Ex-Post Monitoring of Japanese ODA Loan Project
Tunisia
Treated Sewage Irrigation Project
External Monitoring Consultants: Eiko Nakamoto / Toyo Tanaka, Nakamoto & Associates Co., Ltd.

1. Project Description

Location of the Project site

Distribution valve for irrigation
Inscription in red reads:“Warning, non-potable water “

1.1 Project Objective
In 10 areas – (1) Bizerte, (2) Menzel Bourguiba, (3) Béja, (4) Medjez El Bab, (5) Jendouba, (6)Nabuel, (7) Siliana, (8) Msaken, (9) Djerba Aghir and (10) Médenine – efforts will be made toensure the stable supply of irrigation water and conserve groundwater through the development of
Tunisia’s irrigation infrastructure (water reservoirs, pumping stations, etc.) using water treated at 12
sewage treatment facilities; thereby contributing to stable agricultural production and regional
economic development.

1.2 Outline of the Loan agreement
Approved Amount / Disbursed Amount

1,707 million yen / 1,331 million yen

Loan Agreement Signing Date / Final

March 1998 / October 2005

Disbursement Date
Ex-post evaluation

2007-2008

Executing Agency

Ministry of Agriculture

Main contractor-

Main Consultant-

3-1

1.3 Background of the Ex-Post Monitoring
Rainfall is sparse in Tunisia, and most of the arable land is found in either arid or semi-arid areas.
Agricultural regions that rely primarily on rainwater frequently suffer major damage from drought.
To stabilize agricultural production and increase crop yields, development of irrigation facilities wasindispensable. On the other hand, since surface and groundwater resources are limited, securing
ample water for agricultural irrigation was a major challenge, especially in the dry season. Under
these circumstances, treated sewage was an important source of relatively stable water supply
regardless of rainy season or dry season, and so, effective utilization of this water resource wassought. Around 1965, Tunisia began implementing a series of irrigation projects based on the use oftreated sewage water for agriculture, and, on the basis of that experience, promoted development
plans (including the present project) related to sewage treatment facilities and irrigation facilities. In
accordance with this situation, this project installed infrastructures for irrigation utilizing treatedsewage from 12 sewage treatment plants in 10 regions.
However, at the time of ex-post evaluation (fiscal year 2007), the effects of the project werelimited compared to the plan. Because infrastructure installation was cancelled in some regions(Menzel Bourguiba and Jendouba), number of beneficiary rural households was 61% of the plan;
area irrigated by treated sewage remained at 26%. Among the obstacles in the promotion of using
treated water was the strong reluctance to use treated water by older generations, who were insistenton traditional farming methods.
Ex-post evaluation made recommendations to conduct field studies in the regions already using
treated sewage irrigation, to promote exchange of information within each generation, and to deepen
the farmers’ understanding of treated sewage irrigation through regularly held seminars on crops
suitable to treated sewage irrigation and its cultivation method.
Therefore, this project was selected for ex-post monitoring and reviewed under each criterion withthe findings from the field survey and other research activities with a final conclusion being drawn.

2. Outline of the Monitoring Study
2.1 External Monitoring Consultants
Eiko Nakamoto (Nakamoto & Associates Co., Ltd.)
Toyo Tanaka (Nakamoto & Associates Co., Ltd.)

2.2 Duration of Monitoring Study
Duration of the study: September 2012 – June 2013
Duration of the Field Study: 26 November – 14 December 20123-2

2.3 Constraints of the Monitoring Study
Obtaining all of the detailed data for each region was impossible due to the limitation of thesurvey period. The missing data were supplemented by national statistical data and by interviews to
relevant authorities.

3. Results of the study
3.1 Effectiveness3.1.1 Quantitative effects
3.1.1.1 Results from Operation and Effect Indicators
3.1.1.1.1 Number of Beneficiary Rural Households
In M’saken, the number of beneficiary rural households is approximately the same or slightly
higher compared to the time of ex-post evaluation (see Table 1). In Nabeul, sewage treatment station,
SE3, has been omitted from the calculations, but no additional data could be obtained. It should be
noted that these numbers refer to the number of rural households in the area covered by treatedsewage irrigation, and do not represent the number of households actually using the irrigation.
Consequently, these numbers cannot be an adequate indicator for determining the effectiveness of
this project, and no further analysis will be made based on these numbers. Refer to Table 3 for thenumber of rural households actually using the irrigation. Also, at the time of ex-post evaluation,
Agricultural Development Group (GDA) did not exist in Bizerte; GDA was to be organized in 2006,
and treated sewage irrigation was planned to begin in 2008. However, GDA has not been founded tothis day.

Table 1 Number of Beneficiary Rural Households
Planned 2006**
Bizerte*Beja*(M edjez El Bab)
Nabeul (SE3/SE4)

2007

2008

2009

(Unit: households)
2010
2011

2

16

13

13

13

13

13

8

21

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1,044

610

324

421

443

443

443

Siliana

27

22

23

23

23

20

20

M 'saken

100

70

120

120

125

132

132

Djerba Aghir*

55

36

36

36

37

38

38

M edenine*

40

39

39

39

39

39

39

Total
1,276
814
555
652
680
Source: Regional Commissariat of Agricultural Development (CRDA)* sites visited **ex-post evaluation
Note: Years in which the data was unavailable is marked with « N/A » .

685

685

3.1.1.1.2 Number of Rural Households Utilizing Irrigation
Regarding the number of rural households utilizing irrigation, comparison with ex-post evaluation

3-3

cannot be made since the data at the time does not exist. Considering the amount of yearly rainfall
from 2007 obtained during this study (Table 2), number of households using irrigation is increasing
in arid regions of Nabeul and M’saken where rainfall is insufficient; however, in the other regions,the irrigation is unused, or the usage is very few (Table 3).
According to the Ministry of Agriculture, treated sewage irrigation in Siliana was commenced in
2008, and there are currently no problems. However, this information was obtained after thecompletion of the field survey, and follow-up investigation is impossible. Therefore, no further
analysis will be made concerning this information.

Table 2 Rainfall
2007

2008

2009

(Unit: mm)
2010
2011

Summer

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Winter

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

BizerteBeja*
M edjez El Bab

Summer

15.2

3.6

63.0

8.4

7.8

Winter

206.3

122.0

395.2

236.7

390.4

Summer

24.8

1.0

48.0

2.2

5.9

Winter

230.2

47.4

168.4

59.1

144.0

Summer

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Winter

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NabeulSiliana

M onastir(M 'saken)

Summer

39.6

23.4

10.0

2.0

36.6

Winter

90.6

19.4

147.2

30.0

103.2

Djerba*(Djerba Aghir)

Summer

5.0

0.0

0.6

2.2

3.0

Winter

182.0

22.8

53.7

33.6

59.7

Summer

1.8

0.7

0.0

1.8

0.0

Winter

132.8

30.0

44.5

22.2

23.4

M edenine*
Source: National Institute of Weather Forecast

3-4* sites visitedTable 3 Number of Rural Households Utilizing irrigation, and Rate of Utilization
2007
Number of Farmers
Utilizing Irrigation
Irrigation Utilization Rate
Number of Farmers
Beja*
Utilizing Irrigation(M edjez El Bab)
Irrigation Utilization Rate
Number of Farmers
Nabeul (SE3/SE4)
Utilizing Irrigation
Irrigation Utilization Rate
Number of Farmers
SilianaUtilizing Irrigation
Irrigation Utilization Rate
Number of Farmers
M 'sakenUtilizing Irrigation
Irrigation Utilization Rate
Number of Farmers
Djerba Aghir*
Utilizing Irrigation
Irrigation Utilization Rate
Number of Farmers
M edenine*
Utilizing Irrigation
Irrigation Utilization Rate
Source: CRDA *sites visitedBizerte*2008(Unit: Households)
2010
2011

2009

N/A

N/A

1

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

8%

15%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

307

333

344

340

324

95%

79%

78%

77%

73%

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

90

95

92

100

105

75%

79%

74%

76%

80%

N/A

N/A

N/A

21

21

N/A

N/A

N/A

55%

55%

N/A

N/A

16

11

7

N/A

N/A

41%

28%

18%

The following are reasons for not utilizing treated sewage water obtained through interviews witheach regional CRDA. Bizerte used the irrigation experimentally in 2008 and 2009, but there is no
current usage of the irrigation. The reasons for this are the following: (1) there is sufficient rainfall;(2) Treated sewage is viewed as impure, and prayers cannot be held on land irrigated with treatedsewage 1 ; (3) cost of vaccination, compulsory to practice treated sewage irrigation, is expensive andborne by the individual; (4) the law restricts raising highly profitable crops using treated sewage
irrigation (Eating fruits, such as olives, which have fallen from trees grown with treated sewage
irrigation is also prohibited by law. The fruits must be picked from the tree.); (5) pipeline network
have become antiquated, and seawater seeps into the system, preventing the use of treated water for
irrigation due to salinity. Moreover, the low rate of utilization of irrigation can also be explained by

1 Cultural considerations in reference to irrigated farming by retreated used waters: Consideration of religious
background is essential in understanding the reluctance to resort to irrigation by treated sewage waters. During thesite visits, farmers often asserted the impossibility to conduct prayer on the farmlands watered with impure water. In
the Islamic religion, prayer is held five times a day. Hands, face, ear, and feet are cleansed with clean water before
each prayer. The treated sewage waters are perceived to be “impure water”, and it is not possible to pray on the
farmland watered by these waters. This explains their reticence to treated sewage water which is based on Islamic
religious nature. On the other hand, treated sewage water in certain regions contains contaminants and salt. According
to the Ministry of Environment, the treatment of waters has not reached the final ideal level. The National Sanitation
Utility (ONAS) is ultimately aiming for “potable treated sewage water”. Along with this effort, the Ministry ofAgriculture should meticulously engage in activities to reform the perception that treated sewage is “impure water”.

3-5the dissolution of the GDA at the event of the revolution of 2011.2 The low utilization rate in Béja
and Medjez El Bab, in addition to the reasons shown for Bizerte, is as follows: (6) the revolution has
caused bankruptcy or closing of industrial farmers who were primary users of the irrigation; (7) there
is frequent system failure and water outage, since the quality of treated sewage is poor, andcontaminants clog the irrigation pumps. In Medenine, additional reasons are as follows: (8) many of
the farmers, which are small, part time farmers, are indifferent to treated sewage irrigation due to its
cost; (9) many farmers prefer not to rely on irrigation because of occasional water outages due topump failure or electric bill arrears; (10) Olives, which is the primary crop in Medenine, can beraised using rainwater, and there is no incentive in using the irrigation. In Djerba Aghir, irrigation is
no longer utilized since February 2012, since the GDA is non-existent after the revolution, andoperation and maintenance cost cannot be paid (See Footnote 2). At the visited sites, the utilizationof irrigation were very few or none, and there were no new applications for utilization.

3.1.1.1.3 Irrigated Areas
Since the ex-post evaluation, the irrigated areas remain the same or have slightly diminished (seeTable 4). See 3.1.1.1.2 for the reasons for the low utilization rate. According to the Ministry ofAgriculture and the CRDA, decrease in the irrigated area can be accounted to bankruptcy or
discontinuation of large-scale industrial farmers which were seen throughout the country at the eventof the revolution in 2011. Small-scale farmers constitute the majority of farmers currently utilizing
the irrigation.

2 Significance of the GDA as a system: In order to understand the GDAs’ dissolution or their functional deficiencies,
it is necessary to take into account the Tunisian political context. During the implementation of the project, from 1998
to 2005, the GDAs had been created by the former government with the purpose of generalizing the utilization of theirrigation facilities and to ensure their maintenance. According to persons concerned within the CRDA and the GDA,
“there was corruption, since the GDA was managed by the President’s next of kin or by local rural households
appointed by the former government; the farmers were compelled to participate”. When the government collapsed at
the event of the Jasmine Revolution in 2011, the supervisors of the GDA appointed by the former president were
ousted with him. The farmers who were compelled by the government to use the facilities before the revolution werepassive in the continuation of treated sewage irrigation, and the maintenance of the facilities (pumping stations etc.)
was abandoned following the dissolution of the GDA. The Ministry of Agriculture is quite aware of the chaotic
situation prevailing in the relations between the CRDA and the GDA. Financial responsibilities of inspection andmaintenance are not clearly defined, and more facilities are being abandoned and have become dilapidated. (This is
the case in Béja, Medjez El Bab, Medenine, and Djerba Aghir). Since the revolution, the rural households lost thesense of initiative, adopting a passive attitude of dependency to the government.

3-6

Table 4 Comparison of Irrigated Areas by Season

Bizerte*

2007

2008

2009

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

134

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

75

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

151

86

104

96

110

101

0

45

51

41

41

46

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

25

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

44

N/A

44

38

37

37

44

N/A

44

38

37

37

8.5

N/A

14

14

7

7

9
N/A
14
**values from ex-post evaluation

14

7

7

Summer297

WinterBeja*(M edjez El Bab)
Nabeul (SE3/SE4)

Summer390

WinterSummer560

WinterSiliana

Summer70

WinterM 'saken

Summer121

Winter
Djerba Aghir*

Summer128

WinterM edenine*(Unit: ha)
2010
2011

Planned 2006**

Summer

Winter
Source: CRDA * sites visited43

On the visited sites in Djerba Aghir and Medenine, there is no necessity to further the utilization offacilities in the summer time, since the irrigated areas are the same as in winter time. From theresponses to the questionnaire, in Siliana the conflict between rural households, at the time of
ex-post evaluation, have ended, and agricultural production has resumed. The ex-post evaluation
reported that one of the factors for the low usage is due to the fact that the GDA representative
resided outside of the assigned region, and his supervision was inadequate. The report identified apossibility that this situation may improve by changing the GDA representative. The GDA
representative was replaced in August of 2008. However, this did not lead to the increase inirrigation utilization. (See 3.1.1.1.2 for the reason for the lack of increase) According to the CRDA
of Béja, the pumping station of Medjez El Bab (governorate of Béja), upon its startup service in2008 was utilized by only two industrial farmers and no GDA had been created. Given the presenceof a river nearby, water was sufficient and the irrigation had not been utilized.
The treated sewage water is utilized in Nabeul and M’saken, where rainfall is scarce and the lands
are arid, but not in the other regions. (Please refer to the explanation under 3.1.1.1.2) In addition,according to the CRDA (interview and questionnaire), no new application for used waters supply has
been filed by the farmers.
Table 5 shows the irrigated area based on the data provided by the Ministry of Agriculture.

3-7

Table 5 Comparison of Irrigated Areas by Season(Unit: ha)

Bizerte*Beja*

Planned 2006**

2007

2008

0

N/A

N/A

5

Winter

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

Summer

134

324

75

70

0

100

Summer297
310

WinterM edjez El Bab*
Nabeul (SE3/SE4)

Summer80

M 'saken

M edenine*

299

100

0

6

75

8

454

410

491

0

10

30

30

60.5

66.5

71

Summer700Winter0

Summer

25

110

132

138

0

108

108

113

44

51

Winter44

51

Summer

8.5

9

121

Summer

128
43

2011
N/A
N/A

413

N/A
N/A

75

151

560

N/A

55

Winter

Winter
Djerba Aghir*

354

2010

Summer
WinterSiliana

2009

75

N/A
N/A

418

N/A
N/A

110

N/A
N/A

75

153

41

N/A
41

41.5
0

16

Winter910
1016
Source: Ministry of Agriculture *sites visited *values from ex-post evaluation

N/A
N/A
N/A

10

N/A
N/A

From Table 5, the irrigated areas are increasing in almost all of the regions. However, follow-up
investigation is impossible, since these data were obtained after the completion of the field survey.
Therefore, no further analyses will be made based on these data.

3.1.1.1.4 Crop Yields
Table 6 shows the volume of the crop yields. As with the ex-post evaluation, analysis of thisproject’s contribution to the crop yield is difficult due to low irrigation utilization rate. The CRDA’s
responses during the site visits were the same.

3-8

Table 6 Crop Yields
Governorate

Beja*

Nabeul(SE3/SE4)

M 'saken

Djerba Aghir*

M edenine*

Source: CRDA

Crop

Planned 2006**

2007

2008

2009

(Unit: kg/ha)
2010
2011

Sugar Beet
Wheat
Fodder

650
60
500

250
52
400

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Sunflower
Citrus Fruits

20
200

N/A
150

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

TobaccoFodderOlives

400
25

200
15
11

N/A
3,424
12

N/A
3,915
15

0.44
3,278
15

N/A
2,865
15

1.1
2,550
20

Fruit Tree
Wheat

-

750
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

Olives
Fodder
Dates

28
600
16

N/A
N/A
N/A

100
650
N/A

100
800
N/A

150
800
N/A

130
900
N/A

180
1,200
N/A

OlivesBarley

-

30
16

40
30

50
30

70
60

50
60

30
15

FodderOlives
Fodder

600
7
600

300
85
70

300
72
80

400
84
80

480
84
160

150
42
80

N/A
48
80

4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
**values from ex-post evaluation

N/A
N/A

20
N/A

N/A
N/A

BarleySorghum* sites visited

3.1.1.1.5 Volume of Treated Used Waters
The volume of treated sewage has increased since the ex-post evaluation (Table 7). However, not
all treated sewage is utilized for irrigation. As can be seen in Table 8, capacity of the treated sewage
irrigation facility is fixed. Therefore, it is logical to analyze the facility utilization rate of facilities
shown in table 8. Since corresponding data is not available from the ex-post evaluation report,
analysis will be carried out on numbers obtained for 2007 in this study. From table 8, it can be seenthat the volumes of utilization have increased in Beja, Nabeul, and M’saken. According to the CRDA
of Béja, treated sewage was barely utilized until the revolution of 2011. However, since 2012, treatedsewage ceased to be used due to pump shutdown from arrears of operation cost.

3-9

Table 7 Volume of Treated Sewage
Planned 2006**

2007

2008

2009

(Unit: liters/sec)
2010
2011

Bizerte*Beja*(M edjez El Bab)

300

N/A

181

177

206

202

213

163

95.57

82

83

75

74

66

Nabeul (SE3/SE4)

190

190.45

215

214

219

200

192

Siliana

30

N/A

34

28

24

28

27

M 'saken

220

N/A

67

75

81

81

89

Djerba Aghir*

120

N/A

154

142

127

112

84

100 N/A
32
34
37* visited sites **values from ex-post evaluation

39

46

M edenine*
Source: ONAS

Table 8 Status of Sewage Treatment Facilities
2007
Bizerte*Beja*(M edjez El Bab)

2008

2009

(Unit: liters/sec)
2010
2011
25
25

Capacity

25

25

25

Treated Amount
Usage Rate

0
0%

0
0%

0
0%

0.09
0%

0.32
1%

Capacity

59

59

59

59

59

Treated Amount

8.63

4.44

22.38

25.37

14.90

Usage Rate

15%

8%

38%

43%

25%

Capacity

121

121

121

121

121

Treated Amount

86.57

80.86

102.60109.4085.62

Usage Rate
Capacity
Treated Amount

72%
19
14.27

67%
19
13.32

85%
19
16.08

90%
19
18.07

71%
19
11.10

Usage Rate
Capacity

75%
27

70%
27

85%
27

95%
27

58%
27

M 'sakenTreated Amount
Usage Rate
Capacity

15.60
58%
12

13.95
52%
12

22.20
82%
12

22.20
82%
12

22.20
82%
12

Djerba Aghir*

Treated Amount
Usage Rate
Capacity

6.79
57%
7

6.34
53%
7

7.93
66%
7

8.56
71%
7

6.34
53%
7

Treated Amount
Usage Rate
*visited sites

2.73
39%

2.22
32%

5.03
72%

4.76
68%

5.71
82%

Nabeul(SE3/SE4)

Siliana

M edenine*
Source: ONAS

In the North, the utilization rate of treated sewage utilization varies from 0% to 25%. In the South,
the utilization rates of treated sewage irrigation facilities are 70% to 95% of their capacity. These
rates prove that the demand for treated sewage irrigation exist in the arid regions. According to
ONAS, Bizerte and Siliana are supplied with treated sewage but the utilization is nil. A query was
made to ONAS concerning the decline in the treated sewage utilization rate in M’saken, but clear
answer could not be obtained. ONAS is merely supplying the treated sewage water, and is not

3-10

concerned with whether the water is utilized or not. At the time of the site visit, the reservoir was
filled to the brim.

3.1.1.1.6 Water Quality Standard
Regarding the quality of treated sewage, average values have improved in comparison with the
ex-post evaluation (Table 10), though there are regions which do not fulfill the national water quality
standard (Table 9).
The ONAS undertakes the following analysis:
Daily: TSS (total suspended solids), Temperature, pH
Weekly: Physico-chemical testMonthly: BOD5 (biochemical oxygen demand in 5 days)
Semiannually: Toxicity, Bacteriological Test

There is no change since the Ex-post evaluation in that the supply of irrigation water is cut whenthe value from the test results or the monthly water quality tests exceed the standard’s maximal value.
However, data on the frequency of these cuts in water supplies could not be obtained. As a result of
these water cuts, there is increasing number of farmers who do not rely on the irrigation because of
frequent water outages (See 3.1.1.1.2(9)).

Table 9 Tunisian Standard on Water Quality

2006**
2012
Source: ONAS

BOD5

COD

30

90

(Unit: mg/l)
SS
30

30
90
30
**values from ex-post evaluation

3-11

Table 10 Quality of Treated Sewage (average from 2007 to 2011)Year
2004**

Bizerte*2012
2012
M edjez El Bab
Nabeul (SE3/SE4)

20

17

26

2012

22

27

15

23

2012
Djerba Aghir*

36

11

22

7

10
32

18

35

69

76

8

91

22

76 102 142

21

79 108 137
70

19

41

89 106
53

25

31

27

34

42

66

14
13

51
13

30

60

86
33

23

32

116
51

24

31

112
31

21
16

94

10

2004**

81

82 103 141

16

2004**
2012

36

42
22

75
113

22

2004**

M 'saken70

34

2004**

Siliana24

27

2004**
2012

Source: ONAS

18

2004**
2012(Unit: mg/l)
SS

COD

M in Avg M ax M in Avg M ax M in Avg M ax
23
70
18

2004**Beja*

M edenine*

BOD5

23

31

17
65

10

74

2012
19 22 26 53 57 64*visited sites **values from ex-post evaluation

13

16

24
20

24

29

ONAS understands the necessity for the improvement of water quality, and is continually taking
measures to advance techniques on water quality improvement (filtering and sedimentation).
Regarding the standards of water quality, the ONAS deplores the fact that there are still regions
which do not meet the standards, and they affirm to pursue their initiatives to improve the quality ofwater, an issue they consider a high priority. The ONAS indicates, however, that the costs ofutilization of water recovered from rural households are not sufficient enough to cover the irrigation
facilities’ maintenance costs. ONAS also states that there are other problems, other than water
quality, that should be addressed as a combined effort of multiple ministries, in order to generalize
irrigated agriculture, such as including the improvement of the relationship between the CRDA andthe GDA and the implementation of vaccination.
The Ministry of Public Health indicated that “poor quality of water might be due to sewage
treatment exceeding the capacity of the facility. Failure of irrigation machinery may be due to thepoor quality of treated sewage water”. Data provided by ONAS (Table 8), however, shows that eventhough the utilization rate of sewage treatment facilities are 70% to 95% in Nabeul, Siliana, andM’saken, the capacity is not exceeded.

This monitoring study has verified that the problems indicated during the Ex-post evaluation are
not yet resolved. In addition, since treated sewage has not been generalized, the analysis is3-12

impossible for a majority of indicators.

3.1.1.2 Result of Calculations of Internal Rates of Return (IRR)
During the Ex-post evaluation, the IRR has been calculated as 7.0%. However, since the basis forthe calculation could not be obtained, EIRR will not be calculated in this ex-post monitoring.

3.1.2 Qualitative Effects
During the Ex-post evaluation, the qualitative effects as mentioned hereunder have been reported.
1.

Conservation of the underground resources through water reuse

2.

Expansion of irrigation area in the targeted regions, and ensuring/expanding the means ofagricultural production

3.

Increase in production through irrigated farming and improvement in living conditions byrise in income

4.

Introduction of irrigated farming

5.

Reinforcement of livestock industry by the introduction of summer fodder production

6.

Improvement of production and economic activity

The presented effects in the ex-post evaluation seem, nevertheless, to have disappeared or never tohave existed. Regarding the qualitative effects of the project, the Ministry of Agriculture replied thatthe reported qualitative effects could be expected if the use of treated sewage irrigation is widespread.
However, at present, the usage is sparse and, therefore, has not led to any effects.
The Ministry of the Environment thinks that “irrigation utilizing treated sewage is significant
considering that many regions of Tunisia is arid or semi-arid land”. The Ministry of Agriculture isof the opinion that “using treated sewage to complement the water shortages in the southern regions
is significant”. From these opinions, it can be inferred that treated sewage irrigation is inaccordance with the regions’ water demands. However, at this time, since there are many obstacles
to the usage of treated water and the usage is sparse, it is impossible to find a correlation between
this project and the above stated qualitative effects.

3.2 Impact
3.2.1 Intended Impacts
3.2.1.1 Economic Impact
Income of the rural households differs by a few digits compared to the values presented in the
ex-post evaluation (Table 11). The obtained data for this study appear to be adequate, taking into
account the fact that the average income (annual) in Tunisia are around 7,200 TND (about 400,000
yen).

3-13

Table 11 Rural Household Income
1996**
Bizerte*Beja*(M edjez El Bab)
Nabeul (SE3/SE4)

2007

2008

2009

(Unit: 1,000TND)
2010
2011

634.1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

379.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1,389.1

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.6

Siliana

145.9

3.0

3.5

4.0

5.0

5.0

M 'saken

411.6

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.8

Djerba Aghir*

432.9

2.0
2.0
2.0
159.0
* visited sites **values from ex-post evaluation

1.0

1.0

M edenine*
Source: CRDA

According to the CRDAs of the visited regions, the treated sewage water were unused or usedsparsely for irrigated farming, and, therefore, the CRDAs could not comment on the contribution oftreated used waters concerning economic impacts such as, the positive effects on the development ofagriculture, the diversification cultivated crops, the rise of productivity of crops, and livestockindustry. Moreover, data on the volume of crop yields could not be obtained.

3.2.1.2 Social Impact
The ex-post evaluation mentioned the increase of work opportunities and the improvement ofliving environment as social impacts. From the questionnaire and interview to the CRDAs, there
were no comments regarding the social impacts reported in the ex-post evaluation. The irrigationwater is not being used, or even if it is used the ratio of land using treated sewage irrigation is muchtoo miniscule to have any social impact. Ex-post evaluation also mentioned the negative effects ofthe conflicting views between the older generation, which is accustomed to agriculture using
rainwater, and the younger generation, which is trying to convert to irrigation agriculture using
treated sewage, on the diffusion of irrigation. In this study, clear answer regarding the differences
between generations, and any change in the relationship of the generations could not be obtained.

3-14

3.2.2 Other Positive or Negative Impacts
3.2.2.1 Awareness for Vaccination and Protective Clothing
Table 12 Vaccinated Farmers
2007

2008

2009

2010

(Unit: persons)
2011

Bizerte*Beja*(M edjez El Bab)
Nabeul (SE3/SE4)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Siliana

0

0

0

0

0

M 'saken

0

0

0

0

0

Djerba Aghir*

0

0

0

0

0

M edenine*
Source: Ministry of Public Health00* visited sites

0

0

0

The Ministry of Public Health mandates vaccination and wearing of protective clothing to theusers of treated sewage, in order to prevent infectious disease such as tetanus. The Ministry ofAgriculture, the Ministry of Public Health, and the CRDA are conducting information seminars anddoor-to-door visits to inform the farmers. However, at the visited project site, vaccination recipient
remains at zero, and protective clothing was not in use; no improvement could be seen from the timeof ex-post evaluation.
This can be explained by the high cost of vaccination, 60 TND, which is wholly borne by thefarmers. (According to table 11, the average monthly income in Medenine was 1,000 TND in 2011)
The Ministry of Public Health, which is the ministry responsible for vaccination of farmers using
treated sewage, insists that “the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for this situation”, and theMinistry of Environment asserts that “the Ministry of Public Health should cover the cost for
vaccination”. Role and responsibility of ministries regarding this issue have not yet been established.

3.2.2.2 Impact on the Natural Environment
The problem of foul odor from treated sewage in the summertime at Medenine, which wasreferred in the ex-post evaluation, is still unresolved. At Medenine, only a part of the treated usedwaters is utilized, and the rest is discharged in the nearby creek. There are persistent complaints fromresidents as the drained treated sewage water causes infestation of insects and foul odor in thesummertime. In the interview, the CRDA claims taking no particular action against this problem. It
can be assumed that the CRDA is not in the state to solve this problem, as the structure of CRDA andGDA has been unstable since the revolution. In an interview, the CRDA of Medenine and theMinistry of the Environment stated that no serious impacts on health or pollution of the soil/crops
have been reported by utilizing the treated water; but no scientific study has been conducted on thismatter. According to the interview with the Ministry of Public Health, which undertakes health

3-15examination twice a year for all rural households practicing treated sewage irrigation, the impact on
health is slight; the only effects reported were of itching nature, no serious effect having been
noticed. Besides, the Ministry of Environment states although they “have not undertaken a scientificstudy on the effects of treated used waters on the environment, a new proposition of a study on theeffect on the underground waters in eight sites is being planned”.

3.2.2.3 Removal of Settlers and Land Acquisitions
There has been no removal of inhabitants or land acquisition since the ex-post evaluation.

In conclusion, most of the impacts indicated during the Ex-post evaluation could not be verified
within the confines of this study. The treated sewage water having not been utilized, it is difficult toestablish links between the impacts and the project. This study has, however, verified the persistence,since the Ex-post evaluation, of the negative impacts of lack of vaccination and foul odor generated
by treated sewage.

3.3 Sustainability
3.3.1 Structural Aspect of Operation and Maintenance
Compared to the time of Ex-post evaluation, many regions are presently not able to carry out themaintenance of the pumping stations. The GDAs, which should be conducting its supervising andoperating activities such as guarding the facility and pipelines, have dissolved or have become
dysfunctional since the revolution in 2011.
Overall, the distribution of tasks remains the same, for operation and maintenance of the irrigation
facilities, between the CRDAs and the GDAs ; the CRDA operate and maintain pumping stations
and reservoirs, while the GDAs manage the facilities within the irrigated lands (guarding the facility,
irrigation pipes, etc.) and conduct maintenance of small to medium scale. However, since theJasmine Revolution of 2011, many GDAs organized coercively by the former government, havebeen dissolved3 or are no longer operational, and consequently, the maintenance of pumping stations
has become insufficient throughout the country. Specifically, the pumping stations are
non-operational or dilapidated due to the following reasons: 1. during the revolution, the supervisors
fled at the arrival of insurgents, and the copper wires of the electrical panel boards were stolen anddestroyed; 2. in the absence of the GDA, electric power bills have fallen into arrears and the power
supply was cut; 3. lack of personnel to conduct the necessary pump operations due to insufficient
funds. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, in the zones where the GDAs were dissolved,
3 Treated sewage irrigation was decided by the former government and imposed on the farmers regardless of theirpreference. Since the officials of the GDA were appointed directly by the former government, the farmers could not
express their opinion. (Today, the concerned individuals of the CRDA and the farmers describe these officials as“farmers affiliated with the former President”.) These GDAs, operated by the former government, were dissolved or
became dysfunctional with the collapse of the former regime by the revolution in 2011.

3-16

farmers are depending on the CRDA for the operation and maintenance of the facilities. According toan interview with the CRDA, in the regions such as Bizerte, Medenine, and Beja, the CRDA ismaintaining the facilities in place of the GDA. At present, even in the regions where there is still a
GDA, cooperative relationships between the CRDAs and the GDAs in management andmaintenance of the facilities are lost; the Ministry of Agriculture expects to restore the relationshipof the CRDA and the GDA through a project financed by the German Bank of Development (KfW),
French Development Agency, and African Development Bank (AfDB). At the time of this study, theitems to be surveyed are being decided; this survey is expected to be implemented over a period of
one year from January 2013. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture has not implemented any
sensitization project through the CRDA since 2011.
At the time of the ex-post evaluation, ONAS, under jurisdiction of the Ministry the Environment
and Sustainable Development (current Ministry of Environment), was responsible for the sewage
treatment and the treated water quality. According to ONAS, it is still responsible for these processes,
and, at the same time, the CRDAs are also carrying out water quality inspection. This was confirmedby the CRDA during the site visit. In addition, according to the responses to our questionnaire, theCRDA of Béja and Siliana outsource water quality inspection to a private enterprise. The CRDA of
Béja expended 6,700 TND in two years for water quality inspection. Also, according to the Ministryof the Environment, they are preparing, at national level, to analyze the effects of treated sewage
water quality on the soil and the underground waters.

Empty reservoir

Inundated pumping station(Béja)(Medenine)

3.3.2 Technical Aspects of Operation and Maintenance
The CRDA’s training program and the GDA’s updating of instruction manuals and staff training,practiced at the time of ex-post evaluation, have been discontinued. The visited CRDA have affirmedthat they continued the training and the technical assistance for the GDA and the rural households,

3-17

but with the revolution in 2011, the GDA in some regions were dissolved or became non-operational,
hence making it impossible to pursue these activities. The manuals have not been renewed, and theCRDA staff individually use old manuals created at the launching of the project.
According to the responses to questionnaire, the CRDA of Siliana is organizing training sessions
for the GDA on irrigation agriculture and treated sewage irrigation. In the irrigation field study togovernorate of Sousse, the participants included CRDA engineers, GDA members, ONAS engineers,
the Ministry of Public Health district office staff, and farmers from Siliana’s Mediouna district. Also,
In Siliana, the CRDA has also replied that it has organized training sessions for farmers on theirrigation system and the irrigation techniques, but since treated sewage irrigation is unused in
Siliana, these training sessions is assumed to be pertaining to regular irrigation techniques. (Refer toTable 2)3.3.3 Financial Aspects of Operation and Maintenance
The financial situation has worsened since the ex-post evaluation. The sustainability of thefinancing of treated sewage irrigation facilities maintenance is unclear: low water fee collection rate
which has decreased further since the time of ex-post evaluation, operation and maintenance costexceeds the collected water fee, and the GDA, responsible for expending the operation andmaintenance cost, was dissolved by the revolution.
At the time of ex-post evaluation, Tunisian government was providing subsidies for installation ofirrigation equipment, and encouraging the expansion of irrigation facilities. According to the
Ministry of Agriculture and the CRDA of the sites visited, the government is providing low-interest
loans and subsidies through a special fund, FOSDAP, managed by the National Agriculture Bank
(BNA), and is actively engaging in promoting the usage of treated sewage irrigation. Other measures
include the CRDA’s financial assistance in operation and maintenance cost, although the exemptionof the cost planned at the time of ex-post evaluation has been cancelled. Currently, the cost of
maintenance of irrigation facilities such as pumping stations is assumed by the GDA, but in theregions such as Nabeul where the costs of utilization recovered do not suffice to cover its expenses,
the CRDA pays the difference. In Djerba Aghir, where the GDA have been dissolved, the irrigation
facilities have stopped since February 2012, for arrear of the costs of maintenance (electric power
and personnel to guard the pumps).
In order to resolve the problem with the operation and maintenance, issues such as water quality,
cultural perceptions, and absence of responsible organization need to be addressed other than thewater fee; however, it is crucial to clarify the organizations’ financial responsibility of the costs toensure a sustainable facility maintenance. In the interviews with the ONAS, the Ministry ofAgriculture and the CRDA, all have pointed out that “the water fee charged to the farmers for thewater (20 mm, or 0, 02 TND/m3) are set too low in comparison with the costs of maintenance. The

3-18

water fee was set intentionally low by the former President as a public policy. Fundamentally, the fee
should be raised to a level enough to be able to complement the cost of operation and maintenance”.
Although the operation and maintenance cost exceeds the collected water fee, raising the water fee
will result in adverse effects for the diffusion of irrigation usage. Therefore, water fee needs to berevised upon comprehensive analysis of government policy and demand for treated sewage irrigation.
For the time being, CRDA takes charge of the deficits yielded by the maintenance of the irrigation
facilities concerned.

Table 13 Costs of Irrigation Facility Maintenance Assumed by the CRDA
2006**

2007

2008

2009

2010

(Unit: TND)
2011

Bizerte*Beja*(M edjez El Bab)
Nabeul (SE3/SE4)

440,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

507,840

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

58,900346,000

72,00074,00076,00078,00080,000Siliana

469,843

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,200

5,300

M 'saken

245,000

21,25023,02019,84019,22018,450

Djerba Aghir*

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

M edenine*
Source: CRDA

77,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

20,0007,000

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the operation and maintenance cost of irrigation
facilities in Nabeul and Siliana compared to those presented in the ex-post evaluation report may
pertain to the cost of the whole governorate, and not the cost specific to the target regions of thisproject. Therefore, comparison with data from that of the ex-post evaluation was not performed.
During the interviews on the visited sites, the CRDA has confided that “the facilities are getting old
and the maintenance costs are increasing”. As to the regions other than Nabeul and M’saken, wewere not able to collect data on the distribution of the costs of maintenance, which were collected in
the ex-post evaluation.

3-19

Table 14 Distribution of the Costs of Operation and MaintenanceBizerte*Beja*(M edjez El Bab)

Nabeul(SE3/SE4)

Siliana

M 'saken

Djerba Aghir*
M edenine*(Unit: TND)
2010
2011

2006**

2007

2008

2009

O&M Cost

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Collected Water Fee

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Government Budget

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

O&M Cost

64,860

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

58,900

Collected Water Fee

30,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Government Budget

34,860

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

O&M Cost

12,00072,00074,00076,00078,00080,000

Collected Water Fee

1,200

36,00037,00038,00037,00035,000Government Budget

10,80036,00037,00038,00041,00045,000O&M Cost

N/A

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,200

5,300

Collected Water Fee

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Government Budget

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

O&M Cost

N/A

21,25023,02019,84019,22018,450

Collected Water Fee

N/A

4,450

6,220

4,500

5,400

4,600

Government Budget

N/A

16,50016,50015,00013,50013,500O&M Cost

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

20,0007,000

Collected Water Fee

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Government Budget

N/A

5,884

2,808

4,159

2,358

3,916

Source: CRDA

3.3.4 Actual Status of Operation and Maintenance
Since the Ex-post evaluation, the status of the management of facilities has worsened. Overall, theconditions of operation and maintenance were unsatisfactory in the regions of visited sites. The
facilities were in poor condition, and in some regions the resumption of operation was inconceivable.
At the pumping station of Beja there supervisor was absent and we could not enter the area. The
maintenance conditions were appalling. The premises were abandoned and there were traces ofwater leaks on the walls. In Medenine, the facilities are operational, but the pumping station could
not be entered; the floor was inundated at a depth of 15 cm because of water leaks. According to thesupervisor, this situation has not changed since his assignment four years ago. In other words, thiscondition is irrelevant with the Arab Spring; it appears that the state of maintenance was poor even
before the revolution. Since these facts are not indicated in the ex-post evaluation report, it can beconjectured that the maintenance of the facility was abandoned after the ex-post evaluation. The stateof maintenance is as bad in the Medjez El Bab pumping station. Not utilized for a long time, there
was visible rust and meters were broken. In Djerba Aghir, the facilities have not been in use since
February 2012 and the pumping station was abandoned. All the CRDAs stated that, “there is no
problem regarding maintenance. The facilities can be put to use if we choose to use them”, or that
“we have already secured the necessary funds for repair in the year 2013.” From observing the

3-20

facilities during the site visit, they were not in the condition to resume operation; however, further
verifications could not be made. The pictures of the facilities were shown to the Ministry ofAgriculture to determine the possibility of utilization upon resumption of operation, and if thebudget necessary for repair were available. The Ministry declared that they were not aware of thestatus of the irrigation facilities of each CRDA, and they had no knowledge of the breakdowns anddefects.

From the above, the conditions of the operation and maintenance have worsened since the ex-post
evaluation. This is due to a great extent to the absence of an organization that is responsible for
operating and maintenance, caused by the dissolution of many GDAs after the revolution. The
absence or functional deficiency of the GDA has negative effects not only on the framework ofoperation and maintenance, but also on the irrigation technique and on financing. Further, there areabandoned facilities, whose abandonment is irrelevant with the revolution of 2011. It is desirable
that the Ministry of Agriculture deploys radical efforts to improve the situation, but unfortunately,
the situation remains for the moment obscure as to its future development.

3.4 Others(1) Follow-up of the Lessons Learned
In the ex-post evaluation, the following points were indicated as lessons learned: public education
campaign was insufficient regarding the convenience of treated sewage irrigation, and lack ofunderstanding by older generation farmers is the hindering the usage of treated sewage; cooperation
between ONAS, competent authorities, and relevant agencies is necessary. Currently, it was foundthat public education campaign by the Ministry of Agriculture to the GDA and farmers is insufficient.
ONAS and the Ministry of Agriculture have begun to cooperate with the Ministry of Public Healthconcerning the utilization of treated used waters (exchange of information and opinions), but thiscooperation is also insufficient and further initiatives should be deployed.
As other efforts, Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment is cooperating to conduct a
study of the attitudes and practices of farmers towards the use of treated sewage water. This will befollowed by an intensive public education campaign in 2013 and 2014 in all areas irrigated bytreated sewage water. Positive effects can be expected from this campaign.

(2) Follow-up of Recommendations
In the ex-post evaluation, the following recommendation was made: in order to further spread theirrigation of farmland using treated sewage water, it is important to reduce the sense of anxiety about
using treated sewage water for irrigation – especially among the older generation of farmers who
adhere to the traditional methods of farming – by promoting understanding of the benefits of using

3-21

treated sewage water as irrigation water. After the ex-post evaluation until 2010, the Ministry ofAgriculture actively promoted the utilization of treated sewage water for irrigation through public
education campaign, seminars on safety of treated sewage water, and, in some regions, undertakingof the facilities maintenance by the CRDA in place of the GDA. However, the GDAs of the project
location which were organized in the name of “operating the treated sewage irrigation facilities”
were dissolved or became non-operational during the revolution in 2011. Cooperative relationships
between the CRDAs and the GDAs in management and maintenance of the facilities have been lost
since the revolution in 2011. Consequently, the Ministry of Agriculture has ceased its public
education programs.

4. Conclusion, Lessons Learned and Recommendations
4.1 Conclusion
The utilization of facilities developed within the scope of this project for irrigation by treated usedwaters has not been widely-used as expected initially. In many zones, these irrigation facilities areeither underutilized or not utilized altogether. Consequently, the quantitative effects and the impacts
that had been confirmed at the time of Ex-post evaluation could not be verified in this study.
Majority of the arable lands in Tunisia are arid or semi-arid, and project's objective to stabilize
agricultural production and promote regional economy through the use of recycled water is effective
in conserving the water resources of the country. However, in reality, treated sewage irrigation issparsely used and outlook for attaining of the project objective seems uncertain for the following
reasons: reluctance to use treated sewage from lack of understanding; irrigation is not necessary insome areas due to adequate rainfall; aversion to treated sewage due to low quality of water;
unreliability of treated sewage due to instable supply; high cost of using treated sewage. The
Ministry of Agriculture had continued its public education programs after ex-post evaluation, but had
been discontinued after the revolution in 2011. As a result, treated sewage irrigation has not spread,and its usage is declining. Moreover, after the revolution, no organization has replaced the GDA,
which was in charge of the maintenance of the irrigations facilities, and the facilities have beendamaged in certain regions. Sustainability of the project in certain areas has therefore become
questionable.

4.2 Recommendations
4.2.1 Recommendations to the Ministry of Agriculture(1) The Ministry of Agriculture should assist in improving the CRDA GDA relations, and act
meticulously for the reestablishment of the GDA in the regions targeted by this project, which weredissolved or non-operational. In addition, a re-examination is imperative on the future utilization ofirrigation facilities that are not utilized or where maintenance is inadequate. The Ministry of

3-22

Agriculture, with an objective of restoring the relationship between the GDAs and the CRDAs, isanticipating on implementing a research in a new project financed by KfW, French Development
Agency, and AfDB for a period of one year as from January 2013 (the Ministry is actually at thestage of identifying the elements of the research). It is expected that the Ministry of Agriculture, will
confer the highest priority to the follow-up on issues such as the dissolved GDAs that have not been
reinstated, and the determination of the organizational responsibilities regarding the maintenance of
the ill-maintained irrigation facilities.

(2) The cost of utilizing treated sewage waters being relatively low, the amounts paid to the GDAs
by farmers utilizing irrigation do not cover the costs of the facility maintenance. The former
president, from a political motive, intentionally set the utilization costs at a low level, without
considering the maintenance costs of the facilities. In case of operation and maintenance fundshortages due to the aforementioned reasons, the CRDA bears the cost. However, in regions where
the CRDA is unable to make the payment, necessary maintenance cannot be conducted and,
therefore, the facilities are in dissatisfactory condition. Consequently, it is necessary tocomprehensively review the country's (MOE, Ministry of Agriculture) inclination on the diffusion oftreated sewage irrigation and the system of organizational responsibility, including the water costand rules for bearing operation and maintenance costs. These questions should be studied at theoccasion of the research project financed by the KfW, French Development Agency, and AfDB as
referred in (1)(3) In some regions, the treated sewage waters contain foreign matters and salt. According to the
Ministry of Environment, quality of treated water has not reached its final ideal stage, which is
potable water. ONAS’ ultimate goal is “potable treated sewage water”. In addition to therehabilitation of sewage treatment facilities and improvement of operation and maintenance skills,
the Ministry of Agriculture should cooperate with ONAS by monitoring the quality of water while
conducting education campaigns to inform the public that treated sewage water is not "impure".

4.3 Lessons Learned
From the cultural background, treated sewage water is perceived as impure. This aroused
reluctance towards the usage and treated sewage water, and led to refusal of the usage by most
farmers. Although the reason behind the low utilization rate of treated sewage water is versatile,
cultural background is a factor that cannot be ignored. In the light of the above, a lesson was learned
that it is necessary to take into consideration the cultural aspects of the region when planning a
project. Also, since the regions differ in climate and agricultural produces, it is important to takethese factors into consideration when choosing the sites for the project.

3-23Comparison of the Original and Actual Scope of the Project
Item
1. Output

Breakdown(1) Construction of treatedsewage irrigation facilitiesin 10 areas in Tunisia(a) Facilities for storing treatedsewage water(b) Pumping stations(c) Adjustment water storage
facilities(d) Water supply and irrigation
drainpipes(e) Irrigation sites development(2) Consulting services(a) Detailed design related tothe above-mentioned irrigation
facilities, tendering document
preparation and detailed
design/tendering document
preparation (local) (5subprojects: Bizerte, Menzel
Bourguiba, Djerba Aghir,
Siliana, Médenine)(b) Survey related to
groundwater increment for
using treated sewage water in
Nabeul and Djerba Aghir

2. Period

3. Project cost
Foreign Currency
Local Currency

Total
ODA Loan Portion
Exchange Rate

19

Original

Actual10 sites

8 sites

13 sites
12 sites

10 sites
10 sites

187 km

179 km
Djerba Aghir;
implemented only inthe first stage of
construction.
Nearly as planned

1,853 ha52.5 MMAs planned

4 MM

4MM
Survey of Djerba Aghir
was implemented asplanned. Survey ofNabeul was cancelled
because it was included
in a project funded by
the World Bank.
March 1998 – Oct 2005
(7 years and 8 months)
92 months

March 1998 – Sept 2003
(5 years and 7 months)
67 months*19
215 million yen
2,062 million yen(Foreign currency: 18.749
million DT)
2,277 million yen
1,707 million yen
1 DT = 110 yen(As of March 1998)

There are no data on the breakdown

3-24

1,588 million yen
1,332 million yen
1 DT = 92.95 yen(Average March 1998 – October
2005)