|
After the FAO team joined the Foya pilot rice scheme in mid 1970, the team
became gradually aware of the following major problems in the scheme:
1. Water availability for irrigated rice
The Foya scheme was presented as being designed for two irrigated rice crops per
year. When the dry season started in October 1970 the FAO team found that the
flow of the Foya River very rapidly decreased. Yet the Foya River was the only
source of irrigation water for the pilot project of 280 ha. Subsequently the
team started to measure the flow of the Foya River at regular intervals during
the dry season. Unfortunately the data showed that during the dry season, from
October to April, there was only sufficient irrigation water available for 20 %
or 50 ha of the pilot project area of 280 ha, assuming a crop water requirement
of 1.1 liter/hectare /second for irrigated rice. In addition the team observed
during the rainy season from May to September the opposite situation occurred,
when the entire 280 hectare project area was frequently flooded for periods of
up to four days, causing considerable damage to the standing rice crop. The
capacity of the main drainage canal was insufficient to cope with the excess
rainwater. See the images shown under Workshop and flooding
2. Land development cost.
The FAO team was informed that land development cost for the Foya rice scheme
amounted to US$ 1 250 per ha, covering costs from initial land clearing up to
the establishment of the first crop. Comparing this figure of US$ 1 250 /hectare
with costs of land development in similar projects in other countries, (average
$ 500 /hectare ), van Santen found the per hectare development costs for the
Foya rice scheme far too high. To make matters worse, when cross checking the
data received, van Santen found that a number of essential expenditures had been
excluded from the above cost estimate. Van Santen’s revised estimate of the
additional non-recorded expenses was that the total land development costs in
economic terms of the Foya Pilot Rice Development Scheme were actually in the
order of between US$ 1 400 to $ 1 500 per ha.
3. Economic feasibility of the Foya rice scheme.
On the basis of a cropping intensity of 120 per year with rice, a low value crop,
The team’s conclusion was that the Foya pilot rice scheme was economically not
feasible.
In the early 1970s, long before availability of electronic calculators and
personal computers, calculation of the internal rate of return for a complex
project as the Foya
rice scheme would have needed a large processing support team for several weeks.
In the absence of such a support team, the team’s economist made a rough
estimate and found an economic internal rate of return of below 1%, far below
the minimum of 12% internal rate of return accepted by the World Bank and other
international funding agencies. Recent digitalized recalculations of the IRR
confirmed the 1972 estimate. The calculations were based on the following
assumptions: Initial investment $ 1 250/ha; annual production costs $
100/ha; Gross returns $ 200/ha (average yield 2000 kg of rough rice/ha @
$0.10/kg)
4. Design of alternative development strategies
In an attempt to solve the problems observed the FAO team designed a number of
strategies to cope with the problems identified for the Foya Pilot Rice
Cultivation Scheme:
Strategies for improvements within the Foya pilot scheme
|
The rural economy
Lofa County 1970's
A pictorial story |