Document of The World Bank Report No. 17103-IN PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ON A PROPOSED CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 43.7 MILLION TO INDIA FOR A UTTAR PRADESH SECOND BASIC EDUCATION PROJECT October 27, 1997 Education Sector South Asia Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency Unit = Rupee US$1.00 = Rs. 36.42 US$0.0274 = Rs. 1.00 GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR April 1 - March 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS APPEP Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget BAS Baseline Assessment Study BRC Block Resource Center CAS Country Assessment Study CRC Cluster Resource Center DCA Development Credit Agreement DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom) DIET District Institute of Education and Tranimg DOE Department of Education DPEP District Primary Education Program DPO District Project Office EC European Commission ECE Early Childhood Education EFAPB Uttar Pradesh Education for All Project Board EMIS Educational Management Information System ESW Economic and Sector Work GER Gross Enrollment Rate GC General Council GOI Govermnent of India GOUP Government of Uttar Pradesh GSDP Gross State Domestic Product ICDS Integrated Child Development Scheme MTR Mid-Term Review NCERT National Council of Educational Research and Training NGO Non-government Organization PIP Project Implementation Plan PMIS Project Management Information System SC Scheduled Caste SCERT State Council of Educational Research and Training SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SIEMAT State Institute of Educational Management and Training SPO State Project Office ST Scheduled Tribe UNICEF United Nations Children's Education Fund UPBEP Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project VEC Village Education Committee Vice President Mieko Nishimizu Country Director Edwin R. Lim Sector Manager Ralph W. Harbison Task Manager N.K. Jangira INDIA UTTAR PRADESH SECOND BASIC EDUCATION PROJECT CONTENTS Page No. Project Financing Data .......................................I Block 1: Project Description .......................................2 1. Project development objectives .......................................2 2. Project components .......................................2 3. Benefits and target population .......................................2 4. Institutional and implementation arrangements .......................................3 Block 2: Project Rationale .......................................4 5. CAS objective(s) supported by the project .4 6. Main sector issues and Government strategy .5 7. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices . 8. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection .6 9. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies . 6 10. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design .7 11. Indications of borrower commitmnent and ownership .8 12. Value added of Bank support .8 Block 3: Summary Project Assessments .............................8 13. Economic Assessment .8 14. Financial Assessment .9 15. Technical Assessment .9 16. Institutional Assessment .9 17. Social Assessment .9 18. Environmental Assessment .10 19. Participatory Approach .10 20. Sustainability .10 21. Critical Risks .1 22. Possible Controversial Aspects .12 Block 4: Main Credit Conditions ............................. 12 23. Effectiveness Conditions ............................. 12 24. Other ............................. 12 Block 5: Compliance with Bank Policies ............................. 13 Annexes I Project Design Summary 2 Detailed Project Description 2A Learning Achievement of Class 5 Students 2B Summary of the Mid-Term Review 3 Estimated Project Costs in US$ Millions 4 Financial and Economic Analysis 5 Financial Summary 6 Procurement Arrangements 7 Project Processing Budget and Schedule 8 Documents in the Project File 9 Statement of Loans and Credits 10 India at a Glance I I INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIoNAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION South Asia Region Project Appraisal Document India Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Education Project Date: October 27, 1997 [] Draft [x] Final Task Manager: N K Jangira Country Manager: Edwin R. Lim Project ID: 1N-PE-50638 Sector: Education POC: Human Resources Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Credit PTI: [x] Yes [ ] No Project Financing Data I[] I Loan I [x ] I Credit [] Guarantee [I I Other For Loans/Credits/Others: Amount (US$m/SDRm): US$59.4 million/SDR 43.7 million .............................................................................................................. ........ ........................................ ........... ................................................................. .......................................... .. ......................... Proposed Terms: [] Multicurrency [ ] Single currency Grace period (years): 10 years [ Standard Variable [ ] Fixed [] LIBOR-based Years to maturity: 35 years Commitment fee: 0.50% Service charge: 0.75% T i i i i'..g i o g ..m)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Financing Plan (US$ m) Source Local Foreign Taxes Tal IDA 56.8 2.6 0.0 59.4 GOUP 14.6 0.0 1.7 16.3 TOTAL 71.4 2.6 1.7 75.7 Borrower: Government of India (GOI), acting by its President Guarantor: Responsible agency(ies): Government of Uttar Pradesh (GOUP) Estimated Disbursements IDA BY Y98 FY9 FY2000 FY2001 Annual 3.0 21.5 28.8 6.2 Cumulative 3.0 24.5 53.2 59.4 Expected effectiveness date: April 1998 Closing date: September 30, 2000 Project Appraisal Document Page 2 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP 11 Block 1: Project Description 1. Project development objectives (see Annex 1 for key performance indicators): The UP Basic Education Project (UPBEP-Cr. 2509-lN) was approved in FY93 and will close September 30, 2000. It was designed to expand access, improve student learning and enhance the GOUP's capacity to manage elementary education in 10 (increased to 12 through bifurcation) districts in UP to produce more and better educated primary and upper primary school graduates. Project interventions to date have resulted in much higher than anticipated growth in enrollments, resulting in unacceptably large classes and an acute shortage of classrooms. GOUP has requested IDA assistance to deal with this surge in enrollments through a reallocation of presently unallocated resources in Up BEP I (Cr. 2509-IN) and through an additional IDA credit, UP BEP II. The Credit responds to this request and would assist the Government of UP to: * Establish the capacity to enroll all 6-10 year old children. * Establish the capacity to enroll 75 percent of 11-13 year old children. * hnprove student learning achievement and completion rates. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2. Project components (see Annex 2 for a detailed description and Annex 3 for a detailed cost breakdown): The project will have two major components: (a) expanding access by opening about 600 primary and 300 upper primary schools, and constructing about 11,000 additional classrooms in the existing institutions; and (b) improving quality and retention, through the appointment of about 13,000 additional teachers; providing learning materials, including development of new materials for new schools; in-service training to new teachers; and establishing a school improvement fund. Component Cost Percent of including Contingencies Total (US$M) Expanding access Classroom Construction 23.8 31.5 Improving Quality and Retention Provision of Teaching Learning Materials 0.6 0.8 Teacher Grants 2.8 3.7 School Improvement Fund 0.2 0.3 In-service Training 1.8 2.4 Materials Development and Consultancies 3.7 4.9 Incremental Teacher Salaries 42.7 56.5 Total 75.7 100 In addition to the inputs covered in the above table, construction of about 1250 new schools, 2150 additional classrooms and appointment of 2450 additional teachers are expected to be funded from presently unallocated funds in Cr. 2509-lN. The request to revise the project description and the schedule of disbursements has been received and the DCA for UPBEP I has been amended. Staff of existing District Institutes for Education and Training (DIETs) and of Block and Cluster Resource Centers (BRCs and CRCs) established by UPBEP I would also provide training and school-based support to the new schools and the additional teachers. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3. Benefits and target population: Investments in primary education have been found to have significant economic and social benefits, such as increased productivity and income, lower fertility, and better health. For India these have been documented in the recent sector work, Primary Education in India. A summary of anticipated economic benefits is included in Annex 4. More specifically, the project is expected to: * provide access to about 600,000 additional children (including girls and SC children) in the age group 6-10 years and 200,000 children in the age group 11-13, raising the gross enrollment ratio (including enrollments in private schools) in project districts from 88 percent to 100 percent in primary education and from 43 percent to 75 percent in upper primary education by the year 2000. * improve the quality of instruction, learning achievement and efficiency of student flows by reducing the pupil-teacher ratio to 45: 1; providing in-service teacher training to all teachers every year with school-based professional support, and making available improved teaching and learning materials in the classroom. Project Appraisal Document Page 3 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP 11 4. Institutional and implementation arrangements:. Implementation period: April 1998 to September 30, 2000 Executing agencies: An autonomous UP Education for All Project Board (EFAPB) located in Lucknow Project coordination: DPEP Bureau of the Department of Education (DOE) at the Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI Project oversight: DPEP Bureau, GOI Project Implementation: Implementation coordination at the national level will continue to be managed by the DPEP Bureau. At the state level, the project would be implemented by the well-established and experienced UP Education for All Project Board (EFAPB). During negotiations, GOI confrrmed that it shall make available the proceeds of the Credit to GOUP, which in turn, will make it available with GOUP contribution to EFAPB. The State Project Office (SPO), with additional support under DPEP II (Cr. 2876-IN) will have two units, one for UPBEP I and II and the other for implementing DPEP II. GOUP will continue to maintain the existing unit within EFAPB separately to implement UPBEP I and II. The SPO managed to complete all construction planned under Up BEP I during the first three years of the project. It has ensured the delivery of instructional materials to all schools and organized annual training courses for about 48.000 teachers. Two key state level resource institutions already involved in assisting UPBEP I and DPEP II would also support the project - (a) the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) would provide leadership in the development of new curriculum, textbook and other instructional materials; and (b) the State Institute of Educational Management and Training ( SIEMAT) would provide training in educational planning and management. Plans to strengthen these institutions have been agreed and will be implemented with the support of DPEP II. In addition, GOUP will also establish a State Resource Group to revise curriculum, develop improved learning teaching materials, and improve in-service training of teachers. At the district and sub-district level, DIETs, BRCs and CRCs provide staff inputs in the teacher training programs and school-based support. The capacity to provide annual in-service training to all 48,000 teachers and school-based support in project districts is in place. All teachers in the project districts have already participated in two six-day in-service training programs. A third round is being implemented. Village Education Committees (VECs) have been established and are actively involved in micro-planning (school mapping and household surveys), mobilization of community support, school improvement and community school construction. More than 10,000 classrooms have been constructed in UPBEP I through community efforts supported by the project School and classroom designs are available and new recruitment procedures have already been put in place under UPBEP I to expedite implementation of UPBEP II. To meet the development objectives of increased access and retention and improved learning achievement, the project will ensure minimum conditions for effective functioning of the school and improved teaching in the classroom. The GOUP initiative of posting teachers, which has already begun to move towards the current GOUP established student/teacher norm, will continue to progress towards reducing disparity between student-teacher ratios in rural and urban areas. GOUP would report progress annually on the status of teacher deployment and discuss it with the joint supervision mission. EFAPB will also establish an attendance reporting mechanism through VECs and conduct sample classroom observation studies, documenting changes in classroom practices every year during the remaining period of UPBEP I and II implementation to share with IDA during bi-annual supervision missions. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements: Monitoring and evaluation arrangements already defined and established in the first UP Basic Education Project will be followed in this project. These include: PMIS and EMIS reports; third-party evaluation of civil works; annual review of district and state AWPBs by the DPEP Bureau; bi-annual joint supervision missions by IDA and GOI; and district-based multipurpose surveys, including learning achievement of class 5 students, in the fmal year of the project, and other project related research and studies. These arrangements will be further strengthened with support of UPBEP. In addition, annual classroom observation studies will document the introduction and impact of improved teaching methods in schools in project districts. Accounting, financial reporting and auditing arrangements: In UPBEP I, EFAPB has prepared a detailed manual to guide staff at the state, district and sub-district levels and provided training to them in using proper accounting procedures. Funds for school construction and school improvement grants are deposited in a bank account operated jointly by the head teacher and VEC chairperson. In the case of school construction through community participation, a cash book detailing expenditures is maintained along with vouchers at the site. The computerized Project Management Information System (PMIS) at the state and district levels is maintained to monitor the release of funds, expenditures and achievement of physical targets. The reporting format includes quarterly, annual, and cumulative physical targets and expenditures. As the quarterly reports are generated, EFAPB uses the feedback to improve implementation to better achieve the targets set in AWPBs. Apart from annual audits, periodic checks and inspection of accounts and documents, including verification of expenditures are carried out under UPBEP I. An independent chartered accountant has been engaged to audit state and district level accounts in Project Appraisal Document Page 4 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP ll addition to a regular Comptroller General and Auditor General's audit. Audit reports up to 1995-96 have already been submitted to the Bank. The 1996-97 audit by the chartered accountant is about to be completed and an Auditor General's audit of 1996-97 is in progress. GOUP will use this accounting, auditing and reporting procedure in implementing UPBEP II as well. A separate account will be maintained for UPBEP II. EFAPB will: (i) have its accounts audited by independent chartered accountants acceptable to the Association in accordance with its respective Memoranda of Association as in UPBEP I; (ii) ascertain that the audit of the EFAPB includes a separate opinion on SOEs; and (iii) make appropriate arrangements for auditing the utilization of funds provided by EFAPB to other institutions, including their SOEs. In addition, EFAPB accounts will be audited annually by the Accountant General of Uttar Pradesh. The audit of the Special Account will be in accordance with the guidelines of the Association. EFAPB would submit audit reports to IDA within six months of the end of the Indian fiscal year. Audit reports from the independent chartered accountant will also meet this requirement. Another source of monitoring project implementation would be provided by a semi-annual Project Disbursement and Financial Management Reporting System. This reporting system comprises semi-annual reports on: (i) sources of project funding; and (ii) applications of funding category of expenditure and by project component. This information will provide the variance between the actual budget allocations and applications of project funding twice a year. During negotiations, GOI agreed to explore the possibility of adapting the software of the existing UPBEP PMIS and EMIS to prepare the above mentioned semi-annual reports to be provided to IDA every six months during the Joint Supervision Missions. The accounting procedures proposed for the project are similar to the ones set for UPBEP, DPEP I and II which have proven to be satisfactory to IDA. Consolidated reports for these ongoing Credits have been provided to IDA in a timely fashion. Procurement: Procurement procedures specified in Annex 6 (Tables 6A and 6B) and the Agreed Minutes of Negotiations will be followed. Disbursements: The IDA Credit for UPBEP II will be disbursed over three years generally consistent with the disbursement profile, and in accordance with the allocations and expenditure shown in Annex 6 (Table 6C). Teacher and school grants will be disbursed against Statement of Expenditures according to the procedures agreed to by GOI and IDA in DPEP I and DPEP II. The Association may require withdrawals from the Credit Account to be made on the basis of statements of expenditures for: (a) grants, local training and workshops and incremental teacher salaries; (b) consultants' services under contracts not exceeding $200,000 equivalent in the case of firms and $50,000 equivalent in the case of individuals; and (c) contracts for goods and works not exceeding $300,000 equivalent each, under such conditions as the Association shall specify by notice to the Borrower. In order to accelerate disbursement of IDA's share of expenditures to be pre-fmanced by GOUP, and to allow for direct payment of other eligible local and foreign expenditures, a Special Account would be opened in the Reserve Bank of India to the amount of US$7.5 million equivalent to cover four months of expected requirements for IDA-financed items. All expenses except the retroactive financing of US$5.0 million equivalent will be financed through the Special Account of US$7.5 million. GOI would release an advance (not drawn from IDA Credit item as additional Central Assistance) to GOUP. GOUP would place this together with its own contribution in the account of EFAPB. Retroactive financing in the amount of US$5.0 million equivalent would cover eligible expenditures for implementing appraised activities after July 1, 1997. Retroactive financing would support (a) start-up activities for civil works; (b) in-service teacher training; (c) incremental teacher salaries; and (d) teacher and school improvement grants. Block 2: Project Rationale 5. CAS objective(s) supported by the project: 1995 CAS updated in 1996 Poverty alleviation: The project is consistent with the updated version of the CAS paper discussed by the Board on September 5, 1996. Human resource development, particularly education, is a key element in the overall strategy. Protecting and extending the gains of UPBEP I by responding to the surge in enrollments (higher for girls and SC children) and creating an environment to enhance the quality of education by recruiting additional teachers, ensuring their recurrent training, providing instructional materials and constructing additional classrooms, will contribute to these overall CAS objectives. Targeting of girls and socially disadvantaged SC children is expected to benefit the poorest in UP, which have a per capita income of $193 against the national average of $363. The unexpected surge in enrollments and improved retention under UPBEP I increased the risk that the project quality improvement Project Appraisal Document Page 5 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP II objectives may not be attained. These objectives are unlikely to be achieved in crowded and shelterless classes with a student-teacher ratio of often more than 50:1. UPBEP II is essential for establishing a learning environment where effective teaching methods can be applied. 6. Main sector issues and Government strategy: UP is educationally one of the most backward states in India. Key issues in UP are: * Enrollments in primary education are still low. The gross enrollment ratio in 1996 was 92 percent with wide inter-district variations (national average 96 percent). Girls comprise only 37 percent of enrollments (national average 43 percent). Attendance of many students is irregular; about one-third of enrolled students do not attend classes regularly. * The drop out rate is high and the completion rate remains low. In 1990, about 38 percent of the boys and 34 percent of the girls who enrolled in class I in 1985 did not complete grade five. * Learning achievement is low: More than 50 percent of students in the fmal year of the primary stage do not achieve the minimum levels of learning envisaged in the curriculum. * The capacity of SCERT, DIETs, BRCs and CRCs to provide leadership and support for improved teaching practices remains weak. * Resources are inadequate to meet the surging demand for primary education, despite state commitment to increase allocations to basic education. UPBEP I was designed to help GOUP address these issues in 10 (increased through bifurcation to 12) project districts. Considerable progress has been made in the first three years of the project. After some start-up delays, project inputs were delivered as planned. More than 10,000 classrooms have been constructed. BRCs have been established for each block. CRCs have been established for every 10-15 schools to provide school-based professional support. VECs have been established. Annual in-service training programs for all teachers are being implemented. New materials are being introduced. Textbooks have been revised but need further significant improvement. Enrollments increased by 32 percent from about 2.7 million in 1991/92 to 3.5 million in 1996/97, raising the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) in project districts from 75 percent to 88 percent through community mobilization and improvement of educational facilities in schools. During the same period upper primary school enrollments increased by 40 percent. Available data also show significant enrollment increases for girls (46.6% vs. 23.5% for boys). Enrollments in non-project districts also increased (22%) but markedly less than in the project districts (31%), indicating the positive effect of the project interventions on enrollments. Improvement in facilities in schools (drinking water and toilets, teaching aids, supplementary reading materials, school libraries, school building maintenance funds, recurrent in-service teacher training and school-based professional support through BRCs and CRCs to improve student learning achievement) are perceived by the communities as efforts towards improving the quality of primary education. As a result, enrollments increased rapidly and classroom and teacher shortages have become especially acute in the project districts. In 1996/97 the student- teacher ratio in project districts increased to 50:1. Assuming all existing vacancies are filled, an estimated 16,000 classrooms and teachers will be required to provide a place in school in the accepted class size of 45 for all 6-10 year olds and 75 percent of 11-14 year olds by the year 2000. GOI is ready to assist GOUP respond to the need for additional classrooms and teachers, in-service training of new teachers and develop learning materials in the project districts implementing UPBEP I, through increased allocations under UPBEP II. GOI has also extended support to GOUP to address these issues through the DPEP II Credit, which will cover 15 districts. 7. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices: While impressive progress has been made in UPBEP I to increase primary education participation rates, the resulting overcrowding in schools with inadequate facilities is likely to discourage parents from enrolling children (mostly girls and SCs) who still remain out of school. In addition, children in several remote areas still do not have schools available within walking distance. Progress toward quality improvement objectives has been slow. With the capacity to deliver regular quality improvement inputs to schools now frmly established, the need to shift attention to improvement in the content of textbooks, supplementary reading materials and in-service training and effective application of improved teaching practices in the classroom has become apparent. Important preconditions for lasting improvement in teaching practice are: (i) reducing the student-teacher ratio; and (ii) further strengthening the capacity of resource institutions to maintain progress and provide support to teachers. The project would address these issues as follows: Increasing participation, particularly of girls and SCs: This issue is addressed by opening new schools in unserved areas (based on microplanning and school mapping), constructing additional classrooms, appointing additional teachers to meet the requirement of additional enrollment, filling existing teacher positions, rationalizing teacher deployment, and increasing the number of female Project Appraisal Document Page 6 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP II teachers. The project will be complemented by the interventions relating to alternative schooling, early childhood education and community mobilization activities supported under UPBEP I. Improving learning achievement and completion rates: This issue is expected to be addressed by reducing the student-teacher ratio from 50:1 to 45:1, providing one week of in-service training every year to all new and already serving teachers, providing learning materials to new schools, and establishing a school improvement fund. These are in addition to interventions from UPBEP I (support from BRCs and CRCs, development of improved textbooks and supplementary materials, development of materials and school management methodology on multigrade teaching and training teachers to use them, and periodic monitoring of changes in classroom practice and student learnig achievement). Improving institutional capacity, particularly of SCERT, SIEAMT, DIETs, BRCs and CRCs, by filling the vacant positions and training the staff in new pedagogical skills and in managing the change process to improve classroom practice in order to enhance student learning achievement. This component is being funded by UPBEP I and will also benefit the implementation quality of UPBEP II. DPOs will be strengthened by appointing a training specialist to coordinate and monitor change in classroom practice. 8. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection: Increased cost sharing by the parents and the community was discussed with GOUP. At this stage the scope for increasing cost sharing by the community over and above the usual donation of land and labor for school construction and improvement of physical facilities was not considered feasible by GOUP, especially as the potential beneficiaries will include a disproportionate number of the poorer segments of the population. The possibility of increased allocations from other classroom construction schemes of the central or state government was also considered. GOUP has considered allocating Rs. 107 million (about US$3 million) as an enhanced state contribution towards constructing additional schools from the employment assurance schemes. This is the only fund immediately available and is inadequate for the magnitude of educational demand that has been generated. The alternative of encouraging private schools was also discussed. GOUP considers this to be a very slow process which cannot be responsive to the immediate need, especially for the poorest population. Already, about 25 percent of children are receiving education in private schools. The GOUP projected that private school enrollments will only be able to increase at the same rate as govermnent schools in the short term, thus maintaining its current proportion of 25 percent of total enrollment. Efforts to encourage private provision will continue as a long-term measure, although sufficient private investmnent in rural and remote areas where the major resource input is required is difficult to mobilize. 9. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies (completed, ongoing and planned). Projects Latest Form 590 Ratings (Bank-financed Projects only) Sector issues: The primary education issues mentioned under item 7 above IP DO are being addressed in 13 Indian states in the following Bank- and non-Bank-financed projects. Ongoing Bank-financed related projects Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (Cr. 2509-1N) S HS DPEP I (Cr. 2661-IN) S S DPEP II cofmanced by the Government of the Netherlands (Cr. 2876-IN) S S Bank-fnanced projects in pipeline Bank-fmanced projects under preparation DPEP III in Bihar (IN-PA-38021) DPEP in Andhra Pradesh - Economic Restructuring Project Ongoing projects financed by other agencies Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal Projects financed by DFID Bihar Education Project financed by UNICEF Lok Jumbish Project in Rajasthan financed by SIDA Women empowerment projects (Manila Samakhya) financed by the Government of the Netherlands DPEP I (Madhya Pradesh) financed by the European Community DPEP II (Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal) financed by DFID Project Appraisal Document Page 7 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP II 10. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design: A mid-term review of UPBEP I was conducted in December 1996 (summary Annex 2b). The principalfindings were: (i) enrollment growth far exceeded appraisal estimates (31 percent in primary schools for the age group 6-10 years with girls at higher increases of 46 percent, and 40 percent in the age group 11-13 with girls at higher increases of 45 percent); (ii) capacity to provide a week long in-service training to about 48,000 teachers each year through school-based support is in place; (iii) supplementary materials that support activity-based learning have been provided to schools and textbooks based on new pedagogy for grades I to III would be introduced in 1997-98. The first and second baseline studies covering classroom activities as reported by class 5 students, and student learning achievement in project districts and one control district provided mixed findings. In all project districts, over 95 percent of teachers have received in-service training (as compared to 25-60 percent in the first study), while 60-90 percent of teachers have been making and using teaching aids. The percentage of class 5 students reporting the opportiunity to read aloud increased from 1.3 to 27 percentage points in 5 out of the seven districts, receiving dictation increased by 2-25 percentage points in 6 out of 7 districts, "giving assignments in mathematics" increased from 3-30 percentage points in 6 out of 7 districts, "assignment of home work" increased from 6-18 percentage points and correction of homework of students by the teacher increased from 46-89 percentage points. In half of the districts, the class 5 student mean achievement has shown improvement in language and mathematics, while in three districts the difference is marginally negative. In comparison with the control district, all project districts have a higher mean achievement in mathematics, and 8 project districts show a higher mean achievement in language (Table in Annex 2a). The progress in quality improvement objectives is slow, since inputs such as in-service training were not introduced until late 1994, and revised textbooks are to be provided during the 1997-98 year. The experience is also corroborated from the Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project (APPEP) funded by DFID where change in classroom practice could be observed only from the fourth year onward and improvement in learning achievement became apparent only in the fifth year. The principal challenge for the second phase of the project is to (i) intensify the focus on changing classroom practice to improve student learning through school-based training and support; (ii) improve learning conditions, including full use of instructional time, with support from the VECs that have been activated in the last two years; and (iii) address, as a matter of urgency, the problems caused by the surge in enrollment by appointing additional teachers and creating additional space for children, without which the quality goal of the project would be adversely affected. Specific lessons learnt from UPBEP I and other primary education projects in India (including those supported by other donor agencies), are: * Building community support for education is a central element of successful implementation of school development programs. Community participation and activation of Village Education Committees have revealed a strong pent-up demand for basic education. * Community construction is a cost effective way to implement a large-scale school building program. * BRCs and CRCs can serve as an effective mechanism to provide recurrent in-service teacher training and school-based professional support to teachers. * Quality improvement, particularly changing classroom practice, and strengthening the capacity for quality improvement in existing institutions are long-term processes for which results are not inmmediately observable (also supported by DFID- funded Andhra Pradesh Education Project, where limited classroom change became visible the fourth year onward). * Strengthening the capacity for quality improvement in existing institutions is a long process. * Microplanning is necessary to assess the real need for establishing new schools and determining the requirements of additional classrooms and teachers as well as the rational deployment of teachers. These lessons have been used in designing the project as well as the investment in another 15 districts supported by DPEP II. Strengthening the implementation of the quality improvement components will also be the central theme of the supervision of UPBEP in FY98. The appraisal mission also reviewed the cost-effectiveness of the classroom construction program implemented under UPBEP I. The mission found that the cost of the classrooms was in line with, or even below, the cost of similar buildings supported by DPEP in other states. The quality of construction has improved through intensified supervision. However, the design of the buildings remains traditional and adaptation to local conditions and new pedagogical demands could be improved. To this end a classroom construction innovation fund of Rs. 500,000 has been established with support from DPEP II to develop and test innovative designs and construction methods that address these issues. Project Appraisal Document Page 8 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP II 11. Indications of borrower commitment and ownership: * GOI and GOUP commitment to accelerate the pace of providing basic education is visible in the revised policy formulations of 1992 and the resolve to raise education spending from the current 3.7 percent to 6 percent by the turn of the century. * GOUP implementation support for UPBEP I has clearly shown its commitment to the project objectives. GOUP has not only regularly provided its share of expenditure, but also prefinanced the GOI share when necessary, filled required vacancies, and successfully implemented the project. Furthermore, UPBEP II is IDA's response to GOUP's request to assist in addressing needs arising from the success of project implementation. * GOUP has increased its allocation to general education (from Rs. 21440 million in 1991-92 to Rs. 33360 million in 1995- 96 showing an increase of 64.2 percent) and within the education sector to elementary education (from Rs. 11980 million in 1991-92 to Rs. 18940 million showing an increase of 63.2 percent in 1995-96). The share of the elementary education in the general education budget in 1995- 96 was 56.8 percent. * Despite political instability in the state, project staff stability has been ensured. Following the recommendations of the MTR, GOUP formulated an investment proposal and developed a PIP. The draft PIP was reviewed by IDA on June 27, 1997 and the revised PIP has been received. 12. Value added of Bank support: The Bank is one of the few donor agencies with the capacity to provide key technical advice and fnancial support necessary to assist in the implementation of education programs on a large scale. IDA has been instrumental in mobilizing fmancial and technical support from other donors into the sector. IDA has also provided a lead role in designing and operationalizing joint supervision mechanisms whereby a group of educational and management professionals nominated by the donors supporting DPEP, UPBEP and GOI review implementation progress twice a year (in March and October). IDA provides education specialists and managers from participating DPEP States and GOI with much appreciated exposure to educational innovations of other developing countries which are relevant to the Indian context. Finally, IDA plays a key role in providing continued technical and financial support which are essential to ensure that the potential benefits of the past educational investments come to fruition. Block 3: Summary Project Assessments (Detailed assessments are in the project file. See Annex 8) 13. Economic Assessment (see Annex 4): Recent ESW has documented comprehensive evidence of the strong effects of primary education on economic and social development in India. Rate of return studies, though dated, all describe positive returns to primary schooling and higher returns than those to other levels. A production function study disaggregating the causes of past rates of economic growth pointed to primary schooling as being particularly important. Several empirical studies of the effects of schooling on farmer productivity demonstrate that the returns are greatest when schooling occurs in the context of broad economic change and that the impact is also felt by the non-schooled. A recent Bank study of changes over time in the levels of poverty across Indian states has shown the central importance of the coverage of primary schooling. The strong impact of primary schooling on social outcomes has also been documented. Analysis of the results of surveys describing the relationship between schooling and health, fertility and child nutrition demonstrate that not only are outcomes strongly related to the educational level of the individual, but the impact is significantly greater when schooling has spread widely across the community. Many of the people of Uttar Pradesh are extremely poor. The National Sample Survey of 1993/94 indicated that 41.6 percent of the population was below the poverty line (equivalent to under US$1 a day) in this state compared to 35.0 percent across the whole country. The incidence of poverty is only greater in Bihar and Orissa. Over time the incidence has declined only slowly - from, for instance 49.5 percent in 1963 to 44.7 percent in 1983. In two of the regions of the state, southern and eastern UP, the incidence of poverty actually increased between 1972/73 and 1987/88. The Bank study on the causes of inter-state poverty shows that the level of poverty would have been much reduced had the same educational base been created in Uttar Pradesh as in states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the 1950s and 1960s. It is extensively documented for Uttar Pradesh that those children aged 6-14 years currently out of school are the poorest. Whether they never entered or dropped out, survey data suggest that in addition to the lack of a school close-by and overcrowding, a major cause is the poor quality of schooling and of school facilities. Overall, Uttar Pradesh has very poor social indicators. Among 17 major states, it is the third worst for literacy, infant mortality and life expectancy. It has the second lowest female-male ratio, indicating the particularly low status for poor girls. The 1992/93 National Family Health Survey for Uttar Pradesh demonstrates the strong effect of schooling on a variety of social outcomes. Comparing women with some primary schooling with illiterate women, on average their fertility rate is 4.2 compared to 5.4, the ideal number of Project Appraisal Document Page 9 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP II children is 3.0 compared to 3.6, the under-five mortality rate of their children is 105 compared to 178, and 32 percent of their children are fully vaccinated compared to 14 percent. Additional data from the Human Development Profile of India strongly show the impact of girls' schooling. For instance, the crude birth rate in families with no literate person was 5.3, in families where the husband was literate but not the wife the rate was 5.0, and in families where the female alone was literate the rate was 2.9. 14. Financial Assessment (see Annex 4) While trends in public finances in general are of concern-including sharply rising interest payments, a fall in the share of development expenditures in total expenditures, increasing deficits and a reduction in the share of capital expenditures in total expenditures-it is not anticipated that they will adversely affect the implementation of this project. The project is for three years with a total cost of US$75.7 million, of which the state government's share will be around 21.4 percent This relatively high share is due to the large component of the project cost devoted to teacher salaries (56 percent) and the declining share of recurrent costs funded by IDA (from 80 percent to 25 percent). The Government's contribution to the project cost would average Rs. 20 crores a year. Plan expenditure on basic education in 1995/96 was Rs. 252 crores and non-plan expenditure was Rs. 1636 crores. The fiscal impact of the project during implementation will be manageable. The experience over the past four years of the Government contributing counterpart funds to UPBEP is good. 15. Technical Assessment: UPBEP II is a follow-up of the first UPBEP. It complements the earlier investments in expansion of access and is essential for establishing conditions for continuous quality improvement. The improved learning and teaching materials, use of BRCs and CRCs to provide in-service training to teachers and school-based support and involvement of the community for improving school effectiveness will reinforce UPBEP II inputs. Two issues, however, are of particular concern: * Slow Observable Change in Classroom Practice. While the thrust of the program of pedagogical renewal is well focused, it needs to be deepened if it is to result in lasting change. UPBEP supervision will pay particular attention to the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and the need to improve and articulate materials (including textbooks) and training programs put in place and the process of continuous quality improvement. Effectiveness of the new materials and in-service teacher training in terms of student learning achievement will be monitored through classroom observation studies and surveys of learning assessment. DPOs are being strengthened by positioning a pedagogy and training professional to stimulate and facilitate the change process and monitor it on a continuous basis. * Well over half the primary schools contain multigrade classes. Teacher training modules addressing this issue are being designed and learning materials are being developed. Their use in the classroom will be closely monitored during supervision. The methods for monitoring and measuring changes in learning achievement and quality change indicators are summarized in Annexes 2a and 4b. 16. Institutional Assessment: The State and district project offices are fully staffed and their implementation performance as reflected by disbursements is satisfactory. At the school level VECs have executed the community school construction program effectively. They are also involved in school management. These institutions can undertake the additional work of UPBEP II and are expected to complete the project in time. NGOs for implementing non-formal education, alternative schooling, early childhood education and Mahila Samakhya (women empowerment) and other academic institutions (social science research institutions, university departments of education) are increasingly involved in the implementation of these project components. The state project office is guided by UP EFAPB through its General Council and Executive Committee. The institutional arrangements for project management have performed well in UPBEP and are also expected to perform well in UPBEP II. SCERT and DIETs, which were expected to be the key resource institutions for pedagogical renewal exercising leadership in the development of new textbooks, supplementary reading materials and teacher training materials, remain weak, often understaffed and/or staffed with faculty with little experience in primary education. While improvements have occurred in the past three years, these remain important areas of weakness, and the capacity building efforts will need to continue and be intensified. SCERT, SIEMAT, DIETs, BRCs and CRCs will be staffed according to the action program for quality improvement submitted by GOUP. In addition, a State Resource Group has been established to guide activities relating to curriculum revision, development of improved learning-teaching materials and teacher training. 17. Social Assessment: UPBEP I was designed to reduce disparities in access, completion and learning achievement among girls and ST/SC students. In UPBEP I, social assessment was a part of the baseline studies in which focus group discussions were held with stakeholders, including the disadvantaged group (women and SC persons, village elders) to identify the educational needs of these Project Appraisal Document Page 10 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP II groups and to develop strategies to address these needs. Disaggregated analysis of the data was carried out to further assess the situation of the disadvantaged groups, particularly girls and Scs, and ongoing social assessment was made an integral part of project implementation. About 16,000 VECs and teachers carried out a microplanning exercise, including a house-to-house survey covering over 3 million households to assess the potential school-age population and to identify out-of-school children. The requirement for additional classroom construction and establishment of new schools has been worked out on the basis of this microplanning exercise. A study to compare achievement of tribal and other students was also conducted. Tribal populations are very small and well assimilated into the main population. No significant differences were found. Findings of over two dozen studies on stakeholders and beneficiaries funded by UPBEP I were also used in developing the PIP. The process of social assessment and consultation with NGOs and communities, however, highlighted the need to address the needs of SC children, working children and children of minority communities. Strategies to increase enrollment and attendance of children from these disadvantaged groups are being piloted under UPBEP I. A strategy to provide basic education to unenrolled and drop out working children is being field tested. To improve enrollment and completion rates of girls and SC children and to improve learning achievement, convergence and expansion of Mahila Samakhya and ICDS/ECE are being implemented in the project. These inputs will continue in UPBEPI I to complement the investment in the project. 18. Environmental Assessment: The project would not raise any environmental concerns. Construction of schools and additional classrooms is to be on the land donated by the community. No resettlement issue came up during civil construction under the first UPBEP. GOUP has confirmed to IDA formally in writing that no involuntary resettlement issues will arise from implementing the civil works component of the Credit in UPBEP II by explaining how the districts will secure the land. The documentation relating to transfer of land for school construction will be kept in the district education office. Toilets and drinking water facilities are being provided in all new school buildings. 19. Participatory Approach Preparation Implementation Operation Beneficiaries/community groups IS/CON/COL IS/CON/COL IS/CON/COL Intermediary NGOs IS/CON/COL IS/CON/COL IS/CON.COL Academic institutions IS/CON/COL IS/CON/COL IS/CON/COL Local government IS/CON/COL IS/CON/COL IS/CON/COL [Information sharing (IS); consultation (CON); and collaboration (COL)] Community participation is a key element of UPBEP I. At the grassroots level, communities have mobilized participation by the VECs which have representation of women and SCs. They are involved in: (i) community school construction, (ii) school management, in cooperation with the school staff (taking decisions regarding the use of school improvement funds, mobilize community for enrollment and regular attendance of students, as well as purchasing school supplies and books for the school libraries), (iii) microplanming and school mapping, (iv) verifying the reliability of the EMIS data collected from the school, and (v) monitoring attendance of teachers. Consultation of and collaboration with VECs are an integral part of the AWBP planning process which starts at the school level. This process will continue and be further strengthened in UPBEP II. NGOs are involved in Mahila Samakhya (women empowerment) to improve the enrollment, attendance and retention of girls, and early childhood education and alternative schooling are being implemented in partnership with NGOs. NGOs are also involved in decision making through their representation on the General Council (GC) and Executive Committee (EC) of the EFAPB. Teacher Associations, including district level chapters, are consulted and involved in implementing curriculum, instructional materials development and training programs. Academic Institutions (university departments and social science research institutions) are involved in conducting research and evaluation studies, providing technical assistance in developing learning materials for students and teachers. Selected professionals from these institutions are represented on GC and EC. Information is shared with the communities through VECs and in school functions for parents, with academic institutions and NGOs it is shared through a bi-monthly Newsletter, workshops and conferences. The process of participation will continue in UPBEP II. 20. Sustainability: Financial: Incremental recurrent costs at the end of the project period (2001) will result from activities already undertaken in UPBEP L, those yet to be implemented, and from this project. Under UPBEP I, the costs are estimated at around Rs. 98 crores. In the project, most of the recurring costs will arise from the appointnent of around 16,000 teachers. The total cost of these, plus teaching materials and teacher training, will be around Rs. 77 crores in the year following the end of the project. Total expenditure on basic education in Project Appraisal Document Page 11 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP H 1995/96 was Rs. 1888 crores, and over the period 1986/87 to 1993/94 real expenditures grew by around 2.0 percent a year. In order to cover the incremental cost of the combined projects by 2001, real expenditures would also need to increase by 2 percent a year on average over the period 1993/94 to 2001/02. A continuation of past trends since the mid-1980s implies that allocations would increase to cover all of the incremental cost of the project, but that no additional resources would be available for non-project areas. However, over the past three years the allocations have grown by over 4 percent with some additional teaching posts sanctioned in non-project areas. This gives support to the Government's promise to maintain the activities of UPBEP I and this project. Cabinet approval for the proposed increase in teacher posts has been given with an understanding of the future liabilities. In the current year, the state government is paying 20 percent of the salaries of those employed under UPBEPI and in future years this will increase to 40 percent In the proposed new three year project, the state government's contributions will increase from 20 to 75 percent. The phased increase in liabilities helps to ensure sustainability. Government has so far provided its counterpart funds adequately and has made a provision for this project in the current budget. In addition to UPBEP I and II in 12 districts, another 15 districts are planned to be incorporated over the next four years through DPEP II at a total cost of around US$150 million. The recuning cost of this investment, if the structure is similar to that of UPBEP, would be roughly Rs. 80 crores. This would increase the required real growth of non-plan expenditure to around 3.4 percent a year-a rate above that averaged over the past decade but below that achieved in the last three years. Overall, the financial resources required to sustain the expansion of basic education through these projects can be made available providing that recent trends which have increased the share of elementary education in total development expenditure are maintained. Isitional: The institutional set up for the UPBEP I is effective as reflected in the implementation progress so far. The capacity building activities to sharpen the planning and management skills, analysis and utilization of EMIS data at district and state levels, and training of VEC members will continue. To train and support teachers' changing classroom practice, to improve student learning achievement, special attention will be given to the strengthening of staff skills at SCERT and the DIETs, BRCs and CRCs. 21. Critical Risks (see fourth column of Annex 1): Outputs to Development Objectives Risk Risk Rating Risk Minimizing Demand mobilization activities may not affect Low The mobilization record in UPBEP I is satisfactory so far. Scs, girls and minorities. SC, girls and minority groups will be specifically targeted. Activities and utilization of the facilities will be closely monitored during supervision. Competing demands on state resources may Low to Medium GOUP has a record of increasing funding even in difficult affect availability of funds for long term circumstances. In addition, specific arrangements are sustenance of school quality inputs. proposed for (a) filling all vacant teacher posts, (b) sanctioning additional teacher posts in the state regular budget, (c) rationalizing teacher deployment, and (d) rapidly increasing the share of GOUP for incremental salary cost. Irregular teacher attendance and insufficient Low to Medium VEC responsibilities are being extended to monitor instructional material may hinder quality teacher attendance. improvement. SPO management capacity may be stretched SPO has excellent record of implementation. A separate due to implementation of DPEP in 15 unit within EFAPB will be established for DPEP. additional districts. Components to Outputs There are increasing difficulties in managing a Low The project office has the experience of managing a large-scale construction program. community construction program. The VEC members managing construction of new schools will be trained in community construction. Third party evaluation in addition to local technical supervision will be arranged. Project Appraisal Document Page 12 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP II Deployment of teachers according to state Medium Agreement has been reached with GOUP to post teachers student-teacher norm may not be carried out. to meet the current student-teacher norm. Progress based on student-teacher ratio in rural and urban areas will be monitored annually in joint supervision mission. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Weakness in state and district professional Medium Progress in strengthening these institutions was reviewed resource institutions (SCERT, DIET) may and agreement with GOUP to include this component in slow down the quality improvement efforts. the action plan for quality improvement has been reached. State and District Resource Groups have been established to improve the quality of education. Implementation will be closely monitored during supervision. Overall project risk rating Medium 22. Possible Controversial Aspects: None so far. The participatory nature of the project preparation and implementation will allow such issues to be identified and addressed during supervision, should any such issue arise. Block 4: Main Credit Conditions 23. Effectiveness Conditions: There will be no condition for effectiveness. 24. Other : Assurances regarding accounts, audits and procurement obtained from GOI and GOUP would be consistent to those under UPBEP I. Key Elements of the Implementation Promram (refer to Schedule 2 of the Project Agreement!: GOUP shall: * establish and maintain a separate and adequately staffed unit within EFAPB for implementation of both UPBEP I and the Project; * establish and maintain VECs in all villages where the Project is carried out; * implement a program of teacher deployment in accordance with the current relevant state norms to improve the student-teacher ratio yearly; * by March 31, 1998, appoint a training coordinator in each district Project office; * ensure that schools provided under Part A of the Project are constructed and established through VECs in accordance with the arrangements established under UPBEP I; * implement the Project in accordance with strategies acceptable to the Association for improving primary education of female students; * implement the Project in any tribal area (as designated by Uttar Pradesh in accordance with applicable state laws) in accordance with procedures and delivery strategies to the Association; and * include supervision of the Project in the Joint Supervision Program and the DPEP II and include a review of the implementation of the Project in DPEP II mid-term review scheduled for 1999. * ensure that no involuntary resettlement arises from any land, or change of land for the Project, except to the extent that the Association agrees in writing prior to such resettlement that the arrangements for such involuntary resettlement are satisfactory to the Association. EFAPB shall: * maintain policies and procedures adequate to enable it to monitor and evaluate on an ongoing basis, in accordance with indicators satisfactory to the Association, the carrying out of the Project and the achievement of the objectives thereof; * twice a year, prepare a report integrating the results of the monitoring and evaluation activities performed and present such report to the joint supervision mission; and * duly take into account the comments offered by the Association during each joint review in the course of further implementation of the Project. Performance monitoring indicators Outputs: Performance Monitoring Indicators are attached in the Supplemental Letter to the Project Agreement. Project Appraisal Document Page 13 Country: India Project Title: UPBEP 11 Block 5: Compliance with Bank Policies [x M This project complies wiah all applicable Bank policies. l Task M :NJniaManager: Edwink Limn Annex 1 Page 1 of 2 Annex 1 INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Project Design Summary Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators' Monitoring and Critical Assumptions and Risks Supervision CAS Objective: * Literacy rates especially of * Census data; (CAS Objective to Bank Improve quality, women. * Household survey Mission) effectiveness and service * Years of education data; (R) Political uncertainty and a delivery of India's social completed by the population * Economic and coalition government with large and anti-poverty of 15 years and over by sector work. numbers of small parties can slow programs, including gender. the program of fiscal adjustment primary education. and economic reform. Project Development (Development Objectives to Objectives: CAS Objective) Strengthen capacity of * Percent of people in the 11- * National (CA) GOUP will maintain its GOUP to provide 15 and 16-20 age groups with Educational commitment to basic education education of appropriate completed primary education Statistics; beyond the project period, and quality to all children in by target group (girls, SC). continue to provide adequate the elementary education * Census Data; budget allocations-including age group, especially girls non-salary expenditures for and SC children thus * Household Surveys. elementary education; increasing the level of (CA) GOI will provide special educational attainment of assistance to poorer states for the population. basic education. (R) Lower than anticipated state growth rate and competing demands on state resources may affect availability of funds for long-term sustenance of school I_quality inputs. Project Outputs: (Outputs to development Objectives) 1. Expanded access to * 600,000 additional children * EMIS; (R) Competing demands on state primary and upper in the age group 6-10 years * PMIS; resources may affect availability primary education in 12 enrolled in lower primary * VECs attendance of funds for long-term sustenance districts particularly for schools reporting of school quality inputs. the disadvantaged groups. * 200,000 children in the age mechanism group 11-13 enrolled in * Sample Surveys. upper primary schools; * GER (including enrollment in private schools) raised from 88% to 100% and from 43% to 75% in the respective age groups by the year 2000. 2. Increased retention in * 90% of first graders will * EMIS; (CA) Parents of poorest segments primary schools. complete the five year * PMIS; of society will increasingly accept primary school cycle. * VECs attendance the value of education, especially reporting; of girls. mechanism; * Sample Surveys. Baseline and targeted values should be shown, with the latter divided into values expected at mid-ternn, end of project and full impact. Annex 1 Page 2 of 2 3. Improved learning * Achievement scores with * Baseline and (R) Irregular teacher attendance achievement. respect to language and math periodic learning and inappropriate and insufficient by type of the disadvantaged achievement instructional material may group. surveys. jeopardize quality improvement at * Classroom the school level. observation studies. Project Components (Components to Outputs) [See Annex 2 for a detailed description.] 1.1 Constructing new * 587 primary schools plus, * PMIS; (CA) Availability of education schools and additional * 307 upper primary schools * Progress reports; facilities in good repair within classrooms in existing opened. * Construction walking distance results in schools. * 11124 additional classrooms agencies' reports; increased retention, and improved constructed. and quality of instruction. * Third party (CA) Community mobilization evaluation reports. results in increased demand for education among impoverished groups. 1.2 Recruiting additional * 12,948 teachers recruited. * EMIS; (R) Rationalization of teacher teachers. * PMIS; deployment according to norms * regular attendance may not be carried out. reporting through the VECs; * Sample surveys. 2.1 Strengthening and * 587 VECs formed in * EMIS; (CA) There is sufficient interest mobilizing school locations of new primary * PMIS; from communities to support and community organizations schools. * Progress Reports; monitor the functioning of in support of education * Existing VECs involved in * Field visits by joint schools. through the VECs. school management and supervision planning. missions(JSMs). 3.1 Developing and * Number of titles developed * EMIS; providing improved and provided. * PMIS. (CA)The material developed will teaching and learning * Observation studies be effectively used by both materials based on new and survey data. teachers and students to improve pedagogy to new schools. learning achievement. 3.2 Providing in-service Three weeks residential training EMIS; (R) Weakness in state and district teacher training. provided for 16,000 new teachers PMIS; professional resource institutions and once a month school-based classroom observation (SCERT, DIET) may slow down in-service training through CRCs. studies; the quality improvement efforts. external evaluations; Institutional visits; JSMs. Annex 2 Page 1 of 3 Annex 2 INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Detailed Project Description 1. Background: The seven year First Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (Cr. 2509-IN) that became effective on October 5, 1993 was designed to assist GOUP in establishing the institutional capacity to provide quality primary and upper primary education to its 6-13 year old children by financing 10 (increased to 12 through bifurcation) out of 63 (now 73) districts. The project components included: (1) building institutional capacity by establishing the UP Education for All Project Board, State Institute of Education Planning and Management, strengthening the State Council Educational Research and Training, District Institutes of Education and Training, establishing Block and Cluster Resource Centers, and establishing a Management Information System; (2) improving quality and completion rates by strengthening community participation, strengthening programs for girls and women's education, improving readiness to learn, in-service training of teachers, improving curriculum and learning-teaching materials, improving school management, rehabilitating existing schools and encouraging pilot projects and innovations; and (3) improving access through community school construction programs and improving non-formal education programs. 2. Considerable progress has been made in the project during the last three years. Village Education Committees (VECs) have been established. All teachers (about 48,000) in project districts have received three cycles of in-service training. Improvement in facilities in schools (drinking water and toilets, teaching aids, supplementary reading materials, school libraries, building maintenance and selective rehabilitation, recurrent in-service teachers training backed by school-based professional support through BRCs and CRCs to improve student learning and increased community participation in school management through VECs), are perceived by the communities as efforts towards improvement of the quality of education. This positive perception has generated demand for education. As a result, enrollments in primary schools increased by 32 percent from 2.7 million in 1991192 to 3.5 million in 1996/97, raising the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) from 75 percent to 88 percent. During the same period upper primary schools enrollments increased by 40 percent. Available data also show above average enrollment increases for girls (46.5 percent for girls and 23.5 percent for boys). Enrollments in non project districts also increased (22 percent) but markedly less than project districts (31 percent), indicating a positive effect of the project interventions. The surge in enrollments constitutes a potential threat to the quality of education. In 1996/97 the student teacher ratio jumped to 50:1. An estimated 16,000 classrooms and teachers will be required to provide places in school for classes of 45 for all 6-10 year old and 75% of 12-14 year old children by 2000. The Second UP Basic Education Project (UPBEP II) is designed to meet this need and complements the first UPBEP. Both projects will focus on quality, particularly improvement in classroom practices and student learning achievement. The change in these two areas so far has been summarized in Annex 2a. 3. Scope and Approach: This specific investment Credit is designed to complement the first Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project by assisting the GOUP to cope with the unanticipated surge in enrollments in the first three years of implementation. Improved classroom practices and enhanced student learning will be the center stage in implementing UPBEP I and II. The project would finance construction of new schools and additional classrooms, recruitment of additional teachers, establishment of school improvement funds, provision and development of learning materials and recurrent in-service training of additional teachers. 4. Project Description: The project will have two components: (1) xxpanding access to primary and upper primary education, especially for the disadvantaged groups (girls, SC and ST children); and (2) improving quality and completion. The components of institutional capacity building and quality will continue to be funded as provided in UPBEP I. 5. Project Component 1 - Expanding access to primary and upper primary education, especially for the disadvantaged groups (US$23.8 million, including contingencies; 31.4 percent of the total project cost). The following specific activities would be carried out: (a) Constructing new classrooms and schools: The project will fund construction of approximately 600 primary and 307 upper primary schools, and 11,000 additional classrooms in existing schools. Incremental salaries of 16,000 teachers will also be funded from the project to meet the requirement of additional enrollment and Annex 2 Page 2 of 3 reduce the student teacher ratio from the existing 50:1 to the state student teacher norm of 45:1. The discrepancy between student-teacher ratios will be narrowed and annual progress will be reviewed in joint supervision missions.2 (b) The justification and the location of new schools will be based on the microplanning and school mapping exercises carried out by VECs. Districts have prepared a list of villages that require new schools and a list of existing schools that require additional classrooms. These lists will be finalized in consultation with the local governments (elected block and district panchayat samitis, elected state legislative assembly member of the area) and the District Implementation Committee (official and non-official members, including NGO and academic institution representatives). Schools will be built on existing community land owned by Panchayats. Additional classrooms will be constructed on existing school sites. GOUP has formnally confirmed that no involuntary resettlement will take place. Construction work will be implemented by the communities with technical supervision as in UPBEP I. Designs are ready, the construction manuals for the community are being revised to incorporate lessons learned during the irnplementation of the community construction sub- component in the first project, and costing is based on the same experience. School building designs include toilets for boys and girls and provision for water. Third party evaluation will be carried out by December 1998 to assess the quality of civil construction. 6. Project Component 2 - Improving quality and completion rates (US$51.9 million, including contingencies; 68.6 percent). This component includes the following sub-components: (a) Teaching-learning materials and school improvement funds: The project would fund materials and books for new schools. To reinforce student learning, children will also be provided workbooks to supplement the revised textbooks. As in DPEP, all teachers in schools in project districts will receive Rs. 500 per year to purchase materials to make teaching aids for use in the classroom. This creates an opportunity for teachers to use new teaching methods learned during in-service training, and has a strong motivational impact as teachers feel empowered and trusted. In addition, each Village Education Committee is provided a school grant of Rs. 2000 as school improvement fund. VECs make their own decisions on investing this amount for school improvement. Coupled with incentive grants rewarding best performing VECs in each block under BEP I, this grant is expected to motivate more VECs to.improve schools, an important step towards increased school management responsibility for VECs. (b) Providing additional teachers: The project would fund incremental salaries of 16,000 teachers in the new primary and upper primary schools and GOUP would implement a program of teacher deployment in accordance with the current relevant state norms to imnprove the student-teacher ratio yearly. Incremental salaries of teachers will be funded on a declining basis for three years of the project (80:65:25). At negotiations, GOUP assured that annual AWBPs shall contain the number of teachers to be appointed each year of the project, and that the Association would be informed of any deviation in the shedule of teacher appointment, as outlined in PIP. GOUP informed IDA that the positioning of teachers to move to the state student-teacher norm has already begun to reduce the disparity between rural and urban areas. EFAPB will prepare a report of annual progress according to the specified performance indicators in the Supplemental Letter to the Project Agreement for review by joint supervision missions. (c) In-service training: In-service training, backed by school-based professional support, is critical to change in classroom practice and improvement in student learning. The project would fund induction training for newly appointed teachers and provide a week-long residential training at BRC backed by school-based supervision and support from the school clusters (over 16,000 teachers). Existing teachers have undergone three cycles of training in UPBEP I. Modules for integrated training covering basic skills and knowledge in two cycles of the training of existing teachers will be developed for training newly appointed teachers in UPBEP II. At negotiations GOUP confirmed its commitment to the strengthening of SCERT, DIETs and the establishment of state and district resource groups to undertake this additional task. DPOs will be strengthened by appointing a 2 In August 1997 the legal agreements for UPBEP I (Cr. 2509-IN) were amended to provide for an additional 2,450 teachers, 1,250 new schools and 2,150 classrooms. UPBEP I will provide additional places for 600,000 children in primary and 200,000 children in upper primary schools. Annex 2 Page 3 of 3 pedagogy and training professional to coordinate, facilitate and monitor the quality component of UPBEP I and II. School clusters will facilitate and closely monitor use of improved methods of teaching learned during the training. (d) Developing learning materials: Learning materials for both teachers and students will be developed in the project. Integrated training packages based on the three cycles of in-service training for existing teachers completed under UPBEP I will be developed for new teachers. Self-learning materials for students and workbooks to supplement the revised textbooks will be funded from this project. SCERT, DIETs and academic resource groups are being strengthened to implement these activities. (e) Teacher and school improvement grants: teacher grants to purchase teaching-learning materials and school improvement grants to VECs will be funded from the project according to the procedures agreed between IDA and GOI. The expenditures will be disbused against the statement of expenditures (SOE). Annex 2A Page I of 2 Annex 2A INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Learning Achievement of Class S Students 1. Background: The first baseline study (BAS) of three districts was conducted as a part of the first Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project's (UPBEP I) preparation in 1992. The study assessed learning achievement of students in language and mathematics and collected data regarding student, teacher and school variables. In the remaining seven districts and one control district, the BAS was conducted in 1994. The BAS was repeated in 12 districts (two additional districts were carved out of the original Nainital and Varanasi districts) in 1995. 2. Methodology: Multistage sampling was used in the BAS design. At the first stage, 3-4 education blocks and 2-3 wards in urban areas were randomly selected from each district. From each of these blocks, 35-45 schools (proportionate to school population in rural and urban areas) were randomly selected. In each school, all class 5 students up to 30 were selected and in classes with more than 30 students, only 30 were selected with a random start. Up to 5 teachers in a school were interviewed. If a school had more than five teachers, class 5 teachers were included in the sample and another 4 were selected randomly. The first BAS covered 6,225 class 5 students and 1,323 teachers. The second BAS conducted in 1995 included the same schools and covered 7,010 class 5 students and 1,433 teachers. Tests in language and mathematics developed by NCERT for use in a national survey of achievement were used. Interview schedules for class 5 students and teachers and school schedules were prepared for the project. 3. Findings: Findings relating to changes in selected teacher variables, classroom activities and class 5 student learnig achievement are summarized below: A. Teacher training and supervision * In all project districts more than 95 percent of the teachers have received in-service training as compared to about 25-60 percent of teachers who reported receiving in-service training in the first baseline study. * About 60-90 percent of teachers in the second BAS reported making and using teaching aids (data in the first BAS for three districts covered in 1992 are not available). * About 60-70 percent of teachers reported assistance from the school head (data in the first BAS for three districts covered in 1992 are not available). * Assistance from the sub-district inspector has come down from 90 percent of teachers in the first BAS to 50 percent in the second BAS. School-based academic support functions are being increasingly assumed by the school cluster head (about 30-55 percent of teachers reported support from the clusters which were in the process of being established at the time of the second survey). B. Classroom activities * Opportunity to read aloud in the classroom (as reported by class 5 students) increased by 1.3 to 27 percentage points in 5 out of 7 districts for which comparable data for baseline study one and two are available. * The percentage of class 5 students receiving dictation increased by 2-25 percentage points in 6 out of the 7 districts. * The percentage of students reporting assignments in mathematics to solve problems in the classroom increased by 3-30 percentage points in 6 out of the 7 districts. * The students reporting homework assignments increased by 6-18 percentage points in all the seven districts. The same trend is reported for correction of work which increased by 46-89 percentage points. C. Achievement class 5 * In half of the districts, class 5 student mean achievement has shown improvement in language (word knowledge and reading comprehension) as well as mathematics. In another three districts the difference is marginally negative (Table 1). * In comparison with the control district the mean achievement of class 5 students in mathematics in all project districts is higher than in the control district, and in language it is higher than in the control district in 8 districts. * In word knowledge, students have scored about 50 percent or more in the project districts, but in language comprehension and mathematics the students on average have scored less than 40 percent. Annex 2A Page 2 of 2 Learning Achievement of Class 5 Students LANGUAGE MATHEMATICS Word meaning Reading Comprehension (Max score 40) (44) (40) Mean Score Mean Score Mean Score Districts Ist Survey 2nd Survey Ist Survey 2nd Survey Ist Survey 2nd Survey 1. Aligarh 20.86 20.66 17.0 13.74 15.96 13.03 2. Allahabad 19.85 22.50 14.25 14.49 12.85 13.56 3. Banda 21.04 22.62 15.24 16.16 15.03 14.92 4. Bhadohi NA 23.21 NA 15.15 NA 17.69 5. Etawah 20.0 21.41 13.76 14.58 12.17 12.90 6. Gorakhpur** NA 22.31 NA 14.99 13.28 14.15 7. Nainital* 23.44 21.67 17.64 15.22 13.43 13.01 8. Pauri 20.21 23.03 18.30 18.12 13.40 14.06 9. Saharanpur 23.28 21.56 19.70 17.16 15.89 13.08 10. Sitapur* 18.10 22.0 12.46 15.96 10.28 14.01 11. U.S. Nagar NA 21.30 NA 15.37 NA 12.60 12. Varanasi* 21.02 20.54 15.21 14.56 14.94 13.91 Barabanki 20.71 13.94 11.83 (CD) V Districts covered under the BAS in 1992 ** Composite mean score in language 1st Survey 34.18; 2nd Survey 37.30 CD Control District The inputs for quality improvements were started in schools towards the end of the 1994 academic session, except in-service training. New supplementary reading materials for language were introduced in the 1995 academic session and new textbooks will be introduced in 1998. School clusters which provide school-based academic support and supervision became functional in 1995. It is therefore not surprising that there remains considerable variation in the observed early outcomes between districts, and that no clear evidence of increased learning achievement related to project inputs could be established. The changes in classroom practice and improvement in learning achievement of students should become more observable towards the end of the project in 2000. This experience is also supported by analysis of the Andbra Pradesh Education Project (APPEP) funded by DFID, which aims to change classroom practice through teacher training and support from the school cluster. Annex 2B Page 1 of I Annex 2B INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Summary of the Mid-Term Review 1. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (UPBEP), declared effective on October 5, 1993, was the first basic education project in India funded and managed by the World Bank, and currently covers 12 districts (of 63 now 73). The total cost of the project is estimated at US$193.86 million of which the IDA Credit accounts for US$165 million (approved July 1993, closing September 2000). The project is implemented by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Uttar Pradesh Education for All Project Board. 2. The development objectives of the project are to: (a) build institutional capacity; (b) improve quality and completion rates; and (c) expand access to basic education. An IDA mid-term review mission visited UP between December 5 and December 19, 1996 to review progress in the 10 districts that were originally included in the project. 3. The mission found that significant achievements had been attained towards all three project objectives, particularly the objective which aimed at increasing enrollment and retention rates. Further, IDA disbursements for the project reflect its progress. Actual project expenditure of Rs. 2953 million is close to the amount that had been estimated in the SAR for December 1996. 4. Capacity building: The establishment and strengthening of institutions required for educational development at the state and district levels have been a successful component. The SPO, DPOs, 10 District Educational Project Committees, DIETs, BRCs, CRCs, as well as VECs, have been established and are fully functional. The MIS, microplanning and research component is underway, but requires more focused attention to be linked to overall planning, resource allocation and policy formulation activities. The mission discussed the need to strengthen staffmg of the SIEMAT and provide assistance in reviewing its five year plan. It was felt that attention was required to focus on key areas where long-term self-sufficiency and sustainability will be possible. 5. Quality improvement: Community participation has been enhanced through the establishment of VECs which have been strengthened by increasing the representation of unempowered groups, particularly of women. In-service teacher training is being implemented through a large-scale teacher training program covering 46,000 teachers who are now attending a third round of training. New manuscripts for textbooks have been developed and will be used from the 1997/98 school year. A set of supplementary readers has also been distributed to all primary schools. However, during visits to schools, the mission observed that the impact of the project at the classroom level was small, with teaching practices not having altered in significant ways through the training programs. 6. Improving equitable access to basic education: Enrollment in primary schools in project districts has registered an increase of about 30 percent between 1992 and 1996 (from 2.7 million children in 1992 to 3.6 million in 1996). Similarly, in upper primary schools, enrollment has grown from about I million children to 1.4 million children, attaining a 40 percent increase. The gross enrollment rates in primary schools in project districts have gone up from 75 percent to approximately 90 percent. All civil works activities of the project are close to completion. 7. The mission identified five priorities for action in the remaining years of the project: * improving teaching practices by establishing a training resource group at the state level to introduce training methods that have an impact on the way teachers impart teaching in their schools; * decentralizing implementation responsibility and strengthening district and local institutions such as DPOs, BRCs and VECs to enable the achievement of the quality and institutional building objectives of the project; * preparing a teacher recruitment plan indicating teacher requirements by districts; * preparing a financial plan, based on the MIS and microplanning data to justify the request for the proposed increase in the number of teachers, classrooms and schools to be fmanced by the project; and * sustaining project achievements and institutions, with particular attention to the DIETs and SEEMAT. Annex 2B Page 1 of 1 Annex 3 INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Estimated Project Costs in US$ Millions Estimated Project Costs: Local Foreign Total O Expanding Access Classroom Construction 21.0 2.1 23.1 O Improving Quality and Retention Incremental Teacher Salaries 42.2 0.0 42.2 Provision of Teaching Learning 7.2 0.2 7.4 Materials In-Service Teacher Training 1.8 0.0 1.8 Total Baseline Costs 72.2 2.3 74.5 Physical Contingencies 6.9 0.2 7.2 Price -6.0 0.1 -6.0 Contingencies Total Project 73.1 2.6 75.7 Costs Annex 4 Page 1 of 3 Annex 4 INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Financial and Economic Analysis Financial Analysis While the UP Basic Education Project is not part of the DPEP, a study of education fmance was cornmissioned by the Project authorities using the terms of reference required for all participating DPEP states. The resulting report is a thorough descriptive account of education expenditures in general and basic education expenditures in particular since 1985/86. The report is to be published and will provide the basis for a workshop in Lucknow on education fnance. Educational fnances need to be viewed in the context of overall trends in state public finances. These can be constructed from Reserve Bank of India publications. The main trends which have emerged over the past decade include: a) while revenue expenditures were less than receipts in 1985, they were 20 percent higher in 1995; b) the revenue deficit increased from 7.5 percent of revenues in 1991/92 to 21.0 percent in 1995/96; c) interest payments increased from 10.5 percent of revenues in 1985 to 20.5 percent in 1995 and the debt/GSDP ratio is 31 percent, the third highest across all states; d) development expenditures fell from 70 percent of total revenues in 1985 to 65 per cent in 1990 and to 54 percent in 1995; and e) capital expenditures have fallen from the equivalent of 33 percent of revenue expenditures in 1985 to 17 percent in 1995. Within these economy-wide trends, education expenditures increased from 21.0 percent of total recurrent expenditures in 1985 to 22.1 percent in 1990 and fell to 18.6 percent in 1995. However, as a share of development expenditures they have maintained their share since 1990 (at 34.4 percent). As a share of GSDP they increased from 2.8 percent to 3.5 percent. Growth of expenditure on basic education has been a little higher than the overall growth rate for the entire education sector. Unlike the grant funding for primary education in the centrally sponsored District Primary Education Programme, IDA resources for the UPBEP are transferred from the central government as a loan. The state government also contributes 15 percent directly to the project society. The total project cost is US$202 million (at current prices) over seven years effective from 1993, equivalent to around 6 percent of total primary expenditure in 1993/94. The project will be implemented over two and a half years at a total cost of US$75.7 million of which the state government's share will be around 21.4 percent. This relatively high share is due to the large component of the project cost devoted to teacher salaries (56 percent) and the rapidly declining share of recurrent costs funded by IDA (from 80 to 25 percent ). The government's contribution to the project cost would average Rs. 20 crores a year. Plan expenditure on basic education in 1995/96 was Rs. 252 crores and non plan expenditure was Rs. 1636 crores. The fiscal impact of the project during implementation will be minimal. While trends in public fnances in general are of great concern-including sharply rising interest payments, a fall in the share of development expenditures in total expenditures, increasing deficits and a reduction in the share of capital expenditures in total expenditures - it is not anticipated that they will adversely affect the implementation of the project. Economic Analysis The economic and social returns to investment in primary schooling in India have been extensively documented in departmental ESW published as Primary Education in India in the Bank's Development in Practice Series (1997). Summarizing the results of the economic studies: a) the most recent rate of return studies are based on data from 20 years ago in Andhra Pradesh. Adjusted to take account of school dropouts, the rates were 13 and 15 percent for primary and upper primary respectively. These rates were higher than for other levels of education. Annex 4 Page 2 of 3 b) recent analysis of historical data on rural households living in areas where rural development programs were being implemented concluded that for every one rupee increase in profit due to the effects of exogenous technical change, those households with primary schooling experienced an additional 1.38 rupees and that schooling had a substantially larger effect on productivity than did extension services. c) a disaggregation of the sources of economic growth between 1971 and 1981 indicated significant effects of education and of primary education in particular. However, cross country evidence suggests that a minimum level of average educational attainment across the labor force is required before the effect is maximized. The Indian labor force is below that minimum. d) a recent Bank study to investigate the unevenness in changes in rural living standards and levels of poverty across Indian states between 1957 and 1991 concluded that higher agricultural output, lower inflation and higher state spending on development programs provided only a partial explanation and that better infrastructure in general and higher literacy in particular had a significant impact. Summarizing the results of studies of the relationship between schooling and social outcomes in the National Family Health Surveys of 1992/93, two major conclusions emerged: (i) within each state there is a clear relationship between levels of schooling and total and desired levels of fertility, infant and child mortality, child immunization rates and severely malnourished children; and (ii) equally important, comparisons across states indicate that the effects of education on an individual woman are greater in states with a wider education coverage. This suggests that the social benefits of education are greater once the coverage of a particular level has gone beyond some critical point. No rate of return studies have been carried out in Uttar Pradesh. However, the links between literacy and poverty levels identified by the Bank poverty study indicate that raising the literacy level would have a significant effect on the incomes of the poor. Many of the population of Uttar Pradesh are extremely poor. The National Sample Survey of 1993/94 indicated that 41.6 percent of the population were below the poverty line (equivalent to under US$1 a day) in this state compared to 35.0 percent across the whole country. The incidence of poverty is only greater in Bihar and Orissa. Over time the incidence has declined only slowly-from, for instance 49.5 percent in 1963 and 44.7 percent in 1983. In two of the regions of the state, Southern and Eastern UP, the incidence of poverty actually increased between 1972/73 and 1987/88. Had the same educational base been created in Uttar Pradesh as in states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the 1950s and 1960s, the Bank study on the causes of inter-state poverty shows that the level of poverty would have been much reduced. It is extensively documented for Uttar Pradesh that those children aged 6-14 years currently out of school are the poorest. Whether they never entered or dropped out, survey data suggest that in addition to the lack of a school close-by and overcrowding, a major cause is the poor quality of schooling and of school facilities. The female literacy rate in Uttar Pradesh is the third lowest across all states and the estimated enrollment rate of 6-10 year olds is the fourth lowest. The results of sector work show that those disproportionately out of school are girls and poor boys. Enrollment rates between children of landless wage earners and those from families with land differ by 27 percentage points. The expansion of primary schooling arising from the project will most benefit poor children. Across Indian states, Uttar Pradesh has the highest fertility and crude birth rates and the second highest rate of infant mortality. However, education does make a difference as Tables 1, 2 and 3 demonstrate. Annex 4 Page 3 of 3 Table 1: Total Fertility Rates and Ideal Number of Children by Women's Education Total Fertility Ideal # of Children Illiterate 5.4 3.6 Less than middle 4.2 3.0 Middle complete 3.8 2.7 Secondary + 2.6 2.4 Table 2: Infant and Child Mortality and Vaccinations by Mother's Education Mortality Infant Vaccination Infant Child All None Illiterate 127 58 14 50 Less than middle 73 35 32 29 Secondary + 54 9 52 8 Note: the rates for mortality are per 1000 live births and for vaccinations are percent Table 3: Child Nutritional Status by Mother's Education (percent) Severely Malnourished Weight for Age Height for Age Illiterate 21 29 Less than middle 19 27 Middle complete 14 24 Secondary + 9 16 In all cases, though less so for the nutritional indicators, the impact of schooling is significant. However, for the effect of each level of schooling to be maximized requires a much wider educational coverage. Increasing Internal Efficiency A central objective of the Basic Education Project in U.P. is to improve the quality of schooling. This in turn is anticipated to lead to a reduction in levels of repetition and dropout. Across India, the official dropout rate over primary I-V is 35 percent and an average of alnost one in three children repeat at least one year. In Uttar Pradesh, the overall dropout rate has been estimated to be around 36 percent with the repetition rate of 4-5 percent a year (Mehta 1995). Using a standard flow model, the rates imply that in Uttar Pradesh for every 1000 students entering the first grade, only 615 graduate eventually. To produce these 615 graduates, the system utilizes an amount of resources equal to 4171 pupil-years or 6.8 years per graduate of a five year cycle. This implies that around 35 percent more resources are being used than would be required with no dropout or repetition. Expenditure on elementary education in 1995/96 was Rs. 1636 crores. Roughly 60 percent of this was for the primary cycle-Rs. 980 crores. An efficient system could have produced the same number of graduates for an annual budget of Rs. 726 crores-or US$70 million. If the quality enhancing components of BEP do result in lower dropout rates, in particular, the savings over time will be high. Halving the rates would yield savings of around US$35 million a year. Annex 5 Page 1 of 1 Annex 5 INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Financial Summary Operational Period 1998 1999 2000 Project Costs (US$ Million, Including Contingencies) Investment Costs 8.0 12.8 12.1 Recurrent Costs 19.1 19.3 4.4 Total 27.1 32.1 16.5 Financing Sources (% of Total Costs) IDA 84% 76% 75% GOUP 16% 24% 25% Total 100% 100% 100% Expenditure Accounts by Years (Costs in US$ Millions) Calendar Year 1998 1999 2000 Total Investment Costs Civil works 5.9 9.5 8.4 23.8 Teaching-learning materials 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 Teacher Grants 0.6 0.8 1.4 2.8 School Improvement Funds 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 Local training & workshops 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.8 Materials development & consultancy se 0.9 1.5 1.3 3.7 Total Investment Costs 8.0 12.8 12.1 33.0 Recurrent Costs Incremental teach salaries 19.1 19.3 4.4 42.7 Total Recurrent Costs 19.1 19.3 4.4 42.7 Total PROJECT COSTS 27.1 32.1 16.5 75.7 Annex 6 Page 1 of 3 Annex 6 Table A: Procurement Total Cost in US$ Millions /a Procurement Method National Direct Other Consulting Shopoine Contracting Methods /b Services Total CIVL WORKS Civil works 21.4 - 2.4 23.8 (19.3) (2.1) (21.4) GOODS Teaching-learning materials (incl. books and audio-visual material) 0.5 0.1 - - 0.63 (0.5) (0.1) 0.56 CONSULTANTS AND SERVICES Project preparation (incl. training, workshops) - 1.4 - 0.4 1.8 (1.4) (0.4) (1.8) Institutional development (incl. consultants, materials development) - 0.9 - 2.8 3.7 (0.9) (2.8) (3.7) MISCELLANEOUS Incremental salaries - 42.7 - - 42.7 (28.9) (28.9) Teacher grants & school imnprovement funds - 3.1 - - 3.1 (3.1) (3.1) Total 22.0 48.1 2.4 3.1 75.7 (19.8) (34.3) (2.1) (3.1) (59.4) Note: /a Figures in parenthesis are amounts to be financed by the IDA Credit. /b Works may be procured (1) under lump-sum, fixed-price contracts awarded on the basis of three quotes in response to a written invitation, (2) through community construction in accordance with procedures satisfactory to IDA, or (3) as a last resort and with IDA's prior approval, through Force Account. Annex 6 Page 2 of 3 Table 6B:. Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Expenditure Contract Value Procurement Contracts Subject to Category (Tbreshold) Method Prior Review 1. Worka Civil Works Civil works estimated to cost the equivalent of US$20,000 or less per contract, up to an aggregate not exceeding US$23,800,000 may be executed by: (i) Community construction methods; or Procedures satisfactory Post review only to IDA (ii) on the basis of comparison of price quotationsSolicitation of 3 bids Post review only obtained from at least three qualified contractors eligible under the guidelines; or (iii) by Force Account as a last resort in a mannerForce Account Post review only satisfactory to the Association. Civil works estimated to cost the equivalent of National Competitive First works contract regardless of value US$20,000 or more per contract. Bidding and all contracts above US$300,000 by prior review in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of Appendix I to the Guidelines. All others by post review. 2. Goods Teaching-learning materials US$50,000 or less per contract, up to an aggregateNational Shopping With respect to each contract for goods not exceeding USS800,000 equivalent Procedures (includes estimated to cost $300,000 equivalent or DGS&D Rate Contracts) more, the procedures set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Appendix I to the Guidelines shall apply. Books and audio-visual US$50,000 or less per contract, up to an aggregateDirect Contracting Post review only materials not exceeding US$100,000 equivalent 3. Services (a) Consultant and research US$100,000 or less per contract, up to an Single Source Selection {i) With respect to each contract for firms activities less than $100,000 aggregate not exceeding US$100,000 equivalent (acceptable for tasks estimated to cost the equivalent of representing a natural US$200,000 or more, the procedures set continuation of forth in paragraphs 1,2 (other than the assignment when rapid third subparagraph 2(a)) and 5 of selection essential for Appendix I to the Consultant Guidelines very small assignments, shall apply. or when only one firm is qualified. Selection (ii) With respect to each contract for firms criteria for NGOs and estimated to cost the equivalent of Operational Research) US$50,000 or more, the procedures set following Guideleins forth in paragraphs 1,2 (other than the agreed with IDA and as second subparagraph 2(a)) and 5 of noted in the Project Appendix I to the Consultant Guidelines Implementation shall apply. Document. (b) Contractual instructors, US$5,000 or less per contract, up to an aggregateHiring of Service (iii) With respect to each contract for individual researchers not exceeding US$25,000 Delivery Contractors - individual consultants estimated to cost the (applies to large equivalent of $50,000 or more, the numbers of service qualifications, experience, terms of delivery contractors reference and tenms of employment shall contemplated under be fumished to IDA for prior review. project such as NFE centre workers, and small individual consultant contracts.) Annex 6 Page 3 of 3 4. Miscellaneous (a) Incremental Normal Govt staff hiring practices N/A Post review only Salaries estimated at US$42,800,000 (b) Teacher grants Small grants given each year to classroom Direct Contracting Post review only and school teachers (Rs.500) and School VECs (Rs2,000) improvement funds estimated at USS21900.000 Table 6C: Allocation of the Credit Proceeds Amount in IDA Financing Expenditure Category US$ Million Percentage Civil works 19.3 90% Teaching-leaming 0.5 Teacher grants & school improvement 2.8 Local training & workshops 1.6 100% Materials development & consultant 3.3 Incremental Salaries 27.5 80% of local expenditures incurred through December 31, 1998; 65% of expenditures incurred from Janaury 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999; and 25% of expenditures incurred thereafter. Unallocated 4.4 TOTAL 59.4 Annex 7 Page 1 of I Annex 7 INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Project Processing Budget and Schedule A. Project Budget (US$000) Planned Achuia (At final PCD stage) (FY97 + FY98) 76.7 23.3 (As of 10127/97) B. Project Schedule Planned AchuaI (At final PCD stage) Time taken to prepare the project (months) 8 month First Bank mission (identification) 0311711997 Appraisal mission departure - 06/27/1997 Negotiations 09/18/1997 09/19/1997 Planned Date of Effectiveness 12131/1997 03/31/1998 Prepared by: Govermnent of Uttar Pradesh Preparation assistance: IPPF, trust funds, cofinanciers, etc.] Nil Bank staff who worked on the project included: N. K. Jangira (Education Specialist, SACIF), Adriaan Verspoor (Education Advisor, SACIF), Keith Hinchliffe (Senior Economist, SASED), Juan Prawda (Senior Education Specialist, SASED), Kevin Casey (Senior Implementation Specialist, SASED), Brajesh Panth (Education Specialist, SACNF), Mark Schlagel (Projects Assistant, SASED), Sudesh Ponnappa (Staff Assistant, SACIF), Gertrude Stubblefield (Senior Staff Assistant, SASED) I I Annex 8 Page I of 2 Annex 8 INDIA: Uttar Pradesh Second Basic Educaton Project Documents in the Project File A. Project Implementation Plan B. Bank Staff Assessments: 1. Mid-Term Review, December 1996 2. PCD Review Minutes, May 1997 3. Peer Review Reports 4. Identification Mission Back-to-Office Report, March 1997 5. Pre-appraisal Aide Memoire, June 1997 6. ROC Review Minutes, July, 1997 C. Other: 1. Jangira N.K., Venita Kaul and M.B. Menon. 1997. Minimum Learning Level Program: An Evaluation,UNICEF, New Delhi. 2. GOI. 1997. India 1996. New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 3. India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. 1992. National Policy on Education. New Delhi: Department of Education. 4. __. 1996. Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education 1992-93 to 1993-94. New Delhi: Planning and Monitoring Unit, Department of Education. 5. IIPS. 1993. National Family and Health Survey. Bombay: International Institute of Population Sciences. 6. Mehta Arun C. 1994. Education for All in India: Myths and Realities. Kanishka Publishers and Booksellers, New Delhi. 7. Mehta Arun C. 1995. Projections of Student Enrollment and Flows. New Delhi: National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration. 8. Tewary, Hardev. 1997. State Finance Studies (Education). Education for All Project Board, Lucknow. 9. UP EFAPB. 1996. Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project. Uttar Pradesh Education for All Project Board, State Project Office, Lucknow. 10. UP EFAPB. 1996. Facfiyle. Uttar Pradesh Education For All Project Board, Lucknow. 11. World Bank. 1997. Primary Education in India: Development in Practice. The World Bank, Washington. Annex 8 Page2of2 12. World Bank. 1993. StaffAppraisal Report India: Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project. The World Bank Washington. 13. World Bank. 1994. StaffAppraisal Report India: District Primary Education Program. The World Bank, Washington. 14. World Bank. 1996. Staff Appraisal Report India: Second District Primary Education Project. The World Bank, Washington. 15. Dr. K.N. Rao, Education Field Officer. February 1994. "Evaluation of an APPEP Training Course-A Case Study of Course- VB for Teachers ". British Council Division, AP Projects Office, Hyderabad. 16. Report of Main Survey 3. November-December, 1994. "Implementation of the Project in Schools". Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project, Directorate of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 17. Report of Main Survey 4. November-December, 1994. "Implementation of the Project in Schools" - Andhra Pradesh Primary Education, Directorate of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Annex 9 Page 1 of 5 Annex 9 Status of Bank Group Operations in India IBRD Loans and IDA Credits in the Operations Portfolio (As of June 30, 1997) Original Amount in US$ Difference Millions Between -_________________________ expected Loan Fiscal and actual or Year Project IBRD IDA Cancel- Undis- disburse- Credit lations bursed ments a/ No. Number of Closed Loans/credits: 365 Active Loans C19230 1988 TAMIL NADU URBAN 0.00 300.20 45.47 20.51 65.02 L30960 1989 MAHARASHTRA POWER 400.00 0.00 62.67 85.04 141.61 L30240 1989 NATHPA JHAKRI HYDRO 485.00 0.00 0.00 227.97 217.27 L29940 1989 STATE ROADS I 170.00 0.00 61.41 9.95 151.36 C20080 1989 VOCATIONAL TRAINING 0.00 250.00 103.33 41.94 168.62 L32370 1990 NOR REG TRANSM 485.00 0.00 0.00 259.06 251.06 L31190 1990 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOP. 145.00 0.00 10.00 27.71 37.71 C21580 1990 SECOND TN NUTRITION 0.00 95.80 29.81 3.49 23.71 C21330 1990 POP. TRG (VII) 0.00 86.70 22.74 8.71 31.93 C21310 1990 WTRSH PLAINS 0.00 55.00 0.00 17.90 9.92 C21300 1990 TECH EDUC I 0.00 235.00 24.26 60.59 78.90 C21150 1990 HYDERABAD W/S 0.00 79.90 0.00 24.36 21.30 C21000 1990 WTRSH HILLS 0.00 75.00 0.00 32.76 40.26 C20760 1990 PUNJAB IRR & DRAINAG 0.00 150.00 4.72 36.70 34.71 C20640 1990 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPME 0.00 55.00 0.00 24.51 17.53 L33640 1991 GAS FLARING REDUCTIO 450.00 0.00 0.00 25.87 25.87 L33340 1991 IND POLLUTION CONTRO 124.00 0.00 0.00 20.53 -6.07 L33000 1991 AGR.DEV.I (TN) 20.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 1.25 L32590 1991 PETROCHEMICALS 233.00 0.00 70.30 30.77 -131.93 L32580 1991 PETROCHEMICALS 12.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 1.88 C22520 1991 IND POLLUTION CONTRO 0.00 31.60 0.00 19.44 18.30 C22410 1991 DAM SAFETY 0.00 130.00 0.00 99.39 115.38 C22340 1991 MAHARASHTRA RURAL WS 0.00 109.90 0.00 43.21 45.11 C22230 1991 TECHEDUCII 0.00 307.10 51.37 132.95 138.85 C22150 1991 AGR.DEV.I (TN) 0.00 92.80 0.00 17.07 14.39 C21730 1991 ICDS I (ORIS & ANDHR 0.00 96.00 21.65 22.46 41.43 L34980 1992 MAHARASHTRA POWER II 350.00 0.00 0.00 237.75 230.55 L34700 1992 NAT. HIGHWAYS II 153.00 0.00 0.00 153.00 0.00 L34360 1992 POWER UTIL EFFIC IMP 265.00 0.00 25.00 72.31 92.01 C23940 1992 POPULATION VIII 0.00 79.00 0.00 71.51 45.93 C23650 1992 NAT. HIGHWAYS II 0.00 153.00 0.00 79.77 56.68 C23500 1992 AIDS PREVENTION AND 0.00 84.00 0.00 32.13 30.91 C23410 1992 WEST BENGAL FORESTRY 0.00 34.00 0.00 4.67 1.22 C23290 1992 SHRIMP & FISH CULTUR 0.00 85.00 48.51 24.81 58.93 C23280 1992 MAHARASHTRA FORESTRY 0.00 124.00 16.18 63.41 43.52 Annex 9 Page 2 of 5 Original Amount in US$ Difference Millions Between expected Loan Fiscal and actual or Year Project IBRD IDA Cancel- Undis- disburse- Credit lations bursed ments a/ No. L36320 1993 NTPC POWER GENERATIO 400.00 0.00 0.00 256.65 256.65 L35770 1993 PGC POWER SYSTEM 350.00 0.00 0.00 189.40 140.20 C25280 1993 NATL LEPROSY ELIMINA 0.00 85.00 0.00 59.30 36.58 C25100 1993 UP SODIC LANDS RECLA 0.00 54.70 0.00 33.64 10.65 C25090 1993 UTTAR PRADESH BASIC 0.00 165.00 0.00 76.32 4.86 C24830 1993 KARNATAKA WS & ENV/S 0.00 92.00 0.00 70.11 43.04 C24700 1993 ICDS II (BIHAR & MP) 0.00 194.00 0.00 170.35 73.25 C24490 1993 RENEWABLE RESOURCES 0.00 115.00 0.00 87.81 73.70 C24390 1993 BIHAR PLATEAU 0.00 117.00 0.00 87.29 64.15 C24330 1993 ADP - RAJASTHAN 0.00 106.00 0.00 47.02 16.83 C24090 1993 RUBBER 0.00 92.00 36.58 40.46 46.45 L37530 1994 CONTAINER TRANSPORT 94.00 0.00 0.00 82.54 54.54 C26300 1994 POPULATION IX 0.00 88.60 0.00 75.85 13.06 C26110 1994 BLINDNESS CONTROL 0.00 117.80 0.00 101.34 20.96 C25940 1994 MAHARASHTRA EARTHQUA 0.00 246.00 29.19 63.00 80.11 C25920 1994 WATER RES CONSOLID H 0.00 258.00 0.00 197.61 50.01 C25730 1994 ANDHRA PRADESH FORES 0.00 77.40 0.00 55.97 14.19 C25720 1994 FORESTRY RESEARCH ED 0.00 47.00 0.00 35.04 20.04 L39076 1995 MADRAS WATER SUP II 269.80 0.00 189.30 77.10 -3.40 L38576 1995 FINANCIAL SECTOR DEV 144.00 0.00 0.00 142.46 -1.54 L38560 1995 FINANCIAL SECTOR DEV 350.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 -150.00 L37806 1995 INDUS POLLUTION PREV 50.00 0.00 0.00 45.51 -4.49 L37790 1995 INDUS POLLUTION PREV 93.00 0.00 0.00 85.93 3.98 C27450 1995 TAMIL NADU WRCP 0.00 282.90 0.00 239.67 44.30 C27330 1995 ASSAM RURAL INFRA 0.00 126.00 0.00 108.63 15.59 C27000 1995 MP FORESTRY 0.00 58.00 0.00 43.60 2.53 C26990 1995 AGRIC HUMAN RES DEVT 0.00 59.50 0.00 50.10 19.59 C26630 1995 AP 1ST REF. HEALTH S 0.00 133.00 0.00 117.44 20.01 C26610 1995 DISTRICT PRIMARY ED 0.00 260.30 0.00 192.43 15.67 C26450 1995 INDUS POLLUTION PREV 0.00 25.00 0.00 24.68 25.00 L40560 1996 UP RURAL WATER 59.60 0.00 0.00 57.20 -.20 L40140 1996 ORISSA POWER SECTOR 350.00 0.00 0.00 334.57 -.43 L39920 1996 ILFS-INFRAS FINANCE 200.00 0.00 0.00 175.00 -3.50 L39230 1996 B SEWAGE DISPOSAL 167.00 0.00 0.00 153.85 27.15 C28760 1996 DISTRICT PRIM EDUC 2 0.00 425.20 0.00 398.44 6.51 C28620 1996 COAL ENV&SOCIAL MIT. 0.00 63.00 0.00 57.47 1.11 C28380 1996 ILFS-INFRAS FINANCE 0.00 5.00 0.00 4.74 5.00 C28330 1996 STATE HEALTH SYS II 0.00 350.00 0.00 316.11 16.94 C28010 1996 ORISSA WRCP 0.00 290.90 0.00 237.34 -5.81 C27740 1996 HYDROLOGY PROJECT 0.00 142.00 0.00 119.69 15.24 L41920 1997 STATE HIGHWAYS I(AP) 350.00 0.00 0.00 350.00 0.00 L41660 1997 AP IRRIGATION III 175.00 0.00 0.00 175.00 0.00 L41560 1997 A.P. EMERG. CYCLONE 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 L41140 1997 TA ST'S RD INFRA DEV 51.50 0.00 0.00 47.76 6.26 C29640 1997 MALARIA CONTROL 0.00 164.80 0.00 166.17 0.00 Annex 9 Page 3 of 5 Original Amount in US$ Difference Millions Between expected Loan Fiscal and actual or Year Project IBRD IDA Cancel- Undis- disburse- Credit lations bursed ments a/ No. C29520 1997 AP IRRIGATION III 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.70 0.00 C29500 1997 A.P. EMERG. CYCLONE 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.51 0.00 C29420 1997 RURAL WOMEN'S DEV 0.00 19.50 0.00 18.82 0.00 C29360 1997 TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL 0.00 142.40 0.00 132.50 -1.18 C29300 1997 ENV CAPACITY BLDG TA 0.00 50.00 0.00 48.37 0.00 C29160 1997 ECODEVELOPMENT 0.00 28.00 0.00 25.62 -1.00 CN018 1997 REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH1 0.00 248.30 0.00 250.24 0.00 0 6,445.90 7,688.30 852.48 8,481.50 3,286.36 Active Loans Closed Loans Total Total Disbursed (IBRD and IDA): 4,778.67 29,571.14 34,349.81 of which has been repaid: 168,78 8,544.66 8,713.44 Total now held by IBRD and 13,112.93 20,479.55 33,592.48 IDA: Amount sold : 0.00 133.77 133.77 Of which repaid : 0.00 133.77 133.77 Total Undisbursed : 8,481.50 96.81 8,578.31 a. Intended disbursements to date minus actual disbursements to date as projected at appraisal. Annex 9 Page 4 of 5 India STATEMENT OF IFC's Committed and Disbursed Portfolio (As of June 30, 1997) Amounts in US$ Millions Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic Loan Equity Qua Partic Si 1964/75/79/90 MUSCO 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 1978/87/91/93 HDFC 40.00 2.29 0.00 0.00 40.00 2.29 0.00 0.00 1981 Nagarjuna Steel 0.00 .07 0.00 0.00 0.00 .07 0.00 0.00 1981/86/81/91/93/96 ITW Signode 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 1981/86/89/94/92 TISCO 8.45 15.37 0.00 0.00 8.45 15.37 0.00 0.00 1981/90/93 M&M .83 6.49 0.00 3.33 .83 6.49 0.00 3.33 1982 Modi Cement 16.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 1984/90/94 IndiaLease 1.31 .86 0.00 0.00 1.31 .86 0.00 0.00 1984/91 Bihar Sponge 13.05 .68 0.00 0.00 13.05 .68 0.00 0.00 1986 EXB-City Mills .48 0.00 0.00 0.00 .48 0.00 0.00 0.00 1986 EXB-CECL .01 0.00 0.00 0.00 .01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1986 EXB-NB Footwear .19 0.00 0.00 0.00 .19 0.00 0.00 0.00 1986 EXB-Paharpur .15 0.00 0.00 0.00 .15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1986 EXB-STG .46 0.00 0.00 0.00 .46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1986 EXB-TAN .03 0.00 0.00 0.00 .03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1986 EXB-Wires & Fab. .07 0.00 0.00 0.00 .07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1986/92/93/94 GESCO 0.00 13.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.05 0.00 0.00 1986/93/94/95 India Equipment .60 .77 0.00 1.47 .60 .77 0.00 1.47 1987 Hindustan 7.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1987/88/90/93 Titan Watches 2.74 1.03 0.00 0.00 2.74 1.03 0.00 0.00 1988/90/92 Tata Telecom 0.00 .10 0.00 0.00 0.00 .10 0.00 0.00 1988/94 GKN Invel 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 1989 AEC 13.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 UCAL 0.00 .63 0.00 0.00 0.00 .63 0.00 0.00 1989/90/94 Tata Electric 64.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989/91 Gujarat State 11.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989/95 JSB India 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.00 1990 HOEL 0.00 .28 0.00 0.00 0.00 .28 0.00 0.00 1990 TDICI-VECAUS II 0.00 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94 0.00 0.00 1990/92 CESC 48.79 0.00 0.00 67.00 48.79 0.00 0.00 67.00 1990/93/94 IL&FS 27.75 3.11 1.81 10.00 27.75 3.11 1.81 10.00 1990/94 ICICI-IFGL 0.00 .30 0.00 0.00 0.00 .30 0.00 0.00 1990/95 ICICI-SPIC Fine 0.00 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.00 0.00 1991 Block KG-OS-IV 0.00 .02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 BSES 45.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991/93 Triveni 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 1991/96 VARUN 11.35 1.35 0.00 5.33 11.35 1.35 0.00 5.33 1992 Indus VC Mgt Co 0.00 .01 0.00 0.00 0.00 .01 0.00 0.00 1992 Indus VCF 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1992 Info Tech Fund 0.00 .64 0.00 0.00 0.00 .64 0.00 0.00 1992 SKF Bearings 6.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992/93 Arvind Mills 0.00 17.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.00 0.00 1992/94/97 Ispat Industries 85.55 5.77 0.00 85.00 38.19 5.77 0.00 0.00 1992/95 Creditcapital VF 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.00 1992/96/97 NICCO-UCO 1.88 .50 0.00 0.00 1.88 .50 0.00 0.00 1993/94/96 IndoRama 20.31 11.98 0.00 8.13 20.31 11.98 0.00 8.13 1993/97 20TH Century 15.78 .80 0.00 4.62 5.78 .80 0.00 4.62 Annex 9 Page 5 of 5 Amounts in US$ Millions Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic Loan Equity Qua Partic Si 1994 Centurion Growth 0.00 2.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.39 0.00 0.00 1994 Chowgule 15.00 4.58 0.00 27.00 13.75 4.58 0.00 24.75 1994 Crdcap Asset Mgt 0.00 .32 0.00 0.00 0.00 .32 0.00 0.00 1994 DLF Cement 11.00 4.94 0.00 17.00 11.00 4.94 0.00 17.00 1994 Global Trust 0.00 3.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.19 0.00 0.00 1994 Gujarat Ambuja 0.00 8.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.23 0.00 0.00 1994 Taurus Starshare 0.00 7.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 0.00 0.00 1994 TCAMC 0.00 .16 0.00 0.00 0.00 .16 0.00 0.00 1994/97 GVK 40.00 8.30 0.00 37.65 30.00 8.30 0.00 37.65 1995 Centurion Bank 0.00 3.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.87 0.00 0.00 1995 EXIMBANK 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 ISIC 0.00 .32 0.00 0.00 0.00 .32 0.00 0.00 1995 Prism Cement 15.00 5.02 0.00 15.00 15.00 5.02 0.00 15.00 1995 Rain Calcining 19.25 5.40 0.00 0.00 10.50 4.72 0.00 0.00 1995 RPG Communicatns 0.00 8.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.30 0.00 0.00 1995 Sara Fund 0.00 7.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 1995 SRF Finance 13.89 5.00 0.00 0.00 13.89 4.39 0.00 0.00 1996 CVF Oil Gas-AL 8.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1996 India Direct Fnd 0.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 .82 0.00 0.00 1996 Indus II 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 1996 Indus Mauritius 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1996 Moser Baer 5.70 .60 0.00 0.00 5.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 1996 United Riceland 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 CEAT 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 Owens Coming 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 WIPRO 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Portfolio: 662.86 190.74 1.81 281.53 512.50 166.22 1.81 194.28 Approvals Pending Commitment Loan Egity Quas Partic 1997 AEL 16.00 5.50 0.00 0.00 1996 CESC II -BLINC 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 1996 DEV CREDIT BANK 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 1997 DUNCAN HOSPITAL 7.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1997 EEPL 0.00 .03 0.00 0.00 1995 IB VALLEY POWER 50.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1997 ITC CLASSIC 20.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 1994 NEYVELI POWER 30.00 18.00 0.00 150.00 1997 NUFSL 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 1997 SAPL 0.00 .07 0.00 0.00 1995 SPIC-RGHTS ISSUE 0.00 .86 0.00 0.00 1997 SREI 15.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 1996 TARUN SHIPPING 0.00 .80 0.00 0.00 1997 WALDEN - MGMT 0.00 .08 0.00 0.00 1997 WIV 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 Total Pending Commitment: 143.00 57.23 10.00 192.00 Annex 10 India at a glance 8/20/97 Page I of 2 POVERTY and SOCIAL South Low- India Asia Income Development diamond' Population mid-1996 (millions) 943.2 1,264 3,229 Lfe expectancy GNP per capita 1996 (US$) 380 380 500 GNP 1996 (bilflons US$) 358.4 481 1,601 Average annual growth, 1990-96 Population (%) 1.7 1.9 1.7 GNP Gross Laborforce ('%) 2.0 2.1 1.7 per Gprmary Most recent estimate (latest year available since 1989) capita enrollment Poverty: headcount index (% of population) 35 Urban population ?% of toiat populagon) 27 26 29 Lffe expectancy at birth (years) 62 61 63 Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 68 75 69 Access to safe water Child malnutrition (% of children undoer5) 63 Access to safe water (% of population) 63 63 53 Illiteracy (% of population age 15+) 48 50 34 l Gross primary enrotment (% of school-age populahon) 102 98 105 ndia Male 113 110 112 Low-income group Female 91 87 98 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1976 1986 1996 1996 Economic ratios' GDP (billions US$) 91.0 214.3 328.3 355.8 Gross domestic investmenUGDP 20.8 24.2 26.2 26.5 Openness of economy Exports of goods and services/GDP 6.2 6.0 12.2 12.3 Gross domestic savingslGDP 20.4 21.1 23.6 23.9 Gross national savingslGDP 20.6 21.6 24.0 25.1 Current account balance/GDP 0.0 -2.8 -1.8 -1.11 Inesmet Interest payments/GDP 0.3 0.6 1.2 Savings Investment Total debtWGDP 15.1 19.1 28.6 27.6 N Total debt servicelexports 13.1 22.7 28.2 Present value of debtGDP .. .. 22.8 Present value of debt/exports .. .. 161.4 Indebtedness 1976-86 1986-96 1995 1996 1997046 (average annual growth) Inda GDP 4.2 5.6 7.3 7.5 GNP percapita 1.9 3.5 5.4 5.2 .. g Exports of goods and services 3.9 11.5 31.6 7.4 STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY (%ofGDP) 1976 1986 | Growth rates of output and Investment(%) Agriculture 40.5 33.0 27.9 27.8 30. Industry 23.7 28.1 30.1 29.2 Manufacturing 16.7 17.9 19.7 20.1 Services 35.8 3868 42.1 43.0 o \ 2 03 04 ss srs Private consumption 70.2 67.8 65.8 65.6 24 9 General govemment consumption 9.4 11.1 10.6 10.5 GDI GDP Imports of goods and services 6.6 9.1 14.9 14.9 1976-86 1986-96 1996 1996 (average annual growth) Growth rates of exports and Imports (%) Agriculture 2.5 3.6 -0.1 5.7 40 Industry 5.3 6.6 11.6 7.0 Manufacturing 5.5 6.7 13.6 8.1 20 / Services 5.1 6.7 8.8 7.4 Private consumpton 4.5 4.8 2.6 7.1 o General govemment consumption 6.5 3.9 5.1 6.4 s s Gross domestic investment 4.1 7.1 17.9 8.5 -20 Imports of goods and services 9.1 6.0 17.3 7.0 -Expots Imports Gross natonal product 4.1 5.4 7.2 6.7 Note: 1996 data are preliminary estmates. All GDP data other than sectoral value-added are in market prices. Thp rIiimnndt thnw fns.r k.v inrlirfnrm in h. nn,,ntrm fin hnld r.nmnnrd with itt inPm^.-nm.an sua-n. If tInta am ni..inn th. dli.rnnd w-I Annex 10 Page 2 of 2 India PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE lviS 1#6S 1335 133 Domrestc prices 1nW11 1%) (% change) is Consumer prices .. 5.6 10.2 .. Implicit GDP deflator -1.5 7.5 7.3 7.0 Govemment finance (X of GDP) o I Current revenue .. 23,8 24.3 .. e1 2 n 04 ff a Current budget balance .. 2.2 1.0 .. -GDPd. -- Overall surplus/deic"t .. 11. 10.1 TRADE iva ise lees i (miMons US$) Export and 1n6r levels (miL USI) Total exports (fob) .. S.793 31.783 33,107 kow Tea .. 512 350 Iron .. 473 S18 .. soeroi Manufactures .. 5.640 24,4S3 Total imports (c) .. 15,957 36,354 38.646 2o _ Food .. 1,321 1.243 ii*iiiill Fuel and energy .. 4,054 7.201 . 9.0W Capital goods .. 3,502 6577 Export price index (1987100 .. 94 99 so 091 2 n 94 ss a Import price index (1987=100) .. 90 121 *- rts *Irports Teffns of trade (1987*100) 1U104 e1 BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1S75 19#S 199S I$" (Mons US$) Cwrunl aeo_i besv to GM ratio (%) Exports of goods and services 5,660 12,M 40,161 43,855 Imports of goods and services 5,990 10,422 4,7S 53,087 . o Resource balance -340 4,649 4,607 -9,232 Net income -150 -1.552 -4,157 -4,429 Net current iransfers 470 2.207 7,0t0 9,780 - Current account balance, before offical capi transfr -20 -5.994 -5.764 4.SS1 .3 Financing Items (net) 20 t.542 2.040 9.,03 Changes In net reserves 0 -548 3.724 -5.922 J. Meno: Reserves including gold (niM USQ 2,065 9.493 22.843 24,919 Conversion rate (fbeVUSS) 6.7 12.2 33.5 35.5 EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOMS 1S7S 1#S 11"S 1S (nwVdons US$) Cowipoelon d dt t, n1913 (milL US$) Total debt outd and dibured 13,708 40.9S0 93,768 96,193 IBRD 436 2.396 9,849 8.766 G A IDA 2,809 9,750 17.499 17.616 so49 9 Total debt service 822 3.532 13.123 13.742 IBRD 89 313 1,714 1,514 IDA 24 124 357 364 F 17499 29280~ ~ ~~~179 Composition of net resource /ws Offcidai grants 511 450 556 C Ofcfldal creditors 1.260 1.424 467 .. 2374 Private credtors 83 2,277 775 .. D Foreign direct invessnt 85 108 1,300 .. 8 Portfdiolequlty 0 0 1,517 . 27097 World Bank program Commitments 917 2.8S2 1,697 1,725 A - IB8D E- BEitr Disbursements 531 1,375 1.318 1.592 B-IA D.Otlwrsuur F-FPrIvde Prlndpal repayments 63 157 1,170 1.074 C- IF G -Sohrwm Net flows 467 1.218 149 518 ___ Interest payments 60 280 901 804 Net rnsfes 417 938 -752 -267 Development Economics 8/20197