Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

C A /,5z;- Ct

Report No. 5265-CE

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

SRI LANKA

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

February 15, 1985

South Asia Projects DepartmentGeneral Agriculture Division

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

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

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 = Rupees (Rs) 25.17Re 1 US$0.04

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 cubic meter = 1.308 cubic yards1 kilometer = 0.62 miles1 meter (a) = 1.09 yards1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres1 square meter (m2) = 10.76 square feet1 ton (metric) = 2,205 pounds

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADB - Asian Development BankBHP - Brake Horse PowerBOC - Bank of CeylonCRI - Coconut Research InstituteCTC - Cut Tear and CurlIDU - Institution Development Unit38DB - Janatba Estates Development BoardLCB - Local Competitive BiddingLRC - Land Reform CommissionMOFP - Ministry of Finance and PlanningMPI - Ministry of Plantation IndustriesMTIP - Medium-Term Investment ProgramNIPM - National Institute of Plantation ManagementNPV - Net Present Value

,ODA - Overseas Development Administration (UK)OST - Old Seedling TeaRRI - Rubber Research InstituteRSS - Ribbed Smoked SheetSCF - Standard Conversion FactorSPC - Sri Lanka State Plantations CorporationTRAD - Tea Rehabilitation and Diversification Project

(IDA Credit 1240-CE)TRI - Tea Research InstituteTSHDA - Tea Smallholders Development AuthorityTSR - Technically Specified RubberVA - Visiting AgentVP - Vegetatively Propagated

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 - December 31

FOR OMICIAL USE ONLY

SRI LANKA

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Credit and Project Summary

Borrower: The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

Beneficiaries: Janatha Estates Development BoardSri Lanka State Plantations Corporation

Amount: SDR 56.5 million (US$55.0 million equivalent)

Terms: Standard

Relending Terms: The Government would relend the credit at an interestrate of 11 percent to the Bank of Ceylon (BOC), whichwould onlend to the corporations at an interest rateof 13 percent per annium. Repayment of subloans byboth BOC and the corporations would be over ten years,including a one-year grace period. The Government wouldbear the fcreign exchange risk, while BOC would assumefull risk for funds on-lent to the corporations.

ProjectDescription: The project aims at increasing the production of

tea, rubber, and coconuts by improving the productivityof all publicly-held estates, rehabilitatingtactories, providing field and nursery equipment, andimproving transportation. The project would strengthenmanagement and financial control of the corporations,stabilize lands through soil conservation, and improvethe health and social welfare of estate workers andtheir families. The project would also improveinstitutional capacity by providing training, technicalassistance, and facilities for planning and monitoringoperations. The project contains no unusual risk.

This document hs a rnestricted distiibuion and may be used byr rpients only in the perfomnce oftxir off-icil dutieL its ontents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorizatin.

Estimated Cosc: a/ Local Foreign Total-- -- US$ million- --

Field Works 66.7 15.0 81.7Field and Nursery Equipment 3.1 1.9 5.0Vehicles 2.5 7.4 9.9Factory Rehabilitation 13.3 8.5 21.8Mini-Hydro Units 4.2 4.1 8.3Housing 9.2 2.9 12.1Social Welfare 7.8 2.9 10.7Institution Building 6.6 5.2 11.8

Base Cost 113.4 47.9 161.3

Physical Contingencies 6.3 2.1 8.4Price Contingencies 32.5 9.6 42.1

Total Cost 152.2 59.6 211.8

Financing Plan:

IDA 28.1 26.9 55.0ADB 21.2 23.8 45.0ODA 0.0 5.5 5.5Netherlands Government 6.0 2.0 8.0Norwegian Government 4.1 1.4 5.5Bank of Ceylon 10.0 0.0 10.0Corporations 82.8 0.0 82.8

Total 152.2 59.6 211.8

Estimated Disbursement:

FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90IDA FY --- US$ million- …

Annual 14.8 14.9 12.1 7.2 6.0Cumulative 14.8 29.7 41.8 49.0 55.0

Economic Rate of Return: 26%

Man: No. IBRD 18232

a/ Includes taxes and duties of US$11.1 M.

-iii-

SRI LANKA

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Table of Contents

Paste No.

I. IYIODUCTION ................................. 1

II. THE TMR CROP SECTOR ..................... 1A. General .......... ......... ........................ 1B. Land Reform .......... 2.............................. 2C. Sector Issues ........... 3......................... 3D. Public Sector Corporations ..*.......*............. 4E. Relations betveeu Estates and Suallholders ..*...... 9F. The Medium-Term Investmeut Program (MTIP) and

Project Genesis ....... *.*... ........... 10G. IDA Involvement in the Tree Crops Sector ............ 11E. Lessons Learned from Previous Projects ............. 12

III. THE PROJECT AREA ..................................... . 13A. Physical Characteristics ........................... 13B. Plantation Crops ..............**....... *..... . 15

Tea ............................................... 15Rubber ............................ .. *00.6... 18Coconuts ........... s ............ 1....... .* 19Produce Marketing ........................* ......... 19

C. Social Welfare on Estates .......................... 20D. Infrastructure .................................-.*. 21

IV. THE PROJECT ........................ ...................... * 23A. Objectives ............................... 23B. Main Features ............... 23C. Detailed Features ........ ........ 24

Field Program ...... .... ........ *.. . 24Tea Planting ....... ................ 24Tea Replanting ........................... * **0 24Tea Infilling .................................. 24Diversification ................ 24Soil Conservation .............. .. 24Rubber Replanting .......................... ... 25Coconut Replanting ............ *....... *.......*.... 25JEDB and SPC Field Program Summary .............. 25Field and Nursery Equipment ... 0...................., 26Estate Vehicles ...................... .......... 26

Crop Processing ..................... o.s...... .. 27

-iv-

Page No.

Tea Factory Rehabilitation ....................... 27Rubber Factory Rehabilitation .................... 27Coconut Processing ..... ........ 28Mini-Hydro Renovation ............ g............... 28Housing ....................... 28

Social Welfare ....... eeee... 29Creches ................. 29Medical .................. 29

Institutional Development ......................... 29General ......... ...... . ...... 29Training ................. ...... 30Technical Assistance ....................... 30Regional Support ....................... 30Central Office Support ....................... 31Planning Units . .. .................... 31Monitoring ............................... 31Smallholder Studies ....................... 31

V. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING .............. 32A. Cost Estimates .................... 0................ 32B. Financing .e..*e ...........m .. 33C. Procurement and Disbursement ............eeee m..m.me 35

VI* PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ............ .................... 38

A. Organization and Nanagement ....gg.eceeemcge.. 38BH Cost Control .... e... ccc...mge. memeeceemme e.e.c.. 39C. Financial Management and Control ................... 39D. Accounting and Audit .c......e.c .... . *.e 40e. Planning .......... m.ececee..cmeceecccgcecmeec..ce 41F. Institutional Development .. e.ecmeeee.cegeee.eecc 41G. Monitoring .......... ... g........m...ee 41

VII. ZRODUCTION.-MARKETS. AD PRICES ............. 42

A. Yields and Production ... eec mc......e.......... e cc 42B. Markets and Prices ......... 0....0.................... 43

VIII. FIRANCTAL PROJECTIONS AND ARALYSIS ... emmec.mem.ccc......... 45A. Producer Margins ...... ... c...m;m 45

B. Income Projections .. m..ecmecc.m. .................. 45C. Yiuancial and Fiscal Rates of Return ............... 50D. Government Revenue .ccmm.cmec.e.ce.ec.eceecmeceee... 51

IH. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND RISKS *geemecceeec............... 52

A. Benefits .. cmm...... 52B. Economic Analysis ..c.........e........... --- 4-e e.--eec 53

C. Project Risks ......... cece.ccccemceeeccemcemcccc 56

X. RECONMENDATIONS AND ASSURANCES ................. ccc....c..cc.......... 57

Paf e no.

LIST OF TABLES IN MAIN TEXT

2.1 - Performance Indicators of the Tree Crops Sector...... 23.1 - Regional Boards, Plantation Districts and Estates.... 143.2 - Public Estate Tea Areas.............................. 174.1 - Field Progra ........................................ 264.2 - Total Estate Vehicles .... ........... . . . . . . . ... 275.1 - Project Cost Summary. .. ....... ....................... 325.2 - Inflation Rate....................................... 335.3 - Financing Plan .................................. 345.4 - Procurement Arrangements ............................ . 368.1 - Working Ratio ......... 468.2 - Impact of Proposed Tax Adjustments on

Corporation Revenuee..................... ............. 488.3 - Summary Sources and Application of PFuds

from 1985 through 1990 ......................... ...... 498.4 - Financial and Fiscal Rates of Return .............. .. 519.1 - Economic Rates of Return ............................. 549.2 - Sensiti-vity Tss..................... 559.3 - Switching Values..................................... 55

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 - Glossary of TermsAnnex 2 - Project Costs sad DisbursementsAnnex 3 - Financial Statements and ProjectionsAnnex 4 - Areas, Production and Economic AnalysesAnnex 5 - Organization and Implementatiou ChartsAnnex 6 - Documents in Project File

LIST OF MAPS

IBRD 18232

SRI LANKA

FWRTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

I. INTRODUCTION

1.01 This report appraises a plantation rehabilitation project in SriLanka's tree crops subsector. The project forms part of the Government'sdevelopment strategy which emphasizes restoring the productivity of theexport-oriented tree crops. IDA accords the tree crops subsector highpriority and for several years has supported a series of projects involvingboth plantations and smallholders. These projects have in themselves beensuccessful, but underlying deficiencies within the sector have reduced theirpotential impact. IDA's involvement in the proposed project would ensurecontinued institutional improvement in the sector. Government has initiateda number of significant steps to improve sector performance. Foremost amongthem vas the preparation in 1983 of a Medium-Term Investment Program (MTIP)for the state-owned plantations. MTIP was submitted to IDA in December 1983as the preparation document for the proposed project.

1.02 During 1983 the Bank conducted a review of Sri Lanka's tree cropssubsector (Report 4890-CE). The review highlighted several sectoral issuesrequiring remedial action. While discussion on these issues was continuing,a Bank preappraisal mission visited Sri Lanka in March 1984. jj The missionfound that technical aspects of the proposed project were satisfactory andrecommended that once satisfactory steps had been taken to resolve sectoralissues the project should be deemed to have been appraised. This positionwas reached in July 1984. This report therefore presents the findings andrecommendations of the March 1984 mission and should be read in conjunctionwith the subsector review. Iegotiations for the proposed project were heldin Washington in February 1985.

II. THE TREE CROP SECTOR

A. General

2.01 Economic growth in Sri Lanka depends largely upon agricultural per-formance in which tree crops play a major role. About 75Z of the populationlives in rural areas and agriculture accounts directly for 20-25% of GDP, 50%of employment, 40Z of government revenues and 55-60% of export earnings.Tree crops, mostly tea, rubber and coconuts, occupy almost 900,000 ha or 41%of cropped land. Tree crops continue to be the main source of foreignexchange earnings and employ about one-sixth of the total labor force. Thesector's dominant role in Sri Lanka's economy is therefore unquestioned. Inspite of their importance, however, tree crops have suffered from chronic

A/ The mission consisted of Messrs. J. A. Hayward, M. Brown, K. Loganathan,A. Tobelem (Bank), M. Balls, J. W. Blencowe and A. Wilson (Consultants).Ms. Y. 0. Bong was responsible for the typing and layout of the report.

-2-

neglect, manifested in steadily deteriorating performance, as illustrated inTable 2.1.

Table 2.1: PERFORMhNCE INDICATORS OF THE TREE CROPS SUBSECTOR'

1973 1978 1982

Value added as I of GDP 15 18 11Share of Export Earnings 87 73 47Share of Government Revenues 9 41 15Share of Total Employment 27 22 15Production

Tea M kg 213 199 188Rubber M kg 140 156 125Coconuts M nuts 2,963 2,207 2,258 aI

a/ Figures presented are for 1981, 1982 figures not available.

2.02 The poor performance of the sector has been due to a combination offactors: severe dislocation caused by land reform, declining profitabilitydue to low prices and high export taxes, Government's lack of planning andunfavorable policies, and inadequate foreign exchange allocation for inputs.These constraints have had a detrimental effect on the whole sector butparticularly on the plantation corporations with statutory overheads andlittle flexibility of action.

B. Land Reform

2.03 Decline in tree crops began with the threat of land nationalizationin the late 1960s and the consequent decapitalization of plantations byprivate owners. Since 1972, private land holdings have been limited to nomore than 20 ha which released 225,000 ha of land and associated infrastruc-ture to the Land Reform Commission (LRC) of which 135,000 ha were under treecrops. Attempts at cooperative management of these lands produced disastrousresults and were abandoned. Subsequently 40 of the largest estates weregiven over to management by the State Plantations Corporation (SPC), thenunder the Ministry of Plantation ldustries (MPI). In a second stage of landreform, in 1975, all land owned by Sri Lankan and foreign companies, whichincluded the country's major tea and rubber estates, was also vested in LRC.The Government then assigned management of about 65,000 ha of these estatesto SPC and nearly 95,000 ha to the Janatha Estates Development Board (JEDB)which was established for the purpose under the Ministry of Agriculture butlater transferred to MPI. This makes JEDB and SPC the two largest plantationcorporations in the world.

-3-

2.04 Since 1978, the land tenure structure has been relatively stable anda rationalization of estates to produce a more efficient geographical dis-tribution of properties between JEDB and SPC has occurred. The corporationsnow manage 530 estates with a total of about 230,000 ha, 25% of the country'stree crop area.

2.05 Though most of the tree crop plantations were nationalized around1975, the threat of land reform had existed for several years and investmentswere kept to a minimum. The net result of nationalization vas that foralmost a decade the plantations were neglected; this situation was disastrousfor tree crops because neglect has long-term deleterious effects on cropproduction. The stabilization of estates has overcome many of the uncertain-ties which beset the sector and their upkeep has begun to improve. However,improvement has been much slower than anticipated due to unfavorable govern-ment policies which have discouraged investment, and to organizationalproblems in the corporations.

2.06 Since nationalization, JEDB and SPC have been staffed almostexclusively by former private planters who, although experts in technicalproduction and estate management, bad little experience in corporationmanagement. Thus neither corporation was equipped to cope with complexcommercial undertakings. This led to organizational and attitudinal problemswhich are taking time to resolve.

C. Sector Issues

Policy and Planning

2.07 The principal problems which have constrained sectoral performancesince land reform stem from government neglect of sectoral planning andpolicy formulation, and excessive taxation, particularly of tea. As a resultneither the private nor public sectors have been able to perform well.Government responsibility for the sector is dispersed amougst ministrieswhich have no functional liaison. Thus decision making has been ad hoc andat times contradictory. Planning on a sector level has been poor, coherentpolicy has not been established and scarce resources have not been allocatedto priority programs. The preparation of MTIP has gone a long way towardsestablishing priorities and forging good vorking relationships within thepublic sector. Planning according to economLic criteria is now recognized asa sectoral necessity and liaison between JEDB, SPC and the Ministry ofFinance and Planning (MOFP) has greatly improved. The preparation of NTIPhas been a significant move forward in institution building. A similarexercise would be promoted for the private sector under the proposed project.

Producer Marsins

2.08 Sri Lanka has levied far higher export taxes on its producers thanhave its competitors. This excessive taxation contributed significantly to

-4-

the deterioration of the sector which in turn has resulted in an actualdecline in tax revenues from tree crops. Tax structures and rates varybetween crops causing distortions and variability in reactions to world pricechanges. In 1984, the Government established a Working Group to monitor taxlevels in relation to export prices and to recommend tax adjustments toensure that non-distortionary signals are sent to producers. Followingrecommendations from the Working Group, reductions in taxation vere made inthe November 1984 budget. To offset, in part, the loss of governmentrevenue, all subsidies paid to JEDB and SPC have been removed but continue tobe available to private producers. The outcome of these recent moves is thatproducer margins are satisfactory and investment in the sector has beenstimulated.

D. Public Sector Corporations

2.09 JEDB and SPC are Government-owned corporations. Together they ownand manage 571 of Sri Lanka's tea area, producing 672 of green leaf andmanufacturing 78Z of made tea. They also own and manage 352 of the country'srubber area and process about 35Z of the output. JEDB now produces about 40million coconuts per year and both corporations, througb diversification ofold tea areas, produce small quantities of minor export crops, principallycoffee and spices. The estates are formally vested in the corporations buttheir capital structures remain to be decided pending parliamentary approvalfor an increase in capital following valuation of assets vested (para 2.19).If the estates are valued at the price paid as compensation to previousowners then their equity values would each be about Rs 1,000 M (US$40 M).

2.10 Both corporations, each with annual net sales well over one billionrupees, have been given the status of separate ministries with the Presidentas Minister-in-Charge. The chairman of each corporation occupies the posi-tion of Ministry Secretary. In 1980, management of the plantations, whichbad previously been highly centralized, was regionalized. Each corporationis serviced by Regional Boards (Organization Charts, Annex 5), which areGovernment-ovned plantation management companies. The Regional Boardsoperate groups of estates within plantation districts but financial control,marketing and personnel administration remain the responsibility of thecorporations (JEDB and SPC)-now called the Central Boards. Each RegionalBoard witb three to four directors is headed by a chairman. The chairmen anddirectors are senior planters drawn from the corporations' estates. RegionalBoard chairmen serving under the Central Board chairmen make up the majorityof the Central Boards of JEDB and SPC and are therefore responsible forpolicy formulation as well as execution. The other members of the CentralBoards are a nominee each from the Ministry of Finance and Planning (MOFP), arepresentative from the labor unions and in JEDB, a practicing accountant.

2.11 Relations with Government. So far as large-scale operations areconcerned, both JEDB and SPC are young organizations. A significant earlyproblem faced by the corporations was the time Government took to establish

permanent terms of service for staff taken under land reform; when terms wereestablished they lacked the strong incentive which had characterized theprivate industry. Another unsettling factor was the considerable svitchingaround of estates and allocation of superintendents, used to the higheststandards of plantation management, to estates which had been badly mis-managed after land reform. This was extremely demoralizing particularly to agroup of planters noted for its elitism and esprit de corps; many good staffwere lost during the period. Those planters remaining have gradually come toterms with their new roles, procedures and responsibilities, and haveaccepted the cballenge of getting the plantations back into order as quicklyas possible. The evidence for this has clearly been provided in theIDA-supported projects (para 2.33). To achieve this objective, however, thecorporations must be provided with an adequate and consistent flow of funds,a situation lacking under recent govlnment strategy.

2.12 Since 1978 the decline in crop prices and inadequate adjustments totazes, coupled with over-recruitment of staff and labor, have resulted inboth corporations operating at deficits. These deficits were financed bybudgetary aid, usually too little and too late, and by borrowing from commer-cial banks which vas limited by Government. Following nationalization partof the working capital of previous owners was transferred to the corpora-tions. These funds were fully used to cover losses and the corporationssuffered a severe working capital crisis until mid-1983 when tea pricesincreased.

2.13 An issue of overriding importance in corporation efficiency has beena poor operating environment, largely created by Govermnent. The key problemhas been lack of trust; the corporations have never been allowed the freedomof action and resources to carry out their mandate. Criticism of corporateperformance by senior government officials, many of whom operated privateplantations, led to the corporations being deliberately starved of funds.Government vas remiss, hovever, in never holding the corporations to accountfor technical and financial reporting and did not establish criteria tomeasure performance. Since early 1983 there have been considerable changesfor the better. Under the ongoing Tea Rehabilitation and Diversification(TRAD) Project (Cr. 1240-CE) international and local management consultants,highly experienced in plantation affairs, were appointed to recommend andimplement ways to improve corporate performauce. The consultants conductedan exhaustive review of the financial and management procedures of JEDB andSPC and emphasized that the prime need for change was in relations betweenthe Government and corporations. Key findings of the consultants were that:

(a) there should be an increase in clearly defined delegation ofauthority at all levels: Government to Central Boards; CentralBoards to Regional Boards; and Regional Boards to estatesuperintendents;

-6-

(b) board structure and composition should be modified to ensure aclear distinction between policy formulation and execution;

(c) inereased delegation of authority and responsibility must beaccompanied by increased accountability;

(d) increased accountability will require establisbment of clearlydefined targets for physical and financial performance Which inturn vill require development of corporate planning capability;

(e) the corporations' finances need restructuring to provide a basisfor the establishment of financial targets and measurements ofperformance;

(f) to carry out agreed plans the corporatious must bave access toa reliable supply of fimnacial resources, they cannot operateefficiently with the present "hand-to-mouth" approach to funding;

(g) a anagesment information system must be introduced to improveefficiency and facilitate accountability; and

(h) personnel at all levels must be pxovided with a pay system whichrewards good performance.

These findings have been fully endorsed by Government and IDA and a timetablefor implementation has been agreed with Gover nent and the corporations;details are in the Project File, Item 1O.'

2.14 Government's attitude toward the corporations has recently improved,influenced partly by demonstrated improvements in estates covered by Bankprojects, and partly by a change in attitude ou the part of senior corpora-tion staff who have welcomed and readily accommodated the consultants' recom-mendations. Government has also been made aware of the great value of itsplantations by a sharp turnaround in corporate profitability brought about bya combination of high tea prices and good growing couditions. The productionof the MMIP in 1983, itself important evidence of JEDB and SPC's commitmentto ratioual planning, was a collaborative effort between Government and thecorporations which has generated a better relationship at the working levels.

2.15 Financial ManaRement. The Finance Act (No. 38 of 1971) controls thecorporations' financial operations which are highly centralized. All financ-ing is arranged by the Central Boards which control the release of funds toRegional Boards and the estates. Major suppliers' invoices are also settledby the central offices. The corporations are expected to operate withinfinaucing limits imposed by the Treasury and are dependent on Treasury sanc-tion for long-term finsncing. The Finance Act also requires prior approvalof the Treasury for commitment of capital expenditure in excess pf Rs 0.5 M(US$20,000) irrespective of whether such expenditure was included in the

-7-

corporations' approved annual budgets. Authority to commit the corporationson revenue expenditure within approved budgets has been delegated to theRegional Boards and superintendents.

2.16 Long-range financial planning as a function is non-existent. Budget-ing is restricted to an annual basis, apart from projects funded by donoragencies covering a limited number of estates. Day-to-day financial controlis adequate, but procedures are cumbersome and frequently excessive.Regional offices participate in the preparation of annual budget estimatesfor each estate and forward regionally-approved versions to headquarters inColombo. Estates submit monthly progress reports both in physical and finan-cial terms to headquarters through the regional offices. Hovever, a standardand more concise reporting format should replace the form inherited frompre-nationalization management.

2.17 The Regional Boards, although autonomous public-sector corporations,rely on the Central Boards for all investment and recurrent funds. Funds areallocated by the Central Boards for the Regional Boards' operating expenses,based on a nominal management fee. Any surplus or deficit arising from theoperations of the Regional Boards is absorbed by the Central Boards.

2.18 Financial performance of the two corporations from 1977 to 1984 isshown in Annex 3, Tables 1 and 2. In 1977, with high tea prices, the cor-porations made good profits and had a 68% working ratio. 1/ However, from1978 through 1981, the working ratios had deteriorated to almost lOOZ. Thekey factors which affected the corporations' profitability were poor teaprices in 1978 and 1979, a statutory increase in labor wages of almost 100%in 1979, an absorption of excess staff and labor taken over on unproductiveestates, increases in costs of fertilizer and electricity by over 300X in1980, and crop shortfall in 1980 due to severe drought. Goverenmt increasedthe export duty and taxes in 1977 to match the high tea prices and devalua-tion of the currency. Subsequent reductions in taxes were, however, inade-quate and untimely and could not buffer the corporations from losses. In1982 due to the improvement in tea prices and satisfactory crop, the vorkingratios improved. This trend continued during 1983 and 1984. From thesesurpluses the corporations have paid off their short-term borrovings fromcommercial banks and have financed their limited capital expenditure for 1984from their own resources.

2.19 A proper appraisal of the financial structure of the two corporationsis not yet possible as their capital restructuring has not been completed.As a first step towards addressing this problem, the valuation of assets has

AJ Ratio of total working expenses (excluding depreciation, interest,selling expenses, and Regional and Central Boards' establishment andadministrative expenses) to total operating revenue.

-8-

been completed according to valuations set out in the Land Reform Lav. Workis now in progress to rationalize current assets and liabilities taken overat nationalization by vriting off unsaleable and obsolete stocks, uncollec-table debts and fictitious assets and liabilities.

2.20 Accounting. Corporate accounting is centralized. Accounts at theestate level are up to date and submission of monthly estate accounts throughregional offices to central headquarters is strictly enforced. Consolidationof accounts at the central offices, which was in arrears, has now beenbrought up-to-date.

2.21 Auditinz. The Auditor General, as statutory corporate auditor, isresponsible for auditing accounts of the Central and Regional Boards andtheir estates. Owing to the size of the corporations, private charteredaccountant firms are appointed by the Auditor General for the audits of theCentral and Regional Boards. The corporations are given the discretion toappoint private auditors for the estates. This has resulted in about 45firms handling the audits of one corporation and inadequate coordinationamong auditors. Moreover, the audits at different levels vary in thorough-ness and degrees of completeness.

2.22 Internal Audit. Internal audit is centralized with the Chief Inter-nal Auditor reporting to the chairmen of the Central Boards. Internal auditofficers at each Regional Board, report to the regional chaiz-men. The inter-nal audit units in both corporations are inadequately staffed. These unitsare at present involved in surprise audit checks of estates, and in inves-tigations which are mostly uadertaken on receipt of petitions. The auditorsdo not review the functioning of systems and controls.

2.23 Monitoring. In order to monitor performance on individual estatesa Visiting Agent (VA) system is operated by both JEDB and SPC. This systemarose in the days of private estate ownership when owners and agency housesappointed senior expezienced planters to visit estates tvice yearly on a paidbasis to monitor all aspects of estate performance. Development plans for anestate were prepared by the Estate Superintendent in consultation with theVA; both the VA and the superintendent were held accountable for efficientestate progress. The VA system worked well but depended upon the experienceand vigilarce of the senior planters. Since nationelization most superinten-dents have been given VA responsibilities in order to augment their income.This has resulted in a fall in overall monitoring standards. Monitoring ofstock, both inputs and produce, in store and in transit, is weak. Thisproblem is being addressed by the management consultants. Inadequatemonitoring of physical performance has been a major cause of the Government'scriticism of corporation operations.

2.24 Interinstitutional Liaison. Although the corporations operate assemiautonomous agencies their performance is greatly influenced by otherinstitutions and ministries within Government. The Ministry of Finance and

Planning (MOFP) controls their profit margins by adjusting export taxes,approves their investment programs and coordinates project preparation.Overall responsibility for tea and rubber services to the industry isprovided by the Ministry of Plantation Industries (MPI) which is made up ofthe Tea Board, the Tea Research Institute (TRI), Tea Smallholders DevelopmentAnthority (TSEDA), Department of Rubber Control, the Rubber ResearchInstitute (RRI), Rubber Advisory Services Department and the NationalInstitute of Plantation Management (NIPM). MPI is therefore central to thedevelopment of the industry, being responsible for policy formulation, marketpromotion, subsidy levels and administration, extension, research and manage-ment training. All aspects of national coconut production are governed bythe Ministry of Coconuts which also operates the Coconut Research Institute(CRI). The Department of Minor Export Crops within the Ministry of Agricul-tural Development and Research has prime responsibility for the promotion ofcoffee, cocoa and spices.

2.25 Government recognizes that poor coordination within the sector hashad an adverse effect on JEDB and SPC performance. Before 1984 neithercorporation vas represented on the Tea Board and were therefore excluded frompolicy making including market promotion; both corporate chairmen haverecently been appointed to the Board. As a further move to streamlineinstitutional liaison, Government is establishing a National Tree Crop PolicyCommittee to be responsible for policy making, plAnning and coordination.It will take time for all the anomalies in the sector to be removed butsignificant improvements are being made.

2.26 Training throughout the sector is the responsibility of NIPM whichworks closely with the advisory and extension services of the researchinstitutes and organizes seminars, courses and field days for all levels ofstaff. However, training courses tend to be ad hoc and purely technical andare not geared to bridging skill gaps within institutions. No attention hasbeen given to the need for systematic staff development.

E. Relations between Estates and Smallholders

2.27 The majority of JEDB and SPC tea estates buy green leaf fromsmallholders and 25 estates rely on private leaf for more than half of theirraw material. Most smallholders are unable to supply direct to factoriesbecause of the small quantities of leaf involved and lack of transport.Conversely factory operators do not want to engage in hundreds of tiny trans-actions. The bulk of smallholder green leaf is therefore marketed throughintermediaries who exploit the weak position of smallholders and pay priceswhich may be 30Z below market values. In response, smallholders pluck coar-sely and adulterate their leaf to increase weight; this has a detrimentaleffect on quality and prices and the entire output of an estate may suffer.

2.28 Smalliholders rely on TSHDA for inputs, credit and technical adviceand the estates have no involvement in any smallholder activity other than

-10-

manufacturing. TSHDA is weak and understaffed and its responsibilitiesrequire clear definition. A study for this purpose would be undertaken underthe project. Estate superintendents complain about leaf quality fromsmallholders yet have no direct means of improving the situation. JEDB andSPC are aware of the problem but have to date committed their limited resour-ces to rehabilitation of their own estates. Superintendents would beprepared to service their smallholder suppliers if a feasible operationalarrangement could be developed and tested.

2.29 The rubber smallholder is much better served than the private teagrover. Processing is carried out in many thousands of small sheetingfacilities and smokehouses in the private sector. About 100 group-processingcenters were established by the RRI in more remote areas. Nevertheless,considerable additional value might at times be added to latex by processingthis into crepe at larger factories. At present only about 8% of smallholderlates is processed in this way. Many JEDB and SPC rubber factories processtoo little latex to be viable and a system of latex collection and processingat larger factors would be investigated.

F. The Medium-Term Investment Prozram (MTIP) and Proiect Genesis

2.30 Development of MTIP. Prior to 1983, the corporations had no invest-ment strategy extending beyond their annual budgets. At the instigation ofthe Government and the Bank, MTIP was formulated during 1983 by bringingtogether individual five-year investment proposals of all estates (248 JEDB,and 282 SPC) into regional plans, amalgamating these into corporate plans andcombining these into a single investment program for the plantation sector.Investment proposals included all activities on estates: field development,factory rehabilitation, transport, social welfare (i.e. housing, sanitation,water supplies and medical) plus anticipated investments at regional andcorporate levels. Anticipated crop yields, investment costs and proposedimplementation plans were prepared for each estate, based on estate records,and vere checked by visiting agents, regional advisers and technical consult-ants. A team of staff and consultants representing both corporations calcu-lated preliminary financial and economic rates of return for each estate.The analyses revealed which estate proposals required revision. This itera-tive procedure continued until a technically and economically viable NTIP wasproduced for each corporation.

2.31 IDA appraisal of MTIP. MTIP was based on the requirements ofindividual estates. However, overestimation of implementation capacity,particularly in civil works and factory rehabilitation, necessitatedmodification to implementation schedules. In addition some estates are toosmall to be viable units and rationalization will be required particularly inregard to rubber processing; this will reduce the requirements for factoryrehabilitation. Vehicle requirements were based on real needs and con-stituted mainly functional vehicles for estate usage. Investment in social

-ll-

welfare had been underemnphasized and additional provision for welfare serv-ices was therefore included in MTIP. Institutional development needs had notbeen fully addressed and training and technical needs, based on a systematicidentification of skill gaps, were incorporated into HTIP. Finally HTIP foreach corporation was reviewed by IDA and revised according to the financialcapacity of the corporations to undertake a five-year development program.

2.32 MTIP and the Proiect. It is intended that MTIP should be a rollingcorporate program, revised annually according to changing circumstances:investment costs, commodity prices, market deasnds and experience gained bythe corporations. The MTIP will be the total investment program of JEDB andSPC irrespective of sources of finance. Investment decisions and budgetapproval will be based on criteria and norms maintained by the corporations,in particular relating to economic viability and corporate performance (para6.05). The proposed project would finance all investments of MTIP excludingthose funded from ongoing projects, for the five-year period January 1985through December 1989.

G. IDA Involvement in the Tree Crops Sector

2.33 Since 1978, IDA credits have supported a series of projects related tothe tree crops sector. Two projects, Kurunegala Rural Development Project(Cr. 891-CE) and the Second Rural Development Project (Cr. 1079-CE) in theNatale and Puttalam areas involve extension to smallbolders for crop produc-tion as part of rural infrastructure development. Three ongoing projectsdeal principally with the development of tree crops. The first project,Smallbolder Rubber Rehabilitation (Cr. 1017-CE), supports a rubber replantingprogram in the low country. The second, the Tree Crop Rehabilitation (Tea)Project (Cr. 818-CE) is promoting rehabilitation of JEDB and SPC estates ofhigh country tea areas. Building on this project and extending rehabilita-tion to mid-country and low-country estates, the Tea Rehabilitation andDiversification Project (Cr. 1240-CE) also includes replacement of uneconomictea with minor export crop-: Bank policy regarding financing of tea is basedon the premise that world su;l,.y will grow in excess of demand and restrictsfinancing to countries with no 1L7estMent alternatives yieJiing an acceptablerate of return. On the tea growing e'^ntations of Sri T.nka, on which almosthalf a million workers depend for their lii' .…, there is no alternativeto tea except in small areas where diversification is feasible. The projectwould diversify as much as possible, about double the area of new plantingand replanting, and vould increase tea production by infilling old tea.Economic analysis at marginal tea prices would be undertaken before approvalof field activities.

2.34 Management of these projects is mostly good and impressive progresshas been made in field and factory development on estates. Physical achieve-ments, other than civil works, are close to targets and technical standardsare high. Budgetary restrictions have constrained the flow of funds to therural development projects, but in contrast, the estate-based projects funded

-12-

directly by JEDB, SPC and the Bank of Ceylon (BOC) have had few suchproblems. All projects have suffered from high local cost inflation, andlimited construction industry capacity has necessitated modification of thecivil works programs. Compliance with loan conditions is generally goodalthough project accounts production and auditing were initially delayedbecause of cumbersome procedures, the need to treat project and estateaccounts separately, and the lack of coordination between auditors. After alearning period under Credit 818-CE, JEDB and SPC staff have become familiarwith Bank procedure and under the TRAD project procurement and disbursementare on schedule; accounts and audits for both projects are also nowup-to-date.

H. Lessons Learned from Previous Proiects

2.35 The following relevant lessons learned from previous projects havebeen taken into consideration in designing the proposed project.

(a) Field Works: Standards of technical operations are high, in somecases excessively so. Estate success is measured more by appearancethan by profit and superintendents make decisions, for example, onreplanting, without reference to cost-benefit analysis. Liaison withresearch institutes over technical problems on estates is unsatisfac-tory.

Cb) Housing and Social Welfare: Civil works designs are simple, estatesdispersed and frequently isolated. Thus procurement by local con-tractor or estate force account is mucb more efficient than nationalor regional contract awards. Housing programs for estate workersshould concentrate on renovation of existing facilities. Health andsocial welfare programs depend greatly on provision of water suppliesand latrines. Upgrading of houses and social welfare programs mustbe integrated to achieve maximum benefits for estate work forces.

Cc) Factory Renovation: Attempts to keep factories operating whileinstalling new machinery item-by-item has led to prolonged disrup-tion, bunching of suppliers' orders and strain on local machinerymanufacturing capacity. Factories should be renovated on a turnkeybasis and the logistics of annual programs should be coordinated atRegional Boards. Greater efforts should be made to encourage inter-national manufacturers to establish spares and service facilities inSri Lanka to widen supplier competition.

(d) Power Supplies: High oil prices and disruption in power suppliesto the estates are making JEDB and SPC place greater emphasis onfuelwood production, wood-fired furnaces and renovation of mini-hydro units.

-13-

(e) Coumunications: Managers and estate supervisors necessarily spendgreat amounts of time traveling and out of touch vith headquartersand estate offices. Telephone linkages are uncertain and road travelis wearing, slow and expensive. Simple radio communication onestates and throughout the corporation network would greatly improveoperational efficiency.

(f) Computerization: Accounts and audit processing mechanisms at alllevels (estates, regions and headquarters) are archaic. Estate datalend themselves to computerization which would speed processing andprovide the basis for an efficient management information system.

(g) Institutional Development: JEDB and SPC are still at a formativestage and rely heavily on individual staff competence rather thantested institutional procedures to operate efficiently. Definingobjectives and identifying institution capacity gaps at all levelsis essential. Training programs and technical assistance must begeared to bridging institution capacity gaps, from estate workersto board levels.

III. THE PROJECT AREA

A. Physical Characteristics

3.01 General. The project area is the 530 estates of JEDB and SPC whichare spread throughout the southwest quarter of the country. The estates aregrouped into Regional Boards according to plantation districts. Details ofthe boards are given in Table 3.1; the plantation districts are shown on Map18232.

-14-

Table 3.1: REGIONAL BOARDS, PLANTATION DISTRICTS AND ESTATES a/

Estates GrowingBoards Plantation Districts Tea Rubber Coconuts

JEDBI Hatton and Avisawella 43 29 -

II Nuvara Eliya and Kandy 70 -III Badulla 27 - -IV Kegalla and Nawalapitiya 36 28 10V Chilaw and Kurunegala - - 22

Sub total 176 57 32

SPCI Hatton and Matale 73 - -II Nuvara Eliya and Haputale 58 - -III Horana and Kalutara 34 58 -IV Galle and Matara 39 36 -v Ratnapura and Balangoda 24 7 -

Sub total 228 101 -

Total 404 158 32

a; There are 530 estates; 50 grow both tea and rubber, while 14 growcoconuts and rubber.

3.02 Throughout the project area there is great variation in climate,elevation, topography, pest and disease incidence and social factors. Thesecharacteristics influence the crops grown and their yields, agriculturalpractices on estates, manufacturing processes, labor characteristics andsocial benefit programs. Most importantly they affect estate profitability.

3.03 Climate. Mean annual temperatures throughout the project area dependupon altitude, and range from 17 0C in the high country to 27°C in the lowcountry. Daily temperature variation is about 4-8°C. Low temperatures arenot limiting and frost, where it occurs on high land, is not severe enough todamage crops. The most significant influence on crops is the interaction ofmonsoons and elevation. Much of the area is served by both the southwestmonsoon rains from May to August (yala season) and the northeast monsoonrains from September to December (mnaha season). Total rainfall and itsseasonal distribution vary considerably over short distances depending uponaltitude and aspect. In the wet zone annual rainfall ranges from about1,500 mm at sea level to over 5,000 mm on high land. To the north and eastrainfall diminishes rapidly as the influence of the southwest monsoonveakens. In the intermediate zone vhere coconuts predominate annual rainfall

-15-

varies between 900 vl and 1,500 mm while in the dry zone, normally untouchedby the southwest monsoon, and outside the plantation area, total rainfallaverages around 700 mm per year. Local storms, driven by high winds, can besevere and cause erosion and damage to exposed crops.

3.04 Elevation. Topographv and Soils. The high-country tea estates arelocated at elevations above 1,200 m in undulating to deeply dissected terrainwhere many slopes exceed 70X. Soil erosion on the upper slopes has exposedbare rock which is widely scattered throughout the area. Soils are mostlyuniform red-yellow podsols and wet mountain regosols which vary greatly indepth depending upon their position in the catena. They are all acid to veryacid with pH around 5. Neither soils nor topography are well suited to landuses other than tea, forest or pasture.

3.05 The mid-country estates are located at elevations ranging between600 m and 1,200 m on terrain similar to that of the high country. Soil depthvaries greatly depending on the degree of erosion, and rocky outcrops occurin many areas. The soils are mostly red-yellow podsols and reddish brownlatosols which are free draining, highly leached, of low base exchangecapacity and with pH between 5 and 6. Topsoils are sandy loams while thesubsoils contain a higher clay content. The soils are inherently stable,nevertheless exposure to wind and rain has gradually caused serious erosionin many areas. In sheltered areas a wide range of crops can be grownprovided erosion control measures are taken and fertilizer and organic matterapplied to ensure good early crop growth. In most areas slopes are too steepfor the cultivation of annual crops but many indigenous perennial cropsthrive in the humid conditions, moderate temperatures and elevations of themid country.

3.06 Low-country estates are situated below about 600 m with most between60 m and 150 m. The land is mostly gently undulating with rolling hills,slowly moving streams and paddy fields in valley bottoms. Soils aregenerally deep and free draining but exposed rock is abundant on hill crests.The soils are mostly red-yellow podsols of pH about 5.

B. Plantation Crops

3.07 General. The principal crops grown on the estates are tea, rubberand coconuts. Poor areas of land are planted to fuelwood and grassland athigh elevations, and some estates in the mid-country are diversifying smallareas into pepper, cloves, cardamom, and coffee.

Tea

3.08 Tea Production. JEDB and SPC together grow about 108,000 ha of teaon 404 estates. High-country estates produce the renowned flavor teas whichestablished Sri Lanka's international tea reputation. Low-country estatesproduce the heaviest yields of strong black teas demanded by Middle Eastern

-16-

countries. The mid-country produces neither high quality nor high yields andpoorer mid-country tea prices are not compensated by greater production.Government strategy, supported by IDA, has been to invest in high- andlov-grown tea while diversifying out of tea in unprofitable mid-countryareas. However, the current high prices have made mid-country estates moreprofitable--at least temporarily-and this has lessened Government's resolveto diversify those areas.

3.09 At least half the tea is more than 70 years old, vell beyond itsoptimal productive period. Most is seedling varieties of uncertain yield andpoor "jat" (leaf type) and most fields have high vacancy rates. It has beenestimated that up to 70X of old seedling tea (OST) bushes contribu-e littleor nothing to total field production. Old seedling tea was traditionallyplanted at wide spacing in lines running up and down slopes, in a misguidedattempt to get rid of excess water. As a result erosion in old tea fieldshas been severe, especially where bush deaths have left bare patches. Ero-sion has exposed the tea bush's surface feeding roots to sun and wind whichhas accelerated the degradation process. The problem is exacerbated byweeding with scrapers and by estate workers removing all plant debris forfuel. The absence of mulch/surface litter is a notable feature of Sri Lankantea. This problem was aggravated by the extensive removal of shade trees inthe 1960s on the instigation of the TRI. Shade removal stimulated yield fora short period but had long-term deleterious effects-increasing pest anddisease incidence, decreasing soil litter and exposing the tea to dryingwinds. Shade trees are now being reestablished as rapidly as possible andsuperintendents are fully aware of the need for soil conservation. Thejudicious use of herbicides is becoming more common and scrapers have beenbanned from many estates. Contour draining has reduced erosion but much ofthe old seedling tea remains in a poor state and yields are very low, averag-ing less than 800 kg per hectare.

3.10 The replacement of OST is done in two ways: by replanting or byinfilling. Replanting is a major operation involving the replacement of oldtea by high yielding vegetatively propagated (VP) tea and usually involves anentire field. It requires the total removal of all old bushes, constructionor realignment of soil conservation structures, soil rehabilitation usingdeep-rooted grass for at least two years, and careful tending of the newlyplanted VP tea for at least two years--up to four years in the cooler highcountry-before tea production resumes. Replanted VP fields can match inquality and yield, standards attained anywhere in the world. However, costsof replanting are high and, because of the yield of old tea foregone and thelong period before full production is resumed, the economic value of replant-ing is marginal. Routine economic analysis of replanting proposals is notdone before expenditure is committed.

3.11 Infilling involves filling gaps caused by the death of old tea busheswith VP tea chosen for competitive ability rather than yield. To aid sub-sequent management and plucking, infill areas are squared off by removing old

-17-

busbes from the edges of the gaps but yield loss is usually negligible.Sometimes deaths are caused by root disease (e.g., Poria) in which case thesoil is fumigated. Grass rehabilitation is normally not required. Wheninfilling, there is little or no yield foregone; economically, tberefore,infilling is a more viable proposition than replanting and should be giventhe highest priority where technically feasible.

3.12 Tea grow. vigorously in the low country but bush life is short-about 30 years compared with over 60 years in the high country. As a resultof more rapid replacement about 43% of low country tea is VP while less than20X of high country tea is VP. Areas of tea on the estates are shown inTable 3.2.

Table 3.2: PUBLIC ESTATE TEA AREAS (ha)

ImmatureOST VP -VP Total

Rirh Country

JEDB 18,681 4,712 1,817 25,210SPC 19,862 5,332 1,700 26,894Total 38,543 10,044 3,517 52,104Percent Total (74) (19) (7)

Mid-Country

JEDB 15,048 4,048 1,158 20,254SPC 8,840 1,154 380 10,374Total 23,888 5,202 1,538 30,628Percent Total (78) (17) (5)

Low Country

JEDB 889 1,983 216 3,088SPC 10,809 8,807 2,286 21,902Total 11,698 10,790 2,502 24,990Percent Total (47) (43) (10)

Total Corporations 74,129 26,036 7,557 107,722Percent Total (69) (24) (7)

3.13 Tea Processint. Manufacture is almost exclusively by the orthodoxprocess, despite the increasing world demand for small leaf grades for thetea bag trade. Sri Lanka has been reluctant to change to modern cut, tearand curl (CTC) processes for fear of losing traditional markets. Ezperimentsare underway to exmine the merits of this non-orthodox manufacture. Most

-18-

tea factories are old; machinery is well over 20 years old and has becomeinefficient. As a result tea quality has declined while operating costs haveincreased. A major nanufacturing cost is fuel oil for driers. Firevood isin short supply and expensive to transport and estates are planting fuelwoodin ravines, poor tea areas and waste land in anticipation of changing tosolid fuel driers. Green leaf is withered on small perforated trays, or"tats", instead of in large troughs with forced air; this is more laborintensive and makes withering control difficult. Fermentation facilities aremostly poor vhich lovers top tea grades. Working conditions for factorystaff are extremely poor. All of these factors reduce tea quality andprices.

Rubber

3.14 Rubber Production. SPC is responsible for 34,287 ha of rubberplanted on 101 estates; 29 of these eatates also grow lowland tea. JEDB has20,327 ha of rubber on 57 estates; 21 also grov tea and 14 grow coconuts andrubber. Rubber is grown up to an elevation of about 600 m, frequently onextremely steep terrain with many rocky outcrops, making soil conservationimperative. Where terracing is impractical, trees are planted on individualplatforms arranged in contour lines. Good standards of busbandry are main-tained. Virtually all pre-var rubber vas replanted by the late 1950s, lead-ing to another cycle of replanting which is still going on. About 32 pcrcentof the rubber is either imature or is being uprooted for replanting. Over80 percent of the rubber area is planted vith PB 86 (a primary selection madefrom seedling populations in Malaysia more than 60 years ago). By modernstandards this is only a moderate yielder. Tapping standards are generallyhigh and bark consumption compares favorably with other countries; panels aregenerally free from wounding and disease is not serious. Although upwardtapping skills are satisfactory, exploitation of the higher bark is rare.Almost no yield stimulation is used. The use of PB 86, underutilization ofbark, and lack of stimulation results in lower production than might beexpected from rubber under good growing conditions.

3.15 Rubber Processiua. Sri Lankan rubbers are grade-for-grade probablythe beet in the vorld and the premium grades, sole and pale crepes, find aready market. Processing is carried out in a large number of s-All factoriesin some cases more than one per estate--a legacy of private ownership. Somefactories have specialized in producing speciality rubbers and accept latexfrom other estates and smallholders but even with this degree of rationaliza-tion the scale of operations of each factory is very small--around 2 t/day;this makes them inefficient. Factory equipment, although carefully main-tained, is mostly at least 25 years old, of out-dated design and inefficient.Effluent from estate rubber factories is customarily discharged into streamsvithout prior treatment, to the detriment of aquatic life. Effluent treat-ment techniques are known but capital has not been made available for thispurpose.

-19-

Coconuts

3.16 Coconut Production. Grovn along the coastal fringes and expandinginto the "coconut triangle" to the north of Colombo (Map 18232) coconuts areproduced mainly by suallholders. After Land Reform, JEDB took aver 32coconut estates, 9 in Chilaw, 13 in Kurunegala, and 10 in Kegalla. The totalestate area in bearing is 8,524 ha and another 2,321 ha is in the process ofrehabilitation by underplanting. Few estates have substantial contiguousareas; typically an estate of 200-500 ha is divided into 6-12 units which maybe spread over 20 km or more. This adds greatly to supervision problems.Most of the estates are planted with overaged palms which yield poorly-about2,500 nuts per hectare. The fields are mostly vell maintained and under-planted young palms are carefully tended. There is a low incidence of pestsand diseases on both young and mature palms. Contour drains are included inconservation practices and husk pits are dug between palms to improve mois-ture-bolding capacity of fields. Old palms contribute little to yield andare over 15 a tall whicb makes harvesting difficult, tedious and expensive.Hybrid varieties which are precocious high yielders are available but seed isin short supply. Hybrids are shade-sensitive and perform below their poten-tial in traditional under planted conditions. Growers are, however, reluc-tant to cut down any palms which still bear nuts, however few they may be.Rehabilitation of old lands is mostly by underplanting with selectedvarieties; clear felling is rarely practiced.

3.17 Coconut Processin2. After harvesting, nuts are stacked in the fieldsand allowed to wither for 3-5 weeks before husking, a procedure essential forbest copra production but which necessitates the use of watchmen to preventtheft. Some estates have small copra-making units and produce copra ofexcellent quality when market conditions are favorable. Most estate produceis, however, sold directly from estates as fresh nuts.

Produce Marketing

3.18 Tea marketing follows mainly traditional lines, the sale of bulk teasthrough the auction system. Colombo is the predominant outlet; sales at theLondon auctions have declined end only about 2% of bulk tea was sold there in1982. There is a conscious effort to increase value added and sale of pack-eted tea comprised 18% of exports in 1982; tea bags comprised a further 0.6X.The main weakness of present marketing efforts is the absence of an overallmarketing policy and a tendency to spread marketing effort too thinly overtoo wide an area. A problem at estate level stems from the small factorysize. It takes considerable time to accumulate sufficient tea of the offgrades to form a "break" (the auction system requires a minimum of 20 chests)which locks up working capital and risks quality losses. This adds weight tothe need for factory rationalization in the pursuit of economies of scale.

-20-

3.19 Crepe rubber is sold through brokers at public auctions in Colombo.A small amount of sheet also passes through the auctions but the bulk is soldtbrough a chain of dealers to shippers. Dealers' margins are not excessiveand there is ample competition.

3.20 Marketing of coconuts presents no major problem; the bulk of produc-tion is disposed of as fresh nuts to a large network of local dealers amongvhom there is good competition.

C. Social Welfare on Estates

3.21 There is a marked and important difference between the social condi-tions on the high-country estates (predominantly tea) and the low-countryestates. In the high country there are few villages, and laborers, mostlyTamils of Indian origin, rely on the estates for their livelihood, housingand social welfare. In the low country there are many more villages whichprovide most of the estate workforce. Villagers in the low country arepredominantly Sinhalese who tend to work more with rubber and coconuts; low-country tea estates retain a high proportion of resident Tamil labor. Themid-country presents a transition zone in which remote estates-mostlytea--rely on resident Tamils. The remoteness of the estates has resulted inpast ethnic disturbances having little or no detrimental effect on JEDB andSPC estate affairs.

3.22 JEDB and SPC together employ more than half a million workers, over90 percent of whom are estate laborers. The estates traditionally providethe basic needs of their labor forces, including barrack style housing forresidents, cI1ild minding units (creches) and simple medical care for alllabor. These facilities traditionally form an important part of the benefitpackage. Housing areas are congested and most houses are old and in poorrepair. Water and sanitation facilities are rudimentary and are a majorcause of labor unrest and work stoppages. Strong labor union pressure hasresulted in government housing schemes but rapid cost escalation, limitedcapacity in the construction industry and lack of logistic planning haveconstrained the programs. Early schemes involved construction of new twincottages, a progr2m whiPh contnnues slowly. Attempts to convert existingbarracks into cottages ran into difficulties because too many residents weredisplaced. Experience has shown that older residents are reluctant to leavetheir barracks. The greatest short-term benefit to residents comes fromrenovating existing barracks, providing kitchens, bathing and latrinefacilities but leaving families in their existing communities. In the longterm, as cottages are constructed, younger families will move to these anddevelop their own community units.

3.23 Medical facilities on most estates are below national standards andinfant mortality is above the national average. Basic curative medicineshave always been provided for labor and the coverage of simple dispensariesis therefore good. In recent years Government, donor agencies-especially

-21-

UNICEF aud SIDA-and the corporations have promoted better medical facilitiesand several field hospitals and a large number of medical units have beenconstructed on estates. Health education, family planning program- andinfant food-supplement programs are also in operation. Both JEDB and SPCemploy doctors, estate medical practitioners, pharmacists and midwives toafford health care and provide family planning services but there is a needfor considerable infrastructural upgrading before a satisfactory service canbe provided.

3.24 Surveys show that over 4%' percent of estate children suffer from somedegree of malnutrition. An important part of the social welfare program isthe provision of creches where mothers may leave children while continuing topluck tea. At the creches children receive food supplements, checks are madeon their weight and health, and they take their first-steps in educa,ion inreasonably sanitary conditions. However, creches are dilapidated and requirerenovation.

3.25 The significant benefits in terms of productivity which derive fromimprovements in estate social welfare are recognized by the estates andcorporations. It is realized, however, that upgrading the estates to satis-factory standards is a huge task which will take many years. Nevertheless,with the assistance of IDA and donor agencies a good start has been made.

D. Infrastructure

Comumanications

3.26 A good network of public all-weather roads serves the estates. Thisis supplemented by an extensive network of graveled roads on every estate.Villages are well supplied with ptublic transport and major towns are servedby rail. Telephones linking many estates to regional offices are reasonablyreliable but more remote estates are not served. Of concern is the completelack of communication between parts of estates, many of which extend forseveral miles. The estate superintendent and his assistants are out of touchfor long periods and spend much time and fuel traveling between offices,factory and fields. Simple radio communication facilities would greatlybenefit the work program.

Power Supplies on Estates

3.27 Most estates are on the government grid system, which is unreliable,especially on remote estates where transmission failures are comon duringstorms. Diesel generators have been provided at many estates but are expen-sive to operate. Since the beginning of the century small water turbines(mini-hydros) have been installed on high-country tea estates to providepover for tea manufacture. Indeed, a large proportion of the tea factorieswere located to exploit the hydropower available. Virtually all such instal-lations were abandoned with the introduction of mains electricity and diesel

-22-

generators. Recent evaluations under the Tree Crops Rehabiiitation Project(Cr. 818-CE) have shown, however, that supplementing factory pover fromrenovated mini-hydro schemes can be economically attractive.

Vehicles

3.28 The transport fleet of most estates is over 15 years old and expensiveto maintain and operate. Motor cycles are urgently needed for supervisoryuse of assistant superintendents and for health care attendants. Green leafis hauled to factories in small lorries or by tractor and trailer, dependingupon the terrain; these vehicles also transport farm inputs and labor. Mostof these vehicles are extremely old, in need of expensive repairs, and costlyto operate.

Technical Support for Estates

3.29 Before nationalization, relations between the research institutes andplanters were excellent. Research scientists were held in high regard fortheir technical expertise, and the institutes valued the judgment ofplanters. The majority of members of the institutes' governing boards werefrom the plantation sector. Since reorganization of ministerial structuresJEDB and SPC have not been represented on the boards of the researchinstitutes and relationships have deteriorated. These problems are beingreviewed as part of a separate study of the research system by the Governmentand IDA.

3.30 Technical service from the institutes is now unsatisfactory and theestates rely principally on the experience of the estate superintendents toovercome problems. Previous high-quality research has provided an excellentbase for tree crop production, particularly in tea and rubber, but newproblems demand a new wave of effective research. There is an urgent needfor an economic evaluation of accepted agronomic practices to find ways ofreducing costs without reducing benefits. A weakness at the researchinstitutes is their lack of cost-benefit analyses. In tea, more effort isneeded on clonal development and testing under plantation conditions, onmethods to reduce replanting costs, on the long-term impact of shade trees inthe plantations, on more efficient solid-fuel driers and on CTC manufactureand costs. In rubber, more work is required on clonal adaptation to estateconditions, on fertilizer recommendations and on stand density. Of par-ticular importance would be a study of the economics of yield stimulation.Research on coconuts has been disappointing and the techniques available tothe estates are less certain than those for tea and rubber. Urgent work isrequired to develop higher yielding varieties, on fertilizer recommendationsand on the economics of crop prot,uctior. For all three major crops,on-estate studies are essential and liaison between estate staff andresearchers must be improved.

-23-

IV. THE PROJECT

A. Obiectives

4.01 The main objective of the proposed project is to reverse the declinein Sri Lanka's production of tea, rubber and coconuts, by improving theperformance of the plantation corporations, JEDB and SPC. This would beachieved by improving producer incentives, by improving productivity of allcorporation estates, rehabilitating factories and improving estate transpor-tation. In addition the project ains at strengthening management and finan-cial control of the corporations, at stabilizing lands through soil conserva-tion and at improving the health and welfare of estate workers.

B. Main Features

4.02 The main components of the project are:

(a) field program: continuing tea, rubber and coconut planting andreplanting programs, expanding tea infilling, diversifying unproduc-tive tea areas into fuelvood and minor export crops and renovatingsoil conservation structures;

(b) providing field and nursery equipment;

(c) providing additional vehicles for transport of farm inputs andproduce, and for estate supervision;

ad) factory rehabilitation: rehabilitating processing facilities on tea,rubber and coconut estates;

Ce) renovating mini-hydra units ou tea estates;

(f) housing: renovating estate vorkers' line rooms, constructing laborcottages and staff quarters, providing latrines and improving vatersupplies;

(g) improving estate child care and medical facilities;

(h) developing institution capability by providing (i) training,(ii) technical assistance, (iii) support for Regional and CentralBoards, Civ) a planning unit, and Cv) a monitoring facility; and

(i) providing funds for MPI to prepare a medinm-term investment programf or smallholders.

-24-

C. Detailed Features

Field Program

4.03 Tea Planting. The project would plant about 717 ha of tea in landpreviously under rubber or rehabilitation grass, mainly in the low country.Technical procedures and clones for planting in different climlatic zones arewell established and documented (Project File, Item 2).

4.04 Tea Replanting. OST would be replaced with VP tea in about 3116 ha,principally in high- and low-country estates. Replanting would be restrictedto those areas where infilling was not technically feasible. At presentreplanting is undertaken on the basis of technical criteria; economicanalysis is not included in decision making. Government gave an assurancethat only those fields would be replanted with tea for which the economicrate of return was at least 10%.

4.05 Tea Infillinz. The vacancies in OST areas, which reduce yields,encourage weed growth, increase erosion and increase field management costs,would be infilled. Infilling techniques are well proven and documented(Working File, Item 2). The infilling program would have the highestpriority and would involve about 125 million tea bushes, the equivalent ofplanting about 10,000 ha. Nursery practices on estates are good and adequateVP planting material would be available for the replanting and infillingprograms.

4.06 Diversification. Areas of OST which yield poorly and are notsuitable for tea replanting would be diversified. Satisfactory technicalcriteria for diversification have been established. Experience under theTRAD project has refined establishment techniques. Diversificationcrops-pepper, cardamom, cloves, coffee and fuelwood (Eucalyptus irandis andLeucaena leucocephala)--would be planted in existing OST which would continueto be plucked until the new crop vas established. About 7,500 ha of OSTwould be diversified under the project, over 60Z of which would be intofuelwood.

4.07 Soil Conservation. The project would promote the renovation ofterraces, the realignment and clearing of drains, planting of wind breaks inexposed areas and the planting of shade trees. Where possible, all tea bushprunings and loppings from shade trees would be left in the fields to rebuild

1/ An essential feature of the proposed project would be its flexibility;the work program would be established annually as part of the budgetprocedure according to agreed financial and physical criteria. Thenumbers presented are therefore indicative.

-25-

soil organic content and estate labor would be provided with fuelvood fromuprooted OST and the smaller branches from the fuelvood plantations as thesewere harvested.

4.08 Rubber Replanting. JEDB would replant 3,263 ha of old rubber on 57estates in Avisawella and Kegalla; SPC would replant 6,381 ha on 101 estatesin Horana, Galle and Balangoda. In addition 2,668 of OST in the low countrywould be replaced with rubber. The total new rubber planting of 12,312 ha,averaging about 15 hectares per estate per year, is well within thecapability of estate staff. Planting density would be targeted to achieve395 trees per hectare at time of opening for tapping. All bud-grafted rubberwould be grown-on in polybag nurseries before being transplanted; thisimproves establishment and reduces the immaturity period. Higher dosages offertilizer are given to rubber in Sri Lanka than in other rubber-growingcountries. Pending results from ongoing fertilizer trials, applicationswould continue to be made at recommended rates but RRI would use soil andfoliar analyses in replanted rubber to advise modifications as appropriate.Project replanting would be carried out using high yielding clones RRIC 100and RRIC 103 which have been bred as substitutes for PB 86. Tapping stand-ards are conservative and the trees are underexploited. The project wouldintroduce yield stimulation on mature rubber and would provide for purchaseof ethephon yield stimulant. Stimulation would increase total yield by about25%. Technical assistance would be employed to demonstrate rubber stimula-tion techniques. An assurance was obtained that rubber would not be uprootedand replanted until the old rubber had been exploited both by chemicalstimulation and by upward tapping above the regular tapping panel. A signedstatement to this effect would accompany all replanting applications.

4.09 Coconut Replantina. JEDB would replant 1,469 ha of overagedcoconuts. Before replanting an analysis would be made of the profitabilityof the existing palms. Where the old palms had become unprofitalle theywould be clear felled before new planting was approved. New planting wouldbe at spacing recommended by CRI-200 palms per hectare in triangular spac-ing-rather than 150 palms per hectare in square spacing of old palms. Whereold palms were still bearing profitably they would be underplanted at squarespacing. After underplanting, old palms would be progressively removed untilthe new palms remained in sole stand by the time of bearing (about 9 yearsfrom planting). Whenever hybrid palms from CRI were planted, at least 502 ofold palms would be removed in Year 1, 25% in year 2 and the remainder inyear 3.

4.10 JEDB and SPC Field Program Summary. The total field program on the530 estates over the five-year project period is shown in Table 4.1.

-26-

Table 4.1: FIELD PROGRAM (Ha)

SPC JEDB Total

Tea

Replanting 1,933 1,183 3,116New Planting 541 176 717Infilling 5,241 5,089 10,330

Rubber

Replanting 6,381 3,263 9,644New Planting 1,891 777 2,668

Coconuts

Replanting - 1,469 1,469

Diversification 5,700 1,800 7,500

The total base cost of the field programs of both JEDB and SPC vould amountto about Rs 2,057 x (US$81.7 M). Full details are given in Annex 2.

4.11 Field and Nursery Equipment. Agricultural implements, including handcultivation tools, herbicide sprayers, crop protection equipment and weighingscales would be provided for JEDB and SPC. For coconut estates, vhere water-ing of young palms is important, 29 tube wells and drip irrigation facilitiesvould be provided on a pilot basis on 3 estates. Specialized power savingequipment for saving palm trunks into timber would also be provided. Thecost of field and nursery equipment would be about Rs 126 M (US$5 M).

4.12 Estate Vehicles. Tne rationalization of rubber estates (para 4.14)would necessitate purchase of tanker trailers for latex transport. Motorcycles and estate cars and pickups would be provided for supervision. JEDBcoconut estates have virtually no vehicles and the project would provide thefull requirement for haulage of inputs, cultivation operations, and supervi-sion. Tractors and trailers, modified to carry green leaf without damage,would be provided. The number of estate vehicles to be provided is shown inTable 4.2 and details are given in Annex 2. The cost of vehicles for use onthe 530 project estates would be about Rs 249 M (US$10 M).

-27-

Table 4.2: TOTAL ESTATE VEHICLES

SPC JEDB Total

Estate Cars and Pickups 154 118 272Trucks 146 155 301Tractors 198 230 428Trailers 252 344 596Tanker trailers 73 113 186Motor cycles 147 163 310

Crow ProcessinR

4.13 Tea Factorv Rehabilitation. The project would improve the qualityof tea manufacture by rehabilitating 134 JEDB factories and 138 SPC fac-tories. Orthodox manufacture would continue but provision is made forexperimentation with CTC manufacture. Proposals for installation of newequipment and rearranging factory throughput are based on studies of eachfactory undertaken by manufacturing consultants from TRI and by the corpora-tions' manufacturing advisors. However, plans vould be refined after furtherrationalization of leaf supplies. Some factories still process less than350,000 kg of made tea per annum, which is about the minimum economicthroughput. An assurance was obtained that no investment would be made inrenovating any tea factory unless the NPV at 1OZ in economic terms was posi-tive. Bank guidelines on procedures and practices for safety in factorieshave been provided to the corporations and will be taken into account infactory rehabilitation programs. Summarized details of tea factory require-ments and costs are presented in Annex 2. The cost of rehabilitating 272 teafactories would be about Rs 427 M (US$17 M).

4.14 Rubber Factory Rehabilitation. During the project period there wouldbe a major reduction in the number of rubber processing units and productionwould be concentrated on enlarged factories. Technical assistance would beprovided for the rationalization exercise. Latex concentrate facilitieswould be constructed at centrally-located estates and raw latex would betransported from a 40 km radius. Simple preservation methods are availablewhich permit latex to be held on producing estates for a week or longer untilsufficient quantities had been assembled for collection. An assurance wasobtained that no factory would be rehabilitated unless its annual productionwould be more than 300 m tons of sole crepe or more than 450 m tons of palecrepe or more than 600 m tons of latex concentrate. Effluent disposal wouldbe carefully controlled at each factory either by construction of effluenttreatment tanks or by pumping effluent to high ground and allowing it to seepthrough the soil returning nutrients to the land. An assurance was obtainedthat no untreated effluent from a rubber factory would be permitted to flowbeyond the boundaries of the factory estate. The rationalization procedure

-28-

would determine details of rubber factory reuabilitation; estimated costs areshown in Annex 2. The total cost of the rubber factory program would beabout Rs 118 M (US$4.7 H).

4.15 Coconut Processing. The project would renovate existing facilitiesand construct new kilns, barbecues and stores on those estates withoutfacilities. Copra production techniques are well known and copra kilns andbarbecues (drying floors) inexpensive. The cost of the program would beabout Rs 3.8 H (US$0.2 M).

4.16 Mini-Hydro Renovation. As part of the rehabilitation of tea estatesabout 70 mini-hydro schemes on JEDB estates and 70 on SPC estates would bemade operational. Each installation is site specific but rehabilitationwould mostly require repairs to diversion weirs, penstocks and screens,renovation or replacement of turbines, generators and governors, and theprovision of switchgear. A typical mini-hydro scheme would produce about100 BHP (75 kW) from a head of water in the range 20-150 meters. Mostschemes are run-of-river type with no significant volume of water storage.Thus the hydroenergy available varies with the season. Further, factorypower demand varies by day and by season and experience has shown that annualenergy utilization is likely to be no more than 60% of energy available.These factors would be taken into account in evaluating hydroschemes forrehabilitation. Technical assistance would be essential for identifyingschemes with high potential, for evaluating engineering proposals both tech-nically and in economic terms, and for supervising renovation works. Anassurance was obtained that no mini-hydro scheme would be rehabilitated forwhich the economic rate of return was less than 10%. The base cost ofrehabilitating the 140 sites would be about Rs 210 H (US$8 M).

4.17 Housing. One of the most pressing prnblems on estates is the provi-sion of adequate housing for estate staff, laborers and their dependents.The project would provide for renovation of existing line rooms by replacingroofs, adding kitchens to single line units, providing chianeys, providingpiped water, bathing units and latrines, and would double the house unit sizeby simple modification where logistically feasible. Satisfactory standarddesigns for new houses and conversions are available (Project File, Item 2).About 840 twin cottage units would be constructed to house 1,680 families,thus relieving some pressure on line rooms. About 220 junior staff quartersand 70 senior staff quarters would be built. Accommodation would be providedfor superintendents on 20 rubber and coconut estates. Watchman quarters andhuts would be constructed on coconut estates. Designs of all civil works aresimple and construction can be undertaken by local contractors. Full detailsof the housing program proposed for each of the 530 estates formed part ofthe preparation documents; a summary of the achievable program with costestimates is given in Annex 2. The base cost of the five-year program wouldbe about Rs 300 H (US$12 M).

-29-

Social Welfare

4.18 Creches. About 420 new creches (day nurseries) would be built andabout 375 existi'g creches would be renovated, particularly by providingpiped water and latrine facilities. Locally-employed creche attendants wouldbe trained under the project (para 4.21).

4.19 Medical. The health care program provided on estates is simple inconcept-providing materuity units and staffed dispensaries on each estateand providing health centers with qualified staff in attendance at centrallocations within a group of estates. Ambulances transport patients to thehospital, and transportation is provided for health staff to visit estateworkers. The project would construct and upgrade about 60 maternity units,renovate or construct about 160 dispensaries, upgrade about 175 health cen-ters and construct a further 21, provide 24 ambulances, 8 pickups, 190 motor-cycles, 16 bicycles, equipment, drugs and supplies. The project would con-struct one regional vaccine unit for the regional storage of vaccines andvaccination equipment prior to usage on estates, and about 100 houses formedical staff. An important part of the program would be provision of 40sludge pumps for latrine clearance. A summary of the program is given inAnnex 2 and details are in Project File, Item 3. To ensure that the socialwelfare program received due prominence in the proposed project the PlanningUnit (para 4.25) together with JEDB and SPC medical staff would establishbenefit norms, acceptable to IDA. An assurance was obtained that these normswould be included in estate analyses of annual investment proposals from 1986through 1989. The base cost of the social welfare program, includingcreches, water supplies, sanitation and health care, would be about Rs 271 M(US$10.7 M).

Institutional Developmeut

4.20 General. Despite the significant improvements which have recentlybeen made in corporate development, particularly with the introduction ofthe consultants' recommendations produced under Credit 1240-CE, the fullachievement of project objectives would necessitate the further upgrading ofinstitutional capacity in JEDB and SPC. This need is appreciated by cor-porate staff and by Gover nent. Under the project an Institution DevelopmentUnit (ID) would be established in JEDB and in SPC reporting directly to themanaging directors (Annex 5). The location of the IDU would give it theauthority to deal with organization matters and skill gap analyses at alllevels thus making it a valuable management tool. The IDU would be control-led by a manager appointed from within the corporation assisted by an inter-national specialist in management and organization development and a localinstitution specialist. An important function of the IDU would be assistingthe managing director to interpret and carry out the management consultantrecommendations. The continued implementation of the consultants' proposals,modified as necessary in the light of experience, will be essential forimproved institution performance; an assurance was obtained that management

-30-

consultants' proposals satisfactory to IDA would continue to be implementedin accordance with a schedule also satisfactory to IDA. Institutionaldevelopment would involve training, techuical assistance, strengtheningregional and central offices, establishment of planning and monitoringfacilities and conducting studies.

4.21 Training. A skill gap Analysis within JEDB and SPC revealed manyinstitutional gaps which could readily be closed by structured short-termtraining, largely conducted by skilled individuals drawn from JEDB and SPCstaff. The project would prowide funds for courses, workshops and seminarsto train staff at all levels from senior management to workers' families.N1PM has been supported under Credit 1240-CE with provision for employingtechnical assistance. lowever, NIPM has not made the appointments and itsoperations are unsatisfactory. It would be a condition of disbursementagainst all training costs under the project that NIPM had appointed thethree technical assistants provided under Credit 1240-CE. N1PM has recentlymoved to a new site outside Colombo. The project would add a 30-bed dor-mitory on the new site and would provide for additional documentationfacilities. Overseas study tours would continue under the project but wouldbe geared to specific training needs. Four pickups, two audio-visual vansand two minibuses would be provided to assist the IDU to organize on-sitetraining at estates. On-estate training programs to upgrade health educationworkers would be organized. Investment in training would amount to about Rs48 M (US$1.9 N). Details of the institutional development and trainingprograms are in the Project File, Item 8a.

4.22 Technical Assistance. The project would provide 44 staff months oflocal expertise and 26 staff months of international consultancy to supportJ3DB and SPC in institution development, computerization, liaison withresearch organizations, rubber factory rationalization studies, techniquesfor stimulating rubber yields and for a specialist on nini-hydro units todevelop tender specifications and evaluate bids. Consultants would beappointed by the corporations in collaboration and consultants' time would beshared equally between JEDB and SPC. Details are in Annex 2 and terms ofreference are in the Project File, Item 8. The cost of technical assistancewould be about Rs 17.4 N (US$0.7 M). In addition technical assistance vouldbe required to staff the planning units (para 4.25). The Netherlands Govern-ment has agreed to provide technical assistance to the planning units toassist the corporations in planning and implementing the social welfare andhousing programs.

4.23 Regional Support. Implementation efficiency would be improved byproviding radio communication on estates, and between estate offices andregional offices where telephone communication was inadequate. Computeriza-tion of estate accounts and regional collating as part of a management infor-mation system has been proposed by the managemeut consultants. The projectwould provide funds for establishing the system. In addition to the estatevehicles to be provided (para 4.12) vehicles (29 cars, 10 minibuses and 23

-31-

pickups) would be provided to the 10 JEDB and SPC regional offices for super-vision and staff transport. Two regional office buildings would be con-structed by JEDB and equipment and furniture would be provided. Regionalboard costs for JIVB and SPC would be about Rs 113 M (US$4.5 H).

4.24 Central Office Supiort. As part of improvements in the corporation'scomnunication network, radio comunication links would be established betweenthe Colombo offices of JEDB and SPC and more remote regional offices. Theproject would also provide produce stores for SPC in Colombo. Fourmicro-computers would be provided as part of the management informationsystem and nine cars and four pickups would be provided for managementtravel.

4.25 Planning Units. The production of NTIP was the first planning ezer-cise undertaken by the corporations and necessitated bringing staff andconsultants together in an ad hoc arrangement. The project vould establishplanning units in JEDB and SPC to collate and analyze estate, regional andcorporate programs, and to prepare plan proposals for corporate review. Theunits would add essential expertise in economic and financial analysis tocorporations. An internationally-recruited economist would coordinate opera-tions of the planning units but most expertise could be recruited locally(Annex 2). Additional technical assistance to assist in implementing thesocial welfare programs would be attached to the planning units (para 4.22).

4.26 Monitoring. Corporation operations are diverse, complex and scat-tered over wide areas. Until a management information system proposed by theuanagement consultants has been tested and fully adopted by all estates,independent monitoring of corporation affairs vould be in the best interestof Government and corporations in fostering trust between all agencies.Independent financial monitoring is provided by external auditors. Govern-ment and the corporations have agreed to establish an independent MonitoringBoard under the State Agricultural Corporations Act. The Board would consistof one representative each from JEDB and SPC. one representative from theMinistry of Finance and Planning and one representative from the )PI. TheBoard would employ local experienced consultants to monitor physical perfor-mance of all corporation estates on a continuous basis during the projectperiod. The consultants would develop and test physical monitoring andreporting procedures and would train corporation staff to take over regularmonitoring after the project period. Funds vould also be provided to estab-lish internal monitoring units in JEDB and SPC; these would liaise closelywith the independent Monitoring Board. The cost of monitoring would be aboutRs 44 H (US$1.7 M).

4.27 Smallholder Studies. The project would provide funds for a studyof liaison between estates and smallholders (Rs 2.3 M). The project wouldalso provide Rs 4.8 X (US$0.21 N) to MPI for the production of a Medium-TermInvestment Program for the smallholder tree crop sector. This exercise would

-32-

involve a field survey, computer analysis of proposals and report preparationby international and local consultants (Annex 2).

V. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING

A. Cost Estimates

5.01 The estimated total cost of the five-year (1985-1989) project,including contingencies, is Rs 5,332 M (US$211.8 M equivalent), of vhichabout US$60 N (28S) would be foreign exchange. Taxes and duties vould amountto approximately Rs 280 M (5.3S). Details of project costs, summarized inTable 5.1, are in Annex 2.

Table 5.1: PROJECT COST SUMMARY

Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total F.E. Z of Ba---- R MN---- -- US$M_-- Costs

Field Works 1679.6 377.1 2056.7 66.7 15.0 81.7 18 50.7Field & Nursery Equip. 77.7 48.7 126.4 3.1 1.9 5.0 38 3.1Vehicles 62.3 186.8 249.1 2.5 7.4 9.9 75 6.1Factory Rehabilitation 333.8 214.8 548.6 13.3 8.5 21.8 39 13.5Mini-Hydro Units 107.2 102.2 209.4 4.2 4.1 8.3 49 5.2Housing 230.8 72.9 303.7 9.2 2.9 12.1 24 7.5Social Welfare 198.1 72.8 270.9 7.8 2.9 10.7 35 6.6lnstitution Development 165.8 129.9 295.7 6.6 5.2 11.8 44 7.3

Base Costs 2855.3 1205.2 4060.5 113.4 47.9 161.3 30 100.0Physical Contingencies 157.7 54.5 212.2 6.3 2.1 8.4 26 5.2Price Contingencies 817.7 241.5 1059.2 32.5 9.f 42.1 23 26.1

Total Costs 3830.7 1501.2 5331.9 152.2 59.6 211.8 28 131.3Taxes and Duties .80.4 - 280.4 11.1 - 11.1 - 6.9Net Project Costs 3550.3 1501.2 5051.5 141.1 59.6 200.7 30 124.4

5.02 Cost estimates are based on December 1984 prices. Physical contin-gencies are 5% for field development, field and nursery equipment and factoryrehabilitation, and 1OZ for social welfare and housing. Price contingencies,accounting for 25S of base costs plus physical contingencies, have beencompounded at the following levels:

-33-

Table 5.2 INFLrTION RATE(Percent)

Year Local Foreign

1985 12.0 8.01986 11.0 9.01987 10.0 9.01988 9.0 9.01989 7.5 7.51990 6.0 6.0

Thus, there is no appreciable difference between estimated foreign and localinflation rates from 1986 onwards.

B. Financiox

5.03 The project would be financed by several foreign and local sources,as summarized in Table 5.3. Foreign financing of US$119 H has been arranged.This represents 59Z of total project cost, net of tazes and duties, including1002 of foreign ezchange cost and 392 of net local cost. It would be acondition of credit effectiveness that arrangements for cofinancing had beencompleted. IDn would finance the field program, field and nursery equipment,and institution building (excluding vehicles and housing). ADB vould paral-lel finance vehicles (including those under institution building), factoryrehabilitation, and housing (including those under institution building).ODA would parallel finance mini-bydzo units. The Netherlands and NorwegianGoverments would jointly finance the social velfare program.

5.04 Local financing would be from the Bank of Ceylon (SOC), a national-ized coonercial bank, and JEDB and SPC. BOC would lend Rs 252 K (US$10 M);3RDB and SPC would finance the balance of local costs including taxes andduties.

-34-

Table 5.3: FINANCING PLAN

- Sources of Funds (US$ X)Project JEDB Netherlands NorvegianComponents IDA ADB ODA BOC and SPC Government Government Total

Field Yorks 40.9 - - 10.0 59.3 - - 110.2Field and NurseryEquipment 4.5 - - - 1.9 - - 6.4

Vehicles - 8.6 - - 2.9 - - 11.5Factory Rehabi-litation - 19.1 - - 7.9 - - 27.0

Mini-Hydro Units - - 5.5 - 5.8 - - 11.3Housing - 16.1 - - 0.5 - - 16.6Social Welfare - - - 0.8 8.0 5.5 14.3InstitutionBuilding 9.j6 _2 - - 3.7- 14.5

Total 55.0 45.0 5.5 10.0 82.8 8.0 5.5 211.8-- inmmm _.m .Mw .i m _

Percentage 26.0 21.2 2.6 4.7 39.0 3.9 2.6 100

5.05 The Government vould relend proceeds of the IDA credit to BOC for tenyears including one year's grace at an interest rate of 11 percent per annum.The BOC then would onlend to the corporations at an interest rate of 13percent per annum for a period of ten years including one year's grace. TheGovernment would bear the foreign exchange risk. Contributions of ADB andODA9 totaling about US$50.5 N equivalent, would be relent by the Governmentunder similar terms and conditions. The two percent mark-up vould cover theBOC's administrative cost, profit, and risk. With the financial restructur-ing and management reorganization proposed by the consultants and now beingimplemented, JEDB and SPC vould be financially sound and BOC's financial riskof relending would be lov. The 1982 financial statement of BOC, which issatisfactory, is in Annex 3, Table 3. Commercial bank lending rates in SriLanka for zedium- and long-term agricultural credit for tree crops*allholders range from 11 to 12 percent. Also, 13 percent interest rate isabove the inflation rate projected for Sri Lanka over the project period.The execution of Subsidiary Loan Agreements between Government and BOC, andDOC and the corporations would be a condition of credit effectiveness. Thegrant funds totaling US$13.5 N provided for social welfare by the Netherlandsand Norwegian Governments would be onlent by Government to JEDB and SPC at 4%interest for a period of 20 years including a one-year grace period. Theconcessionary terms would allow the corporations to make up the massivebacklog of social welfare works required on the estates without adverselyaffecting their cash flows.

-35-

5.06 Bank of Ceylon would lend its own contribution to the corporationson terms applicable to external financiers' contributions onlent by Govern-ment. Central Bank of Ceylon would refinance 50Z of BOC's contribution at11% per annum.

C. Procurement and Disbursement

Procurement.

5.07 Procurement for the corporations would be directed by the corpora-tions' central procurement divisions with authority delegated to the RegionalBoards for local procurement. Procurement using IDA funds would be as setout in paragraphs 5.08 thru 5.12. Remaining procurement would be in accord-ance with the procedures of other cofinanciers.

5.08 Field works (US$110.2 M) consisting mostly of uprooting, planting,weeding and other labor-intensive operations on estates would be undertakenby the estates' labor forces. Field and nursery equipment (US$6.4 M) con-sists of many, mostly locally made, small items, which would not be suitablefor ICB; it would, therefore, be procured by prudent shopping, followingcorporations' procurement procedures which are satisfactory to IDA. Suffi-cient local manufacturers and agents are available to ensure competitiveprices.

5.09 Office equipment, computers and software and radio communicationequipment, totalling about US$3.6 M, would be procured on the basis of pru-dent shopping to ensure equipment matched specific needs of the corporations.

5.10 Civil works for the produce store and the NIPM dormitory (combinedcost US$1.6 M) would be procured on the basis of local competitive biddingfollowing procedures acceptable to IDA.

5.11 For procurement of civil works, specifications and draft tenderdocuments would be submitted to IDA before bidding documents were issued, andbid evaluations would be submitted to IDA for approval before awards weremade. After IDA approval of these initial documents, further IDA clearancewould only be required if significant changes were to be made in them. Forindividual contracts in excess of US$50,000 bid evaluation would be submittedto IDA for approval before awards were made.

5.12 Consulting services, including expatriate and local technical assis-tance, costing about US$4.5 M, would be procured in accordance with IDAguidelines.

5.13 Contract Review. There would be two contracts for civil works to beprocured from the credit; produce stores would cost about US$1.4 M and theNIPX dormitory would cost about US$0.2 M. The contracts would be fully

-36-

reviewed by IDA. About 15 contracts for goods costing more than US$50,000per contract would be subject to IDA prior review. The balance of contractswould be subject to random checking during the course of IDA supervision.

5.14 Procurement arrangements are summarized in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: PROCUREKUT ARRAiGDEENTS(us$ n)

--- - Procurement MethodProject Prudent Force TotalElement LCB ShoppinR Account Others Cost

(Figures in parentheses are IDA financing)

Field Development - - 110.2 - 110.2(40.9) - (40.9)

Civil Works 1.6 - - 29.5 31.1(1.1) - _ _ (1.1)

Vehicles - - 13.3 13.3Factory Equipment - - - 27.0 27.0Field and Nursery Equipment - 6.4 - - 6.4

- (4.5) - - (4.5)Mini Kydro - - - 11.3 11.3Other Equipment - 3.6 - 2.6 6.2

- (2.8) - - (2.8)Training - - - 1.8 1.8

= -- (1.6) (1.6)Technical Assistance - - - 4.5 4.5

_ _ 4.1) (4.1)Total 1.6 10.0 110.2 90.C 211.8

(1.1) (7.3) (40.9) (5.7) (55.0)

5.15 Disbursements. Disbursements from the IDA credit would be made for:

(a) 100% of foreign expenditure for directly imported equipment, or 100Xof local expenditure (ex-factory) if locally manufactured , or 65% ofexpenditure for equipment procured locally (US$7.3 M);

(b) 70% of the total cost of civil works done by contract (US$1.l X);

(c) 35Z of total cost of field development expenditure including newplanting, replanting and infilling, and of field works includingdiversification (US$40.9 H); and

(d) 10OZ of expenditure on training and technical assistance (US$5.7 M).

-37-

To ensure implementation control, disbursement would be made against projectexpenditure and not against subloans to the corporations under the project.The corporations would each be responsible for project disbursement claims.Disbursement for JEDB and SPC field development (item (c) above) would bemade against statements of expenditure, prepared from individual estates-monthly accounts (para 2.20); consolidated disbursement claims would besubmitted to IDA on a monthly basis. These monthly accounts are a consistentfeature of corporation affairs. The estates' monthly accounts would beaudited by the corporations' internal auditors and the external auditors ofthe estates and retained at corporation headquarters for examination by IDA.All other disbursements would be made against full documentation. For thepurpose of disbursements against statements of expenditure, the corporations'institutional and staffing capabilities are satisfactory. Disbursement wouldbe completed by July 1990, about 6 months after project completion (Annex 2,Table 24). The 5-1/2 year disbursement period compares with about eightyears for a typical IDA agriculture project in South Asia. The faster dis-bursement is expected because 75% of the credit is against field works to beundertaken on a regular basis on estates. Field works on the first two IDAprojects (Cr. 818-CE and Cr. 1240-CE) are proceeding vell, field techniquesare understood and no gearing-up is required. The Special Account mechanism(para 5.16) would ensure speedy disbursenent against sta; ments of expendi-ture. The remaining disbursement, mostly against technical assistance,training and two civil works contracts, would take place ear*.y in projectimplementation.

5.16 Special Account. About 70% of the project cost net of duties andtaxes would be local. Of this, 55% would be financed by the corporationsfrom their own resources, the balance 45% would be met by donors and BOC.Reimbursement by IDA would be against expenditure actually incurred. Thecorporations would have to raise bridging finance to meet local expenditurespending reimbursement by IDA. Cost of short-term credit in Sri Lanka rangesfrom 21% to 22X per annum, which the corporations cannot afford. To overcomethis problem and also to facilitate direct payuents not exceeding US$20,000at a time to overseas suppliers, a Special Account would be established forIDA contributions to the project in an initial amount of US$3.0 M. IDA'sadvance to the Special Account would be equivalent to its share of expendi-ture for three months, the expected timelag between corporations' incurringexpenditure and reimbursement by IDA.

5.17 The Special Account would be maintained in US dollars in BOC andoperated by the corporations. The Special Account would be used to financethe following expenditure incurred by the Corporations: (a) field develop-ment expenditure, (b) purchase of office, nursery and field equipment,(c) civil works, (d) training, and (e) technical assistance. Advances fromthe account would be made on request of the corporations.

5.18 Payment by IDA against reimbursement claims for local expenditurewould be without any deduction for the initial deposit to the Special

-38-

Account. Recovery of the initial deposit by IDA vould commence when theunvithdrawn amounts in the Credit had been reduced to double the initialdeposit to the Account or during the last six months of the Credit whicheverin earlier. Recovery would be by reimbursing only 50% of the amounts claimedduring the recovery period, until the advance had been fully recovered.

5.19 IDA contributions to the Special Account would be deemed to have beenonlent to BOC and interest at 11% payable by BOC would accrue to Governmenton the amounts deposited. Withdrawals from the Special Account by the cor-porations would be treated as having been onlent by BOC and would attractinterest at 13%. Should any disbursements made from the Special Account beunacceptable to IDA, the corporations would deposit the corresponding amountto the Special Accounts; BOC would assume this risk on this account.

VI. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A. Orranization and Manazement

Responsibilities

6.01 The project would be implemented almost exclusively by JEDB and SPC,and would constitute the Medium-Term Investment Program of all estates,Regional Boards and Central Boards for the five years, 1985 through 1989. Assuch the project would be an integral part of corporate affairs and would notrequire separate project coordination units or procedures. The JEDB CentralBoard chairman and the SPC Central Board chairman would be ultimately respon-sible for implementation of the JEDB and SPC portions of the project. TheRegional Board chairmen would each be responsible for implementation ofinvestment programs in their respective regions, and 530 estate cuperinten-dents would be held responsible for the investment programs of individualestates.

6.02 Board Responsibilities and Structure. The Central Boards would beresponsible for interpreting the requirements of Government, for establishingpolicy and advisiug the chief executive, for setting targets and for reward-ing performance. Policy formulation and performance review would beseparated from executive functions by reconstituting the Central Boards.Satisfactory proposals for reconstituting the SPC Board with nine members(four regional chairmen plus five outsiders including the chairman) have beenapproved by the Cabinet. The JEDB BoaTd vill remnain at seven members but itwas agreed that one regional chairman will be replaced by an outsider inFebruary 1986 when his term expires. Thus both corporate boards will have amajority of members drawn from cmtside the corporatiors. Central Boardswould meet at least six times per year and directors would receiveappropriate fees. Executive committees would be made up of the managingdirectors, all regional chairmen, and the heads of key functional divisionsof the central office.

-39-

6.03 EstgblishMent of Work Prof rams. Annual investment programs would beestablished ea part of the budget procedure. Superintendents would submitestate investment proposals through their Regional Boards to the planningunits established at the central offices. All proposals, particularly fieldand factory development programs, would be analyzed by the planning units foreconomic viability. A corporate annual investment program would be preparedby consolidating estate investment proposals, but with revision if necessaryto relate the total program to corporate fiuancial capacity. The corporateprogram, when approved by the Central Board, would form a delegated authorityto corporation executives for the physical program to be undertaken throughthe regional boards and the funds to be made available. Copies of tVeapproved corporate annual work program and budget would be made available toIDA, before commencement of the annual program.

B. Cost Control

6.04 Cost control at estate level would be through the budgetarymechanism. Annual operational budgets would be prepared on the basis ofcoefficients satisfactory to IDA. These would include: (a) labor norms forplucking, tapping and harvesting at levels within agreed ranges; (b) numberof laborers employed per hectare under crop; (c) number of labor days util-ized per unit of production; (d) outturn percentages (percentage made tea togreen leaf), percentage crepe to latex collected, percentage copra tococonuts harvested; and (e) output per unit of total power consumed.

6.05 Cost control over Regional and Central Boards' marketing and manage-ment expenses would also be through the budgetary echanism. The traditionalnorm for these expenses is a percentage of the corporations' turnover plus ahandling charge expressed in cents per kilogram of anticipated crop.Separate budgets for Regional and Central Boards using norms satisfactory toIDA vould be prepared. An assurance was obtained that annual revenue budgetsfor years after 1985, based on budget norms satisfactory to TDA, plus annualinvestment programs and financial forecasts, would be made available to IDAin September and finalized by November 30 of the preceding year.

C. Financial Xanagement and Control

6.06 A timetable for the implementation of consultants' recomendationshas been agreed with the Government and the corporations (para 2.13). Criti-

al areas for project implementation would be:

(a) concise reporting formats for estate monthly accounts and othermanagement information system reports;

(b) concise formats for preparation of annual budgets;

-40-

(c) capital restructuring folloving valuation of vested assets, withsatisfactory debt/equity ratios;

(d) rationalization of current assets and liabilities and projection ofworking capital requirements, with satisfactory current ratios;

(e) establishing limits for finaucial authority for various levels ofmanagement;

(f) reorganization and staffiug of the internal audit departmeutB;

(g) computerization of accounting and management information system; and

(h) in SPC, stock control procedures.

6.07 Revised formats for monthly accounts and management informationsystem reports are expected to be finalized and put to use before projectcommencement. Improved formats for annual budgets would be completed foruse in 1986. Reorganization and staffing of internal audit departments wouldbe completed before project commencement. Provision of computers under theproject would be based on a study now in progress by the consultants.

D. Accounting and Audit

6.08 JEDB, SPC, and BOC would prepare separate project accounts, whichwould be audited annually, together with disbursement documents and theannual accounts of the corporations, by the Auditor General. An assurancewas obtained that draft project accounts together with draft final accountsof the corporations, including profit and loss accounts and balance sheetswould be sent to IDA within six months of the close of the corporations'financial year followed by audited accounts and reports within nine monthsafter the end of the financial year. The project accounts for the corpora-tions would be a summarized statement of sources and application of fundsrelating to the project. BOC would submit a summarized statement of theSpecial Account (para 5.16).

6.09 To overcome the difficulty in coordinating the audits by numerousauditors (para 2.21) an assurance was obtained that one firm of privateauditors would be appointed as the agent of the Auditor General for eachRegional Board including the regional offices and associated estates. One ofthe regional auditors would be the lead firm coordinating all regional auditstogether with the Central Board audit. This lead auditor would report to theAuditor General. Audit reports are available up to 1982 and draft accountsfor 1983 have been completed. Auditing of the 1983 accounts is in progress.

-41-

E. Planning

6.10 Central boards would plan corporate strategy to be implemented underthe Managing Directors who would be assisted by the planning units. Theplanniug units vould prepare details of annual, medium- and long-term plansbased on national tree crop objectives and on the economic analyses ofestate, regional and corporate proposals, modifications of MTIP would there-fore be a prime responsibility of the planning units. The modified MTIPrequirements would form the basis for discussions on financing between thecorporations and the Ministry of Finance and Planning. In addition topreparing corporate plans the planning units would advise the corporations onthe implications of policies such as the impact of increased crop productionand diversification on prices, the financial advantages of factoryrationalization and the likely effects of programs on social welfare.

F. Institutional Develoiment

6.11 Development of institution capability would be the responsibility ofthe executive committees. The IDU (para 4.20) would report directly to theManaging Director to ensure its authority to deal with organization mattersand skill gap analysis from the highest level down to estate workers. TheIDU would be a service unit to the Executive Committee, analyzing institutiondevelopment implications and drafting recommendations for committee discus-sion. The IDU would formulate and coordinate all training and liaise withNIPM to provide specialist training expertise as required.

C. Mouitorina

6.12 The basic corporate documents for monitoring operations are theannual approved work programs and budgets of each corporation. These arebroken down into estates' operating budgets and separate management budgetsfor the Regional and Central Boards. Performance at estate level againstbudget estimates are monitored by Regional and Central Boards by means ofmonthly progress reports and accounts which are produced for ee;' estate.These reports are submitted in an orderly and regular manner. A consolidatedreport is prepared by each Regional Board covering all estates under itsmanagement, for further consolidation on a corporate basis. Management costsare also monitored against budgets by quarterly accounts of the Regional andCentral Boards. Independent monitoring of financial performance would beaccomplished through the normal external auditors system.

6.13 Monitoring of physical performance at all levels should be a normalpart of corporate business. The VA system (para 2.22) should monitor estateactivities but the system requires rebuilding. Similarly, stock controlprocedures require streamlining and tightening. The Government wants to beassured that physical performance is efficient and until internal monitoringcapability is developed and tested would require independent physicalmonitoring. Thus verification of physical performance on estates against the

-42-

norms agreed at budget preparation and monitoring of stock control would beundertaken by a monitoring board to be incorporated under the project (para4.26). The board would employ consultants to reviev the internal monitoringprocedures and develop test and implement an improved system. They wouldestablish and test a key indicator report format on the physical programwhich vould be submitted to Central Boards, Government and IDA quarterly.The report would include, inter alia, statements on field program progress,on c.vil works accomplisbments, on health and welfare indicators to be agreedwith the medical staff, on stock control, factory rehabilitation, andprocurement. The monitoring board would identify constraints in the execu-tion of the investment program and recomend appropriate remedies as part ofthe quarterly report. The board would be responsible for preparing evalua-tion reports on NTIP on the basis of assessments every tvo years of theimpact of the program. Key indicators, constraints and remedies recommendedand employed would form the basis of the evaluation. The reports would alsofocus on the impact of MTIP on the social welfare program of the corpora-tions. An important function of the board would be liaison with the IDUsto develop training programs for internal monitoring units and would handover all monitoring to the corporations by the end of the project.

VII. PRODUCTION. MARKETS AND PRICES

A. Yields and Production

Tea

7.01 Average yield of tea on estates is about 970 kg/ha, varying fromless than 500 kg/ha on poor OST areas to over 5,000 kg/ha on low country VPtea. Without the project tea production would decline due to soil erosion,and the compounding of problems associated with unreplaced bush deaths, byabout 1Z per annum after 10 years and 2% per annum after 20 years. Projectinvestment in soil conservation measures and infilling would arrest thedecline.

7.02 The average mature yield of VP tea planted with the project wouldbe about 2,125 kg/ha. Infilled areas would yield about 80% of new plantings.Production with the project would increase from 142 M kg per annum to about169 N kg per annum, a 192 increase over 30 years. The yield prof-le used inthe analysis is shown in Annex 4, Table 2. Yield profiles for individualhigh-, mid- and low-country estates are given in JEDB and SPC corporateplans. Production streams are shown in Annex 4, Tables 9 and 10.

Rubber

7.03 Average yield from mature PB 86 is about 1,100 kg/ha. PB 86 wouldbe replaced by IRIC 100 and PRIC 103, which have both yielded over 2,000kg/ha after 4 years of tapping in rommercial trials. Yield stimulants would

-43-

be applied to new plantings which would yield an estimated 1,450 kg/ha atmaturity.

7.04 The area to be rehabilitated under the project is shown in Annex 4,Table 1. Yield assumptions are shown in Annex 4, Table 2. Productionstreams are shown in Annex 4, Tables 11 and 12. The project would produceabout an additionai 18 M kg of rubber annually at maturity in 2003.

Coconut

7.05 No difference is assumed in the yield potential of coconuts estab-lished with and without the project. Wherever high yielding hybrids areavailable they would be used in clear-felled replanting programs. However,the bulk of the replantiug program would involve underplanting.

7.06 Yield at full maturity would be about 12,000 nuts/ha. The area tobe underplanted is shown in Annex 4, Table 1. The yield profile is shown inAnnex 4, Table 2. Incremental production at full maturity, about 18 yearsafter project inception, would be about 18 M nuts/ha, equivalent to about3,600 tons cf copra or 2,250 tons of coconut oil.

Diversification Crops

7.07 For the purpose of analysis, fuelvood, which makes up 60% of diver-sification, has been used as a proxy for diversification crops (para 4.06).Yield would be about 0.27 cubic meters per tree after 8 years whichexperience has shown is realistic under Sri Lanka conditions. Total diver-sification production over the life of the project would amount to 8 M cubicuetera of fuelwood equivalent or roughly 400,000 cubic meters per annum.

B. Markets and Prices

Tea

7.08 Between 1955 and 1982 the price of tea in constant dollar termsdeclined at the rate of about 2.5% per annum, disturbed only by the priceboom of 1977, caused mainly by increased coffee prices in 1976 and 1977. Teaprices experienced another boom during 1983 and 1984 because of increaseddemand, the drought in Chbna and Sri Lanka and export restrictions in India.This trend is not expected to continue beyond 1984. Between 1984 and 1995,the price of tea is projected to decline by about 28Z in 1984 constant dollarterms, but the price would still exceed the cost of production. Annex 4,Tables 3 and 4, show the price projections for tea used in financial andeconomic analyses.

7.09 In view of the low vorld price elasticity of demand for tea and SriLanka's share of the market (14.6% by 1995), increasing exports would reduceprice, other things being equal. While the prices used in the analysis are

-44-

based on IBRD projections, which take anticipated production increases intoaccount, without the project the prices received for Sri Lanka's tea exportswould have been greater. Adjustment has therefore been made for the lose inrevenue by calculating the marginal export revenue at 89% of the projectedprice.

7.10 Factory rehabilitation under the project would maintain the highquality and Sri Lanka should continue to find a ready market for its tea.

Rubber

7.11 Over 90% of world rubber is exported. Consumption of natural rubberis determined to a large extent by international industrial growth whichincreased at about 6% per annum in recent years. Global production potentialof natural rubber for the next few years is considered adequate to meet theexpected growth in demand. However, available data on existing rubber areas,on available technology, and on new planting and replanting programs point tothe possibility of a decline in the rate of natural rubber output during the1985-95 period. This mainly reflects the expected slowdown in rubber produc-tiou in Malaysia, the biggest natural rubber producing and exporting country,where labor shortages have increasingly become a problem and where competi-tion from other tree crops, particularly oil palm, remains strong.

7.12 Sri Lanka's rubber production peaked at 159 M kg in 1970 a.ddeclined to 125 M kg in 1982. Its share of the world market fell from 5.6Zto 4.2% between 1961 and 1982, and is projected at 2% in 1995. About 50% oftotal production is ribbed smoked sheet (RSS), 40% premium-priced crepes andthe balance goes into Technically Specified Rubber (TSR) or block rubber andlatex concentrate. Factory rehabilitation under the project would maintainthe high quality of Sri Lanka crepes which would continue to find a readymarket at a good price. Rubber prices are projected to increase steadily byabout 15% between 1985 and 1995. The price projections used for the analysisof the project are shown in Annex 4, Table 5.

Coconut

7.13 Sri Lankan production of coconut is small, falliu& from 8% of worldproduction in 1961 to 2.5% in 1982. About 59% of production is consumedlocally as fresh nuts, 29% is processed into coconut oil, 132 goes intodessicated coconuts. Sri Lanka is the second largest producer of dessicatedcoconut, accounting for about 32% of world production. Export of copra isprohibited, but a limited quantity of edible copra has been exported since1973. Sri Lanka's coconut oil earns a premium price on the world market butits market share fell from about 2.7% in 1961, to 2.4% in 1982 because ofdeclining production.

7.14 The bulk of project planting vould be sold as fresh nuts for whichthere would continue to be a ready local market. The local price for fresh

-45-

nuts exhibited only modest increases up to 1982. During 1983 and early 1984,however, the local price of fresh nuts has almost doubled because of localshortages caused by the delayed effect of drought, typhoon damage and agingpalms. Similar price increases for coconut products have been experienced onthe world market but this trend is not projected to continue beyond 1984.The price of coconut oil which forms the basis for the economic analysis isprojected to fall 'y 42% between 1984 and 1995. The price projections forcoconut are shown in Annex 4, Table 6. 1

VIII. FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS

A. Producer Marsins

8.01 In the past there have been protracted periods when tree cropproducers' margins have been too low to stimulate investment in the sector.The Tree Crop Sector Review identified this as a major cause of the sector'spoor performance over the past two decades (paras 2.03 and 2.09). Duringdiscussion of the sector review with Government, agreement was reached thattree crop margins should be continously maintained at levels which wouldprovide incentives to stimulate investment and to ensure good crop main-tenance. This implies that in weighing trade-offs between raising Governmentrevenues and maintaining adequate incentives, the latter must have priority.It was further agreed that the appropriate means of ensuring satisfactorymargins and minimizing the distortion of price signals to producers wasthrough adjustment of the tax structure. Broad principles of tax adjustmentwere outlined in the sector review and agreed with Government.

8.02 As a result of these discussions Government has established a WorkingGroup to review and monitor factors affecting margins, including taxes,cesses, subsidies, cost of production and commodity prices. The WorkingGroup's recommendations, which were satisfactory to IDA, were adopted in the1984 budget. An assurance was obtained that Government would maintain theWorking Group to monitor and reco end adjustments to the factors affectingproducer margins to maintain producer margins at adequate levels. Adequacyof margins would be agreed with IDA during regular reviews of the monitoringoperation. Eowever, financial projections suggest that margins would need tobe maintained at levels sufficient to enable the corporations to maintainvorking ratios at about 85% or better (para 8.04).

B. Income Proiections

8.03 The main project beneficiaries would be the corporations--JEDB andSPC-and their sole owner, the Government. The project would be financiallyattractive to Government but, at present taxation levels, would be lessattractive to the corporations. Bovever, the project would improve theefficiency of the corporations and tax adjustments would stimulateperformance of the corporations and the private sector thus helping to main-tain Government revenues.

-46-

8.04 Corporate Incomes and Taxation. Over 80% of JEDB and SPC revenuederives from tea. The effect of high export tax on tea is to increase theworking ratio of the corporations. The impact of taxation on working ratioprojections on operations from tea throughout project life is shown in Table8.1. Exceptionally high tea prices iu 1983 and 1984 resulted in highermargins, with working ratios below 67%. However, these prices are notexpected to continue beyond early 1985. Compared with the projected reduc-tion in prices and escalation of costs, the margin at present tax levelswould gradually decline during the project period; working ratios wouldincrease to 93Z. Working ratios on rubber at the present tax structure, andon coconut are satisfactory. These, however, have little impact on corporateworking ratio, as contribution from these crops towards total revenue isminimal. Table 8.1 also shows the working ratio projections on tea, rubberand coconut and the corporate ratios. Projections are based on 1982 estatecosts updated to 1984, including the mid-1984 wage increases, assuming judi-cious deployment of labor or revenue operations and capital works.

Table 8.1: WORKING RATIO(% in Current Terms)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990JEDBTeaAssuming no taxes 43 50 51 51 54 54At 1984 level of taxes 67 77 80 82 87 87

RubberAt 1984 level of taxes 65 63 63 63 61 67

Coconut a/ 33 39 39 38 38 41

CoriporationAt 1984 level of taxes 67 75 78 80 83 85

SPCTeaAssuming no taxes 43 49 50 51 54 53At 1984 level of taxes 67 77 79 82 86 87

RubberAt 1984 level of taxes 66 64 64 64 62 68

CorporationAt 1984 level of taxes 67 74 77 79 82 84

a/ Sold as fresh nuts on which there is no tax.

-47-

8.05 Projected income statements at the 1984 unadjusted levels of taxesfor the corporations are given in Annex 3, Tables 4 and 5. The financialprojections read in conjunction with the sources and application of funds(Annex 3, Tables 6 and 7) indicate that from 1988 onvards capital formationwould be insufficient to support the proposed development program unlesstaxes on tea were reduced to sustain a satisfactory corporate working ratioof 85Z or better.

8.06 At 1985 tax levels, taxes recovered by Government on tea wouldaverage 32% of the projected sale prices from 1985 through 1990. With amarginal reduction in taxes to achieve a working ratio of 851 j/, average taxrecovered by Government would be about 31% of the projected sale prices.This would leave a margin with the corporations of about 101 of the projectedsale prices to meet their overhead expenditure, their share of financing theproject cost, to service debts, and for incremental working capital. ;J Theimpact of the proposed tax adjustment on projected corporation revenue isshown in Table 8.2.

j/ On tea, private sector costs are less than those of the public corpora-tions, because of the latter's overheads. However, costs at estate levelare similar to those of the private estate sector. Therefore, with aview to arriving at a working ratio applicable both to the private sectorand the corporations, the numerator used for the calculation of vorkingratio is the estate cost of production excluding corporations' managementand marketing costs and interest on working capital.

;J This margin would be equally attractive to the smallholders. Managementcost and interest on working capital to the imallholders are estimatedat 2% of the gross sale proceeds. Most smallholders do not have theirown factories for processing and therefore sell their green leaf toprivate factories or to corporations' factories. A major capital costto smallholders is replanting and infilling cost, which, net of sub-sidies, is estimated at 41 of the gross sale proceeds. This would leaveabout 4Z of the gross proceeds for other capital costs such as housingand the balance as return on smallholders' equity.

-48-

Table 8.2: IMPACT OF PROPOSED TAX ADJUSTME0TS ON CORPORATION REVENUE

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

JEDB

Percentage gross tea sale proceeds(1) Recovered by Government:

(a) at present tax structure 30.6 29.6 31.1 32.4 32.9 34.0(b) after adjustment of taxes 30.6 29.6 31.1 32.4 31.5 32.3

(2) Left vith Corporation(net sale proceeds), afteradjustment of taxes 64.1 64.8 63.7 62.8 63.8 63.3

(3) Cost of Production 43.1 49.8 50.6 51.5 54.0 53.6(4) Margin to Corporation, after

adjustment of taxes 21.0 15.0 13.1 11.3 9.8 9.7

s:C

Percentage Gross Tea Sale Proceeds(1) Recovered by Government:

(a) at present tax structure 30.7 29.7 31.2 32.5 33.0 34.0(b) after adjustment of taxes 30.7 29.7 31.2 32.5 32.0 32.7

(2) Left with Corporation(net sale proceeds), afteradjustment of taxes) 64.0 64.7 63.6 62.7 63.4 62.9

(3) Cost of Production 42.8 49.5 50.2 51.1 53.6 53.2(4) Margin to Corporation, after

adjustment of taxes 21.3 15.3 13.4 11.6 9.7 9.7

8.07 Sources and Ap'plication of Funds. A summary of sources and applica-tion of funds, assuming tax adjustments, is in Table 8.3. Details are inAnnex 3, Tables 6 and 7.

-49-

Table 8.3: SUMMARY SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDSflON 1985 EROUGH 1990

(Killions of Current Rupees)

35DB SPCAmount X Amount X

Sources

Operstions 14,717 89 18,547 91External Financing on

Proposed Project 1,519 9 1,732 8External Financing onOngoing Projects 386 2 1'6 1

Total 16,622 100 20,395 100

Ap 1ication

Working Capital/Surplus 685 4 2,325 11Fixed Assets - Proposed Project 2,492 15 2,840 14Fixed Assets - Ongoing Projects 774 5 585 3Debt Service 762 5 869 46overnment (Taxes) 11,909 71 13.776 68

Total 16,622 100 20,395 100

Debt Service Ratio

Before Tax 19.3 21.4After Tax 3.7 5.4

8.08 The corporations would finance about 17X of project investments,including duties and taxes, from internally generated funds. The satisfac-tory debt service ratios, before and after taxes, and high cash flow fromoperations would ensure that the corporations vould have the financialcapacity to limit commercial bank borrowing for a part of working capital andfor financing a aecond phase of MIP oan completion of the fixst inDecember 1989.

8.09 An assurance was obtained that neither JEDB nor SPC would incur anydebt unless a forecast of total revenue and expenditure showed a debtservice

-50-

ratio after taxes, for each fiscal year, of at least 1.5 for all debt includ-ing dividends to Government and the debt to be incurred. Corporationforecasts of debt service ratios for 1985 are well above the optimum.

8.10 The Ministry of Finance and Planning requires that public sectorcorporations should pay 50X of their profits after income tax to the Govern-ment as dividend. An assurance was obtained from Government that dividendspaid by JEDB and SPC vould not reduce their debtservice ratio below 1.5 toensure that internally generated funds included as part of the financing planwould be available to the project.

8.11 Workinu Capital. High tea prices in 1983 have produced fundsurpluses which enabled the corporations to pay off their short-term borrow-ings. Further surpluses are anticipated in 1984 which would allow the cor-porations to finance their working capital requirements for 1984 from theirown resources. At appraisal, the Government and the corporations agreed thatno dividends would be declared from profits for 1983 and 1984 pending theproposed capital restructuring (para 2.19). The cash flow projections from1985 through 1990 indicate that the corporations would on average be able tofinance their incremental working capital. Any seasonal shortfall would beraised from BOC. Incremental working capital requirements of the corpora-tions are detailed in Annex 3, Tables 8 and 9.

C. Financial and Fiscal Rates of Return

8.12 Table 8.4 shows the corporations' financial and fiscal 11 rates ofreturn for tea, rubber and coconut. The rates of return for tea and rubberare satisfactory but coconut appears to be marginal. The rates of return oncoconut are low primarily because investment costs for vehicles, housing,social welfare and field and nursery equipment included in tbhe analysis wouldserve the total area of estate coconut production and not merely the area tobe underplanted. The financial rates of return on the total project invest-ment would be 18% for JEDB and 19% for SPC. These are above both the averagerate of inflation (10Z) over the project period and the cost of borrowing(13%) to the corporations. Part of the surpluses anticipated during thefirst three years of the project would be paid to Government as dividends(para 8.10). After 1988 it is projected that tax reductions will becomenecessary to sustain working ratios at satisfactory levels and to providefunds to the corporations to service debts and for working capital require-ments.

jj The fiscal rate of Teturn shows what the financial rate of return wouldbe if no export dut, or ad valorem taxes were levied.

-51-

Table 8.4: FINANCIAL AND FISCAL RATES OF RETURN

Components Financial Fiscal

TeaJEDB 22 27SPC 21 26

RubberJEDB 15 21SPC 18 25

CoconutJEDB 12 12

AR£re2ate a/JEDB 18 23SPC 19 24

Total Project 18 23

a/ The aggregate analysis includes costs of institutionaldevelopment.

8.13 The overall fiscal rate of return, at 23%, shows that the projectvould be attractive to Government.

D. Government Revenue

8.14 Government revenue from the project is detailed in Annex 3, Table 10.In 1984 Goverment revenue from the corporations,, including export duty andtaxes and corporate tax less subsidies, is estimated at Rs 4,634 M. With theanticipated fall in tea prices and the proposed reduction in taxes, Govern-ment"s total revenue, including duties and taxes on project investment isestimated to decline in current terms to Rs 3,712 M in 1985 and thereafterincrease to Rs 6,275 M by 1990. In real terms, this represents a marginalincrease of Rs 90 M above 1984 revenue.

$

-52-

EX. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND RISKS

A. Benefits

General

9.01 The project vould constitute the main thrust of Government's develop-ment strategy to arrest the decline in export earnings and budgetary revenuesfrom tea, rubber, and coconut, and to further diversify uneconomictea-producing areas. At full development in 2001 net foreign exchange earn-ings from incremental tea and rubber would amount to about US$65 M annuallyand export duties and taxes would add a further Rs 768 N (US$30 M) Annuallyto government revenues. Rehabilitation of factories would improve teaquality and avoid any decline in rubber quality. Sri Lanka's internationalreputation for premium teas and rubber would be maintained and the country'smarketing position would be strengthened. Rationalization of factories,improvements in field programs and institution development would result inreduced costs of production which would further strengthen Sri Lanka's com-petitive position on world markets.

Social Benefits

9.02 The gradual deterioration of the plantations has strained laborrelations at estate and national levels. Rehabilitation of the estates wouldincrease employment opportunities and production bonuses for estate forworkers who rely almost entirely on the estates for their livelihood. Theproject would greatly enhance the health and welfare of estate workers andtheir families by improving housing, water supplies, sanitation and medicalfacilities. Training at all levels would encourage teamwork and vouldimprove working relations. This combination of more employment, betterperformance incentives, improved conditions on estates and increased vitalityin the industry would generate corporate vitality and boost flagging morale.The improved performance of the industry would spill over into areas outsidethe sector.

Environmental ImDact

9.03 An important benefit of the project would be the stabilizatiou ofestate lands by extensive soil conservation, by infilling gaps in tea, and byplanting tree cover. One of Sri Lanka's major resources, the soil of thehigh rainfall areas, is being eroded at an ever increasing rate, and someonce-fertile high lands will no longer support crops. An added complicationof erosion is the gradual silting up of streams, rivers and reservoirs. Theproject would have a significant beneficial impact on this problem. Theproject would reduce environmental pollution by controlling effluent disposalfrom rubber factories. The provision of latrines, drains, water supplies and

-53-

the rehabilitation of workers housing would improve the environmental condi-tions in the estate communities. Corporation awareness of safety featuresdetailed in the Bank guidelines on factory safety (para 4.13) would beexpected to bring about an environmental improvement for factory workers.

B. Economic Analysis

General

9.04 The economic analysis has been made in border Sri Lanka Rupee priceswith international prices converted into Sri Lanka Rupees at an exchange rateof US$1 - Re 25.17. All values are expressed in 1984 constant prices.Separate analyses are made for each crop, for each corporation and for theproject as a whole. The analysis excludes benefits and costs of ongoingprojects. Analysis of individual crops does not include investment costs forinstitutional development as this would benefit the total corporation aud notjust the areas to be rehabilitated. These costs are included in the analysisfor each corporation and for the total project.

Economic Benefits

9.05 The primary benefits of the project would be the incremental produc-tion of tea, rubber, coconut, and fuelvood. The prices of tea, rubber andcoconut are based on 1982 average Colombo FOB prices, projected according toIBRD price trends in 1984 constant prices. Tea price projections are basedon the London Auction, rubber on RSS #1 spot New York, and coconut on coconutoil exported from the Philippines/Indonesia. Tea prices reflect the effectof factory improvement and marginal revenue adjustment (para 7.09). Rubberprices reflect the effect of factory rehabilitation. Savings from installa-tion of mini-hydros are based on the marginal cost estimates of the ColomboElectric Corporation. Fuelvood is valued at the savings in the cost ofimported fuel. Details of the price projections for tea, rubber and coconutare sbown in Annex 4, Tables 3 to 6.

Economic Costs

9.06 Project costs include physical contingencies and exclude price con-tingencies, duties, taxes and subsidies. They are based on estate dataupdated to end 1984. Project inputs consist mostly of tradeables and labor.The local content of imported goods and local inputs are shadow pricedthrough the application of a standard conversion factor (SCF) of 0.85. Atappraisal the shadow wage rate vas estimated at 75X of the market wage rate.Subsequently, there was a wage increase of about 34Z and project costs wereincreased accordingly. In order to maintain the real cost of labor at itsappraisal value, the shadow wage rate was adjusted to 55Z. Appropriateconversion factors have been calculated for cost items to reflect the per-centages of labor, local costs and foreign exchange (Annex 4, Table 7).Improved management of the corporations would be expected to reduce costs of

-54-

production-about 2% in estate overheads and 51 in variable costs. Rousingand medical costs have been omitted; their benefits, though not easilymeasurable, would be at least equal to their costs.

Economic Rate of Return

9.07 The economic rates of return for the three principal crops, fuelvoodand for the aggregate project are summArized in Table 9.01. Calculations ofthe rates of return are shown in Annex 4, Tables 9 to 13.

Table 9.1: ECONOMIC RATES OF RETURN

Crops Percentage

TeaJEDB 31SPC 28

RubberJEDB 24SPC 28

CoconutJEDB 18

Fuelvood a/ 50 +Aggregate ProjectJEDB 27SPC 26

Total Project 26

a/ Fuelvood was excluded from the aggregateanalysis of both corporations and thetotal project to avoid distortion of theanalysis of the three principal crops.

9.08 The economic rates of return for tea and rubber are high, as would beexpected from a rehabilitation project. The differences between the finan-cial rates of return (para 8.12) and the economic rates of return for tea andrubber are largely due to export duties and advalorem taxes. The rate ofreturn for coconut is lover than expected because investment costs wouldserve the total area under production and not only the area to be under-planted.

Sensitivity Analysis

9.09 Sensitivity tests for the total project assuming lags in benefits andassuming cost overruns are shown in Table 9.2.

-55-

Table 9.2: SENSITIVITY TESTS

Test ERR (X)

Base case 26Benefits lagged by 1 year 23Benefits lagged by 2 years 21Cost overruns IOZ 25Cost overruns 20Z 24Benefits lagged 1 year, cost overruns 10 22Benefits lagged 2 years, cost overruns 20% 19

9.10 The sensitivity analyses show that even in the unlikely event of a2-year lag in benefits and a 20X cost overrun the project would yield anacceptable economic rate of return.

9.11 Switching values L/ at an opportunity cost of capital of 10 percenthave been estimated for incremental net benefits and investment costs(Table 9.3).

Table 9.3: SWITCHING VALUES

(Opportunity Cost of Capital 10%)

Crops Incremental InvestmentNet Benefits Costs

TeaJEDB -82 + 468SPC -71 + 246

RubberJEDB -74 x 285SPC -79 + 378

CoconutJEDB -54 4 116

Total Project -86 + 613

Ij Svitching value is the percentage change in the specified stream (cost orbenefit) that reduces the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project to zeroat a specified discount rate (10X for Sri Lanka).

-56-

9.12 The results indicate that the project would be economically sound.Taking the crops individually, the results show that incremental net benefitsfor tea and rubber would have to fall over 70% and coconut by about 50Z forany of these crops to be economically non-viable. Conversely, investmentcosts for tea and rubber would have to increase by over 200% and coconut byabout 1001 for such an event to occur.

9.13 Taking the project as a whole, incremental net benefits would have tofall by 86% or total investment costs would have to increase by over 613Z forthe overall project to be not viable. There is only a low probability ofincremental -jet benefits falling so greatly because of low prices, pooryields, or bxigh production costs. The probability of investment costs risingto the levAls indicated is negligible.

C. Proiect Risks

9.14 The technical risks of the project are low because of the corpora-tions' great experience in the cultivation and processing of tree crops. TheTree Crops Sector Review expressed concern about the profitability ofreplanting tea. Based on an analysis of average costs and benefits, replant-iug returns are marg .nal. However, in specific instances high-yield poten-tial and low estate costs can make tea replanting profitable. A limitedreplanting program has therefore been included in the project but risk ofunprofitable replanting would be reduced by an assurance that only thosefields would be replanted with tea for which the net present value (NPV) at101 in economic teams was positive and higher than for feasible alternatives(para 4.04).

9.15 Institutional risks should not pose a major problem because projectstaff have gained considerable experience implementing similar projectsduring the past 6 years. Recent procedures introduced and tested by manage-ment consultants have greatly improved corporation efficiency. Regularmonitoring of performance at all levels would be improved. The managementconsultants would continue to work with the corporations during 1985 under anarrangement in the TRAD Project. The risk of slow implementation would bereduced by project activities being divided among 530 estates, all competingror performance rewards. Possible delays in factory rehabilitation would bereduced by procurement on a turnkey basis, by proper phasing and by interna-tional procurement. Civil works and social programs have been reduced tomanageable levels in the light of project experience and procedures have beenmodified accordingly. Project risks are therefore acceptable.

-57-

X. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASSURANCES J

10.01 At negotiations Government gave assurances that:

(a) only those fields would be replanted with tea for whicb the economicrate of return would be at least 10%;

(b) rubber would not be uprooted and replanted until the old rubber hadbeen exploited both by chemical stimulation and by upward tappingabove the regular tapping panel (para 4.08);

(c) no investment would be made in renovating any tea factory unless theproposed investment would result in an economic rate of return of atleast 10% (para 4.13);

(d) no factory would be rehabilitated unless its annual production wouldbe more than 300 m ton of sole crepe or more than 450 m ton of palecrepe or more than 600 m ton of latex concentrate (para 4.14);

Ce) no untreated effluent would be permitted to flow beyond the bound-aries of a rubber factory estate (para 4.14);

Cf) no mini-hydro scheme would be rehabilitated unless the proposedinvestment would result in an economic rate of return of at least10% (para 4.16);

(g) social welfare benefit norms, acceptable to IDA, would be includedin estate analyses of investment proposals from 1986 through 1989(para 4.19);

Cb) management consultants' proposals satisfactory to IDA. would be imple-mented in accordance witb a schedule satisfactory to IDA (para 4.20);

Ci) corporate annual revenue budgets for years after 1985, based onbudget norms satisfactory to IDA, plus annual investment programs andforecasts of debt service ratio, would be made available to IDA inSeptember and finalized by November 30 of the preceding year (para6.05);

.J In framing the legal agreements it is intended that assurances dealingwith tecbnical issues would be incorporated into a schedule of technicalstandards to be followed by the corporations.

-58-

(j) draft project accounts together with draft final accounts of thecorporations, including profit and loss accounts and balance sheets,would be Bent to IDA within 6 months of the close of the corpora-tions' financial year folloved by audited accounts and reports within9 months after the end of the financial year (para 6.08);

(k) oue firm of auditors would be appointed as the agent of the AuditorGeneral for each Regional Board and that one of the regional auditorswould be the lead firm coordinating all regional audits together withCentral Board audit (para 6.09);

(1) Government would maintain an institutional capacity, satisfactory toIDA, to monitor producer margins and adjust factors affectingproducer margins to maintain such margins at adequate levels (para8.02);

(m) neither JEDB nor SPC would incur any debt unless a forecast of totalrevenue and expenditures showed a debt service ratio of at least 1.5(para 8.09); and

(n) dividends paid by JEDB and SPC would not reduce their debt serviceratio below 1.5 (para 8.10).

10.02 Conditions of credit effectiveness would be that:

(a) All cofinancing arrangements had been completed (para 5.03); and

(b) Subsidiary Loan Agreements, satisfactory to IDA, between Governmentand BOC, and BOC and the corporations had been executed (para 5.05).

lt.03 Conditions of disbursement:

(a) against all training cost, that NIPM had appointed the three techni-cal assistants provided under Credit 1240-CE (para 4.21).

10.04 With the above assurances and covenants, the project would besuitable for an IDA credit of SDR 56.5 M (US$55.0 M) to the Government ofSri Lanka.

-59- Annex 1Page 1

SRI LANKA

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Glossary

A. All Crops

Replanting. Involves the complete removal of the old stand, whetheryielding or not, and replacement with a new stand.

B. Tea

Clonal or Vegetatively Propagated (VP) Tea. Genetically identical teabushes produced by taking cuttings from selected superior mother bushes.

Old Seedling Tea (OST). Genetically diverse tea bushes produced fromtea seed; highly variable in all characters including growth characteris-tics, leaf size (jat) and yield.

Infillin2. The procedure of filling gaps left by dead tea bushes withnew plants; always coincides with field pruning to reduce competitionbetween the infilled plants and mature bushes.

Withering. Ambient or hot air is blown through green leaf by a fan toreduce moisture. Traditionally, this process is carried on hessian ornylon racks (tats). Tats are being replaced by troughe to introducecontrol over the withering process.

Rolling. Process of twisting withered leaf by means of rotating plates(rollers) to rupture leaf tissues and induce oxidization.

Fermentation. Enzyme oxidation of polyphenols in tea leaf.

Fixding. A tea drying process which stops fermentation and reduces mois-ture content of the leaf to about 3%. After fixing, tea becomes stableto handle.

Grading (Sorting). Dried tea (made tea) is sifted over wire mesh toseparate different sizes of tea particles. Sorted tea is classified intothe following main grades Broken Orange Pekoe (BOP), BOP FaDnings (BOPF)and Dust I. These grades are in descending order of particle size.

C. Rubber

Buddina. The operation of grafting a bud onto a stock. Brown and greenbuds can be grafted onto brown stocks of up to fourteen (14) months; onlygreen buds can be grafted onto green stocks.

Crepe. Processed rubber prepared by a number of passes, with washing,through patterned rollers revolving at unequal speeds, which macerate therubber into laces. Latex crepe is prepared frmn freshly coagulated latex

Annex 1Page 2

-60-

and is a premium product. It can be laminated into sole crepe. Scraprubber, off-grades, and clippings can be cleaned in the above manner andmade into brown crepe. All crepes are air-dried, either at ambienttemperature or artificially. Crepes are visually graded.

Crumb Rubber. A processed rubber prepared by hamer-milling or byextruding and chopping, drying, and pressing into 32 kg r'ocks. Thehighest grades are prepared from fresh latex, but auto-cuagulated rubber,scrap, off-grades, and earth scrap can be cleaned and improved by thisprocess. Prepared from latex, certain of the physical characteristics(such as viscosity) can be altered. Crumb rubber is graded on the basisof its technical characteristics rather than its visual appearance.

Ribbed Smoked Sheet (RSS). A processed rubber prepared from latex bydilution, coagulation with formic acid, milling with smooth and markingrollers, washing, and drying in a smokehouse. The rollers revolve at thesame speed; the marking roller impresses ribs to increase the surfacearea to aid drying. The sheets are dried in a smokehouse. RSS isvisually graded.

Stimulant. An ethylene-releasing substance which increases yield whenapplied to the tapping panel.

Technically Specified Rubbers. Rubbers, mainly crumb, from which ade-quate samples are taken by a competent authority for testing and qualitycontrol for specification before shipping. The main parameter is dirtcontent which, in parts per million identifies the rubber (5, 10, 30,50). Other parameters are the plasticity retention index (a measure ofpossible oxidation), viscosity, nitrogen content, volatile matter, ashaud magnesium content. Other rubbers (crepe, RSS), if properly preparedgad blocked, can be submitted for testing and qualify as a TSR.

D. Coconuts

Undernlantina. Planting new seedlings beneath old palms followed by theprogressive removal of old palms to leave a pure new stand.

Copra The dried 'meat' (endocarp) of the coconut.

Poonac: The residue remaining after coconut oil has been expressed fromcopra.

Annex 2-61- Table 1

SRI LACFEtl TRE lIS PEECT

COST MIARY

IRS. '00) (U." '000) t TotalZ Forteiin DAsi'

Locel Foreign Total Local Forei4n Tnt.l Efrhanie Cost$arz=aaa uuuuu uaauu inMmWua laauu u;arsuaa rfV r-m

"N'SIET COSTS

A. FIELD IEV NW 1,679,631.7 377p059.0 2,05h690.7 669731.5 14,990,5 P1,12.0 I1 51B. CIVIL mmKS 436,9599 131096.7 WMd46.7 17v3%.4 59743.9P ??600.2 23 14C. mWaEs ?1.797.0 215,361.0 297,149,0 NM.1 8,556.3 1J,400.3 75 ?

1. FACTORY EGUIPNFNT 333,935.9 214#756.1 5408591.9 134263.2 8,537.2 2!.795.5 39 142. FIELD AND NESERY fOUIPfENT 77,677.6 49,699.2 126,376.1 3.0861 1,934.9 5,020.Q 39 33. NINI HYDRO 107,206.7 107,203.4 209.410.1 4,259.3 4.060,5 9,319.8 49 54. COMPUTERS 19.319,9 34v775.0 54.163,9 770,3 1,301.6 9,151.9 64 15. GE EUIPHENT 38,648.) 35,03M . 73,694.2 1,535.5 1,397.0 7,977.5 48 2

Sub-To1l EGUIPHENT 5769757.0 435,469.8 190172226.8 72,914.5 17,301,1 40!-15.6 41 2SE. TRAINIDI 23.629.1 13t5M0.0 37,179.1 93988 W36.4 1,475.1 36 1F. TOSICAL ASSISTANCE 66t626.7 31,970.5 99409.2 7PM7.1 19262,7 3,909.8 32 2

DIELINIE COSTS 2,955,2 MM.4 1205t159.1 4.0,450,5 113,440.3 47,9m0. 161,321.0 30 1toPhyical Comtirimffih 157.686.9 54.00.1 212,107.0 69764.9 2,165.3 8430.2 26 5PriQe COntinuiwcif 817,689. 241,S78.7 1,O59.267.7 32,496.7 95Y979 4720P4.5 23 26

PRO.ECT COSTS 3,830,667.3 1,50137.9 S,31,90.7 152,191.8 59t643.9 211,835.7 29 131_ _,,nnuuZ ,.,i,u -- =a.=u,a .=r -zz

irv 7 1995 15:16

SRI MAa��FOURTH TRFERIn cm lMWlCT

Project CommOnents bv Eljvenditure Categories

TEA RUDER MID CocoI JTRflM3 FVATORY RFHAIL.ITATION WIVUJSTHG N.DIrAL INSTITIITTIIIW BW.LOOPNIYT

_ ,@ @ .......................... ................ ... ... _._.__.........._._....___. _. ............ _... - ... --------------------------

Se JErD 5PC En1 sPr PR lw JnE W. JFf WPI Totalz:~::ssa::a ::::--r:::r z_:r_:::: :::::::: ::-:- -:m:----9zA 5::::-zz :_:::m=a a :rsz2. walaz 5S :::S S 11 ,-

CATEGORIESIt IzKSTrmEr cOSrs

...... ........ ....

A. FIELD EVELOWNT 101091807.0 946,993.7 - - - - - - - - - ?05,W.73. CIVIL UC- -- -- 2,0f,9 120P779,4 120,736,0 102f35;1.7 37f,57,9 9,522,9 - 5,46,7C, YEHICLES 1229375,0 126,755,0 - - - 4,028,0 *r600.0 17?075,0 17,3r5,0 2974080D. EGIIPIENT

1. FACTORY ENIPIT - - 76,107.2 260,4R4,7 - - - - - - - 548,391,2. FIELD AMD MRY EQUIPMENT 56,456.2 69,920.5 - - - - - 12376.83 MINtI 111O -- 104,705.I 204)701.1 - - - - - - - 209,410.14. CMTERS - - - - - - - - 27.fl1,9 77,011,9 - 54,163.95. OTIER EJIPIENT - - - _- - 1,68,8 11J76,.l 23,R72,4 7,0370,7 73,/04.7

Sub-Total EQUIPIENT 56.456,7 69792045 390,81223 367,189.7 - - 15460i. 11176123 50,953.3 49,452.6 - 1,01207?6.9E. TRAINING - - - - - - - - IR, .SM-5 19 .645 - 37.J29,1F. IECHNICAL ASSISINICE - - - - - - - - 4A,R14.t 44,924,9 4.770,4 99,409.2

----------. ----------- .. ...... ... .... ------- ....... .... ------ ----- ----- - . --------- .. ---- ----- -

Total IWESTIENT COSTS 1.28936382 19143.559,3 3901.M?,3 U7,189,7 !P?,P88,9 J10,779,4 140,454.9 173,713.0 160,96N! 1 1$669-9 4W779,4 4*W.06450o5Total MSELINE COSTS 1,288,638.2 1W1430559.3 390182.3 367,189,7 187,88P.9 120,779,4 140454.9 123,713,0 10,965,5 1364669.9 4,779,4 44600450.5

Phnslcal Contindmncies 58,313.2 50*840.2 19,540.6 18,3159.5 IR.?P09 127077,9 17,85Q.A 2O.R73.2 64731,7 4,351,1 - 21?.1P7,0Price Continfencies 356,363.4 325,699.7 85,134.2 794900,9 046934 34,1550 37.688 34,577,6 29,2M,7 76,776.4 428,7 1,059,267.7

.. ............ ....... ------- ------ ..... .... ... ----- ------ ----- ----- ....... .. ----- -- -- ---

Total PROJECT COSTS 107030314.7 1!5270098.2 495,497.1 465.450,0 750,971,7 267,212.5 19100e3.3 169,13 296,57.9 167029,4 529914 5,331,905,72: :: : a : :. : : - ::: -:-…--:: .--- - .: "--= :==::e_-ar

Taxes 43.202i4 45P,098.4 63,722, 60,107,8 7p576,1 5,016.4 8#512,5 8P0772 19,6112.5 29492,0 - 290,354.5Foreign Exchange 403,044. 360,57I.0 203:094.1 190,584,7 5A,219,9 38P763.7 46,P3P81 449064,6 790395,9 71il6 3,550.5 2.5017237.9

....................................... _...... ......... ___._...._. ...... ..... ....... __._........_. _......___ ._._________.................... ....................................... -X ----- -------

Februar'g 7,1985 15114

-63- Annex 2Table 3

SRI LANKAFOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECTProjrt Components by Year

(RS. 'I 00)

Base Costs Tnl ;l

1985 i986 1987 198 19 p, (UI '0001

A, TEA RUD AND COCONUT REHAD

1. SPC 303,371.4 78507306 .b M,875T 277,273,6 05,437.5 1,P7063H.2 51.197.42. JE0 267,050.2 733v97.,4 26,t471.5 215,197,1 200?9t4t0 1,143?55!3 45433,4

Sub-Total TEA , RUDER AND COCONUT REHAB 5709371.7 519P656.9 4 93 46?7 44?.470,7 406?'.1K5 2,437,197.5 9Ar630.8B. FACTORY REHABILITATION

1. SPC 986.81.3 122,403.3 94,2??.0 V23no,4 73.196.3 3.-817,3 1523.Q2. JEDB 911r302.7 123v609t0 78,210.2 50.156,7 23.9111 .1 7rJ'97 14-598,4

Sub-Total FACTORY REHABILITATIDN 189994.0 746,011.4 1?7,437. 2 10?7466,1 47.10?,3 5R,*-2,0 -153C. HOUSING

1. SPC 50Y?60.8 4??520.8 35r090.? 79rJ1O4 26.215.7 1824889.9 7.?64.2. JEDB 28-91.6.3 29.19°.0 23,844,7 24,636.5 1P 32.9 120f70,4 4.7".,5

Sub-Total HOUSIN6 70,99?.? 71?719i8 58,935.6 4,737.1 44.48.6 303,661,3 71104.7D. MEDICAL

1, SPC 36!.85.7 29.85.6 35074,5 23680.7 14,868.4 140,454. 5?58".)2. JEDD 27!638.2 25,335.2 3.573?.5 r2.?44,7 1??062.5 1?.713.0 4!?154t

S-Total NEDICAL 649673.8 55,180.8 70tW,9 4A,625.4 26t930.9 264167.9 1,495%3E. INSTITUTIXONAI DEVELOPIIENT

1. SPC 51?14?.l A,37.5.3 1 8?'.93 13,5w0,3 9- 37.4 160i,65,5 6-35-.12. JEDB 424R5.8 49,709.6 2np101,3 14r10?.6 10.765.6 1vA,°.9 5.42q9s3, NPI 20736.0 2043.4 - _ - 4.779e4 189,9

Sub-Total INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPHENT 96&363.9 120,07R.3 384694.6 27,6&7.9 19,638.1 302414-8 J).414,9

Total AI INE COSTS 1,0012V70,5 1,017.,4R.2 834,21P,0 667,937,? 5443764 4,v0.450,5 161 t21.0Physical Cantinsencies 47-892.1 53,905.9 4.,4917,3 '6.,.4 78 q83 ?1?,187,0 0.430.?Price Contirdecies 54,UP 7 173834.5 248,345,3 284,653.9 797,7iK.4 1, 50767.7 4?,084.5

Total PROJECT COSTS 1J103811.3 1,7I40,88,6 -i7?7980.6 9R0!974,5 870,y70d 5,31.9 , S,2 27i.A35,7

Taxes 82,539.9 78796.1 51?138.0 74!7P,5 ?.902.rO 28454. 11413R-4Foreidn Exchande 370i906,0 A9,99M.1 301,360.6 245,717,6 213,207,5 1-501,737,9 5F-643.?

Fbruary 7, 1985 15:13

SRT LANKAFOURTH TRfrl CROPS PROJEC~T

Expendituras Catexory Coaits by Yaar(ii. '000)

Totals IncludinU Contin4enclespost Costs IRS 'OM0) FoaitpJn Fxchonsit

1985 19116 I"?7 1908 1989 Tr.t.i1 1995 1986 198 191 1999 Total I Ae.mt

It INYJE9TENT COSTS

Ai FIELD DYEtEOPMENT 409,694.1 443,165'9 440,962,5 401t7`P,6 357,10 727 056,690.' 454,364.8 545,374.4 599,034.9 604,07.41 573,33s92.0771,173tf4 I28,3 3~7,059,Bo CIVIL OK$ ~ 129,993,7 149,6:4.5 176,939.3 93,783,5 69.596.) 56 p0,46.7 I49p617,9 192,432.3 179,783'9 245,256.6 226.611,5 7931718-2 '3.2 13I.9"6.7C. VEHICLES 147,558.0 59.730,0 33,765.0 1907750 31,320.0 787,140,0 149,260,3 67,411,3 41,536J9 765At i 45,447.8 3~99477`3 7q.0 215,361.0Do EQUIPMENT

lo FACTORY EQUIPMENT l89,984.0 114,112.3 110,537.7 40566,1 23,397t3 54O,591.9 209,658.9 713,997.5 147,65,9 59i,207,0 36,961,4 677,357,6 39.1 714.756#12. FIELD AND KOURSY EQUIPMENT 46p587,5 24,761.1 20,7)0. 17,098.1 11,209.9 176,376.8 51,433.0 79,577.7 27,030.9? 74t970,2 711,78.4 161,757.6 38.5 41,699,?3. MINI HYDRO - 61,990,0 61,900. 61,900. 23710,0 709,410o1 - 74,920,2 02,036.M 89,591,3 37.136'9 781,58445 49.8 107'703,44,i CUMTERS 3,031.6 '33,158.1 I 7,659,1 5,158.1 5,158.1 'i4,63.9 3,315.1 39,354.3 9,979.3 79363,6 7,960.9 A7,9M10 64,7 34,775.05. OTHER EOUIPMENT 40,696,9 15,375,0 8,131,9 6,887.0O 2.326,5 73,694.? 45,004,7 10.494,0 10,930i7 109019,8 1,4417 90,004 47.5 35.036,1

Sub-Total EQUIPMENT 290.571.? 318,906,5 9"0042.4 21,6fl4o1 77,901.7 1,01)9926,0 309#411.6 3816,080. 777.049.3 191,160,0 114501,1 1,?770,70,? 430 41'5,469.UE. TRAINING 9,788.7 26,877.5 5,062,9 2,700.0 2.70010 170"79, 10,938.2 20,789. 6,26.2 3,802.4 4,113.9 460,7.9' 36.4 13,500.0F. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 29,7644 74,433.9 19,046,9 14,776.9 10,06,9 "98409.2 31,323.7 78,344.2 24,399.4 70P139, t60721w`1 17O,917.2 32.3 31.78',5

Total INVDESTMENT COSTS 1#001,270,5 1,0122648,7 014#729.0 667,937,2 544376, 4,060,450.5 1,103,911.3 2,240,388.6 lt127980.6 988974,5 870,750,2 5,31J,905,2 29.7 2,705,159,1Total BASELINE COSTS 1,001,270,5 1,012P648,2 834,28, 667.937,2 544,376o4 4,060.450.5 29.7 1,705,59*1Physical Conting cits 47,892.2 53,905.9 45t417o3 36,303,4 208,58,3 212,297,0 95.7 5.40500,1Price Contingeocies 54.648,7 173,834,5 74B,345.3 204#6'.3,9 797,7054 I .059.o767. 7 27.9 741,79.7

Total PROECT COSTS 1.03.811.3 1,740388,6 1P127#980.6 988974,5 1170.7i0.1 5.32.95.7 1,103,9111,3 1.740.389.6 J0277,90. 999.974,5 70.70oll2o 50332995.7 99.2 2,1013799

Taxes 82599 79,996.1 57,138.0 36,778,5 29,907.0 780,345 0.0 0,0oFor.i1fn Exchange 370,906.0 369p966s1 301 #W 0,6 745,717.6 213.127,5 1501,237.9 ., 0.0 0.0

Februarw 7,19I5 15111

I~ m

-65- Annex 2Table 5

SRI LANKAFOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECTSPC Project Costs by Year

(Rs. t000)

Base Costs Foreign Fxchans

1985 1?86 1987 1988 1989 Total % Amount

I. INVESTETff COSTS

A. riELD DEVELOPFENT 2-37234.3 248,9..2 .29V608.7 2075v37.0 176t466.8 1,10807. 18. 209115.5

B. CIEVIL VORKS ES,270.0 92,696.4 68P,20.7 49,961.5 39.454.0 336,202.7 23.2 7R8070,6C. VEHICLES 65823.0 Q 9,6370.0 101500.0 8990.0 17,975.0 138,468.0 75.0 103,851.0D. EQUIPMENT

1. FACT0RY EQUIPMENT 8E21. 3 91,453.3 53,272.0 21,359.3 11j341.2 286,107.2 39.3 1127472.02. FELD AND NURSERY EQUIHPENT 12432.2 10,865.4 11y216.4 109746.6 10,995.7 56,456.2 38.5 21E755.43. MINI HYDRO - 30,950.0 30,950.0 30,950.0 11,855.0 104t705.1 48.8 51,101.74. COMPUTERS 1P515.8 16,579.0 34829#0 2,57?.0 2,579.0 27,081.9 64.2 17,387.55. OTHER EQUIPMENT 21A526.2 8,057.3 4,056.0 4,282.6 1,a0.1 395512.2 47.2 18,663.1

Sub-Total EQUIPMENT 134y355.4 157,905.1 113Y323.4 690917.6 38,401.0 513,902.6 43.1 221,379.6E. TRAINING 4,S94.4 89438.7 2-531.5 1,350.0 1W350.0 18P564 .5 36.4 6,750.0F. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 13i514.3 11,195.3 9,523.5 7,138.4 5443.4 46,814.9 30.4 14,20.

Total INVFESTMENT COSTS 541,091.4 548,825.7 449,857.8 344,B94.6 27,090.37 2'I63,759.7 29.3 633,416.7Total PASELINE COSTS 541s091.4 548325.7 4498QY57.8 344,894.6 279,o0o.3 2 1637y59.7 293 e_ , 416.7

Phfsical Continrencies 27Y351.2 30,04.8 2446o.31 18093@.4 14I756.3 25:-74,0 2,6 29y669.3Price rcntinrfmenries O29Y851.8 94w6973.2 134024.? 1499-09.I :52,470.9 558040.5 272.8 127,506.3

Total PROJECT COSTS 59.,294.4 673,55v.7 -0??57 . 510,830.6 446,317.5 2,8375;34.1 27,9 790,592.3

Taxes 77 3.1 3,t619.3 27626.3 19,106.9 16A442.3 1425673.7 0.0 0.0Fore,In E:A'hs'e 3S2 31.2 195,679.4 162,364.0 12,3862.7 112,354.7 790,592.3 0.0 0.0

Februarv Is 1985 16:14

-66- Annex 2

Table 6

SRI LANKAFOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECTJEDB ProJect Costs by Year

(Rs. '000)

°.a,e Casts Foreig;. Excharne

1-986 197, I7S 9 In Tatal z Amount

L. IIJESIMN CCTZwisnrTc-, rn"rT,r, 1

A. fl.L nflrhl¶.WxER IThISM*rt.x 4'4. . 2ZSZ.7=! 18;?$0.5 1S 043 945483.7.. J17.7 157 17943.5B. rIVIL UUORS 3-.S2. :,-93r9.1 8;11.5 2..P822.0 30O 142.2 23r 644.'0 23.? 59lbF6.lC. VEHICLES -,-r75. ZC.,:$.2 ! .7s7,0 IN795.0 13,3-45. 148i680.0 75.0 111i 510.0D. SW1JIPMEUT

. FCAtTORY EQUIPMEN\IaT ?:t7' 2.7 92,9.0 4'r-,260,- 9?! C.7 12,056.1 262B484.7 39.0 1 2.294.12. FrIL AND NUR"TSERY E-SU'I?NE!T 33,955.4 13.3 3E7c. 9, 003.8 5,° 3511.5 7)214. £9,920.5 3.8.5 F26,943.8

3. MIN- :Y* -n , 30,9'J. 5 30,r.90.0 3 0.50.O -2.55 .C 15,, 4,7054. 4?.8 51 ,101.7£HrUTEPS 1,515.u8 ILY79.4 l... 2,i7.O 2M;°.0 . -081.9 64.2 17.387,5

5. OTH,hER EQUWIPMENT IT?A42.1 .317., 4,076.0 . Of°.3 M56.4 34,132+0 48.0 16,3t73.

Sub-To;tal EQUIPMErNT l4 1 L' 5 1 t0 1. '3 9C 149 V 51,306.6 34,400.7 4983?4.2- 43.0 214,090.2

rrV M I I.n. 4,p.94,4 P4:1300,7 25 93 . 1t7350.3 1 *35 v 0 184564,5 36.4 6?,750.0

'. TECiZALn ASISTAN.E 13514.3 1119S.3 9.523.5 7713 * 1,.4 5,443.4 44814.9 30.4 14o250.0,, ~ ~~ -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- ......------- -- - - ----- ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Tota IESTMENT 359T9 457,443.2J _fu4 7. ?,1 384,36 3.23042.7 ' P2M6..2 1.891,911.3 30.0 568,459.9

o.tal DA3 LINE COSTS r3s'.4143,2 46A1t779.1 84360.2 2, 04. 7'25,6285.2 1489I1.3 M.0 568,459.9Phis.c.;l 2.-.r 5409 ' 1.,1 M7ru'i2.0 VA40, '. 1 1 . .96.45..0 25.J7. 24,830.8

Price CantirAer,ci2 "4J7.t 7MM851 4 3 2. 2154,3 17379654.2 145,314.5 500,808.6 22.7 113P804.4

'-tal PROJECT Cu'T" 502M.51.6 5u64502.1 519Y442.7 4 78t, 143.9 4," 4326 4 2 499.2R 72.9 2. 4 707095.1

Taxes `2',.u' 39937. ' 24,511.7 I7,671.6 13,459.7 1 7,790,7 0.0 0.0Forei-* Excharne . l17t,5. 172,545.6 137993.& 117,35I4. 1 043.8 7 07,9 5.1 0.0 0.0

rebruarB 12, 17S5 16:07

59'? IAWA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ otl IrsdiAIrtn4wo

19's. 'flMi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~(Uf

wnit 199 j99' I"? 1999 295 Total rnct I95 194 i198 1 TO-) SI 199 6 "L 1917 19K 199 Tate?

........... ... unsm.. ... .. a n. ,..aall :nr ~ . n ni

A. TEA

2910011M "A 424 41~6 4 M 'VI7 3" It93172, .M9 .99 9V.9 PVA4 6'' IAS 417,247,5 4WOW6. 479,40.5 50.757,2 436,17. 2.335.7673

6RASS "A 676 474 476 333 37i 7,900 7.9 5.,17', I.W4.1 1'p704 1.M'.A 1%947? 1'. 236,821.i1 1I4,89.4 1232759.9 279.776.0 11U,S4t. 957,770.3

PLANTINGB NA 1.0210 676 414 176 391 1729 31.9 13.7W4 71?241.3 MM, 14'0IA-.i OA 1'13'1 t465MM7. 1.069P264.0 7M,34.4 MM926.7 P5.59.1 4.942.013.4

IST TMUIAAWIC "A6 76P I0I0 616 424 426 3.304 17.9 )I3."'.2 J1945.77 *(0'- 7.11M.A 7.A14-j i.955,7 605,365. 2 $64,128.1 652 MI29,6 447t797.2 436.39k? t7 0767081.0

295 '11(0 WIlE? HA 619 799 2.010 d~~~~~6 474 1.497 J7.9 22.064,0~~ 1777.2 19,05!.7 1I..0A, 7-5.619 4 .P.!.4 437,918.0 6n72.27,5 97.933#3 72300408 484,3195.9 M39,33367.5

Sub-Total KPMATINMMO 73134 ,.737.4 56.313,7 45.29A,4 79.3M', M00.'- 3,277.799,1 3.297,935.2 3.041.4796 7.676.437,9 7,457408,5 14.601.23,

2. WV PtiMITIKO

CLEAR AND PUNT HA 9 16 0 I0 ~ 4 57 131. *6. .6. (A II 903.5 j.t97 126070,7 203,066,9 20.500.6 721.71664 256P.79. 1.047.743.7

111 wim NIlE? "A - " Il 10 193l 479 14.3 1- 415,9 1.659, I!Ml,~J1 131 a. I m. - 69,329.6 39,73.0 91,249.2 96,04.11 W4:61.8

M2 YEAR FLEP? HA - - 9 116 If* 171 141 - 1SO1M. W.6597 I.344.1 klhip.6 - 76,430.2 9I0100.4 93,747.3 )737ft,7.

Sub-Total ElV PiMITIK .3G 5A1.4 A.915.1 A.9sA.9 7~i*.W1 'A.07*4 256,70. 2n2.41,5 374,323. 4311444.0 432,31,4 1.467.111.3

3. IWIU IK

(11(0126 No WI.NEII NA 1.240 t.247 19040 939 747 5.241 514A49t2 1.~51, 41.3177.4 $.794 ,~P ?A.99'.3 7)6.868.4 2.277.709.7 2526,794,2 2.36995114.9 7.2959703.9 1#97M.49,3 11,4 I33,

131 YEAR 112hEP NA - 2246 1,247 2.060 919 4,494 70.659,7 70,37.2 17.550,9 jjfq,54, 74.1999 9 1.011.3030 I,l1I505.7 1,037,017,0 93,743,17 4l70.099.0

2KTYEAR CUP HA - - 2.249 2.747 1.04 3,532 - 70.659.? 79.6917,7 1?.RrA.9 W0.47.8 Iv-1.15.321.3 2,29,94,) 191279M3.6 I*4573743.h

SubTotal IIWILLIKG 516977,5, P7.4, 197. XWMSt05l 2,277,709.7 3.33P1.57,13 44595,11.8 JIM537.5.6 4.092,550. 19459,794,7

4, TIIUIffELOO - - - - - - 4.937,9 9.717.1 M34549 I-A6,9 1.351,3 20,01136 223,349.2 476,231,8 212,492.7 93491.3 86,4M.7 I,005.f1.3

S. DIlW31FlCATION - -A- 71,2 4f7J.5 4.632.9 '.079.6 5-7'6.3 17.41,511 tt3,3392 213,73.9 751.P330,4 297,23.3 370.41,0 I r946,271,9

6. FIELD WWAKS

THATCINGII _ _ 3.- .-l 7.94.3 7.40,9 7.711.? l.9404 l.9(1,.O 136,744. 151,050,7 141,538.7 136709.6 11746779 6631,7MO,2mMRnIIuI - - -- - - ~ 5,W0 . 5-A?3 t1.7 1.791.7 1.4731 72.4147 24US,13,5 272,435.9 21,6350.0 724,133.3 22tJ2,34 4,l9^0047,0TIKUCIA- - - 5 -7 F 571,4 4-0.61 4-Mc-. 1.14040 1-491-5 247,0093 272.857.4 71363301 2233072,1 2M3A4137 1.P164603

S9AE P1IIII1 - - - - - - .767,9 2?9!l 7d79*7 ItPA7,? IlV.0 111t01.7 121f7t7.0 131i062.2 126,273.0 110032.6 94404.4 590591.2WITCH CUI - - - - - - 20193.3 0-0,7 ?-0' - l917,.4 1,174 10.49,4 964281,6 "9014,6 113o3668 1l4.176.9 117,169,9 540.0Pul CUtIPm .p- 1,924,4 14A8.1 f.917 1-9AA,l I.WP.1 .713.5 64,6.7 96381.4 1060W.4 116,291.2 120,217,7 5i24.1O.,4tIIIITE rlMITRn - - - - * - t4.1 ".I 191. 11.7 45.7 $13.7 IM2.4 1,476.5 2W,103 2,112.3 2t,92P l0v291.)IU!N WIITATION - - - - - - 2-0M1t9 .99'7,9 1.474.3 13,10.7 1,-7,P 1.1'5.? *192.4 97632.9 79A17.3 82P143.1 3.051,9 417074,0SHOTIOLE MmR COlTL - - - - - - 100.0 101.9 JAI.9 "1 '00 49,' 4W4O.3 49m.9 5035.7 5632.7 3756.9 26t296.4

.......... .. ...... . ....... _..._. _.__.... _.. _.__...._. ............. ___ . ..

9,h-Totol FIELD MlOllS 23,707,4 71.3l7.P 16,641.2 17.2001 I5,"7.0 97,577,25 11027p626,o ,il3J3,9.4 IO,4.930,6 I01l6305.7 976,833.5 511,617.3. ....... ...... __.._ ........-. .. -.-___ ._.. .__. __......

Sub-Tot.1 TEA 153,(91.7 IR7491.11 1744i7.O lil¶tIP94 131.P410 W,0137.9 74015.943.9 .977.745.2 9,405441.9 9.031,540,0 9,430P544.I 4),I3135.9 3

RMAtIINU HA 19519 3.36J 1,317 IIPI 19(114 4,703 s 5,204,7 49.51904 47,n71.A 47,946.1 36,571,7 717.,25,0 21431,033.9 240835191.1 7.566.512.4 2512.109.3 7.313.030.7 12.2313.04.3

Kw PLMTIN HA 356 402 4U0 116 771 .99l 20.3?,1 14,641,1 14-570,4 I1.4L.? W.W0I 6Q27.l 99M,26 7MO,M. 779,502.6 64912.6 P9,513,5 3,30.151.1DIWIIFICATINI - - - - 2A49.3 7.494,11 7.R"1 . . 7.44.R 109,220.4 120,790,1 155305i61 - 305,05

S Ob-Tol R 70.141,1 U466.9 40441.7 '14.1174 44.A711.9 W019 1 3,433,476.7 34241,227.8 3,301,071,1 3.17,0722.? 7024.614.2 16919l,411.9

Total I9IFSTINT MUSTS 2317'14.1 7t9,9A,77 20.W.0 707.537,0 17A.IAA,P .,407.A 30,01,470,6 12P161."3,0 12,90613,0 17,23056207 11.25153t90 59901310476

Total 23]7o'4.3 700494 7119,W,7 717.517.0 17MM4.11 I.169.907,0 10,541420.6 12,166399.0 12.96913.0 12.2305462,7 119,M 159.0 50119047.8gattsfl. .. l .s cuie ts.w.u,, aul s.8 -.tr.t.3 nssss==gn2=n2 nsns sn~s ~ .

. . . . . . . ... .. . .......... . . . . . . ... . .... . ..................... ' 17w1 ................................... . ........... .......... . ..... . . .......... . .......... . . . .*

.ebtu 79 IMf 14151 " r i

3 LAWAFrAPTH rT CRW ,ontt

.W^1i ISIATES WW INI WFtFI I l P W$11WTf!iltd ('100 T.I

In, 'WI

Tati2h Trrn jlrd F.nt1im.'0es(kwntitv (. etU1W)

---- ----- lki~ t - …------- - .------- --.-----.- ----…----

unit IYR5 299 1YR7 I" 9O 2999 TWtel Coot I9YP 196 I"R7 199I 19 Tt-.SI 1995 IYU t7 26 1199 Total32*3 2*33 *3*2= *32* 33233 II== 232 2- 338 2*3M= 212*32*3 33j2323 21.3282=~ 318* 1.1M33213 asg1* .301111111,8 2mm.322

It IMJEStNI COSTS

A. WA

1. IEPLITIIIA..... .... .

UPIOOTIN M 7133 745 241 714 739 II.3 35e.2 80IW5. P,679,5 P-447,6 P-741.1 P-000? 41-661,4 361976.2 422,5769 4586372.4 486.944,3 517,910 P9247,793,7WmSS MA 479 233 745 241 234 1432 .9 140W0 I.51.0 I P946A. 1P914,5 I,0539 10.976,6 150.7903 906,49.9 1 10516,3 113,122te 1111tB631 578.034,4P1I.Nn HA so 4)9 233 245 241 1,976 3P,8 26,37,4 126.4.3 9.OVpP -504.3 9-3447 70.V9140 1,163,319.4 815,051.3 416,136,6 561.565.0 59,l2.1 jv625,0%6IST YEAR LNR MA 544 680 479 2733 245 7P2321 ?1 11.511,5 jf^6 9.3. I q. U 7r& ' 5-.4'.) 49-043,1 532,676.0 767427.0 S3373M, 31.716-2 3609"7?. 7.93,l70?,02929 TEAR 13E?r NA 584 u44 M6 479 713 1.47A ?3 11,44,) 1,517,5 I5vMs,6 *Prn*i 5,U7,0 6p"902.9 593313.9 613773. 646,014.7 6396?7,0 3430730.0 2.9P299.7

sub-Total RIPLET2II 43,979;, ',.319,113 4tS07.4 14,910,9 3037".3 7"955t-9 2,821,475.7 2,709,270.6 2,431,370,0 7,062,7.27 1,93764.4 119636S.92. EV PLMTINI

tFAR AN KANT HA 39 34 34 34 33 171 IR.P 1,517X9 1,319.0 1.310,0 1.319.A Is317.0 A.77.6 66729,3 14,56 72.7.06 77.934.? S66S89, 347,799.ItT YEAR MMCE HA - 3 34 34 34 14 16.7 - 65?,7 569,0 169l 569, 7. 9,7 - 31,964,6 30,7.8 339.70. 364,336 137v69,02 TEAR WE N - - 39 34 34 207 t117 U,- 657' 569,1 5,1 12.79A7 - 350747-8 33.620,8 36,383.6 io,252,2

bh-Tootel REV PLANTING 195179 1,71,4 7-.40,7 794r.7.o 7-.49,11 10.978,0 66.19,8 96.0 237,207.1 141,75.3 159,56.1 6s5,750.13, IwIlulII

CLtEtARI AND PLTA16 W 712 997 1.147 1,167 10061 5,099 294414 42,017,4 47,77 ,1 43079,7 44-730,0 ?10.5716 196M62.4 2,v09794,6 2.553.131.2 7.34,39.4 2%0.6d&5.4 119567.57,91IT YTAR 1tW "A - 717 mJ1 1247 9,1? 4.0NO 305.1 10899s 25 4 1.7146 2 4,456.9 9 33.7 537h291M5 2253.506 I3o604730.5 3, 7051 72M YEAR UBRIE? "A - - 71? 97 1,147 7.94A 315.1 7-74,7 10.6,1 21f9W90 7906.5 - I 5432,5 391760.9 629794t3 741,032. 17oM75s19.8

Suh-ToIl IWILLIII 29,76A.A5 5;-751,7 70.034,3 79,94h.4 72M45.7 I^4.R0'.1 123122556,7 2#539,01110 3.71e21395 4,723.697.3 4.657,127.9 17.035,378.54, TIRERJIML1OO- - -- - - 3.9.0 4-9A0,4 331190 -1.-? 7.1R5,9 17-546,3 156,231d1 243,029.9 205M9SS.0 17.272n6 13907747 t4-1.6715 FIELD VUl S/0IY*STFICATIOI

THWICTIIN - - . _ - -72$6-. 7.7".5 l77 -.T. I-I,P 1.311,4 P-97S.0 860622.7 2129113,1 93.074.4 99647.0 83.983,1 4754,0,3106III2G - _- - 2.4R7,0 7.-.6 ). 7dIh.1 7.315.7 1-.4% 7 11.02.9 1097210.3 109,194.1 1269214.5 136,826.9 I2S.232.8 57,9111,9TERIACING - - - . . 1901.9.l 10.79q.3 169419.0 196,19.0 P .9A9,9 49.664.A 456.826,5 528.4019 563P50,11 5912,06.5 516.00449 2,65,43725SIIE PLANTING - - - - I lIkD. A l.U4,9 I.4AI,7 1,441.7 t.7t.9 6W,47,7 59.03021 67,25.3 7M.965 86,367.6 76786.9 W.9490.4COATO! cairON - 7 - -- - 1.114.? 1,47.A IA-70, 2,11.9 ISW.9 6,671.4 49,691 70.159,6 85.302.2 79,700.9 7676,9 360637.7PORI COITRL - - -- - - 11i1 201,7 201t. 219.A 14,9 926-1 59790.4 9,356.1 10tM9.3 14,159.9 9,3 9,3 50.5709TERNiTE COATRI - - - - - - - - - -----.-

OIIMIITATION - - - - -9.4 499,6 909,A 9Q.6 1.(41,3 SW412, 44.062.9 48.956, 53t934,2 59.0648 66.727.4 77,M90.3SNIHXIIE IORER 2419R1 - . - - - -91p.7 62'.? 597.7 554-7 SU.21 3,157.4 36.03.7 402t67, 32.47.5 33.013.7 35%.S7,3 277M19.MSLDIIII ROAS - - - _ 1-7 4 4 2.'94.4 1,970.9 1.947A4 I.9A9.9P 1.9A,6 9.424-2 76.488,1 92,011.6 105pt79.8 125860,9 171,656,9 511297. o

Sub-Total FIELD V2S/D1TERSIFICATION 20.964,)177r,74.7 *.M.7 7R0,I.,7 17-0;7.5 10 .937.4 974,53.1 2,078.6557 2.250,047.3 1.715,170.7 1S0I26.. 5.46I0 07.8

Sub-Total TEA 119.IPP,4 134,53A.? 147.7MJ.4 14A.P701 174.QIJ,7 A4.954A.7 542839499.4 6666529.1 77006,57.9 8,324.10121 793,679,6 35,9394,45,1

EpIAITIE MA 657 74t5 191 59 57t 3.?11 290,983,7 17,R]9.39 tt,1',7 1I79. 11277'.I 159.52,9 2.3149,06.1 t.596.57.R 17MiO.62 12S93S27,4 7901179,0 8Bi!e l,4Ug P TIEI IU 237 195 I1. 114 68 777 2.?67.5 1,410,0 4015.4 7.847.9 1-071.1 17-316.9 130v466.5 66.27.9 7142417,3 224.70, 1294,5J33.3 30.713,

SOIL ClON T20N - * I-S47.0 1..47,0 1.37.0 1 .47,6 12.47,0 7M7If.7 670795.6 74,971.0 32,497,4 90M.700,1 M7AIM4 413,07A.7

fub-Ttail RUIIRR 14.41¶.1 17.795 M1771.A 17370.0 14.1- 4 104.94,.0 1.3134070.3 1437.734.7 29074,321.4 72174YPl?,A 24.03.474,3 9,9t0,"6,9C. COCOUT

NEVIrER PLANTING NA 249 146 310 303 7?1 1.469 I,443.4 7,i0t4 I,713P.5 I."I0 1l411.7 9.3619 63.24,5 97.12.2 9375,9 101.459,4 91.0S 440.037,6IST YEAR IE? NA - 749 36 310 303 12,7 1931).6 7.097,4 ?,'47.R 7 .0 7-1? I-71.99 60.019,4 102.316 13,589.3 142,296.3 250,50. %931M420 TEAR ItI NA - - 249 356 310 925 494, A ,37A,7 1.141,7 %-.S7.0 2.16.9 P.176.5 20,09.9 67,037.9 9.tM9 133,474.0 13,9091.S 4047.97.93RO Y!AR UEP "A - - - 249 35 609 1,744.6 446.0 1017.7 7,83. 7.3A.7 7"676.4 76.92,9 22.797,5 55,9629 221l441,4 151,304.7 47409.4*TN YEA 1R 9!) H -HA - 474 749 1.11.3 1.917.9 313,7 1AU, I 2,77M,7 4.72?.0' 50.7509 53713.0 16,917,6 499,34.4 84.374,3 7M500.7OSTH EPA U3EP - - - - 341.1 947,3 W9. a 77A,7 358.1 3.Y17.7 377073.7 449150.9 41,414.8 1m.0 54,79.0 70.793,5H0Mi1iW - * * t-,A7.3 1,241.1 1.11134 1.09. 1 2.9177 .4213,5 52,542.3 55.8260 60,314.3 6444,7 69,447.3 50IP35.6S%PlYTIIU - _ _ _ 1 .619 7 .949.7 I.717.1 7,077". IAI7.,7 0.5334 72,492.2 953360.1 96,121.5 I19.795, 75,035,5 457.294,CUTTINS HlS5 Pmg 5 - - - - - 379. ' 5174 7P'-7 0-. U1O I t158.4 33P576.7 41,753.3 3945t.8 3,406.4 33.3160 193,409,7TERRCING - - - - - - 17,0 17.0 17,0 17.0 17.0 3S9. 751,5 834.1 919,4 12005.9 1,063.5 4.599,4RtiIO 10M UF WATFR TANS - - - - - - 644.9 914' 9 5.41, 291.8 1.77-,0 1P46.1 29301.3 44.0.9 29.2993 I7.14e 72.64.0 1sI99.1PJILDII NEV WATtR TAWS - - - - - _ 355.7 14'R9 227.3 - 1.771,P 7-053t8 23181.2 9.7306 122.259,2 _ 82203, 111;074.64TH YEAR 13tE1 - - - -- 513.t 417.9 6'.6 613,8 71%,9 '..7 22845,4 30.192,7 36h4164.4 37 . 23.711.0 140476.9711l MT! 133FFP _- 4_ AR.3 574.0 04.7 71.5 7 79. 1.-110.2 20..41.1 701079.0 36A.8f9 43,972.7 4571M.1. 174.8126.1RTI E Lp- - - -- 614 7M,1 79w.0 7111.6 - * 33406.2 41.307,5 52.02%5 175.729,DRAtINING- -- 1_9*9.6 1,017.7 342,9 58e0 - 7.961.? d69"3.2 5007660 I33217,7 3.419.9 - 19,9"A,9PNIP I3IA1611O6 - - - * _ - 537,1 537, 58l.2 264,U ?64.P 7'.1079 23.197.1 26.300.5 31444.6 15.174,4 26.98.4 113.975.1TUE S - -EI. MlS4.0 t-1R.2 1,794,3 1.1150 1,179.3 5076%*8 29975%.2 579.313 699M18,2 77hS5,7 14P9044P 318P568.7FEICKII - _ _ * 2o74.0 I,3P9,3 ?-79771 7-799.4 77.3 11t 22 5 123,241a1 139.564. 1504846 1265162.9 493M4 5.1.754,0LINK R/W5 - * *A 5p 2.4 20.4 - - 111.7 2M505.0 1390.1 2.53274 - 51427,5

- - - -- -- .- .- - - - -.. .- -- .- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- ------ -

.h-Totil WMCOUT 18,e77.7 29.376.3 19,971.3 70.787,5 29.231.9 97.471.0 G03.948. 972,394.3 2,071,937.0 1.1.949.3 1223119M.9 5.7712.49,8

total INVESTMENT COSTS 27459.3 194.7,7 M0f.M7d7 198-740.A1. 304-U9 944-P3,7 7,6417.4 96.657.6 103t52#916.4 411.90.PI.1 11 5212774.3 5121.M063.

Tolal I77.459,3 294,7(,t7 MIMI,37 19370,6 1M,.9 94A 4,83-1 760041M7.4 .4657.6 10.352.916.4 11.60,361 1 4523,fl4.3 510649306.t:_::.-.55: --.- _:-- -- 5---:-:5-- :::… *--5'.: 5: S = 3- ~ 51 35:_ 55t:3 *2Z.- ---- -----

F*mls 7.- ------------ , -- ------ ---- - ------ --------- WFeni M . 12. 4152 .

CP1 LAWAFrOWIT TP1F P5 PRO WIl

q1Al IA"TATlNM r^fiATInNFIFnD N11) MK9RY FCAJYTI1T

8Pf-ieIed Cm61 TphXP1p9, 't&s

Totalz InlrlwlinJ nir|!nlOiantliv Ote CocfI tUS!

Unit 1J9 1N6 1987 19SP 1 Total rt!t j1*f 1996 1907 ¶99 199 Tntlpl j9 199 1"7 19t 1999 Tot.l

1. IINRSTHENT COlTS

A. TEA

AGRICILERAL IfLEIIENtS - - - - - - 2?3774 40IW6 3,A g2.8 4W44I.1 3e41W.9 $.975,0 1,7()i .A 760,497., 1971Wh.9 75771,.1 714,14,9 941P396.9ASACK SPMAYERS NO 1.115 90 1.07 97 1.05 5,125 7.7 3,03.7 2415.9 7,771,1 7..75,8 2P3,1 1394A 11 v 259,7 11062.7 147.179,5 155,301,4 179,P"71, 74.0.7503

MIST OLURS No 217 124 191 2J8 176 84. 6 W,300. 7413 1,145,0 17f,7 IfA!5,O 507?1.4 57090.4 35479.3 604J110 481,01.7 6,2?1,0 27064,8LEAF EINIIN SCALES NO 570 441 489 385 493 7,378 l,3 12863.0 1,447.0 1.t98,9 IM,9 2o,W17 7,779s 219740.5 69712,3 P41971,3 73,0M,4 1019748.9 4t0A1*.4MATER S No 59 26 19 12 19 135 10.9 64',t 283,4 707,1 210,8P W7,2 1-471,4 7.05.6 11,700,2 111.997 7.5921 11.007.0 71.502,4SPIIUIER SYSTENS NO 27 16 12 11 19 95 27,7 7Vi.7 46.0 3'7.0 790 7 517.7 7116,3 3POP,'). 21,077.0 17v3M,3 17.396.3 ?3',517,4 170 624,2

Sub-Total TEA 9,PPP.P 970910 9.?7, 9 9.617,7 9.A77M5 4p,S71.9 4t3,745.1 4A69,35,4 513,617.7 W59v o.0 607,527.7 72513,31.0I. RUIKR

NAIUOTIES NO 2,032 19166 1,341 1b14) 1319 79000 184.2 111.2 1?3.9 1I2, 178.6 M7.27 P,079.7 5.374,6 6,541.3 6,700,5 P,071.0 34.770,7D1686 FCRI(S M0ND 783 345 4 151 310 1,951 277,9 1?9,7 129.7 59,9 117.7 715.0 l'1190*6 6?770,4 6,P,. 3,479,3 7,393,4 36fM.3

1 671111KRS No 11 2 2 4 1 20 1"984 8.7 8.7 67.6 4.4 97, 7 p8700,7 471,5 463.1 ,tM7l 273.5 13,7913ANAWS NO 1OOO 561 6A7 5. 4 636 3,149 127.6 7119 86.1 68,7 93,9 439.7 5,1.41,1 3477.7 4.573,1 3I I.9 3 59271.2 Vo948.NETEIILACS ND of 16 IS 16 12 140 41.4 12,0 9.8 17-0 8.7 93.9 IP1.921. 579-6 521.0 695.9 547.7 4,160.9tN HIN KNIOES NO 1,4,50 - WV47 - 10447 4,344 3116 - 31.6 - 31.6 94,p 1,W.,4 - 1.679,7 - 1,999,3 5.050,4

SLP113 1191ERS NO 21 14 20 5 a 69 153.7 94,9 147,1 44,7 67.6 907.9 6,740-7 4 4,31 I1.14- 72691,6 40?44.4 20977.8TOOLS AND OTHERS - - - - - 1,717.5 729.1 1.009,3 7465 9,7 59091.0 75,772.8 35,190,6 53.604,0 43t269,3 763158.5

u-Totsl II 274343 1,156,4 1 5P45,5 213.19 2373.2 7,F?8, 1270,379,J 55M,90P , 11 104,91 M650,9 13p,O7, 406.07e,2--- 1-- ------- ----- ----- --- ---- ------- -

lrol IIIVESTIENT COSTS 129637. 20,9165.4 - 1e_.,4 1046,6 10999.7 564456) 554m,07.4 5 M,? 59507",5 673,7rU,9 .0,35.3 7,919459,2

Total 12072.7 10,465,4 11716,4 10,74,d 16,999,7 t45,2 54,073.4 52M5.7,7 595,77.75 62735M,9 W.90,3 7.989r459.2

- - - - H-------------------- ------------Ftb?w,?4 7, 1995 14154

FIIMI1I MOE rt(s PPOJET

F I A pm. 'AMI

13.it im1 2906 I"?7 198 2999 11.962 2W2i It 2999 290 19197 I99 2999 71.2PI 1999 296 147 190 Iso" Tot.)

1. TNM18lNT cots

A. TEA

hill ROM m 370 774 194 178 165 1.123 6 7.213,0 I.S47,91 2.147.9 2.029,2 909.2 AP7,04 97.M9,% 64.917,7 A516.70. 599p47,4 17,275,3 349,741.?fAPAC 8091S No 2,301 M9 2.026 WU03 1.0 6.34AI 2.7 A,769,11 MOM3, 7,604 10.317-4 2,777,5 17,0961 MiM94.9 2300,F67, 147,04,147.1 51271,225.43 3S7,7.WillIE KU$l NO 479 347 350 267 I80 1,A19 3.3 1.564,7 1134,4 I I144.4 359. V#,J -.292.7 40,A7,4 54olM.0 40,79.2 49,911.5 36,967.2 "I72.212WER M"S NO 9 ?16 la 3 IA 6 247 10.9 2tO,l. 274.4 141,7 174.4 4%,4 1.697., 45,99.9 0.420,0 7.975,4 10.171,5 4,107.5 76.079.1

owIE , la 45 I6 If 2 la A0 4,95, 1.79,? IM,29, 219.0 2.742,9 9.900, '1701,521, 06,09.7 A2.7,5 27,452.0 299,37.3 40?#471.3CILilTIN IIE 381 269.1 344,A 39,3 . 276,0 1,031,1 11.00.6 19.074.? 70.792.? Vv0?,07. 73,7. 0,220.4AWEIS 490,5 177.0 I100 - 924. 71452,11 15.407, ip,700. 43.299,3RN twE3S 76.3 14,2 4.4 - 7.6 207.5 3.3W, 615.0 232.6 , 479.2 4.74.27V61E5 urWn TNSS No 173 244 127 94 74 597 6.5 2,239.3 941, 737.4 614,7 43.9 1.904.1 49472.01 4.526H4 No0.905 V190,71.2 ?49,3992 700?,12WA mum19 No 12 2 - - 14 76.3 915,5 257,6 - - - 1.00.2 40,157,2 7.177,0 - 47.934,1

SOIL luCIUS 169.7 13.2 ?,A 2.2 2.? I",.? 79166.5 437.3 405. I265 236.9 10.163

Sult-1tl1 TEA 19.1776 9,978.1 7,662.0 Ai.061 6,94.7 48,337.7 KAMA 4.43,.08124 446.09.J 3M,73Y.5 420.67,91171471,014.5

M=UI fAI No 31 I I I I 35 4.4 139.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 257. 1I.911, 220.0 211.6 251,0 27.3 6,997,2AWSAM 199121 No 45 45 - - 90 2.7 InSA 2'7,1 - - 14%,7 51,310. 5.92.9 - - - III.304," I 89315 No 2 4 7 1 - 14 1.2 2.7 4.4 7.4 1.2 - 25,3 49.6 210.1 405.2 43.3 - 774.9

VIM15 MIES No 9 U - 17 7.6 611.7 62.0 - - - 979.7 1.0211.0 29,950, 5pw194.6 FiIEDWIENI IMES MD IN8 is 20 28 2? 39 3,3 SIM4, 326, 2, 0 9.6PI' 811,3 F.1046 22#00.J2 4,970 4.96,A 5,311. p.545,2 63.97,CUIIVATI1001 TOLS57,-I"7 154.9 147.1 267,1 117.3 79,J 4,740.7 7.467,3 7.124,0 9.475.6 84.677 OsWd,925T1.5 No 2 7 2 I - 7 6 1220 22.0 '7.0 6,0 - 47.0 293.9 579. 636, 347.9 2.990,2

5*b1oeI1.8 0 a 1.010.? 079,P 7P.7 763.4 T70,O 7444,7 44.34,7? 47,319.5 23,99.9 25,40IA 624444.6 20,4MIMI$

C. (SCIIUT

59923 PP W.I :I025, 236.9 n-, ? 8.0 35,299.3 7.50.7? - - 3,77.TN KU. TESTUS N 41 23 29 - ~~3 3, 9,54. 459 740 - - ,9.? 0.187,7.93.9, 31,62.1

8A1E3 FMN No 20 9 - 28 10.9 729.0 17,Z - - 10.7 9.342.2 4.725.4 - -- 2,7,tHER 21610 NO 2 - - - - 2 9"6.4 2.99.9 - - .M9.9 82.7111,5 - -- 9.779,5

OtK .AUS No 49 -- 49 40.3 2.97A.0 - - 2.976,0 04,6776 - - 36,72.6pan3 8019)1 Ne 7 - - - - 2 4.1 21.1 - 1.2 571.7 - - - - 73NIP9 IEIOATION N 3 I 4 2,367,4 4,097.7 2197.4 - - -5,449.6 279,773, 65,900.7 - -- 431.N.211 HELLS NO 17 22 29 104 2,997.9 2,207.9 - - - 3.0.10 811,70.5 6031.711 1 44,502.5no13 03IT23 ND I - 2 45.4 194,7 - - 1406, 8o.60.f - - 0,0.6MT 1! sftem833 No 4 - - 4 43.6 A 274.4 - - 74.4 7,649.0 8 7,64900Il9K PLUM8 NO to - 28 38.2 68,6 - - AN.&6, 3A.117,9 - - - 30.117,9TOOLS 7,4.5 - 272.5 - - 409.0 9.444.l - 1 2".949 -- 22,77.9IN2 M MISC 0TERS No 8 - 7.7 21.3 - - - - 218 1 q.1 - - WA 96.NATO3 1A5 V211N VMS No 5 A I 22 IAl3 82,7 230.0 110,p - - 141,3 3,5165. 6.3r3,2 #.946.5 2,.PIKE tIST3lEhTlU 5752 No I - - - 4.4 34.9 - 4.9 lq.57. - - - .5,

Plies *~~~~~~~N I - - - 7.6 7.6 - - 7.6 234.6 - - - 34.

Sub-Tot'lI CoCIOJ . 1,424.9 1. -714.2,490.2 1 214.433.? 64#0403.6 172194".7 97,34, -- 167

Total 1PKST11EIT COSTS NOMA9,21,99.9.03.0.1 927.7214.75A9,97M.5 2,4PO.f, 1647.51M, 4 -1.724A 360,643.2 4593,221.4 3.46.1949,9status - --- -.. M - Ltttut inSa -It111 S

Total 33,9M,4 21,957 .91, 6.352, 7",72 4.769".9 5 2.499.35.0,647,610,0 41.710,4 360.64321 491,222.4 .436.941.

rFipuaw 7. IMU 1415 C

WI1 LWAFrmINO TREE CPM PROJECT

STATE FP AITA1IVilql "W ATI11FATr.VV rPll1tT

PImIil,e r,-I TibleFpq. 't

ouiltitv I's. Costs

Unit 1915 196 1"7 199 I9 tltl] Cost 1995 196 1917 1900 19* TnPl 199A 196 1Q127 19M 199 tottlY :*M - *--- #*-* '' ' - 4 t*r 1:: - =: --------= =:- _ s _ i

1. II3ISTIIFIT COSTSi

A. TEA

ELEVATOES * 3 s I 21 19796,0 417.0 7M, 144.40 4170i 1.4074.0 54.01A,7 M7A,A 114.181,0 8143.0 27p096,5 1511790,0TJINS ND FANS 82 41 45 19 10 29" 20.7#73 7MN. 5p4'1 0 '-3A4 0 1,0779.0t 271054 476i0l, I M67447-1 2?17471,0 131,39,3 AN595f, 1,374059,6ROLLES 45 40 ?P 15 2 it13 122946.1-11p49,I 8011,0 4.1P6.0 P4970 17.525.? 5h0713,5 ",709.1 474.026,5 242,55.3 54"49,5 1145.232.0

vmIS An CVwiof 0 60 75 5 3 273 6.7 5t2m6 2t 91.1 5990 771,0 124.66244 1Ai4f*.' 'N4563.9 111 977.7 340704,0 1701IP,4 7e o007ECP PIERS 17 11 II - I 40 22.S1600 24,359,0 14-341.0 - Io.VeO 57. ?-60 9q7.979n,n t93,451 760,491,1 - 3A6U46.7 29.86t72".?no mUEs 5 4 4 2 t 16 414R3.0 3?347,0 3414,0 J1644.0 79%,O 1.-M-0 6A,535,4 1 61 37% 1 17.,7,41 95 517V, 4%Mfl3 W0742,7UIl01I1FIERS 60 40 1S 7 4 129 1,960.0 I,?40.0 51.40 727,0 17*0 3.99.0 1,54 .!5 59.P75.9 '95,%94.3 )7*571,7 7775.4 191,357.1

FlUCES W TIN 309119 OdMOS 3 7 I - - 7 2.019,0 1.318,0 1,346.0 - 4,764.0 U.S13.6 1 hl.77,5 71,377,- - 226767,9SULES 59 76 4 ? t 1 49i;S.9 2441.1 102.0 181.10 t I 11,9 tli , 1 4 15,91.e 9 1603. - 37 ,531SIFTINR MID COW/EVORS 45 1A 31 32 10 151 3,57220 3.2.9.0 3t407.1 1,762.1 9I7, 2 1279&17 1794,40.7 1S7,W50,3 IP0.4.75.6 107,043.9 %9754#4 6531729.9EITCTOS M HIIIK S 28 77 79 A 1 91 4011970 370W 4.71%,0 1,I133,0 19,.0 215771 13,Sn.7 90,t104I . 3,17,! 59.95.3 111510 *S ,9912M3 _MDI AM ECTAICALM S 1116 51 35 17 - I pw 5,407, 7 I2,41.5 351? I,7 - 7.4?)f1 737.4297,7 91,749. 3 1,941.6 1,77,4 - 33497211 *9 CtC OINE3 S -I -- PA V4I0- 34?,796 -- - 396,29.6ROItS 47 31 6 A - A5 A,M57,9 4,76100 745,0 194.0 17M4, 9 ?74 .146A9 10p? 32,6 39?t426,7 512I.POI -7 59517.3Oa EIPWMIT 154 76 67 46 IA 359 7441,11 4.197,0 N.0676 2,296.0 571,0 1,57.4 376,3..?7 202,66.7 149,77.9 7%094.4 3.743,4 749173.1

Sub-Ttel1 TEA 93,304, Sl101 ,2 4,tA69,4 144.113. 1 60,o0 777.60 I9 4I7.400.7 W?3 191 iW30, 2,47A,749,3X 930,5M3. 417,614, 119079.47.3t. MIKR

SALLE E-GION - 1I170,6 5.459.8 3,52,7 7?3402 151U0.4 14.04, 6 51.3f9 . * 1I4, 100 ,S 1,9.0-.O 193 .1.1 911013.4 736,044.9NM" M I-N - 2,3412 127147,2 Po9, .I7 1.1J9,7 1,30, * 79214.7 l01 ,71|.A 603,796,6 4UM04.? 181*207.0 "93.3A4 1,442,343.7tSMAU IOW 11u1.4-. 7.O410,1 4.414 7 1,30. 4 I.5A, 4 1,W- 5 9-.1101.3 MM417?7 73NM.0O "0619.2 9114034 845,17.1

S.h-Total EDEN 4MO7O,7 MU ,3.? ,1 l576,0 7.4 ? 4,6J2.7 5P950U,3 2.13951,0 1776,174,3 PAI0.401.9 4074761A4 294,750.1 3p023.1

lotal IWSIMiI £15 MI$31,3 91,4! 63,777.0 .3 11,,7 W96,107 4032r.351. 4.419P.15.P 3.357.MI.? I?37A17.Q 711964.?7 14,057.730.6

total 99.681.3 91,431,3 61,p777, 7 ,3 12,341,7 7107,2 *.!6,131,7 4.41p.i35,- 3.3M7pr';12 12?38,617,0 711,64,7 14,05 7738.6-- _ _ - - - - Y = - -_------ . -------- -- :--:--l -

Feheww 7, IM 14156

FflTII@1 Iii! (3IYc P9OZJCTVrlT [LAMA -

.WTlM EqTATFQ WWLOWI' PDA"FArltlf3 rgI,Pyg

IhtijIeA Cial Tatb]ItS. 'WI

Teulr tvil'pird Cttigts.vrP3s.ptY 1X rfll f(US9)

unilt t15 I'U 1"? I M9 T1 tInl Unit Cotl 19 19 1917 1ON IMT Toel 195 1986 1917 19 1919 Total

I. i'Sw t rnAl TEA

KEWTORs P 4 17 7 I I 7 576,0 1-440,0 2M9.0 144.0 144C 3-60.0 25,751.9 113,206.6 154".4 8.343.8 9.29.5 176104,2TNI AO FOIS N 80 47 42 IN 4 193 1.915,0 1A991.9 1-.97,0 I.U44.79 XA4. 17.p97,1 352.2550 1929757.0 209v9364 9P.516.5 7'uP24.6 W7elf.]GLE1S NO 29 73 4 I - 57 9.410.1 Ai7.I 1.141.0 10.0 - 16,w.4 361,94 3219134.5 60559.3 1AIP03.5 . 767,996.7IMAS N COMOTS NO 41 39 73 6 I 110 4P070,0 3i641,1 1,917.0 A$.0 161,0 10.450.1 1709429,1 1759117.9 101,656.9 3a1514.6 10,270,9 504W309tCC plus P 10 A 7 3 - 29 13172.0 9360.0 0.7710 1444U0 - 14.1 ". 575,269.4 4SI9U.6 438,710.? 199.556,4 - 1456502."I DIUE5 00 4 I 7 - - 7 3M3U,0 M9.0 1-17,0 - _ 6.4i,t 148K00.9 40hS95J7 6314A0 - - 17,70,5HIMIIIFIES NO 16 4t 1 1 - 68 49%,9 1-117.6 747.9 11.0 - 7rO7.3 21,735. 643447.3 131145.9 19796.2 101,25,4RSACES No 3 3 4 3 4 17 24019.0 1-019.0 1,691.0 1.119A. '.691,0 11,441.0 f18.13.1 97,491.5 142,754.5 116Y9q7.4 161,01.4 £14,547.1

SCALES No 30 7 , 3 - - 5S 2.161,0 1.5,0o 161.0 - - 1.917.n 94.738.4 769776,4 89,37.7 - - 110,057.5SIFTERS A0 CCIUTOIS No 35 4U 70 13 IN 141 2. A0n 0 4.)21.0 7.197.9 971.0 l.?l6.0 11.710,9 114.203,4 203.819.6 116,552,1 56.262,9 107t601. 59t.40,0ERllUTDRS A IImS 00 33 77 13 4 2 124 3,970,0 fs"l1 1,741.I 114,0 15 9\ 17.113.0 1694661.1 324S3,1 979695,0 11310#1 9t907,4 6153.106FOU AN ELECTRICAL MS NO 9 I - 10 13.61?,0 5S3750 679,' 1. 0 .A ?7.J7.2 596,970.2 259 542,3 ,312.9 97,610,1 6,4M34.3 1.033.170,47TORYAIS NO 26 15 1 I 3 56 5-4140 7.5430 1.7990 447.0 - IVl"O 237,350.1 122,73.9 9418,11&, 25.900.6 - 480,30t.1OGM EUIPIIN NO 1 74 16 74 - - 214 14?Y1'i.] hI.1 597? 7!?7. MO '.A I7' 655.509,9 535,450,0 316M,77 137407.5 77754,0 1,772,719.7

Sub-Total tEA 92.743.2 6,R47,6 3',429,9 13,744.9 7,177.0 1"544.6 3627467.6 2,91436,9 17400941.1 79,539.6 4A7.573,5 9.13,959.4

YISAWULLA -ESIGN 3190410,5 19.W,3 10,140,0 3t,9- 4 1,990,4 41-M.,6 171i122.5 943,261.4 539,931.7 226492.9 24,1105.5 124914.1KSWLE RESION 1.907 10.140I 4A790.3 1,540.4 779.7 19.7".A 85,561.3 490.U75 22.027.4 90,635.2 49.007,4 943,71P1.

Sth-ToteRl 5MO WA. 7,7W.1 14.411.3 !5.4V9.0 4.679,1 6A.060.2 25613.1 1,433,748.9 764459.2 317.212,21 29411210 3,068,32.13C. COCNrT

IM1 ION OF SILlS NO I 2 - - - 10 1681 2910 - - - 19A.1 7397.9 IU3531 - - 5,70.3C15Tr11UlICI F 1WE glum No to 4 - - - 14Ul 940.5 336.2 - - -117,a7 3,9. 114.1 - - 53,173,9COITRIJClIIGN OF KOCUES NO 12 A - - -1 21 33612 161.1 I - - 504.1 14,795.9 812.0 - - 22-97.9CGNSTRIITION OF SITES/KITOEK M I I A - - 17 106.5 1.171,1 An's - - - 1 51.539.0 31,129.7 - 2.661,1RENVATI F EIEON -…1923 -. M- - - I" 83483.0 -. 4p3,0

Sub-Total COIm 2,700,7 1,171,1 - - - l.979. 119.2056 57,071.2 - - - 176,726.3

Total IMISTIUII tOSTi 91302.7 97,659,0 47.7A1AP 19.7.?27 767494.7 4.00P,357.0 4t4772?57,0 2.5079901.0 19113tW67, 756,61,3 2,t969.0 0gussag~~~ gga4ena a.-... .a gnnf -nn mm -s= - == sz=r s== r *

Total @1.307.7 97,Mo.0A 47.7A.7 19.70,7 1?705.1 767,484.7 4.003.357.0 4.4770257.0 2.507,901.0 1t113tW66.1 756,686.3 I7,39o$69,0 N---- ni7. 1915 1492 =r 2 I

fdbNlD t0 M 141t5

W91 LMWAFIUIN TREE Ci PPOICT

STATE fPltATI1S COPPEAJIWI'41I?r1 ES

DhlilZ Cott 1*b1.'PS. 'WI

OuntitlI 23~ut Cast, tdJ t i--------- - ---------- --------- Ii---------- __ _ _ _ - _-

Unit 1M5 16 17 19 9 I Tota1 rpet 19 1956 1917 190 1"? T'tlel 195 195 17 1999 1099 IotalSL2 822 TZ :281 El X =ZE VIZl* EElS 5185 2El5 rrT.Z

J. j1yb~ c;A.TCA

ESTATE CMS N1 76 16 7 4 2P 120 7 19,000,0 4.000,0 p75.60 19M. q7.0 37.MoO 79i,0.6 17V.W,4 d r.54) 51,?27,3 AO.119,6 I94630417LORRIES 10 51 31 21 13 14 140 IPO 9.1PNO 5.!W.0 3,750N. 9714A.0 44370,0 25700.0 TM93.5, 7 0.7t0P, I 4.746,0 IM4.A5, 249t031 1107,969.5TRACTORS NO 43 44 32 11 19 149 00 0.600,0 PNl0O.0 4,400,0 7.20(1.0 1,900,0 29,800.0 1W%W4L7 1915*A,4. 3I?.797-S 117.701,1 219.074,o 1,199,001,0TRAILERS NO 75 64 51 20 19 79 10 2.2500 5.9200 1,50.0 M00,0 570,0 AjP711.0 V.9A7.5 P ,0 91.1 74.77M.? 31 .940 32.961,2 1l1UU2,2IOTOR CYCLES NO 49 19 17 15 15 115 30 19470.0 570.0 516.0 4'0,( 4W,0 1.450,0 4(1g719.O ' 74,974.5 2.tTM.A 25,943,0 164,139,1

Sub Total TEA 40o50.0 70.P70.0 13,970.0 1 5"5,3 90.7.0 97.170.0 1.473470.7 V991,5,9 M7,775.3 351,071,7 507.751, 4,6510313.7D. 1e

ESTATE CMS NO 23 - - I 7 76 750 5,7%0,0 - - w,0 !.00.0 A.W5,0 ?17-.4,4 - 11.319,11 249 2,6 797,7?P,3LORRIES No 2 2 - I I 6 IPO 160.0 0.,0 - 1p^.0 1?.O 1.060.0 14174.9 16,141,1 - N.OO, 10777,7 5.93.3TRACTORS No 17 14 5 7 A 49 0 1,400.0 ,!0 0.0 1,000.0 194M.0 loW1 9400W.0 1j4044.7 44I 4-.SP74,4 74,.5 ?,7 A9,1014 455,77,5TRAILER NO I 9 3 1 2 23 'A 240.0 ?70.0 '0.0 30.0 60,0 i9.O 0*.A',6 11910.64 4.395,7 5W, ? 39454#1 31,4n,lTMSEU TRAILERS NO 29 19 12 A 5 71 75 t.17, 0 10425.0 00.0 450.0 TM,50 5.372.0 9,0W .9 '3.1,7 43,997,7 71.971,0 71.19,7 714,343,9TAMhS NO 2 - - - - 2 30 700,0 - - - - 700.0 29,9m1. - - - - M93.3NOTOR CYCLES NO It 6 3 3 9 37 70 330.0 190.0 .0 00.0 770.0 960,0 13,615,3 8.071,0 4,39A.? 4794.6 IS.V.,9 46,4A5.,.4

Su>Tottl 1M1 12?955.0 5,0350 7.00 2.400.0 2.UO-0 75.055.0 W35,o25.0 O!76J 7M 14W.7 127t, 14947102J3 I,3".59663

Total IHSTlIIT COSTS 53945,0 5,9010 16,050.0 1P.991.0 17,917,0 172,7,.0 '.705,70e-6 1,1615..7 7544437, 475.97,17 1,0Ar7Mt, 5,669,910,1

Total 51.4,55,0 25,905,0 1.6.050,0 590(1.0 17.97',0 127.7.75.0 ?P7200M. 5,161 j.357 711,437,5 47.9m7.7 903,7711P 5,M99,1Yi0

F*buari 7. 2965 14:56

FRiTH WE CES MIOJCTJANATNA ISTATFS MMl (fT r OOM1

WFI!:tESVotslred r'tt Table

(M, 'Wl

-- umnt--- - -------- - - Co--- - nSit

(hit 951 1997 2966 2999 Total Cori 1995 19P6 jW7 1990 190l1 Tnl(l 196 194 197 19 1M TolalBonn auto 5333 3W33x -g33 a55 fir33 IRAF 3a335311 21a3s3s3 112*233-212121 Lr * 11 3 33rasr 3 3 32twr1 a823333 33#135M3a 3SSramrwin

I. IIPEST1ENT nfSTS

A. TEA

ESTATE CAR 'A - - - - 7 ' A5 250 A - - - 6.700 1.'0.0 - - - J60r3194 W0319.6PASSENGER YAM NO 1 - - - - I 30 300,0 - -woo 2399 - 17.o95,7FOUR MUEEl MIR PICKUPS NO 50 7 10 4 3 74 200 10?,000 Ir400,0 7*00000 WO, 0 1., 24W,000 413,190,3 607774,7 97,749,2 42,1.2,7 34,590.7 650,973.6JEEPS NO 2 - - - - 2 375 650,0 - - - 650.0 24607.4 - - - - 26t997"4LORRIES NO 51 14 13 9 IP 105 120 9,2P0.0 .970,0 7,140,0 1,67000 I,740.0 1P,900.0 37,30,7 217W9945 114P,6646 F36M.iP 116607M P W Sf767,4TWMERS No 6 le - - - 74 90 30,00 90. - - - 1,700,0 12,0IM0 46or.?,- - - 521790.t1OTOR CYCLES NO 47 17 23 6 7 h 0 30 W,410.0 510.0 670,0 130.0 7o10,0 3,000.0 51,2P 22.367,9 32,773,5 9, 9 12,10647 136.547,2TRACTORS NO 70 27 16 14 3 J;5. 700 54,000,0 9,400.0 ,2000 7,300M 0 IYAWO 774000,0 57P466,4 7479131.1 i56W3993 149,165.3 9,741.9 1,711,443,5TRAILERS NO 90 84 34 14 13 235 30 M700,0 72570,0 1,070.0 420,0 190.0 7r0!U.0 111,1.1,4 222,994,% 49.397,1 27.374.P 27434.0 319,71l6,1

Sub-Total TEA 38,540.0 t3oM 9tr250.0 5.W0 12M,90 79,20.0 1.M924135.4 594,218.0 452,090,2 310.050sP 706,932,9 5,657,727.3O, RUIP£R

ESTATE CARS NO I - - - - I 250 250.0 - - - - 250,0 10.3798 8 - - - 10,129,8TRUrlS NO 7 7 9 1 1 25 735 1i 1 45.0 1,1.45,0 2.115.0 215,0 11%,0 597r,0 67,9469,9 '3711 0,J 20334698 1$19.)7 1,549.0 271,167,2LORRIES 110 4I 6 9 16 1 46 10 2,570,0 2,060.0 21M.0M0 7P900 230,0 3,7500 104,174.0 464.) 799176,9 153,4'7.2 10,377.) 3955,11.4 TSERS 1O 23 30 7 4 - 64 50 2,150,0 J00,0 350.0 200,0 312700,0 47,516.9 67ri5M,6 17,20M,1 10,694W7 - 247,936,3TRACTORS NO 23 30 7 4 - 64 200 4,600.0 W,000,0 140. 800.0 17P2,800S0 290,01.7#5 2619,34,16 4R424.5 47,1.1.7 - 570,145.7TRAILERS NO 23 29 P 4 - 64 40 920,0 12,60,0 320,0 1.0,0 - 72560i0 38,013.5 5!,0133. 25,139,9 0.523.? - 114t190,5IOTOR CYCLES NO 9 13 17 2 1 37 30 270,0 3P0M0 1.0,0 60.0 30,0 1110,0 11,JM,2 179497,) 127594,9 3,296,4 J,M.5 SIMIU

Sub-Totil MOO30 11013530 110775,0 6,2165,0 4,335,0 445,0 4,01S,0 469.177,. 517,W0, 3?0,312,0 230,919.9 75,694.9 19fW0Us64,6Cs COCONUT

FOR *HEL RIYF PICKUS NO 1 2 I - 16 200 71POOO M00.0 - ?111,0 - 3,200,0 11.193 89,67,P 20547 - IV 139,155,LORRIES/TRUCIMS NO 4 - - - - 4 160 720|0 - - - 720,0 29,749,7 - - - 79t749,7TCTORS NO 24 4 2 1 - 31 200 4oP00.0 600.0 400,0 000 - Wo2000 J9P,331,1 359071,3 29,549t, 201.7 - 7M4407,2ROTOR CYrLES NO 12 6 7 - I 1 3 3160,0 2.O 210.0 30,0 780.0l 14,74,9 9,07120 71, 0.2,7 - 2,79, M4*939.1TRILERS NO 26 4 3 I 11 45 30 760.0 170.0 90.0 W30 ,30.0 12350,0 32,279, 5.3.W7 49396,7 1,5, .? 199094.9 620143WATER TIlEs NO 25 - - - - 25 0 12,50.0 * It 2,,0 511P49.P - - - 51,PILOC12 CARTS NO 5 - - - - 5 6 30,0 30 0 2 6 - 1,239,16

Sub-Total COCIIIJT 10,740.0 2,300,0 700-0 430,0 10.0 23,930.0 441,716.4 5V?9,9R 3,7,2 2,9074, Oe774,4 5794931,4

Total I6ESTIENT COSTS 60,1.5, 26321,0 26201g095058. 3,095.0 176.75!;,0 ,05,379,t4 11039.7 797J614,4 53W39.) 74942,1 SM79223.2

total 609635.0 M6.325.0 16,25,0 20,585.0 213095,0 176?,55.0 2,0,379.4 I2i2339W.2 7267114.4 53,39" 7?4,947,I 5tM2723,25333338 3r38835w133 5333S 3*A3Er3SS 3LE1113E 1r3m381 x; 13 t8 3 a t t t *3 3 * 31 3 3w3

F-4- -.i.. P. ''ii p ..

SpY LAWAFMIRTH TREE CPIS PROACT

TAT!r PI WTATJIWS CRPOATONHINT HYDYO

Walitled Cost Tablefpc. lomi

T0tp)u Ijf.J14Jnrq ronlin#pncifUantitt Ppre tCo,- (U5.W

unit 1985 1986 97 9988 1999 Total unit rodl 1991 19 197 39919 3999 Total 1qM M 1996 387 1999 1999 Toti_ _ _ _ -…_ -- -... … x…- ::_: =:=:-::::… -c-::=_=tc ; c--:r sgsrsruta- 5-._

It IIAESTKIHT COSTS

A. TEA

HYD WNIT TYPE A /a NO - 5 5 , - is 2!340 - 11,700,0 11.740,0 11,70(1s0 - r.,ion - 'SAJ,96300 616.0903 &7 t756.- 1R5700.2HINDUNIT TYPE B NiO - 1 10 to 5 59 1.479 - 14,79l,O 14,790.0 14,790,Q 7195,0 51076541 - 710,794,4 779,792,9 850,4737 460f191.6 2,799v6462.HWDM WIT TYPE C NO - 5 5 S 5 N 99 - 4I4-460,0 64.0 4460.6 4e460.0 179P4A,O - 914,t9O.- 7 14 ,9M6, 964M43 977159.'7 93I021,0

Bob-Total TEA - 30,910,0 70u950,0 30,91.0 11,955.0 104.709,j - lu4R6t797.9 1,79639,81 3,79474,91 737,779l3 5,334383.8

Total INESTIIET COSTS - 309M 0 10.910,0 30,910,0 1, 0 104710591 -W I,4RSA, I,679h3969 u7n79r724iB 737,71,3 5i,633,391.9

Total - 3.q90,00 3090.0 31099.0 IIr 1150 104,70A,3 - 9496997,9 I,PA9,09,11 1079774,8 737,771,3 5r633i383.Umorn smsmsa mo *gaga n"rss: sfhr 003 awzru=wrw saw: =rsrrhssr 32t2t1121 ss ::sa:rgsa 22231W u2232in22.sa

. ____._._._._._._..... ____.. ... _._.. ..... ....... _. _........ _. -------------------------- I......_. __.___..........._. _.___..................... __...____.._.............

/a TYPE DEPENDS ON DEGREE LW REHABILITATION REWIRDit AzEW IWANICAL AND FLFrTRT!AI ERIIIPHFNT P IIS CIVIL I0lSI R'WII FOIITPNFNT (NI Yi rNPFWW4AT1I OF FYISTINO rFIupJio

Fetwuarv 7, 19M 15!

I-N

9!l LAKAFl TIIH IAFF CIOS POFFRI

JAMATIA ESTATF IFWL(PHFNT MARDHlo! HPPpO

Deta11ed Co0 T4 1r

T..tFI.: Tnf *l.gdnd Prrninnni.iQuantity PIe CoatA (US$)

Unit 1995 I1 1967 19 IM 9 Total flilt rest IM 1986 1987 19 199 Tnale 1905 96 187 198 99 TntMuasas Wan 3a2 at.. Erma sass *2=:. :: - -2- :: : t35 Ce2:s5 2:32U:Z

to INESTIEfNT COSTS

A, TEA

HYISO UNIT TYPE A Is No - 5 5 5 - 15 20340 - lIf7O0f0 11,70.0o 11,700.0 - 3590l0A0 - 10r,33.0 M1AdM0,3 672.786,8 - 19M5,700.2

HYRO UNIT TYPE 8 HO - 10 10 10 5 3i 1'479 - 140.0 14a7960 14,790,0 7,31,O0 'f745 .1 - 710.7!4,4 77R.759.9 r.0.473.7 460191.6 20799.667HYDRO UNIT TYE C HO - 5 5 5 5 70 89V - 4,460.0 4.460.0 4946A0 4.460,0 17'944.0 - 714.IA4!9 74MoRU,5 75,4A4,3 977,39,7 9390?1,0

,,- .................. -. ---. -

Sb-Total TEA - 309950.0 30,95M,0 30950,00 11,, 104,705.l - ,4N,?977,9 179439,P 1,7790774, 737,721,3 5,6334383,9

TOtil IIPJESTIENT COSTS - 30,95i,0 30,950.0 30P950,0 11.P55,0 1040705)l - 1f49?97.9 1 tA"439tft 197707?40 717721.3 5.633.363.82::z ::-z2=:8- -:: ,Zz==::Z :: Z :C:_ 2: ::- 2=:2 -:TMZ=W2 2.2::2:: 2Ss=222: 22222.

Total - 30h95.f0 ,9W5 0,0 3 ,950.0 11.r55,0 104u7I - r,4Rh"7,9 l,479,39,P 1,779,724 737072143 5,N63,33.9ZSCA R"fcr"rl WWWWWRO A.MRBw "aBaedg fwJ-gerar r-X rfanwrrrss*tsrSe Ar-ersZ.-Tar f_=vZ same

/a TYPE DEIENDS ON DEGREE OF REMILITATION REGUIREDI RmHES HrIMNICAL AED FIEFTRJ¢M FG!IPRFNT Pi IUS (lull VMSI RsEV FAIIPPENT 1*1Y1 rwRFNAATI0N rf FXIRTIWs F(IMPHENT

F*ruary 7. 1985 15100

0%m

91! LAWAFOrIN TH EE lF C "PACT

ITATE PIARTATIMIIW r"ATICYwNlIISW

htaJIM rr,rf T *^Ip'PS, '0001

Tolal, Ircludirn C'ntinW4rniesunt itv lop ret (US)

......... ............. ._......................... . ........--- __-..---__----.--_____----------------__-_______------------------------.... __ __ ..................-__

Unit I9M5 I 19R7 I7 I ISR TotI l lhit Coast 9M 191 197 15RP 191W Total I185 1996 IP7 ISS8 19 TotalS :2: :=:= g3:= =:_ =C t:22 S:S5:=:r:=z -- ::::== =:=:s - .:s-: .s;2 … -- :=:=c:= __== _= _ r-r= =s:3 . z ~*~

To IMlESTENT COSTS_. -. _,, _..

A. TEA

TWIN COTTAGES NO 76 Ai AA 46 46 7` 67, 5,124M. 4?174,5 4.441*R 5.095,8 10,"A M0'22.28 2354834.4 223t38247 249774.3 190M365.1 206,030.4 1105406.3mlJiR STAFF QUMTERS NO 55 57 79 13 10 159 9R,7 5,470,9 5,17M, 7 ,8,7i 1,283,2 097,21 I`.A944 250,315.4 262101,7 160496507 78M9M3.2? M5.90,8 27,984',9SENIOR STAFF OUTERS NO 24 It 4 7 7 43 MII.S 37715.0 1,707.7 A19,2 309.6 309.6 A,6J,O 171,210,2 B6,47.7 34917M0 I1103.85 20403..0 332M616.0RENJV, TO STAFF WAMS Ho- - - - - - 77AJ1 4i9M.7 3 9. 3.079.0 7.799,7 77.05.72 340P090,0 254,770.2 214,200.4 199,130.4 1P6,323.1 1rIMP742.1REI)VW. OF LINE ROOKS O - - - - - 21715.5 19.17.1 17t,iA M075MS 14 ,4 S.026.4 1,0014.26.7 M6.6)831 9214.3 9968627.9 96037.4 4.10764.4

......,- ; .... -----. ----. ........ ........ ..... . ......... ......... ........... . .

Sub-Tota1 TEA 43 ,3'f3 35,734,7 79,484.? 230P41-3 77,199 ,4 114,55?77 1709,8,71.7 1.23829.4 1.657.17107 1.466310.1 10474.09.4.9 8B421#59590

B. RmT£R

SENIOR STNFF QUARTERS N50 3 7 J 1 - 7 154,8 464.4 10976 154.8 I54,R - I,6.5 210411.3 15,808.6 9.704,3 9,919.1 - 553443,4JlIOR STAFF OUARTERS NO 8 8 5 7 3 76 - 9,7 789.7 7P9.7 473.5 1974 296.? ! 7.U.6,4 369409.5 409323.3 27,752.7 17,140.5 19,707.3 136,3313.IEV COTTABES NO 11 1? It 9 9 57 67,.1 740.3 807,6 740,3 605.7 600,7 I,499,6 34.333S 41,239.9 42621tl 372493 40,310.3 114,567,3RTOTION O LINE MM IIO - - - - - - - - .306.7 7.R11.1 7.'14,4 7.4M,0 7.171.A 13.743.7 152464.9 144,561.4 143304.9 147,967.3 1449519.9 732,2.3LATRINE UIits No 26 73 71 13 IA 97 3.9 10.1 8 2.4 V7A4 51.0 62?. 3ROP 4.706W 3 4,209,9 476 .60 3,138.6 4.9A0M3 20o97tl3PIKE LINES NO - - - - - -20.6 126.7 38.0 00.8 107,1 6N4, 9,619.6 6,472.4 77m5.1 4M966.6 6p793,0 TS,449.7WATEN An ELECTRICITY SPLY NO1 - … - - - 5871 738.? 115,7 M3,1 7R.5 !1.78I4 26,841.7 12,200.1 7,632.0 5,7.3 5,2.4 57,624.5RENOVTION OF STAFF MIARTERS No1 - - - - - - ,163 A16,9 7R60 - - 1,071,2 7757.7 31,502,6 16,064.0 - - 515344.3CM1MIhIS OF SIM11 UItII LINES NO 8 6 4 - - 28 28 224.3 16A.3 11?7, - - 504.8 10P343.6 8,59136 6,307,4 * - 75M242.7C011R91N OF PMC TO MlA LIES NO 8 3 1 3 3 3P 28 27413 84.3 28 0 64.2 94.1 WI4 10.343.6 4.795.8 3,576,9 5.173.5 5.59R.7 26,9M.4INUXE Wm IWOWT NO 28 20 37 15 74 120 11.2 314.1 7?4,13 41l0 1*8.3 774 3 '.34.0 14.461, 311. 55.5 23,337,5 20P347.0 24.9 7 74,550.8CMMITI BATHING PLAfES NO 24 14 15 17 17 07 4.5 107.7 62.8 67.3 51.8 76.J 367, 464.9 3207. 374.5 3,311.0 5076.1 70,344.VATIR TNAI NO 13 8 1 ' P 45 5,6 72.9 44.S 61,7 28.0 4.9 2t57,4 343617 2.293.1 3,469d 17241.5 21s5.9 139832,3WATEII FKMS No 8 7 4 4 7 30 11.7 89.7 78.5 44.9 44.9 79.5 336.5 4.237A4 4.001,4 2,573,0 2,759.2 5,oM.4 19M.5IOO RENIOATIONS NO - - - - - 11469 723 1 69.4 151.4 11..8 P 76.7 6,775.3 10.82.7 1S524.7 9,317.3 9,704.3 46,119.7RWS AN WIIS RE ATIONS No- - - ' - 6P- 175. 179.0 238.0 86.4 547,4 3,154.9 6U415.1 7,7535 M,464,6 5,747.9 321055.9

._ . .. .. _ ...... . ...... . .... __ .... ... ... _....

StbTetal MKI 79616,5 WM104. 390.7 4,7%7oX 4@05. 7P9336.? 350.S07. 347.43. 315P27M MAIM4. 7709004*3 1e4.5#47692

T..uETu. A A70.8 *Ubf9J." 280....6 in.1, .1..mn.. 4. hl *--. 3 St *534n -- b -

T.t.l 50.960,8 4?.'70 R 35,090, 71,100.6 76.725,7 26288.9. 2.349,706.7 2,171.303.2 1,973,246.7 3,726,124.1 1,744.689.1 1,767,071.1ThS s snse.1 8=21.1 .:Ww-sw C14:11XINxi am418m sms _ _ _ mir ziesii a" :w memo..|

_______.____.__ . . ...................... .............. __.__._............... ___......_. ___. __. _......._____............_____......_.___.__.__............... ................. ..... ............. . | ..... . . ...........

F4ttrwr 7 1 3510 IM 1 t0

.RI LAWArrlhiPTH TEWE C9frP PROQ?Fft

IAffTHA E5TATFS PEW9OPIIFIT QWORC

D*Ir.iled Cost T'blp

*j~~~~nh9tv i,~~~~~~~~~. ca,g~~~~~~~~ Tn1phl Tncludind ri,ntindMeNjes

unit 1995 1986 190? 190 1909 Tntal lUnif Co'S 5905 590. 1907 1900 19A19 Tr.$f 19I*5 i" 1996 97 1960 1999 Tot,5

It JNVEST9ENT COIST

At TEA

EXECUTIE W DIgAOSS NO 4 1 - - 5 336,5 J- 1.1,0 315 - .0'5- 1. !P,922,3 -- 0.5SENSOR STAF QUATERS NO 4 2 1 - - 7 121.4 493,5[ 746oP 123.4 - - 86307 27".9 701to 6 939.10 0 47,9m. 7.113100 STAFF QUATERS NO 5 4 - I I It 72,9 3645 791.4 - "h9 77.9 Q07.A 16,00,4 14,9971 - 4,421.7 4,952,7 41.036,49EV COTTAKS NO 60 71 AO 69 59 321 67,3 4,0.0,0 4P957,9 40&19,f 4.643,7 3,970,? 71.603.4 186 5.150 ?r.0.075,3 2777, 06, A 05,77, 764.7564 1,713,961,9HODIFICATION/LINE PUS9 NO 652 601 602 612 538 ,9 167 8.4 5P495.0 ro?745,0 S. 7.7,31 'I4P,5 4.'175,9 1A6442.5 25?P9*9,3 793?403, 329.!67S i7 3160659.7 01.207.5 IP4U,7%54

ROOF 0E9WMTIWIS NO 78 997 807 P75 760 4,157 4 1.507,0 196)7t .1 3.5I9, 7 3033J.4 1,0689 I56.7,0 14 6,7 13,1 5 84-960,4 ?A9,409,9 204.97h,9 704.730.9 947,592,9 c1.RNMP RENOATIONS NO 844 953 958 P79 15.15 4,757 0.1. 473,3 534.5 517.3 491,6 646.6 7,684.7 21,97Pr, 0 77.197,7 M11174 6 30,156, 43,0O,0 55,67,DRAIN RENOVTIONS NO 845 961 959 897 844 4,93 0.6 423i? V19.Q 1117cP 494,7 473.1 3 7.51PI? ?5,P5fl, ')7!523,9 10,44.1 30.4O0, 31,505.7 141 PM,,9MTHIII SITES No a1 54 55 26 9 205 4.5 273.7 747,3 246.0 11A,7 40.4 919,8 12!619,2 12071I,9 13.876,4 7.5739? 2,197,4 48t,72BHATERt TANKS NO 99 77 .58 49 24 297 6,7 599.0 519.2 390.3 179,8 565,Ie5 5.915, 27.617.4 76,6?, 219949,9 704?802 100749,4 107,059.1HATER PU" NO 21 12 9 9 7 57 9,4 176.7 101,0 75.7 67,1 50.9 479,f5 8.145.6 5. 155.0 4.-757 .q 4,531, 3.919,) 75,655,9VATER 5519. NO - - - - - - Whi76,1 5967,4 5,979.7 5,047,4 1,779,0 51#1 ,497 1)11,07.7 500,4A4.7 515,376, IfItAI0,7 110,392.0 571,796.1

ELECTRICITY No- -- - - 8)0,4 113.3 - - - 903,7 40153:4,) 5,785.0 - - 45,958.2LATRJINES No 729 775 134 71 69 723 2.9 642,7 630.9 175. 0 5995 1 93,5 2.041,4 29.608.6 V.70.10. 71,179,9 12.244.0 M7876#9 108.077t9

Sub-Total TEA 19,948.3 70.9115,7 17.960,4 16,744.3 14,995. 90!356. 95,6, .06?,717,P J.M0,5, 5,079.735,0 997,7.70 5,055,315,2

EXECUIiw I4JrAM.rU NO - 2 4 - - 6 336,5 - 671,0 1t460 7.059.0 - 34-.31. .5 75.609,7 -- 110,055.7SENIOR STAFF WAUINS No 2 1 5 - - 4 123.4 246,0 J?3.4 171.4 - - 491.5 11.370,0 6.300,5 6,990.7 - 24.616,7.11N100 STNFF HOUSINGi No 6 5 ? 7 2 97 72.9 4371,' "m 364. 345,s 545,0 541,0 1.739,4 20.1711.0 59,615.2 899,"7 8196'.4 9,704i3 0t,656,9EV COTTAGES NO 33 28 76 73 17 177 47.3 7,270,9 J,584.4 1,749,0 5,547.9 I1,44,1 0.547,1 107,405,8 96,776d 99",9.9 9%Pt97.,5 76545.7 468,359,5ROOW RENOVATIONS PO 71 71 75 71 71 355 3,9 277.7 7711,? 778.7 278,7 77A1.7 1,191,7 12,851.9 14,731.5 04,74,0 17,4141, 10,50.2 70,4551dRENOVATION FMRV No lit 111 l51 503 II5 547 0.6 62,3 62.3 62.3 57,9 67.)1 306.0 2.070,4 3.171.9 I .'.0fl,A1 3,552.1 4,543.0 17,245.4MTNINO SITES NO 25 71 71 25 25 105 3.9 82,4 87,4 82,4 82,4 67.4 417,7 3.90010 4.709,9 4,636.0 5,070.0 3f4P6.7 73209

HATER TAlES NO~~~0 19 29 70 20 20 500 6.I57. 55. 54. 134,6 514.6 673.0 5059 7770 7589 8776 9979 3,5,

VATER MMIP NO 21 21 25 71 25 505 8.4 176. 176t7 576,7 576.7 l?A.7 8pi.l 89145,6 9d121,? 9MM14, 50.064, H1.57.') 4997775 MRAIN RENOVT IONS NO 71 71 71 71 71 355 0.6 39,0 39.5 39,9 39.9 39.0 199,1 1.03A,0 2.01334 2*7319,1 2.440,9 2,450I0 15,207,3 ,-. N

Sub-Total RUKNI 3.677,9 3.176,6 4.139,5 7.463,7 7.044,4 16.167.7 169alm.150 11 95460 2, 7327,77. 1I9,514,9 13,30, 06434.4

C. cCUWW

EXECUTIVE P116M No1 - 4 2 7 2 9 336,5 - 21346,0 &71.0 67310 IV. .0t !9-.73.0 17.44,6 41,388,1 22,39"4. 170,36.2GENlED STAFF MflERS NO 2 2 1 1 I 6 123.4 123 4 246.9 173.4 173.4 123.4 740.3 5*689.0 2242.0 6s93R.2 7#.57,9 9012.P4 41,027.4J.MOR TAF G M!UATERS No 2 2 2 7 2 20 '2I9 149,9 145,0 145,0 145.9 145.3 729.l 6'7.3 T 744A, 1 3.299,7 8,967,4 9,704,3 421040.9EM COTTAGES NO 22 7 7 7 7 40 67.3 807.6 471,1 47111 47jJ, 471,1 2r697,0 37,237,0 4.A, $9,702997I,6 3,5, 4,O.STWF hIINUMS No 25 21 2 - - 76 2.4567? 1,715.0 276,5 - - 4.430. A 114,459,9 P7p577,3 17,667,2 - - 15110314VATOIIII MATER N0 29 13 I - - 42 39,3 1.099,2 510.4 39.3 - - I,644. 0. $A60117 7A.0AA1,1 2.707,6 -- 78,952,6MATWIAN US 15 NO 14 - - - - 24 14,9 206.3 - - - 20A,31 9.r.93,7-- - 96593.7LINE HOSIFICATIONS No 2 7 1 - 5 7,9 25.7 15.7 7,9 - - 39,1 774.1 SOI,9 441,5-- 1996795OFFICE DUILDINK No 2 - - - - 56,1 56.1 - - - - 56.1 2'WP9, --- 21565,9MIN UTOM NO I - - - I 161.3 261.3 - - - - 168.1 7,79.7 - -- 7,757,7ELECTRICITY PF9U No - -34.0 79.6 40.4 - - 424,0 14.015, 4d1M,7 2.770.7 20,353.0 MATER TNIS NO 2 2 1 1 - 6 6.' 23.54 13,5 6,7 6.7 - ^4 620,6 667.3 370,4 413.9 - 2,100,3MAtER KMJU' NO 2 2 2 1 - 6 8.4 26.9 V.PR 8.4 3:-4 - 50, "9,9P 8t7o 473.2 527,4 - 2,675.3

Sub-Total COCONUJT 5,449,1 4?560.7 1,744.9 11478,4 1,076,9 14.7AN9 71653 2310, 97 98,17.1 87,9467 72,662,7 741.576,6

Total INFRSTENT COSTS 27.99M.3 79.199.0 21.A44,7 7.636,5 19,337.9 170;779,4 1.3!49 1,49l430.1 1.340446. 1.75096,0 3t206,70,7 6.M3.326.2

Total 79,9A6, 79.190 73,44,7 70,636 19.137,9 170077',4 335 1u PI491.030.i 1.740'462.9060 ,677766 3i623tessflC &5*8m S =5t asa.flsu ssasnf rsa.m lrrat -ttEflf SL552"fl.8* XZZ*t535 85*S-5S8 *52

February 7,29M. 25103

CD

"I! LMAWFOTItTH TifE rM: P,IICT

5TAft Pi ATAIIi !IfW ATIOMSCIAL VWAE PFLrI PHPTfAl C*T1

11t411*1 r-t Vi,"IPS, 'MAI1

.e%41i ludink ContirictnGuaMit.. 9~~~~~~~',. ~~CostsPll

Unit 1959 296 1997 I9 1919 Total Lnit Cort IN 1916 I"? 391 1919 Tota1 195 1916 19"7 19"1 193" Total3a3 35 &Aa M l 33 ax- S 0 m -m arU - a s eee==: l - =e = - Z Z=

1, IWESTlfNT Cn7ST

CRECIES 151 S0o 7o r 10 7S 11074545 3.944,6 2,047,5 1,173,3 7"99 19,9Is.6 541,831,5 19A65546 137,209.3 72,5s,7 53.39J.S 96411.9MATRNITY 41ITS 25 5 s - - 47 2,04,0 s33,9 211.5 16.9 20.2 3.701.5 137.653.4 27,797.6 12,307.4 1104.8 1,177.7 1909176.5UPGRADING 1 ILTH WNERS 31 - - - - - 3.6. Lt77-5 1177.1 131.1 3l.p 6.739. 166.96142 90877.0 66.295,0 5.119R4 7,527 334.5042KW 1ISPIESNRlS 2 - - - - 2 135.2 - - - - 115,7 6.235.7 - - 6t235.7Mi*NAfIIN DISPNSARIES 9 . - - - 9 33.9 3n4,1 - - - - 304.1 14.030,4 - - 14.030.4EOUIPENT AI F"MITWRE - - - - - 3017271 l3-7.k7 473.4 416.4 77,A AFNI.7 141.021.0 73749,7 35t693,3 24,115.8 1t,204.1 WpM,V73.9 ¢SWUGEW P16 - - -- 16 147,4 ?,40'.3 - - - - 2.602.3 114,071,6 - - - - 114.0714NStAICS I .- - I 264 20.0 - - - - 260, 101742,9 - - - - 10742.MOTORCYCLES 97 - 97 30 190,0 - - - - 7,910.0 10,238,4 - - - - 120,239.4lIcTCIES 16 - - - JA . 49.0 _ _ _ _ 41.0 1993.3 - - - - 1,1,3WM #ASPDFIES *,- - -1 -u403.5 1.40, 1403.T ,401.5 I ,OI7.3 61,371.6 67p353,2 73,3J7,4 80,632.3 117,258.9 70.45. 9MEDICAL SIAF WUSING 32 3 - - 49 2849e9 4,33J.7 63.9 - - 7!744.3 131469. 221,433.5 317p0.1 - - 34,423.2FLI VS PICKIPS 4 - - 4 7no 9000 - - PA- 00,0 33.053,2 - - - - 33.es7WTIER SWfY AND SNiTATION ON ESTATES TNES - - - - - - t106. 167.1 76s7 0. 53119 1'.3766 8r7.I357 189,424,5 839.569,3 1615,179.9 12649299 f24,65.7 4733P13116

Total IKSTSEWT COSTS 30K9R,7 79.945,A 35.(74.5 71,9AK,7 14.964 240.454,9 1670,00,2 1526,83698 1,967.2424 1450474,6 bl.5.7 7,is,5287~~~~~~~~t- = - a- " 1- umws X, ,azet _ o.

Total 3649.7 79,941.6 ' ,074t5 73.9?,7 J4.1,4 140-A54.9 1,670.090.2 1.516,836.9 1967,247,4 1404716.6 9M3p.7 7.5w1529.73S UalSI 53=3xm 3¶-.3 S;% -e 5r 335 ----- =_- -S :1 -zs::: 3:: :::-Yt22 2:r3

- -_- - - - -- -------- -- - .--- -- _-----_---e--*---_- - ---- *- - -- _ - - - - - -- i------- - -- .__ .......... .. - -- _-__ __---

Fbnswry 7, IS5 15104

-'D hi

9R1 LMZAFIFTH 29.! tPfA wF

JATMIIA ESTATE! IClOPTfN1 WOOROIAl. WIFAPt PP-IwayroN COSTS

n9taillad r.OSt r3a11r109, '0100

totals Injlin ParManti..r0 s

..-- - ------- _ . ............. -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - I-- - - - - . ........ _,,,,,_____ __

Unit 1M5 16 "1? 1ffl 199 Tpt;1 1tII Cost 19'51 1 6 1"?7 I98 19q Told 1985 1986 1987 1968 19f Total

1 IIPEINENT C,OSTS

*)t CREQES 30 40 50 41 ' 1A3 77.7 7,331,P 3.109.0 3.63 31342.? - 17.469.7 107566.0 I56s948.3 21968.O.6 M. 7P7.5 - 6957,6.7

to'AADING CiCED 75 79 7S 7F 75 375 1I 1.l3i.7 1,151,7 1,351.7 1,331,7 5.191,7 6 .7%,7 62,37.1 69,10t,0 76,42.07 833i69,4 900104.0 .30 I?667g N4MrIRFY I ttY - 5 -S S 10 120.- 6097 607.7 - - 1 .i - 30.110.6 33,940.5 - - 64.751.1

U6AU1IN6 ANTERHITY UIIITS 5 12 - - - 17 26) 14,0 337,9 V - - 476.7 6495.5 17.277.0 - - - 73,72.

NEW DIl'EMSAIES 5 70 20 7° 5 70 90,l 45010 1 ,90 7 .71 0 0 11MI7,l 4,n6 6b.V.1 2067M5.7 92I1440 1014504.3 1114020.6 30.036,0 7S349. SWUUD1IND DISPEWN IES 11 20 i1 - - AJ 39,4 431.7 7P9,5 .P197,8 - - 7MS0,Q 20.0062 40,323.0 ,616. - - 26179331i.4W6RDIND I(TH f - - - - - 404.1 4,5 ?4.j 9 - 12-4 14,030.4 15,549.3 17,1289 - - 4A,709,9MDIJlt! ?1 - - - - 73 760 5,94,0 - - - 9-.98,0 247067.9 -- - 247087,P

HIOTOICYCLES 94 - - - - 94 30 970,0 - 2-i),O 116651?.7 - - - - t16,519.7EWIPINT N FUNITIURE - - - - - - 1,7. 124,9 78.9 _ - .r4,7 6,322. 62U025.1 68110-4 - - 1864,3

11RUGS AND fti.ES - 696.4 464 6,4 6.4 6 4 6,4 M04#.7. 30,453.3 33,422.5 36,639,0 40,011,0 43,296. 1M83,74,7RE3I9 WIXINE UN11 I - - - - 1 , 5 639 5U. - 561,? 25.m.1 7599.1

SIUWE nws 24 - - - - 74 162,6 1.9t 3,5 - - - - 1 171.107,4 - - - 171,107.4

MEDICAL STWF OU8S2N I ? 17 17 - - Si 2,695,0 7.15,0O 7PAR1, - - p.042,9 123,475.0 1374064.1 150.97,6 - - 411,777.7EIPAT(S 7 - - - - 2 960.5 5711 - - - - 521.1 22,7287 - - 2,723.7

rF VD PICs 4 - - - 4 200 900.0 - - - 100.0 331055.2 - - - - 33105.2IIATER 91192 IID SANilYTATION ESTATES - - - - - - 1.375,4 1.176.6 194n04 g ,O 9. ,3.7 A ,l 155369114 632.552.)1.235 137.6 969,673.3 67,241.7 3630.496.2

_ . ... ., .. .. ... ... .. .. . .. .. . ......... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___

total WIP MsT COSTS 77,4AU7 75,119, 15ts17,s 272944,7 17061,5 171,711,0 1,213,964.4 1,269214.1 2,005,057.1 1,410,0444.1 8.684,6 6,718964.'Tote! Wr:s:--- ~t~Z*:*--: *ar~*** t::::::: r*_= r=r22tat22 3: S252: 2 2rTr ta =

Toll !7t 2 )5.331.7 15,711,5 ?2.944.7 I2,?A.S 123.711.0 1,213964.4 Iv29214.1 240053037.1 1410044.1 R00,6U4.6 l,7291 64.3sxwY: ::r~ss: ~t-zn: 2;TU53:tr5X ~.: ~ :n tz a tzZ 7t re55 = Sr=rs sase1,1eJ5n rtrsrnwn s r-nr:: t S

___ jan . ....7 . _ ._._5_.... ........... .. . ....................... .I.................. . . . ........ . - ___ - _ - - - - ------------ -Fob 71 297 5 IM S1105

SRJ LMUAFrOWTN TiFF C"PS PPOFC

'TATE PI.SATOtM (WPMATINNTNTIMTTIJTtWW vWI.APMM rflmT

D0tlied CMst Tblo'IS. '0ow)

TWta1s m!nluinir ContJMrLn,CiSOuntitv to" CoFIF IUSS)

------------------------ ----- lIn;{ --------------- ------------- ------- ------- --------- Unit 115 M 16R7 9M 1q9 Total rost I95 1M*6 10? 199 I9 T'41t I15 j0 197 1BI 191 Totaltan arts sass sas:s nsa tat: stlatt nsa s;;t ratnn-= r::__:: tar arts :nr: a-: . = =a aaa a*ars ni ara m

1. INYESNT COSTS..... ...............

A. TRAINING

NIPI TRAINEE ACCOIMTATION - -2.41A - - - - f- - 114477,3

NIPE DOCUENTATION -4.15.7

COlIsESnlENI4ARsMRKU4oPs…344,4 7AfS .7 1.1p1,9 - - 1.014A l.077.1 3.177 4.25,0 - - 574!4".MICRO COIUTERS PO I - - - - I 75 25W0 - - - - 2!.A 1044.2 - - - - 10,546,?COlfUTER 0 AND 112- ----- I",ftS P7e ll 1 7.0 P9,0 n~O 4q4,3 51 691:7. .0 7 6.747 1,91 7,1M3,? 714,9 33968J.5OURlSAS STUDY TMRS PO 15 15 I29 1i I' 7s 9 0 1,3911. 0 J51n .10-0 1,1'1.0 6.7,.O '9.69'.7 A31599,4 4907J,3 754514,9 81,77 s 4 944.4FMI VD PICIUPS No 2 - - - - 2 7.0 400.0 - - - - n1.A 16-5177-6 - - 1IA527.6AUDIOVISUALVN NO - - I 37No _ 171 - - 375,0 - -M4,7 - - - 16,314,7MINIM 110 1 - I 150 - o00 - - - rAQ - 15.11-71,7 - -;36937,7

OTHER EQUIPMENT - - - 3 -- .2.0 1_9 3_977 ¶7,48.7 - - - 375S6.4

Sub-Total TRAININIG I513.2 9tAt.4 2.4A0.4 l.47M.0 1,479.0 71.7-RMs 17Q.57,1. 449!1[5.A A140319.7 3P,R23.0 3 X5.5 1,1I0,540,413 TF.CIHICAI ASSISITACE

_ _.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a

INSTITUTION KV. SPECIALIST MI 3 1 I.' - - 7.5 30 0, A0 @0,0 C,A,0 _- I , A,0 3.137.1 40.IM5.) 22903, - - 9953',9INSTITUTION SPECIALIST N1 3 3 1.5 - - 7.5 75 75,0 75,0 37,5 - - 167.5 .1;.R7 3. 5'1,a 1J,44.0 _ - -624,6CtWUTER TRAININS SPFCIALIST 1M1 t 3 3 il5 1' 7? 'A 75,0 7s,n 79,Q 37. 37.5 300 1.l'R.7 3.5?1.0 1-49,I ?7.-79,7 2,104?7 15007'.COWUTER SYSTEM SPECIALIST M1 2 - - - - 2 3/10 600.0 - - - - 60.1 . -77l.49 - - - 24091.4RESEARCH LIAISON SPECILIST 1 6 A A 1 3 4 35 210.0 210.0 '10.0 19,0 14n.A 94.413 Q.P, 10i,30P. 59Al,4 6,451.3 4?,005.6RIU!ER fACTORY SPECIALIST 111 2 05. 0,5 - - 3 300 W,n 15A.n 150.0 - - 90,A 244914 6*7;9,9 7,331.? - - 38,648.5RUMER STIMLAIT SPECIALIST NMl I O.5 0.5 - - 2 300 300.0 250.0 250,0 - - 600.0 12,33'? 6,4715, 7,331j. - - 26,452,PMINI IYITO SPECIALIST MM 2 2 7 7 7 IO 300 600.0 6000 M00.0 AN0.o0 4,A 3.00,0 24-791,4 7A6,03,5 79324.32 31.964,0 34,5907 247,574.3

Su-Total TECHNICl ASSISTANCE 3,4fW.9 'p.20.0 1-.77,5 747,5 747,s P-677,5 139!1I3.1 97,4hl0,7 37.70,? 40.054.6 43pW44,? 407.68359C. REGIONL ARODS

RADIO CUIICATION EQUIPMENT 7'51,0 ?W0,0 - I- l0 W. O 325936,4 117.7A7.4 - - - 443,09".MOTORC04CH;S NO 8 - - 8 lO 3.7M0 0 - - - - 31700, 137.71.9 . - 137,?102.SALOON CARS No 5 5 - - - M0 10,7M,0 1.,75.0 - - - .M.0 5l.M46B 56,048.6 - - 107,697.7FouR MD PICIOPS NO 5 5 - - th 2110 !.OO.o0 1.00,0 - - - 7,om, 41,10,0 44.33@,1 14.150,1STAFF HOUSIII - 450,6 73?,7 732,2 - - 2I2.0 20,765,7 17433,5 41.23$,! - - 99.455,3CWUTERS -14.0M!00 I11,0M, - - 1517m.0 - 699.fl¶.7 6 44|47,9 * 7231W.2.6COIUTER 0 AD N 1 - 7.063,? 7Q30,7 'p06,? 7.043.7 3,252.9 - 90,107.7 107r9P,3 1l'0'7.4 1*64639. 44940'4o9REGION/ESTATE OFFICE QUIPMENT- 5.340.4 I.97O It.'9'0 7.435.6 - 11r., 73.616,4 94.379, 101,643,? 141!327.2 - 53.943,0

S-Total REGIONAL 34DS10 1I-749,9 73,497.4 9,947,4 4.4;, 7,41.3 54 .914,7 VMP,07 1-710761?7.6 316,79.0 258.349,7 ¶269,.0 2414.C72,4 jI' '

D. CIVIL MOS SVPERVISION_ ...................

FOUR VD FICKUS No 5 - - - - 5 200 I,OOP,0 - - - - 1900,0 41.3',90 - - - - 41.329,0 hi

Sub-Total CIVIL MORES SUPRUISION 1,000.0 1- 2. 41,310 041319.0

-2-

E. CENTRAL POLICY "DM

1. MONITORIK BAD-- 4WAD,4 7?17?7,2 7?,7? 2 33?.? P?337,7 140'II3. 19A., 9 109.719,13 1721.11A 139,697,5 141,602.2 704,W,?7. 1T .na MONITORING UWIT - 7,2031.5 71Il. 5 2101,5 ?'103.5 ?1,01.5 10,517.A ElA -.r 7 9747,4 109094,1 1139477,7 129,4h9 540,43. S1A.LNOLDER/PlIZATIOM LIAISON STtDY - ?01.2 964.3 - - - 1!wf5,5 29,59.P,4 W7.4714, - - r,99.

4-. TAXAT Ui0tN6 MU0W EXPENSES 1- 140. 140.7 14" ? 140,? 1440, 72,7 s.@0',7 A.SR1.7 7.777, 7,941.9 110616- M3,39.5

5,LAN NiwI Ti

COO*DINMTOR/FCONOHIST MM 3 A A 3 1- 30 9.0 1-pm100 1Q00.0 90-.0 - A. n.0 37.1R7.1 PA.710,4 A7.974,3 47.9460 - f3,917,9

flICILTifAL ADWISMS2) I a 12 27 6 14 25 1500 300.0 W,Q I,o - 97 0 615?73 14-.04,6 15759,7? Pt16.! - 44!477.3IWAFACTURIII ADYISORS(23 MM 6 12 1? 6 36 25 15010 10. 0 1,. 150,0 - 00.0 617.3 14*0140 ,9.7 1,516,9 _ 44,477,3mIW ilINS ADVISOR 3 2 - - - 5 0 W .0 A o, - - - l.rOA 37,107,1 7A90.S - 64P090.6

MICETING PLAER MM 3 A A A 91 7r5 75.0 150.0 190.0 150 - 57%" 3*l5-7 7*047,0 7,779,4 ,p5IAs, - 25,497.0

ACR:ftUTURAL ECMISJSI.2) mM 9 17 '*7 s - 25 150.0 300.0 3M . ISA,P - 9'0 0 E.117 3 14.004.0 !5t,s,s? I'516., - t 44,7(3FIMCIAL ANLYST NI 3 A A 3 - IB 35 10510 210.0 790 lO'.0 - 630.4 4.471,9 9. 8P,1 1 P090. F 56961.4 310132,4tCUITViRPM mM 3 & A 6 - 21 15 45,0 90.0 ?A. A 9,° - 315.0 1,I",I 4V-'S,I 4.57.6 5209s,9 - 15.897,7

SWVORT STAF 60.0 220.0 170,0 0, 0 IWO.0 540,0 2-526-6 5,631.5 A073,A ,833.4 7373.3 28,570.4OFFICE EQUIPIET AN FUITURE 190.6 54.5 27.2 2?-2 - 29.5 8!i0'j 2461'6 1,446.0 1,580.1 - 14,019.1MICRO COUTER NO I - I 250 2S0,0 - - - - 250 0 I000,842 - - - - 2r0,46.2£111 0 AND n 129. n 127.0 12'0 17,0 199,0 644.R 5.A17 4 6.131.7 4,703.5 7.13,9 7914.9 33,61.5

5WO0N CmS NO 3 - - - - 3 750 750.0 - - - - 70.0 30.91 - 3,99,3

S-Total PWIMG WNIT 3,95496 4.053S 1.4)A,i 1.971,7 24',0 13.554.4 161.241,1 315,,fJ 177.35%9 18tr791,9 1S,72 M74973.P… - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- - -…-- - -

Sub-Ittel CENTRAL POLICY BOMP 11 9379 °.'I 9,7 R.007.1 6,"57, I4.879,9 4A,R00,7 4R,07.0 4'7!PAM,8 409!5.9 W68,79.' 794749,4 1i?450.0M

F. CENTRAL OFFICE

PRODIE 3tO111 5.A323 27,579,0 - - 9.153,3 ?S9,71.4 1,151,799.5 - - - 1411P620,11MICRO CCW'UERS NO 2 2 'A0 50.O - - - - ,0n 2tw60'.S _ - 99,5COtWIIER 0 ND P - - 57.! 7Si.9 q ,7,9 7 97,9 757.9 .7RA9,5 11.714,P 11 n3 i,o 14?A?7? 15sPV.Q 77,9RADIO COINICAIION EOUIPMENT - - 7500 .0 - - - 2i O,0 32!50, 7 13,nO773 -- 449309.0

SALOON CM9 NO 3 3 -6 '50 M50, 750,0 - - W O- 2.tM 34.9o"3, 11.629,3 -- -U,611.6TELEX KIACNIE NO I - I -1 1i 150-0 - - - , 4.9077 - - 6947,7

Sub-Total CENTRAL IFFICE 9,0". 23_,78k 157,. ,5.9 ;57.9 1740,P ?V1,7p4,4 1.2n7.?4A,5 13.407.0 14i67.8 1 e,9 e616*311.6

Total IPJESTENT COSIS 51'1472. 482!.7 .991 l1. 5 1fl,We.I .7.177, A 1111.74-.4 90.457,1 7A4.flh. 572tl,9 7P731*129.3

Total 51*141. 1 IR,Sff,l 1. 2130.3 9 .177.4 10.045,S 7.700.7*7.9 I.32J.745,4 962,657.1 7M.719.9 57.2.919,9 7,21,129.3*at-r=ra x.rza2xv .- razzs sosar rr s: r i : r,-:, :r ; rrlo =rcr c=y=: c r=t=cc c

.................. rf-----f--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------- …

Februiarsh 7, 1999 15!06 a

15? LSAFUNITPVWlE rCWYI WflCT

WiATHf FTATEs IfYLUOPINT 90MI)lITTIT1IMW9A AEWUP qWIT~fIS

Do,eilt ri-f Tthl1".: WI

TotAls Inorlodira Winstwin:lQuntity I'e CoeIF (U1151

unit 191t5 2619"7 9 19019 T0t0I rrt 1391 I'A I" IM 195 14J. i 11 I97 19W 191m Total

l. INVESTMN COSTS

A. IKAINtIH

NIPA TIAINEE ACCIW TIWN - - - - - - 2.486 - - - - 7 114,477.3 - - 1:49477.3IMS IOCIW ATION 111.0 - - --- -- 0 4,315.7 - - - 4415.7CUI!/SPMINASTUCPIM5N ORX90PS - - -,- - - W1M444 ?tWP,7 t.s -,S - "4'Ss 15624,3Ml 34.427,7 64,335M. - - 594@t7"IC"t CO tNO I - - - - I '0 25A00 - - - - 25",0 l-4-.2 - 1041144?COWUER O An A - - - - 12Y9.0 I 0 20 12°.Q IP,0R0 .5417.4 64131.7 6.703.5 7.313.9 7914.9 330,1s.5OlUSEAS STUDY 101TM NO 15 15 I 5 15 15 75 911 4irA.0 1.110 1.3500 1.3 .11Afn A'50.0 51569.7 43,559.4 69.279,3 75,511.9 51720.5 W4644.4FPOt Hl PICKtS NO 2 - - - - 2 211 40n.0 - - - - 4".0 16,527.4 - - _ - 1.,577.6AUDIO YISUAL Vl No - I - - - I 375 - 17S. - - - 7 16314 7 _ _ - 16,914,7MINIUJS 1!0 - I - - 1 5 - 39A.0 - 5. - 1 _ _ _ 15.653.?OTHER EQUIPIENT - 25' 1-0 7 -- I76720 10,937.7 17568 7 23,554.4

Sub-Total TRAINING 8.510.? 4' 1 7 ' 7 9 37571,1 49,19.9 14',319-2 12.921 99.6.5.5 141109540,41. TECHNICAL ASSISTACE

INSTITUIION DEV. SPECIlIST WI 3 3 15 - - '. W 7 M0n QAiYh 41 t ' P.37#.1 40,355.2 71U993.6 - - 99,535.9INSTITUTION SPECINLISTILOCAL) II 3 3 1,5 - 7.' ' 7 1 , - -_ 3A151.7 3,521.0 1.944,9 - - 3.624COE1 TRAINING SPECIALISI M 3 1 3 1 A 1.S 12 75 11.1 75,1 73.O 37.5 17 W0 3,158.7 3,521.0 313699 7.129.? 2W.2 15.0,424t01WUTCR SISTEH SPECIALIST II 2 - - - -2 2 00 W. 6400 - -*M!1 240791.4 - - - 24.701,4FESEAIRI LIAISON SPECIALIST MW 6 A 6 1 3 34 35 210.0 ?100 71''h l 'M.t !05.0 040-" I,543.3 9,353.3 1019031 5961.4 A,451.3 4.005A6

JKU rfACTORty CJiMLISr M11 2 05! 0.5 - - I 300 600.4 I5Q.Q 151.Q - - *00° 24,791.4 6.7 731.7 - _ 31,IU^.4RUSICS STI MT 1 SP5ECIALIST II 1 0,5 0.5 - - 2 100 3W o 150.0 'S0.0 - - 40° 12,395.7 6,725.9 7,331.2 - - 76457.9MINI HYDRO SPECIALISt AN 2 7 2 2 2 10 M00 60,0 . .0 AMM, m .n ,t- 24,7914 2690315 29.324,1 31.9640 34,590.7 147.574&3

Sub-Total TECHICAL ASSISTAICE tW,O %I60,0 1.472.5 '42,5 742,5 P.A77. 139411.1 97,610.7 97t706.2 401054.6 431.3,2 021635,9C. RE6IONM. DIDS

_ .... _.........

RADIO COIICATION E0UIPMEXI - - - - - -0 7.0, - - - 11-A 3254387.4 117,02.6 - - - 443,090.0MINI DUS No I - - I 350 11,0 - - - - 350,1 14.461.? _ _ - 144611.SALON CARS 9No 7 9 3 If - 9,7500 ?.'500 0n072a .3 10a3, 0 34,656.0 - -o,57,,FPR HO PICOS No0 7 3 3 - 3 00 14000 oo.o 60u.0 - - '.6 o 57,344.6 26,903.5 79.324,3 - - 1146074.9KWl RESIOAL H1.AUARTERSQ2) - . - - *- l.-l,4 - - - 307104 - IU131.4 - - - 1444131.4STlFF HOU51S -I N G 54'. 1-t74 .? '7-7 937. 641,? .I9e11. 25,046.3 60.06.3 71t436.2 57,730.7 47,976.4 215.156.4coImUTS * 14.0.0 27511.0 - 95,750.0 - 659P134.7 64,247,9 - - 723mms2.COIU tMER D 1 - - - - -- - 2-063. ? ,063. 7,'343.? 00572.0 - 90,107.7 107.255.8 117.022.4 126,69.0 449024.9GARD/ESTAIE WTICE EUIPIEN - - - - - 4.'37' 7117 ? U7,4 i,575.7 - 1.ti3527 195,649.4 104,512.3 109,779.2 14,9639.7 - 5W.57P. I

ub-Toell REGIL PRDS Ijs775p 27.940,7 7.7$1j3 4.07A.1 7.711,4 "'11-572.4 680.6"91 1,331,447.0 374P599,9 293.592. 1619515.4 ?241,554.2 -P. CIVIL MIS S9 IStrTNI

_ _ .......... . n....rOLt vI PicKun NO 5 - - - - 5 700 9,0011,0 - 41.319.0 - - - - 41.319M

Su-total CIVIL HSM S FERVISION 1,000.0 - - - - l, 0 41,319.0 - - - - 414319.0

Is CENTRAL PLICY IGA..... ..... _.._ __ . _.

1, MONITORINS 303C - 4.674,4 ?7.7.12 2-3'?2 '.337,? 2I""2 14- 02.2 191,355.9 1090719,3 171P211.3 132.697,5 14317.2 704.066,22. INTIVd. NIIITMINI UNIT - 2.101.5 2ibl.' 7-103]5 7.103,S ?.143,5 10.517,4 88.585.2 ".o747.4 109.090,l 1199477.7 1294241,9 54%,p943. SNALLW IRANTATION LIAISON STUT - -0'-' -* .R-3 - - - 1.?M-5 29529.4 274299 - - - 5,5.24. TAXAIIRON VRING OM WVISES - 140? 14,7 f4k 146I 140 7.7 h.3,2 7,272,7 7,961.1 3,616.1 36.739,5. PLMIWEI U1IT3

COCIRD1NT^'ECOWIST m 3 A 6 3 - 10 uo MO 1!P'! I !O. "M0. - I'1 0 37,107.1 80,710,4 P79974.3 47946.0 - 253,317.9AGICULTIM ADYISORS21 19 6 J7 12 6 - 7 25 150.0 W. 0 30 1 0 - 0.0 6,317.3 144.0 15MM59.? 8951P9 - 44,477,3IMACTUIINl AYISORSI2) 91 6 17 12 6 - U ' S , 150.0 100 0 IM0. - eQ4Q0 G317,3 14 1.0 5,559.7 RoS6.3 - 449477.3WKETIING ADISO mI 1 ?7 S 30 904,0 6000 - - - t 0 374187.1 269903,5 - - - 64,0".6N191N6 PLNER III 3 6 & - 71 75 750f 150,O 15. 20 - 75. 31358.7 7.042.0 7.77.6 8I516.I - 76p497.0AGRICLTURAL ECOWtSt1(2) m11 17 12 I 6 3- 75 150.0 3n00 vn.0 150 0 - '0.0 6317.3 134064.0 15,559.? 9,514.1 - 44i477.1FIMCIAL ANALYSr M 1 6 A 1 - ip i5 105.0 '10 0 '11400 o %.) - 630.0 4,421.49 9.2.3 O1,39.1 5.961.4 - 31.132.4CIfUTOER PrO IER I 3 ' 6 6 I i 45.0 9. @0.0 ".0 - 115o0 3195.1 4.225.1 49847id 5109,9 - 35,397.7Sul9T STAF 0- - - -. 0 1-o .0 12.9 0 17, O 17).0 A.0 2,526.6 5.633.5 6m,26 6.313.4 77M,3 X1,570,4OFFICE EOUIflNT AND FlITUE- - - - 1",6 54.9 2'.? 27.' -; 8,360.4 2.63?.6 19446.0 1tM.1 - 14,019.1MICRO COJtER 0 I - - - - t ?50 250.0 --- 2O. IO3,8.2 - - - - 2090467COUWTER 0 AND n 129.0 t9.0 129.0 1?9.0 !".0 644.a 5,417.4 6.11,.7 6,743.5 h.313.7 74914*9 33,i6t31SALOON CARS 10 3 - - - - I ?.50 7,0n - - 0 30y499.3 - - - - 3o,0,

lubTotel PuIN UNIT 3.A,6 4.9,3,5 341A.7 1.971.2 24?.0 11.554.4 I361I14.. 185.339.1 172342.9 10t791.9 152.2 t.47.733.

9b-Totil CENTRIL POLICY 903 1t,47s,1 t.?11.7 I,07.1 A.Y1.,t 4,74.9 40.-01,7 482,07.0 427o.363 409936.9 36M.t7M97 748.4 1,935.49.F. ENTRAL FICE

11C90 CWUjiK ND 2 -0- - - ?.5 50.0 - - - - 5fM, 21A692.5 - - - 712692.5CoUTER AND - - 257,9 757.9 257'. 7 57.9 757 9 * .V8'S 11,234.3 l2.263.5 13,407.0 14.677.0 15329,9 67,362,9RADID COIVIMICATI Wl E- I-HE- 750.0 250.0 - * - 6-.O,f 32,533.7 11.770.3 - - - 44.309,0SAOOL CAR 110 I - I - ! 1 3 ;4 25n,n - 750.0 - 77.i11 75. A 10,327.8 - 12,21.7 - 14,412.1 3,961.2713 W PIOIs PO 2 1 - I - 4 ?00 40n,0 100.0 7n0,o0 AM, 16577.6 8.947.3 - 10,654.7 - 36,150.1

Sb-7oaIl CETAL OFFICE 2t157 q 707,9 0 07,. 457,1 'o719 4t.1-5 92n.3234 30l.005 21,25.6 25.M235 304747'7 796475.7so CIVIL li! SWC'ISION

raj * p3>IP I 7 - 3 200 7eo'0 o - - - 20.0 6,2613 __- _ _ _ 3,--- -

SubTotal CIVIL QRKS EiSSI 20W,00- 20a0 wff 23,1 - - - - 3,263.3

Totel lms7MNT ros(s 4;;4.5,1 49-709.-A 20#101,1 14-07. 10.765.6 16,646.9 1,922,311.6 243539133.6 14035117. 0 0MM37,7 62943.1 4,64673.0n.la-l ss, _m5 .. _.. _ =a tarme 3am

lotel 4).4R%,3 49.79.6 20.101.1 24,07.6A 10.741.6 2U 6!49.9 19022?311.6 2.359P113.0 1#035317.3 800,637.7 M419.1 kWoM73.0s2Rt*t tSW3ttW =m.2g . 2!2m- 3::'' .m*inmms inZZinmi m. ammum= m m m ~

................... ... ..................... . .............................................................................................

Felwrwf 7, IM115 I't J

!PI IWAFOIIRTH TlFF CPM1PS PPoAT

PREPARATION OF MiALLHOLIER fIPIHNtSTRY PIM.TATIONH IPITRTES

Deteiled rwt Table(PSg, ooo

Tat.fls !ncludin4 Cantinfmncies

Qumntitv DasP Coatq (Use)

.- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - -__ - -- lli - - - ------- ^-- - - -_- -- - - -_-- - -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -_

Unit 19t, 1996 1Y7 i9e I9 Totill Cost 195 19%6 197 19e 1M9 Totl 1Y 1 R JY7 190 JR Totel

I. IlHSTNENT COSTS

At TECHNICAL ASSISTACE

COIlLTANTSU2)(INTERNATIAL) M 4 4 - - - 8 0 1,.#0 J 0041 - - - 7,40010 49!5",p 531IR- - - -9131979

CrSLTMTS(4)(LOCAL) M 16 8 - - 24 75 400.0 200.0 - - - 6.000 16846t1 Q 93 - - - ?6.?35,5

FIELD SURYCY BY IPI - - - - - 5.9 - - - - WAS9 34 PM7 I0 - - - - M137,0

COfUtER PNTAL - - 310.1 361.18 - - - 671,. 1?!M9.4 16P3',1 - - - 2M15REPORT PROPXTION - - - 281.6 - - - 1,A1 - t31rw., - - - 13vOF.6

SOb-Total TECHIICAL ASSISTANCE 24736.0 7Ir03.4 -- 4779.4 - - -4 J!1W,4 o - - - Wi 94

Total INVESTENT COSTS 2v731.0 2043,4 - - - 4479.4 113R04,4 M2680, 5 ̂ - 706 43383883 89893 a 329 *388411s:31 58_2_*89 339#2"ax18"ao al33 = 3a83 38

Total 2#736,0 29043,4 - - - 4,779.4 1M1M404 9'10.0, - - - 74r?20,4-- srr " nano zrs xvxa SI221c X=2 ==r =12a - 231:1-= car g,= 1181111:11

.-- .. ...........................................(. ... - ------ D m

Februjary 7 1985 15110

-89-Annex 2Table 24

SRI LANKA

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Disbursement Schedule(US$M)

Calendar IDA DisbursementYear Quarter FY Quarter For Quarter Cumulative X

1985 1 FY 85 III2 IV -_3 FY 86 I 5.6 1/ 5.6 104 II 2.7 8.3 15

1986 1 III 3.3 11.6 212 IV 3.2 14.8 273 FY 87 I 3.9 18.7 344 II 3.9 22.6 41

1987 1 III 3.8 26.4 482 IV 3.3 29.7 543 FY 88 I 4.4 34.1 624 II 3.3 37.4 68

1988 1 III 2.6 40.0 732 IV 1.8 41.8 763 FY 89 I 1.7 43.5 794 II 2.2 45.7 83

1989 1 III 1.6 47.3 862 IV 1.7 49.0 893 FY 90 I 2.2 51.2 934 II 1.6 52.8 96

1990 1 III 1.1 53.9 982 IV 1.1 55.0 100

1/ Includes US$3M to Special Account plus USS2.6M of retroactive financing.

-90- Anne-'

SRI LANKA Yab]FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Financial Performance - JEDB(Rs Millions)

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984Sales VolumeTea (kg. M.) 72.0 77.1 82.6 77.3 85.5 69.9 64.9 80.0Rubber (kg. M.) 14.6 21.9 25.7 22.8 22.0 20.5 18.2 21.2Coconut (Nuts H.) 23.4 23.1 31.4 32.7 43.5 45.2 50.9 53.2

RevenueTea 985 832 994 1301 1458 1596 2496 3600Rubber 78 169 313 234 271 225 294 360Coconut - 10 23 31 50 46 84 70Others 13 25 18 25 21 20 23 25

1076 1036 1348 1591 1800 1887 2897 4055

Cost of Produce SoldTea 626 876 1027 1227 1436 1445 1543 2487Rubber 70 140 207 190 232 205 197 313Coconut - 9 13 22 29 31 45 59Others 8 13 12 17 20 24 10 15

704 1038 1259 1456 1717 1705 1795 2874Less: Notional chgs. 4 14 5 22 63 53 50 50

700 1024 1254 1434 1654 1652 1745 2824Gross Margin 376 12 95 157 146 235 1152 1231Marketing & Administration 14 26 31 36 36 46 51)Statutory Commitments 1/ 17 35 73 57 62 53 130) 184Income before Depreciation

& Interest 345 (49) (10) 64 48 136 971 1047Interest 2 11 36 67 94 113 76 18Income before Depreciation 343 (60) (46) (3) (46) 23 895 1029

Working Ratio (Z)Tea 63.1 103.6 102.8 92.6 94.1 87.2 59.8 67.7Rubber 89.7 82.8 66.1 81.2 85.6 91.1 67.0 86.9Coconut - 90.0 56.5 70.9 58.0 67.4 53.6 84.3Others 61.5 52.0 66.6 68.0 95.2 120.0 43.5 66.0Corporation 65.0 98.8 93.0 90.1 91.9 87.5 60.2 69.6

Capital ExpenditureReplanting Expenditure 36 67 93 114 137 140 156 173Factory Development 9 24 8 16 22 26 66 45Projects - - 12 32 16 81 63 297

45 91 113 162 175 247 285 515

Financed by:Government Subsidies 22 24 28 28 38 26 33 32Government Grants - 25 64 100 50 123 89 78Foreign Agencies - - 15 30 51 69 51 218Own Resources 23 42 6 4 36 29 112 187

45 91 113 162 175 247 285 515

1/ Statutory deductions increasing because of increasing retiring gratuitiesto workers.

-91-

Annex 3SRI LANKA Table 2

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Financial Performance - S.L.S.P.C.

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984Sales VolumeTea (kg.M.) 71.0 71.0 81.0 78.0 80.0 70.0 65.0 77.0Rubber (Kg.H.) 22.0 24.0 25.0 28.0 28.0 23.0 21.0 26.0

RevenueTea 961.0 1004.0 1063.0 1427.0 1461.0 1674.0 2705.0 2926.0Rubber 100.0 178.0 293.0 255.0 274.0 258.0 375.0 429.0Other Crops 2.0 16.0 22.0 12.0 26.0 40.0 19.0 57.0Total Pevenue 1063.0 1198.0 1378.0 1694.0 1761.0 1972.0 3099.0 3412.0

CDst of Produce SoldTea 654.0 1018.0 1097.0 1350.0 1482.0 1549.0 1643.0 2143.0Rubber 53.' 175.0 249.0 253.0 247.0 245.0 267.0 380.0Others - 35.0 37.0 43.0 31.0 28.0 32.0 35.0Total Cost 707.0 1228.0 1383.0 1646.0 1760.0 1822.0 1942.0 2558.0

Gross Margin 356.0 (30.0) (5.0) 48.0 1.0 150.0 1157.0 854.0Marketing andAdministration 39.0 13.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 20.0 30.0 31.0Statutory 1/Commitment 1.0 - 33.0 35.0 46.0 53.0 102.0 112.0Income beforeDepreciationand Interest 316.0 (43.0) (55.0) (4.0) (62.0) 77.0 1025.0 711.0Interest 3.0 10.0 20.0 22.0 60.0 89.0 83.0 (100.0)Income beforeDepreciation 313.0 53.0) (75.0) (26.0) (122.0) (12.0) 942.0 811.0

Working Ratio(%)Tea 68.1 101.4 103.2 94.6 101.4 91.0 60.7 73.0Rubber 53.0 98.3 85.0 99.2 90.1 95.0 71.2 89.0Corporation 66.5 102.5 100.4 97.1 99.9 92.4 62.7 75.G

CapitalExpenditureReplanting 21.0 42.0 71.0 70.0 99.0 101.0 235.0 169.0FactoryDevelopment - - - - - 1.0 10.0 31.0Projects - - - - - - 25.0 80.0

371.0 65.0 91.0 154.0 167.0 181.0 675.0 280.0

Financed byGovernmentSubsidies 19.0 7.0 49.0 24.0 27.0 27.0 36.0 33.0GovernmentGrants - - 30.0 110.0 25.0 156.0 37.0 116.0ForeignAgencies - 2.0 5.0 39.0 33.0 12.0 5.0 32.0Own Resources 352.0 56.0 7.0 (19.0) 82.0 (14.0) 597.0 99.0

371.0 65.0 91.0 154.0 167.0 181.0 675.0 280.0

1/ Statutory deductions increasing because of increasing retiring gratuitiesto workers.

-92-Annex 3Table 3a

SRI LAIIWA

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Bank of Ceylon

Profit and Loss Statement at December 31, 1982

1982 1981Sri Lanra Sri Lanka

Rupees Rupees*000 *000

Profit before transfer toReserves and Taxation - 192,839 239,626

Taxation _ 104.812 63,367

88,027 176,259

Transfer to Reserves andOther Funds 67,120 156,119

20,907 20,140Dividends .. 20.907 20,140

-93-Annex 3Table 3b

SRI LAM

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Bank of Ceylon

Balance Sheet at December 31, 1982

1982 1981Sri Lanka Sri Lanka

Rupees Rupees'000 *000

ASSETS

CURRENT

Cash and Short Term Funds 3,765,672 2.499,785Trade Bills - 785,764 800.952Investment in GovernmentSecurities & Others .. 482,545 527,990

Advances to Customers andOther Accounts Less Provisions .. 9.034,720 7,982.733

14,068,701 11,811.460

Investnents in Subsidiaries andOther Companies .. 4 7 8 ,4 3 5 459,146

FIXED

Premises & Equipment . . 392,010 355.787Liabilities of Customers for

Engagements .. 10.811.545 9,850.871

25,750,691 22,477.264

LIABILITIES

Current Deposits and Other Accounts(induding Inner Reserves) 14,16589 11.878,903

Dividends .. 20,907 15,140Engagernents on behalf of Customers 10,811.545 9.850,871

24,998,341 21.744,914

CAPITAL AND RESERVES

Share Capital _ 260.000 250.000Permanent Reserve Fund - 6.000 6.000Capital Reserve - 204.50 204,350General Reserve _ - 272_0 262.000Reserve for Bonus Issue of Share Capital 10,000 10.000

25,750,691 22.477.264

-94-

U! LIE

DIE1Ht UII CMI PSROJECT AM= 3Table 4

JISiA ESTATES UEWPN1 T KMD

DKIIE STATENENT

1915 1996 1917 1989 1999 1iC

(INUMS OF CIRENTI

TEA

CROP G.N.) 70.B9 71.23 71.94 7'.10 7W.93 77.14

hIET SALE AVELiRE (JW.) 4.91 42.29 44.8? 47.34 48.43 ;1.23CU5T F PROUCTIOIN 29.37 32.57 35.73 38.94 Q.06 4.7

WINI tRS. PER I. 14.33 9.72 9.16 8.41 6.35 6.44

MIEGIN (US.) 1016.07 692.4U 69.02 614.47 477.83 496.78

IIIIB RATIO 0.67 0.77 0.90 0.B2 0.97 0.97

a!P (K5.tl) 18.49 18.77 19.15 19 .4 20.23 20.65

A.I5E MET SALE AVER.4E (.MD 21.43 24.17 26.46 28.7? 32.54 31.21C!ST 1F B60CION 13.87 15.28 16.73 18.27 19.72 20.94

AMIN (RS. PER .1 7.6 9.89 9.71 1.M 12.12 10.27

i1G1I (ts.) 139.74 166.83 19604 205.66 39.39 212.00

uG0 tATIO 0.6; 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.67COCONt1T

cRP (NJ.) 35.72 35.00 34.66 33.28 36.41 3-.77

NET SALE AVGE (RSJN) 2.51 2.23 2.62 2.98 3.13 3.09CT F PFRlDElI (ISU) 0.93 0.57 1.01 1-10 1.18 1.27

I:S111 S1) 1.68 1.36 1.60 1.78 1.95 1.82

AGI '.RS) 59.98 47.4 3.2B 62.72 71.11 70.41

mriLN RATIO 0.33 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.41alm CMPS

114511 (RS.) -7.4? -1.12 2.63 5.78 14.18 1.67,

GM05 iha 12098.30 905.69 903.26 8.63 922.51 797.85

1I11; RATIO 0.6 0.75 0.79 0.90 0.93 0.83

IWA IET AM MARE D 62.12 69.07 76.50 94.24 91.92 9.24STATU? 133.72 '.42.39 1;1.43 160.69 170.02 179.32

TWAL Eq IES 1958.3 211.46 227.93 244.93 261.94 7B.56

IECE Di DEEIATION AND INTERE 1012.47 694.22 67'.34 643.70 360.57 519.2?

ERECATION 80.00 84.00 52.00 99.0 107.00 109.00INTEREST

TOTAL EPREATION AD INTEEST 90.00 84.00 92.00 99.00 107.00 10B.00

111NC AFTER DlECIATMN AND INTET 932.47 610.22 S93.34 344.70 453.57 411.2?INCOE TAX /3 700.00 200.00 125.00 150.00 10.00 175.00

PRIFIT AFTER TAXATIN 232.47 410. 458.34 394.70 303.57 236.29

ANNE 3-95- Table 5

SRI LANKA

FlJTI TREE CRMPS PROJECT

SRI LANWA STATE PLtATIONS CORPORATION

INCOME STATElEIT

IM95 1986 1987 1918 1M 1910

(MILLIONS OF CIIREINT RUPEES)

IKOUE

TEA

CIOP (Ks.at.) 71.23 72.19 73.49 75.78 70.56 81.73

NET SALE AVRAE SLSP) 44.14 42.51 45.12 47.60 48.69 51.51COST OF PRUTWON 29.47 32.57 35.73 38.94 42.06 44.79

MARGIN (RS. PER KG.) 14.56 9.94 9.40 8.66 6.64 6.72

MARGIN (RS.) 1037.42 717.72 690.61 656.31 521.59 549.35

!RIN6 RATIO 0.67 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.86 0.87

CROP (KS.J.) 26.94 26.B5 26.13 27.77 29.44 29.70

4DJJSTED MET SALE AERAGE (SLSPC) 21.12 23.81 26.06 28.35 32.03 30.72CSr OF PRODUCTIN 13.87 15.28 16.75 18.27 19.72 20.84

4ARGIN (RS. PER KG.) 7.2 8.53 9.31 10.08 i2.31 9.88

MARGIN RS.) 194.54 229.00 243.35 279.94 350.07 293.42

UORKING RATIO 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.68

IiAMGIN (RS.) 20.32 21.30 26.29 30.35 34.65 39.04

aROS MARIN 1252.28 968.02 960.25 966.60 906.30 891.81

IRING RATIO 0.67 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84EXPENSES

MANAGEMNT AND MARKETING 33.69 39.80 46.69 52.83 60.76 69.96STATUTORY 127.36 143.79 160.91 178.47 196.14 213.77

TOTAL EXENES 161.05 193.60 207.59 231.30 25'W.90 282.73

INCOME WEFE DEPRCIATION MWD INTEREST 1091.23 784.42 72.66 735.31 649.40 599.07

IEPRECIATION 105.00 112.00 117.G0 123.00 129.00 135.00INTEREST _ _ _ _ _

TOTAL DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST 105.00 112.00 117.00 123.00 129.00 135.00

INCOME AFTER BE!RECIATION AND INERST 9.23 672.42 635-.6 612.31 20.40 464.07INCOE TAX to

PROFIT AFTER TAXATION 9%.23 672.42 635.66 612.31 520.40 464.07

ANNEX 3Table 6

-96-

SRI LANKA

MURTR TREE CROPS PROJECT

JANATHA ESTATES DEVELOP1IEil IBOARD

SOURCES AND Ar?LICATION OF FUNDS

1985 1986 19B7 1I8 19E9 1?90

(MlLLIONS OF CUENT RUPEES!

SORES

REJENUlE SURPWLS 232.00 410.00 45E.00 395.00 304.00 236.00DEPRECIATION SO0.0 84.00 92,00 9V.00 107.00 108.00SUBSIDY - - - - - -

ONGOINGPO MJECTS 173.00 199.00 14.00 - - -TM AND CO-FINANCIErS -LOAN 114.00 345.00 348.00 302.00 264.00 146.00

TOTAL 599.00 1038.00 912.00 796.00 675.00 470.00

APPLICATION

;NGOING PROJECTSa 225.00 265.00 52.050 82.00 77.00 73.00CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 187.00 565.00 571.C0 496.00 434.00 239.00LOAN REPATHENT - 10.00 41.00 73.00 100.00 124.00INTEREST PAY'flE ON LOANS - 14.00 54.00 91.00 ll.OO 1i7.00WORKING CAPITAL 65.72 60.08 76.74 9?.27 124.13 13T.81

TOTAL 477.72 914.08 7?4.74 841.27 823.13 712.81

SURPLUS 1-1.28 123.92 1 7^26 -45.27 -178.13 -222.61ABJUSTMENT ON TAXES - - - 81.00 122.00

SURPLUS QOTNER ASSETS) 121.28 123.92 117.26 -45.27 -97.13 -100.81

ANNEX 3-97- Table 7

SRI LANK

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJET

SRI LANKA STATE PLANTATIONS CORPORATION

SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS

198 1:986 1987 fl88 1989 1990

I1ILLI0NS OF CURRENT RUPEES)

SOURCES

REVENUE SURPLUS 986DO) 672.00 636.00 612.00 520.00 44.00DEPRECIATION 105.00 112.00 117.00 123.00 129.00 135.00SUBSIDY - - -LOANS AN GRANTS - ONG'ING PROJCTS 88.00 21.00 4.00 3.00 - -

LOANS - NTIP 130.00 393.00 397.00 345.00 301.00 166.00

TOTAL 1309.00 1198.00 1154.00 103.00 950. 765-.00

APPLICATION

ONGING PROJECTS I50.00 C -99.00^ 92.00 87.00 81.00 76.00CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 213.00 645.00 650.00 565.00 4?4.00 273.00LOAN REPAYHENT - 12.00 47.00 83.00 114.00 141.00INTEREST PAYfENT ON LOANS - 16.00 62.00 104.00 134.00 156.00WORKING CAPITAL 224.85 522.92 60.14 82.18 96.05 106.84

TOTAL 3-87.35 824.92 711.14 921.1S 9119.03 72.84

SURPLUS 921.1'5 33.-;S 242.86 161.8: 30. r95 22.16ADJUSTMENTS IN TAXES - - - - 41.00 99.00

SURPLUS (OTHER ASSETS) 921.15 373.08 242.86 161.82 91.9S 111.16

Annex 3-93-- Table 8

.. ! *.n`r :`

:l I: WN flF ri2T R~PEES=

* - - 321.32- 2273,33 _25('123 276-^6 3 , .9'UT ... .. 7 T...P- - . . - 23 7 34.29 41 3,5.

AŽ5Th £39? V kUT$ ~9 0% .2 '2;31 ,.O7 3.7 4.2 A34

.nrPvnrrA- "'TF rp T:zrnpn LhII - i'-ii24.$A 22,54 3,16.13 3~51,Ri t',.72

!~r4~gr~i; rn:'rr ~rnrr - Kt~ Z'.00 5.0~:~ 6.5 855 1 02.Yb

.. .... . t....

zePt~~~~~~rt:e'!^S^ ±tr'::lri'L''f.:'si,,I

_99- Annex 3Table 9

FZJRTH TREE £RPPS PMiECTO

S-Ri' L?Jik - TATE r't ;iT4TIJN1S CJRPC-PATT-

JPR-ING £APITAL

1984 1985 1"R8 198? 1988 PeQ 1990,

MOILLIt4 O UkF RC' ?E R.PEES')

:r¢ '- - - ; ' -r'|9 r -D 2,20 24.15 21 3,04 325-50 35.2S 33.6i',, P.ODIJ-bE)-n. RThE - 1?;, 3? , 77.QC 2.E -5.53 58 ,

T M' =q;1,EO- TCT A; in .24 3.0L263-A 2 46A,8 414t91

*'T .- 1I w4.1 ": 'A 3- ±?. . '' ? 44, 75 A,5.64

NC:.'ERa 941 nr .2' 1: 2R03.70 51e3 6!?

, ^ ra'7~. -' ', 2T, 32S2 A0.1. 2.'1-9 96.05 it, Q.Jz4

:e t -;>;^- r 7 4' - - - -.- e -_-'

ANNME 3-100- Table 10

SRI LANKA

FIURTI TREE CROPS PROJECT

GUV W REVENUE

(IN CURRENT RUPEES)

1985 1986 1987 188 1989 1990

TEA

JODB

JEDI 68.67 65.37 70.67 75.68 77.91 83.62COST OF PRODUCTION 29.57 32.57 35.73 3B.94 42.06 44.79TAXES, AT PRESENT RATE 20." 19.34 21.99 24.49 25.60 28.46LESS ADJI5TIENT - - - - 1.04 1.46

NET REYENUE (RSfIG.) 20.99 19.34 21*99 24.49 24.56 26.99

CROP (KG.f.) 70.89 71.23 71.94 73.10 74.93 77.14NET REEE (RS. M.) 1487.79 1377.39 1581.66 1790.3C 1918.53 2195.27

SLSPC 69.15 65.82 71.16 76.20 78.44 84.19COST OF PRODUCTION 29.57 32.57 35.73 38.94 42.06 44.79TAXES, AT PRESENT RATE (RS./KG.) 21.22 19.56 22.23 24.75 25.87 28.75LESS ADJUSTIENT - - - - 0.78 1.18

NET REVEhUE (RS/KE.) 21.22 19.56 22.23 24.75 25.09 27.56

CROP ?6J.m) 71.23 72.19 73.48 75.78 78.56 81.73NET REVENUE (RS. M) 1511.73 1412.17 1633.36 1875.72 1971.05 2252.73

TOTAL REVENUE ON TEA 2999.51 2789.56 3215.02 3466.10 3889.58 4448.00JEDB AND SLSPC

TAXES ON RUEBERv AT PRESENT RATES 476.74 603.41 701.77 842.25 1047.01 1016.&4

REVENtE FROM TEA AND RUBBER (RS.M.) 3476.25 3392.97 3916.79 4508.34 4936.59 54*64CORPRTIONS

INCOME TAX 700.00 200.00 125.00 150.00 150.00 175.00CAPITAL REPArGENT - 24.00 98.00 173.00 239.00 295.00INTEREST ON LOANS - 32.00 125.00 209.00 271.00 314.00DUIJES AND TAXES 20.00 63.00 63.00 55.00 47.00 26.00

TTAL REUENUE 4196.25 311.97 4327.79 5095.34 5643.59 6274.64

SUESIDIESGRANTCOIWIThENT AND SERVICE CHARGES TO IDA AND ADD 0.51 0.45 0.33 0.22 0.11 0.04

TOTAL 0.51 0.45 0.33 0.22 0.11 0.04

NET SURPLUS 4195.74 3711.52 4327.46 5095.13 5643.48 6274.60

-101- ANNEX 4

Table 1

SRI LhNKAFOURTh TREE CROPS PROJECT

Field ProMram (ha)

Years :1 2 3 4 5 Total

TEA

JEDBReplanting 233 245 241 234 230 1183Nev Planting 39 34 34 34 35 176Infilling /712 992 1142 1162 1081 5089Total 984 1271 1417 1430 1346 6448

SPCReplanting 424 426 383 371 329 1933New Planting 99 116 108 105 113 541Infilling 1248 1247 1060 939 747 5241Total 1771 1789 1551 1415 1189 7715

Total ProiectReplanting 657 671 624 605 559 3116Nev Planting 138 150 142 139 148 717Infillin 1960 2239 2202 2101 1828 10330Total 2755 3060 2968 2845 2535 14163

Rabber

JEDBReplantig 1519 1360 1317 1181 1004 6381New Planting 558 402 400 310 221 1891Total 2077 1762 1717 1491 1225 8272

SPCReplanting 657 745 693 595 573 3263New Planting 237 195 163 114 68 777Total 894 940 856 709 641 4040

Total ProiectReplanting 2176 2105 2010 1776 1577 9644Nev Planting 795 597 563 424 289 2668Total 2971 2702 2573 2200 1866 12312

Coconut

JEDE b|Underplanting 249 356 310 303 251 1469

aJ The area of infilling is estimated by assuming 12,500 plants for hectare.

k/ SPC has no coconut program.

SRI NRFOURTH TRES CROPS PROJECT

Yield Proiections

CoconutTea Rubber Year Kegalle Kurunegala Chilav Zones Region

Year VP Tea Yield Year Yield Region Region Dry Intermediate(kg/ba of made tea) (ki/ha) (nuts/ha) (nutu/ha) (nuts/ha) (nutb/ha)

1 7 450 1 2,100 2,178 2,702 4,940

2 8 765 2 1,600 2,178 2,702 4,940

3 9 1,035 3 1,600 2,178 2,702 4,940

4 - t0 1,215 4 1,200 1,628 2,026 3,705

5 600 11 1,350 5 900 1,628 2,026 3,705

6 800 12 1,440 6 895 1,628 2,026 3,705

7 1,000 13 1,530 7 648 1,408 1,756 3,211

8 1,300 14 1,575 8 2,989 1,562 1,952 3,295

9 1,600 15-16 1,620 9 4,744 1,606 1,815 1,927

10 1,800 17-19 1,665 10 4,851 3,138 3,550 3,264

11 1,400 20 1,620 11 6,958 4,428 5,690 7,019

12 1,600 21 1,575 12 8,382 5,219 6,504 8,346

13 2,200 22 1,530 13 10,121 6,484 7,520 10,054

14 2,500 23 1,485 14 12,355 7,749 8,333 12,140

1S 1,500 24 1,440 15 12,355 9,489 9,553 14,820

16 1,900 25-27 1,575 16-69 12,355 11,070 11,115 14,820

17 2.600 28-30 1,665

Kature CycleMean Yield 2,125

-103- AWlTable 3

aaFOURTh TRZL CROPS PROJECT

Tea Price Proiections for Financial Analysis

1982 1984 1985 1986-9 1990-4 1995-2004

Price Projections (U8$/kg) in 1983 Constant US$S/ 1.87 3.24 2.6a 2.30 2.15 2.33Price Projections (U8$/kg) in 1984 Constant US8 1.94 3.35 2.77 2.38 2.23 2.41bo 703 Price (US$Ikg) 1.68 ly 2.90 2.40 S) 2.06 1.93 2.09ii Exchange Rate (U8$-SLaR) 20.81 4 25.17 gI 25.17 25.17 25.17 25.17bo 703 Price (SLRs/kg) 35.01 f/ 72.99 60.41 51.85 48.58 52.61 g1trmts for Premium over National NSA O

JUDS Po3 irice (SLRs/kg) 60.54 51.96 48.69 52.72iPC FOs Price (SLRa/kg) 60.95 52.43 49.02 53.09taunt for Factory Improvement

With Project UJJ DB POB Price (SLRa/kg) 60.54 51.96 50.15 54.30SPC rOB Price (SLIs/kg) 60.95 52.43 50.49 54.68

Without Proj ectJZDB PON Price CSLRs/kg) 60.54 51.96 48.69 52.72SPIC 70 Price (SLim/kg) 60.95 52.43 49.02 53.09

lation of Gross Sales Average i/(a) Deductions from FOB Price

Export Duty SLRs 5.00 ) 13.45 13.45 13.45 13.45Ce SLRs 1.25 1Other Charges SLR. 3.20 )

Cb) With Projact Gross Sales AverageJIDB FOB Price (SLRs/kg) 47.09 38.51 36.70 40.85SPC FOS Price (SLmA/kg) 47.50 38.98 37.04 41.23

ec) Without Project Gross Sales AverageJUDB 703 Price (SLls/kg) 47.09 38.51 35.24 39.27SPC 703 Price (SLRs/kg) 47.50 38.98 35.57 39.64

ales Average With Project k/(s) With Project

JUDD FOB Price (SLR1/kg) 37.07 32.86 31.97 34.01SPc Fo3 Price (SLIe/kg) 37.26 33.09 32.14 34.20

Cb) Witbout ProjectJ7DB FOB Price (SLRe/kg) 37.07 32.86 31.26 33.24SPC FO3 Price (SLRs/kg) 37.26 33.09 31.42 33.41

IRD January 1984 Revised Price Projections (London Auction) in 1983 constant US Dollars.Calculated by dividing 1982 Colombo FOB Price of SL1 35.01 per kg by Official Exchange Rate (OZR) for 19852 9851-20.81.Calculated by dividing 1982 Base Price of US$1.68 per kg by 1982 projected price and multiplying by price projected foreacb scceeding year. e.g. 1985 F.O.3. Price - 1468 s 2.77 - 2.40.

1.94Official Exchange Rate for 1982 was US$1-SLRs 20.81.Official Exchange Rate at pre-appraisal in March 1984 was US$1-SLRs 25.17.Sri Lanka Tea Board Price for 1982. Projections for future years based on projected Colcbo price in USSmultiplied by OER for 1984, e.g., 70 Price for 1985 - 2.40 x 25.17 - 60.41.No Adjustment for Marginal Revenue in Financial Analysis.Prices adjusted by a premium factor of 1.00218 for JU5DB and 1.00907 for SPC based on the NSA received by eachcorporation during the baseyear 1982 in comparison with National NSA, e.g. SPC NSA for 1982-SLRs 23.36 per kg.Nationsl NSA for 1982-SLRb 23.15 per kg, SPC Prmniua Factor - 23 36 - 1.00907.

23 15gith Project, adjustment is made for a quality premium of 3S due to factory rehabilitation from 1990 ona rds.Gross Sales Averages are determined by deducting Export Duty. Cess. Buyers Cost and Margin from FOBI Price.let Sales Average is obtained by deducting Ad Valorm Tax, Brokers Fees and Public Sales Zxpenditurefrom Gross Sales Average.

Ca) Ad Valorem tax is calculated as follows: CSA Ad Valorem TaxSLR. 0-28 no taxSLRs 28-55 50Q of the excess over SLRE 28Over SLit 55 40S of the excess over SLI.3 55

(b) Brokers Fee is 12 of GSA(c) Public Sales Expenditure - SLRl. 01

-104- ANI=4Table 4

FoU TRZ3 CROPS PROJECTTea Price Proiections for Eceomic and Fiscal Analysis

1932 1984 1985 1986-9 1990-4 1994-2014

1333 Price Projections (CSS/kg) in 1983 Conatant USS _a 1.87 3.24 2.68 2.30 2.15 2.33ITID Price Projectiona (US/kg) in 1984 Constant US$ 1.94 3.35 2.77 2.38 2.23 2.41Colombo FOB Price (CSS/kg) 1.68 k/ 2.90 2.40 £1 2.06 1.93 2.09Official Exchange Rate (USS-SLI) 20.81 5. 25.17 25.17 25.17 25.17Colombo rOB Price (SLRIkt) 35.01 .& 72.99 60.41 51.85 48.58 4.82 a/Adjustmets for Premium over National KSA bl

.JM S Price (SL=/kg) 60.54 51.96 48.69 46.92SPC FO3S Orice (SLRs/kg) 60.95 52.43 49.02 47.25

Adjustment for Factory ImprovementWith Project if

JE1 P0D Price (SLislkg) 60.54 51.96 50.15 48.33SPC 10M Price (SLRs/kg) 60.95 52.43 50.49 48.67

Without ProjectJ= -i"e (SL/kg) 60.54 51.96 48.69 46.92sPc FOB Price (SLUs/kg) 60.95 52.43 49.02 47.25

Xsrketing and local Costs in Economic Values 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.82

economic Prices iWith Project

JEW 1OB Price (SLR/kg) 56.72 48.14 46.33 44.51SPC FOR Price (SLRs/kg) 57.13 48.61 46.67 44.85

Without ProjectJEUB FOS Price (SLXa/kg) 56.72 48.14 44.87 43.10SPC FOI Price (SLRs/kg) 57.13 48.61 45.20 43.43

Prices for Fiscal Analycis kiwith Project

ODB Price (SLRm/kg) 56.04 47.46 45.65 43.83SFC FPO Price (SLs/kg) 56.45 47.93 45.99 44.17

Without PojectJED10O Price (SLRm/kg) 56.04 47.46 44.19 42.42SPC FOB Price (SL's/kg) 56.45 47.93 44.52 42.75

af IBiD January 1584 Revised Price Projections (London Auction) in 1983 constant US Dollars.kf Calculated by dividing 1982 Colombo FOB Price of SLim 35.01 per kg by Official Exchange Rate (OER) for 1982. US$1-20.81.

Calculated by dividing 1982 Base Price of US$1.68 per kg by 1982 projected price and multiplying by price projected foreach succeeding year, e.g., 1985 PON Price - 1.68 r 2.77 - 2.40.

1.94Al Official Ezchange Rate for 1982 vas USSl-SLRc 20.81el Official Exchange Rate at pre-appraisal in March 1984 was JS$1-SLR 25.17,j Sri Lanka Tea Board Price for 1982. Projections for future years based on projected Colobo price in US Dollars

altiplied by OR for 1984. e.g. P03 Price for 1965 * 2.40 x 25.17 - 60.41.|1 From 1995 onwards FOB price reduced by 11: to adjust for marginal revenue.Al Prices adjusted by a premium factor of 1.00218 for JEDB and 1.00907 for SPC based on the NSA received by each

corporation during the base year 1982 in compariaon vith National NSA, e.g. SPC NSA for 1982 - SLRs 23.36 per kg,

National NSA for 1982 - SLts 23.15 per kg, SPC Premium Factor - 23.36 - 1.0090723.15

.j With Project, adjustment is made for a quality premium of 3Z due to factory rebabilitation from19"0 onwards.

iJ Calculated by subtracting marketing and local costs adjusted by a standard coversion factor of 0.85.ki Calculated by subtracting mrketing ad local costs. No export duty or ad-a lorem tax is deducted.

FOURTH TREE CROP PROJECTRubber Price Proiectione for fioancial. sconogic. and Figcal Analysis

1982 1984 1985 1986-9 1990-4 1995-2014

IBRD Price Projections (US$ikg) in 1983 Constant US$ -A 0.97 1.24 1.25 1.31 1.38 1.43IBRD Price Projections (US$/kg) in 1984 Constant US. 1.00 1,28 1,29 1.36 1.43 1.48Colombo FOB Price (US$/kg) 0.85 hI 1.09 1.10 lJ 1.16 1,22 1,26Official Exchange Rate (US$-SLRe) 1J 20.1 25,17 25.17 25.17 25.17 25.17Colombo FOB Price (SLRu/kg) 17.69 e/ 27.43 27.69 29.20 30.71 31,71Adjustments for Premium over National Sales Average *1

With Project - FOB Price (SLRs/k&) 29.63 31.24 32.86 33.93Without Project - FOB Price (SLRslkg) 29.63 31.24 32.55 33.61

Marketing and Local Costs in Economic Values 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

keonouic PricegWith Project - FOB Price (SLR./kg) 27.13 28,74 30.36 31.43Without Project - FOB Price (SLRelkg) 27.13 28.74 30.05 31.11

Financial Prices L

With Project Deductions from FOB PriceExport Duty 9.05 9.86 10.6 11,20Ceas and Local Charges 2.94 2,94 2.94 2.94

Net Sales Average (SLRs/kg) 8I 17.64 18.44 19.26 19.79Without Project Deductions from

Export Duty 9.05 9.86 10.51 11.04Ceas and Local Charges 2.94 2,94 2.94 2.94

Net Sale. Average (SLR./k8) 8) 17.64 18.44 19,10 19.63

Fiscal Prices hlWith Project 26,69 28,30 29.92 30.99Without Project 26.69 28.30 29.61 30.67

AJ IBRD January 1984 Revised Price Projections for R8S No. 1 Spot New York in 1983 Constant US$.hi Calculated by dividing 1982 Colombo FOB Price of SLRs 17.69 per kg by Official Exchange Rate of U8$1 * SLRs 20.81.c/ Calculated by dividing 1982 Base Price of US80.85 per kg by projected price for 1982 and multiplying by price projected by each

succeeding year, e.g. 1985 FOB Price -_.8J x 1.29 - 1.10.1.00

iJ Official Exchange Rate for 1982 was US$1-SLRd 20.81. Official Exchange Rate at pre-appraisal in March 1984 was U8$1'9L&s 25.17. OHAl Actual FOB Price for 1982. Projections for future years based on projected Colombo price in US$ multiplied by OER - 25.17, e.g. c FOB Price for 1985 a 1.10 x 25.17- 27.69. D

1] JEDB and SPC earn premiums of about 72 over the national males average. It is assumed that vith the project, both will earn a u tpremium of 7%. Without the project it is assumed the premium would fall to 6% from 1990 onvards.

AL/ Net Sales Average is obtained by deducting Export Duty, Cess and Local Charges from the FOB price. Ix ort Duty is based on asliding scale published in Part 1: Section (1) General Government Gazette Extraordinary of June 13, 1983 - Pages 4A-9A. Thecee and other charges remain constant. The cess is intended to contribute towards: Replanting 1.15 + Rubber Controller .04 +Research .15 + Medical .0165- 1.3565 SLRs/kg. Government reduced the duty on rubber by SLRB 2/kg in July 1984.

ij For the fiscal analysis, marketing and local costs in financial values are deducted from the FOB price . No export duty isdeducted.

SRI LANKAFOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Coconut Price Proiections for Financial and Economic Analysis a/

1982 1984 1985 1986-9 1990-4 1995-2014

FinancialIBRD Price Projections for Coconut Oil

(US$/MT) in 1983 Constant U.S. Dollars b/ 450 1,063 814 691 632 613IERD Price Projections for Coconut Oil

(US$/MT) in 1984 Constant U.S. Dollars 466 1,100 842 715 654 634Percentage Increase over Base Year Price - 236 181 153 140 136Financial Price for Fresh Nuts (SLRe/nut), 1.3 S| 3.07 2.35 1.99 1.82 1.77

EconomicIBRD Price Projections for Coconut Oil

(U M$/HT) in 1983 Constant US$ 450 1,063 814 691 632 613IBRD Price Projections (US$/MT) for

Coconut Oil in 1984 Constant USM 466 1,100 842 715 654 634Colombo FOB Price (US$/kg)

in 1984 Constant $ 0.546 J 1.29 0.99 0.84 0.77 0.74Sri Lanka Official Exchange Rate 20.81 25.17 25.17 25.17 25.17 25.17Colombo FOB Price (SLRs/kg) 11.36 32.45 24.92 21.14 19.38 18.63Economic Price of Fresh Nuts(SLRs/Kr) e/ 1.42 4.06 3.11 2.64 2.42 2.33

a/ Financial Analysis is based on the ex-estate price of fresh nuts.b| IBRD January 1984 Revised Price Projections in 1983 constant U.S. Dollars.

v st S v pite, fost feseh muts is based ovk 'pTte tybM forh MS9 tD 19a\. tdt Colombo POB price for coconut oil was UDS546/MT in 1982. The cost of manufacture and export costs of coconut oil

amounting to BLas 1,686 is offset by production of 0.5 metric ton of a poonac as a by-product valued at SLRs 1,600. tve/ Eight nuts produce 1 kg. of coconut oil with poonac as a by-product.

-107- ANE 4

Table 7

SRt IANIAFOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Conversion Factors

ConversionComponents Factor

Field DevelopmentTea 0.59Rubber 0.69Coconut 0.67

Field and Nursery Equipment 0.82Factory Rehabilitation 0.75Mini Hydro 0.73Housing 0.73Vehicles 0.78Medical 0.73

Operating CostsTea 0.60Rubber 0.60Coconut 0.66

-108-

Table 8

SRI LANMAFQURTH TREE CROP PROJECT

Cost of Production, Without Proiect /a

Tea Rubber Coconut(SLRs/ka) (SLRs/nuts '000)

FixedLine Renovations 0.07 0.32 33.86Others 4.90 2.53 278.96

VariableFertilizer 2.05 0.57 203.58Electric Power 1.00 0.38 -Plucking/Tapping 7.75 4.53Fuel for Driers 0.95 0.18Fuel for Engines 0.06 - -Picking - - 36.95Transport of Nuts - 20.18Husking and Curing - - 15.45Others 7.15 3.65 49.57

Semi-Variable lbSoil Conservation 0.27 0.03 48.35Pest and Weed Control 0.18 0.04 3.21Others 3.27 0.74 71.70

Total 27.65 12.97 761.81

Summary of Costs (Z)Foreign 12 10 18Local 18 15 25Labor 70 75 57

Conversion Factors (Z) 0.60 0.60 0.66

/a With Project there would be savings of 2% on fixed costs from Year 5and a 5% on variable costs from Year 6 onwards.

lb Eighty percent of semi-variable costs are assumed to be fixed.

SRI 116

FOURTH lilt CRO~iPS 081315

JED0011*j PROJECT COT£9 1119 )(46IRIONgIC ANA11611

9IIHOISSNOS or RP111151

1986 1986 1981 1938 9984 9990 1991 9242 94)1 1994 1996 1996 11991 1995 201$ told

NET BtNITIIS WIlItOIl1 P*OJEt1

PSOOUCTICII 41111W!i PROJECT 53491.00 65169.00 54124.00 454331.00 54932.00 54514.00 64483.00 64615300 64848 00 61184.00 63333.00 6M7).00 67.316 00 650197.00 55218.00 55S186.MPRICE 6F. 12 48 14 48, 14 48 14 48 14 44. 81 44 51 44. 87 44.8? 44.81? 43. t0 43. 10 43, 10 43. 90 43. 10 43. 90RtAEi4UL 3601155.14 3464544.25 3086292036 3111516.18 3126818.48 1897436 38 2893361.21 1906916.81 2109129 10 2851985.08 2129562. 30 2127193.00 2hA7586 10 2611130.70 2379895.80 2370939.50OPERATING COST 411190WI PPOJECT 115%664.00 1198852.25 1188036 00 17178151.16 1183994.00 1116923.90 1711612.25 I?806916.2S 17181733.O 1151321.00 1157413 75 1715604.50 1123137. 75 1611317.15 1192142.50 1592142.10REVISIt OPE4ATIMG COIll 106333.40 1055311.35 1050621 50 1066900CM 1010395.40 1056154.10 1056016.5106895393 19 1059401.00 1056792.50 1051448125 1060918170 I1018012.66 10190256.5 9156281.0 9S1121S.10Nil VALUE 2541913 84 2009232.91 2025901.156 2*84424.%3 2066430.08 1A3128). 28 1828215 45 1831212. 05 1840328.16 1A05199. 48 1818204.0OS 1651885030 ItIII7CA 06 1592104.015 1424510.30 1424610. 30

9N11 IENEFIIS WITH PROJ1CT

VRODUJC11II 111111 PR04111 53206.00 63213.00 82548.00 64132.00 56907 00 85110.00 68084 00 70628.00 177161 00 22907 00 14016 00 26404 00 21609.00 16167.00 78019.00 181019.00PRICE 66.12 48 14 48. 14 48.14 48.1II 46 33 45 33 46 33 46. 33 45 33 44. 51 44.691 44.691 44.51 44.151 44.991RIVENUE 3690669.60 30461051 54 3069100. 72 31092359 I983134260 98 3012142 30 3164131 22 3261162 24 13698560.28 33117181.31 3298159, 06 3400742 04 1449925 59 $418898. 1? $412526 69 3412165 65SAVINGS INl MICRICIIT % 41.00 6902.00 13211.00 19633,00 1154 00 21646.00 21649.00 21849 00 21111.00 21649.00 79654.00 219346 00 21645.00 29654.00 21654.00GROSS REVENUE 35906569.60 30456631.54 305510.2. 23106540 98 31563834983093187.30 3111976,72 3189201274 $381111.28 3390425.31 3311833.05 3412381.04 1471657(,59 3438944.11 3494270.59 3494210.69

OPIRAIING COST WITH PROJECT 1161860.16 1135124.80 172505028 11248143.97 I725'.-,J.272 1135530.60 17688A10.84 1814650.28 18651966.16 1869290.32 1880826.80 1924894.04 1945623.84 19931101.62 1966191.44 9966191.44REVISED OPER8IIMG C11115 1061116 45 1041514685 1016116. Il 1034908.35 10'490.273 1041318.36 1061,128560 1088195 1i 1111113.90 1115574.19 11281495.081 1164935 42 11(1374 .30 1159022.3S 1173114.86 1173114.u8NEI VAIUL 2639643 16 2004918.18 20299).6 15 010733.83 2' *j293. 16 2062458.94 2114890.22 2200411.01 7270136 Is 1283862. 122189335.91 2211740 62 23MII195 19 2219621.82 2321166.83 2321166.81

INCRIMENTIA BENFFIIS OiNH PR911C9 -8320.59 *4254 IS 3886 14 26009 30 62863 67 211918.65 285493 15 11286901 471909.42 418565.64 S1111$! 69 50690.22 1i%14Q7,24 686991 77 8965146.13 8956459

INVFIMNfI costs

FIElD 01V11119M9N 31248.40 63623.00 10206.00 1921 00 25071.00 32088.00 19967 00 56)1. 00 3227.00-.. FIFED AND NURSERY 16450.00 7731.00 5969.00 62A). 00 5013.00.....- FAC31nR1 oIvTLOPMTNI 57756.00 60663.00 28888.00 11? 8.00 5042.00....... MiNi MiOCO . 23604.00 22614.00 722 14. 00 8564 00.......- 0fl141C118 30081.00 10336.00 7716.00 4 40 00 9986.00..mUIIOJSnI asos. 010 6035 00 4245.00 I 652 00 3528.00........--MEDICALt 4270.00 2281.00 2421.00 165.00 10684.00.... ISURSIOIIs 1492 00 4826 00 19353.00 '169.00 95905.00 14001.40* 6441.00 .....

INvIsIItENTS 152909 00 165919.00 161816.00 to 189.00 117114.00 45089.00 28034 00 6599.00 3211.00-.... . -

NFl FNCREPENtAE BENEfITS

91A -110499.59 -161231 95 -141139.21 -1 6129.170 -14610.33 176098.88 168319 26 316218.01 426632.42 418165 54 511132592 69069032 WM'l 74 £58612.172 861411.63 886646.63

AVugti I3. 19984 Ill S9

internal RAte Of Return of Net 51S"raS

NIOgIJTE 30,0711

SHIIEHIGMO AUES At lOt

APPRAISAl SNITICIING PERCENTAGE E lStREAM VAlUE VAlUE CHANGE 1

NIUJIE 3. 332. 210. 04 6518.826.00 -I1. 431

C, NVtsliJIE 818.11256. 0 3.132.910 04 438 481

NpvS 90 'a 2 .193.445IARA 30. 9$CIBA ' 67. 21

SRI LANKA

inuRTH itRE CROPS PROJECE

SPC 11* - PROJECr Cosr Awo utcficrsir cRts rnD Ecowornc ANAYIrss

IIHOUSANDS Of RUPEFSI

tIs&, tune t987 t9881 teen tgon tent me7 tees 1694 1995 tqqs 2011 2014

A. NET RENEFII WIJIIOUT PROJECI

PRODUCTION WITHOUT PROJECT 71754.00 13399.00 74 112. 00 74830.00 75189 00 75082.00 74790 00 74536. 00 74605.00 74460.00 73700.00 72697 00 6471S,00 64115.00PRICE WITHOUT PROJECT 57. 13 48.61 48 61 48 ST 48.61 45. 20 45.20 45. 20 45.20 45.20 43.43 41. 43 42.43 43.43REVENUE WITITOUI PROJECT 415-6436.02 3557975.39 3802564 32 3521764 30 3654931.79 3393706.40 2360506 00 3360022, 20 3372146.Oo 33655592 00 32002d1t.o 3S12730 TI 7810527.45 76 10577.4ITOPERATING COST WIThiOUT PROJECT 2011648.50 2024387.25 2038469.00 2048699.50 2059739.25 2057626, 50 20518S0. 50 2046843. 00 2046205.75 2045342.00 2030332.00 2010022. 75 1852781.25 1852878 25110ISF0 OPERAIINO COStS WITHOUT PROJEUCT 12089889.10 1214832 35 12230OA1. 40 1220218. 70 1235A143.8S1 1234575 90 1211115. 20 1228105.10 1228923.45 1227209.20 12T8199. 20 12062 1 1 65 #111726.95 1111128.95NEIT VAtUE HITHOlII PROJECT 291494461.92 2353291 04 2379502 92 2398544. 60 2419093.44 2159130.50 2149392 30 2140921. 40 2143222.55 2138386. 80 1362591.160 1f50917.05 16`188145.50 1698645.50

B. WET BENEFITS WilliT PROJECT

PRODUCTION WIThI PROJECT 172415 00 72719 00 73135 00 23946.00 25352.00 171106 00 28959 00 81142.00 83535 00 84876 00 85722.00 78784 00 898157 00 804157. 00PRICE WITH PROJECT 57 13 48.61 48. 61 48.61 48 I1 46 67 46 67 46 67 46.61 45 67 44 85 44 85 44.85 44.65REVENUE WITH PROJEET 4132068,95 3534820.59 3554605 25 36945t5.05 3652860 72 3598531.02 3685016 53 3786897 14 3898111 75 3961t62, 92 38944631.70 3n415q7. 4a 4030086.45 4030086645SAVINGS IN ELECTRICITY- 541 00 6909 00 13271. 00 19633.00 21645.00 21645.00 21645.00 21645.00 21145.00 21645.00 21645. 00 21545.00 21145.00GROSS REVENUE WITH PROJECT 1t37058.95 3535417.59 356T515.75 3607786.06 3682493.72 3670t82.02 3706661.53 3808547. 14 3919756 25 39812807.92 3866226,70 3963242. 40 4051731.45 4051731.45

22223212222* 222222232242 222222 I02169256 2202222222 120!48292 212722t 22222 ';2 2221222222222271 2::

REVISED OPERAJING COStS WhItI PROJCIT t202971.95 1195123.S1 1190873 40 1189764. 22 1195160 95 1205861.74 1226719. 10 1251290. 95 1278114.00 1293370.86 1302843.43 13271752 90 1349386.99 1348386.39NET VALUE WiTH PROJECT 2934097.00 2339293.92 2370869.85s 2418021.64 2482332.17 2414320.28 2479942.43 2557251. 13 2641642.15 2689481.06 2563433.27 2563063.50 27102244.46 2702344.46

INCREHEWIAE SIEWtITTS WITH PROJECT -15349.9 -13999. 12 -86113.07 19477.74 66239.33 255189.78 330550 II 416329 79 426470. 20 55ttOO.25 580811.47 685145.44 1003498 96 1003498.96... ..... 112*2 222221 112*22#t* .... 22 ..... ....- . ....

INVESTIN[IN COSTS

fiELD DEVEEOPENEI 56282.00 73422.00 87699 00 86311.00 80844.00 60844 00 80644.00 08044.00 80844.00 80844.00 60844.00 80844 00 A0844.00 80844.00FIELD AND UNUSER? 8514.00 6359.00 6326.00 8293.00 6328.00.-..-.-FACTOR? DEVELOPMENT 73870.00 52054.00 36113.00 11292 00 5245.00---MINI 11160 - 22594.00 22594.00 72594 00 6654.00 -VEHICLES 30061 00 10335.00 7215.00 4540. 00 9586.00....-.-- HOUSING 10491.00 8543.00 7135.00 5720. 00 5367.00 ---.----MEDICALI 6365.00 2596.00 1236 00 626 00 462.00-.-- - .-SUBSIDIES 2676.00 7707.00 16705 00 11413.00 17q4g.oo 13867.00 7822 00-.--.-INVESIMNTNS 188259.00 185712.00 T87583.O0 155901. 00 136450.00 94711.00 68566.00 60844.00 80814.00 80844.00 80844.00 60644.00 80844 00 80644 00

NEt INCRENFINAL AEW[FITS

tEA -203608.92 -1997111,12 -196496.01 -137423 26 68210.57 160478.78 241884, 13 335485.29 417516.20 410756 26 499997.42 804307 44 927654.96 977654.962±222?:: t2~t ;t:;:;..:::: 222 2l1222222lfl3:22-2.........22r

2 2 2... I......!!12*22I22......t27122.222...2

.-- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -

August 13. 1984 19: 00

Internal RaIes of Return of Net Stream,22!22222!!! 2722!222f1f 2212-

WURISIE 27. 091

SWITCHING VALUES AT tO!

APPRAISAE SWITCHING PIACENTIAF FSTREAM VAtLU VALUE CHANGE

NsISTE 3. 25%.090. 81 I. 125. 013 3% -70.041

CIRVEsSITE 1. 125. 013 .15 3. 755. 090 Al 233 783

NPV P lOt I 2.6.10.077. 5lRp * 2?. ItCERR I 371

SRI 18113*

tUIRMl IREt CROPS PReAtCI

JFD8 RIIIIFR - PROJIr. COSI AND BEIIETI ShRF4SS FOI ECONOil ANAl SIS....... ......... ,.... .... ... . ...... .. ............ ...... ........ .+..

IIHOUSANOS OF RllPEESI

....................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................ .................. ....... .

1985 1986 19$7 1986 1989 1990 1991 199 1993 191q4 I9S 2013 7014....................... ....................................... - ................. ............................. ,. ........ .. ............................. ............ ....................... ....... ..................

NET SENEFITS WINHOUt PROJECT, .... ........ _.................

PROOUCIION NiTHUUI PROJECI 18493.00 18769.00 19150.00 19538 00 20234.00 20575.00 20585 00 20692.00 20561.00 20286.00 19759.0o 6240.00 7942 00PRICE WITHOUT PROJECT 27.13 18.74 28.74 28. 74 28. 74 30.01 30 09 30.05 30.045 30.05 31. 1; 31. 11 31. 11REVENUE NITIHOUT PROJECt 501719.01 539421.06 950371.00 551522.1 581525.16 I 18218. 75 6189579. 25 61794.60 617658.09 609994.30 814702.49 298346.40 241019.32OPERATING COSTS WITH OUT PROJECT 239653.18 242464.74 745059.00 249739.48 296323.64 2S1S49.50 299644. 10 260655.32 259417.06 2569115.56 251630 14 142860.40 140041.12REVISED OPERAtING COSIS W lRIIEUI PROJECI 143912.27 145471 84 141641140 149843.69 153794. 18 155729. 70 155781. 46 156392. 79 15950.624 154069.34 151098.08 £5716.14 84074.79NEI VA4UE NIITHOUI PROJECI .571102.12 393942.22 402729.60 411678.43 427730.991 4549.05 452792.79 410400. 81 462207.11 455504 96 4t3604.41 110610.16 163050.11

||tlll~~~~~~~~~T S tWwfSs:'SS:stls9* -- 5s t:::::'t:......... ...... .. ..... ::7t: .... :75..':;a- -sStSTJtXNEI BENEIIIS WITH PROJECI.. +.......................

PRCOUCTION WITH PROJECT 18493.00 18169.00 1615000 15393600 70734.00 20575.00 20987.00 71799.00 22591.00 23319.00 23821.00 14768.00 10454.00PPICE ITIH PROJECT 22. 13 28. 74 28.74 28 74 28. 74 30. 36 30.3 30 36 30.736 30.036 31.743 31.043 312 4REVENUE WITH PROJFCI 501715.09 539421.06 550371.00 551522. 12 581525. 16 624657100 371T65.32 661817.64 665652 76 707964.84 748819.75 464154.24 457712 21OPERATIIG COSIS UlTI PROJECl 239653.78 240451.53 241181.50 243294 84 247336.72 248581.25 252289.13 259565 01 766705.09 273249.81 17719A175 196315.32 1943899 3REVISED OPEFATING COSTS Hill PROJECI * 143912.217 144270.92 145068 90 145976.90 148407.01 140148.75 151371.08 155751T01 160023.05 153949.89 166679 25 117825.79 116633.12NEl VALUE WIIH PRnJECI 3157802.62 399150.14 405302.10 415599492 433122. it 415108.25 465194 74 5060h63 52$839.71 544014.95 582140.50 146332.45 340571 49

…2: t1 33 (EI 111IIItlttl2-t tt .'1 1712 *1 721lt39 ::,92?:::: 0 15027 1117INCREMENTAL BENEFITS WITH PROJECI 1866.18 532 I 2990 2300 1.45 4065.A3 6;5;.89 88509.9 8 029e

INVESTMENI COSIS...... ... I....

TIUID OEVEIOPItENI 15697.00 19886.00 21493.00 22099.00 22676 00 12965.00 95 000 65159.00 3844.00 1825.00 *TIEtt AND NURSERY 811.00 754.00 226.00 244.00 198.00 * * - * * *FACIORT OFVEtLPE ENT 4606.00 73341.00 11364.00 4300.00 3685.00 * - - * * . - -VtiEICLEs 8857.00 9184.00 4809.00 J331.00 347.00 * - * * * -IToulrlO 889.00 926. 00 1002. 00 596. 00 S98.00 * * -MEDICAL 68 1. 00 410.00 901.00 2ei.00l 91.400 SUBSIDILS 309.00 854.00 1621.00 2320.00 3233.00 3810.00 3261.00 2383.00 1583 00 753.00INVCI%TENTS * 32112.00 55415.00 40916 00 33701.00 31036.00 16635.00 127Sl.00 9157.00 5427.00 2576.00 -

.. 2g : !:?!tt:t: t:-:::-::. :t:.::.::.::: :tla;snr.,.,..r.- -Ste eslftIutt I:l3ttr-* **.3t t1t It' 2wR- :-:r:::

Ntil INCREMtiAl RFNEITIS............. ...............

RUBtFR -*2112 00 54207.07 -38403.50 -29134.12 *25613.815 3875.80 10090 4t 31513.33 5812049 85931.99 118935 09 175702.29 177527.66.:'::::'-: :::::::::' ':ttihte l.st.t PItI h t.t...tl . .: ''-' ,t-*t '- *el-1tt- lt-t-

.. . . . ................ .............. ,...... ...... . - ...... ,...., , ..... .. . . . .... ... .... ... ... .... ... . . . . . . . . .. .. . ..... .. . . . . . .. . .. . .

August 13. 19A4 18:59

InTentsz IRates oT Return oftNet Streat

UIIJREM 23. 621

SWITCIIINO VALUES AT lot

APPRAISAL SWITCHINII PIRCENIACESItRFA VALUE VA4Ul CHANGE

e.:- -:::::::W : r:::. --........................ , 2.:: I....

tIPJRE. 641, 193.22 111.410.864 13.721

C.I:lNVE%l.lPr 171. 410.U 6tl 41191 27 I. all 1.. . . . . . . ... .. . .. . . . . .. . .. .... ....... .... .............

NPV P IOJl 46q.767.4IRR * 23.9 2CtRR 39. 61

Present Value of Streams at Il.001

SRI tANKA

IOIIRIH TREE CROPS PROJECI

SPC RUBBER * PROJ1.CT COST ANO BtNEFIT STREAMS FOR ECONOMIC ItAltSIS

IIHOUSANDS Or *UPtS;

............................. ...................................... ...... .......... .. . ...................... ........... ..... .. . . .. ............. ....... .. . ................. .............. . ... ....................................... .......... .... .... .. . ....

Iq85 t985 1967 lfi loss9 tS9O 1991 1112 1293 1194 1915 2013 2014................................................................................................... .. ...................... .... ............ ... .... ... ......... .... ........... ................ ..... ...................... . ... ..... .. ...... ... ... . ..

NEI BENEFIIS WIIHoUI PROJECI............................

PRODUCIION WITHOUT PROJICI 26840.00 28849. 00 26134.00 27181.00 72445 00 29104.00 29813.00 79980 00 21188.00 29182.00 28282. 00 8527 0o 8032 00PRICE WITH1OUT PROJECT 21.13 25s14 21.74 28 74 28 74 20.05 30.05 30.05 20.05 30.05 31.11 21. 11 31. 11REVENUE WITHOUI PROJECT 128169.70 111640.26 151091.1B 796023.56 81150a .30 892605.20 895680.65 900699 00 895129.40 176919 TO 619853.07 765306.08 249815.59OPIRAIING COSTS WITHOUT PROJECT 348114.40 348199.54 341425.64 358883.82 363191. 70 315701.84 376238.98 377818.80 316002.48 370769.12 361755.72 174882.88 170110.12REVISED OPERATING COSTS WITIHOUI PROJECT 208868.64 708919.12 204861.38 214130.79 717978.6 7225124.70 225743.39 226691.28 115601.49 217161.63 217053.43 104929 73 102114.43NEI VAlUE NItIHOUI PROJECI 519300.56 552720.54 546129.78 51893. 29 599530.88 867480.50 670137.72 874201.12 669577.91 654757.27 661799.59 160376.35 141161.oq

*2..Iu.S 2:3mm..ss 38t*3u: :t-t**UtI st113fleet hst W $80I0t2t Sysru : u .E3e- 2 Iu2E2tr 3::g3::::: 121e3922:. :23:s:::: ...I.7,::

NEI RENEFITS IIH PROJECI.........................

PROODUCTION WilT PROJECT 26840.00 26849 00 26114 00 21767.00 28445.00 29704.00 30748.00 32367.00 34058.00 35514.00 31696 00 21902.00 21560.00PRICE WilTi PROJECI 21.31 28.74 28.74 28.14 28 74 30.38 3 5 J0J 30.36 30.36 10. 21.43 31.43 31 43REVENUE ITIH PROJECI 733000.40 771640.26 151091. is 198023 58 811509.30 901813.44 933509.28 9821510.32 1024000.88 1078705.04 1153155.28 888379.86 677630.80OPERAFINC COSTS MITH PROJECT 348114. 40 345312. 13 3355718. I 342698.06 350604.60 359252.96 368748.52 383258.38 398505. 41 411594 86 422221.04 289222.98 268148.40REVISED OPERATING COSI HIIH PROJECI 108468. 64 07167.28 701316.91 208617.64 210362.76 215617.78 221249.11 729915.02 239103.25 248951.92 752332.62 173S32.19 111689.04NET VALUE WITH PROJECI 574131. 6 564452.98 549774.25 519405.14 807148.54 888195.65 712260.17 752555.29 794697.63 631246. 17 900022.66 S14846.207 10941.16

INCREMENTAL BENEfITS WITH PROJECT 431J.10 1137.41 3144.48 1511.65 761586 18115.17 42122.91 78347.57 125369. TI 176490.86 231223.07 314459.17 358180.F7....hu ...::uhuw.... hyuuul.*l.2l t... I mle t,. : :3:it v ....* IS ...... t. S* .... I.-::?,i2

INVESTMENT COSTS...... ......... _

ltElO CEVET.OPENMI 31619.00 3414 400 31919.00 37791.00 37891.00 378S6 00 23240.00 15594.00 11845.00 7399.00 3337.00TIlED AND NURSERY 2362.00 935.00 1120 00 8107.00 918.00 * * . . .* * -FACTORT DEWLIOPMENI 3840. 00 19965.00 13054.00 SI28.00 3O686 - - * VEHICtES 10104.00 3927 00 1622.00 1812.00 2017.00 - -HOUSING 1842.00 1647.00 1357. 00 1030.00 987.00 - - -MEDICAL 13S3.00 584.00 218 00 137.00 108.00SUBSIDIES 223.00 1648.00 3431.00 4844.00 6751. 00 8007.00 6434.00 4832.00 3199.00 1443.00INVESIMENT COStS 52119.00 61700.00 59181.00 92009.00 52392.00 45875.00 29674.00 21426.00 15045.00 6842.00 3337.00

NEI INCREMENTAL BENEFITS

RUBBER -47281.60 -I*61917. S 56236.52 -46498.34 .44711.14 *27159 83 12448.91 56971.57 110374 71 151848.86 233886.07 354459.72 358180.67* SS,: :::2tws2 .... ..... ..... .. t, .. viust .. tt . , . ..um...: t.::....-. .ml. fuh. Is:

.... .... ..... ................................................... . .... .. ........... ....................... ......... ............. ............... ....................... ... --- -- ...........................................................

August 13. 19R4 19.00

Internal lates of Return of Net Sltoams

lU6Sl IM 17. 018

SWilTCHIN VALUES 11 lOT

APPRAISAI SWtTCHING PERCNTIAGESTREAM VALUE VALUE ETIAWGL

NISRtiM 1. 8i 953.74 175.071 7I -18. 495

Ct IMISTISRE 715, 071. 7 1. 71 953. 14 364. 951

ItPV 0 10 IO *. 063 OOW. 9TI1 I 17. ISCIRR ' 49.91

Present Valuta of Streas at 10.001

SRI 1ANKA

IOURIH TREE CROPS PROJECI... ...... ..................

IOt EncOOul * pRoflrCl £\fil SIO 8NITE1 5111tS40 TOo trwon0ic *mAtYSIS................ ............. ................... I............................................. *

IIHOUSANDS or RUPEES)............. .................

. ............. ........ .... ................... ......... .... .... .... ... ... . ...... .... ......... ........ ............ ....... .......... . ...... .......... .. ..................... ...... ....... .... ....................... ............... .... ... ...

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1201 ISO? 1996 19S4 19945 lq'6 2013 2014

NET STIEFTIS WIT1HOLt; P1031*- 61---------------------...........................

PROUCTION WiIIlUI pROdrrI 355I15.00 J4S9?.00 34133 00 144576 OO 45256.00 37224.00 39754.00 42216 00 43971 00 46318.00 48013 00 49454.00 48120 00 4T120 n0PRICE WITHOUT PROJECI 3. 11 2 64 2.64 2.54 2.64 7.42 7 42 2 42 2.42 2. 42 2 33 2. 13 2. 31 233REVENUE IIIIHAIJI PROJECT 110451.65 91338.05 90111. 12 91780.54 931768.64 90082.08 96204.66 102167. 56 106409.62 117084.72 112010.09 115251.12 113517.60 113517.60885E OPRAIIiNG COSIS NIIIOIII PROJECI 277t3.00 21432 00 217i1 00 27425.00 7777.00 28407.00 29346 00 30260.00 10910.00 31780.00 32433.00 3794300 32677,00 12672.00REVISED OPERAIING COSI WIIHOIII PROJECI IS130.18 181OS 12 11997.26 18100l S 1032.62 18146.63 19316.36 19971.60 20400.60 20974.60 21405.17 21745.68 21563.52 21461, 57NFI VtALUt WIHOUI PROJECI 92121 47 73230.96 77118.8t 13140. 1545$.82 71133.46 76836.32 82195.86 86009.72 91109,97 90604 11 93SOS 44 91954.08 91954 08

NET BENEF ItS WITH PO0WECI.....................-...

POODUCTION WIIH PROJECI J5727.00 35000 00 34658 00 32779.00 36408.00 38773.00 41851.00 44330.00 47052.00 513S1.00 54002.00 54594.00 61232.00 672.12 00PRICE NIlH PROJECI J. 11 2.64 2.64 7.64 2.64 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.31 2.33 2 33 7.J.1REVE811EI WITH PROJECI 111095.42 97400 00 91497. 12 93136 56 q6111.84 93831O,6 101279.47 107218 40 111865.U4 124769 47 126154 68 115%24 02 15mb50.56 156fi50o,5ALVIIIUC IRON OLD PALMS * - 210.00 303 00 264.00 343 00 419.00 697.00 874 00 768 00 652.00 -GROSS REVENUt NIIH PROJECI 111095.42 92400.00 91491. 12 93345i5E 95414.84 94094 86 101622.42 101697.60 114551.84 125143.42 128922. 66 137176.02 156650.56 ISGf50.55BASE OPERATING COSIS Will PROJElT 27935.00 21160 00 26172 00 76988 00 27353 00 29214.00 30358J 00 31230.00 32188.00 33102.00 34987 00 38251 00 39202.00 J9292.00R1VISt0 OPtRA3tN4 COSTS VIIH PROJICI 15431. 10 17975.60 17636.52 17517.08 15059.58 19320 64 20036.28 70611.80 21244.08 22243.32 23091.42 23925.66 25932.772 25912 72NET WALlIE WIIH PROJECI 92645 37 74474.40 738fi0.60 45534.48 78355.25 74713.67 51585.14 87085.80 93313. 76 10o900 10 105831.24 113250, 36 130711.84 130711. 84

INrRIHEIH4A BEliFlIS IITH PROJCI 536.85 1741 44 1741.74 2354 34 7899.44 3440 36 4749.f7 40C9.84 7304.54 11740.1 11 5726.91 19144 97 3F1G2 76 30101.16

INVISTMENT COSIS................

FIELD DEVELOrNENI $17.00 2405.00 4100 00 SU40.00 6701.00 5443.00 SS04 00 4577.00 3750 00 3164 00 2)58 00 2179,00FIEtD AND NURSERY 11523.00 3049 00 930 00 * . . . . . .IIACTORY TITVInPmTIII 7332 00 1050 00 * - * * * .VEiJCEt 6371.00 1014 00 546 00 335.00 281 00 - * * - * * .

HOUSING 1318 00 1103 00 422.00 346 00 260.00 - * * . * *NEDICAl 293.O0° 153.00 169.00 67.00 30 00 -SUfSIOIES 41.00 60.00 569 00 845 00 1174.00 1563.00 1651.00 1731 00 1445 00 1030 00 668 00 302 00INIISITEIIS 32707.00 4040 00 167116 00 7113.O0 8457.00 8016.00 1155,00 6403.00 519S 00 4194.00 2876.00 2411. 0

NEI INCRtMLNITAL 9E11£1IS........... ........ .............. ..

COC(41UI -72170.15 -7796.56 -4994. 26 -4838.66 -552.56 -4575 64 -2405.1t -1513. 18 2 lOll. 54 7596, 18 12400.93 11313 92 181763.16 i1763751z:::t:sgusrht si;'= f s ?u ,*e!,i!.| f 2 ::st.: t.,S rusts::,T *StttS :: !:5* t5*r' ru::-'sss.1r e 2t:,.. ts *5,55,11' ?tt 2 ':::1' t 555 Xt' 5 5*s?s''-

Auguist 1i. 1984 18. 59

Inloral Rates el Risturn l Ntb SIre^s

NUISJCE IC 811

SWIIICIIING VWAIVES Al 101

*PPRAI-AI SWIITCllING PERCENIAG F1STI1IIA" V1A*1 VA) Ur CHANGE

WTSJ;I: 17. 711 5$ 60. 304. 73 -50. 86$t

r luE[SliJrE 60.309.?3 172.711 S8 103.501

. .. . ....... .............. ... ......... ...............................

PYV P lot - 61.421 8II i I165C£1P *7 21

-114- Annex 5Chart 1

SRI LANKAFOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Janatha Estates Development BoardOrganization Chart

ministoy otJanotho Estates

(Minister)1

§ htemol Audit Canho Polkv Board Monitodng LWdt(Chief) (ChdMXm) ~~~~~~~~~~~~(Indlependent Consuitonts)I

BExcutIve Committee I Plannin Unind(Manoging Dlrector)2 (Nogerf

| Hattbn & Awswella Control Boord omce InsflMlan(Chdmxn) l l | (Manaoging Drector) Development Unit

. RegncBowd n NunzcF Blya & Kancds Moneethng F _ Rnowe

(Chlarnn) (DeuyGM) (Deputy GM)

Regbial Board g Adminstrotbon _ Industriol Relatlons_ o _clo (Dept GM) (Deputy GM)

(Chai,,-on)

PrOduce & Warehoush _ Supplies & InsuranceRegkml Boorci iv (DepulyCGM) (Deputy GM)

Kegole & Nawaitpr y . .(Cairmron) Feitlzer. Maintenonee Rubber. Coconuts

_ &u& Social Devebpment & Stndy Products(Deputy GM) l(Depuy GM)

Regiona ordVChI & Kuanegaia n& transport

| (Chairman) l l (Deput GM) (Manager)

Noas

Common to SPC & JEDB.2 Conis of Manainrg Dibctor pius Regonai Board Chairmen & Senbr Eiecute

Wold Bank-22626

Annex 5-115- Chart 2

SRI LANKAFOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Stae Plantations Corporaofn (SPC)Organization Chart

tnstrv ot State Plantationr(Mlnister)

irternrl Audit Central Pollcy Board Matorlng UnIt(Chif) (Chdn) (Infldependent Cornultants)

Executiv/e CormmMfee Ploanring Litt(Mcanaging Dhmetor)2Mocsr

Regional BOard I Ia rtitutionHation & Mdtd1e _nDevelome nt Unwit

(Chaiman) (Manoaer)

Regional Boaird 11Nunia Elyao & Hoputale Adminision Finonce

(Chaornor.) (Geneorol Manage)

Regional Board III Produce Maketing suppliesHarano & Kolutor _ (General Makager) (Manager)

(Chaknon;)

Engineering Sociol Deve opnetRegionl BoErI lV (Chef Engineer) (MonQ;er)

Galle&MMoatro(Choaiman)

Regionl Boad VPatnopura & Balongoda

(Choairon)

Note:

ICaonron to SPC & JEDB2 Consts dt Managing Director plus Regional Board Choirmen & Senior Executrvas

World Bonk-26225

-116-Annex 6

SRI LANKA

FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT

Doculmnts in Project File

Item 1 - Preparation Document

Vol l(a) - Summary and OverviewVol l(b) - Revisions to Summary and OverviewVol 2(a) - JEDB Corporate PlanVol 2(b) - JEDB Revisions to Corporate PlanVol 3(a) - SPC Corporate PlanVol 3(b) - SPC Revisions to Corporate Plan

Item 2 - A Manual on Tea Cultivation (December 1983)

Item 3 - SPC and JEDB Social Development Component Details

Item 4 - Proposed Plan for Computerization

Item 5 - Tea Estate Housing Parts I and II

Item 6 - Worksheets for Financial and Economic Rates of Return Calculations

Item 7 - Financial Economic and Fiscal Rates of Return Computations

Item 8 - Working PapersA. Institutional DevelopmentB. RubberC. CoconutsD. TeaE. Rehabilitation of Mini-Hydro Schemes

Item 9 - Implementation Program for Organization Reform and ManagementInformation Systems of SPC and JEDB

I,7

/

03'wo

0

C

C

aa

* S

3%

7-7

9 �

>

IBRD 1l

82' MAY

U;N \: - - XuSRI LANKA

---- f BATTICALOA 'FOURTH TREE CROPS PROJECT: - <- \'. PLANTATION DISTRICTS AND LAND USE

KANDY Plantation District AreasI - ft \ °~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Selscted Towns

-% - - - 0 { sa > 0 National Capital

Land UseTea

-- g ,, ; RubberCoconuts

AMPARAI Relief:- . - i High Country (above 1200 meters)

N ' i NlMid Country (600-1200 meters)Low Country (below 600 meters)

- RiversI--\. '3 | District Bo.jndories

NtERAGALA j

* f \ + 1- ) 83-

3 1A.

I -~~. Z. N D I A

ECOLOGICAL ~ A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ZONES

Dry ZoneInterfrtediote

ZoneWet Zone * ZA,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 Selected Ibwns ~KILOMETERS Napitoal t f

T11 Iws Dom amnuda The 1Wb lor , s w .. d 7 t Boundaries -VW ands amaak.yl e*o mo h VbCM 5Iw.Sm, awV f~b

F aw GWen The _oaom ufd VW the bmsXWW MV- n fitsB MM do ndr: -rJ- =<4.my an VW Pw of TheVAbM ari* NW NiehaV. Fnmce CaWeb.Wn mSy p,nwt n C. wsd_ w w nrsdana VW, mg ablo ca hfo.y oay m.wm vcmDftmcat ,di bme

1W~~~~~~~~682' Gle6