(On-site evaluation: July 2006)
Ex-Post Monitoring for Completed ODA Loan Projects
Evaluator: Kenji Momota (IC Net, Ltd.)
Project Name: Indonesia: “Bila Irrigation Project Phases (I) (II)” (L/A No. IP-364, IP-388)
Loan Outline
Loan Amount/Disbursement Amount:

Loan Agreement:
Loan Completion
Ex-Post Evaluation
Executing Agency

Total
10,248 million yen/8,971 million yen
Phase I6,460 million yen/6,073 million yen
Phase II3,788 million yen/,898 million yen
Phase I
December 1990
Phase II
October 1992
Phase I
December 1997
Phase II
November 1998
FY 2000
Directorate of Water Resources Development, Ministry of Public Works

Project Objective:
By constructing irrigation facilities, including intake weirs, dams, aqueducts, and drainage channels for rice paddies in the central Bila river basin of South Sulawesi province, the project
aims to increase rice production by enabling irrigation of fields throughout the year, and thereby contribute to raise farmer incomes and contribute to regional economic growth.
Consultants: Nippon Koei Co Ltd., PT. BINA KARYA, PT. DARCEA, PT. IDAH KARYA (local businesses)
Contractors: PT. WIJAYA KARYA (Indonesia), Others (Phase I), PT. SAC NUSANTARA (Indonesia), Others (Phase II)
Overview of Results
Item
At time of Ex-post evaluation
At time of Ex-post Monitoring
Effectiveness&ImpactCompared to conditions at the time of the ex-post evaluation, plantedarea and unit yield showed steady increases, and thus effectiveness isdeemed high. In addition, the project has clearly helped to improve
farmers’ livelihoods through higher income, etc, and thus a favorable
impact has likewise been secured.

Effectiveness(1) Results of Irrigation (Benefited Area Measured in ha)1By 2000, the planted area had increased favorably when compared with levels
at operation start-up (1996), the end of Phase I (1997), and the end of Phase II(1998).
Table 1: Annual Planted Acreage
Target
1996
1997
1998

1999

2000

Annual14,240 14,193 17,815
18,160 19,045
h17,404
Planted(82%)(82%) (102%) (104%) (109%)aAcreage
Note: Percentages in parentheses are relative to target.
Data obtained from the South Sulawesi Water Resources
Bureau branch
office.

(1) Results of Irrigation (Benefited Area Measured in ha)
At 121% of target levels, the total planted area has increased consulting. In thedry season especially, a large increase in the planted area attests to the project’s
efficacy.
Table 1: Annual Planted Acreage
2000
Target2006
Ex-PostEvaluation
Annual planted
17,404
19,04520,994
acreage (ha)(109%) (121%)
9,747
11,187
11,247- Rainy season(115%) (115%)
7,657
7,858
9,747
- Dry season(103%) (127%)
Note: Percentages in parentheses are relative to the target.
Source: Bila Irrigation Project Office (Directorate of Water Resources
Development, Ministry of Public Works)(2) Increase in Production and Productivity
As shown in the table below, both rice production and unit yield have increased
since the time of ex-ante evaluation. At the time of the ex-post evaluation,
target rice production levels had been achieved.

(2) Increase in Production and Productivity
Both rice production and unit yield have increased favorably. In particular, dryseason production has showed an especially large increase, reaching 172% of thetarget. This can be attributed to improved seed quality and efforts on the part offarmers to safeguard against disease, in addition to the benefits of the irrigation
project.

Table 2:Actual Results for Production and Unit Yield

Table 2: Actual Results for Production and Unit Yield
2000
Target2006
Ex-anteevaluation
Rice production
106,412
144,31289,734(ton)(119%)(161%)
67,122
71,980- Rainy season
47,620(141%)(151%)
39,29072,332- Dry season
42,114(93%)(172%)
Unit rice yield in
5.0
6.0
6.4

TargetRice production(ton)Unit rice yield in
the rainy season(ton/ha)89,7345.0

1992
Ex-anteevaluation
33,520(-)

1996
Start ofoperations
76,174(85%)

2000
Ex-postevaluation
106,412
(93%)

3.1
(-)

5.5
(110%)

6.0(120%)

2

Unit rice yield in
5.5
2.8
the dry season(-)(ton/ha)Note: Figures in parentheses are relative to target.

5.0
(91%)

5.0
(91%)

(3) Recalculation of EIRR
12.4% (at time of ex-ante evaluation 7.2%)(4) Evaluation by Local Residentsa) Estimation of overall condition of irrigation facilities: over 60% indicatedthat they are satisfied.
b) Present status of irrigation facilities: over 60% responded that the sluicegates are not functioning properly.
c) Poor drainage issues: over 70% responded that their crops are being
damaged by poor drainage.
d) Degree of satisfaction with the project as a whole: 97% expressedsatisfaction, with 33% “very satisfied” and 64% “satisfied.”the rainy season(120%)(128%)(ton/ha)Unit rice yield in
5.0
7.42
5.5
the dry season(91%)(135%)(ton/ha)Total net income
144,379
N/A
91,416from rice (million(158%)*
rupiah/year)
Note: Percentages in parentheses are relative to the target.
Source: Bila Irrigation Project Office (Directorate of Water Resources
Development, Ministry of Public Works)(3) Recalculation of EIRR
EIRR was recalculated based on actual figures for the year 2006. Accordingly,
EIRR increased from 7.2% at the time of the ex-ante evaluation and 12.4% at thetime of the ex-post evaluation to 20.8% at the present time. These positive results
may be attributable to a favorable increase in the planted area, unit yield, andharvest output.

(4) Evaluation by Local Residents (No. of Respondents: 80)
Over 90% of respondents expressed satisfaction with the irrigation project as awhole. While a high degree of satisfaction was generally expressed, when it cameto the condition of facilities, some respondents felt that the functionality of
aqueducts had deteriorated.
a) Estimation of the overall condition of irrigation facilities: approx. 90% of
respondents indicated that they were satisfied.
b) Present status of irrigation facilities: 78% indicated that aqueducts were not
performing as well, due to sedimentation deposits, and 35% indicated thatsluice gates were not functioning properly.
c) Poor drainage issues: approx. 70% of respondents indicated that drainage waspoor during heavy downpours. Specific damage resulted from overflowing of
the Tedon River in which drainage flowed (In the Kechamatan Chulias regency
downstream of the river, homes are also being flooded).
d) Degree of satisfaction with the project as a whole: The level of satisfaction was3

91%, with 23% “very satisfied” and 68% “satisfied.”
Impact(1) Environmental Impacta) There are no problems with lake water pollution due to agriculturalchemicals.
b) In a survey of beneficiaries, no one indicated that the present project had
adverse effects on the environment.

(1) Environmental Impact
No problems in particular (response from executing agency).

(2) Impact of Resident Relocations and Land Acquisitiona) The government has offered suitable substitute lands and has responded
appropriately.

(2) Impact of Resident Relocations and Land Acquisition
There are no particular problems (response from executing agency).

(3) Improvement in People’s Welfare (Raised Incomes)a) Proceeds for the current project increased from 13.679 billion rupiah atoperation start in 1996 to 19.110 billion rupiah in 2000 (both figures given in
the nominal value of rupiah as of 1996). Thus, the project has contributed tohigher and more stable farmer incomes. In a survey of beneficiaries, 99% ofresidents indicated that the present project had had a favorable impact on theregional economy.

(3) Improvement in People's Welfarea) At 157.413 billion rupiah (corresponding to 39.297 billion rupiah in 1996
rupiah terms), proceeds from the present project have more than doubled since
the time of the ex-post evaluation. The project has clearly helped increase andstabilize farmer incomes.

(4) Regional Economic Growth
No particular description given at the time of the ex-post evaluation.

(4) Regional Economic Growth
Both overall GRDP and the agriculture sector have exhibited stable growth rates.
The rise in agricultural production, which accounts for 46% of GRDP, has
contributed to economic growth in the region.

b) It was not possible to obtain income figures for individual households, butaccording to a questionnaire submitted to 100 farmers, 83% responded that theirincomes had improved as a result of greater productivity. As a concrete example,
residents were of the opinion that their living environment had improved thanks
to machinery for business use (such as tractors (75%) and motorcycles (41%)),the purchase of household electrical appliances, and increased expenditure on
education.

4

Table 3: Changes in GRDP in Project Region(Two Regencies of Wajo and Sidrap)
Unit: million rupiah
Fiscal
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Total for2,698,704 2,892,108 3,098,874 3,380,351
both(7.2%)(7.1%)(9.1%)
All
regencies
Ind
1,689,314 1,767,848 1,908,596 2,079,286
Wajo
ustr
regency(4.6%)(8.0%)(8.9%)
ies
Sidrap1,009,390 1,124,260 1,190,279 1,301,066
regency(11.4%)(5.9%)(9.3%)
Total for1,400,551 1,455,570 1,513,232 1,558,478
both(3.9%)(4.0%)(3.0%)
Agr regencies
icul Wajo
836,759824,238
864,782
893,909
ture regency(-1.5%)(4.9%)(3.4%)
Sidrap563,792
631,332
648,449664,569
regency(12%)(2.7%)(2.5%)
Note: The lower figure in each cell shows the percentage change over theprevious year.
Source: Wajo Regency in Figures
Sustainability
Problems such as damage to aqueducts and insufficient budgeting for
operation and maintenance (which was pointed out in the ex-post
evaluation) remain. Daily operation and maintenance can be managedby farmers themselves, but the central government needs to take a more
active role in budgetary allocations and operation and maintenance forthe main facilities.

(1) Water Storage Facilitiesa) Technial capacity: The Bila Irrigation Project Office takes care of operationand maintenance. They handle everything from large-scale repairs to daily
activities such as cleaning and the opening and closing of dams and gates.
b) Structural organization: After project completion, project was to be(1) Water Storage Facilities (Dams/Intake Weirs)a) Technical capacity: The central government (and specifically, the Bila
Irrigation Project Office) takes care of operation and maintenance. They handle
everything from large-scale repairs to daily activities such as cleaning and theopening and closing of dams and gates.
b) Structural organization: No change since the time of the ex-post evaluation.

5

transferred to the state government, but because of its financial difficulties
transfer was never completed.
c) Financial status: N/Ad) Operation and Maintenance: Erosion was found in a part of the water
reservoir. In addition, the small hydraulic power unit for opening and closing
dams and gates broke down shortly after beginning operation (At the time ofthe ex-post evaluation, staff are opening and closing the gates manually).

c) Financial status: Budgetary allocations from the central government are
insufficient. In comparison with the 3.5 billion rupiah needed for operation andmaintenance of irrigation facilities (including the main line and secondary
channels), greatly decreased figures of 900 million rupiah (25% of the required
amount) are continuing (Over the years 2001-2005, only 35% of the necessary
budget was allocated on average). Budgetary allocation priority is lower thanneighboring irrigation projects, but at the present time, there are no major
problems with the facilities.
d) Operation and Maintenance: There have been no major increases or decreases
in the main indicators of water storage volume or discharge flow volume, and at
the present time there are no major problems. However, the central government is
continuing to fall short in its budgetary allocations. No small hydraulic power
units are being used, and the opening and closing of sluice gates is being
performed either manually or using diesel generators. The farmers areshouldering the operating costs for such things as fuel.
Table 4: Main Efficacy Indicators for Water Storage Facilities
Target
2001
2002
Water
58 63.22
74.59
storagevolumeRelative
109
129%(million to target%
3m)
Dischar37.32 32.42
37.12
ge flow
Relative
86.9
volume99.5%
to target%(m3/s)
Source: Bila Irrigation Project Office(2) Main and Branch Irrigation Channelsa) Technical capacity: After control of operation and maintenance wastransferred to the state government, they set up branch offices in each district,and staff training was conducted properly.
b) Structural organization: After project completion, control was transferred

2003

2004

2005

65.75

63.64

62.24

113%

110%

107%

34.73

37.67

28.86

93.1%

100.9%

77.3%(2) Main and Branch Irrigation Channelsa) Technical capacity: No technical problems have arisen in operation andmaintenance.
b) Structural organization: No changes since the time of the ex-post evaluation.

6

from the Bila Irrigation Project Office to the South Sulawesi Provincial
Government Directorate of Water Resources Development.
c) Financial status: Relative to the 760 million yen required, actual
distributions came to only 130 million rupiah, or 17% of the required amount(1999).
d) Operation and Maintenance: Cracks and other damage have appeared in theconcrete of parts of the main and branch channels.

c) Financial status: The local government is in charge of operation andmaintenance for branch channels. Regional tax revenue (PAD/Pendapatan Asli
Daerah) is allotted as a revenue source, and 30,000 rupiah is levied from farmers
each harvest.
d) Operation and Maintenance: Some channels have experienced lowered
functionality due to leakage and silt. This means that not enough water isdischarged from water sources to distant farmlands. Electric pumps are needed to
draw water.
Table 5: Proportion of Water Channels Having
Decreased Functionality
Secondary

Watercourse

Channels

s

Year
2003

14.0%

9.0%

2004

18.0%

10.0%

Source: Bila Irrigation Project Office(3) Watercoursesa) Technical capacity: The irrigation associations that handle operation andmaintenance positively take part in watercourse cleaning and operation.
b) Structural organization: Irrigation associations are organized by farmers. Asof the year 2000, 141 associations had been established, and 206 are expected,
meaning that only 70% of the target had been established.

(3) Watercoursesa) Technical capacity: The irrigation associations are actively taking part in daily
maintenance, and there are no major technical problems.
b) Structural organization: Some 114 irrigation associations have been
established, which is only 55% of the target. The low rate at which associations
have been established is attributed to the low functionality of watercourses.
Moreover, the number of beneficiary farming households has largely leveled off
over the past few years.
Table 6: Change in No. of Beneficiary Farming Households(Two Regencies/Four Districts)
Regenci
2001
2002
2003
2004
es

7

c) Financial status: Whereas 134 million rupiah in irrigation fees was expected
to be levied, actual collection came to only 74 million rupiah. The collection
rate is only around 55%, but is rising slightly each year.
d) Operation and maintenance: According to information from the executing
agency, parts of the watercourses have been damaged to the extent that somefunctionality has been lost.

Lessons Learned,
Recommendations,
Information Resources
and Monitoring
Methods(1) Follow up on
lessons learned andrecommendations madein ex-post evaluation
report or in later
evaluations(2) Proposals forsecuring sustainability
and instructions given attime of follow-up
monitoring

Sidrap

9,534

9,461

9,449

9,496

Wajo

9,883

9,932

9,982

10,032

Total

19,417

19,393

19,431

19,528c) Financial status: Fees of around 30,000 rupiah/ha are levied against
beneficiaries each harvest. There are no accurate statistics on the actual collection
figures, but according to a questionnaire survey with 100 subjects, 75% of
farmers responded that they do pay the full amount.
d) Operation and maintenance: All irrigation association members engage inoperation and maintenance in one form or another. In a questionnaire survey,
roughly 70% of respondents participate in association activities, performing daily
checks and maintenance. As shown in the table below, some watercourses sufferfrom decreased functionality.
It is possible that operation and maintenance will not continue to bereliable owing to the fact that the body legally in charge ofmanagement—namely, the central government—is not playing asufficient role, and because of the fact that the operation andmaintenance budget is too low, as was pointed out earlier under thesection on sustainability. We are presenting the following
recommendations for further improvement.

(1) Recommendations
・ Irrigation associations handle operation and maintenance for (1) Recommendations
watercourses, but only 70% of the number of associations has been ・ Irrigation associations are shouldering some of the operation andmaintenance for reservoirs and secondary channels—things which ought toestablished. Over the entire project region, there is a concern as tobe the responsibility of the government. The division of responsibility andwhether the facilities concerned are being properly maintained.
system for enforcing operation and maintenance among the central
・ In addition, the operation and maintenance system needs to be
government, regional governments, and water associations need to be sorted
stabilized and made more reliable by, for instance, securingout. To that end, budgetary provisions from the central government need to
sufficient budgetary allocations from the central and regionalbe secured for the operation of large-scale facilities, such as reservoirs andgovernment for operation and maintenance and by strengthening
main irrigation channels.
the organization of collecting water fees.
・

In addition to the financial troubles of the government itself, the insufficientbudgeting for operation and maintenance can also attributed to a lack of

8

awareness of the need to perform preventive maintenance. Technicaltransfers and educational activities to promote efforts for preventive
maintenance are needed.

9