = 0.22 0.25 K 1.2 - 0.3 0.35 K 1.3 = 0.46 0.5 K 1.4- 0.7
TOTAL PPODICTI1O5 <Tons)
Millet 3.40 3.70 3.90 3.90 3.30 3.10 2.90 2.70 2.40
Oround.ots 8.30 8.40 8.50 9.00 8.70 8.30 8.70 8860 8.90
Malte - - - - 0.90 1.70 2.20 3.00 3.80
Serghoa-- 0.70 1.00 1.40 2.20 2.80
Cotton.- 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.70
1/ Pt11 Esraers that Pel1on PA'. niniso package. Stop 1: Farner he hav pnurd a pir ci oxen and Ite ara lopreving
their -aaganet tachniquaa ndar PA. Stn ! Ferners te. ara fell1cteg tha.e package orn port cf thair 1end
(steap r-noal, applicatîna cf teck phosphata. plening, -t necprehanslva atlnto)
2/Land in hectares K yield le tons/ha = prodortion Pc tons.A = Ares; T = Yield; P = Prod.ctien
3/Fields ni (a) Pansas sahi ollon PA end are encooragad to fellon it enta clo...ly le preparatien fer.tp (b) Par,sera oho hava raac.hsd step I or stop 2bot atill Pollew PA on part nE thair Tond.
4/Fialde cf fanera (a) teo hava cevad te stP t ky bercer cangosiet prectîces se raeaad d-ete PA ond and hava
acquirad s pair of esen..oad Pot seeding an heatng (b) he have noved te stop 3 bot opply tha nas package .
onanother part cf thair laod.5/Portion cf tha Isnd share Perer sho have reached stp I apply th. practi.sa ai the cec package.
Y/ ields cospotad froc tabla in A-.c 3.
S ENEGCAL
SINE SALOOM AGRICOLTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FARM BUDGET '/
CEuh Flou - Model N. 2 - 13ha - Zone
yeur S
_eforo'e roieu lYeur E Ytar 2 oued 3 Year 4 Yeur 5 Y-or 6 ue 7 Year 3
A. V.1ue of PruduEtion CFAF/ kg
MillEt 26 95,200 103,G00 103,200 109,200 92,400 86,800 81,200 75,600 67,200Groundeuts 27 170,100 226,800 229,500 243,000 234,900 229,500 234,900 232,200 240,300Maite 30 - - - 27,000 51,000 66,000 90,000 114,000Sorgham 28 - - - 19,600 280,00 39,200 61.600 98,000Cottrn 46.5 - - - - 7,000 9,300 14,000 23,300 34,100Ltvetuehk 12,000 12,000 - 12,000 60,000 - 12,000 60,000 12,000
TOTAL 277,300 342,400 338,700 364,200 440,900 404,600 447,300 542,700 565,600
Nut Eftse D-ought Effuet 2/ 235,705 291,040 287,895 309,570 374,765 343,910 380,205 461,295 480,760Unit CEnt
. Pr-d-ution Costs R/ Rute CFAF/kR
Seedu - Millet 4kg/ht 26 448 448 448 448 380 358 336 336 246G-oud.ts 100 kg/ha 33.75 23,625 27,000 27,000 27,000 25,481 24,975 24,806 24,300 23,288MuiEe 20 kg/hk 30 - - - - 270 420 480 600 750Slrgh-un 7 kg/ha 28 - - - - 88 118 157 216 245
Pstiuides Seed Tres.teet 200 gm/100 kg se.d 0.385 _ - _ _ 740 720 715 702 691Maire Seed Tres-et-t 300 g0/100 kg aeed 0.18 - - - - 10 16 18 23 29Maite DDT 250 gm/100 kg autd 0.135 - - - - 304 574 756 1,013 1,282Fert Biter
Mtlie - Non UeeentEled 14.,07 40 kg/ha 24 3,040 1.920 1,020 1,900 1,536 1,536 1,536 1,536 1,536Millet - S1i Iets-ifed 14.7.7 10 kg/hu 24 - 1,200 7,200 7,200 6 480 5,760 $,040 4,140 3,240Millet horghne - Iet.ns.iied 10.21.21 130 kg/hk 24 - - 1 620 2,160 2,000 3,000 4,300Groundnuts - NMu Itn-eified 0.18.27 40 kg/ha 24 6,720 3,000 3,600 3,360 3,072 3,072 3,072 3,072 3,072Uroundnu. e-.lt Semi 6 itaif. 8.18.27 100 kg/ha 24 - 9,600 10,800 10,800 10,440 10,080 9,960 9,60e 9,360Mai ten. - ... Eifiud 8618.27 300 kg/hk 24 -- - - 3,240 5,040 5,760 7,200 9,000Malie - Iute.sified Ures 200 kg/ha 24 - 2,160 3,360 3,840 4,800 6,000Onrghoe - InTeisefled Urea 100 ko/ha 24 -- - 1,080 1,440 1,020 2,640 3 000
Ysd tOomi 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000Folnuenance or Replacement
nf Fat Equimpet 4/ 4,730 6,740 9,560 9,560 14,230 14,230 14,230 14,230 15,586Livestock - 33,000 3,000 3,000 33,000 3,000 36,000 36,000 6,000
TOTAL 40,363 90,708 64,528 64,288 105,131 77,859 112,506 115,368 g8,819
C. Nut V.1aue ni Froduetion Befor Fmmil, toesoeeiou + Tlte. 195,342 200,292 223,367 245,282 269,614 266,051 267,699 345,927 391,941
D. Familv Coeeuselon + Inca
Millet 210 kg/persoe 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800Grznndtu 15 kg/peeson 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Tes 500 ZFAF/nctiSv 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
TOTAL 67,050 67,050 67,050 67,050 67,050 67,050 67,050 67,050 67,050
E. Nlt Cash Une-ee Before Debt 8erSice 128,292 133,242 156,317 178,232 202,584 190,001 200,649 278,877 324.001
F. Debt te-ice
Oe-CErt - - 13,000 5/ 7,800 7,800 5/ - - -PlFv Artatheent and tool bat - - - - 21,820 13,700 13,700Hon ttegh e..t ted tnol bhr -- - - - - 6,060
- - 13,000 7,800 29,620 13;700 13,700 6,060 -
G. Nte Cssh IncqRRt Afte- Debt Seryie- 128,292 133,242 143,317 170,432 172,964 185,301 186,949 272,817 324,891
H. Sereectal Net Cash IJnet (a) Fertilier Cott @ CFAF 24/kg 6/ 0,050 i3,025 42,i40 44,6/Ê 57,009 58,657 144,525 196,599(b) Fertili..e Co te CFAF 12/kg 6/ 10 950 21,505 48,500 54 206 67 953 70 381 157,719 211,173(e> F-rtiliea- Cot @ CFAF 36/k 0 6/ (180501 8,545 35,780 35 188 46 065 46 933 131 331 182,025
1/ This fEe model i th ouihuer 8iea Oîton hog 10 pertons (equivaiet En 6 vorking adolts), 7 attle, I horgu, 1 dnukey, 2 suedes, 2 hots, mod I hotte u,tr All Cotus ted prîies in 1974 ten.-2/ A drought ete-y Fouet!1 ora 1s ioeIated by detteane the onl-t nE prod=cte by 0 percnun -senli-y3/ Cette rot included be-auée production -ont sre ebilt into thu fR= gate prien nf the trop.J 10% nf p-rchase entE.5/ Includes 207, dote p.osetu.6/ Tht Pare gate peine nf CFAI 12/kg repeusuens the. ettet peite CFAF 24 Ientes to 2/3 nf the expected full ent, and CFAF 36 te the foli cst. + u
3PMlEOAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICU2ITURAL PROJTEÇT
FAIM BUDGET
Fan Plan Modal No 3 - 7 han - Zon 2
Befave Pro 1001 Cen i Year 2 Tant 3 Y-a 4 Tant 5 Tant 6 Vent 7 Ta
DeveIleret PA O 1 1 2 2 2 2
TOTAL Lnnd 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
NON0-INTEN0IPOED £
Millet 3.5 a 0,3 1.75 1.75 o 0.3 0.68 1.75 n 0.5 =0,88 1.75 o 0.3 0.88 1.3 a 0.3 = 0.75 1.5 n 0.3 = 0.73 1.3 o 0.5 = 0.73 1.3 n 0.3 = 0.75 1.5 z 0.5 = 0.75
Oronoda.to 3.5 n 0.7 = 2.43 2.35 n 0.7- 1.38 2.0 n 0.7 1.40 1.73 a 0.7 = 1.23 1.33 n 0. - 1.08 1.50 a 0.7 = 1.03 1.5 e 0.7 - 1.05 1.5 n 0.7 1.05 1.5 t.? 0 = 1.05
Millet 1.75 e 0.37 1.23 1.73 a 0.7 = 1.23 1.75 n 0.8 = 1.40 1.25 a 0.9 - 1.13 I1.05 a 0,9 - 0.95 0.9 n 0.9 =0.81 0.75 xe 0.9 =0.68 0.6 r.6 =~ 0.54
Grn... ecta 1.25 o 1.0 1.23 1.3 n 1.0 = 1.5 1.75 a 1.1 = 0.93 1.5 n 1.1 - 1.65 1.35 a 1.1 = 0.49 5.30 e 1.1 - 5.43 1.25 . 1.1 1.38 1.0 t 1.2 = 1.20
Millet 0.3 o 1.0 = 0.9 0.4 ol1.0 = 0.44 0.45 a. 12
= 0.54 0.5 aî1.3 =0.65 10.6 = 1.6 =0,04
lroandnate 0.60 o 1.2 = 0.72' 0.8 n 1.2 - 0.96 0.90 a 1.3 1.17 1.00 n 0.3 = 1.30 1.2 z 1.. 1.20
S-gh-ne 0.3 n 1.3 = 0.39 0.4 a 1.4 = 0.56, 0.43 e 0.3 0.68 0.5 n 1.6 - 0.80 0.6 x31.7 =1.02
TOTAL PFOODUTIOTS <Tee.>
Millet 1.75 2.01 2.11 2.28 2.18 2.14 2.10 2.08 2.1.3
Gro... daat. 2.45 2.83 2.90 3.16 3.45 3.30 3.65 3.73 3.4,5
Sotghan 0.39 0.56 0.68 0.80( 1.02
VPA: tormate that Co1low PAs- cielee package. Stage 0: fntact ho have arqtred nPair ai once ard cho ar in,prootng thait -nogenent t.ehbiqoa cadet PA. Otage 2: t.eres che ar feI1o.eisg th. p.cbageanpart cf thein 1.d (staap reoteppli.ntina af raclk pheeph.te, plnwing. ot aap-ah-aoe etioat
2/ Na fallon.
3/ Lend On hectares e yilid On tans - predortio- ta ton A . ornes (h.) Y . plads (t/bs) F = prod-tion (t)
F ie1os ni (o) fanot vho Collno FA nnd ar eaaoragod ta tal1on it onr rlo...ly On proparatoon Cor otogo I (b> Corner hbn hav rraahed atap O or atp 2 b.t atOl f.l-ne PA on Part cf their 1=sed
F/ i1de of Cfatte (a> cho hava nvd tn atep i hy battet onagenot p-actinea os rcroeeded cod-r FA and hav arorinpair ai ..... o.ai fnt eedieg aad hoeing (b) wa have nvd ta stop 2 but qply the -m p.okgon noathar part of their 1ai.
6/ Fartino ai the Onnd er.bt Coo- rabo bava ran-hai srap 2 opply tb. prooticoo of the nec package.
7/ Yielde .oapatrd Cran tabla la An... 3.
SENEGAL
SINE SALOIUM AGRIGULT17kAL DeVELOPMLNT PROJECT
FARM BUDGEI 1/
Cash FloY - Model No. 3 - 7 ha - Zone 2
Year O
Before Profleci Teor I bear 2 Year 3 Year 4 Toar 5 Year 6 y«a 7 Ygear 8CFAF
Unit PriceA. Valoe of Production CFAF/kg
Millet 28 49,000 59,080 59,080 63,840 64,680 63,560 62,440 61,880 63,280Groundnuts 27 66,150 76,410 78,300 85,320 93,150 94,500 98,550 100,710 93,150Sor-hnA 28 - - - 10,920 15,680 19,040 22,400 28,560Livestock - 24.000 - 72.000 - 12.000 60.000 -
TOTAL 115,150 159,490 137,380 149,160 240,750 173,740 192,030 244,990 184,990
Net of D-ought Effet 2/ 97,878 135,567 116,773 126,786 204,638 147,679 163,226 208,242 157,242Unit Coat
B. Production Colts RPata /k
Sends - Millet 4 kg/ha 28 392 392 392 392 342 330 320 308 302Groundnuts 100 kg/ha 33.75 11,813 11,813 11,813 11,813 12,319 12,319 12,488 12,656 12,488Sorghu= 7 kg/ha 28 - - - 59 78 88 98 118
Pesticides se_d tre,atant 200 gm/lO kg seed 0.385 - - - - 242 323 366 406 487Oentiliaar
Millnt - Non intencified 14,7.7 40 kg/ha 24 3,360 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440Millet - 8a=i intensified 14.7.7 150 kg/ho 24 - 6,300 6,300 6,300 4,500 3,780 3,240 2,700 2,160Millnt So-gh-m - Int.neified 10.21.21 100 kg/ha 24 - - - - 1,440 1,920 2,160 2,400 2,880Groundnutt - Non intensified 8.18.27 40 kg/ho 24 3,360 2,160 1,920 1,680 1,488 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440Gtoundnuta - Seni and inte-aif.8,18.27 100 kg/ha 24 - 3,000 3,600 4,200 5,040 5,160 5,280 5,376 5,280Millet - Iniennifted -rna 50 kg/ho 24 _- - - 360 480 540 600 720Sorghu= - Intsnenfied -rna 50 kg/ho 24 _ - -_ 360 480 540 600 720
hand tools 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500Maintenan.e.of fate eqaip,aent 3/ 2,010 2,010 4,830 4,830 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500T. iveeionh s 33t000 3o000 3ck00 33.000 3,000 3.000 3.333 0203 0
TOTAL 21,435 60,855 34,035 34,395 70,590 40,750 40,902 71,024 41,035
C. Net Vale nf Production Before OsetilO Conaumptlan + Teaea 76,443 74,712 82,738 92,391 134,048 106,929 122,324 137,218 116,207
D. FTiOn- ConsusoLion i3
Millet 210 kg/perian 35,280 35,280 35,280 35,280 35,280 35,280 35,280 35,280 35,280Groundnuts 15 kg/p.tsoe 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150Tance 500 COA7/netivO 1,500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1,500 1.500 1.500
TOTAL 39,930 39,930 30,930 39,930 39,930 39,930 39,930 39,930 39,930
E. Net Cash enante Before Debt Servica 36,513 34,782 42,808 52,461 94,118 66,999 82,394 97,288 76,277
F. Debt Service
Ox-cart - - - - - 4/ - - 13,0004/ 7,800Plan attohMient and tol hat , - - 21,820 13,700 13,700 - -
G. Net Cash Dnne Aftet Debt Service 36,513 34,782 42,80û 52,461 72,298 53,299 68,694 84,238 68,477 7 t
h. lncte=hental_Set Uaei Inconm (o) Perii-er Cast @ CFAi' 24/kg 5/ - (1,731) 6,295 15,948 35,785 16,786 32,181 47,775 31,964 (b) Fertilizer Cot (a CFAF 12/kg 5/ - 1,479 9,685 19,518 39,739 20,776 36,141 51,693 35,924( -) Fertili-e Coat @ CFAF 36/kg 5/ _ (4,941) 2,905 12,378 31,831 12,796 28,221 43,857 28,004
1/ This f-re nadl ij the northerS Sin S1a1ou has six parsona equivalent ta hree oktng 0d1lt,, five ,taIle, ena donkey, ann seed-r -ne aoc h-o.2/ A draaght evety ftutth ye-r is almOntattd by dece-laiag the valne o
0Po-d-ct-an h' 15 p-elat --nt ally.
3/ 107. nf gant.4/ nel-1dee 207 dtoe payment,5/ The fore gotr prict af CFAF 12/kg teptenc-ts thecurent prie; CFAF 24 nota ta 2/3 ,f the cap-ct.d Cul
1c-lt, and CFAF 36 te the flal cat.
Annex 16Table 7
SEN~EGA:[
SINE SAL,OUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FARTA BUDGETS
Suïniary of Results
Average farmsize, ha PY C PI 5
Gross value Farm Production 20 1/ 318 4U'U
(CFAF 1 000) 13 9/ 236 344
98 -148
Produc',ion Cost 20 57 103
(CFAFIVODO) 13 0W 78
7 21 41,
Net Farm Incomre 4/ 20 260 370(OFAF' oco)
13 195 252
7 76 93
Fam.ily Labor Required 20 1,150 1,1497(IS12n-dazs )
13 8045 1,013
7 543 576
Per Cqnita Incorne 20 22 31(CFAF'( CM)
13 19 25
7 13
Tncomne per ran-day 226 24-(CFA F)
(OFAF) 1~~~~3 219 2La9
7 1h1 162
Cash Incom:e 20 130 290(CFAF tuGO)
13 128
1/ Represents the south and east 7 7 53of the project area.
2/ R.epresents the center of the project area.
_ Reprasents the northwest Of the project area. _,/ Cash plus v\1ue o,C subsistenc_O
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
GOVERNMENT CASH FLOW 2!
-------------------------------------- __ -- _-----------_------ Project Yetrs_--_--_____ -- ------------ --- - ------- 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12-20(CFAF Million)
SOtTRCES 299.3 606.3 628.8 40.6 _- - - - -
IBRD Loan 603.6 646.8 324.6 -
CCCE Loan 194.7 386.0 397.0 410.0 408.3 204.0 - -
Export Duties. Taxes and Stabilization Fund
Groundnut 2/ - 39 122 197 291 375 504 642 752 885 957 1.231.0Cotton 3/ - 5 12 20 40 65 73 80 86 93 100 128.0Livestock - - - 2.2 2.6 4.3 5.9 6.3 6.8 7.2 7.6 9.8
Import Duties and Taxes on Pro ject Cost 156.0 156. 3 176.2 186.2 188.6 - - - - -
Total Sources 650.0 1,192.6 1.336. 0 1.459.6 1,577.3 972.9 582.9 728.3 844.8 985.2 1064.6 1,368.8
APPLICATIONS
Project Cost 4/ 1,121.3 1,165.9 1,254.6 1,267.4 1,287.7 - - - -
Subsidies
Rock Phosphate 5/ 34.5 49.5 64.7 83.5 103.9 - - - - - -
Seeds 2.2 3.0 5.5 8.5 12.4 13.3 14.2 15.2 16.3 17.4 18.3 23.5
Other Fertilizers 6/ 22.2 29.5 53.6 82.1 119.6 98.1 40.1 46.9 52.9 59.9 62.8 80.9
Financial Char es
IDA Credit 1.1 4.5 9.2 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 27.6 27.0IBRD Loan 11.8 11.8 11.8 35.1 83.6 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7CCCE Loan 3.4 13.6 27.3 41.4 55,7 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6 173.6
Total Applications 1,196.5 1,277.8 1,426.7 1,488.4 1,674.7 484.5 427.4 435.2 442.3 450.4 470.0 1492.7
Surplus 'Deficit) (546.5) (85.2) (90.7) (25.8) (97.4) 488.4 155.5 293.1 402.5 534.8 594.6 7,884.9
Cumulative (Surplus/Deficit) (546.5) '631.7) (722.4) (751.2) (848.6) (360.2) (204.7) 88.4 490.9 1,025.7 1,620.3 9,50q.2
1/ Current terms (Inflation at rates of international index to PY 11 anud i5/, thereafter).2/ Based on IBRD price projections and a farmgate price declining between jY 1 and PY 5 tioia CFAF 41.5/kg to CtFAF 27/kg in 1974 terms.3/ Based on IBRD price projections and a farmgate price equivalent in 1971 terms to CFAF 46,5 kg.4/ Includes physical contingencies and expected price increases.5/ Given as grant to farmers.6/ Subsidy equivalent ta 50% of cost between 1975/76 and 1980/81 and 25% of cost 1981/82 - 1995.7/ Figures shown represent annuel average of total inflation over nine-year period; surplus and cumulative amounts are nine-year totals./ Armounts of IDA Credit remaining to be paid aIter 20 yearu is CFAF 1,417.5 million (US$6.3 million).
ANNEX 18Page 1
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN CALCULATION -/
1. The project is designed to take farmers through a four-year croprotation cycle and an intensification process which would gradually expand
until all of the land cultivated by a given farmer would be included. However,
the nature of the techniques involved is such that any farmer participatingin the project would be able to maintain the level of production reached
during the project period. Thus farmers participating for the full five
years (or as long as eight years if covered by the pilot project) would have
removed stumps from, and spread intensive cultivation techniques to, a much
larger portion of their total areas than would farmers entering the projectat a later stage, but all farmers would retain the benefits of the areas
actually uprooted, and of the introduction of ox-drawn plowing and comprehen-sive fertilization beyond the project period. The economic rate of return
calculation makes the conservative assumption that extension activities do
not continue beyond the five-year project period and that farmers trainedduring this period would be able to maintain the levels of production reached
by PY5 for an additional five years.
2. Costs - Cost figures include all project investment and operatingcosts for SODEVA. No incremental extension costs are included after fulldevelopment in PY 5, as project benefits would be obtained with expendituresat pre-project levels.
3. All labor would be provided by the families of project farmers
and the incremental needs of the project are valued at zero, as the addi-
tional time spent on project activities would not otherwise be used forproductive activities.
4. Costa exclude all direct taxes, duties, and provisions for expected
price increases.
5. Costs include incremental seasonal farm inputs; the purchase costand maintenance for farm implements; farm costs for draft oxen, steer fatten-
ing, calves and breeding cows; and physical contingencies.
1/ All economic and financial calculations were based on 1974 prices,
exchange rates, and commodity projections. Checks were made usingrevised 1975 figures and the net effects were negligble.
ANNEX 18Page 2
6. Benefits - Benefits are calculated on the incremental productionattributable to the project, and output is stabilized by PY 5, the assumedfull development of the project. Estimates include a provision for droughtin PY 2, 6 and 10, that would reduce increments expected in average years by60%. The calculation assumes that, without the project, farmers' productivityand productivity per hectare would not change. Details of incremental pro-ject crop production are in Annex 14 and livestock production in Annex 7.
7. Groundnut and cotton output is treated as exports and cereals andlivestock output as import substitution. The economic farmgate prices forcrops used in the rate of return calculation are based on the Bank's projec-tions and details are in Annex 15. Prices for livestock and livestock pro-ducts are based on current market prices and are also detailed in Annex 15.
8. Sensitivity Analysis - The sensitivity of the rate of return hasbeen tested against changes in costs and benefits due to price and droughteffects and the results indicate that the project would be justified econom-ically under most conceivable circumstances. Details of the sensitivityanalysis are in Table 2.
9. A rate of return has also been calculated to allow for the estimatedsubstitution of maize and sorghum by groundnuts that might occur if themarket for cereals did not develop as expected. In these circumstances itis estimated that the rate of return would be 16%.
SENEGAL
SINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN
(CFAF Million)
--------- R------------------------------------------PROJECT YEAR-________
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85
BENEFITS
Incremental Crop Production
Croundnuts - 178.6 513.2 679.0 860.4 1,016.2 1,044.8 1,076.5 1,105.0 1,140.0
Cotton 1/ - 8.2 20.2 37.9 59.7 88.0 86.8 85.7 84.6 83.5
Maize - 57.3 143.1 244.3 368.8 498.2 501.6 503.3 505.0 508.3
Millet/Sorghum - 69.9 207.0 306.8 405.4 516.7 518.6 520.5 522.4 524.3
Sub-total - 314.0 883.5 1,268.0 1,694.3 2,119.1 2,151.8 2,186.0 2,217.0 2,256.1
Livestock Production - 63.4 118.7 135.9 180.4 209.4 270.2 270.2 270.2 270.2
Sub-total Benefits - 377.4 1,002.2 1,403.9 1,874.7 2,328.5 2,422.0 2,456.2 2,487.2 2,526,3
Provision for Drought 2/ - 56.6 150.3 209.7 281.2 349.3 363.3 368.4 373.1 379.0
Total Benefits - 320.8 851.9 1,194.2 1,593.5 1,979.2 2,058.7 2,087.8 2.114.1 2,147,3
COSTS
SODEVA's Costa
Investment Costs 3/ 152.1 47.8 25.4 18.6 2.0
Salaries 4/ 638.9 721.9 777.4 734.0 716.8
Operating Costs 4/ 112.4 123.0 123.5 119.3 112.6
Sub-total 903.4 892.7 926.3 871.9 831.4
Incremental Farm Costs
Rock Phosphate 24.0 31.1 37.4 44.6 51.9 - - - _ -
Equipment 5/ 45.3 53.7 68.7 104.7 127.2 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4
Seassnal Inputs 6/ - 24.7 57.4 90.3 128.9 176.8 179.5 182.9 184.4 187.3
Livestock 7/ 42.7 60.3 82.6 104.7 135.0 153.3 158.7 158.7 158.7 158.7
Sub-total 112.0 169.8 246.1 344.3 443.0 355.5 363.6 367.0 368.5 371.4
Total 1,015.4 1,062.5 1,172.4 1,216.2 1274.4
Physical Contingencies 8/ 41.6 43.0 48.5 59.2 69.6 35.6 36.4 36.7 36.9 37.1
Total Costs 1,057.0 1,105.5 1,220.9 1,275.4 1,344.0 391.1 400.0 403.7 405.4 408.5
NET BENEFITS (1,057.0) (784.7) (369.0) (81.2) 249.5 1,588.1 1,658.7 1,684.1 1,708.7 1,738.8
Economiec Rate of Return: 25%
1/ Cotton benefits are expressed net of production costs, see details in Annex 15. a
2/ Calculated as an average benefit loss of 15% per year on an annual basis which is equivalent to a 60%
loss of benefits in PY 2, 6 and 10.
3/ Net of 23% taxes.4/ Net of 8% taxes.5/ Net of 20% taxes on purchase price in PY 1-5. Maintenance in PY 6-10 is calculated as 20% of total
equipment cost.6/ Consiats of other fertilizer, seed, and insecticide.
7/ Annex 7, Table 48/ 10% on all costs except salaries.
Annex 18Taule 2-
SENE GAL
SINE SALOUM AŒRICULTURAL DEVELOPMNT PROJECT
ECONOM::C RATE OF RETURN
Sensitivity Analysis
______ __--___ -___----% of Appraisal Estimates---------Costs -------- ----------------Benefits ---- RORDevelopment Annual Groundnuts Cotton Cereals Livestock 5
100 100 100 1/ 100 1/ 100 1/ 100 1/ 24
100 100 100 100 75 100 19
100 100 75 100 100 100 18
100 100 100. 100 100 75 23
100 100 75 75 75 75 12
115 2/ 100 -2/ -2/ - 2/ - 2/ 14
100 125 100 100 100 100 22
100 100 125 125 125 125 36
103 100 65 3/ 65 3/ 65 3/ 653/' 19
1/ Asswues a drought every fsurth year that reduces benefits bv oeé.2/ The development period is extended by 1 year and developmeft costs
inereased by 15%. Benefits are delayed by 1 year.3/ Assumes droughts over seven years which reduce benetits
by 50 o/o in each year,
SEN EGALSINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FARM INPUT PURCHASES - GROUNDNUT BASIN
40
35
GROUNDNUTFERTI LIZER
30 x
25
D0
gDoCD
u1 20
zUJWjN
w-
LL
1960 62 64 66 ~~~~~~~~68 70 72 74
World Bank-9237
SENEGALSINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PRODUCTION OF GROUNDNUTS AND MILLET - GROUNDNUT BASIN
1000
GROUNDNUTS900
800 _b
700
600
v500 L 400 _t
200
1X X
o
196062 64 66 68 70 72 74
World Bank-9238
SENEGALSINE SALOUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
RAINFALL AND YIELDS OF GROUNDNUT AND MILLET - GROUNDNUT BASIN
100 / 0 n ' Y1EL , 'Sw.,. * ' W|/GROUNDNUT
YIELDS900 _ _ _ __ _
æ l r -Xtx 1~~~~~~l
800__ - - - ii
700
OJ .
96006 46 87 27
< ~~~~~~~SORG UM aaa
YIELSa aa a a ae
w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
300 aa a
200~~~~~~aaa
100~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1960 62 64 66~~~~~~~~~~~~a 8 70 727
a a~~~~~~~~~~~~Wol ak93
15,.. -J.f,T- ....... 16 4 SENEGAL
,.~ 8 g MAURITANIA Sine-Saloum Agricultural Development Pro'ject- -Regional boundaries
S E N EGAL PROJECT AREA Departmental boundariesDaa.. .. ... District (Arrondissement) boundaries
<a'A Mop |ç 'L o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 - Regional capitalGAMBI~ K. 10p sKILOMETERS 0 Departmental capitals
GAMBBIA', 0 5 ,1 03 0S District (Arrondissement) capitals .O \- -U JI- NE8 A MILES Main roads
~~~ BISSA9 GUI N-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A ,~~~~~> ~~RiversG' -'- Intermittet streams
T l P 7C ~Rainfall In millimeters
To Dakar RFG/ON DE DIOUREL _International boundories
@ r- -- ,/ ,/ . \ REGION DE DIOURBEL
7 6<~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~--i "-~---tt-' -\\>\'-/ -, " / / '. / ,DIOURBEL
2~~~~ \N'iakhorjka tY _* @5 0ToDkrq«XtJun O 0L ,iakh. iour% GossoNI- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
To Daa -tC) -- f^-t -8 0-\<X\-
-1j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i -
%a \ _g *ff2~~~~~diaye l./ r v8e',
fume a ~~~~~~~~~~~~Birkelane' /-f:omela~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m Hodr ) r
4~nd;ougne AK~Kfrn ,0 fk _ C' ' )= 5
14~~~~~~~~À1N'Doffane
q.gNiod,, "' \ itiv O~~~~~~~~~~N'Ganda ~Z 0~~~~~~~~}t» To rgubakoua ., Paos Koto _-
ack- N'Gouna o
16 a f / \ AN 2 l// 2 Médina-/
v =- >h G A<< > t \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~S b5 k< 00 -)n0