World Bank Document - Documentos e informes

Public Disclosure Authorized
Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FILE CO?"
Public Disclosure Authorized
Report No. 2454-ME
M'EXICO
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
OF THE
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINáLOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
May 7, 1979
Regional Projects Department
Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office
This document has a restrieted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of
their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be diselosed without W'orid Bank authorization.
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
US$1
=
Mex $22.5
Mex$1
=
US$0.04
Mex$1 million
=
US$44,444
WEIGHT AND MEASURES
1 hectare
1
1
1
1
(ha)
kilometer (km)
2
square kilometer (km )
kilogram (kg)
liter (1)
1 metric
ton (mt)
2
= 2.47 acres
=
10,000 m
=
=
=
=
0.62 miles
0.39 sq. miles
2.2 pounds
0.26 gallons
=
1,000
kg
=
=
100 ha
0.98 long ton
ABBREVIATIONS
ANAGSA
BNCR
CIAPAN
CIMMYT
CONASUPO
DITA
FERTIMEX
FIRA
INIA
MHIP
PLAMEPA
PLINO
PRONASE
SARH
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
National Agriculture and Livestock Insurance Company
National Bank for Rural Credit
Agricultural Research Center for the North-West
International Center for Improvement of Maize and Wheat
National Marketing Cooperation
District Integrated Technical Assistance Program
National Fertilizer Company
Agriculture Trust Funds of the Bank of Mexico
National Institute for Crop Research
Major Hydraulic Infrastructure Program
On farm Improvement Plan in Irrigation Districts
Plan for Irrigation Investments in the North West
National Seed Production Company
Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Resources
MEXICO
FOROFFICIALUSE ONLY
APPRAISAL OF THE RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Table of Contents
Page No.
I.
II.
THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ................................
1
The Resource Base ......................................
Agricultural Production ................................
............
Rural Population, Employment and Income ....
Government Policies ....................................
Bank Participation .....................................
1
1
2
3
4
THE PROJECT AREA ........................................
5
Location ................................................
Soils, Topography and Drainage .........................
5
5
Climate
.6................................................
Irrigation Systems .....................................
Present Use of Project Lands ...........................
Population ..............................................
Land Tenure ..........................
.....
Credit and Crop Insurance ....................... .......
Agricultural Inputs..
Research and Extension .10
III.
6
7
7
7.......
7
8
8
THE ONGOING SINALOA PROJECT .11
Original Project Description .11
Project Execution, 1974-1977 .11
The Revised Sinaloa Project .12
Revised
IV.
Project
Benefits
and Economic
Justification
....
13
THE PROJECT ............................................
14
Project Concept .........................................
Project Description .....................................
Water Supply and Demand .16
Water Quality .17
Construction Schedule and Status of Engineering
Cost Estimates .18
Financing Plan .18
Procurement .....................
......
......
Disbursements ......................
Accounts and Audit .21
Environmental Impact .21
14
14
18
20
20
This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission consisting of
Messrs. E. Gazit, T. Kimura, D. Myren and Messrs. A. Feinstein, M. Fireman
and M. Zohar (consultants) in September 1978 and a follow up mission
comprising Messrs. M. Raczynski, R. Milford, L. Moscoso and Mr. C. Houston
(consultant) in February 1979.
This document has a restricteddistributionand may be used by recipients only in the performance
of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disciosed without WoirldBank authorization.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
V.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ............................
22
General ................................................
Major Hydraulic Infrastructure Programs ....
............
Irrigation Districts ...................................
Monitoring and Evaluation ..............................
22
22
22
24
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, MARKETS, MARKETING AND PRICES .
25
Area, Cropping Patterns, Yields ........................
Production .............................................
Markets and Prices .....................................
25
28
28
VII.
PROJECT BENEFICIARIES, FARM INCOMES AND COST RECOVERY ..
29
VIII.
BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION .............................
31
Benefits ...............................................
Risk and Sensitivity ...................................
31
31
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................
33
VI.
IX.
Tables
Annex 1.
Charts No.
Selected Documents and Data Available in the Project File.
20103
Map No. IBRD 13953R
Ir
I.
THE AGRICIJLTURALSECTOR
The Resource Base
1.01
Mexico has a land area of some 2 million km and a population of
62 million (in 1976), growing at an annual rate of over 3%. Some 40% of the
total population, or about 24 million people, gain their livelihood from
agriculture. Agriculture is also an important foreign exchange earner: it
had a share of 23% of the total value of exports in 1976. The wide range
of latitudes and altitudes results in a great diversity of crop and livestock
output; but the extent of arid and mountainous lands is such, however, that
only about 18% of the total land area, some 35 million ha, is considered
cultivable. Of this, an estimated 15 million ha are harvested of which an
estimated 5 million ha under irrigation; Mexico is presently the sixth largest
country in the world in expanse of irrigated lands.
Agricultural Production
1.02
Crop Production. Until the early 1940s, total cultivated area in
Mexico was about 7.5 million ha, located mainly in the central highlands
where maize, beans and other food crops were grown under rainfed conditions
together with small irrigated areas under fruits and vegetables. Since, the
development of irrigation in the arid regions along the Pacific coast,
and in the Northern States (combined with successful research efforts to
develop irrigated crop technologies) both cropped areas and yields increased
substantially and output of wheat, sorghum, oilseeds, cotton, fruits and
vegetables and alfalfa grew rapidly.
1.03
Notwithstanding the growth and diversification of crop output over
the years, maize is still the most widely grown crop in the country, accounting
for about 8 million ha, or over half the country's cultivated area. Most of
it is cultivated together with smal]er areas of beans, under rainfed conditions
by small farmers and concentrated in the central and southern highlands, along
the Gulf coast and in the Chiapas region. In the humid tropical regions along
the southern Gulf coast and Chiapas, sugarcane, bananas, cocoa and coffee are
also grown. Table 1.01, presents the production of main crops grown in
Mexico over the 1960-1976 period.
1.04
Livestock Production. In the past, most of the commercial livestock
output used to come from extensive cattle breeding on the arid and semi-arid
rangelands of the North with income derived from the sale of feeder cattle,
mainly to the U.S. market. Milk, hogs and poultry were produced in small
quantities, mostly in the central highlands and for subsistence. The increase
in domestic demand has, however, caused a rapid expansion of output country
wide. It has enabled the opening up of new cattle producing areas along the
Gulf coast where better rainfall and good pasture quality has enabled much
higher stocking rate. The growth of Mexico City has also accounted for a
rapid
increase
in milk,
pork and polultry
meat production
iinthe central
plateau
region.
Table 1.02, presents the production of main livestock products in
Mexico over the 1960-1976 period.
- 2 -
1.05
Production Trends. The table below compares the growth of GDP with
the growth in the crop and livestock sector, on an average 10-year basis, in
the 1945-1975 period:
Average Rate of Growth per Annum
Period
GDP
Crops
1945-55
1955-65
1965-75
5.8
6.7
6.2
7.3
4.4
0.9
Livestock
3.7
3.7
4.2
C + L
6.0
4.2
2.1
1.06
As can be seen above, growth of crop production was most impressive
in the first decade, good in the second, but less satisfactory in the third.
The early increases were due mainly to large scale irrigation development which
commenced about 1945. However since the middle sixties crop production growth
almost stagnated in spite of continued high investments in irrigation. This
decline and finally the stagnation in production growth came about because:
(a) Irrigation projects became increasingly complex and more costly to prepare
and carry out and as a result the area under irrigation grew less rapidly;
(b) excessive water use and inadequate drainage and maintenance on irrigated
lands caused extensive salinization which reduced cropped areas and yields;
(c) crop specific problems such as cotton (disease), fruits and vegetables
(export limitations) or sugar (production organization) had a dampening effect
on output; and (d) in later years, more land in newly irrigated areas were
allocated to small farmers and "ejidatarios" rather than to private medium and
large scale farmers; the small farmers and ejidatarios needed more and better
extension services to insure production increases in line with those being
obtained by medium to large size farmers but until recently extension services
made available have not been of the extent and quality required to achieve this.
1.07
It also became evident since 1965 that performance in the rainfed
subsector had always been poor relative to the irrigation subsector but had
also received much less support. It has now become better recognized that
with relatively smaller investments than those required for successful irrigation development, substantial increases in rainfed production can be achieved,
which has caused government to shift its development strategy towards a more
balanced program including both subsectors (paras. 1.10-1.11).
1.08
Contrary to the crop sector, the livestock sector has maintained,
and in later years even somewhat increased its growth over the 1945-75 period.
This was made possible
mainly
because
the rapid
demand growth for livestock
products (para 1.04), which even outstripped the supply capabilities in some
areas: Mexico has had to import increased quantities of powdered milk to
satisfy
internal
consumption
since
the mid-1970s.
Rural
Population, Employment and Income
1.09
The agricultural sector provides the livelihood for a rural population of some 4 million families scattered over 95,000 villages. Unemployment
_ 3
-
and/or
under-employment
is a serious
problem of the agricultural
sector.
With a rural
labor
force between
8 and 12 million
people
and a harvested
area fluctuating
around
15 million
ha, the ratio
of cropped
area to
potential
active
population
is between
1.3 and 2.0 ha per person,
very low
when the land use pattern
(about
two-thirds
of the croppecl area devoted
to
grains)
is considered.
This is one of the major causes determining
the level
of income in the agricultural
sector,
lower than that
of other
sectors,
as
the following
table
illustrates.
GDP per
Agriculture
National
Average
Industry
and Services
/a
Worker
(19-75)
US$
Index
120
384
504
1(0
320
420
Based on data of "Prontuario
de la Secretaria
de Recursos
(SRH) Mexico, D.F.,
1976.
/a
Estadistico
Hidraulicos"
Moreover,
the income distribution
pattern
within
the agricultural
skewed, as 50% of the rural
families
account
for about 20%' of the
output
while the upper 10% of the agricultural
population
provides
Government
sector
is
agricultural
50% of it.
Policies
1.10
Within
the agricultural
sector,
Government
policies
aim primarily
at increasing
production
for domestic
consumption,
particularly
basic
food
crops
so as to attain
self-sufficiency
by 1982, and to increase
income levels
and generate
rural
employment.
Moreover,
with favorable
prospects
for increased
petroleum
production
and export
earnings,
coupled
with an easier
budgetary
situation,
Mexico has the means to diversify
its agricultural
development strategy,
enable
more of its farmers
to reach higher
levels
of productivity
and return
to the higher
sector
growth rates
of earlier
periods.
1.11
To meet these
objectives,
Government
is pursuing
the following
strategies:
(a) In the irrigation
subsector,
various
large-scale
projects
are still
planned
to be developed
in areas where an unused hydraulic
potential
exists;
attention,
however,
will
be focused
on an expansion
of irrigated
lands
through
small scale
irrigation
and an improved performance
in presently
irrigated
areas
through
rehabilitation
of old conveyance
systems,
reclamation
of saline
lands and more efficient
use of available
water;
(b) a major effort
will
be made to expand rainfed
cult:ivation
in previously
utilized
or underutilized
lands,
mostly along the Gu:Lf coast.
The latter
will
require
investments in drainage
and flood
control,
but it will
also necessitate
a strong
effort
by research
services
to deveíop
adequate
crop technologies
and by
extension
services
to promote
improved
cultivation
methods;
(c) to improve
productivity
in existing
rainfed
agriculture,
extension
services
need to be
- 4-
further expanded and made more effective; towards this end, the Government
has recently created "distritos de temporal" or rainfed districts, next to
already existing irrigation districts; and (d) Government is using its minimum price support system to induce changes in cropping patterns towards
increased production of food crops.
The Bank's lending program to Mexico's agricultural sector, ongoing
1.12
or under preparation, contains a mix of projects that respond to the policies
of the Government as outlined above. The proposed project which would expand
irrigated lands and, at the same time rehabilitate old irrigation systems and
reclaim saline lands, would correspond well with Government strategies in this
field.
Bank Participation
In the past five years (FY1974-78) Bank participation in the agri1.13
cultural sector amounted to US$835 million distributed over ten projects as
follows: Irrigation (Panuco, Sinaloa and Bajo Bravo/Bajo San Juan), US$174
million; rural development (PIDER I and II and Papaloapan Basin), US$280 million; credit (Fifth and Sixth projects), US$325 million; area development
(Tropical Agriculture), US$56 million; and small-scale agriculture infrastructure development, US$44 million. Implementation of irrigation projects were
delayed, mainly because of budgetary constraints. These delays were further
accentuated by high price increases unforseen at appraisal. As a result
Government and Bank agreed that the projects should be financed over a longer
period of time. These circumstances led to the reformulation of Bajo Bravo/
Bajo San Juan project with subsequent cancellation of US$100 millíon (from an
original loan of US$150 million) and to a supplementary loan of US$25 million,
approved by the Bank on July 11, 1978, to assist financing cost overruns of
the Panuco project. With these actions, implementation of the above projects
is now progressing satisfactorily. PIDER I and II are multi-sectoral projects
designed for improving living conditions and increasing productivity in
localized areas of rural poverty ("micro-regions"). After some difficulties
inherent to their nature, overall progress of these projects is improving
along with steps taken to decentralize the decision-making process, although
the success in carrying out the different components of the project varies
with the implementation capacity of the agencies involved. The Papaloapan
project had also a slow start due to a severe shortage of budgetary allocations,
a situation that now is being corrected with recently increased appropriations
of funds. The disbursement pace of the Fifth Credit project was faster than
projected, although lately has slowed down with respect to funds earmarked for
low-income producers; the project is however expected to be completed about
six months before closing date (January 1, 1980). The Sixth Credit project,
the Tropical Agriculture project and the Small Scale Agricultural Infrastructure project became effective on January 12, 1979.
1.14
A Project Performance Audit (OED's Report 1573, April 27, 1977) on
the Third Credit Project (Loan 747-ME) pointed out that the Project made a
significant contribution to improve financial assistance to commercial farmers,
but noted that technical aspects at farm level needed to be improved; to this
end, specífic actions for monitoring agricultural development were introduced
in the Fifth and Sixth Credit projects.
1-5
II.
-
THE PROJECT AREA
Location
2.01
The proposed project is located in the area of two irrigation distriets, Rio Sinaloa and Rio Fuerte, in the northern part of the State of
Sinaloa on Mexico's Pacific coast (mnapIBRD 13953R). The two districts together
have a net irrigable area of 315,000 ha (105,000 ha in Sinaloa and 210,000 ha
in Fuerte), all in the coastal plains below the Sierra Madre mountain range.
2.02
The region has good transportation links to national and international markets. The international highway linking Mexico City with Nogales,
Arizona, passes through the project area, and combined with other paved roads,
provides a basic road network suitable for distributing farm inputs and for
moving produce to other parts of Mexico or for export. Tle Pacific railway,
linking Mexico City with Nogales, also bisects the project-area, while marine
transportation is available at Topolabambo and at the major west coast port of
Mazatlan. Four small airports within the project area serve local needs, and
regularly scheduled air service is available at Culiacan.
Soils, Topography and Drainage
2.03
Soils in the Sinaloa district are derived largely from recent
alluvial deposits of volcanic origin. About 70% of the soils are clay loams
and clays and the remainder, mostly adjacent to stream beds, are of a lighter
sandier texture. The soils are moderately fertile, of good depth and waterholding capacity. About 80% of the lands are Class I and II (highly suitable
for irrigation) under a five-class system developed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Resources (SARH) and based on US Bureau of Reclamation
suitability standards. The area lies between 5 m and 55 inabove sea level and
has a gradient of about 2 m to 6 m per km to the sea. As a result, natural
drainage conditions are generally satisfactory and except for a limited area
of 800 ha lying at low elevation, salinity problems do not occur.
2.04
Soils in Fuerte district are also mainly recent alluvial deposits
of volcanic origin. They form extensive flat areas between 3.5 m and 35 m above
sea level, intersected by shallow drain ways. As drainage is inefficient the
area suffers from high water tables (between one and two meters), and the
combination of high water tables, low rainfall and moderately high evaporation
has resulted in salt accumulation over much of the area. The soils have good
physical properties; they are more than two meters deep, medium to light textured and have good infiltration rates and permeabilities. The pH values range
mostly between 7 and 8.5. The content of organic matter is low and crops in
the area respond well to nitrogen aindphosphate fertilizers. The potash content is moderate to high. In accordance with the Mexican irrigation capability
classification (para. 2.03), close to 70% of all soils are in the Class 1 and
II categories.
2.05
Salinization affects about 60,000 ha or 50% of the proposed project
area in Fuerte district. Of this, an estimated 12,000 ha are saline-alkali
soils. The table below indicates the extent of the salt-affected land in the
three units of Fuerte district which are included in the proposed project:
Salt-Affected Lands
Unit
Irrigable Area
1
4
5
Total
Saline Land
(%)
Saline-Sodic Land
(%)
Total Salt Affected
(ha)
(ha)
43,690
48,018
27,922
15,000
18,500
14,500
34.3
38.5
51.9
2,000
5,500
4,500
4.6
11.5
16.1
17,000
24,000
19,000
38.9
50.0
68.0
119,630
48,000
40.1
12,000
10.0
60,000
50.2
(ha)
(ha)
(%)
2.06
Extensive field investigations and previous experiences in the project area have shown, however, that with an expanded drainage network, deeper
main drains and better water applícation and distribution, the saline soils
can be reclaimed and sustain permanent irrigated agriculture. Saline-sodie
soils would require applications of gypsum, which is locally available.
Climate
2.07
Climate in the project area is classified as desertic with an average annual precipitation of 347 mm, and pan evaporation of 2,299 mm per annum.
Monthly average temperatures vary from 18.2 C (Jaunary) to 30.9%C (July-August),
and light frosts may occur occasionally in January and February. About 80% of
the precipitation falls between July and October.
Irrigation Systems
2.08
Irrigation systems have been built in the two districts over a
period of some 30 years, covering altogether about 264,000 ha. In the Sinaloa
district, some 54,000 ha now have access to irrigation water from wells and
from direct diversion of waters from the Sinaloa River but are not necessarily
irrigated fully. In the Fuerte district, some 210,000 ha have access to water
from an upstream dam. However, because of poor water distribution systems
many areas have been only partly irrigated and inadequate drainage has caused
growing salinity levels. As a result of salinization, in Fuerte district
about 150,000 ha either suffered from declining production or were completely
abandoned. In one of its earliest loans to Mexico for irrigation development
(275-ME in 1961) the Bank assisted in the succesful reclamation of saline
lands in two of the five units in Fuerte district, covering about 77,000 ha.
In addition farmers reclaimed about 13,000 ha. In 1974, the Bank helped to
finance the Sinaloa project (970-ME) which will now establish a storage
dam, headworks and the distribution system for 29,000 ha in Sinaloa district
(see Chapter III). The proposed project would expand the distribution system
for the Sinaloa district to cover the remaining irrigable area of 76,000
ha and rehabilitate and reclaim the 120,000 ha in the three remaining units
of Fuerte district to provide coverage to all the 210,000 ha of irrigated
land. The two proposed actions would thus realize the full irrigation potential of the two districts. Past and proposed irrigation developments in the
two distriets are summarized in Table 2.01.
7-
Present Use of Project Lands
2.09
Land use is similar in the Sinaloa and Fuerte districts. The main
winter crops are wheat, safflower, vegetables, cotton, maize and beans. The
main summer crops are soybeans, sorghum, rice, vegetables and maize.
2.10
Sinaloa. Of the 76,000 ha in the Sinaloa part of the proposed project, some 33,000 ha are currently cuJtivated. Of these, about 28,000 ha have
some type of irrigation, either through surface water diversions, extraction
of groundwater, or a combination of the two, with about 5,000 ha cultivated
under dry farming conditions. The 43,000 ha balance (mostly on the right
bank), is still under brush. In the portion of Sinaloa district irrigated
only by surface water diversion, water availability is restricted to summer
and early fall, and cropping is restricted mainly to rice and soybeans with
safflower and beans grown on residua:Lmoisture in late fall. Where there is
also pumping of groundwater, cropping is more diversified and cropping intensity is high, reflecting year-round availability of water. The mean cropping
intensities in the district reach only about 122%.
2.11
Of the 120,000 ha to be rehabilitated in Fuerte ¿listrict,only about
80,000 ha can be cropped because of an inadequate distribution system (10,000
ha) and of excessive salinization of the remaining 30,000 tia. The area planted
varies from year to year according to water availability, but the mean cropping
intensity for the 80,000 ha is about 109%.
Population
2.12
Overall population of the three municipios (counlies)--Ahome,
Guasave and Sinaloa--in which the project area lies, is about 550,000. There
are about 96,000 households with some 154,000 economically active members of
which nearly 50% are employed in agriculture. Annual population growth in
the region is estimated at 6% of which about 2.5% is attributed to immigration
of people attracted by employment opportunities opened up by development of
irrigated agriculture, agro-business and secondary economic activities. The
literacy rate is about 76%.
Land Tenure
2.13
Table 2.02 shows the farm size distribution for the area of Sinaloa
distriet and Units 1, 4 and 5 of Fuerte distriet which together comprise the
proposed project area. About 70% of the area belongs to "ejidos" a legal
entity which, in essence, consists of the right of rural communities to enjoy
the usufruct of lands whose ownership remains with the Fed,erationand defines
the rights of individual members (ejidatarios) to share the usufruct right of
their community. The average share per family in the project's ejido area
is about eight ha and ranges from less than five to a maximum of 20 ha. The
remaining land is of private ownership with 66% of the farmers holding less
than 20 ha units.
2.14
Under the Agrarian Reform Law all single-owner holdings in excess
of 100 ha of irrigated land are subject to expropriation for redistribution to
ejidos. The new Federal Water Law 1/ carries this further by specifying that
1/
Ley Federal de Aguas, January ]1, 1972.
- 8 -
when a Federal Irrigation Distriet is established, the maximum size holding
of newly irrigated land is 20 ha.
2.15
In practice, however, it is expected that the applicability of
these laws will be minimal and few changes will occur in i-'
pre<^1-1
tenure situation since the Agrarian Reform Law would apply to only about 2%
of the proposed project area. Furthermore the Federal Water Law gives no
legal authority to intervene where lands are already irrigated, i.e. covered
by irrigation systems; this excludes all of Fuerte district and most of
Sinaloa district as in the latter, it is mostly the larger farms that possess
privately developed wells and irrigation systems. Thus it is estimated that
in the legal sense, lands liable to expropriation under the existing laws do
not exceed 4,000 to 5,000 ha in both districts. The authorities are in the
process of purchasing part of these lands for the settlement of farmers whose
lands will be covered by the lake behind the Bacurato storage dam.
Credit and Crop Insurance
2.16
Credit is provided by more than a dozen private banks as well as
five branches of the official Banco Nacional de Credito Rural (BNCR) in the
Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa area. BNCR lending for the 1977-78 crop year by its
Los Mochis (Fuerte) and Guasave (Sinaloa) branches was, respectively: Mex $417
million for 69,389 ha and Mex $113 million for 26,977 ha. Nearly 98% of the BNCR
lending was to the ejido sector for which it is the primary supplier of shortterm credit. All of the above banks are able to use the Fondo de Garantia of
the Bank of Mexico (FIRA) for rediscounting long term loan paper. The availability of short- and long-term credit has not been a limiting factor in the
project area. A government-sponsored crop insurance program, the Aseguradora
Nacional Agricola and Ganadera S.A. (ANAGSA), operates in close cooperation
with the lending programs, with the insurance covering on average about 70%
of the cost of inputs for irrigated production.
Agricultural Inputs
2.17
In addition to commercial firms, associations of private farmers
and unions of ejidos are involved in supplying seeds, fertilizers, pest control and custom machine operations.
2.18
Seeds. Most of the improved seed used in the project area is selected and introduced by the local experimental stations (para 2.23). Multiplication is carried out either by the government-operated Productora Nacional de
Semillas (PRONASE) or under supervision of the National Service for Inspection
and Seed Certification. The farmer's associations also produce seeds of the
improved varieties for their members.
2.19
Fertilizer. Production, import and distribution of fertilizers on
the national scale is handled by the government owned firm, Fertilizantes
Mexicanos (FERTIMEX). Local distribution in the Fuerte/Sinaloa area is handled
effectively by a combination of public, private and farmer organizations.
Sinaloa state is one of the heaviest users of fertilizers in the nation,
particularly nitrogen where the average application under irrigated conditions
such as the project area is about 105 kg/ha in terms of elemental N. However,
in spite of this high use of N there is a need to improve use efficiency and
for research development of more fertilizer responsive varieties. Phosphorus
responses are common and there is a continuous need to maintain adequate
phosphorus levels which are drawn dosm by high output resulting from irrigation and heavy nitrogen applications.
2.20
Custom Machine Operations. Hiring of machinery for certain farm
operations is a well established practice in the project area. Most of the
ejidos and small private farmers make use of custom operators for heavy
tractor work, harvesting and aerial applications. Most of the operators are
private but services are also provided by two large unions of ejidos. 1/
Large private farmers and ejidos have their own tractors and implements and
are generally independent for land preparation and cultivation purposes. On
the whole the system functions efficiently and the capacity of the operators
is such that they are able to perform the farming operations in a timely
manner. Price guidelines for each custom operation are set annually through
negotiation between representative of the various farmer groups and the union
of private custom machine operators (maquileros). These prices then serve as
the basis for bank lending for the upcoming season. This system is flexible
and more than adequate to meet the needs of any proposed expansion in the area
provided that the custom operators are assured adequate access to long term
credit for the purchase of additional machinery which to date has been the
case (para. 2.16).
2.21
Plant Protection. Adequate control of plant pests and diseases is
essential to both present and future development of irrigated agriculture in
the project area. The present regional infrastructure provides adequate plant
protection programs for the state's irrigation districts and consists of:
(a) the SARH offices in charge of plant protection, which have insect, disease
and rat control responsibilities and provide leadership in biological control
of important pests; (b) custom operators who apply insecticides by tractor
or plane; and (c) product distribution points operated by farmer's associations and private farms. Financial support for area-wide programs of biological control is provided in part by farmer's associations.
2.22
Processing and Marketing. The project area is well served by basic
processing and storage facilities for grains and cotton, and has developed
specialized and efficient procedures for handling some 10,000 ha of vegetable
markets.
The agro-industries
located
within
production
for export
and internal
gas distribution,
ferthe area include cotton gins, rice millls, a sugar mill,
tilizer and insecticide mixing, seed processing, and, of major economic value,
vegetable packing and cold storage facilities for export via refrigerated vans
and railroad cars, and a local canning industry.
1/
These Unions operate ejido-owned businesses, municipio-wide in their
coverage. The first is controlled by and serves 38 ejidos in Ahome; the
second, 116 ejidos
in Guasave.
-
10
-
Research and Extension
2.23
Research. Research activity in the project area has been limited by
modest annual budgets, however, giving the need for expanding this activity,
the quality of ongoing programs is generally high. A positive aspect of the
research structure is that a mechanism has been developed during the past 12
years for local support of research in the form of a statewide (Sinaloa)
permanent Commission for Agricultural Research and Experimentation. Of a
total research budget of Mex$32.5 million for Sinaloa in 1977, private farmers
and ejidatorios contributed Mex$6.2 million through a special tax on production.
The National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA) has one experiment
station located in the project area, between Los Mochis and Guasave (CIAPAN)
but has had little budget for off-station trials. CIAPAN's main activities
include testing for local adaptability of the improved varieties of rice,
sorghum and soybeans developed at international centers, as well as the new
wheat varieties emanating from the research conducted cooperatively by INIA
and the International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) at
Obregon, Sonora. The main deficiency of the station's program is in the need
to expand its program for: (a) disease resistant varieties with greater
production potential, especially of beans and maize; (b) better advice on
water management and fertilizer use taking into account rotations which are
most efficient in production per unit of water as well as unit area.
2.24
Extension. Extension services are provided by (i) the technical
staff of FIRA and BNCR; and (ii) SAPH extension staff which is numerically
the most important. Extension Services in already established districts have
been particularly effective. However, recently, the SARH extension effort has
been organized and consolidated as part of each district's integrated technical
program in line with a countrywide reorganization in all irrigation districts.
A main feature of the new approach is its similarity to the training and visit
system being used in a number of Bank financed projects in other countries.
The irrigation districts in Northern Sinaloa have had no problem in recruiting
agricultural graduates and technical staff for this new program: most come
from the Agricultural faculties of the University of Sinaloa at Culiacan or
from local schools offering agricultural courses at a technical level.
However, recruits lack experience and inservice training and supervision is
needed to ensure their effective use.
-
III.
11
-
THE ONGOING SINALOA PROJECT
Original Project Description
3.01
The original Sinaloa Irrigation Project (Loan 970-ME for US$47 million, approved February 19, 1974) was intended to develop intensive irrigated
agriculture on about 105,000 ha on both banks of the Sinaloa river. Project
works wers to consist of: (a) the Bacurato dam and storage reservoir
(2,900 Mm ); (b) the Sinaloa de Leyva diversion dam; (c) a concrete-lined
irrigation coveyance and distribution system; (d) 60 new wells to complement
the surface water supply; (e) a system of primary and seccndary drains;
(f) land clearing and leveling; (g) an intensive four year farm extension
program; and (h) ancillary items such as operation and maintenance equipment,
roads, ditchrider houses, a communications system and project headquarters
offices. The construction period was estimated to be five years.
3.02
The total project cost amounted to US$145.6 million, inclusive of
interest on the Bank loan during the construction period. The Bank loan of
US$47.0 million was to finance the foreign exchange component of the project
(US$46.3 million) and one-half of thLeestimated cost of the four year extension program (US$0.7 million).
3.03
The net value of agricultural production expressed in 1972 prices
was expected to increase from about US$3.5 million to about US$29.5 million
in an eight year period, which corresponds to a net incremental value of
production expressed in 1978 prices of about US$65 million. The rate of
return to the economy was estimated at about 17%.
3.04
In the project area about 651,300ha were occupied by 10,900 families
in 74 ejidos (or 5.6 ha per family) and about 39,600 ha were held by 1,170
private producers (or 33.8 ha per family). With the project, it was expected
that an ejidatarios' on-farm income would increase 10 times to about US$2,000 1/
equivalent, while the income of a private farmer would increase at least
six times to about US$15,000 equivalent.
Project Execution, 1974-1977
3.05
The project got off to a s]ow start. Insufficient budget allocations
caused delays in project implementation and the budgetary situation became
extremely critical during 1976-1977 when Mexico, facing rapid inflation and
a severe financial disequilibrium, launched a stringent stabilization program.
By mid 1977, little progress in execution had been made and the cost estimate
for the original project had more than doubled to US$300 million.
3.06
Government reviewed the situation and consulted with the Bank on
how to proceed with the project. The following alternative options were
discussed. Firstly, to continue loan disbursements at the rate foreseen in
the Loan Contract (e.g., 38% for civil works). This would liaveexhausted
1/
Expressed in 1972 prices.
- 12 -
the loan amount well before
project
completion
and was not acceptable
to
either
party.
Secondly
to reduce
the loan disbursement
percentage
to about
15% so that disbursements
could be made during
the full
construction
period.
This too was rejected
by both parties.
Thirdly,
to redefine
the scope of
the original
Sinaloa
project,
limiting
it to the works underway or those
intimately
related
to them, with the remaining
works being rescheduled
and
financed
under a follow-up
project.
A President's
Memorandum containing
this
proposal
was approved
by the Board on March 27, 1979.
The Revised
Sinaloa
Project
3.07
The project
as now redefined
includes
the main civil
works originally
contemplated
(dam, diversion
structures
and main canals)
but reduces
the irrigation
and drainage
network
considerably.
It consists
of (a) Bacurato
dam and
storage
reservoir;
(b) Sinaloa
de Leyva diversion
dam; (c) 94 km of lined
main
irrigation
canals
on the left
bank and 47 km lined
main canals
on the right
bank of the Sinaloa
river;
(d) an irrigation
and drainage
network
covering
29,250 ha 1/; (e) land clearing
and leveling
on about 12,000 ha; (f) a farm
extension
program;
and (g) ancillary
items such as O&Mequipment.
The Rio
Sinaloa
irrigation
network
has been connected
by two canals
to the adjacent
Rio Fuerte
irrigation
distriet.
The total
cost of the revised
project
expressed
in 1978 prices
including
price
contingencies
and interest
during
construction
is estimated
to amount to US$137.3 million
with a foreign
exchange
component
of US$44.71 million
as outlined
in the table
below.
Revised
Cost Estimate
(US$ million)
ítem
Foreign
Total
Civil Works
Materíals
and Equipment
Engineering
Technical
Assistance
57.8
5.1
12.8
3.6
28.9
4.7
-
Base Cost
Physical
Contingencies
Price
Contingencies
Interest
During Construction
79.3
4.2
7.4
-
33.6
2.9
3.9
6.0
112.9
7.1
11.3
6.0
Total
90.9
46.4
137.3
/a
1/
Local
/a
Cost
Exchange
rate
86.7
9.8
12.8
3.6
of US$ = Mex$22.5.
A further
area of 15,750 ha on the left
bank will partially
benefit
this infrastructure,
but will achieve
full
development
levels
only
the infrastructure
and services
to be provided
under the proposed
Fuerte/Sinaloa
Project.
from
with
- 13 -
3.08
The problems, which initially delayed project implementation (para.
3.05) have been resolved; budget allocations have substantially increased
and ít is expected that Government will now execute the remaining items of
the revised Sinaloa Project in a timnelymanner. Bacurato dam and reservoir
will be completed and fully operational by July 1981. The Sinaloa de Leyva
diversion structure was completed in 1976. The main canals, irrigation and
drainage networks and land clearing and leveling will be completed and operational by the end of 1979. The extension service has already initiated its
activities in the project area and by the end of 1978 about 40% of works under
the revised project had been completed. Disbursements have been slow, mainly
due to delays in preparation of corresponding requests; about 15% of the Bank
loan was disbursed by December 1978. It is expected, however, that execution
of the revised project would be completed in December 1981, and disbursements
by July 1982.
Revised Project Benefits and Economic Justification
3.09
With the reduction in irrigated area to 29,250 ha, Bacurato storage
reservoir capacity would be well in excess of maximum irrigation water requirements in Sinaloa distriet, even supposing that high croppirng intensities will
be reached on the newly irrigated lands. Assuming, for purposes of calculation
that no follow-up project would be carried out, the excess storage could then
be used to channel water through interconnecting canals to Fuerte district,
where water shortages also exist and cropping intensities on existing irrigated
lands could be raised with water froniBacurato dam.
3.10
Benefits under the revised project would therefore consist of
(a) incremental production on 29,250 ha of newly rehabilitated lands in
Sínaloa, with an estimated cropping i.ntensityof 140% at full development;
(b) incremental production on an additional 16,000 ha of existing irrigated
lands in Sinaloa, which would produce only 60% of benefits assumed under
(a) due to deficient water distribution and drainage facilities; and
(c) water releases to Fuerte district which would enable raising cropping
intensities on 70,000 ha in the Fuerte district from 110 to 120%. The rate
of return of the revised project is estimated at 12%.
- 14 -
IV.
THE PROJECT
Project Concept
On first appearance the concept for the proposed project was to
4.01
follow the design of the original Sinaloa project and complete the field
distribution system on the entire area, i.e. on an additional 76,000 ha. This
would, however, have entailed a serious disadvantage: it would take about
four years to complete the field distribution system while during this time
the Bacurato storage reservoir would have considerable excess capacity.
Although these waters could in theory be released to Fuerte district during
that period, they could not be used where they would be most urgently needed,
i.e. for the leaching of saline lands; without simultaneous improvements in
the Fuerte drainage system, leaching would lead to waterlogging and increase
salinity levels even further.
4.02
These considerations prompted the Mexican authorities to propose
a different concept for a follow-up project under which (a) the field distribution system in Sinaloa would be completed in four years, covering 76,000
ha; (b) meanwhile, excess water from Bacurato reservoir would be channeled to
Fuerte district and used for leaching saline lands, which would also take about
four years to complete; (c) concurrent with the leaching program in Fuerte,
improvements in the drainage network and installation of control structures
to avoid excessive water use, covering about 120,000 ha would be carried
out; and (d) after completion of leaching in Fuerte, water releases from
Bacurato dam would all revert to Sinaloa district and be put to productive
use there since by this time the distribution system would have been built.
4.03
This concept is acceptable to the Bank as it would spread the benefits of irrigation over a larger area and more equitably over a larger number
of farmers; it would provide water for leaching which could otherwise have
been provided only by reducing cropping intensities (and possibly cropped
areas) in Fuerte district; and it would implement a project - the rehabilitation of Fuerte district - which was already foreseen by the Mexican authorities
as the next stage in the overall Plan for Irrigation Investment in the Northwest (PLINO).
Project Description
4.04
The Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa Project would inerease agriculture production productivity and farm incomes of 196,000 ha through rehabilitation and
extension of irrigation and drainage networks, and reclamation of saline soils.
Project works include:
(a)
rehabilitation of about 1.7 km of lined main canal, 130 km
of unlined main irrigation canals, about 600 km of unlined
irrigation laterals, and 154 km of open drains in the Fuerte
district;
(b)
construction of about 375 km of lined irrigation laterals and,
171 km of open drains, in the Fuerte district;
- 15
-
(c)
construction of about 16 km of lined main canal, 313 km of
lined and 280 km of unlined irrigation laterals, 510 km of
open drains, and 170 km of feeder roads in the Sinaloa
dístriet;
(d)
reclamation of about 60,000 ha of saline and saline-sodie
soils in the Fuerte district;
(e)
land clearing and leveling;
(f)
telecommunication and other works;
(g)
expansion of the district agricultural extension and
research programs; and
(h)
execution of drainage and other studies within the Sinaloa and
Fuerte river basins.
4.05
The irrigation works would be designed for water delivery to 60 ha
blocks. Water control and measuring structures would be part of the canal
network and permit monitoring of water use down to the 60 ha block turnouts.
Drainage works comprise rehabilitation and deepening of existing drains and
construction of new drains. Drain depth would vary from two to four meters
and the overall drain density would be about 12 rn/ha. Feeder roads would be
6 m wide. In addition service roads would run along the main drains and
canals.
4.06
On-farn development includes leveling of about 60,000 ha in Fuerte
a9d 40,000 ha in Sinaloa district. Earth movements would average about 400
m /ha and be generally below 700 m /ha. In Fuerte's district the project would
also reclaim 48,000 ha of saline lands, of which 18,000 ha are presently unproductíve and 30,000 ha produce about 35% of normal yield in the region. In
addition about 12,000 ha of unproductive saline-sodic lands require gypsum
applications (15 tons/ha) and leaching for their reclamation. Although most
of the water for leaching in Fuerte would come from Bacuratc reservoir (para.
4.02) Fuerte drainage water would also be used for leaching and is recommended
for rehabilitation of saline-sodic solls. Reclamation would require about
one and a half meters of water for saline soils and about two meters for
saline-sodic soils including half and one meter respectively for evaporation
losses. Rice would be grown during reclamation.
4.07
Other civil works include 2915km of telephone línes to link Guasave,
Los Mochis and Bacurato dam (Map IBRD 13953), 50 ditch rider houses, and buildings for supporting services. In addition the project would supply equipment
for operation and maintenance of project facilities (Table 4.01). Intensive
programs for supporting agricultural services would involve provision for
buildings and equipment, incremental salaries and incremental recurrent costs
for expanding the agricultural extension and research servic,esin the area.
Further details are discussed in Chapter V.
4.08
The project would also provide for expansion of the groundwater
observation well network and monitoring of the water table (para 5.10) and
for studies on drain spacing, use of tubewells for drainage, draínage materials
- 16 -
etc. This is considered necessary as there is a danger that, with time,
after the completion of Bacurato reservoir, groundwater tables could rise to
undesirable shallow levels in Sinaloa district and those parts of Fuerte
district near to Sinaloa River. Levels of possible future drainage investments
cannot be provided at this time, but some allowances for this purpose have been
made in the project analysis (para 8.02). In addition Covernment agreed to
provide credit for ejidos and private farmers for on-farm drainage as required.
Water Supply and Demand
4.09
Sinaloa Irrigation District. The district will derive its water
from Bacurato dam and from the3underground aquifer. Bacurato dam will have
a maximum capacity of 2,900 Mm and a normal irrigation capacity of 1,800 Mm
The average reservoir inflow b sed on 37 continuous years of hydrologic records
has been estimated at 1,330 Mm . Water requirements were determined by the
modified Blaney-Criddle method and assuming conveyance and field efficients
of 70% each (overall efficiency 50%); the results compare with actual water
use in the neighboring fully developed El Carriso district. Between 1978 and
1982 the Sinaloa district could supply 1,065 Mm to the Fuerte district for
leaching purposes. Details on water availability and requirements are summarized below and shown in more detail in Tables 4.02 and 4.03.
Water Balance Sinaloa District
A.
Availability
Inflow Bacurato reservoir
Evaporation and seepage losses
Spillway discharges
Regulated outflow
Conveyance and operational losses (30%)
Water pumped from wells /a
Total Availability
B.
1,330
- 44
- 200
1,086
- 326
+ 230
990
Requirements
Area upstream Leyva diversion
(5,000 ha)
Sinaloa I area (29,000 ha)
Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa project
(76,000 ha)
Domestic and industrial requirements
Total requirements
/a
_m3
43.5
252.3
659.9
34.3
990.0
Well yields presently estimated at 250 Mm but an ongoing
hydrological study may reduce safe yields by approximately
10%.
- 17 -
Fuerte Irrigation District. The district covers an area of 210,000
4.10
ha and receives its water from (a) Miguel Hidalgo dam; (b) the underground
aquifer; and (c) rediversion of return flows at Camayeca/Porvenir and Guamuchilera. The Miguel Hidalgo dam regulates the streamflow of the river for
the five units of the Fuerte district and for the Josefa Ortiz dam which
regulates the availabilities for the Carrizo district. In accordance with
hydrolog cal records the average rese5voir inflow at Miguel Hidalgo is
4,400 Mm and the outflow is 3,093 Mn with a probability of shortage of
3.73%. Water availabilities and requireimentsare summarized below and in more
detail shown in Tables 4.04 and 4.05.
Water Balance Fuerte District
A.
Mm3
Availability
Net outflow from Miguel Hidalgo to
Fuerte district /a
River and canal conveyance and operation
losses 30%
Return flow from Camayeca-Porvenir
Return flow from Guamuchilera
110 wells /b
Pumping water from Sinaloa river
80%
80%
80%
80%
Total Availability
B.
3,093.0
- 928.0
2,165.0
+ 80.0
+ 14.4
+ 150.0
+ 64.0
2,473.4
Requirements
Irrigation Fuerte district units 2 and 3
Irrigation Fuerte district units 1, 4 and 5
Leaching requirements (annual)
Domestic and industrial use
Total requirements
1,260.0
982.0
80.0
138.0
2,460.0
la
After deduction of releases to the Josefa Ortiz reservoir.
/b
Yields presently estimatedlat 200 Mm but an ongoing hydrological survey may reduce safe yields by approximately 25%.
Water Quality
The quality of water available for the project is excellent for
4.11
irrigation use, the impurities carried by the water in solution or in suspension are very few. During the dry season from November to May, the dissolved solid contents rarely exceed 200 ppm at the inlets of Bacurato and
- 18 -
Miguel Hidalgo and the pH factor ranges from neutral to slightly acid.
Contamination of quality of irrigation water may be caused by use of
return flow or drainage recoveries. At the present, the irrigation water
contains no toxic or harmful elements and there is no evidence of water
borne diseases.
Construction Schedule and Status of Engineering
Implementation Schedule. Project implementation would begin in
4.12
January 1980 and be completed in December 1985. Although civil works would
be constructed in a four year period (1980-1983), the project would support
studies, agricultural research and extension activities during a six year
period. This would ensure timely realization of potential benefits from the
project. Table 4.06 summarizes the project implementation schedule.
Status of Engineering. Feasibility level designs for the irriga4.13
tion and drainage networks have been satisfactorily completed. Detailed
designs of the project works would be carried out under the project by the
Office of Hydraulic Infrastructure for Northern Sinaloa in Los Mochis (Chart
No. 20103) which has sufficient qualified staff and experience for this purpose. The same staff has designed the irrigation and drainage networks for
Sinaloa I in a most satisfactory manner.
Cost Estimates
Total project cost expressed in December 1978 prices amount to
4.14
US$249.7 million (Mex$5,620 million) including price and physical contingencies. There are no identifiable taxes. The foreign exchange component is
estimated at US$84.6 million (Mex$1,904 million) or 34% of total costs. Cost
estimates for civil works and major equipment are based on unit rates obtained
in contracts for the ongoing Sinaloa I irrigation project (Loan 970-H1E).
Physical contingencies for civil works and equipment were taken at 15% and
for engineering at 10% of civil works in view of recent experience with
similar work in the area. Total price contingencies amount to US$65.5
million or 26% of total project cost and were compounded at 7% annually for
the foreign exchange component of civil works, at 6% annually for the foreign
exchange component of equipment between 1979 and 1985, and for local cost at
15%, 10% and 6.5% in 1979, 1980 and from 1981 to 1985 respectively. These
price contingencies are based on projected price inflation in Mexico's civil
works industry. Cost estimates are summarized below and shown in detail in
Table 4.07. Table 4.08 shows the schedule of expenditures.
Financing Plan
The proposed Bank loan of US$92 million would finance the estimated
4.15
foreign exchange requirements of the project (US$84.6 million) plus 50% of
studies and incremental operational costs of agricultural extension and
research services (US$7.4 million). The Government would finance the remainder of project costs amounting to US$157.7 equivalent or 63% of total
project costs. The Bank loan would be for a period of 17 years including
four years of grace. Interest and commitment charges on the Bank loan during
the construction period would be paid by Government.
Cost Estimate
Item
Local
Foreign
-Mex$ Million
I. Fuerte
Irrigation
Local
Foreign
------- US$ MillionL
Total
-----
467.5
265.0
10.0
124.1
28.4
324.8
184.1
89.7
-
Subtotal
895.0
792.3
449.1
99.7
124.1
28.4
20.8
11.7
0.4
5.5
1.2
14.4
8.2
4.0
-
35.2
19.9
4.4
5.5
1.2
41
41
90
0
0
598.6
1,493.6
39.6
26.6
66.2
40
784.2
131.5
6.3
155.2
53.3
544.9
91.3
56.5
-
1,329.1
222.8
62.8
155.2
53.3
34.9
5.8
0.3
6.9
2.3
24.2
4.1
2.5
-
59.1
9.9
2.8
2.3
41
41
90
0
0
1,130.5
692.7
1,823.2
50.2
30.8
81.0
38
Program
186.5
15.5
202.0
8.2
0.7
8.9
8
and Studies
129.8
28.0
157.8
5.8
1.2
7.0
-
Irrigation District
Civil Works
On-Farm Development
Equipment
Engineering
Indemnization
Subtotal
III. Agriculture
IV. Agricultural
Extension
Research
Total
Physical Contingencies
2,337.7
b334.8
6.9
3,672.5
103.8
59.3
163.1
279. 0
198,0
477,0
12,3
8,8
21,1
Price Contingencies
1,100.2
371.3
1>471.5
49.0
16.5
65.5
GRAND TOTAL
3715.9
1,904.1
5,620.0
165.1
84.6
249.7
May 7,
Foreign
Exchange
%
District
Civil Works
On-Farm Development
Equipment
Engineering
Indemnization
II. Sinaloa
Total
-------
1979
17
34
-
20
-
Procurement
4.16
Contracts for principal irrigation and drainage works amounting
to about US$108 million would be procured on the basis of international
competitive bidding in accordance with the Bank's Guidelines for Procurement.
Mexico has a well developed and competent contracting industry, capable of
doing all type of civil works at competitive prices, and only rarely is a
bid submitted from a non Mexican firm. However to facilitate the participation
of international contractors, civil works would, insofar as possible be grouped
into contracts having a minimum value of US$2.0 million.
4.17
On-farm development works (US$22 million) would be procured under
local competitive bidding or through negotiated contracts on the basis of
Government procedures which are satisfactory to the Bank. Most frequently in
the project region farmers organize themselves into partnerships to contract
land clearing and leveling on small tracts up to 100 ha in size using their
own machinery.
The work provides
income to the farmers
pending completion
of
the rehabilitation
works, but more importantly, it trains
them in proper
leveling
procedures
and prepares
them to maintain
their
fields
in good
condition for irrigation. SARH provides engineering services and supervises
such contracts.
4.18
To expedite the construction of civil works under international
competitive bidding, small jobs (telecommunications, buildings, houses)
whicli,because of timing or nature of the work, could be better handled if
they were not included in major contracts, would be contracted out under
ordinary Government procedures, up to a maximum value per contract of
US$0.22 million.
4.19
The estimated cost of vehicles, farm machinery and equipment is
about US$8.8 million, out of which US$6 million would be subject to international competitive bidding according to Bank Guidelines for Procurement
(March 1977). For bid evaluation a 15% margin of preference or the prevailing
custom duties if lower would be allowed for equipment and vehicles produced in
Mexico. About US$2.8 million worth of minor equipment are not suitable for
international competitive bidding would be purchased through normal local
procurement procedures. Government agreed to follow procurement procedures
outlined above.
Disbursements
4.20
The proposed Bank loan would disburse against itemized categories as
outlined below. In the case of incremental staff salaries, the appropriate
documentation would be a summary of those staff salaries applicable to the
project and based on positions incremental to the staff list at June 30, 1979.
Other disbursements would be made against normal documentation. The estimated
disbursement schedule is presented in Table 4.09.
- 21
Category
-
Item
Cost
(US$ m)
I
II
III
IV
Selected civil works comprising
infrastrucand drainage
irrigation
telecommunication
roads,
feeder
ture,
buildon farm development,
facilities,
costs
ings and houses; 43% of total
59.0
and maintenance
for operation
Equipment
and r,esearch
extension
and for agricultural
costs
of
total
90%
and studies;
services
8.0
Incremental operational costs of agricultural extension and studies; 50% of total
costs
7.5
Unallocated
17.5
The percentage under category I reflects the non financing of retention
monies under civil works contracts.
Accounts and Audit
SARH would maintain separate accounts to reflect the financial
4.21
situation of the project. Such accounts are subject to periodical internal
audits conducted by a special audit division of SARH. Government agreed to
(a) maintain or cause to be maintained separate accounts adequate to reflect
in accordance with constantly maintained sound accounting practices, resources
and expenditures in respect of the project of the departments and agencies of
the Government responsible for carrying out the project or any part thereof,
(b) annually furnish to the Bank a summary statement of such accounts, and
(c) furnish to the Bank such other pertinent information concerning such
accounts as the Bank shall reasonably request from time to time.
Environmental Impact
The project would not adversely affect the environment: better
4.22
irrigation water management, drainage and reclamation would in fact improve
of the water table
Monitoring
area.
in the project
conditions
environmental
in the future.
waterlogging
to avoid possible
action
immediate
would permit
There are no water borne diseases in the project area.
- 22 -
V.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
General
The project would be administered by SARH through its established
5.01
channels; no changes to existing arrangements are considered necessary under
the proposed project. Thus the nominal responsibility for the project would
rest with SARH's representative for the state of Sinaloa, with headquarters
in Culiacan, which in turn would be passed to his representative in Los
Mlochis,the SARH Coordinator for Northern Sinaloa. This coordinator is
responsible for all SARH activities in the northern part of the state. Under
the coordinator operate (a) the office of Major Hydraulic Infrastructure
Prograns (MHIP) which is the lead office for execution of the ongoing project
(970-ME) and would also fulfill this role for the proposed project; and (b)
the three irrigation districts of Sinaloa, Fuerte and Carrizo organized along
similar lines and responsible for on-farm development operations and maintenance, and extension services. Chart 20103 shows the organization of the
proposed project within the framework of the SARH organization in Northern
Sinaloa.
Major Hydraulic Infrastructure Programs
5.02
The organizational structure of this office has been in existence
since the establishment of the first irrigation district in Northern Sinaloa
in 1963. It is currently headed by an experienced and competent engineer with
management teams assigned for specific activities such as rehabilitation of
Fuerte, construction of Bacurato dam, etc. These teams are supported by a
headquarter administration and technical staff. The chief of MHIP is responsible for engineering design, field planning, and specifications, for
supervision of construction and for the preparation of annual budgets. While
the annual budgets have to be approved by the SARH state representative,
approval of the engineering design, planning and specification aspects is the
responsibility of the SARH Subsecretary of Infrastructure in Mexico City.
These arrangements are operating satisfactorily and it is considered that the
existing organization and staffing are adequate and could well handle the
proposed project without major changes or additions.
Irrigation Districts
5.03
Each irrigation district is assisted at the executive level by a
steering committee to ensure the participation of non-SARH public and private
organizations, and has three departments for its day to day operations Conservation and Maintenance, Operations and Development, and Administrative
Services.
5.04
Conservation and Maintenance is responsible for all major repairs
for which it operates its own machinery pool and workshop. Details and costs
of additional maintenance equipment needed under the proposed project are
shown in table 4.01 while operation and maintenance costs, estimated to total
Mex$183.6 million (US$8.2 million) annually, are detailed in table 5.01.
- 23 Operationsand Development is responsible for the daily operation of
5.05
the irrigationsystem, for extension servícesand for the collectionof water
charges. The basic unit for operating the irrigationsystem is the zone covering
about 6,000 ha each and employing one zone chief and a team of seven ditch riders.
Extension serviceshave been recently reorganized into a newly created District
IntegratedTechnical AssistanceProgram,(DITA).
5.06
DITA replaces the services that were provídedunder the umbrella
of PLAMEPA and involves two main activities: agriculturalextension,and
with procedures similar to the trainingand
water management/distribution,
visit system which has been supported in a number of Bank financed projects,
particularlyin Asia (Chart 20103). At farm level, extension activities
are handled by separate teams assigned to specific areas. In addition to
regulatingwater supply over these areas the team advises farmers on on-farm
levelingprograns. Regarding extension a field extension officer at graduate
level is assigned to an area of about 3,000 ha, with responsibilityfor about
300 to 500 families. Depending on work load the field extensionofficer may
be assistedby an agriculturaltechnician. Farm visits are nmadeon a regular
basis in the course of 10 to 14 days. At each visit the extension officer
gives written recommendationsto the farmer or ejido managementkeeping a copy
for his own records. Field extension officersmeetings are held regularly at
weekly intervals at either the zone or area levels to discuss problemsand fíx
field work programs. Meetingsare also held at 2-3 weekly intervals at the
unit or district level for more formal trainingand technicaldiscussions.
5.07
Field techniciansare supportedby special units attached to the
office of the Chief of Operationsand Development (e.g. hydrology;deep wells;
water use; applied research). Of particularimportanceis the unit for applied
researchwhich works on selected farmer sites to orient the field extension
officerswho in turn use the sites for field days for farmer demonstrations.
Also, in this unit are located some six to nine subject matter specialists
who work closely in training and problem solving with the field extension
workers through their respectivezone, area and unit coordinators.
With the DITA system, the overall quality of extension services
5.08
has become quite satisfactoryand is among the best available in Mexico; it
has also sufficientflexibilityto meet additionaldemands under the proposed
project. New staff would be recruitedgradually as the need arises and new
irrigationunits are initiated. In this regard no problemusare anticipatedin
recruiting the 68 professional,66 sub-professionaland 46 support staff for
the DITA component of the proposedproject. However these staff will need
further training before they can be consideredeffectiveextension workers.
Thus in service trainingwill be an important feature of the extension activities providedunder the project. Total investmentcosts for the proposed
extension program amounts to Mex$7.3 inillion(US$325,000)and incremental
operationalcosts for a six year period to Mex$194.7 million (US$8.7million)
and are detailed in table 5.02.
5.09
Research. The research being carried out by the -[NIAstaff at the
CIAPAN research center is generally well executedand no changes in existing administrativearrangementsare envisaged for the small research component
- 24
-
under the project. However, under the project research programs will be
organized to study water management and plant yield improvement at the farmer
level rather than at the research station as at present. For this purpose no
major expansion in the existing physical facilities will be needed. The main
requirement will be additional 15 research staff with appropr4ate supPrct
clerical staff. Thus total investment cost for agricultural research amount
to Mex$9.8 million (US$436,000) and incremental operational costs for a six
year period to Mex$74.2 million (US$3.3 million) and are outlined in table
5.03.
-'
Monitoring and Evaluation
5.10
Monitoring and evaluation of the proposed project forms an integral
part of the existing operation. Basic data collection is carried out routinely
within the system, the most important of which are cropped areas, cropping patterns, water use, yields, prices, marketing and handling, operation and maintenance activities, extension activities, ground water levels, progress of works
and reservoir storage. With the exception of expanding the grid for measuring
ground water levels (para 4.08) no significant changes in current procedures
are envisaged. These procedures will also be applied under the proposed
project.
- 25 VI. AGRICULTURALPRODUCTION,MARKETS,
MARKETING AND PRICES
Area, Cropping Patterns, Yields
6.01
Total cropped acreage in the project area totals about 128,000
ha at present (paras 2.10-2.11and table 6.01). Without the project,this
area in the future would be reduced as in Fuerte District, land would go out
of productiondue to increasingsalinity levels: estimated on the basis of
past experienceat about 10,000 ha over 10 years. Croppingintensitieswould
increaseas additionalwater becomes available from Bacuratodam to 120% in
Fuerte and 140% in the in the Sinaloa area. With the project, this process
would be reversed,more land would be brought under productionand cropping
intensitywould only be slightlyabove present levels as detailed in table 6.01
and summarizedbelow:
Physical
Cropped
---------ha---------
Cropping
Intensity
%
1. Present Situation
Sinaloa
Fuerte
33,000
80,000
40,400
87,550
122
109
113,000
127,950
113
33,000
70,000
46,500
84,000
140
120
103,000
130,500
127
Sinaloa
Fuerte
76,000
120,000
94,000
132,000
124
110
Total
196,000
226,000
115
Total
II. Future Without Project
Sinaloa
Fuerte
Total
III. Future With Project
6.02
Although with the project th,esame crops would be grown as at present, some crops would increase their share of total area while others would
be reduced. Changes in cropping patterns are predieted due to the need to:
(a) minimize areas of high water constunption
crops (rice, sugar) and to maximize areas of more efficientwater usi.ngcrops (beans, sorghum, safflower);(b)
maximize areas for crops with good market prospectsboth domestically(feed
- 26 -
grains, oil seeds) and for export (cotton);and (c) maintain vegetable production to about the present level in spite of its high returns because of constraints in both the domestic and the internationalmarkets. Yield projections
are based on average yields presently obtained on fully irrigated lands in
both the project area and neighboringareas. Overall yield increases are
relativelysmall compared to many new irrigationdistricts in Mexico, due to
the existing high level of applied technologieson lands where water is
available;projected increases would mainly be due to more efficientwater
use and better drainage and leaching brought about by the project. The
following table shows present, projected with and without project status
regarding areas and yields for the main crops.
- 27 -
Present and Future
Yields and Production
Present
Net
Cropped
Yield
Area
(mt/ha)
(ha)
Future
Without Project
Net
Cropped
Yield
Area
(mt/ha)
(ha)
Future
With Project
Net
Cropped
Yield
Area
(mt/ha)
(ha)
Soybean
15,000
1.9
18,300
1.9
40,000
2.5
Sorghum
19,600
4.0
22,000
4.0
30,000
5.0
9,900
3.4
10,000
3.4
2,500
4.0
20,100
0.8
17,700
0.8
50,000
1.5
7,400
1.8
6,100
1.8
2,500
3.5
10,000
12.0
10,300
12.0
11,000
17.0
Other
4,500
1.3
4,600
1.3
4,000
2.0
Cotton
7,600
2.4
7,100
2.4
22,000
3.0
21,000
1.8
22,200
1.8
50,000
2.2
Wheat
7,400
3.6
7,200
3.6
5,000
4.5
Alfalfa/Pasture
1,990
12.0
2,000
12.0
4,000
15.0
Fruit Trees
1,560
12.0
1,600
12.0
3,600
15.0
Sugar
1,400
60.0
1,400
60.0
1,400
90.0
Rice
Pulses
Maize
Vegetables
Safflower
Total Net
Cropped Area(ha)
Cropping
Intensity (%)
Physically
Cropped Area (ha)
April 9, 1979
128,000
130,500
226,000
113
127
115
113,000
103,500
196,000
- 28 -
Production
6.03
Based upon the above yields, cropping patterns and cropping intensities, incremental production for the main crops would be: (a) soybean
71,500 mt; (b) sorghum 71,600 mt; (c) vegetables 57,000 mt; (d) seed cotton
47,800 mt; (e) safflower 72,200 mt; (f) alfalfa/pasture 36,160 mt; (g) fruit
35,300 mt; and (h) sugar 42,000 mt. Production of maize, rice and wheat is
projected to decline; although yield increases are projected for these crops,
these increases would not be sufficient to compensate for the reduction in
areas predicted under the project, as the net return on these crops would
be decidedly lower than for others such as oil seeds and cotton. With the
exception of cotton and vegetables which would be mainly exported, the remainder
of the crops would be for local consumption.
Markets and Prices
6.04
No marketing problems are foreseen for project produce. Farmers in
the project area have in the past shown a strong flexibility to cope with
changes in demand for their products, and marketing facilities are operating
efficiently and able to cope with additional supplies from the proposed project.
At full development, incremental output would be less than 8% of local demand
in the State of Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Durango, and less than 2% of the requirements of Mexico City, and no market disruptions due to oversupply are expected.
6.05
The National Marketing Corporation (CONASUPO) purchases agricultural
commodities on the basis of official support prices. These prices are generally
in line with free market prices except for commodities for which there is a
national shortage and/or imports are increasing, such as maize or soybeans, in
which case support prices are perceptibly higher. Sales to CONASUPO, however,
are on a voluntary basis and CONASUPO purchases nationwide seldom exceed
25-30% of total market production. In northern Sinaloa CONASUPO purchases are
mostly limited to beans; most marketing is done by producer organizations
or private firms at farm gate prices generally above those fixed by Government.
While farm prices have been used in the farm budgets, present and future
economic prices converted to farmgate levels have been used to calculate
the value of production for purposes of economic analysis; calculations of
economic prices are based on Bank projections. Farmgate and economic prices
are summarized below:
Farm Prices
Present
…-------------in
Cotton
Maize
Pulses
Rice (Paddy)
Safflower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Vegetables
Wheat
Alfalfa
Fruits
Sugarcane
7,650
2,900
5,250
2,750
4,250
2,030
5,500
2,320
2,050
1,080
2,000
220
Economic Prices (at farmgate)
Present
Future
Mex$ per ton…
8,670
2,760
5,850
2,900
4,140
2,550
5,200
2,320
2,890
1,080
2,000
240
10,745
3,600
5,250
4,610
4,850
3,170
7,175
2,320
3,820
1,080
2,000
450
- 29 -
VII.
PROJECT BENEFICIARIES FARM
INCOMES AND COST RECOVERY
IThe proposed project would through increased production directly
7.01
benefit 19,700 families comprising 17,250 ejidatarios and 2,450 private
farmers. It would also decrease on-farm underemployment, through provision
of additional 3.3 million man-days of labor per year at full development.
More than 9C0%of the beneficiaries wou]d be from the lowest income group of
than 13 ha representing
of less
farm sizes
in the area with average
farmers
about 73% of the farm area of the proposed project. The present weighted net
farm incomes 1/ before charges and taxes for this group would vary from
Mex$12,000 to Mex$38,000 for average farm sizes within the range of 4-13 ha.
At full development net farm incomes before charges and taxes for the same
range would be Mex$42,000 to Mex$135,000, A detailed breakdown by average
farm size showing present status of land use and present and projected NVP
values per farm with and without the proposed project are shown in Table
7.01. Representative farm models for the proposed project are shown in Table
7.02 and 7.03. Production costs are sunmmarizedin table 7.04. The FRR's for
and 25% for the
by salinization
the models of 23% for the farm unaffected
in most
and
conservative
considered
is
salinization
by
farm affected
be
probably
will
group
landholder
small
the
amongst
instances, particularly
somewhat higher.
Tle recovery of project costs through water charges has been the
7.02
subject of a continuing dialogue betweien the Government and the Bank.
Government has recently stated that its aim is to eventually recover all
operation and maintenance costs plus those capital investment costs that
producers can afford. However, no timoeschedule has been set to achieve these
objectives except that changes should be increased gradually on a country wide
basis. Under the ongoing Rio Sinaloa Irrigation Project (Loan 970-ME) Governrment agreed to "charge and collect wat,er charges on the basis of the ability
of water users to pay and the need to obtain an incentive for them to make
best use of the land and water available to them as shall be necessary to
recover all operation and maintenance costs of irrigation facilities included
in the projoectand as much as practicable of their investment costs".
7te Government proposes to recover for the proposed Rio Fuerte/Rio
7.03
Sinaloa project total operation and maintenance costs plus a proportion
of investment costs. Government would carry out a socio-economic study in
the Sinaloa and Fuerte irrigation districts to determine farmnersability to
pay. The study is important as even with the project, part of the farming
population would remain below or close to the poverty level and should in any
1/
Weighted to include: (a) farms on which the present yields and cropping
patterns are similar to those from the better developed units/districts
in the region; (b) farms on which present production is on average
about 35% of (a) because of the scarcity of water, salinity or poor
for
that have not yet been developed
and (c) those areas
drainage;
irrigation.
- 30 case be exempt from any additional charge or levy. Government would in
addition recover about Mex$70.7 million per annum of incremental income tax
which is directly related to crop grown in the area.
7.04
Assuming full recovery of operation and maintenance costs for the
time being, Government would have to raise the water charge from about 70
pesos to about 90 pesos per thousand cubic meters of water. On a per hectare
basis this means an average increase from about 430 pesos to about 560 pesos.
Water would be levied per ha and kind of crop grown.
7.05
The incremental water charges plus returns from incremental income
tax would result in rent recovery indices of 17% for farms of less than
13 ha, and 73% for farms of more than 13 ha; the cost recovery index would
amount to 19% (table 7.05). Total charges and taxes would represent 13% of
the incremental cash income of small holders and 62% of large landholders.
During negotiations Government agreed to: (a) recover full operation and
maintenance cost of irrigation and drainage works provided under the proposed
project; (b) carry out a study in the Fuerte and Sinaloa project areas to
determine the farmers ability to pay for investment costs; (c) not later than
December 31, 1984 submit this study to the Bank together with a proposal for
recovery of investment costs; and (d) review this study periodically with the
view to revising such charges if appropriate.
- 31 -
VIII.
BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION
Benefits
8.01
Execution of the project would entail significant benefits for both
the participating project farmers and the Northern Sinaloa area as a whole.
The project would (a) increase agricultural production by providing irrigation
water to previously part irrigated or non-irrigated areas and by reclaiming
saline lands; and (b) prevent salinizaton on presently non-saline lands which,
without drainage improvements, would become affected in th,efuture. The
project would also have significant social effects: 87% of farm families and
70% of the land are in ejidos with holdings of 20 ha or less, and as it is
presently the larger individual farmnerswho have the better irrigated lands,
the share of smallholders in total net value of production would increase
(from 57% at present to 71% at full project development for farmers with
eight ha or less). Indirect benefits would also be important: not only
would small farmers that now mainly depend on seasonal off-farm employment
revert to full time employment on the farm, thus increasing total family
income and thus liberating employmeritopportunities in the services and
industries sector, but increased agricultural production would itself generate
more employment in other sectors, as demonstrated by the net influx of people
into the area of between 2% and 3% per year.
8.02
The economic rate of return of the project, counting direct benefits
alone, has been calculated at 17.9% (table 8.01). The assumptions for this
calculation have been (a) the treatmientof investments under the ongoing
Sinaloa project - as revised - as stnk cost; (b) the area under crops and crop
yields assumptions as given in paras 6.01 and 6.02; (c) economic prices
converted to farmgate as specified in para 6.05. An estimate on future
drainage investments (para 4.08) has been made at the rate of 1,500 ha per
year starting from 1985 onwards, ancl its costs taken into account in the
economic cost benefit analysis. Finally, all labor including farmily labor,
has been costed at current wage rates for the area. As the project is the
completion of an ongoing program in which major infrastructure investments
(dam, main canals) will already have been carried out before, however, an
integrated analysis of the ongoing -- revised - Sinaloa prc.jectand the Fuerte/
Sinaloa project gives a better indication of its profitability. The rate of
return on the integrated project, again counting only direct benefits,
is 13.4% (table 8.01).
Risk and Sensitivity
8.03
The project carries no major risks. The quality and performance
of the project organization in the area is well above average even for Mexican
standards, and experience has shown that it is able to carry out infrastructure
works, operate the irrigation system and provide extension services in a
satisfactory manner. Moreover, farmers are well established, employ modern
technology and improved production mnethods, and are open to advice from
extension workers; the chances that yield levels on newly irrigated land would
not reach predicted levels are remote. Reclamation of saline lands would
follow the same principles as those successfully applied in the area in the
- 32 -
past. The only risks would be that, in view of the many ongoing activities,
project execution might be slightly delayed or that, with more rapid inflation,
costs might be higher than estimated.
Sensitivity tests for the proposed project are summarized below
8.04
and show a range of 14% to 18% for the economic rate of return; in view of
the above, the critical parameters are (2), (3) and (6).
ERR %
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Expected
Investment costs 10% higher, crop
yields 10% lower
Costs 10% higher
Costs 10% lower
Crop yields 10% lower
Benefits delayed by one year
17.9
14.5
16.3
19.7
16.1
15.5
Sensitivity tests for the combined Sinaloa I Irrigation project
8.05
and the Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa Irrigation Project have shown, that a one
year delay in project execution would reduce the rate of return from 13.4% to
11.9% and a 10% increase of overall costs would reduce it to 12.1%. A 10%
decrease in benefits would result in a rate of return of 12%.
-
IX.
:33-
RECODNiENDATIONS
During negotiations agreement was reached that Government would:
9.01
(a)
provide credit for ejidos and private farmers for on-farm drainage
as required (para 4.08);
(b)
follow procurement procedures outlined in paras 4.16 to 4.19;
(c)
(i) maintain or cause to be maintained separate accounts adequate
to reflect in accordance with constantly maintairLed sound accounting
practices the resources and expenditures in respect of the project
of the departments or agencies of the Government responsible for
carrying out the project or any part thereof, (ii) annually furnish
to the Bank a summary statement of such accounts, and (iii) furnish
to the Bank such other peritinentinformation conc:erningsuch
accounts as the Bank shall reasonably request from time to time
(para 4.21); and
(d)
(i) recover full operaton and maintenance costs of irrigation and
drainage works provided under the project; (ii) carry out socioeconomic studies in the Fuerte/Sinaloa project areas to determine
the farmers ability to pay for investment costs; (iii) not later
than December 31, 1984, submit this study together with a proposal
to recover investment costs; and (iv)
review the study periodically
with the view to revising such charges if appropriate (para 7.05).
With the agreements above the proposed project would be suitable
9.02
for Bank :Loanof US$92 million on standard terms and conditions.
May
7, 1979
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Production
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
March
21,
Maize
Beans
Sorghum
Wheat
5,420
6,246
6,331
6,870
8,454
8,936
9,271
8,603
9,061
8,410
8,879
9,786
9,222
8,609
7,847
8,458
8,945
528
723
656
677
892
860
1,013
980
857
835
925
954
870
1,009
972
1,027
1,149
209
291
296
402
526
747
1,411
1,667
2,133
2,456
2,747
2,516
2,612
3,270
3,499
5,589
4,194
1,190
1,402
1,455
1,703
2,203
2,150
1,647
2,122
2,081
2,326
2,149
1,831
1,809
2,091
2,786
2,798
3,358
of Ten Maior Crops, 1960-1976
(Thousand m tons)
Cotton
1,344
1,285
1,388
1,530
1,615
1,650
1,489
1,413
1,691
1,134
953
624
670
595
826
613
605
Sugar
1,498
1,388
1,428
1,618
1,816
1,983
2,011
2,327
2,196
2,394
2,208
2,393
2,359
2,592
2,649
2,500
2,704
Soya Beans
5
20
57
56
60
58
95
131
275
287
215
256
377
586
574
699
565
Rice
(Paddy)
328
333
289
296
274
378
372
418
347
395
405
369
403
451
508
787
510
Safflower
Alfalfa
32
41
47
47
47
80
236
149
102
209
288
412
271
298
275
514
240
4,240
4,230
5,090
5,132
5,531
5,685
5,727
7,645
7,645
8,312
9,240
9,689
10,434
11,158
11,901
13,200
13,542
1979
,-
Table 1.02
35
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Production Main Lívestock Commodities, 1960-1976
(Thousands m tons)
Beef
Milk
Mutton
Pork
Poultry
1960
328
-
35
12
31
1965
421
-
35
18
39
1970
463
3,800
33
22
67
1971
457
3,900
36
21
72
1972
465
3,400
40
21
81
1973
486
4,100
42
22
81
1974
548
4,400
44
23
72
1975
596
4,800
44
24
78
1976
601
5,200
47
24
80
March 21, 1979
36
MEXICO
Table 2.01
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Irrigated Areas
Sinaloa
- - - Total irrigable area:
105,000
Area originally irrigated:
54,000
of which:affected by salinity:
Total
--ha
210,000
315,000
210,000
264,000
150,000
150,000
A.
Saline lands reclaimed by farmers:
-
13,000
13,000
B.
Areas reclaimed under 275-ME:
-moderately salíne lands:
-severely salmne lands:
sub-total
-
56,000
21,000
77,000
56,000
2I,O
77,000
-
8,000
21,000
-
29,000
C.
D.
Areas covered under 970-ME:
-uncultivated lands:
-cultivated lands:
sub-total
8,000
21,000
29,000
Areas covered under proposed project:
-uncultivated lands:
43,000
-cultivated lands:
33,000
of which affected by salinity:
sub-total
76,000
Total
a/
Fuerte
Of which 30,000 are salíne
March 21, 1979
105 000
40,000 -'
80,000
(60,000)
120,000
83,000
113,000
(60,000)
196,000
210 000
315 000
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Land Tenure
R í o
Area
F u e r t e a/
Families
R i o
Area
S i n a 1 o a
Families
(ha)_
(ha)
(ha)
T o t a 1
Families
Area
Ejido Land/Family
5.0 ha or less
5.1 ha to 10.0 ha
10.1 ha to 20.0 ha
7,400
68,300
4,300
1,883
8,654
375
5,300
49,100
3,100
1,090
5,023
219
12,700
117,400
7,400
2,973
13,677
594
Sub-total
80,000
10,912
57,500
6,332
137,500
17,244
5,000
3,400
13,200
15,600
2,800
992
214
384
228
21
2,313
1,572
6,105
7,215
1,295
426
92
163
94
9
7,313
4,972
19,305
22,815
4,095
1,418
306
547
325
30
40,000
1,839
18,500
787
58,500
2,626
120,000
12,751
76,000
7,119
196,000
19,870
Private Land/Family
ha or less
ha to 20.0 ha
ha to 50.0 ha
ha to 100.0 ha
than 100.0 ha
10.0
10.1
20.1
50.1
More
Sub-total
Total
a/ Units 1, 4 and 5.
Source: SARH, Rio Fuerte Commission and Sinaloa District 63.
March 21, 1979
H
oo
38
Table 4.01
MEXICO
RIO FUERTEIRIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Operation and Maintenance Equipment
Item
Dragline
Hydraulic Excavator
Backhoe
Track-type Loader
Bulldozer
Motor-grader
Canal Trimmer
Watering Truck
Dump Truck
Flatbed Truck
Delivery Truck
Pickup Truck
Truck Crane
Centrifugal Pump
Welding Machine
Air Compressor
Pneumatic Hammer
Compressor
Compressor and
Sandblaster
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Vibrator
Compactor
Miscellaneous Tools
Total
March 12, 1979
No.
6
-
7
1
5
4
2
6
4
1
5
14
1
7
2
2
1
-
2
2
2
lot
Sinaloa
Cost, Mex$1,000
19,000
9,500
1,250
10,900
6,600
1,700
3,900
1,800
1,400
970
2,100
550
1,000
300
100
520
-
50
30
100
1,000
62,770
No.
Fuerte
Cost Mex$1,000
10
3
6
10
7
33,900
5,300
10,600
23,100
12,600
5
26
-
1,800
8,600
-
14
-
1,700
-
3
1,600
14
500
-
-
_-
99,700
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO
Sinaloa
Reserve
1
Jan.
1978
19 79
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Inflow
1,330
1, 330
1,330
1,330
1,330
1,330
1, 330
1,330
1,330
530
925
1,025
1, 111
1,197
Evapo. &
Seepage
Losses
10
30
44
44
44
Spíllway
Discharge
200
200
200
200
SINALOA IRRIGATION
Water Availability
3
m
Million
Convey.
and Oper.
Regulated
Lossesal
Outflow
Project
600
760
800
800
925
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,086
180
228
240
240
277
300
300
300
326
PROJECT
and
Wells
usable
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
Supply
W:
Expected
Supply
to
Fuerte
110
242
280
280
153
Sinaloa
to
Supply
Scheme
560
540
530
530
745
950
950
950
1,010
Non-regulated
78-81
Bacurato
First
Dam Construction
Spillway
Dischxrge
W
1,065
fD
a/Conveyance
April
9,
1979
efficiency
70%
o
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO
Sinaloa
SINALOA IRRIGATION
Water
Irrigation
II
PROJECT
Reguirement
Cropp&d
JAN
FEB
JUN
MAy
APR
MAR
cm.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annuals
Cotton
Maize
Pulses
Rice
Safflower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Vegetables
Wheat
Others
--
------ ___-_
----__
(XT
8.7
13.3
6.4
9.3
5.0
14.5
12.1
9.6
10.4
5.0
11.9
16.8
12.1
17.0
18.4
18.0
11.8
5.4
5.0
10,1
9.5
5.6
9.2
13.3
7.3
10.6
18.7
10,3
12.4
3.1
13.1
14,2
11.0
5.0
39.0
5.0
49.5
37.8
13.8
18.4
11.8
5.7
18.0
NOV
DEC
16.1
13.3
18.9
5.0
14.8
6.6
7.2
5.0
10.1
5.0
12.6
12.6
9.1
l al
5.2
5.0
5.0
ci
Wtaer
11 bArea
106
H..
-----------------
-_ ___--____________________----
16.7
15.2
6.3
6.4
8.0
6.5
SEP
AUG
JUL
70.2
63.4
24.9
152.4
49.0
65.3
45.2
34.5
55.7
65.3
100.3
90.5
35.6
217.7
70.0
93.3
64.6
49.3
79.6
93.,3
10,000
500
20,000
500
20,000
5,000
23,000
7,000
2,000
2,000
148.4
92.0
150.8
212.0
131.4
215.4
2,000
2,000
Req.
m3
100.300
4.525
71.200
10.885
140.000
46.650
148.580
34.510
15.920
18.660
42.400
26.280
Perennials
Alfalfa
Fruit
Sugar
5.0
5.0
11.6
Trees
Cane
13.6
7.6
14.2
16.0
7.8
11.3
20.2
1U.8
12.4
11,3
7.9
15.9
7.3
5.6
15.6
5.0
5.0
13.3
94,000
Total
a/
b/
e/
d/
1 = Net depth of water cm.
cm. at farm gate
II = Depth of water
= 1.236
94.000
intensity
Cropping
76,000
for
ín depth
requirement
wster
Average
March
13,
1979
Irrigation
cropping
efficieney
area
=
70'h.
= 70 cm. - for
physical
area
=
87
cm.
6
a
lo.ln¡e
0.
ro
g
.
0
0a1
~ ~
w
~
0
00
D4
~
n«
~
~
'
~ ~ ~
.
+4
1
o
+
004..-.-0444a.
-04444
0..O4444
.4
_4
Ow
.4
CI
O
.O.a.
o a o
..
Cc
aC
_4a4a44
aa.e-a.COCO)Cg@OtO
000.0..0000
000.....0..00
00
0 0
o8x
8888Y
oE
0
o
0-..-.
b
O.4S.4.4
.uo.oo
~
M
o
>w88.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
08
o
0e E .4
.
.4
ea-
'
°S
C
n
ao.4
O4
_.4-4-40000O
00
.44
Illll,lll¡0l
-0
t
3C-
00'
.0O0
l_
IC I4O OW030^
a
0
4
g4
4
4
C4
NO nX
nW
lat
rnwww
nsSw_~ssOON
o,0e-w_N
loe>
.
$-
$OC
.4
$c
.0$444444440...0O
. .
.4
.4.
....
4444-
.
.
0
n
.
.
n5
.c
o
o10
x
¡
o
rl °
S~w8O
a--0..0
nvP 001004
ah°
00.4WO0Ow0wS~w
r
> »wi;
»°oroO
W¡.
1.40»:á - tNbU
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
n
Wa4-,044
01000
0.¡.,01
« >H
s8~
g00
:4a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
$
.4Ct
~~1
1010
lll*
i Oo
Ci*>S urwH
g
O
0:
¡-
.4-4
N°
l0-.
.
-
C
.4r
>OSwnu
0(
.
000.
-.
0~~~~~
nU
°
~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~
-4.4.4OlaOO.440~
~
F
t
w-_a-w4.4COO
¡00
0~~~~~~~~
.4o C
04eO4a4a..
000~
.
.4.4
.4.4.4r oC
;4
.4aO.4
a-1..0
a..4.4.
_44a...g
,_ '
a0.4aOoo-
e-004
.
0
.~g$O_n
OW<H0
o14
X.4WsWWNsswW
0
ase
0 0 .4S
oa
H
S
*@PS
G
0.48
0.n4.440'.4.4-414.4.4.4-4-4.4.4.4.4.4e.4.4
+40.
0
3
W4 e^
laS
|t4
.4S
@>*
_S
.
oeeo
,
DlO
D
.4.4
o4O
orno
O
-
oooo
]0.4~
0
O
o ..
.4 . .4
n
5
0 0.4.4O
0
0
0
O 0
00
O
o
e Sj
OO
.4
a
.
--
5
0.400S0
O
.0..0
1
>
0S.oOSewO
00
0
~
-..
0
0
aaoc
.00.4.eoaeooo
.
10
0040.44c
.
.4.,c
o
w
00
w¡0
.
0
e>cS
3
w0
nr
55
s°
S
.4
n4._.40.00.40w
Or
0.4
.
o$4o>$cc
F
S
~ -~_55
5
OOCO5OOOgHCOOOOv
.$C
e
a
00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D
'0.4C0000.
w
,.,
c4
&
$$$c
000000000
C
O
@S *
.4.-
Y
5
.0
O.400
Ooo
w n
0
$$
o
4
0
.4o-0000-'.4
.
o
O
w
.
|
°°°°°
eO4.4.o
0.O
-
e
0
c>9Nnccgc|
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Fuerte Irrigation Distriet - Units 1, 4 and 5 - Water Reguirements
CroppingE/
Crops
Annuals
Cotton
Maize
Pulses (bean)
Rice
Safflower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Vegetables (tom)
Wheat
Others (sorghum)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
la/
IIb/
-----------------------------------------cm--------------------------------------------------6.5
6.4
8.9
-
5.0
9.5
9.6
10.4
10.0
5.0
5.0
11.6
5.4
5.0
10.1
6.6
8.0
6.5
-
13.4
-
14.6
5.0
11.9
16.8
17.1
15.0
13.6
10.0
-
16.7
17.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.5
6.1
-
37.8
10.4
10.3
5.0
49.5
12.4
11.0
5.0
39.0
13.1
16.1
13.3
18.9
6.2
5.0
14.8
6.6
7.2
-
5.0
10.1
5.0
-
Area
Ha.
70.5
63.4
24.9
152.4
49.3
59.0
48.1
100.7
90.6
35.6
217.7
70.4
84.3
68.7
12,000
2,000
30,000
2,000
30,000
25,000
17,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.0
34.5
49.3
4,000
-
-
-
-
-
5.0
-
55.7
59.0
79.6
84.3
3,000
2,000
7.3
5.6
15.6
5.0
5.0
13.3
148.4
92.0
150.8
212.0
131.4
215.4
2,000
1,600
1,400
17.0
15.5
11.4
-
13.3
7.3
10.6
18.7
10.3
12.4
23.1
13.1
14.2
Water Reo.
10
3
120.84
18.12
106.80
43.54
211.20
210.75
116.79
19.72
23.88
16.86
Perennials
Alfalfa and Pastures
Fruit Trees
Sugar Cane
9.5
5.6
9.2
20.2
11.8
12.4
16.0
7.8
11.3
13.6
7.6
14.2
11.3
7.9
15.9
132,000
a/ I = Net depth of water cm.
b/ II = Depth of water at farm gate c. - irrigation efficiency = 70%
c/ Cropping intensity = 132,000
120,000
d/ Average water requirement in depth for cropping area = 74.4 cm. - for physical area
March 20, 1979
81.8 cm.
42.40
21.02
30.16
92&08 d/
43
Table
mico
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
lmplementation
Unot
I.
Fuerte
(a)
Irrigation
Civil
Unit
Construction:
Unít
1983
-
_
_
Lloed Main Canals
Urllined Maín Canals
UClined Laterals
Draba.
NDw insed ateral
N.sw Drains
R.ad.
km
km
k.
km
km
km
ka
1.7
37.1
187.6
45.0
283.3
98.1
10.0
(1.7)
(19.7)
(26.8)
(22.5)
(41.5)
49.1
(2.0)
Unlined Main Canals
Unlined Laterals
Drains
New Lined Laterals
¡NewDrains
roads
k.
km
k.
klo
km
km
47.1
177.9
62.0
38.7
25.9
22.0
(16.8)
(24.3)
(8.1)
(6.0)
(55.2)
(37.7)
(7.9)
(17.8)
(8.0)
Uolined Majn Canals
Unlioed Lateral.
Drains
Sw Lined Laterals
New Drains
Roads
k.
k.
km
k.
km
km
46.2
235.8
47.0
52.7
47.0
16.0
(7.6)
(17.7)
(35.,7)
(4.0)
(35.7)
(3.0)
(23,4)
(35.5)
(11.3)
(18.5)
(11.3
(5.0)
ha
ha
ha
ha
60,000
30 000
18,000
12,000
(10,000)
(4.000)
(2,000)
(1,000)
ha
-
17,000
(17.4)
(37.0)
(22.5)
(74.7)
49.0
(4.0)
(62.3)
(61.5)
--
(87.0)
(80.1)
(4.0)
-
(9.3)
(75.9)
(21.0)
(46.8)
-
(25.0)
(5.8)
-
-
(8.0)
-
V
Rehabilitat.ot
:
Coostructioon;
(6.2)
(100.2)
(9.0)
(82.4)
_
(3.9)
(26.3)
(3.0)
(5.0)
On Farm Development
Land Leveliog
productive)
Reclamation
Sal.íe
(presently
Reclamation
Salinte (presently
unproductive)
Reclamation
Salir-s/Sodic
Land
Total
Sinaloa
Area Recla:imed
Irrigation
Civil
Left
90,000
(15,000)
(8 000)
(4'000)
(3,000)
120,000
On Faro
(c)
Total
ultural
Lined Laterals
Uolined Laterals
Maon Drains
Secondary Draina
Roads
km
km
km
km
k.
79.2
140.0
77.8
105.2
70.0
(6.0)
(14.7)
(5.0)
(6.0)
(14.0)
Lined Main Caoels
Lined Laterals
Unlined Laterals
Maji Drains
Secondary Drains
Ra,ad
km
km
km
km
km
k.
16.0
233.5
140.0
140.0
186.9
100.0
(14.5)
(15.0)
(12.5)
(73.0)
km
40,000
ha
-
(33.2)
(25.3)
(29.0)
(31.3)
(14.0)
(40.0)
(25.0)
(29.2)
(40.0)
(30.0)
(1.5)
(60.8)
(54.0)
(48.5)
(57.4)
(31.4)
(6.9)
(97.2)
(54.0)
(55.0)
(80.5)
(54.6)
(7.6)
(61.0)
(12.0)
(24.0)
(36.0)
(14.2)
(15,080)
(11,12D)
(10,760)
18,375
52,070
76,000
-
-
(75.0)
14.6)
(27.9)
:
(12.0)
Bank
(b)
May 4, 1979
47,000
(20,000)
(10 000)
(8.O000
(5,000)
Works
Construction:
Agri
(accumulated)
(15,000)
(8,000)
(4,000)
(3,000)
Bank
Right
IV. Agricultural
or Rehabilitated
Land
Land
District
Constructioo:
III.
1982
IV
Rehabilitation:
(a)
1981
1
Construction:
(c)
1980
Distritc
Rehabilitation:
II.
Total
Works
Unit
(b)
Schedule
Development
Ares Under
Extent.ion
Research
- Lawd Clearíng
Production
Program
and Studíes
ard
(accumulative)
Leveling
-
-
(3,040)
0
1984
1985
4.06
4abla
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION FROJECT
Detalled
Cost
Faente
(a)
(d)
Eogi.eeiíg-el
(e)
IOde-oieatioc
Total
Foerte
(a)
Civil
On Farr
(b)
618.4
10.6
143.8
0.9
17.7
0.9
792.3
16.2
0.2
3.7
0.1
0.5
0.1
20.8
11.2
0.2
2.7
0.0
0.3
0.0
14.4
27.4
0.4
6.4
0.1
0.8
0.1
35.2
41
166.4
98.6
265.0
115.5
6r5.6
184.1
281.9
167.2
449.1
7.4
4.3
11.7
5.1
3.1
8.2
12.5
7.4
19.9
41
89.7
99.7
0.4
4.0
4.4
90
170.1
-
170.1
5.5
-
5.5
0
28.4
-
28.4
1.2
-
1.2
0
39.6
26.6
66.2
40
21.8
1,489.5
890.9
598.6
289.3
42.9
452.0
784.2
201.0
490.3
12.9
8.9
29.8
314.1
544.9
72.7
766.1
1,329.1
1.9
20.1
34.9
1.3
14,0
24.2
20.7
110.8
131.5
14.3
77.0
91.3
35.0
187.8
222.8
0.9
4.9
5.8
District
and Drainaga
NBetork
od Driage
Net-rk
a
3.2
34.1
59.1
41
0.7
3.4
4.1
1.6
8.3
9.9
41
41
41
D-velpoaP-t
Load Clearisg
Lod Levelisg
Subtotal
(o)
Equipment
6.3
56.5
62.8
0.3
2.5
2.8
90
(d)
Engineering-/
155.2
-
155.2
6.9
-
6.9
0
(a) Indeonizatios
53.3
-
53.3
2.3
-
2.3
0
50.2
30.8
81.0
38
Agricultlral
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
for
Sinabla
Total
(a)
(e)
(d)
(e)
taffxteasto-Salaries
f
Mobilizatioa
CosatDeo-nstration
Pogras Costo
Exteasion
Research
Agrioclt-ral
1,823.2
Pro-ra-
Buildings
(b)Eqi.g.81
Ibquipo--tlalala
1a-ren..ta1
lCos1
MIsc.llan-o-Toebhícal
Studiís-
Total
692.7
1,130.5
Elteosio
Agriccltaral
Agnicult-ral
and Masntleoace
Operatio
District
BuildinSsdl
Eqipmdnt-a
Iacrea..ala
Incre-eatal
Agricultíral
Misoellaneo-
Total
V.
253.5
4.3
59.0
0.4
7.2
0.4
324.8
Works
Laft Bok
Irrigation
Right Bnk
Malo Canal
Irrgation
ubtotal
IV.
Foretgn
Exchange
364.9
6.3
84.8
0.5
10.5
0.5
467.5
10.0
Distriit
Itrígatios
Sicalca
and Mainte--ace
fon Operation
(o) Equipment
III.
Total.
-------
Oc Far,o Decelopreot
Load L-eli"s
Load Rclaoation
S.btot.1
II.
9
Fori
US$ M-
Wonk
Network
Ir-igation
Flomes
Measaring
Draoiagoa Ntwork
Hlosas fon Ditchriders
Feeder Roads
Telecoee,eo,lcatloc
Subtotal
(b)
-----
Distriet
Irriatio-
Civil
Local
_
Total
------------
Foreig
Local
_1.
EL.stlle!/
Program
1.8
0.4
152.4
7.0
5.4
19.5
1.2
3.9
10.6
-
3.0
4.3
152.4
17.9
5.4
19.0
0.1
0.0
6.8
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.5
-
0.1
0.2
6.8
0.8
0.2
0.8
41
90
0
59
0
0
186.5
15.5
202.0
8.2
0.7
8,9
8
oad StIdios
1.5
Ras-h
ad
Rese-cnh
Stcfft!l
Stodies
1.0
2.5
1.2
1.3
0.1
41
-
2.1
1.2
2.3
0
0
0
5
L1.2
7.0
17
0,1
2.3
27.0
29.3
0.1
47.5
26.7
51.8
_
47.5
26.7
51.8
2.i
1.2
2.3
1Z9.8
i8.0
151.8
0.0
90
Costiagoacie
(a)
(b)
PhysicaI
Contiageey
Price
Coati.geaccia-
Total
1s
Cotiagoacias
279.0
1,100.2
198.0
377.3
477.0
1,471.5
12.3
49.0
8.8
16.5
21.1
65.5
1,379.2
569.3
1,948.5
61.2
25.3
8b.6
29
5,620.0
165.1
249.7
34
3,715.9
GRABD TOTAL
1,904.1
i December 1978 pricee.
- c--t
es.i. ate expressed
Di-arrpencies
d.
tlo nousdiag
US$1.0 = Me.$22.5.
esti.atad
at 10% cf civil
works,
facilitiea.
scte-íioa
aad deer
atralios
--oshicíes,
faro eqolpralt,
IncOadas
drilling
rigs,
dl
e
.acremeatal
.tase.ia staff
end po-eating
cost.
aould fisance
d-aric
ai year paraid
el Prcject
T/ Basad oc as-ual d-o--stratios
plot areca
cf about 600 ha.
eqoipaest.
1aboratory
and office
faro equip-ent,
/Iscldeo
vahiclea,
durlíg
ala year periad.
salaries
re--arch
staff
iacremeatal
-o-ld fin-ace
h/
Projact
dríai
tests.
study -and tile
dra-iaga
.e.corcos,
water
cf additi-oal
d-v-lop-ant
TlIclude.
cosía.
works and eqsip-eat
ad 107. of eagí...ring
at 157. cf civil
coatiag-aciea
estiiated
Fhysical
Pi
as follows,
esciraled
k/
Prico coatisgatccis
1979
1980
1981-85
al
b/
El lagiíoen-ia
Escha,ge
Fareiga
Fcorign
E-sehoge
Lo-a
Cosía
May 4,
1979
Civil
works
Eqoip-ot
77.
7r.
67.
05%
67.
107.
77.
61
6.5'4
84.6
-
4.07
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Schedule
1980
1981
M$
M
Mex
US$S
1. Fuerte
(a)
Irrigation
Civil
On Farm Development
2.9
(e) Equipxnt
II.
for
(d)
Engineering
(e)
Indemnization
Fuerte
Sinaloa
(a)
Operation
124.4
22.6
7.0
154.0
197.5
57.9
7.6
263.0
8.3
2.0
0.2
10.5
187.0
44.0
4.0
235.0
5.3
0.9
6.2
121.0
19.3
140.3
65.0
5.8
132.0
7.2
162.0
4.0
89.7
2.2
50.8
2.2
48.9
-
0.9
21.9
1.8
39.5
1.8
USMMM
U
1985
51ex M
US$
Total
Mex$ M
Mex$
US$
M
-
39.7
-
-
28.0
6.4
0.8
35.2
629.9
143.8
18.6
792.3
-
19.9
449.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
99.7
23.0
-
-
-
-
5.5
124.1
-
1.0
_-
0.3
8.1
0.3
8.1
0.4
8.8
0.2
3.4
-
-
-
-
1.2
13.1
299.8
21.8
491.5
19.9
445.5
11.4
256.4
-
-
-
-
66.2
1,493.6
28.4
2.1
4,5
6.6
46.2
103.9
150.1
8.7
13.5
22.2
195.9
302.6
498.5
7.1
13.2
20.3
159.9
295.8
455.7
3.9
6.1
10.0
88.3
136.5
224.8
-
-
-
-2
-
2l8
37.3
59.1
490.3
838.8
1,329.1
0.7
17.0
3.7
83.8
2.8
62.0
2.7
60.0
-
9.9
222.8
0.9
21.0
0.4
10.0
0.6
12.9
0.9
18.9
-
-
-
-
2.8
62.8
16.7
2.6
58.2
2.3
51.8
1.3
28.5
-
6.9
0.8
17.3
0.7
17.0
0.7
17.0
-
2.3
29.7
667.8
26.7
599.4
15.6
349.2
_
-
81.0
Infrastructure
On Farm Develop-mnt
(c)
Equipment
(d)
Engineering
0.7
(e)
Indemnization
0.1
Sinaloa
for
Operation
and Maintenance
District
Agricultural
Extension
IV.
Agricultural
Research
9.0
Program
and Studies
Total
Physical
Contingencies
Pri-e
Contingencies
rounding.
206.8
_
_
2.1
0.8
18.5
1.1
24.7
1.2
29.0
1.6
37.0
47.7
2.1
47.3
8.9
24.7
1.3
29.3
1.5
34.3
1.1
24.7
0.9
20.3
1.1
24.7
7.0
24.0
540.0
53.9
1,212.8
49.3
29.7
668.3
3.0
68.0
3.2
72.0
76.5
128.3
7.4
18.3
166.5
411.8
6.6
21.2
3.8
15.8
85.3
355.5
2.0
_
45.0
-
2.4
54.0
21.1
65.5
744.8
79.6
5.0
113.0
5.6
126.0
249.7
33.1
due to
2.0
1.1
3.4
5.7
GRANDTOTAL
1979
1984
MexSSM
M
District
111.
May 4,
US$S$
8,8
2.6
0.3
11.7
(b)
Discrepancies
1983
Mex$
US
Works
Irrigation/Drainage
Left Bank
Right Bank
Subtotal
a/
and Maintenance
District
Irrigation
Civil
Total
1982
M
Works
5.5
1.0
0.3
6.8
Total
Expenditure-/
District
Irrigation
Infrastructure
Drainage
Infrastrueture
Roads and Telecommunication
Subtotal
(b)
of
1,792.1
77.1
1,109.3
148.5
477.0
1,734.8
49.3
1,109.1
-
163.1
155.2
53.3
1,823.2
202.0
157.8
3,670.4
477.0
1,471.5
5,620.0
46
Table 4.09
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIOSINALOA IRRIGATIONPROJECT
DisbursementSchedule
IBRD Fiscal Year and Quarter
AccumulativeDisbursements
at End of Quarter
US$ Million
1980
September30, 1979
December31, 1979
March 31, 1980
June 30, 1980
_
2
1981
September30, 1980
December31, 1980
March 31, 1981
June 30, 1981
6
8
10
14
1982
September30, 1981
December 31, 1981
March 31, 1982
June 30, 1982
20
28
35
42
1983
September30, 1982
December31, 1982
March 31, 1983
June 30, 1983
50
57
64
70
1984
September30, 1983
December 31, 1983
March 31, 1984
June 30, 1984
75
79
82
84
1985
September30, 1984
December31, 1984
March 31, 1985
June 30, 1985
85
86
87
88
1986
September30, 1985
December 31, 1985
March 31, 1986
June 30, 1986
March 9, 1979
89
90
91
92
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATIONPROJECT
Operatíon and Maintenance Costs
(Mex$11,000ma)
Fuerte
Gravity
Diverted
Water
Irrigationand Drainage Works Operation
Maintenance
Operation and Maintenance of Pumps
Sinaloa
Water Pumped
From Wells
Water
Pumped From
Fuerte River
Gravity
Diverted
Water
Water Pumped
From Wells
13.70
13.70
13.70
13.70
13.70
26.35
26.35
26.35
26.35
26.35
-
47.00
23.00
-
56.00
Management and Administration
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
Miscellaneous
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
99.55
75.55
Total
52.55
52.55
108.55
March 12, 1979
(D
¿4'
1-'
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Extension Program
Phased Incremental Program Costs (Mex$ '000)
1. Investments Costs
PY-1
PY-2
1,500
800
950
1,500
450
300
600
3,550
PY-3
PY-4
PY-5
PY-6
Total
-
-
3,000
800
1,900
100
100
1,600
200
100
100
7,300
10,500
6,800
3,910
15,000
10,000
3,910
20,400
13,200
3,910
20,400
13,200
3,910
79,800
51,800
20,740
1,376
250
350
1,720
425
350
2,365
625
350
3,139
825
350
3,139
825
350
12,728
3,162
2,050
900
900
900
900
900
900
5,400
D. Other Operational Costs
1,800
2,800
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
19,000
Sub-total Operational Costs
14,956
22,121
28,205
36,750
46,324
46,324
194,680
18,506
24,671
29,005
36,950
46,424
46,424
201,980
Buildings and Office Equipment
Vehicles (pick-up) at 160,000
Tractor and Implementation
Information and Demonstration Equipment
Subtotal Investments Costs
-
-
500
-
300
200
2,550
800
5,400
3,400
1,955
8,100
5,200
3,145
989
212
300
-
-
II. Operational Costs
A. Incremental Salariesal
Agriculturalists at 300,000
Intermediate Technicians at 200,000
Support Staff at 85,000
B. Incremental Vehicle Costs
Pick-up Rental at 43,000/unit
Motorcycle Rental at 12 ,500/unit
Operation Official Vehicles
C. CIAPAN Demonstration Programs
(600 ha/year)
III. Total
a/ Salary plus related costs for social security, lfe
March 22, 1979
insurance, leave allowance, etc.
>
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Research Program and Technical Studies
Phased Incremental Program Costs (Mex$000)
PY-1
PY-2
Buildings and Office Equipment
Equipment
Vehicles (pick-up)
Scientific Instruments
Office and Laboratory Equipment
Information and Documentation, Equipment
and Supplies
1,000
11,500
1,280
400
300
600
1,000
11,500
800
300
300
400
Subtotal Research Investment Costs
15080
I. Research Investment Costs
PY-3
PY-4
PY-5
PY-6
Total
200
200
200
200
2,500
23,000
3,200
700
600
1,800
14,300
1,340
680
200
200
31,800
500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
480
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
640
II. Research Operational Costs
Incremental Salaries
Other Operational Costs
4,134
2,322
6,201
3,483
8,268
4,644
9,646
5,418
9,646
5,418
9,646
5,418
47,541
26,703
Subtotal Research Operational Costs
6,456
9,684
12,912
15,064
15,064
15,064
74,244
4,200
4,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
3,600
17,800
25,736
27,984
34,252
25,744
25,264
18,864
157,844
III. Technical Studies
IV. Total
May 2, 1979
o..
C>
50
MEXICO
Table 6.01
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Cropping
Pattern,
Production,
Gross and Net Value of Production
Areas
Crops
Sinaloa
(-ha)
A. Present
Total
Physical
Cropping
Area
Intensity
Possible Additional
B. Future
Without
Area
Physical
Area
Intensity
Possible
Additional
18,240
13,320
16,080
33,660
37,800
78,400
29,450
120,000
26,640
23,880
18,720
84,000
5,850
158,140
39,877
94,068
97,614
156,492
199,920
153,140
278,400
76,990
25,790
37,440
20,160
20,475
96,596
38,320
70,350
66,231
83,580
87,416
89,745
176,500
35,007
12,617
15,595
11,984
14,175
61,544
1,557
23,718
31,383
72,912
112,504
63,395
101,900
41,988
13,173
121,535
8,176
6,300
798,121
560
3
7,600
7,400
20,100
9,900
21,000
19,600
15,500
10,000
7,400
1,990
1,540
1,400
4,500
40,400
87,550
127.950
-
-
33,000
80,000
113,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
1097%
113%
43,000
40,000
83,000
2,100
600
1,200
4,500
13,200
2,000
8,300
7,400
4,100
300
200
2.600
5,000
5,500
16,500
5,500
9,000
20,000
10,000
2,900
3,100
1,700
1,400
1,400
2,000
7,100
6,100
17,700
10,000
22,200
22,000
18,300
10,300
7,200
2,000
1,600
1,400
4,600
46,500
84,000
130,500
33,000
70,000
103,000
140%
Area
NPV
Mex$ '000
1.358,506
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
120%
127%
43,000
50,000
93,000
10,000
500
20,000
500
20,000
5,000
23,000
7,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
12,000
2,000
30,000
2,000
30,000
25,000
17,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,600
1,400
2.000
22,000
2,500
50,000
2,500
50,000
30,000
40,000
11,000
5,000
4,000
3,600
1,400
4 000
2.4
1.8
0.8
3.4
1.8
4.0
1.9
12.0
3.6
12.0
12.0
60.0
1.3
17,040
10,980
14,160
34,000
39,960
88,000
34,770
123,600
25,920
24,000
19,200
84,000
5,980
-
183,095
39,528
74,340
156,740
193,806
278,960
249,475
286,752
99,014
27,153
38,400
37,800
20,930
-
-
90,241
31,598
61,950
66,900
88,356
98,120
105,957
181,795
34,056
12,680
16,208
11,954
14,490
1,685,993
871.658
-
-
-
-
-
92,854
7,930
12,390
89,840
105,450
180,840
143,518
104,957
64,958
14,473
22,192
25,816
6,440
-
-
-
-
-
With Proiect
Cotton
Maize
Pulses
Rice (Paddy)
Safflower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Vegetables
Wheat
Alfalfa
Mangos
Sugarcane
Others
Total
Physical
Area
Cropping
Intensity
Possible
Additional
March 22,
2.4
1.8
0.8
3.4
1.8
4.0
1.9
12.0
3.6
12.0
12.0
60.0
1.3
5,800
6,900
19,100
5,900
9,500
17,900
8,300
3,600
3,800
1,750
1,400
1,400
2,200
-
Cropping
Total
Production
Cost
Mex$ '000
Project
Total
C. Future
GPV
Mex$ '000
1,800
500
1,000
4,000
11,500
1,700
7,200
6,400
3,600
240
160
2,300
122%'
Cotton
Maize
Pulses
Rice (Paddy)
Safflower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Vegetables
Wheat
Alfalfa
Mangos
Sugarcane
Others
Total
Production
tons
Total
ha
Situation
Cotton
Maize
Pulses
Rice (Paddy)
Safflower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Vegetables
Wheat
Alfalfa
Mangos
Sugarcane
Others
Total
Yielde
tonelha
Fuerte
7(ha)
1979
94,000
132,000
226,000
76,000
120,000
196,000
124%
Area
110%
115%
3.0
3.5
1.5
4.0
2.2
5.0
2.5
17.0
4.5
15.0
15.0
90.0
2.0
-
66,000
8,750
75,000
10,000
110,000
150,000
100,000
187,000
22,500
60,000
54,000
126,000
8,000
-
709,170
31,500
393,750
46,100
533,500
475,500
717,500
433,840
85,950
64,800
108,000
56,700
28,000
3.684.310
325,820
17,450
301,500
20,700
251,000
175,500
284,800
243,760
28,100
30,240
42,840
13,146
16,480
1.751.336
383,350
14,050
92,250
25,400
282,500
300,000
432,700
190,080
57,850
34,560
65,160
43,554
11.520
1927
-
MEXICO
RIO
FUERTE/RIO
SINALOA IRRIGATION
Profict
Futura
StAtus
A-a-g
Fara
Sita
(ha)
Produ-t-oi
st
Aertc
O.lO-
4
R80
8
4,650
f L nd
st 35% af
Aostage
Oisls-
620
50
-
70
300
-
130
30
-
Aptol 0, 1579
440
tOIs
Ltsd Ose
Proiect)
35% of
rg
ls -
(FU..lítaa
PtesentSo
P-odaotIou
So
Praduotis-el-s
1,500
3,720
100
mesas
ttst
on
rOsaaalabolo,y,
at
A
Y
580
3,000
250
ytalds"
si sstC9
Prud-tíoa
st A--toaN
Osl-s-OYs.ld
So
Itodoation
7,350
35
Status
of
(Wlthout
(Fmulles)
1,500
03
A/
'ovarsoo
b/P-oose
Ose
150
3,930
Futura
No
oduotloa
Waltad
Pst Paro
NVP
Total
All Faras
CAso-?)
NVP pat
Produti
st Aoats*a
irIOs-
Faro
(Ma$
t 35%
AvstagB,
OílOs-'
f
O-O)1W-t
No
Ptoduotlo
Prolect)
Rlghtled
NVP
Par FPat
PsIS
Total
All Fa--m
(AraM)
Reveltpaesa
Par Pror
(NrsS'000)
28.0
10.0
0
16.0
49.0
34.0
12.0
0
12.0
36.0
42.0
50.0
20.0
0
33.0
496.0
68.0
24.0
0
29.0
435.0
83.0
Nut
VP
Total
AS Faras
(MAIs )
126.0
1,245.0
280
92.0
32.0
0
43.0
37.0
109.0
38.0
0
37.0
32.0
135.0
117.4
50
-
-
177.0
-
-
177.0
88.0
211.0
-
-
211.0
106.0
264.0
132.0
-
300
-
-
354.0
-
_
354.0
106.0
423.0
-
-
423.0
126.0
529.0
159.0
-
30
-
-
657.0
_
-
657.0
20.0
785.0
-
-
785.0
24.0
962.0
29.0
atea,
l
ctoppíag
_..
p-ttar-
440
P
st 35% o
Avaag
Y
-ie
Yi,.sls
920
7,350
PROJECT
Sa-aflofar-as
s
sod
ylíld=
ore
st
s.
alar
lavels
.s
lar
atOar
lattr.
o
PEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO
Development
Investment
Item
Unit
--- Year----1
2
Tractor/Implements
0.2
90
Leveling
Land
(ha)
(10
Model
Programi
a/
Mex$)
-
3
Production
---------Cropped
Area (ha)
Farm)
ha
(000'
PROJECT
20
25
5
SINALOA IRRIGATION
------------Cost
Production
Situation
Present
GVP
NVP
------Future
Cropped
Area (ha)
Data
GVP
Project----------Cost
Production
Without
NVP
--- With Project
Cropped
Area
(ha)
at
GVP
Full
Development---Cost
Production
NVP
Soybean
1.5
21,750
6,940
14,810
1.8
26,100
8,330
17,770
2.0
28,600
11,070
17,530
Sorghum
1.8
16,070
6,500
9,570
2.2
19,280
7,800
11,480
1.5
17,050
5,870
11,180
Rice
1.0
8,750
5,310
3,440
1.0
8,750
5,310
3,440
0.1
1,800
Pulses
1.7
4,140
3,790
3,350
1.7
7,140
3,790
3,350
2.6
24,570
1,020
650
10,450
540
1,150
14,120
480
Maize
0.6
3,650
2,150
1,500
0.6
3,650
2,150
1,500
0.1
Vegetables
0.8
22,270
8,000
14,270
1.0
27,840
10,000
17,840
0.6
23,660
7,220
16,440
Other
0.4
2,370
1,550
0.4
2,370
1,540
0.2
1,540
470
1,070
Cotton
0.6
12,290
4,710
7,580
0.7
14,380
5,510
8,870
1.1
27,770
8,480
19,290
Safflower
1.9
13,730
6,360
7,370
2.2
15,900
7,360
8,540
2.6
24,310
11,180
13,130
Wheat
0.7
4,880
2,570
2,310
0.7
4,880
2,570
2,310
0.3
2,770
1,270
1,500
2,226
0.2
4,200
1,100
3,010
760
5,240
0.2
6,000
900
5,100
55,424
84,106
11.5
163,290
Alfalfa/Pasture
0.2
3,240
Fruit
0.1
3,000
11.3
119,140
a/
Trees
820
2,226
0.2
3,240
380
2,620
0.2
6,000
48,544
70,596
12.7
1,014
830
1,014
139,530
of the land js in
all
situation
ín which
development
a before
This model assumed
in the El Carrizo,
areas
for those
are average
yields
and in which present
production
by poor
adversely
which are not affected
Districts
and Rio Sinaloa
Rio Fuerte
js generally
water
of irrigation
the supply
aud for which
accumulation
and salt
drainage
situations
those
present
to reflect
are presented
No models
The FRR is 23%.
adequate.
and from which
or poor drainage
by salination
are affected
the lands
(i)
in which
are not yet in
the
laude
or (ii)
areas;
35% of the non-affected
about
is only
production
two situations
latter
in these
of farmers
The majority
due to no irrigation.
production
be
will
investrents
that
the FRR on their
assumed
aud it can be safely
own 10 ha or less
for the above.
than that
higher
even
59,290
104,000
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Development Model
a/
(10 ha Farm)
Investment Program (000' Mex$)
Item
Unit
Tractor/Implements
Land Leveling (ha)
0.2
9
------Year-3
1
2
42
42
90
4
42
Production Data
---------Present Situation----------Cost
Cropped
NVP
Production
GVP
Area (ha)
-------Future Without Project-------Cost
Cropped
NVP
Production
GVP
Area (ha)
--With Project at Full Development--Cost
Cropped
NVP
Production
GVP
Area (ha)
Soybean
0.5
3,660
2,310
1,350
-
-
-
-
2.0
28,600
11,070
17,530
Sorghum
0.5
4,660
1,800
2,660
0.5
4,460
1,800
2,660
1.5
17,050
5,870
11,180
Rice
3.5
27,560
9,290
18,270
3.0
23,620
7,965
15,655
0.1
1,800
650
1,150
Pulses
1.0
3,290
2,230
1,060
0.5
1,650
1,120
530
2.6
24,570
10,450
14,120
Maize
0.5
3,040
1,780
1,260
0.5
1,780
1,520
260
0.1
1,020
540
480
Vegetables
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
23,660
7,220
16,440
Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
1,540
Cotton
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
27,770
8,480
19,290
Safflower
1.0
7,220
3,345
3,875
0.5
3,610
1,670
1,940
2.6
24,310
11,180
13,130
Wheat
1.0
6,970
3,670
3,300
0.5
3,440
1,840
1,600
0.3
2,770
1,270
1,500
Alfalfa/Pasture
0.5
8,100
3,325
4,775
0.5
8,100
3,325
4,775
0.2
4,200
1,190
3,010
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
6,000
27,750
36,550
6.0
46,660
19,240
27,420
Fruit
Trees
8.5
64,300
11.5
163,290
1,070
470
5,100
900
59,290
4
a/ Model for an "average" farm ín salíne area.
The FRR is 25%.
uD
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO
SINALOA IRRIGATION
Detailed Labor Reguirements
Labor Reguirements
Without Project
With Project
Incremental
Sorghum
Wheat
12
19
15
20
8
11
10
13
7
5
3
3
Soybeans
Costs
Project,
Y'resent/Future
Witb
3,500
Project,
Costs-a
4
per
Rice
Other
6
9
13
17
13
17
55
65
75
105
12
15
60
70
30
33
3
4
4
10
30
3
10
3
Cotton
tables Alfalfa
hectare--------
2,250
300
300
1,960
400
420
1,950
400
460
2,450
760
200
2,050
180
310
2,610
700
600
990
50
200
3,200
350
780
1,300
450
1,700
2,400
950
600
100
60
180
1,590
400
60
60
90
850
620
50
60
80
1,060
670
210
60
80
1,165
865
-
60
250
90
1,380
1,000
-
60
80
635
665
60
90
1,380
380
790
120
100
5,830
1,540
1,450
1,800
2,100
7,950
900
200
120
200
1,270
6;0
5,180
4,460
4,730
5,790
3,980
6,690
3,150
12,710
17,650
6,340
10,130 8,56C
1,560
500
1,850
2,750
l,0S0
8i'0
800 2,450
300
390
450 1,100
1,800
2i0
2,000
1í:0
2,300
2.0
11,130
1,530
1,02(0
8t0
850
350
120
120
400
110
7,420 3,500
1,560 1,370
1,550
950
300
2,500
400
500
2,350
700
620
2,250
420
560
2,800
840
400
2,300
220
500
2,930
840
770
1,200
90
400
3,750
460
1,000
280
90
250
2,010
600
200
100
360
2,120
800
80
90
120
1,170
720
50
80
120
1,380
760
250
80
120
1,590
1,040
50
80
115
955
800
465
320
130
1,805
1,020
50
60
110
1,760
450
790
120
140
6,890
1,660
Total
6,030
6,980
5,850
5,62C
7,120
5,020
8,280
4,120
14,810
Incremental Prod.
Cost
2,530
1,800
1,390
890
1,330
1,040
1,590
970
2,100
4.0
5.0
3.6
4.5
1. 9
2.5
Yield Assumptíons
700
120
300
6,360
1,200
330
120
100
3,180
1,290
22,160
7,5f3
4,510
l,220
1,770
|/ Data used il analysis
0.8
1.5
úf
1.8
3.5
1.8
2.2
3.4
4.0
1.3
2.0
2.4
3.[0
12 0
1l
10.0
15.0
12.0
17.0
farm budgets.
b/ Labor figures include family labor but excíLude the machine operators who are included in custor cúerati- S.
1979
2,200
390
950
11,900 9,390
830
(tons per ha)
Wjthout Project
With Project
5,
800
300
350
Full Developnient
Custom Operations
Seeds
Fertílizers
Pesticides and
Herbicides
Implements
and Tools
Harvesting Supplies
Labor b/
Miscellaneous
April
Mango Cane
Situation
Custom Operations
1,020
Seeds
450
Fertilizers
100
Pesticides
and
Herbicides
150
Implements and Tools
60
Harvesting
Supplies
150
Labor b/
1,270
Miscellaneous
300
Total
Safflower
11
15
pesos
Without
and Production
(man days/ha)
Pulses Maize
Production
PROJECT
60.0i
90.0
u
;
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT
Rent
Proposed
3,000
4 ha farms
Indices-/
and Recovery
870
13 ha farms
15-000
8 ha farns
Net cash
Net cash
income
income
3.
Incremental
cash
less:
4.
Imputed
5.
Imputed
6. Imputed
7.
Rent
8.
Rent
value
value
return
with project
project
without
income
(1-2)
9O
10.
Water charges
taxes
Benefit
11.
Total
direct
12.
Rent
recovery
13.
Public
14.
Cost
15.
Annual
income
16.
Annual
per
17-
Estimated
of incrsmental
693.0
553.8
833.2
666.2
154.8
123.9
9,495.7
3,985.8
472.5
4,252.5
447.8
139.2
167.0
30.9
5,509.9
47.3
income
(9+10)
charges/taxes
index
sector
per
capita
per
capita
69.3
-
-
425.3
3,142.6
44.6
-
-
-
6.8
14.2
1.6
3.1
8.4
16.8
333.9
118.2
141.8
74%
85%
85%
85%
61.9
42.0
11.6
7.8
26.2
74%
35.2
24.2
352.8
239.4
33.0
22.6
51.5
35.2
59.4
592.2
55.6
86.7
103.9
177o
17%
17%
737.
73%
737.
295.7
455.7
547.8
101.8
19'h
197.
19%
index
recovery
684.6
74%
315.1
outlays
--------------------------
616.9
169.1
-
cash
Total 19, 700
Farms
6,536.3
2,283.8
351.7
as percentage
30
130 ha farras
661.5
189.0
73.5
labor
of family
for management
and risk
to capital
300
Ue 0 ha farms
Mex$ miliort-
- --------------------------------------1.
2.
500
35 ha farms
3,131.7
19%
19%
197h
n.4.
827.4
16.8
551.3
4,114.4
75%
546.0
371.2
917.2
227.
4,847.8
197.
family
at full
development
(Mex$)
38,240
75,480
122,770
231,100
463,200
855,100
82,944
income
at full
development
(Mex$)
6,709
13,242
21,539
40,543
81,263
150,018
14,552
poverty
level
(Mex$)
7,762
at 11% over 40 years.
al Discounted
otherwise.
b/ Unless indicated
April
6,
1979
a)
MEX 1C(
RIO FUERTE/RIO
SINALOA IRRI(A1
(N PROJECT
Econoisic
Costs
and Benefits
(Mex$ mi~llion)
Year
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Sinaloa
Investment
Costs
215.9
116.3
130.9
157.1
530.3
971.7
314.8
114.6
15.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
lrrigation
Operation
Maintenance
-
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
Fro.jct
and
Costs
(Loan
Total
Costs
215.9
116.3
130.9
157.1
530.3
971,7
314.8
114.6
84.6
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
970-ME)
Incremental
Benefito
0.0
0.0
6.9
14.1
61.2
135.5
233.8
284.2
269.9
424.9
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.]
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
467.1
ERR 127.
Fuerte/Rio
Investment
Costs
Sinaloa
irrigation
Pro ject
Operation
and
Total
Increment.]
Maintenance
Costs
Costs
Beneiits
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
613.1
1,366.9
1,256.7
753.6
61.7
61.7
-
-
613.1
1,366.9
1,256.7
753.6
130.7
144.2
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
292.0
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
292.0
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
292.0
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
292.0
129.5
129.5
47.7
135.7
366.6
692.1
870.9
966.4
1,013.4
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
1,061.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
69.0
82.5
129.5
129.5
12935
129.5
292.0
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
292.0
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
292.0
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
292.0
129.5
129UM
-
FRR 17.9%
Comh. Sinaloa
Investment
Costa
215.9
1]6.3
130.9
157.1
530.3
971.7
928.7
1,481 5
1,272.4
753.6
61.7
61.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Irrig
and
Operation
Maintenance
Rio Fuerte/Rio
and
Total
Costs
Costs
-
215.9
116.3
130.9
157.1
-
530.3
68.9
68.9
137.9
151.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
360.9
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
360.9
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
360.9
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
360.9
198.1
198.4
971.7
928.7
1,481.5
1,341.3
822.5
199.6
213,1
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
360.9
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
360.9
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.4
360.9
198.4
198.4
198&4
198A4
198.4
198.4
360.9
198.1
19M4
Sinaloa
Pr
Incremental
Benefits
-
6.9
14.1
34.5
82.1
178.2
275.2
408.4
720.7
964.0
1,142.8
1,290.4
1,323.8
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
1,357.3
ERR 13.47.
H
a/
April
The incremental
benefits
on the Sinaloa
project
and the Rio Fuerte/Rio
Sinaloa
project
exceed
the incresental
bnefilto
of the combined
(íntegrated)
project
as the incremental
benefits
on the Sinaloa
project
have been calculated
on the basis
that
the proposed
Sinaloa/Fuerte
project
would not be carried
out.
Consequently,
the already
irrigated
ar-as
-o,ld
achiese
hígher
cropping
iL.ensiLies
than could be reached
when the water
has been distributed
over
a larger
area.
6, 1979
o
57
ANNEX 1
MEXICO
SELECTED DOCUMENTSAND DATA AVAILABLE IN THE PROJECT FILE
A
-
Economic Evaluationof the Project Components
1. Proyecto de Rehabilitación - Distrito de Riego N°75 - Rio Fuerte. Datos
Generales.SARH, Los Mochís, 8/78
2. Proyecto Rio Sinaloa, Sin - Actualizaciónde la EvaluacíónEconómica.
SARH, D. G. de Planeaci6n,8/78
3. Proyecto de Rehabilitaciónde la la., 4a. y 5a - Unidades del Distrito
de Riego N°75, Valle del Fuerte, Sin - EvaluaciónEcon6mica y Análisis
Financieros.SARH, D.G. de Planeación,8/78
4. Proyectos Rio Sinaloa,Sin y de Rehabilitaciónde la la,, 4a. y 5a.
Un,idadesdel Distrito de Riego Valle del Fuerte, Sin - Análisis
Económicosy FinancierosAdicionales.SARH, D.G. de Planeacio6n,
10/78
5. Estimación de la ComponenteExtetrnade los costos Directos de Inversión,
SAR, D.G. de Planeacíin, (segun datos de 1975)
B
-
Engineering Data
1. Proyecto Sinaloa - Mapas de la Margen Izquierda.SARR, Los Mochís, 6/78
2. Proyecto Sinaloa - Mapas de la Margen Derecha. SARH" Los Mochis, 6/78
3. Rio Fuerte - Mapas de Trabajos dleIrrigacióny Drenaje de la Rehabilitación
la., 4a. y 5a. unidades. SAEJR,Los Mochis, 9/78
4. Río Fuerte - Maps of works, tenure, soíls and tabulatíons.SARH, Los
MoDchis, 9/78
5. Río Fuerte - Backgroundmaterial. SARH, Los Mochis
6. Marg,enIzquierda- Rio Sinaloa - Pozos de observación del Monto Freático
SARR, Los Mochis, 9/78
7. Sinaloa and Fuerte Components- Mapas de pozos. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78
8. Programa - Cantidadesde Obra Proyecto Rio Sinaloa. SARH, Los Mochis, 6/78
9. SalinityProblems in Rio Fuerte. Banks Mission, M. Fireman, 9/78
10. Drainage Problems in Rio Fuerte. Banks Mission, Mr.Houston, 2/79
11. Estudio de la FactibilidadHidrológicadel Proyecto de Rehabilitación.
SARH, 10/78
12. Sinaloa/Fuerte- Bacurato Dam - Maps and BackgroundMaterial, SARH, Los
M[ochis,6/78
13. Fuerte - Land Leveling - Maps and Evaluation.SARH, Los Mochis, 8/78
14. Sinaloa/Fuerte- Standard Structures- Plans. SARH, Los Mochis, 6/78
15. Sinaloa/Fuerte- HistoricalExpendituresin the Project Area. SARH,
Los Mochis, 1975-78
16. Sinaloa/Fuerte- Operation and Maíntenance.SARH, Los Mochis, 1975-77
17. Programa de Actividades durante el año 1978. SARN, Lcs Mochis
18. Maps of the 3 units of Rio Fuerte. SARH, Los Mochis
C
-
Agriculture Data
1. Demanda de los PrincipalesPro,ductos
Agropecuarios.SARH, D.G.de
Planeación,1978
2. ConsumosAparentes. S.A.G. y D.G.E.A., 1971-75
3. SalariosMínimos. Comisi6nNacional de los SalariosMínimos, 1977-78
4. Informe - Distrito de Riego N°63 - Sector Campesino,Banco de Crédito
Rural, Asociacionesde Agricultuores.SARH, Los Mochis, 10/78
5. Fuentes de Crédito. SARH, Los Mochis, 10/78
- 58 -
6. Relacionesde Bodega de Almacenamiento.SARH, Los Mochis, 10/78
7. Relación de Insumos Proporcionadosdurante el ciclo 1977-78. SARH,
Los Mochis, 10/78
8. Localizaciónde IndustriasEstablecidasen el Valle del Fuerte. SARE,
Los Mochis, 10/78=
9. Asoc. de Agricultoresdel Rio Fuerte - Informe de Actividades Desarrolladas durante el bienio 1975-76
10. CONASUPO 1976 - México D.F., 12/75
11. Programa de CapacitaciónPermanente- El Carrizo. SARH, 6/78
12. Tecnologíay Rentabilidaddel Cultivo del Maíz en el Valle de Culican,
Sin. SARH, 12/77
13. Análisis de Costos de ProducciónAgrocpecuaria(Computada).SARH,
D.G. de Planeación, 1978
14. Estudio Agrol6gicoDetallado - la. Unidad Distrito Riego N°75. SARH,
D.G. de Planeación, 1978
15. Residenciaen Culiacan, Sin - 4a. unidad N°75. SARH, D.G.de Planeacinn,1973
16. Residenciaen Culiacan, Sin - 52. unidad N°75. SARH, D.G.de Planeación, 1972
17. Plano Predial la. Unidad. SARH, Los Mochis, 1978
18. Plano Predial 2a. Unidad. SARH, Los Mochis, 1978
19. Plano Predial 3a. Unidad. SARH, Los Mochis, 1978
20. Rio Fuerte - Rehabílitaciónla., 4a. y 5a. Unidad. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78
21. Cuadro Analítico de supercicies sembradas- Fuerte. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78
22. Varios cuadros de superficie,produccióny valor de las cosechas en el
ciclo Agrícola. SARH, Los Mochis, 1978
23. Evaluacióneconómica y Social de la SubestaciónAgrc'iolaExperimental
para los Municipios de San Ignacio, Cosala y Elota en el Estado de
Sinaloa. Chiapan-Guasave,1978
24. Informe de ProducciónAgrícola por Unidades Ciclo 1972-73. SARH, Los Mochis
25. Informe de ProducciónAgrícola por Unidades Ciclo 1973-74. SARH, Los Mochis
26. Informe de ProducciónAgrícola por Unidades Ciclo 1974-75. SARH, Los Mochis
27. Informe de ProducciónAgrícola por Unidades Ciclo 1975-76. SARH, Los Mochis
28. Informe de ProducciónAgrc'iolapor Unidades Ciclo 1976-77. SARH, Los Mochis
29. EstadísticaAgrícola de los Distritos de Riego Ciclo 1975-75. SARH, 10/76
30. EstadísticaAgrícola de los Distritos de Riego Ciclo 1975-76. SAHN, 8/77
D
-
Technical Assistance
1. Programa de Asistencia Técnica - Proyecto de Rehabilítacióndel Distrito
N°75 - Rio Fuerte. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78
2. Programa de AsistenciaTécnica - Integrale InvestigaciónAgrícola.
Distrito N°63 - Rio Sinaloa. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78
MEXICO
RIO FUERTE/RIOSINALOAIRRIGATION PROJECT
OrganizationChart
SARH Rnpreseraasíe
SinaloaState
.
SARH Coordinator
Northe-r Sinaloa
r
Chnf-s lgatioanadLoecotí
Dmstrarcts
Directors of StenningCorniatees
1 Rio S.inaloa
Steertng
Chief Major Hydrauli
Infrastr`cutre Programs
NortheinSinaloa
2. Rio Fuerte
El Carrizo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~3.
l
Comm,ittaaee
esresenratives of
1 Epjos end Comuneros
2 Smiall Holders ad Colono.
3 State Gonernmert
4 AgraraR5 BNCR
6 Pr-vatr banks
7 ANAGASA
8. CONASUPO
9 PRONASE
10. Guanosv- Feniizartes
11 INIA Research Certer
CIAPAN
|
|
1
2
Credit, Rasnotr, Plarat
on n , ara1
Fertiliner Supplv eto.
Unit for Economíc
Suíes and Pubcaon
Ch.et Consernaaron
Maintenan-t
-|
ChíeSAdmmnístnl;tíoe
Operatons and
Dea,lopireasa,
rLanc
dCtaín
M.ana.e nent Teams for
n Rio F t
Rehabit
2 Construction Bacurato Dan
3. Construction Rio Sinaloa let Bank
Rer Sinaloa R.ght Bank
4. Con_trnt
S. LeOd Le---Irra
6 . De"gn and Planning
7. A-ea Populatían and Rasettiemnt
Lrganmdnua
Tenure ard Indennaton
HVdrgv
aad Mainte-e
0.
Oetn
n
Supportina Unas lo,
1 Hvdroo_gy
Macainera Po..í
Finld OHyecoves
2. Statiansos
3 Denp Wells
4 Wa-er Use- Records
5
ar-gatsonDavelopm ent
Rekoblostíion and Drainage
6. Apphied Resear.ch CIAPAN)
-ard Subínnt Matter Specialists
Operation and Developmena
Units of alent 50,000 ha
1 Ag-onomí-t ICoodinatorl
Deoelopmena
Operatiaons.d
Areas of ebout 25,000 ha
1 Agronomast Aseo CoA-dínator
Op,en,tes anrdDlevelopment
Zones of about 6
.000
na
1 Agrororeíst
oEtensionOpererlots
t2 Areasí
l2Anort 31000 h. each
(Zone Chíefí
n Che"
nr
12 or 3 Seotionsl
Agr'u tura Tealnícoan
2 A9,--7
Dct.h
f1-1 Ríanis
Tnchni.íans
World Ba~nl -
Chief Admínínstrator
20103
_
". '.".\
'
. ^ 42"wMS
P
i:
DAM a
{@i6DAto@q&D;LGO
\,
e;:
e
RESROR0
X
~~~~MEXICO:
IRRIGATIONPROJECT
SINALOA/RIO FUERTE
"~~F
,|
EL CAJON
f2
\fl
i 3\\
oI
ZRIO
*
0
V
6 k/}
.....
|,
lt
B R D139553
u
:
{~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
/
l
A
0
L¡,,
.;
~~~DE
|
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~
CABRERA
>,
v
A/
\ lr , 1,''r4r , - Fin*nDnc
H' 0.
Q
M ES9>-éc2z<g
<Hft
X
~MO
\9 5 çe
/SnlRd*rAe
1 5 T r _\1i
xG .,
&
t
;0R
L
f , > ,>,-,.: Uf q4/1. / tf.-
QE
a\f
L=
e.Ee
>555rsr5~~~EL
ogr.ExY
; » ;1ó
>-i > 0r000i i
5«$~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-wl
32S
<
&
1i
i9 i i