Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 9175 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT MEXICO INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - PIDER III (LOAN 2043-ME) DECEMBER 11, 1990 Agriculture Operations Division Country Department II Latin America and Caribbean Regional Office This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. ABBREVIATIONS BANRURAL - National Bank for Rural Credit CONASUPO - National Marketing Corporation for Basic Foods DICONSA - Distribuidora Central de CONASUPO FICART - Trust Fund for Credit in Irrigated Areas FIRA - Agriculture Trust Funds of the Bank of Mexico GIRA - General Interest Rates Agreement GOM - Government of Mexico INI - National Indigenous Affairs Institute M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation NAFINSA - Nacional Financiera, S.A. PCR - Project Completion Report PDR - Investment Program for Regional Development PIDER - Integrated Investment Program for Rural Development SAM - Mexican Food Plan SAP - Special Assistance Program SAR - Staff Appraisal Report SARH - Secretariat of Agriculture and Water Resources SPP - Secretariat of Programming and Budgeting FOR OMCIAL USE ONL THE WORLD BANK Washington, D C 20433 U.S A OVKe Of DvWcKt,-C..al Opwatme I{tout" . December 11, 1990 MEMORANDUM. TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Completion Report on Mexico Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III *(Loan 2043-ME) Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled "Project Completion Report on Mexico - Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III (Loan 2043-ME)" prepared by the Latin America and Caribbean Regional Office with Part II of the report contributed by the Borrower. This project has not been audited by the Operations Evaluation Department at this time. Attachment This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization._ FOR OFFICIAL USE ON. MEXICO INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - PIDER III (Loan 2043-ME) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Be lb, PREFACE . ...................................................i EVALUATION SUMMARY ........................................ii PART I: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTIVE 1. Project Identity ............. .......... ...........1 2. Backround . .........................................1 3. Project Objectives and Description ..... ............ 2 4. Project Design and Organization .................... 3 5. Project Implementation ............................. 4 6. Project Results .................................... 5 7. Project Sustainability ............................. 7 8. Bank Performance ................................... 8 9. Borrower Performance ............................... 9 10. Project Relationship ............................... 9 11. Consulting Services ................................ 10 12. Project Documentation and Data ..................... 10 PART II: PROJECT REVIEW FROM BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE 1. Introduction ........................................ 13 2. Performance ......................................... 14 3. Comments on PCR, Part III .......... ........... ..... 14 4. Lessons Learned ..................................... 15 PART III: STATISTICAL INFORMATION TABLE 1: Related Bank Loans .............. .. ............. 17 TABLE 2: Project Timetable and Project Schedule .......... 19 TABLE 3: Cumulative Estimated and Actual Disbursements .. 22 TABLE 4: Prujoct Implementation ............ .. ........... 24 TABLE 5: Project Costs and Financing .......... .. ........ 25 TABLE 6: Studies ...................... .................. 28 TABLE 7: Status of Covenants ....... ..................... 29 TABLE 8: Uses of Staff Resources ............ .. .......... 31 ANNEX 1: Survey of Rural Development Projects 33 MAP - IBRD 15264 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. X i - MEXICO INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - PIDER III (LOAN 2043-14E) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PREFACE 1. This is the Project Completion Report (PCR) for the Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III in Mexico, for which Loan 2043-ME in the amount of US$175.0 million was approved on July 21, 1981. The loan was closed on December 31, 1988, two years and nine months after planned closing. It was fully disbursed and the last disbursement was on August 1, 1989. 2. The PCR was prepared by the Agriculture Operations Division, Country Department II, of the Latin America and the Caribbean Region (Preface, Evaluation Summary, Parts I and III). On October 3, 1989, the Bank provided the Borrower Parts I and III with the request to prepare Part II. The Borrower replied February 16, 1990 and detailed discussions were held thereafter. Agreement was reached on the PCR in May 1990. 3. Preparation of this PCR was started in June 1988 during the Bank's next to last supervision mission of the project. At that time a survey to determine project benefits was designed and subsequently implemented between August and October 1988 by the Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). Following a change in Administration in December 1988, the Executing Agency carried out in December 1989 a second similar survey with a larger sample than INEGI's to obtain better data on perceived benefits. The PCR is based, inter alia, on the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR); the Loan, Guarantee, and Project Agreements; supervision reports; correspondence between the Bank and the Borrower; internal Bank memoranda; the Borrower project progress reports; and the results of the two surveys. - iii - MEXICO INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - PIDER III (LOAN 2043-ME) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT EVALUATION SUMMARY Obiectives 1. Early in the 1970's, the Government launched a Program for Rural Development Investments (PIDER) to redress the economic and social imbalance in selected micro-regions (MRs). Bank support for PIDER was requested and two loans were made in 1975 and 1977. In May 1980, Government issued a P3licy Paper on PIDER re-focusing program objectives to: a) promote a self-sustained development process within rural communities and b) guarantee access to goods and services which provide adequate living standards. The PIDER III objective was to increase the development impact of the existing program by supporting Government's efforts to expand and intensify activities in seventeen selected MRs located in the states of Guerrero, Sinaloa, Yucatan, and Zacatecas. PIDER III investments were in productive, support and infrastructure categories and expected to: increase production of basic foods; generate higher productivity and per-capita income; raise employment levels in rural communities; and improve living conditions. Implementation Experience 2. The project became effective May 1982, the year of two devaluations and economic deterioration of crisis proportion. Start-up activities were delayed due to insufficient counterpart funds and a change in political administration which instituted reorganization, a freeze on hiring and considerable staff movements at various levels of Government. Disbursements proceeded slowly and improved only once the MR planning and Bank financing was modified. 3. In January 1984, the Covernment consolidated various programs, including PIDER, undAr the Regional Development Program (PDR). The micro-region as the main programming unit was abolished in favor of state regional planning, the rural poverty focus was reduced, and program-budgeting was simplified and streamlined. Physical execution progressed well and some components exceeded significantly appraisal estimates. However, similar problems as under previous PIDERs continued: poor timing of financing and coordination with executing agencies, little technical follow-up, and low operations and maintenance. The causes of such weaknesses were largely attributable to the nature of the programming cycle, inter-relations between funding and executing institutions as defined by annual agreements (CUD) and lack of adequate monitor . 3nd evaluation. - iv - Results 4. The project achieved its principal objective of raising the development impact of the Government's existing program. PIDER III and subsequently PDR investments contributed to: (a) growth increase in infrastructure for economic and basic social needs which improved the quality of life of very many people and would have been far less without the project; and (b) important, though less tangible and more varied, institutional development: clearer acceptance and recognition of respective roles and improved capability in programming, budgeting and monitoring at federal and state levels. The project expanded geographic coverage; however, the intensity of effort per beneficiary declined sharply. 5. Various project design modifications, especially the 1984 consolidation of PIDER into PDR and abandonment of feasibility planning and monitoring as envisaged at effectiveness, changed the base of measurement against which project imptct could be evaluated. Some sub- project records also were destroyed in the 1985 earthquake. Consequently, overall project assessment became of necessity based more on impressions than on objectively verifiable data. The Government considers project results not to be strictly quantifiable, but qualitative. 6. Two surveys were carried out. They indicate that beneficiaries generally rated projects a success (by 65% according to the INEGI survey), almost evenly distributed among productive, support and infrastructure categories. Productive projects were rated better by beneficiaries than World Bank supervision missions. Sustainability 7. The project was more complex than previous PIDERs and lost its priority and poverty focus once economic constraints set in and administrative reorganizations were made. The risks to such changes were not properly calibrated. PIDER investments usually were small and in sectors where operations and maintenance (O&M) are critical to sustain benefits. A large portion of expenditures went to infrastructure rather than the expected productive projects. Government had to rehabilitate many previous PIDER investments. Records are incomplete to clearly demonstrate the most cost effective project elements which merit replication. 8. To sustain project gains, Government will need to continue vigilance of completed works and anticipate rehabilitative requirements. Transferring revenue functions to states and municipalities would bring responsibility for determining trade-offs between expansion and rehabilitation closer to beneficiaries and further develop institutional capabilities in resources management. The monitoring and evaluation system in the follow-on project would be improved significantly to ensure that information on the deterioration of previous investments be channeled into the planning process. -v - Lessons Learned 9. PIDER III provides lessons for improvement for both the Borrower and the Bank. They are to: (a) ensure better integration of reedback from Bank evaluations of preceding or similar projects at project preparation; (b) devise measures which allow programs to transcend institutional discontinuities, (c) require in-depth evaluations as a pre-condition to making fundamental changes in project design, (d) return to programming investments, at every administrative level, with a more long-term perspective so that prospective actions in related program areas can be more appropriately integrated; (e) apply more thoroughly economic, financial and technical appraisal criteria for sub-project investments and ensure adherence; (f) establish a workable and effective project monitoring and evaluation system; and (g) re- introduce beneficiary participation as an integral component in sub- project identification, cost-sharing (especially for operations and maintenance) and monitoring and evaluation. The Borrower's own assessment of lessons learned includes points (d) and (e) and the need for projects to be designed with greater flexibility to respond to social demands. Some other lessos assume special importance. The project was too complex (22 subcomponents), making its overall management and supervision more difficult than previous PIDERs. 10. Similar problems as under previous PIDERs existed (little technical follow-up, often poor timing of financing and credit, irregular coordination between SPP and SARH), attributable in part to the programming cycle, the inter-relations between funding and executing institutions and poor monitoring and evaluation. The depth of institutional risk was insufficiently measured. The change in political administration and the concomitant modification in priorities, policies and organizational structures and procedures far exceeded SAR expectations. Economic and financial crisis were not included in risks and were the cause of many implementation variances. The Bank pursued an ever larger, more complex project with more numerous components than before. Emphasis on participation and institutional decentralization, while a positive step in attempting to rectify previous PIDER ills, lacked objective definitions in the pr:oject design for measuring progress at various administrative levels. 11. Many of these lessons have in fact teen incorporated in the Regional Decentralization and Development Project under preparation. MEXICO INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - PIDER III (LOAN 2043-ME) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT PART I: PROJECT REVIF.W FROM THE BANK'S PERSPECTIVE 1. Project Identity Proiect Name: Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III Loan No.: 2043-ME RVP Unit: LA2AG Country: Mexico Sector: Agriculture Subsector: Rural Development 2. Backgroun 1.2.1 Sector Development Objectives. In the early 1970's, the Government made a commitment to redress the imbalance in rural development by initiating major new institutions and investment programs including a Program for Rural Development Investments (PIDER) designed to channel coordinated multi-sectoral investment packages to benefit the rural poor in selected micro-regions (MRs). 1/ Government requested Bank support for the PIDER program and the first loan of US$110 million (Loan 1110-ME PIDER I) was made in 1975 to assist in financing 30 new MRs. With Bank advice the program focus was changed from primarily infrastructure support to an emphasis on productive investments to promote self-sufficiency and improve income distribution. Such investments were complemented with the necessary support services and social infrastructure to ensure balanced development. Basic infrastructure for productive purposes was provided free through public grants to collective groups of small farmers. PIDER II (Loan 1462-ME for US$120 million to finance 20 MRs and made in 1977) continued these general objectives but gave greater attention to strengthening coordination mechanisms at federal, state and MR levels. PIDER III aimed to build on previous PIDER achievements, experience and capability. 1.2.2 Policy Context. The PIDER program was established to focus public investment in well-defined regions with widespread poverty and with unrealized productive potential. The program helped concentrate the efforts of various Government secretariats and agencies to carry out investments and provide services. PIDER established the mechanism 1/ Micro-region was a basic planning unit comprised of target villages ranging from 300 to 3,000 population living in three or more adjacent municipalities vithin a state and having 'productive potential'. Under PIDER III the target village base was changed to 500 - 5,000 inhabitants. necessary to maintain consistency between actions of the different agencies and served as the channel through which additional budget resources were provided to the agencies for work in the PIDER micro- regions. Under PIDER I and II, MR plans were prepared at the federal level for multi-year and multi-sectoral investments. A mid-term evaluation of PIDER I in 1978 served to somewhat reorient the approach in 1980 to give state governments a larger role in PIDER planning and implementation, assign responsibility for AR programming to micro- regions and increase the participation of beneficiaries in project planning and execution. These arrangements were to ensure that programs would be better adapted to both local conditions and the expressed needs of beneficiaries and serve the policy goals of raising the productivity of human and natural resources and the welfare of the rural poor. 1.2.3 Linkages Between Project. Sector. and Macro Policy Objectives. The project was an outgrowth of two previous efforts to support integrated rural development on a sustainable basis and was linked with attempts to address such concerns from varying sector viewpoints and in different agro-climatic environments (See Part III, Table 1). 3. Proiect Obiectives and Description 1.3.1 Proiect Objectives. In May 1980, Government issued a PIDER Policy Paper that defined program objectives to be: a) promote a self- sustained development process within rural communities and h) guarantee access to goods and services which provide adequate living standards. The PIDER III objective was to increase the development impact of the existing program by supporting Government's efforts to expand and intensify activities in seventeen selected micro-regions Z2 located in the states of Guerrero, Sinaloa, Yucatan, and Zacatecas. The purposes of the specific PIDER III investments were to: a) increase production of basic foods; b) generate higher productivity and per-capita income; c) expand basic infrastructure (roads, electrification, etc.); d) raise employment levels in rural communities; and e) improve living conditions in terms of nutrition, health, education, housing and drinking water. 1.3.2 Components. The project was to finance equin.ment, works, services and credit of 22 components .2/ divided among productive 2.! Eight MRs were appraised: Mocorito-Badiraguato and Norte in Sinaloa state, Valparaiso and Tlaltenango in Zacatecas, Costa Chica and Atoyac in Guerrero, and Litoral Norte and Sur in Yucatan. The remaining nine to be financed were Cosala-Elota and Sur in Sinaloa; Rio Grande, Fresnillo-Calera and Pinos in Zacatecas; Oriente in Yucatan; and Costa Grande, Ometepec and Cu&ahtemoc in Guerrero. 2] These were small-scale irrigation, soil and water conservation, crop development, infrastructure for livestock development, forestry, fishery, rural enterprises, credit, extension and applied (continued...) investments (61%), support projects (26%), social infrastructure (10%), and project organization and management (3%). Like PIDER II, the follow-on project was expected to be completed in four years. 4. Project Design and Organization 1.4.1 The conceptual foundation of the project reflected the state of thinking of th3 times and PIDER was institutionally innovative: the "leading edge" in the 1970's. The basic characteristic of PIDER as a coordinating mechanism of a large number of diverse investments, executed by many different agencies and managed within the Secretariat of Programming and Budgeting (SPP), was first questioned in the OED Audit of PIDER I (June 1981). The audit raised the issues of whether the PIDER approach was justified when costs are considered in relation to achievements. i/ Discussion of this issue came too late to be incorporated into PIDER III (Board approval, July 1981). 1.4.2 On several occasions the Government expressed priority for continuing Bank support of PIDER. It also demonstrated strong commitment to rural poverty alleviation with issuance of the PIDER Policy Paper, launching of the Mexican Food Plan (March 1980) designed to improve nutritional levels of the rural poor, and developing with Bank assistance a programming methodology involving, for the first time, beneficiarit,s in the preparation of MR plans. The methodology, developed by SPP and CIDER, was to be piloted in the four project states before being replicated nationwide. The project contained a number of other innovative components and new institutional elements which strengthened the design over previous PIDERs: new livestock investment methodology, more productive components, pilot nutrition and women in development (WID) components, staff and beneficiary training, equipment for data processing, and conditions for developing a sound monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system and providing adequate staff for operating it. However, the addition of each component further increased the complexity of the project and made its overall management and supervision more difficult than previous PIDERs. 3 1.3 The process of project preparation and appraisal took more .ime and cost more in Bank staff support than was expected. (See Part III) At least four different kinds of projects were contemplated. These were partly in response to a highly volatile administrative and i/... continued) research, marketing, beneficiary organization, rural roads, rural electrification, productive projects for women, feasibility and socio-economic studies, education facilities, health facilities, nutrition program, water supply, self-help, monitoring and evaluation and training. i/ The Government believed that the intangible benefits achieved offset all costs and made the project highly attractive. - 4 - economic situation and pressure from new programs competing with PIDER for priority and resources. Delays in devoloping a new methodology whereby MR programming would be carried out contributed to preventing the 17 selected MRs from completing their development plans. 5J At the Initial Issues Paper stage, eight MR plans had been appraised; there was concern that insufficient justification existed to finance the remaining nine MRs which lacked plans. As with similar agriculture sector projects at this time in Mexico, the availability of counterpart funds did not surface before 1982. Draft loan negotiation documents were considered to contain an unusually large number of conditions. By the time of Board approval, a very complex project design had been well prepared and agreed upon. 5. Project Implementation 1.5.1 Critical Variances in Protect Implementation. The project became effective May 1982, almost one year after appraisal estimate. It was the year of two devaluations and economic deterioration of crisis proportion. Start-up activities were delayed due to insufficient counterpart funds and a change in political administration which instituted reorganization, a freeze on hiring and considerable staff movements at various levels of Government. Field activities in the 8 appraised MRs were started quickly, but with less counterpart funds. Preparation and Bank approval of the remaining nine MR plans, a condition for disbursement, encountered difficulties and changes. MR plans, submitted by Government, i/ were found by the Bank lacking in analysis and considered of lower quality than those used during appraisal. Disbursements proceeded slowly and improved only once the MR planning was modified. 1.5.2 Unforseen Factors Affecting Implementation. In January 1984, the Government consolidated various programs, including PIDER, under the Regional Development Program (PDR). The micro-region as the main programmirng unit was abolished in favor of state regional planning, the rural poverty focus was somewhat reduced, the PIDER name became subsumed under PDR and programme-budgeting was simplified and streamlined. At the national level, SPP could still identify PIDER with regards to external funding sources, while the states were free to plan and budget their annual investments within one framework under a global funding ceiling. Principal responsibility for state planning and budgeting rested in the State Committees of Development Planning (COPLADES) and SPP approved all state budgets at national level. The administrative advantages of this reorganization were generally supported by the Bank. However, these changes, combined with economic and financial constraints, compounded initial disbursement problems (see Part III, Table 3). By November 1984, two months after appraisal estimated V/ For PIDER I all 30 MRs were appraised. bj 9 MR plans in October 1982, 4 MR plans in January 1984. - 5 - project completion, disb-:rsements reached only 25% and there were considerations to suspend the loan. 1.5.3 In contrast, physical progress advanced well and for some components far exceeded appraisal estimates. The exchange rate difference between appraisal and implementation 1/ distorted these results and the Bank during supervision concluded this measurement of progress would unlikely be accurate over the life of the project given economic prospects. Field visits indicate, a wide variation in performance: in some states smaller rather than larger productive projects fared better and received strong technical assistance; at other times, this situation seemed reversed. Sinilar problems as under previous PIDERs existed (little technical follow-up, often poor timing of financing and credit, irregular coordination between SPP and SARH), attributable in part to the programming cycle, the inter-relations between funding and executing institutions and poor monitoring and evaluation. 1.5.4 Disbursements. A Special Actions Program (SAP) was established in 1984 by the Bank to facilitate disbursements of seven different Bank financed projects, including PIDER III. It increased Bank financing from 42% to 70%, and established a special fund which could be drawn upon for expenditures. Six new states were to be added but finally project coverage was not expanded beyond the four original states. Disbursements improved and were completed on time per the revised schedule - three years after appraisal estimate. 1.5.5 Pzoject Risks. At appraisal project risks were limited to institutional and climatic factors, which at the time seemed realistic and well calibrated. In retrospect, the depth of institutional risk was insufficiently measured. The change in political administration and the concomitant modification in priorities, policies and organizational structures and procedures far exceeded SAR expectations. Economic and financial crisis were not included in risks and were the cause of many implementation variances. 6. Project Results 1.6.1 Project Objectives. In general, the project was successful in meeting its principal objective of increasing the development impact of the Government's existing program. PIDER III and subsequently PDR investments did contribute to increasing the production of basic foods, generating higher income, raising employment and improving living conditions. As with previous PIDERs, more precise quantification of benefits in relation to cost and better determination of project impact are difficult to establish but under PIDER III, for somewhat different reasons. Various project design modifications, but especially the 1984 consolidation of PIDER into PDR and abandonment of feasibility planning 2/ Mex$23 - US$1 and Mex$200 - US$1 in 9/1984 -6 as well as the M&E system as envisaged at effectiveness, changed the base of measurement against which project impact could be evaluated. Aggregated annual programme authorizations arnd financial and physical implementation became the only means of monitoring progress. No attempt was made to relate these investments with other actions in the same sector or geographic area or over time. _/ As every year contained considerable variation in sub-component financing and execution, comparisons of component performance on only the annual fiscal and physical dimensions also have limited utility. Hence, overall project assessment is of necessity based more on impressions than on objectively verifiable data. 1.6.2 Physical Performance. In every social infrastructure (education, water supply, health facility) and productive support category (roads, electrification and rural marketing) the project produced more outputs than planned. 2/ 1.6.3 To provide more detailed information on project investments, the Government carried out two surveys of PDR financed sub-projects. According to the first survey, carried out by INEGI, beneficiaries rated 65% of the projects a success, almost evenly distributed among productive, support and infrastructure categories. Productive projects were rated better by beneficiaries than by World Bank supervision missions. There was significant variation among states, especially evident regarding the overall intensity of beneficiary participation. Whereas this averaged 58% it was significantly higher for productive investments (ranging from 70% to 89% and the lowest for support projects (between 32% and 51%). Financial participation by beneficiaries to total project cost was disappointing (averaging only 5.6%) and did niot reach the 10% anticipated in the SAR. (See Annex 1, Part III for additional results.) The second Government survey 10/, while covering a far larger sample (934 vs 193), found similar results on overall income improvements and types of problems encountered but some differences among types of projects regarding sufficient technical and financial support and O&M. The D.G.P.P.R. findings rated projects results better in these categories than the INECI informants. 1.6.4 Financial Performance. With the emergence of the economic crisis, the Government could not maintain the level of planned financing and the final project costs show a substantial lower level than expected at appraisal. 11/ The main differences in financing were in the distribution of investments, which ranged from 30.% for productive, 142% 2/ GOM, 1988 Annual Progress Report, Mexico, 8/1989, p. 3. i/ See Table 4, Part III. LO/ Carried out by SPP, Direccion General de Programacion y Presupuesto Regional (D.G.P.P.R.) LI_/ See Table 5A and B, Part III. for support and 249% for social infrastructure (at current prices) as compared to appraisal estimates. Given the paucity of reliable and disaggregated economic data by type of project, the Government indicated to the Bank 12/ that it would be very difficult to calculate a financial rate of return or a meaningful economic rate of return. The Government added that the benefits of the projects are not strictly quantifiable, but rather qualitative and that these have a multiplier effect in PIDER areas on such variables as employment, income and social welfare. 7. Project Sustainability 1.7.1 PIDER investments generally were small and in sectors where operations and maintenance (O&M) are critical to sustain benefits. There was little follow-up of investment and poor O&M was a pervasive problem. Beneficiaries rated O&M differently relative to type of project; for example, the second Government survey 1/ found that beneficiaries considered O&M for rural roads to be 64.1% satisfactory. Nevertheless, Government had to rehabilitate many PIDER. Beneficiaries also regarded productive projects more profitable and sustainaible than indicated in Bank supervision reports. Sinaloa presented the worst scores (56%), mainly due to the failure of productive projects, followed by Zacatecas (60%) and Guerrero (69%). Yucatan had the highest score (84%) of perceived successful projects. A summary analysis of the INEGI survey findings by productive, social and physical infrastructure projects is contained in Annex 1, Part III. 1.7.2 To sustain project gains, Government will need to continue vigilance of completed works and anticipate rehabilitative requirements. Transferring revenue functions to states and municipalities would bring responsibility for determining trade-offs between expansion and rehabilitation closer to beneficiaries and further develop institutional capabilities in resources management. The existing monitoring system would need to be improved significantly to ensure that information on the deterioration of previous investments be channeled into the planning process and taken into account as an ongoing component of recurrent financing. Greater efforts and suitable institutional mechanisms to pass this kind of monitoring function to municipalities and beneficiaries will help safeguard erosion of past investments. Most of these recommendations are already incorporated in the design of the follow-on project. L/ 12/ Letter to LA2AG of 5-30-1990. 1.j/ SPP/D.G.P.P.R. January 1990 1_/ Regional Decentralization and Development Project for the Disadvantaged States. - 8 - 8. Bank Performance 1.8.1 The Bank made a positive contribution to project design and financial sustainability, especially during economically difficult periods. During project preparation, Bank strengths included a firm commitment to poverty alleviation and in-depth knowledge of rural sectoral issues and Mexican institutions, acquired over a long period of association with PIDER and continuity in task management (over seven years). These strengths waved significantly once the project became effective. 1.8.2 Some of the Bank's strengths also were the source of weaknesses. Familiarity and strong identity with PIDER diminished appreciation that the program was loosing priority among Mexican authorities. The threat that PIDER would be integrated into a larger program surfaced during project preparation. This and the economic prospects, which greatly affected counterpart financing, were insufficiently calibrated as risks. The Bank pursued an ever larger, more complex project with more numerous components than before. Emphasis on participation and institutional decentralization, while a positive step in attempting to rectify previous PIDER ills, lacked objective definitions in the project design for measuring progress at various administrative levels. A good opportunity may have been lost for building on technical strengths, identified during PIDER I mid-term evaluation, and selectively expanding proven economically successful components (eg small scale irrigation, soil and water conservation, small versus large livestock). The evaluation feed-back loop, to which the Bank project design team assigned high priority for PIDER III, could have been much stronger within the Bank at project preparation. 1.8.3 During implementation Bank action helped: a) preserve a focal point within SPP on Bank financed PDR investments; b) secure a reorientation in investment financing policy from new projects to the completion of old and rehabilitation of unproductive ones; c) initiate pilot coordination seminars and training activities for SPP staff and beneficiaries; and d) begin a flow of impact data (which was subsequently discontinued). The Bank readily took measures to sustain the financial life of the project through the SAP. It was less forthright in preserving the innovative aspects and poverty orientation of PIDER III. A harder look should have been taken when loan suspension was considered (11/84). An effective supervision methodology to cope with the many project components and activities was not developed. It could have provided a useful means for demonstrating the significance of project design changes and the impact of institutional restructuring. Changing task management (four managers between 1980 - 89), lack of adequate macro-monitoring indicators (partly due to only 8 of 17 MRs having been appraised), and continued institutional reorganization inhibited preparation of such a methodology. Several attempts were made in 1983 and 1984 to establish macro-indicators for monitoring the project (See Table 4, Part III). These were undermined by a continuing deteriorating economic climate, which required constant revisions in targets, and changes in programming and M&E administrative arrangements an staffing. Supervision missions during the last two years of project life were mostly concerned with disbursement and follow-on project issues rather than reorienting priorities to greater emphasis on poverty alleviation, productive investments and rural development. While such insistence might not have changed the final project outcome, the lack of it indirectly supported the deviation in project design. 9. Borrower Performance 1.9.1 Government contributed particularly in the early years of project design and implementation: providing high qualified staff to develop micro-regional plans, programming methodology, and M&E design, guidelines and training; giving high priority to the main project objectives and further developing state and micro-regional institutional capabilities through decentralization. Once PIDER became incorporated into PDR, the Government had difficulties in maintaining the original priorities through the revised programming structure. The start-up problems which ensued (e.g. slow disbursements, inadequate staff, poor communication of new procedures to executing agencies) led to further preoccupation with improving the programming mechanism rather than the operations results and their sustainability of sub-projects. To the Borrower's credit, when evidence surfaced on the scale of unproductive projects, some originating under previous PIDERs, Government was quick to limit PDR financing to rehabilitation. Unfortunately, a change in PDR management shortly thereafter did not maintain this orientation and soon even the productive focus, originated by PIDER in 1973, gave way to more financing of infrastructure and social subprojects. 1.9.2 During project PCR preparation, renewed Government concern with poverty alleviation surfaced and the following lessons of PIDER III emerged for the future similar efforts to: a) devise measures which allow programs to transcend institutional discontinuities; b) build in periodic in-depth evaluations as a pre-condition to making fundamental changes in project design; c) return to programming, at every administrative level, with a more long-term perspective which integrates prospective actions in related program areas; and d) re-introduce beneficiary participation as an integral component in sub-project identification, cost-sharing, monitoring and evaluation. The Borrower's own assessment of lessons learned includes points b) and c) and in addition emphasizes the need for projects to be designed with greater flexibility to respond to social demands with the development process and for changes to the ways projects are appraised and selected at different stages. Most of these lessons have in fact been incorporated in the follow- on project. 10. Project RelationshiR 1.10.1 Bank relationship with Government on che project has been generally good. - 10 - 11. Consulting Ssrvices 1.11.1 Consultant services were utilized primarily to finance a federal SPP project coordinator for about eight months (1985-86). During this arrangement, disbursements surged and a number of innovative activities were carried out such as: SPP and executing agencies coordination seminars, renewed staff training and training of beneficiaries, plans to send technical staff on specialized study tours to other countries, and development of first macro-level impact data on key indicators (See Table 4, Part III). While the SAR envisioned the use of consultant services for somewhat different purposes, the decision to employ them as indicated proved to be one of the more important factors in helping to turn the project around at its most vulnerable implementation stage. 12. Project Documentation and Data 1.12.1 The appraisal report, working papers, loan agreement documents were adequate and useful through the first two years of the life of the project. The M&E system, designed and approved by the Bank as a condition of effectiveness, was elaborate and technically comprehensive and included data collection forms and procedures for every project component and project related agencies and beneficiaries. It was consistent with the project participatory emphasis. However, it focused largely on monitoring rather than evaluation. The lack of 17 fully prepared MR plans at project effectiveness hindered preparation of overall project targets, which in the SAR were only partially developed. Government staffed micro-region development units but often with newly graduated personnel. Training was provided to 580 officials, though it is not clear with what subject matter intensity, practical application and subsequent work assignment. 1.12.2 When PIDER was incorporated into PDR, the M&E planned activities were incomplete and did not constitute an appropriate base for the restructured project. The system which evolved within SPP, without technical Bank review, has wide variation in capacity among project states. Considerable progress has been made in computerizing monitoring and with qualified staff, the possibilities of providing rapidly a wide range of useful information has definitely increased. However, this system does not adequately integrate data, over time, generated by the financing institution and executing agencies and beneficiary participation within the system is less than envisioned at effectiveness. While the Bank and Government gave high priority to improving the system, in practice it has yet to become an integral part of planning and management. Poor or non-existent analytical capability at state and federal levels and lack of an effective feed-back to planning has maintained the traditional view that M&E is a controlling or blame-finding instrument rather than a proven useful management tool. - 11 - 1.12.3 Government will need to achieve better balance between monitoring and evaluation. The progress in computerization made so far will provide a good base for giving greater priority to analysis and for results to be channeled into corrective or expansion actions. - 13 - PART II: PROJECT REVIEW FROM THE BORROWER'S PERSPECTIVE 1. Introduction 2.1.1 With regard to the assessment of the project from the Bank's perspective given in the PCR on PIDER III, the Government has the following observations to make. 2.1.1.1 On a general level, that assessment coincides fairly closely with the Borrower's own, particularly in pinpointing technical shortcomings that came to light during the execution period. However, detailed consideration reveals some points of discrepancy between the Bank and the Government. In order to make the evaluation exercise more worthwhile, it would be useful if these matters were clarified so that the conclusions reached in the PCR may be more nearly unanimous. In order of importance, the points of discrepancy are: (a) Insufficient weight given to the economic and financial crisis Mexico had to contend with from 1982 onward as the major threat to the success of the Program. 2.1.1.2 Failure to consider this economic issue, and to foresee its effects on the practical feasibility and profitability of the actions incorporated in the project, proved to be an unfortunate mistake, on the part of both the executing agency and the Bank. (b) The Bank's review of the project contains criticisms of certain institutional shortcomings, namely: very little monitoring (reflected in the Program's cost-benefit yield); and reallocation of loan proceeds after PIDER III was brought under the budget programming procedures used for the Regional Development Programs. 2.1.1.3 Since the project was being implemented during the most difficult period of the crisis, the execution process was affected by the adoption of adjustment policies and by PRD's reorganization of the economic system. 2.1.1.4 Introduction of an adjustment policy to reduce the public deficit resulted in Federal civil service staff cuts and in the reallocatinn of investment funds toward works in progress and priority programs. Such changes contributed to some degree to the appearance of technical and operating deficiencies, not to mention so-called apprenticeship costs. - 14 - 2.1.1.5 Nevertheless, despite the crisis, the executing agency made notable efforts to abile by the original project goals. (c) As a final observ.,.tion on Part I of this PCR, the Government wishes to say that certain references of a conceptual nature to the budgetary principle of Convenio Unico de Desarrollo are mistaken and, in its view, need to be revised. .1/ 2. Performance 2.2.1 The Bank-Borrower relationship during the course of project implementation was considered by the Mexican authorities to be generally good, although some weaknesses became apparent: (a) The specific problem in this relationship grew out of the fact that no monitoring and evaluation system was set up that produced direct exchanges between the Bank and the central agency responsible for the programming and budgeting aspects of this loan. Instead, the relationship was based on two main elements: (i) Bank supervision missions, and (ii) Bank connections with NAFINSA (the financial agency of the Government for purposes of this loan). 2.2.2 With regard to the supervision missions, they were carried out in conjunction with staff from the regional offices of SPP and from NAFINSA; on a few occasions, a representative of SPP headquarters was also present. The Bank therefore had to work with personnel who were not well acquainted with the workings of the loan. This situation arose out of the decentralization process, which by delegating responsibilities, broke up the structure through which PIDER programming was being handled, without any new structure having been fully set up beforehand. It is this which hindered the detection of problems presenting themselves in the course of project works and the taking of corrective measures. In these circumstances, the lack of direct link between the Bank and SPP headquarters prevented prompt steps being taken at another level to deal with such difficulties. 3. Comments on PCR. Part III 2.3.1 Finally, to the extent it was actually able to do so on the basis of existing data, the executing agency confirmed or corrected the factual information contained in Part III of the PCR. However, as noted in the Executive Summary sent to the Bank, it is impossible after the event, using ad hoc mochanisms, to quantify the wide range of difficult- to-measure variables that affected the project. L1./ Changes have duly been made in Part I of PCR. - 15 - 2.3.2 In this regard, Tables 4, 5 and 6 annexed to the Executive Summary make use of definitive PIDER III data to illustrate project achievements and financial results. 2.3.3 Where Tables 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, the Government has no observations to offer, and, as regards Table 8, althougl. it has no means of confirming the data compiled by Bank staff and mission members, it has no observations to make either. 4. Lessons Learned 2.4.1 To conclude, as far as future projects are concerned, the mechanisms now used for monitoring, control and evaluation need to be corrected, in the sense that they should be focused more on the rectification--or, where appropriate, ratification--of actions undertaken. The ways different types of ptoject are appraised and evaluated initially, during execution, and after completion also need to be adjusted. In both instances, such changes should be those indicated by an analysis that takes account not only of limiting factors but also of potentially replicable successes. Furthermore, future projects should be designed so as to allow greater flexibility of response to the social demands of a country in the process of development. - 17 - PART III PART III Table 1 Page 1 of 2 MEXICO Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III (Loan 2043-ME) Table 1. RELATED BANK LOANS Loan Title Purpose ApprovallClosing Loan 1053-ME Link productive support with Approval Papaloapan Rural social infrastructure to October 1974 Development Project expand food production, improve incomes and quality Closing of life. December 1982 Loan 1110-ME Assist the implementation of Approval Integrated Rural rural investment plans in 30 May 1975 Development Project micro-regions (MRs) with PIDER I primary emphasis on Closing productive investments to September 1980 increase incomes, employment and production and improve social services. Loan 1111-ME Rehabilitate the drainage and Approval Bajo Rio Bravo irrigations systems on about May 1975 Irrigation 280,000 ha in 2 districts to Rehabilitation increase yields and diversify Closing Project crops. September 1983 Loan 1462-ME Reinforce PIDER efforts to Approval Integrated Rural raise incomes, production and June 1977 Development Project employment and improve social PIDER II services for the rural poor Closed in 20 MRs. January 1983 Loan 1553-ME Intensify and increase Approved Tropical agricultural production in April 1978 Agricultural Mexico's tropical lowlands, Development including Yucatan peninsula Closed PRODERITH (a PIDER III state). June 1984 - 18 - PART III Table 1 Page 2 of 2 Loan Title Purpose Approval/Closing Loan 1945-ME Improve institutions for Approval Rainfed Agricultural agricultural research, January 1981 Development Project extension and training; (PLANAT) increase farm productivity in Closing 9 rainfed districts (of which June 1987 2 in Guerrero and 2 in Zacatecas, PIDER III states). Comments: Loan 1053-ME was the first Bank financed integrated rural development project in Mexico. It demonstrated the need for a strong coordination mechanism. Loans 1110-ME and 1462-ME expanded PIDER from a basic rural infrastructure program to one with a directly productive emphasis. Loans 1111-ME and 1945-ME focused on strengthening national research, extension and training to provide improved support services for agricultural produc._ion. These projects were generally over ambitious, too geographically dispersed and experienced coordination difficulties between numerous line agencies responsible for proiect execution. In marked contrast, Loan 1553-ME was a pilot effort, cacefully designed and evaluated as a success in part due to sound continuous management, strong GOM support and the Bank's creative role at appraisal and responsiveness and continuity during supervision. Froa. these related projects, elements regarding coordination, increased beneficiary participation and emphasis on M&E were incorporated in PIDER III. In addition to these Lank financed projects, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) approved in May 1980 a loan of LS$22 million to support PIDER in two MRs in the state of Oaxaca and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) was supporting PIDER since 1976 for US$40 million in an additional 15 MRs. By July 1980, PIDER had received a total of US$292 million in external financing. Sources: OED Audit and PCR Reports; President's Report for Loan 2043-ME. I1 - 19 - PART III Table 2 Page 1 of 2 MEXICO Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III (Loan 2043-ME) TABLE 2. PROJECT TIMETABLE Date Date Date Item Planned Revised Actual - Identification (Executive Project summary) 10-18-78 11-23-78 11-23-78 - Preparation I 11-30-78 12-15-78 12-15-78 - Preparation II - 01-28-79 01-28-79 - Preparation III - 04-23-79 04-23-79 - Pre-appraisal 04-05-79 11/79;1/80 02-17-80 - Appraisal Mission 6/79 10/79; 3/80; 05-26-80 3/80 - Loan Negotiations 6-7/80 3/80; 9/80; 5/81 06-01-81 - Board Approval 6/80 6/80; 9/80; 07-21-81 10/80; 7/81 - Loan Signature 8/80 - 11-06-81 - Loan Effectiveness 6/81 - 05-05-82 - Loan Closing 9-30-85 12/87; 6/88; 12/88 12-31-88 - Project Completion 12-31-84 6-30-88; 12-31-88 12-31-88 Source: LA2AG Black Book - Project Timetables and Project Files Commentci 1) Identifi'ation through Loan Signing: PIDER experienced institutional reorganizations, staff and policy changes and procedural modifications which delayed project preparation and processing for over one year. These consisted of: PIDER administration being divided into four branches (budget, programming, evaluation and operations) 9/78; PIDER being split into two departments (programming and budgeting, operations and evaluation) 3/79 which had their broad functions defined only i-. 11/79 when - 20 - PART III Table 2 Page 2 of 2 the administrator of the three branches became responsible for PIDER III preparations; a new SPP manager took over 5/79; the PIDER name was changed to emphasize a new focus on integrated rural development 12/79: and a PIDER Policy Paper outlined new policy changes 5/80. In addition, in 1978-79 a mid-term evaluation of PIDER I fostered a great deal of debate over how to ensure greater beneficiary participation in the programming of PIDER investments. This resulted in the preparation of new programming guidelines and training stafi at state and MR levels in its use for preparing MR plans for project appraisal. 2) Im2lementation: Four months after loan signing, Mexico had the first of two severe devaluations which marked the beginning of the economic crisis and caused s:.ortages in counterpart funds and staff. The changing political administration in 1982 combined with the consolidation of PIDER into the broader PDR program in 1984 also contributed to a changed view of rural development and delays in all aspects of project implementations. PART III Table 2 Page 2 of 2 PRECT SE Loan 2043-HE Quarter ] 11213142 11213|4 1IfH 112fl4 1121314 12h3 Year 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Identification > Preparation: Mission 1 > Preparation: MissLon 2 Preparatlon: Mission 3 Pre-Appraisal MLssLon >>>>>>>>> Appraisal MissLon >>>T>> Loan NegotiatLons >>>>>>>> Board Approve- >>>>>>>>> I N3 Signature Date >> >>>>>>>> Date of Effectlveness >>>>>>>>> Conpletlon Date _>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Closing Date > J>>_ :_ _->>>>>>> >>>>> Year 1978 1979 .; i l982 196& 1984 1985 1986 J1987 1988 Quarter , '13kil' i;1l23 1 314|1|2131 112131411213 Scheduled: SUopage: >>>> - 22 - PART III Table 3 MEXICO Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III (Loan 2043-ME) Table 3. CUMULATIVE ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL DISBURSEMENTS DISBURSEMENTS (in US$ Million) BANK FY ESTIMATED ACTUAL ACTUAL Z AND QUARTER CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE OF ESTIMATED 1981/82 2 22.0 - - 4 50.0 3.0 6 1982/83 2 77.0 8.62 11 4 113.0 10.20 9 1983/84 2 149.0 18.51 12 4 169.0 41.67 25 1984/85 2 175.0 53.12 30 4 - 107.33 61 1985/86 2 - 124.89 71 4 - 129.11 74 1986/87 2 - 139.47 80 4 - 146.64 84 1987/88 2 - 159.02 91 4 - 159.02 91 1.988/89 2 - 162.91 93 4 - 170.86 98 1989/90 1 - 175.00 100 Date of Final Disbursement: August 1, 1989 Source: Bank Statements of Loans Comments: Slow disbursements were due to inicial delays in preparing the remaining 9 micro-regional plans for Bank approval as a condition of disbursement, deteriorating economic conditions of 1982-84 (devaluations, inflation, cost increases) and poor coordination and knowledge by executing agencies to submit rapidly reimbursement claims. (Source: Supervision Reports). INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ESTIMATED VS. ACTUAL DISBURSEMENTS 180 1 60 ^"" 120, D100 a =080- ,L"i 82 83 84 85 86 67 88 89 World Bank Fiscal Years |--W- Estmated ca .4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 24 - PART II Table MEXICO Integrated Rural DeveloRment Project - PIDER III (Loan 2O43-ME) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION INDICATORS UNITS APPRAISAL CUHNULATIVE X OF ACTUAL ESTIMATE ACHIEVEMENT 1/ PROJECT TARGET ESTIMATE ./ Productive Irrigation Development ha 17,000 18,570 109 32,338 Soil and Water Conservation ha 48,000 146425 30 6,414 Maize ha 76,000 51,706 68 - Fruit Crops ha 14,000 23,478 167 32,097 Coffee Rehabilitation ha 14,260 9,521 66 13,832 Coconut Rehabilltation ha 13,000 na. - - Beef and Dairy units 11,000 450 4 278 Small Animals beneficiaries 5,200 13,025 250 4,021 Beekeeping units 400 2,526 631 768 Forestry beneficiaries n.a. 32,865 354 36,080 Fisheries beneficiaries 800 2,835 - 3,697 Rural Industries beneficiaries na. 23,899 - 281,025 Development Credit loans n.a. - - Development of Rainfed Areas ha n.a. na. n.a. 82,534 Productive Suoyort Extension staff n.a. 1,230 30,748 138,255 Research programs n.a 37 - 30 projects Rural Roads I T 1,030 1,616 156 3,845 km Rural Electrification ccomunities 280 305 109 537 Programs for Women no. na. na. - - Roads km n.a. n.a. n.a. 9,411 Rural Marketing beneficiaries na. na. n.a. 6,248,280 Social Infrastructure Education classrooms 2,200 2,045 93 3,988 Rural Water Supply systems 150 128 85 492 Health Facilities centers 140 12 9 65 Nutrition Component beneficiaries n.a. n.e. - 437,191 Self Help persons n.e. 20,638 38,404 Urban Development beneficiaires n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,770,832 Prolect Management Monitoring and Evaluation Reports na. n.a. n.a. 591 I/ As reported in Bank Supervision 10-3-84 I/ As estimated by the Government of Mexico. 3/ See table 6. - 25 - PART IIl Table 5 Page 1 of 3 MEXICO INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PIDER Ill (Loan 2043-ME) A. PROJECT COSTS (In million of USS) APPRAISAL ESTIMATE Ii ACTUAL d/ Local Foreign Total Total Costs Total Costs Costs Costs Costs (1980 Prices) (Curr. Prices) PRODUCTIVE pDricuhtural Development rrigation 27.1 ao 361 14.3 17.7 oil and Water Conservation 59 1.1 ao (6 08 and Improvement 7.3 c8s a-1-- rultCropDevelopment 124 1.4 1as 51 65 offee Development I3 22 105 2.9 a5 'oconut Development 1.8 05 23 Development of Ralnfed Areas *- - - 22 29 eekeeping *- - - 0.2 0.2 ub-Total Agricultural Develop. aJ 6as 1SO 788 2S3 31,7 vestock Development eef and Dairy 31.1 10.4 41t5 101 128 asture Improvement 56 1.9 7.5 mall-stock 898 a3 1a1 04 a4 ub-Total Uvestock Develop. a/ 465 156 621 105 132 Isherles a1 a9 s.0 4.4 55 orestry Development 21 02 23 28 a5 ural Industries 62 33 95 4.8 60 Development CredIt 289 7.2 351 Sub-Total Producttve a/ 1 556 422 197.8 47.7 59.9 SUPPORT xtenslon b/ 21.4 53 267 67 R6 ural Roads 11.3 a8 151 292 37.7 ural Electrification 11.3 as 151 2a9 27.1 ural Marketing 4.3 00 4.3 7.1 83 armer Organization and Training 80 04 84 1.3 1.5 easibilfty Studles o as 55 _ 6 aseline Studes as C4 4.2 roductive Programs for Women 25 ao 25 _ . oads * - - - 24.3 31.8 ub-Total Support a/ 67.6 14.2 8.8 8 1161 (Cont.) - 26 - PART III Table 5 Page 2 of 3 MEXICO INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PIDER Ill (Loan 2043-ME) A. PROJECT COSTS (Cont.) (In million of US$) APPRAISAL ESTIMATE ACTUAL dJ Local Foreign Total Total Costs Total Costs Costs Costs Costs (1980 Prices) (Curr. Prices) SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ducaton a4 1.4 9.8 2Q0 257 ural Water Supply 7.4 1.8 Q2 254 32.3 eaith Center fi4 a7 7.1 57 7.5 utrition ** 4.5 a5 50 _. elf-help Materials 19 0.i 1.0 21 27 ocial Assistance * - 4.3 57 rban Development *- - - 4.6 a1 ub-TntRl Infrastructure a/ 27.6 4.5 321 621 80.0 'ROJECT MANAGEMENT onitoring and Evaluation 1.3 as 22 4.1 53 rganization and Management ** 62 1.5 7.7 --- --- raining and Tech. Assistance ** 25 0.6 al -- ub-Total Project Management a/ iao ao 1ao 4.1 | 53 Base Costs a/ 26a8 6ea 324.7 2034 261.3 ontingencies hysical c/ 1B5 4.3 228 --- 3rice 1281 3a1 1582 _ _ Lrotal Prolect Costs al 407.4 9B3 5057 20a4 |26.3 These subprojects were not Included at the time of prject appraisal. ** These subprojects were not implemented. a/ Sums may not add due to rounding. b/ Extension Includes technical assistance and applied research. cl Physical contingency (10%) calculated for construction and cMI works onty. d/ Breakdown of local and foreign costs is not available. - 27 - PART III Table ' Page 3 of 3 B. PROJECT FINANCING (US$ Million) Planned A/ Revised k/ Source (11-06-81) (07-11-85) (03-04-88) Final c/ IBRD 1. Civil Works 97.2 97.2 68.2 74.3 2. Med-Term Credit 97.5 14.5 17.5 14.5 Short-Term Credit 21.9 27.9 21.8 3. Vehicles & Equipment for Extension & 27.2 27.2 47.2 50.2 Research 4. Vehicles & Equipment a. for project 14.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 organization & management, M&E staff development, and feasibility & socio- economic studies b. staff training -.- 1.0 1.0 1.0 5. Unallocated 13.9 TOTAL IBRD 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 DOMESTIC Government 268.0 86.3 d, Beneficiaries 63.0 TOTAL FINANCING 506.0 261.3 Source: Loan Agreements and Amendments. p/ 42% of Expenditure to be financed by IBRD. 1/ 70% of Expenditure to be financed by IBRD for categories 1-4a and 100% for category 4b; dates reflect major revisions. ./ Final disbursements were 08-01-89. L !86.3 million represents the total of GOM and beneficiaries contribution to the project. - 28 - PART III Table 6 Page 1 of 1 MEXICO Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III (Loan 2043-ME) STUDIES Subject Content/Results Dynamic of the Milpa Establish demonstration plots in 12 ha. to compare traditional practices with more modern ones. Rural Roads Studies Practical application in and Projects the construction of roads in Guerrero and Yucatan, contributing to the inter- communication and physical linkage of producer regions. Potable Water and Examine water quality Sewerage and treatment and the construction of systems to improve response to social demand for this service. Evaluation Survey Provide data for the PCR of the PIDER III on beneficiaries' percep- Project (by INEGI) tion of PIDER benefits. Results are presented in World Bank Report No. 7786-ME. Development Strategies Preliminary research for the negotiation of a new credit. Source: Evaluaci6n del PIDER III, Secretaria de Programaci6n y Presupuesto, Mexico, D.F., May 30, 1990. - 29 - PART III Table 7 Page 1 of 2 MEXICO Integrated Rural Development Project - PIDER III (Loan 2043-ME) STATUS OF LOAN COVENANTS Covenant Subject Status of Compliance LOAN AGREEMENT Section 4.02 Annual Audit of the Special Complied with (as anmmended) Account GUARANTEE AGREEMENT Section 3.04 Satisfactory appraisal of the Generally adhered to investment plans of each through state COPLADES participating State Section 3.05 Improve cost recovery for Improvements have been Parts A, B, and D of the Project made Section 3.06 In carrying out Part A of the Generally adhered to Project, the Guarantor to ensure although there were that beneficiaries obtain credit instances where no from a participating Bank or a credit or insufficient BANRURAL bank, before starting credit was made construction of individual works available Section 3.11 Project monitoring and evaluation Generally adhered to Section 3.12 Procurement of goods and civil Complied with works Section 3.15 Maintain records on the progress Complied with of the project, allow Bank missions to visit the facilities, and furnish the information as requested Section 4.03 Maintenance of separate records Delayed, but all and accounts, and annual verifica- reports received tion of project accounts - 30 - PART III Table 7 Page 2 of 2 Covenant Subject Status of Compliance PROJECT AGREEMENTS - BANRURAL Section 2.09 Annual audit of FICART's Delayed, but all financial statements reports received Schedule 1, Annual adjustment of interest Complied with after para. C.8 rates charged on medium-term protracted negotiations subloans. After August 1984 they were to be adjusted periodically according to GIRA1 PROJECT AGREEMENTS - BANXICO Section 2.09 Annual audit of FONDO's (FIRA) Delayed, but all financial statements reports received Schedule 1, Annual adjustment of interest Complied with after para. C.8 rates charged on medium-term protracted negotiations subloans. After August 1984 they were to be adjusted periodically according to GIRA' ' General Interest Rates Agreement signed between the Bank and the Government of Mexico on August 7, 1984. - 31 - PART III Table 8 Integrated Rural De:T t Prol ct - PIDER III g (Loan 2043-ME) Table S. USE OF STAFF RESOURCES A. STAFF INPUTS Bank FY - Staff Wooku STAGE Of' l l l l l ll PROJECT CYCLE 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1986 1ss 1987 1988 1989 TOTAL Idont./Prsp. 9.11 5.656 84.78 Appraisai 181.67 181.87 Negotiations 90-82 90.82 Board Approval- Effoctiveneas 58.46 4.04 80.60 Supervision 23.23 28.62 20.46 19.92 19.91 13.42 14.59 3.97 144.12 PCR 2.80 0.43 3.03 TOTAL 9.11 66.86 181.87 147.28 27.27 28.82 20.46 19.92 19.91 13.42 17.19 4.40 644.9C Source: MIS, August 1989 B. MISSIONS STAGE OF MONTH/ NO. OF STAFF SPECIALIZACTION PERFORMANCE TYPES C PROJECT CYCLE YEAR PERSONS WEEKS REQUESTED 1/ ASSESSMENT 2/ STATUS 3/ PROBLE4 Through Appraisal Identification 11/78* 4 12.0 2a, ;, j Preparation I 12/78. 2 2.0 b, c Preparation II 01/79* 9 18.0 2b, c, h, 3i, 2; Preparation III 04/79* S 10.0 2b, c, is, j Preparation-Follow-Up I 09/79 2 8.0 b, p Preparation-Follow-Up II 12/79 7 14.0 2a, b, h, 2i, j Preparation-Follow Up III 01/80 1 1.0 b Pro-Appraisal 05/80 2 3.3 b, m Appraisal through Board Approval Appraisal 05/80 e 24.0 2., d, h, i, m Post-Appraisal 08/80 6 10.0 a, d, h, i, k - - Post Appraisal 02/81 3 8.0 a, d, h - - Board Approval through Effoctiveness Roview 09/81. 4 8.0 d, h, k, n - - Roview 02/82* 8 19.0 2a, Os h, o, p - - PART III - 32- Table 8 Page 2 of 2 STACE OF MONTH/ NO. OF STAFF SPECIALIZACTION PERFORMANCE TYPES 0 PROJECT CYCLE YEAR PERSONS WEEKS REQUESTED 1 ASSESSMENT 2/ STATUS 3/ PROBLEM 4/ Suorvision Supervision 1 09/02* a 9 2x, d 1 I f Supervision 2 09/62. 1 2 o 1 1 f Supervision J 04/83 2 6 a d 2 2 f Supervision 4 0/33 2 6 a d 2 2 to Supervision 6 01/64 1 2 a 2 2 fmt Supervision 6 09/84 2 a a,c 2 1 fmt Supervision 7 02/65 1 2 a 6/ 2 6/ Supervision S 06/65 1 2 - 2 - Supervlsion 9 06/66 2 3 , f - 2 - Supervision 10 09/36 1 2 - 2 - Supervision 11 02/37 2 4 2a - 2 - Supervision 12 10/67 2 a 2a - 2 - Supervision 13 06/83 2 4 2c - 2 - PCR Survey 09/6t 2 4 o, k - 2 - Source: Project files Comments: The high use of staff resources between Identification through Effectiveness was attributod to two factoro. 1) fundamental changes In PIDER administration which led to much study and debote between COM and the Bank, resulting In long delays; and 2) the Bank at that time was expanding Integrated rural devolopment, focusing on innovative progroma and lose concerned with efficiency and budgetary limitations. Stiff us* decreased to normal lovela for supervision. 1/: o * agriculturalist; b a agricultural economist; c a financial analyst/rural credit; d e economist; * = loan officer; f = Irrigation expert; g a agroindustry specialist; h = rural devolopment specialist; I a health/ nutrition; j = rural industries; k . m + e; 1 a rural roads; m = y/p; n = livestock; o . forestry; p = participation 2/: 1 a no problems or minor problems; 2 moderate problems; 3 = major problems T/: 1 a Improving; 2 * stationary; 3 = doteriorating /: f * finanical; m = administrative; t = technical; p . political; o = other 1/: Form 690 changed and this category was deleted a Combined with Supervision of othor PIDER projects. - 33 - Annex 1 Page 1 of 27 SURVEY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 1. At the Bank's request, the Government of Mexico, through INEGI, carried out a survey about the rural development projects partially financed under PIDER III, Loan 2043-ME. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVESU 2. Overall, the survey was designed to identify successful and unsuccessful projects, causes of failure and major constraints, degree of goal achievement, beneficiary and community participation, financial and technical assistance received, and the like. Further description of the survey objectives for each type of project follows. A. Productive Proiects 3. Small-Scale Irrigation: Measure project impact on the introduction of new crops or increase in cultivated areas, new technologies, and introduction of different irrigation schemes. 4. Fruit Trees and Livestock: Gather information on the impact of fruit tree and livestock development as a means of creating new permanent or temporary employment opportunities, increasing productivity, improving product prices, quality and technology. 5. Agroindustries: Determine project contribution to the creation of permanent employment opportunities, and to increases in productivity ard income through rural industries. 6. In addition, a question on marketing was included in the questionnaires of productive projects to identify who was involved in marketing activities in the local, regional, and other domestic markets. B. SuRport Proiects 7. Rural Stores: Assess the benef'.s of setting up stores in rural communities; measure population and service roverage, problems with supplies, and demand and supply of basic staples, and consumption patterns of the community. Based on objectives described in INEGI's "Diseno Final de la Encuesta Evaluatoria de Proyectos, PIDER III," Septiembre de 1988. - 34 - Annex 1 Page 2 of 27 8. Warehouses: Evaluate the implementation of warehouses, in terms of costs and benefits to the rural communities, to support the distribution of basic staples or marketing of agricultural products. 9. Rural Roads: Assess the effectiveness of road construction to facilitate inter- and intraregional communication from the community to distribution centers; provide information on the availability of roads to production centers either for better product marketing or for the introduction of the necessary inputs to increase productivity. 10. Electricity: Obtain information on rural electricity projects, evaluate planning, programming and service coverage, and measure community benefits from this service to act as a supporting tool to integrated rural development. C. Infrastructure Proiects 11. Water Supply and Sewerage: Obtain information on the planning of the water supply and sewerage systems, operations, expected service coverage, and goal achievement; provide information on the benefits derived from the installed infrastructure, as well as use and cost of the services. 12. Schools: Obtain information to evaluate basis for planning, organization and goal achievement for the school-age beneficiary population; assess operations of the school as an education center and the active participation of beneficiaries. 13. Health Centers: Evaluate project implementation on the basis of planning, organization, service ' verage and operations; measure degree of beneficiaiy participation for the creation of the centers. SAMPLE 14. The survey was carried out from September 26 through October 14, 1988 and administered to a sample of beneficiaries of the PIDER III projects. The sample was randomly selected assigning a probability proportion to 30 communities in each state according to the total number of projects carried out in each community. Only those communities in which there was a livestock, small-scale irrigation, fruit tree or agroindustry project were included in the sample. Each state is represented by a minimum sample of two and a maximum of six communities per type of project. - 35 - Annex 1 Page 3 of 27 Table A4. RURAL DEVELOPHENT SURVY Number of Rasondeunto TOTAL TYPE OF PROJECT GUERRERO SINALOA YUCATAN ZACATECAS PER PROJECT PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENTS - Scate Irrigation 3 6 4 3 16 - Fruit Tress 6 3 5 4 18 - Livestock 6 6 5 2 19 - Agroindustries 4 0 3 4 11 SUPPORT PROJECTS - Stores 6 6 3 5 20 - Warehouses 4 0 0 2 6 - Roads 4 4 5 4 17 - Electricity 3 4 6 5 18 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS - Water Supply 6 5 5 4 20 - Sewerage 6 5 0 2 13 - Education 5 4 4 5 18 - Health 4 5 4 4 17 TOTAL PER 3TATE 57 48 44 44 193 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES 15. To be able to compare and analyze the data to answer some specific issues and draw conclusions, some questions were selected, interpreted and sometimes recoded to provide overall positive and negatives answers. To the extent possible, the data was also cleaned of coding errors and out-of-line answers. An outline with the questions used for each table that follows is attached at the end of this annex. 16. Based on beneficiaries' perception,/ the rate of success of the projects was 65%, almost evenly distributed among productive, support, and infrastructure projects. According to these survey results, beneficiaries rated productive projects better than the World Bank supervision reports. Sinaloa presented the worst scores (56%), mainly due to the failure of productive projects, followed by Zacatecas (60%) and Guerrero (69%). The best was Yucatan (74%). t/ Survey of PIDEi, projects was carried out by INEGI, with Bank assistance, in 1988. - 36 - Annex 1 Page 4 of 27 Productive Proiects 17. The beneficiary survey shows results from a low 50% rate of success in Sinaloa to a high of 79% in Yucatan, yet the highest crop yields were obtained in Sinaloa. The economic results were low in general, due to a number of problems. Of the 1,350 irrigated hectares visited, 34% were being used for producing low-yield maize and beans. Investment per boneficiary varied from about US$500 to less than US$50. The maximum number of hectares per beneficiary was seven; sometimes it was as low as half a hectare per beneficiary. SPP rarely gave any technical assistance (1.3 visits per project). 18. For other agricultural projects (fruit trees, livestock, and agroindustries), those perceived as most successful were agroindustries in Yucatan (87%) and the least successful were fruit trees in Sinaloa (6%). Fruit tree projects took about one to two years to complete, except in Guerrero where coffee rehabilitation projects took four to five years, and a peach project took five years but was abandoned because it did not produce any fruit. The most successful projects in fruit trees were citrus in Yucatan and nopal in Zacatecas. Buildings were in good maintenance in only half of the livestock projects. In agroindustries, 30% of the projects had problems of raw materials and 64% had marketing problems. Technical assistance was also very unsatisfactory. Social Projects 19. The rate of success of education and health projects was the worst for health in Zacatecas (58%) and the best for health in Guerrero (83%). The average number of persons attended to in the health projects was 32 per day. About 20% of the health centers had no access by road, nor did they have electricity or potable water. About 90% of the centers reported problems with the supply if medicines, half had equipment maintenance problems, and 28% had no equipment. In education projects, the average a number of students per community increased from 198 to 324. About 83% of schools did not have enough teaching materials, and 22% did not have adequate transportation for the students. 20. The rural stores were seen as satisfactory by the majority of the communities. Prices in the private stores were about 25% higher than in the community stores.!/ The problems mostly cited were lack of variety and uneven quality of the products. t/ DICONSA claims that their prices are about 14% lower than private stores. But, in 1987, DICONSA had an operating loss equal to about 20% of their sales. - 37 - Annex 1 Page 5 of 27 Physical Infrastructure Projects 21. Rural roads were considered satisfactory in 48% of the projects in Zacatecas, with a high of 74% in Yucatan. In 35% of the cases, the respondents considered that the roads were badly maintained. Only in 18% of the cases were they being maintained either by the municipio or directly by the beneficiaries. The other projects--water, sewerage, and electricity-- presented a degree of satisfaction, from 56% for sewerage in Zacatecas to a high of 81% for electricity in Guerrero. - 38 - Annex 1 - Dac,e c o4 2-7 Table A4. 2 PROJECTS PERCEIVED AS SUCCESSFUL BY BENEFICIARIES (X of Projects) …SS5==5=GS====#5s===SS=========S555SS5 S=…=…==… STATE AVERAGE BY TYPE OF PROJECT ------------------------------------------------ TYPE OF GUERRERO SINALOA YUCATAN ZACATECAS PROJECT -z…_^ ===S=========s====S===XSG5s5-=-lS===s=SYSX--=5z-YS==== PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENTS - Small-Scale Irrigation 65! 60X 79s 67! 6%! - Fruit Trees 32x ex 67% 27! 46! - Livestock e8x 36! 78s 465 67X - Agroindustries 63! --- 87x 75X 76X Avoroog Benefits in Productive Investments 69! 31! 7sx 64! SUPPORT PROJECTS - Stores 74! 899 74! 84! 8so - Warehouses 63! --- --- 63! 658 - Roads 56! 63! 74! 48! eox - Electricity 81! 62! 63! 76! 76x Average Benefits in Support Projects 69! 71! 7ox e6x INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS - Water Supply 69x 6ex 71! 67! 68! - Sewerage 59X 61x --- 6!% 658 - Education 64! 76X 72! 65! 69! - Health S3x 64! 76! 6sx 76! Averago Benefits in Infrastructure Projects 68! 66! 73! 62! AVERAGE BY STATE 69! 563 74X 66x AVERACE X OF PROJECTS PERCEIVED AS SUCCESSFUL * 665 Table A4.3 TOTAL PROJECT COST PER BENEFICIARY 1/ (In thousands of Mexican Pesos) PROD. INVEST. PROJECTS SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION FRUIT TREES LIVESTOCK AGROINDUSTRIES Average Average Avorage Average 9 of Total Cost per 9 of Total Cost per 9 of Total Cost per 9 of Total Cost per Bonef. Cost Bonef. Ben-t. Coat Ben-f. B-nef. Cost Ben-f. Ben-f. Cost Ben-t. Cuerrero 197 72,874 369.92 990 42,944 43.38 141 100,367 711.82 6,618 22,808 3.60 Sinaloa 372 68,887 162.92 44 3,288 74.73 196 18,694 92.32 --- --- --- Yucatan 164 75,377 469.62 --- --- --- --- --- --- 271 46,419 167.66 Zacatecas 73 42,222 678.38 146 7,306 60.03 170 2,663 16.66 6e3 169,960 317.99 AVERAGES FOR TOTALS 806 247,360 38.90 1,1806 63,637 46.37 607 121,124 238.90 7,292 228,177 31.29 SUPPORT PROJECTS ROADS STORES WAREHOUSES ELECTRICITY Average Average Average Average *of Total Cost per 9 of Total Cost per 9 of Total Cost per 9 of Total Coat per Ben-f. Cost Bonef. Ben-f. Cost B-n-f. Bonef. Cost Ben.f. Benef. Cost Bonef. Cuerrero 13,820 386,343 27.96 22,320 111,149 4.98 137 89,464 653.02 810 60,800 62.72 Sinaloa 8,867 168,466 17.66 6,600 2,869 0.43 --- --- --- 6,326 19,628 3.67 Yucatan 29,369 231,336 7.88 11,643 940 6.09 --- --- --- 22,626 46,710 2.06 Zacatecas 64,632 126,315 2.34 13,100 8,970 0.68 9 2,600 277.78 976 146,631 160.27 AVERAGES FOR THESE PROJECTS 168,678 906,469 8.49 63,063 123,928 2.34 146 91,964 629.89 29,736 263,669 8.86 INFRAST. PROJECTS WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE EDUCATION HEALTH Average Avorage Average Average * of Total Cost per 9 of Total Cost per # of Total Cost per # of Total Coat per Ben.f. Cost Bonef. Bonef. Cost Ben-f. Bonef. Cost B nof. Bonof. Cost Bonef. Querrero 139,622 642,873 3.90 81,132 340,329 4.19 87,861 114,176 1.30 183,386 390,910 2.13 ::3 Sinaloa 12,218 126,879 16.30 48,606 207,072 4.26 1,366 6,428 4.18 137,202 63,447 0.39 M m Yucatan 6,652 72,869 14.42 --- --- --- --- --- --- 46,776 23,244 6.60 x Zacatecas 4,388 86,832 19.79 1,600 38,674 24.11 700 24,682 36.69 12,107 178,110 14.71 _________________ ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- 0 AVERAGES FOR THESE PROJECTS 166,680 828,463 6.16 131,332 686,976 4.46 89,861 144,166 1.66 379,470 646,711 1.70 _ …/-Proi -…t co-t- --y not b *ully cozpara--- -- *r--------------1 I/ Proiect costs may not be fully comparable as data are in current pesos. Projects fall into the 1981-1988 period. - 40 - Annex I Table A4.4 Page 8 of 27 OVERALL INTENSITY OF BENEFICIARY PARTICIPATION 1/ STATE AVERAGE BY TYPE OF PROJECT ------------------------ ------------- TYPE OF GUERRERO SINALOA YUCATAN ZACATECAS PROJECT PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENTS - Small-Scale Irrigation 832 792 942 922 872 - Fruit Trees 892 892 44% 1002 81% - Livestock 672 42% 952 752 702 - Agroindustries 942 --- 752 882 852 Average Participation in Productive Investments 832 702 772 892 SUPPORT PROJECTS - Stores 2/ 100% 100% 332 802 78% - Warehouses 2/ 50% --- --- 50S 50% - Roads 432 14% 46% 292 33% - Electricity 582 502 292 502 472 Average Participation in Support Projects 51% 322 372 392 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS - Water Supply 312 432 402 592 43% - Sewerage 402 442 --- 702 512 - Education 95% 882 632 1002 86% - Health 30% 372 552 302 382 Average Participation in Infrastructure Projects 492 532 532 652 AVERAGE BY STATE 612 522 562 642 AVERAGE OVERALL INTENSITY OF BENEFICIARY PARTICIPATION - 582 1/ For each project, several questions related to participation in identification, execution, maintenance, finance, etc., were coded 0/1 for whether or not there was participation. The percentages are the overall percentages of participation across questions and projects in the class. 2/ Percentages reflect participation in identification only and are excluded in the averages. - 41 - Annex 1 Pnee 4 of 27 Table A4.5 STRUCTURE OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF ACTIVITY 1/ Small - Scale Fruit Live- Agro- Ware- Water Activity Irrig. Tress stock Indus. Stores houses Roado Elect. Supply Sewer. Educat. Health DISTRiUuTION OF BENEFICIARY CONTRIBUTION TO COST --------------------------.--------------------- Land 40.9X 41.33 41.2! 47.13 n/a n/a 42.3J 6.6! 6.13 6.8X 22.2X 16.83 Mach.& Equip. 4.5x 6.33 -- -- n/. n/. 3.63 -- __ __ __ __ Financial 9.13 3.13 17.3X 11.31 n/a n/a 11.53 75.6X 38.13 4S.6! 33.3X 16.83 Materiale 9.13 6.1X 14.1X 17.63 n/. n/x 11.53 6.OX 6.1X 6.33 19.4% 5.3X Labor 31.33 46.93 26.53 23.53 n/. n/a 36.3X 26.11 42.43 37113 25.0X 31.SX Other 4.5X 6.OX o.6x 6.6! n/e n/n -- 6. 12.13 6.33 6.6X 31.6x All Projects 16.6ex 1006. 1601U 1006.6 n/o n/r 100.63 166.63 166.61 166.6 16611.6 166.6X WHO PARTICIPATED IN PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Beneficiaries 63.2X 63.431 6 38X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Cow_unity 26.31 21.1X 29.4X 41.73 54.2X 26.63 56.63 64.5X 36.5 4<.2X 46.73 36.6O Ejido -- -- -- 53X. 20.6X 12.65 -- 3.43 15.4X 11." 11.13X o.X Munlclpallty -- -- -- 6.6x 4.2! 25.61 25.63 X .1 26.9X 11.6! 11.13 36.6x Inst./Authority 106. 5.33 11.6x 6.63 20.3x o.ex 20.63 -- 15.43 23.53 37.63 46.63 Individual .6X 6.OX -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- Other 6.6X 5.3X 6.6X 6.6X 6.63 37.53 5.6X 6.3 3.311 11.3! 6.1X 6.63 All Projects 16. 6X 106.63 166.6 1606. 166.6e 16.0 166.63 s16. x 166. 166.6 166.63 166.63 WHO PARTICIPATED IN lAINTENANCE 8-n-ficiaries 13. X n/s 21.43 3.7X n/a n/a 16.73X 6.1 35.6OX 20.X 66.2X 26.63 Municipality --- n/c --- --- n/. n/n 16.7X --- --- --- 6.73 -- Technicians 5U . n/a 76.63 64.33 n/J n/s 44.43 5.sx 66.O1 70.61 --- 68.3x Executing Agency 1.6X n/a --- --- n/a n/a --- 94.1% --- --- 21.7X -- Other 6.35 n/s 6.6X .O6X n/a n/s 22.2X 6.6X 5.61 16.61 4.31 18.63 All Projects 1 66.6 n/a 1 6 166. 61le n/a n/a 166.6 166.11 166.6 11.SO 166.631 166.63 n/s a not available 1/ The percentage repremnt the breakdown of participation by different groups or Institutions for each type of activity. _42- Annex I Page 10 of 27 Table A4.6 PROPORTION OF PROJECTS IN WHICH THERE WAS COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 1/ (by Typo of Activity) Small- Scale Fruit Live- Agro- Ware- Wator Activity Irrig. Troos stock indus. Stores houses Roads Elect. Supply Sewer. Educat. Health DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFICIARY CONTRIBUTION TO COST Land 56.3% 77.8% 73.73 72.7% n/a n/x 64.7 -- 10.6 7.7X 44.4% 16.73 Mach.& Equip. 6.3x 11.1X -- -- n/. n/, 6.9X -- -- -- __ __ Financial 12.653 6.6X 31.63 16.2X n/a n/a 17.6X 83.3X 57.9% 68.83 66.73 16.73 Matorials 12.6%3 6.6 26.3X 27.33 n/, n/o 17.6X 6.6% 16.5x 7.7X 38.93 6.6% Labor 43.8X 83.3X 47.4 36.'% n/, n/x 47.1X 27.8X 73.7X 46.23 60.0% 33.3X Other 6.3%3 .63 6.3 60.6X n/, n/x __ 6.63 21.1w 7.7% 6.03 33.3X WHO PARTICIPATED IN PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Beneficiaries 75.0% 72.2X 52.63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- __ Community 31.3X 22.23 26.3X 46.63 68.4 33.3X 68.8X 66.7% 52.63 58.83 61.1% 33.3 Ejido -- -- -- 63.6X 26.3 16.7 -- 44.4 21.1 15.43 16.73 6.0% Municipality -- -- -- 6.6 5.3X 33.3X 29.43 11.13 36.83 16.43 16.7X 33.33 Inct./Authority 12.6X 5.6X 10.6. 0.03 26.3 0.0 23.6X -- 21.13 0.8X 66.6X 44.4X Individual 6.6% 6.6x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Other 6.63 6.6X 6.63 6.6X 6.3 560.063 .9X 0.O6 5.3X 16.43 6.ox 6.63 WHO PARTIC-PATED IN MAINTENANCE .______________________________ Boneficiarloo 168.6 n/, 15.83 46.5X n/a n/a 17.63 6.06 36.% 16.4 83.33 22.2% Municipality -- n/a -- -- n/a n/ 17.x -- -- -- 11.1X --- Technicians 66.33 n/, 67.9X 81.8X n/, n/x 47.1% 6.63 66.3 563.8X --- 60.03 Executing Agency 18.83 n/a -- -- n/, n/o a 88.9X __ -_ 27.83 --- Other 6.X3 n/a 6.X 6.6OX n/. n/o 23.6X 0.6% 6.0% 7.73 5.63 16.7X n/a * not available 1/ Porcentages represent the proportion of projeets for which a particular gra p participated over the total number of projects in each survey. - 43 - Annex I Pa I 11. of 27 Table A4.7 MARKETING INVOLVEMENT OF BENEFICIARIES AND OTHER AGENCIES (Percentage of Projects) MARKETING BY MARKETING BY MARKETING BY OFFICIAL PRIVATE TYPE OF PROJECT BENEFICIAIRIES ENTITIES ENTERPRISES Small-Scale Irrigation 74.i% 9.42 16.4Z Fruit Ti:es 62.6% 35.92 1.52 Livestock 20.22 0.02 79.82 Agroindustry 53.52 19.4% 27.12 Table 7 DESTINATION OF OUTPUT BY PROJECT CLASS LOCAL REGIONAL NATIONAL OR TYPE OF PROJECT MARKET MARKET EXTERNAL MARKET Small-Scale Irrigation 40.02 47.52 12.52 Fruit Trees 27.52 55.0% 17.5% Livestock 45.22 51.6% 3.2% Agroindustry 25.9% 48.1% 25.9% - 44 - Annex I Table A4.8 PaRe 12 of 27 FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION BY BENEFICIARIES TO TOTAL PROJECT COST BY CLASS OF PROJECT 1/ STATE AVERAGE BY TYPE OF PROJECT --------------------------------------- TYPE OF GUERRERO SINALOA YUCATAN ZACATECAS PROJECT PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENTS - Small-Scale Irrigation 5.0% 0.0% 5.3% 8.2% 4.6% - Fruit Trees 0.4% 2.3% 15.4% 9.3% 6.9% - Livestock /.i% 4.4% 5.1% 2.1% 4.7% - Agroindustries 6.9% --- 8.9% 4.0% 6.6% Average Participation in Productive Investments 4.9% 2.3% 8.6% 6.5% SUPPORT PROJECTS - Stores 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - Warehouses 0.0% --- --- 0.0% 0.0% - Roads 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.5% - Electricity 5.0% 17.1% 12.3% 8.0% 10.6% Average Participation in Support Projects 1.3% 5.7% 4.8% 2.0% INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS - Water Supply 19.6% 15.6% 7.2% 15.0% 14.4% - Sewerage 6.1% 14.8% --- 5.8Z 8.9% - Education 3.9% 10.1% 9.0% 10.0% 8.2% - Health 0.0% 0.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.7% Average Participation in Infrastructure Projects 7.4% 10.3% 6.0% 7.7% AVERAGE BY STATE 4.5% 6.1% 6.5% 5.4% AVERAGE 2 OF BENEFICIARY PARTICIPATION TC TOTAL COST - 5.6% 1/ This is the average financial participation of beneficiaries in each project class, i.e., total costs include costs of projects with and without financial participation. - 45 - Annex 1 Page 13 of 27 Table A4.9 SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION AREA AND FARMERS BENEFITTED WITH IRRIGATION Column (A) (B) (B)/(A) (C) (D) (B)/(C) (D)/(C) Actual No. of No. of Z Number Total Actual Invest./ STATE Ha. to be Irrig. Attained of Invest. Ha./ Benef. Irrigated Ha. Benef. (Mex$'OOO) Benef. (MexS'OOO) GUERRERO 539 539 100.0% 197 48,177 2.74 244.6 SINALOA 643 0 0.02 372 54,853 0.00 147.5 YUCATAN 166 154 92.8Z 164 73,312 0.94 447.0 ZACATECAS 174 0 0.0% 73 41,699 0.00 571.2 TOTAL 1,522 693 --- 806 218,041 - AVERAGE 381 173 45.5% 202 54,510 0.86 270.5 - 46 - Annex 1 Page 14 of 27 Table A4.10 SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION LAND LEVELLING NUMBER OF ANSWERS % of ------------------- Positive STATE Positive Negative Answers GUERRERO 0 3 O.OZ SINALOA 2 3 40.0% YUCATAN 2 2 50.0% ZACATECAS 0 3 0.0% TOTAL 4 11 26.7% - 47 - Annex 1 Page 15 of 27 Table A4.11 SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION NUMBER OF PROJECTS PER CLASS OF CROP STATE TOTAL CROP --------------------------------------------------- PROJECTS % OF GUERRERO SINALOA YUCATAN ZACATECAS PER CROP TOTAL Maize 2 2 1 3 8 25' Beans 2 1 3 6 19' Chile 2 2 6' Estropajo 2 2 6' Citrus 2 2 6, Orange 1 1 2 6, Ocra 1 1 3' Ajonjoli 1 1 3' Watermelon 1 1 3' Alelon 1 1 3' Avocado 1 1 3, Tuna 1 1 3, Cartamo 1 1 32 Mango 1 1 31 Sorghum 1 1 32 Vegetables 1 1 32 TOTAL PROJECTS 12 6 6 8 32 100, PER STATE - 48 - Annex 1 Page 16 of 27 Table A4.12 SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION AVERAGE YIELD PER PROJECT FOR SELECTED CROPS STATE CROP ----------------------__-------------------------------___ GUERRERO SINALOA YUCATAN ZACATECAS Maize Ave. Yield p/ha. (tons) 2.8 5.6 8 2.8 Irrig. Me. p/project II8 84 0 21 Beean Ave. Yield p/ha. (tons) O 0 1.3 Irrig. Me. p/projoct 13 12 25 Chile Avo. Yield p/ha. (tons) 1.8 Irrig. Ha. p/projoct 13 Estropajo Ave. Yield p/ha. (tone) 1.8 Irrig. He. p/project 144 Citrus Ave. Yield p/ha. (tons) 1.4 Irrig. Ha. p/project 49 Orange Ave. Yield p/ha. (tons) 0 0 Irrig. Ha. p/project 4 16 Sorghum Ave. Yiold p/ha. (tons) 40 Irrig. He. p/project 20 Table A4.13 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECTS I X of C.otribution X of Average S Ne. of NO. of Visits Positive I to th. Project Positive I of Positive State Folleo-Up by I Efficient Adequate Anmwers I the Project Answers j Anuwers Visit by SPP Exec. Agency b b/ I ER I I I Folio :297 6 144 1 1 t 1 1 l Folio 126 6 0 * 1 6 1 9 I Folio 1269 1 96 I 1 1 I 1 1 ___ ___ I ___ ___ ~~~~II _ _I 1 24 l a 1 64.7! 1 2 66.7X 1 66.7X SINALDA L l I Foli 2S67 2 * I 1 1 I 0 | Folio 26S 4 6 1 1 1 1 1 Folio 2U69 a a 1 1 1 I 6. l Folio 2510 2 * 1 1 1 l 1 l Folie 2611 2 * 1 1 l 1 l - Folio 2S12 * * 1 1 1 1 1 1 __ _ - -- I _- I *o 16 * I 6 6 166.6X 1 4.6 7S.6! I 87.6 YUCATAN I I I Folio 167 * 12 l 0 a l 6. C Folio 519 * a 1 1 I I Folio 5169 a 2 I 1 1 I 1 l Folio 3119 * * | 1 1 I 1 l ___ ___ I ___ ___ .I I _ _I 0 1 J a 75.6% I t.5 87.5C I 81.35 ZACATECAS i i Felio 3287 * 48 1 1 1 1 1 1 Folio 52 a 26 I 1 1 1 1 Foiio 5296 8 C1 I 9 t 6 l -- I I I---- -- - 9 124 2 2 66.7! X 2 66.7! I 66.7 mXlx AVERACE 1.25 24.15 I o */ Rating: Yes a 1 No ul -- b/ Good z 1, Fair - .6, Poor S. - 50 - Annex 1 Pa2e 18 of 27 Table A4.14 LIVESTOCK PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF BUILDINGS, LIVESTOCK AND PASTURES NUMBER OF ANSWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------__----- BUILDINGS LIVESTOCK PASTURES STATE Good Regular Fair Good Regular Fair Good Regular Fair GUERRERO 1 4 1 6 0 0 5 1 C SINALOA 9 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 C YUCATAN 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 ZACATECAS 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 Total 8 7 1 15 1 0 12 2 1 7 of Total 50% 44% 6% 94% 6% 0% 80% 13% 7 - 51 - Annex 1 Page 19 of 27 Table A4.15 AGROINDUSTRIES PROBLEMS WITH SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIALS AND MARKETING NUMBER OF ANSWERS -------------------------------------------------- STATE SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIALS MARKETING PROBLEMS Adequate Not Adequate Yes No GUERRERO 3 0 3 1 YUCATAN 1 2 1 2 ZACATECAS 3 1 3 1 Total 7 3 7 4 Z del Total 70Z 30% 64% 362 - 52 - Annex 1 Paee 20 of 27 Table A4.16 AGROINDUSTRIES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE State # of Follow-up # of Visists Visits by SPP Executing Agency GUERRERO Folio 1201 1 0 Folio 1202 3 1 Folio 1203 3 3 Folio 1204 1 0 8 4 YUCATAN Folio 3101 0 0 Folio 3102 0 0 Folio 3103 0 0 0 0 ZACATECAS Folio 3201 3 115 Folio 3202 1 116 Folio 3203 0 113 Folio 3204 10 288 14 632 - 53 - Annex 1 Table A4.17 Page 21 of 27 EDUCATION NUMBER OF STUDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE PROJECT Number of Students State Before After Project Project Increase GUERRERO Folio 1261 93 800 707 Folio 1262 100 125 25 Folio 1263 350 550 200 Folio 1264 60 180 120 Folio 1266 247 260 13 Average 170 383 213 SINALOA Folio 2561 10 78 68 Folio 2562 225 265 40 Folio 2563 0 300 300 Folio 2565 290 290 0 ,____________________________ Average 131 233 102 YUCATAN Folio 3161 0 25 25 Folio 3162 600 600 0 Folio 3163 375 450 75 Folio 3164 520 560 40 _____________________________ Average 374 409 35 ZACATECAS Folio 3261 80 116 36 Folio 3262 120 420 300 Folio 3263 320 480 160 Folio 3264 128 128 0 Folio 3265 50 200 150 _____________________________ Average 140 269 129 TOTAL AVER. 198 324 126 - 54 - Annex 1 Paee 22 of 27 Table A4.18 EDUCATION SUPPLY OF TEACHING MATERIALS AND AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION NUMBER OF ANSWERS SUPPLY OF TEACHING MATERIALS AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION State Not Not Adoquate Adequate Adequato Adequate GUERRERO 1 2 4 1 SINALOA n/a n/a 3 1 YUCATAN 1 2 4 t 5 ~~~~~2 ZACATECAS n/a n/a NEG. ANS./TOTAL ANS. SO.67X 22.22% n/a u not available - 55 - Annex 1 Page 23 of ?7 Table A4.19 HEALTH POPULATION SERVED BY THE HEALTH CENTERS No. of No. of Hab. Hab. No. of Hab. No. of Days STATE per to be Currently Patients per ----- Comunity Served Served per Week Week GUERRERO Folio 1267 20,560 9,000 6,000 400 7 Folio 1268 12,461 9,000 10,000 300 7 Folio 1270 19,239 5,000 500 200 7 SINALOA Folio 2567 n/a 3,176 3,176 100 7 Folio 2568 12,000 3,551 3,551 200 7 Folio 2571 1,500 809 450 75 6 YUCATAN Folio 3167 20,000 5,000 5,000 340 5 Folio 3168 28,000 28,000 28,000 350 5 Folio 3169 15,000 8,475 4,880 100 5 Folio 3170 16,000 5,300 5,300 100 7 ZACATECAS Folio 3267 483 483 483 16 7 Folio 3268 1,476 1,476 1,476 210 7 Folio 3269 5,000 5,000 5,000 60 6 Folio 3270 5,148 5,148 1,600 n/a n/a ----------------------------------------------------- Total 156,867 89,418 75,416 2,451 Average a/ 12,067 6,387 5,387 189 b/ 6 a/ Excluding those centers for which information is not available. b/ Average number of patients seen in health centers any particular day is 32. n/a a not available Table A4.20 HEALTH CENTERS SOMIE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY BENEFICIARIES Probl_ withi The Health Conter has: MAINTENUNCE i PROBLEMS WITH -------------- -------------------------------------------------------- II EQUIPMENT STATE II Supply of II Easy Potable l Not -------------- ---- 1 Medicines Access Elect. Water jg Adequate Adequate Timely Untimely l Yes No II … … II… … ……-I--------- -----…----- --------- II _ _ _ _ _ II _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ II _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ II _ __ CUERRERO Folio 1267 Yes II Yes Y Ys ou l 1 1 II 1 Folio 126381 Yo u Yoe Ye Yes ll 1 1 ll 1 Folio 127111 Ye l Yes Yes Yo u 1 1 II 1 SINALOA ll ll ll II 11 If 11 11 Folio 2U67 Yes Yes You Yen II 1 1i 1 Folio 2U831 ll Yoe You Yo u 1 1 ll 1 Folio 267111 Y "I No No You ll 1 1 11 1 YUCATAII Folio 8167 1 No II Ye Ye Ye s 1 1 II 1 Folio 316611 Yes Yes Yos Yes ll 1 1 11 1 Folio 8169 No ll Yes Yos You ll 1 1 ll 1 Folio 3179 ii I Yes You Yes 1 1 II 1 ZACATECAS II II II ll Folio S267 1 No II No No No II 1 ll 1 Folio 812631 No l Ye You Ye s 1 1 ll 1 Folio 820911 ll Yes Yeu Y l 1 1 ll 1 Folio 8279 ll l Yoe No He n/. n/o II n/a II-_____… …_II…____________II…__________________II …________p Total Poe. 6 O 12 11 12 6 C 10 10 ° Neg.II 4 i 2 3 2 7 861 3 x X of Total Poo. Il 66.61 86.7X 78.6X 86.7X II 46.2 38.SX ll 76.91 Response Ne. II 40.1 IX 14.3X 21.4X 14.8X 6I 63.8X 61.51 II 23.1X ° -/s a not_avallablo rn/n = not available Table A4.21 STORES PRODUCTS MOST FREQUENTLY PURCHASED STATE CORN FRUITS A TOILETTE KANS FLOURt BTTER RICE SUGAR OIL DETERGENT CRACKERS MAIZE COFFEE SOAP SARDINES PASTA MILK VECET. FLOUR PAPER SALT GUERRERO 26X eX ON 21X 13X es es es 4X 41 4 4X es as a eS es ex SINALDA 21X 17X 41 NS 21X 51 es 4X ONX41 es 4X as ex 8S es es YUCATAN 25X as es eX 17X ex ex ex us oX eX es es es eX es es es ZACATECAS 6X 151 X1 6X 1X 16X oX 151 25X es Ss es 65 es eX 51 6C es Times Product mentioned as 19 9X 1X SX 151 eX 4X 4X 93 13 65 1X 3X 61 3S 3S 1X 1X X o Total Answers 1/ Pere ntage represent the timme a product wa mntioned as percent of total annwer in each state. D4 D - Table A4.22 4. ORS AVtACE PRICES OF SOFE FMTLY 6034 PR0lCTS ISMS ROi FIOUR RICE SUCAR OIL DETET AIZE FLUUR STATE-- DICUA PtRIVATE OICOSA PRIVATE DICOGA PRIVATE D0COliA PRIVATE DICONEA PRIVATE DIC0 6A PRIVATE D0CO6^A PRIVATE DICOUSA PRIVATE DIC"A PRIVATE a to 712 012 656 1.002 au Sea 2,567 2.6,2 1.610 2,350 330 750 57LlAA 718 oI3 368 505 2,227 2. 00 724 596 613 s9e 2,225 2,255 260 500 702 756 VUCATAN 717 r/a GIs n/a 517 n/. 2,230 n/a 676 ./a 260 ./a ZACTEAS 59 618 600 700 a6 725 2.000 2,767 265 310 1 U' 00 AVWA0E PRICE 713 06 464 6 2.227 2,600 662 O0 530 695 2,306 2,627 1,243 2,350 305 Soo 702 75# 1 m MWT * DIFFE IN PRIM PRIVATE STW / DICO6 271 22 142 26 242 12S 471 48S 73 AO. PRICE DIF. 25. rn/a not available > l'3 CQ 0 ( - 59 - Annex 1 Page 27 of 27 Tsble A4.23 STORES SUMHARY OF CHANGES DESIRED BY BENEFICIARIES 1/ Changes desired in: --------------------------------------- STATE Product Product Price Type Variety GUERRERO 1002 672 672 SINALOA 100Z 602 602 YUCATAN 332 672 1002 ZACATECAS 1002 1002 1002 Average 832 732 822 1/ Percentages represent positive answers accrose projects in a particular state. MAP SECTION iSw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 | -- _t - X U N I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T E D S T A T ES< MEXUiCO UNITED STATES 's ' - - ... ' . . z ^.~.,.,.t ........ _,1 ...... . JAMAICA 30' ;.' GuArEMALA A C NICARAGUA PANAMA A ! $, i b ; _ COSTA RICOSA SONORA; 0 N Rt At 90. rhI7 ow-. b.y A. z ~~~~ i . X ¢> C H I H U A H U A , . s eab U ,r Ms I -RLOCATIONS OF MICRO-REGIONS ;~~~~~~~~~~~~7 cy HI H, u' A H U A /a;,?CSL.LT / SU :;CU R N G O A'-HU._L_A r,ti NORTE ---4 - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ MOCORITO C ,r -.~ .x = ____J ,-i, _ ,,__ TC06ALALELOTA ix 5.NU E/ V ' ZACATAS: 0 -4 rLO NRIOGRANDE IeA/NK 0- 1 / ""'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~FAESNILLOCALERA -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VALPARAISO D U Rt ';° 4i~ A N G0 P~ AMUINA . , OSTAHC L).'* 4MINY. ', L I S . MrP100 >5>-~' <½,- . . * , -r / / -t- \-A< .-Y U ZACATECAS c-' / z< AGRANDO SN TAMAULII~AS 7 AOA -ohyes I - 1_te1s(~4nnu: P_cip-on - COSTA CHICA LUI S omE(EPE ---Internotonrzl-- P0un05!e MEIO9-/ '/ # A P! W r A NAYARIT) r--UETS---Sn RET '- DEVELOPRIONERMENT P- JALi SCO CALIENTES_ 20' QSUANAJUATO, COZUMEL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~~t9-' - U TAA 0 COLIMA ~ ~ COACAN MEXICO COLMA ''4,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 tAiLOr' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AM Iwsoyets in Millimeters (Mesn Annual Precipitation) j 'I5 S ----State Boundaries Ž6tREG i CAX A International BoundariesA MEXICO RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT-PIDER MI 0 100 200 300 400 500 KILOMETERS 110' 00'.