public disclosure authorized the world...

Document of

The World Bank-.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 3677-LBR

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

LIBERIA

LOFA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT II

April 5, 1982

Western Africa Projects DepartmentAgriculture Division 4

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

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

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

LIBERIA

LOFA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PHASE Ii

Currency Equivalent

Currency Unit = United States Dollars

Weights and Measures

1 metric ton 0.98 long ton1 long ton = 2,240 lb - 1,016 metric ton

1 hectare (ha) 2.47 acres1 acre = 0.405 hectare

1 kilometer (km) = 0.62 mile1 mile 1.609 kilometer

Abbreviations

ACDB - Agricultural and Cooperative Development BankADF - African Development FundADP - Agricultural Development ProjectAEA - Agricultural Extension AideCAO - County Agricultural OfficerCARI - Central Agricultural Research InstituteCCA - Cooperative Credit AssistantCDA - Cooperative Development AgencyCMEU - Central Monitoring and Evaluation UnitCS - Cooperative Society

CSD - Commercial Services DivisionDCC - District Cooperative CommitteeEO - Extension OfficerFRU - Feeder Roads Unit

GOL - Government of Liberia

IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentLCCC - Liberia Cocoa and Coffee CorporationLPMC - Liberia Produce Marketing CorporationLPPC - Liberia Palm Products CorporationM & E - Monitoring and Evaluation UnitMOA - Ministry of Agriculture

MPE - Ministry of Public WorksSEA - Senior Extension Aide

SSU - Schistosomiasis Surveillance UnitTCU - Town Cooperative Unit

WARDA - West Africa Rice Development Association

Fiscal Year

July 1 - June 30

LIBERIA FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

Table of Contents

Page No.

I. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR .... ................ ................ 1

Background ............................... ..I'. ............... 1Agricultural Sector Characteristics .. 2Agricultural Sector Development Objectives . 2Strategy and Constraints . ....................... .... ....... . 2Bank Group Lending ................. ........ .4 ....... . . 3Agricultural Institutions and Services . . 4

II. THE PROJECT AREA ............................ ... .. . ... . 6

Location and General Characteristics 6Roads and Communication. ... . .. 6Farming Systems ... . ... . . .... . 6Rural Services. . ............. .......... 7The Phase I Project ... . ..... . 7

III. THE PROJECT . ........ 10

General .... 10Summary Description ... . ......................... 10Detailed Features.......... .. 11Cost Estimates .......... .............. 14Proposed Financing . . .16Procurement. ..... ..... . ....... .16Budgeting, Accounts and Audit . 19

IV. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT .20

Project Organization ......... ... . ... o .20Farmers Participation .. 20Staffing... ... 21Extension Services ....... .... 21Training..... 22Plant Production and Research ..... 22Cooperative Development .. . ..... 23Land Planning, Roads ...................... ......... oo-o ..... 27Schistosomiasis ... .. ................. ............ 28Monitoring and Evaluation o ..... . ....... . ....... ... 28

This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission consisting ofMessrs. Drayton, Headworth, and Ms. Mackrandilal (IDA), and Messrs. Hodgkinson,Persson and Duris (Consultants), which visited Liberia in June 1981.

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

Table of Contents (Cont'd)

Page No.

V. PRODUCTION SPECIFICATIONS .................... .. .. 29

VI. DEMAND, MARKETING, PRICES, AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .......... 33

Demand ................................... 33Marketing .................................. 34Prices ............... ... .........** .*.. .... . 34Financial Returns to Farmers ...... ......................... 35Financial Implications for Government ...................... 37

VII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION ......................... .. ...... 37

Overall Benefits .......... . * ............ . ..*............ 37Economic Rate of Return .... ... ... ............. ... ......... 38Risks and Sensivity . 39

VIII. AGREEMENTS, CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . ................ 40

Tables in Text

Table 1 Crop Development and Improvement - Phase 1Table 2 Summary of Project CostsTable 3 Project FinancingTable 4 Crop Yield AssumptionsTable 5 Farmgate PricesTable 6 Farm Incomes

Annexes

Annex 1 Detailed Project CostsAnnex 2 Estimated Schedule of DisbursementAnnex 3 Project Crop Area DevelopmentAnnex 4 Incremental Crop ProductionAnnex 5 Table 1-Crop Budgets per ha at Full Development

Table 2-Farm ModelsAnnex 6 Government Cash FlowAnnex 7 Table 1 Economic Costs and Benefits

Table 2 Economic Analysis: Internal Rate of Return;Sensitivity Analysis

Annex 8 Project Organogram

LIBERIA


I. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

A. Background

1.01 Liberia has an area of 111,400 sq. km. of which some 6,200 sq. km.are used for agriculture. Total population is estimated at 1.8 million, ofwhich 1.2 million or 70% is rural. Population growth is approximately 3.3%per annum, with a rural rate of around 2.2% and an urban rate of about 5.8%,due to heavy migration from rural areas and some migration from outsideLiberia. There are some 157,000 agricultural housesholds with an average sizeof 5.4 persons.

1.02 Liberia has a highly dualistic economy, characterized by a tradi-tional sector which is mainly agricultural, and a modern foreign-controlledenclave sector which is export oriented. The traditional sector, althoughemploying over 70% of the total labor force, contributes less than one-fifthof GDP. The enclave sector produces iron ore, rubber and forestry products;it accounts for about 70% of export earnings, 30% of GDP, and 15% of allGovernment revenues. Agricultural exports from both sectors account for 36%of total exports (1980) and include rubber, forest products, coffee, cocoa andpalm products. Over the last five years, the weaknesses in the economy,stemming from dependence on a few export commodities, and poor management,have become evident. Real GDP grew at an annual rate of only 1.2% over1976-1980, implying a decline in per capita income. In contrast, GDP growthrate had averaged about 6% in the sixties, and about 4.2% between 1970 and1974. The decline in iron ore mining and rubber exports, in the wake ofrecession in the industrialized countries, was the principal factor adverselyaffecting GDP growth, balance of trade and government revenues despite thefact that the agriculture sector (including the subsistence economy) continuedto grow at an annual rate of 4.1% during this period and significant growthalso took place in the service sectors.

1.03 Budgetary deficits have been significant in recent years, reaching$120 million in 1978/79 and $95 million in 1979/80. This was due to lowercollection of import duties, a rise in development expenditures, and heavyoutlays on the 1979 Organization of African Unity (OAU) Conference. The1980/81 budget deficit is $97 million. A stabilization program agreed withthe IMF is currently underway, and is expected to ease budgetary and liquidityproblems.

1.04 Income distribution in Liberia is highly skewed. Average GNPin 1979 is estimated at US$500. However, the enclave sector yields a percapita GNP of about $1,620 compared to $780 for the rest of the monetizedeconomy, and the great majority of the population who live in the traditionalnon-monetized sector have a per capita income of less than $185 per annum.About 62% of private income is claimed by the top 5% of households, and only11% of private income is received by the lowest 40%'.

- 2-

B. Agriculture Sector Characteristics

1.05 Agriculture is now the largest sector in the country contributingabout 32% to the GDP (14% monetary and 18% traditional). Three distinct typesof farming systems characterize the sector: (a) foreign-owned plantations ofrubber and forestry producing exclusively for exports; (b) Liberian-ownedcommercial and state farms, engaged primarily in rubber production, but withsecondary interests in coffee, cocoa and oil palm, and gradually moving intoother activities, such as poultry and pig production; and (c) traditionalfarms consisting of smallholders (90% of all agricultural households) whoproduce mainly for home consumption with small surpluses sold for cash pur-poses. The principal cash crops are rubber, coffee and cocoa. Annual rubberproduction is currently 80,000 tons (down from 85,000 tons in the mid 1970s),of which 70% is produced by six foreign concessions. Coffee and cocoa exportswere about 10,000 tons and 3,400 tons respectively in 1980/81. Rice andcassava are the main crops of traditional smallholders, with annual productionof 244,000 tons (paddy) and 155,000 tons, respectively. Crop yields ontraditional farms are low. Except for those within the ADP's, farmers havelittle access to capital and agricultural inputs; agricultural technology isrudimentary and infrastructure is inadequate. Coffee and cocoa are the maincash crops for smallholders, who also sell palm kernels from the harvestedfruit of wild oil palms. Due to unsuitable climatic conditions, absence ofnatural pastures and prevalence of trypanosomiasis, livestock production is ofminor importance in traditional agriculture.

C. Agricultural Sector Development Objectives, Strategy and Constraints:

1.06 Objectives. The first National Socio-Economic Development Plan(1976-80) aimed at diversification of production, geographical dispersion ofsustainable economic activities throughout the country, total invo]Lvement ofthe entire population in the development effort, and equitable aistribution ofthe benefits of economic growth and diversification so as to ensure an accept-able standard of living to people throughout the country. The 1981-85 plan,guidelines for which are now being prepared, is expected to have the sameobjectives and priorities.

1.07 To achieve Plan objectives, there has been a growing emphasis onagricultural and rural development, particularly smallholders. Allocationsfor agriculture have increased from about 4% of the public sector developmentbudget in 1970 to about 21% in 1979/80. In the 1980/81 development: budget,the largest sectoral allocation (30%) went to agriculture, amounting to $35.6million. The specific goals for agriculture are: (a) diversification of theproduction base and (b) improvements in the institutional structure.

1.08 Strategy. The main thrust of the sectoral strategy is to raiseincome level productivity and living conditions of small farmers throughprovision of improved inputs and technology in rice, some livestock and treecrop cultivation, and basic infrastructure. The land-use policy is to encour-age farmers to cultivate rice in the swamps and lowlands and to grow treecrops on the uplands. This is because swamp rice carries a yield potentialtwo to three times that of upland rice, and, on uplands, tree crops offer afar superior monetary return--three to four times--compared with upland

- 3 -

rice. Tree crops would also avoid the heavy labor of regular land clearingand help to halt erosion and loss of soil fertility. However, the change fromupland rice to tree crops will take many years, and, in the meantime, thestrategy is to provide improved seed and other inputs for use by rice farmersin order to increase productivity, in addition to encouragement of tree cropproduction. The small farmer development strategy is mainly being pursuedwithin the framework of area-based integrated agricultural development proj-ects (ADPs) which are designed to provide basic inirastructure, such as roads,wells, health surveillance units, etc., inputs and a range of farm supportservices for the introduction of modern technology, and the promotion ofcooperatives. So far, three such projects are in operation. Additionally,Government is pursuing: (a) the decentralization of its agricultural servicesand improvement of the administration of agricultural programs; and (b)development and improvement of agricultural research, extension ar.d training.

1.09 Constraints. Though some of the above strategies have begun tomake an impact, there are still severe constraints on agricultural development,the most notable of which are a shortage of budgetary allocations, and Govern-ment's inability to provide ongoing analysis of these strategies, particularlyin their economic and institutional aspects. Also, Government has not fullyexplored such other possible avenues for sector development as crop pricingincentives, the linkage between rural roads and farming improvements, researchinto the introduction of labor-saving techniques in the farming systems, andthe promotion of other staples such as cassava to supplement rice. Thereis a shortage of qualified and experienced agricultural officers and cropspecialists, and the existing lower level extension staff are inadequatelytrained, ill-equipped and poorly supervised. This situation would impede thedecentralization process (Government has deferred the national decentralizationprogram which was being prepared under the previous Government). Shortage ofcrops storage and marketing facilities, transport, available inputs, agricul-tural support services, and poorly developed farmers' organizations, such ascooperatives, also prevail. Although international and bilateral agenciesparticipate in the sector development, there is need for a formal mechanismfor coordinating their activities.

D. Bank Group Lending

1.10 Bank Group lending in the sector supports Government's objectivestowards increased smallholder participation. The Bank's first project (1972)(Credit 306-LBR for US$1.6 million) consisted of a pilot rubber developmentstudy and technical assistance, which led to Bank investment in the LofaCounty Agricultural Development Project (Cr. 577-LBR for US$6 million), theBong County Agricultural Development Project (Cr. 700-LBR for US$7 million),the Rubber Development Project (Cr. 786-LBR for US$13 million/Ln. 1544-LBR).A Forestry Development Project (Cr. 839-LBR for US$6 million) and an Oil PalmProject (Ln. 1765-LBR for US$12 million) have since been added. The Lofaproject which was started in 1976 is progressing satisfactorily and is due toend in September 1981. Government has received assurance from USAID that theywill provide bridging funding for the period between project completion andthe start-up of Phase II. The Bong project, after a slow start (1978) andinitial management problems, is also being implemented satisfactorily. TheRubber Project which became effective October 1978 aims at strengthening

Liberian-owned rubber production, but because of management problems, poorpricing, and a shortage of processing facilities, this project is has beenrevised. The Forestry Project was made effective in July 1978, ancd isexpected to strengthen forestry institutions and to increase the productionof lumber mainly for export. The performance of this project in general hasbeen satisfactory. The Decoris Oil Palm Project became effective in February,1981, and is expected to establish oil palm production on smallholders plotsand a nucleus estate. In spite of considerable delays in meeting conditionsfor effectiveness, and financial constraints, project implementation isprogressing reasonably well.

E. Agricultural Institutions and Services

1.11 Ministry of Agriculture: The Ministry is headed by a Ministerwho is assisted by three Deputy Ministers, each heading a department. ABureau of Administration and Management is headed by an Assistant Minister,and the holders of these latter four positions along with the Minister consti-tute the Ministry's primary management team. MOA is the principal institutionin agriculture, and is responsible for planning and implementing agriculturalprograms, and regulating specialized semi-autonomous organizations, which aremainly involved in export crops. Although its budgetary allocations increasedfive-fold between 1973 and 1979, its impact has been limited mainly for thereasons stated in para. 1.06 above. MOA recognizes the need for major adjust-ments in the organizations, and is in the process of effecting a decentraliza-tion program which would strengthen its county offices. USAID is providingassistance to MOA in its restructuring, and is currently preparing a projectfor improving the extension services with technical assistance, logisticssupport and training.

1.12 Agricultural Research: Activities in agricultural research areprimarily carried out at the Central Agricultural Research Institute (CARI) atSuakoko in Bong county. This institute is the result of a conversion of theold Central Agricultural Experiment Station, and is a semi-autonomous organi-zation responsible to a committee under the chairmanship of the Minister ofAgriculture. Under an agreement with Government, USAID will implement aproject with the primary objective of assisting in the establishment andfunctioning of this institute. USAID will provide management staff, agricul-tural scientists and overseas training for Liberians in agricultural research.UNDP specialists will also assist CARI in its operations, and provide researchtraining for Liberian counterparts. Apart from the rice breeding programstarted under the Bank-supported Technical Assistance Project (Cr. 306-LBR)and continued with assistance provided under the Bong Project (Cr. 700-LBR),currently there has been no effective crops research program, and the outputof research findings to date has been negligible.

1.13 Liberia Produce Marketing Corporation (LPMC): This corporationhas sole responsibility for marketing coffee, cocoa, coconut and oil palmproducts, and establishing commercial production of a farmer support servicesfor these crops. It also imports rice and operates processing facilities fordomestic paddy. It is Government-owned, and has two subsidiaries, LiberiaPalm Products Corporation (LPPC), and Liberia Cocoa and Coffee Corporation

- 5 -

(LCCC), which run plantation and outgrowers schemes for producing oil palm andcoconuts, and cocoa and coffee. These subsidiaries have been a drain on LPMC'sreserves, are not efficiently operated, and are likely to be taken over byMOA. The costs of the subsidy on rice from 1979 until its removal in August1981 was financed out of the stabilization funds for coffee and cocoa and thereserves of the LPMC. This drain on its resources, compounded by the recentfall in the world market prices of coffee and cocoa has placed LPMC in afinancially vulnerable position. Furthermore, its operational and administra-tive costs are '-igh, and the marketing network (including the licenced buyingagents system) is inefficient. A reorganization of the system is necessary toensure LPMC's viability, and reduce the margins between export prices andfarmgate prices (paras. 4.15, 6.03 and 6.04).

1.14 Agricultural Credit: The Agricultural Cooperative Development Bank(ACDB) which replaced MOA's Credit Division in 1978, provides short, mediumand long-term loans to both individuals and farmers' organizations, and ruralindustries. It also provides facilities for the mobilization of rural savings.ACDB has headquarters in Monrovia and field offices in Gbarnga (Bong County),Voinjama (Lofa County) and Ganta (Nimba County). It has been unable to reachsmalholders to any significant extent, mainly because of an inadequate branchnetwork and inexperienced staff. Only Lofa, Bong and Nimba agriculturalprojects (para. 1.17) provide credit to smallholder farmers, with the ACDBserving as Bankers. Commercial banks lend mainly to concessions and commer-cial farms, and this represents about 20% of the total lending in the sector.

1.15 Cooperatives: Prior to July, 1981, a Department of Cooperativesexisted within MOA with full responsibility for cooperative activities inthe country. The Department had been poorly staffed and ill-equipped toprovide the much needed guidance and enforcement of the provisions of theCooperative Societies Act. As a result, cooperatives in general have beenpoorly supervised. Effective from July 1, 1981, Government established aCooperative Development Agency (CDA) to replace the Department of Coopera-tives. The CDA will function as an independent agency, headed by a Registrarof Cooperatives. Currently, USAID is assisting Government in establishingstaff and providing logistics support. However, this agency would requiresustained commitment and support from Government in order to function effec-tively.

1.16 Other Services: Apart from the Bank financed agricultural develop-ment projects (ADPs) of Lofa and Bong, there is a Nimba County ADP in itspilot phase, which is funded by the Federal Republic of Germany. This projectis being implemented by a mixture of expatriate and MOA staff, and runs over a4-year period -- 1979-1982. The International Fund for Agricultural Develop-ment (IFAD) has funded the Rice Seed Production Project, for which the Bankhas been appointed Cooperating Institution. This project will produceimproved rice seed for sale and distribution to farrmers throughout Liberia.The project became effective November 4, 1981, and iimplementation is about tocommence.

- 6 -

II. THE PROJECT AREA

Location and General Characteristics

2.01 The proposed project area (map IBRD No. 15550) represents an exten-sion of the Phase I area to include the entire Kolahun and Zorzor districts,thus encompassing the whole of the Upper Lofa County. Upper Lofa c:onsists ofan area of 8,000 km2, and an estimated population of 185,000 people, ofwhich 90% or 166,500 are engaged in agriculture. Population density averagesabout 16 persons/km2. The county is administered from the principal town,Voinjama, by a County Superintendent, who is appointed by the Head of State.The mean annual rainfall is 2,500 mm in the project area. There is only onerainy season (April/May to November) during which some 90% of the total annualrainfall occurs. The average monthly temperature varies only slightly around240 C. (For further details on physical features and climatic conditionssee Working Paper No. 2).

Roads and Communication

2.02 An unpaved road in poor condition links the main towns in the countyto Suakoko in Bong County. This road is in a poor condition. A tarmac roadprovides easy access between Suakoko and Monrovia. There are some 900 kms offeeder roads of fair to good condition throughout the county. Most: of thesefeeder roads were developed in the project area of the Phase I project. AMinistry of Public Works' Feeder Roads Unit (FRU), under the Bank financedThird Highway Project (Cr. 1156 LBR) and National Feeder Road Project (Cr.1664-LBR), constructed some 200 km of feeder roads between 1977 and 1981.Feeder roads construction has been slowed to a standstill because of Govern-ment's recent budgetary constraints.

Farming Systems

2.03 Shifting cultivation is the prevailing farming system in the projectarea. Fallow periods vary mainly as a consequence of population pressure,ranging from 5 to 12 years. Upland rice is the main crop and is generallysparsely intercropped with vegetables, cassava and pulses. After one harvest,a crop of cassava or groundnuts may be grown before the land reverts to fallow.

2.04 Swamp and bottomland rice is traditionally cultivated, particularlyin the Foya and Kolahun areas. Women generally grow rice in these lowlandareas on a semi-continuous basis, abandoning them only in years where theupland rice field is a considerable distance away. Under the Phase I project,improved swamp rice cultivation has been successfully introduced, replacingthe traditional practice in many areas.

2.05 Cocoa and coffee are grown as smallholder cash crops. Traditionalcultural practices are unsatisfactory, and are characterized by overshading,lack of pruning, poor spacing and little or no maintenance. Although inrecent years farmers have shown greater interest in these tree crops for theircash earning, many still view these crops as a means of "engaging" the land

- 7 -

under traditional custom for themselves and their children. In this case verylittle attention is paid to the planted trees. Under Phase I, the projectintroduced improved planting and cultivation methods for these crops. Thereis little rubber grown in Upper Lofa.

Rural Services

2.06 In the Phase I project area wells have been constructed to supplywater for household use. Where these do not exist,, villagers rely on thenumerous streams in the county for their water. Health conditions are ge-nerally poor, and similar to those found elsewhere in Liberia. There is aGovernment hospital in Voinjama, and a mission hospital in Zorzor. Addi-tionally, there are some 30 health clinics in the project area. Thesefacilities are inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. Malaria,measles, dysentery and a wide range of internal and external parasites arecommon sources of illnesses in the project area. Protein and other dietarydeficiencies lead to a high infant and child mortality rate. While onchocer-ciasis is known to exist, serious infections are rare. Schistosomiasis ismore widely spread mainly because of the large number of water sources in thecounty, (streams and swamps). Under Phase I, the project's SchistosomiasisSurveillance Unit has carried out routine checks on swamps and population, andits findings indicate that community water contact sites are a bigger sourceof infection than swamps where only rice cultivation occurs. The Unit hasprovided treatment for infected farmers and their families.

The Agricultural Development Project - Phase I

2.07 The Phase I project (Cr. 577-LBR) was the first major agriculturaldevelopment project in the country. It was financed by IDA, USAID and theGovernment of Liberia. The project became effective in May 1976 and theclosing date has been extended by six months to June 1982. The primaryobjective of the project was to increase production of smallholder rice,cocoa, and coffee in two districts of Upper Lofa by means of an intensiveextension system with supporting services such as credit, input supplyand cooperative development. In addition, the project included feeder roadrehabilitation, well construction and the provision of some buildings. Theproject has been generally successful in physical achievements, in mobilizingfarmers and motivating extension staff. The Monitoring and Evaluation Unitof the Project estimates the rate of return of the project at 15% comparedwith an appraisal estimate of 25.9%. Physical objectives and achievementsare summarized in Table I.

- 8 -

Table I

Crop Development and Improvement - Phase 1

Upland Rice Swamp Rice Coffee Cocoa Total(ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) Farmers

Appraisal 5,600 1,900 2,300 1,500 8,000Actual 5,218 1,865 1,164 1,175 7,430

Civil Works

MPW LCADPRoad Road

Construction Construction Training Otherand Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation Wells Latrines Centers Buildings

(km) (km) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.)

Appraisal 600 - 100 - 2 20Actual 352 372 195 73 2 25

Crop Development:

2.08 The cocoa rehabilitation program was dropped since there were notenough trees that could be economically rehabilitated. The original uplandrice package of improved seed and fertilizer evoked very little response andwas deemphasized in favor of the more popular package of improved seed alone(provided through seed exchange or cash sale). Although targets have beenalmost achieved for the swamp rice program (98%) there have been problems inmaintaining production especially where population density has been low (seepara 5.02).

Civil Works:

2.09 Due to a shortage of operating funds the Ministry of Public Works(MPW) was unable to carry out the entire roads program. They constructed 220km and rehabilitated 132 km. The project's roads unit, originally designedto carry out small road maintenance for minor access tracks, was able toconstruct some 230 km of roads and recondition 142 kms of roads and tracks.The unit also constructed about 300 stream crossings associated with the roadnetwork. At least 30% of the construction costs were contributed by thecommunities in the form of voluntary labor. The wells program surpassedappraisal targets by 95%; the latrines program was added during implementa-tion; these programs also involved community labor amounting to about 50% ofcosts. The project also constructed a farmer training center, a staff train-ing center, a workshop, input storage sheds (10), and district and otheroffices (15).

9

Institutions:

2.10 Since there was no viable management structure capable of implement-ing the project, a semi-autonomous project management unit responsible toMOA was established and staff was internationally recruited for the keypositions (project manager, training officer, agricultural manager, landplanning manager and monitoring and evaluation manager). Within 3 years, fullmanagement responsibility had been handed over to local counterparts. Themanagement record throughout the project period has been good. The number ofsenior staff positions has grown more quickly than envisaged at appraisal toreach a total of 26 at June 1981. Emphasis on training has been considerable,about 465 agricultural and credit staff received in-house training whileabout 8,000 farmers attended project courses. A mcdified Training and Visitsystem was introduced in the project in mid 1980. A Monitoring and EvaluationUnit was established and has been performing satisfactorily.

2.11 The project attempted to build up a viable cooperative system tohandle credit input supply and marketing of output. The cooperative structureconsists of 200 Town Cooperative Units (TCU) (averaLge membership of 20 farmers)affiliated to five larger cooperative societies (CS). The system has beenreasonably successful in marketing (mainly as a buying agent of the exportcrops on behalf of the LPMC). However, due to organizational and managementproblems, they have been unable to assume responsibility for credit and inputsupplies. Credit recovery was very good in the first year (averaging 95%),however it fell to 50% in 1980/81 season due to the liquidity crisis in thecountry when farmers sold their produce for cash at very low prices toprivate traders since the cooperatives could not pay with cash.

2.12 Lessons of Experience and Proposed Actions:

(a) Crop Development: While the technical packages have been acceptedto a large extent in the project area, there have been problems in sustainingfarmers commitments to the improved techniques, especially in swamp riceproduction where there has been a noticeable incidence of abandonment after2 or 3 years. It is now recognized that the intensity of contact between theextension staff and farmers has to be more gradually phased out over a longerperiod than had been originally planned. Furthermore, it is necessary toprovide additional maintenance credit periodically to repair swamp developmentworks.

(b) Civil Works: With respect to the roads program, financing wouldbe provided in the next phase for the operational costs of MPW (para 3.11).

(c) Institutions: (i) The T & V system has proved to be effective;however, assessment and appropriate modifications would be continued in thenext phase. Stronger links would also be established among research, exten-sion and the monitoring and evaluation units to effect improvements in thetechnical packages and to incorporate farmer preferences more fully andquickly. (ii) the institutional arrangements for management and implementa-tion of the project would be more closely integrated into the MOA structure

- 10 -

(para. 4.01). (iii) a more concerted effort supported by technical assistancewould be directed towards development of the cooperative systems (para. 4.13),and the establishment of an efficient marketing system (para. 4.14) to ensurea viable system for handling credit, input supply and produce marketing at theend of Phase II.

III. THE PROJECT

General

3.01 In view of the agricultural potential of Lofa County and the goodresults of the Lofa Phase I project, Government asked the Bank to prepare andfinance a second phase. The Bank's Regional Mission for West Africa incollaboration with the management of the project undertook preparation andgovernment submitted the report to the Bank in January, 1981. The project wasappraised in May-June 1981.

3.02 The proposed four-year project would consolidate the achievementsunder Phase I, and extend agricultural services to other farmers in thepresent project areas and to those in areas hitherto untouched. At the endof the project an additional 8,000 farm households are expected to benefitdirectly from Phase II, bringing the total number of farm families forPhases I and II to some 16,000. Swamp and upland rice production would beincreased; new plantings of coffee and cocoa would be carried out, while alimited effort would be made to rehabilitate existing coffee. Particularattention would also be paid to: introducing additional food crops into thefarming system; reorganizing and strengthening the cooperatives to allow themto take over input distribution, credit, and primary produce marketing func-tions; providing farm management assistance to farmers; and targetting activi-ties especially for women-farmers (para. 4.06).

3.03 In defining project content, particular attention has beetn givento the need to minimize costs in view of Government's financial con,straints,and to reduce the demands on Government's budget at the end of the projectimplementation period. Staff requirements for Phase II and recurrent forPhase I (to be financed solely by Government - para. 3.16) have been kept to aminimum. Furthermore, there would be greater involvement of farmers throughimproved cooperatives in order that they may take over responsibility forinput distribution, seedling production as well as marketing activities.

Summary Description

3.04 The project would specifically provide for:

(i) improving 6,300 ha of upland rice, developing 1,100 ha of swamprice, 3,300 ha of new coffee, 1940 ha of new cocoa, 600 ha ofcassava and rehabilitating 290 ha of existing coffee;

- 11 -

(ii) expanding and strengthening the extension services with the use ofthe Training and Visit system and reaching women-farmers throughfemale extension workers;

(iii) reorganizing training for staff and farmers to effect the extensionprogram, and the improvement of cooperat:Lves;

(iv) producing coffee and cocoa seedlings and cassava setts for sale tofarmers; strengthening the adaptive research for carrying outlocational crop varietal and cropping systems trials aimed at cropdiversification and improved cropping practices;

(v) reorganizing cooperatives and providing guidance and supportto enable them to take over responsibility for credit; inputsupplies and marketing, and to function as viable enterprises;

(vi) continuing schistosomiasis monitoring and control measures inconnection with swamp rice development, and the constructionof 160 village wells and 100 latrines;

(vii) constructing and upgrading 174 km of feeder roads and 60 km offarm tracks, and maintaining some 600 km of existing feederroads;

(viii) establishing a central monitoring and evaluation section of MOA toprovide guidance coordination and training of a number of project-specific monitoring and evaluation units:,

(ix) supplying consultancy services and technical assistance, formonitoring and evaluation, cooperative development, marketing,LPMC's management, roads, research and coffee and cocoa processing.

Detailed Features

3.05 Administration, Extension and Training. The project would fundstaff, vehicles, equipment and operational costs for project management,finance and audit services (para. 4.01) required for Phase II (US$1.5 milliolnbase cost). In addition, the modified training and visit system of extensionwhich is already in use would be strengthened through closer coordination andsupervision, and through regular progress reviews. A total of 116 extensionstaff would be funded under Phase II, including 8 Hiome Economic Assistants whowould be absorbed from MOA to provide agricultural and home economics serviceto women-farmers. Training of extension and other project staff would empha-size the training and visit system, the development: of cooperatives andpreparation of farmers for increased participation in managing the developmentaffairs of the area. Such training would be carried out at the existing stafftraining center at Voinjama. Farmers training, while mainly carried out underthe T and V system, would include one-day and short: residential courses at theFarmers Training Centre at Kolahun. To strengthen these services the projectwould fund the staff, vehicles, audio-visual equipment and materials, operatingexpenses, some short term overseas training and consultancy for T and V review(US$4.2 million base cost).

- 12 -

3.06 Crop Development: Cultivation of food crops would be improved andcash crops increased. These improvements would be implemented through theproject's improved extension service in combination with farmer training, andsupported by inputs and credit supplied as loans through the cooperatives.This program would be based on recommended technical packages arrived atmainly through the experiences of Phase I, and described in Section 5 of thisreport.

3.07 Plant Production and Adaptive Research: The supply to farmers ofcoffee and cocoa seedlings would be improved. Since LPMC ceased supplyingcoffee and cocoa seedlings, the project has had sole responsibility forproducing its seedlings requirement. The project would fund the purchase ofcoffee and cocoa seed from Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone, and the setting up ofnurseries throughout the project area for producing the seedlings. However,during this Phase, a phased program would be introduced for establishing townnurseries run by the farmers themselves. It is estimated that by the end ofthe project, out of a total of 84 nurseries, 50 would be town nurseries.Cassava setts would be produced by the project for distribution to farmers.Rice seed would continue to be purchased by the project from contract farmers,until the IFAD Smallholder Rice Seed Project is able to supply the projectrequirements. A program of adaptive research would be promoted aiimed pri-marily at diversifying the range of crops produced in the uplands, andimproving the cropping systems currently employed by farmers (Working PaperNo. 2). It would also serve as the coordinator of locational and on-farmtrials of CARI in the Lofa area. Financing of the plant production andresearch activities would include staffing, vehicles, equipment, operatingexpenses, maintaining trial locations, and consultancy for helping to set upand supervise a suitable research program (US$1.9 million base cost).

3.08 Cooperatives Credit and Inputs: Major emphasis would be given tothe development of existing cooperative societies (CS) and to Town CooperativeUnits (TCU) with a view to handing over responsibility for input supply,credit and produce marketing to the cooperatives by PY3. In PY1 and 2 theproject's Commercial Services Division would continue to provide these ser-vices. Credit assistants, bookkeepers and inventory clerks would be providedto service new farmers on an area basis. The project would continue tosupport the strengthening of cooperative management by recruiting a coopera-tive specialist, through a training program and through the financing of CSmanagers on a reducing scale (75%-50%-25%) and bookkeepers (50%), overthree years. Funds also would be provided for one technical assistancepersonnel, vehicles and operating costs; and where necessary, for additionalstaff. The Agricultural Cooperative and Development Bank (ACDB) would assistin training of cooperative staff and would administer a Revolving Loan Fund(para. 4.18) on behalf of participating cooperative societies.

3.09 The project would provide incremental farm inputs to farmers oncash and credit for both farm development and seasonal requirements. Medium-term loans would be provided to rehabilitate existing farms and to establishnew farms of swamp rice, coffee, and cocoa. These loans would be given inkind for tools and equipment, coffee and cocoa seedlings, fertilizers, and

- 13 -

agricultural chemicals during the development period, and in cash for hiredlabor for swamp land development, and establishment of coffee and cocoafarms. Seasonal credit would be provided in kind for upland rice and swamprice to cover seed and fertilizers, and for coffee and cocoa to cover ferti-lizer, agricultural chemicals and sprayers after the development period (para.4.16). Interest rates for seasonal and development credit would be brought inline with those of ACDB, and in keeping with inflation rate (para. 4.16).Delivery of farm inputs would be made through the cooperative societies andwould be sold at sufficient mark-up to cover costs (para. 4.16). To ensurefarmers a permanent supply of credit, the project would establish a RevolvingLoan Fund to finance inputs, which would be administered by ACDB on behalf ofGOL under a Financing Agreeent (para. 4.18). ACDB would maintain a separateaccount for each cooperative within the Revolving Loan Fund. Imported re-current farm inputs required for the Phase I project would be procured onbehalf of the cooperatives through LPMC (acting on a commission basis), whilstrice seed, coffee and cocoa seedlings would be prc,cured locally. Funding forCooperatives Commercial Services and inputs is expected to total US$7.9million (base cost).

3.10 Schistosomiasis Surveillance: The Schistosomiasis Surveillance Unit(SSU) would be maintained by the project and woulcd continue to monitor schis-tosomiasis organisms in relation to swamp rice activities of the project.Staff, replacement, vehicles and equipment, and operating costs including drugsfor treatment of the disease would be provided (US$0.4 million).

3.11 Road Construction, Wells and Latrines: The project would providefinance for the construction and upgrading of some 174 km of additionalfeeder roads and some 60 km of farm access tracks to service new projectareas. Of the 174 km of feeder roads, 100 km would be done by the Ministry ofPublic Works' Feeder Roads Unit (FRU), for which the project would fund thefuel, lubricants and machine spares required. The remaining 74 km would beconstructed by the project's roads unit which would also maintain 600 km ofexisting feeder roads. The feeder roads construction program would be com-pleted over a 2-year period. The project and the Public Works' FRU wouldutilize existing road-building machinery, and only minor pieces of equipmentwould be added to the project's equipment to improve its road building capa-bility. Self-help unskilled labour would be provided by villagers as inPhase I. As was done under Phase I, the project would provide for theconstruction of 160 village wells and 100 village latrines. Finance wouldbe provided for hand pumps and culverts for constructing the wells while thevillagers would be responsible for providing sand, for digging and generalconstruction of the well under the project's supervision. Roads, wells andlatrine construction are expected to cost US$2.2 million (base cost).

3.12 Monitoring and Evaluation: The project would continue to financethe activities of the existing monitoring and evaluation (M and E) unit.Additionally, the project would assist Government in establishing a CentralMonitoring and Evaluation Unit under MOA, which would provide coordination,training and guidance to the several project based M & E units which alreadyexist. The project would fund technical assistance (one position), personnel,vehicles, equipment and operation and maintenance expenses for the centralunit.

- 14 -

3.13 Technical Assistance and Consultancy Services: The project wouldprovide funds for internationally recruited staff and for consultancy ser-vices. International staff (totalling 6 man-years) would be required for theimprovement of cooperatives in the project area (para. 4.13), for the improve-ment of LPMC's management, especially in its financial systems ancd control(para. 4.15), and in establishing the Central M & E unit (para. 4.24).Short-term consultancies would be funded for:

(a) Coffee and cocoa processing - The quality of coffee and cocoa beansis generally poor, resulting in marketing losses. Much of this poorquality can be attributed to improper harvesting and processingmethods. Some 3 man-months of consultancy would be provided toassist in introducing improved techniques.

(b) Crop Research and Development - Some 6 man-months would be financedto assist in guidance to the research program and various areas ofcrop research, such as improved cropping systems for the uplands,new technology for smallholders and variety and fertilizer usage intree crops.

(c) Training and Visit Extension System - The modified system to beused would be reviewed periodically to ascertain its effectiveness(3 man-months).

(d) Management Training - Conducting 2 management training seminars forsenior and mid-level staff to incorporate effective principles,specifically for implementing the project (4 man-months).

(e) Monitoring and Evaluation - Some 3 man-months would be requiredfor reviewing the progress of the Central M & E unit.

(f) Study of the LPMC - About 3 man-months would be financed undera Project Preparation Facility to review the marketing and financialoperations of the LPMC.

(g) Feasibility Studies - To carry out feasibility studies for develop-ment within the sector ($100,000).

(h) Roads - Review and advise on the road construction and maintenanceprogram (2 man-months).

3.14 Assurances were obtained at negotiations that prior to engagingany consultant or technical assistance staff, the detailed terms of referencefor their employment would be reviewed with IDA, and consultants' reportswould be promptly reviewed with IDA for examining possible implementationimplications.

Cost Estimates

3.15 Project costs, net of identifiable taxes and duties (from whichthe project is exempt), are estimated at US$28.0 million of which US$13.7million or 49% would be direct foreign exchange requirements. The baselinecost estimates have been derived from mid-1981 prices. Cost estimates for

- 15 -

civil works (swamp development, roads, wells and buildings) have been based onthose experienced in the Phase I project with appropriate adjustments. Incre-mental farm inputs are costed at farmgate level. Local staff salaries andemoluments reflect the current project scales as agreed to by Government.Internationally recruited staff costs of US$80,000 per man-year for technicalassistants, and US$10,000 per man-month for short-term consultants, exemptfrom income taxes, reflect prevailing conditions. P'hysical contingencies havebeen calculated at the rates of 10% for buildings, and 5% for civil works,equipment, non-labor farm inputs and operational costs, (and amount to 3% oftotal base costs). Anticipated annual price increases, amounting to 29% oftotal base costs plus physical contingencies reflect projected annual infla-tion rates of: 7% for all personnel costs, and 10% for local civil works andoperational costs; 7.8% in 1982, 8.0% in 1983, 7.5% in 1984, 7.0% in 1985, and6% in 1986 for the foreign exchange component. A stLmmary cost table ispresented in Table 2 with further details in Annex 1 and Working Paper 6.

Table 2: SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS(US$ millions)

Percentage ofLocal Foreign Total Base Costs

Administration 0.8 0.7 1.5 7Agricultural Extension 2.1 1.1 3.2 15Training 0.5 0.5 1.0 5Plant Production and Research 1.5 0.4 1.9 9Cooperatives and Commercial Services 2.2 1.8 4.0 19Farm Inputs 1.5 2.4 3.9 18Schistosomiasis Control Unit 0.2 0.2 0.4 2Roads, Wells and Latrines 0.7 1.5 2.2 10Land Planning 0.3 0.3 0.6 3Central Monitoring and Evaluation Unit 0.6 0.5 1.1 5Project Monitoring and Evaluation Unit 0.4 0.2 0.6 3Consultancy and Technical Assistance 0.2 0.4 0.6 3Project Preparation Facility (PPF) 0.0 ().1 0.1 1

TOTAL BASE COSTS 11.0 10.1 21.1 100

Physical Contingencies 0.1 0.5 0.6 3Anticipated Price Increases 3.2 3.1 6.3 30

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 14.3 13.7 28.0 33

3.16 Recurrent costs in the Phase 1 project (Credit 577-LBR) have beendefined as those costs necessary to maintain the level of production achievedunder that project. These costs which are estimated at US$1.0 million peryear (1982 prices) are not included in the project costs discussed above. Thecomposition of these recurrent costs are discussed further in para 6.08 andWorking Paper 6. At negotiations, assurance was obtained that Governmentwould make the necessary allocations in the Agricultural Budget, provideforeign exchange requirements and increase the funds as necessary to maintain

- 16 -

these services at a comparable level. The recurrent costs for maintaining thePhase I and II project would be about US$1.5 million at the end of the invest-ment period.

Proposed Financing

3.17 Given the financial constraints of the Government of Liberia, ninetypercent of project costs would be covered by IDA, and the African DevelopmentFund (ADF) on a parallel financing basis. The remainder of the project costswould be covered by the Government of Liberia. The proposed financing plan isshown in Table 3 (further details are in Working Paper 7). The proposed IDAcredit of US$15.5 million would be on standard terms and would finance 55% ofthe total project costs. The credit would finance US$8.7 million (64% oftotal) foreign exchange costs of vehicles, operations and maintenance, build-ings and farm inputs for the credit, cooperatives and input supply services;vehicle operational costs of the Extension and Central M&E services, andpersonnel and supporting costs for consultancy services. The IDA c:redit wouldalso cover US$6.8 million of the local costs involved in these componentsincluding US$4.95 million for local personnel for the credit, cooperatives andinput supply services. The ADF credit would be on the same terms as the IDAcredit and would cover US$5.0 million (56% of total) of foreign exchange costsof vehicles, and operational costs of six divisions and the associated localcosts. The Government's contribution of US$ 2.9 million (10% of total projectscosts) would cover mostly local personnel and operational costs. A conditionof IDA credit effectiveness would be that all conditions precedent to theeffectiveness of the ADF Loan Agreement had been fulfilled.

3.18 In view of the financial constraints facing the Government ofLiberia, it would be essential for the successful implementation of theproject that prefinancing for certain categories of project expendiLtures beprovided. An amount of US$200,000 financed as an advance from the IDA credit,would be deposited in a special project account at the National Bank ofLiberia. The account would be replenished upon receipt of a disbursementapplication supported by: (i) a statement of account transactions and balancescertified by the National Bank; (ii) a reconciliation of withdrawaLs withstatements of expenditures and receipts for permitted expenditures; and (iii)a reconciliation of balances with disbursements by and pending cla:Lms to IDA.Should any disbursement be made from this account, which is not acceptable toIDA, the Government would deposit the corresponding amount in the specialaccount. Assurances to these effects were obtained at negotiations.

3.19 Procurement: All goods financed under the IDA credit would beprocured in accordance with IDA guidelines. Contracts valued at US$75,000 ormore, for vehicles and equipment (US$1.6 million) and for fertilizers (US$2.0million) would be procured through international competitive bidding (ICB).Purchases would be grouped into packages of at least US$75,000, wheneverpossible; contracts valued at less than US$75,000 but more than US$10,000 forthese items (US$0.6 million) would be procured through local competitivebidding or limited international bidding under procedures acceptabLe to IDA.Domestically manufactured goods would be allowed a preference of 15% or thelevel of applicable import duty, whichever is lower. Contracts of less thanUS$10,000 for small items such as spare parts, office supplies, fueal, tools,

TABLE 3

LIBERIA: LOFA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT II

Financing Plan

(US$ Millions)

IDA ADFGOL

Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Local Total

Administration 0.80 0.90 0.30 2.00

Training 0.50 0.70 0.10 1.30

Plant Production 1.70 0.50 0.30 2.50

Land Planning 0.30 0.40 0.10 0.80

Roads, Wells and Latrines 0.70 1.90 0.30 2.90

Schistosomiasis Control Unit 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.60

Field Monitoring & Evaluation 0.40 0.30 0.10 0.80

Cooperatives and Credit 2.25 2.25 4.40 4.90

Buildings 0.05 0.25 0.10 0.40

Farm Inputs 1.40 3.50 0.60 5.50

Extension 2.30 1.50 0.30 4.10

Central Monitoring andEvaluation 0.70 0.40 0.10 1.20

Consultancy and T.A 1/ 0.10 0.70 0.10 0.90

Project Preparation Facility 0.10 0.10

TOTAL 6.80 8.70 15.50 4.60 5.00 9.60 2.90 28.00

Percentage of total cost 55 35 10 100

1/ Includes T.A for Monitoring and Evaluation and Cooperatives

- 18 -

pesticides and seedlings (US$3.75 million) would be procured through limitedlocal tendering based on at least three quotations. Contracts for buildings(US$0.3 million) would not be attractive to foreign contractors due to theirsmall sizes and dispersed locations and would, therefore, be awarded on thebasis of local competitive bidding in accordance with procedures satisfactoryto IDA. Consulting services (US$0.3 million) would be procured in accordancewith IDA guidelines (Ref. Guidelines for the Use of Consultants by World BankBorrowers and by the World Bank as Executing Agency. August 1981). Long termtechnical experts (US$0.6 million) would be recruited under terms and condi-tions satisfactory to IDA. Hired labor for farm development (US$1.4 million)would be obtained from the local markets. The services of local personnel(US$4.95 million) would be recruited from existing Phase I staff or the localmarket in accordance with Government procedures.

3.20 Goods and services financed by the ADF (US$9.6 million) would beprocured in accordance with ADF's procedures. The GOL contribution would bemainly for local costs of staff salaries and operating expenses (US$2.3million), and production inputs (US$0.6 million).

3.21 Disbursements

The proceeds of the IDA credit of US$15.5 million would be disbursedover four years as follows:

Category Terms Amount

I. Production Inputs 100% of foreign exchange costs.90% of local-costs. 4.2

II. Civil Works - Buildings 100% of foreign exchange costs.70% of local costs 0.3

III. Vehicles and Equipment 100% of foreign exchange costs.90% if purchased locally 1.7

IV. Consultancy Services 100% of foreign exchange costs 0.8and Technical Assistance 85% of local costs

V. Staff 90% of costs of local salariesfor the Credit and Cooperatives,Extension, and Central M&EDivisions 4.5

VI. Operating Expenses 100% of foreign exchange costs90% of local costs for theCredit and Cooperatives Division 2.2

VII. Initial Withdrawal forSpecial Account 0.2

VIII. Project Preparation Faci-lity 0.1

IX. Unallocated 1.5

- 19 -

3.22 A disbursement schedule (Annex 2) has been prepared on the basis ofthe disbursement profile for Liberia, adjusted to the project's 4-year imple-mentation period. Disbursement against vehicles and equipment, civil works,salaries and allowances of internationally recruited consultants, productioninputs, fuel and spares would be fully documented. Disbursements would bemade against statements of expenditure, (which would be checked during thecourse of project supervision) covering the local costs of local staff salariesand minor miscellaneous operational expenditures. The project's auditorswould check the reliability of statements of expenditures and would include astatement to this effect in the annual statement of accounts. Disbursementsinto the Project Special Account would be made according to the proceduresdiscussed in para 3.19. Assurances were be obtained from Government atnegotiations that all supporting documents for statements of expenditures andwithdrawals from the special account would be maintained and made availableupon request for inspection by IDA. It is expected that disbursements wouldbe completed by December 31, 1986.

3.23 Budgeting, Accounts and Audits: Following present practices, thePhase II project administration would prepare annual budgets and estimates ofquarterly cash requirements for both the present and previous projects, basedon appraisal estimates but amended where necessary to reflect changes in costsand project development policies. The administration of Central Monitoringand Evaluation Unit (CMEU) would also prepare its budget and quarterly cashrequirements on the same basis. The budgets would then be submitted to theSteering Committee (para 4.02) for approval, then sent through the Ministryof Agriculture to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. After approval by theMinistry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Finance would make the appro-priate allocations in the Agricultural Budget and, thereafter, would releaseto the project all necessary funds quarterly in advance, as per cash-flowstatements. The Government would also make timely allocations in the budgetfor the importation of recurrent farm inputs and other goods required underthe proposed and previous projects.

3.24 The Government of Liberia would cause the Ministry of Agricultureto: (i) establish and maintain separate project-related accounts for Phase IIproject including the CMEU, in accordance with sound accounting practices asalready established under the previous project; (ii) have the accounts andstatements of expenditures audited annually by independent auditors acceptableof the end of each project year; (iii) ensure that the reports of the auditorsare of such scope and detail as IDA may reasonably request; and (iv) furnishsuch other information concerning its accounts as IDA may reasonably require.Assurance ensuring the adoption of the above accounting and auditing proce-dures was obtained at negotiations. Under the Phase I project GOL hassatisfactorily complied with these conditions, and the accounting proceduresin place are acceptable to the Association.

- 20 -

IV. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT

Project Organization

4.01 The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) would have overall responsibilityfor the project, with implementation responsibility delegated to a ProjectManager supported by technical and administrative units. He would be desig-nated the County Agricultural Officer (CAO) for Lofa County, and would beresponsible for all project-related and other MOA staff, who operate outsidethe Phase I project area. These presently parallel staff would be merged withexisting project staff into a single structure. A few ongoing MOA activities,such as livestock, will not benefit from direct support under the proposedproject, but the CAO will oversee such activities with resources availablefrom MOA. Five existing technical divisions would implement the project:Agriculture, Training, Cooperative Development, Plant Production and Research,and Land Planning. They would be supported by three existing divisions forfinancial control (finance and audit), project management, and monitoring andevaluation. The Schistosomiasis Surveillance Unit would continue to besupported technically by the Ministry of Health and the Liberian Institute forBiomedical Research in its monitoring and control activities (Organizationchart, Annex 8). MOA is in the process of restructuring and decentralizingits regional activities but final details are not yet available. The CAOwould be responsible for planning changes in the project organizatiLon andprocedures as necessary to better fit any new MOA structure. An assurancewas obtained at negotiations that Government would review with IDA anyproposals to reorganize MOA's services in Lofa. Assurances were also obtainedat negotiations that during project implementation, the CAO, the AgriculturalDevelopment Manager, the Agricultural Manager, the Financial Controller, andthe Commercial Services Manager would have qualifications and experiencesatisfactory to IDA.

4.02 For the purpose of providing policy guidance to the project, theProject Steering Committee, already in place, would continue to function withthe Registrar of the CDA and the Managing Director of ACDB becoming additionalmembers of this committee. Similarly, the Project Advisory Committee consist-ing of local officials and Chiefs would continue to provide implem(entationguidance and facilitate the expansion of project development activities intothe new areas of the county.

Farmers Participation

4.03 The project would build upon farmers already reached by the exten-sion service under Phase I by increasing farmer participation. Further, theproject would promote increasing farmer involvement in local developmentmatters, and would rely heavily on the use of existing local groupings, theTown Cooperative Units (TCUs) and district cooperative societies (para 4.12).Farmers would also be encouraged at village or town level to produce coffeeand cocoa seedlings with supervision provided by the project, as a means ofreducing the cost of such seedlings to them (para. 4.09). Single women-farmers

- 21 -

and farmers' wives would also be reached by the extension services to encouragetheir direct participation in project activities (para 4.06). A farm manage-ment officer would be appointed to the project for advising all levels offarmers in the business and farm planning aspects of their enterprises.

Staffing

4.04 Adjustments would be made to the Phase I staff structure in viewof the experiences gained over the implementation period, and to bring itmore in line with the MOA structure (para 4.01). The complement of admin-istration staff would be reduced, and some deputy positions would be removed.Some 38 additional agricultural staff would be obtained from existing MOAstaff (totalling 79) in the county. Government has indicated that the surplusstaff would be transferred out of Lofa. An assurance was obtained at negotia-tions that Government would effect the necessary reduction in staff consistentwith efficient operation of the project. Because a satisfactory level ofmanagement has been attained under Phase I, it is not envisaged that any majorpersonnel changes would be required. In view of the need to develop strongand efficient cooperatives, and because of the scarcity of suitable experiencedLiberians in cooperatives, assurances were obtained at negotiations that anagricultural cooperative specialist would be recruited internationally forthis purpose under terms and conditions satisfactory to IDA (para. 4.14).

Extension Services

4.05 Extension Organization. The extension service under Phase I hasstarted to implement a modified version of the training and visit system,which should increase the efficiency of the service through better farmercontacts, and increasing the number of farmers per extension worker from aratio of 60 to 1, to 110 to 1. This ratio is based on the experience gainedunder Phase I, and takes into account the distant Locations of farms undershifting cultivation, and distances which have to be covered on foot to reachthese and swamp locations. Also in this project some new areas would be oflow population density. Basic extension work would be carried out by 135Agricultural Extension Assistants (AEA) who would be located throughout theproject area, and would advise farmers on the use of the project's tech-nological packages. The work program of the extension staff would be based onregular contact with farmers. As is already the practice, each AEA meets withestablished groups of farmers every week to present instructions on thetechnological packages. On alternate weeks, the same group meetings takeplace in the field. The AEAs work is supervised by 14 Senior ExtensionAssistants (SEA), and the SEAs in turn would be responsible to 5 ExtensionOfficers (EO), who would be assigned on a district basis. An AgriculturalManager assisted by a Deputy Agricultural Manager would have overall respon-sibility for extension activities. There are no subject matter specialists(as in the T & V system) in the project area at this time. The project'sresearch section would be in close contact with the extension service, and thelatter would liaise with MOA's Extension Department, with CARI and otheragricultural projects to acquire further improvements in cropping practices,etc., which could be applied in the project area. To further strengthenthe application of a modified T & V system, a suitable consultant would beemployed to provide guidance and to set up review procedures (3 man-months).

- 22 -

4.06 Under the proposed project, 2 Senior Home Economics Workers and 6Home Economics Assistants would link with SEAs and AEAs to provide extensionservice specifically to independent female farmers and more particularlyfarmers' wives who, though it is acknowledged can play an important role inthe adaption of improved packages, have been somewhat constrained sociallyfrom direct contact with male extension workers. Apart from assisting inpromoting the technological packages of the project to the women, the HomeExtension Assistants would also advise on and encourage improved home gardening,diversification of crops to provide for more variety in the diet, and woulddemonstrate utilization and storage techniques for these crops. Senior HomeEconomics staff from MOA, Monrovia and senior project staff would 'provideguidance and technical direction to these workers, and the project wouldsupply them with technical material and equipment to assist them in theirdemonstration programs.

Training

4.07 The Training Division would be headed by a Manager who would reportto the CAO, and would be assisted by a Senior Training Officer and two Train-ing Officers. The program of training new staff for project implementationand of providing updated training to existing staff would continue withemphasis on the Training and Visit extension method. MOA staff (includingHome Ecbnomic Assistants), who will be working with existing project staff,would receive a ten-week orientation and training course at the Voinjama StaffTraining Center. The Training Division would invite other MOA specialists,CARI and WARDA staff to give lectures and demonstrations in order that projectstaff would be made aware of technical developments in agriculture. Selectedfarmers who would serve as contact farmers for assisting in implementing thetraining and visit system would be given residential training at the project'sKolahun Farmers' Training Center. The Training Division would organize twomanagement seminars to be conducted by consultants for management staff. Thefirst would assist managers to implement the project, through identificationof objectives, techniques to be used and methods for assessing results. Thesecond seminar would be a follow-up to the first. Management courses wouldalso be run for junior supervisory staff.

Plant Production and Research

4.08 As exists at present, the Plant Production and Research Divisionwould be headed by a Manager, who would be responsible for providing theproject's requirement of cocoa and coffee seedlings, rice seed and cassavasetts. Research would be principally adaptive in orientation.

4.09 Plant Production: This section would be staffed with a P'lantProduction Officer, Nurserymen and Nursery Assistants, and would producecoffee and cocoa seedlings in project established nurseries located in thedistricts. Each nursery would be run by a nurseryman under the supervisionof a nursery assistant. The project would promote on a phased basis theestablishment of town or village nurseries, to be run by farmers themselvesundet the supervision of Nursery Assistants. Assistance could be given inchoosing a suitable location, provision on credit of plastic bags and seed,

- 23 -

and transport at cost for the required soil for filling. Farmers would betaught nursery management and would be required to arrange for the dailytending of nurseries. By Year 4, it is expected that some 50 such nurseries(out of an estimated total of 84) would be established in the project area.Where individual farmers have the resources, they would be encouraged to setup their own nurseries.

4.10 Until the IFAD-funded Rice Seed Unit is able to meet the project'srequirements, the project would continue its arrangements as under Phase I bywhich it obtains basic (foundation) seed from CARI, multiplies it on its ownswamps and on selected private farms, with the resulting seed sold to projectfarmers. Cassava setts of improved varieties (mosaic tolerant) would beproduced for distribution to farmers in areas where mixed cropping withcassava is practised.

4.11 Research. The Research section of the Plant Production and ResearchDivision would be directly under the Manager of the Division. Adaptiveresearch would be emphasized together with simple replicated experiments.Liaison would be maintained with other Liberian scientists and on-farm trialswould be organized. Upland cropping systems at trials currently in progresswould continue to ascertain techniques and cropping cycles for beneficialutilization of the upland, e.g., rice/cassava, rice/groundnuts mixtures,minimum tillage and continuous cropping versus shifting cultivation. Loca-tional testing of swamp rice varieties would continue, while testing ofcrops, particularly vegetables, for swamp slopes and paddies (where a secondrice crop is not possible) would be introduced. Tree crops (cocoa and coffee)research would be carried out relating to husbandry variety, fertilizer,insect pest and disease control, and improved techniques for harvesting andprocessing these crops. The project would fund short-term consultancies of upto 6 man-months to provide guidance in setting up and supervising a researchprogram for the project area, if possible in conjunction with CARI in theseareas of deficiency. The project would negotiate with the Liberia RubberDevelopment Unit and the Firestone Company for establishing trials on rubberin the project area in order to assess its potential as an additional cashcrop for the Lofa area.

Cooperative Development

4.12 Organization: One existing cooperative society (CS) in the newproject area would be added to the five under Phase I (para 2.18). Member-ship presently exceeds 6,000. They have low standards of management, andaccounting and auditing is weak. The TCUs (para 2.18) which are affiliatesof these societies and have no legal status, each comprise a small group offarmers (10 to 30) who have collective responsibility for credit. CSs andTCUs would be improved and handle input supply, credit and marketing opera-tions. Each CS would follow the provisions of the Cooperatives Societies Act,and fulfill the minimum requirements relating to elections of Boards ofDirectors, organization, staffing, accounting and auditing. The TCUs wouldremain small in order to maintain the group approach. They would continueto be affiliated to cooperative societies, and although they would not be

- 24 -

eligible for registration, would each have a small management committee. Thiscommittee would comprise of the Town Chief and two elected elders, with theAEA and a Cooperative Credit Assistant (CCA) in ex-officio capacities. Thecommittee's primary function would be to process and recommend loana applica-tions to the CS, and assist in loan recovery.

4.13 To bring about the improvements the newly formed CDA (para 1.15)would appoint a senior cooperative officer as Regional Assistant Registrarof Cooperative Societies of Lofa, Bong and Nimba counties combined, and aCooperative Officer specifically assigned to the project area. The RegionalAssistant Registrar would head a small field staff which would provide audit,supervision and inspection. There is only a small number of Liberians whoare properly trained in cooperatives, and an even smaller number with enoughexperience. The project's cooperative specialist would organize the coopera-tives in the project area so that by the end of the project they would becomefully responsible for inputs supply, credit and marketing. He would alsoassist in training CS staff and, where required, provide guidance and adviseCDA staff in cooperative operations. More detailed recommendations forreorganization and strengthening of these cooperatives have been proposed inthe report of the consultants on "Liberia Cooperative Credit and MarketingSystem With Particular Reference to Lofa County Agricultural DevelopmentProject", and a dialogue is in progress between Government and IDA on theserecommendations. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that Governmentwould: (a) by October 31, 1982 agree with IDA on detailed measures forimproving the Lofa cooperatives based on the above-mentioned report, (such asincluded above and in para 4.12), (b) provide adequate staff and logisticssupport to the CDA in the project area to permit it to function in keepingwith the Cooperatives Societies Act, (c) appoint by December 31, 1982 anAssistant Registrar to the region and (d) review with IDA by August 31, 1985,the progress made in the Lofa cooperatives, and, if necessary make proposalsfor their further improvement.

4.14 Input Distribution and Crop Marketing. To facilitate these activi-ties in the expanded project area, 19 additional sub-centres, each servingabout 300 farmers, would be constructed at the better located TCU's wheretraditional weekly markets are held. These sub-centres would continue to beconstructed with participation from the local population, and would serve asthe focal point for project activities for the area, such as cooperativesmeetings, storage and distribution of inputs, marketing, and extension meetings.Where subcentres are too distant, existing village stores would be used.Each subcentre would be managed by a TCU member who would be appointed by theparticipating TCU's, and trained by the project. Until the cooperatives takeover full responsibility for inputs, the Commercial Service Division (CSD) ofthe project would continue to procure, transport, store and distribute inputs(fertilizer, chemicals and tools) on behalf of the societies. The CSD wouldcarry out the operations with a modified Phase I staff structure, headed by aCSD manager, and it is expected that, in implementing the detailed proposalsto be agreed for the reorganizing and strengthening cooperatives (para. 4.13),this staff could be utilized in the cooperatives, thereby transferring theexpertise gained in the project. Detailed proposals for improving cropmarketing through the cooperatives have been put forward in the study referredto in para. 4.13. These proposals seek to correct anomalies in the existingbuying arrangements and ensure that an equitable price is paid to the farmer.

- 25 -

4.15 However, it is recognized that the role of LPMC in these operations,and particularly in relation to produce pricing, also requires reviewing.As discussed in para 1.13, LPMC is currently facing financial problems, which,though principally resulting from the situation mentioned in that paragraph,are also due to inefficiencies in its organization and management. Through anadvance obtained under the Project Preparation Facility, Government has agreedto undertake a study of the entire marketing operaltions of LPMC (from farmgateto export), and, assurance was obtained that by September 30, 1982, Governmentwould agree with IDA a plan of action for improving the operations to ensureLPMC's viability and provide the farmers with a fair price for their produce.Assurances were obtained at negotiations that by June 30, 1984, Governmentwould carry out the agreed plan of action in respect of the management andoperations of LPMC. Technical assistance would be provided in the project fora qualified and experienced management specialist to assist LPMC in thisimplementation.

4.16 Farm Credit. Farm credit services developed under Lofa Phase I wouldbe maintained with minor modifications: (a) an increase in the credit limitto US$2,500 per farmer for combined development and seasonal credit; (b)an extension of the grace period for development loans from four to five yearsfor new cocoa planting; and (c) increase the development loan to include assis-tance to farmers for hiring labour for brushing and ring weeding in theestablishment period. A farmer may apply for up to a maximum of one hadevelopment credit (either for swamp rice, coffee, or cocoa or a combinationof any of these crops). He would, however, be able to apply for a credit ofup to 2 ha for upland rice if he has not signed for any development credit forcocoa, coffee, or swamp rice or up to 1 1/2 ha for upland rice if he hasalready signed for one-half ha development credit. A farmer with one ha ofdevelopment credit would still be able to apply for up to one ha of uplandrice credit. However, farmers would provide at least 5% of the investmentcosts in cash or labor for all crops. Except for cash payment for hiredlabour for development purposes, all loans would be in kind such as, tools,equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc. Seasonal credit wouldalso be available for upland rice where fertilizer is used. Interest chargesto farmers would be increased from 10 to 15% per annum for seasonal loans andfrom 10 to 12% per annum for medium/long term loans. 1/ Assurances to thiseffect were obtained from Government at negotiations.

4.17 Loan and Repayment Terms for upland rice would continue as forseasonal credit, while other crops would be modified as follows:

a) Swamp Rice - Development loan averaging US$305 per ha disbursedover two years and repaid in 2 annual installments following1 year's grace period. Interest to be capitalized during thegrace period.

I/ The domestic inflation rate climbed from arolnd 7% during 1976-78, to11.5% in 1979, and reached 13.5% in 1980--mainly because of expansionaryeffects of expenditures on the 1979 OAU Conference. More recentlythe inflation rate has declined, and is estimated at 10% for 1981.

- 26 -

b) Cocoa Plantings - Development loan US$1,065 per ha disbursedover 4 years and repaid in 7 annual installments following a 5-yeargrace period. Interest to be capitalized during the grace period.Seasonal credit would be available from Year 5 onwards.

c) Coffee New Plantings - Development loan US$415 per ha disbursedover 4 years and repaid in five annual installments following 5 yeargrace period. Interest to be capitalized during the grace period.Seasonal credit would be available from Year 4 onwards.

4.18 As was done in Phase I, credit procedures would be based on theactive involvement of the AEA's who would initiate contact with the farmers,and the CCA's who would process applications through the TCU's and the CS's.On the basis of the total loan approvals, a forecasted quarterly dLsbursementschedule would be prepared for each cooperative. Details on credit proceduresare in Working Paper Cl.

4.19 Financing Arrangements and the ACDB: The financing arrangementsunder the project are designed to provide adequate working capital for thecooperative system and to forge closer relationship between the ACDB and thecooperatives as a step towards establishing a viable cooperative system withinternal financial control and supporting facilities. It is, therefore,proposed that the total value of the farm inputs to be financed under theproject (about US$ 5.5 million, including contingencies) would be consideredas equity of the Government of Liberia in the ACDB which, in turn, becomesequity of the ACDB in the Cooperatives. This provision of equity would per-mit (a) the ACDB to be represented on the Board of each cooperative and beinvolved in its management and (b) the establishment of a sound resource basefor the cooperatives, since in the initial period their cost operationscompared to their projected income streams would not permit accumulation ofadequate savings.

4.20 The farm inputs financed under the project would be provided asloans to farmers which would be disbursed by the project's Commercial ServicesDivision under the procedures described in para. 4.18 above; the division wouldalso continue to manage the accounts of the cooperative societies rLntil suchtime that the societies are strong enough for the books and staff to be fullytransferred to them. The total value of the loans disbursed through eachcooperative society would be issued as equity of the ACDB in the paLrticularcooperative. The shares of the ACDB in the cooperative would be designated as"Nominal Shares" since they would not be entitled to the same borrowing andprofit-sharing privileges as the other members, but are guaranteed a minimumpayment for services rendered (see para. 4.21 below). When a cooperativesociety has reached a strong financial position it may buy out or reduce theholdings of the ACDB in its equity, thus releasing funds for investmentelsewhere by the ACDB. (For further details on these arrangements, seeWorking Paper No. Cl).

4.21 Repayments: The ACDB is the Banker of the Cooperatives. When loansare repaid they would be deposited in revolving accounts in each cooperative'sname at the ACDB. The ACDB would deduct 4% of these repayments as a service

- 27 -

charge. The ACDB would supervise withdrawals from these accounts to ensurethat they are properly authorized and confirm to the agreed disbursementschedule of the particular cooperative (para. 4.18). It would be a Conditionof Effectiveness that GOL had executed a Financing Agreement with ACDB,satisfactory to IDA, which would include, inter alia, (a) the transfer offunds provided under the project (about US$ 5.5 million) as equity of theGOL in the ACDB and as equity of the ACDB in the cooperatives. (b) therepresentation of the ACDB on the DCC and (c) the administration of therevolving accounts of the cooperatives by the ACDB with a service charge notexceeding 4% of annual collections.

Land Planning, Roads, Wells and Latrines

4.22 These two activities would continue to be run by the Land PlanningDivision headed by the Land Planning Manager. While he will have overallresponsibility for the Division, his Deputy will be in charge of road con-structing and maintenance. The land planning activities consisting of survey-ing, designing, and laying out irrigation and drainage works for swamp rice,as well as determining areas whose soils are suitable for coffee and cocoawould continue as under Phase I. Two Senior Land Planning Assistants, and10 Land Planning Assistants would carry out these operations under the direc-tion of the Land Planning Manager. Additionally, they would determine thelocation of farm access tracks to be constructed in relation to tree cropdevelopment.

4.23 The CAO would be responsible for coordinating the road constructionwork of the two road units (para. 3.13) and would liaise with the CountySuperintendent and other officials in determining the location of these roads.The feeder roads would be planned on the basis of the crop development programof the project, and, as far as possible, the new project areas would begiven priority. The Deputy Land Planning Manager with the Project's RoadsUnit would implement the agreed portion of the road construction program(74 km of feeder roads and 50 km of farm access tracks), and would ensure thateach road is constructed in line with MPW design and specifications, and issuitably recorded on maps. The construction of the feeder roads and a portionof the farm access tracks is expected to be completed in 2 years. By Year 3,the project's roads unit should be primarily concerned with completing thefarm access tracks and maintaining some of the existing feeder roads network.The CAO would at this stage arrange for the phasing out of this unit whichshould be completed by the end of Year 4. As was done under Phase I, localcommunities would provide self-help labour to assist in the constructionof roads and farm access tracks. During this project, these communities wouldbe encouraged to undertake road maintenance on an organized self-help basis incooperation with the Ministry of Local Government. In this way, some roadmaintenance can be assured after the project period. However, an assurancewas obtained at negotiations that Government would take over the responsi-bility for maintaining all feeder roads constructed under the project.

4.24 An adjunct to the project's Roads Unit is a small group of artisanswho are responsible for implementing the wells and latrines constructionprogram. This group would continue under Phase II under the direction of the

- 28 -

Deputy Land Planning Manager. As is normally done, project staff wouldconsult with town chiefs on the location of both wells and latrines, they, inturn, would arrange for the availability of local labour, the obtaining oflocal material and would assist in getting the townspeople to use thesefacilities properly. A suitable person would be chosen from within thecommun'ty to be responsible for carrying out minor repairs to the handpump ofthe well. The project would train these persons, and would provide back-upassistance in case of major pump failures.

4.25 Schistosomiasis. The Schistosomiasis Surveillance Unit (SSU) wouldcontinue to operate as under Phase I, under the guidance of the Director ofthe Liberian Institute for Biomedical Research (LIBR). As already composed,the Manager of the Unit would submit his program to the Director LIBR whowould advise on its content and implementation. Additionally, the Managerwould liaise with the local Ministry of Health officials and would keep theminformed of developments in their monitoring and treatment activities.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E)

4.26 Project Specific. The project's M & E Unit would be strengthenedto permit more detailed planned ad hoc surveys to be carried out, andto improve survey methods. The Unit would continue to be headed by a Managerassisted by an Agricultural Economist, a Statistician, 2 Senior Assistants andsome 10 Enumerators. This staff would be augmented by part-time assistants,mainly students, when required. The M&E Unit is working to a program developedduring the first phase including suggestions made by visiting consultants.The unit would have regular quarterly meetings with management, and wouldinform it of important findings as soon as they are available. A post-projectevaluation exercise would analyze total project impact, and would be carriedout principally by the Unit.

4.27 Central Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. The Central M & E Unitwould be established in MOA's Planning and Development Department, which isheaded by a Deputy Minister of Agriculture. This Unit would be run by aDirector, and would consist of a Deputy Director, two Agricultural Economists,a Rural Sociologist and a Statistician. Support staff for these senior levelofficers would be provided. Since the field of M & E is new in Liberia,the project would fund the employment of qualified and experienced interna-tionally recruited Director for this unit. He/she would be employetd for aperiod of two years, during which time, a suitably qualified local Deputywould be trained to take over this post. Upon assuming the Directorship,the Deputy Director position would no longer exist, as the staff complementwould he adequate. The CMEU would carry out the following functions:(a) develop appropriate and realistic evaluation procedures, (b) coordinateand give technical guidance to all project specific M & E's, (c) train projectM & E staff (d) collate data collected by the Unit, projects and other relatedagencies, and record the analysis and interpretation of achievements withprogress reports to MOA and the project's steering committees and (e) under-take field investigations for baseline studies, M & E of on-going projectsand ex-post evaluation of such projects. In order to obtain a greaterunderstanding of the role, value and use of M & E, the CMEU would conductspecial seminars with Project Managers and other Project Management staff, aswell as with MOA officials.

- 29 -

4.28 In view of the innovative nature of the functions of the CMEU, andthe relevance of its work to other Ministries with responsibility in thefield of rural development, a Central Advisory Committee on Monitoring andEvaluation would be established to review on a quarterly basis its program ofwork and activities, and to discuss the results of major studies which havenational implications. The committee would be chaired by the Deputy Ministerof Agriculture for Planning and Development, and would consist of seniorrepresentatives of the Ministries of Planning and Economic Affairs, Finance,and Local Government. Representatives of other Ministries, such as Health,and Public Works may be co-opted from time to time whenever items of interestto these Ministries are to be discussed. The Director and Deputy Directorwould be ex-officio members of the committee.

4.29 Reporting Requirements. Reporting under P'hase I has been good.Project Management under the guidance of the CMEU, would continue to preparequarterly and annual reports for its own use and that of the Steering Com-mittee and MOA. These reports would be submitted promptly to the Bank forreview after each reporting period. At negotiations, Government gave assuranceto this effect.

V. PRODUCTION SPECIFICATIONS

Crop Development

5.01 Upland Rice. Although swamp rice product:ion is gradually increas-ing, the practice of growing upland rice is still extremely strong, and thetwo proven technological packages (seed exchange and seed with fertilizer)offered under Phase I would continue in this project. Seed exchange wouldbe the main package for those new project areas which have normal fallowperiods (approximately 10 years). LAC 23, the proven improved variety, wouldbe provided in exchange for the traditional unimproved variety. This arrange-ment has yielded as much as 50% more than traditional varieties under Phase I.The residual fertility in the soil derived from a normal fallow period inVoinjama, Kolahun, and Zorzor Districts would be adequate to support thislevel of production without fertilizer. By the end of Phase II some 5,500 hawould be expected to benefit from the seed exchange package. For areas wherethe fallow period is short (less than 6 years), such as in Foya and some partsof Zorzor, a credit package consisting of improved LAC 23 seed and fertilizer(NPK 15:15:15) would be used. Some 800 ha are expected to receive thispackage by the end of the project. Packages: Seed exchange -- 60 kg per haof improved seed; Credit -- 60 kg per ha of improved seed and 100 kg/ha offertilizer NPD (15:15:15). Yields are expected to rise from 1,000 kg/ha undertraditional cultivation to an average of 1,400 kg/ha with seed exchange, andto 1,400-1,600 kg/ha with the credit package.

5.02 Swamp Rice. From experience gained under Phase I, the project wouldemphasize its swamp rice development program in areas where the populationdensity exceeds 70 persons per square mile. It has been found that theseareas can supply and attract enough labor to support continuous swamp rice

- 30 -

production. The average swamp holding per farmer under the project is ex-pected to be 0.5 ha. However, based on a demonstrated ability to provideadequate labor, approximately 5-10% of swamp rice-farmers are expected todevelop 1 ha each under the project. The swamp layout and design used underPhase I have proved suitable for the project area, and considerable expertisehas been built up within the project to make implementation of a Phase IIprogram less difficult. However, Phase I experiences show that there isthe need for close supervision to be given farmers in the maintenance ofirrigation and water control structures in the second year. Also, thedevelopment credit package would cover a two-year period to assist farmersin carrying out further development work, such as tree-stump removal, andrepairing and completing water control structures. The credit package wouldcomprise a development loan for land clearing (tools and hired labor) afterinitial brushing by the farmer, and seasonal loans for seed and fertilizer.The recommended improved varieties and IR 5 for new swamps, and those freefrom iron toxicity, and Suakoko 8 for iron toxic swamps. The recommendedseeding rate is 45 kg/ha, and a system of established nursery and seedlingtransplanting would be practised. Fertilizer would be applied in the formof 100 kg each urea (45% N) and TSP (45% P) and, 50% Potash, where potashdeficiency is evident. Some pesticide is likely to be required against stemborer and caseworm, and herbicide use is estimated for 25% of the area. Whilefarmers continue to practise panicle harvesting, for easy storage, the projectwould promote the use of whole stalk harvesting and threshing where farmersintend to sell the paddy rice directly after harvesting. Some pedal threshersare in use in the project area, and credit would be provided for groups offarmers desiring to purchase them. Yields are expected to be 2,500 kg/ha(versus 1,000 kg by traditional methods) in Year 2 and 3,250 kg/ha in Year 3and on, at which time, some 25% of the area is expected to be doublie cropped.

5.03 Coffee - New Planting. Based on Phase I experience, the projectwould promote an expanded program of coffee planting, particularly in areaswhere enough farmers in close proximity to each other would participate, and,where possible, cultivate contiguous blocks. Generally, such blocks would beestablished near towns and would justify and permit the construction of accesstracks, and town nurseries for seedlings' production. New improved agronomicpractices would be introduced, based principally on a pruning cycle of 4 or5 years, in which farmers' plantings would be phased in at 1/4 or 1/5 ha peryear, (thus minimizing the need for credit and hired labor, and eveningout production with 3/4 or 4/5 ha always in production while 1/4 or 1/5pruned). Selected seed of known progeny would be purchased from th,e IvoryCoast, and the seedlings produced under the direction of the project. Seed-lings would be planted on the incline at a 300 angle from the vertical topromote the sprouting of shoots, from which the best 4 or 5 would bie chosen.Although some experience has been gained under Phase I, there is yet insuf-ficient data for refined fertilizer recommendations to be made. Based oncurrent evidence, a reasonable recommendation is 50 kg urea in Years 1 to3 and 200 kg in Year 4 and on. Further research would be carried out inconjunction with CARI to determine more precise requirements. Yields oftraditional coffee are under 200 kg/ha in Year 3, 450 in Year 4 and wouldaverage 600 kg/ha after Year 8. Full details of the agronomic practices tobe used are set out in Working Paper No. C2.

- 31 -

5.04 The project would also select suitable areas for trials in whichfarmers would intercrop upland rice with coffee. While this new system would

mean almost zero-shade planting of coffee (which wou:ld be new to the area), it

would have the advantage of the farmer combining in one place both his foodcrop, upland rice, and a cash crop--coffee. For this method to succeed,

coffee planting must take place about the same time that the rice is planted,that is, with the first rains. This gives the coffets seedlings the entire

rainy season to develop, and, with good cultural practices, should ensurecommercial production by Year 4. The farmer and his family would be more

inclined to take care of the young coffee plants in ithe vital first year,

since traditionally they would be occupied largely with activities associated

with the upland rice. Maintenance of the coffee wouLd not require hiredlabor.

5.05 Coffee Rehabilitation: A combination of activities are required toadequately rehabilitate coffee trees. However, unless the genetic potential

exists and the trees are not too old, these measures would be wasteful.

Further, farmers have not fully accepted rehabilitation as a means of increas-ing coffee production from their old trees. The project would continue its

rehabilitation program of carefully selecting farms on good soils, acceptable

tree density (more than 1,000 trees/ha), well-formed stems capable of respond-ing to pruning, and proper shade reduction. Some 290 ha would be rehabilitated

by Year 4, with a slow build-up in Years 1 and 2 for demonstrating to farmers

the techniques of rehabilitation. Yields are expected to be increased fromless than 100 kg/ha to 250 kg/ha. At this yield potential level fertilizers

would not be applied.

5.06 Cocoa. Project staff would continue to carefully choose cocoagrowing areas with ample shade in place since farmers generally preferto plant cocoa this way. Arrangements would be made for cocoa seed to beobtained each year from existing sources (local and Sierra Leone). This seedmaterial is generally of the hybrid type (Amelonado x Amazon). However, itis proposed that CARI should test varieties, and establish its own clonalseed gardens for Liberia in view of the expansion of cocoa production in thecountry. By Year 4 of the project, some 1,940 ha of cocoa would be plantedunder the project. Under Phase II, extension staff would advise farmers toplant cocoa between April and June, and to weed 4 times a year. From Year 4onwards, shade trees would be thinned to reduce the risk of black pod infec-tion. As with coffee, there is very little data available on the fertilizerrequirements of cocoa in Lofa. However, since Lofa's cocoa planting areas aremainly in forest, only phosphorus would be applied in the immaturity period

(300 kg TSP for just 3 years). Thereafter, mixed fertilizer would be appliedbased on soil analytical work, and fertilizer trials to be carried out by theongoing project's research unit in consultation with the Tree Crops Unit at

CARI. Plant health measures would consist of capsid control by spraying inJuly-August and November/December with Lindane or Gammalin 20. Cocoa yieldsare expected to start at 150 kg/ha in Year 3 and peak at 750 at year 7 (versusless than 250 kg under traditional methods).

- 32 -

5.07 Coffee and Cocoa Harvesting and Processing. Although harvesting ofthese crops is relatively simple, farmers often pick immature and overripecocoa pods both of which adversely affect processing of the beans, while incoffee, farmers pick ripe and unripe cherries in one or two rounds, instead ofonly ripe cherries in three or four rounds. The result for both cocoa andcoffee is a product of mixed quality with a lower grade than obtainable withripe picking. Processing techniques are also inadequate, and help to reducethe quality of the produce. Simple proposals for improving harvesting,fermentation and drying of cocoa, and processing of coffee cherries, have beenput forward in Working Paper No. 2. Apart from the above recommendations,there is a need for a better understanding in Liberia of both processing andgrading of coffee and cocoa to provide better export products. The projectwould employ a consultant to advise project staff and LPMC on post-harvestoperation for these two crops. Extension staff would advise farmers in theseharvesting and processing techniques, and, with the cooperation of LPMC, wouldinform them of the necessity to sort the cocoa and coffee before selling.Farmers would also be informed of the grading system for each crop, and theprice they may expect based on grading.

Cassava

5.08 Improved varieties of this crop have been introduced into theproject area from IITA Nigeria, but their use is not widespread. The pro-ject would sell on credit to upland rice farmers, particularly in the Zorzorarea, 400 setts of these selected varieties, which, apart from substantiallyincreasing yields are also tolerant to the prevalent cassava mosaic disease.(The yield increase is partly attributable to this characteristic). Thisinitial planting would provide adequate material for extending the cassavaarea in the second year after the upland rice has been harvested. This systemprolongs the use of the cleared land into a second year. Farmers would beexpected to space plant 1/10 of the upland rice area with cassava. Yieldswould average 10,000 kg/ha versus 4,000 with unimproved varieties.

Farm Labor

5.09 The average family size in the project area is about 7 persons, ofwhich the combined daily contribution of working members would be equivalentto 4 man-days. The crop development programs are planned around 1Labor avail-ability as a limiting factor based on data collected by the M & E Unit.Annual labour requirements per hectare based on M & E surveys for developmentrange from about 264 mandays for swamp rice to 70 mandays for coff-ee andcocoa; requirements per hectare for cultivation range from 290 mandays forupland rice (seed exchange) to about 65 mandays for coffee (5 year phasedplanting program). Traditionally, migrant labor from Guinea is available inthe more intensively farmed areas. This labor pool has been successfullyutilized under Phase I by grouping workers into gangs. The system wouldbe introduced into the new project areas. Wages are US$ 2.50 per day plussome food.

- 33 -

Environmental Considerations

5.10 The project seeks to minimize the adverse effects of existingagricultural practices on the environment, and on the health of the community.The long tradition of shifting cultivation through annual removal of foresttrees may be alleviated somewhat by the introduction of improved rice seed andfertilizer which should increase productivity. Swamp rice cultivation shouldsimilarly reduce the need for this annual land clearing. However, swamp riceis associated with schistosomiasis, and although swamps are commonly used forfishing, washing, and many other activities, the project would continue themonitoring of swamps for and treatment against schistosomiasis. A program ofhealth education and the construction of wells and latrines in towns would becarried out by the project.

Table 4: LOFA COUNTRY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IICROP YIELD ASSUMPTIONS

(kg/ha)

Before3rop Development PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 PY7 PY8 PY9 PY10

Jpland Rice 1,000 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400Swamp Rice 1,000 2,250 2,500 3,000 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250coffee (new) - 0 0 200 450 800 650 800 250 500 800toffee (rehab) 70 70 50 100 250 200 250 100 200 - --'ocoa - 0 0 150 300 500 750 800 800 800 800Zassava 4,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

VI. DEMAND, MARKETING, PRICES AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Demand

6.01 At full development (by 1987 for the food crops and 1994 for thetree crops) the project would generate incremental annual production of about6,400 tons of paddy (equivalent to about 4,170 tons of rice), 3,600 tons ofcassava, 1,940 tons of cocoa, and 2,400 tons of coffee. The incrementalproduction of food crops would be easily absorbed into the domestic market.The country is a net importer of food, including rice which is the majorstaple. Average per capita consumption of rice is about 85 kg and slightlyhigher at about 100 kg per annum in the project area. Annual rice importshave averaged about 56,000 tons over the past five years and a deficit isexpected to continue despite the rice components in the ongoing and plannedagricultural development projects. The incremental production of rice andcassava would be consumed within and around the project area. Coffee andcocoa are export crops and are therefore important sources of foreign exchange.

- 34 -

The country is not expected to face any problems in marketing the incrementalproduction. It is a member of the International Coffee Organization (ICO) andits current quota has been lowered to about 8,000 tons which is in excessof its estimated domestic production of 6,500 tons. However, due to pricedifferentials and the use of the dollar as the domestic currency iunofficialinflows of coffee from neighbouring countries can push total exports up to9,800 tons, as in 1979/80. These unofficial inflows are expected to declinegiven (a) the current levels of producer prices paid by the LPMC (which arenow in line with those of the neighbouring countries) and (b) the removal ofthe subsidy on rice which was being bartered for coffee and cocoa at theborders. Furthermore, the Government of Liberia has signed a fiveB yearcontract with Libya (which is not a member of the ICO) for an annual deliveryof 2,000 tons of coffee. Liberia is not a signatory to the InternationalCocoa Agreement and therefore has no quota restrictions on its sale of cocoa.However, its export of some 4,500 metric tons (1980/81) is confined to EECcountries and the US, and the projected increased production from this projectis insignificant, relative to world production of 1.6 million tons (1980), andcan be easily absorbed in the traditional markets.

Marketing

6.02 The food crops would be marketed through the existing network ofprivate traders, which is adequate for handling the increased volume ofproduction. The rice marketing system is highly competitive and given thedemand situation farmers receive from private traders prices that are wellabove the government minimum price of 12 cts per lb of paddy; prices rangefrom 50% above (at harvest) to 90% above (at other times) the minimum price.There are several private and three LPMC owned rice mills in the area andprocessing capacity is considerably in excess of requirements; recovery ratesaverage about 65%.

6.03 The export crops - coffee and cocoa - would be marketed throughthe LPMC marketing system of licenced buying agents. At present there isconsiderable concern about the competitive efficiency of the system and theoperational efficiency of the LPMC (paras. 1.13, 3.13 and 4.15). Actualproducer prices are often far below official prices due to situations offarmer indebtedness and pledging of crops to the agents as well as cheatingon weight. The measures to be taken under the project for improving themarketing system and the operations of the LPMC have been discussed inparas. 4.13 and 4.15. The expansion and strengthening of the cooperativesto handle the marketing of output and inputs and as a vehicle for credit(paras 4.12-4.15) would also reduce the present imperfections in the marketingsystem.

Prices

6.04 Given the projected demand and supply situation for rice in Liberia,it is expected that market prices for rice and paddy will continue to be highin the project area. The projections for the farmgate paddy price are basedon a weighted average base price of US$330 per ton in 1981 and the IBRDprojected price trend for rice (see Working Paper No. 5). In the case of the

- 35 -

export crops (coffe and cocoa), it is expected that the LPMC with improvedcost control measures (para. 4.15) would be able to maintain official producerprices at between 65-70% of f.o.b. prices. The main objective of the expansionof the cooperatives under the project is to channel all credit, input supplyand marketed output through the system, therefore the spread between theofficial producer price and the farmgate prices for coffee and cocoa is notexpected to be more than 6% to cover transportation costs and weight andquality discounts (See Working Papers 1 and 8).

6.05 The financial and economic prices for farm produce used in the farmbudgets and calculation of the economic rate of return (ERR), respectively,are shown in Table 3 below. They are based on existing domestic prices andtrends and IBRD forecasts. In the farm budgets a markup of 7% has been addedto non-labor farm inputs to cover the operational costs of the cooperatives.In the ERR calculations, border prices were adjusted by the economic costs oftransportation, distribution and processing to determine the net economicprices. Further details on these costs and prices, and the underlying assump-tions are set out in Working Paper No. 8.

Table 5: FARMGATE PRICES 1/

per metric tonReal 1982 prices

Financial Economic1982 1985 1990 1982 1985 1990

Output:

Rice (paddy) 340 389 403 323 372 385Coffee 1,440 1,233 1,348 1,642 1,412 1,547Cocoa 1,342 1,093 1,206 1,558 1,276 1,404Cassava 65 65 65 65 65 65

1/ For underlying assusmptions see Working Paper No. 8.

Financial Returns to Farmers

6.06 The relative profitability and returns to resources in the variouscropping activities in the development program are shown in Annex 5, Table 1.The wide variations in returns reflect the differences in the intensity ofresource use in the tree crops as compared with rice as well as the varia-tions in yields obtained in the different types of rice cultivation. Allproject farmers would achieve increases in returns per hectare of land andper man-day of family labor. All incremental family labor would earn morethan the estimated opportunity cost of US$1.00 per man day; average returnsper man-day of family labor at full development would range from US$1.20 forupland rice farming (seed exchange only) to $10.10 for cocoa farming (newplanting after loan repayment).

- 36 -

6.07 The total income effect on project farmers would depend on cropcombinations and labor requirements. Mainly because of labor constraints atpeak seasons a project farmer would only be able to develop and farm about2 ha of land. The crop combinations and returns of four representative typesof farming systems are presented in Annex 5, Table 2; the correspondingfamily and per capita annual incomes are summarized in Table 6 below.

Table 6: FARM INCOMES

(US$ real 1982 prices)

Farm Model 1/ A B C

Farming Activity: Coffee Cocoa Swamp RiceUpland Rice Upland Rice Upland Rice

Cropped Area (ha) 2.0 2.0 2.0

Approximate No. of Farmers 4,000 1,940 1,100

Farm IncomesPresent 350 350 3351992 W 400 400 4001992 W 950 2/ 1,370 3/ 1,325

Per Capita Incomes 4/Present 67 67 641992 w 77 77 771992 W 183 2/ 263 3/ 255

W = without projectW = with project

1/ For underlying assumptions see Annex 5 Tables 1 and 2.2/ Excludes the annual repayment of the development loan ($169.0 p.a.

for 5 years from Yr.6 - Yr.10. See Annex 5 Tables 1 and 2 andWorking Paper No. 9).

3/ Excludes the annual repayment of the development loan ($415 for 6 yearsfrom Year 7 - Year 12. See Annex 5 Tables 1 and 2 and Working PaperNo. 9).

4/ Average family size of 5.2 members.

There would be wide differences in the incremental incomes streams amongfarming types due to variations in the costs and periods of development. Theincreases in incomes would range from about US$550 for a coffee/up:Land ricefarm to about US$970 for a cocoa/upland rice farm after repayments of thedevelopment loans. Coffee would be the major crop developed under theproject despite the apparently greater profitability of cocoa and rswamp rice.

- 37 -

The expansion of swamp farming is limited by the arcluous nature of cultivation,the availability of swamps, a preference for upland farming and a fear ofschistosomiasis. The expansion of cocoa is constrained by the availabilityof suitable soils, the relative difficulties in processing and the higherincidence of disease as compared with coffee. Farmers also indicate a pre-ference for coffee because of relatively low labour requirements.

Financial Implications for Government

6.08 There are no direct taxes levied on the commodities that would beproduced under the project, but in the case of export crops, producer pricesare only about 65-70% of fob prices. The LPMC has been paying part of theserevenues as dividends to Government. However, given the present financialsituation of LPMC (para.1.13) and the depressed markets for coffee and cocoa(present and forecasted), it is estimated that incremental dividends wouldonly be between 2 and 5% of the f.o.b. (Monrovia) prices. Revenues fromindirect taxation are estimated at between 10 and 15% of the value of produc-tion. Evidence from Phase I and similar projects elsewhere in Liberia suggeststhat there would also be some secondary economic acitivities that would beinduced by the project in the marketing, construction, rice processing,trading and other servicing sectors, thereby generating incremental revenuesfrom direct and indirect taxation.

6.09 The Government cash flow (Annex 6) is negative,during the implemen-tation period, which is typical for such a project. The annual Government netcash deficit (excluding recurrent expenditures of about US$1.0 million forPhase I) averages US$0.6 million during the four year investment period.The recurrent expenditures of Phase I consist mainly of personnel and thesupporting expenses for administration, extension and credit and input supplyservices (for further details see Working Paper No.6). The combined annualrecurrent costs of the Phases I and II projects would be about $1.6 million atthe end of the investment period, and would cover mainly administration andextension services and roads maintenance necessary for maintaining the produc-tion levels of both projects. While incremental revenues would not permitfull cost recovery, they would cover the recurrent costs of the project.Incremental revenues from Phase II are expected to reach US$1.1 million by1990, while those from Phase I should be at least US$1.2 million.

VII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION

Overall Benefits:

7.01 It is estimated that there would be between 7,000 and 8,000 farmfamilies (30% total rural families in Upper Lofa) who would earn significantlyhigher incomes (para. 6.06) under the various crop improvement and creditprograms. At full development of their respective crops, and after repayingall development loans, about 55% of the farm families would earn familyincomes of around 2.5 times the present average of US$350 per annum for thearea, while about 45% would increase their incomes by about 3.5 times. The

- 38 -

improvement of the road network and provision of village wells and latrineswould reach beyond these direct beneficiaries to a considerably larger propor-tion of the rural population. There would also be spin off effects from thestrengthening of the institutional services and the expansion of credit andmarketing services. Additional employment would also be created by theincreased activities that would be induced by the project in other sectorssuch as trading, rice processing, construction, and transportation. It isestimated that at least 50% (12,000) of the rural families in the countywould benefit in some way from the proposed project.

7.02 As Liberia is a net importer of food, (para. 6.01) the incrementalfood crop production would represent considerable potential for annual netforeign exchange savings. By 1990 the incremental annual output of rice wouldbe worth, at border prices, at least US$3.2 million per annum (in real 1982terms) net of the foreign exchange costs of farm inputs. While incrementalannual foreign exchange earnings (net of imported inputs) from the exportcrops would be about US$7.4 million (in real 1982 terms) by 1992.

7.03 The training programs and institution building to be introducedunder the project would improve local capability and facilitate planning andimplementation of future development programs. The creation of a CentralMonitoring and Evaluation Unit would consolidate and streamline the currentmonitoring and evaluation efforts of the various ADPs. It would also permita greater exchange of information and the formulation of common policiesamong the ADPs. The project is justified on the basis of these direct andindirect benefits which would accrue to the lowest income groups, even thoughit is not expected to generate sufficient revenues to permit cost recovery.

Economic Rate of Return:

7.04 The Economic Rate of Return is estimated to be 17% (Annex 7,Table 1). The important assumptions underlying the analysis are:

(a) Benefits: Only the direct benefits that would be generated by theproject from the incremental crop production (Annex 7, Table 1), areincluded. Yields, acreages and production are as in Chapter 5. Theeconomic farmgate prices are shown in Table 3, the basis of theirderivation are in Working Paper No. 8.

(b) Costs: All investments in training and infrastructure, as well asoperations and maintenance costs and infrastructure that are directlyrelated to the generation of the identified benefits are included inthe analysis (see Annex 7, Table 1). For operations after the fouryear development period, it is assumed that smaller support serviceswould be required to maintain the momentum achieved. A breakdown ofthe recurrent operational costs is shown in Annex 7, Tab:Le 1.

(c) Shadow Pricing: Hired labor is priced at the market wage ofUS$2.50 per manday. Family labor is priced at US$1.00 per mandaysince the more mobile members have already joined the hired labormarket, and the returns to family labor in their alternative usespresently range between $0.55 per manday for upland rice cultivationand $1.00 per manday for other farming activities such as vegetableand cereal cultivation, livestock rearing and off-farm work.

- 39 -

(d) Project Life: The economic life of the project is assumed to be25 years including a 4-year implementation period.

Risks and Sensitivity:

7.05 The proposed project would be the second phase in the area andwould build upon the institutional structures and techniques developed inthe first phase so that normal risks associated withl projects of this kindwould be minimized. However, two constraining factors could be:

(a) delays or failure in strengthening and expanding the marketing andcredit services through the cooperative network; and

(b) delays or failure in improving the efficiency of the LiberianProduce Marketing Corporation (LPMC).

7.06 Therefore, the project would undertake a gradual handing over ofits credit and marketing functions to the cooperatives and provide managerialtraining and other supporting assistance (paras 3.11 and 3.17). The opera-tions of the LPMC would be analyzed under PPF financing and agreement on asuitable plan of action for improving its operations would be agreed withIDA (para 4.15). The project would also provide financing of technicalexpertise to implement the program (para. 4.15).

7.07 Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to evaluate the impact ofvarious adverse factors on the economic rate of return (ERR) and determinewhich variables would be most crucial to the success of the project. As ameasure, switching values 1/ using an opportunity cost of capital (OCC) of 10%were computed. The numerical results indicated that in its present designthe project is fairly resilient to the possible risks and would remaineconomically viable under various adverse conditions in any of its components.The percentage changes between the appraisal estimates and the switchingvalues for the main variables were: for the total benefit stream -23%, forthe development costs +85%, for farm production costs +73%, and -57% for thecoffee program and -64% for the rice programs which are the main componentsin the benefit streams. The project can withstand simultaneous decreasesof up to 20% in the economic farmgate prices of each of the three majorproducts -- coffee, cocoa and rice, other factors constant. The projectwould become economically unviable if the developmental and recurrent costsincreased by more than 15% and at the same time total benefits fell by morethan 15% due to shortfalls in yields or adoption rates or a combinationof both. A more detailed sensitivity analysis of possible outcomes is pre-sented in Annex 7, Table 2.

1/ The switching value is the value of the variable tested at which thenet present value (NPV) of the project, discounted at the OCC, is zero;in other words, the value beyond which the ERR would fall below the OCC.A switching value may be interpreted as a measure of how far a specificvariable may differ from its most likely value before the project becomeseconomically unviable.

- 40 -

VIII. AGREEMENTS, CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.01 The following assurances were obtained from Government at nego-tiations:

(a) that Government would engage consultants with qualifications,experience, terms of reference and under terms and conditionssatisfactory to IDA; consultants' reports would be reviewed byIDA before implementation (para. 3.14);

(b) that Government would make the necessary allocation in the budget,provide foreign exchange requirement and finance the cost:s needed tomaintain existing Project services, and fund increases as necessaryto maintain these services at a comparable level (para. 3.16);

(c) that the project's special bank account into which IDA woulddeposit an advance of up to US$200,000 would be operated underterms and conditions acceptable to the Bank (para. 3.18),

(d) that the project would continue to use accounting and auditingprocedures satisfactory to IDA (para. 3.24);

(e) that the Government would review with IDA any proposals forreorganizing MOA as they affect the project area (para. 4.01);

(f) that qualified and competent staff satisfactory to IDA wouldbe appointed to the positions of CAO, Agricultural DevelopmentManager, Agricultural Manager, Financial Controller, and Commer-cial Services Manager (para. 4.01);

(g) that Government would effect the necessary reduction in MOA staffconsistent with efficient operation of the project (para 4.04);

(h) that personnel for the position of Cooperative Specialist would beinternationally recruited with qualifications and experience andunder terms and conditions satisfactory to IDA (para. 4.04);

(i) that Government would take the required measures to improvethe cooperatives in the project area (para. 4.13);

(j) that by June 30, 1984, Government would carry out the agreedplan of action, in respect of management and operations of LPMC(para 4.15);

(k) that Government would set interest rates on seasonal and develop-ment loans at 15% and 12% respectively, and would annuallyreview these with IDA, and, if necessary, would revise these ratescharged under the project to reflect domestic inflation, and thecosts of administering the credit program (para. 4.16); and

- 41 -

(1) that by the completion of the project, Government would takeover responsibility for maintaining all feeder roads constructedunder the project (para. 4.23).

8.02 The following would be conditions of effectiveness:

(a) that all conditions precedent to the effectiveness of the ADFLoan Agreement had been fulfilled (para 3.17); and

(b) that Government had entered into a financ:ing agreement withthe ACDB for establishing and operating the Revolving Loan Fund(para. 4.21).

- 42 -

Working Papers

C1 Credit Cooperatives and Marketing

C2 Crops and Research

C3 Roads

C4 Monitoring and Evaluation

C5 Reporting Format

C6 Project Costs - Development and Recurrent

C7 Financing Arrangements

C8 Economic and Financial Prices

C9 Crop and Farm Budgets

AnnexI

LIBERIA

LOFA COLNTY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

EOss '0005

PER PEG PY3 GY4 L.oTAL FOREIGN EXChANGE

Personnel 176.3 176.3 176.3 17t,.3 705.2Vehicles and Equipment 47.9 Ll.Z E.S 56.6 117.2 1O5.5Operations and MiOntenance 175.5 175.5 175.5 175.5 702.0 561.6

Sub-total 399.7 363.0 353.3 408.4 1,524.4 667.1

Agricaltural Extension

Personnel 477.5 477.5 477.5 477.5 1,910.0Vehiclen and Equipment 193.9 83.9 120.1 151.7 549.6 494.6Dperatlon and Maintenance 177.0 177.0 177.0 477.0 708.0 637.2

Sub-total 846.4 738.4 774.6 806.2 3,167.6 1,131.8

Training

Personnel 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 437.6Vehinlen and Equipment 57.2 10.2 40.2 26.4 134.0 120.7Operatlonn and Maintenance 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 416.0 374.4

Sub-total 270.6 223.6 253.6 239.8 987.6 495.1

Plant Prnduction and Reneseoh 362.4 362.4 362.4 362.4 1,449.6

Personnel 362.4 362.4 362.4 362.4 1,449.6Vehicles and iquip=en7 20.7 49.2 48.2 26.2 144.3 129.9Operations and Maintenance 82.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 316.2 284.5

Sub-total 465.9 489.4 488.4 466.4 1,910.1 414.4

Ceopera-ti-e and Cam-erc1al Services

Persennel 389.5 439.0 490.5 550.0 1,869.0ehinces and Equipment 259.9 118.7 81.6 2f0.0 720.2 648.1

Operations and 2aintenance 038.0 261.0 280.0 302.0 1,081.0 972.9Buildings 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 300.0 180.0

Sub-total 962.4 893.7 927.1 1,187.0 3,970.2 1,801.0

Par= Inputs

Fectili-ers 100.0 285.0 600.0 708.0 1,775.0 1,597.5Seedling., Seed, Tools 185.0 200.0 270.0 30'0.0 975.0 867.5Hired Labor 150.0 265.0 330.0 395.0 1,140.0

Sub-total 440.0 750.0 1,200.0 1,000.0 3,890.0 2,465.0

Schistoso=ianis Coerrel lnit

Pernonnel 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.8 251.2 -Vehicles and Eqip=ent 27.2 17.2 2.0 19.2 65.6 59.1Operationn and Xiantenance 37.6 37.6 37.6 07.6 150.4 135.2

Cab-total 127.6 117.6 102.4 119.6 467.2 194.3

Reeds, Wells and Latrines

Peronneel 147.6 147.6 147.6 147.6 590.4Vehicles and Eqaipsent 34.0 12.2 1.0 4.0 51.2 46.1Operations and Maintenanne 608.0 608.0 190.1 190.1 1,596.2 1,436.6

Sub-total 789.6 767.8 338.7 341.7 2,277.8 1,482.7

Land Planning

Persoenel 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 273.2Vehicles and Eqciprent 45.6 25.9 26.4 25.9 123.8 111.4Operations and Maintenance 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 190.0 170.8

Sab-total 161.4 141.7 142.2 141.7 587.0 282.2

Cenneal Mnlitnrisg and Evaluation Enit

Personne 200.4 218.6 153.8 263.8 736.6 160.0Vebinle- and Eqaip-ent 72.5 7.0 1.0 28.2 108.7 97.8Operations and Maintenance 54.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 222.0 199.8

Sab-total 326.9 281.6 210.8 .148.0 1,067.3 457.6

Pr-jeot Monitoring snd ERaluetion Ueit

Personnel 83.8 84.8 85.8 85.8 340.2Vehicles and Equipeent 48.9 - 1.0 39.2 69.1 80.2Operatclans and Maintenance 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 160.8 144.8

Sob-total 172.9 125.0 127.0 165.2 590.1 125.0

Cnn-ultancy and Technical Assistance 240.0 210.0 30.0 90.0 560.0 406.0

Prnject Preparation Facility 100.0 - - - 100.0 80.0

Total Bane Costs 5,305.4 5,101.8 4,948.1 5,714.0 21,069.3 I1.i02.2

Phybscal Coningencies 145.1 141.3 142.9 174.8 607.1 401.4Price Contingencies 836.3 1,273.2 1,710.7 ',504.2 6,324.4 3,082.5

Total Prnjact Costs 6,289.8 6,516.3 6,801.7 8,393.0 28,000.8 13,666.1

Annex 2Page 44

LIBERIA


Estimated Schedule of Disbursement _/(US$ Million)

IDA/IBRD Fiscal CumulativeYear Quarter Disbursement Disbursement

FY 83 1st Quarter 0.1 0.12nd " 0.3 0.43rd " 0.4 0.84th " 0.5 1.3




FY 87 1st Quarter 0.7 14.92nd " 0.6 15.5

1/ Based on the Regional IDA disbursement profile for agricultureadjusted to reflect the 4 year implementation period of the project.

Annex 3

LIBERIA


PROJECT CROP AREA DEVELOPMENT(Ilectarcs)

Cropfyear 1 2 3 4 TOTAL

Upland rice(seed exchange) 1250 1350 1450 1450 5500

Upland rice(credit package) 200 200 200 200 800

Swamp rice 220 280 290 310 1100

Coffee .

(New plantings) 460 850 920 1100 3330

Coffee(Rehabilitation) 20 20 100 150 290

Cocoa(new plantings) 225 465 600 650 1940

Cassava - 100 200 300 600

.

LIBERIA


Incremental Crop Production-'/ (tons)

Pfl PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 PY7 PY8 pY9 PY10 PY11 PY12-25

RICE:Swamp 495 1,180 2,067 3,o48 3,348 3,576 3,576 3,576 3,576 3,576 3,576 3,576Upland! Seed Exchange 500 1,043 1,620 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200

Credit 160 320 480 640 640 64o 64o 64o 640 640 64o 640

TOTAL 1,155 2,540 4,819 5,888 6,183 6,416 6,416 6,4i6 6,416 6,416 6,416 6,416 J-COFFEE:

New Planting _ _ 160 520 1,160 1,680 2 320 2 360 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400Rehabilitation o -0.4 0.2 2.2 6.2 28.7 44.2 40.7 32.6 17.5 19.5 0.0

TOTAL - .4 160.2 522.2 1,166.2 1,708.7 2,364.2 2,400.7 2,432.6 2,417.5 2,419.5 2,400

COCOA:New Planting _ - _ 34 138 343 691 1,092 1,495 1,810 1,940 1,940

CASSAVA - 600 1,800 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600

Based on the assumptions on yields (Chapter 4 Table) and the Annual crop development program in Annex

LIBERIA


Crop Budgets Per Ha at Full Development 1/

US $ real 1982 prices

Upland Rice and Cassava Upland Rice Seed Exchange Swamp Rice Cocoa New Planting Coffee Rehabilitation Coffee New PlantingCredit Package 1984 Package - 1983 1985 1986 1991 1997 1986 1988 1991 1993

1982 W W 1982 W W W W W W 1982 W W W W

Yiejd.2/ tons/ha 1.0/0.4 1.0/0.4 1.8/1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 3.25 3.25 1.0 1.0 0.070 0.30 0.25 .60 .60Price3/ US$/ton 340/65 368/65 368/65 340 351 351 390 390 1206 1206 1440 1233 1233 1348 1348

Gross Value of Production 366.0 394 727.4 340 351 491.4 1267.5 1267.5 1206.0 1206.0 100.0 370.0 308.0 809.0 809.0

Costs of Production4/Seed/Seedlings - - 15.0 - - 10.0 9.0 9.0 -Fertilizers - 55.0 115.0 120.0 180.0 180.0 220.0 220.0Pesticides - - - 5.0 6.0 20.0 20.0Tools, Equipment, Bags 15.0 15,0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 18.0 19.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0Hired Labor 5/ 100.0 100.0 112.5 155.0 155.0 155.0 175.0 175.0 10.0 10.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 87.5 87.5Interest 6/ 23.0 23.0 35.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 50.0 51.0 40.0 40.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 50.0 50.0

Costs of Development 7/ - - - - 220.5 - 415.0 - - 117.0 - 169.0 -

TOTAL COSTS 138.0 138.0 232.5 204.0 204.0 214.0 600.5 380.0 675.0 260.0 36.0 153.0 36.0 536.5 367.5

Net Value of Production 228.0 256.0 494.9 136.0 147 277.4 667.0 887.5 531.0 946.0 64.0 217.0 272.0 272.5 441.5

Family Labor (mandays) 8/ 252 252 182 230 230 230 170 170 95 95 20 40 30 63 63

Return per manday of Family Labor 0.9 1.0 2.7 0.6 0.6 1.20 3.9 5.2 5.6 10.0 3.2 5.4 9.1 4.3 7.0

1/ For the technological packages and assumptions underlying these budgets see working paper C2. For purposesof comparison data is provided for the first year of full development (maximum yield) and the first yearafter rep.yaent of development loan (for tree crops and swamp rice).

2/ For yield asso,mptions see Table 4.3/ For assumptions on prices see Working Paper No. C8-4/ These are the variable costs of production only and do not include development costs.

H/ Hired labor is costed at the prevailing wage rate of US$2.50/manday.6/ For 10-12 months at 15% for seasonal credit provided under the project, at 20% for credit from traditional sources.7/ For the purpose of this analysis, annual development costs are assumed to be the annual repayment of the

development loan (capital & interest). For the actual annual development costs see the crop investment analysisin Working Paper C9.

8/ Family labor for production only, labor for development is incurred in the earlier years. See investmentanalyses in Working Paper C9.

W - with project FW - wthollt project

LIBERIA


Farm Models I/

Net Value of Production Total Family Labor Real 1982 PricesCropped Area _ndays - 1992 Net Return Per Manday

(ha) 1982 W 1992 W 1982 1982 W 1992 W

A. Coffee 3/ 1.0 65 - 440 40 - 63Upland Rice Seed Exchange 1.0 135 200 350 230 230 230Other 4/ 150 200 150 150 200 150TOTAL 350 400 950 420 430 443 0.8 0.9 2.1

B. Cocoa -/ 1.0 65 - 945 50 - 95

Upland Rice Seed Exchange 1.0 135 200 350 230 230 230Other 4/ 150 200 75 150 200 75TOTAL 350 400 1370 430 430 400 0.8 .9 3.4

C. Swamp 1.0 - - 925 - - 170

Upland Rice Seed Exchange 1.0 135 200 350 230 230 230Other 4/ 200 200 50 200 200 50TOTAL 335 400 1325 430 430 450 0.8 0.9 2.9

W With project

4= Without project

I/ These farm models are representative of crop combinations in the project area.2/ Estimation of net value of production are based on data in the crop budgets in Table and the Investment Analvsis on WPT X3/ Present coffee production are from very old trees that will be non-productive by 1992. The "With project" value of

production excludes the annual repayment of the development loan ($169 p.a. for 5 years from year 6-yr.10. SeeInvestment Analyses Working Paper C9.

4/ Includes income from other crops -- cassava, yams, maize, vegetables, citrus, etc. and off-farm income.

5/ The existing cocoa trees would be non-productive by 1992. The "With project" value of production excludes the2

annual repayment of the development loan ($415for 6 years from year, 7 yr. 12. See Investment Analyses Working Paper No.C9. X X

(DX4

LIBERIA

LOFA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - PHASE II

Government Cash Flow(US$ '000)

PYI PY2 mY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 PY7 PYB PY9 PYYO PY11 PY21

PHASE II CASH INFLOWS

IDA Credit 3135 3315 3935 5115ADF Credit 2515 2515 2155 2415Indirect taxes, dividends from LPMC 1/ 60.0 135.0 295.0 495.0 670.0 840.0 1050.0 1135.0 1310.0 1375.0 1140.0 1400.0

TOTAL INFLOWS 5710.0 5965.0 6385.0 8025.0 670.0 840.0 1050.0 1135.0 1310.0 1375.0 1140.0 1400.0

CASH OUTFLOWS

Project Costs

Agricultural Extension and Training 1322.3 1213.8 1395.4 1519.4Cooperatives, Credit and Input Supply Systems 1151.8 1144.6 1270.7 1747.6Farm Inputs 537.8 989.7 1703.0 2275.2Roads and Land Planning 1145.8 1179.8 659.1 708.9Administration 474.8 462.4 482.4 599.3Plant Production 541.3 611.6 653.8 666.0Schistosomiasis Control Unit 151.2 149.2 138.5 174.3Monitoring and Evaluation 2/ 591.5 507.9 459.5 602.3Consultancy and PPF 363.3 257.3 39.3 -

Recurrent Costs

Agricultural Extension and Administration 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0Road Maintenance 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0

Debt Service IDA Credit 3/

Committment Fee 77.5 61.8 45.3 25.5 0.5Service Charge 20.0 45.0 65.0 90.0 116.2 116.3 116.3 116.3 116.3 116.3 116.3 104.6Principal Repayment 155.0 465.0

Debt Service ADF Credit 4/

Service Charge 15.0 30.0 45.0 60.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 64.8Principal Repayment 96.0 288.0

TOTAL OUTFLOWS 6392.3 6653.1 6957.0 8468.5 737.8 738.3 738.3 738.3 738.3 738.3 989.3 1472.4

Net Surplus (Deficit) (682.3) (688.1) (572.0) (443.5) (68.7) 101.7 311.7 396.7 571.7 636.7 150.7 (72.4)

Memo Item

Recurrent Costs Phase I

Administration 427.6 460.0 493.8 528.0 530.0 530.0 530.0 530.0 530.0 530.0 530.0 530.0Cooperatives, Credit and Input Supply Systems 126.5 135.9 145.8 155.9 - - - - - -Agricultural Extension and Training 317.8 343.8 370.3 496.4 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0

TOTAL 871.9 939.7 1009.9 1180.3 1030.0 1030.0 1030.0 1030.0 1030.0 1030.0 1030.0 1030.0

1! Indirect taxes on expenditures of project beneficiaries and dividends paid by the LPMC are estimated to be between 10-20% of the total value of production generated by the project.2/ Includes both the central and project units.3/ ½ of IX per anonm committment fee on undisbursed balance of credit. 3/4 of 1% per nnnum service charge on disbursed amount. Principal repaid over 50 years with a 10 year grace period;

repayment terms are 1% per annum for the first 10 years and 32 per annum for the next 30 years.4/ Assumes ADF debt terms similar to IDA.

LIBERIA

LOFIA COIlJNT AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT it

Economic Coats and Benefits

USs'000 (real 1982 terms)

PYI PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 PY7 PY8 PY9 PY10 PYII PYt2-25

Development Costa:

Administration 438.7 419.1 426.9 499.1 - - - - - - - -

Agricultural Extension 848.4 738.4 774.6 806.2 - - - - -

Training 270.6 223.6 253.6 239.8 - - - - -

Plant Ptoduction and Research 465.9 489.4 488.4 466.4 - - - - -

Cooperatives and Commercial Services 962.4 893.7 927.1 1187.0 -

Schistosomiais Control Unit 127.6 117.6 102.4 119.6 -

Roads. Wells and Latrines 1/ 789.6 767.8 338.7 341.7 -Land Planning 161.4 141.7 142.2 141.7 -

Central Monitoring and Evaluation Unit 2/ 64.0 56.0 42.0 50.0 - - _ _ _ _ _ _Project Monitoring and Evaluation Unit 172.9 125.0 127.0 165.2 - - - - - -

Conaultancy and Technical Assistance 230.0 210.0 30.0 - -Physical Contingencies 148.1 141.3 142.9 174.8 -

Sub-Total 4678.6 4323.6 3795.8 4191.5 -

Recurrent Costs 3/

Administration etc. - - - - 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0Extension Services etc. - - - - 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0Road Maintenance - - - - 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0

Sub-Total - - - - 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0Credit and Cooperative Systems 4/ - - - - 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0

Incremental Farm Production Costs

Inputs - Fertilizers etc. 335.0 485.0 870.0 1105.0 996.0 1101.0 1176.0 1230.0 1230.0 1230.0 1230.0 1230.0Hired Labour 150.0 265.0 330.0 395.0 379.0 391.0 473.0 523.0 573.0 563.0 563.0 563.0Family Labour 110.0 220.0 320.0 440.0 460.0 480.0 530.0 570.0 610.0 620.0 630.0 630.0

Sub-Total 595.0 970.0 1520.0 1940.0 1835.0 1972.0 2179.0 2323.0 2413.0 2413.0 2423.0 2423.0

TOTAL INCREMENTAL COSTS 5274.6 5293.6 5315.8 6131.5 3335.0 3472.0 3679.0 3823.0 3913.0 3913.0 3923.0 3923.0

Benefits

Rice 361.5 795.0 1508.3 2190.3 2300.1 2386.8 2386.8 2386.8 2470.2 2470.2 2470.2 2470.2Cassava 0.0 39.0 117.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0

Coffee 0.0 -0.7 263.0 737.3 1646.7 2412.7 3338.3 3389.8 3763.2 3739.9 3743.0 3712.8Cocoa 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.4 176.1 437.7 881.7 1393.4 2099.0 2541.2 2723.8 2723.8

TOTAL INCREMENTAL BENEFITS 361.5 833.3 1888.3 3205.0 4356.9 5471.2 6840.8 7404.0 8566.9 8985.3 9171.0 9140.8

ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN

1/ Excludes (a) depreciation allowances for the machinery belonging to the MPW and those purchased under Phase I(b) costs of voluntary labour supplied by the villagers

These costs are excluded on the sasumption that they are almost agreed to the indirect benefits generated by the road program.

2/ only one fifth of the total Central Monitoring and Evaluation Unit are attributable to this project. , I,3/ These costs reflect the proportion of the total recurrent coats (at end of Phases I and II) that are attributable to maintaining Phase II production levels.

4/ The costs of administering the credit and cooperative systems that are financed from interest payments part of the costs are financed by markups which are included In the costs of inputs.

L.IBERIA

LOFA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DEVEM0PIT PROJECT II

Economic Analysis: Internal Rate of Return, Sensitivity Avalysis

----- C O S T S T R E A N S -BENEFIT STREAKS

UPV of Net lncrementatBenefit Stream

Far. IRR of Xet Incrental Dscounted at 102Development Recurrent Development TOTAL Rice Cassava Coffee Cocoa TOTAL Benefit of Stream UiSS mllion

NPV of Appraisal Estimate (lS$ Million)>I/ 13.5 8.9 17.3 39.7 17.8 1.7 20.3 11.3 51.3 17.1 11.6

NPV of Switching Value (USS Million)3' 25.1 20.4 28.9 51.3 6.4 -9.9 8.7 -0.2 39.7

Percentage change (AB to SV +85.4 +130.6 466.8 29.1 -4.4 -696.0 -57.0 -102.0 -22.6

Grouped Sensitivity Analysis4

/ +10 +15 +10 X K K K 14.2 7.2K K +10 -10 -10 -10 -10 13 4.7K K K K K -35 -35 10.4 0.5K K K -20 K -20 -20 11.1 1.6

+10 K +20 -15 -15 -15 -15 9.4 -0.9+20 -10 9.1 -1.5+10 Lag 1 yr 11.1 2.2+10 lag 2 yr 8.7 -Z_8

1/ Net Present Value (NPV) of each variable at a discount rate of 10 (the opportunity cost of capital - OCC)

2/ The NPV (at IOZ of each variable tested separately (other variables held constant) at which the NPV of thenet benefit stream of the project discounted at the OCC is zero.

3/ Percentage change that would be required in the appraisal estimate (AE) of a variable for it to reach itsswitching value (SV)

- The variables are allowed to vary sinultaneously K - held constant at appraisal estimate (AR).+ - Z increase in AE. - I X decrease in AE

LIBERIALOFA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PHASE 11

ORGANOGRAMI/

Ministry of Agriculture - - /-for non-projeclat…|

rcipating MinistriespusLPMC Me_Project Coordinating Committee

ACDB

County Agriuciltural Officer Lofa County

| SSU2 it

Fin ance Administration Agricultural Land Planning Plant Production Training Commercial Services

Division -Personnel Division Division Division Division Division

- Procurement - Transportation - Extension -Swamp Development - Coffee -Staff -Coop. Development

- Budget Control Control - Pest and -Cocoa Coffee - Cocoa Training -Marketing

-Revolving Fund -Public Relations Insect Control Development - Rice - Farmer -Accounts

Accounts -Office Management - Farm Management - Cassava Training -Inputs

-Home Economics - Plantain -Extension

--Other Crops Aids-Research

Road ConstructionUnit

- Road Maintenance- Feeder Road Construction-Farm Access Tracks

11 To be reviewed and brought in line with MOA structure by PY4.

2J SSU, Schistosomiasis Surveillance Unit. World Bank-23713

IBRD 15550S4, NOVEhiER iSBI

f_-- / f >)n . LIBERIA, 2->'' ~~~~~~LO FA CfOUN,TY AGRICUlTURAL

A F R IC A><'/ -

,LIBERIA . - DEVELOFMENT PROJECT, PHASE II- 'I Vohu 'UE<ym '' - I; fiFi LOF COUNTY7 AGiULUA

} . <- {'<i ~~~~G UV, N1 E AL O F A 4''S6<

S I ER A 7 c h/NT Y I 57 O 2 epMX VL E} C N- E b- d- ; D 4Su2ELf~~MANO P AIO 0 R A N D 3A1,UE P-

-WO,5R-k ,,,S '~

OOKE/TS'OST 1( / S ,f .k ci 0bro ._ g -oe

CA~~~~Mosh C1TA AGRI47C 3ULNTUA REEAC ISTITUT\\EWF 7 C 0 A S'hL T

, PROJECT HEADQUARTERS Kbi.- //? >0 ( c0UN>

- PAVED ROADS

LOOSE SURFACE ROADS ' NOE ;zbraoe. …---ROADS UNDER CONSTRUCTiON.,/ I ,

-RAILWAYS - - 4TY, B>

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT , -K/ -, ,

* AIRFIELDS AND STRIPS ~- r' 9 3 v t '.

M iN O R PO R TS 10 N ..- OKp, A

i NATIONAL CAPITAL .'I ' S/ > SPS

0 ONYCAPITALS ./ _ _e U L4ND

COUNTY BOUNDARIES A N'COU OA!

-.- INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 5 20 AD eo Sostor- Ji05

- -RIVERS AND CREEKS SIOMIEOeS a,UaC.yeo_

MiLES1`r,

9/p °° A R E -_

I/00 TO'0090,

public disclosure authorized the world...

Documents