Reporting Format for Alliance 2015 Consortium Pakistan
DFID
WHH
Report #: Final
Dated: 01/02/12
Covering the period from 15th March - till: 15th December
General Information Overview
Country:
Location:
Title of the Project:
Project Code:
A2015 lead organization:
Total budget for the Operations:
Start Date and Duration of the Operation:
Pakistan
Muzaffargarh-Punjab Province
Emergency Livelihoods Assistance to
ensure Food Security and Re-build Lives
in Flood affected areas of Punjab and
Sindh provinces, Pakistan.
202080-136
ACTED
GBP 2,750,000
01/03/2011 until: 31/12/2012
Implementing Agency
Name: WHH
Address:House # 4, Street no. 42, MarviRoad, Sector F-7/1, Islamabad Pakistan
Contact Person: Daniel Rupp, Project Manager
Implementing partner if applicable
Name: CABI South Asia
Address: Opp.1-A, Data GunjBaksh road, Satellite town, Rawalpindi -Pakistan
Contact Person: Dr Kauser Iqbal Khan, Project Manager
May 11
1. Complete the following table for the results and activities
Intervention
Intended
Achievement to
result/
date
indicator(s)
Result 1: Restoring and
enhancing self-subsistence
farming through the provision
of agriculture inputs, trainings
on agricultural management
and rehabilitation of
agricultural infrastructures
Result 2: Restoring and
enhancing self-subsistence
livestock and fisheries through
the distribution of livestock
and fisheries inputs, trainings
on livestock management and
rehabilitation of animal
shelters and fish ponds
Result 3: Provide direct
income to vulnerable floodaffected populations through
cash for work activities
141
structures to
be
rehabilitated
Achieved
# Beneficiaries reached
(please provide it as
number of HH)
Male
Female
Comments (please describe
progress, even if only in
preliminary activities)
Total 365 no. of tube
wells have been
rehabilitated.
32,679 meters of earthen
portions on 36 water
courses are rehabilitated.
10 No fish farm families
10fishery
schemes
rehabilitated
Distribution
of10,000
fingerlings
Achieved
Achieved
11,870 fingerlings
distributed among 10 fish
farms.
8,000 cash
for work days
used for
rehabilitation
of agricultural
infrastructure
Achieved
9,927 man days utilized to
rehabilitate agricultural
infrastructure
412 man days were needed to
finish rehabilitation of damaged
10 fish ponds.
6,635 man days were needed to
finish rehabilitation of damaged
365 tube wells.
2,880man days were needed to
rehabilitate earthen portions of
36water courses
May 11
Issues/concern
s and proposal
to address
issues/
concerns
2. Please provide a description of the main achievements to date along with pictures
of the intervention
It is important to present briefly the farming system in Muzaffargarh to understand the
importance of the rehabilitation achieved for farmers and environment.
Farming system in this arid climate context relies on irrigation. An important amount of water
is provided from Indus River. Water is diverted from Taunsa dam and flows through
Muzaffargarh canal (Canal command area 19). Water is then brought to fields through
secondary canals and water courses. This type of water supply does not provide full farmers’
requirement (around 40% of the needs), and presents important negative impacts. Before the
introduction of the irrigation system, the water table was sufficiently deep. However, due to a
lack of drainage facilities and improper water management, the water table rose, resulting in
water logging and salinity.
Irrigation, water logging and drainage system in Muzaffargarh
CHENAB
INDUS
Map source: World Bank
Muzaffargarh district is located between Chenab river in the East and Indus river in the west.
It is crossed from North to South by Muzaffargarh canal. We can see from the above map a
direct impact from this main canal. The purple zone which covers almost all the district shows
areas where depth to water table is less than 5 feet. This results in reducing soil quality and
thus agricultural productivity, because of water logging and increase in soil salinity.
Soil salinity in Muzaffargarh
May 11
The red zone (number 17) on the above map shows saline sodic type of soils (salt affected).
We can see that this area follows the course of Muzaffargarh canal. This clearly shows the
irrigation system impact on environment (soil salinity). This observation is not only true for
Muzaffargarh district, but for the entire country and its huge irrigation scheme. Nationwide,
we observe that most salt affected areas are in Sindh, which is also the most affected area
with malnutrition. It most likely seems that malnutrition and poverty are directly linked with
soil salinity. Where salinity occurs, agricultural productivity decreases, which reduces
farmers’ incomes and food security.
In this given difficult context, we can explain farmers’ adaptation to cope with negative
aspects related to the irrigation system. First, in order to reach required amount of water for
agriculture, a private based irrigation system is in place. The ground water is pumped with
Tube wells, owned either by individuals or small group of farmers. This allows to provide the
60% water need missing from the canal irrigation system described previously. As the water
is pumped directly from the soil, it decreases the water table level, and thus reduces the soil
salinity effects.
In areas close to the main canal, water linkage and seepage are too important and land is
water logged. Agriculture cannot be done, but some farmers managed to invest or got
support for Fish Farming. As unemployment rate is high, this activity provides an important
source of income, and is an effective option for small land holders in water logged areas.
The 2010 flood destroyed not just only shelters and standing crops but also tube wells and
fish farms. The rehabilitation of tube wells and fish farms is therefore important, to ensure
availability of production means and income source of affected farmers. Investing in this type
of structures allows a long term support, particularly relevant in the context of Muzaffargarh
district.
Tube well and earthen water courses rehabilitation (Result 1)
Damages from 2010 floods were particularly affecting the agriculture production system.
Farmers have lost all their assets, and in this difficult time, the first priority is food. Capital
was destroyed and families are with a really low or without investment capacities. Almost a
year after the flood, we observed an important number of tube wells out of use, surrounded
with barren land, because of no water availability. Selection for direct beneficiaries receiving
support for tube well rehabilitation considered several criteria:
 Small land holding farmers. (maximum 10 acres land holder)
 Damage reported on tube well due to the flood
 Willingness to cooperate with the project. The rehabilitation aimed also to benefit to
larger number of neighbouring farmers using water from the rehabilitated tube well.
As the selection phase was done almost a year after the flood, still damaged tube wells in the
field is an indicator in itself of affected farmers’ investment capacity. Farmers could not afford
to repair their tube well, affecting severely water supply in the area and thus agricultural
production.
The census of damages on tube wells is quite difficult to be performed, as no precise data is
available. As it is a private irrigation structure, the government is not keeping accurate figures
on the number of tube wells in the field. However, the District Officer for Agriculture provided
data for district Muzaffargarh indicating a total number of 1397 damaged tube wells.
The project team performed directly in the field a damage survey on tube wells. This detailed
survey provided information on tube well components which are damaged. The project
prepared then a proper estimation for the rehabilitation work to be done, in a cost efficient
way. Only damaged components were repaired.
May 11
Main components of a tube well
are:
 Pipe and bore

Water reservoir

Centrifugal pump

Diesel engine

Transmission belt
After detailed damage survey, cost estimation was prepared and tender published to identify
best contractors to complete the rehabilitation. In order to improve all structures, a proper
water reservoir was designed. This prevents soil erosion at water collection point and allows
a proper water flow into canals. Boreholes were most of the time filled with soil matters from
the flood. New boreholes needed to be dug in appropriate location. Diesel engine and
centrifugal pumps were damaged at different stages; these components were sent to
workshops for repairing. A total of 365 tube wells were rehabilitated under the project, for a
total cost of 151 681, 71 GBP (not including locally hired workers paid through cash for
work).
Boreholes were tested and newly
dug. Selected contractors used
local materials and knowledge to
dig boreholes.
Project engineer supervised
the
rehabilitation
work
performed.
May 11
Designed water reservoir is improving irrigation structures as it reduces water losses and
leakage. The project provided all rehabilitated tube wells with a proper reservoir, required for
improved water management.
Water reservoir build with
project
support
improves
irrigation systems, by reducing
water losses and soil erosion.
Water pumped from the ground
flows through existing irrigation
structures, such as watercourses or
earthen canals. It provides 60% of
farmers’ irrigation needs.
Centrifugal pumps and engines were
brought and repaired at workshops.
Damaged spare parts were replaced.
Almost a year after the flood, tube
wells are still found out of use,
showing the lack of financial capacity
from farmers to invest in the
rehabilitation of their production
means.
In addition to irrigation benefit, tube wells reduce ground water table level. The evaporation
effect in the upper soil level is then reduced which limits salinity impact on soils. Tube well
system is contributing to drainage needs.
May 11
Ground water
level
Tube well system contributes both for irrigation and soil drainage.
Pumping ground water reduces water table level and, combined with improved irrigation
management, limits salinity impact on agricultural lands.
The following table presents the number of tube wells rehabilitated per Union Council in our
targeted area:
Tehsil
Muzaffargarh
Kot Addu
UC
Karam Dad Qureshi
Wanpitafi
Baseera
Gull Wala
Danrein
Nohan Wali
Ghazanfargarh
Budh
Dogar Klasra
Sanawan
Alurid
Mehmood Kot
Kashifabad
Total
Number of tube wells
rehabilitated
33
35
31
20
50
9
42
28
23
18
29
20
27
365
According to data provided by District Agriculture Department, 888 tube wells were recorded
as damaged in these Union Councils. However the data is not precise, as no proper damage
assessment was conducted on private tube wells.
The social organisation linked with the water supply from tube wells is quite complex, and
varies from one structure to the other, but most of the times, a tube well owner will provide
water to neighbouring farmers who will have to pay for the service and fuel. In case of
maintenance needs, all tube well users are contributing to cover the costs. However in this
flood disaster case, damages are too important, and farmers have lost their financial capacity
to ensure rehabilitation. Incomes come from agriculture but without proper irrigation, farmers
May 11
are unable to recover financially from the disaster. Supporting the rehabilitation of production
means ensures the restoration of the most important livelihood activity, agricultural
production. In order to estimate the benefits from our intervention, a sample of 171 direct
beneficiaries (47%) was interviewed to assess production results for all tube well users.
Following tables and charts present main findings:
Land size and Number of Tube Well users
Land size (acres)
TW owner
Total TW users
Average
Total sample
Total project (estimation)
3,13
536,00
1144,09
Number of TW users
Before flood
After flood
25,92
4433,00
9462,25
9,39
1606,00
3428,01
11,55
1975,00
4215,64
We can see from the above table that:




Tube well owner land size is 3, 13 acres on average. If we consider the total number
of Tube well users and the total land size under irrigation, the average land size per
Tube well user is 2, 24 acres.
A total of 9462, 25 acres of land is provided with irrigation water from the rehabilitated
tube wells.
We observe an increase in the number of farmers using tube wells before and after
rehabilitation. It is estimated that 787 new farmers have access to rehabilitated tube
wells. (The reason is not analyzed but it may be a combination of several factors.
First the beneficiary selection criteria included the willingness to provide irrigation
service to neighbouring farmers. Secondly, as Tube wells are still damaged in the
area, farmers are using water services where it is available, increasing the number of
users on rehabilitated tube wells)
A total number of 4215 households benefited from the rehabilitation of these 365 tube
wells.
Area under irrigation per type of crop
Vegetables
0%
Sugar cane
23%
Wheat
47%
Cotton
9%
Fodder
11%
May 11
Rice
10%
The data for estimation and figures summarized in the chart above were collected from the
171 tube well owner respondents. It is however representative of the farming system and
landscape in Muzaffargarh district. Even if these crops are not grown at the same season,
we can see that the main crop cultivated is wheat, followed by sugar cane. Farmers prefer
sugar cane as cash crop as it has a higher profit. Vegetable production is done on a very
small scale (0,20 % of irrigated crops). Considering these percentages and total land under
irrigation we can estimate that the rehabilitation of the 365 Tube wells contribute to the
irrigation need of 4490 acres of wheat crop, 2190 acres of Sugar cane fields, 1050 acres of
fodder crop, 900 acres of rice fields, 810 acres of cotton and 20 acres of vegetables.
The production result is quite difficult to estimate. Data were directly collected from
respondent but did not follow a scientific measurement for production results. Data are based
on farmers’ production expectation. However we could summarize expected results in the
following table:
Expected production per type of crop in kg
Crop
Wheat
Rice
Fodder
Cotton
Sugar cane
Vegetables
Average
Total sample
2040,58
348940,00
272,46
46590,00
336,84
57600,00
202,69
34660,00
12635,77
2160716,00
3,51
600,00
Total prod (in Kg)
6.364.450,73
849.772,91
1.050.588,53
632.177,06
39.410.129,34
10.943,63
We decided to consider Wheat, Rice, Cotton and Sugar cane for further benefit analysis.
Fodder production is then linked with milk production, livestock sector, and without detailed
data it is difficult to assess results for this crop. Vegetable production is done on a small area
and is quite diversified (tomato, cucumber, mustard, etc...), the analysis is too complex and
would not bring here significant changes. We estimated the net profit for each of the four
crops according to data collected directly from farmers and from available economic analysis
reports (Economic analysis of sugarcane crop, Anwar Hussain and Naeem-Ur-Rehman
Khattak, J. Agric. Res., 2011 and Factors affecting Cotton Production in Pakistan:Empirical
Evidence from Multan District, Anwar, Mumtaz; Chaudhry, Imran Sharif and Khan,
Muhammad Bashir University of the Punjab). The following table presents data and
estimation for crop performances:
Total net profit for project beneficiaries per cultivated crop
Crop
Wheat
Rice
Net profit (PKR/acre)
Total land cultivated (acre)
Total profit (PKR)
15.190,38
4.491,45
68.226.810,63
24.083,48
902,85
21.743.762,72
Cotton
Sugar cane
5.190,00
54.550,00
811,65
2.188,73
4.212.476,98 119.395.009,17
The net profit is calculated from market prices of the different crops and considered the input
costs (seed, fertilizers, labor, water, land preparation, etc...). If we consider the rehabilitation
costs, results of the intervention can be estimated as follow:
May 11
Cost/benefit analysis for the rehabilitation of 365 tube wells in Muzaffarghar district
Tube well cost benefit analysis
Total profit (PKR)
213.578.059,51
Total net profit (GBP)
1.514.738,01
60% water contribution (GBP)
908.842,81
Rehabilitation cost (GBP)
151.681,71
Net project profit (GBP)
757.161,10
Cost benefit ratio
4,99
The total net profit was estimated with the four crops (wheat, rice, cotton and sugar cane)
considering total area under irrigation and estimated net profit per acre. As described
previously, tube wells contribute to 60% of the irrigation needs. We considered then that this
irrigation structure contributes to 60 % of the total net profit which is then 908 842, 81 GBP.
As the rehabilitation cost is 151 681, 71 GBP (not including labour costs and personal costs
involved in the activity), the net profit is 757 161, 10 GBP. We find then a Cost/benefit ratio of
4,99 GBP, which means that for 1 GBP invested 5 GBP was ensured to beneficiaries through
the rehabilitation and agricultural production.
As the total number of beneficiaries for tube well rehabilitation is 4215, the project spent
35,98 GBP (151 681, 71 / 4215) for each household, who gained through the rehabilitation of
tube wells an estimated 179, 93 GBP (35, 98 x 5) on average.
If we consider Labour costs and project personal involved in the activity, the cost/benefit ratio
is calculated as follow:
Net project profit = 908 842, 81 – 218 695, 17 (some costs are shared with Fishery)
Net project profit = 690 147, 64 GBP, the Cost/Benefit ratio is then 3,15.
However, as fodder and vegetable crops were not included in the benefit assessment, a
cost/benefit ratio of 5 is more realistic. Furthermore, we considered only one season for our
analysis, but tube wells will be operational for several years, the impact is therefore greater
when we consider long term benefits.
After completion of all tube wells rehabilitation, ceremonies were organized in each Union
Councils. Tube well owners received kit for maintenance, and expressed their entire
satisfaction for the work performed.
Closure ceremonies were a good
opportunity to hand over rehabilitated
structures to community members,
who acknowledged the quality of
service delivered.
Project engineer provided tube well owners
with tools and belt for maintenance, during
end of project ceremonies.
May 11
The project also provided support, through Cash for Work, for the rehabilitation of earthen
canals. The aim of this rehabilitation is to improve irrigation management, by reducing water
loss during transport in inadequate canals. 36 canals were rehabilitated, for a total length of
32 679 meters. The following table presents the information per Union Council for the
rehabilitated water courses.
Earthen water courses rehabilitated through Cash for Work
Length
rehabilitated
Number of
water
courses
Tehsil
UC
Man days
beneficiaries
Wanpitafi
341
282
1574
5
Muzaffargarh
Gull Wala
495
348
15729
8
Nohan Wali
440
273
2000
3
Budh
350
208
2932
6
Sanawan
580
396
4863
5
Alurid
Mehmood
Kot
Kashifabad
140
85
1405
3
38
18
150
1
496
441
4026
5
32679
36
Kot Addu
Total
2880
2051
Project engineer trained the community
on size standards for improved earthen
water courses.
Improved water course ensures a
proper water flow, which limits water
loss for efficient irrigation.
May 11
Fish farm rehabilitation (Result 2)
Fish farming in Pakistan is an important economic sector and is part of development
strategies. Figures from FAO statistics 2006, shows that fishery Gross Domestic Product was
232,5 Million USD (contributing to 1, 34 % of the agricultural GDP).
If we consider inland aquaculture, we can observe an important increase from 2005 to 2006
and then 2007, which shows that this sector is developing considerably in the last years.
Pakistan fish production
Source: Fishery and aquaculture country Profile FAO, Feb 2009
As mentioned in FAO country profile, aquaculture in Pakistan is still in its infancy, but there is
immense potential for development. Aquaculture production has rapidly increased since
2000 from around 15 000 tonnes to reach over 100 000 tonnes in 2006 and 2007.
Aquaculture is a recent development and management of the sector is still poor. Two Asian
Development Bank projects have assisted in strengthening the institutional structure, through
the development of model farms, hatcheries and production of juveniles, as well as through
human resources development and strengthening of extension services. Aquaculture has
also received a substantial amount of government investment, and facilities are now in place
that can provide the basis for a major future expansion.
According to the latest estimates (before 2010 flood), the total area covered by fish ponds is
about 60 500 ha (Sindh, 40 170 ha; Punjab, 10 500 ha; KPK, 560 ha; other provinces, 240
ha). About 13 000 fish farms have so far been established across Pakistan, varying
considerably in size. The average farm size is 5 to 10 ha. No direct data on the number of
fish farmers employed in this sector is available, but according to best estimates, about 50
000 people are either directly or indirectly employed in the sector (average of 3, 8 person per
fish farm).
The 2010 flood event broke the expansion trend for this sector, and affected all investments
and efforts for development of fish farming. According to Damage and Need Assessment
report; 380, 94 Million PKR is recorded as financial loss in fishery sector. Punjab province
alone counts for 83, 75 % (319 Million PKR) in value of physical damages to fish farms.
In a Gap Analysis conducted by FAO in March/April 2011, it was assessed that fishery sector
requires 3 million USD for support, and is a first priority intervention for restoring normalcy.
In Muzaffargarh district, Fish farming is performed at different level. Muzaffargarh Teshil is
located closer to major roads and Multan city; larger structures are established for the
supply. Teshil Kot Adu is a bit more isolated, and there is comparatively less market
advantage for fish farming. However, fish farms are also established in Kot Adu Teshil, but
with much smaller structures. Owners are small land holder farmers who own land in water
May 11
logged areas. The most profitable land use is fish farming, because agricultural production
would be too small on these waterlogged and salt affected lands.
We collected data from District Officer in charge of Fishery sector in Muzaffargarh. The
information is summarized in the following table:
Government Data on Fish Farming damages in Muzaffargarh District
Name of
Tehsil
Number of
Fish Farms
Area of Fish
Farms
(Acres)
Number of
Damaged
Fish Farms
Muzaffargarh
500
7286
Kot Adu
200
Ali pur
24
Jatoi
10
Total
734
62
Area of
Damaged
Fish Farms
(Acres)
1434.5
4130.770
Value of
Damage in
millions
(PKR)
167.41
1296
82
1080.5
901.280
121.48
220
_
_
_
_
70
05
31.5
30.600
3.92
8872
149
Fish
Quantity
(M Ton)
2556.5
5062.73
293.81
Source: Muzaffargarh District Office, Fishery department
We can see from the data that in Teshil Kot Adu, the number of damaged Fish Farms is
higher than in Muzaffargarh teshil, but the total damaged area is smaller. This observation
confirms that Fish Farms in Kot Adu are smaller structures. The project decided to select
only Kot Adu Teshil for Fish Farm rehabilitation as our objective is to target small land holder
farmers. The project team conducted a survey on damaged fish farms in Kot Adu. The
information is summarized in the following table:
Project data on Fish Farming damages in targeted UC of Kot Adu Teshil
No of Fish Pond
Total area under
fish pond(acres)
No of Damaged
fish Ponds
Total damage
area under fish
pond(acres)
Kashif Abad
18
158
3
3
Alurid
24
113
11
33
Sinanwan
50
182
21
76,5
Dogar kalasra
29
40
0
0
Mehmood kot
Total
74
81
31
35
UC Name
195
574
66
147,5
Source: CABI project team field survey
The project team screened the list of fish farm owners provided by the District Officer, and
assessed directly in the field the household condition and damages on fish ponds. 10 Fish
farms were selected using the following criteria:






Poverty level, according to family size and livelihood opportunities
Land size (Maximum of 5 acres land holder)
Damage recorded from the flood.
Fish farming as a main household source of income
Willingness to cooperate with the project, and to receive trainings.
Lack of financial means for rehabilitation.
After the selection of beneficiaries, Contracts were signed with fish ponds owners. Fish farm
structure rehabilitation was done (pond infrastructure and maintenance of the irrigation
system). Then the project provided the support for one production cycle, including supply of
farm yard manure, watering of ponds, supply of mineral fertilizers, supply of fingerlings,
May 11
supply of fish feed, labour charges for work intensive tasks. The objective of the activity was
to provide support on 1 ha of fish farm for one production cycle, which would help owners to
start again their activity. One day training was organized with these fish farmers to improve
their knowledge. All technical aspect followed recommendations from Fishery department
experts.
Fish farms were destroyed by the
flood. The project provided support
for the rehabilitation of ponds with
participation of local workers
Project field team controlled water
quality for rehabilitated ponds by
measuring pH and Oxygen level.
Fingerlings were provided to each
rehabilitated fish farms to start
production
Most common fish species used for
inland aquaculture in Pakistan are
named Thella, Rahoo and Morri.
May 11
The following table presents the number of fish farms which received support per Union
Council, and the number of fingerlings provided:
Location and fingerlings provided for Fish farming in Kot Adu teshil.
Number of fingerlings provided
Thella
Rahoo
Morri
Grass
Carp
Total
No of Fish
Pond
Kashif Abad
1
300
310
310
250
1170
Alurid
4
1320
1320
1360
0
4000
Budh
2
950
950
960
0
2860
3
1270
1270
1300
0
3840
3840
3850
3930
250
11870
UC Name
Mehmood kot
Total
10
The total expenditures from the project for the rehabilitation of Fish farms are summarized in
the following table:
Total expenditures for Fish Farm rehabilitation in GBP
Amount in GBP
%
Machinery
1500,51
24,45
Watering
878,64
14,32
Fingerlings
683,04
11,13
Fertilizers
412,14
6,72
Feeding
1989,85
32,43
pH - DO meter
559,6
9,12
Taxes
112,68
1,84
Total
6136,46
100
In Addition to these expenditures, workers were engaged in the pond rehabilitation and paid
under cash for work budget. The total amount used is 127 500 PKR, equivalent to 900 GBP.
We conducted a survey with all 10 fish farm beneficiaries in order to assess the benefit from
project support. The main findings are presented in following tables:
General data on Fish Farmers
Fish
Farm
number
Total
area fish
farm in
acre
Distance
from
Home (m)
Soil
texture
Previous use
of site
Best
alternative
use
1
Alurid
2000
1,00
100
Clay loam
Barren
No
2
Kashifabad
1996
1,10
500
Loam
Waterlogged
No
3
Mehmood kot
1998
0,80
100
Clay loam
Barren
No
4
Budh
2008
1,00
50
Clay loam
Barren
No
5
Mehmood kot
2000
1,00
30
Clay loam
Waterlogged
No
6
Alurid
2000
1,00
150
Clay loam
Barren
No
7
Alurid
2000
1,20
300
Clay loam
Barren
No
8
Alurid
2000
0,80
100
Clay loam
Barren
No
9
Mehmood kot
2004
1,00
200
Clay loam
Waterlogged
No
Budh
2004
1,00
100
Clay loam
Barren
No
average
2001
0,99
163
10
May 11
Union
Council
Year of
start in
fish
Farming
All fish farming structures are small, and located on Clay loam soils. The land was not used
for agricultural purpose before the establishment of fish ponds, which occurred mostly in
early 2000 (this corresponds to the start of fish farming expansion mentioned in FAO Fishery
country profile). No other option for the land use was mentioned, except one beneficiary who
mentioned salt resistant tree plantation (not indicated in the table above). Fish Farmers
houses are located quite close to their pond, less than 200 meters, which is most likely to be
in low land, water logged areas. This is showing again the vulnerability level for families living
in this area.
Fish farmers provided expected production results, and information about their own
expenditures during this first production cycle. Information provided is summarized in the
following table:
Total Expenditures and expected income from 1st cycle of fish production
Balance sheet
Total amount in GBP
Expenditures
Rehabilitation
A
2065,32
Production inputs
B
4092,87
Labour
C
0,00
Rehabilitation
D
0,00
Production inputs
E
557,96
Labour
F
995,42
G
7457,75
Fish farm owner
H
5904,36
Total
I
-253,83
Cost/benefit ratio
J
0,97
Project
Fish farm owner
Income
Total fish production
Net benefit
A= Rehabilitation costs for pond desilting, including machinery and labour costs.
B= All type of inputs provided (watering, feed, fingerlings, fertilizers, etc...)
C= Labour cost involved in fish production (not supported by the project)
D= No rehabilitation costs covered by Fish farmers
E= All type of inputs provided by Fish farmers (watering, feed, fingerlings, fertilizers, etc...)
F= Labour cost involved in fish production, covered by Fish farmers
G= Total income from the selling of 5 295 kg of fish at 200 PKR/kg
H= Net benefit for fish farm owners = G – (E+F)
I= Total net benefit, including project and fish farmers expenditures = G – (A+B+E+F)
J=Cost/benefit ratio for fish farm rehabilitation support.
We see from figures provided in the table above that the cost/benefit ratio is less than 1. This
means that the project and beneficiaries spent more money than the final income generated
from the activity. However, the calculation did not included fishes kept for own consumption
or given. Also the next fish production would not include rehabilitation costs.
We can see also that the activity generated 995, 42 GBP distributed as wages. This also
should be considered as a positive impact for this activity.
May 11
Cash for work (Result 3)
Project Cash for work intervention did not follow a “classic” strategy. We used local hired
workers for the rehabilitation of infrastructures which was the priority activity. Cash for work
beneficiaries were not engaged then in a full cycle of 21 days on community work, as the
usual Cash for work intervention. Cash for work beneficiaries were engaged on Tube wells
and fish pond rehabilitation, as well as earthen canals rehabilitation.
The following table summarizes the number of beneficiaries and cash provided for the
different type of rehabilitation.
Cash for work beneficiaries and payment/rehabilitation structures
Tube Wells
Fish Ponds
Earthen WC
Total
Skilled Worker
107
0
0
107
Unskilled Worker
245
155
2051
2,451
Total
352
155
2051
2,558
Man Days
6635
412
2880
9,927
Amount PKR
2,879,500
147,500
722,050
3,749,050
Cash for work beneficiaries were interviewed on the rehabilitation spot, in order to assess the
type of use for the income provided through the activity. Collected information is summarized
in the following chart:
80
60
40
20
0
% Income use for Cash for work
beneficiaries
We see that money provided from Cash for work was mainly used for food (68, 75%),
followed by agricultural inputs (Fertilizers + Fuel for irrigation + seeds= 50%) and medicines
(25%).
Cash for work beneficiaries were
interviewed on rehabilitation site to
know how they will use their income
First use of cash provided is for food, then for
agricultural inputs and for health.
May 11
3. Please detail any challenges, constraints, security incidents, relations with
implementing partners and/or local authorities
The project was implemented through a partner organisation, CABI, which has a great
expertise in agriculture sector. Project team included engineers in irrigation with a long
experience providing support to water user communities both for technical and organisational
aspects.
4. In case of delays in the intervention please explain why the delays occurred
NA
5. In case of changes please explain possible alterations in the implementation
The project initially planned the rehabilitation of damaged tube wells and concrete water
courses. After detailed field survey, concrete water course rehabilitation was no longer
relevant, as other projects already covered the needs. Also the unit cost and number of
targeted beneficiaries is more efficient with Tube well rehabilitation. The project decided to
emphasize on this type of irrigation structure to receive support for rehabilitation.
The project initially planned to provide a full cycle support for fish production, and combined
with rehabilitation, the total cost for one structure was estimated at 1000 £ per fish farms (1
ha). However, during the implementation and monitoring of the activity, it was assessed that
support costs are really high, considering expected results and targeted beneficiaries. The
project decided to reduce the planned financial support for fish farming, and remaining funds
were allocated to rehabilitation of earthen water courses through Cash for work.
6. Open bullet points
The flood event in 2010 highlighted urgent needs and challenges for farmer population in
Pakistan. The irrigation system is build first to provide water for agriculture production, but do
not consider, in an appropriate way, impact on environment and disaster risk reduction. The
system is not built on flood management, and no proper drainage systems are in place. This
result in increasing farmers’ vulnerability settled on this huge irrigation scheme. Providing
support for soil management (drainage, salinity adaptation), and by improving irrigation
management, agriculture production can be boosted for increasing farmers’ income.
Malnutrition figures are alarming and are the symptoms of agro-economic crisis context.
Actions to increase household incomes would improve access to food, and particular
attention must be provided to pregnant and lactating women as well as young children,
through diversification of household food and income sources (kitchen garden, livestock,
fishery, etc...).
May 11